| By Author | [ A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z | Other Symbols ] |
| By Title | [ A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z | Other Symbols ] |
| By Language |
|
Download this book: [ ASCII ] Look for this book on Amazon Tweet |
Title: History For Ready Reference : Volumes 1 to 5
Author: Larned, J. N. (Josephus Nelson)
Language: English
As this book started as an ASCII text book there are no pictures available.
*** Start of this LibraryBlog Digital Book "History For Ready Reference : Volumes 1 to 5" ***
REFERENCE ***
[Transcriber's Notes:
"Students of history are doomed to watch it repeat."
—Dozens of similar observations.
"History For Ready Reference" consists of 7 physical volumes,
3 kg. each. The last two volumes are supplements relating
to events after 1890.
The first five volumes form a single logical volume of 3935 pages,
printed as 5 physical volumes. To make searches and cross
references more convenient, this file combines these five volumes.
The beginning of each volume is at these page numbers:
Volume 1 - {1}
Volume 2 - {769}
Volume 3 - {1565}
Volume 4 - {2359}
Volume 5 - {3129}
SUPPLEMENT - {3669}
This production does not include an html version. The individual
html files integrate the maps and other images, but provide no
other useful service. Furthermore, my internet browsers do not
reliably handle the size of this file.
A list of all words used in this work is found at the end of this
file as an aid for finding words with unusual spellings that are
archaic, contain non-Latin letters, or are spelled differently by
various authors. Search for:
"Word List: Start".
I use these free search tools:
Notepad++ -- https://notepad-plus-plus.org
Agent Ransack or FileLocator Pro -- https://www.mythicsoft.com
The following modifications are intended to provide
continuity of the text for ease of searching and reading.
1. To avoid breaks in the narrative, page numbers (shown in curly
brackets "{1234}") are usually placed between paragraphs. In
this case the page number is preceded and followed by an
empty line.
To remove page numbers use the Regular Expression:
"^{[0-9]+}" to "" (empty string)
2. If a paragraph is exceptionally long, the page number is
placed at the nearest sentence break on its own line, but
without surrounding empty lines.
3. Blocks of unrelated text are moved to a nearby break
between subjects.
5. Use of em dashes and other means of space saving are replaced
with spaces and newlines. Many abbreviations are expanded to
full words to simplify searches.
6. Subjects are arranged thusly:
---------------------------------
MAIN SUBJECT TITLE IN UPPER CASE
Subheading one.
Subheading two.
Subject text.
See CROSS REFERENCE ONE.
See Also CROSS REFERENCE TWO.
_John Smith,
External Citation Title,
Chapter 3, page 89._
---------------------------------
Main titles are at the left margin, in all upper case
(as in the original) and are preceded by an empty line.
Some main titles include several synonyms or alternate spellings.
Subtitles (if any) are indented three spaces and
immediately follow the main title.
Text of the article (if any) follows the list of subtitles (if
any) and is preceded with an empty line and indented three
spaces.
References to other articles in this work are in all upper
case (as in the original) and indented six spaces. They
usually begin with "See", "Also" or "Also in".
Citations of works outside this book are indented six spaces
and in italics (as in the original). Italics are indicated
by underscores:
_This is in italics._
----------Subject: Start--------
----------Subject: End----------
indicates the start/end of a group of subheadings or other
large block.
7. The bibliography in Volume 1, APPENDIX F on page xxi provides
additional details, including URLs of available internet
versions. Search for:
{xxi}
Another bibliography is provided in volume 5 at:
{3885}
8. Minor formatting irregularities have corrected:
Citations in the earlier volumes have been changed to:
_Author
Title
Location in work._
Ellipsis is rendered as … instead of "...".
Em dash is rendered as — instead of --.
Search Tips:
To search for words separated by an unknown number of other
characters, use this Regular Expression to find the words
"first" and "second" separated by between 1 and 100 characters:
first.{1,100}second
To search for titles,
USE ALL UPPER CASE;
Set "Match Case";
Begin the search text with a circumflex to indicate
the beginning of the line:
^MAGNESIA
End Transcriber's Notes.]
-----------------------------------------------------------
----------Volume 1: Start--------
[Image: Spine]
[Image: ETHNOLOGICAL MAP OF MODERN EUROPE (left)]
[Image: ETHNOLOGICAL MAP OF MODERN EUROPE (right)]
History For Ready Reference, Volumes 1 to 5
From The Best
Historians, Biographers, And Specialists
Their Own Words In A Complete
System Of History
For All Uses, Extending To All Countries And Subjects,
And Representing For Both Readers And Students The Better
And Newer Literature Of History In The English Language
By J. N. Larned
With Numerous Historical Maps From Original Studies
And Drawings By Alan C. Reiley
In Five Volumes
Volume I—A To Elba
Springfield, Massachusetts.
The C. A. Nichols Company, Publishers
MDCCCXCV
Copyright, 1893,
By J. N. Larned.
_The Riverside Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts.
United States Of America_
Printed by H. O. Houghton & Company.
Preface.
This work has two aims: to represent and exhibit the better
Literature of History in the English language, and to give it
an organized body—a system—adapted to the greatest
convenience in any use, whether for reference, or for reading,
for teacher, student, or casual inquirer.
The entire contents of the work, with slight exceptions readily
distinguished, have been carefully culled from some thousands of
books,—embracing the whole range (in the English language) of
standard historical writing, both general and special: the
biography, the institutional and constitutional studies, the
social investigations, the archeological researches, the
ecclesiastical and religious discussions, and all other important
tributaries to the great and swelling main stream of historical
knowledge. It has been culled as one might pick choice fruits,
careful to choose the perfect and the ripe, where such are found,
and careful to keep their flavor unimpaired.
The flavor of the Literature of History, in its best examples,
and the ripe quality of its latest and best thought, are
faithfully preserved in what aims to be the garner of a fair
selection from its fruits.
History as written by those, on one hand, who have depicted its
scenes most vividly, and by those, on the other hand, who have
searched its facts, weighed its evidences, and pondered its
meanings most critically and deeply, is given in their own words.
If commoner narratives are sometimes quoted, their use enters but
slightly into the construction of the work. The whole matter is
presented under an arrangement which imparts distinctness to its
topics, while showing them in their sequence and in all their
large relations, both national and international.
For every subject, a history more complete, I think, in the
broad meaning of "History," is supplied by this mode than could
possibly be produced on the plan of dry synopsis which is common
to encyclopedic works. It holds the charm and interest of many
styles of excellence in writing, and it is read in a clear light
which shines directly from the pens that have made History
luminous by their interpretations.
Behind the Literature of History, which can be called so in the
finer sense, lies a great body of the Documents of History, which
are unattractive to the casual reader, but which even he must
sometimes have an urgent wish to consult. Full and carefully
chosen texts of a large number of the most famous and important
of such documents—charters, edicts, proclamations, petitions,
covenants, legislative acts and ordinances, and the constitutions
of many countries—have been accordingly introduced and are easily
to be found.
The arrangement of matter in the work is primarily alphabetical,
and secondarily chronological. The whole is thoroughly indexed,
and the index is incorporated with the body of the text, in the
same alphabetical and chronological order.
Events which touch several countries or places are treated fully
but once, in the connection which shows their antecedents and
consequences best, and the reader is guided to that ampler
discussion by references from each caption under which it may be
sought. Economies of this character bring into the compass of
five volumes a body of History that would need twice the number,
at least, for equal fulness on the monographic plan of
encyclopedic works.
Of my own, the only original writing introduced is in a general
sketch of the history of _Europe_, and in what I have called the
"_Logical Outlines_" of a number of national histories, which are
printed in colors to distinguish the influences that have been
dominant in them. But the extensive borrowing which the work
represents has not been done in an unlicensed way. I have felt
warranted, by common custom, in using moderate extracts without
permit. But for everything beyond these, in my selections from
books now in print and on sale, whether under copyright or
deprived of copyright, I have sought the consent of those,
authors or publishers, or both, to whom the right of consent or
denial appears to belong. In nearly all cases I have received
the most generous and friendly responses to my request, and
count among my valued possessions the great volume of kindly
letters of permission which have come to me from authors and
publishers in Great Britain and America. A more specific
acknowledgment of these favors will be appended to this preface.
The authors of books have other rights beyond their rights of
property, to which respect has been paid. No liberties have been
taken with the text of their writings, except to abridge by
omissions, which are indicated by the customary signs. Occasional
interpolations are marked by enclosure in brackets. Abridgment by
paraphrasing has only been resorted to when unavoidable, and is
shown by the interruption of quotation marks. In the matter of
different spellings, it has been more difficult to preserve for
each writer his own. As a rule this is done, in names, and in the
divergences between English and American orthography; but, since
much of the matter quoted has been taken from American editions
of English books, and since both copyists and printers have
worked under the habit of American spellings, the rule may not
have governed with strict consistency throughout.
J. N. L.
The Buffalo Library,
_Buffalo, New York, December,_ 1893.
Acknowledgments.
In my preface I have acknowledged in general terms the courtesy
and liberality of authors and publishers, by whose permission I
have used much of the matter quoted in this work. I think it now
proper to make the acknowledgment more specific by naming those
persons and publishing houses to whom I am in debt for such kind
permissions. They are as follows:
Authors.
Professor Evelyn Abbott;
President Charles Kendall Adams;
Professor Herbert B. Adams;
Professor Joseph H. Allen;
Sir William Anson, Bart.;
Reverend Henry M. Baird;
Mr. Hubert Howe Bancroft;
Honorable S. G. W. Benjamin;
Mr. Walter Besant;
Professor Albert S. Bolles;
John G. Bourinot, F. S. S.;
Mr. Henry Bradley;
Reverend James Franck Bright;
Daniel G. Brinton, M. D.;
Professor William Hand Browne;
Professor George Bryce;
Right Honorable James Bryce, M. P.;
J. B. Bury, M. A.;
Mr. Lucien Carr;
General Henry B. Carrington;
Mr. John D. Champlin, Jr.;
Mr. Charles Carleton Coffin;
Honorable Thomas M. Cooley;
Professor Henry Coppée;
Reverend Sir George W. Cox, Bart.;
General Jacob Dolson Cox;
Mrs. Cox (for "'Three Decades of Federal Legislation," by the
late Honorable Samuel S. Cox);
Professor Thomas F. Crane;
Right Reverend Mandell Creighton, Bishop of Peterborough;
Honorable J. L. M. Curry;
Honorable George Ticknor Curtis;
Professor Robert K. Douglas;
J. A. Doyle, M. A.;
Mr. Samuel Adams Drake;
Sir Mountstuart E. Grant-Duff;
Honorable Sir Charles Gaven Duffy;
Mr. Charles Henry Eden;
Mr. Henry Sutherland Edwards;
Orrin Leslie Elliott, Ph. D.;
Mr. Loyall Farragut;
The Ven. Frederic William Farrar, Archdeacon of Westminster;
Professor George Park Fisher;
Professor John Fiske;
Mr. William. E. Foster;
Professor William Warde Fowler;
Professor Edward A. Freeman;
Professor James Anthony Froude;
Mr. James Gairdner;
Arthur Gilman, M. A.;
Mr. Parke Godwin;
Mrs. M. E. Gordon (for the "History of the Campaigns of the
Army of Virginia under General Pope," by the late
General George H. Gordon);
Reverend Sabine Baring-Gould;
Mr. Ulysses S. Grant, Jr. (for the "Personal Memoirs" of the
late General Grant);
Mrs. John Richard Green (for her own writings and for those
of the late John Richard Green);
William Greswell, M. B.;
Major Arthur Griffiths;
Frederic Harrison, M. A.;
Professor Albert Bushnell Hart;
Mr. William Heaton;
Colonel Thomas Wentworth Higginson;
Professor B. A. Hinsdale;
Miss Margaret L. Hooper (for the writings of the late
Mr. George Hooper);
Reverend Robert F. Horton;
Professor James K. Hosmer;
Colonel Henry M. Hozier;
Reverend William Hunt;
Sir William Wilson Hunter;
Professor Edmund James;
Mr. Rossiter Johnson;
Mr. John Foster Kirk;
The Very Reverend George William Kitchin, Dean of Winchester;
Colonel Thomas W. Knox;
Mr. J. S. Landon;
Honorable Emily Lawless;
William E. H. Lecky, LL. D., D. C. L.;
Mrs. Margaret Levi (for the "History of British Commerce,"
by the late Dr. Leone Levi);
Professor Charlton T. Lewis;
The Very Reverend Henry George Liddell, Dean of Christ Church, Oxford;
Honorable Henry Cabot Lodge;
Richard Lodge, M. A.;
Reverend W. J. Loftie;
Mrs. Mary S. Long (for the "Life of General Robert E. Lee," by
the late General A. L. Long);
Mrs. Helen Lossing (for the writings of the late Benson J. Lossing);
Charles Lowe, M. A.;
Charles P. Lucas, B. A.;
Justin McCarthy, M. P.;
Professor John Bach McMaster;
Honorable Edward McPherson,
Professor John P. Mahaffy;
Capt. Alfred T. Mahan, U. S. N.;
Colonel George B. Malleson;
Clements R. Markham, C. B., F. R. S.;
Professor David Masson;
The Very Reverend Charles Merivale, Dean of Ely;
Professor John Henry Middleton;
Mr. J. G. Cotton Minchin;
William R. Morfill, M. A.;
Right Honorable John Morley, M. P.;
Mr. John T. Morse, Jr.;
Sir William Muir;
Mr. Harold Murdock;
Reverend Arthur Howard Noll;
Miss Kate Norgate;
C. W. C. Oman, M. A.;
Mr. John C. Palfrey (for "History of New England," by the late
John Gorham Palfrey);
Francis Parkman, LL. D.;
Edward James Payne, M. A.;
Charles Henry Pearson, M. A.;
Mr. James Breck Perkins;
Mrs. Mary E. Phelan (for the "History of Tennessee," by the
late James Phelan);
Colonel George E. Pond;
Reginald L. Poole, Ph. D.;
Mr. Stanley Lane-Poole;
William F. Poole, LL. D.;
Major John W. Powell;
Mr. John W. Probyn;
Professor John Clark Ridpath;
Honorable Ellis H. Roberts;
Honorable Theodore Roosevelt;
Mr. John Codman Ropes;
J. H. Rose, M. A.;
Professor Josiah Royce;
Reverend Philip Schaff;
James Schouler, LL. D.;
Honorable Carl Schurz;
Mr. Eben Greenough Scott;
Professor J. R. Seeley;
Professor Nathaniel Southgate Shaler;
Mr. Edward Morse Shepard;
Colonel M. V. Sheridan (for the "Personal Memoirs" of the
late General Sheridan);
Mr. P. T. Sherman (for the "Memoirs" of the late General Sherman);
Samuel Smiles, LL. D.;
Professor Goldwin Smith;
Professor James Russell Soley;
Mr. Edward Stanwood;
Leslie Stephen, M. A.;
H. Morse Stephens, M. A.;
Mr. Simon Sterne;
Charles J. Stillé, LL. D.;
Sir John Strachey;
Right Reverend William Stubbs, Bishop of Peterborough;
Professor William Graham Sumner;
Professor Frank William Taussig;
Mr. William Roscoe Thayer;
Professor Robert H. Thurston;
Mr. Telemachus T. Timayenis;
Henry D. Traill, D. C. L.;
General R. de Trobriand;
Mr. Bayard Tuckerman;
Samuel Epes Turner, Ph. D.;
Professor Herbert Tuttle;
Professor Arminius Vambéry;
Mr. Henri Van Laun;
General Francis A. Walker;
Sir D. Mackenzie Wallace;
Spencer Walpole, LL. D.;
Alexander Stewart Webb, LL. D.;
Mr. J. Talboys Wheeler;
Mr. Arthur Silva White;
Sir Monier Monier-Williams;
Justin Winsor, LL. D.;
Reverend Frederick C. Woodhouse;
John Yeats, LL: D.;
Miss Charlotte M. Yonge.
Publishers.
_London_:
Messrs.
W. H. Allen & Company;
Asher & Company;
George Bell & Sons;
Richard Bentley & Son;
Bickers & Sons;
A. & C. Black;
Cassell & Company;
Chapman & Hall;
Chatto & Windus:
Thomas De La Rue & Company;
H. Grevel & Company;
Griffith, Farran & Company;
William Heinemann:
Hodder & Stoughton;
Macmillan & Company;
Methuen & Company;
John Murray;
John C. Nimmo;
Kegan Paul, Trench, Trübner & Company;
George Philip & Son;
The Religious Tract Society;
George Routledge & Sons;
Seeley & Company;
Smith, Elder & Company;
Society for the Promotion of Christian Knowledge;
Edward Stanford;
Stevens & Haynes;
Henry Stevens & Son;
Elliot Stock;
Swan Sonnenschein & Company;
The Times;
T. Fisher Unwin;
Ward, Lock, Bowden & Company;
Frederick Warne & Company;
Williams & Norgate.
_New York:_
Messrs.
D. Appleton & Company;
Armstrong & Company;
A. S. Barnes & Company;
The Century Company;
T. Y. Crowell & Company;
Derby & Miller:
Dick & Fitzgerald;
Dodd, Mead & Company;
Harper & Brothers;
Henry Holt & Company;
Townsend MacCoun;
G. P. Putnam's Sons;
Anson D. F. Randolph & Company;
D. J. Sadler & Company;
Charles Scribner's Sons;
Charles L. Webster & Company;
_Edinburgh:_
Messrs.
William Blackwood & Sons;
W. & R. Chambers;
David Douglas;
Thomas Nelson & Sons;
W. P. Nimmo;
Hay & Mitchell;
The Scottish Reformation Society.
_Philadelphia:_
Messrs.
L. H. Everts & Company;
J. B. Lippincott Company;
Oldach & Company;
Porter & Coates.
_Boston:_
Messrs.
Estes & Lauriat;
Houghton, Mifflin & Company;
Little, Brown & Company;
D. Lothrop Company;
Roberts Brothers.
_Dublin:_
Messrs.
James Duffy & Company;
Hodges, Figgis & Company;
J. J. Lalor.
_Chicago:_
Messrs.
Callaghan & Company;
A. C. McClurg & Company;
_Cincinnati:_
Messrs.
Robert Clarke & Company;
Jones Brothers Publishing Company;
_Hartford, Connecticut:_
Messrs.
O. D. Case & Company;
S. S. Scranton & Company;
_Albany:_
Messrs.
Joel Munsell's Sons.
_Cambridge, England_:
The University Press.
_Norwich, Connecticut:_
The Henry Bill Publishing Company;
_Oxford:_
The Clarendon Press.
_Providence, R. I._
J. A. & R. A. Reid.
A list of books quoted from will be given in the final volume. I
am greatly indebted to the remarkable kindness of a number of
eminent historical scholars, who have critically examined the
proof sheets of important articles and improved them by their
suggestions. My debt to Miss Ellen M. Chandler, for assistance
given me in many ways, is more than I can describe.
In my publishing arrangements I have been most fortunate, and I
owe the good fortune very largely to a number of friends, among
whom it is just that I should name Mr. Henry A. Richmond,
Mr. George E. Matthews, and Mr. John G. Milburn. There is no
feature of these arrangements so satisfactory to me as that which
places the publication of my book in the hands of the Company of
which Mr. Charles A. Nichols, of Springfield, Massachusetts, is
the head.
I think myself fortunate, too, in the association of my work with
that of Mr. Alan C. Reiley, from whose original studies and
drawings the greater part of the historical maps in these volumes
have been produced.
J. N. Larned.
List Of Maps And Plans.
'Ethnographic map of Modern Europe,'
Preceding the title-page.
Map of American Discovery and Settlement,
To follow page 46
Plan of Athens, and Harbors of Athens,
On page 145 Plan of Athenian house,
On page 162 Four development maps of Austria,
To follow page 196
Ethnographic map of Austria-Hungary,
On page 197
Four development maps of Asia Minor and the Balkan Peninsula,
To follow page 242
Map of the Balkan and Danubian States, showing changes during
the present century,
On page 244
Map of Burgundy under Charles the Bold,
To follow page 332
Development map showing the diffusion of Christianity,
To follow page 432
Logical Outlines, In Colors.
Athenian and Greek history, To follow page 144.
Austrian history, To follow page 198.
Chronological Tables.
The Seventeenth Century:
First half and second half, To follow page 208.
To the Peloponnesian War, and Fourth and Third Centuries, B. C.,
To follow page 166.
Appendices To Volume I.
A. Notes to Ethnographic map;
by Mr. A. C. Reiley.
B. Notes to four maps of Asia Minor and the Balkan Peninsula;
by Mr. A. C. Reiley.
C. Notes to map of the Balkan Peninsula in the present century;
by Mr. A. C. Reiley.
D. Notes to map showing the diffusion of Christianity;
Mr. A. C. Reiley.
E. Notes on the American Aborigines;
by Major J. W. Powell and
Mr. J. Owen Dorsey, of the United States Bureau of Ethnology.
F. Bibliography of America
(Discovery, Exploration, Settlement, Archæology,
and Ethnology), and of Austria.
{1}
History For Ready Reference.
A. C. Ante Christum;
used sometimes instead of the more familiar abbreviation,
B. C.—Before Christ.
A. D. Anno Domini;
The Year of Our Lord.
See ERA, CHRISTIAN.
A. E. I. O. U.
"The famous device of Austria, A. E. I. O. U., was first used
by Frederic III. [1440-1493], who adopted it on his plate,
books, and buildings. These initials stand for 'Austriae Est
Imperare Orbi Universo'; or, in German, 'Alles Erdreich Ist
Osterreich Unterthan': a bold assumption for a man who was not
safe in an inch of his dominions."
_H. Hallam,
The Middle Ages,
volume 2, page 89, foot-note._
A. H. Anno Hejiræ.
See ERA, MAHOMETAN.
A. M.
"Anno Mundi;" the Year of the World, or the year from the
beginning of the world, according to the formerly accepted
chronological reckoning of Archbishop Usher and others.
A. U. C., OR U. C.
"Ab urbe condita," from the founding of the city; or "Anno
urbis Conditæ," the year from the founding of the city; the
Year of Rome.
See ROME: B. C. 753.
AACHEN.
See AIX-LA-CHAPELLE.
AARAU, Peace of (1712).
See SWITZERLAND: A. D. 1652-1789.
ABÆ, Oracle of.
See ORACLES OF THE GREEKS.
ABBAS I. (called The Great), Shah of Persia; A. D. 1582-1627
ABBAS II., A. D. 1641-1666.
ABBAS III., A. D. 1732-1736.
ABBASSIDES, The rise, decline and fall of the.
See MAHOMETAN CONQUEST, &c.: A. D. 715-750; 763; and 815-945;
also BAGDAD: A. D. 1258.
ABBEY.
ABBOT.
ABBESS.
See MONASTERY.
ABDALLEES, The.
See INDIA: A. D. 1747-1761.
ABDALMELIK, Caliph, A. D. 684-705.
ABD-EL-KADER,
The War of the French in Algiers with.
See BARBARY STATES: A. D. 1830-1846.
ABDICATIONS.
Alexander, Prince of Bulgaria.
See BULGARIA: A. D. 1878-1886.
Amadeo of Spain.
See SPAIN: A. D. 1866-1873.
Charles IV. and Ferdinand VII. of Spain.
See SPAIN: A. D. 1807-1808.
Charles V. Emperor.
See GERMANY: A. D. 1552-1561,
and NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1555.
Charles X. King of France.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1815-1830.
Charles Albert, King of Sardinia.
See ITALY: A. D. 1848-1849.
Christina, Regent of Spain.
See SPAIN: A. D. 1833-1846.
Christina, Queen of Sweden.
See SCANDINAVIAN STATES (SWEDEN): A. D. 1644-1697.
Diocletian, Emperor.
See ROME: A. D. 284-305.
Ferdinand, Emperor of Austria.
See AUSTRIA: A. D. 1848-1849.
Louis Bonaparte, King of Holland.
See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1806-1810.
Louis Philippe.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1841-1848.
Milan, King of Servia.
See SERVIA: A. D. 1882-1889.
Pedro I., Emperor of Brazil, and King of Portugal.
See PORTUGAL: A. D. 1824-1889,
and BRAZIL: A. D. 1825-1865.
Ptolemy I. of Egypt.
See MACEDONIA, &c.: B. C. 297-280.
Victor Emanuel I.
See ITALY: A. D. 1820-1821.
William I., King of Holland.
See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1830-1884.
ABDUL-AZIZ, Turkish Sultan, A. D. 1861-1876.
ABDUL-HAMID, Turkish Sultan, A. D. 1774-1789.
ABDUL-HAMID II., 1876-.
ABDUL-MEDJID, Turkish Sultan, A. D. 1839-1861.
ABEL, King of Denmark, A. D. 1250-1252.
ABENCERRAGES, The.
See SPAIN: A. D. 1238-1273, and 1476-1492.
ABENSBURG, Battle of.
See GERMANY: A. D. 1809 (JANUARY-JUNE).
ABERCROMBIE'S CAMPAIGN IN AMERICA.
See CANADA (NEW FRANCE): A.D. 1758.
ABERDEEN MINISTRY, The.
See ENGLAND: A. D. 1851-1852, and 1855.
ABIPONES, The.
See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: PAMPAS TRIBES.
ABJURATION OF HENRY IV.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1591-1593.
ABNAKIS, The.
See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: ALGONKIN FAMILY.
ABO, Treaty of (1743).
See RUSSIA: A. D. 1740-1762.
ABOLITIONISM IN AMERICA, The Rise of.
See SLAVERY, NEGRO: A. D. 1828-1832; and 1840-1847.
ABORIGINES, AMERICAN.
See AMERICAN ABORIGINES.
ABOUKIR, Naval Battle of (or Battle of the Nile).
See FRANCE: A. D. 1798 (MAY-AUGUST).
ABOUKIR, Land-battle of (1799).
See FRANCE: A. D. 1798-1799 (AUGUST-AUGUST).
ABRAHAM, The Plains of.
That part of the high plateau of Quebec on which the memorable
victory of Wolfe was won, September 13, 1759. The plain was so
called "from Abraham Martin, a pilot known as Maitre Abraham,
who had owned a piece of land here in the early times of the
colony."
_F. Parkman,
Montcalm and Wolfe,
volume 2, page 289._
For an account of the battle which gave distinction to the
Plains of Abraham,
See CANADA (NEW FRANCE): A. D. 1759, (JUNE-SEPTEMBER).
ABSENTEEISM IN IRELAND.
In Ireland, "the owners of about one-half the land do not live
on or near their estates, while the owners of about one fourth do
not live in the country. … Absenteeism is an old evil, and
in very early times received attention from the government.
… Some of the disadvantages to the community arising from
the absence of the more wealthy and intelligent classes are
apparent to everyone. Unless the landlord is utterly
poverty-stricken or very unenterprising, 'there is
a great deal more going on' when he is in the country. … I
am convinced that absenteeism is a great disadvantage to the
country and the people. … It is too much to attribute to it
all the evils that have been set down to its charge. It is,
however, an important consideration that the people regard it
as a grievance; and think the twenty-five or thirty millions
of dollars paid every year to these landlords, who are rarely
or never in Ireland, is a tax grievous to be borne."
_D. B. King,
The Irish Question,
pages 5-11._
{2}
ABSOROKOS, OR CROWS, The.
See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: SIOUAN FAMILY.
ABU-BEKR, Caliph, A. D. 632-634.
ABU KLEA, Battle of (1885).
See EGYPT: A. D. 1884-1885.
ABUL ABBAS, Caliph, A. D. 750-754.
ABUNA OF ABYSSINIA.
"Since the days of Frumentius [who introduced Christianity
into Abyssinia in the 4th century] every orthodox Primate of
Abyssinia has been consecrated by the Coptic Patriarch of the
church of Alexandria, and has borne the title of Abuna"—or
Abuna Salama, "Father of Peace."
_H. M. Hozier,
The British Expedition to Abyssinia,
page 4._
ABURY, OR AVEBURY.
STONEHENGE.
CARNAC.
"The numerous circles of stone or of earth in Britain and
Ireland, varying in diameter from 30 or 40 feet up to 1,200,
are to be viewed as temples standing in the closest possible
relation to the burial-places of the dead. The most imposing
group of remains of this kind in this country [England] is
that of Avebury [Abury], near Devizes, in Wiltshire, referred
by Sir John Lubbock to a late stage in the Neolithic or to the
beginning of the bronze period. It consists of a large circle of
unworked upright stones 1,200 feet in diameter, surrounded by
a fosse, which in turn is also surrounded by a rampart of
earth. Inside are the remains of two concentric circles of
stone, and from the two entrances in the rampart proceeded
long avenues flanked by stones, one leading to Beckhampton,
and the other to West Kennett, where it formerly ended in
another double circle. Between them rises Silbury Hill, the
largest artificial mound in Great Britain, no less than 130
feet in height. This group of remains was at one time second
to none, 'but unfortunately for us [says Sir John Lubbock] the
pretty little village of Avebury [Abury], like some beautiful
parasite, has grown up at the expense and in the midst of the
ancient temple, and out of 650 great stones, not above twenty
are still standing. In spite of this it is still to be classed
among the finest ruins in Europe. The famous temple of Stonehenge
on Salisbury Plain is probably of a later date than Avebury,
since not only are some of the stones used in its construction
worked, but the surrounding barrows are more elaborate than
those in the neighbourhood of the latter. It consisted of a
circle 100 feet in diameter, of large upright blocks of sarsen
stone, 12 feet 7 inches high, bearing imposts dovetailed into
each other, so as to form a continuous architrave. Nine feet
within this was a circle of small foreign stones … and
within this five great trilithons of sarsen stone, forming a
horse-shoe; then a horse-shoe of foreign stones, eight feet
high, and in the centre a slab of micaceous sandstone called
the altar-stone. … At a distance of 100 feet from the outer
line a small ramp, with a ditch outside, formed the outer
circle, 300 feet in diameter, which cuts a low barrow and
includes another, and therefore is evidently of later date
than some of the barrows of the district."
_W. B. Dawkins;
Early Man in Britain,
chapter 10._
"Stonehenge … may, I think, be regarded as a monument of the
Bronze Age, though apparently it was not all erected at one time,
the inner circle of small, unwrought, blue stones being
probably older than the rest; as regards Abury, since the
stones are all in their natural condition, while those of
Stonehenge are roughly hewn, it seems reasonable to conclude
that Abury is the older of the two, and belongs either to the
close of the Stone Age, or to the commencement of that of
Bronze. Both Abury and Stonehenge were, I believe, used as
temples. Many of the stone circles, however, have been proved
to be burial places. In fact, a complete burial place may be
described as a dolmen, covered by a tumulus, and surrounded by
a stone circle. Often, however, we have only the tumulus,
sometimes only the dolmen, and sometimes again only the stone
circle. The celebrated monument of Carnac, in Brittany,
consists of eleven rows of unhewn stones, which differ greatly
both in size and height, the largest being 22 feet above ground,
while some are quite small. It appears that the avenues
originally extended for several miles, but at present they are
very imperfect, the stones having been cleared away in places for
agricultural improvements. At present, therefore, there are
several detached portions, which, however, have the same
general direction, and appear to have been connected together.
… Most of the great tumuli in Brittany probably belong to the
Stone Age, and I am therefore disposed to regard Carnac as
having been erected during the same period."
_Sir J. Lubbock,
Prehistoric Times,
chapter 5._
ABYDOS.
An ancient city on the Asiatic side of the Hellespont,
mentioned in the Iliad as one of the towns that were in
alliance with the Trojans. Originally Thracian, as is
supposed, it became a colony of Miletus, and passed at
different times under Persian, Athenian, Lacedæmonian and
Macedonian rule. Its site was at the narrowest point of the
Hellespont—the scene of the ancient romantic story of Hero
and Leander—nearly opposite to the town of Sestus. It was in
the near neighborhood of Abydos that Xerxes built his bridge
of boats; at Abydos, Alcibiades and the Athenians won an
important victory over the Peloponnesians.
See GREECE: B. C. 480, and 411-407.
ABYDOS, Tablet of.
One of the most valuable records of Egyptian history, found in
the ruins of Abydos and now preserved in the British Museum. It
gives a list of kings whom Ramses II. selected from among his
ancestors to pay homage to. The tablet was much mutilated when
found, but another copy more perfect has been unearthed by M.
Mariette, which supplies nearly all the names lacking on the
first.
_F. Lenormant,
Manual of Ancient History of the East,
volume 1, book 3._
ABYSSINIA: Embraced in ancient Ethiopia.
See ETHIOPIA.
ABYSSINIA: Fourth Century.
Conversion to Christianity.
"Whatever may have been the effect produced in his native
country by the conversion of Queen Candace's treasurer,
recorded in the Acts of the Apostles [chapter VIII.], it would
appear to have been transitory; and the Ethiopian or
Abyssinian church owes its origin to an expedition made early
in the fourth century by Meropius, a philosopher of Tyre, for
the purpose of scientific inquiry. On his voyage homewards, he
and his companions were attacked at a place where they had
landed in search of water, and all were massacred except two
youths, Ædesius and Frumentius, the relatives and pupils of
Meropius. These were carried to the king of the country, who
advanced Ædesius to be his cup-bearer, and Frumentius to be
his secretary and treasurer. On the death of the king, who
left a boy as his heir, the two strangers, at the request of
the widowed queen, acted as regents of the kingdom until the
prince came of age. Ædesius then returned to Tyre, where he
became a presbyter. Frumentius, who, with the help of such
Christian traders as visited the country, had already
introduced the Christian doctrine and worship into Abyssinia,
repaired to Alexandria, related his story to Athanasius, and
… Athanasius … consecrated him to the bishoprick of Axum
[the capital of the Abyssinain kingdom]. The church thus
founded continues to this day subject to the see of
Alexandria."
_J. C. Robertson,
History of the Christian Church,
book 2, chapter 6._
{3}
ABYSSINIA: 6th to 16th Centuries.
Wars in Arabia.
Struggle with the Mahometans.
Isolation from the Christian world.
"The fate of the Christian church among the Homerites in
Arabia Felix afforded an opportunity for the Abyssinians,
under the reigns of the Emperors Justin and Justinian, to show
their zeal in behalf of the cause of the Christians. The
prince of that Arabian population, Dunaan, or Dsunovas, was a
zealous adherent of Judaism; and, under pretext of avenging
the oppressions which his fellow-believers were obliged to
suffer in the Roman empire, he caused the Christian merchants
who came from that quarter and visited Arabia for the purposes
of trade, or passed through the country to Abyssinia, to be
murdered. Elesbaan, the Christian king of Abyssinia, made this
a cause for declaring war on the Arabian prince. He conquered
Dsunovas, deprived him of the government, and set up a
Christian, by the name of Abraham, as king in his stead. But
at the death of the latter, which happened soon after,
Dsunovas again made himself master of the throne; and it was a
natural consequence of what he had suffered, that he now
became a fiercer and more cruel persecutor than he was before.
… Upon this, Elesbaan interfered once more, under the reign
of the emperor Justinian, who stimulated him to the
undertaking. He made a second expedition to Arabia Felix, and
was again victorious. Dsunovas lost his life in the war; the
Abyssinian prince put an end to the ancient, independent
empire of the Homerites, and established a new government
favourable to the Christians."
_A. Neander,
General History of the Christian Religion
and Church, second period,
section 1._
"In the year 592, as nearly as can be calculated from the
dates given by the native writers, the Persians, whose power
seems to have kept pace with the decline of the Roman empire,
sent a great force against the Abyssinians, possessed
themselves once more of Arabia, acquired a naval superiority
in the gulf, and secured the principal ports on either side of
it."
"It is uncertain how long these conquerors retained their
acquisition; but, in all probability their ascendancy gave way
to the rising greatness of the Mahometan power; which soon
afterwards overwhelmed all the nations contiguous to Arabia,
spread to the remotest parts of the East, and even penetrated
the African deserts from Egypt to the Congo. Meanwhile
Abyssinia, though within two hundred miles of the walls of
Mecca, remained unconquered and true to the Christian faith;
presenting a mortifying and galling object to the more zealous
followers of the Prophet. On this account, implacable and
incessant wars ravaged her territories. … She lost her
commerce, saw her consequence annihilated, her capital
threatened, and the richest of her provinces laid waste. …
There is reason to apprehend that she must shortly have sunk
under the pressure of repeated invasions, had not the
Portuguese arrived [in the 16th century] at a seasonable
moment to aid her endeavours against the Moslem chiefs."
_M. Russell,
Nubia and Abyssinia,
chapter 3._
"When Nubia, which intervenes between Egypt and Abyssinia,
ceased to be a Christian country, owing to the destruction of
its church by the Mahometans, the Abyssinian church was cut
off from communication with the rest of Christendom. … They
[the Abyssinians] remain an almost unique specimen of a
semi-barbarous Christian people. Their worship is strangely
mixed with Jewish customs."
_H. F. Tozer,
The Church and the Eastern Empire,
chapter 5._
ABYSSINIA: Fifteenth-Nineteenth Centuries.
European Attempts at Intercourse.
Intrusion of the Gallas.
Intestine conflicts.
"About the middle of the 15th century, Abyssinia came in
contact with Western Europe. An Abyssinian convent was endowed
at Rome, and legates were sent from the Abyssinian convent at
Jerusalem to the council of Florence. These adhered to the
Greek schism. But from that time the Church of Rome made an
impress upon Ethiopia. … Prince Henry of Portugal … next
opened up communication with Europe. He hoped to open up a
route from the West to the East coast of Africa [see PORTUGAL:
A. D. 1415-1460], by which the East Indies might be reached
without touching Mahometan territory. During his efforts to
discover such a passage to India, and to destroy the revenues
derived by the Moors from the spice trade, he sent an
ambassador named Covillan to the Court of Shoa. Covillan was
not suffered to return by Alexander, the then Negoos [or
Negus, or Nagash—the title of the Abyssinian sovereign]. He
married nobly, and acquired rich possessions in the country.
He kept up correspondence with Portugal, and urged Prince
Henry to diligently continue his efforts to discover the
Southern passage to the East. In 1498 the Portuguese effected
the circuit of Africa. The Turks shortly afterwards extended
their conquests towards India, where they were baulked by the
Portuguese, but they established a post and a toll at Zeyla,
on the African coast. From here they hampered and threatened
to destroy the trade of Abyssinia," and soon, in alliance with
the Mahometan tribes of the coast, invaded the country. "They
were defeated by the Negoos David, and at the same time the
Turkish town of Zeyla was stormed and burned by a Portuguese
fleet." Considerable intimacy of friendly relations was
maintained for some time between the against the Turks.
{4}
Abyssinians and the Portuguese, who assisted in defending them
"In the middle of the 16th century … a
migration of Gallas came from the South and swept up to and
over the confines of Abyssinia. Men of lighter complexion and
fairer skin than most Africans, they were Pagan in religion
and savages in customs. Notwithstanding frequent efforts to
dislodge them, they have firmly established themselves. A
large colony has planted itself on the banks of the Upper
Takkazie, the Jidda and the Bashilo. Since their establishment
here they have for the most part embraced the creed of
Mahomet. The province of Shoa is but an outlier of Christian
Abyssinia, separated completely from co-religionist districts
by these Galla bands. About the same time the Turks took a
firm hold of Massowah and of the lowland by the coast, which
had hitherto been ruled by the Abyssinian Bahar Nagash.
Islamism and heathenism surrounded Abyssinia, where the lamp
of Christianity faintly glimmered amidst dark superstition in
the deep recesses of rugged valleys." In 1558 a Jesuit mission
arrived in the country and established itself at Fremona. "For
nearly a century Fremona existed, and its superiors were the
trusted advisors of the Ethiopian throne. … But the same
fate which fell upon the company of Jesus in more civilized
lands, pursued it in the wilds of Africa. The Jesuit
missionaries were universally popular with the Negoos, but the
prejudice of the people refused to recognise the benefits
which flowed from Fremona." Persecution befell the fathers,
and two of them won the crown of martyrdom. The Negoos,
Facilidas, "sent for a Coptic Abuna [ecclesiastical primate]
from Alexandria, and concluded a treaty with the Turkish
governors of Massowah and Souakin to prevent the passage of
Europeans into his dominions. Some Capuchin preachers, who
attempted to evade this treaty and enter Abyssinia, met with
cruel deaths. Facilidas thus completed the work of the Turks
and the Gallas, and shut Abyssinia out from European influence
and civilization. … After the expulsion of the Jesuits,
Abyssinia was torn by internal feuds and constantly harassed
by the encroachments of and wars with the Gallas. Anarchy and
confusion ruled supreme. Towns and villages were burnt down,
and the inhabitants sold into slavery. … Towards the middle
of the 18th century the Gallas appear to have increased
considerably in power. In the intestine quarrels of Abyssinia
their alliance was courted by each side, and in their country
political refugees obtained a secure asylum." During the early
years of the present century, the campaigns in Egypt attracted
English attention to the Red Sea. "In 1804 Lord Valentia, the
Viceroy of India, sent his Secretary, Mr. Salt, into
Abyssinia;" but Mr. Salt was unable to penetrate beyond Tigre.
In 1810 he attempted a second mission and again failed. It was
not until 1848 that English attempts to open diplomatic and
commercial relations with Abyssinia became successful. Mr.
Plowden was appointed consular agent, and negotiated a treaty
of commerce with Ras Ali, the ruling Galla chief."
_H. M. Hozier,
The British Expedition to Abyssinia,
Introduction._
ABYSSINIA: A. D. 1854-1889.
Advent of King Theodore.
His English captives and the Expedition which released them.
"Consul Plowden had been residing six years at Massowah when
he heard that the Prince to whom he had been accredited, Ras
Ali, had been defeated and dethroned by an adventurer, whose
name, a few years before, had been unknown outside the
boundaries of his native province. This was Lij Kâsa, better
known by his adopted name of Theodore. He was born of an old
family, in the mountainous region of Kwara, where the land
begins to slope downwards towards the Blue Nile, and educated
in a convent, where he learned to read, and acquired a
considerable knowledge of the Scriptures. Kâsa's convent life
was suddenly put an end to, when one of those marauding Galla
bands, whose ravages are the curse of Abyssinia, attacked and
plundered the monastery. From that time he himself took to the
life of a freebooter. … Adventurers flocked to his standard;
his power continually increased; and in 1854 he defeated Ras
Ali in a pitched battle, and made himself master of central
Abyssinia." In 1855 he overthrew the ruler of Tigre. "He now
resolved to assume a title commensurate with the wide extent
of his dominion. In the church of Derezgye he had himself
crowned by the Abuna as King of the Kings of Ethiopia, taking
the name of Theodore, because an ancient tradition declared
that a great monarch would some day arise in Abyssinia." Mr.
Plowden now visited the new monarch, was impressed with
admiration of his talents and character, and became his
counsellor and friend. But in 1860 the English consul lost his
life, while on a journey, and Theodore, embittered by several
misfortunes, began to give rein to a savage temper. "The
British Government, on hearing of the death of Plowden,
immediately replaced him at Massowah by the appointment of
Captain Cameron." The new Consul was well received, and was
entrusted by the Abyssinian King with a letter addressed to
the Queen of England, soliciting her friendship. The letter,
duly despatched to its destination, was pigeon-holed in the
Foreign Office at London, and no reply to it was ever made.
Insulted and enraged by this treatment, and by other evidences
of the indifference of the British Government to his
overtures, King Theodore, in January, 1864, seized and
imprisoned Consul Cameron with all his suite. About the same
time he was still further offended by certain passages in a
book on Abyssinia that had been published by a missionary
named Stern. Stern and a fellow missionary, Rosenthal with the
latter's wife, were lodged in prison, and subjected to flogging
and torture. The first step taken by the British Government,
when news of Consul Cameron's imprisonment reached England,
was to send out a regular mission to Abyssinia, bearing a
letter signed by the Queen, demanding the release of the
captives. The mission, headed by a Syrian named Rassam, made
its way to the King's presence in January, 1866. Theodore
seemed to be placated by the Queen's epistle and promised
freedom to his prisoners. But soon his moody mind became
filled with suspicions as to the genuineness of Rassam's
credentials from the Queen, and as to the designs and
intentions of all the foreigners who were in his power. He was
drinking heavily at the time, and the result of his "drunken
cogitations was a determination to detain the mission—at any
rate until by their means he should have obtained a supply of
skilled artisans and machinery from England."
{5}
Mr. Rassam and his companions were accordingly put into
confinement, as Captain Cameron had been. But they were
allowed to send a messenger to England, making their situation
known, and conveying the demand of King Theodore that a man be
sent to him "who can make cannons and muskets." The demand was
actually complied with. Six skilled artisans and a civil
engineer were sent out, together with a quantity of machinery
and other presents, in the hope that they would procure the
release of the unfortunate captives at Magdala. Almost a year
was wasted in these futile proceedings, and it was not until
September, 1867, that an expedition consisting of 4,000
British and 8,000 native troops, under General Sir Robert
Napier, was sent from India to bring the insensate barbarian
to terms. It landed in Annesley Bay, and, overcoming enormous
difficulties with regard to water, food-supplies and
transportation, was ready, about the middle of January, 1868,
to start upon its march to the fortress of Magdala, where
Theodore's prisoners were confined. The distance was 400
miles, and several high ranges of mountains had to be passed
to reach the interior table-land. The invading army met with
no resistance until it reached the Valley of the Beshilo, when
it was attacked (April 10) on the plain of Aroge or Arogi, by
the whole force which Theodore was able to muster, numbering a
few thousands, only, of poorly armed men. The battle was
simply a rapid slaughtering of the barbaric assailants, and
when they fled, leaving 700 or 800 dead and 1,500 wounded on
the field, the Abyssinian King had no power of resistance
left. He offered at once to make peace, surrendering all the
captives in his hands; but Sir Robert Napier required an
unconditional submission, with a view to displacing him from
the throne, in accordance with the wish and expectation which
he had found to be general in the country. Theodore refused
these terms, and when (April 13) Magdala was bombarded and
stormed by the British troops—slight resistance being
made—he shot himself at the moment of their entrance to the
place. The sovereignty he had successfully concentrated in
himself for a time was again divided. Between April and June
the English army was entirely withdrawn, and "Abyssinia was
sealed up again from intercourse with the outer world."
_Cassell's Illustrated History of England,
volume 9, chapter 28._
"The task of permanently uniting Abyssinia, in which Theodore
failed, proved equally impracticable to John, who came to the
front, in the first instance, as an ally of the British, and
afterwards succeeded to the sovereignty. By his fall (10th
March, 1889) in the unhappy war against the Dervishes or
Moslem zealots of the Soudan, the path was cleared for Menilek
of Shoa, who enjoyed the support of Italy. The establishment
of the Italians on the Red Sea littoral … promises a new era
for Abyssinia."
_T. Nöldeke,
Sketches from Eastern History,
chapter 9._
ALSO IN
_H. A. Stern,
The Captive Missionary._
_H. M. Stanley,
Coomassie and Magdala,
part 2._
ACABA, the Pledges of.
See MAHOMETAN CONQUEST: A. D. 609-632.
ACADEMY, The Athenian.
"The Academia, a public garden in the neighbourhood of Athens,
was the favourite resort of Plato, and gave its name to the
school which he founded. This garden was planted with lofty
plane-trees, and adorned with temples and statues; a gentle
stream rolled through it."
_G. H. Lewes,
Biog. History of Philosophy,
6th Epoch_.
The masters of the great schools of philosophy at Athens "chose
for their lectures and discussions the public buildings which
were called gymnasia, of which there were several in different
quarters of the city. They could only use them by the sufferance
of the State, which had built them chiefly for bodily
exercises and athletic feats. … Before long several of the
schools drew themselves apart in special buildings, and even
took their most familiar names, such as the Lyceum and the
Academy, from the gymnasia in which they made themselves at
home. Gradually we find the traces of some material
provisions, which helped to define and to perpetuate the
different sects. Plato had a little garden, close by the
sacred Eleusinian Way, in the shady groves of the Academy,
which he bought, says Plutarch, for some 3,000 drachmæ. There
lived also his successors, Xenocrates and Polemon. …
Aristotle, as we know, in later life had taught in the Lyceum,
in the rich grounds near the Ilissus, and there he probably
possessed the house and garden which after his death came into
the hands of his successor, Theophrastus."
_W. W. Capes,
University life in Ancient Athens,
pages. 31-33._
For a description of the Academy, the Lyceum, and other
gymnasia of Athens.
See GYMNASIA GREEK.
Concerning the suppression of the Academy,
See ATHENS: A. D. 529.
ACADIA.
See NOVA SCOTIA.
ACADIANS, The, and the British Government.
Their expulsion.
See NOVA SCOTIA: A. D. 1713-1730; 1749-1755, and 1755.
ACARNANIANS.
See AKARNANIANS.
ACAWOIOS, The.
See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: CARIBS AND THEIR KINDRED.
ACCAD.
ACCADIANS.
See BABYLONIA, PRIMITIVE.
ACCOLADE.
"The concluding sign of being dubbed or adopted into the order
of knighthood was a slight blow given by the lord to the
cavalier, and called the accolade, from the part of the body,
the neck, whereon it was struck. … Many writers have
imagined that the accolade was the last blow which the soldier
might receive with impunity: but this interpretation is
not correct, for the squire was as jealous of his honour as
the knight. The origin of the accolade it is impossible to
trace, but it was clearly considered symbolical of the
religious and moral duties of knighthood, and was the only
ceremony used when knights were made in places (the field of
battle, for instance), where time and circumstances did not
allow of many ceremonies."
_C. Mills,
History of Chivalry,
page 1, 53, and foot-note_.
ACHÆAN CITIES, League of the.
This, which is not to be confounded with the "Achaian League"
of Peloponnesus, was an early League of the Greek settlements
in southern Italy, or Magna Græca. It was "composed of the
towns of Siris, Pandosia, Metabus or Metapontum, Sybaris with
its offsets Posidonia and Laus, Croton, Caulonia, Temesa,
Terina and Pyxus. … The language of Polybius regarding the
Achæan symmachy in the Peloponnesus may be applied also to
these Italian Achæans; 'not only did they live in federal and
friendly communion, but they made use of the same laws, and
the same weights, measures and coins, as well as of
the same magistrates, councillors and judges.'"
_T. Mommsen,
History of Rome,
book 1, chapter 10._
{6}
ACHÆAN LEAGUE.
See GREECE: B. C. 280-146.
ACHÆMENIDS, The.
The family or dynastic name (in its Greek form) of the kings
of the Persian Empire founded by Cyrus, derived from an
ancestor, Achæmenes, who was probably a chief of the Persian
tribe of the Pasargadæ. "In the inscription of Behistun, King
Darius says: 'From old time we were kings; eight of my family
have been kings, I am the ninth; from very ancient times we
have been kings.' He enumerates his ancestors: 'My father was
Vistaçpa, the father of Vistaçpa was Arsama; the father of
Arsama was Ariyaramna, the father of Ariyaramna was Khaispis,
the father of Khaispis was Hakhamanis; hence we are called
Hakhamanisiya (Achæmenids).' In these words Darius gives the
tree of his own family up to Khaispis; this was the younger
branch of the Achæmenids. Teispes, the son of Achaemenes, had
two sons; the elder was Cambyses (Kambujiya) the younger
Ariamnes; the son of Cambyses was Cyrus (Kurus), the son of
Cyrus was Cambyses II. Hence Darius could indeed maintain that
eight princes of his family had preceded him; but it was not
correct to maintain that they had been kings before him and
that he was the ninth king."
_M. Duncker,
History of Antiquity,
volume 5, book 8, chapter 3._
ALSO IN
_G. Rawlinson, Family of the Achæmenidæ, appendix to
book 7 of Herodotus_.
See, also, PERSIA, ANCIENT.
ACHAIA:
"Crossing the river Larissus, and pursuing the northern coast
of Peloponnesus south of the Corinthian Gulf, the traveller
would pass into Achaia—a name which designated the narrow
strip of level land, and the projecting spurs and declivities
between that gulf and the northernmost mountains of the
peninsula. … Achaean cities—twelve in number at least, if
not more—divided this long strip of land amongst them, from
the mouth of the Larissus and the northwestern Cape Araxus on
one side, to the western boundary of the Sikyon territory on
the other. According to the accounts of the ancient legends
and the belief of Herodotus, this territory had been once
occupied by Ionian inhabitants, whom the Achaeans had
expelled."
_G. Grote,
History of Greece,
part 2, chapter 4 (volume 2)._
After the Roman conquest and the suppression of the Achaian
League, the name Achaia was given to the Roman province then
organized, which embraced all Greece south of Macedonia and
Epirus.
See GREECE: B. C. 280-146.
"In the Homeric poems, where … the 'Hellenes' only appear in
one district of Southern Thessaly, the name Achæans is employed
by preference as a general appelation for the whole race. But
the Achæans we may term, without hesitation, a Pelasgian
people, in so far, that is, as we use this name merely as the
opposite of the term 'Hellenes,' which prevailed at a later
time, although it is true that the Hellenes themselves were
nothing more than a particular branch of the Pelasgian stock.
… [The name of the] Achæans, after it had dropped its
earlier and more universal application, was preserved as the
special name of a population dwelling in the north of the
Peloponnese and the south of Thessaly."
_Georg Friedrich Schömann,
Antiquity of Greece: The State,
Introduction._
"The ancients regarded them [the Achæans] as a branch of the
Æolians, with whom they afterwards reunited into one national
body, i.e., not as an originally distinct nationality or
independent branch of the Greek people. Accordingly, we hear
neither of an Achæan language nor of Achæan art. A manifest
and decided influence of the maritime Greeks, wherever the
Achæans appear, is common to the latter with the Æolians.
Achæans are everywhere settled on the coast, and are always
regarded as particularly near relations of the Ionians. …
The Achæans appear scattered about in localities on the coast
of the Ægean so remote from one another, that it is impossible
to consider all bearing this name as fragments of a people
originally united in one social community; nor do they in fact
anywhere appear, properly speaking, as a popular body, as the
main stock of the population, but rather as eminent families,
from which spring heroes; hence the use of the expression
'Sons of the Achæans' to indicate noble descent."
_E. Curtius,
History of Greece,
book 1, chapter 3._
ALSO IN
_M. Duncker,
History of Greece,
book 1, chapter 2, and book 2, chapter 2._
See, also,
ACHAIA,
and
GREECE: THE MIGRATIONS.
ACHAIA: A. D. 1205-1387.
Mediæval Principality.
Among the conquests of the French and Lombard Crusaders in
Greece, after the taking of Constantinople, was that of a
major part of the Peloponnesus—then beginning to be called
the Morea—by William de Champlitte, a French knight, assisted
by Geffrey de Villehardouin, the younger—nephew and namesake
of the Marshal of Champagne, who was chronicler of the
conquest of the Empire of the East. William de Champlitte was
invested with this Principality of Achaia, or of the Morea, as
it is variously styled. Geffrey Villehardouin represented him
in the government, as his "bailly," for a time, and finally
succeeded in supplanting him. Half a century later the Greeks,
who had recovered Constantinople, reduced the territory of the
Principality of Achaia to about half the peninsula, and a
destructive war was waged between the two races. Subsequently
the Principality became a fief of the crown of Naples and
Sicily, and underwent many changes of possession until the
title was in confusion and dispute between the houses of
Anjou, Aragon and Savoy. Before it was engulfed finally in the
Empire of the Turks, it was ruined by their piracies and
ravages.
_G. Finlay,
History of Greece from its Conquest by the Crusaders,
chapter 8._
ACHMET I., Turkish Sultan, A. D. 1603-1617.
ACHMET II., 1691-1695.
ACHMET III., 1703-1730.
ACHRADINA.
A part of the ancient city of Syracuse, Sicily, known as the
"outer city," occupying the peninsula north of Ortygia, the
island, which was the "inner city."
ACHRIDA, Kingdom of.
After the death of John Zimisces who had reunited Bulgaria to
the Byzantine Empire, the Bulgarians were roused to a struggle
for the recovery of their independence, under the lead of four
brothers of a noble family, all of whom soon perished save
one, named Samuel. Samuel proved to be so vigorous and able a
soldier and had so much success that he assumed presently the
title of king. His authority was established over the greater
part of Bulgaria, and extended into Macedonia, Epirus and
Illyria. He established his capital at Achrida (modern
Ochrida, in Albania), which gave its name to his kingdom. The
suppression of this new Bulgarian monarchy occupied the
Byzantine Emperor, Basil II., in wars from 981 until 1018,
when its last strongholds, including the city of Achrida, were
surrendered to him.
_G. Finlay,
History of the Byzantine Empire from 716 to 1057,
book 2, chapter 2, section 2._
{7}
ACKERMAN, Convention of (1826).
See TURKS: A. D. 1826-1829.
ACOLAHUS, The.
See MEXICO, ANCIENT: THE TOLTEC EMPIRE.
ACOLYTH, The.
See VARANGIAN or WARING GUARD.
ACRABA, Battle of, A. D. 633.
After the death of Mahomet, his successor, Abu Bekr, had to
deal with several serious revolts, the most threatening of
which was raised by one Moseilama, who had pretended, even in
the life-time of the Prophet, to a rival mission of religion.
The decisive battle between the followers of Moseilama and
those of Mahomet was fought at Acraba, near Yemama. The
pretender was slain and few of his army escaped.
_Sir W. Muir,
Annals of the Early Caliphate,
chapter 7._
ACRABATTENE, Battle of.
A sanguinary defeat of the Idumeans or Edomites by the Jews
under Judas Maccabæus, B. C. 164.
_Josephus,
Antiquity of the Jews,
book 12, chapter 8._
ACRAGAS.
See AGRIGENTUM.
ACRE (St. Jean d'Acre, or Ptolemais): A. D. 1104.
Conquest, Pillage and Massacre by the Crusaders and Genoese.
See CRUSADES: A. D. 1104-1111.
ACRE: A. D.1187.
Taken from the Christians by Saladin.
See JERUSALEM: A. D. 1149-1187.
ACRE: A. D. 1189-1191.
The great siege and reconquest by the Crusaders.
See CRUSADES: A. D. 1188-1192.
ACRE: A. D. 1256-1257.
Quarrels and battles between the Genoese and Venetians.
See VENICE: A. D. 1256-1257.
ACRE: A. D. 1291.
The Final triumph of the Moslems.
See JERUSALEM: A. D. 1291.
ACRE: 18th Century.
Restored to Importance by Sheik Daher.
"Acre, or St. Jean d'Acre, celebrated under this name in the
history of the Crusades, and in antiquity known by the name of
Ptolemais, had, by the middle of the 18th century, been almost
entirely forsaken, when Sheik Daher, the Arab rebel, restored
its commerce and navigation. This able prince, whose sway
comprehended the whole of ancient Galilee, was succeeded by
the infamous tyrant, Djezzar-Pasha, who fortified Acre, and
adorned it with a mosque, enriched with columns of antique
marble, collected from all the neighbouring cities."
_M. Malte-Brun,
System of Universal Geography,
book 28 (volume 1)._
ACRE: A. D. 1799.
Unsuccessful Siege by Bonaparte.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1798-1799 (AUGUST-AUGUST).
ACRE: A. D. 1831-1840.
Siege and Capture by Mehemed Ali.
Recovery for the Sultan by the Western Powers.
See TURKS: A. D.1831-1840.
ACROCERAUNIAN PROMONTORY.
See KORKYRA.
ACROPOLIS OF ATHENS, The.
"A road which, by running zigzag up the slope was rendered
practicable for chariots, led from the lower city to the
Acropolis, on the edge of the platform of which stood the
Propylæa, erected by the architect Mnesicles in five years,
during the administration of Pericles. … On entering through
the gates of the Propylæa a scene of unparalleled grandeur and
beauty burst upon the eye. No trace of human dwellings
anywhere appeared, but on all sides temples of more or less
elevation, of Pentelic marble, beautiful in design and
exquisitely delicate in execution, sparkled like piles of
alabaster in the sun. On the left stood the Erectheion, or
fane of Athena Polias; to the right, that matchless edifice
known as the Hecatompedon of old, but to later ages as the
Parthenon. Other buildings, all holy to the eyes of an
Athenian, lay grouped around these master structures, and, in
the open spaces between, in whatever direction the spectator
might look, appeared statues, some remarkable for their
dimensions, others for their beauty, and all for the legendary
sanctity which surrounded them. No city of the ancient or
modern world ever rivalled Athens in the riches of art. Our
best filled museums, though teeming with her spoils, are poor
collections of fragments compared with that assemblage of gods
and heroes which peopled the Acropolis, the genuine Olympos of
the arts."
_J. A. St. John,
The Hellenes,
book 1, chapter 4._
"Nothing in ancient Greece or Italy could be compared with the
Acropolis of Athens, in its combination of beauty and grandeur,
surrounded as it was by temples and theatres among its rocks,
and encircled by a city abounding with monuments, some of
which rivalled those of the Acropolis. Its platform formed one
great sanctuary, partitioned only by the boundaries of the …
sacred portions. We cannot, therefore, admit the suggestion of
Chandler, that, in addition to the temples and other monuments on
the summit, there were houses divided into regular streets.
This would not have been consonant either with the customs or
the good taste of the Athenians. When the people of Attica
crowded into Athens at the beginning of the Peloponnesian war,
and religious prejudices gave way, in every possible case, to the
necessities of the occasion, even then the Acropolis remained
uninhabited. … The western end of the Acropolis, which
furnished the only access to the summit of the hill, was one
hundred and sixty eight feet in breadth, an opening so narrow
that it appeared practicable to the artists of Pericles to
fill up the space with a single building which should serve
the purpose of a gateway to the citadel, as well as of a
suitable entrance to that glorious display of architecture and
sculpture which was within the inclosure. This work [the
Propylæa], the greatest production of civil architecture in
Athens, which rivalled the Parthenon in felicity of execution,
surpassed it in boldness and originality of design. … It may be
defined as a wall pierced with five doors, before which on
both sides were Doric hexastyle porticoes."
_W. M. Leake,
Topography of Athens,
section 8._
See, also, ATTICA.
ACT OF ABJURATION, The.
See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1577-1581.
ACT OF MEDIATION, The.
See SWITZERLAND: A. D. 1803-1848.
ACT OF SECURITY.
See SCOTLAND: A. D. 1703-1704.
ACT OF SETTLEMENT (English).
See ENGLAND: A. D. 1701.
ACT OF SETTLEMENT (Irish).
See IRELAND: A. D. 1660-1665.
{8}
ACT RESCISSORY.
See SCOTLAND; A. D. 1660-1666.
ACTIUM: B. C. 434.
Naval Battle of the Greeks.
A defeat inflicted upon the Corinthians by the Corcyrians, in
the contest over Epidamnus which was the prelude to the
Peloponnesian War.
_E. Curtius,
History of Greece,
book 4, chapter 1._
ACTIUM: B. C. 31.
The Victory of Octavius.
See ROME: B. C. 31.
ACTS OF SUPREMACY.
See SUPREMACY, ACTS OF;
and ENGLAND: A. D. 1527-1534; and 1559.
ACTS OF UNIFORMITY.
See ENGLAND: A. D. 1559 and 1662-1665.
ACULCO, Battle of (1810).
See MEXICO: A. D. 1810-1819.
ACZ, Battle of (1849).
See AUSTRIA, A. D. 1848-1849.
ADALOALDUS, King of the Lombards, A. D. 616-626.
ADAMS, John, in the American Revolution.
See
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1774 (MAY-JUNE);
1774 (SEPTEMBER); 1775 (MAY-AUGUST);
1776 (JANUARY-JUNE), 1776 (JULY).
In diplomatic service.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
A. D. 1782 (APRIL); 1782 (SEPTEMBER-NOVEMBER).
Presidential election and administration.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A.D. 1796-1801.
ADAMS, John Quincy.
Negotiation of the Treaty of Ghent.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1814 (DECEMBER).
Presidential election and administration.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1824-1829.
ADAMS, Samuel, in and after the American Revolution.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1772-1773;
1774 (SEPTEMBER); 1775(MAY); 1787-1789.
ADDA, Battle of the (A. D. 490).
See ROME: A. D. 488-526.
AD DECIMUS, Battle of (A. D. 533).
See VANDALS: A. D. 533-534.
ADEL.
ADALING.
ATHEL.
"The homestead of the original settler, his house,
farm-buildings and enclosure, 'the toft and croft,' with the
share of arable and appurtenant common rights, bore among the
northern nations [early Teutonic] the name of Odal, or Edhel;
the primitive mother village was an Athelby, or Athelham; the
owner was an Athelbonde: the same word Adel or Athel signified
also nobility of descent, and an Adaling was a nobleman.
Primitive nobility and primitive landownership thus bore the
same name."
_William Stubbs,
Constitutional History of England,
chapter 3, section 24._
See, also, ALOD, and ETHEL.
ADELAIDE, The founding and naming of.
See AUSTRALIA: A. D. 1800-1840.
ADELANTADOS.
ADELANTAMIENTOS.
"Adelantamientos was an early term for gubernatorial districts
[in Spanish America, the governors bearing the title of
Adelantados], generally of undefined limits, to be extended by
further conquests."
_H. H. Bancroft,
History of the Pacific States,
volume 6 (Mexico, volume 3), page 520._
ADEODATUS II., Pope, A. D. 672-676.
ADIABENE.
A name which came to be applied anciently to the tract of
country east of the middle Tigris, embracing what was
originally the proper territory of Assyria, together with
Arbelitis. Under the Parthian monarchy it formed a tributary
kingdom, much disputed between Parthia and Armenia. It was
seized several times by the Romans, but never permanently
held.
_G. Rawlinson,
Sixth Great Oriental Monarchy,
page 140._
ADIRONDACKS, The.
See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: ADIRONDACKS.
ADIS, Battle of (B. C. 256).
See PUNIC WAR, THE FIRST.
ADITES, The.
"The Cushites, the first inhabitants of Arabia, are known in
the national traditions by the name of Adites, from their
progenitor, who is called Ad, the grandson of Ham."
_F. Lenormant,
Manual of Ancient History,
book 7, chapter 2._
See ARABIA: THE ANCIENT SUCCESSION AND FUSION OF RACES.
ADJUTATORS.
See ENGLAND: A. D. 1647 (APRIL-AUGUST).
ADLIYAH, The.
See ISLAM.
ADOLPH (of Nassau), King of Germany, A. D. 1291-1298.
ADOLPHUS FREDERICK, King of Sweden, A. D. 1751-1771.
ADOPTIONISM.
A doctrine, condemned as heretical in the eighth century,
which taught that "Christ, as to his human nature, was not
truly the Son of God, but only His son by adoption." The dogma
is also known as the Felician heresy, from a Spanish bishop,
Felix, who was prominent among its supporters. Charlemagne
took active measures to suppress the heresy.
_J. I. Mombert,
History of Charles the Great,
book 2, chapter 12._
ADRIA, Proposed Kingdom of.
See ITALY: A. D. 1343-1389.
ADRIAN VI., Pope, A. D. 1522-1523.
ADRIANOPLE.
HADRIANOPLE.
A city in Thrace founded by the Emperor Hadrian and designated
by his name. It was the scene of Constantine's victory over
Licinius in A. D. 323 (see ROME: 'A. D. 305-323), and of the
defeat and death of Valens in battle with the Goths (see GOTHS
(VISIGOTHS): A. D. 378). In 1361 it became for some years the
capital of the Turks in Europe (see TURKS: A. D. 1360-1389).
It was occupied by the Russians in 1829, and again in 1878
(see TURKS: A. D. 1826-1829, and A. D. 1877-1878), and gave
its name to the Treaty negotiated in 1829 between Russia and
the Porte (see GREECE: A. D. 1821-1829).
ADRIATIC, The Wedding of the.
See VENICE: A. D. 1177, and 14TH CENTURY.
ADRUMETUM.
See CARTHAGE, THE DOMINION OF.
ADUATUCI, The.
See BELGÆ.
ADULLAM, Cave of.
When David had been cast out by the Philistines, among whom he
sought refuge from the enmity of Saul, "his first retreat was the
Cave of Adullam, probably the large cavern not far from
Bethlehem, now called Khureitun. From its vicinity to
Bethlehem, he was joined there by his whole family, now
feeling themselves insecure from Saul's fury. … Besides
these were outlaws from every part, including doubtless some
of the original Canaanites—of whom the name of one at least
has been preserved, Ahimelech the Hittite. In the vast
columnar halls and arched chambers of this subterranean
palace, all who had any grudge against the existing system
gathered round the hero of the coming age."
_Dean Stanley,
Lectures on the History of the Jewish Church,
lecture 22._
ADULLAMITES, The.
See ENGLAND: A. D. 1865-1868.
{9}
ADWALTON MOOR, Battle of (A. D. 1643).
This was a battle fought near Bradford, June 29, 1643, in the
great English Civil War. The Parliamentary forces, under Lord
Fairfax, were routed by the Royalists, under Newcastle.
_C. R. Markham,
Life of the Great Lord Fairfax,
chapter 11._
ÆAKIDS (Æacids).
The supposed descendants of the demi-god Æakus, whose grandson
was Achilles. (See MYRMIDONS.) Miltiades, the hero of Marathon,
and Pyrrhus, the warrior King of Epirus, were among those
claiming to belong to the royal race of Eakids.
ÆDHILING.
See ETHEL.
ÆDILES, Roman.
See ROME: B. C. 494-492.
ÆDUI.
ARVERNI.
ALLOBROGES.
"The two most powerful nations in Gallia were the Ædui [or
Hædui] and the Arverni. The Ædui occupied that part which lies
between the upper valley of the Loire and the Saone, which river
was part of the boundary between them and the Sequani. The
Loire separated the Ædui from the Bituriges, whose chief town
was Avaricum on the site of Bourges. At this time [B. C.121]
the Arverni, the rivals of the Ædui, were seeking the
supremacy in Gallia. The Arverni occupied the mountainous
country of Auvergne in the centre of France and the fertile
valley of the Elaver (Allier) nearly as far as the junction of
the Allier and the Loire. … They were on friendly terms with
the Allobroges, a powerful nation east of the Rhone, who
occupied the country between the Rhone and the Isara (Isère).
… In order to break the formidable combination of the
Arverni and the Allobroges, the Romans made use of the Ædui,
who were the enemies both of the Allobroges and the Arverni.
… A treaty was made either at this time or somewhat earlier
between the Ædui and the Roman senate, who conferred on their
new Gallic friends the honourable title of brothers and
kinsmen. This fraternizing was a piece of political cant which
the Romans practiced when it was useful."
_G. Long,
Decline of the Roman Republic,
volume 1, chapter 21._
See, also, GAULS.
Ægæ.
See EDESSA (MACEDONIA).
ÆGATIAN ISLES, Naval Battle of the (B. C. 241).
See PUNIC WAR, THE FIRST.
ÆGEAN, The.
"The Ægean, or White Sea, … as distinguished from the
Euxine."
_E. A. Freeman,
Historical Geography of Europe,
page 413, and foot-note._
ÆGIALEA.
ÆGIALEANS.
The original name of the northern coast of Peloponnesus, and
its inhabitants.
See GREECE: THE MIGRATIONS.
ÆGIKOREIS.
See PHYLÆ.
ÆGINA.
A small rocky island in the Saronic gulf, between Attica and
Argolis. First colonized by Achæans it was afterwards occupied
by Dorians (see GREECE: THE MIGRATIONS) and was unfriendly to
Athens. During the sixth century B. C. it rose to great power
and commercial importance, and became for a time the most
brilliant center of Greek art. At the period of the Persian
war, Ægina was "the first maritime power in Greece." But the
Æginetans were at that time engaged in war with Athens, as the
allies of Thebes, and rather than forego their enmity, they
offered submission to the Persian king. The Athenians
thereupon appealed to Sparta, as the head of Greece, to
interfere, and the Æginetans were compelled to give hostages
to Athens for their fidelity to the Hellenic cause. (See
GREECE: B. C. 492-491.) They purged themselves to a great
extent of their intended treason by the extraordinary valor
with which they fought at Salamis. But the sudden pre-eminence
to which Athens rose cast a blighting shadow upon Ægina, and
in 429 B. C. it lost its independence, the Athenians taking
possession of their discomfited rival.
_C. Thirlwall,
History of Greece,
volume 1, chapter 14._
Also in
_G. Grote,
History of Greece,
part 2, volume 4, chapter 36._
See, also, ATHENS: B. C. 489-480.
ÆGINA: B. C. 458-456.
Alliance with Corinth in war with Athens and Megara.
Defeat and subjugation.
See GREECE: B. C. 458-456.
ÆGINA: B. C. 431.
Expulsion of the Æginetans from their island by the Athenians.
Their settlement at Thyrea.
See GREECE: B. C. 431-429.
ÆGINA: B. C. 210. Desolation by the Romans.
The first appearance of the Romans in Greece, when they
entered the country as the allies of the Ætolians, was
signalized by the barbarous destruction of Ægina. The city
having been taken, B. C. 210, its entire population was
reduced to slavery by the Romans and the land and buildings
of the city were sold to Attalus, king of Pergamus.
_E. A. Freeman,
History of Federal Government,
chapter 8, section 2._
ÆGINETAN TALENT.
See TALENT.
ÆGITIUM, Battle of (B. C. 426).
A reverse experienced by the Athenian General, Demosthenes, in
his invasion of Ætolia, during the Peloponnesian War.
_Thucydides,
History,
book 3, section 97._
ÆGOSPOTAMI (Aigospotamoi), Battle of.
See GREECE: B. C. 405.
ÆLFRED.
See ALFRED.
ÆLIA CAPITOLINA.
The new name given to Jerusalem by Hadrian.
See JEWS: A. D. 130-134.
ÆLIAN AND FUFIAN LAWS, The.
"The Ælian and Fufian laws (leges Ælia and Fufia) the age of
which, unfortunately we cannot accurately determine. …
enacted that a popular assembly [at Rome] might be dissolved,
or, in other words, the acceptance of any proposed law
prevented, if a magistrate announced to the president of the
assembly that it was his intention to choose the same time for
watching the heavens. Such an announcement (obnuntiatio) was
held to be a sufficient cause for interrupting an assembly."
_W. Ihne,
History of Rome,
book 6, chapter 16._
ÆMILIAN WAY, The.
"M. Æmilius Lepidus, Consul for the year 180 B. C. …
constructed the great road which bore his name. The Æmilian
Way led from Ariminum through the new colony of Bononia to
Placentia, being a continuation of the Flaminian Way, or great
north road, made by C. Flaminius in 220 B. C. from Rome to
Ariminum. At the same epoch, Flaminius the son, being the
colleague of Lepidus, made a branch road from Bononia across
the Appenines to Arretium."
_H. G. Liddell,
History of Rome,
book 5, chapter 41._
ÆMILIANUS, Roman Emperor, A. D. 253.
{10}
ÆOLIANS, The.
"The collective stock of Greek nationalities falls, according
to the view of those ancient writers who laboured most to
obtain an exact knowledge of ethnographic relationships, into
three main divisions, Æolians, Dorians and Ionians. … All
the other inhabitants of Greece [not Dorians and Ionians] and
of the islands included in it, are comprised under the common
name of Æolians—a name unknown as yet to Homer, and which was
incontestably applied to a great diversity of peoples, among
which it is certain that no such homogeneity of race is to be
assumed as existed among the lonians and Dorians. Among the
two former races, though even these were scarcely in any
quarter completely unmixed, there was incontestably to be
found a single original stock, to which others had merely been
attached, and as it were engrafted, whereas, among the peoples
assigned to the Æolians, no such original stock is
recognizable, but on the contrary, as great a difference is
found between the several members of this race as between
Dorians and lonians, and of the so-called Æolians, some stood
nearer to the former, others to the latter. … A thorough and
careful investigation might well lead to the conclusion that
the Greek people was divided not into three, but into two main
races, one of which we may call Ionian, the other Dorian,
while of the so-called Æolians some, and probably the greater
number, belonged to the former, the rest to the latter."
_G. F. Schöman,
Antiquity of Greece: The State,
part 1, chapter 2._
In Greek myth, Æolus, the fancied progenitor of the Æolians,
appears as one of the three sons of Hellen. "Æolus is
represented as having reigned in Thessaly: his seven sons were
Kretheus, Sisyphus, Athamas, Salmoneus, Deion, Magnes and
Perieres: his five daughters, Canace, Alcyone, Peisidike,
Calyce and Permede. The fables of this race seem to be
distinguished by a constant introduction of the God Poseidon,
as well as by an unusual prevalence of haughty and
presumptuous attributes among the Æolid heroes, leading them
to affront the gods by pretences of equality, and sometimes
even by defiance."
_G. Grote,
History of Greece,
part 1, chapter 6._
See, also, THESSALY, DORIANS AND IONIANS,
and ASIA MINOR: THE GREEK COLONIES.
ÆQUIANS, The.
See OSCANS; also LATIUM;
and ROME; B. C. 458.
ÆRARIANS.
Roman citizens who had no political rights.
See CENSORS, ROMAN.
ÆRARIUM, The.
See FISCUS.
ÆSOPUS INDIANS.
See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: ALGONQUIAN FAMILY.
ÆSTII, or ÆSTYI, The.
"At this point [beyond the Suiones] the Suevic Sea [the
Baltic], on its eastern shore, washes the tribes of the Æstii,
whose rites and fashions and styles of dress are those of the
Suevi, while their language is more like the British. They
worship the mother of the gods and wear as a religious symbol
the device of a wild boar. … They often use clubs, iron
weapons but seldom. They are more patient in cultivating corn
and other produce than might be expected from the general
indolence of the Germans. But they also search the deep and
are the only people who gather amber, which they call
glesum."—"The Æstii occupied that part of Prussia which is to
the north-east of the Vistula. … The name still survives in
the form Estonia."
_Tacitus,
Germany,
translated by Church and Brodribb, with note._
See, also, PRUSSIAN LANGUAGE, THE OLD.
ÆSYMNETÆ, An.
Among the Greeks, an expedient "which seems to have been tried
not unfrequently in early times, tor preserving or restoring
tranquility, was to invest an individual with absolute power,
under a peculiar title, which soon became obsolete: that of
æsymnetæ. At Cuma, indeed, and in other cities, this was the
title of an ordinary magistracy, probably of that which
succeeded the hereditary monarchy; but when applied to an
extraordinary office, it was equivalent to the title of
protector or dictator."
_C. Thirlwall,
History of Greece,
chapter 10._
ÆTHEL.
ÆTHELING.
See ETHEL, and ADEL.
ÆTHELBERT, ÆTHELFRITH, ETC.
See ETHELBERT, etc.
ÆTOLIA.
ÆTOLIANS.
"Ætolia, the country of Diomed, though famous in the early
times, fell back during the migratory period almost into a
savage condition, probably through the influx into it of an
Illyrian population which became only partially Hellenized.
The nation was divided into numerous tribes, among which the
most important were the Apodoti, the Ophioneis, the Eurytanes
and the Agræans. There were scarcely any cities, village life
being preferred universally. … It was not till the wars
which arose among Alexander's successors that the Ætolians
formed a real political union, and became an important power
in Greece."
_G. Rawlinson,
Manual of Ancient History,
book 3._
See also,
AKARNANIANS, and GREECE: THE MIGRATIONS.
ÆTOLIAN LEAGUE, The.
"The Achaian and the Ætolian Leagues, had their constitutions
been written down in the shape of a formal document, would
have presented but few varieties of importance. The same
general form of government prevailed in both; each was
federal, each was democratic; each had its popular assembly,
its smaller Senate, its general with large powers at the head
of all. The differences between the two are merely those
differences of detail which will always arise between any two
political systems of which neither is slavishly copied from
the other. … If therefore federal states or democratic
states, or aristocratic states, were necessarily weak or
strong, peaceful or aggressive, honest or dishonest, we should
see Achaia and Ætolia both exhibiting the same moral
characteristics. But history tells another tale. The political
conduct of the Achaian League, with some mistakes and some
faults, is, on the whole, highly honourable. The political
conduct of the Ætolian League is, throughout the century in
which we know it best [last half of third and first half of
second century B. C.] almost always simply infamous. … The
counsels of the Ætolian League were throughout directed to
mere plunder, or, at most, to selfish political
aggrandisement."
_E. A. Freeman,
History of Federal Government,
chapter 6_.
The plundering aggressions of the Ætolians involved them in
continual war with their Greek kindred and neighbours, and
they did not scruple to seek foreign aid. It was through their
agency that the Romans were first brought into Greece, and it
was by their instrumentality that Antiochus fought his battle
with Rome on the sacredest of all Hellenic soil. In the end,
B. C. 189, the League was stripped by the Romans of even its
nominal independence and sank into a contemptible servitude.
_E. A. Freeman,
History of Federal Government,
chapter 7-9._
ALSO IN _C. Thirlwall, History of Greece, chapter 63-66._
{11}
AFGHANISTAN: B. C. 330.
Conquest by Alexander the Great.
Founding of Herat and Candahar.
See MACEDONIA, &c.: B. C. 330-323;
and INDIA: B. C. 327-312.
AFGHANISTAN: B. C. 301-246.
In the Syrian Empire.
See SELEUCIDÆ; and MACEDONIA, &c.: 310-301 and after.
AFGHANISTAN: A. D. 999-1183.
The Ghaznevide Empire.
See TURKS: A. D. 999-1183;
and INDIA: A. D. 977-1290.
AFGHANISTAN: A. D. 13th Century.
Conquests of Jinghis-Khan.
See MONGOLS: A. D. 1153-1227;
and INDIA: A. D. 977-1290.
AFGHANISTAN: A. D. 1380-1386.
Conquest by Timour.
See Timour.
AFGHANISTAN: A. D. 1504.
Conquest by Babar.
See INDIA: A. D. 1399-1605.
AFGHANISTAN: A. D. 1722.
Mahmoud's conquest of Persia.
See PERSIA: A. D. 1499-1887.
AFGHANISTAN: A. D. 1737-1738.
Conquest by Nadir Shah.
See INDIA: A. D. 1662-1748.
AFGHANISTAN: A. D. 1747-1761.
The Empire of the Dooranie, Ahmed Abdallee.
His Conquests in India.
See INDIA; A. D. 1747-1761.
AFGHANISTAN: A. D. 1803-1838.
Shah Soojah and Dost Mahomed.
English interference.
"Shah Soojah-ool Moolk, a grandson of the illustrious Ahmed
Shah, reigned in Afghanistan from 1803 till 1809. His youth
had been full of trouble and vicissitude. He had been a
wanderer, on the verge of starvation, a pedlar, and a bandit,
who raised money by plundering caravans. His courage was
lightly reputed, and it was as a mere creature of circumstance
that he reached the throne. His reign was perturbed, and in
1809 he was a fugitive and an exile. Runjeet Singh, the Sikh
ruler of the Punjaub, defrauded him of the famous Koh-i-noor,
which is now the most precious of the crown jewels of England,
and plundered and imprisoned the fallen man. Shah Soojah at
length escaped from Lahore. After further misfortunes he at
length reached the British frontier station of Loodianah, and
in 1816 became a pensioner of the East India Company. After
the downfall of Shah Soojah, Afghanistan for many years was a
prey to anarchy. At length in 1826, Dost Mahomed succeeded in
making himself supreme at Cabul, and this masterful man
thenceforward held sway until his death in 1863,
uninterruptedly save during the three years of the British
occupation. Dost Mahomed was neither kith nor kin to the
legitimate dynasty which he displaced. His father Poyndah Khan
was an able statesman and gallant soldier. He left twenty-one
sons, of whom Futteh Khan was the eldest, and Dost Mahomed one
of the youngest. … Throughout his long reign Dost Mahomed
was a strong and wise ruler. His youth had been neglected and
dissolute. His education was defective, and he had been
addicted to wine. Once seated on the throne, the reformation
of our Henry V. was not more thorough than was that of Dost
Mahomed. He taught himself to read and write, studied the
Koran, became scrupulously abstemious, assiduous in affairs,
no longer truculent, but courteous. … There was a fine
rugged honesty in his nature, and a streak of genuine
chivalry; notwithstanding the despite he suffered at our
hands, he had a real regard for the English, and his loyalty
to us was broken only by his armed support of the Sikhs in the
second Punjaub war. The fallen Shah Soojah, from his asylum in
Loodianah, was continually intriguing for his restoration. His
schemes were long inoperative, and it was not until 1832 that
certain arrangements were entered into between him and the
Maharaja Runjeet Singh. To an application on Shah Soojah's
part for countenance and pecuniary aid, the Anglo-Indian
Government replied that to afford him assistance would be
inconsistent with the policy of neutrality which the
Government had imposed on itself; but it unwisely contributed
financially toward his undertaking by granting him four
months' pension in advance. Sixteen thousand rupees formed a
scant war fund with which to attempt the recovery of a throne,
but the Shah started on his errand in February, 1833. After a
successful contest with the Ameers of Scinde, he marched on
Candahar, and besieged that fortress. Candahar was in
extremity when Dost Mahomed, hurrying from Cabul, relieved it,
and joining forces with its defenders, he defeated and routed
Shah Soojah, who fled precipitately, leaving behind him his
artillery and camp equipage. During the Dost's absence in the
south, Runjeet Singh's troops crossed the Attock, occupied the
Afghan province of Peshawur, and drove the Afghans into the
Khyber Pass. No subsequent efforts on Dost Mahomed's part
availed to expel the Sikhs from Peshawur, and suspicious of
British connivance with Runjeet Singh's successful aggression,
he took into consideration the policy of fortifying himself by
a counter alliance with Persia. As for Shah Soojah, he had
crept back to his refuge at Loodianah. Lord Auckland succeeded
Lord William Bentinck as Governor-General of India in March,
1836. In reply to Dost Mahomed's letter of congratulation, his
lordship wrote: 'You are aware that it is not the practice of
the British Government to interfere with the affairs of other
independent States;' an abstention which Lord Auckland was
soon to violate. He had brought from England the feeling of
disquietude in regard to the designs of Persia and Russia
which the communications of our envoy in Persia had fostered
in the Home Government, but it would appear that he was wholly
undecided what line of action to pursue. 'Swayed,' says
Durand, 'by the vague apprehensions of a remote danger
entertained by others rather than himself, he despatched to
Afghanistan Captain Burnes on a nominally commercial mission,
which, in fact, was one of political discovery, but without
definite instructions. Burnes, an able but rash and ambitious
man, reached Cabul in September, 1837, two months before the
Persian army began the siege of Herat. … The Dost made no
concealment to Burnes of his approaches to Persia and Russia,
in despair of British good offices, and being hungry for
assistance from any source to meet the encroachments of the
Sikhs, he professed himself ready to abandon his negotiations
with the western powers if he were given reason to expect
countenance and assistance at the hands of the Anglo-Indian
Government. … The situation of Burnes in relation to the
Dost was presently complicated by the arrival at Cabul of a
Russian officer claiming to be an envoy from the Czar, whose
credentials, however, were regarded as dubious, and who, if
that circumstance has the least weight, was on his return to
Russia utterly repudiated by Count Nesselrode. The Dost took
small account of this emissary, continuing to assure Burnes
that he cared for no connection except with the English, and
Burnes professed to his Government his fullest confidence in
the sincerity of those declarations.
{12}
But the tone of Lord Auckland's reply, addressed
to the Dost, was so dictatorial and supercilious as to
indicate the writer's intention that it should give offence.
It had that effect, and Burnes' mission at once became
hopeless. … The Russian envoy, who was profuse in his
promises of everything which the Dost was most anxious to
obtain, was received into favour and treated with distinction,
and on his return journey he effected a treaty with the
Candahar chiefs which was presently ratified by the Russian
minister at the Persian Court. Burnes, fallen into discredit
at Cabul, quitted that place in August 1838. He had not been
discreet, but it was not his indiscretion that brought about
the failure of his mission. A nefarious transaction, which
Kaye denounces with the passion of a just indignation,
connects itself with Burnes' negotiations with the Dost; his
official correspondence was unscrupulously mutilated and
garbled in the published Blue Book with deliberate purpose to
deceive the British public. Burnes had failed because, since
he had quitted India for Cabul, Lord Auckland's policy had
gradually altered. Lord Auckland had landed in India in the
character of a man of peace. That, so late as April 1837, he
had no design of obstructing the existing situation in
Afghanistan is proved by his written statement of that date,
that 'the British Government had resolved decidedly to
discourage the prosecution by the ex-king Shah
Soojah-ool-Moolk, so long as he may remain under our
protection, of further schemes of hostility against the chiefs
now in power in Cabul and Candahar.' Yet, in the following
June, he concluded a treaty which sent Shah Soojah to Cabul,
escorted by British bayonets. Of this inconsistency no
explanation presents itself. It was a far cry from our
frontier on the Sutlej to Herat in the confines of Central
Asia—a distance of more than 1,200 miles, over some of the
most arduous marching ground in the known world. … Lord
William Bentinck, Lord Auckland's predecessor, denounced the
project as an act of incredible folly. Marquis Wellesley
regarded 'this wild expedition into a distant region of rocks
and deserts, of sands and ice and snow,' as an act of
infatuation. The Duke of Wellington pronounced with prophetic
sagacity, that the consequence of once crossing the Indus to
settle a government in Afghanistan would be a perennial march
into that country."
_A. Forbes,
The Afghan Wars,
chapter 1._
ALSO IN;
_J. P. Ferrier,
History of the Afghans,
chapter 10-20._
_Mohan Lal,
Life of Amir Dost Mohammed Khan,
volume 1._
AFGHANISTAN: A. D. 1838-1842.
English invasion, and restoration of Soojah Dowlah.
The revolt at Cabul.
Horrors of the British retreat.
Destruction of the entire army, save one man, only.
Sale's defence of Jellalabad.
"To approach Afghanistan it was necessary to secure the
friendship of the Sikhs, who were, indeed, ready enough to
join against their old enemies; and a threefold treaty was
contracted between Runjeet Singh, the English, and Shah Soojah
for the restoration of the banished house. The
expedition—which according to the original intention was to
have been carried out chiefly by means of troops in the pay of
Shah Soojah and the Sikhs—rapidly grew into an English
invasion of Afghanistan. A considerable force was gathered on
the Sikh frontier from Bengal; a second army, under General
Keane, was to come up from Kurrachee through Sindh. Both of
these armies, and the troops of Shah Soojah, were to enter the
highlands of Afghanistan by the Bolan Pass. As the Sikhs would
not willingly allow the free passage of our troops through
their country, an additional burden was laid upon the armies,-
the independent Ameers of Sindh had to be coerced. At length,
with much trouble from the difficulties of the country and the
loss of the commissariat animals, the forces were all
collected under the command of Keane beyond the passes. The
want of food permitted of no delay; the army pushed on to
Candahar. Shah Soojah was declared Monarch of the southern
Principality. Thence the troops moved rapidly onwards towards
the more important and difficult conquest of Cabul. Ghuznee, a
fortress of great strength, lay in the way. In their hasty
movements the English had left their battering train behind,
but the gates of the fortress were blown in with gunpowder,
and by a brilliant feat of arms the fortress was stormed. Nor
did the English army encounter any important resistance
subsequently. Dost Mohamed found his followers deserting him,
and withdrew northwards into the mountains of the Hindoo
Koosh. With all the splendour that could be collected, Shah
Soojah was brought back to his throne in the Bala Hissar, the
fortress Palace of Cabul. … For the moment the policy seemed
thoroughly successful. The English Ministry could feel that a
fresh check had been placed upon its Russian rival, and no one
dreamt of the terrible retribution that was in store for the
unjust violence done to the feelings of a people. … Dost
Mohamed thought it prudent to surrender himself to the English
envoy, Sir William Macnaghten, and to withdraw with his family
to the English provinces of Hindostan [November, 1840]. He was
there well received and treated with liberality; for, as both
the Governor General and his chief adviser Macnaghten felt, he
had not in fact in any way offended us, but had fallen a
victim to our policy. It was in the full belief that their
policy in India had been crowned with permanent success that
the Whig Ministers withdrew from office, leaving their
successors to encounter the terrible results to which it led.
For while the English officials were blindly congratulating
themselves upon the happy completion of their enterprise, to
an observant eye signs of approaching difficulty were on all
sides visible. … The removal of the strong rule of the
Barrukzyes opened a door for undefined hopes to many of the
other families and tribes. The whole country was full of
intrigues and of diplomatic bargaining, carried on by the
English political agents with the various chiefs and leaders.
But they soon found that the hopes excited by these
negotiations were illusory. The allowances for which they had
bargained were reduced, for the English envoy began to be
disquieted at the vast expenses of the Government. They did
not find that they derived any advantages from the
establishment of the new puppet King, Soojah Dowlah; and every
Mahomedan, even the very king himself, felt disgraced at the
predominance of the English infidels.
{13}
But as no actual insurrection broke out, Macnaghten, a man of
sanguine temperament and anxious to believe what he wished, in
spite of unmistakable warnings as to the real feeling of the
people, clung with almost angry vehemence to the persuasion
that all was going well, and that the new King had a real hold
upon the people's affection. So completely had he deceived
himself on this point, that he had decided to send back a
portion of the English army, under General Sale, into
Hindostan. He even intended to accompany it himself to enjoy
the peaceful post of Governor of Bombay, with which his
successful policy had been rewarded. His place was to be taken
by Sir Alexander Burnes, whose view of the troubled condition
of the country underlying the comparative calm of the surface
was much truer than that of Macnaghten, but who, perhaps from
that very fact, was far less popular among the chiefs. The
army which was to remain at Candahar was under the command of
General Nott, an able and decided if somewhat irascible man.
But General Elphinstone, the commander of the troops at Cabul,
was of quite a different stamp. He was much respected and
liked for his honourable character and social qualities, but
was advanced in years, a confirmed invalid, and wholly wanting
in the vigour and decision which his critical position was
likely to require. The fool's paradise with which the English
Envoy had surrounded himself was rudely destroyed. He had
persuaded himself that the frequently recurring disturbances,
and especially the insurrection of the Ghilzyes between Cabul
and Jellalabad, were mere local outbreaks. But In fact a great
conspiracy was on foot in which the chiefs of nearly every
important tribe in the country were implicated. On the evening
of the 1st of November [1841] a meeting of the chiefs was
held, and It was decided that an immediate attack should be
made on the house of Sir Alexander Burnes. The following morning
an angry crowd of assailants stormed the houses of Sir
Alexander Burnes and Captain Johnson, murdering the inmates,
and rifling the treasure-chests belonging to Soojah Dowlah's
army. Soon the whole city was in wild insurrection. The
evidence is nearly irresistible that a little decision and
rapidity of action on the part of the military would have at
once crushed the outbreak. But although the attack on Burnes's
house was known, no troops were sent to his assistance.
Indeed, that unbroken course of folly and mismanagement which
marked the conduct of our military affairs throughout this
crisis had already begun. Instead of occupying the fortress of
the Bala Hissar, where the army would have been in comparative
security, Elphlnstone had placed his troops in cantonments far
too extensive to be properly defended, surrounded by an
entrenchment of the most insignificant character, commanded on
almost all sides by higher ground. To complete the unfitness
of the position, the commissariat supplies were not stored
within the cantonments, but were placed in an isolated fort at
some little distance. An ill-sustained and futile assault was
made upon the town on the 3d of November, but from that time
onwards the British troops lay with incomprehensible
supineness awaiting their fate in their defenceless position.
The commissariat fort soon fell into the hands of the enemy
and rendered their situation still more deplorable. Some
flashes of bravery now and then lighted up the sombre scene of
helpless misfortune, and served to show that destruction might
even yet have been averted by a little firmness. … But the
commander had already begun to despair, and before many days
had passed he was thinking of making terms with the enemy.
Macnaghten had no course open to him under such circumstances
but to adopt the suggestion of the general, and attempt as
well as he could by bribes, cajolery, and intrigue, to divide
the chiefs and secure a safe retreat for the English. Akbar
Khan, the son of Dost Mohamed, though not present at the
beginning of the insurrection, had arrived from the northern
mountains, and at once asserted a predominant influence in the
insurgent councils. With him and with the other insurgent
chiefs Macnaghten entered into an arrangement by which he
promised to withdraw the English entirely from the country if
a safe passage were secured for the army through the passes.
… While ostensibly treating with the Barrukzye chiefs, he
intrigued on all sides with the rival tribes. His double
dealing was taken advantage of by Akbar Khan. He sent
messengers to Macnaghten proposing that the English should
make a separate treaty with himself and support him with their
troops in an assault upon some of his rivals. The proposition
was a mere trap, and the envoy fell into it. Ordering troops
to be got ready, he hurried to a meeting with Akbar to
complete the arrangement. There he found himself in the
presence of the brother and relatives of the very men against
whom he was plotting, and was seized and murdered by Akbar's
own hand [December 23]. Still the General thought of nothing
but surrender. The negotiations were entrusted to Major
Pottinger. The terms of the chiefs gradually rose, and at
length with much confusion the wretched army marched out of
the cantonments [January 6, 1842], leaving behind nearly all
the cannon and superfluous military stores. An Afghan escort
to secure the safety of the troops on their perilous journey
had been promised, but the promise was not kept. The horrors
of the retreat form one of the darkest passages in English
military history. In bitter cold and snow, which took all life
out of the wretched Sepoys, without proper clothing or
shelter, and hampered by a disorderly mass of thousands of
camp-followers, the army entered the terrible defiles which
lie between Cabul and Jellalabad. Whether Akbar Khan could,
had he wished it, have restrained his fanatical followers is
uncertain. As a fact the retiring crowd—it can scarcely be
called an army—was a mere unresisting prey to the assaults of
the mountaineers. Constant communication was kept up with
Akbar; on the third day all the ladies and children with the
married men were placed in his hands, and finally even the two
generals gave themselves up as hostages, always in the hope
that the remnant of the army might be allowed to escape."
_J. F. Bright,
History of England,
volume 4, pages 61-66._
{14}
"Then the march of the army, without a general, went on again.
Soon it became the story of a general without an army; before
very long there was neither general nor army. It is idle to
lengthen a tale of mere horrors. The straggling
remnant of an army entered the Jugdulluk Pass—a dark,
steep, narrow, ascending path between crags. The miserable
toilers found that the fanatical, implacable tribes had
barricaded the pass. All was over. The army of Cabul was
finally extinguished in that barricaded pass. It was a trap;
the British were taken in it. A few mere fugitives escaped
from the scene of actual slaughter, and were on the road to
Jellalabad, where Sale and his little army were holding their
own. When they were within sixteen miles of Jellalabad the
number was reduced to six. Of these six five were killed by
straggling marauders on the way. One man alone reached
Jellalabad to tell the tale. Literally one man, Dr. Brydon,
came to Jellalabad [January 13] out of a moving host which had
numbered in all some 16,000 when it set out on its march. The
curious eye will search through history or fiction in vain for
any picture more thrilling with the suggestions of an awful
catastrophe than that of this solitary survivor, faint and
reeling on his jaded horse, as he appeared under the walls of
Jellalabad, to bear the tidings of our Thermopylae of pain and
shame. This is the crisis of the story. With this at least the
worst of the pain and shame were destined to end. The rest is
all, so far as we are concerned, reaction and recovery. Our
successes are common enough; we may tell their tale briefly in
this instance. The garrison at Jellalabad had received before
Dr. Brydon's arrival an intimation that they were to go out
and march toward India in accordance with the terms of the
treaty extorted from Elphinstone at Cabul. They very properly
declined to be bound by a treaty which, as General Sale
rightly conjectured, had been 'forced from our envoy and
military commander with the knives at their throats.' General
Sale's determination was clear and simple. 'I propose to hold
this place on the part of Government until I receive its order
to the contrary.' This resolve of Sale's was really the
turning point of the history. Sale held Jellalabad; Nott was
at Candahar. Akbar Khan besieged Jellalabad. Nature seemed to
have declared herself emphatically on his side, for a
succession of earthquake shocks shattered the walls of the
place, and produced more terrible destruction than the most
formidable guns of modern warfare could have done. But the
garrison held out fearlessly; they restored the parapets,
re-established every battery, retrenched the whole of the
gates and built up all the breaches. They resisted every
attempt of Akbar Khan to advance upon their works, and at
length, when it became certain that General Pollock was
forcing the Khyber Pass to come to their relief, they
determined to attack Akbar Khan's army; they issued boldly out
of their forts, forced a battle on the Afghan chief, and
completely defeated him. Before Pollock, having gallantly
fought his way through the Khyber Pass, had reached Jellalabad
[April 16] the beleaguering army had been entirely defeated and
dispersed. … Meanwhile the unfortunate Shah Soojah, whom we
had restored with so much pomp of announcement to the throne
of his ancestors, was dead. He was assassinated in Cabul, soon
after the departure of the British, … and his body, stripped
of its royal robes and its many jewels, was flung into a
ditch."
_J. McCarthy,
History of our own Times,
volume 1, chapter 11._
ALSO IN
_J. W. Kaye,
History of the War in Afghanistan._
_G. R. Gleig,
Sale's Brigade in Afghanistan_.
_Lady Sale,
Journal of the Disasters in Afghanistan._
_Mohan Lal,
Life of Dost Mohammed,
chapters 15-18 (volume 2)._
AFGHANISTAN: A. D. 1842-1869.
The British return to Cabul.
Restoration of Dost Mahomed.
It was not till September that General Pollock "could obtain
permission from the Governor-General, Lord Ellenborough, to
advance against Cabul, though both he and Nott were burning to
do so. When Pollock did advance, he found the enemy posted at
Jugdulluck, the scene of the massacre. 'Here,' says one
writer, 'the skeletons lay so thick that they had to be
cleared away to allow the guns to pass. The savage grandeur of
the scene rendered it a fitting place for the deed of blood
which had been enacted under its horrid shade, never yet
pierced in some places by sunlight. The road was strewn for
two miles with mouldering skeletons like a charnel house.' Now
the enemy found they had to deal with other men, under other
leaders, for, putting their whole energy into the work, the
British troops scaled the heights and steep ascents, and
defeated the enemy in their strongholds on all sides. After
one more severe fight with Akbar Khan, and all the force he
could collect, the enemy were beaten, and driven from their
mountains, and the force marched quietly into Cabul. Nott, on
his side, started from Candahar on the 7th of August, and,
after fighting several small battles with the enemy, he
captured Ghuzni, where Palmer and his garrison had been
destroyed. From Ghuzni General Nott brought away, by command
of Lord Ellenborough, the gates of Somnauth [said to have been
taken from the Hindu temple of Somnauth by Mahmoud of Ghazni,
the first Mohammedan invader of India, in 1024], which formed
the subject of the celebrated 'Proclamation of the Gates,' as
it was called. This proclamation, issued by Lord Ellenborough,
brought upon him endless ridicule, and it was indeed at first
considered to be a satire of his enemies, in imitation of
Napoleon's address from the Pyramids; the Duke of Wellington
called it 'The Song of Triumph.' … This proclamation, put
forth with so much flourishing of trumpets and ado, was really
an insult to those whom it professed to praise, it was an
insult to the Mohammedans under our rule, for their power was
gone, it was also an insult to the Hindoos, for their temple
of Somnauth was in ruins. These celebrated gates, which are
believed to be imitations of the original gates, are now lying
neglected and worm-eaten, in the back part of a small museum
at Agra. But to return, General Nott, having captured Ghuzni
and defeated Sultan Jan, pushed on to Cabul, where he arrived
on the 17th of September, and met Pollock. The English
prisoners (amongst whom were Brigadier Shelton and Lady Sale),
who had been captured at the time of the massacre, were
brought, or found their own way, to General Pollock's camp.
General Elphinstone had died during his captivity. It was not
now considered necessary to take any further steps; the bazaar
in Cabul was destroyed, and on the 12th of October Pollock and
Nott turned their faces southwards, and began their march into
India by the Khyber route. The Afghans in captivity were sent
back, and the Governor-General received the troops at Ferozepoor.
{15}
Thus ended the Afghan war 01 1838-42. … The war
being over, we withdrew our forces into India, leaving the son
of Shah Soojah, Fathi Jung, who had escaped from Cabul when
his father was murdered, as king of the country, a position
that he was unable to maintain long, being very shortly
afterward, assassinated. In 1842 Dost Mahomed, the ruler whom
we had deposed, and who had been living at our expense in
India, returned to Cabul and resumed his former position as
king of the country, still bearing ill-will towards us, which
he showed on several occasions, notably during the Sikh war,
when he sent a body of his horsemen to fight for the Sikhs,
and he himself marched an army through the Khyber to Peshawur
to assist our enemies. However, the occupation of the Punjab
forced upon Dost Mahomed the necessity of being on friendly
terms with his powerful neighbour; he therefore concluded a
friendly treaty with us in 1854, hoping thereby that our power
would be used to prevent the intrigues of Persia against his
kingdom. This hope was shortly after realized, for in 1856 we
declared war against Persia, an event which was greatly to the
advantage of Dost Mahomed, as it prevented Persian
encroachments upon his territory. This war lasted but a short
time, for early in 1857 an agreement was signed between
England and Persia, by which the latter renounced all claims
over Herat and Afghanistan. Herat, however, still remained
independent of Afghanistan, until 1863, when Dost Mahomed
attacked and took the town, thus uniting the whole kingdom,
including Candahar and Afghan Turkestan, under his rule. This
was almost the last act of the Ameer's life, for a few days
after taking Herat he died. By his will he directed that Shere
Ali, one of his sons, should succeed him as Ameer of
Afghanistan. The new Ameer immediately wrote to the
Governor-General of India, Lord Elgin, in a friendly tone,
asking that his succession might be acknowledged. Lord Elgin,
however, as the commencement of the Liberal policy of
'masterly inactivity' neglected to answer the letter, a
neglect which cannot but be deeply regretted, as Shere Ali was
at all events the de facto ruler of the country, and even had
he been beaten by any other rival for the throne, it would
have been time enough to acknowledge that rival as soon as he
was really ruler of the country. When six months later a cold
acknowledgement of the letter was given by Sir William
Denison, and when a request that the Ameer made for 6,000
muskets had been refused by Lord Lawrence, the Ameer concluded
that the disposition of England towards him was not that of a
friend; particularly as, when later on, two of his brothers
revolted against him, each of them was told by the Government
that he would be acknowledged for that part of the country
which he brought under his power. However, after various
changes in fortune, in 1869 Shere Ali finally defeated his two
brothers Afzool and Azim, together with Afzool's son,
Abdurrahman."
_P. F. Walker,
Afghanistan,
pages 45-51._
ALSO IN
_J. W. Kaye,
History of the War in Afghanistan_.
_G. B. Malleson,
History of Afghanistan,
chapters 11._
AFGHANISTAN: A. D. 1869-1881.
The second war with the English and its causes.
The period of disturbance in Afghanistan, during the struggle
of Shere Ali with his brothers, coincided with the vice
royalty of Lord Lawrence in India. The policy of Lord
Lawrence, "sometimes slightingly spoken of as masterly
inactivity, consisted in holding entirely aloof from the
dynastic quarrels of the Afghans … and in attempting to
cultivate the friendship of the Ameer by gifts of money and
arms, while carefully avoiding topics of offence. … Lord
Lawrence was himself unable to meet the Ameer, but his
successor, Lord Mayo, had an interview with him at Umballah in
1869. … Lord Mayo adhered to the policy of his predecessor. He
refused to enter into any close alliance, he refused to pledge
himself to support any dynasty. But on the other hand he
promised that he would not press for the admission of any
English officers as Residents in Afghanistan. The return
expected by England for this attitude of friendly
non-interference was that every other foreign state, and
especially Russia, should be forbidden to mix either directly
or indirectly with the affairs of the country in which our
interests were so closely involved. … But a different view
was held by another school of Indian politicians, and was
supported by men of such eminence as Sir Bartle Frere and Sir
Henry Rawlinson. Their view was known as the Sindh Policy as
contrasted with that of the Punjab. It appeared to them
desirable that English agents should be established at Quetta,
Candahar, and Herat, if not at Cabul itself, to keep the
Indian Government completely informed of the affairs of
Afghanistan, and to maintain English influence in the country.
In 1874, upon the accession of the Conservative Ministry, Sir
Bartle Frere produced a memorandum in which this policy was
ably maintained. … A Viceroy whose views were more in
accordance with those of the Government, and who was likely to
be a more ready instrument in [its] hands, was found in Lord
Lytton, who went to India intrusted with the duty of giving
effect to the new policy. He was instructed. … to continue
payments of money, to recognise the permanence of the existing
dynasty, and to give a pledge of material support in case of
unprovoked foreign aggression, but to insist on the acceptance
of an English Resident at certain places in Afghanistan in
exchange for these advantages. … Lord Lawrence and those who
thought with him in England prophesied from the first the
disastrous results which would arise from the alienation of
the Afghans. … The suggestion of Lord Lytton that an English
Commission should go to Cabul to discuss matters of common
interest to the two Governments, was calculated … to excite
feelings already somewhat unfriendly to England. He [Shere
Ali] rejected the mission, and formulated his grievances. …
Lord Lytton waived for a time the despatch of the mission, and
consented to a meeting between the Minister of the Ameer and
Sir Lewis Pelly at Peshawur. … The English Commissioner was
instructed to declare that the one indispensable condition of
the Treaty was the admission of an English representative
within the limits of Afghanistan. The almost piteous request
on the part of the Afghans for the relaxation of this demand
proved unavailing, and the sudden death of the Ameer's envoy
formed a good excuse for breaking off the negotiation.
{16}
Lord Lytton treated the Ameer as incorrigible, gave
him to understand that the English would proceed to secure
their frontier without further reference to him, and withdrew
his native agent from Cabul. While the relations between the
two countries were in this uncomfortable condition,
information reached India that a Russian mission had been
received at Cabul. It was just at this time that the action of
the Home Government seemed to be tending rapidly towards a war
with Russia. … As the despatch of a mission from Russia was
contrary to the engagements of that country, and its reception
under existing circumstances wore an unfriendly aspect, Lord
Lytton saw his way with some plausible justification to demand
the reception at Cabul of an English embassy. He notified his
intention to the Ameer, but without waiting for an answer
selected Sir Neville Chamberlain as his envoy, and sent him
forward with an escort of more than 1,000 men, too large, as
it was observed, for peace, too small for war. As a matter of
course the mission was not admitted. … An outcry was raised
both in England and in India. … Troops were hastily
collected upon the Indian frontier; and a curious light was
thrown on what had been done by the assertion of the Premier
at the Guildhall banquet that the object in view was the
formation of a 'scientific frontier;' in other words, throwing
aside all former pretences, he declared that the policy of
England was to make use of the opportunity offered for direct
territorial aggression. … As had been foreseen by all
parties from the first, the English armies were entirely
successful in their first advance [November, 1878]. … By the
close of December Jellalabad was in the hands of Browne, the
Shutargardan Pass had been surmounted by Roberts, and in
January Stewart established himself in Candahar. When the
resistance of his army proved ineffectual, Shere Ali had taken
to flight, only to die. His refractory son Yakoob Khan was
drawn from his prison and assumed the reins of government as
regent. … Yakoob readily granted the English demands,
consenting to place his foreign relations under British
control, and to accept British agencies. With considerably
more reluctance, he allowed what was required for the
rectification of the frontier to pass into English hands. He
received in exchange a promise of support by the British
Government, and an annual subsidy of £60,000. On the
conclusion of the treaty the troops in the Jellalabad Valley
withdrew within the new frontier, and Yakoob Khan was left to
establish his authority as best he could at Cabul, whither in
July Cavagnari with an escort of twenty-six troopers and
eighty infantry betook himself. Then was enacted again the sad
story which preluded the first Afghan war. All the parts and
scenes in the drama repeated themselves with curious
uniformity—the English Resident with his little garrison
trusting blindly to his capacity for influencing the Afghan
mind, the puppet king, without the power to make himself
respected, irritated by the constant presence of the Resident,
the chiefs mutually distrustful and at one in nothing save
their hatred of English interference, the people seething with
anger against the infidel foreigner, a wild outbreak which the
Ameer, even had he wished it, could not control, an attack
upon the Residency and the complete destruction [Sept., 1879]
after a gallant but futile resistance of the Resident and his
entire escort. Fortunately the extreme disaster of the
previous war was avoided. The English troops which were
withdrawn from the country were still within reach. … About
the 24th of September, three weeks after the outbreak, the
Cabul field force under General Roberts was able to move. On
the 5th of October it forced its way into the Logar Valley at
Charassiab, and on the 12th General Roberts was able to make
his formal entry into the city of Cabul. … The Ameer was
deposed, martial law was established, the disarmament of the
people required under pain of death, and the country scoured
to bring in for punishment those chiefly implicated in the late
outbreak. While thus engaged in carrying out his work of
retribution, the wave of insurrection closed behind the
English general, communication through the Kuram Valley was
cut off, and he was left to pass the winter with an army of
some 8,000 men connected with India only by the Kybur Pass.
… A new and formidable personage … now made his appearance
on the scene. This was Abdurahman, the nephew and rival of the
late Shere Ali, who upon the defeat of his pretensions had
sought refuge in Turkestan, and was supposed to be supported
by the friendship of Russia. The expected attack did not take
place, constant reinforcements had raised the Cabul army to
20,000, and rendered it too strong to be assailed. … It was
thought desirable to break up Afghanistan into a northern and
southern province. … The policy thus declared was carried
out. A certain Shere Ali, a cousin of the late Ameer of the
same name, was appointed Wali or Governor of Candahar. In the
north signs were visible that the only possible successor to
the throne of Cabul would be Abdurahman. … The Bengal army
under General Stewart was to march northwards, and,
suppressing on the way the Ghuznee insurgents, was to join the
Cabul army in a sort of triumphant return to Peshawur. The
first part of the programme was carried out. … The second
part of the plan was fated to be interrupted by a serious
disaster which rendered it for a while uncertain whether the
withdrawal of the troops from Afghanistan was possible. …
Ayoob had always expressed his disapproval of his brother's
friendship for the English, and had constantly refused to
accept their overtures. Though little was known about him,
rumours were afloat that he intended to advance upon Ghuznee,
and join the insurgents there. At length about the middle of
June [1880] his army started. … But before the end of June
Farah had been reached and it seemed plain that Candahar would
be assaulted. … General Burrows found it necessary to fall back
to a ridge some forty-five miles from Candahar called
Kush-y-Nakhud. There is a pass called Maiwand to the north of
the high-road to Candahar, by which an army avoiding the
position on the ridge might advance upon the city. On the 27th
of July the Afghan troops were seen moving in the direction of
this pass. In his attempt to stop them with his small force,
numbering about 2,500 men, General Burrows was disastrously
defeated. With difficulty and with the loss of seven guns,
about half the English troops returned to Candahar.
{17}
General Primrose, who was in command, had no
choice but to strengthen the place, submit to an investment,
and wait till he should be rescued. … The troops at Cabul
were on the point of withdrawing when the news of the disaster
reached them. It was at once decided that the pick of the army
under General Roberts should push forward to the beleaguered
city, while General Stewart with the remainder should carry
out the intended withdrawal. … With about 10,000 fighting
men and 8,000 camp followers General Roberts brought to a
successful issue his remarkable enterprise, … falling upon
the army of the Ameer and entirely dispersing it a short
distance outside the city. All those at all inclined to the
forward policy clamoured for the maintenance of a British
force in Candahar. But the Government firmly and decisively
refused to consent to anything approaching to a permanent
occupation. … The struggle between Abdurahman and Ayoob
continued for a while, and until it was over the English
troops remained at Quetta. But when Abdurahman had been
several times victorious over his rival and in October [1881]
occupied Herat, it was thought safe to complete the
evacuation, leaving Abdurahman for the time at least generally
accepted as Ameer."
_J. F. Bright,
History of England,
period 4, pages 534-544._
ALSO IN
_A. Forbes,
The Afghan Wars,
part 2._
_Duke of Argyll,
The Afghan Question from 1841 to 1878_.
_G. B. Malleson,
The Russo-Afghan Question_.
----------AFGHANISTAN: End----------
AFRICA: The name as anciently applied.
See LIBYANS.
AFRICA: The Roman Province.
"Territorial sovereignty over the whole of North Africa had
doubtless already been claimed on the part of the Roman
Republic, perhaps as a portion of the Carthaginian
inheritance, perhaps because 'our sea' early became one of the
fundamental ideas of the Roman commonwealth; and, in so far,
all its coasts were regarded by the Romans even of the
developed republic as their true property. Nor had this claim
of Rome ever been properly contested by the larger states of
North Africa after the destruction of Carthage. … The
arrangements which the emperors made were carried out quite
after the same way in the territory of the dependent princes
as in the immediate territory of Rome; it was the Roman
government that regulated the boundaries in all North Africa,
and constituted Roman communities at its discretion, in the
kingdom of Mauretania no less than in the province of Numidia.
We cannot therefore speak, in the strict sense, of a Roman
subjugation of North Africa. The Romans did not conquer it
like the Phœnicians or the French; but they ruled over Numidia
as over Mauretania, first as suzerains, then as successors of
the native governments. … As for the previous rulers, so
also doubtless for Roman civilization there was to be found a
limit to the south, but hardly so for the Roman territorial
supremacy. There is never mention of any formal extension or
taking back of the frontier in Africa. … The former
territory of Carthage and the larger part of the earlier
kingdom of Numidia, united with it by the dictator Cæsar, or,
as they also called it, the old and new Africa, formed until
the end of the reign of Tiberius the province of that name
[Africa], which extended from the boundary of Cyrene to the
river Ampsaga, embracing the modern state of Tripoli, as well
as Tunis and the French province of Constantine. …
Mauretania was not a heritage like Africa and Numidia. … The
Romans can scarcely have taken over the Empire of the
Mauretanian kings in quite the same extent as these possessed
it; but … probably the whole south as far as the great
desert passed as imperial land."
_T. Mommsen,
History of Rome,
book 8, chapter 13._
See, also, CARTHAGE, NUMIDIA, and CYRENE.
AFRICA: The Mediæval City.
See BARBARY STATES: A. D. 1543-1560.
AFRICA:
Moslem conquest and Moslem States in the North.
See MAHOMETAN CONQUEST, &c.: A. D. 640-646; 647-709,
and 908-1171;
also BARBARY STATES; EGYPT: A. D. 1250-1517, and after;
and SUDAN.
AFRICA:
Portuguese Exploration of the Atlantic Coast.
The rounding of the Cape.
See PORTUGAL: A. D. 1415-1460, and 1463-1498.
AFRICA:
Dutch and English Colonization.
See SOUTH AFRICA.
AFRICA: A. D. 1787-1807.
Settlement of Sierra Leone.
See SIERRA LEONE.
AFRICA: A. D. 1820-1822.
The founding of Liberia.
See SLAVERY, NEGRO: A. D. 1816-1847.
AFRICA: A. D. 1884-1891.
Partition of the interior between European Powers.
"The partition of Africa may be said to date from the Berlin
Conference of 1884-1885 [see CONGO FREE STATE]. Prior to that
Conference the question of inland boundaries was scarcely
considered. … The founding of the Congo Independent State
was probably the most important result of the Conference. …
Two months after the Conference had concluded its labours,
Great Britain and Germany had a serious dispute in regard to
their respective spheres of influence on the Gulf of Guinea.
… The compromise … arrived at placed the Mission Station
of Victoria within the German sphere of influence." The
frontier between the two spheres of influence on the Bight of
Biafra was subsequently defined by a line drawn, in 1886, from
the coast to Yola, on the Benué. The Royal Niger Company,
constituted by a royal charter, … "was given administrative
powers over territories covered by its treaties. The regions
thereby placed under British protection … apart from the Oil
Rivers District, which is directly administered by the Crown,
embrace the coastal lands between Lagos and the northern
frontier of Camarons, the Lower Niger (including territories
of Sokoto, Gandu and Borgo), and the Benué from Yola to its
confluence." By a Protocol signed December 24, 1885, Germany
and France "defined their respective spheres of influence and
action on the Bight of Biafra, and also on the Slave Coast and
in Senegambia." This "fixed the inland extension of the German
sphere of influence (Camarons) at 15° East longitude, Greenwich.
… At present it allows the French Congo territories to
expand along the western bank of the M'bangi … provided no
other tributary of the M'bangi-Congo is found to the west, in
which case, according to the Berlin Treaty of 1884-85, the
conventional basin of the Congo would gain an extension." On
the 12th of May, 1886, France and Portugal signed a convention
by which France "secured the exclusive control of both banks
of the Casamanza (in Senegambia), and the Portuguese frontier
in the south was advanced approximately to the southern limit
of the basin of the Casini.
{18}
On the Congo, Portugal retained the Massabi district, to which
France had laid claim, but both banks of the Loango were left
to France." In 1884 three representatives of the Society for
German Colonization—Dr. Peters, Dr. Jühlke, and Count
Pfeil—quietly concluded treaties with the chiefs of Useguha,
Ukami, Nguru, and Usagara, by which those territories were
conveyed to the Society in question. "Dr. Peters … armed
with his treaties, returned to Berlin in February, 1885. On
the 27th February, the day following the signature of the
General Act of the Berlin Conference, an Imperial Schutzbrief,
or Charter of Protection, secured to the Society for German
Colonization the territories … acquired for them through Dr.
Peters' treaties: in other words, a German Protectorate was
proclaimed. When it became known that Germany had seized upon
the Zanzibar mainland, the indignation in colonial circles
knew no bounds. … Prior to 1884, the continental lands
facing Zanzibar were almost exclusively under British
influence. The principal traders were British subjects, and
the Sultan's Government was administered under the advice of
the British Resident. The entire region between the Coast and
the Lakes was regarded as being under the nominal suzerainty
of the Sultan. … Still, Great Britain had no territorial
claims on the dominions of the Sultan." The Sultan formally
protested and Great Britain championed his cause; but to no
effect. In the end the Sultan of Zanzibar yielded the German
Protectorate over the four inland provinces and over Vitu, and
the British and German Governments arranged questions between
them, provisionally, by the Anglo-German Convention of 1886,
which was afterwards superseded by the more definite
Convention of July 1890, which will be spoken of below. In
April 1887, the rights of the Society for German Colonization
were transferred to the German East Africa Association, with
Dr. Peters at its head. The British East Africa Company took
over concessions that had been granted by the Sultan of
Zanzibar to Sir William Mackinnon, and received a royal
charter in September, 1888. In South-west Africa, "an
enterprising Bremen merchant, Herr Lüderitz, and subsequently
the German Consul-General, Dr. Nachtigal, concluded a series
of political and commercial treaties with native chiefs,
whereby a claim was instituted over Angra Pequeña, and over
vast districts in the Interior between the Orange River and
Cape Frio. … It was useless for the Cape colonists to
protest. On the 13th October 1884 Germany formally notified to
the Powers her Protectorate over South-West Africa. … On 3rd
August 1885 the German Colonial Company for South-West Africa
was founded, and …. received the Imperial sanction for its
incorporation. But in August 1886 a new Association was
formed—the German West-Africa Company—and the
administration of its territories was placed under an Imperial
Commissioner. … The intrusion of Germany into South-West
Africa acted as a check upon, no less than a spur to, the
extension of British influence northwards to the Zambezi.
Another obstacle to this extension arose from the Boer
insurrection." The Transvaal, with increased independence had
adopted the title of South African Republic. "Zulu-land,
having lost its independence, was partitioned: a third of its
territories, over which a republic had been proclaimed, was
absorbed (October 1887) by the Transvaal; the remainder was
added (14th May 1887) to the British possessions.
Amatonga-land was in 1888 also taken under British protection.
By a convention with the South African Republic, Britain
acquired in 1884 the Crown colony of Bechuana-land; and in the
early part of 1885 a British Protectorate was proclaimed over
the remaining portion of Bechuana-land." Furthermore, "a
British Protectorate was instituted [1885] over the country
bounded by the Zambezi in the north, the British possessions
in the south, 'the Portuguese province of Sofala' in the east,
and the 20th degree of east longitude in the west. It was at
this juncture that Mr. Cecil Rhodes came forward, and, having
obtained certain concessions from Lobengula, founded the
British South Africa Company, … On the 29th October 1889,
the British South Africa Company was granted a royal charter.
It was declared in this charter that the principal field of
the operations of the British South African Company shall be
the region of South Africa lying immediately to the north of
British Bechuanaland, and to the north and west of the South
African Republic, and to the west of the Portuguese
dominions.'" No northern limit was given, and the other
boundaries were vaguely defined. The position of Swazi-land
was definitely settled in 1890 by an arrangement between Great
Britain and the South African Republic, which provides for the
continued independence of Swazi-land and a joint control over
the white settlers. A British Protectorate was proclaimed over
Nyassa-Viand and the Shiré Highlands in 1889-90. To return now
to the proceedings of other Powers in Africa: "Italy took
formal possession, in July 1882, of the bay and territory of
Assab. The Italian coast-line on the Red Sea was extended from
Ras Kasar (18° 2' North Latitude) to the southern boundary of
Raheita, towards Obok. During 1889, shortly after the death of
King Johannes, Keren and Asmara were occupied by Italian
troops. Menelik of Shoa, who succeeded to the throne of
Abyssinia after subjugating all the Abyssinian provinces,
except Tigré, dispatched an embassy to King Humbert, the
result of which was that the new Negus acknowledged (29th
September, 1889) the Protectorate of Italy over Abyssinia, and
its sovereignty over the territories of Massawa, Keren and
Asmara." By the Protocols of 24th March and 15th April, 1891,
Italy and Great Britain define their respective Spheres of
Influence in East Africa. "But since then Italy has
practically withdrawn from her position. She has absolutely no
hold over Abyssinia. … Italy has also succeeded in
establishing herself on the Somál Coast." By treaties
concluded in 1889, "the coastal lands between Cape Warsheikh
(about 2° 30' North latitude), and Cape Bedwin (8° 3' North
latitude)—a distance of 450 miles—were placed under Italian
protection. Italy subsequently extended (1890) her
Protectorate over the Somál Coast to the Jub river. … The
British Protectorate on the Somál Coast facing Aden, now
extends from the Italian frontier at Ras Hafún to Ras Jibute
(43° 15' East longitude). … The activity of France in her
Senegambian province, … during the last hundred years …
has finally resulted in a considerable expansion of her
territory. … The French have established a claim over the
country intervening between our Gold Coast Colony and Liberia.
{19}
A more precise delimitation of the frontier between Sierra
Leone and Liberia resulted from the treaties signed at
Monrovia on the 11th of November, 1887. In 1888 Portugal
withdrew all rights over Dehomé. … Recently, a French sphere
of influence has been instituted over the whole of the Saharan
regions between Algeria and Senegambia. … Declarations were
exchanged (5th August 1890) between [France and Great Britain]
with the following results: France became a consenting party
to the Anglo-German Convention of 1st July 1890. (2.) Great
Britain recognised a French sphere of influence over
Madagascar. … And (3) Great Britain recognised the sphere of
influence of France to the south of her Mediterranean
possessions, up to a line from Say on the Niger to Barrua on
Lake Tsad, drawn in such a manner as to comprise in the sphere
of action of the British Niger Company all that fairly belongs
to the kingdom of Sokoto." The Anglo-German Convention of
July, 1890, already referred to, established by its main
provisions the following definitions of territory: "The
Anglo-German frontier in East Africa, which, by the Convention
of 1886, ended at a point on the eastern shore of the Victoria
Nyanza was continued on the same latitude across the lake to
the confines of the Congo Independent State; but, on the
western side of the lake, this frontier was, if necessary, to
be deflected to the south, in order to include Mount M'fumbiro
within the British sphere. … Treaties in that district were
made on behalf of the British East Africa Company by Mr.
Stanley, on his return (May 1889) from the relief of Emin
Pasha. … (2.) The southern boundary of the German sphere of
influence in East Africa was recognised as that originally
drawn to a point on the eastern shore of Lake Nyassa, whence
it was continued by the eastern, northern, and western shores
of the lake to the northern bank of the mouth of the River
Songwé. From this point the Anglo-German frontier was
continued to Lake Tanganika, in such a manner as to leave the
Stevenson Road within the British sphere. (3.) The Northern
frontier of British East Africa was defined by the Jub River
and the conterminous boundary of the Italian sphere of
influence in Galla-land and Abyssinia up to the confines of
Egypt; in the west, by the Congo State and the Congo-Nile
watershed. (4.) Germany withdrew, in favor of Britain, her
Protectorate over Vitu and her claims to all territories on
the mainland to the north of the River Tana, as also over the
islands of Patta and Manda. (5.) In South-West Africa, the
Anglo-German frontier, originally fixed up to 22 south
latitude, was confirmed; but from this point the boundary-line
was drawn in such a manner eastward and northward as to give
Germany free access to the Zambezi by the Chobe River. (6.)
The Anglo-German frontier between Togo and Gold Coast Colony
was fixed, and that between the Camarons and the British Niger
Territories was provisionally adjusted. (7.) The Free-trade
zone, defined by the Act of Berlin (1885) was recognised as
applicable to the present arrangement between Britain and
Germany. (8.) A British Protectorate was recognised over the
dominions of the Sultan of Zanzibar within the British coastal
zone and over the islands of Zanzibar and Pemba. Britain,
however, undertook to use her influence to secure (what have
since been acquired) corresponding advantages for Germany
within the German coastal zone and over the island of Mafia.
Finally (9), the island of Heligoland, in the North Sea, was
ceded by Britain to Germany." By a treaty concluded in June,
1891, between Great Britain and Portugal, "Great Britain
acquired a broad central sphere of influence for the expansion
of her possessions in South Africa northward to and beyond the
Zambezi, along a path which provides for the uninterrupted
passage of British goods and British enterprise, up to the
confines of the Congo Independent State and German East
Africa. … Portugal, on the East Coast secured the Lower
Zambezi from Zumbo, and the Lower Shiré from the Ruo
Confluence, the entire Hinterland of Mosambique up to Lake
Nyassa and the Hinterland of Sofala to the confines of the
South African Republic and the Matabele kingdom. On the West
Coast, Portugal received the entire Hinterland behind her
provinces in Lower Guinea, up to the confines of the Congo
Independent State, and the upper course of the Zambezi. … On
May 25th 1891 a Convention was signed at Lisbon, which has put an
end to the dispute between Portugal and the Congo Independent
State as to the possession of Lunda. Roughly speaking, the
country was equally divided between the disputants. … Lord
Salisbury, in his negotiations with Germany and Portugal, very
wisely upheld the principle of free-trade which was laid down by
the Act of Berlin, 1885, in regard to the free transit of
goods through territories in which two or more powers are
indirectly interested."
_A. S. White,
The Development of Africa,
Second Edition, Revised, 1892._
ALSO IN:
_J. S. Keltie,
The Partition of Africa,
chapter 12-23._
See, also, SOUTH AFRICA, and UGANDA.
AFRICA: The inhabiting races.
The indigenous races of Africa are considered to be four in
number, namely: the Negroes proper, who occupy a central zone,
stretching from the Atlantic to the Egyptian Sudan, and who
comprise an enormous number of diverse tribes; the Fulahs
(with whom the Nubians are associated) settled mainly between
Lake Chad and the Niger; the Bantus, who occupy the whole
South, except its extremity, and the Hottentots who are in
that extreme southern region. Some anthropologists include
with the Hottentots the Bosjesmans or Bushmen. The Kafirs and
Bechuanas are Bantu tribes. The North and Northeast are
occupied by Semitic and Hamitic races, the latter including
Abyssinians and Gallas.
_A. H. Keane,
The African Races (Stanford's Compendium:
Africa, appendix)._
ALSO IN:
_R. Brown,
The Races of Mankind,
volumes 2-3._
_R. N. Cust,
Sketch of the Modern Languages of Africa_.
See, also, SOUTH AFRICA.
----------AFRICA: End----------
AGA MOHAMMED KHAN, Shah of Persia, A. D. 1795-1797.
AGADE.
See BABYLONIA: THE EARLY (CHALDEAN) MONARCHY.
AGAPETUS II., Pope, A. D. 946-956.
AGAS.
See SUBLIME PORTE.
AGATHO, Pope, A. D. 678-682.
AGATHOCLES, The tyranny of.
See SYRACUSE: B. C. 317-289.
AGE OF STONE.
AGE OF BRONZE, &c.
See STONE AGE.
{20}
AGELA.
AGELATAS.
The youths and young men of ancient Crete were publicly
trained and disciplined in divisions or companies, each of
which was called an Agela, and its leader or director the
Agelatas.
_G. Schömann,
Antiquity of Greece: The State,
part 3, chapter 2._
AGEMA, The.
The royal escort of Alexander the Great.
AGEN, Origin of.
See NITIOBRIGES.
AGENDICUM OR AGEDINCUM.
See SENONES.
AGER PUBLICUS.
"Rome was always making fresh acquisitions of territory in her
early history. … Large tracts of country became Roman land,
the property of the Roman state, or public domain (ager
publicus), as the Romans called it. The condition of this
land, the use to which it was applied, and the disputes which
it caused between the two orders at Rome, are among the most
curious and perplexing questions in Roman history. … That
part of newly acquired territory which was neither sold nor
given remained public property, and it was occupied, according
to the Roman term, by private persons, in whose hands it was a
Possessio. Hyginus and Siculus Flaccus represent this
occupation as being made without any order. Every Roman took
what he could, and more than he could use profitably. … We
should be more inclined to believe that this public land was
occupied under some regulations, in order to prevent disputes;
but if such regulations existed we know nothing about them.
There was no survey made of the public land which was from
time to time acquired, but there were certainly general
boundaries fixed for the purpose of determining what had
become public property. The lands which were sold and given
were of necessity surveyed and fixed by boundaries. … There
is no direct evidence that any payments to the state were
originally made by the Possessors. It is certain, however,
that at some early time such payments were made, or, at least,
were due to the state."
_G. Long,
Decline of the Roman Republic,
chapter 11._
AGGER.
See CASTRA.
AGGRAVIADOS, The.
See SPAIN: A. D. 1814-1827.
AGHA MOHAMMED KHAN, Shah of Persia, A. D. 1795-1797.
AGHLABITE DYNASTY.
See MAHOMETAN CONQUEST AND EMPIRE: A. D.715-750.
AGHRIM, OR AUGHRIM, Battle of (A. D. 1691).
See IRELAND: A. D. 1689-1691.
AGILULPHUS, King of the Lombards. A. D. 590-616.
AGINCOURT, Battle of (1415).
See FRANCE: A. D. 1415.
AGINNUM.
Modern Agen.
See NITIOBRIGES.
AGNADEL, Battle of (1509).
See VENICE: A. D. 1508-1509.
AGNATI.
AGNATIC.
See GENS, ROMAN.
AGNIERS, The.
See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: AGNIERS.
AGOGE, The.
The public discipline enforced in ancient Sparta; the
ordinances attributed to Lycurgus, for the training of the
young and for the regulating of the lives of citizens.
_G. Schömann,
Antiquity of Greece: The State,
part 3, chapter 1._
AGORA, The.
The market-place of an ancient Greek city was, also, the
centre of its political life. "Like the gymnasium, and even
earlier than this, it grew into architectural splendour with
the increasing culture of the Greeks. In maritime cities it
generally lay near the sea; in inland places at the foot of
the hill which carried the old feudal castle. Being the oldest
part of the city, it naturally became the focus not only of
commercial, but also of religious and political life. Here
even in Homer's time the citizens assembled in consultation,
for which purpose it was supplied with seats; here were the
oldest sanctuaries; here were celebrated the first festive
games; here centred the roads on which the intercommunication,
both religious and commercial, with neighbouring cities and
states was carried on; from here started the processions which
continually passed between holy places of kindred origin,
though locally separated. Although originally all public
transactions were carried on in these market-places, special
local arrangements for contracting public business soon became
necessary in large cities. At Athens, for instance, the gently
rising ground of the Philopappos hill, called Pnyx, touching
the Agora, was used for political consultations, while most
likely, about the time of the Pisistratides, the market of
Kerameikos, the oldest seat of Attic industry (lying between
the foot of the Akropolis, the Areopagos and the hill of
Theseus), became the agora proper, i. e., the centre of
Athenian commerce. … The description by Vitruvius of an
agora evidently refers to the splendid structures of
post-Alexandrine times. According to him it was quadrangular
in size [? shape] and surrounded by wide double colonades. The
numerous columns carried architraves of common stone or of
marble, and on the roofs of the porticoes were galleries for
walking purposes. This, of course, does not apply to all
marketplaces, even of later date; but, upon the whole, the
remaining specimens agree with the description of Vitruvius."
_E. Guhl and W. Koner,
Life of the Greeks and Romans,
translated by Hueffer,
part 1, section 26._
In the Homeric time, the general assembly of freemen was
called the Agora.
_G. Grote,
History of Greece,
part 1, chapter 20._
AGRÆI, The.
See AKARNANIANS.
AGRARIAN LAWS, Roman.
"Great mistakes formerly prevailed on the nature of the Roman
laws familiarly termed Agrarian. It was supposed that by these
laws all land was declared common property, and that at
certain intervals of time the state resumed possession and
made a fresh distribution to all citizens, rich and poor. It
is needless to make any remarks on the nature and consequences
of such a law; sufficient it will be to say, what is now known
to all, that at Rome such laws never existed, never were
thought of. The lands which were to be distributed by Agrarian
laws were not private property, but the property of the state.
They were, originally, those public lands which had been the
domain of the kings, and which were increased whenever any
City or people was conquered by the Romans; because it was an
Italian practice to confiscate the lands of the conquered, in
whole or in part."
_H. G. Liddell,
History of Rome,
book 2, chapter 8._
See ROME: B. C. 376, and B. C. 133-121.
{21}
AGRI DECUMATES, The.
"Between the Rhine and the Upper Danube there intervenes a
triangular tract of land, the apex of which touches the
confines of Switzerland at Basel; thus separating, as with an
enormous wedge, the provinces of Gaul and Vindelicia, and
presenting at its base no natural line of defence from one river
to the other. This tract was, however, occupied, for the most
part, by forests, and if it broke the line of the Roman
defences, it might at least be considered impenetrable to an
enemy. Abandoned by the warlike and predatory tribes of
Germany, it was seized by wandering immigrants from Gaul, many
of them Roman adventurers, before whom the original
inhabitants, the Marcomanni, or men of the frontier, seem to
have retreated eastward beyond the Hercynian forest. The
intruders claimed or solicited Roman protection, and offered
in return a tribute from the produce of the soil, whence the
district itself came to be known by the title of the Agri
Decumates, or Tithed Land. It was not, however, officially
connected with any province of the Empire, nor was any attempt
made to provide for its permanent security, till a period much
later than that on which we are now engaged [the period of
Augustus]."
_C. Merivale,
History of the Roman,
chapter 36._.
"Wurtemburg, Baden and Hohenzollern coincide with the Agri
Decumates of the Roman writers."
_R G. Latham,
Ethnology of Europe,
chapter 8._
See, also, ALEMANNI, and SUEVI.
AGRICOLA'S CAMPAIGNS IN BRITAIN.
See BRITAIN: A. D. 78-84.
AGRIGENTUM.
Acragas, or Agrigentum, one of the youngest of the Greek
colonies in Sicily, founded about B. C. 582 by the older
colony of Gela, became one of the largest and most splendid
cities of the age, in the fifth century B. C., as is testified
by its ruins to this day. It was the scene of the notorious
tyranny of Phalaris, as well as that of Theron. Agrigentum was
destroyed by the Carthagenians, B. C. 405, and rebuilt by
Timoleon, but never recovered its former importance and
grandeur.
_E. Curtius,
History of Greece,
book 4, chapter 3._
See, also, PHALARIS, BRAZEN BULL OF.
Agrigentum was destroyed by the Carthagenians in 406 B. C.
See SICILY: B. C. 409-405.
Rebuilt by Timoleon, it was the scene of a great defeat of the
Carthagenians by the Romans, in 262 B. C.
See PUNIC WAR, THE FIRST.
AGRIPPINA AND HER SON NERO.
See ROME: A. D. 47-54, and 54-64.
AHMED KHEL, Battle of (1880).
See AFGHANISTAN: A. D. 1869-1881.
AIGINA.
See ÆGINA.
AIGOSPOTAMOI, Battle of.
See GREECE: B. C. 405.
AIGUILLON, Siege of.
A notable siege in the "Hundred Years' War," A. D. 1346. An
English garrison under the famous knight, Sir Walter Manny,
held the great fortress of Aiguillon, near the confluence of
the Garonne and the Lot, against a formidable French army.
_J. Froissart,
Chronicles,
volume 1, book 1, chapter 120._
AIX, Origin of.
See SALYES.
AIX-LA-CHAPELLE:
The Capital of Charlemagne.
The favorite residence and one of the two capitals of
Charlemagne was the city which the Germans call Aachen and the
French have named Aix-la-Chapelle. "He ravished the ruins of
the ancient world to restore the monumental arts. A new Rome
arose in the depths of the forests of Austrasia—palaces,
gates, bridges, baths, galleries, theatres, churches,—for the
erection of which the mosaics and marbles of Italy were laid
under tribute, and workmen summoned from all parts of Europe.
It was there that an extensive library was gathered, there
that the school of the palace was made permanent, there that
foreign envoys were pompously welcomed, there that the monarch
perfected his plans for the introduction of Roman letters and
the improvement of music."
_P. Godwin,
History of France: Ancient Gaul,
book 4, chapter 17._
AIX-LA-CHAPELLE, Treaty of (A. D. 803).
See VENICE: A. D. 697-810.
AIX-LA-CHAPELLE, Treaty of (A. D. 1668).
See NETHERLANDS (HOLLAND): A. D. 1668.
AIX-LA-CHAPELLE,
The Congress and Treaty which ended the War of the Austrian
Succession (1748).
The War of the Austrian Succession, which raged in Europe, and
on the ocean, and in India and America, from 1740 to 1748 (see
AUSTRIA: A. D. 1718-1738, 1740-1741, and after), was brought
to an end in the latter year by a Congress of all the
belligerents which met at Aix-la-Chapelle, in April, and which
concluded its labors on the 18th of October following. "The
influence of England and Holland … forced the peace upon
Austria and Sardinia, though both were bitterly aggrieved by
its conditions. France agreed to restore every conquest she
had made during the war, to abandon the cause of the Stuarts,
and expel the Pretender from her soil; to demolish, in
accordance with earlier treaties, the fortifications of
Dunkirk on the side of the sea, while retaining those on the
side of the land, and to retire from the conquest without
acquiring any fresh territory or any pecuniary compensation.
England in like manner restored the few conquests she had
made, and submitted to the somewhat humiliating condition of
sending hostages to Paris as a security for the restoration of
Cape Breton. … The disputed boundary between Canada and Nova
Scotia, which had been a source of constant difficulty with
France, was left altogether undefined. The Assiento treaty for
trade with the Spanish colonies was confirmed for the four
years it had still to run; but no real compensation was
obtained for a war expenditure which is said to have exceeded
sixty-four millions, and which had raised the funded and
unfunded debt to more than seventy-eight millions. Of the
other Powers, Holland, Genoa, and the little state of Modena
retained their territory as before the war, and Genoa remained
mistress of the Duchy of Finale, which had been ceded to the king
of Sardinia by the Treaty of Worms, and which it had been a
main object of his later policy to secure. Austria obtained a
recognition of the election of the Emperor, a general
guarantee of the Pragmatic Sanction, and the restoration of
everything she had lost in the Netherlands, but she gained no
additional territory. She was compelled to confirm the cession
of Silesia and Glatz to Prussia, to abandon her Italian
conquests, and even to cede a considerable part of her former
Italian dominions. To the bitter indignation of Maria Theresa,
the Duchies of Parma, Placentia and Guastella passed to Don
Philip of Spain, to revert, however, to their former
possessors if Don Philip mounted the Spanish throne, or died
without male issue. The King of Sardinia also obtained from
Austria the territorial cessions enumerated In the Treaty of
Worms [see ITALY: A. D. 1743], with the important exceptions
of Placentia, which passed to Don Philip, and of Finale, which
remained with the Genoese.
{22}
For the loss of these he obtained no compensation. Frederick
[the Great, of Prussia] obtained a general guarantee for the
possession of his newly acquired territory, and a long list of
old treaties was formally confirmed. Thus small were the
changes effected in Europe by so much bloodshed and treachery,
by nearly nine years of wasteful and desolating war. The
design of the dismemberment of Austria had failed, but no
vexed questions had been set at rest. … Of all the ambitious
projects that had been conceived during the war, that of
Frederick alone was substantially realized."
_W. E. H. Lecky,
History of England, 18th Century,
chapter 3._
"Thus ended the War of the Austrian succession. In its origin
and its motives one of the most wicked of all the many
conflicts which ambition and perfidy have provoked in Europe,
it excites a peculiarly mournful interest by the gross
inequality in the rewards and penalties which fortune assigned
to the leading actors. Prussia, Spain and Sardinia were all
endowed out of the estates of the house of Hapsburg. But the
electoral house of Bavaria, the most sincere and the most
deserving of all the claimants to that vast inheritance, not
only received no increase of territory, but even nearly lost
its own patrimonial possessions. … The most trying problem
is still that offered by the misfortunes of the Queen of
Hungary [Maria Theresa]. … The verdict of history, as
expressed by the public opinion, and by the vast majority of
writers, in every country except Prussia, upholds the justice
of the queen's cause and condemns the coalition that was
formed against her."
_H. Tuttle,
History of Prussia, 1745-1756,
chapter 2._
ALSO IN
_W. Russell,
History of Modern Europe,
part 2, letter 30._
_W. Coxe,
History of the House of Austria,
chapter 108 (volume 3)._
See, also, NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1745-1748.
AIZNADIN, Battle of (A. D. 634).
See MAHOMETAN CONQUEST: A. D. 632-639.
AKARNANIAN LEAGUE, The.
"Of the Akarnanian League, formed by one of the least
important, but at the same time one of the most estimable
peoples in Greece … our knowledge is only fragmentary. The
boundaries of Akarnania fluctuated, but we always find the
people spoken of as a political whole. … Thucydides speaks,
by implication at least, of the Akarnanian League as an
institution of old standing in his time. The Akarnanians had,
in early times, occupied the hill of Olpai as a place for
judicial proceedings common to the whole nation. Thus the
supreme court of the Akarnanian Union held its sittings, not
in a town, but in a mountain fortress. But in Thucydides' own
time Stratos had attained its position as the greatest city of
Akarnania, and probably the federal assemblies were already
held there. … Of the constitution of the League we know but
little. Ambassadors were sent by the federal body, and
probably, just as in the Achaian League, it would have been
held to be a breach of the federal tie if any single city had
entered on diplomatic intercourse with other powers. As in
Achaia, too, there stood at the head of the League a General
with high authority. … The existence of coins bearing the
name of the whole Akarnanian nation shows that there was unity
enough to admit of a federal coinage, though coins of
particular cities also occur."
_E. A. Freeman,
History of Federal Government,
chapter 4, section 1._
AKARNANIANS (Acarnanians).
The Akarnanians formed "a link of transition" between the
ancient Greeks and their barbarous or non-Hellenic neighbours
in the Epirus and beyond. "They occupied the territory between
the river Acheloûs, the Ionian sea and the Ambrakian gulf:
they were Greeks and admitted as such to contend at the
Pan-Hellenic games, yet they were also closely connected with
the Amphilochi and Agræi, who were not Greeks. In manners,
sentiments and intelligence, they were half-Hellenic and
half-Epirotic,—like the Ætolians and the Ozolian Lokrians.
Even down to the time of Thucydides, these nations were
subdivided into numerous petty communities, lived in
unfortified villages, were frequently in the habit of
plundering each other, and never permitted themselves to be
unarmed. … Notwithstanding this state of disunion and
insecurity, however, the Akarnanians maintained a loose
political league among themselves. … The Akarnanians appear
to have produced many prophets. They traced up their mythical
ancestry, as well as that of their neighbours the
Amphilochians, to the most renowned prophetic family among the
Grecian heroes,—Amphiaraus, with his sons Alkmæôn and
Ampilochus: Akarnan, the eponymous hero of the nation, and
other eponymous heroes of the separate towns, were supposed to
be the sons of Alkmæôn. They are spoken of, together with the
Ætolians, as mere rude shepherds, by the lyric poet Alkman,
and so they seem to have continued with little alteration
until the beginning of the Peloponnesian war, when we hear of
them, for the first time, as allies of Athens and as bitter
enemies of the Corinthian colonies on their coast. The contact
of those colonies, however, and the large spread of Akarnanian
accessible coast, could not fail to produce some effect in
socializing and improving the people. And it is probable that
this effect would have been more sensibly felt, had not the
Akarnanians been kept back by the fatal neighbourhood of the
Ætolians, with whom they were in perpetual feud,—a people the
most unprincipled and unimprovable of all who bore the
Hellenic name, and whose habitual faithlessness stood in
marked contrast with the rectitude and steadfastness of the
Akarnanian character."
_G. Grote,
History of Greece,
part 2, chapter 24._
AKBAR (called The Great), Moghul Emperor or Padischah of India,
A. D. 1556-1605.
AKHALZIKH, Siege and capture of (1828).
See TURKS: A. D. 1826-1829.
AKKAD.
AKKADIANS.
See BABYLONIA, PRIMITIVE.
AKKARON.
See PHILISTINES.
AKROKERAUNIAN PROMONTORY.
See KORKYRA.
ALABAMA:
The Aboriginal Inhabitants.
See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: APALACHES: MUSKHOGEE FAMILY;
CHEROKEES.
ALABAMA: A. D. 1539-1542.
Traversed by Hernando de Soto.
See FLORIDA: A. D. 1528-1542.
ALABAMA: A. D. 1629.
Embraced in the Carolina grant to Sir Robert Heath.
See AMERICA: A. D. 1629.
ALABAMA: A. D. 1663.
Embraced in the Carolina grant to Monk, Shaftesbury, and others.
See NORTH CAROLINA: A. D. 1663-1670.
{23}
ALABAMA: A. D. 1702-1711.
French occupation and first settlement.
The founding of Mobile.
See LOUISIANA: A. D. 1698-1712.
ALABAMA: A. D. 1732.
Mostly embraced in the new province of Georgia.
See GEORGIA: A. D. 1732-1739.
ALABAMA: A. D. 1763.
Cession and delivery to Great Britain.
Partly embraced in West Florida.
See SEVEN YEARS' WAR;
and FLORIDA: A. D. 1763:
and NORTHWEST TERRITORY: A. D. 1763.
ALABAMA: A. D. 1779-1781.
Reconquest of West Florida by the Spaniards.
See FLORIDA: A. D. 1779-1781.
ALABAMA: A. D. 1783.
Mostly covered by the English cession to the United States.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1783 (SEPTEMBER).
ALABAMA: A. D. 1783-1787.
Partly in dispute with Spain.
See FLORIDA: A. D. 1783-1787.
ALABAMA: A. D. 1798-1804.
All but the West Florida District embraced in Mississippi Territory.
See MISSISSIPPI: A. D. 1798-1804.
ALABAMA: A. D. 1803.
Portion acquired by the Louisiana purchase.
See LOUISIANA: A.D. 1798-1803.
ALABAMA: A. D. 1813.
Possession of Mobile and West Florida taken from the Spaniards.
See FLORIDA: A. D. 1810-1813.
ALABAMA: A. D. 1813-1814.
The Creek War.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1813-1814 (AUGUST-APRIL).
ALABAMA: A. D. 1817-1819.
Organized as a Territory.
Constituted a State, and admitted to the Union.
"By an act of Congress dated March 1, 1817, Mississippi
Territory was divided. Another act, bearing the date March 3,
thereafter, organized the western [? eastern] portion into a
Territory, to be known as Alabama, and with the boundaries as
they now exist. … By an act approved March 2, 1819, congress
authorized the inhabitants of the Territory of Alabama to form
a state constitution, 'and that said Territory, when formed
into a State, shall be admitted into the Union upon the same
footing as the original States.' … The joint resolution of
congress admitting Alabama into the Union was approved by
President Monroe, December 14, 1819."
_W. Brewer,
Alabama,
chapter 5._
ALABAMA: A. D. 1861 (January).
Secession from the Union.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1861 (JANUARY-FEBRUARY).
ALABAMA: A. D. 1862.
General Mitchell's Expedition.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1862 (APRIL-MAY: ALABAMA).
ALABAMA: A. D. 1864 (August).
The Battle of Mobile Bay.
Capture of Confederate forts and fleet.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1864(AUGUST: ALABAMA).
ALABAMA: A. D. 1865 (March-April).
The Fall of Mobile.
Wilson's Raid.
End of the Rebellion.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1865 (APRIL-MAY).
ALABAMA: A. D. 1865-1868.
Reconstruction.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
A. D. 1865 (MAY-JULY), to 1868-1870.
----------ALABAMA: End----------
ALABAMA CLAIMS, The: A. D. 1861-1862.
In their Origin.
The Earlier Confederate cruisers.
Precursors of the Alabama.
The commissioning of privateers, and of more officially
commanded cruisers, in the American civil war, by the
government of the Southern Confederacy, was begun early in the
progress of the movement of rebellion, pursuant to a
proclamation issued by Jefferson Davis on the 17th of April,
1861. "Before the close of July, 1861, more than 20 of those
depredators were afloat, and had captured millions of property
belonging to American citizens. The most formidable and
notorious of the sea-going ships of this character, were the
Nashville, Captain R. B. Pegram, a Virginian, who had
abandoned his flag, and the Sumter [a regularly commissioned
war vessel], Captain Raphael Semmes. The former was a
side-wheel steamer, carried a crew of eighty men, and was
armed with two long 12-pounder rifled cannon. Her career was
short, but quite successful. She was finally destroyed by the
Montauk, Captain Worden, in the Ogeechee River. The career of
the Sumter, which had been a New Orleans and Havana packet
steamer named Marquis de Habana, was also short, but much more
active and destructive. She had a crew of sixty-five men and
twenty-five marines, and was heavily armed. She ran the
blockade at the mouth of the Mississippi River on the 30th of
June, and was pursued some distance by the Brooklyn. She ran
among the West India islands and on the Spanish Main, and soon
made prizes of many vessels bearing the American flag. She was
everywhere received in British Colonial ports with great
favor, and was afforded every facility for her piratical
operations. She became the terror of the American merchant
service, and everywhere eluded National vessels of war sent
out in pursuit of her. At length she crossed the ocean, and at
the close of 1861 was compelled to seek shelter under British
guns at Gibraltar, where she was watched by the Tuscarora.
Early in the year 1862 she was sold, and thus ended her
piratical career. Encouraged by the practical friendship of
the British evinced for these corsairs, and the substantial
aid they were receiving from British subjects in various ways,
especially through blockade-runners, the conspirators
determined to procure from those friends some powerful
piratical craft, and made arrangements for the purchase and
construction of vessels for that purpose. Mr. Laird, a
ship-builder at Liverpool and member of the British
Parliament, was the largest contractor in the business, and,
in defiance of every obstacle, succeeded in getting pirate
ships to sea. The first of these ships that went to sea was
the Oreto, ostensibly built for a house in Palermo, Sicily.
Mr. Adams, the American minister in London, was so well
satisfied from information received that she was designed for
the Confederates, that he called the attention of the British
government to the matter so early as the 18th of February,
1862. But nothing effective was done, and she was completed
and allowed to depart from British waters. She went first to
Nassau, and on the 4th of September suddenly appeared off
Mobile harbor, flying the British flag and pennants. The
blockading squadron there was in charge of Commander George H.
Preble, who had been specially instructed not to give offense
to foreign nations while enforcing the blockade. He believed
the Oreto to be a British vessel, and while deliberating a few
minutes as to what he should do, she passed out of range of
his guns, and entered the harbor with a rich freight. For his
seeming remissness Commander Preble was summarily dismissed
from the service without a hearing—an act which subsequent
events seemed to show was cruel injustice. Late in December
the Oreto escaped from Mobile, fully armed for a piratical
cruise, under the command of John Newland Maffit. … The name
of the Oreto was changed to that of Florida."
_B. J. Lossing,
Field Book of the Civil War,
volume 2, chapter 21._
{24}
The fate of the Florida is related below—A. D. 1862-1865.
_R. Semmes,
Memoirs of Service Afloat,
chapters 9-26._
ALSO IN
_J. Davis,
Rise and Fall of the Confederate Government,
chapters 30-31 (volume 2)._
ALABAMA CLAIMS, The: A. D. 1862-1864.
The Alabama, her career and her fate.
"The Alabama [the second cruiser built in England for the
Confederates] … is thus described by Semmes, her commander:
'She was of about 900 tons burden, 230 feet in length, 32 feet
in breadth, 20 feet in depth, and drew, when provisioned and
coaled for cruise, 15 feet of water. She was
barkentine-rigged, with long lower masts, which enabled her to
carry large fore and aft sails, as jibs and try-sails. … Her
engine was of 300 horse-power, and she had attached an
apparatus for condensing from the vapor of sea-water all the
fresh water that her crew might require. … Her armament
consisted of eight guns.' … The Alabama was built and, from
the outset, was 'intended for a Confederate vessel of war.'
The contract for her construction was signed by Captain
Bullock on the one part and Messrs. Laird on the other.' …
On the 15th of May [1862] she was launched under the name of
the 290. Her officers were in England awaiting her completion,
and were paid their salaries 'monthly, about the first of the
month, at Fraser, Trenholm & Co.'s office in Liverpool.' The
purpose for which this vessel was being constructed was
notorious in Liverpool. Before she was launched she became an
object of suspicion with the Consul of the United States at
that port, and she was the subject of constant correspondence
on his part with his Government and with Mr. Adams. … Early
in the history of this cruiser the point was taken by the
British authorities—a point maintained throughout the
struggle—that they would originate nothing themselves for
the maintenance and performance of their international duties,
and that they would listen to no representations from the
officials of the United States which did not furnish technical
evidence for a criminal prosecution under the Foreign
Enlistment Act. … At last Mr. Dudley [the Consul of the
United States at Liverpool] succeeded in finding the desired
proof. On the 21st day of July, he laid it in the form of
affidavits before the Collector at Liverpool in compliance
with the intimations which Mr. Adams had received from Earl
Russell. These affidavits were on the same day transmitted by
the Collector to the Board of Customs at London, with a
request for instructions by telegraph, as the ship appeared to
be ready for sea and might leave any hour. … It … appears
that notwithstanding this official information from the
Collector, the papers were not considered by the law advisers
until the 28th, and that the case appeared to them to be so
clear that they gave their advice upon it that evening. Under
these circumstances, the delay of eight days after the 21st in
the order for the detention of the vessel was, in the opinion
of the United States, gross negligence on the part of Her
Majesty's Government. On the 29th the Secretary of the
Commission of the Customs received a telegram from Liverpool
saying that the vessel 290 came out of dock last night, and
left the port this morning.' … After leaving the dock she
proceeded slowly down the Mersey.' Both the Lairds were on
board, and also Bullock. … The 290 slowly steamed on to
Moelfra Bay, on the coast of Anglesey, where she remained 'all
that night, all the next day, and the next night.' No effort
was made to seize her. … When the Alabama left Moelfra Bay
her crew numbered about 90 men. She ran part way down the
Irish Channel, then round the north coast of Ireland, only
stopping near the Giant's Causeway. She then made for
Terceira, one of the Azores, which she reached on the 10th of
August. On 18th of August, while she was at Terceira, a sail
was observed making for the anchorage. It proved to be the
'Agrippina of London, Captain McQueen, having on board six
guns, with ammunition, coals, stores, &c., for the Alabama.'
Preparations were immediately made to transfer this important
cargo. On the afternoon of the 20th, while employed
discharging the bark, the screw-steamer Bahama, Captain
Tessier (the same that had taken the armament to the Florida,
whose insurgent ownership and character were well known in
Liverpool), arrived, 'having on board Commander Raphael Semmes
and officers of the Confederate States steamer Sumter.' There
were also taken from this steamer two 32-pounders and some
stores, which occupied all the remainder of that day and a
part of the next. The 22d and 23d of August were taken up in
transferring coal from the Agrippina to the Alabama. It was
not until Sunday (the 24th) that the insurgents' flag was
hoisted. Bullock and those who were not going in the 290 went
back to the Bahama, and the Alabama, now first known under
that name, went off with '26 officers and 85 men.'"
_The Case of the United States before the Tribunal of
Arbitration at Geneva (42d Congress, 2d Session,
Senate Ex. Doc., No. 31, pages 146-151)._
The Alabama "arrived at Porto Praya on the 19th August.
Shortly thereafter Capt. Raphael Semmes assumed command.
Hoisting the Confederate flag, she cruised and captured
several vessels in the vicinity of Flores. Cruising to the
westward, and making several captures, she approached within
200 miles of New York; thence going southward, arrived, on the
18th November, at Port Royal, Martinique. On the night of the
19th she escaped from the harbour and the Federal steamer San
Jacinto, and on the 20th November was at Blanquilla. On the
7th December she captured the steamer Ariel in the passage
between Cuba and St. Domingo. On January 11th, 1863, she sunk
the Federal gunboat Hatteras off Galveston, and on the 30th
arrived at Jamaica. Cruising to the eastward, and making many
captures, she arrived on the 10th April, at Fernando de
Noronha, 'and on the 11th May at Bahia, where, on the 13th,
she was joined by the Confederate steamer Georgia. Cruising
near the line, thence southward towards the Cape of Good Hope,
numerous captures were made. On the 29th July she anchored in
Saldanha Bay, South Africa, and near there on the 5th August,
was joined by the Confederate bark Tuscaloosa, Commander Low.
In September, 1863, she was at St. Simon's Bay, and in October
was in the Straits of Sunda, and up to January 20, 1864,
cruised in the Bay of Bengal and vicinity, visiting
Singapore, and making a number of very valuable captures,
including the Highlander, Sonora, etc.
{25}
From this point she cruised on her homeward track via Cape of
Good Hope, capturing the bark Tycoon and ship Rockingham, and
arrived at Cherbourg, France, in June, 1864, where she
repaired. A Federal steamer, the Kearsarge, was lying off the
harbour. Capt. Semmes might easily have evaded this enemy; the
business of his vessel was that of a privateer; and her value
to the Confederacy was out of all comparison with a single
vessel of the enemy. … But Capt. Semmes had been twitted
with the name of 'pirate;' and he was easily persuaded to
attempt an éclat for the Southern Confederacy by a naval fight
within sight of the French coast, which contest, it was
calculated, would prove the Alabama a legitimate war vessel,
and give such an exhibition of Confederate belligerency as
possibly to revive the question of 'recognition' in Paris and
London. These were the secret motives of the gratuitous fight
with which Capt. Semmes obliged the enemy off the port of
Cherbourg. The Alabama carried one 7-inch Blakely rifled gun,
one 8-inch smooth-bore pivot gun, and six 32-pounders,
smooth-bore, in broadside; the Kearsarge carried four
broadside 32-pounders, two 11-inch and one 28-pound rifle. The
two vessels were thus about equal in match and armament; and
their tonnage was about the same."
_E. A. Pollard,
The Lost Cause,
page 549._
Captain Winslow, commanding the United States Steamer
Kearsarge, in a report to the Secretary of the Navy written on
the afternoon of the day of his battle with the Alabama, June
19, 1864, said: "I have the honor to inform the department
that the day subsequent to the arrival of the Kearsarge off
this port, on the 24th [14th] instant, I received a note from
Captain Semmes, begging that the Kearsarge would not depart,
as he intended to fight her, and would delay her but a day or
two. According to this notice, the Alabama left the port of
Cherbourg this morning at about half past nine o'clock. At
twenty minutes past ten A. M., we discovered her steering
towards us. Fearing the question of jurisdiction might arise,
we steamed to sea until a distance of six or seven miles was
attained from the Cherbourg break-water, when we rounded to
and commenced steaming for the Alabama. As we approached her,
within about 1,200 yards, she opened fire, we receiving two or
three broadsides before a shot was returned. The action
continued, the respective steamers making a circle round and
round at a distance of about 900 yards from each other. At the
expiration of an hour the Alabama struck, going down in about
twenty minutes afterward, carrying many persons with her." In
a report two days later, Captain Winslow gave the following
particulars: "Toward the close of the action between the
Alabama and this vessel, all available sail was made on the
former for the purpose of again reaching Cherbourg. When the
object was apparent, the Kearsarge was steered across the bow
of the Alabama for a raking fire; but before reaching this
point the Alabama struck. Uncertain whether Captain Semmes was
not using some ruse, the Kearsarge was stopped. It was seen,
shortly afterward, that the Alabama was lowering her boats,
and an officer came alongside in one of them to say that they
had surrendered, and were fast sinking, and begging that boats
would be despatched immediately for saving life. The two boats
not disabled were at once lowered, and as it was apparent the
Alabama was settling, this officer was permitted to leave in
his boat to afford assistance. An English yacht, the
Deerhound, had approached near the Kearsarge at this time,
when I hailed and begged the commander to run down to the
Alabama, as she was fast sinking, and we had but two boats,
and assist in picking up the men. He answered affirmatively,
and steamed toward the Alabama, but the latter sank almost
immediately. The Deerhound, however, sent her boats and was
actively engaged, aided by several others which had come from
shore.' These boats were busy in bringing the wounded and
others to the Kearsarge; whom we were trying to make as
comfortable as possible, when it was reported to me that the
Deerhound was moving off. I could not believe that the
commander of that vessel could be guilty of so disgraceful an
act as taking our prisoners off, and therefore took no means
to prevent it, but continued to keep our boats at work
rescuing the men in the water. I am sorry to say that I was
mistaken. The Deerhound made off with Captain Semmes and
others, and also the very officer who had come on board to
surrender."—In a still later report Captain Winslow gave the
following facts: "The fire of the Alabama, although it is stated
she discharged 370 or more shell and shot, was not of serious
damage to the Kearsarge. Some 13 or 14 of these had taken
effect in and about the hull, and 16 or 17 about the masts and
rigging. The casualties were small, only three persons having
been wounded. … The fire of the Kearsarge, although only 173
projectiles had been discharged, according to the prisoners'
accounts, was terrific. One shot alone had killed and wounded
18 men, and disabled a gun. Another had entered the
coal-bunkers, exploding, and completely blocking up the engine
room; and Captain Semmes states that shot and shell had taken
effect in the sides of his vessel, tearing large holes by
explosion, and his men were everywhere knocked down."
_Rebellion Record,
volume 9, pages 221-225._
ALSO IN
_J. R. Soley,
The Blockade and the Cruisers (The Navy in the Civil War;
volume 1, chapter 7._
_J. R. Soley, J. McI. Kell and J. M. Browne,
The Confederate Cruisers (Battles and Leaders,
volume 3._
_R. Semmes,
Memoirs of Service Afloat,
chapters 29-55._
_J. D. Bullock,
Secret Service of the Confederate States in Europe,
volume 1, chapter 5._
ALABAMA CLAIMS, The: A. D. 1862-1865.
Other Confederate cruisers.
"A score of other Confederate cruisers roamed the seas, to
prey upon United States commerce, but none of them became
quite so famous as the Sumter and the Alabama. They included
the Shenandoah, which made 38 captures, the Florida, which
made 36, the Tallahassee, which made 27, the Tacony, which
made 15, and the Georgia, which made 10. The Florida was
captured in the harbor of Bahia, Brazil, in October, 1864, by
a United States man-of·war [the Wachusett: commander Collins],
in violation of the neutrality of the port. For this the
United States Government apologized to Brazil and ordered the
restoration of the Florida to the harbor where she was
captured. But in Hampton Roads she met with an accident and
sank. It was generally believed that the apparent accident was
contrived with the connivance, if not by direct order, of the
Government. Most of these cruisers were built in British
shipyards."
_R. Johnson,
Short History of the War of Secession,
chapter 24._
{26}
The last of the destroyers of American commerce, the
Shenandoah, was a British merchant ship—the Sea King—built
for the Bombay trade, but purchased by the Confederate agent,
Captain Bullock, armed with six guns, and commissioned
(October, 1865) under her new name. In June, 1865, the
Shenandoah, after a voyage to Australia, in the course of
which she destroyed a dozen merchant ships, made her
appearance in the Northern Sea, near Behring Strait, where she
fell in with the New Bedford whaling fleet. "In the course of
one week, from the 21st to the 28th, twenty-five whalers were
captured, of which four were ransomed, and the remaining 21
were burned. The loss on these 21 whalers was estimated at
upwards of $3,000,000, and considering that it occurred …
two months after the Confederacy had virtually passed out of
existence, it may be characterized as the most useless act of
hostility that occurred during the whole war." The captain of
the Shenandoah had news on the 23d of the fall of Richmond;
yet after that time he destroyed 15 vessels. On his way
southward he received information, August 2d, of the final
collapse of the Confederacy. He then sailed for Liverpool, and
surrendered his vessel to the British Government, which delivered
her to the United States.
_J. R. Soley,
The Confederate Cruisers
(Battles and Leaders, volume 4)._
ALABAMA CLAIMS, The: A. D. 1862-1869.
Definition of the indemnity claims of the United States
against Great Britain.
First stages of the Negotiation.
The rejected Johnson-Clarendon Treaty.
"A review of the history of the negotiations between the two
Governments prior to the correspondence between Sir Edward
Thornton and Mr. Fish, will show … what was intended by
these words, 'generically known as the Alabama Claims,' used
on each side in that correspondence. The correspondence
between the two Governments was opened by Mr. Adams on the
20th of November, 1862 (less than four months after the escape
of the Alabama), in a note to Earl Russell, written under
instructions from the Government of the United States. In this
note Mr. Adams submitted evidence of the acts of the Alabama,
and stated: 'I have the honor to inform Your Lordship of the
directions which I have received from my Government to solicit
redress for the national and private injuries thus sustained.'
… Lord Russell met this notice on the 19th of December,
1862, by a denial of any liability for any injuries growing
out of the acts of the Alabama. … As new losses from time to
time were suffered by individuals during the war, they were
brought to the notice of Her Majesty's Government, and were
lodged with the national and individual claims already
preferred; but argumentative discussion on the issues involved
was by common consent deferred. … The fact that the first
claim preferred grew out of the acts of the Alabama explains
how it was that all the claims growing out of the acts of all
the vessels came to be 'generically known as the Alabama
claims.' On the 7th of April, 1865, the war being virtually
over, Mr. Adams renewed the discussion. He transmitted to Earl
Russell an official report showing the number and tonnage of
American vessels transferred to the British flag during the
war. He said: 'The United States commerce is rapidly vanishing
from the face of the ocean, and that of Great Britain is
multiplying in nearly the same ratio.' 'This process is going
on by reason of the action of British subjects in cooperation
with emissaries of the insurgents, who have supplied from the
ports of Her Majesty's Kingdom all the materials, such as
vessels, armament, supplies, and men, indispensable to the
effective prosecution of this result on the ocean.' … He
stated that he 'was under the painful necessity of announcing
that his Government cannot avoid entailing upon the Government
of Great Britain the responsibility for this damage.' Lord
Russell … said in reply, 'I can never admit that the duties
of Great Britain toward the United States are to be measured
by the losses which the trade and commerce of the United
States have sustained. … Referring to the offer of
arbitration, made on the 26th day of October, 1863, Lord
Russell, in the same note, said: 'Her Majesty's Government
must decline either to make reparation and compensation for
the captures made by the Alabama, or to refer the question to
any foreign State.' This terminated the first stage of the
negotiations between the two Governments. … In the summer of
1866 a change of Ministry took place in England, and Lord
Stanley became Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs in the
place of Lord Clarendon. He took an early opportunity to give
an intimation in the House of Commons that, should the
rejected claims be revived, the new Cabinet was not prepared
to say what answer might be given them; in other words, that,
should an opportunity be offered, Lord Russell's refusal might
possibly be reconsidered. Mr. Seward met these overtures by
instructing Mr. Adams, on the 27th of August, 1866, 'to call
Lord Stanley's attention in a respectful but earnest manner,'
to 'a summary of claims of citizens of the United States, for
damages which were suffered by them during the period of the
civil war,' and to say that the Government of the United
States, while it thus insists upon these particular claims, is
neither desirous nor willing to assume an attitude unkind and
unconciliatory toward Great Britain. … Lord Stanley met this
overture by a communication to Sir Frederick Bruce, in which
he denied the liability of Great Britain, and assented to a
reference, 'provided that a fitting Arbitrator can be found,
and that an agreement can be come to as to the points to which
the arbitration shall apply.' … As the first result of these
negotiations, a convention known as the Stanley-Johnson
convention was signed at London on the 10th of November, 1868.
It proved to be unacceptable to the Government of the United
States. Negotiations were at once resumed, and resulted on the
14th of January, 1869, in the Treaty known as the
Johnson-Clarendon convention [having been negotiated by Mr.
Reverdy Johnson, who had succeeded Mr. Adams as United States
Minister to Great Britain]. This latter convention provided
for the organization of a mixed commission with jurisdiction
over 'all claims on the part of citizens of the United States
upon the Government of Her Britannic Majesty, including the
so-called Alabama claims, and all claims on the part of
subjects of Her Britannic Majesty upon the Government of the
United States which may have been presented to either
government for its interposition with the other since the 26th
July, 1853, and which yet remain unsettled.'" The
Johnson-Clarendon treaty, when submitted to the Senate, was
rejected by that body, in April, "because, although it made
provision for the part of the Alabama claims which consisted
of claims for individual losses, the provision for the more
extensive national losses was not satisfactory to the Senate."
_The Argument of the United States delivered to the
Tribunal of Arbitration at Geneva, June 15, 1872, Division
13, section 2._
{27}
ALABAMA CLAIMS, The: A. D. 1869-1871.
Renewed Negotiations.
Appointment and meeting of the Joint High Commission.
The action of the Senate in rejecting the Johnson-Clarendon
treaty was taken in April, 1869, a few weeks after President
Grant entered upon his office. At this time "the condition of
Europe was such as to induce the British Ministers to take
into consideration the foreign relations of Great Britain;
and, as Lord Granville, the British Minister of Foreign
Affairs, has himself stated in the House of Lords, they saw
cause to look with solicitude on the uneasy relations of the
British Government with the United States, and the
inconvenience thereof in case of possible complications in
Europe. Thus impelled, the Government dispatched to Washington
a gentleman who enjoyed the confidence of both Cabinets, Sir John
Rose, to ascertain whether overtures for reopening
negotiations would be received by the President in spirit and
terms acceptable to Great Britain. … Sir John Rose found the
United States disposed to meet with perfect correspondence of
good-will the advances of the British Government. Accordingly,
on the 26th of January, 1871, the British Government, through
Sir Edward Thornton, finally proposed to the American
Government the appointment of a joint High Commission to hold
its sessions at Washington, and there devise means to settle
the various pending questions between the two Governments
affecting the British possessions in North America. To this
overture Mr. Fish replied that the President would with
pleasure appoint, as invited, Commissioners on the part of the
United States, provided the deliberations of the Commissioners
should be extended to other differences,—that is to say, to
include the differences growing out of incidents of the late
Civil War. … The British Government promptly accepted this
proposal for enlarging the sphere of the negotiation." The
joint High Commission was speedily constituted, as proposed,
by appointment of the two governments, and the promptitude of
proceeding was such that the British commissioners landed at
New York in twenty-seven days after Sir Edward Thornton's
suggestion of January 26th was made. They sailed without
waiting for their commissions, which were forwarded to them by
special messenger. The High Commission was made up as follows:
"On the part of the United States were five persons,—Hamilton
Fish, Robert C. Schenck, Samuel Nelson, Ebenezer Rockwood
Hoar, and George H. Williams,—eminently fit representatives
of the diplomacy, the bench, the bar, and the legislature of
the United States: on the part of Great Britain, Earl De Grey
and Ripon, President of the Queen's Council; Sir Stafford
Northcote, Ex-Minister and actual Member of the House of
Commons; Sir Edward Thornton, the universally respected
British Minister at Washington; Sir John [A.] Macdonald, the
able and eloquent Premier of the Canadian Dominion; and, in
revival of the good old time, when learning was equal to any
other title of public honor, the Universities in the person of
Professor Montague Bernard. … In the face of many
difficulties, the Commissioners, on the 8th of May, 1871,
completed a treaty [known as the Treaty of Washington], which
received the prompt approval of their respective Governments."
_C. Cushing,
The Treaty of Washington,
pages 18-20, and 11-13._
ALSO IN
_A. Lang, Life, Letters, and Diaries of Sir Stafford
Northcote, First Earl of Iddesleigh,
chapter 12 (volume 2)._
_A. Badeau,
Grant in Peace,
chapter 25._
ALABAMA CLAIMS, The: A. D. 1871.
The Treaty of Washington.
The treaty signed at Washington on the 8th day of May, 1871,
and the ratifications of which were exchanged at London on the
17th day of the following June, set forth its principal
agreement in the first two articles as follows: "Whereas
differences have arisen between the Government of the United
States and the Government of Her Brittanic Majesty, and still
exist, growing out of the acts committed by the several
vessels which have given rise to the claims generically known
as the 'Alabama Claims;' and whereas Her Britannic Majesty has
authorized Her High Commissioners and Plenipotentiaries to
express in a friendly spirit, the regret felt by Her Majesty's
Government for the escape, under whatever circumstances, of
the Alabama and other vessels from British ports, and for the
depredations committed by those vessels: Now, in order to
remove and adjust all complaints and claims on the part of the
United States and to provide for the speedy settlement of such
claims which are not admitted by Her Britannic Majesty's
Government, the high contracting parties agree that all the
said claims, growing out of acts committed by the aforesaid
vessels, and generically known as the 'Alabama Claims,' shall
be referred to a tribunal of arbitration to be composed of
five Arbitrators, to be appointed in the following manner,
that is to say: One shall be named by the President of the
United States; one shall be named by Her Britannic Majesty;
His Majesty the King of Italy shall be requested to name one;
the President of the Swiss Confederation shall be requested to
name one; and His Majesty the Emperor of Brazil shall be
requested to name one. … The Arbitrators shall meet at
Geneva, in Switzerland, at the earliest convenient day after
they shall have been named, and shall proceed impartially and
carefully to examine and decide all questions that shall be
laid before them on the part of the Governments of the United
States and Her Britannic Majesty respectively. All questions
considered by the tribunal, including the final award, shall
be decided by a majority of all the Arbitrators. Each of the
high contracting parties shall also name one person to attend
the tribunal as its Agent to represent it generally in all
matters connected with the arbitration." Articles 3, 4 and 5
of the treaty specify the mode in which each party shall
submit its case. Article 6 declares that, "In deciding the
matters submitted to the Arbitrators, they shall be governed
by the following three rules, which are agreed upon by the
high contracting parties as rules to be taken as applicable to
the case, and by such principles of international law not
inconsistent therewith as the Arbitrators shall determine to
have been applicable to the case:
{28}
A neutral Government is bound—First, to use due diligence to
prevent the fitting out, arming, or equipping, within its
jurisdiction, of any vessel which it has reasonable ground to
believe is intended to cruise or to carry on war against a
Power with which it is at peace; and also to use like
diligence to prevent the departure from its jurisdiction of
any vessel intended to cruise or carry on war as above, such
vessel having been specially adapted, in whole or in part,
within such jurisdiction, to warlike use. Secondly, not to
permit or suffer either belligerent to make use of its ports
or waters as the base of naval operations against the other,
or for the purpose of the renewal or augmentation of military
supplies or arms, or the recruitment of men. Thirdly to
exercise due diligence in its own ports and waters, and, as to
all persons within its jurisdiction, to prevent any violation
of the foregoing obligations and duties. Her Britannic Majesty
has commanded her High Commissioners and Plenipotentiaries to
declare that Her Majesty's Government cannot assent to the
foregoing rules as a statement of principles of international
law which were in force at the time when the claims mentioned
in Article 1 arose, but that Her Majesty's Government, in
order to evince its desire of strengthening the friendly
relations between the two countries and of making satisfactory
provision for the future, agrees that in deciding the
questions between the two countries arising out of those
claims, the Arbitrators should assume that Her Majesty's
Government had undertaken to act upon the principles set forth
in these rules. And the high contracting parties agree to
observe these rules as between themselves in future, and to
bring them to the knowledge of other maritime powers, and to
invite them to accede to them." Articles 7 to 17, inclusive,
relate to the procedure of the tribunal of arbitration, and
provide for the determination of claims, by assessors and
commissioners, in case the Arbitrators should find any
liability on the part of Great Britain and should not award a
sum in gross to be paid in settlement thereof. Articles 18 to
25 relate to the Fisheries. By Article 18 it is agreed that in
addition to the liberty secured to American fishermen by the
convention of 1818, "of taking, curing and drying fish on
certain coasts of the British North American colonies therein
defined, the inhabitants of the United States shall have, in
common with the subjects of Her Britannic Majesty, the liberty
for [a period of ten years, and two years further after notice
given by either party of its wish to terminate the
arrangement] … to take fish of every kind, except shell
fish, on the sea-coasts and shores, and in the bays, harbours
and creeks, of the provinces of Quebec, Nova Scotia and New
Brunswick, and the colony of Prince Edward's Island, and of
the several islands thereunto adjacent, without being
restricted to any distance from the shore, with permission to
land upon the said coasts and shores and islands, and also
upon the Magdalen Islands, for the purpose of drying their
nets and curing their fish; provided that, in so doing, they
do not interfere with the rights of private property, or with
British fishermen, in the peaceable use of any part of the
said coasts in their occupancy for the same purpose. It is
understood that the above-mentioned liberty applies solely to
the sea-fishery, and that the salmon and shad fisheries, and
all other fisheries in rivers and the mouths of rivers, are
hereby reserved exclusively for British fishermen." Article 19
secures to British subjects the corresponding rights of
fishing, &c., on the eastern sea-coasts and shores of the
United States north of the 39th parallel of north latitude.
Article 20 reserves from these stipulations the places that
were reserved from the common right of fishing under the first
article of the treaty of June 5, 1854. Article 21 provides for
the reciprocal admission of fish and fish oil into each
country from the other, free of duty (excepting fish of the
inland lakes and fish preserved in oil). Article 22 provides
that, "Inasmuch as it is asserted by the Government of Her
Britannic Majesty that the privileges accorded to the citizens
of the United States under Article XVIII of this treaty are of
greater value than those accorded by Articles XIX and XXI of
this treaty to the subjects of Her Britannic Majesty, and this
assertion is not admitted by the Government of the United
States, it is further agreed that Commissioners shall be
appointed to determine … the amount of any compensation
which in their opinion, ought to be paid by the Government of
the United States to the Government of Her Britannic Majesty."
Article 23 provides for the appointment of such Commissioners,
one by the President of the United States, one by Her
Britannic Majesty, and the third by the President and Her
Majesty conjointly; or, failing of agreement within three
months, the third Commissioner to be named by the Austrian
Minister at London. The Commissioners to meet at Halifax, and
their procedure to be as prescribed and regulated by Articles
24 and 25. Articles 26 to 31 define certain reciprocal
privileges accorded by each government to the subjects of the
other, including the navigation of the St. Lawrence, Yukon,
Porcupine and Stikine Rivers, Lake Michigan, and the WeIland,
St. Lawrence and St. Clair Flats canals; and the
transportation of goods in bond through the territory of one
country into the other without payment of duties. Article 32
extends the provisions of Articles 18 to 25 of the treaty to
Newfoundland if all parties concerned enact the necessary
laws, but not otherwise. Article 33 limits the duration of
Articles 18 to 25 and Article 30, to ten years from the date
of their going into effect, and "further until the expiration
of two years after either of the two high contracting parties
shall have given notice to the other of its wish to terminate
the same." The remaining articles of the treaty provide for
submitting to the arbitration of the Emperor of Germany the
Northwestern water-boundary question (in the channel between
Vancouver's Island and the continent)—to complete the
settlement of Northwestern boundary disputes.
_Treaties and Conventions between the U. S. and other
Powers (edition of 1889),
pages 478-493._
ALSO IN
_C. Cushing,
The Treaty of Washington,
appendix._
{29}
ALABAMA CLAIMS, The: A. D. 1871-1872.
The Tribunal of Arbitration at Geneva, and its Award.
"The appointment of Arbitrators took place in due course, and
with the ready good-will of the three neutral governments. The
United States appointed Mr. Charles Francis Adams; Great
Britain appointed Sir Alexander Cockburn; the King of Italy
named Count Frederic Sclopis; the President of the Swiss
Confederation, Mr. Jacob Stæmpfii; and the Emperor of Brazil,
the Baron d'Itajubá. Mr. J. C. Bancroft Davis was appointed
Agent of the United States, and Lord Tenterden of Great
Britain. The Tribunal was organized for the reception of the
case of each party, and held its first conference [at Geneva,
Switzerland] on the 15th of December, 1871," Count Sclopis
being chosen to preside. "The printed Case of the United
States, with accompanying documents, was filed by Mr. Bancroft
Davis, and the printed Case of Great Britain, with documents,
by Lord Tenterden. The Tribunal made regulation for the filing
of the respective Counter-Cases on or before the 15th day of
April next ensuing, as required by the Treaty; and for the
convening of a special meeting of the Tribunal, if occasion
should require; and then, at a second meeting, on the next
day, they adjourned until the 15th of June next ensuing,
subject to a prior call by the Secretary, if there should be
occasion." The sessions of the Tribunal were resumed on the
15th of June, 1872, according to the adjournment, and were
continued until the 14th of September following, when the
decision and award were announced, and were signed by all the
Arbitrators except the British representative, Sir Alexander
Cockburn, who dissented. It was found by the Tribunal that the
British Government had "failed to use due diligence in the
performance of its neutral obligations" with respect to the
cruisers Alabama and Florida, and the several tenders of those
vessels; and also with respect to the Shenandoah after her
departure from Melbourne, February 18, 1865, but not before that
date. With respect to the Georgia, the Sumter, the Nashville,
the Tallahassee and the Chickamauga, it was the finding of the
Tribunal that Great Britain had not failed to perform the
duties of a neutral power. So far as relates to the vessels
called the Sallie, the Jefferson Davis, the Music, the Boston,
and the V. H. Joy, it was the decision of the Tribunal that
they ought to be excluded from consideration for want of
evidence. "So far as relates to the particulars of the
indemnity claimed by the United States, the costs of pursuit
of Confederate cruisers" are declared to be "not, in the
judgment of the Tribunal, properly distinguishable from the
general expenses of the war carried on by the United States,"
and "there is no ground for awarding to the United States any
sum by way of indemnity under this head." A similar decision
put aside the whole consideration of claims for "prospective
earnings." Finally, the award was rendered in the following
language: "Whereas, in order to arrive at an equitable
compensation for the damages which have been sustained, it is
necessary to set aside all double claims for the same losses,
and all claims for 'gross freights' so far as they exceed 'net
freights;' and whereas it is just and reasonable to allow
interest at a reasonable rate; and whereas, in accordance with
the spirit and letter of the Treaty of Washington, it is
preferable to adopt the form of adjudication of a sum in
gross, rather than to refer the subject of compensation for
further discussion and deliberation to a Board of Assessors,
as provided by Article X of the said Treaty: The Tribunal,
making use of the authority conferred upon it by Article VII
of the said Treaty, by a majority of four voices to one,
awards to the United States the sum of fifteen millions five
hundred thousand Dollars in gold as the indemnity to be paid
by Great Britain to the United States for the satisfaction of
all the claims referred to the consideration of the Tribunal,
conformably to the provisions contained in Article VII of the
aforesaid Treaty." It should be stated that the so-called
"indirect claims" of the United States, for consequential
losses and damages, growing out of the encouragement of the
Southern Rebellion, the prolongation of the war, &c., were
dropped from consideration at the outset of the session of the
Tribunal, in June, the Arbitrators agreeing then in a
statement of opinion to the effect that "these claims do not
constitute, upon the principles of international law
applicable to such cases, good foundation for an award of
compensation or computation of damages between nations." This
declaration was accepted by the United States as decisive of
the question, and the hearing proceeded accordingly.
_C. Cushing,
The Treaty of Washington._
ALSO IN
_F. Wharton,
Digest of the International Law of the United States,
chapter 21 (volume 3)._
----------ALABAMA CLAIMS, The: End----------
ALACAB, OR TOLOSO, Battle of (1212).
See ALMOHADES, and SPAIN: A. D. 1146-1232.
ALADSHA, Battles of (1877).
See TURKS: A. D. 1877-1878.
ALAMANCE, Battle Of(1771).
See NORTH CAROLINA: A. D. 1766-1771.
ALAMANNI.
See ALEMANNI.
ALAMO, The massacre of the (1836).
See TEXAS: A. D. 1824-1836.
ALAMOOT, OR ALAMOUT, The castle of.
The stronghold of the "Old Man of the Mountain," or Sheikh of
the terrible order of the Assassins, in northern Persia. Its
name signifies "the Eagle's nest," or "the Vulture's nest."
See ASSASSINS.
ALANS, OR ALANI, The.
"The Alani are first mentioned by Dionysius the geographer (B.
C. 30-10) who joins them with the Daci and the Tauri, and
again places them between the latter and the Agathyrsi. A
similar position (in the south of Russia in Europe, the modern
Ukraine) is assigned to them by Pliny and Josephus. Seneca
places them further west upon the Ister. Ptolemy has two
bodies of Alani, one in the position above described, the
other in Scythia within the Imaus, north and partly east of
the Caspian. It must have been from these last, the
successors, and, according to some, the descendants of the
ancient Massagetæ, that the Alani came who attacked Pacorus
and Tiridates [in Media and Armenia, A. D. 75]. … The result
seems to have been that the invaders, after ravaging and
harrying Media and Armenia at their pleasure, carried off a
vast number of prisoners and an enormous booty into their own
country."
_G. Rawlinson,
Sixth Great Oriental Monarchy,
chapter 17._
_E. H. Bunbury,
History of Ancient Geography,
chapter 6, note H._
"The first of this [the Tartar] race known to the
Romans were the Alani. In the fourth century they pitched
their tents in the country between the Volga and the Tanais,
at an equal distance from the Black Sea and the Caspian."
_J. C. L. Sismondi,
Fall of the Roman Empire,
chapter 3._
{30}
ALANS: A. D. 376.
Conquest by the Huns.
See GOTHS (VISIGOTHS): A. D. 376.
ALANS: A. D. 406-409.
Final Invasion of Gaul.
See GAUL: A. D. 406-409.
ALANS: A. D. 409-414.
Settlement in Spain.
See SPAIN: A. D. 409-414.
ALANS: A. D. 429.
With the Vandals in Africa.
See VANDALS: A. D. 429-439.
ALANS: A. D. 451.
At the Battle of Chalons.
See HUNS: A. D. 451.
----------ALANS: End----------
ALARCOS, Battle of (A. D. 1195).
See ALMOHADES.
ALARIC'S RAVAGES IN GREECE AND CONQUEST OF ROME.
See GOTHS: A. D. 395; 400-403,
and ROME: A. D. 408-410.
ALARODIANS.
IBERIANS.
COLCHIANS.
"The Alarodians of Herodotus, joined with the Sapeires … are
almost certainly the inhabitants of Armenia, whose Semitic
name was Urarda, or Ararat. 'Alarud,' indeed, is a mere
variant form of 'Ararud,' the l and r being undistinguishable
in the old Persian, and 'Ararud' serves determinately to
connect the Ararat of Scripture with the Urarda, or Urartha of
the Inscriptions. … The name of Ararat is constantly used in
Scripture, but always to denote a country rather than a
particular mountain. … The connexion … of Urarda with the
Babylonian tribe of Akkad is proved by the application in the
inscriptions of the ethnic title of Burbur (?) to the Armenian
king … ; but there is nothing to prove whether the Burbur or
Akkad of Babylonia descended in a very remote age from the
mountains to colonize the plains, or whether the Urardians
were refugees of a later period driven northward by the
growing power of the Semites. The former supposition, however,
is most in conformity with Scripture, and incidentally with the
tenor of the inscriptions."
_H. C. Rawlinson,
History of Herodotus,
book 7, appendix 3._
"The broad and rich valley of the Kur, which corresponds
closely with the modern Russian province of Georgia, was
[anciently] in the possession of a people called by Herodotus
Saspeires or Sapeires, whom we may identify with the Iberians
of later writers. Adjoining upon them towards the south,
probably in the country about Erivan, and so in the
neighbourhood of Ararat, were the Alarodians, whose name must
be connected with that of the great mountain. On the other
side of the Sapeirian country, in the tracts now known as
Mingrelia and Imeritia, regions of a wonderful beauty and
fertility, were the Colchians,—dependents, but not exactly
subjects, of Persia."
_G. Rawlinson,
Five Great Monarchies: Persia,
chapter 1._
ALASKA: A. D. 1867.
Purchase by the United States.
As early as 1859 there were unofficial communications between
the Russian and American governments, on the subject of the
sale of Alaska by the former to the latter. Russia was more
than willing to part with a piece of territory which she found
difficulty in defending, in war; and the interests connected
with the fisheries and the fur-trade in the north-west were
disposed to promote the transfer. In March, 1867, definite
negotiations on the subject were opened by the Russian
minister at Washington, and on the 23d of that month he
received from Secretary Seward an offer, subject to the
President's approval, of $7,200,000, on condition that the
cession be "free and unencumbered by any reservations,
privileges, franchises, grants, or possessions by any
associated companies, whether corporate or incorporate,
Russian, or any other." "Two days later an answer was
returned, stating that the minister believed himself
authorized to accept these terms. On the 29th final
instructions were received by cable from St. Petersburg. On
the same day a note was addressed by the minister to the
secretary of state, informing him that the tsar consented to
the cession of Russian America for the stipulated sum of
$7,200,000 in gold. At four o'clock the next morning the
treaty was signed by the two parties without further phrase or
negotiation. In May the treaty was ratified, and on June 20,
1867, the usual proclamation was issued by the president of
the United States." On the 18th of October, 1867, the formal
transfer of the territory was made, at Sitka, General Rousseau
taking possession in the name of the Government of the United
States.
_H. H. Bancroft,
History of the Pacific States,
volume 28, chapter 28._
ALSO IN
_W. H. Dall,
Alaska and its Resources,
part 2, chapter 2._
For some account of the aboriginal inhabitants,
See AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
ESKIMAUAN FAMILY and ATHAPASCAN FAMILY.
ALATOONA, Battle of.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1864
(SEPTEMBER-OCTOBER: GEORGIA).
ALBA.
Alban Mount.
"Cantons … having their rendezvous in some stronghold, and
including a certain number of clanships, form the primitive
political unities with which Italian history begins. At what
period, and to what extent, such cantons were formed in
Latium, cannot be determined with precision; nor is it a
matter of special historical interest. The isolated Alban
range, that natural stronghold of Latium, which offered to
settlers the most wholesome air, the freshest springs, and the
most secure position, would doubtless be first occupied by the
new comers. Here accordingly, along the narrow plateau above
Palazzuola, between the Alban lake (Lago di Castello) and the
Alban mount (Monte Cavo) extended the town of Alba, which was
universally regarded as the primitive seat of the Latin stock,
and the mother-city of Rome, as well as of all the other Old
Latin communities. Here, too, on the slopes lay the very
ancient Latin canton-centres of Lanuvium, Aricia, and
Tusculum. … All these cantons were in primitive times
politically sovereign, and each of them was governed by its
prince with the co-operation of the council of elders and the
assembly of warriors. Nevertheless the feeling of fellowship
based on community of descent and of language not only
pervaded the whole of them, but manifested itself in an
important religious and political institution—the perpetual
league of the collective Latin cantons. The presidency
belonged originally, according to the universal Italian as
well as Hellenic usage, to that canton within whose bounds lay
the meeting-place of the league; in this case it was the canton
of Alba. … The communities entitled to participate in the
league were in the beginning thirty. … The rendezvous of
this union was, like the Pambœotia and the Panionia among the
similar confederacies of the Greeks, the 'Latin festival'
(feriæ Latinæ) at which, on the Mount of Alba, upon a day
annually appointed by the chief magistrate for the purpose, an
ox was offered in sacrifice by the assembled Latin stock to
the 'Latin god' (Jupiter Latiaris)."
_T. Mommsen,
History of Rome,
book 1, chapter 3._
ALSO IN
_Sir W. Gell,
Topography of Rome,
volume 1._
{31}
ALBA DE TORMES, Battle of.
See SPAIN: A. D. 1809 (AUGUST-NOVEMBER).
ALBAIS, The.
See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: PAMPAS TRIBES.
ALBAN, Kingdom of.
See ALBION;
also, SCOTLAND: 8TH-9TH CENTURIES.
ALBANI, The.
See BRITAIN, TRIBES OF CELTIC.
ALBANIANS: Ancient.
See EPIRUS and ILLYRIANS.
ALBANIANS: Mediæval.
"From the settlement of the Servian Sclavonians within the
bounds of the empire [during the reign of Heraclius, first
half of the seventh century], we may … venture to date the
earliest encroachments of the Illyrian or Albanian race on the
Hellenic population. The Albanians or Arnauts, who are now
called by themselves Skiptars, are supposed to be remains of
the great Thracian race which, under various names, and more
particularly as Paionians, Epirots and Macedonians, take an
important part in early Grecian history. No distinct trace of
the period at which they began to be co-proprietors of Greece
with the Hellenic race can be found in history. … It seems
very difficult to trace back the history of the Greek nation
without suspecting that the germs of their modern condition,
like those of their neighbours, are to be sought in the
singular events which occurred in the reign of Heraclius."
_G. Finlay,
Greece Under the Romans,
chapter 4, section 6._
ALBANIANS: A. D. 1443-1467.
Scanderbeg's War with the Turks.
"John Castriot, Lord of Emalthia (the modern district of
Moghlene) [in Epirus or Albania] had submitted, like the other
petty despots of those regions, to Amurath early in his reign,
and had placed his four sons in the Sultan's hands as hostages
for his fidelity. Three of them died young. The fourth, whose
name was George, pleased the Sultan by his beauty, strength
and intelligence. Amurath caused him to be brought up in the
Mahometan creed; and, when he was only eighteen, conferred on
him the government of one of the Sanjaks of the empire. The
young Albanian proved his courage and skill in many exploits
under Amurath's eye, and received from him the name of
Iskanderbeg, the lord Alexander. When John Castriot died,
Amurath took possession of his principalities and kept the son
constantly employed in distant wars. Scanderbeg brooded over
this injury; and when the Turkish armies were routed by
Hunyades in the campaign of 1443, Scanderbeg determined to
escape from their side and assume forcible possession of his
patrimony. He suddenly entered the tent of the Sultan's chief
secretary, and forced that functionary, with the poniard at
his throat, to write and seal a formal order to the Turkish
commander of the strong city of Croia, in Albania, to deliver
that place and the adjacent territory to Scanderbeg, as the
Sultan's viceroy. He then stabbed the secretary and hastened
to Croia, where his strategem gained him instant admittance
and submission. He now publicly abjured the Mahometan faith,
and declared his intention of defending the creed of his
forefathers, and restoring the independence of his native
land. The Christian population flocked readily to his banner
and the Turks were massacred without mercy. For nearly
twenty-five years Scanderbeg contended against all the power
of the Ottomans, though directed by the skill of Amurath and
his successor Mahomet, the conqueror of Constantinople."
_Sir E. S. Creasy,
History of the Ottoman Turks,
chapter 4._
"Scanderbeg died a fugitive at Lissus on the Venetian
territory [A. D. 1467]. His sepulchre was soon violated by the
Turkish conquerors; but the janizaries, who wore his bones
enchased in a bracelet, declared by this superstitious amulet
their involuntary reverence for his valour. … His infant son
was saved from the national shipwreck; the Castriots were
invested with a Neapolitan dukedom, and their blood continues
to flow in the noblest families of the realm."
_E. Gibbon, Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire,
chapter 67.
ALSO IN
_A. Lamartine,
History of Turkey,
book 11, sections 11-25._
ALBANIANS: A. D. 1694-1696.
Conquests by the Venetians.
See TURKS: A. D. 1684-1696.
----------ALBANIANS: End----------
ALBANY, NEW YORK: A. D. 1623.
The first Settlement.
In 1614, the year after the first Dutch traders had
established their operations on Manhattan Island, they built a
trading house, which they called Fort Nassau, on Castle
Island, in the Hudson River, a little below the site of the
present city of Albany. Three years later this small fort was
carried away by a flood and the island abandoned. In 1623 a
more important fortification, named Fort Orange, was erected
on the site afterwards covered by the business part of Albany.
That year, "about eighteen families settled themselves at Fort
Orange, under Adriaen Joris, who 'staid with them all winter,'
after sending his ship home to Holland in charge of his son.
As soon as the colonists had built themselves 'some huts of
bark' around the fort, the Mahikanders or River Indians
[Mohegans], the Mohawks, the Oneidas, the Onondagas, the
Cayugas, and the Senecas, with the Mahawawa or Ottawawa
Indians, 'came and made covenants of friendship … and
desired that they might come and have a constant free trade
with them, which was concluded upon.'"
_J. R. Brodhead,
History of the State of New York,
volume 1, pages 55 and 151._
ALBANY, NEW YORK: A. D. 1630.
Embraced in the land-purchase of Patroon Van Rensselaer.
See NEW YORK: A. D. 1621-1646.
ALBANY, NEW YORK: A. D. 1664.
Occupied and named by the English.
See NEW YORK: A. D. 1664.
ALBANY, NEW YORK: A. D. 1673.
Again occupied by the Dutch.
See NEW YORK: A. D. 1673.
ALBANY, NEW YORK: A. D. 1754.
The Colonial Congress and its plans of Union.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1754.
----------ALBANY, NEW YORK: End----------
ALBANY AND SCHENECTADY RAILROAD OPENING.
See STEAM LOCOMOTION ON LAND.
ALBANY REGENCY, The.
See NEW YORK; A. D. 1823.
ALBEMARLE, The Ram, and her destruction.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1864 (APRIL-MAY: NORTH
CAROLINA), and (OCTOBER: N. CAROLINA).
ALBERONI, Cardinal, The Spanish Ministry of.
See SPAIN: A. D. 1713-1725;
and ITALY: A. D. 1715-1735.
{32}
ALBERT,
King of Sweden, A. D. 1365-1388.
Albert, Elector of Brandenburg, A. D. 1470-1486.
Albert I., Duke of Austria and
King of Germany, A. D. 1298-1308.
Albert II., Duke of Austria, King of Hungary and
Bohemia, A. D. 1437-1440;
King of Germany, A. D. 1438-1440.
ALBERTA, The District of.
See NORTHWEST TERRITORIES OF CANADA.
ALBERTINE LINE OF SAXONY.
See SAXONY: A. D. 1180-1553.
ALBICI, The.
A Gallic tribe which occupied the hills above Massilia
(Marseilles) and who are described as a savage people even in
the time of Cæsar, when they helped the Massiliots to defend
their city against him.
_G. Long,
Decline of the Roman Republic,
volume 5, chapter 4._
ALBIGENSES, OR ALBIGEOIS, The.
"Nothing is more curious in Christian history than the
vitality of the Manichean opinions. That wild, half poetic,
half rationalistic theory of Christianity, … appears almost
suddenly in the 12th century, in living, almost irresistible
power, first in its intermediate settlement in Bulgaria, and
on the borders of the Greek Empire, then in Italy, in France,
in Germany, in the remoter West, at the foot of the Pyrenees.
… The chief seat of these opinions was the south of France.
Innocent III., on his accession, found not only these daring
insurgents scattered in the cities of Italy, even, as it were,
at his own gates (among his first acts was to subdue the
Paterines of Viterbo), he found a whole province, a realm, in
some respects the richest and noblest of his spiritual domain,
absolutely dissevered from his Empire, in almost universal
revolt from Latin Christianity. … In no [other] European
country had the clergy so entirely, or it should seem so
deservedly, forfeited its authority. In none had the Church
more absolutely ceased to perform its proper functions."
_H. H. Milman,
History of Latin Christianity,
book 9, chapter 8._
"By mere chance, the sects scattered in South France received
the common name of Albigenses, from one of the districts where
the agents of the church who came to combat them found them
mostly to abound,—the district around the town of Alba, or
Alby; and by this common name they were well known from the
commencement of the thirteenth century. Under this general
denomination parties of different tenets were comprehended
together, but the Catharists seem to have constituted a
predominant element among the people thus designated."
_A. Neander,
General History of the Christian Religion and Church,
5th per., division 2, section 4, part 3._
"Of the sectaries who shared the errors of Gnosticism and
Manichæism and opposed the Catholic Church and her hierarchy,
the Albigenses were the most thorough and radical. Their
errors were, indeed, partly Gnostic and partly Manichæan, but
the latter was the more prominent and fully developed. They
received their name from a district of Languedoc, inhabited by
the Albigeois and surrounding the town of Albi. They are
called Cathari and Patarini in the acts of the Council of
Tours (A. D. 1163), and in those of the third Lateran,
Publiciani (i. e., Pauliciani). Like the Cathari, they also
held that the evil spirit created all visible things."
_Johannes Baptist Alzog,
Manual of Universal Church History,
period 2, epoch 2, part 1, chapter 3, section 236.
https://archive.org/details/manualofuniversa02alzo_
"The imputations of irreligion, heresy, and shameless
debauchery, which have been cast with so much bitterness on
the Albigenses by their persecutors, and which have been so
zealously denied by their apologists, are probably not ill
founded, if the word Albigenses be employed as synonymous with
the words Provençaux or Languedocians; for they were
apparently a race among whom the hallowed charities of
domestic life, and the reverence due to divine ordinances and
the homage due to divine truth, were often impaired, and not
seldom extinguished, by ribald jests, by infidel scoffings,
and by heart-hardening impurities. Like other voluptuaries,
the Provençaux (as their remaining literature attests) were
accustomed to find matter for merriment in vices which would
have moved wise men to tears. But if by the word Albigenses be
meant the Vaudois, or those followers (or associates) of Peter
Waldo who revived the doctrines against which the Church of
Rome directed her censures, then the accusation of
dissoluteness of manners may be safely rejected as altogether
calumnious, and the charge of heresy may be considered, if not
as entirely unfounded, yet as a cruel and injurious
exaggeration."
_Sir J. Stephen,
Lectures on the History of France,
lecture 7._
ALSO IN
_L. Mariotti,
Frà Dolcino and his Times._
See, also, Paulicians, and Catharists.
ALBIGENSES: A. D. 1209.
The First Crusade.
"Pope Innocent III., in organizing the persecution of the
Catharins [or Catharists], the Patarins, and the Pauvres de
Lyons, exercised a spirit, and displayed a genius similar to
those which had already elevated him to almost universal
dominion; which had enabled him to dictate at once to Italy
and to Germany; to control the kings of France, of Spain, and
of England; to overthrow the Greek Empire, and to substitute
in its stead a Latin dynasty at Constantinople. In the zeal of
the Cistercian Order, and of their Abbot, Arnaud Amalric; in
the fiery and unwearied preaching of the first Inquisitor, the
Spanish Missionary, Dominic; in the remorseless activity of
Foulquet, Bishop of Toulouse; and above all, in the strong and
unpitying arm of Simon de Montfort, Earl of Leicester,
Innocent found ready instruments for his purpose. Thus aided;
he excommunicated Raymond of Toulouse [A. D. 1207], as Chief
of the Heretics, and he promised remission of sins, and all
the privileges which had hitherto been exclusively conferred
on adventurers in Palestine, to the champions who should
enroll themselves as Crusaders in the far more easy enterprise
of a Holy War against the Albigenses. In the first invasion of
his territories [A. D. 1209], Raymond VI. gave way before the
terrors excited by the 300,000 fanatics who precipitated
themselves on Languedoc; and loudly declaring his personal
freedom from heresy, he surrendered his chief castles,
underwent a humiliating penance, and took the cross against
his own subjects. The brave resistance of his nephew Raymond
Roger, Viscount of Bezières, deserved but did not obtain
success. When the crusaders surrounded his capital, which was
occupied by a mixed population of the two Religions, a
question was raised how, in the approaching sack, the
Catholics should be distinguished from the Heretics. 'Kill
them all,' was the ferocious reply of Amalric; 'the Lord will
easily know His own.' In compliance with this advice, not one
human being within the walls was permitted to survive;
{33}
and the tale of slaughter has been variously estimated, by
those who have perhaps exaggerated the numbers, at 60,000, but
even in the extenuating despatch, which the Abbot himself
addressed to the Pope, at not fewer than 15,000. Raymond Roger
was not included in this fearful massacre, and he repulsed two
attacks upon Carcassonne, before a treacherous breach of faith
placed him at the disposal of de Montfort, by whom he was
poisoned after a short imprisonment. The removal of that young
and gallant Prince was indeed most important to the ulterior
project of his captor, who aimed at permanent establishment in
the South. The family of de Montfort had ranked among the
nobles of France for more than two centuries; and it is traced
by some writers through an illegitimate channel even to the
throne: but the possessions of Simon himself were scanty;
necessity had compelled him to sell the County of Evreux to
Philippe Auguste; and the English Earldom of Leicester which he
inherited maternally, and the Lordship of a Castle about ten
leagues distant from Paris, formed the whole of his revenues."
_E. Smedley,
History of France,
chapter _4.
ALSO IN
_J. C. L. de Sismondi,
History of the Crusades against the Albigenses,
chapter 1._
_H. H. Milman,
History of Latin Christianity,
book 9, chapter 8._
_J. Alzog,
Manual of Universal Church History,
period 2, epoch 2, part 1, chapter 3
https://archive.org/details/manualofuniversa02alzo_.
See, also, INQUISITION: A. D. 1203-1525.
ALBIGENSES: A. D. 1210-1213.
The Second Crusade.
"The conquest of the Viscounty of Beziers had rather inflamed
than satiated the cupidity of De Montfort and the fanaticism
of Amalric [legate of the Pope] and of the monks of Citeaux.
Raymond, Count of Toulouse, still possessed the fairest part
of Languedoc, and was still suspected or accused of affording
shelter, if not countenance, to his heretical subjects. …
The unhappy Raymond was … again excommunicated from the
Christian Church, and his dominions offered as a reward to the
champions who should execute her sentence against him. To earn
that reward De Montfort, at the head of a new host of
Crusaders, attracted by the promise of earthly spoils and of
heavenly blessedness, once more marched through the devoted
land [A. D. 1210], and with him advanced Amalric. At each
successive conquest, slaughter, rapine, and woes such as may
not be described tracked and polluted their steps. Heretics,
or those suspected of heresy, wherever they were found, were
compelled by the legate to ascend vast piles of burning
faggots. … At length the Crusaders reached and laid siege to
the city of Toulouse. … Throwing himself into the place,
Raymond … succeeded in repulsing De Montfort and Amalric. It
was, however, but a temporary respite, and the prelude to a
fearful destruction. From beyond the Pyrenees, at the head of
1,000 knights, Pedro of Arragon had marched to the rescue of
Raymond, his kinsman, and of the counts of Foix and of
Comminges, and of the Viscount of Béarn, his vassals; and
their united forces came into communication with each other at
Muret, a little town which is about three leagues distant from
Toulouse. There, also, on the 12th of September [A. D. 1213],
at the head of the champions of the Cross, and attended by
seven bishops, appeared Simon de Montfort in full military
array. The battle which followed was fierce, short and
decisive. … Don Pedro was numbered with the slain. His army,
deprived of his command, broke and dispersed, and the whole of
the infantry of Raymond and his allies were either put to the
sword, or swept a way by the current of the Garonne. Toulouse
immediately surrendered, and the whole of the dominions of
Raymond submitted to the conquerors. At a council subsequently
held at Montpellier, composed of five archbishops and
twenty-eight bishops, De Montfort was unanimously acknowledged
as prince of the fief and city of Toulouse, and of the other
counties conquered by the Crusaders under his command."
_Sir J. Stephen,
Lectures on the History of France,
lecture 7._
ALSO IN
_J. C. L. de Sismondi,
History of Crusades against the Albigenses,
chapter 2._
ALBIGENSES: A. D. 1217-1229.
The Renewed Crusades.
Dissolution of the County of Toulouse.
Pacification of Languedoc.
"The cruel spirit of De Montfort would not allow him to rest
quiet in his new Empire. Violence and persecution marked his
rule; he sought to destroy the Provençal population by the
sword or the stake, nor could he bring himself to tolerate the
liberties of the citizens of Toulouse. In 1217 the Toulousans
again revolted, and war once more broke out betwixt Count
Raymond and Simon de Montfort. The latter formed the siege of
the capital, and was engaged in repelling a sally, when a
stone from one of the walls struck him and put an end to his
existence. … Amaury de Montfort, son of Simon, offered to
cede to the king all his rights in Languedoc, which he was
unable to defend against the old house of Toulouse. Philip
[Augustus] hesitated to accept the important cession, and left
the rival houses to the continuance of a struggle carried
feebly on by either side." King Philip died in 1223 and was
succeeded by a son, Louis VIII., who had none of his father's
reluctance to join in the grasping persecution of the
unfortunate people of the south. Amaury de Montfort had been
fairly driven out of old Simon de Montfort's conquests, and he
now sold them to King Louis for the office of constable of
France. "A new crusade was preached against the Albigenses;
and Louis marched towards Languedoc at the head of a
formidable army in the spring of the year 1226. The town of
Avignon had proferred to the crusaders the facilities of
crossing the Rhone under her walls, but refused entry within
them to such a host. Louis having arrived at Avignon, insisted
on passing through the town: the Avignonais shut their gates,
and defied the monarch, who instantly formed the siege. One of
the rich municipalities of the south was almost a match for
the king of France. He was kept three months under its walls;
his army a prey to famine, to disease and to the assaults of a
brave garrison. The crusaders lost 20,000 men. The people of
Avignon at length submitted, but on no dishonourable terms.
This was the only resistance that Louis experienced in
Languedoc. … All submitted. Louis retired from his facile
conquest; he himself, and the chiefs of his army stricken by
an epidemy which had prevailed in the conquered regions. The
monarch's feeble frame could not resist it; he expired at
Montpensier, in Auvergne, in November, 1226." Louis VIII. was
succeeded by his young son, Louis IX. (Saint Louis), then a
boy, under the regency of his energetic and capable mother,
Blanche of Castile.
{34}
"The termination of the war with the Albigenses, and
the pacification, or it might be called the acquisition, of
Languedoc, was the chief act of Queen Blanche's regency. Louis
VIII. had overrun the country without resistance in his last
campaign; still, at his departure, Raymond VI. again appeared,
collected soldiers and continued to struggle against the royal
lieutenant. For upward of two years he maintained himself; the
attention of Blanche being occupied by the league of the
barons against her. The successes of Raymond VII., accompanied
by cruelties, awakened the vindictive zeal of the pope.
Languedoc was threatened with another crusade; Raymond was
willing to treat, and make considerable cessions, in order to
avoid such extremities. In April, 1229, a treaty was signed:
in it the rights of De Montfort were passed over. About
two-thirds of the domains of the count of Toulouse were ceded
to the king of France; the remainder was to fall, after
Raymond's death, to his daughter Jeanne, who by the same
treaty was to marry one of the royal princes: heirs failing
them, it was to revert to the crown [which it did in 1271]. On
these terms, with the humiliating addition of a public
penance, Raymond VII. once more was allowed peaceable
possession of Toulouse, and of the part of his domains
reserved to him. Alphonse, brother of Louis IX., married
Jeanne of Toulouse soon after, and took the title of count of
Poitiers; that province being ceded to him in apanage. Robert,
another brother, was made count of Artois at the same time.
Louis himself married Margaret, the eldest daughter of Raymond
Berenger, count of Provence."
_E. E. Crowe,
History of France,
volume 1, chapter 2-3._
"The struggle ended in a vast increase of the power of the
French crown, at the expense alike of the house of Toulouse
and of the house of Aragon. The dominions of the count of
Toulouse were divided. A number of fiefs, Beziers, Narbonne,
Nimes, Albi, and some other districts were at once annexed to
the crown. The capital itself and its county passed to the
crown fifty years later. … The name of Toulouse, except as
the name of the city itself, now passed away, and the new
acquisitions of France came in the end to be known by the name
of the tongue which was common to them with Aquitaine and
Imperial Burgundy [Provence]. Under the name of Languedoc they
became one of the greatest and most valuable provinces of the
French kingdom."
_E. A. Freeman,
History Geography of Europe,
chapter 9._
The brutality and destructiveness of the Crusades.
"The Church of the Albigenses had been drowned in blood. These
supposed heretics had been swept away from the soil of France.
The rest of the Languedocian people had been overwhelmed with
calamity, slaughter, and devastation. The estimates
transmitted to us of the numbers of the invaders and of the
slain are such as almost surpass belief. We can neither verify
nor correct them; but we certainly know that, during a long
succession of years, Languedoc had been invaded by armies more
numerous than had ever before been brought together in
European warfare since the fall of the Roman empire. We know
that these hosts were composed of men inflamed by bigotry and
unrestrained by discipline; that they had neither military pay
nor magazines; that they provided for all their wants by the
sword, living at the expense of the country, and seizing at
their pleasure both the harvests of the peasants and the
merchandise of the citizens. More than three-fourths of the
landed proprietors had been despoiled of their fiefs and
castles. In hundreds of villages, every inhabitant had been
massacred. … Since the sack of Rome by the Vandals, the
European world had never mourned over a national disaster so
wide in its extent or so fearful in its character."
_Sir J. Stephen,
Lectures on the History of France,
lecture 7._
----------ALBIGENSES: End----------
ALBION.
"The most ancient name known to have been given to this island
[Britain] is that of Albion. … There is, however, another
allusion to Britain which seems to carry us much further back,
though it has usually been ill understood. It occurs in the
story of the labours of Hercules, who, after securing the cows
of Geryon, comes from Spain to Liguria, where he is attacked
by two giants, whom he kills before making his way to Italy.
Now, according to Pomponius Mela, the names of the giants were
Albiona and Bergyon, which one may, without much hesitation,
restore to the forms of Albion and Iberion, representing,
undoubtedly, Britain and Ireland, the position of which in the
sea is most appropriately symbolized by the story making them
sons of Neptune or the sea-god. … Even in the time of Pliny,
Albion, as the name of the island, had fallen out of use with
Latin authors; but not so with the Greeks, or with the Celts
themselves, at any rate those of the Goidelic branch; for they
are probably right who suppose that we have but the same word
in the Irish and Scotch Gælic Alba, genitive Alban, the
kingdom of Alban or Scotland beyond the Forth. Albion would be
a form of the name according to the Brythonic pronunciation of
it. … It would thus appear that the name Albion is one that
has retreated to a corner of the island, to the whole of which
it once applied."
_J. Rhys,
Celtic Britain,
chapter 6._
ALSO IN
_E. Guest,
Origines Celticae,
chapter 1._
See SCOTLAND: 8TH-9TH CENTURIES.
ALBIS, The.
The ancient name of the river Elbe.
ALBOIN, King of the Lombards, A. D. 569-573.
ALCALDE.
ALGUAZIL.
CORREGIDOR.
"The word alcalde is from the Arabic 'al cadi,' the judge or
governor. … Alcalde mayor signifies a judge, learned in the
law, who exercises [in Spain] ordinary jurisdiction, civil and
criminal, in a town or district." In the Spanish colonies the
Alcalde mayor was the chief judge. "Irving (Columbus, ii.
331) writes erroneously alguazil mayor, evidently confounding
the two offices. … An alguacil mayor, was a chief constable
or high sheriff." "Corregidor, a magistrate having civil and
criminal jurisdiction in the first instance ('nisi prius')
and gubernatorial inspection in the political and economical
government in all the towns of the district assigned to him."
_H. H. Bancroft,
History of the Pacific States,
volume 1, pages 297 and 250, foot-notes._
ALCANIZ, Battle of.
See SPAIN: A. D. 1809 (FEBRUARY-JUNE).
ALCANTARA, Battle of the (1580).
See PORTUGAL; A. D. 1579-1580.
{35}
ALCANTARA, Knights of.
"Towards the close of Alfonso's reign [Alfonso VIII. of
Castile and Leon, who called himself 'the Emperor,'
A. D. 1126-1157], may be assigned the origin of the
military order of Alcantara. Two cavaliers of Salamanca, don
Suero and don Gomez, left that city with the design of
choosing and fortifying some strong natural frontier, whence
they could not only arrest the continual incursions of the
Moors, but make hostile irruptions themselves into the
territories of the misbelievers. Proceeding along the banks of
the Coales, they fell in with a hermit, Amando by name, who
encouraged them in their patriotic design and recommended the
neighbouring hermitage of St. Julian as an excellent site for
a fortress. Having examined and approved the situation, they
applied to the bishop of Salamanca for permission to occupy
the place: that permission was readily granted: with his
assistance, and that of the hermit Amando, the two cavaliers
erected a castle around the hermitage. They were now joined by
other nobles and by more adventurers, all eager to acquire
fame and wealth in this life, glory in the next. Hence the
foundation of an order which, under the name, first, of St.
Julian, and subsequently of Alcantara, rendered good service
alike to king and church."
_S. A. Dunham,
History of Spain and Portugal,
book 3, section 2, chapter 1, division. 2._
ALCAZAR, OR "THE THREE KINGS," Battle of (1578 or 1579).
See MAROCCO: THE ARAB CONQUEST AND SINCE.
ALCIBIADES, The career of.
See GREECE: B. C. 421-418, and 411-407;
and ATHENS: B. C. 415, and 413-411.
ALCLYDE.
Rhydderch, a Cumbrian prince of the sixth century who was the
victor in a civil conflict, "fixed his headquarters on a rock
in the Clyde, called in the Welsh Alclud [previously a Roman
town known as Theodosia], whence it was known to the English
for a time as Alclyde; but the Goidels called it Dunbrettan,
or the fortress of the Brythons, which has prevailed in the
slightly modified form of Dumbarton. … Alclyde was more than
once destroyed by the Northmen."
_J. Rhys;
Celtic Britain,
chapter 4._
See, also, CUMBRIA.
ALCMÆONIDS, The curse and banishment of the.
See ATHENS: B. C. 612-595.
ALCOLEA, Battle of (1868).
See SPAIN: A. D. 1866-1873.
ALDIE, Battle of.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1863
(JUNE-JULY: PENNSYLVANIA).
ALDINE PRESS, The.
See PRINTING AND THE PRESS: A. D. 1469-1515.
ALEMANNIA: The Mediæval Duchy.
See GERMANY: A. D. 843-962.
ALEMANNI,
ALAMANNI: A. D. 213.
Origin and first appearance.
"Under Antoninus, the Son of Severus, a new and more severe
war once more (A. D. 213) broke out in Raetia. This also was
waged against the Chatti; but by their side a second people is
named, which we here meet for the first time—the Alamanni.
Whence they came, we known not. According to a Roman writing a
little later, they were a conflux of mixed elements; the
appellation also seems to point to a league of communities, as
well as the fact that, afterwards, the different tribes
comprehended under this name stand forth—more than is the
case among the other great Germanic peoples—in their separate
character, and the Juthungi, the Lentienses, and other
Alamannic peoples not seldom act independently. But that it is
not the Germans of this region who here emerge, allied under the
new name and strengthened by the alliance, is shown as well by
the naming of the Alamanni along side of the Chatti, as by the
mention of the unwonted skilfulness of the Alamanni in
equestrian combat. On the contrary, it was certainly, in the
main, hordes coming on from the East that lent new strength to
the almost extinguished German resistance on the Rhine; it is
not improbable that the powerful Semnones, in earlier times
dwelling on the middle Elbe, of whom there is no further
mention after the end of the second century, furnished a
strong contingent to the Alamanni."
_T. Mommsen,
History of Rome,
book 8, chapter 4._
"The standard quotation respecting the derivation of the name
from 'al'='all' and m-n= man', so that the word (somewhat
exceptionably) denotes 'men of all sorts,' is from Agathias,
who quotes Asinius Quadratus. … Notwithstanding this, I
think it is an open question, whether the name may not have
been applied by the truer and more unequivocal Germans of
Suabia and Franconia, to certain less definitely Germanic
allies from Wurtemberg and Baden,—parts of the Decumates
Agri—parts which may have supplied a Gallic, a Gallo-Roman,
or even a Slavonic element to the confederacy; in which case,
a name so German as to have given the present French and
Italian name for Germany, may, originally, have applied to a
population other than Germanic. I know the apparently
paradoxical elements in this view; but I also know that, in
the way of etymology, it is quite as safe to translate 'all'
by 'alii' as by 'omnes': and I cannot help thinking that the
'al-' in Ale-manni is the 'al-' in 'alir-arto' (a foreigner
or man of another sort), 'eli-benzo' (an alien), and
'ali-land' (captivity in foreign land).—Grimm, ii.
628.—Rechsalterth, page 359. And still more satisfied am I that
the 'al-' in Al-emanni is the 'al-' in
Alsatia='el-sass'='ali-satz'='foreign settlement.' In other
words, the prefix in question is more probably the 'al-' in
'el-se', than the 'al-' in 'all.' Little, however, of
importance turns on this. The locality of the Alemanni was the
parts about the Limes Romanus, a boundary which, in the time
of Alexander Severus, Niebuhr thinks they first broke through.
Hence they were the Marchmen of the frontier, whoever those
Marchmen were. Other such Marchmen were the Suevi; unless,
indeed, we consider the two names as synonymous. Zeuss admits
that, between the Suevi of Suabia, and the Alemanni, no
tangible difference can be found."
_R. G. Lathan,
The Germania of Tacitus; Epilegomena,
section 11._
ALSO IN
_T. Smith,
Arminius,
part 2, chapter 1._
See also, SUEVI, and BAVARIANS.
ALEMANNI: A. D. 259.
Invasion of Gaul and Italy.
The Alemanni, "hovering on the frontiers of the Empire …
increased the general disorder that ensued after the death of
Decius. They inflicted severe wounds on the rich provinces of
Gaul; they were the first who removed the veil that covered
the feeble majesty of Italy. A numerous body of the Alemanni
penetrated across the Danube and through the Rhætian Alps into
the plains of Lombardy, advanced as far as Ravenna and
displayed the victorious banners of barbarians almost in sight
of Rome [A. D. 259]. The insult and the danger
rekindled in the senate some sparks of their ancient virtue.
Both the Emperors were engaged in far distant wars—Valerian
in the East and Galienus on the Rhine." The senators, however,
succeeded in confronting the audacious invaders with a force
which checked their advance, and they "retired into Germany
laden with spoil."
_E. Gibbon,
Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire,
chapter 10.
{36}
ALEMANNI: A. D. 270.
Invasion of Italy.
Italy was invaded by the Alemanni, for the second time, in the
reign of Anrelian, A. D. 270. They ravaged the provinces from
the Danube to the Po, and were retreating, laden with spoils,
when the vigorous Emperor intercepted them, on the banks of
the former river. Half the host was permitted to cross the
Danube; the other half was surprised and surrounded. But these
last, unable to regain their own country, broke through the
Roman lines at their rear and sped into Italy again, spreading
havoc as they went. It was only after three great
battles,—one near Placentia, in which the Romans were almost
beaten, another on the Metaurus (where Hasdrubal was
defeated), and a third near Pavia,—that the Germanic
invaders were destroyed.
_E. Gibbon,
Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire,
chapter 11.
ALEMANNI: A. D. 355-361.
Repulse by Julian.
See GAUL: A. D. 355-361.
ALEMANNI: A. D. 365-367.
Invasion of Gaul.
The Alemanni invaded Gaul in 365, committing widespread
ravages and carrying away into the forests of Germany great
spoil and many captives. The next winter they crossed the
Rhine, again, in still greater numbers, defeated the Roman
forces and captured the standards of the Herulian and Batavian
auxiliaries. But Valentinian was now Emperor, and he adopted
energetic measures. His lieutenant Jovinus overcame the
invaders in a great battle fought near Chalons and drove them
back to their own side of the river boundary. Two years later,
the Emperor, himself, passed the Rhine and inflicted a
memorable chastisement on the Alemanni. At the same time he
strengthened the frontier defences, and, by diplomatic arts,
fomented quarrels between the Alemanni and their neighbors,
the Burgundians, which weakened both.
_E. Gibbon,
Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire,
chapter 25.
ALEMANNI: A. D. 378.
Defeat by Gratian.
On learning that the young Emperor Gratian was preparing to
lead the military force of Gaul and the West to the help of
his uncle and colleague, Valens, against the Goths, the
Alemanni swarmed across the Rhine into Gaul. Gratian instantly
recalled the legions that were marching to Pannonia and
encountered the German invaders in a great battle fought near
Argentaria (modern Colmar) in the month of May, A. D. 378. The
Alemanni were routed with such slaughter that no more than
5,000 out of 40,000 to 70,000, are said to have escaped.
Gratian afterwards crossed the Rhine and humbled his
troublesome neighbors in their own country.
_E. Gibbon,
Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire,
chapter 26.
ALEMANNI: A. D. 496-504.
Overthrow by the Franks.
"In the year 496 A. D. the Salians [Salian Franks] began that
career of conquest which they followed up with scarcely any
intermission until the death of their warrior king. The
Alemanni, extending themselves from their original seats on
the right bank of the Rhine, between the Main and the Danube,
had pushed forward into Germanica Prima, where they came into
collision with the Frankish subjects of King Sigebert of
Cologne. Clovis flew to the assistance of his kinsman and
defeated the Alemanni in a great battle in the neighbourhood
of Zülpich [called, commonly, the battle of Tolbiac]. He then
established a considerable number of his Franks in the
territory of the Alemanni, the traces of whose residence are
found in the names of Franconia and Frankfort."
_V. C. Perry,
The Franks,
chapter 2._
"Clovis had been intending to cross the Rhine, but the hosts
of the Alamanni came upon him, as it seems, unexpectedly and
forced a battle on the left bank of the river. He seemed to be
overmatched, and the horror of an impending defeat
overshadowed the Frankish king. Then, in his despair, he
bethought himself of the God of Clotilda [his queen, a
Burgundian Christian princess, of the orthodox or Catholic
faith]. Raising his eyes to heaven, he said: 'Oh Jesus Christ,
whom Clotilda declares to be the Son of the living God, who
art said to give help to those who are in trouble and who
trust in Thee, I humbly beseech Thy succour! I have called on
my gods and they are far from my help. If Thou wilt deliver me
from mine enemies, I will believe in Thee, and be baptised in
Thy name.' At this moment, a sudden change was seen in the
fortunes of the Franks. The Alamanni began to waver, they
turned, they fled. Their king, according to one account was
slain; and the nation seems to have accepted Clovis as its
over-lord." The following Christmas day Clovis was baptised at
Reims and 3,000 of his warriors followed the royal example.
"In the early years of the new century, probably about 503 or
504, Clovis was again at war with his old enemies, the
Alamanni. … Clovis moved his army into their territories and
won a victory much more decisive, though less famous than that
of 496. This time the angry king would make no such easy terms
as he had done before. From their pleasant dwellings by the
Main and the Neckar, from all the valley of the Middle Rhine,
the terrified Alamanni were forced to flee. Their place was
taken by Frankish settlers, from whom all this district
received in the Middle Ages the name of the Duchy of Francia,
or, at a rather later date, that of the Circle of Franconia.
The Alamanni, with their wives and children, a broken and
dispirited host, moved southward to the shores of the Lake of
Constance and entered the old Roman province of Rhætia. Here
they were on what was held to be, in a sense, Italian ground;
and the arm of Theodoric, as ruler of Italy, as successor to
the Emperors of the West, was stretched forth to protect them.
… Eastern Switzerland, Western Tyrol, Southern Baden and
Würtemberg and Southwestern Bavaria probably formed this new
Alamannis, which will figure in later history as the 'Ducatus
Alamanniæ,' or the Circle of Swabia."
_T. Hodgkin,
Italy and Her Invaders,
book 4, chapter 9._
ALSO IN
_P. Godwin,
History of France: Ancient Gaul,
book 3, chapter 11._
See, also, SUEVI: A. D. 460-500;
and FRANKS: A. D. 481-511.
ALEMANNI: A. D. 528-729.
Struggles against the Frank Dominion.
See GERMANY: A. D. 481-768.
ALEMANNI: A. D. 547.
Final subjection to the Franks.
See BAVARIA: A. D. 547.
{37}
ALEPPO: A. D. 638-969.
Taken by the Arab followers of Mahomet in 638, this city was
recovered by the Byzantines in 969.
See BYZANTINE EMPIRE: A. D. 963-1025.
ALEPPO: A. D. 1260.
Destruction by the Mongols.
The Mongols, under Khulagu, or Houlagou, brother of Mangu
Khan, having overrun Mesopotamia and extinguished the
Caliphate at Bagdad, crossed the Euphrates in the spring of
1260 and advanced to Aleppo. The city was taken after a siege
of seven days and given up for five days to pillage and
slaughter. "When the carnage ceased, the streets were cumbered
with corpses. … It is said that 100,000 women and children
were sold as slaves. The walls of Aleppo were razed, its
mosques destroyed, and its gardens ravaged." Damascus
submitted and was spared. Khulagu was meditating, it is said,
the conquest of Jerusalem, when news of the death of the Great
Khan called him to the East.
_H. H. Howorth,
History of the Mongols,
pages 209-211._
ALEPPO: A. D. 1401.
Sack and Massacre by Timour.
See TIMOUR.
ALESIA, Siege of, by Cæsar.
See GAUL: B. C. 58-51.
ALESSANDRIA: The creation of the city (1168).
See ITALY: A. D. 1174-1183.
ALEUTS, The.
See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: ESKIMO.
ALEXANDER
ALEXANDER the Great, B. C. 334-323.
Conquests and Empire.
See MACEDONIA, &c., B. C. 334-330, and after.
Alexander, King of Poland, A. D. 1501-1507.
Alexander, Prince of Bulgaria.
Abduction and Abdication.
See BULGARIA: A. D. 1878-1886.
Alexander I., Czar of Russia, A. D. 1801-1825.
Alexander I., King of Scotland, A. D. 1107-1124.
Alexander II., Pope, A. D. 1061-1073.
Alexander II., Czar of Russia, A. D. 1855-1881.
Alexander II., King of Scotland, A. D. 1214-1249.
Alexander III., Pope, A. D. 1159-1181.
Alexander III., Czar of Russia, A. D. 1881-.
Alexander III., King of Scotland, A. D. 1249-1286.
Alexander IV., Pope, A. D. 1254-1261.
Alexander V., Pope, A. D. 1409-1410
(elected by the Council of Pisa).
Alexander VI., Pope, A. D. 1492-1503.
Alexander VII., Pope, A. D. 1655-1667.
Alexander VIII., Pope, A. D. 1689-1691.
Alexander Severus, Roman Emperor, A. D. 222-235.
ALEXANDRIA: B. C. 332.
The Founding of the City.
"When Alexander reached the Egyptian military station at the
little town or village of Rhakotis, he saw with the quick eye
of a great commander how to turn this petty settlement into a
great city, and to make its roadstead, out of which ships
could be blown by a change of wind, into a double harbour
roomy enough to shelter the navies of the world. All that was
needed was to join the island by a mole to the continent. The
site was admirably secure and convenient, a narrow strip of
land between the Mediterranean and the great inland Lake
Mareotis. The whole northern side faced the two harbours,
which were bounded east and west by the mole, and beyond by
the long, narrow rocky island of Pharos, stretching parallel
with the coast. On the south was the inland port of Lake
Mareotis. The length of the city was more than three miles,
the breadth more than three-quarters of a mile; the mole was
above three-quarters of a mile long and six hundred feet
broad; its breadth is now doubled, owing to the silting up of
the sand. Modern Alexandria until lately only occupied the
mole, and was a great town in a corner of the space which
Alexander, with large provision for the future, measured out.
The form of the new city was ruled by that of the site, but
the fancy of Alexander designed it in the shape of a
Macedonian cloak or chlamys, such as a national hero wears on
the coins of the kings of Macedon, his ancestors. The
situation is excellent for commerce. Alexandria, with the best
Egyptian harbour on the Mediterranean, and the inland port
connected with the Nile streams and canals, was the natural
emporium of the Indian trade. Port Said is superior now,
because of its grand artificial port and the advantage for
steamships of an unbroken sea route."
_R. S. Poole,
Cities of Egypt,
chapter 12._
See, also, MACEDONIA, &c.: B. C. 334-330;
and EGYPT: B. C. 332.
ALEXANDRIA: Reign of Ptolemy Philadelphus, B. C. 282-246.
Greatness and splendor of the City.
Its Commerce.
Its Libraries.
Its Museum.
Its Schools.
Ptolemy Philadelphus, son of Ptolemy Soter, succeeded to the
throne of Egypt in 282 B. C. when his father retired from it
in his favor, and reigned until 246 B. C. "Alexandria, founded
by the great conqueror, increased and beautified by Ptolemy
Soter, was now far the greatest city of Alexander's Empire. It
was the first of those new foundations which are a marked
feature in Hellenism; there were many others of great size and
importance—above all, Antioch, then Seleucia on the Tigris,
then Nicomedia, Nicæa, Apamea, which lasted; besides such as
Lysimacheia, Antigoneia, and others, which early disappeared.
… Alexandria was the model for all the rest. The
intersection of two great principal thoroughfares, adorned
with colonnades for the footways, formed the centre point, the
omphalos of the city. The other streets were at right angles
with these thoroughfares, so that the whole place was quite
regular. Counting its old part, Rhakotis, which was still the
habitation of native Egyptians, Alexandria had five quarters,
one at least devoted to Jews who had originally settled there
in great numbers. The mixed population there of Macedonians,
Greeks, Jews, and Egyptians gave a peculiarly complex and
variable character to the population. Let us not forget the
vast number of strangers from all parts of the world whom
trade and politics brought there. It was the great mart where
the wealth of Europe and of Asia changed hands. Alexander had
opened the sea-way by exploring the coasts of Media and
Persia. Caravans from the head of the Persian Gulf, and ships
on the Red Sea, brought all the wonders of Ceylon and China,
as well as of Further India, to Alexandria. There, too, the
wealth of Spain and Gaul, the produce of Italy and Macedonia,
the amber of the Baltic and the salt fish of Pontus, the
silver of Spain and the copper of Cyprus, the timber of
Macedonia and Crete, the pottery and oil of Greece—a thousand
imports from all the Mediterranean—came to be exchanged for
the spices of Arabia, the splendid birds and embroideries of
India and Ceylon, the gold and ivory of Africa, the antelopes,
the apes, the leopards, the elephants of tropical climes.
Hence the enormous wealth of the Lagidæ, for in addition to
the marvellous fertility and great population—it is said to
have been seven millions—of Egypt, they made all the profits
of this enormous carrying trade.
{38}
We gain a good idea of what the splendours of the capital were
by the very full account preserved to us by Athenæus of the
great feast which inaugurated the reign of Philadelphus. …
All this seems idle pomp, and the doing of an idle sybarite.
Philadelphus was anything but that. … It was he who opened
up the Egyptian trade with Italy, and made Puteoli the great
port for ships from Alexandria, which it remained for
centuries. It was he who explored Ethiopia and the southern
parts of Africa, and brought back not only the curious fauna
to his zoological gardens, but the first knowledge of the
Troglodytes for men of science. The cultivation of science and
of letters too was so remarkably one of his pursuits that the
progress of the Alexandria of his day forms an epoch in the
world's history, and we must separate his University and its
professors from this summary, and devote to them a separate
section. … The history of the organization of the University
and its staff is covered with almost impenetrable mist. For
the Museum and Library were in the strictest sense what we
should now call an University, and one, too, of the Oxford
type, where learned men were invited to take Fellowships, and
spend their learned leisure close to observatories in science,
and a great library of books. Like the mediæval universities,
this endowment of research naturally turned into an engine for
teaching, as all who desired knowledge flocked to such a
centre, and persuaded the Fellow to become a Tutor. The model
came from Athens. There the schools, beginning with the
Academy of Plato, had a fixed property—a home with its
surrounding garden, and in order to make this foundation sure,
it was made a shrine where the Muses were worshipped, and
where the head of the school, or a priest appointed, performed
stated sacrifices. This, then, being held in trust by the
successors of the donor, who bequeathed it; to them, was a
property which it would have been sacrilegious to invade, and
so the title Museum arose for a school of learning. Demetrius
the Phalerean, the friend and protector of Theophrastus,
brought this idea with him to Alexandria, when his namesake
drove him into exile [see GREECE: B. C. 307-197] and it was no
doubt his advice to the first Ptolemy which originated the
great foundation, though Philadelphus, who again exiled
Demetrius, gets the credit of it. The pupil of Aristotle
moreover impressed on the king the necessity of storing up in
one central repository all that the world knew or could
produce, in order to ascertain the laws of things from a
proper analysis of detail. Hence was founded not only the
great library, which in those days had a thousand times the
value a great library has now, but also observatories,
zoological gardens, collections of exotic plants, and of other
new and strange things brought by exploring expeditions from
the furthest regions of Arabia and Africa. This library and
museum proved indeed a home for the Muses, and about it a most
brilliant group of students in literature and science was
formed. The successive librarians were Zenodotus, the
grammarian or critic; Callimachus, to whose poems we shall
presently return; Eratosthenes, the astronomer, who originated
the process by which the size of the earth is determined
to-day; Appollonius the Rhodian, disciple and enemy of
Callimachus; Aristophanes of Byzantium, founder of a school of
philological criticism; and Aristarchus of Samos, reputed to
have been the greatest critic of ancient times. The study of
the text of Homer was the chief labour of Zenodotus,
Aristophanes, and Aristarchus, and it was Aristarchus who
mainly fixed the form in which the Iliad and Odyssey remain to
this day. … The vast collections of the library and museum
actually determined the whole character of the literature of
Alexandria. One word sums it all up—erudition, whether in
philosophy, in criticism, in science, even in poetry. Strange
to say, they neglected not only oratory, for which there was
no scope, but history, and this we may attribute to the fact
that history before Alexander had no charms for Hellenism.
Mythical lore, on the other hand, strange uses and curious
words, were departments of research dear to them. In science
they did great things, so did they in geography. … But were
they original in nothing? Did they add nothing of their own to
the splendid record of Greek literature? In the next
generation came the art of criticism, which Aristarchus
developed into a real science, and of that we may speak in its
place; but even in this generation we may claim for them the
credit of three original, or nearly original, developments in
literature—the pastoral idyll, as we have it in Theocritus;
the elegy, as we have it in the Roman imitators of Philetas
and Callimachus; and the romance, or love story, the parent of
our modern novels. All these had early prototypes in the folk
songs of Sicily, in the love songs of Mimnermus and of
Antimachus, in the tales of Miletus, but still the revival was
fairly to be called original. Of these the pastoral idyll was
far the most remarkable, and laid hold upon the world for
ever."
_J. P. Mahaffy,
The Story of Alexander's Empire,
chapter 13-14._
"There were two Libraries of Alexandria under the Ptolemies,
the larger one in the quarter called the Bruchium, and the
smaller one, named 'the daughter,' in the Serapeum, which was
situated in the quarter called Rhacotis. The former was
totally destroyed in the conflagration of the Bruchium during
Cæsar's Alexandrian War [see below: B. C. 48-47]; but the
latter, which was of great value, remained uninjured (see
Matter, _Histoire de l'École d'Alexandrie, volume 1, page 133
seg., 237 seq.)_ It is not stated by any ancient writer
where the collection of Pergamus [see PERGAMUM] was placed,
which Antony gave to Cleopatra (Plutarch, Anton., c. 58); but
it is most probable that it was deposited in the Bruchium, as
that quarter of the city was now without a library, and the
queen was anxious to repair the ravages occasioned by the
civil war. If this supposition is correct, two Alexandrian
libraries continued to exist after the time of Cæsar, and this
is rendered still more probable by the fact that during the
first three centuries of the Christian era the Bruchium was
still the literary quarter of Alexandria. But a great change
took place in the time of Aurelian. This Emperor, in
suppressing the revolt of Firmus in Egypt, A. D. 273 [see
below: A. D. 273] is said to have destroyed the Bruchium; and
though this statement is hardly to be taken literally, the
Bruchium ceased from this time to be included within the walls
of Alexandria, and was regarded only as a suburb of the city.
{39}
Whether the great library in the Bruchium with the museum and
its other literary establishments, perished at this time, we
do not know; but the Serapeum for the next century takes its
place as the literary quarter of Alexandria, and becomes the
chief library in the city. Hence later writers erroneously
speak of the Serapeum as if it had been from the beginning the
great Alexandrian library. … Gibbon seems to think that the
whole of the Serapeum was destroyed [A. D. 389, by order of
the Emperor Theodosius—see below]; but this was not the case.
It would appear that it was only the sanctuary of the god that
was levelled with the ground, and that the library, the halls
and other buildings in the consecrated ground remained
standing long afterwards."
_E. Gibbon,
Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire,
chapter 28. Notes by Dr. William Smith.
Concerning the reputed final destruction of the Library by the
Moslems,
See below: A. D. 641-646.
ALSO IN
_O. Delepierre,
Historical Difficulties,
chapter 3._
_S. Sharpe,
History of Egypt,
chapters 7, 8 and 12._
See, also, NEOPLATONICS.
ALEXANDRIA: B. C. 48-47.
Cæsar and Cleopatra.
The Rising against the Romans.
The Siege.
Destruction of the great Library.
Roman victory.
From the battle field of Pharsalia (see ROME: B. C. 48)
Pompeius fled to Alexandria in Egypt; and was treacherously
murdered as he stepped on shore. Cæsar arrived a few days
afterwards, in close pursuit, and shed tears, it is said, on
being shown his rival's mangled head. He had brought scarcely
more than 3,000 of his soldiers with him, and he found Egypt
in a turbulent state of civil war. The throne was in dispute
between children of the late king, Ptolemæus Auletes.
Cleopatra, the elder daughter, and Ptolemæus, a son, were at
war with one another, and Arsinoë, a younger daughter, was
ready to put forward claims (see EGYPT: B. C. 80-48).
Notwithstanding the insignificance of his force, Cæsar did not
hesitate to assume to occupy Alexandria and to adjudicate the
dispute. But the fascinations of Cleopatra (then twenty years
of age) soon made him her partisan, and her scarcely disguised
lover. This aggravated the irritation which was caused in
Alexandria by the presence of Cæsar's troops, and a furious
rising of the city was provoked. He fortified himself in the
great palace, which he had taken possession of, and which
commanded the causeway to the island, Pharos, thereby
commanding the port. Destroying a large part of the city in
that neighborhood, he made his position exceedingly strong. At
the same time he seized and burned the royal fleet, and thus
caused a conflagration in which the greater of the two
priceless libraries of Alexandria—the library of the
Museum—was, much of it, consumed. [See above: B. C. 282-246.]
By such measures Cæsar withstood, for several months, a siege
conducted on the part of the Alexandrians with great
determination and animosity. It was not until March, B. C. 47,
that he was relieved from his dangerous situation, by the
arrival of a faithful ally, in the person of Mithridates, king
of Pergamus, who led an army into Egypt, reduced Pelusium, and
crossed the Nile at the head of the Delta. Ptolemæus advanced
with his troops to meet this new invader and was followed and
overtaken by Cæsar. In the battle which then occurred the
Egyptian army was utterly routed and Ptolemæus perished in the
Nile. Cleopatra was then married, after the Egyptian fashion,
to a younger brother, and established on the throne, while
Arsinoë was sent a prisoner to Rome.
_A. Hirtius,
The Alexandrian War._
ALSO IN
_G. Long,
Decline of the Roman Republic,
volume 5, chapter 20._
_C. Merivale,
History of the Romans,
chapter 18._
_S. Sharpe,
History of Egypt,
chapter 12._
ALEXANDRIA: A. D. 116.
Destruction of the Jews.
See JEWS: A. D. 116.
ALEXANDRIA: A. D. 215.
Massacre by Caracalla.
"Caracalla was the common enemy of mankind. He left the
capital (and he never returned to it) about a year after the
murder of Geta [A. D. 213]. The rest of his reign [four years]
was spent in the several provinces of the Empire, particularly
those of the East, and every province was, by turns, the scene
of his rapine and cruelty. … In the midst of peace, and upon
the slightest provocation, he issued his commands at
Alexandria, Egypt [A. D. 215], for a general massacre. From a
secure post in the temple of Serapis, he viewed and directed
the slaughter of many thousand citizens, as well as strangers,
without distinguishing either the number or the crime of the
sufferers."
_E. Gibbon,
Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire,
chapter 6.
ALEXANDRIA: A. D. 260-272.
Tumults of the Third Century.
"The people of Alexandria, a various mixture of nations,
united the vanity and inconstancy of the Greeks with the
superstition and obstinacy of the Egyptians. The most trifling
occasion, a transient scarcity of flesh or lentils, the
neglect of an accustomed salutation, a mistake of precedency
in the public baths, or even a religious dispute, were at any
time sufficient to kindle a sedition among that vast
multitude, whose resentments were furious and implacable.
After the captivity of Valerian [the Roman Emperor, made
prisoner by Sapor, king of Persia, A. D. 260] and the
insolence of his son had relaxed the authority of the laws,
the Alexandrians abandoned themselves to the ungoverned rage
of their passions, and their unhappy country was the theatre
of a civil war, which continued (with a few short and
suspicious truces) above twelve years. All intercourse was cut
off between the several quarters of the afflicted city, every
street was polluted with blood, every building of strength
converted into a citadel; nor did the tumult subside till a
considerable part of Alexandria was irretrievably ruined. The
spacious and magnificent district of Bruchion, with its
palaces and museum, the residence of the kings and
philosophers of Egypt, is described, above a century
afterwards, as already reduced to its present state of dreary
solitude."
_E. Gibbon,
Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire,
chapter 10.
ALEXANDRIA: A. D. 273.
Destruction of the Bruchium by Aurelian.
After subduing Palmyra and its Queen Zenobia, A. D. 272, the
Emperor Aurelian was called into Egypt to put down a rebellion
there, headed by one Firmus, a friend and ally of the
Palmyrene queen. Firmus had great wealth, derived from trade,
and from the paper-manufacture of Egypt, which was mostly in
his hands. He was defeated and put to death. "To Aurelian's
war against Firmus, or to that of Probus a little before in
Egypt, may be referred the destruction of Bruchium, a great
quarter of Alexandria, which according to Ammianus
Marcellinus, was ruined under Aurelian and remained deserted
everafter."
_J. B. L. Crevier,
History of the Roman Emperors,
book 27._
{40}
ALEXANDRIA: A. D. 296.
Siege by Diocletian.
A general revolt of the African provinces of the Roman Empire
occurred A. D. 296. The barbarous tribes of Ethiopia and the
desert were brought into alliance with the provincials of
Egypt, Cyrenaica, Carthage and Mauritania, and the flame of
war was universal. Both the emperors of the time, Diocletian
and Maximian, were called to the African field. "Diocletian,
on his side, opened the campaign in Egypt by the siege of
Alexandria, cut off the aqueducts which conveyed the waters of
the Nile into every quarter of that immense city, and,
rendering his camp impregnable to the sallies of the besieged
multitude, he pushed his reiterated attacks with caution and
vigor. After a siege of eight months, Alexandria, wasted by
the sword and by fire, implored the clemency of the conqueror,
but it experienced the full extent of his severity. Many
thousands of the citizens perished in a promiscuous slaughter,
and there were few obnoxious persons in Egypt who escaped a
sentence either of death or at least of exile. The fate of
Busiris and of Coptos was still more melancholy than that of
Alexandria; those proud cities … were utterly destroyed."
_E. Gibbon,
Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire,
chapter 13.
ALEXANDRIA: A. D. 365.
Great Earthquake.
See EARTHQUAKE IN THE ROMAN WORLD: A. D.365.
ALEXANDRIA: A. D. 389.
Destruction of the Serapeum.
"After the edicts of Theodosius had severely prohibited the
sacrifices of the pagans, they were still tolerated in the
city and temple of Serapis. … The archepiscopal throne of
Alexandria was filled by Theophilus, the perpetual enemy of
peace and virtue; a bold, bad man, whose hands were
alternately polluted with gold and with blood. His pious
indignation was excited by the honours of Serapis. … The
votaries of Serapis, whose strength and numbers were much
inferior to those of their antagonists, rose in arms [A. D.
389] at the instigation of the philosopher Olympius, who
exhorted them to die in the defence of the altars of the gods.
These pagan fanatics fortified themselves in the temple, or
rather fortress, of Serapis; repelled the besiegers by daring
sallies and a resolute defence; and, by the inhuman cruelties
which they exercised on their Christian prisoners, obtained
the last consolation of despair. The efforts of the prudent
magistrate were usefully exerted for the establishment of a
truce till the answer of Theodosius should determine the fate
of Serapis." The judgment of the emperor condemned the great
temple to destruction and it was reduced to a heap of ruins.
"The valuable library of Alexandria was pillaged or destroyed;
and, near twenty years afterwards, the appearance of the empty
shelves excited the regret and indignation of every spectator
whose mind was not totally darkened by religious
prejudice."
_E. Gibbon,
Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire,
chapter 28.
Gibbon's statement as to the destruction of the great library
in the Serapeum is called in question by his learned
annotator, Dr. Smith.
See above: B. C. 282-246.
ALEXANDRIA: A. D. 413-415.
The Patriarch Cyril and his Mobs.
"His voice [that of Cyril, Patriarch of Alexandria, A. D.
412-444] inflamed or appeased the passions of the multitude:
his commands were blindly obeyed by his numerous and fanatic
parabolani, familiarized in their daily office with scenes of
death; and the præfects of Egypt were awed or provoked by the
temporal power of these Christian pontiffs. Ardent in the
prosecution of heresy, Cyril auspiciously opened his reign by
oppressing the Novatians, the most innocent and harmless of
the sectaries. … The toleration, and even the privileges of
the Jews, who had multiplied to the number of 40,000, were
secured by the laws of the Cæsars and Ptolemies, and a long
prescription of 700 years since the foundation of Alexandria.
Without any legal sentence, without any royal mandate, the
patriarch, at the dawn of day, led a seditious multitude to
the attack of the synagogues. Unarmed and unprepared, the Jews
were incapable of resistance; their houses of prayer were
levelled with the ground, and the episcopal warrior, after
rewarding his troops with the plunder of their goods, expelled
from the city the remnant of the misbelieving nation. Perhaps
he might plead the insolence of their prosperity, and their
deadly hatred of the Christians, whose blood they had recently
shed in a malicious or accidental tumult. Such crimes would
have deserved the animadversions of the magistrate; but in
this promiscuous outrage the innocent were confounded with the
guilty."
_E. Gibbon,
Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire,
chapter 47.
"Before long the adherents of the archbishop were guilty of a
more atrocious and unprovoked crime, of the guilt of which a
deep suspicion attached to Cyril. All Alexandria respected,
honoured, took pride in the celebrated Hypatia. She was a
woman of extraordinary learning; in her was centred the
lingering knowledge of that Alexandrian Platonism cultivated
by Plotinus and his school. Her beauty was equal to her
learning; her modesty commended both. … Hypatia lived in
great intimacy with the præfect Orestes; the only charge
whispered against her was that she encouraged him in his
hostility to the patriarch. … Some of Cyril's ferocious
partisans seized this woman, dragged her from her chariot, and
with the most revolting indecency tore her clothes off and then
rent her limb from limb."
_H. H. Milman,
History of Latin Christianity,
book 2, chapter 3._
ALSO IN
_C. Kingsley,
Hypatia._
ALEXANDRIA: A. D. 616.
Taken by Chosroes.
See EGYPT: A. D. 616-628.
ALEXANDRIA: A. D. 641-646.
The Moslem Conquest.
The precise date of events in the Moslem conquest of Egypt, by
Amru, lieutenant of the Caliph Omar, is uncertain. Sir William
Muir fixes the first surrender of Alexandria to Amru in A. D.
641. After that it was reoccupied by the Byzantines either
once or twice, on occasions of neglect by the Arabs, as they
pursued their conquests elsewhere. The probability seems to be
that this occurred only once, in 646. It seems also probable,
as remarked by Sir W. Muir, that the two sieges on the taking
and retaking of the city—641 and 646—have been much confused
in the scanty accounts which have come down to us. On the
first occasion Alexandria would appear to have been generously
treated; while, on the second, it suffered pillage and its
fortifications were destroyed. How far there is truth in the
commonly accepted story of the deliberate burning of the great
Alexandrian Library—or so much of it as had escaped
destruction at the hands of Roman generals and Christian
patriarchs—is a question still in dispute. Gibbon discredited
the story, and Sir William Muir, the latest of students in
Mahometan history, declines even the mention of it in his
narrative of the conquest of Egypt. But other historians of
repute maintain the probable accuracy of the tale told by
Abulpharagus—that Caliph Omar ordered the destruction of the
Library, on the ground that, if the books in it agreed with
the Koran they were useless, if they disagreed with it they
were pernicious.
See MAHOMETAN CONQUEST: A. D. 640-646.
{41}
ALEXANDRIA: A. D. 815-823.
Occupied by piratical Saracens from Spain.
See CRETE: A. D. 823.
ALEXANDRIA: A. D. 1798.
Captured by the French under Bonaparte.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1798 (MAY-AUGUST).
ALEXANDRIA: A. D. 1801-1802.
Battle of French and English.
Restoration to the Turks.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1801-1802.
ALEXANDRIA: A. D. 1807.
Surrendered to the English.
The brief occupation and humiliating capitulation.
See TURKS: A. D. 1806-1807.
ALEXANDRIA: A. D. 1840.
Bombardment by the English.
See TURKS: A. D. 1831-1840.
ALEXANDRIA: A. D. 1882.
Bombardment by the English fleet.
Massacre of Europeans.
Destruction.
See EGYPT: A. D. 1875-1882, and 1882-1883.
----------ALEXANDRIA: End----------
ALEXANDRIA, LOUISIANA, The Burning of.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1864
(MARCH-MAY: LOUISIANA).
ALEXANDRIA, VIRGINIA., A. D. 1861 (May).
Occupation by Union troops.
Murder of Colonel Ellsworth.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1861 (MAY: VIRGINIA).
ALEXANDRIAN TALENT.
See TALENT.
ALEXIS, Czar of Russia, A. D. 1645-1676.
ALEXIUS I. (Comnenus),
Emperor in the East (Byzantine, or Greek), A. D. 1081-1118.
Alexius II. (Comnenus), Emperor in the East (Byzantine, or
Greek), A. D. 1181-1183.
Alexius III. (Angelus), Emperor in the East (Byzantine, or
Greek), A. D. 1195-1203
Alexius IV. (Angelus), Emperor in the East (Byzantine, or
Greek), A. D. 1203-1204
Alexius V. (Ducas), Emperor in the East (Byzantine, or Greek),
A. D. 1204.
ALFONSO
ALFONSO I., King of Aragon and Navarre, A. D. 1104-1134
Alfonso I., King of Castile, A. D. 1072-1109;
and VI. of Leon, A. D. 1065-1109.
Alfonso I., King of Leon and the Asturias, or Oviedo,
A. D. 739-757.
Alfonso I., King of Portugal, A. D. 1112-1185.
Alfonso II., King of Aragon, A D. 1163-1196.
Alfonso II., King of Castile, A. D. 1126-1157.
Alfonso II., King of Leon and the Asturias,
or Oviedo, A. D. 791-842.
Alfonso II., King of Naples, A. D. 1494-1495.
Alfonso II., King of Portugal, A. D. 1211-1223.
Alfonso III., King of Aragon, A. D. 1285-1291.
Alfonso III., King of Castile, A. D. 1158-1214.
Alfonso III., King of Leon and the Asturias,
or Oviedo, A. D. 866-910.
Alfonso III., King of Portugal, A. D. 1244-1279.
Alfonso IV., King of Aragon, A. D. 1327-1336.
Alfonso IV., King of Leon and the Asturias,
or Oviedo, A. D. 925-930.
Alfonso IV., King of Portugal, A. D. 1323-1357.
Alfonso V., King of Aragon and I. of Sicily, A. D. 1416-1458;
I. of Naples, A. D. 1443-1458.
Alfonso V., King of Leon and the Asturias,
or Oviedo, A. D. 9919-1027.
Alfonso V., King of Portugal, A. D. 1438-1481.
Alfonso VI., King of Portugal, A. D., 1656-1667.
Alfonso VII., King of Leon, A. D. 1109-1126.
Alfonso VIII., King of Leon, A. D. 1126-1157.
Alfonso IX., King of Leon, A. D. 1188-1230.
Alfonso X., King of Leon and Castile, A. D. 1252-1284.
Alfonso XI., King of Leon and Castile, A. D. 1312-1350.
Alfonso XII., King of Spain, A. D. 1874-1885.
ALFORD, Battle of (A. D. 1645).
See SCOTLAND: A. D. 1644-1645.
ALFRED, called the Great, King of Wessex, A. D. 871-901.
ALGIERS AND ALGERIA.
"The term Algiers literally signifies 'the island,' and was
derived from the original construction of its harbour, one
side of which was separated from the land."
_M. Russell,
History of the Barbary States,
page 314._
For history, see BARBARY STATES.
ALGIHED, The.
The term by which a war is proclaimed among the Mahometans to
be a Holy War.
ALGONKINS, OR ALGONQUINS, The.
See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: ALGONKIN FAMILY.
ALGUAZIL.
See ALCALDE.
ALHAMA, The taking of.
See SPAIN: A. D. 1476-1492.
ALHAMBRA, The building of the.
See SPAIN: A. D. 1238-1273.
ALI, Caliph, A. D. 655-661.
ALIA, Battle of the (B. C. 390).
See ROME: B. C. 390-347.
ALIBAMUS, OR ALIBAMONS, The.
See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: MUSKHOGEE FAMILY.
ALIEN AND SEDITION LAWS, The.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1798.
ALIGARH, Battle of (1803).
See INDIA: A. D. 1798-1805.
ALIWAL, Battle of (1846).
See INDIA: A D. 1845-1849.
ALJUBAROTA, Battle of (1385).
See PORTUGAL: A. D. 1383-1385,
and SPAIN: A. D. 1368-1479.
ALKMAAR, Siege by the Spaniards and successful defense (1573).
See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1573-1574.
ALKMAR, Battle of.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1799 (SEPTEMBER-OCTOBER).
"ALL THE TALENTS," The Ministry of.
See ENGLAND: A. D. 1801-1806, and 1806-1812.
ALLEGHANS, The.
See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: ALLEGHANS.
ALLEMAGNE.
The French name for Germany, derived from the confederation of
the Alemanni.
See ALEMANNI: A. D. 213.
ALLEN, Ethan, and the Green Mountain Boys.
See VERMONT, A. D. 1749-1774.
And the Capture of Fort Ticonderoga.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1775 (MAY).
ALLERHEIM, Battle of (or Second battle of Nördlingen,—1645.)
See GERMANY: A. D. 1640-1645.
ALLERTON Isaac, and the Plymouth Colony.
See MASSACHUSETTS (PLYMOUTH): A. D. 1623-1629. and after.
ALLIANCE, The Farmers'.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1877-1891.
{42}
ALLOBROGES, Conquest of the.
The Allobroges (see ÆDUI; also GAULS) having sheltered the
chiefs of the Salyes, when the latter succumbed to the Romans,
and having refused to deliver them up, the proconsul Cn.
Domitius marched his army toward their country, B. C. 121. The
Allobroges advanced to meet him and were defeated at
Vindalium, near the junction of the Sorgues with the Rhone,
and not far from Avignon, having 20,000 men slain and 3,000
taken prisoners. The Arverni, who were the allies of the
Allobroges, then took the field, crossing the Cevennes
mountains and the river Rhone with a vast host, to attack the
small Roman army of 30,000 men, which had passed under the
command of Q. Fabius Maximus Æmilianus. On the 8th of August,
B. C. 121, the Gaulish horde encountered the legions of Rome,
at a point near the junction of the Isere and the Rhone, and
were routed with such enormous slaughter that 150,000 are said
to have been slain or drowned. This battle settled the fate of
the Allobroges, who surrendered to Rome without further
struggle; but the Arverni were not pursued. The final conquest
of that people was reserved for Cæsar.
_G. Long,
Decline of the Roman Republic,
volume 1, chapter 21._
ALMA, Battle of the.
See RUSSIA: A. D. 1854 (SEPTEMBER).
ALMAGROS AND PIZARROS, The quarrel of the.
See PERU: A. D. 1533-1548.
ALMANZA, Battle of (A. D. 1707).
See SPAIN: A. D. 1707.
ALMENARA, Battle of (A. D. 1710).
See SPAIN: A. D. 1707-1710.
ALMOHADES, The.
The empire of the Almoravides, in Morocco and Spain, which
originated in a Moslem missionary movement, was overturned in
the middle of the twelfth century by a movement of somewhat
similar nature. The agitating cause of the revolution was a
religious teacher named Mahomet ben Abdallah, who rose in the
reign of Ali (successor to the great Almoravide prince,
Joseph), who gained the odor of sanctity at Morocco and who
took the title of Al Mehdi, or El Mahdi, the Leader, "giving
himself out for the person whom many Mahometans expect under
that title. As before, the sect grew into an army, and the
army grew into an empire. The new dynasty were called
Almohades from Al Mehdi, and by his appointment a certain
Abdelmumen was elected Caliph and Commander of the Faithful.
Under his vigorous guidance the new kingdom rapidly grew, till
the Almohades obtained quite the upper hand in Africa, and in
1146 they too passed into Spain. Under Abdelmumen and his
successors, Joseph and Jacob Almansor, the Almohades entirely
supplanted the Almoravides, and became more formidable foes
than they had been to the rising Christian powers. Jacob
Almansor won in 1195 the terrible battle of Alarcos against
Alfonso of Castile, and carried his conquests deep into that
kingdom. His fame spread through the whole Moslem world. …
With Jacob Almansor perished the glory of the Almohade. His
successor, Mahomet, lost in 1211 [June 16] the great battle of
Alacab or Tolosa against Alfonso, and that day may be said to
have decided the fate of Mahometanism in Spain. The Almohade
dynasty gradually declined. … The Almohades, like the
Ommiads and the Almoravides, vanish from history amidst a
scene of confusion the details of which it were hopeless to
attempt to remember."
_E. A. Freeman,
History and Conquests of the Saracens,
lecture 5._
ALSO IN
_H. Coppée,
Conquest of Spain by the Arab-Moors,
book 8, chapter 4_
See, also, SPAIN. A. D. 1146-1232.
ALMONACID, Battle of.
See SPAIN: A. D. 1809 (AUGUST-NOVEMBER).
ALMORAVIDES, The.
During the confusions of the 11th century in the Moslem world,
a missionary from Kairwan—one Abdallah—preaching the faith
of Islam to a wild tribe in Western North Africa, created a
religious movement which "naturally led to a political one."
"The tribe now called themselves Almoravides, or more properly
Morabethah, which appears to mean followers of the Marabout or
religious teacher. Abdallah does not appear to have himself
claimed more than a religious authority, but their princes
Zachariah and Abu Bekr were completely guided by his counsels.
After his death Abu Bekr founded in 1070 the city of Morocco.
There he left as his lieutenant his cousin Joseph, who grew so
powerful that Abu Bekr, by a wonderful exercise of moderation,
abdicated in his favour, to avoid a probable civil war. This
Joseph, when he had become lord of most part of Western
Africa, was requested, or caused himself to be requested, to
assume the title of Emir al Momenin, Commander of the
Faithful. As a loyal subject of the Caliph of Bagdad, he
shrank from such sacrilegious usurpation, but he did not
scruple to style himself Emir Al Muslemin, Commander of the
Moslems. … The Almoravide Joseph passed over into Spain,
like another Tarik; he vanquished Alfonso [the Christian
prince of the rising kingdom of Castile] at Zalacca [Oct. 23,
A. D. 1086] and then converted the greater portion of
Mahometan Spain into an appendage to his own kingdom of
Morocco. The chief portion to escape was the kingdom of
Zaragossa, the great out-post of the Saracens in northeastern
Spain. … The great cities of Andalusia were all brought
under a degrading submission to the Almoravides. Their dynasty
however was not of long duration, and it fell in turn [A. D.
1147] before one whose origin was strikingly similar to their
own" [the Almohades].
_E. A. Freeman,
History and Conquests of the Saracens,
lecture 5._
ALSO IN
_H. Coppée,
Conquest of Spain by the Arab-Moors,
book 8, chapter 2 and 4_.
See, also, PORTUGAL: EARLY HISTORY.
ALOD.
ALODIAL.
"It may be questioned whether any etymological connexion
exists between the words odal and alod, but their
signification applied to land is the same: the alod is the
hereditary estate derived from primitive occupation; for which
the owner owes no service except the personal obligation to
appear in the host and in the council. … The land held in
full ownership might be either an ethel, an inherited or
otherwise acquired portion of original allotment; or an estate
created by legal process out of public land. Both these are
included in the more common term alod; but the former looks
for its evidence in the pedigree of its owner or in the
witness of the community, while the latter can produce the
charter or· book by which it is created, and is called
bocland. As the primitive allotments gradually lost their
historical character, as the primitive modes of transfer
became obsolete, and the use of written records took their
place, the ethel is lost sight of in the bookland. All the
land that is not so accounted for is folcland, or public
land."
_William Stubbs,
Constitutional History of England,
chapter 3, section 24, and chapter 5, section 36._
{43}
"Alodial lands are commonly opposed to beneficiary or feudal;
the former being strictly proprietary, while the latter
depended upon a superior. In this sense the word is of
continual recurrence in ancient histories, laws and
instruments. It sometimes, however, bears the sense of
inheritance. … Hence, in the charters of the eleventh
century, hereditary fiefs are frequently termed alodia."
_H. Hallam,
Middle Ages,
chapter 2, part 1, note._
ALSO IN
_J. M. Kemble,
The Saxon in England,
book 1, chapter 11._
See, also, FOLCLAND.
ALP ARSLAN, Seljouk Turkish Sultan, A. D. 1063-1073.
ALPHONSO.
See ALFONSO.
ALSACE.
ALSATIA:
The Name.
See ALEMANNI: A. D. 213.
ALSACE: A. D. 843-870.
Included in the Kingdom of Lorraine.
See LORRAINE: A. D. 843-870.
ALSACE: 10th Century.
Joined to the Empire.
See LORRAINE: A. D. 911-980.
ALSACE: 10th Century.
Origin of the House of Hapsburg.
See AUSTRIA: A. D. 1246-1282.
ALSACE: A. D. 1525.
Revolt of the Peasants.
See GERMANY: A. D. 1524-1525.
ALSACE: A. D. 1621-1622.
Invasions by Mansfeld and his predatory army.
See GERMANY: A. D. 1621-1623.
ALSACE: A. D. 1636-1639.
Invasion and conquest by Duke Bernhard of Weimar.
Richelieu's appropriation of the conquest for France.
See GERMANY: A. D. 1634-1639.
ALSACE: A. D. 1648.
Cession to France in the Peace of Westphalia.
See GERMANY: A. D. 1648.
ALSACE: A. D. 1659.
Renunciation of the claims of the King of Spain.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1659-1661.
ALSACE: A. D. 1674-1678.
Ravaged in the Campaigns of Turenne and Condé.
See NETHERLANDS (HOLLAND): A. D. 1674-1678.
ALSACE: A. D. 1679-1681.
Complete Absorption in France.
Assumption of entire Sovereignty by Louis XIV.
Encroachments of the Chamber of Reannexation.
Seizure of Strasburg.
Overthrow of its independence as an Imperial City.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1679-1681.
ALSACE: A. D. 1744.
Invasion by the Austrians.
See AUSTRIA: A. D. 1743-1744.
ALSACE: A. D. 1871.
Ceded to the German Empire by France.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1871 (JANUARY-MAY).
ALSACE: 1871-1879.
Organization of government as a German Impanel Province.
See GERMANY: A. D. 1871-1879.
----------ALSACE: End----------
ALTA CALIFORNIA.
Upper California.
See CALIFORNIA: A. D. 1543-1781.
ALTENHElM, Battle of (A. D. 1675).
See NETHERLANDS (HOLLAND): A. D. 1674-1678.
ALTENHOVEN, Battle of (1793).
See FRANCE: A. D. 1793 (FEBRUARY-APRIL).
ALTHING, The.
See THING;
Also, NORMANS.—NORTHMEN: A. D. 860-1100;
And SCANDINAVIAN STATES (DENMARK-ICELAND): A. D. 1849-1874.
ALTIS, The.
See OLYMPIC FESTIVAL.
ALTMARCK.
See BRANDENBURG: A. D. 1142-1152.
ALTONA: A. D. 1713.
Burned by the Swedes.
See SCANDINAVIAN STATES (SWEDEN): A. D. 1707-1718.
ALTOPASCIO, Battle of (1325).
See ITALY: A. D. 1313-1330.
ALVA IN THE NETHERLANDS.
See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1566-1568 to 1573-1574.
AMADEO, King of Spain, A. D. 1871-1873.
AMAHUACA, The.
See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: ANDESIANS.
AMALASONTHA, Queen of the Ostrogoths.
See ROME: A. D. 535-553.
AMALEKITES, The.
"The Amalekites were usually regarded as a branch of the
Edomites or 'Red-skins'. Amalek, like Kenaz, the father of the
Kenizzites or 'Hunters,' was the grandson of Esau (Gen. 36:
12, 16). He thus belonged to the group of nations,—Edomites,
Ammonites, and Moabites,—who stood in a relation of close
kinship to Israel. But they had preceded the Israelites in
dispossessing the older inhabitants of the land, and
establishing themselves in their place. The Edomites had
partly destroyed, partly amalgamated the Horites of Mount Seir
(Deuteronomy 2: 12); the Moabites had done the same to the Emim,
'a people great and many, and tall as the Anakim' (Deuteronomy
2: 10), while the Ammonites had extirpated and succeeded to
the Rephaim or 'Giants,' who in that part of the country were
termed Zamzummim (Deuteronomy 2: 20; Gen. 14: 5). Edom however
stood in a closer relation to Israel than its two more
northerly neighbours. … Separate from the Edomites or
Amalekites were the Kenites or wandering 'smiths.' They formed
an important Guild in an age when the art of metallurgy was
confined to a few. In the time of Saul we hear of them as
camping among the Amalekites (1. Samuel 15: 6.) … The
Kenites … did not constitute a race, or even a tribe. They
were, at most, a caste. But they had originally come, like the
Israelites or the Edomites, from those barren regions of
Northern Arabia which were peopled by the Menti of the
Egyptian inscriptions. Racially, therefore, we may regard them
as allied to the descendants of Abraham. While the Kenites and
Amalekites were thus Semitic in their origin, the Hivites or
'Villagers' are specially associated with Amorites."
_A. H. Sayce,
Races of the Old Testament,
chapter 6._
ALSO IN
_H. Ewald,
History of Israel,
book 1, section 4._
See, also, ARABIA.
AMALFI.
"It was the singular fate of this city to have filled up the
interval between two periods of civilization, in neither of
which she was destined to be distinguished. Scarcely known
before the end of the sixth century, Amalfi ran a brilliant
career, as a free and trading republic [see ROME: A. D.
554-800], which was checked by the arms of a conqueror in the
middle of the twelfth. … There must be, I suspect, some
exaggeration about the commerce and opulence of Amalfi, in the
only age when she possessed any at all."
_H. Hallam,
The Middle Ages,
chapter 9, part 1, with note._
{44}
"Amalfi and Atrani lie close together in two … ravines, the
mountains almost arching over them, and the sea washing their
very house-walls. … It is not easy to imagine the time when
Amalfi and Atrani were one town, with docks and arsenals and
harbourage for their associated fleets, and when these little
communities were second in importance to no naval power of
Christian Europe. The Byzantine Empire lost its hold on Italy
during the eighth century; and after this time the history of
Calabria is mainly concerned with the republics of Naples and
Amalfi, their conflict with the Lombard dukes of Benevento,
their opposition to the Saracens, and their final subjugation
by the Norman conquerors of Sicily. Between the year 839 A.
D., when Amalfi freed itself from the control of Naples and
the yoke of Benevento, and the year 1131, when Roger of
Hauteville incorporated the republic in his kingdom of the Two
Sicilies, this city was the foremost naval and commercial port
of Italy. The burghers of Amalfi elected their own doge;
founded the Hospital of Jerusalem, whence sprang the knightly
order of S. John; gave their name to the richest quarter in
Palermo; and owned trading establishments or factories in all
the chief cities of the Levant. Their gold coinage of 'tari'
formed the standard of currency before the Florentines had
stamped the lily and S. John upon the Tuscan florin. Their
shipping regulations supplied Europe with a code of maritime
laws. Their scholars, in the darkest depths of the dark ages,
prized and conned a famous copy of the Pandects of Justinian,
and their seamen deserved the fame of having first used, if
they did not actually invent, the compass. … The republic
had grown and flourished on the decay of the Greek Empire.
When the hard-handed race of Hauteville absorbed the heritage
of Greeks and Lombards and Saracens in Southern Italy [see
ITALY (Southern): A. D. 1000-1090], these adventurers
succeeded in annexing Amalfi. But it was not their interest to
extinguish the state. On the contrary, they relied for
assistance upon the navies and the armies of the little
commonwealth. New powers had meanwhile arisen in the North of
Italy, who were jealous of rivalry upon the open seas; and
when the Neapolitans resisted King Roger in 1135, they called
Pisa to their aid, and sent her fleet to destroy Amalfi. The
ships of Amalfi were on guard with Roger's navy in the Bay of
Naples. The armed citizens were, under Roger's orders, at
Aversa. Meanwhile the home of the republic lay defenceless on
its mountain-girdled seaboard. The Pisans sailed into the
harbour, sacked the city and carried off the famous Pandects
of Justinian as a trophy. Two years later they returned, to
complete the work of devastation. Amalfi never recovered from
the injuries and the humiliation of these two attacks. It was
ever thus that the Italians, like the children of the dragon's
teeth which Cadmus sowed, consumed each other."
_J. A. Symonds,
Sketches and Studies in Italy,
pages 2-4._
AMALINGS, OR AMALS.
The royal race of the ancient Ostragoths, as the Balthi or
Balthings were of the Visigoths, both claiming a descent from
the gods.
AMAZIGH, The.
See LIBYANS.
AMAZONS.
"The Amazons, daughters of Arês and Harmonia, are both early
creations, and frequent reproductions, of the ancient epic.
… A nation of courageous, hardy and indefatigable women,
dwelling apart from men, permitting only a short temporary
intercourse for the purpose of renovating their numbers, and
burning out their right breast with a view of enabling
themselves to draw the bow freely,—this was at once a general
type stimulating to the fancy of the poet, and a theme
eminently popular with his hearers. Nor was it at all
repugnant to the faith of the latter—who had no recorded
facts to guide them, and no other standard of credibility as
to the past except such poetical narratives themselves—to
conceive communities of Amazons as having actually existed in
anterior time. Accordingly we find these warlike females
constantly reappearing in the ancient poems, and universally
accepted as past realities. In the Iliad, when Priam wishes to
illustrate emphatically the most numerous host in which he
ever found himself included, he tells us that it was assembled
in Phrygia, on the banks of the Sangarius, for the purpose of
resisting the formidable Amazons. When Bellerophon is to be
employed on a deadly and perilous undertaking, by those who
indirectly wish to procure his death, he is despatched against
the Amazons. … The Argonautic heroes find the Amazons on the
river Thermôdon in their expedition along the southern coast
of the Euxine. To the same spot Hêrakles goes to attack them,
in the performance of the ninth labour imposed upon him by
Eurystheus, for the purpose of procuring the girdle of the
Amazonian queen, Hippolyte; and we are told that they had not
yet recovered from the losses sustained in this severe
aggression when Theseus also assaulted and defeated them,
carrying off their queen Antiopê. This injury they avenged by
invading Attica … and penetrated even into Athens itself:
where the final battle, hard-fought and at one time doubtful,
by which Thêseus crushed them, was fought—in the very heart
of the city. Attic antiquaries confidently pointed out the
exact position of the two contending armies. … No portion of
the ante-historical epic appears to have been more deeply
worked into the national mind of Greece than this invasion and
defeat of the Amazons. … Their proper territory was asserted
to be the town and plain of Themiskyra, near the Grecian
colony of Amisus, on the river Thermôdon [northern Asia
Minor], a region called after their name by Roman historians
and geographers. … Some authors placed them in Libya or
Ethiopia."
_G. Grote,
History of Greece,
part 1, chapter 11._
AMAZONS RIVER, Discovery and Naming of the.
The mouth of the great river of South America was discovered
in 1500 by Pinzon, or Pinçon (see AMERICA: A. D. 1499-1500),
who called it 'Santa Maria de la Mar Dulce' (Saint Mary of the
Fresh-Water Sea). "This was the first name given to the river,
except that older and better one of the Indians, 'Parana,' the
Sea; afterwards it was Marañon and Rio das Amazonas, from the
female warriors that were supposed to live near its banks. …
After Pinçon's time, there were others who saw the fresh-water
sea, but no one was hardy enough to venture into it. The honor
of its real discovery was reserved for Francisco de Orellana;
and he explored it, not from the east, but from the west, in
one of the most daring voyages that was ever recorded. It was
accident rather than design that led him to it. After …
Pizarro had conquered Peru, he sent his brother Gonzalo, with
340 Spanish soldiers, and 4,000 Indians, to explore the great
forest east of Quito, 'where there were cinnamon trees.' The
expedition started late in 1539, and it was two years before
the starved and ragged survivors returned to Quito. In the
course of their wanderings they had struck the river Coco;
building here a brigantine, they followed down the current, a
part of them in the vessel, a part on shore.
{45}
After a while they met some Indians, who told them of a rich
country ten days' journey beyond—a country of gold, and with
plenty of provisions. Gonzalo placed Orellana in command of
the brigantine, and ordered him, with 50 soldiers, to go on to
this gold-land, and return with a load of provisions. Orellana
arrived at the mouth of the Coco in three days, but found no
provisions; 'and he considered that if he should return with
this news to Pizarro, he would not reach him in a year, on
account of the strong current, and that if he remained where
he was, he would be of no use to the one or to the other. Not
knowing how long Gonzalo Pizarro would take to reach the
place, without consulting anyone he set sail and prosecuted
his voyage onward, intending to ignore Gonzalo, to reach
Spain, and obtain that government for himself.' Down the Napo
and the Amazons, for seven months, these Spaniards floated to
the Atlantic. At times they suffered terribly from hunger:
'There was nothing to eat but the skins which formed their
girdles, and the leather of their shoes, boiled with a few
herbs.' When they did get food they were often obliged to
fight hard for it; and again they were attacked by thousands
of naked Indians, who came in canoes against the Spanish
vessel. At some Indian villages, however, they were kindly
received and well fed, so they could rest while building a new
and stronger vessel. … On the 26th of August, 1541, Orellana
and his men sailed out to the blue water 'without either
pilot, compass, or anything useful for navigation; nor did
they know what direction they should take.' Following the
coast, they passed inside of the island of Trinidad, and so at
length reached Cubagua in September. From the king of Spain
Orellana received a grant of the land he had discovered; but
he died while returning to it, and his company was dispersed.
It was not a very reliable account of the river that was given
by Orellana and his chronicler, Padre Carbajal. So Herrera
tells their story of the warrior females, and very properly
adds: 'Every reader may believe as much as he likes.'"
_H. H. Smith,
Brazil, the Amazons, and the Coast,
chapter 1._
In chapter 18 of this same work "The Amazon Myth" is discussed at
length, with the reports and opinions of numerous travellers,
both early and recent, concerning it.—Mr. Southey had so much
respect for the memory of Orellana that he made an effort to
restore that bold but unprincipled discoverer's name to the
great river. "He discarded Maranon, as having too much
resemblance to Maranham, and Amazon, as being founded upon
fiction and at the same time inconvenient. Accordingly, in his
map, and in all his references to the great river he
denominates it Orellana. This decision of the poet-laureate of
Great Britain has not proved authoritative in Brazil. O
Amazonas is the universal appellation of the great river among
those who float upon its waters and who live upon its banks.
… Pará, the aboriginal name of this river, was more
appropriate than any other. It signifies 'the father of
waters.' … The origin of the name and mystery concerning the
female warriors, I think, has been solved within the last few
years by the intrepid Mr. Wallace. … Mr. Wallace, I think,
shows conclusively that Friar Gaspar [Carbajal] and his
companions saw Indian male warriors who were attired in
habiliments such as Europeans would attribute to women. … I
am strongly of the opinion that the story of the Amazons has
arisen from these feminine-looking warriors encountered by the
early voyagers."
_J. C. Fletcher and D. P. Kidder,
Brazil and the Brazilians,
chapter 27._
ALSO IN
_A. R. Wallace,
Travels on the Amazon and Rio Negro,
chapter 17._
_R. Southey,
History of Brazil,
chapter 4 (volume 1)._
AMAZULUS,
ZULUS.
The Zulu War.
See SOUTH AFRICA: THE ABORIGINAL INHABITANTS;
and the same: A. D. 1877-1879.
AMBACTI.
"The Celtic aristocracy [of Gaul] … developed the system of
retainers, that is, the privilege of the nobility to surround
themselves with a number of hired mounted servants—the
ambacti as they were called—and thereby to form a state
within a state; and, resting on the support of these troops of
their own, they defied the legal authorities and the common
levy and practically broke up the commonwealth. … This
remarkable word [ambacti] must have been in use as early as
the sixth century of Rome among the Celts in the valley of the
Po. … It is not merely Celtic, however, but also German, the
root of our 'Amt,' as indeed the retainer-system itself is
common to the Celts and the Germans. It would be of great
historical importance to ascertain whether the word—and
therefore the thing—came to the Celts from the Germans or to
the Germans from the Celts. If, as is usually supposed, the
word is originally German and primarily signified the servant
standing in battle 'against the back' ('and '=against,
'bak'=back) of his master, this is not wholly irreconcilable
with the singularly early occurrence of the word among the
Celts. … It is … probable that the Celts, in Italy as in
Gaul, employed Germans chiefly as those hired
servants-at-arms. The 'Swiss guard' would therefore in that
case be some thousands of years older than people suppose."
_T. Mommsen,
History of Rome,
book 5, chapter 7, and foot-note._
AMBARRI, The.
A small tribe in Gaul which occupied anciently a district
between the Saone, the Rhone and the Ain.
_Napoleon III.,
History of Cæsar,
book 3, chapter 2, note._
AMBIANI, The.
See BELGÆ.
AMBITUS.
Bribery at elections was termed ambitus among the Romans, and
many unavailing laws were enacted to check it.
_W. Ramsay,
Manual of Roman Antiquity,
chapter 9._
AMBIVARETI, The.
A tribe in ancient Gaul which occupied the left bank of the
Meuse, to the south of the marsh of Peel.
_Napoleon III.,
History of Cæsar,
book 3, chapter 2, note._
AMBLEVE, Battle of (716.)
See FRANKS (MEROVINGIAN EMPIRE): A. D. 511-752.
AMBOISE, Conspiracy or Tumult of.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1559-1561.
AMBOISE, Edict of.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1560-1563.
AMBOYNA, Massacre of.
See INDIA: A. D. 1600-1702.
AMBRACIA (Ambrakia).
See KORKYRA.
AMBRONES, The.
See CIMBRI AND TEUTONES: B. C. 113-102.
AMBROSIAN CHURCH.
AMBROSIAN CHANT.
See MILAN: A. D. 374-397.
AMEIXAL, OR
ESTREMOS, Battle of (1663).
See PORTUGAL: A. D. 1637-1668.
[Image: ETHNOLOGICAL MAP OF MODERN EUROPE (right)]
{46}
AMERICA, The Name.
See below: A. D. 1500-1514.
AMERICA, Prehistoric.
"Widely scattered throughout the United States, from sea to
sea, artificial mounds are discovered, which may be enumerated
by the thousands or hundreds of thousands. They vary greatly
in size; some are so small that a half-dozen laborers with
shovels might construct one of them in a day, while others
cover acres and are scores of feet in height. These mounds
were observed by the earliest explorers and pioneers of the
country. They did not attract great attention, however, until
the science of archæology demanded their investigation. Then
they were assumed to furnish evidence of a race of people
older than the Indian tribes. Pseud-archæologists descanted on
the Mound-builders that once inhabited the land, and they told
of swarming populations who had reached a high condition of
culture, erecting temples, practicing arts in the metals, and
using hieroglyphs. So the Mound-builders formed the theme of
many an essay on the wonders of ancient civilization. The
research of the past ten or fifteen years has put this subject
in a proper light. First, the annals of the Columbian epoch
have been carefully studied, and it is found that some of the
mounds have been constructed in historical time, while early
explorers and settlers found many actually used by tribes of
North American Indians; so we know that many of them were
builders of mounds. Again, hundreds and thousands of these
mounds have been carefully examined, and the works of art
found therein have been collected and assembled in museums. At
the same time, the works of art of the Indian tribes, as they
were produced before modification by European culture, have
been assembled in the same museums, and the two classes of
collections have been carefully compared. All this has been
done with the greatest painstaking, and the Mound-builder's
arts and the Indian's arts are found to be substantially
identical. No fragment of evidence remains to support the
figment of theory that there was an ancient race of
Mound-builders superior in culture to the North American
Indians. … That some of these mounds were built and used in
modern times is proved in another way. They often contain
articles manifestly made by white men, such as glass beads and
copper ornaments. … So it chances that to-day unskilled
archæologists are collecting many beautiful things in copper,
stone, and shell which were made by white men and traded to
the Indians. Now, some of these things are found in the
mounds; and bird pipes, elephant pipes, banner stones, copper
spear heads and knives, and machine-made wampum are collected
in quantities and sold at high prices to wealthy amateurs. …
The study of these mounds, historically and archæologically,
proves that they were used for a variety of purposes. Some
were for sepulture, and such are the most common and widely
scattered. Others were used as artificial hills on which to
build communal houses. … Some of the very large mounds were
sites of large communal houses in which entire tribes dwelt.
There is still a third class … constructed as places for
public assembly. … But to explain the mounds and their uses
would expand this article into a book. It is enough to say
that the Mound-builders were the Indian tribes discovered by
white men. It may well be that some of the mounds were erected
by tribes extinct when Columbus first saw these shores, but
they were kindred in culture to the peoples that still
existed. In the southwestern portion of the United States,
conditions of aridity prevail. Forests are few and are found
only at great heights. … The tribes lived in the plains and
valleys below, while the highlands were their hunting grounds.
The arid lands below were often naked of vegetation; and the
ledges and cliffs that stand athwart the lands, and the canyon
walls that inclose the streams, were everywhere quarries of
loose rock, lying in blocks ready to the builder's hand. Hence
these people learned to build their dwellings of stone; and
they had large communal houses, even larger than the
structures of wood made by the tribes of the east and north.
Many of these stone pueblos are still occupied, but the ruins
are scattered wide over a region of country embracing a little
of California and Nevada, much of Utah, most of Colorado, the
whole of New Mexico and Arizona, and far southward toward the
Isthmus. … No ruin has been discovered where evidences of a
higher culture are found than exists in modern times at Zuni,
Oraibi, or Laguna. The earliest may have been built thousands
of years ago, but they were built by the ancestors of existing
tribes and their congeners. A careful study of these ruins,
made during the last twenty years, abundantly demonstrates
that the pueblo culture began with rude structures of stone
and brush, and gradually developed, until at the time of the
exploration of the country by the Spaniards, beginning about
1540, it had reached its highest phase. Zuni [in New Mexico]
has been built since, and it is among the largest and best
villages ever established within the territory of the United
States without the aid of ideas derived from civilized men."
With regard to the ruins of dwellings found sheltered in the
craters of extinct volcanoes, or on the shelves of cliffs, or
otherwise contrived, the conclusion to which all recent
archæological study tends is the same. "All the stone pueblo
ruins, all the clay ruins, all the cliff dwellings, all the
crater villages, all the cavate chambers, and all the
tufa-block houses are fully accounted for without resort to
hypothetical peoples inhabiting the country anterior to the
Indian tribes. … Pre-Columbian culture was indigenous; it
began at the lowest stage of savagery and developed to the
highest, and was in many places passing into barbarism when
the good queen sold her jewels."
_Major J. W. Powell,
Prehistoric Man in America;
in "The Forum," January, 1890._
"The writer believes … that the majority of American
archæologists now sees no sufficient reason for supposing that
any mysterious superior race has ever lived in any portion of
our continent. They find no archæological evidence proving
that at the time of its discovery any tribe had reached a
stage of culture that can properly be called civilization.
Even if we accept the exaggerated statements of the Spanish
conquerors, the most intelligent and advanced peoples found
here were only semi-barbarians, in the stage of transition
from the stone to the bronze age, possessing no written
language, or what can properly be styled an alphabet, and not
yet having even learned the use of beasts of burden."
_H. W. Haynes,
Prehistoric Archæology of North America
(volume 1, chapter 6, of
"Narrative and Critical History of America")._
{47}
"It may be premised … that the Spanish adventurers who
thronged to the New World after its discovery found the same
race of Red Indians in the West India Islands, in Central and
South America, in Florida and in Mexico. In their mode of life
and means of subsistence, in their weapons, arts, usages and
customs, in their institutions, and in their mental and
physical characteristics, they were the same people in
different stages of advancement. … There was neither a
political society, nor a state, nor any civilization in
America when it was discovered; and excluding the Eskimos, but
one race of Indians, the Red Race."
_L. H. Morgan,
Houses and House-life of the American Aborigines:
(Contributions to North American Ethnology, volume 5.),
chapter 10_.
"We have in this country the conclusive evidence of the
existence of man before the time of the glaciers, and from the
primitive conditions of that time, he has lived here and
developed, through stages which correspond in many particulars
to the Homeric age of Greece."
_F. W. Putnam,
Report, Peabody Museum of Archæology,
1886._
ALSO IN
_L. Carr,
The Mounds of the Mississippi Valley_.
_C. Thomas,
Burial Mounds of the Northern Sections of the
United States: Annual Report of the Bureau of Ethnology,
1883-84_.
_Marquis de Nadaillac,
Prehistoric America_.
_J. Fiske,
The Discovery of America,
chapter 1._
See, also, MEXICO; PERU;
and AMERICAN ABORIGINES: ALLEGHANS, CHEROKEES, and MAYAS.
AMERICA: 10th-11th Centuries.
Supposed Discoveries by the Northmen.
The fact that the Northmen knew of the existence of the
Western Continent prior to the age of Columbus, was
prominently brought before the people of this country in the
year 1837, when the Royal Society of Northern Antiquaries at
Copenhagen published their work on the Antiquities of North
America, under the editorial supervision of the great
Icelandic scholar, Professor Rafn. But we are not to suppose
that the first general account of these voyages was then
given, for it has always been known that the history of
certain early voyages to America by the Northmen were
preserved in the libraries of Denmark and Iceland. … Yet,
owing to the fact that the Icelandic language, though simple
in construction and easy of acquisition, was a tongue not
understood by scholars, the subject has until recent years
been suffered to lie in the background, and permitted, through
a want of interest, to share in a measure the treatment meted
out to vague and uncertain reports. … It now remains to give
the reader some general account of the contents of the
narratives which relate more or less to the discovery of the
western continent. … The first extracts given are very
brief. They are taken from the 'Landanama Book,' and relate to
the report in general circulation, which indicated one
Gunniborn as the discoverer of Greenland, an event which has
been fixed at the year 876. … The next narrative relates to
the rediscovery of Greenland by the outlaw, Eric the Red, in
983, who there passed three years in exile, and afterwards
returned to Iceland. About the year 986, he brought out to
Greenland a considerable colony of settlers, who fixed their
abode at Brattahlid, in Ericsfiord. Then follow two versions
of the voyage of Biarne Heriulfson, who, in the same year,
986, when sailing for Greenland, was driven away during a
storm, and saw a new land at the southward, which he did not
visit. Next is given three accounts of the voyage of Leif, son
of Eric the Red, who in the year 1000 sailed from Brattahlid
to find the land which Biarne saw. Two of these accounts are
hardly more than notices of the voyage, but the third is of
considerable length, and details the successes of Leif, who
found and explored this new land, where he spent the winter,
returning to Greenland the following spring [having named
different regions which he visited Helluland, Markland and
Vinland, the latter name indicative of the finding of grapes].
After this follows the voyage of Thorvald Ericson, brother of
Leif, who sailed to Vinland from Greenland, which was the
point of departure in all these voyages. This expedition was
begun in 1002, and it cost him his life, as an arrow from one
of the natives pierced his side, causing death. Thorstein, his
brother, went to seek Vinland, with the intention of bringing
home his body, but failed in the attempt. The most
distinguished explorer was Thorfinn Karlsefne, the Hopeful, an
Icelander whose genealogy runs back in the old Northern
annals, through Danish, Swedish, and even Scotch and Irish
ancestors, some of whom were of royal blood. In the year 1006
he went to Greenland, where he met Gudrid, widow of Thorstein,
whom he married. Accompanied by his wife, who urged him to the
undertaking, he sailed to Vinland in the spring of 1007, with
three vessels and 160 men, where he remained three years. Here
his son Snorre was born. He afterwards became the founder of a
great family in Iceland, which gave the island several of its
first bishops. Thorfinn finally left Vinland because he found
it difficult to sustain himself against the attacks of the
natives. The next to undertake a voyage was a wicked woman
named Freydis, a sister to Leif Ericson, who went to Vinland
in 1011, where she lived for a time with her two ships, in the
same places occupied by Leif and Thorfinn. Before she
returned, she caused the crew of one ship to be cruelly
murdered, assisting in the butchery with her own hands. After
this we have what are called the Minor Narratives, which are
not essential.
_B. F. De Costa,
Pre-Columban Discovery of America,
General Introduction._
By those who accept fully the claims made for the Northmen, as
discoverers of the American continent in the voyages believed
to be authentically narrated in these sagas, the Helluland of
Leif is commonly identified with Newfoundland, Markland with
Nova Scotia, and Vinland with various parts of New England.
Massachusetts Bay, Cape Cod, Nantucket Island, Martha's
Vineyard, Buzzard's Bay, Narragansett Bay, Mount Hope Bay,
Long Island Sound, and New York Bay are among the localities
supposed to be recognized in the Norse narratives, or marked
by some traces of the presence of the Viking explorers. Professor
Gustav Storm, the most recent of the Scandinavian
investigators of this subject, finds the Helluland of the
sagas in Labrador or Northern Newfoundland, Markland in
Newfoundland, and Vinland in Nova Scotia and Cape Breton
Island.
_G. Storm,
Studies of the Vineland Voyages._
{48}
"The only discredit which has been thrown upon the story of
the Vinland voyages, in the eyes either of scholars or of the
general public, has arisen from the eager credulity with which
ingenious antiquarians have now and then tried to prove more
than facts will warrant. … Archælogical remains of the
Northmen abound in Greenland, all the way from Immartinek to
near Cape Farewell; the existence of one such relic on the
North American continent has never yet been proved. Not a
single vestige of the Northmen's presence here, at all worthy
of credence, has ever been found. … The most convincing
proof that the Northmen never founded a colony in America,
south of Davis Strait, is furnished by the total absence of
horses, cattle and other domestic animals from the soil of
North America until they were brought hither by the Spanish,
French and English settlers."
_J. Fiske,
The Discovery of America,
chapter 2._
"What Leif and Karlsefne knew they experienced," writes Professor
Justin Winsor, "and what the sagas tell us they underwent,
must have just the difference between a crisp narrative of
personal adventure and the oft-repeated and embellished story
of a fireside narrator, since the traditions of the Norse
voyages were not put in the shape of records till about two
centuries had elapsed, and we have no earlier manuscript of
such a record than one made nearly two hundred years later
still. … A blending of history and myth prompts Horn to say
that 'some of the sagas were doubtless originally based on
facts, but the telling and retelling have changed them into
pure myths.' The unsympathetic stranger sees this in stories
that the patriotic Scandinavians are over-anxious to make
appear as genuine chronicles. … The weight of probability is
in favor of a Northman descent upon the coast of the American
mainland at some point, or at several, somewhere to the south
of Greenland; but the evidence is hardly that which attaches
to well established historical records. … There is not a
single item of all the evidence thus advanced from time to
time which can be said to connect by archæological traces the
presence of the Northmen on the soil of North America south of
Davis' Straits." Of other imagined pre-Columban discoveries of
America, by the Welsh, by the Arabs, by the Basques, &c., the
possibilities and probabilities are critically discussed by
Professor Winsor in the same connection.
_J. Winsor,
Narrative and Critical History of America,
volume 1, chapter 2, and Critical Notes to the same._
ALSO IN
_Bryant and Gay,
Popular History of the United States,
chapter 3._
_E. F. Slafter, Editor,
Voyages of the Northmen to America (Prince Society, 1877)_.
_E. F. Slafter, Editor,
Discovery of America by the Northmen
(N. H. History Society, 1888)_.
_N. L. Beamish,
Discovery of America by the Northmen._
_A. J. Weise,
Discoveries of America,
chapter 1._
AMERICA: A. D. 1484-1492.
The great project of Columbus, and the sources of its inspiration.
His seven years' suit at the Spanish Court.
His departure from Palos.
"All attempts to diminish the glory of Columbus' achievement
by proving a previous discovery whose results were known to
him have signally failed. … Columbus originated no new
theory respecting the earth's form or size, though a popular
idea has always prevailed, notwithstanding the statements of
the best writers to the contrary, that he is entitled to the
glory of the theory as well as to that of the execution of the
project. He was not in advance of his age, entertained no new
theories, believed no more than did Prince Henry, his
predecessor, or Toscanelli, his contemporary; nor was he the
first to conceive the possibility of reaching the east by
sailing west. He was however the first to act in accordance
with existing beliefs. The Northmen in their voyages had
entertained no ideas of a New World, or of an Asia to the
West. To knowledge of theoretical geography, Columbus added
the skill of a practical navigator, and the iron will to
overcome obstacles. He sailed west, reached Asia as he
believed, and proved old theories correct. There seem to be
two undecided points in that matter, neither of which can ever
be settled. First, did his experience in the Portuguese
voyages, the perusal of some old author, or a hint from one of
the few men acquainted with old traditions, first suggest to
Columbus his project? … Second, to what extent did his
voyage to the north [made in 1477, probably with an English
merchantman from Bristol, in which voyage he is believed to
have visited Iceland] influence his plan? There is no
evidence, but a strong probability, that he heard in that
voyage of the existence of land in the west. … Still, his
visit to the north was in 1477, several years after the first
formation of his plan, and any information gained at the time
could only have been confirmatory rather than suggestive."
_H. H. Bancroft,
History of the Pacific States,
volume 1, summary appendix to chapter 1._
"Of the works of learned men, that which, according to
Ferdinand Columbus, had most weight with his father, was the
'Cosmographia' of Cardinal Aliaco. Columbus was also confirmed
in his views of the existence of a western passage to the
Indies by Paulo Toscanelli, the Florentine philosopher, to
whom much credit is due for the encouragement he afforded to
the enterprise. That the notices, however, of western lands
were not such as to have much weight with other men, is
sufficiently proved by the difficulty which Columbus had in
contending with adverse geographers and men of science in
general, of whom he says he never was able to convince any
one. After a new world had been discovered, many scattered
indications were then found to have foreshown it. One thing
which cannot be denied to Columbus is that he worked out his
own idea himself. … He first applied himself to his
countrymen, the Genoese, who would have nothing to say to his
scheme. He then tried the Portuguese, who listened to what he
had to say, but with bad faith sought to anticipate him by
sending out a caravel with instructions founded upon his plan.
… Columbus, disgusted at the treatment he had received from
the Portuguese Court, quitted Lisbon, and, after visiting
Genoa, as it appears, went to see what favour he could meet
with in Spain, arriving at Palos in the year 1485." The story
of the long suit of Columbus at the Court of Ferdinand and
Isabella; of his discouragement and departure, with intent to
go to France; of his recall by command of Queen Isabella; of
the tedious hearings and negotiations that now took place; of
the lofty demands adhered to by the confident Genoese, who
required "to be made an admiral at once, to be appointed
viceroy of the countries he should discover, and to have an
eighth of the profits of the expedition;" of his second
rebuff, his second departure for France, and second recall by
Isabella, who finally put her heart into the enterprise and
persuaded her more skeptical consort to assent to it—the
story of those seven years of the struggle of Columbus to
obtain means for his voyage is familiar to all readers.
{49}
"The agreement between Columbus and their Catholic highnesses
was signed at Santa Fe on the 17th of April, 1492; and
Columbus went to Palos to make preparation for his voyage,
bearing with him an order that the two vessels which that city
furnished annually to the crown for three months should be
placed at his disposal. … The Pinzons, rich men and skilful
mariners of Palos, joined in the undertaking, subscribing an
eighth of the expenses; and thus, by these united exertions,
three vessels were manned with 90 mariners, and provisioned
for a year. At length all the preparations were complete, and
on a Friday (not inauspicious in this case), the 3d of August,
1492, after they had all confessed and received the sacrament,
they set sail from the bar of Saltes, making for the Canary
Islands."
_Sir A. Helps,
The Spanish Conquest in America,
book 2, chapter 1._
ALSO IN
_J. Winsor,
Christopher Columbus,
chapter 5-9, and 20._
AMERICA: A. D. 1492.
The First Voyage of Columbus.
Discovery of the Bahamas, Cuba and Hayti.
The three vessels of Columbus were called the Santa Maria, the
Pinta and the Nina. "All had forecastles and high poops, but
the 'Santa Maria' was the only one that was decked amidships,
and she was called a 'nao' or ship. The other two were
caravelas, a class of small vessels built for speed. The
'Santa Maria,' as I gather from scattered notices in the
letters of Columbus, was of 120 to 130 tons, like a modern
coasting schooner, and she carried 70 men, much crowded. Her
sails were a foresail and a foretop-sail, a sprit-sail, a
main-sail with two bonnets, and maintop sail, a mizzen, and a
boat's sail were occasionally hoisted on the poop. The 'Pinta'
and 'Nina' only had square sails on the foremast and lateen
sails on the main and mizzen. The former was 50 tons, the
latter 40 tons, with crews of 20 men each. On Friday, the 3d
of August, the three little vessels left the haven of Palos,
and this memorable voyage was commenced. … The expedition
proceeded to the Canary Islands, where the rig of the 'Pinta'
was altered. Her lateen sails were not adapted for running
before the wind, and she was therefore fitted with square
sails, like the 'Santa Maria.' Repairs were completed, the
vessels were filled up with wood and water at Gomera, and the
expedition took its final departure from the island of Gomera,
one of the Canaries, on September 6th, 1492. … Columbus had
chosen his route most happily, and with that fortunate
prevision which often waits upon genius. From Gomera, by a
course a little south of west, he would run down the trades to
the Bahama Islands. From the parallel of about 30° N. nearly
to the equator there is a zone of perpetual winds—namely, the
north-east trade winds—always moving in the same direction,
as steadily as the current of a river, except where they are
turned aside by local causes, so that the ships of Columbus
were steadily carried to their destination by a law of nature
which, in due time, revealed itself to that close observer of
her secrets. The constancy of the wind was one cause of alarm
among the crews, for they began to murmur that the provisions
would all be exhausted if they had to beat against these
unceasing winds on the return voyage. The next event which
excited alarm among the pilots was the discovery that the
compasses had more than a point of easterly variation. …
This was observed on the 17th of September, and about 300
miles westward of the meridian of the Azores, when the ships
had been eleven days at sea. Soon afterwards the voyagers
found themselves surrounded by masses of seaweed, in what is
called the Sargasso Sea, and this again aroused their fears.
They thought that the ships would get entangled in the beds of
weed and become immovable, and that the beds marked the limit
of navigation. The cause of this accumulation is well known
now. If bits of cork are put into a basin of water, and a
circular motion given to it, all the corks will be found
crowding together towards the centre of the pool where there
is the least motion. The Atlantic Ocean is just such a basin,
the Gulf Stream is the whirl, and the Sargasso Sea is in the
centre. There Columbus found it, and there it has remained to
this day, moving up and down and changing its position
according to seasons, storms and winds, but never altering its
mean position. … As day after day passed, and there was no
sign of land, the crews became turbulent and mutinous.
Columbus encouraged them with hopes of reward, while he told
them plainly that he had come to discover India, and that,
with the help of God, he would persevere until he found it. At
length, on the 11th of October, towards ten at night, Columbus
was on the poop and saw a light. … At two next morning, land
was distinctly seen. … The island, called by the natives
Guanahani, and by Columbus San Salvador, has now been
ascertained to be Watling Island, one of the Bahamas, 14 miles
long by 6 broad, with a brackish lake in the centre, in 24°
10' 30'' north latitude. … The difference of latitude
between Gomera and Watling Island is 235 miles. Course, West 5°
South; distance 3,114 miles; average distance made good daily,
85'; voyage 35 days. … After discovering several smaller
islands the fleet came in sight of Cuba on the 27th October,
and explored part of the northern coast. Columbus believed it
to be Cipango, the island placed on the chart of Toscanelli,
between Europe and Asia. … Crossing the channel between Cuba
and St. Domingo [or Hayti], they anchored in the harbour of
St. Nicholas Mole on December 4th. The natives came with
presents and the country was enchanting. Columbus … named
the island 'Española' [or Hispaniola]. But with all this
peaceful beauty around him he was on the eve of disaster." The
Santa Maria was drifted by a strong current upon a sand bank
and hopelessly wrecked. "It was now necessary to leave a small
colony on the island. … A fort was built and named 'La
Navidad,' 39 men remaining behind supplied with stores and
provisions," and on Friday, January 4, 1493, Columbus began his
homeward voyage. Weathering a dangerous gale, which lasted
several days, his little vessels reached the Azores February 17,
and arrived at Palos March 15, bearing their marvellous news.
_C. R. Markham,
The Sea Fathers,
chapter 2._
_C. R. Markham,
Life of Columbus,
chapter 5._
{50}
The statement above that the island of the Bahamas on which
Columbus first landed, and which he called San Salvador, "has
now been ascertained to be Watling Island" seems hardly
justified. The question between Watling Island, San Salvador
or Cat Island, Samana, or Attwood's Cay, Mariguana, the Grand
Turk, and others is still in dispute. Professor Justin Winsor
says "the weight of modern testimony seems to favor Watling's
Island;" but at the same time he thinks it "probable that men
will never quite agree which of the Bahamas it was upon which
these startled and exultant Europeans first stepped."
_J. Winsor,
Christopher Columbus,
chapter 9._
_J. Winsor,
Narrative and Critical History of America,
volume 2, chapter 1, note B._
Professor John Fiske, says: "All that can be positively
asserted of Guanahani is that it was one of the Bahamas; there
has been endless discussion as to which one, and the question
is not easy to settle. Perhaps the theory of Captain Gustavus
Fox, of the United States Navy, is on the whole best
supported. Captain Fox maintains that the true Guanahani was
the little Island now known as Samana or Attwood's Cay."
_J. Fiske,
The Discovery of America,
chapter 5 (volume 1)._
ALSO IN
_U. S. Coast and Geodetic Survey, Report, 1880,
appendix 18._
AMERICA: A. D. 1493.
Papal grant of the New World to Spain.
"Spain was at this time connected with the Pope about a most
momentous matter. The Genoese, Cristoforo Colombo, arrived at
the Spanish court in March, 1493, with the astounding news of
the discovery of a new continent. … Ferdinand and Isabella
thought it wise to secure a title to all that might ensue from
their new discovery. The Pope, as Vicar of Christ, was held to
have authority to dispose of lands inhabited by the heathen;
and by papal Bulls the discoveries of Portugal along the
African coast had been secured. The Portuguese showed signs of
urging claims to the New World, as being already conveyed to
them by the papal grants previously issued in their favour. To
remove all cause of dispute, the Spanish monarchs at once had
recourse to Alexander VI., who issued two Bulls on May 4 and 5
[1493] to determine the respective rights of Spain and
Portugal. In the first, the Pope granted to the Spanish
monarchs and their heirs all lands discovered or hereafter to
be discovered in the western ocean. In the second, he defined
his grant to mean all lands that might be discovered west and
south of an imaginary line, drawn from the North to the South
Pole, at the distance of a hundred leagues westward of the
Azores and Cape de Verd Islands. In the light of our present
knowledge we are amazed at this simple means of disposing of a
vast extent of the earth's surface." Under the Pope's
stupendous patent, Spain was able to claim every part of the
American Continent except the Brazilian coast.
_M. Creighton,
History of the Papacy during the Reformation,
book 5, chapter 6 (volume 3)._
ALSO IN
_E. G. Bourne,
The Demarcation Line of Pope Alexander VI.
(Yale Review., May, 1892)_.
_J. Fiske,
The Discovery of America,
chapter 6 (volume 1)._
_J. Gordon,
The Bulls distributing America
(American Society of Ch. Dist., volume 4)_.
See, also, below: A. D. 1494.
AMERICA: A. D. 1493-1496.
The Second Voyage of Columbus.
Discovery of Jamaica and the Caribbees.
Subjugation of Hispaniola.
"The departure of Columbus on his second voyage of discovery
presented a brilliant contrast to his gloomy embarkation at
Palos. On the 25th of September [1493], at the dawn of day the
bay of Cadiz was whitened by his fleet: There were three large
ships of heavy burden and fourteen caravels. … Before
sunrise the whole fleet was under way." Arrived at the
Canaries on the 1st of October, Columbus purchased there
calves, goats, sheep, hogs, and fowls, with which to stock the
island of Hispaniola; also "seeds of oranges, lemons,
bergamots, melons, and various orchard fruits, which were thus
first introduced into the islands of the west from the
Hesperides or Fortunate Islands of the Old World." It was not
until the 13th of October that the fleet left the Canaries,
and it arrived among the islands since called the Lesser
Antilles or Caribbees, on the evening of November 2. Sailing
through this archipelago, discovering the larger island of
Porto Rico on the way, Columbus reached the eastern extremity
of Hispaniola or Hayti on the 22d of November, and arrived on
the 27th at La Navidad, where he had left a garrison ten
months before. He found nothing but ruin, silence and the
marks of death, and learned, after much inquiry, that his
unfortunate men, losing all discipline after his departure,
had provoked the natives by rapacity and licentiousness until
the latter rose against them and destroyed them. Abandoning
the scene of this disaster, Columbus found an excellent harbor
ten leagues east of Monte Christi and there he began the
founding of a city which he named Isabella. "Isabella at the
present day is quite overgrown with forests, in the midst of
which are still to be seen, partly standing, the pillars of
the church, some remains of the king's storehouses, and part
of the residence of Columbus, all built of hewn stone." While
the foundations of the new city were being laid, Columbus sent
back part of his ships to Spain, and undertook an exploration
of the interior of the island—the mountains of Cibao—where
abundance of gold was promised. Some gold washings were
found—far too scanty to satisfy the expectations of the
Spaniards; and, as want and sickness soon made their
appearance at Isabella, discontent was rife and mutiny afoot
before the year had ended. In April, 1494, Columbus set sail
with three caravels to revisit the coast of Cuba, for a more
extended exploration than he had attempted on the first
discovery. "He supposed it to be a continent, and the extreme
end of Asia, and if so, by following its shores in the
proposed direction he must eventually arrive at Cathay and
those other rich and commercial, though semi-barbarous
countries, described by Mandeville and Marco Polo." Reports of
gold led him southward from Cuba until he discovered the
island which he called Santiago, but which has kept its native
name, Jamaica, signifying the Island of Springs. Disappointed
in the search for gold, he soon returned from Jamaica to Cuba
and sailed along its southern coast to very near the western
extremity, confirming himself and his followers in the belief
that they skirted the shores of Asia and might follow them to
the Red Sea, if their ships and stores were equal to so long a
voyage. "Two or three days' further sail would have carried
Columbus round the extremity of Cuba; would have dispelled his
illusion, and might have given an entirely different course to
his subsequent discoveries. In his present conviction he lived
and died; believing to his last hour that Cuba was the
extremity of the Asiatic continent."
{51}
Returning eastward, he visited Jamaica again and purposed some
further exploration of the Caribbee Islands, when his toils
and anxieties overcame him. "He fell into a deep lethargy,
resembling death itself. His crew, alarmed at this profound
torpor, feared that death was really at hand. They abandoned,
therefore, all further prosecution of the voyage; and
spreading their sails to the east wind so prevalent in those
seas, bore Columbus back, in a state of complete
insensibility, to the harbor of Isabella,"—September 4.
Recovering consciousness, the admiral was rejoiced to find his
brother Bartholomew, from whom he had been separated for
years, and who had been sent out to him from Spain, in command
of three ships. Otherwise there was little to give pleasure to
Columbus when he returned to Isabella. His followers were
again disorganized, again at war with the natives, whom they
plundered and licentiously abused, and a mischief-making
priest had gone back to Spain, along with certain intriguing
officers, to make complaints and set enmities astir at the
court. Involved in war, Columbus prosecuted it relentlessly,
reduced the island to submission and the natives to servitude
and misery by heavy exactions. In March 1496 he returned to
Spain, to defend himself against the machinations of his
enemies, transferring the government of Hispaniola to his
brother Bartholomew.
_W. Irving,
Life and Voyages of Columbus,
books 6-8 (volumes 1-2)._
ALSO IN
_H. H. Bancroft,
History of the Pacific States,
volume 1, chapter 2._
_J. Winsor,
Christopher Columbus,
chapters 12-14._
AMERICA: A. D. 1494.
The Treaty of Tordesillas.
Amended Partition of the New World between Spain and Portugal.
"When speaking or writing of the conquest of America, it is
generally believed that the only title upon which were based
the conquests of Spain and Portugal was the famous Papal Bull
of partition of the Ocean, of 1493. Few modern authors take
into consideration that this Bull was amended, upon the
petition of the King of Portugal, by the [Treaty of
Tordesillas], signed by both powers in 1494, augmenting the
portion assigned to the Portuguese in the partition made
between them of the Continent of America. The arc of meridian
fixed by this treaty as a dividing line, which gave rise,
owing to the ignorance of the age, to so many diplomatic
congresses and interminable controversies, may now be traced
by any student of elementary mathematics. This line … runs
along the meridian of 47° 32' 56" west of Greenwich. … The
name Brazil, or 'tierra del Brazil,' at that time [the middle
of the 16th century] referred only to the part of the
continent producing the dye wood so-called. Nearly two
centuries later the Portuguese advanced toward the South, and
the name Brazil then covered the new possessions they were
acquiring."
_L. L. Dominguez,
Introduction to "The Conquest of the River Plate"
(Hakluyt Society Publications. Number 81)._
AMERICA: A. D. 1497.
Discovery of the North American Continent by John Cabot.
"The achievement of Columbus, revealing the wonderful truth of
which the germ may have existed in the imagination of every
thoughtful mariner, won [in England] the admiration which
belonged to genius that seemed more divine than human; and
'there was great talk of it in all the court of Henry VII.' A
feeling of disappointment remained, that a series of disasters
had defeated the wish of the illustrious Genoese to make his
voyage of essay under the flag of England. It was, therefore,
not difficult for John Cabot, a denizen of Venice, residing at
Bristol, to interest that politic king in plans for discovery.
On the 5th of March, 1496, he obtained under the great seal a
commission empowering himself and his three sons, or either of
them, their heirs, or their deputies, to sail into the
eastern, western, or northern sea with a fleet of five ships,
at their own expense, in search of islands, provinces, or
regions hitherto unseen by Christian people; to affix the
banners of England on city, island, or continent; and, as
vassals of the English crown, to possess and occupy the
territories that might be found. It was further stipulated in
this 'most ancient American State paper of England,' that the
patentees should be strictly bound, on every return, to land
at the port of Bristol, and to pay to the king one-fifth part
of their gains; while the exclusive right of frequenting all
the countries that might be found was reserved to them and to
their assigns' without limit of time. Under this patent,
which, at the first direction of English enterprise toward
America, embodied the worst features of monopoly and
commercial restriction, John Cabot, taking with him his son
Sebastian, embarked in quest of new islands and a passage to
Asia by the north-west. After sailing prosperously, as he
reported, for 700 leagues, on the 24th day of June, early in
the morning, almost fourteen months before Columbus on his
third voyage came in sight of the main, and more than two
years before Amerigo Vespucci sailed west of the Canaries, he
discovered the western continent, probably in the latitude of
about 56° degrees, among the dismal cliffs of Labrador. He ran
along the coast for many leagues, it is said even for 300, and
landed on what he considered to be the territory of the Grand
Cham. But he encountered no human being, although there were
marks that the region was inhabited. He planted on the land a
large cross with the flag of England, and, from affection for
the republic of Venice, he added the banner of St. Mark, which
had never been borne so far before. On his homeward voyage he
saw on his right hand two islands, which for want of
provisions he could not stop to explore. After an absence of
three months the great discoverer re-entered Bristol harbor,
where due honors awaited him. The king gave him money, and
encouraged him to continue his career, The people called him
the great admiral; he dressed in silk; and the English, and
even Venetians who chanced to be at Bristol, ran after him
with such zeal that he could enlist for a new voyage as many
as he pleased. … On the third day of the month of February
next after his return, 'John Kaboto, Venecian,' accordingly
obtained a power to take up ships for another voyage, at the
rates fixed for those employed in the service of the king, and
once more to set sail with as many companions as would go with
him of their own will. With this license every trace of John
Cabot disappears. He may have died before the summer; but no
one knows certainly the time or the place of his end, and it
has not even been ascertained in what country this finder of a
continent first saw the light."
_G. Bancroft,
History of the United States of America.
(Author's last Revision),
part 1, chapter 1._
{52}
In the Critical Essay appended to a chapter on the voyages of the
Cabots, in the _Narrative and Critical History of America_,
there is published, for the first time, an English translation
of a dispatch from Raimondo de Soncino, envoy of the Duke of
Milan to Henry VII., written Aug. 24, 1497, and giving an
account of the voyage from which 'Master John Caboto,' 'a
Venetian fellow,' had just returned. This paper was brought to
light in 1865, from the State Archives of Milan. Referring to
the dispatch, and to a letter, also quoted, from the 'Venetian
Calendars,' written Aug. 23, 1497, by Lorenzo Pasqualigo, a
merchant in London, to his brothers in Venice, Mr. Charles
Deane says: "These letters are sufficient to show that North
America was discovered by John Cabot, the name of Sebastian
being nowhere mentioned in them, and that the discovery was
made in 1497. The place which he first sighted is given on the
map of 1544 [a map of Sebastian Cabot, discovered in Germany
in 1843] as the north part of Cape Breton Island, on which is
inscribed 'prima tierra vista,' which was reached, according
to the Legend, on the 24th of June. Pasqualigo, the only one
who mentions it, says he coasted 300 leagues. Mr. Brevoort,
who accepts the statement, thinks he made the periplus of the
Gulf of St. Lawrence, passing out at the Straits of Belle
Isle, and thence home. … The extensive sailing up and down
the coast described by chroniclers from conversations with
Sebastian Cabot many years afterwards, though apparently told
as occurring on the voyage of discovery—as only one voyage is
ever mentioned—must have taken place on a later voyage."
_C. Deane,
Narrative and Critical History of America,
volume 3, chapter 1, Critical Essay._
ALSO IN
_R. Biddle,
Memoir of Sebastian Cabot,
chapter 1-8._
AMERICA: A. D. 1497-1498.
The first Voyage of Americus Vespucius.
Misunderstandings and disputes concerning it.
Vindication of the Florentine navigator.
His exploration of 4,000 miles of continental coast.
"Our information concerning Americus Vespucius, from the early
part of the year 1496 until after his return from the
Portuguese to the Spanish service in the latter part of 1504,
rests primarily upon his two famous letters; the one addressed
to his old patron Lorenzo di Pier Francesco de' Medici (a
cousin of Lorenzo the Magnificent) and written in March or
April, 1503, giving an account of his third voyage; the other
addressed to his old school-fellow Piero Soderini [then
Gonfaloniere of Florence] and dated from Lisbon, September 4,
1504, giving a brief account of four voyages which he had made
under various commanders in the capacity of astronomer or
pilot. These letters … became speedily popular, and many
editions were published, more especially in France, Germany,
and Italy. … The letter to Soderini gives an account of four
voyages in which the writer took part, the first two in the
service of Spain, the other two in the service of Portugal.
The first expedition sailed from Cadiz May 10, 1497, and
returned October 15, 1498, after having explored a coast so
long as to seem unquestionably that of a continent. This
voyage, as we shall see, was concerned with parts of America
not visited again until 1513 and 1517. It discovered nothing
that was calculated to invest it with much importance in
Spain, though it by no means passed without notice there, as
has often been wrongly asserted. Outside of Spain it came to
attract more attention, but in an unfortunate way, for a
slight but very serious error in proof-reading or editing, in
the most important of the Latin versions, caused it after a
while to be practically identified with the second voyage,
made two years later. This confusion eventually led to most
outrageous imputations upon the good name of Americus, which
it has been left for the present century to remove. The second
voyage of Vespucius was that in which he accompanied Alonso de
Ojeda and Juan de la Costa, from May 20, 1499, to June, 1500.
They explored the northern coast of South America from some
point on what we would now call the north coast of Brazil, as
far as the Pearl Coast visited by Columbus in the preceding
year; and they went beyond, as far as the Gulf of Maracaibo.
Here the squadron seems to have become divided, Ojeda going
over to Hispaniola in September, while Vespucius remained
cruising till February. … It is certainly much to be
regretted that in the narrative of his first expedition,
Vespucius did not happen to mention the name of the chief
commander. … However … he was writing not for us, but for
his friend, and he told Soderini only what he thought would
interest him. … Of the letter to Soderini the version which
has played the most important part in history is the Latin one
first published at the press of the little college at
Saint-Dié in Lorraine, April 25 (vij Kl' Maij), 1507. … It
was translated, not from an original text, but from an
intermediate French version, which is lost. Of late years,
however, we have detected, in an excessively rare Italian
text, the original from which the famous Lorraine version was
ultimately derived. … If now we compare this primitive text
with the Latin of the Lorraine version of 1507, we observe
that, in the latter, one proper name—the Indian name of a
place visited by Americus on his first voyage—has been
altered. In the original it is 'Lariab;' in the Latin it has
become 'Parias.' This looks like an instance of injudicious
editing on the part of the Latin translator, although, of
course, it may be a case of careless proof-reading. Lariab is
a queer-looking word. It is no wonder that a scholar in his
study among the mountains of Lorraine could make nothing of
it. If he had happened to be acquainted with the language of
the Huastecas, who dwelt at that time about the river
Panuco—fierce and dreaded enemies of their southern
neighbours the Aztecs—he would have known that names of
places in that region were apt to end in ab. … But as such
facts were quite beyond our worthy translator's ken, we cannot
much blame him if he felt that such a word as Lariab needed
doctoring. Parias (Paria) was known to be the native name of a
region on the western shores of the Atlantic, and so Lariab
became Parias. As the distance from the one place to the other
is more than two thousand miles, this little emendation
shifted the scene of the first voyage beyond all recognition,
and cast the whole subject into an outer darkness where there
has been much groaning and gnashing of teeth. Another curious
circumstance came in to confirm this error. On his first
voyage, shortly before arriving at Lariab, Vespucius saw an
Indian town built over the water, 'like Venice.' He counted 44
large wooden houses, 'like barracks,' supported on huge tree-
trunks and communicating with each other by bridges that could
be drawn up in case of danger.
{53}
This may well have been a village of communal houses of the
Chontals on the coast of Tabasco; but such villages were
afterwards seen on the Gulf of Maracaibo, and one of them was
called Venezuela, or 'Little Venice,' a name since spread over
a territory nearly twice as large as France. So the amphibious
town described by Vespucius was incontinently moved to
Maracaibo, as if there could be only one such place, as if
that style of defensive building had not been common enough in
many ages and in many parts of the earth, from ancient
Switzerland to modern Siam. … Thus in spite of the latitudes
and longitudes distinctly stated by Vespucius in his letter,
did Lariab and the little wooden Venice get shifted from the
Gulf of Mexico to the northern coast of South America. Now
there is no question that Vespucius in his second voyage, with
Ojeda for captain, did sail along that coast, visiting the
gulfs of Paria and Maracaibo. This was in the summer of 1499,
one year after a part of the same coast had been visited by
Columbus. Hence in a later period, long after the actors in
these scenes had been gathered unto their fathers, and when
people had begun to wonder how the New World could ever have
come to be called America instead of Columbia, it was
suggested that the first voyage described by Vespucius must be
merely a clumsy and fictitious duplicate of the second, and
that he invented it and thrust it back from 1499 to 1497, in
order that he might be accredited with 'the discovery of the
continent' one year in advance of his friend Columbus. It was
assumed that he must have written his letter to Soderini with
the base intention of supplanting his friend, and that the
shabby device was successful. This explanation seemed so
simple and intelligible that it became quite generally
adopted, and it held its ground until the subject began to be
critically studied, and Alexander von Humboldt showed, about
sixty years ago, that the first naming of America occurred in
no such way as had been supposed. As soon as we refrain from
projecting our modern knowledge of geography into the past, as
soon as we pause to consider how these great events appeared
to the actors themselves, the absurdity of this accusation
against Americus becomes evident. We arc told that he falsely
pretended to have visited Paria and Maracaibo in 1497, in
order to claim priority over Columbus in the discovery of 'the
continent.' What continent? When Vespucius wrote that letter
to Soderini, neither he nor anybody else suspected that what
we now call America had been discovered. The only continent of
which there could be any question, so far as supplanting
Columbus was concerned, was Asia. But in 1504 Columbus was
generally supposed to have discovered the continent of Asia,
by his new route, in 1492. … It was M. Varnhagen who first
turned inquiry on this subject in the right direction. …
Having taken a correct start by simply following the words of
Vespucius himself, from a primitive text, without reference to
any preconceived theories or traditions, M. Varnhagen finds"
that Americus in his first voyage made land on the northern
coast of Honduras; "that he sailed around Yucatan, and found
his aquatic village of communal houses, his little wooden
Venice, on the shore of Tabasco. Thence, after a fight with
the natives in which a few tawny prisoners were captured and
carried on board the caravels, Vespucius seems to have taken a
straight course to the Huasteca country by Tampico, without
touching at points in the region subject or tributary to the
Aztec confederacy. This Tampico country was what Vespucius
understood to be called Lariab. He again gives the latitude
definitely and correctly as 23° N., and he mentions a few
interesting circumstances. He saw the natives roasting a
dreadfully ugly animal," of which he gives what seems to be
"an excellent description of the iguana, the flesh of which is
to this day an important article of food in tropical America.
… After leaving this country of Lariab the ships kept still
to the northwest for a short distance, and then followed the
windings of the coast for 870 leagues. … After traversing
the 870 leagues of crooked coast, the ships found themselves
'in the finest harbour in the world' [which M. Varnhagen
supposed, at first, to have been in Chesapeake Bay, but
afterwards reached conclusions pointing to the neighbourhood
of Cape Cañaveral, on the Florida coast]. It was in June,
1498, thirteen months since they had started from Spain. …
They spent seven-and-thirty days in this unrivalled harbour,
preparing for the home voyage, and found the natives very
hospitable. These red men courted the aid of the white
strangers," in an attack which they wished to make upon a
fierce race of cannibals, who inhabited certain islands some
distance out to sea. The Spaniards agreed to the expedition,
and sailed late in August, taking seven of the friendly
Indians for guides. "After a week's voyage they fell in with
the islands, some peopled, others uninhabited, evidently the
Bermudas, 600 miles from Cape Hatteras as the crow flies. The
Spaniards landed on an island called Iti, and had a brisk
fight," resulting in the capture of more than 200 prisoners.
Seven of these were given to the Indian guides, who paddled
home with them. "'We also [wrote Vespucius] set sail for
Spain, with 222 prisoners, slaves; and arrived in the port of
Cadiz on the 15th day of October, 1498, where we were well
received and sold our slaves.' … The obscurity in which this
voyage has so long been enveloped is due chiefly to the fact
that it was not followed up till many years had elapsed, and
the reason for this neglect impresses upon us forcibly the
impossibility of understanding the history of the Discovery of
America unless we bear in mind all the attendant
circumstances. One might at first suppose that a voyage which
revealed some 4,000 miles of the coast of North America would
have attracted much attention in Spain and have become
altogether too famous to be soon forgotten. Such an argument,
however, loses sight of the fact that these early voyagers
were not trying to 'discover America.' There was nothing to
astonish them in the existence of 4,000 miles of coast line on
this side of the Atlantic. To their minds it was simply the
coast of Asia, about which they knew nothing except from Marco
Polo, and the natural effect of such a voyage as this would be
simply to throw discredit upon that traveller."
_J. Fiske,
The Discovery of America,
chapter 7 (volume 2)._
ALSO IN:
_C. E. Lester and A. Foster,
Life and Voyages of Americus Vespucius,
part 1, chapter 7_.
_J. Winsor,
Christopher Columbus,
chapter 15._
{54}
AMERICA: A. D. 1498.
Voyage and Discoveries of Sebastian Cabot.
The ground of English claims in the New World.
"The son of John Cabot, Sebastian, is not mentioned in this
patent [issued by Henry VII., February 3, 1498], as he had been in
that of 1496. Yet he alone profited by it. For the father is
not again mentioned in connection with the voyage. …
Sebastian was now, if Humboldt's supposition is true that he
was born in 1477, a young man of about 20 or 21 years of age.
And as he had become proficient in astronomy and mathematics,
and had gained naval experience in the voyage he had made in
company with his father; and as he knew better than anyone
else his father's views, and also the position of the newly
discovered regions, he may now have well appeared to Henry as
a fit person for the command of another expedition to the
northwest. Two ships, manned with 300 mariners and volunteers,
were ready for him early in the spring of 1498; and he sailed
with them from Bristol, probably in the beginning of the month
of May. We have no certain information regarding his route.
But he appears to have directed his course again to the
country which he had seen the year before on the voyage with
his father, our present Labrador. He sailed along the coast of
this country so far north that, even in the month of July, he
encountered much ice. Observing at the same time, to his great
displeasure, that the coast was trending to the east, he resolved
to give up a further advance to the north, and returned in a
southern direction. At Newfoundland, he probably came to
anchor in some port, and refreshed his men, and refitted his
vessels after their Arctic hardships. … He probably was the
first fisherman on the banks or shores of Newfoundland, which
through him became famous in Europe. Sailing from Newfoundland
southwest, he kept the coast in view as much as possible, on
his right side, 'always with the intent to find a passage and
open water to India.' … After having rounded Cape Cod, he
must have felt fresh hope. He saw a coast running to the west,
and open water before him in that direction. It is therefore
nearly certain that he entered somewhat that broad gulf, in
the interior corner of which lies the harbor of New York. …
From a statement contained in the work of Peter Martyr it
appears … certain that Cabot landed on some places of the
coast along which he sailed. This author, relating a
conversation which he had with his friend Cabot, on the
subject of his voyage of 1498, says that Cabot told him 'he
had found on most of the places copper or brass among the
aborigines.' … From another authority we learn that he
captured some of these aborigines and brought them to England,
where they lived and were seen a few years after his return by
the English chronicler, Robert Fabyan. It is not stated at
what place he captured those Indians; but it was not customary
with the navigators of that time to take on board the Indians
until near the time of their leaving the country. Cabot's
Indians, therefore, were probably captured on some shore south
of New York harbor. … The southern terminus of his voyage is
pretty well ascertained. He himself informed his friend Peter
Martyr, that he went as far south as about the latitude of the
Strait of Gibraltar, that is to say, about 36° North latitude,
which is near that of Cape Hatteras. … On their return from
their first voyage of 1497, the Cabots believed that they had
discovered portions of Asia and so proclaimed it. But the more
extensive discoveries of the second voyage corrected the views
of Sebastian, and revealed to him nothing but a wild and
barbarous coast, stretching through 30 degrees of latitude,
from 67½° to 36°. The discovery of this impassable barrier
across his passage to Cathay, as he often complained, was a
sore displeasure to him. Instead of the rich possessions of
China, which he hoped to reach, he was arrested by a New found
land, savage and uncultivated. A spirited German author, Dr.
G. M. Asher, in his life of Henry Hudson, published in London
in 1860, observes: 'The displeasure of Cabot involves the
scientific discovery of a new world. He was the first to
recognize that a new and unknown continent was lying, as one
vast barrier, between Western Europe and Eastern Asia.' …
When Cabot made proposals in the following year, 1499, for
another expedition to the same regions, he was supported
neither by the king nor the merchants. For several years the
scheme for the discovery of a north-western route to Cathay
was not much favored in England. Nevertheless, the voyage of
this gifted and enterprising youth along the entire coast of
the present United States, nay along the whole extent of that
great continent, in which now the English race and language
prevail and flourish, has always been considered as the true
beginning, the foundation and cornerstone, of all the English
claims and possessions in the northern half of America."
_J. G. Kohl,
History of the Discovery of Maine,
chapter 4._
ALSO IN:
_R. Biddle,
Memoir of Sebastian Cabot,
chapter 1-10._
_J. F. Nicholls,
Life of Sebastian Cabot,
chapter 5._
AMERICA: A. D. 1498-1505.
The Third and Fourth Voyages of Columbus.
Discovery of Trinidad, the northern coast of S. America, the
shores of Central America and Panama.
When Columbus reached Spain in June, 1496, "Ferdinand and
Isabella received him kindly, gave him new honors and promised
him other outfits. Enthusiasm, however, had died out and
delays took place. The reports of the returning ships did not
correspond with the pictures of Marco Polo, and the new-found
world was thought to be a very poor India after all. Most
people were of this mind; though Columbus was not
disheartened, and the public treasury was readily opened for a
third voyage. Coronel sailed early in 1498 with two ships, and
Columbus followed with six, embarking at San Lucas on the 30th
of May. He now discovered Trinidad (July 31), which he named
either from its three peaks, or from the Holy Trinity; struck
the northern coast of South America, and skirted what was
later known as the Pearl coast, going as far as the Island of
Margarita. He wondered at the roaring fresh waters which the
Oronoco pours into the Gulf of Pearls, as he called it, and he
half believed that its exuberant tide came from the
terrestrial paradise. He touched the southern coast of Hayti
on the 30th of August. Here already his colonists had
established a fortified post, and founded the town of Santo
Domingo. His brother Bartholomew had ruled energetically
during the Admiral's absence, but he had not prevented a
revolt, which was headed by Roldan. Columbus on his arrival
found the insurgents still defiant, but he was able after a
while to reconcile them, and he even succeeded in attaching
Roldan warmly to his interests.
{55}
Columbus' absence from Spain, however, left his good name
without sponsors; and to satisfy detractors, a new
commissioner was sent over with enlarged powers, even with
authority to supersede Columbus in general command, if
necessary. This emissary was Francisco de Bobadilla, who
arrived at Santo Domingo with two caravels on the 23d of
August, 1500, finding Diego in command, his brother, the
Admiral, being absent. An issue was at once made. Diego
refused to accede to the commissioner's orders till Columbus
returned to judge the case himself; so Bobadilla assumed
charge of the crown property violently, took possession of the
Admiral's house, and when Columbus returned, he with his
brother was arrested and put in irons. In this condition the
prisoners were placed on shipboard, and sailed for Spain. The
captain of the ship offered to remove the manacles: but
Columbus would not permit it, being determined to land in
Spain bound as he was; and so he did. The effect of his
degradation was to his advantage; sovereigns and people were
shocked at the sight; and Ferdinand and Isabella hastened to
make amends by receiving him with renewed favor. It was soon
apparent that everything reasonable would be granted him by
the monarchs, and that he could have all he might wish short
of receiving a new lease of power in the islands, which the
sovereigns were determined to see pacified at least before
Columbus should again assume government of them. The Admiral
had not forgotten his vow to wrest the Holy Sepulchre from the
Infidel; but the monarchs did not accede to his wish to
undertake it. Disappointed in this, he proposed a new voyage;
and getting the royal countenance for this scheme, he was
supplied with four vessels of from fifty to seventy tons each.
… He sailed from Cadiz, May 9, 1502, accompanied by his
brother Bartholomew and his son Fernando. The vessels reached
San Domingo June 29. Bobadilla, whose rule of a year and a
half had been an unhappy one, had given place to Nicholas de
Ovando; and the fleet which brought the new governor—with
Maldonado, Las Casas and others—now lay in the harbor waiting
to receive Bobadilla for the return voyage. Columbus had been
instructed to avoid Hispaniola; but now that one of his
vessels leaked, and he needed to make repairs, he sent a boat
ashore, asking permission to enter the harbor. He was refused,
though a storm was impending. He sheltered his vessels as best
he could, and rode out the gale. The fleet which had on board
Bobadilla and Roldan, with their ill-gotten gains, was
wrecked, and these enemies of Columbus were drowned. The
Admiral found a small harbor where he could make his repairs;
and then, July 14, sailed westward to find, as he supposed,
the richer portions of India. … A landing was made on the
coast of Honduras, August 14. Three days later the explorers
landed again fifteen leagues farther east, and took possession
of the country for Spain. Still east they went; and, in
gratitude for safety after a long storm, they named a cape
which they rounded, Gracias à Dios—a name still preserved at
the point where the coast of Honduras begins to trend
southward. Columbus was now lying ill on his bed, placed on
deck, and was half the time in revery. Still the vessels
coasted south," along and beyond the shores of Costa Rica;
then turned with the bend of the coast to the northeast, until
they reached Porto Bello, as we call it, where they found
houses and orchards, and passed on "to the farthest spot of
Bastidas' exploring, who had, in 1501, sailed westward along
the northern coast of South America." There turning back,
Columbus attempted to found a colony at Veragua, on the Costa
Rica coast, where signs of gold were tempting. But the gold
proved scanty, the natives hostile, and, the Admiral,
withdrawing his colony, sailed away. "He abandoned one
worm-eaten caravel at Porto Bello, and, reaching Jamaica,
beached two others. A year of disappointment, grief, and want
followed. Columbus clung to his wrecked vessels. His crew
alternately mutinied at his side, and roved about the island.
Ovando, at Hispaniola, heard of his straits, but only tardily
and scantily relieved him. The discontented were finally
humbled; and some ships, despatched by the Admiral's agent in
Santo Domingo, at last reached him and brought him and his
companions to that place, where Ovando received him with
ostentatious kindness, lodging him in his house till Columbus
departed for Spain, Sept. 12, 1504." Arriving in Spain in
November, disheartened, broken with disease, neglected, it was
not until the following May that he had strength enough to go
to the court at Segovia, and then only to be coldly received
by King Ferdinand—Isabella being dead. "While still hope was
deferred, the infirmities of age and a life of hardships
brought Columbus to his end; and on Ascension Day, the 20th of
May, 1506, he died, with his son Diego and a few devoted
friends by his bedside."
_J. Winsor,
Narrative and Critical History of America,
volume 2, chapter 1._
ALSO IN:
_H. H. Bancroft,
History of the Pacific States,
volume 1, chapter 2 and 4._
_W. Irving,
Life and Voyages of Columbus,
book 10-18 (volume 2)._
AMERICA: A. D. 1499-1500.
The Voyages and Discoveries of Ojeda and Pinzon.
The Second Voyage of Amerigo Vespucci.
One of the most daring and resolute of the adventurers who
accompanied Columbus on his second voyage (in 1493) was Alonzo
de Ojeda. Ojeda quarrelled with the Admiral and returned to
Spain in 1498. Soon afterwards, "he was provided by the Bishop
Fonseca, Columbus' enemy, with a fragment of the map which the
Admiral had sent to Ferdinand and Isabella, showing the
discoveries which he had made in his last voyage. With this
assistance Ojeda set sail for South America, accompanied by
the pilot, Juan de la Cosá, who had accompanied Columbus in
his first great voyage in 1492, and of whom Columbus
complained that, 'being a clever man, he went about saying
that he knew more than he did,' and also by Amerigo Vespucci.
They set sail on the 20th of May, 1499, with four vessels, and
after a passage of 27 days came in sight of the continent, 200
leagues east of the Oronoco. At the end of June, they landed
on the shores of Surinam, in six degrees of north latitude,
and proceeding west saw the mouths of the Essequibo and
Oronoco. Passing the Boca del Drago of Trinidad, they coasted
westward till they reached the Capo de la Vela in Granada. It
was in this voyage that was discovered the Gulf to which Ojeda
gave the name of Venezuela, or Little Venice, on account of
the cabins built on piles over the water, a mode of life which
brought to his mind the water-city of the Adriatic.
{56}
From the American coast Ojeda went to the Caribbee Islands,
and on the 5th of September reached Yaguimo, in Hispaniola,
where he raised a revolt against the authority of Columbus.
His plans, however, were frustrated by Roldan and Escobar, the
delegates of Columbus, and he was compelled to withdraw from
the island. On the 5th of February, 1500, he returned,
carrying with him to Cadiz an extraordinary number of slaves,
from which he realized an enormous sum of money. At the
beginning of December, 1499, the same year in which Ojeda set
sail on his last voyage, another companion of Columbus, in his
first voyage, Vicente Yañez Pinzon, sailed from Palos, was the
first to cross the line on the American side of the Atlantic.
and on the 20th of January, 1500, discovered Cape St.
Augustine, to which he gave the name of Cabo Santa Maria de la
Consolacion, whence returning northward he followed the
westerly trending coast, and so discovered the mouth of the
Amazon, which he named Paricura. Within a month after his
departure from Palos, he was followed from the same port and
on the same route by Diego de Lepe, who was the first to
discover, at the mouth of the Oronoco, by means of a closed
vessel, which only opened when it reached the bottom of the
water, that, at a depth of eight fathoms and a half, the two
lowest fathoms were salt water, but all above was fresh. Lepe
also made the observation that beyond Cape St. Augustine,
which he doubled, as well as Pinzon, the coast of Brazil
trended south-west."
_R. H. Major,
Life of Prince Henry of Portugal,
chapter 19._
ALSO IN:
_W. Irving,
Life and Voyages of Columbus,
volume 3, chapter 1-3._
AMERICA: A. D. 1500.
Voyages of the Cortereals to the far North, and of Bastidas to
the Isthmus of Darien.
"The Portuguese did not overlook the north while making their
important discoveries to the south. Two vessels, probably in
the spring of 1500, were sent out under Gaspar Cortereal. No
journal or chart of the voyage is now in existence, hence
little is known of its object or results. Still more dim is a
previous voyage ascribed by Cordeiro to João Vaz Cortereal,
father of Gaspar. … Touching at the Azores, Gaspar
Cortereal, possibly following Cabot's charts, struck the coast
of Newfoundland north of Cape Race, and sailing north
discovered a land which he called Terra Verde, perhaps
Greenland, but was stopped by ice at a river which he named
Rio Nevado, whose location is unknown. Cortereal returned to
Lisbon before the end of 1500. … In October of this same
year Rodrigo de Bastidas sailed from Cadiz with two vessels.
Touching the shores of South America near Isla Verde, which
lies between Guadalupe and the main land, he followed the
coast westward to El Retrete, or perhaps Nombre de Dios, on
the Isthmus of Darien, in about 9° 30' North latitude.
Returning he was wrecked on Española toward the end of 1501,
and reached Cadiz in September, 1502. This being the first
authentic voyage by Europeans to the territory herein defined
as the Pacific States, such incidents as are known will be
given hereafter."
_H. H. Bancroft,
History of the Pacific States,
volume 1, page 113._
"We have Las Casas's authority for saying that Bastidas was a
humane man toward the Indians. Indeed, he afterwards lost his
life by this humanity; for, when governor of Santa Martha, not
consenting to harass the Indians, he so alienated his men that
a conspiracy was formed against him, and he was murdered in
his bed. The renowned Vasco Nuñez [de Balboa] was in this
expedition, and the knowledge he gained there had the greatest
influence on the fortunes of his varied and eventful life."
_Sir A. Helps,
Spanish Conquest in America,
book 5, chapter 1._
ALSO IN:
_J. G. Kohl,
History of the Discovery of Maine,
chapter 5_.
_R. Biddle,
Memoir of Sebastian Cabot,
book 2, chapters 3-5_.
See, also, NEWFOUNDLAND: A. D. 1501-1578.
AMERICA: A. D. 1500-1514.
Voyage of Cabral.
The Third Voyage of Americus Vespucius.
Exploration of the Brazilian coast for the King of Portugal.
Curious evolution of the continental name "America."
"Affairs now became curiously complicated. King Emanuel of
Portugal intrusted to Pedro Alvarez de Cabral the command of a
fleet for Hindustan, to follow up the work of Gama and
establish a Portuguese centre of trade on the Malabar coast.
This fleet of 13 vessels, carrying about 1,200 men, sailed
from Lisbon March 9, 1500. After passing the Cape Verde
Islands, March 22, for some reason not clearly known, whether
driven by stormy weather or seeking to avoid the calms that
were apt to be troublesome on the Guinea coast, Cabral took a
somewhat more westerly course than he realized, and on April
22, after a weary progress averaging less than 60 miles per
day, he found himself on the coast of Brazil not far beyond
the limit reached by Lepe. … Approaching it in such a way
Cabral felt sure that this coast must fall to the east of the
papal meridian. Accordingly on May day, at Porto Seguro in
latitude 16° 30' South, he took formal possession of the country
for Portugal, and sent Gaspar de Lemos in one of his ships
back to Lisbon with the news. On May 22 Cabral weighed anchor
and stood for the Cape of Good Hope. … Cabral called the
land he had found Vera Cruz, a name which presently became
Santa Cruz; but when Lemos arrived in Lisbon with the news he
had with him some gorgeous paroquets, and among the earliest
names on old maps of the Brazilian coast we find 'Land of
Paroquets' and 'Land of the Holy Cross.' The land lay
obviously so far to the east that Spain could not deny that at
last there was something for Portugal out in the 'ocean sea.'
Much interest was felt at Lisbon. King Emanuel began to
prepare an expedition for exploring this new coast, and wished
to secure the services of some eminent pilot and cosmographer
familiar with the western waters. Overtures were made to
Americus, a fact which proves that he had already won a high
reputation. The overtures were accepted, for what reason we do
not know, and soon after his return from the voyage with
Ojeda, probably in the autumn of 1500, Americus passed from
the service of Spain into that of Portugal. … On May 14,
1501, Vespucius, who was evidently principal pilot and guiding
spirit in this voyage under unknown skies, set sail from
Lisbon with three caravels. It is not quite clear who was
chief captain, but M. Varnhagen has found reasons for
believing that it was a certain Don Nuno Manuel. The first
halt was made on the African coast at Cape Verde, the first
week in June. … After 67 days of 'the vilest weather ever
seen by man' they reached the coast of Brazil in latitude
about 5° South, on the evening of the 16th of August, the
festival-day of San Roque, whose name was accordingly given to
the cape before which they dropped anchor.
{57}
From this point they slowly followed the coast to the
southward, stopping now and then to examine the country. …
It was not until All Saints day, the first of November, that
they reached the bay in latitude 13° South, which is still known
by the name which they gave it, Bahia de Todos Santos. On New
Year's day, 1502, they arrived at the noble bay where 54 years
later the chief city of Brazil was founded. They would seem to
have mistaken it for the mouth of another huge river, like
some that had already been seen in this strange world; for
they called it Rio de Janeiro (River of January). Thence by
February 15 they had passed Cape Santa Maria, when they left
the coast and took a southeasterly course out into the ocean.
Americus gives no satisfactory reason for this change of
direction. … Perhaps he may have looked into the mouth of
the river La Plata, which is a bay more than a hundred miles
wide; and the sudden westward trend of the shore may have led
him to suppose that he had reached the end of the continent.
At any rate, he was now in longitude more than twenty degrees
west of the meridian of Cape San Roque, and therefore
unquestionably out of Portuguese waters. Clearly there was no
use in going on and discovering lands which could belong only
to Spain. This may account, I think, for the change of
direction." The voyage southeastwardly was pursued until the
little fleet had reached the icy and rocky coast of the island
of South Georgia, in latitude 54° South. It was then decided to
turn homeward. "Vespucius … headed straight North North East
through the huge ocean, for Sierra Leone, and the distance of
more than 4,000 miles was made—with wonderful accuracy,
though Vespucius says nothing about that—in 33 days. …
Thence, after some further delay, to Lisbon, where they
arrived on the 7th of September, 1502. … Among all the
voyages made during that eventful period there was none that
as a feat of navigation surpassed this third of Vespucius, and
there was none, except the first of Columbus, that outranked
it in historical importance. For it was not only a voyage into
the remotest stretches of the Sea of Darkness, but it was
preeminently an incursion into the antipodal world of the
Southern hemisphere. … A coast of continental extent,
beginning so near the meridian of the Cape Verde islands and
running southwesterly to latitude 35° South and perhaps beyond,
did not fit into anybody's scheme of things. … It was land
unknown to the ancients, and Vespucius was right in saying
that he had beheld there things by the thousand which Pliny
had never mentioned. It was not strange that he should call it
a 'New World,' and in meeting with this phrase, on this first
occasion in which it appears in any document with reference to
any part of what we now call America, the reader must be
careful not to clothe it with the meaning which it wears in
our modern eyes. In using the expression 'New World' Vespucius
was not thinking of the Florida coast which he had visited on
a former voyage, nor of the 'islands of India' discovered by
Columbus, nor even of the Pearl Coast which he had followed
after the Admiral in exploring. The expression occurs in his
letter to Lorenzo de' Medici, written from Lisbon in March or
April, 1503, relating solely to this third voyage. The letter
begins as follows: 'I have formerly written to you at
sufficient length about my return from those new countries
which in the ships and at the expense and command of the most
gracious King of Portugal we have sought and found. It is
proper to call them a new world.' Observe that it is only the
new countries visited on this third voyage, the countries from
Cape San Roque southward, that Vespucius thinks it proper to
call a new world, and here is his reason for so calling them:
'Since among our ancestors there was no knowledge of them, and
to all who hear of the affair it is most novel. For it
transcends the ideas of the ancients, since most of them say
that beyond the equator to the south there is no continent,
but only the sea which they called the Atlantic, and if any of
them asserted the existence of a continent there, they found
many reasons for refusing to consider it a habitable country.
But this last voyage of mine has proved that this opinion of
theirs was erroneous and in every way contrary to the facts."
… This expression 'Novus Mundus,' thus occurring in a
private letter, had a remarkable career. Early in June, 1503,
about the time when Americus was starting on his fourth
voyage, Lorenzo died. By the beginning of 1504, a Latin
version of the letter [translated by Giovanni Giocondo] was
printed and published, with the title 'Mundus Novus.' … The
little four-leaved tract, 'Mundus Novus,' turned out to be the
great literary success of the day. M. Harisse has described at
least eleven Latin editions probably published in the course
of 1504, and by 1506 not less than eight editions of German
versions had been issued. Intense curiosity was aroused by
this announcement of the existence of a populous land beyond
the equator and unknown (could such a thing be possible) to
the ancients,—who did know something, at least, about the
eastern parts of the Asiatic continent which Columbus was
supposed to have reached. The "Novus Mundus," so named, began
soon to be represented on maps and globes, generally as a
great island or quasi-continent lying on and below the
equator. "Europe, Asia and Africa were the three parts of the
earth [previously known], and so this opposite region,
hitherto unknown, but mentioned by Mela and indicated by
Ptolemy, was the Fourth Part. We can now begin to understand
the intense and wildly absorbing interest with which people
read the brief story of the third voyage of Vespucius, and we
can see that in the nature of that interest there was nothing
calculated to bring it into comparison with the work of
Columbus. The two navigators were not regarded as rivals in
doing the same thing, but as men who had done two very
different things; and to give credit to one was by no means
equivalent to withholding credit from the other." In 1507,
Martin Waldseemüller, professor of geography at Saint-Dié,
published a small treatise entitled "Cosmographic
Introductio," with that second of the two known letters of
Vespucius—the one addressed to Soderini, of which an account
is given above (A. D. 1497-1498)—appended to it. "In this
rare book occurs the first suggestion of the name America.
{58}
After having treated of the division of the earth's inhabited
surface into three parts—Europe, Asia, and
Africa—Waldseemüller speaks of the discovery of a Fourth
Part," and says: "'Wherefore I do not see what is rightly to
hinder us from calling it Amerige or America, i. e., the land
of Americus, after its discoverer Americus, a man of sagacious
mind, since both Europe and Asia have got their names from
women.' … Such were the winged words but for which, as M.
Harisse reminds us, the western hemisphere might have come to
be known as Atlantis, or Hesperides, or Santa Cruz, or New
India, or perhaps Columbia. … In about a quarter of a
century the first stage in the development of the naming of
America had been completed. That stage consisted of five
distinct steps: 1. Americus called the regions visited by him
beyond the equator 'a new world' because they were unknown to
the ancients; 2. Giocondo made this striking phrase 'Mundus
Novus' into a title for his translation of the letter. … 3.
the name Mundus Novus got placed upon several maps as an
equivalent for Terra Sanctæ Crucis, or what we call Brazil; 4.
the suggestion was made that Mundus Novus was the Fourth Part
of the earth, and might properly be named America after its
discoverer; 5. the name America thus got placed upon several
maps [the first, so far as known, being a map ascribed to
Leonardo da Vinci and published about 1514, and the second a
globe made in 1515 by Johann Schöner, at Nuremberg] as an
equivalent for what we call Brazil, and sometimes came to
stand alone as an equivalent for what we call South America,
but still signified only a part of the dry land beyond the
Atlantic to which Columbus had led the way. … This wider
meaning [of South America] became all the more firmly
established as its narrower meaning was usurped by the name
Brazil. Three centuries before the time of Columbus the red
dye-wood called brazil-wood was an article of commerce, under
that same name, in Italy and Spain. It was one of the valuable
things brought from the East, and when the Portuguese found
the same dye-wood abundant in those tropical forests that had
seemed so beautiful to Vespucius, the name Brazil soon became
fastened upon the country and helped to set free the name
America from its local associations." When, in time, and by
slow degrees, the great fact was learned, that all the lands
found beyond the Atlantic by Columbus and his successors,
formed part of one continental system, and were all to be
embraced in the conception of a New World, the name which had
become synonymous with New World was then naturally extended
to the whole. The evolutionary process of the naming of the
western hemisphere as a whole was thus made complete in 1541,
by Mercator, who spread the name America in large letters upon
a globe which he constructed that year, so that part of it
appeared upon the northern and part upon the southern
continent.
_J. Fiske,
The Discovery of America,
chapter 7 (volume 2)._
ALSO IN:
_W. B. Scaife,
America: Its Geographical History,
section 4._
_R. H. Major,
Life of Prince Henry of Portugal,
chapter 19._
_J. Winsor,
Narrative and Critical History of America,
volume 2, ch, 2, notes._
_H. H. Bancroft,
History of the Pacific States,
volume 1, pages 99-112, and 123-125._
AMERICA: A. D. 1501-1504.
Portuguese, Norman and Breton fishermen on the Newfoundland
Banks.
See NEWFOUNDLAND: A. D. 1501-1578.
AMERICA: A. D. 1502.
The Second Voyage of Ojeda.
The first voyage of Alonzo de Ojeda, from which he returned to
Spain in June 1500, was profitable to nothing but his
reputation as a bold and enterprising explorer. By way of
reward, he was given "a grant of land in Hispaniola, and
likewise the government of Coquibacoa, which place he had
discovered [and which he had called Venezuela]. He was
authorized to fit out a number of ships at his own expense and
to prosecute discoveries on the coast of Terra Firma. … With
four vessels, Ojeda set sail for the Canaries, in 1502, and
thence proceeded to the Gulf of Paria, from which locality he
found his way to Coquibacoa. Not liking this poor country, he
sailed on to the Bay of Honda, where he determined to found
his settlement, which was, however, destined to be of short
duration. Provisions very soon became scarce; and one of his
partners, who had been sent to procure supplies from Jamaica,
failed to return until Ojeda's followers were almost in a
state of mutiny. The result was that the whole colony set sail
for Hispaniola, taking the governor with them in chains. All
that Ojeda gained by his expedition was that he at length came
off winner in a lawsuit, the costs of which, however, left him
a ruined man."
_R G. Watson,
Spanish and Portuguese South America,
book 1, chapter 1._
AMERICA: A. D. 1503-1504.
The Fourth Voyage of Americus Vespucius.
First Settlement in Brazil.
In June, 1503, "Amerigo sailed again from Lisbon, with six
ships. The object of this voyage was to discover a certain
island called Melcha, which was supposed to lie west of
Calicut, and to be as famous a mart in the commerce of the
Indian world as Cadiz was in Europe. They made the Cape de
Verds, and then, contrary to the judgment of Vespucci and of
all the fleet, the Commander persisted in standing for Serra
Leoa." The Commander's ship was lost, and Vespucci, with one
vessel, only, reached the coast of the New World, finding a
port which is thought to have been Bahia. Here "they waited
above two months in vain expectation of being joined by the
rest of the squadron. Having lost all hope of this they
coasted on for 260 leagues to the Southward, and there took
port again in 18° S. 35° West of the meridian of Lisbon. Here
they remained five months, upon good terms with the natives,
with whom some of the party penetrated forty leagues into the
interior; and here they erected a fort, in which they left 24
men who had been saved from the Commander's ship. They gave
them 12 guns, besides other arms, and provisions for six
months; then loaded with brazil [wood], sailed homeward and
returned in safety. … The honour, therefore, of having
formed the first settlement in this country is due to Amerigo
Vespucci. It does not appear that any further attention was as
this time paid to it. … But the cargo of brazil which
Vespucci had brought home tempted private adventurers, who
were content with peaceful gains, to trade thither for that
valuable wood; and this trade became so well known, that in
consequence the coast and the whole country obtained the name
of Brazil, notwithstanding the holier appellation [Santa Cruz]
which Cabral had given it."
_R. Southey,
History of Brazil,
volume 1, chapter 1._
{59}
AMERICA: A. D. 1509-1511.
The Expeditions of Ojeda and Nicuesa to the Isthmus.
The Settlement at Darien.
"For several years after his ruinous, though successful
lawsuit, we lose all traces of Alonzo de Ojeda, excepting that
we are told he made another voyage to Coquibacoa [Venezuela],
in 1505. No record remains of this expedition, which seems to
have been equally unprofitable with the preceding, for we find
him, in 1508, in the island of Hispaniola as poor in purse,
though as proud in spirit, as ever. … About this time the
cupidity of King Ferdinand was greatly excited by the accounts
by Columbus of the gold mines of Veragua, in which the admiral
fancied he had discovered the Aurea Chersonesus of the
ancients, whence King Solomon procured the gold used in
building the temple of Jerusalem. Subsequent voyagers had
corroborated the opinion of Columbus as to the general riches
of the coast of Terra Firma; King Ferdinand resolved,
therefore, to found regular colonies along that coast, and to
place the whole under some capable commander." Ojeda was
recommended for this post, but found a competitor in one of
the gentlemen of the Spanish court, Diego de Nicuesa. "King
Ferdinand avoided the dilemma by favoring both; not indeed by
furnishing them with ships and money, but by granting patents
and dignities, which cost nothing, and might bring rich
returns. He divided that part of the continent which lies
along the Isthmus of Darien into two provinces, the boundary
line running through the Gulf of Uraba. The eastern part,
extending to Cape de la Vela, was called New Andalusia, and
the government of it given to Ojeda. The other to the west
[called Castilla del Oro], including Veragua, and reaching, to
Cape Gracias à Dios, was assigned to Nicuesa. The island of
Jamaica was given to the two governors in common, as a place
whence to draw supplies of provisions." Slender means for the
equipment of Ojeda's expedition were supplied by the veteran
pilot, Juan de la Cosa, who accompanied him as his lieutenant.
Nicuesa was more amply provided. The rival armaments arrived
at San Domingo about the same time (in 1509), and much
quarreling between the two commanders ensued. Ojeda found a
notary in San Domingo, Martin Fernandez de Enciso, who had
money which he consented to invest in the enterprise, and who
promised to follow him with an additional ship-load of
recruits and supplies. Under this arrangement Ojeda made ready
to sail in advance of his competitor, embarking November 10, 1509.
Among those who sailed with him was Francisco Pizarro, the
future conqueror of Peru. Ojeda, by his energy, gained time
enough to nearly ruin his expedition before Nicuesa reached
the scene; for, having landed at Carthagena, he made war upon
the natives, pursued them recklessly into the interior of the
country, with 70 men, and was overwhelmed by the desperate
savages, escaping with only one companion from their poisoned
arrows. His faithful friend, the pilot, Juan de la Cosa, was
among the slain, and Ojeda himself, hiding in the forest, was
nearly dead of hunger and exposure when found and rescued by a
searching party from his ships. At this juncture the fleet of
Nicuesa made its appearance. Jealousies were forgotten in a
common rage against the natives and the two expeditions were
joined in an attack on the Indian villages which spared
nothing. Nicuesa then proceeded to Veragua, while Ojeda
founded a town, which he called San Sebastian, at the east end
of the Gulf of Uraba. Incessantly harassed by the natives,
terrified by the effects of the poison which these used in
their warfare, and threatened with starvation by the rapid
exhaustion of its supplies, the settlement lost courage and
hope. Enciso and his promised ship were waited for in vain. At
length there came a vessel which certain piratical adventurers
at Hispaniola had stolen, and which brought some welcome
provisions, eagerly bought at an exorbitant price. Ojeda, half
recovered from a poisoned wound, which he had treated
heroically with red-hot plates of iron, engaged the pirates to
convey him to Hispaniola, for the procuring of supplies. The
voyage was a disastrous one, resulting in shipwreck on the
coast of Cuba and a month of desperate wandering in the
morasses of the island. Ojeda survived all these perils and
sufferings, made his way to Jamaica, and from Jamaica to San
Domingo, found that his partner Enciso had sailed for the
colony long before, with abundant supplies, but could learn
nothing more. Nor could he obtain for himself any means of
returning to San Sebastian, or of dispatching relief to the
place. Sick, penniless and disheartened, he went into a
convent and died. Meantime the despairing colonists at San
Sebastian waited until death had made them few enough to be
all taken on board of the two little brigantines which were
left to them; then they sailed away, Pizarro in command. One
of the brigantines soon went down in a squall; the other made
its way to the harbor of Carthagena, where it found the tardy
Enciso, searching for his colony. Enciso, under his
commission, now took command, and insisted upon going to San
Sebastian. There the old experiences were soon renewed, and
even Enciso was ready to abandon the deadly place. The latter
had brought with him a needy cavalier, Vasco Nuñez de
Balboa—so needy that he smuggled himself on board Enciso's
ship in a cask to escape his creditors. Vasco Nuñez, who had
coasted this region with Bastidas, in 1500, now advised a
removal of the colony to Darien, on the opposite coast of the
Gulf of Uraba. His advice, which was followed, proved good,
and the hopes of the settlers were raised; but Enciso's modes
of government proved irksome to them. Then Balboa called
attention to the fact that, when they crossed the Gulf of
Uraba, they passed out of the territory covered by the patent
to Ojeda, under which Enciso was commissioned, and into that
granted to Nicuesa. On this suggestion Enciso was promptly
deposed and two alcaldes were elected, Balboa being one. While
events in one corner of Nicuesa's domain were thus
establishing a colony for that ambitious governor, he himself,
at the other extremity of it, was faring badly. He had
suffered hardships, separation from most of his command and
long abandonment on a dc solate coast; had rejoined his
followers after great suffering, only to suffer yet more in
their company, until less than one hundred remained of the 700
who sailed with him a few months before. The settlement at
Veragua had been deserted, and another, named Nombre de Dios
undertaken, with no improvement of circumstances. In this
situation he was rejoiced, at last, by the arrival of one of
his lieutenants, Rodrigo de Colmenares, who came with
supplies. Colmenares brought tidings, moreover, of the
prosperous colony at Darien, which he had discovered on his
way, with an invitation to Nicuesa to come and assume the
government of it. He accepted the invitation with delight;
but, alas! the community at Darien had repented of it before
he reached them, and they refused to receive him when he
arrived. Permitted finally to land, he was seized by a
treacherous party among the colonists—to whom Balboa is said
to have opposed all the resistance in his power—was put on
board of an old and crazy brigantine, with seventeen of his
friends, and compelled to take an oath that he would sail
straight to Spain. "The frail bark set sail on the first of
March, 1511, and steered across the Caribbean Sea for the
island of Hispaniola, but was never seen or heard of more."
_W. Irving,
Life and Voyages of Columbus and his Companions,
volume 3._
ALSO IN
_H. H. Bancroft,
History of the Pacific States,
volume 1, chapter 6._
{60}
AMERICA: A. D. 1511.
The Spanish conquest and occupation of Cuba.
See CUBA: A. D. 1511.
AMERICA: A. D. 1512.
The Voyage of Ponce de Leon in quest of the Fountain of Youth,
and his Discovery of Florida.
"Whatever may have been the Southernmost point reached by
Cabot in coasting America on his return, it is certain that he
did not land in Florida, and that the honour of first
exploring that country is due to Juan Ponce de Leon. This
cavalier, who was governor of Puerto Rico, induced by the
vague traditions circulated by the natives of the West Indies,
that there was a country in the north possessing a fountain
whose waters restored the aged to youth, made it an object of
his ambition to be the first to discover this marvellous
region. With this view, he resigned the governorship, and set
sail with three caravels on the 3d of March 1512. Steering N.
¼ N., he came upon a country covered with flowers and verdure;
and as the day of his discovery happened to be Palm Sunday,
called by the Spaniards' Pasqua Florida,' he gave it the name
of Florida from this circumstance. He landed on the 2d of
April, and took possession of the country in the name of the
king of Castile. The warlike people of the coast of Cautio (a
name given by the Indians to all the country lying between
Cape Cañaveral and the southern point of Florida) soon,
however, compelled him to retreat, and he pursued his
exploration of the coast as far as 30° 8' North latitude, and
on the 8th of May doubled Cape Cañaveral. Then retracing his
course to Puerto Rico, in the hope of finding the island of
Bimini, which he believed to be the Land of Youth, and
described by the Indians as opposite to Florida, he discovered
the Bahamas, and some other islands, previously unknown. Bad
weather compelling him to put into the isle of Guanima to
repair damages, he despatched one of his caravels, under the
orders of Jaun Perez de Ortubia and of the pilot Anton de
Alaminos, to gain information respecting the desired land,
which he had as yet been totally unable to discover. He
returned to Puerto Rico on the 21st of September; a few days
afterwards, Ortubia arrived also with news of Bimini. He
reported that he had explored the island,—which he described
as large, well wooded, and watered by numerous streams,—but
he had failed in discovering the fountain. Oviedo places
Bimini at 40 leagues west of the island of Bahama. Thus all
the advantages which Ponce de Leon promised himself from this
voyage turned to the profit of geography: the title of
'Adelantado of Bimini and Florida,' which was conferred upon
him, was purely honorary; but the route taken by him in order
to return to Puerto Rico, showed the advantage of making the
homeward voyage to Spain by the Bahama Channel."
_W. B. Rye,
Introduction to "Discovery and Conquest of Terra Florida,
by a gentleman of Elvas" (Hakluyt Society, 1851)._
ALSO IN
_G. R. Fairbanks,
History of Florida,
chapter 1_
AMERICA: A. D. 1513-1517.
The discovery of the Pacific by Vasco Nuñez de Balboa.
Pedrarias Davila on the Isthmus.
With Enciso deposed from authority and Nicuesa sent adrift,
Vasco Nuñez de Balboa seems to have easily held the lead in
affairs at Darien, though not without much opposition; for
faction and turbulence were rife. Enciso was permitted to
carry his grievances and complaints to Spain, but Balboa's
colleague, Zamudio, went with him, and another comrade
proceeded to Hispaniola, both of them well-furnished with
gold. For the quest of gold had succeeded at last. The Darien
adventurers had found considerable quantities in the
possession of the surrounding natives, and were gathering it
with greedy hands. Balboa had the prudence to establish
friendly relations with one of the most important of the
neighboring caciques, whose comely daughter he
wedded—according to the easy customs of the country—and
whose ally he became in wars with the other caciques. By gift
and tribute, therefore as well as by plunder, he harvested
more gold than any before him had found since the ransacking
of the New World began. But what they obtained seemed little
compared with the treasures reported to them as existing
beyond the near mountains and toward the south. One Indian
youth, son of a friendly cacique, particularly excited their
imaginations by the tale which he told of another great sea,
not far to the west, on the southward-stretching shores of
which were countries that teemed with every kind of wealth. He
told them, however, that they would need a thousand men to
fight their way to this Sea. Balboa gave such credence to the
story that he sent envoys to Spain to solicit forces from the
king for an adequate expedition across the mountains. They
sailed in October, 1512, but did not arrive in Spain until the
following May. They found Balboa in much disfavor at the
court. Enciso and the friends of the unfortunate Nicuesa had
unitedly ruined him by their complaints, and the king had
caused criminal proceedings against him to be commenced.
Meantime, some inkling of these hostilities had reached
Balboa, himself, conveyed by a vessel which bore to him, at
the same time, a commission as captain-general from the
authorities in Hispaniola. He now resolved to become the
discoverer of the ocean which his Indian friends described,
and of the rich lands bordering it, before his enemies could
interfere with him. "Accordingly, early in September, 1513, he
set out on his renowned expedition for finding 'the other
sea,' accompanied by 190 men well armed, and by dogs, which
were of more avail than men, and by Indian slaves to carry the
burdens. He went by sea to the territory of his father-in-law,
King Careta, by whom he was well received, and accompanied by
whose Indians he moved on into Poncha's territory." Quieting
the fears of this cacique, he passed his country without
fighting. The next chief encountered, named Quarequa,
attempted resistance, but was routed, with a great slaughter
of his people, and Balboa pushed on. "On the 25th of
September, 1513, he came near to the top of a mountain from
whence the South Sea was visible.
{61}
The distance from Poncha's chief town to this point was forty
leagues, reckoned then six days' journey; but Vasco Nuñez and
his men took twenty-five days to accomplish it, as they
suffered much from the roughness of the ways and from the want
of provisions. A little before Vasco Nuñez reached the height,
Quarequa's Indians informed him of his near approach to the
sea. It was a sight in beholding which, for the first time,
any man would wish to be alone. Vasco Nuñez bade his men sit
down while he ascended, and then, in solitude, looked down
upon the vast Pacific—the first man of the Old World, so far
as we know, who had done so. Falling on his knees, he gave
thanks to God for the favour shown to him in his being
permitted to discover the Sea of the South. Then with his hand
be beckoned to his men to come up. When they had come, both he
and they knelt down and poured forth their thanks to God. He
then addressed them. … Having … addressed his men, Vasco
Nuñez proceeded to take formal possession, on behalf of the
kings of Castile, of the sea and of all that was in it; and in
order to make memorials of the event, he cut down trees,
formed crosses, and heaped up stones. He also inscribed the
names of the monarchs of Castile upon great trees in the
vicinity." Afterwards, when he had descended the western slope
and found the shore, "he entered the sea up to his thighs,
having his sword on, and with his shield in his hand; then he
called the by-standers to witness how he touched with his
person and took possession of this sea for the kings of
Castile, and declared that he would defend the possession of
it against all comers. After this, Vasco Nuñez made friends in
the usual manner, first conquering and then negotiating with"
the several chiefs or caciques whose territories came in his
way. He explored the Gulf of San Miguel, finding much wealth
of pearls in the region, and returned to Darien by a route
which crossed the isthmus considerably farther to the north,
reaching his colony on the 29th of January, 1514, having been
absent nearly five months. "His men at Darien received him
with exultation, and he lost no time in sending his news,
'such signal and new news,' … to the King of Spain,
accompanying it with rich presents. His letter, which gave a
detailed account of his journey, and which, for its length,
was compared by Peter Martyr to the celebrated letter that
came to the senate from Tiberius, contained in every page
thanks to God that he had escaped from such great dangers and
labours. Both the letter and the presents were intrusted to a
man named Arbolanche, who departed from Darien about the
beginning of March, 1514. … Vasco Nuñez's messenger,
Arbolanche, reached the court of Spain too late for his
master's interests." The latter had already been superseded in
the Governorship, and his successor was on the way to take his
authority from him. The new governor was one Pedrarias De
Avila, or Davila, as the name is sometimes written;—an
envious and malignant old man, under whose rule on the isthmus
the destructive energy of Spanish conquest rose to its meanest
and most heartless and brainless development. Conspicuously
exposed as he was to the jealousy and hatred of Pedrarias,
Vasco Nuñez was probably doomed to ruin, in some form, from
the first. At one time, in 1516, there seemed to be a promise
for him of alliance with his all-powerful enemy, by a marriage
with one of the governor's daughters, and he received the
command of an expedition which again crossed the isthmus,
carrying ships, and began the exploration of the Pacific. But
circumstances soon arose which gave Pedrarias all opportunity
to accuse the explorer of treasonable designs and to
accomplish his arrest—Francisco Pizarro being the officer
fitly charged with the execution of the governor's warrant.
Brought in chains to Acla, Vasco Nuñez was summarily tried,
found guilty and led forth to swift death, laying his head
upon the block (A. D. 1517). "Thus perished Vasco Nuñez de
Balboa, in the forty-second year of his age, the man who,
since the time of Columbus, had shown the most statesmanlike
and warriorlike powers in that part of the world, but whose
career only too much resembles that of Ojeda, Nicuesa, and the
other unfortunate commanders who devastated those beautiful
regions of the earth."
_Sir A. Helps,
Spanish Conquest in America,
book 6 (volume 1)_.
"If I have applied strong terms of denunciation to Pedrarias
Dávila, it is because he unquestionably deserves it. He is by
far the worst man who came officially to the New World during
its early government. In this all authorities agree. And all
agree that Vasco Nuñez was not deserving of death."
_H. H. Bancroft,
History of the Pacific States,
volume 1, chapter 8-12 (foot-note, page 458)._
ALSO IN
_W. Irving,
Life and Voyages of Columbus and His Companions,
volume 3._
AMERICA: A. D. 1515.
Discovery of La Plata by Juan de Solis.
See PARAGUAY: A. D. 1515-1557.
AMERICA: A. D. 1517-1518.
The Spaniards find Mexico.
"An hidalgo of Cuba, named Hernandez de Cordova, sailed with
three vessels on an expedition to one of the neighbouring
Bahama Islands, in quest of Indian slaves (February 8, 1517). He
encountered a succession of heavy gales which drove him far
out of his course, and at the end of three weeks he found
himself on a strange and unknown coast. On landing and asking
the name of the country, he was answered by the natives
'Tectelan,' meaning 'I do not understand you,' but which the
Spaniards, misinterpreting into the name of the place, easily
corrupted into Yucatan. Some writers give a different
etymology. … Bernal Diaz says the word came from the
vegetable 'yuca' and 'tale,' the name for a hillock in which
it is planted. … M. Waldeck finds a much more plausible
derivation in the Indian word 'Ouyouckatan,' 'listen to what
they say.' … Cordova had landed on the north-eastern end of
the peninsula, at Cape Catoche. He was astonished at the size
and solid materials of the buildings constructed of stone and
lime, so different from the frail tenements of reeds and
rushes which formed the habitations of the islanders. He was
struck, also, with the higher cultivation of the soil, and
with the delicate texture of the cotton garments and gold
ornaments of the natives. Everything indicated a civilization
far superior to anything he had before witnessed in the New
World. He saw the evidence of a different race, moreover, in
the warlike spirit of the people. … Wherever they landed
they were met with the most deadly hostility.
{62}
Cordova himself, in one of his skirmishes with the Indians,
received more than a dozen wounds, and one only of his party
escaped unhurt. At length, when he had coasted the peninsula
as far as Campeachy, he returned to Cuba, which he reached
after an absence of several months. … The reports he had
brought back of the country, and, still more, the specimens of
curiously wrought gold, convinced Velasquez [governor of Cuba]
of the importance of this discovery, and he prepared with all
despatch to avail himself of it. He accordingly fitted out a
little squadron of four vessels for the newly discovered
lands, and placed it under the command of his nephew, Juan de
Grijalva, a man on whose probity, prudence, and attachment to
himself he knew he could rely. The fleet left the port of St.
Jago de Cuba, May 1, 1518. … Grijalva soon passed over to
the continent and coasted the peninsula, touching at the same
places as his predecessor. Everywhere he was struck, like him,
with the evidences of a higher civilization, especially in the
architecture; as he well might be, since this was the region
of those extraordinary remains which have become recently the
subject of so much speculation. He was astonished, also, at
the sight of large stone crosses, evidently objects of
worship, which he met with in various places. Reminded by
these circumstances of his own country, he gave the peninsula
the name New Spain, a name since appropriated to a much wider
extent of territory. Wherever Grijalva landed, he experienced
the same unfriendly reception as Cordova, though he suffered
less, being better prepared to meet it." He succeeded,
however, at last, in opening a friendly conference and traffic
with one of the chiefs, on the Rio de Tabasco, and "had the
satisfaction of receiving, for a few worthless toys and
trinkets, a rich treasure of jewels, gold ornaments and
vessels, of the most fantastic forms and workmanship. Grijalva
now thought that in this successful traffic—successful beyond
his most sanguine expectations—he had accomplished the chief
object of his mission." He therefore dispatched Alvarado, one
of his captains, to Velasquez, with the treasure acquired, and
continued his voyage along the coast, as far as the province
of Panuco, returning to Cuba at the end of about six months
from his departure. "On reaching the Island, he was surprised
to learn that another and more formidable armament had been
fitted out to follow up his own discoveries, and to find
orders at the same time from the governor, couched in no very
courteous language, to repair at once to St. Jago. He was
received by that personage, not merely with coldness, but with
reproaches, for having neglected so fair an opportunity of
establishing a colony in the country he had visited."
_W. H. Prescott,
Conquest of Mexico,
book 2, chapter 1._
ALSO IN: C.
_St. J. Fancourt,
History of Yucatan,
chapter 1-2._
_Bernal Diaz del Castillo,
Memoirs,
volume 1, chapter 2-19._
AMERICA: A. D. 1519-1524.
The Spanish Conquest of Mexico.
See MEXICO: A. D. 1519-1524.
AMERICA: A. D. 1519-1524.
The Voyage of Magellan and Sebastian del Cano.
The New World passed and the Earth circumnavigated.
The Congress at Badajos.
Fernando Magellan, or Magalhaes, was "a disaffected Portuguese
gentleman who had served his country for five years in the Indies
under Albuquerque, and understood well the secrets of the
Eastern trade. In 1517, conjointly with his geographical and
astronomical friend, Ruy Falerio, another unrequited
Portuguese, he offered his services to the Spanish court. At
the same time these two friends proposed, not only to prove
that the Moluccas were within the Spanish lines of
demarkation, but to discover a passage thither different from
that used by the Portuguese. Their schemes were listened to,
adopted and carried out. The Straits of Magellan were
discovered, the broad South Sea was crossed, the Ladrones and
the Phillipines were inspected, the Moluccas were passed
through, the Cape of Good Hope was doubled on the homeward
voyage, and the globe was circumnavigated, all in less than
three years, from 1519 to 1522. Magellan lost his life, and
only one of his five ships returned [under Sebastian del Cano]
to tell the marvelous story. The magnitude of the enterprise
was equalled only by the magnitude of the results. The globe
for the first time began to assume its true character and size
in the minds of men, and the minds of men began soon to grasp
and utilize the results of this circumnavigation for the
enlargement of trade and commerce, and for the benefit of
geography, astronomy, mathematics, and the other sciences.
This wonderful story, is it not told in a thousand books? …
The Portuguese in India and the Spiceries, as well as at home,
now seeing the inevitable conflict approaching, were
thoroughly aroused to the importance of maintaining their
rights. They openly asserted them, and pronounced this trade
with the Moluccas by the Spanish an encroachment on their
prior discoveries and possession, as well as a violation of
the Papal Compact of 1494, and prepared themselves
energetically for defense and offense. On the other hand, the
Spaniards as openly declared that Magellan's fleet carried the
first Christians to the Moluccas and by friendly intercourse
with the kings of those islands, reduced them to Christian
subjection and brought back letters and tribute to Cæsar.
Hence these kings and their people came under the protection
of Charles V. Besides this, the Spaniards claimed that the
Moluccas were within the Spanish half, and were therefore
doubly theirs. … Matters thus waxing hot, King John of
Portugal begged Charles V. to delay dispatching his new fleet
until the disputed points could be discussed and settled.
Charles, who boasted that he had rather be right than rich,
consented, and the ships were staid. These two Christian
princes, who owned all the newly discovered and to be
discovered parts of the whole world between them by deed of
gift of the Pope, agreed to meet in Congress at Badajos by
their representatives, to discuss and settle all matters in
dispute about the division of their patrimony, and to define
and stake out their lands and waters, both parties agreeing to
abide by the decision of the Congress. Accordingly, in the
early spring of 1524, up went to this little border town
four-and-twenty wise men, or thereabouts, chosen by each
prince. They comprised the first judges, lawyers,
mathematicians, astronomers, cosmographers, navigators and
pilots of the land, among whose names were many honored now as
then—such as Fernando Columbus, Sebastian Cabot, Estevan
Gomez, Diego Ribero, etc. … The debates and proceedings of
this Congress, as reported by Peter Martyr, Oviedo, and
Gomara, are very amusing, but no regular joint decision could
be reached, the Portuguese declining to subscribe to the
verdict of the Spaniards, inasmuch as it deprived them of the
Moluccas. So each party published and proclaimed its own
decision after the Congress broke up in confusion on the last
day of May, 1524. It was, however, tacitly understood that the
Moluccas fell to Spain, while Brazil, to the extent of two
hundred leagues from Cape St. Augustine, fell to the
Portuguese. … However, much good resulted from this first
geographical Congress. The extent and breadth of the Pacific
were appreciated, and the influence of the Congress was soon
after seen in the greatly improved maps, globes, and charts."
_H. Stevens,
History and Geographical Notes, 1453-1530._
{63}
"For three months and twenty days he [Magellan] sailed on the
Pacific and never saw inhabited land. He was compelled by
famine to strip off the pieces of skin and leather wherewith
his rigging was here and there bound, to soak them in the sea
and then soften them with warm water, so as to make a wretched
food; to eat the sweepings of the ship and other loathsome
matter'; to drink water gone putrid by keeping; and yet he
resolutely held on his course, though his men were dying
daily. … In the whole history of human undertakings there is
nothing that exceeds, if indeed there is anything that equals,
this voyage of Magellan's. That of Columbus dwindles away in
comparison. It is a display of superhuman courage, superhuman
perseverance."
_J. W. Draper,
History of the Intellectual Development of Europe,
chapter 19._
"The voyage [of Magellan] … was doubtless the greatest feat
of navigation that has ever been performed, and nothing can be
imagined that would surpass it except a journey to some other
planet. It has not the unique historic position of the first
voyage of Columbus, which brought together two streams of
human life that had been disjoined since the Glacial Period.
But as an achievement in ocean navigation that voyage of
Columbus sinks into insignificance by the side of it, and when
the earth was a second time encompassed by the greatest
English sailor of his age, the advance in knowledge, as well
as the different route chosen, had much reduced the difficulty
of the performance. When we consider the frailness of the
ships, the immeasurable extent of the unknown, the mutinies
that were prevented or quelled, and the hardships that were
endured, we can have no hesitation in speaking of Magellan as
the prince of navigators."
_J. Fiske,
The Discovery of America,
chapter 7 (volume 2)._
ALSO IN
_Lord Stanley of Alderley,
The First Voyage Round the World (Hakluyt Society, 1874)_.
_R. Kerr,
Collection of Voyages,
volume 10._
AMERICA: A. D. 1519-1525.
The Voyages of Garay and Ayllon.
Discovery of the mouth of the Mississippi.
Exploration of the Carolina Coast.
In 1519, Francisco de Garay, governor of Jamaica, who had been
one of the companions of Columbus on his second voyage, having
heard of the richness and beauty of Yucatan, "at his own
charge sent out four ships well equipped, and with good
pilots, under the command of Alvarez Alonso de Pineda. His
professed object was to search for some strait, west of
Florida, which was not yet certainly known to form a part of
the continent. The strait having been sought for in vain, his
ships turned toward the west, attentively examining the ports,
rivers, inhabitants, and everything else that seemed worthy of
remark; and especially noticing the vast volume of water
brought down by one very large stream. At last they came upon
the track of Cortes near Vera Cruz. … The carefully drawn
map of the pilots showed distinctly the Mississippi, which, in
this earliest authentic trace of its outlet, bears the name of
the Espiritu Santo. … But Garay thought not of the
Mississippi and its valley: he coveted access to the wealth of
Mexico; and, in 1523, lost fortune and life ingloriously in a
dispute with Cortes for the government of the country on the
river Panuco. A voyage for slaves brought the Spaniards in
1520 still farther to the north. A company of seven, of whom
the most distinguished was Lucas Vasquez de Ayllon, fitted out
two slave ships from St. Domingo, in quest of laborers for
their plantations and mines. From the Bahama Islands they
passed to the coast of South Carolina, which was called
Chicora. The Combahee river received the name of Jordan; the
name of St. Helena, whose day is the 18th of August, was given
to a cape, but now belongs to the sound." Luring a large
number of the confiding natives on board their ships the
adventurers treacherously set sail with them; but one of the
vessels foundered at sea, and most of the captives on the
other sickened and died. Vasquez de Ayllon was rewarded for
his treacherous exploit by being authorized and appointed to
make the conquest of Chicora. "For this bolder enterprise the
undertaker wasted his fortune in preparations; in 1525 his
largest ship was stranded in the river Jordan; many of his men
were killed by the natives; and he himself escaped only to
suffer from the consciousness of having done nothing worthy of
honor. Yet it may be that ships, sailing under his authority,
made the discovery of the Chesapeake and named it the bay of
St. Mary; and perhaps even entered the bay of Delaware, which,
in Spanish geography, was called St. Christopher's."
_G. Bancroft,
History of the United States,
part 1, chapter 2._
ALSO IN
_H. H. Bancroft,
History of the Pacific States,
volume 4, chapter 11, and volume 5, chapters 6-7._
_W. G. Simms,
History of South Carolina,
book 1, chapter 1._
AMERICA: A. D. 1523-1524.
The Voyages of Verrazano.
First undertakings of France in the New World.
"It is constantly admitted in our history that our kings paid
no attention to America before the year 1523. Then Francis I.,
wishing to excite the emulation of his subjects in regard to
navigation and commerce, as he had already so successfully in
regard to the sciences and fine arts, ordered John Verazani,
who was in his service, to go and explore the New Lands, which
began to be much talked of in France. … Verazani was
accordingly sent, in 1523, with four ships to discover North
America; but our historians have not spoken of his first
expedition, and we should be in ignorance of it now, had not
Ramusio preserved in his great collection a letter of Verazani
himself, addressed to Francis I. and dated Dieppe, July 8,
1524. In it he supposes the king already informed of the
success and details of the voyage, so that he contents himself
with stating that he sailed from Dieppe in four vessels, which
he had safely brought back to that port. In January, 1524, he
sailed with two ships, the Dauphine and the Normande, to
cruise against the Spaniards. Towards the close of the same
year, or early in the next, he again fitted out the Dauphine,
on which, embarking with 50 men and provisions for eight
months, he first sailed to the island of Madeira."
_Father Charlevoix,
History of New France
(translated by J. G. Shea),
book 1._
{64}
"On the 17th of January, 1524, he [Verrazano] parted from the
'Islas desiertas,' a well-known little group of islands near
Madeira, and sailed at first westward, running in 25 days 500
leagues, with a light and pleasant easterly breeze, along the
northern border of the trade winds, in about 30° North. His track
was consequently nearly like that of Columbus on his first
voyage. On the 14th of February he met 'with as violent a
hurricane as any ship ever encountered.' But he weathered it,
and pursued his voyage to the west, 'with a little deviation
to the north;' when, after having sailed 24 days and 400
leagues, he descried a new country which, as he supposed, had
never before been seen either by modern or ancient navigators.
The country was very low. From the above description it is
evident that Verrazano came in sight of the east coast of the
United States about the 10th of March, 1524. He places his
land-fall in 34° North, which is the latitude of Cape Fear." He
first sailed southward, for about 50 leagues, he states,
looking for a harbor and finding none. He then turned
northward. "I infer that Verrazano saw little of the coast of
South Carolina and nothing of that of Georgia, and that in
these regions he can, at most, be called the discoverer only
of the coast of North Carolina. … He rounded Cape Hatteras,
and at a distance of about 50 leagues came to another shore,
where he anchored and spent several days. … This was the
second principal landing-place of Verrazano. If we reckon 50
leagues from Cape Hatteras, it would fall somewhere upon the
east coast of Delaware, in latitude 38° North, where, by some
authors, it is thought to have been. But if, as appears most
likely, Verrazano reckoned his distance here, as he did in
other cases, from his last anchoring, and not from Cape
Hatteras, we must look for his second landing somewhere south
of the entrance to Chesapeake Bay, and near the entrance to
Albemarle Sound. And this better agrees with the 'sail of 100
leagues' which Verrazano says he made from his second to his
third landing-place, in New York Bay. … He found at this
third landing station an excellent berth, where he came to
anchor, well-protected from the winds, … and from which he
ascended the river in his boat into the interior. He found the
shores very thickly settled, and as he passed up half a league
further, he discovered a most beautiful lake … of three
leagues in circumference. Here, more than 30 canoes came to
him with a multitude of people, who seemed very friendly. …
This description contains several accounts which make it still
more clear that the Bay of New York was the scene of these
occurrences."—Verrazano's anchorage having been at Gravesend
Bay, the river which he entered being the Narrows, and the
lake he found being the Inner Harbor. From New York Bay
Verrazano sailed eastward, along the southern shore of Long
Island, and following the New England coast, touching at or
describing points which are identified with Narragansett Bay
and Newport, Block Island or Martha's Vineyard, and
Portsmouth. His coasting voyage was pursued as far as 50° North,
from which point he sailed homeward. "He entered the port of
Dieppe early in July, 1524. His whole exploring expedition,
from Madeira and back, had accordingly lasted but five and a
half months."
_J. G. Kohl,
History of the Discovery of Maine
(Maine Historical Society Collection, 2d Series, volume 1),
chapter 8._
ALSO IN
_G. Dexter,
Cortereal, Verrazano, &c.
(Narrative and Critical History of America,
volume 4, chapter 1)._
_Relation of Verrazano
(New York Historical Society Collection,
volume 1, and N. S., volume 1)_.
_J. C. Brevoort,
Verrazano the Navigator._
AMERICA: A. D. 1524-1528.
The Explorations of Pizarro and Discovery of Peru.
"The South Sea having been discovered, and the inhabitants of
Tierra Firme having been conquered and pacified, the Governor
Pedrarias de Avila founded and settled the cities of Panama
and of Nata, and the town of Nombre de Dios. At this time the
Captain Francisco Pizarro, son of the Captain Gonzalo Pizarro,
a knight of the city of Truxillo, was living in the city of
Panama; possessing his house, his farm and his Indians, as one
of the principal people of the land, which indeed he always
was, having distinguished himself in the conquest and
settling, and in the service of his Majesty. Being at rest and
in repose, but full of zeal to continue his labours and to
perform other more distinguished services for the royal crown,
he sought permission from Pedrarias to discover that coast of
the South Sea to the eastward. He spent a large part of his
fortune on a good ship which he built, and on necessary
supplies for the voyage, and he set out from the city of
Panama on the 14th day of the month of November, in the year
1524. He had 112 Spaniards in his company, besides some Indian
servants. He commenced a voyage in which they suffered many
hardships, the season being winter and unpropitious." From
this unsuccessful voyage, during which many of his men died of
hunger and disease, and in the course of which he found no
country that tempted his cupidity or his ambition, Pizarro
returned after some months to "the land of Panama, landing at
an Indian village near the island of Pearls, called Chuchama.
Thence he sent the ship to Panama, for she had become
unseaworthy by reason of the teredo; and all that had befallen
was reported to Pedrarias, while the Captain remained behind
to refresh himself and his companions. When the ship arrived
at Panama it was found that, a few days before, the Captain
Diego de Almagro had sailed in search of the Captain Pizarro,
his companion, with another ship and 70 men." Almagro and his
party followed the coast until they came to a great river,
which they called San Juan [a few miles north of the port of
Buenaventura, in New Granada]. … They there found signs of
gold, but there being no traces of the Captain Pizarro, the
Captain Almagro returned to Chuchama, where he found his
comrade. They agreed that the Captain Almagro should go to
Panama, repair the ships, collect more men to continue the
enterprise, and defray the expenses, which amounted to more
than 10,000 castellanos. At Panama much obstruction was caused
by Pedrarias and others, who said that the voyage should not
be persisted in, and that his Majesty would not be served by
it. The Captain Almagro, with the authority given him by his
comrade, was very constant in prosecuting the work he had
commenced, and … Pedrarias was forced to allow him to engage men.
{65}
He set out from Panama with 110 men; and went to
the place where Pizarro waited with another 50 of the first
110 who sailed with him, and of the 70 who accompanied Almagro
when he went in search. The other 130 were dead. The two
captains, in their two ships, sailed with 160 men, and coasted
along the land. When they thought they saw signs of
habitations, they went on shore in three canoes they had with
them, rowed by 60 men, and so they sought for provisions. They
continued to sail in this way for three years, suffering great
hardships from hunger and cold. The greater part of the crews
died of hunger, insomuch that there were not 50 surviving, and
during all those three years they discovered no good land. All
was swamp and inundated country, without inhabitants. The good
country they discovered was as far as the river San Juan,
where the Captain Pizarro remained with the few survivors,
sending a captain with the smaller ship to discover some good
land further along the coast. He sent the other ship, with the
Captain Diego de Almagro to Panama to get more men. At the
end of 70 days, the exploring ship came back with good
reports, and with specimens of gold, silver and cloths, found
in a country further south. "As soon as the Captain Almagro
arrived from Panama with a ship laden with men and horses, the
two ships, with their commanders and all their people, set out
from the river San Juan, to go to that newly-discovered land.
But the navigation was difficult; they were detained so long
that the provisions were exhausted, and the people were
obliged to go on shore in search of supplies. The ships
reached the bay of San Mateo, and some villages to which the
Spaniards gave the name of Santiago. Next they came to the
villages of Tacamez [Atacames, on the coast of modern
Ecuador], on the sea coast further on. These villages were
seen by the Christians to be large and well peopled: and when
90 Spaniards had advanced a league beyond the villages of
Tacamez, more than 10,000 Indian warriors encountered them;
but seeing that the Christians intended no evil, and did not
wish to take their goods, but rather to treat them peacefully,
with much love, the Indians desisted from war. In this land there
were abundant supplies, and the people led well-ordered lives,
the villages having their streets and squares. One village had
more than 3,000 houses, and others were smaller. It seemed to
the captains and to the other Spaniards that nothing could be
done in that land by reason of the smallness of their numbers,
which rendered them unable to cope with the Indians. So they
agreed to load the ships with the supplies to be found in the
villages, and to return to an island called Gallo, where they
would be safe until the ships arrived at Panama with the news
of what had been discovered, and to apply to the Governor for
more men, in order that the Captains might be able to continue
their undertaking, and conquer the land. Captain Almagro went
in the ships. Many persons had written to the Governor
entreating him to order the crews to return to Panama, saying
that it was impossible to endure more hardships than they had
suffered during the last three years. The Governor ordered
that all those who wished to go to Panama might do so, while
those who desired to continue the discoveries were at liberty
to remain. Sixteen men stayed with Pizarro, and all the rest
went back in the ships to Panama. The Captain Pizarro was on
that island for five months, when one of the ships returned,
in which he continued the discoveries for a hundred leagues
further down the coast. They found many villages and great
riches; and they brought away more specimens of gold, silver,
and cloths than had been found before, which were presented by
the natives. The Captain returned because the time granted by
the governor had expired, and the last day of the period had
been reached when he entered the port of Panama. The two
Captains were so ruined that they could no longer prosecute
their undertaking. … The Captain Francisco Pizarro was only
able to borrow a little more than 1,000 castellanos among his
friends, with which sum he went to Castile, and gave an
account to his Majesty of the great and signal services he had
performed."
_F. de Xeres (Sec. of Pizarro),
Account of the Province of Cuzco;
translated and edited by C. R. Markham
(Hakluyt Society, 1872)._
ALSO IN:
_W. H. Prescott,
History of the Conquest of Peru,
book 2, chapters 2-4 (volume 1)._
AMERICA: A. D. 1525.
The Voyage of Gomez.
See CANADA (NEW FRANCE): THE NAMES.
AMERICA: A. D. 1526-1531.
Voyage of Sebastian Cabot and attempted colonization of La Plata.
See PARAGUAY: A. D. 1515-1557.
AMERICA: A. D. 1528-1542.
The Florida Expeditions of Narvaez and Hernando de Soto.
Discovery of the Mississippi.
See FLORIDA: A. D. 1528-1542.
AMERICA: A. D. 1531-1533.
Pizarro's Conquest of Peru.
See PERU: A. D. 1528-1531, and 1531-1533.
AMERICA: A. D. 1533.
Spanish Conquest of the Kingdom of Quito.
See ECUADOR:
AMERICA: A. D. 1534-1535.
Exploration of the St. Lawrence to Montreal by Jacques Cartier.
"At last, ten years after [the voyages of Verrazano], Philip
Chabot, Admiral of France, induced the king [Francis I.] to
resume the project of founding a French colony in the New
World whence the Spaniards daily drew such great wealth; and
he presented to him a Captain of St. Malo, by name Jacques
Cartier, whose merit he knew, and whom that prince accepted.
Cartier having received his instructions, left St. Malo the 2d
of April, 1534, with two ships of 60 tons and 122 men. He
steered west, inclining slightly north, and had such fair
winds that, on the 10th of May, he made Cape Bonavista, in
Newfoundland, at 46° north. Cartier found the land there still
covered with snow, and the shore fringed with ice, so that he
could not or dared not stop; He ran down six degrees
south-southeast, and entered a port to which he gave the name
of St. Catharine. Thence he turned back north. … After
making almost the circuit of Newfoundland, though without
being able to satisfy himself that it was an island, he took a
southerly course, crossed the gulf, approached the continent,
and entered a very deep bay, where he suffered greatly from
heat, whence he called it Chaleurs Bay. He was charmed with
the beauty of the country, and well pleased with the Indians
that he met and with whom he exchanged some goods for furs.
… On leaving this bay, Cartier visited a good part of the
coasts around the gulf, and took possession of the country in
the name of the most Christian king, as Verazani had done in
all the places where he landed.
{66}
He set sail again on the 15th of August to return to France,
and reached St. Malo safely on the 5th of September. … On
the report which he made of his voyage, the court concluded
that it would be useful to France to have a settlement in that
part of America; but no one took this affair more to heart
than the Vice-Admiral Charles de Mony, Sieur de la Mailleraye.
This noble obtained a new commission for Cartier, more ample
than the first, and gave him three ships well equipped. This
fleet was ready about the middle of May, and Cartier …
embarked on Wednesday the 19th." His three vessels were
separated by violent storms, but found one another, near the
close of July, in the gulf which was their appointed place of
rendezvous. "On the 1st of August bad weather drove him to
take refuge in the port of St. Nicholas, at the mouth of the
river on the north. Here Cartier planted a cross, with the
arms of France, and remained until the 7th. This port is
almost the only spot in Canada that has kept the name given by
Cartier. … On the 10th the three vessels re-entered the
gulf, and in honor of the saint whose feast is celebrated on
that day, Cartier gave the gulf the name of St. Lawrence; or
rather he gave it to a bay lying between Anticosti Island and
the north shore, whence it extended to the whole gulf of which
this bay is part; and because the river, before that called
River of Canada, empties into the same gulf, it insensibly
acquired the name of St. Lawrence, which it still bears. …
The three vessels … ascended the river, and on the 1st of
September they entered the river Saguenay. Cartier merely
reconnoitered the mouth of this river, and … hastened to
seek a port where his vessels might winter in safety. Eight
leagues above Isle aux Coudres he found another much larger
and handsomer island, all covered with trees and vines. He
called it Bacchus Island, but the name has been changed to
Isle d'Orleans. The author of the relation to this voyage,
printed under the name of Cartier, pretends that only here the
country begins to be called Canada. But he is surely mistaken;
for it is certain that from the earliest times the Indians
gave this name to the whole country along the river on both
sides, from its mouth to the Saguenay. From Bacchus Island,
Cartier proceeded to a little river which is ten leagues off,
and comes from the north; he called it Rivière de Ste Croix,
because he entered it on the 14th of September (Feast of the
Exaltation of the Holy Cross); but it is now commonly called
Rivière de Jacques Cartier. The day after his arrival he
received a visit from an Indian chief named Donnacona, whom
the author of the relation of that voyage styles Lord of
Canada. Cartier treated with this chief by means of two
Indians whom he had taken to France the year before, and who
knew a little French. They informed Donnacona that the
strangers wished to go to Hochelaga, which seemed to trouble
him. Hochelaga was a pretty large town, situated on an island
now known under the name of Island of Montreal. Cartier had
heard much of it, and was loth to return to France without
seeing it. The reason why this voyage troubled Donnacona was
that the people of Hochelaga were of a different nation from
his, and that he wished to profit exclusively by the
advantages which he hoped to derive from the stay of the
French in his country." Proceeding with one vessel to Lake St.
Pierre, and thence in two boats, Cartier reached Hochelaga
Oct. 2. "The shape of the town was round, and three rows of
palisades inclosed in it about 50 tunnel shaped cabins, each
over 50 paces long and 14 or 15 wide. It was entered by a
single gate, above which, as well as along the first palisade,
ran a kind of gallery, reached by ladders, and well provided
with pieces of rock and pebbles for the defence of the place.
The inhabitants of the town spoke the Huron language. They
received the French very well. … Cartier visited the
mountain at the foot of which the town lay, and gave it the
name of Mont Royal, which has become that of the whole Island
[Montreal]. From it he discovered a great extent of country,
the sight of which charmed him. … He left Hochelaga on the
5th of October, and on the 11th arrived at Sainte Croix."
Wintering at this place, where his crews suffered terribly
from the cold and from scurvy, he returned to France the
following spring. "Some authors … pretend that Cartier,
disgusted with Canada, dissuaded the king, his master, from
further thoughts of it; and Champlain seems to have been of
that opinion. But this does not agree with what Cartier
himself says in his memoirs. … Cartier in vain extolled the
country which he had discovered. His small returns, and the
wretched condition to which his men had been reduced by cold
and scurvy, persuaded most that it would never be of any use
to France. Great stress was laid on the fact that he nowhere
saw any appearance of mines; and then, even more than now, a
strange land which produced neither gold nor silver was
reckoned as nothing."
_Father Charlevoix,
History of New France,
(translated by J. G. Shea),
book 1._
ALSO IN:
_R. Kerr,
General Collection of Voyages,
part 2, book 2, chapter 12 (volume 6)_.
_F. X. Garneau,
History of Canada,
volume 1, chapter 2._
AMERICA: A. D. 1535-1540.
Introduction of Printing in Mexico.
See PRINTING, &c.: A. D. 1535-1709.
AMERICA: A. D. 1535-1550.
Spanish Conquests in Chile.
See CHILE: A. D. 1450-1724.
AMERICA: A. D. 1536-1538.
Spanish Conquests of New Granada.
See COLOMBIAN STATES: A. D. 1536-1731.
AMERICA: A. D. 1541-1603.
Jacques Cartier's last Voyage.
Abortive attempts at French Colonization in Canada.
"Jean François de la Roque, lord of Roberval, a gentleman of
Picardy, was the most earnest and energetic of those who
desired to colonize the lands discovered by Jacques Cartier.
… The title and authority of lieutenant-general was
conferred upon him; his rule to extend over Canada. Hochelaga,
Saguenay, Newfoundland, Belle Isle, Carpon, Labrador, La Grand
Baye, and Baccalaos, with the delegated rights and powers of
the Crown. This patent was dated the 15th of January, 1540.
Jacques Cartier was named second in command. … Jacques
Cartier sailed on the 23d of May, 1541, having provisioned his
fleet for two years." He remained on the St. Lawrence until
the following June, seeking vainly for the fabled wealth of
the land of Saguenay, finding the Indians strongly inclined to
a treacherous hostility, and suffering severe hardships during
the winter. Entirely discouraged and disgusted, he abandoned
his undertaking early in the summer of 1542, and sailed for home.
{67}
In the road of St. John's, Newfoundland, Cartier met his tardy
chief, Roberval, just coming to join him; but no persuasion
could induce the disappointed explorer to turn back. "To avoid
the chance of an open rupture with Roberval, the lieutenant
silently weighed anchor during the night, and made all sail
for France. This inglorious withdrawal from the enterprise
paralyzed Roberval's power, and deferred the permanent
settlement of Canada for generations then unborn. Jacques
Cartier died soon after his return to Europe." Roberval
proceeded to Canada, built a fort at Ste Croix, four leagues
west of Orleans, sent back two of his three ships to France,
and remained through the winter with his colony, having a
troubled time. There is no certain account of the ending of
the enterprise, but it ended in failure. For half a century
afterwards there was little attempt made by the French to
colonize any part of New France, though the French fisheries
on the Newfoundland Bank and in the Gulf of St. Lawrence were
steadily growing in activity and importance. "When, after
fifty years of civil strife, the strong and wise sway of Henry
IV. restored rest to troubled France, the spirit of discovery
again arose. The Marquis de In Roche, a Breton gentleman,
obtained from the king, in 1598, a patent granting the same
powers that Roberval had possessed." But La Roche's
undertaking proved more disastrous than Roberval's had been.
Yet, there had been enough of successful fur-trading opened to
stimulate enterprise, despite these misfortunes. "Private
adventurers, unprotected by any special privilege, began to
barter for the rich peltries of the Canadian hunters. A
wealthy merchant of St. Malo, named Pontgravé, was the boldest
and most successful of these traders; he made several voyages
to Tadoussac, at the mouth of the Saguenay, bringing back each
time a rich cargo of rare and valuable furs." In 1600,
Pontgravé effected a partnership with one Chauvin, a naval
captain, who obtained a patent from the king giving him a
monopoly of the trade; but Chauvin died in 1602 without having
succeeded in establishing even a trading post at Tadoussac. De
Chatte, or De Chastes, governor of Dieppe, succeeded to the
privileges of Chauvin, and founded a company of merchants at
Rouen [1603] to undertake the development of the resources of
Canada. It was under the auspices of this company that Samuel
Champlain, the founder of New France, came upon the scene.
_E. Warburton,
The Conquest of Canada,
volume 1, chapter 2-3._
ALSO IN:
_F. Parkman,
Pioneers of France in the New World: Champlain,
chapter 1-2._
AMERICA: A. D. 1562-1567.
The slave trading Voyages of John Hawkins.
Beginnings of English Enterprise in the New World.
"The history of English America begins with the three
slave-trading voyages of John Hawkins, made in the years 1562,
1564, and 1567. Nothing that Englishmen had done in connection
with America, previously to those voyages, had any result
worth recording. England had known the New World nearly
seventy years, for John Cabot reached it shortly after its
discovery by Columbus; and, as the tidings of the discovery
spread, many English adventurers had crossed the Atlantic to
the American coast. But as years passed, and the excitement of
novelty subsided, the English voyages to America had become
fewer and fewer, and at length ceased altogether. It is easy
to account for this. There was no opening for conquest or
plunder, for the Tudors were at peace with the Spanish
sovereigns: and there could be no territorial occupation, for
the Papal title of Spain and Portugal to the whole of the new
continent could not be disputed by Catholic England. No trade
worth having existed with the natives: and Spain and Portugal
kept the trade with their own settlers in their own hands. …
As the plantations in America grew and multiplied, the demand
for negroes rapidly increased. The Spaniards had no African
settlements, but the Portuguese had many, and, with the aid of
French and English adventurers, they procured from these
settlements slaves enough to supply both themselves and the
Spaniards. But the Brazilian plantations grew so fast, about
the middle of the century, that they absorbed the entire
supply, and the Spanish colonists knew not where to look for
negroes. This penury of slaves in the Spanish Indies became
known to the English and French captains who frequented the
Guinea coast; and John Hawkins, who had been engaged from
boyhood in the trade with Spain and the Canaries, resolved in
1562 to take a cargo of negro slaves to Hispaniola. The little
squadron with which he executed this project was the first
English squadron which navigated the West Indian seas. This
voyage opened those seas to the English. England had not yet
broken with Spain, and the law excluding English vessels from
trading with the Spanish colonists was not strictly enforced.
The trade was profitable, and Hawkins found no difficulty in
disposing of his cargo to great advantage. A meagre note …
from the pen of Hakluyt contains all that is known of the
first American voyage of Hawkins. In its details it must have
closely resembled the second voyage. In the first voyage,
however, Hawkins had no occasion to carry his wares further
than three ports on the northern side of Hispaniola. These
ports, far away from San Domingo, the capital, were already
well known to the French smugglers. He did not venture into
the Caribbean Sea; and having loaded his ships with their
return cargo, he made the best of his way back. In his second
voyage … he entered the Caribbean Sea, still keeping,
however, at a safe distance from San Domingo, and sold his
slaves on the mainland. This voyage was on a much larger
scale. … Having sold his slaves in the continental ports
[South American], and loaded his vessels with hides and other
goods bought with the produce, Hawkins determined to strike
out a new path and sail home with the Gulf-stream, which would
carry him northwards past the shores of Florida. Sparke's
narrative … proves that at every point in these expeditions
the Englishman was following in the track of the French. He
had French pilots and seamen on board, and there is little
doubt that one at least of these had already been with
Laudonnière in Florida. The French seamen guided him to
Laudonnière's settlement, where his arrival was most opportune.
They then pointed him the way by the coast of North America,
then universally know in the mass as New France, to
Newfoundland, and thence, with the prevailing westerly winds,
to Europe.
{68}
This was the pioneer voyage made by Englishmen along coasts
afterwards famous in history through English colonization. …
The extremely interesting narrative … given … from the pen
of John Sparke, one of Hawkins' gentlemen companions …
contains the first information concerning America and its
natives which was published in England by an English
eye-witness." Hawkins planned a third voyage in 1566, but the
remonstrances of the Spanish king caused him to be stopped by
the English court. He sent out his ships, however, and they
came home in due time richly freighted,—from what source is
not known. "In another year's time the aspect of things had
changed." England was venturing into war with Spain, "and
Hawkins was now able to execute his plans without restraint,
He founded a permanent fortified factory on the Guinea coast,
where negroes might be collected all the year round. Thence he
sailed for the West Indies a third time. Young Francis Drake
sailed with him in command of the 'Judith,' a small vessel of
fifty tons." The voyage had a prosperous beginning and a
disastrous ending. After disposing of most of their slaves,
they were driven by storms to take refuge in the Mexican port
of Vera Cruz, and there they were attacked by a Spanish fleet.
Drake in the "Judith" and Hawkins in another small vessel
escaped. But the latter was overcrowded with men and obliged
to put half of them ashore on the Mexican coast. The majority
of those left on board, as well as a majority of Drake's crew,
died on the voyage home, and it was a miserable remnant that
landed in England, in January, 1569.
_E. J. Payne,
Voyages of the Elizabethan Seamen to America,
chapter 1._
ALSO IN:
_The Hawkins Voyages;
edited by C. R. Markham
(Hakluyt Society, Number 57)_.
_R. Southey,
Lives of the British Admirals,
volume 3._
AMERICA: A. D. 1572-1580.
The Piratical Adventures of Drake and his Encompassing of the
World.
"Francis Drake, the first of the English Buccaneers, was one
of the twelve children of Edward Drake of Tavistock, in
Devonshire, a staunch Protestant, who had fled his native
place to avoid persecution, and had then become a ship's
chaplain. Drake, like Columbus, had been a seaman by
profession from boyhood; and … had served as a young man, in
command of the Judith, under Hawkins, … Hawkins had confined
himself to smuggling: Drake advanced from this to piracy. This
practice was authorized by law in the middle ages for the
purpose of recovering debts or damages from the subjects of
another nation. The English, especially those of the west
country, were the most formidable pirates in the world; and
the whole nation was by this time roused against Spain, in
consequence of the ruthless war waged against Protestantism in
the Netherlands by Philip II. Drake had accounts of his own to
settle with the Spaniards. Though Elizabeth had not declared
for the revolted States, and pursued a shifting policy, her
interests and theirs were identical; and it was with a view of
cutting off those supplies of gold and silver from America
which enabled Philip to bribe politicians and pay soldiers, in
pursuit of his policy of aggression, that the famous voyage
was authorized by English statesmen. Drake had recently made
more than one successful voyage of plunder to the American
coast." In July, 1572, he surprised the Spanish town of Nombre
de Dios, which was the shipping port on the northern side of
the Isthmus for the treasures of Peru. His men made their way
into the royal treasure-house, where they laid hands on a heap
of bar-silver, 70 feet long, 10 wide, and 10 high; but Drake
himself had received a wound which compelled the pirates to
retreat with no very large part of the splendid booty. In the
winter of 1573, with the help of the runaway slaves on the
Isthmus, known as Cimarrones, he crossed the Isthmus, looked
on the Pacific ocean, approached within sight of the city of
Panama, and waylaid a transportation party conveying gold to
Nombre de Dios; but was disappointed of his prey by the
excited conduct of some of his men. When he saw, on this
occasion, the great ocean beyond the Isthmus, "Drake then and
there resolved to be the pioneer of England in the Pacific;
and on this resolution he solemnly besought the blessing of
God. Nearly four years elapsed before it was executed; for it
was not until November, 1577, that Drake embarked on his
famous voyage, in the course of which he proposed to plunder
Peru itself. The Peruvian ports were unfortified. The
Spaniards knew them to be by nature absolutely secured from
attack on the north; and they never dreamed that the English
pirates would be daring enough to pass the terrible straits of
Magellan and attack them from the south. Such was the plan of
Drake; and it was executed with complete success." He sailed
from Plymouth, December 13, 1577, with a fleet of four vessels,
and a pinnace, but lost one of the ships after he had entered
the Pacific, in a storm which drove him southward, and which
made him the discoverer of Cape Horn. Another of his ships,
separated from the squadron, returned home, and a third, while
attempting to do the same, was lost in the river Plate. Drake,
in his own vessel, the Golden Hind, proceeded to the Peruvian
coasts, where he cruised until he had taken and plundered a
score of Spanish ships. "Laden with a rich booty of Peruvian
treasure he deemed it unsafe to return by the way that he
came. He therefore resolved to strike across the Pacific, and
for this purpose made the latitude in which this voyage was
usually performed by the Spanish government vessels which
sailed annually from Acapulco to the Philippines. Drake thus
reached the coast of California, where the Indians, delighted
beyond measure by presents of clothing and trinkets, invited
him to remain and rule over them. Drake took possession of the
country in the name of the Queen, and refitted his vessel in
preparation for the unknown perils of the Pacific. The place
where He landed must have been either the great bay of San
Francisco [per contra., see CALIFORNIA: A. D. 1846-1847] or
the small bay of Bodega, which lies a few leagues further
north. The great seaman had already coasted five degrees more
to the northward before finding a suitable harbour. He
believed himself to be the first European who had coasted
these shores; but it is now well known that Spanish explorers
had preceded him. Drake's circumnavigation of the globe was
thus no deliberate feat of seamanship, but the necessary
result of circumstances. The voyage made in more than one way
a great epoch in English nautical history." Drake reached
Plymouth on his return Sept. 26, 1580.
_E. J. Payne,
Voyages of the Elizabethan Seamen,
pages 141-143._
ALSO IN
_F. Fletcher,
The World Encompassed by Sir F. Drake
(Hakluyt Society, 1854)_.
_J. Barrow,
Life of Drake._
_R. Southey,
Lives of British Admirals,
volume 3._
{69}
AMERICA: A. D. 1580.
The final founding of the City of Buenos Ayres.
See ARGENTINE REPUBLIC; A. D: 1580-1777.
AMERICA: A. D. 1583.
The Expedition of Sir Humphrey Gilbert.
Formal possession taken of Newfoundland.
In 1578, Sir Humphrey Gilbert, an English gentleman, of
Devonshire, whose younger half-brother was the more famous Sir
Walter Raleigh, obtained from Queen Elizabeth a charter
empowering him, for the next six years, to discover "such
remote heathen and barbarous lands, not actually possessed by
any Christian prince or people," as he might be shrewd or
fortunate enough to find, and to occupy the same as their
proprietor. Gilbert's first expedition was attempted the next
year, with Sir Walter Raleigh associated in it; but
misfortunes drove back the adventurers to port, and Spanish
intrigue prevented their sailing again. "In June, 1583,
Gilbert sailed from Cawsund Bay with five vessels, with the
general intention of discovering and colonizing the northern
parts of America. It was the first colonizing expedition which
left the shores of Great Britain; and the narrative of the
expedition by Hayes, who commanded one of Gilbert's vessels,
forms the first page in the history of English colonization.
Gilbert did no more than go through the empty form of taking
possession of the island of Newfoundland, to which the English
name formerly applied to the continent in general … was now
restricted. … Gilbert dallied here too long. When he set
sail to cross the Gulf of St. Lawrence and take possession of
Cape Breton and Nova Scotia the season was too far advanced;
one of his largest ships went down with all on board,
including the Hungarian scholar Parmenius, who had come out as
the historian of the expedition; the stores were exhausted and
the crews dispirited; and Gilbert resolved on sailing home,
intending to return and prosecute his discoveries the next
spring. On the home voyage the little vessel in which he was
sailing foundered; and the pioneer of English colonization
found a watery grave. … Gilbert was a man of courage, piety,
and learning. He was, however, an indifferent seaman, and
quite incompetent for the task of colonization to which he had
set his hand. The misfortunes of his expedition induced Amadas
and Barlow, who followed in his steps, to abandon the
northward voyage and sail to the shores intended to be
occupied by the easier but more circuitous route of the
Canaries and the West Indies."
_E. J. Payne,
Voyages of the Elizabethan Seamen,
pages 173-174._
"On Monday, the 9th of September, in the afternoon, the
frigate [the' Squirrel'] was near cast away, oppressed by
waves, yet at that time recovered; and giving forth signs of
joy, the general, sitting abaft with a book in his hand, cried
out to us in the 'Hind' (so oft as we did approach within
hearing), 'We are as near to heaven by sea as by land,'
reiterating the same speech, well beseeming a soldier resolute
in Jesus Christ, as I can testify he was. On the same Monday
night, about twelve o'clock, or not long after, the frigate
being ahead of us in the 'Golden Hind,' suddenly her lights
were out, whereof as it were in a moment we lost the sight,
and withal our watch cried the General was cast away, which
was too true; for in that moment the frigate was devoured and
swallowed up by the sea. Yet still we looked out all that
night and ever after, until we arrived upon the coast of
England. … In great torment of weather and peril of drowning
it pleased God to send safe home the 'Golden Hind,' which
arrived in Falmouth on the 22d of September, being Sunday."
_E. Hayes,
A Report of the Voyage by Sir Humphrey Gilbert
(reprinted in Payne's Voyages)._
ALSO IN
_E. Edwards,
Life of Raleigh,
volume 1, chapter 5._
_R. Hakluyt,
Principal Navigations;
edited by E. Goldsmid,
volume 12._
AMERICA: A. D. 1584-1586.
Raleigh's First Colonizing attempts and failures.
"The task in which Gilbert had failed was to be undertaken by
one better qualified to carry it out. If any Englishman in
that age seemed to be marked out as the founder of a colonial
empire, it was Raleigh. Like Gilbert, he had studied books;
like Drake he could rule men. … The associations of his
youth, and the training of his early manhood, fitted him to
sympathize with the aims of his half-brother Gilbert, and
there is little reason to doubt that Raleigh had a share in
his undertaking and his failure. In 1584 he obtained a patent
precisely similar to Gilbert's. His first step showed the
thoughtful and well-planned system on which he began his task.
Two ships were sent out, not with any idea of settlement, but
to examine and report upon the country. Their commanders were
Arthur Barlow and Philip Amidas. To the former we owe the
extant record of the voyage: the name of the latter would
suggest that he was a foreigner. Whether by chance or design,
they took a more southerly course than any of their
predecessors. On the 2d of July the presence of shallow water,
and a smell of sweet flowers, warned them that land was near.
The promise thus given was amply fulfilled upon their
approach. The sight before them was far different from that
which had met the eyes of Hore and Gilbert. Instead of the
bleak coast of Newfoundland, Barlow and Amidas looked upon a
scene which might recall the softness of the Mediterranean.
… Coasting along for about 120 miles, the voyagers reached
an inlet and with some difficulty entered. They then solemnly
took possession of the land in the Queen's name, and then
delivered it over to Raleigh according to his patent. They
soon discovered that the land upon which they had touched was
an island about 20 miles long, and not above six broad, named,
as they afterwards learnt, Roanoke. Beyond, separating them
from the mainland, lay an enclosed sea, studded with more than
a hundred fertile and well-wooded islets." The Indians proved
friendly, and were described by Barlow as being "most gentle,
loving and faithful, void of all guile and treason, and such
as live after the manner of the golden age." "The report which
the voyagers took home spoke as favourably of the land itself
as of its inhabitants. … With them they brought two of the
savages, named Wanchese and Manteo. A probable tradition tells
us that the queen herself named the country Virginia, and that
Raleigh's knighthood was the reward and acknowledgment of his
success.
{70}
On the strength of this report Raleigh at once made
preparations for a settlement. A fleet of seven ships was
provided for the conveyance of 108 settlers. The fleet was
under the command of Sir Richard Grenvillle, who was to
establish the settlement and leave it under the charge of
Ralph Lane. … On the 9th of April [1585] the emigrants set
sail." For some reason not well explained, the fleet made a
circuit to the West Indies, and loitered for five weeks at the
island of St. John's and at Hispaniola, reaching Virginia in
the last days of June. Quarrels between the two commanders,
Grenville and Lane, had already begun, and both seemed equally
ready to provoke the enmity of the natives. In August, after
exploring some sixty miles of the coast, Grenville returned to
England, promising to come back the next spring with new
colonists and stores. The settlement, thus left to the care of
Lane, was established "at the north-east corner of the island
of Roanoke, whence the settlers could command the strait.
There, even now, choked by vines and underwood, and here and
there broken by the crumbling remains of an earthen bastion,
may be traced the outlines of the ditch which enclosed the
camp, some forty yards square, the home of the first English
settlers in the New World. Of the doings of the settlers
during the winter nothing is recorded, but by the next spring
their prospects looked gloomy. The Indians were no longer
friends. … The settlers, unable to make fishing weirs, and
without seed corn, were entirely dependent on the Indians for
their daily food. Under these circumstances, one would have
supposed that Lane would have best employed himself in
guarding the settlement and improving its condition. He,
however, thought otherwise, and applied himself to the task of
exploring the neighbouring territory." But a wide combination
of hostile Indian tribes had been formed against the English,
and their situation became from day to day more imperilled. At
the beginning of June, 1586, Lane fought a bold battle with
the savages and routed them; but no sign of Grenville appeared
and the prospect looked hopeless. Just at this juncture, a
great English fleet, sailing homewards from a piratical
expedition to the Spanish Main, under the famous Captain
Drake, came to anchor at Roanoke and offered succor to the
disheartened colonists. With one voice they petitioned to be
taken to England, and Drake received the whole party on board
his ships. "The help of which the colonists had despaired was
in reality close at hand. Scarcely had Drake's fleet left the
coast when a ship well furnished by Raleigh with needful
supplies, reached Virginia, and after searching for the
departed settlers returned to England. About a fortnight later
Grenville himself arrived with three ships. He spent some time in
the country exploring, searching for the settlers, and at last,
unwilling to lose possession of the country, landed fifteen
men at Roanoke well supplied for two years, and then set sail
for England, plundering the Azores, and doing much damage to
the Spaniards."
_J. A. Doyle,
The English in America: Virginia, &c.,
chapter 4_.
"It seems to be generally admitted that, when Lane and his
company went back to England, they carried with them tobacco
as one of the products of the country, which they presented to
Raleigh, as the planter of the colony, and by him it was
brought into use in England, and gradually in other European
countries. The authorities are not entirely agreed upon this
point. Josselyn says: 'Tobacco first brought into England by
Sir John Hawkins, but first brought into use by Sir Walter
Rawleigh many years after.' Again he says: 'Now (say some)
Tobacco was first brought into England by Mr. Ralph Lane, out
of Virginia. Others will have Tobacco to be first brought into
England from Peru, by Sir Francis Drake's Mariners.' Camden
fixes its introduction into England by Ralph Lane and the men
brought back with him in the ships of Drake. He says: 'And
these men which were brought back were the first that I know
of, which brought into England that Indian plant which they
call Tobacco and Nicotia, and use it against crudities, being
taught it by the Indians.' Certainly from that time it began
to be in great request, and to be sold at a high rate. …
Among the 108 men left in the colony with Ralph Lane in 1585
was Mr. Thomas Hariot, a man of a strongly mathematical and
scientific turn, whose services in this connection were
greatly valued. He remained there an entire year, and went
back to England in 1586. He wrote out a full account of his
observations in the New World."
_L. N. Tarbox,
Sir Walter Raleigh and his Colony
(Prince Society 1884)._
ALSO IN
_T. Hariot,
Brief and true Report
(Reprinted in above-named Prince Society Publication)._
_F. L. Hawks,
History of North Carolina, volume 1
(containing reprints of Lane's Account, Hariot's Report, &c.)_
_Original Documents edited by E. E. Hale
(Archæologia Americana,
volume 4)._
AMERICA: A. D. 1587-1590.
The Lost Colony of Roanoke.
End of the Virginia Undertakings of Sir Walter Raleigh.
"Raleigh, undismayed by losses, determined to plant an
agricultural state; to send emigrants with their wives and
families, who should make their homes in the New World; and,
that life and property might be secured, in January, 1587, he
granted a charter for the settlement, and a municipal
government for the city of 'Raleigh.' John White was appointed
its governor; and to him, with eleven assistants, the
administration of the colony was intrusted. Transport ships
were prepared at the expense of the proprietary; 'Queen
Elizabeth, the godmother of Virginia,' declined contributing
'to its education.' Embarking in April, in July they arrived
on the coast of North Carolina; they were saved from the
dangers of Cape Fear; and, passing Cape Hatteras, they
hastened to the isle of Roanoke, to search for the handful of
men whom Grenville had left there as a garrison. They found
the tenements deserted and overgrown with weeds; human bones
lay scattered on the field where wild deer were reposing. The
fort was in ruins. No vestige of surviving life appeared. The
instructions of Raleigh had designated the place for the new
settlement on the bay of Chesapeake. But Fernando, the naval
officer, eager to renew a profitable traffic in the West
Indies, refused his assistance in exploring the coast, and
White was compelled to remain on Roanoke. … It was there
that in July the foundations of the city of Raleigh were laid.
But the colony was doomed to disaster from the beginning,
being quickly involved in warfare with the surrounding
natives. "With the returning ship White embarked for England,
under the excuse of interceding for re-enforcements and
supplies.
{71}
Yet, on the 18th of August, nine days previous to
his departure, his daughter Eleanor Dare, the wife of one of
the assistants, gave birth to a female child, the first
offspring of English parents on the soil of the United States.
The infant was named from the place of its birth. The colony,
now composed of 89 men, 17 women, and two children, whose
names are all preserved, might reasonably hope for the speedy
return of the governor, as he left with them his daughter and
his grandchild, Virginia Dare. The farther history of this
plantation is involved in gloomy uncertainty. The inhabitants
of 'the city of Raleigh,' the emigrants from England and the
first-born of America, awaited death in the land of their
adoption. For, when White reached England, he found its
attention absorbed by the threats of an invasion from Spain.
… Yet Raleigh, whose patriotism did not diminish his
generosity, found means, in April 1588, to despatch White with
supplies in two vessels. But the company, desiring a gainful
voyage rather than a safe one, ran in chase of prizes, till
one of them fell in with men of war from Rochelle, and, after
a bloody fight, was boarded and rifled. Both ships were
compelled to return to England. The delay was fatal: the
English kingdom and the Protestant reformation were in danger;
nor could the poor colonists of Roanoke be again remembered
till after the discomfiture of the Invincible Armada. Even
then Sir Walter Raleigh, who had already incurred a fruitless
expense of £40,000, found his impaired fortune insufficient
for further attempts at colonizing Virginia. He therefore used
the privilege of his patent to endow a company of merchants
and adventurers with large concessions. Among the men who thus
obtained an assignment of the proprietary's rights in Virginia
is found the name of Richard Hakluyt; it connects the first
efforts of England in North Carolina with the final
colonization of Virginia. The colonists at Roanoke had
emigrated with a charter; the instrument of March, 1589, was
not an assignment of Raleigh's patent, but the extension of a
grant, already held under its sanction by increasing the
number to whom the rights of that charter belonged. More than
another year elapsed before White could return to search for
his colony and his daughter; and then the island of Roanoke
was a desert. An inscription on the bark of a tree pointed to
Croatan; but the season of the year and the dangers from
storms were pleaded as an excuse for an immediate return. The
conjecture has been hazarded that the deserted colony,
neglected by their own countrymen, were hospitably adopted
into the tribe [the Croatans] of Hatteras Indians. Raleigh
long cherished the hope of discovering some vestiges of their
existence, and sent at his own charge, and, it is said, at
five several times, to search for his liege men. But
imagination received no help in its attempts to trace the fate
of the colony of Roanoke."
_G. Bancroft,
History of the United States,
part 1, ch.5 (volume 1)_.
"The Croatans of to-day claim descent from the lost colony.
Their habits, disposition and mental characteristics show
traces both of savage and civilized ancestors. Their language
is the English of 300 years ago, and their names are in many
cases the same as those borne by the original colonists. No
other theory of their origin has been advanced."
_S. B. Weeks,
The Lost Colony of Roanoke
(American History Association Papers,
volume 5, part 4)_.
"This last expedition [of White, searching for his lost
colony] was not despatched by Raleigh, but by his successors
in the American patent. And our history is now to take leave
of that illustrious man, with whose schemes and enterprises it
ceases to have any further connexion. The ardour of his mind
was not exhausted, but diverted by a multiplicity of new and
not less arduous undertakings. … Desirous, at the same time,
that a project which he had carried so far should not be
entirely abandoned, and hoping that the spirit of commerce
would preserve an intercourse with Virginia that might
terminate in a colonial establishment, he consented to assign
his patent to Sir Thomas Smith, and a company of merchants in
London, who undertook to establish and maintain a traffic
between England and Virginia. … It appeared very soon that
Raleigh had transferred his patent to bands very different
from his own. … Satisfied with a paltry traffic carried on
by a few small vessels, they made no attempt to take
possession of the country: and at the period of Elizabeth's
death, not a single Englishman was settled in America."
_J. Grahame,
History of the Rise and Progress of the
United States of North America till 1688,
chapter 1._
ALSO IN
_W. Stith,
History of Virginia,
book 1._
_F. L. Hawks,
History of North Carolina,
volume 1, Nos. 7-8._
AMERICA: A. D. 1602-1605.
The Voyages of Gosnold, Pring, and Weymouth.
The First Englishmen In New England.
Bartholomew Gosnold was a West-of-England mariner who had
served in the expeditions of Sir Walter Raleigh to the
Virginia coast. Under his command, in the spring of 1602,
"with the consent of Sir Walter Raleigh, and at the cost,
among others, of Henry Wriothesley, Earl of Southampton, the
accomplished patron of Shakespeare, a small vessel, called the
Concord, was equipped for exploration in 'the north part of
Virginia,' with a view to the establishment of a colony. At
this time, in the last year of the Tudor dynasty, and nineteen
years after the fatal termination of Gilbert's enterprise,
there was no European Inhabitant of North America, except
those of Spanish birth in Florida, and some twenty or thirty
French, the miserable relics of two frustrated attempts to
settle what they called New France. Gosnold sailed from
Falmouth with a company of thirty-two persons, of whom eight
were seamen, and twenty were to become planters. Taking a
straight course across the Atlantic, instead of the indirect
course by the Canaries and the West Indies which had been
hitherto pursued in voyages to Virginia, at the end of seven
weeks he saw land in Massachusetts Bay, probably near what is
now Salem Harbor. Here a boat came off, of Basque build,
manned by eight natives, of whom two or three were dressed in
European clothes, indicating the presence of earlier foreign
voyagers in these waters. Next he stood to the southward, and
his crew took great quantities of codfish by a head land,
called by him for that reason Cape Cod, the name which it
retains. Gosnold, Brereton, and three others, went on shore,
the first Englishmen who are known to have set foot upon the
soil of Massachusetts. … Sounding his way cautiously along,
first in a southerly, and then in a westerly direction, and
probably passing to the south of Nantucket, Gosnold next
landed on a small island, now called No Man's Land.
{72}
To this he gave the name of Martha's Vineyard, since
transferred to the larger island further north. … South of
Buzzard's Bay, and separated on the south by the Vineyard
Sound from Martha's Vineyard, is scattered the group denoted
on modern maps as the Elizabeth Islands. The southwesternmost
of these, now known by the Indian name of Cuttyhunk, was
denominated by Gosnold Elizabeth Island. … Here Gosnold
found a pond two miles in circumference, separated from the
sea on one side by a beach thirty yards wide, and enclosing 'a
rocky islet, containing near an acre of ground, full of wood and
rubbish.' This islet was fixed upon for a settlement. In three
weeks, while a part of the company were absent on a trading
expedition to the mainland, the rest dug and stoned a cellar,
prepared timber and built a house, which they fortified with
palisades, and thatched with sedge. Proceeding to make an
inventory of their provisions, they found that, after
supplying the vessel, which was to take twelve men on the
return voyage, there would be a sufficiency for only six weeks
for the twenty men who would remain. A dispute arose upon the
question whether the party to be left behind would receive a
share in the proceeds of the cargo of cedar, sassafras, furs,
and other commodities which had been collected. A small party,
going out in quest of shell-fish, was attacked by some
Indians. With men having already, it is likely, little stomach
for such cheerless work, these circumstances easily led to the
decision to abandon for the present the scheme of a
settlement, and in the following month the adventurers sailed
for England, and, after a voyage of five weeks, arrived at
Exmouth. … The expedition of Gosnold was pregnant with
consequences, though their development was slow. The accounts
of the hitherto unknown country, which were circulated by his
company on their return, excited an earnest interest." The
next year (April, 1603), Martin Pring or Prynne was sent out,
by several merchants of Bristol, with two small vessels.
seeking cargoes of sassafras, which had acquired a high value
on account of supposed medicinal virtues. Pring coasted from
Maine to Martha's Vineyard, secured his desired cargoes, and
gave a good account of the country. Two years later (March,
1605), Lord Soathampton and Lord Wardour sent a vessel
commanded by George Weymouth to reconnoitre the same coast
with an eye to settlements. Weymouth ascended either the
Kennebec or the Penobscot river some 50 or 60 miles and
kidnapped five natives. "Except for this, and for some
addition to the knowledge of the local geography, the voyage
was fruitless."
_J. G. Palfrey,
History of New England,
volume 1, chapter 2._
ALSO IN
_Massachusetts History Society Collection, 3d Series,
volume 8 (1843)._
_J. McKeen,
On the Voyage of George Weymouth
(Maine History Society Collection,
volume 5)._
AMERICA: A. D. 1603-1608.
The First French Settlements in Acadia.
See CANADA (NEW FRANCE): A. D. 1603-1605, and 1606-1608.
AMERICA: A. D. 1607.
The founding of the English Colony of Virginia, and the
failure in Maine.
See VIRGINIA: A. D. 1606-1607, and after;
and MAINE: A. D. 1607-1608.
AMERICA: A. D. 1607-1608.
The First Voyages of Henry Hudson.
"The first recorded voyage made by Henry Hudson was undertaken
… for the Muscovy or Russia Company [of England]. Departing
from Gravesend the first of May, 1607, with the intention of
sailing straight across the north pole, by the north of what
is now called Greenland, Hudson found that this land stretched
further to the eastward than he had anticipated, and that a
wall of ice, along which he coasted, extended from Greenland
to Spitzbergen. Forced to relinquish the hope of finding a
passage in the latter vicinity, he once more attempted the
entrance of Davis' Straits by the north of Greenland. This
design was also frustrated and he apparently renewed the
attempt in a lower latitude and nearer Greenland on his
homeward voyage. In this cruise Hudson attained a higher
degree of latitude than any previous navigator. … He reached
England on his return on the 15th September of that year
[1607]. … On the 22d of April, 1608, Henry Hudson commenced
his second recorded voyage for the Muscovy or Russia Company,
with the design of 'finding a passage to the East Indies· by
the north-east. … On the 3d of June, 1608, Hudson had
reached the most northern point of Norway, and on the 11th was
in latitude 75° 24', between Spitzbergen and Nova Zembla."
Failing to pass to the north-east beyond Nova Zembla, he
returned to England in August.
_J. M. Read, Jr.,
Historical Inquiry Concerning Henry Hudson,
pages 133-138._
ALSO IN
_G. M. Asher,
Henry Hudson, the Navigator,
(Hakluyt Society, 1860)._
AMERICA: A. D. 1608-1616.
Champlain's Explorations in the Valley of the St. Lawrence and
the Great Lakes.
See CANADA (NEW FRANCE): A. D. 1608-1611, and 1611-1616.
AMERICA: A. D. 1609.
Hudson's Voyage of Discovery for the Dutch.
"The failure of two expeditions daunted the enterprise of
Hudson's employers [the Muscovy Company, in England]; they
could not daunt the courage of the great navigator, who was
destined to become the rival of Smith and of Champlain. He
longed to tempt once more the dangers of the northern sea;
and, repairing to Holland, he offered, in the service of the
Dutch East India Company, to explore the icy wastes in search
of the coveted passage. The voyage of Smith to Virginia
stimulated desire; the Zealanders, fearing the loss of
treasure, objected; but, by the influence of Balthazar
Moucheron, the directors for Amsterdam resolved on equipping a
small vessel of discovery; and, on the 4th day of April, 1609,
the 'Crescent' [or 'Half-Moon' as the name of the little ship
is more commonly translated], commanded by Hudson, and manned
by a mixed crew of Englishmen and Hollanders, his son being of
the number, set sail for the north-western passage. Masses of
ice impeded the navigation towards Nova Zembla; Hudson, who
had examined the maps of John Smith of Virginia, turned to the
west; and passing beyond Greenland and Newfoundland, and
running down the coast of Acadia, he anchored, probably, in
the mouth of the Penobscot. Then, following the track of
Gosnold, he came upon the promontory of Cape Cod, and,
believing himself its first discoverer, gave it the name of
New Holland. Long afterwards, it was claimed as the
north-eastern boundary of New Netherlands. From the sands of
Cape Cod, he steered a southerly course till he was opposite
the entrance into the bay of Virginia, where Hudson remembered
that his countrymen were planted.
{73}
Then, turning again to the north, he discovered the Delaware
Bay, examined its currents and its soundings, and, without
going on shore, took note of the aspect of the country. On the
3d day of September, almost at the time when Champlain was
invading New York from the north, less than five months after
the truce with Spain, which gave the Netherlands a diplomatic
existence as a state, the 'Crescent' anchored within Sandy
Hook, and from the neighboring shores, that were crowned with
'goodly oakes,' attracted frequent visits from the natives.
After a week's delay, Hudson sailed through the Narrows, and
at the mouth of the river anchored in a harbor which was
pronounced to be very good for all winds. … Ten days were
employed in exploring the river; the first of Europeans,
Hudson went sounding his way above the Highlands, till at last
the 'Crescent' had sailed some miles beyond the city of
Hudson, and a boat had advanced a little beyond Albany.
Frequent intercourse was held with the astonished natives [and
two battles fought with them]. … Having completed his
discovery, Hudson descended the stream to which time has given
his name, and on the 4th day of October, about the season of
the return of John Smith to England, he set sail for Europe.
… A happy return voyage brought the 'Crescent' into
Dartmouth. Hudson forwarded to his Dutch employers a brilliant
account of his discoveries; but he never revisited the lands
which he eulogized: and the Dutch East-India Company refused
to search further for the north-western passage."
_G. Bancroft,
History of the United States,
chapter 15
(or part 2, chapter 12 of "Author's Last Revision")_.
ALSO IN
_H. R. Cleveland,
Life of Henry Hudson
(Library of American Biographies, volume 10),
chapters 3-4_.
_R. Juet,
Journal of Hudson's Voyage
(New York History Society Collection,
Second Series, volume 1)._
_J. V. N. Yates and J. W. Moulton,
History of the State of New York,
part 1._
AMERICA: A. D. 1610-1614.
The Dutch occupation of New Netherland, and Block's coasting
exploration.
See NEW YORK: A. D. 1610-1614.
AMERICA: A. D. 1614-1615.
The Voyages of Capt. John Smith to North Virginia.
The Naming of the country New England.
"From the time of Capt. Smith's departure from Virginia [see
VIRGINIA: A. D. 1607-1610], till the year 1614, there is a
chasm in his biography. … In 1614, probably by his advice
and at his suggestion, an expedition was fitted out by some
London merchants, in the expense of which he also shared, for
the purposes of trade and discovery in New England, or, as it
was then called, North Virginia. … In March, 1614, he set
sail from London with two ships, one commanded by himself, and
the other by Captain Thomas Hunt. They arrived, April 30th, at
the island of Manhegin, on the coast of Maine, where they
built seven boats. The purposes for which they were sent were
to capture whales and to search for mines of gold or copper,
which were said to be there, and, if these failed, to make up
a cargo of fish and furs. Of mines, they found no indications,
and they found whale-fishing a 'costly conclusion;' for,
although they saw many, and chased them too, they succeeded in
taking none. They thus lost the best part of the fishing
season; but, after giving up their gigantic game, they
diligently employed the months of July and August in taking
and curing codfish, an humble, but more certain prey. While
the crew were thus employed, Captain Smith, with eight men in
a small boat, surveyed and examined the whole coast, from
Penobscot to Cape Cod, trafficking with the Indians for furs,
and twice fighting with them, and taking such observations of
the prominent points as enabled him to construct a map of the
country. He then sailed for England, where he arrived in
August, within six months after his departure. He left Captain
Hunt behind him, with orders to dispose of his cargo of fish
in Spain. Unfortunately, Hunt was a sordid and unprincipled
miscreant, who resolved to make his countrymen odious to the
Indians, and thus prevent the establishment of a permanent
colony, which would diminish the large gains he and a few
others derived by monopolizing a lucrative traffic. For this
purpose, having decoyed 24 of the natives on board his ship,
he carried them off and sold them as slaves in the port of
Malaga. … Captain Smith, upon his return, presented his
map of the country between Penobscot and Cape Cod to Prince
Charles (afterwards Charles I.), with a request that he would
substitute others, instead of the 'barbarous names' which had
been given to particular places. Smith himself gave to the
country the name of New England, as he expressly states, and
not Prince Charles, as is commonly supposed. … The first
port into which Captain Smith put on his return to England was
Plymouth. There he related his adventures to some of his
friends, 'who,' he says, 'as I supposed, were interested in
the dead patent of this unregarded country.' The Plymouth
Company of adventurers to North Virginia, by flattering hopes
and large promises, induced him to engage his services to
them." Accordingly in March, 1615, he sailed from Plymouth,
with two vessels under his command, bearing 16 settlers,
besides their crew. A storm dismasted Smith's ship and drove
her back to Plymouth. "His consort, commanded by Thomas
Dermer, meanwhile proceeded on her voyage, and returned with a
profitable cargo in August; but the object, which was to
effect a permanent settlement, was frustrated. Captain Smith's
vessel was probably found to be so much shattered as to render
it inexpedient to repair her; for we find that he set sail a
second time from Plymouth, on the 24th of June, in a small
bark of 60 tons, manned by 30 men, and carrying with him the
same 16 settlers he had taken before. But an evil destiny
seemed to hang over this enterprise, and to make the voyage a
succession of disasters and disappointments." It ended in
Smith's capture by a piratical French fleet and his detention
for some months, until he made a daring escape in a small
boat. "While he had been detained on board the French pirate,
in order, as he says, 'to keep my perplexed thoughts from too
much meditation of my miserable estate,' he employed himself
in writing a narrative of his two voyages to New England, and
an account of the country. This was published in a quarto form
in June, 1616. … Captain Smith's work on New England was the
first to recommend that country as a place of settlement."
_G. S. Hillard,
Life of Captain John Smith
(chapters 14-15)._
ALSO IN
_Captain John Smith,
Description of New England._
{74}
AMERICA: A. D. 1619.
Introduction of negro slavery into Virginia.
See VIRGINIA: A. D. 1619.
AMERICA: A. D. 1620.
The Planting of the Pilgrim Colony at Plymouth, and the
Chartering of the Council for New England.
See MASSACHUSETTS (PLYMOUTH COLONY): A. D. 1620;
and NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1620-1623.
AMERICA: A. D. 1620.
Formation of the Government of Rio de La Plata.
See ARGENTINE REPUBLIC: A. D. 1580-1777.
AMERICA: A. D. 1621.
Conflicting claims of England and France on the North-eastern coast.
Naming and granting of Nova Scotia.
See NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1621-1631.
AMERICA: A. D. 1629.
The Carolina grant to Sir Robert Heath.
"Sir Robert Heath, attorney-general to Charles I., obtained a
grant of the lands between the 38th [36th?] degree of north
latitude to the river St. Matheo. His charter bears date of
October 5, 1629. … The tenure is declared to be as ample as
any bishop of Durham [Palatine], in the kingdom of England,
ever held and enjoyed, or ought or could of right have held
and enjoyed. Sir Robert, his heirs and assigns, are
constituted the true and absolute lords and proprietors, and
the country is erected into a province by the name of Carolina
[or Carolana] and the islands are to be called the Carolina
islands. Sir Robert conveyed his right some time after to the
earl of Arundel. This nobleman, it is said, planted several
parts of his acquisition, but his attempt to colonize was
checked by the war with Scotland, and afterwards the civil
war. Lord Maltravers, who soon after, on his father's death,
became earl of Arundel and Sussex … made no attempt to avail
himself of the grant. … Sir Robert Heath's grant of land, to
the southward of Virginia, perhaps the most extensive
possession ever owned by an individual, remained for a long
time almost absolutely waste and uncultivated. This vast
extent of territory occupied all the country between the 30th
and 36th degrees of northern latitude, which embraces the
present states of North and South Carolina, Georgia,
[Alabama], Tennessee, Mississippi, and, with very little
exceptions, the whole state of Louisiana, and the territory of
East and West Florida, a considerable part of the state of
Missouri, the Mexican provinces of Texas, Chiuhaha, &c. The
grantee had taken possession of the country, soon after he had
obtained his title, which he afterwards had conveyed to the
earl of Arundel. Henry lord Maltravers appears to have
obtained some aid from the province of Virginia in 1639, at
the desire of Charles I., for the settlement of Carolana, and
the country had since become the property of a Dr. Cox; yet,
at this time, there were two points only in which incipient
English settlements could be discerned; the one on the
northern shore of Albemarle Sound and the streams that flow
into it. The population of it was very thin, and the greatest
portion of it was on the north-east bank of Chowan river. The
settlers had come from that part of Virginia now known as the
County of Nansemond. … They had been joined by a number of
Quakers and other sectaries, whom the spirit of intolerance
had driven from New England, and some emigrants from Bermudas.
… The other settlement of the English was at the mouth of
Cape Fear river; … those who composed it had come thither
from New England in 1659. Their attention was confined to
rearing cattle. It cannot now be ascertained whether the
assignees of Carolina ever surrendered the charter under which
it was held, nor whether it was considered as having become
vacated or obsolete by non-user, or by any other means."
_F. X. Martin,
History of North Carolina,
volume 1, chapter 5 and 7._
AMERICA: A. D. 1629.
The Royal Charter to the Governor and Company of Massachusetts Bay.
See MASSACHUSETTS: A. D. 1623-1629, THE DORCHESTER COMPANY.
AMERICA: A. D. 1629-1631.
The Dutch occupation of the Delaware.
See DELAWARE: A. D. 1629-1631.
AMERICA: A. D. 1629-1632.
English Conquest and brief occupation of New France.
See CANADA (NEW FRANCE): A. D. 1628-1632.
AMERICA: A. D. 1632.
The Charter to Lord Baltimore and the founding of Maryland.
See MARYLAND: A. D. 1632, and A. D. 1633-1637.
AMERICA: A. D. 1638.
The planting of a Swedish Colony on the Delaware.
See DELAWARE: A. D. 1638-1640.
AMERICA: A. D. 1639-1700.
The Buccaneers and their piratical warfare with Spain.
"The 17th century gave birth to a class of rovers wholly
distinct from any of their predecessors in the annals of the
world, differing as widely in their plans, organization and
exploits as in the principles that governed their actions. …
After the native inhabitants of Haiti had been exterminated,
and the Spaniards had sailed farther west, a few adventurous
men from Normandy settled on the shores of the island, for the
purpose of hunting the wild bulls and hogs which roamed at
will through the forests. The small island of Tortugas was
their market; thither they repaired with their salted and
smoked meat, their hides, &c., and disposed of them in
exchange for powder, lead, and other necessaries. The places
where these semi-wild hunters prepared the slaughtered
carcases were called 'boucans,' and they themselves became
known as Buccaneers. Probably the world has never before or
since witnessed such an extraordinary association as theirs.
Unburdened by women-folk or children, these men lived in
couples, reciprocally rendering each other services, and
having entire community of property—a condition termed by
them matelotage, from the word 'matelot,' by which they
addressed one another. … A man on joining the fraternity
completely merged his identity. Each member received a
nickname, and no attempt was ever made to inquire into his
antecedents. When one of their number married, he ceased to be
a buccaneer, having forfeited his membership by so civilized a
proceeding. He might continue to dwell on the coast, and to
hunt cattle, but he was no longer a 'matelot'—as a Benedick
he had degenerated to a 'colonist.' … Uncouth and lawless
though the buccaneers were, the sinister signification now
attaching to their name would never have been merited had it
not been for the unreasoning jealousy of the Spaniards. The
hunters were actually a source of profit to that nation, yet
from an insane antipathy to strangers the dominant race
resolved on exterminating the settlers. Attacked whilst
dispersed in pursuance of their avocations, the latter fell
easy victims; many of them were wantonly massacred, others
dragged into slavery. … Breathing hatred and vengeance, 'the
brethren of the coast' united their scattered forces, and a
war of horrible reprisals commenced.
{75}
Fresh troops arrived from Spain, whilst the ranks of the
buccaneers were filled by adventurers of all nations, allured
by love of plunder, and fired with indignation at the
cruelties of the aggressors. … The Spaniards, utterly
failing to oust their opponents, hit upon a new expedient, so
short-sighted that it reflects but little credit on their
statesmanship. This was the extermination of the horned
cattle, by which the buccaneers derived their means of
subsistence; a general slaughter took place, and the breed was
almost extirpated. … The puffed up arrogance of the Spaniard
was curbed by no prudential consideration; calling upon every
saint in his calendar, and raining curses on the heretical
buccaneers, he deprived them of their legitimate occupation,
and created wilfully a set of desperate enemies, who harassed
the colonial trade of an empire already betraying signs of
feebleness with the pertinacity of wolves, and who only
desisted when her commerce had been reduced to insignificance.
… Devoured by an undying hatred of their assailants, the
buccaneers developed into a new association—the freebooters."
_C. H. Eden,
The West Indies,
chapter 3._
"The monarchs both of England and France, but especially the
former, connived at and even encouraged the freebooters [a
name which the pronunciation of French sailors transformed
into 'flibustiers,' while that corruption became Anglicized in
its turn and produced the word filibusters], whose services
could be obtained in time of war, and whose actions could be
disavowed in time of peace. Thus buccaneer, filibuster, and
sea-rover, were for the most part at leisure to hunt wild
cattle, and to pillage and massacre the Spaniards wherever
they found an opportunity. When not on some marauding
expedition, they followed the chase." The piratical buccaneers
were first organized under a leader in 1639, the islet of
Tortuga being their favorite rendezvous. "So rapid was the
growth of their settlements that in 1641 we find governors
appointed, and at San Christobal a governor-general named De
Poincy, in charge of the French filibusters in the Indies.
During that year Tortuga was garrisoned by French troops, and
the English were driven out, both from that islet and from
Santo Domingo, securing harborage elsewhere in the islands.
Nevertheless corsairs of both nations often made common cause.
… In [1654] Tortuga was again recaptured by the Spaniards,
but in 1660 fell once more into the hands of the French; and
in their conquest of Jamaica in 1655 the British troops were
reenforced by a large party of buccaneers." The first of the
more famous buccaneers, and apparently the most ferocious
among them all, was a Frenchman called François L'Olonnois,
who harried the coast of Central America between 1660-1665
with six ships and 700 men. At the same time another buccaneer
named Mansvelt, was rising in fame, and with him, as second in
command, a Welshman, Henry Morgan, who became the most
notorious of all. In 1668, Morgan attacked and captured the
strong town of Portobello, on the Isthmus, committing
indescribable atrocities. In 1671 he crossed the Isthmus,
defeated the Spaniards in battle and gained possession of the
great and wealthy city of Panama—the largest and richest in
the New World, containing at the time 30,000 inhabitants. The
city was pillaged, fired and totally destroyed. The exploits
of this ruffian and the stolen riches which he carried home to
England soon afterward, gained the honors of knighthood for
him, from the worthy hands of Charles II. In 1680, the
buccaneers under one Coxon again crossed the Isthmus, seized
Panama, which had been considerably rebuilt, and captured
there a Spanish fleet of four ships, in which they launched
themselves upon the Pacific. From that time their plundering
operations were chiefly directed against the Pacific coast.
Towards the close of the 17th century, the war between England
and France, and the Bourbon alliance of Spain with France,
brought about the discouragement, the decline and finally the
extinction of the buccaneer organization.
_H. H. Bancroft,
History of the Pacific States: Central America,
volume 2, chapter 26-30._
ALSO IN
_W. Thornbury,
The Buccaneers._
_A. O. Exquemelin,
History of the Buccaneers._
_J. Burney,
History of the Buccaneers of America._
See, also, JAMAICA: A. D. 1655-1796.
AMERICA: A. D. 1655.
Submission of the Swedes on the Delaware to the Dutch.
See DELAWARE: A. D. 1640-1656.
AMERICA: A. D. 1663.
The grant of the Carolinas to Monk, Clarendon, Shaftesbury,
and others.
See NORTH CAROLINA: A. D. 1663-1670.
AMERICA: A. D. 1664.
English conquest of New Netherland.
See NEW YORK: A. D.1664.
AMERICA: A. D. 1673.
The Dutch reconquest of New Netherland.
See NEW YORK: A. D. 1673.
AMERICA: A. D. 1673-1682.
Discovery and exploration of the Mississippi, by Marquette and
La Salle.
Louisiana named and possessed by the French.
See CANADA (NEW FRANCE): A. D. 1634-1673, and 1669-1687.
AMERICA: A. D. 1674.
Final surrender of New Netherland to the English.
See NETHERLANDS (HOLLAND): A. D. 1674.
AMERICA: A. D. 1681.
The proprietary grant to William Penn.
See PENNSYLVANIA: A. D. 1681.
AMERICA: A. D. 1689-1697.
The first Inter-Colonial War: King Williams's War (The war of
the League of Augsburg).
See CANADA (NEW FRANCE): A. D. 1689-1690; 1692-1697;
also, NEWFOUNDLAND: A. D. 1694-1697.
AMERICA: A. D. 1690.
The first Colonial Congress.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1690;
also, CANADA (NEW FRANCE): A. D. 1689-1690.
AMERICA: A. D. 1698-1712.
The French colonization of Louisiana.
Broad claims of France to the whole Valley of the Mississippi.
See LOUISIANA: A. D. 1698-1712.
AMERICA: A. D. 1700-1735.
The Spread of French occupation in the Mississippi Valley and
on the Lakes.
See CANADA (NEW FRANCE): A. D. 1700-1735.
AMERICA: A. D. 1702.
Union of the two Jerseys as a royal province.
See NEW JERSEY: A. D. 1688-1738.
AMERICA: A. D. 1702-1713.
The Second Inter-Colonial War: Queen Anne's War (The War of
the Spanish Succession).
Final acquisition of Nova Scotia by the English.
See NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1702-1710;
CANADA (NEW FRANCE): A. D. 1711-1713.
AMERICA: A. D. 1713.
Division of territory between England and France by the Treaty
of Utrecht.
See CANADA (NEW FRANCE) A. D. 1711-1713.
{76}
AMERICA: A. D. 1729.
End of the proprietary government in North Carolina.
See NORTH CAROLINA: A. D. 1688-1729.
AMERICA: A. D. 1732.
The colonization of Georgia by General Oglethrope.
See GEORGIA: A. D. 1732-1739.
AMERICA: A. D. 1744-1748.
The Third Inter-Colonial War: King George's War (The War of
the Austrian Succession).
See NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1744; 1745; and 1745-1748.
AMERICA: A. D. 1748-1760.
Unsettled boundary disputes of England and France.
The fourth and last inter-colonial war, called the French and
Indian War (The Seven Years War of Europe).
English Conquest of Canada.
See CANADA (NEW FRANCE): A. D. 1750-1753; 1760;
NOVA SCOTIA: A. D.1749-1755; 1755;
OHIO (VALLEY): A. D. 1748-1754; 1754; 1755;
CAPE BRETON ISLAND: A. D. 1758-1760.
AMERICA: A. D. 1749.
Introduction of negro slavery into Georgia.
See GEORGIA: A. D. 1735-1749.
AMERICA: A. D. 1750-1753:
Dissensions among the English Colonies on the eve of the great
French War.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1750-1753.
AMERICA: A. D. 1754.
The Colonial Congress at Albany.
Franklin's Plan of Union.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1754.
AMERICA: A. D. 1763.
The Peace of Paris.
Canada, Cape Breton, Newfoundland, and Louisiana east of the
Mississippi (except New Orleans) ceded by France to Great
Britain.
West of the Mississippi and New Orleans to Spain.
Florida by Spain to Great Britain.
See SEVEN YEARS WAR.
AMERICA: A. D. 1763-1764.
Pontiac's War.
See PONTIAC'S WAR.
AMERICA: A. D. 1763-1766.
Growing discontent of the English Colonies.
The question of taxation.
The Stamp Act and its repeal.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1760-1775, to 1766.
AMERICA: A. D. 1766-1769.
Spanish occupation of New Orleans and Western Louisiana, and
the revolt against it.
See LOUISIANA: A. D. 1766-1768, and 1769.
AMERICA: A. D. 1775-1783.
Independence of the English colonies achieved.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
A. D. 1775 (APRIL) to 1783 (SEPTEMBER).
AMERICA: A. D. 1776.
Erection of the Spanish Vice-royalty of Buenos Ayres.
See ARGENTINE REPUBLIC: A. D. 1580-1777.
AMERICA: A. D. 1810-1816.
Revolt, independence and Confederation of the Argentine
Provinces.
See ARGENTINE REPUBLIC: A. D. 1806-1820.
AMERICA: A. D. 1818.
Chilean independence achieved.
See CHILE: A. D. 1810-1818.
AMERICA: A. D. 1820-1821.
Independence Acquired by Mexico and the Central American
States.
See MEXICO: A. D. 1820-1826,
and CENTRAL AMERICA: A. D. 1821-1871.
AMERICA: A. D. 1824.
Peruvian independence won at Ayacucho.
See PERU: A. D. 1820-1826.
----------AMERICA: End----------
AMERICAN ABORIGINES.
Linguistic Classification.
In the Seventh Annual Report of the Bureau of Ethnology (for
1885-86, published in 1891), Major J. W. Powell, the Director
of the Bureau, has given a classification of the languages of
the North American aborigines based upon the most recent
investigations. The following is a list of families of speech,
or linguistic stocks, which are defined and named:
"Adaizan [identified since the publication of this list as
being but part of the Caddoan stock].
Algonquian.
Athapascan.
Attacapan.
Beothukan.
Caddoan.
Chimakuan.
Chimarikan.
Chimmesyan.
Chinookan.
Chitimachan.
Chumashan.
Coahuiltecan.
Copehan.
Costanoan.
Eskimauan.
Esselenian.
Iroquoian.
Kalapooian.
Karankawan.
Keresan.
Kiowan.
Kituanahan.
Koluschan.
Kulanapan.
Kusan.
Lutuamian.
Mariposan.
Moquelumnan.
Muskhogean.
Natchesan.
Palaihnihan.
Piman.
Pujunan.
Quoratean.
Salinan.
Salishan.
Sastean.
Shahaptian.
Shoshonean.
Siouan.
Skittagetan.
Takilman.
Tañoan.
Timuquanan.
Tonikan.
Tonkawan.
Uchean.
Waiilatpuan.
Wakashan.
Washoan.
Weitspekan.
Wishoskan.
Yokonan.
Yanan.
Yukian.
Yuman.
Zufiian."
These families are severally defined in the summary of
information given below, and the relations to them of all
tribes having any historical importance are shown by
cross-references and otherwise; but many other groupings and
associations, and many tribal names not scientifically
recognized, are likewise exhibited here, for the reason that
they have a significance in history and are the subjects of
frequent allusion in literature.
AMERICAN ABORIGINES: Abipones.
See below: PAMPAS TRIBES.
AMERICAN ABORIGINES: Abnakis, or Abenaques, or Taranteens.
"The Abnakis were called Taranteens by the English, and
Owenagungas by the New Yorkers. … We must admit that a large
portion of the North American Indians were called Abnakis, if
not by themselves, at least by others. This word Abnaki is
found spelt Abenaques, Abenaki, Wapanachki, and Wabenakies by
different writers of various nations, each adopting the manner
of spelling according to the rules of pronunciation of their
respective native languages. … The word generally received
is spelled thus, Abnaki, but it should be 'Wanbanaghi,' from
the Indian word 'wanbanban,' designating the people of the
Aurora Borealis, or in general, of the place where the sky
commences to appear white at the breaking of the day. … It
has been difficult for different writers to determine the
number of nations or tribes comprehended under this word
Abnaki. It being a general word, by itself designates the
people of the east or northeast. … We find that the word
Abnaki was applied in general, more or less, to all the
Indians of the East, by persons who were not much acquainted
with the aborigines of the country. On the contrary, the early
writers and others well acquainted with the natives of New
France and Acadia, and the Indians themselves, by Abnakis
always pointed out a particular nation existing north-west and
south of the Kennebec river, and they never designated any
other people of the Atlantic shore, from Cape Hatteras to
Newfoundland. … The Abnakis had five great villages, two
amongst the French colonies, which must be the village of St.
Joseph or Sillery, and that of St. Francis de Sales, both in
Canada, three on the head waters, or along three rivers,
between Acadia and New England. These three rivers are the
Kennebec, the Androscoggin, and the Saco. … The nation of
the Abnakis bear evident marks of having been an original
people in their name, manners, and language. They show a kind
of civilization which must be the effect of antiquity, and of
a past flourishing age."
_E. Vetromile,
The Abnaki Indians
(Maine Historical Society Collection, volume 6)_.
See, also, below:
ALGONQUIAN FAMILY.
{77}
For some account of the wars of the Abnakis, with the New
England colonies,
See
CANADA (NEW FRANCE): A. D. 1689-1690, and 1692-1697;
NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1675 (JULY-SEPT.); 1702-1710, 1711-1713;
and NOVA SCOTIA: A. D. 1713-1730.
AMERICAN ABORIGINES: Absarokas, Upsarokas, or Crows.
See below: SIOUAN FAMILY.
AMERICAN ABORIGINES: Acawoios.
See below: CARIBS AND THEIR KINDRED.
AMERICAN ABORIGINES: Acolhuas.
See MEXICO, A. D. 1325-1502.
AMERICAN ABORIGINES: Adais.
[Footnote: See Note, Appendix E.]
These Indians were a "tribe who, according to Dr. Sibley,
lived about the year 1800 near the old Spanish fort or mission
of Adaize, 'about 40 miles from Natchitoches, below the
Yattassees, on a lake called Lac Macdon, which communicates
with the division of Red River that passes by Bayou Pierre'
[Lewis and Clarke]. A vocabulary of about 250 words is all
that remains to us of their language, which according to the
collector, Dr. Sibley, 'differs from all others, and is so
difficult to speak or understand that no nation can speak ten
words of it. … A recent comparison of this vocabulary by Mr.
Gatschet, with several Caddoan dialects, has led to the
discovery that a considerable percentage of the Adái words
have a more or less remote affinity with Caddoan, and he
regards it as a Caddoan dialect."
_J. W. Powell,
Seventh Annual Report, Bureau of Ethnology,
pages 45-46._
See preceding page.
AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
Adirondacks.
"This is a term bestowed by the Iroquois, in derision, on the
tribes who appear, at an early day, to have descended the
Utawas river, and occupied the left banks of the St. Lawrence,
above the present site of Quebec, about the close of the 15th
century. It is said to signify men who eat trees, in allusion
to their using the bark of certain trees for food, when
reduced to straits, in their war excursions. The French, who
entered the St. Lawrence from the gulf, called the same people
Algonquins—a generic appellation, which has been long
employed and come into universal use, among historians and
philologists. According to early accounts, the Adirondacks had
preceded the Iroquois in arts and attainments."
_H. R. Schoolcraft,
Notes on the Iroquois,
chapter 5._
See, also, below: IROQUOIS CONFEDERACY: THEIR CONQUESTS, &c.
AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
Æsopus Indians.
See below: ALGONQUIAN FAMILY.
AMERICAN ABORIGINES: Agniers.
Among several names which the Mohawks (see below: IROQUOIS)
bore in early colonial history was that of the Agniers.
_F. Parkman,
The Conspiracy of Pontiac,
volume 1, page 9, foot-note._
AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
Albaias.
See below: PAMPAS TRIBES.
AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
Aleuts.
See below: ESKIMAUAN FAMILY.
AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
Algonquian (Algonkin) Family.
"About the period 1500-1600, those related tribes whom we now
know by the name of Algonkins were at the height of their
prosperity. They occupied the Atlantic coast from the Savannah
river on the south to the strait of Belle Isle on the north.
… The dialects of all these were related, and evidently at
some distant day had been derived from the same primitive
tongue. Which of them had preserved the ancient forms most
closely, it may be premature to decide positively, but the
tendency of modern studies has been to assign that place to
the Cree—the northernmost of all. We cannot erect a
genealogical tree of these dialects. … We may, however,
group them in such a manner as roughly to indicate their
relationship. This I do"—in the following list:
"Cree.
Old Algonkin.
Montagnais.
Chipeway, Ottawa, Pottawattomie, Miami, Peoria, Pea,
Piankishaw, Kaskaskia, Menominee, Sac, Fox, Kikapoo.
Sheshatapoosh, Secoffee, Micmac, Melisceet, Etchemin, Abnaki.
Mohegan, Massachusetts, Shawnee, Minsi, Unami, Unalachtigo
[the last three named forming, together, the nation of the
Lenape or Delawares], Nanticoke, Powhatan, Pampticoke.
Blackfoot, Gros Ventre, Sheyenne.
… All the Algonkin nations who dwelt north of the Potomac,
on the east shore of Chesapeake Bay, and in the basins of the
Delaware and Hudson rivers, claimed near kinship and an
identical origin, and were at times united into a loose,
defensive confederacy. By the western and southern tribes they
were collectively known as Wapanachkik—'those of the eastern
region'—which in the form Abnaki is now confined to the
remnant of a tribe in Maine. … The members of the
confederacy were the Mohegans (Mahicanni) of the Hudson, who
occupied the valley of that river to the falls above the site
of Albany, the various New Jersey tribes, the Delawares proper
on the Delaware river and its branches, including the Minsi or
Monseys, among the mountains, the Nanticokes, between
Chesapeake Bay and the Atlantic, and the small tribe called
Canai, Kanawhas or Ganawese, whose towns were on tributaries
of the Potomac and Patuxent. … Linguistically, the Mohegans
were more closely allied to the tribes of New England than to
those of the Delaware Valley. Evidently, most of the tribes of
Massachusetts and Connecticut were comparatively recent
offshoots of the parent stem on the Hudson, supposing the
course of migration had been eastward. … The Nanticokes
occupied the territory between Chesapeake Bay and the ocean,
except its southern extremity, which appears to have been
under the control of the Powhatan tribe of Virginia."
_D. G. Brinton,
The Lenape and their Legends.
chapters 1-2._
"Mohegans, Munsees, Manhattans, Metöacs, and other affiliated
tribes and bands of Algonquin lineage, inhabited the banks of
the Hudson and the islands, bay and seaboard of New York,
including Long Island, during the early periods of the rise of
the Iroquois Confederacy. … The Mohegans finally retired
over the Highlands east of them into the valley of the
Housatonic. The Munsees and Nanticokes retired to the Delaware
river and reunited with their kindred, the Lenapees, or modern
Delawares. The Manhattans, and numerous other bands and
sub-tribes melted away under the influence of liquor and died
in their tracks."
_H. R. Schoolcraft,
Notes on the Iroquois,
chapter 5._
{78}
"On the basis of a difference in dialect, that portion of the
Algonquin Indians which dwelt in New England has been classed
in two divisions, one consisting of those who inhabited what
is now the State of Maine, nearly up to its western border,
the other consisting of the rest of the native population. The
Maine Indians may have been some 15,000 in number, or somewhat
less than a third of the native population of New England.
That portion of them who dwelt furthest towards the east were
known by the name of Etetchemins. The Abenaquis, including the
Tarratines, hunted on both sides of the Penobscot, and
westward as far as the Saco, if not quite to the Piscataqua.
The tribes found in the rest of New England were designated by
a greater variety of names. The home of the Penacook or
Pawtucket Indians was in the southeast corner of what is now
New Hampshire and the contiguous region of Massachusetts. Next
dwelt the Massachusetts tribe, along the bay of that name.
Then were found successively the Pokanokets, or Wampanoags, in
the southeasterly region of Massachusetts, and by Buzzard's
and Narragansett Bays; the Narragansetts, with a tributary
race called Nyantics in what is now the western part of the
State of Rhode Island; the Pequots, between the Narragansetts
and the river formerly called the Pequot River, now the
Thames; and the Mohegans, spreading themselves beyond the
River Connecticut. In the central region of Massachusetts were
the Nipmucks, or Nipnets; and along Cape Cod were the Nausets,
who appeared to have owed some fealty to the Pokanokets. The
New England Indians exhibited an inferior type of humanity.
… Though fleet and agile when excited to some occasional
effort, they were found to be incapable of continuous labor.
Heavy and phlegmatic, they scarcely wept or smiled."
_J. G. Palfrey,
Compendious History of New England,
book 1, chapter 3 (volume 1)_.
"The valley of the 'Cahohatatea,' or Mauritius River [i. e.,
the Hudson River, as now named] at the time Hudson first
ascended its waters, was inhabited, chiefly, by two aboriginal
races of Algonquin lineage, afterwards known among the English
colonists by the generic names of Mohegans and Mincees. The
Dutch generally called the Mohegans, Mahicans; and the
Mincees, Sanhikans. These two tribes were subdivided into
numerous minor bands, each of which had a distinctive name.
The tribes on the east side of the river were generally
Mohegans; those on the west side, Mincees. They were
hereditary enemies. … Long Island, or 'Sewan-hacky,' was
occupied by the savage tribe of Metowacks, which was
subdivided into various clans. … Staten Island, on the
opposite side of the bay, was inhabited by the Monatons. …
Inland, to the west, lived the Raritans and the Hackinsacks;
while the regions in the vicinity of the well-known
'Highlands,' south of Sandy Hook, were inhabited by a band or
sub-tribe called the Nevesincks or Navisinks. … To the south
and west, covering the centre of New Jersey, were the
Aquamachukes and the Stankekans; while the valley of the
Delaware, northward from the Schuylkill, was inhabited by
various tribes of the Lenape race. … The island of the
Manhattans" was occupied by the tribe which received that name
(see MANHATTAN). On the shores of the river, above, dwelt the
Tappans, the Weckquaesgeeks, the Sint Sings, "whose chief
village was named Ossin-Sing, or 'the Place of Stones,'" the
Pachami, the Waorinacks, the Wappingers, and the
Waronawankongs. "Further north, and occupying the present
counties of Ulster and Greene, were the Minqua clans of
Minnesincks, Nanticokes, Mincees, and Delawares. These clans
had pressed onward from the upper valley of the Delaware. …
They were generally known among the Dutch as the Æsopus
Indians."
_J. R Brodhead,
History of the State of New York,
volume 1, chapter 3_
"The area formerly occupied by the Algonquian family was more
extensive than that of any other linguistic stock in North
America, their territory reaching from Labrador to the Rocky
Mountains, and from Churchill River of Hudson Bay as far south
at least as Pamlico Sound of North Carolina. In the eastern
part of this territory was an area occupied by Iroquoian
tribes, surrounded on almost all sides by their Algonquian
neighbors. On the south the Algonquian tribes were bordered by
those of Iroquoian and Siouan (Catawba) stock, on the
southwest and west by the Muskhogean and Siouan tribes, and on
the northwest by the Kitunahan and the great Athapascan
families, while along the coast of Labrador and the eastern
shore of Hudson Bay they came in contact with the Eskimo, who
were gradually retreating before them to the north. In
Newfoundland they encountered the Beothukan family, consisting
of but a single tribe. A portion of the Shawnee at some early
period had separated from the main body of the tribe in
central Tennessee and pushed their way down to the Savannah
River in South Carolina, where, known as Savannahs, they
carried on destructive wars with the surrounding tribes until
about the beginning of the 18th century they were finally
driven out and joined the Delaware in the north. Soon
afterwards the rest of the tribe was expelled by the Cherokee
and Chicasa, who thenceforward claimed all the country
stretching north to the Ohio River. The Cheyenne and Arapaho,
two allied tribes of this stock, had become separated from
their kindred on the north and had forced their way through
hostile tribes across the Missouri to the Black Hills country
of South Dakota, and more recently into Wyoming and Colorado,
thus forming the advance guard of the Algonquian stock in that
direction, having the Siouan tribes behind them and those of
the Shoshonean family in front. [The following are the]
principal tribes: Abnaki, Algonquin, Arapaho, Cheyenne, Conoy,
Cree, Delaware, Fox, Illinois, Kickapoo, Mahican, Massachuset,
Menominee, Miami, Micmac, Mohegan, Montagnais, Montauk,
Munsee, Nanticoke, Narraganset, Nauset, Nipmuc, Ojibwa,
Ottawa, Pamlico, Pennacook, Pequot, Piankishaw, Pottawotomi,
Powhatan, Sac, Shawnee, Siksika, Wampanoag, Wappinger. The
present number of the Algonquian stock is about 95,600, of
whom about 60,000 are in Canada and the remainder in the
United States."
_J. W. Powell,
Seventh Annual Report, Bureau of Ethnology,
pages 47-48._
ALSO IN
_J. W. De Forest,
History of the Indians of Connecticut._
_A. Gallatin,
Synopsis of the Indian Tribes
(Archæologia Americana, volume 2),
intro., section 2._
_S. G. Drake,
Aboriginal Races of North America,
book 2-3._
See, also, below:
DELAWARES; HORIKANS; SHAWANESE; SUSQUEHANNAS; OJIBWAS;
ILLINOIS.
For the Indian wars of New England,
See NEW ENGLAND:
A. D. 1637 (THE PEQUOT WAR);
A. D. 1674-1675 to 1676-1678 (KING PHILIP'S WAR).
See, also, PONTIAC'S WAR.
{79}
AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
Alibamus, or Alabamas.
See below: MUSKHOOEAN FAMILY.
AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
Alleghans, or Allegewi, or Talligewi.
"The oldest tribe of the United States, of which there is a
distinct tradition, were the Alleghans. The term is
perpetuated in the principal chain of mountains traversing the
country. This tribe, at an antique period, had the seat of
their power in the Ohio Valley and its confluent streams,
which were the sites of their numerous towns and villages.
They appear originally to have borne the name of Alli, or
Alleg, and hence the names of Talligewi and Allegewi. (Trans.
Am. Phi. Society, volume 1.) By adding to the radical of this
word the particle 'hany' or 'ghany,' meaning river, they
described the principal scene of their residence—namely, the
Alleghany, or River of the Alleghans, now called Ohio. The
word Ohio is of Iroquois origin, and of a far later period;
having been bestowed by them after their conquest of the
country, in alliance with the Lenapees, or ancient Delawares.
(Phi. Trans.) The term was applied to the entire river, from
its confluence with the Mississippi, to its origin in the
broad spurs of the Alleghanies, in New York and Pennsylvania.
… There are evidences of antique labors in the alluvial
plains and valleys of the Scioto, Miami, and Muskingum, the
Wabash, Kaskaskia, Cahokia, and Illinois, denoting that the
ancient Alleghans, and their allies and confederates,
cultivated the soil, and were semi-agriculturists. These
evidences have been traced, at late periods, to the fertile
table-lands of Indiana and Michigan. The tribes lived in fixed
towns, cultivating extensive fields of the zea-maize; and
also, as denoted by recent discoveries, … of some species of
beans, vines, and esculents. They were, in truth, the mound
builders."
_H. R. Schoolcraft,
Information respecting the Indian Tribes,
part 5, page 133._
This conclusion, to which Mr. Schoolcraft had arrived, that
the ancient Alleghans or Tallegwi were the mound builders of
the Ohio Valley is being sustained by later investigators, and
seems to have become an accepted opinion among those of
highest authority. The Alleghans, moreover, are being
identified with the Cherokees of later times, in whom their
race, once supposed to be extinct, has apparently survived;
while the fact, long suspected, that the Cherokee language is
of the Iroquois family is being proved by the latest studies.
According to Indian tradition, the Alleghans were driven from
their ancient seats, long ago, by a combination against them
of the Lenape (Delawares) and the Mengwe (Iroquois). The route
of their migrations is being traced by the character of the
mounds which they built, and of the remains gathered from the
mounds. "The general movement [of retreat before the Iroquois
and Lenape] … must have been southward, … and the exit of
the Ohio mound-builders was, in all probability, up the
Kanawah Valley on the same line that the Cherokees appear to
have followed in reaching their historical locality. … If
the hypothesis here advanced be correct, it is apparent that
the Cherokees entered the immediate valley of the Mississippi
from the northwest, striking it in the region of Iowa."
_C. Thomas,
The Problem of the Ohio Mounds
(Bureau of Ethnology, 1889)._
ALSO IN
_C. Thomas,
Burial Mounds of the Northern Sections of the United States
(Fifth Annual Report of the Bureau of Ethnology, 1883-84)._
_J. Heckewelder,
Account of the Indian Nations,
chapter 1._
See, below:
CHEROKEES, and IROQUOIS CONFEDERACY;
also AMERICA, PREHISTORIC.
AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
Amahuacas.
See below: ANDESIANS.
AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
Andastés.
See below: SUSQUEHANNAS.
AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
Andesians.
"The term Andesians or Antesians, is used with geographical
rather than ethnological limits, and embraces a number of
tribes. First of these are the Cofan in Equador, east of
Chimborazo. They fought valiantly against the Spaniards, and
in times past killed many of the missionaries sent among them.
Now they are greatly reduced and have become more gentle. The
Huamaboya are their near neighbors. The Jivara, west of the
river Pastaca, are a warlike tribe, who, possibly through a
mixture of Spanish blood, have a European cast of countenance
and a beard. The half Christian Napo or Quijo and their
peaceful neighbors, the Zaporo, live on the Rio Napo. The
Yamco, living on the lower Chambiva and crossing the Marañon,
wandering as far as Saryacu, have a clearer complexion. The
Pacamora and the Yuguarzongo live on the Maranon, where it
leaves its northerly course and bends toward the east. The
Cochiquima live on the lower Yavari; the Mayoruna, or Barbudo,
on the middle Ucayali beside the Campo and Cochibo, the most
terrible of South American Indians; they dwell in the woods
between the Tapiche and the Marañon, and like the Jivaro have
a beard. The Pano, who formerly dwelt in the territory of
Lalaguna, but who now live in villages on the upper Ucayali,
are Christians. … Their language is the principal one on the
river, and it is shared by seven other tribes called
collectively by the missionaries Manioto or Mayno. … Within
the woods on the right bank live the Amahuaca and Shacaya. On
the north they join the Remo, a powerful tribe who are
distinguished from all the others by the custom of tattooing.
Outside this Pano linguistic group stand the Campa, Campo, or
Antis on the east slope of the Peruvian Cordillera at the
source of the Rio Beni and its tributaries. The Chontaquiros,
or Piru, now occupy almost entirely the bank of the Ucayali
below the Pachilia. The Mojos or Moxos live in the Bolivian
province of Moxos with the small tribes of the Baure, Itonama,
Pacaguara. A number of smaller tribes belonging to the
Antesian group need not be enumerated. The late Professor
James Orton described the Indian tribes of the territory
between Quito and the river Amazon. The Napo approach the type
of the Quichua. … Among all the Indians of the Provincia del
Oriente, the tribe of Jivaro is one of the largest. These
people are divided into a great number of sub-tribes. All of
these speak the clear musical Jivaro language. They are
muscular, active men. … The Morona are cannibals in the full
sense of the word. … The Campo, still very little known, is
perhaps the largest Indian tribe in Eastern Peru, and,
according to some, is related to the Inca race, or at least
with their successors. They are said to be cannibals, though
James Orton does not think this possible. … The nearest
neighbors of the Campo are the Chontakiro, or Chontaquiro, or
Chonquiro, called also Piru, who, according to Paul Marcoy,
are said to be of the same origin with the Campo; but the
language is wholly different. … Among the Pano people are
the wild Conibo; they are the most interesting, but are
passing into extinction."
_The Standard Natural History
(J. S. Kingsley, editor),
volume 6, pages 227-231._
{80}
AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
Apache Group [Footnote: See Note, Appendix E.]
Under the general name of the Apaches "I include all the
savage tribes roaming through New Mexico, the north-western
portion of Texas, a small part of northern Mexico, and
Arizona. … Owing to their roving proclivities and incessant
raids they are led first in one direction and then in another.
In general terms they may be said to range about as follows:
The Comanches, Jetans, or Nauni, consisting of three tribes,
the Comanches proper, the Yamparacks, and Tenawas, inhabiting
northern Texas, eastern Chihuahua, Nuevo Leon, Coahuila,
Durango, and portions of south-western New Mexico, by language
allied to the Shoshone family; the Apaches, who call
themselves Shis Inday, or 'men of the woods,' and whose tribal
divisions are the Chiricaguis, Coyoteros, Faraones, Gileños,
Lipanes, Llaneros, Mescaleros, Mimbreños, Natages, Pelones,
Pinaleños, Tejuas, Tontos, and Vaqueros, roaming over New
Mexico, Arizona, North-western Texas, Chihuahua and Sonora,
and who are allied by language to the great Tinneh family; the
Navajos, or Tenuai, 'men,' as they designate themselves,
having linguistic affinities with the Apache nation, with
which they are sometimes classed, living in and around the
Sierra de los Mimbres; the Mojaves, occupying both banks of
the Colorado in Mojave Valley; the Hualapais, near the
head-waters of Bill Williams Fork; the Yumas, on the east bank
of the Colorado, near its junction with the Rio Gila; the
Cosninos, who, like the Hualapais, are sometimes included in
the Apache nation, ranging through the Mogollon Mountains; and
the Yampais, between Bill Williams Fork and the Rio
Hassayampa. … The Apache country is probably the most desert
of all. … In both mountain and desert the fierce, rapacious
Apache, inured from childhood to hunger and thirst, and heat
and cold, finds safe retreat. … The Pueblos … are nothing
but partially reclaimed Apaches or Comanches."
_H. H. Bancroft,
Native Races of the Pacific States,
volume 1, chapter 5_.
Dr. Brinton prefers the name Yuma for the whole of
the Apache Group, confining the name Apache (that being the
Yuma word for "fighting men") to the one tribe so called. "It
has also been called the Katchan or Cuchan stock."
_D. G. Brinton,
The American Race,
page 109._
See, also, below: ATHAPASCAN FAMILY.
AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
Apalaches.
"Among the aboriginal tribes of the United States perhaps none
is more enigmatical than the Apalaches. They are mentioned as
an important nation by many of the early French and Spanish
travellers and historians, their name is preserved by a bay
and river on the shores of the Gulf of Mexico, and by the
great eastern coast range of mountains, and has been applied
by ethnologists to a family of cognate nations that found
their hunting grounds from the Mississippi to the Atlantic and
from the Ohio river to the Florida Keys; yet, strange to say,
their own race and place have been but guessed at." The
derivation of the name of the Apalaches "has been a 'questio
vexata' among Indianologists." We must "consider it an
indication of ancient connections with the southern continent,
and in itself a pure Carib word. 'Apáliché' in the Tamanaca
dialect of the Guaranay stem on the Orinoco signifies 'man,'
and the earliest application of the name in the northern
continent was as the title of the chief of a country, 'l'homme
par excellence,' and hence, like very many other Indian tribes
(Apaches, Lenni Lenape, Illinois), his subjects assumed by
eminence the proud appellation of 'The Men.' … We have …
found that though no general migration took place from the
continent southward, nor from the islands northward, yet there
was a considerable intercourse in both directions; that not
only the natives of the greater and lesser Antilles and
Yucatan, but also numbers of the Guaranay stem of the southern
continent, the Caribs proper, crossed the Straits of Florida
and founded colonies on the shores of the Gulf of Mexico; that
their customs and language became to a certain extent grafted
upon those of the early possessors of the soil; and to this
foreign language the name Apalache belongs. As previously
stated, it was used as a generic title, applied to a
confederation of many nations at one time under the domination
of one chief, whose power probably extended from the Alleghany
mountains on the north to the shore of the Gulf; that it
included tribes speaking a tongue closely akin to the Choktah
is evident from the fragments we have remaining. … The
location of the tribe in after years is very uncertain. Dumont
placed them in the northern part of what is now Alabama and
Georgia, near the mountains that bear their name. That a
portion of them did live in this vicinity is corroborated by
the historians of South Carolina, who say that Colonel Moore,
in 1703, found them 'between the head-waters of the Savannah
and Altamaha.' … According to all the Spanish authorities,
on the other hand, they dwelt in the region of country between
the Suwannee and Appalachicola rivers—yet must not be
confounded with the Apalachicolos. … They certainly had a
large and prosperous town in this vicinity, said to contain
1,000 warriors. … I am inclined to believe that these were
different branches of the same confederacy. … In the
beginning of the 18th century they suffered much from the
devastations of the English, French and Creeks. … About the
time Spain regained possession of the soil, they migrated to
the West and settled on the Bayou Rapide of Red River. Here
they had a village numbering about 50 souls."
_D. G. Brinton,
Notes on the Floridian Peninsula,
chapter 2._
See, also, below: MUSKHOGEAN FAMILY.
AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
Apelousas.
See TEXAS: THE ABORIGINAL INHABITANTS.
AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
Araicu.
See below: GUCK ON COCO GROUP.
AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
Arapahoes.
See above: ALGONQUIAN FAMILY.
AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
Araucanians.
See CHILE.
AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
Arawaks, or Arauacas.
See below: CARIBS AND THEIR KINDRED.
AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
Arecunas.
See below: CARIBS AND THEIR KINDRED.
AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
Arikaras.
See below: PAWNEE (CADDOAN) FAMILY.
AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
Arkansas.
See below: SIOUAN FAMILY.
AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
Assiniboins.
See below: SIOUAN FAMILY.
AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
Athapascan Family.
Chippewyans.
Tinneh.
Sarcees [Footnote: See Note, Appendix E.]
"This name [Athapascans or Athabascans] has been applied to a
class of tribes who are situated north of the great Churchill
river, and north of the source of the fork of the
Saskatchawine, extending westward till within about 150 miles
of the Pacific Ocean. … The name is derived, arbitrarily,
from Lake Athabasca, which is now more generally called the
Lake of the Hills. Surrounding this lake extends the tribe of
the Chippewyans, a people so-called by the Kenistenos and
Chippewas, because they were found to be clothed, in some
primary encounter, in the scanty garb of the fisher's skin.
… We are informed by Mackenzie that the territory occupied
by the Chippewyans extends between the parallels of 60° and
65° North and longitudes from 100° to 110° West."
_H. R. Schoolcraft,
Information Respecting the Indian Tribes,
part 5, page 172._
{81}
"The Tinneh may be divided into four great families of
nations; namely, the Chippewyans, or Athabascas, living
between Hudson Bay and the Rocky Mountains; the Tacullies, or
Carriers, of New Caledonia or North-western British America;
the Kutchins, occupying both banks of the Upper Yukon and its
tributaries, from near its mouth to the Mackenzie River, and
the Kenai, inhabiting the interior from the lower Yukon to
Copper River."
_H. H. Bancroft,
The Native Races of the Pacific States,
chapter 2._
"The Indian tribes of Alaska and the adjacent region may be
divided into two groups. …
1. Tinneh—Chippewyans of authors. …
Father Petitot discusses the terms Athabaskans,
Chippewayans, Montagnais, and Tinneh as applied to this group
of Indians. … This great family includes a large number of
American tribes extending from near the mouth of the Mackenzie
south to the borders of Mexico. The Apaches and Navajos belong
to it, and the family seems to intersect the continent of
North America in a northerly and southerly direction,
principally along the flanks of the Rocky Mountains. … The
designation [Tinneh] proposed by Messrs. Ross and Gibbs has
been accepted by most modern ethnologists. …
2. T'linkets, which family includes the Yakutats and other
groups.
_W. H. Dall,
Tribes of the Extreme Northwest
(Contributions to North American Ethnology, volume 1)._
"Wherever found, the members of this group present a certain
family resemblance. In appearance they are tall and strong,
the forehead low with prominent superciliary ridges, the eyes
slightly oblique, the nose prominent but wide toward the base,
the mouth large, the hands and feet small. Their strength and
endurance are often phenomenal, but in the North, at least,
their longevity is slight, few living beyond fifty.
Intellectually they rank below most of their neighbors, and
nowhere do they appear as fosterers of the germs of
civilization. Where, as among the Navajos, we find them having
some repute for the mechanical arts, it turns out that this is
owing to having captured and adopted the members of more
gifted tribes. … Agriculture was not practised either in the
north or south, the only exception being the Navajos, and with
them the inspiration came from other stocks. … The most
cultured of their bands were the Navajos, whose name is said
to signify 'large cornfields,' from their extensive
agriculture. When the Spaniards first met them in 1541 they
were tillers of the soil, erected large granaries for their
crops, irrigated their fields by artificial water courses or
acequias, and lived in substantial dwellings, partly
underground; but they had not then learned the art of weaving
the celebrated 'Navajo blankets,' that being a later
acquisition of their artisans."
_D. G. Brinton,
The American Race,
pages 69-72._
See, above, APACHE GROUP, and BLACKFEET.
AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
Atsinas (Caddoes).
See Note, Appendix E.
See below: BLACKFEET.
AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
Attacapan Family.
"Derivation: From a Choctaw word meaning 'man-eater.' Little
is known of the tribe, the language of which forms the basis
of the present family. The sole knowledge possessed by
Gallatin was derived from a vocabulary and some scanty
information furnished by Dr. John Sibley, who collected his
material in the year 1805. Gallatin states that the tribe was
reduced to 50 men. … Mr. Gatschet collected some 2,000 words
and a considerable body of text. His vocabulary differs
considerably from the one furnished by Dr. Sibley and
published by Gallatin. … The above material seems to show
that the Attacapa language is distinct from all others, except
possibly the Chitimachan."
_J. W. Powell,
Seventh Annual Report, Bureau of Ethnology,
page 57._
AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
Aymaras.
See PERU.
AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
Aztecs.
See below: MAYAS;
also MEXICO: A. D. 1325-1502;
and AZTEC AND MAYA PICTURE WRITING.
AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
Bakairi.
See below: CARIBS.
AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
Balchitas.
See below: PAMPAS TRIBES.
AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
Bannacks.
See below: SNOSHONEAN FAMILY.
AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
Barbudo.
See above: ANDESIANS.
AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
Baré.
See below: GUCK OR COCO GROUP.
AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
Baure.
See above: ANDESIANS.
AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
Beothukan Family.
The Beothuk were a tribe, now extinct, which is believed to
have occupied the whole of Newfoundland at the time of its
discovery. What is known of the language of the Beothuk
indicates no relationship to any other American tongue.
_J. W. Powell,
Seventh Annual Report of the Bureau of Ethnology,
page 57._
AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
Biloxis.
See below: SIOUAN FAMILY.
AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
Blackfeet, or Siksikas.
See Note, Appendix E.
"The tribe that wandered the furthest from the primitive home
of the stock [the Algonquian] were the Blackfeet, or Sisika,
which word has this signification. It is derived from their
earlier habitat in the valley of the Red river of the north,
where the soil was dark and blackened their moccasins. Their
bands include the Blood or Kenai and the Piegan Indians. Half
a century ago they were at the head of a confederacy which
embraced these and also the Sarcee (Tinné) and the Atsina
(Caddo) nations, and numbered about 30,000 souls. They have an
interesting mythology and an unusual knowledge of the
constellations."
_D. G. Brinton,
The American Race,
page 79_.
SEE above: ALGONQUIAN FAMILY;
And, below: FLATHEADS.
AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
Blood, or Kenai Indians.
See above: BLACKFEET.
AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
Botocudos.
See below: TUPI. GUARANI. TUPUYAS.
AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
Brulé:
See below: SIOUAN FAMILY.
AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
Caddoan Family.
See below: PAWNEE (CADDOAN) FAMILY;
See, also, TEXAS: THE ABORIGINAL INHABITANTS.
AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
Cakchiquels.
See below: QUICHES, and MAYAS.
AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
Calusa.
See below: TUMUQUANAN FAMILY.
AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
Cambas, or Campo, or Campa.
See above: ANDESIANS;
also, BOLIVIA: ABORIGINAL INHABITANTS.
AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
Cañares.
See ECUADOR.
AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
Canas.
See PERU.
AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
Canichanas.
See BOLIVIA: ABORIGINAL INHABITANTS.
{82}
AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
Caniengas.
See below: IROQUOIS CONFEDERACY.
AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
Cariay.
See below: GUCK OR COCO Group.
AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
Caribs and their Kindred.
"The warlike and unyielding character of these people, so
different from that of the pusillanimous nations around them,
and the wide scope of their enterprises and wanderings, like
those of the nomad tribes of the Old World, entitle them to
distinguished attention. … The traditional accounts of their
origin, though of course extremely vague, are yet capable of
being verified to a great degree by geographical facts, and
open one of the rich veins of curious inquiry and speculation
which abound in the New World. They are said to have migrated
from the remote valleys embosomed in the Apalachian mountains.
The earliest accounts we have of them represent them with
weapons in their hands, continually engaged in wars, winning
their way and shifting their abode, until, in the course of
time, they found themselves at the extremity of Florida. Here,
abandoning the northern continent, they passed over to the
Lucayos [Bahamas], and thence gradually, in the process of
years, from island to island of that vast verdant chain, which
links, as it were, the end of Florida to the coast of Paria,
on the southern continent. The archipelago extending from
Porto Rico to Tobago was their stronghold, and the island of
Guadaloupe in a manner their citadel. Hence they made their
expeditions, and spread the terror of their name through all
the surrounding countries. Swarms of them landed upon the
southern continent, and overran some parts of terra firma.
Traces of them have been discovered far in the interior of
that vast country through which flows the Oroonoko. The Dutch
found colonies of them on the banks of the Ikouteka, which
empties into the Surinam; along the Esquibi, the Maroni, and
other rivers of Guayana; and in the country watered by the
windings of the Cayenne."
_W. Irving,
Life and Voyages of Columbus,
book 6, chapter 3, (volume 1)._
"To this account [substantially as given above] of the origin
of the Insular Charaibes, the generality of historians have
given their assent; but there are doubts attending it that are
not easily solved. If they migrated from Florida, the
imperfect state and natural course of their navigation induce
a belief that traces of them would have been found on those
islands which are near to the Florida shore; let the natives
of the Bahamas, when discovered by Columbus, were evidently a
similar people to those of Hispaniola. Besides, it is
sufficiently known that there existed anciently many numerous
and powerful tribes of Charaibes on the southern peninsula,
extending from the river Oronoko to Essequebe, and throughout
the whole province of Surinam, even to Brazil, some of which
still maintain their independency. … I incline therefore to
the opinion of Martyr, and conclude that the islanders were
rather a colony from the Charaibes of South America, than from
any nation of the North. Rochefort admits that their own
traditions referred constantly to Guiana."
_B. Edwards,
History of British Colonies in the West
Indies, book 1, chapter 2._
"The Carabisce, Carabeesi, Charaibes, Caribs, or Galibis,
originally occupied [in Guiana] the principal rivers, but as
the Dutch encroached upon their possessions they retired
inland, and are now daily dwindling away. According to Mr.
Hillhouse, they could formerly muster nearly 1,000 fighting
men, but are now [1855] scarcely able to raise a tenth part of
that number. … The smaller islands of the Caribbean Sea were
formerly thickly populated by this tribe, but now not a trace of
them remains."
_H. G. Dalton,
History of British Guiana,
volume 1, chapter 1._
_E. F. im Thurn,
Among the Indians of Guiana,
chapter 6._
"Recent researches have shown that the original home of the
stock was south of the Amazon, and probably in the highlands
at the head of the Tapajoz river. A tribe, the Bakairi, is
still resident there, whose language is a pure and archaic
form of the Carib tongue."
_D. G. Brinton,
Races and Peoples,
page 268._
"Related to the Caribs stand a long list of small tribes …
all inhabitants of the great primeval forest in and near
Guiana. They may have characteristic differences, but none
worthy of mention are known. In bodily appearance, according
to all accounts, these relatives of the Caribs are beautiful.
In Georgetown the Arauacas [or Arawaks] are celebrated for
their beauty. They are slender and graceful, and their
features handsome and regular, the face having a Grecian
profile, and the skin being of a reddish cast. A little
farther inland we find the Macushi [or Macusis], with a
lighter complexion and a Roman nose. These two types are
repeated in other tribes, except in the Tarumi, who are
decidedly ugly. In mental characteristics great similarity
prevails."
_The Standard Natural History
(J. S. Kingsley, editor),
page 237._
"The Arawaks occupied on the continent the area of the modern
Guiana, between the Corentyn and the Pomeroon rivers, and at
one time all the West Indian Islands. From some of them they
were early driven by the Caribs, and within 40 years of the
date of Columbus' first voyage the Spanish had exterminated
nearly all on the islands. Their course of migration had been
from the interior of Brazil northward; their distant relations
are still to be found between the headwaters of the Paraguay
and Schingu rivers."
_D. G. Brinton,
Races and Peoples,
page 268-269._
"The Kapohn (Acawoios, Waikas, &c.) claim kindred with the
Caribs. … The Acawoios, though resolute and determined, are
less hasty and impetuous than the Caribs. … According to
their tradition, one of their hordes removed [to the Upper
Demerera] … from the Masaruni. The Parawianas, who
originally dwelt on the Demerera, having been exterminated by
the continual incursions of the Caribs, the Waika-Acawoios
occupied their vacant territory. … The Macusis … are
supposed by some to have formerly inhabited the banks of the
Orinoco. … As they are industrious and unwarlike, they have
been the prey of every savage tribe around them. The
Wapisianas are supposed to have driven them northward and
taken possession of their country. The Brazilians, as well as
the Caribs, Acawoios, &c., have long been in the habit of
enslaving them. … The Arecunas have been accustomed to
descend from the higher lands and attack the Macusis. … This
tribe is said to have formerly dwelt on the banks of the
Uaupes or Ucayari, a tributary of the Rio Negro. … The
Waraus appear to have been the most ancient inhabitants of the
land. Very little, however, can be gleaned from them
respecting their early history. … The Tivitivas, mentioned
by Raleigh, were probably a branch of the Waraus, whom he
calls Quarawetes."
_W. H. Brett,
Indian Tribes of Guiana,
part 2, chapter 13._
{83}
AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
Caripuna.
See below: GUCK OR COCO GROUP.
AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
Cat Nation, or Eries.
See below: HURONS, &c.,
and IROQUOIS CONFEDERACY: THEIR CONQUESTS, &c.
AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
Catawbas, or Kataba.
See below: SIOUAN FAMILY;
also, TIMUQUANAN.
AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
Cayugas.
See below: IROQUOIS CONFEDERACY.
AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
Chancas.
See PERU.
AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
Chapas, or Chapanecs.
See below: ZAPOTECS, ETC.
AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
Cherokees.
"The Cherokee tribe has long been a puzzling factor to
students of ethnology and North American languages. Whether to
be considered an abnormal offshoot from one of the well-known
Indian stocks or families of North America, or the remnant of
some undetermined or almost extinct family which has merged
into another, appear to be questions yet unsettled."
_C. Thomas,
Burial Mounds of the Northern Sections of the United States
(Fifth Annual Report of the Bureau of Ethnology, 1883-4)_.
Facts which tend to identify the Cherokees with the ancient
"mound-builders" of the Ohio Valley—the Alleghans or
Talligewi of Indian tradition—are set forth by Professor Thomas
in a later paper, on the Problem of the Ohio Mounds, published
by the Bureau of Ethnology in 1889 [see above: ALLEGHANS] and
in a little book published in 1890, entitled "The Cherokees in
Pre-Columbian Times." "The Cherokee nation has probably
occupied a more prominent place in the affairs and history of
what is now the United States of America, since the date of
the early European settlements, than any other tribe, nation,
or confederacy of Indians, unless it be possible to except the
powerful and warlike league of the Iroquois or Six Nations of
New York. It is almost certain that they were visited at a
very early period [1540] following the discovery of the
American continent by that daring and enthusiastic Spaniard,
Fernando de Soto. … At the time of the English settlement of
the Carolinas the Cherokees occupied a diversified and
well-watered region of country of large extent upon the waters
of the Catawba, Broad, Saluda, Keowee, Tugaloo, Savannah, and
Coosa rivers on the east and south, and several tributaries of
the Tennessee on the north and west. … In subsequent years,
through frequent and long continued conflicts with the ever
advancing white settlements, and the successive treaties
whereby the Cherokees gradually yielded portions of their
domain, the location and names of their towns were continually
changing until the final removal of the nation [1836-1839]
west of the Mississippi. … This removal turned the Cherokees
back in the calendar of progress and civilization at least a
quarter of a century. The hardships and exposures of the
journey, coupled with the fevers and malaria of a radically
different climate, cost the lives of perhaps 10 per cent. of
their total population. The animosities and turbulence born of
the treaty of 1835 not only occasioned the loss of many lives,
but rendered property insecure, and in consequence diminished
the zeal and industry of the entire community in its
accumulation. A brief period of comparative quiet, however,
was again characterized by an advance toward a higher
civilization. Five years after their removal we find from the
report of their agent that they are again on the increase in
population. … With the exception of occasional
drawbacks—the result of civil feuds—the progress of the
nation in education, industry and civilization continued until
the outbreak of the rebellion. At this period, from the best
attainable information, the Cherokees numbered 21,000 souls.
The events of the war brought to them more of desolation and
ruin than perhaps to any other community. Raided and sacked
alternately, not only by the Confederates and Union forces,
but by the vindictive ferocity and hate of their own factional
divisions, their country became a blackened and desolate
waste. … The war over, and the work of reconstruction
commenced, found them numbering 14,000 impoverished,
heart-broken, and revengeful people. … To-day their country
is more prosperous than ever. They number 22,000, a greater
population than they have had at any previous period, except
perhaps just prior to the date of the treaty of 1835, when
those east added to those west of the Mississippi are stated
to have aggregated nearly 25,000 people. To-day they have
2,300 scholars attending 75 schools, established and supported
by themselves at an annual expense to the nation of nearly
$100,000. To-day, 13,000 of their people can read and 18,000
can speak the English language. To-day, 5,000 brick, frame and
log-houses are occupied by them, and they have 64 churches
with a membership of several thousand. They cultivate 100,000
acres of land and have an additional 150,000 fenced. … They
have a constitutional form of government predicated upon that
of the United States. As a rule their laws are wise and
beneficent and are enforced with strictness and justice. …
The present Cherokee population is of a composite character.
Remnants of other nations or tribes [Delawares, Shawnees,
Creeks, Natchez] have from time to time been absorbed and
admitted to full participation in the benefits of Cherokee
citizenship."
_C. C. Royce,
The Cherokee Nation of Indians
(Fifth Annual Report of the Bureau of Ethnology, 1883-84)._
This elaborate paper by Mr. Royce is a narrative in detail of
the official relations of the Cherokees with the colonial and
federal governments, from their first treaty with South
Carolina, in 1721, down to the treaty of April 27, 1868.—"As
early as 1798 Barton compared the Cheroki language with that
of the Iroquois and stated his belief that there was a
connection between them. … Mr. Hale was the first to give
formal expression to his belief in the affinity of the Cheroki
to Iroquois. Recently extensive Cheroki vocabularies have come
into possession of the Bureau of Ethnology, and a careful
comparison of them with ample Iroquois material has been made
by Mr Hewitt. The result is convincing proof of the
relationship of the two languages."
_J. W. Powell,
Seventh Annual Report of the Bureau of Ethnology,
page 77._
See Note, Appendix: E.
ALSO IN
_S. G. Drake,
The Aboriginal Races of North America,
book 4, chapter 13-16._
See, above: ALLEGHANS.
See, also, for an account of the Cherokee War of 1759-1761,
SOUTH CAROLINA: A. D. 1759-1761; and for "Lord Dunmore's
War," OHIO (VALLEY): A. D. 1774.
AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
Cheyennes, or Sheyennes.
See above; ALGONQUIAN FAMILY
{84}
AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
Chibchas.
The most northerly group of the tribes of the Andes "are the
Cundinamarca of the table lands of Bogota. At the time of the
conquest the watershed of the Magdalena was occupied by the
Chibcha, or, as they were called by the Spaniards, Muyscas. At
that time the Chibcha were the most powerful of all the
autochthonous tribes, had a long history behind them, were
well advanced toward civilization, to which numerous
antiquities bear witness. The Chibcha of to-day no longer
speak the well-developed and musical language of their
forefathers. It became extinct about 1730, and it can now only
be inferred from existing dialects of it; these are the
languages of the Turiero, a tribe dwelling north of Bogota,
and of the Itoco Indians who live in the neighborhood of the
celebrated Emerald mines of Muzo."
_The Standard Natural History
(J. S. Kingsley, editor)
volume 6, page 215_.
"As potters and goldsmiths they [the Chibcha] ranked among the
finest on the continent."
_D. G. Brinton,
Races and Peoples,
page 272._
See, also, COLOMBIAN STATES: A. D. 1536-1731.
AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
Chicasas.
See below: MUSKHOGEAN FAMILY;
also, LOUISIANA: A. D. 1719-1750.
AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
Chichimecs.
See MEXICO: A. D. 1325-1502.
AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
Chimakuan Family.
"The Chimakum are said to have been formerly one of the
largest and most powerful tribes of Puget Sound. Their
warlike habits early tended to diminish their numbers, and
when visited by Gibbs in 1854 they counted only about 70
individuals. This small remnant occupied some 15 small lodges
on Port Townsend Bay."
_J. W. Powell,
Seventh Annual Report, Bureau of Ethnology,
page 62._
AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
Chimarikan Family.
"According to Powers, this family was represented, so far as
known, by two tribes in California, one the Chi-mál-a-kwe,
living on New River, a branch of the Trinity, the other the
Chimariko, residing upon the Trinity itself from Burnt Ranch
up to the mouth of North Fork, California. The two tribes are
said to have been as numerous formerly as the Hupa, by whom
they were overcome and nearly exterminated. Upon the arrival
of the Americans only 25 of the Chimalakwe were left."
_J. W. Powell,
Seventh Annual Report, Bureau of Ethnology,
page 63._
AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
Chinantecs.
See below: ZAPOTECS, ETC.
AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
Chinookan Family.
"The banks of the Columbia, from the Grand Dalles to its
mouth, belong to the two branches of the Tsinuk [or Chinook]
nation, which meet in the neighborhood of the Kowlitz River,
and of which an almost nominal remnant is left. … The
position of the Tsinuk previous to their depopulation was, as
at once appears, most important, occupying both sides of the
great artery of Oregon for a distance of 200 miles, they
possessed the principal thoroughfare between the interior and
the ocean, boundless resources of provisions of various kinds,
and facilities for trade almost unequalled on the Pacific."
_G. Gibbs,
Tribes of West Washington and N. W. Oregon
(Contributions to North American Ethnology, volume 1),
page 164._
See, also, below: FLATHEADS.
AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
Chippewas.
See below: OJIBWAS;
and above: ALGONQUIAN FAMILY.
AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
Chippewyans.
See below: ATHAPASCAN FAMILY.
AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
Choctaws.
See below: MUSKHOGEAN FAMILY.
AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
Chontals and Popolocas.
"According to the census of 1880 there were 31,000 Indians in
Mexico belonging to the Familia Chontal. No such family
exists. The word 'chontalli' in the Nahuatl language means
simply 'stranger,' and was applied by the Nahuas to any people
other than their own. According to the Mexican statistics, the
Chontals are found in the states of Mexico, Puebla, Oaxaca,
Guerrero, Tabasco, Guatemala and Nicaragua. A similar term is
'popoloca,' which in Nahuatl means a coarse fellow, one
speaking badly, that is, broken Nahuatl. The Popolocas have
also been erected into an ethnic entity by some ethnographers,
with as little justice as the Chontallis. They are stated to
have lived in the provinces of Puebla, Oaxaca, Vera Cruz,
Mechoacan and Guatemala."
_D. G. Brinton,
The American Race,
pages 146-153._
AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
Chontaquiros.
See above: ANDESIANS.
AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
Chumashan Family.
"Derivation: From Chumash, the name of the Santa Rosa
Islanders. The several dialects of this family have long been
known under the group or family name, 'Santa Barbara,' which
seems first to have been used in a comprehensive sense by
Latham in 1856, who included under it three languages, viz.:
Santa Barbara, Santa Inez, and San Luis Obispo. The term has
no special pertinence as a family designation, except from the
fact that the Santa Barbara Mission, around which one of the
dialects of the family was spoken, is perhaps more widely
known than any of the others."
_J. W. Powell,
Seventh Annual Report, Bureau of Ethnology,
page 67._
AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
Cliff-dwellers.
See AMERICA: PREHISTORIC.
AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
Coahuiltecan Family.
"Derivation: From the name of the Mexican State Coahuila. This
family appears to have included numerous tribes in
southwestern Texas and in Mexico. … A few Indians still
survive who speak one of the dialects of this family, and in
1886 Mr. Gatschet collected vocabularies of two tribes, the
Comecrudo and Cotoname, who live on the Rio Grande, at Las
Prietas, State of Tamaulipas."
_J. W. Powell,
Seventh Annual Report, Bureau of Ethnology,
page 68._
AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
Coajiro, or Guajira.
"An exceptional position is taken, in many respects, by the
Coajiro, or Guajira, who live on the peninsula of the same
name on the northwestern boundary of Venezuela. Bounded on all
sides by so-called civilized peoples, this Indian tribe is
known to have maintained its independence, and acquired the
well-deserved reputation for cruelty, a tribe which, in many
respects, can be classed with the Apaches and Comanches of New
Mexico, the Araucanians of Chili, and the Guaycara and Guarani
on the Parana. The Coajiro are mostly large, with
chestnut-brown complexion and black, sleek hair. While all the
other coast tribes have adopted the Spanish language, the
Coajiro have preserved their own speech. They are the especial
foes of the other peoples. No one is given entrance into their
land, and they live with their neighbors, the Venezuelans, in
constant hostilities. They have fine horses, which they know
how to ride excellently. … They have numerous herds of
cattle. … They follow agriculture a little."
_The Standard Natural History
(J. S. Kingsley, editor),
volume 6, page 243._
AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
Cochibo.
See above: ANDESIANS.
AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
Cochiquima.
See above: ANDESIANS.
AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
Coco Group.
See below: GUCK OR COCO GROUP.
AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
Coconoons.
See below: MARIPOSAN FAMILY.
AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
Cofan.
See above: ANDESIANS.
{85}
AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
Collas.
See PERU.
AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
Comanches.
See below: SHOSHONEAN FAMILY,
and KIOWAN FAMILY;
and above: APACHE GROUP.
AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
Conestogas.
See below: SUSQUEHANNAS.
AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
Conibo.
See above: ANDESIANS.
AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
Conoys.
See above: ALGONQUIAN FAMILY.
AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
Copehan Family.
"The territory of the Copehan family is bounded on the north
by Mount Shasta and the territory of the Sastean and Lutuamian
families, on the east by the territory of the Palaihnihan,
Yanan, and Punjunan families, and on the south by the bays of
San Pablo and Suisun and the lower waters of the Sacramento."
_J. W. Powell,
Seventh Annual Report, Bureau of Ethnology,
page 69._
AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
Costanoan Family.
"Derivation: From the Spanish costano, 'coast-men.' Under this
group name Latham included five tribes … which were under
the supervision of the Mission Dolores. … The territory of
the Costanoan family extends from the Golden Gate to a point
near the southern end of Monterey Bay. … The surviving
Indians of the once populous tribes of this family are now
scattered over several counties and probably do not number,
all told, over 30 individuals, as was ascertained by Mr.
Henshaw in 1888. Most of these are to be found near the
towns of Santa Cruz and Monterey."
_J. W. Powell,
Seventh Annual Report, Bureau of Ethnology,
page 71._
AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
Creek Confederacy, Creek Wars.
See below: MUSKHOGEAN FAMILY;
also UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1813-1814 (AUGUST-APRIL);
and FLORIDA: A. D. 1816-1818.
AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
Crees.
See above: ALGONQUIAN FAMILY.
AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
Croatans.
See AMERICA: A. D. 1587-1590.
AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
Crows (Upsarokas, or Absarokas).
See below: SIOUAN FAMILY.
AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
Cuatos.
See below: PAMPAS TRIBES.
AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
Cunimaré.
See below: GUCK OR COCO GROUP.
AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
Cuyriri or Kiriri.
See below: GUCK on Coco GROUP.
AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
Dakotas, or Dacotahs, or Dahcotas.
See below: SIOUAN FAMILY and PAWNEE (CADDOAN) FAMILY.
AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
Delawares, or Lenape.
"The proper name of the Delaware Indians was and is Lenapé (a
as in father, é as a in mate). … The Lenape were divided
into three sub-tribes:
1. The Minsi, Monseys, Montheys, Munsees, or Minisinks.
2. The Unami or Wonameys.
3. The Unalachtigo.
No explanation of these designations will be
found in Heckewelder or the older writers. From
investigations among living Delawares, carried out at my
request by Mr. Horatio Hale, it is evident that they are
wholly geographical, and refer to the location of these
sub-tribes on the Delaware river. … The Minsi lived in the
mountainous region at the head waters of the Delaware, above
the Forks or junction of the Lehigh river. … The Unamis'
territory on the right bank of the Delaware river extended
from the Lehigh Valley southward. It was with them and their
southern neighbors, the Unalachtigos, that Penn dealt for the
land ceded to him in the Indian deed of 1682. The Minsis did
not take part in the transaction, and it was not until 1737
that the Colonial authorities treated directly with the latter
for the cession of their territory. The Unalachtigo or Turkey
totem had its principal seat on the affluents of the Delawares
near where Wilmington now stands."
_D. G. Brinton,
The Lenape and Their Legends,
chapter 3._
"At the … time when
William Penn landed in Pennsylvania, the Delawares had been
subjugated and made women by the Five Nations. It is well
known that, according to that Indian mode of expression, the
Delawares were henceforth prohibited from making war, and
placed under the sovereignty of the conquerors, who did not
even allow sales of land, in the actual possession of the
Delawares, to be valid without their approbation. William
Penn, his descendants, and the State of Pennsylvania,
accordingly, always purchased the right of possession from the
Delawares, and that of Sovereignty from the Five Nations. …
The use of arms, though from very different causes, was
equally prohibited to the Delawares and to the Quakers. Thus
the colonization of Pennsylvania and of West New Jersey by the
British, commenced under the most favorable auspices. Peace
and the utmost harmony prevailed for more than sixty years
between the whites and the Indians; for these were for the
first time treated, not only justly, but kindly, by the
colonists. But, however gradually and peaceably their lands
might have been purchased, the Delawares found themselves at
last in the same situation as all the other Indians, without
lands of their own, and therefore without means of
subsistence. They were compelled to seek refuge on the waters
of the Susquehanna, as tenants at will, on lands belonging to
their hated conquerors, the Five Nations. Even there and on
the Juniata they were encroached upon. … Under those
circumstances, many of the Delawares determined to remove west
of the Alleghany Mountains, and, about the year 1740-50,
obtained from their ancient allies and uncles, the Wyandots,
the grant of a derelict tract of land lying principally on the
Muskingum. The great body of the nation was still attached to
Pennsylvania. But the grounds of complaint increased. The
Delawares were encouraged by the western tribes, and by the
French, to shake off the yoke of the Six Nations, and to join
in the war against their allies, the British. The frontier
settlements of Pennsylvania were accordingly attacked both by
the Delawares and the Shawnoes. And, although peace was made
with them at Easton in in 1758, and the conquest of Canada put
an end to the general war, both the Shawnoes and Delawares
removed altogether in 1768 beyond the Alleghany Mountains. …
The years 1765-1795 are the true period of the power and
importance of the Delawares. United with the Shawnoes, who
were settled on the Scioto, they sustained during the Seven
Years' War the declining power of France, and arrested for
some years the progress of the British and American arms.
Although a portion of the nation adhered to the Americans
during the War of Independence, the main body, together with
all the western nations made common cause with the British.
And, after the short truce which followed the treaty of 1783,
they were again at the head of the western confederacy in
their last struggle for independence. Placed by their
geographical situation in the front of battle, they were,
during those three wars, the aggressors, and, to the last
moment, the most active and formidable enemies of America. The
decisive victory of General Wayne (1794), dissolved the
confederacy; and the Delawares were the greatest sufferers by
the treaty of Greenville of 1795."
{86}
After this, the greater part of the Delawares were settled on
White River, Indiana, "till the year 1819, when they finally
ceded their claim to the United States. Those residing there
were then reduced to about 800 souls. A number … had
previously removed to Canada; and it is difficult to ascertain
the situation or numbers of the residue at this time [1836].
Those who have lately removed west of the Mississippi are, in
an estimate of the War Department, computed at 400 souls.
Former emigrations to that quarter had however taken place,
and several small dispersed bands are, it is believed, united
with the Senecas and some other tribes."
_A. Gallatin,
Synopsis of the Indian Tribes
(Archæologia Americana, volume 2),
introduction, section 2._
See, above: ALGONQUIAN FAMILY:
below: SHAWANESE, and PAWNEE (CADDOAN) FAMILY.
Also, PONTIAC'S WAR; UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1765-1768;
and MORAVIAN BRETHREN;
and, for an account of "Lord Dunmore's War,"
see Ohio (VALLEY): A. D. 1774.
AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
Eries.
See below: HURONS, &c.,
and IROQUOIS CONFEDERACY: THEIR CONQUESTS, &c.
AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
Eskimauan Family.
"Save a slight inter-mixture of European settlers, the Eskimo
are the only inhabitants of the shores of Arctic America, and
of both sides of Davis Strait and Baffin Bay, including
Greenland, as well as a tract of about 400 miles on the
Behring Strait coast of Asia. Southward they extend as far as
about 50° North latitude on the eastern side, 60° on the
western side of America, and from 55° to 60° on the shores of
Hudson Bay. Only on the west the Eskimo near their frontier
are interrupted on two small spots of the coast by the Indians,
named Kennayans and Ugalenzes, who have there advanced to the
sea-shore for the sake of fishing. These coasts of Arctic
America, of course, also comprise all the surrounding islands.
Of these, the Aleutian Islands form an exceptional group; the
inhabitants of these on the one hand distinctly differing from
the coast people here mentioned, while on the other they show
a closer relationship to the Eskimo than any other nation. The
Aleutians, therefore, may be considered as only an abnormal
branch of the Eskimo nation. … As regards their northern
limits, the Eskimo people, or at least remains of their
habitations, have been found nearly as far north as any Arctic
explorers have hitherto advanced: and very possibly bands of
them may live still farther to the north, as yet quite unknown
to us. … On comparing the Eskimo with the neighbouring
nations, their physical complexion certainly seems to point at
an Asiatic origin; but, as far as we know, the latest
investigations have also shown a transitional link to exist
between the Eskimo and the other American nations, which would
sufficiently indicate the possibility of a common origin from
the same continent. As to their mode of life, the Eskimo
decidedly resemble their American neighbours. … With regard
to their language, the Eskimo also appear akin to the American
nations in regard to its decidedly polysynthetic structure.
Here, however, on the other hand, we meet with some very
remarkable similarities between the Eskimo idiom and the
language of Siberia, belonging to the Altaic or Finnish group.
… According to the Sagas of the Icelanders, they were
already met with on the east coast of Greenland about the year
1000, and almost at the same time on the east coast of the
American continent. … Between the years 1000 and 1300 they
do not seem to have occupied the land south of 65° North L. on
the west coast of Greenland, where the Scandinavian colonies
were then situated. But the colonists seem to have been aware
of their existence in higher latitudes, and to have lived in
fear of an attack by them, since, in the year 1266, an
expedition was sent out for the purpose of exploring the
abodes of the Skrælings, as they were called by the colonists.
… About the year 1450, the last accounts were received from
the colonies, and the way to Greenland was entirely forgotten
in the mother country. … The features of the natives in the
Southern part of Greenland indicate a mixed descent from the
Scandinavians and Eskimo, the former, however, not having left
the slightest sign of any influence on the nationality or
culture of the present natives. In the year 1585, Greenland
was discovered anew by John Davis, and found inhabited
exclusively by Eskimo."
_H. Rink,
Tales and Traditions of the Eskimo,
introduction and chapter 6._
_H. Rink,
The Eskimo tribes._
"In 1869, I proposed for the Aleuts and people of Innuit stock
collectively the term Orarians, as indicative of their
coastwise distribution, and as supplying the need of a general
term to designate a very well-defined race. …The Orarians
are divided into two well-marked groups, namely the Innuits,
comprising all the so-called Eskimo and Tuskis, and the
Aleuts."
_W. H. Dall,
Tribes of the Extreme Northwest
(Contributed to North American Ethnology, volume 1),
part 1._
AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
Esselenian Family.
"The present family was included by Latham in the
heterogeneous group called by him Salinas. … The term
Salinan [is now] restricted to the San Antonio and San Miguel
languages, leaving the present family … [to be] called
Esselenian, from the name of the single tribe Esselen, of
which it is composed. … The tribe or tribes composing this
family occupied a narrow strip of the California coast from
Monterey Bay south to the vicinity of the Santa Lucia
Mountain, a distance of about 50 miles."
_J. W. Powell,
Seventh Annual Report,
Bureau of Ethnology,
pages 75-76._
AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
Etchemins.
See above: ALGONQUIAN FAMILY.
AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
Eurocs, or Yuroks.
See below: MODOCS, &c.
AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
Five Nations.
See below: IROQUOIS CONFEDERACY.
AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
Flatheads (Salishan Family).
See Note, Appendix E.
"The name Flathead was commonly given to the Choctaws, though,
says Du Pratz, he saw no reason why they should be so
distinguished, when the practice of flattening the head was so
general. And in the enumeration just cited [Documentary Hist.
of New York, volume 1, page 24] the next paragraph. … is: 'The
Flatheads, Cherakis, Chicachas, and Totiris are included under
the name of Flatheads by the Iroquois."
_M. F. Force,
Some Early Notices of the Indians of Ohio,
page 32._
"The Salish … are distinctively known as Flatheads, though
the custom of deforming the cranium is not confined to them."
_D. G. Brinton,
The American Race,
page 107._
"In … early times the hunters and trappers could not
discover why the Blackfeet and Flatheads [of Montana] received
their respective designations, for the feet of the former are
no more inclined to sable than any other part of the body,
while the heads of the latter possess their fair proportion of
rotundity. Indeed it is only below the falls and rapids that
real Flatheads appear, and at the mouth of the Columbia that
they flourish most supernaturally. The tribes who practice the
custom of flattening the head, and who lived at the mouth of
the Columbia, differed little from each other in laws, manners
or customs, and were composed of the Cathlamahs, Killmucks,
Clatsops, Chinooks and Chilts. The abominable custom of
flattening their heads prevails among them all."
_P. Ronan,
Historical Sketch of the Flathead Indian Nation,
page 17._
In Major Powell's linguistic classification, the "Salishan
Family" (Flathead) is given a distinct place.
_J. W. Powell,
Seventh Annual Report of the Bureau of Ethnology,
page 102._
{87}
AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
Fox Indians.
See above: ALGONQUIAN FAMILY,
and below, SACS, &c.
For an account of the massacre of Fox Indians at Detroit in
1712,
See CANADA (NEW FRANCE): A. D. 1711-1713.
For an account of the Black Hawk War,
See Illinois: A. D. 1832.
AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
Fuegians.
See below: PATAGONIANS.
AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
Gausarapos or Guuchies.
See below: PAMPAS TRIBES.
AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
Ges Tribes.
See below:
TUPI.
GUARANI.
TUPUYAS.
AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
Gros Ventres (Minnetaree; Hidatsa).
See Note, Appendix E.
See below: HIDATSA;
also, above: ALGONQUIAN FAMILY.
AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
Guaicarus.
See below: PAMPAS TRIBES.
AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
Guajira.
See above: COAJIRO.
AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
Guanas.
See below: PAMPAS TRIBES.
AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
Guarani.
See below: TUPI.
AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
Guayanas.
See below: PAMPAS TRIBES.
AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
Guck or Coco Group.
An extensive linguistic group of tribes in Brazil, on and
north of the Amazon, extending as far as the Orinoco, has been
called the Guck, or Coco group. "There is no common name for
the group, that here used meaning a father's brother, a very
important personage in these tribes. The Guck group embraces a
large number of tribes. … We need enumerate but few. The
Cuyriri or Kiriri (also known as Sabaja, Pimenteiras, etc.),
number about 3,000. Some of them are half civilized, some are
wild, and, without restraint, wander about, especially in the
mountains in the Province of Pernambuco. The Araicu live on
the lower Amazon and the Tocantins. Next come the Manaos, who
have a prospect of maintaining themselves longer than most
tribes. With them is connected the legend of the golden lord
who washed the gold dust from his limbs in a lake [see EL
DORADO]. … The Uirina, Baré, and Cariay live on the Rio
Negro, the Cunimaré on the Jurua, the Maranha on the Jutay.
Whether the Chamicoco on the right bank of the Paraguay,
belong to the Guck is uncertain. Among the tribes which,
though very much mixed, are still to be enumerated with the
Guck, are the Tecuna and the Passé. In language the Tecunas
show many similarities to the Ges; they live on the western
borders of Brazil, and extend in Equador to the Pastaça. Among
them occur peculiar masques which strongly recall those found
on the northwest coast of North America. … In the same
district belong the Uaupe, who are noticeable from the fact
that they live in barracks, indeed the only tribe in South
America in which this custom appears. The communistic houses
of the Uaupe are called 'malloca;' they are buildings of about
120 feet long, 75 feet wide, and 30 high, in which live a band
of about 100 persons in 12 families, each of the latter,
however, in its own room. … Finally, complex tribes of the
most different nationality are comprehended under names which
indicate only a common way of life, but are also incorrectly
used as ethnographic names. These are Caripuna, Mura, and
Miranha, all of whom live in the neighborhood of the Madeira
River. Of the Caripuna or Jaûn-Avô (both terms signify
'watermen'), who are mixed with Quichua blood, it is related
that they not only ate human flesh, but even cured it for
preservation. … Formerly the Mura … were greatly feared;
this once powerful and populous tribe, however, was almost
entirely destroyed at the end of the last century by the
Mundruco; the remnant is scattered. … The Mura are the
gypsies among the Indians on the Amazon; and by all the other
tribes they are regarded with a certain degree of contempt as
pariahs. … Much to be feared, even among the Indians, are
also the Miranha (i. e., rovers, vagabonds), a still populous
tribe on the right bank of the Japura, who seem to know
nothing but war, robbery, murder, and man-hunting."
_The Standard Natural History
(J. S. Kingsley, editor),
volume 6, pages 245-248._
ALSO IN
_F. Keller,
The Amazon and Madeira Rivers,
chapters 2 and 6._
_H. W. Bates,
A Naturalist on the River Amazons,
chapters 7-13._
AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
Guuchies.
See below: PAMPAS TRIBES.
AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
Hackinsacks.
See above: ALGONQUIAN FAMILY.
AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
Haidas.
See below: SKITTAGETAN FAMILY.
AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
Hidatsa, or Minnetaree, or Grosventres
See Note, Appendix E.
"The Hidatsa, Minnetaree, or Grosventre Indians, are one of
the three tribes which at present inhabit the permanent
village at Fort Berthold, Dakota Territory, and hunt on the
waters of the Upper Missouri and Yellowstone Rivers, in
Northwestern Dakota and Eastern Montana. The history of this
tribe is … intimately connected with that of the politically
allied tribes of the Aricarees and Mandans." The name,
Grosventres, was given to the people of this tribe "by the
early French and Canadian adventurers. The same name was
applied also to a tribe, totally distinct from these in
language and origin, which lives some hundreds of miles west
of Fort Berthold; and the two nations are now distinguished
from one another as Grosventres of the Missouri and
Grosventres of the Prairie. … Edward Umfreville, who traded
on the Saskatchewan River from 1784 to 1787, … remarks: …
'They [the Canadian French] call them Grosventres, or
Big-Bellies; and without any reason, as they are as comely and
as well made as any tribe whatever.' … In the works of many
travellers they are called Minnetarees, a name which is
spelled in various ways. … This, although a Hidatsa word, is
the name applied to them, not by themselves, but by the
Mandans; it signifies 'to cross the water,' or 'they crossed
the water.' … Hidatsa was the name of the village on Knife
River farthest from the Missouri, the village of those whom
Lewis and Clarke considered the Minnetarees proper." It is the
name "now generally used by this people to designate
themselves."
_W. Matthews, Ethnography and Philology of the Hidatsa
Indians, parts 1-2 (United States Geological and
Geographical Survey. F. V. Hayden, Mis. Pub., No. 7)_.
See also, below: SIOUAN FAMILY.
{88}
AMERICAN ABORIGINES: Hitchitis.
See below: MUSKHOGEAN FAMILY.
AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
Horikans.
North of the Mohegans, who occupied the east bank of the
Hudson River opposite Albany, and covering the present
counties of Columbia and Rensselaer, dwelt the Algonkin tribe
of Horikans, "whose hunting grounds appear to have extended
from the waters of the Connecticut, across the Green
Mountains, to the borders of that beautiful lake [named Lake
George by the too loyal Sir William Johnson] which might now
well bear their sonorous name."
_J. R. Brodhead,
History of the State of New York,
page 77._
AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
Huamaboya.
See above: ANDESIANS.
AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
Huancas.
See PERU.
AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
Huastecs.
See below: MAYAS.
AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
Huecos, or Wacos.
See below: PAWNEE (CADDOAN) FAMILY.
AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
Humas, or Oumas.
See below: MUSKHOGEAN FAMILY.
AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
Hupas.
See Note, Appendix E.
See below: MODOCS, &c.
Hurons, or Wyandots.
Neutral Nation.
Eries.
"The peninsula between the Lakes Huron, Erie, and Ontario was
occupied by two distinct peoples, speaking dialects of the
Iroquois tongue. The Hurons or Wyandots, including the tribe
called by the French the Dionondadies, or Tobacco Nation,
dwelt among the forests which bordered the eastern shores of
the fresh water sea to which they have left their name; while
the Neutral Nation, so called from their neutrality in the war
between the Hurons and the Five Nations, inhabited the
northern shores of Lake Erie, and even extended their eastern
flank across the strait of Niagara. The population of the
Hurons has been variously stated at from 10,000 to 30,000
souls, but probably did not exceed the former estimate. The
Franciscans and the Jesuits were early among them, and from
their descriptions it is apparent that, in legends, and
superstitions, manners and habits, religious observances and
social customs, they were closely assimilated to their
brethren of the Five Nations. … Like the Five Nations, the
Wyandots were in some measure an agricultural people; they
bartered the surplus products of their maize fields to
surrounding tribes, usually receiving fish in exchange; and
this traffic was so considerable that the Jesuits styled their
country the Granary of the Algonquins. Their prosperity was
rudely broken by the hostilities of the Five Nations; for
though the conflicting parties were not ill matched in point
of numbers, yet the united counsels and ferocious energies of
the confederacy swept all before them. In the year 1649, in
the depth of winter, their warriors invaded the country of the
Wyandots, stormed their largest villages, and involved all
within in indiscriminate slaughter. The survivors fled in
panic terror, and the whole nation was broken and dispersed.
Some found refuge among the French of Canada, where, at the
village of Lorette, near Quebec, their descendants still
remain; others were incorporated with their conquerors, while
others again fled northward, beyond Lake Superior, and sought
an asylum among the wastes which bordered on the north-eastern
lands of the Dahcotah. Driven back by those fierce bison-hunters,
they next established themselves about the outlet of Lake
Superior, and the shores and islands in the northern parts of
Lake Huron. Thence, about the year 1680, they descended to
Detroit, where they formed a permanent settlement, and where,
by their superior valor, capacity and address, they soon
acquired an ascendancy over the surrounding Algonquins. The
ruin of the Neutral Nation followed close on that of the
Wyandots, to whom, according to Jesuit authority, they bore an
exact resemblance in character and manners. The Senecas soon
found means to pick a quarrel with them; they were assailed by
all the strength of the insatiable confederacy, and within a
few years their destruction as a nation was complete."
_F. Parkman,
The Conspiracy of Pontiac,
chapter 1._
_F. Parkman,
The Jesuits in North America,
chapter 1._
"The first in this locality [namely, the western extremity of
the State of New York, on and around the site of the city of
Buffalo], of whom history makes mention, were the
Attiouandaronk, or Neutral Nation, called Kah-kwas by the
Senecas. They had their council-fires along the Niagara, but
principally on its western side. Their hunting grounds
extended from the Genesee nearly to the eastern shores of Lake
Huron, embracing a wide and important territory. … They are
first mentioned by Champlain during his winter visit to the
Hurons in 1615 … but he was unable to visit their territory.
… The peace which this peculiar people had so long
maintained with the Iroquois was destined to be broken. Some
jealousies and collisions occurred in 1647, which culminated
in open war in 1650. One of the villages of the Neutral
Nation, nearest the Senecas and not far from the site of our
city [Buffalo], was captured in the autumn of the latter year,
and another the ensuing spring. So well-directed and energetic
were the blows of the Iroquois, that the total destruction of
the Neutral Nation was speedily accomplished. … The
survivors were adopted by their conquerors. …. A long period
intervened between the destruction of the Neutral Nation and
the permanent occupation of their country by the
Senecas,"—which latter event occurred after the expulsion of
the Senecas from the Genesee Valley, by the expedition under
General Sullivan, in 1779, during the Revolutionary War. "They
never, as a nation, resumed their ancient seats along the
Genesee, but sought and found a new home on the secluded banks
and among the basswood forests of the Dó-syo-wa, or Buffalo
Creek, whence they had driven the Neutral Nation 130 years
before. … It has been assumed by many writers that the
Kah-kwas and Eries were identical. This is not so. The latter,
according to the most reliable authorities, lived south of the
western extremity of Lake Erie until they were destroyed by
the Iroquois in 1655. The Kah-kwas were exterminated by them
as early as 1651. On Coronelli's map, published in 1688, one
of the villages of the latter, called 'Kahouagoga, a destroyed
nation,' is located at or near the site of Buffalo."
_O. H. Marshall,
The Niagara Frontier,
pages 5-8, and foot-note_.
"Westward of the Neutrals, along the Southeastern shores of
Lake Erie, and stretching as far east as the Genesee river,
lay the country of the Eries, or, as they were denominated by
the Jesuits, 'La Nation Chat,' or Cat Nation, who were also a
member of the Huron-Iroquois family. The name of the beautiful
lake on whose margin our city [Buffalo] was cradled is their
most enduring monument, as Lake Huron is that of the generic
stock. They were called the Cat Nation either because that
interesting but mischievous animal, the raccoon, which the
holy fathers erroneously classed in the feline gens, was the
totem of their leading clan, or sept, or in consequence of the
abundance of that mammal within their territory."
_W. C. Bryant,
Interesting Archaeological Studies in and about Buffalo,
page 12._
{89}
Mr. Schoolcraft either identifies or confuses the Eries and
the Neutral Nation.
_H. R. Schoolcraft,
Sketch of the History of the Ancient Eries
(Information Respecting the Indian Tribes,
part 4. page 197)._
ALSO IN
_J. G. Shea,
Inquiries Respecting the lost Neutral Nation
(same, part 4, page 204)._-
_D. Wilson,
The Huron-Iroquois of Canada
(Transactions Royal Society of Canada, 1884)_.
_P. D. Clarke,
Origin and Traditional History of the Wyandottes._
_W. Ketchum,
History of Buffalo,
volume 1, chapter 1-2_.
_N. B. Craig.
The Olden Time,
volume 1, page 225_.
See below: IROQUOIS CONFEDERACY;
Also, CANADA (NEW FRANCE): A. D. 1608-1611; 1611-1616;
1634-1652; 1640-1700.
See, also, PONTIAC'S WAR.
For an account of "Lord Dunmore's War,"
See OHIO (VALLEY): A. D. 1774.
AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
Illinois and Miamis.
"Passing the country of the Lenape and the Shawanoes, and
descending the Ohio, the traveller would have found its valley
chiefly occupied by two nations, the Miamis or Twightwees, on
the Wabash and its branches, and the Illinois, who dwelt in
the neighborhood of the river to which they have given their
name, while portions of them extended beyond the Mississippi.
Though never subjugated, as were the Lenape, both the Miamis
and the Illinois were reduced to the last extremity by the
repeated attacks of the Five Nations; and the Illinois, in
particular, suffered so much by these and other wars, that the
population of ten or twelve thousand, ascribed to them by the
early French writers, had dwindled, during the first quarter
of the eighteenth century,
to a few small villages."
_F. Parkman,
Conspiracy of Pontiac,
chapter 1._
See, also, above: ALGONQUIAN FAMILY;
and below: SACS, &c.;
also CANADA (NEW FRANCE): A. D. 1669-1687.
AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
Incas, or Yncas.
See PERU.
AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
Innuits.
See above: ESKIMAUAN.
AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
Iowas.
See below: SIOUAN FAMILY, and PAWNEE (CADDOAN) FAMILY.
AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
Iroquois Confederacy.
Iroquoian Family.
"At the outset of the 16th Century, when the five tribes or
nations of the Iroquois confederacy first became known to
European explorers, they were found occupying the valleys and
uplands of northern New York, in that picturesque and fruitful
region which stretches westward from the head-waters of the
Hudson to the Genesee. The Mohawks, or Caniengas—as they
should properly be called—possessed the Mohawk River, and
covered Lake George and Lake Champlain with their flotillas of
large canoes, managed with the boldness and skill which,
hereditary in their descendants, make them still the best
boatmen of the North American rivers. West of the Caniengas
the Oneidas held the small river and lake which bear their
name. … West of the Oneidas, the imperious Onondagas, the
central and, in some respects, the ruling nation of the
League, possessed the two lakes of Onondaga and Skaneateles.
together with the common outlet of this inland lake system,
the Oswego River to its issue into Lake Ontario. Still
proceeding westward, the lines of trail and river led to the
long and winding stretch of Lake Cayuga, about which were
clustered the towns of the people who gave their name to the
lake; and beyond them, over the wide expanse of hills and
dales surrounding Lakes Seneca and Canandaigua, were scattered
the populous villages of the Senecas, more correctly called
Sonontowanas, or Mountaineers. Such were the names and abodes
of the allied nations, members of the far-famed Kanonsionni,
or League of United Households, who were destined to become
for a time the most notable and powerful community among the
native tribes of North America. The region which has been
described was not, however, the original seat of those nations.
They belonged to that linguistic family which is known to
ethnologists as the Huron-Iroquois stock. This stock comprised
the Hurons or Wyandots, the Attiwandaronks or Neutral Nation,
the Iroquois, the Eries, the Andastes or Conestogas, the
Tuscaroras and some smaller bands. The tribes of this family
occupied a long irregular area of inland territory, stretching
from Canada to North Carolina. The northern nations were all
clustered about the great lakes; the southern bands held the
fertile valleys bordering the head-waters of the rivers which
flowed from the Allegheny mountains. The languages of all
these tribes showed a close affinity. … The evidence of
language, so far as it has yet been examined, seems to show
that the Huron clans were the older members of the group; and
the clear and positive traditions of all the surviving tribes,
Hurons, Iroquois, and Tuscarora, point to the lower St.
Lawrence as the earliest known abode of their stock. Here the
first explorer, Cartier, found Indians of this stock at
Hochelaga and Stadaconé, now the sites of Montreal and Quebec.
… As their numbers increased, dissensions arose. The hive
swarmed, and band after band moved off to the west and south.
As they spread they encountered people of other stocks, with
whom they had frequent wars. Their most constant and most
dreaded enemies were the tribes of the Algonkin family, a
fierce and restless people, of northern origin, who everywhere
surrounded them. At one period, however, if the concurrent
traditions of both Iroquois and Algonkins can be believed,
these contending races for a time stayed their strife, and
united their forces in an alliance against a common and
formidable foe. This foe was the nation, or perhaps the
confederacy, of the Alligewi or Talligewi, the semi-civilized
'Mound-builders' of the Ohio Valley, who have left their name
to the Allegheny river and mountains, and whose vast
earthworks are still, after half-a-century of study, the
perplexity of archæologists. A desperate warfare ensued, which
lasted about a hundred years, and ended in the complete overthrow
and destruction, or expulsion, of the Alligewi. The survivors
of the conquered people fled southward. … The time which has
elapsed since the overthrow of the Alligewi is variously
estimated. The most probable conjecture places it at a period
about a thousand years before the present day. It was
apparently soon after their expulsion that the tribes of the
Huron-Iroquois and the Algonkin stocks scattered themselves
over the wide region south of the Great Lakes, thus left open
to their occupancy."
_H. Hale,
Introduction to Iroquois Book of Rites._
{90}
After the coming of the Europeans into the New World, the
French were the first to be involved in hostilities with the
Iroquois, and their early wars with them produced a hatred
which could never be extinguished. Hence the English were able
to win the alliance of the Five Nations, when they struggled
with France for the mastery of the North American continent,
and they owed their victory to that alliance, probably, more
than to any other single cause. England still retained the
faithful friendship and alliance of the Iroquois when she came
to a struggle with her own colonies, and all the tribes except
the Oneidas were in arms against the Americans in the
Revolutionary War. "With the restoration of peace, the
political transaction of the League were substantially closed.
This was, in effect, the termination of their political
existence. The jurisdiction of the United States was extended
over their ancient territories, and from that time forth they
became dependent nations. During the progress of the
Revolution, the Mohawks abandoned their country and removed to
Canada, finally establishing themselves partly upon Grand
River, in the Niagara peninsula, and partly near Kingston,
where they now reside upon two reservations secured to them by
the British government. … The policy of the State of New York
[toward the Iroquois nations] was ever just and humane.
Although their country, with the exception of that of the
Oneidas, might have been considered as forfeited by the event
of the Revolution, yet the government never enforced the
rights of conquest, but extinguished the Indian title to the
country by purchase, and treaty stipulations. A portion of the
Oneida nation [who had sold their lands to the State, from
time to time, excepting one small reservation] emigrated to a
reservation on the river Thames in Canada, where about 400 of
them now [1851] reside. Another and a larger band removed to
Green Bay, in Wisconsin, where they still make their homes to
the number of 700. But a small part of the nation have
remained around the seat of their ancient council-fire …
near Oneida Castle, in the county of Oneida." The Onondagas
"still retain their beautiful and secluded valley of Onondaga,
with sufficient territory for their comfortable maintenance.
About 150 Onondagas now reside with the Senecas; another party
are established on Grand River, in Canada, and a few have
removed to the west. … In the brief space of twelve years
after the first house of the white man was erected in Cayuga
county (1789) the whole nation [of the Cayugas] was uprooted
and gone. In 1795, they ceded, by treaty, all their lands to
the State, with the exception of one reservation, which they
finally abandoned about the year 1800. A portion of them
removed to Green Bay, another to Grand River, and still
another, and a much larger band, settled at Sandusky, in Ohio,
from whence they were removed by government, a few years
since, into the Indian territory, west of the Mississippi.
About 120 still reside among the Senecas, in western New York.
… The Tuscaroras, after removing from the Oneida territory,
finally located near the Niagara river, in the vicinity of
Lewiston, on a tract given to them by the Senecas. … The
residue of the Senecas are now shut up within three small
reservations, the Tonawanda, the Cattaraugus and the Allegany,
which, united, would not cover the area of one of the lesser
counties of the State."
_L. H. Morgan,
The League of the Iroquois,
book 1, chapter 1._
"The Indians of the State of New York number about 5,000, and
occupy lands to the estimated extent of 87,()77 acres. With
few exceptions, these people are the direct descendants of the
native Indians, who once possessed and controlled the soil of
the entire State."
_Report of Special Committee to Investigate the Indian
Problem of the State of New York 1889._
_H. R. Schoolcraft,
Notes on the Iroquois._
_F. Parkman,
The Conspiracy of Pontiac,
chapter 1._
_C. Colden,
History of the Five Indian Nations._
_J. Fiske,
Discovery of America,
chapter 1._
In 1715 the Five Nations of the Iroquois Confederacy became
Six Nations, by the admission of the Tuscaroras, from North
Carolina.
See below: IROQUOIS TRIBES OF THE SOUTH.
On the relationship between the Iroquois and the Cherokees,
See above: CHEROKEES.
AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
Iroquois Confederacy.
Their Name.
"The origin and proper meaning of the word Iroquois are
doubtful. All that can be said with certainty is that the
explanation given by Charlevoix cannot possibly be correct.
The name of Iroquois, he says, is purely French, and has been
formed from the term 'hiro,' 'I have spoken,' a word by which
these Indians close all their speeches, and 'kouê,' which,
when long drawn out, is a cry of sorrow, and when briefly
uttered is an exclamation of joy. … But … Champlain had
learned the name from his Indian allies before he or any other
Frenchman, so far as is known, had ever seen an Iroquois. It
is probable that the origin of the word is to be sought in the
Huron language; yet, as this is similar to the Iroquois
tongue, an attempt may be made to find a solution in the
latter. According to Bruyas, the word 'garokwa' meant a pipe,
and also a piece of tobacco,—and, in its verbal form, to
smoke. This word is found, somewhat disguised by aspirates, in
the Book of Rites,—denighroghkwayen,—'let us two smoke
together.' … In the indeterminate form the verb becomes
'ierokwa,' which is certainly very near to Iroquois. It might
be rendered 'they who smoke,' or 'they who use tobacco,' or,
briefly, 'the Tobacco People.' This name, the Tobacco Nation
('Nation du Petun') was given by the French, and probably also
by the Algonkins, to one of the Huron tribes, the Tionontates,
noted for the excellent tobacco which they raised and sold.
The Iroquois were equally well known for their cultivation of
this plant, of which they had a choice variety."
_H. Hale,
Iroquois Book of Rites,
appendix, note A._
Iroquois Confederacy.
Their conquests and wide dominion.
"The project of a League [among the 'Five Nations' of the
Iroquois] originated with the Onondagas, among whom it was
first suggested, as a means to enable them more effectually to
resist the pressure of contiguous nations. The epoch of its
establishment cannot now be decisively ascertained; although
the circumstances attending its formation are still preserved
by tradition with great minuteness. These traditions all refer
to the northern shore of the Onondaga lake, as the place where
the Iroquois chiefs assembled in general congress, to agree
upon the terms and principles of the compact. … After the
formation of the League, the Iroquois rose rapidly in power
and influence. … With the first consciousness of rising
power, they turned their long-cherished resentment upon the
Adirondacks, who had oppressed them in their infancy as a
nation, and had expelled them from their country, in the first
struggle for the ascendancy.
{91}
… At the era of French discovery (1535), the latter nation
[the Adirondacks] appear to have been dispossessed of their
original country, and driven down the St. Lawrence as far as
Quebec. … A new era commenced with the Iroquois upon the
establishment of the Dutch trading-post at Orange, now Albany,
in 1615. … Friendly relations were established between the
Iroquois and the Dutch, which continued without interruption
until the latter surrendered their possessions upon the Hudson
to the English in 1664. During this period a trade sprang up
between them in furs, which the Iroquois exchanged for
European fabrics, but more especially for fire-arms, in the
use of which they were afterwards destined to become so
expert. The English, in turn, cultivated the same relations of
friendship. … With the possession of fire-arms commenced not
only the rapid elevation, but absolute supremacy of the
Iroquois over other Indian nations. In 1643, they expelled the
Neuter Nation from the Niagara peninsula and established a
permanent settlement at the mouth of that river. They nearly
exterminated, in 1653, the Eries, who occupied the south side
of Lake Erie, and from thence east to the Genesee, and thus
possessed themselves of the whole area of western New York,
and the northern part of Ohio. About the year 1670, after they
had finally completed the dispersion and subjugation of the
Adirondacks and Hurons, they acquired possession of the whole
country between lakes Huron, Erie and Ontario, and of the
north bank of the St. Lawrence, to the mouth of the Ottawa
river, near Montreal. … They also made constant inroads upon
the New England Indians. … In 1680, the Senecas with 600
warriors invaded the country of the Illinois, upon the borders
of the Mississippi, while La Salle was among the latter. …
At various times, both before and after this period, the
Iroquois turned their warfare against the Cherokees upon the
Tennessee, and the Catawbas in South Carolina. … For about a
century, from the year 1600 to the year 1700, the Iroquois
were involved in an almost uninterrupted warfare. At the close
of this period, they had subdued and held in nominal
subjection all the principal Indian nations occupying the
territories which are now embraced in the states of New York,
Delaware, Maryland, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, the northern and
western parts of Virginia, Ohio, Kentucky, Northern Tennessee,
Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, a portion of the New England
States, and the principal part of Upper Canada. Over these
nations, the haughty and imperious Iroquois exercised a
constant supervision. If any of them became involved in
domestic difficulties, a delegation of chiefs went among them
and restored tranquillity, prescribing at the same time their
future conduct."
_L. H. Morgan,
League of the Iroquois,
book 1, chapter 1._
"Their [the Iroquois's] war-parties roamed over half America,
and their name was a terror from the Atlantic to the
Mississippi; but when we ask the numerical strength of the
dreaded confederacy, when we discover that, in the days of
their greatest triumphs, their united cantons could not have
mustered 4,000 warriors, we stand amazed at the folly and
dissension which left so vast a region the prey of a handful
of bold marauders. Of the cities and villages now so thickly
scattered over the lost domain of the Iroquois, a single one
might boast a more numerous population than all the five
united tribes."
_F. Parkman,
The Conspiracy of Pontiac,
chapter 1._
AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
Iroquois Confederacy: A. D. 1608-1700.
Their wars with the French.
See CANADA (NEW FRANCE): A. D. 1608-1611; 1611-1616;
1634-1652; 1640-1700; 1696.
AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
Iroquois Confederacy: A. D. 1648-1649.
Their destruction of the Hurons and the Jesuit Missions.
See CANADA (NEW FRANCE): A. D. 1634-1652;
also, above, HURONS.
AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
Iroquois Confederacy: A. D. 1684-1744.
Surrenders and conveyances to the English.
See
NEW YORK: A. D. 1684, and 1726;
VIRGINIA: A. D. 1744;
OHIO (VALLEY): A. D. 1748-1754;
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1765-1768.
AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
Iroquois Confederacy: A. D. 1778-1779.
Their part in the War of the American Revolution.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1778 (JUNE-NOVEMBER)
and (JULY); and 1779 (AUGUST-SEPTEMBER).
AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
Iroquois Tribes of the South.
See Note, Appendix E.
"The southern Iroquois tribes occupied Chowan River and its
tributary streams. They were bounded on the east by the most
southerly Lenape tribes, who were in possession of the low
country along the sea shores, and those of Albemarle and
Pamlico Sounds. Towards the south and the west they extended
beyond the river Neuse. They appear to have been known in
Virginia, in early times, under the name of Monacans, as far
north as James River. … Lawson, in his account of the North
Carolina Indians, enumerates the Chowans, the Meherrins, and
the Nottoways, as having together 95 warriors in the year
1708. But the Meherrins or Tuteloes and the Nottoways
inhabited respectively the two rivers of that name, and were
principally seated in Virginia. We have but indistinct notices
of the Tuteloes. … It appears by Beverly that the Nottoways
had preserved their independence and their numbers later than
the Powhatans, and that, at the end of the 17th century, they
had still 130 warriors. They do not appear to have migrated
from their original seats in a body. In the year 1820, they
are said to have been reduced to 27 souls, and were still in
possession of 7,000 acres in Southampton county, Virginia,
which had been at an early date reserved for them. … The
Tuscaroras were by far the most powerful nation in North
Carolina, and occupied all the residue of the territory in
that colony, which has been described as inhabited by Iroquois
tribes. Their principal seats in 1708 were on the Neuse and
the Taw or Tar rivers, and according to Lawson they had 1,200
warriors in fifteen towns." In 1711 the Tuscaroras attacked
the English colonists, massacring 130 in a single day, and a
fierce war ensued. "In the autumn of 1712. all the inhabitants
south and southwest of Chowan River were obliged to live in
forts; and the Tuscaroras expected assistance from the Five
Nations. This could not have been given without involving the
confederacy in a war with Great Britain; and the Tuscaroras
were left to their own resources. A force, consisting chiefly
of southern Indians under the command of Colonel Moore, was
again sent by the government of South Carolina to assist the
northern Colonies. He besieged and took a fort of the
Tuscaroras. … Of 800 prisoners 600 were given up to the
Southern Indians, who carried them to South Carolina to sell
them as slaves.
{92}
The Eastern Tuscaroras, whose principal town was on
the Taw, twenty miles above Washington, immediately made
peace, and a portion was settled a few years after north of
the Roanoke, near Windsor, where they continued till the year
1803. But the great body of the nation removed in 1714-15 to
the Five Nations, was received as the Sixth, and has since
shared their fate."
_A. Gallatin,
Synopsis of the Indian Tribes
(Archæologia Americana, volume 2),
introduction, section 2._
ALSO IN
_J. W. Moore,
History of North Carolina,
volume 1, chapter 3._
See, also, above: IROQUOIS CONFEDERACY.
AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
Itocos.
See above: CHIBCHAS.
AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
Itonamos, or Itonomos.
See above: ANDESIANS;
also BOLIVIA: ABORIGINAL INHABITANTS.
AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
Jivara, or Jivaro.
See above: ANDESIANS.
AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
Kah-kwas.
See above: HURONS, &c.
AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
Kalapooian Family.
"Under this family name Scouler places two tribes, the
Kalapooian, inhabiting 'the fertile Willamat plains' and the
Yamkallie, who live 'more in the interior, towards the sources
of the Willamat River.'… The tribes of the Kalapooian family
inhabited the valley of Willamette River, Oregon, above the
falls."
_J. W. Powell,
Seventh Annual Report, Bureau of Ethnology,
page 81._
AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
Kanawhas, or Ganawese.
See above: ALGONQUIAN FAMILY.
AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
Kansas, or Kaws.
See below: SIOUAN.
AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
Kapohn.
See above: CARIBS AND THEIR KINDRED.
AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
Karankawan Family.
"The Karankawa formerly dwelt upon the Texan coast, according
to Sibley, upon an island or peninsula in the Bay of St.
Bernard (Matagorda Bay). … In 1884 Mr. Gatschet found a
Tonkawe at Fort Griffin, Texas, who claimed to have formerly
lived among the Karankawa. From him a vocabulary of
twenty-five terms was obtained, which was all of the language
he remembered. The vocabulary … such as it is, represents
all of the language that is extant. Judged by this vocabulary
the language seems to be distinct not only from the Attakapa
but from all others."
_J. W. Powell,
Seventh Annual Report, Bureau of Ethnology,
page 82._
AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
Karoks, or Cahrocs.
See below: MODOCS.
AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
Kaskaskias.
See above: ALGONQUIAN FAMILY.
AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
Kaus, or Kwokwoos.
See below: KUSAN FAMILY.
AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
Kaws, or Kansas.
See below: SIOUAN.
AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
Kenai, or Blood Indians.
See above: BLACKFEET.
See Note, Appendix E.
AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
Keresan Family.
"The … pueblos of Keresan stock … are situated in New
Mexico on the upper Rio Grande, on several of its small
western affluents, and on the Jemez and San Jose, which also
are tributaries of the Rio Grande."
_J. W. Powell,
Seventh Annual Report, Bureau of Ethnology,
page 83_.
See PUEBLO.
AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
Kikapoos.
See above: ALGONQUIAN FAMILY,
and below: SACS, &c., and PAWNEE (CADDOAN) FAMILY.
AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
Kiowan Family.
"Derivation: From the Kiowa word Kó-i, plural Kó-igu, meaning
'Káyowe man.' The Comanche term Káyowe means 'rat.' The author
who first formally separated this family appears to have been
Turner. … Turner, upon the strength of a vocabulary
furnished by Lieutenant Whipple, dissents from the opinion
expressed by Pike and others to the effect that the language
is of the same stock as the Comanche, and, while admitting
that its relationship to Comanche is greater than to any other
family, thinks that the likeness is merely the result of long
intercommunication. His opinion that it is entirely distinct
from any other language has been indorsed by Buschmann and
other authorities. The family is represented by the Kiowa
tribe. So intimately associated with the Comanches have the
Kiowa been since known to history that it is not easy to
determine their pristine home. … Pope definitely locates the
Kiowa in the valley of the Upper Arkansas, and of its
tributary, the Purgatory (Las Animas) River. This is in
substantial accord with the statements of other writers of
about the same period. Schermerhorn (1812) places the Kiowa on
the heads of the Arkansas and Platte. Earlier still they
appear upon the headwaters of the Platte."-
_J. W. Powell,
Seventh Annual Report, Bureau of Ethnology,
page 84._
AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
Kiriri, Cuyriri.
See above: GUCK OR COCO GROUP.
AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
Kitunahan Family.
"This family was based upon a tribe variously termed Kitunaha,
Kutenay, Cootenai, or Flatbow, living on the Kootenay River,
a branch of the Columbia in Oregon."
_J. W. Powell, Seventh Annual Report, Bureau of Ethnology,
page 85._
AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
Klamaths.
See below: MODOCS.
AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
Koluschan Family.
"Derivation: From the Aleut word kolosh, or more properly,
kaluga, meaning 'dish,' the allusion being to the dishshaped
lip ornaments. This family was based by Gallatin upon the
Koluschen tribe (the Tshinkitani of Marchand), 'who inhabit
the islands and the [Pacific] coast from the 60th to the 55th
degree of north latitude.'"
_J. W. Powell,
Seventh Annual Report, Bureau of Ethnology,
page 86._
AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
Kulanapan Family.
"The main territory of the Kulanapan family is bounded on the
west by the Pacific Ocean, on the east by the Yukian and
Copohan territories, on the north by the watershed of the
Russian River, and on the south by a line drawn from Bodega
Head to the southwest corner of the Yukian territory, near
Santa Rosa, Sonoma County, California."
_J. W. Powell,
Seventh Annual Report, Bureau of Ethnology,
page 88._
AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
Kusan Family:
"The 'Kaus or Kwokwoos' tribe is merely mentioned by Hale as
living on a river of the same name between the Umqua and the
Clamet."
_J. W. Powell,
Seventh Annual Report, Bureau of Ethnology,
page 89._
See Note, Appendix E.
AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
Kwokwoos.
See above: KUSAN FAMILY.
AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
Lenape.
See above: DELAWARES.
AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
Machicuis.
See below: PAMPAS TRIBES.
AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
Macushi.
See above: CARIBS AND THEIR KINDRED.
AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
Manaos.
See above: GUCK OR COCO GROUP.
AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
Mandans, or Mandanes.
See below: SIOUAN FAMILY.
AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
Manhattans.
See above: ALGONQUIAN FAMILY,
and, also, MANHATTAN ISLAND.
AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
Manioto, or Mayno.
See above: ANDESIANS.
AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
Mapochins.
See CHILE: A. D. 1450-1724.
AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
Maranha.
See above: GUCK OR Coco GROUP.
AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
Maricopas.
See below: PUEBLOS.
{93}
AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
Mariposan Family.
"Derivation: A Spanish word meaning 'butterfly,' applied to a
county in California and subsequently taken for the family
name. Latham mentions the remnants of three distinct bands of
the Coconoon, each with its own language, in the north of
Mariposa County. These are classed together under the above
name. More recently the tribes speaking languages allied to
the Coconun have been treated of under the family name Yokut.
As, however, the stock was established by Latham on a sound
basis, his name is here restored."
_J. W. Powell,
Seventh Annual Report, Bureau of Ethnology,
page 90._
AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
Mascoutins, or Mascontens.
See below: SACS, &c.
AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
Massachusetts.
See above: ALGONQUIAN FAMILY.
AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
Mataguayas.
See BOLIVIA: ABORIGINAL INHABITANTS.
AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
Mayas.
"In his second voyage, Columbus heard vague rumors of a
mainland westward from Jamaica and Cuba, at a distance of ten
days' journey in a canoe. … During his fourth voyage
(1503-4), when he was exploring the Gulf southwest from Cuba,
he picked up a canoe laden with cotton clothing variously
dyed. The natives in it gave him to understand that they were
merchants, and came from a land called Maia. This is the first
mention in history of the territory now called Yucatan, and of
the race of the Mayas; for although a province of similar name
was found in the western extremity of the island of Cuba, the
similarity was accidental, as the evidence is conclusive that
no colony of the Mayas was found on the Antilles. … Maya was
the patrial name of the natives of Yucatan. It was the proper
name of the northern portion of the peninsula. No single
province bore it at the date of the Conquest, and probably it
had been handed down as a generic term from the period, about
a century before, when this whole district was united under
one government. … Whatever the primitive meaning and first
application of the name Maya, it is now used to signify
specifically the aborigines of Yucatan. In a more extended
sense, in the expression 'the Maya family,' it is understood
to embrace all tribes, wherever found, who speak related
dialects presumably derived from the same ancient stock as the
Maya proper. … The total number of Indians of pure blood
speaking the Maya proper may be estimated as nearly or quite
200,000, most of them in the political limits of the
department of Yucatan; to these should be added nearly 100,000
of mixed blood, or of European descent, who use the tongue in
daily life. For it forms one of the rare examples of American
languages possessing vitality enough not only to maintain its
ground, but actually to force itself on European settlers and
supplant their native speech. … The Mayas did not claim to
be autochthones. Their legends referred to their arrival by
the sea from the East, in remote times, under the leadership
of Itzamna, their hero-god, and also to a less numerous
immigration from the West, which was connected with the
history of another hero-god, Kukul Càn. The first of these
appears to be wholly mythical. … The second tradition
deserves more attention from the historian. … It cannot be
denied that the Mayas, the Kiches [or Quiches] and the
Cakchiquels, in their most venerable traditions, claimed to
have migrated from the north or west from some part of the
present country of Mexico. These traditions receive additional
importance from the presence on the shores of the Mexican
Gulf, on the waters of the river Panuco, north of Vera Cruz,
of a prominent branch of the Maya family, the Huastecs. The
idea suggests itself that these were the rear-guard of a great
migration of the Maya family from the north toward the south.
Support is given to this by their dialect, which is most
closely akin to that of the Tzendals of Tabasco, the nearest
Maya race to the south of them, and also by very ancient
traditions of the Aztecs. It is noteworthy that these two
partially civilized races, the Mayas and the Aztecs, though
differing radically in language, had legends which claimed a
community of origin in some indefinitely remote past. We find
these on the Maya side narrated in the sacred book of the
Kiches, the Popol Vuh, in the Cakchiquel 'Records of Tecpan
Atillan,' and in various pure Maya sources. … The annals of
the Aztecs contain frequent allusions to the Huastecs."
_D. G. Brinton,
The Maya Chronicles,
introduction._
"Closely enveloped in the dense forests of Chiapas, Gautemala,
Yucatan, and Honduras, the ruins of several ancient cities
have been discovered, which are far superior in extent and
magnificence to any seen in Aztec territory, and of which a
detailed description may be found in the fourth volume of this
work. Most of these cities were abandoned and more or less
unknown at the time of the [Spanish] Conquest. They bear
hieroglyphic inscriptions apparently identical in character;
in other respects they resemble each other more than they
resemble the Aztec ruins—or even other and apparently later
works in Guatemala and Honduras. All these remains bear
evident marks of great antiquity. … I deem the grounds
sufficient … for accepting this Central American
civilization of the past as a fact, referring it not to an
extinct ancient race, but to the direct ancestors of the
peoples still occupying the country with the Spaniards, and
applying to it the name Maya as that of the language which has
claims as strong as any to be considered the mother tongue of
the linguistic family mentioned. … There are no data by
which to fix the period of the original Maya empire, or its
downfall or breaking up into rival factions by civil and
foreign wars. The cities of Yucatan, as is clearly shown by
Mr. Stephens, were, many of them, occupied by the descendants
of the builders down to the conquest, and contain some
remnants of wood-work still in good preservation, although
some of the structures appear to be built on the ruins of
others of a somewhat different type. Palenque and Copan, on
the contrary, have no traces of wood or other perishable
material, and were uninhabited and probably unknown in the
16th century. The loss of the key to what must have been an
advanced system of hieroglyphics, while the spoken language
survived, is also an indication of great antiquity, confirmed
by the fact that the Quiché structures of Guatemala differed
materially from those of the more ancient epoch. It is not
likely that the Maya empire in its integrity continued later
than the 3d or 4th century, although its cities may have been
inhabited much later, and I should fix the epoch of its
highest power at a date preceding rather than following the
Christian era."
_H. H. Bancroft,
Native Races of the Pacific States,
volume 2, chapter 2;
volume 4, chapters 3-6;
volume 5, chapters 11-13._
{94}
ALSO IN
_Marquis de Nadaillac,
Prehistoric America,
chapters 6-7._
_J. L. Stephens,
Incidents of Travel in Yucatan; and
Travel in Central America, &c._
_B. M. Norman,
Rambles in Yucatan_.
_D. Charnay,
Ancient Cities of the New World_.
See, also, MEXICO: ANCIENT, and AZTEC AND AND MAYA
PICTURE-WRITING.
AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
Mayoruna, or Barbudo.
See above: ANDESIANS.
AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
Menominees.
See above: ALGONQUIAN FAMILY, and SACS, &c.
AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
Metöacs.
See above: ALGONQUIAN FAMILY.
AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
Miamis, or Twightwees.
See above: ALGONQUIAN FAMILY, ILLINOIS, and SACS, &c.
AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
Micmacs.
See above: ALGONQUIAN FAMILY.
AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
Mingoes.
"The name of Mingo, or Mengwe, by which the Iroquois were
known to the Delawares and the other southern Algonkins, is
said to be a contraction of the Lenape word 'Mahongwi,'
meaning the 'People of the Springs.' The Iroquois possessed
the head-waters of the rivers which flowed through the country
of the Delawares."
_H. Hale,
The Iroquois Book of Rites,
appendix, note. A._
AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
Minneconjou.
See below: SIOUAN FAMILY.
AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
Minnetarees.
See above: HIDATSA;
and below: SIOUAN FAMILY.
See Note, Appendix E. 9.
AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
Minquas.
See below: SUSQUEHANNAS;
and above: ALGONQUIAN FAMILY.
AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
Minsis, Munsees, or Minisinks.
See above: DELAWARES, and ALGONQUIAN FAMILY.
AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
Miranha.
See above: GUCK OR COCO GROUP.
AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
Missouris.
See below: SIOUAN FAMILY.
AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
Mixes.
See below: ZAPOTECS, ETC.
AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
Mixtecs.
See below: ZAPOTECS, ETC.
AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
Mocovis.
See below: PAMPAS TRIBES.
AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
Modocs (Klamaths) and their California and Oregon neighbors.
See Note, Appendix E.
"The principal tribes occupying this region [of Northern
California from Rogue River on the north to the Eel River,
south] are the Klamaths, who live on the head waters of the
river and on the shores of the lake of that name; the Modocs,
on Lower Klamath Lake and along Lost River; the Shastas, to
the south-west of the Lakes; the Pitt River Indians; the
Euroes, on the Klamath River between Weitspek and the coast;
the Cahrocs, on the Klamath River from a short distance above
the junction of the Trinity to the Klamath Mountains; the
Hoopahs [or Hupas, a tribe of the Athapascan Family] in Hoopah
Valley on the Trinity near its junction with the Klamath;
numerous tribes on the coast from Eel River and Humboldt Bay
north, such as the Weeyots, Wallies, Tolewahs, etc., and the
Rogue River Indians, on and about the river of that name. The
Northern Californians are in every way superior to the central
and southern tribes."
_H. Bancroft,
The Native Races of the Pacific States,
volume 1, chapter 4._
"On the Klamath there live three distinct tribes, called the
Yú-rok, Ká-rok, and Mó-dok, which names are said to mean,
respectively, 'down the river,' 'up the river,' and 'head of
the river.' … The Karok are probably the finest tribe in
California. … Hoopa Valley, on the Lower Trinity, is the
home of [the Hú-pá]. Next after the Ká-rok they are the finest
race in all that region, and they even excel them in their
statecraft, and in the singular influence, or perhaps brute
force, which they exercise over the vicinal tribes. They are
the Romans of Northern California in their valor and their
wide-reaching dominions; they are the French in the extended
diffusion of their language." The Modoks, "on the whole …
are rather a cloddish, indolent, ordinarily good-natured race,
but treacherous at bottom, sullen when angered, notorious for
keeping Punic faith. But their bravery nobody can impeach or
deny; their heroic and long defense of their stronghold
against the appliances of modern civilized warfare, including
that arm so awful to savages—the artillery—was almost the
only feature that lent respectability to their wretched
tragedy of the Lava Beds [1873]."
_S. Powers,
Tribes of California
(Contributions to North American Ethnology, volume 3),
chapter 1, 7, and 27._
"The home of the Klamath tribe of southwestern Oregon lies
upon the eastern slope of the southern extremity of the
Cascade Range, and very nearly coincides with what we may call
the head waters of the Klamath River, the main course of which
lies in Northern California. … The main seat of the Modoc
people was the valley of Lost River, the shores of Tule and of
Little Klamath Lake. … The two main bodies forming the Klamath
people are (1) the Klamath Lake Indians; (2) the Modoc
Indians. The Klamath Lake Indians number more than twice as
many as the Modoc Indians. They speak the northern dialect and
form the northern chieftaincy. … The Klamath people possess
no historic traditions going further back in time than a
century, for the simple reason that there was a strict law
prohibiting the mention of the person or acts of a deceased
individual by using his name. … Our present knowledge does
not allow us to connect the Klamath language genealogically
with any of the other languages compared, but … it stands as
a linguistic family for itself."
_A. S. Gatschet,
The Klamath Indians
(Contributions to North American Ethnology,
volume 2, part 1)._
In Major Powell's linguistic classification, the Klamath and
Modoc dialects are embraced in a family called the Lutuamian
Family, derived from a Pit River word signifying "lake;" the
Yuroks in a family called the Weitspekan; and the Pit River
Indian dialects are provisionally set apart in a distinct
family named the Palaihnihan Family.
_J. W. Powell,
Seventh Annual Report, Bureau of Ethnology,
pages 89 and 97._
AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
Mohaves (Mojaves).
See above: APACHE GROUP.
AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
Mohawks.
See above: IROQUOIS CONFEDERACY.
AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
Mohegans, or Mahicans.
See above: ALGONQUIAN FAMILY;
and below: STOCKBRIDGE INDIANS;
also, NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1637.
Montagnais.
See above: ALGONQUIAN FAMILY;
and ATHAPASCAN FAMILY.
AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
Montauks.
See above: ALGONQUIAN FAMILY.
AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
Moquelumnan Family.
"Derivation: From the river and hill of the same name in
Calaveras County, California. … It was not until 1856 that
the distinctness of the linguistic family was fully set forth
by Latham. Under the head of Moquelumne, this author gathers
several vocabularies representing different languages and
dialects of the same stock. These are the Talatui of Hale, the
Tuolumne from Schoolcraft, the Sonoma dialects as represented
by the Tshokoyem vocabulary, the Chocuyem and Youkiousme
paternosters, and the Olamentke of Kostromitonov in Bäer's
Beiträge. … The Moquelumnan family occupies the territory
bounded on the north by the Cosumne River, on the south by the
Fresno River, on the east by the Sierra Nevada, and on the
west by the San Joaquin River, with the exception of a strip
on the east bank occupied by the Cholovone. A part of this
family occupies also a territory bounded on the south by San
Francisco Bay."
_J. W. Powell,
Seventh Annual Report, Bureau of Ethnology,
pages 92-93._
{95}
AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
Moquis.
See below: PUEBLOS.
AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
Morona.
See above: ANDESIANS.
AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
Moxos, or Mojos.
See above: ANDESIANS;
also, BOLIVIA: ABORIGINAL INHABITANTS.
AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
Mundrucu.
See below: TUPI.
AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
Munsees.
See above: DELAWARES, and ALGONQUIAN FAMILY;
also MANHATTAN ISLAND.
AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
Mura.
See above: GUCK OR Coco GROUP.
AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
Muskhogean, or Maskoki Family.
"Among the various nationalities of the Gulf territories the
Maskoki family of tribes occupied a central and commanding
position. Not only the large extent of territory held by them,
but also their numbers, their prowess in war, and a certain
degree of mental culture and self-esteem made of the Maskoki
one of the most important groups in Indian history. From their
ethnologic condition of later times, we infer that these
tribes have extended for many centuries back in time from the
Atlantic to the Mississippi and beyond that river, and from
the Apalachian ridge to the Gulf of Mexico. With short
intermissions they kept up warfare with all the circumjacent
Indian communities, and also among each other. … The
irresolute and egotistic policy of these tribes often caused
serious difficulties to the government of the English and
French colonies, and some of them constantly wavered in their
adhesion between the French and the English cause. The
American government overcame their opposition easily whenever
a conflict presented itself (the Seminole War forms an
exception), because, like all the Indians, they never knew how
to unite against a common foe. The two main branches of the
stock, the Creek and the Cha'hta [or Choctaw] Indians, were
constantly at war, and the remembrance of their deadly
conflicts has now passed to their descendants in the form of
folk lore. … The only characteristic by which a subdivision
of the family can be attempted, is that of language. Following
their ancient topographic location from east to west, we
obtain the following synopsis: First branch, or Maskoki
proper: The Creek, Maskokálgi or Maskoki proper, settled on
Coosa, Tallapoosa, Upper and Middle Chatahuchi rivers. From
these branched off by segmentation the Creek portion of the
Seminoles, of the Yámassi and of the little Yamacraw
community. Second, or Apalachian branch: This southeastern
division, which may be called also 'a parte potiori' the
Hitchiti connection, anciently comprised the tribes on the
Lower Chatahuchi river, and, east from there, the extinct
Apalachi, the Mikasuki, and the Hitchiti portion of the
Seminoles, Yámassi and Yamacraws. Third, or Alibamu branch,
comprised the Alibamu villages on the river of that name; to
them belonged the Koassáti and Witumka on Coosa river, its
northern affluent. Fourth, Western or Cha'hta [Choctaw]
branch: From the main people, the Cha'hta, settled in the
middle portions of the State of Mississippi, the Chicasa,
Pascagoula, Biloxi, Huma, and other tribes once became
separated through segmentation. The strongest evidence for a
community of origin of the Maskoki tribes is furnished by the
fact that their dialects belong to one linguistic family. …
Maskóki, Maskógi, isti Maskóki, designates a single person of
the Creek tribe, and forms, as a collective plural,
Maskokálgi, the Creek community, the Creek people, the Creek
Indians. English authors write this name Muscogee, Muskhogee,
and its plural Muscogulgee. The first syllable, as pronounced
by the Creek Indians, contains a clear short a. … The accent
is usually laid on the middle syllable: Maskóki, Maskógi. None
of the tribes are able to explain the name from their own
language. … Why did the English colonists call them Creek
Indians? Because, when the English traders entered the Maskoki
country from Charleston or Savannah, they had to cross a
number of streams or creeks, especially between the Chatahuchi
and Savannah rivers. Gallatin thought it probable that the
inhabitants of the country adjacent to Savannah river were
called Creeks from an early time. … In the southern part of
the Cha'hta territory several tribes, represented to be of
Cha'hta lineage, appear as distinct from the main body, and
are always mentioned separately. The French colonists, in
whose annals they figure extensively, call them Mobilians,
Tohomes, Pascogoulas, Biloxis, Mougoulachas, Bayogoulas and
Humas (Oumas). They have all disappeared in our epoch, with
the exception of the Biloxi [Major Powell, in the Seventh
Annual Report of the Bureau of Ethnology, places the Biloxi in
the Siouan Family], [See Note, Appendix E.] of whom scattered
remnants live in the forests of Louisiana, south of the Red
River."
_A. S. Gatschet,
A Migration Legend of the Creek Indians,
volume 1, part 1._
"The Uchees and the Natches, who are both incorporated in the
[Muskhogee or Creek] confederacy, speak two distinct languages
altogether different from the Muskhogee. The Natches, a
residue of the well-known nation of that name, came from the
banks of the Mississippi, and joined the Creeks less than one
hundred years ago. The original seats of the Uchees were east
of the Coosa and probably of the Chatahoochee; and they
consider themselves as the most ancient inhabitants of the
country. They may have been the same nation which is called
Apalaches in the accounts of De Soto's expedition. … The
four great Southern nations, according to the estimates of the
War Department … consist now [1836] of 67,000 souls, viz.:
The Cherokees, 15,000; the Choctaws (18,500), the Chicasas
(5,500), 24,000; the Muskhogees, Seminoles, and Hitchittees,
26,000; the Uchees, Alibamons, Coosadas, and Natches, 2,000.
The territory west of the Mississippi, given or offered to
them by the United States in exchange for their lands east of
that river, contains 40,000,000 acres, exclusively of
what may be allotted to the Chicasas."
_A. Gallatin,
Synopsis of the Indian Tribes
(Archæologia Americana, volume 2), section 3._
See below: SEMINOLES.
AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
Musquito, or Mosquito Indians.
"That portion of Honduras known as the Musquito Coast derived
its name, not from the abundance of those troublesome insects,
but from a native tribe who at the discovery occupied the
shore near Blewfield Lagoon. They are an intelligent people,
short in stature, unusually dark in color, with finely cut
features, and small straight noses—not at all negroid,
except where there has been an admixture of blood. They number
about 6,000, many of whom have been partly civilized by the
efforts of missionaries, who have reduced the language to
writing and published in it a number of works. The Tunglas are
one of the sub-tribes of the Musquitos."
_D. G. Brinton,
The American Race,
page 162._
See, also, NICARAGUA: A. D., 1850.
{96}
AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
Nahuas.
See MEXICO, ANCIENT: THE MAYA AND NAHUA PEOPLES.
AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
Nanticokes.
See above: ALGONQUIAN FAMILY.
AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
Napo.
See above: ANDESIANS.
AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
Narragansetts.
See above: ALGONQUIAN FAMILY;
also RHODE ISLAND: A. D. 1636;
and NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1637; 1674-1675; 1675; and 1676-1678.
AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
Natchesan Family.
When the French first entered the lower Mississippi valley,
they found the Natchez [Na'htchi] occupying a region of
country that now surrounds the city which bears their name.
"By the persevering curiosity of Gallatin, it is established
that the Natchez were distinguished from the tribes around
them less by their customs and the degree of their
civilization than by their language, which, as far as
comparisons have been instituted, has no etymological affinity
with any other whatever. Here again the imagination too
readily invents theories; and the tradition has been widely
received that the dominion of the Natchez once extended even
to the Wabash. History knows them only as a feeble and
inconsiderable nation, who in the 18th century attached
themselves to the confederacy of the Creeks."
_G. Bancroft,
History of the United States
(Author's last revision),
volume 2, page 97._
"Chateaubriand, in his charming romances, and some of the
early French writers, who often drew upon their fancy for
their facts, have thrown an interest around the Natchez, as a
semi-civilized and noble race, that has passed into history.
We find no traces of civilization in their architecture, or in
their social life and customs. Their religion was brutal and
bloody, indicating an Aztec origin. They were perfidious and
cruel, and if they were at all superior to the neighboring
tribes it was probably due to the district they occupied—the
most beautiful, healthy and productive in the valley of the
Mississippi—and the influence of its attractions in
substituting permanent for temporary occupation. The residence
of the grand chief was merely a spacious cabin, of one
apartment, with a mat of basket work for his bed and a log for
his pillow. … Their government was an absolute despotism.
The supreme chief was master of their labor, their property,
and their lives. … The Natchez consisted exclusively of two
classes—the Blood Royal and its connexions, and the common
people, the Mich-i-mioki-quipe, or Stinkards. The two classes
understood each other, but spoke a different dialect. Their
customs of war, their treatment of prisoners, their ceremonies
of marriage, their feasts and fasts, their sorceries and
witchcraft, differed very little from other savages. Father
Charlevoix, who visited Natchez in 1721, saw no evidences of
civilization. Their villages consisted of a few cabins, or
rather ovens, without windows and roofed with matting. The
house of the Sun was larger, plastered with mud, and a narrow
bench for a seat and bed. No other furniture in the mansion of
this grand dignitary, who has been described by imaginative
writers as the peer of Montezuma!"
_J. F. H. Claiborne,
Mississippi,
volume 1, chapter 4._
In 1729, the Natchez, maddened by insolent oppressions,
planned and executed a general massacre of the French within
their territory. As a consequence, the tribe was virtually
exterminated within the following two years.
_C. Gayarre,
Louisiana, its Colonial History and Romance,
2d series, lecture 3 and 5._
"The Na'htchi, according to Gallatin, a residue of the
well-known nation of that name, came from the banks of the
Mississippi, and joined the Creek less than one hundred years
ago. The seashore from Mobile to the Mississippi was then
inhabited by several small tribes, of which the Na'htchi was
the principal. Before 1730 the tribe lived in the vicinity of
Natchez, Miss., along St. Catherine Creek. After their
dispersion by the French in 1730 most of the remainder joined
the Chicasa and afterwards the Upper Creek. They are now in
Creek and Cherokee Nations, Indian Territory. The linguistic
relations of the language spoken by the Taensa tribe have long
been in doubt, and it is possible they will ever remain so."
_J. W. Powell,
Seventh Annual Report, Bureau of Ethnology,
page 96._
See LOUISIANA: A. D. 1719-1750.
See, also, above: MUSKHOGEAN FAMILY.
AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
Natchitoches;
See Note, Appendix E.
See TEXAS: THE ABORIGINAL INHABITANTS.
AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
Nausets.
See above: ALGONQUIAN FAMILY.
AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
Navajos.
See above: ATHAPASCAN FAMILY, and APACHE GROUP.
AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
Neutral Nation.
See above: HURONS, &c.;
and IROQUOIS CONFEDERACY: THEIR CONQUESTS, &c.
AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
Nez Percés, or Sahaptins.
"The Sahaptins or Nez Percés [the Shahaptian Family in Major
Powell's classification], with their affiliated tribes,
occupied the middle and upper valley of the Columbia and its
affluents, and also the passes of the mountains. They were in
contiguity with the Shoshones and the Algonkin Blackfeet, thus
holding an important position, intermediate between the eastern
and the Pacific tribes. Having the commercial instinct of the
latter, they made good use of it."
_D. G. Brinton,
The American Race,
page 107._
ALSO IN
_J. W. Powell,
Seventh Annual Report of the Bureau of Ethnology,
page 106._
AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
Niniquiquilas.
See below: PAMPAS TRIBES.
AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
Nipmucs, or Nipnets.
See above: ALGONQUIAN FAMILY;
also, NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1674-1675; 1675; and 1676-1678
(KING PHILIP'S WAR).
AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
Nootkas.
See below: WAKASHAN FAMILY.
AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
Nottoways.
See above: IROQUOIS TRIBES OF THE SOUTH.
AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
Nyantics.
See above: ALGONQUIAN FAMILY.
AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
Ogalalas.
See below: SIOUAN FAMILY.
AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
Ojibwas, or Chippewas.
"The Ojibways, with their kindred, the Pottawattamies, and
their friends the Ottawas,—the latter of whom were fugitives
from the eastward, whence they had fled from the wrath of the
Iroquois,—were banded into a sort of confederacy. They were
closely allied in blood, language, manners and character. The
Ojibways, by far the most numerous of the three, occupied the
basin of Lake Superior, and extensive adjacent regions. In
their boundaries, the career of Iroquois conquest found at
length a check. The fugitive Wyandots sought refuge in the
Ojibway hunting grounds; and tradition relates that, at the
outlet of Lake Superior, an Iroquois war-party once
encountered a disastrous repulse. In their mode of life, they
were far more rude than the Iroquois, or even the southern
Algonquin tribes."
_F. Parkman,
Conspiracy of Pontiac,
chapter 1._
{97}
"The name of the tribe appears to be recent. It is not met
with in the older writers. The French, who were the earliest
to meet them, in their tribal seat at the falls or Sault de
Ste Marie, named them Saulteur, from this circumstance.
M'Kenzie uses the term 'Jibway,' as the equivalent of this
term, in his voyages. They are referred to, with little
difference in the orthography, in General Washington's report,
in 1754, of his trip to Le Bœuf, on Lake Erie; but are first
recognized, among our treaty-tribes, in the general treaty of
Greenville, of 1794, in which, with the Ottawas they ceded the
island of Michilimackinac, and certain dependencies, conceded
by them at former periods to the French. … The Chippewas are
conceded, by writers on American philology … to speak one of
the purest forms of the Algonquin."
_H. R. Schoolcraft,
Information respecting the History, Condition and
Prospects of the Indian Tribes,
part 5, page 142._
ALSO IN
_G. Copway,
The Ojibway Nation._
_J. G. Kohl,
Kitchi-gami_.
See, also, PONTIAC'S WAR:
and above: ALGONQUIAN FAMILY.
AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
Omahas.
See below: SIOUAN FAMILY, and PAWNEE (CADDOAN) FAMILY.
AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
Oneidas.
See above: IROQUOIS CONFEDERACY.
Onondagas.
See above: IROQUOIS CONFEDERACY.
AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
Orejones.
See below: PAMPAS TRIBES.
AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
Osages.
See below: SIOUAN FAMILY,
and PAWNEE (CADDOAN) FAMILY.
AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
Otoes, or Ottoes.
See below: SIOUAN FAMILY,
and PAWNEE (CADDOAN) FAMILY.
AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
Otomis.
"According to Aztec tradition, the Otomis were the earliest
owners of the soil of Central Mexico. Their language was at
the conquest one of the most widely distributed of any in this
portion of the continent. Its central regions were the States
of Queretaro and Guanajuato. … The Otomis are below the
average stature, of dark color, the skull markedly
dolichocephalic, the nose short and flattened, the eyes
slightly oblique."
_D. G. Brinton,
The American Race,
page 135._
AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
Ottawas.
See above: ALGONQUIAN FAMILY, and OJIBWAS.
See, also, PONTIAC'S WAR.
AMERICAN ABORIGINES
Pacaguara.
See above: ANDESIANS.
AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
Pacamora.
See above: ANDESIANS.
AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
Pamlicoes.
See above: ALGONQUIAN FAMILY.
AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
Pampas Tribes.
"The chief tribe of the Pampas Indians was entitled Querandis
by the Spaniards, although they called themselves Pehuelches
[or Puelts—that is, the Eastern]. Various segments of these,
under different names, occupied the immense tract of ground,
between the river Parana and the republic of Chili. The
Querandis … were the great opponents to settlement of the
Spaniards in Buenos Ayres. … The Ancas or Aracaunos Indians
[see CHILE] resided on the west of the Pampas near Chili, and
from time to time assisted the Querandis in transporting
stolen cattle across the Cordilleras. The southern part of the
Pampas was occupied by the Balchitas, Uhilches, Telmelches,
and others, all of whom were branches of the original Quelches
horde. The Guarani Indians were the most famous of the South
American races. … Of the Guayanas horde there were several
tribes—independent of each other, and speaking different
idioms, although having the same title of race. Their
territory extended from the river Guarai, one of the affluents
into the Uruguay, for many leagues northwards, and stretched
over to the Parana opposite the city of Corpus Christi. They
were some of the most vigorous opponents of the Spanish
invaders. … The Nalicurgas Indians, who lived up to near 21°
South latitude were reputed to dwell in caves, to be very limited in
number, and to go entirely naked. The Gausarapos, or Guuchies
dwelt in the marshy districts near where the river Gausarapo,
or Guuchie, has its source. This stream enters from the east
into the Paraguay at 19° 16' 30" South latitude. … The Cuatos lived
inside of a lake to the west of the river Paraguay, and
constituted a very small tribe. … The Orejones dwelt on the
eastern brows of the mountains of Santa Lucia or San
Fernando—close to the western side of Paraguay river. …
Another tribe, the Niniquiquilas, had likewise the names of
Potreros, Simanos, Barcenos, and Lathanos. They occupied a forest
which began at about 19° South latitude, some leagues backward
from the river Paraguay, and separated the Gran Chaco from the
province of Los Chiquitos in Peru. … The Guanas Indians were
divided into eight separate segments, for each of which there
was a particular and different name. They lived between 20°
and 22° of South latitude in the Gran Chaco to the west of Paraguay,
and they were not known to the Spaniards till the latter
crossed the last-named river in 1673. … The Albaias and
Payaguas Indians … in former times, were the chief tribes of
the Paraguay territory. … The Albaias were styled Machicuis
and Enimgas by other authors. At the time of the Spaniards'
arrival here, the Albaias occupied the Gran Chaco side of the
river Paraguay from 20° to 22° South latitude. Here they entered into
a treaty offensive and defensive with the Payaguas. … The
joined forces of Albaias and Payaguas had managed to extend
their territory in 1673 down to 24° 7' South on the eastern side
of Paraguay river. … The Albaias were a very tall and
muscular race of people. … The Payagua Indians, before and
up to, as well as after, the period of the conquest, were
sailors, and domineered over the river Paraguay. … The
Guaicarus lived on the Chaco side of Paraguay river and
subsisted entirely by hunting. From the barbarous custom which
their women had of inducing abortion to avoid the pain or
trouble of child-bearing, they became exterminated soon after
the conquest. … The Tobas, who have also the titles of
Natecœt and Yncanabaite, were among the best fighters of the
Indians. They occupy the Gran Chaco, chiefly on the banks of
the river Vermejo, and between that and the Pilcomayo. Of
these there are some remains in the present day. … The
Mocovis are likewise still to be found in the Chaco. … The
Abipones, who were also styled Ecusgina and Quiabanabaite,
lived in the Chaco, so low down as 28° South. This was the
tribe with whom the Jesuits incorporated, when they erected
the city of San Geronimo, in the Gran Chaco, and nearly
opposite Goya, in 1748."
_T. J. Hutchinson,
The Parana,
chapters 6-7._
{98}
"The Abipones inhabit [in the 18th century] the province
Chaco, the centre of all Paraguay; they have no
fixed abodes, nor any boundaries, except what fear of their
neighbours has established. They roam extensively in every
direction, whenever the opportunity of attacking their
enemies, or the necessity of avoiding them renders a journey
advisable. The northern shore of the Rio Grande or Bermejo,
which the Indians call Iñatè, was their native land in the
last century [the 17th]. Thence they removed, to avoid the war
carried on against Chaco by the Spaniards … and, migrating
towards the south, took possession of a valley formerly held
by the Calchaquis. … From what region their ancestors came
there is no room for conjecture."
_M. Dobrizhoffer,
Account of the Abipones,
volume 2, chapter 1._
"The Abipones are in general above the middle stature, and of
a robust constitution. In summer they go quite naked; but in
winter cover themselves with skins. … They paint themselves
all over with different colours."
_Father Charlevoix,
History of Paraguay,
book 7 (volume 1)._
ALSO IN
_The Standard Natural History
(J. S. Kingsley, editor),
volume 6, pages 256-262._
See, also, below: TUPI. GUARANI.
AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
Pampticokes.
See above: ALGONQUIAN FAMILY.
AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
Pano.
See above: ANDESIANS.
AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
Papagos.
See below: PIMAN FAMILY, and PUEBLOS.
AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
Parawianas.
See above: CARIBS AND THEIR KINDRED.
AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
Pascogoulas.
See above: MUSKHOGEAN FAMILY.
AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
Passé.
See above: GUCK OR COCO GROUP.
AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
Patagonians and Fuegians.
"The Patagonians call themselves Chonek or Tzoueca, or Inaken
(men, people), and by their Pampean neighbors are referred to
as Tehuel-Che, southerners. They do not, however, belong to
the Aucanian stock, nor do they resemble the Pampeans
physically. They are celebrated for their stature, many of
them reaching from six to six feet four inches in height, and
built in proportion. In color they are a reddish brown, and
have aquiline noses and good foreheads. They care little for a
sedentary life, and roam the coast as far north as the Rio Negro.
… On the inhospitable shores of Tierra del Fuego there dwell
three nations of diverse stock, but on about the same plane of
culture. One of these is the Yahgans, or Yapoos, on the Beagle
Canal; the second is the Onas or Aonik, to the north and east
of these; and the third the Aliculufs, to the north and west.
… The opinion has been advanced by Dr. Deniker of Paris,
that the Fuegians represent the oldest type or variety of the
American race. He believes that at one time this type occupied
the whole of South America south of the Amazon, and that the
Tapuyas of Brazil and the Fuegians are its surviving members.
This interesting theory demands still further evidence before
it can be accepted."
_D. G. Brinton,
The American Race,
pages 327-332._
AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
Pawnee Family (named "Caddoan" by Major Powell).
"The Pawnee Family, though some of its branches have long been
known, is perhaps in history and language one of the least
understood of the important tribes of the West. In both
respects it seems to constitute a distinct group. During
recent years its extreme northern and southern branches have
evinced a tendency to blend with surrounding stocks; but the
central branch, constituting the Pawnee proper, maintains
still in its advanced decadence a bold line of demarcation
between itself and all adjacent tribes. The members of the
family are: The Pawnees, the Arikaras, the Caddos, the Huecos
or Wacos, the Keechies, the Tawaconies, and the Pawnee Picts
or Wichitas. The last five may be designated as the Southern
or Red River branches. At the date of the Louisiana purchase
the Caddos were living about 40 miles northwest of where
Shreveport now stands. Five years earlier their residence was
upon Clear Lake, in what is now Caddo Parish. This spot they
claimed was the place of their nativity, and their residence
from time immemorial. … They have a tradition that they are
the parent stock, from which all the southern branches have
sprung, and to some extent this claim has been recognized. …
The five [southern] bands are now all gathered upon a reserve
secured for them in the Indian Territory by the Government.
… In many respects, their method of building lodges, their
equestrianism, and certain social and tribal usages, they
quite closely resemble the Pawnees. Their connection, however,
with the Pawnee family, not till recently if ever mentioned,
is mainly a matter of vague conjecture. … The name Pawnee is
most probably derived from 'párĭk-ĭ,' a horn; and seems to
have been once used by the Pawnees themselves to designate
their peculiar scalp-lock. From the fact that this was the
most noticeable feature in their costume, the name came
naturally to be the denominative term of the tribe. The word
in this use once probably embraced the Wichitas (i. e., Pawnee
Picts) and the Arikaras. … The true Pawnee territory till as
late as 1833 may be described as extending from the Niobrara
south to the Arkansas. They frequently hunted considerably
beyond the Arkansas; tradition says as far as the Canadian.
… On the east they claimed to the Missouri, though in
eastern Nebraska, by a sort of tacit permit, the Otoes,
Poncas, and Omahas along that stream occupied lands extending
as far west as the Elkhorn. In Kansas, also, east of the Big
Blue, they had ceased to exercise any direct control, as
several remnants of tribes, the Wyandots, Delawares,
Kickapoos, and Iowas, had been settled there and were living
under the guardianship of the United States. … On the west
their grounds were marked by no natural boundary, but may
perhaps be described by a line drawn from the mouth of Snake
River on the Niobrara southwest to the North Platte, thence
south to the Arkansas. … It is not to be supposed, however,
that they held altogether undisturbed possession of this
territory. On the north they were incessantly harassed by
various bands of the Dakotas, while upon the south the Osages,
Comanches, Cheyennes, Arapahoes and Kiowas (the last three
originally northern tribes) were equally relentless in their
hostility. … In 1833 the Pawnees surrendered to the United
States their claim upon all the above described territory
lying south of the Platte. In 1858 all their remaining
territory was ceded, except a reserve 30 miles long and 15
wide upon the Loup Fork of the Platte, its eastern limit
beginning at Beaver Creek. In 1874 they sold this tract and
removed to a reserve secured for them by the Government in the
Indian Territory, between the Arkansas and Cimarron at their
junction."
_J. B. Dunbar,
The Pawnee Indians
(Magazine of American History, April, 1880, volume 4)._
ALSO IN
_G. B. Grinnell,
Pawnee Hero Stories._
_D. G. Brinton,
The American Race,
pages 95-97._
_J. W. Powell,
Seventh Annual Report of the Bureau of Ethnology,
page 59._
See, also, above: ADAIS and BLACKFEET.
{99}
AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
Payaguas.
See above: PAMPAS TRIBES.
AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
Pehuelches, or Puelts.
See above: PAMPAS TRIBES.
AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
Penacooks, or Pawtucket Indians.
See above: ALGONQUIAN FAMILY.
AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
Peorias.
See above: ALGONQUIAN FAMILY.
AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
Pequots.
See above: ALGONQUIAN FAMILY;
and below: SHAWANESE;
also, NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1637.
AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
Piankishaws.
See above: ALGONQUIAN FAMILY, and SACS, &c.
AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
Piegans.
See above: BLACKFEET.
AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
Piman Family.
"Only a small portion of the territory occupied by this family
is included within the United States, the greater portion
being in Mexico, where it extends to the Gulf of California.
The family is represented in the United States by three
tribes, Pima alta, Sobaipuri, and Papago. The former have
lived for at least two centuries with the Maricopa on the Gila
River about 160 miles from the mouth. The Sobaipuri occupied
the Santa Cruz and San Pedro Rivers, tributaries of the Gila,
but are no longer known. The Papago territory is much more
extensive and extends to the south across the border."
_J. W. Powell,
Seventh Annual Report, Bureau of Ethnology,
pages 98-99._
See below: PUEBLOS.
AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
Pimenteiras.
See above: GUCK OR COCO GROUP.
AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
Piru.
See above: ANDESIANS.
AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
Pit River Indians.
See above: MODOCS (KLAMATHS), &c.
AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
Piutes.
See below: SHOSHONEAN FAMILY.
AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
Pokanokets, or Wampanoags.
See above:
ALGONQUIAN FAMILY;
also, NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1674-1675; 1675; 1676-1678 (KING
PHILIP'S WAR).
AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
Ponkas, or Puncas.
See below: SIOUAN FAMILY;
and above: PAWNEE (CADDOAN) FAMILY.
AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
Popolocas.
See above: CHONTALS.
AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
Pottawatomies.
See above: ALGONQUIAN FAMILY, OJIBWAS, and SACS, &c.
AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
Powhatan Confederacy.
"At the time of the first settlement by the Europeans, it has
been estimated that there were not more than 20,000 Indians
within the limits of the State of Virginia. Within a circuit
of 60 miles from Jamestown, Captain Smith says there were
about 5,000 souls, and of these scarce 1,500 were warriors.
The whole territory between the mountains and the sea was
occupied by more than 40 tribes, 30 of whom were united in a
confederacy under Powhatan, whose dominions, hereditary and
acquired by conquest, comprised the whole country between the
rivers James and Potomac, and extended into the interior as
far as the falls of the principal rivers. Campbell, in his
History of Virginia, states the number of Powhatan's subjects
to have been 8,000. Powhatan was a remarkable man; a sort of
savage Napoleon, who, by the force of his character and the
superiority of his talents, had raised himself from the rank
of a petty chieftain to something of imperial dignity and
power. He had two places of abode, one called Powhatan, where
Richmond now stands, and the other at Werowocomoco, on the
north side of York River, within the present county of
Gloucester. … Besides the large confederacy of which
Powhatan was the chief, there were two others, with which that
was often at war. One of these, called the Mannahoacs,
consisted of eight tribes, and occupied the country between
the Rappahannoc and York rivers; the other, consisting of five
tribes, was called the Monacans, and was settled between York and
James rivers above the Falls. There were also, in addition to
these, many scattering and independent tribes."
_G. S. Hillard,
Life of Captain John Smith
(Library of American Biographies), chapter 4._
"The English invested savage life with all the
dignity of European courts. Powhatan was styled 'King,' or
'Emperor,' his principal warriors were lords of the kingdom,
his wives were queens, his daughter was a 'princess,' and his
cabins were his various seats of residence. … In his younger
days Powhatan had been a great warrior. Hereditarily, he was
the chief or werowance of eight tribes; through conquest his
dominions had been extended. … The name of his nation and
the Indian appellation of the James River was Powhatan. He
himself possessed several names."
_E. Eggleston and L. E. Seelye,
Pocahontas,
chapter 3._
ALSO IN
_Captain John Smith,
Description of Virginia, and General Historie of Virginia.
(Arber's reprint of Works, pages 65 and 360)_.
See, also, above: ALGONQUIAN FAMILY.
AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
Puans.
See below: SIOUAN FAMILY.
AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
Pueblos.
"The non-nomadic semi-civilized town and agricultural peoples
of New Mexico and Arizona … I call the Pueblos, or
Townspeople, from pueblo, town, population, people, a name
given by the Spaniards to such inhabitants of this region as
were found, when first discovered, permanently located in
comparatively well-built towns. Strictly speaking, the term
Pueblos applies only to the villagers settled along the banks
of the Rio Grande del Norte and its tributaries between
latitudes 34° 45' and 36° 30', and although the name is
employed as a general appellation for this division, it will
be used, for the most part, only in its narrower and popular
sense. In this division, besides the before mentioned Pueblos
proper, are embraced the Moquis, or villagers of eastern
Arizona, and the non-nomadic agricultural nations of the lower
Gila river,—the Pimas, Maricopas, Papagos, and cognate
tribes. The country of the Townspeople, if we may credit
Lieutenant Simpson, is one of 'almost universal barrenness,'
yet interspersed with fertile spots; that of the agricultural
nations, though dry, is more generally productive. The fame of
this so-called civilization reached Mexico at an early day …
in exaggerated rumors of great cities to the north, which
prompted the expeditions of Marco de Niza in 1539, of Coronado
in 1540, and of Espejo in 1586 [1583]. These adventurers
visited the north in quest of the fabulous kingdoms of
Quivira, Tontonteac, Marata and others, in which great riches
were said to exist. The name of Quivira was afterwards applied
by them to one or more of the pueblo cities. The name Cibola,
from 'Cibolo,' Mexican bull, 'bos bison,' or wild ox of New
Mexico, where the Spaniards first encountered buffalo, was
given to seven of the towns which were afterwards known as the
Seven Cities of Cibola. But most of the villages known at the
present day were mentioned in the reports of the early
expeditions by their present names.
{100}
… The towns of the Pueblos are essentially unique, and are
the dominant feature of these aboriginals. Some of them are
situated in valleys, others on mesas; sometimes they are
planted on elevations almost inaccessible, reached only by
artificial grades, or by steps cut in the solid rock. Some of
the towns are of an elliptical shape, while others are square,
a town being frequently but a block of buildings. Thus a
Pueblo consists of one or more squares, each enclosed by three
or four buildings of from 300 to 400 feet in length, and about
150 feet in width at the base, and from two to seven stories
of from eight to nine feet each in height. … The stories are
built in a series of gradations or retreating surfaces,
decreasing in size as they rise, thus forming a succession of
terraces. In some of the towns these terraces are on both
sides of the building; in others they face only towards the
outside; while again in others they are on the inside. These
terraces are about six feet wide, and extend around the three
or four sides of the square, forming a walk for the occupants
of the story resting upon it, and a roof for the story
beneath; so with the stories above. As there is no inner
communication with one another, the only means of mounting to
them is by ladders which stand at convenient distances along
the several rows of terraces, and they may be drawn up at
pleasure, thus cutting off all unwelcome intrusion. The
outside walls of one or more of the lower stories are entirely
solid, having no openings of any kind, with the exception of,
in some towns, a few loopholes. … To enter the rooms on the
ground floor from the outside, one must mount the ladder to
the first balcony or terrace, then descend through a trap door
in the floor by another ladder on the inside. … The several
stories of these huge structures are divided into
multitudinous compartments of greater or less size, which are
apportioned to the several families of the tribe."
_H. H. Bancroft,
Native Races of the Pacific States,
volume 1, chapter 5._
"There can be no doubt that Cibola is to be looked for in New
Mexico. … We cannot … refuse to adopt the views of General
Simpson and of Mr. W. W. H. Davis, and to look at the pueblo
of Zuni as occupying, if not the actual site, at least one of
the sites within the tribal area of the Seven Cities of
Cibola. Nor can we refuse to identify Tusayan with the Moqui
district, and Acuco with Acoma."
_A. F. Bandelier,
Historical Introduction to Studies among the Sedentary
Indians of North Mexico
(Papers of the Archœolog. Institute of America:
American Series, volume 1)._
ALSO IN
_J. H. Simpson,
The March of Coronado._
_L. H. Morgan,
Houses and House-life of the American Aborigines
(Contributions to North American Ethnology, volume 4),
chapter 6._
_F. H. Cushing,
My Adventures in Zuñi
(Century, volume 3-4)_.
_F. H. Cushing,
Fourth Annual Report of the Bureau of Ethnology (1882-83),
pages 473-480._
_F. W. Blackmar,
Spanish Institutions of the Southwest,
chapter 10._
See, also, AMERICA, PREHISTORIC,
and above: PIMAN FAMILY and KERESAN FAMILY.
AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
Pujunan Family.
"The following tribes were placed in this group by Latham:
Pujuni, Secumne, Tsamak of Hale, and the Cushna of
Schoolcraft. The name adopted for the family is the name of a
tribe given by Hale. This was one of the two races into which,
upon the information of Captain Sutter as derived by Mr. Dana,
all the Sacramento tribes were believed to be divided. 'These
races resembled one another in every respect but language.'
… The tribes of this family have been carefully studied by
Powers, to whom we are indebted for most all we know of their
distribution. They occupied the eastern bank of the Sacramento
in California, beginning some 80 or 100 miles from its mouth,
and extended northward to within a short distance of Pit
River."
_J. W. Powell,
Seventh Annual Report, Bureau of Ethnology,
pages 99-100._
AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
Puncas, or Ponkas.
See below: SIOUAN FAMILY:
and above: PAWNEE (CADDOAN) FAMILY.
AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
Purumancians.
See CHILE: A. D. 1450-1724.
AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
Quapaws.
See below: SIOUAN FAMILY.
AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
Quelches.
See above: PAMPAS TRIBES.
AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
Querandis, or Pehuelches, or Puelts.
See above: PAMPAS TRIBES.
AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
Quiches.
Cakchiquels.
"Of the ancient races of America, those which approached the
nearest to a civilized condition spoke related dialects of a
tongue, which from its principal members has been called the
Maya Quiche linguistic stock. Even to-day, it is estimated
that half a million persons use these dialects. They are
scattered over Yucatan, Guatemala, and the adjacent territory,
and one branch formerly occupied the hot lowlands on the Gulf
of Mexico, north of Vera Cruz. The so-called 'metropolitan'
dialects are those spoken relatively near the city of
Guatemala, and include the Cakchiquel, the Quiche, the
Pokonchi and the Tzutuhill. They are quite closely allied, and
are mutually intelligible, resembling each other about as much
as did in ancient Greece the Attic, Ionic and Doric dialects.
… The civilization of these people was such that they used
various mnemonic signs, approaching our alphabet, to record
and recall their mythology and history. Fragments, more or
less complete, of these traditions have been preserved. The
most notable of them is the national legend of the Quiches of
Guatemala, the so-called Popol Vuh. It was written at an
unknown date in the Quiche dialect, by a native who was
familiar with the ancient records."
_D. G. Brinton,
Essays of an Americanist,
page 104._
ALSO IN,
_D. G. Brinton,
Annals of the Cakchiquels._
_H. H. Bancroft,
Native Races of the Pacific States,
chapter 11._
See, also, above: MAYAS.
AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
Quichuas.
See PERU.
AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
Quijo.
See above: ANDESIANS.
AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
Quoratean Family.
"The tribes occupy both banks of the lower Klamath from a
range of hills a little above Happy Camp to the junction of
the Trinity, and the Salmon River from its mouth to its
sources. On the north, Quoratean tribes extended to the
Athapascan territory near the Oregon line."
_J. W. Powell,
Seventh Annual Report, Bureau of Ethnology,
page 101._
AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
Rapid Indians.
A name applied by various writers to the Arapahoes, and other
tribes.
AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
Raritans.
See above: ALGONQUIAN FAMILY.
AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
Remo.
See above: ANDESIANS.
AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
Rogue River Indians.
See above: MODOCS, ETC.
See Note, Appendix E.
AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
Rucanas.
See PERU.
AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
Sabaja.
See above: GUCK OR COCO GROUP.
{101}
AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
Sacs (Sauks), Foxes, etc.
"The Sauks or Saukies (White Clay), and Foxes or Outagamies,
so called by the Europeans and Algonkins, but whose true name
is Musquakkiuk (Red Clay), are in fact but one nation. The
French missionaries on coming first in contact with them, in
the year 1665, at once found that they spoke the same
language, and that it differed from the Algonkin, though
belonging to the same stock; and also that this language was
common to the Kickapoos, and to those Indians they called
Maskontens. This last nation, if it ever had an existence as a
distinct tribe, has entirely disappeared. But we are informed
by Charlevoix, and Mr. Schoolcraft corroborates the fact, that
the word 'Mascontenck' means a country without woods, a
prairie. The name Mascontens was therefore used to designate
'prairie Indians.' And it appears that they consisted
principally of Sauks and Kickapoos, with an occasional mixture
of Potowotamies and Miamis, who probably came there to hunt
the Buffalo. The country assigned to those Mascontens lay
south of the Fox River of Lake Michigan and west of Illinois
River. … When first discovered, the Sauks and Foxes had
their seats toward the southern extremity of Green Bay, on Fox
River, and generally farther east than the country which they
lately occupied. … By the treaty of 1804, the Sauks and
Foxes ceded to the United States all their lands east of …
the Mississippi. … The Kickapoos by various treaties, 1809
to 1819, have also ceded all their lands to the United States.
They claimed all the country between the Illinois River and
the Wabash, north of the parallel of latitude passing by the
mouth of the Illinois and south of the Kankakee River. … The
territory claimed by the Miamis and Piankishaws may be
generally stated as having been bounded eastwardly by the
Maumee River of Lake Erie, and to have included all the
country drained by the Wabash. The Piankishaws occupied the
country bordering on the Ohio."
_A. Gallatin,
Synopsis of the Indian Tribes
(Archæologia Americana, volume 2),
introduction, section 2._
The Mascontens, or Mascoutins, "seldom appear alone, but
almost always in connection with their kindred, the Ottagamies
or Foxes and the Kickapoos, and like them bear a character for
treachery and deceit. The three tribes may have in earlier
days formed the Fire-Nation [of the early French writers],
but, as Gallatin observes in the Archæologia Americana, it is
very doubtful whether the Mascoutins were ever a distinct
tribe. If this be so, and there is no reason to reject it, the
disappearance of the name will not be strange."
_J. G. Shea,
Brief Researches Respecting the Mascoutins
(Schoolcraft's Information Respecting Indian Tribes,
part 4, page 245)_.
See above, ALGONQUIAN FAMILY.
For an account of the Black Hawk War
See Illinois, A. D. 1832.
AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
Sahaptins.
See above: NEZ PERCÉS.
AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
Salinan Family.
This name is given by Major Powell to the San Antonio and San
Miguel dialects spoken by two tribes on the Salinas River,
Monterey County, California.
_J. W. Powell,
Seventh Annual Report, Bureau of Ethnology,
page 101._
See ESSELENIAN FAMILY.
AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
Salishan Family.
See above: FLATHEADS.
AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
Sanhikans, or Mincees.
See above: ALGONQUIAN FAMILY.
AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
Sans Arcs.
See below: SIOUAN FAMILY.
AMERICAN ABORIGINES
Santees.
See below: SIOUAN FAMILY.
See Note. Appendix E.
AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
Sarcee (Tinneh).
See above: BLACKFEET.
See Note. Appendix E.
AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
Sastean Family.
"The single tribe upon the language of which Hale based his
name was located by him to the southwest of the Lutuami or
Klamath tribes. … The former territory of the Sastean family
is the region drained by the Klamath River and its tributaries
from the western base of the Cascade range to the point where
the Klamath flows through the ridge of hills east of Happy
Camp, which forms the boundary between the Sastean and the
Quoratean families. In addition to this region of the Klamath,
the Shasta extended over the Siskiyou range northward as far as
Ashland, Oregon:"
_J. W. Powell,
Seventh Annual Report,
Bureau of Ethnology,
page 106._
AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
Savannahs.
See above: ALGONQUIAN FAMILY.
AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
Seminoles.
"The term 'semanóle,' or 'isti Simanóle,' signifies
'separatish' or 'runaway,' and as a tribal name points to the
Indians who left the Creek, especially the Lower Creek
settlements, for Florida, to live, hunt, and fish there in
independence. The term does not mean 'wild,' 'savage,' as
frequently stated; if applied now in this sense to animals, it
is because of its original meaning, 'what has become a
runaway.' … The Seminoles of modern times are a people
compounded of the following elements: separatists from the
Lower Creek and Hitchiti towns; remnants of tribes partly
civilized by the Spaniards; Yamassi Indians, and some negroes.
… The Seminoles were always regarded as a sort of outcasts
by the Creek tribes from which they had seceded, and no doubt
there were reasons for this. … These Indians showed, like
the Creeks, hostile intentions towards the thirteen states
during and after the Revolution, and conjointly with the Upper
Creeks on Tallapoosa river concluded a treaty of friendship
with the Spaniards at Pensacola in May, 1784. Although under
Spanish control, the Seminoles entered into hostilities with
the Americans in 1793 and 1812. In the latter year Payne míko
['King Payne'] was killed in a battle at Alachua, and his
brother, the influential Bowlegs, died soon after. These
unruly tribes surprised and massacred American settlers on the
Satilla river, Georgia, in 1817, and another conflict began,
which terminated in the destruction of the Mikasuki and
Suwanee river towns of the Seminoles by General Jackson, in
April, 1818. [See FLORIDA: A. D. 1816-1818.] After the cession
of Florida, and its incorporation into the American Union
(1819), the Seminoles gave up all their territory by the
treaty of Fort Moultrie, Sept. 18th, 1823, receiving in
exchange goods and annuities. When the government concluded to
move these Indians west of the Mississippi river, a treaty of
a conditional character was concluded with them at Payne's
landing, in 1832. The larger portion were removed, but the
more stubborn part dissented, and thus gave origin to one of
the gravest conflicts which ever occurred between Indians and
whites. The Seminole war began with the massacre of Major
Dade's command near Wahoo swamp, December 28th, 1835, and
continued with unabated fury for five years, entailing an
immense expenditure of money and lives. [See FLORIDA: A. D.
1835-1843.] A number of Creek warriors joined the hostile
Seminoles in 1836. A census of the Seminoles taken in 1822
gave a population of 3,899, with 800 negroes belonging to
them. The population of the Seminoles in the Indian Territory
amounted to 2,667 in 1881. … There are some Seminoles now in
Mexico, who went there with their negro slaves."
_A. S. Gatschet,
A Migration Legend of the Creek Indians,
volume 1, part 1, section 2._
{102}
"Ever since the first settlement of these Indians in Florida
they have been engaged in a strife with the whites. … In the
unanimous judgment of unprejudiced writers, the whites have
ever been in the wrong."
_D. G. Brinton,
Notes on the Floridian Peninsula,
page 148._
"There were in Florida, October 1, 1880, of the Indians
commonly known as Seminole, 208. They constituted 37 families,
living in 22 camps, which were gathered into five widely
separated groups or settlements. … This people our
Government has never been able to conciliate or to conquer.
… The Seminole have always lived within our borders as
aliens. It is only of late years, and through natural
necessities, that any friendly intercourse of white man and
Indian has been secured. … The Indians have appropriated for
their service some of the products of European civilization,
such as weapons, implements, domestic utensils, fabrics for
clothing, &c. Mentally, excepting a few religious ideas which
they received long ago from the teaching of Spanish
missionaries, and, in the southern settlements, excepting some
few Spanish words, the Seminole have accepted and appropriated
practically nothing from the white man."
_C. MacCauley,
The Seminole Indians of Florida
(Fifth Annual Report of the Bureau of Ethnology, 1883-84),
introduction and chapter 4._
ALSO IN
_J. T. Sprague,
The Florida War_.
_S. G. Drake,
The Aboriginal Races of North America.
book 4, chapter 6-21._
See, also, above: MUSKHOGEAN FAMILY.
AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
Senecas; their name.
"How this name originated is a 'vexata quæstio' among
Indo-antiquarians and etymologists. The least plausible
supposition is, that the name has any reference to the
moralist Seneca. Some have supposed it to be a corruption of
the Dutch term for vermillion, cinebar, or cinnabar, under the
assumption that the Senecas, being the most warlike of the
Five Nations, used that pigment more than the others, and thus
gave origin to the name. This hypothesis is supported by no
authority. … The name 'Sennecas' first appears on a Dutch
map of 1616, and again on Jean de Laet's map of 1633. … It
is claimed by some that the word may be derived from
'Sinnekox,' the Algonquin name of a tribe of Indians spoken of
in Wassenaer's History of Europe, on the authority of Peter
Barentz, who traded with them about the year 1626. … Without
assuming to solve the mystery, the writer contents himself
with giving some data which may possibly aid others in
arriving at a reliable conclusion. [Here follows a discussion
of the various forms of name by which the Senecas designated
themselves and were known to the Hurons, from whom the Jesuits
first heard of them.] By dropping the neuter prefix O, the
national title became 'Nan-do-wah-gaah,' or 'The great hill
people,' as now used by the Senecas. … If the name Seneca
can legitimately be derived from the Seneca word
'Nan-do-wah-gaah' … it can only be done by prefixing 'Son,'
as was the custom of the Jesuits, and dropping all unnecessary
letters. It would then form the word 'Son-non-do-wa-ga,' the
first two and last syllables of which, if the French sounds of
the letters are given, are almost identical in pronunciation
with Seneca. The chief difficulty, however, would be in the
disposal of the two superfluous syllables. They may have been
dropped in the process of contraction so common in the
composition of Indian words—a result which would be quite
likely to occur to a Seneca name, in its transmission through
two other languages, the Mohawk and the Dutch. The foregoing
queries and suggestions are thrown out for what they are
worth, in the absence of any more reliable theory."
_O. H. Marshall,
Historical Writings,
page 231_
See above: IROQUOIS CONFEDERACY, and HURONS, &c.
See, also, PONTIAC'S WAR.
For an account of Sullivan's expedition against the Senecas,
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1779 (AUGUST-SEPTEMBER).
AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
Shacaya.
See above: ANDESIANS.
AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
Shahaptian Family.
See above: NEZ PERCÉS.
AMERICAN ABORIGINES
Shastas.
See above: SASTEAN FAMILY.
AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
Shawanese, Shawnees, or Shawanoes.
"Adjacent to the Lenape [or Delawares—see above], and
associated with them in some of the most notable passages of
their history, dwelt the Shawanoes, the Chaouanons of the
French, a tribe of bold, roving, and adventurous spirit. Their
eccentric wanderings, their sudden appearances and
disappearances, perplex the antiquary, and defy research; but
from various scattered notices, we may gather that at an early
period they occupied the valley of the Ohio; that, becoming
embroiled with the Five Nations, they shared the defeat of the
Andastes, and about the year 1672 fled to escape destruction.
Some found an asylum in the country of the Lenape, where they
lived tenants at will of the Five Nations; others sought
refuge in the Carolinas and Florida, where, true to their
native instincts, they soon came to blows with the owners of
the soil. Again, turning northwards, they formed new
settlements in the valley of the Ohio, where they were now
suffered to dwell in peace, and where, at a later period, they
were joined by such of their brethren as had found refuge
among the Lenape."
_F. Parkman,
The Conspiracy of Pontiac,
chapter 1._
"The Shawnees were not found originally in Ohio, but migrated
there after 1750. They were called Chaouanons by the French
and Shawanoes by the English. The English name Shawano changed
to Shawanee, and recently to Shawnee. Chaouanon and Shawano
are obviously attempts to represent the same sound by the
orthography of the two respective languages. … Much industry
has been used by recent writers, especially by Dr. Brinton, to
trace this nomadic tribe to its original home; but I think
without success. … We first find the Shawano in actual
history about the year 1660, and living along the Cumberland
river, or the Cumberland and Tennessee. Among the conjectures
as to their earlier history, the greatest probability lies for
the present with the earliest account—the account given by
Perrot, and apparently obtained by him from the Shawanoes
themselves, about the year 1680—that they formerly lived by
the lower lakes, and were driven thence by the Five Nations."
_M. F. Force,
Some Early Notices of the Indians of Ohio._
"Their [the Shawnee's] dialect is more akin to the Mohegan
than to the Delaware, and when, in 1692, they first appeared
in the area of the Eastern Algonkin Confederacy, they came as
the friends and relatives of the former. They were divided
into four bands"—Piqua, properly Pikoweu, Mequachake,
Kiscapokoke, Chilicothe. "Of these, that which settled in
Pennsylvania was the Pikoweu, who occupied and gave their name
to the Pequa valley in Lancaster county. According to ancient
Mohegan tradition, the New England Pequods were members of
this band."
_D. G. Brinton,
The Lenape and their Legends,
chapter 2._
_D. G. Brinton,
The Shawnees and their Migrations
(History Magazine, volume 10, 1866)_.
{103}
"The Shawanese, whose villages were on the western bank [of
the Susquehanna] came into the valley [of Wyoming] from their
former localities, at the 'forks of the Delaware' (the
junction of the Delaware and Lehigh, at Easton), to which
point they had been induced at some remote period to emigrate
from their earlier home, near the mouth of the river Wabash,
in the 'Ohio region,' upon the invitation of the Delawares.
This was Indian diplomacy, for the Delawares were desirous
(not being upon the most friendly terms with the Mingos, or
Six Nations) to accumulate a force against those powerful
neighbors. But, as might be expected, they did not long live
in peace with their new allies. … The Shawanese [about 1755,
or soon after] were driven out of the valley by their more
powerful neighbors, the Delawares, and the conflict which
resulted in their leaving it grew out of, or was precipitated
by, a very trifling incident. While the warriors of the
Delawares were engaged upon the mountains in a hunting
expedition, a number of squaws or female Indians from
Maughwauwame were gathering wild fruits along the margin of
the river below the town, where they found a number of
Shawanese squaws and their children, who had crossed the river
in their canoes upon the same business. A child belonging to
the Shawanese having taken a large grasshopper, a quarrel
arose among the children for the possession of it, in which
their mothers soon took part. … The quarrel became general.
… Upon the return of the warriors both tribes prepared for
battle. … The Shawanese … were not able to sustain the
conflict, and, after the loss of about half their tribe, the
remainder were forced to flee to their own side of the river,
shortly after which they abandoned their town and removed to
the Ohio." This war between the Delawares and Shawanese has
been called the Grasshopper War.
_L. H. Miner,
The Valley of Wyoming,
page 32._
See, also, above, ALGONQUIAN FAMILY, and DELAWARES
See, also, PONTIAC'S WAR; UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
A. D. 1765-1768;
For an account of "Lord Dunmore's War",
See OHIO (VALLEY): A. D. 1774.
AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
Sheepeaters (Tukuarika).
See below: SHOSHONEAN FAMILY.
AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
Sheyennes.
See above: ALGONQUIAN FAMILY.
AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
Shoshonean Family.
"This important family occupied a large part of the great
interior basin of the United States. Upon the north Shoshonean
tribes extended far into Oregon, meeting Shahaptian territory
on about the 44th parallel or along the Blue Mountains. Upon
the northeast the eastern limits of the pristine habitat of
the Shoshonean tribes are unknown. The narrative of Lewis and
Clarke contains the explicit statement that the Shoshoni bands
encountered upon the Jefferson River, whose summer home was upon
the head waters of the Columbia, formerly lived within their
own recollection in the plains to the east of the Rocky
Mountains, whence they were driven to their mountain retreats
by the Minnetaree (Atsina), who had obtained firearms. …
Later a division of the Bannock held the finest portion of
Southwestern Montana, whence apparently they were being pushed
westward across the mountains by Blackfeet. Upon the east the
Tukuarika or Sheepeaters held the Yellowstone Park country,
where they were bordered by the Siouan territory, while the
Washaki occupied southwestern Wyoming. Nearly the entire
mountainous part of Colorado was held by the several bands of
the Ute, the eastern and southeastern parts of the State being
held respectively by the Arapaho and Cheyenne (Algonquian),
and the Kaiowe (Kiowan). To the southeast the Ute country
included the northern drainage of the San Juan, extending
farther east a short distance into New Mexico. The Comanche
division of the family extended farther east than any other.
… Bourgemont found a Comanche tribe on the upper Kansas
River in 1724. According to Pike the Comanche territory
bordered the Kaiowe on the north, the former occupying the
head waters of the Upper Red River, Arkansas and Rio Grande.
How far to the southward Shoshonean tribes extended at this
early period is not known, though the evidence tends to show
that they raided far down into Texas, to the territory they
have occupied in more recent years, viz., the extensive plains
from the Rocky Mountains eastward into Indian Territory and
Texas to about 97°. Upon the south Shoshonean territory was
limited generally by the Colorado River … while the Tusayan
(Moki) had established their seven pueblos … to the east of
the Colorado Chiquito. In the southwest Shoshonean tribes had
pushed across California, occupying a wide band of country to
the Pacific."
_J. W. Powell,
Seventh Annual Report, Bureau of Ethnology,
pages 109-110._
"The Pah Utes occupy the greater part of Nevada, and extend
southward. … The Pi Utes or Piutes inhabit Western Utah,
from Oregon to New Mexico. … The Gosh Utes [Gosuites]
inhabit the country west of Great Salt Lake, and extend to the
Pah Utes."
_H. H. Bancroft,
Native Races of the Pacific States,
volume 1, chapter 4._
AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
Siksikas, or Sisikas.
See above: BLACKFEET.
AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
Siouan Family.
Sioux.
See Note, Appendix E.
"The nations which speak the Sioux language may be considered,
in reference both to their respective dialects and to their
geographical position, as consisting of four subdivisions,
viz., the Winnebagoes; the Sioux proper and the Assiniboins;
the Minetare group; and the Osages and other southern kindred
tribes. The Winnebagoes, so called by the Algonkins, but
called Puans and also Otchagras by the French, and Horoje
('fish-eaters') by the Omahaws and other southern tribes, call
themselves Hochungorah, or the 'Trout' nation. The Green Bay
of Lake Michigan derives its French name from theirs (Baye des
Puans). … According to the War Department they amount [1836]
to 4,600 souls, and appear to cultivate the soil to a
considerable degree. Their principal seats are on the Fox
River of Lake Michigan, and towards the heads of the Rock
River of the Mississippi. … The Sioux proper, or
Naudowessies, names given to them by the Algonkins and the
French, call themselves Dahcotas, and sometimes 'Ochente
Shakoans,' or the Seven Fires, and are divided into seven
bands or tribes, closely connected together, but apparently
independent of each other. They do not appear to have been
known to the French before the year 1660.
{104}
… The four most eastern tribes of the Dahcotas are known by
the name of the Mendewahkantoan, or 'Gens du Lac,' Wahkpatoan
and Wahkpakotoan, or 'People of the Leaves,' and Sisitoans.
… The three westerly tribes, the Yanktons, the Yanktonans,
and the Tetons, wander between the Mississippi and the
Missouri. … The Assiniboins (Stone Indians), as they are
called by the Algonkins, are a Dahcota tribe separated from
the rest of the nation, and on that account called Hoha or
'Rebels,' by the other Sioux. They are said to have made part
originally of the Yanktons. … Another tribe, called
Sheyennes or Cheyennes, were at no very remote period seated
on the left bank of the Red River of Lake Winnipek. … Carver
reckons them as one of the Sioux tribes; and Mackenzie informs
us that they were driven away by the Sioux. They now [1836]
live on the headwaters of the river Sheyenne, a southwestern
tributary of the Missouri. … I have been, however, assured
by a well-informed person who trades with them that they speak
a distinct language, for which there is no European
interpreter. … The Minetares (Minetaree and Minetaries)
consist of three tribes, speaking three different languages,
which belong to a common stock. Its affinities with the
Dahcota are but remote, but have appeared sufficient to
entitle them to be considered as of the same family. Two of
those tribes, the Mandanes, whose number does not exceed
1,500, and the stationary Minetares, amounting to 3,000 souls,
including those called Annahawas, cultivate the soil, and live
in villages situated on or near the Missouri, between 47° and
48° north latitude. … The third Minetare tribe, is that
known by the name of the Crow or Upsaroka [or Absaroka]
nation, probably the Keeheetsas of Lewis and Clarke. They are
an erratic tribe, who hunt south of the Missouri, between the
Little Missouri and the southeastern branches of the
Yellowstone River. … The southern Sioux consist of eight
tribes, speaking four, or at most five, kindred dialects.
Their territory originally extended along the Mississippi,
from below the mouth of the Arkansas to the forty-first degree
of north latitude. … Their hunting grounds extend as far
west as the Stony Mountains; but they all cultivate the soil,
and the most westerly village on the Missouri is in about 100°
west longitude. The three most westerly tribes are the Quappas
or Arkansas, at the mouth of the river of that name, and the
Osages and Kansas, who inhabited the country south of the
Missouri and of the river Kansas. … The Osages, properly
Wausashe, were more numerous and powerful than any of the
neighbouring tribes, and perpetually at war with all the other
Indians, without excepting the Kansas, who speak the same
dialect with themselves. They were originally divided into
Great and Little Osages; but about forty years ago almost
one-half of the nation, known by the name of Chaneers, or
Clermont's Band, separated from the rest, and removed to the
river Arkansa. The villages of those several subdivisions are
now [1836] on the headwaters of the river Osage, and of the
Verdigris, a northern tributary stream of the Arkansa. They
amount to about 5,000 souls, and have ceded a portion of their
lands to the United States, reserving to themselves a
territory on the Arkansa, south of 38° North latitude,
extending from 95° to 100° West longitude, on a breadth of 45
to 50 miles. The territory allotted to the Cherokees, the
Creeks and the Choctaws lies south of that of the Osage. …
The Kansas, who have always lived on the river of that name,
have been at peace with the Osage for the last thirty years,
and intermarry with them. They amount to 1,500 souls, and
occupy a tract of about 3,000,000 acres. … The five other
tribes of this subdivision are the Ioways, or Pahoja (Grey
Snow), the Missouris or Neojehe, the Ottoes, or Wahtootahtah,
the Omahaws, or Mahas, and the Puncas. … All the nations
speaking languages belonging to the Great Sioux Family may …
be computed at more than 50,000 souls."
_A. Gallatin,
Synopsis of the Indian Tribes
(Archœologia Americana, volume 2),
section 4._
"Owing to the fact that 'Sioux' is a word of reproach and
means snake or enemy, the term has been discarded by many
later writers as a family designation, and 'Dakota,' which
signifies friend or ally, has been employed in its stead. The
two words are, however, by no means properly synonymous. The
term 'Sioux' was used by Gallatin in a comprehensive or family
sense and was applied to all the tribes collectively known to
him to speak kindred dialects of a widespread language. It is
in this sense only, as applied to the linguistic family, that
the term is here employed. The term 'Dahcota' (Dakota) was
correctly applied by Gallatin to the Dakota tribes proper as
distinguished from the other members of the linguistic family
who are not Dakotas in a tribal sense. The use of the term
with this signification should be perpetuated. It is only
recently that a definite decision has been reached respecting
the relationship of the Catawba and Woccon, the latter an
extinct tribe known to have been linguistically related to the
Catawba. Gallatin thought that he was able to discern some
affinities of the Catawban language with 'Muskhogee and even
with Choctaw,' though these were not sufficient to induce him
to class them together. Mr. Gatschet was the first to call
attention to the presence in the Catawba language of a
considerable number of words having a Siouan affinity.
Recently Mr. Dorsey has made a critical examination of all the
Catawba linguistic material available, which has been
materially increased by the labors of Mr. Gatschet, and the
result seems to justify its inclusion as one of the dialects
of the widespread Siouan family." The principal tribes in the
Siouan Family named by Major Powell are the Dakota (including
Santee, Sisseton, Wahpeton, Yankton, Yanktonnais, Teton,—the
latter embracing Brulé, Sans Arcs, Blackfeet, Minneconjou, Two
Kettles, Ogalala, Uncpapa), Assinaboin, Omaha, Ponca, Kaw,
Osage, Quapaw, Iowa, Otoe, Missouri, Winnebago, Mandan, Gros
Ventres, Crow, Tutelo, Biloxi (see MUSKHOGEAN FAMILY), Catawba
and Woccon.
_J. W. Powell,
Seventh Annual Report of the Bureau of Ethnology,
page 112._
ALSO IN
_J. O. Dorsey,
Migrations of Siouan Tribes
(American Naturalist, volume 20, March)_.
_J. O. Dorsey,
Biloxi Indians of Louisiana
(V. P. address A. A. A. S., 1893)_.
See, above: HIDATSA.
AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
Sissetons.
See above SIOUAN FAMILY.
AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
Six Nations.
See above: IROQUOIS CONFEDERACY.
{105}
AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
Skittagetan Family.
"A family designation … retained for the tribes of the Queen
Charlotte Archipelago which have usually been called Haida.
From a comparison of the vocabularies of the Haida language
with others of the neighboring Koluschan family, Dr. Franz
Boas is inclined to consider that the two are genetically
related. The two languages possess a considerable number of
words in common, but a more thorough investigation is
requisite for the settlement of the question."
_J. W. Powell,
Seventh Annual Report, Bureau of Ethnology,
page 120._
AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
Snakes.
See above: SNOSHONEAN FAMILY.
AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
Stockbridge Indians.
"The Stockbridge Indians were originally a part of the
Housatannuck Tribe [Mohegans], to whom the Legislature of
Massachusetts granted or secured a township [afterward called
Stockbridge] in the year 1736. Their number was increased by
Wappingers and Mohikanders, and perhaps also by Indians
belonging to several other tribes, both of New England and New
York. Since their removal to New Stockbridge and Brotherton,
in the western parts of New York, they have been joined by
Mohegans and other Indians from East Connecticut, and even
from Rhode Island and Long Island."
_A. Gallatin,
Synopsis of Indian Tribes
(Archæologia Americana, volume 2),
page 35._
ALSO IN
_A. Holmes,
Annals of America, 1736
(volume 2)_.
_S. G. Drake,
Aboriginal Races,
page 15._
AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
Susquehannas, or Andastes, or Conestogas.
"Dutch and Swedish writers speak of a tribe called Minquas;
… the French in Canada … make frequent allusions to the
Gandastogués (more briefly Andastés), a tribe friendly to
their allies, the Hurons, and sturdy enemies of the Iroquois;
later still Pennsylvania writers speak of the Conestogas, the
tribe to which Logan belonged, and the tribe which perished at
the hands of the Paxton boys. Although Gallatin in his map,
followed by Bancroft, placed the Andastés near Lake Erie, my
researches led me to correct this, and identify the
Susquehannas, Minqua, Andastés or Gandastogués, and Conestogas
as being an the same tribe, the first name being apparently an
appellation given them by the Virginia tribes; the second that
given them by the Algonquins on the Delaware; while
Gandastogué as the French, or Conestoga as the English wrote
it, was their own tribal name, meaning cabin-pole men, Natio
Perticarum, from 'Andasta,' a cabin-pole. … Prior to 1600
the Susquehannas and the Mohawks … came into collision, and
the Susquehannas nearly exterminated the Mohawks in a war
which lasted ten years." In 1647 they offered their aid to the
Hurons against the Iroquois, having 1,300 warriors trained to
the use of fire-arms by three Swedish soldiers: but the
proposed alliance failed. During the third quarter of the 17th
century they seem to have been in almost continuous war with
the Five Nations, until, in 1675, they were completely
overthrown. A party of about 100 retreated into Maryland and
became involved there in a war with the colonists and were
destroyed. "The rest of the tribe, after making overtures to
Lord Baltimore, submitted to the Five Nations, and were
allowed to retain their ancient grounds. When Pennsylvania was
settled, they became known as Conestogas, and were always
friendly to the colonists of Penn, as they had been to the
Dutch and Swedes. In 1701 Canoodagtoh, their king, made a
treaty with Penn, and in the document they are styled Minquas,
Conestogas, or Susquehannas. They appear as a tribe in a
treaty in 1742, but were dwindling away. In 1763 the feeble
remnant of the tribe became involved in the general suspicion
entertained by the colonists against the red men, arising out
of massacres on the borders. To escape danger the poor
creatures took refuge in Lancaster jail, and here they were
all butchered by the Paxton boys, who burst into the place.
Parkman, in his Conspiracy of Pontiac, page 414, details the sad
story. The last interest of this unfortunate tribe centres in
Logan, the friend of the white man, whose speech is so
familiar to all, that we must regret that it has not sustained
the historical scrutiny of Brantz Mayer."
_(Tahgahjute; or Logan and Capt. Michael Cresap,
Maryland Historical Society, May, 1851:
and 8vo. Albany, 1867)_.
"Logan was a Conestoga, in other words a Susquehanna."
_J. G. Shea,
Note 46 to George Alsop's Character of
the Province of Maryland
(Gowan's Bibliotheca Americana, 5)._
See, also, above: IROQUOIS CONFEDERACY.
AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
Tachies.
See TEXAS: THE ABORIGINAL INHABITANTS AND THE NAME.
AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
Tacullies.
See below: ATHAPASCAN FAMILY.
AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
Taensas.
See NATCHESAN FAMILY.
AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
Takilman Family.
See Note, Appendix E.
"This name was proposed by Mr. Gatschet for a distinct
language spoken on the coast of Oregon about the lower Rogue
River."
_J. W. Powell,
Seventh Annual Report, Bureau of Ethnology,
page 121._
AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
Talligewi.
See above: ALLEGHANS.
AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
Tañoan Family.
"The tribes of this family in the United States resided
exclusively upon the Rio Grande and its tributary valleys from
about 33° to about 36°."
_J. W. Powell,
Seventh Annual Report, Bureau of Ethnology,
page 122._
AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
Tappans.
See above: ALGONQUIAN FAMILY.
AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
Taranteens or Tarratines.
See above: ABNAKIS:
also, ALGONQUIAN FAMILY.
AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
Tarascans.
"The Tarascans, so called from Taras, the name of a tribal
god, had the reputation of being the tallest and handsomest
people of Mexico. They were the inhabitants of the present
State of Michoacan, west of the valley of Mexico. According to
their oldest traditions, or perhaps those of their neighbors,
they had migrated from the north in company with, or about the
same time as, the Aztecs. For some 300 years before the
conquest they had been a sedentary, semi-civilized people,
maintaining their independence, and progressing steadily in
culture. When first encountered by the Spaniards they were
quite equal and in some respects ahead of the Nahuas. … In
their costume the Tarascos differed considerably from their
neighbors. The feather garments which they manufactured
surpassed all others in durability and beauty. Cotton was,
however, the usual material."
_D. G. Brinton,
The American Race,
page 136._
AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
Tarumi.
See above: CARIBS AND THEIR KINDRED.
AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
Tecuna.
See above: GUCK OR COCO GROUP.
AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
Tehuel Che.
See above: PATAGONIANS.
AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
Telmelches.
See above: PAMPAS TRIBES.
AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
Tequestas.
See below: TIMUQUANAN FAMILY.
AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
Tetons.
See above: SIOUAN FAMILY.
AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
Teutecas, or Tenez.
See below: ZAPOTECS, ETC.
{106}
AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
Timuquanan Family.
The Tequestas.
"Beginning at the southeast, we first meet the historic
Timucua family, the tribes of which are extinct at the present
time. … In the 16th century the Timucua inhabited the
northern and middle portion of the peninsula of Florida, and
although their exact limits to the north are unknown, they
held a portion of Florida bordering on Georgia, and some of
the coast islands in the Atlantic ocean. … The people
received its name from one of their villages called Timagoa.
… The name means 'lord,' 'ruler,' 'master' ('atimuca,'
waited upon, 'muca,' by servants, 'ati'), and the people's
name is written Atimuca early in the 18th century. … The
languages spoken by the Calusa and by the people next in
order, the Tequesta, are unknown to us. … The Calusa held
the southwestern extremity of Florida, and their tribal name
is left recorded in Calusahatchi, a river south of Tampa bay.
… Of the Tequesta people on the southeastern end of the
peninsula we know still less than of the Calusa Indians. There
was a tradition that they were the same people which held the
Bahama or Lucayo Islands."
_A. S. Gatschet,
A Migration Legend of the Creek Indians,
volume 1, part 1._
AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
Tinneh.
See above: ATHAPASCAN FAMILY.
AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
Tivitivas.
See above: CARIBS AND THEIR KINDRED.
AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
Tlascalans.
See MEXICO: A. D. 1519 (JUNE-OCTOBER).
AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
T'linkets.
See above: ATHAPASCAN FAMILY.
AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
Tobacco Nation.
See above: HURONS;
and IROQUOIS CONFEDERACY: THEIR NAME.
AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
Tobas.
See above: PAMPAS TRIBES.
AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
Toltecs.
See MEXICO, ANCIENT.
AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
Tonikan Family.
"The Tonika are known to have occupied three localities:
First, on the Lower Yazoo River (1700); second, east shore of
Mississippi River (about 1704); third, in Avoyelles Parish,
Louisiana (1817). Near Marksville, the county seat of that
parish, about twenty-five are now living."
_J. W. Powell,
Seventh Annual Report, Bureau of Ethnology,
page 125._
AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
Tonkawan Family.
"The Tónkawa were a migratory people and a colluvies gentium,
whose earliest habitat is unknown. Their first mention occurs
in 1719; at that time and ever since they roamed in the
western and southern parts of what is now Texas."
_J. W. Powell,
Seventh Annual Report, Bureau of Ethnology,
page 126._
AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
Tontos.
See above: APACHE GROUP.
AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
Toromonos.
See BOLIVIA: ABORIGINAL INHABITANTS.
AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
Totonacos.
"The first natives whom Cortes met on landing in Mexico were
the Totonacos. They occupied the territory of Totonicapan, now
included in the State of Vera Cruz. According to traditions of
their own, they had resided there 800 years, most of which
time they were independent, though a few generations before
the arrival of the Spaniards they had been subjected by the
arms of the Montezumas. … Sahagun describes them as almost
white in color, their heads artificially deformed, but their
features regular and handsome. Robes of cotton beautifully
dyed served them for garments, and their feet were covered
with sandals. … These people were highly civilized.
Cempoalla, their capital city, was situated about five miles
from the sea, at the junction of two streams. Its houses were
of brick and mortar, and each was surrounded by a small
garden, at the foot of which a stream of fresh water was
conducted. … The affinities of the Totonacos are difficult
to make out. … Their language has many words from Maya
roots, but it has also many more from the Nahuatl."
_D. G. Brinton,
The American Race,
page 139._
AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
Tukuarika.
See above: SHOSHONEAN FAMILY.
AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
Tupi.
Guarani.
Tupuyas.
"The first Indians with whom the Portuguese came in contact,
on the discovery of Brazil, called themselves Tupinama, a term
derived by Barnhagen from Tupi and Mba, something like warrior
or nobleman; by Martius from Tupi and Anamba (relative) with
the signification 'belonging to the Tupi tribe.' These Tupi
dwell on the east coast of Brazil, and with their language the
Portuguese were soon familiar. It was found especially
serviceable as a means of communication with other tribes, and
this led the Jesuits later to develop it as much as possible,
and introduce it as a universal language of intercourse with
the Savages. Thus the 'lingua geral Brasilica' arose, which
must be regarded as a Tupi with a Portuguese pronunciation.
The result was a surprising one, for it really succeeded in
forming, for the tribes of Brazil, divided in language, a
universal means of communication. Without doubt the wide
extent of the Tupi was very favorable, especially since on
this side of the Andes, as far as the Caribbean Sea, the
continent of South America was overrun with Tupi hordes. …
Von Martius has endeavored to trace their various migrations
and abodes, by which they have acquired a sort of ubiquity in
tropical South America. … This history … leads to the
supposition that, had the discovery been delayed a few
centuries, the Tupi might have become the lords of eastern
South America, and have spread a higher culture over that
region. The Tupi family may be divided, according to their
fixed abodes, into the southern, northern, eastern, western,
and central Tupi; all these are again divided into a number of
smaller tribes. The southern Tupi are usually called Guarani
(warriors), a name which the Jesuits first introduced. It
cannot be determined from which direction they came. The
greatest number are in Paraguay and the Argentine province of
Corrientes. The Jesuits brought them to a very high degree of
civilization. The eastern Tupi, the real Tupinamba, are
scattered along the Atlantic coast from St. Catherina Island
to the mouth of the Amazon. They are a very weak tribe. They
say they came from the south and west. The northern Tupi are a
weak and widely scattered remnant of a large tribe, and are
now in the province of Para, on the island of Marajo, and
along both banks of the Amazon. … It is somewhat doubtful if
this peaceable tribe are really Tupi. … The central Tupi
live in several free hordes between the Tocantins and Madeira.
… Cutting off the heads of enemies is in vogue among them.
… The Mundrucu are especially the head-hunting tribe. The
western Tupi all live in Bolivia. They are the only ones who
came in contact with the Inca empire, and their character and
manners show the influence of this. Some are a picture of
idyllic gayety and patriarchal mildness."
_The Standard Natural History
(J. S. Kingsley, editor)
volume 6, pages 248-249._
"In frequent contiguity with the Tupis was another stock, also
widely dispersed through Brazil, called the Tupuyas, of whom
the Botocudos in eastern Brazil are the most prominent tribe.
To them also belong the Ges nations, south of the lower
Amazon, and others. They are on a low grade of culture, going
quite naked, not cultivating the soil, ignorant of pottery,
and with poorly made canoes. They are dolichocephalic, and
must have inhabited the country a long time."
_D. G. Brinton,
Races and Peoples,
pages 269-270._
{107}
AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
Turiero.
See above: CHIBCHAS.
AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
Tuscaroras.
See above: IROQUOIS CONFEDERACY,
and IROQUOIS TRIBES OF THE SOUTH.
AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
Tuteloes.
See above: SIOUAN FAMILY.
AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
Twightwees, or Miamis.
See above: ILLINOIS.
AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
Two Kettles.
See above: SIOUAN FAMILY.
AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
Uaupe.
See above: GUCK OR COCO GROUP.
AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
Uchean Family.
"The pristine homes of the Yuchi are not now traceable with
any degree of certainty. The Yuchi are supposed to have been
visited by De Soto during his memorable march, and the town of
Cofitachiqui chronicled by him, is believed by many
investigators to have stood at Silver Bluff, on the left bank
of the Savannah, about 25 miles below Augusta. If, as is
supposed by some authorities, Cofitachiqui was a Yuchi town,
this would locate the Yuchi in a section which, when first
known to the whites, was occupied by the Shawnee. Later the
Yuchi appear to have lived somewhat farther down the
Savannah."
_J. W. Powell,
Seventh Annual Report, Bureau of Ethnology,
page 126._
AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
Uhilches.
See above: PAMPAS TRIBES.
AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
Uirina.
See above: GUCK OR COCO GROUP.
AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
Uncpapas.
See above: SIOUAN FAMILY.
AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
Upsarokas, or Absarokas, or Crows.
See above: SIOUAN FAMILY.
AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
Utahs.
See above: SHOSHONEAN FAMILY.
AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
Wabenakies, or Abnakis.
See above: ABNAKIS.
AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
Wacos, or Huecos.
See above: PAWNEE (CADDOAN) FAMILY.
AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
Wahpetons.
See above: SIOUAN FAMILY.
AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
Waiilatpuan Family.
"Hale established this family and placed under it the Cailloux
or Cayuse or Willetpoos, and the Molele. Their headquarters as
indicated by Hale are the upper part of the Walla Walla River
and the country about Mounts Hood and Vancouver."
_J. W. Powell,
Seventh Annual Report, Bureau of Ethnology,
page 127._
AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
Waikas.
See above: CARIBS AND THEIR KINDRED.
AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
Wakashan Family.
"The above family name was based upon a vocabulary of the
Wakash Indians, who, according to Gallatin, 'inhabit the
island on which Nootka Sound is situated.' … The term
'Wakash' for this group of languages has since been generally
ignored, and in its place Nootka or Nootka-Columbian has been
adopted. … Though by no means as appropriate a designation
as could be found, it seems clear that for the so-called
Wakash, Newittee, and other allied languages usually assembled
under the Nootka family, the term Wakash of 1836 has priority
and must be retained."
_J. W. Powell,
Seventh Annual Report, Bureau of Ethnology,
pages 129-130._
AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
Wampanoags, or Pokanokets.
See above: POKANOKETS.
AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
Wapisianas.
See above: CARIBS AND THEIR KINDRED.
AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
Wappingers.
See above: ALGONQUIAN FAMILY.
AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
Waraus.
See above: CARIBS AND THEIR KINDRED.
AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
Washakis.
See above: SHOSHONEAN FAMILY.
AMERICAN ABORIGINES
Washoan Family.
"This family is represented by a single well known tribe,
whose range extended from Reno, on the line of the Central
Pacific Railroad, to the lower end of Carson Valley."
_J. W. Powell,
Seventh Annual Report, Bureau of Ethnology,
page 131._
AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
Wichitas, or Pawnee Picts.
See above: PAWNEE (CADDOAN) FAMILY.
AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
Winnebagoes.
See above: SIOUAN FAMILY.
AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
Wishoskan Family.
"This is a small and obscure linguistic family and little is
known concerning the dialects composing it or of the tribes
which speak it. … The area occupied by the tribes speaking
dialects of this language was the coast from a little below
the mouth of Eel River to a little north of Mad River,
including particularly the country about Humboldt Bay."
_J. W. Powell,
Seventh Annual Report, Bureau of Ethnology,
page 133._
AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
Witumkas.
See above: MUSKHOGEAN FAMILY.
AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
Woccons.
See above: SIOUAN FAMILY.
AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
Wyandots.
See above: HURONS.
Yamasis and Yamacraws.
See above: MUSKHOGEAN FAMILY.
AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
Yamco.
See above: ANDESIANS.
AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
Yanan Family.
"The eastern boundary of the Yanan territory is formed by a
range of mountains a little west of Lassen Butte and
terminating near Pit River; the northern boundary by a line
running from northeast to southwest, passing near the northern
side of Round Mountain, three miles from Pit River. The
western boundary from Redding southward is on an average 10
miles to the east of the Sacramento. North of Redding it
averages double that distance or about 20 miles."
_J. W. Powell,
Seventh Annual Report, Bureau of Ethnology,
page 135._
AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
Yanktons and Yanktonnais.
See above: SIOUAN FAMILY.
AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
Yncas, or Incas.
See PERU.
AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
Yuchi.
See above: UCHEAN FAMILY.
AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
Yuguarzongo.
See above: ANDESIANS.
AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
Yukian Family.
"Round Valley, California, subsequently made a reservation to
receive the Yuki and other tribes, was formerly the chief seat
of the tribes of the family, but they also extended across the
mountains to the coast."
_J. W. Powell,
Seventh Annual Report, Bureau of Ethnology,
page 136._
AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
Yuman Family.
"The center of distribution of the tribes of this family is
generally considered to be the lower Colorado and Gila
Valleys."
_J. W. Powell,
Seventh Annual Report, Bureau of Ethnology,
page 137._
See above: APACHE GROUP.
AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
Yuncas.
See PERU.
AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
Yuroks or Eurocs.
See above: MODOCS, &c.
AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
Zaporo.
See above: ANDESIANS.
AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
Zapotecs, Mixtecs, Zoques, Mixes, etc.
"The greater part of Gaxaca [Mexico] and the neighboring
regions are still occupied by the Zapytees, who call
themselves Didja-za. There are now about 265,000 of them,
about 50,000 of whom speak nothing but their native tongue. In
ancient times they constituted a powerful independent state,
the citizens of which seem to have been quite as highly
civilized as any member of the Aztec family. They were
agricultural and sedentary, living in villages and
constructing buildings of stone and mortar.
{108}
The most remarkable, but by no means the only, specimens of
these still remaining are the ruins of Mitla. … The Mixtecs
adjoined the Zapotecs to the west, extending along the coast
of the Pacific to about the present port of Acapulco. In
culture they were equal to the Zapotecs. … The mountain
regions of the isthmus of Tehuantepec and the adjacent
portions of the states of Chiapas and Oaxaca are the habitats
of the Zoques, Mixes, and allied tribes. The early historians
draw a terrible picture of their valor, savagery and
cannibalism, which reads more like tales to deter the
Spaniards from approaching their domains than truthful
accounts. However this may be, they have been for hundreds of
years a peaceful, ignorant, timid part of the population,
homely, lazy and drunken. … The faint traditions of these
peoples pointed to the South for their origin. … The
Chinantecs inhabited Chinantla, which is a part of the state
of Oaxaca. … The Chinantecs had been reduced by the Aztecs
and severely oppressed by them. Hence they welcomed the
Spaniards as deliverers. … Other names by which they are
mentioned are Tenez and Teutecas. … In speaking of the
province of Chiapas the historian Herrera informs us that it
derived its name from the pueblo so-called, 'whose inhabitants
were the most remarkable in New Spain for their traits and
inclinations.' They had early acquired the art of
horsemanship, they were skillful in all kinds of music,
excellent painters, carried on a variety of arts, and were
withal very courteous to each other. One tradition was that
they had reached Chiapas from Nicaragua. … But the more
authentic legend of the Chapas or Chapanecs, as they were
properly called from their totemic bird the Chapa, the red
macaw, recited that the whole stock moved down from a northern
latitude, following down the Pacific coast until they came to
Soconusco, where they divided, one part entering the mountains
of Chiapas, the other proceeding on to Nicaragua."
_D. G. Brinton,
The American Race,
pages 140-146._
ALSO IN
_A. Bandelier,
Report of Archæological Tour in Mexico._
AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
Zoques.
See above: ZAPOTECS, ETC.
AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
Zuñian Family.
"Derivation: From the Cochiti term Suinyi, said to mean 'the
people of the long nails,' referring to the surgeons of Zuñi
who always wear some of their nails very long (Cushing)."
_J. W. Powell,
Seventh Annual Report, Bureau of Ethnology,
page 138._
See, above, PUEBLOS;
also, AMERICA: PREHISTORIC.
----------AMERICAN ABORIGINES: End----------
AMERICAN CIVIL WAR.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1860 (NOVEMBER-DECEMBER),
and after.
Statistics of. See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
A. D. 1865 (MAY).
AMERICAN KNIGHTS, Order of.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1864 (OCTOBER).
AMERICAN PARTY, The.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1852.
AMERICAN SYSTEM, The.
See TARIFF LEGISLATION (UNITED STATES): A. D. 1816-1824.
AMHERST, Lord, The Indian Administration of.
See INDIA: A. D. 1823-1833.
AMHERST'S CAMPAIGNS IN AMERICA.
See CANADA (NEW FRANCE): A. D. 1758 to 1760.
AMICITIÆ.
See GUILDS OF FLANDERS.
AMIDA, Sieges of.
The ancient city of Amida, now Diarbekr, on the right bank of
the Upper Tigris was thrice taken by the Persians from the
Romans, in the course of the long wars between the two
nations. In the first instance, A. D. 359, it fell after a
terrible siege of seventy-three days, conducted by the Persian
king Sapor in person, and was given up to pillage and
slaughter, the Roman commanders crucified and the few
surviving inhabitants dragged to Persia as slaves. The town
was then abandoned by the Persians, repeopled by the Romans
and recovered its prosperity and strength, only to pass
through a similar experience again in 502 A. D., when it was
besieged for eighty days by the Persian king Kobad, carried by
storm, and most of its inhabitants slaughtered or enslaved. A
century later, A. D. 605, Chosroes took Amida once more, but
with less violence.
_G. Rawlinson,
Seventh Great Oriental Monarchy,
chapters 9, 19 and 24._
See, also, PERSIA: A. D. 226-627.
AMIENS.
Origin of name.
See BELGÆ.
AMIENS: A. D. 1597.
Surprise by the Spaniards.
Recovery by Henry IV.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1593-1598.
AMIENS: A. D. 1870.
Taken by the Germans.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1870-1871.
----------AMIENS: End----------
AMIENS, The Mise of.
See OXFORD, PROVISIONS OF.
AMIENS, Treaty of (1527).
Negotiated by Cardinal Wolsey, between Henry VIII. of England
and Francis I. of France, establishing an alliance against the
Emperor, Charles V. The treaty was sealed and sworn to in the
cathedral church at Amiens, Aug. 18, 1527.
_J. S. Brewer,
Reign of Henry VIII.,
volume 2, chapters 26 and 28._
AMIENS, Treaty of (1801).
See FRANCE: A. D. 1801-1802.
AMIN AL, Caliph, A. D. 809-813.
AMIR.
An Arabian title, signifying chief or ruler.
AMISIA, The.
The ancient name of the river Ems.
AMISUS, Siege of.
The siege of Amisus by Lucullus was one of the important
operations of the Third Mithridatic war. The city was on the
coast of the Black Sea, between the rivers Halys and Lycus; it
is represented in site by the modern town of Samsoon. Amisus,
which was besieged in 73 B. C. held out until the following
year. Tyrannio the grammarian was among the prisoners taken
and sent to Rome.
_G. Long,
Decline of the Roman Republic,
volume 3, chapters 1 and
2._
AMMANN.
This is the title of the Mayor or President of the Swiss Communal
Council or Gemeinderath.
See SWITZERLAND: A. D. 1848-1890.
AMMON, The Temple and Oracle of.
The Ammonium or Oasis of Ammon, in the Libyan desert, which
was visited by Alexander the Great, has been identified with
the oasis now known as the Oasis of Siwah. "The Oasis of Siwah
was first visited and described by Browne in 1792; and its
identity with that of Ammon fully established by Major Rennell
('Geography of Herodotus,' pages 577-591). … The site of the
celebrated temple and oracle of Ammon was first discovered by
Mr. Hamilton in 1853." "Its famous oracle was frequently
visited by Greeks from Cyrene, as well as from other parts of
the Hellenic world, and it vied in reputation with those of
Delphi and Dodona."
_E. H. Bunbury,
History of Ancient Geography,
chapter 8, section 1,
and chapter 12, section 1, and note E._
An expedition of 50,000 men sent by Cambyses to Ammon, B. C.
525, is said to have perished in the desert, to the last man.
See EGYPT: B. C. 525-332.
{109}
AMMONITES, The.
According to the narrative in Genesis xix: 30-39, the
Ammonites were descended from Ben-Ammi, son of Lot's second
daughter, as the Moabites came from Moab, the eldest
daughter's son. The two people are much associated in Biblical
history. "It is hard to avoid the conclusion that, while Moab
was the settled and civilized half of the nation of Lot, the
Bene Ammon formed its predatory and Bedouin section."
_G. Grove,
Dictionary of the Bible._
See JEWS: THE EARLY HEBREW HISTORY;
also, MOABITES.
AMMONITI, OR AMMONIZIONI, The.
See FLORENCE: A. D. 1358.
AMNESTY PROCLAMATION.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A.D. 1863 (DECEMBER).
AMORIAN DYNASTY, The.
See BYZANTINE EMPIRE: A. D. 820-1057.
AMORIAN WAR, The.
The Byzantine Emperor, Theophilus, in war with the Saracens,
took and destroyed, with peculiar animosity, the town of
Zapetra or Sozopetra, in Syria, which happened to be the
birthplace of the reigning caliph, Motassem, son of Haroun
Alraschid. The caliph had condescended to intercede for the
place, and his enemy's conduct was personally insulting to
him, as well as atrociously inhumane. To avenge the outrage he
invaded Asia Minor, A. D. 838, at the head of an enormous
army, with the special purpose of destroying the birthplace of
Theophilus. The unfortunate town which suffered that
distinction was Amorinm in Phrygia,—whence the ensuing war
was called the Amorian War. Attempting to defend Amorinm in
the field, the Byzantines were hopelessly defeated, and the
doomed city was left to its fate. It made an heroic resistance
for fifty-five days, and the siege is said to have cost the
caliph 70,000 men. But he entered the place at last with a
merciless sword, and left a heap of ruins for the monument of
his revenge.
_E. Gibbon,
Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire,
chapter 52.
AMORITES, The.
"The Hittites and Amorites were … mingled together in the
mountains of Palestine like the two races which ethnologists
tell us go to form the modern Kelt. But the Egyptian monuments
teach us that they were of very different origin and
character. The Hittites were a people with yellow skins and
'Mongoloid' features, whose receding foreheads, oblique eyes,
and protruding upper jaws, are represented as faithfully on
their own monuments as they are on those of Egypt, so that we
cannot accuse the Egyptian artists of caricaturing their
enemies. If the Egyptians have made the Hittites ugly, it was
because they were so in reality. The Amorites, on the
contrary, were a tall and handsome people. They are depicted
with white skins, blue eyes, and reddish hair, all the
characteristics, in fact, of the white race. Mr. Petrie points
out their resemblance to the Dardanians of Asia Minor, who
form an intermediate link between the white-skinned tribes of
the Greek seas and the fair-complexioned Libyans of Northern
Africa. The latter are still found in large numbers in the
mountainous regions which stretch eastward from Morocco, and
are usually known among the French under the name of Kabyles.
The traveller who first meets with them in Algeria cannot fail
to be struck by their likeness to a certain part of the
population in the British Isles. Their clear-white freckled
skins, their blue eyes, their golden-red hair and tall
stature, remind him of the fair Kelts of an Irish village; and
when we find that their skulls, which are of the so-called
dolichocephalic or 'long-headed' type, are the same as the
skulls discovered in the prehistoric cromlechs of the country
they still inhabit, we may conclude that they represent the
modern descendants of the white-skinned Libyans of the
Egyptian monuments. In Palestine also we still come across
representatives of a fair-complexioned blue-eyed race in whom
we may see the descendants of the ancient Amorites, just as we
see in the Kabyles the descendants of the ancient Libyans. We
know that the Amorite type continued to exist in Judah long
after the Israelitish conquest of Canaan. The captives taken
from the southern cities of Judah br Shishak in the time of
Rehoboam, and depicted by him upon the walls of the great
temple of Karnak, are people of Amorite origin. Their 'regular
profile of sub-aquiline cast,' as Mr. Tomkins describes it,
their high cheek-bones and martial expression, are the
features of the Amorites, and not of the Jews. Tallness of
stature has always been a distinguishing characteristic of the
white race. Hence it was that the Anakim, the Amorite
inhabitants of Hebron, seemed to the Hebrew spies to be as
giants, while they themselves were but 'as grasshoppers' by,
the side of them (Numbers xiii: 33). After the Israelitish
invasion remnants of the Anakim were left in Gaza and Gath and
Ashkelon (Joshua xi: 22). and in the time of David, Goliath of
Gath and his gigantic family were objects of dread to their
neighbors (2 Samuel xxi: 15-22). It is clear, then, that the
Amorites of Canaan belonged to the same white race as the
Libyans of Northern Africa, and like them preferred the
mountains to the hot plains and valleys below. The Libyans
themselves belonged to a race which can be traced through the
peninsula of Spain and the western side of France into the
British Isles. Now it is curious that wherever this particular
branch of the white race has extended it has been accompanied
by a particular form of cromlech, or sepulchral chamber built
of large uncut stones. … It has been necessary to enter at
this length into what has been discovered concerning the
Amorites by recent research, in order to show how carefully
they should be distinguished from the Hittites with whom they
afterwards intermingled. They must have been in possession of
Palestine long before the Hittites arrived there. They
extended over a much wider area."
_A. H. Sayce,
The Hittites,
chapter 1._
AMPHIKTYONIC COUNCIL.
"An Amphiktyonic, or, more correctly, an Amphiktionic, body
was an assembly of the tribes who dwelt around any famous
temple, gathered together to manage the affairs of that
temple. There were other Amphiktyonic Assemblies in Greece
[besides that of Delphi], amongst which that of the isle of
Kalaureia, off the coast of Argolis, was a body of some
celebrity. The Amphiktyons of Delphi obtained greater
importance than any other Amphiktyons only because of the
greater importance of the Delphic sanctuary, and because it
incidentally happened that the greater part of the Greek
nation had some kind of representation among them.
{110}
But that body could not be looked upon as a perfect
representation of the Greek nation which, to postpone other
objections to its constitution, found no place for so large a
fraction of the Hellenic body as the Arkadians. Still the
Amphiktyons of Delphi undoubtedly came nearer than any other
existing body to the character of a general representation of
all Greece. It is therefore easy to understand how the
religious functions of such a body might incidentally assume a
political character. … Once or twice then, in the course of
Grecian history, we do find the Amphiktyonic body acting with
real dignity in the name of united Greece. … Though the list
of members of the Council is given with some slight variations
by different authors, all agree in making the constituent
members of the union tribes and not cities. The
representatives of the Ionic and Doric races sat and voted as
single members, side by side with the representatives of petty
peoples like the Magnêsians and Phthiôtic Achaians. When the
Council was first formed, Dorians and Ionians were doubtless
mere tribes of northern Greece, and the prodigious development
of the Doric and Ionic races in after times made no difference
in its constitution. … The Amphiktyonic Council was not
exactly a diplomatic congress, but it was much more like a
diplomatic congress than it was like the governing assembly of
any commonwealth, kingdom, or federation. The Pylagoroi and
Hieromnêmones were not exactly Ambassadors, but they were much
more like Ambassadors than they were like members of a British
Parliament or even an American Congress. … The nearest
approach to the Amphiktyonic Council in modern times would be
if the College of Cardinals were to consist of members chosen
by the several Roman Catholic nations of Europe and America."
_E. A. Freeman,
History of Federal Government,
volume 1, chapter 3._
AMPHILOCHIANS, The.
See AKARNANIANS.
AMPHIPOLIS.
This town in Macedonia, occupying an important situation on
the eastern bank of the river Strymon, just below a small lake
into which it widens near its mouth, was originally called
"The Nine Ways," and was the scene of a horrible human
sacrifice made by Xerxes on his march into Greece.
_Thirlwall,
History of Greece,
chapter 15._
It was subsequently taken by the Athenians, B. C. 437, and
made a capital city by them [see ATHENS: B. C. 440-437],
dominating the surrounding district, its name being changed to
Amphipolis. During the Peloponnesian War (B. C. 424), the able
Lacedæmonian general, Brasidas, led a small army into
Macedonia and succeeded in capturing Amphipolis, which caused
great dismay and discouragement at Athens. Thucydides, the
historian, was one of the generals held responsible for the
disaster and he was driven as a consequence into the fortunate
exile which produced the composition of his history. Two years
later the Athenian demagogue-leader, Cleon, took command of an
expedition sent to recover Amphipolis and other points in
Macedonia and Thrace. It was disastrously beaten and Cleon was
killed, but Brasidas fell likewise in the battle. Whether
Athens suffered more from her defeat than Sparta from her
victory is a question.
_Thucydides,
History,
book 4, section 102-135;
book 5, section 1-11._
See, also,
ATHENS: B. C. 466-454,
and GREECE: B. C. 424-421.
Amphipolis was taken by Philip of Macedon, B. C. 358.
See GREECE: B. C. 359-358.
AMPHISSA, Siege and Capture by Philip of Macedon (B. C. 339-338).
See GREECE: B. C. 357-336.
AMPHITHEATRES, Roman.
"There was hardly a town in the [Roman] empire which had not
an amphitheatre large enough to contain vast multitudes of
spectators. The savage excitement of gladiatorial combats
seems to have been almost necessary to the Roman legionaries
in their short intervals of inaction, and was the first
recreation for which they provided in the places where they
were stationed. … Gladiatorial combats were held from early
times in the Forum, and wild beasts hunted in the Circus; but
until Curio built his celebrated double theatre of wood, which
could be made into an amphitheatre by turning the two
semi-circular portions face to face, we have no record of any
special building in the peculiar form afterwards adopted. It
may have been, therefore, that Curio's mechanical contrivance
first suggested the elliptical shape. … As specimens of
architecture, the amphitheatres are more remarkable for the
mechanical skill and admirable adaptation to their purpose
displayed in them, than for any beauty of shape or decoration.
The hugest of all, the Coliseum, was ill-proportioned and
unpleasing in its lines when entire."
_R. Burn,
Rome and the Campagna,
introduction._
AMPHORA.
MODIUS.
"The [Roman] unit of capacity was the Amphora or Quadrantal,
which contained a cubic foot … equal to 5.687 imperial
gallons, or 5 gallons, 2 quarts, 1 pint, 2 gills, nearly. The
Amphora was the unit for both liquid and dry measures, but the
latter was generally referred to the Modius, which contained
one-third of an Amphora. … The Culeus was equal to 20
Amphoræ."
_W. Ramsay,
Manual of Roman Antiquity,
chapter 13._
AMRITSAR.
See SIKHS.
AMSTERDAM:
The rise of the city.
"In 1205 a low and profitless marsh upon the coast of Holland,
not far from the confines of Utrecht, had been partially
drained by a dam raised upon the hitherto squandered stream of
the Amstel. Near this dam a few huts were tenanted by poor men
who earned a scanty livelihood by fishing in the Zuyder Sea;
but so uninviting seemed that barren and desolate spot, that a
century later Amstel-dam was still an obscure seafaring town,
or rather hamlet. Its subsequent progress was more rapid. The
spirit of the land was stirring within it, and every portion
of it thrilled with new energy and life. Some of the fugitive
artizans from Flanders saw in the thriving village safety and
peace, and added what wealth they had, and, what was better,
their manufacturing intelligence and skill, to the humble
hamlet's store. Amsteldam was early admitted to the fellowship
of the Hanse League; and, in 1342, having outgrown its primary
limits, required to be enlarged. For this an expensive
process, that of driving piles into the swampy plain, was
necessary; and to this circumstance, no doubt, it is owing
that the date of each successive enlargement has been so
accurately recorded."
_W. T. McCullagh,
Industrial History of Three Nations,
volume 2, chapter 9._
{111}
AMT.
AMTER.
See SCANDINAVIAN STATES (DENMARK-ICELAND): A. D. 1849-1874;
and SCANDINAVIAN STATES (NORWAY): A. D. 1814-1815.
AMURATH I., Turkish Sultan, A. D. 1359-1389.
Amurath II., A. D. 1421-1451.
Amurath III., A. D. 1574-1595.
Amurath IV., A. D. 1623-1640.
AMYCLÆ,
The Silence of.
Amyclæ was the chief city of Laconia while that district of
Peloponnesus was occupied by the Achæans, before the Doric
invasion and before the rise of Sparta. It maintained its
independence against the Doric Spartans for a long period, but
succumbed at length under circumstances which gave rise to a
proverbial saying among the Greeks concerning "the silence of
Amyclæ." "The peace of Amyclæ, we are told, had been so often
disturbed by false alarms of the enemy's approach, that at
length a law was passed forbidding such reports, and the
silent city was taken by surprise."
_C. Thirlwall,
History of Greece,
chapter 7._
AMYTHAONIDÆ, The.
See ARGOS. ARGOLIS.
AN, The City of.
See ON.
ANABAPTISTS OF MÜNSTER.
"Münster is a town in Westphalia, the seat of a bishop, walled
round, with a noble cathedral and many churches; but there is
one peculiarity about Münster that distinguishes it from all
other old German towns; it has not one old church spire in it.
Once it had a great many. How comes it that it now has none?
In Münster lived a draper, Knipperdolling by name, who was
much excited over the doctrines of Luther, and he gathered
many people in his house, and spoke to them bitter words
against the Pope, the bishops, and the clergy. The bishop at
this time was Francis of Waldeck, a man much inclined himself
to Lutheranism; indeed, later, he proposed to suppress
Catholicism in the diocese, as he wanted to seize on it and
appropriate it as a possession to his family. Moreover, in
1544, he joined the Protestant princes in a league against the
Catholics; but he did not want things to move too fast, lest
he should not be able to secure the wealthy See as personal
property. Knipperdolling got a young priest, named Rottmann,
to preach in one of the churches against the errors of
Catholicism, and he was a man of such fiery eloquence that he
stirred up a mob which rushed through the town, wrecking the
churches. The mob became daily more daring and threatening.
They drove the priests out of the town, and some of the
wealthy citizens fled, not knowing what would follow. The
bishop would have yielded to all the religious innovations if
the rioters had not threatened his temporal position and
revenue. In 1532 the pastor, Rottmann, began to preach against
the baptism of infants. Luther wrote to him remonstrating, but
in vain. The bishop was not in the town; he was at Minden, of
which See he was bishop as well. Finding that the town was in
the hands of Knipperdolling and Rottmann, who were
confiscating the goods of the churches, and excluding those
who would not agree with their opinions, the bishop advanced
to the place at the head of some soldiers. Münster closed its
gates against him. Negotiations were entered into; the
Landgrave of Hesse was called in as pacificator, and articles
of agreement were drawn up and signed. Some of the churches
were given to the Lutherans, but the Cathedral was reserved
for the Catholics, and the Lutherans were forbidden to molest
the latter, and disturb their religious services. The news of
the conversion of the city of Münster to the gospel spread,
and strangers came to it from all parts. Among these was a
tailor of Leyden, called John Bockelson. Rottmann now threw up
his Lutheranism and proclaimed himself opposed to many of the
doctrines which Luther still retained. Amongst other things he
rejected was infant baptism. This created a split among the
reformed in Münster, and the disorders broke out afresh. The
mob now fell on the cathedral and drove the Catholics from it,
and would not permit them to worship in it. They also invaded
the Lutheran churches, and filled them with uproar. On the
evening of January 28, 1534, the Anabaptists stretched chains
across the streets, assembled in armed bands, closed the gates
and placed sentinels in all directions. When day dawned there
appeared suddenly two men dressed like Prophets, with long
ragged beards and flowing mantles, staff in hand, who paced
through the streets solemnly in the midst of the crowd, who
bowed before them and saluted them as Enoch and Elias. These
men were John Bockelson, the tailor, and one John Mattheson,
head of the Anabaptists of Holland. Knipperdolling at once
associated himself with them, and shortly the place was a
scene of the wildest ecstacies. Men and women ran about the
streets screaming and leaping, and crying out that they saw
visions of angels with swords drawn urging them on to the
extermination of Lutherans and Catholics alike. … A great
number of citizens were driven out, on a bitter day, when the
land was covered with snow. Those who lagged were beaten;
those who were sick were carried to the market-place and
re-baptized by Rottmann. … This was too much to be borne.
The bishop raised an army and marched against the city. Thus
began a siege which was to last sixteen months, during which a
multitude of untrained fanatics, commanded by a Dutch tailor,
held out against a numerous and well-armed force. Thenceforth
the city was ruled by divine revelations, or rather, by the
crazes of the diseased brains of the prophets. One day they
declared that all the officers and magistrates were to be
turned out of their offices, and men nominated by themselves
were to take their places; another day Mattheson said it was
revealed to him that every book in the town except the Bible
was to be destroyed; accordingly all the archives and
libraries were collected in the market-place and burnt. Then
it was revealed to him that all the spires were to be pulled
down; so the church towers were reduced to stumps, from which
the enemy could be watched and whence cannon could play on
them. One day he declared he had been ordered by Heaven to go
forth, with promise of victory, against the besiegers. He
dashed forth at the head of a large band, but was surrounded
and he and his band slain. The death of Mattheson struck
dismay into the hearts of the Anabaptists, but John Bockelson
took advantage of the moment to establish himself as head. He
declared that it was revealed to him that Mattheson had been
killed because he had disobeyed the heavenly command, which
was to go forth with few. Instead of that he had gone with many.
{112}
Bockelson said he had been ordered in vision to marry
Mattheson's widow and assume his place. It was further
revealed to him that Münster was to be the heavenly Zion, the
capital of the earth, and he was to be king over it. … Then
he had another revelation that every man was to have as many
wives as he liked, and he gave himself sixteen wives. This was
too outrageous for some to endure, and a plot was formed
against him by a blacksmith and about 200 of the more
respectable citizens, but it was frustrated and led to the
seizure of the conspirators and the execution of a number of
them. … At last, on midsummer eve, 1536, after a siege of
sixteen months, the city was taken. Several of the citizens,
unable longer to endure the tyranny, cruelty and abominations
committed by the king, helped the soldiers of the
prince-bishop to climb the walls, open the gates, and surprise
the city. A desperate hand-to-hand fight ensued; the streets
ran with blood. John Bockelson, instead of leading his people,
hid himself, but was caught. So was Knipperdolling. When the
place was in his hands the prince-bishop entered. John of
Leyden and Knipperdolling were cruelly tortured, their flesh
plucked off with red-hot pincers, and then a dagger was thrust
into their hearts. Finally, their bodies were hung in iron
cages to the tower of a church in Münster. Thus ended this
hideous drama, which produced an indescribable effect
throughout Germany. Münster, after this, in spite of the
desire of the prince-bishop to establish Lutheranism, reverted
to Catholicism, and remains Catholic to this day."
_S. Baring-Gould,
The Story of Germany,
chapter 36._
ALSO IN
_S. Baring-Gould,
Historic Oddities and Strange Events,
2d Series._
_L. von Ranke,
History of the Reformation in Germany,
book 6, chapter 9 (volume 3)_.
_C. Beard,
The Reformation
(Hibbert Lectures., 1883),
lecture 6._
ANAHUAC.
"The word Anahuac signifies 'near the water.' It was,
probably, first applied to the country around the lakes in the
Mexican Valley, and gradually extended to the remoter regions
occupied by the Aztecs, and the other semi-civilized races.
Or, possibly, the name may have been intended, as Veytia
suggests (Historical Antiquities, lib. 1, cap. 1), to denote
the land between the waters of the Atlantic and Pacific."
_W. B. Prescott,
Conquest of Mexico,
book 1, chapter 1, note 11._
See MEXICO: A. D. 1325-1502.
ANAKIM, The.
See HORITES, and AMORITES.
ANAKTORIUM.
See KORKYRA.
ANAPA: A. D. 1828.
Siege and Capture.
Cession to Russia.
See TURKS: A. D. 1826-1829.
ANARCHISTS.
"The anarchists are … a small but determined band. …
Although their programme may be found almost word for word in
Proudhon, they profess to follow more closely Bakounine, the
Russian nihilist, who separated himself from Marx and the
Internationals, and formed secret societies in Spain,
Switzerland, France, and elsewhere, and thus propagated
nihilistic views; for anarchy and nihilism are pretty much one
and the same thing when nihilism is understood in the older,
stricter sense, which does not include, as it does in a larger
and more modern sense, those who are simply political and
constitutional reformers. Like prince Krapotkine, Bakounine
came of an old and prominent Russian family; like him, he
revolted against the cruelties and injustices he saw about
him; like him, he despaired of peaceful reform, and concluded
that no great improvement could be expected until all our
present political, economic, and social institutions were so
thoroughly demolished that of the old structure not one stone
should be left on another. Out of the ruins a regenerated
world might arise. We must be purged as by fire. Like all
anarchists and true nihilists, he was a thorough pessimist, as
far as our present manner of life was concerned. Reaction
against conservatism carried him very far. He wished to
abolish private property, state, and inheritance. Equality is
to be carried so far that all must wear the same kind of
clothing, no difference being made even for sex. Religion is
an aberration of the brain, and should be abolished. Fire,
dynamite, and assassination are approved of by at least a
large number of the party. They are brave men, and fight for
their faith with the devotion of martyrs. Imprisonment and
death are counted but as rewards. … Forty-seven anarchists
signed a declaration of principles, which was read by one of
their number at their trial at Lyons. … 'We wish liberty
[they declared] and we believe its existence incompatible with
the existence of any power whatsoever, whatever its origin and
form—whether it be selected or imposed, monarchical or
republican—whether inspired by divine right or by popular
right, by anointment or universal suffrage. … The best
governments are the worst. The substitution, in a word, in
human relations, of free contract perpetually revisable and
dissoluble, is our ideal.'"
_H. T. Ely,
French and German Socialism in Modern Times,
chapter 8._
"In anarchism we have the extreme antithesis of socialism and
communism. The socialist desires so to extend the sphere of
the state that it shall embrace all the more important
concerns of life. The communist, at least of the older school,
would make the sway of authority and the routine which follows
therefrom universal. The anarchist, on the other hand, would
banish all forms of authority and have only a system of the
most perfect liberty. The anarchist is an extreme
individualist. … Anarchism, as a social theory, was first
elaborately formulated by Proudhon. In the first part of his
work, 'What is Property?' he briefly stated the doctrine and
gave it the name 'anarchy,' absence of a master or sovereign.
… About 12 years before Proudhon published his views, Josiah
Warren reached similar conclusions in America."
_H. L. Osgood,
Scientific Anarchism
(Political Science Quarterly, March, 1889),
pages 1-2._
See, also, NIHILISM.
ANARCHISTS, The Chicago.
See Chicago: A. D. 1886-1887.
ANASTASIUS I., Roman Emperor (Eastern.) A. D. 491-518.
ANASTASIUS II., A. D. 713-716.
ANASTASIUS III., Pope, A. D. 911-913
ANASTASIUS IV., Pope., A. D. 1153-1154.
ANATOLIA.
See ASIA MINOR.
ANCALITES, The.
A tribe of ancient Britons whose home was near the Thames.
ANCASTER, Origin of.
See CAUSENNÆ.
{113}
ANCHORITES.
HERMITS.
"The fertile and peaceable lowlands of England … offered few
spots sufficiently wild and lonely for the habitation of a
hermit; those, therefore, who wished to retire from the world
into a more strict and solitary life than that which the
monastery afforded were in the habit of immuring themselves,
as anchorites, or in old English 'Ankers,' in little cells of
stone, built usually against the wall of a church. There is
nothing new under the sun; and similar anchorites might have
been seen in Egypt, 500 years before the time of St. Antony,
immured in cells in the temples of Isis or Serapis. It is only
recently that antiquaries have discovered how common this
practice was in England, and how frequently the traces of
these cells are to be found about our parish churches."
_C. Kingsley,
The Hermits,
page 329._
The term anchorites is applied, generally, to all religious
ascetics who lived in solitary cells.
_J. Bingham,
Antiquity of the Christian Church,
book 7, chapter 1, section 4._
"The essential difference between an anker or anchorite and a
hermit appears to have been that, whereas the former passed
his whole life shut up in a cell, the latter, although leading
indeed a solitary life, wandered about at liberty."
_R. R. Sharpe,
Introduction to "Calendar of Wills in the
Court of Husting, London,"
volume 2, page xxi._
ANCIENT REGIME.
The political and social system in France that was destroyed
by the Revolution of 1789 is commonly referred to as the
"ancien régime." Some writers translate this in the literal
English form—"the ancient regime;" others render it more
appropriately, perhaps, the "old regime." Its special
application is to the state of things described under FRANCE:
A. D. 1789.
ANCIENTS, The Council of the.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1795(JUNE-SEPTEMBER).
ANCRUM, Battle of.
A success obtained by the Scots over an English force making
an incursion into the border districts of their country A. D.
1544.
_J. H. Burton,
History of Scotland,
chapter 35 (volume 3)._
ANDALUSIA:
The name.
"The Vandals, … though they passed altogether out of Spain,
have left their name to this day in its southern part, under
the form of Andalusia, a name which, under the Saracen
conquerors, spread itself over the whole peninsula."
_E. A. Freeman,
Historical Geography of Europe,
chapter 4, section 3._
See, also: VANDALS: A. D. 428.
Roughly speaking, Andalusia represents the country known to
the ancients, first, as Tartessus, and, later, as Turdetania.
ANDAMAN ISLANDERS, The.
See INDIA: THE ABORIGINAL INHABITANTS.
ANDASTÉS, The.
See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: SUSQUEHANNAS.
ANDECAVI.
The ancient name of the city of Angers, France, and of the
tribe which occupied that region.
See VENETI OF WESTERN GAUL.
ANDERIDA.
ANDERIDA SYLVA.
ANDREDSWALD.
A great forest which anciently stretched across Surrey, Sussex
and into Kent (southeastern England) was called Anderida Sylva
by the Romans and Andredswald by the Saxons. It coincided
nearly with the tract of country called in modern times the
Weald of Kent, to which it gave its name of the Wald or Weald.
On the southern coast-border of the Anderida Sylva the Romans
established the important fortress and port of Anderida, which
has been identified with modern Pevensey. Here the
Romano-Britons made an obstinate stand against the Saxons, in
the fifth century, and Anderida was only taken by Ælle after a
long siege. In the words of the Chronicle, the Saxons "slew
all that were therein, nor was there henceforth one Briton
left."
_J. R. Green,
The Making of England,
chapter 1._
ALSO IN
_T. Wright,
Celt, Roman, and Saxon,
chapter 5._
ANDERSON, Major Robert.
Defense of Fort Sumter.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1860 (DECEMBER); 1861
(MARCH-APRIL).
ANDERSONVILLE PRISON-PENS.
See PRISONS AND PRISON-PENS, CONFEDERATE.
ANDES, OR ANDI, OR ANDECAVI, The.
See VENETI of WESTERN GAUL.
ANDESIANS, The.
See AMERICAN ABORIGINES; ANDESIANS.
ANDRE, Major John, The Capture and execution of.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1780 (AUGUST-SEPTEMBER).
ANDREW I., King of Hungary, A. D. 1046-1060.
ANDREW II., King of Hungary, A. D. 1204-1235.
ANDREW III., King of Hungary, A. D. 1290-1301.
ANDRONICUS I., Emperor in the East (Byzantine or Greek), A. D.
1183-1185.
Andronicus II. (Palæologus), Greek Emperor of Constantinople, A.
D. 1282-1328.
Andronicus III. (Palæologus), A. D. 1328-1341.
ANDROS, Governor, New England and New York under.
See
NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1686;
MASSACHUSETTS: A. D. 1671-1686;
and 1686-1689;
NEW YORK: A. D. 1688;
and CONNECTICUT: A. D. 1685-1687.
ANDROS, Battle of (B. C. 407).
See GREECE: B. C. 411-407.
ANGELIQUE, La Mère.
See PORT ROYAL AND THE JANSENISTS: A. D. 1602-1660.
ANGERS, Origin of.
See VENETI OF WESTERN GAUL.
ANGEVIN KINGS AND ANGEVIN EMPIRE.
See ENGLAND: A. D. 1154-1189.
ANGHIARI, Battle of (1425).
See ITALY: A. D. 1412-1447.
ANGLES AND JUTES, The.
The mention of the Angles by Tacitus is in the following,
passage: "Next [to the Langobardi] come the Reudigni, the
Aviones, the Anglii, the Varini, the Eudoses, the Suardones,
and Nuithones, who are fenced in by rivers or forests. None of
these tribes have any noteworthy feature, except their common
worship of Ertha, or mother-Earth, and their belief that she
interposes in human affairs, and visits the nations in her
car. In an island of the ocean there is a sacred grove, and
within it a consecrated chariot, covered over with a garment.
Only one priest is permitted to touch it. He can perceive the
presence of the goddess in this sacred recess, and walks by
her side with the utmost reverence as she is drawn along by
heifers. It is a season of rejoicing, and festivity reigns
wherever she deigns to go and be received. They do not go to
battle or wear arms; every weapon is under lock; peace and
quiet are welcomed only at these times, till the goddess,
weary of human intercourse, is at length restored by the same
priest to her temple. Afterwards the car, the vestments, and,
if you like to believe it, the divinity herself, are purified
in a secret lake. Slaves perform the rite, who are instantly
swallowed up by its waters. Hence arises a mysterious terror
and a pious ignorance concerning the nature of that which is
seen only by men doomed to die.
{114}
This branch indeed of the Suevi stretches into the
remoter regions of Germany."
_Tacitus,
Germany;
translated by Church and Brodribb,
chapter 40._
"In close neighbourhood with the Saxons in the middle of the
fourth century were the Angli, a tribe whose origin is more
uncertain and the application of whose name is still more a
matter of question. If the name belongs, in the pages of the
several geographers, to the same nation, it was situated in
the time of Tacitus east of the Elbe; in the time of Ptolemy
it was found on the middle Elbe, between the Thuringians to
the south and the Varini to the north; and at a later period
it was forced, perhaps by the growth of the Thuringian power,
into the neck of the Cimbric peninsula. It may, however, be
reasonably doubted whether this hypothesis is sound, and it is
by no means clear whether, if it be so, the Angli were not
connected more closely with the Thuringians than with the
Saxons. To the north of the Angli, after they had reached
their Schleswig home, were the Jutes, of whose early history
we know nothing, except their claims to be regarded as kinsmen
of the Goths and the close similarity between their
descendants and the neighbour Frisians."
_William Stubbs,
Constitutional History of England,
volume 1, chapter 3._
"Important as are the Angles, it is not too much to say that
they are only known through their relations to us of England,
their descendants; indeed, without this paramount fact, they
would be liable to be confused with the Frisians, with the Old
Saxons, and with even Slavonians. This is chiefly because
there is no satisfactory trace or fragment of the Angles of
Germany within Germany; whilst the notices of the other
writers of antiquity tell us as little as the one we find in
Tacitus. And this notice is not only brief but complicated.
… I still think that the Angli of Tacitus were—1: The
Angles of England; 2: Occupants of the northern parts of
Hanover; 3: At least in the time of Tacitus; 4: And that to
the exclusion of any territory in Holstein, which was Frisian
to the west, and Slavonic to the east. Still the question is
one of great magnitude and numerous complications."
_R. G. Latham,
The Germany of Tacitus;
Epilegomena,
section 49._
ALSO IN
_J. M. Lappenberg,
History of England under the Anglo-Saxon Kings,
volume 1, pages 89-95._
See, also, AVIONES, and SAXONS.
The conquests and settlements of the Jutes and the Angles in
Britain are described under ENGLAND: A. D. 449-473. and
547-633.
ANGLESEA, Ancient.
See MONA, MONAPIA, and NORMANS: 8TH-9TH CENTURIES.
ANGLO-SAXON.
A term which may be considered as a compound of Angle and
Saxon, the names of the two principal Teutonic tribes which
took possession of Britain and formed the English nation by
their ultimate union. As thus regarded and used to designate
the race, the language and the institutions which resulted
from that union, it is only objectionable, perhaps, as being
superfluous, because English is the accepted name of the
people of England and all pertaining to them. But the term
Anglo-Saxon has also been more particularly employed to
designate the Early English people and their language, before
the Norman Conquest, as though they were Anglo-Saxon at that
period and became English afterwards. Modern historians are
protesting strongly against this use of the term. Mr. Freeman
_(Norman Conquest, volume 1, note A)_, says: "The name by
which our forefathers really knew themselves and by which they
were known to other nations was English and no other. 'Angli,'
'Engle,' 'Angel-cyn,' 'Englisc,' are the true names by which
the Teutons of Britain knew themselves and their language. …
As a chronological term, Anglo-Saxon is equally objectionable
with Saxon. The 'Anglo-Saxon period,' as far as there ever was
one, is going on still. I speak therefore of our forefathers,
not as 'Saxons,' or even as 'Anglo-Saxons,' but as they spoke
of themselves, as Englishmen—'Angli,' 'Engle,'-'Angel-cyn.'"
See, also, SAXONS, and ANGLES AND JUTES.
ANGLON, Battle of.
Fought in Armenia. A. D. 543, between the Romans and the
Persians, with disaster to the former.
_G. Rawlinson,
Seventh Great Oriental Monarchy,
chapter 20._
ANGORA, Battle of (1402).
See TIMOUR
also, TURKS: A. D. 1389-1403.
ANGOSTURA, OR BUENA VISTA, Battle of.
See MEXICO: A. D. 1846-1847.
ANGRIVARII, The.
The Angrivarii were one of the tribes of ancient Germany. Their
settlements "were to the west of the Weser (Visurgis) in the
neighbourhood of Minden and Herford, and thus coincide to some
extent with Westphalia. Their territory was the scene of
Varus' defeat. It has been thought that the name of this tribe
is preserved in that of the town Engern."
_A. J. Church and W. J. Brodribb,
Tacitus's Germany,
notes._
See, also, BRUCTERI.
ANI.
Storming of the Turks (1064).
See TURKS: A. D. 1063-1073.
ANILLEROS, The.
See SPAIN: A. D. 1814-1827.
ANJOU:
Creation of the County.
Origin of the Plantagenets.
"It was the policy of this unfairly depreciated sovereign
[Charles the Bald, grandson of Charlemagne, who received in
the dismemberment of the Carlovingian Empire the Neustrian
part, out of which was developed the modern kingdom of France,
and who reigned from 840 to 877], to recruit the failing ranks
of the false and degenerate Frankish aristocracy, by calling
up to his peerage the wise, the able, the honest and the bold
of ignoble birth. … He sought to surround himself with new
men, the men without ancestry; and the earliest historian of
the House of Anjou both describes this system and affords the
most splendid example of the theory adopted by the king.
Pre-eminent amongst these parvenus was Torquatus or Tortulfus,
an Armorican peasant, a very rustic, a backwoodsman, who lived
by hunting and such like occupations, almost in solitude,
cultivating his 'quillets,' his 'cueillettes,' of land, and
driving his own oxen, harnessed to his plough. Torquatus
entered or was invited into the service of Charles-le-Chauve,
and rose high in his sovereign's confidence: a prudent, a
bold, and a good man. Charles appointed him Forester of the
forest called 'the Blackbird's Nest,' the 'nid du merle,' a
pleasant name, not the less pleasant for its familiarity. This
happened during the conflicts with the Northmen. Torquatus
served Charles strenuously in the wars, and obtained great
authority. Tertullus, son of Torquatus, inherited his father's
energies, quick and acute, patient of fatigue, ambitious and
aspiring; he became the liegeman of Charles; and his marriage
with Petronilla the King's cousin, Count Hugh the Abbot's
daughter, introduced him into the very circle of the royal
family. Chateau Landon and other benefices in the Gastinois
were acquired by him, possibly as the lady's dowry. Seneschal
also was Tertullus of the same ample Gastinois territory.
Ingelger, son of Tertullus and Petronilla, appears as the
first hereditary Count of Anjou Outre-Maine,—Marquis, Consul
or Count of Anjou,—for all these titles are assigned to him.
Yet the ploughman Torquatus must be reckoned as the primary
Plantagenet: the rustic Torquatus founded that brilliant
family."
_Sir F. Palgrave,
History of Normandy and England,
book 1, chapter 3._
ALSO IN
_K. Norgate,
England under the Angevin Kings,
volume 1, chapter 2._
{115}
ANJOU: A. D. 987-1129.
The greatest of the old Counts.
"Fulc Nerra, Fulc the Black [A. D. 987-1040] is the greatest
of the Angevins, the first in whom we can trace that marked
type of character which their house was to preserve with a
fatal constancy through two hundred years. He was without
natural affection. In his youth he burned a wife at the stake,
and legend told how he led her to her doom decked out in his
gayest attire. In his old age he waged his bitterest war
against his son, and exacted from him when vanquished a
humiliation which men reserved for the deadliest of their
foes. 'You are conquered, you are conquered!' shouted the old
man in fierce exultation, as Geoffry, bridled and saddled like
a beast of burden, crawled for pardon to his father's feet.
… But neither the wrath of Heaven nor the curses of men
broke with a single mishap the fifty years of his success. At
his accession Anjou was the least important of the greater
provinces of France. At his death it stood, if not in extent,
at least in real power, first among them all. … His
overthrow of Brittany on the field of Conquereux was followed
by the gradual absorption of Southern Touraine. … His great
victory at Pontlevoi crushed the rival house of Blois; the
seizure of Saumur completed his conquests in the South, while
Northern Touraine was won bit by bit till only Tours resisted
the Angevin. The treacherous seizure of its Count, Herbert
Wake-dog, left Maine at his mercy ere the old man bequeathed
his unfinished work to his son. As a warrior, Geoffry Martel
was hardly inferior to his father. A decisive overthrow
wrested Tours from the Count of Blois; a second left Poitou at
his mercy; and the seizure of Le Mans brought him to the
Norman border. Here … his advance was checked by the genius
of William the Conqueror, and with his death the greatness of
Anjou seemed for the time to have come to an end. Stripped of
Maine by the Normans, and weakened by internal dissensions,
the weak and profligate administration of Fulc Rechin left
Anjou powerless against its rivals along the Seine. It woke to
fresh energy with the accession of his son, Fulc of Jerusalem.
… Fulc was the one enemy whom Henry the First really feared.
It was to disarm his restless hostility that the King yielded
to his son, Geoffry the Handsome, the hand of his daughter
Matilda."
_J. R. Green,
A Short History of the English People,
chapter 2, section 7._
ALSO IN
_K. Norgate,
England under the Angevin Kings,
volume 1, chapters 2-4._
ANJOU: A. D. 1154.
The Counts become Kings of England.
See ENGLAND: A. D. 1154-1189.
ANJOU: A. D. 1204.
Wrested from the English King John.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1180-1224.
ANJOU: A. D. 1206-1442.
English attempts to recover the county.
The Third and Fourth Houses of Anjou.
Creation of the Dukedom.
King John, of England, did not voluntarily submit to the
sentence of the peers of France which pronounced his
forfeiture of the fiefs of Anjou and Maine, "since he invaded
and had possession of Angers again in 1206, when, Goth-like,
he demolished its ancient walls. He lost it in the following
year, and … made no further attempt upon it until 1213. In
that year, having collected a powerful army, he landed at
Rochelle, and actually occupied Angers, without striking a
blow. But … the year 1214 beheld him once more in retreat
from Anjou, never to reappear there, since he died on the 19th
of October, 1216. In the person of King John ended what is
called the 'Second House of Anjou.' In 1204, after the
confiscations of John's French possessions, Philip Augustus
established hereditary seneschals in that part of France, the
first of whom was the tutor of the unfortunate Young Arthur
[of Brittany], named William des Roches, who was in fact Count
in all except the name, over Anjou, Maine, and Tourraine,
owing allegiance only to the crown of France. The Seneschal,
William des Roches, died in 1222. His son-in-law, Amaury de
Craon, succeeded him," but was soon afterwards taken prisoner
during a war in Brittany and incarcerated. Henry III. of
England still claimed the title of Count of Anjou, and in 1230
he "disembarked a considerable army at St. Malo, in the view
of re-conquering Anjou, and the other forfeited possessions of
his crown. Louis IX., then only fifteen years old … advanced
to the attack of the allies; but in the following year a peace
was concluded, the province of Guienne having been ceded to
the English crown. In 1241, Louis gave the counties of Poitou
and Auvergne to his brother Alphonso; and, in the year 1246,
he invested his brother Charles, Count of Provence, with the
counties of Anjou and Maine, thereby annulling the rank and
title of Seneschal, and instituting the Third House of Anjou.
Charles I., the founder of the proud fortunes of this Third
House, was ambitious in character, and events long favoured
his ambition. Count of Provence, through the inheritance of
his consort, had not long been invested with Anjou and Maine,
ere he was invited to the conquest of Sicily [see ITALY
(SOUTHERN): A. D. 1250-1268]." The Third House of Anjou ended
in the person of John, who became King of France in 1350. In
1356 he invested his son Louis with Anjou and Maine, and in
1360 the latter was created the first Duke of Anjou. The
Fourth House of Anjou, which began with this first Duke, came
to an end two generations later with René, or Regnier,—the
"good King René" of history and story, whose kingdom was for
the most part a name, and who is best known to English
readers, perhaps, as the father of Margaret of Anjou, the
stout-hearted queen of Henry VI. On the death of his father,
Louis, the second duke, René became by his father's will Count
of Guise, his elder brother, Louis, inheriting the dukedom. In
1434 the brother died without issue and René succeeded him in
Anjou, Maine and Provence. He had already become Duke of Bar,
as the adopted heir of his great-uncle, the cardinal-duke, and
Duke of Lorraine (1430), by designation of the late Duke,
whose daughter he had married. In 1435 he received from Queen
Joanna of Naples the doubtful legacy of that distracted
kingdom, which she had previously bequeathed first, to
Alphonso of Aragon, and afterwards-revoking that testament—to
René's brother, Louis of Anjou. King René enjoyed the title
during his life-time, and the actual kingdom for a brief
period; but in 1442 he was expelled from Naples by his
competitor Alphonso (see ITALY: A. D. 1412-1447).
_M. A. Hookham,
Life and Times of Margaret of Anjou,
introduction and chapters 1-2._
----------ANJOU: End----------
{116}
ANJOU, The English House of.
See ENGLAND: A. D. 1155-1189.
ANJOU, The Neapolitan House of: A. D. 1266.
Conquest of the Kingdom of the Two Sicilies.
See ITALY: A. D. 1250-1268.
ANJOU: A. D. 1282.
Loss of Sicily.
Retention of Naples.
See ITALY: A. D. 1282-1300.
ANJOU: A. D. 1310-1382.
Possession of the Hungarian throne.
See HUNGARY: A. D. 1301-1442.
ANJOU: A. D. 1370-1384.
Acquisition and loss of the crown of Poland.
See POLAND: A. D. 1333-1572.
ANJOU: A. D. 1381-1384.
Claims of Louis of Anjou.
His expedition to Italy and his death.
See ITALY: A. D. 1343-1389.
ANJOU: A. D. 1386-1399.-
Renewed contest for Naples.
Defeat of Louis II. by Ladislas.
See ITALY: A. D. 1386-1414.
ANJOU: A. D. 1423-1442.
Renewed contest for the crown of Naples.
Defeat by Alfonso of Aragon and Sicily.
See ITALY: A. D. 1412-1447.
----------ANJOU, The Neapolitan House of: End----------
ANKENDORFF, Battle of.
See GERMANY: A. D. 1807 (FEBRUARY-JUNE).
ANKERS.
See ANCHORITES.
ANNA, Czarina of Russia, A. D. 1730-1740.
ANNALES MAXIMI, The.
See FASTI.
ANNAM: A. D. 1882-1885.
War with France.
French protectorate accepted.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1875-1889.
ANNAPOLIS ROYAL, NOVA SCOTIA:
Change of name from Port Royal (1710).
See NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1702-1710.
ANNATES, OR FIRST-FRUITS.
"A practice had existed for some hundreds of years, in all the
churches of Europe, that bishops and archbishops, on
presentation to their sees, should transmit to the pope, on
receiving their bulls of investment, one year's income from
their new preferments. It was called the payment of Annates,
or first-fruits, and had originated in the time of the
crusades, as a means of providing a fund for the holy wars.
Once established it had settled into custom, and was one of
the chief resources of the papal revenue."
_J. A. Froude,
History of England,
chapter 4._
"The claim [by the pope] to the first-fruits of bishoprics and
other promotions was apparently first made in England by
Alexander IV. in 1256, for five years; it was renewed by
Clement V. in 1306, to last for two years; and it was in a
measure successful. By John XXII. it was claimed throughout
Christendom for three years, and met with universal
resistance. … Stoutly contested as it was in the Council of
Constance, and frequently made the subject of debate in
parliament and council the demand must have been regularly
complied with."
_William Stubbs,
Constitutional History of England,
chapter 19, section 718._
See, also, QUEEN ANNE'S BOUNTY.
ANNE, Queen of England, A. D. 1702-1714.
ANNE OF AUSTRIA, Queen-regent of France.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1642-1643, to 1651-1653.
ANNE BOLEYN, Marriage, trial and execution of.
See ENGLAND: A. D. 1527-1534, and 1536-1543.
ANSAR, The.
See MAHOMETAN CONQUEST: A. D. 609-632.
ANSIBARII, The.
See FRANKS: ORIGIN, &c.
ANSPACH, Creation of the Margravate.
See GERMANY: 13TH CENTURY.
Separation from the Electorate of Brandenburg.
See BRANDENBUHG: A. D. 1417-1640.
ANTALCIDAS, Peace of (B. C. 387).
See GREECE: B. C. 399-387.
ANTES, The.
See SLAVONIC PEOPLES.
ANTESIGNANI, The.
"In each cohort [of the Roman legion, in Cæsar's time] a
certain number of the best men, probably about one-fourth of
the whole detachment, was assigned as a guard to the standard,
from whence they derived their name of Antesignani."
_C. Menvale,
History of the Romans,
chapter 15._
ANTHEMIUS, Roman Emperor:(Western), A. D. 467-472.
ANTHESTERIA, The.
See DIONYSIA AT ATHENS.
ANTI-CORN-LAW LEAGUE.
See TARIFF LEGISLATION (ENGLAND): A. D. 1836-1839, and
1845-1846.
ANTI-FEDERALISTS.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1789-1792.
ANTI-MASONIC PARTY, American.
See NEW YORK: A. D. 1826-1832.
ANTI-MASONIC PARTY, Mexican.
See MEXICO: A. D. 1822-1828.
ANTI-RENTERS.
ANTI-RENT WAR.
See LIVINGSTON MANOR.
ANTI-SLAVERY MOVEMENTS.
See SLAVERY, NEGRO.
ANTIETAM, OR SHARPSBURG, Battle of.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1862
(SEPTEMBER: MARYLAND).
ANTIGONEA.
See MANTINEA: B. C. 222.
ANTIGONID KINGS, The.
See GREECE: B. C. 307-197.
ANTIGONUS, and the wars of the Diadochi.
See MACEDONIA: B. C. 323-316; 315-310; 310-301.
ANTIGONUS GONATUS, The wars of.
See MACEDONIA: B. C. 277-244.
ANTILLES.
ANTILIA.
"Familiar as is the name of the Antilles, few are aware of the
antiquity of the word; while its precise significance sets
etymology at defiance. Common consent identified the Antilia
of legend with the Isle of the Seven Cities. In the year 734,
says the story, the Arabs having conquered most of the Spanish
peninsula, a number of Christian emigrants, under the
direction of seven holy bishops, among them the archbishop of
Oporto, sailed westward with all that they had, and reached an
island where they founded seven towns. Arab geographers speak
of an Atlantic island called in Arabic El-tennyn, or Al-tin
(Isle of Serpents), a name which may possibly have become by
corruption Antilia. … The seven bishops were believed in the
16th century to be still represented by their successors, and
to preside over a numerous and wealthy people. Most
geographers of the 15th century believed in the existence of
Antilia. It was represented as lying west of the Azores. …
As soon as it became known in Europe that Columbus had
discovered a large island, Española was at once identified
with Antilia, … and the name … has ever since been applied
generally to the West Indian islands."
_E. J. Payne,
History of the New World called America,
volume 1, page 98._
See, also, WEST INDIES.
{117}
ANTINOMIAN CONTROVERSY IN PURITAN MASSACHUSETTS.
See MASSACHUSETTS: A. D. 1636-1638.
ANTIOCH:
Founding of the City.
See SELEUCIDÆ; and MACEDONIA, &c.: B. C. 310-301.
ANTIOCH: A. D. 36-400.
The Christian Church.
See CHRISTIANITY, EARLY.
ANTIOCH: A. D. 115.
Great Earthquake.
"Early in the year 115, according to the most exact
chronology, … the splendid capital of Syria was visited by
an earthquake, one of the most disastrous apparently of all
the similar inflictions from which that luckless city has
periodically suffered. … The calamity was enhanced by the
presence of unusual crowds from all the cities of the east,
assembled to pay homage to the Emperor [Trajan], or to take
part in his expedition [of conquest in the east]. Among the
victims were many Romans of distinction. … Trajan, himself,
only escaped by creeping through a window."
_C. Merivale,
History of the Romans,
chapter 65._
ANTIOCH: A. D. 260.
Surprise, massacre and pillage by Sapor, King of Persia.
See PERSIA: A. D. 226-627.
ANTIOCH: A. D. 526.
Destruction by Earthquake.
During the reign of Justinian (A. D. 518-565) the cities of
the Roman Empire "were overwhelmed by earthquakes more
frequent than at any other period of history. Antioch, the
metropolis of Asia, was entirely destroyed, on the 20th of
May, 526, at the very time when the inhabitants of the
adjacent country were assembled to celebrate the festival of
the Ascension; and it is affirmed that 250,000 persons were
crushed by the fall of its sumptuous edifices."
_J. C. L. de Sismondi,
Fall of the Roman Empire,
chapter 10._
ALSO IN:
_E. Gibbon,
Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire,
chapter 43.
ANTIOCH: A. D. 540.
Stormed, pillaged and burned by Chosroes, the Persian King.
See PERSIA: A. D. 226-627.
ANTIOCH: A. D. 638.
Surrender to the Arabs.
See MAHOMETAN CONQUEST: A. D. 632-639.
ANTIOCH: A. D. 969.
Recapture by the Byzantines.
After having remained 328 years in the possession of the
Saracens, Antioch was retaken in the winter of A. D. 969 by
the Byzantine Emperor, Nicephorus Phokas, and became again a
Christian city. Three years later the Moslems made a great
effort to recover the city, but were defeated. The Byzantine
arms were at this time highly successful in the never ending
Saracen war, and John Zimiskes, successor of Nicephorus
Phokas, marched triumphantly to the Tigris and threatened even
Bagdad. But most of the conquests thus made in Syria and
Mesopotamia were not lasting.
_G. Finlay,
History of the Byzantine Empire, A. D. 716-1007,
book 2, chapter 2._
See BYZANTINE EMPIRE, A. D. 963-1025.
ANTIOCH: A. D. 1097-1098.
Siege and capture by the Crusaders.
See CRUSADES: A. D. 1096-1099.
ANTIOCH: A. D. 1099-1144.
Principality.
See JERUSALEM: A. D. 1099-1144.
ANTIOCH: A. D. 1268.
Extinction of the Latin Principality.
Total destruction of the city.
Antioch fell, before the arms of Bibars, the Sultan of Egypt
and Syria, and the Latin principality was bloodily
extinguished, in 1268. "The first seat of the Christian name
was dispeopled by the slaughter of seventeen, and the
captivity of one hundred, thousand of her inhabitants." This
fate befell Antioch only twenty-three years before the last
vestige of the conquests of the crusaders was obliterated at
Acre.
_E. Gibbon,
Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire,
chapter 59.
"The sultan halted for several weeks in the plain, and
permitted his soldiers to hold a large market, or fair, for
the sale of their booty. This market was attended by Jews and
pedlars from all parts of the East. … 'It was,' says the
Cadi Mohieddin, 'a fearful and heart-rending sight. Even the
hard stones were softened with grief.' He tells us that the
captives were so numerous that a fine hearty boy might be
purchased for twelve pieces of silver, and a little girl for
five. When the work of pillage had been completed, when all
the ornaments and decorations had been carried away from the
churches, and the lead torn from the roofs, Antioch was fired
in different places, amid the loud thrilling shouts of 'Allah
Acbar,' 'God is Victorious.' The great churches of St. Paul
and St. Peter burnt with terrific fury for many days, and the
vast and venerable city was left without a habitation and
without an inhabitant."
_C. G. Addison,
The Knights Templars,
chapter 6._
----------ANTIOCH: End----------
ANTIOCHUS SOTER, AND ANTIOCHUS THE GREAT.
See SELEUCIDÆ, THE: B. C. 281-224, and 224-187.
ANTIPATER, and the wars of the Diadochi.
See MACEDONIA: B. C. 323-316.
ANTIUM.
"Antium, once a flourishing city of the Volsci, and afterwards
of the Romans, their conquerors, is at present reduced to a
small number of inhabitants. Originally it was without a port;
the harbour of the Antiates having been the neighbouring
indentation in the coast of Ceno, now Nettuno, distant more
than a mile to the eastward. … The piracies of the ancient
Antiates all proceeded from Ceno, or Cerio, where they had 22
long ships. These Numicius took; … some were taken to Rome
and their rostra suspended in triumph in the Forum. … It
[Antium] was reckoned 260 stadia, or about 32 miles, from
Ostia."
_Sir W. Gell,
Topography of Rome,
volume 1._
ANTIUM, Naval Battle of (1378).
See VENICE: A. D. 1378-1379.
ANTIVESTÆUM.
See BRITAIN, TRIBES OF CELTIC.
ANTOINE DE BOURBON, King of Navarre, A. D. 1555-1557.
ANTONINES, The.
See ROME: A. D. 138-180.
ANTONINUS, Marcus Aurelius, Roman Emperor, A. D. 161-180.
ANTONINUS PIUS, Roman Emperor, A. D. 138-161.
ANTONY, Mark, and the Second Triumvirate.
See ROME: B. C. 44 to 31.
ANTRUSTIONES.
In the Salic law, of the Franks, there is no trace of any
recognized order of nobility. "We meet, however, with
{118}
several titles denoting temporary rank, derived from offices
political and judicial, or from a position about the person of
the king. Among these the Antrustiones, who were in constant
attendance upon the king, played a conspicuous part. …
Antrustiones and Convivæ Regis [Romans who held the same
position] are the predecessors of the Vassi Dominici of later
times, and like these were bound to the king by an especial
oath of personal and perpetual service. They formed part, as
it were, of the king's family, and were expected to reside in
the palace, where they superintended the various departments
of the royal household."
_W. C. Perry,
The Franks,
chapter 10._
ANTWERP:
The name of the City.
Its commercial greatness in the 16th century.—"The city was
so ancient that its genealogists, with ridiculous gravity,
ascended to a period two centuries before the Trojan war, and
discovered a giant, rejoicing in the classic name of
Antigonus, established on the Scheld. This patriarch exacted
one half the merchandise of all navigators who passed his
castle, and was accustomed to amputate and cast into the river
the right hands of those who infringed this simple tariff.
Thus 'Hand-werpen,' hand-throwing, became Antwerp, and hence,
two hands, in the escutcheon of the city, were ever held 'up
in heraldic attestation of the truth. The giant was, in his
turn, thrown into the Scheld by a hero, named Brabo, from
whose exploits Brabant derived its name. … But for these
antiquarian researches, a simpler derivation of the name would
seem 'an t' werf,' 'on the wharf.' It had now [in the first
half of the 16th century] become the principal entrepôt and
exchange of Europe. … the commercial capital of the world.
… Venice, Nuremburg, Augsburg, Bruges, were sinking, but
Antwerp, with its deep and convenient river, stretched its arm
to the ocean and caught the golden prize, as it fell from its
sister cities' grasp. … No city, except Paris, surpassed it
in population, none approached it in commercial splendor."
_J. L. Motley,
The Rise of the Dutch Republic, Hist. Introduction,
section 13._
ANTWERP: A. D. 1313.
Made the Staple for English trade.
See STAPLE.
ANTWERP: A. D. 1566.
Riot of the Image-breakers in the Churches.
See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1566-1568.
ANTWERP: A. D. 1576.
The Spanish Fury.
See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1575-1577.
ANTWERP: A. D. 1577.
Deliverance of the city from its Spanish garrison.
Demolition of the Citadel.
See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1577-1581.
ANTWERP: A. D. 1583.
Treacherous attempt of the Duke of Anjou.
The French Fury.
See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1581-1584.
ANTWERP: A. D. 1584-1585.
Siege and reduction by Alexander Farnese, Duke of Parma.
The downfall of prosperity.
See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1584-1585.
ANTWERP: A. D. 1648.
Sacrificed to Amsterdam in the Treaty of Münster.
Closing of the Scheldt.
See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1646-1648.
ANTWERP: A. D. 1706.
Surrendered to Marlborough and the Allies.
See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1706-1707.
ANTWERP: A. D. 1746-1748.
Taken by the French and restored to Austria.
See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1746-1747;
and AIX-LA-CHAPELLE: THE CONGRESS.
ANTWERP: A. D. 1832.
Siege of the Citadel by the French.
Expulsion of the Dutch garrison.
See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1830-1832.
----------ANTWERP: End----------
APACHES, The.
See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: APACHE GROUP, and ATHAPASCAN FAMILY.
APALACHES, The.
See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: APALACHES.
APAMEA.
Apamea, a city founded by Seleucus Nicator on the Euphrates,
the site of which is occupied by the modern town of Bir, had
become, in Strabo's time (near the beginning of the Christian
Era) one of the principal centers of Asiatic trade, second
only to Ephesus. Thapsacus, the former customary
crossing-place of the Euphrates, had ceased to be so, and the
passage was made at Apamea. A place on the opposite bank of
the river was called Zeugma, or "the bridge." Bir "is still
the usual place at which travellers proceeding from Antioch or
Aleppo towards Bagdad cross the Euphrates."
_E. H. Bunbury,
History of Ancient Geography,
chapter 22, section 1 (volume 2, pages 298 and 317)_.
APANAGE.
See APPANAGE.
APATURIA, The.
An annual family festival of the Athenians, celebrated for
three days in the early part of the month of October
(Pyanepsion). "This was the characteristic festival of the
Ionic race; handed down from a period anterior to the
constitution of Kleisthenes, and to the ten new tribes each
containing so many demes, and bringing together the citizens
in their primitive unions of family, gens, phratry, etc., the
aggregate of which had originally constituted the four Ionic
tribes, now superannuated. At the Apaturia, the family
ceremonies were gone through; marriages were enrolled, acts of
adoption were promulgated and certified, the names of youthful
citizens first entered on the gentile and phratric roll;
sacrifices were jointly celebrated by these family assemblages
to Zeus Phratrius, Athênê, and other deities, accompanied
with much festivity and enjoyment."
_G. Grote,
History of Greece,
part 2, chapter 64 (volume 7)._
APELLA, The.
See SPARTA: THE CONSTITUTION. &c.
APELOUSAS, The.
See TEXAS: THE ABORIGINAL, INHABITANTS.
APHEK, Battle of.
A great victory won by Ahab, king of Israel over Benhadad,
king of Damascus.
_H. Ewald,
History of Israel,
book 4, section 1._
APODECTÆ, The.
"When Aristotle speaks of the officers of government to whom
the public revenues were delivered, who kept them and
distributed them to the several administrative departments,
these are called, he adds, apodectæ and treasurers. In Athens
the apodectæ were ten in number, in accordance with the number
of the tribes. They were appointed by lot. … They had in
their possession the lists of the debtors of the state,
received the money which was paid in, registered an account of
it and noted the amount in arrear, and in the council house in
the presence of the council, erased the names of the debtors
who had paid the demands against them from the list, and
deposited this again in the archives. Finally, they, together
with the council, apportioned the sums received."
_A. Boeckh,
Public Economy of Athens
(translated by Lamb),
book 2, chapter 4._
APOLLONIA IN ILLYRIA, The Founding of.
See KORKYRA.
{119}
APOSTASION.
See POLETÆ.
APOSTOLIC MAJESTY: Origin of the Title.
See HUNGARY: A. D. 972-1114.
APPANAGE.
"The term appanage denotes the provision made for the younger
children of a king of France. This always consisted of lands
and feudal superiorities held of the crown by the tenure of
peerage. It is evident that this usage, as it produced a new
class of powerful feudataries, was hostile to the interests
and policy of the sovereign, and retarded the subjugation of
the ancient aristocracy. But an usage coeval with the monarchy
was not to be abrogated, and the scarcity of money rendered it
impossible to provide for the younger branches of the royal
family by any other means. It was restrained however as far as
circumstances would permit."
_H. Hallam,
The Middle Ages,
chapter 1, part 2._
"From the words 'ad' and 'panis,' meaning that it was to
provide bread for the person who held it. A portion of
appanage was now given to each of the king's younger sons,
which descended to his direct heirs, but in default of them
reverted to the crown."
_T. Wright,
History of France,
volume 1, page 308, note._
APPIAN WAY, The.
Appius Claudius, called the Blind, who was censor at Rome from
312 to 308 B. C. [see ROME: B. C. 312], constructed during
that time "the Appian road, the queen of roads, because the
Latin road, passing by Tusculum, and through the country of
the Hernicans, was so much endangered, and had not yet been
quite recovered by the Romans: the Appian road, passing by
Terracina, Fundi and Mola, to Capua, was intended to be a
shorter and safer one. … The Appian road, even if Appius did
carry it as far as Capua, was not executed by him with that
splendour for which we still admire it in those parts which
have not been destroyed intentionally: the closely joined
polygons of basalt, which thousands of years have not been
able to displace, are of a somewhat later origin. Appius
commenced the road because there was actual need for it; in
the year A. U. 457 [B. C. 297] peperino, and some years later
basalt (silex) was first used for paving roads, and, at the
beginning, only on the small distance from the Porta Capena to
the temple of Mars, as we are distinctly told by Livy. Roads
constructed according to artistic principles had
previously existed."
_B. G. Niebuhr,
Lectures on the History of Rome,
lecture 45._
ALSO IN:
_Sir W. Gell,
Topography of Rome,
volume 1._
_H. G. Liddell,
History of ROME,
volume 1, page 251._
APPOMATTOX COURT HOUSE, Lee's Surrender at.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1865 (APRIL, VIRGINIA).
APULEIAN LAW.
See MAJESTAS.
APULIA: A. D. 1042-1127.
Norman conquest and Dukedom.
Union with Sicily.
See ITALY (SOUTHERN): A. D. 1000-1090, and 1081-1194.
APULIANS, The.
See SABINES; also, SAMNITES.
AQUÆ SEXTIÆ.
See SALYES.
AQUÆ SEXTIÆ, Battle of.
See CIMBRI AND TEUTONES: B. C. 113-102.
AQUÆ SOLIS.
The Roman name of the long famous watering-place known in
modern England as the city of Bath. It was splendidly adorned
in Roman times with temples and other edifices.
_T. Wright,
Celt, Roman and Saxon,
chapter 5._
AQUIDAY, OR AQUETNET.
The native name of Rhode Island.
See RHODE ISLAND: A. D. 1638-1640.
AQUILA, Battle of (1424).
See ITALY: A. D. 1412-1447.
AQUILEIA.
Aquileia, at the time of the destruction of that city by the
Huns, A. D. 452, was, "both as a fortress and a commercial
emporium, second to none in Northern Italy. It was situated at
the northernmost point of the gulf of Hadria, about twenty
miles northwest of Trieste, and the place where it once stood
is now in the Austrian dominions, just over the border which
separates them from the kingdom of Italy. In the year 181 B.
C. a Roman colony had been sent to this far corner of Italy to
serve as an outpost against some intrusive tribes, called by
the vague name of Gauls. … Possessing a good harbour, with
which it was connected by a navigable river, Aquileia
gradually became the chief entrepôt for the commerce between
Italy and what are now the Illyrian provinces of Austria."
_T. Hodgkin,
Italy and Her Invaders,
book 2, chapter 4._
AQUILEIA: A. D. 238.
Siege by Maximin.
See ROME: A. D. 238.
AQUILEIA: A. D. 388.
Overthrow of Maximus by Theodosius.
See ROME: A. D. 379-395.
AQUILEIA: A. D. 452.
Destruction by the Huns.
See HUNS: A. D. 452;
also, VENICE: A. D. 452.
----------AQUILEIA: End----------
AQUITAINE:
The ancient tribes.
The Roman conquest of Aquitania was achieved, B. C. 56, by one
of Cæsar's lieutenants, the Younger Crassus, who first brought
the people called the Sotiates to submission and then defeated
their combined neighbors in a murderous battle, where
three-fourths of them are said to have been slain. The tribes
which then submitted "were the Tarbelli, Bigerriones,
Preciani, Vocates, Tarusates, Elusates, Garites, Ausci,
Garumni, Sibuzates and Cocosates. The Tarbelli were in the
lower basin of the Adour. Their chief place was on the site of
the hot springs of Dax. The Bigerriones appear in the name
Bigorre. The chief place of the Elusates was Elusa, Eause; and
the town of Auch on the river Gers preserves the name of the
Ausci. The names Garites, if the name is genuine, and Garumni
contain the same element, Gar, as the river Garumna [Garonne]
and the Gers. It is stated by Walckenaer that the inhabitants
of the southern part of Les Landes are still called Cousiots.
Cocosa, Caussèque, is twenty-four miles from Dax on the road
from Dax to Bordeaux."
_G. Long,
Decline of the Roman Republic,
volume 4, chapter 6._
"Before the arrival of the brachycephalic Ligurian race, the
Iberians ranged over the greater part of France. … If, as
seems probable, we may identify them with the Aquitani, one of
the three races which occupied Gaul in the time of Cæsar, they
must have retreated to the neighbourhood of the Pyrenees
before the beginning of the historic period."
_I. Taylor,
Origin of the Aryans,
chapter 2, section 5._
AQUITAINE: In Cæsar's time.
See GAUL DESCRIBED BY CÆSAR.
AQUITAINE: Settlement of the Visigoths.
See GOTHS (VISIGOTHS): A. D. 410-419.
AQUITAINE: A. D. 567.
Divided between the Merovingian Kings.
See FRANKS: A. D. 511-752.
{120}
AQUITAINE: A. D. 681-768.
The independent Dukes and their subjugation.
"The old Roman Aquitania, in the first division of the spoils
of the Empire, had fallen to the Visigoths, who conquered it
without much trouble. In the struggle between them and the
Merovingians, it of course passed to the victorious party. But
the quarrels, so fiercely contested between the different
members of the Frank monarchy, prevented them from retaining a
distant possession within their grasp; and at this period
[681-718, when the Mayors of the Palace, Pepin and Carl, were
gathering the reins of government over the three
kingdoms—Austrasia, Neustria and Burgundy—into their hands].
Eudo, the duke of Aquitaine, was really an independent prince.
The population had never lost its Roman character; it was, in
fact, by far the most Romanized in the whole of Gaul. But it
had also received a new element in the Vascones or Gascons
[see BASQUES], a tribe of Pyrenean mountaineers, who
descending from their mountains, advanced towards the north
until their progress was checked by the broad waters of the
Garonne. At this time, however, they obeyed Eudo. "This duke
of Aquitaine, Eudo, allied himself with the Neustrians against
the ambitious Austrasian Mayor, Carl Martel, and shared with
them the crushing defeat at Soissons, A. D. 718, which
established the Hammerer's power. Eudo acknowledged allegiance
and was allowed to retain his dukedom. But, half-a-century
afterwards, Carl's son, Pepin, who had pushed the 'fainéant'
Merovingians from the Frank throne and seated himself upon it,
fought a nine years' war with the then duke of Aquitaine, to
establish his sovereignty. "The war, which lasted nine years
[760-768], was signalized by frightful ravages and destruction
of life upon both sides, until, at last, the Franks became
masters of Berri, Auvergne, and the Limousin, with their
principal cities. The able and gallant Guaifer [or Waifer] was
assassinated by his own subjects, and Pepin had the
satisfaction of finally uniting the grand-duchy of Aquitaine
to the monarchy of the Franks."
_J. G. Sheppard,
Fall of Rome,
lecture 8._
ALSO IN:
_P. Godwin,
History of France: Ancient Gaul,
chapters 14-15_.
_W. H. Perry,
The Franks,
chapter 5-6._
AQUITAINE: A. D. 732.
Ravaged by the Moslems.
See MAHOMETAN CONQUEST: A. D. 715-732.
AQUITAINE: A. D. 781.
Erected into a separate kingdom by Charlemagne.
In the year 781 Charlemagne erected Italy and Aquitaine into
separate kingdoms, placing his two infant sons, Pepin and
Ludwig or Louis on their respective thrones. "The kingdom of
Aquitaine embraced Vasconia [Gascony], Septimania, Aquitaine
proper (that is, the country between the Garonne and the
Loire) and the county, subsequently the duchy, of Toulouse.
Nominally a kingdom, Aquitaine was in reality a province,
entirely dependent on the central or personal government of
Charles. … The nominal designations of king and kingdom
might gratify the feelings of the Aquitanians, but it was a
scheme contrived for holding them in a state of absolute
dependence and subordination."
_J. I. Mombert,
History of Charles the Great,
book 2, chapter 11._
AQUITAINE: A. D. 843.
In the division of Charlemagne's Empire.
See FRANCE: A. D.843.
AQUITAINE: A. D. 884-1151.
The end of the nominal kingdom.
The disputed Ducal Title.
"Carloman [who died 884], son of Louis the Stammerer, was the
last of the Carlovingians who bore the title of king of
Aquitaine. This vast state ceased from this time to constitute
a kingdom. It had for a lengthened period been divided between
powerful families, the most illustrious of which are those of
the Counts of Toulouse, founded in the ninth century by
Fredelon, the Counts of Poitiers, the Counts of Auvergne, the
Marquises of Septimania or Gothia, and the Dukes of Gascony.
King Eudes had given William the Pius, Count of Auvergne, the
Investiture of the duchy of Aquitaine. On the extinction of
that family in 928, the Counts of Toulouse and those of Poitou
disputed the prerogatives and their quarrel stained the south
with blood for a long time. At length the Counts of Poitou
acquired the title of Dukes of Aquitaine or Guyenne [or
Guienne,—supposed to be a corruption of the name of
Aquitaine, which came into use during the Middle Ages], which
remained in their house up to the marriage of Eleanor of
Aquitaine with Henry Plantagenet I. [Henry II.], King of
England (1151)."
_E. De Bonnechose,
History of France,
book 2, chapter 3, foot-note._
"The duchy Aquitaine, or Guyenne, as held by Eleanor's
predecessors, consisted, roughly speaking, of the territory
between the Loire and the Garonne. More exactly, it was
bounded on the north by Anjou and Touraine, on the east by
Berry and Auvergne, on the south-east by the Quercy or County
of Cahors, and on the south-west by Gascony, which had been
united with it for the last hundred years. The old Karolingian
kingdom of Aquitania had been of far greater extent; it had,
in fact, included the whole country between the Loire, the
Pyrenees, the Rhone and the ocean. Over all this vast
territory the Counts of Poitou asserted a theoretical claim of
overlordship by virtue of their ducal title; they had,
however, a formidable rival in the house of the Counts of
Toulouse."
_K. Norgate,
England under the Angevin Kings,
volume 1, chapter 10._
See, also, TOULOUSE: 10TH AND 11TH CENTURIES.
AQUITAINE: A. D. 1137-1152.
Transferred by marriage from the crown of France to the crown
of England.
In 1137, "the last of the old line of the dukes of
Aquitaine—William IX., son of the gay crusader and troubadour
whom the Red King had hoped to succeed—died on a pilgrimage
at Compostella. His only son was already dead, and before
setting out for his pilgrimage he did what a greater personage
had done ten years before: with the consent of his barons, he
left the whole of his dominions to his daughter. Moreover, he
bequeathed the girl herself as wife to the young king Louis
[VII.] of France. This marriage more than doubled the strength
of the French crown. It gave to Louis absolute possession of
all western Aquitaine, or Guyenne as it was now beginning to
be called; that is the counties of Poitou and Gascony, with
the immediate overlordship of the whole district lying between
the Loire and the Pyrenees, the Rhone and the ocean:—a
territory five or six times as large as his own royal domain
and over which his predecessors had never been able to assert
more than the merest shadow of a nominal superiority." In 1152
Louis obtained a divorce from Eleanor, surrendering all the
great territory which she had added to his dominions, rather
than maintain an unhappy union. The same year the gay duchess
was wedded to Henry Plantagenet, then Duke of Normandy,
afterwards Henry II. King of England. By this marriage
Aquitaine became joined to the crown of England and remained
so for three hundred years.
_K. Norgate,
England under the Angevin Kings,
volume 1, chapter 8._
{121}
AQUITAINE: 12th Century.
The state of the southern parts.
See PROVENCE: A. D. 1179-1207.
AQUITAINE: A. D. 1360-1453.
Full sovereignty possessed by the English Kings.
The final conquest and union with France.
"By the Peace of Bretigny [see FRANCE: A. D. 1337-1360] Edward
III. resigned his claims on the crown of France; but he was
recognized in return as independent Prince of Aquitaine,
without any homage or superiority being reserved to the French
monarch. When Aquitaine therefore was conquered by France,
partly in the 14th, fully in the 15th century [see FRANCE: A.
D. 1431-1453], it was not the 'reunion' of a forfeited fief,
but the absorption of a distinct and sovereign state. The
feelings of Aquitaine itself seem to have been divided. The
nobles to a great extent, though far from universally,
preferred the French connexion. It better fell in with their
notions of chivalry, feudal dependency, and the like; the
privileges too which French law conferred on noble birth would
make their real interests lie that way. But the great cities
and, we have reason to believe, the mass of the people, also,
clave faithfully to their ancient Dukes; and they had good
reason to do so. The English Kings, both by habit and by
interest, naturally protected the municipal liberties of
Bourdeaux and Bayonne, and exposed no part of their subjects
to the horrors of French taxation and general oppression."
_E. A. Freeman,
The Franks and the Gauls
(Historical Essays, 1st Series, No.7)._
----------AQUITAINE: End----------
AQUITANI, The.
See IBERIANS, THE WESTERN.
ARABIA.
ARABS:
The Name.
"There can be no doubt that the name of the Arabs was …
given from their living at the westernmost part of Asia; and
their own word 'Gharb,' the 'West,' is another form of the
original Semitic name Arab."
_G. Rawlinson,
Notes to Herodotus,
volume 2, page 71._
ARABIA:
The ancient succession and fusion of Races.
"The population of Arabia, after long centuries, more
especially after the propagation and triumph of Islamism,
became uniform throughout the peninsula. … But it was not
always thus. It was very slowly and gradually that the
inhabitants of the various parts of Arabia were fused into one
race. … Several distinct races successively immigrated into
the peninsula and remained separate for many ages. Their
distinctive characteristics, their manners and their
civilisation prove that these nations were not all of one
blood. Up to the time of Mahomet, several different languages
were spoken in Arabia, and it was the introduction of Islamism
alone that gave predominence to that one amongst them now
called Arabic. The few Arabian historians deserving of the
name, who have used any discernment in collecting the
traditions of their country, Ibn Khaldoun, for example,
distinguish three successive populations in the peninsula.
They divide these primitive, secondary, and tertiary Arabs
into three divisions, called Ariba, Motareba, and Mostareba.
… The Ariba were the first and most ancient inhabitants of
Arabia. They consisted principally of two great nations, the
Adites, sprung from Ham, and the Amalika of the race of Aram,
descendants of Shem, mixed with nations of secondary
importance, the Thamudites of the race of Ham, and the people
of the Tasm, and Jadis, of the family of Aram. The Motareba
were tribes sprung from Joktan, son of Eber, always in Arabian
tradition called Kahtan. The Mostareba of more modern origin
were Ismaelitish tribes. … The Cushites, the first
inhabitants of Arabia, are known in the national traditions by
the name of Adites, from their progenitor, who is called Ad,
the grandson of Ham. All the accounts given of them by Arab
historians are but fanciful legends. … In the midst of all
the fabulous traits with which these legends abound, we may
perceive the remembrance of a powerful empire founded by the
Cushites in very early ages, apparently including the whole of
Arabia Felix, and not only Yemen proper. We also find traces
of a wealthy nation, constructors of great buildings, with an
advanced civilisation analogous to that of Chaldæa, professing
a religion similar to the Babylonian; a nation, in short, with
whom material progress was allied to great moral depravity and
obscene rites. … It was about eighteen centuries before our
era that the Joktanites entered Southern Arabia. … According
to all appearances, the invasion, like all events of a similar
nature, was accomplished only by force. … After this
invasion, the Cushite element of the population, being still
the most numerous, and possessing great superiority in
knowledge and civilisation over the Joktanites, who were still
almost in the nomadic state, soon recovered the moral and
material supremacy, and political dominion. A new empire was
formed in which the power still belonged to the Sabæans of the
race of Cush. … Little by little the new nation of Ad was
formed. The centre of its power was the country of Sheba
proper, where, according to the tenth chapter of Genesis,
there was no primitive Joktanite tribe, although in all the
neighbouring provinces they were already settled. … It was
during the first centuries of the second Adite empire that
Yemen was temporarily subjected by the Egyptians, who called
it the land of Pun. … Conquered during the minority of
Thothmes III., and the regency of the Princess Hatasu, Yemen
appears to have been lost by the Egyptians in the troublous
times at the close of the eighteenth dynasty. Ramses II.
recovered it almost immediately after he ascended the throne,
and it was not till the time of the effeminate kings of the
twentieth dynasty, that this splendid ornament of Egyptian
power was finally lost. … The conquest of the land of Pun
under Hatasu is related in the elegant bas-reliefs of the
temple of Deir-el-Bahari, at Thebes, published by M.
Duemichen. … The bas-reliefs of the temple of Deir-el-Bahari
afford undoubted proofs of the existence of commerce between
India and Yemen at the time of the Egyptian expedition under
Hatasu. It was this commerce, much more than the fertility of
its own soil and its natural productions, that made Southern
Arabia one of the richest countries in the world. … For a
long time it was carried on by land only, by means of caravans
crossing Arabia; for the navigation of the Red Sea, much more
difficult and dangerous than that of the Indian Ocean, was not
attempted till some centuries later. …
{122}
The caravans of myrrh, incense, and balm crossing Arabia
towards the land of Canaan are mentioned in the Bible, in the
history of Joseph, which belongs to a period very near to the
first establishment of the Canaanites in Syria. As soon as
commercial towns arose in Phœnicia, we find, as the prophet
Ezekiel said, 'The merchants of Sheba and Raamah, they were
thy merchants: they occupied in thy fairs with chief of all
spices, and with all precious stones and gold.' … A great
number of Phœnician merchants, attracted by this trade,
established themselves in Yemen, Hadramaut, Oman, and Bahrein.
Phœnician factories were also established at several places on
the Persian Gulf, amongst others in the islands of Tylos and
Arvad, formerly occupied by their ancestors. … This
commerce, extremely flourishing during the nineteenth dynasty,
seems, together with the Egyptian dominion in Yemen, to have
ceased under the feeble and inactive successors of Ramses III.
… Nearly two centuries passed away, when Hiram and Solomon
despatched vessels down the Red Sea. … The vessels of the
two monarchs were not content with doing merely what had once
before been done under the Egyptians of the nineteenth
dynasty, namely, fetching from the ports of Yemen the
merchandise collected there from India. They were much bolder,
and their enterprise was rewarded with success. Profiting by
the regularity of the monsoons, they fetched the products of
India at first hand, from the very place of their shipment in
the ports of the land of Ophir, or Abhira. These distant
voyages were repeated with success as long as Solomon reigned.
The vessels going to Ophir necessarily touched at the ports of
Yemen to take in provisions and await favourable winds. Thus
the renown of the two allied kings, particularly of the power
of Solomon, was spread in the land of the Adites. This was the
cause of the journey made by the queen of Sheba to Jerusalem
to see Solomon. … The sea voyages to Ophir, and even to
Yemen, ceased at the death of Solomon. The separation of the
ten tribes, and the revolutions that simultaneously took place
at Tyre, rendered any such expeditions impracticable. … The
empire of the second Adites lasted ten centuries, during which
the Joktanite tribes, multiplying in each generation, lived
amongst the Cushite Sabæans. … The assimilation of the
Joktanites to the Cushites was so complete that the revolution
which gave political supremacy to the descendants of Joktan
over those of Cush produced no sensible change in the
civilisation of Yemen. But although using the same language,
the two elements of the population of Southern Arabia were
still quite distinct from each other, and antagonistic in
their interests. … Both were called Sabæans, but the Bible
always carefully distinguishes them by a different
orthography. … The majority of the Sabæan Cushites, however,
especially the superior castes, refused to submit to the
Joktanite yoke. A separation, therefore, took place, giving
rise to the Arab proverb, 'divided as the Sabæans,' and the
mass of the Adites emigrated to another country. According to
M. Caussin de Perceval, the passage of the Sabæans into
Abyssinia is to be attributed to the consequences of the
revolution that established Joktanite supremacy in Yemen. …
The date of the passage of the Sabæans from Arabia into
Abyssinia is much more difficult to prove than the fact of
their having done so. … Yarub, the conqueror of the Adites,
and founder of the new monarchy of Joktanite Arabs, was
succeeded on the throne by his son, Yashdjob, a weak and
feeble prince, of whom nothing is recorded, but that he
allowed the chiefs of the various provinces of his states to
make themselves independent. Abd Shems, surnamed Sheba, son of
Yashdjob, recovered the power his predecessors had lost. …
Abd Shems had several children, the most celebrated being
Himyer and Kahlan, who left a numerous posterity. From these
two personages were descended the greater part of the Yemenite
tribes, who still existed at the time of the rise of Islamism.
The Himyarites seem to have settled in the towns, whilst the
Kahlanites inhabited the country and the deserts of Yemen. …
This is the substance of all the information given by the Arab
historians."
_F. Lenormant and E. Chevalier,
Manual of Ancient History of the East,
book 7, chapters 1-2 (volume 2)._
ARABIA:
Sabæans, The.
"For some time past it has been known that the Himyaritic
inscriptions fall into two groups, distinguished from one
another by phonological and grammatical differences. One of
the dialects is philologically older than the other,
containing fuller and more primitive grammatical forms. The
inscriptions in this dialect belong to a kingdom the capital
of which was at Ma'in, and which represents the country of the
Minæans of the ancients. The inscriptions in the other dialect
were engraved by the princes and people of Sabâ, the Sheba of
the Old Testament, the Sabæans of classical geography. The
Sabæan kingdom lasted to the time of Mohammed, when it was
destroyed by the advancing forces of Islam. Its rulers for
several generations had been converts to Judaism, and had been
engaged in almost constant warfare with the Ethiopic kingdom
of Axum, which was backed by the influence and subsidies of
Rome and Byzantium. Dr. Glaser seeks to show that the founders
of this Ethiopic kingdom were the Habâsa, or Abyssinians, who
migrated from Himyar to Africa in the second or first century
B. C.; when we first hear of them in the inscriptions they are
still the inhabitants of Northern Yemen and Mahrah. More than
once the Axumites made themselves masters of Southern Arabia.
About A. D. 300, they occupied its ports and islands, and from
350 to 378 even the Sabæan kingdom was tributary to them.
Their last successes were gained in 525, when, with Byzantine
help, they conquered the whole of Yemen. But the Sabæan
kingdom, in spite of its temporary subjection to Ethiopia, had
long been a formidable State. Jewish colonies settled in it,
and one of its princes became a convert to the Jewish faith.
His successors gradually extended their dominion as far as
Ormuz, and after the successful revolt from Axum in 378,
brought not only the whole of the southern coast under their
sway, but the western coast as well, as far north as Mekka.
Jewish influence made itself felt in the future birthplace of
Mohammed, and thus introduced those ideas and beliefs which
subsequently had so profound an effect upon the birth of
Islam. The Byzantines and Axumites endeavoured to counteract
the influence of Judaism by means of Christian colonies and
proselytism. The result was a conflict between Sabâ and its
assailants, which took the form of a conflict between the
members of the two religions.
{123}
A violent persecution was directed against the Christians of
Yemen, avenged by the Ethiopian conquest of the country and
the removal of its capital to San'a. The intervention of
Persia in the struggle was soon followed by the appearance of
Mohammedanism upon the scene, and Jew, Christian, and Parsi
were alike overwhelmed by the flowing tide of the new creed.
The epigraphic evidence makes it clear that the origin of the
kingdom of Sabâ went back to a distant date. Dr. Glaser traces
its history from the time when its princes were still but
Makârib, or 'Priests,' like Jethro, the Priest of Midian,
through the ages when they were 'kings of Sabâ,' and later
still 'kings of Sabâ and Raidân,' to the days when they
claimed imperial supremacy over all the principalities of
Southern Arabia. It was in this later period that they dated
their inscriptions by an era, which, as Halévy first
discovered, corresponds to 115 B. C. One of the kings of Sabâ
is mentioned in an inscription of the Assyrian king Sargon (B.
C. 715), and Dr. Glaser believes that he has found his name in
a 'Himyaritic' text. When the last priest, Samah'ali Darrahh,
became king of Sabâ, we do not yet know, but the age must be
sufficiently remote, if the kingdom of Sabâ already existed
when the Queen of Sheba came from Ophir to visit Solomon. The
visit need no longer cause astonishment, notwithstanding the
long journey by land which lay between Palestine and the south
of Arabia. … As we have seen, the inscriptions of Ma'in set
before us a dialect of more primitive character than that of
Sabâ. Hitherto it had been supposed, however, that the two
dialects were spoken contemporaneously, and that the Minæan
and Sabæan kingdoms existed side by side. But geography
offered difficulties in the way of such a belief, since the
seats of Minæan power were embedded in the midst of the Sabæan
kingdom, much as the fragments of Cromarty are embedded in the
midst of other counties. Dr. Glaser has now made it clear that
the old supposition was incorrect, and that the Minæan kingdom
preceded the rise of Sabâ. We can now understand why it is
that neither in the Old Testament nor in the Assyrian
inscriptions do we hear of any princes of Ma'in, and that
though the classical writers are acquainted with the Minæan
people they know nothing of a Minæan kingdom. The Minæan
kingdom, in fact, with its culture and monuments, the relics
of which still survive, must have flourished in the grey dawn
of history, at an epoch at which, as we have hitherto
imagined, Arabia was the home only of nomad barbarism. And yet
in this remote age alphabetic writing was already known and
practised, the alphabet being a modification of the Phœnician
written vertically and not horizontally. To what an early date
are we referred for the origin of the Phœnician alphabet
itself! The Minæan Kingdom must have had a long existence. The
names of thirty-three of its kings are already known to us.
… A power which reached to the borders of Palestine must
necessarily have come into contact with the great monarchies
of the ancient world. The army of Ælius Gallus was doubtless
not the first which had sought to gain possession of the
cities and spice-gardens of the south. One such invasion is
alluded to in an inscription which was copied by M. Halévy.
… But the epigraphy of ancient Arabia is still in its
infancy. The inscriptions already known to us represent but a
small proportion of those that are yet to be discovered. …
The dark past of the Arabian peninsula has been suddenly
lighted up, and we find that long before the days of Mohammed
it was a land of culture and literature, a seat of powerful
kingdoms and wealthy commerce, which cannot fail to have
exercised an influence upon the general history of the world."
_A. H. Sayce,
Ancient Arabia
(Contemporary Review, December, 1889)._
ARABIA: 6th Century.
Partial conquest by the Abyssinians.
See ABYSSINIA: 6TH TO 16TH CENTURIES.
ARABIA: A. D. 609-632.
Mahomet's conquest.
See MAHOMETAN CONQUEST: A. D. 609-632.
ARABIA: A. D. 1517.
Brought under the Turkish sovereignty.
See TURKS: A. D. 1481-1520.
----------ARABIA: End----------
ARABS, Conquests of the.
See MAHOMETAN CONQUEST.
ARACAN, English acquisition of.
See INDIA: A. D. 1823-1833.
ARACHOTI, The.
A people who dwelt anciently in the Valley of the Arghandab,
or Urgundab, in eastern Afghanistan. Herodotus gave them the
tribal name of "Pactyes," and the modern Afghans, who call
themselves "Pashtun" and "Pakhtun," signifying "mountaineers,"
are probably derived from them.
_M. Duncker,
History of Antiquity,
book 7, chapter 1._
ARAGON: A. D. 1035-1258.
Rise of the kingdom.
See SPAIN: A. D. 1035-1258.
ARAGON: A. D. 1133.
Beginning of popular representation in the Cortes.
The Monarchical constitution.
See CORTES, THE EARLY SPANISH.
ARAGON: A. D. 1218-1238.
The first oath of allegiance to the king.
Conquest of Balearic Islands.
Subjugation of Valencia.
See SPAIN: A. D. 1212-1238.
ARAGON: A. D. 1410-1475.
The Castilian dynasty.
Marriage of Ferdinand with Isabella of Castile.
See SPAIN: A. D. 1368-1479.
ARAGON: A. D. 1516.
The crown united with that of Castile by Joanna,
mother of Charles V.
See SPAIN: A. D. 1496-1517.
----------ARAGON: End----------
ARAICU, The.
See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: GUCK OR COCO GROUP.
ARAM.
ARAM NAHARAIM.
ARAM.
ZOBAH.
ARAMÆANS.
See SEMITES;
also, SEMITIC LANGUAGES.
ARAMBEC.
See NORUMBEGA.
ARAPAHOES, The.
See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: ALGONQUIAN FAMILY,
and PAWNEE (CADDOAN) FAMILY.
ARAR, The.
The ancient name of the river Saone, in France.
ARARAT.
URARDA.
See ALARODIANS.
ARATOS, and the Achaian League.
See GREECE: B. C. 280-146.
ARAUCANIANS, The.
See CHILE.
ARAUSIO.
A Roman colony was founded by Augustus at Arausio, which is
represented in name and site by the modern town of Orange, in
the department of Vaucluse, France, 18 miles north of Avignon.
_P. Goodwin,
History of France: Ancient Gaul,
book 2, chapter 5._
ARAUSIO, Battle of (B. C. 105).
See CIMBRI AND TEUTONES: B. C. 113-102.
{124}
ARAVISCI AND OSI, The.
"Whether … the Aravisci migrated into Pannonia from the Osi,
a German race, or whether the Osi came from the Aravisci into
Germany, as both nations still retain the same language,
institutions and customs, is a doubtful matter."—"The
locality of the Aravisci was the extreme north-eastern part of
the province of Pannonia, and would thus stretch from Vienna
(Vindobona), eastwards to Raab (Arrabo), taking in a portion
of the south-west of Hungary. … The Osi seem to have dwelt
near the sources of the Oder and the Vistula. They would thus
have occupied a part of Gallicia."
_Tacitus,
Germany,
translated by Church and Brodribb,
with geographical notes._
ARAWAKS, OR ARAUACAS, The.
See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: CARIBS.
ARAXES, The.
This name seems to have been applied to a number of Asiatic
streams in ancient times, but is connected most prominently
with an Armenian river, now called the Aras, which flows into
the Caspian.
ARBAS, Battle of.
One of the battles of the Romans with the Persians in which
the former suffered defeat. Fought A. D. 581.
_G. Rawlinson,
Seventh Great Oriental Monarchy,
chapter 22._
ARBELA, or GAUGAMELA, Battle of (B. C. 331).
See MACEDONIA: B. C. 334-330.
ARCADIA.
The central district of Peloponnesus, the great southern
peninsula of Greece—a district surrounded by a singular
mountain circle. "From the circle of mountains which has been
pointed out, all the rivers of any note take their rise, and
from it all the mountainous ranges diverge, which form the
many headlands and points of Peloponnesus. The interior part
of the country, however, has only one opening towards the
western sea, through which all its waters flow united in the
Alpheus. The peculiar character of this inland tract is also
increased by the circumstance of its being intersected by some
lower secondary chains of hills, which compel the waters of
the valleys nearest to the great chains either to form lakes,
or to seek a vent by subterraneous passages. Hence it is that
in the mountainous district in the northeast of Peloponnesus
many streams disappear and again emerge from the earth. This
region is Arcadia; a country consisting of ridges of hills and
elevated plains, and of deep and narrow valleys, with streams
flowing through channels formed by precipitous rocks; a
country so manifestly separated by nature from the rest of
Peloponnesus that, although not politically united, it was
always considered in the light of a single community. Its
climate was extremely cold; the atmosphere dense, particularly
in the mountains to the north; the effect which this had on
the character and dispositions of the inhabitants has been
described in a masterly manner by Polybius, himself a native
of Arcadia."
_C. O. Müller,
History and Antiquity of the Doric Race,
book 1, chapter 4._
"The later Roman poets were wont to speak of Arcadia as a
smiling land, where grassy vales, watered by gentle and
pellucid streams, were inhabited by a race of primitive and
picturesque shepherds and shepherdesses, who divided their
time between tending their flocks and making love to one
another in the most tender and romantic fashion. This idyllic
conception of the country and the people is not to be traced
in the old Hellenic poets, who were better acquainted with the
actual facts of the case. The Arcadians were sufficiently
primitive, but there was very little that was graceful or
picturesque about their land or their lives."
_C. H. Hanson,
The Land of Greece,
pages 381-382._
ARCADIA: B. C. 371-362.
The union of Arcadian towns.
Restoration of Mantineia.
Building of Megalopolis.
Alliance with Thebes.
Wars with Sparta and Elis.
Disunion.
Battle of Mantineia.
See GREECE: B. C. 371, and 371-362.
ARCADIA: B. C. 338.
Territories restored by Philip of Macedon.
See GREECE: B. C. 357-336.
ARCADIA: B. C. 243-146.
In the Achaian League.
See GREECE: B. C. 280-146.
----------ARCADIA: End----------
ARCADIUS, Roman Emperor (Eastern), A. D. 395-408.
ARCHIPELAGO, The Dukes of the.
See NAXOS: THE MEDIÆVAL DUKEDOM.
ARCHON.
See ATHENS: FROM THE DORIAN MIGRATION TO B. C. 683.
ARCIS-SUR-AUBE, Battle of.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1814 (JANUARY-MARCH).
ARCOLA, Battle of (1796).
See FRANCE: A. D. 1796-1797 (OCTOBER-APRIL).
ARCOT: A. D. 1751.
Capture and defence by Clive.
See INDIA: A. D. 1743-1752.
ARCOT: A. D. 1780.
Siege and capture by Hyder Ali.
See INDIA: A. D. 1780-1783.
----------ARCOT: End----------
ARDEN, Forest of.
The largest forest in early Britain, which covered the greater
part of modern Warwickshire and "of which Shakespeare's Arden
became the dwindled representative."
_J. R. Green,
The Making of England,
chapter 7._
ARDENNES, Forest of.
"In Cæsar's time there were in [Gaul] very extensive forests,
the largest of which was the Arduenna (Ardennes), which
extended from the banks of the lower Rhine probably as far as
the shores of the North Sea."
_G. Long,
Decline of the Roman Republic,
volume 3, chapter 22._
"Ardennes is the name of one of the northern French
departments which contains a part of the forest Ardennes.
Another part is in Luxemburg and Belgium. The old Celtic name
exists in England in the Arden of Warwickshire."
_G. Long,
Decline of the Roman Republic,
volume 4, chapter 14._
ARDRI, OR ARDRIGH, The.
See TUATH.
ARDSHIR, OR ARTAXERXES,
Founding of the Sassanian monarchy by.
See PERSIA: B. C. 150-A. D. 226.
ARECOMICI, The.
See VOLCÆ.
ARECUNAS, The.
See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: CARIBS AND THEIR KINDRED.
AREIOS.
See ARIA.
ARELATE:
The ancient name of Arles.
The territory covered by the old kingdom of Arles is sometimes
called the Arelate.
See BURGUNDY: A. D. 1127-1378,
and SALYES.
ARENGO, The.
See SAN MARINO, THE REPUBLIC OF.
AREOPAGUS, The.
"Whoever [in ancient Athens] was suspected of having blood
upon his hands had to abstain from approaching the common
altars of the land. Accordingly, for the purpose of judgments
concerning the guilt of blood, choice had been made of the
barren, rocky height which lies opposite the ascent to the
citadel. It was dedicated to Ares, who was said to have been
the first who was ever judged here for the guilt of blood; and
to the Erinyes, the dark powers of the guilt-stained
conscience. Here, instead of a single judge, a college of
twelve men of proved integrity conducted the trial. If the
accused had an equal number of votes for and against him, he
was acquitted. The court on the hill of Ares is one of the
most ancient institutions of Athens, and none achieved for the
city an earlier or more widely-spread recognition."
_E. Curtius,
History of Greece,
book 2, chapter 2._
{125}
"The Areopagus, or, as it was interpreted by an ancient
legend, Mars' Hill, was an eminence on the western side of the
Acropolis, which from time immemorial had been the seat of a
highly revered court of criminal justice. It took cognizance
of charges of wilful murder, maiming, poisoning and arson. Its
forms and modes of proceeding were peculiarly rigid and
solemn. It was held in the open air, perhaps that the judges
might not be polluted by sitting under the same roof with the
criminals. … The venerable character of the court seems to
have determined Solon to apply it to another purpose; and,
without making any change in its original jurisdiction, to
erect it into a supreme council, invested with a
superintending and controlling authority, which extended over
every part of the social system. He constituted it the
guardian of the public morals and religion, to keep watch over
the education and conduct of the citizens, and to protect the
State from the disgrace or pollution of wantonness and
profaneness. He armed it with extraordinary powers of
interfering in pressing emergencies, to avert any sudden and
imminent danger which threatened the public safety. The nature
of its functions rendered it scarcely possible precisely to
define their limits; and Solon probably thought it best to let
them remain in that obscurity which magnifies whatever is
indistinct. … It was filled with Archons who had discharged
their office with approved fidelity, and they held their seats
for life."
_C. Thirlwall,
History of Greece,
volume 1, chapter 11._
These enlarged functions of the Areopagus were withdrawn from
it in the time of Pericles, through the agency of Ephialtes,
but were restored about B. C. 400, after the overthrow of the
Thirty.—"Some of the writers of antiquity ascribed the first
establishment of the senate of Areopagus to Solon. … But
there can be little doubt that this is a mistake, and that the
senate of Areopagus is a primordial institution of immemorial
antiquity, though its constitution as well as its functions
underwent many changes. It stood at first alone as a permanent
and collegiate authority, originally by the side of the kings
and afterwards by the side of the archons: it would then of
course be known by the title of The Boule,—the senate, or
council; its distinctive title 'senate of Areopagus,' borrowed
from the place where its sittings were held, would not be
bestowed until the formation by Solon of the second senate, or
council, from which there was need to discriminate it."
_G. Grote,
History of Greece,
part 2, chapter 10 (volume 3)._
See, also, ATHENS: B. C. 477-462, and 466-454.
ARETHUSA, Fountain of.
See SYRACUSE.
AREVACÆ, The.
One of the tribes of the Celtiberians in ancient Spain. Their
chief town. Numantia, was the stronghold of Celtiberian
resistance to the Roman conquest.
See NUMANTIAN WAR.
ARGADEIS, The.
See PHYLÆ.
ARGAUM, Battle of (1803).
See INDIA: A. D. 1798-1805.
ARGENTARIA, Battle of (A. D.378).
See ALEMANNI: A. D. 378.
ARGENTINE REPUBLIC: Aboriginal inhabitants.
See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: TUPI. GUARANI.
ARGENTINE REPUBLIC: A. D. 1515-1557.
Discovery, exploration and early settlement on La Plata.
First founding of Buenos Ayres.
See PARAGUAY: A. D. 1515-1557.
ARGENTINE REPUBLIC: A. D. 1580-1777.
The final founding of the City of Buenos Ayres.
Conflicts of Spain and Portugal on the Plata.
Creation of the Viceroyalty of Buenos Ayres.
"In the year 1580 the foundations of a lasting city were laid
at Buenos Ayres by De Garay on the same situation as had twice
previously been chosen—namely, by Mendoza, and by Cabeza de
Vaca, respectively. The same leader had before this founded
the settlement of Sante Fe on the Paraná. The site selected
for the future capital of the Pampas is probably one of the
worst ever chosen for a city … has probably the worst
harbour in the world for a large commercial town. …
Notwithstanding the inconvenience of its harbour, Buenos Ayres
soon became the chief commercial entrepôt of the Valley of the
Plata. The settlement was not effected without some severe
fighting between De Garay's force and the Querandies. The
latter, however, were effectually quelled. … The Spaniards
were now nominally masters of the Rio de La Plata, but they
had still to apprehend hostilities on the part of the natives
between their few and far-distant settlements [concerning
which see PARAGUAY: A. D. 1515-1557]. Of this liability De
Garay himself was to form a lamentable example. On his passage
back to Asuncion, having incautiously landed to sleep near the
ruins of the old fort of San Espiritu, he was surprised by a
party of natives and murdered, with all his companions. The
death of this brave Biscayan was mourned as a great loss by
the entire colony. The importance of the cities founded by him
was soon apparent; and in 1620 all the settlements south of
the confluence of the rivers Parana and Paraguay were formed
into a separate, independent government, under the name of Rio
de La Plata, of which Buenos Ayres was declared the capital.
This city likewise became the seat of a bishopric. … The
merchants of Seville, who had obtained a monopoly of the
supply of Mexico and Peru, regarded with much jealousy the
prospect of a new opening for the South American trade by way
of La Plata," and procured restrictions upon it which were
relaxed in 1618 so far as to permit the sending of two vessels
of 100 tons each every year to Spain, but subject to a duty of
50 per cent. "Under this miserable commercial legislation
Buenos Ayres continued to languish for the first century of
its existence. In 1715, after the treaty of Utrecht, the
English … obtained the 'asiento' or contract for supplying
Spanish colonies in America with African slaves, in virtue of
which they had permission to form an establishment at Buenos
Ayres, and to send thither annually four ships with 1,200
negroes, the value of which they might export in produce of
the country. They were strictly forbidden to introduce other
goods than those necessary for their own establishments; but
under the temptation of gain on the one side and of demand on
the other, the asiento ships naturally became the means of
transacting a considerable contraband trade. …
{126}
The English were not the only smugglers in the river Plate. By
the treaty of Utrecht, the Portuguese had obtained the
important settlement of Colonia [the first settlement of the
Banda Oriental—or 'Eastern Border'—afterwards called
Uruguay] directly facing Buenos Ayres. … The Portuguese, …
not contented with the possession of Colonia … commenced a
more important settlement near Monte Video. From this place
they were dislodged by Zavala [Governor of Buenos Ayres], who,
by order of his government, proceeded to establish settlements
at that place and at Maldonado. Under the above-detailed
circumstances of contention … was founded the healthy and
agreeable city of Monte Video. … The inevitable consequence
of this state of things was fresh antagonism between the two
countries, which it was sought to put an end to by a treaty
between the two nations concluded in 1750. One of the articles
stipulated that Portugal should cede to Spain all of her
establishments on the eastern bank of the Plata; in return for
which she was to receive the seven missionary towns [known as
the 'Seven Reductions'] on the Uruguay. But … the
inhabitants of the Missions naturally rebelled against the
idea of being handed over to a people known to them only by
their slave-dealing atrocities. … The result was that when
2,000 natives had been slaughtered [in the war known as the
War of the Seven Reductions] and their settlements reduced to
ruins, the Portuguese repudiated the compact, as they could no
longer receive their equivalent, and they still therefore
retained Colonia. When hostilities were renewed in 1762, the
governor of Buenos Ayres succeeded in possessing himself of
Colonia; but in the following year it was restored to the
Portuguese, who continued in possession until 1777, when it
was definitely ceded to Spain. The continual encroachments of
the Portuguese in the Rio de La Plata, and the impunity with
which the contraband trade was carried on, together with the
questions to which it constantly gave rise with foreign
governments, had long shown the necessity for a change in the
government of that colony; for it was still under the
superintendence of the Viceroy of Peru, residing at Lima,
3,000 miles distant. The Spanish authorities accordingly
resolved to give fresh force to their representatives in the
Rio de La Plata; and in 1776 they took the important
resolution to sever the connection between the provinces of La
Plata and the Viceroyalty of Peru. The former were now erected
into a new Viceroyalty, the capital of which was Buenos Ayres.
… To this Viceroyalty was appointed Don Pedro Cevallos, a
former governor of Buenos Ayres. … The first act of Cevallos
was to take possession of the island of St. Katherine, the
most important Portuguese possession on the coast of Brazil.
Proceeding thence to the Plate, he razed the fortifications of
Colonia to the ground, and drove the Portuguese from the
neighbourhood. In October of the following year, 1777, a
treaty of peace was signed at St. Ildefonso, between Queen
Maria of Portugal and Charles III. of Spain, by virtue of
which St. Katherine's was restored to the latter country,
whilst Portugal withdrew from the Banda Oriental or Uruguay,
and relinquished all pretensions to the right of navigating
the Rio de La Plata and its affluents beyond its own frontier
line. … The Viceroyalty of Buenos Ayres was sub-divided into
the provinces of—(1.) Buenos Ayres, the capital of which was
the city of that name, and which comprised the Spanish
possessions that now form the Republic of Uruguay, as well as
the Argentine provinces of Buenos Ayres, Santa Fé, Entre Rios,
and Corrientes; (2.) Paraguay, the capital of which was
Asuncion, and which comprised what is now the Republic of
Paraguay; (3.) Tucuman, the capital of which was St. Iago del
Estero, and which included what are to-day the Argentine
provinces of Cordova, Tucuman, St. Iago, Salta, Catamarca,
Rioja, and Jujuy; (4.) Las Charcas or Potosi, the capital of
which was La Plata, and which now forms the Republic of
Bolivia; and (5.) Chiquito or Cuyo, the capital of which was
Mendoza, and in which were comprehended the present Argentine
provinces of St. Luiz, Mendoza, and St. Juan."
_R. G. Watson,
Spanish and Portuguese South America,
volumes 13-14._
ALSO IN:
_E. J. Payne,
History of European Colonies,
chapter 17._
_S. H. Wilcocke,
History of the Viceroyalty of Buenos Ayres._
ARGENTINE REPUBLIC: A. D. 1806-1820.
The English invasion.
The Revolution.
Independence achieved.
Confederation of the Provinces of the Plate River and its
dissolution.
"The trade of the Plate River had enormously increased since
the substitution of register ships for the annual flotilla,
and the erection of Buenos Ayres into a viceroyalty in 1778;
but it was not until the war of 1797 that the English became
aware of its real extent. The British cruisers had enough to
do to maintain the blockade: and when the English learned that
millions of hides were rotting in the warehouses of Monte
Video and Buenos Ayres, they concluded that the people would
soon see that their interests would be best served by
submission to the great naval power. The peace put an end to
these ideas; but Pitt's favourite project for destroying
Spanish influence in South America by the English arms was
revived and put in execution soon after the opening of the
second European war in 1803. In 1806 … he sent a squadron to
the Plate River, which offered the best point of attack to the
British fleet, and the road to the most promising of the
Spanish colonies. The English, under General Beresford, though
few in number, soon took Buenos Ayres, for the Spaniards,
terrified at the sight of British troops, surrendered without
knowing how insignificant the invading force really was. When
they found this out, they mustered courage to attack Beresford
in the citadel; and the English commander was obliged to
evacuate the place. The English soon afterwards took
possession of Monte Video, on the other side of the river.
Here they were joined by another squadron, who were under
orders, after reducing Buenos Ayres, to sail round the Horn,
to take Valparaiso, and establish posts across the continent
connecting that city with Buenos Ayres, thus executing the
long-cherished plan of Lord Anson. Buenos Ayres was therefore
invested a second time. But the English land forces were too
few for their task. The Spaniards spread all round the city
strong breastworks of ox hides, and collected all their forces
for its defence. Buenos Ayres was stormed by the English at
two points on the 5th of July, 1807; but they were unable to
hold their ground against the unceasing fire of the Spaniards,
who were greatly superior in numbers, and the next day they
capitulated, and agreed to evacuate the province within two
months.
{127}
The English had imagined that the colonists would readily
flock to their standard, and throw off the yoke of Spain. This
was a great mistake; and it needed the events of 1808 to lead
the Spanish colonists to their independence. … In 1810, when
it came to be known that the French armies had crossed the
Sierra Morena, and that Spain was a conquered country, the
colonists would no longer submit to the shadowy authority of
the colonial officers, and elected a junta of their own to
carry on the Government. Most of the troops in the colony went
over to the cause of independence, and easily overcame the
feeble resistance that was made by those who remained faithful
to the regency in the engagement of Las Piedras. The leaders
of the revolution were the advocate Castelli and General
Belgrano; and under their guidance scarcely any obstacle
stopped its progress. They even sent their armies at once into
Upper Peru and the Banda Oriental, and their privateers
carried the Independent flag to the coasts of the Pacific; but
these successes were accompanied by a total anarchy in the
Argentine capital and provinces. The most intelligent and
capable men had gone off to fight for liberty elsewhere; and
even if they had remained it would have been no easy task to
establish a new government over the scattered and
half-civilized population of this vast country. … The first
result of independence was the formation of a not very
intelligent party of country proprietors, who knew nothing of
the mysteries of politics, and were not ill-content with the
existing order of things. The business of the old viceroyal
government was delegated to a supreme Director; but this
functionary was little more than titular. How limited the
aspirations of the Argentines at first were may be gathered
from the instructions with which Belgrano and Rivadavia were
sent to Europe in 1814. They were to go to England, and ask
for an English protectorate; if possible under an English
prince. They were next to try the same plan in France,
Austria, and Russia, and lastly in Spain itself: and if Spain
still refused, were to offer to renew the subjection of the
colony, on condition of certain specified concessions being
made. This was indeed a strange contrast to the lofty
aspirations of the Colombians. On arriving at Rio, the
Argentine delegates were assured by the English minister, Lord
Strangford, that, as things were, no European power would do
anything for them: nor did they succeed better in Spain
itself. Meanwhile the government of the Buenos Ayres junta was
powerless outside the town, and the country was fast lapsing
into the utmost disorder and confusion. At length, when
Government could hardly be said to exist at all, a general
congress of the provinces of the Plate River assembled at
Tucuman in 1816. It was resolved that all the states should
unite in a confederation to be called the United Provinces of
the Plate River: and a constitution was elaborated, in
imitation of the famous one of the United States, providing
for two legislative chambers and a president. … The
influence of the capital, of which all the other provinces
were keenly jealous, predominated in the congress; and
Puyrredon, an active Buenos Ayres politician, was made supreme
Director of the Confederation. The people of Buenos Ayres
thought their city destined to exercise over the rural
provinces a similar influence to that which Athens, under
similar circumstances, had exercised in Greece; and able
Buenos Ayreans like Puyrredon, San Martin, and Rivadavia, now
became the leaders of the unitary party. The powerful
provincials, represented by such men as Lopez and Quiroga,
soon found out that the Federal scheme meant the supremacy of
Buenos Ayres, and a political change which would deprive them
of most of their influence. The Federal system, therefore,
could not be expected to last very long; and it did in fact
collapse after four years. Artigas led the revolt in the Banda
Oriental [now Uruguay], and the Riverene Provinces soon
followed the example. For a long time the provinces were
practically under the authority of their local chiefs, the
only semblance of political life being confined to Buenos
Ayres itself."
_E. J. Payne,
History of European Colonies,
chapter 17._
ALSO IN:
_M. G. Mulhall,
The English in South America,
chapters 10-13, and 16-18._
_J. Miller,
Memoirs of General Miller,
chapter 3 (volume 1)._
_T. J. Page,
La Plata, the Argentine Confederation and Paraguay,
chapter 31._
ARGENTINE REPUBLIC: A. D. 1819-1874.
Anarchy, civil war, despotism.
The long struggle for order and Confederation.
"A new Congress met in 1819 and made a Constitution for the
country, which was never adopted by all the Provinces.
Pueyrredon resigned, and on June 10th, 1819, José Rondeau was
elected, who, however, was in no condition to pacify the civil
war which had broken out during the government of his
predecessors. At the commencement of 1830, the last 'Director
General' was overthrown; the municipality of the city of
Buenos-Aires seized the government; the Confederation was
declared dissolved, and each of its Provinces received liberty
to organize itself as it pleased. This was anarchy officially
proclaimed. After the fall in the same year of some military
chiefs who had seized the power, General Martin Rodriguez was
named Governor of Buenos-Aires, and he succeeded in
establishing some little order in this chaos. He chose M. J.
Garcia and Bernardo Rivadavia—one of the most enlightened
Argentines of his times—as his Ministers. This
administration did a great deal of good by exchanging
conventions of friendship and commerce, and entering into
diplomatic relations with foreign nations. At the end of his
term General Las Heras—9th May, 1824—took charge of the
government, and called a Constituent Assembly of all the
Provinces, which met at Buenos-Aires, December 16th, and
elected Bernardo Rivadavia President of the newly Confederated
Republic on the 7th February, 1825. This excellent Argentine,
however, found no assistance in the Congress. No understanding
could be come to on the form or the test of the Constitution, nor
yet upon the place of residence for the national Government.
Whilst Rivadavia desired a centralized Constitution—called
here 'unintarian'—and that the city of Buenos-Aires should be
declared capital of the Republic, the majority of Congress
held a different opinion, and this divergence caused the
resignation of the President on the 5th July, 1827. After this
event, the attempt to establish a Confederation which would
include all the Provinces was considered as defeated, and each
Province went on its own way, whilst Buenos-Aires elected
Manuel Dorrego, the chief of the federal party, for its
Governor.
{128}
He was inaugurated on the 13th August, 1827, and at once
undertook to organize a new Confederation of the Provinces,
opening relations to this end with the Government of Cordoba,
the most important Province of the interior. He succeeded in
reëstablishing repose in the interior, and was instrumental in
preserving a general peace, even beyond the limits of his
young country. The Emperor of Brazil did not wish to
acknowledge the rights of the United Provinces over the
Cisplatine province, or Banda Oriental [now Uruguay]. He
wished to annex it to his empire, and declared war to the
Argentine Republic on the 10th of December, 1826. An army was
soon organized by the latter, under the command of General
Alvear, which on the 20th of February, 1827, gained a complete
victory over the Brazilian forces—twice their number—at the
plains of Ituzaingó, in the Brazilian province of Rio Grande
do Sul. The navy of the Argentines also triumphed on several
occasions, so that when England offered her intervention,
Brazil renounced all claim to the territory of Uruguay by the
convention of the 27th August, 1828, and the two parties
agreed to recognize and to maintain the neutrality and
independence of that country. Dorrego, however, had but few
sympathies in the army, and a short time after his return from
Brazil, the soldiers under Lavalle rebelled and forced him to
fly to the country on the 1st December of the same year. There
he found aid from the Commander General of the country
districts, Juan Manuel Rosas, and formed a small battalion
with the intention of marching on the city of Buenos-Aires.
But Lavalle triumphed, took him prisoner, and shot him without
trial on the 13th December. … Not only did the whole
interior of the province of Buenos-Aires rise against Lavalle,
under the direction of Rosas, but also a large part of other
Provinces considered this event as a declaration of war, and
the National Congress, then assembled at Santa-Fé, declared
Lavalle's government illegal. The two parties fought with real
fury, but in 1829, after an interview between Rosas and
Lavalle, a temporary reconciliation was effected. … The
legislature of Buenos-Aires, which had been convoked on
account of the reconciliation between Lavalle and Rosas,
elected the latter as Governor of the Province, on December
6th, 1829, and accorded to him extraordinary powers. …
During this the first period of his government he did not
appear in his true nature, and at its conclusion he refused a
re-election and retired to the country. General Juan R.
Balcarce was then—17th December, 1832—named Governor, but
could only maintain himself some eleven months: Viamont
succeeded him, also for a short time only. Now the moment had
come for Rosas. He accepted the almost unlimited Dictatorship
which was offered to him on the 7th March, 1835, and reigned
in a horrible manner, like a madman, until his fall. Several
times the attempt was made to deliver Buenos-Aires from his
terrible yoke, and above all the devoted and valiant efforts
of General Lavalle deserve to be mentioned; but all was in
vain; Rosas remained unshaken. Finally, General Justo José De
Urquiza, Governor of the province of Entre-Rios, in alliance
with the province of Corrientes and the Empire of Brazil, rose
against the Dictator. He first delivered the Republic of
Uruguay, and the city of Monte Video—the asylum of the
adversaries of Rosas—from the army which besieged it, and
thereafter passing the great river Parana, with a relatively
large army, he completely defeated Rosas at Monte-Caseros,
near Buenos-Aires, on the 3rd February, 1852. During the same
day, Rosas sought and received the protection of an English
war-vessel which was in the road of Buenos-Aires, in which he
went to England, where he still [1876] resides. Meantime
Urquiza took charge of the Government of the United Provinces,
under the title of 'Provisional Director,' and called a
general meeting of the Governors at San Nicolás, a frontier
village on the north of the province of Buenos-Aires. This
assemblage confirmed him in his temporary power, and called a
National Congress which met at Santa-Fé and made a National
Constitution under date of 25th May, 1853. By virtue of this
Constitution the Congress met again the following year at
Parana, a city of Entre-Rios, which had been made the capital,
and on the 5th May, elected General Urquiza the first
President of the Argentine Confederation. … The important
province of Buenos-Aires, however, had taken no part in the
deliberations of the Congress. Previously, on the 11th
September 1852, a revolution against Urquiza, or rather
against the Provincial Government in alliance with him, had
taken place and caused a temporary separation of the Province
from the Republic. Several efforts to pacify the disputes
utterly failed, and a battle took place at Cepeda in Santa-Fé,
wherein Urquiza, who commanded the provincial troops, was
victorious, although his success led to no definite result. A
short time after, the two armies met again at Pavon—near the
site of the former battle—and Buenos-Aires won the day. This
secured the unity of the Republic of which the victorious
General Bartolomé Mitre was elected President for six years
from October, 1862. At the same time the National Government
was transferred from Paraná to Buenos-Aires, and the latter
was declared the temporary capital of the Nation. The Republic
owes much to the Government of Mitre, and it is probable that
he would have done more good, if war had not broken out with
Paraguay, in 1865 [see PARAGUAY]. The Argentines took part in
it as one of the three allied States against the Dictator of
Paraguay, Francisco Solano Lopez. On the 12th October, 1868,
Domingo Faustino Sarmiento succeeded General Mitre in the
Presidency. … The 12th October, 1874, Dr. Nicolas Avellaneda
succeeded him in the Government."
_R. Napp,
The Argentine Republic,
chapter 2._
ALSO IN:
_D. F. Sarmiento,
Life in the Argentine Republic in the Days of the Tyrants._
_J. A. King,
Twenty-four years in the Argentine Republic._
{129}
ARGENTINE REPUBLIC: A. D. 1880-1891.
The Constitution and its working.
Governmental corruption.
The Revolution of 1890, and the financial collapse.
"The Argentine constitutional system in its outward form
corresponds closely to that of the United States. … But the
inward grace of enlightened public opinion is lacking, and
political practice falls below the level of a self-governing
democracy. Congress enacts laws, but the President as
commander-in-chief of the army, and as the head of a civil
service dependent upon his will and caprice, possesses
absolute authority in administration. The country is governed
by executive decrees rather than by constitutional laws.
Elections are carried by military pressure and manipulation of
the civil service. … President Roca [who succeeded
Avellaneda in 1880] virtually nominated, and elected his
brother-in-law, Juarez Célman, as his successor. President
Juarez set his heart upon controlling the succession in the
interest of one of his relatives, a prominent official; but
was forced to retire before he could carry out his purpose.
… Nothing in the Argentine surprised me more than the
boldness and freedom with which the press attacked the
government of the day and exposed its corruption. … The
government paid no heed to these attacks. Ministers did not
trouble themselves to repel charges affecting their integrity.
… This wholesome criticism from an independent press had one
important effect. It gave direction to public opinion in the
capital, and involved the organization of the Unión Cívica. If
the country had not been on the verge of a financial
revulsion, there might not have been the revolt against the
Juarez administration in July, 1890; but with ruin and
disaster confronting them, men turned against the President
whose incompetence and venality would have been condoned if
the times had been good. The Unión Cívica was founded when the
government was charged with maladministration in sanctioning
an illegal issue of $40,000,000 of paper money. … The
government was suddenly confronted with an armed coalition of
the best battalions of the army, the entire navy, and the Unión
Cívica. The manifesto issued by the Revolutionary Junta was a
terrible arraignment of the political crimes of the Juarez
Government. … The revolution opened with every prospect of
success. It failed from the incapacity of the leaders to
co-operate harmoniously. On July 19, 1890, the defection of
the army was discovered. On July 26 the revolt broke out. For
four days there was bloodshed without definite plan or
purpose. No determined attack was made upon the government
palace. The fleet opened a fantastic bombardment upon the
suburbs. There was inexplicable mismanagement of the insurgent
forces, and on July 29 an ignominious surrender to the
government with a proclamation of general amnesty. General
Roca remained behind the scenes, apparently master of the
situation, while President Juarez had fled to a place of
refuge on the Rosario railway, and two factions of the army
were playing at cross purposes, and the police and the
volunteers of the Unión Cívica were shooting women and
children in the streets. Another week of hopeless confusion
passed, and General Roca announced the resignation of
President Juarez and the succession of vice-President
Pellegrini. Then the city was illuminated, and for three days
there was a pandemonium of popular rejoicing over a victory
which nobody except General Roca understood. … In June,
1891, the deplorable state of Argentine finance was revealed
in a luminous statement made by President Pellegrini. … All
business interests were stagnant. Immigration had been
diverted to Brazil. … All industries were prostrated except
politics, and the pernicious activity displayed by factions
was an evil augury for the return of prosperity. … During
thirty years the country has trebled its population, its
increase being relatively much more rapid than that of the
United States during the same period. The estimate of the
present population [1892] is 4,000,000 in place of 1,160,000
in 1857. … Disastrous as the results of political government
and financial disorder have been in the Argentine, its
ultimate recovery by slow stages is probable. It has a
magnificent railway system, an industrious working population
recruited from Europe, and nearly all the material appliances
for progress."
_I. N. Ford.
Tropical America,
chapter 6._
See CONSTITUTION, ARGENTINE.
ARGENTINE REPUBLIC: A. D. 1892.
Presidential Election.
Dr. Luis Saenz-Pena, former Chief Justice of the Supreme
Court, and reputed to be a man of great integrity and ability,
was chosen President, and inaugurated October 12, 1892.
----------ARGENTINE REPUBLIC: End----------
ARGINUSAE, Battle of.
See GREECE: B. C. 406.
ARGONAUTIC EXPEDITION, The.
"The ship Argo was the theme of many songs during the oldest
periods of the Grecian Epic, even earlier than the Odyssey.
The king Æêtês, from whom she is departing, the hero Jason,
who commands her, and the goddess Hêrê, who watches over him,
enabling the Argo to traverse distances and to escape dangers
which no ship had ever before encountered, are all
circumstances briefly glanced at by Odysseus in his narrative
to Alkinous. … Jason, commanded by Pelias to depart in quest
of the golden fleece belonging to the speaking ram which had
carried away Phryxus and Hellé, was encouraged by the oracle
to invite the noblest youth of Greece to his aid, and fifty of
the most distinguished amongst them obeyed the call. Hêraklês,
Thêseus, Telamôn and Pêleus, Kastor and Pollux, Idas and
Lynkeus—Zêtês and Kalaïs, the winged sons of
Boreas—Meleager, Amphiaraus, Kêpheus, Laertês, Autolykus,
Menœtius, Aktor, Erginus, Euphêmus, Ankæus, Pœas,
Periklymenus, Augeas, Eurytus, Admêtus, Akastus, Kæneus,
Euryalus, Pêneleôs and Lêitus, Askalaphus and Ialmenus, were
among them. … Since so many able men have treated it as an
undisputed reality, and even made it the pivot of systematic
chronological calculations, I may here repeat the opinion long
ago expressed by Heyne, and even indicated by Burmann, that
the process of dissecting the story, in search of a basis of
fact, is one altogether fruitless."
_G. Grote,
History of Greece,
volume 1, part 1, chapter 13._
"In the rich cluster of myths which surround the captain of
the Argo and his fellows are preserved to us the whole life
and doings of the Greek maritime tribes, which gradually
united all the coasts with one another, and attracted Hellenes
dwelling in the most different seats into the sphere of their
activity. … The Argo was said to have weighed anchor from a
variety of ports—from Iplcus in Thessaly, from Anthedon and
Siphæ in Bœotia: the home of Jason himself was on Mount Pelion
by the sea, and again on Lemnos and in Corinth; a clear proof
of how homogeneous were the influences running on various
coasts. However, the myths of the Argo were developed in the
greatest completeness on the Pagasean gulf, in the seats of
the Minyi; and they are the first with whom a perceptible
movement of the Pelasgian tribes beyond the sea—in other
words, a Greek history in Europe—begins."
_E. Curtius,
History of Greece,
book 1, chapters 2-3._
{130}
ARGOS.
ARGOLIS.
ARGIVES.
"No district of Greece contains so dense a succession of
powerful citadels in a narrow space as Argolis [the eastern
peninsular projection of the Peloponnesus]. Lofty Larissa,
apparently designed by nature as the centre of the district,
is succeeded by Mycenæ, deep in the recess of the land; at the
foot of the mountain lies Midea, at the brink of the sea-coast
Tiryns; and lastly, at a farther distance of half an hour's
march, Nauplia, with its harbour. This succession of ancient
fastnesses, whose indestructible structure of stone we admire
to this day [see Schliemann's 'Mycenæ' and 'Tiryns'] is clear
evidence of mighty conflicts which agitated the earliest days
of Argos; and proves that in this one plain of Inachus several
principalities must have arisen by the side of one another,
each putting its confidence in the walls of its citadel; some,
according to their position, maintaining an intercourse with
other lands by sea, others rather a connection with the inland
country. The evidence preserved by these monuments is borne
out by that of the myths, according to which the dominion of
Danaus is divided among his successors. Exiled Prœtus is
brought home to Argos by Lycian bands, with whose help he
builds the coast-fortress of Tiryns, where he holds sway as
the first and mightiest in the land. … The other line of the
Danaidæ is also intimately connected with Lycia; for Perseus.
… [who] on his return from the East founds Mycenæ, as the
new regal seat of the united kingdom of Argos, is himself
essentially a Lycian hero of light, belonging to the religion
of Apollo. … Finally, Heracles himself is connected with the
family of the Perseidæ, as a prince born on the Tirynthian
fastness. … During these divisions in the house of Danaus,
and the misfortunes befalling that of Prœtus, foreign families
acquire influence and dominion in Argos: these are of the race
of Æolus, and originally belong to the harbour-country of the
western coast of Peloponnesus—the Amythaonidæ. … While the
dominion of the Argive land was thus sub-divided, and the
native warrior nobility subsequently exhausted itself in
savage internal feuds, a new royal house succeeded in grasping
the supreme power and giving an entirely new importance to the
country. This house was that of the Tantalidæ [or PELOPIDS,
which see], united with the forces of Achæan population. …
The residue of fact is, that the ancient dynasty, connected by
descent with Lycia, was overthrown by the house which derived
its origin from Lydia. … The poetic myths, abhorring long
rows of names, mention three princes as ruling here in
succession, one leaving the sceptre of Pelops to the other,
viz., Atreus, Thyestes and Agamemnon. Mycenæ is the chief seat
of their rule, which is not restricted to the district of
Argos."
_E. Curtius,
History of Greece,
book 1, chapter 3._
After the Doric invasion of the Peloponnesus (see GREECE: THE
MIGRATIONS; also, DORIANS AND IONIANS), Argos appears in Greek
history as a Doric state, originally the foremost one in power
and influence, but humiliated after long years of rivalry by
her Spartan neighbours. "Argos never forgot that she had once
been the chief power in the peninsula, and her feeling towards
Sparta was that of a jealous but impotent competitor. By what
steps the decline of her power had taken place, we are unable
to make out, nor can we trace the succession of her kings
subsequent to Pheidon [8th century B. C.]. … The title [of
king] existed (though probably with very limited functions) at
the time of the Persian War [B. C. 490-479]. … There is some
ground for presuming that the king of Argos was even at that
time a Herakleid—since the Spartans offered to him a third
part of the command of the Hellenic force, conjointly with
their own two kings. The conquest of Thyreates by the Spartans
[about 547 B. C.] deprived the Argeians of a valuable portion
of their Periœkis, or dependent territory. But Orneæ and the
remaining portion of Kynuria still continued to belong to
them: the plain round their city was very productive; and,
except Sparta, there was no other power in Peloponnesus
superior to them. Mykenæ and Tiryns, nevertheless, seem both
to have been independent states at the time of the Persian
War, since both sent contingents to the battle of Platæa, at a
time when Argos held aloof and rather favoured the Persians."
_G. Grote,
History of Greece,
part 2, chapter 8 (volume 2)._
ARGOS: B. C. 496-421.
Calamitous War with Sparta.
Non-action in the Persian War.
Slow recovery of the crippled State.
"One of the heaviest blows which Argos ever sustained at the
hand of her traditional foe befell her about 496 B. C., six
years before the first Persian invasion of Greece. A war with
Sparta having broken out, Cleomenes, the Lacedæmonian king,
succeeded in landing a large army, in vessels he had extorted
from the Æginetans, at Nauplia, and ravaged the Argive
territory. The Argeians mustered all their forces to resist
him, and the two armies encamp cd opposite each other near
Tiryns. Cleomenes, however, contrived to attack the Argeians
at a moment when they were unprepared, making use, if
Herodotus is to be credited, of a stratagem which proves the
extreme incapacity of the opposing generals, and completely
routed them. The Argeians took refuge in a sacred grove, to
which the remorseless Spartans set fire, and so destroyed
almost the whole of them. No fewer than 6,000 of the citizens
of Argos perished on this disastrous day. Cleomenes might have
captured the city itself; but he was, or affected to be,
hindered by unfavourable omens, and drew off his troops. The
loss sustained by Argos was so severe as to reduce her for
some years to a condition of great weakness; but this was at
the time a fortunate circumstance for the Hellenic cause,
inasmuch as it enabled the Lacedæmonians to devote their whole
energies to the work of resistance to the Persian invasion
without fear of enemies at home. In this great work Argos took
no part, on the occasion of either the first or second attempt
of the Persian kings to bring Hellas under their dominion.
Indeed, the city was strongly suspected of 'medising'
tendencies. In the period following the final overthrow of the
Persians, while Athens was pursuing the splendid career of
aggrandisement and conquest that made her the foremost state
in Greece, and while the Lacedæmonians were paralyzed by the
revolt of the Messenians, Argos regained strength and
influence, which she at once employed and increased by the
harsh policy … of depopulating Mycenæ and Tiryns, while she
compelled several other semi-independent places in the Argolid
to acknowledge her supremacy. During the first eleven years of
the Peloponnesian war, down to the peace of Nicias (421 B.
C.), Argos held aloof from all participation in the struggle,
adding to her wealth and perfecting her military organization.
As to her domestic conditions and political system, little is
known; but it is certain that the government, unlike that of
other Dorian states, was democratic in its character, though
there was in the city a strong oligarchic and philo-Laconian
party, which was destined to exercise a decisive influence at
an important crisis."
_C. H. Hanson,
The Land of Greece,
chapter 10._
ALSO IN:
_G. Grote,
History of Greece,
part 2, chapter 36 (volume 4)._
{131}
ARGOS: B. C. 421-418.
League formed against Sparta.
Outbreak of War.
Defeat at Mantinea.
Revolution in the Oligarchical and Spartan interest.
See GREECE: B. C. 421-418.
ARGOS: B. C. 395-387.
Confederacy against Sparta.
The Corinthian War.
Peace of Antalcidas.
See GREECE: B. C. 399-387.
ARGOS: B. C. 371.
Mob outbreak and massacre of chief citizens.
See GREECE: B. C. 371-362.
ARGOS: B. C. 338.
Territories restored by Philip of Macedon.
See GREECE: B. C. 357-336.
ARGOS: B. C. 271.
Repulse and death of Pyrrhus, king of Epirus.
See MACEDONIA: B. C. 277-244.
ARGOS: B. C. 229.
Liberated from Macedonian control.
See GREECE: B. C. 280-146.
ARGOS: A. D. 267.
Ravaged by the Goths.
See GOTHS: A. D. 258-267.
ARGOS: A. D. 395.
Plundered by the Goths.
See GOTHS: A. D. 395.
ARGOS: A. D. 1463.
Taken by the Turks, retaken by the Venetians.
See GREECE: A. D. 1454-1479.
ARGOS: A. D. 1686.
Taken by the Venetians.
See TURKS: A. D. 1684-1696.
----------ARGOS: End----------
ARGYRASPIDES, The.
"He [Alexander the Great] then marched into India, that he
might have his empire bounded by the ocean, and the extreme
parts of the East. That the equipments of his army might be
suitable to the glory of the Expedition, he mounted the
trappings of the horses and the arms of the soldiers with
silver, and called a body of his men, from having silver
shields, Argyraspides."
_Justin,
History
(translated by J. S. Watson),
book 12, chapter 7._
ALSO IN:
_C. Thirlwall,
History of Greece,
chapter 58._
See, also, MACEDONIA: B. C. 323-316.
ARGYRE.
See CHRYSE.
ARIA.
AREIOS.
AREIANS.
The name by which the Herirud and its valley, the district of
modern Herat, was known to the ancient Greeks. Its inhabitants
were known as the Areians.
_M. Duncker,
History of Antiquity,
book 7, chapter 1._
ARIANA.
"Strabo uses the name Ariana for the land of all the nations
of Iran, except that of the Medes and Persians, i. e., for the
whole eastern half of Iran."—Afghanistan and Beloochistan.
_M. Duncker,
History of Antiquity,
volume 5, book 7, chapter 1._
ARIANISM.
ARIANS.
From the second century of its existence, the Christian church
was divided by bitter controversies touching the mystery of
the Trinity. "The word Trinity is found neither in the Holy
Scriptures nor in the writings of the first Christians; but it
had been employed from the beginning of the second century,
when a more metaphysical turn had been given to the minds of
men, and theologians had begun to attempt to explain the
divine nature. … The Founder of the new religion, the Being
who had brought upon earth a divine light, was he God, was he
man, was he of an intermediate nature, and, though superior to
all other created beings, yet himself created? This latter
opinion was held by Arius, an Alexandrian priest, who
maintained it in a series of learned controversial works
between the years 318 and 325. As soon as the discussion had
quitted the walls of the schools, and been taken up by the
people, mutual accusations of the gravest kind took the place
of metaphysical subtleties. The orthodox party reproached the
Arians with blaspheming the deity himself, by refusing to
acknowledge him in the person of Christ. The Arians accused
the orthodox of violating the fundamental law of religion; by
rendering to the creature the worship due only to the Creator.
… It was difficult to decide which numbered the largest body
of followers; but the ardent enthusiastic spirits, the
populace in all the great cities (and especially at
Alexandria) the women, and the newly-founded order of the
monks of the desert … were almost without exception
partisans of the faith which has since been declared orthodox.
… Constantine thought this question of dogma might be
decided by an assembly of the whole church. In the year 325,
he convoked the council of Nice [see NICÆA, COUNCIL OF], at
which 300 bishops pronounced in favour of the equality of the
Son with the Father, or the doctrine generally regarded as
orthodox, and condemned the Arians to exile and their books to
the flames."
_J. C. L. de Sismondi,
Fall of the Roman Empire,
chapter 4._
"The victorious faction [at the Council of Nice] … anxiously
sought for some irreconcilable mark of distinction, the
rejection of which might involve the Arians in the guilt and
consequences of heresy. A letter was publicly read and
ignominiously torn, in which their patron, Eusebius of
Nicomedia, ingeniously confessed that the admission of the
homoousion, or consubstantial, a word already familiar to the
Platonists, was incompatible with the principles of their
theological system. The fortunate opportunity was eagerly
embraced. … The consubstantiality of the Father and the Son
was established by the Council of Nice, and has been
unanimously received as a fundamental article of the Christian
faith by the consent of the Greek, the Latin, the Oriental and
the Protestant churches." Notwithstanding the decision of the
Council of Nice against it, the heresy of Arius continued to
gain ground in the East. Even the Emperor Constantine became
friendly to it, and the sons of Constantine, with some of the
later emperors who followed them on the eastern throne, were
ardent Arians in belief. The Homoousians, or orthodox, were
subjected to persecution, which was directed with special
bitterness against their great leader, Athanasius, the famous
bishop of Alexandria. But Arianism was weakened by
hair-splitting distinctions, which resulted in many diverging
creeds. "The sect which asserted the doctrine of a 'similar
substance' was the most numerous, at least in the provinces of
Asia. … The Greek word which was chosen to express this
mysterious resemblance bears so close an affinity to the
orthodox symbol, that the profane of every age have derided
the furious contests which the difference of a single
diphthong excited between the Homoousians and the
Homoiousians."
{132}
The Latin churches of the West, with Rome at their head,
remained generally firm in the orthodoxy of the Homoousian
creed. But the Goths, who had received their Christianity from
the East, tinctured with Arianism, carried that heresy
westward, and spread it among their barbarian neighbors—
Vandals, Burgundians and Sueves—through the influence of the
Gothic Bible of Ulfilas, which he and his missionary
successors bore to the Teutonic peoples. "The Vandals and
Ostrogoths persevered in the profession of Arianism till the
final ruin [A. D. 533 and 553] of the kingdoms which they had
founded in Africa and Italy. The barbarians of Gaul submitted
[A. D. 507] to the orthodox dominion of the Franks: and Spain
was restored to the Catholic Church by the voluntary
conversion of the Visigoths [A. D. 589]."
_E. Gibbon,
Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire,
chapters 21 and 37.
Theodosius formally proclaimed his adhesion to Trinitarian
orthodoxy by his celebrated edict of A. D. 380, and commanded
its acceptance in the Eastern Empire.
See ROME: A. D. 379-395.
_A. Neander,
General History of Christian Religion and Church,
translated by Torry,
volume 2, section 4._
ALSO IN:
_J. Alzog,
Manual of Universal Church History,
section 110-114._
_W. G. T. Shedd,
History of Christian Doctrine,
book 3._
_J. H. Newman,
Arians of the Fourth Century._
_A. P. Stanley,
Lectures on the History of the Eastern Church,
lectures 3-7._
_J. A. Dorner,
History of the Development of the Doctrine
of the Person of Christ,
division 1 (volume 2)._
See, also,
GOTHS: A. D. 341-381;
FRANKS: A. D. 481-511;
also, GOTHS (VISIGOTHS): A. D. 507-509.
ARICA, Battle of (1880).
See CHILE: A. D. 1833-1884.
ARICIA, Battle of.
A victory won by the Romans over the Auruncians, B. C. 497,
which summarily ended a war that the latter had declared
against the former.
_Livy,
History of Rome,
book 2, chapter 26._
ARICIAN GROVE, The.
The sacred grove at Aricia (one of the towns of old Latium,
near Alba Longa) was the center and meeting-place of an early
league among the Latin peoples, about which little is known.
_W. Ihne,
History of Rome,
book 2, chapter 3._
_Sir. W. Gell,
Topography of Rome,
volume 1._
"On the northern shore of the lake [of Nemi] right under the
precipitous cliffs on which the modern village of Nemi is
perched, stood the sacred grove and sanctuary of Diana
Nemorensis, or Diana of the Wood. … The site was excavated
in 1885 by Sir John Saville Lumley, English ambassador at
Rome. For a general description of the site and excavations,
see the _Athenæum_, 10th October, 1885. For details of
the finds see _'Bulletino dell' Instituto di Corrispondenza
Archeologica,' 1885_.—The lake and the grove were
sometimes known as the lake and grove of Aricia. But the town
of Aricia (the modern La Riccia) was situated about three
miles off, at the foot of the Alban Mount. … According to
one story, the worship of Diana at Nemi was instituted by
Orestes, who, after killing Thoas, King of the Tauric
Chersonese (the Crimea), fled with his sister to Italy,
bringing with him the image of the Tauric Diana. … Within
the sanctuary at Nemi grew a certain tree, of which no branch
might be broken. Only a runaway slave was allowed to break
off, if he could, one of its boughs. Success in the attempt
entitled him to fight the priest in single combat, and if he
slew him he reigned in his stead with the title of King of the
Wood (Rex Nemorensis). Tradition averred that the fateful
branch was that Golden Bough which, at the Sibyl's bidding,
Æneas plucked before he essayed the perilous journey to the
world of the dead. … This rule of succession by the sword
was observed down to imperial times; for amongst his other
freaks Caligula, thinking that the priest of Nemi had held
office too long, hired a more stalwart ruffian to slay him."
_J. G. Frazer,
The Golden Bough,
chapter 1, section 1._
ARICONIUM.
A town of Roman Britain which appears to have been the
principal mart of the iron manufacturing industry in the
Forest of Dean.
_T. Wright,
The Celt, the Roman and the Saxon,
page 161._
ARII, The.
See LYGIANS.
ARIKARAS, The.
See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: PAWNEE (CADDOAN) FAMILY.
ARIMINUM.
The Roman colony, planted in the third century B. C., which
grew into the modern city of Rimini. See ROME: B. C.
295-191.—When Cæsar entered Italy as an invader, crossing the
frontier of Cisalpine Gaul—the Rubicon—his first movement
was to occupy Ariminum. He halted there for two or three
weeks, making his preparations for the civil war which he had
now entered upon and waiting for the two legions that he had
ordered from Gaul.
_C. Merivale,
History of the Romans,
chapter 14._
ARIOVALDUS, King of the Lombards, A. D. 626-638.
ARISTEIDES, Ascendancy of.
See ATHENS: B. C. 477-462.
ARISTOCRACY.
OLIGARCHY.
"Aristocracy signifies the rule of the best men. If, however,
this epithet is referred to an absolute ideal standard of
excellence, it is manifest that an aristocratical government
is a mere abstract notion, which has nothing in history, or in
nature, to correspond to it. But if we content ourselves with
taking the same terms in a relative sense, … aristocracy …
will be that form of government in which the ruling few are
distinguished from the multitude by illustrious birth,
hereditary wealth, and personal merit. … Whenever such a
change took place in the character or the relative position of
the ruling body, that it no longer commanded the respect of
its subjects, but found itself opposed to them, and compelled
to direct its measures chiefly to the preservation of its
power, it ceased to be, in the Greek sense an aristocracy; it
became a faction, an oligarchy."
_C. Thirlwall,
History of Greece,
chapter 10._
ARISTOMNEAN WAR.
See MESSENIAN WARS, FIRST AND SECOND.
ARIZONA: The Name.
"Arizona, probably Arizonac in its original form, was the
native and probably Pima name of the place of a hill, valley,
stream, or some other local feature—just south of the modern
boundary, in the mountains still so called, on the head waters
of the stream flowing past Saric, where the famous Planchas de
Plata mine was discovered in the middle of the 18th century,
the name being first known to Spaniards in that connection and
being applied to the mining camp or real de minas. The
aboriginal meaning of the term is not known, though from the
common occurrence in this region of the prefix 'ari,' the root
'son,' and the termination 'ac,' the derivation ought not to
escape the research of a competent student. Such guesses as
are extant, founded on the native tongues, offer only the
barest possibility of a partial and accidental accuracy; while
similar derivations from the Spanish are extremely absurd. …
The name should properly be written and pronounced Arisona, as
our English sound of the z does not occur in Spanish."
_H. H. Bancroft,
History of the Pacific States,
volume 12, page 520._
{133}
ARIZONA:
Aboriginal Inhabitants.
See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: PUEBLOS, APACHE GROUP, SHOSHONEAN
FAMILY, AND UTAHS.
ARIZONA: A. D. 1848.
Partial acquisition from Mexico.
See MEXICO: A. D. 1848.
ARIZONA: A. D. 1853.
Purchase by the United States of the southern part from Mexico.
The Gadsden Treaty.
"On December 30, 1853, James Gadsden, United States minister
to Mexico, concluded a treaty by which the boundary line was
moved southward so as to give the United States, for a
monetary consideration of $10,000,000, all of modern Arizona
south of the Gila, an effort so to fix the line as to include
a port on the gulf being unsuccessful. … On the face of the
matter this Gadsden treaty was a tolerably satisfactory
settlement of a boundary dispute, and a purchase by the United
States of a route for a southern railroad to California."
_H. H. Bancroft,
History of the Pacific States,
volume 12, chapter 20._
----------ARIZONA: End----------
ARKANSAS, The.
See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: SIOUAN FAMILY.
ARKANSAS: A. D. 1542
Entered by Hernando de Soto.
See FLORIDA: A. D. 1528-1542.
ARKANSAS: A. D. 1803.
Embraced in the Louisiana Purchase.
See LOUISIANA: A. D. 1798-1803.
ARKANSAS: A. D. 1819-1836.
Detached from Missouri.
Organized as a Territory.
Admitted as a State.
"Preparatory to the assumption of state government, the limits
of the Missouri Territory were restricted on the south by the
parallel of 36° 30' North. The restriction was made by an act
of Congress, approved March 3, 1819, entitled an 'Act
establishing a separate territorial government in the southern
portion of the Missouri Territory.' The portion thus separated
was subsequently organized into the second grade of territorial
government, and Colonel James Miller, a meritorious and
distinguished officer of the Northwestern army, was appointed
first governor. This territory was known as the Arkansas
Territory, and, at the period of its first organization,
contained an aggregate of nearly 14,000 inhabitants. Its
limits comprised all the territory on the west side of the
Mississippi between the parallels 33° and 36° 30', or between
the northern limit of Louisiana and the southern boundary of
the State of Missouri. On the west it extended indefinitely to
the Mexican territories, at least 550 miles. The Post of
Arkansas was made the seat of the new government. The
population of this extensive territory for several years was
comprised chiefly in the settlements upon the tributaries of
White River and the St. Francis; upon the Mississippi, between
New Madrid and Point Chicot; and upon both sides of the
Arkansas River, within 100 miles of its mouth, but especially
in the vicinity of the Post of Arkansas. … So feeble was the
attraction in this remote region for the active, industrious,
and well-disposed portion of the western pioneers, that the
Arkansas Territory, in 1830, ten years after its organization,
had acquired an aggregate of only 30,388 souls, including
4,576 slaves. … The western half of the territory had been
erected, in 1824, into a separate district, to be reserved for
the future residence of the Indian tribes, and to be known as
the Indian Territory. From this time the tide of emigration
began to set more actively into Arkansas, as well as into
other portions of the southwest. … The territory increased
rapidly for several years, and the census of 1835 gave the
whole number of inhabitants at 58,134 souls, including 9,630
slaves. Thus the Arkansas Territory in the last five years had
doubled its population. … The people, through the General
Assembly, made application to Congress for authority to
establish a regular form of state government. The assent of
Congress was not withheld, and a Convention was authorized to
meet at Little Rock on the first day of January, 1836, for the
purpose of forming and adopting a State Constitution. The same
was approved by Congress, and on the 13th of June following
the State of Arkansas was admitted into the Federal Union as
an independent state, and was, in point of time and order, the
twenty-fifth in the confederacy. … Like the Missouri
Territory, Arkansas had been a slaveholding country from the
earliest French colonies. Of course, the institution of negro
slavery, with proper checks and limits, was sustained by the
new Constitution."
_J. W. Monette,
Discovery and Settlement of the Valley of the Mississippi,
book 5, chapter 17 (volume 2)._
See, also, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1818-1821.
ARKANSAS: A. D. 1861 (March).
Secession voted down.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1861 (MARCH-APRIL).
ARKANSAS: A. D. 1861 (April).
Governor Rector's reply to President Lincoln's call for
troops.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1861 (APRIL).
ARKANSAS: A. D. 1862 (January-March).
Advance of National forces into the State.
Battle of Pea Ridge.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1862
(JANUARY-MARCH: MISSOURI-ARKANSAS).
ARKANSAS: A. D. 1862 (July-September).
Progress of the Civil War.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
A. D. 1862 (JULY-SEPTEMBER: MISSOURI-ARKANSAS).
ARKANSAS: A. D.1862(December).
The Battle of Prairie Grove.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D.
1862 (SEPTEMBER-DECEMBER: MISSOURI-ARKANSAS).
ARKANSAS: A. D. 1863 (January).
The capture of Arkansas Post from the Confederates.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1863 (JANUARY: ARKANSAS).
ARKANSAS: A. D. 1863 (July).
The defence of Helena.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1863
(JULY: ON THE MISSISSIPPI).
ARKANSAS: A. D. 1863 (August-October).
The breaking of Confederate authority.
Occupation of Little Rock by National forces.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1863
(AUGUST-OCTOBER: ARKANSAS-Missouri).
ARKANSAS: A. D. 1864 (March-October).
Last important operations of the War.
Price's Raid.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1864
(MARCH-OCTOBER: ARKANSAS-MISSOURI).
{134}
ARKANSAS: A. D. 1864.
First steps toward Reconstruction.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1863-1864 (DECEMBER-JULY).
ARKANSAS: A. D. 1865-1868.
Reconstruction completed.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
A. D.1865 (MAY-JULY), to 1868-1870.
----------ARKANSAS: End----------
ARKITES, The.
A Canaanite tribe who occupied the plain north of Lebanon.
ARKWRIGHT'S SPINNING MACHINE, OR WATER-FRAME, The invention of.
See COTTON MANUFACTURE.
ARLES: Origin.
See SALVES.
ARLES: A. D. 411.
Double siege.
See BRITAIN: A. D. 407.
ARLES: A. D. 425.
Besieged by the Goths.
See GOTHS (VISIGOTHS): A. D. 419-451.
ARLES: A. D. 508-510.
Siege by the Franks.
After the overthrow of the Visigothic kingdom of Toulouse, A.
D. 507, by the victory of Clovis, king of the Franks, at
Voclad, near Poitiers, "the great city of Aries, once the
Roman capital of Gaul, maintained a gallant defence against
the united Franks and Burgundians, and saved for generations
the Visigothic rule in Provence and southern Languedoc. Of the
siege, which lasted apparently from 508 to 510, we have some
graphic details in the life of St. Cæsarius, Bishop of Aries,
written by his disciples." The city was relieved in 510 by an
Ostrogothic army, sent by king Theodoric of Italy, after a
great battle in which 30,000 Franks were reported to be slain.
"The result of the battle of Aries was to put Theodoric in
secure possession of all Provence and of so much of Languedoc
as was needful to ensure his access to Spain"—where the
Ostrogothic king, as guardian of his infant grandson,
Amalaric, was taking care of the Visigothic kingdom.
_T. Hodgkin,
Italy and Her Invaders,
book 4, chapter 9._
ARLES: A. D. 933.
Formation of the kingdom.
See BURGUNDY: A. D. 843-933.
ARLES: A. D. 1032-1378.
The breaking up of the kingdom and its gradual absorption in
France.
See BURGUNDY: A. D. 1032, and 1127-1378.
ARLES: 1092-1207.
The gay court of Provence.
See PROVENCE: A. D. 943-1092, and 1179-1207.
----------ARLES: End----------
ARMADA, The Spanish.
See ENGLAND: A. D. 1588.
ARMAGEDDON.
See MEGIDDO.
ARMAGH, St. Patrick's School at.
See IRELAND: 5th to 8th CENTURIES.
ARMAGNAC, The counts of.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1327.
ARMAGNACS.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1380-1415, and 1415-1419.
ARMENIA:
"Almost immediately to the west of the Caspian there rises a
high table-land diversified by mountains, which stretches
eastward for more than eighteen degrees, between the 37th and
41st parallels. This highland may properly be regarded as a
continuation of the great Iranean plateau, with which it is
connected at its southeastern corner. It comprises a portion
of the modern Persia, the whole of Armenia, and most of Asia
Minor. Its principal mountain ranges are latitudinal, or from
west to east, only the minor ones taking the opposite or
longitudinal direction. … The heart of the mountain-region,
the tract extending from the district of Erivan on the east to
the upper course of the Kizil·Irmak river and the vicinity of
Sivas upon the west, was, as it still is, Armenia. Amidst
these natural fastnesses, in a country of lofty ridges, deep
and narrow valleys, numerous and copious streams, and
occasional broad plains—a country of rich pasture grounds,
productive orchards, and abundant harvests—this interesting
people has maintained itself almost unchanged from the time of
the early Persian kings to the present day. Armenia was one of
the most valuable portions of the Persian empire, furnishing,
as it did, besides stone and timber, and several most
important minerals, an annual supply of 20,000 excellent
horses to the stud of the Persian king."
_G. Rawlinson,
Five Great Monarchies: Persia,
chapter 1._
Before the Persians established their sovereignty over the
country, "it seems certain that from one quarter or another
Armenia had been Arianized; the old Turanian character had
passed away from it; immigrants had flocked in and a new
people had been formed—the real Armenians of later times,
and indeed of the present day." Submitting to Alexander, on
the overthrow of the Persian monarchy, Armenia fell afterwards
under the yoke of the Seleucidæ, but gained independence about
190 B. C., or earlier. Under the influence of Parthia, a
branch of the Parthian royal family, the Arsacids, was
subsequently placed on the throne and a dynasty established
which reigned for nearly six hundred years. The fourth of
these kings, Tigranes, who occupied the throne in the earlier
part of the last century B. C., placed Armenia in the front
rank of Asiatic kingdoms and in powerful rivalry with Parthia.
Its subsequent history is one of many wars and invasions and
much buffeting between Romans, Parthians, Persians, and their
successors in the conflicts of the eastern world. The part of
Armenia west of the Euphrates was called by the Romans Armenia
Minor. For a short period after the revolt from the Seleucid
monarchy, it formed a distinct kingdom called Sophene.
_G. Rawlinson,
Sixth and Seventh Great Oriental Monarchies._
ARMENIA: B. C. 69-68.
War with the Romans.
Great defeat at Tigranocerta
Submission to Rome.
See ROME: B. C. 78-68, and 69-63.
ARMENIA: A. D. 115-117.
Annexed to the Roman Empire by Trajan and restored to
independence by Hadrian.
See ROME: A. D. 96-138.
ARMENIA: A. D. 422 (?).
Persian Conquest.
Becomes the satrapy of Persarmenia.
See PERSIA: A. D. 226-627.
ARMENIA: A. D. 1016-1073.
Conquest and devastation by the Seljuk Turks.
See TURKS (SELJUKS): A. D. 1004-1063, and 1063-1073.
ARMENIA: 12th-14th Centuries.
The Mediæval Christian Kingdom.
"The last decade of the 12th century saw the establishment of
two small Christian kingdoms in the Levant, which long
outlived all other relics of the Crusades except the military
orders; and which, with very little help from the West,
sustained a hazardous existence in complete contrast with
almost everything around them. The kingdoms of Cyprus and
Armenia have a history very closely intertwined, but their
origin and most of their circumstances were very different. By
Armenia as a kingdom is meant little more than the ancient
Cilicia, the land between Taurus and the sea, from the
frontier of the principality of Antioch, eastward, to
Kelenderis or Palæopolis, a little beyond Seleucia; this
territory, which was computed to contain 16 days' journey in
length, measured from four miles of Antioch, by two in
breadth, was separated from the Greater Armenia, which before
the period on which we are now employed had fallen under the
sway of the Seljuks, by the ridges of Taurus.
{135}
The population was composed largely of the sweepings of Asia
Minor, Christian tribes which had taken refuge in the
mountains. Their religion was partly Greek, partly Armenian.
… Their rulers were princes descended from the house of the
Bagratidæ, who had governed the Greater Armenia as kings from
the year 885 to the reign of Constantine of Monomachus, and
had then merged their hazardous independence in the mass of
the Greek Empire. After the seizure of Asia Minor by the
Seljuks, the few of the Bagratidæ who had retained possession
of the mountain fastnesses of Cilicia or the strongholds of
Mesopotamia, acted as independent lords, showing little
respect for Byzantium save where there was something to be
gained. … Rupin of the Mountain was prince [of Cilicia] at
the time of the capture of Jerusalem by Saladin; he died in
1189, and his successor, Leo, or Livon, after having
successfully courted the favour of pope and emperor, was
recognised as king of Armenia by the emperor Henry VI., and
was crowned by Conrad of Wittelsbach, Archbishop of Mainz, in
1198." The dynasty ended with Leo IV., whose "whole reign was
a continued struggle against the Moslems," and who was
assassinated about 1342. "The five remaining kings of Armenia
sprang from a branch of the Cypriot house of Lusignan [see
CYPRUS: A. D. 1192-1489] and were little more than Latin
exiles in the midst of several strange populations all alike
hostile."
_William Stubbs,
Lectures on the Study of Mediæval and Modern History,
lecture 8._
ARMENIA: A. D. 1623-1635.
Subjugated by Persia and regained by the Turks.
See TURKS: A. D. 1623-1640.
----------ARMENIA: End----------
ARMENIAN CHURCH, The.
The church of the Armenians is "the oldest of all national
churches. They were converted by St. Gregory, called 'The
Illuminator,' who was a relative of Dertad or Tiridates, their
prince, and had been forced to leave the country at the same
time with him, and settled at Cæsareia in Cappadocia, where he
was initiated into the Christian faith. When they returned,
both prince and people embraced the Gospel through the
preaching of Gregory, A. D. 276, and thus presented the first
instance of an entire nation becoming Christian. … By an
accident they were unrepresented at [the Council of] Chalcedon
[A. D. 451], and, owing to the poverty of their language in
words serviceable for the purposes of theology, they had at
that time but one word for Nature and Person, in consequence
of which they misunderstood the decision of that council [that
Christ possessed two natures, divine and human, in one Person]
with sufficient clearness. … It was not until eighty-four
years had elapsed that they finally adopted Eutychianism [the
doctrine that the divinity is the sole nature in Christ], and
an anathema was pronounced on the Chalcedonian decrees (536)."
_H. F. Tozer,
The Church and the Eastern Empire,
chapter 5._
"The religion of Armenia could not derive much glory from the
learning or the power of its inhabitants. The royalty expired
with the origin of their schism; and their Christian kings,
who arose and fell in the 13th century on the confines of
Cilicia, were the clients of the Latins and the vassals of the
Turkish sultan of Iconium, The helpless nation has seldom been
permitted to enjoy the tranquility of servitude. From the
earliest period to the present hour, Armenia has been the
theatre of perpetual war; the lands between Tauris and Erivan
were dispeopled by the cruel policy of the Sophis; and myriads
of Christian families were transplanted, to perish or to
propagate in the distant provinces of Persia. Under the rod of
oppression, the zeal of the Armenians is fervent and intrepid;
they have often preferred the crown of martyrdom to the white
turban of Mahomet; they devoutly hate the error and idolatry
of the Greeks."
_E. Gibbon,
Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire,
chapter 47.
ARMINIANISM.
See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1603-1619.
ARMINIUS, The Deliverance of Germany by.
See GERMANY: B. C. 8-A. D. 11.
ARMORIAL BEARINGS, Origin of.
"As to armorial bearings, there is no doubt that emblems
somewhat similar have been immemorially used both in war and
peace. The shields of ancient warriors, and devices upon coins
or seals, bear no distant resemblance to modern blazonry. But
the general introduction of such bearings, as hereditary
distinctions, has been sometimes attributed to tournaments,
wherein the champions were distinguished by fanciful devices;
sometimes to the crusades, where a multitude of all nations
and languages stood in need of some visible token to denote
the banners of their respective chiefs. In fact, the peculiar
symbols of heraldry point to both these sources and have been
borrowed in part from each. Hereditary arms were perhaps
scarcely used by private families before the beginning of the
thirteenth century. From that time, however, they became very
general."
_H. Hallam,
The Middle Ages,
chapter 2, part 2._
ARMORICA.
The peninsular projection of the coast of Gaul between the
mouths of the Seine and the Loire, embracing modern Brittany,
and a great part of Normandy, was known to the Romans as
Armorica. The most important of the Armorican tribes in
Cæsar's time was that of the Veneti. "In the fourth and fifth
centuries, the northern coast from the Loire to the frontier
of the Netherlands was called 'Tractus Aremoricus,' or
Aremorica, which in Celtic signifies 'maritime country.' The
commotions of the third century, which continued to increase
during the fourth and fifth, repeatedly drove the Romans from
that country. French antiquaries imagine that it was a
regularly constituted Gallic republic, of which Chlovis had
the protectorate, but this is wrong."
_B. G. Niebuhr,
Lectures on Ancient Ethnography and Geography,
volume 2, page 318._
ALSO IN:
_E. H. Bunbury,
History of Ancient Geography,
volume 2, page 235._
See, also, VENETI OF WESTERN GAUL, and IBERIANS, THE WESTERN.
ARMSTRONG, General John, and the Newburgh Addresses.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1782-1783.
ARMSTRONG, General John: Secretary of War.
Plan of descent on Montreal.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1813 (OCTOBER-NOVEMBER).
ARMY, The Legal Creation of the British.
See MUTINY ACTS.
ARMY PURCHASE, Abolition of.
See ENGLAND: A. D. 1871.
ARNÆANS, The.
See GREECE: THE MIGRATIONS.
{136}
ARNAULD, Jacqueline Marie, and the Monastery of Port Royal.
See PORT ROYAL and the JANSENISTS: A. D. 1602-1660.
ARNAUTS, The.
See ALBANIANS, MEDIÆVAL.
ARNAY-LE-DUC, Battle of (1570).
See FRANCE: A. D. 1563-1570.
ARNOLD, Benedict, and the American Revolution.
See CANADA: A. D. 1775-1776;
and UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1775 (MAY);
1777 (JULY-OCTOBER); 1780 (AUGUST-SEPTEMBER);
1780-1781; 1781 (JANUARY-MAY); 1781 (MAY-OCTOBER).
ARNOLD OF BRESCIA, The Republic of.
See ROME: A. D. 1145-1155.
ARNOLD VON WINKELRIED, at the Battle of Sempach.
See SWITZERLAND: A. D. 1386-1388.
ARNULF,
King of the East Franks (Germany), A. D. 888-899;
King of Italy and Emperor, A. D. 894-899.
AROGI, Battle of (1868).
See ABYSSINIA: A. D. 1854-1889.
ARPAD, Dynasty of.
See HUNGARIANS: RAVAGES IN EUROPE;
and HUNGARY: A. D. 972-1114; 1114-1301.
ARPAD, Siege of.
Conducted by the Assyrian Conqueror Tiglath-Pileser, beginning
B. C. 742 and lasting two years. The fall of the city brought
with it the submission of all northern Syria.
_A. H. Sayce,
Assyria,
chapter 2._
ARQUES, Battles at (1589).
See FRANCE: A. D. 1589-1590.
ARRABIATI, The.
See FLORENCE: A. D. 1490-1498.
ARRAPACHITIS.
See JEWS: THE EARLY HEBREW HISTORY.
ARRAPAHOES, The.
See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: ALGONQUIAN FAMILY.
ARRAS: Origin.
See BELGÆ.
ARRAS: A. D. 1583.
Submission to Spain.
See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1584-1585.
ARRAS: A. D. 1654.
Unsuccessful Siege by the Spaniards under Condé.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1653-1656.
----------ARRAS: End----------
ARRAS, Treaties of (1415 and 1435).
See FRANCE: A. D. 1380-1415, and 1431-1453.
ARRETIUM, Battle of (B. C. 285).
See ROME: B. C. 295-191.
ARROW HEADED WRITING.
See CUNEIFORM WRITING.
ARSACIDÆ, The.
The dynasty of Parthian kings were so called, from the founder
of the line, Arsaces, who led the revolt of Parthia from the
rule of the Syrian Seleucidæ and raised himself to the throne.
According to some ancient writers Arsaces was a Bactrian;
according to others a Scythian.
_G. Rawlinson,
Sixth Great Oriental Monarchy,
chapter 3._
ARSEN.
In one of the earlier raids of the Seljukian Turks into
Armenia, in the eleventh century the city of Arsen was
destroyed. "It had long been the great city of Eastern Asia
Minor, the centre of Asiatic trade, the depot for merchandise
transmitted overland from Persia and India to the Eastern
Empire and Europe generally. It was full of warehouses
belonging to Armenians and Syrians and is said to have
contained 800 churches and 300,000 people. Having failed to
capture the city, Togrul's general succeeded in burning it.
The destruction of so much wealth struck a fatal blow at
Armenian commerce."
_E. Pears,
The Fall of Constantinople,
chapter 2._
ARSENE, Lake.
An ancient name of the Lake of Van, which is also called
Thopitis by Strabo.
_E. H. Bunbury,
History of Ancient Geography,
chapter 22, section 1._
ARTABA, The.
See EPHAH.
ARTAXATA.
The ancient capital of Armenia, said to have been built under
the superintendence of Hannibal, while a refugee in Armenia.
At a later time it was called Neronia, in honor of the Roman
Emperor Nero.
ARTAXERXES LONGIMANUS, King of Persia, B. C. 465-425.
ARTAXERXES MNEMON, King of Persia, B. C. 405-359.
ARTAXERXES OCHUS, King of Persia, B. C. 359-338.
ARTAXERXES, or ARDSHIR, Founder of the Sassanian monarchy.
See PERSIA: B. C. 150-A. D. 226.
ARTEMISIUM, Sea fights at.
See GREECE: B. C. 480.
ARTEMITA.
See DASTAGERD.
ARTEVELD, Jacques and Philip Van:
Their rise and fall in Ghent.
See FLANDERS: A. D. 1335-1337, to 1382.
ARTHUR, King, and the Knights of the Round Table.
"On the difficult question, whether there was a historical
Arthur or not, … a word or two must now be devoted; … and
here one has to notice in the first place that Welsh
literature never calls Arthur a gwledig or prince but emperor,
and it may be inferred that his historical position, in case
he had such a position, was that of one filling, after the
departure of the Romans, the office which under them was that
of the Comes Britanniæ or Count of Britain. The officer so
called had a roving commission to defend the Province wherever
his presence might be called for. The other military captains
here were the Dux Britanniarum, who had charge of the forces
in the north and especially on the Wall, and the Comes
Littoris Saxonici [Count of the Saxon Shore], who was
entrusted with the defence of the south-eastern coast of the
island. The successors of both these captains seem to have
been called in Welsh gwledigs or princes. So Arthur's
suggested position as Comes Britanniæ would be in a sense
superior to theirs, which harmonizes with his being called
emperor and not gwledig. The Welsh have borrowed the Latin
title of imperator, 'emperor,' and made it into 'amherawdyr,'
later 'amherawdwr,' so it is not impossible, that when the
Roman imperator ceased to have anything more to say to this
country, the title was given to the highest officer in the
island, namely the Comes Britanniæ, and that in the words 'Yr
Amherawdyr Arthur,' 'the Emperor Arthur,' we have a remnant of
our insular history. If this view be correct, it might be
regarded as something more than an accident that Arthur's
position relatively to that of the other Brythonic princes of
his time is exactly given by Nennius, or whoever it was that
wrote the _Historia Brittonum_ ascribed to him: there
Arthur is represented fighting in company with the kings of
the Brythons in defence of their common country, he being
their leader in war. If, as has sometimes been argued, the
uncle of Maglocunus or Maelgwn, whom the latter is accused by
Gilda of having slain and superseded, was no other than
Arthur, it would supply one reason why that writer called
Maelgwn 'insularis draco,' 'the dragon or war-captain of the
island,' and why the latter and his successors after him were
called by the Welsh not gwledigs but kings, though their great
ancestor Cuneda was only a gwledig.
{137}
On the other hand the way in which Gildas alludes to the uncle
of Maelgwn without even giving his name, would seem to suggest
that in his estimation at least he was no more illustrious
than his predecessors in the position which he held, whatever
that may have been. How then did Arthur become famous above
them, and how came he to be the subject of so much story and
romance? The answer, in short, which one has to give to this
hard question must be to the effect, that besides a historic
Arthur there was a Brythonic divinity named Arthur, after whom
the man may have been called, or with whose name his, in case
it was of a different origin, may have become identical in
sound owing to an accident of speech; for both explanations
are possible, as we shall attempt to show later. Leaving aside
for a while the man Arthur, and assuming the existence of a
god of that name, let us see what could be made of him.
Mythologically speaking he would probably have to be regarded
as a Culture Hero; for, a model king and the institutor of the
Knighthood of the Round Table, he is represented as the leader
of expeditions to the isles of Hades, and as one who stood in
somewhat the same kind of relation to Gwalchmei as Gwydion did
to ILeu. It is needless here to dwell on the character usually
given to Arthur as a ruler: he with his knights around him may
be compared to Conehobar, in the midst of the Champions of
Emain Macha, or Woden among the Anses at Valhalla, while
Arthur's Knights are called those of the Round Table, around
which they are described sitting; and it would be interesting
to understand the signification of the term Round Table. On
the whole it is the table, probably, and not its roundness
that is the fact to which to call attention, as it possibly
means that Arthur's court was the first early court where
those present sat at a table at all in Britain. No such thing
as a common table figures at Conchobar's court or any other
described in the old legends of Ireland, and the same applies,
we believe, to those of the old Norsemen. The attribution to
Arthur of the first use of a common table would fit in well
with the character of a Culture Hero which we have ventured to
ascribe to him, and it derives countenance from the pretended
history of the Round Table; for the Arthurian legend traces it
back to Arthur's father, Uthr Bendragon, in whom we have under
one of his many names the king of Hades, the realm whence all
culture was fabled to have been derived. In a wider sense the
Round Table possibly signified plenty or abundance, and might
be compared with the table of the Ethiopians, at which Zeus
and the other gods of Greek mythology used to feast from time
to time."
_J. Rhys,
Studies in the Arthurian Legend,
chapter 1._
See, also CUMBRIA.
ARTHUR, Chester A.
Election to Vice-Presidency.
Succession to the Presidency.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1880 and 1881.
ARTI OF FLORENCE.
See FLORENCE: A. D. 1250-1293.
ARTICLES OF CONFEDERATION (American).
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1777-1781, and 1783-1787.
ARTICLES OF HENRY, The.
See POLAND: A. D. 1573.
ARTOIS, The House of.
See BOURBON, THE HOUSE OF.
ARTOIS: A. D. 1529.
Pretensions of the King of France to Suzerainty resigned.
See ITALY: A. D. 1527-1529.
ARTYNI.
See DEMIURGI.
ARVADITES, The.
The Canaanite inhabitants of the island of Aradus, or Arvad,
and who also held territory on the main land.
_F. Lenormant,
Manual of Ancient History,
book 6, chapter 1._
ARVERNI, The.
See ÆDUI;
also, GAULS, and ALLOBROGES.
ARX, The.
See CAPITOLINE HILL;
also GENS, ROMAN.
ARXAMUS, Battle of.
One of the defeats sustained by the Romans in their wars with
the Persians. Battle fought A. D. 603.
_G. Rawlinson,
Seventh Great Oriental Monarchy,
chapter 24._
ARYANS.
ARYAS.
"This family (which is sometimes called Japhetic, or
descendants of Japhet) includes the Hindus and Persians among
Asiatic nations, and almost all the peoples of Europe. It may
seem strange that we English should be related not only to the
Germans and Dutch and Scandinavians, but to the Russians,
French, Spanish, Romans and Greeks as well; stranger still
that we can claim kinship with such distant peoples as the
Persians and Hindus. … What seems actually to have been the
case is this: In distant ages, somewhere about the rivers Oxus
and Jaxartes, and on the north of that mountainous range
called the Hindoo-Koosh, dwelt the ancestors of all the
nations we have enumerated, forming at this time a single and
united people, simple and primitive in their way of life, but
yet having enough of a common national life to preserve a
common language. They called themselves Aryas or Aryans, a
word which, in its very earliest sense, seems to have meant
those who move upwards, or straight; and hence, probably, came
to stand for the noble race as compared with other races on
whom, of course, they would look down. … As their numbers
increased, the space wherein they dwelt became too small for
them who had out of one formed many different peoples. Then
began a series of migrations, in which the collection of
tribes who spoke one language and formed one people started
off to seek their fortune in new lands. … First among them,
in all probability, started the Kelts or Celts, who,
travelling perhaps to the South of the Caspian and the North
of the Black Sea, found their way to Europe and spread far on
to the extreme West. … Another of the great families who
left the Aryan home was the Pelasgic or the Græco-Italic.
These, journeying along first Southwards and then to the West,
passed through Asia Minor, on to the countries of Greece and
Italy, and in time separated into those two great peoples, the
Greeks (or Hellenes, as they came to call themselves), and the
Romans. … Next we come to two other great families of
nations who seem to have taken the same route at first, and
perhaps began their travels together as the Greeks and Romans
did. These are the Teutons and the Slaves. … The word Slave
comes from Slowan, which in old Slavonian meant to speak, and
was given by the Slavonians to themselves as the people who
could speak in opposition to other nations whom, as they were
not able to understand them, they were pleased to consider as
dumb. The Greek word barbaroi (whence our barbarians) arose in
obedience to a like prejudice, only from an imitation of
babbling such as is made by saying 'bar-bar-bar.'"
_C. F. Keary,
Dawn of History,
chapter 4._
{138}
The above passage sets forth the older theory of an Aryan
family of nations as well as of languages in its unqualified
form. Its later modifications are indicated in the following:
"The discovery of Sanscrit and the further discovery to which
it led, that the languages now variously known as Aryan,
Aryanic, Indo-European, Indo-Germanic, Indo-Celtic and
Japhetic are closely akin to one another, spread a spell over
the world of thought which cannot be said to have yet wholly
passed away. It was hastily argued from the kinship of their
languages to the kinship of the nations that spoke them. …
The question then arises as to the home of the 'holethnos,' or
parent tribe, before its dispersion and during the proethnic
period, at a time when as yet there was neither Greek nor
Hindoo, neither Celt nor Teuton, but only an undifferentiated
Aryan. Of course, the answer at first was—where could it have
been but in the East. And at length the glottologist found it
necessary to shift the cradle of the Aryan race to the
neighbourhood of the Oxus and the Jaxartes, so as to place it
somewhere between the Caspian Sea and the Himalayas. Then
Doctor Latham boldly raised his voice against the Asiatic
theory altogether, and stated that he regarded the attempt to
deduce the Aryans from Asia as resembling an attempt to derive
the reptiles of this country from those of Ireland. Afterwards
Benfey argued, from the presence in the vocabulary common to
the Aryan languages of words for bear and wolf, for birch and
beech, and the absence of certain others, such as those for
lion, tiger and palm, that the original home of the Aryans
must have been within the temperate zone in Europe. … As
might be expected in the case of such a difficult question,
those who are inclined to believe in the European origin of
the Aryans are by no means agreed among themselves as to the
spot to be fixed upon. Latham placed it east, or south-east of
Lithuania, in Podolia, or Volhynia; Benfey had in view a
district above the Black Sea and not far from the Caspian;
Peschel fixed on the slopes of the Caucasus; Cuno on the great
plain of Central Europe; Fligier on the southern part of
Russia; Pösche on the tract between the Niemen and the
Dnieper; L. Geiger on central and western Germany; and Penka
on Scandinavia."
_J. Rhys,
Race Theories
(in New Princeton Review, January, 1888)._
"Aryan, in scientific language, is utterly inapplicable to
race. It means language, and nothing but language; and, if we
speak of Aryan race at all, we should know that it means no
more than X + Aryan speech. … I have declared again and
again that if I say Aryas, I mean neither blood nor bones, nor
hair nor skull; I mean simply those who speak an Aryan
language. The same applies to Hindus, Greeks, Romans, Germans,
Celts and Slaves. … In that sense, and in that sense only,
do I say that even the blackest Hindus represent an earlier
stage of Aryan speech and thought than the fairest
Scandinavians. … If an answer must be given as to the place
where our Aryan ancestors dwelt before their separation,
whether in large swarms of millions, or in a few scattered
tents and huts, I should still say, as I said forty years ago,
'Somewhere in Asia,' and no more."
_F. Max Müller,
Biog. of Words and Home of the Aryas,
chapter 6._
The theories which dispute the Asiatic origin of the Aryans
are strongly presented by Canon Taylor in _The Origin of the
Aryans_, by G. H. Rendall, in _The Cradle of the
Aryans_, and by Dr. O. Schrader in _Prehistoric
Antiquities of the Aryan Peoples._
See, also, INDIA: THE ABORIGINAL INHABITANTS,
and THE IMMIGRATION AND CONQUESTS OF THE ARYAS.
AS.
LIBRA.
DENARIUS.
SESTERTIUS.
"The term _As_ [among the Romans] and the words which
denote its divisions, were not confined to weight alone, but
were applied to measures of length and capacity also, and in
general to any object which could be regarded as consisting of
twelve equal parts. Thus they were commonly used to denote
shares into which an inheritance was divided." As a unit of
weight the _As_, or Libra, "occupied the same position in
the Roman system as the pound does in our own. According to
the most accurate researches, the _As_ was equal to about
11.8 oz. avoirdupois, or .7375 of an avoirdupois pound." It
"was divided into 12 equal parts called unciæ, and the unciæ
was divided into 24 equal parts called scrupula." "The
_As_, regarded as a coin [of copper] originally weighed,
as the name implies, one pound, and the smaller copper coins
those fractions of the pound denoted by their names. By
degrees; however, the weight of the _As_, regarded as a
coin, was greatly diminished. We are told that, about the
commencement of the first Punic war, it had fallen from 12
ounces to 2 ounces; in the early part of the second Punic war
(B. C. 217), it was reduced to one ounce; and not long
afterwards, by a Lex Papiria, it was fixed at half-an-ounce,
which remained the standard ever after." The silver coins of
Rome were the Denarius, equivalent (after 217 B. C.) to 16
Asses; the Quinarius and the Sestertius, which became,
respectively, one half and one fourth of the Denarius in
value. The Sestertius, at the close of the Republic, is.
estimated to have been equivalent in value to two pence
sterling of English money. The coinage was debased under the
Empire. The principal gold coin of the Empire was the Denarius
Aureus, which passed for 25 silver Denarii.
_W. Ramsay,
Manual of Roman Antiquity,
chapter 13._
ASCALON, Battle of (A. D. 1099).
See JERUSALEM: A. D. 1099-1144.
ASCANIENS, The.
See BRANDENBURG: A. D. 928-1142.
ASCULUM, Battle of (B. C. 279).
See ROME: B. C. 282-275.
ASCULUM, Massacre at.
See ROME: B. C. 90-88.
ASHANTEE WAR, The (1874).
See ENGLAND: A. D. 1873-1880
ASHBURTON TREATY, The.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1842.
ASHDOD.
See PHILISTINES.
ASHRAF, Shah of Persia, A. D. 1725-1730.
ASHTI, Battle of (1818).
See INDIA: A. D. 1816-1819.
{139}
ASIA: The Name.
"There are grounds for believing Europe and Asia to have
originally signified 'the west' and 'the east' respectively.
Both are Semitic terms, and probably passed to the Greeks from
the Phœnicians. … The Greeks first applied the title [Asia]
to that portion of the eastern continent which lay nearest to
them, and with which they became first acquainted—the coast
of Asia Minor opposite the Cyclades; whence they extended it
as their knowledge grew. Still it had always a special
application to the country about Ephesus."
_G. Rawlinson,
Notes to Herodotus,
volume 3, page 33._
ASIA:
The Roman Province (so called).
"As originally constituted, it corresponded to the dominions
of the kings of Pergamus … left by the will of Attalus III.
to the Roman people (B. C. 133). … It included the whole of
Mysia and Lydia, with Æolis, Ionia and Caria, except a small
part which was subject to Rhodes, and the greater part, if not
the whole, of Phrygia. A portion of the last region, however,
was detached from it."
_E. H. Bunbury,
History of Ancient Geography,
chapter 20, section 1._
ASIA: Central.
Mongol Conquest.
See MONGOLS.
ASIA:
Turkish Conquest.
See TURKS.
ASIA:
Russian Conquests.
See RUSSIA: A. D. 1859-1876, and 1869-1881.
ASIA MINOR:
"The name of Asia Minor, so familiar to the student of ancient
geography, was not in use either among Greek or Roman writers
until a very late period. Orosius, who wrote in the fifth
century after the Christian era, is the first extant writer
who employs the term in its modern sense."
_E. H. Bunbury,
History of Ancient Geography,
chapter 7, section 2._
The name Anatolia, which is of Greek origin, synonymous with
"The Levant," signifying "The Sunrise," came into use among
the Byzantines, about the 10th century, and was adopted by
their successors, the Turks.
ASIA MINOR:
Earlier Kingdoms and People.
See
PHRYGIANS and MYSIANS.
LYDIANS.
CARIANS.
LYCIANS.
BITHYNIANS.
PONTUS (CAPPADOCIA).
PAPHLAGONIANS.
TROJA.
ASIA MINOR:
The Greek Colonies.
"The tumult which had been caused by the irruption of the
Thesprotians into Thessaly and the displacement of the
population of Greece [see GREECE: THE MIGRATION, &c.] did not
subside within the limits of the peninsula. From the north and
the south those inhabitants who were unable to maintain their
ground against the incursions of the Thessalians, Arnaeans, or
Dorians, and preferred exile to submission, sought new homes
in the islands of the Aegean and on the western coast of Asia
Minor. The migrations continued for several generations. When
at length they came to an end, and the Anatolian coast from
Mount Ida to the Triopian headland, with the adjacent islands,
was in the possession of the Greeks, three great divisions or
tribes were distinguished in the new settlements: Dorians,
Ionians, and Aeolians. In spite of the presence of some alien
elements, the Dorians and Ionians of Asia Minor were the same
tribes as the Dorians and Ionians of Greece. The Aeolians, on
the other hand, were a composite tribe, as their name implies.
… Of these three divisions the Aeolians lay farthest to the
north. The precise limits of their territory were differently
fixed by different authorities. … The Aeolic cities fell
into two groups: a northern, of which Lesbos was the centre,
and a southern, composed of the cities in the immediate
neighbourhood of the Hermus, and founded from Cyme.—The
northern group included the islands of Tenedos and Lesbos. In
the latter there were originally six cities: Methymna,
Mytilene, Pyrrha, Eresus, Arisba, and Antissa, but Arisba was
subsequently conquered and enslaved by Mytilene. … The
second great stream of migration proceeded from Athens [after
the death of Codrus—see ATHENS: FROM THE DORIAN MIGRATION TO
B. C. 683—according to Greek tradition, the younger sons of
Codrus leading these Ionian colonists across the Aegean, first
to the Carian city of Miletus—see MILETUS,—which they
captured, and then to the conquest of Ephesus and the island
of Samos]. … The colonies spread until a dodecapolis was
established, similar to the union which the Ionians had
founded in their old settlements on the northern shore of
Peloponnesus. In some cities the Ionian population formed a
minority. … The colonisation of Ionia was undoubtedly, in
the main, an achievement of emigrants from Attica, but it was
not accomplished by a single family, or in the space of one
life-time. … The two most famous of the Ionian cities were
Miletus and Ephesus. The first was a Carian city previously
known as Anactoria. … Ephesus was originally in the hands of
the Leleges and the Lydians, who were driven out by the
Ionians under Androclus. The ancient sanctuary of the tutelary
goddess of the place was transformed by the Greeks into a
temple of Artemis, who was here worshipped as the goddess of
birth and productivity in accordance with Oriental rather than
Hellenic ideas." The remaining Ionic cities and islands were
Myus (named from the mosquitoes which infested it, and which
finally drove the colony to abandon it), Priene, Erythrae,
Clazomenæ, Teos, Phocaea, Colophon, Lebedus, Samos and Chios.
"Chios was first inhabited by Cretans … and subsequently by
Carians. … Of the manner in which Chios became connected
with the Ionians the Chians could give no clear account. …
The southern part of the Anatolian coast, and the
southern-most islands in the Aegean were colonised by the
Dorians, who wrested them from the Phoenician or Carian
occupants. Of the islands, Crete is the most important. …
Crete was one of the oldest centres of civilisation in the
Aegean [see CRETE]. … The Dorian colony in Rhodes, like that
in Crete, was ascribed to the band which left Argos under the
command of Althaemenes. … Other islands colonised by the
Dorians were Thera, … Melos, … Carpathus, Calydnae,
Nisyrus, and Cos. … From the islands, the Dorians spread to
the mainland. The peninsula of Cnidus was perhaps the first
settlement. … Halicarnassus was founded from Troezen, and
the Ionian element must have been considerable. … Of the
Dorian cities, six united in the common worship of Apollo on
the headland of Triopium. These were Lindus, Ialysus, and
Camirus in Rhodes, Cos, and, on the mainland, Halicarnassus
and Cnidus. … The territory which the Aeolians acquired is
described by Herodotus as more fertile than that occupied by
the Ionians, but of a less excellent climate. It was inhabited
by a number of tribes, among which the Troes or Teucri were
the chief. … In Homer the inhabitants of the city of the
Troad are Dardani or Troes, and the name Teucri does not
occur. In historical times the Gergithes, who dwelt in the
town of the same name … near Lampsacus, and also formed the
subject population of Miletus, were the only remnants of this
once famous nation.
{140}
But their former greatness was attested by the Homeric poems,
and the occurrence of the name Gergithians at various places
in the Troad [see TROJA]. To this tribe belonged the Troy of
the Grecian epic, the site of which, so far as it represents
any historical city, is fixed at Hissarlik. In the Iliad the
Trojan empire extends from the Aesepus to the Caicus; it was
divided—or, at least, later historians speak of it as
divided—into principalities which recognised Priam as their
chief. But the Homeric descriptions of the city and its
eminence are not to be taken as historically true. Whatever
the power and civilisation of the ancient stronghold exhumed
by Dr. Schliemann may have been, it was necessary for the epic
poet to represent Priam and his nation as a dangerous rival in
wealth and arms to the great kings of Mycenae and Sparta. …
The traditional dates fix these colonies [of the Greeks in
Asia Minor] in the generations which followed the Trojan war.
… We may suppose that the colonisation of the Aegean and of
Asia Minor by the Greeks was coincident with the expulsion of
the Phoenicians. The greatest extension of the Phoenician
power in the Aegean seems to fall in the 15th century B. C.
From the 13th it was gradually on the decline, and the Greeks
were enabled to secure the trade for themselves. … By 1100
B. C. Asia Minor may have been in the hands of the Greeks,
though the Phoenicians still maintained themselves in Rhodes
and Cyprus. But all attempts at chronology are illusory."
_E. Abbott,
History of Greece,
chapter 4 (volume 1)_.
ALSO IN:
_E. Curtius,
History of Greece,
book 2, chapter 3 (volume 1)._
_G. Grote,
History of Greece,
part 2, chapters 13-15._
_J. A. Cramer,
Geography and Historical Description of Asia Minor,
section 6 (volume 1)._
See, also, MILETUS, PHOCÆANS.
ASIA MINOR: B. C. 724-539.
Prosperity of the Greek Colonies.
Their Submission to Crœsus, King of Lydia, and their conquest
and annexation to the Persian Empire.
"The Grecian colonies on the coast of Asia early rose to
wealth by means of trade and manufactures. Though we have not
the means of tracing their commerce, we know that it was
considerable, with the mother country, with Italy, and at
length Spain, with Phœnicia and the interior of Asia, whence
the productions of India passed to Greece. The Milesians, who
had fine woolen manufactures, extended their commerce to the
Euxine, on all sides of which they founded factories, and
exchanged their manufactures and other goods with the
Scythians and the neighbouring peoples, for slaves, wool, raw
hides, bees-wax, flax, hemp, pitch, etc. There is even reason
to suppose that, by means of caravans, their traders bartered
their wares not far from the confines of China [see MILETUS].
… But while they were advancing in wealth and prosperity, a
powerful monarchy formed itself in Lydia, of which the capital
was Sardes, a city at the foot of Mount Tmolus." Gyges, the
first of the Mermnad dynasty of Lydian kings (see LYDIANS),
whose reign is supposed to have begun about B. C. 724, "turned
his arms against the Ionian cities on the coast. During a
century and a half the efforts of the Lydian monarchs to
reduce these states were unavailing. At length (Ol. 55) [B. C.
568] the celebrated Crœsus mounted the throne of Lydia, and he
made all Asia this side of the River Halys (Lycia and Cilicia
excepted) acknowledge his dominion. The Aeolian, Ionian and
Dorian cities of the coast all paid him tribute; but,
according to the usual rule of eastern conquerors, he meddled
not with their political institutions, and they might deem
themselves fortunate in being insured against war by the
payment of an annual sum of money. Crœsus, moreover,
cultivated the friendship of the European Greeks." But Crœsus
was overthrown, B. C. 554, by the conquering Cyrus and his
kingdom of Lydia was swallowed up in the great Persian empire
then taking form [see PERSIA: B. C. 549-521]. Cyrus, during
his war with Crœsus, had tried to entice the Ionians away from
the latter and win them to an alliance with himself. But they
incurred his resentment by refusing. "They and the Æolians now
sent ambassadors, praying to be received to submission on the
same terms as those on which they had obeyed the Lydian
monarch; but the Milesians alone found favour: the rest had to
prepare for war. They repaired the walls of their towns, and
sent to Sparta for aid. Aid, however, was refused; but Cyrus,
being called away by the war with Babylon, neglected them for
the present. Three years afterwards (Ol. 59, 2), Harpagus, who
had saved Cyrus in his infancy from his grandfather, Astyages,
came as governor of Lydia. He instantly prepared to reduce the
cities of the coast. Town after town submitted. The Teians
abandoned theirs, and retired to Abdera in Thrace; the
Phocæans, getting on shipboard, and vowing never to return,
sailed for Corsica, and being there harassed by the
Carthagenians and Tyrrhenians, they went to Rhegion in Italy,
and at length founded Massalia (Marseilles) on the coast of
Gaul. The Grecian colonies thus became a part of the Persian
empire."
_T. Keightley,
History of Greece,
part 1, chapter 9._
ALSO IN:
_Herodotus,
History,
translated and edited by G. Rawlinson,
book 1, and appendix_
_M. Duncker,
History of Antiquity,
book 8, chapters 6-7 (volume 6)._
ASIA MINOR: B. C. 501-493.
The Ionian revolt and its suppression.
See PERSIA: B. C. 521-493.
ASIA MINOR: B. C. 479.
Athens assumes the protection of Ionia.
See ATHENS: B. C.479-478.
ASIA MINOR: B. C. 477.
Formation of Confederacy of Delos.
See GREECE: B. C. 478-477.
ASIA MINOR: B. C. 413.
Tribute again demanded from the Greeks by the Persian King.
Conspiracy against Athens.
See GREECE: B. C. 413.
ASIA MINOR: B. C. 413-412.
Revolt of the Greek cities from Athens.
Intrigues of Alcibiades.
See GREECE: B. C. 413-412.
ASIA MINOR: B. C. 412.
Re-submission to Persia.
See PERSIA: B. C. 486-405.
ASIA MINOR: B. C. 401-400.
Expedition of Cyrus the Younger, and Retreat of the Ten
Thousand.
See PERSIA: B. C.401-400.
ASIA MINOR: B. C. 399-387.
Spartan war with Persia in behalf of the Greek cities.
Their abandonment by the Peace of Antalcidas.
See GREECE: B. C. 399-387.
ASIA MINOR: B. C. 334.
Conquest by Alexander the Great.
See MACEDONIA: B. C. 334-330.
ASIA MINOR: B. C. 301.
Mostly annexed to the Thracian Kingdom of Lysimachus.
See MACEDONIA, &c.: B. C. 310-301.
ASIA MINOR: B. C. 281-224.
Battle-ground of the warring monarchies of Syria and Egypt.
Changes of masters.
See SELEUCIDÆ.
{141}
ASIA MINOR: B. C. 191.
First Entrance of the Romans.
Their defeat of Antiochus the Great.
Their expansion of the kingdom of Pergamum and the Republic of
Rhodes.
See SELEUCIDÆ B. C. 224-187.
ASIA MINOR: B. C. 120-65.
Mithridates and his kingdom.
Massacre of Italians.
Futile revolt from Rome.
Complete Roman Conquest.
See MITHRIDATIC WARS;
also ROME: B. C.78-68. and 69-63.
ASIA MINOR: A. D. 292.
Diocletian's seat of Empire established at Nicomedia.
See ROME: A. D. 284-305.
ASIA MINOR: A. D. 602-628.
Persian invasions.
Deliverance by Heraclius.
See ROME: A. D. 565-628.
ASIA MINOR: A. D. 1063-1092.
Conquest and ruin by the Seljuk Turks.
See TURKS (SELJUKS): A. D. 1063-1073; and 1073-1092.
ASIA MINOR: A. D. 1097-1149.
Wars of the Crusaders.
See CRUSADES: A. D. 1096-1099; and 1147-1149.
ASIA MINOR: A. D. 1204-1261.
The Empire of Nicæa and the Empire of Trebizond.
See GREEK EMPIRE OF NICÆA.
----------ASIA MINOR: End----------
ASIENTO, OR ASSIENTO, The.
See
SLAVERY: A. D. 1698-1776;
UTRECHT: A. D. 1712-1714;
AIX-LA-CHAPELLE, THE CONGRESS OF; ENGLAND: A. D. 1739-1741;
and GEORGIA: A. D. 1738-1743.
ASKELON.
See PHILISTINES.
ASKLEPIADS.
"Throughout all the historical ages [of Greece] the
descendants of Asklêpius [or Esculapius] were numerous and
widely diffused. The many families or gentes called
Asklêpiads, who devoted themselves to the study and practice
of medicine, and who principally dwelt near the temples of
Asklêpius, whither sick and suffering men came to obtain
relief—all recognized the god, not merely as the object of
their common worship, but also as their actual progenitor."
_G. Grote,
History of Greece,
part 1, chapter 9._
ASMONEANS, The.
See JEWS: B. C. 166-40.
ASOPIA.
See SICYON.
ASOV.
See AZOF.
ASPADAN.
The ancient name of which that of Ispahan is a corrupted form.
_G. Rawlinson,
Five Great Monarchies: Media,
chapter 1._
ASPERN-ESSLINGEN (OR THE MARCHFELD), Battle of.
See GERMANY: A. D. 1809 (JANUARY-JUNE).
ASPIS, The.
See PHALANX.
ASPROMONTE, Defeat of Garibaldi at (1862).
See ITALY: A. D. 1862-1866.
ASSAM, English Acquisition of.
See INDIA: A. D. 1823-1833.
ASSANDUN, Battle of.
The sixth and last battle, A. D. 1016, between Edmund
Ironsides, the English King, and his Danish rival, Cnut, or
Canute, for the Crown of England. The English were terribly
defeated and the flower of their nobility perished on the
field. The result was a division of the kingdom; but Edmund
soon died, or was killed. Ashington, in Essex, was the
battle-ground.
See ENGLAND: A. D. 979-1016.
ASSASSINATIONS, Notable.
Abbas, Pasha of Egypt.
See EGYPT: A. D. 1840-1869.
Alexander II. of Russia.
See RUSSIA: A. D. 1879-1881.
Beatoun, Cardinal.
See SCOTLAND: A. D. 1546.
Becket, Thomas.
See ENGLAND: A. D. 1162-1170
Buckingham.
See ENGLAND: A. D. 1628.
Cæsar.
See ROME; B. C. 44.
Capo d'Istrea, Count, President of Greece.
See GREECE: A. D. 1830-1862.
Cavendish, Lord Frederick, and Burke, Mr.
See IRELAND: A. D. 1882.
Concini.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1610-1619.
Danilo, Prince of Montenegro (1860).
See MONTENEGRO.
Darnley.
See SCOTLAND: A. D. 1561-1568.
Francis of Guise.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1560-1563.
Garfield, President.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1881.
Gustavus III. of Sweden.
See SCANDINAVIAN STATES (SWEDEN): A. D. 1720-1792.
Henry of Guise.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1584-1589.
Henry III. of France.
See FRANCE; A. D. 1584-1589.
Henry IV. of France.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1599-1600.
Hipparchus.
See ATHENS: B. C, 560-510.
John, Duke of Burgundy.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1415-1419.
Kleber, General.
See FRANCE; A. D. 1800 (JANUARY-JUNE).
Kotzebue.
See GERMANY; A. D. 1817-1820.
Lincoln, President.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1865 (APRIL 14TH).
Marat.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1793 (JULY).
Mayo, Lord.
See INDIA; A. D. 1862-1876.
Murray, The Regent.
See SCOTLAND: A. D. 1561-1568.
Omar, Caliph.
See MAHOMETAN CONQUEST, &c.: A. D. 661.
Paul, Czar of Russia.
See RUSSIA: A. D. 1801.
Perceval, Spencer.
See ENGLAND; A. D. 1806-1812.
Peter III.
See RUSSIA: A. D. 1761-1762.
Philip of Macedon.
See GREECE: B. C. 357-336.
Prim, General (1870).
See SPAIN. A. D. 1866-1843.
Rizzio.
See SCOTLAND: A. D. 1561-1568.
Rossi, Count.
See ITALY: A. D. 1848-1849.
Wallenstein (1634).
See GERMANY: A. D. 1632-1634.
William the Silent.
See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1581-1584.
Witt, John and Cornelius de.
See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1672-1674.
ASSASSINS, The.
"I must here speak with the brevity which my limits prescribe
of that wonderful brotherhood of the Assassins, which during
the 12th and 13th centuries spread such terror through all
Asia, Mussulman and Christian. Their deeds should be studied
in Von Hammer's history of their order, of which however
there is an excellent analysis in Taylor's _History of
Mohammedanism._ The word Assassin, it must be remembered,
in its ordinary signification, is derived from this order, and
not the reverse. The Assassins were not so called because they
were murderers, but murderers are called assassins because the
Assassins were murderers. The origin of the word Assassin has
been much disputed by oriental scholars; but its application
is sufficiently written upon the Asiatic history of the 12th
century. The Assassins were not, strictly speaking, a dynasty,
but rather an order, like the Templars; only the office of
Grand-Master, like the Caliphate, became hereditary. They were
originally a branch of the Egyptian Ishmaelites [see MAHOMETAN
CONQUEST: A. D. 908-1171] and at first professed the
principles of that sect. But there can be no doubt that their
inner doctrine became at last a mere negation of all religion
and all morality. 'To believe nothing and to dare everything'
was the summary of their teaching. Their exoteric principle,
addressed to the non-initiated members of the order, was
simple blind obedience to the will of their superiors. If the
Assassin was ordered to take off a Caliph or a Sultan by the
dagger or the bowl, the deed was done; if he was ordered to
throw himself from the ramparts, the deed was done likewise.
… Their founder was Hassan Sabah, who, in 1090, shortly
before the death of Malek Shah, seized the castle of
Alamout—the Vulture's nest—in northern Persia, whence they
extended their possessions over a whole chain of mountain
fortresses in that country and in Syria. The Grand-Master was
the Sheikh-al-Jebal, the famous Old Man of the Mountain, at
whose name Europe and Asia shuddered."
_E. A. Freeman,
History and Conquests of the Saracens,
lecture 4._
{142}
"In the Fatimide Khalif of Egypt, they [the Assassins, or
Ismailiens of Syria and Persia] beheld an incarnate deity. To
kill his enemies, in whatever way they best could, was an
action, the merit of which could not be disputed, and the
reward for which was certain." Hasan Sabah, the founder of the
Order, died at Alamout A. D. 1124. "From the day he entered
Alamut until that of his death—a period of thirty-five
years—he never emerged, but upon two occasions, from the
seclusion of his house. Pitiless and inscrutable as Destiny,
he watched the troubled world of Oriental politics, himself
invisible, and whenever he perceived a formidable foe, caused
a dagger to be driven into his heart." It was not until more
than a century after the death of its founder that the fearful
organization of the Assassins was extinguished (A. D. 1257) by
the same flood of Mongol invasion which swept Bagdad and the
Caliphate out of existence.
_R. D. Osborn,
Islam under the Khalifs of Bagdad,
part 3, chapter 3._
_W. C. Taylor,
History of Mohammedanism and its Sects,
chapter 9._
The Assassins were rooted out from all their strongholds in
Kuhistan and the neighboring region, and were practically
exterminated, in 1257, by the Mongols under Khulagu, or
Houlagou, brother of Mongu Khan, the great sovereign of the
Mongol Empire, then reigning. Alamut, the Vulture's Nest, was
demolished.
_H. H. Howorth,
History of the Mongols,
part 1, page 193;
and part 3, pages 91-108_.
See BAGDAD; A. D. 1258.
ASSAYE, Battle of (1803).
See INDIA; A. D. 1798-1803.
ASSEMBLY OF THE NOTABLES IN FRANCE (1787).
See FRANCE: A. D. 1774-1788.
ASSENISIPIA, The proposed State of.
See NORTHWEST TERRITORY OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
A. D. 1784.
ASSIDEANS, The.
See CHASIDM, THE.
ASSIENTO, The.
See ASIENTO.
ASSIGNATS.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1789-1791; 1794-1795 (JULY-APRIL);
1795 (OCTOBER-DECEMBER).
ASSINARUS, Athenian defeat and surrender at the.
See SYRACUSE: B. C. 415-413.
ASSINIBOIA.
See NORTHWEST TERRITORIES OF CANADA.
ASSINIBOINS, The.
See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: SIOUAN FAMILY.
ASSIZE, The Bloody.
See ENGLAND: A. D. 1685 (SEPTEMBER).
ASSIZE OF BREAD AND ALE.
The Assize of Bread and Ale was an English ordinance or
enactment, dating back to the time of Henry III. in the 13th
century, which fixed the price of those commodities by a scale
regulated according to the market prices of wheat, barley and
oats. "The Assize of bread was re-enacted so lately as the
beginning of the last century and was only abolished in London
and its neighbourhood about thirty years ago"—that is, early
in the present century.
_G. L. Craik,
History of British Commerce,
volume 1, page 137._
ASSIZE OF CLARENDON, The.
See ENGLAND: A. D. 1162-1170.
ASSIZE OF JERUSALEM, The.
"No sooner had Godfrey of Bouillon [elected King of Jerusalem,
after the taking of the Holy City by the Crusaders, A. D.
1099] accepted the office of supreme magistrate than he
solicited the public and private advice of the Latin pilgrims
who were the best skilled in the statutes and customs of
Europe. From these materials, with the counsel and approbation
of the Patriarch and barons, of the clergy and laity, Godfrey
composed the Assise of Jerusalem, a precious monument of
feudal jurisprudence. The new code, attested by the seals of
the King, the Patriarch, and the Viscount of Jerusalem, was
deposited in the holy sepulchre, enriched with the
improvements of succeeding times, and respectfully consulted
as often as any doubtful question arose in the tribunals of
Palestine. With the kingdom and city all was lost; the
fragments of the written law were preserved by jealous
tradition and variable practice till the middle of the
thirteenth century. The code was restored by the pen of John
d'Ibelin, Count of Jaffa, one of the principal feudatories;
and the final revision was accomplished in the year thirteen
hundred and sixty-nine, for the use of the Latin kingdom of
Cyprus."
_E. Gibbon,
Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire,
chapter 58.
ASSIZES.
"The formal edicts known under the name of Assizes, the
Assizes of Clarendon and Northampton, the Assize of Arms, the
Assize of the Forest, and the Assizes of Measures, are the
only relics of the legislative work of the period [reign of
Henry II. in England]. These edicts are chiefly composed of
new regulations for the enforcement of royal justice, … In
this respect they strongly resemble the capitularies of the
Frank Kings, or, to go farther back, the edicts of the Roman
prætors. … The term Assize, which comes into use in this
meaning about the middle of the twelfth century, both on the
continent and in England, appears to be the proper Norman name
for such edicts. … In the 'Assize of Jerusalem' it simply
means a law; and the same in Henry's legislation. Secondarily,
it means a form of trial established by the particular law, as
the Great Assize, the Assize of Mort d' Ancester; and thirdly
the court held to hold such trials, in which sense it is
commonly used at the present day."
_William Stubbs,
Constitutional History of England,
chapter 13._
ASSUR.
See ASSYRIA.
ASSYRIA.
For matter relating to Assyrian history, the reader is
referred to the caption SEMITES, under which it will be given.
The subject is deferred to that part of this work which will
go later into print, for the reason that every month is adding
to the knowledge of the students of ancient oriental history
and clearing away disputed questions. It is quite possible
that the time between the publication of our first volume and
our fourth or fifth may make important additions to the scanty
literature of the subject in English. Modern excavation on the
sites of the ancient cities in the East, bringing to light
large library collections of inscribed clay tablets,—sacred
and historical writings, official records, business contracts
and many varieties of inscriptions,—have almost
revolutionized the study of ancient history and the views of
antiquity derived from it.
{143}
"M. Botta, who was appointed French consul at Mosul in 1842,
was the first to commence excavations on the sites of the
buried cities of Assyria, and to him is due the honour of the
first discovery of her long lost palaces. M. Botta commenced
his labours at Kouyunjik, the large mound opposite Mosul, but
he found here very little to compensate for his labours. New
at the time to excavations, he does not appear to have worked
in the best manner; M. Botta at Kouyunjik contented himself
with sinking pits in the mound, and on these proving
unproductive abandoning them. While M. Botta was excavating at
Kouyunjik, his attention was called to the mounds of Khorsabad
by a native of the village on that site; and he sent a party
of workmen to the spot to commence excavation. In a few days
his perseverance was rewarded by the discovery of some
sculptures, after which, abandoning the work at Kouyunjik, he
transferred his establishment to Khorsabad and thoroughly
explored that site. … The palace which M. Botta had
discovered … is one of the most perfect Assyrian buildings
yet explored, and forms an excellent example of Assyrian
architecture. Beside the palace on the mound of Khorsabad, M.
Botta also opened the remains of a temple, and a grand porch
decorated by six winged bulls. … The operations of M. Botta
were brought to a close in 1845, and a splendid collection of
sculptures and other antiquities, the fruits of his labours,
arrived in Paris in 1846 and was deposited in the Louvre.
Afterwards the French Government appointed M. Place consul at
Mosul, and he continued some of the excavations of his
predecessor. … Mr. Layard, whose attention was early turned
in this direction, visited the country in 1840, and afterwards
took a great interest in the excavations of M. Botta. At
length, in 1845, Layard was enabled through the assistance of
Sir Stratford Canning to commence excavations in Assyria
himself. On the 8th of November he started from Mosul, and
descended the Tigris to Nimroud. … Mr. Layard has described
in his works with great minuteness his successive excavations,
and the remarkable and interesting discoveries he made. …
After making these discoveries in Assyria, Mr. Layard visited
Babylonia, and opened trenches in several of the mounds there.
On the return of Mr. Layard to England, excavations were
continued in the Euphrates valley under the superintendence of
Colonel (now Sir Henry) Rawlinson. Under his directions, Mr.
Hormuzd Rassam, Mr. Loftus, and Mr. Taylor excavated various
sites and made numerous discoveries, the British Museum
receiving the best of the monuments. The materials collected
in the national museums of France and England, and the
numerous inscriptions published, attracted the attention of
the learned, and very soon considerable light was thrown on
the history, language, manners, and customs of ancient Assyria
and Babylonia."
_G. Smith,
Assyrian Discoveries,
chapter 1._
"One of the most important results of Sir A. H. Layard's
explorations at Nineveh was the discovery of the ruined
library of the ancient city, now buried under the mounds of
Kouyunjik. The broken clay tablets belonging to this library
not only furnished the student with an immense mass of
literary matter, but also with direct aids towards a knowledge
of the Assyrian syllabary and language. Among the literature
represented in the library of Kouyunjik were lists of
characters, with their various phonetic and ideographic
meanings, tables of synonymes, and catalogues of the names of
plants and animals. This, however, was not all. The inventors
of the cuneiform system of writing had been a people who
preceded the Semites in the occupation of Babylonia, and who
spoke an agglutinative language utterly different from that of
their Semitic successors. These Accadians, as they are usually
termed, left behind them a considerable amount of literature,
which was highly prized by the Semitic Babylonians and
Assyrians. A large portion of the Ninevite tablets,
accordingly, consists of interlinear or parallel translations
from Accadian into Assyrian, as well as of reading books,
dictionaries, and grammars, in which the Accadian original is
placed by the side of its Assyrian equivalent. … The
bilingual texts have not only enabled scholars to recover the
long-forgotten Accadian language; they have also been of the
greatest possible assistance to them in their reconstruction
of the Assyrian dictionary itself. The three expeditions
conducted by Mr. George Smith [1873-1876], as well as the
later ones of Mr. Hormuzd Rassam, have added largely to the
stock of tablets from Kouyunjik originally acquired for the
British Museum by Sir A. H. Layard, and have also brought to
light a few other tablets from the libraries of Babylonia."
_A. H. Sayce,
Fresh Light from the Ancient Monuments,
chapter 1._
ALSO IN:
_G. Rawlinson,
Five Great Monarchies: The Second Monarchy,
chapter 9._
_M. Duncker,
History of Antiquity,
books 3-4._
_George Smith,
Ancient History from the Monuments: Assyria._
See, also, BABYLONIA and SEMITES.
ASSYRIA, Eponym Canon of.
"Just as there were archons at Athens and consuls at Rome who
were elected annually, so among the Assyrians there was a
custom of electing one man to be over the year, whom they
called 'limu,' or 'eponym.' … Babylonian and Assyrian
documents were more generally dated by the names of these
eponyms than by that of the reigning King. … In 1862 Sir
Henry Rawlinson discovered the fragment of the eponym canon of
Assyria. It was one of the grandest and most important
discoveries ever made, for it has decided definitely a great
many points which otherwise could never have been cleared up.
Fragments of seven copies of this canon were found, and from
these the chronology of Assyria has been definitely settled
from B. C. 1330 to about B. C. 620."
_E. A. W. Budge,
Babylonian Life and History,
chapter 3._
ASTOLF, King of the Lombards, A. D. 749-759.
ASTRAKHAN:
The Khanate.
See MONGOLS: A. D. 1238-1391.
ASTRAKHAN: A. D. 1569.
Russian repulse of the Turks.
See RUSSIA: A. D. 1569-1571.
ASTURIANS, The.
See CANTABRIANS.
ASTURIAS:
Resistance to the Moorish Conquest.
See SPAIN: A. D. 713-737.
ASTY, OR ASTU, The.
The ancient city of Athens proper, as distinguished from its
connected harbors, was called the Asty, or Astu.
_J. A. St. John,
The Hellenes,
book 1, chapter 4._
ALSO IN:
_W. M. Leake,
Topography of Athens,
section 10._
See also, ATHENS: AREA, &c.
A Logical Outline of Athenian and Greek History
[Red ] Physical or material.
[Blue ] Ethnological.
[Green] Social and political.
[Brown] Intellectual, moral and religious.
[Black] Foreign.
In which the dominant conditions and influences
are distinguished by colors.
The Land
The most capable people of early times, placed in the most
favorable environment that the world in those times could offer
them, worked out a civilization—perfect in all refinements
except the moral—which has been the admiration and the marvel of
later days.
Under modern conditions, the country of the Greeks gives no
marked advantage to its inhabitants; but in the age of fiercer
struggles, when war among men was tribal, universal, and hand to
hand, and when the larger possibilities of pacific intercourse
were bounded by one small sea, its intersecting mountains, its
separated valleys and plains, its penetrating gulfs and bays, its
clustered peninsulas in peninsulas, were helpful beyond measure
to their social and political advance. In no other region of
Europe could the independent city-states of ancient Hellas have
grown up in shelter so safe, under skies so kindly, amid
influences from the outer world so urgent and so strong.
It is reasonable to say that these happy conditions had
much to do with the shaping of the character and career of the
Greek people as a whole. But they differed very greatly from one
another in their various political groups, and by differences
that cannot be traced to varied surroundings of earth, or air, or
sea, or human neighborhood. When every circumstance which
distinguishes Athens in situation from Sparta, or from Corinth,
or from Argos, has been weighed and reckoned, the Athenian
is still parted from the Spartan, from the Corinthian and from
the Argive, by a distinction which we name and do not explain by
calling it family or race.
Ionians and Dorians.
At some time in the unknown past, there had been a parting of
kindred among the ancestors of the Greeks, and the current of
descent ran, for many centuries, perhaps, in two clearly divided
streams, which acquired (in what manner, who can guess?) very
different characteristics and qualities in their course. Then, in
time, the great migrations, which are at the beginning of the
traditions of the Greeks, brought these two branches of the race
(the Doric and the Ionic, as they are named), into contact
again, and associated them in a common career. In the inherited
nature of the Ionian Greeks there was something which made them
more sensitive to the finer delights of the mind, and prepared
them to be more easily moved by every impulse toward philosophy
and art, from the civilizations that were older than their own.
In the Dorians there was less of this. They shared in equal
measure, perhaps, the keen, clear Greek intellect, but they
narrowed it to commoner aims.
Achaians.
Mycenæ.
It is possible that all which the Athenians came to be, their
elder kindred, the Achaians, might have been. Their peninsula of
Argolis is the peninsula of Attica in duplicate,—washed by the
same waves, and reaching out to the same eastern world. They were
first to touch hands with Phœnicia and with Egypt, and first to
borrow arts and ideas from Memphis and Tyre. But their
civilization, which they had raised to the height which Homer
portrays, was overwhelmed by the Doric conquest; and the fact
that these invaders, succeeding to the same vantage ground,
remained as poor in culture as the Argives and their final
masters, the Spartans, appear to have been, gives evidence of the
strange difference that was rooted in the constitution of the two
branches of the race.
Sparta.-Athens.
By force of this difference, the Spartans formed their state upon
the grim lines of a military camp, and took leadership among the
Greeks in practical affairs; the Athenians adorned a free city
with great and beautiful works, made it hospitable to all genius
and all the knowledge of the time, and created a capital for the
civilization of the ancient world.
In all the Greek communities there was a primitive stage in which
kings ruled over therm in a patriarchal way. In most of them the
kingship surrendered to an oligarchy,—the oligarchy in time, was
overthrown by some bold adventurer, who led a rising of the
people and snatched power in the turmoil to make himself a
"tyrant,"—and the tyrant in his turn fell after no long reign.
In Athens that course of revolution was run; but it did not end
as with the rest. The Athenian tyranny gave way to the purest
democracy that has ever had trial in the world.
Æthel democracy.
That this Athenian democracy was wise in itself may be open to
doubt; but it produced wise men, and, for the century of its
great career, it was wonderfully led. How far that came to it
from superiority of race, and how far as the fruitage of free
institutions, no man can say; but the succession of statesmen who
raised Athens to her pitch of greatness, without shattering the
government of the people by the people, has no parallel in the
annals of so small a state.
Sparta, not Athens, was the military head of Greece; but when a
great emergency came upon the whole Greek world, it was the
larger intelligence and higher spirit of the Attic state which
inspired and guided the defence of the land and drove the
Persians back.
B.C. 498-479. The Persian War.
B.C. 477. Confederacy of Delos.
B.C. 445-429. Age of Pericles.
Making prompt use of the ascendancy she had won in the Persian
War, Athens rose rapidly in power and wealth. Under the guise of
a federation of the Ionian cities of the islands and of Asia
Minor, she created an empire subject to her rule. She commanded
the sea with superior fleets, and became first in commerce, as
she was first in knowledge, in politics and in arts. Her coffers
overran with the riches poured into them by her tribute-gatherers
and her men of trade, and she employed them with a noble
prodigality upon her temples and the buildings of the state. Her
abounding genius yielded fruits, in learning, letters, and art,
which surpass the whole experience of the world, before and
since, when measured against the smallness of the numbers from
which they came.
B. C. 431-404. Peloponnesian War.
But the power attained by the Athenian democracy was arrogantly
and harshly used; its sovereignty was exercised without
generosity or restraint. It provoked the hatred of its subjects,
and the bitter jealousy of rival states. Hence war in due time
was inevitable, and Athens, alone in the war, was thrown down
from her high estate. The last of the great leaders of her golden
age died when her need of him was greatest, and her citizens were
given over to demagogues who beguiled them to the ruin of the
republic.
B.C. 404-379—Sparta
B.C. 379-362—Thebes
Sparta regained the supremacy in Greece, and her rude domination,
imposed upon all, was harder to bear than the superiority of
Athens had been. Under the lead of Epaminondas of Thebes—the
most high-souled statesman who ever swayed the Hellenic race—the
Spartan yoke was broken.
B.C. 338—Macedonian supremacy.
But, in breaking it, all unity in Hellas was destroyed, and all
hope of resistance to any common foe. The foe who first appeared
was the half-Greek Macedonian, King Philip, who subdued the whole
peninsula with ease, and found none to defend it so heroically as
the orator Demosthenes.
B. C. 384-328.
Alexander's conquests.
Hellenization of the East.
But the subjugated Greeks were not yet at the end of their
career. With Philip's great son they went forth to a new and
higher destiny than the building of petty states. Unwittingly he
made conquest of an empire for them, and not for himself. They
Hellenized it from the Euxine to the Nile. In Egypt, in Syria,
and in Asia Minor, they entered and took possession of every
field of activity, an put their impress on every movement of
thought. Their philosophy and their literature fed all the
intellectual hunger of the age; their energy was its civilizing
force.
B. C. 197-146.—Roman conquest.
Then the Romans came, to conquer and be conquered by the spirit
of Athenian Greece, and to do for Europe, in the West, what the
Macedonians had done in the East. They effaced Greece from
history, in the political sense; but they kneeled to her
teaching, and became the servants of her civilization, to carry
it wherever the Roman eagles went.
Christianity.
A little later, when that civilization was changed by the
transforming spirit of the Gospel of Christ, it did not cease to
be essentially Greek; for Hellenism and Hebraism were fused in
the theology of the rising Christian Church, and Greek thought
ruled mankind again in an altered phase.
A. D. 476-1458.—The Eastern Empire.
At last, when Roman imperialism was driven from the West, Greece
drew it to herself, and reigned in the great name of Rome, and
fought gloriously with barbarians and with infidels for a
thousand added years, defending the Christian world till it grew
strong and stood in peril no more.
{144}
ASTYNOMI.
Certain police officials in ancient Athens, ten in number.
"They were charged with all that belongs to street
supervision, e. g., the cleansing of the streets, for which
purpose the coprologi, or street-sweepers, were under their
orders; the securing of morality and decent behaviour in the
streets."
_G. F. Schömann,
Antiquity of Greece: The State,
part 3, chapter 3._
ASUNCION: A. D. 1537.
The founding of the city.
See PARAGUAY: A. D. 1515-1557.
ATABEGS, ATTABEGS, OR ATTABECKS.
"From the decline of the dynasty of Seljook to the conquest of
Persia by Hulakoo Khan, the son of Chenghis, a period of more
than a century, that country was distracted by the contests of
petty princes, or governors, called Attabegs; who, taking
advantage of the weakness of the last Seljookian monarchs, and
of the distractions which followed their final extinction,
established their authority over some of the finest provinces
of the Empire. Many of these petty dynasties acquired such a
local fame as, to this day, gives an importance to their
memory with the inhabitants of the countries over which they
ruled. … The word Attabeg is Turkish: it is a compound word
of 'atta,' master, or tutor, and 'beg,' lord; and signifies a
governor, or tutor, of a lord or prince."
_Sir J. Malcolm,
History of Persia,
volume 1; chapter 9._
"It is true that the Atabeks appear but a short space as
actors on the stage of Eastern history; but these 'tutors of
princes' occupy a position neither insignificant nor
unimportant in the course of events which occurred in Syria
and Persia at the time they flourished."-
_W. H. Morley,
Preface to Mirkhond's History of the Atabeks._
See, also, SALADIN, THE EMPIRE OF.
ATAHUALPA, The Inca.
See PERU: A. D. 1581-1533.
ATELIERS NATIONAUX OF 1848, AT PARIS.
See FRANCE; A. D. 1848 (FEBRUARY-MAY),
and (APRIL-DECEMBER).
ATHABASCA, The District of.
See NORTHWEST TERRITORIES OF CANADA.
ATHABASCANS, The.
See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: ATHABASCAN FAMILY.
ATHALAYAS.
See SARDINIA, THE ISLAND: NAME AND EARLY HISTORY.
ATHEL.
ATHELING.
ATHELBONDE.
See ADEL.
ATHENRY, Battle of.
The most desperate battle fought by the Irish in resisting the
English conquest of Ireland. They were terribly slaughtered
and the chivalry of Connaught was crushed. The battle occurred
Aug. 10, A. D. 1316.
_M. Haverty,
History of Ireland,
page 282._
----------ATHENRY: End----------
ATHENS:
ATHENS:
The Preëminence of Athens.
"When we speak of Greece we think first of Athens. … To
citizens and to strangers by means of epic recitations and
dramatic spectacles, she presented an idealised image of life
itself. She was the home of new ideas, the mother-city from
which poetry, eloquence, and philosophy spread to distant
lands. While the chief dialects of Greece survive, each not as
a mere dialect but as the language of literature,—a thing
unknown in the history of any other people,—the Attic idiom,
in which the characteristic elements of other dialects met and
were blended, has become to us, as it did to the ancients, the
very type of Hellenic speech. Athens was not only the 'capital
of Greece,' the 'school of Greece;' it deserves the name
applied to it in an epitaph on Euripides: 'his country is
Athens, Greece of Greece.' The rays of the Greek genius here
found a centre and a focus."
_S. H. Butcher,
Some Aspects of the Greek Genius,
pages 38-39._
"Our interest in ancient history, it may be said, lies not in
details but in large masses. It matters little how early the
Arcadians acquired a political unity or what Nabis did to
Mycenæ; that which interests us is the constitution of Athens,
the repulse of Persia, the brief bloom of Thebes. Life is not
so long that we can spend our days over the unimportant fates
of uninteresting tribes and towns."
ATHENS:
Area and Population.
"The entire circuit of the Asty [the lower city, or Athens
proper], Long Walls and maritime city, taken as one inclosure,
is equal to about 17 English miles, or 148 stades. This is
very different from the 200 stades which Dion Chrysostom
states to have been the circumference of the same walls, an
estimate exceeding by more than 20 stades even the sum of the
peripheries of the Asty and Peimic towns, according to the
numbers of Thucydides. … Rome was circular, Syracuse
triangular, and Athens consisted of two circular cities,
joined by a street of four miles in length,—a figure, the
superficies of which was not more than the fourth part of that
of a city of an equal circumference, in a circular form.
Hence, when to Rome within the walls were added suburbs of
equal extent, its population was greater than that of all
Attica. That of Athens, although the most populous city in
Greece, was probably never greater than 200,000."
_W. M. Leake,
Topography of Athens,
section 10._
Ionian Origin.
See DORIANS AND IONIANS.
ATHENS:
The Beginning of the city-state.
How Attica was absorbed in its capital.
"In the days of Cecrops and the first kings [see ATTICA] down
to the reign of Theseus, Attica was divided into communes,
having their own town-halls and magistrates. Except in case of
alarm the whole people did not assemble in council under the
king, but administered their own affairs, and advised together
in their several townships. Some of them at times even went to
war with him, as the Eleusinians under Eumolpus with
Erectheus. But when Theseus came to the throne, he, being a
powerful as well as a wise ruler, among other improvements in
the administration of the country, dissolved the councils and
separate governments, and united all the inhabitants of Attica
in the present city, establishing one council and town-hall.
They continued to live on their own lands, but he compelled
them to resort to Athens as their metropolis, and henceforward
they were all inscribed in the roll of her citizens. A great
city thus arose which was handed down by Theseus to his
descendants, and from his day to this the Athenians have
regularly celebrated the national festival of the Synoecia, or
'union of the communes' in honour of the goddess Athenè.
Before his time, what is now the Acropolis and the ground
lying under it to the south was the city. Many reasons may be
urged in proof of this statement."
_Thucydides,
History
(Jowett's translation),
book 2, section 15._
ALSO IN:
_M. Duncker,
History of Greece,
book 3, chapter 7 (volume 2)_.
{145}
[Image: Map]
PLAN OF ATHENS.
From "Mythology and Monuments of Ancient Athens,"
by Jane E. Harrison and Margaret de G. Verrall.
[Image: Map]
HARBORS OF ATHENS.
{146}
ATHENS:
From the Dorian Migration to B. C. 683.
End of kingship and institution of the Archons.
At the epoch of the Boeotian and Dorian migrations (see
GREECE: THE MIGRATIONS), Attica was flooded by fugitives, both
from the north and from the Peloponnesus. "But the bulk of the
refugees passed on to Asia, and built up the cities of Ionia.
… When the swarms of emigrants cleared off, and Athens is
again discernable, the crown has passed from the old royal
house of the Cecropidæ to a family of exiles from
Peloponnesus. … A generation later the Dorian invasion,
which had overwhelmed Corinth and torn away Megara from the
Attic dominion, swept up to the very gates of Athens. An
oracle declared that the city would never fall if its ruler
perished by the hand of the invaders; therefore King Codrus
disguised himself as a peasant, set out for the Dorian camp,
struck down the first man he met, and was himself slain by the
second. The invasion failed, and the Athenians, to perpetuate
the memory of their monarch's patriotism, would not allow the
title of 'king' to be borne by the descendants who succeeded
him on the throne, but changed the name to 'archon,' or
'ruler.' … These legends evidently cover some obscure
changes in the internal history of Attica."
_C. W. C. Oman,
History of Greece,
chapter 11._
"After the death of Codrus the nobles, taking advantage,
perhaps, of the opportunity afforded by the dispute between
his sons, are said to have abolished the title of king, and to
have substituted for it that of Archon. This change, however,
seems to have been important, rather as it indicated the new,
precarious tenure by which the royal power was held, than as
it immediately affected the nature of the office. It was,
indeed, still held for life; and Medon, the son of Codrus,
transmitted it to his posterity. … After twelve reigns,
ending with that of Alcmæon [B. C. 752], the duration of the
office was limited to ten years; and through the guilt or
calamity of Hippomenes, the fourth decennial archon, the house
of Medon was deprived of its privilege, and the supreme
magistracy was thrown open to the whole body of nobles. This
change was speedily followed by one much more important. …
The duration of the archonship was again reduced to a single
year [B. C. 683]; and, at the same time, its branches were
severed and distributed among nine new magistrates. Among
these, the first in rank retained the distinguishing title of
the Archon, and the year was marked by his name. He
represented the majesty of the state, and exercised a peculiar
jurisdiction—that which had belonged to the king as the
common parent of his people, the protector of families, the
guardian of orphans and heiresses, and of the general rights
of inheritance. For the second archon the title of king
[basileus], if it had been laid aside, was revived, as the
functions assigned to him were those most associated with
ancient recollections. He represented the king as the
high-priest of his people; he regulated the celebration of the
mysteries and the most solemn festivals; decided all causes
which affected the interests of religion. … The third archon
bore the title of Polemarch, and filled the place of the king
as the leader of his people in war, and the guardian who
watched over its security in time of peace. … The remaining
six archons received the common title of thesmothetes, which
literally signifies legislators, and was probably applied to
them as the judges who determined the great variety of causes
which did not fall under the cognizance of their colleagues;
because, in the absence of a written code, those who declare
and interpret the laws may be properly said to make them."
_C. Thirlwall,
History of Greece,
chapter 11._
"We are in no condition to determine the civil classification
and political constitution of Attica, even at the period of
the Archonship of Kreon, 683 B. C., when authentic Athenian
chronology first commences, much less can we pretend to any
knowledge of the anterior centuries. … All the information
which we possess respecting that old polity is derived from
authors who lived after all or most of these great changes [by
Solon, and later]—and who, finding no records, nor anything
better than current legends, explained the foretime as well as
they could by guesses more or less ingenious, generally
attached to the dominant legendary names."
_G. Grote,
History of Greece,
part 2, chapter 10._
ALSO IN:
_G. F. Schömann,
Antiquity of Greece: The State,
part 3, chapter 3._
ATHENS: B. C. 624.
Under the Draconian Legislation.
"Drako was the first thesmothet, who was called upon to set
down his thesmoi [ordinances and decisions] in writing, and
thus to invest them essentially with a character of more or
less generality. In the later and better-known times of
Athenian law, we find these archons deprived in great measure
of their powers of judging and deciding, and restricted to the
task of first hearing of parties and collecting the evidence,
next, of introducing the matter for trial into the appropriate
dikastery, over which they presided. Originally, there was no
separation of powers; the archons both judged and
administered…. All of these functionaries belonged to the
Eupatrids, and all of them doubtless acted more or less in the
narrow interest of their order; moreover, there was ample room
for favouritism in the way of connivance as well as antipathy
on the part of the archons. That such was decidedly the case,
and that discontent began to be serious, we may infer from the
duty imposed on the thesmothet Drako, B. C. 624, to put in
writing the thesmoi or ordinances, so that they might be
'shown publicly' and known beforehand. He did not meddle with
the political constitution, and in his ordinances Aristotle
finds little worthy of remark except the extreme severity of
the punishments awarded: petty thefts, or even proved idleness
of life, being visited with death or disfranchisement. But we
are not to construe this remark as demonstrating any special
inhumanity in the character of Drako, who was not invested
with the large power which Solon afterwards enjoyed, and
cannot be imagined to have imposed upon the community severe
laws of his own invention. … The general spirit of penal
legislation had become so much milder, during the two
centuries which followed, that these old ordinances appeared
to Aristotle intolerably rigorous."
_G. Grote,
History of Greece,
part 2, chapter 10 (volume 3)._
{147}
ATHENS: B. C. 612-595.
Conspiracy of Cylon.
Banishment of the Alcmæonids.
The first attempt at Athens to overturn the oligarchical
government and establish a personal tyranny was made, B. C.
612, by Cylon (Kylon), a patrician, son-in-law of the tyrant
of Megara, who was encouraged and helped in his undertaking by
the latter. The conspiracy failed miserably. The partisans of
Cylon, blockaded in the acropolis, were forced to surrender;
but they placed themselves under the protection of the goddess
Minerva and were promised their lives. More effectually to
retain the protection of the goddess until their escape was
effected, they attached a cord to her altar and held it in
their hands as they passed out through the midst of their
enemies. Unhappily the cord broke, and the archon Megacles at
once declared that the safeguard of Minerva was withdrawn from
them, whereupon they were massacred without mercy, even though
they fled to the neighboring altars and clung to them. The
treachery and bad faith of this cruel deed does not seem to
have disturbed the Athenian people, but the sacrilege involved
in it caused horror and fear when they had had time to reflect
upon it. Megacles and his whole family—the Alcmæonids as they
were called, from the name of one of their ancestors—were
held accountable for the affront to the gods and were
considered polluted and accursed. Every public calamity was
ascribed to their sin, and at length, after a solemn trial,
they were banished from the city (about 596 or 595 B. C.),
while the dead of the family were disinterred and cast out.
The agitations of this affair exercised an important influence
on the course of events, which opened the way for Solon and
his constitutional reforms.
_C. Thirlwall,
History of Greece,
chapter 11._
ALSO IN:
_G. Grote,
History of Greece,
part 2, chapter 10._
ATHENS: B. C. 610-586.
Struggle with Megara for Salamis.
Cirrhæan or First Sacred War.
"The petty state of Megara, which, since the earlier ages,
had, from the dependent of Athens, grown up to the dignity of
her rival, taking advantage of the internal dissensions in the
latter city, succeeded in wresting from the Athenian
government the isle of Salamis. It was not, however, without
bitter and repeated struggles that Athens at last submitted to
the surrender of the isle. But, after signal losses and
defeats, as nothing is ever more odious to the multitude than
unsuccessful war, so the popular feeling was such as to induce
the government to enact a decree by which it was forbidden,
upon pain of death, to propose reasserting the Athenian
claims. … Many of the younger portion of the community,
pining at the dishonour of their country, and eager for
enterprise, were secretly inclined to countenance any
stratagem that might induce the reversal of the decree. At
this time there went a report through the city that a man of
distinguished birth … had incurred the consecrating
misfortune of insanity. Suddenly this person appeared in the
market place, wearing the peculiar badge [a cap] that
distinguished the sick. … Ascending the stone from which the
heralds made their proclamations, he began to recite aloud a
poem upon the loss of Salamis, boldly reproving the cowardice
of the people, and inciting them again to war. His supposed
insanity protected him from the law—his rank, reputation, and
the circumstance of his being himself a native of Salamis,
conspired to give to his exhortation a powerful effect, and
the friends he had secured to back his attempt loudly
proclaimed their applauding sympathy with the spirit of the
address. The name of the pretended madman was Solon, son of
Execestides, the descendant of Codrus. … The stratagem and
the eloquence of Solon produced its natural effect upon his
spirited and excitable audience, and the public enthusiasm
permitted the oligarchical government to propose and effect
the repeal of the law. An expedition was decreed and planned,
and Solon was invested with its command. It was but a brief
struggle to recover the little island of Salamis. … But the
brave and resolute Megarians were not men to be disheartened
by a single reverse; they persisted in the contest—losses
were sustained on either side, and at length both states
agreed to refer their several claims on the sovereignty of the
island to the decision of Spartan arbiters. And this appeal
from arms to arbitration is a proof how much throughout Greece
had extended that spirit of civilisation which is but an
extension of the sense of justice. … The arbitration of the
umpires in favour of Athens only suspended hostilities; and
the Megarians did not cease to watch (and shortly afterwards
they found) a fitting occasion to regain a settlement so
tempting to their ambition. The credit acquired by Solon in
this expedition was shortly afterwards greatly increased in
the estimation of Greece. In the Bay of Corinth was situated a
town called Cirrha, inhabited by a fierce and lawless race,
who, after devastating the Sacred territories of Delphi,
sacrilegiously besieged the city itself, in the desire to
possess themselves of the treasures which the piety of Greece
had accumulated in the Temple of Apollo. Solon appeared at the
Amphictyonic council, represented the sacrilege of the
Cirrhæans, and persuaded the Greeks to arm in defence of the
altars of their tutelary god [B. C. 595]. Clisthenes, the
tyrant of Sicyon, was sent as commander-in-chief against the
Cirrhæans; and (according to Plutarch) the records of Delphi
inform us that Alcmæon was the leader of the Athenians. The
war [known as the First Sacred War] was not very successful at
the onset; the oracle of Apollo was consulted, and the answer
makes one of the most amusing anecdotes of priestcraft. The
besiegers were informed by the god that the place would not be
reduced until the waves of the Cirrhæan Sea washed the
territories of Delphi. The reply perplexed the army; but the
superior sagacity of Solon was not slow in discovering that
the holy intention of the oracle was to appropriate the lands
of the Cirrhæans to the profit of the temple. He therefore
advised the besiegers to attack and to conquer Cirrha, and to
dedicate its whole territory to the service of the god. The
advice was adopted—Cirrha was taken [B. C. 586]; it became
thenceforth the arsenal of Delphi, and the insulted deity had
the satisfaction of seeing the sacred lands washed by the
waves of the Cirrhæan Sea. … The Pythian games commenced, or
were revived, in celebration of this victory of the Pythian god."
_Sir E. Bulwer Lytton,
Athens: Its Rise and Fall,
book 2, chapter 1._
See, also, DELPHI.
{148}
ATHENS: B. C. 594.
The Constitution of Solon.
The Council of Four Hundred.
"Solon, Archon Ol. 46,1, was chosen mediator. Equity and
moderation are described by the ancients as the
characteristics of his mind; he determined to abolish the
privileges of particular classes, and the arbitrary power of
officers, and to render all the participators in civil and
political freedom equal in the eye of the law, at the same
time ensuring to everyone the integrity of those lights to
which his real merits entitled him; on the other hand, he was
far from contemplating a total subversion of existing
regulations. … Whatever was excellent in prescription was
incorporated with the new laws and thereby stamped afresh; but
prescription as such, with the exception of some unwritten
religious ordinances of the Eumolpids, was deprived of force.
The law was destined to be the sole centre, whence every
member of the political community was to derive a fixed rule
of conduct."
_W. Wachsmuth,
Historical Antiquities of the Greeks,
section 46 (volume 1)_.
"The factions, to allay the reviving animosities of which was
Solon's immediate object, had, at that time, formed parties
corresponding to the geographical division of the country,
which we have already adverted to; the Pediæi, or inhabitants
of the lowlands, insisted on a strict oligarchy; the Parali,
on the coast, who, did we not find the Alcmaeonid Megacles at
their head, might be considered the wealthier portion of the
people, wished for a mixed constitution; but the Diacrii or
Hyperacrii [of the mountainous district] formed the great
majority, who, in their impoverished state, looked for relief
only from a total revolution. Solon might, had he so chosen,
have made himself tyrant by heading this populace: but he
preferred acting as mediator, and with this view caused
himself to be elected archon, B. C. 594, as being an Eupatrid
of the house … of Codrus."
_C. F. Hermann,
Manual of the Political Antiquities of Greece,
chapter 5, section 106._
"The chief power was vested in the collective people; but in
order that it might be exercised with advantage it was
necessary that they should be endowed with common rights of
citizenship. Solon effected this by raising the lower class
from its degradation, and by subjecting to legal control those
who had till now formed the governing order, as well as by
rendering the liberty of both dependent upon the law. … This
change was brought about by two ordinances, which must not be
regarded as mere remedies for the abuses of that period, but
as the permanent basis of free and legal citizenship. The one
was the Seisachtheia; this was enacted by Solon to afford
relief to oppressed debtors, by reducing their debts in
amount, and by raising the value of money in the payment of
interest and principal; at the same time he abrogated the
former rigorous law of debt by which the freeman might be
reduced to servitude, and thus secured to him the unmolested
possession of his legal rights. … A second ordinance
enjoined, that their full and entire rights should be restored
to all citizens who had incurred Atimia, except to absolute
criminals. This was not only destined to heal the wounds which
had been caused by the previous dissensions, but as till that
time the law of debt had been able to reduce citizens to
Atimia, and the majority of the Atimoi pointed out by Solon
were slaves for debt, that declaration stood in close
connection with the Seisachtheia, and had the effect of a
proclamation from the state of its intention to guarantee the
validity of the new citizenship. … The right of
naturalization was granted by Solon to deserving aliens, when
6,000 citizens declared themselves in favour of the measure,
but these new citizens were likewise deficient in a few of the
privileges of citizenship. … The statement that Solon
received a great many foreigners as citizens, and every
artizan that presented himself, appears highly improbable, as
Solon was the first legislator who systematically regulated
the condition of the Metœci. The Metœci … probably took the
place of the former Demiurgi; their position was one of
sufferance, but the protection of the laws was guaranteed
them. … The servile order, exclusively consisting of
purchased aliens and their descendants, did not, as a body,
stand in direct relation with the state; individual slaves
became the property of individual citizens, but a certain
number were employed by the state as clerks, etc., and were
abandoned to the arbitrary pleasure of their oppressive
taskmasters. … Those who were manumitted stood upon the
footing of Metœci; the citizens who enfranchised them becoming
their Prostatæ. … Upon attaining the age of puberty, the
sons of citizens entered public life under the name of Ephebi.
The state gave them two years for the full development of
their youthful strength. … Upon the expiration of the
second, and according to the most authentic accounts, in their
eighteenth year, they received the shield and spear in the
popular assembly, complete armour being given to the sons of
those who had fallen in battle, and in the temple of Agraulos
took the oath of young citizens, the chief obligations of
which concerned the defence of their country, and then for the
space of one or two years performed military service in the
Attic border fortresses under the name of Peripoli. The
ceremony of arming them was followed by enrolment in the book
which contained the names of those who had attained majority;
this empowered the young citizen to manage his own fortune,
preside over a household, enter the popular assembly, and
speak. When he asserted the last right, viz., the Isegoria,
Parrhesia, he was denominated Rhetor, and this appellation
denoted the difference between him and the silent member of
the assembly, the Idiotes. … Upon attaining his 30th year,
the citizen might assert his superior rights; he was qualified
for a member of the sworn tribunal entitled Heliæa. … The
word Heliast does not merely signify a judge; but the citizen
who has fully attained maturity. … The judges of the courts
of the Diætetæ and Ephetæ, which existed without the circle of
the ordinary tribunals, were required to be still older men
than the Heliasts, viz., 50 or 60 years of age. Solon
appointed gradations in the rights of citizenship, according
to the conditions of a census in reference to offices of
state. … Upon the principle of a conditional equality of
rights, which assigns to everyone as much as he deserves, and
which is highly characteristic of Solon's policy in general,
he instituted four classes according to a valuation; these
were the Pentacosiomedimni [whose land yielded 500 measures of
wheat or oil], the Hippeis [horsemen], the Zeugitæ [owners of
a yoke of mules], and the Thetes [or laborers]. The valuation,
however, only affected that portion of capital from which
contributions to the state-burthens were required,
consequently, according to Böckh, a taxable capital. … The
Thetes, the last of these classes, were not regularly summoned
to perform military service, but only exercised the civic
right as members of the assembly and the law-courts; … the
highest class exclusively supplied the superior offices, such
as the archonship, and through this the council of the
Areopagus. … In lieu of the former council of
administration, of which no memorial has been preserved, Solon
instituted a Council of four hundred citizens taken from the
first three classes, 100 from every Phyle, of which no person
under 30 years of age could be a member. The appointments were
renewed annually; the candidates underwent an examination, and
such as were deemed eligible drew lots."
_W. Wachsmuth,
Historical Antiquities of the Greeks,
section 46-47 (volume 1)._
ALSO IN:
_G. F. Schömann,
Antiquity of Greece: The State,
part 3, chapter 3, section 4._
_E. Abbott,
History of Greece,
part 11, chapter 3._
_G. Grote,
History of Greece,
chapter 11._
_Plutarch,
Solon._
_Aristotle,
On the Constitution of Athens
(translated by E. Poste),
chapters 5-13._
See, also,
AREOPAGUS, PRYTANES, HELIÆA, and DEBT.
{149}
ATHENS: B. C. 560-510.
The tyranny of the Pisistratidæ.
"The constitution which he [Solon] framed was found to be
insufficient even in his own life-time. … The poor citizens
were still poor, in spite of the Seisachtheia and the reform
of the constitution. At the same time the admission of the
lowest class in the scale of property to the rights of
Athenian citizenship, and the authority given to the General
Assembly, had thrown a power into the hands of the masses
which filled the more conservative citizens with resentment
and alarm. And so the old party quarrels, which had divided
Attica before the reforms of Solon, reappeared after them with
even greater violence. The men of the plain were led by
Miltiades, a grandson of the tyrant of Corinth, and Lycurgus,
the son of Aristolaidas; the men of the shore by Megacles, the
Alcmæonid, who had recently strengthened the position of his
family by his marriage with Agariste, the daughter of
Clisthenes of Sicyon. At the head of the mountaineers stood
Pisistratus, a descendant of the royal stock of Nestor, who
… had greatly distinguished himself in the Salaminian war.
As he possessed property in the neighborhood of Marathon,
Pisistratus may have been intimately known to the inhabitants
of the adjacent hills. … Solon watched the failure of his
hopes with the deepest distress. He endeavoured to recall the
leaders of the contending parties to a sense of their duty to
the country, and to soothe the bitterness of their followers.
With a true instinct he regarded Pisistratus as by far the
most dangerous of the three. Pisistratus was an approved
general, and the faction which he led was composed of poor men
who had nothing to lose. … Pisistratus met the vehement
expressions of Solon by driving wounded into the market-place.
The people's friend had suffered in the people's cause; his
life was in danger. The incident roused the Athenians to an
unusual exercise of political power. Without any previous
discussion in the Council, a decree was passed by the people
allowing Pisistratus to surround himself with a body-guard of
fifty men, and to arm them with clubs. Thus protected, he
threw off all disguises, and established himself in the
Acropolis as tyrant of Athens [B. C. 560]. … Herodotus tells
us that Pisistratus was a just and moderate ruler. He did not
alter the laws or remove the existing forms of government. The
Council was still elected, the Assembly continued to meet,
though it is improbable that either the one or the other was
allowed to extend its functions beyond domestic affairs. The
archons still continued to be the executive magistrates of the
city, and cases of murder were tried, as of old, at the
Areopagus. The tyrant contented himself with occupying the
Acropolis with his troops and securing important posts in the
administration for his family or his adherents." Twice,
however, Pisistratus was driven from power by the combination
of his opponents, and into exile, for four years in the first
instance and for ten years in the last; but Athens was
compelled to accept him for a ruler in the end. "Pisistratus
remained in undisturbed possession of the throne till his
death in 527 B. C. He was succeeded by his eldest son Hippias,
with whom Hipparchus and Thessalus, his younger sons, were
associated in the government." But these younger tyrants soon
made themselves intolerably hateful, and a conspiracy formed
against them by Harmodius and Aristogeiton was successful in
taking the life of Hipparchus. Four years later, in 510 B. C.,
with the help of Delphi and Sparta, Hippias was driven from
the city. Clisthenes, at the head of the exiled Alcmæonids,
was the master-spirit of the revolution, and it was under his
guidance that the Athenian democratic
constitution was reorganized.
_E. Abbott,
History of Greece,
volume 1, chapter 15._
ALSO IN:
_G. Grote,
History of Greece,
chapter 11 and 30._
ATHENS: B. C. 510-507.
The constitution of Cleisthenes.
Advance of democracy.
"The expulsion of the Pisistratides left the democratical
party, which had first raised them to power, without a leader.
The Alcmæonids had always been considered as its adversaries,
though they were no less opposed to the faction of the nobles,
which seems at this time to have been headed by Isagoras. …
Cleisthenes found himself, as his party had always been,
unable to cope with it; he resolved, therefore, to shift his
ground, and to attach himself to that popular cause which
Pisistratus had used as the stepping stone of his ambition.
His aims, however, were not confined to a temporary advantage
over his rivals; he planned an important change in the
constitution, which should forever break the power of his
whole order, by dissolving some of the main links by which
their sway was secured. For this purpose, having gained the
confidence of the commonalty and obtained the sanction of the
Delphic oracle, he abolished the four ancient tribes, and made
a fresh geographical division of Attica into ten new tribes,
each of which bore a name derived from some Attic hero. The
ten tribes were subdivided into districts of various extent,
called demes, each containing a town or village. …
Cleisthenes appears to have preserved the ancient phratries;
but as they were now left insulated by the abolition of the
tribes to which they belonged, they lost all political
importance. … Cleisthenes at the same time increased the
strength of the commonalty by making a great many new
citizens, and he is said to have enfranchised not only
aliens—and these both residents and adventurers from
abroad—but slaves. … The whole frame of the state was
reorganized to correspond with the new division of the country.
{150}
The Senate of the Four Hundred was increased to Five Hundred,
that fifty might be drawn from each tribe, and the rotation of
the presidency was adapted to this change, the fifty
councillors of each tribe filling that office for thirty-five
or thirty-six days in succession, and nine councillors being
elected one from each of the other tribes to preside at the
Council and the Assembly of the People, which was now called
regularly four times in the month, certain business being
assigned to each meeting. The Heliæa was also distributed into
ten courts: and the same division henceforth prevailed in most
of the public offices, though the number of the archons
remained unchanged. To Cleisthenes also is ascribed the formal
institution of the ostracism. … These changes, and the
influence they acquired for their author, reduced the party of
Isagoras to utter weakness, and they saw no prospect of
maintaining themselves but by foreign aid." Isagoras,
accordingly, applied for help to Cleomenes, one of the kings
of Sparta, who had already interfered in Athenian affairs by
assisting at the expulsion of the Pisistratidæ. Cleomenes
responded by coming to Athens with a small force [B. C. 508],
which sufficed to overawe the people, and, assuming
dictatorial authority, he established Isagoras in power, with
an attempted rearrangement of the government. "He began by
banishing 700 families designated by Isagoras, and then
proceeded to suppress the Council of the Five Hundred, and to
lodge the government in the hands of Three Hundred of his
friend's partisans. When, however, the councillors resisted
this attempt, the people took heart, and, Cleomenes and
Isagoras having occupied the citadel, rose in a body and
besieged them there. As they were not prepared to sustain a
siege, they capitulated on the third day: Cleomenes and
Isagoras were permitted to depart with the Lacedæmonian
troops, but they were compelled to abandon their adherents to
the mercy of their enemies. All were put to death, and
Cleisthenes and the 700 banished families returned
triumphantly to Athens." Cleomenes soon afterwards raised a
force with which to subdue Athens and restore Isagoras. The
Athenians in their alarm sent an embassy to Sardis to solicit
the protection of the Persians. Fortunately, nothing came of
it, and Cleomenes was so much opposed in his project, by the
Corinthians and other allies of Sparta, that he had to give it
up.
_C. Thirlwall,
History of Greece,
chapter 11._
ALSO IN:
_G. Grote,
History of Greece,
part 2, chapter 31._
_E. Abbott,
History of Greece,
chapter 15._
_Aristotle,
On the Constitution of Athens
(translated by E. Poste),
chapter 20-22._
ATHENS: B. C. 509-506.
Hostile undertakings of Kleomenes and Sparta.
Help solicited from the Persian king.
Subjection refused.
Failure of Spartan schemes to restore tyranny.
Protest of the Corinthians.
Successful war with Thebes and Chalcis.
"With Sparta it was obvious that the Athenians now had a
deadly quarrel, and on the other side they knew that Hippias
was seeking to precipitate on them the power of the Persian
king. It seemed therefore to be a matter of stern necessity to
anticipate the intrigues of their banished tyrant; and the
Athenians accordingly sent ambassadors to Sardeis to make an
independent alliance with the Persian despot. The envoys, on
being brought into the presence of Artaphernes, the Satrap of
Lydia, were told that Dareios would admit them to an alliance
if they would give him earth and water,—in other words, if
they would acknowledge themselves his slaves. To this demand
of absolute subjection the envoys gave an assent which was
indignantly repudiated by the whole body of Athenian citizens.
… Foiled for the time in his efforts, Kleomenes was not cast
down. Regarding the Kleisthenian constitution as a personal
insult to himself, he was resolved that Isagoras should be
despot of Athens. Summoning the allies of Sparta [including
the Bœotian League headed by Thebes, and the people of Chalcis
in Eubœa], he led them as far as Eleusis, 12 miles only from
Athens, without informing them of the purpose of the campaign.
He had no sooner confessed it than the Corinthians, declaring
that they had been brought away from home on an unrighteous
errand, went back, followed by the other Spartan King,
Demaratos, the son of Ariston; and this conflict of opinion
broke up the rest of the army. This discomfiture of their
enemy seemed to inspire fresh strength into the Athenians, who
won a series of victories over the Boiotians and
Euboians"—completely overthrowing the latter—the
Chalcidians—taking possession of their city, and making it a
peculiar colony and dependency of Athens.—See KLERUCHS. The
anger of Kleomenes "on being discomfited at Eleusis by the
defection of his own allies was heightened by indignation at
the discovery that in driving out his friend Hippias he had
been simply the tool of Kleisthenes and of the Delphian
priestess whom Kleisthenes had bribed. It was now clear to him
and to his countrymen that the Athenians would not acquiesce
in the predominance of Sparta, and that if they retained their
freedom, the power of Athens would soon be equal to their own.
Their only safety lay, therefore, in providing the Athenians
with a tyrant. An invitation was, therefore, sent to Hippias
at Sigeion, to attend a congress of the allies at Sparta, who
were summoned to meet on the arrival of the exiled despot."
The appointed congress was held, and the Spartans besought
their allies to aid them in humbling the Athenian Democracy,
with the object of restoring Hippias to power. But again the
Corinthians protested, bluntly suggesting that if the Spartans
thought tyranny a good thing they might first try it for
themselves. Hippias, speaking in his own behalf, attempted to
convince them that the time was coming "in which they would
find the Athenians a thorn in their side. For the present his
exhortations were thrown away. The allies protested
unanimously against all attempts to interfere with the
internal administration of any Hellenic city; and the banished
tyrant went back disappointed to Sigeion."
_G. W. Cox,
The Greeks and the Persians,
chapter 4._
ALSO IN:
_G. Grote,
History of Greece,
part 2, chapter 31 (volume 4)._
{151}
ATHENS: B. C. 501-490.
Aid to Ionians against Persia.
Provocation of King Darius.
His wrath and attempted vengeance.
The first Persian invasions.
Battle of Marathon.
"It is undeniable that the extension of the Persian dominion
over Asia Minor, Syria, and Egypt gave a violent check to the
onward movement of Greek life. On the other hand, it seemed as
if the great enterprise of Darius Hystaspis against the
Scythians ought to have united the Greeks and Persians. It was
of a piece with the general policy of Darius that, after
defeating so many other adversaries, he undertook to prevent
for all succeeding time a repetition of those inroads with
which, some centuries before, the Scythians had visited Asia
and the civilized world. He possessed authority enough to
unite the different nations which obeyed his sceptre in a
great campaign against the Scythians. … The Greeks were his
best allies in his campaign; they built him the bridge by
which he crossed the Bosporus, and also the bridge of boats
over the Danube by which he made his invasion into the enemy's
territory. The result was not one which could properly be
called unfortunate; yet it was certainly of a very doubtful
character. … A great region, in which they had already
obtained very considerable influence, was closed to them once
more. The Persian army brought the populations upon the
Strymon, many in number and individually weak, under the
dominion of Persia; and even Amyntas, the king of Makedonia,
one of a race of rulers of Greek origin, was compelled to do
homage to the Great King. Thus the movement which had thrust
back the Greeks from Egypt and Asia Minor made advances even
into the regions of Europe which bordered upon Northern
Hellas. It was an almost inevitable consequence of this that
the Greeks were menaced and straitened even in their proper
home. A pretext and opportunity for an attack upon the Greek
islands was presented to the Persians by the questions at
issue between the populations of the cities and the tyrants.
… The instrument by whom the crisis was brought about was
not a person of any great importance. It is not always great
natures, or natures strong in the consciousness of their own
powers, that bring on such conflicts; this is sometimes the
work of those flexible characters which, being at the point of
contact between the opposing forces, pass from one side to the
other. Such a character was Aristagoras of Miletus. …
Morally contemptible, but gifted intellectually with a range
of ideas of unlimited extent, Aristagoras made for himself an
imperishable name by being the first to entertain the thought
of a collective opposition to the Persians on the part of all
the Greeks, even contemplating the possibility of waging a
great and successful offensive war upon them. … He announced
in Miletus his own resignation of power and the restoration to
the people of their old laws. … A general overthrow of
tyranny ensued [B. C. 501], involving a revolt from Persia,
and Strategi were everywhere appointed. The supreme power in
the cities was based upon a good understanding between the
holders of power and the Persians; the fact that one of these
rulers found the authority of the Persians intolerable was the
signal for a universal revolt. Aristagoras himself voluntarily
renounced the tyranny, the other tyrants were compelled to
take the same course; and thus the cities, assuming at the
same time a democratic organization, came into hostility with
Persia. … The cities and islands which had so often been
forced to submission could not hope to resist the Persians by
their own unaided efforts. Even Aristagoras could not have
expected so much. … He visited Lakedæmon, the strongest of
the Greek powers, in person, and endeavored to carry her with
him in his plans. … Rejected by Sparta, Aristagoras betook
himself to Athens. … The Athenians granted Aristagoras
twenty ships, to which the Eretrians, from friendship to
Miletus, added five more. The courage of the Ionians was thus
revived, and an attack upon the Persian dominion commenced,
directed, not indeed against Susa, but against Sardis, in
their immediate neighborhood, the capital of the satrapy which
imposed on them their heaviest burdens. … By the burning of
Sardis, in which a sanctuary of Kybele had been destroyed, the
Syrian nations had been outraged in the person of their gods.
We know that it was part of the system of the Persians to take
the gods of a country under their protection. Nor would the
great king who thought himself appointed to be master of the
world fail to resent an invasion of his dominions as an insult
calling for revenge. The hostile attempts of the Ionians made
no great impression upon him, but he asked who were the
Athenians, of whose share in the campaign he had been
informed. They were foreigners, of whose power the king had
scarcely heard. … The enterprise of Aristagoras had
meanwhile caused general commotion. He had by far the larger
part of Cyprus, together with the Carians, on his side. All
the country near the Propontis and the Hellespont was in
revolt. The Persians were compelled to make it their first
concern to suppress this insurrection, a task which, if
attempted by sea, did not promise to be an easy one. In their
first encounter with the Phœnicians the Ionians had the
advantage. When, however, the forces of the great empire were
assembled, the insurrection was everywhere put down. … It
must be reckoned among the consequences of the battle of Lade,
by which the combination against the Persian empire had been
annihilated, that King Darius, not content with having
consolidated his dominion in Ionia, once more resumed the plan
of pushing forward into Europe, of which his enterprise
against the Scythians formed part. With the execution of this
project he commissioned one of the principal persons of the
empire and the court, … Mardonius by name, whom he united to
his family by marrying him to his daughter. … This general
crossed the Hellespont with a large army, his fleet always
accompanying him along the shore whilst he pushed on by the
mainland. He once more subdued Makedonia, probably the
districts which had not yet, like the Makedonian king, been
brought into subjection, and gave out that his aim was
directed against Eretria and Athens, the enemies of the king.
… In the stormy waters near Mount Athos, which have always
made the navigation of the Ægean difficult, his fleet suffered
ship-wreck. But without naval supports he could not hope to
gain possession of an island and a maritime town situated on a
promontory. Even by land he encountered resistance, so that he
found it advisable to postpone the further execution of his
undertakings to another time. … In order to subdue the
recalcitrants, especially Athens and Eretria, another attempt
was organized without delay. Under two generals, one of whom,
Datis, was a Mede, the other, Artaphernes, the son of the
satrap of Sardis of the same name, and brother of the Darius
who was in alliance with Hippias, a maritime expedition was
undertaken for the immediate subjugation of the islands and
the maritime districts.
{152}
It was not designed for open hostility against the Greeks in
general. … Their design was to utilize the internal
dissensions of Greece in conquering the principal enemies upon
whom the Great King had sworn vengeance, and presenting them
as captives at his feet. The project succeeded in the case of
Eretria. In spite of a brave resistance it fell by treachery
into their hands, and they could avenge the sacrilege
committed at Sardis by plundering and devastating Grecian
sanctuaries. They expected now to be able to overpower Athens
also without much trouble. … It was a circumstance of great
value to the Athenians that there was a man amongst them who
was familiar with the Persian tactics. This was Miltiades, the
son of Kimon. … Although a Thracian prince, he had never
ceased to be a citizen of Athens. Here he was impeached for
having held a tyranny, but was acquitted and chosen strategus,
for the democracy could not reject a man who was so admirably
qualified to be at their head in the interchange of
hostilities with Persia. Miltiades was conducting his own
personal quarrel in undertaking the defence of Attica. The
force of the Persians was indeed incomparably the larger, but
the plains of Marathon, on which they were drawn up, prevented
their proper deployment, and they saw with astonishment the
Athenian hoplites displaying a front as extended as their own.
These troops now rushed upon them with an impetus which grew
swifter at every moment. The Persians easily succeeded in
breaking through the centre of the Athenian army; but that was
of no moment, for the strength of the onset lay in the two
wings, where now began a hand-to-hand fight. The Persian
sword, formidable elsewhere, was not adapted to do good
service against the bronze armor and the spear of the
Hellenes. On both flanks the Athenians obtained the advantage,
and now attacked the Persian centre, which was not able to
withstand the onslaught of men whose natural vigor was
heightened by gymnastic training. The Persians, to their
misfortune, had calculated upon desertion in the ranks of
their opponents; foiled in this hope, they retreated to the
shore and to their ships. Herodotus intimates that the
Persians had secret intelligence with a party in Athens, and
took their course round the promontory of Sunium toward the
city, in the hope of surprising it. But when they came to
anchor the Athenians had arrived also, and they saw themselves
once more confronted by the victors of Marathon."
_L. von Ranke,
Universal History,
chapter 6._
ALSO IN:
_Herodotus,
History,
book 6._
_V. Duruy,
History of Greece,
chapter 16 (volume 2)_.
See, also, PERSIA: B. C. 521-493,
and GREECE: B. C. 492-491, and 490.
ATHENS: B. C. 489-480.
Condemnation and death of Miltiades.
The Æginetan war.
Naval power created by Themistocles.
"The victory of Marathon was chiefly due to Miltiades; it was
he who brought on the engagement, and he was chief in command
on the day when the battle was fought. Such a brilliant
success greatly improved his position in the city, and excited
in his enemies a still deeper hatred. Ever on the watch for an
opportunity to pull down their rival, it was not long before
they found one. Soon after his victory, Miltiades came before
the Athenians with a request that a squadron of 70 ships might
be placed at his disposal. The purpose for which he required
them he would not disclose, though pledging his word that the
expedition would add largely to the wealth and prosperity of
the city. The request being granted, he sailed with the ships
to Paros, an island which at this time was subject to Persia.
From the Parians he demanded 100 talents, and when they
refused to pay he blockaded the city. So vigorous and
successful was the resistance offered that, after a long
delay, Miltiades, himself dangerously wounded, was compelled
to return home. His enemies, with Xanthippus at their head, at
once attacked him for misconduct in the enterprise. …
Miltiades was unable to reply in person; he was carried into
court, while his friends pleaded his cause. The sentence was
given against him, but the penalty was reduced from death to a
fine of 50 talents. So large a sum was more than even
Miltiades could pay; he was thrown into prison as a public
debtor, where he soon died from the mortification of his
wound. … His condemnation was one in a long series of
similar punishments. The Athenians never learnt to be just to
those who served them, or to distinguish between treachery and
errors of judgment. … We have very little information about
the state of Athens immediately after the battle of Marathon.
So far as we can tell, for the chronology is most uncertain,
she was now engaged in a war with Ægina. … Meanwhile, a man
was rising to power, who may be said to have created the
history of Athens for the rest of the century,—Themistocles,
the son of Neocles. … On the very day of Marathon,
Themistocles had probably made up his mind that the Persians
would visit Greece again. What was to keep them away, so long
as they were masters of the Ægean? … With an insight almost
incredible he perceived that the Athenians could become a
maritime nation; that Athens possesses harbours large enough
to receive an enormous fleet, and capable of being strongly
fortified; that in possession of a fleet she could not only
secure her own safety, but stand forth as a rival power to
Sparta. But how could Themistocles induce the Athenians to
abandon the line in which they had been so successful for a
mode of warfare in which even Miltiades had failed? After the
fall of the great general, the conduct of affairs was in the
hands of Xanthippus … and Aristides. … They were by no
means prepared for the change which Themistocles was
meditating. This is more especially true of Aristides. He had
been a friend of Clisthenes; he was known as an admirer of
Spartan customs. … He had been second in command at
Marathon, and was now the most eminent general at Athens. From
him Themistocles could only expect the most resolute
opposition. Xanthippus and Aristides could reckon on the
support of old traditions and great connections. Themistocles
had no support of the kind. He had to make his party …
conscious of their own position, Aristides and Xanthippus
looked with contempt upon the knot of men who began to gather
round their unmannerly and uncultivated leader. And they
might, perhaps, have maintained their position if it had not
been for the Æginetan war. That unlucky struggle had begun,
soon after the reforms of Clisthenes, with an unprovoked
attack of the Æginetans on the coast of Attica (506 B. C.),
[Ægina being allied with Thebes in the war mentioned
above—B.C. 509-506].
{153}
It was renewed when the Æginetans gave earth and water to the
heralds of Darius in 491, and though suspended at the time of
the Persian invasion, it broke out again with renewed ferocity
soon afterwards. The Æginetans had the stronger fleet, and
defeated the Athenian ships. "Such experiences naturally
caused a change in the minds of the Athenians. … It was
clear that the old arrangements for the navy were quite
inadequate to the task which was now required of them. Yet the
leaders of the state made no proposals." Themistocles now
"came forward publicly with proposals of naval reform, and, as
he expected, he drew upon himself the strenuous opposition of
Aristides. … It was clear that nothing decisive could be
done in the Æginetan war unless the proposals of Themistocles
were carried; it was equally clear that they never would be
carried while Aristides and Xanthippus were at hand to oppose
them. Under these circumstances recourse was had to the
safety-valve of the constitution. Ostracism was proposed and
accepted; and in this manner, by 483 B. C., Themistocles had
got rid of both of his rivals in the city. He was now master
of the situation. The only obstacle to the realization of his
plans was the expense involved in building ships. And this he
was able to meet by a happy accident, which brought into the
treasury at this time a large surplus from the silver mines
from Laurium. … By the summer of 480, the Athenians … were
able to launch 180 vessels, besides providing 20 for the use
of the Chalcideans of Eubœa. … At the same time Themistocles
set about the fortification of the Peiræus. … Could he have
carried the Athenians with him, he would have made the Peiræus
the capital of the country, in order that the ships and the
city might be in close connection. But for this the people
were not prepared."
_E. Abbott,
Pericles and the Golden Age of Athens,
chapter 2._
ALSO IN: Plutarch, _Aristides. Themistocles._
ATHENS: B. C. 481-479.
Congress at Corinth.
Organized Hellenic Union, under the headship of Sparta.
See GREECE: B. C. 481-479.
ATHENS: B. C. 480-479.
The second Persian invasion.
Thermopylæ, Artemisium, Salamis, Platæa.
Abandonment of the City.
"The last days of Darius were clouded by the disaster of
Marathon; 'that battle formed the turning point of his good
fortune,' and it would seem that the news of it led to several
insurrections, particularly that of Egypt; but they were soon
put down. Darius died (Olymp. 73, 3), and Xerxes, who
succeeded him, was prevented from taking revenge on the
Athenians by the revolt of Egypt, which engaged his attention
during the first years of his reign. But he completely
conquered the insurgents after they had maintained themselves
about four or five years; and he then made preparations for
that vengeance on Athens for which his barbarian pride was
longing. The account of the three years' preparations of
Xerxes, how he assembled his army in Asia Minor, how he made a
bridge across the Hellespont, how he cut a canal through the
isthmus of Mount Athos to prevent his fleet being destroyed by
storms—all this is known to everyone who has read Herodotus.
History is here so much interwoven with poetry, that they can
no longer be separated. … The Greeks awaited the attack
(Olymp. 75, 1), 'but they were not agreed among themselves.
The Argives from hatred of Sparta joined the Persians, and the
miserable Boeotians likewise supported them. The others kept
together only from necessity; and without the noble spirit of
the Athenians Greece would have been lost, and that from the
most paltry circumstances. A dispute arose as to who was to be
honoured with the supreme command; the Athenians gave way to
all, for their only desire was to save Greece. Had the
Persians moved on rapidly, they would have met with no
resistance, but they proceeded slowly, and matters turned out
differently.' A Greek army was encamped at Tempe, at the
entrance of Thessaly, and at first determined on defending
Thessaly. But they must have seen that they could be entirely
surrounded from Upper Thessaly; and when they thus discovered
the impossibility of stopping the Persians, they retreated.
The narrative now contains one inconceivable circumstance
after another. … It is inconceivable that, as the Greeks did
make a stand at Thermopylae, no one else took his position
there except King Leonidas and his Spartans, not including
even the Lacedaemonians, for they remained at home! Only 1,000
Phocians occupied the heights, though that people might surely
have furnished 10,000 men; 400 of the Boeotians were posted in
the rear, as a sort of hostages, as Herodotus remarks, and 700
Thespians. Where were all the rest of the Greeks? …
Countless hosts are invading Greece; the Greeks want to defend
themselves, and are making active preparations at sea; but on
land hundreds of thousands are met by a small band of
Peloponnesians. 700 Thespians, 400 Thebans as hostages, and
1,000 Phocians, stationed on the heights! A pass is occupied,
but only that one, and the others are left unguarded. … All
this is quite unintelligible; it would almost appear as if
there had been an intention to sacrifice Leonidas and his men;
but we cannot suppose this. These circumstances alone suggest
to us, that the numbers of the Persian army cannot have been
as great as they are described; but even if we reduce them to
an immense extent, it still remains inconceivable why they
were not opposed by greater numbers of the Greeks, for as
afterwards they ventured to attack the Persians in the open
field, it was certainly much more natural to oppose them while
marching across the hills. But however this may be, it is an
undoubted fact, that Leonidas and his Spartans fell in the
contest, of which we may form a conception from the
description of Herodotus, when after a resistance of three
days they were surrounded by the Persians. A few of the
Spartans escaped on very excusable grounds, but they were so
generally despised, that their life became unendurable, and
they made away with themselves. This is certainly historical.
… After the victory of Thermopylae all Hellas lay open
before the Persians, and they now advanced towards Athens, a
distance which they could march in a few days. Thebes opened
her gates, and joyfully admitted them from hatred of Athens.
Meantime a portion of the army appeared before Delphi. It is
almost inconceivable that the Persians did not succeed in
taking the temple. … The miracles by which the temple is
said to have been saved, are repeated in the same manner
during the attack of the Gauls.
{154}
But the temple of Delphi was certainly not
plundered.' … The city of Athens had in the meantime been
abandoned by all the people; the defenceless had taken refuge
in the small island of Salamis, or of Troezen, 'and all the
Athenians capable of bearing arms embarked in the fleet.' …
The Persians thus took Athens without any resistance. …
During the same days on which the battle of Thermopylae was
fought, the Greek fleet was engaged in two indecisive but
glorious battles near the promontory of Artemisium. 'In a
third the Persians gained the upper hand, and when the Greeks
at the same time heard of the defeat at Thermopylae, they
withdrew, and doubling Cape Sunium sailed towards Salamis.'
God sent them a storm whereby the Persians in their pursuit
suffered shipwreck. … While the Greek fleet was stationed in
the channel between the island of Salamis and Attica, towards
Piraeeus, discord broke out among the Greeks. The
Peloponnesians thought only of themselves; they had fortified
the Isthmus; there they were assembled, and there they wanted
to offer resistance to the Persians. In their folly they
forgot, that if the enemy with his superior fleet, should turn
against Peloponnesus, they might land wherever they liked. …
But Themistocles now declared, that all the hopes of the
Athenians were directed towards the recovery of their own
city; that, if the Peloponnesians should sacrifice them, and,
thinking of themselves only, should abandon Attica to the
barbarians, the Athenians would not be so childish as to
sacrifice themselves for them, but would take their women and
children on board their ships, and sail far away from the
Persians to the island of Sardinia, or some other place where
Greek colonies were established; that there they would settle
as a free people, and abandon Peloponnesus to its fate; and
that then the peninsula would soon be in the hands of the
enemy. This frightened the Peloponnesians, and they resolved
to stand by Athens. It is evident that, throughout that time,
Themistocles had to struggle with the most intolerable
difficulties, which the allies placed in his way, as well as
with their jealousy, meanness, and insolence. 'The rudeness of
the Spartans and Corinthians is nowhere more strongly
contrasted with the refinement of the Athenians, than on that
occasion.' But after he had tried everything, and overcome by
every possible means a hundred different difficulties, he yet
saw, that he could not rely on the perseverance of the
Peloponnesians, and that they would turn to the Isthmus as
soon as Xerxes should proceed in that direction. He
accordingly induced the Persian king, by a false message, to
surround the Greek fleet, for the purpose of cutting off the
retreat of the Peloponnesians. He declared himself ready to
deliver the whole of the Greek fleet into his hands. This
device was quite to the mind of the Persians; Xerxes believed
him, and followed his advice. When Themistocles was thus sure
of the Peloponnesians, the ever-memorable battle of Salamis
commenced, which is as certainly historical as that of Cannae,
or any modern battle, 'whatever the numbers may be.' The
battle proceeded somewhat in the manner of the battle of
Leipzig: when the issue was decided, a portion of those who
ought to have joined their countrymen before, made common
cause with the Greeks. … Their accession increased the
victory of the Greeks. … Certain as the battle of Salamis
is, all the accounts of what took place after it, are very
doubtful. This much is certain, that Xerxes returned, 'leaving
a portion of his army under Mardonius in Greece;' … Winter
was now approaching, and Mardonius withdrew from ravaged
Attica, taking up his winter-quarters partly in Thessaly and
partly in Boeotia. … The probability is, that the Athenians
remained the winter in Salamis in sheds, or under the open
sky. Mardonius offered to restore to them Attica uninjured, so
far as it had not already been devastated, if they would
conclude peace with him. They might at that time have obtained
any terms they pleased, if they had abandoned the common cause
of the Greeks; and the Persians would have kept the peace; for
when they concluded treaties they observed them: they were not
faithless barbarians. But on this occasion again, we see the
Athenian people in all its greatness and excellence; it
scorned such a peace, and preferred the good of the
Peloponnesians. … Mardonius now again advanced towards
Athens; the Spartans, who ought to have proceeded towards
Cithaeron, had not arrived, and thus he again took possession
of Attica and ravaged it completely. At length, however
(Olymp. 75, 2), the Athenians prevailed upon the
Peloponnesians to leave the Isthmus, and they gradually
advanced towards Boeotia. There the battle of Plataeae was
fought. … In regard to the accounts of this battle, it is
historically certain that it was completely won by the Greeks,
and that the remnants of the Persian army retreated without
being vigorously pursued. It must have reached Asia, but it
then disappears. It is also historically certain, that
Pausanias was the commander of the allied army of the Greeks.
… After their victory, the Greeks advanced towards Thebes.
In accordance with a vow which they had made before the war,
Thebes ought to have been destroyed by the Greeks. But their
opinions were divided. … On the same day on which the battle
of Plataeae was fought, the allied Greeks gained as complete a
victory at sea. … After this victory of Mycale, the Ionian
cities revolted against the Persians."
_B. G. Niebuhr,
Lectures on Ancient History,
volume 1, lectures 37 and 38._
ALSO IN:
_Herodotus,
History;
translated and edited by H. Rawlinson,
book 7 (volume 4)_.
_Plutarch,
Themistocles._
_G. W. Cox,
The Greeks and Persians._
ATHENS: B. C. 479-478.
Protection of Ionia assumed.
Siege and capture of Sestus.
Rebuilding and enlargement of the city and its walls.
Interference of Sparta foiled by Themistocles.
"The advantages obtained by the Hellenes [in their war with
Persia] came upon them so unexpectedly as to find them totally
unprepared, and accordingly embarrassed by their own
victories. What was to be done with Ionia? Was the whole
country to be admitted into the Hellenic confederation? Too
great a responsibility would, in the opinion of the
Peloponnesians, be incurred by such a step. … It would be
better to sacrifice the country, and establish the Ionians in
settlements in other parts, at the expense of those who had
favoured the Medes, i. e., of the Argives, Bœotians, Locrians,
and Thessalians. … The Athenians, on the other hand,
espoused the cause of the cities. … Ionia ought to be a
bulwark against the Barbarians, and to belong to the Hellenes.
{155}
… The Athenians found a support in the feeling prevalent
among the Ionians, who were naturally opposed to any forced
settlement. Accordingly, in the first instance, Samos, Lesbos,
Chios, and a number of other island-towns, were admitted into
the confederation … and a new Hellas was formed, a Greek
empire comprehending both sides of the sea. Considerations of
caution made it necessary, above all, to secure the passage
from Asia to Europe; for it was universally believed that the
bridge over the Hellespont was either still in existence or
had been restored. When it was found to have been destroyed,
the Peloponnesians urged the termination of the campaign. …
The Athenians, on the other hand, declared themselves resolved
… not to leave unfinished what they had begun. Sestus, the
strongest fortress on the Hellespont, ought not to be left in
the hands of the enemy; an attack on it ought to be risked
without delay, before the city had prepared for a siege. They
allowed the Peloponnesians to take their departure, and under
the command of Xanthippus united with the ships of the Ionians
and Hellespontians for the purpose of new undertakings." The
Persians in Sestus resisted obstinately, enduring a long
siege, but were forced to surrender at last. "Meanwhile, the
main point consisted in the Athenians having remained alone in
the field, in their having fraternized with the Ionians as one
naval power, and having after such successes attained to a
confidence in victory, to which no enterprise any longer
seemed either too distant or too difficult. Already they
regarded their city as the centre of the coast-lands of
Greece. But what was the condition of this city of Athens
itself? A few fragments of the ancient city wall, a few
scattered houses, which had served the Persian commanders as
their quarters, were yet standing; the rest was ashes and
ruins. After the battle of Platææ the inhabitants had returned
from Salamis, Trœzene, and Ægina; not even the fleet and its
crews were at hand to afford them assistance. They endeavoured
to make shift as best they could, to pass through the trials
of the winter. As soon as the spring arrived, the restoration
of the city was commenced with all possible activity. … But
even now it was not the comforts of domesticity which occupied
their thoughts, but, above all, the city as a whole and its
security. To Themistocles, the founder of the port-town,
public confidence was in this matter properly accorded." It
was not possible "to carry out a new and regular plan for the
city; but it was resolved to extend its circumference beyond
the circle of the ancient walls, … so as to be able, in case
of a future siege, to offer a retreat to the
country-population within the capital itself. … But the
Athenians were not even to be permitted to build their walls
undisturbed; for, as soon as their grand plan of operations
became known, the envy and insidious jealousy of their
neighbours broke out afresh. … The Peloponnesian states,
above all Ægina and Corinth, hastened to direct the attention
of Sparta to the situation of affairs. … As at Sparta city
walls were objected to on principle, and as no doubts
prevailed with regard to the fact that z well-fortified town
was impregnable to the military art of the Peloponnesians, it
was actually resolved at any price to prevent the building of
the walls in Attica." But, for shame's sake, the interference
undertaken by Sparta was put upon the ground that in the event
of a future invasion of the country, only the peninsula could
be successfully defended; that central Greece would
necessarily be abandoned to the enemy; and that every
fortified city in it would furnish him a dangerous base. "At
such a crisis craft alone could be of avail. When the Spartans
made their imperious demand at Athens, Themistocles ordered
the immediate cessation of building operations, and with
assumed submissiveness, promised to present himself at Sparta,
in order to pursue further negotiations in person. On his
arrival there, he allowed one day after the other to go by,
pretending to be waiting for his fellow envoys." In the
meantime, all Athens was toiling night and day at the walls,
and time enough was gained by the audacious duplicity of
Themistocles to build them to a safe height for defence. "The
enemies of Athens saw that their design had been foiled, and
were forced to put the best face upon their discomfiture. They
now gave out that they had intended nothing beyond good
advice."
_E. Curtius,
History of Greece,
book 3, chapter 2 (volume 2)._
ALSO IN
_G. W. Cox,
History of Greece,
book 2, chapter 7-8 (volume 1-2)._
ATHENS: B. C. 478-477.
Alienation of the Asiatic Greeks from Sparta.
Formation of the Confederacy of Delos.
The founding of Athenian Empire.
See GREECE: B. C. 478-477.
ATHENS: B. C. 477-462.
Constitutional gains for the democracy.
Ascendency of Aristeides.
Declining popularity and ostracism of Themistokles.
The sustentation of the commons.
The stripping of power from the Areopagus.
At the time when the Confederacy of Delos was formed, "the
Persians still held not only the important posts of Eion on
the Strymon and Doriskus in Thrace, but also several other
posts in that country which are not specified to us. We may
thus understand why the Greek cities on and near the Chalkidic
peninsula … were not less anxious to seek protection in the
bosom of the new confederacy than the Dorian islands of Rhodes
and Cos, the Ionic islands of Samos and Chios, the Æolic
Lesbos and Tenedos, or continental towns such as Miletus and
Byzantium. … Some sort of union, organised and obligatory
upon each city, was indispensable to the safety of all.
Indeed, even with that aid, at the time when the Confederacy
of Delos was first formed, it was by no means certain the
Asiatic enemy would be effectually kept out, especially as the
Persians were strong not merely from their own force, but also
from the aid of internal parties in many of the Grecian
states—traitors within, as well as exiles without. Among
these traitors, the first in rank as well as the most
formidable, was the Spartan Pausanias." Pausanias, whose
treasonable intrigues with the Persian king began at Byzantium
(See GREECE: B. C. 478-477) was convicted some nine or ten
years later, and suffered a terrible fate, being shut within a
temple to which he had fled, and starved. "His treasonable
projects implicated and brought to disgrace a man far greater
than himself—the Athenian Themistokles. … The charge
[against Themistokles] of collusion with the Persians connects
itself with the previous movement of political parties. …
The rivalry of Themistokles and Aristeides had been greatly
appeased by the invasion of Xerxes, which had imposed upon both
the peremptory necessity of cooperation against a common enemy.
{156}
And apparently it was not resumed during the times which
immediately succeeded the return of the Athenians to their
country: at least we hear of both in effective service and in
prominent posts. Themistokles stands forward as the contriver
of the city walls and architect of Peiraeus: Aristeides is
commander of the fleet and first organiser of the Confederacy
of Delos. Moreover we seem to detect a change in the character
of the latter. He had ceased to be the champion of Athenian
old-fashioned landed interest, against Themistokles as the
originator of the maritime innovations. Those innovations had
now, since the battle of Salamis, become an established fact.
… From henceforth the fleet is endeared to every man as the
grand force, offensive and defensive, of the state, in which
character all the political leaders agree in accepting it. …
The triremes, and the men who manned them, taken collectively,
were now the determining element in the state. Moreover, the
men who manned them had just returned from Salamis, fresh from
a scene of trial and danger, and from a harvest of victory,
which had equalized for the moment all Athenians as sufferers,
as combatants, and as patriots. … The political change
arising from hence in Athens was not less important than the
military. 'The maritime multitude, authors of the victory of
Salamis,' and instruments of the new vocation at Athens as
head of the Delian Confederacy, appear now ascendant in the
political constitution also; not in any way as a separate or
privileged class, but as leavening the whole mass,
strengthening the democratical sentiment, and protesting
against all recognised political inequalities. … Early after
the return to Attica, the Kleisthenian constitution was
enlarged as respects eligibility to the magistracy. According
to that constitution, the fourth or last class on the Solonian
census, including the considerable majority of freemen, were
not admissible to offices of state, though they possessed
votes in common with the rest; no person was eligible to be a
magistrate unless he belonged to one of the three higher
classes. This restriction was now annulled and eligibility
extended to all the citizens; We may appreciate the strength
of feeling with which such reform was demanded when we find
that it was proposed by Aristeides. … The popularity thus
ensured to him, probably heightened by some regret for his
previous ostracism, was calculated to acquire permanence from
his straightforward and incorruptible character, now brought
into strong relief by his function as assessor to the new
Delian Confederacy. On the other hand, the ascendency of
Themistokles, though so often exalted by his unrivalled
political genius and daring, as well as by the signal value of
his public recommendations, was as often overthrown by his
duplicity of means and unprincipled thirst for money. New
political opponents sprung up against him, men sympathising
with Aristeides. … Of these the chief were Kimon [Cimon],
(son of Miltiades), and Alkmæon." In 471 B. C. Themistokles
was sent into exile by a vote of ostracism, and retired to
Argos. Five years later he was accused of complicity in the
treasonable intrigues of Pausanias, and fled to the court of
the Persian king, where he spent the remainder of his days.
"Aristeides died about three or four years after the ostracism
of Themistokles."
_G. Grote,
History of Greece,
part 2, chapter 44 (volume 5)_.
The constitutional effects of the Persian war, and the
political situation of Athens immediately after the war, are
represented somewhat differently from the account above, in
the lately discovered work on the Constitution of Athens which
is attributed to Aristotle. The following is quoted from one
of the translations of the latter: "After the Median war the
council of Areopagus [See AREOPAGUS] recovered strength and
ruled the state, not that any law conferred the hegemony on
them, but because the aristocratic party had the credit of the
victory at Salamis. For when the generals had despaired of the
country and proclaimed a sauve qui peut, the Areopagus raised
funds, gave every man eight drachmas (6s. 6d.) and induced
them to man the ships. In consequence of this public service
the Ecclesia yielded the ascendency to the Areopagus, and
public affairs were admirably administered during the
following epoch. For they acquired the art of war, made their
name honoured throughout the Hellenic world, and possessed
themselves of the sovereignty of the sea with the consent of
Lakedaimon. At this time the leaders of the commons were
Aristeides, son of Lusimachos, and Themistokles, son of
Neokles; the latter studious of the arts of war, the former
reputed eminent in statesmanship and honest beyond his
contemporaries; which characters made their countrymen employ
the one as a general, the other as a councillor. The
rebuilding of the walls of Athens was their joint work, though
they were otherwise at feud. The detachment of the Ionians
from Persia and the formation of an alliance with Sparta were
due to the counsels of Aristeides, who seized the opportunity
afforded by the discredit cast on the Lakonians by the conduct
of Pausanias. He too originally apportioned, two years after
the battle of Salamis, in the archonship of Timosthenes (478
B. C.), the contribution to be paid by the islanders. …
Subsequently, when lofty thoughts filled every bosom and
wealth was accumulating, Aristeides advised them to administer
the hegemony with their own hands, to leave their country
occupations and fix their domicile in the city. Sustentation,
he promised, would be provided for all, either as soldiers or
sailors in active service, or as troops in garrison or as
public servants; and then they could increase the vigour of
their imperial sway. They followed his advice, and, taking the
rule into their own hands, reduced their allies to the
position of vassals, except the Chians, Lesbians, and Samians,
whom they kept as satellites of their power, and permitted to
retain their own constitutions and to rule their own
dependencies: and they provided for their own sustentation by
the method which Aristeides indicated; for in the end the
public revenues, the taxes and the tributes of the allies gave
maintenance to more than 20,000. There were 6,000 dicasts or
jurors, 1,600 archers, 1,200 cavalry, 500 senators, 500
soldiers of the dockyard garrison, 50 city guards, 700 home
magistrates, 700 foreign magistrates, 2,500 heavy armed
soldiers (this was their number at the beginning of the
Peloponnesian war), 4,000 sailors manning 20 guardships, 2,000
sailors appointed by lot, manning 20 tribute-collecting ships,
and in addition to these the Prutaneion, the orphans, the
gaolers; and all these persons were maintained at the expense
of the national treasury. The sustentation of the commons was
thus secured.
{157}
The 17 years which followed the Median war were about the
period during which the country continued under the ascendency
of the Areopagus, though its aristocratic features were
gradually on the wane. When the masses had grown more and more
preponderant, Ephialtes, son of Sophonides, reputed
incorruptible in his loyalty to democracy, became leader of
the commons, and began to attack the Areopagus. First, he put
to death many of its members, by impeaching them of offences
committed in their administration. Afterwards in the
archonship of Konon (462 B. C.) he despoiled the council
itself of all its more recently acquired attributes, which
were the keystone of the existing constitution, and
distributed them among the Senate of 500, the Ecclesia, and
the courts of law. In this work he had the co-operation of
Themistokles, who was himself an Areopagite, but expecting to
be impeached for treasonable correspondence with Persia. …
Ephialtes and Themistokles kept accusing the Areopagus before
the Senate of 500, and again before the commons, till finally
they stripped it of all its principal functions. The
assassination of Ephialtes by the instrumentality of
Aristodikos of Tanagra followed not long after. Such were the
circumstances of the overthrow of the Areopagus. After this
the degradation of the constitution proceeded without
intermission from the eagerness of politicians to win popular
favour; and at the same time there happened to be no organizer
of the aristocratic party, whose head, Kimon, the son of
Miltiades, was too young for some years to enter political
life; besides which their ranks were much devastated by war.
Expeditionary forces were recruited by conscription; and as
the generals had no military experience and owed their
appointment to the reputation of their ancestors, each
expedition entailed the sacrifice of 2,000 or 3,000 lives,
chiefly of the noblest sons of Athens, whether belonging to
the wealthy classes or to the commons."—Aristotle, On the
Constitution of Athens (translated by E. Poste.) chapter
23-26.—On the above, Dr. Abbott comments as follows: "So much
of this account as refers to Themistocles may be at once
dismissed as unhistorical. … If the evidence of Thucydides
is to count for anything, it is quite certain that
Themistocles finally left Greece for Persia about 466 B. C.
… Plutarch says not a word about Themistocles. But the
remainder of the account [of the attack on the Areopagus] is
supported by all our authorities—if indeed it is not merely
repeated by them."
_E. Abbott,
History of Greece,
part 2, chapter 11, section 5._
ALSO IN
_J. P. Mahaffy,
Problems in Greek History,
page 96._
_Plutarch,
Themistocles._
See, also, below: B. C. 466-454.
ATHENS: B. C. 470-466.
Continued war against the Persians.
Cimon's victories at the Eurymedon.
Revolt and subjugation of Naxos.
"Under the guidance of Athens, the war against the Persians
was continued. Cimon [Kimon] sailed with a fleet to the coast
of Thrace, and laid siege to Eion on the Strymon [B. C. 470].
The Persian garrison made a gallant defence; and finally
Boges, the governor, rather than surrender, cast all his gold
and silver into the river; and, having raised a huge pile of
wood, slew his wives, children and slaves, and laid their
bodies on it; then setting fire to it, he flung himself into
the flames: the garrison surrendered at discretion. Doriscus
was attacked in vain, but all the other Persian garrisons in
Europe were reduced. Cimon then, as executor of an
Amphictyonic decree, turned his arms against the piratic
Dolopians of the Isle of Scyros, whom he expelled, and filled
the island with Athenian colonists. On this occasion he sought
and found (as was supposed) the bones of the hero Theseus, who
had died in this island 800 years before; and he brought them
in his own trireme to Athens,—an act which gained him great
favour with the people. By this time, some of the confederates
were grown weary of war, and began to murmur at the toils and
expense to which it put them. The people of Naxos were the
first who positively refused to contribute any longer; but the
Athenians, who had tasted of the sweets of command, would not
now permit the exercise of free will to their allies. Cimon
appeared (Ol. 78,3) [B. C. 466] with a large fleet before
Naxos; the Naxians defended themselves with vigour, but were
at length forced to submit; and the Athenians had the
hardihood to reduce them to the condition of subjects to
Athens—an example which they soon followed in other cases.
… After the reduction of Naxos, Cimon sailed over to the
coast of Asia, and learning that the Persian generals had
assembled a large fleet and army in Pamphylia, he collected a
fleet of 200 triremes at Cnidos, with which he proceeded to
the coast of that country, and laid siege to the city of
Phaselis, which, though Greek, obeyed the Persian monarch.
Having reduced it to submission, he resolved to proceed and
attack the Persian fleet and army, which he learned were lying
at the river Eurymedon. On his arrival, the Persian fleet, of
350 triremes, fearing at first to fight till 80 Phoenician
vessels, which they were expecting, should come up, kept in
the river; but finding that the Greeks were preparing to
attack, they put out to sea and engaged them. The action did
not continue long: the Barbarians fled to the land; 200 ships
fell into the hands of the victors, and several were
destroyed. Without a moment's delay, Cimon disembarked his
men, and led them against the land forces: the resistance of
the Persians was obstinate for some time, but at last they
turned and fled, leaving their camp a prey to the conquerors;
and Cimon had thus the rare glory of having gained two
important victories in the one day. Hearing then that the 80
Phoenician vessels were at Hydros, in the Isle of Cyprus, he
immediately sailed thither and took or destroyed the whole of
them. The victory on the Eurymedon may be regarded as the
termination of the conflict between Greece and Persia. The
year after it (Ol. 78,4) [B. C. 465], Xerxes was assassinated,
and the usual confusion took place in the court of Susa."
_T. Keightley,
History of Greece,
part 1, chapter 13._
ALSO IN
_W. W. Lloyd,
The Age of Pericles,
chapter 27 (volume 1)._
See also PERSIA: B. C. 486-405.
{158}
ATHENS: B. C. 466-454.
Leadership in the Delian confederacy changed to sovereignty.
Revolt and subjugation of Thasos.
Help to Sparta and its ungracious requital.
Fall and exile of Cimon.
Rise of Pericles and the democratic anti-Spartan policy.
Removal of the federal treasury from Delos.
Building the Long Walls.
"It was now evident to the whole body of the allies of Athens
that by joining the league they had provided themselves with a
mistress rather than a leader. … Two years after the
reduction of Naxos another powerful island-state broke out
into rebellion against the supremacy of Athens. The people of
Thasos had from very early times possessed territory on the
mainland of Thrace opposite to their island. By holding this
coast-slip they engrossed the trade of the Valley of the
Strymon, and held the rich gold mines of Mount Pangaeus. But
the Athenians, after the capture of Eïon, set themselves to
develop that port as the commercial centre of Thrace. … A
spot called 'The Nine Ways,' … where that great river first
begins to broaden out into its estuary, but can still be
spanned by a bridge, was the chosen site of a fortress to
secure the hold of Athens on the land. But the native Thracian
tribes banded themselves together, and fell upon the invaders
with such desperation that … the Athenian armies were
defeated. … It was probably the discouragement which this
defeat caused at Athens that emboldened Thasos to declare her
secession from the Confederacy of Delos. She wished to save
her Thracian trade, before Athens could make another attempt
to divert it from her. The Thasians did not rely on their own
resources alone; they enlisted the Thracians and Macedonians
of the mainland, and sent to Sparta to endeavour to induce the
ephors to declare war on Athens." The Spartans were well
disposed to take up the cause of the Thasians; but at that
moment they were overwhelmed by the calamity of the frightful
Earthquake of 464, instantly followed by the rising of the
Helots and the third Messenian war (See MESSENIAN WAR, THE
THIRD). "The island-state was therefore left to its own
resources; and these were so considerable that she held out
against the force of the Athenian confederacy for two whole
years. … She was obliged at last to surrender to Cimon [B.
C. 463], whose army had long been lying before her walls. Like
Naxos, she was punished for her defection by the loss of her
war-fleet and her fortifications, and the imposition of a fine
of many talents. Still more galling must have been the loss of
her trade with Thrace, which now passed entirely into Athenian
hands. … The Spartans were still engaged in a desperate
struggle with their revolted subjects when the siege of Thasos
came to an end. Cimon, who was now at the height of his
reputation and power, saw with distress the troubles of the
city he so much admired. He set himself to persuade the
Athenians that they ought to forego old grudges, and save from
destruction the state which had shared with them the glory of
the Persian war. … His pleading was bitterly opposed by the
anti-Spartan party at Athens, headed by two statesmen,
Ephialtes and Pericles, who had already come into notice as
antagonists of Cimon. But the more generous and unwise policy
prevailed, and 4,000 hoplites were sent to the aid of Sparta
[B. C. 462]. This army was pursued by misfortune; it was so
unsuccessful in attacking Ithome that the Spartans attributed
its failure to ill will rather than ill luck. They, therefore,
began to treat their allies with marked discourtesy, and at
last sent them home without a word of thanks, merely stating
that their services could be of no further use [See MESSENIAN
WAR, THE THIRD]. This rudeness and ingratitude fully justified
the anti-Spartan party at Athens. … Cimon was now no longer
able to deal with the policy of the state as he chose, and the
conduct of affairs began to pass into the hands of men whose
foreign and domestic policy were alike opposed to all his
views. Ephialtes and Pericles proceeded to form alliances
abroad with all the states which were ill disposed toward
Sparta, and at home to commence a revision of the
constitution. They were determined to carry out to its
furthest logical development the democratic tendency which
Cleisthenes had introduced into the Athenian polity. Of
Ephialtes, the son of Sophonides, comparatively little is
known. But Pericles … was the son of Xanthippus, the accuser
of Miltiades in 489, B. C., and the victor of Mycale and
Sestos; while, on his mother's side, he came of the blood of
the Alcmaeonidae. Pericles was staid, self-contained, and
haughty—a strange chief for the popular party. But his
relationship to Cleisthenes, and the enmity which existed
between his house and that of Cimon, urged him to espouse the
cause of democracy. … While Cimon had Greece in his mind,
Pericles could only think of Athens, and the temper of the
times was favourable to the narrower policy. … The first aim
which Pericles and Ephialtes set before themselves was the
cutting down of the power of the Areopagus [See above: B. C.
477-462]. That body had since the Persian war become the
stronghold of the Conservative and philo-Laconian party. …
Ephialtes took the lead in the attack on the Areopagus. He
chose a moment when Cimon was away at sea, bent on assisting a
rebellion against the Great King which had broken out in
Egypt. After a violent struggle, he succeeded in carrying a
law which deprived the Areopagus of its ancient censorial
power, and reduced it to a mere court to try homicides. …
When Cimon came home from Egypt he was wildly enraged. …
Recourse was had to the test of ostracism. It decided against
Cimon, who therefore went into banishment [B. C. 459]. But
this wrong against the greatest general of Athens was, not
long after, avenged by an over-zealous and unscrupulous
friend. Ephialtes was slain by assassins in his own house. …
The immediate result of this murder was to leave Pericles in
sole and undivided command of the democratic party. The
foreign policy of Pericles soon began to involve Athens in
troubles at home. He concluded alliances with Argos and
Thessaly, both states at variance with Sparta, and thereby
made a collision with the Lacedæmonian confederacy inevitable.
He gave still more direct offence to Corinth, one of the most
powerful members of that confederacy, by concluding a close
alliance with Megara. … In Boeotia, too, he stirred up
enmity, by giving an active support to the democratic party in
that country. These provocations made a war inevitable. In 458
B. C. the storm burst. … At the moment of the outbreak of
the first important naval war which she had to wage with a
Greek enemy since the formation of her empire, Athens took two
important steps. The first was destined to guard against the risk
of misfortunes by sea; it consisted in the transference from
Delos to Athens [dated by different authorities between 461
and 454 B. C.] of the central treasury of the confederacy. …
{159}
It was not long before the Athenians came to regard the
treasury as their own, and to draw upon it for purely Attic
needs, which had no connection with the welfare of the other
confederates. … The second important event of the year 458
B. C. was the commencement of the famous 'Long Walls' of
Athens [See LONG WALLS]. … When they were finished Athens,
Peiræus, and Phalerum, formed the angles of a vast fortified
triangle, while the space between them, a considerable expanse
of open country, could be utilized as a place of refuge for
the population of Attica, and even for their flocks and
herds."
_C. W. C. Oman,
History of Greece,
chapters 23-24._
ALSO IN
_E. Abbott,
Pericles and the Golden Age of Athens,
chapters 5-6._
_C. Thirlwall,
History of Greece,
chapter 17 (volume 3)._
_Plutarch,
Cimon; Pericles._
ATHENS: B. C. 460-449.
Disastrous expedition to Egypt.
Attacks on the Peloponnesian Coast.
Recall of Cimon.
His last enterprise against the Persians.
The disputed Peace of Cimon or Callias.
Five years truce with Sparta.
"Inarus, king of some of the Libyan tribes on the western
border of Egypt, had excited an insurrection there against the
Persians [about 460 B. C.], and his authority was acknowledged
throughout the greater part of the country. Artaxerxes sent
his brother Achæmenes with a great army to quell this
rebellion. An Athenian armament of 200 galleys was lying at
the time off Cyprus, and Inarus sent to obtain its assistance.
The Athenian commanders, whether following their own
discretion, or after orders received from home, quitted
Cyprus, and having joined with the insurgents, enabled them to
defeat Achæmenes, who fell in the battle by the hand of
Inarus. They then sailed up the Nile to Memphis, where a body
of Persians, and some Egyptians, who still adhered to their
cause were in possession of one quarter of the city, called
White Castle. The rest was subject to Inarus, and there the
Athenians stationed themselves, and besieged the Persians. …
Artaxerxes sent a Persian, named Megabazus, to Sparta, with a
sum of money, to be employed in bribing the principal Spartans
to use their influence, so as to engage their countrymen in an
expedition against Attica. Megabazus did not find the leading
Spartans unwilling to receive his money; but they seem to have
been unable to render him the service for which it was
offered. Ithome still held out: and Sparta had probably not
yet sufficiently either recovered her strength or restored
internal tranquility, to venture on the proposed invasion.
Some rumours of this negotiation may have reached Athens, and
have quickened the energy with which Pericles now urged the
completion of the long walls. … But among his opponents
there was a faction who viewed the progress of this great work
in a different light from Cimon, and saw in it, not the means
of securing the independence of Athens, but a bulwark of the
hated commonalty. They too would have gladly seen an invading
army in Attica, which might assist them in destroying the work
and its authors." This party was accused of sympathy with the
Spartan expedition which came to the help of Doris against the
Phocians in 457 B. C., and which defeated the Athenians at
Tanagra (See GREECE: B. C. 458-456). In 455, "the Spartans
were reminded that they were also liable to be attacked at
home. An Athenian armament of 50 galleys, and, if we may trust
Diadorus, with 4,000 heavy armed troops on board, sailed round
Peloponnesus under Tolmides, burnt the Spartan arsenal at
Gythium, took a town named Chalcis belonging to the
Corinthians, and defeated the Sicyonians, who attempted to
oppose the landing of the troops. But the most important
advantage gained in the expedition was the capture of
Naupactus, which belonged to the Ozolian Locrians, and now
fell into the hands of the Athenians at a very seasonable
juncture. The third Messenian war had just come to a close.
The brave defenders of Ithome had obtained honourable terms.
… The besieged were permitted to quit Peloponnesus with
their families, on condition of being detained in slavery if
they ever returned. Tolmides now settled the homeless
wanderers in Naupactus. … But these successes were
counterbalanced by a reverse which befell the arms of Athens
this same year in another quarter. After the defeat of
Achæmens, Artaxerxes, disappointed in his hopes of assistance
from Sparta, … raised a great army, which he placed under
the command of an abler general, Megabyzus, son of Zopyrus.
Megabyzus defeated the insurgents and their allies, and forced
the Greeks to evacuate Memphis, and to take refuge in an
island of the Nile, named Prosopitis, which contained a town
called Byblus, where he besieged them for 18 months. At length
he resorted to the contrivance of turning the stream. … The
Greek galleys were all left aground, and were fired by the
Athenians themselves, that they might not fall into the
enemy's hands. The Persians then marched into the island over
the dry bed of the river: the Egyptians in dismay abandoned
their allies, who were overpowered by numbers and almost all
destroyed. … Inarus himself was betrayed into the hands of
the Persians and put to death. … Egypt … was again reduced
under the Persian yoke, except a part of the Delta, where
another pretender, named Amyrtæus, who assumed the title of
king … maintained himself for several years against the
power of the Persian monarchy. But the misfortune of the
Athenians did not end with the destruction of the great fleet
and army which had been first employed in the war. They had
sent a squadron of 50 galleys to the relief of their
countrymen, which, arriving before the news of the recent
disaster had reached them, entered the Mendesian branch of the
Nile. They were here surprised by a combined attack of the
Persian land force and a Phoenician fleet, and but few escaped
to bear the mournful tidings to Athens. Yet even after this
calamity we find the Athenians, not suing for peace, but bent
on extending their power, and annoying their enemies." Early
in 454 they sent an expedition into Thessaly, to restore a
ruler named Orestes, who had been driven out. "But the
superiority of the Thessalians in cavalry checked all their
operations in the field; they failed in an attempt upon
Pharsalus, and were at length forced to retire without having
accomplished any of their ends. It was perhaps to soothe the
public disappointment that Pericles shortly afterwards
embarked at Pegæ with 1,000 men, and, coasting the south side
of the Corinthian gulf made a descent on the territory of
Sicyon, and routed the Sicyon force sent to oppose his landing.
{160}
He then … laid siege to the town of Œniadæ. … This
attempt, however, proved unsuccessful; and the general result
of the campaign seems not to have been on the whole
advantageous or encouraging. … It seems to have been not
long after the events which have been just related that Cimon
was recalled from his exile; and the decree for that purpose
was moved by Pericles himself;—a fact which seems to intimate
that some change had taken place in the relations or the
temper of parties at Athens. … The three years next
following Cimon's return, as we have fixed its date [B. C. 454
or 453], passed, happily for his contemporaries, without
affording any matter for the historian; and this pause was
followed by a five years' truce [with Sparta], in the course
of which Cimon embarked in his last expedition, and died near
the scene of his ancient glory. The pretender Amyrtæus had
solicited succour from the Athenians. … Cimon was appointed
to the command of a fleet of 200 galleys, with which he sailed
to Cyprus, and sent a squadron of 60 to the assistance of
Amyrtæus, while he himself with the rest laid siege to Citium.
Here he was carried off by illness, or the consequences of a
wound; and the armament was soon after compelled, by want of
provisions, to raise the siege. But Cymon's spirit still
animated his countrymen, who, when they had sailed away with
his remains, fell in with a great fleet of Phoenician and
Cilician galleys, near the Cyprian Salamis, and, having
completely defeated them, followed up their naval victory with
another which they gained on shore, either over the troops
which had landed from the enemy's ships, or over a land force
by which they were supported. After this they were joined by
the squadron which had been sent to Egypt, and which returned,
it would appear, without having achieved any material object,
and all sailed home (B. C. 449). In after-times Cimon's
military renown was enhanced by the report of a peace
[sometimes called the Peace of Cimon, and sometimes the Peace
of Callias], which his victories had compelled the Persian
king to conclude on terms most humiliating to the monarchy.
Within less than a century after his death it was, if not
commonly believed, confidently asserted, that by this treaty,
negotiated, as it was supposed, by Callias, son of Hipponicus,
the Persians had agreed to abandon at least the military
occupation of Asia Minor, to the distance of three days
journey on foot, or one on horseback, from the coast, or,
according to another account, the whole peninsula west of the
Halys, and to abstain from passing the mouth of the Bosphorus
and the Chelidonian islands, on the coast of Lycia, or the
town of Phaselis, into the Western Sea. The mere silence of
Thucydides on so important a transaction would be enough to
render the whole account extremely suspicious."
_C. Thirlwall,
History of Greece,
chapter 17 (volume 3)._
Mr. Grote accepts the Peace of Cimon as an historical fact;
Professor Curtius rejects it.
_G. Grote,
History of Greece,
part 2, chapter 45 (volume 5)._
_E. Curtius,
History of Greece,
book 3, chapter 2 (volume 2)._
ATHENS: B. C. 458-456.
War for Megara with Corinth and Ægina.
Victories of Myronides.
Siege and conquest of Ægina.
Collision with the Spartans in Bœotia.
Defeat at Tanagra.
Overthrow of the Thebans.
Recovered Ascendency.
See GREECE: B. C. 458-456.
ATHENS: B. C. 449-445.
Hostile revolution in Bœotia.
Defeat at Coroneia.
Revolt of Eubœa and Megara.
The thirty years' truce.
Territorial losses.
Spartan recognition of the Delian Confederacy.
See GREECE: B. C. 449-445.
ATHENS: B. C. 445-431.
Supremacy of Pericles and the popular arts by which he
attained it.
The splendor of Athens and grandeur of the Athenian Empire
under his rule.
"The conclusion of peace left the Athenians to their
confederacy and their internal politics. … After the death
of Cimon the oligarchical party at Athens had been led by
Thucydides, the son of Melesias, a man of high character and a
kinsman of Cimon. … Hitherto the members had sat here or
there in the assembly as they pleased; now they were combined
into a single body, and sat in a special place. Such a
consolidation was doubtless needed if the party was to hold
its own against Pericles, who was rapidly carrying all before
him. For years past he had provided a subsistence for many of
the poorer citizens by means of his numerous colonies—no
fewer than 5,000 Athenians must have been sent out to the
'cleruchies' in the interval between 453 B. C. and 444 B. C.
The new system of juries [See DICASTERIA] had also been
established on the fall of the Areopagus, and the jurymen were
paid—a second source of income to the poor. Such measures
were beyond anything that the private liberality of
Cimon—splendid as it was—could achieve; and on Cimon's death
no other aristocrat came forward to aid his party with his
purse. Pericles did not stop here. Since the cessation of the
war with Persia there had been fewer drafts on the public
purse, and the contributions of the allies were accumulating
in the public treasury. A scrupulous man would have regarded
the surplus as the money of the allies. … Pericles took
another view. He plainly told the Athenians that so long as
the city fulfilled the contract made with the allied cities,
and kept Persian vessels from their shores, the surplus was at
the disposal of Athens. Acting on this principle, he devoted a
part of it to the embellishment of the city. With the aid of
Pheidias, the sculptor, and Ictinus, the architect, a new
temple began to rise on the Acropolis in honour of Athena—the
celebrated Parthenon or 'Virgin's Chamber' [See PARTHENON].
… Other public buildings were also begun about this time.
Athens was in fact a vast workshop, in which employment was
found for a great number of citizens. Nor was this all. …
For eight months of the year 60 ships were kept at sea with
crews on board, in order that there might be an ample supply
of practical seamen. … Thus by direct or indirect means
Pericles made the state the paymaster of a vast number of
citizens, and the state was practically himself, with these
paid citizens at his back. At the same time the public
festivals of the city were enlarged and adorned with new
splendour. … That all might attend the theatre in which the
plays were acted, Pericles provided that every citizen should
receive from the state a sum sufficient to pay the charge
demanded from the spectators by the lessee [See DIOBOLY]. We
may look on these measures as the arts of a demagogue. … Or
we may say that Pericles was able to gratify his passion for
art at the expense of the Athenians and their allies.
{161}
Neither of these views is altogether untenable; and both are
far from including the whole truth. Pericles … was, if we
please to say it, a demagogue and a connoisseur. But he was
something more. Looking at the whole evidence before us with
impartial eyes, we cannot refuse to acknowledge that he
cherished aspirations worthy of a great statesman. He
sincerely desired that every Athenian should owe to his city
the blessing of an education in all that was beautiful, and
the opportunity of a happy and useful life. … The oligarchs
determined to pull down Pericles, if it were possible. …
They proposed, in the winter of 445 B. C., that there should
be an ostracism in the city. The people agreed, and the usual
arrangements were made. But when the day came for decision, in
the spring of 444 B. C., the sentence fell, not on Pericles,
but on Thucydides. The sentence left no doubt about the
feeling of the Athenian people, and it was accepted as final.
Thucydides disappeared from Athens, and for the next fifteen
years Pericles was master of the city. … While Athens was
active, organizing her confederacy and securing her
communication with the north, the Peloponnesians had allowed
the years to pass in apathy and inattention. At length they
awoke to a sense of the situation. It was clear that Athens
had abandoned all idea of war with Persia, and that the
confederacy of Delos was transformed into an Athenian empire,
of whose forces the great city was absolutely mistress. And
meanwhile in visible greatness Athens had become far the first
city in Greece."
_E. Abbott,
Pericles,
chapters 10-11_.
"A rapid glance will suffice to show the eminence which Athens
had attained over the other states of Greece. She was the head
of the Ionian League—the mistress of the Grecian seas; with
Sparta, the sole rival that could cope with her armies and
arrest her ambition, she had obtained a peace; Corinth was
Humbled—Ægina ruined—Megara had shrunk into her dependency
and garrison. The states of Bœotia had received their very
constitution from the hands of an Athenian general—the
democracies planted by Athens served to make liberty itself
subservient to her will, and involved in her safety. She had
remedied the sterility of her own soil by securing the rich
pastures of the neighbouring Eubœa. She had added the gold of
Thasos to the silver of Laurion, and established a footing in
Thessaly which was at once a fortress against the Asiatic arms
and a mart for Asiatic commerce. The fairest lands of the
opposite coast—the most powerful islands of the Grecian
seas—contributed to her treasury, or were almost legally
subjected to her revenge. … In all Greece, Myronides was
perhaps the ablest general—Pericles … was undoubtedly the
most highly educated, cautious and commanding statesman. …
In actual possession of the tribute of her allies, Athens
acquired a new right to its collection and its management, and
while she devoted some of the treasures to the maintenance of
her strength, she began early to uphold the prerogative of
appropriating a part to the enhancement of her splendour. …
It was now [about B. C. 444] resolved to make Athens also the
seat and centre of the judicial authority. The subject-allies
were compelled, if not on minor, at least on all important
cases, resort to Athenian courts of law for justice. And thus
Athens became, as it were, the metropolis of the allies. …
Before the Persian war, and even scarcely before the time of
Cimon, Athens cannot be said to have eclipsed her neighbours
in the arts and sciences. She became the centre and capital of
the most polished communities of Greece, and she drew into a
focus all the Grecian intellect; she obtained from her
dependents the wealth to administer the arts, which universal
traffic and intercourse taught her to appreciate; and thus the
Odeon, and the Parthenon, and the Propylæa arose. During the
same administration, the fortifications were completed, and a
third wall, parallel and near to that uniting Piræus with
Athens, consummated the works of Themistocles and Cimon, and
preserved the communication between the two-fold city, even
should the outer walls fall into the hands of an enemy."
_E. G. Bulwer-Lytton,
Athens: Its Rise and Fall,
book 4, chapter 5,
book 5, chapter 2._
ALSO IN:
_W. W. Lloyd,
The Age of Pericles,_
_Plutarch,
Pericles_.
ATHENS: B. C. 445-429.
The Age of Pericles: Art.
"The Greeks … were industrious, commercial, sensitive to
physical and moral beauty, eager for discussion and
controversy; they were proud of their humanity, and happy in
the possession of their poets, their historians, their orators
and artists. It is singular, in the history of nations, to
meet with a people distinguished at once by mercantile
aptitude, and by an exquisite feeling and sympathy for works
of art; to see the vanity of wealth compatible with a nice
discernment for the true principles of taste; to behold a
nation, inconstant in ideas; inconceivably fickle in
prejudices, worshipping a man one day and proscribing him the
next, yet at the same time progressing with unheard-of
rapidity; within the space of a few years traversing all
systems of philosophy, all forms of government, laying the
foundations of all sciences, making war on all its neighbors,
yet, in the midst of this chaos of ideas, systems, and
passions, developing art steadily and with calm intelligence,
giving to it novelty, originality, and beauty, while
preserving it pure from the aberrations and caprices of what
we now call fashion. At the time of the battle of Salamis, 480
B. C., Athens had been destroyed, its territory ravaged, and
the Athenians had nothing left but their ships; yet so great
was the activity of this commercial but artistic people, that,
only twenty years afterwards, they had built the Parthenon."
_E. E. Viollet-le-Duc,
Discourses on Architecture,
page 65._
ATHENS: B. C. 445-429.
The Age of Pericles: Domestic life.
The Athenian house.
"For any one coming from Asia it seemed as if in entering
Athens he was coming into an ant's nest. Possessing, at the
epoch of its greatest power, the three ports of Munychia,
Phalerum and the Piræus, it covered a district whose
circumference measured two hundred stadia (twenty-four miles).
But it was around the Acropolis that the houses were crowded
together and the population always in activity. There wagons
were passing to and fro, filled with merchandise from the
ports or conveying it thither. The streets and public places
in which people passed their lives presented a busy and noisy
scene. Strangers, who came to buy or to sell, were continually
entering or leaving the shops and places of manufacture, and
slaves were carrying messages or burdens.
{162}
Women as well as men were to be seen in the streets,
going to the markets, the public games and the meetings of
corporate bodies. From the earliest hours of the day large
numbers of peasants might be seen bringing in vegetables,
fruit and poultry, and crying their wares in the streets.
Houses of the higher class occupied the second zone; they
generally possessed a garden and sometimes outbuildings of
considerable extent. Around them were to be seen clients and
parasites, waiting for the hour when the master should make
his appearance; and whiling away the time discussing the news
of the day, repeating the rumours, true or false, that were
current in the city; getting the slaves to talk, and laughing
among themselves at the strangers that happened to be passing,
or addressing them with a view to make fun of their accent,
garb or dress. The house of Chremylus, recently built in that
second zone, was a subject of remark for all the idlers.
Chremylus, who had lately become wealthy by means of commerce,
and of certain transactions of more or less creditable
character in the colonies, was an object of envy and criticism
to most people, and of admiration for some who did justice to
his intelligence and energy. He enjoyed a certain degree of
influence in the public assemblies—thanks to his liberality;
while he took care to secure the good graces of the archons
and to enrich the temples."
[Image]
Plan Of Athenian House.
"We have [in the accompanying figure] the ground-plan of the
residence of this Athenian citizen. The entrance x opens on
the public road. The site is bounded on either side by narrow
streets. This entrance x opens on the court O, which is
surrounded by porticos. At A is the porter's lodge, and at B
the rooms for the slaves, with kitchen at C and latrines at a.
From this first court: in the centre of which is a small
fountain with a basin which receives the rain water, the
passage D leads into the inner court E; which is larger and is
likewise surrounded by porticos. At G is the reception room,
at H the strong room for valuables, and at S the private
altar. At F is a large storeroom containing provisions and
wine; and at I the small dining room (triclinium); the
cooking-room for the family being at J with latrines at b. The
large triclinium is at K. The passage m admits to the
gynæceum, containing the bedrooms P along the portico M, a
common room for the women, with its small enclosed garden, and
closets at e. The quarters for visitors are entered by the
passage t, and consist of bedrooms V, a portico T, a small
garden and closets f. At d is an opening into the lane for the
servants, when required. The gardens extend in the direction
Z. This house is situated on the slopes of the hill which to
the south-west looks towards the Acropolis; thus it is
sheltered from the violent winds which sometimes blow from
this quarter. From the large dining-hall and from the terrace
L, which adjoins it, there is a charming prospect; for, above
the trees of the garden is seen the city overlooked by the
Acropolis, and towards the left the hill of the Areopagus.
From this terrace L there is a descent to the garden by about
twelve steps. The position was chosen with a view to
protection against the sun's heat and the troublesome winds.
From the portico of the gynæceum are seen the hills extending
towards the north, covered with houses surrounded by
olive-trees; and in the background Mount Pentelicus. … In
the dwelling of Chremylus the various departments were
arranged at the proprietor's discretion, and the architect
only conformed to his instructions. Thus the front part of the
house is assigned to the external relations of the owner. In
this court O assemble the agents or factors who come to give
an account of the commissions they have executed, or to
receive orders. If the master wishes to speak to any of them,
he takes him into his reception room; his bedchamber being at
R, he can easily repair to that reception-room or to the
gynæceum reserved for the women and younger children. If he
entertains friends, they have their separate apartments, which
are shut off, not being in communication with the first court
except through the passage t. All that part of the habitation
which is beyond the wide entrance-hall D is consecrated to
domestic life; and only the intimate friends of the family are
admitted into the second court; for example, if they are
invited to a banquet,—which is held in the great hall K. The
master usually takes his meals with his wife and one or two
members of his family who live in the house, in the smaller
room I, the couches of which will hold six persons; whereas
fifteen guests can be accommodated on the couches of the great
hall K. Chremylus has spared nothing to render his house one
of the most sumptuous in the city. The columns of Pentelican
marble support architraves of wood, surmounted by friezes and
cornices overlaid with stucco and ornamented with delicate
painting. Everywhere the walls are coated with fine smooth
plaster, adorned with paintings; and the ceilings are of
timber artistically wrought and coloured."
_E. Viollet-le-Duc,
The Habitations of Man in all Ages,
chapter 17._
{163}
ATHENS: B. C. 445-429.
The Age of Pericles: Law and its Administration.
Contrast with the Romans.
"It is remarkable … that the 'equality' of laws on which the
Greek democracies prided themselves—that equality which, in
the beautiful drinking song of Callistratus, Harmodius and
Aristogiton are said to have given to Athens—had little in
common with the 'equity' of the Romans. The first was an equal
administration of civil laws among the citizens, however
limited the class of citizens might be; the last implied the
applicability of a law, which was not civil law, to a class
which did not necessarily consist of citizens. The first
excluded a despot; the last included foreigners, and for some
purposes slaves. … There are two special dangers to which
law, and society which is held together by law, appear to be
liable in their infancy. One of them is that law may be too
rapidly developed. This occurred with the codes of the more
progressive Greek communities, which disembarrassed themselves
with astonishing facility from cumbrous forms of procedure and
needless terms of art, and soon ceased to attach any
superstitious value to rigid rules and prescriptions. It was
not for the ultimate advantage of mankind that they did so,
though the immediate benefit conferred on their citizens may
have been considerable. One of the rarest qualities of
national character is the capacity for applying and working
out the law, as such, at the cost of constant miscarriages of
abstract justice, without at the same time losing the hope or
the wish that law may be conformed to a higher ideal. The
Greek intellect, with all its nobility and elasticity, was
quite unable to confine itself within the strait waistcoat of
a legal formula; and, if we may judge them by the popular
courts of Athens, of whose working we possess accurate
knowledge, the Greek tribunals exhibited the strongest
tendency to confound law and fact. The remains of the Orators
and the forensic commonplaces preserved by Aristotle in his
Treatise on Rhetoric, show that questions of pure law were
constantly argued on every consideration which could possibly
influence the mind of the judges. No durable system of
jurisprudence could be produced in this way. A community which
never hesitated to relax rules of written law whenever they
stood in the way of an ideally perfect decision on the facts
of particular cases, would only, if it bequeathed any body of
judicial principles to posterity, bequeath one consisting of
the ideas of right and wrong which happened to be prevalent at
the time. Such jurisprudence would contain no framework to
which the more advanced conceptions of subsequent ages could
be fitted. It would amount at best to a philosophy, marked
with the imperfections of the civilisation under which it grew
up. … The other liability to which the infancy of society is
exposed has prevented or arrested the progress of far the
greater part of mankind. The rigidity of primitive law,
arising chiefly from its earlier association and
identification with religion, has chained down the mass of the
human race to those views of life and conduct which they
entertained at the time when their usages were first
consolidated into a systematic form. There were one or two
races exempted by a marvellous fate from this calamity, and
grafts from these stocks have fertilised a few modern
societies; but it is still true that, over the larger part of
the world, the perfection of law has always been considered as
consisting in adherence to the ground plan supposed to have
been marked out by the original legislator. If intellect has
in such cases been exercised on jurisprudence, it has
uniformly prided itself on the subtle perversity of the
conclusions it could build on ancient texts without
discoverable departure from their literal tenour. I know no
reason why the law of the Romans should be superior to the
laws of the Hindoos, unless the theory of Natural Law had
given it a type of excellence different from the usual one."
_H. S. Maine,
Ancient Law,
chapters 3-4._
"But both the Greek and the English trial by jury were at one
time the great political safeguard against state oppression
and injustice; and, owing to this origin, free nations become
so attached to it that they are blind to its defects. And just
as Ireland would now benefit beyond conception by the
abolition of the jury system, so the secured Athenian (or any
other) democracy would have thriven better had its laws been
administered by courts of skilled judges. For these large
bodies of average citizens, who, by the way, were not like our
jurymen, unwilling occupants of the jury-box, but who made it
a paid business and an amusement, did not regard the letter of
the law. They allowed actions barred by the reasonable limits
of time; they allowed arguments totally beside the question,
though this too was illegal, for there was no competent judge
to draw the line; they allowed hearsay evidence, though that
too was against the law; indeed the evidence produced in most
of the speeches is of the loosest and poorest kind. Worse than
all, there were no proper records kept of their decisions, and
witnesses were called in to swear what had been the past
decisions of a jury sitting in the same city, and under the
same procedure. This is the more remarkable, as there were
state archives, in which the decrees of the popular assembly
were kept. … There is a most extraordinary speech of Lysias
against a man called Nichomachus, who was appointed to
transcribe the laws of Solon in four months, but who kept them
in his possession for six years, and is accused of having so
falsified them as to have substituted himself for Solon. Hence
there can have been no recognized duplicate extant, or such a
thing could not be attempted. So again, in the Trapeziticus of
Isocrates, it is mentioned as a well known fact, that a
certain Pythodorus was convicted of tampering with state
documents, signed and sealed by the magistrates, and deposited
in the Acropolis. All these things meet us in every turn in
the court speeches of the Attic orators. We are amazed at
seeing relationships proved in will cases by a man coming in
and swearing that such a man's father had told him that his
brother was married to such a woman, of such a house. We find
the most libellous charges brought against opponents on
matters totally beside the question at issue, and even formal
evidence of general bad character admitted. We find some
speakers in consequence treating the jury with a sort of
mingled deference and contempt which is amusing. 'On the
former trial of this case,' they say, 'my opponent managed to
tell you many well devised lies; of course you were deceived,
how could it be otherwise, and you made a false decision;' or
else, 'You were so puzzled that you got at variance with one
another, you voted at sixes and sevens, and by a small
majority you came to an absurd decision.'
{164}
'But I think you know well,' says Isocrates,
'that the city has often repented so bitterly ere this for
decisions made in passion and without evidence, as to desire
after no long interval to punish those who misled it, and to
wish those who had been calumniated were more than restored to
their former prosperity. Keeping these facts before you, you
ought not to be hasty in believing the prosecutors, nor to
hear the defendants with interruption and ill temper. For it
is a shame to have the character of being the gentlest and
most humane of the Greeks in other respects, and yet to act
contrary to this reputation in the trials which take place
here. It is a shame that in other cities, when a human life is
at stake, a considerable majority of votes is required for
conviction, but that among you those in danger do not even get
an equal chance with their false accusers. You swear indeed
once a year that you will attend to both plaintiff and
defendant, but in the interval only keep your oath so far as
to accept whatever the accusers say, but you sometimes will
not let those who are trying to refute them utter even a
single word. You think those cities uninhabitable, in which
citizens are executed without trial, and forget that those who
do not give both sides a fair hearing are doing the very same
thing.'"
_J. P. Mahaffy,
Social Life in Greece,
chapter 13._
ATHENS: B. C. 445-429.
The Age of Pericles: Political life.
The democracy.
"The real life of Athens lasted at the most for 200 years: and
yet there are moments in which all that we have won by the
toils of so many generations seems as if it would be felt to
be but a small thing beside a single hour of Periklês. The
Democracy of Athens was in truth the noblest fruit of that
self-developing power of the Greek mind which worked every
possession of the common heritage into some new and more
brilliant shape, but which learned nothing, nothing of all
that formed its real life and its real glory, from the
Barbarians of the outer world. Men tell us that Greece learned
this or that mechanical invention from Phœnicia or Egypt or
Assyria. Be it so; but stand in the Pnyx; listen to the
contending orators; listen to the ambassadors of distant
cities; listen to each side as it is fairly hearkened to, and
see the matter in hand decided by the peaceful vote of
thousands—here at least of a truth is something which Athens
did not learn from any Assyrian despot or from any Egyptian
priest. And we, children of the common stock, sharers in the
common heritage, as we see man, Aryan man, in the full growth
of his noblest type, we may feel a thrill as we think that
Kleisthenês and Periklês were, after all, men of our own
blood—as we think that the institutions which grew up under
their hands and the institutions under which we ourselves are
living are alike branches sprung from one stock, portions of
one inheritance in which Athens and England have an equal
right. In the Athenian Democracy we see a popular constitution
taking the form which was natural for such a constitution to
take when it was able to run its natural course in a
common-wealth which consisted only of a single city. Wherever
the Assembly really remains, in truth as well as in name, an
Assembly of the whole people in their own persons, it must in
its own nature be sovereign. It must, in the nature of things,
delegate more or less of power to magistrates and generals;
but such power will be simply delegated. Their authority will
be a mere trust from the sovereign body, and to that sovereign
body they will be responsible for its exercise. That is to
say, one of the original elements of the State, the King or
chief, now represented by the elective magistracy, will lose
its independent powers, and will sink into a body who have
only to carry out the will of the sovereign Assembly. So with
another of the original elements, the Council. This body too
loses its independent being; it has no ruling or checking
power; it becomes a mere Committee of the Assembly, chosen or
appointed by lot to put measures into shape for more easy
discussion in the sovereign body. As society becomes more
advanced and complicated, the judicial power can no longer be
exercised by the Assembly itself, while it would be against
every democratic instinct to leave it in the arbitrary power
of individual magistrates. Other Committees of the Assembly,
Juries on a gigantic scale, with a presiding magistrate as
chairman rather than as Judge, are therefore set apart to
decide causes and to sit in judgment on offenders. Such is
pure Democracy, the government of the whole people and not of
a part of it only, as carried out in its full perfection in a
single city. It is a form of government which works up the
faculties of man to a higher pitch than any other; it is the
form of government which gives the freest scope to the inborn
genius of the whole community and of every member of it. Its
weak point is that it works up the faculties of man to a pitch
so high that it can hardly be lasting, that its ordinary life
needs an enthusiasm, a devotion too highly strung to be likely
to live through many generations. Athens in the days of her
glory, the Athens of Periklês, was truly 'the roof and crown
of things;' her democracy raised a greater number of human
beings to a higher level than any government before or since;
it gave freer play than any government before or since to the
personal gifts of the foremost of mankind. But against the few
years of Athenian glory we must set the long ages of Athenian
decline. Against the city where Periklês was General we must
set the city where Hadrian was Archon. On the Assemblies of
other Grecian cities it is hardly needful to dwell. Our
knowledge of their practical working is slight. We have one
picture of a debate in the popular Assembly of Sparta, an
Assembly none the less popular in its internal constitution
because it was the assembly of what, as regarded the excluded
classes of the State, was a narrow oligarchy. We see that
there, as might be looked for, the chiefs of the State, the
Kings, and yet more the Ephors, spoke with a degree of
official, as distinguished from personal, authority which fell
to the lot of no man in the Assembly of Athens. Periklês
reigned supreme, not because he was one of Ten Generals, but
because he was Periklês. … In the Ekklêsia which listened to
Periklês and Dêmosthenes we feel almost as much at home as in
an institution of our own land and our own times. At least we
ought to feel at home there; for we have the full materials
for calling up the political life of Athens in all its
fullness, and within our own times one of the greatest minds
of our own or of any age has given its full strength to clear
away the mists of error and calumny which so long shrouded the
parent state of justice and freedom.
{165}
Among the contemporaries and countrymen of Mr. Grote it is
shame indeed if men fail to see in the great Democracy the
first state which taught mankind that the voice of persuasion
could be stronger than a despot's will, the first which taught
that disputes could be settled by a free debate and a free
vote which in other lands could have been decided only by the
banishment or massacre of the weaker side. … It must be
constantly borne in mind that the true difference between an
aristocratic and a democratic government, as those words were
understood in the politics of old Greece, lies in this. In the
Democracy all citizens, all who enjoy civil rights, enjoy also
political rights. In the aristocracy political rights belong
to only a part of those who enjoy civil rights. But, in either
case, the highest authority of the State is the general
Assembly of the whole ruling body, whether that ruling body be
the whole people or only a part of it. … The slaves and
strangers who were shut out at Athens were, according to Greek
ideas, no Athenians; but every Athenian had his place in the
sovereign assembly of Athens, while every Corinthian had not
his place in the sovereign assembly of Corinth. But the
aristocratic and the democratic commonwealth both agreed in
placing the final authority of the State in the general
Assembly of all who enjoy the highest franchise. … The
people, of its own will, placed at its head men of the same
class as those who in the earlier state of things had ruled it
against its will. Periklês, Nikias, Alkibiadês, were men
widely differing in character, widely differing in their
relations to the popular government. But all alike were men of
ancient birth, who, as men of ancient birth, found their way,
almost as a matter of course, to those high places of the
State to which Kleôn found his way only by a strange freak of
fortune. At Rome we find quite another story. There, no less
than at Athens, the moral influence of nobility survived its
legal privileges; but, more than this, the legal privileges of
the elder nobility were never wholly swept away, and the
inherent feeling of respect for illustrious birth called into
being a younger nobility by its side. At Athens one stage of
reform placed a distinction of wealth instead of a distinction
of birth: another stage swept away the distinction of wealth
also. But the reform, at each of its stages, was general; it
affected all offices alike, save those sacred offices which
still remained the special heritage of certain sacred
families. … In an aristocratic commonwealth there is no room
for Periklês; there is no room for the people that hearkened
to Periklês; but in men of the second order, skilful
conservative administrators, men able to work the system which
they find established, no form of government is so fertile.
… But everywhere we learn the same lesson, the inconsistency
of commonwealths which boast themselves of their own freedom
and exalt themselves at the cost of the freedom of others."
_E. A. Freeman,
Comparative Politics,
lectures 5-6._
"Dêmos was himself King, Minister, and Parliament. He had his
smaller officials to carry out the necessary details of public
business, but he was most undoubtedly his own First Lord of
the Treasury, his own Foreign Secretary, his own Secretary for
the Colonies. He himself kept up a personal correspondence
both with foreign potentates and with his own officers on
foreign service; the 'despatches' of Nikias and the 'notes' of
Philip were alike addressed to no officer short of the
sovereign himself; he gave personal audience to the
ambassadors of other states, and clothed his own with just so
great or so small a share as he deemed good of his own
boundless authority. He had no need to entrust the care of his
thousand dependencies to the mysterious working of a Foreign
Office; he himself sat in judgment upon Mitylenaian rebels; he
himself settled the allotment of lands at Chalkis or
Amphipolis; he decreed by his own wisdom what duties should be
levied at the Sound of Byzantion; he even ventured on a task
of which two-and-twenty ages have not lessened the difficulty,
and undertook, without the help of a Lord High Commissioner,
to adjust the relations and compose the seditions even of
Korkyra and Zakynthos. He was his own Lord High Chancellor,
his own Lord Primate, his own Commander-in-Chief. He listened
to the arguments of Kleôn on behalf of a measure, and to the
arguments of Nikias against it, and he ended by bidding Nikias
to go and carry out the proposal which he had denounced as
extravagant or unjust. He listened with approval to his own
'explanations;' he passed votes of confidence in his own
policy; he advised himself to give his own royal assent to the
bills which he had himself passed, without the form of a
second or third reading, or the vain ceremony of moving that
the Prytaneis do leave their chairs. … We suspect that the
average Athenian citizen was, in political intelligence, above
the average English Member of Parliament. It was this
concentration of all power in an aggregate of which every
citizen formed a part, which is the distinguishing
characteristic of true Greek democracy. Florence had nothing
like it; there has been nothing like it in the modern world:
the few pure democracies which have lingered on to our own day
have never had such mighty questions laid before them, and
have never had such statesmen and orators to lead them. The
great Democracy has had no fellow; but the political lessons
which it teaches are none the less lessons for all time and
for every land and people."
_E. A. Freeman,
Historical Essays (volume 2): The Athenian Democracy._
"The individual freedom which was enjoyed at Athens and which
is extolled by Pericles was plainly an exception to the common
usage of Greece, and is so regarded in the Funeral Speech. The
word 'freedom,' it should be remembered, bore an ambiguous
meaning. It denoted on the one hand political
independence,—the exercise of sovereign power by the State
and of political rights by the citizens. In this sense every
Greek citizen could claim it as his birthright. Even the
Spartans could tell the Persian Hydarnes that he had not, like
them, tasted of freedom, and did not know whether it was sweet
or not. But the word also denoted personal and social
liberty,—freedom from the excessive restraints of law, the
absence of a tyrannous public opinion and of intolerance
between man and man. Pericles claims for Athens 'freedom' in
this double sense. But freedom so far as it implies the
absence of legal interference in the private concerns of life
was but little known except at Athens."
_S. H. Butcher,
Some Aspects of Greek Genius,
pages 70-71._
{166}
"To Athens … we look … for an answer to the question, What
does history teach in regard to the virtue of a purely
democratic government? And here we may safely say that, under
favourable circumstances, there is no form of government
which, while it lasts, has such a virtue to give scope to a
vigorous growth and luxuriant fruitage of various manhood as a
pure democracy. … But it does not follow that, though in
this regard it has not been surpassed by any other form of
government, it is therefore absolutely the best of all forms
of government. … Neither, on the other hand, does it follow
from the shortness of the bright reign of Athenian
democracy—not more than 200 years from Clisthenes to the
Macedonians—that all democracies are short-lived, and must
pay, like dissipated young gentlemen, with premature decay for
the feverish abuse of their vital force. Possible no doubt it
is, that if the power of what we may call a sort of Athenian
Second Chamber, the Areiopagus, instead of being weakened as
it was by Aristides and Pericles, had been built up according
to the idea of Æschylus and the intelligent aristocrats of his
day, such a body, armed, like our House of Lords, with an
effective negative on all outbursts of popular rashness, might
have prevented the ambition of the Athenians from launching on
that famous Syracusan expedition which exhausted their force
and maimed their action for the future. But the lesson taught
by the short-lived glory of Athens, and its subjugation under
the rough foot of the astute Macedonian, is not that
democracies, under the influence of faction, and, it may be,
not free from venality, will sell their liberties to a strong
neighbour—for aristocratic Poland did this in a much more
blushless way than democratic Greece—but that any loose
aggregate of independent States, given more to quarrel amongst
themselves than to unite against a common enemy, whether
democratic, or aristocratic, or monarchical in their form of
government, cannot in the long run maintain their ground
against the firm policy and the well-massed force of a strong
monarchy. Athens was blotted out from the map of free peoples
at Chæronea, not because the Athenian people had too much
freedom, but because the Greek States had too little unity.
They were used by Philip exactly in the same way that Napoleon
used the German States at the commencement of the present
century."
_J. S. Blackie,
What does History Teach?
pages 28-31._
"In Herodotus you have the beginning of the age of discussion.
… The discourses on democracy, aristocracy, and monarchy,
which he puts into the mouth of the Persian conspirators when
the monarchy was vacant, have justly been called absurd, as
speeches supposed to have been spoken by those persons. No
Asiatic ever thought of such things. You might as well imagine
Saul or David speaking them as those to whom Herodotus
attributes them. They are Greek speeches, full of free Greek
discussions, and suggested by the experience, already
considerable, of the Greeks in the results of discussion. The
age of debate is beginning, and even Herodotus, the least of a
wrangler of any man, and the most of a sweet and simple
narrator, felt the effect. When we come to Thucydides, the
results of discussion are as full as they have ever been; his
light is pure, 'dry light,' free from the 'humours' of habit,
and purged from consecrated usage. As Grote's history often
reads like a report to Parliament, so half Thucydides reads
like a speech, or materials for a speech, in the Athenian
Assembly."
_W. Bagehot,
Physics and Politics,
pages 170-171._
ATHENS: B. C. 440-437.
New settlements of Klerouchoi.
The founding of Amphipolis.
Revolt and subjugation of Samos.
"The great aim of Perikles was to strengthen the power of
Athens over the whole area occupied by her confederacy. The
establishment of settlers or Klerouchoi [see KLERUCHS]. who
retained their rights as Athenian citizens, had answered so
well in the Lelantian plain of Euboia that it was obviously
good policy to extend the system. The territory of Hestiaia in
the north of Euboia and the islands of Lemnos, Imbros, and
Skyros, were thus occupied; and Perikles himself led a body of
settlers to the Thrakian Chersonesos where he repaired the old
wall at the neck of the peninsula, and even to Sinope which
now became a member of the Athenian alliance. A generation had
passed from the time when Athens lost 10,000 citizens in the
attempt to found a colony at the mouth of the Strymon. The
task was now undertaken successfully by Hagnon, and the city
came into existence which was to be the cause of disaster to
the historian Thucydides and to witness the death of Brasidas
and of Kleon [see AMPHIPOLIS]. … Two years before the
founding of Amphipolis, Samos revolted from Athens. … In
this revolt of Samos the overt action comes from the oligarchs
who had seized upon the Ionian town of Priene, and defeated
the Milesians who opposed them. The latter appealed to the
Athenians, and received not only their aid but that of the
Samian demos. The latter now became the ruling body in the
island, fifty men and fifty boys being taken from the
oligarchic families and placed as hostages in Lemnos, which,
as we have seen, was now wholly occupied by Athenian
Klerouchoi. But the Samian exiles (for many had fled rather
than live under a democracy) entered into covenant with
Pissouthnes, the Sardian satrap, crossed over to Samos and
seized the chief men of the demos, then falling on Lemnos
succeeded in stealing away the hostages; and, having handed
over to Pissouthnes the Athenian garrison at Samos, made ready
for an expedition against Miletos. The tidings that Byzantion
had joined in this last revolt left to the Athenians no room
to doubt the gravity of the crisis. A fleet of sixty ships was
dispatched to Samos under Perikles and nine other generals, of
whom the poet Sophokles is said to have been one. Of these
ships sixteen were sent, some to gather the allies, others to
watch for the Phenician fleet which they believed to be off
the Karian coast advancing to the aid of the Samian oligarchs.
With the remainder Perikles did not hesitate to engage the
Samian fleet of seventy ships which he encountered on its
return from Miletos off the island of Tragia. The Athenians
gained the day; and Samos was blockaded by land and sea. But
no sooner had Perikles sailed with sixty ships to meet the
Phenician fleet, than the Samians, making a vigorous sally,
broke the lines of the besiegers and for fourteen days
remained masters of the sea.
{167}
The return of Perikles changed the face of things. Soon after
the resumption of the siege the arrival of sixty fresh ships
from Athens under five Strategoi in two detachments, with
thirty from Chios and Lesbos, damped the energy of the Samian
oligarchs; and an unsuccessful effort at sea was followed by
their submission in the ninth month after the beginning of the
revolt, the terms being that they should raze their walls,
give hostages, surrender their ships, and pay the expenses of
the war. Following their example, the Byzantines also made
their peace with Athens. The Phenician fleet never came. …
The Athenians escaped at the same time a far greater danger
nearer home. The Samians, like the men of Thasos, had applied
for aid to the Spartans, who, no longer pressed by the Helot
war, summoned a congress of their allies to discuss the
question. For the truce which had still five-and-twenty years
to run Sparta cared nothing: but she encountered an opposition
from the Corinthians which perhaps she now scarcely expected.
… The Spartans were compelled to give way; and there can be
no doubt that when some years later the Corinthians claimed
the gratitude of the Athenians for this decision, they took
credit for an act of good service singularly opportune. Had
they voted as Sparta wished, Athens might by the extension of
revolt amongst her allied cities have been reduced now to the
condition to which, in consequence perhaps of this respite,
she was not brought until the lifetime of a generation had
been spent in desperate warfare."
_G. W. Cox,
History of Greece,
book 3, chapter 1 (volume 2)._
ATHENS: B. C. 431.
Beginning of the Peloponnesian War.
Its Causes.
"In B. C. 431 the war broke out between Athens and the
Peloponnesian League, which, after twenty-seven years, ended
in the ruin of the Athenian empire. It began through a quarrel
between Corinth and Kerkyra, in which Athens assisted Kerkyra.
A congress was held at Sparta; Corinth and other States
complained of the conduct of Athens, and war was decided on.
The real cause of the war was that Sparta and its allies were
jealous of the great power that Athens had gained [see GREECE:
B. C. 435-132 and 432-431]. A far greater number of Greek
States were engaged in this war than had ever been engaged in
a single undertaking before. States that had taken no part in
the Persian war were now fighting on one side or the other.
Sparta was an oligarchy, and the friend of the nobles
everywhere; Athens was a democracy, and the friend of the
common people; so that the war was to some extent a struggle
between these classes all over Greece, and often within the
same city walls the nobles and the people attacked one
another, the nobles being for Sparta and the people for
Athens. On the side of Sparta, when the war began, there was
all Peloponnesus except Argos and Achæa, and also the
oligarchical Bœotian League under Thebes besides Phokis,
Lokris, and other States west of them. They were very strong
by land, but the Corinthians alone had a good fleet. Later on
we shall see the powerful State of Syracuse with its navy,
acting with Sparta. On the side of Athens there were almost
all the Ægæan islands, and a great number of the Ægæan coast
towns as well as Kerkyra and certain States in the west of
Greece. The Athenians had also made alliance with Sitalkes,
the barbarian king of the interior of Thrace. Athens was far
stronger by sea than Sparta, but had not such a strong land
army. On the other hand it had a large treasure, and a system
of taxes, while the Spartan League had little or no money."
_C. A. Fyffe,
History of Greece (History Primers),
page 84._
The Ionian cities, called "allies" of Athens, were subjects in
reality, and held in subjection by tyrannical measures which
made the yoke odious, as is plainly explained by Xenophon, who
says: "Some person might say, that it is a great support to
the Athenians that their allies should be in a condition to
contribute money to them. To the plebeians, however, it seems
to be of much greater advantage that every individual of the
Athenians should get some of the property of the allies, and
that the allies themselves should have only so much as to
enable them to live and to till the ground, so that they may
not be in a condition to form conspiracies. The people of
Athens seem also to have acted injudiciously in this respect,
that they oblige their allies to make voyages to Athens for
the decision of their lawsuits. But the Athenians consider
only, on the other hand, what benefits to the state of Athens
are attendant on this practice; in the first place they
receive their dues throughout the year from the prytaneia; in
the next place, they manage the government of the allied
states while sitting at home, and without sending out ships;
they also support suitors of the lower orders, and ruin those
of an opposite character in their courts of law; but if each
state had its own courts, they would, as being hostile to the
Athenians, be the ruin of those who were most favourable to
the people of Athens. In addition to these advantages, the
Athenian people have the following profits from the courts of
justice for the allies being at Athens; first of all the duty
of the hundredth on what is landed at the Peiræeus affords a
greater revenue to the city; next, whoever has a lodging-house
makes more money by it, as well as whoever has cattle or
slaves for hire; and the heralds, too, are benefited by the
visits of the allies to the city. Besides, if the allies did
not come to Athens for law, they would honour only such of the
Athenians as were sent over the sea to them, as generals, and
captains of vessels, and ambassadors; but now every individual
of the allies is obliged to flatter the people of Athens,
knowing that on going to Athens he must gain or lose his cause
according to the decision, not of other judges, but of the
people, as is the law of Athens; and he is compelled, too, to
use supplication before the court, and, as anyone of the
people enters, to take him by the hand. By these means the
allies are in consequence rendered much more the slaves of the
Athenian people."
_Xenophon,
On the Athenian Government
(Minor Works, translated by Reverend J. S. Watson),
page 235._
The revolt of these coerced and hostile "allies," upon the
outbreak of the Peloponnesian War, was inevitable.—The
prominent events of the Peloponnesian war, in which most of
the Greek States were involved, are properly narrated in their
connection with Greek history at large (see GREECE: B. C.
431-429, and after). In this place it will only be necessary
to take account of the consequences of the war as they
affected the remarkable city and people whose superiority had
occasioned it by challenging and somewhat offensively
provoking the jealousy of their neighbors.
{168}
ATHENS: B. C. 431.
Peloponnesian invasions of Attica.
Siege of Athens.
"While the Peloponnesians were gathering at the Isthmus, and
were still on their way, but before they entered Attica,
Pericles, the son of Xanthippus, who was one of the ten
Athenian generals, … repeated [to the Athenians] his
previous advice; they must prepare for war and bring their
property from the country into the city; they must defend
their walls but not go out to battle; they should also equip
for service the fleet in which lay their strength. … The
citizens were persuaded, and brought into the city their
children and wives, their household goods, and even the
wood-work of their houses, which they took down. Their flocks
and beasts of burden they conveyed to Euboea and the adjacent
islands. The removal of the inhabitants was painful; for the
Athenians had always been accustomed to reside in the country.
Such a life had been characteristic of them more than of any
other Hellenic people, from very early times. … When they
came to Athens, only a few of them had houses or could find
homes among friends or kindred. The majority took up their
abode in the vacant spaces of the city, and in the temples and
shrines of heroes. … Many also established themselves in the
turrets of the walls, or in any other place which they could
find; for the city could not contain them when they first came
in. But afterwards they divided among them the Long Walls and
the greater part of the Piraeus. At the same time the
Athenians applied themselves vigorously to the war, summoning
their allies, and preparing an expedition of 100 ships against
the Peloponnese. While they were thus engaged, the
Peloponnesian army was advancing: it arrived first of all at
Oenoe," where Archidamus, the Spartan king, wasted much time
in a fruitless siege and assault. "At last they marched on,
and about the eightieth day after the entry of the Thebans
into Plataea, in the middle of the summer, when the corn was
in full ear, invaded Attica: … They encamped and ravaged,
first of all, Eleusis and the plain of Thria. … At Acharnae
they encamped, and remained there a considerable time,
ravaging the country." It was the expectation of Archidamus
that the Athenians would be provoked to come out and meet him
in the open field; and that, indeed, they were eager to do;
but the prudence of their great leader held them back. "The
people were furious with Pericles, and, forgetting all his
previous warnings, they abused him for not leading them to
battle." But he was vindicated by the result. "The
Peloponnesians remained in Attica as long as their provisions
lasted, and then, taking a new route, retired through Boeotia.
… On their return to Peloponnesus the troops dispersed to
their several cities." Meantime the Athenian and allied fleets
were ravaging the Peloponnesian coast. "In the same summer [B.
C. 431] the Athenians expelled the Aeginetans and their
families from Aegina, alleging that they had been the main
cause of the war. … The Lacedaemonians gave the Aeginetan
exiles the town of Thyrea to occupy and the adjoining country
to cultivate. … About the end of the summer the entire
Athenian force, including the metics, invaded the territory of
Megara. … After ravaging the greater part of the country
they retired. They repeated the invasion, sometimes with
cavalry, sometimes with the whole Athenian army, every year
during the war until Nisaea was taken [B. C. 424]."
_Thucydides,
History;
translated by B. Jowett,
book 2; sections 13-31 (volume 1)._
ATHENS: B. C. 430.
The funeral oration of Pericles.
During the winter of the year B. C. 431-430, "in accordance
with an old national custom, the funeral of those who first
fell in this war was celebrated by the Athenians at the public
charge. The ceremony is as follows: Three days before the
celebration they erect a tent in which the bones of the dead
are laid out, and everyone brings to his own dead any offering
which he pleases. At the time of the funeral the bones are
placed in chests of cypress wood, which are conveyed on
hearses; there is one chest for each tribe. They also carry a
single empty litter decked with a pall for all whose bodies
are missing, and cannot be recovered after the battle. The
procession is accompanied by anyone who chooses, whether
citizen or stranger, and the female relatives of the deceased
are present at the place of interment and make lamentation.
The public sepulchre is situated in the most beautiful spot
outside the walls; there they always bury those who fall in
war; only after the battle of Marathon the dead, in
recognition of their pre-eminent valour, were interred on the
field. When the remains have been laid in the earth, some man
of known ability and high reputation, chosen by the city,
delivers a suitable oration over them; after which the people
depart. Such is the manner of interment; and the ceremony was
repeated from time to time throughout the war. Over those who
were the first buried Pericles was chosen to speak. At the
fitting moment he advanced from the sepulchre to a lofty
stage, which had been erected in order that he might be heard
as far as possible by the multitude, and spoke as
follows:
'Most of those who have spoken here before me have
commended the lawgiver who added this oration to our other
funeral customs; it seemed to them a worthy thing that such
an honour should be given at their burial to the dead who
have fallen on the field of battle. But I should have
preferred that, when men's deeds have been brave, they
should be honoured in deed only, and with such an honour as
this public funeral, which you are now witnessing. Then the
reputation of many would not have been imperilled on the
eloquence or want of eloquence of one, and their virtues
believed or not as he spoke well or ill. For it is
difficult to say neither too little nor too much; and even
moderation is apt not to give the impression of
truthfulness. The friend of the dead who knows the facts is
likely to think that the words of the speaker fall short of
his knowledge and of his wishes; another who is not so well
informed, when he hears of anything which surpasses his own
powers, will be envious and will suspect exaggeration.
Mankind are tolerant of the praises of others so long as
each hearer thinks that he can do as well or nearly as well
himself, but, when the speaker rises above him, jealousy is
aroused and he begins to be incredulous. However, since our
ancestors have set the seal of their approval upon the practice,
I must obey, and to the utmost of my power shall endeavour
to satisfy the wishes and beliefs of all who hear me. I
will speak first of our ancestors, for it is right and
becoming that now, when we are lamenting the dead, a
tribute should be paid to their memory. There has never
been a time when they did not inhabit this land, which by
their valour they have handed down from generation to
generation, and we have received from them a free state.
{169}
But if they were worthy of praise, still more were our
fathers who added to their inheritance, and after many a
struggle transmitted to us their sons this great empire.
And we ourselves assembled here to-day, who are still most
of us in the vigour of life, have chiefly done the work of
improvement, and have richly endowed our city with all
things, so that she is sufficient for herself both in peace
and war. Of the military exploits by which our various
possessions were acquired, or of the energy with which we
or our fathers drove back the tide of war, Hellenic or
Barbarian, I will not speak; for the tale would be long and
is familiar to you. But before I praise the dead, I should
like to point out by what principles of action we rose to
power, and under what institutions and through what manner
of life our empire became great. For I conceive, that such
thoughts are not unsuited to the occasion, and that this
numerous assembly of citizens and strangers may profitably
listen to them. Our form of government does not enter into
rivalry with the institutions of others. We do not copy our
neighbours, but are an example to them. It is true that we
are called a democracy, for the administration is in the
hands of the many and not of the few. But while the law
secures equal justice to all alike in their private
disputes, the claim of excellence is also recognised; and
when a citizen is in any way distinguished, he is preferred
to the public service, not as a matter of privilege, but as
the reward of merit. Neither is poverty a bar, but a man
may benefit his country whatever be the obscurity of his
condition. There is no exclusiveness in our public life,
and in our private intercourse we are not suspicious of one
another, nor angry with our neighbour if he does what he
likes; we do not put on sour looks at him which, though
harmless, are not pleasant. While we are thus unconstrained
in our private intercourse, a spirit of reverence pervades
our public acts; we are prevented from doing wrong by
respect for authority and for the laws, having an especial
regard to those which are ordained for the protection of
the injured as well as to those unwritten laws which bring
upon the transgressor of them the reprobation of the
general sentiment. And we have not forgotten to provide for
our weary spirits many relaxations from toil; we have
regular games and sacrifices throughout the year; at home
the style of our life is refined; and the delight which we
daily feel in all these things helps to banish melancholy.
Because of the greatness of our city the fruits of the
whole earth flow in upon us; so that we enjoy the goods of
other countries as freely as of our own. Then, again, our
military training is in many respects superior to that of
our adversaries. Our city is thrown open to the world, and
we never expel a foreigner or prevent him from seeing or
learning anything of which the secret if revealed to an
enemy might profit him. We rely not upon management or
trickery, but upon our own hearts and hands. And in the
matter of education, whereas they from early youth are
always undergoing laborious exercises which are to make
them brave, we live at ease, and yet are equally ready to
face the Lacedaemonians come into Attica not by themselves,
but with their whole confederacy following; we go alone
into a neighbour's country; and although our opponents are
fighting for their homes and we on a foreign soil we have
seldom any difficulty in overcoming them. Our enemies have
never yet felt our united strength; the care of a navy
divides our attention, and on land we are obliged to send
our own citizens everywhere. But they, if they meet and
defeat a part of our army, are as proud as if they had
routed us all, and when defeated they pretend to have been
vanquished by us all. If then we prefer to meet danger with
a light heart but without laborious training, and with a
courage which is gained by habit and not enforced by law,
are we not greatly the gainers? Since we do not anticipate
the pain, although, when the hour comes, we can be as brave
as those who never allow themselves to rest; and thus too
our city is equally admirable in peace and in war. For we
are lovers of the beautiful, yet simple in our tastes, and
we cultivate the mind without loss of manliness. Wealth we
employ, not for talk and ostentation, but when there is a
real use for it. To avow poverty with us is no disgrace;
the true disgrace is in doing nothing to avoid it. An
Athenian citizen does not neglect the state because he
takes care of his own household; and even those of us who
are engaged in business have a very fair idea of politics.
We alone regard a man who takes no interest in public
affairs, not as a harmless, but as a useless character; and
if few of us are originators, we are all sound judges of a
policy. The great impediment to action is, in our opinion,
not discussion, but the want of that knowledge which is
gained by discussion preparatory to action. For we have a
peculiar power of thinking before we act and of acting too,
whereas other men are courageous from ignorance but
hesitate upon reflection. And they are surely to be
esteemed the bravest spirits who, having the clearest sense
both of the pains and pleasures of life, do not on that
account shrink from danger. In doing good, again, we are
unlike others; we make our friends by conferring, not by
receiving favours. Now he who confers a favour is the
firmer friend, because he would fain by kindness keep alive
the memory of an obligation; but the recipient is colder in
his feelings, because he knows that in requiting another's
generosity he will not be winning gratitude but only paying
a debt. We alone do good to our neighbours not upon a
calculation of interest, but in the confidence of freedom
and in a frank and fearless spirit. To sum up; I say that
Athens is the school of Hellas, and that the individual
Athenian in his own person seems to have the power of
adapting himself to the most varied forms of action with
the utmost versatility and grace. This is no passing and
idle word, but truth and fact; and the assertion is
verified by the position to which these qualities have
raised the state. For in the hour of trial Athens alone
among her contemporaries is superior to the report of her.
No enemy who comes against her is indignant at the reverses
which he sustains at the hands of such a city; no subject
complains that his masters are unworthy of him. And we
shall assuredly not be without witnesses; there are mighty
monuments of our power which will make us the wonder of
this and of succeeding ages; we shall not need the praises
of Homer or of any other panegyrist whose poetry may please
for the moment, although his representation of the facts
will not bear the light of day.
{170}
For we have compelled every land and every sea to open a
path for our valour, and have everywhere planted eternal
memorials of our friendship and of our enmity. Such is the
city for whose sake these men nobly fought and died; they
could not bear the thought that she might be taken from
them; and everyone of us who survive should gladly toil on
her behalf. I have dwelt upon the greatness of Athens
because I want to show you that we are contending for a
higher prize than those who enjoy none of these privileges,
and to establish by manifest proof the merit of these men
whom I am now commemorating. Their loftiest praise has been
already spoken. For in magnifying the city I have magnified
them, and men like them whose virtues made her glorious.
And of how few Hellenes can it be said as of them, that
their deeds when weighed in the balance have been found
equal to their fame! Methinks that a death such as theirs
has been gives the true measure of a man's worth; it may be
the first revelation of his virtues, but is at any rate
their final seal. For even those who come short in other
ways may justly plead the valour with which they have
fought for their country; they have blotted out the evil
with the good, and have benefited the state more by their
public services than they have injured her by their private
actions. None of these men were enervated by wealth or
hesitated to resign the pleasures of life; none of them put
off the evil day in the hope, natural to poverty, that a
man, though poor, may one day become rich. But, deeming
that the punishment of their enemies was sweeter than any
of these things, and that they could fall in no nobler
cause, they determined at the hazard of their lives to be
honourably avenged, and to leave the rest. They resigned to
hope their unknown chance of happiness; but in the face of
death they resolved to rely upon themselves alone. And when
the moment came they were minded to resist and suffer,
rather than to fly and save their lives; they ran away from
the word of dishonour, but on the battle-field their feet
stood fast, and in an instant, at the height of their
fortune, they passed away from the scene, not of their
fear, but of their glory. Such was the end of these men;
they were worthy of Athens, and the living need not desire
to have a more heroic spirit although they may pray for a
less fatal issue. The value of such a spirit is not to be
expressed in words. Anyone can discourse to you for ever
about the advantages of a brave defence which you know
already. But instead of listening to him I would have you
day by day fix your eyes upon the greatness of Athens,
until you become filled with the love of her; and when you
are impressed by the spectacle of her glory reflect that
this empire has been acquired by men who knew their duty
and had the courage to do it; who in the hour of conflict
had the fear of dishonour always present to them, and who,
if ever they failed in an enterprize, would not allow their
virtues to be lost to their country, but freely gave their
lives to her as the fairest offering which they could
present at her feast. The sacrifice which they collectively
made was individually repaid to them; for they received
again each one for himself a praise which grows not old,
and the noblest of all sepulchres—I speak not of that in
which their remains are laid, but of that in which their
glory survives, and is proclaimed always and on every
fitting occasion both in word and deed. For the whole earth
is the sepulchre of famous men; not only are they
commemorated by columns and inscriptions in their own
country, but in foreign lands there dwells also an
unwritten memorial of them, graven not on stone but in the
hearts of men. Make them your examples, and esteeming
courage to be freedom and freedom to be happiness, do not
weigh too nicely the perils of war. The unfortunate who has
no hope of a change for the better has less reason to throw
away his life than the prosperous who, if he survive, is
always liable to a change for the worse, and to whom any
accidental fall makes the most serious difference. To a man
of spirit, cowardice and disaster coming together are far
more bitter than death striking him unperceived at a time
when he is full of courage and animated by the general
hope. Wherefore I do not now commiserate the parents of the
dead who stand here; I would rather comfort them. You know
that your life has been passed amid manifold vicissitudes;
and that they may be deemed fortunate who have gained most
honour, whether an honourable death like theirs, or an
honourable sorrow like yours, and whose days have been so
ordered that the term of their happiness is likewise the
term of their life. I know how hard it is to make you feel
this, when the good fortune of others will too often remind
you of the gladness which once lightened your hearts. And
sorrow is felt at the want of those blessings, not which a
man never knew, but which were a part of his life before
they were taken from him. Some of you are of an age at
which they may hope to have other children, and they ought
to bear their sorrow better; not only will the children who
may hereafter be born make them forget their own lost ones,
but the city will be doubly a gainer. She will not be left
desolate, and she will be safer. For a man's counsel cannot
have equal weight or worth, when he alone has no children
to risk in the general danger. To those of you who have
passed their prime I say: "Congratulate yourselves that you
have been happy during the greater part of those days;
remember that your life of sorrow will not last long, and
be comforted by the glory of those who are gone. For the
love of honour alone is ever young, and not riches, as some
say, but honour is the delight of men when they are old and
useless." To you who are the sons and brothers of the
departed, I see that the struggle to emulate them will be
an arduous one. For all men praise the dead, and, however
pre-eminent your virtue may be, hardly will you be thought,
I do not say to equal, but even to approach them. The
living have their rivals and detractors, but when a man is
out of the way, the honour and good-will which he receives
is unalloyed. And, if I am to speak of womanly virtues to
those of you who will henceforth be widows, let me sum them
up in one short admonition: To a woman not to show more
weakness than is natural to her sex is a great glory, and
not to be talked about for good or for evil among men. I
have paid the required tribute, in obedience to the law,
making use of such fitting words as I had. The tribute of
deeds has been paid in part; for the dead have been
honourably interred, and it remains only that their
children should be maintained at the public charge until
they are grown up: this is the solid prize with which, as
with a garland, Athens crowns her sons living and dead,
after a struggle like theirs. For where the rewards of
virtue are greatest, there the noblest citizens are
enlisted in the service of the state. And now, when you
have duly lamented, everyone his own dead, you may depart.'
Such was the order of the funeral celebrated in this winter,
with the end of which ended the first year of the
Peloponnesian War."
_Thucydides,
History,
translated by B. Jowett,
volume 1, book 2, sections 34-47._
{171}
ATHENS: B. C. 130-429.
The Plague in the city.
Death of Pericles.
Capture of Potidæa.
"As soon as the summer returned [B. C. 430] the Peloponnesians
… invaded Attica, where they established themselves and
ravaged the country. They had not been there many days when
the plague broke out at Athens for the first time. … The
disease is said to have begun south of Egypt in Æthiopia;
thence it descended into Egypt and Libya, and after spreading
over the greater part of the Persian Empire, suddenly fell
upon Athens. It first attacked the inhabitants of the Piæeus,
and it was supposed that the Peloponnesians had poisoned the
cisterns, no conduits having as yet been made there. It
afterwards reached the upper city, and then the mortality
became far greater. As to its probable origin or the causes
which might or could have produced such a disturbance of
nature, every man, whether a physician or not, will give his
own opinion. But I shall describe its actual course, and the
symptoms by which anyone who knows them beforehand may
recognize the disorder should it ever reappear. For I was
myself attacked, and witnessed the sufferings of others. The
season was admitted to have been remarkably free from ordinary
sickness; and if anybody was already ill of any other disease,
it was absorbed in this. Many who were in perfect health, all
in a moment, and without any apparent reason, were seized with
violent heats in the head and with redness and inflammation of
the eyes. Internally the throat and tongue were quickly
suffused with blood and the breath became unnatural and fetid.
There followed sneezing and hoarseness; in a short time the
disorder, accompanied by a violent cough, reached the chest;
then fastening lower down, it would move the stomach and bring
on all the vomits of bile to which physicians have ever given
names; and they were very distressing. … The body externally
was not so very hot to the touch, nor yet pale; it was a livid
colour inclining to red, and breaking out in pustules and
ulcers. But the internal fever was intense. … The disorder
which had originally settled in the head passed gradually
through the whole body, and, if a person got over the worst,
would often seize the extremities and leave its mark,
attacking the privy parts and the fingers and toes; and some
escaped with the loss of these, some with the loss of their
eyes. … The crowding of the people out of the country into
the city aggravated the misery; and the newly-arrived suffered
most. … The mortality among them was dreadful and they
perished in wild disorder. The dead lay as they had died, one
upon another, while others hardly alive wallowed in the
streets and crawled about every fountain craving for water.
The temples in which they lodged were full of the corpses of
those who died in them; for the violence of the calamity was
such that men, not knowing where to turn, grew reckless of all
law, human and divine. … The pleasure of the moment and any
sort of thing which conduced to it took the place both of
honour and of expediency. No fear of God or law of man
deterred a criminal." Terrified by the plague, when they
learned of it, the Peloponnesians retreated from Attica, after
ravaging it for forty days; but, in the meantime, their own
coasts had been ravaged, as before, by the Athenian fleet. And
now, being once more relieved from the presence of the enemy,
though still grievously afflicted by the plague, the Athenians
turned upon Pericles with complaints and reproaches, and
imposed a fine upon him. They also sent envoys to Sparta, with
peace proposals which received no encouragement. But Pericles
spoke calmly and wisely to the people, and they acknowledged
their sense of dependence upon him by re-electing him general
and committing again "all their affairs to his charge." But he
was stricken next year with the plague, and, lingering for
some weeks in broken health, he died in the summer of 429 B.
C. By his death the republic was given over to striving
demagogues and factions, at just the time when a capable brain
and hand were needed in its government most. The war went on,
acquiring more ferocity of temper with every campaign. It was
especially embittered in the course of the second summer by
the execution, at Athens, of several Lacedaemonian envoys who
were captured while on their way to solicit help from the
Persian king. One of these unfortunate envoys was Aristeus,
who had organized the defence of Potidaea. That city was still
holding out against the Athenians, who blockaded it obstinately,
although their troops suffered frightfully from the plague.
But in the winter of 430-429 B. C. they succumbed to
starvation and surrendered their town, being permitted to
depart in search of a new home. Potidaea was then peopled
anew, with colonists.
_Thucydides,
History,
translated by Jowett,
book 2, sections 8-70._
ALSO IN:
_E. Abbott,
Pericles and the Golden Age of Athens,
chapters 13-15._
_W. W. Lloyd,
The Age of Pericles,
chapter 64 (volume 2)._
_L. Whibley,
Political Parties in Athens during the Peloponnesian War._
_W. Wachsmuth,
History Antiquities of the Greeks,
sections 62-64 (volume 2)._
ATHENS: B. C. 429-421.
After Pericles.
The rise of the Demagogues.
"When Pericles rose to power it would have been possible to
frame a Pan-Hellenic union, in which Sparta and Athens would
have been the leading states; and such a dualism would have
been the best guarantee for the rights of the smaller cities.
When he died there was no policy left but war with Sparta, and
conquest in the West. And not only so, but there was no
politician who could adjust the relations of domestic war and
foreign conquest. The Athenians passed from one to the other,
as they were addressed by Cleon or Alcibiades. We cannot
wonder that the men who lived in those days of trouble spoke
bitterly of Pericles, holding him accountable for the miseries
which fell upon Athens. Other statesmen had bequeathed good
laws, as Solon and Clisthenes, or the memory of great
achievements, as Themistocles or Cimon, but the only changes
which Pericles had introduced were thought, not without
reason, to be changes for the worse; and he left his country
involved in a ruinous war.".
_E. Abbott,
Pericles and the Golden Age of Athens,
pages 362-363._
{172}
"The moral change which had … befallen the Attic community
had, it is true, even during the lifetime of Pericles,
manifested itself by means of sufficiently clear premonitory
signs; but Pericles had, notwithstanding, up to the days of
his last illness, remained the centre of the state; the people
had again and again returned to him, and by subordinating
themselves to the personal authority of Pericles had succeeded
in recovering the demeanor which befitted them. But now the
voice was hushed, which had been able to sway the unruly
citizens, even against their will. No other authority was in
existence—no aristocracy, no official class, no board of
experienced statesmen—nothing, in fact, to which the citizens
might have looked for guidance and control. The multitude had
recovered absolute independence, and in proportion as, in the
interval, readiness of speech and sophistic versatility had
spread in Athens, the number had increased of those who now
put themselves forward as popular speakers and leaders. But
as, among all these, none was capable of leading the multitude
after the fashion of Pericles, another method of leading the
people, another kind of demagogy, sprung into existence.
Pericles stood above the multitude. … His successors were
obliged to adopt other means; in order to acquire influence,
they took advantage not so much of the strong as of the weak
points in the character of the citizens, and achieved
popularity by flattering their inclinations, and endeavoring
to satisfy the cravings of their baser nature. … Now for the
first time, men belonging to the lower class of citizens
thrust themselves forward to play a part in politics,—men of
the trading and artisan class, the culture and wealth of which
had so vigorously increased at Athens. … The office of
general frequently became a post of martyrdom; and the bravest
men felt that the prospect of being called to account as to
their campaigns by cowardly demagogues, before a capricious
multitude, disturbed the straightforward joyousness of their
activity, and threw obstacles in the way of their successes.
… On the orators' tribune the contrast was more striking.
Here the first prominent successor of Pericles was a certain
Eucrates, a rude and uneducated man, who was ridiculed on the
comic stage as the 'boar' or 'bear of Melite' (the name of the
district to which he belonged), a dealer in tow and
mill-owner, who only for a short space of time took the lead
in the popular assembly. His place was taken by Lysicles, who
had acquired wealth by the cattle-trade. … It was not until
after Lysicles, that the demagogues attained to power who had
first made themselves a name by their opposition against
Pericles, and, among them, Cleon was the first who was able to
maintain his authority for a longer period of time; so that it
is in his proceedings during the ensuing years of the war that
the whole character of the new demagogy first thoroughly
manifests itself."
_E. Curtius,
History of Greece,
volume 3, chapter 2._
"The characters of the military commander and the political
leader were gradually separated. The first germs of this
division we find in the days of Kimôn and Periklês. Kimôn was
no mean politician; but his real genius clearly called him to
warfare with the Barbarian. Periklês was an able and
successful general; but in him the military character was
quite subordinate to that of the political leader. It was a
wise compromise which entrusted Kimôn with the defence of the
state abroad and Periklês with its management at home. After
Periklês the separation widened. We nowhere hear of
Dêmosthenes and Phormiôn as political leaders; and even in
Nikias the political is subordinate to the military character.
Kleôn, on the other hand, was a politician but not a soldier.
But the old notion of combining military and political
position was not quite lost. It was still deemed that he who
proposed a warlike expedition should himself, if it were
needful, be able to conduct it. Kleôn in an evil hour was
tempted to take on himself military functions; he was forced
into command against Sphaktêria; by the able and loyal help of
Dêmosthenês he acquitted himself with honour. But his head was
turned by success; he aspired to independent command; he
measured himself against the mighty Brasidas; and the fatal
battle of Amphipolis was the result. It now became clear that
the Demagogue and the General must commonly be two distinct
persons. The versatile genius of Alkibiadês again united the
two characters; but he left no successor. … A Demagogue then
was simply an influential speaker of popular politics.
Dêmosthenês is commonly distinguished as an orator, while
Kleôn is branded as a Demagogue; but the position of the one
was the same as the position of the other. The only question
is as to the wisdom and honesty of the advice given either by
Kleôn or by Dêmosthenês."
_E. A. Freeman,
Historical Essays, 2d series,
pages 138-140._
ATHENS: B. C. 429-427.
Fate of Platæa.
Phormio's Victories.
Revolt of Lesbos.
Siege of Mitylene.
Cleon's bloody decree and its reversal.
See GREECE: B. C. 429-427.
ATHENS: B. C. 425.
Seizure of Pylus by Demosthenes, the general.
Spartans entrapped and captured at Sphacteria.
Peace pleaded for and refused.
See GREECE: B. C. 425.
ATHENS: B. C. 424-406.
Socrates as soldier and citizen.
The trial of the Generals.
"Socrates was born very shortly before the year 469 B. C. His
father, Sophroniscus, was a sculptor, his mother, Phænarete, a
midwife. Nothing definite is known of his moral and
intellectual development. There is no specific record of him
at all until he served at the siege of Potidæa (432 B. C.-429
B. C.) when he was nearly forty years old. All that we can say
is that his youth and manhood were passed in the most splendid
period of Athenian or Greek history. … As a boy he received the
usual Athenian liberal education, in music and gymnastic, an
education, that is to say, mental and physical. He was fond of
quoting from the existing Greek literature, and he seems to
have been familiar with it, especially with Homer. He is
represented by Xenophon as repeating Prodieus' fable of the
choice of Heracles at length. He says that he was in the habit
of studying with his friends 'the treasures which the wise men
of old have left us in their books:' collections, that is, of
the short and pithy sayings of the seven sages, such as 'know
thyself'; a saying, it may be noticed, which lay at the root
of his whole teaching. And he had some knowledge of
mathematics, and of science, as it existed in those days. He
understood something of astronomy and of advanced geometry;
and he was acquainted with certain, at any rate, of the
theories of his predecessors in philosophy, the Physical or
Cosmical philosophers, such as Heraclitus and Parmenides, and,
especially, with those of Anaxagoras.
{173}
But there is no trustworthy evidence which enables us to go
beyond the bare fact that he had such knowledge. … All then
that we can say of the first forty years of Socrates' life
consists of general statements like these. During these years
there is no specific record of him. Between 432 B. C. and 429
B. C. he served as a common soldier at the siege of Potidæa,
an Athenian dependency which had revolted, and surpassed
everyone in his powers of enduring hunger, thirst, and cold,
and all the hardships of a severe Thracian winter. At this
siege we hear of him for the first time in connection with
Alcibiades, whose life he saved in a skirmish, and to whom he
eagerly relinquished the prize of valour. In 431 B. C. the
Peloponnesian War broke out, and in 424 B. C. the Athenians
were disastrously defeated and routed by the Thebans at the
battle of Delium. Socrates and Laches were among the few who
did not yield to panic. They retreated together steadily, and
the resolute bearing of Socrates was conspicuous to friend and
foe alike. Had all the Athenians behaved as he did, says
Laches, in the dialogue of that name, the defeat would have
been a victory. Socrates fought bravely a third time at the
battle of Amphipolis [422 B. C.] against the Peloponnesian
forces, in which the commanders on both sides, Cleon and
Brasidas, were killed: but there is no record of his specific
services on that occasion. About the same time that Socrates
was displaying conspicuous courage in the cause of Athens at
Delium and Amphipolis, Aristophanes was holding him up to
hatred, contempt, and ridicule in the comedy of the Clouds
[13. C. 423]. … The Clouds is his protest against the
immorality of free thought and the Sophists. He chose Socrates
for his central figure, chiefly, no doubt, on account of
Socrates' well-known and strange personal appearance. The
grotesque ugliness, and flat nose, and prominent eyes, and
Silenus-like face, and shabby dress, might be seen every day
in the streets, and were familiar to every Athenian.
Aristophanes cared little—probably he did not take the
trouble to find out—that Socrates' whole life was spent in
fighting against the Sophists. It was enough for him that
Socrates did not accept the traditional beliefs, and was a
good centre-piece for a comedy. … The Clouds, it is needless
to say, is a gross and absurd libel from beginning to end: but
Aristophanes hit the popular conception. The charges which he
made in 423 B. C. stuck to Socrates to the end of his life.
They are exactly the charges made by popular prejudice,
against which Socrates defends himself in the first ten
chapters of the Apology, and which he says have been so long
'in the air.' He formulates them as follows: 'Socrates is an
evil doer who busies himself with investigating things beneath
the earth and in the sky, and who makes the worse appear the
better reason, and who teaches others these same things.' …
For sixteen years after the battle of Amphipolis we hear
nothing of Socrates. The next events in his life, of which
there is a specific record, are those narrated by himself in
the twentieth chapter of the Apology. They illustrate, as he
meant them to illustrate, his invincible moral courage. … In
406 B. C. the Athenian fleet defeated the Lacedæmonians at the
battle of Arginusæ, so called from some small islands off the
south-east point of Lesbos. After the battle the Athenian
commanders omitted to recover the bodies of their dead, and to
save the living from off their disabled enemies. The Athenians
at home, on hearing of this, were furious. The due performance
of funeral rites was a very sacred duty with the Greeks; and
many citizens mourned for friends and relatives who had been
left to drown. The commanders were immediately recalled, and
an assembly was held in which they were accused of neglect of
duty. They defended themselves by saying that they had ordered
certain inferior officers (amongst others, their accuser
Theramenes) to perform the duty, but that a storm had come on
which had rendered the performance impossible. The debate was
adjourned, and it was resolved that the Senate should decide
in what way the commanders should be tried. The Senate
resolved that the Athenian people, having heard the accusation
and the defence, should proceed to vote forthwith for the
acquittal or condemnation of the eight commanders
collectively. The resolution was grossly unjust, and it was
illegal. It substituted a popular vote for a fair and formal
trial. … Socrates was at that time a member of the Senate,
the only office that he ever filled. The Senate was composed
of five hundred citizens, elected by lot, fifty from each of
the ten tribes, and holding office for one year. The members
of each tribe held the Prytany, that is, were responsible for
the conduct of business, for thirty-five days at a time, and
ten out of the fifty were proedri or presidents every seven
days in succession. Every bill or motion was examined by the
proedri before it was submitted to the Assembly, to see if it
were in accordance with law; if it was not, it was quashed:
one of the proedri presided over the Senate and the Assembly
each day, and for one day only: he was called the Epistates:
it was his duty to put the question to the vote. In short he
was the speaker. … On the day on which it was proposed to
take a collective vote on the acquittal or condemnation of the
eight commanders, Socrates was Epistates. The proposal was, as
we have seen, illegal: but the people were furious against the
accused, and it was a very popular one. Some of the proedri
opposed it before it was submitted to the Assembly, on the
ground of its illegality; but they were silenced by threats
and subsided. Socrates alone refused to give way. He would not
put a question which he knew to be illegal, to the vote.
Threats of suspension and arrest, the clamour of an angry
people, the fear of imprisonment or death, could not move him.
… But his authority lasted only for a day; the proceedings
were adjourned, a more pliant Epistates succeeded him, and the
generals were condemned and executed."
_F. J. Church,
Introduction to Trial and Death of Socrates,
pages 9-23._
See, also, GREECE: B. C. 406.
{174}
ATHENS: B. C. 421.
End of the first period of the Peloponnesian War.
The Peace of Nicias.
"The first stage of the Peloponnesian war came to an end just
ten years after the invasion of Attica by Archidamus in 431 B.
C. Its results had been almost purely negative; a vast
quantity of blood and treasure had been wasted on each side,
but to no great purpose. The Athenian naval power was
unimpaired, and the confederacy of Delos, though shaken by the
successful revolt of Amphipolis and the Thraceward towns, was
still left subsisting. On the other hand, the attempts of
Athens to accomplish anything on land had entirely failed, and
the defensive policy of Pericles had been so far justified.
Well would it have been for Athens if her citizens had taken
the lesson to heart, and contented themselves with having
escaped so easily from the greatest war they had ever
known."
_C. W. C. Oman,
History of Greece,
page 341._
"The treaty called since ancient times the Peace of Nicias …
put an end to the war between the two Greek confederations of
states, after it had lasted for rather more than ten years,
viz., from the attack of the Bœotians upon Platææ, Ol.
lxxxvii. 1 (beginning of April B. C. 431) to Ol. lxxxix. 3
(towards the middle of April B. C. 421). The war was for this
reason known under the name of the Ten Years' War, while the
Peloponnesians called it the Attic War. Its end constituted a
triumph for Athens; for all the plans of the enemies who had
attacked her had come to naught; Sparta had been unable to
fulfil a single one of the promises with which she had entered
upon the war, and was ultimately forced to acknowledge the
dominion of Athens in its whole extent,—notwithstanding all
the mistakes and misgivings, notwithstanding all the
calamities attributable, or not, to the Athenians themselves:
the resources of offence and defence which the city owed to
Pericles had therefore proved their excellence, and all the
fury of her opponents had wasted itself against her in vain.
Sparta herself was satisfied with the advantages which the
peace offered to her own city and citizens; but great was the
discontent among her confederates, particularly among the
secondary states, who had originally occasioned the war and
obliged Sparta to take part in it. Even after the conclusion
of the peace, it was impossible to induce Thebes and Corinth
to accede to it. The result of the war to Sparta was therefore
the dissolution of the confederation at whose head she had
begun the war; she felt herself thereby placed in so
dangerously isolated a position, that she was obliged to fall
back upon Athens in self-defence against her own confederates.
Accordingly the Peace of Nicias was in the course of the same
year converted into a fifty years' alliance, under the terms
of which Sparta and Athens contracted the obligation of mutual
assistance against any hostile attack."
_E. Curtius,
History of Greece,
book 4, chapter 2 (volume 3)._
See, also, GREECE: B. C. 424-421.
ATHENS: B. C. 421-418.
New combinations.
Conflicting alliances with Sparta and the Argive Confederacy.
Rising influence of Alcibiades.
War in Argos and Arcadia.
Battle of Mantinea.
See GREECE: B. C. 421-418.
ATHENS: B. C. 416.
Siege and conquest of Melos.
Massacre of the inhabitants.
See GREECE: B. C. 416.
ATHENS: B. C. 415.
The expedition against Syracuse.
Mutilation of the Hermæ (Hermai).
A quarrel having broken out in Sicily, between the cities of
Segesta and Selinous, "the latter obtained aid from Syracuse.
Upon this, Segesta, having vainly sought help from Carthage,
appealed to Athens, where the exiled Sicilians were numerous.
Alkibiades had been one of the most urgent for the attack upon
Melos, and he did not lose the present opportunity to incite
the Athenians to an enterprise of much greater importance, and
where he hoped to be in command. … All men's minds were
filled with ambitious hopes. Everywhere, says Plutarch, were
to be seen young men in the gymnasia, old men in workshops and
public places of meeting, drawing the map of Sicily, talking
about the sea that surrounds it, the goodness of its harbors,
its position opposite Africa. Established there, it would be
easy to cross over and subjugate Carthage, and extend their
sway as far as the Pillars of Hercules. The rich did not
approve of this rashness, but feared if they opposed it that
the opposite faction would accuse them of wishing to avoid the
service and costs of arming galleys. Nikias had more courage;
even after the Athenians had appointed him general, with
Alkibiades and Lamachos, he spoke publicly against the
enterprise, showed the imprudence of going in search of new
subjects when those they already had were at the moment in a
state of revolt, as in Chalkidike, or only waited for a
disaster to break the chain which bound them to Athens. He
ended by reproaching Alkibiades for plunging the republic, to
gratify his personal ambition, into a foreign war of the
greatest danger. … One of the demagogues, however, replied
that he would put an end to all this hesitation, and he
proposed and secured the passage of a decree giving the
generals full power to use all the resources of the city in
preparing for the expedition (March 24, 415 B. C.) Nikias was
completely in the right. The expedition to Sicily was
impolitic and foolish. In the Ægæan Sea lay the empire of
Athens, and there only it could lie, within reach, close at
hand. Every acquisition westward of the Peloponnesos was a
source of weakness. Syracuse, even if conquered, would not
long remain subject. Whatever might be the result of the
expedition, it was sure to be disastrous in the end. … An
event which took place shortly before the departure of the
fleet (8-9 June) threw terror into the city: one morning the
hermai throughout the city were seen to have been mutilated.
… 'These Hermæ, or half-statues of the god Hermês, were
blocks of marble about the height of the human figure. The
upper part was cut into a head, face, neck and bust; the lower
part was left as a quadrangular pillar, broad at the base,
without arms, body, or legs, but with the significant mark of
the male sex in front. They were distributed in great numbers
throughout Athens, and always in the most conspicuous
situations; standing beside the outer doors of private houses
as well as of temples, near the most frequented porticos, at
the intersection of cross ways, in the public agora. … The
religious feelings of the Greeks considered the god to be
planted or domiciled where his statue stood, so that the
companionship, sympathy, and guardianship of Hermês became
associated with most of the manifestations of conjunct life at
Athens,—political, social, commercial, or gymnastic.' … To
all pious minds the city seemed menaced with great misfortunes
unless the anger of Heaven should be appeased by a sufficient
expiation.
{175}
While Alkibiades had many partisans, he had also violent
enemies. Not long before this time Hyperbolos, a contemptible
man, had almost succeeded in obtaining his banishment; and he
had escaped this danger only by uniting his party with that of
Nikias, and causing the demagogue himself to suffer ostracism.
The affair of the hermai appeared to his adversaries a
favourable occasion to repeat the attempt made by Hyperbolos,
and we have good reason to believe in a political machination,
seeing this same populace applaud, a few months later, the
impious audacity of Aristophanes in his comedy of The Birds.
An inquiry was set on foot, and certain metoikoi and slaves,
without making any deposition as to the hermai, recalled to
mind that before this time some of these statues had been
broken by young men after a night of carousal and
intoxication, thus indirectly attacking Alkibiades. Others in
set terms accused him of having at a banquet parodied the
Eleusinian Mysteries; and men took advantage of the
superstitious terrors of the people to awake their political
anxieties. It was repeated that the breakers of sacred
statues, the profaners of mysteries, would respect the
government even less than they had respected the gods, and it
was whispered that not one of these crimes had been committed
without the participation of Alkibiades; and in proof of this
men spoke of the truly aristocratic license of his life. Was
he indeed the author of this sacrilegious freak? To believe
him capable of it would not be to calumniate him. Or, on the
other hand, was it a scheme planned to do him injury? Although
proofs are lacking, it is certain that among the rich, upon
whom rested the heavy burden of the naval expenses, a plot had
been formed to destroy the power of Alkibiades, and perhaps to
prevent the sailing of the fleet. The demagogues, who had
intoxicated the people with hope, were for the expedition; but
the popularity of Alkibiades was obnoxious to them: a
compromise was made between the two factions, as is often done
in times when public morality is enfeebled, and Alkibiades
found himself threatened on all sides. … Urging as a pretext
the dangers of delay in sending off the expedition, they
obtained a decree that Alkibiades should embark at once; and
that the question of his guilt or innocence should be
postponed until after his return. It was now the middle of
summer. The day appointed for departure, the whole city,
citizens and foreigners, went out to Peiraieus at daybreak.
… At that moment the view was clearer as to the doubts and
dangers, and also the distance of the expedition; but all eyes
were drawn to the immense preparations that had been made, and
confidence and pride consoled those who were about to part."
_V. Duruy,
History of the Greek People,
chapter 25, section 2 (volume 3)._
ALSO IN:
_Thucydides,
History,
book 6, section 27-28._
_G. W. Cox,
The Athenian Empire,
chapter 5._
_G. Grote,
History of Greece,
part 2, chapter 58 (volume 7)._
ATHENS: B. C. 415-413.
Fatal end of the expedition against Syracuse.
"Alkibiades was called back to Athens, to take his trial on a
charge of impiety. … He did not go back to Athens for his
trial, but escaped to Peloponnesos, where we shall hear from
him again. Meanwhile the command of the Athenian force in
Sicily was left practically in the hands of Nikias. Now Nikias
could always act well when he did act; but it was very hard to
make him act; above all on an errand which he hated. One might
say that Syracuse was saved through the delays of Nikias. He
now went off to petty expeditions in the west of Sicily, under
cover of settling matters at Segesta. … The Syracusans by
this time quite despised the invaders. Their horsemen rode up
to the camp of the Athenians at Katanê, and asked them if they
had come into Sicily merely to sit down there as colonists.
… The winter (B. C. 415-414) was chiefly spent on both sides
in sending embassies to and fro to gain allies. Nikias also
sent home to Athens, asking for horsemen and money, and the
people, without a word of rebuke, voted him all that he asked.
… But the most important embassy of all was that which the
Syracusans sent to Corinth and Sparta. Corinth zealously took
up the cause of her colony and pleaded for Syracuse at Sparta.
And at Sparta Corinth and Syracuse found a helper in the
banished Athenian Alkibiadês, who was now doing all that he
could against Athens. … He told the Spartans to occupy a
fortress in Attica, which they soon afterwards did, and a
great deal came of it. But he also told them to give vigorous
help to Syracuse, and above all things to send a Spartan
commander. The mere name of Sparta went for a great deal in
those days; but no man could have been better chosen than the
Spartan who was sent. He was Gylippos, the deliverer of
Syracuse. He was more like an Athenian than a Spartan, quick
and ready of resource, which few Spartans were. … And now at
last, when the spring came (414) Nikias was driven to do
something. … The Athenians … occupied all that part of the
hill which lay outside the walls of Syracuse. They were joined
by their horsemen, Greek and Sikel, and after nearly a year,
the siege of Syracuse really began. The object of the
Athenians now was to build a wall across the hill and to carry
it down to the sea on both sides. Syracuse would thus be
hemmed in. The object of the Syracusans was to build a
cross-wall of their own, which should hinder the Athenian wall
from reaching the two points it aimed at; This they tried more
than once; but in vain. There were several fights on the hill,
and at last there was a fight of more importance on the lower
ground by the Great Harbour. … The Syracusans were defeated,
as far as fighting went; but they gained far more than they
lost. For Lamachos was killed, and with him all vigour passed
away from the Athenian camp. At the same moment the Athenian
fleet sailed into the Great Harbour, and a Syracusan attack on
the Athenian works on the hill was defeated. Nikias remained
in command of the invaders; but he was grievously sick, and
for once in his life his head seems to have been turned by
success. He finished the wall on the south side; but he
neglected to finish it on the north side also, so that
Syracuse was not really hemmed in. But the hearts of the
Syracusans sank. … It was at this darkest moment of all that
deliverance came. … A Corinthian ship, under its captain
Gongylos, sailed into the Little Harbour. He brought the news
that other ships were on their way from Peloponnesos to the
help of Syracuse, and, yet more, that a Spartan general was
actually in Sicily, getting together a land force for the same
end. As soon as the good news was heard, there was no more talk
of surrender. … And one day the Athenian camp was startled
by the appearance of a Lacedæmonian herald, offering them a
truce of five days, that they might get them out of Sicily
with bag and baggage.
{176}
Gylippos was now on the hill. He of course did not expect that
the Athenian army would really go away in five days. But it
was a great thing to show both to the besiegers and to the
Syracusans that the deliverer had come, and that deliverance
was beginning. Nikias had kept such bad watch that Gylippos
and his troops had come up the hill and the Syracusans had
come out and met them, without his knowledge. The Spartan, as
a matter of course, took the command of the whole force; he
offered battle to the Athenians, which they refused; he then
entered the city. The very next day he began to carry out his
scheme. This was to build a group of forts near the western
end of the hill, and to join them to the city by a wall
running east and west, which would hinder the Athenians from
ever finishing their wall to the north. Each side went on
building, and some small actions took place. … Another
winter (B. C. 414-413) now came on, and with it much sending
of envoys. Gylippos went about Sicily collecting fresh troops.
… Meanwhile Nikias wrote a letter to the Athenian people.
… This letter came at a time when the Lacedæmonian alliance
had determined to renew the war with Athens, and when they
were making everything ready for an invasion of Attica. To
send out a new force to Sicily was simple madness. We hear
nothing of the debates in the Athenian assembly, whether
anyone argued against going on with the Sicilian war, and
whether any demagogue laid any blame on Nikias. But the
assembly voted that a new force equal to the first should be
sent out under Dêmosthenês, the best soldier in Athens, and
Eurymedon. … Meanwhile the Syracusans were strengthened by
help both in Sicily and from Peloponnesos. Their main object
now was to strike a blow at the fleet of Nikias before the new
force came. … It had been just when the Syracusans were most
downcast that they were cheered by the coming of the
Corinthians and of Gylippos. And just now that their spirits
were highest, they were dashed again by the coming of
Dêmosthenês and Eurymedon. A fleet as great as the first,
seventy-five ships, carrying 5,000 heavy-armed and a crowd of
light troops of every kind, sailed into the Great Harbour with
all warlike pomp. The Peloponnesians were already in Attica;
they had planted a Peloponnesian garrison there, which brought
Athens to great straits; but the fleet was sent out to
Syracuse all the same. Dêmosthenês knew what to do as well as
Lamachos had known. He saw that there was nothing to be done
but to try one great blow, and, if that failed, to take the
fleet home again. … The attack was at first successful, and
the Athenians took two of the Syracusan forts. But the
Thespian allies of Syracuse stood their ground, and drove the
assailants back. Utter confusion followed. … The last chance
was now lost, and Dêmosthenês was eager to go home. But Nikias
would stay on. … When sickness grew in the camp, when fresh
help from Sicily and the great body of the allies from
Peloponnesos came into Syracuse, he at last agreed to go. Just
at that moment the moon was eclipsed. … Nikias consulted his
soothsayers, and he gave out that they must stay twenty-nine
days, another full revolution of the moon. This resolve was
the destruction of the besieging army. … It was felt on both
sides that all would turn on one more fight by sea, the
Athenians striving to get out of the harbour, and the
Syracusans striving to keep them in it. The Syracusans now
blocked up the mouth of the harbour by mooring vessels across
it. The Athenians left their position on the hill, a sign that
the siege was over, and brought their whole force down to the
shore. It was no time now for any skillful manoeuvres; the
chief thing was to make the sea-fight as much as might be like
a land-fight, a strange need for Athenians. … The last fight
now began, 110 Athenian ships against 80 of the Syracusans and
their allies. Never before did so many ships meet in so small
a space. … The fight was long and confused; at last the
Athenians gave way and fled to the shore. The battle and the
invasion were over. Syracuse was not only saved; she had begun
to take vengeance on her enemies. … The Athenians waited one
day, and then set out, hoping to make their way to some safe
place among the friendly Sikels in the inland country. The
sick had to be left behind. … On the sixth day, after
frightful toil, they determined to change their course. …
They set out in two divisions, that of Nikias going first.
Much better order was kept in the front division and by the
time Nikias reached the river, Dêmosthenês was six miles
behind. … In the morning a Syracusan force came up with the
frightful news that the whole division of Dêmosthenês were
prisoners. … The Athenians tried in vain to escape in the
night. The next morning they set out, harassed as before, and
driven wild by intolerable thirst. They at last reached the
river Assinaros, which runs by the present town of Noto. There
was the end. … The Athenians were so maddened by thirst
that, though men were falling under darts and the water was
getting muddy and bloody, they thought of nothing but
drinking. … No further terms were made; most of the horsemen
contrived to cut their way out; the rest were made prisoners.
Most of them were embezzled by Syracusans as their private
slaves; but about 7,000 men out of the two divisions were led
prisoners into Syracuse. They were shut up in the
stone-quarries, with no further heed than to give each man
daily half a slave's allowance of food and drink. Many died;
many were sold; some escaped, or were set free; the rest were
after a while taken out of the quarries and set to work. The
generals had made no terms for themselves. Hermokratês wished
to keep them as hostages against future Athenian attempts
against Sicily. Gylippos wished to take them in triumph to
Sparta. The Corinthians were for putting them to death; and so
it was done. … So ended the Athenian invasion of Sicily, the
greatest attempt ever made by Greeks against Greeks, and that
which came to the most utter failure."
_E. A. Freeman,
The Story of Sicily,
pages 117-137._
ALSO IN:
_Thucydides,
History;
translated by B. Jowett,
books 6-7 (volume 1)._
See, also, SYRACUSE: B. C. 415-413.
{177}
ATHENS: B. C. 413-412.
Consequences of the Sicilian Expedition.
Spartan alliance with the Persians.
Plotting of Alcibiades.
The Decelian War.
"At Athens, where, even before this, everyone had been in the
most anxious suspense, the news of the loss of the expedition
produced a consternation, which was certainly greater than
that at Rome after the battle of Cannae, or that in our own
days, after the battle of Jena. … 'At least 40,000 citizens,
allies and slaves, had perished; and among them there may
easily have been 10,000 Athenian citizens, most of whom
belonged to the wealthier and higher classes. The flower of
the Athenian people was destroyed, as at the time of the
plague. It is impossible to say what amount of public property
may have been lost; the whole fleet was gone.' The
consequences of the disaster soon shewed themselves. It was to
be foreseen that Chios, which had long been wavering, and
whose disposition could not be trusted, would avail itself of
this moment to revolt; and the cities in Asia, from which
Athens derived her large revenues, were expected to do the
same. It was, in fact, to be foreseen, that the four islands
of Lesbos, Chios, Samos, and Rhodes, would instantly revolt.
The Spartans were established at Decelea, in Attica itself,
and thence ravaged the country far and wide: so that it was
impossible to venture to go to the coast without a strong
escort. Although there were many districts in which no Spartan
was seen from one year's end to the other, yet there was no
safety anywhere, except in fortified places, 'and the
Athenians were constantly obliged to guard the walls of their
city; and this state of things had already been going on for
the last twelve months.' In this fearful situation, the
Athenian people showed the same firmness as the Romans after
the battle of Cannae. Had they but had one great man among
them, to whom the state could have been entrusted, even more
might perhaps have been done; but it is astonishing that,
although there was no such man, and although the leading men
were only second or third-rate persons, yet so many useful
arrangements were made to meet the necessities of the case.
… The most unfortunate circumstance for the Athenians was,
that Alcibiades, now an enemy of his country, was living among
the Spartans; for he introduced into the undertakings of the
Spartans the very element which before they had been
altogether deficient in, namely energy and elasticity: he
urged them on to undertakings, and induced them now to send a
fleet to Ionia. … Erythrae, Teos, and Miletus, one after
another, revolted to the Peloponnesians, who now concluded
treaties with Tissaphernes in the name of the king of
Persia—Darius was then king—and in his own name as satrap;
and in this manner they sacrificed to him the Asiatic Greeks.
… The Athenians were an object of antipathy and implacable
hatred to the Persians; they had never doubted that the
Athenians were their real opponents in Greece, and were afraid
of them; but they did not fear the Spartans. They knew that
the Athenians would take from them not only the islands, but
the towns on the main land, and were in great fear of their
maritime power. Hence they joined the Spartans; and the latter
were not ashamed of negotiating a treaty of subsidies with the
Persians, in which Tissaphernes, in the king's name, promised
the assistance of the Phoenician fleet; and large subsidies,
as pay for the army. … In return for this, they renounced,
in the name of the Greeks, all claims to independence for the
Greek cities in Asia."
_E. C. Niebuhr,
Lectures on Ancient History,
volume 2, lectures 53 and 54._
See, also, GREECE: B. C. 413-412.
ALSO IN:
_G. Grote,
History of Greece,
chapter 61 (volume 7)._
ATHENS: B. C. 413-412.
Revolt of Chios, Miletus, Lesbos and Rhodes from Athens.
Revolution of Samos.
See GREECE: B. C. 413.
ATHENS: B. C. 413-411.-
The Probuli.
Intrigues of Alcibiades.
Conspiracy against the Constitution.
The Four Hundred and the Five Thousand.
Immediately after the dreadful calamity at Syracuse became
known, "extraordinary measures were adopted by the people; a
number of citizens of advanced age were formed into a
deliberative and executive body under the name of Probuli, and
empowered to fit out a fleet. Whether this laid the foundation
for oligarchical machinations or not, those aged men were
unable to bring back men's minds to their former course; the
prosecution of the Hermocopidæ had been most mischievous in
its results; various secret associations had sprung up and
conspired to reap advantage to themselves from the distress
and embarrassment of the state; the indignation caused by the
infuriated excesses of the people during that trial, possibly
here, as frequently happened in other Grecian states,
determined the more respectable members of the community to
guard against the recurrence of similar scenes in future, by
the establishment of an aristocracy. Lastly, the watchful
malice of Alcibiades, who was the implacable enemy of that
populace, to whose blind fury he had been sacrificed, baffled
all attempts to restore confidence and tranquillity, and there
is no doubt that, whilst he kept up a correspondence with his
partisans at home, he did everything in his power to increase
the perplexity and distress of his native city from without,
in order that he might be recalled to provide for its safety
and defence. A favourable opportunity for the execution of his
plans presented itself in the fifth year of his exile,
Ol. 92. 1; 411. B. C.; as he had incurred the suspicion of the
Spartans, and stood high in the favour of Tissaphernes, the
Athenians thought that his intercession might enable them to
obtain assistance from the Persian king. The people in Athens
were headed by one of his most inveterate enemies, Androcles;
and he well knew that all attempts to effect his return would
be fruitless, until this man and the other demagogues were
removed. Hence Alcibiades entered into negotiations with the
commanders of the Athenian fleet at Samos, respecting the
establishment of an oligarchical constitution, not from any
attachment to that form of government in itself, but solely
with the view of promoting his own ends. Phrynichus and
Pisander were equally insincere in their co-operation with
Alcibiades. … Their plan was that the latter should
reconcile the people to the change in the constitution which
he wished to effect, by promising to obtain them the
assistance of the great king; but they alone resolved to reap
the benefit of his exertions. Pisander took upon himself to
manage the Athenian populace. It was in truth no slight
undertaking to attempt to overthrow a democracy of a hundred
and twenty years' standing, and of intense development; but
most of the able bodied citizens were absent with the fleet,
whilst such as were still in the city were confounded by the
imminence of the danger from without; on the other hand, the
prospect of succour from the Persian king doubtless had some
weight with them, and they possibly felt some symptoms of
returning affection for their former favourite Alcibiades.
Nevertheless, Pisander and his accomplices employed craft and
perfidy to accomplish their designs; the people were not
persuaded or convinced, but entrapped into compliance with
their measures. Pisander gained over to his purpose the above
named clubs, and induced the people to send him with ten
plenipotentiaries to the navy at Samos. In the mean time the
rest of the conspirators prosecuted the work of remodelling
the constitution."
_W. Wachsmuth,
History Antiquities of the Greeks,
volume 2, pages 252-255._
{178}
The people, or an assembly cleverly made up and manipulated to
represent the people, were induced to vote all the powers of
government into the hands of a council of Four Hundred, of
which council the citizens appointed only five members. Those
five chose ninety-five more, to make one hundred, and each of
that hundred then chose three colleagues. The conspirators
thus easily made up the Four Hundred to their liking, from
their own ranks. This council was to convene an assembly of
Five Thousand citizens, whenever it saw fit to do so. But when
news of this constitutional change reached the army at Samos,
where the Athenian headquarters for the Ionian war were fixed,
the citizen soldiers refused to submit to it—repudiated it
altogether—and organized themselves as an independent state.
The ruling spirit among them was Thrasybulus, and his
influence brought about a reconciliation with Alcibiades, then
an exile sheltered at the Persian court. Alcibiades was
recalled by the army and placed at its head. Presently a
reaction at Athens ensued, after the oligarchical party had
given signs of treasonable communication with Sparta, and in
June the people assembled in the Pnyx and reasserted their
sovereignty. "The Council was deposed, and the supreme
sovereignty of the state restored to the people—not, however,
to the entire multitude; for the principle was retained of
reserving full civic rights to a committee of men of a certain
amount of property; and, as the lists of the Five Thousand had
never been drawn up, it was decreed, in order that the desired
end might be speedily reached, to follow the precedent of
similar institutions in other states and to constitute all
Athenians able to furnish themselves with a complete military
equipment from their own resources, full citizens, with the
rights of voting and participating in the government. Thus the
name of the Five Thousand had now become a very inaccurate
designation; but it was retained, because men had in the last
few months become habituated to it. At the same time, the
abolition of pay for civic offices and functions was decreed,
not merely as a temporary measure, but as a fundamental
principle of the new commonwealth, which the citizens were
bound by a solemn oath to maintain. This reform was, upon the
whole, a wise combination of aristocracy and democracy; and,
according to the opinion of Thucydides, the best constitution
which the Athenians had hitherto possessed. On the motion of
Critias, the recall, of Alcibiades was decreed about the same
time; and a deputation was despatched to Samos, to accomplish
the union between army and city."
_E. Curtius,
History of Greece,
book 4, chapter 5._
Most of the leaders of the Four Hundred fled to the Spartan
camp at Decelia. Two were taken, tried and executed.
_Thucydides,
History,
book 8, section 48-97._
See, also, GREECE: B. C. 413-412.
ALSO IN:
_V. Duruy,
History of Greece,
chapter 26 (volume 3)._
ATHENS: B. C. 411-407.
Victories at Cynossema and Abydos.
Exploits of Alcibiades.
His triumphal return.
His appointment to command.
His second deposition and exile.
See GREECE: B. C. 411-407.
ATHENS: B. C. 406.
The Peloponnesian War: Battle and victory of Arginusae.
Condemnation and execution of the Generals.
See GREECE: B. C. 406;
and above: B. C. 424-406.
ATHENS: B. C. 405.
The Peloponnesian War:
Decisive defeat at Aigospotamoi.
See GREECE: B. C. 405.
ATHENS: B. C. 404.
The Surrender to Lysander.
After the battle of Ægospotami (August, B. C. 405), which
destroyed their navy, and cut off nearly all supplies to the
city by sea, as the Spartans at Decelea had long cut off
supplies upon the land side, the Athenians had no hope. They
waited in terror and despair for their enemies to close in
upon them. The latter were in no haste, for they were sure of
their prey. Lysander, the victor at Ægospotami, came leisurely
from the Hellespont, receiving on his way the surrender of the
cities subject or allied to Athens, and placing Spartan
harmosts and garrisons in them, with the local oligarchs
established uniformly in power. About November he reached the
Saronic gulf and blockaded the Athenian harbor of Piræus,
while an overwhelming Peloponnesian land force, under the
Lacedæmonian king Pausanias, arrived simultaneously in Attica
and encamped at the gates of the city. The Athenians had no
longer any power except the power to endure, and that they
exercised for more than three months, mainly resisting the
demand that their Long Walls—the walls which protected the
connection of the city with its harbors—should be thrown
down. But when famine had thinned the ranks of the citizens
and broken the spirit of the survivors, they gave up. "There
was still a high-spirited minority who entered their protest
and preferred death by famine to such insupportable disgrace.
The large majority, however, accepted them [the terms] and the
acceptance was made known to Lysander. It was on the 16th day
of the Attic month Munychion,—about the middle or end of
March,—that this victorious commander sailed into the
Peiræus, twenty-seven years, almost exactly, after the
surprise of Platæa by the Thebans, which opened the
Peloponnesian War. Along with him came the Athenian exiles,
several of whom appear to have been serving with his army and
assisting him with their counsel."
_G. Grote,
History of Greece,
part 2, chapter 65 (volume 8)._
The Long Walls and the fortifications of Piræus were
demolished, and then followed the organization of an
oligarchical government at Athens, resulting in the reign of
terror under "The Thirty."
_E. Curtius,
History of Greece,
book 4, chapter 5._
ALSO IN:
_Xenophon,
Hellenics,
book 2, chapter 2._
_Plutarch,
Lysander._
{179}
ATHENS: B. C. 404-403.
The tyranny of the Thirty.
The Year of Anarchy.
In the summer of B. C. 404, following the siege and surrender
of Athens, and the humiliating close of the long Peloponnesian
War, the returned leaders of the oligarchical party, who had
been in exile, succeeded with the help of their Spartan
friends, in overthrowing the democratic constitution of the
city and establishing themselves in power. The revolution was
accomplished at a public assembly of citizens, in the presence
of Lysander, the victorious Lacedæmonian admiral, whose fleet
in the Piraeus lay ready to support his demands. "In this
assembly, Dracontidas, a scoundrel upon whom repeated
sentences had been passed, brought forward a motion, proposing
the transfer of the government into the hands of Thirty
persons; and Theramenes supported this proposal which he
declared to express the wishes of Sparta. Even now, these
speeches produced a storm of indignation; after all the acts
of violence which Athens had undergone, she yet contained men
outspoken enough to venture to defend the constitution, and to
appeal to the fact that the capitulation sanctioned by both
parties contained no provision as to the internal affairs of
Athens. But, hereupon, Lysander himself came forward and spoke
to the citizens without reserve, like one who was their
absolute master. … By such means the motion of Dracontidas
was passed; but only a small number of unpatriotic and
cowardly citizens raised their hands in token of assent. All
better patriots contrived to avoid participation in this vote.
Next, ten members of the government were chosen by Critias and
his colleagues [the Critias of Plato's Dialogues, pupil of
Socrates, and now the violent and blood-thirsty leader of the
anti-democratic revolution], ten by Theramenes, the
confidential friend of Lysander, and finally ten out of the
assembled multitude, probably by a free vote; and this board
of Thirty was hereupon established as the supreme government
authority by a resolution of the assembly present. Most of the
members of the new government had formerly been among the Four
Hundred, and had therefore long pursued a common course of
action." The Thirty Tyrants so placed in power were masters of
Athens for eight months, and executed their will without
conscience or mercy, having a garrison of Spartan soldiers in
the Acropolis to support them. They were also sustained by a
picked body of citizens, "the Three Thousand," who bore arms
while other citizens were stripped of every weapon. Large
numbers of the more patriotic and high-spirited Athenians had
escaped from their unfortunate city and had taken refuge,
chiefly at Thebes, the old enemy of Athens, but now
sympathetic in her distress. At Thebes these exiles organized
themselves under Thrasybulus and Anytus, and determined to
expel the tyrants and to recover their homes. They first
seized a strong post at Phyle, in Attica, where they gained in
numbers rapidly, and from which point they were able in a few
weeks to advance and occupy the Piræus. When the troops of The
Thirty came out to attack them, they drew back to the adjacent
height of Munychia and there fought a battle which delivered
their city from the Tyrants. Critias, the master-spirit of the
usurpation, was slain; the more violent of his colleagues took
refuge at Eleusis, and Athens, for a time, remained under the
government of a new oligarchical Board of Ten; while
Thrasybulus and the democratic liberators maintained their
headquarters at Munychia. All parties waited the action of
Sparta. Lysander, the Spartan general, marched an army into
Attica to restore the tyranny which was of his own creating;
but one of the two Spartan kings, Pausanias, intervened,
assumed the command in his own person, and applied his efforts
to the arranging of peace between the Athenian parties. The
result was a restoration of the democratic constitution of the
Attic state, with some important reforms. Several of The
Thirty were put to death,—treacherously, it was said,—but an
amnesty was extended to all their partisans. The year in which
they and The Ten controlled affairs was termed in the official
annals of the city the Year of Anarchy, and its magistrates
were not recognized.
_E. Curtius,
History of Greece,
book 4, chapter 5,
and book 5, chapter 1._
ALSO IN:
_Xenophon,
Hellenics,
book 2, chapters 3-4._
_C. Sankey,
The Spartan and Theban Supremacies.
chapters 2-3._
ATHENS: B. C. 395-387.
Confederacy against Sparta.
Alliance with Persia.
The Corinthian War.
Conon's rebuilding of the Long Walls.
Athenian independence restored.
The Peace of Antalcidas.
See GREECE: B. C. 399-387.
ATHENS: B. C. 378-371.
Brief alliance with Thebes against Sparta.
See GREECE: B. C. 379-371.
ATHENS: B. C. 378-357.
The New Confederacy and the Social War.
Upon the Liberation of Thebes and the signs that began to
appear of the decline of Spartan power—during the year of the
archonship of Nausinicus, B. C. 378-7, which was made
memorable at Athens by various movements of political
regeneration,—the organization of a new Confederacy was
undertaken, analogous to the Confederacy of Delos, formed a
century before. Athens was to be, "not the ruling capital, but
only the directing city in possession of the primacy, the seat
of the federal council. … Callistratus was in a sense the
Aristides of the new confederation and doubtless did much to
bring about an agreement; it was likewise his work that, in
place of the 'tributes' of odious memory, the payments
necessary to the existence of the confederation were
introduced under the gentler name of 'contributions.' …
Amicable relations were resumed with the Cyclades, Rhodes and
Perinthus; in other words, the ancient union of navies was at
once renewed upon a large scale and in a wide extent. Even
such states joined it as had hitherto never stood in
confederate relations with Athens, above all Thebes."
_E. Curtius,
History of Greece,
book 6, chapter 1_.
This second confederacy renewed much of the prosperity and
influence of Athens for a brief period of about twenty years.
But in 357 B. C., four important members of the Confederacy,
namely, Chios, Cos, Rhodes, and Byzantium leagued themselves
in revolt, with the aid of Mausolus, prince of Caria, and an
inglorious war ensued, known as the Social War, which lasted
three years. Athens was forced at last to assent to the
secession of the four revolted cities and to recognize their
independence, which greatly impaired her prestige and power,
just at the time when she was called upon to resist the
encroachments of Philip of Macedonia.
_C. Thirlwall,
History of Greece,
chapter 42._
ATHENS: B. C. 370-362.
Alliance with Sparta against Thebes.
Battle of Mantinea.
See GREECE: B. C. 371-362.
{180}
ATHENS: B. C. 359-338.
The collision with Philip of Macedon.
The Policy of Demosthenes and Policy of Phocion.
"A new period opens with the growth of the Macedonian power
under Philip (359-336 B. C.) We are here chiefly concerned to
notice the effect on the City-State [of Athens], not only of
the strength and policy of this new power, but also of the
efforts of the Greeks themselves to counteract it. At the time
of Philip's accession the so-called Theban supremacy had just
practically ended with the death of Epaminondias. There was
now a kind of balance of power between the three leading
States, Sparta, Athens, and Thebes, no one of which was
greatly stronger than the others; and such a balance could
easily be worked upon by any great power from without. Thus
when Macedon came into the range of Greek politics, under a
man of great diplomatic as well as military capacity, who,
like a Czar of to-day, wished to secure a firm footing on the
sea-board of the Ægean [see GREECE: B. C. 359-358], she found
her work comparatively easy. The strong imperial policy of
Philip found no real antagonist except at Athens. Weak as she
was, and straitened by the break-up of her new confederacy,
Athens could still produce men of great talent and energy; but
she was hampered by divided counsels. Two Athenians of this
period seem to represent the currents of Greek political
thought, now running in two different directions. Demosthenes
represents the cause of the City-State in this age, of a
union, that is, of perfectly free Hellenic cities against the
common enemy. Phocion represents the feeling, which seems to
have been long growing up among thinking men at Athens, that
the City-State was no longer what it had been, and could no
longer stand by itself; that what was needed was a general
Hellenic peace, and possibly even an arbiter from without, an
arbiter not wholly un-Hellenic like the Persian, yet one who
might succeed in stilling the fatal jealousies of the leading
States. … The efforts of Demosthenes to check Philip fall
into two periods divided by the peace of Philocrates in 346 B.
C. In the first of these he is acting chiefly with Athens
alone; Philip is to him not so much the common enemy of Greece
as the dangerous rival of Athens in the north. His whole mind
was given to the internal reform of Athens so as to strengthen
her against Philip. In her relation to other Greek States he
perhaps hardly saw beyond a balance of power. … After 346
his Athenian feeling seems to become more distinctly Hellenic.
But what could even such a man as Demosthenes do with the
Hellas of that day? He could not force on the Greeks a real
and permanent union; he could but urge new alliances. His
strength was spent in embassies with this object, embassies
too often futile. No alliance could save Greece from the
Macedonian power, as subsequent events plainly showed. What
was needed was a real federal union between the leading
States, with a strong central controlling force; and
Demosthenes' policy was hopeless just because Athens could
never be the centre of such a union, nor could any other city.
Demosthenes is thus the last, and in some respects the most
heroic champion of the old Greek instinct for autonomy. He is
the true child of the City-State, but the child of its old age
and decrepitude. He still believes in Athens, and it is on
Athens that all his hopes are based. He looks on Philip as one
who must inevitably be the foe alike of Athens and of Greece.
He seems to think that he can be beaten off as Xerxes was, and
to forget that even Xerxes almost triumphed over the divisions
of the Greek States, and that Philip is a nearer, a more
prominent, and a far less barbarian foe. … Phocion was the
somewhat odd exponent of the practical side of a school of
thought which had been gaining strength in Greece for some
time past. This school was now brought into prominence by the
rise of Macedon, and came to have a marked influence on the
history of the City-State. It began with the philosophers, and
with the idea that the philosopher may belong to the world as
well as to a particular city. … Athens was far more open to
criticism now than in the days of Pericles; and a cynical
dislike betrays itself in the Republic for the politicians of
the day and their tricks, and a longing for a strong
government of reason. … Aristotle took the facts of city
life as they were and showed how they might be made the most
of. … To him Macedon was assuredly not wholly barbarian; and
war to the death with her kings could not have been to him as
natural or desirable as it seemed to Demosthenes. And though
he has nothing to tell us of Macedon, we can hardly avoid the
conclusion that his desire was for peace and internal reform,
even if it were under the guarantee of the northern power. …
Of this philosophical view of Greek politics Phocion was in a
manner the political exponent. But his policy was too much a
negative one; it might almost be called one of indifferentism,
like the feeling of Lessing and Goethe in Germany's most
momentous period. So far as we know, Phocion never proposed an
alliance of a durable kind, either Athenian or Hellenic, with
Macedon; he was content to be a purely restraining influence.
Athens had been constantly at war since 432; her own resources
were of the weakest; there was little military skill to be
found in her, no reserve force, much talk, but little solid
courage. Athens was vulnerable at various points, and could
not possibly defend more than one at a time, therefore Phocion
despaired of war, and the event proved him right. The
faithfulness of the Athenians towards him is a proof that they
also instinctively felt that he was right. But he was wanting
on the practical and creative side, and never really dominated
either Athens, Greece, or Philip. … A policy of resistance
found the City-State too weak to defend itself; a policy of
inaction would land it in a Macedonian empire which would
still further weaken its remaining vitality. The first policy,
that of Demosthenes, did actually result in disaster and the
presence of Macedonian garrisons in Greek cities. The second
policy then took its place, and initiated a new era for
Greece. After the fatal battle of Chæronea (338 B. C.) Philip
assumed the position of leader of the Greek cities."
_W. W. Fowler,
The City-State of the Greeks and Romans,
chapter 10._
See, also, GREECE: 357-336.
ATHENS: B. C. 340.
Alliance with Byzantium against Philip of Macedon.
See GREECE: B. C. 340.
{181}
ATHENS: B. C. 336-322.
End of the Struggle with the Macedonians.
Fall of Democracy.
Death of Demosthenes.
Athenian decline.
"An unexpected incident changes the whole aspect of things.
Philip falls the victim of assassination; and a youth, who as
yet is but little known, is his successor. Immediately
Demosthenes institutes a second alliance of the Greeks; but
Alexander suddenly appears before Thebes; the terrible
vengeance which he here takes, instantly destroys the league;
Demosthenes, Lycurgus, and several of their supporters,
are required to be delivered up: but Demades is at that
time able to settle the difficulty and to appease the king.
His strength was therefore enfeebled as Alexander departed for
Asia; he begins to raise his head once more when Sparta
attempts to throw off the yoke: but under Antipater he is
overpowered. Yet it was about this very time that by the most
celebrated of his discourses he gained the victory over the
most eloquent of his adversaries; and Æschines was forced to
depart from Athens. But this seems only to have the more
embittered his enemies, the leaders of the Macedonian party;
and they soon found an opportunity of preparing his downfall.
When Harpalus, a fugitive from the army of Alexander, came
with his treasures to Athens, and the question arose, whether
he could be permitted to remain there, Demosthenes was accused
of having been corrupted by his money, at least to be silent.
This was sufficient to procure the imposition of a fine; and
as this was not paid, he was thrown into prison. From thence
he succeeded in escaping; but to the man who lived only for
his country, exile was no less an evil than imprisonment. He
resided for the most part in Ægina and at Trœzen, from whence
he looked with moist eyes toward the neighbouring Attica.
Suddenly and unexpectedly a new ray of light broke through the
clouds. Tidings were brought, that Alexander was dead. The
moment of deliverance seemed at hand; the excitement pervaded
every Grecian state; the ambassadors of the Athenians passed
through the cities; Demosthenes joined himself to the number
and exerted all his eloquence and power to unite them against
Macedonia. In requital for such services, the people decreed
his return; and years of sufferings were at last followed by a
day of exalted compensation. A galley was sent to Ægina to
bring back the advocate of liberty. … It was a momentary
glimpse of the sun, which still darker clouds were soon to
conceal. Antipater and Craterus were victorious; and with them
the Macedonian party in Athens: Demosthenes and his friends
were numbered among the accused, and at the instigation of
Demades were condemned to die. … Demosthenes had escaped to
the island Calauria in the vicinity of Trœzen; and took refuge
in the temple of Neptune. It was to no purpose that Archias,
the satellite of Antipater, urged him to surrender himself
under promise of pardon. He pretended he wished to write
something; bit the quill, and swallowed the poison contained
in it."
_A. H. L. Heeren,
Reflections on the Politics of Ancient Greece,
translated by G. Bancroft,
pages 278-280._
See, also, on the "Lamian War," the suppression of
Democracy at Athens, and the expulsion of poor citizens,
GREECE: B. C. 323-322.
"With the decline of political independence, … the mental
powers of the nation received a fatal blow. No longer knit
together by a powerful esprit de corps, the Greeks lost the
habit of working for the common weal; and, for the most part,
gave themselves up to the petty interests of home life and
their own personal troubles. Even the better disposed were too
much occupied in opposing the low tone and corruption of the
times, to be able to devote themselves, in their moments of
relaxation, to a free and speculative consideration of things.
What could be expected in such an age, but that philosophy
would take a decidedly practical turn, if indeed it were
studied at all? And yet such were the political antecedents of
the Stoic and Epicurean systems of philosophy. … Stoic
apathy, Epicurean self-satisfaction, and Sceptic
imperturbability, were the doctrines which responded to the
political helplessness of the age. They were the doctrines,
too, which met with the most general acceptance. The same
political helplessness produced the sinking of national
distinctions in the feeling of a common humanity, and the
separation of morals from politics which characterise the
philosophy of the Alexandrian and Roman period. The barriers
between nations, together with national independence, had been
swept away. East and West, Greeks and barbarians, were united
in large empires, being thus thrown together, and brought into
close contact on every possible point. Philosophy might teach
that all men were of one blood, that all were equally citizens
of one empire, that morality rested on the relation of man to
his fellow men, independently of nationalities and of social
ranks; but in so doing she was only explicitly stating truths
which had been already realised in part, and which were in
part corollaries from the existing state of society."
_E. Zeller,
The Stoics, Epicureans, and Sceptics,
pages 16-18_.
"What we have said concerning the evidence of comedy about the
age of the first Diadochi amounts to this: Menander and his
successors—they lasted barely two generations—printed in a
few stereotypes a small and very worthless society at Athens.
There was no doubt a similar set of people at Corinth, at
Thebes, possibly even in the city of Lycurgus. These people,
idle, for the most part rich, and in good society, spent their
earlier years in debauchery, and their later in sentimental
reflections and regrets. They had no serious object in life,
and regarded the complications of a love affair as more
interesting than the rise and fall of kingdoms or the gain and
loss of a nation's liberty. They were like the people of our
day who spend all their time reading novels from the
libraries, and who can tolerate these eternal variations in
twaddle not only without disgust but with interest. They were
surrounded with slaves, on the whole more intelligent and
interesting, for in the first place slaves were bound to
exercise their brains, and in the second they had a great
object—liberty—to give them a keen pursuit in life. The
relations of the sexes in this set or portion of society were
bad, owing to the want of education in the women, and the want
of earnestness in the men. As a natural consequence a class
was found, apart from household slaves, who took advantage of
these defects, and, bringing culture to fascinate unprincipled
men, established those relations which brought estragements,
if not ruin, into the home life of the day."
_J. P. Mahaffy,
Greek Life and Thought,
pages 123-124_.
{182}
"The amount of Persian wealth poured into Greece by the
accidents of the conquest, not by its own industries, must
have produced a revolution in prices not since equalled except
by the influx of the gold of the Aztecs and Incas into Spain.
I have already pointed out how this change must have pressed
upon poor people in Greece who did not share in the plunder.
The price of even necessary and simple things must have often
risen beyond their means. For the adventurers brought home
large fortunes, and the traders and purveyors of the armies
made them; and with these Eastern fortunes must have come in
the taste for all the superior comforts and luxuries which
they found among the Persian grandees. Not only the
appointments of the table, in the way of plate and pottery,
but the very tastes and flavours of Greek cookery must have
profited by comparison with the knowledge of the East. So also
the furniture, especially in carpets and hangings, must have
copied Persian fashion, just as we still affect oriental
stuffs and designs. It was not to be expected that the example
of so many regal courts and so much royal ceremony should not
affect those in contact with them. These influences were not
only shown in the vulgar 'braggart captain,' who came to show
off his sudden wealth in impudent extravagance among his old
townspeople, but in the ordinary life of rich young men. So I
imagine the personal appointments of Alcibiades, which were
the talk of Greece in his day, would have appeared poor and
mean beside those of Aratus, or of the generation which
preceded him. Pictures and statues began to adorn private
houses, and not temples and public buildings only—a change
beginning to show itself in Demosthenes's day, but coming in
like a torrent with the opening of Greece to the Eastern
world. It was noticed that Phocion's house at Athens was
modest in size and furniture, but even this was relieved from
shabbiness by the quaint wall decoration of shining plates of
bronze—a fashion dating from prehistoric times, but still
admired for its very antiquity."
_J. P. Mahaffy,
Greek Life and Thought,
pages 105-106._
"The modern historians of Greece are much divided on the
question where a history of Hellas ought to end. Curtius stops
with the battle of Chaeroncia and the prostration of Athens
before the advancing power of Macedon. Grote narrates the
campaigns of Alexander, but stops short at the conclusion of
the Lamian War, when Greece had in vain tried to shake off the
supremacy of his generals. Thirlwall brings his narrative down
to the time of Mummius, the melancholy sack of Corinth and the
constitution of Achaia as a Roman province. Of these divergent
views we regard that of the German historian as the most
correct. … The historic sense of Grote did not exclude
prejudices, and in this case he was probably led astray by
political bias. At the close of his ninety-sixth chapter,
after mentioning the embassies sent by the degenerate
Athenians to King Ptolemy, King Lysimachus, and Antipater, he
throws down his pen in disgust, 'and with sadness and
humiliation brings his narrative to a close.' Athens was no
longer free and no longer dignified, and so Mr. Grote will
have done with Greece at the very moment when the new Comedy
was at its height, when the Museum was founded at Alexandria,
when the plays of Euripides were acted at Babylon and Cabul,
and every Greek soldier of fortune carried a diadem in his
baggage. Surely the historian of Greece ought either to have
stopped when the iron hand of Philip of Macedon put an end to
the liberties and the political wranglings of Hellas, or else
persevered to the time when Rome and Parthia crushed Greek
power between them, like a ship between two icebergs. No doubt
his reply would be, that he declined to regard the triumph
abroad of Macedonian arms as a continuation of the history of
Hellas. … The truth is, that the history of Greece consists
of two parts, in every respect contrasted one with the other.
The first recounts the stories of the Persian and
Peloponnesian wars, and ends with the destruction of Thebes
and the subjugation of Athens and Sparta. The Hellas of which
it speaks is a cluster of autonomous cities in the
Peloponnesus, the Islands, and Northern Greece, together with
their colonies scattered over the coasts of Italy, Sicily,
Thrace, the Black Sea, Asia Minor, and Africa. These cities
care only to be independent, or at most to lord it over one
another. Their political institutions, their religious
ceremonies, their customs, are civic and local. Language,
commerce, a common Pantheon, and a common art and poetry are
the ties that bind them together. In its second phase, Greek
history begins with the expedition of Alexander. It reveals to
us the Greek as everywhere lord of the barbarian, as foundling
kingdoms and federal systems, as the instructor of all mankind
in art and science, and the spreader of civil and civilized
life over the known world. In the first period of her history
Greece is forming herself, in her second she is educating the
world. We will venture to borrow from the Germans a convenient
expression, and call the history of independent Greece the
history of Hellas, that of imperial Greece the history of
Hellenism. … The Athens of Pericles was dictator among the
cities which had joined her alliance. Corinth, Sparta, Thebes,
were each the political head of a group of towns, but none of
the three admitted these latter to an equal share in their
councils, or adopted their political views. Even in the
Olynthian League, the city of Olynthus occupied a position
quite superior to that of the other cities. But the Greek
cities had not tried the experiment of an alliance on equal
terms. This was now attempted by some of the leading cities of
the Peloponnese, and the result was the Achaean League, whose
history sheds a lustre on the last days of independent Greece,
and whose generals will bear comparison with the statesmen of
any Greek Republic [sec GREECE: B. C. 280-146]. … On the
field of Sellasia the glorious hopes of Cleomenes were
wrecked, and the recently reformed Sparta was handed over to a
succession of bloodthirsty tyrants, never again to emerge from
obscurity. But to the Achaeans themselves the interference of
Macedon was little less fatal. Henceforth a Macedonian
garrison occupied Corinth, which had been one of the chief
cities of the League; and King Antigonus Doson was the
recognized arbiter in all disputes of the Peloponnesian
Greeks. … In Northern Greece a strange contrast presented
itself. The historic races of the Athenians and Boeotians
languished in peace, obscurity, and luxury. With them every
day saw something added to the enjoyments and elegancies of
life, and every day politics drifted more and more into the
background. On the other hand, the rude semi-Greeks of the
West, Aetolians, Acarnanians, and Epirotes, to whose manhood
the repulse of the Gauls was mainly due, came to the front and
showed the bold spirit of Greeks divorced from the finer
faculties of the race. The Acarnanians formed a league
somewhat on the plan of the Achaean.
{183}
But they were overshadowed by their neighbors the Aetolians,
whose union was of a different character. It was the first
time that there had been formed in Hellas a state framed in
order to prey upon its neighbours. … In the course of the
Peloponnesian War Greek religion began to lose its hold on the
Greeks. This was partly the work of the sophists and
philosophers, who sought more lofty and moral views of Deity
than were furnished by the tales of popular mythology. Still
more it resulted from growing materialism among the people,
who saw more and more of their immediate and physical needs,
and less and less of the underlying spiritual elements in
life. But though philosophy and materialism had made the
religion of Hellas paler and feebler, they had not altered its
nature or expanded it. It still remained essentially national,
almost tribal. When, therefore, Greeks and Macedonians
suddenly found themselves masters of the nations of the East,
and in close contact with a hundred forms of religion, an
extraordinary and rapid change took place in their religions
ideas. In religion, as in other matters, Egypt set to the
world the example of prompt fusion of the ideas of Greeks and
natives. … Into Greece proper, in return for her population
which flowed out, there flowed in a crowd of foreign deities.
Isis was especially welcomed at Athens, where she found many
votaries. In every cult the more mysterious elements were made
more of, and the brighter and more materialistic side passed
by. Old statues which had fallen somewhat into contempt in the
days of Pheidias and Praxiteles were restored to their places
and received extreme veneration, not as beautiful, but as old
and strange. On the coins of the previous period the
representations of deities had been always the best that the
die-cutter could frame, taking as his models the finest
contemporary sculpture; but henceforth we often find them
strange, uncouth figures, remnants of a period of struggling
early art, like the Apollo at Amyclae, or the Hera of Samos.
… In the intellectual life of Athens there was still left
vitality enough to formulate the two most complete expressions
of the ethical ideas of the times, the doctrines of the Stoics
and the Epicureans, towards one or the other of which all
educated minds from that day to this have been drawn. No doubt
our knowledge of these doctrines, being largely drawn from the
Latin writers and their Greek contemporaries, is somewhat
coloured and unjust. With the Romans a system of philosophy
was considered mainly in its bearing upon conduct, whence the
ethical elements in Stoicism and Epicureanism have been by
their Roman adherents so thrust into the foreground, that we
have almost lost sight of the intellectual elements, which can
have had little less importance in the eyes of the Greeks.
Notwithstanding, the rise of the two philosophies must be held
to mark a new era in the history of thought, an era when the
importance of conduct was for the first time recognized by the
Greeks. It is often observed that the ancient Greeks were more
modern than our own ancestors of the Middle Ages. But it is
less generally recognized how far more modern than the Greeks
of Pericles were the Greeks of Aratus. In very many respects
the age of Hellenism and our own age present remarkable
similarity. In both there appears a sudden increase in the
power over material nature, arising alike from the greater
accessibility of all parts of the world and from the rapid
development of the sciences which act upon the physical forces
of the world. In both this spread of science and power acts
upon religion with a dissolving and, if we may so speak,
centrifugal force, driving some men to take refuge in the most
conservative forms of faith, some to fly to new creeds and
superstitions, some to drift into unmeasured scepticism. In
both the facility of moving from place to place, and finding a
distant home, tends to dissolve the closeness of civic and
family life, and to make the individual rather than the family
or the city the unit of social life. And in the family
relations, in the character of individuals, in the state of
morality, in the condition of art, we find at both periods
similar results from the similar causes we have mentioned."
_P. Gardner,
New Chapters in Greek History,
chapter 15._
ATHENS: B. C. 317-316.
Siege by Polysperchon.
Democracy restored.
Execution of Phocion.
Demetrius of Phaleron at the head of the government.
See GREECE: B. C. 321-312.
ATHENS: B.C. 307-197.
Under Demetrius Poliorcetes and the Antigonids.
See GREECE: B. C.307-197.
ATHENS: B. C. 288-263.
Twenty years of Independence.
Siege and subjugation by Antigonus Gonatas.
When Demetrius Poliorcetes lost the Macedonian throne, B. C.
288, his fickle Athenian subjects and late worshippers rose
against his authority, drove his garrisons from the Museum and
the Piræus and abolished the priesthood they had consecrated
to him. Demetrius gathered an army from some quarter and laid
siege to the city, but without success. The Athenians went so
far as to invite Pyrrhus, the warrior king of Epirus, to
assist them against him. Pyrrhus came and Demetrius retired.
The dangerous ally contented himself with a visit to the
Acropolis as a worshipper, and left Athens in possession,
undisturbed, of her freshly gained freedom. It was enjoyed
after a fashion for twenty years, at the end of which period,
B. C. 268, Antigonus Gonatas, the son of Demetrius, having
regained the Macedonian crown, reasserted his claim on Athens,
and the city was once more besieged. The Lacedæmonians and
Ptolemy of Egypt both gave some ineffectual aid to the
Athenians, and the siege, interrupted on several occasions,
was prolonged until B. C. 263, when Antigonus took possession
of the Acropolis, the fortified Museum and the Piræus as a
master (see MACEDONIA, &c.: B. C. 277-244). This was sometimes
called the Chremonidean War, from the name of a patriotic
Athenian who took the most prominent part in the long defence
of his city.
_C. Thirlwall,
History of Greece,
chapter 61._
ATHENS: B. C. 229.
Liberation by the Achaian League.
See GREECE: B. C. 280-146.
ATHENS: B. C. 200.
Vandalism of the second Macedonian Philip.
In the year B. C. 200 the Macedonian king, Philip, made an
attempt to surprise Athens and failed. "He then encamped in
the outskirts, and proceeded to wreak his vengeance on the
Athenians, as he had indulged it at Thermus and Pergamus. He
destroyed or defaced all the monuments of religion and of art,
all the sacred and pleasant places which adorned the suburbs.
The Academy, the Lycenm, and Cynosarges, with their temples,
schools, groves and gardens, were all wasted with fire. Not
even the sepulchres were spared."
_C. Thirlwall,
History of Greece,
chapter 64._
{184}
ATHENS: B. C. 197-A. D. 138.
Under Roman rule.
"Athens … affords the disheartening picture of a
commonwealth pampered by the supreme power, and financially as
well us morally ruined. By rights it ought to have found
itself in a flourishing condition. … No city of antiquity
elsewhere possessed a domain of its own, such as was Attica,
of about 700 square miles. … But even beyond Attica they
retained what they possessed, as well after the Mithridatic
War, by favour of Sulla, as after the Pharsalian battle, in
which they had taken the side of Pompeius, by the favour of
Cæsar;—he asked them only how often they would still ruin
themselves and trust to be saved by the renown of their
ancestors. To the city there still belonged not merely the
territory, formerly possessed by Haliartus, in Boeotia, but
also on their own coast Salamis, the old starting-point of
their dominion of the sea, and in the Thracian Sea the
lucrative islands Scyros, Lemnos, and Imbros, as well as Delos
in the Aegean. … Of the further grants, which they had the
skill to draw by flattery from Antoninus, Augustus, against
whom they had taken part, took from them certainly Aegina and
Eretria in Euboea, but they were allowed to retain the smaller
islands of the Thracian Sea. … Hadrian, moreover, gave to
them the best part of the great island of Cephallenia in the
Ionian Sea. It was only by the Emperor Severus, who bore them
no good will, that a portion of these extraneous possessions
was withdrawn from them. Hadrian further granted to the
Athenians the delivery of a certain quantity of grain at the
expense of the empire, and by the extension of this privilege,
hitherto reserved for the capital, acknowledged Athens, as it
were, as another metropolis. Not less was the blissful
institute of alimentary endowments, which Italy had enjoyed
since Trajan's time, extended by Hadrian to Athens, and the
capital requisite for this purpose certainly presented to the
Athenians from his purse. … Yet the community was in
constant distress."
_T. Mommsen,
History of Rome,
book 8, chapter 7._
ALSO IN:
_J. P. Mahaffy,
The Greek World under Roman Sway._
See, also, GREECE: B. C. 146-A. D. 180.
ATHENS: B. C. 87-86.
Siege and capture by Sulla.
Massacre of citizens.
Pillage and depopulation.
Lasting injuries.
The early successes of Mithridates of Pontus, in his savage
war with the Romans, included a general rising in his favor
among the Greeks [see MITHRIDATIC WARS], supported by the
fleets of the Pontic king and by a strong invading army.
Athens and the Piræus were the strongholds of the Greek
revolt, and at Athens an adventurer named Aristion, bringing
from Mithridates a body-guard of 2,000 soldiers, made himself
tyrant of the city. A year passed before Rome, distracted by
the beginnings of civil war, could effectively interfere. Then
Sulla came (B. C. 87) and laid siege to the Piræus, where the
principal Pontic force was lodged, while he shut up Athens by
blockade. In the following March, Athens was starved to such
weakness that the Romans entered almost unopposed and killed
and plundered with no mercy; but the buildings of the city
suffered little harm at their hands. The siege of the Piræus
was carried on for some weeks longer, until Sulla had driven
the Pontic forces from every part except Munychia, and that
they evacuated in no long time.
_W. Ihne,
History of Rome,
book 7, chapter 17._
"Athens was … taken by assault. … The majority of the
citizens was slain; the carnage was so fearfully great as to
become memorable even in that age of bloodshed; the private
movable property was seized by the soldiery, and Sylla assumed
some merit to himself for not committing the rifled houses to
the flames. … The fate of the Piræus, which he utterly
destroyed, was more severe than that of Athens. From Sylla's
campaign in Greece the commencement of the ruin and
depopulation of the country is to be dated. The destruction of
property caused by his ravages in Attica was so great that Athens
from that time lost its commercial as well as its political
importance. The race of Athenian citizens was almost
extirpated, and a new population, composed of a heterogeneous
mass of settlers, received the right of
citizenship."
_G. Finlay,
Greece under the Romans,
chapter 1._
ATHENS: A. D. 54 (?).
The Visit of St. Paul.
Planting of Christianity.
"When the Jews of Thessalonica had knowledge that the word of
God was proclaimed of Paul at Berea also, they came thither
likewise, stirring up and troubling the multitude. And then
immediately the brethren sent forth Paul to go as far as to
the sea: and Silas and Timotheus abode there still. But they
that conducted Paul brought him as far as Athens; and
receiving a commandment unto Silas and Timotheus that they
should come to him with all speed, they departed. Now while
Paul waited for them at Athens, his spirit was provoked within
him, as he beheld the city full of idols. So he reasoned in
the synagogue with the Jews, and the devout persons, and in
the market place every day with them that met with him. And
certain also of the Epicurean and Stoic philosophers
encountered him. And some said, what would this babbler say?
other some, He seemeth to be a setter forth of strange gods:
because he preached Jesus and the resurrection. And they took
hold of him, and brought him unto the Areopagus, saying, May
we know what this new teaching is, which is spoken by thee?
For thou bringest certain strange things to our ears: we would
know therefore what these things mean. (Now all the Athenians
and the strangers sojourning there spent their time in nothing
else, but either to tell or to hear some new thing.) And Paul
stood in the midst of the Areopagus, and said, Ye men of
Athens, in all things I perceive that ye are somewhat
superstitious. For as I passed along and observed the objects
of your worship, I found also an altar with this inscription,
'To an Unknown God.' What therefore ye worship in ignorance,
this set I forth unto you. … Now when they heard of the
resurrection of the dead, some mocked; but others said, We
will hear thee concerning this yet again. Thus Paul went out
from among them. Howbeit certain men clave unto him, and
believed: among whom also was Dionysius the Areopagite, and a
woman named Damaris, and others with them."
_Acts of the Apostles,
Revised Version,
chapter 17_.
{185}
"Consider the difficulties which must have beset the planting
of the Church in Athens. If the burning zeal of the great
Apostle ever permitted him to feel diffidence in addressing an
assembly, he may well have felt it when he addressed on Mars'
Hill for the first time an Athenian crowd. No doubt the Athens
of his time was in her decay, inferior in opulence and
grandeur to many younger cities. Yet even to a Jew, provided
he had received some educational impressions beyond the
fanatical shibboleths of Pharisaism, there was much in that
wonderful centre of intelligence to shake his most inveterate
prejudices and inspire him with unwilling respect. Shorn
indeed of her political greatness, deprived even of her
philosophical supremacy, she still shone with a brilliant
afterglow of æsthetic and intellectual prestige. Her monuments
flashed on the visitor memories recent enough to dazzle his
imagination. Her schools claimed and obtained even from
Emperors the homage due to her unique past. Recognising her as
the true nurse of Hellenism and the chief missionary of human
refinement, the best spirits of the age held her worthy of
admiring love not unmixed with awe. As the seat of the most
brilliant and popular university, young men of talent and
position flocked to her from every quarter, studied for a time
within her colonnades, and carried thence the recollection of
a culture which was not always deep, not always erudite, but
was always and genuinely Attic. To subject to the criticism of
this people a doctrine professing to come direct from God, a
religion and not a philosophy, depending not on argument but
on revelation, was a task of which the difficulties might seem
insuperable. When we consider what the Athenian character was,
this language will not seem exaggerated. Keen, subtle,
capricious, satirical, sated with ideas, eager for novelty,
yet with the eagerness of amused frivolity, not of the
truth-seeker: critical by instinct, exquisitely sensitive to
the ridiculous or the absurd, disputatious, ready to listen,
yet impatient of all that was not wit, satisfied with
everything in life except its shortness, and therefore hiding
all references to this unwelcome fact under a veil of
complacent euphemism—where could a more uncongenial soil be
found for the seed of the Gospel? … To an Athenian the Jew
was not so much an object of hatred (as to the Roman), nor
even of contempt (as to the rest of mankind), as of absolute
indifference. He was simply ignored. To the eclectic
philosophy which now dominated the schools of Athens, Judaism
alone among all human opinions was as if non-existent. That
Athenians should be convinced by the philosophy of a Jew would
be a proposition expressible in words but wholly destitute of
meaning. On the other hand, the Jew was not altogether
uninfluenced by Greek thought. Wide apart as the two minds
were, the Hebraic proved not insensible to the charm of the
Hellenic; witness the Epistle to the Hebrews, witness Philo,
witness the intrusion of Greek methods of interpretation even
into the text-books of Rabbinism. And it was Athens, as the
quintessence of Hellas, Athens as represented by Socrates, and
still more by Plato, which had gained this subtle power. And
just as Judæa alone among all the Jewish communities retained
its exclusiveness wholly unimpaired by Hellenism, so Athens,
more than any Pagan capital, was likely to ignore or repel a
faith coming in the garb of Judaism. And yet within less than
a century we find this faith so well established there as to
yield to the Church the good fruits of martyrdom in the person
of its bishop, and of able defences in the person of three of
its teachers. The early and the later fortunes of the Athenian
Church are buried in oblivion; it comes but for a brief period
before the scene of history. But the undying interest of that
one dramatic moment when Paul proclaimed a bodily resurrection
to the authors of the conception of a spiritual immortality,
will always cause us to linger with a strange sympathy over
every relic of the Christianity of Athens."
_C. T. Cruttwell,
A Literary History of Early Christianity,
volume 1, book 3, chapter 4._
ALSO IN:
_W. J. Conybeare and J. S. Howson,
Life and Letters of St. Paul,
volume 1, chapter 10._
_F. C. Baur,
Paul,
part 1, chapter 7 (volume 1)_.
On the inscription,
See
_E. de Pressensé,
The Early Years of Christianity: The Apostolic Era,
book 2, chapter 1._
ATHENS: A. D. 125-134.
The works of Hadrian.
The Emperor Hadrian interested himself greatly in the
venerable decaying capital of the Greeks, which he visited, or
resided in, for considerable periods, several times, between
A. D. 125 and 134. These visits were made important to the
city by the great works of rebuilding which he undertook and
supervised. Large parts of the city are thought to have been
reconstructed by him, "in the open and luxurious style of
Antioch and Ephesus." One quarter came to be called
"Hadrianapolis," as though he had created it. Several new
temples were erected at his command; but the greatest of the
works of Hadrian at Athens was the completing of the vast
national temple, the Olympieum, the beginning of which dated
back to the age of Pisistratus, and which Augustus had put his
hand to without finishing.
_C. Merivale,
History of the Romans,
chapter 66._
ATHENS: A. D. 267.
Capture of, by the Goths.
See GOTHS: A. D. 258-267.
ATHENS: A. D. 395.
Surrender to Alaric and the Goths.
When the Goths under Alaric invaded and ravaged Greece, A. D.
395, Athens was surrendered to them, on terms which saved the
city from being plundered. "The fact that the depredations of
Alaric hardly exceeded the ordinary license of a rebellious
general, is … perfectly established. The public buildings
and monuments of ancient splendour suffered no wanton
destruction from his visit; but there can be no doubt that
Alaric and his troops levied heavy contributions on the city
and its inhabitants."
_G. Finlay,
Greece under the Romans,
chapter 2, section 8._
ALSO IN:
_E. Gibbon,
Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire,
chapter 30.
See, also, GOTHS: A. D. 395, ALARIC'S INVASION OF GREECE.
ATHENS: A. D. 529.
Suppression of the Schools by Justinian.
"The Attic schools of rhetoric and philosophy maintained their
superior reputation from the Peloponnesian War to the reign of
Justinian. Athens, though situate in a barren soil, possessed
a pure air, a free navigation, and the monuments of ancient
art. That sacred retirement was seldom disturbed by the
business of trade or government; and the last of the Athenians
were distinguished by their lively wit, the purity of their
taste and language, their social manners, and some traces, at
least in discourse, of the magnanimity of their fathers. In
the suburbs of the city, the Academy of the Platonists, the
Lycæum of the Peripatetics, the Portico of the Stoics and the
Garden of the Epicureans were planted with trees and decorated
with statues; and the philosophers, instead of being immured
in a cloister, delivered their instructions in spacious and
pleasant walks, which, at different hours, were consecrated to
the exercises of the mind and body. The genius of the founders
still lived in those venerable seats. …
{186}
The schools of Athens were protected by the wisest and most
virtuous of the Roman princes. … Some vestige of royal
bounty may be found under the successors of Constantine. …
The golden chain, as it was fondly styled, of the Platonic
succession, continued … to the edict of Justinian [A. D.
529] which imposed a perpetual silence on the schools of
Athens, and excited the grief and indignation of the few
remaining votaries of Greek science and superstition."
_E. Gibbon,
Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire,
chapter 40.
ATHENS: A. D. 1205.
The founding of the Latin Dukedom.
"The portion of Greece lying to the south of the kingdom of
Saloniki was divided by the Crusaders [after their conquest of
Constantinople, A. D. 1204—see BYZANTINE EMPIRE: A. D.
1203-1204] among several great feudatories of the Empire of
Romania. … The lords of Boudonitza, Salona, Negropont, and
Athens are alone mentioned as existing to the north of the
isthmus of Corinth, and the history of the petty sovereigns of
Athens can alone be traced in any detail. … Otho de la
Roche, a Burgundian nobleman, who had distinguished himself
during the siege of Constantinople, marched southward with the
army of Boniface the king-marquis, and gained possession of
Athens in 1205. Thebes and Athens had probably fallen to his
share in the partition of the Empire, but it is possible that
the king of Saloniki may have found means to increase his
portion, in order to induce him to do homage to the crown of
Saloniki for this addition. At all events, it appears that
Otho de la Roche did homage to Boniface, either as his
immediate superior, or as viceroy for the Emperor of Romania.
… Though the Byzantine aristocracy and dignified clergy were
severe sufferers by the transference of the government into
the hands of the Franks, the middle classes long enjoyed peace
and security. … The social civilization of the inhabitants,
and their ample command of the necessaries and many of the
luxuries of life, were in those days as much superior to the
condition of the citizens of Paris and London as they are now
inferior. … The city was large and wealthy, the country
thickly covered with villages, of which the ruins may still be
traced in spots affording no indications of Hellenic sites.
… The trade of Athens was considerable, and the luxury of
the Athenian ducal court was celebrated in all the regions of
the West where chivalry flourished."
_G. Finlay,
History of Greece from its Conquest by the Crusaders,
chapter 7._
ALSO IN:
_C. C. Felton,
Greece, Ancient and Modern: 4th Course.
lecture 5._
ATHENS: A. D. 1311-1456.
Under the Catalans and the Florentines.
See CATALAN GRAND COMPANY.
ATHENS: A. D. 1456.
The Turks in possession.
Athens was not occupied by the Turks until three years after
the conquest of Constantinople (see CONSTANTINOPLE: A. D.
1453). In the meantime the reign of the Florentine dukes of
the house of Acciaioli came to a tragical close. The last of
the dukes, Maurice Acciaioli died, leaving a young son and a
young widow, the latter renowned for her beauty and her
talents. The duchess, whom the will of her husband had made
regent, married a comely Venetian named Palmerio, who was said
to have poisoned his wife in order to be free to accept her
hand. Thereupon a nephew of the late duke, named Franco,
stirred up insurrections at Athens and fled to Constantinople
to complain to the sultan, Mahomet II. "The sultan, glad of
all pretexts that coloured his armed intervention in the
affairs of these principalities, ordered Omar, son of
Tourakhan, chief of the permanent army of the Peloponnesus, to
take possession of Athens, to dethrone the duchess and to
confine her sons in his prisons of the citadel of Megara."
This was done; but Palmerio, the duchess's husband, made his
way to the sultan and interceded in her behalf. "Mahomet, by
the advice of his viziers, feigned to listen equally to the
complaints of Palmerio, and to march to reestablish the
legitimate sovereignty. But already Franco, entering Megara
under the auspices of the Ottomans, had strangled both the
duchess and her son. Mahomet, advancing in turn to punish him
for his vengeance, expelled Franco from Athens on entering it,
and gave him, in compensation, the inferior and dependent
principality of Thebes, in Boeotia. The sultan, as lettered as
he was warlike, evinced no less pride and admiration than
Sylla at the sight of the monuments of Athens. 'What
gratitude,' exclaimed he before the Parthenon and the temple
of Theseus, 'do not religion and the Empire owe to the son of
Tourakhan, who has made them a present of these spoils of the
genius of the Greeks.'"
_A. Lamartine,
History of Turkey,
book 13, sections 10-12._
ATHENS: A. D. 1466.
Capture and plundering by the Venetians.
See GREECE: A. D. 1454-1479.
ATHENS: A. D. 1687.
Siege, bombardment and capture by the Venetians.
Destructive explosion in the Parthenon.
See TURKS: A. D. 1684-1696.
ATHENS: A. D. 1821-1829.
The Greek revolution and war of independence.
Capture by the Turks.
See GREECE: A. D. 1821-1829.
----------ATHENS: End--------------
ATHERTON GAG, The.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1836.
ATHLONE, Siege of (A. D. 1691).
See IRELAND: A. D. 1689-1691.
ATHRAVAS.
See MAGIANS.
ATIMIA.
The penalty of Atimia, under ancient Athenian law, was the
loss of civic rights.
_G. F. Schömann,
Antiquity of Greece: The State,
part 3, chapter 3._
ATIMUCA, The.
See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: TIMUCUA.
ATLANTA: A. D. 1864 (May-September).
Sherman's advance to the city.
Its siege and capture.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
A. D. 1864 (MAY: GEORGIA); and (MAY-SEPTEMBER: GEORGIA).
ATLANTA: A. D. 1864 (September).
Exclusive military occupation of the city.
Removal of inhabitants.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1864
(SEPTEMBER-OCTOBER: GEORGIA).
ATLANTA: A. D. 1864 (November).
Destruction of the city.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1864
(NOVEMBER-DECEMBER: GEORGIA).
----------ATLANTA: End----------
ATLANTIC OCEAN:
The name.
The Atlantic Ocean is mentioned by that name in a single
passage of Herodotus; "but it is clear, from the incidental
way in which it [the name] is here introduced, that it was one
well known in his day."
_E. H. Bunbury,
History of Ancient Geography,
chapter 7, section 1, note._
For a sketch of the history of the modern use of the name,
See PACIFIC OCEAN.
{187}
ATREBATES, The.
This name was borne by a tribe in ancient Belgic Gaul, which
occupied modern Artois and part of French Flanders, and, also,
by a tribe or group of tribes in Britain, which dwelt in a
region between the Thames and the Severn. The latter was
probably a colony from the former.
See BELGÆ;
also BRITAIN, CELTIC TRIBES.
ATROPATENE.
MEDIA ATROPATENE.
"Atropatene, as a name for the Alpine land in the northwest of
Iran (now Aderbeijan), came into use in the time of the Greek
Empire [Alexander's]; at any rate we cannot trace it earlier.
'Athrapaiti' means 'lord of fire;' 'Athrapata,' 'one protected
by fire;' in the remote mountains of this district the old
fire worship was preserved with peculiar zeal under the
Seleucids."
_M. Duncker,
History of Antiquity,
book 7, chapter 4._
Atropatene "comprises the entire basin of Lake Urumiyeh,
together with the country intervening between that basin and
the high mountain chain which curves round the southwestern
corner of the Caspian."
_G. Rawlinson,
Five Great Monarchies: Media,
chapter 1._
Atropatene was "named in honour of the satrap Atropates, who
had declared himself king after Alexander's death."
_J. P. Mahaffy,
Story of Alexander's Empire,
chapter 13._
ATSINAS.
See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: BLACKFEET.
ATTABEGS.
See ATABEGS.
ATTACAPAN FAMILY, The.
See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: ATTACAPAN FAMILY.
ATTAMAN, or HETMAN.
See COSSACKS.
ATTECOTTI, The.
See OTADENI;
also, BRITAIN, CELTIC TRIBES.
ATTIC SALT.
Thyme was a favorite condiment among the ancient Greeks,
"which throve nowhere else so well as in Attica. Even salt was
seasoned with thyme. Attic salt, however, is famed rather in
the figurative than in the literal sense, and did not form an
article of trade."
_G. F. Schömann,
Antiquity of Greece: The State,
part 3, chapter 3._
ATTIC TALENT.
See TALENT.
ATTIC WAR, The.
See TEN YEARS' WAR.
ATTICA.
"It forms a rocky peninsula, separated from the mainland by
trackless mountains, and jutting so far out into the Eastern
Sea that it lay out of the path of the tribes moving from
north to south. Hence the migratory passages which agitated
the whole of Hellas left Attica untouched, and for this reason
Attic history is not divided into such marked epochs as that of
Peloponnesus; it possesses a superior unity, and presents an
uninterrupted development of coalitions of life native in
their origin to the land. … On the other hand Attica was
perfectly adapted by nature for receiving immigrants from the
sea. For the whole country, as its name indicates, consists of
coast-land; and the coast abounds in harbours, and on account of
the depth of water in the roads is everywhere accessible;
while the best of its plains open towards the coast and invite
the mariner to land. The first landings by which the
monotonous conditions of the age of the Pelasgians were
interrupted where those of the Phoenicians, who domesticated
the worship of Aphrodite, as well as that of the Tyrian Melcar
on the coasts. Afterwards the tribes of the shores of Asia Minor
came across; in the first place the Carians, who introduced
the worship of the Carian Zeus and Posidon, and were followed
by Cretans, Lycians, Dardanians and Old Ionians. The
population became mixed. … This first epoch of the national
history the ancients connected with the name of Cecrops. It
forms the transition from the life of rural districts and
villages to that of a state. Attica has become a land with
twelve citadels, in each of which dwells a chieftain or king,
who has his domains, his suite, and his subjects. Every
twelfth is a state by itself, with its separate public hall
and common hearth. If under these circumstances a common
national history was to be attained to, one of the twelve
towns, distinguished by special advantages of situation, would
have to become the capital. And to such a position undeniable
advantages entitled the city whose seat was in the plain of
the Cephisus. … Into the centre of the entire plain advances
from the direction of Hymettus a group of rocky heights, among
them an entirely separate and mighty block which, with the
exception of a narrow access from the west, offers on all
sides vertically precipitous walls, surmounted by a broad
level sufficiently roomy to afford space for the sanctuaries
of the national gods and the habitations of the national
rulers. It seems as if nature had designedly placed this rock
in this position as the ruling castle and the centre of the
national history. This is the Acropolis of Athens, among the
twelve castles of the land that which was preëminently named
after the national king Cecrops. … So far from being
sufficiently luxuriant to allow even the idle to find easy
means of sustenance, the Attic soil was stony, devoid of a
sufficient supply of water, and for the most part only adapted
to the cultivation of barley; everywhere … labour and a
regulated industry were needed. But this labour was not
unremunerative. Whatever orchard and garden fruits prospered
were peculiarly delicate and agreeable to the taste; the
mountain-herbs were nowhere more odourous than on Hymettus;
and the sea abounded with fish. The mountains, not only by the
beauty of their form invest the whole scenery with a certain
nobility, but in their depths lay an abundance of the most
excellent building-stone and silver ore; in the lowlands was
to be found the best kind of clay for purposes of manufacture.
The materials existed for all arts and handicrafts; and
finally Attica rejoiced in what the ancients were wise enough
to recognize as a special favour of Heaven, a dry and
transparent atmosphere, by its peculiar clearness productive
of bodily freshness, health and elasticity, while it sharpened
the senses, disposed the soul to cheerfulness and aroused and
animated the powers of the mind. Such were the institutions of
the land which was developing the germs of its peculiar
history at the time when the [Dorian] migrations were
agitating the whole mainland. Though Attica was not herself
overrun by hostile multitudes, yet about the same time she
admitted manifold accessions of foreign population in smaller
groups. By this means she enjoyed all the advantages of an
invigorating impulse without exposing herself to the evils of
a violent revolution. … The immigrants who domesticated
themselves in Attica were … chiefly families of superior
eminence, so that Attica gained not only in numbers of
population, but also in materials of culture of every
description."
_E. Curtius,
History of Greece,
book 2, chapter 2._
ALSO IN:
_J. I. Lockhart,
Attica and Athens._
See also, ATHENS: THE BEGINNING.
{188}
ATTILA'S CONQUESTS AND EMPIRE.
See HUNS.
ATTIOUANDARONK, The.
See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: HURONS. &c.
ATTYADÆ, The.
The first dynasty of the kings of Lydia, claimed to be sprung
from Attys, son of the god Manes.
_M. Duncker,
History of Antiquity,
book 4, chapter 17._
AUBAINE, The right of.
"A prerogative by which the Kings of France claimed the
property of foreigners who died in their kingdom without being
naturalized." It was suppressed by Colbert, in the reign of
Louis XIV.
_J. A. Blanqui,
History of Political Economy in Europe,
page 285._
AUCH:
Origin of the name.
See AQUITAINE: THE ANCIENT TRIBES.
AUCKLAND, Lord, The Indian Administration of.
See INDIA: A. D. 1836-1845.
AUDENARDE.
See OUDINARDE.
AUDIENCIAS.
"For more than two centuries and a half the whole of South
America, except Brazil, settled down under the colonial
government of Spain, and during the greater part of that time
this vast territory was under the rule of the Viceroys of Peru
residing at Lima. The impossibility of conducting an efficient
administration from such a centre … at once became apparent.
Courts of justice called Audiencias were, therefore,
established in the distant provinces, and their presidents,
sometimes with the title of captains-general, had charge of
the executive under the orders of the Viceroys. The Audiencia
of Charcas (the modern Bolivia) was established in 1559. Chile
was ruled by captains-general, and an Audiencia was
established at Santiago in 1568. In New Grenada the president
of the Audiencia, created in 1564, was also captain-general.
The Audiencia of Quito, also with its president as
captain-general, dated from 1542; and Venezuela was under a
captain-general."
_C. R. Markham,
Colonial History of South America.
(Narrative and Critical History of America,
volume 8, page 295)._
AUERSTADT, Battle of.
See GERMANY: A. D. 1806 (OCTOBER).
AUGEREAU, Marshal, Campaigns of.
See
FRANCE: A. D. 1797 (SEPTEMBER);
GERMANY: A. D. 1806 (OCTOBER);
SPAIN: A. D. 1809 (FEBRUARY-JUNE);
and RUSSIA: A. D. 1812 (JUNE-SEPTEMBER);
1813 (AUGUST), (OCTOBER), (OCTOBER-DECEMBER).
AUGHRIM, OR AGHRIM, Battle of (A. D. 1691).
See IRELAND: A. D. 1689-1691.
AUGSBURG: Origin.
See AUGUSTA VINDELICORUM.
AUGSBURG: A. D. 955.
Great defeat of the Hungarians.
See HUNGARIANS: A. D. 934-955.
AUGSBURG: A. D. 1530.
Sitting of the Diet.
Signing and reading of the Protestant Confession of Faith.
The Imperial Decree condemning the Protestants.
See PAPACY: A. D. 1530-1531.
AUGSBURG: A. D. 1555.
The Religious Peace concluded.
See GERMANY: A. D. 1552-1561.
AUGSBURG: A. D. 1646.
Unsuccessful siege by Swedes and French.
See GERMANY; A. D. 1646-1648.
AUGSBURG: A. D. 1686-1697.
The League and the War of the League.
See GERMANY: A. D. 1686;
and FRANCE: A. D. 1689-1690, and after.
AUGSBURG: A. D. 1703.
Taken by the French.
See GERMANY: A. D. 1703.
AUGSBURG: A. D. 1801-1803.
One of six free cities which survived the Peace of Luneville.
See GERMANY: A. D. 1801-1803.
AUGSBURG: A. D. 1806.
Loss of municipal freedom.
Absorption in the kingdom of Bavaria.
See GERMANY: A. D. 1805-1806.
----------AUGSBURG: End----------
AUGURS.
PONTIFICES.
FETIALES.
"There was … enough of priesthood and of priests in Rome.
Those, however, who had business with a god resorted to the
god, and not to the priest. Every suppliant and inquirer
addressed himself directly to the divinity; … no
intervention of a priest was allowed to conceal or to obscure
this original and simple relation. But it was no easy matter
to hold converse with a god. The god had his own way of
speaking, which was intelligible only to those acquainted with
it; but one who did rightly understand it knew not only how to
ascertain, but also how to manage, the will of the god, and
even in case of need to overreach or to constrain him. It was
natural, therefore, that the worshipper of the god should
regularly consult such men of skill and listen to their
advice; and thence arose the corporations or colleges of men
specially skilled in religious lore, a thoroughly national
Italian institution, which had a far more important influence
on political development than the individual priests or
priesthoods. These colleges have been often, but erroneously,
confounded with the priesthoods. The priesthoods were charged
with the worship of a specific divinity. … Under the Roman
constitution and that of the Latin communities in general
there were originally but two such colleges: that of the
augurs and that of the pontifices. The six augurs were skilled
in interpreting the language of the gods from the flight of
birds; an art which was prosecuted with great earnestness and
reduced to a quasi-scientific system. The five 'bridge
builders' (pontifices) derived their name from their function,
as sacred as it was politically important, of conducting the
building and demolition of the bridge over the Tiber. They
were the Roman engineers, who understood the mystery of
measures and numbers; whence there devolved upon them also the
duties of managing the calendar of the state, of proclaiming
to the people the time of new and full moon and the days of
festivals, and of seeing that every religious and every
judicial act took place on the right day. … Thus they
acquired (although not probably to the full extent till after
the abolition of the monarchy) the general oversight of Roman
worship and of whatever was connected with it. [The president
of their college was called the Pontifex Maximus.] … They
themselves described the sum of their knowledge as 'the
science of things divine and human.' … By the side of these
two oldest and most eminent corporations of men versed in
spiritual lore may be to some extent ranked the college of the
twenty state-heralds (fetiales, of uncertain derivation)
destined as a living repository to preserve traditionally the
remembrance of the treaties concluded with neighboring
communities, to pronounce an authoritative opinion on alleged
infractions of treaty rights, and in case of need to demand
satisfaction and declare war."
_T. Mommsen,
History of Rome,
book 1, chapter 12._
ALSO IN:
_E. Guhl and W. Koner,
Life of the Greeks and Romans,
section 103._
See, also, AUSPICES, and FETIALES.
{189}
AUGUSTA TREVIRORUM.
See TUÈVES, ORIGIN OF.
AUGUSTA VEROMANDUORUM.
Modern St. Quentin.
See BELGÆ.
AUGUSTA VINDELICORUM.
"Augusta Vindelicorum is the modern Augsburg, founded, it may
be supposed, about the year 740 [B. C. 14] after the conquest
of Rhætia by Drusus. … The Itineraries represent it as the
centre of the roads from Verona, Sirmium, and Treviri."
_C. Merivale,
History of the Romans,
chapter 36, note._
AUGUSTODUNUM.
The Emperor Augustus changed the name of Bibracte in Gaul to
Augustodunum, which time has corrupted, since to Autun.
AUGUSTONEMETUM.
See GERGOVIA OF THE ARVERNI.
AUGUSTUS.
AUGUSTA:
The Title.
"Octavius [see ROME: B. C. 31-14] had warily declined any of
the recognized designations of sovereign rule. Antonius had
abolished the dictatorship; his successor respected the
acclamations with which the people had greeted this decree.
The voices which had saluted Cæsar with the title of king were
peremptorily commanded to be dumb. Yet Octavius was fully
aware of the influence which attached to distinctive titles of
honour. While he scrupulously renounced the names upon which
the breath of human jealousy had blown, he conceived the
subtler policy of creating another for himself, which
borrowing its original splendour from his own character,
should reflect upon him an untarnished lustre. … The epithet
Augustus … had never been borne by any man before. … But
the adjunct, though never given to a man, had been applied to
things most noble, most venerable and most divine. The rites
of the gods were called august, the temples were august; the
word itself was derived from the holy auguries by which the
divine will was revealed; it was connected with the favour and
authority of Jove himself. … The illustrious title was
bestowed upon the heir of the Cæsarian Empire in the middle of
the month of January, 727 [B. C. 27], and thenceforth it is by
the name of Augustus that he is recognized in Roman history."
_C. Merivale,
History of the Romans,
chapter 30._
"When Octavianus had firmly established his power and was now
left without a rival, the Senate, being desirous of
distinguishing him by some peculiar and emphatic title,
decreed, in B. C. 27, that he should be styled Augustus, an
epithet properly applicable to some object demanding respect
and veneration beyond what is bestowed upon human things. …
This being an honorary appellation … it would, as a matter
of course, have been transmitted by inheritance to his
immediate descendants. … Claudius, although he could not be
regarded as a descendant of Octavianus, assumed on his
accession the title of Augustus, and his example was followed
by all succeeding rulers … who communicated the title of
Augusta to their consorts."
_W. Ramsay,
Manual of Roman Antiquity,
chapter 5._
See, also, ROME: B. C. 31-A. D. 14.
AULA REGIA, The.
See CURIA REGIS OF THE NORMAN KINGS.
AULDEARN, Battle of (A. D. 1645).
See SCOTLAND: A. D. 1644-1645.
AULERCI, The.
The Aulerci were an extensive nation in ancient Gaul which
occupied the country from the lower course of the Seine to the
Mayenne. It was subdivided into three great tribes—the
Aulerci Cenomanni, Aulerci Diablintes and Aulerci Eburovices.
_Napoleon III.,
History of Cæsar,
book 3, chapter 2._
AULIC COUNCIL, The.
See GERMANY: A. D. 1493-1519.
AUMALE, Battle of (1592).
See FRANCE: A. D. 1591-1593.
AUNEAU, Battle of (1587).
See FRANCE: A. D. 1584-1589.
AURANGZEB, Moghul Emperor, or Padischah of India, A. D. 1658-1707.
AURAY, Battle of (1365).
See BRITTANY: A. D. 1341-1365.
AURELIAN, Roman Emperor. A. D.270-275.
AURELIAN ROAD, The.
One of the great Roman roads of antiquity, which ran from Rome
to Pisa and Luna.
_T. Mommsen,
History of Rome,
book 4, chapter 11._
AURELIO, King of Leon and the Asturias, or Oviedo, A. D. 768-774.
AURUNCANS, The.
See AUSONIANS;
also OSCANS.
AUSCI, The.
See AQUITAINE, THE ANCIENT TRIBES.
AUSGLEICH, The.
See AUSTRIA: A. D. 1866-1867.
AUSONIANS, OR AURUNCANS, The.
A tribe of the ancient Volscians, who dwelt in the lower
valley of the Liris, and who are said to have been
exterminated by the Romans, B. C. 314.
_W. Ihne,
History of Rome,
book 3, chapter 10._
See, also, OSCANS.
AUSPICES, Taking the.
"The Romans, in the earlier ages of their history, never
entered upon any important business whatsoever, whether public
or private, without endeavouring, by means of divination, to
ascertain the will of the gods in reference to the
undertaking. … This operation was termed 'sumere auspicia;'
and if the omens proved unfavourable the business was
abandoned or deferred. … No meeting of the Comitia Curiata
nor of the Comitia Centuriata could be held unless the
auspices had been previously taken. … As far as public
proceedings were concerned, no private individual, even among
the patricians, had the right of taking auspices. This duty
devolved upon the supreme magistrate alone. … In an army
this power belonged exclusively to the commander-in-chief; and
hence all achievements were said to be performed under his
auspices, even although he were not present. … The objects
observed in taking these auspices were birds, the class of
animals from which the word is derived ('Auspicium ab ave
spicienda'). Of these, some were believed to give indications
by their flight … others by their notes or cries … while a
third class consisted of chickens ('pulli') kept in cages.
When it was desired to obtain an omen from these last, food
was placed before them, and the manner in which they comported
themselves was closely watched. … The manner of taking the
auspices previous to the Comitia was as follows:—The
magistrate who was to preside at the assembly arose
immediately after midnight on the day for which it had been
summoned, and called upon an augur to assist him. … With his
aid a region of the sky and a space of ground, within which
the auspices were observed, were marked out by the divining
staff ('lituus') of the augur. … This operation was
performed with the greatest care. … In making the necessary
observations, the president was guided entirely by the augur,
who reported to him the result."
_W. Ramsay,
Manual of Roman Antiquity,
chapter 4._
ALSO IN:
_W. Ihne,
History of Rome,
book 6, chapter 13._
See, also, AUGUR.
{190}
AUSTERLITZ, Battle of.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1805 (MARCH-DECEMBER).
AUSTIN, Stephen F., and the settlement of Texas.
See TEXAS: A. D. 1819-1835.
AUSTIN CANONS, OR CANONS OF ST. AUGUSTINE.
"About the middle of the 11th century an attempt had been made
to redress the balance between the regular and secular clergy,
and restore to the latter the influence and consideration in
spiritual matters which they had, partly by their own fault,
already to a great extent lost. Some earnest and thoughtful
spirits, distressed at once by the abuse of monastic
privileges and by the general decay of ecclesiastical order,
sought to effect a reform by the establishment of a stricter
and better organized discipline in those cathedral and other
churches which were served by colleges of secular priests. …
Towards the beginning of the twelfth century the attempts at
canonical reform issued in the form of what was virtually a
new religious order, that of the Angustinians, or Canons
Regular of the order of S. Angustine. Like the monks and
unlike the secular canons, from whom they were carefully
distinguished, they had not only their table and dwelling but
all things in common, and were bound by a vow to the
observance of their rule, grounded upon a passage in one of
the letters of that great father of the Latin Church from whom
they took their name. Their scheme was a compromise between
the old fashioned system of canons and that of the monastic
confraternities; but a compromise leaning strongly towards the
monastic side. … The Austin canons, as they were commonly
called, made their way across the channel in Henry's reign."
_K. Norgate,
England under the Angevin Kings,
volume 1, chapter 1._
ALSO IN:
_E. L. Cutts,
Scenes and Characters of the Middle Ages,
chapter 3._
AUSTRALIA: A. D. 1601-1800.
Discovery and early exploration.
The founding of the penal colonies at Sydney and Norfolk Island.
"Australia has had no Columbus. It is even doubtful if the
first navigators who reached her shores set out with any idea
of discovering a great south land. At all events, it would
seem, their achievements were so little esteemed by themselves
and their countrymen that no means were taken to preserve
their names in connexion with their discoveries. Holland long
had the credit of bringing to light the existence of that
island-continent, which until recent years was best known by
her name. In 1861, however, Mr. Major, to whom we are indebted
for more recent research upon the subject, produced evidence
which appeared to demonstrate that the Portuguese had reached
the shores of Australia in 1601, five years before the Dutch
yacht Duyphen, or Dove,—the earliest vessel whose name has
been handed down,—sighted, about March, 1606, what is
believed to have been the coast near Cape York, Mr. Major, in
a learned paper read before the Society of Antiquaries in
1872, indicated the probability that the first discovery was
made 'in or before the year 1531.' The dates of two of the six
maps from which Mr. Major derives his information are 1531 and
1542. The latter clearly indicates Australia, which is called
Jave la Grande. New Zealand is also marked."
_F. P. Labilliere,
Early History of the Colony of Victoria,
chapter 1._
In 1606, De Quiros, a Spanish navigator, sailing from Peru,
across the Pacific, reached a shore which stretched so far
that he took it to be a continent. "He called the place
'Tierra Australis de Espiritu Santo,' that is 'Southern Land
of the Holy Spirit.' It is now known that this was not really
a continent, but merely one of the New Hebrides Islands, and
more than a thousand miles away from the mainland. … In
after years, the name he had invented was divided into two
parts; the island he had really discovered being called
Espiritu Santo, while the continent he thought he had
discovered was called Terra Australis. This last name was
shortened by another discoverer—Flinders—to the present term
Australia." After the visit to the Australian coast of the
small Dutch ship, the "Dove," it was touched, during the next
twenty years, by a number of vessels of the same nationality.
"In 1622 a Dutch ship, the 'Leeuwin,' or 'Lioness,' sailed
along the southern coast, and its name was given to the
southwest cape of Australia. … In 1628 General Carpenter
sailed completely round the large Gulf to the north, which has
taken its name from this circumstance. Thus, by degrees, all
the northern and western, together with part of the southern
shores, came to be roughly explored, and the Dutch even had
some idea of colonizing this continent. … During the next
fourteen years we hear no more of voyages to Australia; but in
1642 Antony Van Diemen, the Governor of the Dutch possessions
in the East Indies, sent out his friend Abel Jansen Tasman,
with two ships, to make discoveries in the South Seas." Tasman
discovered the island which he called Van Diemen's Land, but
which has since been named in his own honor—Tasmania. "This
he did not know to be an island; he drew it on his maps as if
it were a peninsula belonging to the mainland of Australia."
In 1699, the famous buccaneer, William Dampier, was given the
command of a vessel sent out to the southern seas, and he
explored about 900 miles of the northwestern coast of
Australia; but the description which he gave of the country
did not encourage the adventurous to seek fortune in it. "We
hear of no further explorations in this part of the world
until nearly a century after; and, even then, no one thought
of sending out ships specially for the purpose. But in the
year 1770 a series of important discoveries were indirectly
brought about. The Royal Society of London, calculating that
the planet Venus would cross the disc of the sun in 1769,
persuaded the English Government to send out an expedition to
the Pacific Ocean for the purpose of making observations on
this event which would enable astronomers to calculate the
distance of the earth from the sun. A small vessel, the
'Endeavour,' was chosen; astronomers with their instruments
embarked, and the whole placed under the charge of" the
renowned sailor, Captain James Cook. The astronomical purposes
of the expedition were satisfactorily accomplished at Otaheite,
and Captain Cook then proceeded to an exploration of the
shores of New Zealand and Australia.
{191}
Having entered a fine bay on the south-eastern
coast of Australia, "he examined the country for a few miles
inland, and two of his scientific friends—Sir Joseph Banks
and Dr. Solander—made splendid collections of botanical
specimens. From this circumstance the place was called Botany
Bay, and its two head-lands received the names of Cape Banks
and Cape Solander. It was here that Captain Cook … took
possession of the country on behalf of His Britannic Majesty,
giving it the name 'New South Wales,' on account of the
resemblance of its coasts to the southern shores of Wales.
Shortly after they had set sail from Botany Bay they observed
a small opening in the land, but Cook did not stay to examine
it, merely marking it on his chart as Port Jackson, in honour
of his friend Sir George Jackson. … The reports brought home
by Captain Cook completely changed the beliefs current in
those days with regard to Australia. … It so happened that,
shortly after Cook's return, the English nation had to deal
with a great difficulty in regard to its criminal population.
In 1776 the United States declared their independence, and the
English then found they could no longer send their convicts
over to Virginia, as they had formerly done. In a short time
the gaols of England were crowded with felons. It became
necessary to select a new place of transportation; and, just
as this difficulty arose, Captain Cook's voyages called
attention to a land in every way suited for such a purpose,
both by reason of its fertility and of its great distance.
Viscount Sydney, therefore, determined to send out a party to
Botany Bay, in order to found a convict settlement there; and
in May, 1787, a fleet was ready to sail." After a voyage of
eight months the fleet arrived at Botany Bay, in January,
1788. The waters of the Bay were found to be too shallow for a
proper harbour, and Captain Phillip, the appointed Governor of
the settlement, set out, with three boats, to search for
something better. "As he passed along the coast he turned to
examine the opening which Captain Cook had called Port
Jackson, and soon found himself in a winding channel of water,
with great cliffs frowning overhead. All at once a magnificent
prospect opened on his eyes. A harbour, which is, perhaps, the
most beautiful and perfect in the world, stretched before him
far to the west, till it was lost on the distant horizon. It
seemed a vast maze of winding waters, dotted here and there
with lovely islets. … Captain Phillip selected, as the place
most suitable to the settlement, a small inlet, which, in
honour of the Minister of State, he called Sydney Cove. It was
so deep as to allow vessels to approach within a yard or two
of the shore." Great difficulties and sufferings attended the
founding of the penal settlement, and many died of actual
starvation as well as of disease; but in twelve years the
population had risen to between 6,000 and 7,000 persons.
Meantime a branch colony had been established on Norfolk
Island. In 1702 Governor Phillip, broken in health, had
resigned, and in 1795 he had been succeeded by Governor
Hunter. "When Governor Hunter arrived, in 1795, he brought
with him, on board his ship, the 'Reliance,' It young surgeon,
George Bass, and a midshipman called Matthew Flinders. They
were young men of the most admirable character. … Within a
month after their arrival they purchased a small boat about
eight feet in length, which they christened the 'Tom Thumb.'
Its crew consisted of themselves and a boy to assist." In this
small craft they began a survey of the coast, usefully
charting many miles of it. Soon afterwards, George Bass, in an
open whale-boat, pursued his explorations southwards, to the
region now called Victoria, and through the straits which bear
his name, thus discovering the fact that Van Diemen's Land, or
Tasmania, is an island, not a peninsula. In 1798, Bass and
Flinders, again associated and furnished with a small sloop,
sailed round and surveyed the entire coast of Van Diemen's
Land. Bass now went to South America and there disappeared.
Flinders was commissioned by the British Government in 1800 to
make an extensive survey of the Australian coasts, and did so.
Returning to England with his maps, he was taken prisoner on
the way by the French and held in captivity for six years,
while the fruits of his labor were stolen. He died a few years
after being released.
_A. and G. Sutherland,
History of Australia,
chapter 1-3._
ALSO IN:
_G. W. Rusden,
History of Australia,
chapter 1-3 (volume 1)._
AUSTRALIA: A. D. 1800-1840.
Beginning of the Prosperity of New South Wales.
Introduction of sheep-farming.
The founding of Victoria and South Australia.
"For twenty years and more no one at home gave a thought to
New South Wales, or 'Botany Bay,' as it was still erroneously
called, unless in vague horror and compassion for the poor
creatures who lived there in exile and starvation. The only
civilizing element in the place was the presence of a devoted
clergyman named Johnson, who had voluntarily accompanied the
first batch of convicts. … Colonel Lachlan Macquarie entered
on the office of governor in 1810, and ruled the settlement
for twelve years. His administration was the first turning
point in its history. … Macquarie saw that the best and
cheapest way of ruling the convicts was to make them freemen
as soon as possible. Before his time, the governors had looked
on the convicts as slaves, to be worked for the profit of the
government and of the free settlers. Macquarie did all he
could to elevate the class of emancipists, and to encourage
the convicts to persevere in sober industry in the hope of one
day acquiring a respectable position. He began to discontinue
the government farms, and to employ the convicts in
road-making so as to extend the colony in all directions. When
he came to Sydney, the country more than a day's ride from the
town was quite unknown. The growth of the settlement was
stopped on the west by a range called the Blue Mountains,
which before his time no one had succeeded in crossing. But in
1813, there came a drought upon the colony: the cattle, on
which everything depended, were unable to find food. Macquarie
surmised that there must be plenty of pasture on the plains
above the Blue Mountains: he sent an exploring party, telling
them that a pass must be discovered. In a few months, not only
was this task accomplished, and the vast and fertile pastures
of Bathurst reached, but a road 130 miles long was made,
connecting them with Sydney. The Lachlan and Macquarie rivers
were traced out to the west of the Blue Mountains.
{192}
Besides this, coal was found at the mouth of the Hunter river,
and the settlement at Newcastle formed. … When it became
known that the penal settlement was gradually becoming a free
colony, and that Sydney and its population were rapidly
changing their character, English and Scotch people soon
bethought them of emigrating to the new country. Macquarie
returned home in 1822, leaving New South Wales four times as
populous, and twenty times as large as when he went out, and
many years in advance of what it might have been under a less
able and energetic governor. The discovery of the fine
pastures beyond the Blue Mountains settled the destiny of the
colony. The settlers came up thither with their flocks long
before Macquarie's road was finished; and it turned out that
the downs of Australia were the best sheep-walks in the world.
The sheep thrives better there, and produces finer and more
abundant wool, than anywhere else. John Macarthur, a
lieutenant in the New South Wales corps, had spent several
years in studying the effect of the Australian climate upon
the sheep; and he rightly surmised that the staple of the
colony would be its fine wool. In 1803, he went to England and
procured some pure Spanish merino sheep from the flock of
George III. … The Privy Council listened to his wool
projects, and he received a large grant of land. Macarthur had
found out the true way to Australian prosperity. When the
great upland pastures were discovered, the merino breed was
well established in the colony; and the sheep-owners, without
waiting for grants, spread with their flocks over immense
tracts of country. This was the beginning of what is called
squatting. The squatters afterwards paid a quit-rent to the
government and thus got their runs, as they called the great
districts where they pastured their flocks, to a certain
extent secured to them. … Hundreds upon hundreds of square
miles of the great Australian downs were now explored and
stocked with sheep for the English wool-market. … It was in
the time of Macquarie's successor, Sir Thomas Brisbane, that
the prospects of New South Wales became generally known in
England. Free emigrants, each bringing more or less capital
with him, now poured in; and the demand for labour became
enormous. At first the penal settlements were renewed as
depots for the supply of labour, and it was even proposed that
the convicts should be sold by auction on their arrival; but
in the end the influx of free labourers entirely altered the
question. In Brisbane's time, and that of his successor, Sir
Ralph Darling, wages fell and work became scarce in England;
and English working men now turned their attention to
Australia. Hitherto the people had been either convicts or
free settlers of more or less wealth, and between these
classes there was great bitterness of feeling, each, naturally
enough, thinking that the colony existed for their own
exclusive benefit. The free labourers who now poured in
greatly contributed in course of time to fusing the population
into one. In Brisbane's time, trial by jury and a free press
were introduced. The finest pastures in Australia, the Darling
Downs near Moreton Bay, were discovered and settled [1825].
The rivers which pour into Moreton Bay were explored: one of
them was named the Brisbane, and a few miles from its mouth
the town of the same name was founded. Brisbane is now the
capital of the colony of Queensland: and other explorations in
his time led to the foundation of a second independent colony.
The Macquarie was traced beyond the marshes, in which it was
supposed to lose itself, and named the Darling: and the Murray
river was discovered [1829]. The tracing out of the Murray
river by the adventurous traveller Sturt, led to a colony on
the site which he named South Australia. In Darling's time,
the Swan River Colony, now called Western Australia, was
commenced. Darling … was the first to sell the land at a
small fixed price, on the system adopted in America. …
Darling returned to England in 1831; and the six-years
administration of his successor, Sir Richard Bourke, marks a
fresh turning-point in Australian history. In his time the
colony threw off two great offshoots. Port Phillip, on which
now stands the great city of Melbourne, had been discovered in
1802, and in the next year the government sent hither a
convict colony. This did not prosper, and this fine site was
neglected for thirty years. When the sudden rise of New South
Wales began, the squatters began to settle to the west and
north of Port Phillip; and the government at once sent an
exploring party, who reported most favourably of the country
around. In 1836, Governor Bourke founded a settlement in this
new land, which had been called, from its rich promise,
Australia Felix: and under his directions the site of a
capital was laid out, to be called Melbourne, in honour of the
English Prime Minister. This was in 1837, so that the
beginning of the colony corresponds nearly with that of Queen
Victoria's reign; a circumstance which afterwards led to its
being named Victoria. Further west still, a second new colony
arose about this time on the site discovered by Sturt in 1829.
This was called South Australia, and the first governor
arrived there at the end of the year 1836. The intended
capital was named Adelaide, in honour of the Queen of William
IV. Both the new colonies were commenced on a new system,
called from its inventor the Wakefield system, but the
founders of South Australia were able to carry it out most
effectually, because they were quite independent of the
experience and the prejudices of the Sydney government. Mr.
Wakefield was an ingenious man and a clever writer. … His
notion was that the new colonies ought to be made 'fairly to
represent English society.' His plan was to arrest the strong
democratic tendencies of the new community, and to reproduce
in Australia the strong distinction of classes which was found
in England. He wanted the land sold as dear as land-owners:
and the produce of the land was to be applied in tempting
labourers to emigrate with the prospect of better wages than
they got at home. A Company was easily formed to carry out
these ideas in South Australia. … Like the settlement of
Carolina as framed by Locke and Somers, it was really a plan
for getting the advantages of the colony into the hands of the
non-labouring classes: and by the natural laws of political
economy, it failed everywhere. Adelaide became the scene of an
Australian 'bubble.' The land-jobbers and money-lenders made
fortunes: but the people who emigrated, mostly belonging to
the middle and upper classes, found the scheme to be a
delusion. Land rapidly rose in value, and as rapidly sank; and
lots for which the emigrants had paid high prices became
almost worthless. The labourers emigrated elsewhere, and so
did those of the capitalists who had anything left. … The
depression of South Australia, however, was but temporary. It
contains the best corn land in the whole island: and hence it
of course soon became the chief source of the food supply of
the neighbouring colonies, besides exporting large quantities
of corn to England. It contains rich mines of copper, and
produces large quantities of wool."
_E. J. Payne,
History of European Colonies,
chapter 12._
ALSO IN:
_G. W. Rusden,
History of Australia,
volume 1-2._
{193}
AUSTRALIA: A.D. 1839-1855.
Progress of the Port Phillip District.
Its Separation from New South Wales and erection into the
colony of Victoria.
Discovery of Gold.
Constitutional organization of the colony.
"In 1839 the population of Port Phillip amounted to nearly
6,000, and was being rapidly augmented from without. The sheep
in the district exceeded half a million, and of cattle and
horses the numbers were in proportion equally large. The place
was daily growing in importance. The Home Government therefore
decided to send an officer, with the title of Superintendent,
to take charge of the district, but to act under the Governor
of New South Wales. Charles Joseph La Trobe, Esq., was
appointed to this office. … He arrived at Melbourne on the
30th September, 1839. Soon after this all classes of the new
community appear to have become affected by a mania for
speculation. … As is always the case when speculation takes
the place of steady industry, the necessaries of life became
fabulously dear. Of money there was but little, in
consideration of the amount of business done, and large
transactions were effected by means of paper and credit. From
highest to lowest, all lived extravagantly. … Such a state
of things could not last forever. In 1842, by which time the
population had increased to 24,000, the crash came. … From
this depression the colony slowly recovered, and a sounder
business system took the place of the speculative one. … All
this time, however, the colony was a dependency of New South
Wales, and a strong feeling had gained ground that it suffered
in consequence. … A cry was raised for separation. The
demand was, as a matter of course, resisted by New South
Wales, but as the agitation was carried on with increased
activity, it was at last yielded to by the Home authorities.
The vessel bearing the intelligence arrived on the 11th
November, 1850. The news soon spread, and great was the
satisfaction of the colonists. Rejoicings were kept up in
Melbourne for five consecutive days. … Before, however, the
separation could be legally accomplished, it was necessary
that an Act should be passed in New South Wales to settle
details. … The requisite forms were at length given effect
to, and, on the 1st July, 1851, a day which has ever since
been scrupulously observed as a public holiday, it was
proclaimed that the Port Phillip district of New South Wales
had been erected into a separate colony to be called Victoria,
after the name of Her Most Gracious Majesty. At the same time
the Superintendent, Mr. C. J. La Trobe, was raised to the rank
of Lieutenant-Governor. At the commencement of the year of
separation the population of Port Phillip numbered 76,000, the
sheep 6,000,000, the cattle 380,000. … In a little more than
a month after the establishment of Victoria as an independent
colony, it became generally known that rich deposits of gold
existed within its borders. … The discovery of gold … in
New South Wales, by Hargreaves, in February, 1851, caused
numbers to emigrate to that colony. This being considered
detrimental to the interests of Victoria, a public meeting was
held in Melbourne on the 9th of June, at which a
'gold-discovery committee' was appointed, which was authorized
to offer rewards to any that should discover gold in remunerative
quantities within the colony. The colonists were already on
the alert. At the time this meeting was held, several parties
were out searching for, and some had already found gold. The
precious metal was first discovered at Clunes, then in the
Yarra ranges at Anderson's Creek, soon after at Buninyong and
Ballarat, shortly afterwards at Mount Alexander, and
eventually at Bendigo. The deposits were found to be richer
and to extend over a wider area than any which had been
discovered in New South Wales. Their fame soon spread to the
adjacent colonies, and thousands hastened to the spot. …
When the news reached home, crowds of emigrants from the
United Kingdom hurried to our shores. Inhabitants of other
European countries quickly joined in the rush. Americans from
the Atlantic States were not long in following. Stalwart
Californians left their own gold-yielding rocks and placers to
try their fortunes at the Southern Eldorado. Last of all,
swarms of Chinese arrived, eager to unite in the general
scramble for wealth. … The important position which the
Australian colonies had obtained in consequence of the
discovery of gold, and the influx of population consequent
thereon, was the occasion of the Imperial Government
determining in the latter end of 1852 that each colony should
be invited to frame such a Constitution for its government as
its representatives might deem best suited to its own peculiar
circumstances. The Constitution framed in Victoria, and
afterwards approved by the British Parliament, was avowedly
based upon that of the United Kingdom. It provided for the
establishment of two Houses of Legislature, with power to make
laws, subject to the assent of the Crown as represented
generally by the Governor of the colony; the Legislative
Council, or Upper House, to consist of 30, and the Legislative
Assembly, or Lower House, to consist of 60 members. Members of
both Houses to be elective and to possess property
qualifications. Electors of both Houses to possess either
property or professional qualifications [the property
qualification of members and electors of the Lower House has
since been abolished]. … The Upper House not to be
dissolved, but five members to retire every two years, and to
be eligible for re-election. The Lower House to be dissolved
every five years [since reduced to three], or oftener, at the
discretion of the Governor. Certain officers of the
Government, four at least of whom should have seats in
Parliament, to be deemed 'Responsible Ministers.' … This
Constitution was proclaimed in Victoria on the 23d November,
1855."
_H. H. Hayter,
Notes on the Colony of Victoria,
chapter 1._
ALSO IN:
_F. P. Labilliere,
Early History of the Colony of Victoria,
volume 2._
_W. Westgarth,
First Twenty Years of the Colony of Victoria._
{194}
AUSTRALIA: A. D. 1859.
Separation of the Moreton Bay District from New South Wales.
Its erection into the colony of Queensland.
"Until December, 1859, the north-west portion of the Fifth
Continent was known as the Moreton Bay district, and belonged
to the colony of New South Wales; but at that date it had
grown so large that it was erected into a separate and
independent colony, under the name of Queensland. It lies
between latitude 10° 43' South and 29° South, and longitude
138° and 153° East, bounded on the north by Torres Straits; on
the north-east by the Coral Sea; on the east by the South
Pacific; on the south by New South Wales and South Australia;
on the west by South Australia and the Northern Territory; and
on the north-west by the Gulf of Carpentaria. It covers an
area … twenty times as large as Ireland, twenty-three times
as large as Scotland, and eleven times the extent of England.
… Numerous good harbours are found, many of which form the
outlets of navigable rivers. The principal of these [is]
Moreton Bay, at the head of which stands Brisbane, the capital
of the colony. … The mineral wealth of Queensland is very
great, and every year sees it more fully developed. … Until
the year 1867, when the Gympie field was discovered, gold
mining as an industry was hardly known."
_C. H. Eden,
The Fifth Continent,
chapter 10._
AUSTRALIA: A. D. 1885-1892.
Proposed Federation of the Colonies.
"It has been a common saying in Australia that our fellow
countrymen in that part of the world did not recognise the
term 'Australian;' each recognised only his own colony and the
empire. But the advocates of combination for certain common
purposes achieved a great step forward in the formation of a
'Federal Council' in 1885. It was to be only a 'Council,' its
decisions having no force over any colony unless accepted
afterwards by the colonial Legislature. Victoria, Queensland,
Tasmania, and West Australia joined, New South Wales, South
Australia, and New Zealand standing out, and, so constituted,
it met twice. The results of the deliberations were not
unsatisfactory, and the opinion that the move was in the right
direction rapidly grew. In February of 1890 a Federation
Conference, not private but representative of the different
Governments, was called at Melbourne. It adopted an address to
the Queen declaring the opinion of the conference to be that
the best interests of the Australian colonies require the
early formation of a union under the Crown into one
Government, both legislative and executive. Events proceed
quickly in Colonial History. In the course of 1890 the
hesitation of New South Wales was finally overcome; powerful
factors being the weakening of the Free Trade position at the
election of 1890, the report of General Edwards on the
Defences, and the difficulties about Chinese immigration. A
Convention accordingly assembled at Sydney in March, 1891,
which agreed upon a Constitution to be recommended to the
several Colonies."
_A. Caldecott,
English Colonization and Empire,
chapter 7, section 2._
"On Monday, March 2nd, 1891, the National Australasian
Convention met at the Parliament House, Sydney, New South
Wales, and was attended by seven representatives from each
Colony, except New Zealand, which only sent three. Sir Henry
Parkes (New South Wales) was elected President of the
Convention, and Sir Samuel Griffith (Queensland),
Vice-President. A series of resolutions, moved by Sir Henry
Parkes, occupied the attention of the Convention for several
days. These resolutions set forth the principles upon which
the Federal Government should be established, which were to
the effect that the powers and privileges of existing Colonies
should be kept intact, except in cases where surrender would
be necessary in order to form a Federal Government; that
intercolonial trade and intercourse should be free; that power
to impose Customs duties should rest with the Federal
Government and Parliament; and that the naval and military
defence of Australia should be entrusted to the Federal Forces
under one command. The resolutions then went on to approve of
a Federal Constitution which should establish a Federal
Parliament to consist of a Senate and a House of
Representatives; that a Judiciary, to consist of a Federal
Supreme Court, to be a High Court of Appeal for Australia,
should be established; and that a Federal Executive,
consisting of a Governor-General, with responsible advisers,
should be constituted. These resolutions were discussed at
great length, and eventually were adopted. The resolutions
were then referred to three Committees chosen from the
delegates, one to consider Constitutional Machinery and the
distribution of powers and functions; one to deal with matters
relating to Finance, Taxation, and Trade Regulations; and the
other to consider the question of the establishment of a
Federal Judiciary. A draft Bill, to constitute the
'Commonwealth of Australia,' was brought up by the first
mentioned of these Committees, and after full consideration
was adopted by the Convention, and it was agreed that the Bill
should be presented to each of the Australian Parliaments for
approval and adoption. On Thursday, April 9th. the Convention
closed its proceedings. The Bill to provide for the Federation
of the Australasian colonies entitled 'A Bill to constitute a
Commonwealth of Australia,' which was drafted by the National
Australasian Convention, has been introduced into the
Parliaments of most of the colonies of the group, and is still
(October, 1892), under consideration. In Victoria it has
passed the Lower House with some amendments."
_Statesman's Year-book, 1893,
page 308._
AUSTRALIA: A. D. 1890.
New South Wales and Victoria.
"New South Wales bears to Victoria a certain statistical
resemblance. The two colonies have [1890] about the same
population, and, roughly speaking, about the same revenues,
expenditure, debt and trade. In each, a great capital collects
in one neighbourhood more than a third of the total
population. … But … considerable differences lie behind
and are likely to develop in the future. New South Wales, in
the opinion of her enemies, is less enterprising than
Victoria, and has less of the go-ahead spirit which
distinguishes the Melbourne people. On the other hand she
possesses a larger territory, abundant supplies of coal, and
will have probably, in consequence, a greater future. Although
New South Wales is three and a half times as large as
Victoria, and has the area of the German Empire and Italy
combined, she is of course much smaller than the three other
but as yet less important colonies of the Australian continent
[namely Queensland, South Australia and Western Australia].
{195}
As the country was in a large degree settled by assisted
emigrants, of whom something like half altogether have been
Irish, while the English section was largely composed of
Chartists, … the legislation of New South Wales has
naturally shown signs of its origin. Manhood suffrage was
carried in 1858; the abolition of primogeniture in 1862; safe
and easy transfer of land through the machinery of the Torrens
Act in the same year; and also the abolition of state aid to
religion. A public system of education was introduced, with
other measures of democratic legislation. … Public
education, which in Victoria is free, is still paid for by
fees in New South Wales, though children going to or returning
from school are allowed to travel free by railway. In general
it may be said that New South Wales legislation in recent
times has not been so bold as the legislation of Victoria. …
The land of New South Wales has to a large extent come into
the hands of wealthy persons who are becoming a territorial
aristocracy. This has been the effect firstly of grants and of
squatting legislation, then of the perversion of the Act of
1861 [for 'Free Selection before Survey'] to the use of those
against whom it had been aimed, and finally of natural
causes—soil, climate and the lack of water. … The traces of
the convict element in New South Wales have become very slight
in the national character. The prevailing cheerfulness,
running into fickleness and frivolity, with a great deal more
vivacity than exists in England, does not suggest in the least
the intermixture of convict blood. It is a natural creation of
the climate, and of the full and varied life led by colonists
in a young country. … A population of an excellent type has
swallowed up not only the convict element, but also the
unstable and thriftless element shipped by friends in Britain
to Sydney or to Melbourne. The ne'er-do-weels were either
somewhat above the average in brains, as was often the case
with those who recovered themselves and started life afresh,
or people who drank themselves to death and disappeared and
left no descendants. The convicts were also of various
classes; some of them were men in whom crime was the outcome
of restless energy, as, for instance, in many of those
transported for treason and for manslaughter; while some were
people of average morality ruined through companions, wives,
or sudden temptation, and some persons of an essentially
depraved and criminal life. The better classes of convicts, in
a new country, away from their old companions and old
temptations, turned over a new leaf, and their abilities and
their strong vitality, which in some cases had wrought their
ruin in the old world, found healthful scope in subduing to
man a new one. Crime in their cases was an accident, and would
not be transmitted to the children they left behind them. On
the other hand, the genuine criminals, and also the drunken
ne'er-do-weels, left no children. Drink and vice among the
'assigned servants' class of convicts, and an absence of all
facilities for marriage, worked them off the face of the
earth, and those who had not been killed before the gold
discovery generally drank themselves to death upon the
diggings."
_Sir C. W. Dilke,
Problems of Greater Britain,
part 2, chapter 2._
AUSTRASIA AND NEUSTRIA, OR NEUSTRASIA.
"It is conjectured by Luden, with great probability, that the
Ripuarians were originally called the 'Eastern' people to
distinguish them from the Salian Franks who lived to the West.
But when the old home of the conquerors on the right bank of
the Rhine was united with their new settlements in Gaul, the
latter, as it would seem, were called Neustria or Neustrasia
(New Lands); while the term Austrasia came to denote the
original seats of the Franks, on what we now call the German
bank of the Rhine. The most important difference between them
(a difference so great as to lead to their permanent
separation into the kingdoms of France and Germany by the
treaty of Verdun) was this: that in Neustria the Frankish
element was quickly absorbed by the mass of Gallo-Romanism by
which it was surrounded; while in Austrasia, which included
the ancient seats of the Frankish conquerors, the German
element was wholly predominant. The import of the word
Austrasia (Austria, Austrifrancia) is very fluctuating. In its
widest sense it was used to denote all the countries
incorporated into the Frankish Empire, or even held in
subjection to it, in which the German language and population
prevailed; in this acceptation it included therefore the
territory of the Alemanni, Bavarians, Thuringians, and even
that of the Saxons and Frises. In its more common and proper
sense it meant that part of the territory of the Franks
themselves which was not included in Neustria. It was
subdivided into Upper Austrasia on the Moselle, and Lower
Austrasia on the Rhine and Meuse. Neustria (or, in the fulness
of the monkish Latinity, Neustrasia) was bounded on the north
by the ocean, on the south by the Loire, and on the southwest
[southeast?] towards Burgundy by a line which, beginning
below Gien on the Loire, ran through the rivers Loing and
Yonne, not far from their sources, and passing north of
Auxerre and south of Troyes, joined the river Aube above
Arcis."
_W. C. Perry,
The Franks,
chapter 3._
"The northeastern part of Gaul, along the Rhine, together with
a slice of ancient Germany, was already distinguished, as we
have seen, by the name of the Eastern Kingdom, or Oster-rike,
Latinized into Austrasia. It embraced the region first
occupied by the Ripumarian Franks, and where they still lived
the most compactly and in the greatest number. … This was,
in the estimation of the Franks, the kingdom by eminence,
while the rest of the north of Gaul was simply not
it—'ne-oster-rike,' or Neustria. A line drawn from the mouth
of the Scheldt to Cambrai, and thence across the Marne at
Chateau-Thierry to the Aube of Bar-sur-Aube, would have
separated the one from the other, Neustria comprising all the
northwest of Gaul, between the Loire and the ocean, with the
exception of Brittany. This had been the first possession of
the Salian Franks in Gaul. … To such an extent had they been
absorbed and influenced by the Roman elements of the
population, that the Austrasians scarcely considered them
Franks, while they, in their turn, regarded the Austrasians as
the merest untutored barbarians."
_P. Godwin,
History of France: Ancient Gaul,
book 3, chapter 13, with note._
ALSO IN:
_E. A. Freeman,
Historical Geography of Europe,
chapter 5, section 5._
See, also, FRANKS (MEROVINGIAN EMPIRE): A. D. 511-752.
[Image: HABSBURG POSSESSIONS]
[Image: HABSBURG POSSESSIONS]
[Image: AUSTRIA-HUNGARY]
{196}
AUSTRIA: The Name.
"The name of Austria, Oesterreich—Ostrich as our forefathers
wrote it---is, naturally enough, a common name for the eastern
part of any kingdom. The Frankish kingdom of the Merwings had its
Austria; the Italian kingdom of the Lombards had its Austria
also. We are half inclined to wonder that the name was never
given in our own island either to Essex or to East-Anglia.
But, while the other Austrias have passed away, the
Oesterreich, the Austria, the Eastern mark, of the German
kingdom, its defence against the Magyar invader, has lived on
to our own times. It has not only lived on, but it has become
one of the chief European powers. And it has become so by a
process to which it would be hard to find a parallel."
_E. A. Freeman,
The Historical Geography of Europe,
volume 1, chapter 8, page 305._
AUSTRIA:
The birthplace.
"On the disputed frontier, in the zone of perpetual conflict,
were formed and developed the two states which, in turn, were
to dominate over Germany, namely, Austria and Prussia. Both
were born in the midst of the enemy. The cradle of Austria was
the Eastern march, established by Charlemagne on the Danube,
beyond Bavaria, at the very gate through which have passed so
many invaders from the Orient. … The cradle of Prussia was
the march of Brandenburg, between the Elbe and the Oder, in
the region of the exterminated Slavs."
_E. Lavisse,
General View of the Political History of Europe,
chapter 3, section 13._
AUSTRIA:
The Singularity of Austrian history.
A power which is not a national power.
"It is by no means an easy task to tell the story of the
various lands which have at different times come under the
dominion of Austrian princes, the story of each land by
itself, and the story of them all in relation to the common
power. A continuous narrative is impossible. … Much mischief
has been done by one small fashion of modern speech. It has
within my memory become usual to personify nations and powers
on the smallest occasions in a way which was formerly done
only in language more or less solemn, rhetorical or poetical.
We now talk every moment of England, France, Germany, Russia,
Italy, as if they were persons. And as long as it is only
England, France, Germany, Russia, or Italy of which we talk in
this way, no practical harm is done; the thing is a mere
question of style. For those are all national powers. … But
when we go on to talk in this way of 'Austria,' of 'Turkey,'
direct harm is done; thought is confused, and facts are
misrepresented. … I have seen the words 'Austrian national
honour;' I have come across people who believed that 'Austria'
was one land inhabited by 'Austrians,' and that 'Austrians'
spoke the 'Austrian' language. All such phrases are
misapplied. It is to be presumed that in all of them 'Austria'
means something more than the true Austria, the archduchy; what
is commonly meant by them is the whole dominions of the
sovereign of Austria. People fancy that the inhabitants of
those dominions have a common being, a common interest, like
that of the people of England, France, or Italy. … There is
no Austrian language, no Austrian nation; therefore there can
be no such thing as 'Austrian national honour.' Nor can there
be an 'Austrian policy' in the same sense in which there is an
English or a French policy, that is, a policy in which the
English or French government carries out the will of the
English or French nation. … Such phrases as 'Austrian
interests,' 'Austrian policy,' and the like, do not mean the
interests or the policy of any land or nation at all. They
simply mean the interests and policy of a particular ruling
family, which may often be the same as the interests and
wishes of particular parts of their dominions, but which can
never represent any common interest or common wish on the part
of the whole. … We must ever remember that the dominions of the
House of Austria are simply a collection of kingdoms, duchies,
etc., brought together by various accidental causes, but which
have nothing really in common, no common speech, no common
feeling, no common interest. In one case only, that of the
Magyars in Hungary, does the House of Austria rule over a
whole nation; the other kingdoms, duchies, etc., are only
parts of nations, having no tie to one another, but having the
closest ties to other parts of their several nations which lie
close to them, but which are under other governments. The only
bond among them all is that a series of marriages, wars,
treaties, and so forth, have given them a common sovereign.
The same person is king of Hungary, Archduke of Austria, Count
of Tyrol, Lord of Trieste, and a hundred other things. That is
all. … The growth and the abiding dominion of the House of
Austria is one of the most remarkable phænomena in European
history. Powers of the same kind have arisen twice before; but
in both cases they were very short-lived, while the power of
the House of Austria has lasted for several centuries. The
power of the House of Anjou in the twelfth century, the power
of the House of Burgundy in the fifteenth century, were powers
of exactly the same kind. They too were collections of scraps,
with no natural connexion, brought together by the accidents of
warfare, marriage, of diplomacy. Now why is it that both these
powers broke in pieces almost at once, after the reigns of two
princes in each case, while the power of the House of Austria
has lasted so long? Two causes suggest themselves. One is the
long connexion between the House of Austria and the Roman
Empire and kingdom of Germany. So many Austrian princes were
elected Emperors as to make the Austrian House seem something
great and imperial in itself. I believe that this cause has
done a good deal towards the result; but I believe that
another cause has done yet more. This is that, though the
Austrian power is not a national power, there is, as has been
already noticed, a nation within it. While it contains only
scraps of other nations, it contains the whole of the Magyar
nation. It thus gets something of the strength of a national
power. … The kingdom of Hungary is an ancient kingdom, with
known boundaries which have changed singularly little for
several centuries; and its connexion with the archduchy of
Austria and the kingdom of Bohemia is now of long standing.
Anything beyond this is modern and shifting. The so-called
'empire of Austria' dates only from the year 1804. This is one
of the simplest matters in the world, but one which is
constantly forgotten. … A smaller point on which confusion
also prevails is this.
{197}
All the members of the House of Austria are commonly spoken of
as archdukes and archduchesses. I feel sure that many people,
if asked the meaning of the word archduke, would say that it
was the title of the children of the 'Emperor of Austria,' as
grand-duke is used in Russia, and prince in most countries. In
truth, archduke is the title of the sovereign of Austria. He
has not given it up; for he calls himself Archduke of Austria
still, though he calls himself 'Emperor of Austria' as well.
But by German custom, the children of a duke or count are all
called dukes and counts for ever and ever. In this way the
Prince of Wales is called 'Duke of Saxony,' and in the same
way all the children of an Archduke of Austria are archdukes
and archduchesses. Formally and historically then, the taking
of an hereditary imperial title by the Archduke of Austria in
1804, and the keeping of it after the prince who took it had
ceased in 1806 to be King of Germany and Roman Emperor-elect,
was a sheer and shameless imposture. But it is an imposture
which has thoroughly well served its ends."
_E. A. Freeman,
Preface to Leger's History of Austria-Hungary_.
"Medieval History is a history of rights and wrongs; modern
History as contrasted with medieval divides itself into two
portions; the first a history of powers, forces, and
dynasties; the second, a history in which ideas take the place
of both rights and forces. … Austria may be regarded as
representing the more ancient form of right. … The middle
ages proper, the centuries from the year 1000 to the year
1500, from the Emperor Henry II. to the Emperor Maximilian,
were ages of legal growth, ages in which the idea of right, as
embodied in law, was the leading idea of statesmen, and the idea
of rights justified or justifiable by the letter of law, was a
profound influence with politicians. … The house of Austria
… lays thus the foundation of that empire which is to be one
of the great forces of the next age; not by fraud, not by
violence, but here by a politic marriage, here by a well
advocated inheritance, here by a claim on an imperial fief
forfeited or escheated: honestly where the letter of the law
is in her favour, by chicanery it may be here and there, but
that a chicanery that wears a specious garb of right. The
imperial idea was but a small influence compared with the
super-structure of right, inheritance, and suzerainty, that
legal instincts and a general acquiescence in legal forms had
raised upon it."
_William Stubbs,
Seventeen Lectures on the Study of
Medieval and Modern History,
pages 209-215._
[Image]
ETHNOGRAPHICAL MAP OF AUSTRIA-HUNGARY
NOTE: The shaded parts denote the distribution of the Germans.
AUSTRIA:
The Races.
"The ethnical elements of the population are as follows (1890
for Austria and 1880 for Hungary) on the basis of language;
Austria (1890):
German 8,461,580;
Bohemian, Moravian and Slovak 5,472,871;
Polish 3,719,232;
Ruthenian 3,105,221;
Slovene 1,176,672;
Servian and Croatian 644,926;
Italian and Latin 675,305;
Roumanian 209,110;
Magyar 8,139.
Hungary (1880):
German 1,972,115;
Bohemian, Moravian and Slovak 1,892,806;
Ruthenian 360,051;
Slovene 86,401;
Servian and Croatian 2,359,708;
Roumanian 2,423,387;
Magyar 6,478,711;
Gipsies 82,256;
Others 83,940,"
_Statesman's Year-Book, 1893;
edited by J. S, Keltie._
----------AUSTRIA: End----------
A Logical Outline of Austrian History
In Which The Dominant Conditions And
Influences Are Distinguished By Colors.
[Red] Physical or material.
[Blue] Ethnological.
[Green] Social and political.
[Brown] Intellectual, moral and religious.
[Black] Foreign.
The history of Austria, so far as it has importance, is unique in
being the history of a Family and not the history of a State,—
the history of a Dynastic and not of a National Power.
Territorially, the name was attached, until 1806, to an inconsiderable
arch-duchy, on the Danube, in that corner of Teutonic
Europe where the Germans of the Middle Ages fought back the
Turanian races and the Slaves. Dynastically, it became connected,
in the 13th century, with a House, then insignificant, in
Alsace, and to the future remarkable fortunes of that House the
territory so named contributed little more than a strong central
position and a capital town.
Rodolph, Count of Hapsburg, with whom the importance of Austrian
history begins, was elected Emperor in 1272, for the reason that
his possessions were small and the resoluteness of his character
was unknown. He disappointed the Electors by increasing the
weight and reviving the power of the Imperial office, which they
had not at all desired, and he used its power vigorously for the
benefit of himself and his own. The King of Bohemia resisted him
and was defeated and slain; and a part of the dominions which the
Bohemian king had acquired, including Austria (then a duchy),
Carniola and Styria, was appropriated by Rodolph, for his sons.
The House of Hapsburg thus became the House of Austria, and its
history is what bears the name of Austrian history from that time
until 1806. The Hapsburg family has never produced men of the
higher intellectual powers, or the higher qualities of any kind;
but a remarkable vitality has been proved in it, and a politic
self-seeking capability, which has never, perhaps, persisted
through so many generations in any other line. It owes to these
qualities the acquisition, again and again, of the elective
Imperial crown, until that crown settled, at last, upon the heirs
of the House, in practically hereditary succession, despite the
wish of the princes of Germany to keep it shifting among the
weaker members of their order, and despite the rivalry of greater
houses with ambitions like its own. The prestige of the splendid
Imperial title, and the influence derived from the theoretical
functions of the Emperor—small as the actual powers that he
held might be—were instruments of policy which the Austrian
princes knew how to use with enormous effect. Austrian marriages
and Austrian diplomacy, often alluded to as examples of luck and
craft in political affairs, show, rather, it may be, the
consistent calculation and sagacity with which the House of
Austria has pursued its aims.
By marriages, by diplomacy, and by pressures brought to bear
from the headship of the Empire, the family plucked, one by one,
the coronets of Tyrol and Carinthia (1363), Franche-Comté and
Flanders, with the Low Countries entire (1477), and the crowns of
Spain, Naples, Sicily and Sardinia (1516), Bohemia (including
Moravia), and Hungary (1526). Its many diadems were never
moulded into one, but have been, from first to last, the
carefully distinguished emblems of so many separate sovereignties,
united in no way but by homage to a common prince.
The one most fortunate acquisition of the House, which has given
most stability to the heterogeneous structure of it power, in the
judgement of the ablest among modern historians is the Hungarian
crown. Its Burgundian and Spanish marriages, which brought to it
the rich Netherlands and the vast realm of Ferdinand and
Isabella, brought also a division the Family, and the rooting of
s second stem in Spain; and while its grandeur among the
dynasties of Europe was augmented, the real gain of the House in
its older seat was small. But the Kingdom on Hungary has been a
mass of very concrete political power in its hands, and has
supplied in some degree the weight of nationality that was
otherwise wanting in the dominions of the House.
The mixture of races under the Austrian sovereigns is the most
extraordinary in Europe. Their possessions exactly cover that
part of the continent in which its earlier and later invaders
fought longest and most; where the struggle between them was
final, and where they mingled their settlements together. The
Slavic peoples are predominant in numbers; the Germans are
scarcely more than one-fourth of the whole; and yet, until
recent years, the Austrian power figured chiefly as a German
power in European politics, and took leadership in Germany itself.
This position accrued to it through the persisting, potent
influence of the Imperial title which the Archdukes of Austria
bore, with mediæval fictions from Rome and from Germany woven
together and clinging around it; and through the broken and
divided condition of the German land, where petty courts and
princelings disputed precedence with one another, and none could
lead. When time raised up one strong and purely German kingdom,
to rally and encourage a German sentiment of nationality, then
Austria—expelled by it from the Teutonic circle—first found her
true place in the politics of Europe.
For Germany the relationship was never a fortunate one. Alien
interests came constantly between the Emperors and the Empire—
the proper subject of their care,—and they were drawn to alien
sympathies by their connection with Spain. They imbibed the
hateful temper of the Spanish Church, and fought the large
majority of their German lieges, on the questions of the
Reformation, for a century and a half. Among the combatants of
the frightful "Thirty Years War" they were chiefly
responsible for the death and ruin spread over the face of
Germanic Europe. At no time did Germany find leading or strength
in her nominal Emperors, nor in the states making up the
hereditary possessions of their House. In the dark days when the
sword of Napoleon threatened every neighbor of France, they
deserted their station of command. It was the time which the head
of the House of Austria chose for abdicating the crown of the
Holy Roman Empire—that lingering fiction of history,—and yet
assuming to be an Emperor still—the Emperor of an Empire which
rested on the small duchy of Austria for its name.
The renunciation was timely; for now, when Germany rose to break
the yoke of Napoleon, she found leadership within her own family
of states. Then began the transformation in Germanic Europe which
extinguished, after half a century, the last remains of the false
relations to it of the Austrian House. Prussia opened her eyes to
the new conditions of the age; set the schoolmaster at work among
her children; made herself an example and a stimulus to all her
neighbors. The Family which called itself Austria did otherwise.
It was blind, and it preferred blindness. It read lessons in
nothing but the Holy Alliance and the Treaty of Vienna. It
listened to no teacher but Metternich. It made itself the
resurrectionist of a dead Past in all the graveyards of Feudal
Europe, and was heard for half a century as the supporter and
champion of every hateful thing in government. It had won
Lombardy and Venice by its double traffic with Napoleon and with
those who cast Napoleon down; and it enraged the whole civilized
world by the cold brutality of its oppressions there.
Events in due time brought the two "systems" of domestic polity—
the Prussian and the Austrian—to account, and weighed them
together. As a consequence, it happens to-day that the House of
Austria has neither place nor voice in the political organization
of Germany; has no footing in Italy; has no dungeons of tyranny
in its dominions; has no disciples of Metternich among its
statesmen. Its face and its feet are now turned quite away from
the paths of ambition and of policy which it trod so long. It has
learned, and is learning, so fast that it may yet be a teacher
in the school of liberal politics which it entered so late. It
has set Hungary by the side of Austria, treading the one great
nation of its subjects no longer under foot. It sees its
interests and recognizes its duties in that quarter of Europe to
which History and Geography have been pointing from Vienna and
Buda-Pesth since the days of Charlemagne. Its mission in Europe
is to command the precarious future of the southeastern
states, so far as may be, and to guard them against the dangerous
Muscovite, until they grow in civilization and strength and are
united as one Power. In this mission it is the ally and the
colleague of both Germany and Italy, and the three Powers are
united by stronger bonds than were possible before each stood
free.
[Right Margin]
9th Century.
The March.
A. D. 1272.
Rodolph of Hapsburg.
Emperor.
A. D. 1282.
The House in possession.
A. D. 1438.
The Imperial Crown.
A. D. 1363-1526.
Gathering of crowns and coronets.
The mixture of races.
A. D. 1521-1531.
The Reformation.
A. D. 1618-1648.
Thirty Years War.
A. D. 1806.
End of the Holy Roman Empire.
A. D. 1815-1866.
Policy of Metternich.
vs. policy of Stein.
A. D. 1859.
Loss of Lombardy.
A. D. 1866.
Seven Weeks War.
Loss of Venice.
A. D. 1867.
Austro-Hungarian Empire.
A. D. 1882.
The Triple Alliance.
-----End of "A Logical Outline…"-----
{198}
AUSTRIA: A. D. 805-1246.
The Rise of the Margraviate, and the creation of the Duchy,
under the Babenbergs.
Changing relations to Bavaria.
End of the Babenberg Dynasty.
"Austria, as is well known, is but the Latin form of the
German Oesterreich, the kingdom of the east [see above:
AUSTRASIA]. This celebrated historical name appears for the
first time in 996. in a document signed by the emperor Otto
III. ('in regione vulgari nomine Osterrichi'). The land to
which it is there applied was created a march after the
destruction of the Avar empire [805], and was governed like
all the other German marches. Politically it was divided into
two margraviates; that of Friuli, including Friuli properly so
called, Lower Pannonia to the south of the Drave, Carinthia,
Istria, and the interior of Dalmatia—the sea-coast having
been ceded to the Eastern emperor;—the eastern margraviate
comprising Lower Pannonia to the north of the Drave, Upper
Pannonia, and the Ostmark properly so called. The Ostmark
included the Traungau to the east of the Enns, which was
completely German, and the Grunzvittigau. … The early
history of these countries lacks the unity of interest which
the fate of a dynasty or a nation gives to those of the Magyar
and the Chekh. They form but a portion of the German kingdom,
and have no strongly marked life of their own. The march, with
its varying frontier, had not even a geographical unity. In
876, it was enlarged by the addition of Bavaria; in 890, it
lost Pannonia, which was given to Bracislav, the Croat prince,
in return for his help against the Magyars, and in 937, it was
destroyed and absorbed by the Magyars, who extended their
frontier to the river Enns. After the battle of Lechfeld or
Augsburg (955), Germany and Italy being no longer exposed to
Hungarian invasions, the march was re-constituted and granted
to the margrave Burkhard, the brother-in-law of Henry of
Bavaria. Leopold of Babenberg succeeded him (973), and with
him begins the dynasty of Babenberg, which ruled the country
during the time of the Premyslides [in Bohemia] and the house
of Arpad [in Hungary]. The Babenbergs derived their name from
the castle of Babenberg, built by Henry, margrave of Nordgau,
in honor of his wife, Baba, sister of Henry the Fowler. It
reappears in the name of the town of Bamberg, which now forms
part of the kingdom of Bavaria. … Though not of right an
hereditary office, the margraviate soon became so, and
remained in the family of the Babenbergs; the march was so
important a part of the empire that no doubt the emperor was
glad to make the defence of this exposed district the especial
interest of one family. … The marriages of the Babenbergs
were fortunate; in 1138 the brother of Leopold [Fourth of that
name in the Margraviate] Conrad of Hohenstaufen, Duke of
Franconia, was made emperor. It was now that the struggle
began between the house of Hohenstaufen and the great house of
Welf [or Guelf: See GUELFS AND GHIBELINES] whose
representative was Henry the Proud, Duke of Saxony and
Bavaria. Henry was defeated in the unequal strife, and was
placed under the ban of the Empire, while the duchy of Saxony
was awarded to Albert the Bear of Brandenburg, and the duchy
of Bavaria fell to the share of Leopold IV. (1138). Henry the
Proud died in the following year, leaving behind him a son
under age, who was known later on as Henry the Lion. His uncle
Welf would not submit to the forfeiture by his house of their
old dominions, and marched against Leopold to reconquer
Bavaria, but he was defeated by Conrad at the battle of
Weinsberg (1140). Leopold died shortly after this victory, and
was succeeded both in the duchy of Bavaria and in the
margraviate of Austria by his brother, Henry II." Henry II.
endeavored to strengthen himself in Bavaria by marrying the
widow of Henry the Proud, and by extorting from her son, Henry
the Lion, a renunciation of the latter's rights. But Henry the
Lion afterwards repudiated his renunciation, and in 1156 the
German diet decided that Bavaria should be restored to him.
Henry of Austria was wisely persuaded to yield to the
decision, and Bavaria was given up. "He lost nothing by this
unwilling act of disinterestedness, for he secured from the
emperor considerable compensation. From this time forward,
Austria, which had been largely increased by the addition of
the greater part of the lands lying between the Enns and the
Inn, was removed from its almost nominal subjection to Bavaria
and became a separate duchy [Henry II. being the first
hereditary Duke of Austria]. An imperial edict, dated the 21st
of September, 1156, declares the new duchy hereditary even in
the female line, and authorizes the dukes to absent themselves
from all diets except those which were held in Bavarian
territory. It also permits them, in case of a threatened
extinction of their dynasty, to propose a successor. … Henry
II. was one of the founders of Vienna. He constructed a
fortress there, and, in order to civilize the surrounding
country, sent for some Scotch monks, of whom there were many
at this time in Germany." In 1177 Henry II. was succeeded by
Leopold V., called the Virtuous. "In his reign the duchy of
Austria gained Styria, an important addition to its territory.
This province was inhabited by Slovenes and Germans, and took
its name from the castle of Steyer, built in 980 by Otokar
III., count of the Trungau. In 1056, it was created a
margraviate, and in 1150 it was enlarged by the addition of
the counties of Maribor (Marburg) and Cilly. In 1180, Otokar
VI. of Styria (1164-1102) obtained the hereditary title of
duke from the Emperor in return for his help against Henry the
Lion." Dying without children, Otokar made Leopold of Austria
his heir. "Styria was annexed to Austria in 1192, and has
remained so ever since. … Leopold V. is the first of the
Austrian princes whose name is known in Western Europe. He
joined the third crusade," and quarrelled with Richard Coeur
de Lion at the siege of St. Jean d' Acre. Afterwards, when
Richard, returning home by the Adriatic, attempted to pass
through Austrian territory incognito, Leopold revenged himself
by seizing and imprisoning the English king, finally selling
his royal captive to a still meaner Emperor for 20,000 marks.
Leopold VI. who succeeded to the Austrian duchy in 1198, did
much for the commerce of his country. "He made Vienna the
staple town, and lent a sum of 30,000 marks of silver to the
city to enable it to increase its trade. He adorned it with
many new buildings, among them the Neue Burg." His son, called
Frederick the Fighter (1230-1246) was the last of the
Babenberg dynasty. His hand was against all his neighbors,
including the Emperor Frederick II., and their hands were
against him. He perished in June, 1246, on the banks of the
Leitha, while at war with the Hungarians.
_L. Leger,
History of Austro-Hungary,
chapter 9._
ALSO IN:
_E. F. Henderson,
Select History Documents of the Middle Ages,
book 2, number 7._
{199}
AUSTRIA: A. D. 1246-1282.
Rodolph of Hapsburg and the acquisition of the Duchy for his family.
"The House of Austria owes its origin and power to Rhodolph of
Hapsburgh, son of Albert IV. count of Hapsburgh. The Austrian
genealogists, who have taken indefatigable but ineffectual
pains to trace his illustrious descent from the Romans, carry
it with great probability to Ethico, duke of Alsace, in the
seventh century, and unquestionably to Guntram the Rich, count
of Alsace and Brisgau, who flourished in the tenth." A grandson
of Guntram, Werner by name, "became bishop of Strasburgh, and
on an eminence above Windiisch, built the castle of Hapsburgh
['Habichtsburg' 'the castle of vultures'], which became the
residence of the future counts, and gave a new title to the
descendants of Guntram. … The successors of Werner increased
their family inheritance by marriages, donations from the
Emperors, and by becoming prefects, advocates, or
administrators of the neighbouring abbeys, towns, or
districts, and his great grandson, Albert III., was possessor
of no inconsiderable territories in Suabia, Alsace, and that
part of Switzerland which is now called the Argau, and held
the landgraviate of Upper Alsace. His son, Rhodolph, received
from the Emperor, in addition to his paternal inheritance, the
town and district of Lauffenburgh, an imperial city on the
Rhine. He acquired also a considerable accession of territory
by obtaining the advocacy of Uri, Schweitz, and Underwalden,
whose natives laid the foundation of the Helvetic Confederacy,
by their union against the oppressions of feudal tyranny."
_W. Coxe,
History of the House of Austria,
chapter 1_.
"On the death of Rodolph in 1232 his estates were divided
between his sons Albert IV. and Rodolph II.; the former
receiving the landgraviate of Upper Alsace, and the county of
Hapsburg, together with the patrimonial castle; the latter,
the counties Rheinfelden and Lauffenburg, and some other
territories. Albert espoused Hedwige, daughter of Ulric, count
of Kyburg; and from this union sprang the great Rodolph, who
was born on the 1st of May 1218, and was presented at the
baptismal font by the Emperor Frederic II. On the death of his
father Albert in 1240, Rodolph succeeded to his estates; but
the greater portion of these were in the hands of his paternal
uncle, Rodolph of Lauffenburg; and all he could call his own
lay within sight of the great hall of his castle. … His
disposition was wayward and restless, and drew him into
repeated contests with his neighbours and relations. … In a
quarrel with the Bishop of Basel, Rodolph led his troops
against that city, and burnt a convent in the suburbs, for
which he was excommunicated by Pope Innocent IV. He then
entered the service of Ottocar II. King of Bohemia, under whom
he served, in company with the Teutonic Knights, in his wars
against the Prussian pagans; and afterwards against Bela IV.
King of Hungary." The surprising election, in 1272, of this
little known count of Hapsburg, to be King of the Romans, with
the substance if not the title of the imperial dignity which
that election carried with it, was due to a singular
friendship which he had acquired some fourteen years before.
When Archbishop Werner, Elector of Mentz, was on his way to
Rome in 1259, to receive the pallium, he "was escorted across
the Alps by Rodolph of Hapsburg, and under his protection
secured from the robbers who beset the passes. Charmed with
the affability and frankness of his protector, the Archbishop
conceived a strong regard for Rodolph;" and when, in 1272,
after the Great Interregnum [see GERMANY: A. D. 1250-1272],
the Germanic Electors found difficulty in choosing an Emperor,
the Elector of Mentz recommended his friend of Hapsburg as a
candidate. "The Electors are described by a contemporary as
desiring an Emperor but detesting his power. The comparative
lowliness of the Count of Hapsburg recommended him as one from
whom their authority stood in little jeopardy; but the claims
of the King of Bohemia were vigorously urged; and it was at
length agreed to decide the election by the voice of the Duke
of Bavaria. Lewis without hesitation nominated Rodolph. …
The early days of Rodolph's reign were disturbed by the
contumacy of Ottocar, King of Bohemia. That Prince …
persisted in refusing to acknowledge the Count of Hapsburg as
his sovereign. Possessed of the dutchies of Austria, Styria,
Carniola and Carinthia, he might rely upon his own resources;
and he was fortified in his resistance by the alliance of
Henry, Duke of Lower Bavaria. But the very possession of these
four great fiefs was sufficient to draw down the envy and
distrust of the other German Princes. To all these
territories, indeed, the title of Ottocar was sufficiently
disputable. On the death of Frederic II. fifth duke of Austria
[and last of the Babenberg dynasty] in 1246, that dutchy,
together with Styria and Carniola, was claimed by his niece
Gertrude and his sister Margaret. By a marriage with the
latter, and a victory over Bela IV. King of Hungary, whose
uncle married Gertrude, Ottocar obtained possession of Austria
and Styria; and in virtue of a purchase from Ulric, Duke of
Carinthia and Carniola, he possessed himself of those dutchies
on Ulric's death in 1269, in defiance of the claims of Philip,
brother of the late Duke. Against so powerful a rival the
Princes assembled at Augsburg readily voted succours to
Rodolph; and Ottocar having refused to surrender the Austrian
dominions, and even hanged the heralds who were sent to
pronounce the consequent sentence of proscription, Rodolph
with his accustomed promptitude took the field [1276], and
confounded his enemy by a rapid march upon Austria. In his way
he surprised and vanquished the rebel Duke of Bavaria, whom he
compelled to join his forces; he besieged and reduced to the
last extremity the city of Vienna; and had already prepared a
bridge of boats to cross the Danube and invade Bohemia, when
Ottocar arrested his progress by a message of submission. The
terms agreed upon were severely humiliating to the proud soul
of Ottocar," and he was soon in revolt again, with the support
of the Duke of Bavaria. Rodolph marched against him, and a
desperate battle was fought at Marschfeld, August 26, 1278, in
which Ottocar, deserted at a critical moment by the Moravian
troops, was defeated and slain. "The total loss of the
Bohemians on that fatal day amounted to more than 14,000 men.
In the first moments of his triumph, Rodolph designed to
appropriate the dominions of his deceased enemy.
{200}
But his avidity was restrained by the Princes of the
Empire, who interposed on behalf of the son of Ottocar; and
Wenceslaus was permitted to retain Bohemia and Moravia. The
projected union of the two families was now renewed: Judith of
Hapsburg was affianced to the young King of Bohemia; whose
sister Agnes was married to Rodolph, youngest son of the King
of the Romans." In 1282, Rodolph, "after satisfying the
several claimants to those territories by various cessions of
lands …. obtained the consent of a Diet held at Augsburg to
the settlement of Austria, Styria, and Carniola, upon his two
surviving sons; who were accordingly jointly invested with
those dutchies with great pomp and solemnity; and they are at
this hour enjoyed by the descendants of Rodolph of Hapsburg."
_Sir R. Comyn,
History of the Western Empire,
chapter 14._
ALSO IN:
_J. Planta,
History of the Helvetic Confederacy.
book 1, chapter 5 (volume 1)._
AUSTRIA: A. D. 1282-1315.
Relations of the House of Hapsburg to the Swiss Forest Cantons.
The Tell Legend.
The Battle of Morgarten.
See SWITZERLAND: THE THREE FOREST CANTONS.
AUSTRIA: A. D. 1290.
Beginning of Hapsburg designs upon the crown of Hungary.
See HUNGARY: A. D. 1114-1301.
AUSTRIA: A. D. 1291-1349.
Loss and recovery of the imperial crown.
Liberation of Switzerland.
Conflict between Frederick and Lewis of Bavaria.
The imperial crown lost once more.
Rudolf of Hapsburg desired the title of King of the Romans for
his son. "But the electors already found that the new house of
Austria was becoming too powerful, and they refused. On his
death, in fact, in 1291, a prince from another family, poor
and obscure, Adolf of Nassau, was elected after an interregnum
of ten months. His reign of six years is marked by two events;
he sold himself to Edward I. in 1291, against Philip the Fair,
for 100,000 pounds sterling, and used the money in an attempt
to obtain in Thuringia a principality for his family as Rudolf
had done in Austria. The electors were displeased and chose
Albert of Austria to succeed him, who conquered and killed his
adversary at Göllheim, near Worms (1298). The ten years reign
of the new king of the Romans showed that he was very
ambitious for his family, which he wished to establish on the
throne of Bohemia, where the Slavonic dynasty had lately died
out, and also in Thuringia and Meissen, where he lost a
battle. He was also bent upon extending his rights, even
unjustly—in Alsace and Switzerland—and it proved an
unfortunate venture for him. For, on the one hand, he roused
the three Swiss cantons of Uri, Schweitz, and Unterwalden to
revolt; on the other hand, he roused the wrath of his nephew
John of Swabia, whom he defrauded of his inheritance (domains
in Switzerland. Swabia, and Alsace). As he was crossing the
Reuss, John thrust him through with his sword (1308). The
assassin escaped. One of Albert's daughters, Agnes, dowager
queen of Hungary, had more than a thousand innocent people
killed to avenge the death of her father. The greater part of
the present Switzerland had been originally included in the
Kingdom of Burgundy, and was ceded to the empire, together
with that kingdom, in 1033. A feudal nobility, lay and
ecclesiastic, had gained a firm footing there. Nevertheless,
by the 12th century the cities had risen to some importance.
Zurich, Basel, Bern, and Freiburg had an extensive commerce
and obtained municipal privileges. Three little cantons, far
in the heart of the Swiss mountains, preserved more than all
the others their indomitable spirit of independence. When
Albert of Austria became Emperor [King?] he arrogantly tried
to encroach upon their independence. Three heroic
mountaineers, Werner Stauffacher, Arnold of Melchthal, and
Walter Fürst, each with ten chosen friends, conspired together
at Rütli, to throw off the yoke. The tyranny of the Austrian
bailiff Gessler, and William Tell's well-aimed arrow, if
tradition is to be believed, gave the signal for the
insurrection."
See SWITZERLAND: THE THREE FOREST CANTONS.
"Albert's violent death left to Leopold, his successor in the
duchy of Austria, the care of repressing the rebellion. He
failed and was completely defeated at Mortgarten (1315). That
was Switzerland's field of Marathon. … When Rudolf of
Hapsburg was chosen by the electors, it was because of his
poverty and weakness. At his death accordingly they did not
give their votes for his son Albert. … Albert, however,
succeeded in overthrowing his rival. But on his death they
were firm in their decision not to give the crown for a third
time to the new and ambitions house of Hapsburg. They likewise
refused, for similar reasons, to accept Charles of Valois,
brother of Philip the Fair, whom the latter tried to place on
the imperial throne, in order that he might indirectly rule
over Germany. They supported the Count of Luxemburg, who
became Henry VII. By choosing emperors [kings?] who were
poor, the electors placed them under the temptation of
enriching themselves at the expense of the empire. Adolf
failed, it is true, in Thuringia, but Rudolf gained Austria by
victory; Henry succeeded in Bohemia by means of marriage, and
Bohemia was worth more than Austria at that time because,
besides Moravia, it was made to cover Silesia and a part of
Lusatia (Oberlausitz). Henry's son, John of Luxemburg, married
the heiress to that royal crown. As for Henry himself he
remained as poor as before. He had a vigorous, restless
spirit, and went to try his fortunes on his own account beyond
the Alps. … He was seriously threatening Naples, when he
died either from some sickness or from being poisoned by a
Dominican in partaking of the host (1313). A year's
interregnum followed; then two emperors [kings?] at once:
Lewis of Bavaria and Frederick the Fair, son of the Emperor
Albert. After eight years of war, Lewis gained his point by
the victory of Mühldorf (1322), which delivered Frederick into
his hands. He kept him in captivity for three years, and at
the end of that time became reconciled with him, and they were
on such good terms that both bore the title of King and
governed in common. The fear inspired in Lewis by France and
the Holy See dictated this singular agreement. Henry VII. had
revived the policy of interference by the German emperors in
the affairs of Italy, and had kindled again the quarrel with
the Papacy which had long appeared extinguished. Lewis IV. did
the same. … While Boniface VIII. was making war on Philip
the Fair, Albert allied himself with him; when, on the other
hand, the Papacy was reduced to the state of a servile
auxiliary to France, the Emperor returned to his former
hostility.
{201}
When ex-communicated by Pope John XXII., who
wished to give the empire to the king of France, Charles IV.,
Lewis IV. made use of the same weapons. … Tired of a crown
loaded with anxieties, Lewis of Bavaria was finally about to
submit to the Pope and abdicate, when the electors perceived
the necessity of supporting their Emperor and of formally
releasing the supreme power from foreign dependency which
brought the whole nation to shame. That was the object of the
Pragmatic Sanction of Frankfort, pronounced in 1338 by the
Diet, on the report of the electors. … The king of France
and Pope Clement VI., whose claims were directly affected by
this declaration, set up against Lewis IV. Charles of
Luxemburg, son of John the Blind, who became king of Bohemia
in 1346, when his father had been killed fighting on the
French side at the battle of Crécy. Lewis died the following
year. He had gained possession of Brandenburg and the Tyrol
for his house, but it was unable to retain possession of them.
The latter county reverted to the house of Austria in 1363.
The electors most hostile to the French party tried to put up,
as a rival candidate to Charles of Luxemburg, Edward III.,
king of England, who refused the empire; then they offered it
to a brave knight, Gunther of Schwarzburg, who died, perhaps
poisoned, after a few months (1349). The king of Bohemia then
became Emperor as Charles IV. by a second election."
_V. Duruy,
The History of the Middle Ages,
book 9, chapter 30._
See, also, Germany: A. D. 1314-1347.
AUSTRIA: A. D. 1330-1364.
Forged charters of Duke Rudolf.
The Privilegium Majus.
His assumption of the Archducal title.
Acquisition of Tyrol.
Treaties of inheritance with Bohemia and Hungary.
King John, of Bohemia, had married his second son, John Henry,
at the age of eight, to the afterwards notable Margaret
Maultasche (Pouch mouth), daughter of the duke of Tyrol and
Carinthia, who was then twelve years old. He hoped by this
means to reunite those provinces to Bohemia. To thwart this
scheme, the Emperor, Louis of Bavaria, and the two Austrian
princes, Albert the Wise and Otto the Gay, came to an
understanding. "By the treaty of Hagenau (1330), it was
arranged that on the death of duke Henry, who had no male
heirs, Carinthia should become the property of Austria, Tyrol
that of the Emperor. Henry died in 1335, whereupon the
Emperor, Louis of Bavaria, declared that Margaret Maultasche
had forfeited all rights of inheritance, and proceeded to
assign the two provinces to the Austrian princes, with the
exception of some portion of the Tyrol which devolved on the
house of Wittelsbach. Carinthia alone, however, obeyed the
Emperor; the Tyrolese nobles declared for Margaret, and, with
the help of John of Bohemia, this princess was able to keep
possession of this part of her inheritance. … Carinthia also
did Dot long remain in the undisputed possession of Austria.
Margaret was soon divorced from her very youthful husband
(1342), and shortly after married the son of the Emperor Louis
of Bavaria, who hoped to be able to invest his son, not only
with Tyrol, but also with Carinthia, and once more we find the
houses of Hapsburg and Luxemburg united by a common interest.
… When … Charles IV. of Bohemia was chosen emperor, he
consented to leave Carinthia in the possession of Austria.
Albert did homage for it. … According to the wish of their
father, the four sons of Albert reigned after him; but the
eldest, Rudolf IV., exercised executive authority in the name
of the others [1358-1365]. … He was only 19 when he came to
the throne, but he had already married one of the daughters of
the Emperor Charles IV. Notwithstanding this family alliance,
Charles had not given Austria such a place in the Golden Bull
[see GERMANY: A. D. 1347-1492] as seemed likely to secure
either her territorial importance or a proper position for her
princes. They had not been admitted into the electoral college
of the Empire, and yet their scattered possessions stretched
from the banks of the Leitha to the Rhine. … These
grievances were enhanced by their feeling of envy towards
Bohemia, which had attained great prosperity under Charles IV.
It was at this time that, in order to increase the importance
of his house, Rudolf, or his officers of state, had recourse
to a measure which was often employed in that age by princes,
religious bodies, and even by the Holy See. It was pretended
that there were in existence a whole series of charters which
had been granted to the house of Austria by various kings and
emperors, and which secured to their princes a position
entirely independent of both empire and Emperor. According to
these documents, and more especially the one called the
'privilegium majus,' the duke of Austria owed no kind of
service to the empire, which was, however, bound to protect
him; … he was to appear at the diets with the title of
archduke, and was to have the first place among the electors.
… Rudolf pretended that these documents had just come to
light, and demanded their confirmation from Charles IV., who
refused it. Nevertheless on the strength of these lying
charters, he took the title of palatine archduke, without
waiting to ask the leave of Charles, and used the royal
insignia. Charles IV., who could not fail to be irritated by
these pretensions, in his turn revived the claims which he had
inherited from Premysl Otokar II. to the lands of Austria,
Styria, Carinthia, and Carniola. These claims, however, were
simply theoretical, and no attempt was made to enforce them,
and the mediation of Louis the Great, King of Hungary, finally
led to a treaty between the two princes, which satisfied the
ambition of the Habsburgs (1364). By this treaty, the houses
of Habsburg in Austria and of Luxemburg in Bohemia each
guaranteed the inheritance of their lands to the other, in
case of the extinction of either of the two families, and the
estates of Bohemia and Austria ratified this agreement. A
similar compact was concluded between Austria and Hungary, and
thus the boundaries of the future Austrian state were for the
first time marked out. Rudolf himself gained little by these
long and intricate negotiations, Tyrol being all he added to
his territory. Margaret Maultasche had married her son
Meinhard to the daughter of Albert the Wise, at the same time
declaring that, in default of heirs male to her son, Tyrol
should once more become the possession of Austria, and it did
so in 1363. Rudolf immediately set out for Botzen, and there
received the homage of the Tyrolese nobles. …The acquisition
of Tyrol was most important to Austria. It united Austria
Proper with the old possessions of the Habsburgs in Western
Germany, and opened the way to Italy. Margaret Maultasche died
at Vienna in 1369. The memory of this restless and dissolute
princess still survives among the Tyrolese."
_L. Leger,
History of Austro-Hungary,
pages 143-148._
{202}
AUSTRIA: A. D. 1386-1388.
Defeats by the Swiss at Sempach and Naefels.
SEE SWITZERLAND: A. D. 1386-1388.
AUSTRIA: A. D. 1437-1516.
Contests for Hungary and Bohemia.
The right of Succession to the Hungarian Crown secured.
"Europe would have had nothing to fear from the Barbarians, if
Hungary had been permanently united to Bohemia, and had held
them in check. But Hungary interfered both with the
independence and the religion of Bohemia. In this way they
weakened each other, and in the 15th century wavered between
the two Sclavonic and German powers on their borders (Poland
and Austria) [see HUNGARY: A. D. 1301-1442, and 1442-1458].
United under a German prince from 1455 to 1458, separated for
a time under national sovereigns (Bohemia until 1471, Hungary
until 1490), they were once more united under Polish princes
until 1526, at which period they passed definitively into the
hands of Austria. After the reign of Ladislas of Austria, who
won so much glory by the exploits of John Hunniades, George
Podiebrad obtained the crown of Bohemia, and Matthias
Corvinus, the son of Hunniades, was elected King of Hungary
(1458). These two princes opposed successfully the chimerical
pretensions of the Emperor Frederick III. Podiebrad protected
the Hussites and incurred the enmity of the Popes. Matthias
victoriously encountered the Turks and obtained the favour of
Paul II., who offered him the crown of Podiebrad, his
father-in-law. The latter opposed to the hostility of Matthias
the alliance of the King of Poland, whose eldest son,
Ladislas, he designated as his successor. At the same time,
Casimir, the brother of Ladislas, endeavoured to take from
Matthias the crown of Hungary. Matthias, thus pressed on all
sides, was obliged to renounce the conquest of Bohemia, and
content himself with the provinces of Moravia, Silesia, and
Lusatia, which were to return to Ladislas if Matthias died
first (1475-1478). The King of Hungary compensated himself at
the expense of Austria. On the pretext that Frederick III. had
refused to give him his daughter, he twice invaded his states
and retained them in his possession [see HUNGARY: A. D.
1471-1487]. With this great prince Christendom lost its chief
defender, Hungary her conquests and her political
preponderance (1490). The civilization which he had tried to
introduce into his kingdom was deferred for many centuries.
… Ladislas (of Poland), King of Bohemia, having been elected
King of Hungary, was attacked by his brother John Albert, and
by Maximilian of Austria, who both pretended to that crown. He
appeased his brother by the cession of Silesia (1491), and
Maximilian by vesting in the House of Austria the right of
succession to the throne of Hungary, in case he himself should
die without male issue. Under Ladislas, and under his son
Louis II., who succeeded him while still a child, in 1516
Hungary was ravaged with impunity by the Turks."
_J. Michelet,
A Summary of Modern History,
chapter 4._
See, also, BOHEMIA: A. D. 1458-1471.
AUSTRIA: A. D. 1438-1493.
The Imperial Crown lastingly regained.
The short reign of Albert II., and the long reign of Frederick III.
"After the death of Sigismund, the princes, in 1438, elected
an emperor [king?] from the house of Austria, which, with
scarcely any intermission, has ever since occupied the ancient
throne of Germany. Albert II. of Austria, who, as son-in-law
of the late Emperor Sigismund, had become at the same time
King of Hungary and Bohemia, was a well-meaning, distinguished
prince, and would, without doubt, have proved of great benefit
to the empire; but he died … in the second year of his
reign, after his return from an expedition against the Turks.
… In the year 1431, during the reign of Sigismund, a new
council was assembled at Basle, in order to carry on the work
of reforming the church as already commenced at Constance. But
this council soon became engaged in many perplexing
controversies with Pope Eugene IV. … The Germans, for a
time, took no part in the dispute; at length, however, under
the Emperor [King?] Albert II., they formally adopted the
chief decrees of the council of Basle, at a diet held at Mentz
in the year 1439. … Amongst the resolutions then adopted
were such as materially circumscribed the existing privileges
of the pope. … These and other decisions, calculated to give
important privileges and considerable independence to the
German church, were, in a great measure, annulled by Albert's
cousin and successor, Duke Frederick of Austria, who was
elected by the princes after him in the year 1440, as
Frederick III. … Frederick, the emperor, was a prince who
meant well but, at the same time, was of too quiet and easy a
nature; his long reign presents but little that was calculated
to distinguish Germany or add to its renown. From the east the
empire was endangered by the approach of an enemy—the Turks,
against whom no precautionary measures were adopted. They, on
the 29th of May, 1453, conquered Constantinople. … They then
made their way towards the Danube, and very nearly succeeded
also in taking Hungary [see HUNGARY: A. D. 1442-1458]. … The
Hungarians, on the death of the son of the Emperor Albert II.,
Wladislas Posthumus, in the year 1457, without leaving an heir
to the throne, chose Matthias, the son of John Corvinus, as
king, being resolved not to elect one from amongst the
Austrian princes. The Bohemians likewise selected a private
nobleman for their king, George Padriabrad [or Podiebrad], and
thus the Austrian house found itself for a time rejected from
holding possession of either of these countries. … In
Germany, meantime, there existed numberless contests and
feuds; each party considered only his own personal quarrels.
… The emperor could not give any weight to public measures:
scarcely could he maintain his dignity amongst his own
subjects. The Austrian nobility were even bold enough to send
challenges to their sovereign; whilst the city of Vienna
revolted, and his brother Albert, taking pleasure in this
disorder, was not backward in adding to it. Things even went
to such an extremity, that, in 1462, the Emperor Frederick,
together with his consort and son, Maximilian, then four years
of age, was besieged by his subjects in his own castle of
Vienna. A plebeian burgher, named Holzer, had placed himself
at the head of the insurgents, and was made burgomaster,
whilst Duke Albert came to Vienna personally to superintend
the siege of the castle, which was intrenched and bombarded.
{203}
…The German princes, however, could not witness with indifference
such disgraceful treatment of their emperor, and they
assembled to liberate him. George Padriabrad, King of Bohemia,
was the first who hastened to the spot with assistance, set
the emperor at liberty, and effected a reconciliation between
him and his brother. The emperor, however, was obliged to
resign to him, for eight years, Lower Austria and Vienna.
Albert died in the following year. … In the Germanic empire,
the voice of the emperor was as little heeded as in his
hereditary lands. … The feudal system raged under
Frederick's reign to such an extent, that it was pursued even
by the lower classes. Thus, in 1471, the shoeblacks in Leipsic
sent a challenge to the university of that place; and the
bakers of the Count Palatine Lewis, and those of the Margrave
of Baden defied several imperial cities in Swabia. The most
important transaction in the reign of Frederick, was the union
which he formed with the house of Burgundy, and which laid the
foundation for the greatness of Austria. … In the year 1486,
the whole of the assembled princes, influenced especially by
the representations of the faithful and now venerable Albert,
called the Achilles of Brandenburg, elected Maximilian, the
emperor's son, King of Rome. Indeed, about this period a
changed and improved spirit began to show itself in a
remarkable degree in the minds of many throughout the empire,
so that the profound contemplator of coming events might
easily see the dawn of a new era. … These last years were
the best in the whole life of the emperor, and yielded to him
in return for his many sufferings that tranquillity which was
so well merited by his faithful generous disposition. He died
on the 19th of August, 1493, after a reign of 54 years. The
emperor lived long enough to obtain, in the year 1490, the
restoration of his hereditary estates by the death of King
Matthias, by means of a compact made with Wladislas, his
successor."
_F. Kohlrausch,
History of Germany,
chapter 14_.
See GERMANY: A. D. 1347-1493.
AUSTRIA: A. D. 1468.
Invasion by George Podiebrad of Bohemia.
The crusade against him.
See BOHEMIA: A. D. 1458-1471.
AUSTRIA: A. D. 1471-1491.
Hungarian invasion and capture of Vienna.
Treaty of Presburg.
Succession to the throne of Hungary secured.
"George, King of Bohemia, expired in 1471; and the claims of
the Emperor and King of Hungary being equally disregarded, the
crown was conferred on Uladislaus, son of Casimir IV. King of
Poland, and grandson of Albert II. To this election Frederic
long persisted in withholding his assent; but at length he
determined to crush the claim of Matthias by formally
investing Uladislaus with the kingdom and electorate of
Bohemia, and the office of imperial cup-bearer. In revenge for
this affront, Matthias marched into Austria: took possession
of the fortresses of the Danube; and compelled the Emperor to
purchase a cessation of hostilities by undertaking to pay an
hundred thousand golden florins, one-half of which was
disbursed by the Austrian states at the appointed time. But as
the King of Hungary still delayed to yield up the captured
fortresses, Frederic refused all further payment; and the war
was again renewed. Matthias invaded and ravaged Austria; and
though he experienced formidable resistance from several
towns, his arms were crowned with success, and he became
master of Vienna and Neustadt. Driven from his capital the
terrified Emperor was reduced to the utmost distress, and
wandered from town to town and from convent to convent,
endeavouring to arouse the German States against the
Hungarians. Yet even in this exigency his good fortune did not
wholly forsake him; and he availed himself of a Diet at
Frankfort to procure the election of his son Maximilian as
King of the Romans. To this Diet, however, the King of Bohemia
received no summons, and therefore protested against the
validity of the election. A full apology and admission of his
right easily satisfied Uladislaus, and he consented to remit
the fine which the Golden Bull had fixed as the penalty of the
omission. The death of Matthias Corvinus in 1490, left the
throne of Hungary vacant, and the Hungarians, influenced by
their widowed queen, conferred the crown upon the King of
Bohemia, without listening to the pretensions of Maximilian.
That valorous prince, however, sword in hand, recovered his
Austrian dominions; and the rival kings concluded a severe
contest by the treaty of Presburg, by which Hungary was for
the present secured to Uladislaus; but on his death without
heirs was to vest in the descendants of the Emperor."
_Sir R. Comyn,
The History of the Western Empire,
chapter 28 (volume 2)._
See HUNGARY: A. D. 1471-1487, and 1487-1526.
AUSTRIA: A. D. 1477-1495.
Marriage of Maximilian with Mary of Burgundy.
His splendid dominion.
His joyous character.
His vigorous powers.
His ambitions and aims.
"Maximilian, who was as active and enterprising as his father
was indolent and timid, married at eighteen years of age, the
only daughter of Charles the Bold, duke of Burgundy."
See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1477
"She brought him Flanders, Franche-Comte, and all the Low
Countries. Louis XI., who disputed some of those territories,
and who, on the death of the duke, had seized Burgundy,
Picardy, Ponthieu, and Artois, as fiefs of France, which could
not be possessed by a woman, was defeated by Maximilian at
Guinegaste; and Charles VIII., who renewed the same claims,
was obliged to conclude a disadvantageous peace." Maximilian
succeeded to the imperial throne on the death of his father in
1493.
_W. Russell,
History of Modern Europe,
letter 49 (volume 1)._
"Between the Alps and the Bohemian frontier, the mark Austria
was first founded round and about the castles of Krems and
Melk. Since then, beginning first in the valley towards
Bavaria and Hungary, and coming to the House of Hapsburg, it
had extended across the whole of the northern slope of the
Alps until where the Slavish, Italian, and German tongues
part, and over to Alsace; thus becoming an archduchy from a
mark. On all sides the Archdukes had claims; on the German
side to Switzerland, on the Italian to the Venetian
possessions, and on the Slavish to Bohemia and Hungary. To
such a pitch of greatness had Maximilian by his marriage with
Maria of Burgundy brought the heritage received from Charles
the Bold. True to the Netherlanders' greeting, in the
inscription over their gates, 'Thou art our Duke, fight our
battle for us,' war was from the first his handicraft. He
adopted Charles the Bold's hostile attitude towards France; he
saved the greater part of his inheritance from the schemes of
Louis XI. Day and night it was his whole thought, to conquer
it entirely.
{204}
But after Maria of Burgundy's premature death, revolution
followed revolution, and his father Frederick being too old to
protect himself, it came about that in the year 1488 he was
ousted from Austria by the Hungarians, whilst his son was kept
a prisoner in Bruges by the citizens, and they had even to
fear the estrangement of the Tyrol. Yet they did not lose
courage. At this very time the father denoted with the vowels,
A. E. I. O. U. ('Alles Erdreich ist Oesterreich
unterthan'—All the earth is subject to Austria), the extent
of his hopes. In the same year, his son negotiated for a
Spanish alliance. Their real strength lay in the imperial
dignity of Maximilian, which they had from the German Empire.
As soon as it began to bestir itself, Maximilian was set at
liberty; as soon as it supported him in the persons of only a
few princes of the Empire, he became lord in his Netherlands.
… Since then his plans were directed against Hungary and
Burgundy. In Hungary he could gain nothing except securing the
succession to his house. But never, frequently as he concluded
peace, did he give up His intentions upon Burgundy. … Now
that he had allied himself with a Sforza, and had joined the
Liga, now that his father was dead, and the Empire was pledged
to follow him across the mountains, and now, too, that the
Italian complications were threatening Charles, he took fresh
hope, and in this hope he summoned a Diet at Worms. Maximilian
was a prince of whom, although many portraits have been drawn,
yet there is scarcely one that resembles another, so easily
and entirely did he suit himself to circumstances. … His
soul is full of motion, of joy in things, and of plans. There
is scarcely anything that he is not capable of doing. In his
mines he is a good screener, in his armoury the best plater,
capable of instructing others in new inventions. With musket
in hand, he defends his best marksman, George Purkhard; with
heavy cannon, which he has shown how to cast, and has placed
on wheels, he comes as a rule nearest the mark. He commands
seven captains in their seven several tongues; he himself
chooses and mixes his food and medicines. In the open country,
he feels himself happiest. … What really distinguishes his
public life is that presentiment of the future greatness of
his dynasty which he has inherited of his father, and the
restless striving to attain all that devolved upon him from
the House of Burgundy. All his policy and all his schemes were
concentrated, not upon his Empire, for the real needs of which
he evinced little real care, and not immediately upon the
welfare of his hereditary lands, but upon the realization of
that sole idea. Of it all his letters and speeches are full.
… In March, 1495, Maximilian came to the Diet at Worms. …
At this Reichstag the King gained two momentous prospects. In
Wurtemberg there had sprung of two lines two counts of quite
opposite characters. … With the elder, Maximilian now
entered into a compact. Wurtemberg was to be raised to a
dukedom—an elevation which excluded the female line from the
succession—and, in the event of the stock failing, was to be
a 'widow's portion' of the realm to the use of the Imperial
Chamber. Now as the sole hopes of this family centred in a
weakling of a boy, this arrangement held out to Maximilian and
his successors the prospect of acquiring a splendid country.
Yet this was the smaller of his two successes. The greater was
the espousal of his children, Philip and Margaret, with the
two children of Ferdinand the Catholic, Juana and Juan, which
was here settled. This opened to his house still greater
expectations,—it brought him at once into the most intimate
alliance with the Kings of Spain. These matters might
possibly, however, have been arranged elsewhere. What
Maximilian really wanted in the Reichstag at Worms was the
assistance of the Empire against the French with its
world-renowned and much-envied soldiery. For at this time in
all the wars of Europe, German auxiliaries were decisive. …
If Maximilian had united the whole of this power in his hand,
neither Europe nor Asia would have been able to withstand him.
But God disposed that it should rather be employed in the
cause of freedom than oppression. What an Empire was that
which in spite of its vast strength allowed its Emperor to be
expelled from his heritage, and did not for a long time take
steps to bring him back again? If we examine the constitution
of the Empire, not as we should picture it to ourselves in
Henry III. 's time, but as it had at length become—the legal
independence of the several estates, the emptiness of the
imperial dignity, the electiveness of a head, that afterwards
exercised certain rights over the electors,—we are led to
inquire not so much into the causes of its disintegration, for
this concerns us little, as into the way in which it was held
together. What welded it together, and preserved it, would
(leaving tradition and the Pope out of the question) appear,
before all else, to have been the rights of individuals, the
unions of neighbours, and the social regulations which
universally obtained. Such were those rights and privileges
that not only protected the citizen, his guild, and his
quarter of the town against his neighbours and more powerful
men than himself, but which also endowed him with an inner
independence. … Next, the unions of neighbours. These were
not only leagues of cities and peasantries, expanded from
ancient fraternities—for who can tell the origin of the
Hansa, or the earliest treaty between Uri and Schwyz?—into
large associations, or of knights, who strengthened a really
insignificant power by confederations of neighbours, but also
of the princes, who were bound together by joint inheritances,
mutual expectancies, and the ties of blood, which in some
cases were very close. This ramification, dependent upon a
supreme power and confirmed by it, bound neighbour to
neighbour; and, whilst securing to each his privilege and his
liberty, blended together all countries of Germany in legal
bonds of union. But it is only in the social regulations that
the unity was really perceivable. Only as long as the Empire
was an actual reality, could the supreme power of the
Electors, each with his own special rights, be maintained;
only so long could dukes and princes, bishops and abbots hold
their neighbours in due respect, and through court offices or
hereditary services, through fiefs and the dignity of their
independent position give their vassals a peculiar position to
the whole. Only so long could the cities enjoying
immediateness under the Empire, carefully divided into free
and imperial cities, be not merely protected, but also assured
of a participation in the government of the whole. Under this
sanctified and traditional system of suzerainty and vassalage
all were happy and contented, and bore a love to it such as is
cherished towards a native town or a father's house. For some
time past, the House of Austria had enjoyed the foremost
position. It also had a union, and, moreover, a great faction
on its side. The union was the Suabian League. Old Suabia was
divided into three leagues—the league of the peasantry (the
origin of Switzerland); the league of the knights in the Black
Forest, on the Kocher, the Neckar, and the Danube; and the
league of the cities. The peasantry were from the first
hostile to Austria. The Emperor Frederick brought it to pass
that the cities and knights, that had from time out of mind
lived in feud, bound themselves together with several princes,
and formed, under his protection, the league of the land of
Suabia. But the party was scattered throughout the whole
Empire."
_L. von Ranke,
History of the Latin and Teutonic Nations,
book 1, chapter 3._
{205}
AUSTRIA: A. D. 1493-1519.
The Imperial reign of Maximilian.
Formation of the Circle of Austria.
The Aulic Council.
See GERMANY: A. D. 1493-1519.
AUSTRIA: A. D. 1496-1499.
The Swabian War with the Swiss Confederacy and the Graubunden,
or Grey Leagues (Grisons).
Practical independence of both acquired.
See SWITZERLAND: A. D. 1396-1499.
AUSTRIA: A. D. 1496-1526.
Extraordinary aggrandizement of the House of Austria by its marriages.
The Heritage of Charles V.
His cession of the German inheritance to Ferdinand.
The division of the House into Spanish and German branches.
Acquisition of Hungary and Bohemia.
In 1496, Philip the Fair, son of Maximilian, Archduke and
Emperor, by his marriage with Mary of Burgundy, "espoused the
Infanta of Spain, daughter of Ferdinand [of Aragon] and
Isabella of Castile. They had two sons, Charles and Ferdinand,
the former of whom, known in history by the name of Charles
V., inherited the Low Countries in right of his father, Philip
(1506). On the death of Ferdinand, his maternal grandfather
(1516), he became heir to the whole Spanish succession, which
comprehended the kingdoms of Spain, Naples, Sicily, and
Sardinia, together with Spanish America. To these vast
possessions were added his patrimonial dominions in Austria,
which were transmitted to him by his paternal grandfather, the
Emperor Maximilian I. About the same time (1519), the Imperial
dignity was conferred on this prince by the electors [see
GERMANY: A. D. 1519]; so that Europe had not seen, since the
time of Charlemagne, a monarchy so powerful as that of Charles
V. This Emperor concluded a treaty with his brother Ferdinand;
by which he ceded to him all his hereditary possessions in
Germany. The two brothers thus became the founders of the two
principal branches of the House of Austria, viz., that of
Spain, which began with Charles V. (called Charles I. of
Spain), and ended with Charles II. (1700); and that of
Germany, of which Ferdinand I. was the ancestor, and which
became extinct in the male line in the Emperor Charles VI.
(1740). These two branches, closely allied to each other,
acted in concert for the advancement of their reciprocal
interests; moreover they gained each their own separate
advantages by the marriage connexions which they formed.
Ferdinand I. of the German line married Anne (1521), sister of
Louis King of Hungary and Bohemia, who having been slain by
the Turks at the battle of Mohacs (1526), these two kingdoms
devolved to Ferdinand of the House of Austria. Finally, the
marriage which Charles V. contracted with the Infant Isabella,
daughter of Emmanuel, King of Portugal, procured Philip II. of
Spain, the son of that marriage, the whole Portuguese
monarchy, to which he succeeded on the death of Henry, called
the Cardinal (1580). So vast an aggrandisement of power
alarmed the Sovereigns of Europe."
_C. W. Koch,
The Revolutions of Europe,
period 6._
ALSO IN:
_W. Coxe,
History of the House of Austria,
chapters 25 and 27 (volume 1)._
_W. Robertson,
History of the Reign of Charles V.,
book 1._
See, also, SPAIN: A. D. 1496-1517.
AUSTRIA: A. D. 1519.
Death of Maximilian.
Election of Charles V., "Emperor of the Romans."
See GERMANY: A. D. 1519.
AUSTRIA: A. D. 1519-1555.
The imperial reign of Charles V.
The objects of his policy.
His conflict with the Reformation and with France.
"Charles V. did not receive from nature all the gifts nor all
the charms she can bestow, nor did experience give him every
talent; but he was equal to the part he had to play in the
world. He was sufficiently great to keep his many-jewelled
diadem. … His ambition was cold and wise. The scope of his
ideas, which are not quite easy to divine, was vast enough to
control a state composed of divers and distant portions, so as
to make it always very difficult to amalgamate his armies, and
to supply them with food, or to procure money. Indeed its very
existence would have been exposed to permanent danger from
powerful coalitions, had Francis I. known how to place its
most vulnerable points under a united pressure from the armies
of France, of England, of Venice, and of the Ottoman Empire.
Charles V. attained his first object when he prevented the
French monarch from taking possession of the inheritance of
the house of Anjou, at Naples, and of that of the Viscontis at
Milan. He was more successful in stopping the march of Solyman
into Austria than in checking the spread of the Reformation in
Germany. … Charles V. had four objects very much at heart:
he wished to be the master in Italy, to check the progress of
the Ottoman power in the west of Europe, to conquer the King
of France, and to govern the Germanic body by dividing it, and
by making the Reformation a religious pretext for oppressing
the political defenders of that belief. In three out of four
of these objects he succeeded. Germany alone was not
conquered: if she was beaten in battle, neither any political
triumph nor any religious results ensued. In Germany, Charles
V. began his work too late, and acted too slowly; he undertook
to subdue it at a time when the abettors of the Reformation
had grown strong, when he himself was growing weaker. … Like
many other brilliant careers, the career of Charles V. was
more successful and more striking at the commencement and the
middle than at the end, of its course. At Madrid, at Cambrai,
at Nice, he made his rival bow down his head. At Crespy he
again forced him to obey his will, but as he had completely
made up his mind to have peace, Charles dictated it, in some
manner, to his own detriment.
{206}
At Passau he had to yield to the terms of his enemy—of an
enemy whom Charles V. encountered in his old age, and when his
powers had decayed. Although it may be said that the extent
and the power of the sovereignty which Charles V. left to his
successor at his death were not diminished, still his armies
were weakened, his finances were exhausted, and the country
was weary of the tyranny of the imperial lieutenants. The
supremacy of the empire in Germany, for which he had struggled
so much, was as little established at the end as at the
beginning of his reign; religious unity was solemnly destroyed
by the 'Recess' of Augsburg. But that which marks the position
of Charles V. as the representative man of his epoch, and as
the founder of the policy of modern times, is that, wherever
he was victorious, the effect of his success was to crush the
last efforts of the spirit of the middle ages, and of the
independence of nations. In Italy, in Spain, in Germany, and
in the Low Countries, his triumphs were so much gain to the
cause of absolute monarchy and so much loss to the liberty
derived from the old state of society. Whatever was the
character of liberty in the middle ages—whether it were
contested or incomplete, or a mockery—it played a greater
part than in the four succeeding centuries. Charles V. was
assuredly one of those who contributed the most to found and
consolidate the political system of modern governments. His
history has an aspect of grandeur. Had Francis I. been as
sagacious in the closet as he was bold in the field, by a
vigorous alliance with England, with Protestant Germany, and
with some of the republics of Italy, he might perhaps have
balanced and controlled the power of Charles V. But the French
monarch did not possess the foresight and the solid
understanding necessary to pursue such a policy with success.
His rival, therefore, occupies the first place in the
historical picture of the epoch. Charles V. had the sentiment
of his position and of the part he had to play."
_J. Van Praet,
Essays on the Political History of the 15th,
16th, and 17th Centuries,
pages 190-194._
See, also, GERMANY: A. D. 1519 to 1152-1561,
and FRANCE: A. D. 1520-1523, to 1547-1559.
AUSTRIA: A. D. 1525-1527.
Successful Contest for the Hungarian and Bohemian Crowns.
In Hungary, "under King Matthias the house of Zapolya, so
called from a Slavonic village near Poschega, whence it
originated, rose to peculiar eminence. To this house, in
particular, King Wladislas had owed his accession to the
throne; whence, however, it thought itself entitled to claim a
share in the sovereign power, and even a sort of prospective
right to the throne. Its members were the wealthiest of all
the magnates; they possessed seventy-two castles. … It is
said that a prophecy early promised the crown to the young
John Zapolya. Possessed of all the power conferred by his rich
inheritance, Count of Zips, and Woiwode of Transylvania, he
soon collected a strong party around him. It was he who mainly
persuaded the Hungarians, in the year 1505, to exclude all
foreigners from the throne by a formal decree; which, though
they were not always able to maintain in force, they could
never be induced absolutely to revoke. In the year 1514 the
Woiwode succeeded in putting down an exceedingly formidable
insurrection of the peasants with his own forces; a service
which the lesser nobility prized the more highly, because it
enabled them to reduce the peasantry to a still harder state
of servitude. His wish was, on the death of Wladislas, to
become Gubernator of the kingdom, to marry the deceased king's
daughter Anne, and then to await the course of events. But he
was here encountered by the policy of Maximilian. Anne was
married to the Archduke Ferdinand; Zapolya was excluded from
the administration of the kingdom; even the vacant Palatinate
was refused him and given to his old rival Stephen Bathory. He
was highly incensed. … But it was not till the year 1525
that Zapolya got the upper hand at the Rakosch. … No one
entertained a doubt that he aimed at the throne. … But
before anything was accomplished—on the contrary, just as
these party conflicts had thrown the country into the utmost
confusion, the mighty enemy, Soliman, appeared on the
frontiers of Hungary, determined to put an end to the anarchy.
… In his prison at Madrid, Francis I. had found means to
entreat the assistance of Soliman; urging that it well
beseemed a great emperor to succour the oppressed. Plans were
laid at Constantinople, according to which the two sovereigns
were to attack Spain with a combined fleet, and to send armies
to invade Hungary and the north of Italy. Soliman, without any
formal treaty, was by his position an ally of the Ligue, as
the king of Hungary was, of the emperor. On the 23d of April,
1526, Soliman, after visiting the groves of his forefathers
and of the old Moslem martyrs, marched out of Constantinople
with a mighty host, consisting of about a hundred thousand
men, and incessantly strengthened by fresh recruits on its
road. … What power had Hungary, in the condition we have
just described, of resisting such an attack? … The young
king took the field with a following of not more than three
thousand men. … He proceeded to the fatal plain of Mohaez,
fully resolved with his small band to await in the open field
the overwhelming force of the enemy. … Personal valour could
avail nothing. The Hungarians were immediately thrown into
disorder, their best men fell, the others took to flight. The
young king was compelled to flee. It was not even granted him
to die in the field of battle; a far more miserable end a
waited him. Mounted behind a Silesian soldier, who served him
as a guide, he had already been carried across the dark waters
that divide the plain; his horse was already climbing the
bank, when he slipped, fell back, and buried himself and his
rider in the morass. This rendered the defeat decisive. …
Soliman had gained one of those victories which decide the
fate of nations during long epochs. … That two thrones, the
succession to which was not entirely free from doubt, had thus
been left vacant, was an event that necessarily caused a great
agitation throughout Christendom. It was still a question
whether such a European power as Austria would continue to
exist;—a question which it is only necessary to state, in
order to be aware of its vast importance to the fate of
mankind at large, and of Germany in particular. … The claims
of Ferdinand to both crowns, unquestionable as they might be
in reference to the treaties with the reigning houses, were
opposed in the nations themselves, by the right of ejection
and the authority of considerable rivals.
{207}
In Hungary, as soon as the Turks had retired, John Zapolya
appeared with the fine army which he had kept back from the
conflict; the fall of the king was at the same time the fall
of his adversaries. … Even in Tokay, however, John Zapolya
was saluted as king. Meanwhile, the dukes of Bavaria conceived
the design of getting possession of the throne of Bohemia. …
Nor was it in the two kingdoms alone that these pretenders had
a considerable party. The state of politics in Europe was such
as to insure them powerful supporters abroad. In the first
place, Francis I. was intimately connected with Zapolya: in a
short time a delegate from the pope was at his side, and the
Germans in Rome maintained that Clement assisted the faction
of the Woiwode with money. Zapolya sent an agent to Venice
with a direct request to be admitted a member of the Ligue of
Cognac. In Bohemia, too, the French had long had devoted
partisans. … The consequences that must have resulted, had
this scheme succeeded, are so incalculable, that it is not too
much to say they would have completely changed the political
history of Europe. The power of Bavaria would have outweighed
that of Austria in both German and Slavonian countries, and
Zapolya, thus supported, would have been able to maintain his
station; the Ligue, and with it high ultra-montane opinions
would have held the ascendency in eastern Europe. Never was
there a project more pregnant with danger to the growing power
of the house of Austria. Ferdinand behaved with all the
prudence and energy which that house has so often displayed in
difficult emergencies. For the present, the all-important
object was the crown of Bohemia. … All his measures were
taken with such skill and prudence, that on the day of
election, though the Bavarian agent had, up to the last
moment, not the slightest doubt of the success of his
negotiations, an overwhelming majority in the three estates
elected Ferdinand to the throne of Bohemia. This took place on
the 23d October, 1526. … On his brother's birth-day, the
24th of February, 1527, Ferdinand was crowned at Prague. ….
The affairs of Hungary were not so easily or so peacefully
settled. … At first, when Zapolya came forward, full armed
and powerful out of the general desolation, he had the
uncontested superiority. The capital of the kingdom sought his
protection, after which he marched to Stuhlweissenburg, where
his partisans bore down all attempts at opposition: he was
elected and crowned (11th of November, 1526); in Croatia, too,
he was acknowledged king at a diet; he filled all the numerous
places, temporal and spiritual, left vacant by the disaster of
Mohaez, with his friends. … [But] the Germans advanced
without interruption; and as soon as it appeared possible that
Ferdinand might be successful, Zapolya's followers began to
desert him. … Never did the German troops display more
bravery and constancy. They had often neither meat nor bread,
and were obliged to live on such fruits as they found in the
gardens: the inhabitants were wavering and uncertain—they
submitted, and then revolted again to the enemy; Zapolya's
troops, aided by their knowledge of the ground, made several
very formidable attacks by night; but the Germans evinced, in
the moment of danger, the skill and determination of a Roman
legion: they showed, too, a noble constancy under difficulties
and privations. At Tokay they defeated Zapolya and compelled
him to quit Hungary. … On the 3rd November, 1527, Ferdinand
was crowned in Stuhlweissenburg: only five of the magnates of
the kingdom adhered to Zapolya. The victory appeared complete.
Ferdinand, however, distinctly felt that this appearance was
delusive. … In Bohemia, too, his power was far from secure.
His Bavarian neighbours had not relinquished the hope of
driving him from the throne at the first general turn of
affairs. The Ottomans, meanwhile, acting upon the persuasion
that every land in which the head of their chief had rested
belonged of right to them, were preparing to return to
Hungary; either to take possession of it themselves, or at
first, as was their custom, to bestow it on a native
ruler—Zapolya, who now eagerly sought an alliance with
them—as their vassal."
_L. Von Ranke,
History of the Reformation in Germany,
book 4, chapter 4 (volume 2)._
AUSTRIA: A. D. 1564-1618.
The tolerance of Maximilian II.
The bigotry and tyranny of Rodolph and Ferdinand II.
Prelude to the Thirty Years War.
"There is no period connected with these religious wars that
deserves more to be studied than these reigns of Ferdinand I.,
Maximilian [the Second], and those of his successors who preceded
the thirty years' war. We have no sovereign who exhibited that
exercise of moderation and good sense which a philosopher
would require, but Maximilian; and he was immediately followed
by princes of a different complexion. … Nothing could be
more complete than the difficulty of toleration at the time
when Maximilian reigned; and if a mild policy could be
attended with favourable effects in his age and nation, there
can be little fear of the experiment at any other period. No
party or person in the state was then disposed to tolerate his
neighbour from any sense of the justice of such forbearance,
but from motives of temporal policy alone. The Lutherans, it
will be seen, could not bear that the Calvinists should have
the same religious privileges with themselves. The Calvinists
were equally opinionated and unjust; and Maximilian himself
was probably tolerant and wise, chiefly because he was in his
real opinions a Lutheran, and in outward profession, as the
head of the empire, a Roman Catholic. For twelve years, the
whole of his reign, he preserved the religious peace of the
community, without destroying the religious freedom of the
human mind. He supported the Roman Catholics, as the
predominant party, in all their rights, possessions, and
privileges; but he protected the Protestants in every exercise
of their religion which was then practicable. In other words,
he was as tolerant and just as the temper of society then
admitted, and more so than the state of things would have
suggested. … The merit of Maximilian was but too apparent
the moment that his son Rodolph was called upon to supply his
place. … He had always left the education of his son and
successor too much to the discretion of his bigoted consort.
Rodolph, his son, was therefore as ignorant and furious on his
part as were the Protestants on theirs; he had immediate
recourse to the usual expedients—force, and the execution of
the laws to the very letter. … After Rodolph comes Matthias,
and, unhappily for all Europe, Bohemia and the empire fell
afterwards under the management of Ferdinand II. Of the
different Austrian princes, it is the reign of Ferdinand II.
that is more particularly to be considered. Such was the
arbitrary nature of his government over his subjects in
Bohemia, that they revolted. They elected for their king the
young Elector Palatine, hoping thus to extricate themselves
from the bigotry and tyranny of Ferdinand. This crown so
offered was accepted; and, in the event, the cause of the
Bohemians became the cause of the Reformation in Germany, and
the Elector Palatine the hero of that cause. It is this which
gives the great interest to this reign of Ferdinand II., to
these concerns of his subjects in Bohemia, and to the
character of this Elector Palatine. For all these events and
circumstances led to the thirty years' war."
_W. Smyth,
Lectures on Modern History,
volume I, lecture 13._
See BOHEMIA: A. D. 1611-1618,
and GERMANY: A. D. 1618-1620.
{208}
AUSTRIA: A. D. 1567-1660.
Struggles of the Hapsburg House in Hungary and Transylvania to
establish rights of sovereignty.
Wars with the Turks.
See HUNGARY: A. D. 1567-1604, and 1606-1660.
----------AUSTRIA: End----------
Seventeenth Century: Second Half.
Contemporaneous Events.
A.D.
1651.
Invasion of England by Charles II. and the Scots;
Cromwell's victory at Worcester; complete conquest of
Scotland.
1652.
Victorious naval war of the English with the Dutch.
End of the Fronde.
Institution of the Liberum Veto in Poland.
1653.
Expulsion of "the Rump" by Cromwell, and establishment of
the Protectorate in England.
Adoption of the Instrument of Government.
Return of Mazarin to power in France.
The Cromwellian settlement of Ireland.
1654.
Incorporation of Scotland with the English Commonwealth,
under Cromwell.
Peace between the English and Dutch.
Conquest of Nova Scotia, by the New England colonists.
1655.
Alliance of England and France against Spain.
English conquest of Jamaica.
1656.
Beginning of the persecution of the Quakers in Massachusetts.
1658.
Capture of Dunkirk from the Spaniards and possession given
by the French to the English.
Death of Cromwell and succession of his son Richard as
Protector.
1659.
Meeting of a new Parliament in England;
its dissolution;
resuscitation and re-expulsion of the Rump, and formation
of a provisional government by the Army.
1660.
March of the English army under Monk from Scotland to
London.
Call of a new Parliament by Monk, and restoration of the
monarchy, in the person of Charles II.
1661.
Restoration of the Church of England and ejection of 2,000
nonconformist ministers.
Personal assumption of government by Louis XIV. in France.
Beginning of the ministry of Colbert.
1662.
Sale of Dunkirk to France by Charles II.
Restoration of episcopacy in Scotland and persecution of
the Covenanters.
1664.
Seizure of New Netherland (henceforth New York) by the
English from the Dutch and grant of the province to the
duke of York.
Grant of New Jersey to Berkeley and Carteret.
1665.
Outbreak of the great Plague in London.
Formal declarations of war between the English and the
Dutch.
1666.
The great fire in London.
Tremendous naval battles between Dutch and English and
defeat of the former.
1667.
Ravages by a Dutch fleet in the Thames.
Peace treaties of Breda, between England, Holland, France
and Denmark.
War of Louis XIV., called the War of the Queen's Rights, in
the Spanish Netherlands.
1668.
Triple alliance of England, Holland and Sweden against
France.
1669.
First exploring journey of La Salle from the St. Lawrence
to the West.
1670.
Treaty of the king of England with Louis XIV. of France,
betraying his allies, the Dutch, and engaging to profess
himself a Catholic.
1672.
Alliance of England and France against the Dutch.
Restoration of the Stadtholdership in Holland to the Prince
of Orange, and murder of the De Witts.
1673.
Recovery of New Netherland by the Dutch from the English.
1674.
Treaty of Westminster, restoring peace between the Dutch
and English and ceding New Netherland to the latter.
1675. War with the Indians in New England, known
as King Philip's War.
1678.
Pretended Popish Plot in England.
Treaties of Nimeguen.
1679.
Passage of the Habeas Corpus Act in England.
Oppression of Scotland and persecution of the Covenanters.
Defeat of Claverhouse at Drumclog.
Defeat of Covenanters at Bothwell Bridge.
1680.
First naming of the Whig and Tory parties in England.
1681.
Merciless despotism of the duke of York in Scotland.
Beginning of "dragonnade" persecution of Protestants in
France.
Grant of Pennsylvania by Charles II. to William Penn.
1682.
Exploration of the Mississippi to its mouth by La Salle.
1683.
The Rye-house Plot, and execution of Lord Russell and
Algernon Sidney, in England.
Great invasion of Hungary and Austria by the Turks;
their siege of Vienna, and the deliverance of the city by
John Sobieski, king of Poland.
Establishment of a penny post in London.
1685.
Death of Charles II., king of England, and accession of his
brother James II., an avowed Catholic.
Rebellion of the duke of Monmouth.
Revocation of the Edict of Nantes by Louis XIV. of France.
1686.
Consolidation of New England under a royal
governor-general.
League of Augsburg against Louis XIV. of France.
1688.
Declaration of Indulgence by James II. of England, and
imprisonment and trial of the seven bishops for refusing to
publish it.
Invitation to William and Mary of Orange to accept the
English crown.
Arrival in England of the Prince of Orange and flight of
James.
1689.
Completion of the English Revolution.
Settlement of the crown on William and Mary.
Passage of the Toleration Act and the Bill of Rights.
Landing of James II. in Ireland and war in that island;
siege and successful defense of Londonderry.
1690.
The first congress of the American colonies.
Battle of the Boyne in Ireland.
1692.
The Salem Witchcraft madness in Massachusetts.
Massacre of Glencoe in Scotland.
1695.
Passage of the first of the Penal Laws, oppressing
Catholics in Ireland.
1697.
Peace of Ryswick.
Cession of Strasburg and restoration of Acadia to France.
1699.
Peace of Carlowitz, between Turkey, Russia, Poland, Venice,
and the Emperor.
1700.
Prussia raised in rank to a kingdom.
First campaigns of Charles XII. of Sweden.
----------Subject: Start--------
Seventeenth Century: First Half.
Contemporaneous Events.
A.D.
1602.
Chartering of Dutch East India Company.
First acting of Shakespeare's "Hamlet."
1603.
Death of Queen Elizabeth of England and accession of James I.
1600.
Gunpowder plot of English Catholics.
Publication of Bacon's "Advancement of Learning," and part
1 of Cervantes' "Don Quixote."
1606.
Charter granted to the London and Plymouth companies, for
American colonization.
Organization of the Independent church of Brownists at
Scrooby, England.
1607.
Settlement of Jamestown, Virginia.
Migration of Scrooby Independents to Holland.
1609.
Settlement of the exiled Pilgrims of Scrooby at Leyden.
Construction of the telescope by Galileo and discovery of
Jupiter's moons.
1610.
Assassination of Henry IV. of France and accession of Louis XIII.
1611.
Publication in England of the King James or Authorized
version of the Bible.
1614.
Last meeting of the States General of France before the
Revolution.
1610.
Appearance at Frankfort-on-the-Main of the first known
weekly newspaper.
1616.
Opening of war between Sweden and Poland.
Death of Shakespeare and Cervantes.
1618.
Rising of Protestants in Bohemia, beginning the Thirty
Years War.
1619.
Trial and execution of John of Barneveldt.
Introduction of slavery in Virginia.
1620.
Decisive defeat of the Protestants of Bohemia in the battle
of the White Mountain.
Rising of the French Huguenots at Rochelle.
Migration of the Pilgrims from Leyden to America.
1621.
Formation of the Dutch West India Company.
The first Thanksgiving Day in New England.
1622.
Appearance of the first known printed newspaper in England
"The Weekly Newes."
1624.
Beginning of Richelieu's ministry, in France.
1625.
Death of James I., of England, and accession of Charles I.;
beginning of the English struggle between King and
Parliament.
Engagement of Wallenstein and his army in the service of
the Emperor against the Protestants.
1627.
Alliance of England with the French Huguenots.
Siege of Rochelle by Richelieu.
1628.
Passage by the English Parliament of the act called the
Petition of Right.
Assassination of the duke of Buckingham.
Surrender of Rochelle to Richelieu.
Publication of Harvey's discovery of the circulation of the
blood.
1629.
Tumult in the English Parliament, dissolution by the king
and arrest of Eliot and others.
1630.
Appearance in Germany of Gustavus Adolphus, king of Sweden,
as the champion of Protestantism.
Settlement of the colony of Massachusetts Bay, in New
England, and founding of Boston.
The Day of the Dupes in France.
1631.
Siege, capture and sack of Magdeburg by the imperial
general, Tilly.
Defeat of Tilly on the Breitenfeld, at Leipzig, by Gustavus
Adolphus.
1632.
Defeat and death of Tilly.
Victory and death of Gustavus Adolphus at Lützen.
Patent to Lord Baltimore by James I., of England, granting
him the territory in America called Maryland.
First Jesuit mission to Canada.
1634.
Assassination of Wallenstein.
Levy of Ship-money in England.
1635.
First settlements in the Connecticut valley.
1636.
Banishment of Roger Williams from Massachusetts, and his
founding of Providence.
1637.
The Pequot War in New England.
Introduction of Laud's Service-book in Scotland; tumult in
St. Giles' church.
1638.
Banishment of Anne Hutchinson from Massachusetts.
Rising in Scotland against the Service-book;
organization of the Tables;
signing of the National Covenant.
1639.
The First Bishops' War of the Scotch with King Charles I.
1640.
Meeting of the Long Parliament in England.
Recovery of independence by Portugal.
1641.
Impeachment and execution of Strafford and adoption of the
Grand Remonstrance by the English Parliament.
Catholic rising in Ireland and alleged massacres of
Protestants.
1642.
King Charles' attempt, in England, to arrest the Five
Members, and opening of the Civil War at Edgehill.
Conspiracy of Cinq Mars in France.
Death of Cardinal Richelieu.
1643.
Meeting of the Westminster Assembly of Divines.
Subscription of the Solemn League and Covenant between the
Scotch and English nations.
Siege of Gloucester and first battle of Newbury.
Death of Louis XIII. of France and accession of Louis XIV.
1644.
Battles of Marston Moor and the second Newbury, in the
English civil war.
1645.
Oliver Cromwell placed second in command of the English
Parliamentary army.
His victory at Naseby.
Exploits of Montrose in Scotland.
1646.
Adoption of Presbyterianism by the English Parliament.
Surrender of King Charles to the Scottish army.
1647.
Surrender of King Charles by the Scots to the English, and
his seizure by the Army.
1648.
The second Civil War in England.
Cromwell's victory at Preston.
Treaty of Newport with the king.
Grand Army Remonstrance, and Pride's Purge of Parliament.
Last campaigns of the Thirty Years War.
Peace of Westphalia; cession of Alsace to France.
1649.
Trial and execution of King Charles I., of England, and
establishment of the Common-wealth.
Campaign of Cromwell in Ireland.
First civil war of the Fronde in France.
1650.
Charles II. in Scotland.
War between the English and the Scotch.
Victory of Cromwell at Dunbar.
The new Fronde in France, in alliance with Spain.
-----End "Contemporaneous Events"-----
AUSTRIA: A. D. 1618-1648.
The Thirty Years War.
The Peace of Westphalia.
"The thirty years' war made Germany the centre-point of
European politics. … No one at its commencement could have
foreseen the duration and extent. But the train of war was
everywhere laid, and required only the match to set it going;
more than one war was joined to it, and swallowed up in it;
and the melancholy truth, that war feeds itself, was never
more clearly displayed. … Though the war, which first broke
out in Bohemia, concerned only the house of Austria, yet by
its originating in religious disputes, by its peculiar
character as a religious war, and by the measures adopted both
by the insurgents and the emperor, it acquired such an extent,
that even the quelling of the insurrection was insufficient to
put a stop to it. … Though the Bohemian war was apparently
terminated, yet the flame had communicated to Germany and
Hungary, and new fuel was added by the act of proscription
promulgated against the elector Frederic and his adherents.
From this the war derived that revolutionary character, which
was henceforward peculiar to it; it was a step that could not
but lead to further results, for the question of the relations
between the emperor and his states, was in a fair way of being
practically considered. New and bolder projects were also
formed in Vienna and Madrid, where it was resolved to renew
the war with the Netherlands. Under the present circumstances,
the suppression of the Protestant religion and the overthrow
of German and Dutch liberty appeared inseparable; while the
success of the imperial arms, supported as they were by the
league and the co-operation of the Spaniards, gave just
grounds for hope. … By the carrying of the war into Lower
Saxony, the principal scat of the Protestant religion in
Germany (the states of which had appointed Christian IV. of
Denmark, as duke of Holstein, head of their confederacy), the
northern states had already, though without any beneficial
result, been involved in the strife, and the Danish war had
broken out. But the elevation of Albert of Wallenstein to the
dignity of duke of Friedland and imperial general over the
army raised by himself, was of considerably more importance,
as it affected the whole course and character of the war. From
this time the war was completely and truly revolutionary. The
peculiar situation of the general, the manner of the formation
as well as the maintenance of his army, could not fail to make
it such. … The distinguished success of the imperial arms in
the north of Germany unveiled the daring schemes of
Wallenstein. He did not come forward as conqueror alone, but,
by the investiture of Mecklenburg as a state of the empire, as
a ruling prince. … But the elevation and conduct of this
novus homo, exasperated and annoyed the Catholic no less than
the Protestant states, especially the league and its chief;
all implored peace, and Wallenstein's discharge. Thus, at the
diet of the electors at Augsburg, the emperor was reduced to
the alternative of resigning him or his allies: He chose the
former. Wallenstein was dismissed, the majority of his army
disbanded, and Tilly nominated commander-in-chief of the
forces of the emperor and the league. … On the side of the
emperor sufficient care was taken to prolong the war. The
refusal to restore the unfortunate Frederic, and even the sale
of his upper Palatine to Bavaria, must with justice have
excited the apprehensions of the other princes. But when the
Jesuits finally succeeded, not only in extorting the edict of
restitution, but also in causing it to be enforced in the most
odious manner, the Catholic states themselves saw with regret
that peace could no longer exist. … The greater the success
that attended the house of Austria, the more actively foreign
policy laboured to counteract it. England had taken an
interest in the fate of Frederic V. from the first, though
this interest was evinced by little beyond fruitless
negotiations. Denmark became engaged in the quarrel mostly
through the influence of this power and Holland. Richelieu,
from the time he became prime minister of France, had exerted
himself in opposing Austria and Spain. He found employment for
Spain in the contests respecting Veltelin, and for Austria
soon after, by the war of Mantua. Willingly would he have
detached the German league from the interest of the emperor;
and though he failed in this, he procured the fall of
Wallenstein. … Much more important, however, was Richelieu's
influence on the war, by the essential share he had in gaining
Gustavus Adolphus' active participation in it. … The
nineteen years of his [Gustavus Adolphus'] reign which had
already elapsed, together with the Polish war, which lasted
nearly that time, had taught the world but little of the real
worth of this great and talented hero. The decisive
superiority of Protestantism in Germany, under his guidance,
soon created a more just knowledge, and at the same time
showed the advantages which must result to a victorious
supporter of that cause. … The battle at Leipzig was
decisive for Gustavus Adolphus and his party, almost beyond
expectation. The league fell asunder; and in a short time he
was master of the countries from the Baltic to Bavaria, and
from the Rhine to Bohemia. … But the misfortunes and death
of Tilly brought Wallenstein again on the stage as absolute
commander-in-chief, bent on plans not a whit less extensive
than those he had before formed. No period of the war gave
promise of such great and rapid successes or reverses as the
present, for both leaders were determined to effect them; but
the victory of Lutzen, while it cost Gustavus his life,
prepared the fall of Wallenstein.
{209}
… Though the fall of Gustavus Adolphus frustrated his own
private views, it did not those of his party. … The school
of Gustavus produced a number of men, great in the cabinet and
in the field; yet it was hard, even for an Oxensteirn, to
preserve the importance of Sweden unimpaired; and it was but
partially done by the alliance of· Heilbronn. … If the
forces of Sweden overrun almost every part of Germany in the
following months, under the guidance of the pupils of the
king, Bernard of Weimar and Gustavus Horn, we must apparently
attribute it to Wallenstein's intentional inactivity in
Bohemia. The distrust of him increased in Vienna the more, as
he took but little trouble to diminish it; and though his fall
was not sufficient to atone for treachery, if proved, it was
for his equivocal character and imprudence. His death probably
saved Germany from a catastrophe. … A great change took
place upon the death of Wallenstein; as a prince of the blood,
Ferdinand, king of Hungary and Bohemia, obtained the command.
Thus an end was put to plans of revolutions from this quarter.
But in the same year the battle of Nordlingen gave to the
imperial arms a sudden preponderance, such as it had never
before acquired. The separate peace of Saxony with the emperor
at Prague, and soon after an alliance, were its consequences;
Sweden driven back to Pomerania, seemed unable of herself,
during the two following years, to maintain her ground in
Germany: the victory of Wittstock turned the scale in her
favour. … The war was prolonged and greatly extended by the
active share taken in it by France: first against Spain, and
soon against Austria. … The German war, after the treaty
with Bernhard of Weimar, was mainly carried on by France, by
the arming of Germans against Germans. But the pupil of
Gustavus Adolphus preferred to fight for himself rather than
others, and his early death was almost as much coveted by
France as by Austria. The success of the Swedish arms revived
under Baner. … At the general diet, which was at last
convened, the emperor yielded to a general amnesty, or at
least what was so designated. But when at the meeting of the
ambassadors of the leading powers at Hamburg, the
preliminaries were signed, and the time and place of the
congress of peace fixed, it was deferred after Richelieu's
death, (who was succeeded by Mazarin), by the war, which both
parties continued, in the hope of securing better conditions
by victory. A new war broke out in the north between Sweden
and Denmark, and when at last the congress of peace was opened
at Munster and Osnabruck, the negotiations dragged on for
three years. … The German peace was negotiated at Munster
between the emperor and France, and at Osnabruck between the
emperor and Sweden; but both treaties, according to express
agreement, Oct. 24, 1648, were to be considered as one, under
the title of the Westphalian."
_A. H. L. Heeren,
A Manual of the History of the Political System
of Europe and its Colonies,
pages 91-99._
"The Peace of Westphalia has met manifold hostile comments,
not only in earlier, but also in later, times. German patriots
complained that by it the unity of the Empire was rent; and
indeed the connection of the States, which even before was
loose, was relaxed to the extreme. This was, however, an evil
which could not be avoided, and it had to be accepted in order
to prevent the French and Swedes from using their opportunity
for the further enslavement of the land. … The religious
parties also made objections to the peace. The strict
Catholics condemned it as a work of inexcusable and arbitrary
injustice. … The dissatisfaction of the Protestants was
chiefly with the recognition of the Ecclesiastical
Reservation. They complained also that their brethren in the
faith were not allowed the free exercise of their religion in
Austria. Their hostility was limited to theoretical
discussions, which soon ceased when Louis XIV. took advantage
of the preponderance which he had won to make outrageous
assaults upon Germany, and even the Protestants were compelled
to acknowledge the Emperor as the real defender of German
independence."
_A. Gindely,
History of the Thirty Years' War,
volume 2, chapter 10, section 4._
See, also,
GERMANY: A. D. 1618-1620, to 1648;
FRANCE: A. D. 1624-1626; and
ITALY: A. D. 1627-1631.
AUSTRIA: A. D. 1621.
Formal establishment of the right of primogeniture in the
Archducal Family.
See GERMANY: A. D. 1636-1637.
AUSTRIA: A. D. 1624-1626.
Hostile combinations of Richelieu.
The Valtelline war in Northern Italy.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1624-1626.
AUSTRIA: A. D. 1627-1631.
War with France over the succession to the Duchy of Mantua.
See ITALY: A. D. 1627-1631.
AUSTRIA: A. D. 1660-1664.
Renewed war with the Turks.
Help from France.
Battle and victory of St. Gothard.
Twenty years truce.
See HUNGARY: A. D. 1660-1664.
AUSTRIA: A. D. 1668-1683.
Increased oppression and religious persecution in Hungary.
Revolt of Tekeli.
The Turks again called in.
Mustapha's great invasion and siege of Vienna.
Deliverance of the city by John Sobieski.
See HUNGARY: A. D. 1668-1683.
AUSTRIA: A. D. 1672-1714.
The wars with Louis XIV. of France: War of the Grand Alliance.
Peace of Ryswick.
"The leading principle of the reign [in France] of Louis XIV.
… is the principle of war with the dynasty of Charles
V.—the elder branch of which reigned in Spain, while the
descendants of the younger branch occupied the imperial throne
of Germany. … At the death of Mazarin, or to speak more
correctly, immediately after the death of Philip IV., … the
early ambition of Louis XIV. sought to prevent the junior
branch of the Austrian dynasty from succeeding to the
inheritance of the elder branch. He had no desire to see
reconstituted under the imperial sceptre of Germany the
monarchy which Charles V. had at one time wished to transmit
entire to his son, but which, worn out and weakened, he
subsequently allowed without regret to be divided between his
son and his brother. Before making war upon Austria, Louis
XIV. cast his eyes upon a portion of the territory belonging
to Spain, and the expedition against Holland, begun in 1672
[see NETHERLANDS (HOLLAND): A. D. 1672-1674, and 1674-1678],
for the purpose of absorbing the Spanish provinces by
overwhelming them, opened the series of his vast enterprises.
His first great war was, historically speaking, his first
great fault. He failed in his object: for at the end of six
campaigns, during which the French armies obtained great and
deserved success, Holland remained unconquered.
{210}
Thus was Europe warned that the lust of conquest of a young
monarch, who did not himself possess military genius, but who
found in his generals the resources and ability in which he
was himself deficient, would soon threaten her independence.
Condé and Turenne, after having been rebellious subjects under
the Regency, were about to become the first and the most
illustrious lieutenants of Louis XIV. Europe, however, though
warned, was not immediately ready to defend herself. It was
from Austria, more directly exposed to the dangers of the
great war now commencing, that the first systematic resistance
ought to have come. But Austria was not prepared to play such
a part; and the Emperor Leopold possessed neither the genius
nor the wish for it. He was, in fact, nothing more than the
nominal head of Germany. … Such was the state of affairs in
Europe when William of Orange first made his appearance on the
stage. … The old question of supremacy, which Louis XIV.
wished to fight out as a duel with the House of Austria, was
now about to change its aspect, and, owing to the presence of
an unexpected genius, to bring into the quarrel other powers
besides the two original competitors. The foe of Louis XIV.
ought by rights to have been born on the banks of the Danube,
and not on the shores of the North Sea. In fact, it was
Austria that at that moment most needed a man of genius,
either on the throne or at the head of affairs. The events of
the century would, in this case, doubtless have followed a
different course: the war would have been less general, and
the maritime nations would not have been involved in it to the
same degree. … The treaties of peace would have been signed
in some small place in France or Germany, and not in two towns
and a village in Holland, such as Nimeguen, Ryswick, and
Utrecht. … William of Orange found himself in a position
soon to form the Triple Alliance which the very policy of
Louis XIV. suggested. For France to attack Holland, when her
object was eventually to reach Austria, and keep her out of
the Spanish succession, was to make enemies at one and the
same time of Spain, of Austria, and of Holland. But if it
afterwards required considerable efforts on the part of
William of Orange to maintain this alliance, it demanded still
more energy to extend it. It formed part of the Stadtholder's
ulterior plans to combine the union between himself and the
two branches of the Austrian family, with the old
Anglo-Swedish Triple Alliance, which had just been dissolved
under the strong pressure brought to bear on it by Louis XIV.
… Louis XIV., whose finances were exhausted, was very soon
anxious to make peace, even on the morrow of his most
brilliant victories; whilst William of Orange, beaten and
retreating, ardently desired the continuance of the war. …
The Peace of Nimeguen was at last signed, and by it were
secured to Louis XIV. Franche-Comté, and some important places
in the Spanish Low Countries on his northern frontier [see
NIMEGUEN, PEACE OF]. This was the culminating point of the
reign of Louis XIV. Although the coalition had prevented him
from attaining the full object of his designs against the
House of Austria, which had been to absorb by conquest so much
of the territory belonging to Spain as would secure him
against the effect of a will preserving the whole inheritance
intact in the family, yet his armies had been constantly
successful, and many of his opponents were evidently tired of
the struggle. … Some years passed thus, with the appearance
of calm. Europe was conquered; and when peace was broken,
because, as was said, the Treaty of Nimeguen was not duly
executed, the events of the war were for some time neither
brilliant or important, for several campaigns began and ended
without any considerable result. … At length Louis XIV.
entered on the second half of his reign, which differed widely
from the first. … During this second period of more than
thirty years, which begins after the Treaty of Nimeguen and
lasts till the Peace of Utrecht, events succeed each other in
complete logical sequence, so that the reign presents itself
as one continuous whole, with a regular movement of ascension
and decline. … The leading principle of the reign remained
the same; it was always the desire to weaken the House of
Austria, or to secure an advantageous partition of the Spanish
succession. But the Emperor of Germany was protected by the
coalition, and the King of Spain, whose death was considered
imminent, would not make up his mind to die. … During the
first League, when the Prince of Orange was contending against
Louis XIV. with the co-operation of the Emperor of Germany, of
the King of Spain, and of the Electors on the Rhine, the
religious element played only a secondary part in the war. But
we shall see this element make its presence more manifest. …
Thus the influence of Protestant England made itself more and
more felt in the affairs of Europe, in proportion as the
government of the Stuarts, from its violence, its
unpopularity, and from the opposition offered to it, was
approaching its end. … The second coalition was neither more
united nor more firm than the first had been: but, after the
expulsion of the Stuarts, the germs of dissolution no longer
threatened the same dangers. … The British nation now made
itself felt in the balance of Europe, and William of Orange
was for the first time in his life successful in war at the
head of his English troops. … This was the most brilliant
epoch of the life of William III. … He was now at the height
of his glory, after a period of twenty years from his start in
life, and his destiny was accomplished; so that until the
Treaty of Ryswick, which in 1698 put an end to his hostilities
with France, and brought about his recognition as King of
England by Louis XIV., not much more was left for him to gain;
and he had the skill to lose nothing. … The negotiations for
the Treaty of Ryswick were conducted with less ability and
boldness, and concluded on less advantageous terms, than the
Truce of Ratisbon or the Peace of Nimeguen. Nevertheless, this
treaty, which secured to Louis the possession of Strasbourg,
might, particularly as age was now creeping on him, have
closed his military career without disgrace, if the eternal
question, for the solution of which he had made so many
sacrifices, and which had always held the foremost place in
his thoughts, had not remained as unsettled and as full of
difficulty as on the day when he had mounted the throne.
{211}
Charles II. of Spain was not dead, and the question of the
Spanish succession, which had so actively employed the armies
of Louis XIV., and taxed his diplomacy, was as undecided as at
the beginning of his reign. Louis XIV. saw two alternatives
before him: a partition of the succession between the Emperor
and himself (a solution proposed thirty years before as a
means to avoid war), or else a will in favour of France,
followed of course by a recommencement of general hostilities.
… Louis XIV. proposed in succession two schemes, not, as
thirty years before, to the Emperor, but to the King of
England, whose power and whose genius rendered him the arbiter
of all the great affairs of Europe. … In the first of the
treaties of partition, Spain and the Low Countries were to be
given to the Prince of Bavaria; in the second, to the Archduke
Charles. In both, France obtained Naples and Sicily for the
Dauphin. … Both these arrangements … suited both France
and England as a pacific solution of the question. … But
events, as we know, deranged all these calculations, and
Charles II., who, by continuing to live, had disappointed so
much impatient expectation, by his last will provoked a
general war, to be carried on against France by the union of
England with the Empire and with Holland—a union which was
much strengthened under the new dynasty, and which afterwards
embraced the northern states of Germany. … William III. died
at the age of fifty-two, on the 9th of March, 1702, at the
beginning of the War of Succession. After him, the part he was
to have played was divided. Prince Eugene, Marlborough, and
Heinsius (the Grand Pensionary) had the conduct of political
and especially of military affairs, and acted in concert. The
disastrous consequences to France of that war, in which
William had no part, are notorious. The battles of Blenheim,
of Ramilies, and of Oudenarde brought the allied armies on the
soil of France, and placed Louis XIV. on the verge of ruin."
_J. Van Praet,
Essays on the Political History of the
15th, 16th, and 17th Centuries,
pages 390-414 and 441-455._
ALSO IN:
_H. Martin,
History of France: Age of Louis XIV:,
volume 2, chapters 2 and 4-6._
_T. H. Dyer,
History of Modern Europe,
book 5, chapters 5-6 (volume 3)._
See, also,
GERMANY: A. D. 1686; and
FRANCE: A. D. 1689-1690 to 1697.
AUSTRIA: A. D. 1683-1687.
Merciless suppression of the Hungarian revolt.
The crown of Hungary made hereditary in the House of Hapsburg.
See HUNGARY: A. D. 1683-1687.
AUSTRIA: A. D. 1683-1699.
Expulsion of the Turks from Hungary.
The Peace of Carlowitz.
See HUNGARY: A. D. 1683-1699.
AUSTRIA: A. D. 1699-1711.
Suppression of the Revolt under Rakoczy in Hungary.
See HUNGARY: A. D. 1699-1718.
AUSTRIA: A. D. 1700.
Interest of the Imperial House in the question of the Spanish
Succession.
See SPAIN: A. D. 1698-1700.
AUSTRIA: A. D. 1701-1713.
The War of the Spanish Succession.
See
GERMANY: A. D. 1702, to 1704;
ITALY: A. D. 1701-1713;
SPAIN: A. D. 1702, to 1707-1710, and
NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1702-1704, to 1710-1712.
AUSTRIA: A. D. 1711.
The War of the Spanish Succession.
Its Circumstances changed.
"The death of the Emperor Joseph I., who expired April 17,
1711, at the age of thirty-two, changed the whole character of
the War of the Spanish Succession. As Joseph left no male
heirs, the hereditary dominions of the House of Austria
devolved to his brother, the Archduke Charles; and though that
prince had not been elected King of the Romans, and had
therefore to become a candidate for the imperial crown, yet
there could be little doubt that he would attain that dignity.
Hence, if Charles should also become sovereign of Spain and
the Indies, the vast empire of Charles V. would be again
united in one person; and that very evil of an almost
universal monarchy would be established, the prevention of
which had been the chief cause for taking up arms against
Philip V. … After an interregnum of half a year, during
which the affairs of the Empire had been conducted by the
Elector Palatine and the Elector of Saxony, as imperial vicars
for South and North Germany, the Archduke Charles was
unanimously named Emperor by the Electoral College (Oct.
12th). … Charles … received the imperial crown at
Frankfort, December 22d, with the title of Charles VI."
_T. H. Dyer,
History of Modern Europe,
book 5, chapter 6 (volume 3)._
AUSTRIA: A. D. 1713-1714.
Ending of the War of the Spanish Succession.
The Peace of Utrecht and the Treaty of Rastadt.
Acquisition of the Spanish Netherlands, Naples and Milan.
See UTRECHT: A. D. 1712-1714.
AUSTRIA: A. D. 1713-1719.
Continued differences with Spain.
The Triple Alliance.
The Quadruple Alliance.
See SPAIN: A. D. 1713-1725.
AUSTRIA: A. D. 1714.
The Desertion of the Catalans.
See SPAIN: A. D. 1713-1714.
AUSTRIA: A. D. 1714-1718.
Recovery of Belgrade and final expulsion of the Turks from
Hungary.
See HUNGARY: A. D. 1699-1718.
AUSTRIA: A. D. 1718-1738.
The question of the Succession.
The Pragmatic Sanction of Charles VI., and its guarantee by
the Powers.
"On the death [A. D. 1711] of Joseph, the hopes of the house
of Austria and the future destiny of Germany rested on Charles
[then, as titular king of Spain, Charles III., ineffectually
contesting the Spanish throne with the Bourbon heir, Philip V.
afterwards, as Emperor, Charles VI.] who was the only
surviving male of his illustrious family. By that event the
houses of Austria, Germany and Europe were placed in a new and
critical situation. From a principle of mistaken policy the
succession to the hereditary dominions had never been
established according to an invariable rule; for it was not
clearly ascertained whether males of the collateral branches
should be preferred to females in lineal descent, an
uncertainty which had frequently occasioned many vehement
disputes. To obviate this evil, as well as to prevent future
disputes, Leopold [father of Joseph and Charles] had arranged
the order of succession: to Joseph he assigned Hungary and
Bohemia, and the other hereditary dominions; and to Charles
the crown of Spain, and all the territories which belonged to
the Spanish inheritance. Should Joseph die without issue male,
the whole succession was to descend to Charles, and in case of
his death, under similar circumstances, the Austrian dominions
were to devolve on the daughters of Joseph in preference to
those of Charles. This family compact was signed by the two
brothers in the presence of Leopold. Joseph died without male
issue; but left two daughters." He was succeeded by Charles in
accordance with the compact.
{212}
"On the 2nd of August, 1718, soon after the signature of the
Quadruple Alliance, Charles promulgated a new law of
succession for the inheritance of the house of Austria, under
the name of the Pragmatic Sanction. According to the family
compact formed by Leopold, and confirmed by Joseph and
Charles, the succession was entailed on the daughters of
Joseph in preference to the daughters of Charles, should they
both die without issue male. Charles, however, had scarcely
ascended the throne, though at that time without children,
than he reversed this compact, and settled the right of
succession, in default of his male issue, first on his
daughters, then on the daughters of Joseph, and afterwards on
the queen of Portugal and the other daughters of Leopold.
Since the promulgation of that decree, the Empress had borne a
son who died in his infancy, and three daughters, Maria
Theresa, Maria Anne and Maria Amelia. With a view to insure
the succession of these daughters, and to obviate the dangers
which might arise from the claims of the Josephine
archduchesses, he published the Pragmatic Sanction, and
compelled his nieces to renounce their pretensions on their
marriages with the electors of Saxony and Bavaria. Aware,
however, that the strongest renunciations are disregarded, he
obtained from the different states of his extensive dominions
the acknowledgement of the Pragmatic Sanction, and made it the
great object of his reign, to which he sacrificed every other
consideration, to procure the guaranty of the European
powers." This guaranty was obtained in treaties with the
several powers, as follows: Spain in 1725; Russia, 1726,
renewed in 1733; Prussia, 1728; England and Holland, 1731;
France, 1738; the Empire, 1732. The inheritance which Charles
thus endeavored to secure to his daughter was vast and
imposing. "He was by election Emperor of Germany, by
hereditary right sovereign of Hungary, Transylvania, Bohemia,
Austria, Styria, Carinthia and Carniola, the Tyrol, and the
Brisgau, and he had recently obtained Naples and Sicily, the
Milanese and the Netherlands."
_W. Coxe,
History of the House of Austria,
chapter 80, 84-85 (volume 3)._
"The Pragmatic Sanction, though framed to legalize the
accession of Maria Theresa, excludes the present Emperor's
daughters and his grandchild by postponing the succession of
females to that of males in the family of Charles VI."
_J. D. Bourchier,
The Heritage of the Hapsburgs
(Fortnightly Review, March, 1889)._
ALSO IN:
_H. Tuttle,
History of Prussia, 1740-1745,
chapter 2._
_S. A. Dunham,
History of the Germanic Empire,
book 3, chapter 3 (volume 3)._
AUSTRIA: A. D. 1719.
Sardinia ceded to the Duke of Savoy in exchange for Sicily.
See
SPAIN: A. D. 1713-1725; and
ITALY: A. D. 1715-1735.
AUSTRIA: A. D. 1731.
The second Treaty of Vienna with England and Holland.
See SPAIN: A. D. 1726-1731.
AUSTRIA: A. D. 1732-1733.
Interference in the election of the King of Poland.
See POLAND: A. D. 1732-1733.
AUSTRIA: A. D. 1733-1735.
The war of the Polish Succession.
Cession of Naples and Sicily to Spain, and Lorraine and Bar to
France.
See
FRANCE: A. D. 1733-1735, and
ITALY: A. D. 1715-1735.
AUSTRIA: A. D. 1737-1739.
Unfortunate war with the Turks, in alliance with Russia.
Humiliating peace of Belgrade.
Surrender of Belgrade, with Servia, and part of Bosnia.
See RUSSIA: A. D. 1725-1739.
AUSTRIA: A. D. 1740 (October).
Treachery among the Guarantors of the Pragmatic Sanction.
The inheritance of Marie Theresa disputed.
"The Emperor Charles VI. … died on the 20th of October,
1740. His daughter Maria Theresa, the heiress of his dominions
with the title of Queen of Hungary, was but twenty-three years
of age, without experience or knowledge of business; and her
husband Francis, the titular Duke of Lorraine and reigning
Grand Duke of Tuscany, deserved the praise of amiable
qualities rather than of commanding talents. Her Ministers
were timorous, irresolute, and useless: 'I saw them in
despair,' writes Mr. Robinson, the British envoy, 'but that
very despair was not capable of rendering them bravely
desperate.' The treasury was exhausted, the army dispersed,
and no General risen to replace Eugene. The succession of
Maria Theresa was, indeed, cheerfully acknowledged by her
subjects, and seemed to be secured amongst foreign powers by
their guarantee of the Pragmatic Sanction; but it soon
appeared that such guarantees are mere worthless parchments
where there is strong temptation to break and only a feeble
army to support them. The principal claimant to the succession
was the Elector of Bavaria, who maintained that the will of
the Emperor Ferdinand the First devised the Austrian states to
his daughter, from whom the Elector descended, on failure of
male lineage. It appeared that the original will in the
archives at Vienna referred to the failure not of the male but
of the legitimate issue of his sons; but this document, though
ostentatiously displayed to all the Ministers of state and
foreign ambassadors, was very far from inducing the Elector to
desist from his pretensions. As to the Great Powers—the Court
of France, the old ally of the Bavarian family, and mindful of
its injuries from the House of Austria, was eager to exalt the
first by the depression of the latter. The Bourbons in Spain
followed the direction of the Bourbons in France. The King of
Poland and the Empress of Russia were more friendly in their
expressions than in their designs. An opposite spirit pervaded
England and Holland, where motives of honour and of policy
combined to support the rights of Maria Theresa. In Germany
itself the Elector of Cologne, the Bavarian's brother, warmly
espoused his cause: and 'the remaining Electors,' says
Chesterfield, 'like electors with us, thought it a proper
opportunity of making the most of their votes,—and all at
the expense of the helpless and abandoned House of Austria!'
The first blow, however, came from Prussia, where the King
Frederick William had died a few months before, and been
succeeded by his son Frederick the Second; a Prince surnamed
the Great by poets."
_Lord Mahon (Earl Stanhope),
History of England, 1713-1783,
chapter 23 (volume 3)._
"The elector of Bavaria acted in a prompt, honest, and
consistent manner. He at once lodged a protest against any
disposition of the hereditary estates to the prejudice of his
own rights; insisted on the will of Ferdinand I.; and demanded
the production of the original text. It was promptly produced.
But it was found to convey the succession to the heirs of his
daughter, the ancestress of the elector, not, as he contended,
on the failure of male heirs, but in the absence of more
direct heirs born in wedlock. Maria Theresa could, however,
trace her descent through nearer male heirs, and had,
therefore, a superior title. Charles Albert was in any event
only one of several claimants. The King of Spain, a Bourbon,
presented himself as the heir of the Hapsburg emperor Charles
V. The King of Sardinia alleged an ancient marriage contract,
from which he derived a right to the duchy of Milan. Even
August of Saxony claimed territory by virtue of an antiquated
title, which, it was pretended, the renunciation of his wife
could not affect. All these were, however, mere vultures
compared to the eagle [Frederick of Prussia] which was soon to
descend upon its prey."
_H. Tuttle,
History of Prussia, 1740-1745,
chapter 2._
{213}
AUSTRIA: A. D. 1740 (October-November).
The War of the Succession.
Conduct of Frederick the Great as explained by himself.
"This Pragmatic Sanction had been guarantied by France,
England, Holland, Sardinia, Saxony, and the Roman empire; nay
by the late King Frederic William [of Prussia] also, on
condition that the court of Vienna would secure to him the
succession of Juliers and Berg. The emperor promised him the
eventual succession, and did not fulfil his engagements; by
which the King of Prussia, his successor, was freed from this
guarantee, to which his father, the late king, had pledged
himself, conditionally. … Frederic I., when he erected
Prussia into a kingdom, had, by that vain grandeur, planted
the scion of ambition in the bosom of his posterity; which,
soon or late, must fructify. The monarchy he had left to his
descendants was, if I may be permitted the expression, a kind
of hermaphrodite, which was rather more an electorate than a
kingdom. Fame was to be acquired by determining the nature of
this being: and this sensation certainly was one of those
which strengthened so many motives, conspiring to engage the
king in grand enterprises. If the acquisition of the dutchy of
Berg had not even met with almost insurmountable impediments,
it was in itself so small that the possession would add little
grandeur to the house of Brandenbourg. These reflections
occasioned the king to turn his views toward the house of
Austria, the succession of which would become matter of
litigation, at the death of the emperor, when the throne of
the Cæsars should be vacant. That event must be favourable to
the distinguished part which the king had to act in Germany,
by the various claims of the houses of Saxony and Bavaria to
these states; by the number of candidates which might canvass
for the Imperial crown; and by the projects of the court of
Versailles, which, on such an occasion, must naturally profit
by the troubles that the death of Charles VI. could not fail
to excite. This accident did not long keep the world in
expectation. The emperor ended his days at the palace La
Favorite, on the 26th [20th] day of October, 1740. The news
arrived at Rheinsberg when the king was ill of a fever. … He
immediately resolved to reclaim the principalities of Silesia;
the rights of his house to which [long dormant, the claim
dating back to a certain covenant of heritage-brotherhood with
the duke of Liegnitz, in 1537, which the emperor of that day
caused to be annulled by the States of Bohemia] were
incontestable: and he prepared, at the same time, to support
these pretensions, if necessary, by arms. This project
accomplished all his political views; it afforded the means of
acquiring reputation, of augmenting the power of the state,
and of terminating what related to the litigious succession of
the dutchy of Berg. …The state of the court of Vienna, after
the death of the emperor, was deplorable. The finances were in
disorder; the army was ruined and discouraged by ill success
in its wars with the Turks; the ministry disunited, and a
youthful unexperienced princess at the head of the government,
who was to defend the succession from all claimants. The
result was that the government could not appear formidable. It
was besides impossible that the king should be destitute of
allies. … The war which he might undertake in Silesia was
the only offensive war that could be favoured by the situation
of his states, for it would be carried on upon his frontiers,
and the Oder would always furnish him with a sure
communication. … Add to these reasons, an army fit to march,
a treasury ready prepared, and, perhaps, the ambition of
acquiring renown. Such were the causes of the war which the
king declared against Maria Theresa of Austria, queen of
Hungary and Bohemia."
_Frederick II. (Frederick the Great),
History of My Own Times:
Posthumous Works (translated by Holcroft),
volume 1, chapters 1-2._
AUSTRIA: A. D. 1740-1741.
The War of the Succession: Faithlessness of the King of Prussia.
The Macaulay verdict.
"From no quarter did the young queen of Hungary receive
stronger assurances of friendship and support than from the
King of Prussia. Yet the King of Prussia, the
'Anti-Machiavel,' had already fully determined to commit the
great crime of violating his plighted faith, of robbing the
ally whom he was bound to defend, and of plunging all Europe
into a long, bloody, and desolating war, and all this for no
end whatever except that he might extend his dominions and see
his name in the gazettes. He determined to assemble a great
army with speed and secrecy, to invade Silesia before Maria
Theresa should be apprized of his design, and to add that rich
province to his kingdom. … Without any declaration of war,
without any demand for reparation, in the very act of pouring
forth compliments and assurances of good will, Frederic
commenced hostilities. Many thousands of his troops were
actually in Silesia before the Queen of Hungary knew that he
had set up any claim to any part of her territories. At length
he sent her a message which could be regarded only as an
insult. If she would but let him have Silesia, he would, he
said, stand by her against any power which should try to
deprive her of her other dominions: as if he was not already
bound to stand by her, or as if his new promise could be of
more value than the old one. It was the depth of winter. The
cold was severe, and the roads deep in mire. But the Prussians
pressed on. Resistance was impossible. The Austrian army was
then neither numerous nor efficient. The small portion of that
army which lay in Silesia was unprepared for hostilities.
Glogau was blockaded; Breslau opened its gates; Ohlau was
evacuated. A few scattered garrisons still held out; but the
whole open country was subjugated: no enemy ventured to
encounter the king in the field; and, before the end of
January, 1741, he returned to receive the congratulations of
his subjects at Berlin.
{214}
Had the Silesian question been merely a question between
Frederic and Maria Theresa it would be impossible to acquit
the Prussian king of gross perfidy. But when we consider the
effects which his policy produced, and could not fail to
produce, on the whole community of civilized nations, we are
compelled to pronounce a condemnation still more severe. …
The selfish rapacity of the king of Prussia gave the signal to
his neighbours. … The evils produced by this wickedness were
felt in lands where the name of Prussia was unknown; and, in
order that he might rob a neighbour whom he had promised to
defend, black men fought on the coast of Coromandel, and red
men scalped each other by the great lakes of North America.
Silesia had been occupied without a battle; but the Austrian
troops were advancing to the relief of the fortresses which
still held out. In the spring Frederic rejoined his army. He
had seen little of war, and had never commanded any great body
of men in the field. … Frederic's first battle was fought at
Molwitz [April 10, 1741], and never did the career of a great
commander open in a more inauspicious manner. His army was
victorious. Not only, however, did he not establish his title
to the character of an able general, but he was so unfortunate
as to make it doubtful whether he possessed the vulgar courage
of a soldier. The cavalry, which he commanded in person, was
put to flight. Unaccustomed to the tumult and carnage of a
field of battle, he lost his self-possession, and listened too
readily to those who urged him to save himself. His English
gray carried him many miles from the field, while Schwerin,
though wounded in two places, manfully upheld the day. The
skill of the old Field-Marshal and the steadiness of the
Prussian battalions prevailed, and the Austrian army was
driven from the field with the loss of 8,000 men. The news was
carried late at night to a mill in which the king had taken
shelter. It gave him a bitter pang. He was successful; but he
owed his success to dispositions which others had made, and to
the valour of men who had fought while he was flying. So
unpromising was the first appearance of the greatest warrior
of that age."
_Lord Macaulay,
Frederic the Great
(Essays, volume 4)._
AUSTRIA: A. D. 1741 (April-May).
The War of the Succession: French responsibility.
The Carlyle verdict.
"The battle of Mollwitz went off like a signal shot among the
Nations; intimating that they were, one and all, to go
battling. Which they did, with a witness; making a terrible
thing of it, over all the world, for above seven years to
come. … Not that Mollwitz kindled Europe; Europe was already
kindled for some two years past;—especially since the late
Kaiser died, and his Pragmatic Sanction was superadded to the
other troubles afoot. But ever since that image of Jenkins's
Ear had at last blazed up in the slow English brain, like a
fiery constellation or Sign in the Heavens, symbolic of such
injustices and unendurabilities, and had lighted the
Spanish-English War [see ENGLAND: A. D. 1739-1741], Europe was
slowly but pretty surely taking fire. France 'could not see
Spain humbled,' she said: England (in its own dim feeling, and
also in the fact of things), could not do at all without
considerably humbling Spain. France, endlessly interested in
that Spanish-English matter, was already sending out fleets,
firing shots,—almost, or altogether, putting her hand in it.
'In which case, will not, must not, Austria help us?' thought
England,—and was asking, daily, at Vienna … when the late
Kaiser died. … But if not as cause, then as signal, or as
signal and cause together (which it properly was), the Battle
of Mollwitz gave the finishing stroke and set all in motion.
… For directly on the back of Mollwitz, there ensued, first,
an explosion of Diplomatic activity, such as was never seen
before; Excellencies from the four winds taking wing towards
Friedrich; and talking and insinuating, and fencing and
fugling, after their sort, in that Silesian camp of his, the
centre being there. A universal rookery of Diplomatists, whose
loud cackle is now as if gone mad to us; their work wholly
fallen putrescent and avoidable, dead to all creatures. And
secondly, in the train of that, there ensued a universal
European War, the French and the English being chief parties
in it; which abounds in battles and feats of arms, spirited
but delirious, and cannot be got stilled for seven or eight
years to come; and in which Friedrich and his War swim only as
an intermittent Episode henceforth. … The first point to be
noted is, Where did it originate? To which the answer mainly
is … with Monseigneur, the Maréchal de Belleisle
principally; with the ambitious cupidities and baseless
vanities of the French Court and Nation, as represented by
Belleisle. … The English-Spanish War had a basis to stand on
in this Universe. The like had the Prussian-Austrian one; so
all men now admit. If Friedrich had not business there, what
man ever had in an enterprise he ventured on? Friedrich, after
such trial and proof as has seldom been, got his claims on
Schlesien allowed by the Destinies. … Friedrich had business
in this War; and Maria Theresa versus Friedrich had likewise
cause to appear in Court, and do her utmost pleading against
him. But if we ask, What Belleisle or France and Louis XV. had
to do there? the answer is rigorously Nothing. Their own windy
vanities, ambitions, sanctioned not by fact and the Almighty
Powers, but by Phantasm and the babble of Versailles;
transcendent self-conceit, intrinsically insane; pretensions
over their fellow-creatures which were without basis anywhere
in Nature, except in the French brain; it was this that
brought Belleisle and France into a German War. And Belleisle
and France having gone into an Anti-Pragmatic War, the unlucky
George and his England were dragged into a Pragmatic
one,—quitting their own business, on the Spanish Main, and
hurrying to Germany,—in terror as at Doomsday, and zeal to
save the Keystone of Nature there. That is the notable point
in regard to this War: That France is to be called the author
of it, who, alone of all the parties, had no business there
whatever."
_T. Carlyle,
History of Friedrich II.,
book 12, chapter 11 (volume 4)._
See, also, FRANCE: A. D. 1733.
{215}
AUSTRIA: A. D. 1741 (May-June).
Mission of Belleisle.
The thickening of the Plot.
"The defeat of Maria Theresa's only army [at Mollwitz] swept
away all the doubts and scruples of France. The fiery
Belleisle had already set out upon his mission to the various
German courts, armed with powers which were reluctantly
granted by the cardinal [Fleury, the French minister], and
were promptly enlarged by the ambassador to suit his own more
ambitious views of the situation. He travelled in oriental
state. … The almost royal pomp with which he strode into the
presence of princes of the blood, the copious eloquence with
which he pleaded his cause, … were only the outward
decorations of one of the most iniquitous schemes ever devised
by an unscrupulous diplomacy. The scheme, when stripped of all
its details, did not indeed at first appear absolutely
revolting. It proposed simply to secure the election of
Charles Albert of Bavaria as emperor, an honor to which he had
a perfect right to aspire. But it was difficult to obtain the
votes of certain electors without offering them the prospect
of territorial gains, and impossible for Charles Albert to
support the imperial dignity without greater revenues than
those of Bavaria. It was proposed, therefore, that provinces
should be taken from Maria Theresa herself, first to purchase
votes against her own husband, and then to swell the income of
the successful rival candidate. The three episcopal electors
were first visited, and subjected to various forms of
persuasion, bribes, flattery, threats,—until the effects of
the treatment began to appear; the count palatine was devoted
to France; and these four with Bavaria made a majority of one.
But that was too small a margin for Belleisle's aspirations,
or even for the safety of his project. The four remaining
votes belonged to the most powerful of the German states,
Prussia, Hanover, Saxony and Bohemia. … Bohemia, if it voted
at all, would of course vote for the grand-duke Francis
[husband of Maria Theresa]. Saxony and Hanover were already
negotiating with Maria Theresa; and it was well understood
that Austria could have Frederick's support by paying his
price." Austria refused to pay the price, and Frederick signed
a treaty with the king of France at Breslau on the 4th of
June, 1741. "The essence of it was contained in four secret
articles. In these the king of Prussia renounced his claim to
Jülich-Berg in behalf of the house of Sulzbach, and agreed to
give his vote to the elector of Bavaria for emperor. The king
of France engaged to guarantee Prussia in the possession of
Lower Silesia, to send within two months an army to the
support of Bavaria, and to provoke an immediate rupture
between Sweden and Russia."
_H. Tuttle,
History of Prussia, 1740-1745,
chapter 4._
ALSO IN:
_W. Coxe,
History of the House of Austria,
chapter 99 (volume 3)._
AUSTRIA: A. D. 1741 (June-September).
Maria Theresa and the Hungarians.
"During these anxious summer months Maria Theresa and the
Austrian court had resided mainly at Presburg, in Hungary.
Here she had been occupied in the solution of domestic as well
as international problems. The Magyars, as a manly and
chivalrous race, had been touched by the perilous situation of
the young queen; but, while ardently protesting their loyalty,
insisted not the less on the recognition of their own
inalienable rights. These had been inadequately observed in
recent years, and in consequence no little disaffection
prevailed in Hungary. The magnates resolved, therefore, as
they had resolved at the beginning of previous reigns, to
demand the restoration of all their rights and privileges. But
it does not appear that they wished to take any ungenerous
advantage of the sex or the necessities of Maria Theresa. They
were argumentative and stubborn, yet not in a bargaining,
mercenary spirit. They accepted in June a qualified compliance
with their demands; and when on the 25th of that month the
queen appeared before the diet to receive the crown of St.
Stephen, and, according to custom, waved the great sword of
the kingdom toward the four points of the compass, toward the
north and the south, the east and the west, challenging all
enemies to dispute her right, the assembly was carried away by
enthusiasm, and it seemed as if an end had forever been put to
constitutional technicalities. Such was, however, not the
case. After the excitement caused by the dramatic coronation
had in a measure subsided, the old contentions revived, as
bitter and vexatious as before. These concerned especially the
manner in which the administration of Hungary should be
adjusted to meet the new state of things. Should the chief
political offices be filled by native Hungarians, as the diet
demanded? Could the co-regency of the grand-duke, which was
ardently desired by the queen, be accepted by the Magyars? For
two months the dispute over these problems raged at Presburg,
until finally Maria Theresa herself found a bold, ingenious,
and patriotic solution. The news of the Franco-Bavarian
alliance and the fall of Passau determined her to throw
herself completely upon the gallantry and devotion of the
Magyars. It had long been the policy of the court of Vienna
not to entrust the Hungarians with arms. … But Maria Theresa
had not been robbed, in spite of her experience with France
and Prussia, of all her faith in human nature. She took the
responsibility of her decision, and the result proved that her
insight was correct. On the 11th of September she summoned the
members of the diet before her, and, seated on the throne,
explained to them the perilous situation of her dominions. The
danger, she said, threatened herself, and all that was dear to
her. Abandoned by all her allies, she took refuge in the
fidelity and the ancient valor of the Hungarians, to whom she
entrusted herself, her children, and her empire. Here she
broke into tears, and covered, her face with her handkerchief.
The diet responded to this appeal by proclaiming the
'insurrection' or the equipment of a large popular force for
the defence of the queen. So great was the enthusiasm that it
nearly swept away even the original aversion of the Hungarians
to the grand-duke Francis, who, to the queen's delight, was
finally, though not without some murmurs, accepted as
co-regent. … This uprising was organized not an hour too
early, for dangers were pressing upon the queen from every
side."
_H. Tuttle,
History of Prussia, 1740-1745,
chapter 4._
ALSO IN:
_Duc de Broglie,
Frederick the Great and Maria Theresa,
chapter 4 (volume 2)._
{216}
AUSTRIA: A. D. 1741 (August-November).
The French-Bavarian onset.
"France now began to act with energy. In the month of August
[1741] two French armies crossed the Rhine, each about 40, 000
strong. The first marched into Westphalia, and frightened
George II. into concluding a treaty of neutrality for Hanover,
and promising his vote to the Elector of Bavaria. The second
advanced through South Germany on Passau, the frontier city of
Bavaria and Austria. As soon as it arrived on German soil, the
French officers assumed the blue and white cockade of
Bavaria, for it was the cue of France to appear only as an
auxiliary, and the nominal command of her army was vested in
the Elector. From Passau the French and Bavarians passed into
Upper Austria, and on Sept. 11 entered its capital, Linz,
where the Elector assumed the title of Archduke. Five days
later Saxony joined the allies. Sweden had already declared
war on Russia. Spain trumped up an old claim and attacked the
Austrian dominions in Italy. It seemed as if Belleisle's
schemes were about to be crowned with complete success. Had
the allies pushed forward, Vienna must have fallen into their
hands. But the French did not wish to be too victorious, lest
they should make the Elector too powerful, and so independent
of them. Therefore, after six weeks' delay, they turned aside
to the conquest of Bohemia."
_F. W. Longman,
Frederick the Great and the Seven Years War,
chapter 4, section 4._
"While … a portion of the French troops, under the command
of the Count de Segur, was left in Upper Austria, the
remainder of the allied army turned towards Bohemia; where
they were joined by a body of Saxons, under the command of
Count Rutowsky. They took Prague by assault, on the night of
the 25th of November, while the Grand Duke of Tuscany, the
husband of Maria Theresa, was marching to his relief. In
Prague, 3,000 prisoners were taken. The elector of Bavaria
hastened there, upon hearing of the success of his arms, was
crowned King of Bohemia, during the month of December, and
received the oath of fidelity from the constituted
authorities. But while he was thus employed, the Austrian
general, Khevenhuller, had driven the Count de Segur out of
Austria, and had himself entered Bavaria; which obliged the
Bavarian army to abandon Bohemia and hasten to the defence of
their own country."
_Lord Dover,
Life of Frederick II.,
book 2, chapter 2 (volume 1)._
ALSO IN:
_Frederick II.,
History of My Own Times
(Posthumous Works, volume 1, chapter 5)._
AUSTRIA: A. D. 1741 (October).
Secret Treaty with Frederick.
Lower Silesia conceded to him.
Austrian success.
"By October, 1741, the fortunes of Maria Theresa had sunk to
the lowest ebb, but a great revulsion speedily set in. The
martial enthusiasm of the Hungarians, the subsidy from
England, and the brilliant military talents of General
Khevenhuller, restored her armies. Vienna was put in a state
of defence, and at the same time jealousies and suspicion made
their way among the confederates. The Electors of Bavaria and
Saxony were already in some degree divided; and the Germans,
and especially Frederick, were alarmed by the growing
ascendency, and irritated by the haughty demeanour of the
French. In the moment of her extreme depression, the Queen
consented to a concession which England had vainly urged upon
her before, and which laid the foundation of her future
success. In October 1741 she entered into a secret convention
with Frederick [called the convention of Ober-Schnellendorf],
by which that astute sovereign agreed to desert his allies,
and desist from hostilities, on condition of ultimately
obtaining Lower Silesia, with Breslau and Neisse. Every
precaution was taken to ensure secrecy. It was arranged that
Frederick should continue to besiege Neisse, that the town
should ultimately be surrendered to him, and that his troops
should then retire into winter quarters, and take no further
part in the war. As the sacrifice of a few more lives was
perfectly indifferent to the contracting parties, and in order
that no one should suspect the treachery that was
contemplated, Neisse, after the arrangement had been made for
its surrender, was subjected for four days and four nights to
the horrors of bombardment. Frederick, at the same time
talked, with his usual cynical frankness, to the English
ambassador about the best way of attacking his allies the
French; and observed, that if the Queen of Hungary prospered,
he would perhaps support her, if not—everyone must look for
himself. He only assented verbally to this convention, and, no
doubt, resolved to await the course of events, in order to
decide which Power it was his interest finally to betray; but
in the meantime the Austrians obtained a respite, which
enabled them to throw their whole forces upon their other
enemies. Two brilliant campaigns followed. The greater part of
Bohemia was recovered by an army under the Duke of Lorraine,
and the French were hemmed in at Prague; while another army,
under General Khevenhuller, invaded Upper Austria, drove
10,000 French soldiers within the walls of Linz, blockaded
them, defeated a body of Bohemians who were sent to the
rescue, compelled the whole French army to surrender, and
then, crossing the frontier, poured in a resistless torrent
over Bavaria. The fairest plains of that beautiful land were
desolated by hosts of irregular troops from Hungary, Croatia,
and the Tyrol; and on the 12th of February the Austrians
marched in triumph into Munich. On that very day the Elector
of Bavaria was crowned Emperor of Germany, at Frankfort, under
the title of Charles VII., and the imperial crown was thus, for
the first time, for many generations, separated from the House
of Austria."
_W. E. H. Lecky,
History of England, 18th Century,
chapter 3 (volume 1)._
ALSO IN:
_F. Von Raumer,
Contributions to Modern History:
Frederick II. and his Times,
chapter 13-14._
AUSTRIA: A. D. 1741-1743.
Successes in Italy.
See ITALY: A. D. 1741-1743.
AUSTRIA: A. D. 1742 (January-May).
Frederick breaks faith again.
Battle of Chotusitz.
"The Queen of Hungary had assembled in the beginning of the
year two considerable armies in Moravia and Bohemia, the one
under Prince Lobkowitz, to defend the former province, and the
other commanded by Prince Charles of Lorraine, her
brother-in-law. This young Prince possessed as much bravery
and activity as Frederick, and had equally with him the talent
of inspiring attachment and confidence. … Frederick, alarmed
at these preparations and the progress of the Austrians in
Bavaria, abruptly broke off the convention of
Ober-Schnellendorf, and recommenced hostilities. … The King
of Prussia became apprehensive that the Queen of Hungary would
again turn her arms to recover Silesia. He therefore
dispatched Marshal Schwerin to seize Olmutz and lay siege to
Glatz, which surrendered after a desperate resistance on the
9th of January. Soon after this event, the King rejoined his
army, and endeavoured to drive the Austrians from their
advantageous position in the southern parts of Bohemia, which
would have delivered the French troops in the neighbourhood
and checked the progress of Khevenhüller in Bavaria.
{217}
The king advanced to Iglau, on the frontiers of Bohemia, and,
occupying the banks of the Taya, made irruptions into Upper
Austria, his hussars spreading terror even to the gates of
Vienna. The Austrians drew from Bavaria a corps of 10,000 men
to cover the capital, while Prince Charles of Lorraine, at the
head of 50,000 men, threatened the Prussian magazines in Upper
Silesia, and by this movement compelled Frederick to detach a
considerable force for their protection, and to evacuate
Moravia, which he had invaded. Broglie, who commanded the
French forces in that country, must now have fallen a
sacrifice, had not the ever-active King of Prussia brought up
30,000 men, which, under the Prince of Anhalt-Dessau, entering
Bohemia, came up with Prince Charles at Czaslau, about
thirty-five miles from Prague, before he could form a junction
with Prince Lobkowitz. Upon this ensued [May 17, 1742] what is
known in history as the battle of Czaslau [also, and more
commonly, called the battle of Chotusitz]. … The numbers in
the two armies were nearly equal, and the action was warmly
contested on both sides. … The Prussians remained masters of
the field, with 18 cannon, two pairs of colours and 1,200
prisoners; but they indeed paid dearly for the honour, for it
was computed that their loss was equal to that of their enemy,
which amounted to 7,000 men on either side; while the Prussian
cavalry, under Field-Marshal Buddenbroch, was nearly ruined.
… Although in this battle the victory was, without doubt, on
the side of the Prussians, yet the immediate consequences were
highly favourable to the Queen of Hungary. The King was
disappointed of his expected advantages, and conceived a
disgust to the war. He now lowered his demands and made
overtures of accommodation, which, on the 11th of June,
resulted in a treaty of peace between the two crowns, which
was signed at Breslau under the mediation of the British
Ambassador."
_Sir E. Cust,
Annals of the Wars of the 18th Century,
volume 2, page 19._
ALSO IN:
_T. Carlyle,
History of Friedrich II. of Prussia,
book 13, chapter 13 (volume 5)._
AUSTRIA: A. D. 1742 (June).
Treaty of Breslau with the King of Prussia.
"The following are the preliminary articles which were signed
at Breslau: 1. The queen of Hungary ceded to the king of
Prussia Upper and Lower Silesia, with the principality of
Glatz; except the towns of Troppau, Jaegendorff and the high
mountains situated beyond the Oppa. 2. The Prussians undertook
to repay the English 1,700,000 crowns; which sum was a
mortgage loan on Silesia. The remaining articles related to a
suspension of arms, an exchange of prisoners, and the freedom
of religion and trade. Thus was Silesia united to the Prussian
States. Two years were sufficient for the conquest of that
important province. The treasures which the late king had left
were almost expended; but provinces that do not cost more than
seven or eight millions are cheaply purchased."
_Frederic II.,
History of My Own Times
(Posthumous Works, volume 1),
chapter 6._
AUSTRIA: A. D. 1742 (June-December).
Expulsion of the French from Bohemia.
Belleisle's retreat from Prague.
"The Austrian arms began now to be successful in all quarters.
Just before the signature of the preliminaries, Prince
Lobcowitz, who was stationed at Budweiss with 10,000 men, made
an attack on Frauenberg; Broglio and Belleisle advanced from
Piseck to relieve the town, and a combat took place at Sahay,
in which the Austrians were repulsed with the loss of 500 men.
This trifling affair was magnified into a decisive victory.
… Marshal Broglio, elated with this advantage, and relying
on the immediate junction of the King of Prussia, remained at
Frauenberg in perfect security. But his expectations were
disappointed; Frederic had already commenced his secret
negotiations, and Prince Charles was enabled to turn his
forces against the French. Being joined by Prince Lobcowitz,
they attacked Broglio, and compelled him to quit Frauenberg
with such precipitation that his baggage fell into the hands
of the light troops, and the French retreated towards Branau,
harassed by the Croats and other irregulars. … The
Austrians, pursuing their success against the French, drove
Broglio from Branau, and followed him to the walls of Prague,
where he found Belleisle. … After several consultations, the
two generals called in their posts, and secured their army
partly within the walls and partly within a peninsula of the
Moldau. … Soon afterwards the duke of Lorraine joined the
army [of Prince Charles], which now amounted to 70 70,000 men,
and the arrival of the heavy artillery enabled the Austrians to
commence the siege."
_W. Coxe,
History of the House of Austria,
chapter 102 (volume 3)._
"To relieve the French at Prague, Marshal Maillebois was
directed to advance with his army from Westphalia. At these
tidings Prince Charles changed the siege of Prague to a
blockade, and marching against his new opponents, checked
their progress on the Bohemian frontier; the French, however,
still occupying the town of Egra. It was under these
circumstances that Belleisle made his masterly and renowned
retreat from Prague. In the night of the 16th of December, he
secretly left the city at the head of 11,000 foot and 3,000
horse, having deceived the Austrians' vigilance by the feint
of a general forage in the opposite quarter; and pushed for
Egra through a hostile country, destitute of resources and
surrounded by superior enemies. His soldiers, with no other
food than frozen bread, and compelled to sleep without
covering on the snow and ice, perished in great numbers; but
the gallant spirit of Belleisle triumphed over every obstacle;
he struck through morasses almost untrodden before, offered
battle to Prince Lobkowitz, who, however, declined engaging,
and at length succeeded in reaching the other French army with
the flower of his own. The remnant left at Prague, and
amounting only to 6,000 men, seemed an easy prey; yet their
threat of firing the city, and perishing beneath its ruins,
and the recent proof of what despair can do, obtained for them
honourable terms, and the permission of rejoining their
comrades at Egra. But in spite of all this skill and courage
in the French invaders, the final result to them was failure;
nor had they attained a single permanent advantage beyond
their own safety in retreat. Maillebois and De Broglie took up
winter quarters in Bavaria, while Belleisle led back his
division across the Rhine; and it was computed that, of the
35,000 men whom he had first conducted into Germany, not more
than 8,000 returned beneath his banner."
_Lord Mahon (Earl Stanhope),
History of England, 1713-1783,
chapter 24 (volume 3)_.
"Thus, at the termination of the campaign, all Bohemia was
regained, except Egra; and on the 12th of May, 1743, Maria
Theresa was soon afterwards crowned at Prague, to the recovery
of which, says her great rival, her firmness had more
contributed than the force of her arms. The only reverse which
the Austrians experienced in the midst of their successes was
the temporary loss of Bavaria, which, on the retreat of
Kevenhuller, was occupied by marshal Seckendorf; and the
Emperor made his entry into Munich on the 2d of October."
_W. Coxe,
History of the House of Austria,
chapter 103 (volume 3)._
{218}
AUSTRIA: A. D. 1743.
England drawn into the conflict.
The Pragmatic Army.
The Battle of Dettingen.
"The cause of Maria Theresa had begun to excite a remarkable
enthusiasm in England. … The convention of neutrality
entered into by George II. in September 1741, and the
extortion of his vote for the Elector of Bavaria, properly
concerned that prince only as Elector of Hanover; yet, as he
was also King of England, they were felt as a disgrace by the
English people. The elections of that year went against
Walpole, and in February 1742 he found himself compelled to
resign. He was succeeded in the administration by Pulteney,
Earl of Bath, though Lord Carteret was virtually prime
minister. Carteret was an ardent supporter of the cause of
Maria Theresa. His accession to office was immediately
followed by a large increase of the army and navy; five
millions were voted for carrying on the war, and a subsidy of
£500,000 for the Queen of Hungary. The Earl of Stair, with an
army of 16,000 men, afterwards reinforced by a large body of
Hanoverians and Hessians in British pay, was despatched into
the Netherlands to cooperate with the Dutch. But though the
States-General, at the instance of the British Cabinet, voted
Maria Theresa a subsidy, they were not yet prepared to take an
active part in a war which might ultimately involve them in
hostilities with France. The exertions of the English ministry
in favour of the Queen of Hungary had therefore been confined
during the year 1742 to diplomacy, and they had helped to
bring about … the Peace of Breslau. In 1743 they were able
to do more," In April, 1743, the Emperor, Charles VII.,
regained possession of Bavaria and returned to Munich, but
only to be driven out again by the Austrians in June. The
Bavarians were badly beaten at Simpach (May 9), and Munich was
taken (June 12) after a short bombardment. "Charles VII. was
now again obliged to fly, and took refuge at Augsburg. At his
command, Seckendorf [his general] made a convention with the
Austrians at the village of Niederschönfeld, by which he
agreed to abandon to them Bavaria, on condition that Charles's
troops should be allowed to occupy unmolested quarters between
Franconia and Suabia. Maria Theresa seemed at first indisposed
to ratify even terms so humiliating to the Emperor. She had
become perhaps a little too much exalted by the rapid turn of
fortune. She had caused herself to be crowned in Prague. She
had received the homage of the Austrians, and entered Vienna
in a sort of triumph. She now dreamt of nothing less than
conquering Lorraine for herself, Alsace for the Empire; of
hurling Charles VII. from the Imperial throne, and placing on
it her own consort." She was persuaded, however, to consent at
length to the terms of the Niederschönfeld convention.
"Meanwhile the allied army of English and Germans, under the
Earl of Stair, nearly 40,000 strong, which, from its destined
object, had assumed the name of the 'Pragmatic Army,' had
crossed the Meuse and the Rhine in March and April, with a
view to cut off the army of Bavaria from France. George II.
had not concealed his intention of breaking the Treaty of
Hanover of 1741, alleging as a ground that the duration of the
neutrality stipulated in it had not been determined; and on
June 19th he had joined the army in person. He found it in a
most critical position. Lord Stair, who had never
distinguished himself as a general, and was now falling into
dotage, had led it into a narrow valley near Aschaffenburg,
between Mount Spessart and the river Main; while Marshal
Noailles [commanding the French], who had crossed the Rhine
towards the end of April, by seizing the principal fords of
the Main, both above and below the British position, had cut
him off both from his magazines at Hanau, and from the
supplies which he had expected to procure in Franconia.
Nothing remained but for him to fight his way back to Hanau."
In the battle of Dettingen, which followed (June 27), all the
advantages of the French in position were thrown away by the
ignorant impetuosity of the king's nephew, the Duke of
Grammont, who commanded one division, and they suffered a
severe defeat. "The French are said to have lost 6,000 men and
the British half that number. It is the last action in which a
king of England has fought in person. But George II., or
rather Lord Stair, did not know how to profit by his victory.
Although the Pragmatic Army was joined after the battle of
Dettingen by 15,000 Dutch troops, under Prince Maurice of
Nassau, nothing of importance was done during the remainder of
the campaign."
_T. H. Dyer,
History of Modern Europe,
book 6, chapter 4 (volume 3)._
ALSO IN:
_W. Coxe,
History of the House of Austria,
chapter 104 (volume 3)._
_Sir E. Cust,
Annals of the Wars of the 18th Century,
volume 2, pages 30-36._
_Lord Mahon (Earl Stanhope),
History of England,
1713-1783, chapter 25 (volume 3)._
AUSTRIA: A. D. 1743.
Treaty of Worms with Sardinia and England.
See ITALY: A. D. 1743.
AUSTRIA: A. D. 1743 (October).
The Second Bourbon Family Compact.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1743 (OCTOBER).
AUSTRIA: A. D. 1743-1744.
The Prussian King strikes in again.
The Union of Frankfort.
Siege and capture of Prague.
"Everywhere Austria was successful, and Frederick had reason
to fear for himself unless the tide of conquest could be
stayed. He explains in the 'Histoire de Mon Temps' that he
feared lest France should abandon the cause of the Emperor,
which would mean that the Austrians, who now boldly spoke of
compensation for the war, would turn their arms against
himself. … France was trembling, not for her conquests, but
for her own territory. After the battle of Dettingen, the
victorious Anglo-Hanoverian force was to cross the Rhine above
Mayence and march into Alsace, while Prince Charles of
Lorraine, with a strong Austrian army, was to pass near Basle
and occupy Lorraine, taking up his winter quarters in Burgundy
and Champagne. The English crossed without any check and moved
on to Worms, but the Austrians failed in their attempt. Worms
became a centre of intrigue, which Frederick afterwards called
'Cette abyme de mauvaisc fol.' The Dutch were persuaded by
Lord Carteret to join the English, and they did at last send
14,000 men, who were never of the least use.
{219}
Lord Carteret also detached Charles Emanuel, King of Sardinia,
from his French leanings, and persuaded him to enter into the
Austro-English alliance [by the treaty of Worms, Sept. 13,
1743, which conceded to the King of Sardinia Finale, the city
of Placentia, with some other small districts and gave him
command of the allied forces in Italy]. It was clear that
action could not be long postponed, and Frederick began to
recognize the necessity of a new war. His first anxiety was to
guard himself against interference from his northern and
eastern neighbours. He secured, as he hoped, the neutrality of
Russia by marrying the young princess of Anhalt-Zerbst,
afterwards the notorious Empress Catherine, with the
Grand-Duke Peter of Russia, nephew and heir to the reigning
Empress Elizabeth. … Thus strengthened, as he hoped, in his
rear and flank, and having made the commencement of a German
league called the Union of Frankfurt, by which Hesse and the
Palatinate agreed to join Frederick and the Kaiser, he
concluded on the 5th of June, 1744, a treaty which brought
France also into this alliance. It was secretly agreed that
Frederick was to invade Bohemia, conquer it for the Kaiser,
and have the districts of Königgrätz, Bunzlau, and Leitmeritz
to repay him for his trouble and costs; while France, which
was all this time at war with Austria and England, should send
an army against Prince Charles and the English. … The first
stroke of the coming war was delivered by France. Louis XV.
sent a large army into the Netherlands under two good leaders,
Noailles and Maurice de Saxe. Urged by his mistress, the
Duchesse de Châteauroux, he joined it himself early, and took
the nominal command early in June. … The towns [Menin,
Ypres, Fort Knoque, Furnes] rapidly fell before him, and
Marshal Wade, with the Anglo-Dutch-Hanoverian army, sat still
and looked at the success of the French. But on the night of
the 30th June—1st July, Prince Charles crossed the Rhine by
an operation which is worth the study of military students,
and invaded Alsace, the French army of observation falling
back before him. Louis XV. hurried back to interpose between
the Austrians and Paris. … Maurice de Saxe was left in the
Netherlands with 45,000 men. Thus the French army was
paralysed, and the Austrian army in its turn was actually
invading France. At this time Frederick struck in. He sent
word to the King that, though all the terms of their
arrangement had not yet been fulfilled, he would at once
invade Bohemia, and deliver a stroke against Prague which
would certainly cause the retreat of Prince Charles with his
70,000 men. If the French army would follow Prince Charles in
his retreat, Frederick would attack him, and between France
and Prussia the Austrian army would certainly be crushed, and
Vienna be at their mercy. This was no doubt an excellent plan
of campaign, but, like the previous operations concerted with
Broglio, it depended for success upon the good faith of the
French, and this turned out to be a broken reed. On the 7th of
August the Prussian ambassador at Vienna gave notice of the
Union of Frankfurt and withdrew from the court of Austria; and
on the 15th the Prussian army was put in march upon Prague
[opening what is called the Second Silesian War]. Frederick's
forces moved in three columns, the total strength being over
80,000. … Maria Theresa was now again in great danger, but
as usual retained her high courage, and once more called forth
the enthusiasm of her Hungarian subjects, who sent swarms of
wild troops, horse and foot, to the seat of war. … On the
1st of September the three columns met before Prague, which
had better defences than in the last campaign, and a garrison
of some 16,000 men. … During the night of the 9th the
bombardment commenced … and on the 16th the garrison
surrendered. Thus, one month after the commencement of the
march Prague was captured, and the campaign opened with a
brilliant feat of arms."
_Colonel C. B. Brackenbury,
Frederick the Great,
chapter 7._
ALSO IN:
_W. Russell,
History of Modern Europe,
part 2, letter 28._
_F. Von Raumer,
Contributions to Modern History:
Frederick II. and his Times,
chapter 17-19._
AUSTRIA: A. D. 1744-1745.
Frederick's retreat and fresh triumph.
Austria recovers the imperial crown.
Saxony subdued.
The Peace of Dresden.
After the reduction of Prague, Frederick, "in deference to the
opinion of Marshal Belleisle, but against his own judgment,
advanced into the south of Bohemia with the view of
threatening Vienna. He thus exposed himself to the risk of
being cut off from Prague. Yet even so he would probably have
been able to maintain himself if the French had fulfilled
their engagements. But while he was conquering the districts
of the Upper Moldau, the Austrian army returned unimpaired
from Alsace. The French had allowed it to cross the Rhine
unmolested, and had not made the slightest attempt to harass
its retreat [but applied themselves to the siege and capture
of Freiburg]. They were only too glad to get rid of it
themselves. In the ensuing operations Frederick was completely
outmanoeuvred. Traun [the Austrian general], without risking a
battle, forced him back towards the Silesian frontier. He had
to choose between abandoning Prague and abandoning his
communications with Silesia, and as the Saxons had cut off his
retreat through the Electorate, there was really no choice in
the matter. So he fell back on Silesia, abandoning Prague and
his heavy artillery. The retreat was attended with
considerable loss. Frederick was much struck with the skill
displayed by Traun, and says, in his 'Histoire de mon Temps,'
that he regarded this campaign as his school in the art of war
and M. de Traun as his teacher. The campaign may have been an
excellent lesson in the art of war, but in other respects it
was very disastrous to Frederick. He had drawn upon himself
the whole power of Austria, and had learnt how little the
French were to be depended upon. His prestige was dimmed by
failure, and even in his own army doubts were entertained of
his capacity. But, bad as his position already was, it became
far worse when the unhappy Emperor died [January 20, 1745], worn
out with disease and calamity. This event put an end to the
Union of Frankfort. Frederick could no longer claim to be
acting in defence of his oppressed sovereign; the ground was
cut from under his feet. Nor was there any longer much hope of
preventing the Imperial Crown from reverting to Austria. The
new Elector of Bavaria was a mere boy. In this altered state
of affairs he sought to make peace. But Maria Theresa would
not let him off so easily.
{220}
In order that she might use all her forces against him, she
granted peace to Bavaria, and gave back to the young elector
his hereditary dominions, on condition of his resigning all
claim to hers and promising to vote for her husband as
Emperor. While Frederick thus lost a friend in Bavaria, Saxony
threw herself completely into the arms of his enemy, and
united with Austria in a treaty [May 18] which had for its
object, not the reconquest of Silesia merely, but the
partition of Prussia and the reduction of the king to his
ancient limits as Margrave of Brandenburg. Saxony was then
much larger than it is now, but it was not only the number of
troops it could send into the field that made its hostility
dangerous. It was partly the geographical position of the
country, which made it an excellent base for operations
against Prussia, but still more the alliance that was known to
subsist between the Elector (King Augustus III. of Poland) and
the Russian Court. It was probable that a Prussian invasion of
Saxony would be followed by a Russian invasion of Prussia.
Towards the end of May, the Austrian and Saxon army, 75,000
strong, crossed the Giant Mountains and descended upon
Silesia. The Austrians were again commanded by Prince Charles,
but the wise head of Traun was no longer there to guide him.
… The encounter took place at Hohenfriedberg [June 5], and
resulted in a complete victory for Prussia. The Austrians and
Saxons lost 9,000 killed and wounded, and 7,000 prisoners,
besides 66 cannons and 73 flags and standards. Four days after
the battle they were back again in Bohemia. Frederick
followed, not with the intention of attacking them again, but
in order to eat the country bare, so that it might afford no
sustenance to the enemy during the winter. For his own part he
was really anxious for peace. His resources were all but
exhausted, while Austria was fed by a constant stream of
English subsidies. As in the former war, England interposed
with her good offices, but without effect; Maria Theresa was
by no means disheartened by her defeat, and refused to hear of
peace till she had tried the chances of battle once more. On
Sept. 13 her husband was elected Emperor by seven votes out of
nine, the dissentients being the King of Prussia and the
Elector Palatine. This event raised the spirits of the
Empress-Queen, as Maria Theresa was henceforward called, and
opened a wider field for her ambition. She sent peremptory
orders to Prince Charles to attack Frederick before he retired
from Bohemia. A battle was accordingly fought at Sohr [Sept.
30], and again victory rested with the Prussians. The season
was now far advanced, and Frederick returned home expecting
that there would be no more fighting till after the winter.
Such however, was far from being the intention of his
enemies." A plan for the invasion of Brandenburg by three
Austrian and Saxon armies simultaneously, was secretly
concerted; but Frederick had timely warning of it and it was
frustrated by his activity and energy. On the 23d of November
he surprised and defeated Prince Charles at Hennersdorf. "Some
three weeks afterwards [December 15] the Prince of Dessau defeated
a second Saxon and Austrian army at Kesselsdorf, a few miles
from Dresden. This victory completed the subjugation of Saxony
and put an end to the war. Three days after Kesselsdorf,
Frederick entered Dresden, and astonished everyone by the
graciousness of his behaviour and by the moderation of his
terms. From Saxony he exacted no cession of territory, but
merely a contribution of 1,000,000 thalers (£150,000) towards
the expenses of the war. From Austria he demanded a guarantee
of the treaty of Breslau, in return for which he agreed to
recognize Francis as Emperor. Peace was signed [at Dresden] on
Christmas Day."
_F. W. Longman,
Frederick the Great and the Seven Years War,
chapter 5._
ALSO IN:
_T. Carlyle,
History of Frederick II.,
book 15, chapters 3-15 (volume 4)._
_Lord Dover,
Life of Frederick II.,
book 2, chapters 3-5 (volume 1)._
AUSTRIA: A. D. 1745.
Overwhelming disasters in Italy.
See ITALY: A. D. 1745.
AUSTRIA: A. D. 1745 (May).
Reverses in the Netherlands.
Battle of Fontenoy.
See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1745.
AUSTRIA: A. D. 1745 (September-October).
The Consort of Maria Theresa elected and crowned Emperor.
Rise of the new House of Hapsburg-Lorraine.
Francis of Lorraine, Grand Duke of Tuscany and husband of
Maria Theresa, was elected Emperor, at Frankfort, Sept. 13,
1745, and crowned Oct. 1, with the title of Francis I. "Thus
the Empire returned to the New House of Austria, that of
Hapsburg-Lorraine, and France had missed the principal object
for which she had gone to war." By the treaties signed at
Dresden, December 25, between Prussia, Austria and Saxony,
Frederick, as Elector of Brandenburg, assented to and
recognized the election of Francis, against which he and the
Elector Palatine had previously protested.
_T. H. Dyer,
History of Modern Europe,
book 6, chapter 4 (volume 3)._
AUSTRIA: A. D. 1746-1747.
Further French conquests in the Netherlands.
Lombardy recovered.
Genoa won and lost.
See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1746-1747;
and ITALY; A. D. 1746-1747.
AUSTRIA: A. D. 1748 (October).
Termination and results of the War of the Succession.
See AIX-LA-CHAPELLE, THE CONGRESS OF.
AUSTRIA: A. D. 1755-1763.
The Seven Years War.
Since the conquest of Silesia by Frederick the Great of
Prussia, "he had cast off all reserve. In his extraordinary
Court at Potsdam this man of wit and war laughed at God, and
at his brother philosophers and sovereigns; he ill-treated
Voltaire, the chief organ of the new opinions; he wounded
kings and queens with his epigrams; he believed neither in the
beauty of Madam de Pompadour nor in the poetical genius of
the Abbé Bernis, Prime Minister of France. The Empress thought
the moment favourable for the recovery of Silesia; she stirred
up Europe, especially the queens; she persuaded the Queen of
Poland and the Empress of Russia; she paid court to the
mistress of Louis XV. The monstrous alliance of France with
the ancient state of Austria against a sovereign who
maintained the equilibrium of Germany united all Europe
against him. England alone supported him and gave him
subsidies. She was governed at that time by a gouty lawyer,
the famous William Pitt, afterwards Lord Chatham, who raised
himself by his eloquence and by his hatred of the French.
England wanted two things; the maintenance of the balance of power
in Europe, and the destruction of the French and Spanish colonies.
{221}
Her griefs were serious; the Spaniards had ill-treated her
smugglers and the French wanted to prevent her from settling
on their territory in Canada. In India, La Bourdonnaie and his
successor Dupleix threatened to found a great empire in the
face of the English. As a declaration of war the English
confiscated 300 French ships (1756). The marvel of the war was
to see this little kingdom of Prussia, interposed between the
huge powers of Austria, France, and Russia, run from one to
the other, and defy them all. This was the second period of
the art of war. The unskillful adversaries of Frederick
thought that he owed all his success to the precision of the
manœuvres of the Prussian soldiers, to their excellent drill
and rapid firing. Frederick had certainly carried the soldier
machine to perfection. This was capable of imitation: the Czar
Peter III. and the Count of St. Germin created military
automatons by means of the lash. But they could not imitate
the quickness of his manœuvres; the happy arrangement of his
marches, which gave him great facility for moving and
concentrating large masses, and directing them on the weak
points of the enemy. In this terrible chase given by the large
unwieldy armies of the allies to the agile Prussians, one
cannot help noticing the amusing circumspection of the
Austrian tacticians and the stupid folly of the fine gentlemen
who led the armies of France. The Fabius of Austria, the sage
and heavy Daun, was satisfied with a war of positions; he
could not find encampments strong enough or mountains
sufficiently inaccessible; his stationary troops were always
beaten by Frederick. To begin with, he freed himself from the
enmity of Saxony. He did not hurt, he only disarmed her. He
struck his next blow in Bohemia. Repulsed by the Austrians,
and abandoned by the English army, which determined at
Kloster-seven to fight no more, threatened by the Russians,
who were victorious at Joegerndorf, he passed into Saxony and
found the French and Imperialists combined there. Prussia was
surrounded by four armies. Frederick fancied himself lost and
determined on suicide. He wrote to his sister and to d'Argens
announcing his intention. There was only one thing which
frightened him: it was, that when once he was dead the great
distributor of glory—Voltaire—might make free with his
name: he wrote an epistle to disarm him. … Having written
this epistle he defeated the enemy at Rosbach. The Prince of
Soubise, who thought that he fled, set off rashly in pursuit;
then the Prussians unmasked their batteries, killed 3,000 men,
and took 7,000 prisoners. In the French camp were found an
army of cooks, actors, hair-dressers; a number of parrots,
parasols, and huge cases of lavender-water, &c. (1757). None
but a tactician could follow the King of Prussia in this
series of brilliant and skillful battles. The Seven Years'
War, however varied its incidents, was a political and
strategical war: it has not the interest of the wars for
ideas, the struggles for religion and for freedom of the 16th
century and of our own time. The defeat of Rosbach was
followed by another at Crevelt, and by great reverses balanced
by small advantages; the total ruin of the French navy and
colonies; the English masters of the ocean and conquerors of
India; the exhaustion and humiliation of old Europe in the
presence of young Prussia. This is the history of the Seven
Years War. It was terminated under the ministry of the Duke of
Choiseul," by the Peace of Hubertsburg and the Peace of Paris.
_J. Michelet,
A Summary of Modern History,
pages 300-302._
See
GERMANY: A. D. 1755-1756, to 1763;
and, also, SEVEN YEARS' WAR.
AUSTRIA: A. D. 1772-1773.
The First Partition of Poland.
See POLAND: A. D. 1763-1773.
AUSTRIA: A. D. 1777-1779.
The question of the Bavarian Succession.
See BAVARIA: A. D. 1777-1779.
AUSTRIA: A. D. 1782-1811.
Abolition of Serfdom.
See SLAVERY, MEDIÆVAL: GERMANY.
AUSTRIA: A. D. 1787-1791.
War with the Turks.
Treaty of Sistova.
Slight Acquisitions of Territory.
See TURKS: A. D. 1776-1792.
AUSTRIA: A. D. 1790-1797.
Death of Joseph II. and Leopold II.
Accession of Francis II.
The Coalition against and war with revolutionary France, to
the Peace of Campo Formio.
"It is a mistake to imagine that the European Powers attacked
the Revolution in France. It was the Revolution which attacked
them. The diplomatists of the 18th century viewed at first
with cynical indifference the meeting of the States-General at
Versailles. … The two points which occupied the attention of
Europe in 1789 were the condition of Poland and the troubles
in the East. The ambitious designs of Catherine and the
assistance lent to them by Joseph threatened the existence of
the Turkish Empire, irritated the Prussian Court, and awakened
English apprehensions, always sensitive about the safety of
Stamboul. Poland, the battle-field of cynical diplomacy, torn
by long dissensions and mined by a miserable constitution, was
vainly endeavouring, under the jealous eyes of her great
neighbours, to avert the doom impending, and to reassert her
ancient claim to a place among the nations of the world. But
Russia had long since determined that Poland must be a vassal
State to her or cease to be a State at all, while Prussia,
driven to face a hard necessity, realised that a strong Poland
and a strong Prussia could not exist together, and that if
Poland ever rose again to power, Prussia must bid good-bye to
unity and greatness. These two questions to the States
involved seemed to be of far more moment than any political
reform in France, and engrossed the diplomatists of Europe
until the summer of 1791. In February, 1790, a new influence
was introduced into European politics by the death of the
Emperor Joseph and the accession of his brother, Leopold II.
Leopold was a man of remarkable ability, no enthusiast and no
dreamer, thoroughly versed in the selfish traditions of
Austrian policy and in some of the subtleties of Italian
statecraft, discerning, temperate, resolute and clear-headed,
quietly determined to have his own way, and generally skilful
enough to secure it. Leopold found his new dominions in a
state of the utmost confusion, with war and rebellion
threatening him on every side. He speedily set about restoring
order. He repealed the unpopular decrees of Joseph. He
conciliated or repressed his discontented subjects. He
gradually re-established the authority of the Crown. …
Accordingly, the first eighteen months of Leopold's reign were
occupied with his own immediate interests, and at the end of
that time his success was marked.
{222}
Catherine's vast schemes in Turkey had been checked. War had
been averted. Poland had been strengthened by internal
changes. Prussia had been conciliated and outmanœuvred, and
her influence had been impaired. At last, at the end of
August, 1791, the Emperor was free to face the French problem,
and he set out for the Castle of Pillnitz to meet the King of
Prussia and the Emigrant leaders at the Saxon Elector's Court.
For some time past the restlessness of the French Emigrants
had been causing great perplexity in Europe. Received with
open arms by the ecclesiastical princes of the Rhine, by the
Electors of Mayence and Trèves, they proceeded to agitate
busily for their own restoration. … The object of the
Emigrants was to bring pressure to bear at the European
Courts, with the view of inducing the Powers to intervene
actively in their behalf. … After his escape from France, in
June, 1790, the Comte de Provence established his Court at
Coblentz, where he was joined by his brother the Comte
d'Artois, and where, on the plea that Louis was a prisoner, he
claimed the title of Regent, and assumed the authority of
King. The Court of the two French princes at Coblentz
represented faithfully the faults and follies of the Emigrant
party. But a more satisfactory spectacle was offered by the
camp at Worms, where Condé was bravely trying to organise an
army to fight against the Revolution in France. To Condé's
standard flocked the more patriotic Emigrants. … But the
German Princes in the neighbourhood looked with disfavour on
the Emigrant army. It caused confusion in their dominions, and
it drew down on them the hostility of the French Government.
The Emperor joined them in protesting against it. In February,
1792, Condé's army was compelled to abandon its camp at Worms,
and to retire further into Germany. The Emperor was well aware
of the reckless selfishness of the Emigrant princes. He had as
little sympathy with them as his sister. He did not intend to
listen to their demands. If he interfered in France at all, it
would only be in a cautious and tentative manner, and in order
to save Marie Antoinette and her husband. Certainly he would
not undertake a war for the restoration of the Ancien Régime.
… Accordingly, the interviews at Pillnitz came to nothing.
… Early in March, 1792, Leopold suddenly died. His heir
Francis, unrestrained by his father's tact and moderation,
assumed a different tone and showed less patience. The chances
of any effective pressure from the Powers declined, as the
prospect of war rose on the horizon. Francis' language was
sufficiently sharp to give the Assembly the pretext which it
longed for, and on the 20th April, Louis, amid general
enthusiasm, came down to the Assembly and declared war against
Austria. The effects of that momentous step no comment can
exaggerate. It ruined the best hopes of the Revolution, and
prepared the way for a military despotism in the future."
_C. E. Mallet,
The French Revolution,
chapter 7._
See
FRANCE: A. D. 1790-1791;
1791 (JULY-DECEMBER);
1791-1792; 1792 (APRIL-JULY), and (SEPTEMBER-DECEMBER);
1792-1793 (DECEMBER-FEBRUARY);
1793 (FEBRUARY-APRIL), and (JULY-DECEMBER);
1794 (MARCH-JULY);
1794-1795 (OCTOBER-MAY);
1795 (JUNE-DECEMBER);
1796 (APRIL-OCTOBER);
and 1796-1797 (OCTOBER-APRIL).
AUSTRIA: A. D. 1794-1796.
The Third partition of Poland.
Austrian share of the spoils.
See POLAND: A. D. 1793-1796.
AUSTRIA: A. D. 1797 (October).
Treaty of Campo-Formio with France.
Cession of the Netherlands and Lombard provinces.
Acquisition of Venice and Venetian territories.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1797 (MAY-OCTOBER).
AUSTRIA: A. D. 1798-1806.
Congress of Rastadt.
Second Coalition against France.
Peace of Luneville.
Third Coalition.
Ulm and Austerlitz.
Peace of Presburg.
Extinction of the Holy Roman Empire.
Birth of the Empire of Austria.
"When Bonaparte sailed for Egypt he had left a congress at
Rastadt discussing means for the execution of certain articles
in the treaty of Campo Formio which were to establish peace
between France and the Empire. … Though openly undertaking
to invite the Germans to a congress in order to settle a
general peace on the basis of the integrity of the Empire, the
Emperor agreed in secret articles to use his influence to
procure for the Republic the left bank of the Rhine with the
exception of the Prussian provinces, to join with France in
obtaining compensation in Germany for those injured by this
change, and to contribute no more than his necessary
contingent if the war were prolonged. The ratification of
these secret provisions had been extorted from the Congress by
threats before Bonaparte had left; but the question of
indemnification had progressed no farther than a decision to
secularise the ecclesiastical states for the purpose, when
extravagant demands from the French deputies brought
negotiation to a deadlock. Meanwhile, another coalition war
had been brewing. Paul I. of Russia had regarded with little
pleasure the doings of the Revolution, and when his proteges,
the knights of St. John of Jerusalem, had been deprived of
Malta by Bonaparte on his way to Egypt, when the Directory
established by force of arms a Helvetic republic in
Switzerland, when it found occasion to carry off the Pope into
exile and erect a Roman republic, he abandoned the cautious
and self-seeking policy of Catherine, and cordially responded
to Pitt's advances for an alliance. At the same time Turkey
was compelled by the invitation of Egypt to ally itself for
once with Russia. Austria, convinced that the French did not
intend to pay a fair price for the treaty of Campo Formio,
also determined to renew hostilities; and Naples, exasperated
by the sacrilege of a republic at Rome, and alarmed by French
aggressiveness, enrolled itself in the league. The Neapolitan
king, indeed, opened the war with some success, before he
could receive support from his allies; but he was soon
vanquished by the French, and his dominions were converted
into a Parthenopean republic. Austria, on the contrary,
awaited the arrival of the Russian forces; and the general
campaign began early in 1799. The French, fighting against
such generals as the Archduke Charles and the Russian
Suvaroff, without the supervision of Carnot or the strategy
and enterprise of Bonaparte, suffered severe reverses and
great privations. Towards the end the Russian army endured
much hardship on account of the selfishness of the Austrian
cabinet; and this caused the Tsar, who thought he had other
reasons for discontent, to withdraw his troops from the field.
{223}
When Bonaparte was made First Consul the military position of
France was, nevertheless, very precarious. … The Roman and
Cisalpine republics had fallen. The very congress at Rastadt
had been dispersed by the approach of the Austrians; and the
French emissaries had been sabred by Austrian troopers, though
how their insolence came to be thus foully punished has never
been clearly explained. At this crisis France was rescued from
foreign foes and domestic disorders by its most successful
general. … In the campaign which followed, France obtained
signal satisfaction for its chagrin. Leaving Moreau to carry
the war into Germany, Bonaparte suddenly crossed the Alps, and
defeated the Austrians on the plain of Marengo. The Austrians,
though completely cowed, refrained from concluding a definite
peace out of respect for their engagements with England; and
armistices, expiring into desultory warfare, prolonged the
contest till Moreau laid the way open to Vienna, by winning a
splendid triumph at Hohenlinden. A treaty of peace was finally
concluded at Lunéville, when Francis II. pledged the Empire to
its provisions on the ground of the consents already given at
Rastadt. In conformity with the treaty of Campo Formio,
Austria retained the boundary of the Adige in Italy; France
kept Belgium and the left bank of the Rhine; and the princes,
dispossessed by the cessions, were promised compensation in
Germany; while Tuscany was given to France to sell to Spain at
the price of Parma, Louisiana, six ships of the line, and a
sum of money. Shortly afterwards peace was extended to Naples
on easy terms. … The time was now come for the Revolution to
complete the ruin of the Holy Roman Empire. Pursuant to the
treaty of Lunéville, the German Diet met at Regensburg to
discuss a scheme of compensation for the dispossessed rulers.
Virtually the meeting was a renewal of the congress of
Rastadt. … At Rastadt the incoherence and disintegration of
the venerable Empire had become painfully apparent. … When
it was known that the head of the nation, who had guaranteed
the integrity of the Empire in the preliminaries of Leoben,
and had renewed the assurance when he convoked the assembly,
had in truth betrayed to the stranger nearly all the left bank
of the Rhine,—the German rulers greedily hastened to secure
every possible trifle in the scramble of redistribution. The
slow and wearisome debates were supplemented by intrigues of
the most degraded nature. Conscious that the French Consul
could give a casting vote on any disputed question, the
princes found no indignity too shameful, no trick too base, to
obtain his favour. … The First Consul, on his side,
prosecuted with a duplicity and address, heretofore
unequalled, the traditional policy of France in German
affairs. … Feigning to take into his counsels the young
Tsar, whose convenient friendship was thus easily obtained on
account of his family connections with the German courts, he
drew up a scheme of indemnification and presented it to the
Diet for endorsement. In due time a servile assent was given
to every point which concerned the two autocrats. By this
settlement, Austria and Prussia were more equally balanced
against one another, the former being deprived of influence in
Western Germany, and the latter finding in more convenient
situations a rich recompense for its cessions on the Rhine;
while the middle states, Bavaria, Baden, and Würtemberg,
received very considerable accessions of territory. But if
Bonaparte dislocated yet further the political structure of
Germany, he was at least instrumental in removing the worst of
the anachronisms which stifled the development of improved
institutions among a large division of its people. The same
measure which brought German separatism to a climax, also
extinguished the ecclesiastical sovereignties and nearly all
the free cities. That these strongholds of priestly
obscurantism and bourgeois apathy would some day be invaded by
their more ambitious and active neighbours, had long been
apparent. … And war was declared when thousands of British
subjects visiting France had already been ensnared and
imprisoned. … Pitt had taken the conduct of the war out of
the hands of Addington's feeble ministry. Possessing the
confidence of the powers, he rapidly concluded offensive
alliances with Russia, Sweden, and Austria, though Prussia
obstinately remained neutral. Thus, by 1805, Napoleon had put
to hazard all his lately won power in a conflict with the
greater part of Europe. The battle of Cape Trafalgar crushed
for good his maritime power, and rendered England safe from
direct attack. The campaign on land, however, made him master
of central Europe. Bringing the Austrian army in Germany to an
inglorious capitulation at Ulm, he marched through Vienna,
and, with inferior forces won in his best style the battle of
Austerlitz against the troops of Francis and Alexander. The
action was decisive. The allies thought not of renewing the
war with the relays of troops which were hurrying up from
North and South. Russian and Austrian alike wished to be rid
of their ill-fated connection. The Emperor Alexander silently
returned home, pursued only by Napoleon's flattering tokens of
esteem; the Emperor Francis accepted the peace of Presburg,
which deprived his house of the ill-gotten Venetian States,
Tyrol, and its more distant possessions in Western Germany;
the King of Prussia, who had been on the point of joining the
coalition with a large army if his mediation were
unsuccessful, was committed to an alliance with the conqueror
by his terrified negotiator. And well did Napoleon appear to
make the fruits of victory compensate France for its
exertions. The empire was not made more unwieldy in bulk, but
its dependents, Bavaria, Würtemberg, and Baden, received
considerable accessions of territory, and the two first were
raised to the rank of kingdoms; while the Emperor's Italian
principality, which he had already turned into a kingdom of
Italy to the great disgust of Austria, was increased by the
addition of the ceded Venetian lands. But the full depth of
Europe's humiliation was not experienced till the two
following years. In 1806 an Act of Federation was signed by
the kings of Bavaria and Würtemberg, the Elector of Baden, and
thirteen minor princes, which united them into a league under
the protection of the French Emperor. The objects of this
confederacy, known as the Rheinbund were defence against
foreign aggression and the exercise of complete autonomy at
home. … Already the consequences of the Peace of Lunéville
had induced the ruling Hapsburg to assure his equality with
the sovereigns of France and Russia by taking the imperial
title in his own right; and before the Confederation of the
Rhine was made public he formally renounced his office of
elective Emperor of the Holy Roman Empire and released from
allegiance to him all the states and princes of the Reich, The
triumph of the German policy of the Consulate was complete."
_A. Weir,
The Historical Basis of Modern Europe,
chapter 4._
See, also,
FRANCE: A. D. 1798-1799, to 1805, and
GERMANY: A. D. 1801-1803, to 1805-1806.
{224}
AUSTRIA: A. D. 1809-1814.
The second struggle with Napoleon and the second defeat.
The Marriage alliance.
The Germanic War of Liberation.
The final alliance and the overthrow of the Corsican.
"On the 12th of July, 1806, fourteen princes of the south and
west of Germany united themselves into the confederation of
the Rhine, and recognised Napoleon as their protector. On the
1st of August, they signified to the diet of Ratisbon their
separation from the Germanic body. The Empire of Germany
ceased to exist, and Francis II. abdicated the title by
proclamation. By a convention signed at Vienna, on the 15th of
December, Prussia exchanged the territories of Anspach, Cleves
and Neufchâtel for the electorate of Hanover, Napoleon had all
the west under his power. Absolute master of France and Italy,
as emperor and king, he was also master of Spain, by the
dependence of that court; of Naples and Holland, by his two
brothers; of Switzerland, by the act of mediation; and in
Germany he had at his disposal the kings of Bavaria and
Wurtemberg, and the confederation of the Rhine against Austria
and Prussia. … This encroaching progress gave rise to the
fourth coalition. Prussia, neutral since the peace of Bâle,
had, in the last campaign, been on the point of joining the
Austro-Russian coalition. The rapidity of the emperor's
victories had alone restrained her; but now, alarmed at the
aggrandizement of the empire, and encouraged by the fine
condition of her troops, she leagued with Russia to drive the
French from Germany. … The campaign opened early in October.
Napoleon, as usual, overwhelmed the coalition by the
promptitude of his marches and the vigour of his measures. On
the 14th of October, he destroyed at Jena the military
monarchy of Prussia, by a decisive victory. … The campaign
in Poland was less rapid, but as brilliant as that of Prussia.
Russia, for the third time, measured its strength with France.
Conquered at Zurich and Austerlitz, it was also defeated at Eylau
and Friedland. After these memorable battles, the emperor
Alexander entered into a negotiation, and concluded at Tilsit,
on the 21st of June, 1807, an armistice which was followed by
a definitive treaty on the 7th of July. The peace of Tilsit
extended the French domination on the continent. Prussia was
reduced to half its extent. In the south of Germany, Napoleon
had instituted the two kingdoms of Bavaria and Wurtemberg
against Austria; further to the north, he created the two
feudatory kingdoms of Saxony and Westphalia against Prussia.
… In order to obtain universal and uncontested supremacy, he
made use of arms against the continent, and the cessation of
commerce against England. But in forbidding to the continental
states all communication with England, he was preparing new
difficulties for himself, and soon added to the animosity of
opinion excited by his despotism, and the hatred of states
produced by his conquering domination, the exasperation of
private interests and commercial suffering occasioned by the
blockade. … The expedition of Portugal in 1807, and the
invasion of Spain in 1808, began for him and for Europe a new
order of events. … The reaction manifested itself in three
countries, hitherto allies of France, and it brought on the
fifth coalition. The court of Rome was dissatisfied; the
peninsula was wounded in its national pride by having imposed
upon it a foreign king; in its usages, by the suppression of
convents, of the Inquisition, and of the grandees; Holland
suffered in its commerce from the blockade, and Austria
supported impatiently its losses and subordinate condition.
England, watching for an opportunity to revive the struggle on
the continent, excited the resistance of Rome, the peninsula,
and the cabinet of Vienna. … Austria … made a powerful
effort, and raised 550,000 men, comprising the Landwehr, and
took the field in the spring of 1809. The Tyrol rose, and King
Jerome was driven from his capital by the Westphalians: Italy
wavered; and Prussia only waited till Napoleon met with a
reverse, to take arms; but the emperor was still at the height
of his power and prosperity. He hastened from Madrid in the
beginning of February, and directed the members of the
confederation to keep their contingents in readiness. On the
12th of April he left Paris, passed the Rhine, plunged into
Germany, gained the victories of Eckmühl and Essling, occupied
Vienna a second time on the 15th of May and overthrew this new
coalition by the battle of Wagram, after a campaign of four
mouths. … The peace of Vienna, of the 11th of October, 1809,
deprived the house of Austria of several more provinces, and
compelled it again to adopt the continental system. …
Napoleon, who seemed to follow a rash but inflexible policy,
deviated from his course about this time by a second marriage.
He divorced Josephine that he might give an heir to the
empire, and married, on the 1st of April, 1810, Marie-Louise,
arch-duchess of Austria. This was a decided error. He quitted
his position and his post as a parvenu and revolutionary
monarch, opposing in France the ancient courts as the republic
had opposed the ancient governments. He placed himself in a
false situation with respect to Austria, which he ought either
to have crushed after the victory of Wagram, or to have
reinstated in its possessions after his marriage with the
arch-duchess. … The birth, on the 20th of March, 1811, of a
son, who received the title of king of Rome, seemed to
consolidate the power of Napoleon, by securing to him a
successor. The war in Spain was prosecuted with vigour during
the years 1810 and 1811. … While the war was proceeding in
the peninsula with advantage, but without any decided success,
a new campaign was preparing in the north. Russia perceived
the empire of Napoleon approaching its territories. … About
the close of 1810, it increased its armies, renewed its
commercial relations with Great Britain, and did not seem
indisposed to a rupture. The year 1811 was spent in
negotiations which led to nothing, and preparations for war
were made on both sides. … On the 9th of March, Napoleon
left Paris. … During several months he fixed his court at
Dresden, where the emperor of Austria, the king of Prussia,
and all the sovereigns of Germany, came to bow before his high
fortune.
{225}
On the 22nd of June, war was declared against Russia. …
Napoleon, who, according to his custom, wished to finish all
in one campaign, advanced at once into the heart of Russia,
instead of prudently organizing the Polish barrier against it.
His army amounted to about 500,000 men. He passed the Niemen
on the 24th of June; took Wilna, and Witepsk, defeated the
Russians at Astrowno, Polotsk, Mohilow Smolensko, at the
Moskowa, and on the 14th of September, made his entry into
Moscow. … Moscow was burned by its governor. … The emperor
ought to have seen that this war would not terminate as the
others had done; yet, conqueror of the foe, and master of his
capital, he conceived hopes of peace which the Russians
skilfully encouraged. Winter was approaching, and Napoleon
prolonged his stay at Moscow for six weeks. He delayed his
movements on account of the deceptive negotiations of the
Russians; and did not decide on a retreat till the 19th of
October. This retreat was disastrous, and began the downfall
of the empire. … The cabinet of Berlin began the defections.
On the 1st of March, 1813, it joined Russia and England, which
were forming the sixth coalition. Sweden acceded to it soon
after; yet the emperor, whom the confederate power thought
prostrated by the last disaster, opened the campaign with new
victories. The battle of Lutzen, won by conscripts, on the 2nd
of May, the occupation of Dresden; the victory of Bautzen, and
the war carried to the Elbe, astonished the coalition.
Austria, which, since 1810, had been on a footing of peace,
was resuming arms, and already meditating a change of
alliance. She now proposed herself as a mediatrix between the
emperor and the confederates. Her meditation was accepted; an
armistice was concluded at Plesswitz, on the 4th of June, and
a congress assembled at Prague to negotiate peace. It was
impossible to come to terms. … Austria joined the coalition,
and war, the only means of settling this great contest, was
resumed. The emperor had only 280,000 men against 520,000.
…. Victory seemed, at first, to second him. At Dresden he
defeated the combined forces; but the defeats of his
lieutenants deranged his plans. … The princes of the
confederation of the Rhine chose this moment to desert the
cause of the empire. A vast engagement having taken place at
Leipsic between the two armies, the Saxons and Wurtembergers
passed over to the enemy on the field of battle. This
defection to the strength of the coalesced powers, who had
learned a more compact and skilful mode of warfare, obliged
Napoleon to retreat, after a struggle of three days. … The
empire was invaded in all directions. The Austrians entered
Italy; the English, having made themselves masters of the
peninsula during the last two years, had passed the Bidassoa,
under General Wellington, and appeared on the Pyrenees. Three
armies pressed on France to the east and north. … Napoleon
was … obliged to submit to the conditions of the allied
powers; their pretensions increased with their power. … On
the 11th of April, 1814, he renounced for himself and children
the thrones of France and Italy, and received in exchange for
his vast sovereignty, the limits of which had extended from
Cadiz to the Baltic Sea, the little island of Elba."
_F. A. Mignet,
History of the French Revolution,
chapter 15._
See
GERMANY: A. D. 1809 (JANUARY-JUNE), to 1813;
RUSSIA: A. D. 1812; and
FRANCE: A. D. 1810-1812 to 1814.
AUSTRIA: A. D. 1814.
Restored rule in Northern Italy.
See ITALY: A. D. 1814-1815.
AUSTRIA: A. D. 1814-1815.
Treaties of Paris and Congress of Vienna.
Readjustment of French boundaries.
Recovery of the Tyrol from Bavaria and Lombardy in Italy.
Acquisition of the Venetian states.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1814 (APRIL-JUNE),
and 1815 (JULY-NOVEMBER):
also VIENNA, THE CONGRESS OF.
AUSTRIA: A. D. 1814-1820.
Formation of the Germanic Confederation.
See GERMANY: A. D. 1814-1820.
AUSTRIA: A. D. 1815.
The Holy Alliance.
See HOLY ALLIANCE.
AUSTRIA: A. D. 1815.
Return of Napoleon from Elba.
The Quadruple Alliance.
The Waterloo Campaign and Its results.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1814-1815.
AUSTRIA: A. D. 1815-1835.
Emperor Francis, Prince Metternich, and "the system."
"After the treaty of Vienna in 1809, and still more
conspicuously after the pacification of Europe, the political
wisdom of the rulers of Austria inclined them ever more and
more to the maintenance of that state of things which was
known to friends and foes as the System. But what was the
System? It was the organisation of do-nothing. It cannot even
be said to have been reactionary: it was simply reactionary.
… 'Mark time in place' was the word of command in every
government office. The bureaucracy was engaged from morning to
night in making work, but nothing ever came of it. Not even
were the liberal innovations which had lasted through the
reign of Leopold got rid of. Everything went on in the
confused, unfinished, and ineffective state in which the great
war had found it. Such was the famous System which was
venerated by the ultra-Tories of every land, and most
venerated where it was least understood. Two men dominate the
history of Austria during this unhappy time—men who, though
utterly unlike in character and intellect, were nevertheless
admirably fitted to work together, and whose names will be
long united in an unenviable notoriety. These were the Emperor
Francis and Prince Metternich. The first was the evil genius
of internal politics; the second exercised a hardly less
baneful influence over foreign affairs. … For the external
policy of Prince Metternich, the first and most necessary
condition was, that Austria should give to Europe the
impression of fixed adherence to the most extreme Conservative
views. So for many years they worked together, Prince
Metternich always declaring that he was a mere tool in the
hands of his master, but in reality far more absolute in the
direction of his own department than the emperor was in his.
… Prince Metternich had the power of making the most of all
he knew, and constantly left upon persons of real merit the
impression that he was a man of lofty aspirations and liberal
views, who forced himself to repress such tendencies in others
because he thought that their repression was a sine quâ non for
Austria. The men of ability, who knew him intimately, thought
less well of him.
{226}
To them he appeared vain and superficial, with much that
recalled the French noblesse of the old régime in his way of
looking at things, and emphatically wanting in every element
of greatness. With the outbreak of the Greek insurrection in
1821, began a period of difficulty and complications for the
statesmen of Austria. There were two things of which they were
mortally afraid—Russia and the revolution. Now, if they
assisted the Greeks, they would be playing into the hands of
the second; and if they opposed the Greeks, they would be
likely to embroil themselves with the first. The whole art of
Prince Metternich was therefore exerted to keep things quiet
in the Eastern Peninsula, and to postpone the intolerable
'question d'Orient.' Many were the shifts he tried, and
sometimes, as just after the accession of Nicholas, his hopes
rose very high. All was, however, in vain. England and Russia
settled matters behind his back; and although the tone which
the publicists in his pay adopted towards the Greeks became
more favourable in 1826-7, the battle of Navarino was a sad
surprise and mortification to the wily chancellor. Not less
annoying was the commencement of hostilities on the Danube
between Russia and the Porte. The reverses with which the
great neighbour met in his first campaign cannot have been
otherwise than pleasing at Vienna. But the unfortunate success
which attended his arms in the second campaign soon turned
ill-dissembled joy into ill-concealed sorrow, and the treaty
of Adrianople at once lowered Austria's prestige in the East,
and deposed Metternich from the commanding position which he
had occupied in the councils of the Holy Allies. It became,
indeed, ever more and more evident in the next few years that
the age of Congress politics, during which he had been the
observed of all observers, was past and gone, that the
diplomatic period had vanished away, and that the military
period had begun. The very form in which the highest
international questions were debated was utterly changed. At
Vienna, in 1814, the diplomatists had been really the primary,
the sovereigns only secondary personages; while at the
interview of Münchengratz, between Nicholas and the Emperor
Francis, in 1833, the great autocrat appeared to look upon
Prince Metternich as hardly more than a confidential clerk.
The dull monotony of servitude which oppressed nearly the
whole of the empire was varied by the agitations of one of its
component parts. When the Hungarian Diet was dissolved in
1812, the emperor had solemnly promised that it should be
called together again within three years. Up to 1815,
accordingly, the nation went on giving extraordinary levies
and supplies without much opposition. When, however, the
appointed time was fulfilled, it began to murmur. … Year by
year the agitation went on increasing, till at last the
breaking out of the Greek revolution, and the threatening
appearance of Eastern politics, induced Prince Metternich to
join his entreaties to those of many other counsellors, who
could not be suspected of the slightest leaning to
constitutional views. At length the emperor yielded, and in
1825 Presburg was once more filled with the best blood and
most active spirits of the land, assembled in parliament. Long
and stormy were the debates which ensued. Bitter was, from
time to time, the vexation of the emperor, and great was the
excitement throughout Hungary. In the end, however, the court
of Vienna triumphed. Hardly any grievances were redressed,
while its demands were fully conceded. The Diet of 1825 was,
however, not without fruit. The discussion which took place
advanced the political education of the people, who were
brought back to the point where they stood at the death of
Joseph II.—that is, before the long wars with France had
come to distract their attention from their own affairs. …
The slumbers of Austria were not yet over. The System dragged
its slow length along. Little or nothing was done for the
improvement of the country. Klebelsberg administered the
finances in an easy and careless manner. Conspiracies and
risings in Italy were easily checked, and batches of prisoners
sent off from time to time to Mantua or Spielberg. Austrian
influence rose ever higher and higher in all the petty courts
of the Peninsula. … In other regions Russia or England might
be willing to thwart him, but in Italy Prince Metternich might
proudly reflect that Austria was indeed a 'great power.' The
French Revolution of 1830 was at first alarming; but when it
resulted in the enthronement of a dynasty which called to its
aid a 'cabinet of repression,' all fears were stilled. The
Emperor Francis continued to say, when any change was
proposed, 'We must sleep upon it,' and died in 1835 in 'the
abundance of peace.'"
_M. E. Grant Duff,
Studies in European Politics,
pages 140-149._
See, also, GERMANY: A. D. 1819-1847.
AUSTRIA: A. D. 1815-1846.
Gains of the Hapsburg monarchy.
Its aggressive absolutism.
Death of Francis I.
Accession of Ferdinand I.
Suppression of revolt in Galicia.
Extinction and annexation of the Republic of Cracow.
"In the new partition of Europe, arranged in the Congress of
Vienna [see VIENNA. THE CONGRESS OF], Austria received
Lombardy and Venice under the title of a Lombardo-Venetian
kingdom, the Illyrian provinces also as a kingdom, Venetian
Dalmatia, the Tirol, Vorarlberg, Salzburg, the Innviertel and
Hausrucksviertel, and the part of Galicia ceded by her at an
earlier period. Thus, after three and twenty years of war, the
monarchy had gained a considerable accession of strength,
having obtained, in lieu of its remote and unprofitable
possessions in the Netherlands, territories which consolidated
its power in Italy, and made it as great in extent as it had
been in the days of Charles VI., and far more compact and
defensible. The grand duchies of Modena, Parma, and Placentia,
were moreover restored to the collateral branches of the house
of Hapsburg. … After the last fall of Napoleon … the great
powers of the continent … constituted themselves the
champions of the principle of absolute monarchy. The
maintenance of that principle ultimately became the chief
object of the so-called Holy Alliance established in 1816
between Russia, Austria and Prussia, and was pursued with
remarkable steadfastness by the Emperor Francis and his
minister, Prince Metternich [see HOLY ALLIANCE]. …
Thenceforth it became the avowed policy of the chief
sovereigns of Germany to maintain the rights of dynasties in
an adverse sense to those of their subjects. The people, on
the other hand, deeply resented the breach of those promises
which had been so lavishly made to them on the general summons
to the war of liberation.
{227}
Disaffection took the place of that enthusiastic loyalty with
which they had bled and suffered for their native princes; the
secret societies, formed with the concurrence of their rulers,
for the purpose of throwing off the yoke of the foreigner,
became ready instruments of sedition. … In the winter of
1819, a German federative congress assembled at Vienna. In May
of the following year it published an act containing closer
definitions of the Federative Act, having for their essential
objects the exclusion of the various provincial Diets from all
positive interference in the general affairs of Germany, and
an increase of the power of the princes over their respective
Diets, by a guarantee of aid on the part of the confederates"
(see GERMANY: A. D. 1814-1820). During the next three years,
the powers of the Holy Alliance, under the lead of Austria,
and acting under a concert established at the successive
congresses of Troppau, Laybach and Verona (see VERONA,
CONGRESS OF), interfered to put down popular risings against
the tyranny of government in Italy and Spain, while they
discouraged the revolt of the Greeks.
See ITALY: A. D. 1820-1821;
and SPAIN: A. D. 1814-1827.
"The commotions that pervaded Europe after the French
Revolution of 1830 affected Austria only in her Italian
dominions, and there but indirectly, for the imperial
authority remained undisputed in the Lombardo-Venetian
kingdom. But the duke of Modena and the archduke of Parma were
obliged to quit those states, and a formidable insurrection
broke out in the territory of the Church. An Austrian army of
18,000 men quickly put down the insurgents, who rose again,
however, as soon as it was withdrawn: The pope again invoked
the aid of Austria, whose troops entered Bologna in January,
1832, and established themselves there in garrison. Upon this,
the French immediately sent a force to occupy Ancona, and for
a while a renewal of the oft-repeated conflict between Austria
and France on Italian ground seemed inevitable; but it soon
appeared that France was not prepared to support the
revolutionary party in the pope's dominions, and that danger
passed away. The French remained for some years in Ancona, and
the Austrians in Bologna and other towns of Romagna. This was
the last important incident in the foreign affairs of Austria
previous to the death of the Emperor Francis I. on the 2nd of
March, 1835, after a reign of 43 years. … The Emperor
Francis was succeeded by his son, Ferdinand I., whose
accession occasioned no change in the political or
administrative system of the empire. Incapacitated, by
physical and mental infirmity, from labouring as his father
had done in the business of the state, the new monarch left to
Prince Metternich a much more unrestricted power than that
minister had wielded in the preceding reign. … The province
of Galicia began early in the new reign to occasion uneasiness
to the government. The Congress of Vienna had constituted the
city of Cracow an independent republic—a futile
representative of that Polish nationality which had once
extended from the Baltic to the Black Sea. After the failure
of the Polish insurrection of 1831 against Russia, Cracow
became the focus of fresh conspiracies, to put an end to which
the city was occupied by a mixed force of Russians, Prussians,
and Austrians; the two former were soon withdrawn, but the
latter remained until 1840. When they also had retired, the
Polish propaganda was renewed with considerable effect. An
insurrection broke out in Galicia in 1846, when the scantiness
of the Austrian military force in the province seemed to
promise it success. It failed, however, as all previous
efforts of the Polish patriots had failed, because it rested
on no basis of popular sympathy. The nationality for which
they contended had ever been of an oligarchical pattern,
hostile to the freedom of the middle and lower classes. The
Galician peasants had no mind to exchange the yoke of Austria,
which pressed lightly upon them, for the feudal oppression of
the Polish nobles. They turned upon the insurgents and slew or
took them prisoners, the police inciting them to the work by
publicly offering a reward of five florins for every suspected
person delivered up by them, alive or dead. Thus the agents of
a civilized government became the avowed instigators of an
inhuman 'jacquerie.' The houses of the landed proprietors were
sacked by the peasants, their inmates were tortured and
murdered, and bloody anarchy raged throughout the land in the
prostituted name of loyalty. The Austrian troops at last
restored order; but Szela, the leader of the sanguinary
marauders, was thanked and highly rewarded in the name of his
sovereign. In the same year the three protecting powers,
Austria, Russia, and Prussia, took possession of Cracow, and,
ignoring the right of the other parties to the treaty of
Vienna to concern themselves about the fate of the republic,
they announced that its independence was annulled, and that
the city and territory of Cracow were annexed to, and forever
incorporated with, the Austrian monarchy. From this time forth
the political atmosphere of Europe became more and more loaded
with the presages of the storm that burst in 1848."
_W. K. Kelly,
Continuation of Coxe's History of the House of Austria,
chapter 5-6._
AUSTRIA: A. D. 1815-1849.
Arrangements in Italy of the Congress of Vienna.
Heaviness of the Austrian yoke.
The Italian risings.
"By the treaty of Vienna (1815), the … entire kingdom of
Venetian-Lombardy was handed over to the Austrians; the
duchies of Modena, Reggio, with Massa and Carrara, given to
Austrian princes; Parma, Piacenza, and Guastalla to Napoleon's
queen, Maria Luisa, because she was an Austrian princess; the
grand-duchy of Tuscany to Ferdinand III. of Austria; the duchy
of Lucca to a Bourbon. Rome and the Roman states were restored
to the new Pope, Pius VII.; Sicily was united to Naples under
the Bourbons, and later deprived of her constitution, despite
the promised protection of England; the Canton Ticino, though
strictly Italian, annexed to the Swiss Confederation; the
little republic of St. Marino left intact, even as the
principality of Monaco. England retained Malta; Corsica was
left to France. Italy, so Metternich and Europe fondly hoped,
was reduced to a geographical expression. Unjust, brutal, and
treacherous as was that partition, at least it taught the
Italians that 'who would be free himself must strike the
blow.' It united them into one common hatred of Austria and
Austrian satellites. By substituting papal, Austrian, and
Bourbon despotism for the free institutions, codes, and
constitutions of the Napoleonic era, it taught them the
difference between rule and misrule.
{228}
Hence the demand of the Neapolitans during their first
revolution (1820) was for a constitution; that of the
Piedmontese and Lombards (1821) for a constitution and war
against Austria. The Bourbon swore and foreswore, and the
Austrians 'restored order' in Naples. The Piedmontese, who had
not concerted their movement until Naples was crushed—after
the abdication of Victor Emmanuel I., the granting of the
constitution by the regent Charles Albert, and its abrogation
by the new king Charles Felix—saw the Austrians enter
Piedmont, while the leaders of the revolution went out into
exile [see ITALY: A. D. 1820-1821]. But those revolutions and
those failures were the beginning of the end. The will to be
independent of all foreigners, the thirst for freedom, was
universal; the very name of empire or of emperor, was rendered
ridiculous, reduced to a parody—in the person of Ferdinand of
Austria. But one illusion remained—in the liberating virtues
of France and the French; this had to be dispelled by bitter
experience, and for it substituted the new idea of one Italy
for the Italians, a nation united, independent, free, governed
by a president or by a king chosen by the sovereign people.
The apostle of this idea, to which for fifty years victims and
martyrs were sacrificed by thousands, was Joseph Mazzini; its
champion, Joseph Garibaldi. By the genius of the former, the
prowess of the latter, the abnegation, the constancy, the
tenacity, the iron will of both, all the populations of Italy
were subjugated by that idea: philosophers demonstrated it,
poets sung it, pious Christian priests proclaimed it,
statesmen found it confronting their negotiations, baffling
their half-measures."
_J. W. V. Mario,
Introduction to Autobiography of Garibaldi._
See ITALY: A. D. 1830-1832, and 1848-1849.
AUSTRIA: A. D. 1835.
Accession of the Emperor Ferdinand I.
AUSTRIA: A. D. 1839-1840.
The Turko-Egyptian question and its settlement.
Quadruple Alliance.
See TURKS: A. D. 1831-1840.
AUSTRIA: A. D. 1848.
The Germanic revolutionary rising.
National Assembly at Frankfort.
Archduke John elected Administrator of Germany.
"When the third French Revolution broke out, its influence was
immediately felt in Germany. The popular movement this time
was very different from any the Governments had hitherto had
to contend with. The people were evidently in earnest, and
resolved to obtain, at whatever cost, their chief demands. …
The Revolution was most serious in the two great German
States, Prussia and Austria. … It was generally hoped that
union as well as freedom was now to be achieved by Germany;
but, as Prussia and Austria were in too much disorder to do
anything, about 500 Germans from the various States met at
Frankfurt, and on March 21 constituted themselves a
provisional Parliament. An extreme party wished the assembly
to declare itself permanent; but to this the majority would
not agree. It was decided that a National Assembly should be
elected forthwith by the German people. The Confederate Diet,
knowing that the provisional Parliament was approved by the
nation, recognized its authority. Through the Diet the various
Governments were communicated with, and all of them agreed to
make arrangements for the elections. … The National Assembly
was opened in Frankfurt on May 18, 1848. It elected the
Archduke John of Austria as the head of a new provisional
central Government. The choice was a happy one. The Archduke
was at once acknowledged by the different governments, and on
July 12 the President of the Confederate Diet formally made
over to him the authority which had hitherto belonged to the
Diet. The Diet then ceased to exist. The Archduke chose from
the Assembly seven members, who formed a responsible ministry.
The Assembly was divided into two parties, the Right and the
Left. These again were broken up into various sections. Much
time was lost in useless discussions, and it was soon
suspected that the Assembly would not in the end prove equal
to the great task it had undertaken."
_J. Sime,
History of Germany,
chapter 19, sections 8-11._
See GERMANY: A. D. 1848 (MARCH-SEPTEMBER).
AUSTRIA: A. D. 1848 (December).
Accession of the Emperor Francis Joseph I.
AUSTRIA: A. D. 1848-1849.
Revolutionary risings.
Bombardment of Prague and Vienna.
Abdication of the Emperor Ferdinand.
Accession of Francis Joseph.
The Hungarian struggle for independence.
"The rise of national feeling among the Hungarian, Slavonic,
and Italian subjects of the House of Hapsburg was not the only
difficulty of the Emperor Ferdinand I. Vienna was then the
gayest and the dearest centre of fashion and luxury in Europe,
but side by side with wealth there seethed a mass of wretched
poverty; and the protective trade system of Austria so
increased the price of the necessaries of life that
bread-riots were frequent. … The university students were
foremost in the demand for a constitution and for the removal
of the rigid censorship of the press and of all books. So,
when the news came of the flight of Louis Philippe from Paris
[see FRANCE: A. D. 1841-1848, and 1848] the students as well
as the artisans of Vienna rose in revolt (March 13, 1848), the
latter breaking machinery and attacking the houses of
unpopular employers. A deputation of citizens clamoured for
the resignation of the hated Metternich: his house was burnt
down, and he fled to England. A second outbreak of the excited
populace (May 15, 1848), sent the Emperor Ferdinand in
helpless flight to Innsprück in Tyrol; but he returned when
they avowed their loyalty to his person, though they detested
the old bureaucratic system. Far more complicated, however,
were the race jealousies of the Empire. The Slavs of Bohemia
… had demanded of Ferdinand the union of Bohemia, Moravia,
and Austrian Silesia in Estates for those provinces, and that
the Slavs should enjoy equal privileges with the Germans.
After an unsatisfactory answer had been received, they
convoked a Slavonic Congress at Prague. … But while this
Babel of tongues was seeking for a means of fusion, Prince
Windischgrätz was assembling Austrian troops around the
Bohemian capital. Fights in the streets led to a bombardment
of the city, which Windischgrätz soon entered in triumph. This
has left a bitterness between the Tsechs or Bohemians and the
Germans which still divides Bohemia socially and politically.
… The exciting news of the spring of 1848 had made the hot
Asiatic blood of the Magyars boil; yet even Kossuth and the
democrats at first only demanded the abolition of Metternich's
system in favour of a representative government. …
{229}
Unfortunately Kossuth claimed that the Magyar laws and
language must now be supreme, not only in Hungary proper, but
also in the Hungarian 'crown lands' of Dalmatia, Croatia, and
Slavonia, and the enthusiastic Magyars wished also to absorb
the ancient principality of Transylvania; but this again was
stoutly resisted by the Roumanians, Slavs, and Saxons of that
little known corner of Europe, and their discontent was fanned
by the court of Vienna. Jellachich, the Ban or Governor of
Croatia, headed this movement, which aimed at making Agram the
capital of the southern Slavs. Their revolt against the
Hungarian ministry of Batthyanyi was at first disavowed in
June, 1848, but in October was encouraged, by the perfidious
government of Vienna. A conference between Batthyanyi and
Jellachich ended with words of defiance: 'Then we must meet on
the Drave,' said the Hungarian. 'No, on the Danube,' retorted
the champion of the Slavs. The vacillating Ferdinand annulled
his acceptance of the new Hungarian constitution and declared
Jellachich dictator of Hungary. His tool was unfortunate.
After crossing the Drave, the Slavs were defeated by the brave
Hungarian 'honveds' (defenders); and as many as 9,000 were
made prisoners. Unable to subdue Hungary, Jellachich turned
aside towards Vienna to crush the popular party there. For the
democrats, exasperated by the perfidious policy of the
government, had, on October 6, 1848, risen a third time: the
war-minister, Latour, had been hanged on a lamp-post, and the
emperor again fled from his turbulent capital to the
ever-faithful Tyrolese. But now Jellachich and Windischgrätz
bombarded the rebellious capital. It was on the point of
surrendering when the Hungarians appeared to aid the city; but
the levies raised by the exertions of Kossuth were this time
outmanœuvred [and defeated] by the imperialists at Schwechat
(October 30, 1848), and on the next day Vienna surrendered.
Blum, a delegate from Saxony [to the German Parliament of
Frankfort, who had come on a mission of mediation to Vienna,
but who had taken a part in the fighting], and some other
democrats, were shot. By this clever but unscrupulous use of
race jealousy the Viennese Government seemed to have overcome
Bohemians, Italians, Hungarians, and the citizens of its own
capital in turn; while it had diverted the southern Slavonians
from hostility to actual service on its side. … The weak
health and vacillating spirit of Ferdinand did not satisfy the
knot of courtiers of Vienna, who now, flushed by success,
sought to concentrate all power in the Viennese Cabinet. Worn
out by the excitements of the year and by the demands of these
men, Ferdinand, on December 2, 1848, yielded up the crown, not
to his rightful successor, his brother, but to his nephew,
Francis Joseph. He, a youth of eighteen, ascended the throne
so rudely shaken, and still, in spite of almost uniform
disaster in war, holds sway over an empire larger and more
powerful than he found it in 1848. The Hungarians refused to
recognise the young sovereign thus forced upon them; and the
fact that he was not crowned at Presburg with the sacred iron
crown of St. Stephen showed that he did not intend to
recognise the Hungarian constitution. Austrian troops under
Windischgrätz entered Buda-Pesth, but the Hungarian patriots
withdrew from their capital to organize a national resistance;
and when the Austrian Government proclaimed the Hungarian
constitution abolished and the complete absorption of Hungary
in the Austrian Empire, Kossuth and his colleagues retorted by
a Declaration of Independence (April 24, 1849). The House of
Hapsburg was declared banished from Hungary, which was to be a
republic. Kossuth, the first governor of the new republic, and
Görgei, its general, raised armies which soon showed their
prowess." The first important battle of the war had been
fought at Kapolna, on the right bank of the Theiss, on the
26th of February, 1849, Görgei and Dembinski commanding the
Hungarians and Windischgrätz leading the Austrians. The latter
won the victory, and the Hungarians retreated toward the
Theiss. About the middle of March, Görgei resumed the
offensive, advancing toward Pesth, and encountered the
Austrians at Isaszeg, where he defeated them in a hard-fought
battle,—or rather in two battles which are sometimes called
by different names: viz., that of Tapio Biscke fought April
4th, and that of Godolo, fought on the 5th. It was now the
turn of the Austrians to fall back, and they concentrated
behind the Rakos, to cover Pesth. The Hungarian general passed
round their left, carried Waitzen by storm, forced them to
evacuate Pesth and to retreat to Presburg, abandoning the
whole of Hungary with the exception of a few fortresses, which
they held. The most important of these fortresses, that of
Buda, the "twin-city," opposite Pesth on the Danube, was
besieged by the Hungarians and carried by storm on the 21st of
May. "In Transylvania, too, the Hungarians, under the talented
Polish general Bem, overcame the Austrians, Slavonians, and
Roumanians in many brilliant encounters. But the proclamation
of a republic had alienated those Hungarians who had only
striven for their old constitutional rights, so quarrels arose
between Görgei and the ardent democrat Kossuth. Worse still,
the Czar Nicholas, dreading the formation of a republic near
his Polish provinces sent the military aid which Francis
Joseph in May 1849 implored. Soon 80,000 Russians under
Paskiewitch poured over the northern Carpathians to help the
beaten Austrians, while others overpowered the gallant Bem in
Transylvania. Jellachich with his Croats again invaded South
Hungary, and Haynau, the scourge of Lombardy, marched on the
strongest Hungarian fortress, Komorn, on the Danube." The
Hungarians, overpowered by the combination of Austrians and
Russians against them, were defeated at Pered, June 21; at
Acz, July 3; at Komorn, July 11; at Waitzen, July 16; at
Tzombor, July 20; at Segesvar, July 31; at Debreczin, August
2; at Szegedin, August 4; at Temesvar, August 10. "In despair
Kossuth handed over his dictatorship to his rival Görgei, who
soon surrendered at Vilagos with all his forces to the
Russians (August 13, 1849). About 5,000 men with Kossuth, Bem,
and other leaders, escaped to Turkey. Even there Russia and
Austria sought to drive them forth; but the Porte, upheld by
the Western Powers, maintained its right to give sanctuary
according to the Koran. Kossuth and many of his fellow-exiles
finally sailed to England [and afterwards to America], where
his majestic eloquence aroused deep sympathy for the afflicted
country. Many Hungarian patriots suffered death. All rebels had
their property confiscated and the country was for years ruled
by armed force, and its old rights were abolished."
_J. H. Rose,
A Century of Continental History,
chapter 31._
ALSO IN:
_Sir A. Alison,
History of Europe, 1815-1852,
chapter 55._
_A. Görgei,
My Life and Acts in Hungary._
_General Klapka,
Memoirs of the War of Independence in Hungary._
_Count Hartig,
Genesis of the Revolution in Austria._
_W. H. Stiles,
Austria in 1848-49._
{230}
AUSTRIA: A. D.1848-1849.
Revolt in Lombardy and Venetia.
War with Sardinia.
Victories of Radetzky.
Italy vanquished again.
See ITALY: A. D. 1848-1849.
AUSTRIA: A. D. 1848-1850.
Failure of the movement for Germanic national unity.
End of the Frankfort Assembly.
"Frankfort had become the centre of the movement. The helpless
Diet had acknowledged the necessity of a German parliament,
and had summoned twelve men of confidence charged with drawing
up a new imperial constitution. But it was unable to supply
what was most wanted—a strong executive. … Instead of
establishing before all a strong executive able to control and
to realise its resolutions, the Assembly lost months in
discussing the fundamental rights of the German people, and
thus was overhauled by the events. In June, Prince
Windischgraetz crushed the insurrection at Prague; and in
November the anarchy which had prevailed during the whole
summer at Berlin was put down, when Count Brandenburg became
first minister. … Schwarzenberg [at Vienna] declared as soon
as he had taken the reins, that his programme was to maintain
the unity of the Austrian empire, and demanded that the whole
of it should enter into the Germanic confederation. This was
incompatible with the federal state as contemplated by the
National Assembly, and therefore Gagern, who had become
president of the imperial ministry [at Frankfort], answered
Schwarzenberg's programme by declaring that the entering of
the Austrian monarchy with a majority of non-German
nationalities into the German federal state was an
impossibility. Thus nothing was left but to place the king of
Prussia at the head of the German state. But in order to win a
majority for this plan Gagern found it necessary to make large
concessions to the democratic party, amongst others universal
suffrage. This was not calculated to make the offer of the
imperial crown acceptable to Frederic William IV., but his
principal reason for declining it was, that he would not
exercise any pressure on the other German sovereigns, and
that, notwithstanding Schwarzenberg's haughty demeanour, he
could not make up his mind to exclude Austria from Germany.
After the refusal of the crown by the king, the National
Assembly was doomed; it had certainly committed great faults,
but the decisive reason of its failure was the lack of a clear
and resolute will in Prussia. History, however, teaches that
great enterprises, such as it was to unify an empire
dismembered for centuries, rarely succeed at the first
attempt. The capital importance of the events of 1848 was that
they had made the German unionist movement an historical fact;
it could never be effaced from the annals, that all the German
governments had publicly acknowledged that tendency as
legitimate, the direction for the future was given, and even
at the time of failure it was certain, as Stockmar said, that
the necessity of circumstances would bring forward the man
who, profiting by the experiences of 1848, would fulfil the
national aspirations."
_F. H. Geffcken,
The Unity of Germany
(English Historical Review, April, 1891)_.
See GERMANY: A. D. 1848-1850.
AUSTRIA: A. D. 1849-1859.
The Return to pure Absolutism.
Bureaucracy triumphant.
"The two great gains which the moral earthquake of 1848
brought to Austria were, that through wide provinces of the
Empire, and more especially in Hungary, it swept away the sort
of semi-vassalage in which the peasantry had been left by the
Urbarium of Maria Theresa [an edict which gave to the peasants
the right of moving from place to place, and the right of
bringing up their children as they wished, while it
established in certain courts the trial of all suits to which
they were parties], and other reforms akin to or founded upon
it, and introduced modern in the place of middle-age relations
between the two extremes of society. Secondly, it overthrew
the policy of do-nothing—a surer guarantee for the
continuance of abuses than even the determination, which soon
manifested itself at headquarters, to make the head of the
state more absolute than ever. After the taking of Vienna by
Windischgrätz, the National Assembly had, on the 15th of
November 1848, been removed from the capital to the small town
of Kremsier, in Moravia. Here it prolonged all ineffective
existence till March 1849, when the court camarilla felt
itself strong enough to put an end to an inconvenient censor,
and in March 1849 it ceased to exist. A constitution was at
the same time promulgated which contained many good
provisions, but which was never heartily approved by the
ruling powers, or vigorously carried into effect—the
proclamation of a state of siege in many cities, and other
expedients of authority in a revolutionary period, easily
enabling it to be set at naught. The successes of the reaction
in other parts of Europe, and, above all, the coup d'état in
Paris, emboldened Schwartzenberg to throw off the mask; and on
the last day of 1851 Austria became once more a pure
despotism. The young emperor had taken 'Viribus unitis' for
his motto; and his advisers interpreted those words to mean
that Austria was henceforward to be a state as highly
centralised as France—a state in which the minister at Vienna
was absolutely to govern everything from Salzburg to the Iron
Gate. The hand of authority had been severely felt in the
pre-revolutionary period, but now advantage was to be taken of
the revolution to make it felt far more than ever. In Hungary,
for example, … it was fondly imagined that there would be no
more trouble. The old political division into counties was
swept away; the whole land was divided into five provinces;
and the courtiers might imagine that from henceforth the
Magyars would be as easily led as the inhabitants of Upper
Austria. These delusions soon became general, but they owed
their origin partly to the enthusiastic ignorance of those who
were at the head of the army, and partly to two men"—Prince
Schwartzenberg and Alexander Bach. Of the latter, the "two
leading ideas were to cover the whole empire with a German
bureaucracy, and to draw closer the ties which connected the
court of Vienna with that of Rome.
{231}
… If absolutism in Austria had a fair trial from the 31st of
December 1851 to the Italian war, it is to Bach that it was
owing; and if it utterly and ludicrously failed, it is he more
than any other man who must bear the blame. Already, in 1849,
the bureaucracy had been reorganised, but in 1852 new and
stricter regulations were introduced. Everything was
determined by precise rules—even the exact amount of hair
which the employee was permitted to wear upon his face. Hardly
any question was thought sufficiently insignificant to be
decided upon the spot. The smallest matters had to be referred
to Vienna. …. We can hardly be surprised that the great ruin
of the Italian war brought down with a crash the whole edifice of
the reaction."
_M. E. G. Duff,
Studies in European Politics,
chapter 3._
ALSO IN:
_L. Leger,
History of Austro-Hungary,
chapter 33._
AUSTRIA: A. D. 1853.
Commercial Treaty with the German Zollverein.
See TARIFF LEGISLATION (GERMANY): A. D. 1853-1892.
AUSTRIA: A. D. 1853-1856.
Attitude in the Crimean War.
See RUSSIA: A. D. 1853-1854, to 1854-1856.
AUSTRIA: A. D. 1856-1859.
The war in Italy with Sardinia and France.
Reverses at Magenta and Solferino.
Peace of Villafranca.
Surrender of Lombardy.
"From the wars of 1848-9 the King of Sardinia was looked upon
by the moderate party as the champion of Italian freedom.
Charles Albert had failed: yet his son would not, and indeed
could not, go back, though, when he began his reign, there
were many things against him. … Great efforts were made to
win him over to the Austrian party, but the King was neither
cast down by defeat and distrust nor won over by soft words.
He soon showed that, though he had been forced to make a
treaty with Austria, yet he would not cast in his lot with the
oppression of Italy. He made Massimo d'Azeglio his chief
Minister, and Camillo Benso di Cavour his Minister of
Commerce. With the help of these two men he honestly carried
out the reforms which had been granted by his father, and set
new ones on foot. … The quick progress of reform frightened
Count Massimo d'Azeglio. He retired from office in 1853, and
his place was taken by Count Cavour, who made a coalition with
the democratic party in Piedmont headed by Urbano Rattazzi.
The new chief Minister began to work not only for the good of
Piedmont but for Italy at large. The Milanese still listened
to the hopes which Mazzini held out, and could not quietly
hear their subjection. Count Cavour indignantly remonstrated
with Radetzky for his harsh government. … The division and
slavery of Italy had shut her out from European politics.
Cavour held that, if she was once looked upon as an useful
ally, then her deliverance might be hastened by foreign
interference. The Sardinian army had been brought into good
order by Alfonso della Marmora; and was ready for action. In
1855, Sardinia made alliance with England and France, who were
at war with Russia; for Cavour looked on that power as the
great support of the system of despotism on the Continent, and
held that it was necessary for Italian freedom that Russia
should be humbled. The Sardinian army was therefore sent to
the Crimea, under La Marmora, where it did good service in the
battle of Tchernaya. … The next year the Congress of Paris
was held to arrange terms of peace between the allies and
Russia, and Cavour took the opportunity of laying before the
representatives of the European powers the unhappy state of
his countrymen. … In December, 1851, Louis Napoleon
Buonaparte, the President of the French Republic, seized the
government, and the next year took the title of Emperor of the
French. He was anxious to weaken the power of Austria, and at
the beginning of 1859 it became evident that war would soon
break out. As a sign of the friendly feeling of the French
Emperor towards the Italian cause, his cousin, Napoleon
Joseph, married Clotilda, the daughter of Victor Emmanuel.
Count Cavour now declared that Sardinia would make war on
Austria, unless a separate and national government was granted
to Lombardy and Venetia, and unless Austria promised to meddle
no more with the rest of Italy. On the other hand, Austria
demanded the disarmament of Sardinia. The King would not
listen to this demand, and France and Sardinia declared war
against Austria. The Emperor Napoleon declared that he would
free Italy from the Alps to the Adriatic. … The Austrian
army crossed the Ticino, but was defeated by the King and
General Cialdini. The French victory of Magenta, on June 4th
forced the Austrians to retreat from Lombardy. … On June
24th the Austrians, who had crossed the Mincio, were defeated
at Solferino by the allied armies of France and Sardinia. It
seemed as though the French Emperor would keep his word. But
he found that if he went further, Prussia would take up the
cause of Austria, and that he would have to fight on the Rhine
as well as on the Adige. When, therefore, the French army came
before Verona, a meeting was arranged between the two
Emperors. This took place at Villafranca, and there
Buonaparte, without consulting his ally, agreed with Francis
Joseph to favour the establishment of an Italian
Confederation. …Austria gave up to the King of Sardinia
Lombardy to the west of Mincio. But the Grand Duke of Tuscany
and the Duke of Modena were to return to their States. The
proposed Confederation was never made, for the people of
Tuscany, Modena, Parma, and Romagna sent to the King to pray
that they might be made part of his Kingdom, and Victor
Emmanuel refused to enter on the scheme of the French Emperor.
In return for allowing the Italians of Central Italy to shake
off the yoke, Buonaparte asked for Savoy and Nizza. … The
King … consented to give up the 'glorious cradle of his
Monarchy' in exchange for Central Italy."
_W. A. Hunt,
History of Italy,
chapter 11._
ALSO IN:
_J. W. Probyn,
Italy from 1815 to 1890,
chapter 9-10._
_C. de Mazade,
Life of Count Cavour,
chapter 2-7._
See, also, ITALY: A. D. 1856-1859, and 1859-1861.
AUSTRIA: A. D. 1862-1866.
The Schleswig-Holstein question.
Quarrel with Prussia.
The humiliating Seven Weeks War.
Conflict with Prussia grew out of the complicated
Schleswig-Holstein question, reopened in 1862 and
provisionally settled by a delusive arrangement between
Prussia and Austria, into which the latter was artfully drawn
by Prince Bismarck.
See SCANDINAVIAN STATES (DENMARK): A. D. 1848-1862,
and GERMANY: A. D. 1861-1866.
{232}
No sooner was the war with Denmark over, than "Prussia showed
that it was her intention to annex the newly acquired duchies
to herself. This Austria could not endure, and accordingly, in
1866, war broke out between Austria and Prussia. Prussia
sought alliance with Italy, which she stirred up to attack
Austria in her Italian possessions. The Austrian army defeated
the Italian at Eustazza [or Custozza (see ITALY: A. D.
1862-1866)]; but the fortunes of war were against them in
Germany. Allied with the Austrians were the Saxons, the
Bavarians, the Würtembergers, Baden and Hesse, and Hanover.
The Prussians advanced with their chief army into Bohemia with
the utmost rapidity, dreading lest the Southern allies should
march north to Hanover, and cut the kingdom in half, and push
on to Berlin. The Prussians had three armies, which were to
enter Bohemia and effect a junction. The Elbe army under the
King, the first army under Prince Frederick Charles, and the
second army under the Crown Prince. The Elbe army advanced
across Saxony by Dresden. The first army was in Lusatia, at
Reichenberg, and the second army in Silesia at Heisse. They
were all to meet at Gitschin. The Austrian army under General
Benedek was at Königgrätz, in Eastern Bohemia. … As in the
wars with Napoleon, so was it now; the Austrian generals …
never did the right thing at the right moment. Benedek did
indeed march against the first army, but too late, and when he
found it was already through the mountain door, he retreated,
and so gave time for the three armies to concentrate upon him.
The Elbe army and the first met at Münchengratz, and defeated
an Austrian army there, pushed on, and drove them back out of
Gitschin on Königgrätz. … The Prussians pushed on, and now
the Elbe army went to Smidar, and the first army to Horzitz,
whilst the second army, under the Crown Prince, was pushing
on, and had got to Gradlitz. The little river Bistritz is
crossed by the high road to Königgrätz. It runs through swampy
ground, and forms little marshy pools or lakes. To the north
of Königgrätz a little stream of much the same character
dribbles through bogs into the Elbe. … But about Chlum,
Nedelist and Lippa is terraced high ground, and there Benedek
planted his cannon. The Prussians advanced from Smidar against
the left wing of the Austrians, from Horzitz against the
centre, and the Crown Prince was to attack the right wing. The
battle began on the 3d of July, at 7 o'clock in the morning,
by the simultaneous advance of the Elbe and the first army
upon the Bistritz. At Sadowa is a wood, and there the battle
raged most fiercely. … Two things were against the
Austrians; first, the incompetence of their general, and,
secondly, the inferiority of their guns. The Prussians had
what are called needle-guns, breach-loaders, which are fired
by the prick of a needle, and for the rapidity with which they
can be fired far surpassed the old-fashioned muzzle-loaders
used by the Austrians. After this great battle, which is
called by the French and English the battle of Sadowa (Sadowa
(o Breve), not Sadowa (o Macron), as it is erroneously
pronounced), but which the Germans call the battle of
Königgrätz, the Prussians marched on Vienna, and reached the
Marchfeld before the Emperor Francis Joseph would come to
terms. At last, on the 23d of August, a peace which gave a
crushing preponderance in Germany to Prussia, was concluded at
Prague."
_S. Baring-Gould,
The Story of Germany,
pages 390-394._
See GERMANY: A. D. 1866.
AUSTRIA: A. D. 1866.
The War in Italy.
Loss of Venetia.
See ITALY: A. D. 1862-1866.
AUSTRIA: A. D. 1866-1867.
Concession of nationality to Hungary.
Formation of the dual Austro-Hungarian Empire.
"For twelve years the name of Hungary, as a State, was erased
from the map of Europe. Bureaucratic Absolutism ruled supreme
in Austria, and did its best to obliterate all Hungarian
institutions. Germanisation was the order of the day, the
German tongue being declared the exclusive language of
official life as well as of the higher schools. Government was
carried on by means of foreign, German, and Czech officials.
No vestige was left, not only of the national independence,
but either of Home Rule or of self-government of any sort; the
country was divided into provinces without regard for
historical traditions; in short, an attempt was made to wipe
out every trace denoting the existence of a separate Hungary.
All ranks and classes opposed a sullen passive resistance to
these attacks against the existence of the nation; even the
sections of the nationalities which had rebelled against the
enactments of 1848, at the instigation of the reactionary
Camarilla, were equally disaffected in consequence of the
short-sighted policy of despotical centralisation. …
Finally, after the collapse of the system of Absolutism in
consequence of financial disasters and of the misfortunes of
the Italian War of 1859, the Hungarian Parliament was again
convoked; and after protracted negotiations, broken off and
resumed again, the impracticability of a system of provincial
Federalism having been proved in the meantime, and the defeat
incurred in the Prussian War of 1866 having demonstrated the
futility of any reconstruction of the Empire of Austria in
which the national aspirations of Hungary were not taken into
due consideration—an arrangement was concluded under the
auspices of Francis Deák, Count Andrássy, and Count Beust, on
the basis of the full acknowledgment of the separate national
existence of Hungary, and of the continuity of its legal
rights. The idea of a centralised Austrian Empire had to give
way to the dual Austro-Hungarian monarchy, which is in fact an
indissoluble federation of two equal States, under the common
rule of a single sovereign, the Emperor of Austria and King of
Hungary, each of the States having a constitution, government,
and parliament of its own, Hungary especially retaining, with
slight modifications, its ancient institutions remodelled in
1848. The administration of the foreign policy, the management
of the army, and the disbursement of the expenditure necessary
for these purposes, were settled upon as common affairs of the
entire monarchy, for the management of which common ministers
were instituted, responsible to the two delegations, co-equal
committees of the parliaments of Hungary and of the
Cisleithanian (Austrian) provinces. Elaborate provisions were
framed for the smooth working of these common institutions,
for giving weight to the constitutional influence, even in
matters of common policy, of the separate Cisleithanian and
Hungarian ministries, and for rendering their responsibility
to the respective Parliaments an earnest and solid reality.
{233}
The financial questions pending in the two independent and
equal States were settled by a compromise; measures were taken
for the equitable arrangement of all matters which might arise
in relation to interests touching both States, such as
duties, commerce, and indirect taxation, all legislation on
these subjects taking place by means of identical laws
separately enacted by the Parliament of each State. …
Simultaneously with these arrangements the political
differences between Hungary and Croatia were compromised by
granting provincial Home Rule to the latter. … Thus the
organisation of the Austro-Hungarian monarchy on the basis of
dualism, and the compromise entered into between the two
halves composing it, whilst uniting for the purposes of
defence the forces of two States of a moderate size and extent
into those of a great empire, able to cope with the exigencies
of an adequate position amongst the first-class Powers of
Europe, restored also to Hungary its independence and its
unfettered sovereignty in all internal matters."
_A. Pulszky,
Hungary
(National Life and Thought,
lecture 3)._
"The Ausgleich, or agreement with Hungary, was arranged by a
committee of 67 members of the Hungarian diet, at the head of
whom was the Franklin of Hungary, Francis Deák, the true
patriot and inexorable legist, who had taken no part in the
revolutions, but who had never given up one of the smallest of
the rights of his country. … On the 8th of June [1867], the
emperor Francis Joseph was crowned with great pomp at Pesth.
On the 28th of the following June, he approved the decisions
of the diet, which settled the position of Hungary with regard
to the other countries belonging to his majesty, and modified
some portions of the laws of 1848. … Since the Ausgleich the
empire has consisted of two parts. … For the sake of
clearness, political language has been increased by the
invention of two new terms, Cisleithania and Transleithania,
to describe the two groups, separated a little below Vienna by
a small affluent of the Danube, called the Leitha—a stream
which never expected to become so celebrated."
_L. Leger,
History of Austro-Hungary,
chapter 35._
ALSO IN:
_Francis Deák,
A Memoir,
chapters 26-31._
_Count von Beust,
Memoirs,
volume 2, chapter 38._
_L. Felbermann,
Hungary and its People,
chapter 5._
AUSTRIA: A. D. 1866-1887.
The Austro-Hungarian Empire.
Its new national life.
Its difficulties and promises.
Its ambitions and aims in Southeastern Europe.
"Peace politicians may say that a war always does more harm
than good to the nations which engage in it. Perhaps it always
does, at any rate, morally speaking, to the victors: but that
it does not to the vanquished, Austria stands as a living
evidence. Finally excluded from Italy and Germany by the
campaign of 1866, she has cast aside her dreams of foreign
domination, and has set herself manfully to the task of making
a nation out of the various conflicting nationalities over
which she presides. It does not require much insight to
perceive that as long as she held her position in Germany this
fusion was hopeless. The overwhelming preponderance of the
German element made any approach to a reciprocity of interests
impossible. The Germans always were regarded as sovereigns,
the remaining nationalities as subjects; it was for these to
command, for those to obey. In like manner, it was impossible
for the Austrian Government to establish a mutual
understanding with a population which felt itself
attracted—alike by the ties of race, language, and
geographical position—to another political union. Nay more,
as long as the occupation of the Italian provinces remained as
a blot on the Imperial escutcheon, it was impossible for the
Government to command any genuine sympathy from any of its
subjects. But with the close of the war with Prussia these two
difficulties—the relations with Germany and the relations
with Italy—were swept away. From this time forward Austria
could appear before the world as a Power binding together for
the interests of all, a number of petty nationalities, each of
which was too feeble to maintain a separate existence. In
short, from the year 1866 Austria had a raison d'être, whereas
before she had none. … Baron Beust, on the 7th of February,
1867, took office under Franz Joseph. His programme may be
stated as follows. He saw that the day of centralism and
imperial unity was gone past recall, and that the most liberal
Constitution in the world would never reconcile the
nationalities to their present position, as provinces under
the always detested and now despised Empire. But then came the
question—Granted that a certain disintegration is inevitable,
how far is this disintegration to go? Beust proposed to disarm
the opposition of the leading nationality by the gift of an
almost complete independence, and, resting on the support thus
obtained, to gain time for conciliating the remaining
provinces by building up a new system of free government. It
would be out of place to give a detailed account of the
well-known measure which converted the 'Austrian empire' into
the 'Austro-Hungarian monarchy.' It will be necessary,
however, to describe the additions made to it by the political
machinery. The Hungarian Reichstag was constructed on the same
principle as the Austrian Reichsrath. It was to meet in Pesth,
as the Reichsrath at Vienna, and was to have its own
responsible ministers. From the members of the Reichsrath and
Reichstag respectively were to be chosen annually sixty
delegates to represent Cisleithanian and sixty to represent
Hungarian interests—twenty being taken in each case from the
Upper, forty from the Lower House. These two 'Delegations,'
whose votes were to be taken, when necessary, collectively,
though each Delegation sat in a distinct chamber, owing to the
difference of language, formed the Supreme Imperial Assembly,
and met alternate years at Vienna and Pesth. They were
competent in matters of foreign policy, in military
administration, and in Imperial finance. At their head stood
three Imperial ministers—the Reichskanzler, who presided at
the Foreign Office, and was ex officio Prime Minister, the
Minister of War, and the Minister of Finance. These three
ministers were independent of the Reichsrath and Reichstag,
and could only be dismissed by a vote of want of confidence on
the part of the Delegations. The 'Ausgleich' or scheme of
federation with Hungary is, no doubt, much open to criticism,
both as a whole and in its several parts. It must always be
borne in mind that administratively and politically it was a
retrogression.
{234}
At a time in which all other European nations—notably North
Germany—were simplifying and unifying their political
systems, Austria was found doing the very reverse. … The
true answer to these objections is, that the measure of 1867
was constructed to meet a practical difficulty. Its end was
not the formation of a symmetrical system of government, but
the pacification of Hungary. … The internal history of the
two halves of the empire flows in two different channels. Graf
Andrassy, the Hungarian Premier, had a comparatively easy task
before him. There were several reasons for this. In the first
place, the predominance of the Magyars in Hungary was more
assured than that of the Germans in Cisleithania. It is true
that they numbered only 5,000,000 out of the 16,000,000
inhabitants; but in these 5,000,000 were included almost all
the rank, wealth, and intelligence of the country. Hence they
formed in the Reichstag a compact and homogeneous majority,
under which the remaining Slovaks and Croatians soon learnt to
range themselves. In the second place, Hungary had the great
advantage of starting in a certain degree afresh. Her
government was not bound by the traditional policy of former
Vienna ministries, and … it had managed to keep its
financial credit unimpaired. In the third place, as those who
are acquainted with Hungarian history well know, Parliamentary
institutions had for a long time flourished in Hungary. Indeed
the Magyars, who among their many virtues can hardly be
credited with the virtue of humility, assert that the world is
mistaken in ascribing to England the glory of having invented
representative government, and claim this glory for
themselves. Hence one of the main difficulties with which the
Cisleithanian Government had to deal was already solved for
Graf Andrassy and his colleagues."—_Austria since Sadowa
(Quarterly Review, volume 131, pages 90-95)._—"It is difficult
for anyone except an Austro-Hungarian statesman to realise the
difficulties of governing the Dual Monarchy. Cisleithania has,
as is well-known, a Reichsrath and seventeen Provincial Diets.
The two Austrias, Styria, Carinthia, and Salzburg present no
difficulties, but causes of trouble are abundant in the other
districts. The Emperor will probably end by getting himself
crowned King of Bohemia, although it will be difficult for him
to lend himself to a proscription of the German language by
the Tsechs, as he has been forced by the Magyars to lend
himself to the proscription in parts of Hungary of Rouman and
of various Slavonic languages. But how far is this process to
continue? The German Austrians are as unpopular in Istria and
Dalmatia as in Bohemia; and Dalmatia is also an ancient
kingdom. These territories were originally obtained by the
election of the King of Hungary to the crown of the tripartite
kingdom of Croatia, Slavonia, and Dalmatia. Is 'Ferencz
Jozsef' to be crowned King of Dalmatia? And is Dalmatia to
have its separate Ministry and its separate official language,
and its completely separate laws? And what then of Fiume, the
so-called Hungarian port? Then, again, Galicia is also an
ancient kingdom, although it has at other times formed part of
Poland; and the Emperor is King of Galicia, as he is King of
Bohemia and Dalmatia. Is he to be crowned King of Galicia? And
if so, is the separate existence of Galicia to be a Polish or
a Ruthenian existence, or, indeed, a Jewish? for the Jews are
not only extraordinarily powerful and numerous there, but are
gaining ground day by day. The Ruthenians complain as bitterly
of being bullied by the Poles in Galicia as the Croats
complain of the Magyars. Even here the difficulties are not
ended. The Margraviate of Moravia contains a large Tsech
population, and will have to be added to the Bohemian kingdom.
Bukowina may go with Galicia or Transylvania, Austrian Silesia
may be divided between the Tsechs of Bohemia and Moravia on
the one part, and the Poles or Ruthenians or Jews of Galicia
on the other. But what is to become of that which, with the
most obstinate disregard of pedants, I intend to continue to
call the Tyrol? Trieste must go with Austria and Salzburg, and
the Northern Tyrol and Styria and Carinthia no doubt; but it
is not difficult to show that Austria would actually be
strengthened by giving up the Southern Tyrol, where the
Italian people, or at least the Italian language, is gaining
ground day by day. There really seems very little left of the
integrity of the Austrian Empire at the conclusion of our
survey of its constituent parts. Matters do not look much
better if we turn to Trans-Leithania. Hungary has its
Reichstag (which is also known by some terrible Magyar name),
its House of Representatives, and its House of Magnates, and,
although there are not so many Provincial Diets as in Austria,
Slavonia and the Banat of Croatia possess a Common Diet with
which the Magyars are far from popular; and the Principality
of Transylvania also possessed separate local rights, for
trying completely to suppress which the Magyars are at present
highly unpopular. The Principality, although under Magyar
rule, is divided between 'Saxons' and Roumans, who equally
detest the Magyars, and the Croats and Slovenes who people the
Banat are Slavs who also execrate their Ugrian rulers,
inscriptions in whose language are defaced whenever seen.
Croatia is under-represented at Pest, and says that she goes
unheard, and the Croats, who have partial Home Rule without an
executive, ask for a local executive as well, and demand Fiume
and Dalmatia. If we look to the numbers of the various races,
there are in Austria of Germans and Jews about 9,000,000 to
about 13,000,000 Slavs and a few Italians and Roumans. There
are in the lands of the Crown of Hungary 2,000,000 of Germans
and Jews, of Roumans nearly 3,000,000, although the Magyars
only acknowledge 2,500,000, and of Magyars and Slavs between
five and six millions apiece. In the whole of the territories
of the Dual Monarchy it will be seen that there are 18,000,000
of Slavs and only 17,000,000 of the ruling races—Germans,
Jews, and Magyars—while between three and four millions of
Roumans and Italians count along with the Slav majority as
being hostile to the dominant nationalities. It is difficult
to exaggerate the gravity for Austria of the state of things
which these figures reveal."
_The Present Position of European Polities
(Fortnightly Review, April, 1887)._
{235}
"In past times, when Austria had held France tight bound
between Spain, Germany, and the Netherlands, she had aspired
to a dominant position in Western Europe; and, so long as her
eyes were turned in that direction, she naturally had every
interest in preserving the Ottoman Empire intact, for she was
thus guaranteed against all attacks from the south. But, after
the loss of her Italian possessions in 1805, and of part of
Croatia in 1809, after the disasters of 1849, 1859 and 1866,
she thought more and more seriously of indemnifying herself at
the expense of Turkey. It was moreover evident that, in order
to paralyse the damaging power of Hungary, it was essential
for her to assimilate the primitive and scattered peoples of
Turkey, accustomed to centuries of complete submission and
obedience, and form thus a kind of iron band which should
encircle Hungary and effectually prevent her from rising. If,
in fact, we glance back at the position of Austria in 1860,
and take the trouble carefully to study the change of ideas
and interests which had then taken place in the policy of
France and of Russia, the tendencies of the strongly
constituted nations who were repugnant to the authority and
influence of Austria, the basis of the power of that empire,
and, finally, the internal ruin with which she was then
threatened, we cannot but arrive at the conclusion that
Austria, by the very instinct of self-preservation, was forced
to turn eastwards and to consider how best she might devour
some, at least, of the European provinces of Turkey. Austrian
statesmen have been thoroughly convinced of this fact, and,
impelled by the instinct above-mentioned, have not ceased
carefully and consistently to prepare and follow out the
policy here indicated. Their objects have already been
partially attained by the practical annexation of Bosnia and
Herzegovina in 1878 [see TURKS: A. D. 1878]; and it was
striking to observe with what bitter feeling and resentment
this measure was looked upon at the time by the Hungarian
section of the empire. … Russia has never made any secret of
her designs upon Turkey; she has, indeed, more than once
openly made war in order to carry them out. But Austria
remains a fatal obstacle in her path. Even as things at
present stand, Austria, by her geographical position, so
commands and dominates the Russian line of operations that,
once the Danube passed, the Russians are constantly menaced by
Austria on the flank and rear. … And if this be true now,
how much more true would it be were Austria to continue her
march eastwards towards Salonica. That necessarily, at some
time or other, that march must be continued may be taken for
almost certain; but that Austria has it in her power to
commence it for the present, cannot, I think, be admitted. She
must further consolidate and make certain of what she has.
Movement now would bring upon her a struggle for life or
death—a struggle whose issue may fairly be said, in no
unfriendly spirit to Austria, to be doubtful. With at home a
bitterly discontented Croatia, strong Pan-slavistic tendencies
in Bosnia, Herzegovina, and Dalmatia, a Greek population
thoroughly disaffected, and a Hungary whose loyalty is
doubtful, she would have to deal beyond her frontiers with the
not contemptible armies, when combined, of Servia, Bulgaria,
and Greece, whose aspirations she would be asphyxiating for
ever, with a bitterly hostile population in Macedonia, with
the whole armed force of Turkey, and with the gigantic
military power of Russia; whilst it is not fantastic to
suppose that Germany would be hovering near ready to pounce on
her German provinces when the 'moment psychologique' should
occur. With such a prospect before her, it would be worse than
madness for Austria to move until the cards fell more favourably
for her."
_V. Caillard,
The Bulgarian Imbroglio
(Fortnightly Review, December, 1885)._
AUSTRIA: A. D. 1878.
The Treaty of Berlin.
Acquisition of Bosnia and Herzegovina.
See TURKS: A. D. 1878.
----------AUSTRIA: End----------
AUSTRO-HUNGARIAN EMPIRE.
See AUSTRIA: A. D. 1866-1867.
AUTERI, The.
See IRELAND, TRIBES OF EARLY CELTIC INHABITANTS.
AUTUN: Origin.
See GAULS.
AUTUN: A. D. 287.
Sacked by the Bagauds.
See BAGAUDS.
----------AUTUN: End----------
AUVERGNE, Ancient.
The country of the Arverni.
See ÆDUI;
also GAULS.
AUVERGNE, The Great Days of.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1665.
AUXILIUM.
See TALLAGE.
AVA.
See INDIA: A. D. 1823-1833.
AVALON.
See NEWFOUNDLAND: A. D. 1610-1655;
and MARYLAND: A. D. 1632.
AVARICUM.
See BOURGES, ORIGIN OF.
AVARS, The.
The true Avars are represented to have been a powerful
Turanian people who exercised in the sixth century a wide
dominion in Central Asia. Among the tribes subject to them was
one called the Ogors, or Ouigours, or Ouiars, or Ouar Khouni,
or Varchonites (these diverse names have been given to the
nation) which is supposed to have belonged to the national
family of the Huns. Some time in the early half of the sixth
century, the Turks, then a people who dwelt in the very center
of Asia, at the foot of the Altai mountains, making their
first appearance in history as conquerors, crushed and almost
annihilated the Avars, thereby becoming the lords of the
Ouigours, or Ouar Khouni. But the latter found an opportunity
to escape from the Turkish yoke. "Gathering together their
wives and their children, their flocks and their herds, they
turned their waggons towards the Setting Sun. This immense
exodus comprised upwards of 200,000 persons. The terror which
inspired their flight rendered them resistless in the onset;
for the avenging Turk was behind their track. They overturned
everything before them, even the Hunnic tribes of kindred
origin, who had long hovered on the north-east frontiers of
the Empire, and, driving out or enslaving the inhabitants,
established themselves in the wide plains which stretch
between·the Volga and the Don. In that age of imperfect
information they were naturally enough confounded with the
greatest and most formidable tribe of the Turanian stock known
to the nations of the West. The report that the Avars had
broken loose from Asia, and were coming in irresistible force
to overrun Europe, spread itself all along both banks of the
Danube and penetrated to the Byzantine court. With true
barbaric cunning, the Ouar Khouni availed themselves of the
mistake, and by calling themselves Avars largely increased the
terrors of their name and their chances of conquest." The
pretended Avars were taken into the pay of the Empire by
Justinian and employed against the Hun tribes north and east
of the Black Sea.
{236}
They presently acquired a firm footing on both banks of the
Danube, and turned their arms against the Empire. The
important city of Sirmium was taken by them after an obstinate
siege and its inhabitants put to the sword. Their ravages
extended over central Europe to the Elbe, where they were
beaten back by the warlike Franks, and, southwards, through
Moesia, Illyria, Thrace, Macedonia and Greece, even to the
Peloponnesus. Constantinople itself was threatened more than
once, and in the summer of 626, it was desperately attacked by
Avars and Persians in conjunction (see ROME: A. D. 565-628),
with disastrous results to the assailants. But the seat of
their Empire was the Dacian country—modern Roumania,
Transylvania and part of Hungary—in which the Avars had
helped the Lombards to crush and extinguish the Gepidæ. The
Slavic tribes which, by this time, had moved in great numbers
into central and south-eastern Europe, were largely in
subjection to the Avars and did their bidding in war and
peace. "These unfortunate creatures, of apparently an
imperfect, or, at any rate, imperfectly cultivated
intelligence, endured such frightful tyranny from their Avar
conquerors, that their very name has passed into a synonyme
for the most degraded servitude."
_J. G. Sheppard,
Fall of Rome,
lecture 4._
ALSO IN:
_E. Gibbon,
Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire,
chapter 42.
AVARS: 7th Century.
The Slavic Revolt.
The Empire of the Avars was shaken and much diminished in the
Seventh Century by an extensive rising of their oppressed
Slavic subjects, roused and led, it is said, by a Frank
merchant, or adventurer, named Samo, who became their king.
The first to throw off the yoke were a tribe called the
Vendes, or Wendes, or Venedi, in Bohemia, who were reputed to
be half-castes, resulting from intercourse between the Avar
warriors and the women of their Slavic vassals. Under the lead
of Samo, the Wendes and Slovenes or Slavonians drove the Avars
to the east and north; and it seems to have been in connection
with this revolution that the Emperor Heraclius induced the
Serbs or Servians and Croats—Slavic tribes of the same race
and region—to settle in depopulated Dalmatia. "'From the year
630 A. D.' writes M. Thierry, 'the Avar people are no longer
mentioned in the annals of of the East; the successors of
Attila no longer figure beside the successors of Constantine.
It required new wars in the West to bring upon the stage of
history the khan and his people.' In these wars [of Pepin and
Charlemagne] they were finally swept off from the roll of
European nations."
_J. G. Sheppard,
Fall of Rome,
lecture 4._
AVARS: A. D. 791-805.
Conquest by Charlemagne.
"Hungary, now so called, was possessed by the Avars, who,
joining with themselves a multitude of Hunnish tribes,
accumulated the immense spoils which both they themselves and
their equally barbarous predecessors had torn from the other
nations of Europe. … They extended their limits towards
Lombardy, and touched upon the very verge of Bavaria. … Much
of their eastern frontier was now lost, almost without a
struggle on their part, by the rise of other barbarous
nations, especially the various tribes of Bulgarians." This
was the position of the Avars at the time of Charlemagne, whom
they provoked by forming an alliance with the ambitious Duke
of Bavaria, Tassilo,—most obstinate of all who resisted the
Frank king's imperious and imperial rule. In a series of
vigorous campaigns, between 791 and 797 Charlemagne crushed
the power of the Avars and took possession of their country.
The royal "ring" or stronghold—believed to have been situated
in the neighborhood of Tatar, between the Danube and the
Theiss—was penetrated, and the vast treasure stored there was
seized. Charlemagne distributed it with a generous hand to
churches, to monasteries and to the poor, as well as to his
own nobles, servants and soldiers, who are said to have been
made rich. There were subsequent risings of the Avars and
wars, until 805, when the remnant of that almost annihilated
people obtained permission to settle on a tract of land
between Sarwar and Haimburg, on the right bank of the Danube,
where they would be protected from their Slavonian enemies.
This was the end of the Avar nation.
_G. P. R. James,
History of Charlemagne,
books 9 and 11._
ALSO IN:
_J. I. Mombert,
History of Charles the Great,
book 2, chapter 7._
----------AVARS: End----------
AVARS, The Rings of the.
The fortifications of the Avars were of a peculiar and
effective construction and were called Hrings, or Rings. "They
seem to have been a series of eight or nine gigantic ramparts,
constructed in concentric circles, the inner one of all being
called the royal circle or camp, where was deposited all the
valuable plunder which the warriors had collected in their
expeditions. The method of constructing these ramparts was
somewhat singular. Two parallel rows of gigantic piles were
driven into the ground, some twenty feet apart. The
intervening space was filled with stones, or a species of
chalk, so compacted as to become a solid mass. The sides and
summit were covered with soil, upon which were planted trees
and shrubs, whose interlacing branches formed an impenetrable
hedge."
_J. G. Sheppard,
Fall of Rome,
lecture 9._
AVEBURY.
See ABURY.
AVEIN, Battle of (1635).
See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1635-1638.
AVENTINE, The.
See SEVEN HILLS OF ROME.
AVERNUS, Lake and Cavern.
A gloomy lake called Avernus, which filled the crater of an
extinct volcano, situated a little to the north of the Bay of
Naples, was the object of many superstitious imaginations
among the ancients. "There was a place near Lake Avernus
called the prophetic cavern. Persons were in attendance there
who called up ghosts. Anyone desiring it came thither, and,
having killed a victim and poured out libations, summoned
whatever ghost he wanted. The ghost came, very faint and
doubtful to the sight, but vocal and prophetic; and, having
answered the questions, went off."
_Maximus Tyrius,
quoted by C. C. Felton, in Greece, Ancient and Modern,
c. 2, lecture 9._
See, also, CUMÆ: AND BAIÆ.
AVERYSBORO, Battle of.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1865 (FEBRUARY-MARCH:
THE CAROLINAS).
AVIGNON: 10th Century.
In the Kingdom of Arles.
See BURGUNDY: A. D. 843-933.
AVIGNON: A. D. 1226.
Siege by Louis VIII.
See ALBIGENSES: A. D. 1217-1229.
{237}
AVIGNON: A. D. 1309-1348.
Made the seat of the Papacy.
Purchase of the city by Clement V.
See PAPACY: A. D. 1294-1348.
AVIGNON: A. D. 1367-1369.
Temporary return of Urban V. to Rome.
See PAPACY: A. D. 1352-1378.
AVIGNON: A. D. 1377-1417.
Return of Pope Gregory XI. to Rome.
Residence of the anti-popes of the great Schism.
See PAPACY: A. D.1377-1417.
AVIGNON: A. D. 1790-1791.
Revolution and Anarchy.
Atrocities committed.
Reunion with France decreed.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1790-1791.
AVIGNON: A. D. 1797.
Surrendered to France by the Pope.
See FRANCE: A. D: 1796-1797 (OCTOBER-APRIL).
AVIGNON: A. D. 1815.
Possession by France confirmed.
See VIENNA, THE CONGRESS OF.
----------AVIGNON: End----------
AVIONES, The.
"The Aviones were a Suevic clan. They are mentioned by
Tacitus in connexion with the Reudigni, Angli, Varini,
Eudoses, Suardones and Nuithones, all Suevic clans. These
tribes must have occupied Mecklenburg-Schwerin,
Mecklenburg-Strelitz and Sleswick-Holstein, the Elbe being
their Eastern boundary. It is, however, impossible to define
their precise localities."
_A. J. Church and W. J. Brodribb,
Minor Works of Tacitus,
Geographical Notes to the Germany._
AVIS, The House of.
See PORTUGAL: A. D. 1383-1385.
AVIS, Knights of.
This is a Portuguese military-religions order which originated
about 1147 during the wars with the Moors, and which formerly
observed the monastic rule of St. Benedict. It became
connected with the order of Calatrava in Spain and received
from the latter its property in Portugal. Pope Paul III.
united the Grand Mastership to the Crown of Portugal.
_F. C. Woodhouse,
Military Religious Orders,
part 4._
See, also, PORTUGAL: A. D. 1095-1325.
AVITUS, Roman Emperor (Western), A. D. 455-456.
AVVIM, The.
The original inhabitants of the south-west corner of Canaan,
from which they were driven by the Philistines.
_H. Ewald,
History of Israel,
book 1, section 4._
AYACUCHO, Battle of (1824).
See PERU: A. D. 1820-1826.
AYLESBURY ELECTION CASE.
See ENGLAND: A. D. 1703.
AYLESFORD, Battle of (A. D. 455).
The first battle fought and won by the invading Jutes after
their landing in Britain under Hengest and Horsa. It was
fought at the lowest ford of the river Medway.
See ENGLAND: A. D. 449-473.
AYMARAS, The.
See PERU: THE ABORIGINAL INHABITANTS.
AYOUBITE OR AIYUBITE DYNASTY.
See SALADIN, THE EMPIRE OF.
AZINCOUR (AGINCOURT), Battle of.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1415.
AZOF OR AZOV: A. D. 1696.
Taken by the Russians.
See TURKS: A. D. 1684-1696.
AZOF: A. D. 1711.
Restoration to the Turks.
See SCANDINAVIAN STATES (SWEDEN): A. D. 1707-1718.
AZOF: A. D. 1736-1739.
Captured by the Russians.
Secured to them by the Treaty of Belgrade.
See RUSSIA: A. D. 1725-1739.
----------AZOF: End----------
AZTEC.
See MEXICO, ANCIENT; and A. D. 1325-1502;
also, AMERICAN ABORIGINES: MAYAS.
AZTEC AND MAYA PICTURE-WRITING.
"No nation ever reduced it [pictography] more to a system. It
was in constant use in the daily transactions of life. They
[the Aztecs] manufactured for writing purposes a thick coarse
paper from the leaves of the agave plant by a process of
maceration and pressure. An Aztec book closely resembles one
of our quarto volumes. It is made of a single sheet, 12 to 15
inches wide, and often 60 or 70 feet long, and is not rolled,
but folded either in squares or zigzags in such a manner that
on opening there are two pages exposed to view. Thin wooden
boards are fastened to each of the outer leaves, so that the
whole presents as neat an appearance, remarks Peter Martyr, as
if it had come from the shop of a skilful book binder. They
also covered buildings, tapestries and scrolls of parchment
with these devices. … What is still more astonishing, there
is reason to believe, in some instances, their figures were
not painted, but actually printed with movable blocks of wood
on which the symbols were carved in relief, though this was
probably confined to those intended for ornament only. In
these records we discern something higher than a mere symbolic
notation. They contain the germ of a phonetic alphabet, and
represent sounds of spoken language. The symbol is often not
connected with the idea, but with the word. The mode in which
this is done corresponds precisely to that of the rebus. It is
a simple method, readily suggesting itself. In the middle ages
it was much in vogue in Europe for the same purpose for which
it was chiefly employed in Mexico at the same time—the
writing of proper names. For example, the English family
Bolton was known in heraldry by a 'tun' transfixed by a
'bolt.' Precisely so the Mexican Emperor Ixcoatl is mentioned
in the Aztec manuscripts under the figure of a serpent,
coatl,' pierced by obsidian knives, 'ixtli.' … As a syllable
could be expressed by any object whose name commenced with it,
as few words can be given the form of a rebus without some
change, as the figures sometimes represent their full phonetic
value, sometimes only that of their initial sound, and as
universally the attention of the artist was directed less to
the sound than to the idea, the didactic painting of the
Mexicans, whatever it might have been to them, is a sealed
book to us, and must remain so in great part. … Immense
masses of such documents were stored in the imperial archives
of ancient Mexico. Torquemada asserts that five cities alone
yielded to the Spanish governor on one requisition no less
than 16,000 volumes or scrolls! Every leaf was destroyed.
Indeed, so thorough and wholesale was the destruction of these
memorials, now so precious in our eyes, that hardly enough
remain to whet the wits of antiquaries. In the libraries of
Paris, Dresden, Pesth, and the Vatican are, however, a
sufficient number to make us despair of deciphering them, had
we for comparison all which the Spaniards destroyed. Beyond
all others the Mayas, resident on the peninsula of Yucatan,
would seem to have approached nearest a true phonetic system.
They had a regular and well understood alphabet of 27
elementary sounds, the letters of which are totally different
from those of any other nation, and evidently originated with
themselves. But besides these they used a large number of
purely conventional symbols, and moreover were accustomed
constantly to employ the ancient pictographic method in
addition as a sort of commentary on the sound represented. …
With the aid of this alphabet, which has fortunately been
preserved, we are enabled to spell out a few words on the
Yucatecan manuscripts and façades, but thus far with no
positive results. The loss of the ancient pronunciation is
especially in the way of such studies. In South America, also,
there is said to have been a nation who cultivated the art of
picture-writing, the Panos, on the river Ucayale."
_D. G. Brinton,
The Myths of the New World,
chapter 1._
----------AZTEC: End----------
{238}
B.
BABAR,
King of Ferghana, A. D. 1494-;
King of Kabul, A. D. 1504-;
Moghul Emperor or Padischah of India, A. D. 1526-1530.
BABENBERGS, The.
See AUSTRIA: A. D. 805-1246.
BABYLON: The City.
"The city stands on a broad plain, and is an exact square, a
hundred and twenty furlongs in length each way, so that the
entire circuit is four hundred and eighty furlongs. While such
is its size, in magnificence there is no other city that
approaches it. It is surrounded, in the first place, by a
broad and deep moat, full of water, behind which rises a wall
fifty royal cubits in width and two hundred in height. … And
here I may not omit to tell the use to which the mould dug out
of the great moat was turned, nor the manner wherein the wall
was wrought. As fast as they dug the moat the soil which they
got from the cutting was made into bricks, and when a
sufficient number were completed they baked the bricks in
kilns. Then they set to building, and began with bricking the
borders of the moat, after which they proceeded to construct
the wall itself, using throughout for their cement hot
bitumen, and interposing a layer of wattled reeds at every
thirtieth course of the brick. On the top, along the edges of
the wall, they constructed buildings of a single chamber
facing one another, leaving between them room for a four-horse
chariot to turn. In the circuit of the wall are a hundred
gates, all of brass, with brazen lintels and side posts. The
bitumen used in the work was brought to Babylon from the Is, a
small stream which flows into the Euphrates at the point where
the city of the same name stands, eight days' journey from
Babylon. Lumps of bitumen are found in great abundance in this
river. The city is divided into two portions by the river
which runs through the midst of it. This river is the
Euphrates. … The city wall is brought down on both sides to
the edge of the stream; thence, from the corners of the wall,
there is carried along each bank of the river a fence of burnt
bricks. The houses are mostly three and four stories high; the
streets all run in straight lines; not only those parallel to
the river, but also the cross streets which lead down to the
water side. At the river end of these cross streets are low
gates in the fence that skirts the stream, which are, like the
great gates in the outer wall, of brass, and open on the
water. The outer wall is the main defence of the city. There
is, however, a second inner wall, of less thickness than the
first, but very little inferior to it in strength. The centre
of each division of the town was occupied by a fortress. In
the one stood the palace of the kings, surrounded by a wall of
great strength and size: in the other was the sacred precinct
of Jupiter Belus, a square enclosure, two furlongs each way,
with gates of solid brass; which was also remaining in my
time. In the middle of the precinct there was a tower of solid
masonry, a furlong in length and breadth, upon which was
raised a second tower, and on that a third, and so on up to
eight. The ascent to the top is on the outside, by a path
which winds round all the towers. … On the topmost tower
there is a spacious temple."
_Herodotus,
History,
translated by G. Rawlinson,
book 1, chapters 178-181._
According to Ctesias, the circuit of the walls of Babylon was
but 360 furlongs. The historians of Alexander agreed nearly
with this. As regards the height of the walls, "Strabo and the
historians of Alexander substitute 50 for the 200 cubits of
Herodotus, and it may therefore be suspected that the latter
author referred to hands, four of which were equal to the
cubit. The measure, indeed, of 50 fathoms or 200 royal cubits
for the walls of a city in a plain is quite preposterous. …
My own belief is that the height of the walls of Babylon did
not exceed 60 or 70 English feet."
_H. C. Rawlinson,
note to above._-
See, also, BABYLONIA: B. C. 625-539.
BABYLON OF THE CRUSADERS, The.
See CRUSADES: A. D. 1248-1254.
BABYLONIA, Primitive.
(So much new knowledge of the ancient peoples in the East has
been and is being brought to light by recent search and study,
and the account of it in English historical literature is so
meagre as yet, that there seems to be good reason for
deferring the treatment of these subjects, for the most part,
to a later volume of this work. The reader is referred,
therefore, to the article "Semites," in the hope that, before
its publication is reached, in the fourth or fifth volume,
there will be later and better works to quote from on all the
subjects embraced. Terrien de Lacouperie's interesting theory,
which is introduced below, in this place, is questioned by
many scholars; and Professor Sayce, whose writings have done
much to popularize the new oriental studies, seems to go
sometimes in advance of the sure ground.)
The Sumirians, inhabitants of the Shinar of the Old Testament
narrative, and Accadians, who divided primitive Babylonia
between them, "were overrun and conquered by the Semitic
Babylonians of later history, Accad being apparently the first
half of the country to fall under the sway of the new comers.
It is possible that Casdim, the Hebrew word translated
Chaldees or Chaldeans in the authorized version, is the
Babylonian 'casidi' or conquerors, a title which continued to
cling to them in consequence of their conquest. The Accadiaus
had been the inventors of the pictorial hieroglyphics which
afterwards developed into the cuneiform or wedge-shaped
writing; they had founded the great cities of Chaldea, and had
attained to a high degree of culture and civilization. Their
cities possessed libraries, stocked with books, written partly
on papyrus, partly on clay, which was, while still soft,
impressed with characters by means of a metal stylus.
{239}
The books were numerous, and related to a variety of subjects.
… In course of time, however, the two dialects of Sumir and
Accad ceased to be spoken; but the necessity for learning them
still remained, and we find, accordingly, that down to the
latest days of both Assyria and Babylonia, the educated
classes were taught the old extinct Accadian, just as in
modern Europe they are taught Latin."
_A. H. Sayce,
Fresh Light from the Ancient Monuments,
chapter 2._
"Since Sumir, the Shinar of the Bible, was the first part of
the country occupied by the invading Semites, while Accad long
continued to be regarded as the seat of an alien race, the
language and population of primitive Chaldea have been named
Accadian by the majority of Assyrian scholars. The part played
by these Accadians in the intellectual history of mankind is
highly important. They were the earliest civilizers of Western
Asia, and it is to them that we have to trace the arts and
sciences, the religious traditions and the philosophy not only
of the Assyrians, but also of the Phœnicians, the Aramæans,
and even the Hebrews themselves. It was, too, from Chaldea
that the germs of Greek art and of much of the Greek pantheon
and mythology originally came. Columnar architecture reached
its first and highest development in Babylonia; the lions that
still guard the main entrance of Mykenæ are distinctly
Assyrian in character; and the Greek Herakles with his twelve
labours finds his prototype in the hero of the great Chaldean
epic. It is difficult to say how much of our present culture
is not owed to the stunted, oblique-eyed people of ancient
Babylonia; Jerusalem and Athens are the sacred cities of our
modern life; and both Jerusalem and Athens were profoundly
influenced by the ideas which had their first starting-point
in primæval Accad. The Semite has ever been a trader and an
intermediary, and his earliest work was the precious trade in
spiritual and mental wares. Babylonia was the home and mother
of Semitic culture and Semitic inspiration; the Phœnicians
never forgot that they were a colony from the Persian Gulf,
while the Israelite recounted that his father Abraham had been
born in Ur of the Chaldees. Almost the whole of the Assyrian
literature was derived from Accad, and translated from the
dead language of primitive Chaldea."
_A. H. Sayce,
Babylonian Literature,
pages 6-7._
_A. H. Sayce,
Ancient Empires of the East,
appendix 2._
"The place of China in the past and future is not that which
it was long supposed to be. Recent researches have disclosed
that its civilization, like ours, was variously derived from
the same old focus of culture of south-western Asia. … It
was my good fortune to be able to show, in an uninterrupted
series of a score or so of papers in periodicals, of
communications to the Royal Asiatic Society and elsewhere,
published and unpublished, and of contributions to several
works since April 1880, downwards, that the writing and some
knowledge of arts, science and government of the early
Chinese, more or less enumerated below, were derived from the
old civilization of Babylonia, through the secondary focus of
Susiana, and that this derivation was a social fact, resulting
not from scientific teaching but from practical intercourse of
some length between the Susian confederation and the future
civilizers of the Chinese, the Bak tribes, who, from their
neighbouring settlements in the N., moved eastwards at the
time of the great rising of the XXIII. century B. C. Coming
again in the field, Dr. J. Edkins has joined me on the same
line."
_Terrien de Lacouperie,
Babylonia and China
(Academy, Aug. 7, 1880)._
"We could enumerate a long series of affinities between
Chaldean culture and Chinese civilization, although the last
was not borrowed directly. From what evidence we have, it
seems highly probable that a certain number of families or of
tribes, without any apparent generic name, but among which the
Kutta filled an important position, came to China about the
year 2500 B. C. These tribes, which came from the West, were
obliged to quit the neighbourhood, probably north of the
Susiana, and were comprised in the feudal agglomeration of
that region, where they must have been influenced by the
Akkado-Chaldean culture."
_Terrien de Lacouperie,
Early History of Chinese Civilization,
page 32._
See, also, CHINA: THE ORIGIN OF THE PEOPLE.
BABYLONIA: The early (Chaldean) monarchy.
"Our earliest glimpse of the political condition of Chaldea
shows us the country divided into numerous small states, each
headed by a great city, made famous and powerful by the
sanctuary or temple of some particular deity, and ruled by a
patesi, a title which is now thought to mean priest-king, i.
e., priest and king in one. There can be little doubt that the
beginning of the city was every where the temple, with its
college of ministering priests, and that the surrounding
settlement was gradually formed by pilgrims and worshippers.
That royalty developed out of the priesthood is also more than
probable. … There comes a time when for the title of patesi
is substituted that of king. … It is noticeable that the
distinction between the Semitic newcomers and the indigenous
Shumiro-Accadians continues long to be traceable in the names
of the royal temple-builders, even after the new Semitic
idiom, which we call the Assyrian, had entirely ousted the old
language. … Furthermore, even superficial observation shows
that the old language and the old names survive longest in
Shumir,—the South. From this fact it is to be inferred with
little chance of mistake that the North,—the land of Accad,—
was earlier Semitized, that the Semitic immigrants established
their first headquarters in that part of the country, that
their power and influence thence spread to the South. Fully in
accordance with these indications, the first grand historical
figure that meets us at the threshold of Chaldean history, dim
with the mists of ages and fabulous traditions, yet
unmistakably real, is that of the Semite Sharrukin, king of
Accad, or Agade, as the great Northern city came to be
called—more generally known in history under the corrupt
modern reading of Sargon, and called Sargon I., 'the First,'
to distinguish him from a very famous Assyrian monarch of the
same name who reigned many centuries later. As to the city of
Agade, it is no other than the city of Accad mentioned in
Genesis x, 10. It was situated close to the Euphrates on a
wide canal just opposite Sippar, so that in time the two
cities came to be considered as one double city, and the
Hebrews always called it 'the two Sippars'—Sepharvaim, which
is often spoken of in the Bible. … The tremendously ancient
date of 3800 B. C. is now generally accepted for Sargon of
Agade—perhaps the remotest authentic date yet arrived at in
history."
_Z. A. Ragozin,
Story of Chaldea,
chapter 4._
{240}
"A horde of Cassites or Kossæans swept down from the mountains
of Northern Elam under their leader, Khammuragas; Accad was
conquered, a foreign dynasty established in the land, and the
capital transferred from Agade to Babylon. Babylon now became
a city of importance for the first time; the rank assigned to
it in the mythical age was but a reflection of the position it
held after the Cassite conquest. The Cassite dynasty is
probably the Arabian dynasty of Berosos. … A newly-found
inscription of Nabonidos makes the date [of its advent] B. C.
3750 [_foot-note_]. … The first care of Khammuragas,
after establishing himself in Accad, was to extend his sway
over the southern kingdom of Sumer as well. … Khammuragas
became king of the whole of Babylonia. From this time onward
the country remained a united monarchy. The Cassite dynasty
must have lasted for several centuries, and probably included
more than one line of kings. … It was under the Cassite
dynasty that the kingdom of Assyria first took its rise,—
partly, perhaps, in consequence of the Asiatic conquests of
the Egyptian monarchs of the eighteenth dynasty. … In B. C.
1400 the Cassite king married an Assyrian princess. Her son,
Kara-Murdas, was murdered by the party opposed to Assyrian
influence, but the usurper, Nazi-bugas, was quickly overthrown
by the Assyrians, who placed a vassal-prince on the throne.
This event may be considered the turning-point in the history
of the kingdoms of the Tigris and Euphrates; Assyria
henceforth takes the place of the worn-out monarchy of
Babylonia, and plays the chief part in the affairs of Western
Asia until the day of its final fall. In little more than a
hundred years later the Assyrians were again in Babylonia, but
this time as avowed enemies to all parties alike; Babylon was
captured by the Assyrian monarch Tiglath-Adar in B. C. 1270,
and the rule of the Cassite dynasty came to an end."
_A. H. Sayce,
Ancient Empires of the East,
appendix 2._
ALSO IN:
_G. Rawlinson,
Five Great Monarchies: Chaldea,
chapter 8._
See, also, ASSYRIA.
BABYLONIA: B. C. 625-539.
The later Empire.
For more than six centuries after the conquest of B. C. 1270,
Babylonia was obscured by Assyria. During most of that long
period, the Chaldean kingdom was subject to its northern
neighbor and governed by Assyrian viceroys. There were
frequent revolts and some intervals of independence; but they
were brief, and the political life of Babylonia as a distinct
power may be said to have been suspended from 1270 until 625
B. C., when Nabopolassar, who ruled first as the viceroy of
the Assyrian monarch, threw off his yoke, took the attributes
of sovereignty to himself, and joined the Medes in
extinguishing the glory of Nineveh. "The Assyrian Empire was
now shared between Media and Babylon. Nabucudur-utser, or
Nebuchadrezzar, Nabopolassar's eldest son, was the real
founder of the Babylonian empire. The attempt of Pharaoh Necho
to win for Egypt the inheritance of Assyria was overthrown at
the battle of Carchemish, and when Nebuchadrezzar succeeded
his father in B. C. 604, he found himself the undisputed lord
of Western Asia. Palestine was coerced in 602, and the
destruction of Jerusalem in 587 laid a way open for the
invasion of Egypt, which took place twenty years later. Tyre
also underwent a long siege of thirteen years, but it is
doubtful whether it was taken after all. Babylon was now
enriched with the spoils of foreign conquest. It owed as much
to Nebuchadrezzar as Rome owed to Augustus. The buildings and
walls with which it was adorned were worthy of the metropolis
of the world. The palace, now represented by the Kasr mound,
was built in fifteen days, and the outermost of its three
walls was seven miles in circuit. Hanging gardens were
constructed for Queen Amytis, the daughter of the Median
prince, and the great temple of Bel was roofed with cedar and
overlaid with gold. The temple of the Seven Lights, dedicated
to Nebo at Borsippa by an early king, who had raised it to a
height of forty-two cubits, was completed, and various other
temples were erected on a sumptuous scale, both in Babylon and
in the neighbouring cities, while new libraries were
established there. After a reign of forty-two years, six
months and twenty-one days, Nebuchadrezzar died (B. C. 562),
and left the crown to his son Evil-Merodach, who had a short
and inactive reign of three years and thirty-four days, when
he was murdered by his brother-in-law, Nergal-sharezer, the
Neriglissar of the Greeks. … The chief event of his reign of
four years and four months was the construction of a new
palace. His son, who succeeded him, was a mere boy, and was
murdered after a brief reign of four months. The power now
passed from the house of Nabopolassar,—Nabu-nahid or
Nabonidos, who was raised to the throne, being of another
family. His reign lasted seventeen years and five months, and
witnessed the end of the Babylonian empire,"—which was
overthrown by Cyrus the Great (or Kyros), B. C. 539 [see
PERSIA: B. C. 543-521], and swallowed up in the Persian empire
which he founded.
_A. H. Sayce,
Ancient Empires of the East,
appendix 2._
ALSO IN:
_M. Duncker,
History of Antiquity,
book 4, chapter 15._
_G. Rawlinson,
Five Great Monarchies: The Fourth Monarchy,
chapter 8._
BABYLONIAN JEWS.
See JEWS: B. C. 536-A. D. 50, and A. D. 200-400.
BABYLONIAN TALENT.
See TALENT.
BABYLONIAN TALMUD, The.
See TALMUD.
"BABYLONISH CAPTIVITY" OF THE POPES.
See PAPACY: A. D. 1294-1348.
BACCALAOS, OR BACALHAS, OR BACALHAO COUNTRY.
See NEWFOUNDLAND: A. D. 1501-1578.
BACCHIADÆ.
See CORINTH.
BACCHIC FESTIVALS.
See DIONYSIA.
BACENIS, Forest of.
See HERCYNIAN FOREST.
BACON'S REBELLION.
See VIRGINIA: A. D. 1660-1677.
{241}
BACTRIA.
"Where the edge [of the tableland of Iran] rises to the lofty
Hindu Kush, there lies on its northern slope a favored
district in the region of the Upper Oxus. … On the banks of
the river, which flows in a north-westerly direction, extend
broad mountain pastures, where support is found in the fresh
mountain air for numerous herds of horses and sheep, and
beneath the wooded hills are blooming valleys. On these slopes
of the Hindu Kush, the middle stage between the table-land and
the deep plain of the Caspian Sea, lay the Bactrians—the Bakhtri
of the Achaemenids, the Bakhdhi of the Avesta. … In ancient
times the Bactrians were hardly distinguished from nomads; but
their land was extensive and produced fruits of all kinds,
with the exception of the vine. The fertility of the land
enabled the Hellenic princes to make great conquests."
_M. Duncker,
History of Antiquity,
book 6. chapter 2._
The Bactrians were among the people subjugated by Cyrus the
Great and their country formed part of the Persian Empire
until the latter was overthrown by Alexander (see MACEDONIA,
&c.: B. C. 330-323). In the division of the Macedonian
conquests, after Alexander's death, Bactria, with all the
farther east, fell to the share of Seleucus Nicator and formed
part of what came to be called the kingdom of Syria. About 256
B. C. the Bactrian province, being then governed by an
ambitious Greek satrap named Diodotus, was led by him into
revolt against the Syrian monarchy, and easily gained its
independence, with Diodotus for its king (see SELEUCIDÆ: B. C.
281-224). "The authority of Diodotus was confirmed and riveted
on his subjects by an undisturbed reign of eighteen years
before a Syrian army even showed itself in his neighbourhood.
… The Bactrian Kingdom was, at any rate at its commencement,
as thoroughly Greek as that of the Seleucidæ." "From B. C. 206
to about B. C. 185 was the most flourishing period of the
Bactrian monarchy, which expanded during that space from a
small kingdom to a considerable empire"—extending over the
greater part of modern Afghanistan and across the Indus into
the Punjaub. But meantime the neighboring Parthians, who threw
off the Seleucid yoke soon after the Bactrians had done so,
were growing in power and they soon passed from rivalry to
mastery. The Bactrian kingdom was practically extinguished
about 150 B. C. by the conquests of the Parthian Mithridates
I., "although Greek monarchs of the Bactrian series continued
masters of Cabul and Western India till about B. C. 126."
_G. Rawlinson,
Sixth Great Oriental Monarchy,
chapters 3-5._
BADAJOS: The Geographical Congress (1524).
See AMERICA: A. D. 1519-1524.
BADEN: Early Suevic population.
See SUEVI.
BADEN: A. D. 1801-1803.
Acquisition of territory under the Treaty of Luneville.
See GERMANY: A. D. 1801-1803.
BADEN: A. D. 1805-1806.
Aggrandized by Napoleon.
Created a Grand Duchy.
Joined to the Confederation of the Rhine.
See GERMANY: A. D. 1805-1806, and 1806 (JANUARY-AUGUST).
BADEN: A. D. 1813.
Abandonment of the Rhenish Confederacy and the French
Alliance.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1814 (JANUARY-MARCH).
BADEN: A. D. 1849.
Revolution suppressed by Prussian troops.
See GERMANY: A. D. 1848-1850.
BADEN: A. D. 1866.
The Seven Weeks War.
Indemnity and territorial cession to Prussia.
See GERMANY: A. D. 1866.
BADEN: A. D. 1870-1871.
Treaty of Union with the Germanic Confederation, soon
transformed into the German Empire.
See GERMANY: A. D. 1870 (SEPTEMBER-DECEMBER), and 1871.
----------BADEN: End----------
BADEN, OR RASTADT, Treaty of (1714).
See UTRECHT: A. D. 1712-1714.
BADR, OR BEDR, Battle of.
See MAHOMETAN CONQUEST: A. D. 609-632.
BÆCULA, Battle of.
See PUNIC WAR, THE SECOND.
BÆRSÆRK.
See BERSERKER.
BÆTICA.
The ancient name of the province in Spain which afterwards
took from the Vandals the name of Andalusia.
See SPAIN: B. C. 218-25, and A. D. 428;
also TURDETANI, and VANDALS: A. D. 428.
BÆTIS, The.
The ancient name of the Guadalquiver river in Spain.
BAGACUM.
See NERVII.
BAGAUDS, Insurrection of the (A. D. 287).
The peasants of Gaul, whose condition had become very wretched
during the distractions and misgovernment of the third
century, were provoked to an insurrection, A. D. 287, which
was general and alarming. It was a rising which seems to have
been much like those that occurred in France and England
eleven centuries later. The rebel peasants were called
Bagauds,—a name which some writers derive from the Celtic
word "bagad" or "bagat," signifying "tumultuous assemblage."
They sacked and ruined several cities,—taking Autun after a
siege of seven months,—and committed many terrible
atrocities. The Emperor Maximian—colleague of
Diocletian,—succeeded, at last, in suppressing the general
outbreak, but not in extinguishing it every where. There were
traces of it surviving long afterwards.
_P. Godwin,
History of France, volume 1: Ancient Gaul,
book 2, chapter 6._
ALSO IN:
_W. T. Arnold,
The Roman System of Provincial Administration,
chapter 4._
See, also, DEDITITIUS.
BAGDAD, A. D. 763.
The founding of the new capital of the Caliphs.
See MAHOMETAN CONQUEST AND EMPIRE: A. D. 763.
BAGDAD: A. D. 815-945.
Decline of the Caliphate.
See MAHOMETAN CONQUEST AND EMPIRE: A. D. 815-945.
BAGDAD: A. D. 1050.
In the hands of the Turks.
See TURKS: A. D. 1004-1063.
BAGDAD: A. D. 1258.
The Fall of the Caliphate.
Destruction of the city by the Mongols.
In 1252, on the accession of Mangu Khan, grandson of Jingis
Khan, to the sovereignty of the Mongol Empire [see MONGOLS], a
great Kuriltai or council was held, at which it was decided to
send an expedition into the West, for two purposes: (1), to
exterminate the Ismaileans or Assassins, who still maintained
their power in northern Persia; (2), to reduce the Caliph of
Bagdad to submission to the Mongol supremacy. The command of
the expedition was given to Mangu's brother Khulagu, or
Houlagou, who performed his appointed tasks with thoroughness
and unmerciful resolution. In 1257 he made an end of the
Assassins, to the great relief of the whole eastern world,
Mahometan and Christian. In 1258 he passed on to Bagdad,
preceded by an embassy which summoned the Caliph to submit, to
raze the walls of Bagdad, to give up his vain pretensions to
the sovereignty of the Moslem world, and to acknowledge the
Great Khan for his lord. The feeble caliph and his treacherous
and incapable ministers neither submitted nor made vigorous
preparations for defence. As a consequence, Bagdad was taken
after a siege which only excited the ferocity of the Mongols.
They fired the city and slaughtered its people, excepting some
Christians, who are said to have been spared through the
influence of one of Khulagu's wives, who was a Nestorian. The
sack of Bagdad lasted seven days. The number of the dead, we
are told by Raschid, was 800,000. The caliph, Mostassem, with
all his family, was put to death.
_H. H. Howorth,
History of the Mongols,
volume 1, pages 193-201._
----------BAGDAD: End----------
[Image]
I.
Asia Minor
And The
Balkan Peninsula
Near The Close Of The Twelfth Century.
Byzantine Empire.
Selj. Turks.
Servia.
Bulgaria.
Cilician Armenia.
Venetian Possessions.
States Under Latin Rule.
County Palatinate Of Cephalonia.
II
ASIA MINOR
AND THE
BALKAN PENINSULA
IN 1265
(SHOWING RESTORED BYZANTINE
EMPIRE AND SURROUNDING STATES)
III
ASIA MINOR.
IV
TURKISH EMPIRE.
----------End----------
[Image: ASIA MINOR AND BALKAN PENINSULA.]
[Image: TURKISH EMPIRE.]
{242}
BAGDAD: A. D. 1258. (Continued)
For a considerable period before this final catastrophe, in
the decline of the Seljuk Empire, the Caliphate at Bagdad had
become once more "an independent temporal state, though,
instead of ruling in the three quarters of the globe, the
caliphs ruled only over the province of Irak Arabi. Their
position was not unlike that of the Popes in recent times,
whom they also resembled in assuming a new name, of a pious
character, at their inauguration. Both the Christian and the
Moslem pontiff was the real temporal sovereign of a small
state; each claimed to be spiritual sovereign over the whole
of the Faithful; each was recognized as such by a large body,
but rejected by others. But in truth the spiritual recognition
of the Abbaside caliphs was more nearly universal in their
last age than it had ever been before." With the fall of
Bagdad fell the caliphate as a temporal sovereignty; but it
survived, or was resurrected, in its spiritual functions, to
become merged, a little later, in the supremacy of the sultan
of the Ottoman Turks. "A certain Ahmed, a real or pretended
Abbasside, fled [from Bagdad] to Egypt, where he was
proclaimed caliph by the title of Al Mostanser Billah, under
the protection of the then Sultan Bibars. He and his
successors were deemed, in spiritual things, Commanders of the
Faithful, and they were found to be a convenient instrument
both by the Mameluke sultans and by other Mahometan princes.
From one of them, Bajazet the Thunderbolt received the title
of Sultan; from another, Selim the Inflexible procured the
cession of his claims, and obtained the right to deem himself
the shadow of God upon earth. Since then, the Ottoman Padishah
has been held to inherit the rights of Omar and of Haroun,
rights which if strictly pressed, might be terrible alike to
enemies, neutrals, and allies."
_E. A. Freeman, History and Conquest of the Saracens,
lecture 4._
BAGDAD: A. D. 1393.
Timour's pyramid of heads.
See TIMOUR.
BAGDAD: A. D. 1623-1638.
Taken by the Persians and retaken by the Turks.
Fearful slaughter of the inhabitants.
See TURKS: A. D. 1623-1640.
----------BAGDAD: End----------
BAGISTANA.
See BEHISTUN, ROCK OF.
BAGLIONI, The.
"The Baglioni first came into notice during the wars they
carried on with the Oddi of Perugia in the 14th and 15th
centuries. This was one of those duels to the death, like that
of the Visconti with the Torrensi of Milan, on which the fate
of so many Italian cities of the middle ages hung. The nobles
fought; the townsfolk assisted like a Greek chorus, sharing
the passions of the actors, but contributing little to the
catastrophe. The piazza was the theatre on which the tragedy
was played. In this contest the Baglioni proved the stronger,
and began to sway the state of Perugia after the irregular
fashion of Italian despots. They had no legal right over the
city, no hereditary magistracy, no title of princely
authority. The Church was reckoned the supreme administrator
of the Perugian commonwealth. But in reality no man could set
foot on the Umbrian plain without permission from the
Baglioni. They elected the officers of state. The lives and
goods of the citizens were at their discretion. When a Papal
legate showed his face, they made the town too hot to hold
him. … It was in vain that from time to time the people rose
against them, massacring Pandolfo Baglioni on the public
square in 1393, and joining with Ridolfo and Braccio of the
dominant house to assassinate another Pandolfo with his son
Niccolo in 1460. The more they were cut down, the more they
flourished. The wealth they derived from their lordships in
the duchy of Spoleto and the Umbrian hill-cities, and the
treasures they accumulated in the service of the Italian
republics, made them omnipotent in their native town. … From
father to son they were warriors, and we have records of few
Italian houses, except perhaps the Malatesti of Rimini, who
equalled them in hardihood and fierceness. Especially were
they noted for the remorseless vendette which they carried on
among themselves, cousin tracking cousin to death with the
ferocity and and craft of sleuth-hounds. Had they restrained
these fratricidal passions, they might, perhaps, by following
some common policy, like that of the Medici in Florence or the
Bentivogli in Bologna, have successfully resisted the Papal
authority, and secured dynastic sovereignty. It is not until
1495 that the history of the Baglioni becomes dramatic,
possibly because till then they lacked the pen of Matarazzo.
But from this year forward to their final extinction, every
detail of their doings has a picturesque and awful interest.
Domestic furies, like the revel descried by Cassandra above
the palace of Mycenae, seem to take possession of the fated
house; and the doom which has fallen on them is worked out
with pitiless exactitude to the last generation."
_J. A. Symonds,
Sketches in Italy and Greece,
pages 70-72._
BAGRATIDAE, The.
See ARMENIA: 12th-14th CENTURIES.
BAHAMA ISLANDS: A. D. 1492.
Discovery by Columbus.
See AMERICA: A. D. 1492.
BAHRITE SULTANS.
See EGYPT: A. D. 1250-1517.
BAIÆ.
Baiæ, in Campania, opposite Puteoli on a small bay near
Naples, was the favorite watering place of the ancient Romans.
"As soon as the reviving heats of April gave token of
advancing summer, the noble and the rich hurried from Rome to
this choice retreat; and here, till the raging dogstar forbade
the toils even of amusement, they disported themselves on
shore or on sea, in the thick groves or on the placid lakes,
in litters and chariots, in gilded boats with painted sails,
lulled by day and night with the sweetest symphonies of song
and music, or gazing indolently on the wanton measures of male
and female dancers. The bath, elsewhere their relaxation, was
here the business of the day; … they turned the pools of
Avernus and Lucrinus into tanks for swimming; and in these
pleasant waters both sexes met familiarly together, and
conversed amidst the roses sprinkled lavishly on their
surface."
_C. Merivale,
History of the Romans,
chapter 40._
BAINBRIDGE, Commodore William, in the War of 1812.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1812-1813.
{243}
BAIREUTH, Creation of the Principality of.
See GERMANY: THIRTEENTH CENTURY.
Separation from the Electorate of Brandenburg.
See BRANDENBURG: A. D. 1417-1640.
----------BAIREUTH: End----------
BAJAZET I.
Turkish Sultan, A. D. 1389-1402.
Bajazet II., A. D. 1481-1512.
BAKAIRI, The.
See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: CARIBS.
BAKER, Colonel Edward D., Killed at Ball's Bluff.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1861 (OCTOBER: VIRGINIA).
BAKSAR, OR BAXAR, OR BUXAR, Battle of (1764).
See INDIA: A. D. 1757-1772.
BALACLAVA, Battle of.
See RUSSIA: A. D. 1854 (OCTOBER-NOVEMBER).
BALANCE OF POWER.
In European diplomacy, a phrase signifying the policy which
aimed at keeping an approximate equilibrium of power among the
greater nations.
_T. J. Lawrence,
International Law,
page 126._
BALBINUS, Roman Emperor, A. D. 238.
BALBOA'S DISCOVERY OF THE PACIFIC.
See AMERICA: A. D. 1513-1517.
BALCHITAS, The.
See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: PAMPAS TRIBES.
BALDWIN OF FLANDERS, The Crusade of.
See CRUSADES: A. D. 1201-1203.
Baldwin I., Latin Emperor at Constantinople
(Romania), A. D. 1204-1205.
Baldwin II., A. D. 1237-1261.
BALEARIC ISLANDS:
Origin of the Name.
"The name 'Baleares' was derived by the Greeks from 'ballein,'
to throw; but the art was taught them by the Phœnicians, and
the name is no doubt Phœnician."
_J. Kenrick,
Phœnicia,
chapter 4._
For the chief incidents in the history of these islands,
See MINORCA and MAJORCA.
BALIA OF FLORENCE, The.
The chief instrument employed by the Medici to establish their
power in Florence was "the pernicious system of the Parlamento
and Balia, by means of which the people, assembled from time
to time in the public square, and intimidated by the reigning
faction, entrusted full powers to a select committee nominated
in private by the chiefs of the great house. … Segni says:
'The Parlamento is a meeting of the Florentine people on the
Piazza of the Signory. When the Signory has taken its place to
address the meeting, the piazza is guarded by armed men, and
then the people are asked whether they wish to give absolute
power (Balia) and authority to the citizens named, for their
good. When the answer, yes, prompted partly by inclination and
partly by compulsion, is returned, the Signory immediately
retires into the palace. This is all that is meant by this
parlamento, which thus gives away the full power of effecting
a change in the state."
_J. A. Symonds,
Renaissance in Italy: Age of the Despots,
page 164, and foot-note._
See, also, FLORENCE: A. D. 1378-1427, and 1458-1469.
----------BALIA OF FLORENCE: End----------
BALKAN AND DANUBIAN STATES.
BALKAN: Ancient History.
The States of southeastern Europe, lately emancipated, for the
most part, from the rule of the Turks, are so associated by a
common history, although remarkably diverse in race, that it
seems expedient to bring them for discussion together. They
occupy mainly the regions known in Roman times as MOESIA,
DACIA and ILLYRICUM, to which names the reader is referred for
some account of the scanty incidents of their early history.
See, also, AVARS.
----------BALKAN: End----------
{244}
[Image: Danubian And Balkan States]
Danubian And Balkan States
Showing Changes During
The Present Century
The political condition in 1815 is shown by ROMAN
LETTERS and this style of boundary:
All subsequent change, are shown by ITALIC
LETTERS and this style of boundary:
The Bulgarian boundary according to the Treaty
of San Stefano 1878 is shown thus:
----------Danubian And Balkan States: End----------
BALKAN:
Races existing.
"In no part of Western Europe do we find districts inhabited
by men differing in speech and national feeling, lying in
distinct patches here and there over a large country. A
district like one of our larger counties in which one parish,
perhaps one hundred, spoke Welsh, another Latin, another
English, another Danish, another Old French, another the
tongue of more modern settlers, Flemings, Huguenots or
Palatines, is something which we find hard to conceive, and
which, as applied to our own land or to any other Western
land, sounds absurd on the face of it. When we pass into
South-eastern Europe, this state of things, the very idea of
which seems absurd in the West, is found to be perfectly real.
All the races which we find dwelling there at the beginning of
recorded history, together with several races which have come
in since, all remain, not as mere fragments or survivals, but
as nations, each with its national language and national
feelings, and each having its greater or less share of
practical importance in the politics of the present moment.
Setting aside races which have simply passed through the
country without occupying it, we may say that all the races
which have ever settled in the country are there still as
distinct races. And, though each race has its own particular
region where it forms the whole people or the great majority
of the people, still there are large districts where different
races really live side by side in the very way which seems so
absurd when we try to conceive it in any Western country. We
cannot conceive a Welsh, an English, and a Norman village side
by side; but a Greek, a Bulgarian, and a Turkish village side
by side is a thing which may be seen in many parts of Thrace.
The oldest races in those lands, those which answer to Basques
and Bretons in Western Europe, hold quite another position
from that of Basques and Bretons in Western Europe. They form
three living and vigorous nations, Greek, Albanian, and
Rouman. They stand as nations alongside of the Slaves who came
in later, and who answer roughly to the Teutons in the West,
while all alike are under the rule of the Turk, who has
nothing answering to him in the West. … When the Romans
conquered the South-eastern lands, they found there three
great races, the Greek, the Illyrian, and the Thracian. Those
three races are all there still. The Greeks speak for
themselves. The Illyrians are represented by the modern
Albanians. The Thracians are represented, there seems every
reason to believe, by the modern Roumans. Now had the whole of
the South-eastern lands been inhabited by Illyrians and
Thracians, those lands would doubtless have become as
thoroughly Roman as the Western lands became. … But the
position of the Greek nation, its long history and its high
civilization, hindered this.
{245}
The Greeks could not become Romans in any but the most purely
political sense. Like other subjects of the Roman Empire, they
gradually took the Roman name; but they kept their own
language, literature, and civilization. In short we may say
that the Roman Empire in the East became Greek, and that the
Greek nation became Roman. The Eastern Empire and the
Greek-speaking lands became nearly coextensive. Greek became
the one language of the Eastern Roman Empire, while those that
spoke it still called themselves Romans. Till quite lately,
that is till the modern ideas of nationality began to spread,
the Greek-speaking subjects of the Turk called themselves by
no name but that of Romans. … While the Greeks thus took the
Roman name without adopting the Latin language, another people
in the Eastern peninsula adopted both name and language,
exactly as the nations of the West did. If, as there is good
reason to believe, the modern Roumans represent the old
Thracians, that nation came under the general law, exactly
like the Western nations. The Thracians became thoroughly
Roman in speech, as they have ever since kept the Roman name.
They form in fact one of the Romance nations, just as much as
the people of Gaul or Spain. … In short, the existence of a
highly civilized people like the Greeks hindered in every way
the influence of Rome from being so thorough in the East as it
was in the West. The Greek nation lived on, and alongside of
itself, it preserved the other two ancient nations of the
peninsula. Thus all three have lived on to the present as
distinct nations. Two of them, the Greeks and the Illyrians,
still keep their own languages, while the third, the old
Thracians, speak a Romance language and call themselves
Roumans. … The Slavonic nations hold in the East a place
answering to that which is held by the Teutonic nations in the
West. … But though the Slaves in the East thus answer in
many ways to the Teutons in the West, their position with
regard to the Eastern Empire was not quite the same as that of
the Teutons towards the Western Empire. … They learned much
from the half Roman, half Greek power with which they had to
do; but they did not themselves become either Greek or Roman,
in the way in which the Teutonic conquerors in the Western
Empire became Roman. … Thus, while in the West everything
except a few survivals of earlier nations, is either Roman or
Teutonic, in the East, Greeks, Illyrians, Thracians or
Roumans, and Slaves, all stood side by side as distinct
nations when the next set of invaders came, and they remain as
distinct nations still. … There came among them, in the form
of the Ottoman Turk, a people with whom union was not only
hard but impossible, a people who were kept distinct, not by
special circumstances, but by the inherent nature of the case.
Had the Turk been other than what he really was, he might
simply have become a new nation alongside of the other
South-eastern nations. Being what he was the Turk could not do
this. … The original Turks did not belong to the Aryan
branch of mankind, and their original speech is not an Aryan
speech. The Turks and their speech belong to altogether
another class of nations and languages. … Long before the
Turks came into Europe, the Magyars or Hungarians had come;
and, before the Magyars came, the Bulgarians had come. Both
the Magyars and the Bulgarians were in their origin Turanian
nations, nations as foreign to the Aryan people of Europe as
the Ottoman Turks themselves. But their history shows that a
Turanian nation settling in Europe may either be assimilated
with an existing European nation or may sit down as an
European nation alongside of others. The Bulgarians have done
one of these things; the Magyars have done the other; the
Ottoman Turks have done neither. So much has been heard lately
of the Bulgarians as being in our times the special victims of
the Turk that some people may find it strange to hear who the
original Bulgarians were. They were a people more or less
nearly akin to the Turks, and they came into Europe as
barbarian conquerors who were as much dreaded by the nations
of South-eastern Europe as the Turks themselves were
afterwards. The old Bulgarians were a Turanian people, who
settled in a large part of the South-eastern peninsula, in
lands which had been already occupied by Slaves. They came in
as barbarian conquerors; but, exactly as happened to so many
conquerors in Western Europe, they were presently assimilated
by their Slavonic subjects and neighbours. They learned the
Slavonic speech; they gradually lost all traces of their
foreign origin. Those whom we now call Bulgarians are a
Slavonic people speaking a Slavonic tongue, and they have
nothing Turanian about them except the name which they
borrowed from their Turanian masters. … The Bulgarians
entered the Empire in the seventh century, and embraced
Christianity in the ninth. They rose to great power in the
South-eastern lands, and played a great part in their history.
But all their later history, from a comparatively short time
after the first Bulgarian conquest, has been that of a
Slavonic and not that of a Turanian people. The history of the
Bulgarians therefore shows that it is quite possible, if
circumstances are favourable, for a Turanian people to settle
among the Aryans of Europe and to be thoroughly assimilated by
the Aryan nation among whom they settled."
_E. A. Freeman,
The Ottoman Power in Europe,
chapter 2._
ALSO IN:
_R. G. Latham,
The Nationalities of Europe._
BALKAN: 7th Century.
(Servia, Croatia, Bosnia, Dalmatia and Montenegro.)
The Slavonic settlement.
"No country on the face of our unfortunate planet has been
oftener ravaged, no land so often soaked with the blood of its
inhabitants. At the dawn of history Bosnia formed part of
Illyria. It was said to have been already peopled by Slav
tribes. Rome conquered all this region as far as the Danube,
and annexed it to Dalmatia. Two provinces were formed,
'Dalmatia maritima,' and 'Dalmatia interna,' or 'Illyris
barbara.' Order reigned, and as the interior communicated with
the coast, the whole country flourished. Important ports grew
upon the littoral. … At the fall of the Empire came the
Goths, then the Avars, who, for two centuries, burned and
massacred, and turned the whole country into a desert. … In
630 the Croats began to occupy the present Croatia, Slavonia,
and the north of Bosnia, and in 640 the Servians, of the same
race and language, exterminated the Avars and peopled Servia,
Southern Bosnia, Montenegro and Dalmatia. The ethnic situation
which exists to-day dates from this epoch."
_E. de Laveleye,
The Balkan Peninsula,
chapter 3._
{246}
"Heraclius [who occupied the throne of the Eastern Empire at
Constantinople from 610 to 642] appears to have formed the
plan of establishing a permanent barrier in Europe against the
encroachments of the Avars and Sclavonians. … To accomplish
this object, Heraclius induced the Serbs, or Western
Sclavonians, who occupied the country about the Carpathian
mountains, and who had successfully opposed the extension of
the Avar empire in that direction, to abandon their ancient
seats, and move down to the South into the provinces between
the Adriatic and the Danube. The Roman and Greek population of
these provinces had been driven towards the seacoast by the
continual incursions of the northern tribes, and the desolate
plains of the interior had been occupied by a few Sclavonian
subjects and vassals of the Avars. The most important of the
western Sclavonian tribes who moved southward at the
invitation of Heraclius were the Servians and Croatians, who
settled in the countries still peopled by their descendants.
Their original settlements were formed in consequence of
friendly arrangements, and, doubtless, under the sanction of
an express treaty; for the Sclavonian people of Illyria and
Dalmatia long regarded themselves as bound to pay a certain
degree of territorial allegiance to the Eastern Empire. …
These colonies, unlike the earlier invaders of the Empire,
were composed of agricultural communities. … Unlike the
military races of Goths, Huns, and Avars, who had preceded
them, the Servian nations increased and flourished in the
lands which they had colonized; and by the absorption of every
relic of the ancient population, they formed political
communities and independent states, which offered a firm
barrier to the Avars and other hostile nations. … The states
which they constituted were of considerable weight in the
history of Europe; and the kingdoms or bannats of Croatia,
Servia, Bosnia, Rascia and Dalmatia, occupied for some
centuries a political position very similar to that now held
by the secondary monarchical states of the present day."
_G. Finlay,
Greece under the Romans,
chapter 4, section 6._
See, also, AVARS: THE BREAKING OF THEIR DOMINION;
and SLAVONIC NATIONS: 6TH AND 7TH CENTURIES.
BALKAN: 7th-8th Centuries (Bulgaria).
Vassalage to the Khazars.
See KHAZARS.
BALKAN: 9th Century (Servia).
Rise of the Kingdom.
"At the period alluded to [the latter part of the ninth
century] the Servians did not, like the rest of the
Sclavonians, constitute a distinct state, but acknowledged the
supremacy of the Eastern Roman Emperor: in fact the country
they inhabited had, from ancient times, formed part of the
Roman territory; and it still remained part of the Eastern
Empire when the Western Empire was re-established, at the time
of Charlemagne. The Servians, at the same period, embraced the
Christian faith; but in doing so they did not subject
themselves entirely, either to the empire or church of the
Greeks. …. The Emperor … permitted the Servians to be
ruled by native chiefs, solely of their own election, who
preserved a patriarchal form of government. … In the
eleventh century, the Greeks, despite of the stipulations they
had entered into, attempted to take Servia under their
immediate control, and to subject it to their financial
system." The attempt met with a defeat which was decisive.
"Not only did it put a speedy termination to the encroachment
of the Court of Constantinople in imposing a direct
government, but it also firmly established the princely power
of the Grand Shupanes; whose existence depended on the
preservation of the national independence. … Pope Gregory
VII. was the first who saluted a Grand Shupane as King."
_L. Von Ranke,
History of Servia,
chapter 1._
BALKAN: 9th-16th Centuries (Bosnia, Servia, Croatia, Dalmatia.)
Conversion to Christianity.
The Bogomiles.
Hungarian crusades.
Turkish conquest.
After the Slavonic settlement of Servia, Bosnia, Croatia and
Dalmatia, for a time "the sovereignty of Byzantium was
acknowledged. But the conversion of these tribes, of identical
race, to two different Christian rites, created an antagonism
which still exists. The Croats were converted first by
missionaries from Rome; they thus adopted Latin letters and
Latin ritual; the Servians, on the contrary, and consequently
part of the inhabitants of Bosnia, were brought to
Christianity by Cyril and Methodius, who, coming from
Thessalonica, brought the characters and rites of the Eastern
Church. About 860 Cyril translated the Bible into Slav,
inventing an alphabet which bears his name, and which is still
in use. … In 874 Budimir, the first Christian King of
Bosnia, Croatia and Dalmatia, called a diet upon the plain of
Dalminium, where he tried to establish a regular organization.
It was about this time that the name Bosnia appeared for the
first time. It is said to be derived from a Slav tribe coming
originally from Thrace. In 905 Brisimir, King of Servia,
annexed Croatia and Bosnia; but this union did not last long.
The sovereignty of Byzantium ceased in these parts after the
year 1000. It was gained by Ladislaus, King of Hungary, about
1091. In 1103 Coloman, King of Hungary, added the titles of
'Rex Ramæ' (Herzegovina), then of 'Rex Bosniæ.' Since then
Bosnia has always been a dependence of the crown of Saint
Stephen. … About this time some Albigenses came to Bosnia.
who converted to their beliefs a large number of the people
who were called Catare, in German Patarener. In Bosnia they
received and adopted the name of Bogomile, which means 'loving
God.' Nothing is more tragic than the history of this heresy.
… They [the Bogomiles] became in Bosnia a chief factor, both
of its history and its present situation. … The Hungarian
Kings, in obedience to the Pope, ceaselessly endeavoured to
extirpate them, and their frequent wars of extermination
provoked the hatred of the Bosnians. … In 1238 the first
great crusade was organized by Bela IV. of Hungary, in
obedience to Pope Gregory VII. The whole country was
devastated, and the Bogomiles nearly all massacred, except a
number who escaped to the forests and mountains. In 1245 the
Hungarian Bishop of Kalocsa himself led a second crusade. In
1280 a third crusade was undertaken by Ladislaus IV., King of
Hungary, in order to regain the Pope's favour. … About the
year 1300 Paul of Brebir, 'Banus Croatorum et Bosniæ
dominus,' finally added Herzegovina to Bosnia. Under the Ban
Stephen IV., the Emperor of Servia, the great Dushan, occupied
Bosnia, but it soon regained its independence (1355), and
under Stephen Tvartko, who took the title of king, the country
enjoyed a last period of peace and prosperity. …
{247}
Before his death the Turks appeared on the
frontiers. At the memorable and decisive battle of Kossovo
[see TURKS: A. D. 1360-1389], which gave them Servia, 30,000
Bosnians were engaged, and, though retreating stopped the
conqueror. Under Tvartko II., the second king, who was a
Bogomile, Bosnia enjoyed some years' peace (1326-1443). Then
followed [see TURKS: A. D. 1402-1451] a bloody interlude of
civil war," which invited the Turks and prepared the way for
them. "Mohammed II., who had just taken Constantinople (1453),
advanced with a formidable army of 150,000 men, which nothing
could resist. The country was laid waste: 30,000 young men
were circumcised and enrolled amongst the janissaries; 200,000
prisoners were made slaves; the towns which resisted were
burned; the churches turned into mosques, and the land
confiscated by the conquerors (1463). … A period of struggle
lasted from 1463 till the definite conquest in 1527 [see
TURKS: A. D. 1451-1481]. … When the battle of Mohacz (August
29, 1526) gave Hungary to the Ottomans [see HUNGARY: A. D.
1487-1526] Jaitche, the last rampart of Bosnia, whose defence
had inspired acts of legendary courage, fell in its turn in
1527. A strange circumstance facilitated the Mussulman
conquest. To save their wealth, the greater number of
magnates, and almost all the Bogomiles, who were exasperated
by the cruel persecutions directed against them, went over to
Islamism. From that time they became the most ardent followers
of Mohammedanism, whilst keeping the language and names of
their ancestors. They fought everywhere in the forefront of
the battles which gained Hungary for the Turks." Within the
present century the Bosnian Mussulmans have risen in arms
"against all the reforms that Europe, in the name of modern
principles, wrested from the Porte."
_E. de Laveleye,
The Balkan Peninsula,
chapter 3._
ALSO IN:
_L. von Ranke,
History of Servia, &c._
BALKAN: 10th-11th Centuries (Bulgaria).
The First Bulgarian Kingdom and its overthrow by Basil II.
"The glory of the Bulgarians was confined to a narrow scope
both of time and place. In the 9th and 10th centuries they
reigned to the south of the Danube, but the more powerful
nations that had followed their emigration repelled all return
to the north and all progress to the west. … In the
beginning of the 11th century, the Second Basil [Byzantine or
Greek Emperor, A. D. 976-1025] who was born in the purple,
deserved the appellation of conqueror of the Bulgarians
[subdued by his predecessor, John Zimisces, but still
rebellious]. His avarice was in some measure gratified by a
treasure of 400,000 pounds sterling (10,000 pounds' weight of
gold) which he found in the palace of Lychnidus. His cruelty
inflicted a cool and exquisite vengeance on 15,000 captives
who had been guilty of the defence of their country. They were
deprived of sight, but to one of each hundred a single eye was
left, that he might conduct his blind century to the presence
of their king. Their king is said to have expired of grief and
horror; the nation was awed by this terrible example; the
Bulgarians were swept away from their settlements, and
circumscribed within a narrow province; the surviving chiefs
bequeathed to their children the advice of patience and the
duty of revenge."
_E. Gibbon,
Decline and fall of the Roman Empire,
chapter 55.
ALSO IN:
_G. Finlay,
History of the Byzantine Empire, from 716 to 1007,
book 2, chapter 2._
See, also, CONSTANTINOPLE: A. D. 907-1043,
and ACHRIDA, THE KINGDOM OF.
BALKAN: A. D. 1096 (Bulgaria).
Hostilities with the First Crusaders.
See CRUSADES: A. D. 1096-1099.
BALKAN: 12th Century (Bulgaria).
The Second Bulgarian or Wallachian Kingdom.
"The reign of Isaac II. [Byzantine or Greek Emperor, A. D.
1185-1195] is filled with a series of revolts, caused by his
incapable administration and financial rapacity. The most
important of these was the great rebellion of the Vallachian
and Bulgarian population which occupied the country between
Mount Hæmus and the Danube. The immense population of this
extensive country now separated itself finally from the
government of the Eastern Empire, and its political destinies
ceased to be united with those of the Greeks. A new European
monarchy, called the Vallachian, or Second Bulgarian kingdom,
was formed, which for some time acted an important part in the
affairs of the Byzantine Empire, and contributed powerfully to
the depression of the Greek race. The sudden importance
assumed by the Vallachian population in this revolution, and
the great extent of country then occupied by a people who had
previously acted no prominent part in the political events of
the East, render it necessary to give some account of their
previous history. Four different countries are spoken of under
the name of Vallachia by the Byzantine writers: Great
Vallachia, which was the country round the plain of Thessaly,
particularly the southern and south-western part. White
Vallachia, or the modern Bulgaria, which formed the
Vallachio-Bulgarian kingdom that revolted from Isaac II.;
Black Vallachia, Mavro-Vallachia, or Karabogdon, which is
Moldavia; and Hungarovallachia, or the Vallachia of the
present day, comprising a part of Transylvania. … The
question remains undecided whether these Vallachians are the
lineal descendants of the Thracian race, who, Strabo tells us,
extended as far south as Thessaly, and as far north as to the
borders of Pannonia; for of the Thracian language we know
nothing."
_G. Finlay,
History of the Byzantine and Greek Empires,
from 716 to 1453,
book 3, chapter 3, section 1._
"Whether they were of Slavic origin or of Gaelic or Welsh
origin, whether they were the aboriginal inhabitants of the
country who had come under the influence of the elder Rome,
and had acquired so many Latin words as to overlay their
language and to retain little more than the grammatical forms
and mould of their own language, or whether they were the
descendants of the Latin colonists of Dacia [see DACIA:
TRAJAN'S CONQUEST] with a large mixture of other peoples, are
all questions which have been much controverted. It is
remarkable that while no people living on the south of the
Balkans appear to be mentioned as Wallachs until the tenth
century, when Anna Comnena mentions a village called Ezeban,
near Mount Kissavo, occupied by them, almost suddenly we hear
of them as a great nation to the south of the Balkans. They
spoke a language which differed little from Latin. Thessaly,
during the twelfth century is usually called Great Wallachia.
… Besides the Wallachs in Thessaly, whose descendants are
now called Kutzo-Wallachs, there were the Wallachs in Dacia,
the ancestors of the present Roumanians, and Mavro-Wallachs in
Dalmatia. Indeed, according to the Hungarian and Byzantine
writers, there were during the twelfth century a series of
Wallachian peoples, extending from the Theiss to the Dniester.
… The word Wallach is used by the Byzantine writers as
equivalent to shepherd, and it may be that the common use of a
dialect of Latin by all the Wallachs is the only bond of union
among the peoples bearing that name. They were all
occasionally spoken of by the Byzantine writers as descendants
of the Romans."
_E. Pears,
The Fall of Constantinople,
chapter 3._
{248}
"The classical type of feature, so often met with among
Roumanian peasants, pleads strongly for the theory of Roman
extraction, and if just now I compared the Saxon peasants to
Noah's ark figures rudely carved out of the coarsest wood, the
Roumanians as often remind me of a type of face chiefly to be
seen on cameo ornaments, or ancient signet rings. Take at
random a score of individuals from any Roumanian village, and,
like a handful of antique gems which have been strewn
broadcast over the land, you will there surely find a good
choice of classical profiles worthy to be immortalized on
agate, onyx, or jasper. An air of plaintive melancholy
generally characterizes the Roumanian peasant: it is the
melancholy of a long-subjected and oppressed race. … Perhaps
no other race possesses in such marked degree the blind and
immovable sense of nationality which characterizes the
Roumanians. They hardly ever mingle with the surrounding
races, far less adopt manners and customs foreign to their
own. This singular tenacity of the Roumanians to their own
dress, manners and customs is probably due to the influence of
their religion [the Greek church], which teaches that any
divergence from their own established rules is sinful."
_E. Gérard,
Transylvanian Peoples
(Contemporary Review, March, 1887)._
BALKAN: A. D. 1341-1356 (Servia).
The Empire of Stephan Dushan.
"In 1341, when John Cantacuzenus assumed the purple [at
Constantinople], important prospects were opened to the
Servians. Cantacuzenus … went up the mountains and prevailed
upon Stephan Dushan, the powerful king of the Servians, whom
he found in a country palace at Pristina, to join his cause."
As the result of this connection, and by favor of the
opportunities which the civil war and general decline in the
Greek Empire afforded him, Stephan Dushan extended his
dominions over Epirus, Thessaly, Macedonia, and a part of
Thrace. "The Shkypetares in Albania followed his standard;
Arta and Joannina were in his possession. From these points
his Voivodes [Palatines], whose districts may easily be
traced, spread themselves over the whole of the Roumelian
territory on the Vardar and the Marizza, as far as Bulgaria,
which he also regarded as a province of his kingdom. Being in
the possession of so extensive a dominion, he now ventured to
assume a title which was still in dispute between the Eastern
and Western Empires, and could not rightly be claimed by
either. As a Servian Krale, he could neither ask nor expect
the obedience of the Greeks: therefore he called himself
Emperor of the Roumelians—the Macedonian Christ-loving
Czar—and began to wear the tiara. … Stephan Dushan died
[December 2, 1356] before he had completed the Empire of which he
had laid the foundation, and ere he had strengthened his power
by the bulwark of national institutions."
_L. Von Ranke,
History of Servia,
chapter 1-2._
ALSO IN:
_M'me E. L. Mijatovich,
Kossovo, Int._
BALKAN: A. D. 1389 (Bulgaria).
Conquest by the Turks.
See TURKS (THE OTTOMANS): A. D. 1360-1389.
BALKAN: 14th Century (Bulgaria).
Subjection to Hungary.
See HUNGARY: A. D. 1301-1442.
BALKAN: 14th-18th Centuries (Roumania, or Wallachia, and Moldavia).
Four Centuries of Conflict with Hungarians and Turks.
"The Wallacho-Bulgarian monarchy, whatever may have been its
limits, was annihilated by a horde of Tartars about A. D.
1250. The same race committed great havoc in Hungary,
conquered the Kumani, overran Moldavia, Transylvania, &c., and
held their ground there until about the middle of the 14th
century, when they were driven northward by the Hungarian,
Saxon, and other settlers in Transylvania; and with their exit
we have done with the barbarians. … Until recently the
historians of Roumania have had little to guide them
concerning the events of the period beyond traditions which,
though very interesting, are now gradually giving place to
recorded and authenticated facts. …. It is admitted that the
plains and slopes of the Carpathians were inhabited by
communities ruled over by chieftains of varying power and
influence. Some were banates, as that of Craiova, which long
remained a semi-independent State; then there were petty
voivodes or princes . … and besides these there were
Khanates, … some of which were petty principalities, whilst
others were merely the governorships of villages or groups of
them. … Mircea, one of the heroes of Roumanian history, not
only secured the independent sovereignty, and called himself
Voivode of Wallachia 'by the grace of God,' but in 1389 he
formed an alliance with Poland, and assumed other titles by
the right of conquest. This alliance … had for its objects
the extension of his dominions, as well as protection against
Hungary on the one hand, and the Ottoman power on the other;
for the … Turkish armies had overrun Bulgaria, and about the
year 1391 they first made their appearance north of the
Danube. At first the bravery of Mircea was successful in
stemming the tide of invasion;" but after a year or two,
"finding himself between two powerful enemies, the King of
Hungary and the Sultan, Mircea elected to form an alliance
with the latter, and concluded a treaty with him at Nicopolis
(1393), known as the First Capitulation, by which Wallachia
retained its autonomy, but agreed to pay an annual tribute and
to acknowledge the suzerainty of the Sultan. … According to
several historians Mircea did not adhere to it long, for he is
said to have been in command of a contingent in the army of
the crusaders, and to have been present at the battle of
Nicopolis (1396), in which the flower of the French nobility
fell, and, when he found their cause to be hopeless, once more
to have deserted them and joined the victorious arms of
Bajazet. Of the continued wars and dissensions in Wallachia
during the reign of Mircea it is unnecessary to speak. He
ruled with varying fortunes until 1418 A. D." A Second
Capitulation was concluded, at Adrianople, with the Turks, in
1460, by a later Wallachian voivode, named Vlad.
{249}
It increased the tribute to the Porte, but made no other
important change in the terms of suzerainty. Meantime, in the
neighbouring Moldavian principality, events were beginning to
shape themselves into some historical distinctness. "For a
century after the foundation of Moldavia, or, as it was at
first called, Bogdania, by Bogdan Dragosch [a legendary hero],
the history of the country is shrouded in darkness. Kings or
princes are named, one or more of whom were Lithuanians. …
At length a prince more powerful than the rest ascended the
throne. … This was Stephen, sometimes called the 'Great' or
'Good.' … He came to the throne about 1456 or 1458, and
reigned until 1504, and his whole life was spent in wars
against Transylvania, Wallachia, … the Turks, and Tartars.
… In 1475 he was at war with the Turks, whom he defeated on
the river Birlad. … In that year also Stephen … completely
overran Wallachia. Having reduced it to submission, he placed
a native boyard on the throne as his viceroy, who showed his
gratitude to Stephen by rebelling and liberating the country
from his rule; but he was in his turn murdered by his
Wallachian subjects. In 1476 Stephen sustained a terrible
defeat at the hands of the Ottomans at Valea Alba (the White
Valley), but eight years afterwards, allied with the Poles, he
again encountered [and defeated] this terrible enemy. …
After the battle of Mohacs [see HUNGARY: A. D. 1487-1526] the
Turks began to encroach more openly upon Roumanian
(Moldo-Wallachian) territory. They occupied and fortified
Braila, Giurgevo, and Galatz; interfered in the election of
the princes … adding to their own influence, and rendering
the princes more and more subservient to their will. This
state of things lasted until the end of the 16th century, when
another hero, Michael the Brave of Wallachia, restored
tranquility and independence to the Principalities, and raised
them for a season in the esteem of surrounding nations."
Michael, who mounted the throne in 1593, formed an alliance
with the Prince of Siebenbürgen (Transylvania) and the voivode
of Moldavia, against the Turks. He began his warfare,
November, 1591, by a wholesale massacre of the Turks in
Bucharest and Jassy. He then took Giurgevo by storm and
defeated the Ottoman forces in a battle at Rustchuk. In 1595,
Giurgevo was the scene of two bloody battles, in both of which
Michael came off victor, with famous laurels. The Turks were
effectually driven from the country. The ambition of the
victorious Michael was now excited, and he invaded
Transylvania (1599) desiring to add it to his dominions. In a
battle "which is called by some the battle of Schellenberg,
and by others of Hermanstadt," he defeated the reigning
prince, Cardinal Andreas, and Transylvania was at his feet. He
subdued Moldavia with equal ease, and the whole of ancient
Dacia became subject to his rule. The Emperor Rudolph, as
suzerain of Transylvania, recognized his authority. But his
reign was brief. Before the close of the year 1600 a rising
occurred in Transylvania, and Michael was defeated in a battle
fought at Miriszlo. He escaped to the mountains and became a
fugitive for some months, while even his Wallachian throne was
occupied by a brother of the Moldavian voivode. At length he
made terms with the Emperor Rudolph, whose authority had been
slighted by the Transylvanian insurgents, and procured men and
money with which he returned in force, crushed his opponents
at Goroszlo, and reigned again as viceroy. But he quarreled
soon with the commander of the imperial troops, General Basta,
and the latter caused him to be assassinated, some time in
August, 1601. … The History of Moldo-Wallachia during the
17th century … possesses little interest for English
readers." At the end of the 17th century "another great Power
[Russia] was drawing nearer and nearer to Roumania, which was
eventually to exercise a grave influence upon her destiny. …
In the beginning of the 18th century there ruled two voivodes,
Constantine Brancovano, in Wallachia, and Demetrius Cantemir
in Moldavia, both of whom had been appointed in the usual
manner under the suzerainty of the Porte; but these princes,
independently of each other, had entered into negotiations
with Peter the Great after the defeat of Charles XII. at
Pultawa (1709), to assist them against the Sultan, their
suzerain, stipulating for their own independence under the
protection of the Czar." Peter was induced to enter the
country with a considerable army [1711], but soon found
himself in a position from which there appeared little chance
of escape. He was extricated only by the cleverness of the
Czarina, who bribed the Turkish commander with her jewels.
See SCANDINAVIAN STATES (SWEDEN): A. D. 1707-1718.
The Moldavian Voivode escaped with the Russians. The
Wallachian, Brancovano, was seized, taken to Constantinople,
and put to death, along with his four sons. "Stephen
Cantacuzene, the son of his accusers, was made Voivode of
Wallachia, but like his predecessors he only enjoyed the
honour for a brief term, and two years afterwards he was
deposed, ordered to Constantinople, imprisoned, and
decapitated; and with him terminated the rule of the native
princes, who were followed, both in Wallachia and Moldavia, by
the so-called Phanariote governors [see PHANARIOTES] or
farmers-general of the Porte."
_J. Samuelson,
Roumania, Past and Present,
part 2, chapters 11-13._
BALKAN: 14th-19th Centuries:
(Montenegro) The new Servia.
"The people that inhabit the two territories known on the map
as Servia and Montenegro are one and the same. If you ask a
Montenegrin what language he speaks, he replies 'Serb.' The
last of the Serb Czars fell gloriously fighting at Kossovo in
1389 [see TURKS: A. D. 1360-1389]. To this day the Montenegrin
wears a strip of black silk upon his headgear in memory of
that fatal day. … The brave Serbs who escaped from Kossovo
found a sanctuary in the mountains that overlook the Bay of
Cattaro. Their leader, Ivo, surnamed Tsernoi (Black), gave the
name of Tzrnogora (Montenegro) to these desert rocks. …
Servia having become a Turkish province, her colonists created
in Montenegro a new and independent Servia [see TURKS: A. D.
1451-1481]. The memory of Ivo the Black is still green in the
country. Springs, ruins, and caverns are called after him,
and the people look forward to the day when he will reappear
as a political Messiah. But Ivo's descendants proved unworthy
of him; they committed the unpardonable sin of marrying
aliens, and early in the 16th century the last descendant of
Ivo the Black retired to Venice.
{250}
From 1516 to 1697 Montenegro
was ruled by elective Vladikas or Bishops; from 1697 to 1851
by hereditary Vladikas. For the Montenegrins the 16th, 17th
and 18th centuries formed a period of incessant warfare. …
Up till 1703 the Serbs of the mountain were no more absolutely
independent of the Sultan than their enslaved kinsmen of the
plain. The Havatch or Sultan's slipper tax was levied on the
mountaineers. In 1703 Danilo Petrovitch celebrated his
consecration as a Christian Bishop by ordering the slaughter
of every Mussulman who refused to be baptised. This massacre
took place on Christmas Eve 1703. … The 17th and 18th
centuries were for Montenegro a struggle for existence. In the
19th century began their struggle for an outlet to the sea.
The fall of Venice would naturally have given the mountaineers
the bay of Cattaro, had not the French stepped in and annexed
Dalmatia." In 1813, the Vladika, Peter I., "with the aid of
the British fleet … took Cattaro from the French, but
(pursuant to an arrangement between Russia and Austria) was
compelled subsequently to relinquish it to the latter power.
… Peter I. of Montenegro … died in 1830, at the age of 80.
… His nephew Peter II. was a wise ruler. … On the death of
Peter II., Prince Danilo, the uncle of the present Prince,
went to Russia to be consecrated Bishop of Montenegro. The
czar seems to have laughed him out of this ancient practice;
and the late Prince instead of converting himself into monk
and bishop returned to his own country and married [1851]. …
Prince Danilo was assassinated at Cattaro (1860). … He was
succeeded by his nephew Nicholas."
_J. G. C. Minchin,
Servia and Montenegro
(National Life and Thought, lecture 19)._
"The present form of government in Montenegro is at once the
most despotic and the most popular in Europe—despotic,
because the will of the Prince is the law of the land; and
popular, because the personal rule of the Prince meets all the
wants and wishes of the people. No Sovereign in Europe sits so
firmly on his throne as the Prince of this little State, and
no Sovereign is so absolute. The Montenegrins have no army;
they are themselves a standing army."
_J. G. C. Minchin,
The Growth of Freedom in the Balkan Peninsula,
chapter 1._
_A. A. Paton,
Researches on the Danube and the Adriatic,
book 2, chapter 7 (volume 1)._
_L. Von Ranke,
History of Servia, &c.: Slave Provinces of Turkey,
chapter 2-6._
"Montenegro is an extremely curious instance of the way in
which favourable geographical conditions may aid a small
people to achieve a fame and a place in the world quite out of
proportion to their numbers. The Black Mountain is the one
place where a South Sclavonic community maintained themselves
in independence, sometimes seeing their territory overrun by
the Turks, but never acknowledging Turkish authority de jure
from the time of the Turkish Conquest of the 15th century down
to the Treaty of Berlin. Montenegro could not have done that
but for her geographical structure. She is a high mass of
limestone; you cannot call it a plateau, because it is seamed
by many valleys, and rises into many sharp mountain-peaks.
Still, it is a mountain mass, the average height of which is
rather more than 2,000 feet above the sea, with summits
reaching 5,000. It is bare limestone, so that there is hardly
anything grown on it, only grass—and very good grass—in
spots, with little patches of corn and potatoes, and it has
scarcely any water. Its upland is covered with snow in winter,
while in summer the invaders have to carry their water with
them, a serious difficulty when there were no roads, and
active mountaineers fired from behind every rock, a difficulty
which becomes more serious the larger the invading force.
Consequently it is one of the most impracticable regions
imaginable for an invading army. It is owing to those
circumstances that this handful of people—because the
Montenegrins of the 17th century did not number more than
40,000 or 50,000—have maintained their independence. That
they did maintain it is a fact most important in the history
of the Balkan Peninsula, and may have great consequences yet
to come."
_J. Bryce,
Relations of History and Geography
(Contemporary Review, March, 1886)._
BALKAN: 14th-19th Centuries.—(Servia):
The long oppression of the Turk.
Struggle for freedom under Kara Georg and Milosch.
Independence achieved.
The Obrenovitch dynasty.
"The brilliant victories of Stephan Dushan were a misfortune
to Christendom. They shattered the Greek empire, the last
feeble bulwark of Europe, and paved the way for those ultimate
successes of the Asiatic conquerors which a timely union of
strength might have prevented. Stephan Dushan conquered, but
did not consolidate: and his scourging wars were
insufficiently balanced by the advantage of the code of laws
to which he gave his·name. His son Urosh, being a weak and
incapable prince, was murdered by one of the generals of the
army, and thus ended the Neman dynasty, after having subsisted
212 years, and produced eight kings and two emperors. The
crown now devolved on Knes, or Prince Lasar; a connexion of
the house of Neman. … Of all the ancient rulers of the
country, his memory is held the dearest by the Servians of the
present day." Knes Lasar perished in the fatal battle of
Kossovo, and with him fell the Servian monarchy.
See TURKS: A. D. 1360-1389, 1402-1451, and 1459;
also MONTENEGRO.
"The Turkish conquest was followed by the gradual dispersion
or disappearance of the native nobility of Servia, the last of
whom, the Brankovitch, lived as despots' in the castle of
Semendria up to the beginning of the 18th century. … The
period preceding the second siege of Vienna was the
spring-tide of Islam conquest. After this event, in 1684,
began the ebb. Hungary was lost to the Porte, and six years
afterwards 37,000 Servian families emigrated into that
kingdom; this first led the way to contact with the
civilization of Germany. … Servia Proper, for a short time
wrested from the Porte by the victories of Prince Eugene,
again became a part of the dominions of the Sultan."
See RUSSIA: A. D. 1739.
{251}
"But a turbulent militia overawed the government and tyrannized
over the Rayahs. Pasvan Oglou and his bands at Widdin were, at
the end of the last century, in open revolt against the Porte.
Other chiefs had followed his example; and for the first time
the Divan thought of associating Christian Rayahs with the
spahis, to put down these rebels. The Dahis, as these
brigand-chiefs were called, resolved to anticipate the
approaching struggle by a massacre of the most influential
Christians. This atrocious massacre was carried out with
indescribable horrors. … Kara Georg [Black George], a
peasant, born at Topola about the year 1767, getting timely
information that his name was in the list of the doomed, fled
into the woods, and gradually organized a formidable force. In
the name of the Porte he combated the Dahis, who had usurped
local authority in defiance of the Pasha of Belgrade. The
Divan, little anticipating the ultimate issue of the struggle
in Servia, was at first delighted at the success of Kara
Georg; but soon saw with consternation that the rising of the
Servian peasants grew into a formidable rebellion, and ordered
the Pashas of Bosnia and Scodra to assemble all their
disposable forces and invade Servia. Between 40,000 and 50,000
Bosniacs burst into Servia on the west, in the spring of 1806,
cutting to pieces all who refused to receive Turkish
authority. Kara Georg undauntedly met the storm," defeating
the Turkish forces near Tchoupria, September, 1804, and more
severely two years later (August, 1806) at Shabatz. In
December of the same year he surprised and took Belgrade. "The
succeeding years were passed in the vicissitudes of a guerilla
warfare, neither party obtaining any marked success; and an
auxiliary corps of Russians assisted in preventing the Turks
from making the re-conquest of Servia. … Kara Georg was now
a Russian lieutenant-general, and exercised an almost
unlimited power in Servia; the revolution, after a struggle of
eight years, appeared to be successful, but the momentous
events then passing in Europe completely altered the aspect of
affairs. Russia, in 1812, on the approach of the countless
legions of Napoleon, precipitately concluded the treaty of
Bucharest, the eighth article of which formally assured a
separate administration to the Servians. Next year, however,
was fatal to Kara Georg. In 1813, the vigour of the Ottoman
empire … was now concentrated on the resubjugation of
Servia. A general panic seemed to seize the nation; and Kara
Georg and his companions in arms sought a retreat on the
Austrian territory, and thence passed into Wallachia. In 1814,
300 Christians were impaled at Belgrade by the Pasha, and
every valley in Servia presented the spectacle of infuriated
Turkish spahis avenging on the Servians the blood, exile and
confiscation of the ten preceding years. At this period,
Milosh Obrenovitch appears prominently on the political tapis.
He spent his youth in herding the famed swine of Servia; and
during the revolution was employed by Kara Georg to watch the
passes of the Balkans. … He now saw that a favourable
conjuncture had come for his advancement from the position of
chieftain to that of chief; he therefore lost no time in
making terms with the Turks, offering to collect the tribute,
to serve them faithfully, and to aid them in the resubjugation
of the people. … He now displayed singular activity in the
extirpation of all the other popular chiefs," until he found
reason to suspect that the Turks were only using him to
destroy him in the end. Then, in 1815, he turned upon them and
raised the standard of revolt. The movement which he headed
was so formidable that the Porte made haste to treat, and
Milosch made favourable terms for himself, being reinstated as
tribute-collector. "Many of the chiefs, impatient at the
speedy submission of Milosh, wished to fight the matter out,
and Kara Georg, in order to give effect to their plans, landed
in Servia. Milosh pretended to be friendly to his designs, but
secretly betrayed his place of concealment to the governor,
whose men broke into the cottage where he slept, and put him
to death."
_A. A. Paton,
Researches on the Danube and the Adriatic,
book 1, chapter 3._
"In 1817 Milosch was proclaimed hereditary Prince of Servia by
the National Assembly. … In 1830 the autonomy of Servia was
at length solemnly recognized by the Porte, and Milosch
proclaimed 'the father of the Fatherland.' … If asked why
the descendants of Milosch still rule over Servia, and not the
descendants of Kara George, my answer is that every step in
Servian progress is connected with the Obrenovitch dynasty.
The liberation of the country, the creation of a peasant
proprietary, the final withdrawal of the Turkish troops from
Belgrade in 1862, the independence of the country, the
extension of its territory, and the making of its
railways,—all of these are among the results of Obrenovitch
rule. The founder of the dynasty had in 1830 a great
opportunity of making his people free as well as independent.
But Milosch had lived too long with Turks to be a lover of
freedom. … In 1839 Milosch abdicated. The reason for this
step was that he refused to accept a constitution which Russia
and Turkey concocted for him. This charter vested the actual
government of the country in a Senate composed of Milosch's
rivals, and entirely independent of that Prince. … It was
anti-democratic, no less than anti-dynastic. Milosch was
succeeded first by his son Milan, and on Milan's death by
Michael. Michael was too gentle for the troubled times in
which he lived, and after a two years's reign he too started
upon his travels. … When Michael crossed the Save, Alexander
Kara Georgevitch was elected Prince of Servia. From 1842 to
1858 the son of Black George lived—he can scarcely be said to
have reigned—in Belgrade. During these 17 years this feeble
son of a strong man did absolutely nothing for his country.
… Late in 1858 he fled from Servia, and Milosch ruled in his
stead. Milosch is the Grand Old Man of Serb history. His mere
presence in Servia checked the intrigues of foreign powers. He
died peacefully in his bed. … Michael succeeded his father.
… Prince Michael was murdered by convicts in the park at
Topschidera near Belgrade." He "was succeeded (1868) by Milan,
the grandson of Zephrem, the brother of Milosch. As Milan was
barely fourteen years of age, a Regency of three was
appointed."
_J. G. C. Minchin,
Servia and Montenegro
(National Life and Thought, lecture 19)._
ALSO IN:
_E. de Laveleye,
The Balkan Peninsula,
chapter 6._
BALKAN: A. D. 1718 (Bosnia).
A part ceded to Austria by the Turks.
See HUNGARY: A. D. 1699-1718.
BALKAN: A. D. 1739 (Bosnia and Roumania).
Entire restoration of Bosnia to the Turks, and Cession of
Austrian Wallachia.
See RUSSIA: A. D. 1725-1739.
{252}
BALKAN: 19th Century (Roumania and Servia).
Awakening of a National Spirit.
The effect of historical teaching.
"No political fact is of more importance and interest in
modern continental history than the tenacity with which the
smaller nations of Europe preserve their pride of nationality
in the face of the growing tendency towards the formation of
large, strongly concentrated empires, supported by powerful
armies. Why should Portugal utterly refuse to unite with
Spain? Why do Holland and Belgium cling to their existence as
separate States, in spite of all the efforts of statesmen to
join them? Why do the people of Bohemia and Croatia, of
Finland, and of Poland, refuse to coalesce with the rest of
the population of the empires of which they form but small
sections? Why, finally, do the new kingdoms of Roumania and
Servia show such astonishing vitality? The arguments as to
distinctive race or' distinctive language fail to answer all
these questions. … This rekindling of the national spirit is
the result chiefly of the development of the new historical
school all over the Continent. Instead of remaining in
ignorance of their past history, or, at best, regarding a mass
of legends as containing the true tale of their countries'
achievements, these small nations have now learnt from the
works of their great historians what the story of their
fatherlands really is, and what title they have to be proud of
their ancestors. These great historians—Herculano, Palacky,
Széchenyi, and the rest—who made it their aim to tell the
truth and not to show off the beauties of a fine literary
style, all belonged to the generation which had its interest
aroused in the history of the past by the novels of Sir Walter
Scott and the productions of the Romantic School, and they all
learnt how history was to be studied, and then written, from
Niebuhr, Von Ranke and their disciples and followers. From
these masters they learnt that their histories were not to be
made interesting at the expense of truth. … The vitality of
the new historical school in Roumania is particularly
remarkable, for in the Danubian provinces, which form that
kingdom, even more strenuous efforts had been made to stamp
out the national spirit than in Bohemia. The extraordinary
rapidity with which the Roumanian people has reasserted itself
in recent years, is one of the most remarkable facts in modern
European history, and it is largely due to the labours of its
historians. Up till 1822 the Roumanian language was vigorously
proscribed; the rulers of the Danubian provinces permitted
instruction to the upper classes in the language of the rulers
only, and while Slavonic, and in the days of the Phanariots
Greek, was the official and fashionable language, used in
educating the nobility and bourgeois, the peasants were left
in ignorance. Four men, whose names deserve record, first
endeavoured to raise the Roumanian language to a literary
level, and not only studied Roumanian history, but tried to
teach the Roumanian people something of their own early
history. Of these four, George Schinkaï was by far the most
remarkable. He was an inhabitant of Transylvania, a Roumanian
province which still remains subject to Hungary, and he first
thought of trying to revive the Roumanian nationality by
teaching the people their history. He arranged the annals of
his country from A. D. 86 to A. D. 1739 with indefatigable
labour, during the last half of the 18th century, and,
according to Edgar Quinet, in such a truly modern manner,
after such careful weighing of original authorities, and with
such critical power, that he deserves to be ranked with the
creators of the modern historical school. It need hardly be
said that Schinkaï's History was not allowed to be printed by
the Hungarian authorities, who had no desire to see the
Roumanian nationality re-assert itself, and the censor marked
on it 'opus igne, auctor patibulo dignus.' It was not
published until 1853, more than forty years after its
completion, and then only at Jassy, for the Hungarians still
proscribed it in Transylvania. Schinkaï's friend, Peter Major,
was more fortunate in his work, a 'History of the Origin of
the Roumanians in Dacia,' which, as it did not touch on modern
society, was passed by the Hungarian censorship, and printed
at Buda Pesth in 1813. The two men who first taught Roumanian
history in the provinces which now form the kingdom of
Roumania were not such learned men as Schinkaï and Peter
Major, but their work was of more practical importance. In
1813 George Asaky got leave to open a Roumanian class at the
Greek Academy of Jassy, under the pretext that it was
necessary to teach surveying in the Roumanian tongue, because
of the questions which constantly arose in that profession, in
which it would be necessary to speak to the peasants in their
own language, and in his lectures he carefully inserted
lessons in Roumanian history, and tried to arouse the spirit
of the people. George Lazarus imitated him at Bucharest in
1816, and the fruit of this instruction was seen when the
Roumanians partially regained their freedom. The
Moldo-Wallachian princes encouraged the teaching of Roumanian
history, as they encouraged the growth of the spirit of
Roumanian independence, and when the Roumanian Academy was
founded, an historical section was formed with the special
mission of studying and publishing documents connected with
Roumanian history. The modern scientific spirit has spread
widely throughout the kingdom."
_H. Morse Stephens,
Modern Historians and Small Nationalities
(Contemporary Review, July, 1887)._
BALKAN: A. D. 1829 (Roumania, or Wallachia and Moldavia).
Important provisions of the Treaty of Adrianople.
Life Election of the Hospodars.
Substantial independence of the Turk.
See TURKS: A. D. 1826-1829.
BALKAN: A. D. 1856 (Roumania, or Wallachia and Moldavia).
Privileges guaranteed by the Treaty of Paris.
See RUSSIA: A. D. 1854-1856.
BALKAN: A. D. 1858-1866.
(Roumania or Wallachia and Moldavia).
Union of the two provinces under one Crown.
Accession of Prince Charles of Hohenzollern.
See TURKS: A. D. 1861-1877.
{253}
BALKAN: A. D. 1875-1878.
The Breaking of the Turkish yoke.
Bulgarian atrocities.
Russo-Turkish War.
In 1875, a revolt broke out in Herzegovina. "The efforts made
to suppress the growing revolt strained the already weakened
resources of the Porte, until they could bear up against it no
longer, and the Herzegovinese rebellion proved the last straw
which broke the back of Turkish solvency. … The hopes of the
insurgents were of course quickened by this catastrophe,
which, as they saw, would alienate much sympathy from the
Turks. The advisers of the Sultan, therefore, thought it
necessary to be conciliatory, and … they induced him to
issue an Iradé, or circular note, promising the remission of
taxes, and economical and social reforms. … Europe, however,
had grown tired of the Porte's promises of amendment, and for
some time the Imperial Powers had been laying their heads
together, and the result of their consultations was the
Andrassy Note. The date of this document was December 30th,
1875, and it was sent to those of the Western Powers who had
signed the treaties of 1856. It declared that although the
spirit of the suggested reforms was good, there was some doubt
whether the Porte had the strength to carry them out; Count
Andrassy, therefore, proposed that the execution of the
necessary measures should be placed under the care of a
special commission, half the members of which should be
Mussulmans and half Christians. … It concluded with a
serious warning, that if the war was not gone with the snow,
'the Governments of Servia and Montenegro, which have had
great difficulty in keeping aloof from the movement, will be
unable to resist the current.' … It was evident, however,
that this note would have but little or no effect; it
contained no coercive precautions, and accordingly the Porte
quietly allowed the question to drop, and contented himself
with profuse promises. … So affairs drifted on; the little
war continued to sputter on the frontier; reinforced by
Servians and Montenegrins, the Herzegovinese succeeded in
keeping their enemy at bay, and, instigated, it is said, by
Russian emissaries, put forward demands which the Porte was
unable to accept. … The Powers, in no wise disconcerted by
the failure of their first attempt to settle the difficulties
between the Sultan and his rebellious subjects, had published
a sequel to the Andrassy Note. There was an informal
conference of the three Imperial Chancellors, Prince Bismarck,
Prince Gortschakoff, and Count Andrassy, at Berlin, in May.
… Then on May 18th the Ambassadors of England, France, and
Italy were invited to Prince Bismarck's house, and the text of
the famous Berlin Memorandum was laid before them. … While
the three Chancellors were forging their diplomatic
thunderbolt, a catastrophe of such a terrible nature had
occurred in the interior of Turkey that all talk of armistices
and mixed commissions had become stale and unprofitable. The
Berlin Memorandum was not even presented to the Porte; for a
rumour, though carefully suppressed by Turkish officials, was
beginning to leak out that there had been an insurrection of
the Christian population of Bulgaria, and that the most
horrible atrocities had been committed by the Turkish
irregular troops in its suppression. It was communicated to
Lord Derby by Sir Henry Elliot on the 4th of May. … On June
16th a letter was received from him at the Foreign Office,
saying, 'The Bulgarian insurrection appears to be
unquestionably put down, although I regret to say, with
cruelty, and, in some places, with brutality.' … A week
afterwards the Constantinople correspondent of the Daily News
… gave the estimates of Bulgarians slain as varying from
18,000 to 30,000, and the number of villages destroyed at
about a hundred. … That there was much truth in the
statements of the newspaper correspondents was …
demonstrated beyond possibility of denial as soon as Sir Henry
Elliot's despatches were made public. … 'I am satisfied,'
wrote Sir Henry Elliot, 'that, while great atrocities have
been committed, both by Turks upon Christians and Christians
upon Turks, the former have been by far the greatest, although
the Christians were undoubtedly the first to commence them.'
… Meanwhile, the Daily News had resolved on sending out a
special commissioner to make an investigation independent of
official reports. Mr. J. A. MacGahan, an American, who had
been one of that journal's correspondents during the
Franco-German War, was the person selected. He started in
company with Mr. Eugene Schuyler, the great authority on the
Central Asian question, who, in the capacity of
Consul-General, was about to prepare a similar statement for
the Honorable Horace Maynard, the United States Minister at
Constantinople. They arrived at Philippopolis on the 25th of
July; where Mr. Walter Baring, one of the Secretaries of the
British Legation at Constantinople, was already engaged in
collecting information. The first of Mr. MacGahan's letters
was dated July the 28th, and its publication in this country
revived in a moment the half-extinct excitement of the
populace. … Perhaps the passage which was most frequently in
men's mouths at the time was that in which he described the
appearance of the mountain village of Batak. 'We entered the
town. On every side were skulls and skeletons charred among
the ruins, or lying entire where they fell in their clothing.
There were skeletons of girls and women, with long brown hair
hanging to their skulls. We approached the church. There these
remains were more frequent, until the ground was literally
covered by skeletons, skulls, and putrefying bodies in
clothing. Between the church and school there were heaps. The
stench was fearful. We entered the churchyard. The sight was
more dreadful. The whole churchyard, for three feet deep, was
festering with dead bodies, partly covered; hands, legs, arms,
and heads projecting in ghastly confusion. I saw many little
hands, heads, and feet of children three years of age, and
girls with heads covered with beautiful hair. The church was
still worse. The floor was covered with rotting bodies quite
uncovered. I never imagined anything so fearful. … The town
had 9,000 inhabitants. There now remain 1,200. Many who had
escaped had returned recently, weeping and moaning over their
ruined homes. Their sorrowful wailing could be heard half a
mile off. Some were digging out the skeletons of loved ones. A
woman was sitting moaning over three small skulls, with hair
clinging to them, which she had in her lap. The man who did
this, Achmed Agra, has been promoted, and is still governor of
the district.' An exceeding bitter cry of horror and disgust
arose throughout the country on the receipt of this terrible
news. Mr. Anderson at once asked for information on the
subject, and Mr. Bourke was entrusted with the difficult duty
of replying. He could only read a letter from Mr. Baring, in
which he said that, as far as he had been able to discover,
the proportion of the numbers of the slain was about 12,000
Bulgarians to 500 Turks, and that 60 villages had been wholly
or partially burnt. … Mr. Schuyler's opinions were, as might
be expected from the circumstance that his investigations had
been shorter than those of Mr. Baring, and that he was
ignorant of the Turkish language—which is that chiefly spoken
in Bulgaria—and was therefore at the mercy of his
interpreter, the more highly coloured. He totally rejected
Lord Beaconsfield's idea that there had been a civil war, and
that cruelties had been committed on both sides. On the
contrary he asserted that 'the insurgent villages made little
or no resistance.
{254}
In many cases they surrendered their arms on the first demand.
… No Turkish women or children were killed in cold blood. No
Mussulman women were, violated. No Mussulmans were tortured.
No purely Turkish village was attacked or burnt. No Mosque was
desecrated or destroyed. The Bashi-Bazouks, on the other hand,
had burnt about 65 villages, and killed at least 15,000
Bulgarians.' The terrible story of the destruction of Batak
was told in language of precisely similar import to that of
Mr. MacGahan, whose narrative the American Consul had never
seen, though there was a slight difference in the numbers of
the massacred. 'Of the 8,000 inhabitants,' he said, 'not 2,000
are known to survive'. … Abdul Aziz had let loose the hordes
of Bashi-Bazouks on defenceless Bulgaria, but Murad seemed
utterly unable to rectify the fatal error; the province fell
into a state of complete anarchy. … As Lord Derby remarked,
it was impossible to effect much with an imbecile monarch and
bankrupt treasury. One thing, at any rate, the Turks were
strong enough to do, and that was to defeat the Servians, who
declared war on Turkey on July 1st. … Up to the last Prince
Milan declared that his intentions were purely pacific; but
the increasing troubles of the Porte enabled him, with some
small chance of success, to avail himself of the anti-Turkish
spirit of his people and to declare war. His example was
followed by Prince Nikita of Montenegro, who set out with his
brave little army from Cettigne on July 2nd. At first if
appeared as if the principalities would have the better of the
struggle. The Turkish generals showed their usual dilatoriness
in attacking Servia, and Tchernaieff, who was a man of
considerable military talent, gave them the good-bye, and cut
them off from their base of operations. This success was,
however, transitory; Abdul Kerim, the Turkish
Commander-in·Chief, drove back the enemy by mere force of
numbers, and by the end of the month he was over the border.
Meanwhile, the hardy Montenegrins had been considerably more
fortunate; but their victories over Mukhtar Pasha were not
sufficiently important to effect a diversion. The Servians
fell back from all their positions of defence, and on
September 1st received a most disastrous beating before the
walls of Alexinatz. … On September 16th the Porte agreed to
a suspension of hostilities until the 25th. It must be
acknowledged that the Servians used this period of grace
exceedingly ill. Prince Milan was proclaimed by General
Tchernaieff, in his absence and against his will, King of
Servia and Bosnia; and though, on the remonstrance of the
Powers, he readily consented to waive the obnoxious title, the
evil effect of the declaration remained. Lord Derby's
proposals for peace, which were made on September 21st, were
nevertheless accepted by the Sultan when he saw that unanimity
prevailed among the Powers, and he offered in addition to
prolong the formal suspension of hostilities to October 2nd.
This offer the Servians, relying on the Russian volunteers who
were flocking to join Tchernaieff, rejected with some
contempt, and hostilities were resumed. They paid dearly for
their temerity. Tchernaieff's position before Alexinatz was
forced by the Turks after three days' severe fighting;
position after position yielded to them; on October 31st
Alexinatz was taken, and Deligrad was occupied on November
1st. Nothing remained between the outpost of the crescent and
Belgrade, and it seemed as if the new Kingdom of Servia must
perish in the throes of its birth." Russia now invoked the
intervention of the powers, and brought about a conference at
Constantinople, which effected nothing, the Porte rejecting
all the proposals submitted. On the 24th of April, 1877,
Russia declared war and entered upon a conflict with the
Turks, which had for its result the readjustment of affairs in
South-eastern Europe by the Congress and Treaty of Berlin.
_Cassell's Illustrated History of England,
volume 10, chapter 22-23._
See TURKS: A. D. 1877-1878, and 1878.
BALKAN: A. D. 1878.
Treaty of Berlin.
Transfer of Bosnia to Austria.
Independence of Servia, Montenegro and Roumania.
Division and semi-independence of Bulgaria.
"(1) Bosnia, including Herzegovina, was assigned to Austria
for permanent occupation. Thus Turkey lost a great province of
nearly 1,250,000 inhabitants. Of these about 500,000 were
Christians of the Greek Church, 450,000 were Mohammedans,
mainly in the towns, who offered a stout resistance to the
Austrian troops, and 200,000 Roman Catholics. By the
occupation of the Novi-Bazar district Austria wedged in her
forces between Montenegro and Servia, and was also able to
keep watch over the turbulent province of Macedonia. (2)
Montenegro received less than the San Stefano terms had
promised her, but secured the seaports of Antivari and
Dulcigno. It needed a demonstration of the European fleets off
the latter port, and a threat to seize Smyrna, to make the
Turks yield Dulcigno to the Montenegrians (who alone of all
the Christian races of the peninsula had never been conquered
by the Turks). (3) Servia was proclaimed an independent
Principality, and received the district of Old Servia on the
upper valley of the Morava. (4) Roumania also gained her
independence and ceased to pay any tribute to the Porte, but
had to give up to her Russian benefactors the slice acquired
from Russia in 1856 between the Pruth and the northern mouth
of the Danube. In return for this sacrifice she gained the
large but marshy Dobrudscha district from Bulgaria, and so
acquired the port of Kustendje on the Black Sea. (5) Bulgaria,
which, according to the San Stefano terms, would have been an
independent State as large as Roumania, was by the Berlin
Treaty subjected to the suzerainty of the sultan, divided into
two parts, and confined within much narrower limits. Besides
the Dobrudscha, it lost the northern or Bulgarian part of
Macedonia, and the Bulgarians who dwelt between the Balkans
and Adrianople were separated from their kinsfolk on the north
of the Balkans, in a province called Eastern Roumelia, with
Philippopolis as capital. The latter province was to remain
Turkish, under a Christian governor nominated by the Porte
with the consent of the Powers. Turkey was allowed to occupy
the passes of the Balkans in time of war."
_J. H. Rose,
A Century of Continental History,
chapter 42._
See TURKS: A. D. 1878.
ALSO IN: _E. Hertslet,
The Map of Europe by Treaty,
volume 4, numbers 518, 524-532._
{255}
BALKAN: A. D. 1878-1891.
Proposed Balkan Confederation and its aims.
"During the reaction against Russia which followed the great
war of 1878, negotiations were actually set on foot with a
view to forming a combination of the Balkan States for the
purpose of resisting Russian aggression. … Prince Alexander
always favoured the idea of a Balkan Confederation which was
to include Turkey; and even listened to proposals on the part
of Greece, defining the Bulgarian and Greek spheres of
influence in Macedonia. But the revolt of Eastern Roumelia,
followed by the Servo-Bulgarian war and the chastisement of
Greece by the Powers, provoked so much bitterness of feeling
among the rival races that for many years nothing more was
heard of a Balkan Confederation. The idea has lately been
revived under different auspices and with somewhat different
aims. During the past six years the Triple Alliance, with
England, has, despite the indifference of Prince Bismarck,
protected the Balkan States in general, and Bulgaria in
particular from the armed intervention of Russia. It has also
acted the part of policeman in preserving the peace throughout
the Peninsula, and in deterring the young nations from any
dangerous indulgence in their angry passions. The most
remarkable feature in the history of this period has been the
extraordinary progress made by Bulgaria. Since the revolt of
Eastern Roumelia, Bulgaria has been treated by Dame Europa as
a naughty child. But the Bulgarians have been shrewd enough to
see that the Central Powers and England have an interest in
their national independence and consolidation; they have
recognised the truth that fortune favours those who help
themselves, and they have boldly taken their own course, while
carefully avoiding any breach of the proprieties such as might
again bring them under the censure of the European Areopagus.
They ventured, indeed, to elect a Prince of their own choosing
without the sanction of that august conclave; the wiseacres
shook their heads, and prophesied that Prince Ferdinand's days
in Bulgaria might, perhaps, be as many as Prince Alexander's
years. Yet Prince Ferdinand remains on the throne, and is now
engaged in celebrating the fourth anniversary of his
accession; the internal development of the country proceeds
apace, and the progress of the Bulgarian sentiment outside the
country—in other words, the Macedonian propaganda—is not a
whit behind. The Bulgarians have made their greatest strides
in Macedonia since the fall of Prince Bismarck, who was always
ready to humour Russia at the expense of Bulgaria. … What
happened after the great war of 1878? A portion of the
Bulgarian race was given a nominal freedom which was never
expected to be a reality; Russia pounced on Bessarabia,
England on Cyprus, Austria on Bosnia and Herzegovina. France
got something elsewhere, but that is another matter. The
Bulgarians have never forgiven Lord Beaconsfield for the
division of their race, and I have seen some bitter poems upon
the great Israelite in the Bulgarian tongue which many
Englishmen would not care to hear translated. The Greeks have
hated us since our occupation of Cyprus, and firmly believe
that we mean to take Crete as well. The Servians have not
forgotten how Russia, after instigating them to two disastrous
wars, dealt with their claims at San Stefano; they cannot
forgive Austria for her occupation of Bosnia and Herzegovina,
and every Servian peasant, as he pays his heavy taxes, or
reluctantly gives a big price for some worthless imported
article, feels the galling yoke of her fiscal and commercial
tyranny. Need it be said how outraged Bulgaria scowls at
Russia, or how Roumania, who won Plevna for her heartless
ally, weeps for her Bessarabian children, and will not be
comforted? It is evident that the Balkan peoples have no
reason to expect much benefit from the next great war, from
the European Conference which will follow it, or from the
sympathy of the Christian Powers. … What, then, do the
authors of the proposed Confederation suggest as its ultimate
aim and object? The Balkan States are to act independently of
the foreign Powers, and in concert with one another. The Sick
Man's inheritance lies before them, and they are to take it
when an opportunity presents itself. They must not wait for
the great Armageddon, for then all may be lost. If the Central
Powers come victorious out of the conflict, Austria, it is
believed, will go to Salonika; if Russia conquers, she will
plant her standard at Stamboul, and practically annex the
Peninsula. In either ease the hopes of the young nations will
be destroyed forever. It is, therefore, sought to extricate a
portion at least of the Eastern Question from the tangled web
of European politics, to isolate it, to deal with it as a
matter which solely concerns the Sick Man and his immediate
successors. It is hoped that the Sick Man may be induced by
the determined attitude of his expectant heirs to make over to
them their several portions in his lifetime; should he refuse,
they must act in concert, and provide euthanasia for the
moribund owner of Macedonia, Crete, and Thrace. In other
words, it is believed that the Balkan States, if once they
could come to an understanding as regards their claims to what
is left of the Ottoman Empire in Europe, might conjointly, and
without the aid of any foreign Power, bring such pressure to
bear upon Turkey as to induce her to surrender peaceably her
European possessions, and to content herself henceforth with
the position of an Asiatic Power."
_J. D. Bourchier,
A Balkan Confederation
(Fortnightly Review, September, 1891)._
BALKAN: A. D. 1878-1886 (Bulgaria):
Reunion of the two Bulgarias.
Hostility of Russia.
Victorious war with Servia.
Abduction and abdication of Prince Alexander.
"The Berlin Treaty, by cutting Bulgaria into three pieces,
contrary to the desire of her inhabitants, and with utter
disregard of both geographical and ethnical fitness, had
prepared the ground from which a crop of never-ending
agitation was inevitably bound to spring—a crop which the
Treaty of San Stefano would have ended in preventing. On
either side of the Balkans, both in Bulgaria and in Roumelia,
the same desire for union existed. Both parties were agreed as
to this, and only differed as to the means by which the end
should be attained. The Liberals were of opinion that the
course of events ought to be awaited; the unionists, on the
other hand, maintained that they should be challenged. It was
a few individuals belonging to the latter party and acting
with M. Karaveloff, the head of the Bulgarian Cabinet, who
prepared and successfully carried out the revolution of
September 18, 1885. So unanimously was this movement supported
by the whole population, including even the Mussulmans, that
it was accomplished and the union proclaimed without the least
resistance being encountered, and without the shedding of one
drop of blood!
{256}
Prince Alexander was in no way made aware of what was in
preparation; but he knew very well that it would be his duty
to place himself at the head of any national movement, and in
a proclamation dated the 19th of September, and addressed from
Tirnova, the ancient capital, he recommended union and assumed
the title of Prince of North and South Bulgaria. The Porte
protested in a circular, dated the 23rd of September, and
called upon the Powers who had signed the Treaty of Berlin, to
enforce the observance of its stipulations. On the 13th of
October, the Powers collectively declare 'that they condemn
this violation of the Treaty, and are sure that the Sultan
will do all that he can, consistently with his sovereign
rights, before resorting to the force which he has at his
disposal.' From the moment when there was opposition to the
use of force, which even the Porte did not seem in a hurry to
employ, the union of the two Bulgarias necessarily became an
accomplished fact. … Whilst England and Austria both
accepted the union of the two Bulgarias as being rendered
necessary by the position of affairs, whilst even the Porte
(although protesting) was resigned, the Emperor of Russia
displayed a passionate hostility to it, not at all in accord
with the feelings of the Russian nation. … In Russia they
had reckoned upon all the liberties guaranteed by the
Constitution of Tirnova becoming so many causes of disorder
and anarchy, instead of which the Bulgarians were growing
accustomed to freedom. Schools were being endowed, the country
was progressing in every way, and thus the Bulgarians were
becoming less and less fitted for transformation into Russian
subjects. Their lot was a preferable one, by far, to that of
the people of Russia—henceforth they would refuse to accept
the Russian yoke! … If, then, Russia wanted to maintain her
high-handed policy in Bulgaria, she must oppose the union and
hinder the consolidation of Bulgarian nationality by every
means in her power; this she has done without scruple of any
sort or kind, as will be shown by a brief epitome of what has
happened recently. Servia, hoping to extend her territory in
the direction of Tru and Widdin, and, pleading regard for the
Treaty of Berlin and the theory of the balance of power,
attacks Bulgaria. On November 14th [17th to 19th?] 1885,
Prince Alexander defends the Slivnitza positions [in a three
days' battle] with admirable courage and strategic skill. The
Roumelian militia, coming in by forced marches of unheard-of
length, perform prodigies of valour in the field. Within eight
days, i. e., from the 20th to the 28th of November, the
Servian army, far greater in numbers, is driven back into its
own territory; the Dragoman Pass is crossed; Pirot is taken by
assault; and Prince Alexander is marching on Nisch, when his
victorious progress is arrested by the Austrian Minister,
under threats of an armed intervention on the part of that
country! On December 21st, an armistice is concluded,
afterwards made into a treaty of pence, and signed at
Bucharest on March 3rd by M. Miyatovitch on behalf of Servia,
by M. Guechoff on behalf of Bulgaria, and by Madgid Pascha for
the Sultan. Prince Alexander did all he could to bring about a
reconciliation with the Czar and even went so far as to
attribute to Russian instructors all the merit of the
victories he had just won. The Czar would not yield. Then the
Prince turned to the Sultan, and with him succeeded in coming
to a direct understanding. The Prince was to be nominated
Governor-General of Roumelia; a mixed Commission was to meet
and modify the Roumelian statutes; more than this, the Porte
was bound to place troops at his disposal in the event of his
being attacked, … From that date the Czar swore that he
would cause Prince Alexander's downfall. It was said that
Prince Alexander of Battenberg had changed into a sword the
sceptre which Russia had given him and was going to turn it
against his benefactor. Nothing could be more untrue. Up to
the very last moment, he did everything he could to disarm the
anger of the Czar, but what was wanted from him was this—that
he should make Bulgaria an obedient satellite of Russia, and
rather than consent to do so he left Sofia. The story of the
Prince's dethronement by Russian influence, or, as Lord
Salisbury said, by Russian gold, is well known. A handful of
malcontent officers, a few cadets of the École Militaire, and
some of Zankoff's adherents, banding themselves together,
broke into the palace during the night of the 21st of August,
seized the Prince, and had him carried off, without escort, to
Rahova on the Danube, from thence to Reni in Bessarabia, where
he was handed over to the Russians! The conspirators
endeavoured to form a government, but the whole country rose
against them, in spite of the support openly given them by M.
Bogdanoff the Russian diplomatic agent. On the 3rd of
September, a few days after these occurrences, Prince
Alexander returned to his capital, welcomed home by the
acclamations of the whole people; but in answer to a
respectful, not to say too humble, telegram in which he
offered to replace his Crown in the hands of the Czar, that
potentate replied that he ceased to have any relations with
Bulgaria as long as Prince Alexander remained there. Owing to
advice which came, no doubt, from Berlin, Prince Alexander
decided to abdicate; he did so because of the demands of the
Czar and in the interests of Bulgaria."
_E. de Laveleye,
The Balkan Peninsula,
Introduction._
ALSO IN:
_A. Von Huhn,
The Struggle of the Bulgarians._
_J. G. C. Minchin,
Growth of Freedom in the Balkan Peninsula._
_A. Koch,
Prince Alexander of Battenberg._
BALKAN: A. D. 1879-1889 (Servia).
Quarrels and divorce of King Milan and Queen Natalia.
Abdication of the King.
"In October, 1875. … Milan, then but twenty-one years old,
married Natalia Kechko, herself but sixteen. The present Queen
was the daughter of a Russian officer and of the Princess
Pulckerie Stourdza. She, as little as her husband, had been
born with a likelihood to sit upon the throne, and a quiet
burgher education had been hers at Odessa. But even here her
great beauty attracted notice, as also her abilities, her
ambition and her wealth. … At first all went well, to
outward appearance at least, for Milan was deeply enamoured of
his beautiful wife, who soon became the idol of the Servians,
on account of her beauty and her amiability. This affection
was but increased when, a year after her marriage, she
presented her subjects with an heir. But from that hour the
domestic discord began. The Queen had been ill long and
seriously after her boy's birth; Milan had sought distractions
elsewhere. Scenes of jealousy and recrimination grew frequent.
{257}
Further, Servia was then passing through a
difficult political crisis: the Turkish war was in full swing.
Milan, little beloved ever since he began to reign, brought
home no wreaths from this conflict, although his subjects
distinguished themselves by their valour. Then followed in
1882 the raising of the principality into a kingdom—a fact
which left the Servians very indifferent, and in which they
merely beheld the prospect of increased taxes, a prevision
that was realized. As time went on, and troubles increased,
King Milan became somewhat of a despot, who was sustained
solely by the army, itself undermined by factious intrigues.
Meantime the Queen, now grown somewhat callous to her
husband's infidelities, aspired to comfort herself by assuming
a political role, for which she believed herself to have great
aptitude. … As she could not influence the decisions of the
Prince, the lady entered into opposition to him, and made it
her aim to oppose all his projects. The quarrel spread
throughout the entire Palace, and two inimical factions were
formed, that of the King and that of the Queen. … Meantime
Milan got deeper and deeper into debt, so that after a time he
had almost mortgaged his territory. … While the husband and
wife were thus quarrelling and going their own ways, grave
events were maturing in neighbouring Bulgaria. The coup d'état
of Fillippopoli, which annexed Eastern Roumelia to the
principality, enlarged it in such wise that Servia henceforth
had to cut a sorry figure in the Balkans. Milan roused
himself, or pretended to rouse himself, and war was declared
against Bulgaria. … There followed the crushing defeat of
Slivnitza, in which Prince Alexander of Battenberg carried off
such laurels, and the Servians had to beat a disgraceful and
precipitate retreat. Far from proving himself the hero
Nathalie had dreamed, Milan … telegraphed to the Queen,
busied with tending the wounded, that he intended to abdicate
forthwith. This cowardly conduct gave the death blow to any
feeling the Queen might have retained for the King. Henceforth
she despised him, and took no pains to hide the fact. … In
1887 the pair parted without outward scandals, the Queen
taking with her the Crown Prince. … Florence was the goal of
the Queen's wanderings, and here she spent a quiet winter. …
The winter ended, Nathalie desired to return to Belgrade.
Milan would not hear of it. … The Queen went to Wiesbaden in
consequence. While residing there Milan professed to be
suddenly taken with a paternal craving to see his son. … And
to the shame of the German Government, be it said, they lent
their hand to abducting an only child from his mother. …
Before ever the excitement about this act could subside in
Europe, Milan … petitioned the Servian Synod for a divorce,
on the ground of 'irreconcilable mutual antipathy.' Neither by
canonical or civil law was this possible, and the Queen
refused her consent. … Nor could the divorce have been
obtained but for the servile complaisance of the Servian
Metropolitan Theodore. … Quick vengeance, however, was in
store for Milan. The international affairs of Servia had grown
more and more disturbed. … The King, perplexed, afraid,
storm-tossed between divided counsels, highly irritable, and
deeply impressed by Rudolph of Hapsburg's recent suicide,
suddenly announced his intention to abdicate in favour of his
son. … Without regret his people saw depart from among them
a man who at thirty-five years of age was already decrepit,
and who had not the pluck or ambition to try and overcome a
difficult political crisis. … After kneeling down before his
son and swearing fidelity to him as a subject (March, 1889),
Milan betook himself off to tour through Europe … leaving
the little boy and his guardians to extricate themselves. …
'Now I can see mamma again,' were the first words of the boy
King on hearing of his elevation. … Three Regents are
appointed to aid the King during his minority."
_"Politikos,"
The Sovereigns,
pages 353-363._
----------BALKAN: End----------
BALKH.
Destruction by Jingis Khan (A. D. 1221).
From his conquest of the region beyond the Oxus, Jingis Khan
moved southward with his vast horde of Mongols, in pursuit of
the fugitive Khahrezmian prince, in 1220 or 1221, and invested
the great city of Balkh,—which is thought in the east to be
the oldest city of the world, and which may not impossibly
have been one of the capitals of the primitive Aryan race.
"Some idea of its extent and riches [at that time] may
possibly be formed from the statement that it contained 1,200
large mosques, without including chapels, and 200 public baths
for the use of foreign merchants and travellers—though it has
been suggested that the more correct reading would be 200
mosques and 1,200 baths. Anxious to avert the horrors of storm
and pillage, the citizens at once offered to capitulate; but
Chinghiz, distrusting the sincerity of their submission so
long as Sultan Mohammed Shah was yet alive, preferred to carry
the place by force of arms—an achievement of no great
difficulty. A horrible butchery ensued, and the 'Tabernacle of
Islam'—as the pious town was called—was razed to the ground.
In the words of the Persian poet, quoted by Major Price, 'The
noble city he laid as smooth as the palm of his hand—its
spacious and lofty structures he levelled in the dust.'"
_J. Hutton,
Central Asia,
chapter 4._
ALSO IN:
_H. H. Howorth,
History of the Mongols,
volume 1, chapter 3._
BALL'S BLUFF, The Battle of.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1861 (OCTOBER: VIRGINIA).
BALMACEDA'S DICTATORSHIP.
See CHILE: A. D. 1885-1891.
BALNEÆ.
SEE THERMÆ.
BALTHI, OR BALTHINGS.
"The rulers of the Visigoths, though they, like the Amal kings
of the Ostrogoths, had a great house, the Balthi, sprung from
the seed of gods, did not at this time [when driven across the
Danube by the Huns] bear the title of King, but contented
themselves with some humbler designation, which the Latin
historians translated into Judex (Judge)."
_T. Hodgkin,
Italy and her Invaders,
introduction, chapter 3._
See BAUX, LORDS OF.
BALTIMORE, Lord, and the Colonization of Maryland.
See MARYLAND: A. D. 1632, to 1688-1757.
BALTIMORE: A. D. 1729-1730.
Founding of the city.
See MARYLAND: A. D. 1729-1730.
BALTIMORE: A. D. 1812.
Rioting of the War Party.
The mob and the Federalists.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1812 (JUNE-OCTOBER).
{258}
BALTIMORE: A. D. 1814.
British attempt against the city.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1814
(AUGUST-SEPTEMBER).
BALTIMORE: A. D. 1860.
The Douglas Democratic and Constitutional Union Conventions.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1860 (APRIL-NOVEMBER).
BALTIMORE: A. D. 1861 (April).
The city controlled by the Secessionists.
The Attack on the Sixth Massachusetts Regiment.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1861 (APRIL).
BALTIMORE: A. D. 1861 (May).
Disloyalty put down.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1861 (APRIL-MAY: MARYLAND).
----------BALTIMORE: End----------
BALUCHISTAN.
See Supplement in volume 5.
BAN.
BANAT.
"Ban is Duke (Dux), and Banat is Duchy. The territory
[Hungarian] east of the Carpathians is the Banat of Severin,
and that of the west the Banat of Temesvar. … The Banat is
the cornucopia, not only of Hungary, but of the whole Austrian
Empire."
_A. A. Paton,
Researches on the Danube and the Adriatic,
volume 2, page 28._
Among the Croats, "after the king, the most important officers
of the state were the bans. At first there was but one ban,
who was a kind of lieutenant-general; but later on there were
seven of them, each known by the name of the province he
governed, as the ban of Sirmia, ban of Dalmatia, etc. To this
day the royal lieutenant of Croatia (or 'governor-general,' if
that title be preferred) is called the ban."
_L. Leger,
History of Austro-Hungary,
page 55._
BAN, The Imperial.
See SAXONY: A. D. 1178-1183.
BANBURY, Battle of.
Sometimes called the "Battle of Edgecote"; fought
July 26, 1469, and with success, by a body of Lancastrian
insurgents, in the English "Wars of the Roses," against the
forces of the Yorkist King, Edward IV. The latter were routed
and most of their leaders' taken and beheaded.
_Mrs. Hookham,
Life and Times of Margaret of Anjou,
volume 2, chapter 5._
BANDA ORIENTAL, The.
Signifying the "Eastern Border"; a name applied originally by
the Spaniards to the country on the eastern side of Rio de La
Plata which afterwards took the name of Uruguay.
See ARGENTINE REPUBLIC: A. D. 1580-1777.
BANGALORE, Capture of (1790).
See INDIA: A. D. 1785-1793.
BANK OF ST. GEORGE.
See GENOA: A. D. 1407-1448.
BANK OF THE UNITED STATES.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1833-1836.
BANKS, General Nathaniel P.
Command in the Shenandoah.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1862 (MAY-JUNE: VIRGINIA).
Siege and Capture of Port Hudson.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1863 (MAY-JULY:
ON THE MISSISSIPPI).
Red River Expedition.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1864 (MARCH-MAY: LOUISIANA).
BANKS OF AMSTERDAM, ENGLAND AND FRANCE.
The Bank of Amsterdam was founded in 1609, and replaced, after
1814. by the Netherland Bank. The Bank of England was founded
in 1694 by William Patterson, a Scotchman; and that of France
by John Law, in 1716. The latter collapsed with the
Mississippi scheme and was revived in 1776.
_J. J. Lalor, editor.
Cyclopædia of Political Science._
ALSO IN:
_J. W. Gilbart,
History and Principles of Banking,
section 1 and 3._
BANKS, Wildcat.
See WILDCAT BANKS.
BANNACKS, The.
See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: SHOSHONEAN FAMILY.
BANNERETS, Knights.
See KNIGHTS BANNERETS.
BANNOCKBURN, Battle of (A. D. 1314).
See SCOTLAND: A. D. 1314; and 1314-1328.
BANT, The.
See GAU.
BANTU TRIBES, The.
See SOUTH AFRICA: THE ABORIGINAL INHABITANTS;
and AFRICA: THE INHABITING RACES.
BAPTISTS.
See article in the Supplement, volume 5.
BAR, A. D. 1659-1735.
The Duchy ceded to France.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1659-1661, and 1733-1735.
BAR: The Confederation of.
See POLAND: A. D. 1763-1773.
BARATHRUM, The.
"The barathrum, or 'pit of punishment' at Athens, was a deep
hole like a well into which criminals were precipitated. Iron
hooks were inserted in the sides; which tore the body in
pieces as it fell. It corresponded to the Ceadas of the
Lacedæmonians."
_G. Rawlinson,
History of Herodotus,
book 7, section 133, note._
BARBADOES: A. D. 1649-1660.
Royalist attitude towards the English Commonwealth.
See NAVIGATION LAWS: A. D. 1651.
BARBADOES: A. D. 1656.
Cromwell's colony of disorderly women.
See JAMAICA: A. D. 1655.
BARBARIANS.
See ARYANS.
BARBAROSSAS, Piracies and dominion of.
See BARBARY STATES: A. D. 1516-1535.
----------BARBAROSSAS: End----------
BARBARY STATES.
BARBARY STATES: A. D. 647-709.
Mahometan conquest of North Africa.
See MAHOMETAN CONQUEST: A. D. 647-709.
BARBARY STATES: A. D. 908-1171.
The Fatimite Caliphs.
See MAHOMETAN CONQUEST AND EMPIRE: A. D. 908-1171.
BARBARY STATES: A. D. 1415.
Siege and capture of Ceuta by the Portuguese.
See PORTUGAL: A. D.1415-1460.
{259}
BARBARY STATES: A. D. 1505-1510.
Spanish conquests on the coast.
Oran.
Bugia.
Algiers.
Tripoli.
In 1505, a Spanish expedition planned and urged by Cardinal
Ximenes, captured Mazarquiver, an "important port, and
formidable nest of pirates, on the Barbary coast, nearly
opposite Carthagena." In 1509, the same energetic prelate led
personally an expedition of 4,000 horse and 10,000 foot, with
a fleet of 10 galleys and 80 smaller vessels, for the conquest
of Oran. "This place, situated about a league from the former,
was one of the most considerable of the Moslem possessions in
the Mediterranean, being a principal mart for the trade of the
Levant," and maintained a swarm of cruisers, which swept the
Mediterranean "and made fearful depredations on its populous
borders." Oran was taken by storm. "No mercy was shown; no
respect for age or sex; and the soldiery abandoned themselves
to all the brutal license and ferocity which seem to stain
religious wars above every other. … No less than 4,000 Moors
were said to have fallen in the battle, and from 5,000 to
8,000 were made prisoners. The loss of the Christians was
inconsiderable." Recalled to Spain by King Ferdinand, Ximenes
left the army in Africa under the command of Count Pedro
Navarro. Navarro's "first enterprise was against Bugia (January
13th, 1510), whose king, at the head of a powerful army, he
routed in two pitched battles, and got possession of his
flourishing capital (January 31st). Algiers, Teunis, Tremecin,
and other cities on the Barbary coast, submitted one after
another to the Spanish arms. The inhabitants were received as
vassals of the Catholic king. … They guaranteed, moreover,
the liberation of all Christian captives in their dominions;
for which the Algerines, however, took care to indemnify
themselves, by extorting the full ransom from their Jewish
residents. …On the 26th of July, 1510, the ancient city of
Tripoli, after a most bloody and desperate defence,
surrendered to the arms of the victorious general, whose name
had now become terrible along the whole northern borders of
Africa. In the following month, however (Aug. 28th), he met
with a serious discomfiture in the island of Gelves, where
4,000 of his men were slain or made prisoners. This check in
the brilliant career of Count Navarro put a final stop to the
progress of the Castilian arms in Africa under Ferdinand. The
results obtained, however, were of great importance. … Most
of the new conquests escaped from the Spanish crown in later
times, through the imbecility or indolence of Ferdinand's
successors. The conquests of Ximenes, however, were placed in
so strong a posture of defence as to resist every attempt for
their recovery by the enemy, and to remain permanently
incorporated with the Spanish empire."
_W. H. Prescott,
History of the Reign of Ferdinand and Isabella,
chapter 21 (volume 3)._
BARBARY STATES: A. D. 1516-1535.
Piratical dominion of the Barbarossas in Algiers.
Establishment of Turkish sovereignty.
Seizure of Tunis by the Corsairs and its conquest by Charles V.
"About the beginning of the 16th century, a sudden revolution
happened, which, by rendering the states of Barbary formidable
to the Europeans, hath made their history worthy of more
attention. This revolution was brought about by persons born
in a rank of life which entitled them to act no such
illustrious part. Hornc and Hayradin, the sons of a potter in
the isle of Lisbos, prompted by a restless and enterprising
spirit, forsook their father's trade, ran to sea, and joined a
crew of pirates. They soon distinguished themselves by their
valor and activity, and, becoming masters of a small
brigantine, carried on their infamous trade with such conduct
and success that they assembled a fleet of 12 galleys, besides
many vessels of smaller force. Of this fleet Hornc, the elder
brother, called Barbarossa from the red color of his beard,
was admiral, and Hayradin second in command, but with almost
equal authority. They called themselves the friends of the
sea, and the enemies of all who sail upon it; and their names
soon became terrible from the Straits of the Dardanelles to
those of Gibraltar. … They often carried the prizes which
they took on the coasts of Spain and Italy into the ports of
Barbary, and, enriching the inhabitants by the sale of their
booty, and the thoughtless prodigality of their crews, were
welcome guests in every place at which they touched. The
convenient situation of these harbours, lying so near the
greatest commercial states at that time in Christendom, made
the brothers wish for an establishment in that country. An
opportunity of accomplishing this quickly presented itself
[1516], which they did not suffer to pass unimproved." Invited
by Entemi, king of Algiers, to assist him in taking a Spanish
fort which had been built in his neighbourhood, Barbarossa was
able to murder his too confiding employer, master the Algerine
kingdom and usurp its crown. "Not satisfied with the throne
which he had acquired, he attacked the neighbouring king of
Tremecen, and, having vanquished him in battle, added his
dominions to those of Algiers. At the same time, he continued
to infest the coasts of Spain and Italy with fleets which
resembled the armaments of a great monarch, rather than the
light squadrons of a corsair. Their frequent cruel
devastations obliged Charles [the Fifth—the great Emperor and
King of Spain: 1519-1555], about the beginning of his reign,
to furnish the Marquis de Comares, governor of Oran, with
troops sufficient to attack him." Barbarossa was defeated in
the ensuing war, driven from Tremecen, and slain [1518]. "His
brother Hayradin, known likewise by the name of Barbarossa,
assumed the sceptre of Algiers with the same ambition and
abilities, but with better fortune. His reign being
undisturbed by the arms of the Spaniards, which had full
occupation in the wars among the European powers, he regulated
with admirable prudence the interior police of his kingdom,
carried on his naval operations with great vigour, and
extended his conquests on the continent of Africa. But
perceiving that the Moors and Arabs submitted to his
government with reluctance, and being afraid that his
continual depredations would one day draw upon him the arms of
the Christians, he put his dominions under the protection of
the Grand Seignior [1519], and received from him [with the
title of Bey, or Beylerbey] a body of Turkish soldiers
sufficient for his domestic as well as foreign enemies. At
last, the fame of his exploits daily increasing, Solyman
offered him the command of the Turkish fleet. … Barbarossa
repaired to Constantinople, and … gained the entire
confidence both of the sultan and his vizier. To them he
communicated a scheme which he had formed of making himself
master of Tunis, the most flourishing kingdom at that time on
the coast of Africa; and this being approved of by them, he
obtained whatever he demanded for carrying it into execution.
His hopes of success in this undertaking were founded on the
intestine divisions in the kingdom of Tunis." The last king of
that country, having 34 sons by different wives, had
established one of the younger sons on the throne as his
successor. This young king attempted to put all of his
brothers to death; but Alraschid, who was one of the eldest,
escaped and fled to Algiers. Barbarossa now proposed to the
Turkish sultan to attack Tunis on the pretence of vindicating
the rights of Alraschid. His proposal was adopted and carried
out; but even before the Turkish expedition sailed.
{260}
Alraschid himself disappeared—a prisoner, shut up in the
Seraglio—and was never heard of again. The use of his name,
however, enabled Barbarossa to enter Tunis in triumph, and the
betrayed inhabitants discovered too late that he came as a
viceroy, to make them the subjects of the sultan. "Being now
possessed of such extensive territories, he carried on his
depredations against the Christian states to a greater extent
and with more destructive violence than ever. Daily complaints
of the outrages committed by his cruisers were brought to the
emperor by his subjects, both in Spain and Italy. All
Christendom seemed to expect from him, as its greatest and
most fortunate prince, that he would put an end to this new
and odious species of oppression. At the same time
Muley-Hascen, the exiled king of Tunis, … applied to Charles
as the only person who could assert his rights in opposition
to such a formidable usurper." The Emperor, accordingly, in
1535, prepared a great expedition against Tunis, drawing men
and ships from every part of his wide dominions—from Spain,
Italy, Germany and the Netherlands. "On the 16th of July the
fleet, consisting of near 500 vessels, having on board above
30,000 regular troops, set sail from Cagliari, and, after a
prosperous navigation, landed within sight of Tunis." The fort
of Goletta, commanding the bay, was invested and taken; the
corsair's fleet surrendered, and Barbarossa, advancing boldly
from Tunis to attack the invaders, was overwhelmingly beaten,
and fled, abandoning his capital. Charles's soldiers rushed
into the unfortunate town, escaping all restraint, and making
it a scene of indescribable horrors. "Above 30,000 of the
innocent inhabitants perished on that unhappy day, and 10,000
were carried away as slaves. Muley-Hascen took possession of a
throne surrounded with carnage, abhorred by his subjects, on
whom he had brought such calamities." Before quitting the
country, Charles concluded a treaty with Muley-Hascen, under
which the latter acknowledged that he held his kingdom in fee
of the crown of Spain, doing homage to the Emperor as his
liege, and maintaining a Spanish garrison in the Goletta. He
also released, without ransom, all the Christian slaves in his
dominions, 20,000 in number, and promised to detain in
servitude no subject of the Emperor thereafter. He opened his
kingdom to the Christian religion, and to free trade, and
pledged himself to exclude Turkish corsairs from his ports.
_W. Robertson,
History of the Reign of Charles V.,
book 5 (volume 2)._
BARBARY STATES: A. D. 1541.
The disastrous expedition of Charles V. against Algiers.
Encouraged, and deceived, by his easy success at Tunis, the
emperor, Charles V., determined, in 1541, to undertake the
reduction of Algiers, and to wholly exterminate the
freebooters of the north African coast. Before his
preparations were completed, "the season unfortunately was far
advanced, on which account the Pope entreated, and Doria
conjured him not to expose his whole armament to a destruction
almost unavoidable on a wild shore during the violence of the
autumnal gales. Adhering, however, to his plan with determined
obstinacy, he embarked at Porto Venere. … The force …
which he had collected … consisted of 20,000 foot and 2,000
horse, mostly veterans, together with 3,000 volunteers. …
Besides these there had joined his standard 1,000 soldiers
sent by the Order of St. John, and led by 100 of its most
valiant knights. Landing near Algiers without opposition,
Charles immediately advanced towards the town. To oppose the
invaders, Hassan had only 800 Turks, and 5,000 Moors, partly
natives of Africa, and partly refugees from Spain. When
summoned to surrender he, nevertheless, returned a fierce and
haughty answer. But with such a handful of troops, neither his
desperate courage nor consummate skill in war could have long
resisted forces superior to those which had formerly defeated
Barbarossa at the head of 60,000 men." He was speedily
relieved from danger, however, by an opportune storm, which
burst upon the region during the second day after Charles's
debarkation. The Spanish camp was flooded; the soldiers
drenched, chilled, sleepless and dispirited. In this condition
they were attacked by the Moors at dawn, and narrowly escaped
a rout. "But all feeling of this disaster was soon obliterated
by a more affecting spectacle. As the tempest continued with
unabated violence, the full light of day showed the ships, on
which alone their safety depended, driving from their anchors,
dashing against one another, and many of them forced on the
rocks, or sinking in the waters. In less than an hour, 15
ships of war and 140 transports, with 8,000 men, perished
before their eyes; and such of the unhappy sailors as escaped
the fury of the sea, were murdered by the Arabs as soon as
they reached land." With such ships as he could save, Doria
sought shelter behind Cape Matafuz, sending a message to the
emperor, advising that he follow with the army to that point.
Charles could not do otherwise than act according to the
suggestion; but his army suffered horribly in the retreat,
which occupied three days. "Many perished by famine, as the
whole army subsisted chiefly on roots and berries, or on the
flesh of horses, killed for that purpose by the emperor's
orders; numbers were drowned in the swollen brooks; and not a
few were slain by the enemy." Even after the army had regained
the fleet, and was reembarked, it was scattered by a second
storm, and several weeks passed before the emperor reached his
Spanish dominions, a wiser and a sadder man.
_M. Russell,
History of the Barbary States,
chapter 8._
ALSO IN:
_W. Robertson,
History of the Reign of Charles V.,
book 6 (volume 2.)_
BARBARY STATES: A. D. 1543-1560.
The pirate Dragut and his exploits.
Turkish capture of Tripoli.
Disastrous Christian attempt to recover the place.
Dragut, or Torghūd, a native of the Caramanian coast, opposite
the island of Rhodes, began his career as a Mediterranean
corsair some time before the last of the Barbarossas quitted
the scene and was advanced by the favor of the Algerine. In
1540 he fell into the hands of one of the Dorias and was bound
to the oar as a galley-slave for three years,—which did not
sweeten his temper toward the Christian world. In 1543 he was
ransomed, and resumed his piracies, with more energy than
before. "Dragut's lair was at the island of Jerba [called
Gelves, by the Spaniards]. … Not content with the rich
spoils of Europe, Dragut took the Spanish outposts in Africa,
one by one—Susa, Sfax, Monastir; and finally set forth to
conquer 'Africa.'
{261}
It is not uncommon in Arabic to call a country and its capital
by the same name. … 'Africa' meant to the Arabs the province
of Carthage or Tunis and its capital, which was not at first
Tunis but successively Kayrawan and Mahdiya. Throughout the
later middle ages the name 'Africa' is applied by Christian
writers to the latter city. … This was the city which Dragut
took without a blow in the spring of 1550. Mahdiya was then in
an anarchic state, ruled by a council of chiefs, each ready to
betray the other, and none owing the smallest allegiance to
any king, least of all the despised king of Tunis, Hamid, who
had deposed and blinded his father, Hasan, Charles V. 's
protégé. One of these chiefs let Dragut and his merry men into
the city by night. … So easy a triumph roused the emulation
of Christendom. … Don Garcia de Toledo dreamed of outshining
the Corsair's glory. His father, the Viceroy of Naples, the
Pope, and others, promised their aid, and old Andrea Doria
took the command. After much delay and consultation a large
body of troops was conveyed to Mahdiya and disembarked on June
28, 1550. Dragut, though aware of the project, was at sea,
devastating the Gulf of Genoa, and paying himself in advance
for any loss the Christians might inflict in Africa: his
nephew Hisar Reis commanded in the city. When Dragut returned,
the siege had gone on for a month," but he failed in
attempting to raise it and retired to Jerba. Mahdiya was
carried by assault on the 8th of September. "Next year, 1551,
Dragut's place was with the Ottoman navy, then commanded by
Sinan Pasha. … With nearly 150 galleys or galleots, 10,000
soldiers, and numerous siege-guns, Sinan and Dragut sailed out
of the Dardanelles—whither bound no Christian could tell.
They ravaged, as usual, the Straits of Messina, and then
revealed the point of attack by making direct for Malta." But
the demonstration made against the strong fortifications of
the Knights of St. John was ill-planned and feebly executed;
it was easily repelled. To wipe out his defeat, Sinan "sailed
straight for Tripoli, some 64 leagues away. Tripoli was the
natural antidote to Malta: for Tripoli, too, belonged to the
Knights of St. John—much against their will—inasmuch as the
Emperor had made their defence of this easternmost Barbary
state a condition of their tenure of Malta." But the
fortifications of Tripoli were not strong enough to resist the
Turkish bombardment, and Gaspard de Villiers, the commandant,
was forced to surrender (August 15th), "on terms, as he
believed, identical with those which Suleyman granted to the
Knights of Rhodes. But Sinan was no Suleyman; moreover, he was
in a furious rage with the whole Order. He put the
garrison—all save a few—in chains and carried them off to
grace his triumph at Stambol. Thus did Tripoli fall once more
into the hands of the Moslems. … The misfortunes of the
Christians did not end here. Year after year the Ottoman fleet
appeared in Italian waters. … Unable as they felt themselves
to cope with the Turks at sea, the powers of Southern Europe
resolved to strike one more blow on land, and recover Tripoli.
A fleet of nearly 100 galleys and ships, gathered from Spain,
Genoa, 'the Religion,' the Pope, from all quarters, with the
Duke de Medina-Celi at their head, assembled at Messina. …
Five times the expedition put to sea; five times was it driven
back by contrary winds. At last, on February 10, 1560, it was
fairly away for the African coast. Here fresh troubles awaited
it. Long delays in crowded vessels had produced their
disastrous effects: fevers and scurvy and dysentery were
working their terrible ravages among the crews, and 2,000
corpses were flung into the sea. It was impossible to lay
siege to Tripoli with a diseased army, and when actually in
sight of their object the admirals gave orders to return to
Jerba. A sudden descent quickly gave them the command of the
beautiful island. … In two months a strong castle was built,
with all scientific earthworks, and the admiral prepared to
carry home such troops as were not needed for its defence.
Unhappily for him, he had lingered too long. … He was about
to prepare for departure when news came that the Turkish fleet
had been seen at Goza. Instantly all was panic. Valiant
gentlemen forgot their valour, forgot their coolness. …
Before they could make out of the strait … the dread Corsair
[Dragut] himself, and Ochiali, and Piali Pasha were upon them.
Then ensued a scene of confusion that baffles description.
Despairing of weathering the north side of Jerba the
panic-stricken Christians ran their ships ashore and deserted
them, never stopping even to set them on fire. … On rowed
the Turks; galleys and galleons to the number of 56 fell into
their hands; 18,000 Christians bowed down before their
scimitars; the beach on that memorable 11th of May, 1560, was
a confused medley of stranded ships, helpless prisoners, Turks
busy in looting men and galleys—and a hideous heap of mangled
bodies. The fleet and the army which had sailed from Messina
… were absolutely lost."
_S. Lane-Poole,
Story of the Barbary Corsairs._
ALSO IN:
_W. H. Prescott,
History of the Reign of Philip II.,
book 4, chapter 1._
BARBARY STATES: A. D. 1563-1565.
Repulse of the Moors from Oran and Mazarquiver.
Capture of Penon de Velez.
In the spring of 1563 a most determined and formidable attempt
was made by Hassem, the dey of Algiers, to drive the Spaniards
from Oran and Mazarquiver, which they had held since the
African conquests of Cardinal Ximenes. The siege was fierce
and desperate; the defence most heroic. The beleaguered
garrisons held their ground until a relieving expedition from
Spain came in sight, on the 8th of June, when the Moors
retreated hastily. In the summer of the next year the
Spaniards took the strong island fortress of Penon de Velez,
breaking up one more nest of piracy and strengthening their
footing on the Barbary coast. In the course of the year
following they blocked the mouth of the river Tetuan, which
was a place of refuge for the marauders.
_W. H. Prescott,
History of the Reign of Philip II.,
book 4, chapter 1 (volume 2)._
BARBARY STATES: A. D. 1565.
Participation in the Turkish Siege of Malta.
Death of Dragut.
See HOSPITALLERS OF ST. JOHN: A. D. 1,130-1565.
BARBARY STATES: A. D. 1570-1571.
War with the Holy League of Spain, Venice and the Pope.
The Battle of Lepanto.
See TURKS: A. D. 1566-1571.
BARBARY STATES: A. D. 1572-1573.
Capture of Tunis by Don John of Austria.
Its recovery, with Goletta, by the Turks.
See TURKS: A. D. 1572-1573.
{262}
BARBARY STATES: A. D. 1579.
Invasion of Morocco by Sebastian of Portugal.
His defeat and death.
See PORTUGAL: A. D. 1579-1580.
BARBARY STATES: A. D. 1664-1684.
Wars of France against the piratical powers.
Destructive bombardments of Algiers.
"The ancient alliance of the crown of France with the Ottoman
Porte, always unpopular, and less necessary since France had
become so strong, was at this moment [early in the reign of
Louis XIV.] well-nigh broken, to the great satisfaction both
of the Christian nations of the South and of the Austrian
empire. … Divers plans were proposed in the King's council
for attacking the Ottoman power on the Moorish coasts, and for
repressing the pirates, who were the terror of the
merchant-shipping and maritime provinces. Colbert induced the
king to attempt a military settlement among the Moors as the
best means of holding them in check. A squadron commanded by
the Duke de Beaufort … landed 5,000 picked soldiers before
Jijeli (or Djigelli), a small Algerine port between Bougiah
and Bona. They took possession of Jijeli without difficulty
(July 22, 1664); but discord arose between Beaufort and his
officers; they did not work actively enough to fortify
themselves," and before the end of September they were obliged
to evacuate the place precipitately. "The success of
Beaufort's squadron, commanded under the duke by the
celebrated Chevalier Paul, ere long effaced the impression of
this reverse: two Algerine flotillas were destroyed in the
course of 1665." The Dey of Algiers sent one of his French
captives, an officer named Du Babinais, to France with
proposals of peace, making him swear to return if his mission
failed. The proposals were rejected; Du Babinais was loyal to
his oath and returned—to suffer death, as he expected, at the
hands of the furious barbarian. "The devotion of this Breton
Regulus was not lost: despondency soon took the place of anger
in the heart of the Moorish chiefs. Tunis yielded first to the
guns of the French squadron, brought to bear on it from the
Bay of Goletta. The Pacha and the Divan of Tunis obligated
themselves to restore all the French slaves they possessed, to
respect French ships, and thenceforth to release all Frenchmen
whom they should capture on foreign ships. …. Rights of
aubaine, and of admiralty and shipwreck, were suppressed as
regarded Frenchmen (November 25, 1665). The station at Cape
Negro was restored to France. … Algiers submitted, six'
months after, to nearly the same conditions imposed on it by
Louis XIV.: one of the articles stipulated that French
merchants should be treated as favorably as any foreign
nation, and even more so (May 17, 1666). More than 3,000
French slaves were set at liberty." Between 1669 and 1672,
Louis XIV. was seriously meditating a great war of conquest
with the Turks and their dependencies, but preferred, finally,
to enter upon his war with Holland, which brought the other
project to naught. France and the Ottoman empire then remained
on tolerably good terms until 1681, when a "squadron of
Tripolitan corsairs having carried off a French ship on the
coast of Provence, Duquesne, at the head of seven vessels,
pursued the pirates into the waters of Greece. They took
refuge in the harbor of Scio. Duquesne summoned the Pacha of
Scio to expel them. The Pacha refused, and fired on the French
squadron, when Duquesne cannonaded both the pirates and the
town with such violence that the Pacha, terrified, asked for a
truce, in order to refer the matter to the Sultan (July 23,
1681). Duquesne converted the attack into a blockade. At the
news of this violation of the Ottoman territory, the Sultan,
Mahomet IV., fell into a rage … and dispatched the
Captain-Pacha to Scio with 32 galleys. Duquesne allowed the
Turkish galleys to enter the harbor, then blockaded them with
the pirates, and declared that he would burn the whole if
satisfaction were not had of the Tripolitans. The Divan
hesitated. War was about to recommence with the Emperor; it
was not the moment to kindle it against France." In the end
there was a compromise, and the Tripolitans gave up the French
vessel and the slaves they had captured, promising, also, to
receive a French consul at Tripoli. "During this time another
squadron, commanded by Château-Renault, blockaded the coasts
of Morocco, the men of Maghreb having rivalled in depredations
the vassals of Turkey. The powerful Emperor of Morocco, Muley
Ismael, sent the governor of Tetuan to France to solicit peace
of Louis XIV. The treaty was signed at Saint-Germain, January
29, 1682, on advantageous conditions," including restitution
of French slaves. "Affairs did not terminate so amicably with
Algiers. From this piratical centre had proceeded the gravest
offenses. A captain of the royal navy was held in slavery
there, with many other Frenchmen. It was resolved to inflict a
terrible punishment on the Algerines. The thought of
conquering Algeria had more than once presented itself to the
king and Colbert, and they appreciated the value of this
conquest; the Jijeli expedition had been formerly a first
attempt. They did not, however, deem it incumbent on them to
embark in such an enterprise; a descent, a siege, would have
required too great preparations; they had recourse· to another
means of attack. The regenerator of the art of naval
construction, Petit-Renau, invented bomb-ketches expressly for
the purpose. … July 23, 1682, Duquesne anchored before
Algiers, with 11 ships, 15 galleys, 5 bomb-ketches, and
Petit-Renau to guide them. After five weeks' delay caused by
bad weather, then by a fire on one of the bomb-ketches, the
thorough trial took place during the night of August 30. The
effect was terrible: a part of the great mosque fell on the
crowd that had taken refuge there. During the night of
September 3-4, the Algerines attempted to capture the
bomb-ketches moored at the entrance of their harbor; they were
repulsed, and the bombardment continued. The Dey wished to
negotiate; the people, exasperated, prevented him. The wind
shifting to the northwest presaged the equinoctial storm;
Duquesne set sail again, September 12. The expedition had not
been decisive. It was begun anew. June 18, 1683, Duquesne
reappeared in the road of Algiers; he had, this time, seven
bomb-ketches instead of five. These instruments of
extermination had been perfected in the interval. The nights
of June 26-27 witnessed the overthrow of a great number of
houses, several mosques, and the palace of the Dey. A thousand
men perished in the harbor and the town." The Dey opened
negotiations, giving up 700 French slaves, but was killed by
his Janizaries, and one Hadgi-Hussein proclaimed in his stead.
{263}
"The bombardment was resumed with increasing violence. … The
Algerines avenged themselves by binding to the muzzles of
their guns a number of Frenchmen who remained in their hands.
… The fury of the Algerines drew upon them redoubled
calamities. … The bombs rained almost without intermission.
The harbor was strewn with the wrecks of vessels. The city was
… a heap of bloody ruins." But "the bomb-ketches had
exhausted their ammunition. September was approaching.
Duquesne again departed; but a strong blockading force was
kept up, during the whole winter, as a standing threat of the
return of the 'infernal vessels.' The Algerines finally bowed
their head, and, April 25, 1684, peace was accorded by
Tourville, the commander of the blockade, to the Pacha, Dey,
Divan, and troops of Algiers. The Algerines restored 320
French slaves remaining in their power, and 180 other
Christians claimed by the King; the janizaries only which had
been taken from them were restored; they engaged to make no
prizes within ten leagues of the coast of France, nor to
assist the other Moorish corsairs at war with France; to
recognize the precedence of the flag of France over all other
flags, &c., &c.; lastly, they sent an embassy to carry their
submission to Louis XIV.; they did not, however, pay the
damages which Duquesne had wished to exact of them."
_H. Martin,
History of France: Age of Louis XIV.,
volume 1, chapters 4 and 7._
BARBARY STATES: A. D. 1785-1801.
Piratical depredations upon American commerce.
Humiliating treaties and tribute.
The example of resistance given by the United States.
"It is difficult for us to realize that only 70 years ago the
Mediterranean was so unsafe that the merchant ships of every
nation stood in danger of being captured by pirates, unless
they were protected either by an armed convoy or by tribute
paid to the petty Barbary powers. Yet we can scarcely open a
book of travels during the last century without mention being
made of the immense risks to which everyone was exposed who
ventured by sea from Marseilles to Naples. … The European
states, in order to protect their commerce, had the choice
either of paying certain sums per head for each captive, which
in reality was a premium on capture, or of buying entire
freedom for their commerce by the expenditure of large sums
yearly. The treaty renewed by France, in 1788, with Algiers,
was for fifty years, and it was agreed to pay $200,000
annually, besides large presents distributed according to
custom every ten years, and a great sum given down. The peace
of Spain with Algiers is said to have cost from three to five
millions of dollars. There is reason to believe that at the
same time England was paying an annual tribute of about
$280,000. England was the only power sufficiently strong on
the sea to put down these pirates; but in order to keep her
own position as mistress of the seas she preferred to leave
them in existence in order to be a scourge to the commerce of
other European powers, and even to support them by paying a
sum so great that other states might find it difficult to make
peace with them. When the Revolution broke out, we [of the
United States of America] no longer had the safeguards for our
commerce that had been given to us by England, and it was
therefore that in our very first negotiations for a treaty
with France we desired to have an article inserted into the
treaty, that the king of France should secure the inhabitants
of the United States, and their vessels and effects, against
all attacks or depredations from any of the Barbary powers. It
was found impossible to insert this article in the treaty of
1778, and instead of that the king agreed to 'employ his good
offices and interposition in order to provide as fully and
efficaciously as possible for the benefit, conveniency and
safety of the United States against the princes and the states
of Barbary or their subjects.'"
Direct negotiations between the United States and the
piratical powers were opened in 1785, by a call which Mr.
Adams made upon the Tripolitan ambassador. The latter
announced to Mr. Adams that "'Turkey, Tripoli, Tunis, Algiers,
and Morocco were the sovereigns of the Mediterranean; and that
no nation could navigate that sea without a treaty of peace
with them.' … The ambassador demanded as the lowest price
for a perpetual peace 30,000 guineas for his employers and
£3,000 for himself; that Tunis would probably treat on the
same terms; but he could not answer for Algiers or Morocco.
Peace with all four powers would cost at least $1,000,000, and
Congress had appropriated only $80,000. … Mr. Adams was
strongly opposed to war, on account of the expense, and
preferred the payment of tribute. … Mr. Jefferson quite as
decidedly preferred war." The opinion in favor of a trial of
pacific negotiations prevailed, and a treaty with the Emperor
of Morocco was concluded in 1787. An attempt at the same time
to make terms with the Del of Algiers and to redeem a number
of American captives in his hands, came to nothing. "For the
sake of saving a few thousand dollars, fourteen men were
allowed to remain in imprisonment for ten years. … In
November, 1793, the number of [American] prisoners at Algiers
amounted to 115 men, among whom there remained only ten of the
original captives of 1785." At last, the nation began to
realize the intolerable shame of the matter, and, "on January
2, 1794, the House of Representatives resolved that a 'naval
force adequate for the protection of the commerce of the
United States against the AIgerine forces ought to be
provided.' In the same year authority was given to build six
frigates, and to procure ten smaller vessels to be equipped as
galleys. Negotiations, however, continued to go on," and in
September, 1795, a treaty with the Dey was concluded. "In
making this treaty, however, we had been obliged to follow the
usage of European powers—not only pay a large sum for the
purpose of obtaining peace, but an annual tribute, in order to
keep our vessels from being captured in the future. The total
cost of fulfilling the treaty was estimated at $992,463. 25."
_E. Schuyler,
American Diplomacy,
part 4._
"The first treaty of 1795, with Algiers, which was negotiated
during Washington's administration, cost the United States,
for the ransom of American captives, and the Dey's
forbearance, a round $1,000,000, in addition to which an
annuity was promised. Treaties with other Barbary States
followed, one of which purchased peace from Tripoli by the
payment of a gross sum. Nearly $2,000,000 had been squandered
thus far in bribing these powers to respect our flag, and
President Adams complained in 1800 that the United States had
to pay three times the tribute imposed upon Sweden and
Denmark.
{264}
But this temporizing policy only made matters worse. Captain
Bainbridge arrived at Algiers in 1800, bearing the annual
tribute money for the Dey in a national frigate, and the Dey
ordered him to proceed to Constantinople to deliver Algerine
dispatches. 'English, French, and Spanish ships of war have
done the same,' said the Dey, insolently, when Bainbridge and
the American consul remonstrated. 'You pay me tribute because
you are my slaves.' Bainbridge had to obey. … The lesser
Barbary States were still more exasperating. The Bashaw of
Tripoli had threatened to seize American vessels unless
President Adams sent him a present like that bestowed upon
Algiers. The Bashaw of Tunis made a similar demand upon the
new President [Jefferson]. … Jefferson had, while in
Washington's cabinet, expressed his detestation of the method
hitherto favored for pacifying these pests of commerce; and,
availing himself of the present favorable opportunity, he sent
out Commodore Dale with a squadron of three frigates and a
sloop of war, to make a naval demonstration on the coast of
Barbary. … Commodore Dale, upon arriving at Gibraltar [July,
1801], found two Tripolitan cruisers watching for American
vessels; for, as had been suspected, Tripoli already meditated
war. The frigate Philadelphia blockaded these vessels, while
Bainbridge, with the frigate Essex, convoyed American vessels
in the Mediterranean. Dale, in the frigate President,
proceeded to cruise off Tripoli, followed by the schooner
Experiment, which presently captured a Tripolitan cruiser of
14 guns after a spirited action. The Barbary powers were for a
time overawed, and the United States thus set the first
example among Christian nations of making reprisals instead of
ransom the rule of security against these commercial
marauders. In this respect Jefferson's conduct was applauded
at home by men of all parties."
_J. Schouler,
History of the United States,
chapter 5, section 1 (volume 2)._
ALSO IN:
_R. L. Playfair,
The Scourge of Christendom,
chapter 16._
BARBARY STATES: A. D. 1803-1805.
American War with the pirates of Tripoli.
"The war with Tripoli dragged tediously along, and seemed no
nearer its end at the close of 1803 than 18 months before.
Commodore Morris, whom the President sent to command the
Mediterranean squadron, cruised from port to port between May,
1802, and August, 1803, convoying merchant vessels from
Gibraltar to Leghorn and Malta, or lay in harbor and repaired
his ships, but neither blockaded nor molested Tripoli; until
at length, June 21, 1803, the President called him home and
dismissed him from the service. His successor was Commodore
Preble, who Sept. 12, 1803, reached Gibraltar with the
relief-squadron which Secretary Gallatin thought unnecessarily
strong. … He found Morocco taking part with Tripoli. Captain
Bainbridge, who reached Gibraltar in the 'Philadelphia' August
24, some three weeks before Preble arrived, caught in the
neighborhood a Moorish cruiser of 22 guns with an American
brig in its clutches. Another American brig had just been
seized at Mogador. Determined to stop this peril at the
outset, Preble united to his own squadron the ships which he
had come to relieve, and with this combined force, … sending
the 'Philadelphia' to blockade Tripoli, he crossed to Tangiers
October 6, and brought the Emperor of Morocco to reason. On
both sides prizes and prisoners were restored, and the old
treaty was renewed, This affair consumed time; and when at
length Preble got the 'Constitution' under way for the
Tripolitan coast, he spoke [to] a British frigate off the
Island of Sardinia, which reported that the 'Philadelphia' had
been captured October 21, more than three weeks before.
Bainbridge, cruising off Tripoli, had chased a Tripolitan
cruiser into shoal water, and was hauling off, when the
frigate struck on a reef at the mouth of the harbor. Every
effort was made without success to float her; but at last she
was surrounded by Tripolitan gunboats, and Bainbridge struck
his flag. The Tripolitans, after a few days work, floated the
frigate, and brought her under the guns of the castle. The
officers became prisoners of war, and the crew, in number 300
or more, were put to hard labor. The affair was in no way
discreditable to the squadron. … The Tripolitans gained
nothing except the prisoners; for at Bainbridge's suggestion
Preble, some time afterward, ordered Stephen Decatur, a young
lieutenant in command of the 'Enterprise', to take a captured
Tripolitan craft renamed the 'Intrepid,' and with a crew of 75
men to sail from Syracuse, enter the harbor of Tripoli by
night, board the 'Philadelphia,' and burn her under the castle
guns. The order was literally obeyed. Decatur ran into the
harbor at ten o'clock in the night of February 16, 1804, boarded
the frigate within half gun-shot of the Pacha's castle, drove
the Tripolitan crew overboard, set the ship on fire, remained
alongside until the flames were beyond control, and then
withdrew without losing a man."
_H. Adams,
History of the United States: Administration of Jefferson,
volume 2, chapter 7._
"Commodore Preble, in the meantime, hurried his preparations
for more serious work, and on July 25th arrived off Tripoli
with a squadron, consisting of the frigate Constitution, three
brigs, three schooners, six gunboats, and two bomb vessels.
Opposed to him were arrayed over a hundred guns mounted on
shore batteries, nineteen gunboats, one ten-gun brig, two
schooners mounting eight guns each, and twelve galleys.
Between August 3rd and September 3rd five attacks were made,
and though the town was never reduced, substantial damage was
inflicted, and the subsequent satisfactory peace rendered
possible. Preble was relieved by Barron in September, not
because of any loss of confidence in his ability, but from
exigencies of the service, which forbade the Government
sending out an officer junior to him in the relief squadron
which reinforced his own. Upon his return to the United States
he was presented with a gold medal, and the thanks of Congress
were tendered him, his officers, and men, for gallant and
faithful services. The blockade was maintained vigorously, and
in 1805 an attack was made upon the Tripolitan town of Derna,
by a combined land and naval force; the former being under
command of Consul-General Eaton, who had been a captain in the
American army, and of Lieutenant O'Bannon of the Marines. The
enemy made a spirited though disorganized defence, but the
shells of the war-ships drove them from point to point, and
finally their principal work was carried by the force under
O'Bannon and Midshipman Mann. Eaton was eager to press
forward, but he was denied reinforcements and military stores,
and much of his advantage was lost.
{265}
All further operations were, however, discontinued in June,
1805, when, after the usual intrigues, delays, and
prevarications, a treaty was signed by the Pasha, which
provided that no further tribute should be exacted, and that
American vessels should be forever free of his rovers.
Satisfactory as was this conclusion, the uncomfortable fact
remains that tribute entered into the settlement. After all
the prisoners had been exchanged man for man, the Tripolitan
Government demanded, and the United States paid, the handsome
sum of sixty thousand dollars to close the contract. This
treaty, however, awakened the conscience of Europe, and from
the day it was signed the power of the Barbary Corsairs began
to wane. The older countries saw their duty more clearly, and
ceased to legalize robbery on the high seas."
_S. Lane-Poole,
Story of the Barbary Corsairs,
chapter 20._
ALSO IN:
_J. F. Cooper,
History of the U. S. Navy,
volume 1, chapter 18
and volume 2, chapters 1-7._
_J. F. Cooper,
Life of Preble._
_A. S. Mackenzie,
Life of Decatur,
chapter 3-7._
BARBARY STATES: A. D. 1815.
Final War of Algiers with the United States.
Death-blow to Algerine piracy.
"Just as the late war with Great Britain broke out, the Dey of
Algiers, taking offense at not having received from America
the precise articles in the way of tribute demanded, had
unceremoniously dismissed Lear, the consul, had declared war,
and had since captured an American vessel, and reduced her
crew to slavery. Immediately after the ratification of the
treaty with England, this declaration had been reciprocated.
Efforts had been at once made to fit out ships, new and old,
including several small ones lately purchased for the proposed
squadrons of Porter and Perry, and before many weeks Decatur
sailed from New York with the Guerrière, Macedonian, and
Constellation frigates, now released from blockade; the
Ontario, new sloop of war, four brigs, and two schooners. Two
days after passing Gibralter, he fell in with and captured an
Algerine frigate of 44 guns, the largest ship in the Algerine
navy, which struck to the Guerrière after a running fight of
twenty-five minutes. A day or two after, an Algerine brig was
chased into shoal water on the Spanish coast, and captured by
the smaller vessels. Decatur having appeared off Algiers, the
terrified Dey at once consented to a treaty, which he
submitted to sign on Decatur's quarter deck, surrendering all
prisoners on hand, making certain pecuniary indemnities,
renouncing all future claim to any American tribute or
presents, and the practice, also, of reducing prisoners of war
to slavery. Decatur then proceeded to Tunis and Tripoli, and
obtained from both indemnity for certain American vessels
captured under the guns of their forts by British cruisers
during the late war. The Bey of Tripoli being short of cash,
Decatur agreed to accept in part payment the restoration of
liberty to eight Danes and two Neapolitans held as slaves."
_R. Hildreth,
History of the United States, Second Series,
chapter 30 (volume 3)._
ALSO IN:
_A. S. Mackenzie,
Life of Decatur,
chapter 13-14._
BARBARY STATES: A. D. 1816.
Bombardment of Algiers by Lord Exmouth.
Relinquishment of Christian slavery in Algiers, Tripolis and
Tunis.
"The corsairs of Barbary still scoured the Mediterranean; the
captives, whom they had taken from Christian vessels, still
languished in captivity in Algiers; and, to the disgrace of
the civilized world, a piratical state was suffered to exist
in its very centre. … The conclusion of the war [of the
Coalition against Napoleon and France] made the continuance of
these ravages utterly intolerable. In the interests of
civilization it was essential that piracy should be put down;
Britain was mistress of the seas, and it therefore devolved
upon her to do the work. … Happily for this country the
Mediterranean command was held by an officer [Lord Exmouth]
whose bravery and skill were fully equal to the dangers before
him. … Early in 1816 Exmouth was instructed to proceed to
the several states of Barbary; to require them to recognize
the cession of the Ionian Islands to Britain; to conclude
peace with the kingdoms of Sardinia and Naples; and to abolish
Christian slavery. The Dey of Algiers readily assented to the
two first of these conditions; the Beys of Tripolis and Tunis
followed the example of the Dey of Algiers, and in addition
consented to refrain in future from treating prisoners of war
as slaves. Exmouth thereupon returned to Algiers, and
endeavoured to obtain a similar concession from the Dey. The
Dey pleaded that Algiers was subject to the Ottoman Porte,"
and obtained a truce of three months in order to confer with
the Sultan. But meantime the Algerines made an unprovoked
attack upon a neighbouring coral fishery, which was protected
by the British flag, massacring the fishermen and destroying
the flag. This brought Exmouth back to Algiers in great haste,
with an ultimatum which he delivered on the 27th of August. No
answer to it was returned, and the fleet (which had been
joined by some vessels of the Dutch navy) sailed into battle
range that same afternoon. "The Algerines permitted the ships
to move into their stations. The British reserved their fire
till they could deliver it with good effect. A crowd of
spectators watched the ships from the shore; and Exmouth waved
his hat to them to move and save themselves from the fire.
They had not the prudence to avail themselves of his timely
warning. A signal shot was fired by the Algerines from the
mole. The 'Queen Charlotte' replied by delivering her entire
broadside. Five hundred men were struck down by the first
discharge. … The battle, which had thus begun at two o'clock
in the afternoon, continued till ten o'clock in the evening.
By that time half Algiers had been destroyed; the whole of the
Algerine navy had been burned; and, though a few of the
enemy's batteries still maintained a casual fire, their
principal fortifications were crumbling ruins; the majority of
their guns were dismounted." The Dey humbled himself to the
terms proposed by the British commander. "On the first day of
September Exmouth had the satisfaction of acquainting his
government with the liberation of all the slaves in the city
of Algiers, and the restitution of the money paid since the
commencement of the year by the Neapolitan and Sardinian
Governments for the redemption of slaves." He had also
extorted from the piratical Dey a solemn declaration that he
would, in future wars, treat all prisoners according to the
usages of European nations. In the battle which won these
important results, "128 men were killed and 690 wounded on
board the British fleet; the Dutch lost 13 killed and 52
wounded."
_S. Walpole,
History of England from 1815,
chapter 2 (volume 1)._
ALSO IN:
_H. Martineau,
History of the Thirty Years Peace,
book 1, chapter 6 (volume l)._
_L. Hertslet,
Collection of Treaties and Conventions,
volume 1._
{266}
BARBARY STATES: A. D. 1830.
French conquest of Algiers.
"During the Napoleonic wars, the Dey of Algiers supplied grain
for the use of the French armies; it was bought by merchants
of Marseilles, and there was a dispute about the matter which
was unsettled as late as 1829. Several instalments had been
paid; the dey demanded payment in full according to his own
figures, while the French government, believing the demand
excessive, required an investigation. In one of the numerous
debates on the subject, Hussein Pasha, the reigning dey,
became very angry, struck the consul with a fan, and ordered
him out of the house. He refused all reparation for the
insult, even on the formal demand of the French government,
and consequently there was no alternative but war." The
expedition launched from the port of Toulon, for the
chastisement of the insolent Algerine, "comprised 37,500 men,
3,000 horses, and 180 pieces of artillery. … The sea-forces
included 11 ships of the line, 23 frigates, 70 smaller
vessels, 377 transports, and 230 boats for landing troops.
General Bourmont, Minister of War, commanded the expedition,
which appeared in front of Algiers on the 13th of June, 1830."
Hussein Pasha "had previously asked for aid from the Sultan of
Turkey, but that wily ruler had blankly refused. The beys of
Tunis and Tripoli had also declined to meddle with the
affair." The landing of the French was effected safely and
without serious opposition, at Sidi-Ferruch, about 16 miles
west of Algiers. The Algerine army, 40,000 to 50,000 strong,
commanded by Aga Ibrahim, son-in-law of the dey, took its
position on the table-land of Staoueli, overlooking the
French, where it waited while their landing was made. On the
19th General Bourmont was ready to advance. His antagonist,
instead of adhering to the waiting attitude, and forcing the
French to attack him, on his own ground, now went out to meet
them, and flung his disorderly mob against their disciplined
battalions, with the result that seldom fails. "The Arab loss
in killed and wounded was about 3,000, … while the French
loss was less than 500. In little more than an hour the battle
was over, and the Osmanlis were in full and disorderly
retreat." General Bourmont took possession of the Algerine
camp at Staoueli, where he was again attacked on the 24th of
June, with a similar disastrous result to the Arabs. He then
advanced upon the city of Algiers, established his army in
position behind the city, constructed batteries, and opened,
on the 4th of July, a bombardment so terrific that the dey
hoisted the white flag in a few hours. "Hussein Pasha hoped to
the last moment to retain his country and its independence by
making liberal concessions in the way of indemnity for the
expenses of the war, and offered to liberate all Christian
slaves in addition to paying them for their services and
sufferings. The English consul tried to mediate on this basis,
but his offers of mediation were politely declined. … It was
finally agreed that the dey should surrender Algiers with all
its forts and military stores, and be permitted to retire
wherever he chose with his wives, children, and personal
belongings, but he was not to remain in the country under any
circumstances. On the 5th of July the French entered Algiers
in great pomp and took possession of the city. … The spoils
of war were such as rarely fall to the lot of a conquering
army, when its numbers and the circumstances of the campaign
are considered. In the treasury was found a large room filled
with gold and silver coins heaped together indiscriminately,
the fruits of three centuries of piracy; they were the coins
of all the nations that had suffered from the depredations of
the Algerines, and the variety in the dates showed very
clearly that the accumulation had been the work of two or
three hundred years. How much money was contained in this vast
pile is not known; certain it is that nearly 50,000,000
francs, or £2,000,000 sterling, actually reached the French
treasury. … The cost of the war was much more than covered
by the captured property. … Many slaves were liberated. …
The Algerine power was forever broken, and from that day
Algeria has been a prosperous colony of France. Hussein Pasha
embarked on the 10th of July with a suite of 110 persons, of
whom 55 were women. He proceeded to Naples, where he remained
for a time, went afterwards to Leghorn, and finally to Egypt."
In Egypt he died, under circumstances which indicated poison.
_T. W. Knox,
Decisive Battles Since Waterloo,
chapter 5._
ALSO IN:
_R. L. Playfair,
The Scourge of Christendom,
chapter 19._
_E. E. Crowe,
History of the Reigns of Louis XVIII. and Charles X.,
volume 2, chapter 13._
BARBARY STATES: A. D. 1830-1846.
The French war of Subjugation in Algeria with Abd-el-Kader.
"When Louis Philippe ascended the throne [of France, A. D.
1830] the generals of his predecessor had overrun the country
[of Algiers]—though they did not effectually subdue it;
their absolute dominion not extending far round Algiers—from
Bona, on the east, in latitude 36° 53' North, longitude 7° 46'
West, to Oran, on the west—nearly the entire extent of the
ancient Libya. … There was always a party in the chamber of
deputies opposed to the conquest who deprecated the
colonisation of Algeria, and who steadily opposed any grants
of either men or money to be devoted to the African
enterprise. The natural result followed. Ten thousand men
could not effect the work for which 40,000 were required; and,
whilst the young colony languished, the natives became
emboldened, and encouraged to make that resistance which cost
the French so dear. Marshal Clausel, when entrusted with the
government of the colony, and the supreme command of the
troops … established a series of fortified posts, which were
adequately garrisoned; and roads were opened to enable the
garrisons promptly to communicate with each other. These
positions, rapidly acquired, he was unable to maintain, in
consequence of the home government recalling the greater part
of his force. To recruit his army he resolved to enlist some
corps of the natives; and, in October, 1830, the first
regiment of zouaves was raised." … In 1833 we "first hear of
Abd-el-Kader. This chief was the son of a marabout, or priest,
in the province of Oran. He united consummate ability with
great valour; was a devout Mohammedan; and when he raised the
standard of the prophet, he called the Arabs around him, with
the fullest confidence of success.
{267}
His countrymen obeyed his call in great numbers; and,
encouraged by the enthusiasm they displayed, he first, at the
close of 1833, proclaimed himself emir of Tlemsen (the former
name of Oran), and then seized on the port of Arzew, on the
west side of the gulf of that name; and the port of
Mostaganem, on the opposite coast. The province of Mascara,
lying at the foot of the Atlas, was also under his rule. At
that time General Desmichels commanded at Oran. He had not a
very large force, but he acted promptly. Marching against
Abd-el-Kader, he defeated him in two pitched battles; retook
Arzew and Mostaganem; and, on the 26th of February, 1834,
entered into a treaty with the emir, by which both parties
were bound to keep the peace towards each other. During that
year the terms were observed; but, in 1835, the Arab chief
again commenced hostilities. He marched to the east, entered
the French territories, and took possession of Medeah, being
received with the utmost joy by the inhabitants. On the 26th
of June, General Trezel, with only 2,300 men, marched against
him. Abd-el-Kader had 8,000 Arabs under his command; and a
sanguinary combat took place in the defiles of Mouley-Ismael.
After a severe combat, the French forced the passage, but with
considerable loss. … The French general, finding his
position untenable, commenced a retrograde movement on the
28th of June. In his retreat he was pursued by the Arabs; and
before he reached Oran, on the 4th of July, he lost all his
waggons, train, and baggage; besides having ten officers, and
252 sous-officers and rank-and-file killed, and 308 wounded.
The heads of many of the killed were displayed in triumph by
the victors. This was a severe blow to the French, and the
cause of great rejoicing to the Arabs. The former called for
marshal Clausel to be restored to his command, and the
government at home complied; at the same time issuing a
proclamation, declaring that Algeria should not be abandoned,
but that the honour of the French arms should be maintained.
The marshal left France on the 28th of July; and as soon as he
landed, he organised an expedition against Mascara, which was
Abd-el-Kader's capital. … The Arab chieftain advanced to
meet the enemy; but, being twice defeated, he resolved to
abandon his capital, which the French entered on the 6th of
December, and found completely deserted. The streets and
houses were alike empty and desolate; and the only living
creature they encountered was an old woman, lying on some
mats, who could not move of herself, and had been either
forgotten or abandoned. The French set fire to the deserted
houses; and having effected the destruction of Mascara, they
marched to Mostaganem, which Clausel determined to make the
centre of French power in that district."
_Thomas Wright,
History of France,
volume 3, pages 633-635._
"A camp was established on the Taafna in April 1836, and an
action took place there on the 25th, when the Tableau states
that 3,000 French engaged 10,000 natives; and some of the
enemies being troops of Morocco, an explanation was required
of Muley-Abd-er-Rachman, the emperor, who said that the
assistance was given to the Algerines without his knowledge.
On July 6th, 1836, Abd-el-Kader suffered a disastrous defeat
on the river Sikkak, near Tlemsen, at the hands of Marshal
Bugeaud. November 1836, the first expedition was formed
against Constantina. …After the failure of Clauzel, General
Damrémont was appointed governor, February 12th, 1837; and on the
30th of May the treaty of the Taafna between General Bugeaud
and Abd-el-Kader left the French government at liberty to
direct an their attention against Constantina, a camp being
formed at Medjoy-el-Ahmar in that direction. An army of 10,000
men set out thence on the 1st of October, 1837, for
Constantina. On the 6th it arrived before Constantina; and on
the 13th the town was taken with a severe loss, including
Damrémont. Marshal Vallée succeeded Damrémont as governor. The
fall of Constantina destroyed the last relic of the old
Turkish government. … By the 27th January, 1838, 100 tribes
had submitted to the French. A road was cleared in April by
General Negrier from Constantina to Stora on the sea. This
road, passing by the camps of Smendou and the Arrouch, was 22
leagues in length. The coast of the Bay of Stora, on the site
of the ancient Rusicada, became covered with French settlers:
and Philippeville was founded Oct. 1838, threatening to
supplant Bona. Abd-el-Kader advancing in December 1837 to the
province of Constantina, the French advanced also to observe
him; then both retired, without coming to blows. A
misunderstanding which arose respecting the second article of
the treaty of Taafna was settled in the beginning of 1838. …
When Abd-el-Kader assumed the royal title of Sultan and the
command of a numerous army, the French, with republican
charity and fraternal sympathy, sought to infringe the Taafna
treaty, and embroil the Arab hero, in order to ruin his rising
empire, and found their own on its ashes. The Emir had been
recognised by the whole country, from the gates of Ouchda to
the river Mijerda. … The war was resumed, and many French
razzias took place. They once marched a large force from
Algiers on Milianah to surprise the sultan's camp. They failed
in their chief object, but nearly captured the sultan himself.
He was surrounded in the middle of a French square, which
thought itself sure of the reward of 100,000 francs (£4,000)
offered for him; but uttering his favourite 'en-shallah' (with
the will of God), he gave his white horse the spur, and came
over their bayonets unwounded. He lost, however, thirty of his
bodyguard and friends, but killed six Frenchmen with his own
hand. Still, notwithstanding his successes, Abd-el-Kader had
been losing all his former power, as his Arabs, though brave,
could not match 80,000 French troops, with artillery and all
the other ornaments of civilised warfare. Seven actions were
fought at the Col de Mouzaia, where the Arabs were overthrown
by the royal dukes, in 1841; and at the Oued Foddha, where
Changarnier, with a handful of troops, defeated a whole
population in a frightful gorge. It was on this occasion that,
having no guns, he launched his Chasseurs d'Afrique against
the fort, saying, 'Voilà mon artillerie!' Abd-el·Kader had
then only two chances,—the support of Muley-Abd-er-Rahman,
Emperor of Morocco; or the peace that the latter might
conclude with France for him. General Bugeaud, who had
replaced Marshal Vallée, organised a plan of campaign by
movable columns radiating from Algiers, Oran, and Constantina;
and having 100,000 excellent soldiers at his disposal, the
results as against the Emir were slowly but surely effective.
{268}
General Negrier at Constantina, Changarnier amongst the
Hadjouts about Medeah and Milianah, Cavaignae and Lamoricière
in Oran,—carried out the commander-in-chiefs instructions
with untiring energy and perseverance; and in the spring of
1843 the Duc d'Aumale, in company with General Changarnier,
surprised the Emir's camp in the absence of the greatest part
of his force, and it was with difficulty that he himself
escaped. Not long afterwards he took refuge in Morocco,
excited the fanatical passions of the populace of that empire,
and thereby forced its ruler, Muley-Abd-er-Rahman, much
against his own inclination, into a war with France; a war
very speedily terminated by General Bugeaud's victory of Isly,
with some slight assistance from the bombardment of Tangier
and Mogador by the Prince de Joinville. In 1845 the struggle
was maintained amidst the hills by the partisans of
Abd-el-Kader; but our limits prevent us from dwelling on its
particulars, save in one instance. … On the night of the
12th of June, 1845, about three months before Marshal Bugeaud
left Algeria, Colonels Pelissier and St. Arnaud, at the head
of a considerable force, attempted a razzia upon the tribe of
the Beni-Oulell-Hiah, numbering, in men, women, and children,
about 700 persons. This was in the Dahra. The Arabs escaped
the first clutch of their pursuers; and when hard pressed, as
they soon were, took refuge in the cave of Khartani, which had
some odour of sanctity about it: some holy man or marabout had
lived and died there, we believe. The French troops came up
quickly to the entrance, and the Arabs were summoned to
surrender. They made no reply. Possibly they did not hear the
summons. … As there was no other outlet from the cave than
that by which the Arabs entered, a few hours' patience must
have been rewarded by the unconditional surrender of the
imprisoned tribe. Colonels Pelissier and St. Arnaud were
desirous of a speedier result; and by their order an immense
fire was kindled at the mouth of the cave, and fed sedulously
during the summer night with wood, grass, reeds, anything that
would help to keep up the volume of smoke and flame which the
wind drove, in roaring, whirling eddies, into the mouth of the
cavern. It was too late now for the unfortunate Arabs to offer
to surrender; the discharge of a cannon would not have been
heard in the roar of that huge blast-furnace, much less
smoke-strangled cries of human agony. The fire was kept up
throughout the night; and when the day had fully dawned, the
then expiring embers were kicked aside, and as soon as a
sufficient time had elapsed to render the air of the silent
cave breathable, some soldiers were directed to ascertain how
matters were, within. They were gone but a few minutes; and
they came back, we are told, pale, trembling, terrified,
hardly daring, it seemed, to confront the light of day. No
wonder they trembled and looked pale. They had found all the
Arabs dead—men, women, children. … St. Arnaud and Pelissier
were rewarded by the French minister; and Marshal Soult
observed, that 'what would be a crime against civilisation in
Europe might be a justifiable necessity in Africa.' … A
taste of French bayonets at Isly, and the booming of French
guns at Mogador, had brought Morocco to reason. … Morocco
sided with France, and threatened Abel-el-Kader, who cut one
of their corps to pieces, and was in June on the point of
coming to blows with Muley-Abd-el-Rahman, the emperor. But the
Emperor of Morocco took vigorous measures to oppose him,
nearly exterminating the tribes friendly to him; which drew
off many partisans from the Emir, who tried to pacify the
emperor, but unsuccessfully." In December, 1846, "he asked to
negotiate, offered to surrender; and after 24 hours'
discussion he came to Sidi Brahim, the scene of his last
exploits against the French, where he was received with
military honours, and conducted to the Duke of Aumale at
Nemours. France has been severely abused for the detention of
Abd-el-Kader in Ham."
_J. R. Morell,
Algeria,
chapter 22._
BARBARY STATES: A. D. 1881.
Tunis brought under the protectorate of France.
See FRANCE: A. D.1875-1889.
----------BARBARY STATES: End----------
BARBES.
BARBETS.
The elders among the early Waldenses were called barbes, which
signified "Uncle." Whence came the nickname Barbets, applied
to the Waldensian people generally.
_E. Comba,
History of the Waldenses of Italy,
page 147._
BARCA.
See CYRENE.
BARCELONA: A. D. 713.
Surrender to the Arab-Moors.
See SPAIN: A. D. 711-713.
BARCELONA: A. D. 1151.
The County joined to Aragon.
See SPAIN: A. D. 1035-1258.
BARCELONA: 12th-16th Centuries.
Commercial prosperity and municipal freedom.
"The city of Barcelona, which originally gave its name to the
county of which it was the capital, was distinguished from a
very early period by ample municipal privileges. After the
union with Aragon in the 12th century, the monarchs of the
latter kingdom extended towards it the same liberal
legislation; so that, by the 13th, Barcelona had reached a
degree of commercial prosperity rivalling that of any of the
Italian republics. She divided with them the lucrative
commerce with Alexandria; and her port, thronged with
foreigners from every nation, became a principal emporium in
the Mediterranean for the spices, drugs, perfumes, and other
rich commodities of the East, whence they were diffused over
the interior of Spain and the European continent. Her consuls,
and her commercial factories, were established in every
considerable port in the Mediterranean and in the north of
Europe. The natural products of her soil, and her various
domestic fabrics, supplied her with abundant articles of
export. Fine wool was imported by her in considerable
quantities from England in the 14th and 15th centuries, and
returned there manufactured into cloth; an exchange of
commodities the reverse of that existing between the two
nations at the present day. Barcelona claims the merit of
having established the first bank of exchange and deposit in
Europe, in 1401; it was devoted to the accommodation of
foreigners as well as of her own citizens. She claims the
glory, too, of having compiled the most ancient written code,
among the moderns, of maritime law now extant, digested from
the usages of commercial nations, and which formed the basis
of the mercantile jurisprudence of Europe during the Middle
Ages. The wealth which flowed in upon Barcelona, as the result
of her activity and enterprise, was evinced by her numerous
public works, her docks, arsenal, warehouses, exchange,
hospitals, and other constructions of general utility.
Strangers, who visited Spain in the 14th and 15th centuries,
expatiate on the magnificence of this city, its commodious
private edifices, the cleanliness of its streets and public
squares (a virtue by no means usual in that day), and on the
amenity of its gardens and cultivated environs.
{269}
But the peculiar glory of Barcelona was the freedom of her
municipal institutions. Her government consisted of a senate
or council of one hundred, and a body of regidores or
counsellors, as they were styled, varying at times from four
to six in number; the former intrusted with the legislative,
the latter with the executive functions of administration. A
large proportion of these bodies were selected from the
merchants, tradesmen, and mechanics of the city. They were
invested not merely with municipal authority, but with many of
the rights of sovereignty. They entered into commercial
treaties with foreign powers; superintended the defence of the
city in time of war; provided for the security of trade;
granted letters of reprisal against any nation who might
violate it; and raised and appropriated the public moneys for
the construction of useful works, or the encouragement of such
commercial adventures as were too hazardous or expensive for
individual enterprise. The counsellors, who presided over the
municipality, were complimented with certain honorary
privileges, not even accorded to the nobility. They were
addressed by the title of magnificos; were seated, with their
heads covered, in the presence of royalty; were preceded by
mace-bearers, or lictors, in their progress through the
country; and deputies from their body to the court were
admitted on the footing and received the honors of foreign
ambassadors. These, it will be recollected, were
plebeians,—merchants and mechanics. Trade never was esteemed
a degradation in Catalonia, as it came to be in Castile."
_W. H. Prescott,
History of the Reign of Ferdinand and Isabella,
introduction, section 2._
BARCELONA: A. D. 1640.
Insurrection.
See SPAIN: A. D. 1640-1642.
BARCELONA: A. D. 1651-1652.
Siege and capture by the Spaniards.
See SPAIN: A. D. 1648-1652.
BARCELONA: A. D. 1705.
Capture by the Earl of Peterborough.
See SPAIN: A. D. 1705.
BARCELONA: A. D. 1706.
Unsuccessful siege by the French and Spaniards.
See SPAIN: A. D. 1706.
BARCELONA: A. D. 1713-1714.
Betrayal and desertion by the Allies.
Siege, capture and massacre by French and Spaniards.
See SPAIN: A. D. 1713-1714.
BARCELONA: A. D. 1842.
Rebellion and bombardment.
See SPAIN: A. D. 1833-1846.
----------BARCELONA: End----------
BARCELONA, Treaty of.
See ITALY: A.D. 1527-1529.
BARCIDES, OR BARCINE FAMILY, The.
The family of the great Carthaginian, Hamilcar Barca, father
of the more famous Hannibal. The surname Barca, or Barcas,
given to Hamilcar, is equivalent to the Hebrew Barak and
signified lightning.
_R. B. Smith,
Carthage and the Carthagenians,
chapter 7._
BARDS.
See FILI.
BARDULIA, Ancient Cantabria.
See SPAIN: A. D. 1026-1230.
BARÉ, The.
See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: GUCK OR COCO GROUP.
BAREBONES PARLIAMENT, The.
See ENGLAND: A. D. 1653 (JUNE-DECEMBER).
BARERE AND THE COMMITTEE OF PUBLIC SAFETY.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1793 (MARCH-JUNE); (SEPTEMBER-DECEMBER);
TO 1794-1795 (JULY-APRIL).
BARKIAROK, Seljouk Turkish Sultan, A. D. 1092-1104.
BARMECIDES, OR BARMEKIDES, The.
The Barmecides, or Barmekides, famous in the history of the
Caliphate at Bagdad, and made familiar to all the world by the
stories of the "Arabian Nights," were a family which rose to
great power and wealth under the Caliph Haroun Alraschid. It
took its name from one Khaled ibn Barmek, a Persian, whose
father had been the "Barmek" or custodian of one of the most
celebrated temples of the Zoroastrian faith. Khaled accepted
Mahometanism and became one of the ablest agents of the
conspiracy which overthrew the Ommiad Caliphs and raised the
Abbasides to the throne. The first of the Abbaside Caliphs
recognized his ability and made him vizier. His son Yahya
succeeded to his power and was the first vizier of the famous
Haroun Alraschid. But it was Jaafar, one of the sons of Yahya,
who became the prime favorite of Haroun and who raised the
family of the Barmecides to its acme of splendor. So much
greatness in a Persian house excited wide jealousy, however,
among the Arabs, and, in the end, the capricious lord and
master of the all powerful vizier Jaafar turned his heart
against him, and against all his house. The fall of the
Barmecides was made as cruel as their advancement had been
unscrupulous. Jaafar was beheaded without a moment's warning;
his father and brother were imprisoned, and a thousand members
of the family are said to have been slain.
_R. D. Osborn,
Islam under the Khalifs of Baghdad,
part 2, chapter 2._
ALSO IN:
_E. H. Palmer,
Haroun Alraschid,
chapter 3._
BARNABITES.
PAULINES.
"The clerks-regular of St. Paul (Panlines), whose congregation
was founded by Antonio Maria Zacharia of Cremona and two
Milanese associates in 1532, approved by Clement VII. in 1533,
and confirmed as independent by Paul III. in 1534, in 1545
took the name of Barnabites, from the church of St. Barnabas,
which was given up to them at Milan. The Barnabites, who have
been described as the democratic wing of the Theatines,
actively engaged in the conversion of heretics, both in Italy
and in France and in that home of heresy, Bohemia."
_A. W. Ward,
The Counter Reformation,
page 29._
BARNBURNERS.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1845-1846.
BARNET, Battle of (A. D. 1471).
The decisive battle, and the last but one fought, in the "Wars
of the Roses." Edward IV., having been driven out of England
and Henry VI. reinstated by Warwick, "the King-maker," the
former returned before six months had passed and made his way
to London. Warwick hastened to meet him with an army of
Lancastrians and the two forces came together on Easter
Sunday, April 14, 1471, near Barnet, only ten miles from
London. The victory, long doubtful, was won for the white rose
of York and it was very bloodily achieved. The Earl of Warwick
was among the slain.
See ENGLAND: A. D. 1455-1471.
BARNEVELDT, John of, The religious persecution and death of.
See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1603-1619.
{270}
BARON.
"The title of baron, unlike that of Earl, is a creation of the
[Norman] Conquest. The word, in its origin equivalent to
'homo,' receives under feudal institutions, like 'homo'
itself, the meaning of vassal. Homage (hominium) is the
ceremony by which the vassal becomes the man of his lord; and
the homines of the king are barons. Possibly the king's thegn
of Anglo-Saxon times may answer to the Norman baron."
_William Stubbs,
Constitutional History of England,
chapter 11, section 124._
BARON, Court.
See MANORS.
BARONET.
"One approaches with reluctance the modern title of baronet.
… Grammatically, the term is clear enough; it is the
diminutive of baron: but baron is emphatically a man, the
liege vassal of the king; and baronet, therefore,
etymologically would seem to imply a a doubt. Degrees of honor
admit of no diminution: a 'damoisel' and a 'donzello' are
grammatical diminutives, but they do not lessen the rank of
the bearer; for, on the contrary, they denote the heir to the
larger honor, being attributed to none but the sons of the
prince or nobleman, who bore the paramount title. They did not
degrade, even in their etymological signification, which
baronet appears to do, and no act of parliament can remove
this radical defect. … Independently of these
considerations, the title arose from the expedient of a needy
monarch [James I.] to raise money, and was offered for sale.
Any man, provided he were of good birth, might, 'for a
consideration,' canton his family shield with the red hand of
Ulster."
_R. T. Hampson,
Origines Patriciæ,
pages 368-369._
BARONS' WAR, The.
See ENGLAND: A. D. 1216-1274.
BARONY OF LAND.
"Fifteen acres, but in some places twenty acres."
_N. H. Nicolas,
Notitia Historica,
page 134._
BARRIER FORTRESSES, The razing of the.
See NETHERLANDS (HOLLAND): A. D. 1746-1787.
BARRIER TREATIES, The.
See ENGLAND: A. D. 1709,
and NETHERLANDS (HOLLAND): A. D. 1713-1715.
BARROW.
A mound raised over the buried dead. "This form of memorial,
… as ancient as it has been lasting, is found in almost all
parts of the globe. Barrows, under diverse names, line the
coasts of the Mediterranean, the seats of ancient empires and
civilisations. … They abound in Great Britain and Ireland,
differing in shape and size and made of various materials; and
are known as barrows (mounds of earth) and cairns (mounds of
stone) and popularly in some parts of England as lows, houes,
and tumps."
_W. Greenwell,
British Barrows,
pages 1-2._
ALSO IN: _Sir J. Lubbock, Prehistoric TIMES, chapter 5._
BARTENSTEIN, Treaty of.
See GERMANY: A. D. 1807 (FEBRUARY-JUNE).
BARWALDE, Treaty of.
See GERMANY. A. D. 1631 (JANUARY).
BASHAN.
See JEWS: ISRAEL UNDER THE JUDGES.
BASHI BOZOUK, OR BAZOUKS.
For the suppression of the revolt of 1875-77 in the Christian
provinces of the Turkish dominions (see TURKS: 1861-1876),
"besides the regular forces engaged against the Bulgarians,
great numbers of the Moslem part of the local population had
been armed by the Government and turned loose to fight the
insurgents in their own way. These irregular warriors are
called Bashi Bozouks, or Rottenheads. The term alludes to
their being sent out without regular organization and without
officers at their head."
_H. O. Dwight,
Turkish Life in War Time,
page 15._
BASIL I. (called the Macedonian), Emperor
in the East (Byzantine, or Greek), A. D. 867-886.
Basil, or Vassili, I., Grand Duke of Volodomir, A. D. 1272-1276
Basil II., Emperor in the East (Byzantine, or Greek), A. D. 963-1025.
Basil, or Vassili, II., Grand Prince of Moscow, A. D. 1389-1425.
Basil III. (The Blind), Grand Prince of Moscow, A. D. 1425-1462.
Basil IV., Czar of Russia, A. D. 1505-1533.
BASILEUS.
"From the earliest period of history, the sovereigns of Asia
had been celebrated in the Greek language by the title of
Basileus, or King: and since it was considered as the first
distinction among men, it was soon employed by the servile
provincials of the east in their humble address to the Roman
throne."
_E. Gibbon,
Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire,
chapter 13.
BASILIAN DYNASTY, The.
See BYZANTINE EMPIRE: A. D. 820-1057.
BASILICÆ.
"Among the buildings appropriated to the public service at
Rome, none were more important than the Basilicæ. Although
their name is Greek, yet they were essentially a Roman
creation, and were used for practical purposes peculiarly
Roman,—the administration of law and the transaction of
merchants' business. Historically, considerable interest
attaches to them from their connection with the first
Christian churches. The name of Basilica was applied by the
Romans equally to all large buildings intended for the special
needs of public business. … Generally, however, they took
the form most adapted to their purposes—a semi-circular apse
or tribunal for legal trials and a central nave, with arcades
and galleries on each side for the transaction of business.
They existed not only as separate buildings, but, also as
reception rooms attached to the great mansions of Rome. … It
is the opinion of some writers that these private basilicæ,
and not the public edifices, served as the model for the
Christian Basilica."
_R. Burn,
Rome and the Campagna,
introduction._
ALSO IN:
_A. P. Stanley,
Christian Institutions,
chapter 9._
BASILIKA, The.
A compilation or codification of the imperial laws of the
Byzantine Empire promulgated A. D. 884, in the reign of Basil
I. and afterwards revised and amplified by his son, Leo VI.
_G. Finlay,
History of the Byzantine Empire, from 716 to 1057,
book 2, chapter 1, section 1._
BASING HOUSE, The Storming and Destruction of.
"Basing House [mansion of the Marquis of Winchester, near
Basingstoke, in Hampshire], an immense fortress, with a feudal
castle and a Tudor palace within its ramparts, had long been a
thorn in the side of the Parliament. Four years it had held
out, with an army within, well provisioned for years, and
blocked the road to the west. At last it was resolved to take
it: and Cromwell was directly commissioned by Parliament to
the work. Its capture is one of the most terrible and stirring
incidents of the war. After six days' constant cannonade, the
storm began at six o'clock in the morning of the 14th of
October [A. D. 1645]. After some hours of desperate fighting,
one after another its defences were taken and its garrison put
to the sword or taken. The plunder was prodigious; the
destruction of property unsparing. It was gutted, burnt, and
the very ruins carted away."
_F. Harrison,
Oliver Cromwell,
chapter 5._
ALSO IN:
_S. R. Gardiner,
History of the Civil War,
chapter 37 (volume 2)._
_Mrs. Thompson,
Recollections of Literary Characters and Celebrated Places,
volume 2, chapter 1._
{271}
BASLE, Council of.
See PAPACY: A. D. 1431-1448.
BASLE, Treaties of (1795).
See FRANCE: A. D. 1794-1795 (OCTOBER-MAY),
and 1795 (JUNE-DECEMBER).
BASOCHE.
BASOCHIENS.
"The Basoche was an association of the 'clercs du Parlement'
[Parliament of Paris]. The etymology of the name is uncertain.
… The Basoche is supposed to have been instituted in 1302,
by Philippe-le-Bel, who gave it the title of 'Royaume de la
Basoche,' and ordered that it should form a tribunal for
judging, without appeal, all civil and criminal matters that
might arise among the clerks and all actions brought against
them. He likewise ordered that the president should be called
'Roi de la Basoche,' and that the king and his subjects should
have an annual 'montre' or review. … Under the reign of
Henry III. the number of subjects of the roi de la Basoche
amounted to nearly 10,000. … The members of the Basoche took
upon themselves to exhibit plays in the 'Palais,' in which
they censured the public manners; indeed they maybe said to
have been the first comic authors and actors that appeared in
Paris. …At the commencement of the Revolution, the
Basochiens formed a troop, the uniform of which was red, with
epaulettes and silver buttons; but they were afterwards
disbanded by a decree of the National Assembly."
_History of Paris
(London: G. B. Whittaker, 1827),
volume 2, page 106._
BASQUES, The.
"The western extremity of the Pyrenees, where France and Spain
join, gives us a locality … where, although the towns, like
Bayonne, Pampeluna, and Bilbao, are French or Spanish, the
country people are Basques or Biscayans—Basques or Biscayans
not only in the provinces of Biscay, but in Alava, Upper
Navarre, and the French districts of Labourd and Soule. Their
name is Spanish (the word having originated in that of the
ancient Vascones), and it is not the one by which they
designate themselves; though possibly it is indirectly
connected with it. The native name is derived from the root
Eusk-; which becomes Euskara when the language, Euskkerria
when the country, and Euskaldunac when the people are spoken
of."
_H. G. Latham,
Ethnology of Europe,
chapter 2._
ALSO IN:
_I. Taylor,
Origin of the Aryans,
chapter 4, section 4._
See, also, IBERIANS, THE WESTERN, and APPENDIX A, volume 1.
BASSANO, Battle of.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1796 (APRIL-OCTOBER.)
BASSEIN, Treaty of (1802).
See INDIA: A. D. 1798-1805.
BASSORAH.
See BUSSORAH.
BASTARNÆ, The. See PEUCINI.
BASTILLE, The.
"The name of Bastille or Bastel was, in ancient times, given
to any kind of erection calculated to withstand a military
force; and thus, formerly in England and on the borders of
Scotland, the term Bastel-house was usually applied to places
of strength and fancied security. Of the many Bastilles in
France that of Paris, … which at first was called the
Bastille St-Antoine, from being erected near the suburb of
St-Antoine, retained the name longest. This fortress, of
melancholy celebrity, was erected under the following
circumstances: In the year 1356, when the English, then at war
with France, were in the neighbourhood of Paris, it was
considered necessary by the inhabitants of the French capital
to repair the bulwarks of their city. Stephen Marcel, provost
of the merchants, undertook this task, and, amongst other
defences, added to the fortifications at the eastern entrance
of the town, a gate flanked with a tower on each side." This
was the beginning of the constructions of the Bastille. They
were enlarged in 1369 by Hugh Aubriot, provost of Paris under
Charles V. He "added two towers, which, being placed opposite
to those already existing on each side of the gate, made of
the Bastille a square fort, with a tower at each of the four
angles." After the death of Charles V., Aubriot, who had many
enemies, was prosecuted for alleged crimes, "was condemned to
perpetual confinement, and placed in the Bastille, of which,
according to some historians, he was the first prisoner. After
some time, he was removed thence to Fort l'Evêque, another
prison," from which he was liberated in 1381, by the
insurrection of the Maillotins (see PARIS: A. D. 1381). "After
the insurrection of the Maillotins, in 1382, the young king,
Charles VI., still further enlarged the Bastille by adding
four towers to it, thus giving it, instead of the square form
it formerly possessed, the shape of an oblong or
parallelogram. The fortress now consisted of eight towers,
each 100 feet high, and, like the wall which united them, nine
feet thick. Four of these towers looked on the city, and four
on the suburb of St-Antoine. To increase its strength, the
Bastille was surrounded by a ditch 25 feet deep and 120 feet
wide. The road which formerly passed through it was turned on
one side. … The Bastille was now completed (1383), and
though additions were subsequently made to it, the body of the
fortress underwent no important change. … Both as a place of
military defence, and as a state prison of great strength, the
Bastille was, even at an early period, very formidable."
History of the Bastille
(Chambers's Miscellany, number 132, volume 17).
For an account of the taking and destruction of the Bastille
by the people, in 1789,
See FRANCE: A. D. 1789 (JULY).
ALSO IN:
_D. Bingham,
The Bastille._
_R. A. Davenport,
History of the Bastile._
BASTITANI, The.
See TURDETANI.
BASUTOS, The.
See SOUTH AFRICA: A. D. 1811-1868.
BATAVIA (Java), Origin of.
See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1594-1620.
BATAVIAN REPUBLIC, The.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1794-1795 (OCTOBER-MAY).
{272}
BATAVIANS, OR BATAVI, The.
"The Germanic Batavi had been peacefully united with the
[Roman] Empire, not by Cæsar, but not long afterwards, perhaps
by Drusus. They were settled in the Rhine delta, that is on
the left bank of the Rhine and on the islands formed
by its arms, upwards as far at least as the Old Rhine, and so
nearly from Antwerp to Utrecht and Leyden in Zealand and
southern Holland, on territory originally Celtic—at least the
local names are predominantly Celtic; their name is still
borne by the Betuwe, the lowland between the Waal and the Leck
with the capital Noviomagus, now Nimeguen. They were,
especially compared with the restless and refractory Celts,
obedient and useful subjects, and hence occupied a distinctive
position in the aggregate, and particularly in the military
system of the Roman Empire. They remained quite free from
taxation, but were on the other hand drawn upon more largely
than any other canton in the recruiting; this one canton
furnished to the army 1,000 horsemen and 9,000 foot soldiers;
besides, the men of the imperial body-guard were taken
especially from them. The command of these Batavian divisions
was conferred exclusively on native Batavi. The Batavi were
accounted indisputably not merely as the best riders and
swimmers of the army, but also as the model of true
soldiers."
_T. Mommsen,
History of Rome,
book 8, chapter 4._
"When the Cimbri and their associates, about a century before
our era, made their memorable onslaught upon Rome, the early
inhabitants of the Rhine island of Batavia, who were probably
Celts, joined in the expedition. A recent and tremendous
inundation had swept away their miserable homes. … The
island was deserted of its population. At about the same
period a civil dissension among the Chatti—a powerful German
race within the Hercynian forest—resulted in the expatriation
of a portion of the people. The exiles sought a new home in
the empty Rhine island, called it 'Bet-auw,' or 'good meadow,'
and were themselves called, thenceforward, Batavi, or
Batavians."
_J. L. Motley,
Rise of the Dutch Republic, introduction.,
section 2._
BATAVIANS: A. D. 69.
Revolt of Civilis.
"Galba [Roman Emperor], succeeding to the purple upon the
suicide of Nero, dismissed the Batavian life-guards to whom he
owed his elevation. He is murdered, Otho and Vitellius contend
for the succession, while all eyes are turned upon the eight
Batavian regiments. In their hands the scales of Empire seem
to rest. They declare for Vitellius and the civil war begins.
Otho is defeated; Vitellius acknowledged by Senate and people.
Fearing, like his predecessors, the imperious turbulence of
the Batavian legions, he, too, sends them into Germany. It was
the signal for a long and extensive revolt, which had
well-nigh overturned the Roman power in Gaul and Lower
Germany. Claudius Civilis was a Batavian of noble race, who
had served twenty-five years in the Roman armies. His Teutonic
name has perished. … After a quarter of a century's service
he was sent in chains to Rome and his brother executed, both
falsely charged with conspiracy. … Desire to avenge his own
wrongs was mingled with loftier motives in his breast. He knew
that the sceptre was in the gift of the Batavian soldiery. …
By his courage, eloquence and talent for political
combinations, Civilis effected a general confederation of all
the Netherland tribes, both Celtic and German. For a brief
moment there was a united people, a Batavian commonwealth. …
The details of the revolt [A. D. 69] have been carefully
preserved by Tacitus, and form one of his grandest and most
elaborate pictures. … The battles, the sieges, the defeats,
the indomitable spirit of Civilis, still flaming most brightly
when the clouds were darkest around him, have been described
by the great historian in his most powerful manner. … The
struggle was an unsuccessful one. After many victories and
many overthrows, Civilis was left alone. … He accepted the
offer of negotiation from Cerialis [the Roman commander]. …
A colloquy was agreed upon. The bridge across the Nabalia was
broken asunder in the middle and Cerialis and Civilis met upon
the severed sides. … Here the story abruptly terminates. The
remainder of the Roman's narrative is lost, and upon that
broken bridge the form of the Batavian hero disappears
forever."
_J. L. Motley,
Rise of the Dutch Republic, introduction.,
sections 3-4._
ALSO IN:
_Tacitus,
History,
books 4-5._
----------BATAVIANS: End----------
BATH, The Order of the.
"The present Military Order of the Bath, founded by King
George I. in the year 1725, differs so essentially from the
Knighthood of the Bath, or the custom of making Knights with
various rites and ceremonies, of which one was Bathing, that
it may almost be considered a distinct and new fraternity of
chivalry. The last Knights of the Bath, made according to the
ancient forms, were at the coronation of King Charles II.; and
from that period until the reign of the first George, the old
institution fell into total oblivion. At the latter epoch,
however, it was determined to revive, as it was termed, The
Order of the Bath, by erecting it into a regular Military
Order'; and on the 25th May, 1725, Letters Patent were issued
for that purpose. By the Statutes then promulgated, the number
of Knights, independent of the Sovereign, a Prince of the
Blood Royal, and a Great Master, was restricted to 35." It has
since been greatly increased, and the Order divided into three
classes: First Class, consisting of "Knights Grand Cross," not
to exceed 50 for military and 25 for civil service; Second
Class, consisting of "Knights Commanders," not to exceed 102
for military and 50 for civil service; Third Class,
"Companions," not to exceed 525 for military and 200 for civil
service.
_Sir B. Burke,
Book of Orders of Knighthood,
page 104._
BATH, in Roman times.
See AQUÆ: SOLIS.
BATHS OF CARACALLA, Nero, etc.
See THERMÆ.
BATONIAN WAR, The.
A formidable revolt of the Dalmatians and Pannonians, A. D. 6,
involved the Roman Empire, under Augustus, in a serious war of
three years duration, which was called the Batonian War, from
the names of two leaders of the insurgents,—Bato the
Dalmatian, and Bato the Pannonian.
_T. Mommsen,
History of Rome,
book 8, chapter 1._
BATOUM:
Ceded to Russia.
Declared a free port.
See TURKS: A. D. 1878.
BATTIADÆ, The.
See CYRENE.
BATTLE ABBEY.
See ENGLAND: A. D. 1066 (OCTOBER).
BATTLE ABOVE THE CLOUDS, The.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1863
(OCTOBER-NOVEMBER: TENNESSEE).
BATTLE OF THE CAMEL.
See MAHOMETAN CONQUEST: A. D. 661.
BATTLE OF THE KEGS, The.
See PHILADELPHIA: A. D. 1777-1778.
{273}
BATTLE OF THE NATIONS (Leipsic).
See GERMANY: A. D. 1813 (SEPTEMBER-OCTOBER), and (OCTOBER).
BATTLE OF THE THREE EMPERORS.
The battle of Austerlitz
See FRANCE: A. D. 1805 (MARCH-DECEMBER)—was so called by
Napoleon.
BATTLES.
The battles of which account is given in this work are so
numerous that no convenience would be served by collecting
references to them under this general heading. They are
severally indexed under the names by which they are
historically known.
BAURE, The.
See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: ANDESIANS.
BAUTZEN, Battle of.
See GERMANY: A. D. 1813 (MAY-AUGUST).
BAUX, Lords of; Gothic Origin of the.
The illustrious Visigothic race of the "Balthi" or "Baltha"
("the bold"), from which sprang Alaric, "continued to flourish
in France in the Gothic province of Septimania, or Languedoc,
under the corrupted appellation of Baux, and a branch of that
family afterwards settled in the kingdom of Naples."
_E. Gibbon,
Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire,
chapter 30, note.
BAVARIA:
The name.
Bavaria derived its name from the Boii.
_R. G. Latham,
The Germania of Tacitus; Epilegomena,
section 20._
See, also, BOIANS.
The Ethnology of.
"Bavaria … falls into two divisions; the Bavaria of the
Rhine, and the Bavaria of the Danube. In Rhenish Bavaria the
descent is from the ancient Vangiones and Nemetes, either
Germanized Gauls or Gallicized Germans, with Roman
superadditions. Afterwards, an extension of the Alemannic and
Suevic populations from the right bank of the Upper Rhine
completes the evolution of their present Germanic character.
Danubian Bavaria falls into two subdivisions. North of the
Danube the valley of the Naab, at least, was originally
Slavonic, containing an extension of the Slavonic population
of Bohemia. But disturbance and displacement began early. …
In the third and fourth centuries, the Suevi and Alemanni
extended themselves from the Upper Rhine. … The northwestern
parts of Bavaria were probably German from the beginning.
South of the Danube the ethnology changes. In the first place
the Roman elements increase; since Vindelicia was a Roman
province. … Its present character has arisen from an
extension of the Germans of the Upper Rhine."
_R. G. Latham,
Ethnology of Europe,
chapter 8._
BAVARIA: A. D. 547.
Subjection of the Bavarians to the Franks.
"It is about this period [A. D. 547] that the Bavarians first
become known in history as tributaries of the Franks; but at
what time they became so is matter of dispute. From the
previous silence of the annalists respecting this people, we
may perhaps infer that both they and the Suabians remained
independent until the fall of the Ostrogothic Empire in Italy.
The Gothic dominions were bounded on the north by Rhætia and
Noricum; and between these countries and the Thuringians, who
lived still further to the north, was the country of the
Bavarians and Suabians. Thuringia had long been possessed by
the Franks, Rhætia was ceded by Vitisges, king of Italy, and
Venetia was conquered by Theudebert [the Austrasian Frank
King]. The Bavarians were therefore, at this period, almost
surrounded by the Frankish territories. … Whenever they may
have first submitted to the yoke, it is certain that at the
time of Theudebert's death [A. D. 547], or shortly after that
event, both Bavarians and Suabians (or Alemannians), had
become subjects of the Merovingian kings."
_W. C. Perry,
The Franks,
chapter 3._
BAVARIA: A. D. 843-962.
The ancient Duchy.
See GERMANY: A. D. 843-962.
BAVARIA: A. D. 876.
Added to the Austrian March.
See Austria: A. D. 805-1246.
BAVARIA: A. D. 1071-1178.
The Dukes of the House of Guelf.
See GUELFS AND GHIBELLINES;
and SAXONY: A. D. 1178-1183.
BAVARIA: A. D. 1101.
Disastrous Crusade of Duke Welf.
See CRUSADES: A. D. 1101-1102.
BAVARIA: A. D. 1125-1152.
The origin of the Electorate.
See GERMANY: A. D. 1125-1152.
BAVARIA: A. D. 1138-1183.
Involved in the beginnings of the Guelf and Ghibelline
Conflicts.
The struggles of Henry the Proud and Henry the Lion.
See GUELFS AND GHIBELLINES, and SAXONY: A. D. 1178-1183.
BAVARIA: A. D. 1156.
Separation of the Austrian March, which becomes a distinct
Duchy.
See AUSTRIA: A. D. 805-1246.
BAVARIA: A. D. 1180-1356.
The House of Wittelsbach.
Its acquisition of Bavaria and the Palatinate of the Rhine.
Loss of the Electoral Vote by Bavaria.
When, in 1180, the dominions of Henry the Lion, under the ban
of the Empire, were stripped from him (see SAXONY: A. D.
1178-1183), by the imperial sentence of forfeiture, and were
divided and conferred upon others by Frederick Barbarossa, the
Duchy of Bavaria was given to Otto, Count Palatine of
Wittelsbach. "As he claimed a descent from an ancient royal
family of Bavaria, it was alleged that, in obtaining the
sovereignty of that state, he had only in some measure
regained those rights which in former times belonged to his
ancestors."
_Sir A. Halliday,
Annals of the House of Hanover,
volume 1, page 276._
"Otto … was a descendant of that Duke Luitpold who fell in
combat with the Hungarians, and whose sons and grandsons had
already worn the ducal cap of Bavaria. No princely race in
Europe is of such ancient extraction. … Bavaria was as yet
destitute of towns: Landshutt and Munich first rose into
consideration in the course of the 13th century; Ratisbon,
already a flourishing town, was regarded as the capital and
residence of the Dukes of Bavaria. … A further accession of
dignity and power awaited the family in 1214 in the
acquisition of the Palatinate of the Rhine. Duke Ludwig was
now the most powerful prince of Southern Germany. … His son
Otto the Illustrious, remaining … true to the imperial
house, died excommunicate, and his dominions were placed for
several years under an interdict. … Upon the death of Otto a
partition of the inheritance took place. This partition became
to the family an hereditary evil, a fatal source of quarrel
and of secret or open enmity. … In [the] dark and dreadful
period of interregnum [see GERMANY: A. D. 1250-1272], when all
men waited for the final dissolution of the empire, nothing
appears concerning the Wittelsbach family. … Finally in 1273
Rudolf, the first of the Hapsburgs, ascended the
long-unoccupied throne. … He won over the Bavarian princes
by bestowing his daughters upon them in marriage.
{274}
Louis remained faithful and rendered him good
service; but the turbulent Henry, who had already made war
upon his brother for the possession of the electoral vote,
deserted him, and for this Bavaria was punished by the loss of
the vote, and of the territory above the Enns." Afterwards,
for a time, the Duke of Bavaria and the Count Palatine
exercised the right of the electoral vote alternately; but in
1356 by the Golden Bull of Charles IV. [see GERMANY: A. D.
1347-1493], the vote was given wholly to the Count Palatine,
and lost to Bavaria for nearly 300 years.
_J. I. von Döllinger,
The House of Wittelsbach
(Studies in European History, chapter 2)._
BAVARIA: A. D. 1314.
Election of Louis to the imperial throne.
See GERMANY: A. D. 1314-1347.
BAVARIA: A. D. 1500.
Formation of the Circle.
See GERMANY: A. D. 1493-1519.
BAVARIA: A. D. 1610.
The Duke at the head of the Catholic League.
See GERMANY: A. D. 1608-1618.
BAVARIA: A. D. 1619.
The Duke in command of the forces of the Catholic League.
See GERMANY: A. D. 1618-1620.
BAVARIA: A. D. 1623.
Transfer to the Duke of the Electoral dignity of the Elector
Palatine.
See GERMANY: A. D. 1621-1623.
BAVARIA: A. D. 1632.
Occupation by Gustavus Adolphus.
See GERMANY: A. D. 1631-1632.
BAVARIA: A. D. 1646-1648.
Ravaged by the Swedes and French.
Truce made and renounced by the Elector.
The last campaigns of the war.
See GERMANY: A. D. 1646-1648.
BAVARIA: A. D. 1648.
Acquisition of the Upper Palatinate in the Peace of
Westphalia.
See GERMANY: A. D. 1648.
BAVARIA: A. D. 1686.
The League of Augsburg.
See GERMANY: A. D. 1686.
BAVARIA: A. D. 1689-1696.
The war of the Grand Alliance against Louis XIV.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1689-1690; 1689-1691; 1692; 1693 (JULY);
1694; 1695-1696.
BAVARIA: A. D. 1700.
Claims of the Electoral Prince on the Spanish Crown.
See SPAIN: A. D. 1698-1700.
BAVARIA: A. D. 1702.
The Elector joins France against the Allies.
See GERMANY: A. D. 1702.
BAVARIA: A. D. 1703.
Successes of the French and Bavarians.
See GERMANY: A. D. 1703.
BAVARIA: A. D. 1704.
Ravaged, crushed and surrendered by the Elector.
See GERMANY: A. D. 1704.
BAVARIA: A. D. 1705.
Dissolution of the Electorate.
See GERMANY: A. D. 1705.
BAVARIA: A. D. 1714.
The Elector restored to his Dominions.
See UTRECHT: A. D. 1712-1714.
BAVARIA: A. D. 1740.
Claims of the Elector to the Austrian succession.
See AUSTRIA: A. D. 1740 (OCTOBER).
BAVARIA: A. D. 1742.
The Elector crowned Emperor.
See AUSTRIA: A. D. 1741 (OCTOBER).
BAVARIA: A. D. 1743 (April).
The Emperor-Elector recovers his Electoral territory.
See AUSTRIA: A. D. 1742 (JUNE-DECEMBER), and 1743.
BAVARIA: A. D. 1743 (June).
The Emperor-Elector again a fugitive.
The Austrians in Possession.
See AUSTRIA: A. D. 1743.
BAVARIA: A. D. 1745.
Death of the Emperor-Elector.
Peace with Austria.
See AUSTRIA: A. D. 1744-1745.
BAVARIA: A. D. 1748.
Termination and results of the war of the Austrian Succession.
See AIX-LA-CHAPELLE, THE CONGRESS.
BAVARIA: A. D. 1767.
Expulsion of the Jesuits.
See JESUITS: A. D. 1761-1769.
BAVARIA: A. D. 1777-1779.
The Succession question.
"With the death of Maximilian Joseph, of Bavaria (30 December,
1777), the younger branch of the house of Wittelsbach became
extinct, and the electorate of Bavaria … came to an end. By
virtue of the original partition in 1310, the duchy of Bavaria
ought to pass to the elder branch of the family, represented
by Charles Theodore, the Elector Palatine. But Joseph [the
Second, the Emperor], saw the possibility of securing valuable
additions to Austria which would round off the frontier on the
west. The Austrian claims were legally worthless. They were
based chiefly upon a gift of the Straubingen territory which
Sigismund was said to have made in 1426 to his son-in-law,
Albert of Austria, but which had never taken effect and had
since been utterly forgotten. It would be impossible to induce
the diet to recognise such claims, but it might be possible to
come to an understanding with the aged Charles Theodore, who
had no legitimate children and was not likely to feel any very
keen interest in his new inheritance. Without much difficulty
the elector was half frightened, half induced to sign a treaty
(3 January, 1778), by which he recognised the claims put
forward by Austria, while the rest of Bavaria was guaranteed
to him and his successors. Austrian troops were at once
despatched to occupy the ceded districts. The condition of
Europe seemed to assure the success of Joseph's bold venture.
… There was only one quarter from which opposition was to be
expected, Prussia. Frederick promptly appealed to the
fundamental laws of the Empire, and declared his intention of
upholding them with arms. But he could find no supporters
except those who were immediately interested, the elector of
Saxony, whose mother, as a sister of the late elector of
Bavaria, had a legal claim to his allodial property, and
Charles of Zweibrücken, the heir apparent of the childless
Charles Theodore. … Frederick, left to himself, despatched
an army into Bohemia, where the Austrian troops had been
joined by the emperor in person. But nothing came of the
threatened hostilities. Frederick was unable to force on a
battle, and the so-called war was little more than an armed
negotiation. … France and Russia undertook to mediate, and
negotiations were opened in 1779 at Teschen, where peace was
signed on the 13th of May. Austria withdrew the claims which
had been recognised in the treaty with the Elector Palatine,
and received the 'quarter of the Inn,' i. e., the district
from Passau to Wildshut. Frederick's eventual claims to the
succession in the Franconian principalities of Anspach and
Baireuth, which Austria had every interest in opposing, were
recognised by the treaty. The claims of Saxony were bought off
by a payment of 4,000,000 thalers. The most unsatisfactory
part of the treaty was that it was guaranteed by France and
Russia. … On the whole, it was a great triumph for Frederick
and an equal humiliation for Joseph II. His schemes of
aggrandisement had been foiled."
_R. Lodge,
History of Modern Europe,
chapter 20, section 3,_
ALSO IN:
_T. H. Dyer,
History of Modern Europe,
book 6, chapter 8 (volume 3)._
BAVARIA: A. D. 1801-1803.
Acquisition of territory under the Treaty of Luneville.
See GERMANY: A. D. 1801-1803.
{275}
BAVARIA: A. D. 1805-1806.
Aggrandized by Napoleon.
Created a Kingdom.
Joined to the Confederation of the Rhine.
See GERMANY: A. D. 1805-1806,
and 1806 (JANUARY-AUGUST).
BAVARIA: A. D. 1809.
The revolt in the Tyrol.
Heroic struggle of Hofer and his countrymen.
See GERMANY: A. D. 1809-1810 (APRIL-FEBRUARY).
BAVARIA: A. D. 1813.
Abandonment of Napoleon and the Rhenish Confederation.
Union with the Allies.
See GERMANY: A. D. 1813 (SEPTEMBER-OCTOBER), and
(OCTOBER-DECEMBER).
BAVARIA: A. D. 1814-1815.
Restoration of the Tyrol to Austria.
Territorial compensations.
See VIENNA, THE CONGRESS OF, and FRANCE: A. D. 1814
(APRIL-JUNE).
BAVARIA: A. D. 1848 (March).
Revolutionary outbreak.
Expulsion of Lola Montez.
Abdication of the King.
See GERMANY: A. D. 1848 (MARCH).
BAVARIA: A. D. 1866.
The Seven Weeks War.
Indemnity and territorial cession to Prussia.
See GERMANY: A. D. 1866.
BAVARIA: A. D. 1870-1871.
Treaty of Union with the Germanic Confederation, soon
transformed into the German Empire.
See GERMANY: A. D. 1870 (SEPTEMBER-DECEMBER), and 1871.
----------BAVARIA: End----------
BAVAY, Origin of.
See NERVII.
BAXAR, OR BAKSAR, OR BUXAR, Battle of (1764).
See INDIA: A. D. 1757-1772.
BAYARD, The Chevalier: His knightly deeds and his death.
See ITALY: A. D. 1501-1504,
and FRANCE: A. D. 1523-1525.
BAYEUX TAPESTRY.
A remarkable roll of mediæval tapestry, 214 feet long and 20
inches wide, preserved for centuries in the cathedral at
Bayeux, Normandy, on which a pictorial history of the Norman
invasion and conquest of England is represented, with more or
less of names and explanatory inscriptions. _Mr. E. A.
Freeman (Norman Conquest, volume 3, note A)_ says: "It will be
seen that, throughout this volume, I accept the witness of the
Bayeux Tapestry as one of my highest authorities. I do not
hesitate to say that I look on it as holding the first place
among the authorities on the Norman side. That it is a
contemporary work I entertain no doubt whatever, and I
entertain just as little doubt as to its being a work fully
entitled to our general confidence. I believe the tapestry to
have been made for Bishop Odo, and to have been most probably
designed by him as an ornament for his newly rebuilt cathedral
church of Bayeux." The precious tapestry is now preserved in
the public library at Bayeux, carefully stretched round the
room under glass.
BAYEUX, The Saxons of.
See SAXONS OF BAYEUX
BAYLEN, Battle of (1808).
See SPAIN: A. D. 1808 (MAY-SEPTEMBER).
BAYOGOULAS, The.
See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: MUSKHOGEAN FAMILY.
BAYONNE:
Conference of Catharine de'Medici and the Duke of Alva (1565).
See FRANCE: A. D. 1563-1570.
BAZAINE'S SURRENDER AT METZ.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1870 (JULY-AUGUST), (AUGUST-SEPTEMBER),
and (SEPTEMBER-OCTOBER).
BEACONSFIELD (Disraeli) Ministries.
See ENGLAND: A. D. 1851-1852; 1858-1859; 1868-1870, and
1873-1880.
BEAR FLAG, The.
See CALIFORNIA: A. D. 1846-1847.
BEARN: The rise of the Counts.
See BURGUNDY: A. D. 1032.
BEARN: A. D. 1620.
Absorbed and incorporated in the Kingdom of France.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1620-1622.
BEARN: A. D. 1685.
The Dragonnade.
Revocation of the Edict of Nantes.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1681-1698.
----------BEARN: End----------
BEATOUN, Cardinal, The assassination of.
See SCOTLAND: A. D. 1546.
BEAUFORT, N. C., Capture of, by the National forces (1862).
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1862 (JANUARY-APRIL:
NORTH CAROLINA).
BEAUGÉ, Battle of.
The English commanded by the Duke of Clarence, defeated in
Anjou by an army of French and Scots, under the Dauphin of
France; the Duke of Clarence slain.
BEAUMARCHAIS'S TRANSACTIONS WITH THE UNITED STATES.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1776-1778.
BEAUMONT, Battle of.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1870 (AUGUST-SEPTEMBER).
BEAUREGARD, General G. T.
Bombardment of Fort Sumter.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1861 (MARCH-APRIL).
At the first Battle of Bull Run.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1861 (JULY: VIRGINIA).
Command in the Potomac district.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
A. D. 1861-1862 (DECEMBER-APRIL: VIRGINIA).
Command in the West.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1862 (FEBRUARY-APRIL:
TENNESSEE), and (APRIL-MAY: TENNESSEE-MISSISSIPPI).
The Defence of Charleston.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1863 (AUGUST-DECEMBER:
SOUTH CAROLINA).
BEAUVAIS, Origin of.
See BELGÆ.
BEBRYKIANS, The.
See BITHYNIANS.
BEC, Abbey of.
One of the most famous abbeys and ecclesiastical schools of
the middle ages. Its name was derived from the little beck or
rivulet of a valley in Normandy, on the banks of which a pious
knight, Herlouin, retiring from the world, had fixed his
hermitage. The renown of the piety of Herlouin drew others
around him and resulted in the formation of a religious
community with himself at its head. Among those attracted to
Herlouin's retreat were a noble Lombard scholar, Lanfranc of
Pavia, who afterwards became the great Norman archbishop of
Canterbury, and Anselm of Aosta, another Italian, who
succeeded Lanfranc at Canterbury with still more fame. The
teaching of Lanfranc at Bec raised it, says _Mr. Green in
his Short History of the English People,_ into the most
famous school of Christendom; it was, in fact, the first wave
of the intellectual movement which was spreading from Italy to
the ruder countries of the West. The fabric of the canon law
and of mediaeval scholasticism, with the philosophical
skepticism which first awoke under its influence, all trace
their origin to Bec. "The glory of Bec would have been as
transitory as that of other monastic houses, but for the
appearance of one illustrious man [Lanfranc] who came to be
enrolled as a private member of the brotherhood, and who gave
Bec for a while a special and honorable character with which
hardly any other monastery in Christendom could compare."
_E. A. Freeman,
Norman Conquest,
chapter 8._
{276}
BECHUANAS, The.
See SOUTH AFRICA: THE ABORIGINAL INHABITANTS;
and AFRICA: THE INHABITING RACES.
BECKET, Thomas, and King Henry II.
See ENGLAND: A. D. 1162-1170.
BED-CHAMBER QUESTION, The.
See ENGLAND: A. D. 1837-1839.
BED OF JUSTICE.
"The ceremony by which the French kings compelled the
registration of their edicts by the Parliament was called a
'lit de justice' [bed of justice]. The monarch proceeded in
state to the Grand Chambre, and the chancellor, having taken
his pleasure, announced that the king required such and such a
decree to be entered on their records in his presence. It was
held that this personal interference of the sovereign
suspended for the time being the functions of all inferior
magistrates, and the edict was accordingly registered without
a word of objection. The form of registration was as follows:
'Le roi séant en son lit de justice a ordonné et ordonne que
les présents édits seront enregistrés;' and at the end of the
decree, 'Fait en Parlement, le roi y séant en son lit de
justice.'"
_Students' History of France,
note to chapter 19._
See, also, PARLIAMENT OF PARIS.
"The origin of this term ['bed of justice'] has been much
discussed. The wits complained it was so styled because there
justice was put to sleep. The term was probably derived from
the arrangement of the throne on which the king sat. The back
and sides were made of bolsters and it was called a bed."
_J. B. Perkins, France under Mazarin, volume 1, page 388,
foot-note._
An elaborate and entertaining account of a notable Bed of
Justice held under the Regency, in the early part of the reign
of Louis XV., will be found in the
_Memoirs of the Duke de Saint Simon,
abridged translation of St. John,
volume 4, chapter 5-7._
BEDR, Battle of.
See MAHOMETAN CONQUEST: A. D. 609-632.
BEDRIACUM, Battles of.
See ROME: A. D. 69.
BEECHY HEAD, Battle of (A. D. 1690).
See ENGLAND: A. D. 1690 (JUNE).
BEEF-EATERS, The.
See YEOMEN OF THE GUARD.
BEEF STEAK CLUB, The.
See CLUBS: THE BEEF STEAK.
BEER-ZATH, Battle of.
The field on which the great Jewish soldier and patriot, Judas
Maccabæus, having but 800 men with him, was beset by an army
of the Syrians and slain, B. C. 161.
_Josephus,
Antiquity of the Jews,
book 12, chapter 11._
ALSO IN:
_H. Ewald,
History of Israel,
book 5, section 2._
BEG.
A Turkish title, signifying prince or lord; whence, also, Bey.
See BEY.
BEGGARS (Gueux) of the Netherland Revolt.
See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1562-1566.
BEGGARS OF THE SEA.
See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1572.
BEGUINES.
BEGHINES.
BEGHARDS.
Weaving Brothers.
Lollards.
Brethren of the Free Spirit.
Fratricelli.
Bizochi.
Turlupins.
"In the year 1180 there lived in Liege a certain kindly,
stammering priest, known from his infirmity as Lambert le
Bègue. This man took pity on the destitute widows of the town.
Despite the impediment in his speech, he was, as often
happens, a man of a certain power and eloquence in preaching.
… This Lambert so moved the hearts of his hearers that gold
and silver poured in on him, given to relieve such of the
destitute women of Liege as were still of good and pious life.
With the moneys thus collected, Lambert built a little square
of cottages, with a church in the middle and a hospital, and
at the side a cemetery. Here he housed these homeless widows,
one or two in each little house, and then he drew up a half
monastic rule which was to guide their lives. The rule was
very simple, quite informal: no vows, no great renunciation
bound the 'Swestrones Brod durch Got.' A certain time of the
day was set apart for prayer and pious meditation; the other
hours they spent in spinning or sewing, in keeping their
houses clean, or they went as nurses in time of sickness into
the homes of the townspeople. … Thus these women, though
pious and sequestered, were still in the world and of the
world. … Soon we find the name' Swestrones Brod durch Got'
set aside for the more usual title of Beguines or Beghines.
Different authorities give different origins of this word. …
Some have thought it was taken in memory of the founder, the
charitable Lambert le Bègut. Others think that, even as the
Mystics or Mutterers, the Lollards or Hummers, the Popelhards
or Babblers, so the Beguines or Stammerers were thus nicknamed
from their continual murmuring in prayer. This is plausible;
but not so plausible as the suggestion of Dr. Mosheim and M.
Auguste Jundt, who derive the word Beguine from the Flemish
word 'beggen,' to beg. For we know that these pious women had
been veritable beggars; and beggars should they again become.
With surprising swiftness the new order spread through the
Netherlands and into France and Germany. … Lambert may have
lived to see a beguinage in every great town within his ken;
but we hear no more of him. The Beguines are no longer for
Liege, but for all the world. Each city possessed its quiet
congregation; and at any sick-bed you might meet a woman clad
in a simple smock and a great veil-like mantle, who lived only
to pray and do deeds of mercy. … The success of the Beguines
had made them an example. … Before St. Francis and St.
Dominic instituted the mendicant orders, there had silently
grown up in every town of the Netherlands a spirit of
fraternity, not imposed by any rule, but the natural impulse
of a people. The weavers seated all day long alone at their
rattling looms, the armourers beating out their thoughts in
iron, the cross-legged tailors and busy cobblers thinking and
stitching together—these men silent, pious, thoughtful,
joined themselves in a fraternity modelled on that of the
Beguines. They were called the Weaving Brothers. Bound by no
vows and fettered by no rule, they still lived the worldly
life and plied their trade for hire. Only in their leisure
they met together and prayed and dreamed and thought. … Such
were the founders of the great fraternity of 'Fratres
Textores,' or Beghards as in later years the people more
generally called them."
_A. M. F. Robinson,
The End of the Middle Ages, 1._
{277}
"The Lollards differed from the Beghards less in reality than
in name. We are informed respecting them that, at their origin
in Antwerp, shortly after 1300, they associated together for
the purpose of waiting upon patients dangerously sick, and
burying the dead. … Very early, however, an element of a
different kind began to work in those fellowships. Even about
the close of the 13th century irregularities and extravagances
are laid to their charge. …. The charges brought against the
later Beghards and Lollards, in connection, on the one hand,
with the fanatical Franciscans, who were violently contending
with the Church, and on the other, with the Brethren and
Sisters of the Free Spirit, relate to three particulars, viz.,
an a version to all useful industry, conjoined with a
propensity to mendicancy and idleness, an intemperate spirit
of opposition to the Church, and a skeptical and more or less
pantheistical mysticism. … They … declared that the time
of Antichrist was come, and on all hands endeavoured to
embroil the people with their spiritual guides. Their own
professed object was to restore the pure primeval state, the
divine life of freedom, innocence, and nature. The idea they
formed of that state was, that man, being in and of himself
one with God, requires only to act in the consciousness of
this unity, and to follow unrestrained the divinely implanted
impulses and inclinations of his nature, in order to be good
and godly."
_C. Ullmann,
Reformers before the Reformation,
volume 2, pages 14-16._
"The names of beghards and beguines came not unnaturally to be
used for devotees who, without being members of any regular
monastic society, made a profession of religious strictness;
and thus the applications of the names to some kinds of
sectaries was easy—more especially as many of these found it
convenient to assume the outward appearance of beghards, in
the hope of disguising their differences from the church. But
on the other hand, this drew on the orthodox beghards frequent
persecutions, and many of them, for the sake of safety, were glad
to connect themselves as tertiaries with the great mendicant
orders. … In the 14th century, the popes dealt hardly with
the beghards; yet orthodox societies under this name still
remained in Germany; and in Belgium, the country of their
origin, sisterhoods of beguines flourish to the present day.
… Matthias of Janow, the Bohemian reformer, in the end of
the 14th century, says that all who act differently from the
profane vulgar are called beghardi or turlupini, or by other
blasphemous names. … Among those who were confounded with
the beghards—partly because, like them, they abounded along
the Rhine—were the brethren and sisters of the Free Spirit.
These appear in various places under various names. They wore
a peculiarly simple dress, professed to give themselves to
contemplation, and, holding that labour is a hindrance to
contemplation and to the elevation of the soul to God, they
lived by beggary. Their doctrines were mystical and almost
pantheistic. … The brethren and sisters of the Free Spirit
were much persecuted, and probably formed a large proportion
of those who were burnt under the name of beghards."
_J. C. Robertson,
History of Christian Church,
book 7, chapter 7 (volume 6)_.
"Near the close of this century [the 13th] originated in Italy
the Fratricelli and Bizochi, parties that in Germany and
France were denominated Beguards; and which, first Boniface
VIII., and afterwards other pontiffs condemned, and wished to
see persecuted by the Inquisition and exterminated in every
possible way. The Fratricelli, who also called themselves in
Latin 'Fratres parvi' (Little Brethren), or 'Fraterculi de
paupere vita' (Little Brothers of the Poor Life), were
Franciscan monks, but detached from the great family of
Franciscans; who wished to observe the regulations prescribed
by their founder St. Francis more perfectly than the others,
and therefore possessed no property, either individually or
collectively, but obtained their necessary food from day to
day by begging. … They predicted a reformation and
purification of the church. … They extolled Celestine V. as
the legal founder of their sect; but Boniface and the
succeeding pontiffs, who opposed the Fratricelli, they denied
to be true pontiffs. As the great Franciscan family had its
associates and dependents, who observed the third rule
prescribed by St. Francis [which required only certain pious
observances, such as fasts, prayers, continence, a coarse,
cheap dress, gravity of manners, &c., but did not prohibit
private property, marriage, public offices, and worldly
occupations], and who were usually called Tertiarii, so also
the sect of the Fratricelli … had numerous Tertiarii of its
own. These were called, in Italy, Bizochi and Bocasoti; in
France Beguini; and in Germany Beghardi, by which name all the
Tertiarii were commonly designated. These differed from the
Fratricelli … only in their mode of life. The Fratricelli
were real monks, living under the rule of St. Francis; but the
Bizochi or Beguini lived in the manner of other people. …
Totally different from these austere Beguini and Beguinæ, were
the German and Belgic Beguinæ, who did not indeed originate in
this century, but now first came into notice. … Concerning
the Turlupins, many have written; but none accurately. … The
origin of the name, I know not; but I am able to prove from
substantial documents, that the Turlupins who were burned at
Paris, and in other parts of France were no other than the
Brethren of the Free Spirit whom the pontiffs and councils
condemned."
_J. L. Von Mosheim,
Inst's of Ecclesiastical History,
book 3, century 13, part 2, chapter 2, section 39-41,
and chapter 5, section 9, foot-note._
ALSO IN:
_L. Mariotti (A. Gallenga),
Fra Dolcino and his Times._
See, also, PICARDS.
BEGUMS OF OUDE, Warren Hastings and the.
See INDIA: A. D. 1773-1785.
BEHISTUN, Rock of.
"This remarkable spot, lying on the direct route between
Babylon and Ecbatana, and presenting the unusual combination
of a copious fountain, a rich plain and a rock suitable for
sculpture, must have early attracted the attention of the
great monarchs who marched their armies through the Zagros
range, as a place where they might conveniently set up
memorials of their exploits. … The tablet and inscriptions
of Darius, which have made Behistun famous in modern times,
are in a recess to the right of the scarped face of the rock,
and at a considerable elevation."
_G. Rawlinson,
Five Great Monarchies: Media,
chapter 1._
The mountain or rock of Behistun fixes the location of the
district known to the Greeks as Bagistana. "It lies southwest
of Elvend, between that mountain and the Zagrus in the valley
of the Choaspes, and is the district now known as Kirmenshah."
_M. Duncker,
History of Antiquity,
book 8, chapter 1._
BEHRING SEA CONTROVERSY, and Arbitration.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1886-1893.
{278}
BEIRUT, Origin of.
See BERYTUS.
BELA I., King of Hungary, A. D. 1060-1063.
Bela II., A. D. 1131-1141.
Bela III., A. D. 1173-1196.
Bela IV., A. D. 1235-1270.
BELCHITE, Battle of.
See SPAIN: A. D. 1809 (FEBRUARY-JUNE).
BELERION, OR BOLERIUM.
The Roman name of Land's End, England.
See BRITAIN: CELTIC TRIBES.
BELFORT.
Siege by the Germans (1870-1871).
See FRANCE: A. D. 1870-1871.
BELGÆ, The.
"This Belgian confederation included the people of all the
country north of the Seine and Marne, bounded by the Atlantic
on the west and the Rhine on the north and east, except the
Mediomatrici and Treviri. … The old divisions of France
before the great revolution of 1789 corresponded in some
degree to the divisions of the country in the time of Cæsar,
and the names of the people are still retained with little
alteration in the names of the chief towns or the names of the
ante-revolutionary divisions of France. In the country of the
Remi between the Marne and the Aisne there is the town of
Reims. In the territory of the Suessiones between the Marne
and the Aisne there is Soissons on the Aisne. The Bellovaci
were west of the Oise (Isara) a branch of the Seine: their
chief town, which at some time received the name of
Cæsaromagus, is now Beauvais. The Nervii were between and on
the Sambre and the Schelde. The Atrebates were north of the
Bellovaci between the Somme and the upper Schelde: their chief
place was Nemetacum or Nemetocenna, now Arras in the old
division of Artois. The Ambiani were on the Somme (Samara):
their name is represented by Amiens (Samarobriva). The Morini,
or sea-coast men extended from Boulogne towards Dunkerque. The
Menapii bordered on the northern Morini and were on both sides
of the lower Rhine (B. G. iv., 4). The Caleti were north of
the lower Seine along the coast in the Pays de Caux. The
Velocasses were east of the Caleti on the north side of the
Seine as far as the Oise; their chief town was Rotomagus
(Rouen) and their country was afterwards Vexin Normand and
Vexin Français. The Veromandui were north of the Suessiones:
their chief town under the Roman dominion, Augusta
Veromanduorum, is now St. Quentin. The Aduatuci were on the
lower Maas. The Condrusi and the others included under the
name of Germani were on the Maas, or between the Maas and the
Rhine. The Eburones had the country about Tongern and Spa, and
were the immediate neighbours of the Menapii on the Rhine."
_G. Long,
Decline of the Roman Republic,
volume 4, chapter 3._
"Cæsar … informs us that, in their own estimation, they [the
Belgæ] were principally descended from a German stock, the
offspring of some early migration across the Rhine. … Strabo
… by no means concurred in Cæsar's view of the origin of
this … race, which he believed to be Gaulish and not German,
though differing widely from the Galli, or Gauls of the central
region."
_C. Merivale,
History of the Romans,
chapter 5._
ALSO IN:
_E. Guest,
Origines Celticæ,
volume 1, chapter 12._
BELGÆ: B. C. 57.
Cæsar's campaign against the confederacy.
In the second year of Cæsar's command in Gaul, B. C. 57, he
led his legions against the Belgæ, whom he characterized in
his Commentaries as the bravest of all the people of Gaul. The
many tribes of the Belgian country had joined themselves in a
great league to oppose the advancing Roman power, and were
able to bring into the field no less than 290,000 men. The
tribe of the Remi alone refused to join the confederacy and
placed themselves on the Roman side. Cæsar who had quartered
his army during the winter in the country of the Sequani,
marched boldly, with eight legions, into the midst of these
swarming enemies. In his first encounter with them on the
banks of the Aisne, the Belgic barbarians were terribly cut to
pieces and were so disheartened that tribe after tribe made
submission to the proconsul as he advanced. But the Nervii,
who boasted a Germanic descent, together with the Aduatuci,
the Atrebates and the Veromandui, rallied their forces for a
struggle to the death. The Nervii succeeded in surprising the
Romans, while the latter were preparing their camp on the
banks of the Sambre, and very nearly swept Cæsar and his
veterans off the field, by their furious and tremendous
charge. But the energy and personal influence of the one, with
the steady discipline of the other, prevailed in the end over
the untrained valour of the Nervii, and the proud nation was
not only defeated but annihilated. "Their eulogy is preserved
in the written testimony of their conqueror; and the Romans
long remembered, and never failed to signalize their
formidable valour. But this recollection of their ancient
prowess became from that day the principal monument of their
name and history, for the defeat they now sustained well nigh
annihilated the nation. Their combatants were cut off almost
to a man. The elders and the women, who had been left in
secure retreats, came forth of their own accord to solicit the
conqueror's clemency. … 'Of 600 senators,' they said, 'we
have lost all but three; of 60,000 fighting men 500 only
remain.' Cæsar treated the survivors with compassion."
_C. Merivale,
History of the Romans,
chapter 7._
ALSO IN:
_Julius Cæsar,
Gallic Wars,
book 2._
_G. Long,
Decline of the Roman Republic,
volume 4, chapter 3._
_Napoleon III.,
History of Cæsar,
book 3, chapter 5._
BELGÆ OF BRITAIN, The.
Supposed to be a colony from the Belgæ of the continent. The
territory which they occupied is now embraced in the counties
of Wiltshire and Somerset.
See BRITAIN: CELTIC TRIBES.
BELGIUM: Ancient and Mediaeval History.
See BELGÆ, NERVII, FRANKS, LORRAINE, FLANDERS, LIEGE.
NETHERLANDS.
BELGIUM: Modern History.
See NETHERLANDS.
BELGRADE:
Origin.
During the attacks of the Avars upon the territory of the
Eastern Empire, in the last years of the 6th century, the city
of Singidunum, at the junction of the Save with the Danube,
was taken and totally destroyed. The advantageous site of the
extinct town soon attracted a colony of Sclavonians, who
raised out of the ruins a new and strongly fortified city—the
Belgrade, or the White City of later times. "The Sclavonic
name of Belgrade is mentioned in the 10th century by
Constantine Porphyorgenitus: the Latin appellation of Alba
Græca is used by the Franks in the beginning of the 9th."
_E. Gibbon,
Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire,
chapter 46, note.
BELGIUM: A. D. 1425.
Acquired by Hungary and fortified against the Turks.
See HUNGARY: A. D. 1301-1442.
{279}
BELGIUM: A. D. 1442.
First repulse of the Turks.
See TURKS (THE OTTOMANS): A. D. 1402-1451.
BELGIUM: A. D. 1456.
Second repulse of the Turks.
See HUNGARY: A. D. 1442-1458;
and TURKS (THE OTTOMANS): A. D. 1451-1481.
BELGIUM: A. D. 1521.
Siege and capture by Solyman the Magnificent.
See HUNGARY: A. D. 1487-1526.
BELGIUM: A. D. 1688-1690.
Taken by the Austrians and recovered by the Turks.
See HUNGARY: A. D. 1683-1699.
BELGIUM: A. D. 1717.
Recovery from the Turks.
See HUNGARY: A. D. 1699-1718.
BELGIUM: A. D. 1739.
Restored to the Turks.
See RUSSIA: A. D. 1725-1739.
BELGIUM: A. D. 1789-1791.
Taken by the Austrians and restored to the Turks.
See TURKS: A. D. 1776-1792.
BELGIUM: A. D. 1806.
Surprised and taken by the Servians.
See BALKAN AND DANUBIAN STATES: 14TH-19TH CENTURIES
(SERVIA).
BELGIUM: A. D. 1862.
Withdrawal of Turkish troops.
See BALKAN AND DANUBIAN STATES: 14TH-19TH CENTURIES
(SERVIA).
----------BELGIUM: End----------
BELGRADE, The Peace of.
See RUSSIA: A. D. 1725-1739.
BELIK, Battle on the (Carrhæ—B. C. 53).
See ROME: B. C. 57-52.
BELISARIUS, Campaigns of.
See VANDALS: A. D. 533-534,
and ROME: A. D. 535-553.
BELIZE, or British Honduras.
See NICARAGUA: A. D. 1850.
BELL ROLAND, The great.
See GHENT: A. D. 1539-1540.
BELLE ALLIANCE, Battle of La.
The battle of Waterloo
See FRANCE: A. D. 1815 (JUNE)—is so called by the
Prussians.
BELLE ISLE PRISON-PEN, The.
See PRISONS AND PRISON-PENS, CONFEDERATE.
BELLOVACI, The.
See BELGÆ.
BELLVILLE, Battle, of.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1863 (JULY: KENTUCKY).
BELMONT, Battle of.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1861
(SEPTEMBER-NOVEMBER: ON THE MISSISSIPPI).
Bema, The.
See PNYX.
BEMIS HEIGHTS, Battle of.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1777 (JULY-OCTOBER).
BENARES.
"The early history of Benares is involved in much obscurity.
It is, indisputably, a place of great antiquity, and may even
date from the time when the Aryan race first spread itself
over Northern India. … It is certain that the city is
regarded by all Hindus as coeval with the birth of Hinduism, a
notion derived both from tradition and from their own
writings. Allusions to Benares are exceedingly abundant in
ancient Sanskrit literature; and perhaps there is no city in
all Hindustan more frequently referred to. By reason of some
subtle and mysterious charm, it has linked itself with the
religious sympathies of the Hindus through every century of
its existence. For the sanctity of its inhabitants—of its
temples and reservoirs—of its wells and streams—of the very
soil that is trodden—of the very air that is breathed—and of
everything in and around it, Benares has been famed for
thousands of years. … Previously to the introduction of the
Buddhist faith into India, she was already the sacred city of
the land,—the centre of Hinduism, and chief seat of its
authority. Judging from the strong feelings of veneration and
affection with which the native community regard her in the
present day, and bearing in mind that the founder of Buddhism
commenced his ministry at this spot, it seems indisputable
that, in those early times preceding the Buddhist reformation,
the city must have exerted a powerful and wide-spread
religious influence over the land. Throughout the Buddhist
period in India—a period extending from 700 to 1,000
years—she gave the same support to Buddhism which she had
previously given to the Hindu faith. Buddhist works of that
era … clearly establish the fact that the Buddhists of
those days regarded the city with much the same kind of
veneration as the Hindu does now."
_M. A. Sherring,
The Sacred City of the Hindus,
chapter 1._
For an account of the English annexation of Benares,
See INDIA: A. D. 1773-1785.
BENEDICT II., Pope, A. D. 684-685.
Benedict III., Pope, A. D. 855-858.
Benedict IV., Pope, A. D. 900-903.
Benedict V., Pope, A. D. 964-965.
Benedict VI., Pope, A. D. 972-974.
Benedict VII., Pope, A. D. 975-984.
Benedict VIII., Pope, A. D. 1012-1024.
Benedict IX., Pope, A. D. 1033-1044, 1047-1048.
Benedict X., Antipope, A. D. 1058-1059.
Benedict XI., Pope, A. D. 1303-1304.
Benedict XII., Pope, A. D. 1334-1342.
Benedict XIII., Pope, A. D. 1394-1423 (at Avignon).
Benedict XIII., Pope, A. D. 1724-1730.
Benedict XIV., Pope, A. D. 1740-1758.
BENEDICTINE ORDERS.
The rule of St. Benedict.
"There were many monasteries in the West before the time of
St. Benedict of Nursia (A. D. 480); but he has been rightly
considered the father of Western monasticism; for he not only
founded an order to which many religious houses became
attached, but he established a rule for their government
which, in its main features, was adopted as the rule of
monastic life by all the orders for more than five centuries,
or until the time of St. Dominic and St. Francis of Assisi.
Benedict was first a hermit, living in the mountains of
Southern Italy, and in that region he afterwards established
in succession twelve monasteries, each with twelve monks and a
superior. In the year 520 he founded the great monastery of
Monte Casino as the mother-house of his order, a house which
became the most celebrated and powerful monastery, according
to Montalembert, in the Catholic universe, celebrated
especially because there Benedict prepared his rule and formed
the type which was to serve as a model to the innumerable
communities submitting to that sovereign code. … Neither in
the East nor in the West were the monks originally
ecclesiastics; and it was not until the eighth century that
they became priests, called regulars, in contrast with the
ordinary parish clergy, who were called seculars. … As
missionaries, they proved the most powerful instruments in
extending the authority and the boundaries of the church. The
monk had no individual property: even his dress belonged to
the monastery. … To enable him to work efficiently, it was
necessary to feed him well; and such was the injunction of
Benedict, as opposed to the former practice of strict
asceticism."
_C. J. Stillé,
Studies in Mediæval History,
chapter 12._
{280}
"Benedict would not have the monks limit themselves to
spiritual labour, to the action of the soul upon itself; he
made external labour, manual or literary, a strict obligation
of his rule. … In order to banish indolence, which he called
the enemy of the soul, he regulated minutely the employment of
every hour of the day according to the seasons, and ordained
that, after having celebrated the praises of God seven times
a-day, seven hours a-day should be given to manual labour, and
two hours to reading. … Those who are skilled in the
practice of an art or trade, could only exercise it by the
permission of the abbot, in all humility; and if anyone prided
himself on his talent, or the profit which resulted from it to
the house, he was to have his occupation changed until he had
humbled himself. … Obedience is also to his eyes a work,
obedientiae laborem, the most meritorious and essential of
all. A monk entered into monastic life only to make the
sacrifice of self. This sacrifice implied especially that of
the will. … Thus the rule pursued pride into its most secret
hiding-place. Submission had to be prompt, perfect, and
absolute. The monk must obey always, without reserve, and
without murmur, even in those things which seemed impossible
and above his strength, trusting in the succour of God, if a
humble and seasonable remonstrance, the only thing permitted
to him, was not accepted by his superiors."
_The Count de Montalembert,
The Monks of the West,
book 4, section 2 (volume 2)._
ALSO IN:
_E. L. Cutts,
Scenes and Characters of the Middle Ages,
chapter 2._
_S. R. Maitland,
The Dark Ages,
Number 10._
_J. H. Newman,
Mission of St. Benedict
(Hist. Sketches, volume 2)_.
_P. Schaff,
History of the Christian Church,
volume 2, chapter 4, sections 43-45._
_E. F. Henderson,
Select Historical Documents of the Middle Ages,
book 3, number 1._
See, also, CAPUCHINS.
BENEFICIUM.
COMMENDATION.
Feudalism "had grown up from two great sources—the
beneficium, and the practice of commendation, and had been
specially fostered on Gallic soil by the existence of a
subject population which admitted of any amount of extension
in the methods of dependence. The beneficiary system
originated partly in gifts of land made by the kings out of
their own estates to their kinsmen and servants, with a
special undertaking to be faithful; partly in the surrender by
landowners of their estates to churches or powerful men, to be
received back again and held by them as tenants for rent or
service. By the latter arrangement the weaker man obtained the
protection of the stronger, and he who felt himself insecure
placed his title under the defence of the Church. By the
practice of commendation, on the other hand, the inferior put
himself under the personal care of a lord, but without
altering his title or divesting himself of his right to his
estate; he became a vassal and did homage. The placing of his
hands between those of his lord was the typical act by which
the connexion was formed."
_William Stubbs,
Constitutional History of England,
chapter 9, section 93._
ALSO IN:
_H. Hallam,
The Middle Ages,
chapter 2, part 1._
See, also, SCOTLAND: 10TH-11TH CENTURIES.
BENEFIT OF CLERGY.
"Among the most important and dearly-prized privileges of the
church was that which conferred on its members immunity from
the operation of secular law, and relieved them from the
jurisdiction of secular tribunals. … So priceless a
prerogative was not obtained without a long and resolute
struggle. … To ask that a monk or priest guilty of crime
should not be subject to the ordinary tribunals, and that
civil suits between laymen and ecclesiastics should be
referred exclusively to courts composed of the latter, was a
claim too repugnant to the common sense of mankind to be
lightly accorded. … The persistence of the church, backed up
by the unfailing resource of excommunication, finally
triumphed, and the sacred immunity of the priesthood was
acknowledged, sooner or later, in the laws of every nation of
Europe." In England, when Henry II. in 1164, "endeavored, in
the Constitutions of Clarendon, to set bounds to the
privileges of the church, he therefore especially attacked the
benefit of clergy. … The disastrous result of the quarrel
between the King and the archbishop [Becket] rendered it
necessary to abandon all such schemes of reform. … As time
passed on, the benefit of clergy gradually extended itself.
That the laity were illiterate and the clergy educated was
taken for granted, and the test of churchmanship came to be
the ability to read, so that the privilege became in fact a
free pardon on a first offence for all who knew their letters.
… Under Elizabeth, certain heinous offences were declared
felonies without benefit of clergy. … Much legislation
ensued from time to time, effecting the limitation of the
privilege in various offences. … Early in the reign of Anne
the benefit of clergy was extended to all malefactors by
abrogating the reading test, thus placing the unlettered felon
on a par with his better educated fellows, and it was not
until the present century was well advanced that this remnant
of mediæval ecclesiastical prerogative was abolished by 7 and
8 Geo. iv. c. 28."
_H. C. Lea,
Studies in Church History,
part 2._
ALSO IN:
_William Stubbs,
Constitutional History of England,
sections 722-725 (chapter 19, page 3)_.
See, also, ENGLAND: A. D. 1162-1170.
BENEVENTO, OR GRANDELLA, Battle of (1266).
See ITALY (SOUTHERN): A. D. 1250-1268.
BENEVENTUM:
The Lombard Duchy.
The Duchy of Beneventum was a Lombard fief of the 8th and 9th
centuries, in southern Italy, which survived the fall of the
Lombard kingdom in northern Italy. It covered nearly the
territory' of the modern kingdom of Naples. Charlemagne
reduced the Duchy to submission with considerable difficulty,
after he had extinguished the Lombard kingdom. It was
afterwards divided into the minor principalities of Benevento,
Salerno and Capua, and became part of the Norman conquest.
See ITALY (SOUTHERN): A. D. 800-1016; and 1000-1090;
also, LOMBARDS: A. D. 573-774,
and AMALFI.
BENEVENTUM, Battle of (B. C. 275).
See ROME: B. C. 282-275.
BENEVOLENCES.
"The collection of benevolences, regarded even at the time
[England, reign of Edward IV.] as an innovation, was perhaps a
resuscitated form of some of the worst measures of Edward II.
and Richard II., but the attention which it aroused under
Edward IV. shows how strange it had become under the
intervening kings. … Such evidence as exists shows us Edward
IV. canvassing by word of mouth or by letter for direct gifts
of money from his subjects. Henry III. had thus begged for new
year's gifts. Edward IV. requested and extorted 'free-will
offerings' from everyone who could not say no to the pleadings
of such a king. He had a wonderful memory, too, and knew the
name and the particular property of every man in the country
who was worth taxing in this way. He had no excuse for such
meanness; for the estates had shown themselves liberal."
_William Stubbs,
Constitutional History of England,
chapter 18, section 696._
See, also, ENGLAND: A. D. 1471-1485.
{281}
BENGAL, The English acquisition of.
See INDIA: A. D. 1755-1757; 1757; and 1757-1772.
BENGAL: "Permanent Settlement."
See INDIA: A. D. 1785-1793.
BENNINGTON, Battle of.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1777 (JULY-OCTOBER).
BENTINCK, Lord William, The Indian Administration of.
See INDIA: A. D. 1823-1833.
BENTONSVILLE, Battle of.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1865
(FEBRUARY-MARCH: THE CAROLINAS).
BEOTHUK, The.
See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: BEOTHUKAN FAMILY.
BERBERS, The.
See LIBYANS; NUMIDIANS; EGYPT, ORIGIN OF THE ANCIENT
PEOPLE; and MAROCCO.
BERENICE, Cities of.
Ptolemy Philadelphus, the second of the Ptolemies, founded a
city on the Egyptian shore of the Red Sea, to which he gave
the name of his mother, Berenice. It became an important port
of trade. Subsequently two other cities of the same name were
founded at points further south on the same coast, while a
fourth Berenice came into existence on the border of the Great
Syrtis, in Cyrenaica.
_E. H. Bunbury,
History of Ancient Geography,
chapter 15, section 1._
BERESINA, Passage of the.
See RUSSIA: A. D. 1812 (OCTOBER-DECEMBER).
BERESTECZKO, Battle of (1651).
See POLAND: A. D. 1648-1654.
BERGEN, Battles of (1759 and 1799).
See GERMANY: A. D. 1759 (APRIL-AUGUST);
and FRANCE: A. D. 1799 (SEPTEMBER-OCTOBER).
BERGEN-OP-ZOOM, A. D. 1588.
The siege raised.
See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1588-1593.
BERGEN A. D. 1622.
Unsuccessful siege by the Spaniards.
See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1621-1633.
BERGEN: A. D. 1747-1748.
Taken by the French and restored to Holland.
See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1746-1747,
and AIX-LA-CHAPELLE, THE CONGRESS.
----------BERGEN: End----------
BERGER.
See BIRGER.
BERGERAC, Peace of.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1577-1578.
BERING SEA CONTROVERSY AND ARBITRATION.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1886-1893.
BERKELEY, Lord, The Jersey Grant to.
See NEW JERSEY: A. D. 1664.-1667, to 1688-1738.
BERKELEY, Sir William, Government of Virginia.
See VIRGINIA: A. D. 1642-1649, to 1660-1677.
BERLIN: A. D. 1631.
Forcible entry of Gustavus Adolphus.
See GERMANY: A. D. 1631.
BERLIN: A. D. 1675.
Threatened by the Swedes.
See BRANDENBURG: A. D. 1640-1688.
BERLIN: A. D. 1757.
Dashing Austrian attack.
See GERMANY: A. D. 1757 (JULY-DECEMBER).
BERLIN: A. D. 1760.
Taken and plundered by the Austrians and Russians.
See GERMANY: A.D. 1760.
BERLIN: A. D. 1806.
Napoleon in possession.
See GERMANY: A. D. 1806 (OCTOBER).
BERLIN: A. D. 1848.
Mistaken battle of soldiers and citizens.
Continued disorder.
State of siege.
See GERMANY: A. D. 1848 (MARCH), and 1848-1850.
----------BERLIN: End----------
BERLIN CONFERENCE (1884-5), The.
See AFRICA: A. D. 1884-1889;
and CONGO FREE STATE.
BERLIN, Congress and Treaty of.
See TURKS: A. D. 1878.
BERLIN DECREE, The.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1806-1810;
and UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1804-1809.
BERMUDA HUNDRED.
See HUNDRED, THE.
BERMUDA HUNDRED, Butler's Army at.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1864
(MAY: VIRGINIA), THE ARMY OF THE JAMES.
BERMUDAS, The.
English Discovery of the islands (1609).
See VIRGINIA: A. D. 1609-1616.
BERMUDO,
King of Leon and the Asturias, or Oviedo, A. D. 788-791.
Bermudo II., A. D. 982-999.
Bermudo III., A. D. 1027-1037.
BERN, Dietrich of.
See VERONA: A. D. 493-525.
BERNADOTTE, Career of.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1798-1799 (AUGUST-APRIL);
1799 (NOVEMBER); 1806 (JANUARY-OCTOBER);
1814(JANUARY-MARCH); 1806-1807;
SCANDINAVIAN STATES (SWEDEN): A. D. 1810;
GERMANY: A. D. 1812-1813; 1813 (AUGUST),
(SEPTEMBER-OCTOBER), (OCTOBER-DECEMBER).
BERNARD, St., and the Second Crusade.
See CRUSADES: A. D. 1147-1149.
BERNE, A. D. 1353.
Joined to the original Swiss Confederation, or Old League of
High Germany.
See SWITZERLAND: A. D. 1332-1460.
BERNE: A. D. 1798.
Occupation by the French.
The plundering of the Treasury.
See SWITZERLAND: A. D. 1792-1798.
----------BERNE: End----------
BERNICIA, The Kingdom of.
See ENGLAND: A. D. 547-633;
and SCOTLAND: 7th CENTURY.
BERSERKER.
BÆRSÆRK.
"The word Bærsærk is variously spelt, and stated to be derived
from 'bar' and 'særk,' or 'bareshirt.' The men to whom the
title was applied [among the Northmen] … were stated to be
in the habit of fighting without armour, and wearing only a
shirt of skins, or at times naked. In Iceland they were
sometimes called Ulfrhedin, i. e., wolfskin. The derivation of
Bærsærk has been questioned, as in philology is not uncommon.
The habit of their wearing bear (björn) skins, is said to
afford the meaning of the word. In philology, to agree to
differ is best. The Bærsærks, according to the sagas, appear
to have been men of unusual physical development and savagery.
They were, moreover, liable to what was called Bærsærkegang,
or a state of excitement in which they exhibited superhuman
strength, and then spared neither friend nor foe. … After an
attack of Bærsærk frenzy, it was believed that the superhuman
influence or spirit left the Bærsærk's body as a 'ham,' or
cast-off shape or form, with the result that the Bærsærk
suffered great exhaustion, his natural forces being used up."
_J. F. Vicary,
Saga Time,
chapter 3._
ALSO IN:
_P. B. Du Chaillu,
The Viking Age,
volume 2, chapter 26._
{282}
BERWICK-UPON-TWEED: A. D. 1293-1333.
Conquest by the English.
At the beginning, in 1293, of the struggle of the Scottish
nation to cast off the feudal yoke which Edward I. had laid
upon it, the English king, marching angrily northwards, made
his first assault upon Berwick. The citizens, whose only
rampart was a wooden stockade, foolishly aggravated his wrath
by gibes and taunts. "The stockade was stormed with the loss
of a single knight, and nearly 8,000 of the citizens were mown
down in a ruthless carnage, while a handful of Flemish traders
who held the town-hall stoutly against all assailants were
burned alive in it. … The town was ruined forever, and the
great merchant city of the North sank from that time into a
petty seaport." Subsequently recovered by the Scotch, Berwick
was held by them in 1333 when Edward III. attempted to seat
Edward Balliol, as his vassal, on the Scottish throne. The
English laid siege to the place, and an army under the regent
Douglas came to its relief. The battle of Halidon Hill, in
which the Scotch were utterly routed, decided the fate of
Berwick. "From that time the town remained the one part of
Edward's conquests which was preserved by the English crown.
Fragment as it was, it was viewed as legally representing the
realm of which it had once formed a part. As Scotland, it had
its chancellor, chamberlain, and other officers of state: and
the peculiar heading of acts of Parliament enacted for England
'and the town of Berwick-upon-Tweed' still preserves the memory
of its peculiar position."-
_J. R. Green,
Short History of the English People,
chapter 4, sections 3 and 6._
ALSO IN:
_J. H. Burton,
History of Scotland,
chapter 17._
See SCOTLAND: A. D. 1290-1305.
BERWICK, Pacification of.
See SCOTLAND: A. D. 1638-1640.
BERWICK, Treaty of.
See SCOTLAND: A. D. 1558-1560.
BERYTUS.
The colony of Berytus (modern Beirut) was founded by Agrippa,
B. C. 15, and made a station for two legions.
BERYTUS: A. D. 551.
Its Schools.
Its Destruction by Earthquake.
The city of Berytus, modern Beirut, was destroyed by
earthquake on the 9th of July, A. D. 551. "That city, on the
coast of Phœnicia, was illustrated by the study of the civil
law, which opened the surest road to wealth and dignity: the
schools of Berytus were filled with the rising spirits of the
age, and many a youth was lost in the earthquake who might
have lived to be the scourge or the guardian of his country."
_E. Gibbon,
Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire,
chapter 43.
BERYTUS: A. D. 1111.
Taken by the Crusaders.
See CRUSADES: A. D. 1104-1111.
----------BERYTUS: End----------
BESANÇON: Origin.
See VESONTIO.
BESANÇON: A. D. 1152-1648.
A Free City of the Empire.
See FRANCHE COMTÉ.
BESANÇON: A. D. 1674.
Siege and capture by Vauban.
See NETHERLANDS (HOLLAND): A. D. 1674-1678.
BESSI, The.
The Bessi were an ancient Thracian tribe who occupied the
mountain range of Hæmus (the Balkan) and the upper valley of
the Hebrus. They were subdued by Lucullus, brother of the
conqueror of Mithridates.
_E. H. Bunbury,
History of Ancient Geography,
chapter 18, section 6._
BESSIN, The.
The district of Bayeux.
See SAXONS OF BAYEUX.
BETH-HORON, Battles of.
The victory of Joshua over "the five kings of the Amorites"
who laid siege to Gibeon; the decisive battle of the Jewish
conquest of Canaan. "The battle of Beth-horon or Gibeon is one
of the most important in the history of the world; and yet so
profound has been the indifference, first of the religious
world, and then (through their example or influence) of the
common world, to the historical study of the Hebrew annals,
that the very name of this great battle is far less known to
most of us than that of Marathon or Cannæ."
_Dean Stanley,
Lectures on the History of the Jewish Church,
lecture 11._
In the Maccabean war, Beth-horon was the scene of two of the
brilliant victories of Judas Maccabeus, in B. C. 167 and
162.
_Josephus,
Antiquity of the Jews,
book 12._
Later, at the time of the Jewish revolt against the Romans, it
witnessed the disastrous retreat of the Roman general Cestius.
BETHSHEMESH, Battle of.
Fought by Joash, king of Israel, with Amaziah, king of Judah,
defeating the latter and causing part of the walls of
Jerusalem to be thrown down.
_2 Chronicles, xxv._
BETH-ZACHARIAH, Battle of.
A defeat suffered (B. C. 163) by the Jewish patriot, Judas·
Maccabæus, at the hands of the Syrian monarch Antiochus
Eupator: the youngest of the Maccabees being slain.
_Josephus,
Antiquity of the Jews,
book 12, chapter 9._
BETHZUR, Battle of.
Defeat of an army sent by Antiochus, against Judas Maccabæus,
the Jewish patriot, B. C. 165.
_Josephus, Antiquity of the Jews, book 12, chapter 7._
BEVERHOLT, Battle of (1381).
See FLANDERS: A. D. 1379-1381.
BEY.
BEYLERBEY.
PACHA.
PADISCHAH.
"The administration of the [Turkish] provinces was in the time
of Mahomet II. [the Sultan, A. D. 1451-1481, whose legislation
organized the Ottoman government] principally intrusted to the
Beys and Beylerbeys. These were the natural chiefs of the
class of feudatories [Spahis], whom their tenure of office
obliged to serve on horseback in time of war. They mustered
under the Sanjak, the banner of the chief of their district,
and the districts themselves were thence called Sanjaks, and
their rulers Sanjak-beys. The title of Pacha, so familiar to
us when speaking of a 'Turkish provincial ruler, is not
strictly a term implying territorial jurisdiction, or even
military authority. It is a title of honour, meaning literally
the Shah's or sovereign's foot, and implying that the person
to whom that title was given was one whom the sovereign
employed. … The title of Pacha was not at first applied
among the Ottomans exclusively to those officers who commanded
armies or ruled provinces or cities. Of the five first Pachas,
that are mentioned by Ottoman writers, three were literary
men. By degrees this honorary title was appropriated to those
whom the Sultan employed in war and set over districts and
important towns; so that the word Pacha became almost
synonymous with the word governor. The title Padischah, which
the Sultan himself bears, and which the Turkish diplomatists
have been very jealous in allowing to Christian Sovereigns, is
an entirely different word, and means the great, the imperial
Schah or Sovereign. In the time of Mahomet II. the Ottoman
Empire contained in Europe alone thirty-six Sanjaks, or
banners, around each of which assembled about 400 cavaliers."
_Sir E. S. Creasy,
History of the Ottoman Turks,
chapter 6._
{283}
BEYLAN, Battle of (1832).
See TURKS: A. D. 1831-1840.
BEYROUT, Origin of.
See BERYTUS.
BEZANT, The.
The bezant was a Byzantine gold coin (whence its name), worth
a little less than ten English shillings—$2.50.
BEZIERES, The Massacre at.
See ALBIGENSES: A. D. 1209.
BHARADARS.
See INDIA: A. D. 1805-1816.
BHONSLA RAJA, The.
See INDIA: A. D. 1798-1805.
BHURTPORE, Siege of(1805).
See INDIA: A. D. 1798-1805.
BIANCHI AND NERI (The Whites and Blacks).
See FLORENCE: A. D. 1295-1300, and 1301-1313.
BIANCHI, or White Penitents.
See WHITE PENITENTS.
BIBERACH, Battles of (1796 and 1800).
See FRANCE: A. D. 1796 (APRIL-OCTOBER);
and A. D. 1800-1801 (MAY-FEBRUARY).
BIBRACTE.
See GAULS.
BIBROCI, The.
A tribe of ancient Britons who dwelt near the Thames. It is
suspected, but not known, that they gave their name to Berks
County.
BICAMERAL SYSTEM, The.
This term was applied by Jeremy Bentham to the division of a
legislative body into two chambers—such as the House of Lords
and House of Commons in England, and the Senate and House of
Representatives in the United States of America.
BICOQUE OR BICOCCA, La, Battle of (1522).
See FRANCE: A. D. 1520-1523.
BIG BETHEL, Battle of.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1861 (JUNE: VIRGINIA).
BIG BLACK, Battle of the.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1863
(APRIL-JULY: ON THE MISSISSIPPI).
BIGERRIONES, The.
See AQUITAINE, THE ANCIENT TRIBES.
BIGI, OR GREYS, The.
One of the three factions which divided Florence in the time
of Savonarola, and after. The Bigi, or Greys, were the
partisans of the Medici; their opponents were the Piagnoni, or
Weepers, and the Arrabiati, or Madmen.
See FLORENCE: A. D. 1490-1498.
BILL OF RIGHTS.
See ENGLAND: A. D. 1689 (OCTOBER).
BILLAUD-VARENNES and the French Revolutionary Committee of Public
Safety.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1793 (JUNE-OCTOBER),
(SEPTEMBER-DECEMBER), to 1794-1795 (JULY-APRIL).
BILOXIS, The.
See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: SIOUAN FAMILY.
BIMINI, The island of.
See AMERICA: A. D. 1512.
BIRAPARACH, Fortress of.
See JUROIPACH.
BIRGER, King of Sweden, A. D. 1290-1319.
Birger, or Berger Jarl, Regent of Sweden, A. D. 1250-1266.
BISHOPS' WAR, The First and Second.
See SCOTLAND: A. D. 1638-1640;
and ENGLAND: A. D. 1640.
BISMARCK'S MINISTRY.
See GERMANY: A. D. 1861-1866, to 1888;
and FRANCE: A. D. 1870 (JUNE-JULY); 1870-1871;
and 1871 (JANUARY-MAY).
BISSEXTILE YEAR.
See CALENDAR, JULIAN.
BITHYNIANS, THYNIANS.
"Along the coast of the Euxine, from the Thracian Bosphorus.
eastward to the river Halys, dwelt Bithynians or Thynians,
Mariandynians and Paphlagonians,—all recognized branches of
the widely extended 'l'hracian race. The Bithynians
especially, in the northwestern portion of this territory, and
reaching from the Euxine to the Propontis, are often spoken of
as Asiatic Thracians,—while on the other hand various tribes
among the Thracians of Europe are denominated Thyni or
Thynians,—so little difference was there in the population on
the two sides of the Bosphorus, alike brave, predatory, and
sanguinary. The Bithynians of Asia are also sometimes called
Bebrykians, under which denomination they extend as far
southward as the gulf of Kios in the Propontis."
_G. Grote,
History of Greece,
part 2, chapter 16._
The Bithynians were among the people in Asia Minor subjugated
by Crœsus, king of Lydia, and fell, with his fall, under the
Persian rule. But, in some way not clearly understood, an
independent kingdom of Bithynia was formed, about the middle
of the 5th century B. C. which resisted the Persians,
successfully resisted Alexander the Great and his successors
in Asia Minor, resisted Mithridates of Pontus, and existed
until B. C. 74, when its last king Nicomedes III. bequeathed
his kingdom to Rome and it was made a Roman province.
BITONTO, Battle of (1734).
See FRANCE: A. D. 1733-1735.
BITURIGES, The.
See ÆEDUI;
also BOURGES, ORIGIN OF.
BIZOCHI, The.
See BEGUINES, ETC.
BIZYE.
See THRACIANS.
BLACK ACTS, The.
See SCOTLAND: A. D. 1584.
BLACK DEATH, The.
"The Black Death appears to have had its origin in the centre
of China, in or about the year 1333. It is said that it was
accompanied at its outbreak by various terrestrial and
atmospheric phænomena of a novel and most destructive
character, phænomena similar to those which characterized the
first appearance of the Asiatic Cholera, of the Influenza, and
even in more remote times of the Athenian Plague. It is a
singular fact that all epidemics of an unusually destructive
character have had their homes in the farthest East, and have
travelled slowly from those regions towards Europe. It
appears, too, that the disease exhausted itself in the place
of its origin at about the same time in which it made its
appearance in Europe. … The disease still exists under the
name of the Levant or Oriental Plague, and is endemic in Asia
Minor, in parts of Turkey, and in Egypt. It is specifically a
disease in which the blood is poisoned, in which the system
seeks to relieve itself by suppuration of the glands, and in
which, the tissues becoming disorganized, and the blood
thereupon being infiltrated into them, dark blotches appear on
the skin.
{284}
Hence the earliest name by which the Plague was described. The
storm burst on the Island of Cyprus at the end of the year
1347, and was accompanied, we are told, by remarkable physical
phænomena, as convulsions of the earth, and a total change in
the atmosphere. Many persons affected died instantly. The
Black Death seemed, not only to the frightened imagination of
the people, but even to the more sober observation of the few
men of science of the time, to move forward with measured
steps from the desolated East, under the form of a dark and
fetid mist. It is very likely that consequent upon the great
physical convulsions which had rent the earth and preceded the
disease, foreign substances of a deleterious character had
been projected into the atmosphere. … The Black Death
appeared at Avignon in January 1348, visited Florence by the
middle of April, and had thoroughly penetrated France and
Germany by August. It entered Poland in 1349, reached Sweden
in the winter of that year, and Norway by infection from
England at about the same time. It spread even to Iceland and
Greenland. … It made its appearance in Russia in 1351, after
it had well-nigh exhausted itself in Europe. It thus took the
circuit of the Mediterranean, and unlike most plagues which
have penetrated from the Eastern to the Western world, was
checked, it would seem, by the barrier of the Caucasus. …
Hecker calculates the loss to Europe as amounting to
25,000,000."
_J. E. T. Rogers,
History of Agriculture and Prices,
volume 1, chapter 15._
ALSO IN:
_J. F. C. Hecker,
Epidemics of the Middle Ages._
See, also, ENGLAND: A. D. 1348-1349;
FRANCE: A. D. 1347-1348;
FLORENCE: A. D. 1348;
JEWS: A: D. 1348-1349.
BLACK EAGLE, Order of the.
A Prussian order of knighthood instituted by Frederick III.,
elector of Brandenburg, in 1701.
BLACK FLAGS, The.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1875-1889.
BLACK FRIARS.
See MENDICANT ORDERS.
BLACK GUELFS (NERI).
See FLORENCE: A. D. 1295-1300, and 1301-1313.
BLACK HAWK WAR, The.
See ILLINOIS: A. D. 1832.
BLACK HOLE OF CALCUTTA, The.
See INDIA: A. D. 1755-1757:
BLACK PRINCE, The wars of the.
See POITIERS; FRANCE: A. D. 1360-1380;
and SPAIN (CASTILE): A. D. 1366-1369.
BLACK ROBE, Counsellors of the.
See VENICE: A. D. 1032-1319.
BLACK ROD.
"The gentleman whose duty it is to preserve decorum in the
House of Lords, just as it is the duty of the Sergeant-at-Arms
to maintain order in the House of Commons. These officials are
bound to execute the commands of their respective chambers,
even though the task involves the forcible ejection of an
obstreperous member. … His [Black Rod's] most disturbing
occupation, now-a-days, is when he conveys a message from the
Lords to the Commons. … No sooner do the policemen herald
his approach from the lobbies than the doors of the Lower
Chamber are closed against him, and he is compelled to ask for
admission with becoming humility and humbleness. After this
has been granted, he advances to the bar, bows to the chair,
and then—with repeated acts of obeisance—walks slowly to the
table, where his request is made for the Speaker's attendance
in the Upper House. The object may be to listen to the Queen's
speech, or it may simply be to hear the Royal assent given to
various bills. … The consequence is nearly always the same.
The Sergeant-at-Arms shoulders the mace, the Speaker joins
Black Rod, the members fall in behind, and a more or less
orderly procession then starts on its way to the Peer's
Chamber. … No matter what the subject under consideration,
Black Rod's appearance necessitates a check … till the
journey to the Lords has been completed, The annoyance thus
caused has often found expression during recent sessions. So
great was the grumbling last year [1890], indeed, that the
Speaker undertook to devise a better system."-
_Popular Account of Parliamentary Procedure,
page 11._
BLACK ROOD, of Scotland.
See HOLY ROOD OF SCOTLAND.
BLACKBURN'S FORD, Engagement at.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1861 (JULY: VIRGINIA).
BLACKFEET.
See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: BLACKFEET.
BLADENSBURG, Battle of.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1814 (AUGUST-SEPTEMBER).
BLAIR, Francis P., Sr., in the "Kitchen
Cabinet" of President Jackson.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1829.
BLAIR, General Francis P., Jr.
Difficulties with General Fremont.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
A. D. 1861 (AUGUST-OCTOBER: MISSOURI).
BLANCHE, Queen of Aragon, A. D. 1425-1441.
BLANCO, General Guzman, The dictatorship of.
See VENEZUELA: A. D. 1869-1892.
BLAND SILVER BILL, The.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1878.
BLANII, The.
See IRELAND, TRIBES OF EARLY CELTIC INHABITANTS.
BLANKETEERS, The.
See ENGLAND: A. D. 1816-1820.
BLENEAU, Battle of (1652).
See FRANCE: A. D. 1651-1653.
BLENHEIM, Battle of.
See GERMANY: A. D. 1704.
BLENNERHASSET, Harman, and Aaron Burr.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1806-1807.
BLENNERHASSETT'S ISLAND.
An island in the Ohio, near Marietta, on which Harman
Blennerhassett, a gentleman from Ireland, had created a
charming home, at the beginning of the present century. He was
drawn into Aaron Burr's mysterious scheme (see UNITED STATES
OF AMERICA: A. D. 1806-1807); his island became the rendezvous
of the expedition, and he was involved in the ruin of the
treasonable project.
BLOCK BOOKS.
See PRINTING: A. D. 1430-1456.
BLOCK ISLAND, The name.
See NEW YORK A. D. 1610-1614.
BLOCKADE, Paper.
This term has been applied to the assumption by a belligerent
power, in war, of the right to declare a given coast or
certain enumerated ports, to be in the state of blockade,
without actual presence of blockading squadrons to enforce the
declaration; as by the British "Orders in Council" and the
"Berlin" and "Milan Decrees" of Napoleon, in 1806-1807.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1804-1809.
{285}
BLOIS, Treaties of.
See ITALY: A. D. 1504-1506.
BLOOD COUNCIL, The.
See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1567.
BLOOD, or Kenai Indians.
See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: BLACKFEET.
BLOODY ANGLE, The.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1864 (MAY: VIRGINIA).
BLOODY ASSIZE, The.
See ENGLAND: A. D. 1685 (SEPTEMBER).
BLOODY BRIDGE, Ambuscade at (A. D. 1763).
See PONTIAC'S WAR.
BLOODY BROOK, Battle of.
See NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1675.
BLOODY MARSH, The Battle of the.
See GEORGIA: A. D. 1738-1743.
BLOREHEATH, Battle of (A. D. 1459).
Fought on a plain called Bloreheath, near Drayton, in
Staffordshire, England, Sept. 23, 1459, between 10,000
Lancastrians, commanded by Lord Audley, and about half that
number of Yorkists under the Earl of Salisbury. The latter won
a victory by superior strategy. The battle was the second that
occurred in the Wars of the Roses.
See ENGLAND: A. D. 1455-1471.
BLUCHER'S CAMPAIGNS.
See GERMANY: A. D. 1806 (OCTOBER); 1812-1813; 1813
(APRIL-MAY) to (OCTOBER-DECEMBER);
FRANCE: A. D. 1814 (JANUARY-MARCH), and 1815.
BLUE, Boys in.
See BOYS IN BLUE.
BLUE LICKS, Battle of (A. D. 1782).
See KENTUCKY: A. D. 1775-1784.
BLUE-LIGHT FEDERALISTS.
"An incident, real or imaginary, which had lately [in 1813]
occurred at New London [Connecticut] was seized upon as
additional proof of collusion between the Federalists and the
enemy. [See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1812.] As the
winter approached, Decatur had expected to get to sea with his
two frigates. Vexed to find himself thwarted in every attempt
by the watchfulness of the enemy, he wrote to the Navy
Department in a fit of disgust, that, beyond all doubt, the
British had, by signals or otherwise, instantaneous
information of all his movements; and as proof of it, he
stated that, after several nights of favorable weather, the
report circulating in the town that an attempt was to be made
to get out, 'in the course of the evening two blue lights were
burned on both points of the harbor's mouth.' These 'signals
to the enemy,' for such he unhesitatingly pronounced them, had
been repeated, so he wrote, and had been seen by twenty
persons at least of the squadron, though it does not appear
that Decatur himself was one of the number. … Such a clamor
was raised about it, that one of the Connecticut members of
Congress moved for a committee of investigation. … The
inquiry was … quashed; but the story spread and grew, and
the more vehement opponents of the war began to be stigmatized
as 'blue-light Federalists.'"
_R. Hildreth,
History of the United States,
volume 6, page 467._
BLUE PARTY (of Venezuela), The.
See VENEZUELA: A. D. 1829-1886.
BLUE RIBBON, The Order of the.
See SERAPHIM.
BLUES, Roman Faction of the.
See CIRCUS, FACTIONS OF THE ROMAN.
BOABDIL, The last Moorish King in Spain.
See SPAIN: A. D. 1476-1492.
BOADICEA, Revolt of.
See BRITAIN: A. D. 61.
BOAIRE, The.
A "Cow-lord," having certain wealth in cattle, among the
ancient Irish.
BOARIAN TRIBUTE, The.
Also called the Boruwa, or Cow-tribute. An humiliating
exaction said to have been levied on the province of Leinster
by a King Tuathal of Erin, in the second century, and which
was maintained for five hundred years.
BOCAGE, The.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1793 (MARCH-APRIL).
BOCASOTI, The.
See BEGUINES, &c.
BOCLAND.
BOOKLAND.
See ALOD.
BŒOTARCHS.
See BŒOTIAN LEAGUE.
BŒOTIA.
BŒOTIANS.
"Between Phokis and Lokris on one side, and Attica (from which
it is divided by the mountains Kithærôn and Parnes) on the
other, we find the important territory called Bœotia, with its
ten or twelve autonomous cities, forming a sort of confederacy
under the presidency of Thebes, the most powerful among them.
Even of this territory, destined during the second period of
this history to play a part so conspicuous and effective, we
know nothing during the first two centuries after 776 B. C. We
first acquire some insight into it on occasion of the disputes
between Thebes and Platæa, about the year 520 B. C."
_G. Grote,
History of Greece,
part 2, chapter 3._
In the Greek legendary period one part of this territory,
subsequently Bœotian—the Copaic valley in the north—was
occupied by the enterprising people called the Minyi, whose
chief city was Orchomenus. Their neighbors were the Cadmeians
of Thebes, who are "rich," as Grote expresses it, "in
legendary antiquities." The reputed founder of Thebes was
Cadmus, bringer of letters to Hellas, from Phœnicia or from
Egypt, according to different representations. Dionysus
(Bacchus) and Hêraklês were both supposed to recognize the
Cadmeian city as their birth-place. The terrible legends of
Œdipus and his unhappy family connect themselves with the same
place, and the incident wars between Thebes and Argos—the
assaults of the seven Argive chiefs and of their sons, the
Epigoni—were, perhaps, real causes of a real destruction of
the power of some race for whom the Cadmeians stand. They and
their neighbors, the Minyi of Orchomenus, appear to have given
way before another people, from Thessaly, who gave the name
Bœotia to the country of both and who were the inhabitants of
the Thebes of historic times.
_G. Grote,
History of Greece,
part 1, chapter 14;_
_E. Curtius,
History of Greece,
book 1, chapter 4._
"That the Bœotia of history should never have attained to a
significance corresponding to the natural advantages of the
locality, and to the prosperity of the district in the
pre-Homeric age, is due above all to one principal cause. The
immigration of the Thessalian Bœotians, from which the country
derived its name and the beginnings of its connected history,
destroyed the earlier civilization of the land, without
succeeding in establishing a new civilization capable of
conducting the entire district to a prosperous and harmonious
development. It cannot be said that the ancient germs of
culture were suppressed, or that barbarous times supervened.
The ancient seats of the gods and oracles continued to be
honoured and the ancient festivals of the Muses on Mount
Helicon, and of the Charites at Orchomenus, to be celebrated.
{286}
In Bœotia too the beneficent influence of Delphi was at work,
and the poetic school of Hesiod, connected as it was with
Delphi, long maintained itself here. And a yet stronger
inclination was displayed by the Æolian immigrants towards
music and lyric poetry. The cultivation of the music of the
flute was encouraged by the excellent reeds of the Copaic
morasses. This was the genuinely national species of music in
Bœotia. … And yet the Bœotians lacked the capacity for
attracting to themselves the earlier elements of population in
such a way as to bring about a happy amalgamation. … The
Bœotian lords were not much preferable to the Thessalian; nor
was there any region far or near, inhabited by Greek tribes,
which presented a harsher contrast in culture or manners, than
the district where the road led from the Attic side of Mount
Parnes across to the Bœotian."
_E. Curtius,
History of Greece,
book 6, chapter 1._
See, also, GREECE: THE MIGRATIONS.
BŒOTIAN LEAGUE.
"The old Bœotian League, as far as its outward forms went,
seems to have been fairly entitled to the name of a Federal
Government, but in its whole history we trace little more than
the gradual advance of Thebes to a practical supremacy over
the other cities. … The common government was carried on in
the name of the whole Bœotian nation. Its most important
magistrates bore the title of Bœotarchs: their exact number,
whether eleven or thirteen, is a disputed point of Greek
archæology, or rather of Bœotian geography. … Thebes chose
two Bœotarchs and each of the other cities one."
_E. A. Freeman,
History of Federal Government,
chapter 4, section 2._
BOERS, Boer War.
See SOUTH AFRICA: A. D. 1806-1881.
BOGDANIA.
See BALKAN AND DANUBIAN STATES, 14TH-15TH CENTURIES
(ROUMANIA, ETC.)
BOGESUND, Battle of (1520).
See SCANDINAVIAN STATES: A. D. 1397-1527.
BOGOMILIANS, The.
A religious sect which arose among the Sclavonians of Thrace
and Bulgaria, in the eleventh century, and suffered
persecution from the orthodox of the Greek church. They
sympathized with the Iconoclasts of former times, were hostile
to the adoration of the Virgin and saints, and took more or
less from the heretical doctrines of the Paulicians. Their
name is derived by some from the two Sclavonian words, "Bog,"
signifying God, and "milui," "have mercy." Others say that
"Bogumil," meaning "one beloved by God," was the correct
designation. Basilios, the leader of the Bogomilians, was
burned by the Emperor Alexius Comnenos, in the hippodrome, at
Constantinople, A. D. 1118.
_G. Finlay,
History of the Byzantine and Greek Empires, 716-1453,
book 3, chapter 2, section 1._
See BALKAN AND DANUBIAN STATES: 9TH-16TH CENTURIES (BOSNIA,
ETC.)
BOGOTA, The founding of the city (1538).
See COLOMBIAN STATES: A. D. 1536-1731.
BOHEMIA, Derivation of the name.
See BOIANS.
BOHEMIA:
Its people and their early history.
"Whatever may be the inferences from the fact of Bohemia
having been politically connected with the empire of the
Germanic Marcomanni, whatever may be those from the element
Boioas connecting its population with the Boii of Gaul and
Bavaria (Baiovarii), the doctrine that the present Slavonic
population of that kingdom—Tshekhs [or Czekhs] as they call
themselves—is either recent in origin or secondary to any
German or Keltic aborigines, is wholly unsupported by history.
In other words, at the beginning of the historical period
Bohemia was as Slavonic as it is now. From A. D. 526 to A. D.
550, Bohemia belonged to the great Thuringian Empire. The
notion that it was then Germanic (except in its political
relations) is gratuitous. Nevertheless, Schaffarik's account
is, that the ancestors of the present Tshekhs came, probably,
from White Croatia: which was either north of the Carpathians,
or each side of them. According to other writers, however, the
parts above the river Kulpa in Croatia sent them forth. In
Bohemian the verb 'ceti' = 'to begin,' from which Dobrowsky
derives the name Czekhs = the beginners, the foremost, i. e.,
the first Slavonians who passed westwards. The powerful Samo,
the just Krok, and his daughter, the wise Libussa, the founder
of Prague, begin the uncertain list of Bohemian kings, A. D.
624-700. About A. D. 722, a number of petty chiefs become
united under P'remysl the husband of Libussa. Under his son
Nezamysl occurs the first Constitutional Assembly at Wysegrad;
and in A. D. 845, Christianity was introduced. But it took no
sure footing till about A. D. 966. Till A. D. 1471 the names
of the Bohemian kings and heroes are Tshekh—Wenceslaus,
Ottokar, Ziska, Podiebrad. In A. D. 1564, the Austrian
connexion and the process of Germanizing began. … The
history and ethnology of Moravia is nearly that of Bohemia,
except that the Marcomannic Germans, the Turks, Huns, Avars,
and other less important populations may have effected a
greater amount of intermixture. Both populations are Tshekh,
speaking the Tshekh language—the language, probably, of the
ancient Quadi."
_R. G. Latham,
Ethnology of Europe,
chapter 11._
BOHEMIA: 7th Century.
The Yoke of the Avars broken.
The Kingdom of Samo.
See AVARS: 7TH CENTURY.
BOHEMIA: 9th Century.
Subject to the Moravian Kingdom of Svatopluk.
See MORAVIA: 9TH CENTURY.
BOHEMIA: 13th Century.
The King made a Germanic Elector.
See GERMANY: A. D. 1125-1152.
BOHEMIA: A. D. 1276.
War of King Ottocar with the Emperor Rodolph of Hapsburg.
His defeat and death.
See AUSTRIA: A. D. 1246-1282.
BOHEMIA: A. D. 1310.
Acquisition of the crown by John of Luxembourg.
See GERMANY: A. D. 1308-1313.
BOHEMIA: A. D. 1347.
Charles IV. elected to the imperial throne.
See GERMANY: A. D. 1347-1493.
BOHEMIA: A. D. 1355.
The succession fixed in the Luxemburg dynasty.
Incorporation of Moravia, Silesia, &c.
The diet of the nobles, in 1355, joined Charles IV. in "fixing
the order of succession in the dynasty of Luxemburg, and in
definitely establishing that principle of primogeniture which
had already been the custom in the Premyslide dynasty.
Moravia, Silesia, Upper Lusatia, Brandenburg, which had been
acquired from the margrave Otto, and the county of Glatz
(Kladsko), with the consent of the diets of these provinces,
were declared integral and inalienable portions of the kingdom
of Bohemia."
_L. Leger,
History of Austro-Hungary,
chapter 11._
{287}
BOHEMIA: A. D. 1364.
Reversion of the crown guaranteed to the House of Austria.
See AUSTRIA: A. D. 1330-1364.
BOHEMIA: A. D. 1378-1400.
See GERMANY: A. D. 1347-1493.
BOHEMIA: A. D. 1405-1415.
John Hus, and the movement of Religious Reformation.
"Some sparks of the fire which Wielif had lighted [see
ENGLAND: A. D. 1360-1414], blown over half Europe, as far as
remote Bohemia, quickened into stronger activity a flame which
for long years burned and scorched and consumed, defying all
efforts to extinguish it. But for all this, it was not Wiclif
who kindled the Bohemian fires. His writing did much to fan
and feed them; while the assumed and in part erroneously
assumed, identity of his teaching with that of Hus contributed
not a little to shape the tragic issues of the Bohemian
reformer's life. But the Bohemian movement was an independent
and eminently a national one. If we look for the proper
forerunners of Hus, his true spiritual ancestors, we shall
find them in his own land, in a succession of earnest and
faithful preachers. … John Hus (b. 1369, d. 1415), the
central figure of the Bohemian Reformation, took in the year
1394 his degree as Bachelor of Theology in that University of
Prague, upon the fortunes of which he was destined to exercise
so lasting an influence; and four years later, in 1398, he
began to deliver lectures there. … He soon signalized
himself by his diligence in breaking the bread of life to
hungering souls, and his boldness in rebuking vice in high
places as in low. So long as he confined himself to reproving
the sins of the laity, leaving those of the Clergy and monks
unassailed, he found little opposition, nay, rather support
and applause from these. But when [1405] he brought them also
within the circle of his condemnation, and began to upbraid
them for their covetousness, their ambition, their luxury,
their sloth, and for other vices, they turned angrily upon
him, and sought to undermine his authority, everywhere
spreading reports of the unsoundness of his teaching. …
While matters were in this strained condition, events took
place at Prague which are too closely connected with the story
that we are telling, exercised too great an influence in
bringing about the issues that lie before us, to allow us to
pass them by. … The University of Prague, though recently
founded—it only dated back to the year 1348—was now, next
after those of Paris and Oxford, the most illustrious in
Europe. … This University, like that of Paris, on the
pattern of which it had been modelled, was divided into four
'nations'—four groups, that is, or families of scholars—each
of these having in academical affairs a single collective
vote. These nations were the Bavarian, the Saxon, the Polish,
and the Bohemian. This does not appear at first an unfair
division—two German and two Slavonic; but in practical
working the Polish was so largely recruited from Silesia, and
other German or half-German lands, that its vote was in fact
German also. The Teutonic votes were thus as three to one, and
the Bohemians in their own land and their own University on
every important matter hopelessly outvoted. When, by, aid of
this preponderance, the University was made to condemn the
teaching of Wiclif … matters came to a crisis. Urged by Hus,
who as a stout patriot, and an earnest lover of the Bohemian
language and literature, had more than a theological interest
in the matter,—by Jerome [of Prague],—by a large number of
the Bohemian nobility,—King Wenzel published an edict whereby
the relations of natives and foreigners were completely
reversed. There should be henceforth three votes for the
Bohemian nation, and only one for the three others. Such a
shifting of the weights certainly appears as a redressing of
one inequality by creating another. At all events it was so
earnestly resented by the Germans, by professors and students
alike, that they quitted the University in a body, some say of
five, and some of thirty thousand, and founded the rival
University of Leipsic, leaving no more than two thousand
students at Prague. Full of indignation against Hus, whom they
regarded as the prime author of this affront and wrong, they
spread throughout all Germany the most unfavourable reports of
him and of his teaching. This exodus of the foreigners had
left Hus, who was now Rector of the University, with a freer
field than before. But Church matters at Prague did not mend;
they became more confused and threatening every day; until
presently the shameful outrage against all Christian morality
which a century later did a still more effectual work, served
to put Hus into open opposition to the corrupt hierarchy of
his time. Pope John XXIII., having a quarrel with the King of
Naples, proclaimed a crusade against him, with what had become
a constant accompaniment of this,—Indulgences to match. But
to denounce Indulgences, as Hus with fierce and righteous
indignation did now, was to wound Rome in her most sensitive
part. He was excommunicated at once, and every place which
should harbour him stricken with an interdict. While matters
were in this frame the Council of Constance [see PAPACY: A. D.
1414-1418] was opened, which should appease all the troubles
of Christendom, and correct whatever was amiss. The Bohemian
difficulty could not be omitted, and Hus was summoned to make
answer at Constance for himself. He had not been there four
weeks when he was required to appear before the Pope and
Cardinals (Nov. 18, 1414). After a brief informal hearing he
was committed to harsh durance from which he never issued as a
free man again. Sigismund, the German King and Emperor Elect,
who had furnished Hus with a safe-conduct which should protect
him, 'going to the Council, tarrying at the Council, returning
from the Council,' was absent from Constance at the time, and
heard with real displeasure how lightly regarded this promise
and pledge of his had been. Some big words too he spoke,
threatening to come himself and release the prisoner by force;
but, being waited on by a deputation from the Council, who
represented to him that he, as a layman, in giving such a
safe conduct had exceeded his powers, and intruded into a
region which was not his, Sigismund was convinced, or affected
to be convinced. … More than seven months elapsed before Hus
could obtain a hearing before the Council. This was granted to
him at last. Thrice heard (June 5, 7, 8, 1415),—if indeed
such tumultuary sittings, where the man speaking for his life,
and for much more than his life, was continually interrupted
and overborne by hostile voices, by loud cries of 'Recant,'
'Recant,' may be reckoned as hearings at all,—he bore
himself, by the confession of all, with courage, meekness and
dignity." He refused to recant. Some of the articles brought
against him, he said, "charged him with teaching things which
he had never taught, and he could not, by this formal act of
retraction, admit that he had taught them." He was condemned,
sentenced to the stake, and burned, on the 6th of July, 1415.
His friend, Jerome, of Prague, suffered the same fate in the
following May.
_R. C. Trench,
Lectures on Mediaeval Church History,
lecture 22._
ALSO IN:
_E. H. Gillett,
Life and times of John Hus._
_A. H. Wratislaw,
John Hus._
_A. Neander,
General History of Christian Religion,
volume 9, part 2._
{288}
BOHEMIA: A. D. 1410.
Election of King Sigismund to the imperial throne.
See GERMANY: A. D. 1347-1493.
BOHEMIA: A. D. 1419-1434.
The Hussite Wars.
The Reformation checked.
"The fate of Huss and Jerome created an instant and fierce
excitement among the Bohemians. An address, defending them
against the charge of heresy and protesting against the
injustice and barbarity of the Council, was signed by 400 or
500 nobles and forwarded to Constance. The only result was
that the Council decreed that no safe-conduct could be allowed
to protect a heretic, that the University of Prague must be
reorganized, and the strongest measures applied to suppress
the Hussite doctrines in Bohemia. This was a defiance which
the Bohemians courageously accepted. Men of all classes united
in proclaiming that the doctrines of Huss should be freely
taught, and that no Interdict of the Church should be
enforced: the University, and even Wenzel's queen, Sophia,
favored this movement, which soon became so powerful that all
priests who refused to administer the sacrament 'in both
forms' were driven from the churches. … When the Council of
Constance was dissolved [1418], Sigismund [the Emperor]
hastened to Hungary to carry on a new war with the Turks, who
were already extending their conquests along the Danube. The
Hussites in Bohemia employed this opportunity to organize
themselves for resistance; 40,000 of them, in July, 1419,
assembled on a mountain to which they gave the name of Tabor,
and chose as their leader a nobleman who was surnamed Ziska,
'the one-eyed.' The excitement soon rose to such a pitch that
several monasteries were stormed and plundered. King Wenzel
arrested some of the ringleaders, but this only inflamed the
spirit of the people. They formed a procession in Prague,
marched through the city, carrying the sacramental cup at
their head, and took forcible possession of several churches.
When they halted before the city-hall, to demand the release
of their imprisoned brethren, stones were thrown at them from
the windows, whereupon they broke into the building and hurled
the Burgomaster and six other officials upon the upheld spears
of those below. … The Hussites were already divided into two
parties, one moderate in its demands, called the Calixtines,
from the Latin 'calix,' a chalice, which was their symbol
[referring to their demand for the administration of the
eucharistic cup to the laity, or communion 'sub utraque
specie'—whence they were also called 'Utraquists']; the other
radical and fanatic, called the 'Taborites,' who proclaimed
their separation from the Church of Rome and a new system of
brotherly equality through which they expected to establish
the Millenium upon earth. The exigencies of their situation
obliged these two parties to unite in common defence against
the forces of the Church and the Empire, during the sixteen
years of war which followed; but they always remained
separated in their religious views, and mutually intolerant.
Ziska, who called himself 'John Ziska of the Chalice,
commander in the hope of God of the Taborites,' had been a
friend and was an ardent follower of Huss. He was an old man,
bald-headed, short, broad-shouldered, with a deep furrow
across his brow, an enormous aquiline nose, and a short red
moustache. In his genius for military operations, he ranks
among the great commanders of the world; his quickness, energy
and inventive talent were marvellous, but at the same time he
knew neither tolerance nor mercy. … Sigismund does not
seem to have been aware of the formidable character of the
movement, until the end of his war with the Turks, some months
afterwards, and he then persuaded the Pope to summon all
Christendom to a crusade against Bohemia. During the year 1420
a force of 100,000 soldiers was collected, and Sigismund
marched at their head to Prague. The Hussites met him with the
demand for the acceptance of the following articles: 1.—The
word of God to be freely preached; 2.—The sacrament to be
administered in both forms; 3.—The clergy to possess no
property or temporal authority; 4.—All sins to be punished by
the proper authorities. Sigismund was ready to accept these
articles as the price of their submission, but the Papal
Legate forbade the agreement, and war followed. On the 1st of
November, 1420, the Crusaders were totally defeated by Ziska,
and all Bohemia was soon relieved of their presence. The
dispute between the moderates and the radicals broke out
again; the idea of a community of property began to prevail
among the Taborites, and most of the Bohemian nobles refused
to act with them. Ziska left Prague with his troops and for a
time devoted himself to the task of suppressing all opposition
through the country, with fire and sword. He burned no less
than 550 convents and monasteries, slaying the priests and
monks who refused to accept the new doctrines. … While
besieging the town of Raby, an arrow destroyed his remaining
eye, yet he continued to plan battles and sieges as before.
The very name of the blind warrior became a terror throughout
Germany. In September, 1421, a second Crusade of 200,000 men,
commanded by five German Electors, entered Bohemia from the
west. … But the blind Ziska, nothing daunted, led his
wagons, his flail-men, and mace-wielders against the Electors,
whose troops began to fly before them. No battle was fought;
the 200,000 Crusaders were scattered in all directions, and
lost heavily during their retreat. Then Ziska wheeled about
and marched against Sigismund, who was late in making his
appearance. The two armies met on the 8th of January, 1422 [at
Deutschbrod], and the Hussite victory was so complete that the
Emperor narrowly escaped falling into their hands. … A third
Crusade was arranged and Frederick of Brandenburg (the
Hohenzollern) selected to command it, but the plan failed from
lack of support.
{289}
The dissensions among the Hussites became fiercer
than ever; Ziska was at one time on the point of attacking
Prague, but the leaders of the moderate party succeeded in
coming to an understanding with him, and he entered the city
in triumph. In October, 1424, while marching against Duke
Albert of Austria, who had invaded Moravia, he fell a victim
to the plague. Even after death he continued to terrify the
German soldiers, who believed that his skin had been made into
a drum, and still called the Hussites to battle. A majority of
the Taborites elected a priest, called Procopius the Great, as
their commander in Ziska's stead; the others who thenceforth
styled themselves 'Orphans,' united under another priest,
Procopius the Little. The approach of another Imperial army,
in 1426, compelled them to forget their differences, and the
result was a splendid victory over their enemies. Procopius
the Great then invaded Austria and Silesia, which he laid
waste without mercy. The Pope called a fourth Crusade, which
met the same fate as the former ones: the united armies of the
Archbishop of Treves, the Elector Frederick of Brandenburg and
the Duke of Saxony, 200,000 strong, were utterly defeated, and
fled in disorder, leaving an enormous quantity of stores and
munitions of war in the hands of the Bohemians. Procopius, who
was almost the equal of Ziska as a military leader, made
several unsuccessful attempts to unite the Hussites in one
religious body. In order to prevent their dissensions from
becoming dangerous to the common cause, he kept the soldiers
of all sects under his command, and undertook fierce invasions
into Bavaria, Saxony and Brandenburg, which made the Hussite
name a terror to all Germany. During these expeditions one
hundred towns were destroyed, more than 1,500 villages burned,
tens of thousands of the inhabitants slain, and such
quantities of plunder collected that it was impossible to
transport the whole of it to Bohemia. Frederick of Brandenburg
and several other princes were compelled to pay heavy tributes to
the Hussites: the Empire was thoroughly humiliated, the people
weary of slaughter, yet the Pope refused even to call a
Council for the discussion of the difficulty. … The German
princes made a last and desperate effort: an army of 130,000
men, 40,000 of whom were cavalry, was brought together, under
the command of Frederick of Brandenburg, while Albert of
Austria was to support it by invading Bohemia from the south.
Procopius and his dauntless Hussites met the Crusaders on the
14th of August, 1431, at a place called Thauss, and won
another of their marvellous victories. The Imperial army was
literally cut to pieces, 8,000 wagons, filled with provisions
and munitions of war, and 150 cannons, were left upon the
field. The Hussites marched northward to the Baltic, and
eastward into Hungary, burning, slaying, and plundering as
they went. Even the Pope now yielded, and the Hussites were
invited to attend the Council at Basel, with the most solemn
stipulations in regard to personal safety and a fair
discussion of their demands. … In 1433, finally 300
Hussites, headed by Procopius, appeared in Basel. They
demanded nothing more than the acceptance of the four articles
upon which they had united in 1420; but after seven weeks of
talk, during which the Council agreed upon nothing and
promised nothing, they marched away, after stating that any
further negotiation must be carried on in Prague. This course
compelled the Council to act; an embassy was appointed, which
proceeded to Prague, and on the 30th of November, the same
year, concluded a treaty with the Hussites. The four demands
were granted, but each with a condition attached which gave
the Church a chance to regain its lost power. For this reason,
the Taborites and 'Orphans' refused to accept the compact; the
moderate party united with the nobles and undertook to
suppress the former by force. A fierce internal war followed,
but it was of short duration. In 1434, the Taborites were
defeated [at Lipan, May 30], their fortified mountain taken,
Procopius the Great and the Little were both slain, and the
members of the sect dispersed. The Bohemian Reformation was
never again dangerous to the Church of Rome."
_B. Taylor,
History of Germany,
chapter 22._
ALSO IN:
_C. A. Peschek,
Reformation and Anti-Reformation in Bohemia,
introductory chapter._
_E. H. Gillett,
Life and Times of John Hus,
volume 2, chapters 13-18._
_E. de Schweinitz,
History of the Church known as the Unitas Fratrum,
chapter 9._
BOHEMIA: A. D. 1434-1457.
Organization of the Utraquist National Church.
Minority of Ladislaus Posthumus.
Regency of George Podiebrad.
Origin of the Unitas Fratrum.
"The battle of Lipan was a turning point in the history of the
Hussites. It put Bohemia and Moravia into the hands of the
Utraquists, and enabled them to carry out their plans
unhindered. The man who was foremost in shaping events and who
became more and more prominent, until he exercised a
commanding influence, was John of Rokycana. … At the diet of
1435 he was unanimously elected archbishop. … Meantime
Sigismund endeavored to regain his kingdom. The Diet made
demands which were stringent and humiliating; but he pledged
himself to fulfill them, and on the 5th of July, 1436, at a
meeting held with great pomp and solemnity, in the
market-place of Iglau, was formally acknowledged as King of
Bohemia. On the same occasion, the Compactata were anew
ratified and the Bohemians readmitted to the fellowship of the
mother church. But scarcely had Sigismund reached his capital
when he began so serious a reaction in favor of Rome that
Rokycana secretly left the city and retired to a castle near
Pardubic (1437). The king's treachery was, however, cut short
by the hand of death, on the 9th of December, of the same
year, at Znaim, while on his way to Hungary; and his successor
and son-in-law, Albert of Austria, followed him to the grave
in 1439, in the midst of a campaign against the Turks. Bohemia
was left without a ruler, for Albert had no children except a
posthumous son [Ladislaus Posthumus.]"
See HUNGARY: A. D. 1301-1442, and 1442-1458.
"A time of anarchy began and various leagues arose, the most
powerful of which stood under Baron Ptacek. … He … called
an ecclesiastical convention at Kuttenberg (October 4th). This
convention brought about far-reaching results. … Rokycana
was acknowledged as Archbishop elect, the supreme direction of
ecclesiastical affairs was committed into his hands, the
priests promised him obedience, and 24 doctrinal and
constitutional articles were adopted which laid the foundation
of the Utraquist Church as the National Church of Bohemia.
{290}
But the Taborites stood aloof. … At last a disputation was
agreed upon," as the result of which the Taborites were
condemned by the Diet. "They lost all prestige; their towns,
with the exception of Tabor, passed out of their hands; their
membership was scattered and a large part of it joined the
National Church. In the following summer Ptacek died and
George Podiebrad succeeded him as the head of the league.
Although a young man of only 24 years, he displayed the
sagacity of an experienced statesman and was distinguished by
the virtues of a patriot. In 1448 a bold stroke made him
master of Prague and constituted him practically Regent of all
Bohemia; four years later his regency was formally
acknowledged. He was a warm friend of Rokycana, whose
consecration he endeavored to bring about." When it was found
that Rome could not be reconciled, there were thoughts of
cutting loose altogether from the Roman Catholic and uniting
with the Greek Church. "Negotiations were actually begun in
1452, but came to an abrupt close in the following year, in
consequence of the fall of Constantinople. About the same time
Ladislaus Posthumus, Albert's son, assumed the crown,
Podiebrad remaining Regent. The latter continued the friend of
Rokycana; the former, who was a Catholic, conceived a strong
dislike to him. As soon as Rokycana had given up the hope of
conciliating Rome, he began to preach, with great power and
eloquence, against its corruptions." It was at this time that
a movement arose among certain of his followers which resulted
in the formation of the remarkable religious body which called
itself Unitas Fratrum. The leading spirit in this movement was
Rokycana's nephew, commonly called Gregory the Patriarch. The
teaching and influence which shaped it was that of Peter
Chelcicky. Gregory and his companions, wishing to dwell
together, in the Christian unity of which they had formed an
ideal in their minds, found a retreat at the secluded village
of Kunwald, on the estate of George Podiebrad. "The name which
they chose was 'Brethren of the Law of Christ'—'Fratres
Legis Christi'; inasmuch, however, as this name gave rise to
the idea that they were a new order of Monks, they changed it
simply into 'Brethren.' When the organization of their Church
had been completed, they assumed the additional title of
'Jednota Bratrska,' or Unitas Fratrum, that is, the Unity of
the Brethren, which has remained the official and significant
appellation of the Church to the present day. …. It was
often abbreviated into 'The Unity.' Another name by which the
Church called itself was 'The Bohemian Brethren.' It related
to all the Brethren, whether they belonged to Bohemia,
Moravia, Prussia or Poland. To call them The Bohemian-Moravian
Brethren, or the Moravian Brethren, is historically incorrect.
The name Moravian arose in the time of the Renewed Brethren's
Church, because the men by whom it was renewed came from
Moravia. … The organization of the Unitas Fratrum took place
in the year 1457."
_E. De Schweinitz,
History of the Church known as Unitas Fratrum,
chapters 10-12._
BOHEMIA: A. D. 1458.
Election of George Podiebrad to the throne.
See HUNGARY: A. D. 1442-1458.
BOHEMIA: A. D. 1458-1471.
Papal excommunication and deposition of the king, George
Podiebrad.
A crusade.
War with the Emperor and Matthias of Hungary.
Death of Podiebrad and election of Ladislaus of Poland.
"George Podiebrad had scarcely ascended the throne before the
Catholics, at the instigation of the pope, required him to
fulfil his coronation oath, by expelling all heretics from
the kingdom. He complied with their request, banished the
Taborites, Picards, Adamites, and all other religious sects
who did not profess the Catholic doctrines, and issued a
decree that all his subjects should become members of the
Catholic church, as communicants under one or both kinds. The
Catholics, however, were not satisfied; considering the
Calixtins as heretics, they entreated him to annul the
compacts, or to obtain a new ratification of them from the new
pope: To gratify their wishes he sent an embassy to Rome,
requesting a confirmation of the compacts; but Pius, under the
pretence that the compacts gave occasion to heresy, refused
his ratification, and sent Fantino della Valle, as legate, to
Prague, for the purpose of persuading the king to prohibit the
administration of the communion under both kinds. In
consequence of this legation the king called a diet, at which
the legate and the bishops of Olmutz and Breslau were present.
The ill success of the embassy to Rome having been announced,
he said, 'I am astonished, and cannot divine the intentions of
the pope. The compacts were the only means of terminating the
dreadful commotions in Bohemia, and if they are annulled, the
kingdom will again relapse into the former disorders. The
council of Basle, which was composed of the most learned men
in Europe, approved and granted them to the Bohemians, and
pope Eugenius confirmed them. They contain no heresy, and are
in all respects conformable to the doctrines of the holy
church. I and my wife have followed them from our childhood,
and I am determined to maintain them till my death.' …
Fantino replying in a long and virulent invective, the king
ordered him to quit the assembly, and imprisoned him in the
castle of Podiebrad, allowing him no other sustenance except
bread and water. The pope, irritated by this insult, annulled
the compacts, in 1463, and fulminated a sentence of
excommunication against the king, unless he appeared at Rome
within a certain time to justify his conduct. This bull
occasioned a great ferment among the Catholics; Podiebrad was
induced to liberate the legate, and made an apology to the
offended pontiff; while Frederic, grateful for the assistance
which he had recently received from the king of Bohemia, when
besieged by his brother Albert, interposed his mediation with
the pope, and procured the suspension of the sentence of
excommunication. Pius dying on the 14th of August, 1464, the
new pope, Paul II., persecuted the king of Bohemia with
increasing acrimony. He sent his legate to Breslau to excite
commotions among the Catholics, endeavoured without effect to
gain Casimir, king of Poland, by the offer of the Bohemian
crown, and applied with the same ill success to the states of
Germany. He at length overcame the gratitude of the emperor by
threats and promises, and at the diet of Nuremberg in 1467,
the proposal of his legate Fantino, to form a crusade against the
heretic king of Bohemia, was supported by the imperial ambassadors.
{291}
Although this proposal was rejected by the diet,
the pope published a sentence of deposition against Podiebrad,
and his emissaries were allowed to preach the crusade
throughout Germany, and in every part of the Austrian
territories. The conduct of Frederic drew from the king of
Bohemia, in 1468, a violent invective against his ingratitude,
and a formal declaration of war; he followed this declaration
by an irruption into Austria, spreading devastation as far as
the Danube. Frederic in vain applied to the princes of the
empire for assistance: and at length excited Matthias king of
Hungary against his father-in-law, by offering to invest him
with the kingdom of Bohemia. Matthias, forgetting his
obligations to Podiebrad, to whom he owed his life and crown,
was dazzled by the offer, and being assisted by bodies of
German marauders, who had assumed the cross, invaded Bohemia.
At the same time the intrigues of the pope exciting the
Catholics to insurrection, the country again became a prey to
the dreadful evils of a civil and religious war. The vigour
and activity of George Podiebrad suppressed the internal
commotions, and repelled the invasion of the Hungarians; an
armistice was concluded, and the two kings, on the 4th of
April, 1469, held an amicable conference at Sternberg, in
Moravia, where they entered into a treaty of peace. But
Matthias, influenced by the perfidious maxim, that no compact
should be kept with heretics, was persuaded by the papal
legate to resume hostilities. After overrunning Moravia and
Silesia, he held a mock diet at Olmutz with some of the
Catholic party, where he was chosen king of Bohemia, and
solemnly crowned by the legate. … Podiebrad, in order to
baffle the designs both of the emperor and Matthias, summoned
a diet at Prague, and proposed to the states as his successor,
Ladislaus, eldest son of Casimir, king of Poland, by
Elizabeth, second daughter of the emperor Albert. The proposal
was warmly approved by the nation, … as the Catholics were
desirous of living under a prince of their own communion, and
the Calixtins anxious to prevent the accession of Frederic or
Matthias, both of whom were hostile to their doctrines. The
states accordingly assented without hesitation, and Ladislaus
was unanimously nominated successor to the throne. The
indignation of Matthias was inflamed by his disappointment,
and hostilities were continued with increasing fury. The two
armies, conducted by their respective sovereigns, the ablest
generals of the age, for some time kept each other in check;
till at length both parties, wearied by the devastation of
their respective countries, concluded a kind of armistice, on
the 22nd of July, 1470, which put a period to hostilities. On
the death of Podiebrad, in the ensuing year, Frederic again
presenting himself as a candidate, was supported by still
fewer adherents than on the former occasion; a more numerous
party espoused the interests of Matthias; but the majority
declaring for Ladislaus, he was re-elected, and proclaimed
king. Frederic supported Ladislaus in preference to Matthias,
and by fomenting the troubles in Hungary, as well as by his
intrigues with the king of Poland, endeavoured not only to
disappoint Matthias of the throne of Bohemia, but even to
drive him from that of Hungary."
_W. Coxe.
History of the House of Austria,
chapter 18 (volume 1)._
BOHEMIA: A. D. 1471-1479.
War with Matthias of Hungary.
Surrender of Moravia and Silesia.
See HUNGARY: A. D. 1471-1487.
BOHEMIA: A. D. 1490.
King Ladislaus elected to the throne of Hungary.
See Hungary: A. D. 1487-1526.
BOHEMIA: A. D. 1516-1576.
Accession of the House of Austria.
The Reformation and its strength.
Alternating toleration and persecution.
In 1489 Vladislav "was elected to the throne of Hungary after
the death of Mathias Corvinus. He died in 1516, and was
succeeded on the throne of Bohemia and Hungary by his minor
son, Louis, who perished in 1526 at the battle of Mohacz
against the Turks [see HUNGARY: A. D. 1487-1526]. An equality
of rights was maintained between the Hussites and the Roman
Catholics during these two reigns. Louis left no children, and
was succeeded on the throne of Hungary and Bohemia by
Ferdinand of Austria [see, also, AUSTRIA: A. D. 1406-1526],
brother of the Emperor Charles V., and married to the sister
of Louis, a prince of a bigoted and despotic character. The
doctrines of Luther had already found a speedy echo amongst
the Calixtines under the preceding reign; and Protestantism
gained so much ground under that of Ferdinand, that the
Bohemians refused to take part in the war against the
Protestant league of Smalkalden, and formed a union for the
defence of the national and religious liberties, which were
menaced by Ferdinand. The defeat of the Protestants at the
battle of Muhlberg, in 1547, by Charles V., which laid
prostrate their cause in Germany, produced a severe reaction
in Bohemia. Several leaders of the union were executed, others
imprisoned or banished; the property of many nobles was
confiscated, the towns were heavily fined, deprived of several
privileges, and subjected to new taxes. These measures were
carried into execution with the assistance of German, Spanish,
and Hungarian soldiers, and legalized by an assembly known
under the name of the Bloody Diet. … The Jesuits were also
introduced during that reign into Bohemia. The privileges of
the Calixtine, or, as it was officially called, the Utraquist
Church, were not abolished; and Ferdinand, who had succeeded
to the imperial crown after the abdication of his brother
Charles V., softened, during the latter years of his reign,
his harsh and despotic character. … He died in 1564,
sincerely regretting, it is said, the acts of oppression which
he had committed against his Bohemian subjects. He was
succeeded by his son, the Emperor Maximilian II., a man of
noble character and tolerant disposition, which led to the
belief that he himself inclined towards the doctrines of the
Reformation. He died in 1576, leaving a name venerated by all
parties. … Maximilian's son, the Emperor Rudolph, was
educated at the court of his cousin, Philip II. of Spain, and
could not be but adverse to Protestantism, which had, however,
become too strong, not only in Bohemia, but also in Austria
proper, to be easily suppressed; but several indirect means
were adopted, in order gradually to effect this object."
_V. Krasinski,
Lectures on the Religious History of the Slavonic Nations,
lecture 2._
BOHEMIA: A. D. 1576-1604.
Persecution of Protestants by Rudolph.
See HUNGARY: A. D. 1567-1604.
{292}
BOHEMIA: A. D. 1611-1618.
The Letter of Majesty, or Royal Charter, and Matthias's
violation of it.
Ferdinand of Styria forced upon the nation as king by
hereditary right.
The throwing of the Royal Counsellors from the window.
Beginning of the Thirty Years War.
In 1611 the Emperor Rodolph was forced to surrender the crown
of Bohemia to his brother Matthias. The next year he died,
and Matthias succeeded him as Emperor also. "The tranquillity
which Rodolph II.'s Letter of Majesty [see GERMANY: A. D.
1608-1618] had established in Bohemia lasted for some time,
under the administration of Matthias, till the nomination of a
new heir to this kingdom in the person of Ferdinand of Gratz
[Styria]. This prince, whom we shall afterwards become better
acquainted with under the title of Ferdinand II., Emperor of
Germany, had, by the violent extirpation of the Protestant
religion within his hereditary dominions, announced himself as
an inexorable zealot for popery, and was consequently looked
upon by the Catholic part of Bohemia as the future pillar of
their church. The declining health of the Emperor brought on
this hour rapidly; and, relying on so powerful a supporter,
the Bohemian Papists began to treat the Protestants with
little moderation. The Protestant vassals of Roman Catholic
nobles, in particular, experienced the harshest treatment. At
length several of the former were incautious enough to speak
somewhat loudly of their hopes, and by threatening hints to
awaken among the Protestants a suspicion of their future
sovereign. But this mistrust would never have broken out into
actual violence, had the Roman Catholics confined themselves
to general expressions, and not by attacks on individuals
furnished the discontent of the people with enterprising
leaders. Henry Matthias, Count Thurn, not a native of Bohemia,
but proprietor of some estates in that kingdom, had, by his
zeal for the Protestant cause, and an enthusiastic attachment
to his newly adopted country, gained the entire confidence of
the Utraquists, which opened him the way to the most important
posts. … Of a hot and impetuous disposition, which loved
tumult because his talents shone in it—rash and thoughtless
enough to undertake things which cold prudence and a calmer
temper would not have ventured upon—unscrupulous enough,
where the gratification of his passions was concerned, to
sport with the fate of thousands, and at the same time politic
enough to hold in leading-strings such a people as the
Bohemians then were. He had already taken an active part in
the troubles under Rodolph's administration; and the Letter of
Majesty which the States had extorted from that Emperor, was
chiefly to be laid to his merit. The court had intrusted to
him, as burgrave or castellan of Calstein, the custody of the
Bohemian crown, and of the national charter. But the nation
had placed in his hands something far more important—itself
—with the office of defender or protector of the faith. The
aristocracy by which the Emperor was ruled, imprudently
deprived him of this harmless guardianship of the dead, to
leave him his full influence over the living. They took from
him his office of burgrave, or constable of the castle, which
had rendered him dependent on the court, thereby opening his
eyes to the importance of the other which remained, and
wounded his vanity, which yet was the thing that made his
ambition harmless. From this moment he was actuated solely by
a desire of revenge; and the opportunity of gratifying it was
not long wanting. In the Royal Letter which the Bohemians had
extorted from Rodolph II., as well as in the German religious
treaty, one material article remained undetermined. All the
privileges granted by the latter to the Protestants, were
conceived in favour of the Estates or governing bodies, not of
the subjects; for only to those of ecclesiastical states had a
toleration, and that precarious, been conceded. The Bohemian
Letter of Majesty, in the same manner, spoke only of the
Estates and the imperial towns, the magistrates of which had
contrived to obtain equal privileges with the former. These
alone were free to erect churches and schools, and openly to
celebrate their Protestant worship: in all other towns, it was
left entirely to the government to which they belonged, to
determine the religion of the inhabitants. The Estates of the
Empire had availed themselves of this privilege in its fullest
extent; the secular indeed without opposition; while the
ecclesiastical, in whose case the declaration of Ferdinand had
limited this privilege, disputed, not without reason, the
validity of that limitation. What was a disputed point in the
religious treaty, was left still more doubtful in the Letter
of Majesty. … In the little town of Klostergrab, subject to
the Archbishop of Prague; and in Braunau, which belonged to
the abbot of that monastery, churches were founded by the
Protestants, and completed notwithstanding the opposition of
their superiors, and the disapprobation of the Emperor. … By
the Emperor's orders, the church at Klostergrab was pulled
down; that at Braunau forcibly shut up, and the most turbulent
of the citizens thrown into prison. A general commotion among
the Protestants was the consequence of this measure; a loud
outcry was everywhere raised at this violation of the Letter
of Majesty; and Count Thurn animated by revenge, and
particularly called upon by his office of defender, showed
himself not a little busy in inflaming the minds of the
people. At his instigation deputies were summoned to Prague
from every circle in the empire, to concert the necessary
measures against the common danger. It was resolved to
petition the Emperor to press for the liberation of the
prisoners. The answer of the Emperor, already offensive to the
states, from its being addressed, not to them, but to his
viceroy, denounced their conduct as illegal and rebellious,
justified what had been done at Klostergrab and Braunau as the
result of an imperial mandate, and contained some passages
that might be construed into threats. Count Thurn did not fail
to augment the unfavourable impression which this imperial
edict made upon the assembled Estates. … He held it …
advisable first to direct their indignation against the
Emperor's counsellors; and for that purpose circulated a
report, that the imperial proclamation had been drawn up by
the government at Prague and only signed in Vienna. Among the
imperial delegates, the chief objects of the popular hatred,
were the President of the Chamber, Slawata, and Baron
Martinitz, who had been elected in place of Count Thurn,
Burgrave of Calstein. … Against two characters so unpopular
the public indignation was easily excited, and they were
marked out for a sacrifice to the general indignation.
{293}
On the 23rd of May, 1618, the deputies appeared armed, and in
great numbers, at the royal palace, and forced their way into
the hall where the Commissioners Sternberg, Martinitz,
Lobkowitz, and Slawata were assembled. In a threatening tone
they demanded to know from each of them, whether he had taken
any part, or had consented to, the imperial proclamation.
Sternberg received them with composure, Martinitz and Slawata
with defiance. This decided their fate; Sternberg and
Lobkowitz, less hated, and more feared, were led by the arm
out of the room; Martinitz and Slawata were seized, dragged to
a window, and precipitated from a height of 80 feet, into the
castle trench. Their creature, the secretary Fabricius, was
thrown after them. This singular mode of execution naturally
excited the surprise of civilized nations. The Bohemians
justified it as a national custom, and saw nothing remarkable
in the whole affair, excepting that anyone should have got up
again safe and sound after such a fall. A dunghill, on which
the imperial commissioners chanced to be deposited, had saved
them from injury. [The incident of the flinging of the
obnoxious ministers from the window is often referred to as
'the defenestration at Prague.'] … By this brutal act of
self-redress, no room was left for irresolution or repentance,
and it seemed as if a single crime could be absolved only by a
series of violences. As the deed itself could not be undone,
nothing was left but to disarm the hand of punishment. Thirty
directors were appointed to organize a regular insurrection.
They seized upon all the offices of state, and all the
imperial revenues, took into their own service the royal
functionaries and the soldiers, and summoned the whole
Bohemian nation to avenge the common cause."
_F. Schiller,
History of the Thirty Years' War,
book 1, pages 51-55._
ALSO IN:
_S. R. Gardiner,
The Thirty Years' War,
chapter 2._
_A. Gindely,
History of the Thirty Years' War,
chapter 1._
_F. Kohlrausch,
History of Germany,
chapter 22._
BOHEMIA: A. D. 1618-1620.
Conciliatory measures defeated by Ferdinand.
His election to the Imperial throne, and his deposition in
Bohemia.
Acceptance of the crown by Frederick the Palatine Elector.
His unsupported situation.
See GERMANY: A. D. 1618-1620.
BOHEMIA: A. D. 1620.
Disappointment in the newly elected King.
His aggressive Calvinism.
Battle of the White Mountain before Prague.
Frederick's flight.
Annulling of the Royal charter.
Loss of Bohemian Liberties.
See GERMANY: A. D. 1620,
and HUNGARY: A. D. 1606-1660.
BOHEMIA: A. D. 1621-1648.
The Reign of Terror.
Death, banishment, confiscation, dragoonades.
The country a desert.
Protestantism crushed, but not slain.
"In June, 1621, a fearful reign of terror began in Bohemia,
with the execution of 27 of the most distinguished heretics.
For years the unhappy people bled under it; thousands were
banished, and yet Protestantism was not fully exterminated.
The charter was cut into shreds by the Emperor himself; there
could be no forbearance towards 'such acknowledged rebels.' As
a matter of course, the Lutheran preaching was forbidden under
the heaviest penalties; heretical works, Bibles especially,
were taken away in heaps. Jesuit colleges, churches, and
schools came into power; but this was not all. A large number
of distinguished Protestant families were deprived of their
property, and, as if that were not enough, it was decreed that
no non-Catholic could be a citizen, nor carry on a trade,
enter into a marriage, nor make a will; anyone who harboured a
Protestant preacher forfeited his property; whoever permitted
Protestant instruction to be given was to be fined, and
whipped out of town; the Protestant poor who were not
converted were to be driven out of the hospitals, and to be
replaced by Catholic poor; he who gave free expression to his
opinions about religion was to be executed. In 1624 an order
was issued to all preachers and teachers to leave the country
within eight days under pain of death; and finally, it was
ordained that whoever had not become Catholic by Easter, 1626,
must emigrate. … But the real conversions were few;
thousands quietly remained true to the faith; other thousands
wandered as beggars into foreign lands, more than 30,000
Bohemian families, and among them 500 belonging to the
aristocracy, went into banishment. Exiled Bohemians were to be
found in every country of Europe, and were not wanting in any
of the armies that fought against Austria. Those who could not
or would not emigrate, held to their faith in secret. Against
them dragoonades were employed. Detachments of soldiers were
sent into the various districts to torment the heretics till
they were converted. The 'Converters' (Seligmacher) went thus
throughout all Bohemia, plundering and murdering. … No
succour reached the unfortunate people; but neither did the
victors attain their end. Protestantism and the Hussite
memories could not be slain, and only outward submission was
extorted. … A respectable Protestant party exists to this
day in Bohemia and Moravia. But a desert was created; the land
was crushed for a generation. Before the war Bohemia had
4,000,000 inhabitants, and in 1648 there were but 700,000 or
800,000. These figures appear preposterous, but they are
certified by Bohemian historians. In some parts of the country
the population has not attained the standard of 1620 to this
day."
_L. Häusser,
The Period of the Reformation,
chapter 32._
ALSO IN:
_C. A. Peschek,
Reformation and Anti-Reformation in Bohemia,
volume 2._
_E. de Schweinitz,
History of the Church known as the Unitas Fratrum,
chapter 47-51._
BOHEMIA: A. D. 1631-1632.
Temporary occupation by the Saxons.
Their expulsion by Wallenstein.
See GERMANY: A. D. 1631-1632.
BOHEMIA: A. D. 1640-1645.
Campaigns of Baner and Torstenson.
See GERMANY: A. D. 1640-1645.
BOHEMIA: A. D. 1646-1648.
Last campaigns of the Thirty Years War.
Surprise and capture of part of Prague by the Swedes.
Siege of the old city.
Peace.
See GERMANY: A. D. 1646-1648.
BOHEMIA: A. D. 1740.
The question of the Austrian Succession.
The Pragmatic Sanction.
See AUSTRIA: A. D. 1718-1738, and 1740.
BOHEMIA: A. D. 1741.
See AUSTRIA: A. D. 1741 (AUGUST-NOVEMBER), and (OCTOBER).
BOHEMIA: A. D. 1742 (JANUARY-MAY).
Prussian invasion.
Battle of Chotusitz.
See AUSTRIA: A. D. 1742 (JANUARY-MAY).
{294}
BOHEMIA: A. D. 1742 (JUNE-DECEMBER).
Expulsion of the French.
Belleisle's retreat.
Maria Theresa crowned at Prague.
See AUSTRIA: A. D. 1742 (JUNE-DECEMBER).
BOHEMIA: A. D. 1757.
The Seven Years War.
Frederick's invasion and defeat.
Battles of Prague and Kolin.
See GERMANY: A. D. 1757 (APRIL-JUNE).
----------BOHEMIA: End----------
BOHEMIAN BRETHREN, The.
See BOHEMIA: A. D. 1434-1457,
and GERMANY: A. D. 1620.
BOHEMIANS (Gypsies).
See GYPSIES.
BOIANS, OR BOII.
Some passages in the earlier history and movements of the
powerful Gallic tribe known as the Boii will be found touched
upon under ROME: B. C. 390-347, and B. C. 295-191, in accounts
given of the destruction of Rome by the Gauls, and of the
subsequent wars of the Romans with the Cisalpine Gauls. After
the final conquest of the Boians in Gallia Cisalpina, early in
the second century, B. C., the Romans seem to have expelled
them, wholly or partly, from that country, forcing them to
cross the Alps. They afterwards occupied a region embraced in
modern Bavaria and Bohemia, both of which countries are
thought to have derived their names from these Boian people.
Some part of the nation, however, associated itself with the
Helvetii and joined in the migration which Cæsar arrested. He
settled these Boians in Gaul, within the Æduan territory,
between the Loire and the Allier. Their capital city was
Gergovia, which was also the name of a city of the Arverni.
The Gergovia of the Boians is conjectured to have been modern
Moulius. Their territory was the modern Bourbonnais, which
probably derived its name from them. Three important names,
therefore, in European geography and history, viz.—Bourbon,
Bavaria and Bohemia, are traced to the Gallic nation of the
Boii.
_Tacitus,
Germany,
translated by Church and Brodribb,
notes._
ALSO IN:
_C. Merivale, History of the Romans, chapter 12, note._
BOIS-LE-DUC.
Siege and capture by the Dutch (1629).
See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1621-1633.
BOKHARA (Ancient Transoxania).
"Taken literally, the name [Transoxania] is a translation of
the Arabic Mavera-un-nehr (that which lies beyond or across
the river), and it might therefore be supposed that
Transoxania meant the country lying beyond or on the right
shore of the Oxus. But this is not strictly speaking the case.
… From the period of the Samanides down to modern times, the
districts of Talkan, Tokharistan and Zem, although lying
partly or entirely on the left bank of the Oxus, have been
looked on as integral portions of Bokhara. Our historical
researches seem to prove that this arrangement dates from the
Samanides, who were themselves originally natives of that part
of Khorassan. … It is almost impossible in dealing
geographically with Transoxania to assign definitely an
accurate frontier. We can and will therefore comprehend in our
definition of Transoxania solely Bokhara, or the khanate of
Bokhara; for although it has only been known by the latter
name since the time of Sheïbani and of the Ozbegs [A. D.
1500], the shores of the Zerefshan and the tract of country
stretching southwards to the Oxus and northwards to the desert
of Kizil Kum, represent the only parts of the territory which
have remained uninterruptedly portions of the original
undivided state of Transoxania from the earliest historical
times. … Bokhara, the capital from the time of the
Samanides, and at the date of the very earliest geographical
reports concerning Transoxania, is said, during its
prosperity, to have been the largest city of the Islamite
world. … Bokhara was not, however, merely a luxurious city,
distinguished by great natural advantages; it was also the
principal emporium for the trade between China and Western
Asia; in addition to the vast warehouses for silks, brocades,
and cotton stuffs, for the finest carpets, and all kinds of
gold and silversmiths' work, it boasted of a great
money-market, being in fact the Exchange of all the population
of Eastern and Western Asia. … Sogd … comprised the
mountainous part of Transoxania (which may be described as the
extreme western spurs of the Thien-Shan). … The capital was
Samarkand, undoubtedly the Maracanda of the Greeks, which they
specify as the capital of Sogdia. The city has, throughout the
history of Transoxania been the rival of Bokhara. Before the
time of the Samanides, Samarkand was the largest city beyond
the Oxus, and only began to decline from its former importance
when Ismail chose Bokhara for his own residence. Under the
Khahrezmians it is said to have raised itself again, and
become much larger than its rival, and under Timour to have
reached the culminating point of its prosperity."
_A. Vambery,
History of Bokhara,
introduction._
ALSO IN:
_J. Hutton,
Central Asia,
chapters 2-3._
BOKHARA: B. C. 329-327.
Conquest by Alexander the Great.
See MACEDONIA: B. C. 330-323.
BOKHARA: 6th Century.
Conquest from the White Huns by the Turks.
See TURKS: 6TH CENTURY.
BOKHARA: A. D. 710.
The Moslem Conquest.
See. MAHOMETAN CONQUEST: A. D. 710.
BOKHARA: A. D. 991-998.
Under the Samanides.
See SAMANIDES.
BOKHARA: A. D. 1004-1193.
The Seldjuk Turks.
See TURKS (THE SELDJUKS): A. D. 1004-1063, and after.
BOKHARA: A. D. 1209-1220.
Under the Khuarezmians.
See KHUAREZM: 12TH CENTURY.
BOKHARA: A. D. 1219.
Destruction of the city by Jingis Khan.
Bokhara was taken by Jingis Khan in the summer of 1219. "It
was then a very large and magnificent city. Its name,
according to the historian Alai-ud-din, is derived from
Bokhar, which in the Magian language means the Centre of
Science." The city surrendered after a siege of a few days.
Jingis Khan, on entering the town, saw the great mosque and
asked if it was the Sultan's palace. "Being told it was the
house of God, he dismounted, climbed the steps, and said in a
loud voice to his followers, 'The hay is cut, give your horses
fodder.' They easily understood this cynical invitation to
plunder. … The inhabitants were ordered to leave the town in
a body, with only their clothes, so that it might be more
easily pillaged, after which the spoil was divided among the
victors. 'It was a fearful day,' says Ibn al Ithir; 'one only
heard the sobs and weeping of men, women and children, who
were separated forever; women were ravished, while men died
rather than survive the dishonour of their wives and
daughters.' The Mongols ended by setting fire to all the
wooden portion of the town, and only the great mosque and
certain palaces which were built of brick remained standing."
_H. H. Howorth,
History of the Mongols,
volume 1, chapter 3._
{295}
"The flourishing city on the Zerefshan had become a heap of
rubbish, but the garrison in the citadel, commanded by Kok
Khan, continued to hold out with a bravery which deserves our
admiration. The Mongols used every imaginable effort to reduce
this last refuge of the enemy; the Bokhariots themselves were
forced on to the scaling-ladders: but all in vain, and it was
not until the moat had been literally choked with corpses of
men and animals that the stronghold was taken and its brave
defenders put to death. The peaceable portion of the
population was also made to suffer for this heroic resistance.
More than 30,000 men were executed, and the remainder were,
with the exception of the very old people among them, reduced
to slavery, without any distinction of rank whatever; and thus
the inhabitants of Bokhara, lately so celebrated for their
learning, their love of art, and their general refinement,
were brought down to a dead level of misery and degradation
and scattered to all quarters."
_A. Vambery,
History of Bokhara,
chapter 8._
See MONGOLS: A. D. 1153-1227.
BOKHARA: A. D. 1868.
Subjection to Russia.
See RUSSIA: A. D. 1859-1876.
----------BOKHARA: End----------
BOLERIUM.
See BELERION.
BOLESLAUS I., King of Poland, A. D. 1000-1025.
Boleslaus II., King of Poland, A. D. 1058-1083.
Boleslaus III., Duke of Poland, A. D. 1102-1138.
Boleslaus IV., Duke of Poland, A. D. 1146-1173.
Boleslaus V., King of Poland, A. D. 1227-1279.
BOLEYN, Anne.
Marriage, trial and execution.
See ENGLAND: A. D. 1527-1534; and, 1536-1543.
BOLGARI.
See BULGARIA: ORIGIN OF.
BOLIVAR'S LIBERATION OF THE SOUTH AMERICAN STATES.
See COLOMBIAN STATES: A. D. 1810-1819, 1819-1830;
and PERU: A. D. 1820-1826, 1825-1826, and 1826-1876.
BOLIVIA:
The aboriginal inhabitants.
"With the Toromonos tribe, who occupied, as Orbigny tells us,
a district of from 11° to 13° of South latitude, it was an
established rule for every man to build his house, with his
own hands alone, and if he did otherwise he lost the title of
man, as well as became the laughing-stock of his fellow
citizens. The only clothing worn by these people was a turban
on the head, composed of feathers, the rest of the body being
perfectly naked; whilst the women used a garment, manufactured
out of cotton, that only partially covered their persons. …
The ornament in which the soft sex took most pride was a
necklace made of the teeth of enemies, killed by their
husbands in battle. Amongst the Moxos polygamy was tolerated,
and woman's infidelity severely punished. … The Moxos
cultivated the land with ploughs, and other implements of
agriculture, made of wood. They fabricated canoes, fought and
fished with bows and arrows. In the province of the Moxos
lived also a tribe called Itonomos, who, besides these last
named instruments of war, used two edged wooden scimitars. The
immorality of these Itonomos was something like that of the
Mormons of our time. … The Canichanas, who lived near
Machupo, between 13° and 14° South latitude and 67° to 68° West
longitude, are reputed by M. d'Orbigny as the bravest of the
Bolivian Indians. They are accredited to have been cannibals.
…Where Jujuy—the most northern province· of the Argentine
Republic—joins Bolivia, we have in the present day the
Mataguaya and Cambas Indians. The latter are represented to me
by Dr. Matienzo, of Rosario, as intelligent and devoted to
agricultural labor. They have fixed tolderias [villages], the
houses of which are clean and neat. Each town is commanded by
a capitan, whose sovereignty is hereditary to his male
descendants only."
_T. J. Hutchinson,
The Parana,
chapter 4._
See, also, AMERICAN ABORIGINES: ANDESIANS, and TUPI.
In the Empire of the Incas.
See PERU: THE EMPIRE OF THE INCAS.
BOLIVIA: A. D. 1559.
Establishment of the Audiencia of Charcas.
See AUDIENCIAS.
BOLIVIA: A. D. 1825-1826.
The independent Republic founded and named in Upper Peru.
The Bolivian Constitution.
"Upper Peru [or Las Charcas, as it was more specifically
known] … had been detached [in 1776—see ARGENTINE REPUBLIC:
A. D. 1580-1777] from the government of Lima … to form part
of the newly constituted Viceroyalty of Buenos Ayres. The
fifteen years' struggle for independence was here a sanguinary
one indeed. There is scarcely a town, village, or noticeable
place in this vast region where blood is not recorded to have
been shed in this terrible struggle. … The Spanish army
afterwards succumbed to that of the independents of Peru; and
thus Upper Peru gained, not indeed liberty, but independence
under the rule of a republican army. This vast province was
incapable of governing itself. The Argentines laid claim to it
as a province of the confederation; but they already exercised
too great a preponderance in the South American system, and
the Colombian generals obtained the relinquishment of these
pretensions. Sucre [Bolivar's Chief of Staff] assumed the
government until a congress could be assembled: and under the
influence of the Colombian soldiery Upper Peru was erected
into an independent state by the name of the Republic of
Bolivar, or Bolivia."
_E. J. Payne,
History of European Colonies,
page 290._
For an account of the Peruvian war of liberation—the results
of which embraced Upper Peru—and the adoption of the Bolivian
constitution by the latter,
See PERU: A. D. 1820-1826, and 1825-1826.
BOLIVIA: A. D. 1834-1839.
Confederation with Peru.
War with Chile.
See PERU: A. D. 1826-1876.
BOLIVIA: A. D. 1879-1884.
The war with Chile.
See CHILE: A. D. 1833-1884.
----------BOLIVIA: End----------
BOLIVIAN CONSTITUTION, or Code Bolivar.
See PERU: A. D. 1825-1826, and 1826-1876.
BOLOGNA: Origin of the city.
On the final conquest of the Boian Gauls in North Italy, a new
Roman colony and frontier fortress were established, B. C.
189, called first Felsina and then Bononia, which is the
Bologna of modern Italy.
_H. G. Liddell,
History of Rome,
book 5, chapter 41._
BOLOGNA:
Origin of the name.
See BOIANS.
{296}
BOLOGNA: B. C. 43.
Conference of the Triumvirs.
See ROME: B. C. 44-42.
BOLOGNA: 11th Century.
School of Law.
The Glossators.
"Just at this time [end of the 11th century] we find a famous
school of law established in Bologna, and frequented by
multitudes of pupils, not only from all parts of Italy, but
from Germany, France, and other countries. The basis of all
its instructions was the Corpus Juris Civilis. Its teachers,
who constitute a series of distinguished jurists extending
over a century and a half, devoted themselves to the work of
expounding the text and elucidating the principles of the
Corpus Juris, and especially the Digest. From the form in
which they recorded and handed down the results of their
studies, they have obtained the name of glossators. On their
copies of the Corpus Juris they were accustomed to write
glosses, i. e., brief marginal explanations and remarks. These
glosses came at length to be an immense literature."
_J. Hadley,
Introduction to Roman Law,
lecture 2._
BOLOGNA: 11th-12th Centuries.
Rise and Acquisition of Republican Independence.
See ITALY: A. D. 1056-1152.
BOLOGNA: A. D. 1275.
Sovereignty of the Pope confirmed by Rodolph of Hapsburg.
See GERMANY: A. D. 1273-1308.
BOLOGNA: A. D. 1350-1447.
Under the tyranny of the Visconti.
See MILAN: A. D. 1277-1447;
and FLORENCE: A. D. 1390-1402.
BOLOGNA: A. D. 1512.
Acquisition by Pope Julius II.
See ITALY: A. D. 1510-1513.
BOLOGNA: A. D. 1796-1797.
Joined to the Cispadane Republic.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1796 (APRIL-OCTOBER);
1796-1797 (OCTOBER-APRIL).
BOLOGNA: A. D. 1831.
Revolt suppressed by Austrian troops.
See ITALY: A. D. 1830-1832.
----------BOLOGNA: End----------
BOMBAY.
Cession to England (1661).
See INDIA: A. D. 1600-1702.
BON HOMME RICHARD AND THE SERAPIS.
Sea-fight.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1779 (SEPTEMBER).
BONAPARTE, Jerome, and his Kingdom of Westphalia.
See GERMANY: A. D. 1807 (JUNE-JULY);
1813 (SEPTEMBER-OCTOBER), and (OCTOBER-DECEMBER).
BONAPARTE, Joseph,
King of Naples, King of Spain.
See
FRANCE: A. D. 1805-1806 (DECEMBER-SEPTEMBER);
SPAIN: A. D. 1808 (MAY-SEPTEMBER), to 1812-1814.
BONAPARTE, Louis, and the Kingdom of Holland.
See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1806-1810.
BONAPARTE, Louis Napoleon.
See NAPOLEON III.
BONAPARTE, NAPOLEON,
The career of.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1793 (JULY-DECEMBER),
and 1795 (OCTOBER-DECEMBER), to 1815.
BONAPARTE FAMILY,
The origin of the.
"About four miles to the south of Florence, on an eminence
overlooking the valley of the little river Greve, and the then
bridle-path leading towards Siena and Rome, there was a very
strong castle, called Monte Boni, Mons Boni, as it is styled
in sundry deeds of gift executed within its walls in the years
1041, 1085, and 1100, by which its lords made their peace with
the Church, in the usual way, by sharing with churchmen the
proceeds of a course of life such as needed a whitewashing
stroke of the Church's office. A strong castle on the road to
Rome, and just at a point where the path ascended a steep
hill, offered advantages and temptations not to be resisted;
and the lords of Monte Boni 'took toll' of passengers. But, as
Villani very naïvely says, 'the Florentines could not endure
that another should do what they abstained from doing.' So as
usual they sallied forth from their gates one fine morning,
attacked the strong fortress, and razed it to the ground. All
this was, as we have seen, an ordinary occurrence enough in
the history of young Florence. This was a way the burghers
had. They were clearing their land of these vestiges of
feudalism, much as an American settler clears his ground of
the stumps remaining from the primeval forest. But a special
interest will be admitted to belong to this instance of the
clearing process, when we discover who those noble old
freebooters of Monte Boni were. The lords of Monte Boni were
called, by an easy, but it might be fancied ironical,
derivation from the name of their castle 'Buoni del
Monte,'—the Good Men of the Mountain;—and by abbreviation,
Buondelmonte, a name which we shall hear more of anon in the
pages of this history. But when, after the destruction of
their fortress, these Good Men of the Mountain became
Florentine citizens, they increased and multiplied; and in the
next generation, dividing off into two branches, they assumed,
as was the frequent practice, two distinctive appellations; the
one branch remaining Buondelmonti, and the other calling
themselves Buonaparte. This latter branch shortly afterwards
again divided itself into two, of which one settled at San
Miniato al Tedesco, and became extinct there in the person of
an aged canon of the name within this century; while the other
first established itself at Sarzaua, a little town on the
coast about half-way between Florence and Genoa, and from
thence at a later period transplanted itself to Corsica; and
has since been heard of."
_T. A. Trollope,
History of the Commonwealth of Florence,
volume 1, pages 50-51._
BONIFACE, ST.,
The Mission of.
See CHRISTIANITY: A. D. 496-800.
BONIFACE, COUNT, and the Vandals.
See VANDALS: A. D. 429-439.
BONIFACE III., Pope, A. D. 607, FEBRUARY TO NOVEMBER.
Boniface IV., Pope, A. D. 608-615.
Boniface V., Pope, A. D. 619-625.
Boniface VI., Pope, A. D. 896.
Boniface VII., Pope, A. D. 974, 984-985.
Boniface VIII., Pope, A. D. 1294-1303.
Boniface IX., Pope, A. D. 1389-1404.
BONN, Siege and Capture by Marlborough (1703).
See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1702-1704.
BONNET ROUGE, The.
See LIBERTY CAP.
BONONIA IN GAUL.
See GESORIACUM.
BONONIA IN ITALY.
See BOLOGNA.
BOOK OF THE DEAD.
"A collection (ancient Egyptian) of prayers and exorcisms
composed at various periods for the benefit of the pilgrim
soul in his journey through Amenti (the Egyptian Hades); and
it was in order to provide him with a safe conduct through the
perils of that terrible valley that copies of this work, or
portions of it, were buried with the mummy in his tomb. Of the
many thousands of papyri which have been preserved to this
day, it is perhaps scarcely too much to say that one half, if
not two thirds, are copies more or less complete of the Book
of the Dead."
_A. B. Edwards,
Academy, Sept. 10, 1887._
{297}
M. Naville published in 1887 a collation of the numerous
differing texts of the Book of the Dead, on the preparation of
which he had been engaged for ten years.
BOONE, Daniel, and the settlement of Kentucky.
See KENTUCKY: A. D. 1765-1778, and 1775-1784.
BOONVILLE, Battle of.
See MISSOURI: A. D. 1861 (FEBRUARY-JULY).
BOONSBORO, or South Mountain, Battle of.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1862
(SEPTEMBER: MARYLAND).
BOOTH, John Wilkes.
Assassination of President Lincoln.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1865 (APRIL 14TH).
BOR-RUSSIA.
See PRUSSIA: THE ORIGINAL COUNTRY AND ITS NAME.
BORDARII.
See SLAVERY, MEDIÆVAL: ENGLAND; also MANORS.
BORDEAUX: Origin.
See BURDIGALA.
BORDEAUX: A. D. 732.
Stormed and sacked by the Moslems.
See MAHOMETAN CONQUEST: A. D. 715-732.
BORDEAUX: A. D. 1650.
Revolt of the Frondeurs.
Siege of the city.
Treaty of Peace.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1650-1651.
BORDEAUX: A. D. 1652-1653.
The last phase of the Fronde.
Rebellion of the Society of the Ormée.
Cromwell's help invoked.
Siege and submission of the city.
"The peace of Bordeaux in October, 1650. had left the city
tranquil, but not intimidated, and its citizens were neither
attached to the government nor afraid of it. … There, as at
Paris, a violent element obtained control, ready for
disturbance, and not alarmed by the possibility of radical
changes in the government. … During the popular emotion
against Épernon, meetings, mostly of the lower classes, had
been held under some great elms near the city, and from this
circumstance a party had taken the name of the Ormée. It now
assumed a more definite form, and began to protest against the
slackness of the officers and magistrates, who it was charged,
were ready to abandon the popular cause. The Parliament was
itself divided into two factions," known as the Little Fronde
and the Great Fronde—the latter of which was devoted to the
Prince of Condé. "The Ormée was a society composed originally
of a small number of active and violent men, and in its
organization not wholly unlike the society of the Jacobins.
… Troubles increased between this society and the
parliament, and on June 3d [1652] it held a meeting attended
by 3,000 armed men, and decided on the exile of fourteen of
the judges who were regarded as traitors to the cause. … The
offending judges were obliged to leave the city, but in a few
days the Parliament again obtained control, and the exiles
were recalled and received with great solemnity. But the Ormée
was not thus to be overcome. On June 25th these contests
resulted in a battle in the streets, in which the society had
the advantage. Many of the judges abandoned the conflict and
left the city. The Ormée established itself at the Hotel de
Ville, and succeeded in controlling for the most part the
affairs of the city. … Condé decided that he would recognize
the Ormée as a political organization, and strengthen it by
his approval. … The restoration of the King's authority at
Paris [see FRANCE: A. D. 1651-1653] strengthened the party at
Bordeaux that desired peace, and increased the violence of the
party that was opposed to it. Plots were laid for the
overthrow of the local authorities, but they were wholly
unsuccessful. … The desire of the people, the nobility, and
the clergy was for peace. Only by speedy aid from Spain could
the city be kept in hostility to its King and in allegiance to
Condé. Spain was asked to send assistance and prevent this
important loss, but the Spanish delayed any vigorous action,
partly from remissness and partly from lack of troops and
money. The most of the province of Guienne was gradually lost
to the insurgents. … Condé seems to have left Guienne to
itself. … In this condition, the people of Bordeaux turned
to Cromwell as the only person who had the power to help them.
… The envoys were received by Cromwell, but he took no steps
to send aid to Bordeaux. Hopes were held out which encouraged
the city and alarmed the French minister, but no ships were
sent." Meantime, the King's forces in Guienne advanced with
steady success, and early in the summer of 1653 they began the
siege of the city. The peace party within, thus encouraged,
soon overthrew the Ormée, and arranged terms for the
submission of the town. "The government proceeded at once to
erect the castles of Trompette and Ho, and they were made
powerful enough to check any future turbulence."
_J. B. Perkins,
France under Mazarin,
chapter 15 (volume 2)._
BORDEAUX: A. D. 1791.
The Girondists in the National Legislative Assembly.
See France: A. D. 1791 (OCTOBER).
BORDEAUX: A. D. 1793.
Revolt against the Revolutionary Government of Paris.
Fearful vengeance of the Terrorists.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1793 (JUNE); (JULY-DECEMBER); AND
1793-1794 (OCTOBER-APRIL).
BORDEAUX: A. D. 1814.
Occupied by the English.
See SPAIN: A. D. 1812-1814.
----------BORDEAUX: End----------
BORDER-RUFFIANS.
See KANSAS: A. D. 1854-1859.
BORGHETTO, Battle of.
See FRANCE: A.D. 1796 (APRIL-OCTOBER).
BORGIAS, The.
See PAPACY: A. D. 1471-1513.
BORIS, Czar of Russia. A. D. 1598-1605.
BORLA, The.
See PERU: A.D. 1533-1548.
BORNHOVED, Battle of (1227).
See SCANDINAVIAN STATES: A. D. 1018-1397.
BORNY, OR COLOMBEY-NOUILLY, Battle of.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1870 (JULY-AUGUST).
BORODINO, OR THE MOSKOWA, Battle of.
See RUSSIA: A. D. 1812 (JUNE-SEPTEMBER).
BOROUGH.
CITY.
TOWN.
VILLE.
"The burh of the Anglo-Saxon period was simply a more strictly
organized form of the township. It was probably in a more
defensible position; had a ditch and mound instead of the
quickset hedge or 'tun' from which the township took its name;
and as the 'tun' originally was the fenced homestead of the
cultivator, the burh was the fortified house and court-yard of
the mighty man—the king, the magistrate, or the noble."
_William Stubbs, Constitutional History of England,
chapter 5._
{298}
"I must freely confess that I do not know what difference,
except a difference in rank, there is in England between a
city and a borough. … A city does not seem to have any
rights or powers as a city which are not equally shared by
every other corporate town. The only corporate towns which
have any special powers above others are those which are
counties of themselves; and all cities are not counties of
themselves, while some towns which are not cities are. The
city in England is not so easily defined as the city in the
United States. There, every corporate town is a city. This
makes a great many cities, and it leads to an use of the word
city in common talk which seems a little strange in British
ears. In England, even in speaking of a real city, the word
city is seldom used, except in language a little formal or
rhetorical; in America it is used whenever a city is
mentioned. But the American rule has the advantage of being
perfectly clear and avoiding all doubt. And it agrees very
well with the origin of the word: a corporate town is a
'civitas,' a commonwealth; any lesser collection of men hardly
is a commonwealth, or is such only in a much less perfect
degree. This brings us to the historical use of the word. It
is clear at starting that the word is not English. It has no
Old-English equivalent; burh, burgh, borough, in its various
spellings and various shades of meaning, is our native word
for urbes of every kind from Rome downward. It is curious that
this word should in ordinary speech have been so largely
displaced by the vaguer word tun, town, which means an
enclosure of any kind, and in some English dialects is still
applied to a single house and its surroundings. … In common
talk we use the word borough hardly oftener than the word
city; when the word is used, it has commonly some direct
reference to the parliamentary or municipal characters of the
town. Many people, I suspect, would define a borough as a town
which sends members to Parliament, and such a definition,
though still not accurate, has, by late changes, been brought
nearer to accuracy than it used to be. City and borough, then,
are both rather formal words; town is the word which comes
most naturally to the lips when there is no special reason for
using one of the others. Of the two formal words, borough is
English; city is Latin; it comes to us from Gaul and Italy by
some road or other. It is in Domesday that we find, by no
means its first use in England, but its first clearly formal
use, the first use of it to distinguish a certain class of
towns, to mark those towns which are 'civitates' as well as
burgi from those which are burgi only. Now in Gaul the
'civitas' in formal Roman language was the tribe and its
territory, the whole land of the Arverni, Parisii, or any
other tribe. In a secondary sense it meant the head town of
the tribe. … When Christianity was established, the
'civitas' in the wider sense marked the extent of the bishop's
diocese; the 'civitas' in the narrower sense became the
immediate seat of his bishopstool. Thus we cannot say that in
Gaul a town became a city because it was a bishop's see; but
we may say that a certain class of towns became bishops' sees
because they were already cities. But in modern French use no
distinction is made between these ancient capitals which
became bishoprics and other towns of less temporal and
spiritual honour. The seat of the bishopric, the head of the
ancient province, the head of the modern department, the
smaller town which has never risen to any of those dignities,
are all alike ville. Lyons, Rheims, Paris, are in no way
distinguished from meaner places. The word cité is common
enough, but it has a purely local meaning. It often
distinguishes the old part of a town, the ancient 'civitas,'
from later additions. In Italy on the other hand, città is
both the familiar and the formal name for towns great and
small. It is used just like ville in French."
_E. A. Freeman,
City and Borough Macmillan's Magazine,
May, 1889._
BOROUGH-ENGLISH.
See FEUDAL TENURES.
BOROUGHBRIDGE, Battle of.
Fought March 16, 1322, in the civil war which arose in England
during the reign of Edward II. on account of the King's
favorites, the Déspensers. Thomas, Earl of Lancaster, the
leader of opposition, was defeated, captured, summarily tried
and beheaded.
BOROUGHS, Rotten and Pocket.
See ENGLAND: A. D. 1830, and 1830-1832.
BORROMEAN, OR GOLDEN LEAGUE, The.
See SWITZERLAND: A. D. 1579-1630.
BORYSTHENES, The.
The name which the Greeks gave anciently to the river now
known as the Dnieper. It also became the name of a town near
the mouth of the river, which was originally called Olbia,—a
very early trading settlement of the Milesians.
BOSCOBEL, The Royal Oak of.
See SCOTLAND: A. D. 1651.
BOSNIA.
See BALKAN AND DANUBIAN STATES.
BOSPHORUS, OR BOSPORUS, The.
The word means literally an 'ox-ford,' and the Greeks derived
it as a name from the legend of Io, who, driven by a gad-fly,
swam across the straits from Europe into Asia. They gave the
name particularly to that channel, on which Constantinople
lies, but applied it also to other similar straits, such as
the Cimmerian Bosporus, opening the Sea of Azov.
BOSPHORUS:
The city and kingdom.
"Respecting Bosporus, or Pantikapæum (for both names denote
the same city, though the former name often comprehends the
whole annexed dominion) founded by Milesian settlers on the
European side of the Kimmerian Bosporus (near Kertsch) we
first hear, about the period when Xerxes was repulsed from
Greece (480-479 B. C.) It was the centre of a dominion
including Phanagoria, Kepi, Hermonassa, and other Greek cities
on the Asiatic side of the strait; and it is said to have been
governed by what seems to have been an oligarchy—called the
Archæanaktidæ—for forty-two years (480-438 B. C.) After them
we have a series of princes standing out individually by name,
and succeeding each other in the same family, [438-284 B. C.].
… During the reigns of these princes, a connexion of some
intimacy subsisted between Athens and Bosporus; a connexion
not political, since the Bosporanic princes had little
interest in the contentions about Hellenic hegemony—but of
private intercourse, commercial exchange and reciprocal good
offices. The eastern corner of the Tauric Chersonesus, between
Pantikapæum and Theodosia, was well suited for the production
of corn; while plenty of fish, as well as salt, was to be had
in or near the Palus Mæotis. Corn, salted fish and meat, hides
and barbaric slaves in considerable numbers, were in demand
among all Greeks round the Ægean, and not least at Athens,
where Scythian slaves were numerous; while oil and wine, and
other products of more southern regions, were acceptable in
Bosporus and the other Pontic ports.
{299}
This important traffic seems to have been mainly carried on in
ships and by capital belonging to Athens and other Ægean
maritime towns, and must have been greatly under the
protection and regulation of the Athenians, so long as their
maritime empire subsisted. Enterprising citizens of Athens
went to Bosporus (as to Thrace and the Thracian Chersonesus),
to push their fortunes. … We have no means of following [the
fortunes of the Bosporanic princes] in detail; but we know
that, about a century B. C., the then reigning prince,
Parisades IV. found himself so pressed and squeezed by the
Scythians, that he was forced (like Olbia and the Pentapolis)
to forego his independence, and to call in, as auxiliary or
master, the formidable Mithridates Eupator of Pontus; from
whom a new dynasty of Bosporanic kings began—subject,
however, after no long interval, to the dominion and
interference of Rome."
_G. Grote,
History of Greece,
part 2, chapter 98._
ALSO IN:
_T. Mommsen,
History of Rome,
book 8, chapter 7._
See MITHRIDATIC WARS, and ROME: B. C. 47-46.
Acquisition by the Goths.
See GOTHS, ACQUISITION OF BOSPHORUS.
BOSPHORUS: A. D. 565-574.
Capture by the Turks.
"During the reign of Justin [A. D. 565-574] the city of
Bosporus, in Tauris, had been captured by the Turks, who then
occupied a considerable portion of the Tauric Chersonesus. The
city of Cherson alone continued to maintain its independence
in the northern regions of the Black Sea."
_G. Finlay,
Greece under the Romans,
chapter 4, section 8._
See TURKS: SIXTH CENTURY.
----------BOSPHORUS: End----------
BOSSISM.
The "Spoils System" in American politics [see SPOILS SYSTEM]
developed enormously the influence and power of certain
leaders and managers of party organizations, in the great
cities and some of the states, who acquired the names of
"Bosses," while the system of politics which they represented
was called "Bossism." The notorious William H. Tweed, of the
New York "Tammany Ring" [see NEW YORK: A. D. 1863-1871] seems
to have been the first of the species to be dubbed "Boss
Tweed" by his "heelers," or followers, and the title passed
from him to others of like kind.
BOSTON: A. D. 1628-1630.
The first white inhabitant.
The founding and naming of the city.
See MASSACHUSETTS: A. D. 1622-1628, and 1630.
BOSTON: A. D. 1631-1651.
The Puritan Theocracy.
Troubles with Roger Williams, Anne Hutchinson and the
Presbyterians.
See MASSACHUSETTS: A. D. 1631-1636, to 1646-1651.
BOSTON: A. D. 1656-1661.
The persecution of Quakers.
See MASSACHUSETTS: A. D. 1656-1661.
BOSTON: A. D. 1657-1669.
The Halfway Covenant and the founding of the Old South Church.
"In Massachusetts after 1650 the opinion rapidly gained ground
that all baptised persons of upright and decorous lives ought
to be considered, for practical purposes, as members of the
church, and therefore entitled to the exercise of political
rights, even though unqualified for participation in the
Lord's Supper. This theory of church membership, based on what
was at that time stigmatized as the Halfway Covenant, aroused
intense opposition. It was the great question of the day. In
1657 a council was held in Boston, which approved the
principle of the Halfway Covenant; and as this decision was
far from satisfying the churches, a synod of all the clergymen
in Massachusetts was held five years later, to reconsider the
great question. The decision of the synod substantially
confirmed the decision of the council, but there were some
dissenting voices. Foremost among the dissenters, who wished
to retain the old theocratic regime in all its strictness, was
Charles Chauncey, the president of Harvard College, and
Increase Mather agreed with him at the time, though he
afterward saw reason to change his opinion and published two
tracts in favour of the Halfway Covenant. Most bitter of all
toward the new theory of church-membership was, naturally
enough, Mr. Davenport of New Haven. This burning question was
the source of angry contentions in the First Church of Boston.
Its teacher, the learned and melancholy Norton, died in 1663,
and four years later the aged pastor, John Wilson, followed
him. In choosing a successor to Wilson the church decided to
declare itself in opposition to the liberal decision of the
synod, and in token thereof invited Davenport to come from New
Haven to take charge of it. Davenport, who was then seventy
years old, was disgusted at the recent annexation of his
colony to Connecticut. He accepted the invitation and came to
Boston, against the wishes of nearly half of the Boston
congregation, who did not like the illiberal principle which
he represented. In little more than a year his ministry at
Boston was ended by death; but the opposition to his call had
already proceeded so far that a secession from the old church
had become inevitable. In 1669 the advocates of the Halfway
Covenant organized themselves into a new society under the
title of the 'Third Church in Boston.' A wooden meeting-house
was built on a lot which had once belonged to the late
governor Winthrop, in what was then the south part of the
town, so that the society and its meeting-house became known
as the South Church; and after a new church founded in Summer
Street in 1717 took the name of the New South, the church of
1669 came to be further distinguished as the Old South. As
this church represented a liberal idea which was growing in
favour with the people, it soon became the most flourishing
church in America. After sixty years its numbers had increased
so that the old meeting-house could not contain them; and in
1729 the famous building which still stands was erected on the
same spot,—a building with a grander history than any other
on the American continent, unless it be that other plain brick
building in Philadelphia where the Declaration of Independence
was adopted and the Federal Constitution framed."
_J. Fiske,
The Beginnings of New England,
chapter 6._
ALSO IN:
_H. M. Dexter,
The Congregationalism of the last 300 years,
lecture 9._
_B. B. Wisner,
History of the Old South Church,
sermon 1._
_W. Emerson,
Historical Sketch of the First Church in Boston,
section 4-7._
BOSTON: A. D. 1674-1678.
King Philip's War.
See NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1674-1675; 1675; 1676-1678.
BOSTON: A. D. 1689.
The rising for William and Mary and the downfall of Andros.
See MASSACHUSETTS: A. D. 1686-1689.
{300}
BOSTON: A. D. 1697.
Threatened attack by the French.
See CANADA (NEW FRANCE): A. D. 1692-1697.
BOSTON: A. D. 1704.
The first newspaper.
See PRINTING, &c.: A. D. 1704-1729.
BOSTON: A. D. 1740-1742.
The origin of Faneuil Hall.
See FANEUIL HALL.
BOSTON: A. D. 1761.
The question of the Writs of assistance and James Otis's
speech.
See MASSACHUSETTS: A. D. 176l.
BOSTON: A. D. 1764-1767.
Patriotic self-denials.
Non-importation agreements.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1764-1767.
BOSTON: A. D. 1765-1767.
The doings under the Liberty Tree.
See LIBERTY TREE.
BOSTON: A. D. 1768.
The seizure of the sloop "Liberty."
Riotous patriotism.
"For some years these officers [of the customs] had been
resisted in making seizures of uncustomed goods, which were
frequently rescued from their possession by interested
parties, and the determination of the commissioners of customs
to break up this practice frequently led to collisions; but no
flagrant outbreak occurred until the seizure of John Hancock's
sloop 'Liberty' (June 10, 1768), laden with a cargo of Madeira
wine. The officer in charge, refusing a bribe, was forcibly
locked up in the cabin, the greater part of the cargo was
removed, and the remainder entered at the custom-house as the
whole cargo. This led to seizure of the vessel, said to have
been the first made by the commissioners, and for security she
was placed under the guns of the 'Romney,' a man-of-war in the
harbor. For this the revenue officers were roughly handled by
the mob. Their boat was burned, their houses threatened, and
they, with their alarmed families, took refuge on board the
'Romney,' and finally in the Castle. These proceedings
undoubtedly led to the sending additional military forces to
Boston in September. The General Court was in session at the
time, but no effectual proceedings were taken against the
rioters. Public sympathy was with them in their purposes if
not in their measures."
_M. Chamberlain,
The Revolution Impending
(Narrative and Critical History of America,
volume 6, chapter 1)._
BOSTON: A. D. 1768.
The quartering of British troops.
"Before news had reached England of the late riot in Boston,
two regiments from Halifax had been ordered thither. When news
of that riot arrived, two additional regiments were ordered
from Ireland. The arrival of an officer, sent by Gage from New
York, to provide quarters for these troops, occasioned a town
meeting in Boston, by which the governor was requested to
summon a new General Court, which he peremptorily refused to
do. The meeting then recommended a convention of delegates
from all the towns in the province to assemble at Boston in
ten days; 'in consequence of prevailing apprehensions of a war
with France'—such was the pretence—they advised all persons
not already provided with fire-arms to procure them at once;
they also appointed a day of fasting and prayer, to be
observed by all the Congregational societies. Delegates from
more than a hundred towns met accordingly at the day appointed
[Sept. 22], chose Cushing, speaker of the late House, as their
chairman, and petitioned Bernard to summon a General Court.
The governor not only refused to receive their petition, but
denounced the meeting as treasonable. In view of this charge,
the proceedings were exceedingly cautious and moderate. All
pretensions to political authority were expressly disclaimed.
In the course of a four days' session a petition to the King
was agreed to, and a letter to the agent, De Berdt, of which
the chief burden was to defend the province against the charge
of a rebellious spirit. Such was the first of those popular
conventions, destined within a few years to assume the whole
political authority of the colonies. The day after the
adjournment the troops from Halifax arrived. There was room in
the barracks at the castle, but Gage, alarmed at the accounts
from Massachusetts, had sent orders from New York to have the
two regiments quartered in the town. The council were called
upon to find quarters, but, by the very terms of the
Quartering Act, as they alleged, till the barracks were full
there was no necessity to provide quarters elsewhere. Bernard
insisted that the barracks had been reserved for the two
regiments expected from Ireland, and must, therefore, be
considered as already full. The council replied, that, even
allowing that to be the case, by the terms of the act, the
provision of quarters belonged not to them, but to the local
magistrates. There was a large building in Boston belonging to
the province, known as the 'Manufactory House,' and occupied
by a number of poor families. Bernard pressed the council to
advise that this building be cleared and prepared for the
reception of the troops; but they utterly refused. The
governor then undertook to do it on his own authority. The
troops had already landed, under cover of the ships of war, to
the number of a thousand men. Some of them appeared to demand
an entrance into the Manufactory House; but the tenants were
encouraged to keep possession; nor did the governor venture to
use force. One of the regiments encamped on the common; for a
part of the other regiment, which had no tents, the temporary
use of Faneuil Hall was reluctantly yielded; to the rest of
it, the Town House, used also as a State House, all except the
council chamber, was thrown open by the governor's order. It
was Sunday. The Town House was directly opposite the
meeting-house of the First Church. Cannon were planted in
front of it; sentinels were stationed in the streets; the
inhabitants were challenged as they passed. The devout were
greatly aggravated and annoyed by the beating of drums and the
marching of the troops. Presently Gage came to Boston to urge
the provision of quarters. The council directed his attention
to the terms of the act, and referred him to the selectmen. As
the act spoke only of justices of the peace, the selectmen
declined to take any steps in the matter. Bernard then
constituted what he called a Board of Justices, and required
them to find quarters; but they did not choose to exercise a
doubtful and unpopular authority. Gage was finally obliged to
quarter the troops in houses which he hired for the purpose,
and to procure out of his own military chest the firing,
bedding, and other articles mentioned in the Quartering Act,
the council having declined to order any expenditure for those
purposes, on the ground that the appropriation of money
belonged exclusively to the General Court."
_R. Hildreth,
History of the United States,
chapter 29 (volume 2)._
ALSO IN:
_R. Frothingham,
Life and Times of Joseph Warren,
chapter 6._
_T. Hutchinson,
History of the Province of Massachusetts Bay,
1749-1774, pages 202-217._
{301}
BOSTON: A. D. 1769.
The patriots threatened and Virginia speaking out.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1769.
BOSTON: A. D. 1770.
Soldiers and citizens in collision.
The "Massacre."
Removal of the troops.
"As the spring of the year 1770 appeared, the 14th and 29th
regiments had been in Boston about seventeen months. The 14th
was in barracks near the Brattle Street Church; the 29th was
quartered just south of King Street; about midway between
them, in King Street, and close at hand to the town-house, was
the main guard, whose nearness to the public buildings had
been a subject of great annoyance to the people. … One is
forced to admit … that a good degree of discipline was
maintained; no blood had as yet been shed by the soldiers,
although provocations were constant, the rude element in the
town growing gradually more aggressive as the soldiers were
never allowed to use their arms. Insults and blows with fists
were frequently taken and given, and cudgels also came into
fashion in the brawls. Whatever awe the regiments had inspired
at their first coming had long worn off. In particular the
workmen of the rope-walks and ship-yards allowed their tongues
the largest license and were foremost in the encounters. About
the 1st of March fights of unusual bitterness had occurred
near Grey's rope-walk, not far from the quarters of the 29th,
between the hands of the rope-walk and soldiers of that
regiment, which had a particularly bad reputation. The
soldiers had got the worst of it, and were much irritated.
Threats of revenge had been made, which had called out
arrogant replies, and signs abounded that serious trouble was
not far off. From an early hour on the evening of the 5th of
March the symptoms were very ominous. … At length an
altercation began in King Street between a company of lawless
boys and a few older brawlers on the one side, and the
sentinel, who paced his beat before the custom-house, on the
other. … The soldier retreated up the steps of the
custom-house and called out for help. A file of soldiers was
at once despatched from the main guard, across the street, by
Captain Preston, officer of the guard, who himself soon
followed to the scene of trouble. A coating of ice covered the
ground, upon which shortly before had fallen a light snow. A
young moon was shining; the whole transaction, therefore, was
plainly visible. The soldiers, with the sentinel, nine in
number, drew up in line before the people, who greatly
outnumbered them. The pieces were loaded and held ready, but
the mob, believing that the troops would not use their arms
except upon requisition of a civil magistrate, shouted coarse
insults, pressed upon the very muzzles of the pieces, struck
them with sticks, and assaulted the soldiers with balls of
ice. In the tumult precisely what was said and done cannot be
known. Many affidavits were taken in the investigation that
followed, and, as always at such times, the testimony was most
contradictory. Henry Knox, afterwards the artillery general,
at this time a bookseller, was on the spot and used his
influence with Preston to prevent a command to fire. Preston
declared that he never gave the command. The air, however, was
full of shouts, daring the soldiers to fire, some of which may
have been easily understood as commands, and at last the
discharge came. If it had failed to come, indeed, the
forbearance would have been quite miraculous. Three were
killed outright, and eight were wounded, only one of whom,
Crispus Attucks, a tall mulatto who faced the soldiers,
leaning on a stick of cordwood, had really taken any part in
the disturbance. The rest were bystanders or were hurrying
into the street, not knowing the cause of the tumult. … A
wild confusion … took possession of the town. The
alarm-bells rang frantically; on the other hand the drums of
the regiments thundered to arms. … What averted a fearful
battle in the streets was the excellent conduct of
Hutchinson"—the lieutenant-governor, who made his way
promptly to the scene, caused the troops to be sent back to
their barracks, ordered the arrest of Captain Preston and the
nine soldiers who had done the firing, and began an
investigation of the affair the same night. The next day a
great town meeting was held, and, as crowds from the
surrounding towns pressed in, it was adjourned from Faneuil
Hall to the Old South Church, and overflowed in the
neighboring streets. A formal demand for the removal of the
troops was sent to the governor and council by a committee
which had Samuel Adams at its head. Governor Hutchinson
disclaimed authority over the troops; but their commanding
officer, Colonel Dalrymple, proposed to compromise by sending
away the 29th regiment and retaining the 14th. As the
committee returned to the meeting with this proposal, through
the crowd, Adams dropped right and left the words, "Both
regiments or none."—"Both regiments or none." So he put into
the mouths of the people their reply, which they shouted as
with one voice when the report of the committee was made to
them. There was a determination in the cry which overcame even
the obstinacy of Governor Hutchinson, and the departure of
both regiments was ordered that same day. "In England the
affair was regarded as a 'successful bully' of the whole power
of the government by the little town, and when Lord North
received details of these events he always referred to the
14th and 29th as the 'Sam Adams regiments.'"
_J. K. Hosmer,
Samuel Adams,
chapter 11._
ALSO IN:
_R. Frothingham,
Life and Times of Joseph Warren,
chapter 6._
_R. Frothingham,
The Sam Adams Regiments
(Atlantic Monthly, volumes 9, 10, and 12; 1862-63)._
_J. Q. Adams,
Life of John Adams,
chapter 3 (volume l)._
_T. Hutchinson,
History of the Province of Massachusetts Bay, 1749-1774,
pages 270-280._
_H. Niles,
Principles and Acts of the Revolution
(Centennial edition),
pages 15-79._
_F. Kedder,
History of the Boston Massacre._
BOSTON: A. D. 1770.
The fair trial of the soldiers.
"The episode [of the affray of March 5th] had … a sequel
which is extremely creditable to the American people. It was
determined to try the soldiers for their lives, and public
feeling ran so fiercely against them that it seemed as if
their fate was sealed. The trial, however, was delayed for
seven months, till the excitement had in some degree subsided.
Captain Preston very judiciously appealed to John Adams, who
was rapidly rising to the first place both among the lawyers
and the popular patriots of Boston, to undertake his defence.
Adams knew well how much he was risking by espousing so
unpopular a cause, but he knew also his professional duty,
and, though violently opposed to the British government, he
was an eminently honest, brave, and humane man.
{302}
In conjunction with Josiah Quincy, a young lawyer who was also
of the patriotic party, he undertook the invidious task, and he
discharged it with consummate ability. … There was abundant
evidence that the soldiers had endured gross provocation and
some violence. If the trial had been the prosecution of a
smuggler or a seditious writer, the jury would probably have
decided against evidence, but they had no disposition to shed
innocent blood. Judges, counsel, and jurymen acted bravely and
honourably. All the soldiers were acquitted, except two, who
were found guilty of manslaughter, and who escaped with very
slight punishment. It is very remarkable that after Adams had
accepted the task of defending the incriminated soldiers, he
was elected by the people of Boston as their representative in
the Assembly, and the public opinion of the province appears
to have fully acquiesced in the verdict. In truth, although no
people have indulged more largely than the Americans in
violent, reckless, and unscrupulous language, no people have
at every period of their history been more signally free from
the thirst for blood, which in moments of great political
excitement has been often shown both in England and France."
_W. E. H. Lecky,
History of England in the 18th Century,
chapter 12 (volume 3)._
ALSO IN:
_J. Adams,
Autobiography (Works, volume 2, page 230)._
_Lord Mahon (Earl Stanhope),
History of England,
1713-1783, volume 5, page 269._
BOSTON: A. D 1773.
The Tea Party.
"News reached Boston in the spring of this year [1773] that
the East India Company, which was embarrassed by the
accumulation of tea in England, owing to the refusal of the
Americans to buy it, had induced parliament to permit its
exportation to America without the payment of the usual duty
[See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1772-1773]. This was
intended to bribe the colonists to buy; for there had been a
duty both in England and in America. That in England was six
pence a pound, that in America three pence. Ships were laden
and sent to Boston, New York, Philadelphia, and Charleston,
and they were now expected to arrive in a short time. … On
the 28th of November, 1773, which was Sunday, the first
tea-ship (the 'Dartmouth ') entered the harbor [of Boston].
The following morning the citizens were informed by placard
that the 'worst of plagues, the detested tea,' had actually
arrived, and that a meeting was to be held at nine in the
morning, at Faneuil Hall, for the purpose of making 'a united
and successful resistance to this last, worst, and most
destructive measure of administration.' The Cradle of Liberty
was not large enough to contain the crowd that was called
together, Adams rose and made a stirring motion expressing
determination that the tea should not be landed, and it was
unanimously agreed to. The meeting then adjourned to the Old
South meeting-house, where the motion was repeated, and again
adopted without an opposing voice. The owner of the ship
protested in vain that the proceedings were illegal; a watch
of twenty-five persons was set, to see that the intentions of
the citizens were not evaded, and the meeting adjourned to the
following morning. The throng at that time was as great as
usual, and while the deliberations were going on, a message
was received from the governor, through the sheriff, ordering
them to cease their proceedings. It was voted not to follow
the advice, and the sheriff was hissed and obliged to retreat
discomfited. It was formally resolved that any person
importing tea from England should be deemed an enemy to his
country, and it was declared that at the risk of their lives
and properties the landing of the tea should be prevented, and
its return effected. It was necessary that some positive
action should be taken in regard to the tea within twenty days
from its arrival, or the collector of customs would confiscate
ships and cargoes. … The twenty days would expire on the
16th of December. On the fourteenth a crowded meeting was held
at the Old South, and the importer was enjoined to apply for a
clearance to allow his vessel to return with its cargo. He
applied, but the collector refused to give an answer until the
following day. The meeting therefore adjourned to the 16th,
the last day before confiscation would be legal, and before
the tea would be placed under protection of the ships of war
in the harbor. There was another early morning meeting, and
7,000 people thronged about the meeting-house, all filled with
a sense of the fact that something notable was to occur. The
importer appeared and reported that the collector refused a
clearance. He was then directed to ask the governor for a pass
to enable him to sail by the Castle. Hutchinson had retreated
to his mansion at Milton, and it would take some time to make
the demand. The importer started out in the cold of a New
England winter, apologized to his Excellency for his visit,
but assured him that it was involuntary. He received a reply
that no pass could be given him. … It was six o'clock before
the importer returned, and a few candles were brought in to
relieve the fast-increasing darkness. He reported the
governor's reply, and Samuel Adams rose and exclaimed: 'This
meeting can do nothing more to save the country!' In an
instant there was a shout on the porch; there was a war-whoop
in response, and forty or fifty of the men disguised as
Indians rushed out of the doors, down Milk Street towards
Griffin's (afterwards Liverpool) Wharf, where the vessels lay.
The meeting was declared dissolved, and the throng followed
their leaders, forming a determined guard about the wharf. The
'Mohawks' entered the vessel; there was tugging at the ropes;
there was breaking of light boxes; there was pouring of
precious tea into the waters of the harbor. For two or three
hours the work went on, and three hundred and forty-two chests
were emptied. Then, under the light of the moon, the Indians
marched to the sound of fife and drum to their homes, and the
vast throng melted away, until not a man remained to tell of
the deed. The committee of correspondence held a meeting next
day, and Samuel Adams and four others were appointed to
prepare an account of the affair to be posted to other places.
Paul Revere, who is said to have been one of the 'Mohawks,'
was sent express to Philadelphia with the news, which was
received at that place on the 26th. It was announced by
ringing of bells, and there was every sign of joy. … The
continent was universally stirred at last."
_A. Gilman,
The Story of Boston,
chapter 23._
ALSO IN:
_E. G. Porter,
The Beginning of the Revolution
(Memorial History of Boston, volume 3, chapter 1)._
_B. J. Lossing,
Field Book of the Revolution,
volume 1, chapter 21._
{303}
_T. Hutchinson,
History of the Province of Massachusetts Bay, 1749-1774,
pages 429-440._
_T. Hutchinson,
Diary and Letters,
page 138._
_G. Bancroft,
History of the United States.
(Author's last revision),
volume 3, chapter 34._
_J. Kimball,
The 100th Anniversary of the Destruction of Tea
(Essex Inst. Hist. Coll.,
volume 12, number 3)._
BOSTON: A. D. 1774.
The Port Bill and the Massachusetts Act.
Commerce interdicted.
Town Meetings forbidden.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1774 (MARCH-APRIL).
BOSTON: A. D. 1774.
The enforcement of the Port Bill and its effects.
Military occupation of the city by General Gage.
"The execution of this measure [the Port Bill] devolved on
Thomas Gage, who arrived at Boston May 13, 1774, as Captain
General and Governor of Massachusetts. He was not a stranger
in the colonies. He had exhibited gallantry in Braddock's
defeat. … He had married in one of the most respectable
families in New York, and had partaken of the hospitalities of
the people of Boston. His manners were pleasing. Hence he
entered upon his public duties with a large measure of
popularity. But he took a narrow view of men and things about
him. … General Gage, on the 17th of May, landed at the Long
Wharf and was received with much parade. … On the first day
of June the act went into effect. It met with no opposition
from the people, and hence, there was no difficulty in
carrying it into rigorous execution. 'I hear from many,' the
governor writes, 'that the act has staggered the most
presumptuous; the violent party men seem to break, and people
to fall off from them.' Hence he looked for submission; but
Boston asked assistance from other colonies, and the General
Court requested him to appoint a day of fasting and prayer.
The loyalists felt uneasy at the absence of the army. …
Hence a respectable force was soon concentrated in Boston. On
the 4th of June, the 4th or king's own regiment, and on the
15th the 43d regiment, landed at the Long Wharf and encamped
on the common." The 5th and 38th regiments arrived on the 4th
and 5th of July; the 59th regiment was landed at Salem August
6, and additional troops were ordered from New York, the
Jerseys and Quebec. "The Boston Port Bill went into operation
amid the tolling of bells, fasting and prayer. … It bore
severely upon two towns, Boston and Charlestown, which had
been long connected by a common patriotism. Their laborers
were thrown out of employment, their poor were deprived of
bread, and gloom pervaded their streets. But they were cheered
and sustained by the large contributions sent from every
quarter for their relief, and by the noble words that
accompanied them. … The excitement of the public mind was
intense; and the months of June, July, and August, were
characterized by varied political activity. Multitudes signed
a solemn league and covenant against the use of British goods.
The breach between the whigs and loyalists daily became wider.
Patriotic donations from every colony were on their way to the
suffering towns. Supplies for the British troops were refused.
… It was while the public mind was in this state of
excitement that other acts arrived which General Gage was
instructed to carry into effect." These were the acts which
virtually annulled the Massachusetts charter, which forbade
town meetings, and which provided for the sending of accused
persons to England or to other colonies for trial. "Should
Massachusetts submit to the new acts? Would the other colonies
see, without increased alarm, the humiliation of
Massachusetts? This was the turning-point of the Revolution.
It did not find the patriots unprepared. They had an
organization beyond the reach alike of proclamations from the
governors, or of circulars from the ministry. This was the
Committees of Correspondence, chosen in most of the towns in
legal town-meetings, or by the various colonial assemblies,
and extending throughout the colonies. … The crisis called
for all the wisdom of these committees. A remarkable circular
from Boston addressed to the towns (July, 1774), dwelt upon the
duty of opposing the new laws; the towns, in their answers,
were bold, spirited, and firm and echoed the necessity of
resistance. Nor was this all. The people promptly thwarted the
first attempts to exercise authority under them. Such
councillors as accepted their appointments were compelled to
resign, or, to avoid compulsion, retired into Boston." General
Gage now began (in September) movements to secure the cannon
and powder in the neighborhood. Some 250 barrels of powder
belonging to the province were stealthily removed by his
orders from a magazine at Charlestown and two field-pieces
were carried away from Cambridge. "The report of this affair,
spreading rapidly, excited great indignation. The people
collected in large numbers, and many were in favor of
attempting to recapture the powder and cannon. Influential
patriots, however, succeeded in turning their attention in
another direction. … Meantime the fact of the removal of the
powder became magnified into a report that the British had
cannonaded Boston, when the bells rang, beacon-fires blazed on
the hills, the neighbor colonies were alarmed, and the roads
were filled with armed men hastening to the point of supposed
danger. These demonstrations opened the eyes of the governor
to the extent of the popular movement. … General Gage saw no
hope of procuring obedience but by the power of arms; and the
patriot party saw no safety in anything short of military
preparation. Resistance to the acts continued to be manifested
in every form. On the 9th of September the memorable Suffolk
resolves [drawn by Joseph Warren] were adopted [by a
convention of Suffolk county, which embraced Boston] … and
these were succeeded by others in other counties equally bold
and spirited. These resolves were approved by the Continental
Congress, then in session. Everywhere the people either
compelled the unconstitutional officers to resign, or opposed
every attempt to exercise authority, whether by the governor
or constable. They also made every effort to transport
ammunition and stores to places of security. Cannon and
muskets were carried secretly out of Boston. The guns were
taken from an old battery at Charlestown, where the navy yard
is, … silently, at night. … General Gage immediately began
to fortify Boston Neck. This added intensity to the
excitement. The inhabitants became alarmed at so ominous a
movement; and, on the 5th of September, the selectmen waited
on the general, represented the public feeling, and requested
him to explain his object. The governor stated in reply that
his object was to protect his majesty's troops and his
majesty's subjects; and that he had no intention to stop up
the avenue, or to obstruct the free passage over it, or to do
anything hostile against the inhabitants. He went on with the
works and soon mounted on them two twenty-four pounders and
eight nine pounders."
_R. Frothingham,
History of the Siege of Boston,
chapter 1._
ALSO IN:
_R. Frothingham,
Life and Times of Joseph Warren,
chapter 11, and appendix 1
(giving text of the Suffolk Resolves)._
_W. V. Wells,
Life of Samuel Adams,
volume 2, pages 164-232._
_W. Tudor,
Life of James Otis, chapters 27-29._
{304}
BOSTON: A. D. 1775.
The beginning of war.
Lexington.
Concord.
The British troops beleaguered in the city.
Battle of Bunker Hill.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1775.
BOSTON: A. D. 1775-1776.
The siege directed by Washington.
Evacuation of the city by the British.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1775-1776.
----------BOSTON: End----------
BOSWORTH, Battle of (A. D. 1485).
See ENGLAND: A. D. 1483-1485.
BOTANY BAY.
See AUSTRALIA: A. D. 1601-1800.
BOTHWELL BRIDGE, Battle of.
See SCOTLAND: A. D. 1679 (JUNE).
BOTOCUDOS, The.
See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: TUPI.
BOUCHAIN, Marlborough's capture of (1711).
See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1710-1712.
BOUIDES, The.
See MAHOMETAN CONQUEST AND EMPIRE: A. D. 815-945;
Also, TURKS (THE SELJUKS): A. D. 1004-1063;
Also, SAMANIDES.
BOULANGER, General, The intrigues of.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1875-1889.
BOULE, The.
The Council of Chiefs in Homeric Greece.
_G. Grote,
History of Greece,
chapter 20._
See, also, AREOPAGUS.
BOULOGNE: Origin.
See GESORIACUM.
BOULOGNE: A. D. 1801.
Bonaparte's preparations for the invasion of England.
Nelson's attack.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1801-1802.
BOULON, Battle of.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1793 (JULY-DECEMBER).
BOUQUET'S EXPEDITION.
See PONTIAC'S WAR.
BOURBON, The Constable:
His treason and his attack on Rome.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1520-1523, 1523-1525, 1525-1526;
And ITALY: A. D. 1523-1527, 1527.
BOURBON:
Origin of the name.
See BOIANS;
also ROME: B. C. 390-347.
BOURBON, The House of:
Its origin.
From King Louis IX. (St. Louis), of France, "through his last
male child, Robert de France, Comte de Clermont, sprang the
House of Bourbon. An ancient barony, the inheritance of
Béatrix, wife of this prince, was erected into a dukedom in
favour of Louis, his son, and gave to his descendants the name
which they have retained, that of France being reserved for
the Royal branch. … The House which had the honour of
supplying sovereigns to our country was called 'France.' But
our kings, jealous of that great name, reserved it for their
own sons and grandsons. Hence the designation 'fils' and
'petit-fils de France.' The posterity of each 'fils de France'
formed a cadet branch which took its name from the title borne
by its head, Valois, Artois, Bourbon, &c. At the time of the
accession of Henry IV. the name of Bourbon remained with those
younger branches of Condé and Montpensier, which had sprung
from the main branch before the death of Henry III. But Henry
IV.'s children, those of Louis XIII., and those of their
successors in the throne, were surnamed 'de France'; whilst in
conformity with the law the descendants of Louis XIII.'s
second son received the surname d' Orleans, from the title
borne by their grandfather. … Possessors of vast territories
which they [the Bourbons] owed more to family alliances than to
the generosity of kings, they had known how to win the
affection of their vassals. Their magnificent hospitality drew
around them a numerous and brilliant nobility. Thus the
'hôtel' of those brave and august princes, the 'gracieux ducs
de Bourbon,' as our ancient poet called them, was considered
the best school in which a young nobleman could learn the
profession of arms. The order of the Écu, instituted by one of
them, had been coveted and worn by the bravest warriors of
France. Sufficiently powerful to outshine the rank and file of
the nobility, they had at the same time neither the large
estates nor the immense power which enabled the Dukes of
Bourgogne, of Bretagne, and other great vassals, to become the
rivals or the enemies of the royal authority." The example of
the treason of the Constable Bourbon [see FRANCE: A. D.
1520-1523] "was not followed by any of the princes of his
House. … The property of the Connétable was definitely
alienated from his House, and Vendôme [his brother] did not
receive the hereditary possessions of the Dukes d' Alençon, to
which his wife was entitled. He died on the 25th of March,
1538, leaving but a scanty patrimony to his numerous
descendants. … Five only of his sons obtained their
majority. … Two of these princes founded families: Antoine
[Duc de Vendôme and afterwards King of Navarre through his
marriage with Jeanne d' Albret, see NAVARRE: A. D. 1528-1563],
father of Henry IV., who was the ancestor of all the Bourbons
now living, and Louis [Prince de Condé, born 1530], who was
the root of the House of Condé and all its branches."
_Duc d' Aumale,
History of the Princes of the House of Condé,
book 1, chapter 1, and foot-note._
See, also, FRANCE: A. D. 1327.
BOURBON: The Spanish House.
See SPAIN: A. D. 1698-1700, and 1701-1702.
BOURBON FAMILY COMPACT,
The First.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1733.
The Second.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1743 (OCTOBER).
The Third.
See FRANCE: A. D: 1761 (AUGUST).
BOURGEOIS.
BOURG.
In France, "the word Bourg originally meant any aggregation of
houses, from the greatest city to the smallest hamlet. But …
the word shifted its meaning, and came to signify an
assemblage of houses surrounded with walls. Secondly, the word
Bourgeois also was at first used as synonymous with the
inhabitant of a bourg. Afterward, when corporate franchises
were bestowed on particular bourgs, the word acquired a sense
corresponding with that of the English designation Burgess;
that is a person entitled to the privileges of a municipal
corporation. Finally, the word Bourgeoisie, in its primitive
sense, was the description of the burgesses when spoken of
collectively. But, in its later use, the word would be best
rendered into English by our term citizenship; that is, the
privilege of franchise of being a burgess."
_Sir J. Stephen,
Lectures on the History of France,
lecture 5._
{305}
BOURGES,
Origin of.
The city of Bourges, France, was originally the capital city
of the Gallic tribe of the Bituriges, and was called Avaricum.
"As with many other Gaulish towns, the original name became
exchanged for that of the people, i. e., Bituriges, and thence
the modern Bourges and the name of the province, Berri."
_C. Merivale,
History of the Romans,
chapter 12._
See, also, ÆDUI,
and GAUL: B. C. 58-51.
BOUVINES, Battle of (A. D. 1214).
The battle of Bouvines, fought at Bouvines, in Flanders, not
far from Tournay, on the 27th of August, A. D. 1214, was one
of the important battles of European history. On one side were
the French, led by their king Philip Augustus, and fighting
ostensibly as the champions of the Pope and the church. On the
other side was an allied army of English, under king John, of
Germans, under Otho, the Guelf—one of two rival claimants of
the imperial crown—and of Flemings and Lotharingians, led by
their several lords. Philip Augustus had expelled the English
king from his Norman dukedom and caused a court of the peers
of France to declare the title forfeit. From that success his
ambition rose so high that he had aspired to the conquest of
the English crown. A terrible pope—Innocent III.—had
approved his ambition and encouraged it; for John, the
miserable English king, had given provocations to the church
which had brought the thunders of the Vatican upon his head.
Excommunicated, himself, his kingdom under interdict,—the
latter offered itself a tempting prey to the vigorous French
king, who posed as the champion of the pope. He had prepared a
strong army and a fleet for the invasion of England; but fate
and papal diplomacy had baffled his schemes. At the last
moment, John had made a base submission, had meekly
surrendered his kingdom to the pope and had received it back
as a papal fief. Whereupon the victorious pope commanded his
French champion to forego his intended attack. Philip, under
these circumstances, determined to use the army he had
assembled against a troublesome and contumacious vassal, the
count of Flanders. The pope approved, and Flanders was
overrun. King John led an English force across the channel to
the help of the Flemish count, and Otho, the German king or
emperor, who was king John's nephew, joined the coalition, to
antagonize France and the pope. The battle of Bouvines was the
decisive conflict of the war. It humbled, for the time, the
independent spirit of Flanders, and several remoter
consequences can be traced to it. It was "the first real
French victory. It roused the national spirit as nothing else
could have roused it; it was the nation's first taste of
glory, dear above all things to the French heart. … The
battle somewhat broke the high spirit of the barons: the
lesser barons and churches grouped themselves round the king;
the greater lords came to feel their weakness in the presence
of royalty. Among the incidental consequences of the day of
Bouvines was the ruin of Otho's ambition. He fled from the
field into utter obscurity. He retired to the Hartz mountains,
and there spent the remaining years of his life in private.
King John, too, was utterly discredited by his share in the
year's campaign. To it may partly be traced his humiliation
before his barons, and the signing of the Great Charter in the
following year at Runnymede."
_G. W. Kitchin,
History of France,
book 3, chapter 7, section 4._
"The battle of Bouvines was not the victory of Philip Augustus
alone, over a coalition of foreign princes; the victory was
the work of king and people, barons, burghers, and peasants,
of Ile de France, of Orleanness, of' Picardy, of Normandy, of
Champagne, and of Burgundy. … The victory of Bouvines marked
the commencement of the time at which men might speak, and
indeed did speak, by one single name, of 'the French.' The
nation in France and the kingship in France on that day rose
out of and above the feudal system."
_F. P. Guizot,
Popular History of France,
chapter 18._
See, also,
ITALY: A. D. 1183-1250,
and ENGLAND: A. D. 1205-1213, and 1215.
BOVATE, OR OXGANG.
"Originally as much as an ox-team could plough in a year.
Eight Bovates are usually said to have made a Carucate, but
the number of acres which made a Bovate are variously stated
in different records from 8 to 24."
_N. H. Nicolas,
Notitia Historica,
page 134._
BOVIANUM, Battle of (B. C. 88).
See ROME: B. C. 90-88.
BOWIDES, The.
See MAHOMETAN CONQUEST AND EMPIRE: A. D. 815-945;
also, SAMANIDES;
also, TURKS (SELJUKS): A. D. 1004-1063.
BOYACA, Battle of (1819).
See COLOMBIAN STATES: A. D. 1810-1819.
BOYARS.
"In the old times, when Russia was merely a collection of
independent principalities, each reigning prince was
surrounded by a group of armed men, composed partly of Boyars,
or large landed proprietors, and partly of knights, or
soldiers of fortune. These men, who formed the Noblesse of the
time, were to a certain extent under the authority of the
Prince, but they were by no means mere obedient, silent
executors of his will. The Boyars might refuse to take part in
his military expeditions. … Under the Tartar domination this
political equilibrium was destroyed. When the country had been
conquered, the princes became servile vassals of the Khan, and
arbitrary rulers towards their own subjects. The political
significance of the nobles was thereby greatly diminished."
_D. M. Wallace,
Russia,
chapter 17._
BOYNE, Battle of the (1690).
See IRELAND: A. D. 1689-1691.
BOYS IN BLUE.
BOYS IN GRAY.
Soldier nicknames of the American Civil War.
"During the first year of the war [of the Rebellion, in the
United States] the Union soldiers commonly called their
opponents 'Rebs' and 'Secesh'; in 1862, 'Confeds'; in 1863,
'Gray-backs' and 'Butternuts'; and in 1864, 'Johnnies.' The
nickname 'Butternuts' was given the Confederates on account of
their homespun clothes, dyed reddish-brown with a dye made of
butternut bark. The last name, 'Johnnies,' is said to have
originated in a quarrel between two pickets, which began by
the Union man's saying that the Confederates depended on
England to get them out of their scrape. … The Union man …
said that a 'Reb' was no better than a Johnny Bull, anyhow.
… The name stuck, and in the last part of the war the
Confederate soldiers were almost universally called
'Johnnies.' Throughout the war the Confederates dubbed all the
Union soldiers 'Yankees' and 'Yanks,' without any reference to
the part of the country they came from. … Other nicknames
for Union soldiers, occasionally used, were 'Feds,' 'Blue
Birds' and 'Blue Bellies.' Since the war the opponents have
been commonly called 'Boys in Blue' and 'Boys in Gray.'"
_J. D. Champlin, Jr.,
Young Folks' History of the War for the Union,
page 137._
{306}
BOZRA.
See CARTHAGE: DIVISIONS, &c.
BOZZARIS, Marco, The death of.
See GREECE: A. D. 1821-1829.
BRABANT: Mythical Explanation of the name.
See ANTWERP.
BRABANT: 4th century.
First settlement of the Franks.
See TOXANDRIA.
BRABANT: 9th century.
Known as Basse Lorraine.
See LORRAINE: A. D. 843-870.
BRABANT: A. D. 1096-1099.
Duke Godfrey de Bouillon in the First Crusade, and his kingdom
of Jerusalem.
See CRUSADES: A. D. 1096-1099;
and JERUSALEM: A. D. 1099-1144.
BRABANT: 12th to 15th centuries.
The county and duchy.
From the beginning of the 12th century, the county, afterwards
the duchy, of Brabant, existed under its own counts and dukes,
until the beginning of the 15th century, when it drifted under
the influences which at that time were drawing all the
Netherland States within the sphere of the sovereignty of the
Burgundian dukes.
BRABANT: A. D. 1430.
Acquisition by the House of Burgundy.
See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1428-1430.
----------BRABANT: End----------
BRACCATI, The.
See ROME: B. C. 275.
BRACHYCEPHALIC MEN.
See DOLICHOCEPHALIC.
BRADDOCK'S DEFEAT.
See Ohio (VALLEY): A. D. 1755.
BRADFORD, Governor, and the Plymouth Colony.
See MASSACHUSETTS: A. D. 1621, and after.
BRADFORD'S PRESS.
See PRINTING, &c.: A. D. 1535-1709, 1704-1729,
and PENNSYLVANIA: A. D. 1692-1696.
BRAGANZA, The House of: A. D. 1640.
Accession to the throne of Portugal.
See PORTUGAL: A. D. 1637-1668.
BRAGG, General Braxton.
Invasion of Kentucky.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1862 (JUNE-OCTOBER:
TENNESSEE-KENTUCKY).
The Battle of Stone River.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1862-1863
(DECEMBER-JANUARY: TENNESSEE).
The Tullahoma Campaign.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1863 (JUNE-JULY:
TENNESSEE).
Chickamauga.
The Chattanooga Campaign.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1863 (AUGUST-SEPTEMBER,
and OCTOBER-NOVEMBER: TENNESSEE).
BRAHMANISM.
See INDIA: THE IMMIGRATION AND CONQUESTS OF THE AHYAS.
BRAHMANS.
See CASTE SYSTEM OF INDIA.
Also, INDIA: THE ABORIGINAL INHABITANTS.
BRANCHIDÆ, The.
See ORACLES OF THE GREEKS.
BRANDENBURG: A. D. 928-1142.
Beginnings of the Margravate.
"A. D. 928, Henry the Fowler, marching across the frozen bogs,
took Brannibor, a chief fortress of the Wends; first mention
in human speech of the place now called Brandenburg: Bor or
'Burg of the Brenns' (if there ever was any Tribe of
Brenns,—Brennus, there as elsewhere, being name for King or
Leader); 'Burg of the Woods,' say others,—who as little know.
Probably, at that time, a town of clay huts, with ditch and
palisaded sod-wall round it; certainly 'a chief fortress of
the Wends,'—who must have been a good deal surprised at sight
of Henry on the rimy winter morning near a thousand years ago.
… That Henry appointed due Wardenship in Brannibor was in
the common course. Sure enough, some Murkgraf must take charge
of Brannibor,—he of the Lausitz eastward, for example, or he
of Salzwedel westward:—that Brannibor, in time, will itself
be found the fit place, and have its own Markgraf of
Brandenburg; this, and what in the next nine centuries
Brandenburg will grow to, Henry is far from surmising. … In
old books are lists of the primitive Markgraves of
Brandenburg, from Henry's time downward; two sets, Markgraves
of the Witekind race,' and of another: but they are altogether
uncertain, a shadowy intermittent set of Markgraves, both the
Witekind set and the Non-Witekind; and truly, for a couple of
centuries, seem none of them to have been other than subaltern
Deputies, belonging mostly to Lausitz or Salzwedel; of whom
therefore we can say nothing here, but must leave the first
two hundred years in their natural gray state,—perhaps
sufficiently conceivable by the reader. … The
Ditmarsch-Stade kindred, much slain in battle with the
Heathen, and otherwise beaten upon, died out, about the year
1130 (earlier perhaps, perhaps later, for all is shadowy
still); and were succeeded in the Salzwedel part of their
function by a kindred called 'of Ascanien and Ballenstadt';
the Ascanier or Anhalt Margraves; whose History, and that of
Brandenburg, becomes henceforth articulate to us. … This
Ascanien, happily, has nothing to do with Brute of Troy or the
pious Æneas's son; it is simply the name of a most ancient
Castle (etymology unknown to me, ruins still dimly traceable)
on the north slope of the Hartz Mountains; short way from
Aschersleben,—the Castle and Town of Aschersleben are, so to
speak, a second edition of Ascanien. … The kindred, called
Grafs and ultimately Herzogs (Dukes) of 'Ascanien and
Ballenstädt,' are very famous in old German History,
especially down from this date. Some reckon that they had
intermittently been Markgrafs, in their region, long before
this; which is conceivable enough; at all events it is very
plain they did now attain the Office in Salzwedel (straightway
shifting it to Brandenburg); and held it continuously, it and
much else that lay adjacent, for centuries, in a highly
conspicuous manner. In Brandenburg they lasted for about
two-hundred years."
_T. Carlyle,
Frederick the Great,
book 2, chapter 3-4._
BRANDENBURG: A. D. 1142-1152.
The Electorate.
"He they call 'Albert the Bear (Albrecht der Bär),' first of
the Ascanien Markgraves of Brandenburg;—first wholly
definite Markgrave of Brandenburg that there is; once a very
shining figure in the world, though now fallen dim enough
again, … got the Northern part of what is still called
Saxony, and kept it in his family; got the Brandenburg
Countries withal, got the Lausitz; was the shining figure and
great man of the North in his day. The Markgrafdom of
Salzwedel (which soon became of Brandenburg) he very naturally
acquired (A. D. 1142 or earlier); very naturally, considering
what Saxon and other honours and possessions he had already
got hold of. We can only say, it was the luckiest of events
for Brandenburg, and the beginning of all the better destinies
it has had.
{307}
A conspicuous Country ever since in the world, and which grows
ever more so in our late times. … He transferred the
Markgrafdom to Brandenburg, probably as more central in his
wide lands; Salzwedel is henceforth the led Markgrafdom or
Marck, and soon falls out of notice in the world. Salzwedel is
called henceforth ever since the 'Old Marck (Alte Marck,
Altmarck)'; the Brandenburg countries getting the name of 'New
Marck.' … Under Albert the Markgrafdom had risen to be an
Electorate withal. The Markgraf of Brandenburg was now
furthermore the Karfürst of Brandenburg: officially
'Arch-treasurer of the Holy Roman Empire'; and one of the
Seven who have a right (which became about this time an
exclusive one for those Seven) to choose, to 'kieren' the
Romish Kaiser; and who are therefore called 'Kur-Princes,'
Kurfürste or Electors, as the highest dignity except the
Kaiser's own."
_T. Carlyle,
Frederick the Great,
book 2, chapter 4._
See, also, GERMANY: A. D. 1125-1152.
BRANDENBURG: A. D. 1168-1417.
Under the Ascanian, the Bavarian and the Luxemburg lines, to
the first of the Hohenzollern.
Albert the Bear was succeeded in 1168 by his son Otho. "In
1170, as it would appear, the name of Brandenburg was
substituted for that of North Mark, which had ceased to
describe more than the original nucleus of the colony, now one
of the several districts into which it was divided. The city
and territory of Brandenburg were not probably included in the
imperial grant, but were inherited from the Wendish prince,
Pribislaw, whom Albert had converted to Christianity. …
Under Otho II., brother of the preceding, the family
inheritance was sorely mismanaged. The Margrave becoming
involved in some quarrel with the See of Magdeburg, the
Archbishop placed him under the ban; and as the price of
release Otho was required to accept the Suzerainty of the
prelate for the older and better part of his dominions. His
brother and successor, Albert II., was also unfortunate in the
beginning of his career: but recovered the favor of the
Emperor, and restored the prestige of his house before his
death. … Very important acquisitions were made during the
reign of these two princes. The preoccupations of the King of
Denmark gave them a secure foothold in Pomerania, which the
native nobility acknowledged; the frontiers were pushed
eastward to the Oder, where the New Mark was organized, and
the town of Frankfort was laid out; purchase put them in
possession of the district of Lebus; and the bride of Otho
III., a Bohemian princess, brought him as her dowry an
extensive region on the Upper Spree with several thriving
villages—all this in spite of the division of power and
authority. … Otho III. died in 1267, John one year later;
and a new partition of the estate was made between their
several sons, the oldest, Otho IV., receiving, however, the
title and prerogatives of head of the house." The last
margrave of the Ascanian line, Waldemar, died in 1310. "His
cousin and only heir, Henry, was a minor, and survived him but
a year." Then "a host of claimants arose for the whole or
parts of the Mark. The estates showed at first a gallant
devotion to the widow, and intrusted the reins of authority to
her; but she repaid this fidelity by hastily espousing the
Duke of Brunswick, and transferring her rights to him. The
transaction was not, however, ratified by the estates, and the
Duke failed to enforce it by arms. Pomerania threw off the
yoke which it had once unwillingly accepted; Bohemia reclaimed
the wedding portion of Otho's bride; the Duke of Liegnitz
sought to recover Lebus, although it had once been regularly
sold; and in the general scramble the Church, through its
local representatives, fought with all the energy of mere
worldly robbers. But in this crisis the Emperor forgot neither
the duties of his station nor the interests of his house.
Louis II. of Bavaria then wore the purple. By feudal law a
vacant fief reverted to its suzerain. … It was not therefore
contrary to law, nor did it shock the moral sense of the age,
when Louis drew the Mark practically into his own possession
by conferring it nominally upon his minor son. … During the
minority of Louis the Margrave, the province was administered
by Louis the Emperor, and with some show of vigor." But
troubles so thickened about the Emperor, in his conflict with
the House of Austria, on the one hand, and with the Pope on
the other [see GERMANY: A. D. 1314-1317], that he could not
continue the protection of his son. The Mark of Brandenburg
was invaded by the King of Poland, and its Margrave "watched
the devastation in helpless dismay." The people defended
themselves. "The young city of Frankfort was the leader in the
tardy but successful uprising. The Poles were expelled; the
citizens had for the time saved the Mark. … The Margrave
finally wearied even of the forms of authority, and sold his
unhappy dominions to his two brothers, another Louis and Otho.
In the meantime his father had died. The Electors—or five of
them—had already deposed him and chosen in his place Charles
of Moravia, a prince of the house of Luxemburg, as his
successor. He became respectably and even creditably known in
history as Charles IV. … Although he failed in the attempt
to subdue by arms the Margrave of Brandenburg, who had
naturally espoused his father's cause, he was persistent and
ingenious in diplomatic schemes for overthrowing the House of
Bavaria and bringing the Mark under his own sceptre. … From
Louis he procured … a treaty of succession, by which he
should acquire Brandenburg in case of the death of that
Margrave and his brother Otho without heirs. His intrigues
were finally crowned with complete success. Louis died
suddenly in 1365. Otho, thenceforth alone in the charge,
vacillated between weak submission to the Emperor's will, and
spurts of petulant but feeble resistance; until Charles put an
end to the farce by invading the Mark, crushing the army of
the Margrave, and forcing him to an abject capitulation. In
1371, after a nominal rule of half a century, and for the
price of a meagre annuity, the Bavarian line transferred all
its rights to the family of Charles IV." Charles died in 1378.
His son Wenzel, "for whom the Mark had been destined in the
plans of Charles, acquired, meanwhile, the crown of Bohemia, a
richer prize, and Brandenburg passed to the next son,
Sigismond. The change was a disastrous one." Sigismond pawned
the Mark to his kinsman, Jobst, of Moravia, and it fell into
great disorder. "Imperial affairs during this period were in
scarcely less confusion. Wenzel of Bohemia had been chosen
emperor, and then deposed for obvious unfitness. Rupert, Count
Palatine, had next been ejected, and had died. Again the post
was vacant, and Sigismond, still the real Elector of
Brandenburg, … issued successfully from the contest. His
good fortune was due in a conspicuous degree to the influence
and the money of Frederic, Burggrave of Nuremberg [see
HOHENZOLLERN, RISE OF THE HOUSE OF]; and it is to the credit
of Sigismond that he did not add ingratitude to his other
vices, but on his election as emperor hastened [1411] to make
his patron statthalter, or viceroy of the Mark." Six years
later, in 1417, Frederic was formally invested with the
sovereignty of the Mark, as Margrave and Elector.
_H. Tuttle,
History of Prussia to the Accession of Frederick the Great,
chapters 1 and 3._
{308}
BRANDENBURG: A. D. 1355.
Declared an integral part of the Kingdom of Bohemia.
See BOHEMIA: A. D. 1355.
BRANDENBURG: A. D. 1417-1640.
Rising importance of the Hohenzollern family.
Acquisition of the Duchy of Prussia.
On being invested with the Electorate of Brandenburg,
Frederick of Nuremberg sold the office of Burggrave to the
Nurembergers and devoted himself to his new province.
"Temperate, just, and firm in his dealings, he succeeded in
reducing Brandenburg from anarchy to order. Already as deputy
for Sigismund he had begun the task. … During the reign of
his son and successor, characteristically known as Frederick
Ironteeth [1440-1472], the strong hand was not relaxed; and
Brandenburg became thenceforward tamed to law and order. The
Electorate, which during the preceding century had been
curtailed by losses in war and by sales, began again to
enlarge its borders. The New March, which had been sold in the
days of Sigismund to the Teutonic Knights, was now [1455]
bought back from them in their need. … Albert Achilles, the
brother and successor of Frederick II., was a man as powerful
and as able as his predecessor. By his accession the
principalities of Baireuth and Anspach, which had been
separated from the Electorate for the younger sons of
Frederick I., were reunited to it; and by a scheme of
cross-remainders new plans were laid for the acquisition of
territory. … It was already understood that the Electorate
was to descend according to the law of primogeniture; but
Anspach and Baireuth were still reserved as appanages for
younger sons; and upon the death of Albert Achilles, in 1484,
his territories were again divided, and remained so for more
than a hundred years. The result of the division, however, was
to multiply and not to weaken the strength of the House. The
earlier years of the 16th century saw the Hohenzollerns rising
everywhere to power. Albert Achilles had been succeeded [1486]
by John, of whom little is known except his eloquence, and by
Joachim [1499], who was preparing to bear his part against the
Reformation. A brother of Joachim had become, in 1514, Elector
of Mentz; and the double vote of the family at the election of
Charles V. had increased their importance. The younger branch
was rising also to eminence. George of Brandenburg, Margrave
of Anspach, and grandson of Albert Achilles, was able in 1524
to purchase the Duchy of Jagerndorf in Silesia, and with it
the reversions to the principalities of Oppeln and Ratibor,
which eventually fell to him. His younger brother, Albert, had
been chosen in 1511 Grand Master of the Teutonic Order, and
was already converting his office into the hereditary Dukedom
of Prussia," which it became in 1525 (see POLAND: A. D.
1333-1572). "The Elector Joachim I. of Brandenburg is perhaps
the least prominent, but was not the least prudent, of his
family. Throughout his life he adhered to the old faith, and
preserved his dominions in tranquility. His son and successor,
Joachim II., to the joy of his people, adopted the new
religion [1539]; and found in the secularized bishoprics of
Brandenburg, Havelburg, and Lebus, some compensation for the
ecclesiastical Electorate which was about to pass, upon the
death of Albert of Mentz, from his family. But he also was
able to secure the continuance of peace. Distrustful of the
success of the League of Smalkald he refused to join in it,
and became chiefly known as a mediator in the struggles of the
time. The Electors John George [1571-1598] and Joachim
Frederick [1598-1608] followed the same policy of peace. …
Peace and internal progress had characterized the 16th
century; war and external acquisitions were to mark the 17th.
The failure of the younger line in 1603 caused Bayreuth,
Anspach, and Jagerndorf to fall to the Elector Joachim
Frederick; but as they were re-granted almost at once to
younger sons, and never again reverted to the Electorate,
their acquisition became of little importance. The Margrave,
George Frederick, however, had held, in addition to his own
territories, the office of administrator for Albert Frederick,
second Duke of Prussia, who had become imbecile; and, by his
death, the Elector of Brandenburg became next of kin, and
claimed to succeed to the office. The admission of this claim
placed the Electors in virtual possession of the Duchy. By a
deed of co-infeoffment, which Joachim II. had obtained in 1568
from his father-in-law the King of Poland, they were heirs to
the Duchy upon failure of the younger line. … Duke Albert
died in 1618; and Brandenburg and Prussia were then united
under the Elector John Sigismund. It was well that the Duchy
had been secured before the storm which was already gathering
over the Empire had burst. … During the long struggle of the
Thirty Years' War, the history of Brandenburg is that of a
sufferer rather than an actor. … George William, who died in
1640, bequeathed a desert to his successor. That successor was
Frederick William, to be known in history as the Great Elector."
_C. F. Johnstone,
Historical Abstracts,
chapter 5._
ALSO IN:
_T. Carlyle,
History of Frederick the Great.
book 3 (volume 1)._
BRANDENBURG: A. D. 1609.
The Jülich-Cleve contest.
See GERMANY: A. D. 1608-1618
BRANDENBURG: A. D. 1627.
Occupied by Wallenstein and the Imperial army.
See GERMANY: 1627-1629.
BRANDENBURG: A. D. 1630-1631.
Compulsory alliance of the Elector with Gustavus Adolphus of
Sweden.
See GERMANY: A. D. 1630-1631, and 1631.
BRANDENBURG: A. D. 1632.
Refusal to enter the Union of Heilbronn.
See GERMANY: A. D. 1632-1634.
BRANDENBURG: A. D. 1634.
Desertion of the Protestant cause.
Alliance with the Emperor.
See GERMANY: A. D. 1634-1639.
{309}
BRANDENBURG: A. D. 1640-1688.
The Great Elector.
His development of the strength of the Electorate.
His successful wars.
His acquisition of the complete sovereignty of Prussia.
Fehrbellin.
"Frederic William, known in history as the Great Elector, was
only twenty years old when he succeeded his father. He found
everything in disorder: his country desolate, his fortresses
garrisoned by troops under a solemn order to obey only the
mandates of the Emperor, his army to be counted almost on the
fingers. His first care was to conclude a truce with the
Swedes; his second to secure his western borders by an
alliance with Holland; his third—not in order of action, for
in that respect it took first place—to raise the nucleus of
an army; his fourth, to cause the evacuation of his
fortresses. … To allay the wrath of the Emperor, he
temporised until his armed force had attained the number of
8,000. That force once under arms, he boldly asserted his
position, and with so much effect that in the discussions
preceding the Peace of Westphalia he could exercise a
considerable influence. By the terms of that treaty, the part
of Pomerania known as Hinter Pommern, the principalities of
Magdeburg and Halberstadt, and the bishoprics of Minden and
Kammin were ceded to Brandenburg. … The Peace once signed,
Frederic William set diligently to work to heal the disorders
and to repair the mischief which the long war had caused in
his dominions. … He specially cherished his army. We have
seen its small beginning in 1640-42. Fifteen years later, in
1655, or seven years after the conclusion of the Peace of
Westphalia, it amounted to 25,000 men, well drilled and well
disciplined, disposing of seventy-two pieces of cannon. In the
times in which he lived he had need of such an army. In 1654,
Christina, the wayward and gifted daughter of Gustavus
Adolphus, had abdicated. Her successor on the throne of Sweden
was her cousin, Charles Gustavus, Duke of Zweibrücken. … The
right of Charles Gustavus to the succession was, however,
contested by John Casimir, King of Poland. … War ensued. In
that war the star of Charles Gustavus was in the ascendant,
and the unfortunate John Casimir was forced to abandon his own
dominions and to flee into Silesia. The vicinity of the two
rivals to his own outlying territories was, however, too near
not to render anxious Frederic William of Brandenburg. To
protect Prussia, then held in fief from the King of Poland, he
marched with 8,000 men to its borders. But even with such a
force he was unable, or perhaps, more correctly, he was
prudently unwilling, to resist the insistence put upon him at
Königsberg by the victorious King of Sweden (1656) to transfer
to him the feudal overlordship of that province. Great results
followed from this compliance. Hardly had the treaty been
signed, when John Casimir, returning from Silesia with an
Imperial army at his back, drove the Swedes from Poland, and
recovered his dominions. He did not evidently intend to stop
there. Then it was that the opportunity arrived to the Great
Elector. Earnestly solicited by the King of Sweden to aid him
in a contest which had assumed dimensions so formidable,
Frederic William consented, but only on the condition that he
should receive the Polish palatinates (Woiwodshaften) of Posen
and Kalisch as the price of a victorious campaign. He then
joined the King with his army, met the enemy at Warsaw, fought
with him close to that city a great battle, which lasted three
days (28th to 30th July 1656), and which terminated then,
thanks mainly to the pertinacity of the Brandenburgers—in the
complete defeat of the Poles. The victory gained, Frederic
William withdrew his troops. … Again did John Casimir
recover from his defeat; again, aided by the Imperialists, did
he march to the front, reoccupy Warsaw, and take up a
threatening position opposite to the Swedish camp. The King of
Sweden beheld in this action on the part of his enemy the
prelude to his own certain destruction, unless by any means he
could induce the Elector of Brandenburg once more to save him.
He sent, then, urgent messengers after him to beg him to
return. The messengers found Frederic William at Labian. There
the Elector halted and there, joined the next day, 20th
November 1656, by King Charles Gustavus, he signed a treaty,
by which, on condition of his material aid in the war, the
latter renounced his feudal overlordship over Prussia, and
agreed to acknowledge the Elector and his male descendants as
sovereign dukes of that province. In the war which followed,
the enemies of Sweden and Brandenburg multiplied on every
side. The Danes and Lithuanians espoused the cause of John
Casimir. Its issue seemed to Frederic William more than
doubtful. He asked himself, then, whether—the new enemies who
had arisen being the enemies of Sweden and not of himself—he
had not more to gain by sharing in the victories of the Poles
than in the defeats of the Swedes. Replying to himself
affirmatively, he concluded, 29th September 1657, through the
intermediation of the Emperor, with the Poles, at Wehlau, a
treaty whereby the dukedom of Prussia was ceded in absolute
sovereignty to the Elector of Brandenburg and his male issue,
with reversion to Poland in case of the extinction of the
family of the Franconian Hohenzollerns; in return, Frederic
William engaged himself to support the Poles in their war
against Sweden with a corps of 4,000 men. But before this
convention could be acted upon, fortune had again smiled upon
Charles Gustavus. Turning in the height of winter against the
Danes, the King of Sweden had defeated them in the open field,
pursued them across the frozen waters of the Belt to Fünen and
Seeland, and had imposed upon their king the humiliating peace
of Roeskilde (1658). He seemed inclined to proceed still
further in the destruction of the ancient rival of his
country, when a combined army of Poles and Brandenburgers
suddenly poured through Mecklenburg into Holstein, drove
thence the Swedes, and gave them no rest till they had
evacuated likewise Schleswig and Jutland (1659). In a battle
which took place shortly afterwards on the island of Fünen, at
Nyborg, the Swedes suffered a defeat. This defeat made Charles
Gustavus despair of success, and he had already begun to treat
for peace, when death snatched him from the scene (January
1660). The negotiations which had begun, however, continued,
and finally peace was signed on the 1st May 1660, in the
monastery of Oliva, close to Danzig. This peace confirmed to
the Elector of Brandenburg his sovereign rights over the duchy
of Prussia. From this epoch dates the complete union of
Brandenburg and Prussia—a union upon which a great man was
able to lay the foundation of a powerful North German
Kingdom!" During the next dozen years, the Great Elector was
chiefly busied in establishing his authority in his dominions
and curbing the power of the nobles, particularly in Prussia.
{310}
In 1674, when Louis XIV. of France provoked war with
the German princes by his attack on the Dutch, Frederic
William led 20,000 men into Alsace to join the Imperial
forces. Louis then called upon his allies, the Swedes, to
invade Brandenburg, which they did, under General Wrangel, in
January, 1675. "Plundering and burning as they advanced, they
entered Havelland, the granary of Berlin, and carried their
devastations up to the very gates of that capital." The
Elector was retreating from Alsace before Turenne when he
heard of the invasion. He paused for some weeks, to put his
army in good condition, and then he hurried northwards, by
forced marches. The enemy was taken by surprise, and attacked
while attempting to retreat, near Fehrbellin, on the 18th of
June. After two hours of a tremendous hand-to-hand conflict,
"the right wing of the Swedes was crushed and broken; the
centre and left wing were in full retreat towards Fehrbellin.
The victors, utterly exhausted—they had scarcely quitted
their saddles for eleven days—were too worn out to pursue. It
was not till the following morning that, refreshed and
recovered, they followed the retreating foe to the borders of
Mecklenburg. … The Great Elector promptly followed up his
victory till he had compelled the Swedes to evacuate all
Pomerania. Three years later, when they once more crossed the
border from Livonia, he forced them again to retreat; and
although in the treaty signed at St. Germain in 1670 he was
forced to renounce his Pomeranian conquests, he did not the
less establish the ultimate right of the State of which he was
the real founder to those lands on the Baltic for which he had
so hardly struggled at the negotiations which preceded the
Peace of Westphalia. When he died (9th May 1688) he left the
Kingdom already made in a position of prosperity sufficient to
justify his son and successor in assuming, thirteen years
later, on the anniversary of the victory of FehrbeIlin, the
title of King."
_G. B. Malleson,
The Battle Fields of Germany,
chapter 8._
See, also, SCANDINAVIAN STATES (SWEDEN): A. D. 1644-1697.
BRANDENBURG: A. D. 1648.
The Peace of Westphalia.
Loss of part of Pomerania.
Compensating acquisitions.
See GERMANY: A. D. 1648.
BRANDENBURG: A. D. 1672-1679.
In the Coalition against Louis XIV.
See NETHERLANDS (HOLLAND): A. D. 1672-1674, and 1674-1678;
also NIMEGUEN, PEACE OF.
BRANDENBURG: A. D. 1689-1696.
The war of the Grand Alliance against Louis XIV.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1689-1690, to 1695-1696.
BRANDENBURG: A. D. 1697.
The Treaty of Ryswick.
Restitutions by France.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1697.
BRANDENBURG: A. D. 1700.
The Elector made King of Prussia.
See PRUSSIA: A. D. 1700.
----------BRANDENBURG: End----------
BRANDY STATION, OR FLEETWOOD. Battle of.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1863 (JUNE: VIRGINIA).
BRANDYWINE, Battle of the (A. D. 1777).
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1777
(JANUARY-DECEMBER).
BRANKIRKA, Battle of (1518).
See SCANDINAVIAN STATES: A. D. 1397-1527.
BRANT, CHIEF, and the Indian warfare of the American Revolution.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1778 (JUNE-NOVEMBER),
and (JULY).
BRASIDAS IN CHALKIDIKE.
See GREECE: B. C. 424-421.
BRAZIL:
Origin of the name.
"As the most valuable part of the cargo which Americus
Vespucius carried back to Europe was the well-known dye-wood,
'Cæsalpina Braziliensis,'—called in the Portuguese language
'pau brazil,' on account of its resemblance to 'brazas,'
'coals of fire,'—the land whence it came was termed the 'land
of the brazil-wood'; and finally this appellation was
shortened to Brazil, and completely usurped the names Vera
Cruz, or Santa Cruz."
_J. C. Fletcher and D. P. Kidder,
Brazil and the Brazilians,
chapter 3._
See, also, AMERICA: A. D. 1500-1514.
BRAZIL:
The aboriginal inhabitants.
See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: TUPI. GUARANI. TUPUYAS;
also GUCK or Coco GROUP.
BRAZIL: A. D. 1500-1504.
Discovery, exploration of the coast and first settlement.
See AMERICA: A. D. 1499-1500, 1500-1514, and 1503-1504.
BRAZIL: A. D. 1510-1661.
Portuguese colonization and agriculture.
Introduction of Slavery.
The coming of the Jesuits.
Conquests of the Dutch, and the Portuguese recovery of them.
"Brazil, on which the Portuguese ships had been cast by
accident, had been found to unite in itself the capabilities
of every part of the world in which Europeans have settled,
though happily gold and silver had not yet been discovered,
and the colonists betook themselves from the first to
agriculture. 'The first permanent settlements on this coast
were made by Jews, exiled by the persecution of the
Inquisition; and the government supplemented these by sending
out criminals of all kinds. But gradually the consequence of
Brazil became recognized, and, as afterwards happened in New
England, the nobility at home asked to share the land among
themselves. Emmanuel would not countenance such a claim, but
this great prince died in 1521, and his successor, John III.,
extended to Brazil the same system which had been adopted in
Madeira and the Azores. The whole sea-coast of Brazil was
parcelled out by feudal grants. It was divided into
captaincies, each 50 leagues in length, with no limits in the
interior; and these were granted out as male fiefs, with
absolute power over the natives, such as at that time existed
over the serfs who tilled the soil in Europe. But the native
Brazilians were neither so easy a conquest as the Peruvians,
nor so easily induced to labour; and the Portuguese now began
to bring negros from the Guinea coast. This traffic in human
flesh had long been vigorously pursued in various parts of
Europe; the Portuguese now introduced it to America. The
settlers of Brazil were, properly speaking, the first European
colonists. For they sold their own possessions at home, and
brought their households with them to the new country. Thus
they gradually formed the heart of a new nation, whereas the
chief Spaniards always returned home after a certain tenure of
their offices, and those who remained in the colony descended
to the rank of the conquered natives. Many of those who came
to Brazil had already served in the expeditions to the East;
and they naturally perceived that the coast of America might
raise the productions of India. Hence Brazil early became a
plantation colony, and its prosperity is very much due to the
culture of the sugar cane.
{311}
The Portuguese were greatly assisted, both in
the East and the West, by the efforts of the newly founded
order of the Jesuits. … John III. in [1549] sent out six of
the order with the first governor of Brazil. … The Dutch,
made bold by their great successes in the East, now sought to
win the trade of Brazil by force of arms, and the success of
the East India Company encouraged the adventurers who
subscribed the funds for that of the West Indies, incorporated
in 1621. The Dutch Admiral, Jacob Willekens, successfully
assaulted San Salvador [Bahia] in 1624, and though the capital
was afterwards retaken by the intrepid Archbishop Texeira, one
half of the coast of Brazil submitted to the Dutch. Here, as
in the East, the profit of the company was the whole aim of
the Dutch, and the spirit in which they executed their design
was a main cause of its failure. … But … the profits of
the company … rose at one time to [cent?] per cent. The
visions of the speculators of Amsterdam became greater; and
they resolved to become masters of all Brazil. … The man
whom they despatched [1637] to execute this design was Prince
John Maurice of Nassau. … In a short time he had greatly
extended the Dutch possessions. But the Stad-houder was
subject, not to the wise and learned men who sat in the
States-General, but to the merchants who composed the courts
of the company. They thought of nothing but their dividends;
they considered that Maurice kept up more troops and built
more fortresses than were necessary for a mercantile
community, and that he lived in too princely a fashion for one
in their service. Perhaps they suspected him of an intention
of slipping into that royal dignity which the feudal frame of
Brazilian society seemed to offer him. At any rate, in 1643,
they forced him to resign. A recent revolution had terminated
the subjection of Portugal to Spain, and the new king of
Portugal concluded a truce for ten years with Holland. War was
therefore supposed to be out of the question. … But the
recall of Maurice was the signal for an independent revolt in
Brazil. Though the mother countries were at peace, war broke
out between the Dutch and the Portuguese of Brazil in 1645.
The Jesuits had long preached a crusade against the heretic
Dutch. … John Ferdinand de Vieyra, a wealthy merchant of
Pernambuco, led a general uprising of the Brazilians, and
although the Dutch made a stubborn resistance, they received
no assistance from home; they were driven from one post after
another, until, in 1654, the last of the company's servants
quitted Brazil. The Dutch declared war against Portugal; but
in 1661 peace was made, and the Dutch sold their claims for
8,000,000 florins, the right of trading being secured to them.
But after the expulsion of the Dutch, the trade of Brazil came
more and more into the hands of the English."
_E. J. Payne,
History of European Colonies,
chapters 2-3._
ALSO IN:
_R. G. Watson,
Spanish and Portuguese South America,
volume 1, chapters 9 and 15;
volume 2, chapters 1-4._
_R. Southey,
History of Brazil,
volumes 1-2._
BRAZIL: A. D. 1524.
Conceded to Portugal.
See AMERICA: A. D. 1519-1524.
BRAZIL: A. D. 1531-1641.
The Republic of St. Paul.
The Paulistas or Mamelukes.
"The celebrated republic of St. Paul, as it is usually
denominated, had its rise about the year 1531, from a very
inconsiderable beginning. A mariner of the name of Ramalho,
having been shipwrecked on this part of the coast, was
received among a small Indian tribe called the Piratininga,
after the name of their chief. Here he was found by De Sousa
some years afterwards, and, contrary to the established policy
of permitting no settlement excepting immediately on the
sea-coast, he allowed this man to remain, on account of his
having intermarried and having a family. The advantages of
this establishment were such, that permission was soon after
given to others to settle here, and as the adventurers
intermarried with the natives, their numbers increased
rapidly. … A mixed race was formed, possessing a compound of
civilized and uncivilized manners and customs. The Jesuits
soon after established themselves with a number of Indians
they had reclaimed, and exerted a salutary influence in
softening and harmonizing the growing colony. In 1581, the
seat of government was removed from St. Vincent on the coast
to St. Pauls; but its subjection to Portugal was little more
than nominal. … The mixture produced an improved race, 'the
European spirit of enterprise,' says Southey, 'developed
itself in constitutions adapted to the country.' But it is
much more likely that the free and popular government which
they enjoyed produced the same fruits here as in every other
country. … They soon quarreled with the Jesuits [1581], on
account of the Indians whom they had reduced to slavery. The
Jesuits declaimed against the practice; but as there were now
many wealthy families among the Paulistas, the greater part of
whose fortunes consisted in their Indians, it was not heard
with patience. The Paulistas first engaged in war against the
enemies of their allies, and afterwards on their own account,
on finding it advantageous. They established a regular trade
with the other provinces whom they supplied with Indian
slaves. They by this time acquired the name of Mamelukes, from
the peculiar military discipline they adopted, bearing some
resemblance to the Mamelukes of Egypt. The revolution in
Portugal, when Philip II. of Spain placed himself on its
throne, cast the Paulistas in a state of independence, as they
were the only settlers in Brazil which did not acknowledge the
new dynasty. From the year 1580 until the middle of the
following century, they may be regarded as a republic, and it
was during this period they displayed that active and
enterprising character for which they were so much celebrated.
… While a Spanish king occupied the throne of Portugal, they
attacked the Spanish settlements on the Paraguay, alleging
that the Spaniards were encroaching on their territory. …
They attacked the Jesuit missions [1629]. … As they had
fixed themselves east of the Parana, the Paulistas laid hold
of this as a pretext. They carried away upwards of 2,000 of
their Indians into captivity, the greater part of whom were
sold and distributed as slaves. The Jesuits complained to the
king of Spain and to the pope; the latter fulminated his
excommunication. The Paulistas attacked the Jesuits in their
college, and put their principal to death, expelled the
remainder, and set up a religion of their own; at least no
longer acknowledged the supremacy of the pope. In consequence
of the interruption of the African trade during the Dutch war,
the demand for Indian slaves was very much increased. The
Paulistas redoubled their exertions, and traversed every part
of the Brazils in armed troops. … The foundation was laid of
enmity to the Portuguese, which continues to this day,
although a complete stop was put to the infamous practice in
the year 1756. … When the house of Braganza, in 1640,
ascended the throne, the Paulistas, instead of acknowledging
him, conceived the idea of electing a king for themselves.
They actually elected a distinguished citizen of the name of
Bueno, who persisted in refusing to accept, upon which they
were induced to acknowledge Joam IV. [1641]. It was not
until long afterwards that they came under the Portuguese
government."
_H. M. Brackenridge,
Voyage to South America,
volume 1, chapter 2._
ALSO IN: _R. Southey,
History of Brazil,
chapter 23 (volume 2)._
{312}
BRAZIL: A. D. 1540-1541.
Orellana's voyage down the Amazons.
See AMAZONS RIVER.
BRAZIL: A. D. 1555-1560.
Attempted Huguenot colony on the Bay of Rio Janeiro.
See FLORIDA: A. D. 1562-1563.
BRAZIL: A. D. 1654-1777.
The Portuguese policy of exclusion and restriction.-Boundary
disputes with Spain.
"The period of peace which followed these victories [over the
Dutch] … was used by the Portuguese government only to get
up a kind of old Japanese system of isolation, by which it was
intended to keep the colony in perpetual tutelage. In
consequence of this even now, after the lapse of half a
century since it violently separated itself, Brazilians
generally entertain a bitter grudge against the mother
country. All the trade to and from Brazil was engrossed by
Portugal; every functionary, down to the last clerk, was
Portuguese. Any other European of scientific education was
looked at with suspicion; and particularly they sought to
prevent by all means the exploration of the interior, as they
feared not only that the eyes of the natives might be opened
to their mode of administration, but also that such travellers
might side with the Spaniards in their long dispute regarding
the boundaries of the two nations, as the French astronomer,
La Condamine, had done. This question, which arose shortly
after the discovery, and was hushed up only during the short
union of both crowns (from 1581-1640), broke out with renewed
vigor now and then, maugre the Treaty of Tordesilhas in 1494
[see AMERICA: A. D. 1494]. … By the Treaty of Sao Ildefonso,
in 1777, both parties having long felt how impracticable the
old arrangements were—at least, for their American
colonies—the boundaries were fixed upon the principle of the
'uti possidetis,' at any rate so far as the imperfect
knowledge of the interior allowed; but this effort also proved
to be vain. … The unsolved question descended as an evil
heritage to their respective heirs, Brazil and the South
American Republics. A few years ago it gave rise to the
terrible war with Paraguay; and it will lead to fresh
conflicts between Brazil and the Argentine Republic."
_F. Keller,
The Amazon and Madeira Rivers,
pages 23-24._
ALSO IN:
_R. Southey,
History of Brazil,
volume 3._
BRAZIL: A. D. 1713.
The Portuguese title confirmed.
See UTRECHT: A. D. 1712-1714.
BRAZIL: A. D. 1759.
Expulsion of the Jesuits.
See JESUITS: A. D. 1757-1773.
BRAZIL: A. D. 1808-1822.
Becomes the asylum of Portuguese royalty.
The founding of the independent Empire.
"While anarchy and ruin … overspread the greater part of the
beautiful continent of South America, the Empire of Brazil won an
independent existence without bloodshed, and kept it with
credit. The Dutch conquest of Brazil, and its reconquest by
the Portuguese, has been mentioned in a former chapter. The
country long remained under the close and oppressive monopoly
imposed upon it by the Portuguese; but in 1808 [1807] when
Napoleon invaded Portugal, the regent embarked [see PORTUGAL:
A. D. 1807], with the royal insignia, for Brazil, which at
once assumed the dignity of an integral part of the kingdom.
The ports were opened to the commerce of the world; the
printing-press was introduced; learning was encouraged; the
enormous resources of the country were explored; foreign
settlers were invited to establish themselves; embassies were
sent to European powers of the first rank, and diplomatic
agents received. New towns and harbours were planned; new life
was breathed into every department of the state. After a few
years, the state of affairs in Europe compelled King John VI.
to return to Europe, as the only chance of preserving the
integrity of the monarchy. The Cortes of Lisbon invited their
sovereign to revisit his ancient capital, and deputies from
Brazil were summoned to attend the sittings of the National
Assembly. But before the deputies could arrive, the Cortes had
resolved that Brazil should be again reduced to absolute
dependence on Portugal. A resolution more senseless or more
impracticable can hardly be imagined. The territory of Brazil
was as large as all Europe put together; Portugal was a little
kingdom, isolated and without influence among the monarchies
of the Old World; yet it was deliberately decreed that all the
monopolies of the exploded colonial system should be revived,
and that England should be deprived of her free trade to
Brazil. The king appointed his eldest son, Dom Pedro, Regent
of the new kingdom, and soon after took his departure for
Lisbon, with many of the emigrant nobility. Dom Pedro assumed
the government under the perplexing circumstances of an empty
treasury, a heavy public debt, and the provinces almost in
revolt. Bahia disavowed his authority, and the Cortes withheld
their support from him. The regent reduced his expenditure to
the monthly sum allowed to his princess for pin money; he
retired to a country house, and observed the most rigid
economy. By great exertions he reduced the public expenditure
from $50,000,000 to $15,000,000; but the northern and internal
provinces still withheld their taxes; the army became
mutinous, and the ministers of his father, who still remained
in power, were unpopular; the regent in despair demanded his
recall. But the Brazilians were at length disarmed by his
noble conduct; they recognized his activity, his beneficence,
his assiduity in the affairs of government, and the habitual
feelings of affection and respect for the House of Braganza,
which had for a moment been laid asleep by distrust, were
reawakened with renewed strength. It was fortunate that the
quarrels which disturbed Brazil were accommodated before the
arrival of intelligence from Portugal. Hardly had the king
arrived in Lisbon when he found himself obliged to assent to a
constitution which treated his Brazilian subjects as mere
colonists; succeeding mails brought orders more and more
humiliating to the Brazilians.
{313}
The design of declaring Brazil an independent kingdom, grew
more and more in public favour; but the prince was unwilling
to place himself in direct rebellion to the crown of Portugal,
and steadily adhered to his determination to leave America. At
length, it is related, a despatch was delivered to the regent,
which he declined to show to any of his ministers, but which
evidently excited in his mind no ordinary emotions of anger:
he crushed the paper in his hand, and moved away to a window,
where he stood for a few moments in thought; at length he
turned to his council with the words 'Independencia ou
morte':—the exclamation was received with tumultuous cheers,
and was adopted as the watchword of the Revolution. The
Portuguese troops were sent back to Europe. The Cortes of
Lisbon were now anxious to recall their obnoxious decrees; to
admit the deputies from Brazil; to make any concession that
might be demanded. But it was too late: the independence of
Brazil was formally proclaimed in August, 1822, and in
December of the same year, Dom Pedro was crowned Emperor of
Brazil. This is the first, and as yet the only instance of a
modern colony achieving its independence, and separating
itself completely from its metropolis without bloodshed."
_Viscount Bury,
Exodus of the Western Nations,
volume 2, chapter 11._
ALSO IN:
_J. Armitage,
History of Brazil,
chapters 1-7._
See, also, PORTUGAL: A. D. 1820-1824.
BRAZIL: A. D. 1825-1865.
Wars with the Argentines.
Abdication of Dom Pedro I,
The Guerra dos Cabanos.
"In 1825, chiefly through the mediation of England, Brazil was
acknowledged as an independent empire. But the inner
commotions continued, and were not even soothed by a new
Constitution, drawn up in 1823, and sworn to by the Emperor in
1824. New revolts in Pernambuco, and some of the other
Northern provinces, and a war of three years with the
Argentine Republic, which ended in 1828 by Brazil giving up
Banda Oriental, annexed only eleven years before, disturbed
and weakened the land. The foreign soldiers, enlisted for this
war, and retained after its conclusion to keep down the
Opposition, and the extravagant private life of the Emperor,
who recklessly trampled down the honour of respectable
families, provoked dissatisfaction and murmurs, which rose to
the highest pitch when he insisted upon carrying on a most
unpopular war in Portugal to defend the rights of his
daughter, Dona Maria da Gloria (in whose favour he had
abdicated the Portuguese Crown), against his brother. Don
Miguel [see PORTUGAL: A. D. 1824-1889]. In April, 1831, Dom
Pedro I., so enthusiastically raised to the Brazilian throne
only nine years before, was forced to abdicate it, deserted
and betrayed by everyone, in behalf of his younger son, Pedro.
The next period was the most disturbed one that the young
Empire had yet witnessed. Slave revolts at Bahia, a civil war
in the South, which almost cost it the province of Rio Grande
do Sul, and the bloody rebellion known as the Guerra dos
Cabanos, in Pará and Amazon, from 1835 to 1837, followed each
other quickly. In this last revolt, the Brazilians had stirred
up the Indians and mestizoes against the abhorred Portuguese,
without considering that they should not be able to quench the
fire, they had themselves kindled. In a short time, the fury
of the whole colored population turned against all whites,
Brazilians and Portuguese alike, without any distinction.
More than 10,000 persons are said to have perished in this
Guerra dos Cabanos; and, to the present day, those terrible
times and the barbarous cruelties committed by the Indians,
half-castes, and mulattoes, continue to be talked of with awe
in the two provinces. A revolution in Minas, got up by the
personal ambitions of a few political leaders, rather than
emanating from the spirit of the people, and the war against
Rosas, the Dictator of the Argentine Republic, passed over
Brazil without leaving deep traces, at least when compared
with the last war against Paraguay; which, besides the
stimulus of the old differences about boundaries, was
occasioned by the endless vexations and restrictions with
which the Dictator Lopez strove to ruin the Brazilian trade on
the Paraguay, and to prejudice the province of Mato Grosso."
_F. Keller,
The Amazon and Madeira Rivers,
pages 25-26._
ALSO IN:
_J. Armitage,
History of Brazil,
1808-1831._
See, also, ARGENTINE REPUBLIC: A. D. 1819-1874.
BRAZIL: A. D. 1865-1870.
The war with Paraguay.
See PARAGUAY: A. D. 1608-1873.
BRAZIL: A. D. 1871-1888.
Emancipation of Slaves.
The Brazilian act of emancipation, known as the Law of Rio
Branco (taking that name from the Minister who carried it
through) was passed on the 28th of September, 1871, "and from
that date it was enacted 'that children henceforth born of
slave women shall be considered of free condition.' … Such
children are not to be actually free, but are 'bound to serve
the owners of their mothers for a term of 21 years, under the
name of 'apprentices.' These must work, under severe
penalties, for their hereditary masters; but if the latter
inflict on them excessive bodily punishment, they are allowed
to bring suit in a criminal court, which may declare their
freedom. A provision was also made for the emancipation of
government slaves; and there was a clause which insured a
certain sum, to be annually set aside from fines, which was to
aid each province in emancipating by purchase a certain number
of slaves. … The passage of this law did not prove merely
prospective in its effects. In a very short time the sums
placed aside for emancipating slaves by purchase resulted in
the freedom of many bondmen. And more than this, there seemed
to be a generous private rivalry in the good work, from
motives of benevolence and from religious influence. Many
persons in various parts of Brazil liberated their slaves
without compensation. … I am happy to say that the number
liberated, either by the provisions of the State or by private
individuals, is always in an increasing ratio. When the writer
first went to Brazil [1852] … it was estimated that there
were 3,000,000 in slavery. … There were at the beginning of
1875, when the law of emancipation had been but a little more
than three years in operation, 1,476,567 slaves."
_J. C. Fletcher and D. P. Kidder,
Brazil and the Brazilians,
chapter 28._
"On the 25th of March, 1884, slavery was abolished in the
province of Ceará. The Rio News says, 'The movement began only
15 months ago, the first municipality liberating its slaves on
the 1st of January, 1883. The new tax law of last November
greatly accelerated this progress, because it made
slave-holding impossible, the value of the slave being less
than the tax.'" On the 28th of September, 1885, the
impatience of the Brazilians to rid themselves of slavery
expressed itself in a new Emancipation Act, known as the
Saraiva law. It provided for facilitating and hastening the
extension of freedom, by increasing the public fund
appropriated to it, by defining the valuation of slaves, and
by other effective provisions, so that "within ten years [from
its date] it is supposed that slavery will have ceased to
exist in Brazil."
_H. C. Dent,
A Year in Brazil,
pages 281-296._
{314}
"On March 30, 1887, the official return gave the number of
slaves in Brazil as 723,419, of the legal value of
$485,225,212. On May 13, 1888, the Crown Princess, as regent,
gave the royal assent to a short measure of two clauses, the
first declaring that slavery was abolished in Brazil from the
day of the promulgation of the law, and the second repealing
all former Acts on the subject. Both Chambers refused to
consider the claim for compensation made by the slave owners."
_Statesman's Year-Book, 1890,
page 391._
BRAZIL: A. D. 1889-1891.
Revolution.
Overthrow of the Empire.
Establishment of the Republic of the United States of Brazil.
Religious freedom declared
"The sudden collapse of the Imperial Government in November
[1889], resulting in the downfall of Dom Pedro and his
banishment, caused universal surprise. For some time the
Government had been credited by the Republican journals with
the wish and intention to disperse the army throughout the
provinces and along the frontier, so that, with the assistance
of the newly-organised National Guard, the succession of the
Princess Imperial to the throne might be secured in the event
of the death or incapacity through old age of the Emperor Dom
Pedro. An infantry battalion, ordered to embark for a distant
province, mutinied and refused to go. The War Department
resolved to compel them by force to depart." The result was a
general mutiny (November 15, 1889), which soon became a
revolution. "The organiser of the mutiny was Colonel Benjamin
Constant Botelho de Magalhaes, an officer of exceptional
ability and Professor in the Military Academy. The movement
seemed directed at first only against the obnoxious Ouro Preto
Ministry; but the enthusiasm of the Republicans, under the
leadership of a popular agitator, Jose de Patrocinio, was so
very pronounced, that at a meeting held in the city hall, in
the afternoon of November 15, a resolution proclaiming the
Republic was passed by acclamation. About the same hour, a
self-constituted committee, consisting of General Deodoro [da
Fonseca], Benjamin Constant, and Quintino Bocayuva, met and
organised a Provisional Government," with Marshal Deodoro da
Fonseca for its Chief, Colonel Botelho de Magalhaes for
Minister of War. "A formal decree was issued declaring a
federal Republic, the several provinces of the late Empire
constituting the States and each State arranging its own
constitution and electing its deliberative bodies and local
governments. On the morning of the 16th the deposed Emperor
received intimation that he and his family must leave the
country within twenty-four hours:—'Between 2 and 3 o'clock on
the morning of the 17th an officer appeared at the palace and
informed the Emperor that he must at once embark, with all the
members of his family. The wretched old man protested that he
was not a fugitive, and that he preferred to embark by day;
but after listening to the officer's explanation that a
conflict might occur and blood might be shed, he finally
yielded, protesting that in such a crisis his old grey head
was the only one that was cool. And so at the dead hour of
night, with no one to say a farewell and bid him God-speed,
the aged Emperor, with his devoted wife and children, went
down to the Caes Pharonx, where a launch was waiting to convey
them out to the small gunboat Parnahyba. About 10 o'clock the
gunboat steamed out of the harbour and went down to Ilha
Grande to wait for the merchant steamer Alagoas, which had
been chartered to convey the exiles to Europe'. … It was
said that the Imperial Ministry, principally through the
instrumentality of Ouro Preto, had arranged with Dom Pedro to
abdicate at the end of January, 1890, in favour of his
daughter, the Countess d'Eu. But the Countess, with her
husband, was extremely unpopular with the army and navy, and
from these the feeling of disloyalty spread rapidly among the
people. By decree of the Provisional Government, the provinces
of Brazil, united by the tie of federation, were to be styled
the 'United States of Brazil,' and general elections were to
take place in August, 1890, to confirm the establishment of
the Republic. A counter-revolution broke out in Rio on December
18. A number of soldiers, sailors, and civilians took part in
it, and troops had to be ordered out to disperse them. It was
not until the 20th that the disturbance was finally quelled."
_Annual Register, 1889,
part 1, pages 444-448._
"The revolution was the work of leaders who were not only
conscious of their power, but also confident that the nation
would inevitably condone their temporary acts of usurpation.
There were no signs of weakness, vacillation or uncertainty in
their action. … A coalition of the army officers and the
constitution-makers and political dreamers of the League would
have been impracticable if the leaders had not known that the 20
provinces of the Empire were profoundly disaffected and would
readily acquiesce in a radical change of government. … The
Emperor of Brazil has enjoyed the reputation of being one of
the most enlightened and progressive sovereigns of his time.
… He was a ruler with many fascinating and estimable traits,
who endeared himself to his people. This and much more may be
said in praise of the deposed and banished Emperor; but when
the record of his public services and of his private virtues
is complete, the fact remains that he stood for a system of
centralization that practically deprived the great series of
federated provinces of their autonomy and his subjects of the
privileges of self-government. Dom Pedro II. was not a
constitutional reformer. The charter which he had received
from his father was not modified in any essential respect
during his long reign."
_New York Tribune Extra,
volume 1, number 12 (1889)_.
"A new Constitution … was ratified by the first National
Congress, convened on November 15, 1890. By this instrument the
Brazilian nation constituted itself into a federal republic,
under the name of the United States of Brazil. Each of the old
provinces was declared a self-governing state, to be
administered under a republican form of government, with power
to impose taxes, and subject to no interference from the
Central Government, except for purposes of national defense or
the preservation of internal order or for the execution of
Federal laws.
{315}
Legislation relating to customs, paper currency, and postal
communications is reserved to the Federal Government. The
right of suffrage is secured to all male citizens over 21
years old, with the exception of beggars, persons ignorant of
the alphabet, soldiers in actual service, and persons under
monastic vows, registration being the only prerequisite. The
executive authority is vested in the President … elected by
the people directly for the term of six years, and …. not
eligible for the succeeding term. … Senators are elected by
the Legislatures of the States for nine years, three from each
State, one retiring and his successor being chosen every three
years. … The Chamber of Deputies has the initiative in all
laws relating to taxation. Deputies are elected for three
years by direct popular vote in the proportion of one to every
70,000 inhabitants. … It is declared that no sect or church
shall receive aid from the National or State governments." In
1891, differences arose between the President and Congress, at
first over financial measures passed by the Chambers and
vetoed by the President and schemes recommended by the
President that were voted down by Congress. In November the
President published a decree dissolving Congress, closed the
Chambers by force, proclaimed himself Dictator on the
invitation of officers of the army, and convoked a new
Congress, to be charged with the revision of the constitution.
The State of Rio Grande do Sul led off in a revolt against
this usurpation, and on the 23d of November, after some shots
had been fired into the city of Rio de Janeiro by a naval
squadron acting against him, President Fonseca resigned.
"Floriano Peixoto was immediately installed by the
revolutionary committee as President in his stead … and the
country soon settled down under the new government."
_Appleton's Annual Cyclopædia 1891,
pages 91-96._
"When Deodoro, after struggling for twelve months with the
factions in Congress, closed the doors of São Christovão
Palace and proclaimed a dictatorship, he had recourse to a
familiar expedient of Latin-American civilization. The speedy
collapse of his administration, when it was wholly dependent
upon military force, was a good augury for the future of
Brazil. … In the early days of the Republic, the Provisional
Ministry were unable to agree upon the radical policy of
disestablishing the Church. … Fortunately for Brazil there
was no compromise of the disestablishment question. … Under
the Constitution no religious denomination was permitted to
hold relations of dependence upon, or alliance with, the
federal or State governments. … Every church was made free
in the free State. Civil marriage was recognized as essential.
… Perhaps the most hopeful sign for the cause of progress
and religion is the adoption of educational suffrage."
_I. N. Ford,
Tropical America,
chapter 4._
See CONSTITUTION OF BRAZIL.
----------BRAZIL: End----------
BREAD AND CHEESE WAR.
See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1482-1493.
BRECKINRIDGE, John C.
Defeat in Presidential election.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1860 (APRIL-NOVEMBER).
BREDA: A. D. 1575.
Spanish-Dutch Congress.
See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1575-1577.
BREDA: A. D. 1590.
Capture by Prince Maurice of Nassau-Orange.
See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1588-1593.
BREDA: A. D. 1624-1625.
Siege and capture by the Spaniards.
See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1621-1633.
BREDA: A. D. 1637.
Taken by the Prince of Orange.
See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1635-1638.
BREDA: A. D. 1793.
Taken and lost by the French.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1793 (FEBRUARY-APRIL).
----------BREDA: End----------
BREDA, Declaration from.
See ENGLAND: A. D. 1658-1660.
BREDA, Treaty of (1666).
See NETHERLANDS (HOLLAND): A. D. 1665-1666.
BREED'S HILL (Bunker Hill), Battle of.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1775 (JUNE).
BREHON LAWS.
"The portion of the Irish tribe system which has attracted
most attention is the mode in which the judicial authority was
withdrawn from the chief and appropriated by the hereditary
caste of the Brehons, and also the supposed anomalous
principles which they applied to the decision of the cases
which came before them. The earlier English writers found no
terms too strong to express their abhorrence and contempt of
these native judges, and their contempt for the principles
upon which they proceeded. On the other hand, Irish writers
attributed to these professional arbitrators advanced
principles of equity wholly foreign to an early community. …
The translation of the existing vast mass of Brehon law books,
and the translation [publication?] of the most important of
them by the order of the government, have disposed of the
arguments and assertions on both sides. It is now admitted,
that the system and principles of the Brehon jurisprudence
present no characteristics of any special character, although
in them primitive ideas of law were elaborated in a manner not
found elsewhere; … the laws which existed among the native
Irish were in substance those which are found to have
prevailed among other Aryan tribes in a similar stage of
social progress; as the social development of the nation was
prematurely arrested, so also were the legal ideas of the same
stage of existence retained after they had disappeared in all
other nations of Europe. This legal survival continued for
centuries the property of an hereditary caste, who had
acquired the knowledge of writing, and some tincture of
scholastic philosophy and civil law. … The learning of the
Brehons consisted (1) in an acquaintance with the minute
ceremonies, intelligible now only to an archæologist, and not
always to him, by which the action could be instituted, and
without which no Brehon could assume the role of arbitrator;
and (2) in a knowledge of the traditions, customs and
precedents of the tribe, in accordance with which the dispute
should be decided."
_A. G. Richey,
Short History of the Irish People,
chapter 3._
ALSO IN:
_Sir H. Maine,
Early History of Institutions,
lecture 2._
BREISACH: A. D. 1638.
Siege and capture by Duke Bernhard.
See GERMANY: A. D. 1634-1639.
BREISACH: A. D. 1648.
Cession to France.
See GERMANY: A. D. 1648.
BREITENFELD,
Battle of (or first battle of Leipsic).
See GERMANY: A. D. 1631.
The second battle of (1642).
See GERMANY: A. D. 1640-1645.
{316}
BREMEN: 13th-15th Centuries.
In the Hanseatic League.
See HANSA TOWNS.
BREMEN: A. D. 1525
Formal establishment of the Reformed Religion.
See PAPACY: A. D. 1522-1525.
BREMEN: A. D. 1648.
Cession of the Bishoprick to Sweden.
See GERMANY: A. D. 1648.
BREMEN: A. D. 1720.
The Duchy ceded to the Elector of Hanover.
See SCANDINAVIAN STATES (SWEDEN): A. D. 1719-1721.
BREMEN: A. D. 1801-1803.
One of six free cities which survive the Peace of Luneville.
See GERMANY: A. D. 1801-1803.
BREMEN: A. D. 1810.
Annexed to France.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1810 (FEBRUARY-DECEMBER).
BREMEN: A. D. 1810-1815.
Loss and recovery of autonomy as a "free city."
See CITIES, IMPERIAL AND FREE, OF GERMANY.
BREMEN: A. D. 1815.
Once more a Free City and a member of the Germanic
Confederation.
See VIENNA, THE CONGRESS OF.
BREMEN: A. D. 1888.
Surrender of free privileges.
Absorption in the Zollverein and Empire.
See GERMANY: A. D. 1888.
----------BREMEN: End----------
BREMI: A. D. 1635-1638.
Taken by the French.
Recovered by the Spaniards.
See ITALY: A. D. 1635-1659.
BRÊMULE, Battle of (1119).
See ENGLAND: A. D. 1087-1135.
BRENHIN, The Cymric title.
See ROME: B. C. 390-347.
BRENNI, The.
See RHÆTIANS.
BRENTFORD, Battle of.
Fought and won by Edmund Ironsides in his contest with Cnut,
or Canute, for the English throne A. D. 1016.
BRESCIA: A. D. 1512.
Capture and pillage by the French.
See ITALY: A. D. 1510-1513.
BRESCIA: A. D. 1849.
Bombardment, capture and brutal treatment by the Austrian
Haynau.
See ITALY: A. D. 1848-1849.
----------BRESCIA: End----------
BRESLAU: A. D. 1741-1760.
In the wars of Frederick the Great.
See AUSTRIA: A. D. 1741 (MAY-JUNE); 1742 (JANUARY-MAY);
1742 (JUNE); GERMANY: A. D. 1757 (JULY-DECEMBER), and 1760.
BREST: A. D. 1694.
Repulse of the English fleet.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1694.
BRETAGNE.
See BRITTANY.
BRETHREN OF THE COMMON LOT OR COMMON LIFE.
"The Societies of the Beguines, Beghards, and Lollards [see
BEGUINES], which from the first laboured under various defects
and imperfections, had in course of time degenerated, and by
their own fault, either fallen to pieces of themselves, or
been suppressed. The two things, however, still existed, viz.,
the propensity to religious association, … and, likewise,
the outward condition, which required and rendered practicable
the efforts of benevolence and charity, strengthened by
cooperation. The last was particularly the case in the
Netherlands, and most in the northern provinces. … Here,
then, the Institute of the Common Lot takes its rise. … The
first author of this new series of evolutions was Gerhard
Groot (Geert Groete or de Groot, Gerhardus Magnus), a man of
glowing piety and great zeal in doing good, a powerful popular
orator and an affectionate friend of youth [1340-1384]. …
His affection for Holy Scripture and the ancient Fathers
kindled in Gerhard's bosom the liveliest zeal for collecting
the records of Christian antiquity. … Hence, he had long
before employed young men, under his oversight, as copyists,
thereby accomplishing the threefold end of multiplying these
good theological works, giving profitable employment to the
youths, and obtaining an opportunity of influencing their
minds. This he continued more and more to do. The circle of
his youthful friends, scholars, and transcribers, became from
day to day larger, and grew at length into a regular society.
Having thus in part owed its origin to the copying of the
Scriptures and devotional books, the Society from the outset,
and through its whole continuance, made the Holy Scripture and
its propagation, the copying, collecting, preserving, and
utilizing of good theological and ascetical books, one of its
main objects. … The members were called 'Brethren of the
Common Lot,' [or of the Common Life] or 'Brethren of Good
Will,' 'Fratres Collationarii,' 'Jeronymians,' and
'Gregorians.' … Imitating the Church at Jerusalem, and
prompted by brotherly affection, they mutually shared with
each other their earnings and property, or consecrated also
their fortune, if they possessed any, to the service of the
community. From this source, and from donations and legacies
made to them, arose the 'Brother-houses,' in each of which a
certain number of members lived together, subjected, it is
true, in dress, diet, and general way of life, to an appointed
rule, but yet not conventually sequestered from the world,
with which they maintained constant intercourse, and in such a
way as, in opposition to Monachism [monasticism], to preserve
the principle of individual liberty."
_C. Ullmann,
Reformers before the Reformation,
volume 2, part 2, chapter l._
"Through the wonderful activity of that fraternity of
teachers, begun about 1360, called the Brethren of the Common
Life, the Netherlands had the first system of common schools
in Europe. These schools flourished in every large town and
almost in every village, so that popular education was the
rule."
_W. E. Griffis,
The Influence of the Netherlands,
page 3._
ALSO IN:
_S. Kettlewell,
Thomas à Kempis and the Brothers of Common Life,
chapters 5-6 (volume 1)._
BRETHREN OF THE FREE SPIRIT.
See BEGUINES.
BRETIGNY, Treaty of.
The treaty, called at the time "the great peace," concluded
May 8, 1360, between Edward III. of England and John II. of
France, in which Edward renounced his pretensions to the
French crown, released for a ransom King John, then a prisoner
in his hands, and received the full sovereignty of Guienne,
Poitou and Ponthieu in France, besides retaining Calais and
Guisnes.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1337-1360.
BRETWALDA.
A title given to some of the early English kings. "Opinions
differ as to the meaning of the word Bretwalda. Palgrave and
Lappenberg take it as equivalent to 'ruler of Britain': Kemble
construes it 'broad-ruling,' and sees in it a dignity without
duty, hardly more than an accidental predominance.' (Saxons in
England, ii., 18.) The list of those who obtained this
'ducatus' includes Ethelbert of Kent, who broke the power of
the petty kings as far as the Humber, Redbald of East Anglia,
who obtained it by some means even in the lifetime of
Ethelbert, and the three great Northumbrian kings, Edwin,
Oswold and Oswy, whose supremacy however did not extend to
Kent."
_O. Elton,
Origins of English History,
page 392, note._
ALSO IN:
_E. A. Freeman,
History of the Norman Conquest of England,
volume 1, appendix B._
See, also, ENGLAND: A. D. 477-527,
and ENGLAND: 7TH CENTURY.
{317}
BREWSTER, William, and the Plymouth Pilgrims.
See INDEPENDENTS: A. D. 1604-1617,
and MASSACHUSETTS: A. D. 1620, and after.
BREYZAD.
The people and the language of Brittany, or Bretagne.
See BRITTANY: A. D. 818-912.
BRIAN BORU,
The reign in Ireland of.
See IRELAND: A. D. 1014.
BRIDGE, Battle of the.
A serious reverse suffered by the Arab followers of Mahomet in
their early movements against the Persians, A. D. 634. A force
of 9,000 or 10,000 having crossed the Euphrates by a bridge of
boats were beaten back, their bridge destroyed and half of
them slain or drowned.
_G. Rawlinson,
Seventh Great Oriental Monarchy,
chapter 26._
See MAHOMETAN CONQUEST: A. D. 632-651.
BRIDGEWATER, OR LUNDY'S LANE, Battle of.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1814 (JULY-SEPTEMBER).
BRIDGEWATER, Storming of.
See ENGLAND: A. D. 1645 (JULY-SEPTEMBER).
BRIENNE, Battle of.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1814 (JANUARY-MARCH).
BRIGANTES, The.
One of the strongest and fiercest of the tribes of ancient
Britain, believed by some historians to have been the original
pre-Celtic inhabitants of the island. At the time of the Roman
conquest they held the whole interior northward from the
Humber and Mersey to the Forth and Clyde. They were subdued by
Agricola.
_E. Guest, Origines Celticæ, volume 1, chapter 1._
See, also, BRITAIN, CELTIC TRIBES,
and A. D. 43-53;
also, IRELAND, TRIBES of EARLY CELTIC INHABITANTS.
BRIGANTINE.
BERGANTIN.
See CARAVELS.
BRIHUEGA, Battle of (A. D. 1710).
See SPAIN: A. D. 1707-1710.
BRILL, The capture of.
See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1572.
BRISBANE.
See AUSTRALIA: A. D. 1800-1840, and 1859.
BRISSOT DE WARVILLE AND THE GIRONDISTS.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1791 (OCTOBER), to 1793
(SEPTEMBER-DECEMBER).
BRISSOTINS.
The party of the Girondists, in the French Revolution, was
sometimes so called, after Brissot de Warville, one of its
leaders.
BRISTOE STATION, Battle of.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1863
(JULY-NOVEMBER: VIRGINIA).
BRISTOL: 12th Century.
Its slave trade and other commerce.
"Within its comparatively narrow limits Bristol must have been
in general character and aspect not unlike what it is
to-day—a busy, bustling, closely-packed city, full of the
eager, active, surging life of commercial enterprise. Ostmen
from Waterford and Dublin, Northmen from the Western Isles and
the more distant Orkneys, and even from Norway itself, had
long ago learnt to avoid the shock of the 'Higra,' the mighty
current which still kept its heathen name derived from the
sea-god of their forefathers, and make it serve to float them
into the safe and commodious harbour of Bristol, where a
thousand ships could ride at anchor. As the great trading
centre of the west Bristol ranked as the third city in the
kingdom, surpassed in importance only by Winchester and
London. The most lucrative branch of its trade, however,
reflects no credit on its burghers. All the eloquence of S.
Wulfstan and all the sternness of the Conqueror had barely
availed to check for a while their practice of kidnapping men
for the Irish slave-market; and that the traffic was in full
career in the latter years of Henry I. we learn from the
experiences of the canons of Laon."
_K. Norgate,
England under the Angevin Kings,
volume 1, chapter 1._
BRISTOL: A. D. 1497.
Cabot's voyage of discovery.
See AMERICA: A. D. 1497.
BRISTOL: A. D. 1645.
The storming of the city by Fairfax.
See ENGLAND: A. D. 1645 (JULY-SEPTEMBER).
BRISTOL: A. D. 1685.
The commerce and wealth of the city.
"Next to the capital, but next at an immense distance, stood
Bristol, then the first English seaport. … Pepys, who
visited Bristol eight years after the Restoration, was struck
by the splendour of the city. But his standard was not high;
for he noted down as a wonder the circumstance that, in
Bristol, a man might look round him and see nothing but
houses. … A few churches of eminent beauty rose out of a
labyrinth of narrow lanes built upon vaults of no great
solidity. If a coach or cart entered those alleys, there was
danger that it would be wedged between the houses, and danger
also that it would break in the cellars. Goods were therefore
conveyed about the town almost exclusively in trucks drawn by
dogs; and the richest inhabitants exhibited their wealth, not
by riding in carriages, but by walking the streets with trains
of servants in rich liveries and by keeping tables loaded with
good cheer. The hospitality of the city was widely renowned,
and especially the collations with which the sugar refiners
regaled their visitors. … This luxury was supported by a
thriving trade with the North American Plantations and with
the West Indies. The passion for colonial traffic was so
strong that there was scarcely a small shopkeeper in Bristol
who had not a venture on board of some ship bound for Virginia
or the Antilles. Some of these venturers indeed were not of
the most honourable kind. There was, in the Transatlantic
possessions of the crown, a great demand for labour; and this
demand was partly supplied by a system of crimping and
kidnapping at the principal English seaports. Nowhere was this
system in such active and extensive operation as at Bristol.
… The number of houses appears, from the returns of the
hearth-money, to have been, in the year 1685, just 5,300. …
The population of Bristol must therefore have been about
29,000."
_Lord Macaulay,
History of England,
chapter 3 (volume 1)._
BRISTOL: A. D. 1831.
The Reform Bill Riots.
The popular excitement produced in England in 1831 by the
action of the House of Lords in rejecting the Reform Bill, led
to riots in several places, but most seriously at Bristol.
"The Bristol mobs have always been noted for their brutality;
and the outbreak now was such as to amaze and confound the the
whole kingdom. …
{318}
The lower parts of the city were the harbourage of probably a
worse seaport populace than any other place in England, while
the police was ineffective and demoralised. There was no city
in which a greater amount of savagery lay beneath a society
proud, exclusive, and mutually repellent, rather than
enlightened and accustomed to social co-operation. These are
circumstances which go far to account for the Bristol riots
being so fearfully bad as they were. Of this city, Sir Charles
Wetherell—then at the height of his unpopularity as a
vigorous opponent of the Reform Bill—was recorder; and there
he had to go, in the last days of October, in his judicial
capacity. … The symptoms of discontent were such as to
induce the mayor, Mr. Pinney, to apply to the home-office for
military aid. Lord Melbourne sent down some troops of horse,
which were quartered within reach, in the neighbourhood of the
city. … Sir Charles Wetherell could not be induced to
relinquish his public entry, though warned of the danger by
the magistrates themselves. … On Saturday, October 29, Sir
Charles Wetherell entered Bristol in pomp; and before he
reached the Mansion House at noon, he must have been pretty
well convinced, by the hootings and throwing of stones, that
he had better have foregone the procession. For some hours the
special constables and the noisy mob in front of the Mansion
House exchanged discourtesies of an emphatic character, but
there was no actual violence till night. At night, the Mansion
House was attacked, and the Riot Act was read; but the
military were not brought down, as they ought to have been, to
clear the streets. The mayor had 'religious scruples,' and was
'humane'; and his indecision was not overborne by any aid from
his brother-magistrates. When the military were brought in, it
was after violence had been committed, and when the passions
of the mob were much excited. Sir Charles Wetherell escaped
from the city that night. During the dark hours, sounds were
heard provocative of further riot; shouts in the streets, and
the hammering of workmen who were boarding up the lower
windows of the Mansion House and the neighbouring dwellings.
On the Sunday morning, the rioters broke into the Mansion
House without opposition; and from the time they got into the
cellars, all went wrong. Hungry wretches and boys broke the
necks of the bottles, and Queen Square was strewed with the
bodies of the dead-drunk. The soldiers were left without
orders, and their officers without that sanction of the
magistracy in the absence of which they could not act, but
only parade; and in this parading, some of the soldiers
naturally lost their tempers, and spoke and made gestures on
their own account, which did not tend to the soothing of the
mob. This mob never consisted of more than five or six
hundred. … The mob declared openly what they were going to
do; and they went to work unchecked—armed with staves and
bludgeons from the quays, and with iron palisades from the
Mansion House—to break open and burn the bridewell, the jail,
the bishop's palace, the custom-house, and Queen Square. They
gave half an hour's notice to the inhabitants of each house in
the square, which they then set fire to in regular succession,
till two sides, each measuring 550 feet, lay in smoking ruins.
The bodies of the drunken were seen roasting in the fire. The
greater number of the rioters were believed to be under twenty
years of age, and some were mere children; some Sunday
scholars, hitherto well conducted, and it may be questioned
whether one in ten knew anything of the Reform Bill, or the
offences of Sir Charles Wetherell. On the Monday morning,
after all actual riot seemed to be over, the soldiery at last
made two slaughterous charges. More horse arrived, and a
considerable body of foot soldiers; and the constabulary
became active; and from that time the city was in a more
orderly state than the residents were accustomed to see it.
… The magistrates were brought to trial, and so was Colonel
Brereton, who was understood to be in command of the whole of
the military. The result of that court-martial caused more
emotion throughout the kingdom than all the slaughtering and
burning, and the subsequent executions which marked that
fearful season. It was a year before the trial of the
magistrates was entered upon. The result was the acquittal of
the mayor, and the consequent relinquishment of the
prosecution of his brother-magistrates."
_H. Martineau,
A History of the Thirty Years' Peace,
book 4, chapter 4 (volume 2)._
----------BRISTOL: End----------
BRITAIN, Count and Duke of.
The military commanders of Roman Britain.
See BRITAIN: A. D. 323-337,
also ARTHUR, KING.
BRITAIN, The name.
See BRITANNIA.
BRITAIN: Celtic Tribes.
"It appears that the southeastern part of the island, or the
district now occupied by the county of Kent, was occupied by
the Cantii, a large and influential tribe, which in Cæsar's
time, was divided among four chiefs or kings. To the west, the
Regni held the modern counties of Sussex and Surrey, from the
sea-coast to the Thames. Still farther west, the Belgæ
occupied the country from the southern coast to the Bristol
Channel, including nearly the whole of Hampshire, Wiltshire
and Somersetshire. The whole of the extensive district
extending from the Belgæ to the extreme western point of the
island, then called Antivestæum or Bolerium (now the Land's
End) including Devonshire and Cornwall, was occupied by the
Dumnonii, or Damnonii. On the coast between the Dumnonii and
the Belgæ the smaller tribe of the Durotriges held the modern
county of Dorset. On the other side of the Thames, extending
northwards to the Stour, and including the greater part of
Middlesex as well as Essex, lay the Trinobantes. To the north
of the Stour dwelt the Iceni, extending over the counties of
Suffolk, Norfolk, Cambridge and Huntingdon. The Coritavi
possessed the present counties of Northampton, Leicester,
Rutland, Derby, Nottingham and Lincoln; and the south-eastern
part of Yorkshire was held by the Parisi. Between the tribes
last enumerated, in the counties of Buckingham, Bedford and
Hertford, lay the tribe called by Ptolemy the Catyeuchlani,
and by others Catuvellani. Another name, apparently, for this
tribe, or for a division of it, was the Cassii. West of these
were the Atrebates, in Berkshire; and still further west were
the Dobuni, in the counties of Oxford and Gloucester. … The
interior of the island northward was occupied by the
Brigantes, who held the extensive districts, difficult of
approach on account of their mountains and woods, extending
from the Humber and the Mersey to the present borders of
Scotland. This extensive tribe appears to have included
several smaller ones [the Voluntii, the Sestuntii, the
Jugantes and the Cangi].
{319}
The Brigantes are believed to have been the original
inhabitants of the island, who had been driven northward by
successive invasions. … Wales, also, was inhabited by a
primitive population. The northern counties … was the
territory of the Ordovices. The southeastern counties … were
held by the Demetae. The still more celebrated tribe of the
Silures inhabited the modern counties of Hereford, Radnor,
Breeknoek, Monmouth and Clamorgan. Between these and the
Brigantes lay the Cornabii or Carnabii. The wilder parts of
the island of Britain, to the north of the Brigantes, were
inhabited by a great number of smaller tribes, some of whom
seem to have been raised in the scale of civilization little
above savages. Of these we have the names of no less than
twenty-one. Bordering on the Brigantes were the Otadeni,
inhabiting the coast from the Tyne to the Firth of Forth. …
Next to them were the Gadeni. … The Selgovæ inhabited
Annandale, Nithsdale and Eskdale, in Dumfriesshire, with the
East of Galloway. The Novantes inhabited the remainder of
Galloway. The Damnii, a larger tribe, held the country from
the chain of hills separating Galloway from Carrick, northward
to the river Ern. These tribes lay to the south of the Forth
and Clyde. Beyond the narrow boundary formed by these rivers
lay [the Horestii, the Venricones or Vernicomes, the Taixali
or Taexali, the Vacomagi, the Albani, the Cantæ, the Logi, the
Carnabii, the Catini, the Mertæ, the Carnonacæ, the Creones,
the Cerones, and the Epidii]. The ferocious tribe of the
Attacotti inhabited part of Argyleshire, and the greater part
of Dumbartonshire. The wild forest country of the interior,
known as the Caledonia Sylva (or Forest of Celyddon), extended
from the ridge of mountains between Inverness and Perth,
northward to the forest of Balnagowan, including the middle
parts of Inverness and Ross, was held by the Caledonii, which
appears to have been at this time [of the conquests of
Agricola] the most important and powerful of all the tribes
north of the Brigantes."
_T. Wright,
The Celt, the Roman and the Saxon,
chapter 2._
ALSO IN:
_J. Rhys,
Celtic Britain._
_J. F. Skene,
Celtic Scotland,
book 1, chapter 2._
BRITAIN: B. C. 55-54.
Cæsar's invasions.
Having extended his conquests in Gaul to the British Channel
and the Strait of Dover (see GAUL: B. C. 58-51), Cæsar crossed
the latter, in August, B. C. 55, and made his first landing in
Britain, with two legions, numbering 8,000 to 10,000 men.
Portus Itius, from which he sailed, was probably either
Wissant or Boulogne, and his landing place on the British
coast is believed to have been near Deal. The Britons disputed
his landing with great obstinacy, but were driven back, and
offered to submit; but when a few days afterwards, Cæsar's
fleet suffered greatly from a storm, they reconsidered their
submission and opened hostilities again. Routed in a second
battle, they once more sued for peace, and gave hostages;
whereupon Cæsar reembarked his troops and returned to the
continent, having remained in Britain not more than three
weeks and penetrated the island a short distance only. The
following summer he crossed to Britain again, determined on
making a thorough conquest of the country. This time he had
five legions at his back, with two thousand horse, and the
expedition was embarked on more than eight hundred ships. He
sailed from and landed at the same points as before. Having
established and garrisoned a fortified camp, he advanced into
the country, encountering and defeating the Britons, first, at
a river, supposed to be the Stour which flows past Canterbury.
A storm which damaged his fleet then interrupted his advance,
compelling him to return to the coast. When the disaster had
been repaired he marched again, and again found the enemy on
the Stour, assembled under the command of Cassivelaunus, whose
kingdom was north of the Thames. He dispersed them, after much
fighting, with great slaughter, and crossed the Thames, at a
point, it is supposed, near the junction of the Wey. Thence he
pushed on until he reached the "oppidum" or stronghold of
Cassivelaunus, which is believed by some to have been on the
site of the modern town of St. Albans,—but the point is It
disputed one. On receiving the submission of Cassivelaunus,
and of other chiefs, or kings, fixing the tribute they should
pay and taking hostages, Cæsar returned to the coast,
reembarked his army and withdrew. His stay in Britain on this
occasion was about sixty days.
_Cæsar,
Gallic War,
book 4, chapters 20-36,
and book 7, chapters 7-33._
ALSO IN:
_H. M. Scarth,
Roman Britain,
chapter 2._
_G. Long,
Decline of the Roman Republic,
volume 4, chapters 9 and 11-12._
_T. Lewin,
Invasion of Britain by Cæsar._
_F. T. Vine,
Cæsar in Kent._
_E. Guest,
Origines Celticæ,
volume 2._
BRITAIN: A. D. 43-53.
Conquests of Claudius.
Nearly a hundred years passed after Cæsar's hasty invasion of
Britain before the Romans reappeared on the island, to enforce
their claim of tribute. It was under the fourth of the
imperial successors of Julius Cæsar, the feeble Claudius, that
the work of Roman conquest in Britain was really begun. Aulus
Plautius, who commanded in Gaul, was sent over with four
legions, A. D. 43, to obtain a footing and to smooth the way
for the Emperor's personal campaign. With him went one,
Vespasian, who began in Britain to win the fame which pushed
him into the imperial seat and to a great place in Roman
history. Plautius and Vespasian made good their occupation of
the country as far as the Thames, and planted their forces
strongly on the northern bank of that river; before they
summoned the Emperor to their aid. Claudius came before the
close of the military season, and his vanity was gratified by
the nominal leading of an advance on the chief oppidum, or
stronghold of the Britons, called Camulodunum, which occupied
the site of the modern city of Colchester. The Trinobantes,
whose capital it was, were beaten and the place surrendered.
Satisfied with this easy victory, the Emperor returned to
Rome, to enjoy the honors of a triumph; while Vespasian, in
command of the second legion, fought his way, foot by foot,
into the southwest of the island, and subjugated the obstinate
tribes of that region. During the next ten years, under the
command of Ostorius Scapula, who succeeded Plautius, and
Avitus Didius Gallus, who succeeded Ostorius, the Roman power
was firmly settled in southern Britain, from the Stour, at the
East, to the Exe and the Severn at the West. The Silures, of
South Wales, who had resisted most stubbornly, under
Caractacus, the fugitive Trinobantine prince, were subdued and
Caractacns made captive. The Iceni (in Suffolk, Norfolk and
Cambridge-shire) were reduced from allies to sullen
dependents. The Brigantes, most powerful of all the tribes,
and who held the greater part of the whole north of modern
England, were still independent, but distracted by internal
dissensions which Roman influence was active in keeping alive.
This, stated briefly, was the extent to which the conquest of
Britain was carried during the reign of Claudius, between A.
D. 43 and 54.
_C. Merivale,
History of the Romans,
chapter 51._
ALSO IN:
_E. Guest,
Origines Celticæ,
volume 2, part 2, chapter 13._
_H. M. Scarth,
Roman Britain,
chapter 4._
See, also, COLCHESTER, ORIGIN OF.
{320}
BRITAIN: A. D. 61.
Campaigns of Suetonius Paulinus.
From A. D. 50 to 61, while Didius Gallus and his successor
Veranius commanded in Britain, nothing was done to extend the
Roman acquisitions. In the latter year, Suetonius Paulinus
came to the command, and a stormy period of war ensued. His
first movement was to attack the Druids in the isle of Mona,
or Anglesey, into which they had retreated from Gaul and
Britain, in successive flights, before the implacable
hostility of Rome. "In this gloomy lair, secure apparently,
though shorn of might and dignity, they still persisted in the
practice of their unholy superstition. … Here they retained
their assemblies, their schools, and their oracles; here was
the asylum of the fugitives; here was the sacred grove, the
abode of the awful deity, which in the stillest noon of night
or day the priest himself scarce ventured to enter lest he
should rush unwittingly into the presence of its lord." From
Segontium (modern Caernarvon) Suetonius crossed the Menai
Strait on rafts and boats with one of his legions, the
Batavian cavalry swimming their horses. The landing was
fiercely disputed by women and men, priests and worshippers;
but Roman valor bore down all resistance. "From this moment
the Druids disappear from the page of history; they were
exterminated, we may believe, upon their own altars; for
Suetonius took no half measures." This accomplished, the Roman
commander was quickly called upon to meet a terrific outburst
of patriotic rage on the part of the powerful nation of the
Iceni, who occupied the region now forming the counties of
Suffolk, Norfolk, Cambridge, and Huntingdon. They had been
allies of the Romans, first; then tributaries, under their own
king, and finally subjects, much oppressed. Their last king,
Prasutagus, had vainly hoped to win favor for his wife and
children, when he died, by bequeathing his kingdom to the
Roman State. But the widowed queen, Boudicea, or Boadicea, and
her daughters, were only exposed with more helplessness to the
insolence and the outrages of a brutal Roman officer. They
appealed to their people and maddened them by the exposure of
indescribable wrongs. The rising which ensued was fierce and
general beyond precedent. "The Roman officials fled, or, if
arrested, were slaughtered; and a vast multitude, armed and
unarmed, rolled southward to overwhelm and extirpate the
intruders. To the Colne, to the Thames, to the sea, the
country lay entirely open." The colony at Camulodunum
(Colchester), was destroyed; Verulamium (St. Albans), and
Londinium (London), were sacked and burned; not less than
70,000 of the Romans in Britain were slaughtered without
mercy. Suetonius made haste to quit Anglesey when the dreadful
news reached him, and pressed, with all speed, along the great
highway of Watling Street—gathering up his forces in hand as
he went—to reach the awful scene of rage and terror. He had
collected but 10,000 men when he confronted, at last, the vast
swarm of the insurgents, on a favorable piece of ground that
he had secured, in the neighborhood of Camulodunum. But, once
more, the valor of undisciplined semi-barbarism wrecked itself
on the firm shields of the Roman cohorts, and 80,000 Britons
are said to have fallen in the merciless fight. The
insurrection was crushed and Roman authority in Britain
reaffirmed. But the grim Suetonius dealt so harshly with the
broken people that even Rome remonstrated, and he was,
presently, recalled, to give place to a more pacific
commander.
_C. Merivale,
History of the Romans,
chapter 51._
ALSO IN:
_H. M. Scarth,
Roman Britain,
chapter 5._
_T. Mommsen,
History of Rome,
book 8, chapter 5._
BRITAIN: A. D. 78-84.
Campaigns of Agricola.
For seventeen years after the recall of Suetonius Paulinus (A.
D. 61) there was a suspension of Roman conquest in Britain.
The military power in the island suffered great
demoralization, resulting naturally from the chaos of affairs
at Rome, between Nero and Vespasian. These conditions ceased
soon after the accession of the Flavian Emperor, and he, who
had attained first in Britain the footing from which he
climbed to the throne, interested himself in the spreading of
his sovereignty over the whole of the British island. C. Julius
Agricola was the soldier and statesman—a great man in each
character—whom he selected for the work. Agricola was made
prefect or Governor of Britain, A. D. 78. "Even in his first
summer, when he had been but a few months in the island, and
when none even of his own officers expected active service,
Agricola led his forces into the country of the Ordovices, in
whose mountain passes the war of independence still lingered,
drove the Britains across the Menai Straits and pursued them
into Anglesey, as Suetonius had done before him, by boldly
crossing the boiling current in the face of the enemy. Another
summer saw him advance northward into the territory of the
Brigantes, and complete the organization of the district,
lately reduced, between the Humber and Tyne. Struck perhaps
with the natural defences of the line from the Tyne to the
Solway, where the island seems to have broken, as it were, in
the middle and soldered unevenly together, he drew a chain of
forts from sea to sea. … In the third year of his command,
Agricola pushed forward along the eastern coast, and, making
good with roads and fortresses every inch of his progress,
reached, as I imagine, the Firth of Forth. … Here he
repeated the operations of the preceding winter, planting his
camps and stations from hill to hill, and securing a new belt
of territory, ninety miles across, for Roman occupation." The
next two years were spent in strengthening his position and
organizing his conquest. In A. D. 83 and 84 he advanced beyond
the Forth, in two campaigns of hard fighting, the latter of
which was made memorable by the famous battle of the
Grampians, or Graupius, fought with the Caledonian hero
Galgacus. At the close of this campaign he sent his fleet
northward to explore the unknown coast and to awe the remoter
tribes, and it is claimed that the vessels of Agricola
circumnavigated the island of Britain, for the first time, and
saw the Orkneys and Shetlands. The further plans of the
successful prefect were interrupted by his sudden recall.
Vespasian, first, then Titus, had died while he pursued his
victorious course in Caledonia, and the mean Domitian was
envious and afraid of his renown.
_C. Merivale,
History of the Romans,
chapter 61._
ALSO IN:
_Tacitus,
Agricola._
_T. Mommsen,
History of Rome,
book 8, chapter 5._
{321}
BRITAIN: 2d-3d Centuries.
Introduction of Christianity.
See Christianity: A. D. 100-312.
BRITAIN: A. D. 208-211.
Campaigns of Severus.
A fresh inroad of the wild Caledonians of the north upon Roman
Britain, in the year 208, caused the Emperor Severus to visit
the distant island in person, with his two worthless sons,
Caracalla and Geta. He desired, it is said, to remove those
troublesome youths from Rome and to subject them to the
wholesome discipline of military life. The only result, so far
as they were concerned, was to give Caracalla opportunities
for exciting mutiny among the troops and for making several
attempts against his father's life. But Severus persisted in
his residence in Britain during more than two years, and till
his death, which occurred at Eboracum (York) on the 4th of
February, A. D. 211. During that time he prosecuted the war
against the Caledonians with great vigor, penetrating to the
northern extremity of the island, and losing, it is said;
above 50,000 men, more by the hardships of the climate and the
march than by the attacks of the skulking enemy. The
Caledonians made a pretence of submission, at last, but were
soon in arms again. Severus was then preparing to pursue them
to extermination, when he died.
_E. Gibbon,
Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire,
chapter 6.
ALSO IN: T. Mommsen, History of Rome, book 8, chapter 5.
BRITAIN: A. D. 288-297.
Rebellion of Carausius.
"During the reign of Gallienus [A. D. 260-268] … the pirate
fleets of the Franks infested the British seas, and it became
needful to have a fleet to protect the coast. The command of
this fleet had been conferred on Carausius, a Menapian by
birth; but he was suspected of conniving at piracy, in order
that he might enrich himself by becoming a sharer in their
booty, when they returned laden with plunder. To save himself,
therefore, from punishment, he usurped the imperial power, A.
D. 288, and reigned over Britain for seven years. A vast
number of his coins struck in Britain have been preserved, so
many that the history of Carausius has been written from his
medals. He was slain at length by his minister Allectus, who
usurped his power. The Franks [as allies of Allectus] had
well-nigh established their power over the south portion of
Britain when it was broken by Constantius, the father of
Constantine the Great, who defeated Allectus in a decisive
battle, in which that usurper was slain. … Allectus held the
government of Britain for three years. Many of his coins are
found."
_H. M. Scarth,
Roman Britain,
chapter 10._
ALSO IN:
_T. Wright,
Celt, Roman and Saxon,
chapter 4._
BRITAIN: A. D. 323-337.
Constantine's Organization.
Under the scheme of government designed by Diocletian and
amended by Constantine, "Britain formed part of a vast
pro-consulate, extending from Mount Atlas to the Caledonian
deserts, and was governed by the Gallic prefect, through a
'vicar' or deputy at York. The island was divided into five
new provinces. … Britain was under the orders of the Count
of Britain, assisted by the subordinate officers. The Duke of
Britain commanded in the north. The Count of the Saxon Shore,
governed the 'Maritime Tract' and provided for the defence of
the southeastern coast. The Saxon Shore on the coast of
Britain must not be mistaken for the Saxon Shore on the
opposite coast of France, the headquarters of which were the
harbour of Boulogne. The names of the several provinces into
which Britain was divided are given in the 'Notitia,' viz:
1. Britannia Prima, which included all the south and west of
England, from the estuary of the Thames to that of the Severn.
2. Britannia Secunda, which included the Principality of
Wales, bounded by the Severn on the east and the Irish Channel
on the west.
3. Flavia Cæsariensis,—all the middle portion of Britain,
from the Thames to the Humber and the· estuary of the Dee.
4. Maxima Cæsariensis,—the Brigantian territory, lying
between the estuaries of the Humber and Dee, and the Barrier
of the Lower Isthmus.
5. Valentia,—the most northern portion, lying between the
barrier of Hadrian and that of Antoninus."
_H. M. Scarth,
Roman Britain,
chapter 10._
Britain: A. D. 367-370.
Deliverance By Theodosius.
The distracted condition of affairs in the Roman Empire that
soon followed the death of Constantine, which was relieved by
Julian for a brief term, and which became worse at his death,
proved especially ruinous to Roman Britain. The savage tribes
of Caledonia—the Picts, now beginning to be associated with
the Scots from Ireland—became bolder from year to year in
their incursions, until they marched across the whole extent
of Britain. "Their path was marked by cruelties so atrocious,
that it was believed at the time and recorded by St. Jerome
that they lived on human flesh. London, even, was threatened
by them, and the whole island, which, like all the other
provinces of the Empire, had lost every spark of military
virtue, was incapable of opposing any resistance to them.
Theodosius, a Spanish officer, and father of the great man of
the same name who was afterwards associated in the Empire, was
charged by Valentinian with the defence of Britain. He forced
the Scots to fall back (A. D. 367-370), but without having
been able to bring them to an engagement."
_J. C. L. de Sismondi,
Fall of the Roman Empire,
chapter 5._
"The splendour of the cities and the security of the
fortifications were diligently restored by the paternal care
of Theodosius, who with a strong hand confined the trembling
Caledonians to the northern angle of the island, and
perpetuated, by the name and settlement of the new province of
Valentia, the glories of the reign of Valentinian."
_E. Gibbon,
Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire,
chapter 25.
BRITAIN: A. D. 383-388.
Revolt of Maximus.
In 383, four years after Theodosius the Great had been
associated in the Roman sovereignty by the young Emperor
Gratian, and placed on the throne of the East, the generous
Gratian lost his own throne, and his life, through a revolt
that was organized in Britain. "One Maximus, a Spaniard by
birth, occupying a high official position in that province,
forced on step by step into insurrection, by a soldiery and a
people of whom he appears to have been the idol, raised the
standard of revolt in the island, and passed over into Gaul,
attended by a large multitude,—130,000 men and 70,000 women,
says Zosimus, the Byzantine historian. This colony, settling
in the Armorican peninsula, gave it the name of Brittany,
which it has since retained. The rebel forces were soon
victorious over the two Emperors who had agreed to share the
Roman throne [Gratian and his boy-brother Valentinian who
divided the sovereignty of the West between them, while
Theodosius ruled the East]. Gratian they slew at Lyons;
Valentinian they speedily expelled from Italy. … Theodosius
adopted the cause of his brother Emperor" and overthrew
Maximus (see ROME: A. D. 379-395).
_J. G. Sheppard,
Fall of Rome,
lecture 5._
ALSO IN:
_E. Gibbon,
Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire,
chapter 27.
{322}
BRITAIN: A. D. 407.
The Usurpation Of Constantine.
"The Roman soldiers in Britain, seeing that the Empire was
falling to pieces under the feeble sway of Honorius, and
fearing lest they, too, should soon he ousted from their
dominion in the island (part of which was already known as the
Saxon Shore) clothed three usurpers successively with the
imperial purple [A. D. 407], falling, as far as social
position was concerned, lower and lower in their choice each
time. The last and least ephemeral of these rulers was a
private soldier named Constantine, and chosen for no other
reason but his name, which was accounted lucky, as having been
already borne by a general who had been carried by a British
army to supreme dominion."
_T. Hodgkin,
Italy and Her Invaders,
book 1, chapter 5._
The usurper Constantine soon led his legions across the
channel into Gaul, then ravaged by the Vandals, Sueves, Alans
and Burgundians who passed the Rhine in 406. He was welcomed
with joy by the unhappy people who found themselves abandoned
to the barbarians. Some successes which the new Constantine
had, in prudent encounters with detached parties of the German
invaders, were greatly magnified, and gave prestige to his
cause. He was still more successful, for a time, in buying the
precarious friendship of some tribes of the enemy, and made,
on the whole, a considerable show of dominion in Gaul during
two or three years. The seat of his government was established
at Arles, to which city the offices and court of the Roman
Prefect of Gaul had retreated from Trèves in 402. With the
help of a considerable army of barbarian auxiliaries (a
curious mixture of Scots, Moors and Marcomanni) he extended
his sovereignty over Spain. He even extorted from the
pusillanimous court at Ravenna a recognition of his usurped
royalty, and promised assistance to Honorius against the
Goths. But the tide of fortune presently turned. The
lieutenant of Constantine in Spain, Count Gerontius, became
for some reason disaffected and crowned a new usurper, named
Maximus. In support of the latter he attacked Constantine and
shut him up in Arles. At the same time, the Emperor Honorius,
at Ravenna, having made peace with the Goths, sent his general
Constantius against the Gallo-British usurper. Constantius,
approaching Arles, found it already besieged by Gerontius. The
latter was abandoned by his troops, and fled, to be slain soon
afterwards. Arles capitulated to the representative of the
great name which Honorius still bore, as titular Imperator of
Rome. Constantine was sent to Ravenna, and put to death on the
way (A. D. 411).
_E. Gibbon,
Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire,
chapter 31.
ALSO IN:
_P. Godwin,
History of France: Ancient Gaul,
book 3, chapter 10._
BRITAIN: A. D. 410.
Abandoned By The Romans.
"Up to the moment … when the Imperial troops quitted
Britain, we see them able easily to repel the attacks of its
barbarous assailants. When a renewal of their inroads left
Britain weak and exhausted at the accession of the Emperor
Honorius, the Roman general Stilicho renewed the triumphs
which Theodosius had won. The Pict was driven back afresh, the
Saxon boats chased by his galleys as far as the Orkneys, and
the Saxon Shore probably strengthened with fresh fortresses.
But the campaign of Stilicho was the last triumph of the
Empire in its western waters. The struggle Rome had waged so
long drew in fact to its end; at the opening of the fifth
century her resistance suddenly broke down; and the savage
mass of barbarism with which she had battled broke in upon the
Empire. … The strength of the Empire, broken everywhere by
military revolts, was nowhere more broken than in Britain,
where the two legions which remained quartered at Richborough
and York set up more than once their chiefs as Emperors and
followed them across the channel in a march upon Rome. The
last of these pretenders, Constantine, crossed over to Gaul in
407 with the bulk of the soldiers quartered in Britain, and
the province seems to have been left to its own defence; for
it was no longer the legionaries, but 'the people of Britain'
who, 'taking up arms,' repulsed a new onset of the barbarians.
… They appealed to Honorius to accept their obedience, and
replace the troops. But the legions of the Empire were needed
to guard Rome itself: and in 410 a letter of the Emperor bade
Britain provide for its own government and its own defence.
Few statements are more false than those which picture the
British provincials as cowards, or their struggle against the
barbarian as a weak and unworthy one. Nowhere, in fact,
through the whole circuit of the Roman world, was so long and
so desperate a resistance offered to the assailants of the
Empire. … For some thirty years after the withdrawal of the
legions the free province maintained an equal struggle against
her foes. Of these she probably counted the Saxons as still
the least formidable. …. It was with this view that Britain
turned to what seemed the weakest of her assailants, and
strove to find … troops whom she could use as mercenaries
against the Pict."
_J. R. Green,
The Making of England,
introduction._
ALSO IN:
_J. M. Lappenberg,
History of England under the Anglo-Saxon Kings,
volume 1, pages 57-66._
BRITAIN: A. D. 446.
The Last Appeal To Rome.
"Yet once again a supplicating embassy was sent to the Roman
general Ætius, during his third consulship, in the year 446.
… Ætius was unable to help them."
_J. M. Lappenberg,
History of England under the Anglo-Saxon Kings,
page 63._
"The date of the letters of appeal is fixed by the form of
their address: 'The groans of the Britons to Ætius for the
third time Consul. The savages drive us to the sea and the sea
casts us back upon the savages: so arise two kinds of
death, and we are either drowned or slaughtered.' The third
Consulate of Aetius fell in A. D. 446, a year memorable in the
West as the beginning of a profound calm which preceded the
onslaught of Attila. The complaint of Britain has left no
trace in the poems which celebrated the year of repose; and
our Chronicles are at any rate wrong when they attribute its
rejection to the stress of a war with the Huns. It is
possible, indeed, that the appeal was never made, and that the
whole story represents nothing but a rumour current in the
days of Gildas among the British exiles in Armorica."
_C. Elton,
Origins of English History,
chapter 12._
{323}
BRITAIN: A. D. 449-633.
The Anglo-Saxon Conquest.
See ENGLAND: A. D. 449-473, to 547-633.
BRITAIN: 6th CENTURY.
The Unsubdued Britons.
"The Britons were soon restricted to the western parts of the
island, where they maintained themselves in several small
states, of which those lying to the east yielded more and more
to Germanic influence; the others protected by their
mountains, preserved for a considerable time a gradually
decreasing independence. … In the south-west we meet with
the powerful territory of Damnonia, the kingdom of Arthur,
which bore also the name of West Wales. Damnonia, at a later
period, was limited to Dyvnaint, or Devonshire, by the
separation of Cernau, or Cornwall. The districts called by the
Saxons those of the Sumorsætas, of the Thornsætas
(Dorsetshire). and the Wiltsætas were lost to the kings of
Dyvnaint at an early period; though for centuries afterwards a
large British population maintained itself in those parts
among the Saxon settlers, as well as among the Defnsætas, long
after the Saxon conquest of Dyvnaint, who for a considerable
time preserved to the natives of that shire the appellation of
the 'Welsh kind.' Cambria (Cymru), the country which at the
present day we call Wales, was divided into several states."
The chief of these early states was Venedotia (Gwynedd), the
king of which was supreme over the other states. Among these
latter were Dimetia (Dyved), or West Wales; Powys, which was
east of Gwynedd and Snowdon mountain; Gwent (Monmouthshire) or
South-east Wales, the country of the Silures. "The usages and
laws of the Cambrians were in all these states essentially the
same. An invaluable and venerable monument of them, although
of an age in which the Welsh had long been subject to the
Anglo-Saxons, and had adopted many of their institutions and
customs, are the laws of the king Howel Dda, who reigned in
the early part of the 10th century. … The partition of
Cambria into several small states is not, as has often been
supposed, the consequence of a division made by king Rodri
Mawr, or Roderic the Great, among his sons. … Of Dyfed,
during the first centuries after the coming of the Saxons, we
know very little; but with regard to Gwynedd, which was in
constant warfare with Northumbria and Mercia, our information
is less scanty: of Gwent, also, as the bulwark of Dimetia,
frequent mention occurs. On the whole we are less in want of a
mass of information respecting the Welsh, than of accuracy and
precision in that which we possess. … An obscurity still
more dense than that over Wales involves the district lying to
the north of that country, comprised under the name of Cumbria."
_J. M. Lappenberg,
History of England under the Anglo-Saxon Kings,
volume 1, page 119-122._
See CUMBRIA AND STRATH-CLYDE.
BRITAIN: A. D. 635.
Defeat Of The Welsh By The English Of Bernicia.
See HEVENFIELD, BATTLE OF THE.
----------BRITAIN: End----------
BRITAIN, GREAT:
ADOPTION Of The Name For The United Kingdoms Of England And
Scotland.
See SCOTLAND: A. D. 1707.
BRITAIN, Roman Walls In.
See ROMAN WALLS IN BRITAIN.
BRITANNIA,
The Origin Of The Name.
"Many are the speculations which have been started as to the
etymology of the word Britannia, and among the later ones have
been some of the most extraordinary. Yet surely it is not one
of those philological difficulties which we need despair of
solving. Few persons will question that the name Britannia is
connected with the name Britanni, in the same way as Germania,
Gallia, Graecia, &c., with Germani, Galli, Graeci, &c., and it
is not unreasonable to assume that Britanni was originally
nothing more than the Latinized form of the Welsh word
Brython, a name which we find given in the Triads to one of
the three tribes who first colonized Britain. … From the
Welsh 'brith' and Irish 'brit,' parti-coloured, may have come
Brython, which on this hypothesis would signify the painted
men. … As far then as philology is concerned, there seems to
be no objection to our assuming Brython, and therefore also
Britanni, to signify the painted men. How this Celtic name
first came to denote the inhabitants of these islands is a
question, the proper answer to which lies deeper than is
generally supposed. … The 'Britannic Isles' is the oldest
name we find given to these islands in the classical writers.
Under this title Polybius (3. 57) refers to them in connection
with the tin-trade, and the well-known work on the Kosmos (c.
3) mentions 'The Britannic Isles, Albion and Ierne.' … But
in truth neither the authorship nor the age of this last-named
work has been satisfactorily settled, and therefore we cannot
assert that the phrase 'The Britannic Isles' came into use
before the second century B. C. The name Britannia first
occurs in the works of Cæsar and was not improbably invented
by him."
_E. Guest,
Origines Celticæ,
volume 2, chapter 1._
The etymology contended for by Dr. Guest is scouted by Mr.
Rhys, on principles of Celtic phonology. He, on the contrary,
traces relations between the name Brython and "the Welsh
vocables 'bethyn,' cloth, and its congeners," and concludes
that it signified "a clothed or cloth-clad people."
_J. Rhys,
Celtic Britain,
chapter 6._
BRITANNIA PRIMA AND SECUNDA.
See BRITAIN: A. D. 323-337.
BRITISH COLUMBIA: Aboriginal inhabitants.
See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: ATHAPASCAN FAMILY.
{324}
BRITISH COLUMBIA: A. D. 1858-1871.
Establishment of provincial government.
Union with the Dominion of Canada.
"British Columbia, the largest of the Canadian provinces,
cannot be said to have had any existence as a colony until
1858. Previous to that year provision had been made by a
series of Acts for extending the Civil and Criminal Laws of
the Courts of Lower and Upper Canada over territories not
within any province, but otherwise the territory was used as a
hunting ground of the Hudson's Bay Company. The disputes and
difficulties that arose from the influx of miners owing to the
gold discoveries in 1856, resulted in the revocation of the
licence of the Hudson's Bay Company, and the passing of the
Imperial Act 21 & 22 Vic., c. 99, to provide for the
government of British Columbia. … Sir James Douglas was
appointed Governor and by his commission he was authorised to
make laws, institutions and ordinances for the peace, order
and good government of British Columbia, by proclamation
issued under the public seal of the colony. … The Governor
continued to legislate by proclamation until 1864, when his
proclamations gave way to Ordinances passed by the Governor
with the advice and consent of the Legislative Council. … Up
to this time the Governor of British Columbia was also
Governor of the neighbouring island of Vancouver. Vancouver's
Island is historically an older colony than British Columbia.
Though discovered in 1592 it remained practically unknown to
Europeans for two centuries, and it was not until 1849, when
the island was granted to the Hudson's Bay Company, that a
Governor was appointed. … In 1865 the legislature of the
island adopted a series of resolutions in favour of union with
British Columbia, and by the Imperial Act 29 & 30 Vic. (i),
c. 67, the two colonies were united. … By an Order in Council
dated the 16th day of May, 1871, British Columbia was declared
to be a province of the Dominion [see CANADA: A. D. 1867, and
1869-1873] from the 20th of July, 1871."
_J. E. C. Munro,
The Constitution of Canada,
chapter 2._
ALSO IN:
_H. H. Bancroft,
History of the Pacific States,
volume 27: British Columbia._
BRITISH COLUMBIA: A. D. 1872.
Settlement Of The San Juan Water Boundary Dispute.
See SAN JUAN OR NORTHWESTERN WATER BOUNDARY QUESTION.
----------BRITISH COLUMBIA: End----------
BRITISH EAST AFRICA AND SOUTH AFRICA COMPANIES.
See AFRICA: A. D. 1884-1889.
BRITISH HONDURAS.
See CENTRAL AMERICA: A. D. 1821-1871.
BRITONS, OR BRITHONS.
See CELTS; ALSO, BRITANNIA;
and BRITAIN: 6TH CENTURY.
BRITONS OF CUMBRIA AND STRATHCLYDE.
See CUMBRIA.
BRITTANY, OR BRITANNY:
In The Roman Period.
See ARMORICA;
also, VENETI OF WESTERN GAUL.
BRITTANY: A. D. 383.
Alleged Origin Of The British Settlement And Name.
See BRITAIN: A. D. 383-388.
BRITTANY: A. D. 409.
Independence Asserted.
At the time that the British island practically severed its
connection with the expiring Roman Empire (about 409) the
Britons of the continent,—of the Armorican province, or
modern Brittany,—followed the example. "They expelled the
Roman magistrates, who acted under the authority of the
usurper Constantine; and a free government was established
among a people who had so long been subject to the arbitrary
will of a master."
_E. Gibbon,
Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire,
chapter 31.
"From this time, perhaps, we ought to date that isolation of
Brittany from the politics of the rest of France which has not
entirely disappeared even at the present day."
_T. Hodgkin,
Italy and Her Invaders,
book 2, chapter 3._
The Armoricans, however, were found fighting by the side of
the Romans and the Goths, against the Huns, on the great day
at Chalons.
See HUNS: A. D. 451.
BRITTANY: A. D. 818-912.
The Breyzad Kingdom.
Subjection To The Norman Dukes.
"Charlemagne's supremacy over the Armoricans may be compared
to the dominion exercised by Imperial Russia amongst the
Caucasian tribes—periods during which the vassals dare not
claim the rights of independence, intercalated amongst the
converse periods when the Emperor cannot assert the rights of
authority; yet the Frank would not abandon the prerogative of
the Cæsars, whilst the mutual antipathy between the races
inflamed the desire of dominion on the one part, and the
determination of resistance on the other. Britanny is divided
into Bretagne Bretonnante and Bretagne Gallicante, according
to the predominance of the Breyzad and the Romane languages
respectively. The latter constituted the march-lands, and here
the Counts-marchers were placed by Charlemagne and his
successors, Franks mostly by lineage; yet one Breyzad,
Nominoë, was trusted by Louis-le-débonnaire [A. D. 818] with a
delegated authority. Nominoë deserved his power; he was one of
the new men of the era, literally taken from the plough. …
The dissensions among the Franks enabled Nominoë to increase
his authority. Could there be any adversary of the Empire so
stupid as not to profit by the battle of Fontenay. … Nominoë
assumed the royal title, vindicated the independence of his
ancient people, and enabled them, in the time of Rollo, to
assert with incorrect grandiloquence, pardonable in political
argument, that the Frank had never reigned within the proper
Armorican boundaries." Nominoë transmitted his crown to his
son Herispoë; but the latter reigned briefly, succumbing to a
conspiracy which raised his nephew, Solomon, to the throne.
Solomon was a vigorous warrior, sometimes fighting the Franks,
and sometimes struggling with the Normans, who pressed hard
upon his small kingdom. He extended his dominions
considerably, in Maine, Anjou, and the future Normandy, and
his royal title was sanctioned by Charles the Bald. But he,
too, was conspired against, blinded and dethroned, dying in
prison; and, about 912, the second duke of Normandy
established his lordship over the distracted country.
"Historical Britanny settled into four great counties, which
also absorbed the Carlovingian march-lands, Rennes, Nantes,
Vannes and Cornouailles, rivalling and jealousing, snarling
and warring against each other for the royal or ducal dignity,
until the supremacy was permanently established in Alan
Fergant's line, the ally, the opponent, the son-in-law of
William the Bastard. But the suzerainty or superiority of all
Britanny was vested in the Conqueror's and the Plantagenet's
lineage, till the forfeiture incurred by King John—an unjust
exercise of justice."
_Sir F. Palgrave,
History of Normandy and England,
book 1, chapter 3._
BRITTANY: A. D. 992-1237.
The First Dukes.
"After the death of Solomon … all these districts or
territories merged in the three dominations of Nantes, Rennes,
and Cornouaille. Amongst the Celts concord was impossible. In
early times Nomenoe, the Ruler of Cornouaille, had assumed, by
Papal authority, the royal style, but the Counts of Rennes
acquired the pre-eminence over the other chieftains. Regality
vanished. Geoffrey, son of Conan [A. D. 992-1008] … must be
distinguished as the first Duke of Brittany. He constituted
himself Duke simply by taking the title. This assumption may
possibly have been sanctioned by the successor of Saint Peter;
and, by degrees, his rank in the civil hierarchy became
ultimately recognized. … The Counts of Brittany, and the
Dukes in like manner, in later times, rendered homage 'en
parage' to Normandy in the first instance, and that same
homage was afterwards demanded by the crown of France. But the
Capetian monarchs refused to acknowledge the 'Duke,' until the
time of Peter Mauclerc, son of Robert, Count of Dreux, Earl of
Richmond [A. D. 1213-1237]."
_Sir F. Palgrave,
History of Normandy and England,
volume 3, page 165._
{325}
BRITTANY: A. D. 1341-1365.
The Long Civil War.
Montfort Against Blois.
Almost simultaneously with the beginning of the Hundred Years
War of the English kings in France, there broke out a
malignant and destructive civil war in Brittany, which French
and English took part in, on the opposing sides. "John III.
duke of that province, had died without issue, and two rivals
disputed his inheritance. The one was Charles de Blois,
husband of one of his nieces and nephew of the King of France;
the other, Montfort, … younger brother of the last duke and
… disinherited by him. The Court of Peers, devoted to the
king, adjudged the duchy to Charles de Blois, his nephew.
Montfort immediately made himself master of the strongest
places, and rendered homage for Brittany to king Edward [III.
of England], whose assistance he implored. This war, in which
Charles de Blois was supported by France and Montfort by
England, lasted twenty-four years without interruption, and
presented, in the midst of heroic actions, a long course of
treacheries and atrocious robberies." The war was ended in
1365 by the battle of Auray, in which Charles de Blois was
slain, and Bertrand Du Guesclin, the famous Breton warrior,
was taken prisoner. This was soon followed by the treaty of
Guérande, which established Montfort in the duchy.
_E. De Bonnechose,
History of France,
volume 1, book 2, chapters 2 and 4._
ALSO IN:
_Froissart (Johnes),
Chronicles,
book 1, chapters 64-227._
BRITTANY: A. D. 1491.
Joined By Marriage To The French Crown.
The family of Montfort, having been established in the duchy
of Brittany by the arms of the English, were naturally
inclined to English connections; "but the Bretons would seldom
permit them to be effectual. Two cardinal feelings guided the
conduct of this brave and faithful people; the one an
attachment to the French nation and monarchy in opposition to
foreign enemies; the other, a zeal for their own privileges,
and the family of Montfort, in opposition to the encroachments
of the crown. In Francis II., the present duke [at the time of
the accession of Charles VIII. of France, A. D. 1483], the
male line of that family was about to be extinguished. His
daughter Anne was naturally the object of many suitors, among
whom were particularly distinguished the duke of Orleans, who
seems to have been preferred by herself; the lord of Albret, a
member of the Gascon family of Foix, favoured by the Breton
nobility, as most likely to preserve the peace and liberties
of their country, but whose age rendered him not very
acceptable to a youthful princess; and Maximilian, king of the
Romans [whose first wife, Mary of Burgundy, died in 1482].
Britany was rent by factions and overrun by the armies of the
regent of France, who did not lose this opportunity of
interfering with its domestic troubles, and of persecuting her
private enemy, the duke of Orleans. Anne of Britany, upon her
father's death, finding no other means of escaping the
addresses of Albret, was married by proxy to Maximilian. This,
however, aggravated the evils of the country, since France was
resolved at all events to break off so dangerous a connexion.
And as Maximilian himself was unable, or took not sufficient
pains to relieve his betrothed wife from her embarrassments,
she was ultimately compelled to accept the hand of Charles
VIII. He had long been engaged by the treaty of Arras to marry
the daughter of Maximilian, and that princess was educated at
the French court. But this engagement had not prevented
several years of hostilities, and continual intrigues with the
towns of Flanders against Maximilian. The double injury which
the latter sustained in the marriage of Charles with the
heiress of Britany seemed likely to excite a protracted
contest; but the king of France, who had other objects in
view, and perhaps was conscious that he had not acted a fair
part, soon came to an accommodation, by which he restored
Artois and Franche-comté. … France was now consolidated into
a great kingdom: the feudal system was at an end."
_H. Hallam,
The Middle Ages,
chapter 1, part 2._
In the contract of marriage between Charles VIII. and Anne of
Brittany, "each party surrendered all separate pretensions
upon the Duchy, and one stipulation alone was considered
requisite to secure the perpetual union of Bretany with
France, namely, that in case the queen should survive her
consort, she should not remarry unless either with the future
king, or, if that were not possible, with the presumptive heir
of the crown."
_E. Smedley,
History of France,
part 1, chapter 18._
ALSO IN:
_F. P. Guizot,
Popular History of France,
chapter 26._
BRITTANY: A. D. 1532.
Final Reunion With The Crown Of France.
"Duprat [chancellor of Francis I. of France], whose
administration was … shameful, promoted one measure of high
utility. Francis I. until then had governed Brittany only in
the quality of duke of that province; Duprat counselled him to
unite this duchy in an indissoluble manner with the crown, and
he prevailed upon the States of Brittany themselves to request
this reunion, which alone was capable of preventing the
breaking out of civil wars at the death of the king. It was
irrevocably voted by the States assembled at Vannes in 1532.
The king swore to respect the rights of Brittany, and not to
raise any subsidy therein without the consent of the States
Provincial."
_E. de Bonnechose,
History of France,
book 1, chapter 2._
BRITTANY: A. D. 1793.
Resistance To The French Revolution.
The Vendean War.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1793 (MARCH-APRIL); (JUNE);
(JULY-DECEMBER).
BRITTANY: A. D. 1794-1796.
The Chouans.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1794-1796.
----------BRITTANY: End----------
BRIXHAM CAVE.
A cavern near Brixham, Devonshire, England, in which noted
evidences of a very early race of men, contemporaneous with
certain extinct animals, have been found.
_J. Geikie,
Prehistoric Europe._
ALSO IN:
_W. B. Dawkins,
Cave Hunting._
{326}
BROAD-BOTTOMED ADMINISTRATION, The.
See ENGLAND: A. D. 1742-1745.
BROAD CHURCH, The.
See OXFORD OR TRACTARIAN MOVEMENT.
BROCK, General Isaac, and the War of 1812.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1812
(JUNE-OCTOBER), (SEPTEMBER-NOVEMBER).
BROMSEBRO, PEACE OF (1645).
See GERMANY: A. D. 1640-1645.
BRONKHORST SPRUIT, Battle of (1880).
See SOUTH AFRICA: A. D. 1806-1880.
BRONZE AGE.
See STONE AGE.
BROOKLYN, New York: A. D. 1624.
The First Settlers.
"A few families of Walloons, in 1624, built their cottages on
Long Island, and began the cultivation of the lands they had
secured, the women working in the fields, while the men were
engaged in the service of the company [the Dutch West India
Company, controlling the colony of New Netherland]. These were
the first settlers of Brooklyn. They were joined in time by a
few others, until there were enough to be incorporated as a
village. The numbers were not large, for Brooklyn, nearly
forty years afterward, contained only 31 households and 134
souls."
_G. W. Schuyler,
Colonial New York,
volume 1, page 27._
BROOKLYN: A. D. 1646.
The Town Named And Organized.
"The occupation of land within the limits of the present city
of Brooklyn … had steadily progressed, until now (1646)
nearly the whole water-front, from Newtown Creek to the
southerly side of Gowanus Bay, was in the possession of
individuals who were engaged in its actual cultivation. …
The village … which was located on the present Fulton
Avenue, in the vicinity of the junction of Hoyt and Smith
streets with said avenue, and southeast of the present City
Hall, was called Breuckelen, after the ancient village of the
same name in Holland, some 18 miles from Amsterdam." The town
of Breuckelen was organized under a commission from the
Colonial Council in 1646, and two schepens appointed. The
following winter Jan Teunissen was commissioned as schout.
_H. R. Stiles,
History of Brooklyn,
chapter 1._
BROOKLYN: A. D. 1776.
The Battle Of Long Island And Defeat Of The Americans.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1776 (AUGUST).
----------BROOKLYN: End----------
BROTHERS.
BROTHERHOODS.
See BRETHREN.
BROTHERS' CLUB, The.
See CLUBS.
BROWN, GEORGE, AND THE CANADIAN "CLEAR GRITS."
See CANADA: A. D. 1840-1867.
BROWN, GENERAL JACOB, AND THE WAR OF 1812.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1812
(SEPTEMBER-NOVEMBER); 1813 (OCTOBER-NOVEMBER);
1814 (JULY-SEPTEMBER).
BROWN, John.
Attack On Harper's Ferry.
Trial And Execution.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1859.
BROWNISTS.
See INDEPENDENTS.
BROWNLOW, PARSON, AND THE RECONSTRUCTION OF TENNESSEE.
See TENNESSEE: A. D. 1865-1866.
BRUCE, Robert, King of Scotland, A. D. 1305-1329.
BRUCHIUM, The.
See ALEXANDRIA: B. C. 282-246, and A. D. 273.
BRUCTERI, The.
"After the Tencteri [on the Rhine] came, in former days, the
Bructeri; but the general account now is, that the Chamavi and
Angrivarii entered their settlements, drove them out and
utterly exterminated them with the common help of the
neighbouring tribes, either from hatred of their tyranny, or
from the attractions of plunder, or from heaven's favourable
regard for us. It did not even grudge us the spectacle of the
conflict. More than 60,000 fell, not beneath the Roman arms
and weapons, but, grander far, before our delighted eyes."
"The original settlements of the Bructeri, from which they
were driven by the Chamavi and Angrivarii, seem to have been
between the Rhine and the Ems, on either side of the Lippe.
Their destruction could hardly have been so complete as
Tacitus represents, as they are subsequently mentioned by
Claudian."
_Tacitus,
Minor works,
translated by Church and Brodribb:
The Germany, with geographical notes._
See, also, FRANKS.
BRUGES: 13th CENTURY.
The Great Fair.
See FLANDERS: 13th CENTURY.
BRUGES: A. D. 13th-15th CENTURIES.
Commercial Importance In The Hanseatic League.
See HANSA TOWNS.
BRUGES: A. D. 1302.
Massacre Of The French.
"The Bruges Matins."
See FLANDERS: A. D. 1299-1304.
BRUGES: A. D. 1341.
Made the Staple for English trade.
See STAPLE.
BRUGES: A. D. 1379-1381.
Hostilities With Ghent.
See FLANDERS: A. D. 1379-1381.
BRUGES: A. D. 1382.
Taken And Plundered By The People Of Ghent.
See FLANDERS: A. D. 1382.
BRUGES: A. D. 1482-1488.
At War With Maximilian.
See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1482-1493.
BRUGES: A. D. 1584.
Submission to Philip of Spain.
See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1584-1585.
BRUGES: A. D. 1745-1748.
Taken By The French, And Restored.
See NETHERLANDS (AUSTRIAN PROVINCES): A. D. 1745;
and AIX-LA-CHAPELLE: THE CONGRESS, &c.
----------BRUGES: End----------
BRULÉ, The.
See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: SIOUAN FAMILY.
BRUMAIRE, THE MONTH.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1793 (OCTOBER).
BRUMAIRE, THE EIGHTEENTH OF.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1799 (NOVEMBER).
BRUNDISIUM:
Origin.
See ROME: B. C. 282-275.
BRUNDISIUM: B. C.49.
Flight of Pompeius before Cæsar.
See ROME: B. C. 50-49.
BRUNDISIUM: B. C. 40.
The Peace Of Antony And Octavius.
The peace which Antony and Octavius were forced by their own
soldiers to make at Brundisium, B. C. 40, postponed for ten
years the final struggle between the two chief Triumvirs. For
a much longer time it "did at least secure the repose of
Italy. For a period of three hundred and fifty years, except
one day's fighting in the streets of Rome, from Rhegium to the
Rubicon no swords were again crossed in war."
_C. Merivale,
History of the Romans,
chapter 27._
See also, ROME: B. C. 31.
----------BRUNDISIUM: End----------
BRUNKEBURG, Battle of the (1471).
See SCANDINAVIAN STATES: A. D. 1397-1527.
BRUNNABURGH, OR BRUNANBURH, BATTLE OF.
See ENGLAND: A. D. 938.
BRUNSWICK, THE CITY OF.
Origin And Name.
In the tenth century, a prince named Bruno, younger son of the
reigning duke of Bavaria, and grandson of the Emperor Henry
the Fowler, received as his patrimony the country about the
Ocker. "Having fixed his residence at a village established by
Charlemagne on the banks of that river, it became known as the
'Vicus Brunonis,' and, when enlarged and formed into a city,
afterwards gave its name to the principality of which it
formed the capital."
_Sir A. Halliday,
Annals of the House of Hanover,
volume 1, book 4._
{327}
BRUNSWICK: IN THE HANSEATIC LEAGUE.
See HANSA TOWNS.
BRUNSWICK-LÜNEBURG, OR HANOVER.
See HANOVER.
BRUNSWICK-WOLFENBÜTTEL, OR BRUNSWICK:
Origin Of The House And Dukedom.
See SAXONY: THE OLD DUCHY,
and A. D. 1178-1183.
BRUNSWICK: THE GUELF CONNECTION.
See GUELF AND GHIBELLINE, AND ESTE, HOUSE OF.
BRUNSWICK: A. D. 1543.
Expulsion Of Duke Henry By
The League Of Smalcald.
See GERMANY: A. D. 1533-1546.
BRUNSWICK: A. D. 1546.
Final Separation From The Lüneburg Or Hanoverian Branch Of The
House.
See HANOVER: A. D. 1546.
BRUNSWICK: A. D. 1806.
The Duke's Dominions Confiscated By Napoleon.
See GERMANY: A. D. 1806 (OCTOBER-DECEMBER).
BRUNSWICK: A. D. 1807.
Absorbed In The Kingdom Of Westphalia.
See GERMANY: A. D. 1807 (JUNE-JULY).
BRUNSWICK: A. D. 1830.
Deposition of the Duke.
See GERMANY: A. D. 1819-1847.
----------BRUNSWICK: End----------
BRUSSELS: A. D. 1577.
The Union Of The Patriots.
See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1575-1577.
BRUSSELS: A. D. 1585.
Surrender to the Spaniards.
See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1584-1585.
BRUSSELS: A. D. 1695.
BOMBARDMENT BY THE FRENCH.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1695-1696.
BRUSSELS: A. D. 1706.
Taken By Marlborough And The Allies.
See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1706-1707.
BRUSSELS: A. D. 1746-1748.
Taken By The French And Restored To Austria.
See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1746-1747,
and AIX-LA-CHAPELLE: THE CONGRESS, &c.
BRUSSELS: A. D. 1815.
The Battle Of Waterloo.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1815 (JUNE).
BRUSSELS: A. D. 1830.
Riot And Revolution.
Dutch Attack On The City Repelled.
See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1830-1832.
----------BRUSSELS: End----------
BRUTTII, The.
See SAMNITES.
BRUTUM FULMEN.
A phrase, signifying a blind thrust, or a stupid and
ineffectual blow, which was specially applied in a
contemporary pamphlet by Francis Hotman to the Bull of
excommunication issued by Pope Sixtus V. against Henry of
Navarre, in 1585.
_H. M. Baird,
The Huguenots and Henry of Navarre,
volume 1, page 369._
See FRANCE: A. D. 1584-1589.
BRUTUS, LUCIUS JUNIUS, AND THE EXPULSION OF THE TARQUINS.
See ROME: B. C. 510.
BRUTUS, MARCUS JUNIUS, AND THE ASSASSINATION OF CAESAR.
See ROME: B. C. 44 to 44-42.
BRYTHONS, The.
See CELTS, THE.
BUBASTIS.
"On the eastern side of the Delta [of the Nile], more than
half-way from Memphis to Zoan, lay the great city of
Pi-beseth, or Bubastis. Vast mounds now mark the site and
preserve the name; deep in their midst lie the shattered
fragments of the beautiful temple which Herodotus saw, and to
which in his days the Egyptians came annually in vast numbers
to keep the greatest festival of the year, the Assembly of
Bast, the goddess of the place. Here, after the Empire had
fallen, Shishak [Sheshonk] set up his throne, and for a short
space revived the imperial magnificence of Thebes."
_R. S. Poole, Cities of Egypt, chapter 10._
BUCCANEERS, The.
See AMERICA: A. D. 1639-1700.
BUCENTAUR, The.
See VENICE: 14TH CENTURY.
BUCHANAN, JAMES.
Presidential Election And Administration.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1856 to 1861.
BUCHAREST, TREATY OF (1812).
See TURKS: A. D. 1789-1812;
also BALKAN AND DANUBIAN STATES: 14TH-19TH CENTURIES
(SERVIA).
BUCKINGHAM, ASSASSINATION OF.
See ENGLAND: A. D. 1628.
BUCKINGHAM PALACE.
See ST. JAMES, THE PALACE AND COURT OF.
BUCKTAILS.
See NEW YORK: A. D. 1817-1819.
BUDA: A. D. 1526.
Taken And Plundered By The Turks.
See HUNGARY: A. D. 1487-1526.
BUDA: A. D. 1529-1567.
Taken by the Turks.
Besieged by the Austrians.
Occupied by the Sultan.
Becomes the seat of a Pasha.
See HUNGARY: A. D. 1526-1567.
BUDA: A. D. 1686.
Recovery from the Turks.
See HUNGARY: A. D. 1683-1687.
BUDA: A. D. 1849.
Siege And Capture By The Hungarians.
See AUSTRIA: A. D. 1848-1849.
----------BUDA: End----------
BUDA-PESTH: A. D. 1872.
Union Of The Cities.
Buda, on the right bank of the Danube, and Pesth, on the left,
were incorporated in 1872 into one city—Buda-Pesth.
BUDDHISM.
See INDIA: B. C. 312;
also LAMAS. LAMAISM;
and CHINA: THE RELIGIONS.
BUDGET, The.
"The annual financial statement which the Chancellor of the
Exchequer makes in the House of Commons in a Committee of ways
and means. In making this statement the minister gives a view
of the general financial policy of the government, and at the
same time presents an estimate of the probable income and
expenditure for the following twelve months, and a statement
of what taxes it is intended to reduce or abolish, or what new
ones it may be necessary to impose.—To open the budget, to
lay before the legislative body the financial estimates and
plans of the executive government."
_Imp. Dict._
Mr. Dowell in his _History of Taxation (volume 1, chapter 5)_
states that the phrase 'opening the Budget' came into use in
England during the reign of George III., and that it bore a
reference to the bougette, or little bag, in which the
chancellor of the exchequer kept his papers. The French, he
adds, adopted the term in the present century, about 1814. The
following, however, is in disagreement with Mr. Dowell's
explanation: "In the reign of George II. the word was used
with conscious allusion to the celebrated pamphlet which
ridiculed Sir R. Walpole as a conjuror opening his budget or
'bag of tricks.' Afterwards, it must, for a time, have been
current as slang; but, as it supplied a want, it was soon
taken up into the ordinary vocabulary."
_Athenæum,
February 14, 1891,
page 213._
{328}
BUDINI, The.
A nomadic tribe which Herodotus describes as anciently
inhabiting a region between the Ural Mountains and the Caspian
Sea.
_G. Grote,
History of Greece,
part 2, chapter 17._
BUELL, GENERAL DON CARLOS, CAMPAIGNS OF.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
A. D. 1861 (JULY-NOVEMBER);
A. D. 1862 (JANUARY-FEBRUARY: KENTUCKY-TENNESSEE);
A. D. 1862 (FEBRUARY-APRIL: TENNESSEE);
A. D. 1862 (JUNE-OCTOBER: TENNESSEE-KENTUCKY).
BUENA VISTA, BATTLE OF.
See MEXICO: A. D. 1846-1847.
BUENOS AYRES, VICEROYALTY AND REPUBLIC OF.
See ARGENTINE REPUBLIC.
BUENOS AYRES, The City of: A. D. 1534.
First and unsuccessful founding of the city.
See PARAGUAY: A. D. 1515-1557.
BUFFALO, New York:
The Aboriginal Occupants Of The Site.
See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: HURONS, &c.
BUFFALO, New York: A. D. 1764.
Cession Of The Four Mile Strip By The Senecas.
See PONTIAC'S WAR.
BUFFALO, New York: A. D. 1779.
The Site Occupied By The Senecas After Sullivan's Expedition.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1779 (AUGUST-SEPTEMBER).
BUFFALO, New York: A. D. 1799.
The founding and naming of the city.
See NEW YORK A. D. 1786-1799.
BUFFALO, New York: A. D. 1812.
At The Opening Of The War.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1812
(SEPTEMBER-NOVEMBER).
BUFFALO, New York: A. D. 1813.
Destruction by British and Indians.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1813 (DECEMBER).
BUFFALO, New York: A. D. 1825.
Opening of the Erie Canal.
See NEW YORK: A. D. 1817-1825.
BUFFALO, New York: A. D. 1848.
The National Free-soil Convention.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1848.
BUFFALO, New York: A. D. 1866.
The Fenian Invasion Of Canada.
See CANADA: A. D. 1866-1871.
----------BUFFALO, New York: End----------
BUFFALO HILL, Battles of.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1861
(AUGUST-DECEMBER: WEST VIRGINIA).
BUFFINGTON FORD, BATTLE OF.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
A. D. 1863 (JULY: KENTUCKY).
BUGIA, CONQUEST BY THE SPANIARDS (1510).
See BARBARY STATES: A. D. 1505-1510.
BULGARIA.
See BALKAN AND DANUBIAN STATES.
BULGARIANS, THE RELIGIOUS SECTARIES SO CALLED.
See PAULICIANS.
BULL "APOSTOLICUM," The.
See JESUITS: A. D. 1761-1769.
BULL "AUSCULTA FILI," The.
See PAPACY: A. D. 1294-1348.
BULL "CLERICIS LAICOS."
Published by Pope Boniface VIII. February 24, 1296, forbidding
"the clergy to pay and the secular powers to exact, under
penalty of excommunication, contributions or taxes, tenths,
twentieths, hundredths, or the like, from the revenues or the
goods of the churches or their ministers."
_William Stubbs,
Constitutional History of England,
chapter 14._
ALSO IN:
_E. F. Henderson,
Select Historical Documents of the Middle Ages,
book 4, number 6._
See, also, PAPACY: A. D. 1294-1348.
BULL "DOMINUS REDEMPTOR NOSTER."
See JESUITS: A. D. 1769-1871.
BULL "EXURGE DOMINE."
See PAPACY: A. D. 1517-1521.
BULL, Golden.
See GOLDEN BULL, BYZANTINE;
also GERMANY: A. D. 1347-1493.
and HUNGARY: A. D. 1114-1301.
BULL, "LAUDABILITER," The.
A papal bull promulgated in 1155 by Pope Adrian IV. (the one
Englishman who ever attained to St. Peter's seat) assuming to
bestow the kingdom of Ireland on the English King Henry II.
See IRELAND: A. D. 1169-1175.
BULL, "SALVATOR MUNDI," THE.
See PAPACY: A. D. 1294-1348.
BULL "UNIGENITUS," THE.
See PORT ROYAL AND THE JANSENISTS: A. D. 1702-1715.
BULL RUN, OR MANASSAS, FIRST BATTLE OF.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D.
1861 (JULY: VIRGINIA).
BULL RUN, SECOND BATTLE OF.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1862
(AUGUST-SEPTEMBER: VIRGINIA).
BULLA, THE.
See TOGA.
BUMMERS, SHERMAN'S.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1864
(NOVEMBER-DECEMBER: GEORGIA).
BUND, BUNDESRATH, BUNDESPRESIDENT, BUNDESGERICHT, THE SWISS.
See SWITZERLAND: A. D. 1848-1890.
BUNDES-STAAT.
See GERMANY: A. D. 1814-1820.
BUNDSCHUH INSURRECTIONS.
See GERMANY: A. D. 1492-1514.
BUNKER HILL, BATTLE OF.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1775 (JUNE).
BURDIGALA.
The original name of the modern city of Bordeaux, which was a
town of the Gallic tribe called the Bituriges-Vivisci.
_T. Mommsen,
History of Rome,
book 5, chapter 7._
BURGAGE TENURE.
See FEUDAL TENURES.
BURGESS.
See BOURGEOIS.
BURGH, OR BURGI, OR BURH.
See BOROUGH.
BURGOS, BATTLE OF.
See SPAIN: A. D. 1808 (SEPTEMBER-DECEMBER).
BURGOYNE, GENERAL JOHN, AND THE WAR OF THE AMERICAN REVOLUTION.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
A. D. 1775 (APRIL-MAY);
A. D. 1777 (JULY-OCTOBER).
BURGRAVES.
See PALATINE, COUNTS.
BURGUNDIANS:
Origin And Early History.
"About the middle of the fourth century, the countries,
perhaps of Lusace and Thuringia, on either side of the Elbe,
were occupied by the vague dominion of the Burgundians—a
warlike and numerous people of the Vandal race, whose obscure
name insensibly swelled into a powerful kingdom, and has
finally settled on a flourishing province. … The disputed
possession of some salt-pits engaged the Alemanni and the
Burgundians in frequent contests. The latter were easily
tempted by the secret solicitations and liberal offers of the
emperor [Valentinian, A. D. 371]; and their fabulous descent
from the Roman soldiers who had formerly been left to garrison
the fortresses of Drusus was admitted with mutual credulity,
as it was conducive to mutual interest. An army of fourscore
thousand Burgundians soon appeared on the banks of the Rhine,
and impatiently required the support and subsidies which
Valentinian had promised; but they were amused with excuses
and delays, till at length, after a fruitless expectation,
they were compelled to retire. The arms and fortifications of
the Gallic frontier checked the fury of their just
resentment."
_E. Gibbon,
Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire,
chapter 25.
{329}
"We first hear of them [the Burgundians] as a tribe of
Teutonic stock, located between the Oder and the Vistula, on
either bank of the river Warta. When the Gepidæ descended
southward with the Goths, the Burgundians were compelled to
recoil before the advance of the former tribe: one portion of
them took refuge in Bornholm, an island of the Baltic; the
remainder turned westward, and made an attempt to enter Gaul.
They were repulsed by Probus, but permitted to settle near the
sources of the Main. Jovian showed them favour, and gave them
lands in the Germania Secunda. This was in the latter part of
the fourth century. Just at its close, they adopted
Christianity, but under an Arian form. Ammianus tells us that
they were a most warlike race."
_J. G. Sheppard,
The Fall of Rome,
lecture 8._
"The other Teutonic people had very little regard for the
Burgundians; they accused them of having degenerated from the
valor of their ancestors, by taking in petty towns
(bourgades), whence their name Burgundii sprang; and they
looked upon them as being more suitable for the professions of
mechanics, smiths, and carpenters, than for a military life."
_J. C. L. de Sismondi,
The French under the Merovingians,
chapter 3._
"A document of A. D. 786, in noticing the high tract of lands
between Ellwangen and Anspach, has the following
expression,—'in Waldo, qui vocatur Virgunnia.' Grimm looks
for the derivation of this word in the Mœso-Gothic word
'fairguni,' Old High 'German 'fergunnd'=woody hill-range. …
I have little doubt but that this is the name of the tract of
land from which the name Burgundi arose; and that it is the
one which fixes their locality. If so, between the Burgundian
and Suevic Germans, the difference, such as it was, was
probably, almost wholly political."
_R. G. Latham,
The Germania of Tacitus; Epilegomena,
section 12._
BURGUNDIANS: A. D. 406-409.
Invasion Of Gaul.
See GAUL: A. D. 406-409.
BURGUNDIANS: A. D. 443-451.
Their Savoyan Kingdom.
"In the south-east of Gaul, the Burgundians had, after many
wars and some reverses, established themselves (443) with the
consent of the Romans in the district then called Sapaudia and
now Savoy. Their territory was somewhat more extensive than
the province which was the cradle of the present royal house
of Italy, since it stretched northwards beyond the lake of
Neufchatel and southwards as far as Grenoble. Here the
Burgundian immigrants under their king Gundiok, were busy
settling themselves in their new possession, cultivating the
lands which they had divided by lot, each one receiving half
the estate of a Roman host or 'hospes' (for under such gentle
names the spoliation was veiled), when the news came that the
terrible Hun had crossed the Rhine [A. D. 451], and that all
hosts and guests in Gaul must unite for its defence."
_T. Hodgkin,
Italy and Her Invaders,
book 2, chapter 3._
BURGUNDIANS: A. D. 451.
At The Battle Of Chalons.
See HUNS: A. D. 451.
BURGUNDIANS: A. D. 500.
Extension Of Their Kingdom.
"Their [the Burgundians] domain, considerably more extensive
than when we last viewed it on the eve of Attila's invasion,
now included the later provinces of Burgundy, Franche-Comté
and Dauphiné, besides Savoy and the greater part of
Switzerland—in fact the whole of the valleys of the Saone and
the Rhone, save that for the last hundred miles of its course
the Visigoths barred them from the right bank and from the
mouths of the latter river." At the time now spoken of (A. D.
500), the Burgundian kingdom was divided between two
brother-kings, Gundobad, reigning at Lyons and Vienne, and
Godegisel at Geneva. Godegisel, the younger, had conspired
with Clovis, the king of the Franks, against Gundobad, and in
this year 500 the two confederates defeated the latter, at
Dijon, driving him from the most part of his kingdom. But
Gundobad presently recovered his footing, besieged and
captured his treacherous brother at Vienne and promptly put
him to death—thereby reuniting the kingdom.
_T. Hodgkin,
Italy and Her Invaders,
book 4, chapter 9._
BURGUNDIANS: A. D. 534.
Final Conquest By The Franks.
"I am impatient to pursue the final ruin of that kingdom [the
Burgundian] which was accomplished under the reign of
Sigismond, the son of Gundobald [or Gundobad]. The Catholic
Sigismond has acquired the honours of a saint and martyr; but
the hands of the royal saint were stained with the blood of
his innocent son. … It was his humble prayer that Heaven
would inflict in this world the punishment of his sins. His
prayer was heard; the avengers were at hand; and the provinces
of Burgundy were overwhelmed by an army of victorious Franks.
After the event of an unsuccessful battle, Sigismond … with
his wife and two children, was transported to Orleans and
buried alive in a deep well by the stern command of the sons
of Clovis, whose cruelty might derive some excuse from the
maxims and examples of their barbarous age. … The rebellious
Burgundians, for they attempted to break their chains, were
still permitted to enjoy their national laws under the
obligation of tribute and military service; and the
Merovingian princes peaceably reigned over a kingdom whose
glory and greatness had been first overthrown by the arms of
Clovis."
_E. Gibbon,
Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire,
chapter 38.
ALSO IN: _W. C. Perry, The Franks, chapter 3._
----------BURGUNDIANS: End----------
BURGUNDY: A. D. 534-752.
The Merovingian Kingdom.
After the overthrow of the Burgundian monarchy by the sons of
Clovis, the territory of the Burgundians, with part of the
neighboring Frank territory added to it, became, under the
name of Burgundia or Burgundy, one of the three Frank kingdoms
(Austrasia and Neustria being the other two), into which the
Merovingian princes divided their dominion. It occupied "the
east of the country, between the Loire and the Alps, from
Provence on the south to the hill-ranges of the Vosges on the
north."
_P. Godwin,
History of France: Ancient Gaul,
chapter 13._
BURGUNDY: A. D. 843-933.
Divisions of the early kingdom.
The later kingdoms of the south and the French dukedom of the
northwest.
By the treaty of Verdun, A. D. 843, which formally divided the
empire of Charlemagne between his three grandsons, a part of
Burgundy was taken to form, with Italy and Lorraine, the
kingdom of the Emperor Lothar, or Lothaire. In the further
dissolutions which followed, a kingdom of Burgundy or Provence
was founded in 877 by one Boso, a prince who had married
Irmingard, daughter of the Emperor Louis II., son of Lothaire.
It "included Provence, Dauphiné, the southern part of Savoy,
and the country between the Saone and the Jura," and is
sometimes called the kingdom of Cis-Jurane Burgundy. "The
kingdom of Trans-Jurane Burgundy, … founded by Rudolf in A.
D. 888, recognized in the same year by the Emperor Arnulf,
included the northern part of Savoy, and all Switzerland
between the Reuss and the Jura."
_J. Bryce,
The Holy Roman Empire,
chapter 6, and appendix, note A._
{330}
"The kingdoms of Provence and Transjuran Burgundy were united,
in 933, by Raoul II., King of Transjuran Burgundy, and formed
the kingdom of Arles, governed, from 937 to 993, by Conrad le
Pacifique."
_F. Guizot,
History of Civilization,
lecture 24._
_Sir F. Palgrave,
History of Normandy and England,
book 1, chapter 4._
"Several of the greater and more commercial towns of France,
such as Lyons, Vienne, Geneva, Besançon, Avignon, Arles,
Marseille and Grenoble were situated within the bounds of his
[Conrad the Pacific's] states."
_J. C. L. de Sismondi,
France Under the Feudal System,
chapter 2._
"Of the older Burgundian kingdom, the northwestern part,
forming the land best known as the Duchy of Burgundy, was, in
the divisions of the ninth century, a fief of Karolingia or
the Western Kingdom. This is the Burgundy which has Dijon for
its capital, and which was held by more than one dynasty of
dukes as vassals of the Western kings, first at Laon, and then
at Paris. This Burgundy, which, as the name of France came to
bear its modern sense may be distinguished as the French
Duchy, must be carefully distinguished from the Royal
Burgundy" of the Cis-Jurane and Trans-Jurane kingdoms
mentioned above.
_E. A. Freeman,
Historical Geography of Europe,
chapter 6, section 1._
BURGUNDY: A. D. 888-1032.
The French Dukedom.
The Founding Of The First Capetian House.
Of the earliest princes of this northwestern fragment of the
old kingdom of Burgundy little seems to have been
discoverable. The fief and its title do not seem to have
become hereditary until they fell into the grasping hands of
the Capetian family, which happened just at the time when the
aspiring counts of Paris were rising to royal rank. In the
early years of the tenth century the reigning count or duke
was Richard-le-Justicier, whose distinguishing princely virtue
is recorded in his name. This Richard-le-Justicier was a
brother of that Boso, or Boson, son-in-law of the Emperor
Louis II., who took advantage of the confusions of the time to
fashion for himself a kingdom of Burgundy in the South
(Cis-Jurane Burgundy, or Provence,—see above). Richard's son
Raoul, or Rudolph, married Emma, the daughter of Robert, Count
of Paris and Duke of France, who was soon afterwards chosen
king, by the nobles who tired of Carlovingian misrule. King
Robert's reign was short; he fell in battle with the
Carlovingians, at Soissons, the next year (A. D. 923). His son
Hugh, called Le Grand, or The Great, found it more to his
taste to be king-maker than to be king. He declined the
proffered crown, and brought about the coronation of his
brother-in-law, the Burgundian Rudolph, who reigned for eleven
years. When he died, in 934, Hugh the Great still held the
crown at his disposal and still refused to wear it himself. It
now pleased this king-maker to set a Carlovingian prince on
the throne, in the person of Louis d'Outre Mer, a young son of
Charles the Simple, who had been reared in England by his
English mother. But, if Duke Hugh cared nothing for the name,
he cared much for the substance, of power. He grasped dominion
wherever it fell within his reach, and the Burgundian duchy
was among the states which he clutched. King Rudolph left no
son to inherit either his dukedom or his kingdom. He had a
brother, Hugh, who claimed the Duchy; but the greater Hugh was
too strong for him and secured, with the authority of the
young king, his protegé, the title of Duke of Burgundy and the
larger part of the domain. "In the Duchy of France or the
County of Paris Hugh-le-Grand had nothing beyond the
regalities to desire, and both in Burgundy and the Duchy he
now became an irremovable Viceroy. But the privileges so
obtained by Hugh-le-Grand produced very important political
results, both present and future. Hugh assumed even a loftier
bearing than before; Burgundy was annexed to the Duchy of
France, and passed with the Duchy; and the grant thereof made
by Hugh Capet to his son [brother?] Henri-le-Grand, severing
the same from the crown, created the premier Duchy of
Christendom, the most splendid appanage which a prince of the
third race [the Capetians] could enjoy—the rival of the
throne."
_Sir F. Palgrave,
History of Normandy and England,
book 1, part 2, chapters 1-4._
Hugh-le-Grand died in 956. "His power, which, more than his
talents or exploits, had given him the name of Great, was
divided between his children, who were yet very young. …
There is some doubt as to their number and the order of their
birth. It appears, however, that Otho was the eldest of his
three sons. He had given him his part of the duchy of
Burgundy, and had made him marry the daughter and heir of
Gislebert, duke of another part of Burgundy, to which Otho
succeeded the same year. The latter dying in 963 or 965, the
duchy of Burgundy passed to his third brother, sometimes named
Henry, sometimes Eudes. Hugues [Hugh], surnamed Capet, who
succeeded to the county of Paris and the duchy of France, was
but the second son."
_J. C. L. de Sismondi,
The French under the Carlovingians,
chapter 15._
In 987 Hugh Capet became king of France and founded the
lasting dynasty which bears his name. His elder brother Henry
remained Duke of Burgundy until his death, in 1002, when his
royal nephew, Robert, son and successor of Hugh, annexed the
Duchy to the Crown. It so remained until 1032. Then King Henry
I., son of Robert, granted it as an appanage to his brother
Robert, who founded the first Capetian House of Burgundy.
_E. de Bonnechose,
History of France,
book 1, chapter 2._
BURGUNDY: A. D. 1032.
The Last Kingdom.
Its Union With Germany, And Its Dissolution.
The last kingdom which bore the name of Burgundy—though more
often called the kingdom of Arles—formed, as stated above,
by the union of the short-lived kingdoms of Provence and
Transjurane Burgundy, became in 1032 nominally united to the
dominions of the Emperor-King of Germany. Its last independent
king was Rudolf III., son of Conrad the Pacific, who was uncle
to the Emperor Henry II. Being childless, he named Henry his
heir. The latter, however, died first, in 1024, and Rudolf
attempted to cancel his bequest, claiming that it was made to
Henry personally, not as King of the Germans. When, however,
the Burgundian king died, in 1032, the then reigning Emperor,
Conrad the Salic, or the Franconian, formally proclaimed the
union of Burgundy with Germany. "But since Burgundy was ruled
almost exclusively by the great nobility, the sovereignty of
the German Emperors there was never much more than nominal.
Besides, the country, from the Bernese Oberland to the
Mediterranean, except that part of Allemannia which is now
German Switzerland, was inhabited by a Romance people, too
distinct in language, customs and laws from the German empire
ever really to form a part of it. … Yet Switzerland was
thenceforth connected forever with the development of Germany,
and for 500 years remained a part of the empire."
_C. T. Lewis,
History of Germany,
book 2, chapter 6-7._
{331}
"The weakness of Rodolph-le-Fainéant [Rodolph III., who made
Henry II. of Germany his heir, as stated above], gave the
great lords of the kingdom of Arles an opportunity of
consolidating their independence. Among these one begins to
remark Berchtold and his son, Humbert-aux-Blanches-Mains (the
White-handed), Counts of Maurienne, and founders of the House
of Savoy; Otto William, who it is pretended was the son of
Adalbert, King of Italy, and heir by right of his mother to
the county of Burgundy, was the founder of the sovereign house
of Franche-Comté [County Palatine of Burgundy]; Guigue, Count
of Albon, founder of the sovereign house of the dauphins of
Viennois; and William, who it is pretended was the issue of a
brother of Rodolph of Burgundy, King of France, and who was
sovereign count of Provence. These four lords had, throughout
the reign of Rodolph, much more power than he in the kingdom
of Arles; and when at his death his crown was united to that
of the Empire, the feudatories who had grown great at his
expense became almost absolutely independent. On the other
hand, their vassals began on their side to acquire importance
under them; and in Provence can be traced at this period the
succession of the counts of Forcalquier and of Venaissin, of
the princes of Orange, of the viscounts of Marseille, of the
barons of Baux, of Sault, of Grignau, and of Castellane. We
can still follow the formation of a great number of other
feudatory or rather sovereign houses. Thus the counts of
Toulouse, those of Rouergue, the dukes of Gascony, the counts
of Foix, of Beam, and of Carcassone, date least from this
epoch; but their existence is announced to us only by their
diplomas and their wills."
_J. C. L. de Sismondi,
France under the Feudal System,
chapter 2._
See, also, PROVENCE: A. D. 943-1092, AND FRANCHE COMTÉ.
BURGUNDY: A. D. 1127-1378.
The Franco-Germanic Contest For The Valley Of The Rhone.
End Of The Kingdom Of Arles.
"As soon as the Capetian monarchs had acquired enough strength
at home to be able to look with safety abroad, they began to
make aggressions on the tempting and wealthy dependencies of
the distant emperors. But the Rhone valley was too important
in itself, and of too great strategical value as securing an
easy road to Italy, to make it possible for the emperors to
acquiesce easily in its loss. Hence a long conflict, which
soon became a national conflict of French and Germans, to
maintain the Imperial position in the 'middle kingdom' of the
Rhone valley. M. Fournier's book ['Le Royaume d' Arles et de
Vienne (1138-1178)'; par Paul Fournier] aims at giving an
adequate account of this struggle. … From the times of the
mighty Barbarossa to the times of the pretentious and cunning
Charles of Luxemburg [see GERMANY: A. D. 1138-1268, and A. D.
1347-1493], nearly every emperor sought by constant acts of
sovereignty to uphold his precarious powers in the Arelate.
Unable to effect much with their own resources, the emperors
exhausted their ingenuity in finding allies and inventing
brilliant schemes for reviving the Arelate, which invariably
came to nothing. Barbarossa won the hand of the heiress of the
county of Burgundy, and sought to put in place of the local
dynasties princes on whom he could rely, like Berthold of
Zäringen, whose father had received in 1127 from Conrad III.
the high-sounding but meaningless title of Hector of the
Burgundies. But his quarrel with the church soon set the
clergy against Frederick, and, led by the Carthusian and
Cistercian orders, the Churchmen of the Arelate began to look
upon the orthodox king of the French as their truest protector
from a schismatic emperor. But the French kings of the period
saw in the power of Henry of Anjou [Henry II., of England—see
ENGLAND: A. D. 1154-1189] a more real and pressing danger than
the Empire of the Hohenstaufen. The result was an alliance
between Philip Augustus and his successors and the Swabian
emperors, which gave Frederick and his successors a new term
in which they could strive to win back a real hold over
Burgundy. Frederick II. never lost sight of this object. His
investiture of the great feudal lord William of Baux with the
kingdom of Arles in 1215; his long struggle with the wealthy
merchant city of Marseilles; his alliance with Raymond of
Toulouse and the heretical elements in Provence against the
Pope and the French; his efforts to lead an army against
Innocent IV. at Lyons, were among the chief phases of his
constant efforts to make the Imperial influence really felt in
the valley of the Rhone. But he had so little success that the
French crusaders against the Albigenses waged open war within
its limits, and destroyed the heretic city of Avignon [see
ALBIGENSES: A. D. 1217-1229], while Innocent in his exile
could find no surer protection against the emperor than in the
Imperial city of Lyons. After Frederick's death the policy of
St. Louis of France was a complete triumph. His brother,
Charles of Anjou, established himself in Provence, though in
later times the Angevin lords of Provence and Naples became so
strong that their local interests made them enemies rather
than friends of the extension of French power on their
borders. The subsequent efforts of the emperors were the
merest shams and unrealities. Rudolf of Hapsburg acquiesced
without a murmur in the progress of Philip the Fair, who made
himself master of Lyons, and secured the Free County of
Burgundy for his son [see FRANCHE-COMTÉ]. … The residence
of the Popes at Avignon was a further help to the French
advance. … Weak as were the early Valois kings, they were
strong enough to push still further the advantage won by their
greater predecessors. The rivalry of the leading states of the
Rhone valley, Savoy and Dauphiny, facilitated their task.
Philip VI. aspired to take Vienne as Philip IV. had obtained
Lyons. The Dauphin, Humbert II., struggled in vain against
him, and at last accepted the inevitable by ceding to the
French king the succession to all his rights in Dauphiny,
henceforth to become the appanage of the eldest sons of the
French kings. At last, Charles of Luxemburg, in 1378, gave the
French aggressions a legal basis by conferring the Vicariat of
Arles on the Dauphin Charles, subsequently the mad Charles VI.
of France. From this grant Savoy only was excepted. Henceforth
the power of France in the Rhone valley became so great that
it soon became the fashion to despise and ignore the
theoretical claims of the Empire."
_The Athenæum, Oct. 3, 1891,
reviewing "Le Royaume d'Arles et de Vienne,"
par Paul Fournier._
[Image: POSSESSIONS OF CHARLES THE BOLD,
DUKE OF BURGUNDY, ABOUT 1475.]
{332}
BURGUNDY: A. D. 1207-1401.
Advance Of The Dominions Of The House Of Savoy Beyond Lake
Geneva.
See SAVOY: 11TH-15TH CENTURIES.
BURGUNDY: A. D. 1364.
The French Dukedom.
The Planting Of The Burgundian Branch Of The House Of Valois.
The last Duke of Burgundy of the Capetian house which
descended from Robert, son of King Robert, died in December,
1361. He was called Philip de Rouvre, because the Château de
Rouvre, near Dijon, had been his birth-place, and his
residence. He was still in his youth when he died, although he
had borne the ducal title for twelve years. It fell to him at
the age of four, when his father died. From his mother and his
grandmother he inherited, additionally, the county of Burgundy
(Franche Comté) and the counties of Boulogne, Auvergne and
Artois. His tender years had not prevented the marriage of the
young duke to Margaret, daughter and heiress of the Count of
Flanders. John II. King of France, whose mother was a
Burgundian princess, claimed to be the nearest relative of the
young duke, when the latter died, in 1361, and, although his
claim was disputed by the King of Navarre, Charles the Bad,
King John took possession of the dukedom. He took it by right
of succession, and not as a fief which had lapsed, the
original grant of King Robert having contained no reversionary
provision. Franche Comté, or the county of Burgundy, together
with Artois, remained to the young widow, Margaret of
Flanders, while the counties of Boulogne and Auvergne passed
to John of Boulogne, Count de Montfort. A great opportunity
for strengthening the crown of France, by annexing to it the
powerful Burgundian dukedom, was now offered to King John; but
he lacked the wisdom to improve it. He preferred to grant it
away as a splendid appanage for his favorite son—the
fourth—the spirited lad Philip, called the Fearless, who had
stood by his father's side in the disastrous battle of
Poitiers, and who had shared his captivity in England. By a
deed which took effect on King John's death, in 1364, the
great duchy of Burgundy was conferred on Philip the Fearless
and on his heirs. Soon afterwards, Philip's marriage with the
young widow of his predecessor, Philip de Rouvre, was brought
about, which restored to their former union with the dukedom
the Burgundian County (Franche Comté) and the county of
Artois, while it gave to the new duke prospectively the rich
county of Flanders, to which Margaret was the heiress. Thus
was raised up anew the most formidable rival which the royal
power in France had ever to contend with, and the magnitude of
the blunder of King John was revealed before half a century
had passed.
_Froissart (Johnes)
Chronicles,
book 1, chapter 216._
ALSO IN:
_F. P. Guizot,
Popular History of France,
chapter 22._
BURGUNDY: A. D. 1383.
Flanders Added To The Ducal Dominions.
See FLANDERS: A. D. 1383.
BURGUNDY: A. D. 1405-1453.
Civil war with the Armagnacs.
Alliance with the English.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1380-1415; 1415-1419;
1417-1422; 1429-1431; 1431-1453.
BURGUNDY: A. D. 1430.
Holland, Hainault And Friesland Absorbed By The Dukes.
See NETHERLANDS (HOLLAND AND HAINAULT): A. D. 1417-1430.
BURGUNDY: A. D. 1467.
Charles The Bold.
His Position, Between Germany And France.
His Antagonism To Louis Xi.
The "Middle Kingdom" Of His Aims.
Charles, known commonly in history as Charles the Bold, became
Duke of Burgundy in 1467, succeeding his father Philip,
misnamed "The Good." "His position was a very peculiar one; it
requires a successful shaking-off of modern notions fully to
take in what it was. Charles held the rank of one of the first
princes in Europe without being a King, and without possessing
an inch of ground for which he did not owe service to some
superior lord. And, more than this, he did not owe service to
one lord only. The phrase of 'Great Powers' had not been
invented in the 15th century; but there can be no doubt that,
if it had been, the Duke of Burgundy would have ranked among
the foremost of them. He was, in actual strength, the equal of
his royal neighbour to the west, and far more than the equal
of his Imperial neighbour to the east. Yet for every inch of
his territories he owed a vassal's duty to one or other of
them. Placed on the borders of France and the Empire, some of
his territories were held of the Empire and some of the French
Crown. Charles, Duke of Burgundy, Count of Flanders and
Artois, was a vassal of France; but Charles, Duke of Brabant,
Count of Burgundy, Holland, and a dozen other duchies and
counties, held his dominions as a vassal of Cæsar. His
dominions were large in positive extent, and they were
valuable out of all proportion to their extent. No other
prince in Europe was the direct sovereign of so many rich and
flourishing cities, rendered still more rich and flourishing
through the long and, in the main, peaceful administration of
his father. The cities of the Netherlands were incomparably
greater and more prosperous than those of France or England;
and, though they enjoyed large municipal privileges, they were
not, like those of Germany, independent commonwealths,
acknowledging only an external suzerain in their nominal lord;
Other parts of his dominions, the Duchy of Burgundy
especially, were as rich in men as Flanders was rich in money.
So far the Duke of Burgundy had some great advantages over
every other prince of his time. But, on the other hand, his
dominions were further removed than those of any prince in
Europe from forming a compact whole. He was not King of one
kingdom, but Duke, Count, and Lord of innumerable duchies,
counties, and lordships, acquired by different means, held by
different titles and of different overlords, speaking
different languages, subject to different laws, transmitted
according to different rules of succession. … They lay in
two large masses, the two Burgundies forming one and the Low
Countries forming the other, so that their common master could
not go from one capital to another without passing through a
foreign territory.
{333}
And, even within these two great masses, there were portions
of territory intersecting the ducal dominions which there was
no hope of annexing by fair means. … The career of Charles
the Bold … divides itself into a French and a German
portion. In both alike he is exposed to the restless rivalry
of Lewis of France; but in the one period that rivalry is
carried on openly within the French territory, while in the
second period the crafty king finds the means to deal far more
effectual blows through the agency of Teutonic hands. … As a
French prince, he joined with other French princes to put
limits on the power of the Crown, and to divide the kingdom
into great feudal holdings, as nearly independent as might be
of the common overlord. As a French prince, he played his part
in the War of the Public Weal [see FRANCE: A. D. 1461-1468],
and insisted, as a main object of his policy, on the
establishment of the King's brother as an all but independent
Duke of Normandy. The object of Lewis was to make France a
compact monarchy; the object of Charles and his fellows was to
keep France as nearly as might be in the same state as
Germany. But, when the other French princes had been gradually
conquered, won over, or got rid of in some way or other by the
crafty policy of Lewis, Charles remained no longer the chief
of a coalition of French princes, but the personal rival, the
deadly enemy, of the French King. … Chronologically and
geographically alike. Charles and his Duchy form the great
barrier, or the great connecting link, whichever we choose to
call it, between the main divisions of European history and
European geography. The Dukes of Burgundy of the House of
Valois form a sort of bridge between the later Middle Age and
the period of the Renaissance and the Reformation. They
connect those two periods by forming the kernel of the vast
dominion of that Austrian House which became their heir, and
which, mainly by virtue of that heirship fills such a space in
the history of the 16th and 17th centuries. But the dominions
of the Burgundian Dukes hold a still higher historical
position. They may be said to bind together the whole of
European history for the last thousand years. From the 9th
century to the 19th, the politics of Europe have largely
gathered round the rivalry between the Eastern and the Western
Kingdoms—in modern language, between Germany and France.
From the 9th century to the 19th, a succession of efforts have
been made to establish, in one shape or another, a middle
state between the two. Over and over again during that long
period have men striven to make the whole or some portion of
the frontier lands stretching from the mouth of the Rhine to
the mouth of the Rhone into an independent barrier state. …
That object was never more distinctly aimed at, and it never
seemed nearer to its accomplishment, than when Charles the
Bold actually reigned from the Zuyder Zee to the Lake of
Neufchâtel, and was not without hopes of extending his
frontier to the Gulf of Lyons. … Holding, as he did, parts
of old Lotharingia and parts of old Burgundy, there can be no
doubt that he aimed at the re-establishment of a great Middle
Kingdom, which should take in all that had ever been
Burgundian or Lotharingian ground. He aimed, in short, as
others have aimed before and since, at the formation of a
state which should hold a central position between France,
Germany and Italy—a state which should discharge, with
infinitely greater strength, all the duties which our own age
has endeavoured to throw on Switzerland, Belgium and Savoy.
… Undoubtedly it would have been for the permanent interest
of Europe if he had succeeded in his attempt."
_E. A. Freeman,
Charles the Bold
(Historical Essays, 1st series, number 11)_.
BURGUNDY: A. D. 1467-1468.
The war of Charles the Bold with the Liegeois
and his troubles with Louis XI.
"Soon after the pacification of the troubles of France [see
FRANCE: A. D. 1461-1468], the Duke of Burgundy began a war
against the Liegeois, which lasted for several years; and
whenever the king of France [Louis XI.] had a mind to
interrupt him, he attempted some new action against the
Bretons, and, in the meantime, supported the Liegeois
underhand; upon which the Duke of Burgundy turned against him
to succour his allies, or else they came to some treaty or
truce among themselves. … During these wars, and ever since,
secret and fresh intrigues were carried on by the princes. The
king was so exceedingly exasperated against the Dukes of
Bretagne and Burgundy that it was wonderful. … The king of
France's aim, in the meantime, was chiefly to carry his design
against the province of Bretagne, and he looked upon it as a
more feasible attempt, and likelier to give him less
resistance than the house of Burgundy. Besides, the Bretons
were the people who protected and entertained all his
malcontents; as his brother, and others, whose interest and
intelligence were great in his kingdom; for this cause he
endeavoured very earnestly with Charles, Duke of Burgundy, by
several advantageous offers and proposals, to prevail with him
to desert them, promising that upon those terms he also would
abandon the Liegeois, and give no further protection to his
malcontents. The Duke of Burgundy would by no means consent to
it, but again made preparations for war against the Liegeois,
who had broken the peace." This was in October, 1467. The Duke
(Charles the Bold) attacked St. Tron, which was held by a
garrison of 3,000 of the men of Liege. The Liegeois, 30,000
strong, came to the relief of the besieged town, and were
routed, leaving 6,000 slain on the field. St. Tron and Tongres
were both surrendered, and Liege, itself, after considerable
strife among its citizens, opened its gates to the Duke, who
entered in triumph (Nov. 17, 1467) and hanged half-a-dozen for
his moderate satisfaction. In the course of the next summer
the French king opened war afresh upon the Duke of Bretagne
and forced him into a treaty, before the Duke of Burgundy, his
ally, could take the field. The king, then being extremely
anxious to pacify the Duke of Burgundy, took the extraordinary
step of visiting the latter at Peronne, without any guard,
trusting himself wholly to the honor of his enemy. But it
happened unfortunately, during the king's stay at Peronne,
that a ferocious revolt occurred at Liege, which was traced
beyond denial to the intrigues of two agents whom king Louis
had sent thither not long before, for mischief-making
purposes. The Duke, in his wrath, was not easily restrained
from doing some violence to the king; but the royal trickster
escaped from his grave predicament by giving up the unhappy
Liegeois to the vengeance of Duke Charles and personally
assisting the latter to inflict it.
{334}
"After the conclusion of the peace [dictated by Charles at
Peronne and signed submissively by Louis] the King and the
Duke of Burgundy set out the next morning [Oct. 15, 1468] for
Cambray, and from thence towards the country of Liége: it was
the beginning of winter and the weather was very bad. The king
had with him only his Scotch guards and a small body of his
standing forces; but he ordered 300 of his men-at-arms to join
him." Liége was invested, and, notwithstanding its walls had
been thrown down the previous year, it made a stubborn
defense. During a siege of a fortnight, several desperate
sallies were made, by the last one of which both the Duke and
the King were brought into great personal peril. Exhausted by
this final effort, the Liegeois were unprepared to repel a
grand assault which the besieging forces made upon the town
the next morning—Sunday, Oct. 30. Liege was taken that day
almost without resistance, the miserable inhabitants flying
across the Maes into the forest of Ardennes, abandoning their
homes to pillage. The Duke of Burgundy now permitted King
Louis to return home, while he remained a few days longer in
desolate Liege, which his fierce hatred had doomed. "Before
the Duke left the city, a great number of those poor creatures
who had hid themselves in the houses when the town was taken,
and were afterwards made prisoners, were drowned. He also
resolved to burn the city, which had always been very
populous; and orders were given for firing it in three
different places, and 3,000 or 4,000 foot of the country of
Limbourg (who were their neighbours, and used the same habit
and language), were commanded to effect this desolation, but
to secure the churches. … All things being thus ordered, the
Duke began his march into the country of Franchemont: he was
no sooner out of town, but immediately we saw a great number
of houses on fire beyond the river; the duke lay that night
four leagues from the city, yet we could hear the noise as
distinctly as if we had been upon the spot; but whether it was
the wind which lay that way, or our quartering upon the river,
that was the cause of it, I know not. The next day the Duke
marched on, and those who were left in the town continued the
conflagration according to his orders; but all the churches
(except some few) were preserved, and above 300 houses
belonging to the priests and officers of the churches, which
was the reason it was so soon reinhabited, for many flocked
thither to live with the priests."
_Philip de Commines,
Memoirs,
book 2._
ALSO IN:
_J. F. Kirk,
History of Charles the Bold,
book 1, chapters 7-9; book 2._
_P. F. Willert,
The Reign of Louis XI._
_Sir W. Scott,
Quentin Durward._
See, also, DINANT.
BURGUNDY: A. D. 1476-1477.
Charles The Bold And The Swiss.
His Defeats And His Death.
The Effects Of His Fall.
"Sovereign of the duchy of Burgundy, of the Free County, of
Hainaut, of Flanders, of Holland, and of Gueldre, Charles
wished, by joining to it Lorraine, a portion of Switzerland,
and the inheritance of old King René, Count of Provence, to
recompose the ancient kingdom of Lorraine, such as it had
existed under the Carlovingian dynasty; and flattered himself
that by offering his daughter to Maximilian, son of Frederick
III., he would obtain the title of king. Deceived in his
hopes, the Duke of Burgundy tried means to take away Lorraine
from the young René. That province was necessary to him, in
order to join his northern states with those in the south. The
conquest was rapid, and Nancy opened its gates to Charles the
Rash; but it was reserved for a small people, already
celebrated for their heroic valour and by their love of
liberty, to beat this powerful man. Irritated against the
Swiss, who had braved him, Charles crossed over the Jura,
besieged the little town of Granson, and, in despite of a
capitulation, caused all the defenders to be hanged or
drowned. At this news the eight cantons which then composed
the Helvetian republic arose, and under the very walls of the
town which had been the theatre of his cruelty they attacked
the Duke and dispersed his troops [March 3, 1476]. Some months
later [June 21], supported by young René of Lorraine,
despoiled of his inheritance, they exterminated a second
Burgundian army before Morat. Charles, vanquished, reassembled
a third army, and marched in the midst of winter against Nancy,
which had fallen into the hands of the Swiss and Lorrainers.
It was there that he perished [January 5, 1477] betrayed by his
mercenary soldiers, and overpowered by numbers."
_E. de Bonnechose,
History of France,
volume 1, book 3, chapter 2._
"And what was the cause of this war? A miserable cart-load of
sheep skins that the Count of Romont had taken from the Swiss,
in his passage through his estates. If God Almighty had not
forsaken the Duke of Burgundy it is scarce conceivable he
would have exposed himself to such great dangers upon so small
and trivial an occasion; especially considering the offers the
Swiss had made him, and that his conquest of such enemies
would yield him neither profit nor honour; for at that time
the Swiss were not in such esteem as now, and no people in the
world could be poorer." At Granson, "the poor Swiss were
mightily enriched by the plunder of his [the Duke of
Burgundy's] camp. At first they did not understand the value
of the treasure they were masters of, especially the common
soldiers. One of the richest and most magnificent tents in the
world was cut into pieces. There were some of them that sold
quantities of dishes and plates of silver for about two sous
of our money, supposing they had been pewter. His great
diamond, … with a large pearl fixed to it, was taken up by a
Swiss, put up again into the case, thrown under a wagon, taken
up again by the same soldier, and after all offered to a
priest for a florin, who bought it, and sent it to the
magistrates of that country, who returned him three francs as
a sufficient reward. [This was long supposed to be the famous
Sancy diamond; but Mr. Streeter thinks that the tradition
which so connects it is totally disproved.] They also took
three very rich jewels called the Three Brothers, another
large ruby called La Hatte, and another called the Ball of
Flanders, which were the fairest and richest in the world;
besides a prodigious quantity of other goods." In his last
battle, near Nancy, the Duke had less than 4,000 men, "and of
that number not above 1,200 were in a condition to fight." He
encountered on this occasion a powerful army of Swiss and
Germans, which the Duke of Lorraine had been able to collect,
with the help of the king of France and others. It was against
the advice of all his counsellors that the headstrong,
half-mad Duke Charles dashed his little army upon this greater
one, and he paid the penalty.
{335}
It was broken at the first shock, and the Duke was killed in
the confused rout without being known. His body, stripped
naked by the pillagers and mangled by wolves or dogs, was
found frozen fast in a ditch. "I cannot easily determine
towards whom God Almighty showed his anger most, whether
towards him who died suddenly, without pain or sickness in the
field of battle, or towards his subjects, who never enjoyed
peace after his death, but were continually involved in wars
against which they were not able to maintain themselves, upon
account of the civil dissensions and cruel animosities that
arose among them. … As I had seen these princes puissant,
rich and honourable, so it fared with their subjects: for I
think I have seen and known the greatest part of Europe, yet I
never knew any province or country, though of a larger extent,
so abounding in money, so extravagantly fine in their
furniture, so sumptuous in their buildings, so profuse in
their expenses, so luxurious in their feasts and
entertainments, and so prodigal in all respects, as the
subjects of these princes in my time; and if any think I have
exaggerated, others who lived in my time will be of opinion
that I have rather said too little. … In short, I have seen
this family in all respects the most flourishing and
celebrated of any in Christendom: and then, in a short space
of time, it was quite ruined and turned upside down, and left
the most desolate and miserable of any house in Europe, as
regards both prince and subjects."
_Philip de Commines,
Memoirs,
book 5, chapters 1-9._
"The popular conception of this war [between Charles the Bold
and the Swiss] is simply that Charles, a powerful and
encroaching prince, was overthrown in three great battles by
the petty commonwealths which he had expected easily to attach
to his dominion. Grandson and Morat are placed side by side
with Morgarten and Sempach. Such a view as this implies
complete ignorance of the history; it implies ignorance of the
fact that it was the Swiss who made war upon Charles, and not
Charles who made war upon the Swiss; it implies ignorance of
the fact that Charles's army never set foot on proper Swiss
territory at all, that Grandson and Morat were at the
beginning of the war no part of the possessions of the
Confederation. … The mere political accident that the
country which formed the chief seat of war now forms part of
the Swiss Confederation has been with many people enough to
determine their estimate of the quarrel. Grandson and Morat
are in Switzerland; Burgundian troops appeared and were
defeated at Grandson and Morat; therefore Charles must have
been an invader of Switzerland, and the warfare on the Swiss
side must have been a warfare of purely defensive heroism. The
simple fact that it was only through the result of the
Burgundian war that Grandson and Morat ever became Swiss
territory at once disposes of this line of argument. … The
plain facts of the case are that the Burgundian war was a war
declared by Switzerland against Burgundy … and that in the
campaigns of Grandson and Morat the Duke of Burgundy was
simply repelling and avenging Swiss invasions of his own
territory and the territory of his allies."
_E. A. Freeman,
Historical Essays,
volume 1, number 11._
ALSO IN:
_J. F. Kirk,
History of Charles the Bold,
book 5._
_L. S. Costello,
Memoirs of Mary of Burgundy,
chapters 14-27._
BURGUNDY: A. D. 1477.
Permanently restored to the French crown
Louis XI. of France, who had been eagerly watching while
Charles the Bold shattered his armies and exhausted his
strength in Switzerland, received early news of the death of
the self-willed Duke. While the panic and confusion which it
caused still prevailed, the king lost no time in taking
possession of the duchy of Burgundy, as an appanage which had
reverted to the crown, through default of male heirs. The
legality of his claim has been much in dispute. "Charles left
an only daughter, undoubted heiress of Flanders and Artois, as
well as of his dominions out of France, but whose right of
succession to the duchy of Burgundy was more questionable.
Originally the great fiefs of the crown descended to females,
and this was the case with respect to the two first mentioned.
But John had granted Burgundy to his son Philip by way of
appanage; and it was contended that the appanages reverted to
the crown in default of male heirs. In the form of Philip's
investiture, the duchy was granted to him and his lawful
heirs, without designation of sex. The construction,
therefore, must be left to the established course of law.
This, however, was by no means acknowledged by Mary, Charles's
daughter, who maintained both that no general law restricted
appanages to male heirs, and that Burgundy had always been
considered as a feminine fief, John himself having possessed
it, not by reversion as king (for descendants of the first
dukes were then living), but by inheritance derived through
females. Such was this question of succession between Louis
XI. and Mary of Burgundy, upon the merits of whose pretensions
I will not pretend altogether to decide, but shall only
observe that, if Charles had conceived his daughter to be
excluded from this part of his inheritance, he would probably,
at Conflans or Peronne, where he treated upon the vantage
ground, have attempted at least to obtain a renunciation of
Louis's claim. There was one obvious mode of preventing all
further contest, and of aggrandizing the French monarchy far
more than by the reunion of Burgundy. This was the marriage of
Mary with the dauphin, which was ardently wished in France."
The dauphin was a child of seven years; Mary of Burgundy a
masculine-minded young woman of twenty, Probably Louis
despaired of reconciling the latter to such a marriage. At all
events, while he talked of it occasionally, he proceeded
actively in despoiling the young duchess, seizing Artois and
Franche Comté, and laying hands upon the frontier towns which
were exposed to his arms. He embittered her natural enmity to
him by various acts of meanness and treachery. "Thus the
French alliance becoming odious in Flanders, this princess
married Maximilian of Austria, son of the Emperor Frederic—a
connexion which Louis strove to prevent, though it was
impossible then to foresee that it was ordained to retard the
growth and to bias the fate of Europe during three hundred
years. This war lasted till after the death of Mary, who left
one son Philip and one daughter Margaret."
_H. Hallam,
The Middle Ages,
chapter 1, part 2._
{336}
"The king [Louis XI.] had reason to be more than ordinarily
pleased at the death of that duke [of Burgundy], and he
triumphed more in his ruin than in that of all the rest of his
enemies, as he thought that nobody, for the future, either of
his own subjects, or his neighbours, would be able to oppose
him, or disturb the tranquillity of his reign. … Although
God Almighty has shown, and does still show, that his
determination is to punish the family of Burgundy severely,
not only in the person of the duke, but in their subjects and
estates; yet I think the king our master did not take right
measures to that end. For, if he had acted prudently, instead
of pretending to conquer them, he should rather have
endeavoured to annex all those large territories, to which he
had no just title, to the crown of France by some treaty of
marriage; or to have gained the hearts and affections of the
people, and so have brought them over to his interest, which
he might, without any great difficulty, have effected,
considering how their late afflictions had impoverished and
dejected them. If he had acted after that manner, he would not
only have prevented their ruin and destruction, but extended
and strengthened his own kingdom, and established them all in
a firm and lasting peace."
_Philip de Commines,
Memoirs,
book 5, chapter 12._
"He [Louis XI.] reassured, caressed, comforted the duchy of
Burgundy, gave it a parliament, visited his good city of
Dijon, swore in St. Benignus' church to respect all the old
privileges and customs that could be sworn to, and bound his
successors to do the same on their accession. Burgundy was a
land of nobles; and the king raised a bridge of gold for all
the great lords to come over to him."
_J. Michelet,
History of France,
book 17, chapters 3-4._
BURGUNDY: A. D. 1477-1482.
Reign of the Burgundian heiress in the Netherlands.
Her marriage with Maximilian of Austria.
See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1477.
BURGUNDY: A. D. 1512. Formation of the Circle.
See GERMANY: A. D. 1493-1519.
BURGUNDY: A. D. 1544. Renunciation of the Claims of Charles V.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1532-1547.
----------BURGUNDY: End----------
BURH, The.
See BOROUGH.
BURI, The.
A Suevic clan of Germans whose settlements were anciently in
the neighborhood of modern Cracow.
_Tacitus,
Germany,
translated by Church and Brodribb.
Geographical notes._
BURKE, Edmund, and the American Revolution.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1775 (JANUARY-MARCH).
BURKE, Edmund, and the French Revolution.
See ENGLAND A. D. 1793-1796.
BURLEIGH, Lord, and the reign of Queen Elizabeth.
See ENGLAND: A. D. 1558-1598.
BURLINGAME CHINESE EMBASSY AND TREATIES.
See CHINA: A. D. 1857-1868.
BURMA:
Rise of the kingdom.
First war with the English (1824-1826).
Cession of Assam and Aracan.
See INDIA: A. D. 1823-1833.
BURMA: A. D. 1852.
Second war with the English.
Loss of Pegu.
See INDIA: A. D. 1852.
BURNED CANDLEMAS.
See SCOTLAND: A. D. 1333-1370.
BURNSIDE, General Ambrose E.: Expedition to Roanoke.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
A. D. 1862 (JANUARY-APRIL: NORTH CAROLINA).
BURNSIDE, General Ambrose E.
Command of the Army of the Potomac.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1862
(OCTOBER-NOVEMBER: VIRGINIA).
BURNSIDE, General Ambrose E.
Retirement from command of the Army of the Potomac.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1863
(JANUARY-APRIL: VIRGINIA).
BURNSIDE, General Ambrose E.
Deliverance of East Tennessee.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1863 AUGUST-SEPTEMBER:
TENNESSEE.
BURNSIDE, General Ambrose E.
Defense of Knoxville.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
A. D. 1863 (OCTOBER-DECEMBER: TENNESSEE).
BURNSIDE, General Ambrose E.
At the siege of Petersburg.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
A. D. 1864 (JUNE: VIRGINIA), (JULY: VIRGINIA).
BURR, Aaron.
Duel with Hamilton.
Conspiracy.
Arrest.
Trial.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1806-1807.
BURSCHENSCHAFT, The.
See GERMANY: A. D. 1817-1820.
BUSACO, Battle of (1810).
See SPAIN: A. D. 1810-1812.
BUSHMEN, The.
See AFRICA: THE INHABITING RACES.
BUSHY RUN, Battle of (A. D. 1763).
See PONTIAC'S WAR.
BUSHWHACKERS.
A name commonly given to the rebel guerrillas or half-bandits
of the southwest in the American Civil War.
_J. G. Nicolay and J. Hay,
Abraham Lincoln,
volume 6, page 371._
BUSIRIS.
Destroyed by Diocletian.
See ALEXANDRIA: A. D. 296.
BUSSORAH AND KUFA,
The rise and importance of.
In the first years of their conquest and occupation of
Mesopotamia and the Delta of the Euphrates and Tigris—as
early as A. D. 638—the Moslems founded two cities which
acquired importance in Mahometan history. In both cases, these
cities appear to have arisen out of the need felt by the Arabs
for more salubrious sites of residence than their predecessors
in the ancient country had been contented with. Of Bussorah,
or Bassorah, the city founded in the Delta, the site is said
to have been changed three times. Kufa was built on a plain
very near to the neglected city of Hira, on the Euphrates.
"Kufa and Bussorah … had a singular influence on the
destinies of the Caliphate and of Islam itself. The vast
majority of the population came from the Peninsula and were of
pure Arabian blood. The tribes which, with their families,
scenting from afar the prey of Persia, kept streaming into
Chaldæa from every corner of Arabia, settled chiefly in these
two cities. At Kufa, the races from Yemen and the south
predominated; at Bussorah, from the north. Rapidly they grew
into two great and luxurious capitals, with an Arab population
each of from 150,000 to 200,000 souls. On the literature,
theology, and politics of Islam, these cities had a greater
influence than the whole Moslem world besides. … The people
became petulant and factious, and both cities grew into
hotbeds of turbulence and sedition. The Bedouin element,
conscious of its strength, was jealous of the Coreish, and
impatient of whatever checked its capricious humour. Thus
factions sprang up which, controlled by the strong and wise
arm of Omar, broke loose under the weaker Caliphs, eventually
rent the unity of Islam, and brought on disastrous days."
_Sir W. Muir,
Annals of the Early Caliphate,
chapter 18._
See, also, MAHOMETAN CONQUEST: A. D. 632-651.
BUTADÆ, The.
See PHYLÆ.
BUTE'S ADMINISTRATION.
See ENGLAND: A. D. 1760-1763.
BUTLER, General Benjamin F.
In command at Baltimore.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1861
(APRIL-MAY: MARYLAND).
BUTLER, General Benjamin F.
In command at Fortress Monroe.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1861 (MAY).
{337}
BUTLER, General Benjamin F.
The Hatteras Expedition.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
A. D. 1861 (AUGUST: NORTH CAROLINA).
BUTLER, General Benjamin F.
Command at New Orleans.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1862
(MAY-DECEMBER: LOUISIANA).
BUTLER, General Benjamin F.
Command of the Army of the James.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1864 (MAY: VIRGINIA).
BUTLER, Walter,
The Tory and Indian partisans of the American Revolution.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
A. D. 1778 (JUNE-NOVEMBER). and (JULY).
BUTTERNUTS.
See BOYS IN BLUE;
Also UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1864 (OCTOBER).
BUXAR, OR BAXAR, OR BAKSAR, Battle of (1764).
See INDIA: A. D. 1757-1772.
BYRON, Lord, in Greece.
See GREECE: A. D. 1821-1829.
BYRSA.
The citadel of Carthage.
See CARTHAGE, THE DOMINION OF.
BYTOWN.
The original name of Ottawa, the capital of the Dominion of
Canada.
See OTTAWA.
BYZACIUM.
See CARTHAGE, THE DOMINION OF.
BYZANTINE EMPIRE.
The Eastern Roman Empire, having its capital at Byzantium
(modern Constantinople), the earlier history of which will be
found sketched under the caption ROME: A. D. 394-395, to
717-800, has been given, in its later years, the name of the
Byzantine Empire. The propriety of this designation is
questioned by some historians, and the time when it begins to
be appropriate is likewise a subject of debate. For some
discussion of these questions,
See ROME: A. D. 717-800.
BYZANTINE EMPIRE.
Its part in history.
Its defence of Europe.
Its civilizing influence.
"The later Roman Empire was the bulwark of Europe against the
oriental danger; Maurice and Heraclius, Constantine IV. and
Leo the Isaurian were the successors of Themistocles and
Africanus. … Until the days of the crusades, the German
nations did not combine with the Empire against the common
foe. Nor did the Teutons, by themselves, achieve any success
of ecumenical importance against non-Aryan races. I may be
reminded that Charles the Great exterminated the Avars; but
that was after they had ceased to be really dangerous. When
there existed a truly formidable Avar monarchy it was the
Roman Empire that bore the brunt; and yet while most people
who read history know of the Avar war of Charles, how few
there are who have ever heard of Priscus, the general who so
bravely warred against the Avars in the reign of Maurice. I
may be reminded that Charles Martel won a great name by
victories, in southern Gaul over the Saracens; yet those
successes sink into insignificance by the side of the
achievement of his contemporary, the third Leo, who held the
gate of eastern Europe against all the forces which the
Saracen power, then at its height, could muster. Everyone
knows about the exploits of the Frank; it is almost incredible
how little is known of the Roman Emperor's defence of the
greatest city of Christian Europe, in the quarter where the
real danger lay. …. The Empire was much more than the
military guard of the Asiatic frontier; it not only defended
but also kept alive the traditions of Greek and Roman culture.
We cannot over-estimate the importance of the presence of a
highly civilised state for a system of nations which were as
yet only beginning to be civilised. The constant intercourse
of the Empire with Italy, which until the eleventh century was
partly imperial, and with southern Gaul and Spain, had an
incalculable influence on the development of the West. Venice,
which contributed so much to the growth of western culture,
was for a long time actually, and for a much longer time
nominally, a city of the Roman Empire, and learned what it
taught from Byzantium. The Byzantine was the mother of the
Italian school of painting, as Greece in the old days had been
the mistress of Rome in the fine arts; and the Byzantine style
of architecture has had perhaps a wider influence than any
other. It was to New Rome that the Teutonic kings applied when
they needed men of learning, and thither students from western
countries, who desired a university education, repaired. …
It was, moreover, in the lands ruled by New Rome that old
Hellenic culture and the monuments of Hellenic literature were
preserved, as in a secure storehouse, to be given at length to
the 'wild nations' when they had been sufficiently tamed. And
in their taming New Rome played an indispensable part. The
Justinian law, which still interpenetrates European
civilisation, was a product of New Rome. In the third place
the Roman Empire for many centuries entirely maintained
European commerce. This was a circumstance of the greatest
importance; but unfortunately it is one of those facts
concerning which contemporary historians did not think of
leaving records to posterity. The fact that the coins of the
Roman Emperors were used throughout Europe in the Middle Ages
speaks for itself. … In the fourth place, the Roman Empire
preserved a great idea which influenced the whole course of
western European history down to the present day—the idea of
the Roman Empire itself. If we look at the ecumenical event of
800 A. D. from a wide point of view, it really resolves itself
into this: New Rome bestowed upon the western nations a great
idea, which moulded and ordered their future history; she gave
back to Old Rome the idea which Old Rome bestowed upon her
five centuries before. … If Constantinople and the Empire
had fallen, the imperial idea would have been lost in the
whirl of the 'wild nations.' It is to New Rome that Europeans
really owe thanks for the establishment of the principle and
the system which brought law and order into the political
relations of the West."
_J. B. Bury,
History of the Later Roman Empire,
book 6, chapter 14 (volume 2)._
BYZANTINE EMPIRE. A. D. 717.
Its organization by Leo the Isaurian.
"The accession of Leo the Isaurian to the throne of
Constantinople suddenly opened a new era in the history of
the Eastern Empire. … When Leo III. was proclaimed emperor
[A. D. 717], it seemed as if no human power could save
Constantinople from falling as Rome had fallen. The Saracens
considered the sovereignty of every land, in which any remains
of Roman civilization survived, as within their grasp. Leo, an
Isaurian, and an Iconoclast, consequently a foreigner and a
heretic, ascended the throne of Constantine and arrested the
victorious career of the Mohammedans. He then reorganized the
whole administration so completely in accordance with the new
exigencies of Eastern society that the reformed empire
outlived for many centuries every government contemporary
with its establishment.
{338}
The Eastern Roman Empire, thus reformed, is called by modern
historians the Byzantine Empire; and the term is well devised
to mark the changes effected in the government, after the
extinction of the last traces of the military monarchy of
ancient Rome. … The provincial divisions of the Roman Empire
had fallen into oblivion. A new geographical arrangement into
Themes appears to have been established by Heraclius, when he
recovered the Asiatic provinces from the Persians; it was
reorganized by Leo, and endured as long as the Byzantine
government. The number of themes varied at different periods.
The Emperor Constantine Porphyrogenitus, writing about the
middle of the tenth century, counts sixteen in the Asiatic
portion of the Empire and twelve in the European. … The
European provinces were divided into eight continental and
five insular or transmarine themes, until the loss of the
exarchate of Ravenna reduced the number to twelve. Venice and
Naples, though they acknowledged the suzerainty of the Eastern
Empire, acted generally as independent cities. … When Leo
was raised to the throne the Empire was threatened with
immediate ruin. … Every army assembled to encounter the
Saracens broke out into rebellion. The Bulgarians and
Sclavonians wasted Europe up to the walls of Constantinople;
the Saracens ravaged the whole of Asia Minor to the shores of
the Bosphorus."
_G. Finlay,
History of the Byzantine Empire,
book 1, chapter 1._
ALSO IN:
_E. W. Brooks,
The Emperor Zenon and the Isaurians
(English History Review, April, 1893)._
BYZANTINE EMPIRE: A. D. 717-797.
The Isaurian dynasty.
The dynasty founded by Leo the Isaurian held the throne until
the dethronement of Constantine VI. by his mother, Irene, A.
D. 797, and her dethronement, in turn by, Nicephorus I., A. D.
802. It embraced the following reigns:
Constantine V., called Copronymus, A. D. 741-775;
Leo IV., 775-780;
Constantine VI., 780-797;
Irene, 797-802.
BYZANTINE EMPIRE: A. D. 726-751.
The Iconoclastic Controversy.
Rupture with the West.
Fall of the Exarchate of Ravenna.
End of authority in Italy.
See ICONOCLASTIC CONTROVERSY,
and PAPACY: A. D. 728-774.
BYZANTINE EMPIRE: A. D. 802-820. Emperors:
Nicephorus 1., A. D. 802-811;
Stauracius, A. D. 811;
Michael I., A. D. 811-813;
Leo V., A. D. 813-820.
BYZANTINE EMPIRE: A. D. 803.
Treaty with Charlemagne, fixing boundaries.
See VENICE: A. D. 697-810.
BYZANTINE EMPIRE: A. D. 820-1057.
The Amorian and Basilian or Macedonian dynasties.
Michael, the Amorian (820-829) so named from his birth-place;
Amorium, in Phrygia, was a soldier, raised to the throne by a
revolution which deposed and assassinated his friend and
patron, the Emperor Leo V. Michael transmitted the crown to
his son (Theophilus, 829-842) and grandson. The latter, called
Michael the Drunkard, was conspired against and killed by one
of the companions of his drunken orgies (867), Basil the
Maeedonian, who had been in early life a groom. Basil founded
a dynasty which reigned, with several interruptions, from A.
D. 867 to 1057—a period covering the following reigns:
Basil I., A. D. 867-886;
Leo VI., A. D. 886-911;
Constantine VII. (Porphyrogenitus), A. D. 911-950;
Romanus I. (Colleague), A. D. 919-944;
Constantine VIII. (Colleague), A. D. 944;
Romanus II., A. D. 959-963;
Nicephorus II., A. D. 963-969;
John Zimisces, A. D. 969-976;
Basil II., A. D. 963-1025;
Constantine IX., A. D. 963-1028;
Romanus III., A. D. 1028-1034;
Michael IV., A. D. 1034-1041;
Michael V., A. D. 1041-1042;
Zoe and Theodora, A. D. 1042-1056;
Constantine X., A. D. 1042-1054;
Michael VI., A. D. 1056-1057.
BYZANTINE EMPIRE: A. D. 865-1043.
Wars, commerce and Church Connection with the Russians.
See RUSSIANS: A. D. 865-900;
also CONSTANTINOPLE: A. D. 865 and 907-1043.
BYZANTINE EMPIRE: A. D. 870-1016.
Fresh acquisitions in Southern Italy.
See ITALY (SOUTHERN): A. D. 800-1016.
BYZANTINE EMPIRE: A. D. 963-1025.
Recovery of prestige and territory.
"Amidst all the crimes and revolutions of the Byzantine
government—and its history is but a series of crimes and
revolutions—it was never dismembered by intestine war. A
sedition in the army, a tumult in the theatre, a conspiracy in
the palace, precipitated a monarch from the throne; but the
allegiance of Constantinople was instantly transferred to his
successor, and the provinces implicitly obeyed the voice of
the capital. The custom, too, of partition, so baneful to the
Latin kingdoms, and which was not altogether unknown to the
Saracens, never prevailed in the Greek Empire. It stood in the
middle of the tenth century, as vicious indeed and cowardly,
but more wealthy, more enlightened, and far more secure from
its enemies than under the first successors of Heraclius. For
about one hundred years preceding there had been only partial
wars with the Mohammedan potentates; and in these the emperors
seem gradually to have gained the advantage, and to have
become more frequently the aggressors. But the increasing
distractions of the East encouraged two brave usurpers,
Nicephorus Phocas and John Zimisces, to attempt the actual
recovery of the lost provinces. They carried the Roman arms
(one may use the term with less reluctance than usual) over
Syria; Antioch and Aleppo were taken by storm; Damascus
submitted; even the cities of Mesopotamia, beyond the ancient
boundary of the Euphrates, were added to the trophies of
Zimisces, who unwillingly spared the capital of the Khalifate.
From such distant conquests it was expedient, and indeed
necessary to withdraw; but Cilicia and Antioch were
permanently restored to the Empire. At the close of the tenth
century the emperors of Constantinople possessed the best and
greatest portion of the modern kingdom of Naples, a part of
Sicily, the whole [present] European dominions of the
Ottomans, the province of Anatolia or Asia Minor, with some
part of Syria and Armenia."
_H. Hallam,
The Middle Ages,
chapter 6._
BYZANTINE EMPIRE: A. D. 970-1014.
Recovery of Bulgaria.
See CONSTANTINOPLE: A. D. 907-1043;
also BULGARIA, and ACHRIDA.
BYZANTINE EMPIRE: A. D. 1054.
Ecclesiastical division of the
Eastern from the Roman Church.
See FILIOQUE CONTROVERSY,
and ORTHODOX CHURCH.
{339}
BYZANTINE EMPIRE: A. D. 1057-1081.
Between the Basilian and the Comnenian dynasties.
A dark period.
"The moment that the last of the Macedonian dynasty was gone,
the elements of discord seemed unchained, and the double
scourge of civil war and foreign invasion began to afflict the
empire. In the twenty-four years between 1057 and 1081 were
pressed more disasters than had been seen in any other period
of East Roman history, save perhaps the reign of Heraclius.
… The aged Theodora had named as her successor on the throne
Michael Stratiocus, a contemporary of her own who had been an
able soldier 25 years back. But Michael VI. was grown aged and
incompetent, and the empire was full of ambitious generals,
who would not tolerate a dotard on the throne. Before a year
had passed a band of great Asiatic nobles entered into a
conspiracy to overturn Michael, and replace him by Isaac
Comnenus, the chief of one of the ancient Cappadocian houses,
and the most popular general of the East. Isaac Comnenus and
his friends took arms, and dispossessed the aged Michael of
his throne with little difficulty. But a curse seemed to rest
upon the usurpation; Isaac was stricken down by disease when
he had been little more than a year on the throne, and retired
to a monastery to die. His crown was transferred to
Constantine Ducas, another Cappadocian noble," who reigned for
seven troubled years. His three immediate successors were:
Romanus IV., A. D. 1067-1071;
Michael VII., A. D. 1071-1078;
Nicephorus III., A. D. 1078-1081.
_C. W. C. Oman,
The Story of the Byzantine Empire,
chapter 20._
BYZANTINE EMPIRE: A. D. 1063-1092.
Disasters in Asia Minor.
See TURKS (SELJUKS): A. D. 1063-1073;
and A. D. 1073-1092.
BYZANTINE EMPIRE: A. D. 1064.
Great revival of pilgrimages from Western Europe to the Holy
Land.
See CRUSADES: CAUSES, ETC.
BYZANTINE EMPIRE: A. D. 1081.
The enthronement of the Comnenian Dynasty.
See CONSTANTINOPLE: A. D. 1081.
BYZANTINE EMPIRE: A. D. 1081-1085.
Attempted Norman conquest from Southern Italy.
Robert Guiscard, the Norman adventurer who had carved for
himself a principality in Southern Italy and acquired the
title of Duke of Apulia,—his duchy coinciding with the
subsequent Norman kingdom of Naples—conceived the ambitious
design of adding the Byzantine Empire to his estate. His
conquests in Italy had been mostly at the expense of the
Byzantine dominions, and he believed that he had measured the
strength of the degenerate Roman-Greeks. He was encouraged,
moreover, by the successive revolutions which tossed the
imperial crown from hand to hand, and which had just given it
to the Comnenian, Alexius I. Beyond all, he had a claim of
right to interfere in the affairs of the Empire; for his young
daughter was betrothed to the heir-expectant whose
expectations were now vanishing, and had actually been sent to
Constantinople to receive her education for the throne. To
promote his bold undertaking, Robert obtained the approval of
the pope, and an absolution for all who would join his ranks.
Thus spiritually equipped, the Norman duke invaded Greece, in
the summer of 1081, with 150 ships and 30,000 men. Making
himself master, on the way, of the island of Corcyra (Corfu),
and taking several ports on the mainland, he laid siege to
Dyrrachium, and found it a most obstinate fortification to
reduce. Its massive ancient walls defied the Norman enginery,
and it was not until February, 1082, that Robert Guiscard
gained possession of the town, by the treachery of one of its
defenders. Meantime the Normans had routed and scattered one
large army, which the Emperor Alexius led in person to the
relief of Dyrrachium; but the fortified towns in Illyria and
Epirus delayed their advance toward Constantinople. Robert was
called home to Italy by important affairs and left his son
Bohemund (the subsequent Crusader and Prince of Antioch), in
command. Bohemund defeated Alexius again in the spring of
1083, and still a third time the following autumn. All Epirus
was overrun and Macedonia and Thessaly invaded; but the
Normans, while besieging Larissa, were undone by a stratagem,
lost their camp and found it necessary to retreat. Robert was
then just reentering the field, in person, and had won an
important naval battle at Corfu, over the combined Greeks and
Venetians, when he died (July, 1085), and his project of
conquest in Greece ended with him. Twenty years afterwards,
his son Bohemund, when Prince of Antioch, and quarreling with
the Byzantines, gathered a crusading army in France and Italy
to lead it against Constantinople; but it was stopped by
stubborn Dyrrachium, and never got beyond. Alexius had
recovered that strong coast defence shortly after Robert
Guiscard's death, with the help of the Venetians and
Amalfians. By way of reward, those merchant allies received
important commercial privileges, and the title of Venice to
the sovereignty of Dalmatia and Croatia was recognized. "From
this time the doge appears to have styled himself lord of the
kingdoms of Dalmatia and Croatia."
_G. Finlay,
History of the Byzantine and Greek Empires,
book 3, chapter 2, section 1._
BYZANTINE EMPIRE: A. D. 1081-1185.
The Comnenian emperors.
Alexius I., A. D. 1081-1118;
John II., A. D. 1118-1143;
Manuel I., A. D. 1143-1181;
Alexius II., A. D. 1181-1183;
Andronicus I., A. D. 1183-1185.
BYZANTINE EMPIRE: A. D. 1096-1097.
The passage of the first Crusaders.
See CRUSADES: A. D. 1096-1099.
BYZANTINE EMPIRE: A. D. 1146.
Destructive invasion of Roger, king of Sicily.
Sack of Thebes and Corinth.
When Roger, king of Sicily, united the Norman possessions in
Southern Italy to his Sicilian realm he became ambitious, in
his turn, to acquire some part of the Byzantine possessions.
His single attack, however, made simultaneously with the
second crusading movement (A. D. 1146), amounted to no more
than a great and destructive plundering raid in Greece. An
insurrection in Corfu gave that island to him, after which his
fleet ravaged the coasts of Eubœa and Attica, Acarnania and
Ætolia. "It then entered the gulf of Corinth, and debarked a
body of troops at Crissa. This force marched through the
country to Thebes, plundering every town and village on the
way. Thebes offered no resistance, and was plundered in the
most deliberate and barbarous manner. The inhabitants were
numerous and wealthy. The soil of Bœotia is extremely
productive, and numerous manufactures established in the city
of Thebes gave additional value to the abundant produce of
agricultural industry. … All military spirit was now dead,
and the Thebans had so long lived without any fear of invasion
that they had not even adopted any effectual measures to
secure or conceal their movable property. The conquerors,
secure against all danger of interruption, plundered Thebes at
their leisure. … When all ordinary means of collecting booty
were exhausted, the citizens were compelled to take an oath on
the Holy Scriptures that they had not concealed any portion of
their property yet many of the wealthiest were dragged away
captive, in order to profit by their ransom; and many of the
most skilful workmen in the silk-manufactories, for which
Thebes had long been famous, were pressed on board the fleet
to labour at the oar. …
{340}
Benjamin of Tudela, who visited Thebes about twenty years
later, or perhaps in 1161, speaks of it as then a large city,
with two thousand Jewish inhabitants, who were the most
eminent manufacturers of silk and purple cloth in all Greece.
The silks of Thebes continued to be celebrated as of superior
quality after this invasion. … From Bœotia the army passed
to Corinth. … Corinth was sacked as cruelly as Thebes; men
of rank, beautiful women, and skilful artisans, with their
wives and families, were carried away into captivity. … This
invasion of Greece was conducted entirely as a plundering
expedition. … Corfu was the only conquest of which Roger
retained possession; yet this passing invasion is the period
from which the decline of Byzantine Greece is to be dated. The
century-and-a-half which preceded this disaster had passed in
uninterrupted tranquillity, and the Greek people had increased
rapidly in numbers and wealth. The power of the Sclavonian
population sank with the ruin of the kingdom of Achrida; and
the Sclavonians who now dwelt in Greece were peaceable
cultivators of the soil, or graziers. The Greek population, on
the other hand, was in possession of an extensive commerce and
many flourishing manufactures. The ruin of this commerce and
of these manufactures has been ascribed to the transference of
the silk trade from Thebes and Corinth to Palermo, under the
judicious protection it received from Roger; but it would be
more correct to say that the injudicious and oppressive
financial administration of the Byzantine Emperors destroyed
the commercial prosperity and manufacturing industry of the
Greeks; while the wise liberality and intelligent protection
of the Norman kings extended the commerce and increased the
industry of the Sicilians. When the Sicilian fleet returned to
Palermo, Roger determined to employ all the silk-manufacturers
in their original occupations. He consequently collected all
their families together, and settled them at Palermo,
supplying them with the means of exercising their industry
with profit to themselves, and inducing them to teach his own
subjects to manufacture the richest brocades, and to rival the
rarest productions of the East. … It is not remarkable that
the commerce and manufactures of Greece were transferred in
the course of another century to Sicily and Italy."
_G. Finlay,
History of Byzantine and Greek Empires, from 716 to 1453,
book 3, chapter 2, section 3._
BYZANTINE EMPIRE: A. D. 1147-1148.
Trouble with the German and French Crusaders.
See CRUSADES: A. D. 1147-1149.
BYZANTINE EMPIRE: A. D. 1185-1204.
The Angeli.
Isaac II., A. D. 1185-1195;
Alexius III., A. D. 1195-1203;
Alexius IV., A. D. 1203-1204.
BYZANTINE EMPIRE: A. D. 1203-1204.
Its overthrow by the Venetians and Crusaders.
Sack of Constantinople.
The last of the Comnenian Emperors in the male line—the
brutal Andronicus I.—perished horribly in a wild
insurrection at Constantinople which his tyranny provoked, A.
D. 1185. His successor, Isaac Angelus, collaterally related to
the imperial house, had been a contemptible creature before
his coronation, and received no tincture of manliness or
virtue from that ceremony. In the second year of his reign,
the Empire was shorn of its Bulgarian and Wallachian provinces
by a successful revolt. In the tenth year (A. D. 1195), Isaac
was pushed from his throne, deprived of sight and shut up in a
dungeon, by a brother of equal worthlessness, who styled
himself Alexius III. The latter neglected, however, to secure
the person of Isaac's son, Alexius, who escaped from
Constantinople and made his way to his sister, wife of Philip,
the German King and claimant of the western imperial crown.
Philip thereupon plotted with the Venetians to divert the
great crusading expedition, then assembling to take ship at
Venice, and to employ it for the restoration of young Alexius
and his father Isaac to the Byzantine throne. The cunning and
perfidious means by which that diversion was brought about are
related in another place (see CRUSADES: A. D. 1201-1203). The
great fleet of the crusading filibusters arrived in the
Bosphorus near the end of June, 1203. The army which it bore
was landed first on the Asiatic side of the strait, opposite
the imperial city. After ten days of parley and preparation it
was conveyed across the water and began its attack. The towers
guarding the entrance to the Golden Horn—the harbor of
Constantinople—were captured, the chain removed, the harbor
occupied; and the imperial fleet seized or destroyed. On the
17th of July a combined assault by land and water was made on
the walls of the city, at their northwest corner, near the
Blachern palace, where they presented one face to the Horn and
another to the land. The land-attack failed. The Venetians,
from their ships, stormed twenty-five towers, gained
possession of a long stretch of the wall, and pushed into the
city far enough to start a conflagration which spread ruin
over an extensive district. They could not hold their ground,
and withdrew; but the result was a victory. The cowardly
Emperor, Alexius III., fled from the city that night, and
blind old Isaac Angelus was restored to the throne. He was
ready to associate his son in the sovereignty, and to fulfill,
if he could, the contracts which the latter had made with
Venetians and Crusaders. These invaders had now no present
excuse for making war on Constantinople any further. But the
excuse was soon found. Money to pay their heavy claims could
not be raised, and their hatefulness to the Greeks was
increased by the insolence of their demeanor. A serious
collision occurred at length, provoked by the plundering of a
Mahometan mosque which the Byzantines had tolerated in their
capital. Once more, on this occasion, the splendid city was
fired by the ruthless invaders, and an immense district in the
richest and most populous part was destroyed, while many of
the inhabitants perished. The fire lasted two days and nights,
sweeping a wide belt from the harbor to the Marmora. The
suburbs of Constantinople were pillaged and ruined by the
Latin soldiery, and more and more it became impossible for the
two restored emperors to raise money for paying the claims of
the Crusaders who had championed them. Their subjects hated
them and were desperate. At last, in January, 1204, the public
feeling of Constantinople flamed out in a revolution which
crowned a new emperor,—one Alexis Ducas, nicknamed
Mourtzophlos, on account of his eyebrows, which met.
{341}
A few days afterwards, with suspicious opportuneness, Isaac
and Alexius died. Then both sides entered upon active
preparations for serious war; but it was not until April 9th
that the Crusaders and Venetians were ready to assail the
walls once more. The first assault was repelled, with heavy
loss to the besiegers. They rested two days and repeated the
attack on the 12th with irresistible resolution and fury. The
towers were taken, the gates were broken down, knights and
soldiers poured into the fated city, killing without mercy,
burning without scruple—starting a third appalling
conflagration which laid another wide district in ruins. The
new emperor fled, the troops laid down their
arms,—Constantinople was conquered and prostrate. "Then began
the plunder of the city. The imperial treasury and the arsenal
were placed under guard; but with these exceptions the right
to plunder was given indiscriminately to the troops and
sailors. Never in Europe was a work of pillage more
systematically and shamelessly carried out. Never by the army
of a Christian state was there a more barbarous sack of a city
than that perpetrated by these soldiers of Christ, sworn to
chastity, pledged before God not to shed Christian blood, and
bearing upon them the emblem of the Prince of Peace. …
'Never since the world was created,' says the Marshal
[Villehardouin] 'was there so much booty gained in one city.
Each man took the house which pleased him, and there were
enough for all. Those who were poor found themselves suddenly
rich. There was captured an immense supply of gold and silver,
of plate and of precious stones, of satins and of silk, of
furs and of every kind of wealth ever found upon the earth.'
… The Greek eye-witness [Nicetas] gives the complement of
the picture of Villehardouin. The lust of the army spared
neither maiden nor the virgin dedicated to God. Violence and
debauchery were everywhere present; cries and lamentations and
the groans of the victims were heard throughout the city; for
everywhere pillage was unrestrained and lust unbridled. … A
large part of the booty had been collected in the three
churches designated for that purpose. … The distribution was
made during the latter end of April. Many works of art in
bronze were sent to the melting-pot to be coined. Many statues
were broken up in order to obtain the metals with which they
were adorned. The conquerors knew nothing and cared nothing
for the art which had added value to the metal."
_E. Pears,
The Fall of Constantinople,
chapters 14-15._
ALSO IN:
_G. Finlay,
History of the Byzantine and Greek Empires, from 716 to 1453,
book 3, chapter 3, section 3._
BYZANTINE EMPIRE: A. D. 1204.
Reign of Alexius V.
BYZANTINE EMPIRE: A. D. 1204-1205.
The partitioning of the Empire by the Crusaders and the Venetians.
"Before the crusaders made their last successful attack on
Constantinople, they concluded a treaty partitioning the
Byzantine empire and dividing the plunder of the capital. …
This treaty was entered into by the Frank crusaders on the one
part, and the citizens of the Venetian republic on the other,
for the purpose of preventing disputes and preserving unity in
the expedition." The treaty further provided for the creation
of an Empire of Romania, to take the place of the Byzantine
Empire, and for the election of an Emperor to reign over it.
The arrangements of the treaty in this latter respect were
carried out, not long after the taking of the city by the
election of Baldwin, count of Flanders, the most esteemed and
the most popular among the princes of the crusade, and he
received the imperial crown of the new Empire of Romania at
the hands of the legate of the pope. "Measures were
immediately taken after the coronation of Baldwin to carry
into execution the act of partition as arranged by the joint
consent of the Frank and Venetian commissioners. But their
ignorance of geography, and the resistance offered by the
Greeks in Asia Minor, and by the Vallachians and Albanians in
Europe, threw innumerable difficulties in the way of the
proposed distribution of fiefs. The quarter of the Empire that
formed the portion of Baldwin consisted of the city of
Constantinople, with the country in its immediate vicinity, as
far as Bizya and Tzouroulos in Europe and Nicomedia in Asia.
Beyond the territory around Constantinople, Baldwin possessed
districts extending as far as the Strymon in Europe and the
Sangarins in Asia; but his possessions were intermingled with
those of the Venetians and the vassals of the Empire.
Prokonnesos, Lesbos, Chios, Lemnos, Skyros, and several
smaller islands, also fell to his share."
_G. Finlay,
History of Greece from its Conquest by the Crusaders,
chapter 4, sections 1-2._
"In the division of the Greek provinces the share of the
Venetians was more ample than that of the Latin emperor. No
more than one fourth was appropriated to his domain; a clear
moiety of the remainder was reserved for Venice and the other
moiety was distributed among the adventurers of France and
Lombardy. The venerable Dandolo was proclaimed Despot of
Romania, and was invested, after the Greek fashion, with the
purple buskins. He ended at Constantinople his long and
glorious life; and if the prerogative was personal, the title
was used by his successors till the middle of the fourteenth
century, with the singular, though true, addition of 'Lords of
one fourth and a half of the Roman Empire.' … They possessed
three of the eight quarters of the city. … They had rashly
accepted the dominion and defence of Adrianople; but it was
the more reasonable aim of their policy to form a chain of
factories and cities and islands along the maritime coast,
from the neighbourhood of Ragnsa to the Hellespont and the
Bosphorus. … For the price of 10,000 marks the republic
purchased of the marquis of Montferrat the fertile island of
Crete or Candia with the ruins of a hundred cities. … In the
moiety of the adventurers the Marquis Boniface [of
Montferrat] might claim the most liberal reward; and, besides
the isle of Crete, his exclusion from the throne [for which he
had been a candidate against Baldwin of Flanders] was
compensated by the royal title and the provinces beyond the
Hellespont. But he prudently exchanged that distant and
difficult conquest for the kingdom of Thessalonica or
Macedonia, twelve days' journey from the capital, where he
might be supported by the neighbouring powers of his
brother-in-law, the king of Hungary. … The lots of the Latin
pilgrims were regulated by chance or choice or subsequent
exchange. … At the head of his knights and archers each
baron mounted on horseback to secure the possession of his
share, and their first efforts were generally successful. But
the public force was weakened by their dispersion; and a
thousand quarrels must arise under a law and among men whose
sole umpire was the sword."
_E. Gibbon,
Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire,
chapter 61.
{342}
BYZANTINE EMPIRE: A. D. 1204-1205.
The political shaping of the fragments.
See
ROMANIA.
THE EMPIRE;
GREEK EMPIRE OF NICÆA;
TREBIZOND;
EPIRUS:
NAXOS, THE MEDIÆVAL DUKEDOM
ACHAIA: A. D. 1205-1387:
ATHENS: A. D. 1205-1456:
SALONIKI.
BYZANTINE EMPIRE: A. D. 1261-1453.
The Greek restoration.
Last struggle with the Turks and final overthrow.
The story of the shadowy restoration of a Greek Empire at
Constantinople, its last struggle with the Turks, and its fall
is told elsewhere.
See CONSTANTINOPLE, A. D. 1261-1453.
"From the hour of her foundation to that in which her sun
finally sank in blood, Christian Constantinople was engaged in
constant struggles against successive hordes of barbarians.
She did not always triumph in the strife, but, even when she
was beaten she did not succumb, but carried on the contest
still; and the fact that she was able to do so is alone a
sufficing proof of the strength and vitality of her
organization. … Of the seventy-six emperors and five
empresses who occupied the Byzantine throne, 15 were put to
death, 7 were blinded or otherwise mutilated, 4 were deposed
and imprisoned in monasteries, and 10 were compelled to
abdicate. This list, comprising nearly half of the whole
number, is sufficient indication of the horrors by which the
history of the empire is only too often marked, and it may be
frankly admitted that these dark stains, disfiguring pages
which but for them would be bright with the things which were
beautiful and glorious, go some way to excuse, if not to
justify, the obloquy which Western writers have been so prone
to cast upon the East. But it is not by considering the evil
only, any more than the good only, that it is possible to form
a just judgment upon an historic epoch. To judge the Byzantine
Empire only by the crimes which defiled the palace would be as
unjust as if the French people were to be estimated by nothing
but the Massacre of St. Bartholomew, the Reign of Terror, and
the Commune of 1871. The dynastic crimes and revolutions of
New Rome were not a constant feature in her history. On the
contrary, the times of trouble and anarchy were episodes
between long periods of peace. They arose either from quarrels
in the imperial family itself, which degraded the dignity of
the crown, or from the contentions of pretenders struggling
among themselves till one or other had worsted his rivals and
was able to become the founder of a long dynasty. … The most
deplorable epoch in the history of the Byzantine Empire, the
period in which assassination and mutilation most abounded,
was that in which it was exposed to the influence of the
Crusaders, and thus brought into contact with Western Europe.
… The Byzantine people, although in every respect the
superiors of their contemporaries, were unable entirely to
escape the influence of their neighborhood. As the guardians
of classical civilization, they strove to keep above the
deluge of barbarism by which the rest of the world was then
inundated. But it was a flood whose waters prevailed
exceedingly upon the earth, and sometimes all the high hills
were covered, even where might have rested the ark in which
the traditions of ancient culture were being preserved. …
The Byzantine Empire was predestinated to perform in especial
one great work in human history. That work was to preserve
civilization during the period of barbarism which we call the
Middle Ages. … Constantinople fell, and the whole Hellenic
world passed into Turkish slavery. Western Europe looked on
with unconcern at the appalling catastrophe. It was in vain
that the last of the Palaiologoi cried to them for help.
'Christendom,' says Gibbon, 'beheld with indifference the fall
of Constantinople,' … Up to her last hour she had never
ceased, for more than a thousand years, to fight. In the
fourth century she fought the Goths; in the fifth, the Huns
and Vandals; in the sixth, the Slavs; in the seventh, the
Persians, the Avars, and the Arabs; in the eighth, ninth, and
tenth, the Bulgars, the Magyars, and the Russians; in the
eleventh, the Koumanoi, the Petzenegoi, and the Seljoukian
Turks; in the twelfth, thirteenth, fourteenth, and fifteenth,
the Ottomans, the Normans, the Crusaders, the Venetians, and
the Genoese. No wonder that at last she fell exhausted. The
wonder is, how she could keep herself alive so long. But it
was by this long battle that she succeeded in saving from
destruction, amid the universal cataclysm which overwhelmed
the classical world, the civilization of the ancients,
modified by the Christian religion. The moral and intellectual
development of modern Europe are owing to the Byzantine
Empire, if it be true that this development is the common
offspring of antiquity upon the one hand and of Christianity
upon the other."
_Demetrios Bikelas,
The Byzantine Empire
(Scottish Review, volume 8, 1886)._
----------BYZANTINE EMPIRE: End----------
BYZANTIUM,
Beginnings of.
The ancient Greek city of Byzantium, which occupied part of
the site of the modern city of Constantinople, was founded,
according to tradition, by Megarians, in the seventh century
B. C. Its situation on the Bosphorus enabled the possessors of
the city to control the important corn supply which came from
the Euxine, while its tunny fisheries were renowned sources of
wealth. It was to the latter that the bay called the Golden
Horn was said to owe its name. The Persians, the
Lacedæmonians, the Athenians and the Macedonians were
successive masters of Byzantium, before the Roman day, Athens
and Sparta having taken and retaken the city from one another
many times during their wars.
BYZANTIUM: B. C. 478.
Taken by the Greeks from the Persians.
See GREECE: B. C. 478-477.
BYZANTIUM: B. C. 440.
Unsuccessful revolt against Athens.
See ATHENS: B. C. 440-437.
BYZANTIUM: B. C. 408.
Revolt and reduction by the Athenians.
See GREECE: B. C. 411-407.
BYZANTIUM: B. C. 340.
Unsuccessful siege by Philip of Macedon.
See GREECE: B. C. 340.
BYZANTIUM: B. C. 336.
Alliance with Alexander the Great.
See GREECE: B. C. 336-335.
BYZANTIUM: A. D. 194.
Siege by Severus.
See ROME: A. D. 192-284.
BYZANTIUM: A. D. 267.
Capture by the Goths.
See GOTHS: A. D. 258-267.
BYZANTIUM: A. D. 323.
Siege by Constantine.
See ROME: A. D. 305-323.
BYZANTIUM: A. D. 330.
Transformed into Constantinople.
See CONSTANTINOPLE.
{343}
C.
ÇA IRA:
The origin of the cry and the song.
"When the news of the disastrous retreat [of Washington, in
1776] through the Jerseys and the miseries of Valley Forge
reached France, many good friends to America began to think
that now indeed all was lost. But, the stout heart of Franklin
never flinched. 'This is indeed bad news,' said he, 'but ça
ira, ça ira [literally, 'this will go, this will go'], it will
all come right in the end.' Old diplomats and courtiers,
amazed at his confidence, passed about his cheering words.
They were taken up by the newspapers; they were remembered by
the people, and, in the dark days of the French Revolution,
were repeated over and over again on every side, and made the
subject of a stirring song which, till the Marseillaise Hymn
appeared, had no equal in France."
_J. B. McMaster,
History of the People of the United States,
volume 2, page 89._
_L. Rosenthal,
America and France,
page 263._
"The original words (afterward much changed) were by Ladré, a
street singer; and the music was a popular dance tune of the
time composed by Bécourt, a drummer of the Grand Opera."
_Century Dictionary._
"The original name of the tune to which the words were written
is 'Le Carillon National,' and it is a remarkable circumstance
that it was a great favourite with the unfortunate Marie
Antoinette, who used to play it on the harpsichord."
_J. Oxenford,
Book of French Songs
(note to "Ça ira")._
CAABA AT MECCA, The.
"An Arab legend asserts that this famous temple was erected by
Abraham and his son Ishmael with the aid of the angel Gabriel.
Mahomet lent his authority to the legend and devoted to it
several chapters in the Koran, and thus it became one of the
Mussulman articles of faith. Even before the introduction of
Islamism this story was current through a great part of Arabia
and spread abroad in proportion as the Ishmaelitish tribes
gained ground. … This temple, whose name 'square house'
indicates its form, is still preserved. It was very small and
of very rude construction. It was not till comparatively
recent times that it had a door with a lock. … For a long
time the sole sacred object it contained was the celebrated
black stone hadjarel-aswad, an aerolite, which is still the
object of Mussulman veneration. … We have already mentioned
Hobal, the first anthropomorphic idol, placed in the Caaba.
This example was soon copied. … The Caaba thus became a sort
of Arabian Pantheon, and even the Virgin Mary, with her child
on her knees, eventually found a place there."
_F. Lenormant,
Manual of Ancient History of the East,
book 7, chapter 3._
ALSO IN:
_Sir W. Muir,
Life of Mahomet,
chapter 2._
CABAL, The.
See CABINET, THE ENGLISH;
also, ENGLAND: A. D. 1671.
CABALA, The.
"The term Cabala is usually applied to that wild system of
Oriental philosophy which was introduced, it is uncertain at
what period, into the Jewish schools: in a wider sense it
comprehended all the decisions of the Rabbinical courts or
schools, whether on religious or civil points."
_H. H. Milman,
History of the Jews,
volume 2, book 18._
"The philosophic Cabala aspired to be a more sublime and
transcendental Rabbinism. It was a mystery not exclusive of,
but above their more common mysteries; a secret more profound
than their profoundest secrets. It claimed the same guaranty
of antiquity, of revelation, of tradition; it was the true,
occult, to few intelligible sense of the sacred writings and
of the sayings of the most renowned Wise Men; the inward
interpretation of the genuine interpretation of the Law and
the Prophets. Men went on; they advanced, they rose from the
most full and perfect study of the Talmuds to the higher
doctrines, to the more divine contemplations of the Cabala.
And the Zohar was the Book of the Cabala which soared almost
above the comprehension of the wisest. … In its traditional,
no doubt unwritten form, the Cabala, at least a Cabala,
ascends to a very early date, the Captivity; in its proper and
more mature form, it belongs to the first century, and reaches
down to the end of the seventh century of our era. The Sepher
Yetzira, the Book of Creation, which boasts itself to be
derived from Moses, from Abraham, if not from Adam, or even
aspires higher, belongs to the earlier period; the Zohar, the
Light, to the later. The remote origin of the Cabala belongs
to that period when the Jewish mind, during the Captivity,
became so deeply impregnated with Oriental notions, those of
the Persian or Zoroastrian religion. Some of the first
principles of the Cabala, as well as many of the tenets, still
more of the superstitions, of the Talmud, coincide so exactly
with the Zendavesta … as to leave no doubt of their kindred
and affiliation."
_H. H. Milman,
History of the Jews,
book 30._
CABILDO. The.
See LOUISIANA: A. D. 1769.
CABINET, The American.
"There is in the government of the United States no such thing
as a Cabinet in the English sense of the term. But I use the
term, not only because it is current in America to describe
the chief ministers of the President, but also because it
calls attention to the remarkable difference which exists
between the great officers of State in America and the similar
officers in the free countries of Europe. Almost the only
reference in the Constitution to the ministers of the
President is that contained in the power given him to require
the opinion in writing of the principal officer in each of the
executive departments upon any subject relating to the duties
of their respective offices.' All these departments have been
created by Acts of Congress. Washington began in 1789 with
four only, at the head of whom were the following four
officials: Secretary of State, Secretary of the Treasury,
Secretary of War, Attorney General. In 1798 there was added a
Secretary of the Navy, in 1829 a Postmaster General, and in
1849 a Secretary of the Interior. … Each receives a salary
of $8,000 (£1,600). All are appointed by the President,
subject to the consent of the Senate (which is practically
never refused), and may be removed by the President alone.
Nothing marks them off from any other officials who might be
placed in charge of a department, except that they are
summoned by the President to his private council. None of them
can vote in Congress, Art. XI., §6 of the Constitution
providing that 'no person holding any office under the United
States shall be a member of either House during his
continuance in office.'"
_J. Bryce,
The American Commonwealth,
chapter 9._
{344}
"In 1862 a separate Department of Agriculture was
established. … In 1889 the head of the Department became
Secretary of the Department of Agriculture and a Cabinet
officer. A Bureau of Labor under the Interior Department was
created in 1884. In 1888 Congress constituted it a separate
department, but did not make its head a Secretary, and
therefore not a Cabinet officer." There are now (1891) eight
heads of departments who constitute the President's Cabinet.
_W. W. and W. F. Willoughby,
Government and Administration of the United States
(Johns Hopkins University Studies, series IX.,
numbers 1-2), chapter 10._
CABINET, The English.
"Few things in our history are more curious than the origin
and growth of the power now possessed by the Cabinet. From an
early period the Kings of England had been assisted by a Privy
Council to which the law assigned many important functions and
duties (see PRIVY COUNCIL). During several centuries this body
deliberated on the gravest and most delicate affairs. But by
degrees its character changed. It became too large for
despatch and secrecy. The rank of Privy Councillor was often
bestowed as an honorary distinction on persons to whom nothing
was confided, and whose opinion was never asked. The
sovereign, on the most important occasions, resorted for
advice to a small knot of leading ministers. The advantages
and disadvantages of this course were early pointed out by
Bacon, with his usual judgment and sagacity: but it was not
till after the Restoration that the interior council began to
attract general notice. During many years old fashioned
politicians continued to regard the Cabinet as an
unconstitutional and dangerous board. Nevertheless, it
constantly became more and more important. It at length drew
to itself the chief executive power, and has now been
regarded, during several generations, as an essential part of
our polity. Yet, strange to say, it still continues to be
altogether unknown to the law. The names of the noblemen and
gentlemen who compose it are never officially announced to the
public. No record is kept of its meetings and resolutions; nor
has its existence ever been recognized by any Act of
Parliament. During some years the word Cabal was popularly
used as synonymous with Cabinet. But it happened by a
whimsical coincidence that, in 1671, the Cabinet consisted of
five persons the initial letters of whose names made up the
word Cabal, Clifford, Arlington, Buckingham, Ashley, and
Lauderdale. These ministers were therefore emphatically called
the Cabal; and they soon made that appellation so infamous
that it has never since their time been used except as a term
of reproach."
_Lord Macaulay,
History of England,
chapter 2._
"Walpole's work, … the effect of his policy, when it was
finally carried through, was to establish the Cabinet on a
definite footing, as the seat and centre of the executive
government, to maintain the executive in the closest relation
with the legislature, to govern through the legislature, and
to transfer the power and authority of the Crown to the House
of Commons. Some writers have held that the first Ministry in
the modern sense was that combination of Whigs whom William
called to aid him in government in 1695. Others contend that
the second administration of Lord Rockingham, which came into
power in 1782, after the triumph of the American colonists,
the fall of Lord North, and the defeat of George III., was the
earliest Ministry of the type of to-day. At whatever date we
choose first to see all the decisive marks of that remarkable
system which combines unity, steadfastness, and initiative in
the executive, with the possession of supreme authority alike
over men and measures by the House of Commons, it is certain
that it was under Walpole that its ruling principles were
first fixed in parliamentary government, and that the Cabinet
system received the impression that it bears in our own time.
… Perhaps the most important of all the distinctions between
the Cabinet in its rudimentary stage at the beginning of the
century and its later practice, remains to be noticed. Queen
Anne held a Cabinet every Sunday, at which she was herself
present, just as we have seen that she was present at debates
in the House of Lords. With a doubtful exception in the time
of George III., no sovereign has been present at a meeting of
the Cabinet since Anne. … This vital change was probably due
to the accident that Anne's successor did not understand the
language in which its deliberations were carried on. The
withdrawal of the sovereign from Cabinet Councils was
essential to the momentous change which has transferred the
whole substance of authority and power from the Crown, to a
committee chosen by one member of the two Houses of
Parliament, from among other members. … The Prime Minister
is the keystone of the Cabinet arch. Although in Cabinet all
its members stand on an equal footing, speak with equal voice,
and, on the rare occasions when a division is taken, are
counted on the fraternal principle of one man, one vote, yet
the head of the Cabinet is 'primus inter pares,' and occupies
a position which, so long as it lasts, is one of exceptional
and peculiar authority. It is true that he is in form chosen
by the Crown, but in practice the choice of the Crown is
pretty strictly confined to the man who is designated by the
acclamation of a party majority. … The Prime Minister, once
appointed, chooses his own colleagues, and assigns them to
their respective offices. … The flexibility of the Cabinet
system allows the Prime Minister in an emergency to take upon
himself a power not inferior to that of a dictator, provided
always that the House of Commons will stand by him. In
ordinary circumstances, he leaves the heads of departments to
do their own work in their own way. … Just as the Cabinet
has been described as being the regulator of relations between
Queen, Lords and Commons, so is the Prime Minister the
regulator of relations between the Queen and her servants. …
Walpole was in practice able to invest himself with more of
the functions and powers of a Prime Minister than any of his
successors, and yet was compelled by the feeling of the time
earnestly and profusely to repudiate both the name and title,
and everyone of the pretensions that it involves. The earliest
instance in which I have found, the head of the government
designated as the Premier is in a letter to the Duke of
Newcastle from the Duke of Cumberland in 1746."
_J. Morley,
Walpole,
chapter 7._
"In theory the Cabinet is nothing but a committee of the Privy
Council, yet with the Council it has in reality no dealings;
and thus the extraordinary result has taken place, that the
Government of England is in the hands of men whose position is
legally undefined: that while the Cabinet is a word of
every-day use, no lawyer can say what a Cabinet is: that while
no ordinary Englishman knows who the Lords of the Council are,
the Church of England prays, Sunday by Sunday, that these
Lords may be 'endued with wisdom and understanding'! that
while the collective responsibility of Ministers is a doctrine
appealed to by members of the Government, no less than by
their opponents, it is more than doubtful whether such
responsibility could be enforced by any legal penalties: that,
to sum up this catalogue of contradictions, the Privy Council
has the same political powers which it had when Henry VIII.
ascended the throne, whilst it is in reality composed of
persons many of whom never have taken part or wished to take
part in the contests of political life."
_A. V. Dicey.
The Privy Council,
page 143._
{345}
CABINET, The Kitchen.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1829.
CABOCHIENS, The.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1380-1415.
CABOT, John and Sebastian.
American Discoveries.
See AMERICA: A. D. 1497, and 1498.
CABUL: A. D. 1840-1841.
Occupation by the British.
Successful native rising.
Retreat and destruction of the British army.
See AFGHANISTAN: A. D. 1838-1842.
CABUL: A. D. 1878-1880.
Murder of Major Cavagnari, the British Resident.
Second occupation by the English.
See AFGHANISTAN: A. D. 1869-1881.
----------CABUL: End----------
CACIQUE.
"Cacique, lord of vassals, was the name by which the natives
of Cuba, designated their chiefs. Learning this, the
conquerors applied the name generally to the rulers of wild
tribes, although in none of the dialects of the continent is
the word found."
_H. H. Bancroft,
History of the Pacific States,
volume 1, page 210, foot-note._
CADDOAN FAMILY, The.
See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: PAWNEE (CADDOAN) FAMILY;
also, TEXAS: THE ABORIGINAL INHABITANTS.
CADE'S REBELLION.
See ENGLAND: A. D. 1450.
CADESIA (KADISIYEH), Battle of.
This was the first of the decisive series of battles in which
the Arab followers of Mohammed effected the overthrow of the
Persian Empire (the Sassannian) and the conquest of its
dominions. It was desperately fought, A. D. 636, under the
walls of the fortified town of Cadesia (Kadisiyeh in the
Arabic) situated near the Sea of Nedjef, between the Euphrates
and the Arabian desert. The Persians numbered 120,000 men,
under Rustam, their best general. The Arabs were but 30,000
strong at first, but were reinforced the second day. They were
commanded by Sa'ad and led by the redoubtable Kaled. The
battle was obstinately prolonged through four days, but ended
in the complete rout of the Persians and the death of Rustam,
with 40,000 of his men.
_G. Rawlinson,
Seventh Great Oriental Monarchy,
chapter 26._
See, also, MAHOMETAN CONQUEST: A. D. 632-651.
CADIZ: Origin.
See UTICA, and GADES.
CADIZ: A. D. 1596.
Taken and sacked by the English and Dutch.
See SPAIN: A. D. 1596.
CADIZ: A. D. 1702.
Abortive English and Dutch expedition against.
See SPAIN: A. D. 1702.
CADIZ: A. D. 1810-1811.
Siege by the French.
See SPAIN: A. D. 1810-1812.
CADIZ: A. D. 1823.
Siege, bombardment and capture by the French.
See SPAIN: A. D. 1814-1827.
CADMEA (KADMEIA), The.
See GREECE: B. C. 383.
CADMEANS, OR KADMEIANS.
See BŒOTIA.
CADURCI, The.
The Cadurci were one of the tribes of ancient Gaul whose chief
place was Divona, now Cahors on the Lot.
_G. Long,
Decline of the Roman Republic,
volume 4, chapter 17._
CADUSIANS, The.
An ancient people so-called by the Greeks, whose territory was
on the south-western border of the Caspian Sea,—the district
of modern Persians called Ghilan or Ghulan. Their native name
was "Gaels."
_M. Duncker,
History of Antiquity,
book 8, chapter 1._
CADWALLON, Death of.
See HEVENFIELD, BATTLE OF THE.
CÆLLAN HILL, The.
See SEVEN HILLS OF ROME.
CAERLAVEROCK, Siege of.
A famous siege and reduction of the Scottish castle of
Caerlaverock, in Dumfriesshire, by Edward I. A. D. 1300.
CAERLEON.
"Caer," like the "Ceaster" of the Saxons, is a corruption by
Celtic tongues of the Roman "Castrum." "In memory of the
second legion, which had been so long established at the
Silurian Isca, they [the Welsh] gave to the ruins of that city
the name of Caer-Legion, the city of the legion, now softened
to Caerleon."
_T. Wright,
Celt, Roman and Saxon,
chapter 5._
CÆSAR, JULIUS, Career and death of.
See ROME: B. C. 69-63, to 44;
GAUL: B. C. 58-51;
and BRITAIN: B. C. 55-54.
CÆSAR, The title.
"Octavius was the adopted heir of Julius Cæsar; from the
moment of his adoption the surname Cæsar became appropriated
to him, and it was by this name accordingly that he was most
familiarly known to his own contemporaries. Modern writers for
the sake of distinction have agreed for the most part to
confine this illustrious title to the first of the Cæsarian
dynasty; but we should doubtless gain a clearer conception of
the gradual process by which the idea of a dynastic succession
fixed itself in the minds of the Romans, if we followed their
own practice in this particular, and applied the name of
Cæsar, not to Augustus only, but also to his adopted son
Tiberius, to the scions of the same lineage who succeeded him,
and even to those of later and independent dynasties. As late
indeed as the reign of Diocletian, the Roman monarch was still
eminently the Cæsar. It was not till the close of the third
century of our era that that illustrious title was deposed
from its preeminence, and restricted to a secondary and
deputed authority. Its older use was however revived and
perpetuated, though less exclusively, through the declining
ages of the empire, and has survived with perhaps unbroken
continuity even to our own days. The Austrian Kaiser still
retains the name, though he has renounced the succession, of
the Cæsars of Rome, while the Czar of Muscovy pretends to
derive his national designation by direct inheritance from the
Cæsars of Byzantium."
_C. Merivale,
History of the Romans,
chapter 31._
See, also, ROME: B. C. 31-A. D. 14.
CÆSAR-AUGUSTA.
One of the fortified posts established in Spain by the Emperor
Augustus, B. C. 27, and in which the veterans of the legions
were settled. The place and its name (corrupted) survive in
modern Saragossa.
_C. Merivale,
History of the Roman,
chapter 34._
{346}
CÆSAREA IN CAPPADOCIA: Origin.
See MAZACA.
CÆSAREA IN CAPPADOCIA: A. D. 260.
Capture, massacre and pillage by Sapor, king of Persia.
See PERSIA: A. D. 226-627.
CÆSAREA IN PALESTINE: Massacre of Jews.
See JEWS: A. D. 66-70.
CÆSAREA IN PALESTINE: The Church in.
See CHRISTIANITY: A. D. 100-312.
CÆSAROMAGUS IN BRITAIN.
A Roman town identified, generally, with modern Chelmsford.
_T. Wright,
Celt, Roman and Saxon,
chapter 5._
CÆSAROMAGUS IN GAUL.
Modern Beauvais.
See BELGÆ.
CÆSARS, The Twelve.
See ROME: A. D. 68-96.
CÆSAR'S TOWER.
See TOWER OF LONDON.
CAFFA.
See GENOA: A. D. 1261-1299.
CAHORS:
Origin.
See CADURCI.
CAHORS: A. D. 1580.
Siege and capture by Henry of Navarre.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1578-1580.
CAIRN.
See BARROW.
CAIRO: A. D. 641.
Origin.
See MAHOMETAN CONQUEST: A. D. 640-646.
CAIRO: A. D. 967-1171.
Capital of the Fatimite Caliphs.
See MAHOMETAN CONQUEST AND EMPIRE: A. D. 908-1171.
CAIRO: A. D. 1517.
Capture, sack and massacre by the Ottoman Turks.
See TURKS: A. D. 1481-1520.
CAIRO: A. D. 1798.
Occupied by the French under Bonaparte.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1798 (MAY-AUGUST).
CAIRO: A. D. 1800.
Revolt suppressed by the French.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1800 (JANUARY-JUNE).
CAIRO: A. D. 1801-1802.
Surrender to the English.
Restoration to Turkey.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1801-1802.
CAIRO: A. D. 1805-1811.
Massacres of the Mamelukes.
See EGYPT: A. D. 1803-1811.
CAIRO: A. D. 1879-1883.
Revolt against the Khedive and the foreign control.
Occupation by the British.
See EGYPT: A. D. 1875-1882, and 1882-1883.
----------CAIRO: End----------
CAIROAN.
See KAIRWAN.
CAIUS, called Caligula,
Roman Emperor, A. D. 37-41.
CAKCHIQUELS, The.
See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: QUICHES, and MAYAS.
CALABRIA:
Transfer of the name.
"After the loss of the true Calabria [to the Lombards] the
vanity of the Greeks substituted that name instead of the more
ignoble appellation of Bruttium; and the change appears to
have taken place before the time of Charlemagne."
_E. Gibbon,
Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire,
chapter 45; note.
CALABRIA: A. D. 1080.
Norman duchy.
See ITALY (SOUTHERN): A. D. 1000-1090.
----------CALABRIA: End----------
CALAIS: A. D. 1346-1347.
Siege and capture by Edward III.
Immediately after his great victory won at Creci, the English
king, Edward III. laid siege to the strong city of Calais. He
built a town of huts round the city, "which he called 'Newtown
the Bold,' and laid it out with a market, regular streets and
shops, and all the necessary accommodation for an army, and
hither were carried in vast stores of victuals and other
necessaries, obtained by ravaging the country round and by
shipment from England." Calais held out for a year, and
angered the king so by its obstinacy that when, in August,
1347, starvation forced its people to surrender, he required
that six of the chief burgesses should be given up to him,
with halters round their necks, for execution. Eustache St.
Pierre and five others nobly offered themselves for the
sacrifice, and it was only by the weeping intercession of
Queen Philippa that Edward was induced to spare their lives.
He expelled all the inhabitants who refused to take an oath of
fealty to him and repeopled the town with Englishmen.
_W. Warburton,
Edward III., Second Decade,
chapter 3._
See, also, FRANCE: A. D. 1337-1360.
CALAIS: A. D. 1348.
The Staple for English trade.
See STAPLE.
CALAIS: A. D. 1558.
Recovery from the English by France.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1547-1559.
CALAIS: A. D. 1564.
Final surrender of English claims.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1563-1564.
CALAIS: A. D. 1596-1598.
Surprise and capture by the Spaniards.
Restoration to France.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1593-1598.
----------CALAIS: End----------
CALATRAVA AND SANTIAGO, Knights of.
"It was to repress the never-ceasing incursions of the
Mohammedans, as well as to return these incursions with
interest, that, in the time of Fernando [Fernando II. of the
early Spanish kingdom of Leon], two military orders, those of
Calatrava and Santiago [or St. Jago—or St. James of
Compostella], were instituted. The origin of the former order
was owing to the devotion of two Cistercian monks; St.
Raymond, abbot of Fitero, and his companion, the friar Diego
Velasquez. These intrepid men, who had both borne arms
previous to their monastic profession, indignant at the
cowardice of the Templars, who resigned into the king of
Castile's hands the fortress of Calatrava, which had been
confided to their defense by the emperor Alfonso, proposed, in
1158, to the regency of that kingdom, to preserve that
position against the assailants. The proposal was readily
accepted. The preaching of the warlike abbot was so
efficacious, that in a short time he assembled 20,000 men,
whom he conducted to Calatrava, and among whom were not a few
of his own monks. There he drew up the institutions of the
order, which took its name from the place, and which in its
religious government long followed the Cistercian rule, and
wore the same monastic habit,—a white robe and scapulary. [By
pope Benedict XIII. the habit was dispensed with, and the
knights allowed to marry 'once.'—_Foot-note_.] The other
order commenced in 1161. Some robbers of Leon, touched with
their past enormities, resolved to make reparation for them,
by defending the frontiers against the incursions of the
Mohammedans. Don Pedro Fernandez—if the 'don' has not been
added to give something like respectability to the origin—was
the chief founder of the order. He engaged the brethren to
assume the rule of St. Augustine, in addition to the ordinary
obligations of knighthood. His military and monastic
fraternity was approved by king Fernando; at whose suggestion
the knights chose Santiago as their patron, whose bloody
sword, in form of a cross, became their professional symbol.
These two orders were richly endowed by successive kings of
Leon and Castile, until their possessions became immense."
_S. A. Dunham,
History of Spain and Portugal,
book 3, section 2, chapter 1, division 2._
{347}
In 1396 the knights of the order of St. James of Compostella
"received permission to marry. In 1493, the Grand Mastership
was united to the crown of Spain." In 1523 the right of
nomination to the Grand Mastership of the Order of Calatrava
was transferred from the Pope to the crown of Spain, "and
since that time the order has gradually merged into a court
institution. The state dress is a white robe, with a red cross
on the left breast. The permission to marry has been enjoyed
since 1540."
_F. C. Woodhouse,
Military Religious Orders,
part 4._
CALAURIA,
Confederation of.
A naval confederation, formed at a very early period of Greek
history, by the seven maritime cities of Orchomenus, Athens,
Ægina, Epidaurus, Hermione, Prasiæ and Nauplia against the
kings of Argos. The island of Calauria, off the eastern point
of Argolis, was the center of the confederacy.
_E. Curtius, History of Greece, V. 1, book 1, chapter 3._
CALCINATO, Battle of (1706).
See ITALY (SAVOY AND PIEDMONT): A. D. 1701-1713.
CALCUTTA: A. D. 1698.
The founding of the city.
See INDIA: A. D. 1600-1702.
CALCUTTA: A. D. 1756.
Capture by Surajah Dowlah.
The tragedy of the Black Hole.
See INDIA: A. D. 1755-1757.
----------CALCUTTA: End----------
CALDERON, Battle of.
See MEXICO: A. D. 1810-1819.
CALEDONIA, The name.
See SCOTLAND, THE NAME.
CALEDONIA,
Ancient Tribes.
See BRITAIN, CELTIC TRIBES.
CALEDONIA,
Wars of the Romans.
See BRITAIN: A. D. 78-84.
----------CALEDONIA: End----------
CALEDONIA SYLVA.
See BRITAIN, CELTIC TRIBES.
CALEDONII, The.
One of the wild tribes which occupied the Highlands of
Scotland when the Romans held Britain, and whose name they
gave finally to all the Highland tribes and to that part of
the island.
_W. F. Skene,
Celtic Scotland,
volume 1._
See BRITAIN, CELTIC TRIBES.
CALENDAR, The French Republican.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1793 (OCTOBER).
CALENDAR,
Gregorian.
Gregorian Era.
"This was a correction and improvement of the Julian [see
CALENDAR, JULIAN]. It was discovered at length, by more
accurate astronomical observations, that the true solar or
tropical year was 365 days, 5 hours, 48 minutes, and 57
seconds; whence it fell short of the Julian or Egyptian
computation of 365 days and 6 hours by an interval of 11
minutes, 3 seconds, … which, in the course of 130 years,
amounted to a whole day. At the end of 130 years, therefore,
the tropical year began a day earlier than the civil, or fell
back a day behind it. … In the time of Pope Gregory XIII.,
A. D. 1582, … the [vernal] equinox was found to be on the
11th of March, having fallen back ten days. In order,
therefore, to bring it forward to its former place of the
21st, he left out ten days in October, calling the 5th the
15th day of that month. Whence in that year of confusion, the
22d day of December became the first of January, A. D. 1583,
which was the first year of the Gregorian Era. In making this
correction, he was principally assisted by the celebrated
mathematician Clavius. But to prevent the repetition of this
error in future, a further reformation of the Julian Calendar
was wanting. Because the vernal equinox fell backwards three
days in the course of 390 years, Gregory, chiefly by the
assistance of Aloysius Lillius, decreed that three days should
be omitted in every four centuries: namely, that every first,
second and third centurial year, which would otherwise be
bissextile, should be a common year; but that every fourth
centurial year should remain bissextile. Thus, the years A. D.
1700, 1800, 1900, and 2100, 2200, 2300, were to be common
years; but A. D. 1600, 2000, 2400, to remain leap years. By
this ingenious reform, the Julian Calendar is rendered
sufficiently accurate for all the purposes of chronology, and
even of astronomy, for 6000 years to come. … The Gregorian
or reformed Julian year was not adopted in England until A. D.
1751, when, the deficiency from the time of the Council of
Nice then amounting to eleven days, this number was struck out
of the month of September, by Act of Parliament; and the 3d
day was counted the 14th, in that year of confusion. The next
year A. D. 1752, was the first of the new style, beginning
January 1, instead of March 25."
_W. Hales,
New Analysis of Chronology,
volume 1, book 1._
The change from Old Style, as the Julian Calendar, and dates
according with it, now came to be called to New Style, or the
reformed, Gregorian Calendar, was made in Spain, Portugal,
part of Italy, part of the Netherlands, France, Denmark, and
Lorraine, in A. D. 1582; in Poland in 1586; in Hungary in 1587;
in Catholic Switzerland in 1583; in Catholic Germany in 1584;
in most parts of Protestant Germany, and Switzerland in 1700
and 1701, and, lastly, in England, in 1751. In Russia, Greece,
and the East generally, the Old Style is still retained.
_Sir H. Nicolas,
Chronology of History._
CALENDAR,
Julian.
Julian Era.
"The epoch of the Julian Era, which precedes the common or
Christian Era by forty-five years, is the reformation of the
Roman calendar by Julius Cæsar, who ordained that the Year of
Rome 707 should consist of 15 months, forming altogether 445
days; that the ensuing year, 708, should be composed of 365
days; and that every fourth year should contain 366 days, the
additional day being introduced after the 6th of the calends
of March, i. e., the 24th of February, which year he called
Bissextile, because the 6th of the calends of March were then
doubled. Julius Cæsar also divided the months into the number
of days which they at present contain. The Roman calendar,
which was divided into calends, nones and ides, was used in
most public instruments throughout Europe for many centuries.
… The calend is the 1st day of each month. The ides were
eight days in each month: in March, May, July and October the
ides commence on the 15th, and in all other months on the 13th
day. The nones are the 5th day of each month, excepting in
March, May, July and October, when the nones fall on the 7th
day. The days of the month were reckoned backwards instead of
forwards: thus, the 3d calends of February is the 30th of
January; the 4th calends of February the 29th January. …
Excepting July and August, which were named after Julius and
Augustus Cæsar, having been called Quintilis and Sextilis, the
Roman months bore their present names.
{348}
An error prevailed for 37 years after the death of Julius
Cæsar, from reckoning every third instead of every fourth year
a bissextile, or leap year, as if the year contained 365 days,
8 hours. When this mistake was detected, thirteen
intercalations had occurred instead of ten, and the year
consequently began three days too late: the calendar was,
therefore, again corrected, and it was ordered that each of
the ensuing twelve years should contain 365 days only, and
that there should not be any leap year until A. U. C. 760 or
A. D. 7. From that time the years have been calculated without
mistakes, and the Roman year has been adopted by all Christian
nations, though about the sixth century they began to date
from the birth of our Saviour."
_Sir H. Nicolas,
Chronology of History,
page 4._
"It might naturally have been expected that Julius Cæsar would
have so ordered his reformed solar year, as to begin on the
day of the winter solstice, which, in the 'Year of Confusion'
[i. e., the year in which the error of the calendar was
corrected] was supposed to fall on December 25. But he chose to
begin his new year on the first of January following, because
on that day the moon was new, or in conjunction with the sun,
at 7 hours, 6 minutes and 35 seconds after noon. By this means
he began his year on a most high or holy day among the ancient
Druids, with whose usages he was well acquainted, and also
made his new year the first of a lunar cycle."
_T. Hales,
New Analysis of Chronology,
volume 1, book 1._
ALSO IN:
_C. Merivale,
History of the Romans,
chapter 20._
For an account of the subsequent correction of the Julian
calendar, see CALENDAR, GREGORIAN
CALENDS.
See CALENDAR, JULIAN.
CALETI, The.
See BELGÆ.
CALHOUN, John C.,
And the War of 1812.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1810-1812.
CALHOUN, John C.
And the Nullification Movement.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1828-1833.
CALIFORNIA:
The aboriginal inhabitants.
See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: SHOSHONEAN FAMILY, and MODOCS AND
THEIR CALIFORNIA NEIGHBORS.
CALIFORNIA: A. D. 1543-1781.
Origin of the name.
Early Spanish exploration and settlement.
The founding of the Franciscan missions.
"The settlements of the Spanish missionaries within the
present limits of the State of California date from the first
foundation of San Diego in 1769. The missions that were later
founded north of San Diego were, with the original
establishment itself, for a time known merely by some
collective name, such as the Northern Missions. But later the
name California, already long since applied to the country of
the peninsular missions to the Southward, was extended to the
new land, with various prefixes or qualifying phrases; and out
of these the definitive name Alta [or Upper] California at
last came, being applied to our present country during the
whole period of the Mexican Republican ownership. As to the
origin of the name California, no serious question remains
that this name, as first applied, between 1535 and 1539 to a
portion of Lower California, was derived from an old printed
romance, the one which Mr. Edward Everett Hale rediscovered in
1862, and from which he drew this now accepted conclusion.
For, in this romance, the name California was already before
1520 applied to a fabulous island, described as near the
Indies and also 'very near the Terrestrial Paradise.'
Colonists whom Cortes brought to the newly discovered
peninsula in 1535, and who returned the next year, may have
been the first to apply the name to this supposed island, on
which they had been for a time resident. The coast of Upper
California was first visited during the voyage of the explorer
Juan Cabrillo in 1542-43. Several landings were then made on
the coast and on the islands, in the Santa Barbara region. …
In 1579 Drake's famous visit took place [see AMERICA: A. D.
1572-1580]. … It is … almost perfectly sure that he did
not enter or observe the Golden Gate, and that he got no sort
of idea of the existence of the Great Bay. … This result of
the examination of the evidence about Drake's voyage is now
fairly well accepted, although some people will always try to
insist that Drake discovered our Bay of San Francisco. The
name San Francisco was probably applied to a port on this
coast for the first time by Cermeñon, who, in a voyage from
the Philippines in 1595 ran ashore, while exploring the coast
near Point Reyes. It is now, however, perfectly sure that
neither he nor any other Spanish navigator before 1769 applied
this name to our present bay, which remained utterly unknown
to Europeans during all this period. … In 1602-3, Sebastian
Vizcaino conducted a Spanish exploring expedition along the
California coast. … From this voyage a little more knowledge
of the character of the coast was gained; and thenceforth
geographical researches in the region of California ceased for
over a century and a half. With only this meagre result we
reach the era of the first settlement of Upper California. The
missions of the peninsula of Lower California passed, in 1767,
by the expulsion of the Jesuits, into the hands of the
Franciscans; and the Spanish government, whose attention was
attracted in this direction by the changed conditions, ordered
the immediate prosecution of a long-cherished plan to provide
the Manilla ships, on their return voyage, with good ports of
supply and repairs, and to occupy the northwest land as a
safeguard against Russian or other aggressions. … Thus began
the career of Spanish discovery and settlement in California.
The early years show a generally rapid progress, only one
great disaster occurring,—the destruction of San Diego
Mission in 1775, by assailing Indians. But this loss was
quickly repaired. In 1770 the Mission of San Carlos was
founded at Monterey. In 1772, a land expedition, under Fages
and Crespi, first explored the eastern shore of our San
Francisco Bay, in an effort to reach by land the old Port of
San Francisco. … After 1775, the old name began to be
generally applied to the new Bay, and so, thenceforth, the
name Port of San Francisco means what we now mean thereby. In
1775, Lieutenant Ayala entered the new harbor by water. In the
following year the Mission at San Francisco was founded, and
in October its church was dedicated. Not only missions,
however, but pueblos, inhabited by Spanish colonists, lay in
the official plan of the new undertakings. The first of these
to be established was San Jose, founded in November, 1777. The
next was Los Angeles, founded in September, 1781."
_J. Royce,
California,
chapter 1, section 2._
ALSO IN:
_H. H. Bancroft,
History of the Pacific States, volume 13
(California, volume 1)._
_F. W. Blackmar,
Spanish Institutions of the Southwest,
chapters 5-15._
{349}
CALIFORNIA: A. D. 1846-1847.
The American conquest and its unexplained preludes.
"Early in 1846, the Americans in California numbered about
200, mostly able-bodied men, and who in their activity,
enterprise, and audacity, constituted quite a formidable
element in this sparsely inhabited region. The population of
California at this time was 6,000 Mexicans and 200,000
Indians. We now come to a period in the history of California
that has never been made clear, and respecting which there are
conflicting statements and opinions. The following facts were
obtained by careful inquiry of intelligent parties who lived
in California during the period mentioned, and who
participated in the scenes narrated. The native Californians
appear to have entertained no very strong affection for their
own government, or, rather, they felt that under the
influences at work they would inevitably, and at no very
distant period, become a dismembered branch of the Mexican
nation; and the matter was finally narrowed down to this
contested point, namely, whether this state surgery should be
performed by Americans or English, the real struggle being
between these two nationalities. In the northern part of the
territory, such native Californians as the Vallejos, Castros,
etc., with the old American settlers, Leese, Larkin, and
others, sympathized with the United States, and desired
annexation to the American republic. In the south, Pio Pico,
then governor of the territory, and other prominent native
Californians, with James Alexander Forbes, the English consul,
who settled in Santa Clara in 1828, were exerting themselves to
bring the country under English domination. … This was the
state of affairs for two or three years previous to the
Mexican War. For some months before the news that hostilities
between the United States and Mexico had commenced [see
MEXICO: A. D. 1846-1847] reached California, the belief that
such an event would certainly occur was universal throughout
the territory. This quickened the impulses of all parties, and
stimulated the two rivals—the American and English—in their
efforts to be the first to obtain a permanent hold of the
country. The United States government had sent Colonel Fremont
to the Pacific on an exploring expedition. Colonel Fremont had
passed through California, and was on his way to Oregon, when,
in March, 1846, Lieutenant Gillespie, of the United States
marine service, was sent from Washington with dispatches to
Colonel Fremont. Lieutenant Gillespie went across Mexico to
Mazatlan, and from thence by sea to California. He finally
overtook Fremont early in June, 1846, a short distance on the
road to Oregon, and communicated to him the purport of his
dispatches, they having been committed to memory and the
papers destroyed before he entered Mexico. What these
instructions authorized Colonel Fremont to do has never been
promulgated, but it is said they directed him to remain in
California, and hold himself in readiness to cooperate with
the United States fleet, in case war with Mexico should occur.
Fremont immediately returned to California, and camped a short
time on Feather River, and then took up his headquarters at
Sutter's Fort. A few days after, on Sunday, June 14th, 1846, a
party of fourteen Americans, under no apparent command,
appeared in Sonoma, captured the place, raised the Bear flag,
proclaimed the independence of California, and carried off to
Fremont's headquarters four prominent citizens, namely, the
two Vallejos, J. P. Leese, and Colonel Prudhon. On the
consummation of these achievements, one Merritt was elected
captain. This was a rough party of revolutionists, and the
manner in which they improvised the famous Bear flag shows
upon what slender means nations and kingdoms are sometimes
started. From an estimable old lady they obtained a
fragmentary portion of her white skirt, on which they painted
what was intended to represent a grizzly bear, but not being
artistic in their work … the Mexicans, with their usual
happy faculty on such occasions, called it the 'Bandera
Colchis,' or 'Hog Flag.' This flag now ornaments the rooms of
the Pioneer Society in San Francisco. On the 18th of June,
1846, William B. Ide, a native of New England, who had
emigrated to California the year previous, issued a
proclamation as commander-in-chief of the fortress of Sonoma.
This proclamation declared the purpose to overthrow the
existing government, and establish in its place the republican
form. … General Castro now proposed to attack the feebly
manned post at Sonoma, but he was frustrated by a rapid
movement of Fremont, who, on the 4th of July, 1846, called a
meeting of Americans at Sonoma; and this assembly, acting
under his advice, proclaimed the independence of the country,
appointed Fremont Governor, and declared war against Mexico.
During these proceedings at Sonoma, a flag with one star
floated over the headquarters of Fremont at Sutter's Fort. The
meaning of this lone-star flag no one seems to have
understood. … Just as Fremont, with his company, had started
for the coast to confront Castro, and act on the aggressive
generally, he was suddenly brought to a stand by the
astounding intelligence that Commodore Sloat had arrived at
Monterey, and that, on the 7th of July, 1846, he had raised
the American flag and taken possession of the place; also,
that, by command of Commodore Sloat, Commander Montgomery, of
the United States sloop-of-war Portsmouth, then lying in San
Francisco Bay, had, on the 8th of July, taken possession of
Yerba Buena and raised the American flag on the plaza. This of
course settled the business for all parties. The Mexican flag
and the Bear flag were lowered, and in due time, nolens
volens, all acquiesced in the flying of the Stars and Stripes.
… Commodore Sloat … had heard of the commencement of
hostilities on the Rio Grande, … sailed from Mazatlan for
California, took possession of the country and raised the
American flag on his own responsibility. These decisive steps
on the part of Commodore Sloat were not taken a moment too
soon, as on the 14th of July the British man-of-war
Collingwood, Sir George Seymour commanding, arrived at
Monterey," intending, as Sir George acknowledged, "to take
possession of that portion of the country." In August,
Commodore Sloat relinquished the command of the Pacific
squadron to Commodore Stockton, who "immediately instituted
bold and vigorous measures for the subjugation of the
territory. All his available force for land operations was 350
men—sailors and marines.
{350}
But so rapid and skilful were Stockton's movements, and so
efficient was the cooperation of Fremont with his small troop,
that California was effectually conquered in January, 1847.
During all this period the people of the United States were
ignorant of what was transpiring in California and vice versa.
But the action of Commodore Sloat … and … Commodore
Stockton … did but anticipate the wishes of the United
States Government, which had, in June, 1846, dispatched
General Kearney across the country from Fort Leavenworth [see
NEW MEXICO: A. D. 1846], at the head of 1,600 men, with orders
to conquer California, and when conquered to assume the
governorship of the territory. General Kearney arrived in
California via San Pasqual with greatly diminished forces,
December, 1846, a few weeks before active military operations
in that region ceased."
_E. E. Dunbar,
The Romance of the Age,
pages 29-42._
ALSO IN:
_H. H. Bancroft,
History of the Pacific States, volume 17
(California, volume 5), chapters 1-16._
_J. C. Fremont,
Memoirs of my Life,
volume 1, chapters 14-15._
CALIFORNIA: A. D. 1848.
Cession to the United States.
See MEXICO: A. D. 1848.
CALIFORNIA: A. D. 1848-1849.
The discovery of Gold and the immigration of the Gold-hunters.
"In the summer of 1847 the American residents of California,
numbering perhaps 2,000, and mostly established near San
Francisco Bay, looked forward with hope and confidence to the
future. Their government held secure possession of the whole
territory, and had announced its purpose to hold it
permanently. … It so happened that at this time one of the
leading representatives of American interests in California
was John A. Sutter, a Swiss by his parentage; a German by the
place of his birth in Baden; an American by residence and
naturalization in Missouri; and a Mexican by subsequent
residence and naturalization in California. In 1839 he had
settled at the junction of the Sacramento and American rivers,
near the site of the present city of Sacramento." His rancho
became known as Sutter's Fort. In the summer of 1847 he
planned the building of a flour-mill, and "partly to get
lumber for it, he determined to build a saw-mill also. Since
there was no good timber in the valley, the saw-mill must be
in the mountains. The site for it was selected by James W.
Marshall, a native of New Jersey, a skilful wheelwright by
occupation, industrious, honest, generous, but 'cranky,' full
of wild fancies, and defective in some kinds of business
sense. … The place for his mill was in the small valley of
Coloma, 1,500 feet above the level of the sea, and 45 miles
from Sutter's Fort, from which it was accessible by wagon
without expense for road-making." Early in 1848 the saw-mill
was nearly completed; "the water had been turned into the race
to carry away some of the loose dirt and gravel, and then had
been turned off again. On the afternoon of Monday, the 24th of
January, Marshall was walking in the tail-race, when on its
rotten granite bed-rock he saw some yellow particles and
picked up several of them. The largest were about the size of
grains of wheat. … He thought they were gold, and went to
the mill, where he told the men that he had found a gold mine.
At the time, little importance was attached to his statement.
It was regarded as a proper subject for ridicule. Marshall
hammered his new metal and found it malleable; he put it into
the kitchen fire, and observed that it did not readily melt or
become discolored; he compared its color with gold coin; and
the more he examined it the more he was convinced that it was
gold." He soon found an opportunity to show his discovery to
Sutter, who tested the metal with acid and by careful
weighing, and satisfied himself that Marshall's, conclusion
was correct. In the spring of 1848 San Francisco, a village of
about 700 inhabitants, had two newspapers, the 'Californian'
and the 'California Star,' both weeklies. The first printed
mention of the gold discovery was a short paragraph in the
former, under date of the 15th of March, stating that a gold
mine had been found at Sutter's Mill, and that a package of
the metal worth $30 had been received at New Helvetia. …
Before the middle of June the whole territory resounded with
the cry of 'gold'! … Nearly all the men hurried off to the
mines. Workshops, stores, dwellings, wives, and even ripe
fields of grain, were left for a time to take care of
themselves. … 'The reports of the discovery, which began to
reach the Atlantic States in September, 1849, commanded little
credence there before January; but the news of the arrival of
large amounts of gold at Mazatlan, Valparaiso, Panama, and New
York, in the latter part of the winter, put an end to all
doubt, and in the spring there was such a rush of peaceful
migration as the world had never seen. In 1849,
25,000—according to one authority 50,000—immigrants went by
land, and 23,000 by sea from the region east of the Rocky
Mountains, and by sea perhaps 40,000 from other parts of the
world. … The gold yield of 1848 was estimated at $5,000,000;
that of 1849 at $23,000,000; that of 1850 at $50,000,000; that
of 1853 at $65,000,000; and then came the decline which has
continued until the present time [1890] when the yield is
about $12,000,000."
_J. S. Hittell,
The Discovery of Gold in California
(Century Magazine, February, 1891)._
ALSO IN:
_E. E. Dunbar,
The Romance of the Age,
or the Discovery of Gold in California._
_H. H. Bancroft,
History of the Pacific States,
volume 18 (California, volume 6) chapters 2-4._
CALIFORNIA: A. D. 1850.
Admission to the Union as a free state.
The Compromise.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1850.
CALIFORNIA: A. D. 1856.
The San Francisco Vigilance Committee.
"The association of citizens known as the vigilance committee,
which was organized in San Francisco on the 15th of May, 1856,
has had such an influence on the growth and prosperity of that
city that now [1877], at the end of 21 years, a true account of
the origin and subsequent action of that association will be
read with interest. For some time the corruption in the courts
of law, the insecurity of the ballot-box at elections, and the
infamous character of many of the public officials, had been
the subject of complaint, not only in San Francisco, but
throughout the State of California. It was evident to the
honest and respectable citizens of, San Francisco that … it
would become the duty of the people to protect themselves by
reforming the courts of law, and by taking the ballot-box from
the hands of greedy and unprincipled politicians." The latter
were represented by a newspaper called the Sunday Times,
edited by one James P. Casey.
{351}
The opinion of the better classes of citizens was voiced by
the Evening Bulletin, whose editor was James King. On the 14th
of May, 1856, King was shot by Casey, in the public street,
receiving a wound from which he died six days later, and
intense excitement of feeling in the city was produced. Casey
surrendered himself and was lodged in jail. During the evening
of the 14th some of the members of a vigilance committee which
had been formed in 1851, and which had then checked a free
riot of crime in the suddenly populated and unorganized city,
by trying and executing a few desperadoes, came together and
determined the organization of another committee for the same
purpose. "The next day (the 15th) a set of rules and
regulations were drawn up which each member was obliged to
sign. The committee took spacious rooms, and all citizens of
San Francisco having the welfare of the city at heart were
invited to join the association. Several thousands enrolled
themselves in a few days. … The members of the vigilance
committee were divided into companies of 100, each company
having a captain. Early on Sunday (the 18th) orders were sent
to the different captains to appear with their companies ready
for duty at the headquarters of the committee, in Sacramento
Street, at nine o'clock. When all the companies had arrived,
they were formed into one body, in all about 2,000 men. Sixty
picked men were selected as a guard for the executive
committee. At half-past eleven the whole force moved in the
direction of the jail. A large number of spectators had
collected, but there was no confusion, no noise. They marched
through the city to Broadway, and there formed in the open
space before the jail. … The houses opposite the jail were
searched for men and arms secreted there, the committee
wishing to prevent any chance of a collision which might lead
to bloodshed. A cannon was then brought forward and placed in
front of the jail, the muzzle pointed at the door." The jailer
was now called upon to deliver Casey to the committee, and
complied, being unable to resist. One Charles Cora, who had
killed a United States marshal the November previous, was
taken from the jail at the same time. The two prisoners were
escorted to the quarters of the vigilance committee and there
confined under guard. Two days afterwards (May 20th) Mr. King
died. Casey and Cora were put on trial before a tribunal which
the committee had organized, were condemned to death, and were
hanged, with solemnity, on the 22d, from a platform erected in
front of the building on Sacramento Street. "The executive
committee, finding that the power they held was perfectly
under control, and that there was no danger of any popular
excesses, determined to continue their work and rid the
country of the gang of ruffians which had for so long a time
managed elections in San Francisco and its vicinity. These men
were all well known, and were ordered to leave San Francisco.
Many went away. Those who refused to go were arrested and
taken to the rooms of the committee, where they were confined
until opportunities offered for shipping them out of the
country. … The governor of California at this time was Mr.
J. Neely Johnson. … The major-general of the second division
of state militia (which included the city and county of San
Francisco) was Mr. William T. Sherman [afterwards well known
in the world as General Sherman] who had resigned his
commission in the United States army and had become a partner
in the banking house of Lucas, Turner & Co., in San Francisco.
… Toward the end of May, Governor Johnson … appealed to
General Sherman for advice and assistance in putting a stop to
the vigilance committee. At this time General Wool was in
command of the United States troops, and Commodore Farragut
had charge of the navy yard." General Wool was applied to for
arms, and Commodore Farragut was asked to station a vessel of
war at anchor off San Francisco. Both officers declined to act
as requested, having no authority to do so. "When Governor
Johnson returned to Sacramento, a writ was issued, at his
request, by Judge Terry of the supreme court, commanding the
sheriff of San Francisco to bring before him one William
Mulligan, who was then in the hands of the vigilance
committee." The vigilance committee refused to surrender their
prisoner to the sheriff, and General Sherman was ordered to
call out the militia of his division to support that officer.
At the same time the governor issued a proclamation declaring
the city of San Francisco in a state or insurrection. General
Sherman found it impossible to arm his militia for service,
and resigned the command. The governor sought and obtained
arms elsewhere; but the schooner which brought them was seized
and the arms possessed by the committee. On attempting to
arrest the person who had charge of the schooner, one of the
vigilance committee's policemen, named Hopkins, was stabbed by
the afterwards notorious Judge Terry, who, with some others,
had undertaken to protect the man. "The signal for a general
meeting under arms was sounded, and in a short time 1,500 men
were reported ready for duty. In an hour 4,000 men were under
arms and prepared to act against the so-caned law-and-order
party, who were collected in force at the different armories.
These armories were surrounded." Judge Terry was demanded and
delivered up, and all the arms and ammunition in the armories
were removed. "In this way was settled the question of power
between the vigilance committee, who wished to restore order
and were working to establish an honest judiciary and a pure
ballot, and their opponents, the law-and-order party, who
wished to uphold the dignity of the law by means of a
butcher's knife in the hands of a judge of the supreme court.
Although the committee were masters in San Francisco, their
position was made more precarious by the very fact of their
having disarmed their opponents. The attention of the whole
Union was attracted to the state of things in California, and
it was rumored that instructions had been sent from Washington
to all the United States vessels in the Pacific to proceed at
once to San Francisco; and that orders were on the way,
placing the United States military force in California at the
disposal of Governor Johnson. The committee went on steadily
with their work. … All the important changes which they had
undertaken had been carried out successfully, and they would
gladly have given up the responsibility they had assumed had
it not been for the case of Judge Terry. … At last the
physicians announced that Hopkins was out of danger, and on
the 7th of August Judge Terry was released. … Having got rid
of Judge Terry the committee prepared to bring their labours to a
close, and on the 18th of August the whole association,
numbering over 5,000 men, after marching through the principal
streets of San Francisco, returned to their headquarters in
Sacramento Street, where after delivering up their arms they
were relieved from duty. … In the following November there
was an election of city and county officers. Every thing went
off very quietly. A 'people's ticket', bearing the names of
thoroughly trustworthy citizens, irrespective of party, was
elected by a large majority, and for the last 20 years San
Francisco has had the reputation of being one of the best
governed cities in the United States."
_T. G. Cary,
The San Francisco Vigilance Committee
(Atlantic Monthly, December 1877)._
ALSO IN:
_H. H. Bancroft,
History of the Pacific States,
volume 18 (California, volume 6), chapter 25._
_General W. T. Sherman,
Memoirs,
chapter 4 (volume 1)._
{352}
CALIFORNIA: A. D. 1877-1880.
Denis Kearney and the Sand Lot Party.
The new state constitution.
"Late in 1877 a meeting was called in San Francisco to express
sympathy with the men then on strike at Pittsburg in
Pennsylvania. … Some strong language used at this meeting,
and exaggerated by the newspapers, frightened the business men
into forming a sort of committee of public safety. … The
chief result of the incident was further irritation of the
poorer classes, who perceived that the rich were afraid of
them, and therefore disposed to deal harshly with them.
Shortly after came an election of municipal officers and
members of the State legislature. The contest, as is the
custom in America, brought into life a number of clubs and
other organizations, purporting to represent various parties
or sections of a party, and among others a body calling
itself' 'The Working men's Trade and Labor Union,' the
Secretary of which was a certain Denis Kearney. When the
election was over, Kearney declared that he would keep his
union going, and form a working man's party. He was a drayman
by trade, Irish by birth, brought up a Roman Catholic, but
accustomed to include his religion among the established
institutions he reviled. He had borne a good character for
industry and steadiness till some friend 'put him into
stocks,' and the loss of what he hoped to gain is said to have
first turned him to agitation. He had gained some faculty in
speaking by practice at a Sunday debating club called the
Lyceum of Self Culture. … Kearney's tongue, loud and
abusive, soon gathered an audience. On the west side of San
Francisco, as you cross the peninsula from the harbor towards
the ocean, there is (or then was) a large open space, laid out
for building, but not yet built on, covered with sand, and
hence called the Sand Lot. Here the mob had been wont to
gather for meetings; here Kearney formed his party. At first
he had merely vagabonds to listen, but one of the two great
newspapers took him up. These two, the Chronicle and the
Morning Call, were in keen rivalry, and the former seeing in
this new movement a chance of going ahead, filling its columns
with sensational matter and increasing its sale among working
men, went in hot and strong for the Sand Lot party. … The
advertisement which the Chronicle gave him by its reports and
articles, and which he repaid by advising working men to take
it, soon made him a personage; and his position was finally
assured by his being, along with several other speakers,
arrested and prosecuted on a charge of riot, in respect of
inflammatory speeches delivered at a meeting on 'the top of
Nob Hill, one of the steep heights which make San Francisco
the most picturesque of American cities. The prosecution
failed, and Kearney was a popular hero. Clerks and the better
class of citizens now began to attend his meetings, though
many went from mere curiosity, as they would have gone to a
circus; the W. P. C. (Working man's Party of California) was
organized as a regular party, embracing the whole State of
California, with Kearney for its President. … The Sand Lot
party drew its support chiefly from the Democrats, who here,
as in the East, have the larger share of the rabble: hence its
rise was not unwelcome to the Republicans, because it promised
to divide and weaken their old opponents; while the Democrats,
hoping ultimately to capture it, gave a feeble resistance. Thus
it grew the faster, and soon began to run a ticket of its own
at city and State elections. It carried most of the city
offices, and when the question was submitted to the people
whether a new Constitution should be framed for California, it
threw its vote in favor of having one and prevailed. … Next
came, in the summer of 1878, the choice of delegates to the
convention which was to frame the new Constitution. The
Working man's Party obtained a substantial representation in
the convention, but its nominees were ignorant men, without
experience or constructive ideas. … However; the working
men's delegates, together with the more numerous and less
corruptible delegates of the farmers, got their way in many
things and produced that surprising instrument by which
California is now governed. …
1. It restricts and limits in every possible way the powers of
the State legislature, leaving it little authority except to
carry out by statutes the provisions of the Constitution. It
makes 'lobbying,' i. e., the attempt to corrupt a legislator,
and the corrupt action of a legislator, felony.
2. It forbids the State legislature or local authorities to
incur debts beyond a certain limit, taxes uncultivated land
equally with cultivated, makes sums due on mortgage taxable in
the district where the mortgaged property lies, authorizes an
income tax, and directs a highly inquisitorial scrutiny of
everybody's property for the purposes of taxation.
3. It forbids the 'watering of stock,' declares that the State
has power to prevent corporations from conducting their
business so as to 'infringe the general well-being of the
State'; directs the charges of telegraph and gas companies,
and of water-supplying bodies, to be regulated and limited by
law; institutes a railroad commission with power to fix the
transportation rates on all railroads and examine the books
and accounts of all transportation companies.
4. It forbids all corporations to employ any Chinese, debars
them from the suffrage, forbids their employment on any public
works, annuls all contracts for 'coolie labour,' directs the
legislature to provide for the punishment of any company which
shall import Chinese, to impose conditions on the residence of
Chinese, and to cause their removal if they fail to observe
these conditions. It also declares that eight hours shall
constitute a legal day's work on all public works. When the
Constitution came to be submitted to the vote of the people,
in May 1879, it was vehemently opposed by the monied men. …
{353}
The struggle was severe, but the Granger party commanded so
many rural votes, and the Sand Lot party so many in San
Francisco (whose population is nearly a third of that of the
entire State) that the Constitution was carried, though by a
small majority, only 11,000 out of a total of 145,000 citizens
voting. … The next thing was to choose a legislature to
carry out the Constitution. Had the same influences prevailed
in this election as prevailed in that of the Constitutional
Convention, the results might have been serious. But
fortunately there was a slight reaction. … A series of
statutes was passed which gave effect to the provisions of the
Constitution in a form perhaps as little harmful as could be
contrived, and certainly less harmful than had been feared
when the Constitution was put to the vote. Many bad bills,
particularly those aimed at the Chinese, were defeated, and
one may say generally that the expectations of the Sand Lot
men were grievously disappointed. While all this was passing,
Kearney had more and more declined in fame and power. He did
not sit either in the Constitutional Convention or in the
legislature of 1880. The mob had tired of his harangues,
especially as little seemed to come of them, and as the
candidates of the W. P. C. had behaved no better in office
than those of the old parties. He had quarreled with the
Chronicle. He was, moreover, quite unfitted by knowledge or
training to argue the legal, economical, and political
questions involved in the new Constitution so that the
prominence of these questions threw him into the background.
… Since 1880 he has played no part in Californian politics,
and is indeed so insignificant that no one cares to know where
he goes or what he does."
_J. Bryce,
The American Commonwealth,
chapter 90 (volume 2),
and appendix to volume 1
(containing the text of the Constitution of California)._
----------CALIFORNIA: End----------
CALIGULA.
See CAIUS.
CALIPH, The Title.
The title Caliph, or Khalifa, simply signifies in the Arabic
language "Successor." The Caliphs were the successors of
Mahomet.
CALIPHATE, The.
See MAHOMETAN CONQUEST.
CALIPHS,
The Turkish Sultan becomes successor to the.
See BAGDAD: A. D. 1258.
CALISCH, OR KALISCH, Treaty of.
See GERMANY: A. D. 1812-1813.
CALIXTINES, The.
See BOHEMIA: A. D. 1419-1434.
CALLAO: Siege, 1825-1826.
See PERU: A. D. 1820-1826.
CALLAO: A. D. 1866.
Repulse of the Spanish fleet.
See PERU: A. D. 1826-1876.
CALLEVA.
One of the greater towns of Roman Britain, the walls of which,
found at Silchester enclose an area of three miles in circuit.
_T. Wright,
Celt, Roman and Saxon,
chapter 5._
CALLIAS, Peace of.
See ATHENS: B. C. 460-449.
CALLINICUS, Battle of.
Fought in the wars of the Romans with the Persians, on the
banks of the Euphrates, Easter Eve. A. D. 531. The Romans,
commanded by Belisarius, suffered an apparent defeat, but they
checked an intended advance of the Persians on Antioch.
_G. Rawlinson,
Seventh Great Oriental Monarchy,
chapter 19._
CALLISTUS II., Pope, A. D. 1119-1124.
Callistus III., Pope, A. D. 1455-1458.
CALMAR, The Union of.
See SCANDINAVIAN STATES: A. D. 1018-1397, and 1397-1527.
CALPULALPAM, Battle of (1860).
See MEXICO: A. D. 1848-1861.
CALPURNIAN LAW, The.
"In this year, B. C. 149, the tribune L. Calpurnius Piso
Frugi, who was one of the Roman writers of annals, proposed
and carried a Lex Calpurnia, which made a great change in the
Roman criminal procedure. Before this time and to the third
Punic war, when a magistratus had misconducted himself in his
foreign administration by oppressive acts and spoliation,
there were several ways of inquiring into his offence. … But
these modes of procedure were insufficient to protect the
subjects of Rome against bad magistratus. … The remedy for
these evils was the establishment of a court under the name of
Quaestio Perpetua de pecuniis repetundis, the first regular
criminal court that existed at Rome. Courts similarly
constituted were afterwards established for the trial of
persons charged with other offences. The Lex Calpurnia defined
the offence of Repetundæ, as it was briefly named, to be the
taking of money by irregular means for the use of a governor.
The name Repetundæ was given to this offence, because the
object of the procedure was to compel the governor to make
restitution. … The court consisted of a presiding judge …
and of a body of judices or jurymen annually appointed. The
number of this body of judices is not known, but they were all
senators. The judge and a jury taken from the body of the
judices tried all the cases which came before them during one
year; and hence came the name Quaestio Perpetua or standing
court, in opposition to the extraordinary commissions which
had hitherto been appointed as the occasion arose. We do not
know that the Lex Calpurnia contained any penalties. As far as
the evidence shows, it simply enabled the complainants to
obtain satisfaction."
_G. Long,
Decline of the Roman Republic,
chapter 2._
CALUSA, The.
See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: TIMUQUANAN FAMILY.
CALVEN, Battle of (1499).
See SWITZERLAND: A. D. 1396-1499.
CALVIN AND THE REFORMATION.
See PAPACY: A. D. 1521-1535;
and GENEVA: A. D. 1536-1564.
CAMARCUM.
The ancient name of the town of Cambrai.
CAMARILLA.
A circle of irresponsible chamber
counsellors—courtiers—surrounding a sovereign with
influences superior to those of his responsible ministers.
CAMBALU, OR CAMBALEC.
See CHINA: A. D. 1259-1294.
CAMBAS, OR
CAMPA, OR
CAMPO, The.
See BOLIVIA: ABORIGINAL INHABITANTS;
and AMERICAN ABORIGINES: ANDESIANS.
CAMBORICUM.
A Roman town in Britain.
"Camboricum was without doubt a very important town, which
commanded the southern fens. It had three forts or citadels,
the principal of which occupied the district called the
Castle-end, in the modern town of Cambridge, and appears to
have had a bridge over the Cam, or Granta; of the others, one
stood below the town, at Chesterton, and the other above it,
at Granchester. Numerous roads branched off from this town.
… Bede calls the representative of Camboricum, in his time,
a 'little deserted city,' and tells us how, when the nuns of
Ely wanted a coffin for their saintly abbess, Etheldreda, they
found a beautiful sculptured sarcophagus of white marble
outside the city walls of the Roman town."
_T. Wright,
Celt, Roman and Saxon,
chapter 5._
{354}
CAMBRAI: A. D. 1581.
Unsuccessful siege by the Prince of Parma.
See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1581-1584.
CAMBRAI: A. D. 1595-1598.
End of the Principality of governor Balagni.
Siege and capture by the Spaniards.
Retention under the treaty of Vervins.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1593-1598.
CAMBRAI: A. D. 1677.
Taken by Louis XIV.
See NETHERLANDS (HOLLAND): A. D. 1674-1678.
CAMBRAI: A. D. 1679.
Ceded to France.
See NIMEGUEN, THE PEACE OF.
----------CAMBRAI: End----------
CAMBRAI,
The League of.
See VENICE: A. D. 1508-1509.
CAMBRAI, Peace of.
See ITALY: A. D. 1527-1529.
CAMBRIA.
The early name of Wales.
See KYMRY, and CUMBRIA;
also, BRITAIN: 6TH CENTURY.
CAMBRIDGE,
England, Origin of.
See CAMBORICUM.
CAMBRIDGE, Massachusetts.
The first settlement.
See MASSACHUSETTS: A. D. 1629-1630.
CAMBRIDGE, Platform, The:
See MASSACHUSETTS: A. D. 1646-1651.
CAMBYSES, OR KAMBYSES,
King of Persia, B. C. 529-522.
CAMDEN, Battle of.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1780 (FEBRUARY-AUGUST).
CAMERONIAN REGIMENT, The.
In 1689, when Claverhouse was raising the Highland clans in
favor of James II., "William Cleland, who had fought with
distinguished bravery at Bothwell, and was one of the few men
whom Claverhouse feared, made an offer to the [Scottish]
Estates to raise a regiment among the Cameronians, under the
colonelcy of the Earl of Angus, and the offer was accepted.
Such was the origin of the Cameronian regiment. Its first
lieutenant-colonel was Cleland; its first chaplain was
Shields. Its courage was first tried at Dunkeld, where these
800 Covenanted warriors rolled back the tide of Celtic
invasion; and since that, undegenerate though changed, it has
won trophies in every quarter of the world."
_J. Cunningham,
Church History of Scotland,
volume 2, chapter 7._
ALSO IN:
_J. Browne,
History of the Highlands,
volume 2, chapter 8._
CAMERONIANS, The.
See SCOTLAND: A. D. 1681-1689.
CAMISARDS, The revolt of the.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1702-1710.
CAMORRA, OR CAMORRISTI, The.
"Besides the regular authorities known to and avowed by the
law … there existed under the Bourbon rule at Naples
[overthrown by Garibaldi in 1860] a self-constituted authority
more terrible than either. It was not easy to obtain exact
proof of the operation of this authority, for it was impatient
of question, its vengeance was prompt, and the instrument of
that vengeance was the knife. In speaking of it as one
authority it is possible to err, for different forms or
branches of this secret institution at times revealed their
existence by the orders which they issued. This secret
influence was that of the Camorra, or Camorristi, a sort of
combination of the violence of the middle ages, of the trades
union tyranny of Sheffield, and of the blackmail levy of the
borders. The Camorristi were a body of unknown individuals who
subsisted on the public, especially on the smaller
tradespeople. A man effected a sale of his ware; as the
customer left his shop a man of the people would enter and
demand the tax on the sale for the Camorra. None could escape
from the odious tyranny. It was impalpable to the police. It
did not confine itself to the industry of illicit taxation. It
issued its orders. When the Italian Parliament imposed stamp
duties, that sensibly increased the cost of litigation, that
indispensable luxury of the Neapolitans, the advocates
received letters warning them to cease all practice in the
courts so long as these stamp duties were enforced.
'Otherwise,' continued the mandate, 'we shall take an early
opportunity of arranging your affairs.' Signed by 'the Camorra
of the avvocati.' The arrangement hinted at was to be made by
the knife. … The Italian government, much to its credit,
made a great onslaught on the Camorristi. Many were arrested,
imprisoned or exiled, some even killed one another in prison.
But the total eradication of so terrible a social vice must be
[published in 1867] a work of great difficulty, perseverance
and time."
_The Trinity of Italy;
by an English Civilian,
page 70._
CAMP OF REFUGE AT ELY.
See ENGLAND: A. D. 1069-1071.
CAMPAGNA, OR CAMPANIA.
"'The name of Campania,' says Pelligrini, 'which was first
applied to the territory of Capua alone, extended itself by
successive re-arrangements of the Italian provinces over a
great part of Central Italy, and then gradually shrank back
again into its birth-place, and at last became restricted to
the limits of one city only, Naples, and that one of the least
importance in Italy. What naturally followed was the total
disuse of the name.' … The term Campania, therefore, became
obsolete except in the writings of a few mediaeval authors,
whose statements created some confusion by their ignorance of
the different senses in which it had at different times been
used. An impression seems, however, to have prevailed that the
district of Capua had been so named on account of its flat and
fertile nature, and hence every similar tract of plain country
came to be called a campagna in the Italian language. The
exact time when the name, which had thus become a mere
appellative, was applied to the Roman Campagna is not
accurately ascertained. … It will be seen that the term
Roman Campagna is not a geographical definition of any
district or province with clearly fixed limits, but that it is
a name loosely employed in speaking of the tract which lies
round the city of Rome."
_R. Burn,
Rome and the Campagna,
chapter 14, note at end._
ALSO IN:
_Sir W. Gell,
Topography of Rome,
volume 1._
CAMPALDINO, Battle of.
See FLORENCE; A. D. 1289.
CAMPANIANS, The.
See SABINES;
also, SAMNITES.
CAMPBELL, Sir Colin (Lord Clyde),
The Indian Campaign of.
See INDIA: A. D. 1857-1858.
{355}
CAMPBELL'S STATION, Battle of.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1863
(OCTOBER-DECEMBER: TENNESSEE).
CAMPERDOWN, Naval battle of.
See ENGLAND: A. D. 1797.
CAMPO-FORMIO, Peace of.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1797 (MAY-OCTOBER).
CAMPO SANTO, Battle of (1743).
See ITALY: A. D. 1741-1743.
CAMPO-TENESE, Battle of (1806).
See FRANCE: A. D. 1805-1806 (DECEMBER-SEPTEMBER).
CAMPUS MARTIUS AT ROME, The.
"The history of the Campus Martius presents us with a series
of striking contrasts. It has been covered in successive ages,
first by the cornfields of the Tarquinian dynasty, then by the
parade ground of the great military republic, next by a forest
of marble colonnades and porticoes, and, lastly, by a confused
mass of mean and filthy streets, clustering round vast
mansions, and innumerable churches of every size and
description. … During the time of the Republic, the whole
Campus seems to have been considered state property and was
used as a military and athletic exercise ground and a place of
meeting for the comitia centuriata."
_R. Burn,
Rome and the Campagna,
chapter 13, part 1._
"We have hitherto employed this name to designate the whole of
the meadow land bounded by the Tiber on one side, and on the
other by the Collis Hortulorum, the Quirinal and the
Capitoline. … But the Campus Martius, strictly speaking, was
that portion only of the flat ground which lies in the angle
formed by the bend of the stream. According to the narrative
of Livy, it was the property of the Tarquins, and upon their
expulsion was confiscated, and then consecrated to Mars; but
Dionysius asserts that it had been previously set apart to the
god and sacrilegiously appropriated by the tyrant. … During
the republic the Campus Martius was employed specially for two
purposes. (1.) As a place for holding the constitutional
assemblies (comitia) especially the Comitia Centuriata, and
also for ordinary public meetings (conciones). (2.) For
gymnastic and warlike sports. For seven centuries it remained
almost entirely open. … In the Comitia, the citizens, when
their votes were taken, passed into enclosures termed septa,
or ovilia, which were, for a long period, temporary wooden
erections."
_W. Ramsay,
Manual of Roman Antiquity,
chapter 1._
CAMULODUNUM.
See COLCHESTER, ORIGIN OF.
CAMUNI, The.
See RHÆTIANS.
CANAAN.
CANAANITES.
"Canaan signifies 'the lowlands,' and was primarily the name
of the coast on which the great cities of Phoenicia were
built. As, however, the inland parts of the country were
inhabited by a kindred population, the name came to be
extended to designate the whole of Palestine, just as
Palestine itself meant originally only the small territory of
the Philistines."
_A. H. Sayce,
Fresh Light from the Ancient Monuments,
chapter 2._
See PHŒNICIANS: ORIGIN AND EARLY HISTORY;
Also,
JEWS: THE EARLY HEBREW HISTORY,
and HAMITES.
----------CANAAN: End----------
CANADA.
(NEW FRANCE.)
CANADA:
Names.
"The year after the failure of Verrazano's last enterprise,
1525, Stefano Gomez sailed from Spain for Cuba and Florida;
thence he steered northward in search of the long hoped-for
passage to India, till he reached Cape Race, on the
southeastern extremity of Newfoundland. The further details of
his voyage remain unknown, but there is reason to suppose that
he entered the Gulf of St. Lawrence and traded upon its
shores. An ancient Castilian tradition existed that the
Spaniards visited these coasts before the French, and having
perceived no appearance of mines or riches, they exclaimed
frequently 'Aca nada' [signifying 'here is nothing']; the
natives caught up the sound, and when other Europeans arrived,
repeated it to them. The strangers concluded that these words
were a designation, and from that time this magnificent
country bore the name of Canada. … Father Hennepin asserts
that the Spaniards were the first discoverers of Canada, and
that, finding nothing there to gratify their extensive desires
for gold, they bestowed upon it the appellation of Capo di
Nada, 'Cape Nothing,' whence by corruption its present name.
… La Potherie gives the same derivation. … This
derivation would reconcile the different assertions of the
early discoverers, some of whom give the name of Canada to the
whole valley of the St. Lawrence; others, equally worthy of
credit, confine it to a small district in the neighbourhood of
Stadacona (now Quebec). … Duponceau, in the Transactions of
the [American] Philosophical Society, of Philadelphia, founds
his conjecture of the Indian origin of the name of Canada upon
the fact that, in the translation of the Gospel of St. Matthew
into the Mohawk tongue, made by Brandt, the Indian chief, the
word Canada is always used to signify a village. The mistake
of the early discoverers, in taking the name of a part for
that of the whole, is very pardonable in persons ignorant of
the Indian language. … The natural conclusion … is, that
the word Canada was a mere local appellation, without
reference to the country; that each tribe had their own
Canada, or collection of huts, which shifted its position
according to their migrations."
_E. Warburton,
The Conquest of Canada,
volume 1, chapter 1, and foot-note._
"Canada was the name which Cartier found attached to the land
and there is no evidence that he attempted to displace it. …
Nor did Roberval attempt to name the country, while the
commission given him by the king does not associate the name
of Francis or any new name therewith. … There seems to have
been a belief in New England, at a later day, that Canada was
derived from William and Emery de Caen (Cane, as the English
spelled it), who were in New France in 1621, and later. Cf.
Morton's 'New English Canaan,' Adam's edition, page 235, and
Josselyn's 'Rarities,' page 5; also, J. Reade, in his history of
geographical names in Canada, printed in New Dominion Monthly,
xi. 344."
_B. F. De Costa,
Jacques Cartier and his Successors
(Narrative and Critical History of America,
volume 4, chapter 2), and Editor's foot-note._
{356}
"Cartier calls the St. Lawrence the 'River of Hochelaga,' or
'the great river of Canada.' He confines the name of Canada to
a district extending from the Isle aux Coudres in the St.
Lawrence to a point at some distance above the site of Quebec.
The country below, he adds, was called by the Indians
Saguenay, and that above, Hochelaga. In the map of Gerard
Mercator (1569) the name Canada is given to a town, with an
adjacent district, on the river Stadin (St. Charles).
Lescarbot, a later writer, insists that the country on both
sides of the St. Lawrence, from Hochelaga to its mouth, bore
the name of Canada. In the second map of Ortelius, published
about the year 1572; New France, Nova Francia is thus
divided:—'Canada,' a district on the St. Lawrence above the
River Saguenay; 'Chilaga' (Hochelaga), the angle between the
Ottawa and the St. Lawrence; 'Saguenai,' a district below the
river of that name; 'Moscosa,' south of the St. Lawrence and
east of the River Richelieu; 'Avacal,' west and south of
Moscosa; 'Norumbega,' Maine and New Brunswick; 'Apalachen,'
Virginia, Pennsylvania, etc.; 'Terra Corterealis,' Labrador;
'Florida,' Mississippi, Alabama, Florida. Mercator confines
the name of New France to districts bordering on the St.
Lawrence. Others give it a much broader application. The use
of this name, or the nearly allied names of Francisca and La
Francisane, dates back, to say the least, as far as 1525, and
the Dutch geographers are especially free in their use of it,
out of spite to the Spaniards. The derivation of the name of
Canada has been a point of discussion. It is, without doubt,
not Spanish, but Indian. … Lescarbot affirms that Canada is
simply an Indian proper name, of which it is vain to seek a
meaning. Belleforest also calls it an Indian word, but
translates it 'Terre,' as does also Thevet."
_F. Parkman,
Pioneers of France in the New World: Champlain,
chapter 1, foot-note._
CANADA:
The Aboriginal inhabitants.
See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: ALGONQUIAN FAMILY;
HURONS; OJIBWAYS; SIOUAN FAMILY;
ATHAPASCAN FAMILY, AND ESKIMAUAN FAMILY.
CANADA: A. D. 1497-1498.
Coast discoveries of the Cabots.
See AMERICA: A. D. 1497 and 1498.
CANADA: A. D. 1500.
Cortereal on the coast.
See AMERICA: A. D. 1500.
CANADA: A. D. 1501-1504.
Portuguese, Norman and Breton fishermen on the Newfoundland
banks.
See NEWFOUNDLAND: A. D. 1501-1578.
CANADA: A. D. 1524.
The coasting voyage of Verrazano.
See AMERICA: A. D. 1523-1524.
CANADA: A. D. 1534-1535.
Possession taken by Jacques Cartier for the King of France.
See AMERICA: A. D. 1534-1535.
CANADA: A. D. 1541-1603.
Jacques Cartier's last undertaking.
Unsuccessful French attempts at Colonization.
See AMERICA: A. D. 1541-1603.
CANADA: A. D. 1603-1605.
The Beginning of Champlain's Career in the New World.
Colonization at Port Royal.
Exploration of the New England coast.
In Pontgravé's expedition of 1603 to New France [see AMERICA:
A. D. 1541-1603], "Samuel de Champlain, a captain in the
navy, accepted a command …. at the request of De Chatte [or
De Chastes]; he was a native of Saintonge, and had lately
returned to France from the West Indies, where he had gained a
high name for boldness and skill. Under the direction of this
wise and energetic man the first successful efforts were made
to found a permanent settlement in the magnificent province of
Canada, and the stain of the errors and disasters of more than
seventy years was at length wiped away. Pontgravé and
Champlain sailed for the St. Lawrence in 1603," explored it as
far as the rapids of St. Louis, and then returned to France.
They found that the patron of their undertaking, De Chastes,
was dead. "Pierre du Guast, Sieur de Monts, had succeeded to
the powers and privileges of the deceased, with even a more
extensive commission. De Monts was a Calvinist, and had
obtained from the king the freedom of religious faith for
himself and his followers in America, but under the engagement
that the Roman Catholic worship should be established among
the natives. … The trading company established by De Chatte
was continued and increased by his successor. With this
additional aid De Monts was enabled to fit out a more complete
armament than had ever hitherto been engaged in Canadian
commerce. He sailed from Havre on the 7th of March, 1604, with
four vessels. Of these, two under his immediate command were
destined for Acadia. Champlain, Poutrincourt, and many other
volunteers, embarked their fortunes with him, purposing to
cast their future lot in the New World. A third vessel was
dispatched under Pontgravé to the Strait of Canso, to protect
the exclusive trading privileges of the company. The fourth
steered for Tadoussac, to barter for the rich furs brought by
the Indian hunters from the dreary wilds of the Saguenay. On
the 6th of May De Monts reached a harbor on the coast of
Acadia;" but, for some reason not to be understood, his
projected colony was quartered on the little islet of St.
Croix, near the mouth of the river of that name, which became
subsequently the boundary between Maine and New Brunswick.
Meantime, the fine harbor, now Annapolis, then named Port
Royal, had been discovered, and was granted, with a large
surrounding territory, by De Monts to De Poutrincourt, who
proposed to settle upon it as its feudal proprietor and lord.
The colony at St. Croix having been housed and put in order,
De Poutrincourt sailed for France, intending to bring his
family and establish himself at Port Royal. De Monts,
Champlain, and those who remained, suffered a winter of
terrible hardships, and thirty-five died before spring. De
Monts now resolved to seek a better site for his infant
settlement, and, finding no other situation so good he resumed
possession of that most desirable Port Royal which he had
granted away to Poutrincourt and removed his colony thither.
Champlain, meanwhile, in the summer of 1605, had explored the
coast southward far down the future home of the English
Puritans, looking into Massachusetts Bay, taking shelter in
Plymouth harbor and naming it Port St. Louis, doubling Cape
Cod (which he called Cap Blanc), turning back at Nausett
Harbor, and gaining on the whole a remarkable knowledge of the
country and its coast. Soon after Champlain's return from this
coasting voyage, De Monts was called home to France, by news
of machinations that were threatening to extinguish his
patent, and Pontgravé was left in command of the colony at
Port Royal.
_E. Warburton,
The Conquest of Canada,
volume 1, chapter 3._
{357}
In De Monts' petition to the king for leave to colonize Acadia
that region was defined "as extending from the 40th to the
46th degree of north latitude, or from Philadelphia to beyond
Montreal."
_F. Parkman,
Pioneers of France in the New World: Champlain,
chapter 3._
ALSO IN:
_E. F. Slafter,
Memoir preface to "Voyages of Samuel de Champlain"
(Prince Society, 1880), chapters 1-5._
CANADA: A. D. 1606-1608.
The fortunes of the Acadian colony.
"De Monts found his pathway in France surrounded with
difficulties. The Rochelle merchants who were partners in the
enterprise desired a return for their investments. The Baron
de Poutrincourt, who was still possessed with the desire to
make the New World his home, proved of assistance to De Monts.
De Poutrincourt returned to Acadia and encouraged the
colonists, who were on the verge of deserting Port Royal. With
De Poutrincourt emigrated at this time a Parisian advocate,
named Mark Lescarbot, who was of great service to the colony.
During the absence of De Poutrincourt on an exploring
expedition down the coast, Lescarbot drained and repaired the
colonists' fort, and made a number of administrative changes,
much improving the condition of the settlers. The following
winter was one of comfort, indeed of enjoyment. … In May,
however, the sad news reached the colony that the company of
the merchants on whom it depended had been broken up. Their
dependence being gone, on the 30th of July most of the
colonists left Acadia for France in vessels sent out for them.
For two years the empty buildings of Port Royal stood, a
melancholy sight, with not a white person in them, but under
the safe protection of Memberton, the Micmak chief, who proved
a trusty friend to the French. The opposition to the company
of Rochelle arose from various causes. In addition to its
financial difficulties the fact of De Monts being a Protestant
was seized on as the reason why nothing was being done in the
colony to christianize the Indians. Accordingly when De Monts,
fired with a new scheme for exploring the northwest passage,
turned over the management of Acadian affairs to De
Poutrincourt, who was a sincere Catholic, some of the
difficulties disappeared. It was not, however, till two years
later that arrangements were made for a new Acadian
expedition."
_G. Bryce,
Short History of the Canadian People,
chapter 4, section 1._
ALSO IN: _J. Hannay, History of Acadia, chapter 4._
CANADA: A. D. 1608-1611.
Champlain's third and fourth expeditions.
His settlement at Quebec, discovery of Lake Champlain, and
first wars with the Iroquois.
"De Monts in no way lost heart, and he resolved to continue in
the career of exploration for settlement. A new, expedition
was determined on, and De Monts selected the Saint Lawrence as
the spot where the effort should be made. Champlain counselled
the change. In Nova Scotia and on the coast of New Brunswick and
Maine he had been struck by the number of ports affording
protection to vessels from sea, and by the small number of
Indians whom he had met. In Nova Scotia he would be exposed to
rival attempts at settlement, and at the same time he could
not see the possibility of obtaining Indian allies. In Canada
the full control would remain with those who first made a
settlement on the Saint Lawrence, and Champlain counted the
native tribes as powerful instruments in carrying out his
policy. We have the key here to his conduct in assisting the
Hurons in their wars. …. In 1608 Champlain started for the
St. Lawrence. Pontgravé was with the expedition. A settlement
was made at Quebec, as the most suitable place. Some ground
was cleared, buildings were commenced, when a conspiracy was
discovered. The ringleader was hanged and three of those
actively implicated were sent back to France with Pontgravé on
his return in the autumn. Matters now went peaceably on. The
summer was passed in completing the 'Abitation de Quebec,' of
which Champlain has left us a sketch. It was situated in the
present Lower Town on the river bank, in the corner where
Notre Dame Street meets Sous le Fort Street. It was here
Champlain laid the foundation for the future city. Winter
came, the scurvy carrying off twenty of their number. … In
June, Des Marais, Pontgravé's son-in-law, arrived, telling him
that Pontgravé was at Tadousac. Champlain proceeded thither.
The question had then to be discussed, what policy should be
followed with the Indians? Should they be aided by what force
Champlain could command, in the expedition which they had
resolved to make against the Iroquois? It is plain that no
advance in discovery could have been made without their
assistance, and that this assistance could only have been
obtained by rendering them service. … With the view of
making explorations beyond the points then known by Europeans,
Champlain in the middle of June ascended the St. Lawrence.
About a league and a half west of the river Saint Anne, they
were joined by a party of Algonquins who were to form a part
of the expedition. Champlain tells us of their mortal feud
with the Iroquois, a proof that in no way he created it. They
all returned to Quebec, where there was festivity for some
days. It was brought to a close and the war parties started;
Champlain with nine men, Des Marais and a pilot, joined it
[them?]. With his Indian allies he ascended the Richelieu and
reached Lake Champlain, the first white man who saw its
waters: subsequently for 165 years to be the scene of contest
between the Indian and white man, the French and English, the
revolted Colonies and the Mother Country. … The advance up
Lake Champlain was made only by night. They reached Crown
Point. They were then in the Iroquois domain; very shortly
they knew of the presence of the enemy." On the 30th of July
the invaders fought a battle with the Iroquois, who fled in
terror before the arquebuse of Champlain, which killed two of
their chiefs and wounded a third. Soon after his return to
Quebec from this expedition—the beginning of the long war of
the French with the Iroquois—Champlain was summoned to
France. The patent of De Monts had been revoked and he could
not obtain its renewal. "Nevertheless, De Monts, with his
associates decided to continue their efforts, and, in March,
1610, Champlain again started for Canada." After reaching
Quebec his stay this time was short. He joined his Indian
allies in another expedition of war, and helped them to win
another victory over the Iroquois, at a place on the
Richelieu, one league above Sorel. On returning he got news of
the assassination of Henry IV. and started at once for France.
{358}
"The death of Henry IV. exercised great influence on the
fortunes of Canada. He had personally taken interest in
Champlain's voyages, and his energetic mind was well qualified
to direct the fortunes of a growing colony. Louis XIII. was
not then ten years old. Mary of Medecis was under the control
of her favourites, Leonora Galigai, and her husband, Concino
Concini. Richelieu had not then appeared on the scene. … The
Jesuits were becoming all-powerful at Court. … France was
unsettled and disordered. The Protestants, not without
provocation, were acting with passion and without judgment.
The assassination of the King had alarmed them. The whole
kingdom was threatened with convulsion and anarchy, and Canada
was to pass out of the notice of those in power: and, in the
sense of giving aid, half a century was to elapse before the
French Government could comprehend the duty of taking part in
the defence of the country, and of protecting the persons of
those living in New France. The ground was to be regarded
simply as a field for the active trader, side by side with the
devoted missionary. Thus the Government fell virtually under
the control of the Jesuits, who, impatient of contra aimed
only at the establishment of their authority, which was to
bring the colony to the verge of destruction." Champlain
returned to his colony in the spring of 1611, facing its
prospects with such courage as he found in his own stout
heart.
_W. Kingsford,
History of Canada,
book 1, chapters 3, 4 (volume 1)._
ALSO IN:
_E. B. O'Callaghan, editor.,
Doc. History of New York,
volume 3, pages 1-9._
CANADA: A. D. 1610-1613.
The Acadian colony revived, but destroyed by the English of
Virginia.
Port Royal was left uninhabited till 1610, when Poutrincourt
returned at the instance of the king to make the new
settlement a central station for the conversion of the
Indians,—a work which made some Jesuit missionaries prominent
in the history of the New World. His son followed in 1611,
with fathers Pierre Biard, and Enemond Masse. Madame la
Marquise de Guercheville, a pious Catholic, to whom De Monts
had ceded his title to Acadia, and to whom afterwards the
French king granted the whole territory now covered by the
United States, was the chief patroness of these voyages.
Desiring to make another settlement, she despatched a vessel
in 1613 with two more Jesuits, father Quentin and Gilbert Du
Thet, and forty-eight men under La Saussaye. "When they
arrived at Port Royal, they only found five persons—fathers
Biard and Masse, their servant, the apothecary Hébert, and
another. All the rest were absent, either hunting or trading.
They showed the Queen's letter to Hébert, who represented
Biencourt in his absence, and taking the two Jesuits, with
their servant and luggage aboard, again set sail. It was their
intention to establish the colony at Pentagoet, which father
Biard had visited the year previous, but when off Grand Manan
a thick fog came on, which lasted for two days, and when it
became clear, they put into a harbor on the eastern side of
Mount Desert Island, in Maine. The harbor was deep, secure and
commodious, and they judged this would be a favorable site for
the colony, and named the place St. Sauveur. … La Saussaye
was advised by the principal colonists to erect a sufficient
fortification before commencing to cultivate the soil, but he
disregarded this advice, and nothing was completed in the way
of defence, except the raising of a small palisaded structure,
when a storm burst upon the colony, which was little expected
by its founders. In 1607 a company of London merchants had
founded a colony on the James River, in Virginia, where, after
suffering greatly from the insalubrity of the climate and want
of provisions, they had attained a considerable degree of
property. In 1613 they sent a fleet of eleven vessels to fish
on the coast of Acadia, convoyed by an armed vessel under the
command of Captain Samuel Argal, who had been connected with
the colony since 1609. Argal was one of those adventurers
formed in the school of Drake, who made a trade of piracy, but
confined themselves to the robbery of those who were so
unfortunate as not to be their own countrymen. … When Argal
arrived at Mount Desert, he was told by the Indians that the
French were there in the harbor with a vessel. Learning that
they were not very numerous, he at once resolved to attack
them. All the French were ashore when Argal approached, except
ten men, most of whom were unacquainted with the working of a
ship. Argal attacked the French with musketry, and at the
second discharge Gilbert Du Thet fell hack, mortally wounded;
four others were severely injured, and two young men, named
Lemoine and Neveau, jumped overboard and were drowned. Having
taken possession of the vessel, Argal went ashore and informed
La Saussaye that the place where they were was English
territory, and included in the charter of Virginia, and that
they must remove; but, if they could prove to him that they
were there under a commission from the crown of France, he
would treat them tenderly. He then asked La Saussaye to show
him his commission; but, as Argal, with unparalleled
indecency, had abstracted it from his chest while the vessel
was being plundered by his men, the unhappy governor was of
course unable to produce it. Argal then assumed a very lofty
tone. … When Argal arrived in Virginia, he found that his
perfidious theft of the French governor's commission was
likely to cause his prisoners to be treated as pirates. They
were put into prison and in a fair way of being executed, in
spite of Argal's remonstrances, until struck with shame and
remorse, he produced the commission which he had so
dishonestly filched from them, and the prisoners were set
free. But the production of this document, while it saved the
lives of one set of Frenchmen, brought ruin upon all the
others who remained in Acadia. The Virginia colonists …
resolved to send Argal to destroy all the French settlements
in Acadia, and erase all traces of their power. … The only
excuse offered for this piratical outrage of Argal—which was
committed during a period of profound peace—was the claim
which was made by England to the whole continent of North
America, founded on the discoveries of the Cabots more than a
century before. That claim might, perhaps, have been of some
value if followed by immediate occupancy, as was the case with
the Spaniards in the South, but that not having been done, and
the French colony being the oldest, it was entitled to, at
least, as much consideration as that of Virginia. Singularly
enough, this act produced no remonstrance from France."
_J. Hannay,
History of Acadia,
chapter 5._
ALSO IN:
_W. C. Bryant and S. H. Gay,
Popular History of the United States,
volume 1, chapter 12._
{359}
CANADA: A. D. 1611-1616.
The founding of Montreal.
Champlain's invasion of the Iroquois in New York.
"In 1611 Champlain again returned to America … and on the
28th of May proceeded in search of his allies, whom he was to
meet by appointment. Not finding them he employed his time in
choosing a site for a new settlement, higher up the river than
Quebec. After a careful survey, he fixed upon an eligible spot
in the vicinity of Mont Royal. His choice has been amply
justified by the great prosperity to which this place, under
the name of Montreal, has subsequently risen. Having cleared a
considerable space of ground, he fenced it in by an earthen
ditch and planted grain in the enclosure. At length, on the
13th of June, three weeks after the time appointed, a party of
his Indian friends appeared. … As an evidence of their good
will they imparted much valuable information respecting the
geography of this continent, with which they seemed to be
tolerably well acquainted as far south as the Gulf of Mexico.
They readily agreed to his proposal to return shortly with 40
or 50 of his people to prosecute discoveries and form
settlements in their country if he thought proper. They even
made a request that a French youth should accompany them, and
make observations upon their territory and tribe. Champlain
again returned to France, with a view of making arrangements
for more extensive operations; but this object was now of very
difficult accomplishment. De Monts, who had been appointed
governor of Saintonge, was no longer inclined to take the lead
in measures of this kind, and excused himself from going to
court by stating the urgency of his own affairs. He therefore
committed the whole conduct of the settlement to Champlain,
advising him, at the same time, to seek some powerful
protector, whose influence would overcome any opposition which
might be made to his plans. The latter was so fortunate as to
win over, almost immediately, the Count de Soissons to aid him
in his designs. This nobleman obtained the title of
lieutenant-general of New France; and, by a formal agreement,
transferred to Champlain all the functions of that high
office. The Count died soon after, but Champlain found a still
more influential friend in the Prince of Conde, who succeeded
to all the privileges of the deceased, and transferred them to
him in a manner equally ample. These privileges, including a
monopoly of the fur trade, gave great dissatisfaction to the
merchants; but Champlain endeavored to remove their principal
objection, by permitting as many of them as chose to accompany
him to the New World, and to engage in this traffic. In
consequence of this permission, three merchants from Normandy,
one from Rochelle, and one from St. Malo, accompanied him.
They were allowed the privileges of a free trade on
contributing six men each to assist in projects of discovery,
and giving one-twentieth of their profits towards defraying
the expenses of the settlement. In the beginning of March
[1613] the expedition sailed from Harfleur, and on the 7th of
May arrived at Quebec. Champlain now engaged in a new
project." His new project was a voyage of exploration up the
Ottawa River, which he accomplished with great difficulty,
through the aid of his Indian allies, but from which he
returned disappointed in the hope he had entertained of
discovering the northern sea and a way to India thereby. The
next summer found Champlain again in France, where "matters
still continued favorable for the colony. The Prince of Conde
retained his influence at Court, and no difficulty was
consequently found in equipping a small fleet, to carry out
settlers and supplies from Rouen and St. Malo. On board of
this fleet came four fathers of the order of the Recollets,
whose benevolence induced them to desire the conversion of the
Indians to Christianity. These were the first priests who
settled in Canada. Champlain arrived safely, on the 25th of
May, at Tadoussac, whence he immediately pushed forward to
Quebec, and subsequently to the usual place of Indian
rendezvous, at the Lachine Rapids. Here he found his Algonquin
and Huron allies full of projects of war against the Iroquois,
whom they now proposed to assail among the lakes to the
westward, with a force of 2,000 fighting men."
_J. MacMullen,
History of Canada,
chapter 1_
"Champlain found the Hurons and their allies preparing for an
expedition against their ancient enemies, the Iroquois.
Anxious to reconnoitre the hostile territory, and also to
secure the friendship of the Canadian savages, the gallant
Frenchman resolved to accompany their warriors. After visiting
the tribes at the head waters of the Ottawa, and discovering
Lake Huron [at Georgian Bay], which, because of its 'great
extent,' he named 'La Mer Douce,' Champlain, attended by an
armed party of ten Frenchmen, accordingly set out toward the
south, with his Indian allies. Enraptured with the 'very
beautiful and pleasant country' through which they passed, and
amusing themselves with fishing and hunting, as they descended
the chain of 'Shallow Lakes,' which discharge their waters
through the River Trent, the expedition reached the banks of
Lake Ontario. Crossing the end of the lake, 'at the outlet of
the great River of Saint Lawrence,' and passing by many
beautiful islands on the way, the invaders followed the
eastern shore of Ontario for fourteen leagues, toward their
enemy's country. … Leaving the shores of the lake, the
invaders continued their route inland to the southward, for 25
or 30 leagues." After a journey of five days, "the expedition
arrived before the fortified village of the Iroquois, on the
northern bank of the Onondaga Lake, near the site of the
present town of Liverpool. The village was inclosed by four
rows of palisades, made of large pieces of timber closely
interlaced. The stockade was 30 feet high, with galleries
running around like a parapet." In the siege which followed
the Iroquois were dismayed by the firearms of Champlain and
his men, and by the operation of a moveable tower with which
he advanced to their stockade and set fire to it. But his
Indian allies proved incapable of acting in any rational or
efficient way, or to submit to the least direction, and the
attack was abortive. After a few days the invading force
retreated, carrying Champlain with them and forcing him to
remain in the Huron country until the following spring (1616),
when he made his way back to Montreal.
_J. R. Brodhead,
History of the State of New York,
volume 1, chapter 3._
{360}
The above account, which fixes on Onondaga Lake the site of
the Iroquois fort to which Champlain penetrated, does not
agree with the views of Parkman, O'Callaghan, and some other
historians, who trace Champlain's route farther westward in
New York; but it accepts the conclusions reached by O. H.
Marshall, J. V. H. Clark, and other careful students of the
question. Mr. MacMullen, in the "History of Canada" quoted
above, finds an extraordinary route for the expedition via
Lakes Huron and St. Clair, to the vicinity of Detroit.
_J. V. H. Clark,
History of Onondaga._
ALSO IN:
_O. H. Marshall,
Champlain's Expedition against the Onondagas.
Champlain's Voyages (Prince Society). 1880._
_E. B. O'Callaghan, editor,
Doc. History of New York,
volume 3, pages 10-24._
CANADA: A. D. 1616-1628.
Champlain and the fur traders.
The first Jesuit mission.
Creation of the Company of the Hundred Associates.
"The exploration in the distant Indian territories which we
have just described in the preceding pages was the last made
by Champlain. He had plans for the survey of other regions yet
unexplored, but the favorable opportunity did not occur.
Henceforth he directed his attention more exclusively than he
had hitherto done to the enlargement and strengthening of his
colonial plantation, without such success, we regret to say,
as his zeal, devotion and labors fitly deserved. The obstacles
that lay in his way were insurmountable. The establishment or
factory, we can hardly call it a plantation, at Quebec, was
the creature of a company of merchants. They had invested
considerable sums in shipping, buildings, and in the
employment of men, in order to carry on a trade in furs and
peltry with the Indians, and they naturally desired
remunerative returns. This was the limit of their purpose in
making the investment. … Under these circumstances,
Champlain struggled on for years against a current which he
could barely direct, but by no means control. … He succeeded
at length in extorting from the company a promise to enlarge
the establishment to 80 persons, with suitable equipments,
farming implements, all kinds of seeds, and domestic animals,
including cattle and sheep. But when the time came, this
promise was not fulfilled. Differences, bickerings and feuds
sprang up in the company. Some wanted one thing, and some
wanted another. The Catholics wished to extend the faith of
their church into the wilds of Canada, while the Huguenots
desired to prevent it, or at least not to promote it by their
own contributions. The company, inspired by avarice and a
desire to restrict the establishment to a mere trading post,
raised an issue to discredit Champlain. It was gravely
proposed that he should devote himself exclusively to
exploration, and that the government and trade should
henceforth be under the direction and control of Pont Gravé.
But Champlain … obtained a decree ordering that he should
have the command at Quebec, and at all other settlements in
New France, and that the company should abstain from any
interference with him in the discharge of the duties of his
office." In 1620 the Prince de Condé sold his viceroyalty to
the Duke de Montmorency, then high-admiral of France, who
commissioned Champlain anew, as his lieutenant, and supported
him vigorously. Champlain had made voyages to Canada in 1617
and 1618, and now, in 1620, he proceeded to his post again. At
Quebec he began immediately the building of a fort, which he
called fort St. Louis. The company of associates opposed this
work, and so provoked the Duke of Montmorency by their conduct
that "in the spring of 1621, he summarily dissolved the
association of merchants, which he denominated the 'Company of
Rouen and St. Malo,' and established another in its place. He
continued Champlain in the office of lieutenant, but committed
all matters relating to trade to William de Caen, a merchant
of high standing, and to Émeric de Caen, the nephew of the
former, a good naval captain." In the course of the following
year, however, the new and the old trading companies were
consolidated in one. "Champlain remained at Quebec four years
before again returning to France. His time was divided between
many local enterprises of great importance. His special
attention was given to advancing the work on the unfinished
fort, in order to provide against incursions of the hostile
Iroquois, who at one time approached the very walls of Quebec,
and attacked unsuccessfully the guarded house of the
Recollects on the St. Charles." In the summer of 1624
Champlain returned again to France, where the Duke de
Montmorency was just selling, or had sold, his viceroyalty to
the Duke de Ventadour. "This nobleman, of a deeply religious
cast of mind, had taken holy orders, and his chief purpose in
obtaining the viceroyalty was to encourage the planting of
Catholic missions in New France. As his spiritual directors
were Jesuits, he naturally committed the work to them. Three
fathers and two lay brothers of this order were sent to Canada
in 1625, and others subsequently joined them. … Champlain
was reappointed lieutenant, but remained in France two years."
Returning to Quebec in July, 1626, he found, as usual, that
everything but trade had suffered neglect in his absence. Nor
was he able, during the following year, to improve much the
prospects of the colony. As a colony, "it had never prospered.
The average number composing it had not exceeded about 50
persons. At this time it may have been somewhat more, but did
not reach a hundred. A single family only appears to have
subsisted by the cultivation of the soil. The rest were
sustained by supplies sent from France. … The company as a
mere trading association, was doubtless successful. … The
large dividends that they were able to make, intimated by
Champlain to be not far from forty per centum yearly, were, of
course, highly satisfactory to the company. … Nearly twenty
years had elapsed since the founding of Quebec, and it still
possessed only the character of a trading post, and not that
of a colonial plantation. This progress was satisfactory
neither to Champlain, to the Viceroy, nor to the Council of
State. In the view of these several interested parties, the
time had come for a radical change in the organization of the
company. Cardinal de Richelieu had risen by his extraordinary
ability as a statesman, a short time anterior to this, into
supreme authority. … He lost no time in organizing measures.
… The company of merchants whose finances had been so
skilfully managed by the Caens was by him at once dissolved. A
new one was formed, denominated 'La Compagnie de la
Nouvelle-France,' consisting of a hundred or more members, and
commonly known as the Company of the Hundred Associates. It
was under the control and management of Richelieu himself.
{361}
Its members were largely gentlemen in official positions. …
Its authority extended over the whole domain of New France and
Florida. … It entered into an obligation … within the
space of 15 years to transport 4,000 colonists to New France.
… The organization of the company … was ratified by the
Council of State on the 6th of May, 1628."
_E. F. Slafter,
Memoir of Champlain
(Voyages: Prince Society, 1880, volume 1),
chapter 9._
ALSO IN:
_Père Charlevoix,
History of New France,
translated by J. G. Shea,
book 4 (volume 2)._
CANADA: A. D. 1628-1635.
Conquest and brief occupation by the English.
Restoration to France.
"The first care of the new Company was to succor Quebec, whose
inmates were on the verge of starvation. Four armed vessels,
with a fleet of transports commanded by Roquemont, one of the
associates, sailed from Dieppe with colonists and supplies in
April, 1628; but nearly at the same time another squadron,
destined also for Quebec, was sailing from an English port.
War had at length broken out in France. The Huguenot revolt
had come to a head. Rochelle was in arms against the king; and
Richelieu, with his royal ward, was beleaguering it with the
whole strength of the kingdom. Charles I. of England, urged by
the heated passions of Buckingham, had declared himself for
the rebels, and sent a fleet to their aid. … The attempts of
Sir William Alexander to colonize Acadia had of late turned
attention in England towards the New World; and, on the
breaking out of the war, an expedition was set on foot, under
the auspices of that singular personage, to seize on the
French possessions in North America. It was a private
enterprise, undertaken by London merchants, prominent among
whom was Gervase Kirke, an Englishman of Derbyshire, who had
long lived at Dieppe, and had there married a Frenchwoman.
Gervase Kirke and his associates fitted out three small armed
ships, commanded respectively by his sons David, Lewis and
Thomas. Letters of marque were obtained from the king, and the
adventurers were authorized to drive out the French from
Acadia and Canada. Many Huguenot refugees were among the
crews. Having been expelled from New France as settlers, the
persecuted sect were returning as enemies." The Kirkes reached
the St. Lawrence in advance of Roquemont's supply ships,
intercepted the latter and captured or sank the whole. They
then sailed back to England with their spoils, and it was not
until the following summer that they returned to complete
their conquest. Meantime, the small garrison and population at
Quebec were reduced to starvation, and were subsisting on
acorns and roots when, in July 1629, Admiral David Kirke, with
his three ships, appeared before the place. Champlain could do
nothing but arrange a dignified surrender. For three years
following, Quebec and New France remained under the control of
the English. They were then restored, under a treaty
stipulation to France. "It long remained a mystery why Charles
consented to a stipulation which pledged him to resign so
important a conquest. The mystery is explained by the recent
discovery of a letter from the king to Sir Isaac Wake, his
ambassador at Paris. The promised dowry of Queen Henrietta
Maria, amounting to 800,000 crowns, had been but half paid by
the French government, and Charles, then at issue with his
Parliament and in desperate need of money, instructs his
ambassador that, when he receives the balance due, and not
before, he is to give up to the French both Quebec and Port
Royal, which had also been captured by Kirke. The letter was
accompanied by 'solemn instruments under our hand and seal' to
make good the transfer on fulfilment of the condition. It was
for a sum equal to about $240,000 that Charles entailed on
Great Britain and her colonies a century of bloody wars. The
Kirkes and their associates, who had made the conquest at
their own cost, under the royal authority, were never
reimbursed, though David Kirke received the honor of
knighthood, which cost the king nothing,"—and also the grant
of Newfoundland. On the 5th of July, 1632, Quebec was
delivered up by Thomas Kirke to Émery de Caen, commissioned by
the French king to reclaim the place. The latter held command
for one year, with a monopoly of the fur trade; then Champlain
resumed the government, on behalf of the Hundred Associates,
continuing in it until his death, which occurred on Christmas
Day, 1635.
_F. Parkman,
Pioneers of France in the New World: Champlain,
chapters 16-17._
ALSO IN:
_Calendar of State Papers: Colonial Series, 1574-1660,
pages 96-143._
_D. Brymuer,
Report on Canadian Archives,
pages xi-xiv, and note D._
_H. Kirke,
First English Conquest of Canada._
See, also,
NEWFOUNDLAND, A. D. 1610-1655.
CANADA: A. D. 1634-1652.
The Jesuit missions and their fate.
The first of the Jesuit missionaries came to Quebec in 1625,
as stated above, but it was not until nearly seven years later
that they made their way into the heart of the Indian country
and began there their devoted work. "The Father Superior of
the Mission was Paul le Jeune, a man devoted in every fibre of
mind and heart to the work on which he had come. He utterly
scorned difficulty and pain. He had received the order to
depart for Canada 'with inexpressible joy at the prospect of a
living or dying martyrdom.' Among his companions was Jean de
Brébœuf, a man noble in birth and aspect, of strong intellect
and will, of zeal which knew no limit, and recognized no
obstacle in the path of duty. … Far in the west, beside a
great lake of which the Jesuits had vaguely heard, dwelt the
Hurons, a powerful nation with many kindred tribes over which
they exercised influence. The Jesuits resolved to found a
mission among the Hurons. Once in every year a fleet of canoes
came down the great river, bearing six or seven hundred Huron
warriors, who visited Quebec to dispose of their furs, to
gamble and to steal. Brébœuf and two companions took passage
[1634] with the returning fleet, and set out for the dreary
scene of their new apostolate. … The Hurons received with
hospitable welcome the black-robed strangers. The priests were
able to repay the kindness with services of high value. They
taught more effective methods of fortifying the town in which
they lived. They promised the help of a few French musketeers
against an impending attack by the Iroquois. They cured
diseases; they bound up wounds. They gave simple instruction
to the young, and gained the hearts of their pupils by gifts
of beads and raisins. The elders of the people came to have
the faith explained to them: they readily owned that it was a
good faith for the French, but they could not be persuaded
that it was suitable for the red man.
{362}
The fathers laboured in hope and the savages learned to love them.
… Some of their methods of conversion were exceedingly
rude. A letter from Father Garnier has been preserved in which
pictures are ordered from France for the spiritual improvement
of the Indians. Many representations of souls in perdition
are required, with appropriate accompaniment of
flames, and triumphant demons tearing them with pincers. One
picture of saved souls would suffice, and 'a picture of Christ
without a beard.' They were consumed by a zeal for the baptism
of little children. At the outset the Indians welcomed this
ceremonial, believing that it was a charm to avert sickness
and death. But when epidemics wasted them they charged the
calamity against the mysterious operations of the fathers,
and refused now to permit baptism. The fathers recognized
the hand of Satan in this prohibition, and refused to submit
to it. They baptized by stealth. … In time, the patient,
self-denying labour of the fathers might have won those
discouraging savages to the cross; but a fatal interruption
was at hand. A powerful and relentless enemy, bent on
extermination, was about to sweep over the Huron territory,
involving the savages and their teachers in one common ruin.
Thirty-two years had passed since those ill judged expeditions
in which Champlain had given help to the Hurons against the
Iroquois. The unforgiving savages had never forgotten the
wrong. … The Iroquois [1648-1649] attacked in
overwhelming force the towns of their Huron enemies; forced
the inadequate defences; burned the palisades and wooden
huts; slaughtered with indescribable tortures the wretched
inhabitants. In one of these towns they found Brébœuf and one
of his companions. They bound the ill fated missionaries to
stakes; they hung around their necks collars of red-hot iron;
they poured boiling water on their heads; they cut stripes of
flesh from their quivering limbs and ate them in their sight.
To the last Brébœuf cheered with hopes of heaven the native
converts who shared his agony. And thus was gained the crown
of martyrdom for which in the fervour of their enthusiasm,
these good men had long yearned. In a few years the Huron
nation was extinct; famine and small-pox swept off those whom
the Iroquois spared. The Huron mission was closed by the
extirpation of the race for whom it was founded. Many of the
missionaries perished; some returned to France. Their labour
seemed to have been in vain; their years of toil and suffering
left no trace."
_R. Mackenzie,
America: A History,
pages 326-332._
"With the fall of the Hurons, fell the best hope
of the Canadian mission. They, and the stable and populous
communities around them, had been the rude material from which
the Jesuit would have formed his Christian empire in the
wilderness; but, one by one, these kindred peoples were
uprooted and swept away, while the neighboring Algonquins, to
whom they had been a bulwark, were involved with them in a
common ruin. … In a measure, the occupation of the Jesuits
was gone. Some of them went home, 'well resolved,' writes the
Father Superior, 'to return to the combat at the first sound
of the trumpet'; while of those who remained, about twenty in
number, several soon fell victims to famine, hardship and the
Iroquois. A few years more, and Canada ceased to be a mission.
Political and commercial interests gradually became ascendant,
and the story of Jesuit propagandism was interwoven with her
civil and military annals."
_F. Parkman,
The Jesuits in North America,
chapter 34._
ALSO IN:
_Father Charlevoix,
History of New France,
translated by Shea,
books 5-7 (volume 2)._
_J. G. Shea,
The Jesuits, Recollects, and the Indians
(Narrative and Critical History of America,
volume 4, chapter 6)._
CANADA: A. D. 1634-1673.
Nicolet.
Marquette.
Joliet.
Pioneer exploration in the West and discovery of the Mississippi.
When Champlain gave up his work, the map of New France was
blank beyond Lake Ontario and Georgian Bay. The first of the
French explorers who widened it far westward was a Norman
named Jean Nicolet, who came to America in 1618, and who was
trained for many years in Champlain's service. "After dwelling
some time among the Nipissings, he visited the Far West;
seemingly between the years 1634 and 1640. In a birch-bark
canoe, the brave Norman voyageur crossed or coasted Lake
Huron, entered the St. Mary's River, and, first of white men,
stood at the strait now called Sault Ste Marie. He does not
seem to have known of Lake Superior, but returned down the St.
Mary's River, passed from Lake Huron through the western
detour to Michilimackinac, and entered another fresh-water
sea, Mitchigannon or Michigan, also afterwards known as the
Lake of the Illinois, Lake St. Joseph, Lake Dauphin, or even
Algonquin Lake. Here he visited the Menomonee tribe of
Indians, and after them the Winnibagoes. … The fierce wrath
of the Iroquois had driven numbers of the Hurons, Ottawas, and
several minor Algonquin tribes westward. The Iroquois, like a
wedge, had split the northern tribes into east and west. Sault
Ste Marie became a central point for the refugees. … Another
gathering place for the fugitives had been found very near the
south-west corner of this great lake. This was La Pointe, one
of the Apostle Islands, near the present town of Ashland in
Wisconsin. The Jesuits took up these two points as mission
centres. … In 1669 the Fathers Dablon and Marquette, with
their men, had erected a palisaded fort, enclosing a chapel
and house, at Sault Ste Marie. In the same year Father Allouez
had begun a mission at Green Bay. In 1670 an intrepid
explorer, St. Lusson, under orders from Intendant Talon, came
west searching for copper-mines. He was accompanied by the
afterwards well-known Joliet. When this party arrived at Sault
Ste Marie, the Indians were gathered together in great
numbers, and with imposing ceremonies St. Lusson took
possession of 'Sainte Marie du Saut, as also of Lakes Huron
and Superior, the island of Manetoulin, and all countries,
rivers, lakes, and streams contiguous and adjacent thereunto.'
… It was undoubtedly the pressing desire of the Jesuit
fathers to visit the country of the Illinois and their great
river that led to the discovery of the 'Father of Waters.'
Father Allouez indeed had already ascended the Fox River from
Lake Michigan, and seen the marshy lake which is the head of a
tributary of the Mississippi. At last on June 4th, 1672, the
French minister, Colbert, wrote to Talon: 'As after the
increase of the colony there is nothing more important for the
colony than the discovery of a passage to the South Sea, his
Majesty wishes you to give it your attention.'
{363}
This message to the Intendant came as he was leaving for
France, and he recommended the scheme and the explorer he had
in view for carrying it out to the notice of the Governor,
Frontenac, who had just arrived. Governor Frontenac approved
and the explorer started. The man chosen for the enterprise
was Louis Joliet, who had already been at Sault Ste Marie. He
was of humble birth, and was a native of New France. … The
French Canadian explorer was acceptable to the missionaries,
and immediately journeyed west to meet Marquette, who was to
accompany him. … M. Joliet met the priest Marquette at St.
Ignace Mission, Michilimackinac. Jacques Marquette, of whom we
have already heard, was born in 1637 at Laon, Champagne, in
France. He sprang of an ancient and distinguished family. …
On May 17th, 1673, with deepest religious emotion, the trader
and missionary launched forth on Lake Michigan their two
canoes, containing seven Frenchmen in all, to make the
greatest discovery of the time. They hastened to Green Bay,
followed the course of Father Allouez up the Fox River, and
reached the tribe of the Mascoutins or Fire Nation on this
river. These were new Indians to the explorers. They were
peaceful, and helped the voyagers on their way. With guides
furnished, the two canoes were transported for 2,700 paces,
and the head waters of the Wisconsin were reached. After an
easy descent of 30 or 40 leagues, on June 17th, 1673, the feat
was accomplished, the Mississippi was discovered by white men,
and the canoes shot out upon its surface in latitude 43°.
Sailing down the great river for a month, the party reached
the village of Akansea, on the Arkansas River, in latitude
34°, and on July 17th began their return journey. It is but
just to say that some of the Recollet fathers, between whom
and the Jesuits jealousy existed, have disputed the fact of
Joliet and Marquette ever reaching this point. The evidence
here seems entirely in favour of the explorers. On their
return journey the party turned from the Mississippi into a
tributary river in latitude 38°. This was the Illinois.
Ascending this, the Indian town of Kaskaskia was reached, and
here for a time Father Marquette remained. Joliet and his
party passed on," arriving at Montreal in due time, but losing
all their papers in the rapids of the St. Lawrence. Father
Marquette established a mission among the Illinois Indians,
but his labors were cut short. He died while on a journey to
Green Bay, May 18, 1675. "High encomiums of Father Marquette
fill—and deservedly so—the 'Jesuit Relations.' We have his
autograph map of the Mississippi. This great stream he desired
to call 'Conception River,' but the name, like those of
'Colbert' and 'Buade' [the family name of Count Frontenac],
which were both bestowed upon it, have failed to take the
place of the musical Indian name."
_G. Bryce,
Short History of the Canadian People,
chapter 5, section 3._
ALSO IN:
_F. Parkman,
La Salle and the Discovery of the Great West,
chapters 2-5._
_C. W. Butterfield,
History of the Discovery of the Northwest by Nicolet._
_J. W. Monette,
History of the Discovery and settlement of the
Valley of the Mississippi,
book 2, chapter 1 (volume l)._
_S. S. Hebberd,
History of Wisconsin under the dominion of France,
chapters 1-2._
CANADA: A. D. 1637-1657.
The Sulpician settlement of Montreal and religious activity at
Quebec.
Champlain was succeeded as governor of New France by M. de
Châteaufort, of whose brief administration little is known,
and the latter was followed by M. de Montmagny, out of the
translation of whose name the Indians formed the title
Onontio, signifying "Great Mountain," which they afterwards
applied to all the French governors. Montmagny entered with
zeal into the plans of Champlain, "but difficulties
accumulated on all sides. Men and money were wanting, trade
languished, and the Associated Company in France were daily
becoming indifferent to the success of the colony. Some few
merchants and inhabitants of the outposts, indeed, were
enriched by the profitable dealings of the fur-trade, but
their suddenly-acquired wealth excited the jealousy rather
than increased the general prosperity of the settlers. The
work of religious institutions was alone pursued with vigor
and success in those times of failure and discouragement. At
Sillery, one league from Quebec, an establishment was founded
for the instruction of the savages and the diffusion of
Christian light [1637]. The Hotel Dieu owed its existence to
the Duchesse d'Aiguillon two years afterward, and the convent
of the Ursulines was founded by the pious and high-born Madame
de la Peltrie. The partial success and subsequent failure of
Champlain and his Indian allies in their encounters with the
Iroquois had emboldened these brave and politic savages. They
now captured several canoes belonging to the Hurons, laden
with furs, which that friendly people were conveying to
Quebec. Montmagny's military force was too small to allow of
his avenging this insult; he, however, zealously promoted an
enterprise to build a fort and effect a settlement on the
island of Montreal, which he fondly hoped would curb the
audacity of his savage foes. The Associated Company would
render no aid whatever to this important plan, but the
religious zeal of the Abbé Olivier overcame all difficulties.
He obtained a grant of Montreal from the king, and dispatched
the Sieur de Maisonneuve and others to take possession. On the
17th of May, 1641, the place destined for the settlement was
consecrated by the superior of the Jesuits. At the same time
the governor erected a fort at the entrance of the River
Richelieu," which so far checked the Iroquois that they
entered into a treaty of peace and respected it for a brief
period.
_E. Warburton,
The Conquest of Canada,
volume 1, chapter 12._
The settlement of Montreal was undertaken by an association of
thirty-five rich and influential persons in France, among whom
was the Duke de Liancourt de la Hoche Guyon. "This company
obtained a concession of the island in 1640, and a member of
the association arrived at Quebec from France with several
immigrating families, some soldiers, and an armament valued at
25,000 piastres." In 1642 "a reinforcement of colonists
arrived, led by M. d'Ailleboust de Musseau. During the
following year, a second party came. At this time the European
population resident in Canada did not exceed 200 souls. The
immigrants who now entered it had been selected with the
utmost care."
_A. Bell,
History of Canada,
book 3, chapter 1 (volume 1)._
In 1657 the seigniority of Montreal was ceded to the Seminary
of St. Sulpice in Paris, where the reins of its government
were held until 1692.
_Father Charlevoix,
History of New France,
translated by Shea,
volume 3, page 23._
ALSO IN:
_F. Parkman,
The Jesuits in North America,
chapters 13-15._
{364}
CANADA: A. D. 1640-1700.
The wars with the Iroquois.
"From about the year 1640 to the year 1700, a constant warfare
was maintained between the Iroquois and the French,
interrupted occasionally by negotiations and brief intervals
of peace. As the former possessed both banks of the St.
Lawrence, and the circuits of lakes Erie and Ontario, they
intercepted the fur trade, which the French were anxious to
maintain with the western nations. … The war parties of the
League ranged through these territories so constantly that it
was impossible for the French to pass in safety through the
lakes, or even up the St. Lawrence above Montreal. … So
great was the fear of these sudden attacks, that both the
traders and the missionaries were obliged to ascend the Ottawa
river to near its source, and from thence to cross over to the
Sault St. Marie, and the shores of Lake Superior. … To
retaliate for these frequent inroads, and to prevent their
recurrence, the country of the Iroquois was often invaded by
the French. … In 1665, M. Courcelles, governor of Canada,
led a strong party into the country of the Mohawks; but the
hardships they encountered rendered it necessary for them to
return without accomplishing their purpose. The next year, M.
de Tracy, Viceroy of New France, with 1,200 French and 600
Indians, renewed the invasion with better success. He captured
Te-ä-ton-ta-ló-ga, one of the principal villages of the
Mohawks, situated at the mouth of the Schoharie Creek; but
after destroying the town, and the stores of corn, which they
found in caches, they were obliged to retire without meeting
an opposing force. Again, in 1684. M. De La Barre, then
governor of Canada, entered the country of the Onondagas, with
about 1,800 men. Having reached Hungry Bay, on the east shore
of lake Ontario, a conference was had with a delegation of
Iroquois chiefs. … A species of armistice was finally agreed
upon, and thus the expedition ended. A more successful
enterprise was projected and carried into execution in 1687 by
M. De Nonville, then governor of Canada. Having raised a force
of 2,000 French and 600 Indians, he embarked them in a fleet
of 200 bateau, and as many birch bark canoes. After coasting
lake Ontario from Kingston to Irondequoit bay, in the
territory of the Senecas, he landed at the head of this bay,
and found himself within a few miles of the principal villages
of the Senecas, which were then in the counties of Ontario and
Monroe." After one battle with about 500 of the Senecas, the
latter retreated into the interior, and the French destroyed
four of their villages, together with the surrounding fields
of growing corn. "To retaliate for this invasion, a formidable
party of the Iroquois, in the fall of the same year, made a
sudden descent upon Fort Chambly, on the Sorel River, near
Montreal. Unable to capture the fort, which was resolutely
defended by the garrison, they ravaged the settlements
adjacent, and returned with a number of captives. About the
same time, a party of 800 attacked Frontenac, on the site of
Kingston, and destroyed and laid waste the plantations and
establishments of the French without the fortification. In
July of the ensuing year the French were made to feel still
more sensibly the power of their revenge. A band of 1,200
warriors, animated with the fiercest resentment, made a
descent upon the island of Montreal. … All that were without
the fortifications fell under the rifle or the relentless
tomahawk. Their houses were burned, their plantations ravaged,
and the whole island covered with desolation. About 1,000 of
the French, according to some writers, perished in this
invasion, or were carried into captivity. … Overwhelmed by
this sudden disaster, the French destroyed their forts at
Niagara and Frontenac, and thus yielded the whole country west
of Montreal to the possession of the Iroquois. At this
critical period Count Frontenac again became governor of
Canada, and during the short residue of his life devoted
himself, with untiring energy, to restore its declining
prosperity."
_L. H. Morgan,
League of the Iroquois,
book 1, chapter 1._
ALSO IN:
_W. Kingsford,
History of Canada,
books 2-4 (volumes 1-2)._
_E. B. O'Callaghan, editor,
Doc. History of New York,
volume 1, pages 57-278._
_J. R. Brodhead,
History of the State of New York,
volume 2, chapters 3 and 8._
_O. H. Marshall,
Expedition of the Marquis de Nonville against the Senecas
(Historical Writings, pages 123-186)._
CANADA: A. D. 1660-1688.
French encroachments and English concessions in Newfoundland.
See NEWFOUNDLAND: A. D. 1660-1688.
CANADA: A.D. 1663-1674.
Erected by Colbert into a Royal Province.
Brief career of the French West India Company.
"In 1663 the proceedings of the company [of the hundred
associates] became so obnoxious that the king of France
decided upon the immediate resumption of his rights, and the
erecting of Canada into a royal government: Monsieur de Mésy
was appointed governor, and proceeded from France to Quebec
with 400 regular troops, and 100 families as settlers, with
cattle, horses and implements of agriculture. Under the royal
jurisdiction, the governor, a king's commissioner, an
apostolical vicar, and four other gentlemen, were formed into
a sovereign council, to whom were confided the powers of
cognizance in all causes, civil and criminal, to judge in the
last resort according to the laws and ordinances of France,
and the practice of the Parliament of Paris, reserving the
general legislative powers of the Crown, to be applied
according to circumstances. This Council was further invested
with the regulation of commerce, the expenditure of the public
monies, and the establishment of inferior courts at Three
Rivers and Montreal. This change of Canada from an
ecclesiastical mission to a secular government was owing to
the great Colbert, who was, animated by the example of Great
Britain, to improve the navigation and commerce of his country
by colonial establishments. The enlightened policy of this
renowned financial minister of Louis XIV. was followed by the
success which it deserved. To a regulated civil government was
added increased military protection against the Iroquois
Indians; the emigration of French settlers to New France was
promoted by every possible means, and a martial spirit was
imparted to the population, by the location in the colony of
the disbanded soldiers of the Carignan regiment … and other
troops, whose officers became the principal Seigneurs of the
colony, on condition of making cessions of land under the
feudal tenure, as it still exists, to the soldiers and other
inhabitants." The ambitious projects of Louis XIV. soon led,
however, to a new measure which proved less satisfactory in
its working.
{365}
"The French West India Company was remodelled [1664], and
Canada added to their possessions, subordinate to the crown of
France, with powers controlled by his Majesty's governors and
Intendants in the different colonies." The domain of the
company embraced all the possessions of France in the New
World and its islands and on the African coast. "The company
was to enjoy a monopoly of the territories and the trade of
the colonies thus conceded for 40 years; it was not only to
enjoy the exclusive navigation, but his Majesty conferred a
bounty of 30 livres on every ton of goods exported to France.
… The company was not only endowed as Seigneur with all
unconceded lands, but invested with the right of extinguishing
the titles of seigniories granted or sold by previous
companies, on condition of reimbursing the grantees and
purchasers for their costs and improvements." The West India
Company's management soon showed evil effects, and came to an
end after ten years of unsatisfactory trial. "Monsieur De
Talon, the Intendant, a man of profound views, … perceived
that it was the natural interest of the Company to discourage
colonization. He represented to the minister Colbert the
absolute necessity of the total resumption of the rights of
the crown; drew his attention to the means of obtaining
abundance of warlike instruments and naval stores within the
colony … and, in fact, at last prevailed; so that, in 1674,
the king of France resumed his rights to all the territories
conceded to the West India Company, assumed their debts and
the current value of their stock, and appointed a governor,
council and judges for the direction of the Canadian colonies.
… From this period (1674), when the population, embracing
converted Indians, did not exceed 8,000, the French settlement
in Canada rapidly progressed, and as it rose in power, and
assumed offensive operations on the New England frontier, the
jealousy of the British colonies became roused, and both
parties, aided alternately by the Indians, carried on a
destructive and harassing border warfare."
_R. M. Martin,
History of Upper and Lower Canada,
chapter 1._
ALSO IN:
_A. Bell,
History of Canada,
book 3, chapter 3 (volume 1)._
_F. Parkman,
The Old Regime in Canada,
chapters 10-17._
CANADA: A. D. 1669-1687.
La Salle and the acquisition of Louisiana.
"Second only to Champlain among the heroes of Canadian history
stands Robert Cavelier de la Salle—a man of iron if ever
there was one—a man austere and cold in manner, and endowed
with such indomitable pluck and perseverance as have never
been surpassed in this world. He did more than any other man
to extend the dominion of France in the New World. As
Champlain had founded the colony of Canada and opened the way
to the great lakes, so La Salle completed the discovery of the
Mississippi, and added to the French possessions the vast
province of Louisiana. … In 1669 La Salle made his first
journey to the west, hoping to find a northwest passage to
China, but very little is known about this expedition, except
that the Ohio river was discovered, and perhaps also the
Illinois. La Salle's feudal domain of St. Sulpice, some eight
miles from Montreal, bears to-day the name of La Chine, or
China, which is said to have been applied to it in derision of
this fruitless expedition. In 1673 the priest Marquette and
the fur-trader Joliet actually reached the Mississippi by way
of the Wisconsin, and sailed down the great river as far as
the mouth of the Arkansas; and now the life-work of La Salle
began in earnest. He formed a grand project for exploring the
Mississippi to its mouth, and determining whether it, flowed
into the Gulf of California or the Gulf of Mexico. The advance
of Spain on the side of Mexico was to be checked forever, the
English were to be confined to the east of the Alleghanies,
and such military posts were to be established as would
effectually confirm the authority of Louis XIV. throughout the
centre of this continent. La Salle had but little ready money,
and was surrounded by rivals and enemies; but he had a
powerful friend in Count Frontenac, the Viceroy of Canada. …
At length, after surmounting innumerable difficulties, a
vessel [the Griffon or Griffin] was built and launched on the
Niagara river [1679], a small party of 30 or 40 men were
gathered together, and La Salle, having just recovered from a
treacherous dose of poison, embarked on his great enterprise.
His departure was clouded by the news that his impatient
creditors had laid hands upon his Canadian estates; but,
nothing daunted, he pushed on through Lakes Erie and Huron,
and after many disasters reached the southern extremity of
Lake Michigan. The vessel was now sent back, with half the
party, to Niagara, carrying furs to appease the creditors and
purchase additional supplies for the remainder of the journey,
while La Salle with his diminished company pushed on to the
Illinois, where a fort was built, and appropriately named Fort
Crèvecœur, or, as we might translate it, the 'fort of the
breaking heart.' Here, amid perils of famine, mutiny, and
Indian attack, and exposed to death from the wintry cold, they
waited until it became evident to all that their vessel must
have perished. She never was heard from again, and most likely
had foundered on her perilous voyage. To add to the trouble,
La Salle was again poisoned; but his iron constitution, aided
by some lucky antidote, again carried him safely through the
ordeal, and about the 1st of March, 1680, he started on foot
for Montreal. Leaving Fort Crèveœur and its tiny garrison
under command of his faithful lieutenant, Tonty, he set out
with four Frenchmen and one Mohegan guide. … They made their
way for a thousand miles across Michigan and Western Canada to
Niagara, and so on to Montreal. … At Niagara La Salle
learned that a ship from France, freighted for him with a
cargo worth more than 20,000 livres, had been wrecked in the
Gulf of St. Lawrence, and nothing had been saved. In spite of
this dreadful blow he contrived to get together supplies and
reenforcements at Montreal, and had returned to Fort
Frontenac, at the lower end of Lake Ontario, when still more
woful tidings were received. Here, toward the end of July, a
message came from the fortress so well named Crèvecœur. The
garrison had mutinied and destroyed the fort, and made their
way back through Michigan." The indomitable La Salle promptly
hunted down the deserters, and sent them in chains to Quebec.
He then "proceeded again to the Illinois to reconstruct his
fort, and rescue, if possible, his lieutenant Tonty and the
few faithful followers who had survived the mutiny. This
little party, abandoned in the wilderness, had found shelter
among the Illinois Indians; but during the summer of 1680 the
great village or town of the Illinois was destroyed by the
Iroquois, and the hard-pressed Frenchmen retreated up the
western shore of Lake Michigan to Green Bay.-
{366}
On arriving at the Illinois, therefore, La Salle found nothing
but the terrible traces of fire and massacre and cannibal
orgies; but he spent the following winter to good purpose in
securing the friendship of the western Indians, and in making
an alliance with them against the Iroquois. Then, in May,
1681, he set out again for Canada, to look after his creditors
and obtain new resources. On the way home, at the outlet of
Lake Michigan, he met his friend Tonty, and together they
paddled their canoes a thousand miles and came to Fort
Frontenac. So, after all this hardship and disaster, the work
was to be begun anew; and the enemies of the great explorer
were exulting in what they imagined must be his despair. But
that was a word of which La Salle knew not the meaning, and
now his fortunes began to change. In Mr. Parkman's words,
'Fate at length seemed tired of the conflict with so stubborn
an adversary.' At this third venture everything went smoothly.
The little fleet passed up the great lakes, from the outlet of
Ontario to the head of Michigan, and gained the Chicago River.
Crossing the narrow portage, they descended the Illinois and
the Mississippi, till they came out upon the Gulf of Mexico;
and on the 9th of April, 1682, the fleurs-de-lis were planted
at the mouth of the great river, and all the country drained
by its tributaries, from the Alleghanies to the Rocky
Mountains, was formally declared to be the property of the
king of France, and named after him Louisiana. Returning up
the river after his triumph, La Salle founded a station or
small colony on the Illinois, which he called St. Louis, and
leaving Tonty in command, kept on to Canada, and crossed to
France for means to circumvent his enemies and complete his
far-reaching schemes. A colony was to be founded at the mouth
of the Mississippi, and military stations were to connect this
with the French settlements in Canada. At the French court La
Salle was treated like a hero, and a fine expedition was soon
fitted out, but everything was ruined by jealousy and ill-will
between La Salle and the naval commander, Beaujeu. The fleet
sailed beyond the mouth of the Mississippi, the colony was
thrown upon the coast of Texas, some of the vessels were
wrecked, and Beaujeu—though apparently without sinister
design—sailed away with the rest, and two years of terrible
suffering followed. At last, in March, 1687, La Salle started
to find the Mississippi, hoping to ascend it to Tonty's fort
on the Illinois, and obtain relief for his followers. But he
had scarcely set out on this desperate enterprise when two or
three mutinous wretches of his party laid an ambush for him in
the forest, and shot him dead. Thus, at the early age of
forty-three, perished this extraordinary man, with his
life-work but half accomplished. Yet his labors had done much
towards building up the imposing dominion with which New
France confronted New England in the following century."
_J. Fiske,
The Romance of the Spanish and French Explorers
(Harper's Magazine, volume 64, pages 446-448.)_
ALSO IN:
_F. Parkman,
La Salle and the Discovery of the Great West._
_Chevalier Tonti,
Account of M. de la Salle's last Expedition
(New York Historical Society Collections, volume 2)._
_J. G. Shea,
Discovery and Exploration of the Mississippi Valley._
_C. Le Clercq,
First Establishment of the Faith in New France,
translated by Shea,
chapters 21-25 (volume 2)._
CANADA: A. D. 1689-1690.
The first Inter-Colonial War (King William's War):
The Schenectady Massacre.
Montreal threatened, Quebec attacked, and Port Royal taken by
the English.
The Revolution of 1688, in England, which drove James II. from
the throne, and called to it his daughter Mary with her able
husband, William of Orange, produced war between England and
France (see FRANCE: A. D. 1689-1690). The French and English
colonies in America were soon involved in the contest, and so
far as it troubled American history, it bears in New England
annals 'the name of King William's War. "If the issue had
depended on the condition of the colonies, it could hardly
have seemed doubtful. The French census for the North American
continent, in 1688, showed but 11,249 persons, scarcely a
tenth part of the English population on its frontiers; about a
twentieth part of English North America. West of Montreal, the
principal French posts, and those but inconsiderable ones,
were at Frontenac, at Mackinaw, and on the Illinois. At,
Niagara, there was a wavering purpose of maintaining a post,
but no permanent occupation. So weak were the garrisons that
English traders, with an escort of Indians, had ventured even
to Mackinaw. … France, bounding its territory next New
England by the Kennebec, claimed the whole eastern coast, Nova
Scotia, Cape Breton, Newfoundland, Labrador, and Hudson's Bay;
and to assert and defend this boundless region, Acadia and its
dependencies counted but 900 French inhabitants. The
missionaries, swaying the minds of the Abenakis, were the sole
source of hope. On the declaration of war by France against
England, Count Frontenac, once more governor of Canada, was
charged to recover Hudson's Bay; to protect Acadia; and, by a
descent from Canada, to assist a fleet from France in making
conquest of New York. Of that province De Callieres was, in
advance, appointed governor; the English Catholics were to be
permitted to remain,—other inhabitants to be sent into
Pennsylvania or New England. … In the east, blood was first
shed at Cocheco, where, thirteen years before, an unsuspecting
party of 350 Indians had been taken prisoners and shipped for
Boston, to be sold into foreign slavery. The memory of the
treachery was indelible, and the Indian emissaries of Castin
easily excited the tribe of Penacook to revenge. On the
evening of the 27th of June [1689] two squaws repaired to the
house of Richard Waldron, and the octogenarian magistrate bade
them lodge on the floor. At night, they rise, unbar the gates,
and summon their companions," who tortured the aged Waldron
until he died. "The Indians, burning his house and others that
stood near it, having killed three-and-twenty, returned to the
wilderness with 29 captives." In August, the stockade at
Pemaquid was taken by 100 Indians from the French mission on
the Penobscot. "Other inroads were made by the Penobscot and
St. John Indians, so that the settlements east of Falmouth
were deserted. In September, commissioners from New England
held a conference with the Mohawks at Albany, soliciting an
alliance. 'We have burned Montreal,' said they; 'we are the
allies of the English; we will keep the chain unbroken.'
{367}
But they refused to invade the Abenakis. … Frontenac … now
used every effort to win the Five Nations [the Iroquois] to
neutrality or to friendship. To recover esteem in their eyes;
to secure to Durantaye, the commander at Mackinaw, the means
of treating with the Hurons and the Ottawas; it was resolved
by Frontenac to make a triple descent into the English
provinces. From Montreal, a party of 110, composed of French
and of the Christian Iroquois,—having De Mantet and Sainte
Helene as leaders … —for two and twenty days waded through
snows and morasses, through forests and across rivers, to
Schenectady. The village had given itself calmly to slumber:
through open and unguarded gates the invaders entered silently
[February 8, 1690], and having, just before midnight, reached its
heart, the war-whoop was raised (dreadful sound to the mothers
of that place and their children!), and the dwellings set on
fire. Of the inhabitants, some, half clad, fled through the
snows to Albany; 60 were massacred, of whom 17 were children
and 10 were Africans. … The party from Three Rivers, led by
Hertel, and consisting of but 52 persons … surprised the
settlement at Salmon Falls, on the Piscataqua, and, after a
bloody engagement, burned houses, barns, and cattle in the
stalls, and took 54 prisoners, chiefly women and children. …
Returning from this expedition, Hertel met the war party,
under Portneuf, from Quebec, and, with them and a
reenforcement from Castin, made a successful attack on the
fort and settlement in Casco Bay. Meantime, danger taught the
colonies the necessity of union, and, on the 1st day of May,
1690, New York beheld the momentous example of an American
congress [see UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1690]. … At
that congress it was resolved to attempt the conquest of
Canada by marching an army, by way of Lake Champlain, against
Montreal, while Massachusetts should, with a fleet, attack
Quebec."
_G. Bancroft,
History of the United States,
chapter 21 (volume 3),
(part 3, chapter 11, volume 2,
in the "Author's last Revision")_.
Before the end of the month in which the congress was held,
Port Royal and the whole of Acadia had already been conquered,
having surrendered to an expedition sent out by Massachusetts,
in eight small vessels, under Sir William Phips. The larger fleet
(consisting of 32 ships and carrying 2,000 men) directed
against Quebec, sailed in August from Nastasket, and was,
likewise, commanded by Phips. "The plan of the campaign
contemplated a diversion to be made by an assault on Montreal,
by a force composed of English from Connecticut and New York,
and of Iroquois Indians, at the same time with the attack on
Quebec by the fleet. And a second expedition into Maine under
Captain Church was to threaten the Eastern tribes whose
incursions had, during the last summer, been so disastrous.
… As is so apt to happen when a plan involves the
simultaneous action of distant parties, the condition of
success failed. The movement of Church, who had with him but
300 men, proved ineffective as to any contribution to the
descent upon Canada. … It was not till after a voyage of
more than six weeks that the fleet from Boston cast anchor
within the mouth of the river St. Lawrence, and meanwhile the
overland expedition against Montreal had miscarried. The
commanders respectively of the Connecticut and the New York
troops had disagreed, and could not act effectively together.
… The supply, both of boats and of provisions, was found to
be insufficient. The disastrous result was that a retreat was
ordered, without so much as an embarkation of the troops on
Lake Champlain. Frontenac was at Montreal, whither he had gone
to superintend the defence, when the intelligence, so
unexpected, reached him from Quebec; and presently after came
the tidings of Phips's fleet being in the St. Lawrence.
Nothing could have been more opportune than this coincidence,
which gave the Governor liberty to hasten down to direct his
little force of 200 soldiers at the capital. The French
historian says that, if he had been three days later, or if
the English fleet had not been delayed by contrary winds, or
had had better pilots in the river, where it was nearly a
fortnight more in making its slow way, Frontenac would have
come down from the upper country only to find the English
commander in his citadel. As it was, there ensued a crushing
mortification and sorrow to Massachusetts. New France was made
much more formidable than ever." The fleet arrived before
Quebec Oct. 6, and retreated on the 11th, after considerable
cannonading and an assault which the French repelled. It
suffered storms and disasters on the return voyage, and lost
altogether some 200 men.
_J. G. Palfrey,
History of New England,
book 4, chapter 2 (volume 4)._
ALSO IN:
_F. Parkman,
Count Frontenac and New France under Louis XIV.,
chapters 10-13_.
_Doc. History of New York,
volumes 1-2._
_F. Bowen,
Life of Sir W. Phips,
(Library of American Biographies, volume 7),
chapters 2-3._
_J. R. Brodhead,
History of the State of New York,
volume 2, chapter 12._
_J. Pearson, et al,
History of the Schenectady Patent,
chapters 8-10._
CANADA: A. D. 1692-1697.
The first Inter-Colonial War (King William's War):
Abortive plans of invasion on both sides.
French recovery of Acadia.
"The defeat of the expedition of 1690 was probably
attributable to the want of concert on the part of the troops
from Connecticut and New York and those from Massachusetts,
and the failure of the supplies which were sought from
England. … But there was mismanagement on all hands in the
conduct of the expedition; and it seems to have been
predestinated that New England should not be delivered from
the presence of the French at the north, until time had
wrought the necessary changes which were to render the
conquest of that country available for the promotion of still
more important ends. Hence a new expedition, projected two
years later, and resolved to be prosecuted in the following
year [1693], was attended with the like circumstances of
mortification and defeat. England herself participated in this
enterprise, and … the government was informed that it had
'pleased the king, out of his great goodness and disposition
for the welfare of all his subjects, to send a considerable
strength of ships and men into the West Indies, and to direct
Sir Francis Wheeler, the admiral, to sail to New England from
the Caribbee Islands, so as to be there by the last of May or
the middle of June at furthest, with a strength sufficient to
overcome the enemy, if joined and seconded by the forces of
New England.' … Unfortunately for the success of these
plans, the letter, which should have reached Boston by the
first of April, did not arrive until July; and the mortality
which prevailed in the fleet during its stay in the West
Indies was so great that, when the commander-in-chief, Sir
Francis Wheeler, anchored off Nantasket,—bringing himself the
news of the projected invasion,—he had lost 1,300 out of
2,100 sailors, and 1,800 out of 2,400 soldiers.
{368}
All thoughts of reducing Canada were therefore abandoned; but
a plan for another year was settled with the governor, the
details of which were that 2,000 land forces should be sent
from England to Canseau by the first of June, to be joined by
2,000 from the colonies, and that the whole force should go up
the St. Lawrence, divide and simultaneously attack Montreal
and Quebec. Changes in the government of the province,
however, and other causes, prevented the execution of this
plan, whose success was problematical even if it had been
attempted. But if the plans of the English for the reduction
of Canada were doomed to disappointment, the plans of the
French for the recovery of Acadia were more successful. For
the first year after the conquest of that country, indeed, the
French were as little concerned to regain, as the English were
to retain, the possession of its territory; nor was
Massachusetts able to bear the charge of a sufficient military
force to keep its inhabitants in subjection, though she issued
commissions to judges and other officers, and required the
administration of the oath of fidelity. In the course of that
year [1691], authority was given to Mr. John Nelson, of
Boston, who had taken an active part in the overthrow of
Andros, and who was bound thither on a trading voyage, to be
commander-in-chief of Acadia; but as he neared the mouth of
the St. John's, he was taken by Monsieur Villebon, who, under
a commission from the French king, had touched at Port Royal,
and ordered the English flag to be struck, and the French flag
to be raised in its place. The next year an attempt was made
to dislodge Villebon, but without success. … In the summer
of 1696, Pemaquid was taken by the French, under D'Iberville
and Castine, and the frontier of the dominion of France was
extended into Maine; and by the treaty of the following year
Acadia was receded to France, and the English relinquished
their claims to the country. The last year of King William's
War, as it was long termed in New England, was a year of
especial alarm to the province [Massachusetts] and rumors were
rife that the French were on the eve of fitting out a
formidable fleet for the invasion of the colonies and the
conquest of New York." According to the plan of the French
undertaking, a powerful fleet from France was to be joined by
a force of 1,500 men, raised by Count Frontenac, in Canada,
and make, first, a conquest of Boston. "When that town was
taken, they were to range the coast to Piscataqua, destroying
the settlements as far back into the country as possible.
Should there be time for further acquisitions, they were next
to go to New York, and upon its reduction the Canadian troops
were to march overland to Quebec, laying waste the country as
they proceeded." This project was frustrated by happenings
much the same in kind as those which thwarted the designs of
the English against Quebec. The fleet was delayed by contrary
winds, and by certain bootless undertakings in Newfoundland,
until the season was too far advanced for the enterprise
contemplated. "The peace of Ryswick, which soon followed, led
to a temporary suspension of hostilities. France, anxious to
secure as large a share of territory in America as possible,
retained the whole coast and adjacent islands from Maine to
Labrador and Hudson's Bay, with Canada, and the Valley of the
Mississippi. The possessions of England were southward from
the St. Croix. But the bounds between the nations were
imperfectly defined, and were, for a long time, a subject of
dispute and negotiation.".
_J. S. Barry,
History of Massachusetts,
volume 2, chapter 4._
ALSO IN:
_F. Parkman,
Count Frontenac and New France under Louis XIV.,
chapters 16-19._
_J. Hannay,
History of Acadia,
chapter 14._
See, also, NEWFOUNDLAND: A. D. 1694-1697.
CANADA: A. D. 1696.
Frontenac's expedition against the Iroquois.
The war with the "Bastonnais" or "Bostonnais," as he called
the New Englanders, did not divert Frontenac's attention from
"the grand castigation which at last he was planning for the
Iroquois. He had succeeded, in 1694, in inducing them to meet
him in general council at Quebec, and had framed the
conditions of a truce; but the English at Albany intrigued to
prevent the fulfilment, and war was again imminent. Both sides
were endeavoring to secure the alliance of the tribes of the
upper lakes. These wavered, and Frontenac saw the peril and
the remedy. His recourse was to attack the Iroquois in their
villages at once, and conquer on the Mohawk the peace he
needed at Michilimackinac. It was Frontenac's last campaign.
Early in July [1696] he left Montreal with 2,200 men. He went
by way of Fort Frontenac, crossed Lake Ontario, landed at
Oswego, and struggled up its stream, and at last set sails to
his canoes on Lake Onondaga. Then his force marched again, and
Frontenac, enfeebled by his years, was borne along in an
arm-chair. Eight or nine miles and a day's work brought them
to the Onondaga village; but its inhabitants had burned it and
fled. Vaudreuil was sent with a detachment which destroyed the
town of the Oneidas. After committing all the devastation of
crops that he could, in hopes that famine would help him,
Frontenac began his homeward march before the English at
Albany were aroused at all. The effect was what Frontenac
wished. The Iroquois ceased their negotiations with the
western tribes, and sued for peace."
_G. Stewart, Jr.,
Frontenac and His Times
(Narrative and Critical History of America, volume 4,
chapter 7)._
ALSO IN:
_F. Parkman,
Count Frontenac and New France under Louis XIV.,
chapters 18-19._
CANADA: A. D. 1698-1710.
Colonization of Louisiana and the organization of its separate
government.
See LOUISIANA: A. D. 1698-1712.
CANADA: A. D. 1700-1735.
The spread of French occupation in the Mississippi Valley and
on the Lakes.
"From the time of La Salle's visit in 1679, we can trace a
continuous French occupation of Illinois. … He planted his
citadel of St. Louis on the summit of 'Starved Rock,'
proposing to make that the centre of his colony. … At first
his colony was exceedingly feeble, but it was never
discontinued. 'Joutel found a garrison at Fort St. Louis …
in 1687, and in 1689 La Hontan bears testimony that it still
continued. In 1696 a public document proves its existence; and
when Tonty, in 1700, again descended the Mississippi, he was
attended by twenty Canadians, residents on the Illinois.'
{369}
Even while the wars named after King William and Queen Anne
were going on, the French settlements were growing in numbers
and increasing in size; those wars over, they made still more
rapid progress. Missions grew into settlements and parishes.
Old Kaskaskia was begun in what La Salle called the
'terrestrial paradise' before the close of the seventeenth
century. The Wabash Valley was occupied about 1700, the first
settlers entering it by the portage leading from the Kankakee.
Later the voyageurs found a shorter route to the fertile
valley. … The French located their principal missions and
posts with admirable judgment. There is not one of them in
which we cannot see the wisdom of the priest, of the soldier,
and the trader combined. The triple alliance worked for an
immediate end, but the sites that they chose are as important
to-day as they were when they chose them. … La Salle's
colony of St. Louis was planted in one of the gardens of the
world, in the midst of a numerous Indian population, on the
great line of travel between Lake Michigan and the Mississippi
River. Kaskaskia and the neighboring settlements held the
centre of the long line extending from Canada to Louisiana.
'The Wabash colony commanded that valley and the Lower Ohio.
Detroit was a position so important that, securely held by the
French, it practically banished from the English mind for
fifty years the thought of acquiring the Northwest. … Then
how unerringly were the French guided to the carrying places
between the Northern and the Southern waters, viz., Green Bay,
Fox River, and the Wisconsin; the Chicago River and the
Illinois; the St. Joseph and the Kankakee; the St. Joseph and
the Wabash; the Maumee and the Wabash; and, later, on the eve
of the war that gave New France to England, the Chautauqua and
French Creek routes from Lake Erie to the Ohio. … In due
time the French began to establish themselves on the Northern
frontier of the British colonies. They built Fort Niagara in
1726, four years' after the English built Fort Oswego.
Following the early footsteps of Champlain, they ascended to
the head of the lake that bears his name, where they fortified
Crown Point in 1727, and Ticonderoga in 1731. Presque Isle,
the present site of the city of Erie, was occupied about the
time that Vincennes was founded in the Wabash Valley [1735].
Finally, just on the eve of the last struggle between England
and France, the French pressed into the valleys of the
Alleghany and the Ohio, at the same time that the English also
began to enter them."
_B. A. Hinsdale,
The Old Northwest,
chapter 4._
CANADA: A. D. 1702-1710.
The Second Inter-Colonial War (Queen Anne's War):
Border ravages in New England and Acadia.
English Conquest of Acadia.
See NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1702-1710.
CANADA: A. D. 1711-1713.
The Second Inter-Colonial War.
Walker's Expedition against Quebec.
Massacre of Fox Indians.
The Peace of Utrecht.
After the reduction of Port Royal, which was practically the
conquest of Acadia, Colonel Nicholson, who bore the honors of
that achievement, repaired to England and prevailed with the
government to fit out an adequate expedition for the Conquest
of Canada. "The fleet, consisting of 15 ships of war and 40
transports, was placed under the command of Sir Hovenden
Walker; seven veteran regiments from Marlborough's army, with
a battalion of marines, were intrusted to Mrs. Masham's second
brother, whom the queen had pensioned and made a
brigadier-general, whom his bottle companions called honest
Jack Hill. … From June 25th to the 30th day of July 1711,
the fleet lay at Boston, taking in supplies and the colonial
forces. At the same time, an army of men from Connecticut, New
Jersey, and New York, Palatine emigrants, and about 600
Iroquois, assembling at Albany, prepared to burst upon
Montreal; while in Wisconsin the English had allies in the
Foxes, who were always wishing to expel the French from
Michigan. In Quebec, measures of defence began by a renewal of
friendship with the Indians. To deputies from the Onondagas
and Senecas, the governor spoke of the fidelity with which the
French had kept their treaty; and he reminded them of their
promise to remain quiet upon their mats. A war festival was
next held, at which were present all the savages domiciliated
near the French settlements, and all the delegates of their
allies who had come down to Montreal. In the presence of 700
or 800 warriors, the war song was sung and the hatchet
uplifted. The savages of the remote west were wavering, till
twenty Hurons from Detroit took up the hatchet, and swayed all
the rest by their example. By the influence of the Jesuits
over the natives, an alliance extending to the Ojibways
constituted the defence of Montreal. Descending to Quebec,
Vaudreuil found Abenaki volunteers assembling for his
protection. Measures for resistance had been adopted with
heartiness; the fortifications were strengthened; Beauport was
garrisoned; and the people were resolute and confiding; even
women were ready to labor for the common defence. Toward the
last of August, it was said that peasants at Matanes had
descried 90 or 96 vessels with the English flag. Yet September
came, and still from the heights of Cape Diamond no eye caught
one sail of the expected enemy. The English squadron, leaving
Boston on the 30th of July [1711], after loitering near the
bay of Gaspé, at last began to ascend the St. Lawrence, while
Sir Hovenden Walker puzzled himself with contriving how he
would secure his vessels during the winter at Quebec." At the
same time, the present and actual difficulties of the
expedition were so heedlessly and ignorantly dealt with that
eight ships of the fleet were wrecked among the rocks and
shoals near the Egg Islands, and 884 men were drowned. The
enterprise was then abandoned. "'Had we arrived safe at
Quebec,' wrote the admiral, 'ten or twelve thousand men must
have been left to perish of cold and hunger: by the loss of a
part, Providence saved all the rest.' Such was the issue of
hostilities in the north-east. Their total failure left the
expedition from Albany no option but to return, and Montreal
was unmolested. Detroit, in 1712, almost fell before the valor
of a party of the Ottagamies, or Foxes. … Resolving to burn
Detroit, they pitched their lodgings near the fort, which Du
Buisson, with but twenty Frenchmen, defended. Aware of their
intention, he summoned his Indian allies from the chase; and,
about the middle of May, Ottawas and Hurons and
Pottawottamies, with one branch of the Sacs, Illinois,
Menomonies, and even Osages and Missouris, each nation with
its own ensign, came to his relief.
{370}
So wide was the influence of the missionaries in the
West. … The warriors of the Fox nation, far from destroying
Detroit, were themselves besieged, and at last were compelled
to surrender at discretion. Those Who bore arms were
ruthlessly murdered; the rest distributed among the
confederates, to be enslaved or massacred at the will of their
masters. Cherished as the loveliest spot in Canada, the
possession of Detroit secured for Quebec a great highway to
the upper Indian tribes and to the Mississippi. … In the
meantime, the preliminaries of a treaty had been signed
between France and England; and the war … was suspended by
negotiations that were soon followed by the uncertain peace of
Utrecht [April 11, 1713]. … England, by the peace of
Utrecht, obtained from France large concessions of territory
in America. The assembly of New York had addressed the queen
against French settlements in the West; William Penn advised
to establish the St. Lawrence as the boundary on the north,
and to include in our colonies the valley of the Mississippi.
'It will make a glorious country'; such were his prophetic
words. … The colony of Louisiana excited in Saint-John
'apprehensions of the future undertakings of the French in
North America.' The occupation of the Mississippi valley had
been proposed to Queen Anne; yet, at the peace, that immense
region remained to France. But England obtained the bay of
Hudson and its borders; Newfoundland, subject to the rights of
France in its fisheries; and all Nova Scotia, or Acadia,
according to its ancient boundaries. It was agreed that
'France should never molest the Five Nations subject to the
dominion of Great Britain.' But Louisiana, according to French
ideas, included both banks of the Mississippi. Did the treaty
of Utrecht assent to such an extension of French territory?
And what were the ancient limits of Acadia? Did it include all
that is now New Brunswick? or had France still a large
territory on the Atlantic between Acadia and Maine? And what
were the bounds of the territory of the Five Nations, which
the treaty appeared to recognize as a part of the English
dominions? These were questions which were never to be
adjusted amicably."
_G. Bancroft,
History of the U. S. (Author's Last Revision),
part 3, chapter 12 (volume 2)._
With reference to the destruction of the Fox Indians at
Detroit, a recent writer says: "The French official reports
pretend that the Wisconsin Indians, being in secret alliance
with the Iroquois and the English, had come to Detroit with
the express purpose of besieging the fort and reducing it to
ruins; and their statement has heretofore been unsuspectingly
accepted by all historians. But there is little doubt that the
charge is a shameful falsehood. The Fox Indians had rendered
themselves very obnoxious to the French. Firmly lodged on the
Fox River, they controlled the chief highway to the West; a
haughty, independent and intractable people, they could not be
cajoled into vassalage. It was necessary for the success of
the French policy to get them out of the way. They were
enticed to Detroit in order that they might be slaughtered."
_S. S. Hebberd,
History of Wisconsin under the dominion of France,
chapters 5-6._
ALSO IN:
_Wisconsin Historical Society Collections,
volume 5._
_W. Kingsford,
History of Canada,
book 6, chapters 5-6 (volume 2)._
_R. Brown,
History of the Island of Cape Breton,
letters 8-9._
See, also, UTRECHT: A. D. 1712-1714,
and NEWFOUNDLAND: A. D.1713.
CANADA: A. D. 1720.
The fortifying of Louisbourg.
See CAPE BRETON: A. D. 1720-1745.
CANADA: A. D. 1744-1748.
The Third Inter-Colonial War (King George's War).
Loss and recovery of Louisbourg and Cape Breton.
See NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1744; 1745; and 1745-1748.
CANADA: A. D. 1748-1754.
Active measures to fortify possession of the Ohio Valley and
the West.
See OHIO (VALLEY): A. D. 1748-1754.
CANADA: A. D. 1750-1753.
Boundaries disputes with England.
Futile negotiations at Paris.
"For the past three years [1750-1753] the commissioners
appointed under the treaty of Aix-La-Chapelle to settle the
question of boundaries between France and England in America
had been in session at Paris, waging interminable war on
paper; La Galissonière and Silhouette for France, Shirley and
Mildmay for England. By the treaty of Utrecht, Acadia belonged
to England; but what was Acadia? According to the English
commissioners, it comprised not only the peninsula called Nova
Scotia, but all the immense tract of land between the River
St. Lawrence on the north, the Gulf of the same name on the
east, the Atlantic on the south, and New England on the west.
The French commissioners, on their part, maintained that the
name Acadia belonged of right only to about a twentieth part
of this territory, and that it did not even cover the whole of
the Acadian peninsula, but only its southern coast, with an
adjoining belt of barren wilderness. When the French owned
Acadia, they gave it boundaries as comprehensive as those
claimed for it by the English commissionaries; now that it
belonged to a rival, they cut it down to a paring of its
former self. … Four censuses of Acadia while it belonged to
the French had recognized the mainland as included in it; and
so do also the early French maps. Its prodigious shrinkage was
simply the consequence of its possession by an alien. Other
questions of limits, more important and equally perilous,
called loudly for solution. What line should separate Canada
and her western dependencies from the British colonies?
Various principles of demarcation were suggested, of which the
most prominent was a geographical one. All countries watered
by streams falling into the St. Lawrence, the Great Lakes, and
the Mississippi were to belong to her. This would have planted
her in the heart of New York and along the crests of the
Alleghanies, giving her all the interior of the continent, and
leaving nothing to England but a strip of sea-coast. Yet in
view of what France had achieved; of the patient gallantry of
her explorers, the zeal of her missionaries, the adventurous
hardihood of her bushrangers, revealing to civilized mankind
the existence of this wilderness world, while her rivals
plodded at their workshops, their farms, or their
fisheries,—in view of all this, her pretensions were moderate
and reasonable compared with those of England. The treaty of
Utrecht had declared the Iroquois, or Five Nations, to be
British subjects; therefore it was insisted that all countries
conquered by them belonged to the British Crown. But what was
an Iroquois conquest? The Iroquois rarely occupied the
countries they overran. … But the range of their war-parties
was prodigious; and the English laid claim to every mountain,
forest or prairie where an Iroquois had taken a scalp.
{371}
This would give them not only the country between the
Alleghanies and the Mississippi, but also that between Lake
Huron and the Ottawa, thus reducing Canada to the patch on the
American map now represented by the province of Quebec,—or
rather by a part of it, since the extension of Acadia to the
St. Lawrence would cut off the present counties of Gaspé,
Rimouski and Bonaventure. Indeed, among the advocates of
British claims there were those who denied that France had any
rights whatever on the south side of the St. Lawrence. Such
being the attitude of the two contestants, it was plain there
was no resort but the last argument of kings. Peace must be
won with the sword."
_F. Parkman,
Montcalm and Wolfe,
chapter 5 (volume 1)._
ALSO IN:
_T. C. Haliburton,
Account of Nova Scotia,
volume 1, pages 143-149._
See, also, NOVA SCOTIA:
CANADA: A. D. 1749-1755.
Relative to the very dubious English claim based on treaties
with the Iroquois,
See NEW YORK: A. D. 1684, and 1726.
CANADA: A. D. 1755 (April).
Plans of the English against the French.
"While the negotiations [between England and France, at Paris]
were pending, Braddock arrived in the Chesapeake. In March
[1755] he reached Williamsburgh, and visited Annapolis; on the
14th of April, he, with Commodore Keppel, held a congress at
Alexandria. There were present, of the American governors,
Shirley, next to Braddock in military rank; Delancey, of New
York; Morris, of Pennsylvania; Sharpe, of Maryland; and
Dinwiddie, of Virginia. … Between England and France peace
existed under ratified treaties; it was proposed not to invade
Canada, but to repel encroachments on the frontier. For this
end, four expeditions were concerted by Braddock at
Alexandria. Lawrence, the lieutenant-governor of Nova Scotia,
was to reduce that province according to the English
interpretation of its boundaries; Johnson [afterwards Sir
William Johnson, of New York] from his long acquaintance with
the Six Nations, was selected to enroll Mohawk warriors in
British pay and lead them with provincial militia against
Crown Point; Shirley proposed to drive the French from
Niagara; the commander-in-chief was to recover the Ohio
valley."
_G. Bancroft,
History of the United States (Author's last revision),
volume 2, pages 416-419._
CANADA: A. D. 1755 (June).
French disaster at Sea.
Frustrated attempt against Nova Scotia.
The arrival of Dieskau at Quebec.
"In 1754, France fully awakened to the fact that England not
only intended to maintain her position in the wilds of
America, but likewise by sea. She equipped an armament under
the command of admirals Macnamara and Bois de la Mothe, of 18
ships of the line and 9 frigates, having on board, ostensibly
for Canada, eleven battalions of troops under General Dieskau,
an 'élève' of Marshal Saxe. England, apprised of this force
being sent, despatched Vice-Admiral Boscawen with 11 ships of
the line and one frigate to intercept it en route. Both sailed
about the same time, the 22d of April, 1755. The French
ambassador at London being duly notified, replied: 'That his
royal master would consider the first gun fired at sea in a
hostile manner to be a declaration of war.' The esoteric
instructions of the French fleet were to rendezvous at
Chebuctou Harbour, destroy Halifax, and then proceed to
Annapolis for the same purpose. While the instructions were of
necessity secret, it was well known in Acadia that an attempt
would be made by France to recover possession of the province.
It was this fleet, so eagerly expected by the Acadians, that
gave rise to the insolent manner in which they addressed the
Council at Halifax, and which led to an immediate removal of
their arms and subsequent dispersal. Owing to misadventure,
some of the French fleet under Macnamara had to put back to
Brest; the remainder met the English off the coast of
Newfoundland [June 8] in a dense fog; avoiding an engagement,
several of them escaped by taking the northern route via
Belleisle … successfully reaching their 'harbour of refuge,'
Louisbourg. The 'Lys' and the 'Alcyde' were sufficiently
unfortunate to be compelled to face the guns of the English
frigates 'Dunkirk' and 'Defiance,' and after five hours close
engagement the 'Lys' struck its colors … followed by the
'Alcyde,' when Hocquart in command became Boscawen's prisoner
by sea for the third time, together with £76,000 sterling in
money, eight companies of soldiers and several officers and
engineers. The unexpected rencontre with Boscawen's fleet, the
loss of two of their vessels, and the knowledge that the
garrison at Halifax was considerably reinforced by the forces
brought out by Boscawen, caused the abandonment of all
attempts to recover Acadia. Dieskau, after landing a few
regiments at Louisbourg, proceeded to Quebec."
_G. E. Hart,
The Fall of New France,
pages 51-54._
ALSO IN:
_J. Campbell,
Naval History of Great Britain,
volume 5, pages 104-106._
CANADA: A. D. 1755 (July).
Defeat of Braddock's Expedition against Fort Duquesne.
See OHIO (VALLEY): A. D. 1755.
CANADA: A. D. 1755 (August-October):
The abortive expedition against Niagara.
According to the English plan of campaign, concerted with
Braddock at Alexandria, Governor Shirley was to lead an army
for the conquest of Niagara; but his march westward ended at
Oswego. "Colonel Philip Schuyler led the first regiment of the
expedition. Boats were built at Oswego to convey 600 men by
lake. Shirley followed by way of the Mohawk, and reached
Oswego August 21. He was delayed from various causes, and in
October a council of war decided that the attack on Niagara
should be postponed for a year. Shirley was to have met
Braddock in victory at Niagara. Both branches of the plan had
been shattered. The great western scheme sank to a mere
strengthening of the defences of Oswego. Colonel Mercer was
left in command of a garrison of 700 men, with instructions to
build two new forts, and General Shirley took the remainder of
his force back to Albany. The pitiful failure led to
recriminations relative to the causes of the fatal delays."
_E. H. Roberts,
New York,
volume 1, chapter 20._
ALSO IN:
_R. Hildreth,
History of the United States,
chapter 26 (volume 2)._
{372}
CANADA: A. D. 1755 (September).
The Battle of Lake George and defeat of Dieskau.
"The expedition against Crown Point on Lake Champlain, had
been intrusted to General William Johnson. His troops were
drawn principally from Massachusetts and Connecticut; a
regiment from New Hampshire joined them at Albany. At the head
of boat navigation on the Hudson, a fort was built which, in
honor of their commander, whom they reverenced as 'a brave and
virtuous man,' the soldiers named Fort Lyman. But when Johnson
assumed the command he ungenerously changed the name to Fort
Edward. Leaving a garrison in this fort; Johnson moved with
about 5,000 men to the head of Lake George, and there formed a
camp, intending to descend into Lake Champlain. Hendrick, the
celebrated Mohawk chief, with his warriors, were among these
troops. Israel Putnam, too, was there, as a captain, and John
Stark as a lieutenant, each taking lessons in warfare. The
French were not idle; the district of Montreal made the most
strenuous exertions to meet the invading foe. All the men who
were able to bear arms were called into active service; so
that, to gather in the harvest, their places were supplied by
men from other districts. The energetic Baron Dieskau
resolved, by a bold attack, to terrify the invaders. Taking
with him 200 regulars, and about 1,200 Canadians and Indians,
he set out to capture Fort Edward; but, as he drew near, the
Indians heard that it was defended by cannon, which they
greatly dreaded, and they refused to advance. He now changed
his plan, and resolved to attack Johnson's camp, which was
supposed to be without cannon. Meantime scouts had reported to
Johnson that they had seen roads made through the woods in the
direction of Fort Edward. Not knowing the movements of
Dieskau, a detachment of 1,000 men, under Colonel Ephraim
Williams, of Massachusetts, and 200 Mohawks, under Hendrick,
marched to relieve that post. The French had information of
their approach and placed themselves in ambush. They were
concealed among the thick bushes of a swamp, on the one side,
and rocks and trees on the other. The English recklessly
marched into the defile. They were vigorously attacked [Sept.
5] and thrown into confusion. Hendrick was almost instantly
killed, and in a short time Williams fell also. The detachment
commenced to retreat, occasionally halting to check their
pursuers. The firing was heard in the camp; as the sound drew
nearer and nearer, it was evident the detachment was
retreating. The drums beat to arms, trees were hastily felled
and thrown together to form a breastwork, upon which were
placed a few cannon, just arrived from the Hudson. Scarcely
were these preparations made when the panting fugitives
appeared in sight, hotly pursued by the French and Indians.
Intending to enter the camp with the fugitives, Dieskau urged
forward his men with the greatest impetuosity. The moment the
fugitives were past the muzzles of the cannon they opened with
a tremendous shower of grape, which scattered the terrified
Indians and checked the Canadians, but the regulars pushed on.
A determined contest ensued, which lasted five hours, until
the regulars were nearly all slain, while the Indians and
Canadians did but little execution; they remained at a
respectful distance among the trees. At length the enemy began
to retreat, and the Americans leaped over the breastworks and
pursued them with great vigor. That same evening, after the
pursuit had ceased, as the French were retreating, they were
suddenly attacked with great spirit by the New Hampshire
regiment, which was on its way from Fort Edward. They were so
panic stricken by this new assault that they abandoned
everything and fled for their lives. Dieskau had been wounded
once or twice at the commencement of the battle, but he never
left his post. … He was taken prisoner, kindly treated, and
sent to England, where he died. Johnson was slightly wounded
at the commencement of the battle, and prudently retired from
danger. To General Lyman belongs the honor of the victory, yet
Johnson, in his report of the battle, did not even mention his
name. Johnson, for his exertions on that day, was made a
baronet, and received from royal favor a gift of $25,000. He
had friends at court, but Lyman was unknown. Colonel Ephraim
Williams, who fell in this battle, while passing through
Albany, had taken the precaution to make his will, in which he
bequeathed property to found a free school in western
Massachusetts. That school has since grown into Williams
College."
_J. H. Patton,
Concise History of the American People,
volume 1, chapter 22._
ALSO IN:
_W. L. Stone,
Life and Times of Sir W. Johnson,
volume 1, chapter 16._
_F. Parkman,
Montcalm and Wolfe,
volume 1, chapter 9._
CANADA: A. D. 1755 (October-November).
Removal and dispersion in exile of the French Acadians.
See NOVA SCOTIA: A. D. 1755.
CANADA: A. D. 1756.
Formal declarations of war.
The "Seven Years War" of Europe, called the "French and Indian
War" in British America.
Montcalm sent from France.
"On the 18th of May, 1756, England, after a year of open
hostility, at length declared war. She had attacked France by
land and sea, turned loose her ships to prey on French
commerce, and brought some 300 prizes into her ports. It was
the act of a weak government, supplying by spasms of violence
what it lacked in considerate resolution. France, no match for
her amphibious enemy in the game of marine depredation, cried
out in horror; and to emphasize her complaints and signalize a
pretended good faith which her acts had belied, ostentatiously
released a British frigate captured by her cruisers. She in
her turn declared war on the 9th of June: and now began the
most terrible conflict of the 18th century; one that convulsed
Europe and shook America, India, the coasts of Africa, and the
islands of the sea."
See ENGLAND: A. D. 1754-1755, and after;
also GERMANY: A. D. 1755-1756, and after.
"Henceforth France was to turn her strength against her
European foes; and the American war, the occasion of the
universal outbreak, was to hold in her eyes a second place.
… Still, something must be done for the American war; at
least there must be a new general to replace Dieskau. None of
the court favorites wanted a command in the backwoods, and the
minister of war was free to choose whom he would. His choice
fell on Louis Joseph, Marquis de Montcalm-Gozon de Saint
Véran. … The Chevalier de Lévis, afterwards Marshal of
France, was named as his second in command. … The troops
destined for Canada were only two battalions, one belonging to
the regiment of La Sarre, and the other to that of Royal
Roussillon. Louis XV. and Pompadour sent 100,000 men to fight
the battles of Austria, and could spare but 1,200 to
reinforce. New France." Montcalm, who reached Quebec in May,
was placed in difficult relations with the governor-general,
Vaudreuil, by the fact that the latter held command of the
colonial troops. The forces in New France, were of three
kinds,—"the 'troupes de terre,' troops of the line, or
regulars from France; the 'troupes de la marine,' or colony
regulars; and lastly the militia.
{373}
The first consisted of the four battalions that had come over with
Dieskau and the two that had come with Montcalm, comprising in
all a little less than 3,000 men. Besides these, the
battalions of Artois and Bourgogne, to the number of 1,100
men, were in garrison at Louisbourg." This constituted
Montcalm's command. The colony regulars and the militia
remained subject to the orders of the governor, who manifested
an early jealousy of Montcalm. The former troops numbered less
than 2,000 men. "All the effective male population of Canada,
from 15 years to 60, was enrolled in the militia. … In 1750
the militia of all ranks counted about 13,000; and eight years
later the number had increased to about 15,000. Until the last
two years of the war, those employed in actual warfare were
but few. … To the white fighting force of the colony are to
be added the red men. … The military situation was somewhat
perplexing. Iroquois spies had brought reports of great
preparations on the part of the English. As neither party
dared offend these wavering tribes, their warriors could pass
with impunity from one to the other, and were paid by each for
bringing information, not always trustworthy. They declared
that the English were gathering in force to renew the attempt
made by Johnson the year before against Crown Point and
Ticonderoga, as well as that made by Shirley against Forts
Frontenac and Niagara. Vaudreuil had spared no effort to meet
the double danger. Lotbinière, a Canadian engineer, had been
busied during the winter in fortifying Ticonderoga, while
Pouchot, a captain in the battalion of Béarn, had rebuilt
Niagara, and two French engineers were at work in
strengthening the defenses of Frontenac. … Indians presently
brought word that 10,000 English were coming to attack
Ticonderoga." Both Montcalm and Lévis, with troops, "hastened
to the supposed scene of danger … and reached Ticonderoga at
the end of June. They found the fort … advanced towards
completion. It stood on the crown of the promontory. … The
rampart consisted of two parallel walls ten feet apart, built
of the trunks of trees, and held together by transverse logs
dovetailed at both ends, the space between being filled with
earth and gravel well packed. Such was the first Fort
Ticonderoga, or Carillon,—a structure quite distinct from the
later fort of which the ruins still stand on the same spot.
… Ticonderoga was now the most advanced position of the
French, and Crown Point, which had before held that perilous
honor, was in the second line. … The danger from the English
proved to be still remote. … Meanwhile, at the head of Lake
George, the raw bands of ever-active New England, were
mustering for the fray."
_F. Parkman,
Montcalm and Wolfe,
volume 1, chapter 11._
ALSO IN:
_W. Kingsford,
History of Canada,
book 11, chapter 9 (volume 3)._
CANADA: A. D. 1756-1757.
French successes.
Capture of Oswego and Fort William Henry.
Bloody work of the savage allies.
On the death of Braddock, Governor Shirley became
commander-in-chief of the British forces in America, "a
position for which he was not adapted by military knowledge.
… His military schemes for the season of 1756 were grand in
conception and theory, but disastrous failures in practice.
Ten thousand men were to advance against Crown Point—6, 000
for service on Lake Ontario, 3,000 for an attack on Fort
Duquesne, and 2,000 to advance up the river Kennebec, destroy
the settlement adjoining the Chaudière and descending the
mouth of that river within three miles of Quebec, keep all
that part of Canada in alarm. While each of these armies was
being put into motion, the season had become too far advanced
for action at any one point. Moreover, the British Government,
dissatisfied with a Provincial officer being at the head of its
army in America, determined upon sending out General Lord
Loudoun. While Shirley was preparing, Montcalm advanced
against the three forts at Oswego, the terror of the French in
the Iroquois country and which it had been their desire to
destroy for many years back; they likewise commanded the
entrance to Lake Ontario. The English had a garrison of 1,800
men in these divided between Fort Ontario … Fort Oswego …
and Fort George, or Rascal … about a mile distant from each
other." Montcalm took all three of the forts without much
difficulty, and demolished them. "Shirley was much blamed for
this defeat and the failure of his projects, and lost both his
government and command, being succeeded by John Campbell,
fourth Earl of Loudoun, Baron Mauchlaw, one of the sixteen
peers of Scotland, with General Abercromby as second in
command—both notorious for previous incompetency. … They
were sent out with considerable reinforcements, and had
transferred to them by Shirley 16,000 men in the field, of
whom 6,000 were regulars; but, with that masterly inactivity
and indecision for which Loudoun was most renowned, no further
movement was made this year. The year 1757 was not
distinguished by any military movements of much moment." An
intended attack on Louisbourg was postponed because of news
that a powerful French fleet held possession of its harbor and
that the garrison was very strong. "Montcalm, finding himself
free from attack, penetrated with his army of 7,606 men to
Fort William Henry, at the head of Lake George. Included were
2,000 Indians. The fort was garrisoned by 2,264 regulars under
Colonel Munroe of the 35th Regiment, and in the neighborhood
there was an additional force of 4,600 men under General Webb.
On the 3d of August the fort was invested and, after a summons
to surrender was rejected, the attack was begun and continued
with undiminished fervor until the 9th at noon, when a
capitulation was signed. General Webb did not join Munroe, as
he was instructed to do by Abercromby's plans, some cowardice
being attributed to him by contemporary writers. An incident
of the war which has given rise to a great deal of controversy
and ill-feeling up to the present moment, was the so-called
massacre at Fort William Henry, the outcome of the numerous
horde of savages the French allies had in the engagement. …
On the morning following the surrender, the garrison was to
march out under a proper escort to protect them from injury at
the hands of the Indians. The evacuation had barely commenced,
when a repetition of the looting of the day previous, which
ensued immediately after the capitulation had been signed, was
attempted.
{374}
An effort being made by the escort to stop it, some drunken
Indians attacked the defile, which resulted in the murdering
and scalping of some 60 or 70 of the prisoners; maltreating
and robbing a large number of others. Upon a careful
investigation of the contemporary authorities, no blame
whatever can be attached to the good fame of the brave and
humane Montcalm or De Lévis. … Fort George, or William
Henry, as it was indifferently called, like its compeer Fort
Oswego, was razed to the ground and the army retreated into
their winter quarters at Montreal. The termination of the year
left the French masters of Lakes Champlain and George,
together with the chain of great lakes connecting the St.
Lawrence with the Mississippi; also the undisturbed possession
of all the country in dispute west of the Alleghany
Mountains."
_G. E. Hart,
The Fall of New France,
pages 70-79._
ALSO IN:
_E. Warburton,
Conquest of Canada,
volume 2, chapters 2-3._
CANADA: A. D. 1758.
The loss of Louisbourg and Fort Du Quesne.
Bloody defeat of the English at Ticonderoga.
"The affairs of Great Britain in North America wore a more
gloomy aspect, at the close of the campaign of 1757, than at
any former period. By the acquisition of fort William Henry,
the French had obtained complete possession of the lake
Champlain, and George. By the destruction of Oswego, they had
acquired the dominion of those lakes which connect the St.
Lawrence with the waters of the Mississippi, and unite Canada
to Louisiana. By means of fort Du Quêsne, they maintained
their ascendency over the Indians, and held undisturbed
possession of the country west of the Allegheny mountains;
while the English settlers were driven to the blue ridge. The
great object of the war in that quarter was gained, and France
held the country for which hostilities had been commenced. …
But this inglorious scene was about to be succeeded by one of
unrivalled brilliancy. … The brightest era of British
history was to commence. … The public voice had, at length,
made its way to the throne, and had forced, on the unwilling
monarch, a minister who has been justly deemed one of the
greatest men of the age in which he lived. … In the summer
of 1757, an administration was formed, which conciliated the
great contending interests in parliament; and Mr. Pitt was
placed at its head. … Possessing the public confidence
without limitation, he commanded all the resources of the
nation, and drew liberally from the public purse. … In no
part of his majesty's dominions was the new administration
more popular than in his American colonies. … The circular
letter of Mr. Pitt assured the several governors that, to
repair the losses and disappointments of the last inactive
campaign, the cabinet was determined to send a formidable
force, to operate by sea and land, against the French in
America; and he called upon them to raise as large bodies of
men, within their respective governments, as the number of
inhabitants might allow. … The legislature of Massachusetts
agreed to furnish 7,000 men; Connecticut 5,000; and New
Hampshire 3,000. … Three expeditions were proposed. The
first was against Louisbourg; the second against Ticonderoga
and Crown Point; and the third against fort Du Quêsne. The
army destined against Louisbourg, consisting of 14,000 men,
was commanded by major general Amherst. [The expedition was
successful and Louisbourg fell, July 26, 1758.]"
See CAPE BRETON ISLAND: A. D. 1758-1760.
"The expedition against Ticonderoga and Crown Point was
conducted by General Abercrombie in person. His army,
consisting of near 16,000 effectives, of whom 9,000 were
provincials, was attended by a formidable train of artillery,
and possessed every requisite to ensure success. On the 5th of
July he embarked on lake George, and reached the landing place
early the next morning. A disembarkation being effected
without opposition, the troops were immediately formed in four
columns, the British in the centre, and the provincials on the
flanks; in which order they marched towards the advanced guard
of the French, composed of' one battalion posted in a log
camp, which, on the approach of the English, made a
precipitate retreat. Abercrombie continued his march towards
Ticonderoga, with the intention of investing that place; but,
the woods being thick, and the guides unskilful, his columns
were thrown into confusion, and, in some measure, entangled
with each other. In this situation Lord Howe, at the head of
the right centre column, fell in with a part of the advanced
guard of the French; which, in retreating from lake George,
was likewise lost in the wood. He immediately attacked and
dispersed them; killing several, and taking 148 prisoners,
among whom were five officers. This small advantage was
purchased at a dear rate. Though only two officers, on the
side of the British, were killed, one of these was Lord Howe
himself, who fell on the first fire. This gallant young
nobleman had endeared himself to the whole army. … Without
farther opposition, the English army took possession of the
post at the Saw Mills, within two miles of Ticonderoga. This
fortress [called Carillon by the French], which commands the
communication between the two lakes, is encompassed on three
sides by water, and secured in front by a morass. The ordinary
garrison amounting to 4,000 men, was stationed under the
cannon of the place, and covered by a breast-work, the
approach to which had been rendered extremely difficult by
trees felled in front, with their branches outward, many of
which were sharpened so as to answer the purpose of
chevaux-de-frize. This body of troops was rendered still more
formidable by its general than by its position. It was
commanded by the marquis de Montcalm. Having learned from his
prisoners the strength of the army under the walls of
Ticonderoga, and that a reinforcement of 3,000 men was daily
expected, general Abercrombie thought it advisable to storm
the place before this reinforcement should arrive. The troops
marched to the assault with great intrepidity; but their
utmost efforts could make no impression on the works. …
After a contest of near four hours, and several repeated
attacks, general Abercrombie ordered a retreat. The army
retired to the camp from which it had marched in the morning;
and, the next day, resumed its former position on the south
side of lake George. In this rash attempt, the killed and
wounded of the English amounted to near 2,000 men, of whom not
quite 400 were provincials. The French were covered during the
whole action, and their loss was inconsiderable. Entirely
disconcerted by this unexpected and bloody repulse, General
Abercrombie relinquished his designs against Ticonderoga
and Crown Point.
{375}
Searching however for the means of repairing the misfortune,
if not the disgrace, sustained by his arms, he readily acceded
to a proposition made by colonel Bradstreet, for an expedition
against fort Frontignac. This fortress stands on the north
side of Ontario. … Colonel Bradstreet embarked on the
Ontario at Oswego, and on the 25th of August, landed within
one mile of the fort. In two days, his batteries were opened
at so short a distance that almost every shell took effect;
and the governor, finding the place absolutely untenable,
surrendered at discretion. … After destroying the fort and
vessels, and such stores as could not be brought off, colonel
Bradstreet returned to the army which undertook nothing
farther during the campaign. The demolition of Fort Frontignac
and of the stores which had been collected there, contributed
materially to the success of the expedition against fort Du
Quêsne. The conduct of this enterprise had been entrusted to
General Forbes, who marched from Philadelphia, about the
beginning of July, at the head of the main body of the army,
destined for this service, in order to join colonel Bouquet at
Raystown. So much time was employed in preparing to move from
this place, that the Virginia regulars, commanded by Colonel
Washington, were not ordered to join the British troops until
the month of September. … Early in October general Forbes
moved from Raystown; but the obstructions to his march were so
great that he did not reach fort Du Quêsne until late in
November. The garrison, being deserted by the Indians, and too
weak to maintain the place against the formidable army which
was approaching, abandoned the fort the evening before the
arrival of the British, and escaped down the Ohio in boats.
The English placed a garrison in it, and changed its name to
Pittsburg, in compliment to their popular minister. The
acquisition of this post was of great importance to
Pennsylvania, Maryland, and Virginia."
_J. Marshall,
Life of Washington,
volume 1, chapter 13._
ALSO IN:
_W. C. Bryant and S. H. Gay,
Popular History of the United States,
volume 3, chapter 11._
_B. Fernow,
The Ohio Valley in Colonial Days,
chapter 7._
_Major R. Rogers,
Journals,
edited by Hough,
pages 115-123._
_W. Irving,
Life of Washington,
volume 1, chapter 24._
_N. B. Craig,
The Olden Time,
volume 1, pages 177-200._
CANADA: A. D. 1759 (June-September).
The Fall of Quebec.
"Wolfe's name stood high in the esteem of all who were
qualified to judge, but, at the same time, it stood low in the
column of colonels in the Army List. The great minister [Pitt]
thought that the former counterbalanced the latter. … One of
the last gazettes in the year 1758 announced the promotion of
Colonel James Wolfe to the rank of major-general, and his
appointment to the chief command of the expedition against
Quebec. About the middle of February, 1759, the squadron
sailed from England to Louisbourg, where the whole of the
British force destined for the River St. Lawrence was ordered
to assemble. … Twenty-two ships of the line, five frigates,
and nineteen smaller vessels of war, with a crowd of
transports, were mustered under the orders of the admiral
[Saunders], and a detachment of artillery and engineers, and
ten battalions of infantry, with six companies of Rangers,
formed Wolfe's command; the right flank companies of the three
regiments which still garrisoned Louisbourg soon after joined
the army, and were formed into a corps called the Louisbourg
Grenadiers. The total of the land forces embarked were
somewhat under 8,000."
_E. Warburton,
Conquest of Canada,
volume 2, chapter 9._
"Wolfe, with his 8,000 men, ascended the St. Lawrence in the
fleet in the month of June. With him came Brigadiers Monckton,
Townshend and Murray, youthful and brave like himself, and,
like himself, already schooled to arms. … The Grenadiers of
the army were commanded by Colonel Guy Carleton, and part of
the light infantry by Lieutenant-Colonel William Howe, both
destined to celebrity in after years, in the annals of the
American revolution. Colonel Howe was brother of the gallant
Lord Howe, whose fall in the preceding year was so generally
lamented. Among the officers of the fleet was Jervis, the
future admiral, and ultimately Earl St. Vincent; and the
master of one of the ships was James Cook, afterwards renowned
as a discoverer. About the end of June, the troops debarked on
the large, populous, and well-cultivated Isle of Orleans, a
little below Quebec, and encamped in its fertile fields.
Quebec, the citadel of Canada, was strong by nature. It was
built round the point of a rocky promontory, and flanked by
precipices. … The place was tolerably fortified, but art had
not yet rendered it, as at the present day, impregnable.
Montcalm commanded the post. His troops were more numerous
than the assailants; but the greater part of them were
Canadians, many of them inhabitants of Quebec; and he had a
host of savages. His forces were drawn out along the northern
shore below the city, from the River St. Charles to the Falls
of Montmorency, and their position was secured by deep
intrenchments. … After much resistance, Wolfe established
batteries at the west point of the Isle of Orleans, and at
Point Levi, on the right (or south) bank of the St. Lawrence,
within cannon range of the city. … Many houses were set on
fire in the upper town, the lower town was reduced to rubbish;
the main fort, however, remained unharmed. Anxious for a
decisive action, Wolfe, on the 9th of July, crossed over in
boats from the Isle of Orleans to the north bank of the St.
Lawrence, and encamped below the Montmorency. It was an
ill-judged position. … On the 18th of July, Wolfe made a
reconnoitering expedition up the river, with two armed sloops,
and two transports with troops. He passed Quebec unharmed and
carefully noted the shores above it. Rugged cliffs rose almost
from the water's edge. … He returned to Montmorency
disappointed, and resolved to attack Montcalm in his camp,
however difficult to be approached, and however strongly
posted. Townshend and Murray, with their brigades, were to
cross the Montmorency at low tide, below the falls, and storm
the redoubt thrown up in front of the ford. Monckton, at the
same time, was to cross, with part of his brigade in boats
from Point Levi. … As usual in complicated orders, part were
misunderstood, or neglected, and confusion was the
consequence." The assault was repelled and Wolfe fell back
across the river, having lost four hundred men, with two
vessels, which run aground and were burned. He felt the
failure deeply, and his chagrin was increased by news of the
successes of his coadjutors at Ticonderoga and Niagara.
{376}
"The difficulties multiplying around him, and the delay of
General Amherst in hastening to his aid, preyed incessantly on
his spirits. … The agitation of his mind, and his acute
sensibility, brought on a fever, which for some time
incapacitated him from taking the field. In the midst of his
illness he called a council of war, in which the whole plan of
operations was altered. It was determined to convey troops
above the town, and endeavor to make a diversion in that
direction, or draw Montcalm into the open field. … The brief
Canadian summer was over; they were in the month of September.
The camp at Montmorency was broken up. The troops were
transported to Point Levi, leaving a sufficient number to man
the batteries on the Isle of Orleans. On the 5th and 6th of
September the embarkation took place above Point Levi, in
transports which had been sent for the purpose. Montcalm
detached De Bougainville with 1,500 men to keep along the
north shore above the town, watch the movements of the
squadron, and prevent a landing. To deceive him, Admiral
Holmes moved with the ships of war three leagues beyond the
place where the landing was to be attempted. He was to drop
down, however, in the night, and protect the landing. … The
descent was made in flat-bottomed boats, past midnight, on the
13th of September. They dropped down silently, with the swift
current. 'Qui va la?' (who goes there?) cried a sentinel from
the shore. 'La France,' replied a captain in the first boat,
who understood the French language. 'A quel regiment?' was the
demand. 'De la Reine' (the queen's) replied the captain,
knowing that regiment was in De Bougainville's detachment.
Fortunately, a convoy of provisions was expected down from De
Bougainville's, which the sentinel supposed this to be.
'Passe,' cried he, and the boats glided on without further
challenge. The landing took place in a cove near Cape Diamond,
which still bears Wolfe's name. He had marked it in
reconnoitering, and saw that a cragged path straggled up from
it to the Heights of Abraham, which might be climbed, though
with difficulty, and that it appeared to be slightly guarded
at top. Wolfe was among the first that landed and ascended up
the steep and narrow path, where not more than two could go
abreast, and which had been broken up by cross ditches.
Colonel Howe, at the same time, with the light infantry and
Highlanders, scrambled up the woody precipices, helping
themselves by the roots and branches, and putting to flight a
sergeant's guard posted at the summit. Wolfe drew up the men
in order as they mounted; and by the break of day found
himself in possession of the fateful Plains of Abraham.
Montcalm was thunderstruck when word was brought to him in his
camp that the English were on the heights threatening the
weakest part of the town. Abandoning his intrenchments, he
hastened across the river St. Charles and ascended the
heights, which slope up gradually from its banks. His force
was equal in number to that of the English, but a great part
was made up of colony troops and savages. When he saw the
formidable host of regulars he had to contend with, he sent
off swift messengers to summon De Bougainville with his
detachment to his aid; and De Vaudreil to reinforce him with
1,500 men from the camp. In the meantime he prepared to flank
the left of the English line and force them to the opposite
precipices." In the memorable battle which ensued, Wolfe, who
led the English line, received, first, a musket ball in his
wrist, and soon afterward was struck by a second in the
breast. He was borne mortally wounded to the rear, and lived
just long enough to hear a cry from those around him that the
enemy ran. Giving a quick order for Webb's regiment to be
hurried down to the Charles River bridge and there obstruct
the French retreat, he turned upon his side, saying, "Now, God
be praised, I will die in peace," and expired. In the meantime
the French commander, Montcalm, had received his death-wound,
while striving to rally his flying troops. The victory of the
English was complete, and they hastened to fortify their
position on the Plains of Abraham, preparing to attack the
citadel. But, Montcalm dying of his wound the following
morning, no further defence of the place was undertaken. It
was surrendered on the 17th of September to General Townshend,
who had succeeded to the command.
_W. Irving,
Life of Washington,
volume 1, chapter 25._
ALSO IN:
_F. Parkman,
Montcalm and Wolfe,
chapter 27-28 (volume 2)._
_R. Wright,
Life of Wolfe,
chapters 21-23._
_Lord Mahon (Earl Stanhope),
History of England,
1713-1783, chapter 35 (volume 4)._
_W. Smith,
History of Canada,
volume 1, chapter 6._
_J. Knox,
Historical Journal,
volume 1, pages 255-360;
volume 2, pages 1-132._
CANADA: A. D. 1759 (July-August).
The fall of Niagara, Ticonderoga and Crown Point.
"For the campaign of 1759 the British Parliament voted liberal
supplies of men and money, and the American colonies,
encouraged by the successes of the preceding year, raised
large numbers of troops. Amherst superseded Abercrombie as
commander-in-chief. The plan for the year embraced three
expeditions: Fort Niagara was to be attacked by Prideaux,
assisted by Sir William Johnson; Amherst was to march his
force against Ticonderoga and Crown Point; and Quebec was to
be assailed by an army under Wolfe and a fleet under Saunders.
Prideaux and Amherst, after the capture of the forts, were to
descend the St. Lawrence, take Montreal, and join the army
before Quebec. … Vaudreuil, the Governor, having received
warning from France of the intentions of the English, sent a
small force to Niagara under the engineer Pouchot, not
expecting to be able to hold the post, and not wishing to
sacrifice many men, or to spare the troops from the more
important points. Pouchot repaired the defences, and when the
alarm was given that the English were near, sent for men from
Presqu' Isle, Venango, and Detroit. Prideaux, in command of
two British regiments, a battalion of Royal Americans, two
battalions from New York, and a train of artillery, was joined
by Johnson with a detachment of Indians. They began their
march from Schenectady on the 20th of May, and, after a
difficult journey, reached Oswego, where a detachment under
Colonel Haldimand was left to take possession and form a post,
and the remainder of the forces embarked on Lake Ontario, and
on the 1st of July landed without opposition about six miles
east of the mouth of the Niagara. … Prideaux began his
trenches on the 10th, and on the 11th a sally was made from
the fort; but the English placed themselves in line of battle,
and the French were obliged to retire. Prideaux was steadily
advancing the work … when, on the 19th, he was killed by the
bursting of a shell from a Coehorn mortar in one of the
trenches, where he had gone to issue orders.
{377}
Amherst appointed General Gage to succeed him, but
before the arrival of Gage the command devolved upon General
Johnson, who carried on the siege according to the plans of
Prideaux." On the 24th a considerable force of French and
Indians, about 1,600 strong, sent to the relief of the
beleaguered fort, was intercepted and routed, most of the
French officers and men being slain or captured. This took
from Pouchot his last hope, and he surrendered the following
day. "As the stations beyond Niagara were now completely cut
off from communication with the east, and had given up a large
part of their men to join D'Aubry [in the attempt to relieve
Niagara], they were no longer capable of resistance. Presqu'
Isle, Venango, and Le Bœuf were easily taken by Colonel
Bouquet, who had been sent to summon them to surrender." The
detachment left at Oswego, in charge of stores, was attacked
by a body of French and Indians from La Presentation
(Ogdensburg), but the attack failed. "For the reduction of the
forts at Ticonderoga and Crown Point, Amherst had somewhat
more than 11,000 men. He began preparations early in May at
Albany, preparing boats, gathering stores, and disciplining
the new recruits." In June he reached Lake George with his
army, but it was not until late in July that "the army moved
down the lake in four columns, in a fleet of whale-boats,
bateaux, and artillery rafts, very much as Abercromby's men
had gone to their defeat the year before, and left the boats
nearly opposite the former landing-place. The vanguard,
pushing on rapidly over the road to the falls, met a
detachment of French and Indians, whom they overpowered and
scattered after a slight skirmish, and the main body pressed
on and took a position at the saw mills. From prisoners it was
learned that Bourlamaque commanded at Ticonderoga with 3,400
men. Montcalm was at Quebec." The French 'withdrew from their
outer lines into the fort, and made a show of resistance for
several days while they evacuated the place. An explosion,
during the night of the 25th of July, "and the light of the
burning works, assured the English of the retreat of the
French, of which they had already heard from a deserter, and
Colonel Haviland pursued them down the lake with a few troops,
and took sixteen prisoners and some boats laden with powder.
… After the flames were extinguished, Amherst, who had lost
about 75 men, went to work to repair the fortifications and
complete the road from the lake. Some sunken French boats were
raised, and a brig was built. Amherst was slowly preparing to
attack Crown Point, and sent Rogers with his rangers to
reconnoitre. But on the first of August they learned that the
French had abandoned that fort also; and on the 16th that
Bourlamaque's men were encamped on the Isle aux Noix, at the
northern extremity of Lake Champlain, commanding the entrance
to the Richelieu. They had been joined by some small
detachments, and numbered about 3,500 men. Amherst spent his
time in fortifying Crown Point, and building boats and rafts,"
until "it was too late to descend to Montreal and go to the
help of Wolfe; the time for that had been passed in elaborate
and useless preparations."
_R. Johnson,
History of the French War,
chapter 18._
ALSO IN:
_E. Warburton,
Conquest of Canada,
volume 2, chapter 9._
_W. L. Stone,
Life and Times of Sir W. Johnson,
volume 2, chapter 4._
CANADA: A. D. 1760.
The completion of the English conquest.
The end of "New France."
"Notwithstanding the successes of 1759, Canada was not yet
completely conquered. If Amherst had moved on faster and taken
Montreal, the work would have been finished; but his failure
to do so gave the French forces an opportunity to rally, and
the indefatigable De Levis, who had succeeded Montcalm,
gathered what remained of the army at Montreal, and made
preparations for attempting the recovery of Quebec. … After
several fruitless attacks had been made on the British
outposts during the winter, De Levis refitted all the vessels
yet remaining early in the spring and gathered the stores
still left at the forts on the Richelieu. On the 17th of
April, he left Montreal with all his force and descended the
river, gathering up the detached troops on the way; the whole
amounting to more than 10,000 men. Quebec had been left in
charge of Murray, with 7,000 men, a supply of heavy artillery,
and stores of ammunition and provisions; but the number of men
had been much reduced by sickness and by hardship encountered
in bringing fuel to the city from forests, some as far as ten
miles away. Their position, however, had been very much
strengthened. … De Levis encamped at St. Foy, and on the
27th advanced to within three miles of the city."
_R. Johnson,
History of the French War,
chapter 21._
"On the 28th of April, Murray, marching out from the city,
left the advantageous ground which he first occupied, and
hazarded an attack near Sillery Wood. The advance-guard, under
Bourlamaque, returned it with ardor. In danger of being
surrounded, Murray was obliged to fly, leaving 'his very fine
train of artillery,' and losing 1,000 men. The French appear
to have lost about 300, though Murray's report increased it
more than eightfold. During the next two days, Levi [Levis]
opened trenches against the town; but the frost delayed the
works. The English garrison, reduced to 2,200 effective men,
labored with alacrity; women, and even cripples were set to
light work. In the French army, not a word would be listened
to of the possibility of failure. But Pitt had foreseen and
prepared for all. A fleet at his bidding went to relieve the
city; and to his wife he was able to write in June: 'Join, my
love, with me, in most humble and grateful thanks to the
Almighty. Swanton arrived at Quebec in the Vanguard on the
15th of May, and destroyed all the French shipping, six or
seven in number. The siege was raised on the 17th. with every
happy circumstance. The enemy left their camp standing;
abandoned 40 pieces of cannon. Happy, happy day! My joy and
hurry are inexpressible.' When the spring opened. Amherst had
no difficulties to encounter in taking possession of Canada
but such as he himself should create. A country suffering from
a four years' scarcity, a disheartened peasantry, five or six
battalions, wasted by incredible services and not recruited
from France, offered no opposition. Amherst led the main army
of 10,000 men by way of Oswego; though the labor of getting
there was greater than that of proceeding directly upon
Montreal. He descended the St. Lawrence cautiously, taking
possession of the feeble works at Ogdensburg. Treating the
helpless Canadians with humanity, and with no loss of lives
except in passing the rapids, on the 7th of September, 1760,
he met before Montreal the army of Murray.
{378}
The next day Haviland arrived with forces from Crown Point;
and, in the view of the three armies, the flag of St. George
was raised in triumph over the gate of Montreal. … The
capitulation [signed by the Marquis de Vaudreuil, governor,
against the protest of Levis] included all Canada, which was
said to extend to the crest of land dividing branches of Lakes
Erie and Michigan from those of the Miami, the Wabash, and the
Illinois rivers. Property and religion were cared for in the
terms of surrender; but for civil liberty no stipulation was
thought of. … On the fifth day after the capitulation,
Rogers departed with 200 rangers to carry English banners to
the upper posts. … The Indians on the lakes were at peace,
united under Pontiac, the great chief of the Ottawas, happy in
a country fruitful of corn and abounding in game. The
Americans were met at the mouth of a river by a deputation of
Ottawas. 'Pontiac,' said they, 'is the chief and lord of the
country you are in; wait till he can see you.' When Pontiac
and Rogers met, the savage chieftain asked: 'How have you
dared to enter my country without my leave?' 'I come,' replied
the English agent, 'with no design against the Indians, but to
remove the French.'" Pontiac, after some delay, smoked the
calumet with Rogers and consented to his mission. The latter
then proceeded to take possession of Detroit. In the following
spring he went on to the French posts in the northwest.
_G. Bancroft,
History of the United States.
(Author's last revision),
volume 2, pages 522-524._
ALSO IN:
_W. Smith,
History of Canada,
volume 1, chapter 7
(giving the Articles of Capitulation in full)._
_F. Parkman,
Montcalm and Wolfe,
chapters 29-30 (volume 2)._
CANADA: A. D. 1763.
Ceded to England by the Treaty of Paris.
See SEVEN YEARS WAR.
CANADA: A. D. 1763-1774.
The Province of Quebec created.
Eleven years of military rule.
The Quebec Act of 1774.
Extension of Quebec Province to the
Ohio and the Mississippi.
"For three years after the conquest, the government of Canada
was entrusted to military chiefs, stationed at Quebec,
Montreal and Three Rivers, the headquarters of the three
departments into which General Amherst divided the country.
Military councils were established to administer law, though,
as a rule, the people did not resort to such tribunals, but
settled their difficulties among themselves. In 1763, the
king, George III., issued a proclamation establishing four new
governments, of which Quebec was one. Labrador, from St.
John's River to Hudson's Bay, Anticosti, and the Magdalen
Islands, were placed under the jurisdiction of Newfoundland,
and the islands of St. John (or Prince Edward Island, as it
was afterwards called), and Cape Breton (Ile Royale) with the
smaller islands adjacent thereto, were added to the government
of Nova Scotia. Express power was given to the governors, in
the letters-patent by which these governments were
constituted, to summon general assemblies, with the advice and
consent of His Majesty's Council, 'in such manner and form as
was usual in those colonies and provinces which were under the
King's immediate government.' … No assembly, however, ever
met, as the French-Canadian population were unwilling to take
the test oath, and the government of the province was carried
on solely by the governor general, with the assistance of an
executive council, composed in the first instance of the two
lieutenant-governors of Montreal and Three Rivers, the chief
justice, the surveyor general of customs, and eight others
chosen from the leading residents in the colony. From 1763 to
1774 the province remained in a very unsettled state, chiefly
on account of the uncertainty that prevailed as to the laws
actually in force. … The province of Quebec remained for
eleven years under the system of government established by the
proclamation of 1763. In 1774, Parliament intervened for the
first time in Canadian affairs and made important
constitutional changes. The previous constitution had been
created by letters-patent under the great seal of Great
Britain, in the exercise of an unquestionable and undisputed
prerogative of the Crown. The colonial institutions of the old
possessions of Great Britain, now known as the United States
of America, had their origin in the same way. But in 1774, a
system of government was granted to Canada by the express
authority of Parliament. This constitution was known as the
Quebec Act, and greatly extended the boundaries of the
province of Quebec, as defined in the proclamation of 1763. On
one side, the province extended to the frontiers of New
England, Pennsylvania, New York province, the Ohio, and the
left bank of the Mississippi; on the other, to the Hudson's
Bay Territory. Labrador, and the islands annexed to
Newfoundland by the proclamation of 1763, were made part of
the province of Quebec. … The Act of 1774 was exceedingly
unpopular in England and in the English-speaking colonies,
then at the commencement of the Revolution. Parliament,
however, appears to have been influenced by a desire to adjust
the government of the province so as to conciliate the
majority of the people. … The new constitution came into
force in October, 1774. The Act sets forth among the reasons
for legislation that the provisions made by the proclamation
of 1763 were 'inapplicable to the state and circumstances of
the said province, the inhabitants whereof amounted at the
conquest, to above 65,000 persons professing the religion of
the Church of Rome, and enjoying an established form of
constitution and system of laws, by which their persons and
property had been protected, governed, and ordered for a long
series of years, from the first establishment of the
province.' Consequently, it is provided that Roman Catholics
should be no longer obliged to take the test oath, but only
the oath of allegiance. The government of the province was
entrusted to a governor and a legislative council, appointed
by the Crown, inasmuch as it was 'inexpedient to call an
assembly.' This council was to comprise not more than
twenty-three, and not less than seventeen members, and had the
power, with the consent of the governor or commander-in-chief
for the time being, to make ordinances for the peace, welfare,
and good government of the province. They had no authority,
however, to lay on any taxes or duties except such as the
inhabitants of any town or district might be authorized to
assess or levy within its precincts for roads and ordinary
local services. No ordinance could be passed, except by a
majority of the council, and every one had to be transmitted
within six months after its enactment to His Majesty for
approval or disallowance.
{379}
It was also enacted that in all matters of controversy,
relative to property and civil rights, recourse should be had
to the French civil procedure, whilst the criminal law of
England should obtain to the exclusion of every other criminal
code which might have prevailed before 1764. … Roman
Catholics were permitted to observe their religion with
perfect freedom, and their clergy were to enjoy their
'accustomed dues and rights' with respect to such persons as
professed that creed. Consequently, the Roman Catholic
population of Canada were relieved of their disabilities many
years before people of the same belief in Great Britain and
Ireland received similar privileges. The new constitution was
inaugurated by Major General Carleton, afterwards Lord
Dorchester, who nominated a legislative council of
twenty-three members, of whom eight were Roman Catholics."
_J. G. Bourinot,
Manual of Constitutional History of Canada,
chapters 2-3._
ALSO IN:
_W. Houston,
Documents Illustrative of the Canadian Constitution,
pages 90-96._
See, also,
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D.1774 (MARCH-APRIL).
CANADA: A. D. 1775-1776.
Invasion by the revolting American colonists.
Loss and recovery of Montreal.
Successful defence of Quebec.
At the beginning of the revolt of the thirteen colonies which
subsequently formed, by their separation from Great Britain,
the United States of America, it was believed among them that
Canada would join their movement if the British troops which
occupied the country were driven out. Acting on this belief,
the Continental Congress at Philadelphia, in June, 1775,
adopted a resolution instructing General Schuyler to repair
without delay to Ticonderoga (which had been surprised and
taken a few weeks before by Ethan Allen and his "Green
Mountain Boys"), and "if he found it practicable, and it would
not be disagreeable to the Canadians, immediately to take
possession of St. John's and Montreal, and pursue any other
measures in Canada which might have a tendency to promote the
peace and security of these colonies." General Schuyler found
it difficult to gather troops and supplies for the projected
expedition, and it was the middle of August before he was
prepared to move. His chief subordinate officer was General
Richard Montgomery, an Irishman, formerly in the British
service, but settled latterly in New York; and he was to be
supported by a cooperative movement planned and led by
Benedict Arnold. "General Montgomery, with 3,000 men, would go
down Lake Champlain and attack Montreal; while General Arnold,
with 1,200, was to seek the headwaters of Kennebec River,
cross the height of land, and descend the Chaudiere to the
very gates of Quebec. The brave General Carleton, who had been
with Wolfe at Quebec, was now in command of the forces of
Canada—if 500 British regulars and a few hundred militia
might be so denominated. No doubt Governor Carleton with his
small army undertook too much. He sought to defend the way to
Montreal by holding Fort St. John, and that to Quebec by
defending Chambly. Both these places fell before the
Americans. General Montgomery pushed on down the River
Richelieu and occupied Sorel, throwing forces across the St.
Lawrence, and erected batteries on both sides to prevent
intercourse between Montreal and Quebec. Montreal, now
defenceless, was compelled to surrender on the 13th of
November, and 11 British vessels were given up to the enemy.
It was really a dark hour for Canada. General Carleton has
been severely criticized for dividing his forces. The truth
is, the attack was so unexpected, and so soon after the
outbreak of the rebellion, that no plan of defence for Canada
had been laid. … General Carleton escaped from Montreal,
and, in a boat, passed the Sorel batteries with muffled oars
under cover of night. The general had but reached Quebec in
time. The expedition of Arnold had already gained the St.
Lawrence on the side opposite the' Ancient Capital.' The
energy displayed by Arnold's men was remarkable. The Kennebec
is a series of rapids. Its swift current hurries over
dangerous rocks at every turn. The highlands when reached
consist of swamps and rocky ridges covered with forest. The
Chaudiere proved worse than the Kennebec, and, the current
being with the boats, dashed them to pieces on the rocks.
Arnold's men, on their six weeks' march, had run short of
food, and were compelled to eat the dogs which had accompanied
them. Not much more than half of Arnold's army reached the St.
Lawrence. Arnold's force crossed the St. Lawrence, landed at
Wolfe's Cove, and built huts for themselves on the Plains of
Abraham. On the 5th of December Montgomery joined the Kennebec
men before Quebec. The united force was of some 3,000 men,
supported by about a dozen light guns. Carleton had, for the
defence of Quebec, only one company of regulars and a few
seamen and marines of a sloop of war at Quebec. The popularity
of the governor was such that he easily prevailed upon the
citizens, both French and English, to enroll themselves in
companies for the defence of their homes. He was able to count
upon about 1,600 bayonets. The defences of Quebec were,
however, too strong for the Americans. On the night of
December 31st, a desperate effort was made to take the city by
escalade. Four attacks were made simultaneously. Arnold sought
to enter by the St. Charles, on the north side of Quebec, and
Montgomery by the south, between Cape Diamond and the St.
Lawrence. Two feints were to be made on the side towards the
Plains of Abraham. The hope of the commanders was to have
forced the gates from the lower to the upper town in both
cases. Arnold failed to reach the lower town, and in a sortie
the defenders cut off nearly the whole of his column. He
escaped wounded. Montgomery was killed at the second
entrenchment of the lower town, and his troops retired in
confusion. The American generals have been criticized by
experts for not making their chief attack on the wall facing
on the Plains of Abraham. … General Arnold remained before
Quebec, though his troops had become reduced to 800 men.
General Carleton pursued a policy of acting strictly on the
defensive. If he retained Quebec it would be his greatest
success. General Arnold sought to gain the sympathy of the
French Canadian seigniors and people, but without any success.
Three thousand troops, however, came to reinforce Arnold early
in the year, and 4,000 occupied Montreal, St. John's, and
Chambly. But on the 6th of May relief came from England; men
of war and transports, with three brigades of infantry besides
artillery, stores, and ammunition. The Americans withdrew to
Sorel. The British troops followed them, and a brigade
encamped at Three Rivers.
{380}
The Americans attempted to surprise the force at Three Rivers,
but were repulsed with heavy loss. The Americans now fell back
from Montreal, deserted all the posts down to Lake Champlain,
and Governor Carleton had the pleasure of occupying
Isle-aux-Noix as the outpost, leaving Canada as it had been
before the first attack in the year before."
_G. Bryce,
Short History of the Canadian People,
chapter 6, section 3._
ALSO IN:
_B. J. Lossing,
Life and Times of Philip Schuyler,
volume 1, chapters 19-29,
and volume 2, chapters 1-4._
_J. Sparks,
Life and Treason of Benedict Arnold,
chapters 3-5,
(Library of American Biographies, volume 3)._
_J. Armstrong,
Life of Richard Montgomery
(Library of American Biographies, volume 1)._
_C. H. Jones,
History of the Campaign for the Conquest of Canada in 1776._
_J. J. Henry,
Arnold's Campaign against Quebec._
CANADA: A. D. 1776.
General Carleton's unsuccessful advance against Ticonderoga.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1776-1777.
CANADA: A. D. 1777.
Burgoyne's disastrous invasion of New York.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1777 (JULY-OCTOBER).
CANADA: A. D 1783.
Settlement of boundaries in the Treaty of Peace between Great
Britain and the United States.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1783 (SEPTEMBER).
CANADA: A. D. 1783-1784.
Influx of the "United Empire Loyalists" from the United
States.
See TORIES OF THE AMERICAN REVOLUTION.
CANADA: A. D. 1791
The Constitutional Act.
Division of the province into Upper and Lower Canada.
"In 1791 a bill was introduced by Pitt dividing the Province
into Upper and Lower Canada, the line of division being so
drawn as to give a great majority to the British element in
Upper Canada and a great majority to the French settlers in
Lower Canada. The measure was strongly opposed by Fox, who
urged that the separation of the English and French
inhabitants was most undesirable. … The act was passed, and
is known as the Constitutional Act of 1791. … In each
province the legislature was to consist of the Governor, a
Legislative Council and a Legislative Assembly. The Governor
had power to give or withhold the royal assent to bills, or to
reserve them for consideration by the Crown. He could summon,
prorogue, or dissolve the legislature, but was required to
convene the legislature at least once a year. The Legislative
Council in Upper Canada consisted of not less than 7, and in
Lower Canada of not less than 15 members, chosen by the King
for life, the Speaker being appointed by the Governor-General.
The Legislative Assembly was in counties elected by 40s,
freeholders, and in towns by owners of houses of £5 yearly
value and by resident inhabitants paying £10 yearly rent. The
number and limits of electoral districts were fixed by the
Governor-General. Lower Canada had 50 members, Upper Canada 16
members, assigned to their respective legislatures. The new
Constitution did not prove a success. Serious differences
arose between the Legislative Council and the Legislative
Assembly in regard to the control of the revenue and supplies,
differences which were aggravated by the conflict that still
went on between the French and English races. … The
discontent resulted in the rebellion of 1837-8."
_J. E. C. Munro,
The Constitution of Canada,
chapter 2._
ALSO IN:
_W. Houston,
Docs. Illustrative of the Canadian Const.,
pages 112-133._
_D. Brymner,
Report on Canadian Archives, 1890,
appendix B._
CANADA: A. D. 1812-1815.
The War of Great Britain with the United States.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
A. D. 1812 (JUNE-OCTOBER), to 1815 (JANUARY).
CANADA: A. D. 1818.
Convention between Great Britain and the United States
relating to Fisheries, etc.
See FISHERIES, NORTH AMERICAN: A. D. 1814-1818.
CANADA: A. D. 1820-1837.
The Family Compact.
"The Family Compact manifestly grew out of the principles of
the U. E. Loyalists. It was the union of the leaders of the
loyalists with others of kindred spirit, to rule Upper Canada,
heedless of the rights or wishes of its people. We have
admired the patriotic, heroic and sentimental side of U. E.
loyalism; but plainly, as related to civil government, its
political doctrines and practices were tyrannical. Its
prominent members belonged to the class which in the American
colonies, in the persons of Governors Bernard and Hutchinson,
and many others of high office and standing, had plotted to
destroy the liberties of the people and had hastened the
American revolution. … By the years 1818 or 1820 a junto or
cabal had been formed, definite in its aims and firmly
combined together, known as the Family Compact, not to its
best leaders seeming an embodiment of selfishness, but rather
set for patriotic defence and hallowed with the name of
religion."
_G. Bryce,
Short History of the Canadian People,
chapter 10, section 2._
"Upper Canada … has long been entirely governed by a party
commonly designated throughout the Province as the 'Family
Compact,' a name not much more appropriate than party
designations usually are, inasmuch as there is, in truth, very
little of family connection among the persons thus united. For
a long time this body of men, receiving at times accessions to
its members, possessed almost all the highest public offices,
by means of which, and of its influence in the Executive
Council, it wielded all the powers of government; it
maintained influence in the legislature by means of its
predominance in the Legislative Council; and it disposed of a
large number of petty posts which are in the patronage of the
Government all over the Province. Successive Governors, as
they came in their turn, are said to have either submitted
quietly to its influence, or, after a short and unavailing
struggle, to have yielded to this well-organized party the
real conduct of affairs. The bench, the magistracy, the high
offices of the Episcopal Church, and a great part of the legal
profession, are filled by the adherents of this party: by
grant or purchase, they have acquired nearly the whole of the
waste lands of the Province; they are all powerful in the
chartered banks, and, till lately, shared among themselves
almost exclusively all offices of trust and profit. The bulk
of this party consists, for the most part, of native-born
inhabitants of the colony, or of emigrants who settled in it
before the last war with the United States; the principal
members of it belong to the church of England, and the
maintenance of the claims of that church has always been one
of its distinguishing characteristics."
_Earl of Durham,
Report on the Affairs of British North America,
page 105._
"The influences which produced the Family Compact were not
confined to Upper Canada. In the Lower Province, as well as in
Nova Scotia and New Brunswick, similar causes led to similar
results, and the term Family Compact has at one time or
another been a familiar one in all the British North American
colonies. … The designation Family Compact, however, did not
owe its origin to any combination of North American colonists,
but was borrowed from the diplomatic history of Europe."
_J. C. Dent,
The Story of the Upper Canadian Rebellion,
chapter 3._
{381}
CANADA: A. D. 1837.
The Causes of discontent which produced rebellion.
"It was in Lower Canada that the greatest difficulties arose.
A constant antagonism grew up between the majority of the
legislative council, who were nominees of the Crown, and the
majority of the representative assembly, who were elected by
the population of the province [see above: A. D. 1791]. The
home Government encouraged and indeed kept up that most odious
and dangerous of all instruments for the supposed management
of a colony—a 'British party' devoted to the so-called
interests of the mother country, and obedient to the word of
command from their masters and patrons at home. The majority
in the legislative council constantly thwarted the resolutions
of the vast majority of the popular assembly. Disputes arose as
to the voting of supplies. The Government retained in their
service officials whom the representative' assembly had
condemned, and insisted on the right to pay them their
salaries out of certain funds of the colony. The
representative assembly took to stopping the supplies, and the
Government claimed the right to counteract this measure by
appropriating to the purpose such public moneys as happened to
be within their reach at the time. The colony—for indeed on
these subjects the population of Lower Canada, right or wrong,
was so near to being of one mind that we may take the
declarations of public meetings as representing the
colony—demanded that the legislative council should be made
elective, and that the colonial government should not be
allowed to dispose of the moneys of the colony at their
pleasure. The House of Commons and the Government here replied
by refusing to listen to the proposal. … It is not necessary to
suppose that in all these disputes the popular majority were
in the right and the officials in the wrong. No one can doubt
that there was much bitterness of feeling arising out of the
mere differences of race. … At last the representative
assembly refused to vote any further supplies or to carry on
any further business. They formulated their grievances against
the home Government. Their complaints were of arbitrary
conduct on the part of the governors; intolerable composition
of the legislative council, which they insisted ought to be
elective; illegal appropriation of the public money, and
violent prorogation of the provincial parliament. One of the
leading men in the movement which afterwards became rebellion
in Lower Canada was Mr. Louis Joseph Papineau. This man had
risen to high position by his talents, his energy, and his
undoubtedly honourable character. He had represented Montreal
in the representative Assembly of Lower Canada, and he
afterwards became Speaker of the House. He made himself leader
of the movement to protest against the policy of the
governors, and that of the Government by whom they were
sustained. He held a series of meetings, at some of which
undoubtedly rather strong language was used. … Lord Gosford,
the governor, began by dismissing several militia officers who
had taken part in some of these demonstrations; Mr. Papineau
himself was an officer of this force. Then the governor issued
warrants for the apprehension of many members of the popular
Assembly on the charge of high treason. Some of these at once
left the country; others against whom warrants were issued
were arrested, and a sudden resistance was made by their
friends and supporters. Then, in a manner familiar to all who
have read anything of the history of revolutionary movements,
the resistance to a capture of prisoners suddenly transformed
itself into open rebellion."
_J. McCarthy,
History of Our own Times,
volume 1, chapter 3._
Among the grievances which gave rise to discontent in both
Upper and Lower Canada, "first of all there was the chronic
grievance of the Clergy Reserves [which were public lands set
apart by the Act of 1791 for the support of the Protestant
Clergy], common both to British and French, to Upper and to
Lower Canada. In Upper Canada these reserves amounted to
2,500,000 acres, being one-seventh of the lands in the
Province. Three objections were made against continuing these
Reserves for the purpose for which they had been set apart.
The first objection arose from the way in which the Executive
Council wished to apply the revenues accruing from these
lands. According to the Act they were to be applied for
'maintaining the Protestant religion in Canada'; and the
Executive Council interpreted this as meaning too exclusively
the Church of England, which was established by law in the
mother-country. But the objectors claimed a right for all
Protestant denominations to share in the Reserves. The second
objection was that the amount of these lands was too large for
the purpose in view: and the third referred to the way in
which the Reserves were selected. These 2,500,000 acres did
not lie in a block, but, when the early surveys were made,
every seventh lot was reserved; and as these lots were not
cleared for years the people complained that they were not
utilized, and so became inconvenient barriers to uniform
civilization. With the Roman Catholics, both priests and
people, the Clergy Reserves were naturally unpopular. … An
additional source of complaint was found in the fact that the
government of Upper and Lower Canada had found its way into
the hands of a few powerful families banded together by a
Family Compact [see above: A. D. 1820-1837]. … But the
Constitutional difficulty was, after all, the great one, and
it lay at the bottom of the whole dispute. … Altogether the
issues were very complicated in the St. Lawrence Valley
Provinces and the Maritime Provinces … and so it is not to
be wondered at that some should interpret the rebellion as a
class, and perhaps semi-religious, contest rather than a
race-conflict. The constitutional dead-lock, however, was
tolerably clear to those who looked beneath the surface. …
The main desire of all was to be freed of the burden of
Executive Councils, nominated at home and kept in office with
or without the wish of the people. In Upper Canada, William
Lyon Mackenzie, and in Lower Canada, Louis Papineau and Dr.
Wolfred Nelson, agitated for independence."
_W. P. Greswell,
History of the Dominion of Canada,
chapter 16._
ALSO IN:
_J. McMullen,
History of Canada,
chapters 19-20._
_Earl of Durham,
Report and Dispatches._
_Sir F. B. Head,
Narrative._
_Report of Commissioner appointed to inquire into the
grievances complained of in Lower Canada,
(House of Commons, February 20, 1837)._
{382}
CANADA: A. D. 1837-1838.
The rebellion under Papineau and Mackenzie, and its suppression.
The Burning of the Caroline.
"Immediately on the breaking out of the rebellion, the
constitution of Lower Canada was suspended; the revolt was put
down at once, and with little difficulty. Though the outbreak
in Upper Canada showed that a comparatively small portion of
the population was disaffected to the government, there were
some sharp skirmishes before the smouldering fire was
completely trodden out. … On the night of the 4th of
December, 1837, when all Toronto was asleep, except the
policemen who stood sentries over the arms in the city hall,
and a few gentlemen who sat up to watch out the night with the
Adjutant-General of Militia in the Parliament House, the alarm
came that the rebels were upon the city. They were under the
command of a newspaper editor named Mackenzie, whose grotesque
figure was until lately [this was published in 1865] familiar
to the frequenters of the Canadian House of Assembly. Rumours
had been rife for some days past of arming and drilling among
the disaffected in the Home and London districts. … The
alarm threw Toronto into commotion. … The volunteers were
formed in the market square during the night and well armed.
In point of discipline, even in the first instance, they were
not wholly deficient, many of them being retired officers and
discharged men from both the naval and military services. …
Towards morning news came of a smart skirmish which had
occurred during the night, in which a party of the rebels were
driven back and their leader killed. During the succeeding day
and night, loyal yeomen kept pouring in to act in defence of
the crown. Sir Allan, then Colonel, Macnab, the Speaker of the
House of Assembly … raised a body of his friends and
adherents in the course of the night and following day, and,
seizing a vessel in the harbour at Hamilton, hurried to
Toronto. … The rebels were defeated and dispersed next day,
at a place some two miles from Toronto. In this action, the
Speaker took the command of the Volunteers, which he kept
during the subsequent campaign on the Niagara frontier, and
till all danger was over. … Mackenzie soon rallied his
scattered adherents, and seized Navy Island, just above
Niagara Falls, where he was joined by large numbers of
American 'sympathizers,' who came to the spot on the chance of
a quarrel with the English. On receipt of this intelligence,
the Speaker hastened from the neighbourhood of Brantford
(where he had just dispersed a band of insurgents under the
command of a doctor named Duncombe) to reinforce Colonel
Cameron, formerly of the 79th, who had taken up a position at
Chippewa. Navy Island, an eyott some quarter of a mile in
length, lies in the Niagara River within musket-shot of the
Canadian bank. The current runs past the island on both sides
with great velocity, and, immediately below it, hurries over
the two miles of rocks and rapids that precede its tremendous
leap. The rebels threw up works on the side facing the
Canadians. They drew their supplies from Fort Schlosser, an
American work nearly opposite the village of Chippewa." A
small steamboat, named the Caroline, had been secured by the
insurgents and was plying between Fort Schlosser and Navy
Island. She "had brought over several field-pieces and other
military stores; it therefore became necessary to decide
whether it was not expedient for the safety of Canada to
destroy her. Great Britain was not at war with the United
States, and to cut out an American steamer from an American
port was to incur a heavy responsibility. Nevertheless Colonel
Macnab determined to assume it." A party sent over in boats at
night to Fort Schlosser surprised the Caroline at her wharf,
fired her and sent her adrift in the river, to be carried over
the Falls.
_Viscount Bury,
Exodus of the Western Nations,
volume 2, chapter 12._
"On all sides the insurgents were crushed, jails were filled
with their leaders, and 180 were sentenced to be hanged. Some
of them were executed and some were banished to Van Dieman's
Land, while others were pardoned on account of their youth.
But there was a great revulsion of feeling in England, and
after a few years, pardons were extended to almost all. Even
Papineau and Mackenzie, the leaders of the rebellion, were
allowed to come back, and, strange to say, both were elected
to seats in the Canadian Assembly."
_W. P. Greswell,
History of the Dominion of Canada.
chapter 16, section 15._
On the American border the Canadian rebellion of 1837-38 was
very commonly called "the Patriot War."
ALSO IN:
_C. Lindsey,
Life and Times of William Lyon Mackenzie,
volume 2._
_J. C. Dent,
Story of the Upper Canada Rebellion._
CANADA: A. D. 1840-1841.
International Imbroglio consequent on the burning of the
Caroline.
The McLeod Case.
The burning of the steamer Caroline (see, above, A. D.
1837-1836) gave rise to a serious question between Great
Britain and the United States. "In the fray which occurred, an
American named Durfree was killed. The British government
avowed this invasion to be a public act and a necessary
measure of self-defence; but it was a question when Mr. Van
Buren [President of the United States] went out of office
whether this avowal had been made in an authentic manner. …
In November, 1840, one Alexander McLeod came from Canada to
New York, where he boasted that he was the slayer of Durfree,
and thereupon was at once arrested on a charge of murder and
thrown into prison. This aroused great anger in England, and
the conviction of McLeod was all that was needed to cause
immediate war. … Our [the American] government was, of
course, greatly hampered in action … by the fact that McLeod
was within the jurisdiction and in the power of the New York
courts, and wholly out reach of those of the United States.
… Mr. Webster [who became Secretary of State under President
Taylor] … was hardly in office before he received a demand
from Mr. Fox for the release of McLeod, in which full avowal
was made that the burning of the Caroline was a public act.
Mr. Webster determined that … the only way to dispose of
McLeod was to get him out of prison, separate him,
diplomatically speaking, from the affair of the Caroline, and
then take that up as a distinct matter for negotiation with
the British government. … His first step was to instruct the
Attorney-General to proceed to Lockport, where McLeod was
imprisoned, and communicate with the counsel for the defence,
furnishing them with authentic information that the
destruction of the Caroline was a public act, and that
therefore, McLeod could not be held responsible. …
{383}
This threw the responsibility for McLeod, and for consequent
peace or war, where it belonged, on the New York authorities,
who seemed, however, but little inclined to assist the general
government. McLeod came before the Supreme Court of New York
in July, on a writ of habeas corpus, but they refused to
release him on the grounds set forth in Mr. Webster's
instructions to the Attorney-General, and he was remanded for
trial in October, which was highly embarrassing to our
government, as it kept this dangerous affair open." But when
McLeod came to trial in October, 1841, it appeared that he was
a mere braggart who had not even been present when Durfree was
killed. His acquittal happily ended the case, and smoothed the
way to the negotiation of the Ashburton treaty, which opened
at Washington soon afterwards and which settled all questions
between England and the United States.
_H. C. Lodge,
Daniel Webster,
chapter 8._
ALSO IN:
_W. H. Seward,
Works,
chapter 2, pages 547-588._
_D. Webster,
Works,
volume 6, pages 247-269._
CANADA: A. D. 1840-1867.
Reunion of the provinces.
The opposition of races.
Clear Grits and Conservatives.
"The reunion of the two Provinces had been projected before:
it was greatly desired by the British of the Lower Province;
and in 1822 a bill for the purpose had actually been brought
into the Imperial Parliament, but the French being bitterly
opposed to it, the Bill had been dropped. The French were as
much opposed to reunion as ever, clearly seeing, what the
author of the policy [Lord Durham] had avowed, that the
measure was directed against their nationality. But since the
Rebellion they were prostrate. Their Constitution had been
superseded by a Provisional Council sitting under the
protection of Imperial bayonets, and this Council consented to
the union. The two Provinces were now [July, 1840] placed
under a Governor-General with a single legislature,
consisting, like the legislatures of the two Provinces before,
of an Upper House nominated by the Crown and a Lower House
elected by the people. Each province was to have the same
number of representatives, although the population of the
French Province was at that time much larger than that of the
British Province. The French language was proscribed in
official proceedings. French nationality was thus sent,
constitutionally, under the yoke. But to leave it its votes,
necessary and right as that might be, was to leave it the only
weapon which puts the weak on a level with the strong, and
even gives them the advantage, since the weak are the most
likely to hold together and to submit to the discipline of
organised party. … The French … 'had the wisdom,' as their
manual of history … complacently observes, 'to remain united
among themselves, and by that union were able to exercise a
happy influence on the Legislature and the Government.'
Instead of being politically suppressed, they soon, thanks to
their compactness as an interest and their docile obedience to
their leaders, became politically dominant. The British
factions began to bid against each other for their support,
and were presently at their feet. … The statute proscribing
the use of the French language in official proceedings was
repealed, and the Canadian Legislature was made bi-lingual.
The Premiership was divided between the English and the French
leader, and the Ministries were designated by the double
name—'the Lafontaine—Baldwin,' or 'the Macdonald-Taché.' The
French got their full share of seats in the Cabinet and of
patronage; of public funds they got more than their full
share, especially as being small consumers of imported goods
they contributed far less than their quota to the public
revenue. By their aid the Roman Catholics of the Upper
Province obtained the privilege of Separate Schools in
contravention of the principle of religious equality and
severance of the Church from the State. In time it was
recognized as a rule that a Ministry to retain power must have
a majority from each section of the Province. This practically
almost reduced the Union to a federation, under which French
nationality was more securely entrenched than ever. Gradually
the French and their clergy became, as they have ever since
been, the basis of what styles itself a Conservative party,
playing for French support, by defending clerical privilege,
by protecting French nationality, and, not least, by allowing
the French Province to dip her hand deep in the common
treasury. On the other hand, a secession of thorough-going
Reformers from the Moderates … gave birth to the party of
the 'Clear Grits,' the leader of which was Mr. George Brown, a
Scotch Presbyterian, and which having first insisted on the
secularization of the Clergy Reserves, became, when that
question was out of the way, a party of general opposition to
French and Roman Catholic influence. … A change had thus
come over the character and relations of parties. French
Canada, so lately the seat of disaffection, became the basis
of the Conservative party. British Canada became the
stronghold of the Liberals. … A period of tricky
combinations, perfidious alliances, and selfish intrigues now
commenced, and a series of weak and ephemeral governments was
its fruit."
_Goldwin Smith,
Canada and the Canadian Question,
chapter 7._
ALSO IN:
_W. Houston,
Docs. Illustrative of the Canadian Const.,
pages 149-185._
_J. G. Bourinot,
Manual of the Constitutional History of Canada,
chapter 5._
CANADA: A. D. 1842.
Settlement of boundary disputes with the United States by the
Ashburton Treaty.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1842.
CANADA: A. D. 1854.1866.
The Reciprocity Treaty with the United States and its
abrogation.
See TARIFF LEGISLATION (UNITED STATES AND CANADA):
A. D. 1854-1866.
CANADA: A. D. 1864.
The St. Albans Raid.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1864 (OCTOBER).
CANADA: A. D. 1866-1871.
Fenian invasions.
The Fenian movement (see IRELAND: A. D. 1858-1867) had its
most serious outcome in an attempted invasion of Canada from
the United States, which took place in 1866. "Canadian
volunteers were under arms all day on the 17th of March, 1866,
expecting a Fenian invasion, but it was not made: in April an
insignificant attack was made upon New Brunswick. About 900
men, under Colonel O'Neil, crossed from Buffalo to Fort Erie on
the night of May 31st. Moving westward, this body aimed at
destroying the Welland Canal, when they were met by the
Queen's Own Volunteer Regiment of Toronto, and the 13th
battalion of Hamilton Militia, near the village of Ridgeway.
Here, after a conflict of two hours, in which for a time the
Volunteers drove the enemy before them, the Canadian
forces retired to Ridgeway, and thence to Port Colborne, with
a loss of nine killed and 30 wounded.
{384}
Colonel Peacock, in charge of a body of regulars, was marching
to meet the volunteers, so that O'Neil was compelled to flee
to Fort Erie, and, crossing to the United States with his men,
was arrested, but afterwards liberated. The day after the
skirmish the regulars and volunteers encamped at Fort Erie,
and the danger on the Niagara Frontier was past. A Fenian
expedition threatened Prescott, aiming at reaching the capital
at Ottawa, and another band of marauders crossed the border
from St. Albans, Vermont, but both were easily driven back.
The Fenian troubles roused strong feeling in Canada against
the American authorities. … A Fenian attack was led by Colonel
O'Neil on the Lower Canadian frontier, in 1870, but it was
easily met, and the United States authorities were moved to
arrest the repulsed fugitives. A foolish movement was again
made in 1871 by the same leader, through Minnesota, against
Manitoba. Through the prompt action of the friendly American
commander at Fort Pembina, the United States troops followed
the Fenians across the border, arrested their leader, and,
though he was liberated after a trial at St. Paul, Minnesota,
the expedition ended as a miserable and laughable failure.
These movements of the Fenian Society, though trifling in
effect, yet involved Canada in a considerable expense from the
maintenance of bodies of the Active Militia at different
points along the frontier. The training of a useful force of
citizen soldiery however resulted."
_G. Bryce,
Short History of the Canadian People,
pages 468-470._
ALSO IN:
_G. T. Denison, Jr.,
The Fenian Raid on Fort Erie.
Correspondence Relating to the Fenian Invasion.
Official Report of General John O'Neill._
CANADA: A. D. 1867.
Federation of the provinces of British North America in the
Dominion of Canada.
The constitution of the Dominion.
"The Union between Upper and Lower Canada lasted until 1867,
when the provinces of British North America were brought more
closely together in a federation and entered on a new era in
their constitutional history. For many years previous to 1865,
the administration of government in Canada had become
surrounded with political difficulties of a very perplexing
character. … Parties at last were so equally balanced on
account of the antagonism between the two sections, that the
vote of one member might decide the fate of an administration,
and the course of legislation for a year or a series of years.
From the 21st of May, 1862, to the end of June, 1864, there
were no less than five different ministries in charge of the
public business. Legislation, in fact, was at last practically
at a dead-lock. … It was at this critical juncture of
affairs that the leaders of the government and opposition, in
the session of 1864, came to a mutual understanding, after the
most mature consideration of the whole question. A coalition
government was formed on the basis of a federal union of all
the British American provinces, or of the two Canadas, in case
of the failure of the larger scheme. … It was a happy
coincidence that the legislatures of the lower provinces were
about considering a maritime union at the time the leading
statesmen of Canada had combined to mature a plan of settling
their political difficulties. The Canadian ministry at once
availed themselves of this fact to meet the maritime delegates
at their convention in Charlottetown, and the result was the
decision to consider the question of the larger union at
Quebec. Accordingly, on the 10th of October, 1864, delegates
from all the British North American provinces assembled in
conference, in 'the ancient capital,' and after very ample
deliberations during eighteen days, agreed to 72 resolutions,
which form the basis of the Act of Union. These resolutions
were formally submitted to the legislature of Canada in
January, 1865, and after an elaborate debate, which extended
from the 3d of February to the 14th of March, both houses
agreed by very large majorities to an address to her Majesty
praying her to submit a measure to the Imperial Parliament for
the purpose of uniting the provinces in accordance with the
provisions of the Quebec resolutions.' Some time, however, had
to elapse before the Union could be consummated, in
consequence of the strong opposition that very soon exhibited
itself in the maritime provinces, more especially to the
financial terms of the scheme." Certain modifications of the
terms of the Quebec resolutions were accordingly made, and
"the provinces of Canada, Nova Scotia, and New Brunswick,
being at last in full accord, through the action of their
respective legislatures, the plan of union was submitted on
the 12th of February, 1867, to the Imperial Parliament, where
it met with the warm support of the statesmen of all parties,
and passed without amendment in the course of a few weeks, the
royal assent being given on the 29th of March. The new
constitution came into force on the First of July, [annually
celebrated since, as 'Dominion Day '] 1867, and the first
parliament of the united provinces met on November of the same
year. … The confederation, as inaugurated in 1867, consisted
only of the four provinces of Ontario [Upper Canada], Quebec
[Lower Canada], Nova Scotia, and New Brunswick. By the 146th
section of the Act of Union, provision was made for the
admission of other colonies on addresses from the parliament
of Canada, and from the respective legislatures of
Newfoundland, Prince Edward Island, and British Columbia.
Rupert's Land and the North-west Territory might also at any
time be admitted into the Union on the address of the Canadian
Parliament. … The title of Dominion did not appear in the
Quebec resolutions. The 71st Res. is to the effect that 'Her
Majesty be solicited to determine the rank and name of the
federated Provinces.' The name ['The Dominion of Canada'] was
arranged at the conference held in London in 1866, when the
union bill was finally drafted."
_T. G. Bourinot,
Manual of Constitutional History of Canada,
chapter 6-7 (with foot-note)._
"The Federal Constitution of the Dominion of Canada is
contained in the British North America Act, 1867, a statute of
the British Parliament (30 Vict., c. 3). I note a few of the
many points in which it deserves to be compared with that of
the United States. The Federal or Dominion Government is
conducted on the so-called 'Cabinet system' of England, i. e.,
the Ministry sit in Parliament, and hold office at the
pleasure of the House of Commons. The Governor-General
[appointed by the Crown] is in the position of an
irresponsible and permanent executive similar to that of the
Crown of Great Britain, acting on the advice of responsible
ministers.
{385}
He can dissolve Parliament. The Upper House or Senate, is
composed of 78 persons, nominated for life by the
Governor-General, i. e., the Ministry. The House of Commons
has at present 210 members, who are elected for five years.
Both senators and members receive salaries. The Senate has
very little power or influence. The Governor-General has a
veto but rarely exercises it, and may reserve a bill for the
Queen's pleasure. The judges, not only of the Federal or
Dominion Courts, but also of the provinces, are appointed by
the Crown, i. e., by the Dominion Ministry, and hold for good
behaviour. Each of the Provinces, at present [1888] seven in
number, has a legislature of its own, which, however, consists
in Ontario, British Columbia, and Manitoba, of one House only,
and a Lieutenant-Governor, with a right of veto on the acts of
the legislature, which he seldom exercises. Members of the
Dominion Parliament cannot sit in a Provincial legislature.
The Governor-General has a right of disallowing acts of a
Provincial legislature, and sometimes exerts it, especially
when a legislature is deemed to have exceeded its
constitutional competence. In each of the Provinces there is a
responsible Ministry, working on the Cabinet system of
England. The distribution of matters within the competence of
the Dominion Parliament and of the Provincial legislatures
respectively, bears a general resemblance to that existing in
the United States; but there is this remarkable distinction,
that whereas in the United States, Congress has only the
powers actually granted to it, the State legislatures
retaining all such powers as have not been taken from them,
the Dominion Parliament has a general power of legislation,
restricted only by the grant of certain specific and exclusive
powers to the Provincial legislatures. Criminal law is
reserved for the Dominion Parliament; and no Province has the
right to maintain a military force. Questions as to the
constitutionality of a statute, whether of the Dominion
Parliament or of a Provincial legislature, come before the
courts in the ordinary way, and if appealed, before the
Judicial Committee of the Privy Council in England. The
Constitution of the Dominion was never submitted to a popular
vote, and can be altered only by the British Parliament,
except as regards certain points left to its own legislature.
… There exists no power of amending the Provincial
constitutions by popular vote similar to that which the
peoples of the several States exercise in the United States."
_J. Bryce,
The American Commonwealth,
volume 1, appendix., note (B) to chapter 80._
See CONSTITUTION OF CANADA.
ALSO IN:
_J. E. C. Munro,
The Constitution of Canada
(with text of Act in appendix)
Parl. Debate on Confederation, 3d Sess., 8th Prov.
Parliament of Canada._
_W. Houston,
Docs. Illustrative of the Canadian Constitution,
pages 186-224._
CANADA: A. D. 1869-1873.
Acquisition of the Hudson's Bay Territory.
Admission or Manitoba, British Columbia and Prince Edward's
Island to the Dominion.
"In 1869 … the Dominion was enlarged by the acquisition of
the famous Hudson's Bay Territory. When the charter of the
Hudson's Bay Company expired in 1869, Lord Granville, then
Colonial Secretary, proposed that the chief part of the
Company's territories should be transferred to the Dominion
for £300,000; and the proposition was agreed to on both sides.
The Hudson's Bay Charter dated from the reign of Charles II.
The region to which it referred carries some of its history
imprinted in its names. Prince Rupert was at the head of the
association incorporated by the Charter into the Hudson's Bay
Company. The name of Rupert's Land perpetuates his memory. …
The Hudson's Bay Company obtained from King Charles, by virtue
of the Charter in 1670, the sole and absolute government of
the vast watershed of Hudson's Bay, the Rupert's Land of the
Charter, on condition of paying yearly to the King and his
successors 'two elks and two black beavers,' 'whensoever and
all often as we, our heirs and successors, shall happen to
enter into the said countries, territories and regions.' The
Hudson's Bay Company was opposed by the North West Fur Company
in 1788, which fought them for a long time with Indians and
law, with the tomahawk of the red man and the legal judgment
of a Romilly or a Keating. In 1812 Lord Selkirk founded the
Red River Company. This interloper on the battle field was
harassed by the North West Company, and it was not until 1821,
when the Hudson's Bay and North West Companies—impoverished
by their long warfare-amalgamated their interests, that the
Red River settlers were able to reap their harvests in peace,
disturbed only by occasional plagues of locusts and
blackbirds. In 1885, on Lord Selkirk's death, the Hudson's Bay
Company bought the settlement from his executors. It had been
under their sway before that, having been committed to their
care by Lord Selkirk during his lifetime. The privilege of
exclusive trading east of the Rocky Mountains was conferred by
Royal license for twenty-one years in May 1888, and some ten
years later the Company received a grant of Vancouver's Island
for the term of ten years from 1849 to 1859. The Hudson's Bay
Company were always careful to foster the idea that their
territory was chiefly wilderness, and discountenanced the
reports of its fertility and fitness for colonisation which
were from time to time brought to the ears of the English
Government. In 1857, at the instance of Mr. Labouchere, a
Select Committee of the House of Commons was appointed to
enquire into the state of the British possessions under the
Company's administration. Various Government expeditions, and
the publication of many Blue Books, enlightened the public
mind as to the real nature of those tracts of land which the
council from the Fenchurch Street house declared to be so
desolate. … During the sittings of the Committee there was
cited in evidence a petition from 575 Red River settlers to
the Legislative Assembly of Canada demanding British
protection. This appeal was a proceeding curiously at variance
with the later action of the settlement. When in 1869 the chief
part of the territories was transferred to Canada, on the
proposition of Earl Granville, the Red River country rose in
rebellion, and refused to receive the new Governor. Louis
Riel, the insurgent chief, seized on Fort Garry and the
Company's treasury, and proclaimed the independence of the
settlement. Sir Garnet, then Colonel, Wolseley, was sent in
command of an expedition which reached Fort Garry on August
28, when the insurgents submitted without resistance, and the
district received the name of Manitoba."
_J. McCarthy,
History of our own Times,
chapter 55 (volume 4)._
{386}
Manitoba and the Northwest Territories were admitted to the
Dominion Confederation May 12, 1870; British Columbia, July
20, 1871; Prince Edward Island, July 1, 1873.
_J. McCoun,
Manitoba and the Great North West._
ALSO IN:
_G. M. Adam,
The Canadian Northwest,
chapters 1-13_
_G. L. Huyshe,
The Red River Expedition._
_W. P. Greswell,
History of the Dominion of Canada,
page 313._
_J. E. C. Munro,
The Constitution of Canada,
chapter 2._
_G. E. Ellis,
The Hudson Bay Company
(Narrative and Critical History of America, volume 8)._
See, also, BRITISH COLUMBIA: A. D. 1858-1871,
and NORTHWEST TERRITORIES of CANADA.
CANADA: A. D. 1871.
The Treaty of Washington.
See ALABAMA CLAIMS: A. D. 1871.
CANADA: A. D. 1877.
The Halifax Fishery Award.
See FISHERIES, NORTH AMERICAN: A. D. 1877-1888.
CANADA: A. D. 1885-1888.
Termination of the Fishery articles of the Treaty of Washington.
Renewed controversies.
The rejected Treaty.
See FISHERIES, NORTH AMERICAN: A. D. 1877-1888.
CANAI, The.
See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: ALGONQUIAN FAMILY.
CANARES, The.
See ECUADOR: THE ABORIGINAL INHABITANTS.
CANARY ISLANDS, Discovery of the.
The first great step in African exploration "was the discovery
of the Canary Islands. These were the 'Elysian fields' and
'Fortunate islands' of antiquity. Perhaps there is no country
in the world that has been so many times discovered,
conquered, and invaded, or so much fabled about, as these
islands. There is scarcely a nation upon earth of any maritime
repute that has not had to do with them. Phœnicians,
Carthaginians, Romans, Moors, Genoese, Normans, Portuguese,
and Spaniards of every province (Aragonese, Castilians,
Gallicians, Biscayans, Andalucians) have all made their
appearance in these islands. The Carthaginians are said to
have discovered them, and to have reserved them as an asylum
in case of extreme danger to the state. Sertorius, the Roman
general who partook the fallen fortunes of Marius is said to
have meditated retreat to these 'islands of the blessed,' and
by some writers is supposed to have gone there. Juba, the
Mauritanian prince, son of the Jupa celebrated by Sallust,
sent ships to examine them, and has left a description of
them. Then came the death of empires, and darkness fell upon
the human race, at least upon the records of their history.
When the world revived, and especially when the use of the
loadstone began to be known among mariners, the Canary Islands
were again discovered. Petrarch is referred to by Viera to
prove that the Genoese sent out an expedition to these
islands. Las Casas mentions that an English or French vessel
bound from France or England to Spain was driven by contrary
winds to the Canary Islands, and on its return spread abroad
in France an account of the voyage."
_A. Helps,
Spanish Conquest,
book 1, chapter 1._
ALSO IN:
_E. H. Bunbury,
History of Ancient Geography,
chapter 20, note E._
CANAS, The.
See PERU: THE ABORIGINAL INHABITANTS.
CANCELLARIUS.
See CHANCELLOR.
CANDAHAR.
Siege and relief of English forces (1880).
See AFGHANISTAN: A. D. 1869-1881.
CANDIA.
This is the name of the principal town in the island of Crete,
but has been often applied to Crete itself.
See TURKS: A. D. 1645-1669, where an account is given of
the so-called "War of Candia";
also CRETE: A. D. 823.
CANDRAGUPTA, OR CHANDRAGUPTA,
The empire of.
See INDIA.: B. C. 327-312, and 312-.
CANGI, The.
A tribe in early Britain which occupied the westerly part of
Modern Carnarvonshire.
See BRITAIN, CELTIC TRIBES.
CANICHANAS, The.
See BOLIVIA: ABORIGINAL INHABITANTS.
CANIENGAS, The.
See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: IROQUOIS CONFEDERACY.
CANNÆ Battles of (B. C. 216).
See PUNIC WAR: THE SECOND. (B. C. 88).
See ROME: B. C. 90-88.
CANNENEFATES, The.
"On the other bank of the Rhine [on the right bank] next to
the Batavi, in the modern Kennemer district (north Holland,
beyond Amsterdam) dwelt the Cannenefates, closely related to
them but less numerous; they are not merely named among the
tribes subjugated by Tiberius, but were also treated like the
Batavi in the furnishing of soldiers."
_T. Mommsen,
History of Rome,
book 8, chapter 4._
CANNING, Lord, The Indian administration of, A. D. 1856-1862.
CANNING MINISTRY, The.
See ENGLAND: A. D. 1820-1827.
CANOPUS, Decree of.
An important inscribed stone found in 1865 at San, or Tanis,
in Egypt, which is a monument of the reign of Ptolemy
Euergetes, who ascended the throne in 246 B. C. It gives "in
hieroglyphics and Greek (the demotic version is on the edge) a
decree of the priests assembled at Canopus for their yearly
salutation of the king. When they were so assembled, in his
ninth year, his infant daughter Berenice, fell sick and died,
and there was great lamentation over her. The decree first
recounts the generous conduct and prowess of the king, who had
conquered all his enemies abroad, and had brought back from
Persia all the statues of the gods carried off in old time
from Egypt by foreign kings. He had also, in a great
threatening of famine, when the Nile had failed to rise to its
full amount, imported vast quantities of corn from Cyprus,
Phœnicia, &c., and fed his people. Consequently divine honours
are to be paid to him and his queen as 'Benefactor-Gods' in
all the temples of Egypt, and feasts are to be held in their
honour. … This great inscription, far more perfect and
considerably older than the Rosetta Stone, can now be cited as
the clearest proof of Champollion's reading of the
hieroglyphics."
_J. P. Mahaffy,
Story of Alexander's Empire,
chapter 15, note._
{387}
CANOSSA, Henry IV. at.
In the conflict which arose between the German Emperor, Henry
IV. (then crowned only as King of the Romans) and Pope Gregory
VII. (the inflexible Hildebrand), the former was placed at a
great disadvantage by revolts and discontents in his own
Germanic dominions. When, therefore, on the 22d of February,
A. D. 1076, the audacious pontiff pronounced against the king
his tremendous sentence, not only of excommunication, but of
deposition, releasing all Christians from allegiance to him,
he addressed a large party, both in Germany and Italy, who
were more than willing to accept an excuse for depriving Henry
of his crown. This party controlled a diet held at Tribur, in
October, which declared that his forfeiture of the throne
would be made irrevocable if he did not procure from the pope
a release from his excommunication before the coming
anniversary of its pronunciation, in February. A diet to be
held then at Augsburg, under the presidency of the pope, would
determine the affairs of the Empire. With characteristic
energy, Henry resolved to make his way to the pope, in person,
and to become reconciled with him, before the Augsburg
meeting. Accompanied by the queen, her child, and a few
attendants, he crossed the Alps, with great hardship and
danger, in the midst of an uncommonly cold and snowy winter.
Meantime, the pope had started upon his journey to Augsburg.
Hearing on the way of Henry's movement to meet him, not
desiring the encounter, and distrusting, moreover, the
intentions of his enemy, he took refuge in the strong fortress
of Canossa, high up in the rocky recesses of the Apennines. To
that mountain retreat the desperate king pressed his way. "It
was January 21, 1077, when Henry arrived at Canossa; the cold
was severe and the snow lay deep. He was lodged at the foot of
the castle-steep, and had an interview with the countess
Matilda [mistress of the castle, and devoted friend of the
pope], Hugh, abbot of Clugny, and others, in the Chapel of St.
Nicolas, of which no traces now remain. Three days were spent
in debating terms of reconciliation; Matilda and Hugh
interceded with the pope on the king's behalf, but Gregory was
inexorable; unless Henry surrendered the crown into the pope's
hands the ban should not be taken off. Henry could not stoop
so low as this, but he made up his mind to play the part of a
penitent suppliant. Early on the morning of January 25 he
mounted the winding, rocky path, until he reached the
uppermost of the three walls, the one which enclosed the
castle yard. And here, before the gateway which still exists,
and perpetuates in its name, 'Porta di penitenza,' the memory
of this strange event, the king, barefoot, and clad in a
coarse woolen shirt, stood knocking for admittance. But he
knocked in vain: from morning till evening the heir of the
Roman Empire stood shivering outside the fast-closed door. Two
more days he climbed the rugged path and stood weeping and
imploring to be admitted." At last, the iron-willed pontiff
consented to a parley, and an agreement was brought about by
which Henry was released from excommunication, but the
question of his crown was left for future settlement. In the
end he gained nothing by his extraordinary abasement of
himself. Many of his supporters were alienated by it; a rival
king was elected. Gathering all his energies, Henry then stood
his ground and made a fight in which even Gregory fled before
him; but it was all to no avail. The triumph remained with the
priests.
_W. R. W. Stephens,
Hildebrand and His Times,
chapters 11-15._
ALSO IN:
_A. F. Villemain,
Life of Gregory VII.,
book 5._
See, also,
PAPACY: A. D. 1056-1122;
ROME: 1081-1084.
CANTABRIA, Becomes Bardulia and Castile.
See SPAIN: A. D. 1026-1230.
CANTABRIANS AND ASTURIANS, The.
The Cantabrians were an ancient people in the north of Spain,
inhabiting a region to the west of the Asturians. They were
not conquered by the Romans until the reign of Augustus, who
led an expedition against them in person, B. C. 27, but was
forced by illness to commit the campaign to his lieutenants.
The Cantabrians submitted soon after being defeated in a great
battle at Vellica, near the sources of the Ebro; but in 22 B.
C. they joined the Asturians in a desperate revolt, which was
not subdued until three years later.
_C. Merivale,
History of the Romans,
chapter 34._
ALSO IN:
_T. Mommsen,
History of Rome,
book 8, chapter 2._
See APPENDIX A, volume 1.
CANTÆ, The.
A tribe in ancient Caledonia.
See BRITAIN, CELTIC TRIBES.
CANTERBURY. The murder of Becket (1170).
See ENGLAND: A. D. 1162-1170.
CANTERBURY PRIMACY, Origin of the.
See ENGLAND: A. D. 597-685.
CANTII, The.
The tribe of ancient Britons which occupied the region of Kent.
See BRITAIN. CELTIC TRIBES.
CANTON: A. D. 1839-1842.
The Opium War.
Ransom of the city from English assault.
Its port opened to British trade.
See CHINA: A. D. 1839-1842.
CANTON: A. D. 1856-1857.
Bombardment by the English.
Capture by the English and French.
See CHINA: A. D. 1856-1860.
CANTONS, Latin.
See GENS, ROMAN;
also ALBA.
CANTONS, Swiss.
See SWITZERLAND: A. D. 1848-1890.
CANULEIAN LAW, The.
See ROME: B. C. 445.
CANUTE, OR CNUT,
King of England, A. D.1017-1035,
and King of Denmark, A. D. 1018-1035.
Canute II., King of Denmark, A. D. 1080-1086.
Canute III., King of Denmark, A. D. 1147-1156.
Canute IV., King of Denmark, A. D. 1182-1202.
CANZACA.
See ECBATANA.
CANZACA, OR SHIZ, Battle of.
A battle fought A. D. 591, by the Romans, under Narses,
supporting the cause of Chosroës II. king of Persia, against a
usurper Bahram, who had driven him from his throne. Bahram was
defeated and Chosroës restored.
_G. Rawlinson,
Seventh Great Oriental Monarchy,
chapter 23._
CAP OF LIBERTY, The.
See LIBERTY CAP.
CAPE BRETON ISLAND: A. D. 1497.
Discovery by John Cabot.
See AMERICA: A. D. 1497.
CAPE BRETON ISLAND: A. D. 1504.
Named by the fishermen from Brittany.
See NEWFOUNDLAND: A. D. 1501-1578.
CAPE BRETON ISLAND: A. D. 1713.
Possession confirmed to France.
See NEWFOUNDLAND: A. D. 1713.
{388}
CAPE BRETON ISLAND: A. D. 1720-1745.
The fortification of Louisbourg.
After the surrender of Placentia or Plaisance, in
Newfoundland, to England, under the treaty of Utrecht (see
NEWFOUNDLAND: A. D. 1713), the French government determined to
fortify strongly some suitable harbor on the island of Cape
Breton for a naval station, and especially for the protection
of the fisheries of France on the neighboring coasts. The
harbor known previously as Havre a l' Anglois was chosen for
the purpose. "When the French government decided in favour of
Havre a l' Anglois its name was changed to Louisbourg, in
honour of the king; and, to mark the value set upon Cape
Breton it was called Isle Royale, which it retained until its
final conquest in 1758, when its ancient name was resumed." In
1720 the fortifications were commenced, and the work of their
construction was prosecuted with energy and with unstinted
liberality for more than twenty years. "Even the English
colonies contributed a great proportion of the materials used
in their construction. When Messrs. Newton and Bradstreet, who
were sent to confer with M. de St. Ovide [to remonstrate
against the supplying of arms to the Indians in Nova Scotia]
… returned to Annapolis, they reported that during their
short stay at Louisbourg, in 1725, fourteen colonial vessels,
belonging chiefly to New England, arrived there with cargoes
of boards, timber and bricks. … Louisbourg [described, with
a plan, in the work here quoted] … had, between the years
1720 and 1745, cost the French nation the enormous sum of
30,000,000 livres, or £1,200,000 sterling; nevertheless, as
Dussieux informs us, the fortifications were still unfinished,
and likely to remain so, because the cost had far exceeded the
estimates; and it was found such a large garrison would be
required for their defence that the government had abandoned
the idea of completing them according to the original design."
_R. Brown,
History of the Island of Cape Breton,
letters 9-11._
"The fort was built of stone, with walls more than 30 feet
high, and a ditch 80 feet wide, over which was a communication
with the town by a drawbridge. It had six bastions and three
batteries, with platforms for 148 cannon and six mortars. On
an islet, which was flanked on one side by a shoal, a battery
of 30 guns, 28 pounders, defended the entrance of the harbor,
which was about 400 yards wide, and was also commanded from
within by the Grand or Royal Battery, mounting as many guns,
of the calibre of 42 pounds. The fort … was a safe
rendezvous and refuge for French fleets and privateers,
sailing in the Western Hemisphere. It commanded the maritime
way into Canada, and it watched the English settlements all
along the coast. It was a standing threat to the great
business of New England seamen, which was the fishery on the
banks."
_J. G. Palfrey,
History of New England,
book 5, chapter 9 (volume 5)._
"'So great was its strength that it was called the Dunkirk of
America. It had nunneries and palaces, terraces and gardens.
That such a city rose upon a low and desolate island in the
infancy of American colonization appears incredible;
explanation is alone found in the fishing enthusiasm of the
period.'"
_C. B. Elliott,
The United States and the New England Fisheries,
page 18._
CAPE BRETON ISLAND: A. D. 1744.
Outbreak of the Third Inter-Colonial War.
See NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1744.
CAPE BRETON ISLAND: A. D. 1745.
Conquest by the New Englanders.
Fall of Louisbourg.
See NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1745;
and ENGLAND: A. D. 1745-1747.
CAPE BRETON ISLAND: A. D. 1748.
Restored to France.
See AIX-LA-CHAPELLE, THE CONGRESS;
and NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1745-1748.
CAPE BRETON ISLAND: A. D. 1758-1760.
The final capture and destruction of Louisbourg, by the English.
"In May, 1758 [during the Seven Years War,—see CANADA: A. D.
1750-1753 and after], a powerful fleet, under command of
Admiral Boscawen, arrived at Halifax for the purpose of
recapturing a place [Louisbourg] which ought never to have
been given up. The fleet consisted of 23 ships of the line and
18 frigates, besides transports, and when it left Halifax it
numbered 157 vessels. With it was a land force, under Jeffery
Amherst, of upward of 12,000 men. The French forces at
Louisbourg were much inferior, and consisted of only 8 ships
of the line and 3 frigates, and of about 4,000 soldiers. The
English fleet set sail from Halifax on the 28th of May, and on
the 8th of June a landing was effected in Gabarus Bay. The
next day the attack began, and after a sharp conflict the
French abandoned and destroyed two important batteries. The
siege was then pushed by regular approaches; but it was not
until the 26th of July that the garrison capitulated. By the
terms of surrender the whole garrison were to become prisoners
of war and to be sent to England, and the English acquired 218
cannon and 18 mortars, beside great quantities of ammunition
and military stores. All the vessels of war had been captured
or destroyed; but their crews, to the number of upward of
2,600 men, were included in the capitulation. Two years later,
at the beginning of 1760, orders were sent from England to
demolish the fortress, render the harbor impracticable, and
transport the garrison and stores to Halifax. These orders
were carried out so effectually that few traces of its
fortifications remain, and the place is inhabited only by
fishermen."
_C. C. Smith,
The Wars on the Seaboard
(Narrative and Critical History of America,
volume 5, chapter 7)._
ALSO IN:
_F. Parkman,
Montcalm and Wolfe,
chapter 19 (volume 2)._
See, also, CANADA (NEW FRANCE): A. D. 1758.
CAPE BRETON ISLAND: A. D. 1763.
Ceded to England by the Treaty of Paris.
See SEVEN YEARS WAR.
CAPE BRETON ISLAND: A. D. 1763.
Added to the government of Nova Scotia.
See CANADA: A. D. 1763-1774.
----------CAPE BRETON ISLAND: End----------
CAPE COLONY.
See SOUTH AFRICA.
CAPE ST. VINCENT, Naval battle of.
See ENGLAND: A. D. 1797.
CAPETIANS,
Origin and crowning of the.
See FRANCE: A. D. 861, and 877-987.
CAPHARSALAMA, Battle of.
One of the victories of the Jewish patriot, Judas Maccabæus
over the Syrian general Nicanor, B. C. 162.
_Josephus,
Antiquity of the Jews,
book 12, chapter 10._
CAPHTOR.
An ancient Phœnician settlement on the coast of the Nile
Delta. "From an early period the whole of this district had
been colonised by the Phœnicians, and as Phœnicia itself was
called Keft by the Egyptians, the part of Egypt in which they
had settled went by the name of Keft-ur, or 'Greater
Phœnicia.'"
_A. H. Sayce,
Fresh Light from the Ancient Monuments,
chapter 2._
On the other hand, Ewald and other writers say that "the
Philistines came from Caphtor," and that "this now obsolete
name probably designated either the whole or a part of Crete."
CAPHYÆ, Battle of.
Fought B. C. 220 in the Social War of the Achæan and Ætolian
Leagues. The forces of the former were totally routed.
_C. Thirlwall,
History of Greece,
chapter 63._
{389}
CAPITOLINE HILL AT ROME.
The Capitol.
"In prehistoric times this hill was called the Mons Saturnius,
see Varro, Lin. Lat., volume 41; its name being connected with
that legendary 'golden age' when Saturn himself reigned in
Italy. … This hill, which, like the other hills of Rome, has
had its contour much altered by cutting away and levelling,
consists of a mass of tufa rock harder in structure than that
of the Palatine hill. It appears once to have been surrounded
by cliffs, very steep at most places, and had only approaches
on one side—that towards the Forum. … The top of the hill
is shaped into two peaks of about equal height, one of which
was known as the Capitolium, and the other as the Arx, or
Citadel. … The Capitolium was also in early time known as
the 'Mars Tarpeius,' so called from the familiar legend of the
treachery of Tarpeia. … In later times the name 'rupes
Tarpeia' was applied, not to the whole peak, but to a part of
its cliff which faced towards the 'Vicus Jugarius' and the
'Forum Magnum.' The identification of that part of the
Tarpeian rock, which was used for the execution of criminals,
according to a very primitive custom, is now almost
impossible. At one place the cliff of the Capitolium is quite
perpendicular, and has been cut very carefully into an upright
even surface; a deep groove, about a foot wide, runs up the
face of this cutting, and there are many rock-cut chambers
excavated in this part of the cliff, some openings into which
appear in the face of the rock. This is popularly though
erroneously known as the Tarpeian rock. … The perpendicular
cliff was once very much higher than it is at present, as
there is a great accumulation of rubbish at its foot. … That
this cliff cannot be the Tarpeian rock where criminals were
executed is shown by Dionysius (viii. 78, and vii. 35), who
expressly says that this took place in the sight of people in
the Forum Magnum, so that the popular Rupes Tarpeia is on the
wrong side of the hill."
_J. H. Middleton,
Ancient Rome in 1885,
chapter 7._
See, also, SEVEN HILLS OF ROME, and GENS, ROMAN.
CAPITULARIES.
"It is commonly supposed that the term capitularies applies
only to the laws of Charlemagne; this is a mistake. The word
'capitula,' 'little chapters,' equally applies to all the laws
of the Frank kings. … Charlemagne, in his capitularies, did
anything but legislate. Capitularies are, properly speaking,
the whole acts of his government, public acts of all kinds by
which he manifested his authority."
_F. Guizot,
History of Civilization,
lecture 21._
ALSO IN:
_E. F. Henderson,
Select Historical Documents of the Middle Ages,
book 2._
CAPITULATION OF CHARLES V.
See GERMANY: A. D. 1520-1521.
CAPO D'ISTRIA, Count, The Assassination of.
See GREECE: A. D. 1830-1862.
CAPPADOCIA.
See MITHRIDATIC WARS.
CAPS, Party of the.
See SCANDINAVIAN STATES (SWEDEN): A. D. 1720-1792.
CAPTAL.
A title, derived from "capitalis," originally equivalent to
count, and anciently borne by several lords in Aquitaine.
"Towards the 14th century there were no more than two captals
acknowledged, that of Buch and that of Franc."
_Froissart (Johnes),
Chronicles,
book 1, chapter 158, note._
CAPTIVITY, Prince of the.
See JEWS: A. D. 200-400.
CAPTIVITY OF THE JEWS, The.
See JEWS: B. C. 604-536.
CAPUA.
Capua, originally an Etruscan city, called Vulturnum, was
taken by the Samnites, B. C. 424, and was afterwards a city in
which Etruscan and neighboring Greek influences were mixed in
their effect on a barbarous new population. "Capua became by
its commerce and agriculture the second city in Italy in point
of size—the first in point of wealth and luxury. The deep
demoralization in which, according to the accounts of the
ancients, that city surpassed all others in Italy, is
especially reflected in the mercenary recruiting and in the
gladiatorial sports, both of which pre-eminently flourished in
Capua. Nowhere did recruiting officers find so numerous a
concourse as in this metropolis of demoralized civilization.
… The gladiatorial sports … if they did not originate,
were at any rate carried to perfection in Capua. There, sets
of gladiators made their appearance even during banquets."
_T. Mommsen,
History of Rome,
book 2, chapter 5._
CAPUA: B. C. 343.
Surrender to the Romans.
See ROME: B. C. 343-290.
CAPUA: B. C. 216-211.
Welcome to Hannibal.
Siege and capture by the Romans.
The city repeopled.
See PUNIC WAR, THE SECOND.
CAPUA: A. D. 800-1016.
The Lombard principality.
See ITALY (SOUTHERN): A. D. 800-1016.
CAPUA: A. D. 1501.
Capture, sack and massacre by the French.
See ITALY: A. D. 1501-1504.
----------CAPUA: End----------
CAPUCHINS, The.
"The Capuchins were only a branch of the great Franciscan
order, and their mode of life a modification of its Rule.
Among the Franciscans the severity of their Rule had early
become a subject of discussion, which finally led to a
secession of some of the members, of whom Matteo de' Bassi, of
the convent of Montefalcone was the leading spirit. These were
the rigorists who desired to restore the primitive austerities
of the Order. They began by a change of dress, adding to the
usual monastic habit a 'cappuccio,' or pointed hood, which
Matteo claimed was of the same pattern as that worn by St.
Francis. By the bull 'Religionis zelus' (1528), Matteo
obtained from Pope Clement VII. leave for himself and his
companions to wear this peculiar dress; to allow their beards
to grow; to live in hermitages, according to the rule of St.
Francis, and to devote themselves chiefly to the reclaiming of
great sinners. Paul III. afterwards gave them permission to
settle wheresoever they liked. Consistently with the austerity
of their professions, their churches were unadorned, and their
convents built in the simplest style. They became very
serviceable to the Church, and their fearlessness and
assiduity in waiting upon the sick during the plague, which
ravaged the whole of Italy, made them extremely popular."
_J. Alzog,
Manual of Universal Church History,
volume 3, page 455._
CAPUCHONS, OR CAPUTIATI.
See WHITE HOODS OF FRANCE.
CARABOBO, Battles of (1821-1822).
See COLOMBIAN STATES: A. D. 1819-1830.
CARACALLA, Roman Emperor, A. D. 211-217.
CARACCAS: A. D. 1812.
Destruction by earthquake.
See COLOMBIAN STATES: A. D. 1810-1819.
CARAFFA, Cardinal (Pope Paul IV.) and the Counter Reformation.
See PAPACY: A. D. 1537-1563, and 1555-1603.
{390}
CARAS, OR CARANS, OR CARANQUIS, The.
See ECUADOR.
CARAUSIUS, Revolt of.
See BRITAIN: A. D. 288-297.
CARAVELS.
GALEONS, Etc.
"The term caravel was originally given to ships navigated
wholly by sails as distinguished from the galley propelled by
oars. It has been applied to a great variety of vessels of
different size and construction. The caravels of the New World
discoverers may be generally described as long narrow boats of
from 20 to 100 tons burden, with three or four masts of about
equal height carrying sometimes square and sometimes lateen
sails, the fourth mast set at the heel of the bow-sprit
carrying square sails. They were usually half-decked, and
adorned with the lofty forecastle and loftier poop of the day.
The latter constituted over that part of the vessel a double
or treble deck, which was pierced for cannon. … The galera
was a vessel of low bulwarks, navigated by sails and oars,
usually twenty or thirty oars on either side, four or five
oarsmen to a bench. … The galeaza was the largest class of
galera, or craft propelled wholly or in part by oars. … A
galeota was a small galera, having only 16 or 20 oarsmen on a
side, and two masts. The galeon was a large armed merchant
vessel with high bulwarks, three or four decks, with two or
three masts, square rigged, spreading courses and top-sails,
and sometimes top-gallant sails. … Those which plied between
Acapulco and Manila were from 1,200 to 2,000 tons burden. A
galeoncillo was a small galeon. The carac was a large carrying
vessel, the one intended for Columbus' second voyage being
1,250 toneles or 1,500 tons. A nao, or navio, was a large ship
with high bulwarks and three masts. A nave was a vessel with
deck and sails, the former distinguishing it from the barca,
and the absence of oars from a galera. The bergantin, or brig,
had low bulwarks. … The name brigantine was applied in
America also to an open flat-bottomed boat, which usually
carried one sail and from 8 to 16 men."
_H. H. Bancroft,
History of the Pacific States,
volume 1, page 187, foot-note._
See, also, AMERICA: A. D. 1492.
CARBERRY, Mary Stuart's surrender at.
See SCOTLAND: A. D. 1561-1568.
CARBONARI, Origin and character of the.
See ITALY (SOUTHERN): A. D. 1808-1809.
CARCHEMISH.
See HITTITES, THE.
CARCHEMISH, Battle of.
Fought, B. C. 604, between the armies of Necho, the Egyptian
Pharaoh, and Nebuchadnezzar, then crown prince of Babylon.
Necho, being defeated, was driven back to Egypt and stripped
of all his Syrian conquests.
_F. Lenormant,
Manual of Ancient History of the East,
book 2, chapter 4._
CARDADEN, Battle of (1808).
See SPAIN: A. D. 1808-1809 (DECEMBER-MARCH).
CARDINAL INFANT, The.
See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1635-1638.
CARDINALS, College of.
See CURIA, THE ROMAN (PAPAL),
and PAPACY: A. D. 1059.
CARDUCHI, The.
"South of the lake [Lake of Van, in Asia Minor] lay the
Carduchi, whom the later Greeks call the Gordyæans and
Gordyenes; but among the Armenians they were known as
Kordu, among the Syrians as Kardu. These are the ancestors
of the modern Kurds, a nation also of the Aryan stock."
_M. Duncker,
History of Antiquity,
book 2, chapter 12._
See, also, GORDYENE.
Under Saladin and the Ayonbite dynasty the Kurds played an
important part in mediæval history.
See SALADIN, EMPIRE OF.
CARGILLITES, The.
See SCOTLAND: A. D. 1681-1689.
CARHAM, Battle of.
Fought and won by an army of Scots, under King Malcolm,
invading the then English earldom of Bernicia, A. D. 1018, and
securing the annexation of Lothian to the Scottish kingdom.
The battlefield was near that on which Flodden was afterwards
fought.
_E. A. Freeman,
Norman Conquest,
chapter 6, section 2._
CARIANS, The.
"The Carians may be called the doubles of the Leleges. They
are termed the 'speakers of a barbarous tongue,' and yet, on
the other hand, Apollo is said to have spoken Carian. As a
people of pirates clad in bronze they once upon a time had
their day in the Archipelago, and, like the Normans of the
Middle Ages, swooped down from the sea to desolate the coasts;
but their real home was in Asia Minor, where their settlements
lay between those of Phrygians and Pisidians, and community of
religion united them with the Lydians and Mysians."
_E. Curtius,
History of Greece,
book 1, chapter 2._
The country of the Carians was the mountainous district in the
southwestern angle of Asia Minor, the coast of which is
indented with gulfs and frayed with long-projecting rocky
promontories. The island of Rhodes lies close to it on the
south. The Carians were subjugated by the Lydian King Crœsus,
and afterwards passed under the Persian yoke. The Persians
permitted the establishment of a vassal kingdom, under a
dynasty which fixed its capital at Halicarnassus, and made
that city one of the splendid Asiatic outposts of Greek art
and civilization, though always faithfully Persian in its
politics. It was to the memory of one of the Carian kings at
Halicarnassus, Mausolus, that the famous sepulchral monument,
which gave its name to all similar edifices, and which the
ancients counted among the seven wonders of the world, was
erected by his widow. Halicarnassus offered an obstinate
resistance to Alexander the Great and was destroyed by that
ruthless conqueror after it had succumbed to his siege.
Subsequently rebuilt, it never gained importance again. The
Turkish town of Budrum now occupies the site.
_C. T. Newton,
Travels and Discoveries in the Levant,
volume 2._
See, also, HAMITES and DORIANS AND IONIANS.
CARIAY, The.
See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: GUCK OR COCO GROUP.
CARIBBEAN ISLANDS, The.
See AMERICA: A. D. 1493-1496, and WEST INDIES.
CARIBS, The.
See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: CARIBS.
CARILLON.
The French name of Fort Ticonderoga.
See CANADA (NEW FRANCE): A. D. 1758.
CARINTHIA,
Early mediaeval history.
See SLAVONIC PEOPLES: 6TH-7TH CENTURIES,
and GERMANY: A. D. 843-962.
CARINUS, Roman Emperor. A. D. 283-284.
CARIPUNA, The.
See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: GUCK on COCO GROUP.
CARISBROOK CASTLE, The flight of King Charles to.
See ENGLAND: A. D. 1647 (AUGUST-DECEMBER).
CARIZMIANS.
See KHUAREZM.
CARL, OR KARL.
See ETHEL. ETHELING.
{391}
CARLINGS.
See FRANKS (CARLOVINGIAN EMPIRE): A. D. 768-814.
CARLISLE, Origin of.
See LUGUVALLIUM.
CARLISTS AND CHRISTINOS.
See SPAIN: A. D. 1833-1846, and 1873-1885.
CARLOMAN,
King of the Franks (East Franks-Germany-in association with
Louis III.), A. D. 876-881;
(Burgundy and Aquitaine), A. D. 879-894.
Carloman, Duke and Prince of the Franks, A. D. 741-747.
CARLOS.
See CHARLES.
CARLOVINGIANS.
See FRANKS (CAROLINGIAN EMPIRE): A. D. 768-814.
CARLOWITZ, Peace of.
See HUNGARY: A. D. 1683-1699.
CARLSBAD, Congress of.
See GERMANY: A. D. 1814-1820.
CARMAGNOLE.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1793 (FEBRUARY-APRIL).
CARMANIANS, The.
"The Germanians of Herodotus are the Carmanians of the later
Greeks, who also passed with them as a separate nation, though
closely allied to the Persians and Medes. They wandered to and
fro to the east of Persia in the district now called Kirman."
_M. Duncker,
History of Antiquity,
volume 5, book 8, chapter 3._
CARMATHIANS, The.
"In the 277th year of the Hegira [A. D. 890], and in the
neighbourhood of Cufa, an Arabian preacher of the name of
Carmath assumed the lofty and incomprehensible style of the
Guide, the Director, the Demonstration, the Word, the Holy
Ghost, the Camel, the Herald of the Messiah, who had conversed
with him in a human shape, and the representative of Mohammed
the son of Ali, of St. John the Baptist, and of the Angel
Gabriel." Carmath was one of the eastern proselytes of the
sect of the Ishmaileans or Ishmailites—the same from which
sprang the terrible secret order of the Assassins. He founded
another branch of the Ishmaileans, which, taking his name,
were called the Carmathians. The sect made rapid gains among
the Bedouins and were soon a formidable and uncontrollable
body. "After a bloody conflict they prevailed in the province
of Bahrein, along the Persian Gulf. Far and wide the tribes of
the desert were subject to the sceptre, or rather to the
sword, of Abu Said and his son Abu Taher; and these rebellious
imams could muster in the field 107,000 fanatics. … The
cities of Racca and Baalbec, of Cufa and Bassorah, were taken
and pillaged; Bagdad was filled with consternation; and the
caliph trembled behind the veils of his palace. … The rapine
of the Carmathians was sanctified by their aversion to the
worship of Mecca. They robbed a caravan of pilgrims, and
20,000 devout Moslems were abandoned on the burning sands to a
death of hunger and thirst. Another year [A. D. 929] they
suffered the pilgrims to proceed without interruption; but, in
the festival of devotion, Abu Taher stormed the holy city and
trampled on the most venerable relics of the Mahometan faith.
Thirty thousand citizens and strangers were put to the sword;
the sacred precincts were polluted by the burial of 3,000 dead
bodies; the well of Zemzen overflowed with blood; the golden
spout was forced from its place; the veil of the Caaba was
divided among these impious sectaries; and the black stone,
the first monument of the nation, was borne away in triumph to
their capital. After this deed of sacrilege and cruelty they
continued to infest the confines of Irak, Syria and Egypt; but
the vital principle of enthusiasm had withered at the root.
… It is needless to enquire into what factions they were
broken, or by whose swords they were finally extirpated. The
sect of the Carmathians may be considered as the second
visible cause of the decline and fall of the empire of the
caliphs."
_E. Gibbon, Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire,
chapter 52,
and note by Dr. Smith.
See, also, ASSASSINS.
CARMELITE FRIARS.
"About the middle of the [12th] century, one Berthold, a
Calabrian, with a few companions, migrated to Mount Carmel
[Palestine], and in the place where the prophet Elias of old
is said to have hid himself, built a humble cottage with a
chapel, in which he and his associates led a laborious and
solitary life. As others continued to unite themselves with
these residents on Mount Carmel, Albert the patriarch of
Jerusalem, near the commencement of the next century,
prescribed for them a rule of life; which the Pontiffs
afterwards sanctioned by their authority, and also changed in
various respects, and when it was found too rigorous and
burdensome, mitigated considerably. Such was the origin of the
celebrated order of Carmelites, or as it is commonly called
the order of St. Mary of Mount Carmel [and known in England as
the White Friars]; which subsequently passed from Syria into
Europe, and became one of the principal mendicant orders. The
Carmelites themselves reject with disdain this account of
their origin, and most strenuously contend that the holy
prophet Elias of the Old Testament, was the parent and founder
of their society. But they were able to persuade very few, (or
rather none out of their society), that their origin was so
ancient and illustrious."
_J. L. von Mosheim,
Institutes of Ecclesiastical History,
book 3, century 12, part 2, chapter 2, section 21._
ALSO IN:
_G. Waddington,
History of the Church,
chapter 19, section 5._
_J. Alzog,
Manual of Universal Church History,
section 244 (volume 2)._
_E. L. Cutts,
Scenes and Characters of the Middle Ages,
chapter 5._
CARMIGNANO, Battle of (1796).
See FRANCE: A. D. 1796-1797 (OCTOBER-APRIL).
CARNABII, OR CORNABII, The.
See BRITAIN, CELTIC TRIBES.
CARNAC.
See ABURY.
CARNATES, The.
See TURANIAN RACES.
CARNEIAN FESTIVAL, The.
A Spartan festival, said to have been instituted B. C. 676.
"The Carneian festival fell in the Spartan month Carneius, the
Athenian Metageitnon, corresponding nearly to our August. It
was held in honour of Apollo Carneius, a deity worshipped from
very ancient times in the Peloponnese, especially at Amyclæ.
… It was of a warlike character, like the Athenian
Boedrömia."
_G. Rawlinson,
Note to Herodotus,
book 7._
ALSO IN:
_E. Curtius,
History of Greece,
book 2, chapter 1._
CARNIANS, The.
See RHÆTIANS.
CARNIFEX FERRY, Battle of:
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1861
(AUGUST-DECEMBER: WEST VIRGINIA).
CARNONACÆ, The.
See BRITAIN, CELTIC TRIBES.
CARNOT, Lazare N. M., and the French Revolution.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1793 (JUNE-OCTOBER),
to 1797 (SEPTEMBER), and 1800-1801 (MAY-FEBRUARY).
CARNOT, Sadi, President of the French Republic, 1887-.
{392}
CARNUTES, The.
The Carnutes were a tribe who occupied a region supposed to be
the center of Gaul. The modern city of Chartres stands in the
midst of it. The sacred general meeting place of the Druids
was in the country of the Carnutes.
_G. Long,
Decline of the Roman Republic,
volume 3, chapter 22._
See, also, VENETI OF WESTERN GAUL.
CAROLINAS, The.
See NORTH CAROLINA, and SOUTH CAROLINA.
CAROLINE, Queen, Trial of.
See ENGLAND: A. D. 1820-1827.
CAROLINE, The Burning of the.
See CANADA: A. D. 1887-1838, and 1840-1841.
CAROLINE BOOKS, The.
A work put forth by Charlemagne against image-worship, in
considerable sympathy with the views of the Eastern
Iconoclasts and against the decrees of the Second Council of
Nicaea (A. D. 787), is known as the Caroline Books. It is
supposed to have been chiefly the composition of the king’s
learned friend and counsellor; Alcuin, the Englishman.
_J. I. Mombert,
History of Charles the Great,
book 2, chapter 12._
CAROLINGIA.
On the division of the empire of Charlemagne between his three
grandsons, A. D. 843, the western kingdom, which fell to
Charles, took for a time the name of Carolingia, as part of
Lothar’s middle kingdom took the name of Lotharingia, or
Lorraine. But the name died out, or was slowly superseded by
that of France.
_E. A. Freeman,
Historical Geography of Europe,
chapter 6, section 1._
CAROLINGIANS.
See FRANKS (CAROLINGIAN EMPIRE): A. D. 768-814.
CARPET-BAGGERS.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1866-1871.
CARR DIKE.
A Roman work in Britain, formed for the draining of the
Lincolnshire Fens, and used, also, as a road.
_H. M. Scarth,
Roman Britain,
chapter 16._
CARRACKS, OR CARACS.
"A large species of merchant vessel, principally used in
coasting trade," among the Spaniards of the 15th and 16th
centuries.
_W. Irving,
Life and Voyages of Columbus,
book 6, chapter 1 (volume 1), foot-note._
See, also, CARAVELS.
CARRARA FAMILY, The:
Its rise to sovereignty at Padua and its struggle with the
Visconti of Milan.
See VERONA: A. D. 1260-1838,
and MILAN: A. D. 1277-1447.
CARRHÆ, Battles of (B. C. 53).
See ROME: B. C. 57-52. (A. D. 297).
See PERSIA: A. D. 226-627.
CARRICK’S FORD, Battle of.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
A. D. 1861 (JUNE—JULY: WEST VIRGINIA).
CARROCCIO, The.
"The militia of every city [in Lombardy, or northern Italy,
eleventh and twelfth centuries] was divided into separate
bodies, according to local partitions, each led by a
Gonfaloniere, or standard-bearer. They fought on foot, and
assembled round the carroccio, a heavy car drawn by oxen, and
covered with the flags and armorial bearings of the city. A
high pole rose in the middle of this car, bearing the colours
and a Christ, which seemed to bless the army, with both arms
extended. A priest said daily mass at an altar placed in the
front of the car. The trumpeters of the community, seated on
the back part, sounded the charge and the retreat. It was
Heribert, archbishop of Milan, contemporary of Conrad the
Salic, who invented this car in imitation of the ark of
alliance, and caused it to be adopted at Milan. All the free
cities of Italy followed the example: this sacred car,
intrusted to the guardianship of the militia, gave them weight
and confidence."
_J. C. L. de Sismondi,
History of the Italian Republics,
chapter 1._
CARTERET, Sir George, The Jersey Grant to.
See NEW JERSEY: A. D. 1664-1667, to 1688-1738.
CARTERET’S MINISTRY.
See ENGLAND: A. D. 1742-1745.
CARTHAGE, The founding of.
Ethbaal, or Ithobaal, a priest of Astarte, acquired possession
of the throne of Tyre B. C. 917, deposing and putting to death
the legitimate prince, a descendant of Hiram, Solomon’s ally
and friend. The Jezebel of Jewish history, who married Ahab,
king of Israel, was the daughter of this king Ethbaal.
"Ethbaal was succeeded by his son Balezor (885-877 B. C.).
After eight years Balezor left two sons, Mutton and
Sicharbaal, both under age. … Mutton died in the year 853 B.
C. and again left a son nine years old, Pygmalion, and a
daughter, Elissa, a few years older, whom he had married to
his brother Sicharbaal, the priest of the temple of Melkarth.
Mutton had intended that Elissa and Pygmalion should reign
together, and thus the power really passed into the hands of
Sicharbaal, the husband of Elissa. When Pygmalion reached his
sixteenth year the people transferred to him the sovereignty
of Tyre, and he put Sicharbaal, his uncle, to death … (846
B. C.). Elissa [or Dido, as she was also called] fled from
Tyre before her brother, as we are told, with others who would
not submit to the tyranny of Pygmalion. The exiles … are
said … to have landed on the coast of Africa, in the
neighbourhood of Ityke, the old colony of the Phenicians, and
there to have bought as much land of the Libyans as could be
covered by the skin of an ox. By dividing this into very thin
strips they obtained a piece of land sufficient to enable them
to build a fortress. This new dwelling-place, or the city
which grew up round this fortress, the wanderers called, in
reference to their old home, Karthada (Karta hadasha), i. e.,
'the new city,' the Karchedon of the Greeks, the Carthage of
the Romans. The legend of the purchase of the soil may have
arisen from the fact that the settlers for a long time paid
tribute to the ancient population, the Maxyans, for their
soil."
_M. Duncker,
History of Antiquity,
book 3, chapter 11._
CARTHAGE:
Divisions, Size and Population.
"The city proper, at the time at which it is best known to us,
the period of the Punic wars, consisted of the Byrsa or
Citadel quarter, a Greek word corrupted from the Canaanitish
Bozra, or Bostra, that is, a fort, and of the Cothon or
harbour quarter, so important in the history of the final
siege. To the north and west of these, and occupying all the
vast space between them and the isthmus behind, were the
Megara (Hebrew, Magurim), that is, the suburbs and gardens of
Carthage, which, with the city proper, covered an area of 23
miles in circumference. Its population must have been fully
proportioned to its size. Just before the third Punic war,
when its strength had been drained … it contained 700,000
inhabitants."
_R. B. Smith,
Carthage and the Carthaginians,
chapter 1._
ALSO IN:
_E. A. Freeman,
Carthage
(Hist. Essays, 4th series)._
{393}
CARTHAGE:
The Dominion of.
"All our positive information, scanty as it is, about Carthage
and her institutions, relates to the fourth, third, or second
centuries B. C.; yet it may be held to justify presumptive
conclusions as to the fifth century B. C., especially in
reference to the general system pursued. The maximum of her
power was attained before her first war with Rome, which began
in 264 B. C.; the first and second Punic wars both of them
greatly reduced her strength and dominion. Yet in spite of
such reduction we learn that about 150 B. C. shortly before
the third Punic war, which ended in the capture and
depopulation of the city, not less than 700,000 souls were
computed in it, as occupants of a fortified circumference of
above twenty miles, covering a peninsula with its isthmus.
Upon this isthmus its citadel Byrsa was situated, surrounded
by a triple wall of its own, and crowned at its summit by a
magnificent temple of Æsculapius. The numerous population is
the more remarkable, since Utica (a considerable city,
colonized from Phœnicia more anciently than even Carthage
itself, and always independent of the Carthaginians, though in
the condition of an inferior and discontented ally) was within
the distance of seven miles from Carthage on the one side, and
Tunis seemingly not much further off on the other. Even at
that time, too, the Carthaginians are said to have possessed
300 tributary, cities in Libya. Yet this was but a small
fraction of the prodigious empire which had belonged to them
certainly in the fourth century B. C. and in all probability
also between 480-410 B. C. That empire extended eastward as
far as the Altars of the Philæni, near the Great
Syrtis,—westward, all along the coast to the Pillars of
Herakles and the western coast of Morocco. The line of coast
southeast of Carthage, as far as the bay called the Lesser
Syrtis, was proverbial (under the name of Byzacium and the
Emporia) for its fertility. Along this extensive line were
distributed indigenous Libyan tribes, living by agriculture;
and a mixed population called Liby-Phœnician. … Of the
Liby-Phœnician towns the number is not known to us, but it
must have been prodigiously great. … A few of the towns
along the coast,—Hippo, Utica, Adrumetum, Thapsus. Leptis,
&c.—were colonies from Tyre, like Carthage itself. … Yet
the Carthaginians contrived in time to render every town
tributary, with the exception of Utica. … At one time,
immediately after the first Punic war, they took from the
rural cultivators as much as one-half of their produce, and
doubled at one stroke the tribute levied upon the towns. …
The native Carthaginians, though encouraged by honorary marks
to undertake … military service were generally averse to it,
and sparingly employed. … A chosen division of 2,500
citizens, men of wealth and family, formed what was called the
Sacred Band of Carthage distinguished for their bravery in the
field as well as for the splendour of their arms, and the gold
and silver plate which formed part of their baggage. We shall
find these citizen troops occasionally employed on service in
Sicily: but most part of the Carthaginian army consists of
Gauls, Iberians, Libyans, &c., a mingled host got together for
the occasion, discordant in language as well as in customs."
_G. Grote,
History of Greece,
part 2, chapter 81._
CARTHAGE: B. C. 480.
Invasion of Sicily.
Great defeat at Himera.
See SICILY: B. C. 480.
CARTHAGE: B. C. 409-405.
Invasions of Sicily.
Destruction of Selinus, Himera and Agrigentum.
See Sicily: B. C. 409-405.
CARTHAGE: B. C. 396.
Siege of Syracuse.
See SYRACUSE: B. C. 397-396.
CARTHAGE: B. C. 383.
War with Syracuse.
See SICILY: B. C. 383.
CARTHAGE: B. C. 310-306.
Invasion by Agathokles.
See SYRACUSE: B. C. 317-289.
CARTHAGE: B. C. 264-241.
The first war with Rome.
Expulsion from Sicily.
Loss of maritime supremacy.
See PUNIC WAR, THE FIRST.
CARTHAGE: B. C. 241-238.
Revolt of the mercenaries.
At the close of the First Punic War, the veteran army of
mercenaries with which Hamilcar Barca had maintained himself
so long in Sicily—a motley gathering of Greeks, Ligurians,
Gauls, Iberians, Libyans and others—was sent over to Carthage
for the long arrears of pay due them and for their discharge.
The party in power in Carthage, being both incapable and mean,
and being also embarrassed by an empty treasury, exasperated
this dangerous body of men by delays and by attempts at
bargaining with them for a reduction of their claims, until a
general mutiny was provoked. The mercenaries, 20,000 strong,
with Spendius, a runaway Campanian slave, Matho, an African,
and Autaritus, a Gaul, for their leaders, marched from the
town of Sicca, where they were quartered, and camped near
Tunis, threatening Carthage. The government became
panic-stricken and took no measures which did not embolden the
mutineers and increase their demands. All the oppressed
African peoples in the Carthaginian domain rose to join the
revolt, and poured into the hands of the mercenaries the
tribute money which Carthage would have wrung from them. The
latter was soon brought to a state of sore distress, without
an army, without ships, and with its supplies of food mostly
cut off. The neighboring cities of Utica and Hippo Zarytus
were besieged. At length the Carthaginian government,
controlled by a party hostile to Hamilcar, was obliged to call
him to the command, but associated with him Hanno, his
bitterest personal enemy and the most incompetent leader of
the ruling faction. Hamilcar succeeded, after a desperate and
long struggle, in destroying the mutineers to almost the last
man, and in saving Carthage. But the war, which lasted more
than three years (B. C. 241-238), was merciless and horrible
beyond description. It was known to the ancients as the
"Truceless War" and the "Inexpiable War." The scenes and
circumstances of it have been extraordinarily pictured in
Flaubert's "Salammbo," which is one of the most revolting but
most powerful of historical romances.
_R. B. Smith,
Carthage and the Carthaginians,
chapter 8._
ALSO IN:
_W. Ihne,
History of Rome,
book 4, chapter 4._
CARTHAGE: B. C. 237-202.
Hamilcar in Spain.
The second war with Rome.
Hannibal in Italy and Sicily.
Scipio in Africa.
The great defeat at Zama.
Loss of naval dominion and of Spain.
See PUNIC WAR, THE SECOND.
{394}
CARTHAGE: B. C. 146.
Destruction by Scipio.
Carthage existed by Roman sufferance for fifty years after the
ending of the Second Punic War, and even recovered some
considerable prosperity in trade, though Rome took care that
her chances for recovery should be slight. When Hannibal gave
signs of being able to reform the government of the city and
to distinguish himself in statesmanship as he had immortalized
himself in war, Rome demanded him, and he escaped her chains
only by flight. When, even without Hannibal, Carthage slowly
repaired the broken fortunes of her merchants, there was an
enemy at her door always ready, at the bidding of Rome, to
plunder them afresh. This was Massinissa, the Numidian prince,
client and obedient servant of the Roman state. Again and
again the helpless Carthaginians appealed to Rome to protect
them from his depredations, and finally they ventured to
attempt the protection of themselves. Then the patient perfidy
of Roman statecraft grasped its reward. It had waited many
years for the provocations of Massinissa to work their effect;
the maddened Carthaginians had broken, at last, the hard
letter of the treaty of 201 by assailing the friend and ally
of Rome. The pretext sufficed for a new declaration of war,
with the fixed purpose of pressing it to the last extreme. Old
Cato, who had been crying in the ears of the Senate, "Carthago
delenda est," should have his wish. The doomed Carthaginians
were kept in ignorance of the fate decreed, until they had
been foully tricked into the surrender of their arms and the
whole armament of their city. But when they knew the dreadful
truth, they threw off all cowardice and rose to such a majesty
of spirit as had never been exhibited in their history before.
Without weapons, or engines or ships, until they made them
anew, they shut their gates and kept the Roman armies out for
more than two years. It was another Scipio, adopted grandson
and namesake of the conqueror of Hannibal, who finally entered
Carthage (B. C. 146), fought his way to its citadel, street by
street, and, against his own wish, by command of the
implacable senate at Rome, levelled its last building to the
earth, after sending the inhabitants who survived to be sold
as slaves.
_R. B. Smith,
Carthage and the Carthaginians,
chapter 20._
ALSO IN:
_H. G. Liddell,
History of Rome,
chapter 46._
CARTHAGE: B. C. 44.
Restoration by Cæsar.
"A settlement named Junonia, had been made at Carthage by C.
Gracchus [which furnished his enemies one of their weapons
against him, because, they said, he had drawn on himself the
curse of Scipio] and it appears that the city of Gracchus
still existed. Cæsar restored the old name, and, as Strabo
says, rebuilt the place: many Romans who preferred Carthage to
Rome were sent there, and some soldiers; and it is now, adds
Strabo [reign of Augustus] more populous than any town in
Libya."
_G. Long,
Decline of the Roman Republic,
volume 5, chapter 32._
CARTHAGE: 2d-4th Centuries.
The Christian Church.
See CHRISTIANITY: A. D. 100-312.
CARTHAGE: A. D. 439.
Taken by the Vandals.
Carthage was surprised and captured by the Vandals on the 9th
of Oct., A. D. 439,—nine years after the conquest and
destruction of the African provinces by Genseric began;—585
years after the ancient Carthage was destroyed by Scipio. "A
new city had risen from its ruins, with the title of a colony;
and though Carthage might yield to the royal prerogatives of
Constantinople, and perhaps to the trade of Alexandria or the
splendour of Antioch, she still maintained the second rank in
the West—as the Rome (if we may use the style of
contemporaries) of the African world. … The buildings of
Carthage were uniform and magnificent. A shady grove was
planted in the midst of the capital; the new port, a secure
and capacious harbour, was subservient to the commercial
industry of citizens and strangers; and the splendid games of
the circus and theatre were exhibited almost in the presence
of the barbarians. The reputation of the Carthaginians was not
equal to that of their country, and the reproach of Punic
faith still adhered to their subtle and faithless character.
The habits of trade and the abuse of luxury had corrupted
their manners. … The King of the Vandals severely reformed
the vices of a voluptuous people. … The lands of the
proconsular province, which formed the immediate district of
Carthage, were accurately measured and divided among the
barbarians."
_E. Gibbon,
Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire,
chapter 33.
See, also, VANDALS: A. D. 429-439.
CARTHAGE: A. D. 533.
Taken by Belisarius.
See VANDALS. A. D. 533-534.
CARTHAGE: A. D. 534-558.
The Province of Africa after Justinian's conquest. "Successive
inroads [of the Moorish tribes] had reduced the province of
Africa to one-third of the measure of Italy; yet the Roman
emperors continued to reign above a century over Carthage and
the fruitful coast of the Mediterranean. But the victories and
the losses of Justinian were alike pernicious to mankind; and
such was the desolation of Africa that a stranger might wander
whole days without meeting the face either of a friend or an
enemy. The nation of the Vandals had disappeared. … Their
numbers were infinitely surpassed by the number of the Moorish
families extirpated in a relentless war; and the same
destruction was retaliated on the Romans and their allies, who
perished by the climate, their mutual quarrels, and the rage
of the barbarians. When Procopius first landed [with
Belisarius, A. D. 533] he admired the populousness of the
cities and country, strenuously exercised in the labours of
commerce and agriculture. In less than twenty years that busy
scene was converted into a silent solitude; the wealthy
citizens escaped to Sicily and Constantinople; and the secret
historian has confidently affirmed that five millions of
Africans were consumed by the wars and government of the
Emperor Justinian."
_E. Gibbon,
Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire,
chapter 43.
{395}
CARTHAGE: A. D. 698.
Destruction by the Arabs.
"In the 77th year of the Hegira [A. D. 698] … Abd'almalec
[the Caliph] sent Hossan Ibn Anno'man, at the head of 40,000
choice troops, to carry out the scheme of African conquest
[which had languished for some years, during the civil wars
among the Moslems]. That general pressed forward at once with
his troops against the city of Carthage, which, though
declined from its ancient might and glory, was still an
important seaport, fortified with lofty walls, haughty towers
and powerful bulwarks, and had a numerous garrison of Greeks
and other Christians. Hossan proceeded according to the old
Arab mode; beleaguering and reducing it by a long siege; he
then assailed it by storm, scaled its lofty walls with
ladders, and made himself master of the place. Many of the
inhabitants fell by the edge of the sword; many escaped by sea
to Sicily and Spain. The walls were then demolished; the city
was given up to be plundered by the soldiery, the meanest of
whom was enriched by booty. … The triumph of the Moslem host
was suddenly interrupted. While they were revelling in the
ravaged palaces of Carthage, a fleet appeared before the port;
snapped the strong chain which guarded the entrance, and
sailed into the harbor. It was a combined force of ships and
troops from Constantinople and Sicily; reinforced by Goths
from Spain; all under the command of the prefect John, a
patrician general of great valor and experience. Hossan felt
himself unable to cope with such a force; he withdrew, however
in good order, and conducted his troops laden with spoils to
Tripoli and Caerwan, and, having strongly posted them, he
awaited reinforcements from the Caliph. These arrived in
course of time by sea and land. Hossan again took the field;
encountered the prefect John, not far from Utica, defeated him
in a pitched battle and drove him to embark the wrecks of his
army and make all sail for Constantinople. Carthage was again
assailed by the victors, and now its desolation was complete,
for the vengeance of the Moslems gave that majestic city to
the flames. A heap of ruins and the remains of a noble
aqueduct are all the relics of a metropolis that once
valiantly contended for dominion with Rome."
_W. Irving,
Mahomet and his Successors,
volume 2, chapter 54._
ALSO IN:
_N. Davis,
Carthage and Her Remains._
See, also, MAHOMETAN CONQUEST: A. D. 647-709.
----------CARTHAGE: End----------
CARTHAGE, Missouri, Battle of.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
A. D. 1861 (JULY-SEPTEMBER: MISSOURI).
CARTHAGENA (NEW CARTHAGE).
The founding of the city.
Hasdrubal, son-in-law and successor of Hamilcar Barca in Spain,
founded New Carthage—modern Carthagena—some time between 229
and 221 B. C. to be the capital of the Carthaginian dominion
in the Spanish peninsula.
_R. B. Smith,
Carthage and the Carthaginians,
chapter 9._
Capture by Scipio.
See PUNIC WAR. THE SECOND.
Settlement of the Alans in.
See SPAIN: A. D. 409-414.
----------CARTHAGENA: End----------
CARTHAGENA (South America): A. D. 1697.
Taken and sacked by the French.
One of the last enterprises of the French in the war which was
closed by the Peace of Ryswick—undertaken, in fact, while the
negotiations at Ryswick were in progress—was the storming and
sacking of Carthagena by a privateer squadron, from Brest,
commanded by rear-admiral Pointis, April, 1697. "The
inhabitants were allowed to carry away their effects; but all
the gold, silver, and precious stones were the prey of the
conqueror. Pointis … reentered Brest safe and sound,
bringing back to his ship-owners more than ten millions. The
officers of the squadron and the privateers had well provided
for themselves besides, and the Spaniards had probably lost
more than twenty millions."
_H. Martin,
History of France: Age of Louis XIV.
(translated by M. L. Booth),
volume 2, chapter 2._
CARTHAGENA: A. D. 1741.
Attack and repulse of the English.
See ENGLAND: A. D. 1739-1741.
CARTHAGENA A. D. 1815.
Siege and capture by the Spaniards.
See COLOMBIAN STATES: A. D. 1810-1819.
----------CARTHAGENA (South America): End----------
CARTHUSIAN ORDER.
La Grande Chartreuse.
"St. Bruno, once a canon of St. Cunibert's, at Cologne, and
afterward chancellor of the metropolitan church of Rheims,
followed by six companions, founded a monastery near Grenoble,
amid the bleak and rugged mountains of the desert of Chartreuse
(A. D. 1084). The rule given by St. Bruno to his disciples was
founded upon that of St. Benedict, but with such modifications as
almost to make of it a new and particular one. The Carthusians
were very nearly akin to the monks of Vallis-Umbrosa and
Camaldoli; they led the same kind of life—the eremitical
joined to the cenobitic. Each religious had his own cell,
where he spent the week in solitude, and met the community
only on Sunday. … Never, perhaps, had the monastic life
surrounded itself with such rigors and holy austerities. …
The religious were bound to a life-long silence, having
renounced the world to hold converse with Heaven alone. Like
the solitaries of Thebais they never eat meat, and their
dress, as an additional penance, consisted only of a
sack-cloth garment. Manual labors, broken only by the exercise
of common prayer; a board on the bare earth for a couch; a
narrow cell, where the religious twice a day receives his
slight allowance of boiled herbs;—such is the life of pious
austerities of which the world knows not the heavenly
sweetness. For 800 years has this order continued to edify and
to serve the Church by the practice of the most sublime
virtue; and its very rigor seems to hold out a mysterious
attraction to pious souls. A congregation of women has
embraced the primitive rule."
_J. E. Darras,
History of the Catholic Church,
volume 3, chapter 4, par. 26,
and chapter 10, par. 11._
From the account of a visit to the Grande Chartreuse, the
parent monastery, near Grenoble, made in 1667, by Dom Claude
Lancelot, of Port Royal, the following is taken: "All I had
heard of this astonishing seclusion falls infinitely short of
the reality. No adequate description can be given of the awful
magnificence of this dreary solitude. … The desert of the
Chartreuse is wholly inaccessible but by one exceedingly
narrow defile. This pass, which is only a few feet wide, is
indeed truly tremendous. It winds between stupendous granite
rocks, which overhang above. … The monastery itself is as
striking as the approach. … On the west … there is a
little space which … is occupied by a dark grove of pine
trees; on every other side the rocks, which are as steep as so
many walls, are not more than ten yards from the convent. By
this means a dim and gloomy twilight perpetually reigns
within."
_M. A. Schimmelpenninck,
A tour to Alet and La Grande Chartreuse,
volume 1, pages 6-13._
CARTIER, Jacques,
Exploration of the St. Lawrence by.
See AMERICA: A. D. 1534-1535, and 1541-1603.
{396}
CARTOUCHE.
"It is impossible to travel in Upper Egypt without knowing
what is meant by a cartouche. A cartouche is that elongated
oval terminated by a straight line which is to be seen on
every wall of the Egyptian temples, and of which other
monuments also afford us numerous examples. The cartouche
always contains the name of a king or of a queen, or in
some cases the names of royal princesses. To designate a king
there are most frequently two cartouches side by side. The
first is called the prænomen, the second the nomen."
_A. Mariette,
Monuments of Upper Egypt,
page 43._
CARTWRIGHT'S POWER LOOM, The invention of.
See COTTON MANUFACTURE.
CARUCATE.
See HIDE OF LAND.
CARUS, Roman Emperor, A. D. 282-283.
CASA MATA, Battle of.
See MEXICO: A. D. 1847 (MARCH-SEPTEMBER).
CASALE: A. D. 1628-1631.
Siege by the Imperialists.
Final acquisition by France.
See ITALY: A. D. 1627-1631.
CASALE: A. D. 1640.
Unsuccessful siege by the Spaniards.
See ITALY: A. D. 1635-1659.
CASALE: A. D. 1697.
Ceded to the Duke of Savoy.
See SAVOY AND PIEDMONT: A. D. 1580-1713.
----------CASALE: End----------
CASALSECCO, Battle of (1427).
See ITALY: A. D. 1412-1447.
CASAS, Bartolomé de las,
The humane labors of.
See SLAVERY: MODERN—OF THE INDIANS.
CASDIM.
See BABYLONIA, PRIMITIVE.
CASENA, Massacre at.
See ITALY: A. D. 1343-1393.
CASHEL, Psalter of.
See TARA, THE HILL AND THE FEIS OF.
CASHEL, Synod of.
See IRELAND: A. D. 1169-1175.
CASHMERE: A. D. 1819-1820.
Conquest by Runjet Singh.
See SIKHS.
CASHMERE: A. D. 1846.
Taken from the Sikhs by the English and given as a kingdom to
Gholab Singh.
See INDIA: A. D. 1845-1849.
----------CASHMERE: End----------
CASIMIR I., King of Poland, A. D. 1037-1058.
Casimir II., Duke of Poland, A. D. 1177-1194.
Casimir III. (called The Great), King of Poland, A. D. 1333-1370.
Casimir IV., King of Poland, A. D. 1445-1492.
Casimir, John, King of Poland, A. D. 1648-1668.
CASKET GIRLS, The.
See LOUISIANA: A. D. 1728.
CASKET LETTERS, The.
See SCOTLAND: A. D. 1561-1568.
CASPIAN GATES (PYLÆ CASPIÆ).
An important pass in the Elburz Mountains, so called by the
Greeks. It is identified with the pass known to the modern
Persians as the Girduni Sunlurmh, some fifty miles or more
eastward, or northeastward, from Teheran. "Through this pass
alone can armies proceed from Armenia, Media, or Persia
eastward, or from Turkestan, Khorasan and Afghanistan into the
more western parts of Asia. The position is therefore one of
primary importance. It was to guard it that Rhages was built
so near to the eastern end of its territory."
_G. Rawlinson,
Sixth Great Oriental Monarchy,
chapter 4._
ALSO IN:
_G. Rawlinson,
Five Great Monarchies: Media,
chapter 1._
CASSANDER, and the wars of the Diadochi.
See MACEDONIA: B. C. 323-316 to 297-280;
also Greece: B. C. 321-312.
CASSANO, Battles of (1705 and 1799).
See ITALY: A. D. 1701-1713,
and France: A. D. 1799 (APRIL-SEPTEMBER).
CASSEL: A. D. 1383.
Burned by the French.
See FLANDERS: A. D. 1383.
CASSEL, Battles of (1328 and 1677).
See FLANDERS: A. D. 1328,
and NETHERLANDS (HOLLAND): A. D. 1674-1678.
CASSIAN ROAD.
One of the great Roman roads of antiquity, which ran from
Rome, by way of Sutrium and Clusium to Arretium and Florentia.
_T. Mommsen,
History of Rome,
book 4, chapter 11._
CASSII, The.
A tribe of ancient Britons whose territory was near the Thames.
See BRITAIN, CELTIC TRIBES.
CASSITERIDES, The.
The "tin islands," from which the Phœnicians and Carthaginians
obtained their supply of tin. Some archæologists identify them
with the British islands, some with the Scilly islands, and
some with the islands in Vigo Bay, on the coast of Spain.
_Charles Elton,
Origins of English History._
ALSO IN:
_J. Rhys,
Celtic Britain._
CASSOPIANS.
See EPIRUS.
CASTALIAN SPRING.
A spring which issued from between two peaks or cliffs of
Mount Parnassus and flowed downward in a cool stream past the
temple of Apollo at Delphi.
CASTE SYSTEM OF INDIA, The.
"The caste system of India is not based upon an exclusive
descent as involving a difference of rank and culture, but
upon an exclusive descent as involving purity of blood. In the
old materialistic religion which prevailed so largely in the
ancient world, and was closely associated with sexual ideas,
the maintenance of purity of blood was regarded as a sacred
duty. The individual had no existence independent of the
family. Male or female, the individual was but a link in the
life of the family; and any intermixture would be followed by
the separation of the impure branch from the parent stem. In a
word, caste was the religion of the sexes, and as such exists
in India to this day. … The Hindus are divided into an
infinite number of castes, according to their hereditary
trades and professions; but in the present day they are nearly
all comprehended in four great castes, namely, the Brahmans,
or priests; the Kshatriyas, or soldiers; the Vaisyas, or
merchants; and the Sudras, or servile class. The Brahmans are
the mouth of Brahma; the Kshatriyas are his arms; the Vaisyas
are his thighs; and the Sudras are his feet. The three first
castes of priests, soldiers, and merchants, are distinguished
from the fourth caste of Sudras by the thread, or paita, which
is worn depending from the left shoulder and resting on the
right side below the loins. The investiture usually takes
place between the eighth and twelfth year, and is known as the
second birth, and those who are invested are termed the 'twice
born.' It is difficult to say whether the thread indicates a
separation between the conquerors and the conquered; or
whether it originated in a religious investiture from which
the Sudras were excluded."
_J. T. Wheeler,
History of India,
volume 3, pages 114 and 64._
{397}
"Among the delusions about modern India which it seems
impossible to kill, the belief still survives that, although
there have been many changes in the system of caste, it
remains true that the Hindu population is divided into the
four great classes described by Mann: Brahmans, Kshatriyas,
Vaisyas, and Sudras. In India itself this notion is fostered
by the more learned among the Brahmans, who love to make
themselves and others believe in the continuous existence of a
divinely constituted organization. To what extent the
religious and social systems shadowed forth in the ancient
Brahmanical literature had an actual existence it is difficult
to say, but it is certain that little remains of them now. The
Brahmans maintain their exceptional position; but no one can
discern the other great castes which Manu described. Excluding
the Brahmans, caste means for the most part hereditary
occupation, but it also often signifies a common origin of
tribe or race. India, in the words of Sir Henry Maine, is
divided into a vast number of independent, self-acting,
organised social groups—trading, manufacturing, cultivating.
In the enormous majority of instances, caste is only the name
for a number of practices which are followed by each one of a
multitude of groups of men, whether such a group be ancient
and natural or modern and artificial. As a rule, every trade,
every profession, every guild, every tribe, every class, is
also a caste; and the members of a caste not only have their
special objects of worship, selected from the Hindu Pantheon,
or adopted into it, but they exclusively eat together, and
exclusively intermarry.' Mr. Kitts, in his interesting
'Compendium of the Castes and Tribes of India,' compiled from
the Indian Census reports of 1881, enumerates 1929 different
castes. Forty-seven of these have each more than 1,000,000
members; twenty-one have 2,000,000 and upwards. The Brahmans,
Kunbis (agriculturists), and Chumars (workers in leather), are
the only three castes each of which has more than 10,000,000;
nearly 15 per cent. of the inhabitants of India are included
in these three castes. The distinctions and subdivisions of
caste are innumerable, and even the Brahmans, who have this in
common, that they are reverenced by the members of all other
castes, are as much divided among themselves as the rest.
There are nearly 14,000,000 Brahmans; according to Mr.
Sherring, in his work on 'Hindu Tribes and Castes,' there are
more than 1,800 Brahmanical subdivisions; and it constantly
happens that to a Brahman of some particular class or district
the pollution of eating with other Brahmans would be ruinous.
… The Brahmans have become so numerous that only a small
proportion can be employed in sacerdotal functions, and the
charity which it is a duty to bestow upon them could not,
however profuse, be sufficient for their support. They are
found in almost every occupation. They are soldiers,
cultivators, traders, and servants; they were very numerous in
the old Sepoy army, and the name of one of their subdivisions,
'Pande,' became the generic term by which the mutineers of
1857 were commonly known by the English in India. … Mr.
Ibbetson, in his report on the census in the Punjab, shows how
completely it is true that caste is a social and not a
religious institution. Conversion to Mohammedanism, for
instance, does not necessarily affect the caste of the
convert."
_Sir J. Strachey,
India,
lecture 8._
ALSO IN:
_M. Williams,
Religious Thought and Life in India,
chapter 18._
_Sir A. C. Lyall,
Asiatic Studies,
chapter 7._
_Sir H. S. Maine,
Village Communities,
chapter 2._
CASTEL
See MOGONTIACUM.
CASTELAR AND REPUBLICANISM IN SPAIN.
See SPAIN: A. D. 1866-1873, and 1873-1885.
CASTELFIDARDO, Battle of (1860).
See ITALY: A. D. 1859-1861.
CASTELLANO.
See SPANISH COINS.
CASTIGLIONE, Battle of.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1796 (APRIL-OCTOBER).
CASTILE:
Early inhabitants of.
See CELTIBERIANS.
CASTILE: A. D. 713-1230.
Origin and rise of the kingdom.
See SPAIN: A. D. 713-737, and 1026-1230.
CASTILE: A. D. 1140.
Separation of Portugal as an independent kingdom.
See PORTUGAL: A. D. 1095-1325.
CASTILE: A. D. 1169.
The first Cortes.
The old monarchical constitution.
See CORTES.
CASTILE: A. D. 1212-1238.
Progress of arms.
Permanent union of the crown with that of Leon.
Conquest of Cordova.
Vassalage imposed on Granada and Murcia.
See SPAIN: A. D. 1212-1238.
CASTILE: A. D. 1248-1350.
Reigns of St. Ferdinand, Alfonso the Learned, and their three
successors.
See SPAIN: A. D. 1248-1350.
CASTILE: A. D. 1366-1369.
Pedro the Cruel and the invasion of the English Black Prince.
See SPAIN (CASTILE): A. D. 1366-1369.
CASTILE: A. D. 1368-1476.
Under the house of Trastamare.
Discord and civil war.
The triumph of Queen Isabella and her marriage to
Ferdinand of Aragon.
See SPAIN: A. D. 1368-1479.
CASTILE: A. D. 1515.
Incorporation of Navarre with the kingdom.
See NAVARRE: A. D. 1442-1521.
CASTILE: A. D. 1516.
The crown united with that of Aragon, by Joanna, mother of
Charles V.
See SPAIN: A. D. 1496-1517.
----------CASTILE: End----------
CASTILLA DEL ORO.
See AMERICA: A. D. 1509-1511.
CASTILLON, Battle of (1450).
See FRANCE: A. D. 1431-1453.
CASTLE ST. ANGELO.
The Mausoleum of Hadrian, begun by the emperor Hadrian, A. D.
135, and probably completed by Antoninus Pius, "owes its
preservation entirely to the peculiar fitness of its site and
shape for the purposes of a fortress, which it has served
since the time of Belisarius. … After the burial of Marcus
Aurelius, the tomb was closed until the sack of Rome by Alaric
in 410 A. D., when his barbarian soldiers probably broke it
open in search of treasure, and scattered the ashes of the
Antonines to the winds. From this time, for a hundred years,
the tomb was turned into a fortress, the possession of which
became the object of many struggles in the wars of the Goths
under Vitiges (537 A. D.) and Totilas (killed 552). From the
end of the sixth century, when Gregory the Great saw on its
summit a vision of St. Michael sheathing his sword, in token
that the prayers of the Romans for preservation from the
plague were heard, the Mausoleum of Hadrian was considered as
a consecrated building, under the name of 'S. Angelus inter
Nubes,' 'Usque ad Cœlos,' or 'Inter Cœlos,' until it was
seized in 923 A. D. by Alberic, Count of Tusculum, and the
infamous Marozia, and again became the scene of the fierce
struggles between Popes, Emperors, and reckless adventurers
which marked those miserable times. The last injuries appear
to have been inflicted upon the building in the contest
between the French Pope Clemens VII. and the Italian Pope
Urban VIII. [see PAPACY: A. D. 1377-1417]. The exterior was
then finally dismantled and stripped. Partial additions and
restorations soon began to take place. Boniface IX., in the
beginning of the fifteenth century, erected new battlements
and fortifications on and around the building; and since his
time it has remained in the possession of the Papal
government. The strange medley of Papal reception rooms,
dungeons and military magazines which now encumbers the top,
was chiefly built by Paul III. The corridor connecting it with
the Vatican dates from the time of Alexander Borgia (1494 A.
D.), and the bronze statue of St. Michael on the summit, which
replaced an older marble statue, from the reign of Benedict
XIV."
_R. Burn,
Rome and the Campagna,
chapter 11._
ALSO IN:
_W. W. Story,
Castle St. Angelo._
{398}
CASTLENAUDARI, Battle of (1632).
See FRANCE: A. D. 1630-1632.
CASTLEREAGH, Lord, and the union of Ireland with Great Britain:
See IRELAND: A. D. 1798-1800.
CASTOR WARE.
"Durobrivian or Castor ware, as it is variously called, is the
production of the extensive Romano-British potteries on the
River Nen in Northamptonshire and Huntingdonshire, which, with
settlements, are computed to have covered a district of some
twenty square miles in extent. … There are several varieties
… and two especially have been remarked; the first, blue, or
slate-coloured, the other reddish-brown, or of a dark copper
colour."
_L. Jewett,
Grave Mounds,
page 152._
CASTRA, Roman.
"When a Roman army was in the field it never halted, even for
a single night, without throwing up an entrenchment capable of
containing the whole of the troops and their baggage. This
field-work was termed Castra. … The form of the camp was a
square, each side of which was 2,017 Roman feet in length. The
defences consisted of a ditch, (fossa,) the earth dug out,
being thrown inwards so as to form a rampart, (agger,) upon
the summit of which a palisade (vallum) was erected of wooden
stakes, (valli-sudes,) a certain number of which were carried
by each soldier, along with his entrenching tools."
_W. Ramsay,
Manual of Roman Antiquity,
chapter 12._
CASTRICUM, Battle of.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1799 (SEPTEMBER-OCTOBER).
CASTRIOTS, The.
See ALBANIANS: A. D. 1443-1467.
CASTRUCCIO CASTRACANI, The despotism of.
See ITALY: A. D. 1313-1330.
CAT NATION, The.
See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: HURONS, &c.,
and IROQUOIS CONFEDERACY: THEIR CONQUESTS, &c.
CATACOMBS OF ROME, The.
"The Roman Catacombs—a name consecrated by long usage, but
having no etymological meaning, and not a very determinate
geographical one—are a vast labyrinth of galleries excavated
in the bowels of the earth in the hills around the Eternal
City; not in the hills on which the city itself was built, but
in those beyond the walls. Their extent is enormous, not as to
the amount of superficial soil which they underlie, for they
rarely, if ever, pass beyond the third milestone from the
city, but in the actual length of their galleries; for these
are often excavated on various levels, or piani, three, four,
or even five, one above the other, and they cross and recross
one another, some times at short intervals, on each of these
levels; so that, on the whole, there are certainly not less
that 350 miles of them; that is to say, if stretched out in
one continuous line, they would extend the whole length of
Italy itself. The galleries are from two to four feet in
width, and vary in height according to the nature of the rock
in which they are dug. The walls on both sides are pierced
with horizontal niches, like shelves in a book-case, or berths
in a steamer, and every niche once contained one or more dead
bodies. At various intervals this succession of shelves is
interrupted for a moment, that room may be made for a doorway
opening into a small chamber; and the walls of these chambers
are generally pierced with graves in the same way as the
galleries. These vast excavations once formed the ancient
Christian cemeteries of Rome; they were begun in apostolic
times, and continued to be used as burial-places of the
faithful until the capture of the city by Alaric in the year
410. In the third century, the Roman Church numbered
twenty-five or twenty-six of them, corresponding to the number
of her titles or parishes within the city; and besides these,
there are about twenty others, of smaller dimensions, isolated
monuments of special martyrs, or belonging to this or that
private family. Originally they all belonged to private
families or individuals, the villas or gardens in which they
were dug being the property of wealthy citizens who had
embraced the faith of Christ, and devoted of their substance
to His service. Hence their most ancient titles were taken
merely from the names of their lawful owners, many of which
still survive. … It has always been agreed among men of
learning who have had an opportunity of examining these
excavations, that they were used exclusively by the Christians
as places of burial and of holding religious assemblies.
Modern research has placed it beyond a doubt, that they were
also originally designed for this purpose and for no other."
_J. S. Northcote and W. R. Brownlow,
Roma Sotterranea,
book 1, chapter 1._
ALSO IN:
_A. P. Stanley,
Christian Institutions,
chapter 13._
CATALAN GRAND COMPANY, The.
The Catalan Grand Company was a formidable body of military
adventurers—mercenary soldiers—formed in Sicily during the
twenty years of war that followed the Sicilian Vespers. "High
pay and great license drew the best sinews in Catalonia and
Aragon into the mercenary battalions of Sicily and induced
them to submit to the severest discipline." The conclusion of
peace in 1302 threw this trained army out of employment, and
the greater part of its members were enlisted in the service
of Andronicus II., of the restored Greek empire at
Constantinople. They were under the command of one Roger de
Flor, who had been a Templar, degraded from his knighthood for
desertion, and afterwards a pirate; but whose military talents
were undoubted. The Grand Company soon quarrelled with the
Greek emperor; its leader was assassinated, and open war
declared. The Greek army was terribly defeated in a battle at
Apros, A. D. 1307, and the Catalans plundered Thrace for two
years without resistance. Gallipoli, their headquarters, to
which they brought their captives, became one of the great
slave marts of Europe. In 1310 they marched into the heart of
Greece, and were engaged in the service of Walter de Brienne,
Duke of Athens.
{399}
He, too, found them dangerous servants. Quarrels were followed
by war; the Duke perished in a battle (A. D. 1311) with his
Catalan mercenaries on the banks of the Cephissus; his
dukedom, embracing Attica and Bœotia, was the prize of their
victory. The widows and daughters of the Greek nobles who had
fallen were forced to marry the officers of the Catalans, who
thus settled themselves in family as well as estate. They
elected a Duke of Athens; but proceeded afterwards to make the
duchy an appanage of the House of Aragon. The title was held
by sons of the Aragonese kings of Sicily until 1377, when it
passed to Alphonso V., king of Aragon, and was retained by the
kings of Spain after the union of the crowns of Aragon and
Castile. The titular dukes were represented at Athens by
regents. "During the period the duchy of Athens was possessed
by the Sicilian branch of the house of Aragon, the Catalans
were incessantly engaged in wars with all their neighbours."
But, gradually, their military vigor and discipline were lost,
and their name and power in Greece disappeared about 1386,
when Athens and most of the territory of its duchy was
conquered by Nero Acciainoli, a rich and powerful Florentine,
who had become governor of Corinth, but acted as an
independent prince, and who founded a new ducal family.
_G. Finlay,
History of the Byzantine and Greek Empires,
book 4, chapter 2, section 2._
ALSO IN:
_G. Finlay,
History of Greece from its Conquest by the Crusaders,
chapter 7, section 3._
_E. Gibbon,
Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire,
chapter 62.
CATALANS: A. D. 1151.
The County of Barcelona united by marriage to Aragon.
See SPAIN: A. D. 1035-1258.
CATALANS: A. D. 12th-15th Centuries.
Commercial importance and municipal freedom of Barcelona.
See BARCELONA: 12th-16th CENTURIES.
CATALANS: A. D. 1461-1472.
Long but unsuccessful revolt against John II. of Aragon.
See SPAIN: A. D. 1368-1479.
CATALANS: A. D. 1639-1640.
Causes of disaffection and revolt.
See SPAIN: A. D. 1637-1640.
CATALANS: A. D. 1640-1652.
Revolt.
Renunciation of allegiance to the Spanish crown.
Annexation to France offered and accepted.
Re-subjection to Spain.
See SPAIN: A. D. 1640-1642; 1644-1646; 1648-1652.
CATALANS: A. D. 1705.
Adhesion to the Allies in the War of the Spanish Succession.
See SPAIN: A. D. 1705.
CATALANS: A. D. 1713-1714.
Betrayed and deserted by the Allies.
See SPAIN: A. D. 1713-1714.
----------CATALANS: End----------
CATALAUNIAN PLAINS.
See HUNS: A. D. 451.
CATALONIA.
See CATALANS.
CATANA, OR KATANA, Battle of.
See SYRACUSE: B. C. 397-396.
CATANIA.
Storming and capture by King Ferdinand (1849).
See ITALY: A. D. 1848-1849.
CATAPAN.
See ITALY (SOUTHERN): A. D. 800-1016.
CATAWBAS, The.
See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: SIOUAN FAMILY.
CATEAU-CAMBRESIS, Treaty of.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1547-1559.
CATERANS.
"In 1384 an act was passed [by the Scotch parliament] for the
suppression of masterful plunderers, who get in the statute
their Highland name of 'cateran.' … This is the first of a
long succession of penal and denunciatory laws against the
Highlanders."
_J. H. Burton,
History of Scotland,
volume 3, chapter 27._
CATHARISTS, OR PATARENES.
"Among all the sects of the Middle Ages, very far the most
important in numbers and in radical antagonism to the Church,
were the Cathari, or the Pure, as with characteristic
sectarian assumption they styled themselves. Albigenses they
were called in Languedoc; Patarenes in North Italy; Good Men
by themselves. Stretching through central Europe to Thrace and
Bulgaria, they joined hands with the Paulicians of the East
and shared their errors. Whether these Cathari stood in lineal
historical descent from the old Manichæans, or had generated a
dualistic scheme of their own, is a question hard to answer,
and which has been answered in very different ways. This much,
however, is certain, that in all essentials they agreed with
them."
_R. C. Trench,
Lectures on Mediæval Church History,
lecture 15._
"In Italy, men supposed to hold the same belief [as that of
the Paulicians, Albigenses, etc.] went by the name of the
Paterini, a word of uncertain derivation, perhaps arising from
their willingness meekly to submit to all sufferings for
Christ's sake (pati), perhaps from a quarter in the city of
Milan named 'Pataria'; and more lately by that of Cathari (the
Pure, Puritans), which was soon corrupted into Gazari, whence
the German 'Ketzer,' the general word for a heretic."
_L. Mariotti,
Frà Dolcino and his Times,
chapter 1._
See, also, PAULICIANS, and ALBIGENSES.
CATHAY.
See CHINA: THE NAMES OF THE COUNTRY.
CATHELINEAU AND, THE INSURRECTION IN LA VENDEE.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1793 (MARCH-APRIL);
(JUNE); and (JULY-DECEMBER).
CATHERINE I., Czarina of Russia, A. D. 1725-1727.
CATHERINE II., Czarina of Russia, A. D. 1762-1796.
CATHERINE and Jean d'Albret,
Queen and King of Navarre, A. D. 1503-1512.
CATHERINE de Medici: her part in French history.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1532-1547, to 1584-1589.
CATHOLIC ASSOCIATION AND THE CATHOLIC RENT IN IRELAND.
See IRELAND: A. D. 1811-1829.
CATHOLIC DEFENDERS.
See IRELAND: A. D. 1760-1798.
CATHOLIC LEAGUE, The.
See PAPACY: A. D. 1530-1531.
CATHOLIC LEAGUE IN FRANCE, The.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1576-1585 and after.
CATHOLICS (England): A. D. 1572-1679.
Persecutions.
See ENGLAND: A. D. 1572-1603; 1585-1587; 1587-1588; 1678-1679.
CATHOLICS (Ireland): A. D. 1691-1782.
Oppression of the Penal Laws.
See IRELAND: A. D. 1691-1782.
CATHOLICS (England): A. D. 1778-1780.
Repeal of Penal laws.
No-Popery Riots.
See ENGLAND: A. D. 1778-1780.
CATHOLICS (Ireland): A. D. 1795-1796.
Persecution by Protestant mobs.
Formation of the Orange Society.
See IRELAND: A. D. 1795-1796.
CATHOLICS (Ireland): A. D. 1801.
Pitt's promises broken by the King.
See ENGLAND: A. D. 1801-1806.
CATHOLICS (England and Ireland): A. D. 1829.
Emancipation from civil disabilities.
See IRELAND: A. D. 1811-1829.
{400}
CATHOLICS, Old.
See PAPACY: A. D. 1869-1870.
CATILINE, The Conspiracy of.
See ROME: B. C. 63.
CATINI, The.
See BRITAIN, CELTIC TRIBES.
CATO THE YOUNGER,
and the last years of the Roman Republic.
See ROME: B. C. 63-58, to 47-46.
CATO STREET CONSPIRACY, The.
See ENGLAND: A. D. 1820-1827.
CATRAIL, The.
An ancient rampart, the remains of which are found in southern
Scotland, running from the south-east corner of Peeblesshire
to the south side of Liddesdale. It is supposed to have marked
the boundary between the old Anglian kingdom of Bernicia and
the territory of the British kings of Alcluith (Dumbarton).
_W. F. Skene,
Celtic Scotland,
volume 1._
CATTANI.
VASSALI.
MASNADA.
SERVI.
The feudal barons of northern Italy were called Cattani. In
the Florentine territory, "many of these Cattani, after having
been subdued and made citizens of Florence, still maintained
their feudal following, and were usually attended by troops of
retainers, half slaves, half freedmen, called 'Uomini di
Masnada,' who held certain possessions of them by the tenure
of military service, took oaths of fidelity, and appear to
have included every rank of person in the different Italian
states according to the quality of the chief; but without any
degradation of character being attached to such employment.
This kind of servitude, which could not be thrown off without
a formal act of manumission, was common in the north of Italy,
and began in the 11th century, when innumerable chieftains
started up owning no superior but the emperor. Being at
constant war with each other they sought every means of
creating a military following by granting lands to all ranks
of people, and it is probable that many slaves were then
partly emancipated for the purpose: such a condition, though
not considered dishonourable, was thus essentially tinged with
the colours of slavery, and so far differed from the 'Vassi'
and 'Vassali,' as well as from the 'Vavasours.' … Some
slight, perhaps unnecessary distinction is made between the
'Vassi,' who are supposed to have been vassals of the crown,
and the 'Vassali,' who were the vassals of great lords. The
'Vavasours' were the vassals of great vassals. … This union
[as described above] of 'Servi,' slaves, or vassals of one
chief, was called 'Masnada,' and hence the name 'Masnadieri,'
so often recurring in early Italian history; for the
commanders of these irregular bands were often retained in the
pay of the republic and frequently kept the field when the
civic troops had returned to their homes, or when the war was
not sufficiently important to bring the latter out with the
Carroccio. … Besides these military Villains, who were also
called 'Fedeli,' there were two other kinds of slaves amongst
the early Italians, namely prisoners of war and the labourers
attached to the soil, who were considered as cattle in every
respect except that of their superior utility and value: the
former species of slavery was probably soon dissolved by the
union of self-interest and humanity: the latter began to
decline in the 12th century, partly continued through the
13th, and vanished entirely in the 14th century."
_H. E. Napier,
Florentine History,
volume 1, page 624._
CATTI, The.
See CHATTI.
CATUVELLANI, The.
See BRITAIN, CELTIC TRIBES.
CAUCASUS AND THE CIRCASSIANS.
The Russian conquest.
"The Caucasus has always possessed a certain fascination not
for the Russians only, but also for western nations, and is
peculiarly rich in historical traditions, and in memories of
ancient times and ancient nations. Here to the rocks of
Elbruz, Prometheus lay chained; and to Colchis, where the
Phasis flowed towards the sea, through ever green woods, came
the Argonauts. The present Kutais is the old capital of King
Æetes, near which, in the sacred grove of Ares, hung the
golden fleece. The gold mines which the Russians discovered in
1864 were apparently known to the Greeks, whose colony,
Dioscurias, was an assemblage of 300 diverse nationalities.
… Here on the coasts of the stormy and dangerous Black Sea
arose the famous Pontine kingdom [see MITHRIDATIC WARS] which
in spite of its valiant resistance under Mithridates, fell a
victim to Roman aggression. Along the rivers Kura and Rion ran
the old commercial road from Europe to Asia, which enriched
the Venetians and the Genoese in the middle ages. Up to recent
times this trade consisted not only of all sorts of other
merchandise, but of slaves; numberless girls and women were
conveyed to Turkish harems and there exercised an important
influence on the character of the Tartar and Mongol races. In
the middle ages the Caucasus was the route by which the wild
Asiatic hordes, the Goths, Khasars, Huns, Avars, Mongols,
Tartars, and Arabs crossed from Asia into Europe; and
consequently its secluded valleys contain a population
composed of more different and distinct races than any other
district in the world. … It was in the 16th century, under
Ivan the Terrible, that Russia first turned her attention to
the conquest of the Caucasus; but it was not till 1859 that
the defeat and capture of the famous Schamyl brought about the
final subjugation of the country. … In 1785 [after the
partial conquest of 1784—see TURKS: A. D. 1776-1792] the
mountaineers had been incited to take arms by a so-called
prophet Scheick Mansur, but he was seized and banished to
Solovetsk, on the White Sea. In 1820 a Mollah, Kasi by name,
made his appearance in Daghestan, and began to preach the
'Kasawat,' that is, holy war against the Russians. To him
succeeded another equally fanatical adventurer, Hamset Beg.
The work which they had begun was carried on by Schamyl, who
far surpassed his predecessors in all the qualities which make
up a successful guerilla chief, and who maintained the unequal
conflict against the enemies of his country for 25 years with
singular good fortune, undaunted courage, untiring energy, and
conspicuous ability. He was of the tribe of the Lesghians in
Daghestan, and was born in 1796, in the village of Gimri, of
poor shepherd parents. In spite of his humble origin he raised
himself to the rank of an Imaum, surrounded himself with a
strong body-guard of devoted adherents, whom he named Murides,
and succeeded in fanning to a flame the patriotic ardour of
his fellow-countrymen. The capture of the mountain fastness of
Achulgo in 1839 seemed to be the death-blow of Schamyl's
cause, for it brought about the loss of the whole of
Daghestan, the very focus of the Murides' activity.
{401}
Schamyl barely escaped being made a prisoner, and was forced
to yield up his son, Djammel-Edden, only nine years of age as
a hostage. The boy was sent to St. Petersburg and placed in a
cadet corps, which he left at the conclusion of his military
education somewhere about 1850 and returned to his native
country in 1854 where he died a few years later. In 1840 the
Tchetchens, who had previously been pacified, rose in arms
once more, and Daghestan and other parts of the country
followed their example. The country of the Tchetchens was a
specially favourable theatre for the conflict with the
Russians; its long mountain chains, rocky fastnesses,
impenetrable forests, and wild precipices and gorges rendered
ambuscades and surprises of constant and, to the Russians,
fatal occurrence. During the earlier stages of the war, Russia
had ransomed the officers taken prisoners by the mountaineers,
but, subsequently, no quarter was given on either side. At
last, by means of a great concentration of troops on all the
threatened points, by fortifying the chief central stations,
find by forming broad military roads throughout the district,
the Russians succeeded in breaking down Schamyl's resistance.
He now suffered one reverse after another. His chief
fastnesses, Dargo, Weden, and Guni, were successively stormed
and destroyed; and, finally, he himself and his family were
taken prisoners. He was astonished and, it is said, not
altogether gratified to find that a violent death was not to
close his romantic career. He and his family were at first
interned at Kaluga in Russia, both a house and a considerable
sum of money for his maintenance being assigned to him. But
after a few years he was allowed to remove to Mecca, where he
died. His sons and grandsons, who have entirely adopted the
manners of the Russians, are officers in the Circassian guard.
In 1864 the pacification of the whole country was
accomplished, and a few years later the abolition of serfdom
was proclaimed at Tifiis. After the subjugation of the various
mountain tribes, the Circassians had the choice given them by
the Government of settling on the low country along the Kuban,
or of emigrating to Turkey. The latter course was chosen by
the bulk of the nation, urged, thereto, in great measure, by
envoys from Turkey. As many as 400,000 are said to have come
to the ports, where the Sultan had promised to send vessels to
receive them; but delays took place, and a large number died
of want and disease. Those who reached Turkey were settled on
the west coasts of the Black Sea, in Bulgaria and near Varna,
and proved themselves most troublesome and unruly subjects.
Most of those who at first remained in Circassia followed
their fellow-countrymen in 1874."
_H. M. Chester,
Russia,
chapter 18._
ALSO IN:
_F. Mayne,
Life of Nicholas I.,
part 1, chapters 11 and 14._
_S. M. Schmucker,
Life and Reign of Nicholas I.,
chapter 21._
CAUCASUS, The Indian.
"The real Caucasus was the most lofty range of mountains known
to the Greeks before [Alexander's conquests], and they were
generally regarded as the highest mountains in the world.
Hence when the army of Alexander came in sight of the vast
mountain barrier [of the Hindoo Koosh] that rose before them
as they advanced northward from Arachosia, they seem to have
at once concluded that this could be no other than the
Caucasus." Hence the name Caucasus given by the Greeks to
those mountains; "for the name of Hindoo Koosh, by which they
are still known, is nothing more than a corruption of the
Indian Caucasus."
_E. H. Bunbury,
History of Ancient Geography,
chapter 12, note Q._
CAUCI, The.
See IRELAND, TRIBES OF EARLY CELTIC INHABITANTS.
CAUCUS.
In 1634—the fourth year of the colony of Massachusetts
Bay—the freemen of the colony chose Dudley instead of
Winthrop for governor. The next year they "followed up the
doctrine of rotation in office by choosing Haynes as governor,
a choice agreed upon by deputies from the towns, who came
together for that purpose previously to the meeting of the
court—the first instance of 'the caucus system' on record."
_R. Hildreth,
History of the United States,
volume 1, page 224._
See also, CONGRESS OF THE UNITED STATES.
CAUDINE FORKS, The Romans at the.
See ROME: B. C. 343-290.
CAUSENNÆ, OR ISINÆ.
A town of some importance in Roman Britain. "There can be no
doubt that this town occupied the site of the modern Ancaster,
which has been celebrated for its Roman antiquities since the
time of Leland."
_T. Wright,
Celt, Roman and Saxon,
chapter 5._
CAVALIERS, The party of the.
See ENGLAND: A. D. 1641 (OCTOBER);
also, ROUNDHEADS.
CAVE DWELLERS.
"We find a hunting and fishing race of cave-dwellers, in the
remote pleistocene age, in possession of France, Belgium,
Germany, and Britain, probably of the same stock as the
Eskimos, living and forming part of a fauna in which northern
and southern, living and extinct, species are strangely
mingled with those now living in Europe. In the neolithic age
caves were inhabited, and used for tombs, by men of the
Iberian or Basque race, which is still represented by the
small dark-haired peoples of Europe."
_W. B. Dawkins,
Cave Hunting,
page 430._
CAVE OF ADULLAM.
See ADULLAM, CAVE OF.
CAVOUR, Count, and the unification of Italy.
See ITALY: A. D. 1856-1859, and 1859-1861.
CAVOUR, Treaty of (1561).
See SAVOY: A. D. 1559-1580.
CAWNPUR, OR CAWNPORE: A. D. 1857.
Siege by the Sepoy mutineers.
Surrender and massacre of the English.
See INDIA: A. D. 1857 (MAY-AUGUST),
and 1857-1858 (JULY-JUNE).
CAXTON PRESS, The.
See PRINTING AND THE PRESS: A. D. 1476-1491.
CAYENNE, Colonization of.
See GUIANA: A. D. 1580-1814.
CAYUGAS, The.
See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: IROQUOIS CONFEDERACY.
CEADAS, The.
See BARATHRUM.
CEBRENES, The.
See TROJA.
CECIL, Sir William (Lord Burleigh),
The reign of Elizabeth.
See ENGLAND: A. D. 1558-1598.
CECORA, Battle of (1621).
See POLAND: A. D. 1590-1648.
CECROPIA.
CECROPIAN HILL.
The Acropolis of Athens.
See ATTICA.
{402}
CEDAR CREEK, Battle of.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
A. D.1864 (AUGUST-OCTOBER: VIRGINIA).
CEDAR MOUNTAIN OR CEDAR RUN, Battle of.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1862
(JULY-AUGUST: VIRGINIA).
CELESTINE II., Pope, A. D. 1143-1144.
CELESTINE III., Pope, A. D. 1191-1198.
CELESTINE IV., Pope, A. D. 1241.
CELESTINE V., Pope, A. D. 1294, July to December.
CELTIBERIANS, The.
"The Celtiberi occupied the centre of Spain, and a large part
of the two Castiles, an elevated table land bordered and
intersected by mountains. They were the most warlike race in
the Spanish peninsula."
_G. Long,
Decline of the Roman Republic,
chapter 1._
"The appellation Celtiberians indicates that in the
north-eastern part of the peninsula [Spain] there was a
mixture of Celts and Iberians. Nevertheless the Iberians must
have been the prevailing race, for we find no indications of
Celtic characteristics in the people."
_W. Ihne,
History of Rome,
book 5, chapter 6, note._
See, also, NUMANTIAN WAR.
CELTS, The.
"The Celts form a branch of the great family of nations which
has been variously called Aryan, Indo-European, Indo-Germanic,
Indo-Celtic and Japhetic, its other branches being represented by
the Italians, the Greeks, the Litu-Slaves, the Armenians, the
Persians and the chief peoples of Hindustan. … The Celts of
antiquity who appeared first and oftenest in history were
those of Gallia, which, having been made by the French into
Gaule, we term Gaul. It included the France and Switzerland of
the present day, and much territory besides. This people had
various names. One of them was Galli, which in their language
meant warriors or brave men; … but the Gauls themselves in
Cæsar's time appear to have preferred the name which he wrote
Celtæ. This was synonymous with the other and appears to have
meant warriors. … The Celtic family, so far back as we can
trace it into the darkness of antiquity consisted of two
groups or branches, with linguistic features of their own
which marked them off from one another. To the one belonged
the ancestors of the people who speak Gaelic in Ireland, the
Isle of Man and the Highlands of the North. … The national
name which the members of this group have always given
themselves, so far as one knows, is that of Gaidhel,
pronounced and spelt in English Gael, but formerly written by
themselves Goidel. … The other group is represented in point
of speech by the people of Wales and the Bretons. … The
national name of those speaking these dialects was that of
Briton; but, since that word has now no precise meaning, we
take the Welsh form of it, which is Brython, and call this
group Brythons and Brythonic, whenever it is needful to be
exact. The ancient Gauls must also be classified with them,
since the Brythons may be regarded as Gauls who came over to
settle in Britain."
_J. Rhys,
Celtic Britain,
chapter 1._
See, also, ARYANS, and APPENDIX A, volume 1.
CELTS:
Origin and first meaning of the name.
"Who were the Keltre of Spain? the population whose name
occurs in the word Celtici and Celtiberi, Keltic Iberians or
Iberian Kelts? … I think, that though used to denominate the
tribe and nations allied to the Gauls, it [the word Celt or
Kelt] was, originally, no Gallic word—as little native as
Welsh is British. I also think that even the first populations
to which it was applied were other than Keltic in the modern
sense of the term. I think, in short, that it was a word
belonging to the Iberian language, applied, until the time of
Cæsar at least, to Iberic populations. … By the time of
Cæsar, however, a great number of undoubted Gauls were
included under the name Celtæ: in other words, the Iberian
name for an Iberian population was first adopted by the Greeks
as the name for all the inhabitants of south-western Gaul, and
it was then extended by the Romans so as to include all the
populations of Gallia except the Belgæ and Aquitanians."
_R G. Latham,
Ethnology of Europe,
chapter 2._
----------CELTS: Origin: End----------
CELTS.
A name given among archæologists to certain prehistoric
implements, both stone and bronze, of the wedge, chisel and
axe kind. Mr. Thomas Wright, contends that the term is
properly applied only to the bronze chisels, which the old
antiquary Hearne identified with the Roman celtis, or
chisel—whence the name. It has evidently no connection with
the word Celt used ethnologically.
CELYDDON, Forest of (or Coed Celydon).
See BRITAIN, CELTIC TRIBES.
CENABUM.
See GENABUM.
CENOMANIANS, The.
See INSUBRIANS.
CENSORS, The Roman.
"The censorship was an office so remarkable that, however
familiar the subject may be to many readers, it is necessary
here to bestow some notice on it. Its original business was to
take a register of the citizens and of their property; but
this, which seems at first sight to be no more than the
drawing up of a mere statistical report, became in fact, from
the large discretion allowed to every Roman officer, a
political power of the highest importance. The censors made
out the returns of the free population; but they did more;
they divided it according to its civil distinctions, and drew
up a list of the senators, a list of the equites, a list of
the members of the several tribes, or of those citizens who
enjoyed the right of voting, and a list of the ærarians,
consisting of those freedmen, naturalized strangers, and
others, who, being enrolled in no tribe, possessed no vote in
the comitia, but still enjoyed all the private rights of Roman
citizens. Now the lists thus drawn up by the censors were
regarded as legal evidence of a man's condition. … From
thence the transition was easy, according to Roman notions, to
the decision of questions of right; such as whether a citizen
was really worthy of retaining his rank. … If a man behaved
tyrannically to his wife or children, if he was guilty of
excessive cruelty even to his slaves, if he neglected his
land, if he indulged in habits of extravagant expense, or
followed any calling which was regarded as degrading, the
offence was justly noted by the censors, and the offender was
struck off from the list of senators, if his rank was so high;
or, if he were an ordinary citizen, he was expelled from his
tribe, and reduced to the class of the ærarians. … The
censors had the entire management of the regular revenues of
the state, or of its vectigalia. They were the commonwealth's
stewards, and to their hands all its property was entrusted.
… With these almost kingly powers, and arrayed in kingly
state, for the censor's robe was all scarlet … the censors
might well seem too great for a free commonwealth."
_T. Arnold,
History of Rome,
chapter 17._
See, also, LUSTRUM.
{403}
CENTRAL AMERICA:
Ruins of ancient civilization.
See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: MAYAS, and QUICHES;
also, MEXICO, ANCIENT.
CENTRAL AMERICA: Discovery and early settlement.
See AMERICAN: A. D. 1498-1505; 1500-1511; 1513-1517.
CENTRAL AMERICA: A. D. 1821-1871.
Separation from Spain, and Independence.
Attempted federation and its failures.
Wars and revolutions of the five Republics.
"The central part of the American continent, extending from
the southern boundary of Mexico to the Isthmus of Panama,
consisted in the old colonial times of several Intendancies,
all of which were united in the Captaincy-General of
Guatemala. Like the West Indian Islands, it was a neglected
part of the Spanish Empire. … Central America has no history
up to the epoch of independence. … It was not until the
success of the Revolution had become certain on both sides of
them, both in Mexico and New Granada, that the Intendancies
which made up the Captaincy-General of Guatemala declared
themselves also independent of Spain. The cry of liberty had
indeed been raised in Costa Rica in 1813, and in Nicaragua in
1815; but the Revolution was postponed for six years longer.
Guatemala, the seat of government, published its declaration
in September, 1821, and its example was speedily followed by
San Salvador and Honduras. Nicaragua, on proclaiming its
independence, together with one of the departments of
Guatemala, declared its adhesion to what was known in Mexico
as the plan of Ignala [see MEXICO: A. D. 1820-1826]. As there
were no Spanish troops in Central America, the recusant
Spanish official party could make no resistance to the popular
movement; and many of them crossed the sea to Cuba or returned
to Spain. … The Revolution of Central America thus stands
alone in the history of independence, as having been
accomplished without the shedding of blood." During the brief
empire of Iturbide in Mexico [see as above] the Central
American states were annexed to it, though with strong
resistance on the part of all except Guatemala. "On the
proclamation of the Federal Republic in Mexico [1824], the
whole of Central America, except the district of Chiapas,
withdrew from the alliance, and drove out the Mexican
officials as only a year before they had driven out the
Spanish officials. The people now had to face the task of
forming a government for themselves: and … they now resolved
on combining in a federation, in imitation of the great United
States of North America. Perhaps no states were ever less
suited to form a federal union. The petty territories of
Central America lie on two Oceans, are divided by lofty
mountains, and have scarcely any communication with each
other: and the citizens of each have scarcely any common
interest. A Central American federation, however, was an
imposing idea, and the people clung to it with great
pertinacity. The first effort for federation was made under
the direction of General Filisola. All the Intendancies
combined in one sovereign state; first under the name of the
'United Provinces,' afterwards (November 22, 1823) under that
of the 'Federal Republic' of Central America. … A
constitution of the most liberal kind was voted. This
constitution is remarkable for having been the first which
abolished slavery at once and absolutely and declared the
slave trade to be piracy. … The clerical and oligarchic
party set their faces stubbornly against the execution of the
constitution, and began the revolt at Leon in Nicaragua. The
union broke down in 1826, and though Morazan [of Honduras]
reconstituted it in 1829, its history is a record of continual
rebellion and reaction on the part of the Guatemaltec
oligarchy. Of all South American conservative parties this
oligarchy was perhaps the most despicable. They sank to their
lowest when they raised the Spanish flag in 1832. But in doing
this they went too far. Morazan's successes date from this
time, and having beaten the Guatemaltecs, he transferred the
Federal government in 1834 to San Salvador. But the Federal
Republic of Central America dragged on a precarious existence
until 1838, when it was overthrown by the revolt of Carrera in
Guatemala. From the first the influence of the Federalists in
the capital began to decay, and it was soon apparent that they
had little power except in Honduras, San Salvador and
Nicaragua. The Costa Ricans, a thriving commercial community,
but of no great political importance, and separated by
mountainous wastes from all the rest, soon ceased to take any
part in public business. A second Federal Republic, excluding
Costa Rica, was agreed to in 1842; but it fared no better than
the first. The chief representative of the Federalist
principle in Central America was Morazan, of Honduras, from
whose government Carrera had revolted in 1838. On the failure
of the Federation Morazan had fled to Chile, and on his return
to Costa Rica he was shot at San José by the Carrerists. This
was a great blow to the Liberals, and it was not until 1847
that a third Federation, consisting of Honduras, San Salvador,
and Nicaragua, was organized. For some years Honduras, at the
head of these states, carried on a war against Guatemala to
compel it to join the union. Guatemala was far more than their
match: San Salvador and Nicaragua soon failed in the struggle,
and left Honduras to carry on the war alone. Under General
Carrera Guatemala completely defeated its rival; and to his
successes are due the revival of the Conservative or Clerical
party all over Central America. … The government of each
state became weaker and weaker: revolutions were everywhere
frequent: and ultimately … the whole country was near
falling into the hands of a North American adventurer [see
NICARAGUA: A. D. 1855-1860]. In former times the English
government had maintained some connection with the country
[originating with the buccaneers and made important by the
mahogany-cutting] through the independent Indians of the
Mosquito coast, over whom, for the purposes of their trade
with Jamaica, it had maintained a protectorate: and even a
small English commercial colony, called Greytown, had been
founded on this coast at the mouth of the river San Juan.
Towards the close of Carrera's ascendancy this coast was
resigned to Nicaragua, and the Bay Islands, which lie off the
coast, to Honduras: and England thus retained nothing in the
country but the old settlement of British Honduras, with its
capital, Belize. After Carrera's death in 1865, the Liberal
party began to reassert itself: and in 1871 there was a
Liberal revolution in Guatemala itself."
_E. J. Payne,
History of European Colonies,
chapter 21._
ALSO IN:
_H. H. Bancroft,
History of the Pacific States._
----------CENTRAL AMERICA: End----------
{404}
CENTRAL ASIA.
See ASIA, CENTRAL.
CENTRE, The.
See RIGHT, &c.
CENTREVILLE, Evacuation of.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
A. D. 1861-1862 (DECEMBER-MARCH: VIRGINIA).
CENTURIES, Roman.
See COMITIA CENTURIATA.
CENTURION.
The officer commanding one of the fifty-five centuries or
companies in a Roman legion of the empire.
See LEGION, ROMAN.
CENWULF, King of Mercia, A. D. 794-819.
CEORL.
See EORL, and ETHEL.
CEPEDA, Battle of(1859).
See ARGENTINE REPUBLIC: A. D. 1819-1874.
CEPHISSUS, Battle of the (A. D. 1311).
See CATALAN GRAND COMPANY.
CERAMICUS OF ATHENS.
The Ceramicus was originally the most important of the
suburban districts of Athens and derived its name from the
potters. "It is probable that about the time of Pisistratus
the market of the ancient suburb called the Ceramicus (for
every Attic district possessed its own market) was constituted
the central market of the city. … They [the Pisistratidæ]
connected Athens in all directions by roadways with the
country districts: these roads were accurately measured, and
all met on the Ceramicus, in the centre of which an altar was
erected to the Twelve Gods. From this centre of town and
country were calculated the distances to the different country
districts, to the ports, and to the most important sanctuaries
of the common fatherland. … [In the next century—in the age
of Pericles—the population had extended to the north and west
and] part of the ancient potters' district or Ceramicus had
long become a quarter of the city [the Inner Ceramicus]; the
other part remained suburb [the Outer Ceramicus]. Between the
two lay the double gate or Dipylum, the broadest and most
splendid gate of the city. … Here the broad carriage-road
which, avoiding all heights, ascended from the market-place of
Hippodamus directly to the city-market of the Ceramicus,
entered the city; from here straight to the west led the road
to Eleusis, the sacred course of the festive processions. …
From this road again, immediately outside the gate, branched
off that which led to the Academy. … The high roads in the
vicinity of the city gates were everywhere bordered with
numerous and handsome sepulchral monuments, in particular the
road leading through the outer Ceramicus. Here lay the public
burial-ground for the citizens who had fallen in war; the vast
space was divided into fields, corresponding to the different
battle-fields at home and abroad."
_E. Curtius,
History of Greece,
book 2, chapter 2,
and book 3, chapter 3._
ALSO IN:
_W. M. Leake,
Topography of Athens,
section 3._
CERESTES, OR KERESTES, Battle of (1596).
See HUNGARY: A. D. 1595-1606.
CERIGNOLA, Battle of (1503).
See ITALY: A. D. 1501-1504.
CERISOLES, Battle of (1544).
See FRANCE: A. D. 1532-1547.
CERONES, The.
See BRITAIN, CELTIC TRIBES.
CERRO GORDO, Battle of.
See MEXICO: A. D. 1847 (MARCH-SEPTEMBER).
CESS.
A word, corrupted from "assess," signifying a rate, or tax;
used especially in Scotland, and applied more particularly to
a tax imposed in 1678, for the maintenance of troops, during
the persecution of the Covenanters.
_J. H. Thompson,
A Cloud of Witnesses,
page 67._
_The Imp. Diet._
CEUTA, A. D. 1415.
Siege and capture by the Portuguese.
See PORTUGAL: A. D. 1415-1460.
CEUTA: A. D. 1668.
Ceded to Spain.
See PORTUGAL: A. D. 1637-1668.
----------CEUTA: End----------
CÉVENNES,
The prophets of the (or the Cévenol prophets).
The Camisards.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1702-1710.
CEYLON,
3d Century B. C.
Conversion to Buddhism.
See INDIA: B. C. 312-.
CEYLON: A. D. 1802.
Permanent acquisition by England.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1801-1802.
----------CEYLON: End----------
CHACABUCO, Battle of (1817).
See CHILE: A. D. 1810-1818.
CHACO, The Gran.
See GRAN CHACO.
CHÆRONEA, Battles of (B. C. 338).
See GREECE: B. C. 357-336.
CHÆRONEA:(B. C. 86).
See MITHRIDATIC WARS.
CHAGAN.
See KUAN.
CHA'HTAS, OR CHOCTAWS, The.
See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: MUSKHOGEAN FAMILY.
CHALCEDON.
An ancient Greek city, founded by the Megarians on the Asiatic
side of the Bosphorus, nearly opposite to Byzantium, like
which city it suffered in early times many changes of masters.
It was bequeathed to the Romans by the last king of Bithynia.
CHALCEDON: A. D. 258.
Capture by the Goths.
See GOTHS: A. D. 258-267.
CHALCEDON: A. D. 616-625.
The Persians in possession.
See PERSIA: A. D. 226-627.
----------CHALCEDON: End----------
CHALCEDON, The Council of (A. D. 451).
See NESTORIAN AND MONOPHYSITE CONTROVERSY.
CHALCIS AND ERETRIA.
"The most dangerous rivals of Ionia were the towns of Eubœa,
among which, in the first instance, Cyme, situated in an
excellent bay of the east coast, in a district abounding in
wine, and afterwards the two sister-towns on the Euripus,
Chalcis and Eretria, distinguished themselves by larger
measures of colonization. While Eretria, the 'city of rowers,'
rose to prosperity especially by means of purple-fisheries and
a ferry-navigation conducted on a constantly increasing scale,
Chalcis, the 'bronze city,' on the double sea of the Bœotian
sound, contrived to raise and employ for herself the most
important of the many treasures of the island—its copper. …
Chalcis became the Greek centre of this branch of industry; it
became the Greek Sidon. Next to Cyprus there were no richer
stores of copper in the Greek world than on Eubœa, and in
Chalcis were the first copper-works and smithies known in
European Greece."
_E. Curtius,
History of Greece,
book 2, chapter 3._
The Chalcidians were enterprising colonists, particularly in
Thrace, in the Macedonian peninsula, where they are said to
have founded thirty-two towns, which were collectively called
the Chalcidice, and in southern Italy and Sicily. It was the
abundant wealth of Thrace in metallic ores which drew the
Chalcidians to it. About 700 B. C. a border feud between
Chalcis and Eretria, concerning certain "Lelantian fields"
which lay between them, grew to such proportions and so many
other states came to take part in it, that, "according to
Thucydides no war of more universal importance for the whole
nation was fought between the fall of Troja and the Persian
war."
_E. Curtius,
History of Greece,
volume 1, book 2, chapter 1._
Chalcis was subdued by the Athenians in B. C. 506.
See ATHENS: B. C. 509-506;
also KLERUCHS, and EUBŒA.
{405}
CHALCUS.
See TALENT.
CHALDEA.
CHALDEES.
See BABYLONIA.
CHALDEAN CHURCH.
See NESTORIANS.
CHALDIRAN, Battle of (1514).
See TURKS: A. D. 1481-1520.
CHALGROVE FIELD, Fall of Hampden at.
See ENGLAND: A. D. 1643 (AUGUST-SEPTEMBER).
CHALONS, Battles at (A. D. 271).
Among the many pretenders to the Roman imperial throne—"the
thirty tyrants," as they were called—of the distracted reign
of Gallienus, was Tetricus, who had been governor of
Aquitaine. The dangerous honor was forced upon him, by a
demoralized army, and he reigned against his will for several
years over Gaul, Spain and Britain. At length, when the
iron-handed Aurelian had taken the reins of government at
Rome, Tetricus secretly plotted with him for deliverance from
his own uncoveted greatness. Aurelian invaded Gaul and
Tetricus led an army against him, only to betray it, in a
great battle at Chalons (271), where the rebels were cut to
pieces.
_E. Gibbon,
Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire,
chapter 11.
CHALONS: A. D. 366.
See ALEMANNI, INVASION OF GAUL BY THE.
CHALONS: A. D. 451.
See HUNS: A. D. 451, ATTILA'S INVASION OF GAUL.
----------CHALONS: End----------
CHALYBES, The.
The Chalybes, or Chalybians, were an ancient people in Asia
Minor, on the coast of the Euxine, probably east of the Halys,
who were noted as workers of iron.
_E. H. Bunbury,
History of Ancient Geography,
chapter 22, note A._
CHAMAVI, The.
See BRUCTERI;
also, FRANKS;
also, GAUL: A. D. 355-361.
CHAMBERS OF REANNEXATON, French.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1679-1681.
CHAMBERSBURG, Burning of.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1864 (JULY:
VIRGINIA-MARYLAND).
CHAMPAGNE:
Origin of the county.
In the middle years of the revolt that dethroned the
Carlovingians and raised the Capetians to a throne which they
made the throne of a kingdom of France, Count Herbert of
Vermandois allied himself with the party of the latter, and
began operations for the expanding of his domain. "The
Champaign of Rheims, the 'Campania Remensis'—a most
appropriate descriptive denomination of the region—an
extension of the plains of Flanders—but not yet employed
politically as designating a province—was protected against
Count Herbert on the Vermandois border by the Castrum
Theodorici—Château Thierry. … Herbert's profuse promises
induced the commander to betray his duty. … Herbert, through
this occupation of Château Thierry, obtained the city of
Troyes and all the 'Campania Remensis,' which, under his
potent sway, was speedily developed into the magnificent
County of Champagne. Herbert and his lineage held Champagne
during three generations, until some time after the accession
of the Capets, when the Grand Fief passed from the House of
Vermandois to the House of Blois."
_Sir F. Palgrave,
History of Normandy and England,
volume 2, page 192._
CHAMPEAUBERT, Battle of.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1814 (JANUARY-MARCH).
CHAMPIGNY, Sortie of(1870).
See FRANCE: A. D. 1870-1871.
CHAMPION'S HILL, Battle of.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
A. D. 1863 (APRIL-JULY: ON THE MISSISSIPPI).
CHAMPLAIN, Samuel.
Explorations and Colonizations.
See CANADA (NEW FRANCE): A. D. 1603-1605; 1608-1611;
and 1611-1616.
CHAMPLAIN, Lake: A. D. 1776.
Arnold's naval battle with Carleton.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1776-1777.
CHAMPLAIN, Lake: A. D. 1814.
Macdonough's naval victory.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1814 (SEPTEMBER).
----------CHAMPLAIN, End----------
CHAMPS DE MARS.
CHAMPS DE MAI.
When the Merovingian kings of the Franks summoned their
captains to gather for the planning and preparing of
campaigns, the assemblies were called at first the Champs de
Mars, because the meeting was in earliest spring—in March.
"But as the Franks, from serving on foot, became cavaliers
under the second [the Carlovingian] race, the time was changed
to May, for the sake of forage, and the assemblies were called
Champs de Mai."
_E. E. Crowe,
History of France,
chapter 1._
See, also, MALLUM,
and PARLIAMENT OF PARIS.
CHANCAS, The.
See PERU: THE ABORIGINAL INHABITANTS.
CHANCELLOR, The.
"The name [of the Chancellor], derived probably from the
cancelli or screen behind which the secretarial work of the
royal household was carried on, claims a considerable
antiquity; and the offices which it denotes are various in
proportion. The chancellor of the Karolingian sovereigns,
succeeding to the place of the more ancient referendarius, is
simply the royal notary; the archi-cancellarius is the chief
of a large body of such officers associated under the name of
the chancery, and is the keeper of the royal seal. It is from
this minister that the English chancellor derives his name and
function. Edward the Confessor, the first of our sovereigns
who had a seal, is also the first who had a chancellor; from
the reign of the Conqueror the office has descended in regular
succession. It seems to have been to a comparatively late
period, generally if not always, at least in England, held by
an ecclesiastic who was a member of the royal household and on
a footing with the great dignitaries. The chancellor was the
most dignified of the royal chaplains, if not the head of that
body. The whole secretarial work of the household and court
fell on the chancellor and the chaplains. … The chancellor
was, in a manner, the secretary of state for all departments."
_William Stubbs,
Constitutional History of England,
chapter 11, section 121._
{406}
"In the reign of Edward I. we begin to perceive signs of the
rise of the extraordinary or equitable jurisdiction of the
Chancellor. The numerous petitions addressed to the King and
his Council, seeking the interposition of the royal grace and
favour either to mitigate the harshness of the Common Law or
supply its deficiencies, had been in the special care of the
Chancellor, who examined and reported upon them to the King.
… At length, in 1348, by a writ or ordinance of the 22d year
of Edward III. all such matters as were 'of Grace' were
directed to be dispatched by the Chancellor or by the Keeper
of the Privy Seal. This was a great step in the recognition of
the equitable jurisdiction of the Court of Chancery, as
distinct from the legal jurisdiction of the Chancellor and of
the Courts of Common Law; although it was not until the
following reign that it can be said to have been permanently
established."
_T. P. Taswell-Langmead,
English Constitutional History,
pages 173-174._
"The Lord Chancellor is a Privy Councillor by his office; a
Cabinet Minister; and, according to Lord Chancellor Ellesmere,
prolocutor [chairman, or Speaker] of the House of Lords by
prescription."
_A. C. Ewald,
The Crown and its Advisers,
lecture 2._
ALSO IN:
_E. Fischel,
The English Constitution,
book 5, chapter 7._
CHANCELLOR'S ROLLS.
See EXCHEQUER. EXCHEQUER ROLLS.
CHANCELLORSVILLE, Battles of.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1863 (APRIL-MAY: VIRGINIA).
CHANCERY.
See CHANCELLOR.
CHANDRAGUPTA, OR CANDRAGUPTA, The empire of.
See INDIA: B. C. 327-312, and 312.
CHANEERS, The.
See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: SIOUAN FAMILY.
CHANTILLY, Battle of.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1862
(AUGUST-SEPTEMBER: VIRGINIA).
CHANTRY PRIESTS.
"With the more wealthy and devout [in the 14th, 15th and 16th
centuries] it was the practice to erect little chapels, which
were either added to churches or enclosed by screens within
them, where chantry priests might celebrate mass for the good
of their souls in perpetuity. … Large sums of money were …
devoted to the maintenance of chantry priests, whose duty it
was to say mass for the repose of the testator's soul. … The
character and conduct of the chantry priests must have become
somewhat of a lax order in the 16th century."
_R. R. Sharpe,
Introduction to
"Calendar of Wills in the Court of Husting, London,"
volume 2, page viii._
CHAOUANONS, The.
See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: SHAWANESE.
CHAPAS, OR CHAPANECS, The.
See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: ZAPOTECS, &c.
CHAPULTEPEC, Battle of.
See MEXICO: A. D. 1847 (MARCH-SEPTEMBER).
CHARCAS, Las.
The Spanish province which now forms the Republic of Bolivia.
Also called, formerly, Upper Peru, and sometimes the province
of Potosi.
See ARGENTINE REPUBLIC: A. D. 1580-1777;
and BOLIVIA: A. D. 1825-1826.
CHARIBERT I.,
King of Aquitaine, A. D. 561-567.
Charibert II., King of Aquitaine, A. D. 628-631.
CHARITON RIVER, Battle of.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1862
(JULY-SEPTEMBER: MISSOURI-ARKANSAS).
CHARLEMAGNE'S EMPIRE.
See
FRANKS (CARLOVINGIAN EMPIRE): A. D. 768-814;
ROMAN EMPIRE: A. D. 800;
LOMBARDS: A. D. 754-774;
SAXONS: A. D. 772-804;
AVARS: 791-805;
and SPAIN: A. D. 778.
CHARLEMAGNE'S SCHOOL OF THE PALACE.
See SCHOOL OF THE PALACE.
CHARLEROI: A. D. 1667.
Taken by the French.
See NETHERLANDS (THE SPANISH PROVINCES): A. D. 1667.
CHARLEROI: A. D. 1668.
Ceded to France.
See NETHERLANDS (HOLLAND): A. D. 1668.
CHARLEROI: A. D. 1679.
Restored to Spain.
See NIMEGUEN, THE PEACE OF.
CHARLEROI: A. D. 1693.
Siege and capture by the French.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1693 (JULY).
CHARLEROI: A. D. 1697.
Restored to Spain.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1697.
CHARLEROI: A. D. 1713.
Ceded to Holland.
See UTRECHT: A. D. 1712-1714.
CHARLEROI: A. D. 1746-1748.
Taken by French and ceded to Austria.
See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1746-1747,
and AIX-LA-CHAPELLE, THE CONGRESS.
----------CHARLEROI: End----------
CHARLES
(called The Great—Charlemagne),
King of Neustria, A. D. 768;
of all the Franks, A. D. 771;
of Franks and Lombardy, 774;
Emperor of the West, 800-814.
Charles of Austria, Archduke, Campaigns of.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1796 (APRIL-OCTOBER);
1796-1797 (OCTOBER-APRIL);
1797 (APRIL-MAY);
1798-1799 (AUGUST-APRIL);
1799 (AUGUST-DECEMBER);
also GERMANY: 1809 (JANUARY-.JUNE), (JULY-SEPTEMBER).
Charles of Bourbon,
King of Naples or the Two Sicilies, 1734-1759.
Charles
(called The Bold), Duke of Burgundy, 1467-1477.
Charles I.,
King of England, 1625-1649.
Trial and execution.
See ENGLAND: A. D.1649 (JANUARY).
Charles I. (of Anjou),
King of Naples and Sicily, 1266-1282;
King of Naples, 1282-1285.
Charles I.,
King of Portugal, 1889-.
Charles II. (called The Bald),
Emperor, and King of Italy, A. D. 875-877;
King of Neustria and Burgundy, 840-877.
Charles II.,
King of England, 1660-1685.
(By a loyal fiction, supposed to have
reigned from 1649, when his father was beheaded;
though the throne was in Cromwell's possession).
Charles II., King of Naples, 1285-1309.
Charles II., King of Navarre, 1349-1387.
Charles II., King of Spain, 1665-1700.
Charles III. (called The Fat),
Emperor, King of the East Franks (Germany),
and King of Italy, A. D. 881-888;
King of the West Franks (France), 884-888.
Charles III. (called The Simple),
King of France, A. D. 892-929.
Charles III., King of Naples, 1381-1386.
Charles III., King of Navarre, 1387-1425.
Charles III., King of Spain, 1759-1788.
Charles IV.,
Emperor, and King of Italy, 1355-1378;
King of Bohemia, 1346-1378;
King of Germany, 1347-1378;
King of Burgundy, 1365-1378.
Charles IV.,
King of France, and of Navarre (Charles I.), 1322-1328.
Charles IV., King of Spain, 1788-1808.
Charles V.,
Emperor, 1519-1558;
Duke of Burgundy, 1506-1555;
King of Spain (as Charles I.) and of Naples,
or the Two Sicilies, 1516-1556.
See AUSTRIA: A. D. 1496-1526.
Charles V. (called The Wise), King of France, 1364-1380.
Charles VI.,
Germanic Emperor, and King of Hungary and Bohemia, 1711-1740.
Charles VI. (called The Well-loved), King of France, 1380-1422.
Charles VII. (of Bavaria) Germanic Emperor, 1742-1745.
Charles VII., King of France, 1422-1461.
{407}
Charles VIII., King of France, 1483-1498.
Charles IX., King of France, 1560-1574.
Charles IX., King of Sweden, 1604-1611.
Charles X., King of France
(the last of the House of Bourbon), 1824-1830.
Charles X., King of Sweden, 1654-1660.
Charles XI., King of Sweden, 1660-1697.
Charles XII., King of Sweden, 1697-1718.
Charles XIII., King of Sweden, 1809-1818.
Charles XIV. (Bernadotte), King of Sweden, 1818-1844.
Charles XV., King of Sweden, 1859-1872.
Charles Albert, Duke of Savoy and King of Sardinia, 1831-1849.
Charles Emanuel, Duke of Savoy, 1580-1630.
Charles Emanuel II., Duke of Savoy, 1638-1675.
Charles Emanuel III., Duke of Savoy and King of Sardinia, 1730-1773.
Charles Emanuel IV.,
Duke of Savoy
and King of Sardinia, 1796-1802.
Charles Felix,
Duke of Savoy
and King of Sardinia, 1821-1831.
Charles Martel,
Duke of Austrasia and Mayor of the Palace
(of the King of the Franks), A. D. 715-741.
Charles Robert, or Charobert, or Caribert,
King of Hungary, 1308-1342.
Charles Swerkerson,
King of Sweden, 1161-1167.
CHARLESTON, SOUTH CAROLINA: A. D. 1680.
The founding of the city.
See SOUTH CAROLINA: A. D. 1670-1696.
CHARLESTON, SOUTH CAROLINA: A. D. 1706.
Unsuccessful attack by the French.
See SOUTH CAROLINA: A. D. 1701-1706.
CHARLESTON, SOUTH CAROLINA: A. D. 1775-1776.
Revolutionary proceedings.
See SOUTH CAROLINA: A. D. 1775 and 1776.
CHARLESTON, SOUTH CAROLINA: A. D. 1776.
Sir Henry Clinton's attack and repulse.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1776 (JUNE).
CHARLESTON, SOUTH CAROLINA: A. D. 1780.
Siege by the British.
Surrender of the city.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1780 (FEBRUARY-AUGUST).
CHARLESTON, SOUTH CAROLINA: A. D. 1860.
The splitting of the National Democratic Convention.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1860 (APRIL-NOVEMBER).
CHARLESTON, SOUTH CAROLINA: A. D. 1860.
The adoption of the Ordinance of Secession.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1860
(NOVEMBER-DECEMBER).
CHARLESTON, SOUTH CAROLINA: A. D. 1860.
Major Anderson at Fort Sumter.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1860 (DECEMBER).
CHARLESTON, SOUTH CAROLINA: A. D. 1861 (April).
The Beginning of war.
Bombardment of Fort Sumter.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1861 (MARCH-APRIL).
CHARLESTON, SOUTH CAROLINA: A. D. 1863 (April).
The attack and repulse of the Monitor fleet.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1863 (APRIL: SOUTH
CAROLINA).
CHARLESTON, SOUTH CAROLINA: A. D. 1863 (July).
The Union troops on Morris Island.
Assault on Fort Wagner.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
A. D. 1863 (JULY: SOUTH CAROLINA).
CHARLESTON, SOUTH CAROLINA: A. D. 1863 (August-December).
Siege of Fort Wagner.
Bombardment of the city.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
A. D. 1863 (AUGUST-DECEMBER: SOUTH CAROLINA).
CHARLESTON, SOUTH CAROLINA: A. D. 1865 (February).
Evacuation by the Confederates.
Occupation by Federal troops.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
A. D. 1865 (FEBRUARY: SOUTH CAROLINA).
----------CHARLESTON, SOUTH CAROLINA: End----------
CHARLESTOWN, Massachusetts: A. D. 1623.
The first settlement.
See MASSACHUSETTS: A. D. 1629-1630.
CHARTER OAK, The.
See CONNECTICUT: A. D. 1685-1687.
CHARTER OF FORESTS.
See ENGLAND: A. D. 1216-1274.
CHARTERHOUSE, OR CHARTREUSE.
See CARTHUSIAN ORDER.
CHARTISTS.
CHARTISM.
See ENGLAND: A. D. 1838-1842 and 1848.
CHARTRES, Defeat of the Normans at.
The Norman, Rollo, investing the city of Chartres, sustained
there, on the 20th of July, A. D. 911, the most serious
defeat which he and his pirates ever suffered.
_Sir F. Palgrave,
History of Normandy and England,
book 1, chapter 5._
CHARTREUSE, La Grande.
See CARTHUSIAN ORDER.
CHASIDIM, OR CHASIDEES, OR ASSIDEANS, The.
A name, signifying the godly or pious, assumed by a party
among the Jews, in the second century B. C., who resisted the
Grecianizing tendencies of the time under the influence of the
Græco-Syrian domination, and who were the nucleus of the
Maccabean revolt. The later school of the Pharisees is
represented by Ewald (_History of Israel, book 5, section
2_) to have been the product of a narrowing transformation
of the school of the Chasidim; while the Essenes, in his view,
were a purer residue of the Chasidim "who strove after piety,
yet would not join the Pharisees"; who abandoned "society as
worldly and incurably corrupt," and in whom "the conscience of
the nation, as it were, withdrew into the wilderness."
_H. Ewald,
History of Israel,
book 5, section 2._
A modern sect, borrowing the name, founded by one Israel Baal
Schem, who first appeared in Podolia, in 1740, is said to
embrace most of the Jews in Galicia, Hungary, Southern Russia,
and Wallachia.
_H. C. Adams,
History of the Jews,
page 333._
ALSO IN:
_H. Graetz,
History of the Jews,
volume 5, chapter 9._
CHASUARII, The.
See FRANKS: ORIGIN, ETC.
CHÂTEAU CAMBRESIS, Treaty of (1559):
See FRANCE: A. D. 1547-1559.
CHÂTEAU GALLAIRD.
This was the name given to a famous castle, built by Richard
Cœur de Lion in Normandy, and designed to be the key to the
defences of that important duchy. "As a monument of warlike
skill, his 'Saucy Castle,' Château Gaillard, stands first
among the fortresses of the Middle Ages. Richard fixed its
site where the Seine bends suddenly at Gaillon in a great
semicircle to the north, and where the Valley of Les Andèlys
breaks the line of the chalk cliffs along its bank. The castle
formed part of an intrenched camp which Richard designed to
cover his Norman capital. … The easy reduction of Normandy
on the fall of Chateau Gaillard at a later time [when it was
taken by Philip Augustus, of France] proved Richard's
foresight."
_J. R. Green,
Short History of the English People,
chapter 2, section 9._
CHATEAU THIERRY, Battle of.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1814 (JANUARY-MARCH).
CHATEAUVIEUX, Fête to the soldiers of.
See LIBERTY CAP.
CHATHAM, Lord; Administration of.
See ENGLAND: A. D. 1757-1760; 1760-1763, and 1765-1768.
And the American Revolution.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1775 (JANUARY-MARCH).
CHATILLON, Battles of (1793).
See FRANCE: A. D. 1793 (JULY-DECEMBER).
CHATILLON-SUR-SEINE,
Congress of.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1814 (JANUARY-MARCH).
{408}
CHATTANOOGA:
The name.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
A. D. 1863 (AUGUST-SEPTEMBER: TENNESSEE).
CHATTANOOGA: A. D. 1862.
Secured by the Confederates.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
A. D. 1862 (JUNE-OCTOBER: TENNESSEE-KENTUCKY).
CHATTANOOGA: A. D. 1863 (August).
Evacuation by the Confederates.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
A. D. 1863 (AUGUST-SEPTEMBER: TENNESSEE).
CHATTANOOGA: A. D. 1863 (October-November).
The siege.
The battle on Lookout Mountain.
The assault of Missionary Ridge.
The Routing of Bragg's army.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
A. D. 1863 (OCTOBER-NOVEMBER: TENNESSEE).
----------CHATTANOOGA: End----------
CHATTI, OR CATTI, The.
"Beyond [the Mattiaci] are the Chatti, whose settlements begin
at the Hercynian forest, where the country is not so open and
marshy as in the other cantons into which Germany stretches.
They are found where there are hills, and with them grow less
frequent, for the Hercynian forest keeps close till it has
seen the last of its native Chatti. Hardy frames, close-knit
limbs, fierce countenances, and a peculiarly vigorous courage,
mark the tribe. For Germans, they have much intelligence and
sagacity. … Other tribes you see going to battle, the Chatti
to a campaign."
"The settlements of the Chatti, one of the chief German
tribes, apparently coincide with portions of Westphalia,
Nassau, Hesse-Darmstadt and Hesse-Cassel. Dr. Latham assumes
the Chatti of Tacitus to be the Suevi of Cæsar. The fact that
the name Chatti does not occur in Cæsar renders this
hypothesis by no means improbable."
_Tacitus,
Germany,
translated by Church and Brodribb,
and note._
See, also, SUEVI.
CHAUCER, and his times.
See ENGLAND: A. D. 1350-1400.
CHAUCI AND CHERUSCI, The.
"The tribe of the Chauci … beginning at the Frisian
settlements and occupying a part of the coast, stretches along
the frontier of all the tribes which I have enumerated, till
it reaches with a bend as far as the Chatti. This vast extent
of country is not merely possessed but densely peopled by the
Chauci, the noblest of the German races, a nation who would
maintain their greatness by righteous dealing. Without
ambition, without lawless violence, … the crowning proof of
their valour and their strength is, that they keep up their
superiority without harm to others. … Dwelling on one side
of the Chauci and Chatti, the Cherusci long cherished,
unassailed, an excessive and enervating love of peace. This
was more pleasant than safe, … and so the Cherusci, ever
reputed good and just, are now called cowards and fools, while
in the case of the victorious Chatti success has been
identified with prudence. The downfall of the Cherusci brought
with it also that of the Fosi, a neighbouring tribe."
"The settlements of the Chauci … must have included almost
the entire country between the Ems and the Weser—that is,
Oldenburg and part of Hanover—and have taken in portions of
Westphalia about Munster and Paderborn. The Cherusci …
appear to have occupied Brunswick and the south part of
Hanover. Arminius who destroyed the Roman army under Varus,
was a Cheruscan chief. … The Fosi … must have occupied
part of Hanover."
_Tacitus,
Minor Works,
translated by Church and Brodribb:
The Germany, with Geographical notes._
Bishop Stubbs conjectures that the Chauci, Cherusci, and some
other tribes may have been afterwards comprehended under the
general name "Saxon."
See SAXONS.
CHAZARS, The.
See KHAZARS.
CHEAT SUMMIT, Battle of.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
A. D. 1861 (AUGUST-DECEMBER: WEST VIRGINIA).
CHEBUCTO.
The original name of the harbor chosen for the site of the
city of Halifax.
See NOVA SCOTIA: A. D. 1749-1755, and
HALIFAX: A. D. 1749.
CHEIROTONIA.
A vote by show of hands, among the ancient Greeks.
_G. F. Schömann,
Antiquity of Greece: The State,
part 3, chapter 3._
CHEMI.
See EGYPT: ITS NAMES.
CHEMNITZ, Battle of (1639).
See GERMANY: A. D. 1634-1639.
CHERBOURG.
Destroyed by the English.
See ENGLAND: A. D. 1758 (JULY-AUGUST).
CHEROKEE WAR, The.
See SOUTH CAROLINA: A. D. 1759-1761.
CHEROKEES, The.
See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: CHEROKEES.
CHERRONESUS, The proposed State of.
See NORTHWEST TERRITORY OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1784.
CHERRY VALLEY, The massacre at.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1778 (JUNE-NOVEMBER)
CHERSON.
See BOSPHORUS: A. D. 565-574.
CHERSON: A. D. 988.
Taken by the Russians.
"A thousand years after the rest of the Greek nation was sunk
in irremediable slavery, Cherson remained free. Such a
phenomenon as the existence of manly feeling in one city, when
mankind everywhere else slept contented in a state of
political degradation, deserved attentive consideration. …
Cherson retained its position as an independent State until
the reign of Theophilus [Byzantine emperor A. D. 829-842], who
compelled it to receive a governor from Constantinople; but,
even under the Byzantine government, it continued to defend
its municipal institutions, and, instead of slavishly
soliciting the imperial favour, and adopting Byzantine
manners, it boasted of its constitution and self government.
But it gradually lost its former wealth and extensive trade,
and when Vladimir, the sovereign of Russia, attacked it in
988, it was betrayed into his hands by a priest, who informed
him how to cut off the water. … Vladimir obtained the hand
of Anne, the sister of the emperors Basil II. and Constantine
VIII., and was baptised and married in the church of the
Panaghia at Cherson. To soothe the vanity of the Empire, he
pretended to retain possession of his conquest as the dowry of
his wife. Many of the priests who converted the Russians to
Christianity, and many of the artists who adorned the earliest
Russian churches with paintings and mosaics, were natives of
Cherson."
_G. Finlay,
History of the Byzantine Empire from 716 to 1057._
CHERSONESE, The Golden.
See CHRYSE.
CHERSONESUS.
The Greek name for a peninsula, or "land-island," applied most
especially to the long tongue of land between the Hellespont
and the Gulf of Melas.
CHERUSCI, The.
See CHAUCI.
{409}
CHESAPEAKE AND SHANNON, The fight of the.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A.D. 1812-1813.
CHESS, Origin of the game of.
"If we wished to know, for instance, who has taught us the
game of chess, the name of chess would tell us better than
anything else that it came to the West from Persia. In spite
of all that has been written to the contrary, chess was
originally the game of Kings, the game of Shahs. This word
Shah became in Old French eschac, Italian scacco, German
Schach; while the Old French eschecs was further corrupted
into chess. The more original form chec has likewise been
preserved, though we little think of it when we draw a cheque,
or when we suffer a check, or when we speak of the Chancellor
of the Exchequer. The great object of the chess-player is to
protect the king, and when the king is in danger, the opponent
is obliged to say 'check,' i. e., Shah, the king. … After
this the various meanings of check, cheque, or exchequer
become easily intelligible, though it is quite true that if
similar changes of meaning, which in our case we can watch by
the light of history, had taken place in the dimness of
prehistoric ages, it would be difficult to convince the
sceptic that exchequer, or scaccarium, the name of the
chess-board was afterwards used for the checkered cloth on
which accounts were calculated by means of counters, and that
a checkered career was a life with many cross-lines."
_F. Max Müller,
Biography of Words,
chapter 4._
CHESTER, Origin of.
See DEVA.
CHESTER, The Palatine Earldom.
See PALATINE, THE ENGLISH COUNTIES;
also WALES, PRINCE OF.
CHESTER, Battle of.
One of the fiercest of the battles fought between the Welsh
and the Angles, A. D. 613. The latter were the victors.
CHEVY CHASE.
See OTTER BURN, BATTLE OF.
CHEYENNES, OR SHEYENNES, The.
See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: ALGONQUIAN FAMILY.
CHIAPAS: Ruins of ancient civilization in.
See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: MAYAS; and MEXICO, ANCIENT.
CHIARI, Battle Of(1701).
See ITALY (SAVOY AND PIEDMONT): A. D. 1701-1713.
CHIBCHAS, The.
See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: CHIBCHAS.
CHICAGO: A. D. 1812.
Evacuation of the Fort Dearborn Post, and massacre of most of
the retreating garrison.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1812 (JUNE-OCTOBER).
CHICAGO: A. D. 1860.
The Republican National Convention.
Nomination of Lincoln.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1860 (APRIL-NOVEMBER).
CHICAGO: A. D. 1871.
The great Fire.
"The greatest event in the history of Chicago was the Great
Fire, as it is termed, which broke out on the evening of Oct.
8, 1871. Chicago was at that time [except in the business
centre] a city of wood. For a long time prior to the evening
referred to there had been blowing a hot wind from the
southwest, which had dried everything to the inflammability of
tinder, and it was upon a mass of sun and wind-dried wooden
structures that the fire began its work. It is supposed to
have originated from the accidental upsetting of a kerosene
lamp in a cow barn [Mrs. O'Leary's] on De Koven Street, near
the corner of Jefferson, on the west side of the river. This
region was composed hugely of shanties, and the fire spread
rapidly, very soon crossing the river to the South Side, and
fastening on that portion of the city which contained nearly
all the leading business houses, and which was built up very
largely with stone and brick. But it seemed to enkindle as if
it were tinder. Some buildings were blown up with gunpowder,
which, in connection with the strong southwest gale, prevented
the extension of the flames to the south. The fire swept on
Monday steadily to the north, including everything from the
lake to the South Branch, and then crossed to the North Side,
and, taking in everything from the lake to the North Branch,
it burned northward for a distance of three miles, where it
died out at the city limits, when there was nothing more to
burn. In the midst of this broad area of devastation, on the
north side of Washington Square, between Clark Street and
Dearborn Avenue, the well-known Ogden house stands amid trees
of the ancient forest and surrounded by extensive grounds, the
solitary relic of that section of the city before the fiery
flood. The total area of the land burned over was 2,100 acres.
Nearly 20,000 buildings were consumed; 100,000 people were
rendered homeless; 200 lives were lost, and the grand total of
values destroyed is estimated at $200,000,000. Of this vast
sum, nearly one-half was covered by insurance, but under the
tremendous losses many of the insurance companies were forced
to the wall, and went into liquidation, and the victims of the
conflagration recovered only about one-fifth of their aggregate
losses. Among the buildings which were burned were the
court-house, custom-house and post office, chamber of
commerce, three railway depots, nine daily newspaper offices,
thirty-two hotels, ten theatres and halls, eight public
schools and some branch school buildings, forty-one churches,
five elevators, and all the national banks. If the Great Fire
was an event without parallel in its dimensions and the
magnitude of its dire results, the charity which followed it
was equally unrivalled in its extent. … All the civilized
world appeared to instantly appreciate the calamity. Food,
clothing, supplies of every kind, money, messages of
affection, sympathy, etc., began pouring in at once in a
stream that appeared endless and bottomless. In all, the
amount contributed reached over $7,000,000. … It was
believed by many that the fire had forever blotted out Chicago
from the list of great American cities, but the spirit of her
people was undaunted by calamity, and, encouraged by the
generous sympathy and help from all quarters, they set to work
at once to repair their almost ruined fortunes. … Rebuilding
was at once commenced, and, within a year after the fire, more
than $40,000,000 were expended in improvements. The city came
up from its ruins far more palatial, splendid, strong and
imperishable than before. In one sense the fire was a benefit.
Its consequence was a class of structures far better, in every
essential respect, than before the conflagration. Fire-proof
buildings became the rule, the limits of wood were carefully
restricted, and the value of the reconstructed portion
immeasurably exceeded that of the city which had been
destroyed."
_Marquis' Handbook of Chicago,
page 22._
{410}
"Thousands of people on the North Side fled far out on the
prairie, but other thousands, less fortunate, were
hemmed in before they could reach the country, and were driven
to the Sands, a group of beach-hillocks fronting on Lake
Michigan. These had been covered with rescued merchandise and
furniture. The flames fell fiercely upon the heaps of goods,
and the miserable refugees were driven into the black waves,
where they stood neck-deep in chilling water, scourged by
sheets of sparks and blowing sand. A great number of horses
had been collected here, and they too dashed into the sea,
where scores of them were drowned. Toward evening the Mayor
sent a fleet of tow-boats which took off the fugitives at the
Sands. When the next day [Tuesday, October 10] dawned, the
prairie was covered with the calcined ruins of more than
17,000 buildings. … This was the greatest and most
disastrous conflagration on record. The burning of Moscow, in
1812, caused a loss amounting to £30,000,000; but the loss at
Chicago was in excess of this amount. The Great Fire of
London, in 1006, devastated a tract of 430 acres, and
destroyed 13,000 buildings; but that of Chicago swept over
1,900 acres, and burned more than 17,000 buildings."
_M. F. Sweetser,
Chicago ("Cities of the World," volume 1)._
The following is the statement of area burned over, and of
property destroyed, made by the Chicago Relief and Aid
Society, and which is probably authoritative: "The total area
burned over in the city, including streets, was 2,124 acres,
or nearly three and one-third square miles. This area
contained about 73 miles of streets, 18,000 buildings, and the
homes of 100,000 people."
_A. T. Andreas,
History of Chicago,
volume 2, page 760._
ALSO IN:
_E. Colbert and E. Chamberlain,
Chicago and the Great Conflagration._
CHICAGO: A. D. 1886-1887.
The Haymarket Conspiracy.
Crime of the Anarchists.
Their trial and execution.
"In February, 1886, Messrs. McCormick, large
agricultural-machine makers of Chicago, refusing to yield to
the dictation of their workmen, who required them to discharge
some non-Union hands they had taken on, announced a
'lock-out,' and prepared to resume business as soon as
possible with a new staff. Spies, Lingg, and other German
Anarchists saw their opportunity. They persuaded the ousted
workmen to prevent the 'scabs,'—anglicé, 'blacklegs,'—from
entering the works on the day of their reopening. Revolvers,
rifles, and bombs were readily found, the latter being
entrusted principally to the hands of professional 'Reds.' The
most violent appeals were made to the members of Unions and
the populace generally; but though a succession of riots were
got up, they were easily quelled by the resolute action of the
police, backed by the approval of the immense majority of the
people of Chicago. Finally, a mass meeting in arms was called
to take place on May 4th, 1886, at 7.30 p.m., in the
Haymarket, a long and recently widened street of the town, for
the express purpose of denouncing the police. But the
intention of the Anarchists was not merely to denounce the
police: this was the pretext only. The prisons were to be
forced, the police-stations blown up, the public buildings
attacked, and the onslaught on property and capital to be
inaugurated by the devastation of one of the fairest cities of
the Union. By 8 p. m. a mob of some three or four thousand
persons had been collected, and were regaled by speeches that
became more violent as the night wore on. At 10 p. m. the
police appeared in force. The crowd were commanded to disperse
peaceably. A voice shouted: 'We are peaceable.' Captain
Schaack says this was a signal. The words were hardly uttered
when a spark flashed through the air. It looked like the
lighted remnant of a cigar, but hissed like a miniature
sky-rocket.' It was a bomb, and fell amid the ranks of the
police. A terrific explosion followed, and immediately
afterwards the mob opened fire upon the police. The latter,
stunned for a moment, soon recovered themselves, returned the
fire, charged the mob, and in a couple of minutes dispersed it
in every direction. But eight of their comrades lay dead upon
the pavement, and scores of others were weltering in their
blood around the spot. Such was the Chicago outrage of May
4th, 1886."
_The Spectator, April 19, 1890
(reviewing Shaack's "Anarchy and Anarchists")._
The Anarchists who were arrested and brought to trial for this
crime were eight in number,—August Spies, Michael Schwab,
Samuel Fielden, Albert H. Parsons, Adolph Fischer, George
Engel, Louis Lingg, and Oscar W. Neebe. The trial began July
14, 1886. The evidence closed on the 10th of August; the
argument of council consumed more than a week, and on the 20th
of August the jury brought in a verdict which condemned Neebe
to imprisonment for fifteen years, and all the other prisoners
to death. Lingg committed suicide in prison; the sentences of
Schwab and Fielding were commuted by the Governor to
imprisonment for life; the remaining four were hanged on the
11th of November, 1887.
_Judge Gary,
The Chicago Anarchists of 1886
(Century Magazine, April, 1893)._
ALSO IN:
_M. T. Schaack,
Anarchy and Anarchists._
CHICAGO: A. D. 1892-1893.
The World's Columbian Exposition.
"As a fitting mode of celebrating the four hundredth
anniversary of the landing of Columbus on Oct. 12, 1492, it
was proposed to have a universal exhibition in the United
States, The idea was first taken up by citizens of New York,
where subscriptions to the amount of $5,000,000 were obtained
from merchants and capitalists before application was made for
the sanction and support of the Federal Government. When the
matter came up in Congress the claims of Chicago were
considered superior, and a bill was passed and approved on
April 25, 1890, entitled 'An Act to provide for celebrating
the four hundredth anniversary of the discovery of America by
Christopher Columbus, by holding an international exhibition
of arts, industries, manufactures, and the products of the
soil, mine, and sea in the city of Chicago, in the State of
Illinois.' The act provided for the appointment of
commissioners who should organize the exposition. … When the
organization was completed and the stipulated financial
support from the citizens and municipality of Chicago assured,
President Harrison, on December 24, 1890, issued a proclamation
inviting all the nations of the earth to participate in the
World's Columbian Exposition. Since the time was too short to
have the grounds and buildings completed for the summer of
1892, as was originally intended, the opening of the
exposition was announced for May, 1893. When the work was
fairly begun it was accelerated, as many as 10,000 workmen
being employed at one time, in order to have the buildings
ready to be dedicated with imposing ceremonies on Oct. 12.
1892. in commemoration of the exact date of the discovery of
America."
_Appleton's Annual Cyclopædia, 1891,
page 837._
SEE ALSO
_C. D. Arnold and H. D. Higinbotham,
Official Views Of The World's Columbian Exposition
On May 1, 1893, the Fair was opened with appropriate
ceremonies by President Cleveland.
{411}
CHICASAS, The.
See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: MUSKHOGEAN FAMILY;
also, LOUISIANA: A. D. 1719-1750.
CHICHIMECS, The.
See MEXICO: A. D. 1325-1502.
CHICKAHOMINY,
Battles on the (Gaines' Mill, 1862; Cold Harbor, 1864).
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1862 (JUNE-JULY: VIRGINIA);
and 1864 (MAY-JUNE: VIRGINIA).
CHICKAMAUGA, Battle of.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
A. D. 1863 (AUGUST-SEPTEMBER: TENNESSEE).
CHICORA.
The name given to the region of South Carolina by its Spanish
discoverers.
See AMERICA: A. D. 1519-1525.
CHILDEBERT I.
King of the Franks, at Paris, A. D. 511-558.
Childebert II., King of the Franks (Austrasia), A. D. 575-596;
(Burgundy), 593-596.
Childebert III., King of the Franks
(Neustria and Burgundy), A. D. 695-711.
CHILDERIC II.,
King of the Franks (Austrasia), A. D. 660-673.
Childeric III., King of the Franks (Neustria), A. D. 742-752.
CHILDREN OF REBECCA.
See REBECCAITES.
CHILDREN'S CRUSADE, The.
See CRUSADES: A. D. 1212.
CHILE:
The Araucanians.
"The land of Chili, from 30° Ssouth latitude, was and is still
in part occupied by several tribes who speak the same
language. They form the fourth and most southern group of the
Andes people, and are called Araucanians. Like almost all
American tribal names, the term Araucanian is indefinite;
sometimes it is restricted to a single band, and sometimes so
extended as to embrace a group of tribes. Some regard them as
a separate family, calling them Chilians, while others, whom
we follow, regard them as the southern members of the Andes
group, and still others class them with the Pampas Indians.
The name Araucanian is an improper one, introduced by the
Spaniards, but it is so firmly fixed that it cannot be
changed. The native names are Moluche (warriors) and Alapuche
(natives). Originally they extended from Coquimbo to the
Chonos Archipelago and from ocean to ocean, and even now they
extend, though not very far, to the east of the Cordilleras.
They are divided into four (or, if we include the Picunche,
five) tribes, the names of which all end in 'tche' or 'che,'
the word for man. Other minor divisions exist. The entire
number of the Araucanians is computed at about 30,000 souls,
but it is decreasing by sickness as well as by vice. They are
owners of their land and have cattle in abundance, pay no
taxes, and even their labor in the construction of highways is
only light. They are warlike, brave, and still enjoy some of
the blessings of the Inca civilization; only the real, western
Araucanians in Chili have attained to a sedentary life. Long
before the arrival of the Spaniards the government of the
Araucanians offered a striking resemblance to the military
aristocracy of the old world. All the rest that has been
written of their high stage of culture has proved to be an
empty picture of fancy. They followed agriculture, built fixed
houses, and made at least an attempt at a form of government,
but they still remain, as a whole, cruel, plundering savages."
_The Standard Natural History
(J. S. Kingsley, editor),
volume 6, pages 232-234._
"The Araucanians inhabit the delightful region between the
Andes and the sea, and between the rivers Bio-bio and
Valdivia. They derive the appellation of Araucanians from the
province of Arauco. …. The political division of the
Araucanian state is regulated with much intelligence. It is
divided from north to south into four governments. … Each
government is divided into five provinces, and each province
into nine counties. The state consists of three orders of
nobility, each being subordinate to the other, and all having
their respective vassals. They are the Toquis, the
Apo-Ulmenes, and the Ulmenes. The Toquis, or governors, are
four in number. They are independent of each other, but
confederated for the public welfare. The Arch-Ulmenes govern
the provinces under their respective Toquis. The Ulmenes
govern the counties. The upper ranks, generally, are likewise
comprehended under the term Ulmenes."
_R. G. Watson,
Spanish and Portuguese South America,
volume 1, chapter 12._
ALSO IN:
_J. I. Molina,
Geographical, Natural and Civil History of Chili,
volume 2, book 2._
CHILE: A. D. 1450-1724.
The Spanish conquest.
The Araucanian War of Independence.
"In the year 1450 the Peruvian Inca, Yupanqui, desirous of
extending his dominions towards the south, stationed himself
with a powerful army at Atacama. Thence he dispatched a force
of 10,000 men to Chili, under the command of Chinchiruca, who,
overcoming almost incredible obstacles, marched through a
sandy desert as far as Copiapo, a distance of 80 leagues. The
Copiapins flew to arms, and prepared to resist this invasion.
But Chinchiruca, true to the policy which the Incas always
observed, stood upon the defensive, trusting to persuasion
rather than to force for the accomplishment of his designs.
… While he proffered peace, he warned them of the
consequences of resisting the 'Children of the Sun.'" After
wavering for a time, the Copiapins submitted themselves to the
rule of the Incas. "The adjoining province of Coquimbo was
easily subjugated, and steadily advancing, the Peruvians, some
six years after their first entering the country, firmly
established themselves in the valley of Chili, at a distance
of more than 200 leagues from the frontier of Atacama. The
'Children of the Sun' had met thus far with little resistance,
and, encouraged by success, they marched their victorious
armies against the Purumancians, a warlike people living
beyond the river Rapel." Here they were desperately resisted,
in a battle which lasted three days, and from which both
armies withdrew, undefeated and unvictorious. On learning this
result, the Inca Yupanqui ordered his generals to relinquish
all attempts at further conquest, and to "seek, by the
introduction of wise laws, and by instructing the people in
agriculture and the arts, to establish themselves more firmly
in the territory already acquired. To what extent the
Peruvians were successful in the endeavor to ingraft their
civilization, religion, and customs upon the Chilians, it is
at this distant day impossible to determine, since the
earliest historians differ widely on the subject.
{412}
Certain it is, that on the arrival of the Spaniards the Incas,
at least nominally, ruled the country, and received an annual
tribute of gold from the people. In the year 1535, after the
death of the unfortunate Inca Atahuallpa, Diego Almagro, fired
by the love of glory and the thirst for gold, yielded to the
solicitations of Francisco Pizarro, the conqueror of Peru, and
set out for the subjection of Chili, which, as yet, had not
been visited by any European. His army consisted of 570
Spaniards, well equipped, and 15,000 Peruvian auxiliaries.
Regardless of difficulties and dangers this impetuous soldier
selected the near route that lay along the summits of the
Andes, in preference to the more circuitous road passing
through the desert of Atacama. Upon the horrors of this march,
of which so thrilling an account is given by Prescott in the
'Conquest of Peru,' it is unnecessary for us to dwell; suffice
it to state that, on reaching Copiapo no less than one-fourth
of his Spanish troops, and two-thirds of his Indian
auxiliaries, had perished from the effects of cold, fatigue
and starvation. … Everywhere the Spaniards met with a
friendly reception from the natives, who regarded them as a
superior race of beings, and the after conquest of the country
would probably have been attended with no difficulty had a
conciliatory policy been adopted; but this naturally
inoffensive people, aroused by acts of the most barbarous
cruelty, soon flew to arms. Despite the opposition of the
natives, who were now rising in every direction to oppose his
march, Almagro kept on, overcoming every obstacle, until he
reached the river Cachapoal, the northern boundary of the
Purumancian territory." Here he met with so stubborn and
effective a resistance that he abandoned his expedition and
returned to Peru, where, soon after, he lost his life [see
PERU: A. D. 1533-1548] in a contest with the Pizarros.
"Pizarro, ever desirous of conquering Chili, in 1540
dispatched Pedro Valdivia for that purpose, with some 200
Spanish soldiers and a large body of Peruvians;" The invasion
of Valdivia was opposed from the moment he entered the
country; but he pushed on until he reached the river Mapoclio,
and "encamped upon the site of the present capital of Chili.
Valdivia, finding the location pleasant, and the surrounding
plain fertile, here founded a city on the 24th of February,
1541. To this first European settlement in Chili he gave the
name of Santiago, in honor of the patron saint of Spain. He
laid out the town in Spanish style; and as a place of refuge
in case of attack, erected a fort upon a steep rocky hill,
rising some 200 feet above the plain." The Mapochins soon
attacked the infant town, drove its people to the fort and
burned their settlement; but were finally repulsed with
dreadful slaughter. "On the arrival of a second army from
Peru, Valdivia, whose ambition had always been to conquer the
southern provinces of Chili, advanced into the country of the
Purumancians. Here history is probably defective, as we have
no account of any battles fought with these brave people. …
We simply learn that the Spanish leader eventually gained
their good-will, and established with them an alliance both
offensive and defensive. … In the following year (1546) the
Spanish forces crossed the river Maulé, the southern boundary
of the Purumancians, and advanced toward the Itata. While
encamped near the latter river, they were attacked at dead of
night by a body of Araucanians. So unexpected was the approach
of this new enemy, that many of the horses were captured, and
the army with difficulty escaped total destruction. After this
terrible defeat, Valdivia finding himself unable to proceed,
returned to Santiago." Soon afterwards he went to Peru for
reinforcements and was absent two years; but came back, at the
end of that time, with a large band of followers, and marched
to the South. "Reaching the bay of Talcahuano without having
met with any opposition, on the 5th of October, 1550, he
founded the city of Concepcion on a site at present known as
Penco." The Araucanians, advancing boldly upon the Spaniards
at Concepcion, were defeated in a furious battle which cost
the invaders many lives. Three years later, in December, 1553,
the Araucanians had their revenge, routing the Spaniards
utterly and pursuing them so furiously that only two of their
whole army escaped. Valdivia was among the prisoners taken and
was slain. Again and again, under the lead of a youthful hero,
Lautaro, and a vigorous toqui, or chief, named Caupolican, the
Araucanians assailed the invaders of their country with
success; but the latter increased in numbers and gained
ground, at last, for a time, building towns and extending
settlements in the Araucanian territory. The indomitable
people were not broken in spirit, however; and in 1598, by an
universal and simultaneous rising, they expelled the Spaniards
from almost every settlement they had made. "In 1602 … of
the numerous Spanish forts and settlements south of the
Bio-Bio, Nacimiento and Arauco only had not fallen. Valdivia
and Osorno were afterward rebuilt. About the same time a fort
was erected at Boroa. This fort was soon after abandoned.
Valdivia, Osorno, Nacimiento, and Arauco still remain. But of
all the 'cities of the plain' lying within the boundaries of
the haughty Araucanians, not one ever rose from its ashes;
their names exist only in history; and the sites where they
once flourished are now marked by ill-defined and grass-grown
ruins. From the period of their fall dates the independence of
the Araucanian nation; for though a hundred years more were
wasted in the vain attempt to reconquer the heroic people …
the Spaniards, weary of constant war, and disheartened by the
loss of so much blood and treasure, were finally compelled to
sue for peace; and in 1724 a treaty was ratified,
acknowledging their freedom, and establishing the limits of
their territory."
_E. H. Smith,
The Araucanians,
chapters 11-14._
ALSO IN:
_R. G. Watson,
Spanish and Portuguese South America,
volume 1, chapters 12-14._
_J. I. Molina;
Geographical, Natural and Civil History of Chili,
volume 2, books 1, 3-4._
CHILE: A. D. 1568.
The Audiencia established.
See AUDIENCIAS.
{413}
CHILE: A. D. 1810-1818.
The achievement of independence.
San Martin, the Liberator.
"Chili first threw off the Spanish yoke in September, 1810 [on
the pretext of fidelity to the Bourbon king dethroned by
Napoleon], but the national independence was not fully
established till April 1818. During the intermediate period,
the dissensions of the different parties; their disputes as to
the form of government and the law of election; with other
distracting causes, arising out of the ambition of turbulent
individuals, and the inexperience of the whole nation in
political affairs; so materially retarded the union of the
country, that the Spaniards, by sending expeditions from Peru,
were enabled, in 1814, to regain their lost authority in
Chili. Meanwhile the Government of Buenos Ayres, the
independence of which had been established in 1810 [see
ARGENTINE REPUBLIC: A. D. 1806-1820], naturally dreaded that
the Spaniards would not long be confined to the western side
of the Andes; but would speedily make a descent upon the
provinces of the River Plate, of which Buenos Ayres is the
capital. In order to guard against this formidable danger,
they bravely resolved themselves to become the invaders, and
by great exertions equipped an army of 4,000 men. The command
of this force was given to General Don José de San Martin, a
native of the town of Yapeyu in Paraguay; a man greatly
beloved by all ranks, and held in such high estimation by the
people, that to his personal exertions the formation of this
army is chiefly due. With these troops San Martin entered
Chili by a pass over the Andes heretofore deemed inaccessible,
and on the 12th of February, 1817, attacked and completely
defeated the royal army at Chacabuco. The Chilians, thus freed
from the immediate presence of the enemy, elected General
O'Higgins [see PERU: A. D. 1550-1816] as Director; and he, in
1818, offered the Chilians a constitution, and nominated five
senators to administer the affairs of the country. This
meritorious officer, an Irishman by descent, though born in
Chili, has ever since [1825] remained at the head of the
government. It was originally proposed to elect General San
Martin as Director; but this he steadily refused, proposing
his companion in arms, O'Higgins, in his stead. The remnant of
the Spanish army took refuge in Talcuhuana, a fortified
sea-port near Conception, on the southern frontier of Chili.
Vigorous measures were taken to reduce this place, but, in the
beginning of 1818, the Viceroy of Peru, by draining that
province of its best troops, sent off a body of 5,000 men
under General Osorio, who succeeded in joining the Spaniards
shut up in Talcuhuana. Thus reinforced, the Royal army,
amounting in all to 8,000, drove back the Chilians, marched on
the capital, and gained other considerable advantages;
particularly in a night attack at Talca, on the 19th of March
1818, where the Royalists almost entirely dispersed the
Patriot forces. San Martin, however, who, after the battle of
Chacabuco, had been named Commander-in-chief of the united
armies of Chili and Buenos Ayres," rallied his army and
equipped it anew so quickly that, "on the 5th of April, only
17 days after his defeat, he engaged, and, after an obstinate
and sanguinary conflict, completely routed the Spanish army on
the plains of Maypo. From that day Chili may date her complete
independence; for although a small portion of the Spanish
troops endeavoured to make a stand at Conception, they were
soon driven out and the country left in the free possession of
the Patriots. Having now time to breathe, the Chilian
Government, aided by that of Buenos Ayres, determined to
attack the Royalists in their turn, by sending an armament
against Peru [see PERU; A. D. 1820-1826]—a great and bold
measure, originating with San Martin."
_Captain B. Hall,
Extracts from a Journal,
volume 1, chapter 1._
ALSO IN:
_J. Miller,
Memoirs of General Miller,
chapters 4-7 (volume 1)._
_T. Sutcliffe,
Sixteen Years in Chili and Peru,
chapters 2-4._
_General B. Mitre,
The Emancipation of South America:
History of San Martin._
CHILE: A. D. 1820-1826.
Operations in Peru.
See PERU: A. D. 1820-1826.
CHILE: A. D. 1833-1884.
A successful oligarchy and its constitution.
The war with Peru and Bolivia.
"After the perfection of its national independence, the
Chilean government soon passed into the permanent control of
civilians, 'while the other governments of the west coast
remained prizes for military chieftains.' Its present
constitution was framed in 1833, and though it is only half a
century old 'it is the oldest written national constitution in
force in all the world except our own, unless the Magna Charta
of England be included in the category.' The political history
of Chile during the fifty years of its life has been that of a
well ordered commonwealth, but one of a most unusual and
interesting sort. Its government has never been forcibly
overthrown, and only one serious attempt at revolution has
been made. Chile is in name and in an important sense a
republic, and yet its government is an oligarchy. Suffrage is
restricted to those male citizens who are registered, who are
twenty-five years old if unmarried and twenty-one if married,
and who can read and write; and there is also a stringent
property qualification. The consequence is that the privilege
of voting is confined to an aristocracy: in 1876, the total
number of ballots thrown for president was only 46,114 in a
population of about two and a quarter millions. The president
of Chile has immense powers of nomination and appointment, and
when he is a man of vigorous will he tyrannically sways public
policy, and can almost always dictate the name of his
successor. The government has thus become practically vested
in a comparatively small number of leading Chilean families.
There is no such thing as 'public opinion' in the sense in
which we use the phrase, and the newspapers, though ably
conducted, do not attempt, as they do not desire, to change
the existing order of things. 'History,' says Mr. Browne,
'does not furnish an example of a more powerful political
"machine" under the title of republic; nor, I am bound to say,
one which has been more ably directed so far as concerns the
aggrandizement of the country, or more honestly administered
so far as concerns pecuniary corruption.' The population of
Chile doubled between 1843 and 1875; the quantity of land
brought under tillage was quadrupled; … more than 1,000
miles of railroad were built; a foreign export trade of
$31,695,039 was reported in 1878; and two powerful iron-clads,
which were destined to playa most important part in Chilean
affairs, were built in England. Meanwhile, the constitution
was officially interpreted so as to guarantee religious
toleration, and the political power of the Roman Catholic
priesthood diminished. Almost everything good, except home
manufactures and popular education, flourished. The
development of the nation in these years was on a wonderful
scale for a South American state, and the contrast between
Chile and Peru was peculiarly striking. … Early in 1879
began the great series of events which were to make the
fortune of Chile. We use the word 'great,' in its low,
superficial sense, and without the attribution of any moral
significance to the adjective.
{414}
The aggressor in the war between Chile and Peru was inspired
by the most purely selfish motives, and it remains to be seen
whether the just gods will not win in the long run, even
though the game of their antagonists be played with heavily
plated iron-clads. … At the date last mentioned Chile was
suffering, like many other nations, from a general depression
in business pursuits. Its people were in no serious trouble,
but as a government it was in a bad way. … The means to keep
up a sinking fund for the foreign debt had failed, and the
Chilean five per cents were quoted in London at sixty-four. 'A
political cloud also was darkening again in the north, in the
renewal of something like a confederation between Peru and
Bolivia.' In this state of things the governing oligarchy of
Chile decided, rather suddenly, Mr. Browne thinks, upon a
scheme which was sure to result either in splendid prosperity
or absolute ruin, and which contemplated nothing less than a
war of conquest against Peru and Bolivia, with a view to
seizing the most valuable territory of the former country.
There is a certain strip of land bordering upon the Pacific
and about 400 miles long, of which the northern three quarters
belonged to Peru and Bolivia, the remaining one quarter to
Chile. Upon this land a heavy rain never falls, and often
years pass in which the soil does not feel a shower. … Its
money value is immense. 'From this region the world derives
almost its whole supply of nitrates—chiefly saltpetre—and
of iodine;' its mountains, also, are rich in metals, and great
deposits of guano are found in the highlands bordering the
sea. The nitrate-bearing country is a plain, from fifty to
eighty miles wide, the nitrate lying in layers just below a
thin sheet of impacted stones, gravel, and sand. The export of
saltpetre from this region was valued in 1882 at nearly
$30,000,000, and the worth of the Peruvian section, which is
much the largest and most productive, is estimated, for
government purposes, at a capital of $600,000,000. Chile was,
naturally, well aware of the wealth which lay so close to her
own doors, and to possess herself thereof, and thus to
rehabilitate her national fortunes, she addressed herself to
war. The occasion for war was easily found. Bolivia was first
attacked, a difficulty which arose at her port of Antofagasta,
with respect to her enforcement of a tax upon some nitrate
works carried on by a Chilean company, affording a good
pretext; and when Peru attempted intervention her envoy was
confronted with Chile's knowledge of a secret treaty between
Peru and Bolivia, and war was formally declared by Chile upon
Peru, April 5, 1879. This war lasted, with some breathing
spaces, for almost exactly five years. At the outset the two
belligerent powers—Bolivia being soon practically out of the
contest—seemed to be about equal in ships, soldiers, and
resources; but the supremacy which Chile soon gained upon the
seas substantially determined the war in her favor. Each
nation owned two powerful iron-clads, and six months were
employed in settling the question of naval superiority. … On
the 21st of May, 1879, the Peruvian fleet attacked and almost
destroyed the Chilean wooden frigates which were blockading
Iquique; but in chasing a Chilean corvette the larger Peruvian
iron-clad—the Independencia—ran too near the shore, and was
fatally wrecked. 'So Peru lost one of her knights. The game
she played with the other—the Huascar—was admirable, but a
losing one;' and on the 8th of October of the same year the
Huascar was attacked by the Chilean fleet, which included two
iron-clads, and was finally captured' after a desperate
resistance.'… From this moment the Peruvian coast was at
Chile's mercy: the Chilean arms prevailed in every pitched
battle, at San Francisco [November 16, 1879], at Tacna [May
26, 1880], at Arica [June 7, 1880]; and finally, on the 17th
of January, 1881, after a series of actions which resembled in
some of their details the engagements that preceded our
capture of the city of Mexico [ending in what is known as the
Battle of Miraflores], the victorious army of Chile took
possession of Lima, the capital of Peru. … The results of
the war have thus far exceeded the wildest hopes of Chile. She
has taken absolute possession of the whole nitrate region, has
cut Bolivia off from the sea, and achieved the permanent
dissolution of the Peru-Bolivian confederation. As a
consequence, her foreign trade has doubled, the revenue of her
government has been trebled, and the public debt greatly
reduced. The Chilean bonds, which were sold at 64 in London in
January, 1879, and fell to 60 in March of that year, at the
announcement of the war, were quoted at 95 in January, 1884."
_The Growing Power of the Republic of Chile
(Atlantic Monthly, July, 1884)._
ALSO IN:
_H. Birkedal,
The late War in South America
(Overland Monthly, January, February, and March, 1884)._
_C. R. Markham,
The War between Peru and Chile._
_R. N. Boyd,
Chile,
chapters 16-17._
_Message of the President of the United States,
transmitting Papers relating to the War in South America,
January 26, 1882._
_T. W. Knox,
Decisive Battles since Waterloo;
chapter 23._
See, also, PERU: A. D. 1826-1876.
CHILE: A. D. 1885-1891.
The presidency and dictatorship of Balmaceda.
His conflict with the Congress.
Civil war.
"Save in the one struggle in which the parties resorted to
arms, the political development of Chili was free from civil
disturbances, and the ruling class was distinguished among the
Spanish-American nations not only for wealth and education,
but for its talent for government and love of constitutional
liberty. The republic was called 'the England of South
America,' and it was a common boast that in Chili a
pronunciamiento or a revolution was impossible. The spirit of
modern Liberalism became more prevalent, … As the Liberal
party became all-powerful it split into factions, divided by
questions of principle and by struggles for leadership and
office. … The patronage of the Chilian President is
enormous, embracing not only the general civil service, but
local officials, except in the municipalities, and all
appointments in the army and navy and in the telegraph and
railroad services and the giving out of contracts. The
President has always been able to select his successor, and
has exercised this power, usually in harmony with the wishes
of influential statesmen, sometimes calling a conference of
party chiefs to decide on a candidate. In the course of time
the more advanced wing of the Liberals grew more numerous than
the Moderates. The most radical section had its nucleus in a
Reform Club in Santiago, composed of young university men, of
whom Balmaceda was the finest orator. Entering Congress in
1868, he took a leading part in debates. …
{415}
In 1885 he was the most popular man in the country; but his
claim to the presidential succession was contested by various
other aspirants—older politicians and leaders of factions
striving for supremacy in Congress. He was elected by an
overwhelming majority, and as President enjoyed an unexampled
degree of popularity. For two or three years the politicians
who had been his party associates worked in harmony with his
ideas. … At the flood of the democratic tide he was the most
popular man in South America. But when the old territorial
families saw the seats in Congress and the posts in the civil
service that had been their prerogative filled by new men, and
fortunes made by upstarts where all chances had been at their
disposal, then a reaction set in, corruption was scented, and
Moderate Liberals, joining hands with the Nationalists and the
reviving Conservative party, formed an opposition of
respectable strength. In the earlier part of his
administration Balmaceda had the co-operation of the
Nationalists, who were represented in the Cabinet. In the last
two years of his term, when the time drew near for selecting
his successor, defection and revolt and the rivalries of
aspirants for the succession threw the party into disorder and
angered its hitherto unquestioned leader. … In January,
1890, the Opposition were strong enough to place their
candidate in the chair when the House of Representatives
organized. The ministry resigned, and a conflict between the
Executive and legislative branches of the Government was
openly begun when the President appointed a Cabinet of his own
selection. … This ministry had to face an overwhelming
majority against the President, which treated him as a
dictator and began to pass hostile laws and resolutions that
were vetoed, and refused to consider the measures that he
recommended. The ministers were cited before the Chambers and
questioned about the manner of their appointment. They either
declined to answer, or answered in a way that increased the
animosity of Congress, which finally passed a vote of censure,
in obedience to which, as was usual, the Cabinet resigned.
Then Balmaceda appointed a ministry in open defiance of
Congress, with Sanfuentes at its head, the man who was already
spoken of as his selected candidate for the presidency. He
prepared for the struggle that he invited by removing the
chiefs of the administration of the departments and replacing
them with men devoted to himself and his policy, and making
changes in the police, the militia, and, to some extent, in
the army and navy commands. The press denounced him as a
dictator, and indignation meetings were held in every town.
Balmaceda and his supporters pretended to be not only the
champions of the people against the aristocracy, but of the
principle of Chili for the Chilians."
_Appleton's Annual Cyclop., 1891,
pages 123-124._
"The conflict between President Balmaceda and Congress ripened
into revolution. On January 1, 1891, the Opposition members of
the Senate and House of Deputies met, and signed an Act
declaring that the President was unworthy of his post, and
that he was no longer head of the State nor President of the
Republic, as he had violated the Constitution. On January 7
the navy declared in favour of the Legislature, and against
Balmaceda. The President denounced the navy as traitors,
abolished all the laws of the country, declared himself
Dictator, and proclaimed martial law. It was a reign of
terror. The Opposition recruited an army in the Island of
Santa Maria under General Urrutia and Commander Canto. On
February 14 a severe fight took place with the Government
troops in Iquique, and the Congressional army took possession
of Pisagua. In April, President Balmaceda … delivered a long
message, denouncing the navy. … The contest continued, and
April 7, Arica, in the province of Tarapaca, was taken by the
revolutionists. Some naval fights occurred later, and the
iron-clad Blanco Encalada was blown up by the Dictator's
torpedo cruisers. Finally, on August 21, General Canto landed
at Concon, ten miles north of Valparaiso. Balmaceda's forces
attacked immediately and were routed, losing 3,500 killed and
wounded. The Congress army lost 600. On the 28th a decisive
battle was fought at Placilla, near Valparaiso. The Dictator
had 12,000 troops, and the opposing army 10,000. Balmaceda's
forces were completely routed after five hours' hard fighting,
with a loss of 1,500 men. Santiago formally surrendered, and
the triumph of the Congress party was complete. A Junta,
headed by Señor Jorge Montt, took charge of affairs at
Valparaiso August 30. Balmaceda, who had taken refuge at the
Argentine Legation in Santiago, was not able to make his
escape, and to avoid capture, trial, and punishment, committed
suicide, September 20, by shooting himself. On the 19th
November Admiral Jorge Montt was chosen by the Electoral
College, at Santiago, President of Chili, and on December 26
he was installed with great ceremony and general rejoicings."
_Annual Register, 1891,
page 420._
CHILIARCHS.
Captains of thousands, in the army of the Vandals.
_T. Hodgkin,
Italy and her Invaders,
book 3, chapter 2._
CHILLIANWALLAH, Battle of (1849).
See INDIA: A. D. 1845-1849.
CHILPERIC I.
King of the Franks (Neustria), A. D. 561-584.
Chilperic II., King of the Franks, A. D. 715-720.
CHILTERN HUNDREDS,
Applying for the Stewardship of the.
A seat in the British House of Commons "cannot be resigned,
nor can a man who has once formally taken his seat for one
constituency throw it up and contest another. Either a
disqualification must be incurred, or the House must declare
the seat vacant." The necessary disqualification can be
incurred by accepting an office of profit under the
Crown,—within certain official categories. "Certain old
offices of nominal value in the gift of the Treasury are now
granted, as of course, to members who wish to resign their
seats in order to be quit of Parliamentary duties or to
contest another constituency. These offices are the
Stewardship of the Chiltern Hundreds [Crown property in
Buckinghamshire], of the manors of East Hendred, Northstead,
or Hempholme, and the escheatorship of Munster. The office is
resigned as soon as it has operated to vacate the seat and
sever the tie between the member and his constituents."
_Sir W. R. Anson,
Law and Custom of the Const.,
volume 1, page 84._
CHIMAKUAN FAMILY, The.
See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: CHIMAKUAN FAMILY.
CHIMARIKAN FAMILY, The.
See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: CHIMARIKAN FAMILY.
{416}
CHINA:
The names of the Country.
"That spacious seat of ancient civilization which we call
China has loomed always so large to western eyes, … that, at
eras far apart, we find it to have been distinguished by
different appellations according as it was regarded as the
terminus of a southern sea-route coasting the great peninsulas
and islands of Asia, or as that of a northern land route
traversing the longitude of that continent. In the former
aspect the name applied has nearly always been some form of
the name Sin, Chin, Sinæ, China. In the latter point of view
the region in question was known to the ancients as the land
of the Seres; the middle ages as the Empire of Cathay. The
name of China has been supposed, like many another word and
name connected with trade and geography of the far east, to
have come to us through the Malays, and to have been applied
by them to the great eastern monarchy from the style of the
dynasty of Thsin, which a little more than two centuries
before our era enjoyed a brief but very vigorous existence.
… There are reasons however for believing that the name of
China must have been bestowed at a much earlier date, for it
occurs in the laws of Manu, which assert the Chinas to have
been degenerate Kshatryas, and in the Mahabharat, compositions
many centuries older than the imperial dynasty of Thsin. …
This name may have yet possibly been connected with the Thsin,
or some monarchy of like dynastic title; for that dynasty had
reigned locally in Shensi from the 9th century before our era;
and when, at a still earlier date, the empire was partitioned
into many small kingdoms, we find among them the dynasties of
the Tcin and the Ching. … Some at least of the circumstances
which have been collected … render it the less improbable that
the Sinim of the prophet Isaiah … should be truly
interpreted as indicating the Chinese. The name of China in
this form was late in reaching the Greeks and Romans, and to
them it probably came through people of Arabian speech, as the
Arabs, being without the sound of 'ch,' made the China of the
Hindus and Malays into Sin, and perhaps sometimes into Thin.
Hence the Thin of the author of the Periplus of the Erythraean
Sea, who appears to be the first extant author to employ the
name in this form; hence also the Sinæ and Thinæ of Ptolemy.
… If we now turn to the Seres we find this name mentioned
by classic authors much more frequently and at an earlier date
by at least a century. The name is familiar enough to the
Latin poets of the Augustan age, but always in a vague way.
… The name of Seres is probably from its earliest use in the
west identified with the name of the silkworm and its produce,
and this association continued until the name ceased entirely
to be used as a geographical expression. … It was in the
days of the Mongols … that China first became really known
to Europe, and that by a name which, though especially applied
to the northern provinces, also came to bear a more general
application, Cathay. This name, Khitai, is that by which China
is styled to this day by all, or nearly all, the nations which
know it from an inland point of view, including the Russians,
the Persians, and the nations of Turkestan; and yet it
originally belonged to a people who were not Chinese at all.
The Khitans were a people of Manchu race, who inhabited for
centuries a country to the north-east of China." During a
period between the 10th and 12th centuries, the Khitans
acquired supremacy over their neighbours and established an
empire which embraced Northern China and the adjoining regions
of Tartary. "It must have been during this period, ending with
the overthrow of the dynasty [called the Leao or Iron Dynasty]
in 1123, and whilst this northern monarchy was the face which
the Celestial Empire turned to Inner Asia, that the name of
Khitan, Khitat, or Khitaï, became indissolubly associated with
China."
_H. Yule,
Cathay and the Way Thither: Preliminary Essay._
CHINA:
The Origin of the People and their early History.
"The origin of the Chinese race is shrouded in some obscurity.
The first records we have of them represent them as a band of
immigrants settling in the north-eastern provinces of the
modern empire of China, and fight their way amongst the
aborigines, much as the Jews of old forced their way into
Canaan against the various tribes which they found in
possession of the land. It is probable that though they all
entered China by the same route, they separated into bands
almost on the threshold of the empire, one body, those who
have left us the records of their history in the ancient
Chinese books, apparently followed the course of the Yellow
River, and, turning south-ward with it from its northernmost
bend, settled themselves in the fertile districts of the
modern provinces of Shansi and Honan. But as we find also that
at about the same period a large settlement was made as far
south as Annam, of which there is no mention in the books of
the northern Chinese, we must assume that another body struck
directly southward through the southern provinces of China to
that country. The question then arises, where did these people
come from? and the answer which recent research [see BABYLONIA
PRIMITIVE] gives to this question is, from the south of the
Caspian Sea. … In all probability, the outbreak in Susiana
of, possibly, some political disturbance, in about the 24th or
23rd century B. C., drove the Chinese from the land of their
adoption, and that they wandered eastward until they finally
settled in China and the countries south of it. … It would
appear also that the Chinese came into China possessed of the
resources of Western Asian culture. They brought with them a
knowledge of writing and astronomy, as well as of the arts
which primarily minister to the wants and comfort of mankind.
The invention of these civilising influences is traditionally
attributed to the Emperor Hwang-te, who is said to have
reigned from B. C. 2697-2597. But the name of this sovereign
leads us to suppose that he never sat on the throne in China.
One of his names, we are told, was Nai, anciently Nak, and in
the Chinese paleographical collection he is described by a
character composed of a group of phonetics which read
Nak-kon-ti. The resemblance between this name and that of
Nak-hunte, who, according to the Susian texts, was the chief
of the gods, is sufficiently striking, and many of the
attributes belonging to him are such as to place him on an
equality with the Susian deity.
{417}
In exact accordance also with the system of Babylonian
chronology he established a cycle of twelve years, and fixed
the length of the year at 360 days composed of twelve months,
with an intercalary month to balance the surplus time. He
further, we are told, built a Ling tai, or observatory,
reminding us of the Babylonian Zigguratu, or house of
observation, 'from which to watch the movements of the
heavenly bodies.' The primitive Chinese, like the Babylonians,
recognised five planets besides the sun and moon, and, with
one exception, knew them by the same names. … The various
phases of these planets were carefully watched, and portents
were derived from every real and imaginary change in their
relative positions and colours. A comparison between the
astrological tablets translated by Professor Sayce and the
astrological chapter (27th) in the She ke, the earliest of the
Dynastic Histories, shows a remarkable parallelism, not only
in the general style of the forecasts, but in particular
portents which are so contrary to Chinese prejudices, as a
nation, and the train of thought of the people that they would
be at once put down as of foreign origin, even if they were
not found in the Babylonian records. … In the reign of Chwan
Hu (2513-2435 B. C.), we find according to the Chinese
records, that the year, as among the Chaldeans, began with the
third month of the solar year, and a comparison between the
ancient names of the months given in the Urh ya, the oldest
Chinese dictionary, with the Accadian equivalents, shows, in
some instances, an exact identity. … These parallelisms,
together with a host of others which might be produced, all
point to the existence of an early relationship between
Chinese and Mesopotamian culture; and, armed with the
advantages thus possessed, the Chinese entered into the empire
over which they were ultimately to overspread themselves. But
they came among tribes who, though somewhat inferior to them
in general civilisation, were by no means destitute of
culture. … Among such people, and others of a lower
civilisation, such as the Jungs of the west and the Teks, the
ancestors of the Tekke Turcomans, in the north, the Chinese
succeeded in establishing themselves. The Emperor Yaou
(2356-2255 B. C.) divided his kingdom into twelve portions,
presided over by as many Pastors, in exact imitation of the
duodenary feudal system of Susa with their twelve Pastor
Princes. To Yaou succeeded Shun, who carried on the work of
his predecessor of consolidating the Chinese power with energy
and success. In his reign the first mention is made of
religious worship. … In Shun's reign occurred the great
flood which inundated most of the provinces of the existing
empire. The waters, we are told, rose to so great a height,
that the people had to betake themselves to the mountains to
escape death. The disaster arose, as many similar disasters,
though of a less magnitude, have since arisen, in consequence
of the Yellow River bursting its bounds, and the 'Great Yu'
was appointed to lead the waters back to their channel. With
unremitting energy he set about his task, and in nine years
succeeded in bringing the river under control. … As a reward
for the services he had rendered to the empire, he was
invested with the principality of Hea, and after having
occupied the throne conjointly with Shun for some years, he
succeeded that sovereign on his death, in 2208 B. C. With Yu
began the dynasty of Hea, which gave place, in 1766 B. C., to
the Shang Dynasty. The last sovereign of the Hea line, Kieh
kwei, is said to have been a monster of iniquity, and to have
suffered the just punishment for his crimes at the hands of
T'ang, the prince of the State of Shang, who took his throne
from him. In like manner, 640 years later, Woo Wang, the
prince of Chow, overthrew Chow Sin, the last of the Shang
Dynasty, and established himself as the chief of the sovereign
state of the empire. By empire it must not be supposed that
the empire, as it exists at present, is meant. The China of
the Chow Dynasty lay between the 33rd and 38th parallels of
latitude, and the 106th and 119th of longitude only, and
extended over no more than portions of the provinces of Pih
chih-li, Shanse, Shense, Honan, Keang-se, and Shan-tung. This
territory was re-arranged by Woo Wang into the nine
principalities established by Yu. … Woo is held up in
Chinese history as one of the model monarchs of antiquity. …
Under the next ruler, K'ang (B. C. 1078-1053), the empire was
consolidated, and the feudal princes one and all acknowledged
their allegiance to the ruling house of Chow. … From all
accounts there speedily occurred a marked degeneracy in the
characters of the Chow kings. … Already a spirit of
lawlessness was spreading far and wide among the princes and
nobles, and wars and rumours of wars were creating misery and
unrest throughout the country. … The hand of every man was
against his neighbour, and a constant state of internecine war
succeeded the peace and prosperity which had existed under the
rule of Woo-wang. … As time went on and the disorder
increased, supernatural signs added their testimony to the
impending crisis. The brazen vessels upon which Yu had
engraved the nine divisions of the empire were observed to
shake and totter as though foreshadowing the approaching
change in the political position. Meanwhile Ts'in on the
northwest, Ts'oo on the south, and Tsin on the north, having
vanquished all the other states, engaged in the final struggle
for the mastery over the confederate principalities. The
ultimate victory rested with the state of Ts'in, and in 255 B.
C., Chaou-seang Wang became the acknowledged ruler over the
'black-haired' people. Only four years were given him to reign
supreme, and at the end of that time he was succeeded by his
son, Heaou-wan Wang, who died almost immediately on ascending
the throne. To him succeeded Chwang-seang Wang, who was
followed in 246 B. C. by Che Hwang-te, the first Emperor of
China. The abolition of feudalism, which was the first act of
Che Hwang-to raised much discontent among those to whom the
feudal system had brought power and emoluments, and the
countenance which had been given to the system by Confucius
and Mencius made it desirable—so thought the emperor—to
demolish once for all their testimony in favour of that
condition of affairs, which he had decreed should be among the
things of the past. With this object he ordered that the whole
existing literature, with the exception of books on medicine,
agriculture, and divination should be burned. The decree was
obeyed as faithfully as was possible in the case of so
sweeping an ordinance, and for many years a night of ignorance
rested on the country. The construction of one gigantic
work—the Great Wall of China—has made the name of this
monarch as famous as the destruction of the books has made it
infamous.
{418}
Finding the Heung-nu Tartars were making dangerous inroads
into the empire, he determined with characteristic
thoroughness to build a huge barrier which should protect the
northern frontier of the empire through all time. In 214 B. C.
the work was begun under his personal supervision, and though
every endeavor was made to hasten its completion he died (209)
leaving it unfinished. His death was the signal for an
outbreak among the dispossessed feudal princes, who, however,
after some years of disorder, were again reduced to the rank
of citizens by a successful leader, who adopted the title of
Kaou-te, and named his dynasty that of Han (206). From that
day to this, with occasional interregnums, the empire has been
ruled on the lines laid down by Che Hwang-te. Dynasty has
succeeded dynasty, but the political tradition has remained
unchanged, and though Mongols and Manchoos have at different
times wrested the throne from its legitimate heirs, they have
been engulfed in the homogeneous mass inhabiting the empire,
and instead of impressing their seal on the country have
become but the reflection of the vanquished. The dynasties
from the beginning of the earlier Han, founded, as stated
above, by Kaou-te, are as follows:
The earlier Han Dynasty B. C. 206-A. D. 25;
the late Han A. D. 25-220;
the Wei 220-280;
the western Tsin 265-317;
the eastern Tsin 317-420;
the Sung 420-479;
the Ts'e 479-502;
the Leang 502-557;
the Ch'in 557-589.
Simultaneously with these—
the northern Wei A. D. 386-534;
the western Wei 535-557;
the eastern Wei 534-550;
the northern Ts'e 550-577;
the northern Chow 557-589.
The Suy 589-618;
the T'ang 618-907;
the later Leang 907-923;
the later T'ang 923-936;
the later Tsin 936-947;
the later Han 947-951;
the later Chow 951-960,
the Sung 960-1127;
the southern Sung 1127-1280;
the Yuen 1280-1368;
the Ming 1368-1614;
the Ts'ing 1644.
Simultaneously with some of these—
the Leaou 907-1125;
the western Leaou 1125-1168;
the Kin 1115-1280.
_R. K. Douglas,
China,
chapter 1._
ALSO IN
_D.C. Boulger,
History of China,
volumes 1-2._
CHINA:
The Religions of the People.
Confucianism.
Taouism.
Buddhism.
"The Chinese describe themselves as possessing three
religions, or more accurately, three sects, namely Joo keaou,
the sect of Scholars; Fuh keaou, the sect of Buddha; and Taou
keaou, the sect of Taou. Both as regards age and origin, the
sect of Scholars, or, as it is generally called, Confucianism,
represents pre-eminently the religion of China. It has its root
in the worship of Shang-te, a deity which is associated with
the earliest traditions of the Chinese race. Hwang-te (2697 B.
C.) erected a temple to his honour, and succeeding emperors
worshipped before his shrine. … During the troublous times
which followed after the reign of the few first sovereigns of
the Chow Dynasty, the belief in a personal deity grew
indistinct and dim, until, when Confucius [born B. C. 551]
began his career, there appeared nothing strange in his
atheistic doctrines. He never in any way denied the existence
of Shang-te, but he ignored him. His concern was with man as a
member of society, and the object of his teaching was to lead
him into those paths of rectitude which might best contribute
to his own happiness, and to the well-being of that community
of which he formed part. Man, he held, was born good, and was
endowed with qualities which, when cultivated and improved by
watchfulness and self-restraint, might enable him to acquire
godlike wisdom and to become 'the equal of Heaven.' He divided
mankind into four classes, viz., those who are born with the
possession of knowledge; those who learn, and so readily get
possession of knowledge; those who are dull and stupid, and
yet succeed in learning; and, lastly, those who are dull and
stupid, and yet do not learn. To all these, except those of
the last class, the path to the climax reached by the 'Sage'
is open. Man has only to watch, listen to, understand, and
obey the moral sense implanted in him by Heaven, and the
highest perfection is within his reach. … In this system
there is no place for a personal God. The impersonal Heaven,
according to Confucius, implants a pure nature in every being
at his birth, but, having done this, there is no further
supernatural interference with the thoughts and deeds of men.
It is in the power of each one to perfect his nature, and
there is no divine influence to restrain those who take the
downward course. Man has his destiny in his own hands, to make
or to mar. Neither had Confucius any inducement to offer to
encourage men in the practice of virtue, except virtue's self.
He was a matter-of-fact, unimaginative man, who was quite
content to occupy himself with the study of his fellow-men,
and was disinclined to grope into the future or to peer
upwards. No wonder that his system, as he enunciated it,
proved a failure. Eagerly he sought in the execution of his
official duties to effect the regeneration of the empire, but
beyond the circle of his personal disciples he found few
followers, and as soon as princes and statesmen had satisfied
their curiosity about him they turned their backs on his
precepts and would [have] none of his reproofs. Succeeding
ages, recognising the loftiness of his aims, eliminated all
that was impracticable and unreal in his system, and held fast
to that part of it that was true and good. They were content
to accept the logic of events, and to throw overboard the
ideal 'sage,' and to ignore the supposed potency of his
influence; but they clung to the doctrines of filial piety,
brotherly love, and virtuous living. It was admiration for the
emphasis which he laid on these and other virtues which has
drawn so many millions of men unto him; which has made his
tomb at Keo-foo heen to be the Mecca of Confucianism, and has
adorned every city of the empire with temples built in his
honour. … Concurrently with the lapse of pure Confucianism,
and the adoption of those principles which find their earliest
expression in the pre-Confucian classics of China, there is
observable a return to the worship of Shang-te. The most
magnificent temple in the empire is the Temple of Heaven at
Peking, where the highest object of Chinese worship is adored
with the purest rites. … What is popularly known in Europe
as Confucianism is, therefore, Confucianism with the
distinctive opinions of Confucius omitted. … But this
worship of Shang-te is confined only to the emperor. The
people have no lot or heritage in the sacred acts of worship
at the Altar of Heaven. … Side by side with the revival of
the Joo keaou, under the influence of Confucius, grew up a
system of a totally different nature, and which, when divested
of its esoteric doctrines, and reduced by the
practically-minded Chinamen to a code of morals, was destined
in future ages to become affiliated with the teachings of the Sage.
{419}
This was Taouism, which was founded by Laou-tsze, who was a
contemporary of Confucius. An air of mystery hangs over the
history of Laou-tsze. Of his parentage we know nothing, and
the historians, in their anxiety to conceal their ignorance of
his earlier years, shelter themselves behind the legend that
he was born an old man. … The primary meaning of Taou is
'The way,' 'The path,' but in Laou-tsze's philosophy it was
more than the way, it was the way-goer as well. It was an
eternal road; along it all beings and things walked; it was
everything and nothing, and the cause and effect of all. All
things originated from Taou, conformed to Taou, and to Taou at
last returned. … 'If, then, we had to express the meaning of
Taou, we should describe it as the Absolute; the totality of
Being and Things; the phenomenal world and its order; and the
ethical nature of the good man, 'and the principle of his
action.' It was absorption into this 'Mother of all things'
that Laou-tsze aimed at. And this end was to be attained to by
self-emptiness, and by giving free scope to the uncontaminated
nature which, like Confucius, he taught was given by Heaven to
all men. … But these subtleties, like the more abstruse
speculations of Confucius, were suited only to the taste of
the schools. To the common people they were foolishness, and,
before long, the philosophical doctrine of Laou-tsze of the
identity of existence and non-existence, assumed in their eyes
a warrant for the old Epicurean motto, 'Let us eat and drink,
for to-morrow we die.' The pleasures of sense were substituted
for the delights of virtue, and the next step was to desire
prolongation of the time when those pleasures could be
enjoyed. Legend said that Laou-tsze had secured to himself
immunity from death by drinking the elixir of immortality, and
to enjoy the same 'privilege became the all-absorbing object
of his followers. The demand for elixirs and charms produced a
supply, and Taouism quickly degenerated into a system of
magic. … The teachings of Laou-tsze having familiarised the
Chinese mind with philosophical doctrines, which, whatever
were their direct source, bore a marked resemblance to the
musings of Indian sages, served to prepare the way for the
introduction of Buddhism. The exact date at which the Chinese
first became acquainted with the doctrines of Buddha was,
according to an author quoted in K'ang-he's Imperial
Encyclopædia, the thirtieth year of the reign of She Hwang-te,
i. e., B. C. 216. The story this writer tells of the
difficulties which the first missionaries encountered is
curious, and singularly suggestive of the narrative of St.
Peter's imprisonment."
_R. K. Douglas,
China,
chapter 17._
ALSO IN:
_R. K. Douglas,
Confucianism and Taouism._
"Buddhism … penetrated to China along the fixed route from
India to that country, round the north-west corner of the
Himalayas and across Eastern Turkestan. Already in the 2nd
year B. C., an embassy, perhaps sent by Huvishka [who reigned
in Kabul and Kashmere] took Buddhist books to the then Emperor
of China, A-ili; and the Emperor Ming-ti, 62 A. D., guided by
a dream, is said to have sent to Tartary and Central India and
brought Buddhist books to China. From this time Buddhism
rapidly spread there. … In the fourth century Buddhism
became the state religion."
_T. W. Rhys Davids,
Buddhism,
chapter 9._
ALSO IN
_J. Legge,
The Religions of China._
_J. Edkins,
Religion in China._
_J. Edkins,
Chinese Buddhism._
_S. Beals,
Buddhism in China._
_S. Johnson,
Oriental Religions: China._
CHINA: A. D. 1205-1234.
Conquest by Jingis Khan and his son.
"The conquest of China was commenced by Chinghiz [or Jingis
Khan], although it was not completed for several generations.
Already in 1205 he had invaded Tangut, a kingdom occupying the
extreme northwest of China, and extending beyond Chinese
limits in the same direction, held by a dynasty of Tibetan
race, which was or had been a vassal to the Kin. This invasion
was repeated in succeeding years; and in 1211 his attacks
extended to the Empire of the Kin itself. In 1214 he ravaged
their provinces to the Yellow River, and in the following year
took Chungtu or Peking. In 1219 he turned his arms against
Western Asia; … but a lieutenant whom he had left behind him
in the East continued to prosecute the subjection of Northern
China. Chinghiz himself on his return from his western
conquests renewed his attack on Tangut, and died on that
enterprise, 18th August. Okkodai, the son and successor of
Chinghiz, followed up the subjugation of China, extinguished
the Kin finally in 1234 and consolidated with his Empire all
the provinces north of the Great Kiang. The Southern provinces
remained for the present subject to the Chinese dynasty of the
Sung, reigning now at Kingssé or Hangcheu. This kingdom was
known to the Tartars as Nangkiass, and also by the
quasi-Chinese title of Mangi or Manzi, made so famous by Marco
Polo and the travellers of the following age."
_H. Yule,
Cathay and the Way Thither.
Preliminary Essay, sections 91-92._
See, also, MONGOLS: A. D. 1153-1227.
CHINA: A. D. 1259-1294.
The Empire of Kublai Khan.
Kublai, or Khubilai Khan, one of the grandsons of Jingis Khan,
who reigned as the Great Khan or Supreme lord of the Mongols
from 1259 until 1294, "was the sovereign of the largest empire
that was ever controlled by one man. China, Corea, Thibet,
Tung-King, Cochin China, a great portion of India beyond the
Ganges, the Turkish and Siberian realms from the Eastern Sea
to the Dnieper, obeyed his commands; and although the chief of
the Hordes of Jagatai and Ogatai refused to acknowledge him,
the Ilkhans of Persia … were his feudatories. … The
Supreme Khan had immediate authority only in Mongolia and
China. … The capital of the Khakan, after the accession of
Khubilai, was a new city he built close to the ancient
metropolis of the Liao and Kin dynasties."
_H. H. Howorth,
History of the Mongols,
volume 1, pages 216-283._
"Khan-Bálig (Mong., 'The Khan's city'), the Cambalu of Marco,
Peking … was captured by Chinghiz in 1215, and in 1264
Kublai made it his chief residence. In 1267 he built a new
city, three 'li' to the north-east of the old one, to which
was given the name of Ta-tu or 'Great Court,' called by the
Mongols Daïdu, the Taydo of Odoric and Taidu of Polo, who
gives a description of its dimensions, the number of its
gates, etc., similar to that in the text. The Chinese accounts
give only eleven gates. This city was abandoned as a royal
residence on the expulsion of the Mongol dynasty in 1368, but
re-occupied in 1421 by the third Ming Emperor, who built the
walls as they now exist, reducing their extent and the number
of the gates to nine. This is what is commonly called the
'Tartar city' of the present day (called also by the Chinese
Lau-Chhing or 'Old Town'), which therefore represents the
Taydo of Odoric."
_H. Yule,
Cathay and the Way Thither,
volume 1, page 127, footnote._
ALSO IN
_Marco Polo,
Travels, with Notes by Sir H. Yule,
book 2._
See, also, MONGOLS: A. D. 1229-1294,
and POLO, MARCO.
{420}
CHINA: A. D. 1294-1882.
Dissolution of the Empire of Kublai Khan.
The Ming dynasty and its fall.
The enthronement of the present Manchu Tartar Dynasty, of the
Tsings or Ch'ings.
The appearance of the Portuguese and the Jesuit Missionaries.
"The immediate successors of Kublai, brought up in the
luxuries of the imperial palace, the most gorgeous at that
time in the world, relied upon the prestige with which the
glory of the late emperor invested them, and never dreamed
that change could touch a dominion so vast and so solid. Some
devoted themselves to elegant literature and the improvement
of the people; later princes to the mysteries of Buddhism,
which became, in some degree, the state religion; and as the
cycle went round, the dregs of the dynasty abandoned
themselves, as usual, to priests, women, and eunuchs. … The
distant provinces threw off their subjection; robbers ravaged
the land, and pirates the sea; a minority and a famine came at
the same moment; and in less than ninety years after its
commencement, the fall of the dynasty was only illumined by
some few flashes of dying heroism, and every armed Tartar, who
could obtain a horse to aid his flight, spurred back to his
native deserts. Some of them, of the royal race, turning to
the west, took refuge with the Manchows, and in process of
time, marrying with the families of the chiefs, intermingled
the blood of the two great tribes. The proximate cause of this
catastrophe was a Chinese of low birth, who, in the midst of
the troubles of the time, found means to raise himself by his
genius from a servile station to the leadership of a body of
the malcontents, and thence to step into the imperial throne.
The new dynasty [the Ming] began their reign with great
brilliance. The emperor carried the Tartar war into their own
country, and at home made unrelenting war upon the abuses of
his palace. He committed the mistake, however, of granting
separate principalities to the members of his house, which in
the next reign caused a civil war, and the usurpation of the
throne by an uncle of the then emperor. The usurper found it
necessary to transfer the capital to Peking, as a post of
defence against the eastern Tartars, who now made their
appearance again on this eventful stage. He was successful,
however, in his wars in the desert, and he added Tonquin and
Cochin China to the Chinese dominions. After him the fortunes
of the dynasty began to wane. The government became weaker,
the Tartars stronger, some princes attached themselves to
literature, some to Buddhism or Taoism: Cochin China revolted,
and was lost to the empire, Japan ravaged the coasts with her
privateers; famine came to add to the horrors of misrule."
_Leitch Ritchie,
History of the Oriental Nations,
book 7, chapter 1 (volume 2)._
"From without, the Mings were constantly harassed by the
encroachments of the Tartars; from within, the ceaseless
intriguing of the eunuchs (resulting in one case in the
temporary deposition of an Emperor) was a fertile cause of
trouble. Towards the close of the 16th century the Portuguese
appeared upon the scene, and from their 'concession' at Macao,
some time the residence of Camoens, opened commercial
relations between China and the West. They brought the
Chinese, among other things, opium, which had previously been
imported overland from India. They possibly taught them how to
make gunpowder, to the invention of which the Chinese do not
seem, upon striking a balance of evidence, to possess an
independent claim. About the same time [1580] Rome contributed
the first instalment of those wonderful Jesuit fathers, whose
names may truly be said to have filled the empire 'with sounds
that echo still,' the memory of their scientific labours and
the benefits they thus conferred upon China having long
survived the wreck and discredit of the faith to which they
devoted their lives. And at this distance of time it does not
appear to be a wild statement to assert that had the Jesuits,
the Franciscans, and the Dominicans, been able to resist
quarrelling among themselves, and had they rather united to
persuade Papal infallibility to permit the incorporation of
ancestor worship with the rites and ceremonies of the Romish
church—China would at this moment be a Catholic country, and
Buddhism, Taoism, and Confucianism would long since have
receded into the past. Of all these Jesuit missionaries, the
name of Matteo Ricci [who died in 1610] stands by common
consent first upon the long list. … The overthrow of the
Mings [A. D. 1644], was brought about by a combination of
events, of the utmost importance to those who would understand
the present position of the Tartars as rulers of China. A
sudden rebellion had resulted in the capture of Peking by the
insurgents, and in the suicide of the Emperor who was fated to
be the last of his line. The Imperial Commander-in-chief, Wu
San-kuei, at that time away on the frontiers of Manchuria,
engaged in resisting the incursions of the Manchu Tartars, now
for a long time in a state of ferment, immediately hurried
back to the capital, but was totally defeated by the insurgent
leader, and once more made his way, this time as a fugitive
and a suppliant, towards the Tartar camp. Here he obtained
promises of assistance, chiefly on condition that he would
shave his head and grow a tail in accordance with Manchu
custom, and again set off with his new auxiliaries towards
Peking, being reinforced on the way by a body of Mongol
volunteers. As things turned out Wu San-kuei arrived at Peking
in advance of these allies, and actually succeeded, with the
remnant of his own scattered forces, in routing the troops of
the rebel leader before the Tartars and the Mongols came up.
He then started in pursuit of the flying foe. Meanwhile the
Tartar contingent arrived; and on entering the capital, the
young Manchu prince in command was invited by the people of
Peking to ascend the vacant throne. So that by the time Wu
San-kuei re-appeared he found a new dynasty [the Ch'ing or
Tsing dynasty of the present day] already established, and his
late Manchu ally at the head of affairs. His first intention
had doubtless been to continue the Ming line of Emperors; but
he seems to have readily fallen in with the arrangement
already made, and to have tendered his formal allegiance on
the four following conditions:
{421}
(1.) That no Chinese woman should be taken into the Imperial
seraglio.
(2.) That the first place at the great triennial examination
for the highest literary degrees should never be given to a
Tartar.
(3.) That the people should adopt the national costume of the
Tartars in their everyday life; but that they should be
allowed to bury their corpses in the dress of the late
dynasty.
(4.) That this condition of costume should not apply to the
women of China, who were not to be compelled either to wear
the hair in a tail before marriage (as the Tartar girls do) or
to abandon the custom of compressing' their feet.
The great Ming dynasty was now at an end, though not destined
wholly to pass away. A large part of it may be said to remain
in the literary monuments which were executed during its three
centuries of existence. The dress of the period survives upon
the modern Chinese stage; and when occasionally the present
alien yoke is found to gall, seditious whispers of
'restoration' are not altogether unheard. … The age of the
Ch'ings is the age in which we live; but it is not so familiar
to some persons as it ought to be, that a Tartar, and not a
Chinese sovereign, is now seated upon the throne of China. For
some time after the accession of the first Manchu Emperor
there was considerable friction between the two races, due,
among other natural causes, to the enforced adoption of the
peculiar coiffure in vogue among the Manchus—i. e., the tail,
or plaited queue of hair, which now hangs down every
Chinaman's back. This fashion was for a long time vigorously
resisted by the inhabitants of southern China, though now
regarded by all alike as one of the most sacred
characteristics of the 'black-haired people.' … The
subjugation of the empire by the Manchus was followed by a
military occupation of the country, which has survived the
original necessity, and is part of the system of government at
the present day. Garrisons of Tartar troops were stationed at
various important centres of population. … Those Tartar
garrisons still occupy the same positions; and the descendants
of the first battalions, with occasional reinforcements from
Peking, live side by side and in perfect harmony with the
strictly Chinese populations. These Bannermen, as they are
called, may be known by their square, heavy faces, which
contrast strongly with the sharper and more astute
physiognomies of the Chinese. They speak the dialect of
Peking, now recognised as the official language par
excellence. They do not use their family or surnames—which
belong rather to the clan than to the individual—but in order
to conform to the requirements of Chinese life, the personal
name is substituted. Their women do not compress their feet,
and the female coiffure and dress are wholly Tartar in
character. Intermarriage between the two races is not
considered desirable, though instances are not unknown. In
other respects, it is the old story of 'vida victrix;' the
conquering Tartars have been themselves conquered by the
people over whom they set themselves to rule. They have
adopted the language, written and colloquial, of China. …
Manchu, the language of the conquerors, is still kept alive at
the Court of Peking. By a State fiction, it is supposed to be
the language of the sovereign. … Eight emperors of this line
have already occupied the throne, and 'become guests on high;'
the ninth is yet [in 1882] a boy less than ten years of age.
Of these eight, the second in every way fills the largest
space in Chinese history. K'ang Hsi (or Kang Hi) reigned for
sixty-one years. … Under the third Manchu Emperor, Yung
Cheng [A. D. 1723-1736], began that violent persecution of the
Catholics which has continued almost to the present day. The
various sects—Jesuits, Dominicans, Franciscans—had been
unable to agree about the Chinese equivalent for God, and the
matter had been finally referred to the Pope. Another
difficulty had arisen as to the toleration of ancestral
worship by Chinese converts professing the Catholic faith. …
As the Pope refused to permit the embodiment of this ancient
custom with the ceremonies of the Catholic church, the new
religion ceased to advance, and by-and-by fell into
disrepute."
_H. A. Giles,
Historic China,
chapters 5-6._
ALSO IN
_S. W. Williams,
The Middle Kingdom,
chapters 17, and 19-20 (volume 2)._
_C. Gutzlaff,
Sketch of Chinese History,
volume 1, chapter 16, volume 2._
_J. Ross,
The Manchus._
_Abbé Hue,
Christianity in China,
volumes 2-3._
CHINA: A. D. 1839-1842.
The Opium War with England.
Treaty of Nanking.
Opening of the Five Ports.
"The first Chinese war [of England] was in one sense directly
attributable to the altered position of the East India Company
after 1833. [See INDIA: A. D. 1823-1833.] Up to that year
trade between England and China had been conducted in both
countries on principles of strict monopoly. The Chinese trade
was secured to the East India Company, and the English trade
was confined to a company of merchants specially nominated for
the purpose by the Emperor. The change of thought which
produced the destruction of monopolies in England did not
penetrate to the conservative atmosphere of the Celestial
Empire, and, while the trade in one country was thrown open to
everyone, trade in the other was still exclusively confined to
the merchants nominated by the Chinese Government. These
merchants, Hong merchants as they were called, traded
separately, but were mutually liable for the dues to the
Chinese Government and for their debts to the foreigners. Such
conditions neither promoted the growth of trade nor the
solvency of the traders; and, out of the thirteen Hong
merchants in 1837, three or four were avowedly insolvent.
(State Papers, volume 27, page 1310.) Such were the general
conditions on which the trade was conducted. The most
important article of trade was opium. The importation of opium
into China had, indeed, been illegal since 1796. But the
Chinese Government had made no stringent efforts to prohibit
the trade, and a Select Committee of the House of Commons had
declared that it was inadvisable to abandon an important
source of revenue to the East India Company. (State Papers, volume
29, page 1020.) The opium trade consequently throve, and grew
from 4,100 chests in 1796 to 30,000 chests in 1837, and the
Chinese connived at or ignored the growing trade. (Ibid., p.
1019). … In 1837 the Chinese Government adopted a fresh policy.
{422}
It decided on rigourously stopping the trade at which it had
previously tacitly connived. … Whether the Chinese
Government was really shocked at the growing use of the drug
and the consequences of its use, or whether it was alarmed at
a drain of silver from China which disturbed what the
political arithmeticians of England a hundred years before
would have called the balance of trade, it undoubtedly
determined to check the traffic by every means at its
disposal. With this object it strengthened its force on the
coast and sent Lin, a man of great energy, to Canton [March,
1839] with supreme authority. (State Papers, volume 29, page
934, and Autobiography of Sir H. Taylor, volume 1, appendix,
page 343.) Before Lin's arrival cargoes of opium had been
seized by the Custom House authorities. On his arrival Lin
required both the Hong merchants and the Chinese merchants to
deliver up all the opium in their possession in order that it
might be destroyed. (State Papers, volume 29, page 936.) The
interests of England in China were at that time entrusted to
Charles Elliot. … But Elliot occupied a very difficult
position in China. The Chinese placed on their communications
to him the Chinese word 'Yu,' and wished him to place on his
despatches to them the Chinese word 'Pin.' But Yu signifies a
command, and Pin a humble address, and a British
Plenipotentiary could not receive commands from, or humble
himself before, Chinese officials. (State Papers, volume 29,
pages 881, 886, 888.) And hence the communications between him
and the Chinese Government were unable to follow a direct
course, but were frequently or usually sent through the Hong
merchants. Such was the state of things in China when Lin,
arriving in Canton, insisted on the surrender and destruction
of all the opium there. Elliot was at Macao. He at once
decided on returning to the post of difficulty and danger;
and, though Canton was blockaded by Chinese forces and its
river guarded by Chinese batteries, he made his way up in a
boat of H. M. S. 'Larne,' and threw himself among his
imprisoned countrymen. After his arrival he took the
responsibility of demanding the surrender into his own hands,
for the service of his Government, of all the British opium in
China, and he surrendered the opium which he thus obtained,
amounting to 20,283 chests, to the Chinese authorities, by
whom it was destroyed. (Ibid., pages 945, 967.) The imminent
danger to the lives and properties of a large number of
British subjects was undoubtedly removed by Elliot's action.
Though some difficulty arose in connection with the surrender,
Lin undertook gradually to relax the stringency of the
measures which he had adopted (ibid., page 977), and Elliot
hoped that his own zealous efforts to carry out the
arrangement which he had made would lead to the raising of the
blockade. He was, however, soon undeceived. On the 4th of
April Lin required him, in conjunction with the merchants, to
enter into a bond under which all vessels hereafter engaged in
the opium traffic would have been confiscated to the Chinese
Government, and all persons connected with the trade would
'suffer death at the hands of the Celestial Court.' (Ibid.,
page 989.) This bond Elliot steadily refused to sign (ibid.,
page 992); and feeling that 'all sense of security was broken
to pieces' (ibid., page 978), he ordered all British subjects
to leave Canton (ibid., page 1004), he himself withdrew to the
Portuguese settlement at Macao (ibid., page 1007), and he
wrote to Auckland, the Governor-General of India, for armed
assistance. (Ibid., page 1009.) These grave events naturally
created profound anxiety. A Select Committee of the House of
Commons had formally declined to interfere with the trade. The
opium monopoly at that time was worth some £1,000,000 or
£1,500,000 a year to British India (ibid., page 1020); and
India, engaged in war with Afghanistan and already involved in
a serious deficit, could not afford to part with so large an
amount of its revenue (ibid., page 1020). Nine-tenths of the
British merchants in China were engaged in the illegal trade
(ibid., page 1030), while Elliot, in enforcing the surrender
of the opium, had given the merchants bonds on the British
Government for its value, and the 20,000 chests surrendered
were supposed to be worth from 600 to 1,200 dollars a chest
(ibid., page 987), or say from £2,400,000 to £4,800,000. …
As the summer advanced, moreover, a fresh outrage increased
the intensity of the crisis. On the 7th July some British
seamen landed near Hong Kong, and engaged in a serious riot. A
native was unfortunately killed on the occasion, and though
Elliot, at his own risk, gave the relations of the victim a
large pecuniary compensation, and placed the men engaged in
the riot on their trial, Lin was not satisfied. He moved down
to the coast, cut off the supplies of British subjects, and
threatened to stop the supplies to Macao if the Portuguese
continued to assist the British. (Ibid., pages 1037-1039.) The
British were in consequence forced to leave Macao; and about the
same time a small schooner, the 'Black Joke,' was attacked by
the Chinese, and a British subject on board of her seriously
wounded. Soon afterwards, however, the arrival of a ship of
war, the 'Volage,' in Chinese waters enabled Elliot to assume
a bolder front. He returned to Macao; he even attempted to
procure supplies from the mainland. But, though he succeeded
in purchasing food, 'the Mandarin runners approached and
obliged the natives to take back their provisions,' and
Elliot, exasperated at their conduct, fired on some war junks
of the Chinese, which returned the fire. A week afterwards
Elliot declared the port and river of Canton to be in a state
of blockade. (Ibid., page 1066.) The commencement of the
blockade, however, did not lead to immediate war. On the
contrary, the Chinese showed considerable desire to avert
hostilities. They insisted, indeed, that some British sailor
must be surrendered to them to suffer for the death of the
Chinaman who had fallen in the riot of Hong Kong. But they
showed so much anxiety to conclude an arrangement on this
point that they endeavoured to induce Elliot to declare that a
sailor who was accidentally drowned in Chinese waters, and whose
body they had found, was the actual murderer. (State Papers,
volume 30, page 27.) And in the meanwhile the trade which Lin
had intended to destroy went on at least as actively as ever.
Lin's proceedings had, indeed, the effect of stimulating it to
an unprecedented degree. The destruction of vast stores of
opium led to a rise in the price of opium in China. The rise
in price produced the natural consequence of an increased
speculation; and, though British shipping was excluded from
Chinese waters, and the contents of British vessels had to be
transferred to American bottoms for conveyance into Chinese
ports, British trade had never been so large or so
advantageous as in the period which succeeded Lin's arbitrary
proceedings.
{423}
Elliot was, of course, unable to prevent war either by the
surrender of a British sailor to the Chinese, or by even
assuming that a drowned man was the murderer; and war in
consequence became daily more probable. In January, 1840,
operations actually commenced. Elliot was instructed to make
an armed demonstration on the northern coasts of China, to
take possession of some island on the coast, and to obtain
reparation and indemnity, if possible by a mere display of
force, but otherwise to proceed with the squadron and thence
send an ultimatum to Pekin. In accordance with these orders
the Island of Chusan was occupied in July, and the fleet was
sent to the mouth of the Peiho with orders to transmit a
letter to Pekin. But the sea off the Peiho is shallow, the
ships could not approach the coasts, and the Chinese naturally
refused to yield to an empty demonstration. The expedition was
forced to return to Chusan, where it found that the troops
whom they had left behind were smitten by disease, that one
out of every four men were dead, and that more than one-half
of the survivors were invalided. Thus, throughout 1840, the
Chinese war was only attended with disaster and distress.
Things commenced a little more prosperously in 1841 by the
capture of the Chinese position at the mouth of the Canton
river. Elliot, after this success, was even able to conclude a
preliminary treaty with the Chinese authorities. But this
treaty did not prove satisfactory either to the British
Government or to the Chinese. The British saw with dismay that
the treaty made no mention of the trade in opium which had
been the ostensible cause of the war. The Whig Government
accordingly decided on superseding Elliot. He was recalled and
replaced by Henry Pottinger. Before news of his recall reached
him, however, the treaty which had led to his supersession had
been disavowed by the Chinese authorities, and Elliot had
commenced a fresh attack on the Chinese force which guarded
the road to Canton. British sailors and British troops, under
the command of Bremer and Gough, won a victory which placed
Canton at their mercy. But Elliot, shrinking from exposing a
great town to the horrors of an assault, stopped the advance
of the troops and admitted the city to a ransom of £1,250,000.
(Sir H. Taylor's Autobiography, volume 1, appendix, pages
353-363.) His moderation was naturally unacceptable to the
troops and not entirely approved by the British Government. It
constituted, however, Elliot's last action as agent in China. The
subsequent operations were conducted under Pottinger's
advice."
_S. Walpole,
History of England from 1815,
Note, volume 5, pages 287-291._
"Sir Henry Pottinger, who arrived as Plenipotentiary on the
10th of August, took the chief direction of the affairs. …
To the end of 1841 there were various successes achieved by
the land and naval forces, which gave the British possession
of many large fortified towns, amongst which were Amoy,
Ting-hai, Chin-hai, Ning-po, and Shang-hai. The Chinese were
nevertheless persevering in their resistance, and in most
cases evinced a bravery which showed how mistaken were the
views which regarded the subjection of this extraordinary
people as an easy task. … The British fleet on the 13th of
June [1842] entered the great river Kiang, and on the 6th of
July advanced up the river, and cut off its communication with
the Grand Canal, by which Nanking, the ancient capital of
China, was supplied with grain. The point where the river
intersects the canal is the city of Chin-Kiang-foo. … On the
morning of the 21st the city was stormed by the British, in
three brigades. The resistance of the Tartar troops was most
desperate. Our troops fought under a burning sun, whose
overpowering heat caused some to fall dead. The obstinate
defence of the place prevented its being taken till six
o'clock in the evening. When the streets were entered, the
houses were found almost deserted. They were filled with
ghastly corpses, many of the Tartar soldiers having destroyed
their families and then committed suicide. The city, from the
number of the dead, had become uninhabitable."
_C. Knight,
Popular History of England,
volume 8, chapter 25._
"The destruction of life was appalling. … Every Manchu
preferred resistance, death, suicide, or flight, to surrender.
Out of a Manchu population of 4,000, it was estimated that not
more than 500 survived, the greater part having perished by
their own hands. … Within twenty-four hours after the troops
landed, the city and suburbs of Chinkiang were a mass of ruin
and destruction. … The total loss of the English was 37
killed and 131 wounded. … Some of the large ships were towed
up to Nanking, and the whole fleet reached it August 9th, at
which time preparations had been made for the assault. …
Everything was ready for the assault by daylight of August
15th;" but on the night of the 14th the Chinese made overtures
for the negotiation of peace, and the important Treaty of
Nanking was soon afterwards concluded. Its terms were as
follows: "1. Lasting peace between the two nations. 2. The
ports of Canton, Amoy, Fuhchau, Ningpo, and Shanghai [known
afterwards as the Treaty Ports] to be opened to British trade
and residence, and trade conducted according to a
well-understood tariff. 3. 'It being obviously necessary and
desirable that British subjects should have some port whereat
they may careen and refit their ships when required,' the
island of Hongkong to be ceded to her Majesty. 4. Six millions
of dollars to be paid as the value of the opium which was
delivered up 'as a ransom for the lives of H. B. M.
Superintendent and subjects,' in March, 1839. 5. Three
millions of dollars to be paid for the debts due to British
merchants. 6. Twelve millions to be paid for the expenses
incurred in the expedition sent out 'to obtain redress for the
violent and unjust proceedings of the Chinese high
authorities.' 7. The entire amount of $21,000,000 to be paid
before December 31, 1845. 8. All prisoners of war to be
immediately released by the Chinese. 9. The Emperor to grant
full and entire amnesty to those of his subjects who had aided
the British." Articles 10 to 13 related to the tariff of
export and import dues that should be levied at the open
ports; to future terms of official correspondence, etc. The
Treaty was signed by the Commissioners on the 29th of August,
1842, and the Emperor's ratification was received September
15th.
_S. W. Williams,
The Middle Kingdom,
chapters 22-23._
ALSO IN
_D. C. Boulger,
History of China,
volume 3, chapters 5-7._
_E. H. Parker,
Chinese Account of the Opium War._
{424}
CHINA: A. D. 1850-1864.
The Taiping Rebellion.
"The phrase 'Taiping Rebellion is wholly of foreign
manufacture; at Peking and everywhere among those loyal to the
government the insurgents were styled 'Chang-mao tseh,' or
'Long-haired rebels,' while on their side, by a whimsical
resemblance to English slang, the imperialists were dubbed
'imps.' When the chiefs assumed to be aiming at independence
in 1850, in order to identify their followers with their cause
they took the term 'Ping Chao,' or 'Peace Dynasty,' as the
style of their sway, to distinguish it from the 'Tsing Chao,'
or 'Pure Dynasty' of the Manchus. Each of them prefixed the
adjective 'Ta' (or 'Tai,' in Cantonese), 'Great,' as is the
Chinese custom with regard to dynasties and nations; thus the
name Tai-ping became known to foreigners."
_S. W. Williams,
The Middle Kingdom,
chapter 24 (volume 2)._
"This remarkable movement, which at one time excited much
interest in Western lands, originated with a man named Hung
Sew-tseuen [or Hung Siu-tseuen], son of a humble peasant
residing in a village near Canton. On the occasion of one of
his visits to the provincial city, probably in the year 1833,
he appears to have seen a foreign Protestant missionary
addressing the populace in the streets, assisted by a native
interpreter. Either then or on the following day he received
from some tract-distributor a book entitled 'Good Words for
Exhorting the Age,' which consisted of essays and sermons by
Leang A-fah, a well-known convert and evangelist. Taking the
volume home with him, he looked it over with some interest,
but carelessly laid it aside in his book-case. A few years
afterward he attended for the second time the competitive
literary examination with high hopes of honor and distinction,
having already passed with much credit the lower examination
in the district city. His ambitious venture, however, met with
severe disappointment, and he returned to his friends sick in
mind and body. During this state of mental depression and
physical infirmity, which continued for some forty days, he
had certain strange visions, in which he received commands
from heaven to destroy the idols. These fancied revelations
seem to have produced a deep impression on his mind, and led
to a certain gravity of demeanor after his recovery and return
to his quiet occupation as a student and village schoolmaster.
When the English war broke out, and foreigners swept up Canton
River with their wonderful fire-ships, … it is not
surprising that Hung should have had his attention again
attracted to the Christian publication which had lain so long
neglected in his library. … The writings of Leang A-fah
contained chapters from the Old and New Testament Scriptures,
which he found to correspond in a striking manner with the
preternatural sights and voices of that memorable period in
his history [during his sickness, six years before]; and this
strange coincidence convinced him of their truth, and of his
being divinely appointed to restore the world, that is China,
to the worship of the true God. Hung Sew-tseuen accepted his
mission and began the work of propagating the faith he had
espoused. Among his first converts was one Fung Yun-san, who
became a most ardent missionary and disinterested preacher.
These two leaders of the movement traveled far and near
through the country, teaching the people of all classes and
forming a society of God-worshippers. All the converts
renounced idolatry and gave up the worship of Confucius. Hung,
at this time apparently a sincere and earnest seeker after
truth, went to Canton and placed himself under the
instructions of the Reverend Mr. Roberts, an American missionary,
who for some cause fearing that his novitiate might be
inspired by mercenary motives, denied him the rite of baptism.
But, without being offended at this cold and suspicious
treatment, he went home and taught his converts how to baptize
themselves. The God-worshippers rapidly increased in numbers,
and were known and feared as zealous iconoclasts. … For a
year after Hung Sew-tseuen had rejoined the God-worshippers
that society retained its exclusively religious nature, but in
the autumn of 1850 it was brought into direct collision with
the civil magistrates, when the movement assumed a political
character of the highest aims." It was soon a movement of
declared rebellion, and allied with a rebel army of bandits
and pirates which had taken arms against the government in
south-eastern China.
_L. N. Wheeler,
The Foreigner in China,
chapter 13._
"The Hakka schoolmaster proclaimed his 'mission' in 1850. A
vast horde gathered to him. He nominated five 'Wangs' or
soldier sub-kings from out of his clan, and commenced his
northward movement from Woosewen in January, 1851. Through the
rich prosperous provinces his desultory march, interspersed
with frequent halts, spread destruction and desolation. The
peaceful fled shudderingly before this wave of fierce,
stalwart ruffianhood, with its tatterdemalian tawdriness, its
flaunting banners, its rusty naked weapons. Everywhere it
gathered in the local scoundrelism. The pirates came from the
coast; the robbers from the interior mountains rallied to an
enterprise that promised so well for their trade. In the
perturbed state of the Chinese population the horde grew like
an avalanche as it rolled along. The Heavenly King [as Hung
now styled himself] met with no opposition to speak of, and in
1853 his promenade ended under the shadow of the Porcelain
Tower, in the city of Nanking, the second metropolis of the
Chinese Empire, where, till the rebellion and his life ended
simultaneously, he lived a life of licentiousness, darkened
further by the grossest cruelties. The rebellion had lasted
nearly ten years when the fates brought it into collision with
the armed civilization of the West. The Imperialist forces had
made sluggishly some head against it. Nanking had been
invested after a fashion for years on end. 'The prospects of
the Tai-pings,' says Commander Brine, 'in the early spring of
1860, had become very gloomy.' The Imperialist generals had
hemmed Tai-pingdom within certain limits in the lower valley
of the Yantsze, and the movement languished further 'from its
destructive and exhausting nature, which for continued
vitality constantly required new districts of country to
exhaust and destroy.' But in 1859 China and the West came into
collision. … The rebellion had opportunity to recover lost
ground. For the sixth time the 'Faithful King' relieved
Nanking. The Imperialist generals fell back, and then the
Tai-pings took the offensive, and as the result of sundry
victories, the rebellion regained an active and flourishing
condition. … Shanghai, one of the treaty ports, was
threatened."
_A. Forbes,
Chinese Gordon,
chapter 2._
{425}
"Europe … has known evil days under the hands of fierce
conquerors, plundering and destroying in religion's name; but
its annals may be ransacked in vain, without finding any
parallel to the miseries endured in those provinces of China
over which 'The Heavenly King,' the Tai-ping prophet, extended
his fell sway for ten sad years. Hung Sew-tsuen (better known
in China by his assumed title, Tien Wang) … had read
Christian tracts, had learnt from a Christian missionary; and
when he announced publicly three years afterwards that part of
his mission was to destroy the temples and images, and showed
in the jargon of his pretended visions some traces of his New
Testament study, the conclusion was instantly seized by the
sanguine minds of a section set upon evangelizing the East,
that their efforts had produced a true prophet, fit for the
work. Wedded to this fancy, they rejected as the inventions of
the enemies of missions the tales of Taiping cruelty which
soon reached Europe: and long after the details of the
impostor's life at Nankin, with its medley of visions,
executions, edicts, and harem indulgence, became notorious to
the world, prayers were offered for his success by devotees in
Great Britain as bigoted to his cause as the bloodiest
commander, or 'Wang,' whom he had raised from the ranks of his
followers to carry out his 'exterminating decrees.' The
Taiping cause was lost in China before it was wholly abandoned
by these fanatics in England, and their belief in its
excellence so powerfully reacted on our policy, that it might
have preserved us from active intervention down to the present
time, had not certain Imperialist successes elsewhere, the
diminishing means of their wasted possessions, and the
rashness of their own chiefs, brought the Taiping arms into
direct collision with us. And with the occasion there was
happily raised up the man whose prowess was to scatter their
blood-cemented empire to pieces far more speedily than it had
been built up."
_C. C. Chesney,
Essays in Military Biography,
chapter 10_
"The Taiping rebellion was of so barbarous a nature that its
suppression had become necessary in the interests of
civilization. A force raised at the expense of the Shanghai
merchants, and supported by the Chinese government, had been
for some years struggling against its progress. This force,
known as the 'Ever Victorious Army,' was commanded at first by
Ward, an American, and, on his death, by Burgevine, also an
American, who was summarily dismissed; for a short time the
command was held by Holland, an English marine officer, but he
was defeated at Taitsan 22 February, 1863, Li Hung Chang,
governor-general of the Kiang provinces, then applied to the
British commander-in-chief for the services of an English
officer, and Gordon [Charles George, subsequently known as
'Chinese Gordon'] was authorised to accept the command. He
arrived at Sung-Kiong and entered on his new duties as a
mandarin and lieutenant-colonel in the Chinese service on 24
March 1863. His force was composed of some three to four
thousand Chinese, officered by 150 Europeans of almost every
nationality and often of doubtful character. By the
indomitable will of its commander this heterogeneous body was
moulded into a little army whose high-sounding title of
'ever-victorious' became a reality, and in less than two
years, after 33 engagements, the power of the Taipings was
completely broken and the rebellion stamped out. The theatre
of operations was the district of Kiangsoo, lying between the
Yang-tze-Kiang river in the north and the bay of Hang-chow in
the south." Before the summer of 1863 was over, Gordon had
raised the rebel siege of Chanzu, and taken from the Taipings
the towns of Fushan, Taitsan, Quinsan, Kahpoo, Wokong,
Patachiaow, Leeku, Wanti, and Fusaiqwan. Finally, in December,
the great city of Soo-chow was surrendered to him, Gordon was
always in front of all his storming parties, "carrying no
other weapon than a little cane. His men called it his 'magic
wand,' regarding it as a charm that protected his life and led
them on to victory. When Soo-chow fell Gordon had stipulated
with the Governor-general Li for the lives of the Wangs (rebel
leaders). They were treacherously murdered by Li's orders.
Indignant at this perfidy, Gordon refused to serve any longer
with Governor Li, and when on 1 Jan, 1864 money anti rewards
were heaped upon him by the Emperor, declined them all. …
After some [two] months of inaction it became evident that if
Gordon did not again take the field the Taipings would regain
the rescued country," and he was prevailed upon to resume his
campaign, which, although badly wounded in one of the battles,
he brought to an end in the following April (1864), by the
capture of Chan-chu-fu, "This victory not only ended the
campaign but completely destroyed the rebellion, and the
Chinese regular forces were enabled to occupy Nankin in the
July following. The large money present offered to Gordon by
the emperor was again declined, although he had spent his pay
in promoting the efficiency of his force, so that he wrote
home: 'I shall leave China as poor as when I entered it.'"
_Colonel R. H. Veitch, Charles George Gordon
(Dictionary of Nat. Biog.)_
ALSO IN:
_A. E. Hake,
The Story of Chinese Gordon,
chapters 3-8._
_W. F. Butler,
Charles George Gordon,
chapter 2._
_S. Mossman,
General Gordon in China._
_Private Diary of General Gordon in China._
_Mm. Callery and Yvan,
History of the Insurrection in China._
CHINA: A. D. 1856-1860,
War with England and France.
Bombardment and capture of Canton.
The Allies in Pekin.
Their destruction of the Summer Palace.
Terms of peace.
The speech from the throne at the opening of the English
Parliament, on February 3, 1857, "stated that acts of
violence, insults to the British flag, and infractions of
treaty rights, committed by the local authorities at Canton,
and a pertinacious refusal of redress, had rendered it
necessary for her Majesty's officers in China to have recourse
to measures of force to obtain satisfaction. The alleged
offences of the Chinese authorities at Canton had for their
single victim the lorcha 'Arrow.' The lorcha 'Arrow' was a
small boat built on the European model. The word 'Lorcha' is
taken from the Portuguese settlement at Macao, at the mouth of
the Canton river. It often occurs in treaties with the Chinese
authorities. On October 8, 1856, a party of Chinese in charge
of an officer boarded the 'Arrow,' in the Canton river. They
took off twelve men on a charge of piracy, leaving two men in
charge of the lorcha, The 'Arrow' was declared by its owners
to be a British vessel.
{426}
Our consul at Canton, Mr. Parkes, demanded from Yeh, the
Chinese Governor of Canton, the return of the men, basing his
demand upon the Treaty of 1843, supplemental to the Treaty of
1842. This treaty did not give the Chinese authorities any
right to seize Chinese offenders, or supposed offenders, on
board an English vessel. It merely gave them a right to
require the surrender of the offenders at the hands of the
English. The Chinese Governor, Yeh, contended, however, that
the lorcha was a Chinese pirate vessel, which had no right
whatever to hoist the flag of England. It may be plainly
stated at once that the 'Arrow' was not an English vessel, but
only a Chinese vessel which had obtained by false pretences
the temporary possession of a British flag. Mr. Consul Parkes,
however, was fussy, and he demanded the instant restoration of
the captured men, and he sent off to our Plenipotentiary at
Hong Kong, Sir John Bowring, for authority and assistance in
the business. Sir John Bowring … ordered the Chinese
authorities to surrender all the men taken from the 'Arrow,'
and he insisted that an apology should be offered for their
arrest, and a formal pledge given that no such act should ever
be committed again. If this were not done within forty-eight
hours, naval operations were to be begun against the Chinese.
The Chinese Governor, Yeh, sent back all the men, and
undertook to promise that for the future great care should be
taken that no British ships should be visited improperly by
Chinese officers. But he could not offer an apology for the
particular case of the 'Arrow,' for he still maintained, as
was indeed the fact, that the 'Arrow' was a Chinese vessel,
and that the English had nothing to do with her. Accordingly
Sir John Bowring carried out his threat, and had Canton
bombarded by the fleet which Admiral Sir Michael Seymour
commanded. From October 23 to November 13 naval and military
operations were kept up continuously. Commissioner Yeh
retaliated by foolishly offering a reward for the head of
every Englishman. This news from China created a considerable
sensation in England. On February 24, 1857, Lord Derby brought
forward in the House of Lords a motion, comprehensively
condemning the whole of the proceedings of the British
authorities in China. The debate would have been memorable if
only for the powerful speech in which the venerable Lord
Lyndhurst supported the motion, and exposed the utter
illegality of the course pursued by Sir John Bowring. The
House of Lords rejected the motion of Lord Derby by a majority
of 146 to 110. On February 26 Mr. Cobden brought forward a
similar motion in the House of Commons. … Mr. Cobden had
probably never dreamed of the amount or the nature of the
support his motion was destined to receive. The vote of
censure was carried by 263 votes against 247—a majority of
16. Lord Palmerston announced two or three days after that the
Government had resolved on a dissolution and an appeal to the
country. Lord Palmerston understood his countrymen." In the
ensuing elections his victory was complete. "Cobden, Bright,
Milner Gibson, W. J. Fox, Layard, and many other leading
opponents of the Chinese policy, were left without seats. Lord
Palmerston came back to power with renewed and redoubled
strength." He "had the satisfaction before he left office [in
1858] of being able to announce the capture of Canton. The
operations against China had been virtually suspended … when
the Indian Mutiny broke out. England had now got the
cooperation of France. France had a complaint of long standing
against China on account of the murder of some missionaries,
for which redress had been asked in vain. There was,
therefore, an allied attack made upon Canton [December, 1857],
and of course the city was easily captured. Commissioner Yeh
himself was taken prisoner, not until he had been sought for
and hunted out in most ignominious fashion. He was found at
last hidden away in some obscure part of a house. He was known
by his enormous fatness. … He was put on board an English
man-of-war, and afterwards sent to Calcutta, where he died
early in the following year. Unless report greatly belied him
he had been exceptionally cruel, even for a Chinese official.
The English and French Envoys, Lord Elgin and Baron Gros,
succeeded in making a treaty with China. By the conditions of
the treaty, England and France were to have ministers at the
Chinese Court, on certain special occasions at least, and
China was to be represented in London and Paris; there was to
be toleration of Christianity in China, and a certain freedom
of access to Chinese rivers for English and French mercantile
vessels, and to the interior of China for English and French
subjects. China was to pay the expenses of the war. It was
further agreed that the term 'barbarian' was no longer to be
applied to Europeans in China. There was great congratulation
in England over this treaty, and the prospect it afforded of a
lasting peace with China. The peace thus procured lasted in
fact exactly a year. … The treaty of Tien-tsin, which had
been arranged by Lord Elgin and Baron Gros, contained a clause
providing for the exchange of the ratifications at Pekin
within a year from the date of the signature, which took place
in June 1858. Lord Elgin returned to England, and his brother,
Mr. Frederick Bruce, was appointed in March 1859 Envoy
Extraordinary and Minister Plenipotentiary to China. Mr. Bruce
was directed to proceed by way of the Peiho to Tien-tsin, and
thence to Pekin to exchange the ratifications of the treaty.
Lord Malmesbury, who was then Foreign Secretary … impressed
upon Mr. Bruce that he was not to be put off from going to the
capital. Instructions were sent out from England at the same
time to Admiral Hope, the Naval Commander-in-Chief in China,
to provide a sufficient force to accompany Mr. Bruce to the
mouth of the Peiho. The Peiho river flows from the highlands
on the west into the Gulf of Pecheli, at the north-cast corner
of the Chinese dominions. The capital of the Empire is about
100 miles inland from the mouth of the Peiho. It does not
stand on that river, which flows past it at some distance
westward, but it is connected with the river by means of a
canal. The town of Tien-tsin stands on the Peiho near its
junction with one of the many rivers that flow into it, and
about forty miles from the mouth. The entrance to the Peiho
was defended by the Taku forts. On June 20, 1859, Mr. Bruce
and the French Envoy reached the mouth of the Peiho with
Admiral Hope's fleet, some nineteen vessels in all, to escort
them. They found the forts defended; some negotiations and
inter-communications took place, and a Chinese official from
Tien-tsin came to Mr. Bruce and endeavoured to obtain some
delay or compromise.
{427}
Mr. Bruce became convinced that the condition of things
predicted by Lord Malmesbury was coming about, and that the
Chinese authorities were only trying to defeat his purpose. He
called on Admiral Hope to clear a passage for the vessels.
When the Admiral brought up his gunboats the forts opened
fire. The Chinese artillerymen showed unexpected skill and
precision. Four of the gunboats were almost immediately
disabled. All the attacking vessels got aground. Admiral Hope
attempted to storm the forts. The attempt was a complete
failure. Admiral Hope himself was wounded; so was the
commander of the French vessel which had contributed a
contingent to the storming party. The attempt to force a
passage of the river was given up and the mission to Pekin was
over for the present. It seems only fair to say that the
Chinese at the mouth of the Peiho cannot be accused of
perfidy. They had mounted the forts and barricaded the river
openly and even ostentatiously. … It will be easily imagined
that the news created a deep sensation in England. People in
general made up their minds at once that the matter could not
be allowed to rest there, and that the mission to Pekin must
be enforced. … Before the whole question came to be
discussed in Parliament the Conservatives had gone out and the
Liberals had come in. The English and French Governments
determined that the men who had made the treaty of
Tien-tsin—Lord Elgin and Baron Gros—should be sent back to
insist on its reinforcement. Sir Hope Grant was appointed to
the military command of our land forces, and General Cousin de
Montauban, afterwards Count Palikao, commanded the soldiers of
France. The Chinese, to do them justice, fought very bravely,
but of course they had no chance whatever against such forces
as those commanded by the English and French generals. The
allies captured the Taku forts [August, 1860], occupied
Tien-tsin, and marched on Pekin. The Chinese Government
endeavoured to negotiate for peace, and to interpose any
manner of delay, diplomatic or otherwise, between the allies
and their progress to the capital. Lord Elgin consented at
last to enter into negotiations at Tungchow, a walled town ten
or twelve miles nearer than Pekin. Before the negotiations
took place, Lord Elgin's secretaries, Mr. Parkes and Mr. Loch,
some English officers, Mr. Bowlby, the correspondent of the
'Times,' and some members of the staff of Baron Gros, were
treacherously seized by the Chinese while under a flag of
truce and dragged off to various prisons. Mr. Parkes and Mr.
Loch, with eleven of their companions, were afterwards
released, after having been treated with much cruelty and
indignity, but thirteen of the prisoners died of the horrible
ill-treatment they received. Lord Elgin refused to negotiate
until the prisoners had been returned, and the allied armies
were actually at one of the great gates of Pekin, and had
their guns in position to blow the gate in, when the Chinese
acceded to their terms. The gate was surrendered, the allies
entered the city, and the English and French flags were
hoisted side by side on the walls of Pekin. It was only after
entering the city that Lord Elgin learned of the murder of the
captives. He then determined that the Summer Palace should be
burnt down as a means of impressing the mind of the Chinese
authorities generally with some sense of the danger of
treachery and foul play. Two days were occupied in the
destruction of the palace. It covered an area of many miles.
Gardens, temples, small lodges, and pagodas, groves, grottoes,
lakes, bridges, terraces, artificial hills, diversified the
vast space. All the artistic treasures, all the curiosities,
archaeological and other, that Chinese wealth and Chinese
taste, such as it was, could bring together, had been
accumulated in this magnificent pleasaunce. The surrounding
scenery was beautiful. The high mountains of Tartary ramparted
one side of the enclosure. The buildings were set on fire; the
whole place was given over to destruction. A monument was
raised with an inscription in Chinese, setting forth that such
was the reward of perfidy and cruelty. Very different opinions
were held in England as to the destruction of the Imperial
palace. To many it seemed an act of unintelligible and
unpardonable vandalism. Lord Elgin explained, that if he did
not demand the surrender of the actual perpetrators, it was
because he knew full well that no difficulty would have been
made about giving him a seeming satisfaction. The Chinese
Government would have selected for vicarious punishment, in
all probability, a crowd of mean and unfortunate wretches who
had nothing to do with the murders. … It is somewhat
singular that so many persons should have been roused to
indignation by the destruction of a building who took with
perfect composure the unjust invasion of a country. The allied
powers now of course had it all their own way. England
established her right to have an envoy in Pekin, whether the
Chinese liked it or not. China had to pay a war indemnity, and
a large sum of money as compensation to the families of the
murdered prisoners and to those who had suffered injuries, and
to make an apology for the attack by the garrison of the Taku
forts. Perhaps the most important gain to Europe from the war
was the knowledge that Pekin was not by any means so large a
city as we had all imagined it to be, and that it was on the
whole rather a crumbling and tumble-down sort of place."
_J. McCarthy,
Short History of our own Time,
chapters 12, 15, 17
(chapters 30 and 42, volume 3, of larger work)._
ALSO IN:
_L. Oliphant,
Narrative of the Earl of Elgin's Mission,
volume 1._
_H. B. Loch,
Personal Narrative._
_S. W. Williams,
The Middle Kingdom,
chapter 25 (volume 2)._
_Colonel Sir W. F. Butler,
Charles George Gordon,
chapter 3._
CHINA: A. D. 1857-1868.
Treaty with the United States.
The Burlingame Embassy and the Burlingame Treaties.
"The government of the United States viewed with anxiety the
new breaking out of hostilities between Great Britain,
supported by France as an ally, and China, in the year 1856.
President Buchanan sent thither the Honorable William B. Reed to
watch the course of events, and to act the part of a mediator
and peacemaker when opportunity should offer. In this he was
sustained by the influence of Russia. Mr. Reed arrived in Hong
Kong, on the fine war steamer Minnesota, November 7, 1857. He
at once set himself to remove the difficulties between the
English and Chinese, and save if possible the future effusion
of blood. He endeavored in vain to persuade the proud and
obstinate governor Yeh to yield, and save Canton from
bombardment.
{428}
He proceeded to the north, and made on behalf of his
government a treaty of peace with China which was signed June
18. The first article of the treaty contains a significant
reference to the posture of the United States in relation to
the war then in progress, as well as to any which might
thereafter arise. The article says: 'There shall be, as there
have always been, peace and friendship between the United
States of America and the Ta-Tsing Empire, and between their
people respectively. They shall not insult or oppress each
other for any trifling cause, so as to produce an estrangement
between them; and if any other nation should act unjustly or
oppressively, the United States will exert their good offices,
on being informed of the case, to bring about an amicable
arrangement of the question, thus showing their friendly
feelings.' A subsequent article of this treaty is to be
interpreted by keeping in view the bitter root of the
difficulties between Great Britain and China which led to the
previous war of 1839 to '42, and to this war. After stating
the ports where Americans shall be permitted to reside and
their vessels to trade, it continues in the following
language: 'But said vessels shall not carry on a clandestine
and fraudulent trade at other ports of China not declared to
be legal, or along the coasts thereof; and any vessel under
the American flag violating this provision shall, with her
cargo, be subject to confiscation to the Chinese government;
and any citizen of the United States who shall trade in any
contraband article of merchandise shall be subject to be dealt
with by the Chinese government, without being entitled to any
countenance or protection from that of the United States; and
the United States will take measures to prevent their flag
from being abused by the subjects of other nations as a cover
for the violation of the laws of the empire.'… The
development of the foreign trade with China during the brief
time which has passed [1870] since the last war has been very
great. … The American government has been represented most
of the time by the Honorable Anson Burlingame, who has taken the
lead, with remarkable ability and success, in establishing the
policy of peaceful co-operation between the chief
treaty-powers, in encouraging the Chinese to adopt a more wise
and progressive policy in their entercourse with foreign
nations and in the introduction of the improvements of the
age. … Mr. Burlingame, who had been in China six years,
determined [in 1867] to resign his post and return to America.
The news of it excited much regret among both Chinese and
foreign diplomatists. The former endeavored in vain to
dissuade him from his purpose. Failing to accomplish this, he
was invited by Prince Kung to a farewell entertainment, at
which were present many of the leading officers of the
government. During it they expressed to him their gratitude
for his offices to them as an intelligent and disinterested
counselor and friend. And they seem to have conceived at this
time the thought of putting the relations of the empire with
foreign countries upon a more just and equal basis, by sending
to them an imperial embassy of which he should be the head.
They promptly consulted some of their more reliable friends
among the foreign gentlemen at the capital, and in two days
after they tendered to Mr. Burlingame, much to his surprise,
the appointment of minister plenipotentiary of China to the
Western powers. … Mr. Burlingame left the Chinese capital on
the 25th of November, 1867. The embassy consisted, besides the
principal, of Chih-kang and Sun Chia-ku, a Manchu and a
Chinese officer, each wearing the red ball on his cap which
indicates an official of a rank next to the highest in the
empire; J. McLeary Brown, formerly of the British legation,
and M. Deschamps, as secretaries; Teh Ming and Fung I as
Chinese attachés, and several other persons in subordinate
positions. … It went to Shanghai, thence to San Francisco,
where it was most cordially welcomed by both the American and
Chinese mercantile communities. It reached Washington in May,
1868. The embassy was treated with much distinction at the
American capital. No American statesman was so capable and
disposed to enter cordially into its objects as the Secretary
of State at that time, the Honorable William H. Seward, whose mind
had long apprehended the great features of the policy which
American and foreign nations should pursue in relation to the
Chinese empire. On the 16th of July the Senate of the United
States ratified a treaty which he had made in behalf of this
country with the representative of the Chinese government. The
treaty defines and fixes the principles of the intercourse of
Western nations with China, of the importance of which I have
already spoken. It secures the territorial integrity of the
empire, and concedes to China the rights which the civilized
nations of the world, accord to each other as to eminent
domain over land and waters, and jurisdiction over persons and
property therein. It takes the first step toward the
appointment of Chinese consuls in our seaports—a measure
promotive of both Chinese and American interests. It secures
exemption from all disability or persecution on account of
religious faith in either country. It recognizes the right of
voluntary emigration and makes penal the wrongs of the coolie
traffic. It pledges privileges as to travel or residence in
either country such as are enjoyed by the most favored nation.
It grants to the Chinese permission to attend our schools and
colleges, and allows us to freely establish and maintain
schools in China. And while it acknowledges the right of the
Chinese government to control its own whole interior
arrangements, as to railroads, telegraphs and other internal
improvements, it suggests the willingness of our government to
afford aid toward their construction by designating and
authorizing suitable engineers to perform the work, at the
expense of the Chinese government. The treaty expressly leaves
the question of naturalization in either country an open one.
… It is not necessary to follow in detail the progress of
this first imperial Chinese embassy. In England it was
received at first very coldly, and it was some months before
proper attention could be secured from the government to its
objects. At length, however, on November 20, it was presented
to the queen at Windsor Castle. … What heart is there that
will not join in the cordial wish that the treaties made by
the embassy with Great Britain, France, Prussia and other
European powers may be the commencement of a new era in the
diplomatic and national intercourse of China with those and
all other lands of the West!"
_W. Speer,
The Oldest and the Newest Empire,
chapter 14._
ALSO IN:
_Treaties and Conventions between the
United States and other Powers (1889),
page 159 and 179._
{429}
CHINA: A. D. 1884-1885.
War with France.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1875-1889.
CHINA: A. D. 1892.
Exclusion of Chinese from the United States.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1892.
CHINA: A. D. 1893.
The future of the Chinese.
A speculation.
"China is generally regarded as a stationary power which can
fairly hold its own, though it has lost Annam to France, and
the suzerainty of Upper Burmah to England, and the Amoor
Valley to Russia, but which is not a serious competitor in the
race for empire. There is a certain plausibility in this view.
On the other hand, China has recovered Eastern Turkestan from
Mahommedan rule and from a Russian protectorate, is dominating
the Corea, and has stamped out a dangerous rebellion in
Yunnan. No one can doubt that if China were to get for
sovereign a man with the organising and aggressive genius of
Peter the Great or Frederick the Second, it would be a very
formidable neighbour to either British India or Russia.
Neither is it easy to suppose that the improvements, now
tentatively introduced into China, will not soon be taken up
and pushed on a large scale, so that railways will be carried
into the heart of Asia, and large armies drilled and furnished
with arms of precision on the European model. In any such case
the rights which China has reluctantly conceded or still
claims over Annam and Tonquin, over Siam, over Upper Burmah,
and over Nepaul, may become matters of very serious
discussion. At present the French settlements arrest the
expansion of China in the direction most dangerous to the
world. Unfortunately, the climate of Saigon is such as no
European cares to settle in, and the war to secure Tonquin was
so unpopular that it cost a French premier his tenure of
office. … 'Whatever, however, be the fortune of China in
this direction, it is scarcely doubtful that she will not only
people up to the furthest boundary of her recognised
territory, but gradually acquire new dominions. The history of
our Straits Settlements will afford a familiar instance how
the Chinese are spreading. They already form half the
population predominating in Singapore and Perak, and the best
observers are agreed that the Malay cannot hold his own
against them. They are beginning to settle in Borneo and
Sumatra, and they are supplanting the natives in some of the
small islands of the Pacific, such as Hawaii. The climate of
all these countries suits them, and they commend themselves to
governments and employers by their power of steady industry;
and they intermarry freely up to a safe point with the women
of the country, getting all the advantages of alliance, yet
not sacrificing their nationality. Several causes have
retarded their spread hitherto: the regions enumerated have
mostly been too insecure for an industrial people to flourish
in, until the British or the Dutch established order; the
government of China has hitherto discouraged emigration;
English administrations have been obliged to be rather wary in
their dealings with a people who showed at Sarawak and Penang
that they were capable of combining for purposes of massacre;
and the Chinese superstition about burial in the sacred soil
of the Celestial Empire made the great majority of the
emigrants birds of passage. All these causes are disappearing.
… Europeans cannot flourish under the tropics, and will not
work with the hand where an inferior race works. What we have
to consider, therefore, is the probability that the natives
who are giving way to the Chinese in the Malay Peninsula will
be able to make head against them in Borneo or Sumatra. Borneo
is nearly six times as big as Java, and if it were peopled
like Java would support a population of nearly 100,000,000.
… In the long run the Chinese, who out-number the Malays as
sixteen to one, who are more decidedly industrial, and who
organise where they can in a way that precludes competition,
are tolerably certain to gain the upper hand. They may not
destroy the early settlers, but they will reduce them to the
position of the Hill tribes in India, or of the Ainos in
Japan. Assume fifty years hence that China has taken its
inevitable position as one of the great powers of the world,
and that Borneo has a population of 10,000,000, predominantly
Chinese, is it easy to suppose in such a case that the larger
part of Borneo would still be a dependency of the Netherlands?
or that the whole island would not have passed, by arms or
diplomacy, into the possession of China? … There are those
who believe that the Chinaman is likely to supersede the
Spaniard and Indian alike in parts of South America. Without
assuming that all of these possibilities are likely to be
realised, there is surely a strong presumption that so great a
people as the Chinese, and possessed of such enormous natural
resources, will sooner or later overflow their borders and
spread over new territory, and submerge weaker races."
_C. H. Pearson,
National Life and Character,
pages 45-51._
----------CHINA: End----------
CHINANTECS, The.
See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: ZAPOTECS, ETC.
CH'ING OR TSING DYNASTY, The.
See CHINA: A. D. 1294-1882.
CHINGIS KHAN, Conquests of.
See MONGOLS: A. D. 1153-1227;
and INDIA: A. D. 977-1290.
CHINOOK, The.
See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: CHINOOKAN FAMILY.
CHIOGGIA, The War of.
See VENICE: A. D. 1379-1381.
CHIOS.
The rocky island known anciently as Chios, called Scio in
modern times, was one of the places which claimed Homer's
birth. It is situated in the Ægean Sea, separated by a strait
only five miles wide from the Asiatic coast. The wines of
Chios were famous in antiquity and have a good reputation at
the present day. The island was an important member of the
Ionian confederation, and afterwards subject to Athens, from
which it revolted twice, suffering terrible barbarities in
consequence.
See ASIA MINOR: THE GREEK COLONIES.
CHIOS: B. C. 413.
Revolt from Athens.
See GREECE: B. C. 413-412.
CHIOS: A. D. 1346.
Taken by the Genoese.
See CONSTANTINOPLE: A. D. 1348-1355.
CHIOS: A. D. 1681.
Blockade and attack by the French.
See BARBARY STATES: A. D. 1664-1684.
CHIOS: A. D. 1770.
Temporary possession by the Russians.
See TURKS: A. D. 1768-1774.
CHIOS: A. D. 1822.
Turkish massacre of Christians.
See GREECE: A. D. 1821-1829.
----------CHIOS: End----------
CHIPPEWA, Battle of.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1814 (JULY-SEPTEMBER).
{430}
CHIPPEWAS, OR OJIBWAS, The.
See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: ALGONQUIAN FAMILY,
AND OJIBWAS.
CHIPPEWYANS, The.
See AMERICAN ABORIGINES ATHAPASCAN FAMILY.
CHITON, The.
"The chiton [of the ancient Greeks] was an oblong piece of
cloth arranged round the body so that the arm was put through
a hole in the closed side, the two ends of the open side being
fastened over the opposite shoulder by means of a button or
clasp. On this latter side, therefore, the chiton was
completely open, at least as far as the thigh, underneath of
which the two ends might be either pinned or stitched
together. Round the hips the chiton was fastened with a ribbon
or girdle, and the lower part could be shortened as much as
required by pulling it through this girdle. … Frequently
sleeves, either shorter and covering only the upper arm, or
continued to the wrist were added to the chiton. … The
short-sleeved chiton is frequently worn by women and children
on monuments. Of the sleeveless chiton, worn by men over both
shoulders, it is stated that it was the sign of a free
citizen. Slaves and artisans are said to have worn a chiton
with one hole for the left arm, the right arm and half the
chest remaining quite uncovered. … It appears clearly that
the whole chiton consists of one piece. Together with the open
and half-open kinds of the chiton we also find the closed
double chiton flowing down to the feet. It was a piece of
cloth considerably longer than the human body, and closed on
both sides, inside of which the person putting it on stood as
in a cylinder."
_E. Guhl and W. Koner,
Life of the Greeks and Romans,
part 1, section 41._
"The principal, or rather, the sole garment, of the Dorian
maidens was the chiton, or himation made of woolen stuff, and
without sleeves, but fastened on either shoulder by a large
clasp, and gathered on the breast by a kind of brooch. This
sleeveless robe, which seldom reached more than half way to
the knee, was moreover left open up to a certain point on both
sides, so that the skirts or wings, flying open as they
walked, entirely exposed their limbs. … The married women,
however, did not make their appearance in public 'en chemise,'
but when going abroad donned a second garment which seems to
have resembled pretty closely their husbands' himatia."
_J. A. St. John,
The Hellenes,
book 3, chapter 6._
CHITTIM.
See KITTIM.
CHIVALRY.
"The primitive sense of this well-known word, derived from the
French Chevalier, signifies merely cavalry, or a body of
soldiers serving on horseback; and has been used in that
general acceptation by the best of our poets, ancient and
modern, from Milton to Thomas Campbell. But the present
article respects the peculiar meaning given to the word in
modern Europe, as applied to the order of knighthood,
established in almost all her kingdoms during the middle ages,
and the laws, rules, and customs, by which it was governed.
Those laws and customs have long been antiquated, but their
effects may still be traced in European manners; and,
excepting only the change which flowed from the introduction
of the Christian religion, we know no cause which has produced
such general and permanent difference betwixt the ancients and
moderns, as that which has arisen out of the institution of
chivalry. … From the time that cavalry becomes used in war,
the horseman who furnishes and supports a charger arises, in
all countries, into a person of superior importance to the
mere foot-soldier. … In various military nations, therefore,
we find that horsemen are distinguished as an order in the
state. … But, in the middle ages, the distinction ascribed
to soldiers serving on horseback assumed a very peculiar and
imposing character. They were not merely respected on account
of their wealth or military skill, but were bound together by
a union of a very peculiar character, which monarchs were
ambitious to share with the poorest of their subjects, and
governed by laws directed to enhance, into enthusiasm, the
military spirit and the sense of personal honour associated
with it. The aspirants to this dignity were not permitted to
assume the sacred character of knighthood until after a long
and severe probation, during which they practised, as
acolytes, the virtues necessary to the order of Chivalry.
Knighthood was the goal to which the ambition of every noble
youth turned; and to support its honours, which (in theory at
least) could only be conferred on the gallant, the modest, and
the virtuous, it was necessary he should spend a certain time
in a subordinate situation, attendant upon some knight of
eminence, observing the conduct of his master, as what must in
future be the model of his own, and practising the virtues of
humility, modesty, and temperance, until called upon to
display those of a higher order. … In the general and
abstract definition of Chivalry, whether as comprising a body
of men whose military service was on horseback, and who were
invested with peculiar honours and privileges, or with
reference to the mode and period in which these distinctions
and privileges were conferred, there is nothing either
original or exclusively proper to our Gothic ancestors. It was
in the singular tenets of Chivalry,—in the exalted,
enthusiastic, and almost sanctimonious, ideas connected with
its duties,—in the singular balance which its institutions
offered against the evils of the rude ages in which it arose,
that we are to seek those peculiarities which render it so
worthy of our attention. … The education of the future
knight began at an early period. The care of the mother, after
the first years of early youth were passed, was deemed too
tender, and the indulgences of the paternal roof too
effeminate, for the future aspirant to the honours of
chivalry. … To counteract these habits of indulgence, the
first step to the order of knighthood was the degree of Page.
The young and noble stripling, generally about his twelfth
year, was transferred from his father's house to that of some
baron or gallant knight, sedulously chosen by the anxious
parent as that which had the best reputation for good order
and discipline. … When advancing age and experience in the
use of arms had qualified the page for the hardships and
dangers of actual war, he was removed, from the lowest to the
second gradation of chivalry, and became an Eseuyer, Esquire,
or Squire. The derivation of this phrase has been much
contested. It has been generally supposed to be derived from
its becoming the official duty of the esquire to carry the
shield (Escu) of the knight his master, until he was about to
engage the enemy. Others have fetched the epithet (more
remotely certainly) from Scuria, a stable, the charger of the
knight being under the especial care of the squire.
{431}
Others, again, ascribe the derivation of the word to
the right which the squire himself had to carry a shield, and
to blazon it with armorial bearings. This, in later times,
became almost the exclusive meaning attached to the
appellative esquire; and, accordingly, if the phrase now means
anything, it means a gentleman having a right to carry arms.
There is reason, however, to think this is a secondary meaning
of the word, for we do not find the word Escuyer, applied as a
title of rank, until so late as the Ordonnance of Blois, in
1579. … In actual war the page was not expected to render
much service, but that of the squire was important and
indispensable. Upon a march he bore the helmet and shield of
the knight and led his horse of battle, a tall heavy animal
fit to bear the weight of a man in armour, but which was led
in hand in marching, while the knight rode an ambling hackney.
The squire was also qualified to perform the part of an
armourer, not only lacing his master's helmet and buckling his
cuirass, but also closing with a hammer the rivets by which
the various pieces were united to each other. … In the
actual shock of battle, the esquire attended closely on the
banner of his master, or on his person if he were only a
knight bachelor, kept pace with him during the melee, and was
at hand to remount him when his steed was slain, or relieve
him when oppressed by numbers. If the knight made prisoners
they were the charge of the esquire; if the esquire himself
fortuned to make one, the ransom belonged to his master. … A
youth usually ceased to be a page at 14, or a little earlier,
and could not regularly receive the honour of knighthood until
he was one-and-twenty. … Knighthood was, in its origin, an
order of a republican, or at least an oligarchic nature;
arising … from the customs of the free tribes of Germany
[see COMITATUS], and, in its essence, not requiring the
sanction of a monarch. On the contrary, each knight could
confer the order of knighthood upon whomsoever preparatory
noviciate and probation had fitted to receive it. The highest
potentates sought the accolade, or stroke which conferred the
honour, at the hands of the worthiest knight whose
achievements had dignified the period. … Though no positive
regulation took place on the subject, ambition on the part of
the aspirant, and pride and policy on that of the sovereign
princes and nobles of high rank, gradually limited to the
latter the power of conferring knighthood. … Knights were
usually made either on the eve of battle, or when the victory
had been obtained; or they were created during the pomp of
some solemn warning or grand festival. … The spirit of
chivalry sunk gradually under a combination of physical and
moral causes; the first arising from the change gradually
introduced into the art of war, and the last from the equally
great alteration produced by time in the habits and modes of
thinking in modern Europe. Chivalry began to dawn in the end
of the 10th, and beginning of the 11th century. It blazed
forth with high vigour during the crusades, which indeed may
be considered as exploits of national knight-errantry, or
general wars, undertaken on the very same principles which
actuated the conduct of individual knights adventurers. But
its most brilliant period was during the wars between France
and England, and it was unquestionably in those kingdoms that
the habit of constant and honourable opposition, unembittered
by rancour or personal hatred, gave the fairest opportunity
for the exercise of the virtues required from him whom Chaucer
terms 'a very perfect gentle knight.' Froissart frequently
makes allusions to the generosity exercised by the French and
English to their prisoners, and contrasts it with the dungeons
to which captives taken in war were consigned both in Spain
and Germany. Yet both these countries, and indeed every
kingdom in Europe, partook of the spirit of chivalry in a
greater or less degree; and even the Moors of Spain caught the
emulation, and had their orders of Knighthood as well as the
Christians. But even during this splendid period, various
causes were silently operating the future extinction of the
flame, which blazed thus wide and brightly. An important
discovery, the invention of gunpowder, had taken place, and
was beginning to be used in war, even when chivalry was in its
highest glory. … Another change, of vital importance, arose
from the institution of the bands of gens-d'armes, or men at
arms in France, constituted … expressly as a sort of
standing army. … A more fatal cause had, however, been for
some time operating in England, as well as France, for the
destruction of the system we are treating of. The wars of York
and Lancaster in England, and those of the Huguenots and of
the League, were of a nature so bitter and rancorous, as was
utterly inconsistent with the courtesy, fair play, and
gentleness, proper to chivalry. … The civil wars not only
operated in debasing the spirit of chivalry, but in exhausting
and destroying the particular class of society from which its
votaries were drawn."
_Sir W. Scott,
Essay on Chivalry._
ALSO IN: G
_P. R. James,
History of Chivalry._
_H. Hallam,
State of Europe during the Middle Ages,
chapter 9, part 2 (volume 3)._
_F. P. Guizot,
History of Civilization in France,
6th lecture, 2d course (volume 4)._
_C. Mills,
History of Chivalry._
_H. Stebbing,
History of Chivalry and the Crusades._
_L. Gautier,
Chivalry._
_K. H. Digby,
The Broadstone of Honour._
_Dr. Doran,
Knights and their Days._
See, also, KNIGHTHOOD, ORDERS OF.
CHLAMYS, The.
"The chlamys [worn by the ancient Greeks] … was an oblong
piece of cloth thrown over the left shoulder, the open ends
being fastened across the right shoulder by means of a clasp;
the corners hanging down were, as in the himation, kept
straight by means of weights sewed into them. The chlamys was
principally used by travellers and soldiers."
_E. Guhl and W. Koner,
Life of the Greeks and Romans,
part 1, section 42._
CHOCIM.
See CHOCZIM.
CHOCTAWS, OR CHA'HTAS, The.
See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: MUSKHOGEAN FAMILY.
CHOCZIM (KHOTZIM, CHOTYN, KHOTIN, CHOCIM, KOTZIM): A. D. 1622.
Defeat of the Turks by the Poles.
See POLAND: A. D. 1590-1648.
CHOCZIM: A. D. 1672.
Taken by Sobieska and the Poles.
Great defeat of the Turks.
See POLAND: A. D. 1668-1696.
CHOCZIM: A. D. 1739.
Captured by the Russians and restored to the Turks.
See Russia: A. D.1725-1739.
CHOCZIM: A. D. 1769.
Taken by the Russians.
Defeat of the Turks.
See TURKS: A. D. 1768-1774.
{432}
CHOCZIM: A. D. 1790.
Defeat of the Turks by the Russians.
See TURKS: A. D. 1776-1792.
----------CHOCZIM: End----------
CHOLET, Battles of.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1793 (JULY-DECEMBER).
CHOLULA: Pyramids at.
See MEXICO, ANCIENT: THE TOLTEC EMPIRE.
CHOLULA: A. D. 1519.
The Massacre at.
See MEXICO: A. D. 1519 (OCTOBER).
----------CHOLULA: End----------
CHONTALS, The.
See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: CHONTALS.
CHONTAQUIROS, OR PIRU, The.
See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: ANDESIANS.
CHORASMIA.
See KHUAREZM.
CHOREGIA.
See LITURGIES.
CHOTUSITZ, OR CZASLAU, Battle of.
See AUSTRIA: A. D. 1742 (JANUARY-MAY).
CHOTYN.
See CHOCZIM.
CHOUANS.
CHOUANNERIE.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1794-1796.
CHOUT.
The blackmail levied by the Mahrattas.
See INDIA: A. D. 1805-1816.
CHOWANS, The.
See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: IROQUOIS TRIBES OF THE SOUTH.
CHREMONIDEAN WAR, The.
See ATHENS: B. C. 288-263.
CHRIST, Knights of the Order of.
See PORTUGAL: A. D. 1415-1460.
CHRISTIAN I.,
King of Denmark, Norway and Sweden, A. D. 1448-1481.
Christian II., A. D. 1513-1523.
Christian III., King of Denmark and Norway, A. D. 1534-1558.
Christian IV., A. D. 1588-1648.
Christian V., A. D. 1670-1699.
Christian VI., A. D. 1730-1746.
Christian VII., A. D. 1766-1808.
Christian VIII., King of Denmark, A. D. 1839-1848.
Christian IX., A. D. 1863-.
CHRISTIAN COMMISSION, The United States.
See SANITARY COMMISSION.
CHRISTIAN ERA.
See ERA, CHRISTIAN.
[image: DEVELOPMENT MAP OF CHRISTIANITY.]
[image: DEVELOPMENT MAP OF CHRISTIANITY.]
CHRISTIANITY:
"Historical geography has of late years become an integral
part of the historical science. Recent investigations have
opened up the subject and a solid beginning has been made—but
it is only a beginning. It is clearly recognized that the land
itself as it appears at different periods is one of those
invaluable original documents upon which history is built, and
no stone is being left unturned to clear away mysteries and to
bring to our aid a realism hitherto unknown to the science.
… But the special branch of this vast and complicated theme
of historical geography which interests us most and which I
desire briefly to bring to your attention is that which deals
with the Christian Church. … Our eyes first rest upon that
little group at Jerusalem that made up the Pentecostal Church.
Its spread was conditioned by the extent and character of the
Roman Empire, by the municipal genius of that empire, its
great highways by land and sea; conditioned by the commercial
routes and the track of armies outside the bounds of
civilization; conditioned by the spread of languages—
Aramaic, Greek, and Latin,—and, most important of all,
conditioned by the whereabouts of the seven million Jews
massed in Syria, Babylonia, and Egypt, and scattered
everywhere throughout the Empire and far beyond its
boundaries."
_H. W. Hulbert,
The Historical Geography of the Christian Church
(American Society of Church History, volume 3)._
"When we turn from the Jewish 'dispersion' in the East to that
in the West, we seem in quite a different atmosphere. Despite
their intense nationalism, all unconsciously to themselves,
their mental characteristics and tendencies were in the
opposite direction from those of their brethren. With those of
the East rested the future of Judaism; with them of the West,
in a sense, that of the world. The one represented old Israel
groping back into the darkness of the past; the other young
Israel, stretching forth its hands to where the dawn of a new
day was about to break. These Jews of the West are known by
the term Hellenists. … The translation of the Old Testament
into Greek may be regarded as the starting point of Hellenism.
It rendered possible the hope that what in its original form
had been confined to the few, might become accessible to the
world at large. … In the account of the truly representative
gathering in Jerusalem on that ever-memorable Feast of Weeks,
the division of the 'dispersion' into two grand sections—the
Eastern or Trans-Euphratic, and the Western or
Hellenist—seems clearly marked. In this arrangement the
former would include 'the Parthians, Medes, Elamites, and
dwellers in Mesopotamia,' Judæa standing, so to speak, in the
middle, while 'the Cretes and Arabians' would typically
represent the farthest outrunners respectively of the Western
and Eastern Diaspora. The former, as we know from the New
Testament, commonly bore in Palestine the name of the
'dispersion of the Greeks', and of 'Hellenists' or 'Grecians.'
On the other hand, the Trans-Euphratic Jews, who 'inhabited
Babylon and many of the other satrapies,' were included with
the Palestinians and the Syrians under the term 'Hebrews,'
from the common language which they spoke. But the difference
between the 'Grecians' and the 'Hebrews' was far deeper than
merely of language, and extended to the whole direction of
thought."
_A. Edersheim.
The Life and Times of Jesus the Messiah,
volume 1, book 1, chapters 2-3, and 1._
"Before Pentecost an assembly of the believers took place, at
which the post vacated in the number of the apostles by the
suicide of the traitor Judas of Kerioth, was filled up by the
election of Matthias by lot. On this occasion the number of
the assembled brethren amounted to about 120 men. … At the
feast of Pentecost … a very considerable accession was made
to the formerly moderate band of believers in Jerusalem; …
about 3,000 souls received the word and were joined to the
Church by baptism (Acts ii. 41). We must not, however, at once
credit the Church in Jerusalem with this increase. For among
the listeners to the apostolic discourse there were
Israelitish guests and proselytes from near and distant
countries (ii. 5, 9-11, 14), whence we may infer that of those
newly converted many were not living in Jerusalem itself, but
partly in Judæa and Galilee, partly in countries beyond
Palestine, who therefore returned home after the feast days
were ended.
{433}
Some of these might, under certain circumstances, form
the centre of a small Church in the dispersion, so that
gradually Churches may have arisen to which also James may
possibly have addressed his Epistle. … So abundantly did God
bless with success the activity of the early apostles though
limited to the nation of Israel and the land of Canaan, and
their fidelity within a circumscribed sphere. Hence there
existed at the end of the period of which we treat numerous
Christian Churches in Jerusalem and the whole country of Judæa
(comp. Galatians i. 22, etc.: Acts xi. 1), also on the coast (Acts
ix. 32-35, etc.) in Samaria and Galilee, and finally in Syria,
Phenicia, and Cyprus, (Acts ix. 2, 10, 25, xi. 19), some of
which were directly, some indirectly, founded by the Twelve,
and were, in any case, governed and guided by them.' In the
above named districts outside Palestine, it might not, indeed,
have been easy to find a Christian Church consisting
exclusively of believing Jews, for as a rule they consisted of
believing Jews and individual Gentiles. On the other hand, we
shall scarcely be wrong in regarding the Christian Churches
within Palestine itself as composed entirely of believing
Israelites. But even among these there were many distinctions,
e. g., between Palestinians and Hellenists."
_G. V. Lechler,
The Apostolic and Post-Apostolic Times,
volume 1, pages 30-35._
"We find the early [Jewish] Christians observing the national
feasts and holidays (Acts ii. 1: xviii. 21: xx. 6, 16: Romans
xiv. 5). They take part in the worship of the temple and the
synagogue; they pray at the customary hours (chapters ii. 46;
iii. 1; volume 42; x. 9). They observe the fasts, and undergo
voluntary abstinence, binding themselves by special vows like
all pious Jews (xiii. 2: xvii. 18; xxi. 23). They scrupulously
avoid unlawful food, and all legal defilement (x. 14). They
have their children circumcised (xv. 5; xvi. 3; 65493 volume 2).
… This scrupulous piety won for them the esteem and
admiration of the people (chap. volume 13)." At first their creed
was "comprised in a single dogma: 'Jesus is the Messiah.' …
Their preaching of the Gospel strictly followed the lines of
Messianic tradition (i. 7; ii. 36; iii. 20). … But in
reality all this formed only the outside of their life and
creed. … Herein lies the profound significance of the
miracle of Pentecost. That day was the birthday of the Church,
not because of the marvelous success of Peter's preaching, but
because the Christian principle, hitherto existing only
objectively and externally in the person of Jesus, passed from
that moment into the souls of His disciples. … And thus in
the very midst of Judaism we see created and unfolded a form
of religious life essentially different from it—the Christian
life."
_A. Sabatier,
The Apostle Paul,
pages 35-36._
"By the two parables of the Mustard Seed and the Leaven,
Christ marked out the two sides or aspects of His truth—its
external growth from the least to the greatest, and its
internal action on society at large—as setting up a ferment,
and making a new lump out of the unkneaded mass of the old
humanity. With these two symbols in view we may gauge what the
gospel was designed to be and to do. It was to grow into a
great outward society—the tree of the Church; but it was also
to do a work on secular society as such, corresponding to the
action of leaven on flour. The history of Christianity has
been the carrying out of these two distinct and contrasted
conceptions; but how imperfectly, and under what drawbacks."
_Reverend J. B. Heard,
Alexandrian and Carthaginian Theology Contrasted,
page 186._
"The organic connection of Jewish Christians with the
synagogue, which must, in accordance with the facts before us,
be regarded as a rule, is certainly not to be taken as a mere
incidental phenomenon, a customary habit or arbitrary
accommodation, but as a moral fact resting upon an internal
necessity, having its foundation in the love of Jewish
Christians to their nation, and in the adhesion of their
religious consciousness to the old covenant. To mistake this
would be to underrate the wide bearing of the fact. But lest
we should over-estimate its importance, we must at once
proceed to another consideration. Within Judaism we must
distinguish not only the Rabbinical or Pharisaic tradition of
the original canonical revelation, but also within the canon
itself we have to distinguish the Levitical element from the
prophetic, … taking the latter not in a close but a wide
sense as the living spiritual development of the theocracy."
_G. V. Lechler,
The Apostolic and Post-Apostolic Times,
volume 1, page 54._
"Moreover the law had claims on a Hebrew of Palestine wholly
independent of his religious obligations. To him it was a
national institution, as well as a divine covenant. Under the
Gospel he might consider his relations to it in this latter
character altered, but as embodying the decrees and usages of
his country it still demanded his allegiance. To be a good
Christian he was not required to be a bad citizen. On these
grounds the more enlightened members of the mother-church
would justify their continued adhesion to the law. Nor is
there any reason to suppose that St. Paul himself took a
different view of their obligations."
_J. B. Lightfoot,
Dissertations on the Apostolic Age,
page 67._
"The term 'Jewish-Christianity' is applicable exclusively to
those Christians who really retained, entirely or in the
smallest part, the national and political forms of Judaism and
insisted upon the observance of the Mosaic Law without
modification as essential to Christianity, at least to the
Christianity of the Jewish-born converts, or who indeed
rejected these forms, but acknowledged the prerogative of the
Jewish people also in Christianity."
_A. Harnack,
Outlines of the History of Dogma,
page 75._
CHRISTIANITY: A. D. 33-100.
The Rise of the Churches.
Jerusalem.
"After the miraculous healing of the cripple and the discourse
of the Apostle Peter on that occasion, the historian goes on
to say, Many of them which heard the word believed, and the
number of the men was about 5,000' (iv. 4). It seems as if in
consequence of this event, which made no little stir, a larger
number joined themselves to the Church. Nor is it probable
that this healing took place until a long time after the
beginning of the Church. The miracle, with the effect which it
had, serves as a resting place at which the result of the
previous growth of the Church may be ascertained. And here the
number again incidentally mentioned refers without doubt to
the Church at Jerusalem."
_G. V. Lechler,
The Apostolic and Post-Apostolic Times,
volume 1, page 32._
{434}
The early history of the Churches "falls into three periods
which mark three distinct stages in its progress:
(1) The Extension of the Church to the Gentiles;
(2) The Recognition of Gentile Liberty;
(3) The Emancipation of the Jewish Churches.
… And soon enough the pressure of events began to be felt.
The dispersion was the link which connected the Hebrews of
Palestine with the outer world. Led captive by the power of
Greek philosophy at Athens and Tarsus and Alexandria,
attracted by the fascinations of Oriental mysticism in Asia,
swept along with the busy whirl of social life in the city and
court of the Cæsars, these outlying members of the chosen race
had inhaled a freer spirit and contracted wider interests than
their fellow-countrymen at home. By a series of insensible
gradations—proselytes of the covenant—proselytes of the
gate—superstitious devotees who observed the rites without
accepting the faith of the Mosaic dispensation—curious
lookers-on who interested themselves in the Jewish ritual as
they would in the worship of Isis or of Astarte—the most
stubborn zealot of the law was linked to the idolatrous
heathen whom he abhorred and who despised him in turn. Thus
the train was unconsciously laid, when the spark fell from
heaven and fired it. … Meanwhile at Jerusalem some years
passed away before the barrier of Judaism was assailed. The
Apostles still observed the Mosaic ritual; they still confined
their preaching to Jews by birth, or Jews by adoption, the
proselytes of the covenant. At length a breach was made, and
the assailants as might be expected were Hellenists. The first
step towards the creation of an organized ministry was also
the first step towards the emancipation of the Church. The
Jews of Judæa, 'Hebrews of the Hebrews' had ever regarded
their Hellenist brethren with suspicion and distrust; and this
estrangement reproduced itself in the Christian Church. The
interests of the Hellenist widows had been neglected in the
daily distribution of alms. Hence 'arose a murmuring of the
Hellenists against the Hebrews' (Acts vi. 1), which was met by
the appointment of seven persons specially charged with
providing for the wants of these neglected poor. If the
selection was made, as St. Luke's language seems to imply, not
by the Hellenists themselves but by the Church at large (vi.
2), the concession when granted was carried out in a liberal
spirit. All the names of the seven are Greek, pointing to a
Hellenist rather than a Hebrew extraction, and one is
especially described as a proselyte, being doubtless chosen to
represent a hitherto small but growing section of the
community. By this appointment the Hellenist members obtained
a status in the Church; and the effects of this measure soon
became visible. Two out of the seven stand prominently forward
as the champions of emancipation, Stephen the preacher and
martyr of liberty, and Philip the practical worker."
_J. B. Lightfoot,
Dissertations on the Apostolic Age,
pages 50-52._
"The Hellenist Stephen roused deep-stirring movements chiefly
in Hellenist circles. … The persecution of the Jerusalem
community—perhaps specially of its Hellenist part—which
followed the stoning of Stephen, became a means of promoting
the spread of the Christian faith to … Cyprus, at last to so
important a centre as Antioch, the imperial capital of the
East. To the winning of the Jews to faith in Jesus there is
already added the reception into the Christian community of
the pious Gentile Cornelius, a proselyte of the gate. …
Though this appears in tradition as an individual case
sanctioned by special Divine guidance, in the meantime
Hellenist Christians had already begun to preach the Gospel to
born Greeks, also at Antioch in Syria, and successfully (Acts
xi. 19-26), Barnabas is sent thither from Jerusalem."
_W. Moeller,
History of the Christian Church,
pages 53-54._
"Philip, driven from Jerusalem by the persecution, preached
Christ to the Samaritans. … The Apostles who had remained at
Jerusalem, hearing of the success of Philip's preaching, sent
two of their number into this new and fruitful field of labor.
… Peter and John return to Jerusalem while the Deacon Philip
is called, by a new manifestation of the will of God, yet
further to extend the field of Christian missions. It is not a
Samaritan but a pagan, whom he next instructs in the truth.
… He was an Ethiopian eunuch, a great dignitary of the court
of Meroë, treasurer of the Queen. … This man, a pagan by
birth, had taken a long journey to worship the true God in the
temple of Jerusalem."
_E. De Pressensé,
The Early Years of Christianity,
pages 71-74._
"For the sake of the popular feeling Herod Agrippa laid hands
on members of the community, and caused James the brother of
John (the sons of Zebedee) to be put to death by the sword, in
the year 44, for soon thereafter Herod Agrippa died. Peter
also was taken prisoner, but miraculously escaped and
provisionally left Jerusalem. From this time on James the
brother of the Lord appears ever more and more as really
bearing rank as head of the Jerusalem community, while Peter
more and more devotes himself to the apostolic mission abroad,
and indeed, more accurately, to the mission in Israel."
_W. Moeller,
History of the Christian Church,
page 55._
"The accounts which we have regarding the apostle Peter,
represent him as preaching the gospel from the far east to
distant parts of the west. … According to his own words, he
founded churches in Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and
Bithynia, and according to the testimony of ancient historians
of the Church in the east also; in Syria, Babylon,
Mesopotamia, Chaldaea, Arabia, Phoenicia and Egypt, and in the
west, at Rome, in Britain, Ireland, Helvetia and Spain."
_J. E. T. Wiltsch,
Hand Book of the Geography and Statistics of The Church,
volume 1, pages 19-20._
"Three and three only of the personal disciples and immediate
followers of our Lord hold any prominent place in the
Apostolic records—James, Peter, and John; the first the
Lord's brother, the two latter the foremost members of the
Twelve. Apart from an incidental reference to the death of
James the son of Zebedee, which is dismissed in a single
sentence, the rest of the Twelve are mentioned by name for the
last time on the day of the Lord's Ascension. Thenceforward
they disappear wholly from the canonical writings. And this
silence also extends to the traditions of succeeding ages. We
read indeed of St. Thomas in India, of St. Andrew in Scythia;
but such scanty notices, even if we accept them as
trustworthy, show only the more plainly how little the Church
could tell of her earliest teachers. Doubtless they laboured
zealously and effectively in the spread of the Gospel; but, so
far as we know, they have left no impress of their individual
mind and character on the Church at large. Occupying the
foreground, and indeed covering the whole canvas of early
ecclesiastical history, appear four figures alone, St. Paul,
and the three Apostles of the Circumcision."
_J. B. Lightfoot,
Dissertations on the Apostolic Age,
page 46._
{435}
"While Peter (as it appears) is occupied with the work of
preaching to the Jews outside of Palestine, the community at
Jerusalem, and indeed the Palestinian communities in general,
stand under the leadership of the brother of the Lord, James,
as their recognised head. They remain strictly in the life of
the law, and still hold securely to the hope of the conversion
of the whole of God's people (which Paul had for the present
given up). The mission to the Gentiles is indeed recognised,
but the manner of its conduct by Paul and the powerful
increase of Pauline communities excite misgivings and
dissensions. For in these mixed communities, in the presence
of what is often a preponderating Gentile element, it becomes
ever clearer in what direction the development is pressing;
that, in fact, for the sake of the higher Christian communion
the legal customs even of the Jewish Christians in these
communities must inevitably be broken down, and general
Christian freedom, on principle, from the commands of the law,
gain recognition."
_Dr. Wilhelm Moeller,
History of the Christian Church,
page 73._
"The fall of Jerusalem occurred in the Autumn of the year 70
[see JEWS: A. D. 66-70]. And soon the catastrophe came which
solved the difficult problem. … Jerusalem was razed to the
ground, and the Temple-worship ceased, never again to be
revived. The Christians foreseeing the calamity had fled
before the tempest. … Before the crisis came, they had been
deprived of the counsel and guidance of the leading apostles.
Peter had fallen a martyr at Rome; John had retired to Asia
Minor; James, the Lord's brother, was slain not long before
the great catastrophe. … He was succeeded by his cousin
Symeon, the son of Clopas and nephew of Joseph. Under these
circumstances the Church was reformed at Pella. Its history in
the ages following is a hopeless blank."
_J. B. Lightfoot,
Dissertations on the Apostolic Age,
page 68._
"While Cæsarea succeeded Jerusalem as the political capital of
Palestine, Antioch succeeded it as the centre of Christendom."
_A. Plummer,
Church of the Early Fathers,
chapter 3._
CHRISTIANITY: Antioch.
"Under Macedonian rule the Greek intellect had become the
leading intellectual power of the world. The great
Greek-speaking towns of the East were alike the strongholds of
intellectual power, the battlefields of opinion and systems,
and the laboratories of scientific research, where discoveries
were made and literary undertakings requiring the combination
of forces were carried out. Such was Antioch on the Orontes,
the meeting point of Syrian and Greek intellect; such, above
all, was Alexandria."
_J. J. von Döllinger,
Studies in European History,
page 165._
"The chief line along which the new religion developed was
that which led from Syrian Antioch through the Cilician Gates,
across Lycaonia to Ephesus, Corinth, and Rome. One subsidiary
line followed the land route by Philadelphia, Troas, Philippi,
and the Egnatian Way to Brindisi and Rome; and another went
north from the Gates by Tyana and Cæsareia of Cappadocia to
Amisos in Pontus, the great harbour of the Black Sea, by which
the trade of Central Asia was carried to Rome. The maintenance
of close and constant communication between the scattered
congregations must be presupposed, as necessary to explain the
growth of the Church and the attitude which the State assumed
towards it. Such communication was, on the view advocated in
the present work, maintained along the same lines on which the
general development of the Empire took place; and politics,
education and religion grew side by side."
_W. M. Ramsay,
The Church in the Roman Empire,
page 10._
"The incitement to the wider preaching of the Gospel in the
Greek world starts from the Christian community at Antioch.
For this purpose Barnabas receives Paul as a companion (Acts
xiii., and xiv.) Saul, by birth a Jew of the tribe of
Benjamin, born at Tarsus in Cilicia, educated as a Pharisee;
and although indeed as a Hellenist, he had command of Greek
and had come into contact with Greek culture and Greek life,
yet had not actually passed through the discipline of Greek
culture, was introduced by Gamaliel to the learned study of
the law, and his whole soul was seized with fiery zeal for the
Statutes of the fathers. … After [his conversion and] his
stay in Damascus and in Arabia and the visit to Peter (and
James) at Jerusalem, having gone to Syria and Cilicia, he was
taken to Antioch by Barnabas."
_W. Moeller,
History of the Christian Church,
page 57._
"The strength and zeal of the Antioch Christian society are
shown in the sending forth of Paul and Barnabas, with Mark, a
cousin of Barnabas, for their companion for a part of the way,
on a preaching tour in the eastern districts of Asia Minor.
First they visited Cyprus, where Sergius Paulus, the
proconsul, was converted. Thence they sailed to Attalia, on
the southern coast of Pamphylia, and near Perga; from Perga
they proceeded to Antioch in Pisidia, and from there eastward
to Iconium, and as far as Lystra and Derbe in Lycaonia.
Retracing their steps, they came back to Attalia, and sailed
directly to Antioch. … This was the first incursion of Paul
into the domain of heathenism."
_G. P. Fisher,
History of the Christian Church,
page 22._
"How then should Paul and Barnabas proceed? To leave Syria
they must go first to Seleuceia, the harbour of Antioch, where
they would find ships going south to the Syrian coast and
Egypt, and west either by way of Cyprus or along the coast of
Asia Minor. The western route led toward the Roman world, to
which all Paul's subsequent history proves that he considered
himself called by the Spirit. The Apostles embarked in a ship
for Cyprus, which was very closely connected by commerce and
general intercourse with the Syrian coast. After traversing
the island from east to west, they must go onward. Ships going
westward naturally went across the coast of Pamphylia, and the
Apostles, after reaching Paphos, near the west end of Cyprus,
sailed in one of these ships, and landed at Attalia in
Pamphylia."
_W. M. Ramsay. The Church in the Roman Empire, page 60._
"The work starting from Antioch, by which access to the faith
is opened to the Gentiles, the formation of (preponderatingly)
Gentile Christian communities, now introduces into the
original Christian development an important problem, which
(about the year 52, probably not later), (Galatians ii.; Acts xv.)
leads to discussions and explanations at the so-called
Apostolic Council [at Jerusalem]. … For Paul, who has risen
to perfect independence by the energy of his own peculiar
stamp of gospel, there now begin the years of his powerful
activity, in which he not only again visits and extends his
former missionary field in Asia Minor, but gains a firm
footing in Macedonia (Philippi), Athens, and Achaia (Corinth);
then on the so-called third missionary journey he exercises a
comprehensive influence during a stay of nearly three years at
Ephesus, and finally looks from Achaia towards the metropolis
of the world."
_W. Moeller,
History of the Christian Church,
pages 57-59._
{436}
"If the heathen whom he (Paul) had won to the faith and
received into the Church were to be persuaded to adopt
circumcision and the law before they could attain to full
participation in the Christian salvation, his preaching had
fallen short of his aim, it had been in vain, since it was
very doubtful whether the Gentiles gained over to believe in
the Messiah would submit to the condition. Paul could only
look on those who made such a demand as false brethren, who
having no claim to Christian brotherhood had forced themselves
into the Church at Antioch in an unauthorized way (Galatians ii.
4), and was persuaded that neither the primitive Church as
such, nor its rulers, shared this view. In order therefore to
prevent the Gentile Christians from being disturbed on this
point, he determined to go to Jerusalem and there to challenge
a decision in the matter that should put an end to the strife
(ii. 2). The Church at Antioch also recognized this necessity;
hence followed the proceedings in Jerusalem [about A. D. 52],
whither Paul and Barnabas repaired with other associates (Galatians
ii. 1, Acts xv. 2 ff). … It is certain that when Paul laid
his (free) gospel before the authorities in Jerusalem, they
added nothing to it (Galatians ii. 2-6). i. e., they did not
require that the gospel he preached to the Gentiles should,
besides the sole condition of faith which he laid down, impose
Judaism upon them as a condition of participation in
salvation. … Paul's stipulations with the authorities in
Jerusalem respecting their future work were just as important
for him as the recognition of his free gospel (Galatians ii. 7-10).
They had for their basis a recognition on the part of the
primitive apostles that he was entrusted with the gospel of
the uncircumcision, to which they could add nothing (ii. 6),
just as Peter (as admittedly the most prominent among the
primitive apostles) was entrusted with that of the
circumcision."
_Bernhard Weiss,
A Manual of Introduction to the New Testament,
volume 1, pages 172-175, 178._
"It seems clear that the first meetings of the Christians as a
community apart—meetings that is of a private rather than a
proselytising character—took place, as we see from Acts i.
13-15, in private apartments, the upper rooms or large
guest-chambers in the houses of individual members. Such a
room was doubtless provided by the liberality of Titus Justus
(Acts xviii. 7), such a room again was the upper chamber in
which St. Paul preached at Troas (Acts xx. 7, 8); in such
assembled the converts saluted by the Apostle as the church
which is in the house of Aquila and Prisca, of Nymphas and of
Philemon. … The primitive Roman house had only one story,
but as the cities grew to be more densely populated upper
stories came into use, and it was the custom to place in these
dining apartments, which were called cenacula. Such apartments
would answer to the 'upper rooms' … associated with the
early days of Christianity. … The Christian communities
contained from an early period members of wealth and social
position, who could accommodate in their houses large
gatherings of the faithful; and it is interesting to reflect
that while some of the mansions of an ancient city might be
witnessing in suppers of a Trimalchio or a Virro, scenes more
revolting to modern taste than almost anything presented by
the pagan world, others, perhaps in the same street, might be
the seat of Christian worship or of the simple Christian
meal."
_G. B. Brown,
From Schola to Cathedral,
pages 38-43._
CHRISTIANITY: Asia Minor and Greece.
"Our knowledge of the Apostle Paul's life is far from being
complete. We have only a brief sketch of journeys and toils
that extended over a period of thirty years. Large spaces are
passed over in silence. For example, in the catalogue of his
sufferings, incidentally given, he refers to the fact that he
had been shipwrecked three times, and these disasters were all
prior to the shipwreck on the Island of Malta described by
Luke. Shortly after the conference at Jerusalem he started on
his second missionary tour. He was accompanied by Silas, and
was joined by Timothy at Lystra. He revisited his converts in
Eastern Asia Minor, founded churches in Galatia and Phrygia,
and from Troas, obedient to a heavenly summons, crossed over
to Europe. Having planted at Philippi a church that remained
remarkably devoted and loyal to him, he followed the great
Roman road to Thessalonica, the most important city in
Macedonia. Driven from there and from Berea, he proceeded to
Athens [see ATHENS: A. D. 54 (?)]. In that renowned and
cultivated city he discoursed on Mars Hill to auditors eager
for new ideas in philosophy and religion, and in private
debated with Stoics and Epicureans. At Corinth, which had
risen from its ruins and was once more rich and prosperous, he
remained for a year and a half. It was there, probably, that
he wrote his two Epistles to the Thessalonian Christians.
After a short stay at Ephesus he returned to Antioch by way of
Cesarea and Jerusalem. It was not long before Paul—a second
Alexander, but on a peaceful expedition—began his third great
missionary journey. Taking the land route from Antioch, he
traversed Asia Minor to Ephesus, a flourishing commercial
mart, the capital of the Roman province of Asia. There, with
occasional absences, he made his abode for upwards of two
years. From Ephesus, probably, he wrote the Epistle to the
Galatians. … From Ephesus Paul also wrote the First Epistle
to the Corinthians. The Second Epistle to the Corinthians he
probably wrote from Philippi. … Coming down through Greece,
he remained there three months. There he composed his Epistle
to the Romans. … The untiring Apostle now turned his face
towards Jerusalem. He desired to be present at the festival of
the Pentecost. In order to save time, he sailed past Ephesus,
and at Miletus bade a tender farewell to the Ephesian elders.
He had fulfilled his pledge given at the conference, and he
now carried contributions from the Christians of Macedonia and
Achaia for the poor at Jerusalem."
_G. P. Fisher,
History of the Christian Church,
pages 27-28._
"We may safely say that if Saul had been less of a Jew, Paul
the Apostle would have been less bold and independent. His
work would have been more superficial, and his mind less
unfettered. God did not choose a heathen to be the apostle for
the heathen; for he might have been ensnared by the traditions
of Judaism, by its priestly hierarchy and the splendours of
its worship, as indeed it happened with the church of the
second century. On the contrary God chose a Pharisee. But this
Pharisee had the most complete experience of the emptiness of
external ceremonies and the crushing yoke of the law. There
was no fear that he would ever look back, that he would be
tempted to set up again what the grace of God had justly
overthrown (Galatians ii. 18). Judaism was wholly vanquished
in his soul, for it was wholly displaced."
_A. Sabatier,
The Apostle Paul,
page 69._
{437}
"Notwithstanding the opposition he met from his countrymen, in
spite of all the liberal and the awakened sympathies which he
derived from his work, despite the necessity of contending
daily and hourly for the freedom of the Gospel among the
Gentiles, he never ceased to be a Jew. … The most ardent
patriot could not enlarge with greater pride on the glories of
the chosen race than he does in the Epistle to the Romans. His
care for the poor in Judæa is a touching proof of the strength
of this national feeling. His attendance at the great annual
festivals in Jerusalem is still more significant. 'I must
spend the coming feast at Jerusalem.' This language becomes
the more striking when we remember that he was then intending
to open out a new field of missionary labour in the far West,
and was bidding perhaps his last farewell to the Holy City,
the joy of the whole earth."
_J. B. Lightfoot,
Biblical Essays,
pages 209-210._
"The Macedonian Churches are honorably distinguished above all
others by their fidelity to the Gospel and their affectionate
regard for St. Paul himself. While the Church of Corinth
disgraced herself by gross moral delinquencies, while the
Galatians bartered the liberty of the Gospel for a narrow
formalism, while the believers of Ephesus drifted into the
wildest speculative errors, no such stain attaches to the
brethren of Philippi and Thessalonica. It is to the Macedonian
congregations that the Apostle ever turns for solace in the
midst of his severest trials and sufferings. Time seems not to
have chilled these feelings of mutual affection. The Epistle
to the Philippians was written about ten years after the
Thessalonian letters. It is the more surprising therefore that
they should resemble each other so strongly in tone. In both
alike St. Paul drops his official title at the outset, … and
in both he adopts throughout the same tone of confidence and
affection. In this interval of ten years we meet with one
notice of the Macedonian Churches. It is conceived in terms of
unmeasured praise. The Macedonians had been called upon to
contribute to the wants of their poorer brethren in Judæa, who
were suffering from famine. They had responded nobly to the
call. Deep-sunk in poverty and sorely tried by persecution,
they came forward with eager joy and poured out the riches of
their liberality, straining their means to the utmost in order
to relieve the sufferers. … We may imagine that the people
still retained something of those simpler habits and that
sturdier character, which triumphed over Greeks and Orientals
in the days of Philip and Alexander, and thus in the early
warfare of the Christian Church the Macedonian phalanx offered
a successful resistance to the assaults of an enemy, before
which the lax and enervated ranks of Asia and Achaia had
yielded ignominiously."
_J. B. Lightfoot,
Biblical Essays,
pages 249-250._
At Jerusalem, "the Apostle was rescued by a detachment of the
Roman garrison from a mob of Jewish malignants, was held in
custody for two years at Cesarea, and was finally enabled to
accomplish a long-cherished intention to go to Rome, by being
conveyed there as a prisoner, he having made an appeal to
Cæsar. After being wrecked on the Mediterranean and cast
ashore on the Island of Malta, under the circumstances related
in Luke's graphic and accurate description of the voyage, he
went on his way in safety to the capital."
_G. P. Fisher,
History of the Christian Church,
page 29._
"Paul's apostolic career, as known to us, lasted …
twenty-nine or thirty years; and it falls into three distinct
periods which are summarized in the following chronological
table:
First Period
Essentially Missionary:
35 A. D.,
Conversion of Paul, Journey to Arabia;
38,
First visit to Jerusalem;
38-49,
Mission in Syria and Cilicia-Tarsus and Antioch;
50-51,
First missionary journey Cyprus, Pamphylia and Galatia
(Acts xiii., xiv.);
52,
Conference at Jerusalem (Acts xv.; Galatians ii.);
52-55,
Second missionary journey
Epistles to the Thessalonians (from Corinth).
Second Period
The Great Conflicts, and the Great Epistles:
54,
Return to Antioch
Controversy with Peter (Gal. ii. 12-22);
55-57,
Mission to Ephesus and Asia;
56,
Epistle to the Galatians;
57 or 58 (Passover),
First Epistle to the Corinthians
(Ephesus);
57 or 58 (Autumn),
Second Epistle to the Corinthians.
(Macedonia);
58 (Winter),
Epistle to the Romans.
Third Period
The Captivity:
58 or 59 (Pentecost),
Paul is arrested at Jerusalem;
58-60, or 59-61,
Captivity at Cæsarea
Epistles to Philemon, Colossians and Ephesians;
60 or 61 (Autumn),
Departure for Rome;
61 or 62 (Spring),
Arrival of Paul in Rome;
62-63,
Epistle to the Philippians;
63 or 64,
End of the narrative of the Acts of the Apostles."
_A. Sabatier,
The Apostle Paul,
pages 21-22._
"The impression that we get from Acts is, that the
evangelisation of Asia Minor originated from St. Paul; and
that from his initiative the new religion gradually spread
over the country through the action of many other missionaries
(Acts xix. 10). Moreover, missionaries not trained by him,
were at work in South Galatia and in Ephesus as early as 54-56
A. D. (Gal. volume 7-10; Acts xviii. 25). … The Christian Church
in Asia Minor was always opposed to the primitive native
character. It was Christianity, and not the Imperial
government, which finally destroyed the native languages, and
made Greek the universal language of Asia Minor. The new
religion was strong in the towns before it had any hold of the
country parts. The ruder and the less civilised any district
was, the slower was Christianity in permeating it.
Christianity in the early centuries was the religion of the
more advanced, not of the 'barbarian' peoples; and in fact it
seems to be nearly confined within the limits of the Roman
world, and practically to take little thought of any people
beyond, though in theory, 'Barbarian and Scythian' are
included in it. … The First Epistle of John was in all
probability 'addressed primarily to the circle of Asiatic
Churches, of which Ephesus was the centre.'"
_W. M. Ramsay,
The Church in the Roman Empire,
pages 284, 44, 303._
{438}
"Unless we are prepared to reject without a hearing all the
traditions of Christianity, we cannot refuse to believe that
the latest years of the Apostle St. John were spent in the
Roman province of Asia and chiefly in Ephesus its capital.
This tradition is singularly full, consistent and
well-authenticated. Here he gathered disciples about him,
organized churches, appointed bishops and presbyters. A whole
chorus of voices unite in bearing testimony to its truth. One
who passed his earlier life in these parts and had heard his
aged master, a disciple of St. John himself, recount his
personal reminiscences of the great Apostle; another, who held
this very see of Ephesus, and writing less than a century
after the Apostle's death was linked with the past by a chain
of relatives all bishops in the Christian Church; a third who
also flourished about the close of the century and numbered
among his teachers an old man from this very district—are the
principal, because the most distinct; witnesses to a fact
which is implied in several other notices of earlier or
contemporary writers. As to the time at which St. John left
his original home and settled in this new abode no direct
account is preserved; but a very probable conjecture may be
hazarded. The impending fall of the Holy City was the signal
for the dispersion of the followers of Christ. About this same
time the three other great Apostles, St. Peter, St. Paul and
St. James, died a martyr's death; and on St. John, the lust
surviving of the four great pillars of the Church, devolved
the work of developing the theology of the Gospel and
completing the organization of the Church. It was not
unnatural that at such a crisis he should fix his residence in
the centre of a large and growing Christian community, which
had been planted by the Apostle of the Gentiles, and watered
by the Apostle of the Circumcision. The missionary labours of
St. Paul and St. Peter in Asia Minor were confirmed and
extended by the prolonged residence of their younger
contemporary. At all events such evidence as we possess is
favourable to this view of the date of St. John's settlement
at Ephesus. Assuming that the Apocalypse is the work of the
beloved Apostle, and accepting the view which assigns it to
the close of Nero's reign or thereabouts, we find him now for
the first time in the immediate neighbourhood of Asia Minor
and in direct communication with Ephesus and the neighbouring
Churches. St. John however was not alone. Whether drawn
thither by the attraction of his presence or acting in
pursuance of some common agreement, the few surviving personal
disciples of the Lord would seem to have chosen Asia Minor as
their permanent abode, or at all events as their recognised
headquarters. Here at least we meet with the friend of St.
John's youth and perhaps his fellow-townsman, Andrew of
Bethsaida, who with him had first listened to John the
Baptist, and with him also had been the earliest to recognise
Jesus as the Christ. Here too we encounter Philip the
Evangelist with his daughters, and perhaps also Philip of
Bethsaida, the Apostle. Here also was settled the Apostle's
namesake, John the Presbyter, also a personal disciple of
Jesus, and one Aristion, not otherwise known to us, who
likewise had heard the Lord. And possibly also other Apostles
whose traditions Papias recorded [see _J. B. Lightfoot,
Apostolic Fathers, page 527_], Matthew and Thomas and James,
may have had some connexion, temporary or permanent, with this
district. Thus surrounded by the surviving disciples of the
Lord, by bishops and presbyters of his own appointment, and by
the pupils who gathered about him and looked to him for
instruction, St. John was the focus of a large and active
society of believers. In this respect he holds a unique
position among the great teachers of the new faith. St. Peter
and St. Paul converted disciples and organized congregations;
St. John alone was the centre of a school. His life prolonged
till the close of the century, when the Church was firmly
rooted and widely extended, combined with his fixed abode in
the centre of an established community to give a certain
definiteness to his personal influence which would be wanting
to the wider labours of these strictly missionary preachers.
Hence the notices of St. John have a more solid basis and
claim greater attention than stories relating to the other
Apostles."
_J. B. Lightfoot,
Biblical Essays,
pages 51-53._
"In the parable of Jesus, of which we are speaking, it is said
that 'the earth bringeth forth fruit of herself;'—that is,
to transfer the Greek term into English, 'automatically.' That
epithet is chosen which denotes most precisely a self-acting,
spontaneous energy, inherent in the seed which Jesus, through
his discourses, his acts of mercy and power, and his patience
unto death, was sowing in the world. This grand prophetic
declaration, uttered in a figure so simple and beautiful, in
the ears of a little company of Galileans, was to be
wonderfully verified in the coming ages of Christian history."
_G. P. Fisher,
The Nature and Method of Revelation,
page 47._
CHRISTIANITY: Alexandria.
"Plutarch looked upon it as the great mission of Alexander to
transplant Grecian culture into distant countries, and to
conciliate Greeks and barbarians, and to fuse them into one.
He says of him, not without reason, that he was sent of God
for this purpose; though the historian did not divine that
this end itself was only subsidiary to, and the means of, one
still higher—the making, viz., the united peoples of the East
and West more accessible to the new creation which was to
proceed from Christianity, and by the combination of the
elements of Oriental and Hellenic culture the preparing for
Christianity a material in which it might develop itself. If
we overlook this ulterior end, and do not fix our regards on
the higher quickening spirit destined to reanimate, for some
new end, that combination which already bore within itself a
germ of corruption, we might well doubt whether that union was
really a gain to either party; whether, at least, it was not
everywhere attended with a correspondent loss. For the fresh
vigour which it infused into the old national spirit must have
been constantly repressed by the violence which the foreign
element did to it. To introduce into that combination a new
living principle of development, and, without prejudice to
their original essence, to unite peculiarities the most
diverse into a whole in which each part should be a complement
to the other, required something higher than any element of
human culture. The true living communion between the East and
the West, which should combine together the two peculiar
principles that were equally necessary for a complete
exhibition of the type of humanity, could first come only from
Christianity. But still, as preparatory thereto, the influence
which, for three centuries, went forth from Alexandria, that
centre of the intercourse of the world, was of great
importance."
_A. Neander,
General History of the Christian Religion and Church,
volume 1, introduction._
{439}
"The Greek version [of the Old Testament, the Septuagint],
like the Targum of the Palestinians, originated, no doubt, in
the first place, in a felt national want on the part of the
Hellenists, who as a body were ignorant of Hebrew. Hence we
find notices of very early Greek versions of at least parts of
the Pentateuch. But this, of course, could not suffice. On the
other hand, there existed, as we may suppose, a natural
curiosity on the part of the students, specially in
Alexandria, which had so large a Jewish population, to know
the sacred books on which the religion and history of Israel
were founded. Even more than this, we must take into account
the literary tastes of the first three Ptolemies (successors
in Egypt of Alexander the Great), and the exceptional favour
which the Jews for a time enjoyed."
_A. Edersheim,
Life and Times of Jesus the Messiah,
volume 1, page 24._
CHRISTIANITY: Rome.
"Alongside of the province of Asia Minor, Rome very early
attains to an outstanding importance for young Christianity.
If, as we have supposed, the community here which emancipated
itself from the synagogue was mainly recruited from among the
proselyte circles which had formed themselves around the
Jewish synagogue, if Paul during the years of his captivity,
and Peter also, influenced this preponderatingly
Gentile-Christian community, we must, however, by no means
undervalue for the Christian community the continuous
influence of Judaism on the Roman world, an influence which
was not lessened but rather increased by the destruction of
Jerusalem. Many thousands of Jewish captives had arrived here
and been sold as slaves—Rome was the greatest Jewish city in
the Empire, … and in part it was an enlightened and liberal
Judaism. Jewish Hellenism had already long availed itself of
the weapons of Hellenic philosophy and science … in order to
exalt the Jewish faith. … Under this stimulus there was …
developed a proselytism which was indeed attracted by that
monotheism and the belief in providence and prophecy and the
moral ideas allied therewith, and which also had a strong
tendency to Jewish customs and festivals—especially the
keeping of the Sabbath—but which remained far from binding
itself to a strictly legal way of life in circumcision, etc.
We may suppose that Roman Christianity not only appeared in
the character of such a proselytism, but also retained from it
a certain Jewish colouring."
_W. Moeller,
History of the Christian Church: A. D. 1-600,
pages 83-84._
"The last notice of the Roman Church in the Apostolic writings
seems to point to two separate communities, a Judaizing Church
and a Pauline Church. The arrival of the Gentile Apostle in
the metropolis, it would appear, was the signal for the
separation of the Judaizers, who had hitherto associated with
their Gentile brethren coldly and distrustfully. The presence
of St. Paul must have vastly strengthened the numbers and
influence of the more liberal and Catholic party; while the
Judaizers provoked by rivalry redoubled their efforts, that in
making converts to the Gospel they might also gain proselytes
to the law."
_J. B. Lightfoot,
Dissertations on the Apostolic Age,
page 94._
"Historical information of any certainty on the latter period
of Paul's life is entirely wanting. While the epistles require
this unknown period, and a second captivity, as a basis for
their apostolic origin, on the other hand, the hypothesis of a
second captivity scarcely finds any real foundations except in
the three Pastoral letters."
_A. Sabatier,
The Apostle Paul,
page 269._
It only remains for us, returning to the close of the
apostle's life, to put together the slender indications that
we have of its date. He embarked for Rome in the autumn of 60
(or 61) A. D.; but was compelled by shipwreck to winter in the
island of Malta, and only reached the Eternal City in the
spring of 61 (62). Luke adds that he remained there as a
prisoner for two years, living in a private house under the
guard of a soldier; then his narrative breaks off abruptly,
and we are confronted with the unknown (Acts, xxviii. 30).
Paul is supposed to have perished in the frightful persecution
caused by the fire of Rome in July 64 A. D. All that is
certain is that he died a martyr at Rome under Nero
(Sabatier).
[The purpose of what follows in this article is to give a
brief history of Christianity in some of its relations to
general history by the method of this work, and in the light
of some of the best thought of our time. The article as a
combination of quotations from many authors attempts a
presentation of historic facts, and also a positive and
representative view, so far as this may be obtained under the
guidance of ideas common to many of the books used. Some of
these books have had more influence on the development of the
article than others: entire harmony and a full presentation of
any author's view would manifestly be impossible.
Nevertheless, the reader may discover in the article
principles and elements of unity derived from the literature
and representing it. Unfortunately, one of the essential parts
of such a history must be omitted—biography.]
CHRISTIANITY: A. D. 100-312.
The Period of Growth and Struggle.
"Christian belief, Christian morality, the Christian view of
the world, of which the church as a religious society and
institution is the focus, as fluid spiritual elements permeate
humanity as it becomes Christian, far beyond the sphere of the
church proper; while conversely the church is not assured
against the possibility that spiritual elements originally
alien to her may dominate and influence her in their turn. …
In this living interaction the peculiar life of the church is
unfolded, in accordance with its internal principles of
formation, into an extraordinarily manifold and complicated
object of historical examination. … For this purpose it is
necessary to elucidate the general historical movement of the
church by the relative separation of certain of its aspects,
without loosening the bond of unity."
_W. Moeller,
History of the Christian Church:
A. D. 1-600, pages 1-3._
"Such, in fact, has been the history of the Faith: a sad and
yet a glorious succession of battles, often hardly fought, and
sometimes indecisive, between the new life and the old life.
… The Christian victory of common life was wrought out in
silence and patience and nameless agonies. It was the victory
of the soldiers and not of the captains of Christ's army. But
in due time another conflict had to be sustained, not by the
masses, but by great men, the consequence and the completion
of that which had gone before. … The discipline of action
precedes the effort of reason. … So it came to pass that the
period during which this second conflict of the Faith was
waged was, roughly speaking, from the middle of the second
to the middle of the third century."
_B. F. Westcott,
Essays in the History of Religious Thought in the West,
pages 194-197._
{440}
"Philosophy went on its way among the higher classes, but laid
absolutely no hold on men at large. The reformation which it
wrought in a few elect spirits failed utterly to spread
downward to the mass of mankind. The poor were not touched by
it; society was not helped by it; its noblest men, and they
grew fewer and fewer, generation by generation, bewailed
bitterly the universal indifference. The schools dwindled into
a mere university system of culture; Christianity developed
into a religion for the civilised world. … New ideas it had
in abundance, but new ideas were not the secret of its power.
The essential matter in the Gospel was that it was the history
of a Life. It was a tale of fact that all could understand,
that all could believe, that all could love. It differed
fundamentally from Philosophy, because it appealed not to
culture, but to life. … It was the spell of substantial
facts, living facts, … the spell of a loyalty to a personal
Lord; and those who have not mastered the difference between a
philosopher's speculations about life, and the actual record
of a life which, in all that makes life holy and beautiful,
transcended the philosopher's most pure and lofty dreams, have
not understood yet the rudiments of the reason why the Stoic
could not, while Christianity could and did, regenerate
society."
_J. B. Brown,
Stoics and Saints,
pages 85-86._
The "period, from the accession of Marcus Aurelius (A. D. 161)
to the accession of Valerian (A. D. 253) was for the Gentile
world a period of unrest and exhaustion, of ferment and of
indecision. The time of great hopes and creative minds was
gone. The most conspicuous men were, with few exceptions,
busied with the past. … Local beliefs had lost their power.
Even old Rome ceased to exercise an unquestioned moral
supremacy. Men strove to be cosmopolitan. They strove vaguely
after a unity in which the scattered elements of ancient
experience should be harmonized. The effect can be seen both
in the policy of statesmen and in the speculations of
philosophers, in Marcus Aurelius, or Alexander Severus, or
Decius, no less than in Plotinus or Porphyry. As a necessary
consequence, the teaching of the Bible accessible in Greek
began to attract serious attention among the heathen. The
assailants of Christianity, even if they affected contempt,
shewed that they were deeply moved by its doctrines. The
memorable saying of Numenius, 'What is Plato but Moses
speaking in the language of Athens?' shews at once the feeling
after spiritual sympathy which began to be entertained, and
the want of spiritual insight in the representatives of
Gentile thought."
_B. F. Westcott,
Essays in the History of Religious Thought in the West,
pages 196-197._
"To our minds it appears that the preparation of philosophy
for Christianity was complete. … The time was ripe for that
movement of which Justin is the earliest [complete]
representative."
_G. T. Purves,
The Testimony of Justin Martyr,
page 135._
"The writing in defense of Christianity is called the apology,
and the writer an apologist. … There were two classes of
apologists, the Greek and the Latin, according to the
territory which they occupied, and the language in which they
wrote. But there were further differences. The Greeks belonged
mostly to the second century, and their writings exhibited a
profound intimacy with the Greek philosophy. Some of them had
studied in the Greek schools, and entered the church only in
mature life. They endeavored to prove that Christianity was
the blossom of all that was valuable in every system. They
stood largely on the defensive. The Latins, on the other hand,
were aggressive. They lived mostly in the third century. …
The principal Greek apologists [were] Aristo, Quadratus,
Aristides [A. D. 131], Justin [A. D. 160], Melito [A. D. 170],
Miltiades, Irenaeus, Athenagoras [A. D. 178], Tatian, Clement
of Alexandria [A. D. 200], Hippolytus, and Origen [A. D. 225]."
_J. F. Hurst,
Short History of the Christian Church,
page 33._
Lightfoot assigns to about A. D. 150 (?) the author of the
Epistle to Diognetus. "Times without number the defenders of
Christianity appeal to the great and advantageous change
wrought by the Gospel in all who embraced it. … 'We who
hated and destroyed one another, and on account of their
different manners would not receive into our houses men of a
different tribe, now, since the coming of Christ, live
familiarly with them. We pray for our enemies, we endeavor to
persuade those who hate us unjustly to live conformably to the
beautiful precepts of Christ, to the end that they may become
partakers with us of the same joyful hope of a reward from
God, the Ruler of all.' This distinction between Christians
and heathen, this consciousness of a complete change in
character and life, is nowhere more beautifully described than
in the noble epistle … to Diognetus."
_Gerhard Uhlhorn,
The Conflict of Christianity with Heathenism,
page 166._
"For Christians are not distinguished from the rest of mankind
either in locality or in speech or in customs. For they dwell
not somewhere in cities of their own, neither do they use some
different language, nor practise an extraordinary kind of
life. … But while they dwell in cities of Greeks and
barbarians as the lot of each is cast, and follow the native
customs in dress and food and the other arrangements of life,
yet the constitution of their own citizenship, which they set
forth, is marvellous, and confessedly contradicts expectation.
They dwell in their own countries, but only as sojourners;
they bear their share in all things as citizens, and they
endure all hardships as strangers. Every foreign country is a
fatherland to them, and every fatherland is foreign. … Their
existence is on earth, but their citizenship is in heaven.
They obey the established laws, and they surpass the laws in
their own lives. They love all men and they are persecuted by
all. … War is urged against them as aliens by the Jews, and
persecution is carried on against them by the Greeks, and yet
those that hate them cannot tell the reason of their
hostility."
_J. B. Lightfoot,
Translation of the Epistle to Diognetus
(The Apostolic Fathers, pages 505-506)._
"These apologists rise against philosophy also, out of which
they themselves had arisen, in the full consciousness of their
faith open to all and not only to the cultured few, the
certainty of which, based upon revelation, cannot be replaced
by uncertain human wisdom, which, moreover, is
self-contradictory in its most important representatives. On
the other hand, they willingly recognise in the philosophy by
means of which they had themselves been educated, certain
elements of truth, which they partly derive from the
seed-corns of truth, which the divine Logos had scattered
among the heathen also, partly externally from a dependence of
Greek wisdom on the much older wisdom of the East, and
therefore from the use of the Scriptures of the Old Testament.
To the reproach that they had deserted the religion which had
been handed down from their ancestors and thereby made sacred,
they oppose the right of recognised truth, the right of
freedom of conscience; religion becomes the peculiar affair of
personal conviction, against which methods of force do not
suffice: God is to be obeyed rather than man."
_W. Moeller,
History of the Christian Church: A. D. 1-600,
page 179._
{441}
"Such a morality, as Roman greatness was passing away, took
possession of the ground. Its beginnings were scarcely felt,
scarcely known of, in the vast movement of affairs in the
greatest of empires. By and by its presence, strangely
austere, strangely gentle, strangely tender, strangely
inflexible, began to be noticed. But its work was long only a
work of indirect preparation. Those whom it charmed, those
whom it opposed, those whom it tamed, knew not what was being
done for the generations which were to follow."
_R. W. Church,
The Gifts of Civilization,
page 159._
"The more spiritual and profound historians of the Church
recognize it as a manifestation of this divine life flowing
into human history. But this is true of the organized church
only with important qualifications. The life must manifest
itself in an organization; but the organization is neither the
only nor the complete exposition of the life. … The life
which creates the organization penetrates and purifies also
the family and the state, renovates individuals, and blooms
and fructifies in Christian civilizations; and these are also
historical manifestations."
_S. Harris,
The Kingdom of Christ on Earth,
page 87._
It was the great formative period of the world's new life, and
all streams tended to flow together. The influence of Greek
thought on Roman law had led, under the circumstances of Roman
commercial life, to the development of an ideal "jus gentium,"
a kind of natural law discovered by the reason. This
conception transformed the Roman law and brought it into touch
with the new sense of human relations. "It was by means of
this higher conception of equity which resulted from the
identification of the jus gentium with the jus naturale—that
the alliance between law and philosophy was really made
efficient."
_W. C. Morey,
Outlines from Roman Law,
page 114._
"There were three agencies whose influence in working
simultaneously and successively at this identical task, the
developing and importing of the jus gentium, was decisive of
the ultimate result. These were the praetorian edict [which
reached its climax under the Republic and was completed under
Hadrian], Roman scientific jurisprudence [which developed its
greatest ability about A. D. 200] and imperial legislation."
_R. Sohm,
Institutes of Roman Law,
page 46._
"The liberal policy of Rome gradually extended the privileges
of her citizenship till it included all her subjects; and
along with the 'Jus suffragii,' went of course the 'Jus
honorum.' Even under Augustus we find a Spaniard consul at
Rome; and under Galba an Egyptian is governor of Egypt. It is
not long before even the emperor himself is supplied by the
provinces. It is easy to comprehend therefore how the
provincials forgot the fatherland of their birth for the
fatherland of their citizenship. Once win the franchise, and
to great capacity was opened a great: career. The Roman Empire
came to be a homogeneous mass of privileged persons, largely
using the same language, aiming at the same type of
civilisation, equal among themselves, but all alike conscious
of their superiority to the surrounding barbarians."
_W. T. Arnold,
The Roman System of Provincial Administration,
page 37._
"As far as she could, Rome destroyed the individual genius of
nations; she seems to have rendered them unqualified for a
national existence. When the public life of the Empire ceased,
Italy, Gaul, and Spain were thus unable to become nations.
Their great historical existence did not commence until after
the arrival of the barbarians, and after several centuries of
experiments amid violence and calamity, But how does it happen
that the countries which Rome did not conquer, or did not long
have under her sway, now hold such a prominent place in the
world—that they exhibit so much originality and such complete
confidence in their future? Is it only because, having existed
a shorter time, they are entitled to a longer future? Or,
perchance, did Rome leave behind her certain habits of mind,
intellectual and moral qualities, which impede and limit
activity?"
_E. Lavisse,
Political History of Europe,
page 6._
Patriotism was a considerable part of both the ancient
religion and the old morality. The empire weakened the former
and deeply injured the latter by conquest of the individual
states. It had little to offer in place of these except that
anomaly, the worship of the emperor; and a law and justice
administered by rulers who, to say the least, grew very rich.
"The feeling of pride in Roman citizenship … became much
weaker as the citizenship was widened. … Roman citizenship
included an ever growing proportion of the population in every
land round the Mediterranean, till at last it embraced the
whole Roman world. … Christianity also created a religion
for the Empire, transcending all distinctions of nationality.
… The path of development for the Empire lay in accepting
the religion offered it to complete its organisation. Down to
the time of Hadrian there was a certain progress on the part
of the Empire towards a recognition of this necessity."
_W. M. Ramsay,
The Church in the Roman Empire,
pages 373, 191-192._
The relations of the laws of the Empire to Christianity may be
briefly stated, but there are differences of opinion which
cannot be noted here: "A. D. 30 to 100, Christians treated as
a sect of the Jews and sharing in the general toleration
accorded to them. A. D. 100 to 250, Christians recognized, …
and rendered liable to persecution: (1st) For treason and
impiety. (2nd) As belonging to illegal associations, but at
the same time protected in their capacity of members of
Friendly or Burial Societies of a kind allowed by the law. A.
D. 250 to 260, Christianity recognized as a formidable power
by the State. Commencement of an open struggle between
Christianity and the secular authority. … The cemeteries of
the Christians now for the first time interfered with and
become places of hiding and secret assembly. A. D. 260 to 300,
Persecutions cease for a time, 40 years Peace for the Church.
Time of much prosperity when, as Eusebius writes, 'great
multitudes flocked to the religion of Christ.' A. D. 300 to
313, Last decisive struggle under Diocletian."
_G. B. Brown,
From Schola to Cathedral._
{442}
"The judges decided simply in accordance with the laws, and,
in the great majority of cases, did so coolly, calmly, without
passion, as men who were simply discharging their duty. …
Not the priests, but the Emperors led the attack. … It is
true the Christians never rebelled against the State. They
cannot be reproached with even the appearance of a
revolutionary spirit. Despised, persecuted, abused, they still
never revolted, but showed themselves everywhere obedient to
the laws, and ready to pay to the Emperors the honor which was
their due. Yet in one particular they could not obey, the
worship of idols, the strewing of incense to the Cæsar-god.
And in this one thing it was made evident that in Christianity
lay the germ of a wholly new political and social order. This
is the character of the conflict which we are now to review.
It is a contest of the spirit of Antiquity against that of
Christianity, of the ancient heathen order of the world
against the new Christian order. Ten persecutions are commonly
enumerated, viz., under Nero, Domitian, Trajan, Hadrian,
Marcus Aurelius, Septimius Severus, Maximinus the Thracian,
Decius, Valerian, and Diocletian. This traditional enumeration
is, however, very superficial, and leaves entirely
unrecognized the real course of the struggles. … Though
times of relative tranquillity occurred, Christianity
remained, notwithstanding, a prohibited religion. This being
the case, the simple arrangement of the persecutions in a
series makes the impression that they were all of the same
character, while in fact the persecution under Nero was wholly
different from that under Trajan and his successors, and this
again varied essentially from those under Decius and
Diocletian. The first persecution which was really general and
systematically aimed at the suppression of the Church, was the
Decian [see ROME: A. D. 192-284]. That under Trajan and his
successors [see ROME: A. D. 96-138, 138-180, and 303-305]
consisted merely of more or less frequent processes against
individual Christians, in which the established methods of
trial were employed, and the existing laws were more or less
sharply used against them. Finally, the persecutions under
Nero and Domitian [see ROME: A. D. 64-68, and 70-96] were mere
outbreaks of personal cruelty and tyrannical caprice. …
Christianity is the growing might; with the energy of youth it
looks the future in the face, and there sees victory beckoning
onward. And how changed are now its ideas of that triumph! The
earlier period had no thought of any victory but that which
Christ was to bring at his coming. … But in the time of
Cyprian the hopes of the Christians are directed towards
another victory: they begin to grasp the idea that
Christianity will vanquish heathenism from within, and become
the dominant religion in the Roman Empire. … It is true that
the Christians were still greatly in the minority. It is
generally assumed that they formed about one-twelfth of the
whole population in the East, and in the West about
one-fifteenth. Even this is perhaps too high an estimate. But
there were two things which gave a great importance to this
minority. First, that no single religion of the much divided
Heathenism had so many adherents as the Christian. Over
against the scattered forces of Heathenism, the Christians
formed a close phalanx; the Church was a compact and strongly
framed organization. Second, the Christians were massed in the
towns, while the rural population was almost exclusively
devoted to Heathenism. There existed in Antioch, for instance,
a Christian church of fifty thousand souls."
_G. Uhlhorn,
The Conflict of Christianity with Heathenism,
book 2._
"The Encyclopedia of Missions" on the authority of the late
Professor R. D. Hitchcock states that there are on record "the
names of churches existing at this period [at the close of the
persecutions] in 525 cities: cities of Europe 188, of Asia
214, of Africa 123." (See Appendix D.) There were tendencies
at work in many of these against that toward general catholic
(universal) organization, but in suffering and sympathy the
Christian Churches formed a vast body of believers. "Such a
vast organisation of a perfectly new kind, with no analogy in
previously existing institutions, was naturally slow in
development. … The critical stage was passed when the
destruction of Jerusalem annihilated all possibility of a
localised centre for Christianity, and made it clear that the
centralisation of the Church could reside only in an
idea—viz., a process of intercommunication, union and
brotherhood. It would be hardly possible to exaggerate the
share which frequent intercourse from a very early stage
between the separate congregations had in moulding the
development of the Church. Most of the documents in the New
Testament are products and monuments of this intercourse; all
attest in numberless details the vivid interest which the
scattered communities took in one another. From the first the
Christian idea was to annihilate the separation due to space,
and hold the most distant brother as near as the nearest. A
clear consciousness of the importance of this idea first
appears in the Pastoral Epistles, and is still stronger in
writings of A. D. 80-100. … The close relations between
different congregations is brought into strong relief by the
circumstances disclosed in the letters of Ignatius: the
welcome extended everywhere to him; the loving messages sent
when he was writing to other churches; the deputations sent
from churches off his road to meet him and convoy him; the
rapidity with which news of his progress was sent round, so
that deputations from Ephesus, Magnesia, and Tralles were
ready to visit him in Smyrna; the news from Antioch which
reached him in Troas, but which was unknown to him in Smyrna;
the directions which he gave to call a council of the church
in Smyrna, and send a messenger to congratulate the church in
Antioch; the knowledge that his fate is known to and is
engaging the efforts of the church in Rome."
_W. M. Ramsay,
The Church in the Roman Empire,
pages 364-366._
"The fellowship … thus strongly impressed by apostolic hands
on the infant Church, is never wholly lost sight of throughout
all the ages, and its permanent expression is found in the
synod, whether œcumenic, provincial, or diocesan. This becomes
fainter as we reach the age in which a presbyter, told off
from the body to a distinct parish, attains gradual isolation
from his brethren. But this comes some centuries later. …
Everywhere, till that decline, the idea is that of a
brotherhood or corporate office, a unity of function pervaded
by an energy of brotherly love. … It is no mere confluence
of units before distinct."
_H. Hayman,
Diocesan Synods
(Contemporary Review, October, 1882)._
{443}
"It is the age when the New Testament writings begin to come
together to form a generally recognized canon. The opposition
too to the sovereign spirit of Montanist prophecy undoubtedly
increased the need for it. … After the example of the
Gnostics, a beginning is also made with exegetical explanation
of New Testament writings; Melito with one on the Revelation
of John, a certain Heraclitus with one on the Apostles. …
Finally, in this same opposition to the heretics, it is sought
to secure the agreement of the different churches with one
another, and in this relation importance is gained by the idea
of a universal (Catholic) Church. So-called catholic Epistles
of men of repute in the church to different communities are
highly regarded. As illustrations take those of Bishop
Dionysius of Corinth to Lacedæmon, Athens, Crete, Paphlagonia,
Pontus, Rome (Euseb. 4, 23)."
_W. Moeller,
History of the Christian Church,
pages 183-184._
"This period [100-312] may be divided into the Post-Apostolic
Age which reaches down to the middle of the second century,
and the Age of the Old Catholic Church which ends with the
establishment of the Church under Constantine. … The point
of transition from one Age to the other may be unhesitatingly
set down at A. D. 170. The following are the most important
data in regard thereto. The death about A. D. 165 of Justin
Martyr, who marks the highest point reached in the
Post-Apostolic Age and forms also the transition to the Old
Catholic Age; and Irenaeus, flourishing somewhere about A. D.
170, who was the real inaugurator of this latter age. Besides
these we come upon the beginnings of the Trinitarian
controversies about the year 170. Finally, the rejection of
Montanism from the universal Catholic Church was effected
about the year 170 by means of the synodal institution called
into existence for that purpose."
_J. H. Kurtz,
Church History,
volume 1, page 70._
"If every church must so live in the world as to be a part of
its collective being, then it must always be construed in and
through the place and time in which it lives."
_A. M. Fairbairn,
The Place of Christ in Modern Theology._
"The Church of the first three centuries was never, except
perhaps on the day of Pentecost, in an absolutely ideal
condition. But yet during the ages of persecution, the Church
as a whole was visibly an unworldly institution. It was a
spiritual empire in recognized antagonism with the
world-empire."
_F. W. Puller,
The Primitive Saints and The See of Rome,
page 153._
All the greater forces of the age, political and legal, and
commercial, aided those working within the church to create an
organic unity. "Speaking with some qualifications, the
patristic church was Greek, as the primitive church had been
Jewish, and the mediæval church was to be Latin. Its unity,
like that of the Greek nation, was federative; each church,
like each of the Grecian states, was a little commonwealth. As
the Greece which resisted the Persians was one, not by any
imperial organization, but by common ideas and a common love
of liberty, so the church of the fathers was one, not by any
organic connection, but by common thoughts and sympathies,
above all by a common loyalty to Christ. Naturally the
questions which agitated such a church were those which
concern the individual soul rather than society. Its members
made much of personal beliefs and speculative opinions; and so
long as the old free spirit lasted they allowed one another
large freedom of thought, only requiring that common instinct
of loyalty to Christ. Happily for the world, that free spirit
did not die out from the East for at least two centuries after
Paul had proclaimed the individual relationship of the soul to
God. … The genius of the Greek expressing itself in thought,
of the Latin in ruling power, the Christianity which was to
the former a body of truth, became to the latter a system of
government."
_G. A. Jackson,
The Fathers of the Third Century,
pages 154-156._
The Apostolic ideal was set forth, and within a few
generations forgotten. The vision was only for a time and then
vanished. "The kingdom of Christ, not being a kingdom of this
world, is not limited by the restrictions which fetter other
societies, political or religious. It is in the fullest sense
free, comprehensive, universal. … It is most important that
we should keep this ideal definitely in view, and I have
therefore stated it as broadly as possible. Yet the broad
statement, if allowed to stand alone, would suggest a false
impression, or at least would convey only a half truth. It
must be evident that no society of men could hold together
without officers, without rules, without institutions of any
kind; and the Church of Christ is not exempt from this
universal law. The conception in short is strictly an ideal,
which we must ever hold before our eyes. … Every member of
the human family was potentially a member of the Church, and,
as such, a priest of God. … It will hardly be denied, I
think, by those who have studied the history of modern
civilization with attention, that this conception of the
Christian Church has been mainly instrumental in the
emancipation of the degraded and oppressed, in the removal of
artificial barriers between class and class, and in the
diffusion of a general philanthropy untrammelled by the
fetters of party or race; in short, that to it mainly must be
attributed the most important advantages which constitute the
superiority of modern societies over ancient. Consciously or
unconsciously, the idea of an universal priesthood, of the
religious equality of all men, which, though not untaught
before, was first embodied in the Church of Christ, has worked
and is working untold blessings in political institutions and
in social life. But the careful student will also observe that
this idea has hitherto been very imperfectly apprehended; that
throughout the history of the Church it has been struggling
for recognition, at most times discerned in some of its
aspects but at all times wholly ignored in others; and that
therefore the actual results are a very inadequate measure of
its efficacy, if only it could assume due prominence and were
allowed free scope in action. … It may be a general rule, it
may be under ordinary circumstances a practically universal
law, that the highest acts of congregational worship shall be
performed through the principal officers of the congregation.
But an emergency may arise when the spirit and not the letter
must decide, The Christian ideal will then … interpret our
duty. The higher ordinance of the universal priesthood will
overrule all special limitations. The layman will assume
functions which are otherwise restricted to the ordained
minister."
_J. B. Lightfoot,
Dissertations on the Apostolic Age,
pages 137-140, 237._
"No Church now existing is an exact counterpart of the
Apostolic Church. … Allusions bear out the idea that the
Church at Corinth was as yet almost struetureless—little more
than an aggregate of individuals—with no bishop, presbyter or
deacon."
_J. W. Cunningham,
The Growth of the Church in its Organization and Institutions,
pages 73, 18._
{444}
"Some time before the middle of the second century heresy
began sadly to distract the Christian community; and to avoid
imminent danger of schism, it was deemed expedient in a few
great towns to arm the chairman of the eldership with
additional power. A modified form of prelacy was thus
introduced."
_W. D. Killen,
The Old Catholic Church,
page 51._
Respecting the rise of the Episcopate as a distinct office
there is a difference of opinion among scholars,—some
holding that it was expressly ordained by the Apostles, others
that it arose quite independently of them; a third class think
that it was developed gradually out of the eldership, but not
without the sanction of one or more of the Apostles. "For the
Church is a catholic society, that is, a society belonging to
all nations and ages. As a catholic society it lacks the bonds
of the life of a city or a nation—local contiguity, common
language, common customs. We cannot then very well conceive
how its corporate continuity could have been maintained
otherwise than through some succession of persons such as,
bearing the apostolic commission for ministry, should be in
each generation the necessary centres of the Church's life."
_C. Gore,
The Mission of the Church,
pages 10, 11._
"Jewish presbyteries existed already in all the principal
cities of the dispersion, and Christian presbyteries would
early occupy a not less wide area. … The name of the
presbyter then presents no difficulty. But what must be said
of the term bishop? … But these notices, besides
establishing the general prevalence of episcopacy, also throw
considerable light on its origin. They indicate that the
relation suggested by the history of the word 'bishop' and its
transference from the lower to the higher office is the true
solution, and that the episcopate was created out of the
presbytery. … They seem to hint also that, so far as this
development was affected at all by national temper and
characteristics, it was slower where the prevailing influences
were more purely Greek, as at Corinth and Philippi and Rome,
and more rapid where an Oriental spirit predominated, as at
Jerusalem and Antioch and Ephesus. Above all, they establish
this result clearly, that its maturer forms are seen first in
those regions where the latest surviving Apostles (more
especially St. John) fixed their abode, and at a time when its
prevalence cannot be dissociated from their influence or their
sanction."
_J. B. Lightfoot,
Dissertations on the Apostolic Age,
pages 151, 190, 191._
"Since then in the constitution of the church two elements met
together—the aristocratic and the monarchical—it could not
fail to be the case that a conflict would ensue between them.
… These struggles between the presbyterial and episcopal
systems belong among the most important phenomena connected
with the process of the development of church life in the
third century. Many presbyters made a capricious use of their
power, hurtful to good discipline and order in the
communities."
_A. Neander,
General History of the Christian Religion and Church,
volume 1, section 2._
"As a rule Christianity would get a footing first in the
metropolis of its region. The lesser cities would be
evangelized by missions sent from thence; and so the suffragan
sees would look on themselves as daughters of the metropolitan
see. The metropolitan bishop is the natural center of unity
for the bishops of the province. … The bishops of the
metropolitan sees acquired certain rights which were delegated
to them by their brother bishops. Moreover, among the most
important churches a certain order of precedence grew up which
corresponded with the civil dignity of the cities in which
those churches existed; and finally the churches which were
founded by the apostles were treated with peculiar reverence."
_F. W. Puller,
The Primitive Saints and the See of Rome,
pages 11 and 18._
"The triumph of the episcopal system undoubtedly promoted
unity, order, and tranquillity. But, on the other hand, it was
unfavourable to the free development of the life of the
church; and while the latter promoted the formation of a
priesthood foreign to the essence of that development of the
kingdom of God which the New Testament sets forth, on the
other hand a revolution of sentiment which had already been
prepared—an altered view of the idea of the priesthood—had
no small influence on the development of the episcopal system.
Thus does this change of the original constitution of the
Christian communities stand intimately connected with another
and still more radical change,—the formation of a sacerdotal
caste in the Christian church. … Out of the husk of Judaism
Christianity had evolved itself to freedom and
independence,—had stripped off the forms in which it first
sprang up, and within which the new spirit lay at first
concealed, until by its own inherent power it broke through
them. This development belonged more particularly to the
Pauline position, from which proceeded the form of the church
in the Gentile world. In the struggle with the Jewish elements
which opposed the free development of Christianity, this
principle had triumphantly made its way. In the churches of
pagan Christians the new creation stood forth completely
unfolded; but the Jewish principle, which had been vanquished,
pressed in once more from another quarter. Humanity was as yet
incapable of maintaining itself at the lofty position of pure
spiritual religion. The Jewish position was better adapted to
the mass, which needed first to be trained before it could
apprehend Christianity in its purity,—needed to be disabused
from paganism. Out of Christianity, now become independent, a
principle once more sprang forth akin to the principles of the
Old Testament,—a new outward shaping of the kingdom of God, a
new discipline of the law which one day was to serve for the
training of rude nations, a new tutorship for the spirit of
humanity, until it should arrive at the maturity of the
perfect manhood in Christ. This investiture of the Christian
spirit in a form nearly akin to the position arrived at in the
Old Testament, could not fail, after the fruitful principle
had once made its appearance, to unfold itself more and more,
and to bring to light one after another all the consequences
which it involved; but there also began with it a reaction of
the Christian consciousness as it yearned after freedom, which
was continually bursting forth anew in an endless variety of
appearances, until it attained its triumph at the
Reformation."
_A. Neander,
General History of the Christian Religion and Church,
volume 1, section 2, B._
{445}
"Though the forms of [pagan] religion had broken away, the
spirit of religion was still quick; it had even developed: the
sense of sin, an almost new phenomenon, began to invade
Society and Philosophy; and along with this, an almost
importunate craving after a revelation. The changed tone of
philosophy, the spread of mysticism, the rapid growth of
mystery-worship, the revived Platonism, are all articulate
expressions of this need. The old Philosophy begins not only
to preach but to pray: the new strives to catch the revealed
voice of God in the oracles of less unfaithful days. … In
the teeth of an organised and concentrated despotism a new
society had grown up, self-supporting, self-regulated, a State
within the State. Calm and assured amid a world that hid its
fears only in blind excitement, free amid the servile,
sanguine amid the despairing, Christians lived with an object.
United in loyal fellowship by sacred pledges more binding than
the sacramentum of the soldier, welded together by a stringent
discipline, led by trained and tried commanders, the Church
had succeeded in attaining unity. It had proved itself able to
command self-devotion even to the death. It had not feared to
assimilate the choicest fruits of the choicest intellects of
East and West. … Yet the centripetal forces were stronger;
Tertullian had died an heresiarch, and Origen but narrowly and
somewhat of grace escaped a like fate. If rent with schisms
and threatened with disintegration, the Church was still an
undivided whole."
_G. H. Rendall,
The Emperor Julian, Paganism and Christianity,
pages 21-22._
"The designation of the Universal Christian Church as Catholic
dates from the time of Irenaeus. … At the beginning of this
age, the heretical as well as the non-heretical Ebionism may
be regarded as virtually suppressed, although some scanty
remnants of it might yet be found. The most brilliant period
of Gnosticism, too, … was already passed. But in Manichæism
there appeared, during the second half of the third century, a
new peril of a no less threatening kind inspired by Parseeism
and Buddhism. … With Marcus Aurelius, Paganism outside of
Christianity as embodied in the Roman State, begins the war of
extermination against the Church that was ever more and more
extending her boundaries. Such manifestation of hostility,
however, was not able to subdue the Church. … During the
same time the episcopal and synodal-hierarchical organization
of the church was more fully developed by the introduction of
an order of Metropolitans, and then in the following period it
reached its climax in the oligarchical Pentarchy of
Patriarchs, and in the institution of œcumenical Synods."
_J. H. Kurtz,
Church History,
volume l, pages 72-73;_
to which the reader is also referred for all periods
of church history.
See, also,
_P. Schaff,
History of the Christian Church;_
For biography,
_W. Smith and H. Wace,
A Dictionary of Christian Biography._
"Missionary effort in this period was mainly directed to the
conversion of the heathen. On the ruins of Jerusalem,
Hadrian's colony of Ælia Capitolina was planted; so that even
there the Church, in its character and modes of worship, was a
Gentile community. Christianity was early carried to Edessa,
the capital of the small state of Osrhene, in Mesopotamia.
After the middle of the second century, the Church at Edessa
was sufficiently flourishing to count among its members the
king, Abgar Bar Manu. At about this time the gospel was
preached in Persia, Media, Parthia, and Bactria. We have
notices of churches in Arabia in the early part of the third
century. They were visited several times by Origen, the
celebrated Alexandrian Church teacher (185-254). In the middle
of the fourth century a missionary, Theophilus, of Diu, found
churches in India. In Egypt, Christianity made great progress,
especially at Alexandria, whence it spread to Cyrene and other
neighboring places. In upper Egypt, where the Coptic language
and the superstition of the people were obstacles in its path,
Christianity had, nevertheless, gained a foothold as early as
towards the close of the second century. At this time the
gospel had been planted in proconsular Africa, being conveyed
thither from Rome, and there was a flourishing church at
Carthage. In Gaul, where the Druidical system, with its
priesthood and sacrificial worship, was the religion of the
Celtic population, several churches were founded from Asia
Minor. At Lyons and Vienne there were strong churches in the
last quarter of the second century. At this time Irenæus,
Bishop of Lyons, speaks of the establishment of Christianity
in Germany, west of the Rhine, and Tertullian, the North
African presbyter, speaks of Christianity in Britain. The
fathers in the second century describe in glowing terms, and
not without rhetorical exaggeration, the rapid conquests of
the Gospel. The number of converts in the reign of Hadrian
must have been very large. Otherwise we cannot account for the
enthusiastic language of Justin Martyr respecting the
multitude of professing Christians. Tertullian writes in a
similar strain. Irenæus refers to Barbarians who have believed
without having a knowledge of letters, through oral teaching
merely."
_G. P. Fisher,
History of the Christian Church,
pages 45-46._
CHRISTIANITY: Alexandria.
"Christianity first began its activity in the country among
the Jewish and Greek population of the Delta, but gradually
also among the Egyptians proper (the Copts) as may be inferred
from the Coptic (Memphytic) translation of the New Testament
(third century). In the second century, Gnosticism [see
GNOSTICS], which had its chief seat here as well as in Syria,
and, secondly, towards the close of the century, the
Alexandrian Catechetical School, show the importance of this
centre of religious movement and Christian education."
_W. Moeller,
History of the Christian Church,
page 105._
"Never perhaps has the free statement of the Christian idea
had less prejudice to encounter than at Alexandria at the
close of the second century. Never has it more successfully
vindicated by argument its right to be the great interpreter
of the human spirit. The institutions of the great metropolis
were highly favourable to this result. The Museum, built by
the Ptolemies, was intended to be, and speedily became, the
centre of an intense intellectual life. The Serapeum, at the
other end of the town, rivalled it in beauty of architecture
and wealth of rare MSS. The Sebastion, reared in honour of
Augustus, was no unworthy companion to these two noble
establishments. In all three, splendid endowments and a rich
professoriate attracted the talent of the world. If the
ambition of a secured reputation drew many eminent men away to
Rome, the means of securing such eminence were mainly procured
at Alexandria. … The Christian Church in this city rose to
the height of its grand opportunity. It entered the lists
without fear and without favour, and boldly proclaimed its
competence to satisfy the intellectual cravings of man.
Numbers of restless and inquiring spirits came from all parts
of the world, hoping to find a solution of the doubts that
perplexed them. And the Church, which had already brought
peace to the souls of the woman and the slave, now girded
herself to the harder task of convincing the trained
intelligence of the man of letters and the philosopher."
_C. T. Cruttwell,
A Literary History of Early Christianity,
book 4, chapter 1 (volume 2)._
{446}
"The question … came up for decision towards the close of
the sub-apostolic age, as to what shape the Church was finally
to take. Two types were set before her to choose from—one the
Hebrew-Latin type, as we may call it, into which … she
finally settled down; the other the Hellenist type of a Demos,
or commonwealth of free citizens, all equal, all alike kings
and priests unto God, and whose moral and spiritual growth was
left very much to the initiative of each member of the
community. In Alexandria, as the meeting-point of all
nationalities, and where Judaism itself had tried to set up a
new type of thought, eclectic between Hebraism and Hellenism,
and comprehending what was best in both, naturally enough
there grew up a Christian type of eclecticism corresponding to
that of Philo. … Into this seething of rival sects and races
the Alexandrian school of catechists threw themselves, and
made a noble attempt to rescue the Church, the synagogue, and
the Stoics alike from the one bane common to all—the
dangerous delusion that the truth was for them, not they for
the truth. Setting out on the assumption that God's purpose
was the education of the whole human family, they saw in the
Logos doctrine of St. John the key to harmonise all truth,
whether of Christian sect, Hebrew synagogue, or Stoic
philosophy. … To educate all men up to this standard seemed
to them the true ideal of the Church. True Gnosis was their
keynote; and the Gnostic, as Clemens loves to describe
himself, was to them the pattern philosopher and Christian in
one. They regarded, moreover, a discipline of at least three
years as imperative; it was the preliminary condition of
entrance into the Christian Church."
_J. B. Heard,
Alexandrian and Carthaginian Theology Contrasted,
pages 37-38._
The two great Christian writers of Alexandria were Clement and
Origen. "The universal influence of Origen made itself felt in
the third century over the whole field of Greek theology. In
him, as it were, everything which had hitherto been striven
after in the Greek field of theology, had been gathered
together, so as, being collected here in a centre, to give an
impulse in the most various directions; hence also the further
development of theology in subsequent times is always
accustomed to link itself on to one side or the other of his
rich spiritual heritage. … And while this involves that
Christianity is placed on friendly relations with the previous
philosophical development of the highest conceptions of God
and the world, yet on the other hand Christian truth also
appears conversely as the universal truth which gathers
together in itself all the hitherto isolated rays of divine
truth. … In the great religious ferment of the time there
was further contained the tendency to seek similar religious
ideas amid the different mythological religious forms and to
mingle them syncretistically. This religious ferment was still
further increased by the original content of Christianity,
that mighty leaven, which announced a religion destined to the
redemption and perfecting of the world, and by this means a like
direction and tendency was imparted to various other religious
views likewise. The exciting and moving effect of Gnosticism
on the Church depended at the same time on the fact, that its
representatives practically apprehended Christianity in the
manner of the antique religious mysteries, and in so doing
sought to lean upon the Christian communities and make
themselves at home in them, according as their religious life
and usages seemed to invite them, and to establish in them a
community of the initiated and perfect; an endeavour which the
powerful ascetic tendency in the church exploited and
augmented in its own sense, and for which the institution of
prophecy, which was so highly respected and powerful in the
communities, afforded a handle. In this way the initiated were
able to make for themselves a basis in the community on which
they could depend, while the religio-philosophical
speculations, which are always intelligible only to a few, at
the same time propagated themselves and branched out
scholastically."
_W. Moeller, History of the Christian Church,
pages 215, 213, 130-131._
"At Alexandria, Basilides (A. D. 125) and Valentine exerted in
turn an extraordinary influence; the latter endeavored to
establish his school at Rome about the year 140. The Gnostics
of Syria professed a more open dualism than those of Egypt.
The Church of Antioch had to resist Saturnin, that of Edessa
to oppose Bordesanes and Tatian."
_E. De Pressensé,
The Early Years of Christianity;
The Martyrs and Apologists,
page 135._
"There was something very imposing in those mighty systems,
which embraced heaven and earth. How plain and meagre in
comparison seemed simple Christianity! There was something
remarkably attractive in the breadth and liberality of
Gnosticism. It seemed completely to have reconciled
Christianity with culture. How narrow the Christian Church
appeared! Even noble souls might be captivated by the hope of
winning the world over to Christianity in this way. … Over
against the mighty systems of the Gnostics, the Church stood,
in sober earnestness and childlike faith, on the simple
Christian doctrine of the Apostles. This was to be sought in
the churches founded by the apostles themselves, where they
had defined the faith in their preaching."
_G. Uhlhorn,
The Conflict of Christianity with Heathenism,
book 2, chapter 3._
"Greek philosophy had joined hands with Jewish theosophy, and
the Church knew not where to look for help. So serious did the
danger seem, when it was assailed at once and from opposite
sides by Jewish and Greek types of Gnosticism, the one from
the monotheistic point of view impugning the Godhead, the
other for the Docetic side explaining away [us a spiritual
illusion] the manhood of Christ, that the Church, in despair
of beating error by mere apology, fell back on the method of
authority. The Church was the only safe keeper of the deposit
of sacred tradition; whoever impugned that tradition, let him
be put out of the communion of saints."
_Reverend J. B. Heard,
Alexandrian and Carthaginian Theology Contrasted,
page 41._
{447}
"The interest, the meaning, of Gnosticism rest entirely upon
its ethical motive. It was an attempt, a serious attempt, to
fathom the dread mystery of sorrow and pain, to answer that
spectral doubt, which is mostly crushed down by force—Can the
world as we know it have been made by God? 'Cease,' says
Basilides, 'from idle and curious variety, and let us rather
discuss the opinions, which even barbarians have held, on the
subject of good and evil.' 'I will say anything rather than
admit that Providence is wicked.' Valentinus describes in the
strain of an ancient prophet the woes that afflict mankind. 'I
durst not affirm,' he concludes, 'that God is the author of
all this.' So Tertullian says of Marcion, 'like many men of
our time, and especially the heretics, he is bewildered by the
question of evil.' They approach the problem from a
non-Christian point of view, and arrive therefore at a
non-Christian solution. … Many of them, especially the later
sectaries, accepted the whole Christian Creed, but always with
reserve. The teaching of the Church thus became in their eyes
a popular exoteric confession, beneath their own Gnosis, or
Knowledge, which was a Mystery, jealously guarded from all but
the chosen few."
_C. Bigg;
The Christian Platonists of Alexandria,
pages 28-29._
CHRISTIANITY: Cæsarea.
"The chief points of interest in the history of the Church of
Cæsarea during this period are the residence of Origen there
(first between A. D. 215 and 219 and again after his final
departure from Alexandria in 231), the education of Eusebius,
the foundation of the great library by Pamphilus, and the
martyrdoms during the Diocletian persecution. Most of these
will come before us again in other connexions, but they
require mention here. It would be difficult to over-estimate
the effect of what they imply on the Church at large. Had the
work of Origen, Pamphilus, and Eusebius at Cæsarea remained
unrecorded, there would be a huge blank in ecclesiastical
history, rendering much that is otherwise known scarcely
intelligible. Had that work never been done, the course of
ecclesiastical history would have been very different. In the
whole of the second and third centuries it would be difficult
to name two more influential Christians than Origen and
Eusebius; and Pamphilus laboured earnestly to preserve and
circulate the writings of the one and to facilitate those of
the other. It was from the libraries of Pamphilus at Cæsarea
and of Alexander at Jerusalem that Eusebius obtained most of
his material" for his "Ecclesiastical History," which has
preserved titles and quotations from many lost books of
exceeding value.
_A. Plummer,
The Church of the Early Fathers,
chapter 3._
CHRISTIANITY: Edessa.
"Edessa (the modern Urfa) was from the beginning of the third
century one of the chief centres of Syrian Christian life and
theological study. For many years, amid the vicissitudes of
theological persecution, a series of flourishing theological
schools were maintained there, one of which (the 'Persian
school') is of great importance as the nursery of Nestorianism
in the extreme East. It was as bishop of Edessa, also, that
Jacob Baradæus organized the monophysite churches into that
Jacobite church of which he is the hero. From the scholars of
Edessa came many of the translations which carried Greek
thought to the East, and in the periods of exciting
controversy Edessa was within the range of the theological
movements that stirred Alexandria and Constantinople. The
'Chronicle of Edessa,' as it is called because the greater
number of its notices relate to Edessene affairs, is a brief
document in Syriac contained in a manuscript of six leaves in
the Vatican library. It is one of the most important
fundamental sources for the history of Edessa, contains a long
official narrative of the flood of A. D. 201, which is perhaps
the only existing monument of heathen Syriac literature, and
includes an excellent and very carefully dated list of the
bishops of Edessa from A. D. 313 to 543."
_Andover Review,
volume 19, page 374._
The Syriac Versions (of the Gospel) form a group of which
mention should undoubtedly be made. The Syriac versions of the
Bible (Old Testament) are among the most ancient remains of
the language, the Syriac and the Chaldee being the two
dialects of the Aramaean spoken in the North. Of versions of
the New Testament, "the 'Peshito' or the 'Simple,' though not
the oldest text, has been the longest known. … The
'Curetonian' … was discovered after its existence had been
for a long time suspected by sagacious scholars [but is not
much more than a series of fragments]. … Cureton, Tregelles,
Alford, Ewald, Bleek, and others, believe this text to be
older than the Peshito [which speaks for the Greek text of the
second century, though its own date is doubtful]. … Other
valuable Syriac versions are 'Philoxenian' … and the
'Jerusalem Syriac Lectionary' … a service-book with lessons
from the Gospels for Sundays and feast days throughout the
year … written at Antioch in 1030 in a dialect similar to
that in use in Jerusalem and from a Greek text of great
antiquity." A recent discovery renders these facts and
statements of peculiar interests.
_G. E. Merrill,
The Story of the Manuscripts,
chapter 10._
CHRISTIANITY: Rural Palestine.
"If Ebionism [see EBIONISM] was not primitive Christianity,
neither was it a creation of the second century. As an
organization, a distinct sect, it first made itself known, we
may suppose, in the reign of Trajan: but as a sentiment, it
had been harboured within the Church from the very earliest
days. Moderated by the personal influence of the Apostles,
soothed by the general practice of their church, not yet
forced into declaring themselves by the turn of events, though
scarcely tolerant of others, these Judaizers were tolerated
for a time themselves. The beginning of the second century was
a winnowing season in the Church of the Circumcision. … It
is a probable conjecture, that after the destruction of
Jerusalem the fugitive Christians, living in their retirement
in the neighbourhood of the Essene settlements, received large
accessions to their numbers from this sect, which thus
inoculated the Church with its peculiar views. It is at least
worthy of notice, that in a religious work emanating from this
school of Ebionites the 'true Gospel' is reported to have been
first propagated 'after the destruction of the holy place.'"
_J. B. Lightfoot,
Dissertation on the Apostolic Age,
pages 78-80._
{448}
CHRISTIANITY: Carthage.
"If the world is indebted to Rome for the organisation of the
Church, Rome is indebted to Carthage for the theory on which
that organisation is built. The career of Carthage as a
Christian centre exemplifies the strange vicissitudes of
history. The city which Rome in her jealousy had crushed,
which, not content with crushing, she had obliterated from the
face of the earth, had at the bidding of Rome's greatest son
risen from her ashes, and by her career almost verified the
poet's taunt that the greatness of Carthage was reared on the
ruin of Italy. For in truth the African capital was in all but
political power no unworthy rival of Rome. It had steadily
grown in commercial prosperity. Its site was so advantageous
as to invite, almost to compel, the influx of trade, which
ever spontaneously moves along the line of least resistance.
And the people were well able to turn this natural advantage
to account. A mixed nationality, in which the original Italian
immigration lent a steadying force to the native Punic and
kindred African elements that formed its basis, with its
intelligence enriched by large accessions of Greek settlers
from Cyrene and Alexandria—Carthage had developed in the
second century of our era into a community at once wealthy,
enterprising and ambitious. … It was no longer in the sphere
of profane literature, but in her contributions to the cause
of Christianity and the spiritual armoury of the Church, that
the proud Queen of Africa was to win her second crown of fame.
… The names of Tertullian, Cyprian and Augustine, at once
suggest the source from which Papal Rome drew the principles
of Church controversy, Church organisation, and Church
doctrine, which have consolidated her authority, and to some
extent justified her pretensions to rule the conscience of
Christendom."
_C. T. Cruttwell,
A Literary History of Early Christianity,
book 5, chapter 2 (volume 2)._
"At the end of the second century the African Tertullian first
began to wrestle with the difficulties of the Latin language
in the endeavour to make it a vehicle for the expression of
Christian ideas. In reading his dogmatic writings the struggle
is so apparent that it seems as though we beheld a rider
endeavouring to discipline an unbroken steed. Tertullian's
doctrine is, however, still wholly Greek in substance, and
this continued to be the case in the church of the Latin
tongue until the end of the fourth century. Hilary, Ambrose,
even Jerome, are essentially interpreters of Greek philosophy
and theology to the Latin West. With Augustine learning begins
to assume a Latin form, partly original and
independent—partly, I say, for even later compositions are
abundantly interwoven with Greek elements and materials. Very
gradually from the writings of the African fathers of the
church does the specific Latin element come to occupy that
dominant position in Western Christendom, which soon, partly
from self-sufficient indifference, partly from ignorance, so
completely severed itself from Greek influences that the old
unity and harmony could never be restored. Still the Biblical
study of the Latins is, as a whole, a mere echo and copy of
Greek predecessors."
_J. I. von Döllinger,
Studies in European History,
pages 170-171._
From Carthage which was afterward the residence of "the
primate of all Africa … the Christian faith soon
disseminated throughout Numidia, Mauritania and Getulia, which
is proved by the great number of bishops at two councils held
at Carthage in 256 and 308. At the latter there were 270
bishops, whose names are not given, but at the former were
bishops from (87) … cities."
_J. E. T. Wiltsch,
Handbook of the Geography and Statistics of the Church._
CHRISTIANITY: Rome.
"In the West, Rome remains and indeed becomes ever more and
more the 'sedes Apostolica,' by far the most important centre
where, alongside of the Roman element, there are to be found
elements streaming together from all points of the Empire.
Greek names, and the long lasting (still dominant in the
second century) maintenance of Greek as the written language
of Roman Christianity are here noteworthy. … Rome was the
point of departure not only for Italy and the Western
Provinces, but without doubt also for Proconsular Africa,
where in turn Carthage becomes the centre of diffusion. …
The diffusion in the Græco-Roman world as a whole goes first
to the more important towns and from these gradually over the
country. … The instruments however of this mission are by no
means exclusively apostolic men, who pursue missions as their
calling; … every Christian becomes a witness in his own
circle, and intercourse and trade bring Christians hither and
thither, and along with them their Christian faith."
_W. Moeller,
History of the Christian Church,
pages 105-107._
"It has been contended, and many still believe, that in
ancient Rome the doctrines of Christ found no proselytes,
except among the lower and poorer classes of citizens. … The
gospel found its way also to the mansions of the masters, nay,
even to the palace of the Cæsars. The discoveries lately made
on this subject are startling, and constitute a new chapter in
the history of imperial Rome. … A difficulty may arise in
the mind of the reader: how was it possible for these
magistrates, generals, consuls, officers, senators, and
governors of provinces, to attend to their duties without
performing acts of idolatry? … The Roman emperors gave
plenty of liberty to the new religion from time to time; and
some of them, moved by a sort of religious syncretism, even
tried to ally it with the official worship of the empire, and
to place Christ and Jupiter on the steps of the same
'lararium.' … We must not believe that the transformation of
Rome from a pagan into a Christian city was a sudden and
unexpected event, which took the world by surprise. It was the
natural result of the work of three centuries, brought to
maturity under Constantine by an inevitable reaction against
the violence of Diocletian's rule. It was not a revolution or
a conversion in the true sense of these words; it was the
official recognition of a state of things which had long
ceased to be a secret. The moral superiority of the new
doctrines over the old religions was so evident, so
overpowering, that the result of the struggle had been a
foregone conclusion since the age of the first apologists. The
revolution was an exceedingly mild one, the transformation
almost imperceptible. … The transformation may be followed
stage by stage in both its moral and material aspect. There is
not a ruin of ancient Rome that does not bear evidence of the
great change. … Rome possesses authentic remains of the
'houses of prayer' in which the gospel was first announced in
apostolic times. … A very old tradition, confirmed by the
'Liber Pontificalis,' describes the modern church of S.
Pudentiana as having been once the private house of the same
Pudens who was baptized by the apostles, and who is mentioned
in the epistles of S. Paul. … The connection of the house
with the apostolate of SS. Peter and Paul made it very popular
from the beginning. … Remains of the house of Pudens were
found in 1870. They occupy a considerable area under the
neighboring houses. …
{449}
Among the Roman churches whose origin can be traced to the
hall of meeting, besides those of Pudens and Prisca already
mentioned, the best preserved seems to be that built by
Demetrias at the third mile-stone of the Via Latina, near the
'painted tombs.'… The Christians took advantage of the
freedom accorded to funeral colleges, and associated
themselves for the same purpose, following as closely as
possible their rules concerning contributions, the erection of
lodges, the meetings, and the … love feasts; and it was
largely through the adoption of these well-understood and
respected customs that they were enabled to hold their
meetings and keep together as a corporate body through the
stormy times of the second and third centuries. Two excellent
specimens of scholæ connected with Christian cemeteries and
with meetings of the faithful have come down to us, one above
the Catacombs of Callixtus, the other above those of Soter."
This formation of Christian communities into colleges is an
important fact, and connects these Christian societies with
one of the social institutions of the Empire which may have
influenced the church as an organization. "The experience
gained in twenty-five years of active exploration in ancient
Rome, both above and below ground, enables me to state that
every pagan building which was capable of giving shelter to a
congregation was transformed, at one time or another, into a
church or a chapel. … From apostolic times to the
persecution of Domitian, the faithful were buried, separately
or collectively, in private tombs which did not have the
character of a Church institution. These early tombs, whether
above or below ground, display a sense of perfect security,
and an absence of all fear or solicitude. This feeling arose
from two facts: the small extent of the cemeteries, which
secured to them the rights of private property, and the
protection and freedom which the Jewish colony in Rome enjoyed
from time immemorial. … From the time of the apostles to the
first persecution of Domitian, Christian tombs, whether above
or below ground, were built with perfect impunity and in
defiance of public opinion. We have been accustomed to
consider the catacombs of Rome as crypts plunged in total
darkness, and penetrating the bowels of the earth at
unfathomable depths. This is, in a certain measure, the case
with those catacombs, or sections of catacombs, which were
excavated in times of persecution; but not with those
belonging to the first century. The cemetery of these members
of Domitian's family who had embraced the gospel—such as
Flavius Clemens, Flavia Domitilla, Plautilla, Petronilla, and
others-reveals a bold example of publicity. … How is it
possible to imagine that the primitive Church did not know the
place of the death of its two leading apostles? In default of
written testimony let us consult monumental evidence. There is
no event of the imperial age and of imperial Rome which is
attested by so many noble structures, all of which point to
the same conclusion,—the presence and execution of the
apostles in the capital of the empire."
_R. Lanciani,
Pagan and Christian Rome,
chapter 1, 3 and 7._
The Church at Rome "gave no illustrious teachers to ancient
Christianity. … All the greatest questions were debated
elsewhere. … By a sort of instinct of race, [it] occupied
itself far more with points of government and organization
than of speculation. Its central position, in the capital of
the empire, and its glorious memories, guaranteed to it a
growing authority."
_E. De Pressensé,
The Early Years of Christianity:
The Martyrs and Apologists,
page 41._
CHRISTIANITY: Gaul.
"Of the history of the Gallican Churches before the middle of
the second century we have no certain information. It seems
fairly probable indeed that, when we read in the Apostolic age
of a mission of Crescens to 'Galatia' or 'Gaul,' the western
country is meant rather than the Asiatic settlement which bore
the same name; and, if so, this points to some relations with
St. Paul himself. But, even though this explanation should be
accepted, the notice stands quite alone. Later tradition
indeed supplements it with legendary matter, but it is
impossible to say what substratum of fact, if any, underlies
these comparatively recent stories. The connection between the
southern parts of Gaul and the western districts of Asia Minor
had been intimate from very remote times. Gaul was indebted
for her earliest civilization to her Greek settlements like
Marseilles, which had been colonized from Asia Minor some six
centuries before the Christian era; and close relations appear
to have been maintained even to the latest times. During the
Roman period the people of Marseilles still spoke the Greek
language familiarly along with the vernacular Celtic of the
native population and the official Latin of the dominant
power. When therefore Christianity had established her
headquarters in Asia Minor, it was not unnatural that the
Gospel should flow in the same channels which already
conducted the civilization and the commerce of the Asiatic
Greeks westward. At all events, whatever we may think of the
antecedent probabilities, the fact itself can hardly be
disputed. In the year A. D. 177, under Marcus Aurelius, a
severe persecution broke out on the banks of the Rhone in the
cities of Vienne and Lyons—a persecution which by its extent
and character bears a noble testimony to the vitality of the
Churches in these places. To this incident we owe the earliest
extant historical notice of Christianity in Gaul."
_J. B. Lightfoot,
Essays on the work entitled Supernatural Religion,
pages 251-252._
"The Churches of proconsular Africa, of Spain, of Italy, and
of Southern Gaul constitute, at this period, the Western
Church, so different in its general type from the Eastern.
With the exception of Irenaeus [bishop of Lyons] and
Hippolytus [the first celebrated preacher of the West, of
Italy and, for a period, Lyons] who represent the oriental
element in Gaul and at Rome, the Western Fathers are broadly
distinguished from those of the East. … They affirm rather
than demonstrate; … they prefer practical to speculative
questions. The system of episcopal authority is gradually
developed with a larger amount of passion at Carthage, with
greater prudence and patience in Italy."
_E. De Pressensé,
The Early Years of Christianity:
the Martyrs and Apologists._
CHRISTIANITY: Spain.
"Christians are generally mentioned as having existed in all
parts of Spain at the close of the second century; before the
middle of the third century there is a letter of the Roman
bishop Anterus (in 237) to the bishops of the provinces of
Bœtica and Toletana; … and after the middle of the same
century a letter of Cyprian's was addressed to … people …
in the north … as well as … in the south of that country."
_J. E. T. Wiltsch,
Handbook of the Geography and Statistics of the Church,
pages 40-41._
{450}
CHRISTIANITY: Britain.
"All that we can safely assert is that there is some reason
for believing that there were Christians in Britain before A.
D. 200. Certainly there was a British Church with bishops of
its own soon after A. D. 300, and possibly some time before
that. Very little can be known about this Celtic Church; but
the scanty evidence tends to establish three points, (1) It
had its origin from, and remained largely dependent upon, the
Gallic Church. (2) It was confined almost exclusively to Roman
settlements. (3) Its numbers were small and its members were
poor. … That Britain may have derived its Christianity from
Asia Minor cannot be denied; but the peculiar British custom
respecting Easter must not be quoted in evidence of it. It
seems to have been a mere blunder, and not a continuation of
the old Quarta-deciman practice. Gaul is the more probable
parent of the British Church. … At the Council of Rimini in
359 Constantius offered to pay out of the treasury the
travelling expenses of all the bishops who attended. Out of
more than four hundred bishops, three from Britain were the
only clergy who availed themselves of this offer. Neither at
Rimini, any more than at Arles, do the British representatives
make any show: they appear to be quite without influence."
_A. Plummer,
The Church of the Early Fathers,
chapter 8._
CHRISTIANITY: Goths.
"It has been observed that the first indisputable appearance
of the Goths in European history must be dated in A. D. 238,
when they laid waste the South-Danubian province of Moesia as
far as the Black Sea. In the thirty years (238-269) that
followed, there took place no fewer than ten such inroads. …
From these expeditions they returned with immense booty,—corn
and cattle, silks and fine linen, silver and gold, and
captives of all ranks and ages. It is to these captives, many
of whom were Christians, and not a few clergy, that the
introduction of Christianity among the Goths is primarily due.
… The period of the inroads, which so strangely formed a
sowing-time for Christianity, was followed by a long period of
tranquillity, during which the new faith took root and spread.
… It is to the faithful work and pure lives of [Christian]
men … who had fled from Roman civilisation for conscience
sake, to the example of patience in misfortune and high
Christian character displayed by the captives, and to the
instruction of the presbyters sprinkled among them, that we
must look, as the source of Christianity among the Goths. …
The fact (to which we shall have to refer later), that, of all
the sea raids undertaken by the Goths between the years 238
and 269, the Visigoths took part in only two, while the
Ostrogoths, who were settled in Southern Russia along the
coast of the Euxine from the Crimea to the Dneister, were
engaged probably in all of them, makes it very unlikely that
the captives mentioned by Philostorgius were carried anywhere
else than the eastern settlements. To the influence of these
Asian Christians, exerted mainly, if not entirely upon the
Ostrogoths, must be added the ever-increasing intercourse
carried on by sea between the Crimea and both the southern
shore of the Euxine and Constantinople. To these probabilities
has now to be added the fact that the only traces of an
organised Gothic Church existing before the year 341 are
clearly to be referred to a community in this neighbourhood.
Among the bishops who were present at the Council of Nicaea
(A. D. 325), and who signed the symbol which was then
approved, we find a certain Theophilus, before whose name
stand the words, 'de Gothis,' and after it the word
'Bosphoritanus.' There can be little doubt that this was a
bishop representing a Gothic Church on the Cimmerian
Bosphorus; and if, following the Paris MSS., we read further
down the list the name Domnus Bosphorensis or Bosphoranus, we
may find here another bishop from this diocese, and regard
Theophilus as chief or arch-bishop of the Crimean churches.
The undoubted presence at this council of at least one bishop
of the Goths, and the conclusion drawn therefrom in favour of
the orthodoxy of the Gothic Church in general, led afterwards
to the greatest confusion. Failing to distinguish between the
Crimean and Danubian communities, the historians often found
their information contradictory, and altered it in the
readiest way to suit the condition of the Church which they
had specially in view. … The conversion of that section of
the nation, which became the Gothic Church, was due to the
apostolic labours of one of their own race,—the great
missionary bishop Ulfilas [see GOTHS: A. D. 341-381]. But to
him too was to be traced the heresy in which they stopped
short on the way from heathenism to a complete Christian
faith."
_C. A. A. Scott,
Ulfilas, Apostle of the Goths,
pages 19-30._
"The superstitions of the barbarians, who had found homes in
the empire, had been exchanged for a more wholesome belief.
But Christianity had done more than this. It had extended its
influence to the distant East and South, to Abyssinia, and the
tribes of the Syrian and Lybian deserts, to Armenia, Persia,
and India."
_G. P. Fisher,
History of the Christian Church,
page 98._
"We have before us many significant examples of the facility
with which the most intelligent of the Pagans accepted the
outward rite of Christian baptism, and made a nominal
profession of the Faith, while they retained and openly
practiced, without rebuke, without remark, with the indulgence
even of genuine believers, the rites and usages of the
Paganism they pretended to have abjured. We find abundant
records of the fact that personages high in office, such as
consuls and other magistrates, while administering the laws by
which the old idolatries were proscribed, actually performed
Pagan rites and even erected public statues to Pagan
divinities. Still more did men, high in the respect of their
fellow-Christians, allow themselves to cherish sentiments
utterly at variance with the definitions of the Church."
_C. Merivale,
Four lectures on some Epochs of Early Church History,
page 150._
"We look back to the early acts and policy of the Church
towards the new nations, their kings and their people; the
ways and works of her missionaries and lawgivers, Ulfilas
among the Goths, Augustine in Kent, Remigius in France,
Boniface in Germany, Anschar in the North, the Irish Columban
in Burgundy and Switzerland, Benedict at Monte Cassino; or the
reforming kings, the Arian Theodoric, the great German
Charles, the great English Alfred. Measured by the light and
the standards they have helped us to attain to, their methods
no doubt surprise, disappoint—it may be, revolt us; and all
that we dwell upon is the childishness, or the imperfect
morality, of their attempts.
{451}
But if there is anything certain in history, it is
that in these rough communications of the deepest truths, in
these [for us] often questionable modes of ruling minds and
souls, the seeds were sown of all that was to make the hope
and the glory of the foremost nations. … I have spoken of
three other groups of virtues which are held in special regard
and respect among us—those connected with manliness and hard
work, with reverence for law and liberty, and with pure family
life. The rudiments and tendencies out of which these have
grown appear to have been early marked in the German races;
but they were only rudiments, existing in company with much
wilder and stronger elements, and liable, amid the changes and
chances of barbarian existence, to be paralysed or trampled
out. No mere barbarian virtues could by themselves have stood
the trial of having won by conquest the wealth, the lands, the
power of Rome. But their guardian was there. What Christianity
did for these natural tendencies to good was to adopt them, to
watch over them, to discipline, to consolidate them. The
energy which warriors were accustomed to put forth in their
efforts to conquer, the missionaries and ministers of
Christianity exhibited in their enterprises of conversion and
teaching. The crowd of unknown saints whose names fill the
calendars, and live, some of them, only in the titles of our
churches, mainly represent the age of heroic spiritual
ventures, of which we see glimpses in the story of St.
Boniface, the apostle of Germany; of St. Columban and St.
Gall, wandering from Ireland to reclaim the barbarians of the
Burgundian deserts and of the shores of the Swiss lakes. It
was among men like these—men who were then termed
emphatically 'men of religion'—that the new races saw the
example of life ruled by a great and serious purpose, which
yet was not one of ambition or the excitement of war; a life
of deliberate and steady industry, of hard and uncomplaining
labour; a life as full of activity in peace, of stout and
brave work, as a warrior's was wont to be in the camp, on the
march, in the battle. It was in these men and in the
Christianity which they taught, and which inspired and
governed them, that the fathers of our modern nations first
saw exemplified the sense of human responsibility, first
learned the nobleness of a ruled and disciplined life, first
enlarged their thoughts of the uses of existence, first were
taught the dignity and sacredness of honest toil. These great
axioms of modern life passed silently from the special homes
of religious employment to those of civil; from the cloisters
and cells of men who, when they were not engaged in worship,
were engaged in field-work or book-work,—clearing the forest,
extending cultivation, multiplying manuscripts—to the guild
of the craftsman, the shop of the trader, the study of the
scholar. Religion generated and fed these ideas of what was
manly and worthy in man."
_R. W. Church,
The Gifts of Civilisation,
pages 279-283._
CHRISTIANITY: A. D. 312-337.
The Church and the Empire.
"Shortly after the beginning of the fourth century there
occurred an event which, had it been predicted in the days of
Nero or even of Decius, would have been deemed a wild fancy.
It was nothing less than the conversion of the Roman Emperor
to the Christian faith. It was an event of momentous
importance in the history of the Christian religion. The Roman
empire, from being the enemy and persecutor of the Church,
thenceforward became its protector and patron. The Church
entered into an alliance with the State, which was to prove
fruitful of consequences, both good and evil, in the
subsequent history of Europe. Christianity was now to reap the
advantages and incur the dangers arising from the friendship
of earthly rulers and from a close connection with the civil
authority. Constantine was born in 274. He was the son of
Constantius Chlorus. His mother, Helena, was of obscure birth.
She became a Christian—whether before or after his
conversion, is doubtful. … After the death of Constantine's
father, a revolt against Galerius augmented the number of
emperors, so that, in 308, not less than six claimed to
exercise rule. The contest of Constantine was at first in the
West, against the tyrannical and dissolute Maxentius. It was
just before his victory over this rival at the Milvian Bridge,
near Rome, that he adopted the Christian faith. That there
mingled in this decision, as in most of the steps of his
career, political ambition, is highly probable. The strength
of the Christian community made it politic for him to win its
united support. But he sincerely believed in the God whom the
Christians worshipped, and in the help which, through his
providence, he could lend to his servants. … Shortly before
his victory over Maxentius there occurred what he asserted to
be the vision of a flaming cross in the sky, seen by him at
noonday, on which was the inscription, in Greek, 'By this
conquer.' It was, perhaps, an optical illusion, the effect of
a parhelion beheld in a moment when the imagination … was
strongly excited. He adopted the labarum, or the standard of
the cross, which was afterwards carried in his armies. [See
ROME: A. D. 323.] In later contests with Licinius, the ruler
in the East, who was a defender of paganism, Constantine
became more distinctly the champion of the Christian cause.
The final defeat of Licinius, in 323, left him the master of
the whole Roman world. An edict signed by Galerius,
Constantine, and Licinius, in 311, had proclaimed freedom and
toleration in matters of religion. The edict of Milan, in 312,
emanating from the two latter, established unrestricted
liberty on this subject. If we consider the time when it was
issued, we shall be surprised to find that it alleges as a
motive for the edict the sacred rights of conscience."
_G. P. Fisher,
History of the Christian Church,
pages 87-88._
"Towards the end of the year Constantine left Rome for Milan,
where he met Licinius. This meeting resulted in the issue of
the famous edict of Milan. Up to that hour Christianity had
been an 'illicita religio,' and it was a crime to be a
Christian. Even in Trajan's answer to Pliny this position is
assumed, though it forms the basis of humane regulations. The
edict of Milan is the charter of Christianity; it proclaims
absolute freedom in the matter of religion. Both Christians
and all others were to be freely permitted to follow
whatsoever religion each might choose. Moreover, restitution
was to be made to the Christian body of all churches and other
buildings which had been alienated from them during the persecution.
{452}
This was in 313 A. D. … But the causes of dissension
remained behind. Once more (323) the question between paganism
and Christianity was to be tried on the field of battle, and
their armies confronted one another on the plains of
Hadrianople. Again the skill of Constantine and the trained
valour of his troops proved superior to the undisciplined
levies of Licinius; while at sea Crispus, the eldest and
ill-fated son of Constantine, destroyed the enemy's fleet in
the crowded waters of the Hellespont, sowing thereby the seeds
of his father's jealousy. Byzantium fell, but not without a
vigorous resistance; and, after one more crushing defeat on
the site of the modern Scutari, Licinius submitted himself to
the mercy of Constantine. … What we notice in the whole of
these events is the enormous power which still belonged to
paganism. The balance still wavered between paganism and
Christianity. … Constantine had now, by a marvellous
succession of victories, placed himself in a position of
supreme and undisputed power. At this juncture it is of
interest to observe that … the divided empire, which
followed the reign of Constantine, served to sustain
Catholicity at least in one half of the world. … The
foundation of Constantinople was the outward symbol of the new
monarchy and of the triumph of Christianity. … The choice of
this incomparable position for the new capital of the world
remains the lasting proof of Constantine's genius. … The
magnificence of its public buildings, its treasures of art,
its vast endowments, the beauty of its situation, the rapid
growth of its commerce, made it worthy to be 'as it were a
daughter of Rome herself.' But the most important thought for
us is the relation of Constantinople to the advance of
Christianity. That the city which had sprung into supremacy
from its birth and had become the capital of the conquered
world, should have excluded from the circuit of its walls all
public recognition of polytheism, and made the Cross its most
conspicuous ornament, and the token of its greatness, gave a
reality to the religious revolution. … The imperial centre
of the world had been visibly displaced."
_A. Carr,
The Church and the Roman Empire,
chapter 4._
With the first General Council of the Church, held at Nicæa,
A. D. 325 (see NICÆA), "the decisions … of which received
the force of law from the confirmation of the Emperor, a
tendency was entered upon which was decisive for the further
development; decisive also by the fact that the Emperor held
it to be his duty to compel subordination to the decisions of
the council on penalty of banishment, and actually carried out
this banishment in the case of Arius and several of his
adherents. The Emperor summoned general synods, the fiscus
provided the cost of travel and subsistence (also at other
great synods), an imperial commissioner opened them by reading
the imperial edict, and watched over the course of business.
Only the bishops and their appointed representatives had
votes. Dogmatic points fixed … were to be the outcome of
unanimous agreement, the rest of the ordinances (on the
constitution, discipline and worship) of a majority of votes."
_W. Moeller,
History of the Christian Church,
page 337._
"The direct influence of the emperor, however, does not appear
until the Emperor Marcian procured from the Council of
Chalcedon the completion of the Patriarchal system. Assuming
that Rome, Alexandria, and Antioch were Patriarchates by the
recognition of their privileges at the Council of Nicæa
(though the canon of that council does not really admit that
inference), the Council of Chalcedon, by its ninth,
seventeenth and twenty-eighth canons, enlarged and fixed the
patriarchal jurisdiction and privileges of the Church of
Constantinople, giving it authority over the Dioceses of
Thrace, Asia and Pontus, with the power of ordaining and
requiring canonical obedience from the metropolis of those
Dioceses, and also the right to adjudicate appeals in causes
ecclesiastical from the whole Eastern Church. The Bishop of
Jerusalem also obtained in this council patriarchal authority
over Palestine. The organization of the Church was thus
conformed to that of the empire, the patriarchs corresponding
to the Prætorian Prefects, the exarchs, to the governors of
the Dioceses, and the metropolitans to the governors of the
provinces—the Bishop of Rome being given by an edict of
Valentinian III., of the year 445, supreme appellate
jurisdiction in the West, and the Bishop of Constantinople, by
these canons of Chalcedon, supreme appellate jurisdiction in
the East. … Dean Milman remarks that the Episcopate of St.
John Chrysostom was the last attempt of a bishop of
Constantinople to be independent of the political power, and
that his fate involved the freedom of the Church of that
city."
_J. H. Egar,
Christendom: Ecclesiastical and Political,
from Constantine to the Reformation,
pages 25-27._
"The name of patriarch, probably borrowed from Judaism, was
from this period the appellation of the highest dignitaries of
the church, and by it were more immediately, but not
exclusively, designated the bishops of Constantinople,
Alexandria, Antioch, and Jerusalem. One patriarch accordingly
presided over several provinces, and was distinguished from
the metropolitan in this, that the latter was subordinate to
him, and had only the superintendence of one province or a
small district. However the designation applied only to the
highest rulers of the church in the east, and not to those in
the west, for here the title of patriarch was not unfrequently
given, even in later times, to the metropolitan. The first
mention of this title occurs in the second letter of the Roman
bishop, Anacletus at the beginning of the second century, and
it is next spoken of by Socrates; and after the Council of
Chalcedon, in 451, it came into general use. The bishop of
Constantinople bore the special title of œcumenical bishop or
patriarch; there were also other titles in use among the
Nestorians and Jacobites. The Primates and Metropolitans or
Archbishops arose contemporaneously. The title of Eparch is
also said to have been given to primates about the middle of
the fifth century. The metropolitan of Ephesus subscribed
himself thus in the year 680, therefore in the succeeding
period. There was no particular title of long continuance for
the Roman bishop until the sixth century; but from the year
536 he was usually called Papa, and from the time of Gregory
the Great he styled himself Servus Servorum Dei."
_J. E. T. Wiltsch,
Handbook of the Geography and Statistics of the Church,
pages 70, 71 and 72._
{453}
"Christianity may now be said to have ascended the imperial
throne: with the single exception of Julian, from this period
the monarchs of the Roman empire professed the religion of the
Gospel. This important crisis in the history of Christianity
almost forcibly arrests the attention to contemplate the
change wrought in Christianity by its advancement into a
dominant power in the state; and the change in the condition
of mankind up to this period, attributable to the direct
authority or indirect influence of the new religion. By
ceasing to exist as a separate community, and by advancing its
pretentions to influence the general government of mankind,
Christianity to a certain extent, forfeited its independence.
It could not but submit to these laws, framed, as it might
seem, with its own concurrent voice. It was no longer a
republic, governed exclusively—as far, at least, as its
religious concerns—by its own internal polity. The
interference of the civil power in some of its most private
affairs, the promulgation of its canons, and even, in some
cases, the election of its bishops by the state, was the price
which it must inevitably pay for its association with the
ruling power. … During the reign of Constantine Christianity
had made a rapid advance, no doubt, in the number of its
proselytes as well as in its external position. It was not yet
the established religion of the empire. It did not as yet
stand forward as the new religion adapted to the new order of
things, as a part of the great simultaneous change which gave
to the Roman world a new capital, a new system of government,
and, in some important instances, anew jurisprudence. … The
religion of the emperor would soon become that of the court,
and, by somewhat slower degrees, that of the empire. At
present, however, as we have seen, little open aggression took
place upon paganism. The few temples which were closed were
insulated cases, and condemned as offensive to public
morality. In general the temples stood in all their former
majesty, for as yet the ordinary process of decay from neglect
or supineness could have produced little effect. The
difference was, that the Christian churches began to assume a
more stately and imposing form. In the new capital they
surpassed in grandeur, and probably in decoration, the pagan
temples, which belonged to old Byzantium. The immunities
granted to the Christian clergy only placed them on the same
level with the pagan priesthood. The pontifical offices were
still held by the distinguished men of the state: the emperor
himself was long the chief pontiff; but the religious office
had become a kind of appendage to the temporal dignity. The
Christian prelates were constantly admitted, in virtue of
their office, to the imperial presence."
_H. H. Milman,
History of Christianity,
book 3, chapter 4._
"As early as Constantine's time the punishment of crucifixion
was abolished; immoral practices, like infanticide, and the
exhibition of gladiatorial shows, were discouraged, the latter
of these being forbidden in Constantinople; and in order to
improve the relation of the sexes, severe laws were passed
against adultery, and restrictions were placed on the facility
of divorce. Further, the bishops were empowered, in the name
of religion, to intercede with governors, and even with the
emperor, in behalf of the unfortunate and oppressed. And
gradually they obtained the right of exercising a sort of
moral superintendence over the discharge of their official
duties by the judges, and others, who belonged to their
communities. The supervision of the prisons, in particular,
was entrusted to them; and, whereas in the first instance
their power of interference was limited to exhortations
addressed to the judges who superintended them, in Justinian's
reign the bishops were commissioned by law to visit the
prisons on two days of each week in order to inquire into,
and, if necessary, report upon, the treatment of the
prisoners. In all these and many other ways, the influence of
the State in controlling and improving society was advanced by
its alliance with the Church."
_H. F. Tozer,
The Church and the Eastern Empire,
pages 56-57._
"The Christians were still a separate people. … It can
scarcely be doubted that the stricter moral tone of
Constantine's legislation more or less remotely emanated from
Christianity. … During the reign of Constantine Christianity
continued to advance beyond the borders of the Roman empire,
and in some degree to indemnify herself for the losses which
she sustained in the kingdom of Persia. The Ethiopians appear
to have attained some degree of civilization; a considerable
part of the Arabian commerce was kept up with the other side
of the Red Sea through the port of Adulis; and Greek letters
appear, from inscriptions recently discovered, to have made
considerable progress among this barbarous people. … The
theological opinions of Christianity naturally made more rapid
progress than its moral influence. The former had only to
overpower the resistance of a religion which had already lost
its hold upon the mind, or a philosophy too speculative for
ordinary understandings and too unsatisfactory for the more
curious and inquiring; it had only to enter, as it were, into
a vacant place in the mind of man. But the moral influence had
to contest, not only with the natural dispositions of man, but
with the barbarism and depraved manners of ages. While, then,
the religion of the world underwent a total change, the Church
rose on the ruins of the temple, and the pontifical
establishment of paganism became gradually extinct or suffered
violent suppression; the moral revolution was far more slow
and far less complete. … Everywhere there was exaggeration
of one of the constituent elements of Christianity; that
exaggeration which is the inevitable consequence of a strong
impulse upon the human mind. Wherever men feel strongly, they
act violently. The more speculative Christians, therefore, who
were more inclined, in the deep and somewhat selfish
solicitude for their own salvation, to isolate themselves from
the infected class of mankind, pressed into the extreme of
asceticism; the more practical, who were in earnest in the
desire of disseminating the blessings of religion throughout
society, scrupled little to press into their service whatever
might advance their cause. With both extremes the dogmatical
part of the religion predominated. … In proportion to the
admitted importance of the creed, men became more sternly and
exclusively wedded to their opinions. … While they swept in
converts indiscriminately from the palace and the public
street, while the emperor and the lowest of the populace were
alike admitted on little more than the open profession of
allegiance, they were satisfied if their allegiance in this
respect was blind and complete. Hence a far larger admixture
of human passions, and the common vulgar incentives of action,
were infused into the expanding Christian body.
{454}
Men became Christians, orthodox Christians, with little
sacrifice of that which Christianity aimed chiefly to
extirpate. Yet, after all, this imperfect view of Christianity
had probably some effect in concentrating the Christian
community, and holding it together by a new and more
indissoluble bond. The world divided into two parties. …
All, however, were enrolled under one or the other standard,
and the party which triumphed eventually would rule the whole
Christian world."
_H. H. Milman,
History of Christianity,
book 3, chapter 4-5._
"Of this deterioration of morals we have abundant evidence.
Read the Canons of the various Councils and you will learn
that the Church found it necessary to prohibit the commission
of the most heinous and abominable crimes not only by the
laity, but even by the clergy. Read the homilies of such
preachers as Chrysostom, Basil, and Gregory, and you may infer
what the moral tone of a Christian congregation must have been
to which such reproofs could be addressed. Read, above all,
the treatise on Providence, or De Gubernatione Dei, written at
the close of our period by Salvian, a presbyter of Marseilles.
The barbarians had over-spread the West, and Christians had
suffered so many hardships that they began to doubt whether
there was any Divine government of human affairs. Salvian
retorted that the fact of their suffering was the best
evidence of the doctrine of Providence, for the miseries they
endured were the effects of the Divine displeasure provoked by
the debauchery of the Church. And then he proceeds to draw up
an indictment and to lend proof which I prefer not to give in
detail. After making every allowance for rhetorical
exaggeration, enough remains to show that the morality of the
Church had grievously declined, and that the declension was
due to the inroads of Pagan vice. … Under this head, had
space permitted, some account would have been given of the
growth of the Christian literature of this period, of the
great writers and preachers, and of the opposing schools of
interpretation which divided Christendom. In the Eastern
Church we should have had to notice [at greater length the
work of] Eusebius of Cæsarea, the father of Church History and
the friend of Constantine; Ephrem the Syrian, the
poet-preacher; the three Cappadocians, Basil of Cæsarea,
Gregory of Nyssa, and Gregory of Nazianzus, each great in his
own way, the first as a preacher and administrator, the second
as a thinker, the third as a poet and panegyrist; Chrysostom,
the orator and exegete; Theodore of Mopsuestia and Theodoret
of Kyros, along with Chrysostom the most influential
representatives of the School of Antioch. In the Western
Church we should have had to speak of Ambrose, the eloquent
preacher and voluminous writer; of Jerome, the biblical
critic; and of Augustine, the philosopher and
controversialist, whose thoughts live among us even at the
present day."
_W. Stewart,
The Church of the 4th and 5th Centuries
(St. Giles' Lectures, 4th series)._
See ROME: A. D. 323, to 391-395.
"Hitherto Christian asceticism had been individualistic in its
character. … In the third century hermits began to form a
class by themselves in the East and in Africa; in the fourth
they began to be organized into communities. After the
institution of monastic societies, this development of
Christian asceticism spread far and wide from the deserts of
the Thebaid and Lower Egypt; Basil, Jerome, Athanasius,
Augustine, Ambrose, were foremost among its earliest advocates
and propagators; Cassian, Columbanus, Benedict, and others,
crowned the labours of their predecessors by a more elaborate
organization."
_I. Gregory Smith,
Christian Monasticism,
pages 23-25._
CHRISTIANITY: A. D. 318-325.
The Arian Controversy and the Council of Nicæa.
See ARIANISM:
and NICÆA, THE FIRST COUNCIL OF.
CHRISTIANITY: A. D. 330-1054.
The Eastern (Greek, or Orthodox) Church.
"'The Eastern Church,' says a well-known writer, 'was like the
East, stationary and immutable; the Western, like the West,
progressive and flexible. This distinction is the more
remarkable, because at certain periods of their course, there
can be no doubt that the civilization of the Eastern Church
was far higher than that of the Western.'"
_G. F. Maclear,
The Slavs,
page 25._
It is the more remarkable because this long-continuing
uniformity, while peculiarly adapted to a people and a church
which should retain and transmit an inheritance of faith and
culture, stands in singular contrast to the reputed character
of the Greek-speaking peoples of the East. The word Greek,
however, has, as an adjective, many meanings, and there is
danger of wrong inference through inattention to these; some
of its distinctive characters are therefore indicated in
brackets in various places in the following matter. "The New
Rome at the time of its foundation was Roman. … But from the
first it was destined to become Greek; for the Greeks, who now
began to call themselves Romans—an appellation which they
have ever since retained—held fast to their language,
manners, and prejudices, while they availed themselves to the
full of their rights as Roman citizens. The turning-point in
this respect was the separation of the empires of the East and
the West in the time of Arcadius and Honorius; and in
Justinian's time we find all the highest offices in the hands
of the Greeks, and Greek was the prevailing language. But the
people whom we call by this name were not the Hellenes of
Greece proper, but the Macedonian Greeks. This distinction
arose with the establishment of Greek colonies with municipal
government throughout Asia by Alexander the Great and his
successors. The type of character which was developed in them
and among those who were Hellenised by their influence,
differed in many respects from that of the old Greeks. The
resemblance between them was indeed maintained by similarity
of education and social feelings, by the possession of a
common language and literature, and by their exclusiveness,
which caused them to look down on less favoured races; but
while the inhabitants of Greece retained more of the
independent spirit and of the moral character and patriotism
of their forefathers, the Macedonian Greeks were more
cosmopolitan, more subservient, and more ready to take the
impress of those among whom they were thrown: and the
astuteness and versatility which at all times had formed one
element in the Hellenic character, in them became the leading
characteristic. The influence of this type is traceable in the
policy of the Eastern Empire, varying in intensity in
different ages in proportion to the power exercised by the
Greeks: until, during the later period of the history—in the
time of the Comneni, and still more in that of the
Palæologi—it is the predominant feature."
_H. F. Tozer,
The Church and the Eastern Empire,
pages 9-10._
{455}
"What have been the effects of Christianity on what we call
national character in Eastern Christendom? … The Greeks of
the Lower Empire are taken as the typical example of these
races, and the Greeks of the Lower Empire have become a byword
for everything that is false and base. The Byzantine was
profoundly theological, we are told, and profoundly vile. …
Those who wish to be just to [it] … will pass … to the …
equitable and conscientious, but by no means, indulgent,
judgments of Mr. Finlay, Mr. Freeman, and Dean Stanley. One
fact alone is sufficient to engage our deep interest in this
race. It was Greeks [Hellenist Jews] and people imbued with
Greek ideas who first welcomed Christianity. It was in their
language that it first spoke to the world, and its first home
was in Greek households and in Greek cities. It was in Greek
[Hellenistic] atmosphere that the Divine Stranger from the
East, in many respects so widely different from all that
Greeks were accustomed to, first grew up to strength and
shape; first showed its power of assimilating and reconciling;
first showed what it was to be in human society. Its earliest
nurslings were Greeks; Greeks [Hellenist Jews] first took in
the meaning and measure of its amazing and eventful
announcements; Greek sympathies first awoke and vibrated to
its appeals; Greek obedience, Greek courage, Greek suffering
first illustrated its new lessons. Had it not first gained
over Greek mind and Greek belief, it is hard to see how it
would have made its further way. … The Roman conquest of the
world found the Greek race, and the Eastern nations which it
had influenced, in a low and declining state—morally,
socially, politically. The Roman Empire, when it fell, left
them in the same discouraging condition, and suffering besides
from the degradation and mischief wrought on all its subjects
by its chronic and relentless fiscal oppression. … These
were the men in whose childish conceit, childish frivolity,
childish self-assertion, St. Paul saw such dangers to the
growth of Christian manliness and to the unity of the
Christian body—the idly curious and gossiping men of Athens;
the vain and shamelessly ostentatious Corinthians, men in
intellect, but in moral seriousness babes; the Ephesians,
'like children carried away with every blast of vain
teaching,' the victims of every impostor, and sport of every
deceit; the Cretans, proverbially, 'ever liars, evil beasts,
slow bellies;' the passionate, volatile, Greek-speaking, Celts
of Asia, the 'foolish' Galatians. … The Greek of the Roman
times is portrayed in the special warnings of the Apostolic
Epistles. After Apostolic times he is portrayed in the same
way by the heathen satirist Lucian, and by the Christian
preacher Chrysostom; and such, with all his bad tendencies,
aggravated by almost uninterrupted misrule and oppression, the
Empire, when it broke up, left him. The prospects of such a
people, amid the coming storms, were dark. Everything, their
gifts and versatility, as well as their faults, threatened
national decay and disintegration. … These races whom the
Empire of the Cæsars left like scattered sheep to the mercy of
the barbarians, lived through a succession of the most
appalling storms, and kept themselves together, holding fast,
resolute and unwavering, amid all their miseries and all their
debasement, to the faith of their national brotherhood. …
This, it seems to me, Christianity did for a race which had
apparently lived its time, and had no future before it—the
Greek race in the days of the Cæsars. It created in them, in a
new and characteristic degree, national endurance, national
fellowship and sympathy, national hope. … It gave them an
Empire of their own, which, undervalued as it is by those
familiar with the ultimate results of Western history, yet
withstood the assaults before which, for the moment, Western
civilisation sank, and which had the strength to last a
life—a stirring and eventful life—of ten centuries. The
Greek Empire, with all its evils and weaknesses, was yet in
its time the only existing image in the world of a civilised
state. … The lives of great men profoundly and permanently
influence national character; and the great men of later Greek
memory are saints. They belong to the people more than
emperors and warriors; for the Church is of the people. …
The mark which such men left on Greek society and Greek
character has not been effaced to this day, even by the
melancholy examples of many degenerate successors. … Why, if
Christianity affected Greek character so profoundly, did it
not do more? Why, if it cured it of much of its instability
and trifling, did it not also cure it of its falsehood and
dissimulation? Why, if it impressed the Greek mind so deeply
with the reality of the objects of faith, did it not also
check the vain inquisitiveness and spirit of disputatiousness
and sophistry, which filled Greek Church history with furious
wranglings about the most hopeless problems? Why, if it could
raise such admiration for unselfishness and heroic nobleness,
has not this admiration borne more congenial fruit? Why, if
heaven was felt to be so great and so near, was there in real
life such coarse and mean worldliness? Why, indeed? …
Profoundly, permanently, as Christianity affected Greek
character, there was much in that character which Christianity
failed to reach, much that it failed to correct, much that was
obstinately refractory to influences which, elsewhere, were so
fruitful of goodness and greatness. The East, as well as the
West, has still much to learn from that religion, which each
too exclusively claims to understand, to appreciate, and to
defend."
_R. W. Church,
The Gifts of Civilisation,
pages 188-216._
"The types of character that were developed in the Eastern
Church, as might be expected, were not of the very highest.
There was among them no St. Francis, no St. Louis. The
uniformity which pervades everything Byzantine prevented the
development of such salient characters as are found in the
West. It is difficult, no doubt, to form a true estimate of
the influence of religion on men's lives in Eastern countries,
just as it is of their domestic relations, and even of the
condition of the lower classes, because such matters are
steadily ignored by the contemporary historians. But all the
evidence tends to show that individual rather than heroic
piety was fostered by the system which prevailed there. That
at certain periods a high tone of spirituality prevailed among
certain classes is sufficiently proved by the beautiful hymns
of the Eastern Church, many of which, thanks to Dr. Neale's
singular felicity in translation, are in use among ourselves.
But the loftier development of their spirit took the form of
asceticism, and the scene of this was rather the secluded
monastery, or the pillar of the Stylite, than human society at
large. But if the Eastern Church did not rise as high as her
sister of the West, she never sank as low."
_H. F. Tozer,
The Church and the Eastern Empire,
pages 45-46._
{456}
"The Greek Church, or, as it calls itself, the Holy Orthodox,
Catholic, Apostolic, Oriental Church, has a venerable if not
an eventful history. Unlike the Church of the West, it has not
been moulded by great political movements, the rise and fall
of kingdoms, and the convulsions which have passed over the
face of modern society. Its course has been out of the sight
of European civilisation, it has grown up among peoples who
have been but slightly affected, if they have been affected at
all, by the progressive movements of mankind. It has no middle
ages. It has no renaissance. It has no Reformation. It has
given birth to no great universities and schools of learning.
It has no Protestantism. It remains very much as the fourth
and fifth centuries left it. … When the royal throne in the
days of the first Christian Emperor was removed from Rome to
Constantinople, there arose at once a cause of strife between
the bishops of old and new Rome, as Byzantium or
Constantinople was named. Each claimed pre-eminence, and each
alternately received it from the governing powers, in Church
and State. One Council decreed (A. D. 381) that the Bishop of
the new Rome should be inferior only to that of the old;
another declared (A. D. 451) the equality of both prelates.
The Patriarch of Constantinople at the close of the sixth
century claimed superiority over all Christian Churches,—a
claim which might have developed, had circumstances favoured
it, into an Eastern Papacy. The assumption was, however, but
short-lived, and the Bishop of Rome, Boniface, obtained from
the Emperor Phocas in 606 the much-coveted position. The
Eastern Church submitted, but from this time looked with a
jealous eye on her Western sister. She noted and magnified
every point of divergence between them. Differences or
apparent differences in doctrine and ritual were denounced as
heresies. Excommunications fulminated between the Eastern and
Western city, and ecclesiastical bitterness was intensified by
political intrigue. … In the ninth century the contest grew
very fierce. The holder of the Eastern see, Photius,
formulated and denounced the terrible doctrinal and other
defections of the Western prelate and his followers. The list
is very formidable. They, the followers of Rome, deemed it
proper to fast on the seventh day of the week—that is on the
Jewish Sabbath; in the first week of Lent they permitted the
use of milk and cheese; they disapproved wholly of the
marriage of priests; they thought none but bishops could
anoint with the holy oil or confirm the baptized, and that
they therefore anointed a second time those who had been
anointed by presbyters; and fifthly, they had adulterated the
Constantinopolitan Creed by adding to it the words Filioque,
thus teaching that the Holy Spirit did not proceed only from
the Father, but also from the Son. This last was deemed, and
has always been deemed by the Greek Church the great heresy of
the Roman Church. … The Greek Church to-day in all its
branches—in Turkey, Greece, and Russia—professes to hold
firmly by the formulas and decisions of the seven Œcumenical
or General Councils, regarding with special honour that of
Nice. The Nicene and Athanasian Creeds are the symbols of its
faith, the Filioque clause being omitted from the former, and
the eighth article reading thus: 'And in the Holy Ghost, the
Lord and Giver of life, who proceedeth from the Father, and
with the Father and Son together is worshipped and glorified.'
… The Greek Church, unlike the Latin, denounces the use of
images as objects of devotion, and holds in abhorrence every
form of what it terms 'image worship.' Its position in this
manner is very curious. It is true, no figures of our Lord, of
the Virgin, or saints, such as one sees in churches, wayside
chapels, and in the open fields in countries where the Roman
Church is powerful, are to be seen in Russia, Greece, or any
of those lands where the Eastern Church is supreme. On the
other hand, pictures of the plainest kind everywhere take
their place, and are regarded with the deepest veneration."
_J. C. Lees,
The Greek Church, (in the Churches of Christendom).
lecture 4._
See, also,
FILIOQUE CONTROVERSY.
CHRISTIANITY: A. D. 337-476.
The fall of Imperial Rome.
The rise of Ecclesiastical Rome.
The political and religious history of the Empire from the
death of Constantine is so fully narrated under Rome that mere
mention here of a few events will suffice, viz.: the revival
of Paganism under the Emperor Julian; the reascendency of
Christianity; the formal establishment of Christianity as the
religion of the Romans, by the suffrages of the senate; the
final division of the Empire into East and West between the
sons of Theodosius; the three sieges and the sacking of Rome
by Alaric; the legal separation of the Eastern and Western
Empires; the pillage of Rome by the Vandals and its final
submission to the barbarians.
See ROME: A. D. 337-361, to 445-476.
For an account of the early bishops of Rome, see PAPACY.
"A heathen historian traces the origin of the calamities which
he records to the abolition of sacrifice by Theodosius, and
the sack of Rome to the laws against the ancient faith passed
by his son. This objection of the heathens that the overthrow
of idolatry and the ascendency of Christianity were the cause
of the misfortunes of the empire was so wide spread, and had
such force with those, both Pagans and Christians, who
conceived history to be the outcome of magical or demonic
powers, that Augustine devoted twelve years of his life to its
refutation. His treatise, 'De Civitate Dei,' was begun in 413,
and was not finished till 426, within four years of his death.
Rome had once been taken; society, consumed by inward
corruption, was shaken to its foundations by the violent onset
of the Teutonic tribes; men's hearts were failing them for
fear; the voice of calumny cried aloud, and laid these woes to
the charge of the Christian faith. Augustine undertook to
refute the calumny, and to restore the courage of his
fellow-Christians. Taking a rapid survey of history, he asks
what the gods had ever done for the well-being of the state or
for public morality. He maintains that the greatness of Rome
in the past was due to the virtues of her sons, and not to the
protection of the gods. He shows that, long before the rise of
Christianity, her ruin had begun with the introduction of
foreign vices after the destruction of Carthage, and declares
that much in the ancient worship, instead of preventing, had
hastened that ruin. He rises above the troubles of the
present, and amid the vanishing glories of the city of men he
proclaims the stability of the city of God. At a time when the
downfall of Rome was thought to presage approaching doom,
Augustine regarded the disasters around him as the
birth-throes of a new world, as a necessary moment in the
onward movement of Christianity."
_W. Stewart,
The Church of the 4th and 5th Centuries
(St. Giles' Lectures, 4th series)._
{457}
"There is as little ground for discovering a miraculous, as
there is for disowning a providential element in the course of
events. The institutions of Roman authority and law had been
planted regularly over all the territory which the conquering
hordes coveted and seized; alongside of every magistrate was
now placed a minister of Christ, and by every Hall of Justice
stood a House of Prayer. The Representative of Cæsar lost all
his power and dignity when the armies of Cæsar were scattered
in flight; the minister of Christ felt that behind him was an
invisible force with which the hosts of the alien could not
cope, and his behaviour impressed the barbarian with the
conviction that there was reality here. That beneficent
mission of Leo, A. D. 452, of which Gibbon says: 'The pressing
eloquence of Leo, his majestic aspect and sacerdotal robes,
excited the veneration of Attila for the spiritual father of
the Christians'—would be but an instance of what many
nameless priests from provincial towns did, 'not counting
their lives dear to them.' The organisation of the Latin state
vitalised by a new spiritual force vanquished the victors. It
was the method and the discipline of this organisation, not
the subtlety of its doctrine, nor the fervour of its
officials, that beat in detail one chief with his motley
following after another. Hence too it came about that the
Christianity which was adopted as the religion of Europe was
not modified to suit the tastes of the various tribes that
embraced it, but was delivered to each as from a common
fountain-head. … It was a social triumph, proceeding from
religious motives which we may regard with unstinted
admiration and gratitude."
_J. Watt,
The Latin Church
(St. Giles' Lectures, 4th series.)_
"The temporal fall of the Imperial metropolis tended to throw
a brighter light upon her ecclesiastical claims. The
separation of the East and the West had already enhanced the
religious dignity of the ancient capital. The great Eastern
patriarchates of Antioch, Alexandria, and Jerusalem had up to
that time all held themselves equal, if not superior to Rome.
Constantinople had even assumed certain airs of supremacy over
all. The General Councils which had defined the Faith at Nicæa
and Constantinople had been composed almost wholly of
Orientals. The great Doctors of the Church, the men who had
defended or diffused the common Faith, had been mostly Greeks
by origin and language. None had been Romans, and it was
rarely, till the fourth century, that any of them had written
in the Latin tongue. When Athanasius, exiled from Alexandria,
came to Italy and Gaul, it was three years before he could
learn enough of the language of the West to address its
congregations in public. But this curious fact shows that the
Western Christians were now no longer the little Greek colony
of the first and second centuries. Christianity had become the
national religion of the native races. The Romans might now
feel that they were becoming again a people; that their
glorious career was assuming, as it were, a new point of
departure. … For at this moment the popular instinct could
not fail to perceive how strongly the conscience of the
barbarians had been affected by the spiritual majesty of
Christian Rome. The Northern hordes had beaten down all armed
resistance. They had made a deep impression upon the strength
of the Eastern Empire; they had, for a moment at least,
actually overcome the Western; they had overrun many of the
fairest provinces, and had effected a permanent lodgement in
Gaul and Spain, and still more recently in Africa. Yet in all
these countries, rude as they still were, they had submitted
to accept the creed of the Gospel. There was no such thing as
a barbarian Paganism established within the limits of the
Empire anywhere, except perhaps in furthest Britain."
_C. Merivale,
Four lectures on some Epochs of Early Church History,
pages 130-136._
"When the surging tides of barbarian invasion swept over
Europe, the Christian organization was almost the only
institution of the past which survived the flood. It remained
as a visible monument of what had been, and, by so remaining,
was of itself an antithesis to the present. The chief town of
the Roman province, whatever its status under barbarian rule,
was still the bishop's see. The limits of the old 'province,'
though the boundary of a new kingdom might bisect them, were
still the limits of his diocese. The bishop's tribunal was the
only tribunal in which the laws of the Empire could be pleaded
in their integrity. The bishop's dress was the ancient robe of
a Roman magistrate. The ancient Roman language which was used
in the Church services was a standing protest against the
growing degeneracy of the 'vulgar tongue.' … As the forces
of the Empire became less and less, the forces of the Church
became more and more. The Churches preserved that which had
been from the first the secret of Imperial strength. For
underneath the Empire which changed and passed, beneath the
shifting pageantry of Emperors who moved across the stage and
were seen no more, was the abiding empire of law and
administration,—which changed only as the deep sea changes
beneath the windswept waves. That inner empire was continued
in the Christian Churches. In the years of transition from the
ancient to the modern world, when all civilized society seemed
to be disintegrated, the confederation of the Christian
Churches, by the very fact of its existence upon the old
imperial lines, was not only the most powerful, but the only
powerful organization in the civilized world. It was so vast,
and so powerful, that it seemed to be, and there were few to
question its being, the visible realization of that Kingdom of
God which our Lord Himself had preached."
_E. Hatch;
The Organization of the Christian Churches,
pages 160-178._
{458}
CHRISTIANITY: A. D. 347-412.
The Syrian Churches.
"St. Chrysostom was born there A. D. 347; and it was in his
time that Antioch, with its hundred thousand Christians,
became the leading Church in Asia, especially in the Arian
controversy [see ARIANISM], for Arianism was very prevalent
there. But all this lies outside our period. The so-called
'School of Antioch' has its origin just before … our period
[311, Wiltsch]. Dorotheus, … and the martyr Lucian may be
regarded as its founders. In contrast to the allegorising
mysticism of the School of Alexandria, it was distinguished by
a more sober and critical interpretation of Scripture. It
looked to grammar and history for its principles of exegesis.
But we must not suppose that there was at Antioch an
educational establishment like the Catechetical School at
Alexandria, which, by a succession of great teachers, kept up
a traditional mode of exegesis and instruction. It was rather
an intellectual tendency which, beginning with Lucian and
Dorotheus, developed in a definite direction in Antioch and
other Syrian Churches. … These notices of the Churches of
Jerusalem, Cæsarea in Palestine, and Antioch must suffice as
representative of the Syrian Churches. The number of these
Churches was considerable even in the second century, and by
the beginning of the fourth was very large indeed, as is seen
by the number of bishops who attend local Councils."
_A. Plummer,
The Church of the Early Fathers,
chapter 3._
"It has often astonished me that no one has ever translated
the letters of St. Jerome. The letters of St. Augustine have
been translated, and are in many parts very entertaining
reading, but they are nothing in point of living interest when
compared with St. Jerome's. These letters illustrate life
about the year 400 as nothing else can. They show us, for
instance, what education then was, what clerical life
consisted in; they tell us of modes and fashions, and they
teach us how vigorous and constant was the communication at
that same period between the most distant parts of the Roman
empire. We are apt to think of the fifth century as a time
when there was very little travel, and when most certainly the
East and West—Ireland, England, Gaul and Palestine—were much
more widely and completely separated than now, when steam has
practically annihilated time and space. And yet such an idea
is very mistaken. There was a most lively intercourse existing
between these regions, a constant Church correspondence kept up
between them, and the most intense and vivid interest
maintained by the Gallic and Syrian churches in the minutest
details of their respective histories. Mark now how this
happened. St. Jerome at Bethlehem was the centre of this
intercourse. His position in the Christian world in the
beginning of the fifth century can only be compared to, but
was not at all equalled by, that of John Calvin at the time of
the Reformation. Men from the most distant parts consulted
him. Bishops of highest renown for sanctity and learning, like
St. Augustine, and Exuperius of Toulouse in southern France,
deferred to his authority. The keen interest he took in the
churches of Gaul, and the intimate knowledge he possessed of
the most petty local details and religious gossip therein, can
only be understood by one who has studied his very abusive
treatise against Vigilantius or his correspondence with
Exuperius. … But how, it may be asked, was this
correspondence carried on when there was no postal system?
Here it was that the organization of monasticism supplied a
want. Jerome's letters tell us the very name of his postman.
He was a monk named Sysinnius. He was perpetually on the road
between Marseilles and Bethlehem. Again and again does Jerome
mention his coming and his going. His appearance must indeed
have been the great excitement of life at Bethlehem.
Travelling probably via Sardinia, Rome, Greece, and the
islands of the Adriatic, he gathered up all kinds of clerical
news on the way—a piece of conduct on his part which seems to
have had its usual results. As a tale-bearer, he not only
revealed secrets, but also separated chief friends, and this
monk Sysinnius with his gossips seems to have been the
original cause of the celebrated quarrel between Augustine and
Jerome."
_G. T. Stokes,
Ireland and the Celtic Church,
pages 170-172._
CHRISTIANITY: A. D. 496-800.
The Frankish Church to the Empire of Charlemagne.
"The baptism of Chlodovech [Clovis—see FRANKS: A. D. 481-
511] was followed by the wholesale conversion of the Franks.
No compulsion was used to bring the heathen into the Church.
As a heathen, Chlodovech had treated the Church with
forbearance; he was equally tolerant to heathenism when he was
a Christian. But his example worked, and thousands of noble
Franks crowded to the water of regeneration. Gregory of Tours
reckons the Franks as Christians after the baptism of their
king, which took place at Christmas, A. D. 496. His conversion
made no alteration in the policy and conduct of Chlodovech; he
remained the same mixture of cunning and audacity, of cruelty
and sensuality, that he was before. … But, though his
baptism was to him of no moral import, its consequences were
wide spreading. When Gregory of Tours compares the conversion
of Chlodovech with that of Constantine the Great, he was fully
in the right. … And the baptism of Chlodovech declared to
the world that the new blood being poured into the veins of
the old and expiring civilization, had been quickened by the
same elements, and would unite with the old in the new
development. … That many of those who were baptized carried
with them into their new Christianity their old heathen
superstitions as well as their barbarism is certain; and the
times were not those in which the growth of the great
Christian graces was encouraged; the germs, however, of a new
life were laid."
_S. Baring-Gould,
The Church in Germany,
chapter 3._
"The details of the history of the Merovingian period of
Frankish history are extraordinarily complicated; happily, it
is not at all necessary for our purpose to follow them. … In
the earlier years after the conquest, all ranks of the clergy
were filled by Gallo-Romans. The Franks were the dominant
race, and were Christian, but they were new converts from a
rude heathenism, and it would take some generations to raise
up a 'native ministry' among them. Not only the literature of
the (Western) Church, but all its services, and, still more,
the conversational intercourse of all civilized and Christian
people, was in Latin. Besides, the Franks were warriors, a
conquering caste, a separate nation; and to lay down the
battle-axe and spear, and enter into the peaceful ranks of the
Romano-Gallic Church, would have seemed to them like changing
their nationality for that of the more highly cultured,
perhaps, but, in their eyes, subject race. The Frank kings did
not ignore the value of education. Clovis is said to have
established a Palatine school, and encouraged his young men to
qualify themselves for the positions which his conquests had
opened out to them.
{459}
His grandsons, we have seen, prided themselves on
their Latin culture. After a while, Franks aspired to the
magnificent positions which the great sees of the Church
offered to their ambition; and we find men with Teutonic
names, and no doubt of Teutonic race, among the bishops. …
For a still longer period, few Franks entered into the lower
ranks of the Church. Not only did the priesthood offer little
temptation to them, but also the policy of the kings and
nobles opposed the diminution of their military strength, by
refusing leave to their Franks to enter into holy orders or
into the monasteries. The cultured families of the cities
would afford an ample supply of men for the clergy, and
promising youths of a lower class seem already not
infrequently to have been educated for the service of the
Church. It was only in the later period, when some approach
had been made to a fusion of the races, that we find Franks
entering into the lower ranks of the Church, and
simultaneously we find Gallo-Romans in the ranks of the
armies. … Monks wielded a powerful spiritual influence. But
the name of not a single priest appears in the history of the
times as exercising any influence or authority. … Under the
gradual secularization of the Church in the Merovingian
period, the monasteries had the greatest share in keeping
alive a remnant of vital religion among the people; and in the
gradual decay of learning and art, the monastic institution
was the ark in which the ancient civilization survived the
deluge of barbarism, and emerged at length to spread itself
over the modern world."
_E. L. Cutts,
Charlemagne,
chapters 5 and 7._
"Two Anglo-Saxon monks, St. Wilfrid, bishop of York, and St.
Willibrord undertook the conversion of the savage fishermen of
Friesland and Holland at the end of the seventh and beginning
of the eighth century; they were followed by another
Englishman, the most renowned of all these missionaries,
Winfrith, whose name was changed to Boniface, perhaps by the
Pope, in recognition of his active and beneficent apostleship.
When Gregory II. appointed him bishop of Germany (723), he
went through Bavaria and established there the dioceses of
Frisingen, Passau, and Ratisbon. When Pope Zacharias bestowed
the rank of metropolitan upon the Church of Mainz in 748, he
entrusted its direction to St. Boniface, who from that time
was primate, as it were, of all Germany, under the authority
of the Holy See. St. Boniface was assassinated by the Pagans
of Friesland in 755."
_V. Duruy,
History of the Middle Ages,
book 3, chapter 8._
"Boniface, whose original name was Winfrid, was of a noble
Devonshire family (A. D. 680), educated at the monastery of
Nutcelle, in Hampshire, and at the age of thirty-five years
had obtained a high reputation for learning and ability, when
(in A. D. 716), seized with the prevalent missionary
enthusiasm, he abandoned his prospects at home, and set out
with two companions to labour among the Frisians. … Winfrid
was refused permission by the Duke to preach in his dominions,
and he returned home to England. In the following spring he
went to Rome, where he remained for some months, and then,
with a general authorization from the pope to preach the
gospel in Central Europe, he crossed the Alps, passed through
Bavaria into Thuringia, where he began his work. While here
the death of Radbod, A. D. 719, and the conquest of Frisia by
Charles Martel, opened up new prospects for the evangelization
of that country, and Boniface went thither and laboured for three
years among the missionaries, under Willibrord of Utrecht.
Then, following in the track of the victorious forces of
Charles Martel, he plunged into the wilds of Hessia, converted
two of its chiefs whose example was followed by multitudes of
the Hessians and Saxons, and a monastery arose at Amöneburg as
the head-quarters of the mission. The Bishop of Rome being
informed of this success, summoned Boniface to Rome, A. D.
723, and consecrated him a regionary bishop, with a general
jurisdiction over all whom he should win from paganism into
the Christian fold, requiring from him at the same time the
oath which was usually required of bishops within the
patriarchate of Rome, of obedience to the see. … Boniface
was not only a zealous missionary, an earnest preacher, a
learned scholar, but he was a statesman and an able
administrator. He not only spread the Gospel among the
heathen, but he organized the Church among the newly converted
nations of Germany; he regulated the disorder which existed in
the Frankish Church, and established the relations between
Church and State on a settled basis. The mediæval analysts
tell us that Boniface crowned Pepin king, and modern writers
have usually reproduced the statement. 'Rettberg, and the able
writer of the biography of Boniface in Herzog (Real Ecyk, s.
v.), argue satisfactorily from Boniface's letters that he took
no part in Pepin's coronation.' When Boniface withdrew from
the active supervision of the Frankish Churches, it is
probable that his place was to some extent supplied in the
councils of the mayor and in the synods of the Church by
Chrodegang, Bishop of Metz, a man whose character and
influence in the history of the Frank Church have hardly
hitherto been appreciated."
_E. L. Cutts,
Charlemagne,
chapter 12._
"Both Karlmann and Pippin tried to reform certain abuses that
had crept into the Church. Two councils, convoked by Karlmann,
the one in Germany (742), the other in the following year at
Lestines (near Charleroi, in Belgium), drew up decrees which
abolished superstitious rites and certain Pagan ceremonies,
still remaining in force; they also authorized grants of
Church lands by the 'Prince' for military purposes on
condition of a payment of an annual rent to the Church; they
reformed the ecclesiastical life, forbade the priests to hunt
or to ride through the woods with dogs, falcons, or
sparrow-hawks; and, finally, made all priests subordinate to
their diocesan bishops, to whom they were obliged to give
account each year of their faith and their ministry—all of
which were necessary provisions for the organization of the
ecclesiastical hierarchy and for the regulation of church
government. Similar measures were taken by the Council of
Soissons, convoked by Pippin in 744. In 747, Karlmann
renounced the world and retired to the celebrated Italian
monastery of Monte Cassino. As he left he entrusted his
children to the care of their uncle, Pippin, who robbed them
of their inheritance and ruled alone over the whole Frankish
Empire. … Charlemagne enlarged and completed the work which
had only been begun by Charles Martel and Pippin. … The
Middle Ages acknowledged two Masters, the Pope and the
Emperor, and these two powers came, the one from Rome, and the
other from Austrasian France. … The mayors of Austrasia,
Pippin of Heristal, and Charles Martel, rebuilt the Frankish
monarchy and prepared the way for the empire of Charlemagne;
… the Roman pontiffs … gathered around them all the
churches of the West, and placed themselves at the head of the
great Catholic society, over which one day Gregory VII. and
Innocent III. should claim to have sole dominion."
_V. Duruy,
History of the Middle Ages,
pages 119-122, 108._
See MAYORS OF THE PALACE;
FRANKS: A. D. 768-814;
and PAPACY: A. D. 755-774, and 774.
{460}
The coronation of Charlemagne at Rome by Pope Leo III. (see
ROMAN EMPIRE, A. D. 800) gave the Western Church the place in
the state it had held under the earlier Roman emperors. The
character of so great a man, the very books he read and all
that fed the vigorous ideal element in so powerful a spirit
are worthy of interest; for this at least he sought to
accomplish—to give order to a tumultuous and barbarian
world, and to establish learning, and purify the church:
"While at table, he liked to hear a recital or a reading, and
it was histories and the great deeds of past times which were
usually read to him. He took great pleasure, also, in the
works of St. Augustine, and especially in that whose title is
'De Civitate Dei.' … He practiced the Christian religion in
all its purity and with great fervour, whose principles had
been taught him from his infancy. … He diligently attended
… church in the evening and morning, and even at night, to
assist at the offices and at the holy sacrifice, as much as
his health permitted him.' He watched with care that nothing
should be done but with the greatest propriety, constantly
ordering the guardians of the church not to allow anything to
be brought there or left there inconsistent with or unworthy
of the sanctity of the place. … He was always ready to help
the poor, and it was not only in his own country, or within
his own dominions that he dispensed those gratuitous
liberalities which the Greeks call 'alms,' but beyond the
seas—in Syria, in Egypt, in Africa, at Jerusalem, at
Alexandria, at Carthage, everywhere where he learned that
Christians were living in poverty—he pitied their misery and
loved to send them money. If he sought with so much care the
friendship of foreign sovereigns, it was, above all, to
procure for the Christians living under their rule help and
relief. Of all the holy places, he had, above all, a great
veneration for the Church of the Apostle St. Peter at Rome."
_Eginhard,
Life of Charlemagne._
"The religious side of Charles' character is of the greatest
interest in the study of his remarkable character as a whole
and his religious policy led to the most important and durable
results of his reign. He inherited an ecclesiastical policy
from his father; the policy of regulating and strengthening
the influence of the Church in his dominions as the chief
agent of civilization, and a great means of binding the
various elements of the empire into one; the policy of
accepting the Bishop of Rome as the head of Western
Christianity, with patriarchal authority over all its
Churches."
_E. L. Cutts,
Charlemagne,
chapter 23._
The following is a noteworthy passage from Charlemagne's
Capitulary of 787: "It is our wish that you may be what it
behoves the soldiers of the church to be;—religious in
heart, learned in discourse, pure in act, eloquent in speech;
so that all who approach your house in order to invoke the
Divine Master, or to behold the excellence of the religious
life, may be edified in beholding you, and instructed in
hearing you discourse or chant, and may return home rendering
thanks to God most High. Fail not, as thou regardest our
favour, to send a copy of this letter to all thy suffragans
and to all the monasteries; and let no monk go beyond his
monastery to administer justice or to enter the assemblies and
the voting-places. Adieu."
_J. B. Mullinger,
The Schools of Charles the Great._
CHRISTIANITY: 5th-7th Centuries.
The Nestorian, Monophysite and Monothelite Controversies.
See NESTORIAN AND MONOPHYSITE, and MONOTHELITE.
CHRISTIANITY: 5th-9th Centuries.
The Irish Church and its missions.
The story of the conversion of Ireland by St. Patrick, and of
the missionary labors of the Church which he founded, is
briefly told elsewhere.
See IRELAND: 5TH-8TH CENTURIES.
"The early Church worked her way, in the literal sense of the
word, 'underground,' under camp and palace, under senate and
forum. But turn where we will in these Celtic missions, we
notice how different were the features that marked them now.
In Dalaradia St. Patrick obtains the site of his earliest
church from the chieftain of the country, Dichu. At Tara, he
obtains from King Laoghaire a reluctant toleration of his
ministry. In Connaught he addresses himself first to the
chieftains of Tirawley, and in Munster baptizes Angus, the
king, at Cashel, the seat of the kings. What he did in Ireland
reproduces itself in the Celtic missions of Wales and
Scotland, and we cannot but take note of the important
influence of Welsh and Pictish chiefs. … The people may not
have adopted the actual profession of Christianity, which was
all perhaps that in the first instance they adopted from any
clear or intelligent appreciation of its superiority to their
former religion. But to obtain from the people even an actual
profession of Christianity was an important step to ultimate
success. It secured toleration at least for Christian
institutions. It enabled the missionaries to plant in every
tribe their churches, schools, and monasteries, and to
establish among the half pagan inhabitants of the country
societies of holy men, whose devotion, usefulness, and piety
soon produced an effect on the most barbarous and savage
hearts.'"
_G. F. Maclear,
Conversion of the West: The Celts,
chapter 11._
"The Medieval Church of the West found in the seventh century
an immense task before it to fulfil. … The missionaries who
addressed themselves to the enormous task of the conversion of
Germany may be conveniently divided into three groups—the
British, the Frankish, and, entering somewhat later into an
honourable rivalry with these, the Anglo-Saxon. A word or two
upon each of these groups. The British—they include Irish and
Scotch—could no longer find a field for the exercise of their
ministry in England, now that there the Roman rule and
discipline, to which they were so little disposed to submit,
had everywhere won the day. Their own religious houses were
full to overflowing. At home there was little for them to do,
while yet that divine hunger and thirst for the winning of
souls, which had so possessed the heart of St. Patrick, lived
on in theirs. To these so minded, pagan Germany offered a welcome
field of labour, and one in which there was ample room for all.
{461}
Then there were the Frankish missionaries, who enjoyed the support
of the Frankish kings, which sometimes served them in good
stead; while at other times this protection was very far from
a recommendation in their eyes who were easily persuaded to
see in these missionaries the emissaries of a foe. Add to
these the Anglo-Saxons; these last, mindful of the source from
which they had received their own Christianity, making it a
point to attach their converts to Rome, even as they were
themselves bound to her by the closest ties. The language
which these spoke—a language which as yet can have diverged
very little from the Low German of Frisia, must have given to
them many facilities which the Frankish missionaries possessed
in a far slighter degree, the British not at all; and this may
help to account for a success on their parts far greater than
attended the labours of the others. To them too it was mainly
due that the battle of the Creeds, which had been fought and
lost by the Celtic missionaries in England, and was presently
renewed in Germany, had finally the same issues there as in
England. … At the same time, there were differences in the
intensity and obstinacy of resistance to the message of truth,
which would be offered by different tribes. There was ground,
which at an early day had been won for the Gospel, but which
in the storms and confusion of the two preceding centuries had
been lost again; the whole line, that is, of the Danube and
the Rhine, regions fair and prosperous once, but in every
sense wildernesses now. In these we may note a readier
acceptance of the message than found place in lands which in
earlier times that message had never reached; as though
obscure reminiscences and traditions of the past, not wholly
extinct, had helped to set forward the present work."
_R C. Trench,
Lectures on Medieval Church History,
lecture 5._
"From Ireland came Gallus, Fridolin, Kilian, Trutbert and
Levin. … The order in which these men succeeded one another
cannot always be established, from the uncertainty of the
accounts. … We know thus much, that of all those
above-mentioned, Gallus was the first, for his labours in
Helvetia (Switzerland) were continued from the preceding into
the period of which we are now treating. On the other hand, it
is uncertain as to Fridolin whether he had not completed his
work before Gallus, in the sixth century, for in the opinion
of some he closed his career in the time of Clodoveus I., but,
according to others, he is said to have lived under Clodoveus
II., or at another period. His labours extended over the lands
on the Moselle, in the Vosges Mountains, over Helvetia, Rhætia
and Nigra Silva (the Black Forest). He built the monastery of
Sekkinga on the Rhine. Trutbert was a contemporary and at the
same time a countryman of Gallus. His sphere of action is said
to have been Brisgovia (Breisgau) and the Black Forest. Almost
half a century later Kilian proclaimed the gospel in Franconia
and Wirtzburg, with two assistants, Colonatus and Totnanus. In
the latter place they converted duke Gozbert, and were put to
death there in 688. After the above mentioned missionaries
from Ireland, in the seventh century, had built churches and
monasteries in the southern Germany, the missionaries from
Britain repaired with a similar purpose, to the northern
countries. … Men from other nations, as Willericus, bishop
of Brema, preached in Transalbingia at the beginning of the
ninth century. Almost all the missionaries from the kingdom of
the Franks selected southern Germany as their sphere of
action: Emmeran, about 649, Ratisbona, Rudbert, about 696,
Bajoaria (Bavaria), Corbinian the country around Frisinga,
Otbert the Breisgau and Black Forest, and Pirminius the
Breisgau, Bajoaria, Franconia, Helvetia, and Alsatis."
_J. E. T. Wiltsch,
Handbook of the Geography and Statistics of the Church,
volume 1, pages 365-367._
CHRISTIANITY: A. D. 553-800.
The Western Church.
Rise of the Papacy.
"Though kindly treated, the Church of Rome did not make any
progress under the Ostrogoths. But when their power had been
broken (553), and Rome had been placed again under the
authority of the Emperor of Constantinople [see ROME: A. D.
535-553], the very remoteness of her new master insured to the
Church a more prosperous future. The invasion of the Lombards
drove a great many refugees into her territory, and the Roman
population showed a slight return of its old energy in its
double hatred toward them, as barbarians and as Arians. … It
was at this favorable point in the state of affairs, though
critical in some respects, that Gregory the Great made his
appearance (590-604). He was a descendant of the noble Anicia
family, and added to his advantages of birth and position the
advantages of a well-endowed body and mind. He was prefect of
Rome when less than thirty years old, but after holding this
office a few months he abandoned the honors and cares of
worldly things for the retirement of the cloister. His
reputation did not allow him to remain in the obscurity of
that life. Toward 579 he was sent to Constantinople by Pope
Pelagius II. as secretary or papal nuncio, and he rendered
distinguished services to the Holy See in its relations with
the Empire and in its struggles against the Lombards. In 590
the clergy, the senate, and the people raised him with one
accord to the sovereign pontificate, to succeed Pelagius. As
it was still necessary for every election to be confirmed by
the Emperor at Constantinople, Gregory wrote to him to beg him
not to sanction this one; but the letter was intercepted and
soon orders arrived from Maurice ratifying the election.
Gregory hid himself, but he was discovered and led back to
Rome. When once Pope, though against his will, he used his
power to strengthen the papacy, to propagate Christianity, and
to improve the discipline and organization of the Church. …
Strengthened thus by his own efforts, he undertook the
propagation of Christianity and orthodoxy both within and
without the limits of the old Roman Empire. Within those
limits there were still some who clung to paganism, in Sicily,
Sardinia, and even at the very gates of Rome, at Terracina,
and doubtless also in Gaul, as there is a constitution of
Childebert still extant dated 554, and entitled: 'For the
abolition of the remains of idolatry.' There were Arians very
near to Rome—namely, the Lombards; but through the
intervention of Theudalinda, their queen, Gregory succeeded in
having Adelwald, the heir to the throne, brought up in the
Catholic faith; as early as 587 the Visigoths in Spain, under
Reccared, were converted. … The Roman Empire had perished,
and the barbarians had built upon its ruins many slight
structures that were soon overthrown.
{462}
Not even had the Franks, who were destined to be perpetuated
as a nation, as yet succeeded in founding a social state of
any strength; their lack of experience led them from one
attempt to another, all equally vain; even the attempt of
Charlemagne met with no more permanent success. In the midst
of these successive failures one institution alone, developing
slowly and steadily through the centuries, following out the
spirit of its principles, continued to grow and gain in power,
in extent and in unity. … The Pope had now become, in truth,
the ruler of Christendom. He was, however, still a subject of
the Greek Emperor; but a rupture was inevitable, as his
authority, on the one hand, was growing day by day, and the
emperor's on the contrary, was declining."
_V. Duruy,
History of the Middle Ages,
pages 114-115, 108-109, 117._
"The real power which advanced the credit of the Roman see
during these ages was the reaction against the Byzantine
despotism over the Eastern Church; and this is the explanation
of the fact that although the new map of Europe had been
marked out, in outline at least, by the year 500, the Roman
see clung to the eastern connection until the first half of
the eighth century. … In the political or diplomatic
struggle between the Church and the Emperors, in which the
Emperors endeavored to make the Church subservient to the
imperial policy, or to adjust the situation to the necessities
of the empire, and the Church strove to retain its autonomy as
a witness to the faith and a legislator in the affairs of
religion, the Bishop of Rome became, so to speak, the
constitutional head of the opposition; and the East was
willing to exalt his authority, as a counterpoise to that of
the Emperor, to any extent short of acknowledging that the
primacy implied a supremacy."
_J. H. Egar,
Christendom: Ecclesiastical and Political,
from Constantine to the Reformation,
page 99._
"The election system was only used for one degree of the
ecclesiastical dignitaries, for the bishopric. The lower
dignitaries were chosen by the bishop. They were divided into
two categories of orders—the higher and the lower orders.
There were three higher orders, namely, the priests, the
deacons, and the sub-deacons, and four lower orders, the
acolytes, the door-keepers, the exorcists, and the readers.
The latter orders were not regarded as an integral part of the
clergy, as their members were the servants of the others. As
regards the territorial divisions, the bishop governed the
diocese, which at a much later date was divided into parishes,
whose spiritual welfare was in the hands of the parish priest
or curate (curio). The parishes, taken together, constituted
the diocese; the united dioceses, or suffragan bishoprics,
constituted the ecclesiastical province, at whose head stood
the metropolitan or archbishop. When a provincial council was
held, it met in the metropolis and was presided over by the
metropolitan. Above the metropolitans were the Patriarchs, in
the East, and the Primates in the West, bishops who held the
great capitals or the apostolic sees, Constantinople,
Alexandria, Antioch, Rome, Jerusalem, Cesarea in Cappadocia,
Carthage in Africa, and Heraclius in Thrace; among them Rome
ranked higher by one degree, and from this supreme position
exercised a supreme authority acknowledged by all the Church."
_V. Duruy,
History of the Middle Ages,
pages 109-110._
"The divergence of the two Churches, Eastern and Western, was
greater in reality than it appears to be from a superficial
view. It was based on essential variations in the character
and disposition of the people in the East and in the West, on
the nature of their civilization, and on the different, almost
antagonistic, development of the Christian idea in one Church
and in the other. … The Eastern Church rejoiced in its
direct affiliation with apostolic times, in its careful
preservation of traditions, and was convinced of its especial
right to be considered the true heir and successor of Christ.
… The letter of the law superseded the spirit; religion
stiffened into formalism; piety consisted in strict observance
of ceremonial rites; external holiness replaced sincere and
heartfelt devotion. … Throughout the West the tendency was
in a contrary direction—towards the practical application of
the religious idea. The effete, worn-out civilization of the
past was there renovated by contact and admixture with young
and vigorous races, and gained new strength and vitality in
the struggle for existence. The Church, freed from control,
became independent and self-asserting; the responsibility of
government, the preservation of social order, devolved upon
it, and it rose proudly to the task."
_A. F. Heard,
The Russian Church and Russian Dissent,
pages 6-10._
"On the overthrow of the Western Empire, and the
demonstration, rendered manifest to all, that with the
complete triumph of the new world of secular polities a new
spiritual development, a new phase of Divine guidance, was
opening, the conscience of the believers was aroused to a
sense of the sinfulness of their cowardly inactivity. 'Go ye
into all nations, and baptize them,' had been the last words
of their blessed Master. … It is to this new or revived
missionary spirit which distinguished the sixth century, of
which I would place Pope Gregory the First, or the Great, as
the central figure, that I desire now to introduce you.
Remember that the Empire, which had represented the unity of
mankind, had become disintegrated and broken into fragments.
Men were no longer Romans, but Goths and Sueves, Burgundians
and Vandals, and beyond them Huns, Avars, Franks, and
Lombards, some with a slight tincture of Christian teaching,
but most with none. … Let but the Gospel be proclaimed to
all, and leave the issue in God's hands! Such was the contrast
between the age of Leo and the age of Gregory! … The
conversion of Clovis and the Franks is, I suppose, the
earliest instance of a Christian mission carried out on a
national scale by the common action of the Church represented
by the Pope and See of Rome. It becomes accordingly a great
historical event, deserving the earnest consideration not of
Churchmen only, but of all political enquirers."
_C. Merivale,
Four Lectures on some Epochs of Early Church History,
pages 172-177._
{463}
"Christianity thus renewed its ardor for proselytism, and
Gregory contributed to its success most wisely by enjoining
precepts of moderation upon his missionaries, and by the
skillful manner in which he made the transition to Catholicism
easy to the pagans; he wrote to Augustine: 'Be careful not to
destroy the pagan temples; it is only necessary to destroy the
idols, then to sprinkle the edifice with holy water, and to
build altars and place relics there. If the temples are well
built, it is a wise and useful thing for them to pass from the
worship of demons to the worship of the true God; for while
the nation sees its old places of worship still standing, it
will be the more ready to go there, by force of habit, to
worship the true God.' In the interior Gregory succeeded in
arranging the different degrees of power in the Church, and in
forcing the recognition of the supreme power of the Holy See.
We find him granting the title of Vicar of Gaul to the bishop
of Arles, and corresponding with Augustine, archbishop of
Canterbury, in regard to Great Britain, with the archbishop of
Seville in regard to Spain, with the archbishop of
Thessalonica in regard to Greece, and, finally, sending
legates 'a latere' to Constantinople. In his Pastoral, which
he wrote on the occasion of his election, and which became an
established precedent in the West, he prescribed to the
bishops their several duties, following the decisions of many
councils. He strengthened the hierarchy by preventing the
encroachments of the bishops upon one another: 'I have given
to you the spiritual direction of Britain,' he wrote to the
ambitious Augustine, 'and not that of the Gauls.' He
rearranged the monasteries, made discipline the object of his
vigilant care, reformed Church music, and substituted the
chant that bears his name for the Ambrosian chant, 'which
resembled,' according to a contemporary, 'the far-off noise of
a chariot rumbling over pebbles.' Rome, victorious again with
the help of Gregory the Great, continued to push her conquests
to distant countries after his death."
_V. Duruy,
History of the Middle Ages,
page 116._
See,
CHRISTIANITY: A. D. 496-800,
and ROME: A. D. 590-640.
CHRISTIANITY: A. D. 597-800.
The English Church.
"It seems right to add a word of caution against the common
confusion between the British Church and the English Church.
They were quite distinct, and had very little to do with one
another. To cite the British bishops at the Councils of Arles
and Rimini as evidence of the antiquity of the English Church
is preposterous. There was then no England; and the ancestors
of English Churchmen were heathen tribes on the continent. The
history of the Church of England begins with the episcopate of
Archbishop Theodore (A. D. 668), or at the very earliest with
the landing of Augustine (A. D. 597). By that time the British
Church had been almost destroyed by the heathen English. …
Bede tells us that down to his day the Britons still treated
English Christians as pagans."
_A. Plummer,
The Church of the Early Fathers,
chapter 8._
"About the year 580, in the pontificate of Pelagius, Gregory
occupied the rank of a deacon among the Roman clergy. He was
early noted for his zeal and piety; coming into large
possessions, as an off-shoot of an ancient and noble family,
he had expended his wealth in the foundation of no less than
seven monasteries, and had become himself the abbot of one of
them, St. Andrew's, at Rome. Devoted as he was from the first
to all the good works to which the religious profession might
best apply itself, his attention was more particularly turned
to the cause of Christian missions by casually remarking a
troop of young slaves exhibited for sale in the Roman market.
Struck with the beauty or fresh complexion of these strangers,
he asked whether they were Christians or Pagans. They were
Pagans, it was replied. How sad, he exclaimed, that such fair
countenances should lie under the power of demons. 'Whence came
they?'—'From Anglia.'—'Truly they are Angels. What is the
name of their country?'—'Deira.'—'Truly they are subject to
the wrath of God: ira Dei. And their king?'—'Is named
Ælla.'—'Let them learn to sing Allelujah.' Britain had lately
fallen under the sway of the heathen Angles. Throughout the
eastern section of the island, the faith of Christ, which had
been established there from early times, had been, it seems,
utterly extirpated. The British church of Lucius and Albanus
still lingered, but was chiefly confined within the ruder
districts of Cornwall, Wales, and Cumbria. The reported
destruction of the people with all their churches, and all
their culture, begun by the Picts and Scots, and carried on by
the Angles and their kindred Saxons, had made a profound
impression upon Christendom. The 'Groans of the Britons' had
terrified all mankind, and discouraged even the brave
missionaries of Italy and Gaul. … Gregory determined to make
the sacrifice himself. He prevailed on the Pope to sanction
his enterprise; but the people of Rome, with whom he was a
favourite, interposed, and he was constrained reluctantly to
forego the peril and the blessing. But the sight he had
witnessed in the market-place still retained its impression
upon him. He kept the fair-haired Angles ever in view; and
when, in the year 592, he was himself elevated to the popedom,
he resolved to send a mission, and fling upon the obscure
shores of Britain the full beams of the sun of Christendom, as
they then seemed to shine so conspicuously at Rome. Augustine
was the preacher chosen from among the inmates of one of
Gregory's monasteries, for the arduous task thus imposed upon
him. He was to be accompanied by a select band of twelve
monks, together with a certain number of attendants. … There
is something very remarkable in the facility with which the
fierce idolaters, whose name had struck such terror into the
Christian nations far and near, yielded to the persuasions of
this band of peaceful evangelists."
_C. Merivale,
Four lectures on some Epochs of Early Church History,
pages 192-198._
See ENGLAND: A. D. 597-685.
The Roman missionaries in England landed in Kent and appear to
have had more influence with the petty courts of the little
kingdoms than with the people. The conversion of the North of
England must be credited to the Irish monastery on the island
of Iona. "At the beginning of the sixth century these Irish
Christians were seized with an unconquerable impulse to wander
afar and preach Christianity to the heathen. In 563 Columba,
with twelve confederates, left Ireland and founded a monastery
on a small island off the coast of Scotland (Iona or Hy),
through the influence of which the Scots and Picts of Britain
became converted to Christianity, twenty-three missions among
the Scots and eighteen in the country of the Picts having been
established at the death of Columba (597). Under his third
successor the heathen Saxons were converted; Aedan, summoned
by Osward of Northumbria, having labored among them from 635
to 651 as missionary, abbot, and bishop. His successors,
Finnan and Colman, worthily carried on his work, and
introduced Christianity into other Anglo-Saxon kingdoms near
East Anglia, Mercia, and Essex."
_H. Zimmer,
The Irish Element in Mediæval Culture,
pages 19-21._
{464}
"Two bands of devoted men had hitherto been employed in the
conversion of England, the Roman, assisted by their converts
and some teachers from France, and the Irish, who were plainly
the larger body. Between the two there were the old
differences as to the time of keeping Easter and the form of
the clerical tonsure. … Thus, while Oswy [King of Mercia]
was celebrating Easter according to the custom he had learnt
at Iona, his queen Earfleda observed it according to the rule
which she had learnt in Kent, and was still practising the
austerities of Lent. These differences were tolerated during
the Episcopate of Aidan and Finan, but when Finan died and was
succeeded by Colman, the controversy" was terminated by Oswy,
after much debate, with the words—"'I will hold to St. Peter,
lest, when I present myself at the gates of Heaven, he should
close them against me.' … Colman, with all his Irish
brethren, and thirty Northumbrians who had joined the
monastery, quitted Lindisfarne and sailed to Iona."
_G. F. Maclear,
Conversion of the West: The English,
pages 81-85._
The impartial historian to whom we owe all the early history
of the English Church, thus records the memory of these
devoted men as it remained in the minds of Englishmen long
after their departure. It is a brief passage, one like those
in the greater Ecclesiastical History of Eusebius, which must
stand for much we do not know. Referring to their devoted
lives—"For this reason the religious habit was at that time
in great veneration; so that wheresoever any clergyman or monk
happened to come, he was joyfully received by all persons, as
God's servant; and if they chanced to meet him upon the way,
they ran to him, and bowing, were glad to be signed with his
hand, or blessed with his mouth. Great attention was also paid
to their exhortations; and on Sundays they flocked eagerly to
the church, or the monasteries, not to feed their bodies, but
to hear the word of God; and if any priest happened to come
into a village, the inhabitants flocked together to hear from
him the word of life; for the priests and clergymen went into
the village on no other account than to preach, baptize, visit
the sick, and, in few words, to take care of souls; and they
were so free from worldly avarice, that none of them received
lands and possessions for building monasteries, unless they
were compelled to do so by the temporal authorities; which
custom was for some time after observed in all the churches of
the Northumbrians. But enough has now been said on this
subject."
_The Venerable Bede's Ecclesiastical History of England;
edited by J. A. Giles,
book 3, chapter 26._
The English Church passed through several stages during this
period. A notable one was the rise and fall of a loose
monastic system which attracted men and women of the better
classes, but for lack of a strict rule brought itself into
disrepute. Another was the development of classical learning
and the foundation of the school at Jarrow in Northumberland
resulting in making England the intellectual centre of the
world. Venerable Bede, who wrote the Ecclesiastical History of
the English Church, was the greatest teacher of this epoch;
and Alcuin, a Northumbrian by birth, and of the school at
York, of the next. Invited by Charlemagne to the Frankish
Court, he carried English learning to the Continent, and
although he died at the time of the foundation of the Empire,
left his influence in many ways on the development of European
culture. A single fact of interest will suffice, to show the
close connection of this early history with that of Rome and
the continent—viz., to Alcuin we are largely indebted for the
parent script which formed our Roman letters. (_I. Taylor,
The Alphabet, volume 2, page 180._) Northumbrian learning and the
rich libraries of ancient and Anglo-Saxon literature were
destroyed by the Danes, who, in their incursions, showed for a
long time peculiar animosity to monks and monasteries.
Although the service of this early Anglo-Saxon Church was
partly in the vernacular, and large portions, if not all, of
the Gospels had been translated, little remains to us of its
early religious literature. The translations of the Gospel
into Anglo-Saxon that have come down to us are to be
attributed to a late period.
CHRISTIANITY: 9th Century.
The Bulgarian Church.
"In the beginning of this 9th century, a sister of the
reigning Bulgarian king, Bogoris, had fallen as a captive into
the keeping of the Greek emperor. For thirty-eight years she
lived at Constantinople, and was there instructed in the
doctrines of the Christian Faith. Meanwhile, the
administration passed into the hands of the empress Regent,
Theodora. She was interested in a certain monk named Cupharas,
who had been taken prisoner by the Bulgarians, and with a view
to his redemption, she opened negotiations with Bogoris. An
exchange of prisoners was finally effected. The sister of
Bogoris was restored to him, while Cupharas was permitted to
return to Constantinople. Before the release of the pious
monk, however, he had striven, though quite unavailingly, to
win the Bulgarian prince to the service of the Cross. These
fruitless endeavors were supplemented by the entreaties of the
king's sister, on her return from Constantinople. … At last,
fear snapped the fetters which love had failed to disengage.
… His baptism was celebrated at midnight with profoundest
secrecy. The rite was administered by no less a personage than
the patriarch Photius. He emphasized the solemnity of the
occasion by presenting the neophyte with a lengthy treatise on
Christianity, theoretical and practical, considered mainly in
its bearings on the duties of a monarch. The emperor Michael
stood sponsor by proxy, and the Bulgarian king received, as
his Christian name, that of his imperial god-father. … The
battle-cries of theology rang over Christendom, and the world
was regaled with the spectacle of a struggle between the rival
Churches for the possession of Bulgaria, a country till
recently so conspicuously destitute of dogma of any kind. The
Bulgarians themselves, doubtless much astonished at the uproar
for their sake, and, surely, more perplexed than ever by the
manners and customs of Christianity, began to waver in their
adherence to the Western Church, and to exhibit symptoms of an
inclination to transfer their allegiance to Constantinople.
The strife went on for years. At last, A. D. 877, the Latin
clergy having been dismissed from the country, Pope John VIII.
solemnly expostulated, protesting against the Greek
proclivities of the Bulgarians, and predicting dire results
from their identity with a Church which was rarely free from
heresy in one form or another. Nevertheless, the Byzantine
leanings of Bulgaria did culminate in union with the Eastern Church.
{465}
A Greek archbishop and bishops of the same communion, settled
in the country. … 'The Eastern branch' of the Slavonic
languages, properly so called, 'comprehends the Russian, with
various local dialects, the Bulgarian, and the Illyrian. The
most ancient document of this Eastern branch is the so-called
ecclesiastical Slavonic, i. e., the ancient Bulgarian, into
which Cyrillus and Methodius translated the Bible in the
middle of the 9th century. This is still the authorized
version of the Bible for the whole Slavonic race, and to the
student of the Slavonic languages it is what Gothic is to the
student of German.'"
_G. F. Maclear,
Conversion of the West: The Slavs,
pages 54-69._
CHRISTIANITY: 9th Century.
Conversion of Moravia.
"In the opening years of the 9th century, Moravia stretched
from the Bavarian borders to the Hungarian river Drina, and
from the banks of the Danube, beyond the Carpathian mountains,
to the river Stryi in Southern Poland. Into this territory
Christianity had been ushered as early as A. D. 801, by
Charlemagne, who, as his custom was, enforced baptism at the
point of the sword, at least as far as the king was concerned.
Efforts were subsequently made by the archbishops of Salzburg
and Passau to fan this first feeble flicker into something
like a flame. But no success attended their exertions.
Paganism was overpoweringly strong, and Christianity not only
weak, but rude and uncouth in type. … The story of this
country, during the process of emancipation from paganism, is
but a repetition of the incidents with which, in neighbouring
states, we have already become familiar. Ramifications of the
work of Cyril and Methodius extended into Servia. The Slavonic
alphabet made way there, as in Bohemia and Moravia, for
Christianity. The Servians 'enjoyed the advantage of a liturgy
which was intelligible to them; and we find that, early in the
10th century, a considerable number of Slavonian priests from
all the dioceses were ordained by the bishop of Nona, who was
himself a Slavonian by descent.'"
_G. F. Maclear,
Conversion of the West: The Slavs,
chapter 4._
CHRISTIANITY: 9th-10th Centuries.
The Eastern Church as a missionary Church.
"If the missionary spirit is the best evidence of vitality in
a church, it certainly was not wanting in the Eastern Church
during the ninth and tenth centuries of our era. This period
witnessed the conversion to Christianity of the principal
Slavonic peoples, whereby they are both linked with
Constantinople, and bound together by those associations of
creed, as well as race, which form so important a factor in
the European politics of the present day. The Moravians, the
Bulgarians, and the Russians were now brought within the fold
of the Church; and the way was prepared for that vast
extension of the Greek communion by which it has spread, not
only throughout the Balkan peninsula and the lands to the
north of it, but wherever Russian influence is found—as far
as the White Sea on the one side, and Kamtchatka on the other,
and into the heart of Central Asia. The leaders in this great
work were the two brothers, Cyril and Methodius, who in
consequence of this, have since been known as the Apostles of
the Slavonians. What Mezrop did for the Armenians, what
Ulfilas did for the Goths, was accomplished for that race by
Cyril in the invention of a Slavonic alphabet, which from this
cause is still known by the name of the Cyrillic. The same
teacher, by his translation of the Scriptures into their
tongue, provided them with a literary language, thereby
producing the same result which Luther's Bible subsequently
effected for Germany, and Dante's Divina Commedia for Italy.
It is no matter for surprise that, throughout the whole of
this great branch of the human race—even amongst the
Russians, who owed their Christianity to another source—the
names of these two brothers should occupy the foremost place
in the calendar of Saints. It is not less significant that
their names are not even mentioned by the Byzantine
historians."
_H. F. Tozer,
The Church and the Eastern Empire,
chapter 7._
CHRISTIANITY: 9th-11th Centuries.
The Western Church as a missionary Church.
The earlier missions of the Western Church have been
described, but it is noteworthy that again and again missions
to the same regions are necessary. It requires such a map as
the one accompanying this article to make plain the slowness
of its diffusions and the long period needed to produce even a
nominally Christian Europe. "The views of Charlemagne for the
conquest and conversion of the Northern heathens [see SAXONS:
A. D. 772-804], were not confined to the limits, wide as they
were, of Saxony. The final pacification effected at Salz,
seemed to open his eyes to more extensive enterprises in
prospect. Political may have combined with religious motives
in inducing him to secure the peace of his new frontiers, by
enlisting the tribes of Denmark under the banner of the Cross,
and he conceived the idea of planting a church in the
neighbourhood of Hamburg, which should become a missionary
centre. This plan, though interrupted by his death, was not
neglected by his son Louis le Debonnaire, or 'the Pious.' …
But it is easier to propose such a plan than find one willing
to carry it out. The well-known ferocity of the Northmen long
deterred anyone from offering himself for such a duty. At
length he received intelligence from Wala, the abbot of
Corbey, near Amiens, that one of his monks was not unwilling
to undertake the perilous enterprise, The intrepid volunteer
was Anskar."
_G. F. Maclear,
Conversion of the West: The Northmen,
chapter 2._
"In 822, Harold, the king of Jutland, and claimant of the
crown of Denmark, came to seek the help of Louis the Pious,
the son, and one of the successors, of Charlemagne. … On
Harold's return to Denmark he was accompanied by Anskar, who
well deserves to be called the apostle of Scandinavia. …
Thus Anskar and Autbert set out in the train of Harold, and
during the journey and voyage a kindly feeling sprang up
between the royal and the missionary families. Harold got no
cordial greeting from his proud heathen subjects when he
announced to them that he had done homage to the emperor, and
that he had embraced the gospel. He seems to have been very
sincere and very earnest in his endeavours to induce his
nobles and subjects to abandon idolatry and embrace
Christianity. To expect that he was altogether judicious in
these efforts would be to suppose that he had those views
regarding the relation that ought to subsist between rulers
and subjects, … views regarding liberty of conscience and
the right of private judgment. …
{466}
The result was that after two years, in 828, he was compelled
to abdicate the throne. … The position of Anskar, difficult
as it was while Harold was on the throne, became still more
difficult after his abdication. … But just at the time when
the door was shut against him in Denmark, another was opened
in Sweden, which promised to be wider and more effectual. …
He was kindly received by the Swedish king, who gave him
permission to preach, and his subjects freedom to accept and
profess the gospel of Christ. As Anskar had been led to
expect, so he found, many Christian captives, who had been
brought from other countries,—France, Germany, Britain,
Ireland,—and who, having been as sheep without a shepherd,
gladly received from Anskar those consolations and
exhortations which were fitted to alleviate the sorrows of
their captivity. … After a year and a half's stay in Sweden,
Anskar returned home, and gladdened the heart of the good
emperor, and doubtless of many others, by the cheering
prospect he was able to present of the acceptance of the
gospel by the Swedes. He was now made nominally bishop of
Hamburg, but with the special design of superintending and
conducting missionary operations both in Denmark and
Sweden…. Horik, king of Denmark, who had driven Harold from
his throne, … had been hitherto an uncompromising enemy of
the gospel. Anskar undertook the management of some political
negotiations with him, and in the conduct of them made so
favourable an impression on him that he refused to have any
other negotiator or ambassador of the German king at his
court. He treated him as a personal friend, and gave him full
liberty to conduct missionary operations. These operations he
conducted with his usual zeal, and by God's blessing, with
much success. Many were baptized. The Christians of Germany
and Holland traded more freely with the Danes than before, and
the Danes resorted in larger numbers as traders to Holland and
Germany; and in these and other ways a knowledge of the
gospel, and some apprehension of the blessings which it brings
with it, were diffused among the people. … Although the
Norwegians were continually coming into contact, in the
varying relations of war and peace, with the Swedes and the
Danes, the French and the Germans, the English and the Irish,
and although in this way some knowledge of the Christian
system must have been diffused among them, yet the formal
introduction of it into their country was a full century later
than its introduction into Denmark and Sweden."
_Thomas Smith,
Mediæval Missions,
pages 122-138._
"The conversions in Denmark were confined to the mainland. The
islands still remained pagan, while human victims continued to
be offered till the Emperor Henry I. extorted from Gorm, the
first king of all Denmark, in A. D. 934, protection for the
Christians throughout his realm, and the abolition of human
sacrifices. In Sweden, for seventy years after Anskar's death,
the nucleus of a Christian Church continued to be restricted
to the neighbourhood of Birka, and the country was hardly
visited by Christian missionaries."
_G. F. Maclear,
Conversion of the West: The Northmen,
chapter 2._
"It is very remarkable that, in the whole history of the
introduction of Christianity into Norway and Iceland,
extending over a period of a century and a half, we meet not
with the name of any noted bishop, or ecclesiastic, or
missionary. There were, no doubt, ecclesiastics employed in
the work, and these would appear to have been generally
Englishmen; but they occupied a secondary place, almost their
only province being to baptize those whom the kings compelled
to submit to that ordinance. The kings were the real
missionaries; and one cannot help feeling a kind of admiration
for the ferocious zeal which one and another of them
manifested in the undertaking,—even as the Lord commended the
unjust steward because he had done wisely, although his wisdom
was wholly misdirected. The most persistent and the most
successful of these missionary kings was Olaf the Thick, who
came from England in 1017, and set himself with heart and soul
to the work of the demolition of heathenism, and the
substitution of Christianity as the national religion."
_Thomas Smith,
Mediæval Missions,
pages 140-141._
CHRISTIANITY: 10th Century.
The Russian Church.
"In the middle of the 10th century, the widowed Princess Olga,
lately released from the cares of regency, travelled from Kief
to Constantinople. Whether her visit had political objects, or
whether she was prompted to pay it solely, as some say, by a
desire to know more of the holy faith of which only glimpses
had been vouchsafed her at home, cannot be positively decided.
But her sojourn in the imperial city was a turning-point in
her career. Baptism was administered to her by the patriarch
Polyeuctes, the emperor Constantine Porphyrogenitus
officiating as sponsor. Polyeuctes then solemnly addressed the
princess, predicting that through her instrumentality Russia
should be richly blessed. 'Olga,' writes M. Mouravieff, 'now
become Helena by baptism, that she might resemble both in name
and deed the mother of Constantine the Great, stood meekly
bowing down her head, and drinking in, as a sponge that is
thirsty of moisture, the instructions of the prelate.' …
Some latent impressions favourable to Christianity her
youngest grandson, Vladimir, doubtless owed to her.
Nevertheless when, at the death of his brother Yarapolk, for
which indeed he was held responsible, he mounted the throne,
no signs of a gracious character revealed themselves. He was,
on the contrary, a bitter and bigoted pagan. … It seems to
have occurred to many missionaries of varying types, that a
chief of such mark should not be left at the mercy of his own
violent passions. The spiritual well-being of Vladimir
accordingly became the object of laborious journeys, of much
exertion, and of redundant eloquence. … Last of all came a
Greek emissary. He was neither 'a priest nor a missionary, but
a philosopher.' … Like Bogoris, the wild Russian chief was
greatly moved. … The following year the king laid before the
elders of his council the rival pleas of these variously
recommended forms of faith, and solicited their advice. The
nobles mused awhile, and then counselled their master to
ascertain how each religion worked at home. This, they
thought, would be more practical evidence than the plausible
representations of professors. On this suggestion Vladimir
acted. Envoys were chosen,—presumably, for their powers of
observation,—and the embassy of inquiry started. 'This public
agreement,' says the historian of the Russian Church,
'explains in some degree the sudden and general acceptance of
Christianity which shortly after followed in Russia.
{467}
It is probable that not only the chiefs, but the common people
also, were expecting and ready for the change.' A report, far
from encouraging, was in due time received from the
ambassadors. Of the German and Roman, as well as the Jewish,
religions in daily life, they spoke in very disparaging terms,
while they declared the Mussulman creed, when reduced to
practice, to be utterly out of the question. Disappointed in
all these quarters, they now proceeded, by command, to
Constantinople, or, as the Russians called it, Tzaragorod. …
Singularly enough, the Russian envoys, accustomed, as we must
suppose them to have been, only to the barest simplicity of
life, had complained not only of the paucity of decoration in
the Latin churches, but of a lack of beauty in their
appointments. Thus the preparations of the patriarch were
accurately fitted to their expectant frame of mind. They were
led into the church of S. Sophia, gleaming with variegated
marbles, and porphyries, and jasper, at that time 'the
masterpiece of Christian architecture.' The building glittered
with gold, and rich mosaics. The service was that of a high
festival, either of St. John Chrysostom, or of the Death of
the Virgin, and was conducted by the patriarch in person, clad
in his most gorgeous vestments. … On their return to
Vladimir, they dilated with eager delight on the wonders they
had seen. The king listened gravely to their glowing account
of 'the temple, like which there was none upon earth.' After
sweetness, they protested, bitterness would be unbearable, so
that—whatever others might do—they at all events should at
once abandon heathenism. While the king hesitated, his boyers
turned the scale by reminding him that if the creed of the
Greeks had not indeed had much to recommend it, his pious and
sagacious grandmother, Princess Olga, would not have loved and
obeyed it. Her name acted like a talisman. Vladimir resolved
to conform to Christianity. But still, fondly clinging to the
habits of his forefathers, he cherished the idea of wooing and
winning his new religion by the sword. … Under the auspices
of the sovereign, the stately church of St. Basil soon arose,
on the very spot recently occupied by the temple of Perun.
Kief became the centre of Christian influence, whence
evangelizing energies radiated in all directions. Schools and
churches were built, while Michael, the first metropolitan,
attended by his bishops, 'made progresses into the interior of
Russia, everywhere baptizing and instructing the people.' The
Greek canon law came into force, and the use of the
service-book and choral music of the Greek communion became
general, while, in the Slavonic Scriptures and Liturgy of
Cyril and Methodius, a road was discovered which led straight
to the hearts of the native population. 'Cyril and Methodius,
if anyone, must be considered by anticipation as the first
Christian teachers of Russia; their rude alphabet first
instructed the Russian nation in letters, and, by its quaint
Greek characters, still testifies in every Russian book, and
on every Russian house or shop, the Greek source of the
religion and literature of the empire.'"
_G. F. Maclear,
Conversion of the West: The Slavs,
chapter 5._
"As in the first centuries it was necessary that the leaven of
Christianity should gradually penetrate the entire
intellectual life of the cultivated nations, before a new
spiritual creation, striking its root in the forms of the
Grecian and Roman culture, which Christianity appropriated,
could in these forms completely unfold itself; so after the
same manner it was necessary that the leaven of Christianity
which … had been introduced into the masses of the untutored
nations, should gradually penetrate their whole inward life,
before a new and peculiar spiritual creation could spring out
of it, which should go on to unfold itself through the entire
period of the middle ages. And the period in which we now are
must be regarded as still belonging to the epoch of transition
from that old spiritual creation which flourished on the basis
of Grecian and Roman culture to the new one."
_A. Neander,
General History of the Christian Religion and Church,
volume 3, page 456._
We leave the author's sentence incomplete, that it may
express the more fully all the subsequent history of
Christianity.
----------CHRISTIANITY: End----------
CHRISTINA, Queen-regent of Spain, A. D. 1833-1841.
Christina, Queen of Sweden, A. D. 1633-1654.
CHRISTINOS, The.
See SPAIN: A. D. 1833-1846.
CHRISTOPHER I., King of Denmark. A. D. 1252-1259.
Christopher II., A. D. 1319-1334.
Christopher III., King of Denmark,
Sweden and Norway, A. D. 1439-1448.
CHRYSE.
Vague reports of a region called Chryse (the Golden),
somewhere beyond the Ganges, and of an island bearing the same
name, off the mouths of the Ganges, as well as of another
island called Argyre (the Silver Island), were prevalent among
the early Roman geographical writers. They probably all had
reference to the Malay peninsula, which Ptolemy called the
Golden Chersonese.
_E. H. Bunbury,
History of Ancient Geography,
chapter 25._
CHRYSLER'S FARM, Battle of.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
A. D. 1813 (OCTOBER-NOVEMBER).
CHRYSOBULUM.
See GOLDEN BULL, BYZANTINE.
CHRYSOPOLlS.
Modern Scutari, opposite Constantinople; originally the port
of the city of Chalcedon.
CHRYSOPOLIS, Battle of (A. D. 323).
See Rome: A. D. 305-323.
CHUMARS.
See CASTE SYSTEM OF INDIA.
CHUMASHAN FAMILY, The.
See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: CHUMASHAN FAMILY.
CHUR, The Bishopric of.
See TYROL,
and SWITZERLAND: A. D. 1396-1499.
CHURCH, The Armenian.
See ARMENIAN CHURCH.
CHURCH OF BOHEMIA, The Utraquist National.
See BOHEMIA: A. D. 1434-1457.
CHURCH IN BRAZIL, Disestablishment of the.
See BRAZIL: A. D. 1889-1891.
CHURCH OF ENGLAND: Origin and Establishment.
See ENGLAND: A. D. 1527-1534; 1531-1563; and 1535-1539.
CHURCH OF ENGLAND: The Six Articles.
See ENGLAND: A. D. 1539.
CHURCH OF ENGLAND: The completed Church-reform under Edward VI.
See ENGLAND: A. D. 1547-1553.
CHURCH OF ENGLAND: The doubtful conflict of religions.
See ENGLAND: A. D. 1553.
{468}
CHURCH OF ENGLAND:
Romanism restored by Mary.
See ENGLAND: A. D. 1555-1558.
CHURCH OF ENGLAND:
Recovery of Protestantism under Elizabeth.
See ENGLAND: A. D. 1558-1588.
CHURCH OF ENGLAND:
The Acts of Supremacy and Uniformity.
See ENGLAND: A. D. 1559.
CHURCH OF ENGLAND:
Rise of Puritanism.
See ENGLAND: A. D. 1559-1566; 1564-1565 (?).
CHURCH OF ENGLAND:
The Despotism of Laud.
See ENGLAND: A. D. 1633-1640.
CHURCH OF ENGLAND:
Rise of the Independents.
See ENGLAND: A. D. 1638-1640.
CHURCH OF ENGLAND:
The Root and Branch Bill.
See ENGLAND: A. D. 1641 (MARCH-MAY).
CHURCH OF ENGLAND:
The Westminster Assembly.
See ENGLAND: A. D. 1643 (JULY), and 1646 (MARCH).
CHURCH OF ENGLAND:
The Solemn League and Covenant.
See ENGLAND: A. D. 1643 (JULY-SEPTEMBER).
CHURCH OF ENGLAND:
The Restoration.
The Savoy Conference.
See ENGLAND: A. D. 1661 (APRIL-JULY).
CHURCH OF ENGLAND:
The Act of Uniformity and persecution of Nonconformists.
See ENGLAND: A. D. 1662-1665.
CHURCH OF ENGLAND:
Charles' Declaration of Indulgence, and the Test Act.
See ENGLAND: A. D. 1672-1673, and 1687.
CHURCH OF ENGLAND:
James' Declaration of Indulgence.
Trial of the seven Bishops.
See ENGLAND: A. D. 1687-1688.
CHURCH OF ENGLAND:
The Church and the Revolution.
The Non-Jurors.
See ENGLAND: A. D. 1689 (APRIL-AUGUST).
CHURCH OF ENGLAND: A. D. 1704.
Queen Anne's Bounty.
See QUEEN ANNE'S BOUNTY.
CHURCH OF ENGLAND: A. D. 1711-1714.
The Occasional Conformity Bill and the Schism Act.
See ENGLAND: A. D. 1711-1714.
CHURCH OF ENGLAND: A. D. 1833-1845.
The Oxford or Tractarian Movement.
See OXFORD OR TRACTARIAN MOVEMENT.
----------CHURCH OF ENGLAND: End----------
CHURCH OF FRANCE.
See GALLICAN CHURCH.
CHURCH, The Greek or Eastern.
See CHRISTIANITY: A. D. 330-1054.
CHURCH OF IRELAND, Disestablishment of the.
See ENGLAND: A. D. 1868-1870.
CHURCH OF LATTER DAY SAINTS.
See MORMONISM: A. D. 1805-1830.
CHURCH OF ROME.
See PAPACY.
CHURCH, The Russian.
The great schism known as Raskol.
See RUSSIA: A. D. 1655-1659.
CHURCH OF SCOTLAND:
Its birth.
See SCOTLAND: A. D. 1547-1557.
CHURCH OF SCOTLAND:
The First Covenant.
See SCOTLAND: A. D. 1557.
CHURCH OF SCOTLAND:
Rebellion and triumph of the Lords of the Congregation.
See SCOTLAND: A. D. 1558-1560.
CHURCH OF SCOTLAND:
Restoration of Episcopacy.
See SCOTLAND: A. D. 1572.
CHURCH OF SCOTLAND:
The First National Covenant.
See SCOTLAND: A. D. 1581.
CHURCH OF SCOTLAND:
The Black Acts.
See SCOTLAND: A. D. 1584.
CHURCH OF SCOTLAND:
Appropriation of Church lands.
See SCOTLAND: A. D. 1587.
CHURCH OF SCOTLAND:
The Five Articles of Perth.
See SCOTLAND: A. D. 1618.
CHURCH OF SCOTLAND:
Laud's liturgy and Jenny Geddes' stool.
See SCOTLAND: A. D. 1637.
CHURCH OF SCOTLAND:
The signing of the National Covenant.
See SCOTLAND: A. D. 1638.
CHURCH OF SCOTLAND:
The First Bishops' War.
See SCOTLAND: A. D. 1638-1640.
CHURCH OF SCOTLAND:
The Second Bishops' War.
See ENGLAND: A. D. 1640.
CHURCH OF SCOTLAND:
The Westminster Assembly.
See ENGLAND: A. D. 1643 (JULY).
CHURCH OF SCOTLAND:
The Solemn League and Covenant.
See ENGLAND: A. D. 1643 (JULY-SEPTEMBER).
CHURCH OF SCOTLAND:
Montrose and the Covenanters.
See SCOTLAND: A. D. 1644-1645.
CHURCH OF SCOTLAND:
The restored king and restored prelacy.
See SCOTLAND: A. D. 1660-1666.
CHURCH OF SCOTLAND:
Persecutions of the Covenanters.
See SCOTLAND: A. D. 1669-1679: 1679; 1681-1689.
CHURCH OF SCOTLAND:
The Revolution and re-establishment of the Presbyterian
Church.
See SCOTLAND: A. D. 1688-1690.
CHURCH OF SCOTLAND:
The Disruption.
Formation of the Free Church.
See SCOTLAND: A. D. 1843.
----------CHURCH OF SCOTLAND: End----------
CHURUBUSCO, Battle of.
See MEXICO: A. D. 1847 (MARCH-SEPTEMBER).
CIBALIS, Battle of (A. D. 313).
See ROME: A. D. 305-323.
CIBOLA, The Seven Cities of.
See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: PUEBLOS.
CICERO, and the last years of the Roman Republic.
See ROME: B. C. 69-63, to 44-42.
CILICIA.-KILIKIA.
An ancient district in the southeastern corner of Asia Minor,
bordering on Syria. It was a satrapy of the Persian Empire,
then a part of the kingdom of the Selucidæ, and afterwards a
Roman province. The chief city of Cilicia was Tarsus, a very
ancient commercial emporium, whose people were noted for
mental acuteness. The Apostle Paul is to be counted among the
distinguished natives of Tarsus, and a quite remarkable number
of eminent teachers of philosophy were from the same
birthplace.
CILICIA, Pirates of.
During the Mithridatic wars piracy was developed to alarming
proportions in the eastern parts of the Mediterranean Sea.
Distracted by civil conflicts and occupied by foreign ones,
simultaneously, the Romans, for a considerable period, gave no
proper heed to the growth of this lawlessness, until they
found their commerce half destroyed and Rome and Italy
actually threatened with starvation by the intercepting of
their supplies from abroad. The pirates flourished under the
protection and encouragement of the king of Pontus, at whose
instance they established their chief headquarters, their
docks, arsenals and magazines, at various points on the coast
of Cilicia. Hence the name Cilician came to be applied to all
the pirates of the time. This era of piracy was brought to an
end, at last, by Pompey, who was sent against them, B. C. 67,
with extraordinary powers conferred by the law known as the
Lex Gabinia. He proceeded to his undertaking with remarkable
energy and ability, and his hunting down of the freebooters
which he accomplished effectually within three months from the
day his operations began, was really the most brilliant
exploit of his life.
_H. G. Liddell,
History of Rome,
book 7, chapter 63._
ALSO IN:
_C. Merivale,
History of the Romans,
chapter 1._
_G. Long,
Decline of the Roman Republic,
volume 3, chapter 6-7._
{469}
CILICIAN GATES.
A pass through the Taurus range of mountains, opening from
Cappadocia into Cilicia, was anciently called the Pylæ Ciliciæ
or Cilician Gates. The city of Tyana was situated at the
entrance to the pass. Both Xenophon and Alexander, who
traversed it, seem to have regarded the pass as one which no
army could force if properly defended.
_E. H. Bunbury,
History of Ancient Geography,
chapter 10, section 2,
and chapter 12, section 1._
CILURNUM.
A Roman city in Britain, "the extensive ruins of which, well
described as a British Pompeii, are visible near the modern
hamlets of Chesters."
_T. Wright,
Celt, Roman and Saxon,
chapter 5._
CIMARRONES, The.
See AMERICA: A. D. 1572-1580,
and JAMAICA: A. D. 1655-1796.
CIMBRI AND TEUTONES, The.
"For a considerable period [second century, B. C.] an
'unsettled people' had been wandering along the northern verge
of the country occupied by the Celts on both sides of the
Danube. They called themselves the Cimbri, that is, the
Chempho, the champions, or, as their enemies translated it,
the robbers; a designation, however, which to all appearance
had become the name of the people even before their migration.
They came from the north, and the first Celtic people with
whom they came in contact were, so far as is known, the Boii,
probably in Bohemia. More exact details as to the cause and
the direction of their migration have not been recorded by
contemporaries and cannot be supplied by conjecture. … But
the hypothesis that the Cimbri, as well as the similar horde
of the Teutones which afterwards joined them, belonged in the
main not to the Celtic nation, to which the Romans at first
assigned them, but to the Germanic, is supported by the most
definite facts: viz., by the existence of two small tribes of
the same name—remnants left behind to all appearance in their
primitive seats—the Cimbri in the modern Denmark, the
Teutones in the north-east of Germany in the neighbourhood of
the Baltic, where Pytheas, a contemporary of Alexander the
Great, makes mention of them thus early in connection with the
amber trade; by the insertion of the Cimbri and Teutones in
the list of the Germanic peoples among the Ingævones alongside
of the Chauci; by the judgment of Cæsar, who first made the
Romans acquainted with the distinction between the Germans and
the Celts, and who includes the Cimbri, many of whom he must
himself have seen, among the Germans; and lastly, by the very
names of the people and the statements as to their physical
appearance and habits. … On the other hand it is conceivable
enough that such a horde, after having wandered perhaps for
many years, and having doubtless welcomed every
brother-in-arms who joined it in its movements near to or
within the land of the Celts, would include a certain amount
of Celtic elements. … When men afterwards began to trace the
chain, of which this emigration, the first Germanic movement
which touched the orbit of ancient civilization, was a link,
the direct and living knowledge of it had long passed away."
_T. Mommsen,
History of Rome,
book 4, chapter 5._
"The name Kymri, or Cymri, still exists. It is the name that
the Welsh give themselves, but I am not aware that any other
people have called them by that name. These Kymri are a branch
of the great Celtic people, and this resemblance of the words
Kymri and Cimbri has led many modern writers to assume that
the Cimbri were also a Celtic people, as many of the ancient
writers name them. But these ancient writers are principally
the later Greeks, who are no authority at all on such a
matter. … The name Cimbri has perished in Germany, while
that of the Teutones, by some strange accident, is now the
name of the whole Germanic population."
_G. Long,
Decline of the Roman Republic,
volume 2, chapter 4._
ALSO IN:
_W. Ihne,
History of Rome,
book 7, chapter 9._
CIMBRI: B. C. 113-102.
Battles with the Romans.
The Cimbri and the Teutones made their first appearance on the
Roman horizon in the year 113 B. C. when they entered Noricum.
The Noricans were an independent people, as yet, but accepted
a certain protection from Rome, and the latter sent her
consul, Carbo, with an army, to defend them. Carbo made an
unfortunate attempt to deal treacherously with the invaders
and suffered an appalling defeat. Then the migrating
barbarians, instead of pressing into Italy, on the heels of
the flying Romans, turned westward through Helvetia to Gaul,
and occupied themselves for four years in ravaging that
unhappy country. In 109 B. C., having gathered their plunder
into the fortified town of Aduatuca and left it well
protected, they advanced into the Roman province of Narbo,
Southern Gaul, and demanded land to settle upon. The Romans
resisted and were again overwhelmingly beaten. But even now
the victorious host did not venture to enter Italy, and
nothing is known of its movements until 105 B. C., when a
third Roman army was defeated in Roman Gaul and its commander
taken prisoner and slain. The affrighted Romans sent strong
re-enforcements to the Rhone; but jealousy between the consul
who commanded the new army and the proconsul who retained
command of the old delivered both of them to destruction. They
were virtually annihilated, Oct. 6, B. C. 105, at Arausio
(Orange), on the left bank of the Rhone. It is said that
80,000 Roman soldiers perished on that dreadful field, besides
half as many more of camp followers. "This much is certain,"
says Mommsen, "that only a few out of the two armies succeeded
in escaping, for the Romans had fought with the river in their
rear. It was a calamity which materially and morally far
surpassed the day of Cannæ." In the panic which this disaster
caused at Rome the constitution of the Republic was broken
down. Marius, conqueror of Jugurtha, was recalled from Africa
and not only re-elected to the Consulship, but invested with
the office for five successive years. He took command in Gaul
and found that the formidable invaders had moved off into
Spain. This gave him time, fortunately, for the organizing and
disciplining of his demoralized troops. When the barbarians
reappeared on the Rhone, in the summer of 102 B. C., he faced
them with an army worthy of earlier Roman times. They had now
resolved, apparently, to force their way, at all hazards, into
Italy, and had divided their increasing host, to move on Rome
by two routes. The Cimbri, reinforced by the Tigorini, who had
joined them, made a circuit to the Eastern Alps, while the
Teutones, with Ambrones and Tougeni for confederates crossed
the Rhone and attacked the defenders of the western passes.
Failing to make any impression on the fortified camp of Marius
the Teutones rashly passed it, marching straight for the coast
road to Italy.
{470}
Marius cautiously followed and after some days gave battle to
the barbarians, in the district of Aquæ Sextiæ, a few miles
north of Massilia. The Romans that day took revenge for
Arausio with awful interest. The whole barbaric horde was
annihilated. "So great was the number of dead bodies that the
land in the neighborhood was made fertile by them, and the
people of Massilia used the bones for fencing their
vineyards." Meantime the Cimbri and their fellows had reached
and penetrated the Brenner pass and were in the valley of the
Adige. The Roman army stationed there had given way before
them, and Marius was needed to roll the invasion back. He did
so, on the 30th of July B. C. 101, when the Cimbri were
destroyed, at a battle fought on the Raudine Plain near
Vercellæ, as completely as the Teutones had been destroyed at
Aquæ Sextiæ.
_T. Mommsen,
History of Rome,
book 4, chapter 5._
ALSO IN:
_W. Ihne,
History of Rome,
book 7, chapter 9._
CIMBRIAN CHERSONESUS.
The modern Danish promontory of Jutland; believed to have been
the home of the Cimbri before they migrated southwards and
invaded Gaul.
CIMINIAN FOREST, The.
The mountains of Viterbo, which formed anciently the frontier
of Rome towards Etruria, were then covered with a thick
forest—"the 'silva Ciminia' of which Livy gives so romantic a
description. It was, however, nothing but a natural division
between two nations which were not connected by friendship,
and wished to have little to do with each other. … This
forest was by no means like the 'silva Hercynia' with which
Livy compares it, but was of just such an extent that,
according to his own account, the Romans only wanted a couple
of hours to march through it."
_B. G. Niebuhr,
Lectures on the History of Rome,
lecture 44._
CIMMERIANS, The.
"The name Cimmerians appears in the Odyssey,—the fable
describes them as dwelling beyond the ocean-stream, immersed
in darkness and unblessed by the rays of Helios. Of this
people as existent we can render no account, for they had
passed away, or lost their identity and become subject,
previous to the commencement of trustworthy authorities: but
they seem to have been the chief occupants of the Tauric
Chersonese (Crimea) and of the territory between that
peninsula and the river Tyras (Dneister) at the time when the
Greeks first commenced their permanent settlements on those
coasts in the seventh century B. C. The numerous localities
which bore their name, even in the time of Herodotus, after
they had ceased to exist as a nation,—as well as the tombs of
the Cimmerian kings then shown near the Tyras,—sufficiently
attest the fact; and there is reason to believe that they
were—like their conquerors and successors the Scythians—a
nomadic people, mare-milkers, moving about with their tents
and herds, suitably to the nature of those unbroken steppes
which their territory presented, and which offered little
except herbage in profusion. Strabo tells us—on what
authority we do not know—that they, as well as the Trêres and
other Thracians, had desolated Asia Minor more than once
before the time of Ardys [King of Lydia, seventh century B.
C.] and even earlier than Homer."
_G. Grote,
History of Greece,
part 2, chapter 17._
See, also, CUMÆ.
CIMON, Career of.
See ATHENS: B. C. 477-462, to 460-449.
CIMON, Peace of.
See ATHENS: B. C. 460-449.
CINCINNATI: A. D. 1788.
The founding and naming of the city.
In 1787 "an offer was made to Congress by John Cleve Symmes
[afterwards famous for his theory that the earth is hollow,
with openings at the poles], to buy two millions of acres
between the Little and the Great Miamis. Symmes was a
Jerseyman of wealth, had visited the Shawanese country, had
been greatly pleased with its fertility, and had come away
declaring that every acre in the wildest part was worth a
silver dollar. It was too, he thought, only a question of
time, and a very short time, when this value would be doubled
and tripled. Thousands of immigrants were pouring into this
valley each year, hundreds of thousands of acres were being
taken up, and the day would soon come when the rich land along
the Miamis and the Ohio would be in great demand. There was
therefore a mighty fortune in store for the lucky speculator
who should buy land from Congress for five shillings an acre
and sell it to immigrants for twenty. But … his business
lagged, and though his offer to purchase was made in August,
1787, it was the 15th of May, 1788, before the contract was
closed. In the meantime he put out a pamphlet and made known
his terms of sale. A copy soon fell into the hands of Matthias
Denman. He became interested in the scheme and purchased that
section on which now stands the city of Cincinnati. One third
he kept, one third he sold to Robert Patterson, and the
remainder to John Filson. The conditions of the purchase from
Symmes gave them two years in which to begin making clearings
and building huts. But the three determined to lose no time,
and at once made ready to layout a city directly opposite that
spot where the waters of the Licking mingled themselves with
the Ohio. Denman and Patterson were no scholars. But Filson
had once been a schoolmaster, knew a little of Latin and
something of history, and to him was assigned the duty of
choosing a name for the town. … He determined to make one,
and produced a word that was a most absurd mixture of Latin,
Greek and French. He called the place Losantiville, which,
being interpreted, means the city opposite the mouth of the
Licking. A few weeks later the Indians scalped him."
_J. B. McMaster,
History of the People of the United States,
volume 1, page 516._
The name given a little later to Filson's settlement was
conferred on it by General St. Clair, Governor of the
Territory, in honor of the Society of the Cincinnati.
See NORTHWEST TERRITORY OF THE UNITED STATES: A. D. 1788-1802.
ALSO IN:
_F. W. Miller, Cincinnati's Beginnings._
CINCINNATI: A. D. 1863.
Threatened by John Morgan's Rebel Raid.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1863 (JULY: KENTUCKY).
----------CINCINNATI: End----------
{471}
CINCINNATI, The Society of the.
"Men of the present generation who in childhood rummaged in
their grandmothers' cosy garrets cannot fail to have come
across scores of musty and worm-eaten pamphlets, their yellow
pages crowded with italics and exclamation points, inveighing
in passionate language against the wicked and dangerous
Society of the Cincinnati. Just before the army [of the
American Revolution] was disbanded, the officers, at the
suggestion of General Knox, formed themselves [April, 1783]
into a secret society, for the purpose of keeping up their
friendly intercourse and cherishing the heroic memories of the
struggle in which they had taken part. With the fondness for
classical analogies which characterized that time, they
likened themselves to Cincinnatus, who was taken from the plow
to lead an army, and returned to his quiet farm so soon as his
warlike duties were over. They were modern Cincinnati. A
constitution and by-laws were established for the order, and
Washington was unanimously chosen to be its president. Its
branches in the several states were to hold meetings each
Fourth of July, and there was to be a general meeting of the
whole society every year in the month of May. French officers
who had taken part in the war were admitted to membership, and
the order was to be perpetuated by descent through the eldest
male representatives of the families of the members. It was
further provided that a limited membership should from time to
time be granted, as a distinguished honour, to able and worthy
citizens, without regard to the memories of the war. A golden
American eagle attached to a blue ribbon edged with white was
the sacred badge of the order; and to this emblem especial
favour was shown at the French court, where the insignia of
foreign states were generally, it is said, regarded with
jealousy. No political purpose was to be subserved by this
order of the Cincinnati, save in so far as the members pledged
to one another their determination to promote and cherish the
union between the states. In its main intent the society was
to be a kind of masonic brotherhood, charged with the duty of
aiding the widows and the orphan children of its members in
time of need. Innocent as all this was, however, the news of
the establishment of such a society was greeted with a howl of
indignation all over the country. It was thought that its
founders were inspired by a deep-laid political scheme for
centralizing the government and setting up a hereditary
aristocracy. … The absurdity of the situation was quickly
realized by Washington, and he prevailed upon the society, in
its first annual meeting of May, 1784, to abandon the
principle of hereditary membership. The agitation was thus
allayed, and in the presence of graver questions the
much-dreaded brotherhood gradually ceased to occupy popular
attention."
_J. Fiske,
The Critical Period of American History,
chapter 3._
_J. B. McMaster,
History of the People of the United States,
volume 1, chapter 2._
"The hereditary succession was never abandoned. A
recommendation to that effect was indeed made to the several
State Societies, at the first General Meeting in Philadelphia.
… But the proposition, unwillingly urged, was accepted in
deprecatory terms by some, and by others it was totally
rejected. … At the second General Meeting, it was resolved
'that the alterations could not take effect until they had
been agreed to by all the State Societies.' They never were so
agreed to, and consequently the original Institution remains
in full force. Those Societies that accepted the proposed
alterations unconditionally, of course perished with their own
generation."
_A. Johnston,
Some Accounts of the Society of the Cincinnati
(Pennsylvania Historical Society Memoirs,
volume 6, pages 51-53)._
"The claim to membership has latterly been determined not by
strict primogeniture, but by a 'just elective preference,
especially in the line of the first-born,' who has a moral but
not an absolutely indisputable right; and membership has
always been renewed by election. … Six only of the original
thirteen states—Massachusetts, New York, New Jersey,
Pennsylvania, Maryland, and South Carolina—are still [in
1873] represented at the General Meetings. The largest
society, that of Massachusetts, consisting originally of 343
members, now [1873] numbers less than 80; that of New York,
from 230 had in 1858 decreased to 73; the 268 of Pennsylvania
to about 60; the 110 of New Jersey, in 1866, to 60; and the
131 of South Carolina was, in 1849, reduced to 71."
_F. S. Drake,
Memorials of the Society of the Cincinnati of Massachusetts,
page 37._
CINCO DE MAYO, Battle of (1862).
See MEXICO: A. D. 1861-1867.
CINE, The.
Kinsfolk of the head of the tribe, among the ancient Irish.
CINQ MARS, Conspiracy of.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1641-1642.
CINQUE PORTS, The.
"Hastings, Sandwich, Dover, Romney, Hythe—this is the order
in which the Cinque Ports were ranked in the times when they
formed a flourishing and important confederation. Winchelsea
and Rye were added to these five … soon after the Norman
Conquest. … The new comers were officially known as 'the two
Ancient Towns.' When therefore we wish to speak of this famous
corporation with strict accuracy we say, 'The five Cinque
Ports and two Ancient Towns.' The repetition of the number
'five' in this title probably never struck people so much as
we might expect, since it very soon came to be merely a
technical term, the French form of the word being pronounced,
and very often spelt 'Synke' or 'Sinke,' just as if it was the
English 'Sink.' … The difference between the Cinque Ports
and the rest of the English coast towns is plainly indicated
by mediæval custom, since they were generally spoken of
collectively as 'The Ports.' … Most writers upon this
subject … have been at pains to connect the Cinque Ports by
some sort of direct descent with the five Roman stations and
fortresses which, under the Comes Littoris Saxonici [see SAXON
SHORE, COUNT OF], guarded the south-eastern shores of
Britain."
_M. Burrows,
The Cinque Ports,
chapters 1-3._
"Our kings have thought them [the Cinque Ports] worthy a
peculiar regard; and, in order to secure them against
invasions, have granted them a particular form of government.
They are under a keeper, who has the title of Lord Warden of
the Cinque Ports (an officer first appointed by William the
Conqueror), who has the authority of an admiral among them,
and issues out writs in his own name. The privileges anciently
annexed to these ports and their dependents were [among
others]: An exemption from all taxes and tolls. … A power to
punish foreigners, as well as natives, for theft. … A power
to raise mounds or banks in any man's land against breaches of
the sea. … To convert to their own use such goods as they
found floating on the sea; those thrown out of ships in a
storm; and those driven ashore when no wreck or ship was to be
seen. To be a guild or fraternity, and to be allowed the
franchises of court-leet and court-baron. A power to assemble
and keep a portmote or parliament for the Cinque Ports.
{472}
… Their barons to have the privilege of supporting the
canopy over the king's head at his coronation. In return for
these privileges the Cinque Ports were required to fit out 57
ships, each manned with 21 men and a boy, with which they were
to attend the king's service for 15 days at their own expense;
but if the state of affairs required their assistance any
longer they were to be paid by the crown. … As the term
baron occurs continually throughout all the charters of the
Ports, it may not be improper to inform our readers that it is
of the same import as burgess or freeman. … The
representatives of the Ports in parliament are to this day
styled barons." The post of Warden of the Cinque Ports,
"formerly considered of so much honour and consequence, is now
converted into a patent sinecure place, for life, with a
salary of £4,000 a year."
_History of the Boroughs of Great Britain;
together with the Cinque Ports, volume 3._
The office of Warden of the Cinque Ports has been held during
the present century by Mr. Pitt, the Earl of Liverpool, the
Duke of Wellington, the Earl of Dalhousie, Viscount
Palmerston, and Earl Granville.
CINTRA, Convention of.
See SPAIN: A. D. 1808-1809 (AUGUST-JANUARY).
CIOMPI, Tumult of the.
See FLORENCE: A. D. 1378-1427.
CIRCARS, OR SIRKARS, The northern.
See INDIA: A. D. 1758-1761.
CIRCASSIANS.
See CAUCASUS.
CIRCLES OF GERMANY, The.
See GERMANY: A. D. 1493-1519.
CIRCUMCELLIONES, The.
See DONATISTS.
CIRCUMNAVIGATION OF THE WORLD: A. D. 1519-1522.
Magellan's voyage: the first in history.
See AMERICA: A. D. 1519-1524.
CIRCUMNAVIGATION OF THE WORLD: A. D. 1577-1580.
Drake's voyage.
See AMERICA: A. D. 1572-1580.
----------CIRCUMNAVIGATION: End----------
CIRCUS, Factions of the Roman.
"The race, in its first institution [among the Romans], was a
simple contest, of two chariots, whose drivers were
distinguished by white and red liveries: two additional
colours, a light green and a cerulian blue, were afterwards
introduced; and as the races were repeated twenty-five times,
one hundred chariots contributed in the same day to the pomp
of the circus. The four factions soon acquired a legal
establishment and a mysterious origin, and their fanciful
colours were derived from the various appearances of nature in
the four seasons of the year. … Another interpretation
preferred the elements to the seasons, and the struggle of the
green and blue was supposed to represent the conflict of the
earth and sea. Their respective victories announced either a
plentiful harvest or a prosperous navigation, and the
hostility of the husbandmen and mariners was somewhat less
absurd than the blind ardour of the Roman people, who devoted
their lives and fortunes to the colour which they had
espoused. … Constantinople adopted the follies, though not
the virtues, of ancient Rome; and the same factions which had
agitated the circus raged with redoubled fury in the
hippodrome. Under the reign of Anastasius [A. D. 491-518] this
popular frenzy was inflamed by religious zeal; and the greens,
who had treacherously concealed stones and daggers under
baskets of fruit, massacred, at a solemn festival, 3,000 of
their blue adversaries. From the capital this pestilence was
diffused into the provinces and cities of the East, and the
sportive distinction of two colours produced two strong and
irreconcilable factions, which shook the foundations of a
feeble government. … A sedition, which almost laid
Constantinople in ashes, was excited by the mutual hatred and
momentary reconciliation of the two factions." This fearful
tumult, which acquired the name of the Nika sedition, from the
cry, "Nika" (vanquish), adopted by the rioters, broke out in
connection with the celebration of the festival of the Ides of
January, A. D. 532. For five days the city was given up to the
mob and large districts in it were burned, including many
churches and other stately edifices. The emperor Justinian
would have abandoned his palace and throne, but for the heroic
opposition of his consort, Theodora. On the sixth day, the
imperial authority was re-established by the great soldier,
Belisarius, after 30,000 citizens had been slain in the
hippodrome and in the streets.
_E. Gibbon,
Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire,
chapter 40.
CIRCUS MAXIMUS AT ROME, The.
"The races and wild beast shows in the circi were among the
most ancient and most favourite Roman amusements, and the
buildings dedicated to these sports were numerous, and nearly
equal in magnificence to the amphitheatres. The Circus
Maximus, which was first provided with permanent seats for the
spectators as early as the time of Tarquinius Priscus, was
successively restored and ornamented by the republican
government in 327 and 174 B. C. and by Julius Cæsar, Augustus,
Claudius, Domitian and Trojan. The result was a building
which, in dimensions and magnificence, rivalled the Coliseum,
but has, unfortunately, proved far less durable, scarcely a
vestige of it now being left."
_R. Burn,
Rome and the Campagna,
introduction and chapter 12._
See, also, FORUM BOARIUM.
CIRENCESTER, Origin of.
See CORINIUM.
CIRRHA.
See DELPHI.
CIRRHÆAN, OR KIRRHÆAN WAR, THE.
See ATHENS: B. C. 610-586, and DELPHI.
CIRTA.
An ancient Numidian city. The modern town of Constantina in
Algeria is on its site.
See NUMIDIANS.
CISALPINE GAUL (GALLIA CISALPINA).
See ROME: B. C. 390-347.
CISALPINE REPUBLIC.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1796-1797 (OCTOBER-APRIL);
1797 (MAY-OCTOBER);
1799 (APRIL-SEPTEMBER); and 1801-1803.
CISLEITHANIA.
See AUSTRIA: A. D. 1866-1867.
CISPADANE GAUL.
Cisalpine Gaul south of the Padus, or Po.
See PADUS.
CISPADANE REPUBLIC, The.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1796-1797 (OCTOBER-APRIL),
and 1797 (MAY-OCTOBER).
CISSIA (KISSIA).
See ELAM.
{473}
CISTERCIAN ORDER.
The Monastery of Citeaux.
"Harding was an Englishman who spent his boyhood in the
monastery of Sherborne in Dorset, till he was seized with a
passion for wandering and for study which led him first to
Scotland, then to Gaul, and at last to Rome. It chanced that
on his return thence, passing through the duchy of Burgundy,
he stopped at the abbey of Molêmes. As he saw the ways and
habits familiar to his childhood reproduced in those of the
monks, the wanderer's heart yearned for the peaceful life
which he had forsaken; he took the vows, and became a brother
of the house. But when, with the zeal of a convert, he began
to look more closely into his monastic obligations, he
perceived that the practice of Molêmes, and indeed of most
other monasteries, fell very far short of the strict rule of
S. Benedict. He remonstrated with his brethren till they had
no rest in their minds. At last after long and anxious debates
in the chapter, the abbot determined to go to the root of the
matter, and appointed two brethren, whose learning was
equalled by their piety, to examine diligently the original
rule and declare what they found in it. The result of their
investigations justified Harding's reproaches and caused a
schism in the convent. The majority refused to alter their
accustomed ways; finding they were not to be reformed, the
zealous minority, consisting of Robert the abbot, Harding
himself (or Stephen as he was called in religion) and sixteen
others equally 'stiff-necked in their holy obstinacy,' left
Molêmes, and sought a new abode in the wilderness. The site
which they chose—in the diocese of Chalon-sur-Saône, not far
from Dijon—was no happy valley, no 'green retreat' such as
the earlier Benedictine founders had been wont to select. It
was a dismal swamp overgrown with brushwood, a forlorn,
dreary, unhealthy spot, from whose marshy character the new
house took its name of 'the Cistern'—Cistellum, commonly
called Citeaux. There the little band set to work in 1098 to
carry into practice their views of monastic duty. …
Three-and-twenty daughter houses were brought to completion
during his [Harding's] life-time. One of the earliest was
Pontigny, founded in 1114, and destined in after-days to
become inseparably associated with the name of another English
saint. Next year there went forth another Cistercian colony,
whose glory was soon to eclipse that of the mother-house
itself. Its leader was a young monk called Bernard, and the
place of its settlement was named Clairvaux. From Burgundy and
Champagne the 'White Monks,' as the Cistercians were called
from the colour of their habit, soon spread over France and
Normandy. In 1128 they crossed the sea and made an entrance
into their founder's native land."
_K. Norgate,
England under the Angevin Kings,
volume 1, chapter 1._
ALSO IN: _S. R. Maitland, The Dark Ages, 21._
CITEAUX, The Monastery of.
See CISTERCIAN ORDER.
CITIES, Chartered.
See COMMUNE;
also BOROUGHS, and GUILDS.
CITIES, Free, of Italy.
See ITALY: A. D. 1056-1152, and after.
CITIES, Imperial and Free, of Germany
"The territorial disintegration of Germany [see GERMANY: 13TH
CENTURY] had introduced a new and beneficial element into the
national life, by allowing the rise and growth of the free
cities. These were of two classes: those which stood in
immediate connection with the Empire, and were practically
independent republics; and those which, while owning some
dependence upon spiritual or temporal princes, had yet
conquered for themselves a large measure of self-government.
The local distribution of the former, which is curiously
unequal, depended upon the circumstances which attended the
dissolution of the old tribal dukedoms. Wherever some powerful
house was able to seize upon the inheritance, free cities were
few: wherever the contrary was the case, they sprang up in
abundance. In Swabia and on the Rhine there were more than a
hundred: Franconia on the contrary counted only Nürnberg and
five smaller cities: Westphalia, Dortmund and Herford: while
in Bavaria, Regensburg stood alone. … The Imperial free
cities … were self-governed, under constitutions in which
the aristocratic and the democratic elements mingled in
various proportions: they provided for their own defence: they
were republics, in the midst of States where the personal will
of the ruler counted for more and more. … In these cities
the refined and luxurious civilization, to which the princes
were indifferent, and on which the knights waged predatory
war, found expression in the pursuit of letters and the
cultivation of the arts of life. There, too, the Imperial
feeling, which was elsewhere slowly dying out of the land,
retained much of its force. The cities held, so to speak,
directly of the Empire, to which they looked for protection
against powerful and lawless neighbours, and they felt that
their liberties and privileges were bound up with the
maintenance of the general order. … In them, too, as we
might naturally expect, religious life put on a freer aspect."
_C. Beard,
Martin Luther and the Reformation,
page 16._
"Prior to the peace of Luneville [1801], Germany possessed 133
free cities, called Reichstädte. A Reichstadt ('civitas
imperii') was a town under the immediate authority of the
Emperor, who was represented by an imperial official called a
Vogt or Schultheis. The first mention of the term 'civitas
imperii' (imperial city) occurs in an edict of the emperor
Frederick II. [1214-1250], in which Lubeck was declared a
'civitas imperii' in perpetuity. In a later edict, of the year
1287, we find that King Rudolf termed the following places
'civitates regni' (royal cities), viz., Frankfort, Friedberg,
Wetzlar, Oppenheim, Wesel, and Boppart. All these royal cities
subsequently became imperial cities in consequence of the
Kings of Germany being again raised to the dignity of
Emperors. During the reign of Louis the Bavarian [1314-1347]
Latin ceased to be the official language, and the imperial
towns were designated in the vernacular 'Richstat.' In course
of time the imperial towns acquired, either by purchase or
conquest, their independence. Besides the Reichstädte, there
were Freistädte, or free towns, the principal being Cologne,
Basle, Mayence, Ratisbon, Spires, and Worms. The free towns
appear to have enjoyed the following immunities:—1. They were
exempt from the oath of allegiance to the Emperor. 2. They
were not bound to furnish a contingent for any expedition
beyond the Alps. 3. They were free from all imperial taxes and
duties. 4. They could not be pledged. 5. They were
distinguished from the imperial towns by not having the
imperial eagle emblazoned on the municipal escutcheon."
Subsequently "the free towns were placed on the same footing
as the Reichstädt, and the term 'Freistadt,' or free town, was
disused. The government of the imperial towns was in the hands
of a military and civil governor. … On the imperial towns
becoming independent, the administration of the town was
entrusted to a college of from four to twenty-four persons,
according to the population, and the members of this kind of
town council were called either Rathsmann, Rathsfreund, or
Rathsherr, which means councilman or adviser.
{474}
The town councillors appear to have selected one or more of
their number as presidents, with the title of Rathsmeister,
Burgermeister, or Stadtmeister. … Many of the imperial towns
gained their autonomy either by purchase or force of arms. In
like manner we find that others either lost their privileges
or voluntarily became subjects of some burgrave or
ecclesiastical prince, e. g., Cologne, Worms, and Spires
placed themselves under the jurisdiction of their respective
archbishops, whereas Altenburg, Chemnitz and Zwickau were
seized by Frederick the Quarrelsome in his war with the
Emperor; whilst others, like Hagenau, Colmar, Landau, and
Strasburg, were annexed or torn from the German Empire. As the
Imperial towns increased in wealth and power they extended the
circle of their authority over the surrounding districts, and,
in order to obtain a voice in the affairs of the empire, at
length demanded that the country under their jurisdiction
should be represented at the Reichstag (Imperial Diet). To
accomplish this, they formed themselves into Bunds or
confederations to assert their claims, and succeeded in
forcing the Emperor and the princes to allow their
representatives to take part in the deliberations of the Diet.
The principal confederations brought into existence by the
struggles going on in Germany were the Rhenish and Suabian
Bunds, and the Hansa. [See HANSA TOWNS.] … At the Diet held
at Augsburg in 1474, it appears that almost all the imperial
towns were represented, and in 1648, on the peace of
Westphalia, when their presence in the Diet was formally
recognized, they were formed into a separate college. … By
the peace of Luneville four of the imperial towns, viz.,
Aix-la-Chapelle, Cologne, Spires, and Worms, were ceded to
France. In 1803, all the imperial towns lost their autonomy
with the exception of the following six:—Augsburg, Nuremberg,
Frankfort, Lubeck, Hamburg, and Bremen; and in 1806 the first
three, and in 1810 the others, shared the same fate, but in
1815, on the fall of Napoleon, Bremen, Hamburg, Lubeck, and
Frankfort, recovered their freedom, and were admitted as
members of the German Bund, which they continued to be up to
the year 1866."
_W. J. Wyatt,
History of Prussia,
volume 2, pages 427-432._
"According to the German historians the period of the greatest
splendour of these towns was during the 14th and 15th
centuries. … In the 16th century they still enjoyed the same
prosperity, but the period of their decay was come. The
Thirty-Years War hastened their fall, and scarcely one of them
escaped destruction and ruin during that period. Nevertheless,
the treaty of Westphalia mentions them positively, and asserts
their position as immediate states, that is to say, states
which depended immediately upon the Emperor; but the
neighbouring Sovereigns, on the one hand, and on the other the
Emperor himself, the exercise of whose power, since the
Thirty-Years War, was limited to the lesser vassals of the
empire, restricted their sovereignty within narrower and
narrower limits. In the 18th century, 51 of them were still in
existence, they filled two benches at the diet, and had an
independent vote there; but, in fact, they no longer exercised
any influence upon the direction of general affairs. At home
they were all heavily burthened with debts, partly because
they continued to be charged for the Imperial taxes at a rate
suited to their former splendour, and partly because their own
administration was extremely bad. It is very remarkable that this
bad administration seemed to be the result of some secret
disease which was common to them all, whatever might be the
form of their constitution. … Their population decreased,
and distress prevailed in them. They were no longer the abodes
of German civilization; the arts left them, and went to shine
in the new towns created by the Sovereigns, and representing
modern society. Trade forsook them—their ancient energy and
patriotic vigour disappeared. Hamburg almost alone still
remained a great centre of wealth and intelligence, but this
was owing to causes quite peculiar to herself."
_A. de Tocqueville,
State of Society in France before 1789,
note C._
See, also, HANSA TOWNS.
Of the 48 Free Cities of the Empire remaining in 1803, 42 were
then robbed of their franchises, under the exigencies of the
Treaty of Luneville (see GERMANY: A. D. 1801-1803). After the
Peace of Pressburg only three survived, namely, Hamburg,
Lubeck and Bremen (see GERMANY: A. D. 1805-1806). These were
annexed to France by Napoleon in 1810.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1810 (FEBRUARY-DECEMBER).
The Congress of Vienna, in 1815, restored freedom to them, and
to Frankfort, likewise, and they became members of the
Germanic Confederation then formed.
See VIENNA, THE CONGRESS of.
Lubeck gave up its privileges as a free city in 1866, joining
the Prussian Customs Union. Hamburg and Bremen did the same in
1888, being absorbed in the Empire. This extinguished the last
of the "free cities."
See GERMANY: A. D. 1888.
CITY.
See BOROUGH.
CITY OF THE VIOLET CROWN.
"Ancient poets called Athens 'The City of the Violet Crown,'
with an unmistakable play upon the name of the Ionian stock to
which it belonged, and which called to mind the Greek word for
violet."
_G. Schömann,
Antiquities of Greece: The State,
part 3, chapter 3._
CITY REPUBLICS, Italian.
See ITALY: A. D. 1056-1152.
CIUDAD RODRIDGO: A. D. 1810-1812.
Twice besieged and captured by the French and by the English.
See SPAIN: A. D. 1810-1812.
CIVES ROMANI AND PEREGRINI.
"Before the Social or Marsic war (B. C. 90) there were only
two classes within the Roman dominions who were designated by
a political name, Cives Romani, or Roman citizens, and
Peregrini, a term which comprehended the Latini, the Socii and
the Provinciales, such as the inhabitants of Sicily. The Cives
Romani were the citizens of Rome, the citizens of Roman
colonies and the inhabitants of the Municipia which had
received the Roman citizenship."
_G. Long,
Decline of the Roman Republic,
chapter 17._
See, also, ROME: B. C. 90-88.
CIVIL RIGHTS BILL,
The First.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1866 (April).-
The Second, and its declared unconstitutionality.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1875.
{475}
CIVIL-SERVICE REFORM IN ENGLAND.
"It was not till long after 1832 that the inherent mischief of
the partisan system [of appointments in the national civil
service] became manifest to the great body of thinking people.
When that result was attained, the final struggle with
patronage in the hands of members of Parliament began on a
large scale. It seems to have been, even then, foreseen by the
best informed that it could not be removed by any partisan
agency. They began to see the need of some method by which
fitness for the public service could be tested otherwise than
by the fiat of a member of Parliament or the vote of the
Cabinet or the Treasury. What that method should be was one of
the great problems of the future. No government had then
solved it. That there must be tests of fitness independent of
any political action, or mere official influence, became more
and more plain to thinking men. The leaders of the great
parties soon began to see that a public opinion in favor of
such tests was being rapidly developed, which seriously
threatened their power, unless the party system itself could
be made more acceptable to the people. … There was an
abundance of fine promises made. But no member gave up his
patronage—no way was opened by which a person of merit could
get into an office or a place except by the favor of the party
or the condescension of a member. The partisan blockade of
every port of entry to the public service, which made it
tenfold easier for a decayed butler or an incompetent cousin
of a member or a minister, than for the promising son of a
poor widow, to pass the barrier, was, after the Reform Bill as
before, rigidly maintained. Fealty to the party and work in
its ranks—subserviency to members and to ministers—and
electioneering on their behalf—these were the virtues before
which the ways to office and the doors of the Treasury were
opened. Year by year, the public discontent with the whole
system increased. … During the Melbourne administration,
between 1834 and 1841, a demand for examinations, as a
condition for admission to the service, came from two very
different quarters. One was the higher officials, who declared
that they could not do the public work with such poor servants
as the partisan system supplied. The other was the more
independent, thoughtful portion of the people, who held it to
be as unjust as it was demoralizing for members of Parliament
and other officers to monopolize the privilege of saying who
might enter the public service. Lord Melbourne then yielded so
far as to allow pass examinations to be instituted in some of
the larger offices; and he was inclined to favor competitive
examinations, but it was thought to be too great an innovation
to attempt at once. These examinations—several of them being
competitive—introduced by public officers in self-defence
many years previous to 1853, had before that time produced
striking results. In the Poor Law Commission, for example,
they had brought about a reform that arrested public
attention. Under the Committee on Education, they had caused
the selection of teachers so much superior 'that higher
salaries were bidden for them for private service.' … These
examinations were steadily extended from office to office down
to the radical change made in 1853. … It had been provided,
long before 1853, that those designed for the civil service of
India, should not only be subjected to a pass examination, but
should, before entering the service, be subjected to a course
of special instruction at Haileybury College, a sort of civil
West Point. This College was abolished in 1854, but equivalent
instruction was elsewhere provided for. The directors had the
patronage of nomination for such instruction. … If it seems
strange that a severe course of study, for two years in such a
college, was not sufficient to weed out the incompetents which
patronage forced into it, we must bear in mind that the same
influence which sent them there was used to keep them there.
… Both the Derby and the Aberdeen administrations, in 1852
and 1853, took notice that the civil service was in a
condition of peril to British India; and, without distinction
of party, it was agreed that radical reforms must be promptly
made. There was corruption, there was inefficiency, there was
disgraceful ignorance, there was a humiliating failure in the
government to command the respect of the more intelligent
portion of the people of India, and there was a still more
alarming failure to overawe the unruly classes. It was as bad
in the army as in the civil offices. … There was, in short,
a hotbed of abuses prolific of those influences which caused
the fearful outbreak of 1857. It was too late when reform was
decided upon, to prevent the outbreak, but not too late to
save British supremacy in India. A change of system was
entered upon in 1853. The 36th and 37th clauses of the India
act of that year provided 'that all powers, rights, and
privileges of the court of directors of the said India Company
to nominate or appoint persons to be admitted as students …
shall cease; and that, subject to such regulations as might be
made, any person, being a natural born subject of her Majesty,
who might be desirous of presenting himself, should be
admitted to be examined as a candidate.' Thus, it will be
seen, Indian patronage received its death-blow, and the same
blow opened the door of study for the civil service of India
to every British citizen. … In 1853, the British Government
had reached a final decision that the partisan system of
appointments could not be longer tolerated. Substantial
control of nominations by members of Parliament, however
guarded by restrictions and improved by mere pass
examinations, had continued to be demoralizing in its effect
upon elections, vicious in its influence upon legislation, and
fatal to economy and efficiency in the departments. … The
administration, with Lord Aberdeen at its head, promptly
decided to undertake a radical and systematic reform. … It
was decided that, in the outset, no application should be made
to Parliament. The reform should be undertaken by the English
Executive … for the time being. The first step decided upon
was an inquiry into the exact condition of the public service.
Sir Stafford Northcote (the present Chancellor of the
Exchequer) and Sir Charles Trevelyan were appointed in 1853 to
make such inquiry and a report. They submitted their report in
November of the same year. … A system of competitive
examinations … [was] recommended. … The report was
accompanied with a scheme for carrying the examinations into
effect, from which quote the following passages.
{476}
… 'Such a measure will exercise the happiest influence in
the education of the lower classes throughout England, acting
by the surest of all motives—the desire a man has of
bettering himself in life. … They will have attained their
situations in an independent manner through their own merits.
The sense of this conduct cannot but induce self-respect and
diffuse a wholesome respect among the lower no less than the
higher classes of official men. … The effect of it in giving
a stimulus to the education of the lower classes can hardly be
overestimated.' Such was the spirit of the report. This was
the theory of the merit system, then first approved by an
English administration for the home government. I hardly need
repeat that the examinations referred to as existing were
(with small exception) mere pass examinations, and that the
new examinations proposed were open, competitive examinations.
… But the great feature of the report, which made it really
a proposal for the introduction of a new system, was its
advocacy of open competition. Except the experiment just put
on trial in India, no nation had adopted that system. It was
as theoretical as it was radical. … A chorus of ridicule,
indignation, lamentation, and wrath arose from all the
official and partisan places of politics. The government saw
that a further struggle was at hand. It appeared more clear
than ever that Parliament was not a very hopeful place in
which to trust the tender years of such a reform. … The
executive caused the report to be spread broadcast among the
people, and also requested the written opinions of a large
number of persons of worth and distinction both in and out of
office. The report was sent to Parliament, but no action upon
it was requested. … About the time that English public
opinion had pronounced its first judgment upon the official
report, and before any final action had been taken upon it,
the Aberdeen administration went out. … Lord Palmerston came
into power early in 1855, than whom, this most practical of
nations never produced a more hard-headed, practical
statesman. … Upon his administration fell the duty of
deciding the fate of the new system advocated in the report.
… He had faith in his party, and believed it would gain more
by removing grave abuses than by any partisan use of
patronage. … Making no direct appeal to Parliament, and
trusting to the higher public opinion, Lord Palmerston's
administration advised that an order should be made by the
Queen in Council for carrying the reform into effect; and such
an order was made on the 21st of May, 1855."
_D. B. Eaton,
Civil Service in Great Britain._
CIVIL-SERVICE REFORM IN THE UNITED STATES.
"The question as to the Civil Service [in the United States]
arises from the fact that the president has the power of
appointing a vast number of petty officials, chiefly
postmasters and officials concerned with the collection of the
federal revenue. Such officials have properly nothing to do
with politics, they are simply the agents or clerks or
servants of the national government in conducting its
business; and if the business of the national government is to
be managed on such ordinary principles of prudence as prevail
in the management of private business, such servants ought to
be selected for personal merit and retained for life or during
good behaviour. It did not occur to our earlier presidents to
regard the management of the public business in any other
light than this. But as early as the beginning of the present
century a vicious system was growing up in New York and
Pennsylvania. In those states the appointive offices came to
be used as bribes or as rewards for partisan services. By
securing votes for a successful candidate, a man with little
in his pocket and nothing in particular to do could obtain
some office with a comfortable salary. It would be given to
him as a reward, and some other man, perhaps more competent
than himself, would have to be turned out in order to make
room for him. A more effective method of driving good citizens
'out of politics' could hardly be devised. It called to the
front a large class of men of coarse moral fibre. … The
civil service of these states was seriously damaged in
quality, politics degenerated into a wild scramble for
offices, salaries were paid to men who did little or no public
service in return, and the line which separates taxation from
robbery was often crossed. About the same time there grew up
an idea that there is something especially democratic, and
therefore meritorious, about 'rotation in office.'" On the
change of party which took place upon the election of Jackson
to the presidency in 1828, "the methods of New York and
Pennsylvania were applied on a national scale. Jackson
cherished the absurd belief that the administration of his
predecessor Adams had been corrupt, and he turned men out of
office with a keen zest. During the forty years between
Washington's first inauguration and Jackson's the total number
of removals from office was 74, and out of this number 5 were
defaulters. During the first year of Jackson's
administration the number of changes made in the civil service
was about 2,000. Such was the abrupt inauguration upon a
national scale of the so-called Spoils System. The phrase
originated with W. L. Marcy, of New York, who, in a speech in
the senate in 1831 declared that 'to the victors belong the
spoils.' … In the canvass of 1840 the Whigs promised to
reform the civil service, and the promise brought them many
Democratic votes; but after they had won the election they
followed Jackson's example. The Democrats followed in the same
way in 1845, and from that time down to 1885 it was customary
at each change of party to make a 'clean sweep' of the
offices. Soon after the Civil War the evils of the system
began to attract serious attention on the part of thoughtful
people."
_J. Fiske,
Civil Government in the United States,
pages 261-264._
"It was not until 1867 that any important move was made
[toward a reform]. … This was by Mr. Jencks, of Rhode
Island, who introduced a bill, made an able report and several
speeches in its behalf. Unfortunately, death soon put an end
to his labors and deprived the cause of an able advocate. But
the seed he had sown bore good fruit. Attention was so
awakened to the necessity of reform, that President Grant, in
his message in 1870, called the attention of Congress to it,
and that body passed an act in March, 1871, which authorized
the President to prescribe, for admission to the Civil
Service, such regulations as would best promote its
efficiency, and ascertain the fitness of each candidate for
the position he sought. For this purpose, it says, he may
'employ suitable persons to conduct such inquiries, and may
prescribe their duties, and establish regulations for the
conduct of persons who may receive appointments in the Civil
Service.'
{477}
In accordance with this act, President Grant appointed a Civil
Service Commission, of which George William Curtis was made
chairman, afterwards succeeded by Dorman B. Eaton, and an
appropriation of $25,000 was made by Congress to defray its
expenses. A like sum was voted next year; but after that
nothing was granted until June, 1882, when, instead of $25,000
asked for by the President, $15,000 was grudgingly
appropriated. It is due to Mr. Silas W. Burt, Naval Officer in
New York, who had long been greatly interested in the subject
of Reform, to say that he deserves the credit of having been
the first to introduce open competitive examinations. Before
the appointment of Grant's committee, he had held such an
examination in his office. … Under Grant's commission, open
competitive examinations were introduced in the departments at
Washington, and Customs Service at New York, and in part in
the New York Post office. Although this commission labored
under many disadvantages in trying a new experiment, it was
able to make a very satisfactory report, which was approved by
the President and his cabinet. … The rules adopted by
Grant's commission were prepared by the chairman, Mr. Curtis.
They were admirably adapted for their purpose, and have served
as the basis of similar rules since then. The great interest
taken by Mr. Curtis at that time, and the practical value of
his work, entitled him to be regarded as the leader of the
Reform. … Other able men took an active part in the
movement, but the times were not propitious, public sentiment
did not sustain them, and Congress refused any further
appropriation, although the President asked for it. As a
consequence, Competitive Examinations were everywhere
suspended, and a return made to 'pass examinations.' And this
method continued in use at Washington until July, 1883, after
the passage of the Civil Service Reform Act. … President
Hayes favored reform of the Civil Service, and strongly urged
it in his messages to Congress; yet he did things not
consistent with his professions, and Congress paid little
attention to his recommendations, and gave him no effectual
aid. But we owe it to him that an order was passed in March,
1879, enforcing the use of competitive examinations in the New
York Custom House. The entire charge of this work was given to
Mr. Burt by the Collector. … In 1880, Postmaster James
revived the competitive methods in some parts of his office.
… When the President, desiring that these examinations
should be more general and uniform, asked Congress for an
appropriation, it was refused. But, notwithstanding this,
competitive examinations continued to be held in the New York
Custom House and Post office until the passage of the Reform
Act of 1883. Feeling that more light was needed upon the
methods and progress of reform in other countries, President
Hayes had formally requested Mr. Dorman B. Eaton to visit
England for the purpose of making such inquiries. Mr. Eaton
spent several months in a careful, thorough examination; and
his report was transmitted to Congress in December, 1879, by
the President, in a message which described it as an elaborate
and comprehensive history of the whole subject. This report
was afterwards embodied in Mr. Eaton's 'Civil Service in Great
Britain.' … For this invaluable service Mr. Eaton received
no compensation from the Government, not even his personal
expenses to England having been paid. And to Mr. Eaton is due,
also, the credit of originating Civil Service Reform
Associations."
_H. Lambert,
The Progress of Civil Service Reform in the United States,
pages 6-10._
"The National Civil Service Reform League was organized at
Newport, R. I., on the 11th of August, 1881. It was the result
of a conference among members of civil service reform
associations that had spontaneously arisen in various parts of
the country for the purpose of awakening public interest in
the question, like the clubs of the Sons of Liberty among our
fathers, and the anti-slavery societies among their children.
The first act of the League was a resolution of hearty
approval of the bill then pending in Congress, known as the
Pendleton bill. Within less than two years afterward the Civil
Service law was passed in Congress by a vote in the Senate of
38 yeas to 5 nays, 33 Senators being absent, and in the House
only a week later, by a vote of 155 yeas to 47 nays, 87
members not voting. In the House the bill was put upon its
passage at once, the Speaker permitting only thirty minutes
for debate. This swift enactment of righteous law was due,
undoubtedly, to the panic of the party of administration, a
panic which saw in the disastrous result of the recent
election a demand of the country for honest politics; and it
was due also to the exulting belief of the party of opposition
that the law would essentially weaken the dominant party by
reducing its patronage. The sudden and overwhelming vote was
that of a Congress of which probably the members had very
little individual knowledge or conviction upon the subject.
But the instinct in regard to intelligent public opinion was
undoubtedly sure, and it is intelligent public opinion which
always commands the future. … The passage of the law was the
first great victory of the ten years of the reform movement.
The second is the demonstration of the complete practicability
of reform attested by the heads of the largest offices of
administration in the country. In the Treasury and Navy
departments, the New York Custom House and Post Office, and
other important custom houses and post offices, without the
least regard to the wishes or the wrath of that remarkable
class of our fellow-citizens, known as political bosses, it is
conceded by officers, wholly beyond suspicion of party
independence, that, in these chief branches of the public
service, reform is perfectly practicable and the reformed
system a great public benefit. And, although as yet these
offices are by no means thoroughly reorganized upon reform
principles, yet a quarter of the whole number of places in the
public service to which the reformed methods apply are now
included within those methods."
_G. W. Curtis,
Address at Annual Meeting of the National
Civil-Service Reform League. 1891._
CIVILIS, Revolt of.
See BATAVIANS: A. D. 69.
CIVITA-CASTELLAN A, Battle of (1798).
See FRANCE: A. D. 1798-1799(AUGUST-APRIL).
CIVITELLA, Siege of (1557).
See FRANCE: A. D. 1547-1559.
CLAIR-ON-EPTE, Treaty of.
See NORMANS: A. D. 876-911.
{478}
CLAIRVAUX, The Monastery of.
St. Bernard, "the greatest reformer of the abuses of the
monastic life, if not the greatest monk in history [A. D.
1091-1153] … revived the practice in the monastery of
Citeaux, which he first entered, and in that of Clairvaux,
which he afterwards founded, of the sternest discipline which
had been enjoined by St. Benedict. He became the ideal type of
the perfect monk. … He was not a Pope, but he was greater
than any Pope of his day, and for nearly half a century the
history of the Christian Church is the history of the
influence of one monk, the Abbot of Clairvaux."
_C. J. Stillé,
Studies in Mediæval History,
chapter 12._
"The convent of Citeaux was found too small for the number of
persons who desired to join the society which could boast of
so eminent a saint. Finding his influence beneficial, Bernard
proceeded to found a new monastery. The spot which he chose
for his purpose was in a wild and gloomy vale, formerly known
as the Valley of Wormwood. … The district pertained to the
bishopric of Langres; and here Bernard raised his far famed
abbey of Clairvaux."
_H. Stebbing,
History of Christ's Universal Church,
chapter 26._
ALSO IN:
_A. Butler,
Lives of the Saints,
volume 8._
_W. F. Hook,
Ecclesiastical Biographies,
volume 2._
_J. C. Morison,
Life and Times of St. Bernard._
See, also, CISTERCIAN ORDER.
CLANS, Highland.
"The word Clan signifies simply children or descendants, and
the clan name thus implies that the members of it are or were
supposed to be descended from a common ancestor or eponymus,
and they were distinguished from each other by their
patronymics, the use of surnames in the proper sense being
unknown among them. [See GENS, ROMAN.] … In considering the
genealogies of the Highland clans we must bear in mind that in
the early state of the tribal organisation the pedigree of the
sept or clan, and of each member of the tribe, had a very
important meaning. Their rights were derived through the
common ancestor, and their relation to him, and through him to
each other, indicated their position in the succession, as
well as their place in the allocation of the tribe land. In
such a state of society the pedigree occupied the same
position as the title-deed of the feudal system, and the
Sennachies were as much the custodiers of the rights of
families as the mere panegyrists of the clan. … During the
16th century the clans were brought into direct contact with
the Crown, and in the latter part of it serious efforts were
made by the Legislature to establish an efficient control over
them. These gave rise to the Acts of 1587 and 1594; … but
they were followed in a few years by an important Statute,
which had a powerful effect upon the position of the clans,
and led to another great change in the theory of their
descent. … The chiefs of the clans thus found themselves
compelled to defend their rights upon grounds which could
compete with the claims of their eager opponents, and to
maintain an equality of rank and prestige with them in the
Heralds' Office, which must drive them to every device
necessary to effect their purpose; and they would not hesitate
to manufacture titles to the land when they did not exist, and
to put forward spurious pedigrees better calculated to
maintain their position when a native descent had lost its
value and was too weak to serve their purpose. From this
period MS. histories of the leading Highland families began to
be compiled, in which these pretensions were advanced and
spurious charters inserted. … The form which these
pretentious genealogies took was that of making the eponymus
or male ancestor of the clan a Norwegian, Dane, or Norman, or
a cadet of some distinguished family, who succeeded to the
chiefship and to the territory of the clan by marriage with
the daughter and heiress of the last of the old Celtic line,
thus combining the advantage of a descent which could compete
with that of the great Norman families with a feudal
succession to their lands; and the new form of the clan
genealogy would have the greater tendency to assume this form
where the clan name was derived not from a personal name or
patronymic but from a personal epithet of its founder. … The
conclusion, then, to which [an] analysis of the clan pedigrees
which have been popularly accepted at different times has
brought us, is that, so far as they profess to show the origin
of the different clans, they are entirely artificial and
untrustworthy, but that the older genealogies may be accepted
as showing the descent of the clan from its eponymus or
founder, and within reasonable limits for some generations
beyond him, while the later spurious pedigrees must be
rejected altogether. It may seem surprising that such spurious
pedigrees and fabulous origins should be so readily credited
by the Clan families as genuine traditions, and receive such
prompt acceptance as the true fount from which they sprung;
but we must recollect that the fabulous history of Hector
Boece was as rapidly and universally adopted as the genuine
annals of the national history, and became rooted in those
parts of the country to which its fictitious events related as
local traditions. When Hector Boece invested the obscure
usurper Grig with the name and attributes of a fictitious
king, Gregory the Great, and connected him with the royal line
of kings, the Clan Gregor at once recognised him as their
eponymous ancestor, and their descent from him is now
implicitly believed in by all the MacGregors. It is possible,
however, from these genealogies, and from other indications,
to distribute the clans in certain groups, as having
apparently a closer connection with each other, and these
groups we hold in the main to represent the great tribes into
which the Gaelic population was divided before they became
broken up into clans. The two great tribes which possessed the
greater part of the Highlands were the Gallgaidheal or Gael in
the west, who had been under the power of the Norwegians, and
the great tribe of the Moravians, or Men of Moray, in the
Central and Eastern Highlands. To the former belong all the
clans descended of the Lords of the Isles, the Campbells and
Macleods probably representing the older inhabitants of their
respective districts; to the latter belong in the main the
clans brought in the old Irish genealogies from the kings of
Dalriada of the tribe of Lorn, among whom the old Mormaers of
Moray appear. The group containing the Clan Andres or old
Rosses, the Mackenzies and Mathesons, belong to the tribe of
Ross, the Clan Donnachy to Athole, the Clan Lawren to
Stratherne, and the Clan Pharlane to Lennox, while the group
containing the MacNabs, Clan Gregor, and Mackinnons, appear to
have emerged from Glendochart, at least to be connected with
the old Columban monasteries. The Clans, properly so called,
were thus of native origin; the surnames partly of native and
partly of foreign descent."
_W. F. Skene,
Celtic Scotland,
book 3, chapter 9 (volume 3)._
{479}
CLARENDON, The Constitutions and the Assize of.
See ENGLAND: A. D. 1162-1170.
CLARIAN ORACLE, The.
See ORACLES OF THE GREEKS.
CLARK, George Rogers, and the conquest of the Northwest.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1778-1779.
CLAUDIUS, Roman Emperor, A. D. 41-54.
Claudius II., A. D. 268-270.
CLAVERHOUSE AND THE COVENANTERS.
See SCOTLAND: A. D.1679; 1681-1689, and 1689 (JULY).
CLAY, Henry,
The war of 1812.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1810-1812.
Negotiation of the Treaty of Ghent.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1814 (DECEMBER).
The Tariff question.
See TARIFF LEGISLATION (UNITED STATES): A. D. 1816-1824,
and 1832; and UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1828-1833.
The Missouri Compromise.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1818-1821.
In the Cabinet of President John Quincy Adams.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1825-1828.
Defeat in the Presidential election.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1844.
The Compromise Measures of 1850.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1850.
CLAYBANKS AND CHARCOALS.
During the American civil war the Conservative and Radical
factions in Missouri were sometimes called Claybanks and
Charcoals.
_J. G. Nicolay and J. Hay,
Abraham Lincoln,
volume 8, page 204._
CLAYTON-BULWER TREATY, The.
See NICARAGUA: A. D. 1850.
CLEAR GRITS.
See CANADA: A. D. 1840-1867.
CLEISTHENES, Constitution of.
See ATHENS: B. C. 510-507.
CLEMENT II., Pope, A. D. 1046-1047.
Clement III., Pope, A. D. 1187-1191.
Clement IV., Pope, A. D. 1265-1268.
Clement V., Pope, A. D. 1305-1314.
Clement VI., Pope, A. D. 1342-1352.
Clement VII., Pope, A. D. 1378-1394 (Antipope at Avignon).
Clement VII., Pope, A. D. 1523-1534.
Clement VIII., Pope, A. D. 1591-1605.
Clement IX., Pope, A. D. 1667-1669.
Clement X., Pope, A. D. 1670-1676.
Clement XI., Pope, A. D. 1700-1721.
Clement XII., Pope, A. D. 1730-1740.
Clement XIII., Pope, A. D. 1758-1769.
Clement XIV., Pope, A. D. 1769-1774.
CLEOMENIC (KLEOMENIC) WAR, The.
See GREECE: B. C. 280-146.
CLEOPATRA AND CÆSAR.
See ALEXANDRIA: B. C. 48-47.
And Mark Antony.
See ROME: B. C. 31.
CLEOPATRA'S NEEDLES.
"The two obelisks known as Cleopatra's Needles were originally
set up by Thothmes III. at Heliopolis. Augustus transferred
them to Alexandria, where they remained until recently. At
present (July, 1880) one ornaments the Thames Embankment
[London] while the other is on its way to the United States of
America."
_G. Rawlinson,
History of Ancient Egypt,
chapter 20, note._
The obelisk last mentioned now stands in Central Park, New
York, having been brought over and erected by Commander
Gorringe, at the expense of the late William H. Vanderbilt.
_H. H. Gorringe,
Egyptian Obelisks._
See, also, EGYPT: ABOUT B. C. 1700-1400.
CLEPHES, King of the Lombards, A. D. 573-586.
CLERGY, Benefit of.
See BENEFIT OF CLERGY.
CLERGY RESERVES.
See CANADA: A. D. 1837.
CLERMONT.
See GERGOVIA OF THE ARVERNI.
CLERMONT, The Council of.
Speech of Pope Urban.
See CRUSADES: A. D. 1094.
CLERUCHI.
See KLERUCHS.
CLEVELAND, Grover:
First Presidential election and administration.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1884 to 1889.
Defeat in Presidential election.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1888.
Second Presidential election.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1892.
CLEVELAND:
The founding and naming of the City (1796).
See OHIO: A. D. 1786-1796.
CLICHY CLUB.
CLICHYANS, The.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1797 (SEPTEMBER).
CLIENTES, Roman.
"To [the Roman] family or household united under the control
of a living master, and the clan which originated out of the
breaking up of such households, there further belonged the
dependents or 'listeners' (clientes, from 'cluere'). This term
denoted not the guests, that is, the members of similar
circles who were temporarily sojourning in another household
than their own, and still less the slaves who were looked upon
in law as the property of the household and not as members of
it, but those individuals who, while they were not free
burgesses of any commonwealth, yet lived within one in a
condition of protected freedom. The class included refugees
who had found a reception with a foreign protector, and those
slaves in respect to whom their master had for the time being
waived the exercise of his rights, and so conferred on them
practical freedom. This relation had not properly the
character of a relation 'de jure,' like the relation of a man
to his guest or to his slave: the client remained non-free,
although good faith and use and wont alleviated in his case
the condition of non-freedom. Hence the 'listeners' of the
household (clientes) together with the slaves strictly
so-called formed the 'body of servants' ('familia') dependent
on the will of the 'burgess' ('patronus,' like 'patricius')."
_T. Mommsen,
History of Rome,
book 1, chapter 5._
ALSO IN:
_Fustel De Coulanges,
The Ancient City,
book 4, chapters 1 and 6._
CLINTON, Dewitt, and the Erie Canal.
See NEW YORK: A. D. 1817-1825.
CLINTON, George, The first Governor of New York.
See NEW YORK: A. D. 1777.
CLINTON, General Sir Henry,
and the war of the American Revolution.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
A. D. 1775 (APRIL-MAY); 1776 (JUNE), (AUGUST);
1778 (JUNE); 1778-1779; 1780 (FEBRUARY-AUGUST);
1781 (JANUARY).
CLINTONIANS AND BUCKTAILS.
See NEW YORK: A. D. 1817-1819.
CLISSAU OR CLISSOW, Battle of (1702).
See SCANDINAVIAN STATES (SWEDEN): A. D. 1701-1707.
CLIVE'S CONQUESTS AND RULE IN INDIA.
See INDIA: A. D. 1743-1752, to 1757-1772.
{480}
CLOACA MAXIMA OF ROME, The.
"Even at the present day there stands unchanged the great
sewer, the 'cloaca maxima,' the object of which, it may be
observed, was not merely to carry away the refuse of the city,
but chiefly to drain the large lake which was formed by the
Tiber between the Capitoline, Aventine and Palatine, then
extended between the Palatine and Capitoline, and reached as a
swamp as far as the district between the Quirinal and Viminal.
This work, consisting of three semicircles of immense square
blocks, which, though without mortar, have not to this day
moved a knife's breadth from one another … equalling the
pyramids in extent and massiveness, far surpasses them in the
difficulty of its execution. It is so gigantic, that the more
one examines it the more inconceivable it becomes how even a
large and powerful state could have executed it. … Whether
the cloaca maxima was actually executed by Tarquinus Priscus
or by his son Superbus is a question about which the ancients
themselves are not agreed, and respecting which true
historical criticism cannot presume to decide. But this much
may be said, that the structure must have been completed
before the city encompassed the space of the seven hills and
formed a compact whole. … But such a work cannot possibly
have been executed by the powers of a state such as Rome is
said to have been in those times."
_B. G. Niebuhr,
Lectures on the History of Rome,
lectures 5 and 8._
CLODOMIR, King of the Franks, at Orleans, A. D. 511-524.
CLONARD, Monastery of.
A great monastery founded in Meath, Ireland, by St. Finnian,
in the sixth century, "which is said to have contained no
fewer than 3,000 monks and which became a great
training-school in the monastic life." The twelve principal
disciples of Finnian were called the "Twelve Apostles of
Ireland," St. Columba being the chief.
_W. F. Skene,
Celtic Scotland,
book 2, chapter 2._
CLONTARF, Battle of.
See IRELAND: A. D. 1014.
CLONTARF MEETING, The.
See IRELAND: A. D. 1841-1848.
CLOSTER-SEVEN, Convention of.
See GERMANY: A. D. 1757 (JULY-DECEMBER), and 1758.
CLOTHAIRE I., King of the Franks, A. D. 511-561.
Clothaire II., King of the Franks (Neustria), A. D. 584-628;
(Austrasia), 613-622; Burgundy, 613-628.
Clothaire III., King of the Franks (Neustria and Burgundy),
A. D. 660-670.
Clothaire IV., King of the Franks
(Austrasia), A. D. 717-719.
CLOVIS, King of the Franks, A. D. 481-511.
Clovis II., King of the Franks (Neustria), A. D. 638-654;
(Austrasia), 650-654; (Burgundy), 638-654.
Clovis III., King of the Franks (Neustria and Burgundy),
A. D. 691-695.
CLUBS, Ancient Greek.
See LESCHE, HETÆRIES, ERANI and THIASI.
CLUBS: The Beef Steak.
"In 1735 there was formed in the capital [London] the
celebrated Beef Steak Club, or 'Sublime Society of Beef
Steaks,' as its members always desired to be designated. The
origin of this club is singular, and was in this wise. Rich,
a celebrated harlequin, and patentee of Covent Garden Theatre
in the time of George II., while engaged during the daytime
in directing and controlling the arrangements of the stage
scenery was often visited by his friends, of whom he had a
very numerous circle. One day, while the Earl of Peterborough
was present, Rich felt the pangs of hunger so keenly that he
cooked a beef-steak and invited the earl to partake of it,
which he did, relishing it so greatly that he came again,
bringing some friends with him on purpose to taste the same
fare. In process of time the beef-steak dinner became an
institution. Some of the chief wits and greatest men of the
nation, to the number of 24, formed themselves into a
society, and took as their motto 'Steaks and Liberty.' Among
its early celebrities were Bubb Doddington, Aaron Hill, Dr.
Hoadley, Richard Glover, the two Colmans, Garrick and John
Beard. The number of the 'steaks' remained at its original
limit until 1785, when it was augmented by one, in order to
secure the admission of the Heir-Apparent."
_W. C. Sydney,
England and the English in the 18th Century,
chapter 6 (volume 1)._
CLUBS: The Brothers'.
In 1711, a political club which took this name was founded in
London by Henry St. John, afterwards Lord Bolingbroke, to
counteract the "extravagance of the Kit Cat" and "the
drunkenness of the Beefsteak." "This society … continued for
some time to restrain the outburst of those elements of
disunion with which the Harley ministry was so rife. To be a
member of this club was esteemed a distinguished honour. They
addressed each other as 'brother'; and we find their ladies in
their correspondence claiming to be enrolled as sisters. The
members of this club were the Dukes of Ormond, Shrewsbury,
Beaufort; the Earls of Oxford, Arran, Jersey, Orrery,
Bathurst; Lords Harley, Duplin, Masham; Sir Robert Raymond,
Sir William Windham, Colonel Hill, Colonel Desney, St. John,
Granville, Arbuthnot, Prior, Swift, and Friend."
_G. W. Cooke,
Memoirs of Bolingbroke,
volume 1, chapter 10._
CLUBS:
The Clichy.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1797 (SEPTEMBER).
CLUBS:
The French Revolutionary.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1790.
CLUBS:
The Hampden.
See ENGLAND: A. D. 1816-1820.
CLUBS:
Dr. Johnson's.
"During his literary career Dr. Johnson assisted in the
foundation of no fewer than three clubs, each of which was
fully deserving of the name. In 1749 he established a club at
a house in Ivy Lane, Paternoster Row, and only the year before
he died he drafted a code of rules for a club, of which the
members should hold their meetings, thrice in each week, at
the Essex Head in the Strand; an establishment which was then
kept by a former servant of his old friends the Thrales. Those
members who failed to put in an appearance at the club were
required to forfeit the sum of two pence. There is an
interesting account of one of the meetings of the Ivy Lane
Club, at which Johnson presided, in Sir John Hawkins's
biography of him. … The next club with which Johnson became
acquainted was the most influential of them all, and was the
one which is now chiefly remembered in connection with his
name. It was, however, a plant of slow and gradual growth. The
first meeting of its members, who exulted in the designation
of 'The Club,' was held in 1763 at a hostelry called the
Turk's Head, situated in Gerard Street, Soho.
{481}
'The Club' retained that title until after the funeral of Garrick,
when it was always known as 'The Literary Club.' As its
numbers were small and limited, the admission to it was an
honour greatly coveted in political, legal, and literary
circles. 'The Club' originated with Sir Joshua Reynolds, then
President of the Royal Academy, who at first restricted its
numbers to nine, these being Reynolds himself, Samuel Johnson,
Edmund Burke, Dr. Christopher Nugent (an accomplished Roman
Catholic physician), Bennet Langton, Topham Beauclerk, Sir
John Hawkins, Oliver Goldsmith, and M. Chamier, Secretary in
the War Office. The members assembled every Monday evening
punctually at seven o'clock, and, having partaken of an
inexpensive supper, conversed on literary, scientific and
artistic topics till the clock indicated the hour of retiring.
The numbers of the Literary Club were subsequently augmented
by the enrolment of Garrick, Edward Gibbon, Lord Charlemont,
Sir William Jones, the eminent Oriental linguist, and James
Boswell, of biographical fame. Others were admitted from time
to time, until in 1791 it numbered 35. In December, 1772, the
day of meeting was altered to Friday, and the weekly suppers
were commuted to fortnightly dinners during the sitting of
parliament. Owing to the conversion of the original tavern
into a private house, the club moved, in 1783, first to
Prince's, in Sackville Street; next to Le Telier's in Dover
Street; then, in 1792, to Parsloe's in St. James's Street; and
lastly, in February, 1799, to the Thatched House Tavern in St.
James's Street, where it remained until long after 1848."
_W. C. Sydney,
England and the English in the 18th Century,
chapter 6 (volume 1)._
CLUBS:
The King's Head.
See ENGLAND: A. D. 1678-1679.
CLUBS:
The Kit Cat.
"The Kit Cat Club was instituted in 1699. Its most illustrious
members were Congreve, Prior, Sir John Vanbrugh, the Earl of
Orrery, and Lord Somers; but the members becoming more
numerous, the most violent party obtained the majority, and
the Earl and his friends were less regular in their
attendance. … The Kit Cat took its name from a pastry-cook
[Christopher Katt], whose pies formed a regular dish at the
suppers of the club."
_G. W. Cooke,
Memoirs of Bolingbroke,
volume 1, chapter 10, foot-note._
ALSO IN:
_J. Timbs,
Clubs and Club Life in London,
pages 47-53._
_W. C. Sydney,
England and the English in the 18th century,
chapter 6._
CLUBS:
The Mohocks.
See MOHOCKS.
CLUBS:
The October and the March.
"The October Club came first into importance in the latest
years of Anne, although it had existed since the last decade
of the 17th century. The stout Tory squires met together in
the 'Bell' Tavern, in narrow, dirty King Street, Westminster,
to drink October ale, under Dahl's portrait of Queen Anne, and
to trouble with their fierce uncompromising Jacobitism the
fluctuating purposes of Harley and the crafty counsels of St.
John. The genius of Swift tempered their hot zeal with the
cool air of his 'advice.' Then the wilder spirits seceded, and
formed the March Club, which retained all the angry Jacobitism
of the parent body, but lost all its importance."
_J. McCarthy,
History of the Four Georges,
volume 1, chapter 5._
ALSO IN:
_W. C. Sydney,
England and the English in the 18th century,
chapter 6._
CLUBMEN.
See ENGLAND: A. D. 1645 (JULY-AUGUST).
CLUGNY, OR CLUNY, The Monastery of.
The famous monastery of Clugny, or Cluny, was founded A. D.
910, at Cluny, near Macon, in Burgundy, by the abbot Count
Berno, who had previously established and ruled the monastery
of Gigni, near Lyons. It was founded under the auspices and at
the expense of William, Count of Auvergne, commonly called
William the Pious. "In the disastrous times which followed the
death of Charles the Great and the failure of his scheme to
reorganize the Western world under a single head, the
discipline of the religious houses fell with everything else;
fell, not perhaps quite so soon, yet by the end of the ninth
century had fallen almost as low as it was possible to fall.
But here symptoms of a moral reaction showed themselves
earlier than elsewhere. The revival dates from 910, the year
of the foundation of the Monastery of Clugny in Burgundy,
which was destined to exercise an enormous influence on the
future of the Church. While matters at Rome were at their
worst, there were silently training there the men who should
inaugurate a new state of things [notably Hildebrand,
afterwards Pope Gregory VII.] Already, so one said at the
time, the whole house of the Church was filled with the sweet
savour of the ointment there poured out. It followed that
wherever in any religious house there were any aspirations
after a higher life, any longings for reformation, that house
affiliated itself to Clugny; thus beginning to constitute a
Congregation, that is a cluster of religious houses, scattered
it might be over all Christendom, but owning one rule,
acknowledging the superiority of one mother house, and
receiving its abbots and priors from thence. In the Clugnian
Congregation, for example, there were about two thousand
houses in the middle of the twelfth century—these mostly in
France; the Abbot, or Arch-Abbot, as he was called, of Clugny,
being a kind of Pope of Monasticism, and for a long time, the
Pope excepted, quite the most influential Church-ruler in
Christendom."
_R. C, Trench,
Lectures on Mediæval Church History,
chapter 8._
ALSO IN:
_S. R. Maitland,
The Dark Ages,
chapters 18-26._
_A. F. Villemain,
Life of Gregory, VII.
book 1._
_S. R. Gardiner and J. B. Mullinger,
Introduction to the Study of English History,
chapter 3, section 8._
E. F. Henderson,
Select Historical Documents of the Middle Ages,
book 3, number 4.
CLUNIAC MONKS.
See CLUGNY.
CLUSIUM, Battle of (B. C. 83).
See ROME: B. C. 88-78.
CLYPEUS, The.
The round iron shield of the Romans.
_E. Guhl and W. Koner,
Life of the Greeks and Romans,
section 107._
CNOSSUS.
See CRETE.
CNUT.
See CANUTE.
CNYDUS, Battle of (B. C. 394).
See GREECE: B. C. 399-387.
COAHUILTECAN FAMILY, The.
See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: COAHUILTECAN FAMILY.
COAJIRO, The.
See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: COAJIRO.
COALITION MINISTRY OF FOX AND LORD NORTH.
See ENGLAND: A. D. 1782-1783; and 1783-1787.
COALITIONS AGAINST NAPOLEON.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1805 (JANUARY-APRIL);
{482}
COALITIONS AGAINST NAPOLEON:
GERMANY: A. D. 1812-1813, and 1813 (MAY-AUGUST),
and FRANCE: A. D. 1814-1815.
COALITIONS AGAINST REVOLUTIONARY FRANCE.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1793 (MARCH-SEPTEMBER);
1798-1799 (AUGUST-APRIL).
COBBLER'S LEAGUE, The.
See GERMANY: A. D. 1524-1525.
COBDEN, Richard, and the Free Trade movement.
See TARIFF LEGISLATION (ENGLAND):
A. D. 1836-1839; 1842; 1845-1846;
and TARIFF LEGISLATION (FRANCE): A. D. 1853-1860.
COBDEN-CHEVALIER COMMERCIAL TREATY, The.
See TARIFF LEGISLATION (FRANCE): A. D. 1853-1860.
COBURG, Origination of the Dukedom of.
See SAXONY: A. D. 1180-1553.
COCCIUM.
An important Roman town in Britain, the remains of which are
supposed to be found at Ribchester.
_T. Wright,
Celt, Roman and Saxon,
chapter 5._
COCHIBO, The.
See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: ANDESIANS.
COCHIQUIMA, The.
See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: ANDESIANS.
COCO TRIBES.
See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: GUCK OR COCO GROUP.
COCONOONS, The.
See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: MARIPOSAN FAMILY.
COCOSATES, The.
See AQUITAINE, THE ANCIENT TRIBES.
COD, Cape: A. D. 1602.
Named by Bartholomew Gosnold.
See AMERICA: A. D. 1602-1605.
COD, Cape: A. D. 1605.
Called Cap Blanc by Champlain.
See CANADA (NEW FRANCE): A. D. 1603-1605.
COD, Cape: A. D. 1609.
Named New Holland by Hudson.
See AMERICA: A. D. 1609.
----------COD, Cape: End----------
CODE NAPOLEON, The.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1801-1804.
CODES.
See LAWS, &c.
CODS, The.
See NETHERLANDS (HOLLAND): A. D. 1345-1354;
and 1482-1493.
CŒLE-SYRIA.
"Hollow Syria"—the long, broad, fertile and beautiful valley
which lies between the Libanus and Antilibanus ranges of
mountains, and is watered by the Orontes and the Leontes or
Littany rivers. "Few places in the world are more remarkable,
or have a more stirring history, than this wonderful vale."
_G. Rawlinson,
Five Great Monarchies: Babylonia,
chapter 1._
CŒNOBIUM.
CŒNOBITES.
"The word 'Cœnobium' is equivalent to 'monasterium' in the
later sense of that word. Cassian distinguishes the word thus.
'Monasterium,' he says, 'may be the dwelling of a single monk,
Cœnobium must be of several; the former word,' he adds,
'expressed only the place, the latter the manner of living.'"
_I. G. Smith,
Christian Monasticism,
page 40._
ALSO IN:
_J. Bingham,
Antiquity of the Christian Church,
book 7, chapter 2, section 3._
COFAN, The.
See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: ANDESIANS.
COGNOMEN, NOMEN, PRÆNOMEN.
See GENS, ROMAN.
COHORTS.
See LEGION, ROMAN.
COIMBRA: Early history.
See PORTUGAL: EARLY HISTORY.
COLBERT, The System of.
Colbertism.
See TARIFF LEGISLATION: A. D. 1664-1667 (FRANCE).
Also, FRANCE: A. D. 1661-1683.
COLCHESTER, Origin of.
When Cæsar first opened to the Romans some knowledge of
Britain, the site of modern Colchester was occupied by an
"oppidum," or fastness of the Trinobantes, which the Romans
called Camulodunum. A little later, Camulodunum acquired some
renown as the royal town of the Trinobantine king, or prince,
Cunobelin,—the Cymbeline of Shakespeare. It was after the
death of Cunobelin, and when his son Caractacus was king,
during the reign of the emperor Claudius, that the Romans
began their actual conquest of Britain. Claudius was present,
in person, when Camulodunum was taken, and he founded there
the first Roman colony in the island, calling it Claudiana
Victricensis. That name was too cumbrous to be preserved; but
the colonial character of the town caused it to be called
Colonia-ceaster, the Colonia fortress,—abbreviated, in time,
to Colne-ceaster, and, finally, to Colchester. The colony was
destroyed by the Iceni, at the time of their rising, under
Boadicea, but was reconstituted and grew into an important
Roman town.
_C. L. Cutts,
Colchester,
chapters 1-6._
COLCHESTER: A. D. 1648.
The Roundhead siege and capture.
On the collapse of the Royalist rising of 1648, which produced
what is called the Second Civil War of the Puritan
revolutionary period, Colchester received the "wreck of the
insurrection," so far as London and the surrounding country
had lately been threatened by it. Troops of cavaliers, under
Sir Charles Lucas and Lord Capel, having collected in the
town, were surrounded and beleaguered there by Fairfax, and
held out against their besiegers from June until late in
August. "After two months of the most desperate resistance,
Colchester, conquered by famine and sedition, at last
surrendered (Aug. 27); and the next day a court-martial
condemned to death three of its bravest, defenders, Sir
Charles Lucas, Sir George Lisle, and Sir Bernard Gascoign, as
an example, it was said, to future rebels who might be tempted
to imitate them. In vain did the other prisoners, Lord Capel
at their head, entreat Fairfax to suspend the execution of the
sentence, or at least that they should all undergo it, since
all were alike guilty of the offence of these three. Fairfax,
excited by the long struggle, or rather intimidated by Ireton,
made no answer, and the condemned officers were ordered to be
shot on the spot." Gascoign, however, was reprieved at the
last moment.
_F. P. Guizot,
History of the English Revolution,
book 8._
ALSO IN:
_C. R. Markham,
Life of the Great Lord Fairfax,
chapters 26-27._
----------COLCHESTER: End----------
COLCHIANS, The.
"The Colchians appear to have been in part independent, in
part subject to Persia. Their true home was evidently that
tract of country [on the Euxine] about the river Phasis. …
Here they first became known to the commercial Greeks, whose
early dealings in this quarter seem to have given rise to the
poetic legend of the Argonauts. The limits of Colchis varied
at different times, but the natural bounds were never greatly
departed from. They were the Euxine on the east, the Caucasus
on the north, the mountain range which forms the watershed
between the Phasis (Rion) and the Cyrus (Kur) on the west, and
the high ground between Batoum and Kars (the Moschian
mountains) on the south. … The most interesting question
connected with the Colchians is that connected with their
nationality. They were a black race dwelling in the midst of
whites, and in a country which does not tend to make its
inhabitants dark complexioned. That they were comparatively
recent immigrants from a hotter climate seems therefore to be
certain. The notion entertained by Herodotus of their Egyptian
extraction appears to have been a conjecture of his own. …
Perhaps the modern theory that the Colchians were immigrants
from India is entitled to some share of our attention. … If
the true Colchi were a colony of blacks, they must have become
gradually absorbed in the white population proper to the
country."
_G. Rawlinson,
History of Herodotus,
book 7, appendix. 1._
See, also, ALARODIANS.
{483}
COLD HARBOR, First and second battles of.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1862
(JUNE-JULY: VIRGINIA),
and 1864 (MAY-JUNE: VIRGINIA).
COLDEN, Cadwallader, The lieutenant-governorship of.
See NEW YORK: A. D. 1773-1774 to 1775 (APRIL-SEPTEMBER).
COLIGNY, Admiral de,
The religious wars in France.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1560-1563 to 1572.
American Colonies.
See FLORIDA: A. D. 1562-1563, 1564-1565, and 1565.
COLLAS, The.
See PERU: THE ABORIGINAL INHABITANTS.
COLLEGIA.
Numerous associations called "collegia" existed in ancient
Rome, having various purposes. Some were religious
associations (collegia templorum); some were organizations of
clerks or scribes; some were guilds of workmen; some appear to
have had a political character, although the political clubs
were more commonly called "sodalitates."
_G. Long,
Decline of the Roman Republic,
volume 3, chapter 11._
COLLINE GATE, D'HERBOIS Battle of the (B. C. 83).
See ROME: B. C. 88-78.
COLLOT, and the French Revolutionary Committee of Public Safety.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1793 (JUNE-OCTOBER), to
1794-1795 (JULY-APRIL).
COLMAR, Cession to France.
See GERMANY: A. D. 1648.
COLMAR, Battle of (1674).
See NETHERLANDS (HOLLAND): A. D. 1674-1678.
COLOGNE: Origin.
See COLONIA AGRIPPINENSIS.
COLOGNE: The Electorate.
See GERMANY: A. D. 1125-1152.
COLOGNE: In the Hanseatic League.
See HANSA TOWNS.
----------COLOGNE: End----------
COLOMAN.
See KOLOMAN.
COLOMBEY-NOUILLY, OR BORNY, Battle of.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1870 (JULY-AUGUST).
COLOMBIA, United States of.
See COLOMBIAN STATES.
COLOMBIAN STATES, The.
This general title will be used, for convenience, to cover,
for considerable periods of their history, the territory now
divided between the republics of Venezuela, Ecuador, and the
United States of Colombia (formerly New Granada), the latter
embracing the Isthmus of Panama. The history of these
countries being for a long time substantially identical in the
main, and only distinguishable at intervals, it seems to be
difficult to do otherwise than hold it, somewhat arbitrarily,
under one heading, until the several currents of events part
company distinctly.
COLOMBIAN STATES:
The aboriginal inhabitants.
See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: CHIBCHA.
COLOMBIAN STATES: A. D. 1536-1731.
The Spanish conquest of New Granada.
Creation of the new vice-royalty.
"For some time after the disastrous failure of the attempt of
Las Casas to found a colony on the Pearl coast of Cumaná, the
northern portion of Spanish South America, from the Orinoco
westwards, is almost lost to history. The powers working for
good had signally failed, and the powers of evil seemed to
have it almost all their own way. … Lying behind these
extensive coasts to the westward in the interior, is the
region to which the Spaniards gave the name of the kingdom of
New Granada, the name being applied in consequence of a
resemblance which was detected between the plain around Santa
Fe de Bogotá and the royal Vega which adjoins the historical
Moorish capital. New Granada was a most extensive region,
comprising as it did the entire country from sea to sea in the
north, lying between 60° and 78° longitude, and from 6° to 15°
of latitude." The Spanish conquest of New Granada was achieved
in the main by Ximenes de Quesada, who invaded the country
from the north, although the governor of Quito, Benalcazar,
entered it likewise from the south. "Ximenes de Quesada came
to America about the year 1535, in the suite of the Governor
of Santa Marta, by whom he was selected to lead an expedition
against the Chibchas, who dwelt on the plain of Bogotá and
around the headwaters of the Magdalena. Setting out in April
1536 with 800 men, he succeeded in pushing his way through the
forest and across innumerable streams. He contrived to subsist
for eight months, during which he traversed 450 miles,
enduring meanwhile the very utmost exertions and privations
that human nature could support. … When he had surmounted
the natural difficulties in his path, his remaining force
consisted of but 166 men, with 60 horses. On March 2d, 1537,
he resumed his advance; and, as usually happened, the mere
sight of his horsemen terrified the Indians into submission.
At Tunja, according to the Spanish historians, he was
treacherously attacked whilst resting in the palace of one of
the chiefs. … In any case, the chief was taken, and, after
much slaughter, Ximenes found himself the absolute possessor
of immense riches, one golden lantern alone being valued at
6,000 ducats. From Tunja Ximenes marched upon the sacred city
of Iraca, where two Spanish soldiers accidentally set fire to
the great Temple of the Sun. The result was that, after a
conflagration which lasted several days, both the city and the
temple were utterly destroyed. … On the 9th of August, 1538,
was founded the city of Bogotá. Ximenes was soon here joined
by Frederman, a subject of the Emperor Charles V., with 160
soldiers, with whom he had been engaged in conquering
Venezuela; and likewise by Benalcazar, the conqueror of Quito.
This latter warrior had crossed the continent in triumph at
the head of 150 Spaniards, together with a multitude of native
followers."
{484}
In the intrigues and jealous rivalries between the three which
followed, Ximenes de Quesada was pushed aside, at first, and
even fined and banished by the Emperor; but in the end he
triumphed and was appointed marshal of the kingdom of New
Granada. "On his return to Bogotá in 1551, he, to his credit,
exhibited an energy in protecting the people of the country
against their invaders, equal to that which he had displayed
in effecting their conquest. Ten years later he commanded a
force organized to repel an attack from the ruler of
Venezuela; shortly after which he was appointed Adelantado of
the Kingdom of New Granada. He devoted three years, and an
enormous amount of toil and money, to an absurd expedition in
quest of the fabled El Dorado [see EL DORADO]." Quesada died
of leprosy in 1572. Until 1718 the kingdom of New Granada
remained subject to the Viceroy of Peru. In that year the
Viceroyalty of Peru "was divided into two portions, the
northern region, from the frontiers of Mexico as far as to the
Orinoco, and on the Southern Sea from Veragua to Tumbez,
forming the Viceroyalty of New Granada, of which the capital
was Bogota. To this region, likewise, was assigned the inland
province of Quito. The Viceroyalty of New Granada, in fact,
comprised what now [1884] forms the Republic of Venezuela, the
United States of Columbia, and the Republic of Equador." In
1731 "it was deemed expedient to detach from the Viceroyalty
of New Granada the provinces of Venezuela, Maracaibo, Varinas,
Cumaná, and Spanish Guyana, and to form them into a separate
Captain-Generalship, the residence of the ruler being fixed at
Caracas in Venezuela."
_R. G. Watson,
Spanish and Portuguese South America,
volume 2, chapter 9._
COLOMBIAN STATES: A. D. 1810-1819.
The struggle for independence and its achievement.
Miranda and Simon Bolivar.
The Earthquake in Venezuela.
The founding of the Republic of Colombia.
"The Colombian States occupy the first place in the history of
South American independence. … The Colombian States were
first in the struggle because they were in many ways nearest
to Europe. It was through them that intercourse between the
Pacific coast and Europe was mainly carried on: Porto Bello
and Carthagena were thus the main inlets of European ideas.
Besides, there was here constant communication with the West
Indies; and government, population and wealth were less
centralised than in the more important viceroyalties of Mexico
and Peru. The Indians of New Granada had always been a
restless race, and the increase of taxation which was resorted
to for the defence of the coast in the war with Great Britain
(1777-1783) produced discontents among the whole population,
both red and white. … The French Revolution, coming soon
afterwards, was another link in the chain of causes. … In
Venezuela, which the industry of its inhabitants had raised
from a poor mission district to a thriving commercial
province, the progress of modern ideas was yet faster. … The
conquest of Trinidad by England in 1797 gave a new turn to the
movement. … It was from Trinidad that the first attempts
were made to excite the Spanish colonists to revolution.
Francis Miranda, by whom this was done, was a type of many
other men to whom is due the credit of leading the South
American peoples to independence. He was a native of Caraccas,
and when a young man had held a French commission in the
American War of Independence. On his return to Venezuela in
1783 he found the populace, as we have already mentioned, in
an excited state, and finding that he was suspected of designs
for liberating his own country, he went to Europe, and again
attached himself to the French service. … Being proscribed
by the Directory, he turned to England, and … when the war
[between England and Spain] broke out afresh in 1804, and
England sent out an expedition to invade Buenos Ayres, Miranda
believed that his opportunity was come. In 1806, by English
and American aid, he sailed from Trinidad and landed with 500
men on the coast of Venezuela. But the 'Colombian Army,' as
Miranda named it, met with a cool reception among the people.
His utter inability to meet the Spanish forces compelled him
to retreat to Trinidad, nor did he reappear on the continent
until after the revolution of 1810. The principal inhabitants
of Caraccas had been meditating the formation of a provisional
government, on the model of the juntas of Spain, ever since
the abdication of the king [see SPAIN: A. D. 1807-1808]; but
it was not until 1810, when the final victory of Napoleon in
Spain appeared certain, that they made a decisive movement in
favour of independence. Spain, for the time at least, was now
blotted out of the list of nations. Acting, therefore, in the
name of Ferdinand VII., they deposed the Spanish colonial
officers, and elected a supreme junta or council. Similar
juntas were soon established in New Granada, at Santa Fe,
Quito, Carthagena, and the other chief towns of the
Viceroyalty … and the fortune of the patriot party in new
Granada, from their close neighbourhood, was closely linked
with that of the Venezuelans. The Regency of Cadiz, grasping
for itself all the rights and powers of the Spanish nation,
determined to reduce the colonists to subjection. They
therefore declared the port of Caraccas in a state of
blockade, as the British government had done in the previous
generation with that of Boston; and, as in the case of Boston,
this resolution of the Regency amounted to a declaration of
war. … A congress of all the provinces of Venezuela now met
at Caraccas, and published a declaration of independence on
the 5th of July, 1811, and those of Mexico and New Granada
soon followed. … The powers of nature seemed to conspire
with the tyranny of Europe to destroy the young South American
Republic. On the 26th of March, 1812, Venezuela was visited by
a fearful earthquake, which destroyed the capital [Caraccas]
and several other towns, together with 20,000 people, and many
others perished of hunger and in other ways. This day was Holy
Thursday; and the superstitious people, prompted by their
priests, believed this awful visitation to be a judgment from
God for their revolt. The Spanish troops, under Monteverde,
now began a fresh attack on the disquieted Venezuelans.
Miranda, who on his return had been placed at the head of the
army, had in the meantime overrun New Granada, and laid the
foundation of the future United States of Colombia. But the
face of affairs was changed by the news of the earthquake.
Smitten with despair, his soldiers now deserted to the
royalists; he lost ground everywhere; the fortress of Puerto
Cavello, commanded by the great Bolivar, then a colonel in the
service of the Republic, was surrendered through treachery.
{485}
On the 25th of June Miranda himself capitulated, with all his
forces; and Venezuela fell once more into the hands of the
royalists. Miranda himself was arrested, in defiance of the
terms of the surrender, and perished in an European dungeon,
as Toussaint had perished a few years before. … Monteverde
emptied the prisons of their occupants, and filled them with
the families of the principal citizens of the republic; and
Caraccas became the scene of a Reign of Terror. After
Miranda's capitulation, Bolivar had gone to New Granada, which
still maintained its independence, and entered into the
service of that republic. Bolivar now reappeared in a new
character, and earned for himself a reputation in the history
of the new world which up to a certain point ranks with that
of Washington. Simon Bolivar, like Miranda, was a native of
Caraccas. … Like Miranda, he had to some extent learned
modern ideas by visiting the old world and the United States.
When the cruelties of Monteverde had made Venezuela ripe for a
new revolt, Bolivar reappeared on his native soil at the head
of a small body of troops from the adjacent republic. The
successes which he gained so incensed the royalists that they
refused quarter to their prisoners, and war to the death
('guerra a muerte') was proclaimed. All obstacles disappeared
before Bolivar's generalship, and on the 4th of August, 1813,
he publicly entered Caraccas, the fortress of Puerto Cavello
being now the only one in the possession of the royalists.
Bolivar was hailed with the title of the liberator of
Venezuela. He was willing to see the republic restored; but
the inhabitants very properly feared to trust at this time to
anything but a military government, and vested the supreme
power in him as dictator (1814). The event indeed proved the
necessity of a military government. The defeated royalists
raised fresh troops, many thousands of whom were negro slaves,
and overran the whole country; Bolivar was beaten at La
Puerta, and forced to take refuge a second time in New
Granada; and the capital fell again into the hands of the
royalists. … The War of Independence had been undertaken
against the Regency; and had Ferdinand, on his restoration to
the throne in 1814, shown any signs of conciliation, he might
yet have recovered his American provinces. But the government
persisted in its course of absolute repression. … New
Granada, where Bolivar was general in chief of the forces, was
the only part where the insurrection survived; and in 1815 a
fleet containing 10,000 men under General Morillo arrived off
Carthagena, its principal port. … Carthagena was only
provisioned for a short time: and Bolivar, overpowered by
numbers, quitted the soil of the continent and went to the
West Indies to seek help to relieve Carthagena, and maintain
the contest for liberty." Obtaining assistance in Hayti, he
fitted out an expedition "which sailed in April from the port
of Aux Cayes. Bolivar landed near Cumana, in the eastern
extremity of Venezuela, and from this point he gradually
advanced westwards, gaining strength by slow degrees. In the
meantime, after a siege of 116 days, Carthagena surrendered;
5,000 of its inhabitants had perished of hunger. Both
provinces were now in Morillo's hands. Fancying himself
completely master of the country, he proceeded to wreak a
terrible vengeance on the Granadines. But at the news of
Bolivar's reappearance, though yet at a distance, the face of
affairs changed. … His successes in the year 1817 were sure,
though slow: in 1818, after he had been joined by European
volunteers, they were brilliant. Bolivar beat the royalists in
one pitched battle after another [Sagamoso, July 1, 1819, and
Pantano de Bargas, July 25]: and at length a decisive victory
was won by his lieutenant, Santander, at Boyaca, in New
Granada, August 1, 1819. This battle, in which some hundreds
of British and French auxiliaries fought on the side of
liberty, completely freed the two countries from the yoke of
Spain."
_E. J. Payne,
History of European Colonies,
chapter 16._
ALSO IN:
_C. S. Cochrane,
Journal of a Residence in Colombia,
volume 1, chapters 6-8._
_H. Brownell,
North and South America Illustrated,
pages 316-334._
_C. Cushing,
Simon Bolivar
(North American Review, January, 1829, and January, 1830)._
_H. L. V. D. Holstein,
Memoirs of Bolivar,
chapters 3-20._
_Major Flintner,
History of the Revolution of Caraccas._
COLOMBIAN STATES: A. D. 1819-1830.
The glory and the fall of Bolivar.
Dissolution of the Colombian Federation.
Tyranny under the Liberator, and monarchical schemes.
Three days after the battle of Boyaca, Bolivar entered Bogota
in triumph. "A congress met in December and decided that
Venezuela and Nueva Granada should form one republic, to be
called Colombia. Morillo departed for Europe in 1820, and the
victory gained by Bolivar at Carabobo on June 24, 1821,
decided the fate of Colombia. In the following January General
Bolivar assembled an army at Popayan to drive the Spaniards
out of the province of Quito. His second in command, General
Sucre, led an advanced guard, which was reinforced by a
contingent of volunteers from Peru, under Santa Cruz. The
Spanish General Ramirez was entirely defeated in the battle of
Pichincha, and Quito was incorporated with the new republic of
Colombia."
_C. R. Markham,
Colonial History of South America
(Narrative and Critical History of America,
volume 8, chapter 5)._
"The provinces of New Granada and Venezuela, together with the
Presidency of Quito, now sent delegates to the convention of
Cucuta, in 1821, and there decreed the union of the three
countries as a single state by the name of the Republic of
Colombia. The first Colombian federal constitution was
concocted by the united wisdom of the delegates; and the
result might easily have been foreseen. It was a farrago of
crude and heterogeneous ideas. Some of its features were
imitated from the American political system, some from the
English, some from the French. … Bolivar of course became
President: and the Republic had need of him. The task of
liberation was not yet completed. Carthagena, and many other
strong places, remained in Spanish hands. Bolivar reduced
these one by one, and the second decisive victory of Carabobo,
in 1822, finally secured Colombian freedom. The English claim
the chief share in the battle of Carabobo: for the British
legion alone carried the main Spanish position, losing in the
feat two-thirds of its numbers. The war now fast drew to its
close. The republic was able to contest with the invaders the
dominion of the sea: General Padilla, on the 23rd of July,
1823, totally destroyed the Spanish fleet: and the Spanish
commander finally capitulated at Puerto Cavello in December.
{486}
All these hard-won successes were mainly owing to the bravery
and resolution of Bolivar. Bolivar deserves to the full the
reputation of an able and patriotic soldier. He was now set
free … to render important services to the rest of South
America: and among the heroes of independence perhaps his name
will always stand first. But Bolivar the statesman was a man
very different from Bolivar the general. He was alternately
timid and arbitrary. He was indeed afraid to touch the
problems of statesmanship which awaited him: but instead of
leading the Colombian people through independence to liberty,
he stubbornly set his face against all measures of political
or social reform. His fall may be said to have begun with the
moment when his military triumphs were complete. The
disaffection to the constitution of the leading people in
Venezuela and Ecuador [the new name given to the old province
of Quito, indicating its position at the equator] in 1826 and
1827, was favoured by the Provincial governors, Paez and
Mosquera; and Bolivar, instead of resisting the disintegration
of the state, openly favoured the military dictatorships which
Paez and Mosquera established. This policy foreshadowed the
reign of absolutism in New Granada itself. Bolivar … had now
become not only the constitutional head of the Colombian
federation, but also the military head of the Peruvian
republics [see PERU: A. D. 1820-1826, 1825-1826, and
1826-1876]: and there can be no doubt that he intended the
Colombian constitution to be reduced to the Peruvian model. As
a first step towards reuniting all the South American nations
under a military government, Paez, beyond reasonable doubt,
with Bolivar's connivance, proclaimed the independence of
Venezuela, April 30th, 1826. This practically broke up the
Colombian federation: and the destruction of the constitution,
so far as it regarded New Granada itself, soon followed.
Bolivar had already resorted to the usual devices of military
tyranny. The terrorism of Sbirri, arbitrary arrests, the
assumption of additional executive powers, and, finally, the
suppression of the vice-presidency, all pointed one way. …
At length, after the practical secession of Venezuela and
Ecuador under their military rulers, Congress decreed a
summons for a Convention, which met at Ocaña in March, 1828.
… The liberals, who were bent on electoral reform and
decentralization, were paralyzed by the violent bearing of the
Bolivian leaders: and Bolivar quartered himself in the
neighbourhood, and threatened the Convention at the head of an
army of 3,000 veterans. He did not, however, resort to open
force. Instead of this, he ordered his party to recede from
the Convention: and this left the Convention without the means
of making a quorum. From this moment the designs of Bolivar
were unmistakable. The dissolution of the Convention, and the
appointment of Bolivar as Dictator, by a junta of notables,
followed as a matter of course; and by the 'Organic decree' of
August 1828, Bolivar assumed the absolute sovereignty of
Colombia. A reign of brute force now followed: but the triumph
of Bolivar was only ephemeral. … The Federation was gone:
and it became a question of securing military rule in the
separate provinces. A portentous change now occurred in
Ecuador. The democratic party under Flores triumphed over the
Bolivians under Mosquera: and Paez assured his chief that no
help was to be expected from Venezuela. At the Convention of
Bogota, in 1830, though it was packed with Bolivar's nominees,
it became clear that the liberator's star had set at last. …
This convention refused to vote him President. Bolivar now
withdrew from public life: and a few months later, December
17, 1830, he died broken-hearted at San Pedro, near Santa
Martha. Bolivar, though a patriot as regarded the struggle
with Spain, was in the end a traitor to his fellow citizens.
Recent discoveries leave little doubt that he intended to
found a monarchy on the ruins of the Spanish dominion. England
and France, both at this time strongly conservative powers,
were in favour of such a scheme; and a Prince of the House of
Bourbon had already been nominated to be Bolivar's successor."
_E. J. Payne,
History of European Colonies,
chapter 16._
"About one month before his death, General Bolivar, the
so-called 'Liberator' of South America, wrote a letter to the
late General Flores of Ecuador, in which the following
remarkable passages occur, which have never before been
published in the English language: 'I have been in power for
nearly 20 years, from which I have gathered only a few
definite results: 1. America, for us, is ungovernable. 2. He
who dedicates his services to a revolution, plows the sea. 3.
The only thing that can be done in America, is to emigrate. 4.
This country will inevitably fall into the hands of the
unbridled rabble, and little by little become a prey to petty
tyrants of all colors and races.'"
_F. Hassaurek,
Four Years among Spanish-Americans,
chapter 12._
ALSO IN:
_J. M. Spence,
The Land of Bolivar,
volume 1, chapter 7._
_E. B. Eastwick,
Venezuela,
chapter 11 (Battle of Carabobo)._
COLOMBIAN STATES: A. D. 1821-1854.
Emancipation of slaves.
The abolition of slavery in the three republics of New
Granada, Venezuela and Ecuador was initiated in the Republic
of Colombia, while it embraced them all. "By a law of the 21st
of July, 1821, it was provided that the children of slaves,
born after its publication in the principal cities of the
republic, should be free. … Certain revenues were
appropriated to the creation of an emancipation fund in each
district. … Aside from a certain bungling looseness with
which almost all Spanish-American laws are drawn, it [the act
of 1821] contains some very sensible regulations, and served
to lay a solid foundation for the work of emancipation, since
completed by the three republics which then constituted
Colombia." In Ecuador the completion of emancipation was
reached in 1854.
_F. Hassaurek,
Four Years among Spanish-Americans,
pages 330-333._
COLOMBIAN STATES: A. D. 1826.
The Congress of Panama.
"The proposition for assembling this body emanated from
Bolivar, who, in 1823, as president of Colombia, invited the
governments of Mexico, Peru, Chile, and Buenos Ayres, to form
a confederacy of the Spanish-American states, by means of
plenipotentiaries to be convened, in the spirit of classic
analogy, in the isthmus of Panama. To this invitation the
governments of Peru and Mexico promptly acceded, Chile and
Buenos Ayres neglected or declined to be represented in the
assembly, for the reasons which we shall presently state.
{487}
This magnificent idea of a second Achæan League seized on the
imaginations of many speculative and of some practical men in
America and Europe, as destined to create a new era in the
political history of the world by originating a purer system
of public law, and almost realizing Bernardin de Saint
Pierre's league of the modern nations. In its original shape,
it was professedly a plan of a belligerent nature, having for
its main object to combine the revolutionized states against
the common enemy. But time was required for carrying it into
effect. Meanwhile the project, magnified by the course of
events, began to change its complexion. The United States were
invited to participate in the Congress, so as to form an
American policy, and a rallying point for American interests,
in opposition to those of Europe; and, after the discussions
which are so familiar to all, the government of the United
States accepted the invitation, and despatched its
representatives to Panama. … In the interval, between the
proposal of the plan and its execution, Central America was
added to the family of American nations, and agreed to take
part in the Congress. At length, after many delays, this
modern Amphictyonic Council, consisting of plenipotentiaries
from Colombia, Central America, Peru and Mexico, assembled in
the city of Panama, June 22, 1826, and in a session of three
weeks concluded various treaties; one of perpetual union,
league, and confederation; others relating to the contingents
which the confederates should contribute for the common
defence; and another for the annual meeting of the Congress in
time of war. Having thus promptly despatched their private
affairs, the assembly adjourned to Tacubaya in Mexico, on
account of the insalubrious climate of Panama, before the
delegation of the United States had arrived; since when it has
justly acquired the epithet of 'introuvable,' and probably
never will reassemble in its original form. Is there not a
secret history of all this? Why did Chile and Buenos Ayres
refuse to participate in the Congress? Why has it now vanished
from the face of the earth? The answer given in South America
is, that Bolivar proposed the assembly as part of a grand
scheme of ambition,—ascribed to him by the republican party,
and not without some countenance from his own conduct,—for
establishing a military empire to embrace the whole of
Spanish-America, or at least an empire uniting Colombia and
the two Perus. To give the color of plausibility to the
projected assembly, the United States were invited to be
represented; and it is said Bolivar did not expect, nor very
graciously receive, their acceptance of the invitation."
_C. Cushing,
Bolivar and the Bolivian Constitution
(North American Review, January, 1830)._
In the United States "no question, in its day, excited more
heat and intemperate discussion, or more feeling between a
President and Senate, than this proposed mission to the
Congress of American nations at Panama; and no heated question
ever cooled off and died out so suddenly and completely. …
Though long since sunk into oblivion, and its name almost
forgotten, it was a master subject on the political theatre
during its day; and gave rise to questions of national and of
constitutional law, and of national policy, the importance of
which survive the occasion from which they sprung; and the
solution of which (as then solved), may be some guide to
future action, if similar questions again occur. Besides the
grave questions to which the subject gave rise, the subject
itself became one of unusual and painful excitement. It
agitated the people, made a violent debate in the two Houses
of Congress, inflamed the passions of parties and individuals,
raised a tempest before which Congress bent, made bad feeling
between the President [John Quincy Adams] and the Senate; and
led to the duel between Mr. Randolph and Mr. Clay. It was an
administration measure, and pressed by all the means known to
an administration. It was evidently relied upon as a means of
acting upon the people—as a popular movement which might have
the effect of turning the tide which was then running high
against Mr. Adams and Mr. Clay. … Now, the chief benefit to
be derived from its retrospect—and that indeed is a real
one—is a view of the firmness with which was then maintained,
by a minority, the old policy of the United States, to avoid
entangling alliances and interference with the affairs of
other nations;—and the exposition of the Monroe doctrine,
from one so competent to give it as Mr. Adams."
_T. H. Benton,
Thirty Years' View,
chapter 25 (volume 1)._
ALSO IN:
_G. F. Tucker,
The Monroe Doctrine,
chapter 3._
_C. Schurz,
Life of Henry Clay,
chapter 11 (volume 1)._
_International American Conference (of 1889):
Reports and Discussions,
volume 4, History appendix._
COLOMBIAN STATES: A. D. 1830-1886.
Revolutions and civil wars.
The New Confederation (1863) of the United States of Colombia.
The Republic of Colombia.
"New Granada was obliged in 1830 to recognize the disruption
of Colombia, which had long been an accomplished fact. From
this date the three states have a separate history, which is
very much of a piece, though Venezuela was for some years
preserved from the intestine commotions which have from the
beginning distracted New Granada and Ecuador. … Mosquera,
who had won the election which decided the fate of Bolivar did
not long occupy the presidency. … Mosquera was soon driven
out by General Urdanete, who was now at the head of the
conservative or Bolivian party. But after the death of their
leader, this party suffered a natural relapse, and Urdanete
was overthrown early in 1831. The history of New Granada may
be said really to commence with the presidency of Bolivar's
old rival and companion in arms, Santander, who was elected
under the constitution of 1832. … His presidency … was a
comparatively bright episode: and with its termination in 1836
begins the dark and troubled period which the Granadines
emphatically designate by the name of the 'Twelve Years.' The
scanty measure of liberalism which Santander had dealt out to
the people was now withdrawn. Marquez, his successor, was a
sceptic in politics and a man of infirm will. … Now began
the ascendancy of clericalism, of absolutist oligarchy, and of
government by the gallows. This same system continued under
President Herran, who was elected in 1841; and then appeared
on the scene, as his chief minister, the famous Dr. Ospina,"
who brought back the Jesuits and curtailed the constitution.
Liberalism again gained ground, electing General Lopez to the
presidency in 1849 find once more expelling the Jesuits. In
April 1854 a radical revolution overturned the constitution
and President Obando was declared dictator. The conservatives
rallied, however, and regained possession of the government
before the close of the year.
{488}
In 1857 Ospina entered on the presidency and civil war soon
raged throughout the country. "After a hundred fights the
revolution triumphed in July, 1861. … Mosquera, who was now
in possession of the field, was a true pupil of Bolivar's, and
he thought the time had come for reviving Bolivar's plans. …
In 1863 Mosquera's new Federal Constitution was proclaimed.
Henceforth each State [of the eight federal States into which
the 44 provinces of New Granada were divided] became
practically independent under its own President; and to mark
the change the title of the nation was altered. At first it
was called the Granadine Confederation: but it afterwards took
the name of Colombia [the United States of Colombia], which
had formerly been the title of the larger Confederation under
Bolivar. Among the most important facts in recent Colombian
history is the independence of the State of Panama, which has
become of great importance through the construction of the
railway connecting the port of Colon, or Aspinwall, as it was
named by the Americans, on the Atlantic, with that of Panama
on the Pacific. This rail way was opened in 1855; and in the
same year Panama declared itself a sovereign state. The State
of Panama, after many years of conservative domination, has
now perhaps the most democratic government in the world. The
President is elected for two years only, and is incapable of
re-election. Panama has had many revolutions of its own; nor
has the new Federal Constitution solved all the difficulties
of the Granadine government. In 1867 Mosquera was obliged to
have recourse to a coup d'état, and declared himself dictator,
but he was soon afterwards arrested; a conservative revolution
took place; Mosquera was banished; and Gutierrez became
President. The liberals, however, came back the next year,
under Ponce. Since 1874 [the date of writing being 1879],
General Perez has been President of Colombia."
_E. J. Payne,
History of European Colonies,
chapter 16._
"The federal Constitution of 1863 was clearly formed on the
model of the Constitution of the United States of America. It
remained in force until 1886, when it was superseded by a law
which gave the State a centralized organization and named it
the 'Republic of Colombia.'"
_Constitution of the Republic of Colombia, with
Historical Introduction by B. Moses (Supplement to Annals
of American Academy of Political and Social Science,
January, 1893)._
COLOMBIAN STATES: A. D. 1885-1891.
The Revolution of 1885.
The constitution of 1886.
The presidency of Dr. Nuñez.
"Cartagena is virtually the centre of political power in
Colombia, for it is the residence of President Nuñez, a
dictator without the name. Before the revolution of 1885,
during which Colon was burned and the Panama Railway protected
by American marines, the States enjoyed a large measure of
home rule. The insurgents who were defeated in that struggle
were Radicals and advanced Liberals. They were making a stand
against centralized government, and they were overthrown. When
the followers of Dr. Nuñez were victorious, they transformed
the constitutional system of the country. … Dr. Nuñez, who
had entered public life as a Radical agitator, swung
completely around the circle. As the leader of the National
party he became the ally of Clericalism, and the defender of
ecclesiastical privilege. Being a man of unrivalled capacity
for directing public affairs and enforcing party discipline,
he has established a highly centralized military government
without incurring unpopularity by remaining constantly in
sight and openly exercising authority. … Strong government
has not been without its advantages; but the system can hardly
be considered either republican or democratic. … Of all the
travesties of popular government which have been witnessed in
Spanish America, the political play enacted in Bogotá and
Cartagena is the most grotesque. Dr. Nuñez is known as the
titular President of the Republic. His practice is to go to
the capital at the beginning of the presidential term, and
when he has taken the oath of office to remain there a few
weeks until all matters of policy and discipline are arranged
among his followers. He then retires to his country-seat in
Cartagena, leaving the vice-President to bear the burdens of
state."
_I. N. Ford,
Tropical America,
chapter 12._
COLOMBIAN STATES: A. D. 1892.
Re-election of President Nuñez.
In 1892, Dr. Rafael Nuñez was elected President for a fourth
term, the term of office being six years.
_Statesman's Year-book, 1893._
----------COLOMBIAN STATES: End----------
COLONI.
See DEDITITIUS.
COLONIA AGRIPPINENSIS.
Agrippina, the daughter of Germanicus and the mother of Nero,
founded on the Rhine the Colonia Agrippinensis (modern
Cologne)—probably the only colony of Roman veterans ever
established under female auspices. The site had been
previously occupied by a village of the Ubii. "It is curious
that this abnormal colony has, alone, of all its kindred
foundations, retained to the present day the name of Colonia."
_C. Merivale,
History of the Romans,
chapter 50._
COLONIA, URUGUAY.
See ARGENTINE REPUBLIC: A. D. 1580-1777.
COLONIZATION SOCIETY, The American.
See SLAVERY, Negro: A. D. 1816-1847.
COLONNA, The.
See Roman: 13TH-14TH CENTURIES,
and A. D. 1347-1354;
also PAPACY: A. D. 1294-1348.
COLONUS, The.
See SLAVERY, MEDIÆVAL: GERMANY.
COLORADO: A. D. 1803-1848.
Acquisition of the eastern part in the Louisiana Purchase and
the western part from Mexico.
See LOUISIANA: A. D. 1798-1803; and MEXICO: A. D. 1848.
COLORADO: A. D. 1806-1876.
Early explorations.
Gold discoveries.
Territorial and state organization.
The first American explorer to penetrate to the mountains of
Colorado was Lieutenant Zebulon Pike, sent out with a small
party by General Wilkinson, in 1806. He approached within 15
miles of the Rocky Mountain Peak which bears his name. A more
extensive official exploration of the country was made in 1819
by Major Stephen H. Long, whose report upon the whole region
drained by the Missouri, Arkansas and Platte rivers and their
tributaries was unfavorable and discouraging. Fremont's
explorations, which touched Colorado, were made in 1843-44.
"The only persons encountered in the Rocky mountains by
Frémont at this time were the few remaining traders and their
former employees, now their colonists, who lived with their
Mexican and Indian wives and half-breed children in a
primitive manner of life, usually under the protection of some
defensive structure called a fort.
{489}
The first American families in Colorado were a part of the
Mormon battalion of 1846, who, with their wives and children,
resided at Pueblo from September to the spring and summer of
the following year, when they joined the Mormon emigration to
Salt Lake. … Measures were taken early in March, 1847, to
select locations for two United States forts between the
Missouri and the Rocky mountains, the sites selected being
those now occupied by Kearney City and Fort Laramie. … Up to
1853 Colorado's scant population still lived in or near some
defensive establishment, and had been decreasing rather than
increasing for the past decade, owing to the hostility of the
Indians." In 1858 the first organized searching or prospecting
for gold in the region was begun by a party of Cherokee
Indians and whites. Other parties soon followed; the search
succeeded; and the Pike's Peak mining region was speedily
swarming with eager adventurers. In the fall of 1858 two rival
towns were laid out on the opposite sides of Cherry Creek.
They were named respectively Auraria and Denver. The struggle
for existence between them was bitter, but brief. Auraria
succumbed and Denver survived, to become the metropolis of the
Mountains. The first attempt at political organization was
made at the Auraria settlement, in November, 1858, and took
the form of a provisional territorial organization, under the
name of the Territory of Jefferson; but the provisional
government did not succeed in establishing its authority,
opposed as it was by conflicting claims to territorial
jurisdiction on the part of Utah, New Mexico, Kansas,
Nebraska, and Dakota. At length, on the 28th of February,
1861, an act of Congress became law, by which the proposed new
territory was duly created, but not bearing the name of
Jefferson. "The name of Colorado was given to it at the
suggestion of the man selected for its first governor. …
'Some,' says Gilpin, 'wanted it called Jefferson, some
Arcadia. … I said the people have to a great extent named
the States after the great rivers of the country … and the
great feature of that country is the great Colorado river.'"
Remaining in the territorial condition until July 1876,
Colorado was then admitted to the Union as a state.
_H. H. Bancroft,
History of the Pacific States,
volume 20: Colorado, chapter 2-6._
----------COLORADO: End----------
COLOSSEUM, OR COLISEUM, The.
"The Flavian Amphitheatre, or Colosseum, was built by
Vespasian and Titus in the lowest part of the valley between
the Cælean and Esquiline Hills, which was then occupied by a
large artificial pool for naval fights ('Naumachia'). … The
exact date of the commencement of the Colosseum is doubtful,
but it was opened for use in A. D. 80. … As built by the
Flavian Emperors the upper galleries ('mœniani') were of wood,
and these, as in the case of the Circus Maximus, at many times
caught fire from lightning and other causes, and did much
damage to the stone-work of the building."
_J. H. Middleton,
Ancient Rome in 1885,
chapter 10._
ALSO IN:
_J. H. Parker,
Archaeology of Rome,
part 7._
_R. Burn,
Rome and the Campagna,
chapter 9, part 2._
See, also, ROME: A. D. 70-96.
COLOSSUS OF RHODES.
See RHODES.
COLUMBAN CHURCH, The.
The church, or the organization of Christianity, in Scotland,
which resulted from the labors of the Irish missionary,
Columba, in the sixth century, and which spread from the great
monastery that he founded on the little island of Iona, or Ia,
or Hii, near the greater island of Mull. The church of
Columba, "not only for a time embraced within its fold the
whole of Scotland north of the Firths of Forth and Clyde, and
was for a century and a half the national church of Scotland,
but was destined to give to the Angles of Northumbria the same
form of Christianity for a period of thirty years." It
represented some differences from the Roman church which two
centuries of isolation had produced in the Irish church, from
which it sprang.
_W. F. Skene,
Celtic Scotland,
book 2, chapter 3._
ALSO IN:
_Count de Montalembert,
The Monks of the West,
book 9 (volume 3)._
_G. F. Maclear,
Conversion of the West: The Celts,
chapters 7-10._
See CHRISTIANITY: 5TH-9TH CENTURIES, and 597-800.
COLUMBIA, The District of.
See WASHINGTON (CITY): A. D. 1791.
COLUMBIA, The District of: A. D. 1850.
Abolition of slave-trade in.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1850.
COLUMBIA, The District of: A. D. 1867.
Extension of suffrage to the Negroes.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1867 (JANUARY).
----------COLUMBIA, The District of: End----------
COLUMBIA, S. C., The burning of.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1865
(FEBRUARY-MARCH: THE CAROLINAS).
COLUMBIA, Tennessee., Engagement at.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
A. D. 1864 (NOVEMBER: TENNESSEE).
COLUMBIAN EXPOSITION, The World's.
See CHICAGO: A. D. 1892-1893.
also _C. D. Arnold, Author H. D. Higinbotham,
Official Views Of The World's Columbian Exposition,
COLUMBIAN ORDER, The.
See TAMMANY SOCIETY.
COLUMBUS, Voyages of.
See AMERICA: A. D.1484-1492; 1492; 1493-1496; 1498-1505.
COMANA.
Comana, an ancient city of Cappadocia, on the river Sarus
(Sihoon) was the seat of a priesthood, in the temple of Enyo,
or Bellona, so venerated, so wealthy and so powerful that the
chief priest of Comana counted among the great Asiatic
dignitaries in the time of Cæsar.
_G. Long,
Decline of the Roman Republic,
volume 5, chapter 22._
COMANCHES, The.
See AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
SNOSHONEAN FAMILY, and KIOWAN FAMILY,
and APACHE GROUP.
COMANS, The.
See KIPCHAKS; PATCHINAKS; COSSACKS,
and HUNGARY: A. D. 1114-1301.
COMBAT, Judicial.
See WAGER OF BATTLE.
COMES LITTORIS SAXONICI.
See SAXON SHORE, COUNT OF.
COMES PALATII.
See PALATINE COUNTS.
COMITATUS.
COMITES.
GESITHS.
THEGNS.
Comitatus is the name given by Tacitus to a body of warlike
companions among the ancient Germans "who attached themselves
in the closest manner to the chieftain of their choice. They
were in many cases the sons of the nobles who were ambitious
of renown or of a perfect education in arms. The princeps
provided for them horses, arms, and such rough equipment as
they wanted. These and plentiful entertainment were accepted
instead of wages. In time of war the comites fought for their
chief, at once his defenders and the rivals of his prowess.
… In the times of forced and unwelcome rest they were
thoroughly idle; they cared neither for farming nor for
hunting, but spent the time in feasting and in sleep. …
{490}
Like the Frank king, the Anglo-Saxon king seems to have
entered on the full possession of what had been the right of
the elective principes [to nominate and maintain a comitatus,
to which he could give territory and political power]: but the
very principle of the comitatus had undergone a change from
what it was in the time of Tacitus, when it reappears in our
historians, and it seems to have had in England a peculiar
development and a bearing of special importance on the
constitution. In Tacitus the comites are the personal
following of the princeps; they live in his house, are
maintained by his gifts, fight for him in the field. If there
is little difference between companions and servants, it is
because civilization has not yet introduced voluntary
helplessness. … Now the king, the perpetual princeps and
representative of the race, conveys to his personal following
public dignity and importance. His gesiths and thegns are
among the great and wise men of the land. The right of having
such dependents is not restricted to him, but the gesith of
the ealdorman or bishop is simply a retainer, a pupil or a
ward: the free household servants of the ceorl are in a
certain sense his gesiths also. But the gesiths of the king
are his guard and private council; they may be endowed by him
from the folkland and admitted by him to the witenagemot. …
The Danish huscarls of Canute are a late reproduction of what
the familia of the Northumbrian kings must have been in the
eighth century. … The development of the comitatus into a
territorial nobility seems to be a feature peculiar to English
history. … The Lombard gasind, and the Bavarian sindman were
originally the same thing as the Anglo-Saxon gesith. But they
sank into the general mass of vassalage as it grew up in the
ninth and tenth centuries. … Closely connected with the
gesith is the thegn; so closely that it is scarcely possible
to see the difference except in the nature of the employment.
The thegn seems to be primarily the warrior gesith; in this
idea Alfred uses the word as translating the 'miles' of Bede.
He is probably the gesith who has a particular military duty
in his master's service: But he also appears as a landowner.
The ceorl who has acquired five hides of land, and a special
appointment in the king's hall, with other judicial rights,
becomes thegn-worthy. … And from this point, the time of
Athelstan, the gesith is lost sight of, except very
occasionally; the more important members of the class having
become thegns, and the lesser sort sinking into the ranks of
mere servants to the king. The class of thegns now widens; on
the one hand the name is given to all who possess the proper
quantity of land, whether or no they stand in the old relation
to the king; on the other the remains of the old nobility
place themselves in the king's service. The name of thegn
covers the whole class which after the Conquest appears under
the name of knights, with the same qualification in land and
nearly the same obligations. It also carried so much of
nobility as is implied in hereditary privilege. The thegn-born
are contrasted with the ceorl-born; and are perhaps much the
same as the gesithcund. … Under the name of thegn are
included however various grades of dignity. The class of
king's thegns is distinguished from that of the medial thegns,
and from a residuum that falls in rank below the latter. …
The very name, like that of the gesith, has different senses
in different ages and kingdoms; but the original idea of
military service runs through all the meanings of thegn, as
that of personal association is traceable in all the
applications of gesith."
_William Stubbs,
Constitutional History of England,
chapter 2, section 14
and chapter 6, sections 63-65._
ALSO IN:
_T. Hodgkin,
Italy and Her Invaders,
book 4, chapter 7._
See, also, COUNT AND DUKE.
COMITIA CENTURIATA.
"Under the original constitution of Rome, the patricians alone
… enjoyed political rights in the state, but at the same
time they were forced to bear the whole burden of political
duties. In these last were included, for example, the tilling
of the king's fields, the construction of public works and
buildings; … citizens alone, also, were liable to service in
the army. … The political burdens, especially those
connected with the army, grew heavier, naturally, as the power
of Rome increased, and it was seen to be an injustice that one
part of the people, and that, too, the smaller part, should
alone feel their weight. This led to the first important
modification of the Roman constitution, which was made even
before the close of the regal period. According to tradition,
its author was the king Servius Tullius, and its general
object was to make all men who held land in the state liable
to military service. It thus conferred no political rights on
the plebeians, but assigned to them their share of political
duties. … According to tradition, all the freeholders in the
city between the ages of 17 and 60, with some exceptions, were
divided, without distinction as to birth, into five classes
('classis,' 'a summoning,' 'calo') for service in the infantry
according to the size of their estates. Those who were
excepted served as horsemen. These were selected from among
the very richest men in the state. … Of the five classes of
infantry, the first contained the richest men. … The members
of the first class were required to come to the battle array
in complete armor, while less was demanded of the other four.
Each class was subdivided into centuries or bodies of a
hundred men each, for convenience in arranging the army. There
were in all 193 centuries. … This absolute number and this
apportionment were continued, as the population increased and
the distribution of wealth altered, until the name century
came to have a purely conventional meaning, even if it had any
other in the beginning. Henceforth a careful census was taken
every fourth year, and all freeholders were made subject to
the 'tributum.' The arrangement of the people thus described
was primarily made simply for military purposes. …
Gradually, however, this organization came to have political
significance, until finally these men, got together for what
is the chief political duty in a primitive state, enjoyed what
political privileges there were. … In the end, this
'exercitus' of Servius Tullius formed another popular
assembly, the Comitia Centuriata, which supplanted the comitia
curiata entirely, except in matters connected with the
religion of the family and very soon of purely formal
significance. This organization, therefore, became of the
highest civil importance, and was continued for civil purposes
long after the army was marshalled on quite another plan."
_A. Tighe,
Development of the Roman Constitution,
chapter 4._
ALSO IN:
_W. Ihne,
History of Rome,
book 6, chapter 1_
_W. Ramsay,
Manual of Roman Antiquity,
chapter 4._
{491}
COMITIA CURIATA.
"In the beginning, any member of any one of the clans which
were included in the three original Roman tribes, was a Roman
citizen. So, too, were his children born in lawful wedlock,
and those who were adopted by him according to the forms of
law. Illegitimate children, on the other hand, were excluded
from the number of citizens. These earliest Romans called
themselves patricians (patricii, children of their fathers'),
for some reason about which we cannot be sure. Perhaps it was
in order to distinguish themselves from their illegitimate
kinsmen and from such other people as lived about, having no
pretense of blood connection with them, and who were,
therefore, incapable of contracting lawful marriages,
according to the patrician's view of this religious ceremony.
The patricians … were grouped together in families, clans
and tribes, partly on the basis of blood relationship, but
chiefly on the basis of common religious worship. Besides
these groups, there was still another in the state, the curia,
or 'ward,' which stood between the clan and the tribe. In the
earliest times, tradition said, ten families formed a clan,
ten clans a curia and ten curiæ a tribe. These numbers, if
they ever had any historical existence, could not have
sustained themselves for any length of time in the case of the
clans and families, for such organisms of necessity would
increase and decrease quite irregularly. About the nature of
the curia we have practically no direct information. The
organization had become a mere name at an early period in the
city's history. Whether the members of a curia thought of
themselves as having closer kinship with one another than with
members of other curiæ is not clear. We know, however, that
the curiæ were definite political sub-divisions of the city,
perhaps like modern wards, and that each curia had a common
religious worship for its members' participation. Thus much,
at any rate, is significant, because it has to do with the
form of Rome's primitive popular assembly. When the king
wanted to harangue the people ('populus,' cf. 'populor,' 'to
devastate') he called them to a 'contio' (compounded of 'co'
and 'venio'). But if he wanted to propose to them action which
implied a change in the organic law of the state, he summoned
them to a comitia (compounded of 'con' and 'eo'). To this the
name comitia curiata was given, because its members voted by
curiæ. Each curia had one vote, the character of which was
determined by a majority of its members, and a majority of the
curiæ decided the matter for the comitia."
_A. Tighe,
Development of the Roman Constitution,
chapter 3._
ALSO IN:
_T. Mommsen,
History of Rome,
book 1, chapter 5._
_F. De Coulanges,
The Ancient City,
book 3, chapter 1,
and book 4 chapter 1._
See, also, COMITIA CENTURIATA, and CONTIONES.
COMITIA TRIBUTA, The.
See ROME: B. C. 472-471.
COMMAGENE, Kingdom of.
A district of northern Syria, between Cilicia and the
Euphrates, which acquired independence during the disorders
which broke up the empire of the Seleucidæ, and was a separate
kingdom during the last century B. C. It was afterwards made a
Roman province. Its capital was Samosata.
COMMENDATION.
See BENEFICIUM
COMMERCIUM.
See MUNICIPIUM.
COMMITTEE OF PUBLIC SAFETY,
The French Revolutionary.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1793 (MARCH-JUNE),
and (JUNE-OCTOBER).
COMMITTEE ON THE CONDUCT OF THE WAR, The.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
A. D. 1861-1862 (DECEMBER-MATCH: VIRGINIA).
COMMODUS, Roman Emperor, A. D. 180-192.
COMMON LAW, English.
"The municipal law of England, or the rule of civil conduct
prescribed to the inhabitants of this kingdom, may with
sufficient propriety be divided into two kinds; the 'lex non
scripta,' the unwritten or common law; and the 'lex scripta,'
the written or statute law. The 'lex non scripta,' or
unwritten law, includes not only general customs, or the
common law properly so called, but also the particular customs
of certain parts of the kingdom; and likewise those particular
laws that are by custom observed only in certain courts and
jurisdictions. When I call these parts of our law 'leges non
scriptre,' I would not be understood as if all those laws were
at present merely oral, or communicated from the former ages
to the present solely by word of mouth. … But, with us at
present, the monuments and evidences of our legal customs are
contained in the records of the several courts of justice, in
books of reports and judicial decisions, and in the treatises
of learned sages of the profession, preserved and handed down
to us from the times of highest antiquity. However, I
therefore style these parts of our law 'leges non scriptre,'
because their original institution and authority are not set
down in writing, as Acts of Parliament are, but they receive
their binding power, and the force of laws, by long and
immemorial usage, and by their universal reception throughout
the kingdom."
_Sir W. Blackstone,
Commentaries on the Laws of England.
introduction, section 3._
ALSO IN:
_H. S. Maine,
Ancient Law,
chapter 1._
_J. N. Pomeroy,
Introduction to Municipal Law,
sections 37-42._
COMMON LOT, OR COMMON LIFE, Brethren of the.
See BRETHREN OF THE COMMON LOT.
"COMMON SENSE" (Paine's Pamphlet),
The influence of.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1776 (JANUARY-JUNE).
COMMONS, The.
See ESTATES, THE THREE.
COMMONS, House of.
See PARLIAMENT, THE ENGLISH,
and KNIGHTS OF THE SHIRE.
COMMONWEALTH OF ENGLAND, Establishment of the.
See ENGLAND: A. D. 1649 (FEBRUARY).
COMMUNE, The.
The commonalty; the commons. In feudal usage, the term
signified, as defined by Littré, the body of the bourgeois or
burghers of a town who had received a charter which gave them
rights of self-government. "In France the communal
constitution was during this period (12th century) encouraged,
although not very heartily, by Lewis VI., who saw in it one
means of fettering the action of the barons and bishops and
securing to himself the support of a strong portion of his
people. In some cases the commune of France is, like the
guild, a voluntary association, but its objects are from the
first more distinctly political. In some parts of the kingdom
the towns had risen against their lords in the latter half of
the eleventh century, and had retained the fruits of their
hard-won victories.
{492}
In others, they possessed, in the
remaining fragments of the Karolingian constitution, some
organisation that formed a basis for new liberties. The great
number of charters granted in the twelfth century shows that
the policy of encouraging the third estate was in full sway in
the royal councils, and the king by ready recognition of the
popular rights gained the affections of the people to an
extent which has few parallels in French history. The French
charters are in both style and substance very different from
the English. The liberties which are bestowed are for the most
part the same, exemption from arbitrary taxation, the right to
local jurisdiction, the privilege of enfranchising the villein
who has been for a year and a day received within the walls,
and the power of electing the officers. But whilst all the
English charters contain a confirmation of free and good
customs, the French are filled with an enumeration of bad
ones. … The English have an ancient local constitution the
members of which are the recipients of the new grant, and
guilds of at least sufficient antiquity to render their
confirmation typical of the freedom now guaranteed; French
communia is a new body which, by the action of a sworn
confederacy, has wrung from its oppressors a deliverance from
hereditary bondage. … The commune lacks too the ancient
element of festive religious or mercantile association which
is so conspicuous in the history of the guild. The idea of the
latter is English, that of the former is French or Gallic. Yet
notwithstanding these differences, the substantial identity of
the privileges secured by these charters seems to prove the
existence of much international sympathy. The ancient
liberties of the English were not unintelligible to the
townsmen of Normandy; the rising freedom of the German cities
roused a corresponding ambition in the towns of Flanders; and
the struggles of the Italian municipalities awoke the energies
of the cities of Provence. All took different ways to win the
same liberties. … The German Hansa may have been derived
from England; the communa of London was certainly derived from
France. … The communa of London, and of those other English
towns which in the twelfth century aimed at such a
constitution, was the old English guild in a new French garb:
it was the ancient association, but directed to the attainment
of municipal rather than mercantile privileges."
_William Stubbs,
Constitutional History of England,
chapter 11._
"Oppression and insurrection were not the sole origin of the
communes. … Two causes, quite distinct from feudal
oppression, viz., Roman traditions and Christian sentiments,
had their share in the formation of the communes and in the
beneficial results thereof. The Roman municipal regimen, which
is described in M. Guizot's 'Essais sur l'Histoire de France'
(1st Essay, pages 1-44), [also in 'History of Civilization,' volume
2, lecture 2] did not every where perish with the Empire; it
kept its footing in a great number of towns, especially in
those of Southern Gaul."
_F. P. Guizot,
Popular History of France,
chapter 19._
ALSO IN:
_Sir J. Stephen,
Lectures on the History of France,
lecture 5._
See FRANCE: A. D. 1070-1125;
also, CURIA, MUNICIPAL,
and GUILDS OF FLANDERS.
COMMUNE, The Flemish.
See GUILDS OF FLANDERS.
COMMUNE OF PARIS,
The Revolutionary, of 1792.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1792 (AUGUST).
The rebellion of the.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1871 (MARCH-MAY).
----------COMMUNE OF PARIS: End----------
COMMUNE, The Russian.
See MIR.
COMMUNE, The Swiss.
See SWITZERLAND: A. D. 1848-1890.
COMMUNEROS, The.
See SPAIN: A. D. 1814-1827.
COMNENIAN DYNASTY.
The dynasty of Byzantine emperors founded, A. D. 1081, by
Alexius Comnenos, and consisting of Alexius I., John II.,
Manuel 1., Alexius II., and Andronicus I., who was murdered A.
D. 1185.
See CONSTANTINOPLE: A. D. 1081.
COMPAGNACCI, The.
See FLORENCE: A. D. 1490-1498.
COMPASS, Introduction of the Mariner's.
"It is perhaps impossible to ascertain the epoch when the
polarity of the magnet was first known in Europe. The common
opinion which ascribes its discovery to a citizen of Amalfi in
the 14th century, is undoubtedly erroneous. Guiot de Provins,
a French poet who lived about the year 1200, or, at the
latest, under St. Louis, describes it in the most unequivocal
language. James de Vitry, a bishop in Palestine, before the
middle of the 13th century, and Guido Guinizzelli, an Italian
poet of the same time, are equally explicit. The French, as
well as Italians, claim the discovery as their own; but
whether it were due to either of these nations, or rather
learned from their intercourse with the Saracens, is not
easily to be ascertained. … It is a singular circumstance,
and only to be explained by the obstinacy with which men are
apt to reject improvements, that the magnetic needle was not
generally adopted in navigation till very long after the
discovery of its properties, and even after their peculiar
importance had been perceived. The writers of the 13th
century, who mention the polarity of the needle, mention also
its use in navigation; yet Capmany has found no distinct proof
of its employment till 1403, and does not believe that it was
frequently on board Mediterranean ships at the latter part of
the preceding age."
_H. Hallam,
The Middle Ages,
chapter 9, part 2, with note._
"Both Chaucer, the English, and Barbour, the Scottish, poet,
allude familiarly to the compass in the latter part of the
14th century."
_G. L. Craik,
History of British Commerce,
volume 1, page 138._
"We have no certain information of the directive tendency of
the natural magnet being known earlier than the middle or end
of the 11th century (in Europe, of course). … That it was
known at this date and its practical value recognized, is
shown by a passage from an Icelandic historian, quoted by
Hanstien in his treatise of Terrestrial Magnetism. In this
extract an expedition from Norway to Iceland in the year 868
is described; and it is stated that three ravens were taken as
guides, for, adds the historian, 'in those times seamen had no
loadstone in the northern countries.' This history was written
about the year A. D. 1068, and the allusion I have quoted
obviously shows that the author was aware of natural magnets
having been employed as a compass. At the same time it fixes a
limit of the discovery in northern countries. We find no
mention of artificial magnets being so employed till about a
century later."
_Sir W. Thompson,
quoted by R. F. Burton in Ultima Thule,
volume 1, page 312._
{493}
COMPIEGNE: Capture of the Maid of Orleans (1430).
See FRANCE. A. D. 1429-1431.
COMPOUND HOUSEHOLDER, The.
See ENGLAND: A. D. 1865-1868.
COMPROMISE, The Crittenden.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1860 (DECEMBER).
COMPROMISE, The Flemish, of 1565.
See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1562-1566.
COMPROMISE, The Missouri.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1818-1821.
COMPROMISE MEASURES OF 1850, The.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1850.
COMPROMISE TARIFF OF 1833, The.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1828-1833.
COMPURGATION.
Among the Teutonic and other peoples, in early times, one
accused of a crime might clear himself by his own oath,
supported by the oaths of certain compurgators, who bore
witness to his trustworthiness.
See WAGER OF LAW.
COMSTOCK LODE, Discovery of the.
See NEVADA: A. D. 1848-1864.
COMUM, Battle of (B. C. 196).
See ROME: B. C. 295-191.
CONCIONES, The Roman.
See CONTIONES, THE.
CONCON, Battle of (1891).
See CHILE: A. D. 1885-1891.
CONCORD.
Beginning of the War of the American Revolution.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1775 (APRIL).
CONCORDAT OF BOLOGNA, The.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1515-1518.
CONCORDAT OF NAPOLEON, The.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1801-1804.
CONCORDAT OF 1813, The.
See PAPACY: A. D. 1808-1814.
CONDÉ, The first Prince Louis de, and the French wars of religion.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1560-1563, and 1563-1570.
CONDÉ, The Second Prince Louis de (called The Great).
Campaigns in the Thirty Years War, and the war with Spain.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1642-1643; 1643;
GERMANY: A. D. 1640-1645; 1643-1644.
In the wars of the Fronde.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1647-1648; 1649; 1650-1651; 1651-1653.
Campaigns against France in the service of Spain.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1653-1656, and 1655-1658.
Last campaigns.
See NETHERLANDS (HOLLAND): A. D. 1672-1674 and 1674-1678.
CONDÉ, The House of.
See BOURBON, THE HOUSE OF.
CONDÉ: A. D. 1793.-Siege and capture by the Austrians.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1793 (JULY-DECEMBER).
CONDÉ: A. D. 1794.
Recovery by the French.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1794 (MARCH-JULY).
----------CONDÉ: End----------
CONDORE, OR KONDUR, Battle of (1758).
See INDIA: A. D. 1758-1761.
CONDOTTIERE.
In the general meaning of the word, a conductor or leader;
applied specially, in Italian history, to the professional
military leaders of the 13th and 14th centuries, who made a
business of war very much as a modern contractor makes a
business of railroad construction, and who were open to
engagement, with the troops at their command, by any prince,
or any free city whose offers were satisfactory.
CONDRUSI, The.
See BELGÆ.
CONESTOGAS, The.
See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: SUSQUEHANNAS.
CONFEDERACY OF DELOS, OR THE DELIAN.
See GREECE: B. C. 478-477,
and ATHENS: B. C. 466-454, and after.
CONFEDERATE STATES OF AMERICA.
Constitution and organization of the government.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1861 (FEBRUARY).
CONFEDERATION, Articles of (UNITED STATES OF AMERICA)
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1777-1781.
CONFEDERATION, Australian.
See AUSTRALIA: A. D. 1885-1892.
CONFEDERATION, The Germanic,
of 1814.
See GERMANY: A. D. 1814-1820.
Of 1870.
See GERMANY: A. D. 1870 (SEPTEMBER-DECEMBER).
CONFEDERATION, The North German.
See GERMANY: A. D. 1866.
CONFEDERATION, The Swiss.
See SWITZERLAND.
CONFEDERATION OF THE BRITISH AMERICAN PROVINCES.
See CANADA: A. D. 1867.
CONFEDERATION OF THE RHINE, The.
See GERMANY: A. D. 1805-1806; 1806 (JANUARY-AUGUST);
and 1813 (OCTOBER-DECEMBER);
also, FRANCE: A. D. 1814 (JANUARY-MARCH).
CONFESSION OF AUGSBURG.
See PAPACY: A. D. 1530-1531.
CONFLANS, Treaty of.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1461-1468.
CONFUCIANISM.
See CHINA: THE RELIGIONS.
CONGO FREE STATE, The Founding of the.
"Since Leopold II.'s accession to the throne [of Belgium], his
great object has been to secure colonial possessions to
Belgium for her excess of population and production. To this
end he founded, in October, 1876, with the aid of eminent
African explorers, the International African Association. Its
object was to form committees in several countries, with a
view to the collection of funds, and to the establishment of a
chain of stations across Africa, passing by Lake Tanganyika,
to assist future explorers. Accordingly committees were
formed, whose presidents were as follows: in England, the
Prince of Wales; in Germany the Crown Prince; in Italy the
King's brother; in France, M. de Lesseps; and in Belgium, King
Leopold. Sums of money were subscribed, and stations were
opened from Bagomoyo (just south of Zanzibar) to Lake
Tanganyika; but when toward the close of 1877, Stanley
reappeared on the Atlantic coast and revealed the immense
length of the marvelous Congo River, King Leopold at once
turned his attention in that direction. That he might not put
himself forward prematurely, he acted under cover of an
association and a committee of exploration, which were in
reality formed and entirely supported by the King's energy and
by the large sums of money that he lavished upon them. Through
this association King Leopold maintained Stanley for five
years on the Congo. During this time a road was made from the
coast to Stanley Pool, where the navigable portion of the
Upper Congo commences; and thus was formed the basis of the
future empire. During this period Stanley signed no less than
four thousand treaties or concessions of territory, on which
upward of two thousand chiefs had placed their marks in sign
of adhesion.
{494}
At a cost of many months of transportation, necessitating the
employment of thousands of porters, light steamers were placed
on the upper river which was explored as far as Stanley Falls.
Its numerous tributaries also were followed up as far as the
rapids that interrupt their courses. Many young Belgian
officers and other adventurous explorers established
themselves on the banks of the Congo and the adjoining river,
the Kouiliou, and founded a series of stations, each occupied
by one or two Europeans and by a few soldiers from Zanzibar.
In this way the country was insensibly taken possession of in
the most pacific manner, without a struggle and with no
bloodshed whatever; for the natives, who are of a very gentle
disposition, offered no resistance. The Senate of the United
States, which was called upon, in 1884, to give an opinion on
the rights of the African Association, made a careful
examination of the matter, and recognized the legality of the
claims and title deeds submitted to them. A little later, in
order to mark the formation of a state, the Congo Association
adopted as its flag a gold star on a blue ground. A French
lawyer. M. Deloume, in a very well-written pamphlet entitled
'Le Droit des Gens dans l'Afrique Equatoriale,' has proved
that this proceeding was not only legitimate, but necessary.
The embryo state, however, lacked one essential thing, namely,
recognition by the civilized powers. It existed only as a
private association, or, as a hostile publicist expressed it,
as 'a state in shares, indulging in pretensions of
sovereignty.' Great difficulties stood in the way of realizing
this essential condition. Disputes, on the one hand with
France and on the other with Portugal, appeared inevitable.
… King Leopold did not lose heart. In 1882 he obtained from
the French government an assurance that, while maintaining its
rights to the north of Stanley Pool, it would give support to
the International Association of the Congo. With Portugal it
seemed very difficult to come to an understanding. … Prince
Bismarck took part in the matter, and in the German Parliament
praised highly the work of the African Association. In April,
1884, he proposed to France to come to an understanding, and
to settle all difficulties by general agreement. From this
proposition sprang the famous Berlin conference, the
remarkable decisions of which we shall mention later. At the
same time, before the conference opened, Germany signed an
agreement with the International Association of the Congo, in
which she agreed to recognize its flag as that of a state, in
exchange for an assurance that her trade should be free, and
that German subjects should enjoy all the privileges of the
most favored nations. Similar agreements were entered upon
with nearly all the other countries of the globe. The
delegates of the Association were accepted at the conference
on the same footing as those of the different states that were
represented there, and on February 26, the day on which the
act was signed, Bismarck expressed himself as follows: 'The
new State of the Congo is destined to be one of the chief
safe-guards of the work we have in view, and I sincerely trust
that its development will fulfill the noble aspirations of its
august founder.' Thus the Congo International Association,
hitherto only a private enterprise, seemed now to be
recognized as a sovereign state, without having, however, as
yet assumed the title. But where were the limits of its
territory. … Thanks to the interference of France, after
prolonged negotiations an understanding was arrived at on
February 15, 1885, by which both parties were satisfied. They
agreed that Portugal should take possession of the southern
bank of the Congo, up to its junction with the little stream
Uango, above Nokki, and also of the district of Kabinda
forming a wedge that extends into the French territory on the
Atlantic Ocean. The International Congo Association—for such
was still its title—was to have access to the sea by a strip
of land extending from Manyanga (west of Leopoldville) to the
ocean, north of Banana, and comprising in addition to this
port, Boma and the important station of Vivi. These treaties
granted the association 931,285 square miles of territory,
that is to say, a domain eighty times the size of Belgium,
with more than 7,500 miles of navigable rivers. The limits
fixed were, on the west, the Kuango, an important tributary of
the Congo; on the south, the sources of the Zambesi; on the
east, the Lakes Bangweolo, Moero, and Tanganyika, and a line
passing through Lake Albert Edward to the river Ouelle; on the
north, a line following the fourth degree of latitude to the
Mobangi River on the French frontier. The whole forms one
eleventh part of the African continent. The association became
transformed into a state in August 1885, when King Leopold,
with the authorization of the Belgian Chambers, notified the
powers that he should assume the title of Sovereign of the
Independent State of the Congo, the union of which with
Belgium was to be exclusively personal. The Congo is,
therefore, not a Belgian colony, but nevertheless the Belgian
Chambers have recently given valuable assistance to the King's
work; first, in taking, on July 26, 1889, 10,000,000 francs'
worth of shares in the railway which is to connect the seaport
of Matadi with the riverport of Leopoldville, on Stanley Pool,
and secondly by granting a loan of 25,000,000 francs to the
Independent State on August 4, 1890. The King, in a will laid
before Parliament, bequeaths all his African possessions to
the Belgian nation, authorizing the country to take possession
of them after a lapse of ten years."
_E. de Laveleye,
The Division of Africa
(The Forum, January, 1891)._
ALSO IN:
_H. M. Stanley,
The Congo, and the Founding of its Free State._
CONGREGATION OF THE ORATORY, The.
"Philip of Neri, a young Florentine of good birth (1515-1595;
canonised 1622) … in 1548 instituted at Rome the Society of
the Holy Trinity, to minister to the wants of the pilgrims at
Rome. But the operations of his mission gradually extended
till they embraced the spiritual welfare of the Roman
population at large, and the reformation of the Roman clergy
in particular. No figure is more serene and more sympathetic
to us in the history of the Catholic reaction than that of
this latter-day 'apostle of Rome.' From his association, which
followed the rule of St. Augustine, sprang in 1575 the
Congregation of the Oratory at Rome, famous as the seminary of
much that is most admirable in the labours of the Catholic
clergy."
_A. W. Ward,
The Counter-Reformation,
page 30._
{495}
"In the year 1766, there were above a hundred Congregations of
the Oratory of S. Philip in Europe and the East Indies; but
since the revolutions of the last seventy years many of these
have ceased to exist, while, on the contrary, within the last
twelve years two have been established in England."
_Mrs. Hope,
Life of S. Philip Neri,
chapter 24._
ALSO IN:
_H. L. S. Lear,
Priestly Life in France,
chapter 4._
CONGREGATIONALISM.
See INDEPENDENTS.
CONGRESS, Colonial, at Albany.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1754.
CONGRESS, Continental,
The First.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1774 (SEPTEMBER),
and (SEPTEMBER-OCTOBER).
The Second.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1775 (MAY-AUGUST).
CONGRESS, The First American.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1690.
CONGRESS, The Pan-American.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1889-1890.
CONGRESS, The Stamp Act.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1765.
CONGRESS OF AIX-LA-CHAPELLE, The.
See AIX-LA-CHAPELLE, THE CONGRESS AND TREATY.
CONGRESS OF BERLIN.
See TURKS: A. D. 1878.
CONGRESS OF PANAMA.
See COLOMBIAN STATES: A. D. 1826.
CONGRESS OF PARIS.
See RUSSIA: A. D. 1854-1856,
and DECLARATION OF PARIS.
CONGRESS OF RASTADT, The.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1799 (APRIL-SEPTEMBER).
CONGRESS OF VERONA, The.
See VERONA, THE CONGRESS OF.
CONGRESS OF VIENNA.
See VIENNA, CONGRESS OF.
CONGRESS OF THE UNITED STATES.
"The Constitution created Congress and conferred upon it
powers of legislation for national purposes, but made no
provision as to the method by which these powers should be
exercised. In consequence Congress has itself developed a
method of transacting its business by means of committees. The
Federal Legislature consists of two Houses—the Senate, or
Upper and less numerous branch, and the House of
Representatives, or the Lower and more numerous popular
branch. The Senate is composed of two members from each State
elected by the State legislatures for a term of six years, one
third of whom retire every two years. The presiding officer is
the Vice-President. Early in each session the Senate chooses a
President pro tempore, so as to provide for any absence of the
Vice-President, whether caused by death, sickness, or for
other reasons. The House of Representatives is at present
[1891] composed of 332 members and four delegates from the
Territories. These delegates, however, have no vote, though
they may speak. The House is presided over by a Speaker,
elected at the beginning of each [Congress]. A quorum for
business is, in either House, a majority. Congress meets every
year in the beginning of December. Each Congress lasts two
years and holds two sessions—a long and a short session. The
long session lasts from December to midsummer [or until the
two Houses agree upon an adjournment]. The short session lasts
from December, when Congress meets again, until the 4th of
March. The term of office then expires for all the members of
the House and for one-third of the Senators. The long session
ends in even years (1880 and 1882, etc.), and the short
session in odd years (1881 and 1883). Extra sessions may be
called by the President for urgent business. In the early part
of the November preceding the end of the short session of
Congress occurs the election of Representatives. Congressmen
then elected do not take their seats until thirteen months
later, that is, at the reassembling of Congress in December of
the year following, unless an extra session is called. The
Senate frequently holds secret, or, as they are called,
executive sessions, for the consideration of treaties and
nominations of the President, in which the House of
Representatives has no voice. It is then said to sit with
closed doors. An immense amount of business must necessarily
be transacted by a Congress that legislates for nearly
63,000,000 of people. … Lack of time, of course, prevents a
consideration of each bill separately by the whole
legislature. To provide a means by which each subject may
receive investigation and consideration, a plan is used by
which the members of both branches of Congress are divided
into committees. Each committee busies itself with a certain
class of business, and bills when introduced are referred to
this or that committee for consideration, according to the
subjects to which the bills relate. … The Senate is now
divided between 50 and 60 committees, but the number varies
from session to session. … The House of Representatives is
organized into 60 committees [appointed by the Speaker],
ranging, in their number of members, from thirteen down. …
The Committee of Ways and Means, which regulates customs
duties and excise taxes, is by far the most important. …
Congress ordinarily assembles at noon and remains in session
until 4 or 5 P. M., though towards the end of the term it
frequently remains in session until late in the night. …
There is still one feature of Congressional government which
needs explanation, and that is the caucus. A caucus is the
meeting of the members of one party in private, for the
discussion of the attitude and line of policy which members of
that party are to take on questions which are expected to
arise in the legislative halls. Thus, in Senate caucus, is
decided who shall be members of the various committees. In
these meetings is frequently discussed whether or not the
whole party shall vote for or against this or that important
bill, and thus its fate is decided before it has even come up
for debate in Congress."
_W. W. and W. F. Willoughby,
Government and Administration of the United States
(Johns Hopkins University Studies, series ix., numbers 1-2),
chapter 9._
ALSO IN:
_W. Wilson,
Congressional Government,
chapters 2-4._
_J. Bryce,
The American Commonwealth,
part 1, chapters 10-21 (volume 1)._
_A. L. Dawes,
How we are Governed,
chapter 2._
_The Federalist,
numbers 51-65._
_J. Story,
Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States,
book 3, chapters 8-31 (volumes 2-3)._
CONI.
Sieges (1744 and 1799).
See ITALY: A. D. 1744;
and FRANCE: A. D. 1799 (AUGUST-DECEMBER).
CONIBO, The.
See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: ANDESIANS.
CONNAUGHT, Transplantation of the Irish people into.
See IRELAND: A. D. 1653.
{496}
CONNECTICUT: The River and the Name.
"The first discoveries made of this part of New England were
of its principal river and the fine meadows lying upon its
bank. Whether the Dutch at New Netherlands, or the people of
New Plymouth, were the first discoverers of the river is not
certain. Both the English and the Dutch claimed to be the
first discoverers, and both purchased and made a settlement of
the lands upon it nearly at the same time. … From this fine
river, which the Indians call Quonehtacut, or Connecticut, (in
English the long river) the colony originally took its name."
_B. Trumbull, History of Connecticut, chapter 2._
According to Dutch accounts, the river was entered by Adriaen
Block, ascended to latitude 41° 48', and named Fresh River, in
1614.
See NEW YORK: A. D. 1610-1614.
CONNECTICUT: The Aboriginal inhabitants.
See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: ALGONQUIAN FAMILY.
CONNECTICUT: A. D. 1631.
The grant to Lord Say and Sele, and others.
In 1631, the Earl of Warwick granted to Lord Say and Sele,
Lord Brooke, Sir Richard Saltonstall, and others, "the
territory between Narragansett River and southwest towards New
York for 120 miles and west to the Pacific Ocean, or,
according to the words of President Clap of Yale College,
'from Point Judith to New York, and from thence a west line to
the South Sea, and if we take Narragansett River in its whole
length the tract will extend as far north as Worcester. It
comprehends the whole of the colony of Connecticut and more.
This was called the old patent of Connecticut, and had been
granted the previous year, 1630, by the Council of Plymouth
[or Council for New England] to the Earl of Warwick. Yet
before the English had planted settlements in Connecticut the
Dutch had purchased of the Pequots land where Hartford now
stands and erected a small trading fort called 'The House of
Good Hope.'"
_C. W. Bowen,
Boundary Disputes of Connecticut,
page 15._
In 1635, four years after the Connecticut grant, said to have
been derived originally from the Council for New England, in
1630, had been transferred by the Earl of Warwick to Lord Say
and Seal and others, the Council made an attempt, in
connivance with the English court, to nullify all its grants,
to regain possession of the territory of New England and to
parcel it out by lot among its own members. In this attempted
parcelling, which proved ineffectual, Connecticut fell to the
lot of the Earl of Carlisle, the Duke of Lennox, and the Duke
of Hamilton. Modern investigation seems to have found the
alleged grant from the Council of Plymouth, or Council for New
England, to the Earl of Warwick, in 1630, to be mythical. "No
one has ever seen it, or has heard of anyone who claims to
have seen it. It is not mentioned even in the grant from
Warwick to the Say and Sele patentees in 1631. … The deed is
a mere quit-claim, which warrants nothing and does not even
assert title to the soil transferred. … Why the Warwick
transaction took this peculiar shape, why Warwick transferred,
without showing title, a territory which the original owners
granted anew to other patentees in 1635, are questions which
are beyond conjecture."
_A. Johnston,
Connecticut,
chapter 2._
See NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1635.
CONNECTICUT: A. D. 1634-1637.
The pioneer settlements.
"In October, 1634, some men of Plymouth, led by William
Holmes, sailed up the Connecticut river, and, after bandying
threats with a party of Dutch who had built a rude fort on the
site of Hartford, passed on and fortified themselves on the
site of Windsor. Next year Governor Van Twiller sent a company
of seventy men to drive away these intruders, but after
reconnoitering the situation the Dutchmen thought it best not
to make an attack. Their little stronghold at Hartford
remained unmolested by the English, and, in order to secure
the communication between this advanced outpost and New
Amsterdam, Van Twiller decided to build another fort at the
mouth of the river, but this time the English were beforehand.
Rumours of Dutch designs may have reached the ears of Lord Say
and Sele and Lord Brooke—'fanatic Brooke,' as Scott calls him
in 'Marmion'—who had obtained from the Council for New
England a grant of territory on the shores of the Sound. These
noblemen chose as their agent the younger John Winthrop, son
of the Massachusetts governor, and this new-comer arrived upon
the scene just in time to drive away Van Twiller's vessel and
build an English fort which in honour of his two patrons he
called 'Say-Brooke.' Had it not been for seeds of discontent
already sown in Massachusetts, the English hold upon the
Connecticut valley might perhaps have been for a few years
confined to these two military outposts at Windsor and
Saybrooke. But there were people in Massachusetts who did not
look with favour upon the aristocratic and theocratic features
of its polity. The provision that none but church-members
should vote or hold office was by no means unanimously
approved. … Cotton declared that democracy was no fit
government either for church or for commonwealth, and the
majority of the ministers agreed with him. Chief among those
who did not was the learned and eloquent Thomas Hooker, pastor
of the church at Newtown. … There were many in Newtown who
took Hooker's view of the matter; and there, as also in
Watertown and Dorchester, which in 1633 took the initiative in
framing town governments with selectmen, a strong disposition
was shown to evade the restrictions upon the suffrage. While
such things were talked about, in the summer of 1633, the
adventurous John Oldham was making his way through the forest
and over the mountains into the Connecticut valley, and when
he returned to the coast his glowing accounts set some people
to thinking. Two years afterward, a few pioneers from
Dorchester pushed through the wilderness as far as the
Plymouth men's fort at Windsor, while a party from Watertown
went farther and came to a halt upon the site of Wethersfield.
A larger party, bringing cattle and such goods as they could
carry, set out in the autumn and succeeded in reaching
Windsor. … In the next June, 1636, the Newtown congregation,
a hundred or more in number, led by their sturdy pastor, and
bringing with them 160 head of cattle, made the pilgrimage to
the Connecticut valley. Women and children took part in this
pleasant summer journey; Mrs. Hooker, the pastor's wife, being
too ill to walk, was carried on a litter. Thus, in the
memorable year in which our great university was born, did
Cambridge become, in the true Greek sense of a much-abused
word, the metropolis or 'mother town' of Hartford. The
migration at once became strong in numbers.
{497}
During the past twelvemonth a score of ships had brought from
England to Massachusetts more than 3,000 souls, and so great
an accession made further movement easy. Hooker's pilgrims
were soon followed by the Dorchester and Watertown
congregations, and by the next May 800 people were living in
Windsor, Hartford, and Wethersfield. As we read of these
movements, not of individuals, but of organic communities,
united in allegiance to a church and its pastor, and fervid
with the instinct of self-government, we seem to see Greek
history renewed, but with centuries of added political
training. For one year a board of commissioners from
Massachusetts governed the new towns, but at the end of that
time the towns chose representatives and held a General Court
at Hartford, and thus the separate existence of Connecticut
was begun. As for Springfield, which was settled about the
same time by a party from Roxbury, it remained for some years
doubtful to which state it belonged."
_J. Fiske,
The Beginnings of New England,
chapter 3._
ALSO IN:
_J. G. Palfrey,
History of New England,
volume 1, chapter 11._
_G. L. Walker,
History of the First Church in Hartford,
chapters 4-5._
_M. A. Green,
Springfield, 1636-1886,
chapter 1._
CONNECTICUT: A. D. 1636-1639.
The constitutional evolution.
"It must be noted that [the] Newtown, Watertown, and
Dorchester migrations had not been altogether a simple
transfer of individual settlers from one colony to another. In
each of these migrations a part of the people was left behind,
so that the Massachusetts towns did not cease to exist. And
yet each of them brought its Massachusetts magistrates, its
ministers (except Watertown), and all the political and
ecclesiastical machinery of the town; and at least one of them
(Dorchester) had hardly changed its structure since its
members first organized in 1630 at Dorchester in England. The
first settlement of Connecticut was thus the migration of
three distinct and individual town organizations out of the
jurisdiction of Massachusetts and into absolute freedom. It
was the Massachusetts town system set loose in the wilderness.
At first the three towns retained even their Massachusetts
names; and it was not until the eighth court meeting, February
21 1636 (7), that it was decided that the plantacon [c tilde]
nowe called Newtowne slalbe called & named by the name of
Harteforde Towne, likewise the plantacon [c tilde] nowe called
'Watertowne shalbe called & named Wythersfeild,' and the
plantacon [c tilde] called Dorchester shalbe called Windsor.'
On the same day the boundaries between the three towns were
'agreed' upon, and thus the germ of the future State was the
agreement and union of the three towns. Accordingly, the
subsequent court meeting at Hartford, May 1, 1637, for the
first time took the name of the 'Genrall Corte,' and was
composed, in addition to the town magistrates who had
previously held it, of 'comittees' of three from each town. So
simply and naturally did the migrated town system evolve, in
this binal assembly, the seminal principle of the Senate and
House of Representatives of the future State of Connecticut.
The Assembly further showed its consciousness of separate
existence by declaring 'an offensive warr ag' the Pequoitt,'
assigning the proportions of its miniature army and supplies
to each town, and appointing a commander. … So complete are
the features of State-hood, that we may fairly assign May 1,
1637, as the proper birthday of Connecticut. No king, no
Congress, presided over the birth: its seed was in the towns.
January 14, 1638 (9), the little Commonwealth formed the first
American Constitution at Hartford. So far as its provisions
are concerned, the King, the Parliament, the Plymouth Council,
the Warwick grant, the Say and Sele grant, might as well have
been non-existent: not one of them is mentioned. … This
constitution was not only the earliest but the longest in
continuance of American documents of the kind, unless we
except the Rhode Island charter. It was not essentially
altered by the charter of 1662, which was practically a royal
confirmation of it; and it was not until 1818 that the
charter, that is the constitution of 1639, was superseded by
the present constitution. Connecticut was as absolutely a
state in 1639 as in 1776."
_A. Johnston,
The Genesis of a New England State
(Johns Hopkins University Studies, number 11)._
The following is the text of those "Fundamental Orders"
adopted by the people dwelling on Connecticut River, January
14, 1638 (9), which formed the first of written constitutions:
"FORASMUCH as it hath pleased the Allmighty God by the wise
disposition of his diuyne pruidence so to Order and dispose of
things that we the Inhabitants and Residents of Windsor,
Harteford and Wethersfield are now cohabiting and dwelling in
and vppon the River of Conectecotte and the Lands thereunto
adioyueing; And well knowing where a people are gathered
togather the word of God requires that to mayntayne the peace
and vnion of such a people there should be an orderly and
decent Gouerment established according to God, to order and
dispose of the affayres of the people at all seasons as
occation shall require; doe therefore assotiate and conioyne
our selues to be as one Publike State or ComonweIth; and doe,
for our selues and our Successors and such as shall be
adioyned to vs att any tyme hereafter, enter into Combination
and Confederation togather, to mayntayne and prsearue the
liberty and purity of the gospell of our Lord Jesus wch we now
prfesse, as also the disciplyne of the Churches, wch according
to the truth of the said gospell is now practised amongst vs;
As also in or Ciuell Affaires to be guided and gouerned
according to such Lawes, Rules, Orders and decrees as shall be
made, ordered & decreed, as followeth:—1. It is Ordered,
sentenced and decreed, that there shall be yerely two generall
Assemblies or Courts, the one the second thursday in Aprill,
the other the second thursday in September following; the
first shall be called the Courte of Election, wherein shall be
yerely Chosen fro tyme to tyme soe many Magestrats and other
publike Officers as shall be found requisitte: Whereof one to
be chosen Gouernour for the yeare ensueing and vntill another
be chosen, and noe other Magestrate to be chosen for more than
one yeare; pruided allwayes there be sixe chosen besids the
Gouernour; wch being chosen and sworne according to an Oath
recorded for that purpose shall haue power to administer
iustice according to the Lawes here established, and for want
thereof according to the rule of the word of God; wch choise
shall be made by all that are admitted freemen and haue taken
the Oath of Fidellity, and doe cohabitte wthin this
Jurisdiction, (hauing beene admitted Inhabitants by the maior
prt of the Towne wherein they liue,) or the mayor prte of such
as shall be then prsent.
{498}
2. It is Ordered, sentenced and decreed, that the Election of
the aforesaid Magestrats shall be on this manner: euery prson
prsent and quallified for choyse shall bring in (to the prsons
deputed to receaue the) one single papr wth the name of him
written in yt whom he desires to haue Gouernour, and he that
hath the greatest nuber of papers shall be Gouernor for that
yeare. And the rest of the Magestrats or publike Officers to
be chosen in this manner: The Secretary for the tyme being
shall first read the names of all that are to be put to choise
and then shall seuerally nominate them distinctly, and euery
one that would haue the prson nominated to be chosen shall
bring in one single paper written vppon, and he that would not
haue him chosen shall bring in a blanke: and euery one that
hath more written papers then blanks shall be a Magistrat for
that yeare; wth papers shall be receaued and told by one or
more that shall be then chosen by the court and sworne to be
faythfull therein: but in case there should not be sixe chosen
as aforesaid, besids the Gouernor, out of those wch are
nominated, then he or they wch haue the most written paprs
shall be a Magestrate or Magestrats for the ensueing yeare, to
make up the foresaid nuber. 3. It is Ordered, sentenced and
decreed, that the Secretary shall not nominate any prson, nor
shall any prson be chosen newly into the Magestraey wch was
not prpownded in some Generall Courte before, to be nominated
the next Election; and to that end yt shall be lawfull for ech
of the Townes aforesaid by their deputyes to nominate any two
who they conceaue fitte to be put to election; and the Courte
may ad so many more as they, iudge requisitt. 4. It is
Ordered, sentenced and decreed that noe prson be chosen
Gouernor aboue once in two yeares, and that the Gouernor be
always a meber of some approved congregation, and formerly of
the Magestracy wthin this Jurisdiction; and all the Magestrats
Freemen of this Comonwelth: and that no Magestrate or other
publike officer shall execute any prte of his or their Office
before they are seuerally sworne, wch shall be done in the
face of the Courte if they be prsent, and in case of absence
by some deputed for that purpose. 5. It is Ordered, senteneed
and decreed, that to the aforesaid Courte of Election the
seurall Townes shall send their deputyes, and when the
Elections are ended they may prceed in any publike searuice as
at other Courts. Also the other Generall Courte in Septemher
shall be for makeing of lawes, and any other publike occation,
wch conserns the good of the Comonwelth. 6. It is Ordered,
sentenced and decreed, that the Gournor shall, ether by
himselfe or by the secretary, send out sumons to the
Constables of eur Towne for the cauleing of these two standing
Courts, on month at lest before their seu'all tymes: And also
if the Gournor and the gretest prte of the Magestmts see cause
vppon any spetiall occation to call a generall Courte, they
may giue order to the secretary soe to doe wthin fowerteene
dayes warneing; and if vrgent necessity so require, vppon a
shorter notice, giueing sufficient grownds for yt to the
deputyes when they meete, or els be questioned for the same;
And if the Gournor and Mayor prte of Magestrats shall ether
neglect or refuse to call the two Generall standing Courts or
ether of the, as also at other tymes when the occutions of the
Comonwelth require, the Freemen thereof, or the Mayor prte of
them, shall petition to them soe to doe: if then yt be ether
denyed or neglected the said Freemen or the Mayor prte of them
shall haue power to giue order to the Constables of the
seuerall Townes to doe the same, and so may meete togather,
and chuse to themselues a Moderator, and may prceed to do any
Acte of power, wch any other Generall Courte may. 7. It is
Ordered, sentenced and decreed that after there are warrants
giuen out for any of the suid Generall Courts, the Constable
or Constables of ech Towne shall forthwth give notice
distinctly, to the inhabitants of the same, in some Pubhke
Assembly or by goeing or sending fro howse to howse, that at a
place and tyme by him or them lymited and sett, they meet and
assemble the selues togather to elect and chuse certen
deputyes to be att the Generall Courte then following to
agitate the afayres of the comonwelth; wch said Deputyes shall
be choseu by all that are admitted Inhabitants in the seurall
Townes and haue taken the oath of fidellity; pruided that non
be chosen a Deputy for any Generall Courte wch is not a
Freeman of this Comonwelth. The foresaid deputyes shall be
chosen in manner following; euery prson that is prsent and
quallified as before exprssed, shall bring thr names of such,
written in seurrall papers, as they desire to haue chosen for
that Imployment, and these 3 or 4, more or lesse, being the
nuber agreed on to be chosen for that tyme, that haue greatest
nuber of papers written for the shall be deputyes for that
Courte; whose names shall be endorsed on the backe side of the
warrant and returned into the Courte, wth the Constable or
Constables hand vnto the same. 8. It is Ordered, sentenced and
decreed, that Wyndsor, Hartford and Wethersfield shall haue
power, ech Towne, to send fower of their freemen as deputyes
to euery Generall Courte; and whatsoeuer other Townes shall be
hereafter added to this Jurisdiction, they shall send so many
deputyes as the Courte shall judge meete, a reasonable
prportion to the nuber of Freemen that are in the said Townes
being to be attended therein; wch deputyes shall have the
power of the whole Towne to giue their voats and alowance to
all such lawes and orders as may be for the publike good, and
unto wch the said Townes are to be bownd. 9. It is ordered and
decreed, that the deputyes thus chosen shall haue power and
liberty to appoynt a tyme and a place of meeting togather
before any Generall Courte to aduise and consult of all such
things as may concerne the good of the publike, as also to
examine their owne Elections, whether according to the order,
and if they or the gretest prte of them find any election to
be illegall they may seclud such for prsent fro their meeting,
and returne the same and their resons to the Courte; and if yt
proue true, the Courte may fyne the prty or prtyes so
intruding and the Towne, if they see cause, and giue out a
warrant to goe to a newe election in a legall way, either in
prte or in whole. Also the said deputyes shall haue power to
fyne any that shall be disorderly at their meetings, or for
not coming in due tyme or place according to appoyntment; and
they may returne the said fynes into the Courte if yt be
refused to be paid, and the tresurer to take notice of yt, and
to estreete or levy the same as he doth other fynes.
{499}
10. It is Ordered, sentenceJ and decreed, that euery Generall
Courte, except such as through neglecte of the Gou'nor and the
greatest prte of Magestrats the Freemen themselves doe call,
shall consist of the Gouernor, or some one chosen to moderate
the Court, and 4 other Magestruts at lest, wth the mayor prte
of the deputyes of the seuerall Townes legally chosen; and in
case the Freemen or mayor prte of the, through neglect or
refusall of the Gouernor and mayor prte of the magestrats,
shall call a Courte, yt shall consist of the mayor prte of
Freemen that are prsent or their deputyes, wty a Moderator
chosen by the: In wch said Generall Courts shall consist the
supreme power of the Comonwelth, and they only shall haue
power to make laws or repeale the, to graunt leuyes, to admitt
of Freemen, dispose of lands vndisposed of, to seuerall Townes
or prsons, and also shall haue power to call ether Courte or
Magestrate or any other prson whatsoeuer into question for any
misdemeanour, and may for just causes displace or deale
otherwise according to the nature of the offence; and also may
deale in any other matter that concerns the good of this comon
welth, excepte election of Magestrats, wch shall be done by
the whole boddy of Freemen. In wch Courte the Gouernour or
Moderator shall haue power to order the Courte to giue liberty
of spech, and silence vncensonable and disorderly speakeings,
to put all things to voate, and in case the voate be equall to
haue the casting voice. But non of these Courts shall be
adiorned or dissolued wthout the consent of the maior prte of
the Court. 11. It is ordered, sentenced and decreed, that when
any Gemerall Courte vppon the occations of the Comonwelth haue
agreed vppon any sume or somes of mony to be leuyed vppon the
seuerall Townes wthin this Jurisdiction, that a Comittee be
chosen to sett out and appoynt wt shall be the prportion of
euery Towne to pay of the said leuy, prvided the Comittees be
made vp of an equall nuber out of each Towne. 14th January,
1638, the 11 Orders abouesaid are voted."
_Public Records of the Colony of Connecticut,
volume 1._
CONNECTICUT: A. D. 1637.
The Pequot War.
See NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1637.
CONNECTICUT: A. D. 1638.
The planting of New Haven Colony.
"In the height of the Hutchinson controversy [see
MASSACHUSETTS: A. D. 1636-1638], John Davenport, an eminent
nonconformist minister from London, had arrived at Boston, and
with him a wealthy company, led by two merchants, Theophilus
Eaton and Edward Hopkins. Alarmed at the new opinions and
religious agitations of which Massachusetts was the seat,
notwithstanding very advantageous offers of settlement there,
they preferred to establish a separate community of their own,
to be forever free from the innovations of error and
licentiousness. Eaton and others sent to explore the coast
west of the Connecticut, selected a place for settlement near
the head of a spacious bay at Quinapiack [or Quinnipiack], or,
as the Dutch called it, Red Hill, where they built a hut and
spent the winter. They were joined in the spring [April, 1638]
by the rest of their company, and Davenport preached his first
sermon under the shade of a spreading oak. Presently they
entered into what they called a 'plantation covenant,' and a
communication being opened with the Indians, who were but few
in that neighborhood, the lands of Quinapiack were purchased,
except a small reservation on the east side of the bay, the
Indians receiving a few presents and a promise of protection.
A tract north of the bay, ten miles in one direction and
thirteen in the other, was purchased for ten coats; and the
colonists proceeded to lay out in squares the ground-plan of a
spacious city, to which they presently gave the name of New
Haven."
_R. Hildreth,
History of the United States,
volume 1, chapter 9._
"They formed their political association by what they called a
'plantation covenant,' 'to distinguish it from a church
covenant, which could not at that time be made.' In this
compact they resolved, 'that, as in matters that concern the
gathering and ordering of a church, so likewise in all public
offices which concern civil order, as choice of magistrates
and officers, making and repealing of laws; dividing
allotments of inheritance, and all things of like nature,'
they would 'be ordered by the rules which the Scriptures hold
forth.' It had no external sanction, and comprehended no
acknowledgment of the government of England. The company
consisted mostly of Londoners, who at home had been engaged in
trade. In proportion to their numbers, they were the richest
of all the plantations. Like the settlers on Narragansett Bay,
they had no other title to their lands than that which they
obtained by purchase from the Indians."
_J. G. Palfrey,
History of New England,
volume 1, chapter 13._
ALSO IN:
_C. H. Levermore,
The Republic of New Haven,
chapter 1._
CONNECTICUT: A. D. 1639.
The Fundamental Agreement of New Haven.
"In June, 1639, the whole body of settlers [at Quinnipiack, or
New Haven] came together to frame a constitution. A tradition,
seemingly well founded, says that the meeting was held in a large
barn. According to the same account, the purpose for which
they had met and the principles on which they ought to proceed
were set forth by Davenport in a sermon. 'Wisdom hath builded
her house, she hath hewn out seven pillars,' was the text.
There is an obvious connection between this and the subsequent
choice of seven of the chief men to lay the foundation of the
constitution. … Davenport set forth the general system on
which the constitution ought to be framed. The two main
principles which he laid down were, that Scripture is a
perfect and sufficient rule for the conduct of civil affairs,
and that church-membership must be a condition of citizenship.
In this the colonists were but imitating the example of
Massachusetts. … After the sermon, five resolutions
[followed by a sixth, constituting together what was called
the 'fundamental agreement' of New Haven Colony], formally
introducing Davenport's proposals, were carried. If a church
already existed, it was not considered fit to form a basis for
the state. Accordingly a fresh one was framed by a curiously
complicated process. As a first step, twelve men were elected.
These twelve were instructed, after a due interval for
consideration, to choose seven out of their own number, who
should serve as a nucleus for the church. At the same time an
oath was taken by the settlers, which may be looked on as a
sort of preliminary and provisional test of citizenship,
pledging them to accept the principles laid down by Davenport.
Sixty-three of the inhabitants took the oath, and their
example was soon followed by fifty more. By October, four
months after the original meeting, the seven formally
established the new commonwealth. They granted the rights of a
freeman to all who joined them, and who were recognized
members either of the church at New Haven or of any other
approved church. The freemen thus chosen entered into an
agreement to the same effect as the oath already taken. They
then elected a Governor and four Magistrates, or, as they were
for the present called, a Magistrate and four Deputies. …
The functions of the Governor and Magistrates were not
defined. Indeed, but one formal resolution was passed as to
the constitution of the colony, namely, 'that the Word of God
shall be the only rule attended unto in ordering the affairs
of government.'"
_J. A. Doyle,
The English in America: The Puritan Colonies,
volume 1, chapter 6._
{500}
"Of all the New England colonies, New Haven was most purely a
government by compact, by social contract. … The free
planters … signed each their names to their voluntary
compact, and ordered that 'all planters hereafter received in
this plantation should submit to the said foundamentall
agreement, and testifie the same by subscribing their names.'
It is believed that this is the sole instance of the formation
of an independent civil government by a general compact
wherein all the parties to the agreement were legally required
to be actual signers thereof. When this event occurred, John
Locke was in his seventh year, and Rousseau was a century
away."
_C. H. Levermore,
The Republic of New Haven,
page 23._
CONNECTICUT: A. D. 1640-1655.
The attempted New Haven colonization on the Delaware.
Fresh quarrels with the Dutch.
See NEW JERSEY: A. D. 1640-1655.
CONNECTICUT: A. D. 1643.
The confederation of the colonies.
The progress and state of New Haven and the River Colony.
See NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1643.
CONNECTICUT: A. D. 1650.
Settlement of boundaries with the Dutch of New Netherland.
See NEW YORK: A. D. 1650.
CONNECTICUT: A. D. 1656-1661.
The persecution of Quakers.
See MASSACHUSETTS: A. D. 1656-1661.
CONNECTICUT: A. D. 1660-1663.
The beginning of boundary conflicts with Rhode Island.
See RHODE ISLAND: A. D. 1660-1663.
CONNECTICUT: A. D. 1660-1664.
The protection of the regicides at New Haven.
"Against the colony of New Haven the king had a special
grudge. Two of the regicide judges, who had sat in the
tribunal which condemned his father, escaped to New England in
1660 and were well received there. They were gentlemen of high
position. Edward Whalley was a cousin of Cromwell and Hampden.
… The other regicide, William Goffe, as a major-general in
Cromwell's army, had won such distinction that there were some
who pointed to him as the proper person to succeed the Lord
Protector on the death of the latter. He had married Whalley's
daughter. Soon after the arrival of these gentlemen, a royal
order for their arrest was sent to Boston. … The king's
detectives hotly pursued them through the woodland paths of
New England, and they would soon have been taken but for the
aid they got from the people. Many are the stories of their
hairbreadth escapes. Sometimes they took refuge in a cave on a
mountain near New Haven, sometimes they hid in friendly
cellars; and once, being hard put to it, they skulked under a
wooden bridge, while their pursuers on horseback galloped by
overhead. After lurking about New Haven and Milford for two or
three years, on hearing of the expected arrival of Colonel
Nichols and his commission [the royal commission appointed to
take possession of the American grant lately made by the king
to his brother, the Duke of York], they sought a more secluded
hiding place near Hadley, a village lately settled far up the
Connecticut river, within the jurisdiction of Massachusetts.
Here the avengers lost the trail, the pursuit was abandoned,
and the weary regicides were presently forgotten. The people
of New Haven had been especially zealous in shielding the
fugitives. … The colony, moreover, did not officially
recognize the restoration of Charles II. to the throne until
that event had been commonly known in New England for more
than a year. For these reasons, the wrath of the king was
specially roused against New Haven."
_J. Fiske,
The Beginnings of New England,
pages 192-194._
ALSO IN:
_G. H. Hollister,
History of Connecticut,
volume 1, chapter 11._
CONNECTICUT: A. D. 1662-1664.
The Royal Charter and annexation of New Haven to the River Colony.
"The Restoration in England left the New Haven colony under a
cloud in the favor of the new government: it had been tardy
and ungracious in its proclamation of Charles II.; it had been
especially remiss in searching for the regicide colonels,
Goffe and Whalley; and any application for a charter would
have come from New Haven with a very ill grace. Connecticut
was under no such disabilities; and it had in its Governor,
John Winthrop [the younger, son of the first governor of
Massachusetts], a man well calculated to win favor with the
new King. … In March, 1660, the General Court solemnly
declared its loyalty to Charles II., sent the Governor to
England to offer a loyal address to the King and ask him for a
charter, and laid aside £500 for his expenses. Winthrop was
successful, and the charter was granted April 20, 1662. The
acquisition of the charter raised the Connecticut leaders to
the seventh heaven of satisfaction. And well it might, for it
was a grant of privileges with hardly a limitation.
Practically the King had given Winthrop 'carte blanche,' and
allowed him to frame the charter to suit himself. It
incorporated the freemen of Connecticut as a 'body corporate
and pollitique,' by the name of 'The Governor and Company of
the English Collony of Conecticut in New England in America.'
… The people were to have all the liberties and immunities
of free and natural subjects of the King, as if born within
the realm. It granted to the Governor and Company all that
part of New England south of the Massachusetts line and west
of the 'Norroganatt River commonly called Norroganatt Bay' to
the South Sea, with the 'Islands thereunto adioyneinge.' …
It is difficult to see more than two points in which it [the
charter] altered the constitution adopted by the towns in
1639. There were now to be two deputies from each town; and
the boundaries of the Commonwealth now embraced the rival
colony of New Haven. … New Haven did not submit without a
struggle, for not only her pride of separate existence but the
supremacy of her ecclesiastical system was at stake. For three
years a succession of diplomatic notes passed between the
General Court of Connecticut and 'our honored friends of New
Haven, Milford, Branford, and Guilford.' …
{501}
In October, 1664, the Connecticut General Court appointed the
New Haven magistrates commissioners for their towns, 'with
magistraticall powers,' established the New Haven local
officers in their places for the time, and declared oblivion
for any past resistance to the laws. In December, Milford
having already submitted, the remnant of the New Haven General
Court, representing New Haven, Guilford, and Branford, held
its last meeting and voted to submit, 'with a salvo jure of
our former rights and claims, as a people who have not yet
been heard in point of plea.' The next year the laws of New
Haven were laid aside forever, and her towns sent deputies to
the General Court at Hartford. … In 1701 the General Court
… voted that its annual October session should thereafter be
held at New Haven. This provision of a double capital was
incorporated into the constitution of 1818, and continued
until in 1873 Hartford was made sole capital."
_A. Johnston,
The Genesis of a New England State,
pages 25-28._
ALSO IN:
_B. Trumbull,
History of Connecticut,
volume 1, chapter 12._
_Public Records of the Colony of Connecticut, 1665-78._
CONNECTICUT: A. D. 1664.
Royal grant to the Duke of York, in conflict with the charter.
See NEW YORK: A. D. 1664.
CONNECTICUT: A. D. 1666.
The New Haven migration to Newark, N. J.
See NEW JERSEY: A. D. 1664-1667.
CONNECTICUT: A. D. 1674-1675.
Long Island and the western half of the colony granted to the
Duke of York.
In 1674, after the momentary recovery of New York by the
Dutch, and its re-surrender to the English, "the king issued a
new patent for the province, in which he not only included
Long Island, but the territory up to the Connecticut River,
which had been assigned to Connecticut by the royal
commissioners. The assignment of Long Island was regretted,
but not resisted; and the island which is the natural sea-wall
of Connecticut passed, by royal decree, to a province whose
only natural claim to it was that it barely touched it at one
corner. The revival of the duke's claim to a part of the
mainland was a different matter, and every preparation was
made for resistance. In July, 1675, just as King Philip's war
had broken out in Plymouth, hasty word was sent from the
authorities at Hartford to Captain Thomas Bull at Saybrook
that Governor Andros of New York was on his way through the
Sound for the purpose, as he avowed, of aiding the people
against the Indians. Of the two evils, Connecticut rather
preferred the Indians. Bull was instructed to inform Andros,
if he should call at Saybrook, that the colony had taken all
precautions against the Indians, and to direct him to the
actual scene of conflict, but not to permit the landing of any
armed soldiers. 'And you are to keep the king's colors
standing there, under his majesty's lieutenant, the governor
of Connecticut; and if any other colors be set up there, you
are not to suffer them to stand. … But you are in his
majesty's name required to avoid striking the first blow; but
if they begin, then you are to defend yourselves, and do your
best to secure his majesty's interest and the peace of the
whole colony of Connecticut in our possession.' Andros came
and landed at Saybrook, but confined his proceedings to
reading the duke's patent against the protest of Bull and the
Connecticut representatives."
_A. Johnston,
Connecticut,
chapter 12._
_Report of Regents of the University on the Boundaries of
the State of New York,
page 21._
ALSO IN:
_C. W. Bowen,
The Boundary Disputes of Connecticut,
pages 70-72._
CONNECTICUT: A. D. 1674-1678.
King Philip's War.
See NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1674-1675; 1675; 1676-1678.
CONNECTICUT: A. D. 1685-1687.
The hostile king and the hidden charter.
Sir Edmund Andros in possession of the government.
"During the latter years of the reign of Charles II. the king
had become so reckless of his pledges and his faith that he
did not scruple to set the dangerous example of violating the
charters that had been granted by the crown. Owing to the
friendship that the king entertained for Winthrop, we have
seen that Connecticut was favored by him to a degree even
after the death of that great man. But no sooner had Charles
demised and the sceptre passed into the hands of his bigoted
brother, King James II., than Connecticut was called upon to
contend against her sovereign for liberties that had been
affirmed to her by the most solemn muniments known to the law
of England. The accession of James II. took place on the 6th
day of February 1685, and such was his haste to violate the
honor of the crown that, early in the summer of 1685, a quo
warranto was issued against the governor and company of
Connecticut, citing them to appear before the king, within
eight days of St. Martin's, to show by what right and tenor
they exercised certain powers and privileges." This was
quickly followed by two other writs, conveyed to Hartford by
Edward Randolph, the implacable enemy of the colonies. "The
day of appearance named in them was passed long before the
writs were served." Mr. Whiting was sent to England as the
agent of the colony, to exert such influences as might be
brought to bear against the plainly hostile and unscrupulous
intentions of the king; but his errand was fruitless. "On the
28th of December another writ of quo warranto was served upon
the governor and company of the colony. This writ bore date
the 23d of October, and required the defendants to appear
before the king' within eight days of the purification of the
Blessed Virgin.' … Of course, the day named was not known to
the English law, and was therefore no day at all in legal
contemplation." Already, the other New England colonies had
been brought under a provisional general government, by
commissioners, of whom Joseph Dudley was named president.
President Dudley "addressed a letter to the governor and
council, advising them to resign the charter into the king's
hands. Should they do so, he undertook to use his influence in
behalf of the colony. They did not deem it advisable to comply
with the request. Indeed they had hardly time to do so before
the old commission was broken up, and a new one granted,
superseding Dudley and naming Sir Edmund Andros governor of
New England. Sir Edmund arrived in Boston on the 19th of
December, 1686, and the next day he published his commission
and took the government into his hands. Scarcely had he
established himself, when he sent a letter to the governor and
company of Connecticut, acquainting them with his appointment,
and informing them that he was commissioned by the king to
receive their charter if they would give it up to him."
_G. H. Hollister,
History of Connecticut,
volume 1, chapter 14._
{502}
On receipt of the communication from Andros, "the General
Court was at once convened, and by its direction a letter was
addressed to the English Secretary of State, earnestly
pleading for the preservation of the privileges that had been
granted to them. For the first time they admitted the
possibility that their petition might be denied, and in that
case requested to be united to Massachusetts. This was
construed by Sir Edmund as a virtual surrender; but as the
days went by he saw that he had mistaken the spirit and
purpose of the colony. Andros finally decided to go in person
to Connecticut. He arrived at Hartford the last day of
October, attended by a retinue of 60 officers and soldiers.
The Assembly, then in session, received him with every outward
mark of respect. After this formal exchange of courtesies, Sir
Edmund publicly demanded the charter, and declared the
colonial government dissolved. Tradition relates that Governor
Treat, in calm but earnest words, remonstrated against this
action. … The debate was continued until the shadows of the
early autumnal evening had fallen. After candles were lighted,
the governor and his council seemed to yield; and the box
supposed to contain the charter was brought into the room, and
placed upon the table. Suddenly the lights were extinguished.
Quiet reigned in the room, and in the dense crowd outside the
building. The candles were soon relighted; but the charter had
disappeared, and after the most diligent search could not be
found. The common tradition has been, that it was taken under
cover of the darkness by Captain Joseph Wadsworth, and hidden
by him in the hollow trunk of a venerable and noble oak tree
standing near the entrance-gate of Governor Wyllys's mansion.
The charter taken by Captain Wadsworth was probably the
duplicate, and remained safely in his possession for several
years. There is reason to believe that, some time before the
coming of Andros to Hartford, the original charter had been
carefully secreted, and the tradition of later times makes it
probable that, while the duplicate charter that was taken from
the table was hidden elsewhere, the original charter found a
safe resting place in the heart of the tree that will always
be remembered as The Charter Oak. This tree is said to have
been preserved by the early settlers at the request of the
Indians. 'It has been the guide of our ancestors for
centuries,' they said, 'as to the time of planting our corn.
When the leaves are the size of a mouse's ears, then is the
time to put it in the ground.' The record of the Court briefly
states that Andros, having been conducted to the governor's
seat by the governor himself, declared that he had been
commissioned by his Majesty to take on him the government of
Connecticut. The commission having been read, he said that it
was his Majesty's pleasure to make the late governor and
Captain John Allyn members of his council. The secretary
handed their common seal to Sir Edmund, and afterwards wrote
these words inclosing the record: 'His Excellency, Sir Edmund
Andros, Knight, Captain-General and Governor of his Majesty's
Territory and Dominion in New England, by order from his
Majesty, King of England, Scotland and Ireland, the 31st of
October, 1687, took into his hands the government of this
colony of Connecticut, it being by his Majesty annexed to the
Massachusetts and other colonies under his Excellency's
government. Finis.' Andros soon disclosed a hand of steel
beneath the velvet glove of plausible words and fair
promises."
_E. B. Sanford,
History of Connecticut,
chapter 16._
ALSO IN:
_J. G. Palfrey,
History of New England,
book 3, chapter 13 (volume 3)._
See, also, NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1686,
and MASSACHUSETTS: 1671-1686.
CONNECTICUT: A. D. 1689-1697.
King William's War.
See CANADA (NEW FRANCE): A. D. 1689-1690; and 1692-1697.
CONNECTICUT: A. D. 1689-1701.
The reinstatement of the charter government.
"April, 1689, came at last. The people of Boston, at the first
news of the English Revolution, clapped Andros into custody.
May 9, the old Connecticut authorities quietly resumed their
functions, and called the assembly together for the following
month. William and Mary were proclaimed with great fervor. Not
a word was said about the disappearance or reappearance of the
charter; but the charter government was put into full effect
again, as if Andros had never interrupted it. An address was
sent to the king, asking that the charter be no further
interfered with; but operations under it went on as before. No
decided action was taken by the home government for some
years, except that its appointment of the New York governor,
Fletcher, to the command of the Connecticut militia, implied a
decision that the Connecticut charter had been superseded.
Late in 1693, Fitz John Winthrop was sent to England as agent
to obtain a confirmation of the charter. He secured an
emphatic legal opinion from Attorney General Somers, backed by
those of Treby and Ward, that the charter was entirely valid,
Treby's concurrent opinion taking this shape: 'I am of the
same opinion, and, as this matter is stated, there is no
ground of doubt.' The basis of the opinion was that the
charter had been granted under the great seal; that it had not
been surrendered under the common seal of the colony, nor had
any judgment of record been entered against it; that its
operation had merely been interfered with by overpowering
force; that the charter therefore remained valid; and that the
peaceable submission of the colony to Andros was merely an
illegal suspension of lawful authority. In other words, the
passive attitude of the colonial government had disarmed
Andros so far as to stop the legal proceedings necessary to
forfeit the charter, and their prompt action, at the critical
moment, secured all that could be secured under the
circumstances. William was willing enough to retain all
possible fruit of James's tyranny, as he showed by enforcing
the forfeiture of the Massachusetts charter; but the law in
this case was too plain, and he ratified the lawyers' opinion
in April, 1694. The charter had escaped its enemies at last,
and its escape is a monument of one of the advantages of a
real democracy. … Democracy had done more for Connecticut
than class influence had done for Massachusetts."
_A. Johnston,
Connecticut,
chapter 12._
{503}
"The decisions which established the rights of Connecticut
included Rhode Island. These two commonwealths were the
portion of the British empire distinguished above all others
by the largest liberty. Each was a nearly perfect democracy
under the shelter of a monarchy. … The crown, by reserving
to itself the right of appeal, had still a method of
interfering in the internal affairs of the two republics. Both
of them were included among the colonies in which the lords of
trade advised a complete restoration of the prerogatives of
the crown. Both were named in the bill which, in April, 1701,
was introduced into parliament for the abrogation of all
American charters. The journals of the house of lords relate
that Connecticut was publicly heard against the measure, and
contended that its liberties were held by contract in return
for services that had been performed; that the taking away of
so many charters would destroy all confidence in royal
promises, and would afford a precedent dangerous to all the
chartered corporations of England. Yet the bill was read a
second time, and its principle, as applied to colonies, was
advocated by the mercantile interest and by 'great men' in
England. The impending war with the French postponed the
purpose till the accession of the house of Hanover."
_G. Bancroft,
History of the United States
(Author's last revision),
part 3, chapter 3 (volume 2)._
CONNECTICUT: A. D. 1690.
The first Colonial Congress.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1690.
CONNECTICUT: A. D. 1702-1711.
Queen Anne's War.
See NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1702-1710;
and CANADA (NEW FRANCE): A. D. 1711-1713.
CONNECTICUT: A. D. 1744-1748.
King George's War and the taking of Louisbourg.
See NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1744; 1745; and 1745-1748.
CONNECTICUT: A. D. 1753-1799.
Western territorial claims.
Settlements in the Wyoming Valley.
Conflicts with the Penn colonists.
See PENNSYLVANIA; A. D. 1753-1799.
CONNECTICUT: A. D. 1754.
The Colonial Congress at Albany, and Franklin's plan of union.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1754.
CONNECTICUT: A. D. 1755-1760.
The French and Indian War, and conquest of Canada.
See CANADA (NEW FRANCE): A. D. 1750-1753; 1755; 1756;
1756-1757; 1758; 1759; 1760;
NOVA SCOTIA: A. D. 1749-1755; 1755;
Ohio (VALLEY): A. D. 1748-1754; 1754; 1755;
CAPE BRETON ISLAND: A. D. 1758-1760.
CONNECTICUT: A. D. 1760-1765.
The question of taxation by Parliament.
The Sugar Act.
The Stamp Act.
The Stamp Act Congress.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
A. D. 1760-1775; 1763-1764; 1765; and 1766.
CONNECTICUT: A. D. 1765.
The revolt against the Stamp Act.
"The English government understood very well that the colonies
were earnestly opposed to the Stamp Act, but they had no
thought of the storm of wrath and resistance which it would
arouse. It was a surprise to many of the leaders of public
affairs in America. … Governor Fitch and Jared Ingersoll,
with other prominent citizens who had done all in their power
to oppose the scheme of taxation … counselled submission.
They mistook the feeling of the people. … The clergy were
still the leaders of public opinion, and they were united in
denunciation of the great wrong. Societies were organized
under the name of the Sons of Liberty, the secret purpose of
which was to resist the Stamp Act by violent measures if
necessary. … Mr. Ingersoll, who had done all in his power to
oppose the bill, after its passage decided to accept the
position of stamp agent for Connecticut. Franklin urged him to
take the place, and no one doubted his motives in accepting
it. The people of Connecticut, however, were not pleased with
this action. … He was visited by a crowd of citizens, who
inquired impatiently if he would resign." Ingersoll put them
off with evasive replies for some time; but finally there was
a gathering of a thousand men on horseback, from Norwich, New
London, Windham, Lebanon and other towns, each armed with a
heavy peeled club, who surrounded the obstinate stamp agent at
Wethersfield and made him understand that they were in deadly
earnest. "'The cause is not worth dying for,' said the
intrepid man, who would never have flinched had he not felt
that, after all, this band of earnest men were in the right. A
formal resignation was given him to sign. … After he had
signed his name, the crowd cried out, 'Swear to it!' He begged
to be excused from taking an oath. 'Then shout Liberty and
Property,' said the now good-natured company. To this he had
no objection, and waved his hat enthusiastically as he
repeated the words. Having given three cheers, the now
hilarious party dined together." Ingersoll was then escorted
to Hartford, where he read his resignation publicly at the
court-house.
_E. B. Sanford,
History of Connecticut,
chapter 29._
CONNECTICUT: A. D. 1766.
The repeal of the Stamp Act.
The Declaratory Act.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1766.
CONNECTICUT: A. D. 1766-1768.
The Townshend duties.
The Circular Letter of Massachusetts.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1766-1767, and 1767-1768.
CONNECTICUT: A. D. 1768-1770.
The quartering of troops in Boston.
The "Massacre" and the removal of the troops.
See BOSTON: A. D. 1768, and 1770.
CONNECTICUT: A. D. 1769-1784.
The ending of slavery.
See SLAVERY, NEGRO: A. D. 1769-1785.
CONNECTICUT: A. D. 1770-1773.
Repeal of the Townshend duties except on tea.
Committees of Correspondence instituted.
The tea ships and the Boston Tea-party.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1770, and 1772-1773;
and BOSTON: A. D. 1773.
CONNECTICUT: A. D. 1774.
The Boston Port Bill.
The Massachusetts Act.
The Quebec Act.
The First Continental Congress.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1774.
CONNECTICUT: A. D. 1775.
The beginning of the War of the American Revolution.
Lexington.
Concord.
New England in arms and Boston beleaguered.
Ticonderoga.
Bunker Hill.
The Second Continental Congress.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1775.
CONNECTICUT: A. D. 1776.
Assumes to be a "free, sovereign and independent State."
"In May, 1776, the people had been formally released from
their allegiance to the crown; and in October the general
assembly passed an act assuming the functions of a State. The
important section of the act was the first, as follows: 'That
the ancient form of civil government, contained in the charter
from Charles the Second, King of England, and adopted by the
people of this State, shall be and remain the civil
Constitution of this State, under the sole authority of the
people thereof, independent of any king or prince whatever.
And that this Republic is, and shall forever be and remain, a
free, sovereign and independent State, by the name of the
State of Connecticut.' The form of the act speaks what was
doubtless always the belief of the people, that their charter
derived its validity, not from the will of the crown, but from
the assent of the people. And the curious language of the last
sentence, in which 'this Republic' declares itself to be 'a
free, sovereign, and independent State,' may serve to indicate
something of the appearance which state sovereignty doubtless
presented to the Americans of 1776-89."
_A. Johnston,
Connecticut,
chapter 16._
See, also, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1776-1779.
{504}
CONNECTICUT: A. D. 1776-1783.
The war and the victory.
Independence achieved.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1776 to 1783.
CONNECTICUT: A. D. 1778.
The massacre at the Wyoming settlement.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1778 (JULY).
CONNECTICUT: A. D. 1779.
Tryon's marauding expeditions.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1778-1779.
CONNECTICUT: A. D. 1786.
Partial cession of western territorial claims to the United States.
The Western Reserve in Ohio.
See
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1781-1786;
PENNSYLVANIA: A. D. 1753-1799;
and OHIO: A. D. 1786-1796.
CONNECTICUT: A. D. 1788.
Ratification of the Federal Constitution.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1787-1789.
CONNECTICUT: A. D. 1814.
The Hartford Convention.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1814 (DECEMBER).
----------CONNECTICUT: End----------
CONNECTICUT TRACT, The.
See NEW YORK: A. D. 1786-1799.
CONNUBIUM.
See MUNICIPIUM.
CONON, Pope, A. D. 686-687.
CONOYS.
See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: ALGONQUIAN FAMILY.
CONRAD I.,
King of the East Franks (Germany),
(the first of the Saxon line), A. D. 911-919.
Conrad II., King of the Romans (King of Germany), A. D. 1024-1039;
King of Italy, 1026-1039; King of Burgundy, 1032-1039;
Emperor, 1027-1039.
Conrad III., King of Germany (the first of the Swabian or
Hohenstauffen dynasty), 1137-1152.
Conrad IV., King of Germany, 1250-1254.
CONSCRIPT FATHERS.
The Roman senators were so called,—"Patres Conscripti." The
origin of the designation has been much discussed, and the
explanation which has found most acceptance is this: that
when, at the organization of the Republic, there was a new
creation of senators, to fill the ranks, the new senators were
called "conscripti" ("added to the roll") while the older ones
were called "patres" ("fathers"), as before. Then the whole
senate was addressed as "Patres et Conscripti," which lapsed
finally into "Patres-Conscripti."
_H. G. Liddell,
History of Rome,
book 1, chapter 4._
CONSCRIPTION, The first French.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1798-1799 (AUGUST-APRIL).
CONSCRIPTION IN THE AMERICAN CIVIL WAR.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1863 (MARCH).
CONSERVATIVE PARTY, The English.
The name "Conservative," to replace that of Tory (see ENGLAND:
A. D. 1680 for the origin of the latter) as a party
designation, was first introduced in 1831, by Mr. John Wilson
Croker, in an article in the Quarterly Review. "It crept
slowly into general favour, although some few there were who
always held out against it, encouraged by the example of the
late leader of the party, Lord Beaconsfield, who was not at
all likely to extend a welcome to anything which came with Mr.
Croker's mark upon it."
_L. J. Jennings,
The Croker Papers,
volume 2, page 198._
CONSILIO DI CREDENZA.
See ITALY: A. D. 1056-1152.
CONSISTORY, The Papal.
See CURIA, PAPAL.
CONSISTORY COURTS OF THE BISHOPS.
"The duties of the officials of these courts resembled in
theory the duties of the censors under the Roman Republic. In
the middle ages, a lofty effort had been made to overpass the
common limitations of government, to introduce punishment for
sins as well as crimes, and to visit with temporal penalties
the breach of the moral law. … The administration of such a
discipline fell as a matter of course, to the clergy. … Thus
arose throughout Europe a system of spiritual surveillance
over the habits and conduct of every man, extending from the
cottage to the castle, taking note of all wrong dealing, of
all oppression of man by man, of all licentiousness and
profligacy, and representing upon earth, in the principles by
which it was guided, the laws of the great tribunal of
Almighty God. Such was the origin of the church courts,
perhaps the greatest institutions yet devised by man. But to
aim at these high ideals is as perilous as it is noble; and
weapons which may be safely trusted in the hands of saints
become fatal implements of mischief when saints have ceased to
wield them. … The Consistory Courts had continued into the
sixteenth century with unrestricted jurisdiction, although
they had been for generations merely perennially flowing
fountains, feeding the ecclesiastical exchequer. The moral
conduct of every English man and woman remained subject to
them. … But between the original design and the degenerate
counterfeit there was this vital difference,—that the
censures were no longer spiritual. They were commuted in
various gradations for pecuniary fines, and each offence
against morality was rated at its specific money value in the
Episcopal tables. Suspension and excommunication remained as
ultimate penalties; but they were resorted to only to compel
unwilling culprits to accept the alternative. The
misdemeanours of which the courts took cognizance were
'offences against chastity,' 'heresy,' or 'matter sounding
thereunto,' 'witchcraft,' 'drunkenness,' 'scandal,'
'defamation,' 'impatient words,' 'broken promises,' 'untruth,'
'absence from church,' 'speaking evil of saints,' 'non-payment
of offerings,' and other delinquencies incapable of legal
definition."
_J. A. Froude.
History of England,
chapter 3._
CONSPIRACY BILL, The.
See ENGLAND: A. D. 1858-1859.
CONSTABLE, The.
"The name is derived from the 'comes stabuli' of the Byzantine
court, and appears in the west as early as the days of Gregory
of Tours. The duties of the constables of France … and those
of the constables of Naples … are not exactly parallel with
[those of] the constables of England. In Naples the constable
kept the King's sword, commanded the army, appointed the
quarters, disciplined the troops and distributed the
sentinels; the marshals and all other officers being his
subordinates. The French office was nearly the same. In
England, however, the marshal was not subordinate to the
constable. Probably the English marshals fulfilled the duties
which had been in Normandy discharged by the constables. The
marshal is more distinctly an officer of the court, the
constable one of the castle or army. … The constable …
exercised the office of quartermaster-general of the court and
army and succeeded to the duties of the Anglo-Saxon staller."
_William Stubbs,
Constitutional History of England,
chapter 11, section 122, and note._
{505}
CONSTABLE OF FRANCE.
"No other dignity in the world has been held by such a
succession of great soldiers as the office of Constable of
France. The Constable was originally a mere officer of the
stables, but his power had increased by the suppression of the
office of Grand Seneschal, and by the time of Philip Augustus
he exercised control over all the military forces of the
crown. He was the general in chief of the army and the highest
military authority in the kingdom. The constables had for four
centuries been leaders in the wars of France, and they had
experienced strange and varied fortunes. The office had been
bestowed on the son of Simon de Montfort, and he for this
honor had granted to the king of France his rights over those
vast domains which had been given his father for his pious
conquests. [See ALBIGENSES: A. D. 1217-1229.] It had been
bestowed on Raoul de Nesle, who fell at Courtrai, where the
French nobility suffered its first defeat from Flemish boors;
on Bertrand de Guesclin, the last of the great warriors, whose
deeds were sung with those of the paladins of Charlemagne; on
Clisson, the victor of Roosebeck [or Rosebecque]; on Armagnac,
whose name has a bloody preeminence among the leaders of the
fierce soldiery who ravaged France during the English wars; on
Buchan, whose Scotch valor and fidelity gained him this great
trust among a foreign people; on Richemont, the companion of
Joan Darc; on Saint Pol, the ally of Charles the Bold, the
betrayer and the victim of Louis XI.; on the Duke of Bourbon,
who won the battle of Pavia against his sovereign, and led his
soldiers to that sack of Rome which made the ravages of
Genseric and Alaric seem mild; on Anne of Montmorenci, a
prominent actor in every great event in France from the battle
of Pavia against Charles V. to that of St. Denis against
Coligni; on his son, the companion of Henry IV. in his youth,
and his trusted adviser in his age. … The sword borne by
such men had been bestowed [1621] on Luines, the hero of an
assassination, who could not drill a company of infantry; it
was now [1622] given to the hero of many battles [the Duke of
Lesdeguières], and the great office was to expire in the hands
of a great soldier."
_J. B. Perkins,
France under Mazarin,
volume 1, page 94._
CONSTANCE, The Council of.
See PAPACY: A. D. 1414-1418.
CONSTANCE, Peace of (1183).
See ITALY: A. D. 1174-1183.
CONSTANS I.,
Roman Emperor, A. D. 337-350.
Constans II., Roman Emperor (Eastern), A. D. 641-668.
CONSTANTINA, The taking of (1837).
See BARBARY STATES: A. D. 1830-1846.
CONSTANTINE, Pope, A. D. 708-715.
Constantine I. (called The Great), Roman Emperor, A. D. 306-337.
The Conversion.
See ROME: A. D. 323.
The Forged Donation of.
See PAPACY: A. D. 774 (?).
Constantine II., Roman Emperor, A. D. 337-340.
Constantine III., Roman Emperor in the East, A. D. 641.
Constantine IV. (called Pogonatus),
Roman Emperor in the East, A. D. 668-685.
Constantine V. (called Copronymus),
Emperor in the East (Byzantine, or Greek), A. D. 741-775.
Constantine VI., Emperor in the East
(Byzantine, or Greek), A. D. 780-797.
Constantine VII. (called Porphyrogenitus),
Emperor in the East (Byzantine, or Greek), A. D. 911-950.
Constantine VIII. (colleague of Constantine VII.),
Emperor in the East (Byzantine, or Greek), A. D. 944.
Constantine IX., Emperor in the East
(Byzantine, or Greek), A. D. 963-1028.
Constantine X., Emperor in the East (Byzantine, or Greek),
A. D. 1042-1054.
Constantine XI., Emperor in the East
(Byzantine, or Greek), A. D. 1059-1067.
Constantine XII., nominal Greek Emperor in the East,
about A. D. 1071.
Constantine XIII. (Polæologus), Greek Emperor
of Constantinople, A. D. 1448-1453.
Constantine the Usurper.
See BRITAIN: A. D. 407.
CONSTANTINOPLE: A. D. 330.
Transformation of Byzantium.
"Constantine had for some time contemplated the erection of a
new capital. The experience of nearly half a century had
confirmed the sagacity of Diocletian's selection of a site on
the confines of Europe and Asia [Nicomedia] as the whereabouts
in which the political centre of gravity of the Empire rested.
At one time Constantine thought of adopting the site of
ancient Troy, and is said to have actually commenced building
a new city there. … More prosaic reasons ultimately
prevailed. The practical genius of Constantine recognized in
the town of Byzantium, on the European side of the border line
between the two continents, the site best adapted for his new
capital. All subsequent ages have applauded his discernment,
for experience has endorsed the wisdom of the choice. By land,
with its Asian suburb of Chrysopolis [modern Scutari], it
practically spanned the narrow strait and joined Europe and
Asia: by sea, it was open on one side to Spain, Italy, Greece,
Africa, Egypt, Syria; on the other to the Euxine, and so by
the Danube it had easy access to the whole of that important
frontier between the Empire and the barbarians; and round all
the northern coasts of the sea it took the barbarians in
flank. … The city was solemnly dedicated with religious
ceremonies on the 11th of May, 330, and the occasion was
celebrated, after the Roman fashion, by a great festival,
largesses and games in the hippodrome, which lasted forty
days. The Emperor gave to the city institutions modelled after
those of the ancient Rome."
_E. L. Cutts,
Constantine the Great,
chapter 29._
"The new walls of Constantine stretched from the port to the
Propontis … at the distance of fifteen stadia from the
ancient fortification, and, with the city of Byzantium, they
enclosed five of the seven hills which, to the eyes of those
who approach Constantinople, appear to rise above each other
in beautiful order. About a century after the death of the
founder, the new buildings … already covered the narrow
ridge of the sixth and the broad summit of the seventh hill.
… The buildings of the new city were executed by such
artificers as the reign of Constantine could afford; but they
were decorated by the hands of the most celebrated masters of
the age of Pericles and Alexander. … By his commands the
cities of Greece and Asia were despoiled of their most
valuable ornaments."
_E. Gibbon,
Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire,
chapter 17.
{506}
"The new city was an exact copy of old Rome. … It was
inhabited by senators from Rome. Wealthy individuals from the
provinces were likewise compelled to keep up houses at
Constantinople, pensions were conferred upon them, and a right
to a certain amount of provisions from the public stores was
annexed to these dwellings. Eighty thousand loaves of bread
were distributed daily to the inhabitants of Constantinople.
… The tribute of grain from Egypt was appropriated to supply
Constantinople, and that of Africa was left for the
consumption of Rome."
_G. Finlay,
Greece under the Romans,
chapter 2._
ALSO IN:
_J. B. Bury,
History of the later Roman Empire,
book 1, chapter 5 (volume 1)._
CONSTANTINOPLE: A. D. 363-518.
The Eastern Court from Valens to Anastatius.
Tumults at the capital.
See ROME: A. D. 363-379 to 400-518.
CONSTANTINOPLE: A. D. 378.
Threatened by the Goths.
See GOTHS: A. D. 379-382.
CONSTANTINOPLE: A. D. 400.
Popular rising against the Gothic soldiery.
Their expulsion from the city.
See ROME: A. D. 400-518.
CONSTANTINOPLE: A. D. 511-512.
Tumults concerning the Trisagion.
During the reign of Anastatius, at Constantinople, the fierce
controversy which had raged for many years throughout the
empire, between the Monophysites (who maintained that the
divine and the human natures in Christ were one), and the
'adherents of the Council of Chalcedon (which declared that
Christ possessed two natures in one person), was embittered at
the imperial capital by opposition between the emperor, who
favored the Monophysites, and the patriarch who was strict in
Chalcedonian orthodoxy. In 511, and again in 512, it gave rise
to two alarming riots at Constantinople. On the first
occasion, a Monophysite or Eutychian party "burst into the
Chapel of the Archangel in the Imperial Palace and dared to
chant the Te Deum with the addition of the forbidden words,
the war-cry of many an Eutychian mob, 'Who wast crucified for
us.' The Trisagion, as it was called, the thrice-repeated cry
to the Holy One, which Isaiah in his vision heard uttered by
the seraphim, became, by the addition of these words, as
emphatic a statement as the Monophysite party could desire of
their favourite tenet that God, not man, breathed out his soul
unto death outside the gates of Jerusalem. … On the next
Sunday the Monophysites sang the verse which was their war-cry
in the great Basilica itself." The riot which ensued was
quieted with difficulty by the patriarch, to whom the emperor
humbled himself. But in the next year, on a fast-day (Nov. 6)
the Monophysites gave a similar challenge, singing the
Trisagion with the prohibited words added, and "again psalmody
gave place to blows; men wounded and dying lay upon the floor
of the church. … The orthodox mob streamed from all parts
into the great forum. There they swarmed and swayed to and fro
all that day and all that night, shouting forth, not the
greatness of the Ephesian Diana, but 'Holy, Holy, Holy,'
without the words' 'Who wast crucified.' They hewed down the
monks,—a minority of their class,—who were on the side of
the imperial creed, and burned their monasteries with fire."
After two days of riot, the aged emperor humbled himself to
the mob, in the great Circus, offered to abdicate the throne
and made peace by promises to respect the decrees of
Chalcedon.
_T. Hodgkin,
Italy and Her Invaders,
book 4, chapter 10._
See, also, NESTORIAN AND MONOPHYSITE CONTROVERSY.
CONSTANTINOPLE: A. D. 532.
The Sedition of Nika.
See CIRCUS, FACTIONS OF THE ROMAN.
CONSTANTINOPLE: A. D. 542.
The Plague.
See PLAGUE: A. D. 542-594.
CONSTANTINOPLE: A. D. 553.
General Council.
See THREE CHAPTERS, THE DISPUTE OF THE.
CONSTANTINOPLE: A. D. 626.
Attacked by the Avars and Persians.
See ROME: A. D. 565-628.
CONSTANTINOPLE: A. D. 668-675.
First siege by the Saracens.
"Forty-six years after the flight of Mahomet from Mecca his
disciples appeared in arms under the walls of Constantinople.
They were animated by a genuine or fictitious saying of the
prophet, that, to the first army which besieged the city of
the Cæsars, their sins were forgiven. … No sooner had the
Caliph Moawiyah [the first of the Ommiade caliphs, seated at
Damascus,] suppressed his rivals and established his throne,
than he aspired to expiate the guilt of civil blood by the
success of this holy expedition; his preparations by sea and
land were adequate to the importance of the object; his
standard was entrusted to Sophian, a veteran warrior. … The
Greeks had little to hope, nor had their enemies any reasons
of fear, from the courage and vigilance of the reigning
Emperor, who disgraced the name of Constantine, and imitated
only the inglorious years of his grandfather Heraclius.
Without delay or opposition, the naval forces of the Saracens
passed through the unguarded channel of the Hellespont, which
even now, under the feeble and disorderly government of the
Turks, is maintained as the natural bulwark of the capital.
The Arabian fleet cast anchor and the troops were disembarked
near the palace of Hebdomon, seven miles from the city. During
many days, from the dawn of light to the evening, the line of
assault was extended from the golden gate to the Eastern
promontory. … But the besiegers had formed an insufficient
estimate of the strength and resources of Constantinople. The
solid and lofty walls were guarded by numbers and discipline;
the spirit of the Romans was rekindled by the last danger of
their religion and empire; the fugitives from the conquered
provinces more successfully renewed the defence of Damascus
and Alexandria; and the Saracens were dismayed by the strange
and prodigious effects of artificial fire. This firm and
effectual resistance diverted their arms to the more easy
attempts of plundering the European and Asiatic coasts of the
Propontis; and, after keeping the sea from the month of April
to that of September, on the approach of winter they retreated
four score miles from the capital, to the isle of Cyzicus, in
which they had established their magazine of spoil and
provisions. So patient was their perseverance, or so languid
were their operations, that they repeated in the six following
summers the same attack and retreat, with a gradual abatement
of hope and vigour, till the mischances of shipwreck and
disease, of the sword and of fire, compelled them to
relinquish the fruitless enterprise. They might bewail the
loss, or commemorate the martyrdom, of 30,000 Moslems who fell
in the siege of Constantinople. … The event of the siege
revived, both in the East and West, the reputation of the
Roman arms, and cast a momentary shade over the glories of the
Saracens. … A peace, or truce of thirty years was ratified
between the two Empires; and the stipulation of an annual
tribute, fifty horses of a noble breed, fifty slaves, and
3,000 pieces of gold, degraded the majesty of the commander of
the faithful."
_E. Gibbon,
Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire,
chapter 52.
{507}
CONSTANTINOPLE: A. D. 680.
General Council.
See MONOTHELITE CONTROVERSY.
CONSTANTINOPLE: A. D. 717-718.
The second siege by the Saracens.
"When Leo [the Isaurian] was raised to the [Byzantine] throne
[A. D. 717], the empire was threatened with immediate ruin.
Six emperors had been dethroned within the space of twenty-one
years. … The Bulgarians and Sclavonians wasted Europe up to
the walls of Constantinople; the Saracens ravaged the whole of
Asia Minor to the shores of the Bosphorus. … The Caliph
Suleiman, who had seen one private adventurer succeed the
other in quick succession on the imperial throne, deemed the
moment favourable for the final conquest of the Christians;
and, reinforcing his brother's army [in Asia Minor], he
ordered him to lay siege to Constantinople. The Saracen empire
had now reached its greatest extent. From the banks of the
Sihun and the Indus to the shores of the Atlantic in
Mauretania and Spain, the order of Suleiman was implicitly
obeyed. … The army Moslemah led against Constantinople was
the best-appointed that had ever attacked the Christians: it
consisted of 80,000 warriors. The Caliph announced his
intention of taking the field in person with additional
forces, should the capital of the Christians offer a
protracted resistance to the arms of Islam. The whole
expedition is said to have employed 180,000 men. … Moslemah,
after capturing Pergamus, marched to Abydos, where he was
joined by the Saracen fleet. He then transported his army
across the Hellespont, and marching along the shore of the
Propontis, invested Leo in his capital both by land and sea.
The strong walls of Constantinople, the engines of defence
with which Roman and Greek art had covered the ramparts, and
the skill of the Byzantine engineers, rendered every attempt
to carry the place by assault hopeless, so that the Saracens
were compelled to trust to the effect of a strict blockade for
gaining possession of the city. … The besiegers encamped
before Constantinople on the 15th August 717. The Caliph
Suleiman died before he was able to send any reinforcements to
his brother. The winter proved unusually severe." Great
numbers of the warriors from the south were destroyed by the
inclemency of a climate to which they had not become inured;
many more died of famine in the Moslem camp, while the
besieged city was plentifully supplied. The whole undertaking
was disastrous from its beginning to its close, and, exactly
one year from the pitching of his camp under the Byzantine
walls, "on the 15th of August 718, Moslemah raised the siege,
after ruining one of the finest armies the Saracens ever
assembled. … Few military details concerning Leo's defence
of Constantinople have been preserved, but there can be no
doubt that it was one of the most brilliant exploits of a
warlike age. … The vanity of Gallic writers has magnified
the success of Charles Martel over a plundering expedition of
the Spanish Arabs into a marvellous victory, and attributed
the deliverance of Europe from the Saracen yoke to the valour
of the Franks. A veil has been thrown over the talents and
courage of Leo, a soldier of fortune, just seated on the
imperial throne, who defeated the long-planned schemes of
conquest of the Caliphs Welid and Suleiman. It is unfortunate
that we have no Isaurian literature. … The war was languidly
carried on for some years and the Saracens were gradually
expelled from most of their conquests beyond Mount Tauris."
_G. Finlay,
History of the Byzantine Empire from 716 to 1057,
chapter 1._
CONSTANTINOPLE: A. D. 747.
The Great Plague.
See PLAGUE: A. D. 744-748.
CONSTANTINOPLE: A. D. 754.
The Iconoclastic Council.
See ICONOCLASTIC CONTROVERSY.
CONSTANTINOPLE: A. D. 865.
First attack by the Russians.
"In the year 865, a nation hitherto unknown made its first
appearance in the history of the world, where it was destined
to act no unimportant part. Its entrance into the political
system of the European nations was marked by an attempt to
take Constantinople, a project which it has often revived. …
In the year 862, Rurik, a Scandinavian or Varangian chief,
arrived at Novgorod, and laid the first foundation of the
state which has grown into the Russian empire. The Russian
people, under Varangian domination, rapidly increased in
power, and reduced many of their neighbours to submission. …
From what particular circumstance the Russians were led to
make their daring attack on Constantinople is not known. The
Emperor Michael [III.] had taken the command of an army to act
against the Saracens, and Oryphas, admiral of the fleet, acted
as governor of the capital during his absence. Before the
Emperor had commenced his military operations, a fleet of 200
Russian vessels of small size, taking advantage of a
favourable wind, suddenly passed through the Bosphorus, and
anchored at the mouth of the Black River in the Propontis,
about 18 miles from Constantinople. This Russian expedition
had already plundered the shores of the Black Sea, and from
its station within the Bosphorus it ravaged the country about
Constantinople, and plundered the Prince's Islands, pillaging
the monasteries and slaying the monks as well as the other
inhabitants. The Emperor, informed by Oryphas of the attack on
his capital hastened to its defence. … It required no great
exertions on the part of the imperial officers to equip a
force sufficient to attack and put to flight these invaders;
but the horrid cruelty of the barbarians, and the wild daring
of their Varangian leaders, made a profound impression on the
people of Constantinople."
_G. Finlay,
History of the Byzantine Empire,
book 1, chapter 3, section 3._
CONSTANTINOPLE: A. D. 907-1043.
Repeated attacks by the Russians.
Notwithstanding an active and increasing commercial
intercourse between the Greeks and the Russians,
Constantinople was exposed, during the tenth century and part
of the eleventh, to repeated attacks from the masterful
Varangians and their subjects. In the year 907, a fleet of
2,000 Russian vessels or boats swarmed into the Bosphorus, and
laid waste the shores in the neighborhood of Constantinople.
"It is not improbable that the expedition was undertaken to
obtain indemnity for some commercial losses sustained by
imperial negligence, monopoly or oppression. The subjects of
the emperor were murdered, and the Russians amused themselves
with torturing their captives in the most barbarous manner.
{508}
At length Leo [VI.] purchased their retreat by the payment of a
large sum of money. … These hostilities were terminated by a
commercial treaty in 912." There was peace under this treaty
until 941, when a third attack on Constantinople was led by
Igor, the son of Rurik. But it ended most disastrously for the
Russians and Igor escaped with only a few boats. The result
was another important treaty, negotiated in 945. In 970 the
Byzantine Empire was more seriously threatened by an attempt
on the part of the Russians to subdue the kingdom of Bulgaria;
which would have brought them into the same dangerous
neighborhood to Constantinople that the Russia of our own day
has labored so hard to reach. But the able soldier John
Zimisces happened to occupy the Byzantine throne; the Russian
invasion of Bulgaria was repelled and Bulgaria, itself, was
reannexed to the Empire, which pushed its boundaries to the
Danube, once more. For more than half a century,
Constantinople was undisturbed by the covetous ambition of her
Russian fellow Christians. Then they invaded the Bosphorus
again with a formidable armament; but the expedition was
wholly disastrous and they retreated with a loss of 15,000
men. "Three years elapsed before peace was re-established; but
a treaty was then concluded and the trade at Constantinople
placed on the old footing. From this period the alliance of
the Russians with the Byzantine Empire was long uninterrupted;
and as the Greeks became more deeply imbued with
ecclesiastical prejudices, and more hostile to the Latin
nations, the Eastern Church became, in their eyes, the symbol
of their nationality, and the bigoted attachment of the
Russians to the same religious formalities obtained for them
from the Byzantine Greeks the appellation of the most
Christian nation."
_G. Finlay,
History of the Byzantine Empire, from 716 to 1057,
book 2, chapter 3, section 2._
CONSTANTINOPLE: A. D. 1081.
Sacked by the rebel army of Alexius Comnenus.
Alexius Comnenus, the emperor who occupied the Byzantine
throne at the time of the First Crusade, and who became
historically prominent in that connection, acquired his crown
by a successful rebellion. He was collaterally of the family
of Isaac Comnenus, (Isaac I.) who had reigned briefly in
1057-1059,—he, too, having been, in his imperial office, the
product of a revolution. But the interval of twenty-two years
had seen four emperors come and go—two to the grave and two
into monastic seclusion. It was the last of these—Nicephorus
III. (Botaneites) that Alexius displaced, with the support of
an army which he had previously commanded. One of the gates of
the capital was betrayed to him by a German mercenary, and he
gained the city almost without a blow. "The old Emperor
consented to resign his crown and retire into a monastery.
Alexius entered the imperial palace, and the rebel army
commenced plundering every quarter of the city. Natives and
mercenaries vied with one another in license and rapine. No
class of society was sacred from their lust and avarice, and
the inmates of monasteries, churches, and palaces were alike
plundered and insulted. This sack of Constantinople by the
Sclavonians, Bulgarians, and Greeks in the service of the
families of Comnenus, Ducas, and Paleologos, who crept
treacherously into the city, was a fit prologue to its
sufferings when it was stormed by the Crusaders in 1204. From
this disgraceful conquest of Constantinople by Alexius
Comnenus, we must date the decay of its wealth and civic
supremacy, both as a capital and a commercial city. … The
power which was thus established in rapine terminated about a
century later in a bloody vengeance inflicted by an infuriated
populace on the last Emperor of the Comnenian family,
Andronicus I. Constantinople was taken on the 1st of April,
1081, and Alexius was crowned in St. Sophia's next day."
_G. Finlay,
History of the Byzantine and Greek Empires, from 716 to 1453,
book 3, chapter 1._
CONSTANTINOPLE: A. D. 1204.
Conquest and brutal sack by Crusaders and Venetians.
See CRUSADES: A. D. 1201-1203;
and BYZANTINE EMPIRE: A. D. 1203-1204.
CONSTANTINOPLE: A. D. 1204-1261.
The Latin Empire and its fall.
Recovery by the Greeks.
See ROMANIA, THE EMPIRE OF,
and BYZANTINE EMPIRE: A. D. 1204-1205.
CONSTANTINOPLE: A. D. 1261.
Great privileges conceded to the Genoese.
Pera and its citadel Galata given up to them.
See GENOA: A. D. 1261-1299.
CONSTANTINOPLE: A. D. 1261-1453.
The restored Greek Empire.
On the 25th of July, A. D. 1261. Constantinople was surprised
and the last Latin emperor expelled by the fortunate arms of
Michael Palæologus, the Greek usurper at Nicæa. (See GREEK
EMPIRE OF NICÆA.) Twenty days later Michael made his triumphal
entry into the ancient capital. "But after the first transport
of devotion and pride, he sighed at the dreary prospect of
solitude and ruin. The palace was defiled with smoke and dirt
and the gross intemperance of the Franks; whole streets had
been consumed by fire, or were decayed by the injuries of
time; the sacred and profane edifices were stripped of their
ornaments; and, as if they were conscious of their approaching
exile, the industry of the Latins had been confined to the
work of pillage and destruction. Trade had expired under the
pressure of anarchy and distress, and the numbers of
inhabitants had decreased with the opulence of the city. It
was the first care of the Greek monarch to reinstate the
nobles in the palaces of their fathers. … He repeopled
Constantinople by a liberal invitation to the provinces, and
the brave 'volunteers' were seated in the capital which had
been recovered by their arms. Instead of banishing the
factories of the Pisans, Venetians, and Genoese, the prudent
conqueror 'accepted their oaths of allegiance, encouraged
their industry, confirmed their privileges and allowed them to
live under the jurisdiction of their proper magistrates. Of
these nations the Pisans and Venetians preserved their
respective quarters in the city; but the services and power of
the Genoese [who had assisted in the reconquest of
Constantinople] deserved at the same time the gratitude and
the jealousy of the Greeks. Their independent colony was first
planted at the seaport town of Heraclea in Thrace. They were
speedily recalled, and settled in the exclusive possession of
the suburb of Galata, an advantageous post, in which they
revived the commerce and insulted the majesty of the Byzantine
Empire. The recovery of Constantinople was celebrated as the
era of a new Empire."
{509}
The new empire thus established in the ancient Roman capital
of the east made some show of vigor at first. Michael
Palæologus "wrested from the Franks several of the noblest
islands of the Archipelago—Lesbos, Chios, and Rhodes. His
brother Constantine was sent to command in Malvasia and
Sparta; and the Eastern side of the Morea, from Argos and
Napoli to Cape Tænarus, was repossessed by the Greeks. … But
in the prosecution of these Western conquests the countries
beyond the Hellespont were left naked to the Turks; and their
depredations verified the prophecy of a dying senator, that
the recovery of Constantinople would be the ruin of Asia." Not
only was Asia Minor abandoned to the new race of Turkish
conquerors—the Ottomans—but those most aggressive of the
proselytes of Islam were invited in the next generation to
cross the Bosphorus, and to enter Thrace as partisans in a
Greek civil war. Their footing in Europe once gained, they
devoured the distracted and feeble empire piece by piece,
until little remained to it beyond the capital itself. Long
before the latter fell, the empire was a shadow and a name. In
the very suburbs of Constantinople, the Genoese podesta, at
Pera or Galata, had more power than the Greek Emperor; and the
rival Italian traders, of Genoa, Venice and Pisa, fought their
battles under the eyes of the Byzantines with indifference,
almost, to the will or wishes, the opposition or the help of
the latter. "The weight of the Roman Empire was scarcely felt
in the balance of these opulent and powerful republics. …
The Roman Empire (I smile in transcribing the name) might soon
have sunk into a province of Genoa, if the ambition of the
republic had not been checked by the ruin of her freedom and
naval power. A long contest of 130 years was determined by the
triumph of Venice. … Yet the spirit of commerce survived
that of conquest; and the colony of Pera still awed the
capital and navigated the Euxine, till it was involved by the
Turks in the final servitude of Constantinople itself."
_E. Gibbon,
Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire,
chapter 62-63.
ALSO IN:
_G. Finlay,
History of the Byzantine and Greek Empires,
book 4, chapter 2._
See, also,
TURKS (THE OTTOMANS): A. D. 1240-1326; 1326-1359;
1360-1389; 1389-1403, &c.
CONSTANTINOPLE: A. D. 1348-1355.
War with the Genoese.
Alliance with Venice and Aragon.
John Cantacuzenos, who usurped the throne in 1347, "had not
reigned a year before he was involved in hostilities with the
Genoese colony of Galata, which had always contained many warm
partisans of the house of Paleologos [displaced by
Cantacuzenos]. This factory had grown into a flourishing town,
and commanded a large portion of the Golden Horn. During the
civil war, the Genoese capitalists had supplied the regency
with money, and they now formed almost every branch of the
revenue which the imperial government derived from the port.
… The financial measures of the new emperor reduced their
profits. … The increased industry of the Greeks, and the
jealousy of the Genoese, led to open hostilities. The
colonists of Galata commenced the war in a treacherous manner,
without any authority from the republic of Genoa (1348). With
a fleet of only eight large and some small galleys they
attacked Constantinople while Cantacuzenos was absent from the
capital, and burned several buildings and the greater part of
the fleet he was then constructing. The Empress Irene, who
administered the government in the absence of her husband,
behaved with great prudence and courage and repulsed a bold
attack of the Genoese. Cantacuzenos hastened to the capital,
where he spent the winter in repairing the loss his fleet had
sustained. As soon as it was ready for action, he engaged the
Genoese in the port, where he hoped that their naval skill
would be of no avail, and where the numerical superiority of
his ships would insure him a victory. He expected, moreover,
to gain possession of Galata itself by an attack on the land
side while the Genoese were occupied at sea. The cowardly
conduct of the Greeks, both by sea and land, rendered his
plans abortive. The greater part of his ships were taken, and
his army retreated without making a serious attack.
Fortunately for Cantacuzenos, the colonists of Galata received
an order from the Senate of Genoa to conclude peace. … Their
victory enabled them to obtain favourable terms, and to keep
possession of some land they had seized, and on which they
soon completed the construction of a new citadel. The friendly
disposition manifested by the government of Genoa induced
Cantacuzenos to send ambassadors to the Senate to demand the
restoration of the island of Chios, which had been conquered
by a band of Genoese exiles in 1346. A treaty was concluded,
by which the Genoese were to restore the island to the Emperor
of Constantinople in ten years. … But this treaty was never
carried into execution, for the exiles at Chios set both the
republic of Genoa and the Greek Empire at defiance, and
retained their conquest." The peace with Genoa was of short
duration. Cantacuzenos was bent upon expelling the Genoese
from Galata, and as they were now involved in the war with the
Venetians which is known as the war of Caffa he hoped to
accomplish his purpose by joining the latter. "The Genoese had
drawn into their hands the greater part of the commerce of the
Black Sea. The town of Tana or Azof was then a place of great
commercial importance, as many of the productions of India and
China found their way to western Europe from its warehouses.
The Genoese, in consequence of a quarrel with the Tartars, had
been compelled to suspend their intercourse with Tana, and the
Venetians, availing themselves of the opportunity, had
extended their trade and increased their profits. The envy of
the Genoese led them to obstruct the Venetian trade and
capture Venetian ships, until at length the disputes of the
two republics broke out in open war in 1348. In the year 1351,
Cantacuzenos entered into an alliance with Venice, and joined
his forces to those of the Venetians, who had also concluded
an alliance with Peter the Ceremonious, king of Aragon.
Nicholas Pisani, one of the ablest admirals of the age,
appeared before Constantinople with the Venetian fleet; but
his ships had suffered severely from a storm, and his
principal object was attained when he had convoyed the
merchantmen of Venice safely into the Black Sea. Cantacuzenos,
however, had no object but to take Galata; and, expecting to
receive important aid from Pisani, he attacked the Genoese
colony by sea and land. His assault was defeated in
consequence of the weakness of the Greeks and the lukewarmness
of the Venetians.
{510}
Pisani retired to Negropont, to effect a junction with the
Catalan fleet; and Pagano Doria, who had pursued him with a
superior force, in returning to Galata to pass the winter,
stormed the town of Heracleia on the Sea of Marmora, where
Cantacuzenos had collected large magazines of provisions, and
carried off a rich booty, with many wealthy Greeks, who were
compelled to ransom themselves by paying large sums to these
captors. Cantacuzenos was now besieged in Constantinople, …
The Genoese, unable to make any impression on the city,
indemnified themselves by ravaging the Greek territory on the
Black Sea. … Early in the year 1352, Pisani returned to
Constantinople with the Catalan fleet, under Ponzio da
Santapace, and a great battle was fought between the allies
and the Genoese, in full view of Constantinople and Galata.
The scene of the combat was off the island of Prote, and it
received the name of Vrachophagos from some sunken rocks, of
which the Genoese availed themselves in their manœuvres. The
honour of a doubtful and bloody day rested with the Genoese.
… Pisani soon quitted the neighbourhood of Constantinople,
and Cantacuzenos, having nothing more to hope from the
Venetian alliance … concluded a peace with the republic of
Genoa. In this war he had exposed the weakness of the Greek
empire, and the decline of the maritime force of Greece, to
all the states of Europe. The treaty confirmed all the
previous privileges and encroachments of the colony of Galata
and other Genoese establishments in the Empire."
_G. Finlay,
History of the Byzantine and Greek Empires, 716-1453,
book 4, chapter 2, section 4._
The retirement of the Greeks from the contest did not check
the war between Genoa and Venice and the other allies of the
latter, which was continued until 1355. The Genoese were
defeated, August 29, 1353, by the Venetians and Catalans, in a
great battle fought near Lojera, on the northern coast of
Sardinia, losing 41 galleys and 4,500 or 5,000 men. They
obtained their revenge the next year, on the 4th of November,
when Paganino Doria surprised the Venetian admiral, Pisani, at
Portolongo, opposite the island of Sapienzu, as he was
preparing to go into winter-quarters. "The Venetians sustained
not so much a defeat as a total discomfiture; 450 were killed;
an enormous number of prisoners, loosely calculated at 6,000,
and a highly valuable booty in prizes and stores, were taken."
In June, 1355, the war was ended by a treaty which excluded
Venice from all Black Sea ports except Caffa.
_W. C. Hazlitt,
History of the Venetian Republic,
chapters 18-19 (volume 3)._
ALSO IN:
_F. A. Parker,
The Fleets of the World,
pages 88-94._
CONSTANTINOPLE: A. D. 1453.
Conquest by the Turks.
Mahomet II., son of Amurath II. came to the Ottoman throne, at
the age of twenty-one, in 1451. "The conquest of
Constantinople was the first object on which his thoughts were
fixed at the opening of his reign. The resolution with which
he had formed this purpose expressed itself in his stern reply
to the ambassadors of the Emperor, offering him tribute if he
would renounce the project of building a fort on the European
shore of the Bosporus, which, at the distance of only five
miles from the capital, would give him the command of the
Black Sea. He ordered the envoys to retire, and threatened to
flay alive any who should dare to bring him a similar message
again. The fort was finished in three months and garrisoned
with 400 janizaries; a tribute was exacted of all vessels that
passed, and war was formally declared by the Sultan.
Constantine [Constantine Palæologus, the last Greek Emperor]
made the best preparations in his power for defence; but he
could muster only 600 Greek soldiers." In order to secure aid
from the Pope and the Italians, Constantine united himself
with the Roman Church. A few hundred troops were then sent to
his assistance; but, at the most, he had only succeeded in
manning the many miles of the city wall with 9,000 men, when,
in April, 1453, the Sultan invested it. The Turkish army was
said to number 250,000 men, and 420 vessels were counted in
the accompanying fleet. A summons to surrender was answered
with indignant refusal by Constantine, "who had calmly
resolved not to survive the fall of the city," and the final
assault of the furious Turks was made on the 29th of May,
1453. The heroic Emperor was slain among the last defenders of
the gate of St. Romanos, and the janizaries rode over his dead
body as they charged into the streets of the fallen Roman
capital. "The despairing people—senators, priests, monks,
nuns, husbands, wives and children—sought safety in the
church of St. Sophia. A prophecy had been circulated that here
the Turks would be arrested by an angel from heaven, with a
drawn sword; and hither the miserable multitude crowded, in
the expectation of supernatural help. The conquerors followed,
sword in hand, slaughtering those whom they encountered in the
street. They broke down the doors of the church with axes,
and, rushing in, committed every act of atrocity that a
frantic thirst for blood and the inflamed passions of demons
could suggest. All the unhappy victims were divided as slaves
among the soldiers, without regard to blood or rank, and
hurried off to the camp; and the mighty cathedral, so long the
glory of the Christian world, soon presented only traces of
the orgies of hell. The other quarters of the city were
plundered by other divisions of the army. … About noon the
Sultan made his triumphal entry by the gate of St. Romanos,
passing by the body of the Emperor, which lay concealed among
the slain. Entering the church, he ordered a moolah to ascend
the bema and announce to the Mussulmans that St. Sophia was
now a mosque, consecrated to the prayers of the true
believers. He ordered the body of the Emperor to be sought,
his head to be exposed to the people, and afterwards to be
sent as a trophy, to be seen by the Greeks, in the principal
cities of the Ottoman Empire. For three days the city was
given up to the indescribable horrors of pillage and the
license of the Mussulman soldiery. Forty thousand perished
during the sack of the city and fifty thousand were reduced to
slavery."
_C. C. Felton,
Greece, Ancient and Modern: Fourth course,
lecture 6._
ALSO IN:
_G. Finlay,
History of the Byzantine and Greek Empires from 716 to 1453,
book 4, chapter 2._
_E. Gibbon,
Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire,
chapter 68.
CONSTANTINOPLE: A. D. 1453-1481.
The city repopulated and rebuilt.
Creation of the Turkish Stamboul.
{511}
"It was necessary for Mohammed II. to repeople Constantinople,
in order to render it the capital of the Ottoman Empire. The
installation of an orthodox Patriarch calmed the minds of the
Greeks, and many who had emigrated before the siege gradually
returned, and were allowed to claim a portion of their
property. But the slow increase of population, caused by a
sense of security and the hope of gain, did not satisfy the
Sultan, who was determined to see his capital one of the
greatest cities of the East, and who knew that it had formerly
exceeded Damascus, Bagdad and Cairo, in wealth, extent and
population. From most of his subsequent conquests Mohammed
compelled the wealthiest of the inhabitants to emigrate to
Constantinople, where he granted them plots of land to build
their houses. … Turks, Greeks, Servians, Bulgarians,
Albanians, and Lazes, followed one another in quick
succession, and long before the end of his reign
Constantinople was crowded by a numerous and active
population, and presented a more flourishing aspect than it
had done during the preceding century. The embellishment of
his capital was also the object of the Sultan's attention. …
Mosques, minarets, fountains and tombs, the great objects of
architectural magnificence among the Mussulmans, were
constructed in every quarter of the city. … The picturesque
beauty of the Stamboul of the present day owes most of its
artificial features to the Othoman conquest, and wears a
Turkish aspect. The Constantinople of the Byzantine Empire
disappeared with the last relics of the Greek Empire. The
traveller who now desires to view the vestiges of a Byzantine
capital, and examine the last relics of Byzantine
architecture, must continue his travels eastward to
Trebizond."
_G. Finlay,
History of the Byzantine and Greek Empires, from 716 to 1453,
book 4, chapter 2, section 7._
CONSTANTINOPLE: A. D. 1807.
Threatened by a British fleet.
See TURKS: A. D. 1806-1807.
----------CONSTANTINOPLE: End----------
CONSTANTINOPLE, Conference of (1877).
See TURKS: A. D. 1861-1877.
CONSTANTIUS I., Roman Emperor, A. D. 305-306.
Constantius II., A. D. 337-361.
CONSTITUTION, The battles of the frigate.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1812-1813, and 1814.
CONSTITUTION OF ARAGON AND CASTILE (the old monarchy).
See CORTES, THE EARLY SPANISH.
----------CONSTITUTION OF ARAGON AND CASTILE: End----------
CONSTITUTION OF THE ARGENTINE REPUBLIC.
The subjoined text of the Constitution of the Argentine
Republic is a translation "from the official edition of 1868,"
taken from R. Napp's work on "The Argentine Republic,"
prepared for the Central Argentine Commission on the Centenary
Exhibition at Philadelphia, 1876. According to the "Statesman's
Year-Book" of 1893, there have been no modifications since
1860:
Part I.
Article I.
The Argentine Nation adopts the federal-republican, and
representative form of Government, as established by the
present Constitution.
Article 2.
The Federal Government shall maintain the Apostolic Roman
Catholic Faith.
Article 3.
The authorities of the Federal Government shall reside in the
city which a special law of Congress may declare the capital
of the Republic, subsequently to the cession by one or more of
the Provincial Legislatures, of the territory about to be
federalized.
Article 4.
The Federal Government shall administer the expenses of the
Nation out of the revenue in the National Treasury, derived
from import and export duties; from the sale and lease of the
public lands; from postage; and from such other taxes as the
General Congress may equitably and proportionably lay upon the
people; as also, from such loans and credits as may be decreed
by it in times of national necessity, or for enterprises of
national utility.
Article 5.
Each Province shall make a Constitution for itself, according
to the republican representative system, and the principles,
declarations and guarantees of this Constitution; and which
shall provide for (secure) Municipal Government, primary
education and the administration of justice. Under these
conditions the Federal Government shall guarantee to each
Province the exercise and enjoyment of its institutions.
Article 6.
The Federal Government shall intervene in the Provinces to
guarantee the republican form of Government, or to repel
foreign invasion, and also, on application of their
constituted authorities, should they have been deposed by
sedition or by invasion from another Province, for the purpose
of sustaining or re-establishing them.
Article 7.
Full faith shall be given in each Province to the pubic acts,
and judicial proceedings of every other Province; and Congress
may by general laws, prescribe the manner in which such acts
and proceedings shall be proved, and the effect thereof.
Article 8.
The citizens of each Province shall be entitled to all the
rights, privileges and immunities, inherent to the citizens of
all the several Provinces. The reciprocal extradition of
criminals between all the Provinces, is obligatory.
Article 9.
Throughout the territory of the Nation, no other than the
National Custom-Houses shall be allowed, and they shall be
regulated by the tariffs sanctioned by Congress.
Article 10.
The circulation of all goods produced or manufactured in the
Republic, is free within its borders, as also, that of all
species of merchandise which may be dispatched by the
Custom-Houses of entry.
Article 11.
Such articles of native or foreign production, as well as
cattle of every kind, which pass from one Province to another,
shall be free from all transit-duties, and also the vehicles,
vessels or animals, which transport them; and no tax, let it
be what it may, can be henceforward imposed upon them on
account of such transit.
Article 12.
Vessels bound from one Province to another, shall not be
compelled to enter, anchor, or pay transit-duties; nor in any
case can preferences be granted to one port over another, by
any commercial laws or regulations.
Article 13.
New Provinces may be admitted into the Nation; but no Province
shall be erected within the territory of any other Province,
or Provinces, nor any Province be formed by the junction of
various Provinces, without the consent of the legislatures of
the Provinces concerned, as well as of Congress.
{512}
Article 14.
All the inhabitants of the Nation shall enjoy the following
rights, according to the laws which regulate their exercise:
viz. to labor and to practice all lawful industry; to trade
and navigate; to petition the authorities; to enter, remain
in, travel over and leave, Argentine territory; to publish
their ideas in the public-press without previous censure; to
enjoy and dispose of their property; to associate for useful
purposes; to profess freely their religion; to teach and to
learn.
Article 15.
In the Argentine Nation there are no slaves; the few which now
exist shall be free from the date of the adoption of this
Constitution, and a special law shall regulate the indemnity
acknowledged as due by this declaration. All contracts for the
purchase and sale of persons is a crime, for which those who
make them, as well as the notary or functionary which
authorizes them, shall be responsible, and the slaves who in
any manner whatever may be introduced, shall be free from the
sole fact that they tread the territory of the Republic.
Article 16.
The Argentine Nation does not admit the prerogatives of blood
nor of birth; in it, there are no personal privileges or
titles of nobility. All its inhabitants are equal in presence
of the law, and admissible to office without other condition
than that of fitness. Equality is the basis of taxation as
well as of public-posts.
Article 17.
Property is inviolable, and no inhabitant of the Nation can be
deprived of it, save by virtue of a sentence based on law. The
expropriation for public utility must be authorized by law and
previously indemnified. Congress alone shall impose the
contributions mentioned in Article 4. No personal service
shall be exacted save by virtue of law, or of a sentence
founded on law. Every author or inventor is the exclusive
proprietor of his work, invention or discovery, for the term
which the law accords to him. The confiscation of property is
henceforward and forever, stricken from the Argentine
penal-code. No armed body can make requisitions, nor exact
assistance of any kind.
Article 18.
No inhabitant of the Nation shall suffer punishment without a
previous judgment founded on a law passed previously to the
cause of judgment, nor be judged by special commissions, or
withdrawn from the Judges designated by law before the opening
of the cause. No one shall be obliged to testify against
himself; nor be arrested, save by virtue of a written order
from a competent authority. The defense at law both of the
person and his rights, is inviolable. The domicil, private
papers and epistolary correspondence, are inviolable; and a
law shall determine in what cases, and under what imputations,
a search-warrant can proceed against and occupy them. Capital
punishment for political causes, as well as every species of
torture and whippings, are abolished for ever. The prisons of
the Nation shall be healthy and clean, for the security, and
not for the punishment, of the criminals detained in them, and
every measure which under pretext of precaution may mortify
them more than such security requires, shall render
responsible the Judge who authorizes it.
Article 19.
Those private actions of men that in nowise offend public
order and morality, or injure a third party, belong alone to
God, and are beyond the authority of the magistrates. No
inhabitant of the Nation shall be compelled to do what the law
does not ordain, nor be deprived of anything which it does not
prohibit.
Article 20.
Within the territory of the Nation, foreigners shall enjoy all
the civil rights of citizens; they can exercise their
industries, commerce or professions, in accordance with the
laws; own, buy and sell real-estate; navigate the rivers and
coasts; freely profess their religion, and testate and marry.
They shall not be obliged to become citizens, nor to pay
forced contributions. Two years previous residence in the
Nation shall be required for naturalization, but the
authorities can shorten this term in favour of him who so
desires it, under the allegation and proof of services
rendered to the Republic.
Article 21.
Every Argentine citizen is obliged to arm himself in defense
of his country and of this Constitution, according to the laws
which Congress shall ordain for the purpose, and the decrees
of the National Executive. For the period of ten years from
the day on which they may have obtained their citizenship,
this service shall be voluntary on the part of the
naturalized.
Article 22.
The people shall not deliberate nor govern save by means of
their Representatives and Authorities, created by this
Constitution. Every armed force or meeting of persons which
shall arrogate to itself the rights of the people, and
petition in their name, is guilty of sedition.
Article 23.
In the event of internal commotion or foreign attack which
might place in jeopardy the practice of this Constitution, and
the free action of the Authorities created by it, the Province
or territory where such disturbance exists shall be declared
in a state of siege, all constitutional guarantees being
meantime suspended there. But during such suspension the
President of the Republic cannot condemn nor apply any
punishment per se. In respect to persons, his power shall be
limited to arresting and removing them from one place to
another in the Nation, should they not prefer to leave Argentine
territory.
Article 24.
Congress shall establish the reform of existing laws in all
branches, as also the trial by Jury.
Article 25.
The Federal Government shall foment European immigration; and
it cannot restrict, limit, nor lay any impost upon, the entry
upon Argentine territory, of such foreigners as come for the
purpose of cultivating the soil, improving manufactures, and
introducing and teaching the arts and sciences.
Article 26.
The navigation of the interior rivers of the Nation is free to
all flags, subject only to such regulations as the National
Authority may dictate.
Article 27.
The Federal Government is obliged to strengthen the bonds of
peace and commerce with foreign powers, by means of treaties
which shall be in conformity with the principles of public law
laid down in this Constitution.
Article 28.
The principles, rights and guarantees laid down in the
foregoing articles, cannot be altered by any laws intended to
regulate their practice.
Article 29.
Congress cannot grant to the Executive, nor the provincial
legislatures to the Governor of Provinces, any "extraordinary
faculties," nor the "sum of the public power," nor
"renunciations or supremacies" by which the lives, honor or
fortune of the Argentines shall be at the mercy of any
Government or person whatever. Acts of this nature shall be
irremediably null and void, and shall subject those who frame,
vote, or sign them, to the pains and penalties incurred by
those who are infamous traitors to their country.
{513}
Article 30.
This Constitution can be reformed in whole or in part. The
necessity for the reform shall be declared by Congress by at
least a two-thirds vote; but it can only be accomplished by a
convention called ad hoc.
Article 31.
This Constitution, and the laws of the Nation which shall be
made in pursuance thereof, and all treaties made or which
shall be made with Foreign Powers, shall be the supreme law of
the land; and the authorities of every Province shall be bound
thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any Province
to the contrary notwithstanding, excepting in the case of
Buenos-Aires, in the treaties ratified after the compact of
November 11th, 1859.
Article 32.
The Federal Congress shall not dictate laws restricting the
liberty of the press, nor establish any federal jurisdiction
over it.
Article 33.
The enumeration in this Constitution of certain rights and
guarantees, shall not be construed to deny or disparage other
rights and guarantees, not enumerated; but which spring from
the principle of popular sovereignty, and the republican form
of Government.
Article 34.
The Judges of the Federal courts shall not be Judges of
Provincial tribunals at the same time; nor shall the federal
service, civil as well as military, constitute a domicil in
the Province where it may be exercised, if it be not
habitually that of the employé; it being understood by this,
that all Provincial public-service is optional in the Province
where such employé may casually reside.
Article 35.
The names which have been successively adopted for the Nation,
since the year 1810 up to the present time; viz., the United
Provinces of the Rio de la Plata, Argentine Republic and
Argentine Confederation, shall henceforward serve without
distinction, officially to designate the Government and
territory of the Provinces, whilst the words Argentine Nation
shall be employed in the making and sanction of the laws.
Part II.—Section I.
Article 36.
All legislative powers herein granted shall be vested in a
Congress composed of two Chambers, one of National Deputies,
and the other of Senators of the Provinces and of the capital.
Chapter I.
Article 37.
The Chamber of Deputies shall be composed of representatives
elected directly by the people of the Provinces, for which
purpose each one shall be considered as a single electoral
district, and by a simple plurality of votes in the ratio of
one for each 20,000 inhabitants, or for a fraction not less
than 10,000.
Article 38.
The deputies for the first Legislature shall be nominated in
the following proportion: for the Province of Buenos-Aires,
twelve; for that of Córdoba, six; for Catamarca, three;
Corrientes, four; Entre-Rios, two; Jujui, two; Mendoza, three;
Rioja, two; Salta, three; Santiago, four; San Juan, two;
Santa-Fé, two; San Luis, two; and for that of Tucumán, three.
Article 39.
For the second Legislature a general census shall be taken,
and the number of Deputies be regulated by it; thereafter,
this census shall be decennial.
Article 40.
No person shall be a Deputy who shall not have attained the
age of twenty-five years, have been four years in the exercise
of citizenship, and be a native of the Province which elects
him, or a resident of it for the two years immediately
preceding.
Article 41.
For the first election, the provincial Legislatures shall
regulate the method for a direct election of the National
Deputies. Congress shall pass a general law for the future.
Article 42.
The Deputies shall hold their place for four years, and are
re-eligible; but the House shall be renewed each biennial, by
halves; for which purpose those elected to the first
Legislature, as soon as the session opens, shall decide by lot
who shall leave at the end of the first period.
Article 43.
In case of vacancy, the Government of the Province or of the
capital, shall call an election for a new member.
Article 44.
The origination of the tax-laws and those for the recruiting
of troops, belongs exclusively to the House of Deputies.
Article 45.
It has the sole right of impeaching before the Senate, the
President, Vice-President, their Ministers, and the members of
the Supreme Court and other inferior Tribunals of the Nation,
in suits which may be undertaken against them for the improper
discharge of, or deficiency in, the exercise of their
functions; or for common crimes, after having heard them, and
declared by a vote of two thirds of the members present, that
there is cause for proceeding against them.
Chapter II.
Article 46.
The Senate shall be composed of two Senators from each
Province, chosen by the Legislatures thereof by plurality of
vote, and two from the capital elected in the form prescribed
for the election of the President of the Nation. Each Senator
shall have one vote.
Article 47.
No person shall be a Senator who shall not have attained the
age of thirty years, been six years a citizen of the Nation,
enjoy an annual rent or income of two thousand hard-dollars,
and be a native of the Province which elects him, or a
resident of the same for the two years immediately preceding.
Article 48.
The Senators shall enjoy their trust for nine years, and are
indefinitely re-eligible; but the Senate shall be renewed by
thirds each three years, and shall decide by lot, as soon as
they be all re-united, who shall leave at the end of the first
and second triennial periods.
Article 49.
The Vice-President of the Nation shall be President of the
Senate; but shall have no vote, except in a case of a tie.
Article 50.
The Senate shall choose a President pro-tempore who shall
preside during the absence of the Vice-President, or when he
shall exercise the office of President of the Nation.
Article 51.
The Senate shall have sole power to try all impeachments
presented by the House of Deputies. When sitting for that
purpose they shall be under oath. When the President of the
Nation is tried, the Chief Justice shall preside. No person
shall be convicted without the concurrence of two-thirds of
the members present.
Article 52.
Judgment in case of impeachment, shall not extend farther than
to removal from office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy
any office of honor, trust, or profit under the Nation. But
the party convicted shall, nevertheless, be liable to
indictment, trial, judgment and punishment according to law,
before the ordinary tribunals.
{514}
Article 53.
It belongs, moreover, to the Senate, to authorize the
President to declare martial law in one or more points of the
Republic, in case of foreign aggression.
Article 54.
When any seat of a Senator be vacant by death, resignation or
other reason, the Government to which the vacancy belongs,
shall immediately proceed to the election of a new member.
Chapter III.
Article 55.
Both Chambers shall meet in ordinary session, every year from
the 1st May until the 30th September. They can be
extraordinarily convoked, or their session be prolonged by the
President of the Nation.
Article 56.
Each House shall be the judge of the elections, returns, and
qualifications of its own members. Neither of them shall enter
into session without an absolute Majority of its members; but
a smaller number may compel absent members to attend the
sessions, in such terms and under such penalties as each House
may establish.
Article 57.
Both Houses shall begin and close their sessions
simultaneously. Neither of them whilst in sessions can suspend
its meetings for more than three days, without the consent of
the other.
Article 58.
Each House may make its rules of proceeding, and with the
concurrence of two-thirds punish its members for disorderly
behavior in the exercise of their functions, or remove, and
even expel them from the House, for physical or moral
incapacity occurring after their incorporation; but a majority
of one above one half of the members present, shall suffice to
decide questions of voluntary resignation.
Article 59.
In the act of their incorporation the Senators and Deputies
shall take an oath to properly fulfil their charge, and to act
in all things in conformity to the prescriptions of this
Constitution.
Article 60.
No member of Congress can be indicted, judicially
interrogated, or molested for any opinion or discourse which
he may have uttered in fulfilment of his Legislative duties.
Article 61.
No Senator or Deputy, during the term for which he may have
been elected, shall be arrested, except when taken 'in
flagrante' commission of some crime which merits capital
punishment or other degrading sentence; an account thereof
shall be rendered to the Chamber he belongs to, with a verbal
process of the facts.
Article 62.
When a complaint in writing be made before the ordinary courts
against any Senator or Deputy, each Chamber can by a
two-thirds vote, suspend the accused in his functions and
place him at the disposition of the competent judge for trial.
Article 63.
Each of the Chambers can cause the Ministers of the Executive
to come to their Hall, to give such explanations or
information as may be considered convenient.
Article 64.
No member of Congress can receive any post or commission from
the Executive, without the previous consent of his respective
Chamber, excepting such as are in the line of promotion.
Article 65.
The regular ecclesiastics cannot be members of Congress, nor
call the Governors of Provinces represent the Province which
they govern.
Article 66.
The Senators and Deputies shall be remunerated for their
services, by a compensation to be ascertained by law.
Chapter IV.
Article 67.
The Congress shall have power:
1. To legislate upon the Custom-Houses and establish import
duties; which, as well as all appraisements for their
collection, shall be uniform throughout the Nation, it being
clearly understood that these, as well as all other national
contributions, can be paid in any money at the just value
which may be current in the respective Provinces. Also, to
establish export duties.
2. To lay direct taxes for determinate periods, whenever the
common defense and general welfare require it, which shall be
uniform throughout the territory of the Nation.
3. To borrow money on the credit of the Nation.
4. To determine the use and sale of the National lands.
5. To establish and regulate a National Bank in the capital,
with branches in the Provinces, and with power to emit bills.
6. To regulate the payment of the home and foreign debts of
the Nation.
7. To annually determine the estimates of the National
Administration, and approve or reject the accounts of
expenses.
8. To grant subsidies from the National Treasury to those
Provinces, whose revenues, according to their budgets, do not
suffice to cover the ordinary expenses.
9. To regulate the free navigation of the interior rivers,
open such ports as may be considered necessary, create and
suppress Custom-Houses, but without suppressing those which
existed in each Province at the time of its incorporation.
10. To coin money, regulate the value thereof and of foreign
coin, and adopt a uniform system of weights and measures for
the whole Nation.
11. To decree civil, commercial, penal and mining Codes, but
such Codes shall have no power to change local jurisdiction;
their application shall belong to the Federal or Provincial
courts, in accordance with such things or persons as may come
under their respective jurisdiction; especially, general laws
embracing the whole Nation, shall be passed upon
naturalization and citizenship, subject to the principle of
native citizenship; also upon bankruptcy, the counterfeiting
of current-money and public State documents; and such laws as
may be required for the establishment of trial by Jury.
12. To regulate commerce by land and sea with foreign nations,
and between the Provinces.
13. To establish and regulate the general post-offices and
post-roads of the Nation.
14. To finally settle the National boundaries, fix those of
the Provinces, create new Provinces, and determine by a
special legislation, the organization and governments, which
such National territories as are beyond the limits assigned to
the Province, should have.
15. To provide for the security of the frontiers; preserve
peaceful relations with the Indians, and promote their
conversion to Catholicism.
16. To provide all things conducive to the prosperity of the
country, to the advancement and happiness of the Provinces,
and to the increase of enlightenment, decreeing plans for
general and university instruction, promoting industry,
immigration, the construction of railways, and navigable
canals, the peopling of the National lands, the introduction
and establishment of new industries, the importation of
foreign capital and the exploration of the interior rivers, by
protection laws to these ends, and by temporary concessions
and stimulating recompenses.
{515}
17. To constitute tribunals inferior to the Supreme Court,
create and suppress public offices, fix their attributes,
grant pensions, decree honors and general amnesties.
18. To accept or reject the resignation of the President or
Vice-President of the Republic, and declare new elections; to
make the scrutiny and rectification of the same.
19. To ratify or reject the treaties made with other Nations
and the Concordats with the Apostolic See, and regulate the
patronage of advowsons throughout the Nation.
20. To admit religious orders within the Nation, other than
those already existing.
21. To authorize the Executive to declare war and make peace.
22. To grant letters of marque and reprisal, and to make rules
concerning prizes.
23. To fix the land and sea forces in time of peace and war:
and to make rules and regulations for the government of said
forces.
24. To provide for calling forth the militia of all, or a part
of, the Provinces, to execute the laws of the Nation, suppress
insurrections or repel invasions. To provide for organizing,
arming, and disciplining said militia, and for governing such
part of them as may be employed in the service of the Nation,
reserving to the Provinces respectively, the appointment of
the corresponding chiefs and officers, and the authority of
training the militia according to the discipline prescribed by
Congress.
25. To permit the introduction of foreign troops within the
territory of the Nation, and the going beyond it of the
National forces.
26. To declare martial law in any or various points of the
Nation in case of domestic commotion, and ratify or suspend
the declaration of martial law made by the executive during
the recess.
27. To exercise exclusive legislation over the territory of
the National capital, and over such other places acquired by
purchase or cession in any of the Provinces, for the purpose
of establishing forts, arsenals, warehouses, or other needful
national buildings.
28. To make all laws and regulations which shall be necessary
for carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and all
others vested by the present Constitution in the Government of
the Argentine Nation.
Chapter V.
Article 68.
Laws may originate in either of the Houses of Congress, by
bills presented by their members or by the Executive,
excepting those relative to the objects treated of in Article
44.
Article 69.
A bill being approved by the House wherein it originated,
shall pass for discussion to the other House. Being approved
by both, it shall pass to the Executive of the Nation for his
examination; and should it receive his approbation he shall
publish it as law.
Article 70.
Every bill not returned within ten working-days by the
Executive, shall be taken as approved by him.
Article 71.
No bill entirely rejected by one House, can be presented again
during that year. But should it be only amplified or corrected
by the revising House, it shall return to that wherein it
originated; and if there the additions or corrections be
approved by an absolute majority, it shall pass to the
Executive. If the additions or corrections be rejected, it
shall return to the revising House, and if here they be again
sanctioned by a majority of two-thirds of its members, it
shall pass to the other House, and it shall not be understood
that the said additions and corrections are rejected, unless
two-thirds of the members present should so vote.
Article 72.
A bill being rejected in whole or in part by the Executive, he
shall return it with his objections to the House in which it
originated; here it shall be debated again; and if it be
confirmed by a majority of two-thirds, it shall pass again to
the revising House. If both Houses should pass it by the same
majority, it becomes a law, and shall be sent to the Executive
for promulgation. In such case the votes of both Houses shall
be by yeas and nays, and the names of the persons so voting
shall be recorded, as well as the objections of the Executive,
and shall be immediately published in the daily-press. If the
Houses differ upon the objections, the bill cannot be renewed
during that year.
Article 73.
The following formula shall be used in the passage of the
laws: "The Senate and Chamber of Deputies of the Argentine
Nation in Congress assembled, etc. decree, or sanction, with
the force of law."
Section II.—Chapter I.
Article 74.
The Executive power of the Nation shall be exercised by a
citizen, with the title of "President of the Argentine
Nation."
Article 75.
In case of the sickness, absence from the capital, death,
resignation or dismissal of the President, the Executive power
shall be exercised by the Vice-President of the Nation. In
case of the removal, death, resignation, or inability of the
President and Vice-President of the Nation, Congress will
determine which public functionary shall then fill the
Presidency, until the disability be removed or a new President
be elected.
Article 76.
No person except a natural-born citizen or a son of a
natural-born citizen brought forth abroad, shall be eligible
as President or Vice-President of the Nation; he is required
to belong to the Apostolic-Roman-Catholic communion, and
possess the other qualifications required to be elected
Senator.
Article 77.
The President and Vice-President shall hold office during the
term of six years; and cannot be re-elected except after an
interval of an equal period.
Article 78.
The President of the Nation shall cease in his functions the
very day on which his period of six years expires, and no
event whatever which may have interrupted it, can be a motive
for completing it at a later time.
Article 79.
The President and Vice-President shall receive a compensation
from the National Treasury, which cannot be altered during the
period for which they shall have been elected. During the same
period they cannot exercise any other office nor receive any
other emolument from the Nation, or any of its Provinces.
Article 80.
The President and Vice-President before entering upon the
execution of their offices, shall take the following oath
administered by the President of the Senate (the first time by
the President of the Constituent Congress) in Congress
assembled: "I (such an one) swear by God our Lord, and by
these Holy Evangelists, that I will faithfully and
patriotically execute the office of President (or
Vice-President) of the Nation, and observe and cause to be
faithfully observed, the Constitution of the Argentine Nation.
If I should not do so, let God and the Nation indict me."
{516}
Chapter II.
Article 81.
The election of the President and Vice-President of the
Nation, shall be made in the following manner:-The capital and
each of the Provinces shall by direct vote nominate a board of
electors, double the number of Deputies and Senators which
they send to Congress, with the same qualifications and under
the same form as those prescribed for the election of
Deputies. Deputies or Senators, or officers in the pay of the
Federal Government cannot be electors. The electors being met
in the National-capital and in that of their respective
Provinces, four months prior to the conclusion of the term of
the out-going President, they shall proceed by signed ballots,
to elect a President, and Vice-President, one of which shall
state the person as President, and the other the person as
Vice-President, for whom they vote. Two lists shall be made of
all the individuals elected as President, and other two also,
of those elected as Vice-President, with the number of votes
which each may have received. These lists shall be signed by
the electors, and shall be remitted closed and sealed, two of
them (one of each kind) to the President of the Provincial
Legislature, and to the President of the Municipality in the
capital, among whose records they shall remain deposited and
closed; the other two shall be sent to the President of the
Senate (the first time to the President of the Constituent
Congress).
Article 82.
The President of the Senate (the first time that of the
Constituent Congress) all the lists being received, shall open
them in the presence of both Houses. Four members of Congress
taken by lot and associated to the Secretaries, shall
immediately proceed to count the votes, and to announce the
number which may result in favor of each candidate for the
Presidency and Vice-Presidency of the Nation. Those who have
received an absolute majority of all the votes in both cases,
shall be immediately proclaimed President and Vice-President.
Article 83.
In case there be no absolute majority, on account of a
division of the votes, Congress shall elect one of the two
persons who shall have received the highest number of votes.
If the first majority should have fallen to a single person,
and the second to two or more, Congress shall elect among all
the persons who may have obtained the first and second
majorities.
Article 84.
This election shall be made by absolute plurality of votes,
and voting by name. If, on counting the first vote, no
absolute majority shall have been obtained, a second trial
shall be made, limiting the voting to the two persons who
shall have obtained the greatest number of suffrages at the
first trial. In case of an equal number of votes, the
operation shall be repeated, and should the result be the
same, then the President of the Senate (the first time that of
the Constituent Congress) shall decide it. No scrutiny or
rectification of these elections can be made, unless
three-fourth parts of all the members of the Congress be
present.
Article 85.
The election of the President and Vice-President of the
Nation, shall be concluded in a single meeting of the
Congress, and thereafter, the result and the electoral lists
shall be published in the daily-press.
Chapter III.
Article 86.
The President of the Nation has the following attributes:
1. He is the supreme chief of the Nation, and is charged with
the general administration of the country.
2. He issues such instructions and regulations as may be
necessary for the execution of the laws of the Nation, taking
care not to alter their spirit with regulative exceptions.
3. He is the immediate and local chief of the National
capital.
4. He participates in making the laws according to the
Constitution; and sanctions and promulgates them.
5. He nominates the Judges of the Supreme Court and of the
Inferior Federal tribunals, and appoints them by and with the
consent and advice of the Senate.
6. He has power to pardon or commute penalties against
officers subject to Federal jurisdiction, preceded by a report
of the proper Tribunal, excepting in case of impeachment by
the House of Deputies.
7. He grants retiring-pensions, leaves of absence and
pawnbrokers' licences, in conformity to the laws of the
Nation.
8. He exercises the rights of National Patronage in the
presentation of Bishops for the cathedrals, choosing from a
ternary nomination of the Senate.
9. He grants letters-patent or retains the decrees of the
Councils, the bulls, briefs and rescripts of the Holy Roman
Pontiff, by and with the consent of the Supreme Court, and
must require a law for the same when they contain general and
permanent dispositions.
10. He appoints and removes Ministers Plenipotentiary and
Chargé d'Affaires, by and with the consent and advice of the
Senate; and himself alone appoints and removes the Ministers
of his Cabinet, the officers of the Secretary-ships, Consular
Agents, and the rest of the employés of the Administration
whose nomination is not otherwise ordained by this
Constitution.
11. He annually opens the Sessions of Congress, both Houses
being united for this purpose in the Senate Chamber, giving an
account to Congress on this occasion of the state of the
Nation, of the reforms provided by the Constitution, and
recommending to its consideration such measures as may be
judged necessary and convenient.
12. He prolongs the ordinary meetings of Congress or convokes
it in extra session, when a question of progress or an
important interest so requires.
13. He collects the rents of the Nation and decrees their
expenditure in conformity to the law or estimates of the
Public expenses.
14. He negotiates and signs those treaties of peace, of
commerce, of navigation, of alliance, of boundaries and of
neutrality, requisite to maintain good relations with foreign
powers; he receives their Ministers and admits their Consuls.
15. He is commander in chief of all the sea and land forces of
the Nation.
16. He confers, by and with the consent of the Senate, the
high military grades in the army and navy of the Nation; and
by himself on the field of battle.
17. He disposes of the land and sea forces, and takes charge
of their organization and distribution according to the
requirements of the Nation.
18. By the authority and approval of Congress, he declares war
and grants letters of marque and reprisal.
{517}
19. By and with the consent of the Senate, in case of foreign
aggression and for a limited time, he declares martial law in
one or more points of the Nation. In case of internal
commotion he has this power only when Congress is in recess,
because it is an attribute which belongs to this body. The
President exercises it under the limitations mentioned in
Article 23.
20. He may require from the chiefs of all the branches and
departments of the Administration, and through them from all
other employés, such reports as he may believe necessary, and
they are compelled to give them.
21. He cannot absent himself from the capital of the Nation
without permission of Congress. During the recess he can only
do so without permission on account of important objects of
public service.
22. The President shall have power to fill all vacancies that
may happen during the recess of the Senate, by granting
commissions, which shall expire at the end of their next
session.
Chapter IV.
Article 87.
Five Minister-Secretaries; to wit, of the Interior; of Foreign
Affairs; of Finance; of Justice, Worship and Public
Instruction; and of War and the Navy; shall have under their
charge the dispatch of National affairs, and they shall
counter-sign and legalize the acts of the President by means
of their signatures, without which requisite they shall not be
efficacious. A law shall determine the respective duties of
the Ministers.
Article 88.
Each Minister is responsible for the acts which he legalizes,
and collectively, for those which he agrees to with his
colleagues.
Article 89.
The Ministers cannot determine anything whatever, by
themselves, except what concerns the economical and
administrative regimen of their respective Departments.
Article 90.
As soon as Congress opens, the Ministers shall present to it a
detailed report of the State of the Nation, in all that
relates to their respective Departments.
Article 91.
They cannot be Senators or Deputies without resigning their
places as Ministers.
Article 92.
The Ministers can assist at the meetings of Congress and take
part in its debates, but they cannot vote.
Article 93.
They shall receive for their services a compensation
established by law, which shall not be increased or
diminished, in favor or against, the actual incumbents.
Section III.—Chapter I.
Article 94.
The Judicial Power of the Nation shall be exercised by a
Supreme Court of Justice, and by such other inferior Tribunals
as Congress may establish within the dominion of the Nation.
Article 95.
The President of the Nation cannot in any case whatever,
exercise Judicial powers, arrogate to himself any knowledge of
pending causes, or reopen those which have terminated.
Article 96.
The Judges of the Supreme Court and of the lower
National-Tribunals, shall keep their places quamdiu se bene
gesserit, and shall receive for their services a compensation
determined by law, which shall not be diminished in any manner
whatever during their continuance in office.
Article 97.
No one can be a member of the Supreme Court of Justice, unless
he shall have been an attorney at law of the Nation for eight
years, and shall possess the qualifications required for a
Senator.
Article 98.
At the first installation of the Supreme Court, the
individuals appointed shall take an oath administered by the
President of the Nation, to discharge their functions, by the
good and legal administration of Justice according to the
prescriptions of this Constitution. Thereafter, the oath shall
be taken before the President of the Court itself.
Article 99.
The Supreme Court shall establish its own internal and
economical regulations, and shall appoint its subaltern
employés.
Chapter II.
Article 100.
The Judicial power of the Supreme Court and the lower
National-Tribunals, shall extend to all cases arising under
this Constitution, the laws of the Nation with the reserve
made in clause 11 of Article 67, and by treaties with foreign
nations; to all cases affecting ambassadors, public Ministers
and foreign Consuls; to all cases of admiralty and maritime
jurisdiction; to controversies to which the Nation shall be
party; to controversies between two or more Provinces; between
a Province and the citizens of another; between the citizens
of different Provinces; and between a Province or its
citizens, against a foreign State or citizen.
Article 101.
In these cases the Supreme Court shall exercise an appelate
jurisdiction according to such rules and exceptions as
Congress may prescribe; but in all cases affecting
ambassadors, ministers and foreign consuls, or those in which
a Province shall be a party, it shall exercise original and
exclusive jurisdiction.
Article 102.
The trial of all ordinary crimes except in cases of
impeachment, shall terminate by jury, so soon as this
institution be established in the Republic. These trials shall
be held in the same Province where the crimes shall have been
committed, but when not committed within the frontiers of the
Nation, but against International Law, Congress shall
determine by a special law the place where the trial shall
take effect.
Article 103.
Treason against the Nation shall only consist in levying war
against it, or in adhering to its enemies, giving them aid and
comfort. Congress shall fix by a special law the punishment of
treason; but it cannot go beyond the person of the criminal,
and no attainder of treason shall work corruption of blood to
relatives of any grade whatever.
Article 104.
The Provinces keep all the powers not delegated by this
Constitution to the Federal Government, and those which were
expressly reserved by special compacts at the time of their
incorporation.
Article 105.
They create their own local institutions and are governed by
these. They elect their own Governors, their Legislators and
other Provincial functionaries, without intervention from the
Federal Government.
Article 106.
Each Province shall make its own Constitution in conformity
with the dispositions of Article 5.
Article 107.
The Provinces with the consent of Congress can celebrate
contracts among themselves for the purposes of administering
justice and promoting economical interests and works of common
utility, and also, can pass protective laws for the purpose
with their own resources, of promoting manufactures,
immigration, the building of railways and canals, the peopling
of their lands, the introduction and establishment of new
industries, the import of foreign-capital and the exploration
of their rivers.
{518}
Article 108.
The Provinces cannot exercise any powers delegated to the
Nation. They cannot celebrate compacts of a political
character, nor make laws on commerce or internal or external
navigation; nor establish Provincial Custom-Houses, nor coin
money, nor establish Banks of emission, without authority of
Congress; nor make civil, commercial, penal or mining Codes
after Congress shall have sanctioned those provided for in
this Constitution; nor pass laws upon citizenship or
naturalization; bankruptcy, counterfeiting money or public
State-documents; nor lay tonnage dues; nor arm vessels of war
or raise armies, save in the case of foreign invasion, or of a
danger so imminent that it admits of no delay, and then an
account thereof must be immediately given to the Federal
Government; or name or receive foreign agents; or admit new
religious orders.
Article 109.
No Province can declare or make war to another Province. Its
complaints must be submitted to the Supreme Court of Justice
and be settled by it. Hostilities de facto are acts of
civil-war and qualified as seditious and tumultuous, which the
General Government must repress and suffocate according to
law.
Article 110.
The Provincial Governors are the natural agents of the Federal
Government to cause the fulfilment of the laws of the Nation.
See ARGENTINE REPUBLIC: A. D. 1880-1891.
----------CONSTITUTION OF THE ARGENTINE REPUBLIC: End----------
CONSTITUTION OF THE AUSTRO-HUNGARIAN EMPIRE.
Introduced in 1867.
See AUSTRIA: A. D. 1866-1867, and 1866-1887.
CONSTITUTION OF BELGIUM.
See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1830-1884.
CONSTITUTION OF BOLIVIA.
See PERU: A. D. 1825-1826, and 1826-1876.
----------End----------
CONSTITUTION OF BRAZIL.
The following text of the Constitution of the United States of
Brazil, adopted February 24, 1891, is taken from a translation
published in Bulletin No. 7 of the Bureau of American
Republics, Washington:
We, the representatives of the Brazilian people, united in
constitutional congress, to organize a free and democratic
regime, do establish, decree and promulgate the following
constitution of the Republic of the United States of Brazil:
Article 1.
The Brazilian nation, adopting as a form of government the
Federal Republic proclaimed November 15, 1889, constitutes
itself, by the perpetual and indissoluble union of its former
provinces, the United States of Brazil.
Article 2.
Each of the former provinces shall constitute a State, and the
former municipal district shall form the Federal District,
continuing to be the capital of the Union until the following
article shall be carried in to effect.
Article 3.
In the center there is allotted as the property of the Union a
zone of 14,400 square kilometres, which in due time shall be
laid off for the establishment of the future federal capital.
_Sole paragraph._—After the change of site of the
capital, the present Federal District shall constitute a
State.
Article 4.
The States shall have the right to incorporate themselves one
with another, sub-divide themselves, dismember themselves to
join with others or form new States, with the consent of the
respective local legislatures in two successive annual
sessions and the approval of the national Congress.
Article 5.
It shall be the duty of each State to provide, at its own
expense, for the necessities of its government and
administration; but the Union shall extend assistance to any
State which, in case of public calamity, shall demand it.
Article 6.
The Federal Government shall not interfere in matters
pertaining peculiarly to the States, save:
(1) To repel foreign invasion, or the invasion of one State by
another.
(2) To maintain the federative republican form of government.
(3) To reestablish order and tranquillity in the States at the
request of the respective governments.
(4) To assure the execution of the laws and federal decrees.
Article 7.
It is the exclusive prerogative of the Union to decree:
(1) Duties on imports from foreign countries.
(2) Duties of entry, departure, and stay of vessels; the
coasting trade for national articles being free of duties, as
well as for foreign merchandise that has already paid an
import duty.
(3) Stamp duties, save the restrictions imposed by article 9,
§1. No.1.
(4) Postal and federal telegraphic taxes.
§1. The Union alone shall have the power:
(1) To establish banks of emission.
(2) To create and maintain custom-houses.
§2. The taxes decreed by the Union shall be uniform for all
the States.
§3. The laws of the Union and the acts and decisions of its
authorities shall be executed throughout the country by
federal officials, except that the enforcement of the former
may be committed to the governments of the States, with the
consent of the said States.
Article 8.
The Federal Government is forbidden to make distinctions and
preferences in favor of the ports of any of the States against
those of others.
Article 9.
The States alone are competent to decree taxes:
(1) On the exportation of merchandise of their own production.
(2) On landed property.
(3) On the transmission of property.
(4) On industries and professions.
§ 1. The States also have the exclusive right to decree:
(1) Stamp duties on instruments emanating from their
respective governments and business of their internal economy.
(2) Contributions touching their own telegraphs and postal
service.
§ 2. The products of the other States are exempt from imposts
in the State whence they are exported.
§3. It is lawful for a State to levy duties on imports of
foreign goods only when intended for consumption in its own
territory; but it shall, in such case, cover into the federal
treasury the amount of duties collected.
§4. The right is reserved to the States of establishing
telegraph lines between the different points of their own
territory, and between these and those of other States not
served by federal lines; but the Union may take possession of
them when the general welfare shall require.
{519}
Article 10.
The several States are prohibited from taxing the federal
property or revenue, or anything in the service of the Union,
and vice versa.
Article 11.
It is forbidden to the States, as well as to the Unions:
(1) To impose duties on the products of the other States, or
of foreign countries, in transit through the territory of any
State, or from one State to another, as also on the vehicles,
whether by land or water, by which they are transported.
(2) To establish, aid, or embarrass the exercise of religious
worship.
(3) To enact ex post facto laws.
Article 12.
In addition to the sources of revenue set forth in articles 7
and 9, it shall be lawful for the Union, as well as for the
States, cumulatively or otherwise, to create any others
whatsoever which may not be in contravention of the terms of
articles 7, 9, and 11, § 1.
Article 13.
The right or the Union and of the States to legislate in
regard to railways and navigation of internal waters shall be
regulated by federal law. _Sole paragraph_.—The
coastwise trade shall be carried on in national vessels.
Article 14.
The land and naval forces are permanent national institutions,
intended for the defense of the country from foreign attack
and the maintenance of the laws of the land. Within the limits
of the law, the armed forces are from their nature held to
obedience, each rank to its superior, and bound to support all
constitutional institutions.
Article 15.
The legislative, executive, and judicial powers are organs of
the national sovereignty, harmonious and independent among
themselves.
Article 16.
The legislative power is vested in the national Congress, with
the sanction of the President of the Republic.
§ 1. The national Congress is composed of two branches, the
Chamber of Deputies and the Senate.
§ 2. The elections for senators and for deputies shall be held
simultaneously throughout the country.
§ 3. No person shall be senator and deputy at the same time.
Article 17.
The Congress shall assemble in the federal capital on the 3d
day of May of each year, unless some other day shall be fixed
by law, without being convoked, and shall continue in session
4 months from the date of the opening, and may be prorogued,
adjourned, or convoked in extraordinary session.
§ 1. The Congress alone shall have the power to deliberate on
the prorogation or extension of its session.
§ 2. Each legislature shall last for 3 years.
§ 3. The governor of any State in which there shall be a
vacancy in the representation, including the case of
resignation, shall order a new election to be held at once.
Article 18.
The Chamber and the Senate shall hold their sessions apart and
in public, unless otherwise resolved by a majority vote, and
shall deliberate only when, in each of the chambers, there
shall be present an absolute majority of its members. _Sole
paragraph_.—To each of the chambers shall belong the right
to verify and recognize the powers of its members, to choose
its own presiding officers, to organize its internal
government, to regulate the service of its own police rules,
and to choose its own secretaries.
Article 19.
The deputies and senators can not be held to account for their
opinions, expressions, and votes in the discharge of their
mandate.
Article 20.
Deputies and senators, from the time of receiving their
certificate of election until a new election, can not be
arrested or proceeded against criminally without the
permission of their respective chambers, except in the case of
a flagrant crime, in which bail is inadmissible. In such case,
the prosecution being carried to exclusive decision, the
prosecuting authority shall send the court records to the
respective chamber for its decision on the prosecution of the
charge, unless the accused shall prefer immediate judgment.
Article 21.
The members of the two chambers, on taking their seats, shall
take a formal obligation, in public session, to perform their
duties faithfully.
Article 22.
During the sessions the senators and deputies shall receive an
equal pecuniary salary and mileage, which shall be fixed by
Congress at the end of each session for the following one.
Article 23.
No member of the Congress, from the time of his election, can
make contracts with the executive power or receive from it any
paid commission or employment.
§ 1. Exceptions to this prohibition are:
(1) Diplomatic missions.
(2) Commissions or military commands.
(3) Advancement in rank and legal promotion.
§ 2.
No deputy or senator, however, can accept an appointment for
any mission, commission, or command mentioned in Nos. 1 and 2
of the preceding paragraph, without the consent of the chamber
to which he belongs, when such acceptance would prevent the
exercise of his legislative duties, except in case of war or
such as involve the honor or integrity of the nation.
Article 24.
No deputy or senator can be president or form part of a
directory of any bank, company, or enterprise which enjoys the
favors of the Federal Government defined in and by law.
_Sole paragraph._—Nonobservance of the provisions of the
foregoing article by any deputy or senator shall involve the
loss of his seat.
Article 25.
The legislative commission shall be incompatible with the
exercise of any other functions during the sessions.
Article 26.
The conditions for eligibility to the national Congress are:
(1) To be in possession of the rights of Brazilian citizenship
and to be registered as a voter.
(2) For the Chamber, to have been for more than 4 years a
Brazilian citizen; and for the Senate, for more than 6 years.
This provision does not include those citizens referred to in
No.4, article 69.
Article 27.
The Congress shall by special legislation declare the cases of
electoral incompetency.
Article 28.
The Chamber of Deputies shall be composed of the
representatives of the people, elected by the States and the
Federal District by direct suffrage, the representation of the
minority being guarantied.
§ 1. The number of the deputies shall be fixed by law in such
a way as not to exceed one for each 70,000 inhabitants, and
that there shall not be less than four for each State.
§ 2. To this end the Federal Government shall at once order a
census to be taken of the population of the Republic, which
shall be revised every 10 years.
Article 29.
To the Chamber belongs the initiative in the adjournment of
the legislative sessions and in all legislation in regard to
taxation, to the determination of the size of the army and
navy, in the discussion of propositions from the executive
power, and in the decision to proceed or not in charges
against the President of the Republic under the terms of
article 53, and against the ministers of state in crimes
connected with those of the said President.
{520}
Article 30.
The Senate shall be composed of citizens eligible under the
terms of article 26 and more than 35 years of age, to the
number of three senators for each State and three for the
Federal District, chosen in the same manner as the deputies.
Article 31.
The mandate of a senator shall continue for 9 years, and
one-third of the Senate shall be renewed every 3 years.
_Sole paragraph_.—A senator elected in place of another
shall exercise his mandate during the remainder of
the term of the latter.
Article 32.
The Vice President of the Republic shall be the president of
the Senate, where he shall vote only in case of tie, and shall
be replaced in case of absence or impediment by the vice
president of that body.
Article 33.
The Senate alone shall have the power to try and sentence the
President of the Republic and the other federal officers
designated by the constitution, under the conditions and in
the manner which it prescribes.
§ 1. The Senate, when sitting as a tribunal of justice, shall
be presided over by the president of the federal supreme
court.
§ 2. It shall not pass sentence of condemnation unless
two-thirds of its members be present.
§ 3. It shall not impose other penalties than the loss of
office and prohibition from holding any other, without
prejudice to the action of ordinary justice against the
condemned.
Article 34.
The national Congress shall have exclusive power:
(1) To estimate the revenue, and fix the expenditures of the
Federal Government annually, and take account of the receipts
and expenditures of each financial budget.
(2) To authorize the executive to contract loans and make
other operations of credit.
(3) To legislate in regard to the public debt and furnish
means for its payment.
(4) To control the collection and disposition of the national
revenue.
(5) To regulate international commerce, as well as that of the
States with each other and with the Federal District; to
establish and regulate the collection of customs duties in the
ports, create or abolish warehouses of deposit.
(6) To legislate in regard to navigation of rivers running
through more than one State, or through foreign territory.
(7) To determine the weight, value, inscription, type, and
denomination of the currency.
(8) To create banks of emission, legislate in regard to this
emission and to tax it.
(9) To fix the standard of weights and measures.
(10) To determine definitely the boundaries of the States
between each other, those of the Federal District, and those
of the national territory with the adjoining nations.
(11) To authorize the Government to declare war, if there be
no recourse to arbitration or in case of failure of this, and
to make peace.
(12) To decide definitively in regard to treaties and
conventions with foreign nations.
(13) To remove the capital of the Union.
(14) To extend aid to the States in the case referred to in
article 5.
(15) To legislate in regard to federal postal and telegraph
service.
(16) To adopt the necessary measures for the protection of the
frontiers.
(17) To fix every year the number of the land and naval
forces.
(18) To make laws for the organization of the army and navy.
(19) To grant or refuse to foreign forces passage through the
territory of the country to carry on military operations.
(20) To mobilize and make use of the national guard or local
militia in the cases designated by the Constitution.
(21) To declare a state of siege at one or more points in the
national territory, in the emergency of an attack by foreign
forces, or internal disturbance, and to approve or suspend the
state of siege proclaimed by the executive power or its
responsible agents in the absence of the Congress.
(22) To regulate the conditions and methods of elections for
federal offices throughout the country.
(23) To legislate upon the civil, criminal, and commercial
laws and legal procedures of the federal judiciary.
(24) To establish uniform naturalization laws.
(25) To create and abolish federal public offices, to fix the
duties of the same, and designate their salaries.
(26) To organize the federal judiciary according to the terms
of article 55 and the succeeding, section 3.
(27) To grant amnesty.
(28) To commute and pardon penalties imposed upon federal
officers for offenses arising from their responsibility.
(29) To make laws regarding Government lands and mines.
(30) To legislate in regard to the municipal organization of
the Federal District, as well as to the police, the superior
instruction and other services which in the capital may be
reserved for the Government of the Union.
(31) To govern by special legislation those points of the
territory of the Republic needed for the establishment of
arsenals, other establishments or institutions for federal
uses.
(32) To settle cases of extradition between the States.
(33) To enact such laws and resolutions as may be necessary
for the exercise of the powers belonging to the Union.
(34) To enact the organic laws necessary for the complete
execution of the requirements of the Constitution.
(35) To prorogue and adjourn its own sessions.
Article 35.
It shall belong likewise to the Congress, but not exclusively:
(1) To watch over the Constitution and the laws, and provide
for necessities of a federal character.
(2) To promote in the country the development of literature,
the arts, and sciences, together with immigration,
agriculture, manufactures, and commerce, without privileges
such as would obstruct the action of the local governments.
(3) To create institutions of higher instruction and of high
school education in the States.
(4) To provide for high school instruction in the Federal
District.
Article 36.
Save the exceptions named in article 27, all bills may
originate, indifferently, in the Chamber or in the Senate, and
may be introduced by any of their members.
Article 37.
A bill, after being passed in one of the chambers, shall be
submitted to the other, and, if the latter shall approve the
same, it shall send it to the executive, who, if he approve
it, shall sanction and promulgate it.
§ 1. If, however, the President of the Republic shall consider
it unconstitutional, or contrary to the good of the nation, he
shall refuse his sanction to the same within 10 working days,
counted from that on which he received it (the bill), and
shall return it, within the same period, to the chamber in
which it originated, with his reasons for his refusal.
§ 2. The failure of the executive to signify his disapproval
within the above-named 10 days shall be considered as an
approval, and in case his sanction be refused after the close
of the session of the Congress, the President shall make
public his reasons therefor.
{521}
§ 3. The bill sent back to the chamber where it originated
shall be discussed and voted upon by call of names, and shall
be considered as passed if it obtain two-thirds of the votes
of the members present; and, in this case, it shall be sent to
the other chamber, whence, if it receive the same majority, it
shall return, as a law, to the executive to be formally
promulgated.
§ 4. The sanction and promulgation shall be effected in the
following forms:
(1) "The national Congress enacts and I sanction the following
law (or resolution)."
(2) "The national Congress enacts and I promulgate the
following law (or resolution)."
Article 38.
If the law be not promulgated by the President of the Republic
within 48 hours, in the cases provided for in §§ 2 and 3 of
the preceding article, the president of the Senate, or the
vice president, if the former shall not do so in the same
space of time, shall promulgate it, making use of the
following formula: "I, president (or vice president) of the
Senate, make known to whomsoever these presents may come, that
the national Congress enacts and promulgates the following law
(or resolution)."
Article. 39.
A bill from one chamber, amended in the other, shall return to
the former, which, if it accept the amendments, shall send it,
changed to conform with the same, to the executive.
§ 1. In the contrary case, it shall go back to the amending
chamber, where the alterations shall be considered as
approved, if they receive the vote of two-thirds of the
members present; in the latter case, the bill shall return to
the chamber where it originated, and there the amendments can
be rejected only by a two-thirds vote.
§ 2. If the alterations be rejected by such vote, the bill
shall be submitted without them to the approval of the
executive.
Article 40.
Bills finally rejected or not approved, shall not be presented
again in the same legislative session.
Article 41.
The executive power shall be exercised by the President of the
United States of Brazil, as elective chief of the nation.
§ 1. The Vice President, elected simultaneously with the
President, shall serve in place of the latter in case of
impediment and succeed him in case of vacancy in the
Presidency.
§ 2. In case of impediment or vacancy in the Vice Presidency,
the following officers, in the order named, shall be called to
the Presidency: The vice president of the Senate, the
president of the Chamber of Deputies, the president of the
federal supreme court.
§ 3. The following are the conditions of eligibility to the
Presidency or Vice Presidency of the Republic:
(1) Must be a native of Brazil.
(2) Must be in the exercise of political rights.
(3) Must be more than 35 years of age.
Article 42.
In case of vacancy from any cause in the Presidency or Vice
Presidency before the expiration of the first 2 years of the
Presidential term, a new election shall be held.
Article 43.
The President shall hold his office during 4 years, and is not
eligible for reelection for the next succeeding term.
§ 1. The Vice President who shall fill the Presidency during
the last year of the Presidential term shall not be eligible
to the Presidency for the next term of that office.
§ 2. On the same day on which his Presidential term shall
cease the President shall, without fail, cease to exercise the
functions of his office, and the newly elected President shall
at once succeed him.
§ 3. If the latter should be hindered or should fail to do so,
the succession shall be effected in accordance with §§ 1 and 2
of article 41.
§ 4. The first Presidential term shall expire on the 15th of
November, 1894.
Article 44.
On taking possession of his office, the President, in a
session of the Congress, or, if it be not assembled, before
the federal supreme court, shall pronounce the following
affirmation: "I promise to maintain the federal Constitution
and comply with its provisions with perfect loyalty, to
promote the general welfare of the Republic, to observe its
laws, and support the union, integrity, and independence of
the nation."
Article 45.
The President and Vice President shall not leave the national
territory without the permission of the Congress, under
penalty of loss of office.
Article 46.
The President and Vice President shall receive the salary
fixed by the Congress in the preceding Presidential term.
Article 47.
The President and Vice President shall be chosen by direct
suffrage of the nation and an absolute majority of the votes.
§ 1. The election shall take place on the first day of March
in the last year of the Presidential term, and the counting of
the votes cast at the different precincts shall at once be
made in the respective capitals of the States and in the
federal capital. The Congress shall make the count at its
first session of the same year, with any number of members
present.
§ 2. If none of those voted for shall have received an
absolute majority, the Congress shall elect, by a majority of
votes of those present, one of the two who, in the direct
election, shall have received the highest number of votes. In
case of a tie the older shall be considered elected.
§ 3. The manner of the election and of the counting of the
votes shall be regulated by ordinary legislation.
§ 4. The relatives, both by consanguinity and by marriage, in
the first and second degrees, of the President and Vice
President shall be ineligible for the offices of President and
Vice President, provided the said officials are in office at
the time of the election or have left the office even 6 months
before.
Article 48.
To the President of the Republic shall belong the exclusive
right to:
(1) Sanction, promulgate, and make public the laws and
resolutions of the Congress; issue decrees, instructions, and
regulations for their faithful execution.
(2) Choose and dismiss at will the cabinet officers.
(3) Exercise or appoint some one to exercise supreme command
over the land and naval forces of the United States of Brazil,
as well as over the local police, when called to arms for the
internal or external defense of the Union.
(4) Govern and distribute, under the laws of the Congress,
according to the necessities of the National Government, the
land and naval forces.
(5) Dispose of the offices, both military and civil, of a
federal character, with the exceptions specified in the
Constitution.
(6) Pardon crimes and commute penalties for offenses subject
to federal jurisdiction, save in the cases mentioned in
article 34, No. 28, and article 52, § 2.
(7) Declare war and make peace, under the provisions of
article 34, No. 11.
(8) Declare war at once in case of foreign invasion or
aggression.
{522}
(9) Give an annual statement to the national Congress of the
condition of the country, with a recommendation
of pressing provisions and reforms, through a message,
which he shall send to the secretary of the Senate on the day
of the opening of the legislative session.
(10) Convoke the Congress in extra session.
(11) Appoint the federal judges when proposed by the supreme
court.
(12) Appoint the members of the federal supreme court and
ministers of the diplomatic corps, with the approval of the
senate; and, in the absence of the Congress, appoint them in
commission until considered by the senate.
(13) Appoint the other members of the diplomatic corps and
consular agents.
(14) Maintain relations with foreign states.
(15) Declare, directly, or through his responsible agents, a
state of siege at any point of the national territory, in case
of foreign aggression or serious internal disturbance.
(Article 6, No.3; article 34, No. 21; and article 80.)
(16) Set on foot international negotiations, celebrate
agreements, conventions, and treaties, always ad referendum to
the Congress, and approve those made by the States in
conformity with article 65, submitting them when necessary to
the authority of the Congress.
Article 49.
The President of the Republic shall be assisted by the
ministers of state (cabinet officers), agents of his
confidence, who sign the acts and preside over their
respective departments into which the federal administration
is divided.
Article 50.
The cabinet ministers shall not exercise any other employment
or function of a public nature, be eligible to the Presidency
or Vice Presidency of the Union, or be elected deputy or
senator. _Sole paragraph._—Any deputy or senator, who
shall accept the position of cabinet minister, shall lose his
seat in the respective chamber, and a new election shall at
once be held, in which he shall not be voted for.
Article 51.
The cabinet ministers shall not appear at the sessions of the
Congress, and shall communicate with that body in writing only
or by personal conference with the committees of the chambers.
The annual report of the ministers shall be addressed to the
President of the Republic, and distributed to all the members
of the Congress.
Article 52.
The cabinet ministers shall not be responsible to the Congress
or to the courts for advice given to the President of the
Republic.
§ 1. They shall be responsible, nevertheless, with respect to
their acts, for crimes defined in the law.
§ 2. For common crimes and those for which they are
responsible they shall be prosecuted and tried by the federal
supreme court, and for those committed jointly with the
President of the Republic, by the authority competent to judge
this latter.
Article 53.
The President of the United States of Brazil shall be brought
to trial and judgment, after the Chamber of Deputies shall
have decided that he should be tried on the charges made
against him, in the federal supreme court, in the case of
common crimes, and in those of responsibility, in the Senate.
_Sole paragraph_.—As soon as it shall be decided to try
him on the charges brought, the President shall be suspended
in the exercise of the duties of his office.
Article 54.
Crimes of responsibility on the part of the President of the
Republic are such as are directed against:
(1) The political existence of the Union.
(2) The Constitution and the form of the Federal Government.
(3) The free exercise of the political powers.
(4) The legal enjoyment and exercise of political or
individual rights.
(5) The internal security of the country.
(6) The purity of the administration.
(7) The constitutional keeping and use of the public funds.
(8) The financial legislation enacted by the Congress.
§ 1. These offenses shall be defined in a special law.
§ 2. Another law shall provide for the charges, the trial, and
the judgment.
§ 3. Both these laws shall be enacted in the first session of
the first Congress.
Article 55.
The judicial power of the Union shall be lodged in a federal
supreme court, sitting in the capital of the Republic, and as
many inferior federal courts and tribunals, distributed
through the country, as the Congress shall create.
Article 56.
The federal supreme court shall be composed of fifteen
justices, appointed under the provisions of article 48, No.
12, from among the oldest thirty citizens of well-known
knowledge and reputation who may be eligible to the Senate.
Article 57.
The federal justices shall hold office for life, being
removable solely by judicial sentence.
§ 1. Their salaries shall be fixed by law of the Congress, and
can not be diminished.
§ 2. The Senate shall try the members of the federal supreme
court for crimes of responsibility, and this latter the lower
federal judges.
Article 58.
The federal courts shall choose their presidents from among
their own members, and shall organize their respective
clerical corps.
§ 1. In these corps the appointment and dismissal of the
respective clerks, as well as the filling of the judicial
offices in the respective judicial districts, shall belong to
the presidents of the respective courts.
§ 2. The President of the Republic shall appoint from among
the members of the federal supreme court the attorney-general
of the Republic, whose duties shall be defined by law.
Article 59.
To the federal supreme court shall belong the duty of:
(1) Trying and judging by original and exclusive
jurisdiction:
(a) The President of the Republic for common crimes, and the
cabinet ministers in the cases specified in article 52.
(b) The ministers of the diplomatic corps for common crimes
and those of responsibility.
(c) Cases and disputes between the States and the Union, or
between the States one with another.
(d) Disputes and claims between foreign states and the Union,
or between foreign nations and the States.
(e) Conflicts between the federal courts one with another, or
between these and those of the States, as well as those
between the courts of one State and those of another.
(2) Deciding, on appeal, questions pronounced upon by the
lower federal courts and tribunals, as well as those mentioned
in § 1 of the present article and in article 60.
(3) Reviewing the proceedings of finished trials, under the
provisions of article 81.
§ 1. Decisions of State courts in last appeal can be carried
to the federal supreme court:
(a) When the validity or application of the federal laws or
treaties is called in question and the decision of the State
court shall be against the same.
(b) When the validity of laws or acts of the governments of
the States in respect to the Constitution or of the federal
laws is contested and the State court shall have decided in
favor of the validity of the acts or laws in question.
§ 2. In the cases which involve the application of the laws of
the States, the federal court shall consult the jurisprudence
of the local tribunals, and vice versa, the State court shall
consider that of the federal tribunals when the interpretation
of the laws of the Union is involved.
{523}
Article 60.
It shall belong to the federal courts to decide:
(a) Cases in which the plaintiff or the defendant shall rest
the case on some provision of the federal Constitution.
(b) All suits brought against the Government of the Union or
the national treasury based on constitutional provisions, on
the laws and regulations of the executive power, or on
contracts made with the said Government.
(c) Suits arising from compensations, claims, indemnification
of damages, or any others whatsoever brought by the Government
of the Union against private individuals, and vice versa.
(d) Litigations between a State and the citizens of another,
or between citizens of different States having differences in
their laws.
(e) Suits between foreign states and Brazilian citizens.
(f) Actions begun by foreigners, and based either on contracts
with the Federal Government or on conventions or treaties of
the Union with other nations.
(g) Questions of maritime law and navigation, whether on the
sea or on the rivers and lakes of the country.
(h) Questions of international law, whether criminal or civil.
(i) Political crimes.
§ 1. Congress is forbidden to commit any part of the federal
jurisdiction to the State courts.
§ 2. Sentences and orders of the federal judges will be
executed by federal court officers, and the local police shall
assist them when called upon by the same.
Article 61.
The decisions of the State courts or tribunals in matters
within their competence shall put an end to the suits and
questions, except as to
(1) habeas corpus, or
(2) effects of a foreigner deceased in cases not provided for
by convention or treaty. In such cases there shall be
voluntary recourse to the federal supreme court.
Article 62.
The State courts shall not have the power to intervene in
questions submitted to the federal tribunals, or to annul,
alter, or suspend the sentences or orders of these latter;
and, reciprocally, the federal judiciary can not interfere in
questions submitted to the State courts, or annul, alter, or
suspend their decisions or orders, except in the cases
provided in this Constitution.
Article 63.
Each State shall be governed by the constitution and laws
which it shall adopt, respect being observed for the
constitutional principles of the Union.
Article 64.
The unexplored mines and wild lands lying within the States
shall belong to these States respectively; and to the Union
only as much territory as may be necessary for the defense of
the frontiers, for fortifications, military works, and federal
railways. _Sole paragraph_.—The national properties,
not necessary for the service of the Union, shall pass to the
domain of the States in whose territory they may be situated.
Article 65.
The States shall have the right to:
(1) Conclude agreements and conventions among themselves, if
such be not of a political character. (Article 48, No. 16.)
(2) Exercise in general any and every power or right not
denied expressly by the Constitution, or implicitly in its
express terms.
Article 66.
It is forbidden to the States to:
(1) Refuse to recognize public documents of the Union, or of
any of the States, of a legislative, administrative, or
judicial character.
(2) Reject the currency or notes issued by banks, which
circulate by act of the Federal Government.
(3) Make or declare war, one with another, or make reprisals.
(4) Refuse the extradition of criminals demanded by the
justice of other States, or of the Federal District, in
conformity with the laws of Congress which relate to this
subject. (Article 41, No. 32.)
Article 67.
Save the restrictions specified in the Constitution, and the
federal laws, the Federal District shall be governed directly
by the municipal authorities. _Sole paragraph_.—Expenses
of a local character in the capital of the Republic must be
provided for exclusively by the municipal authorities.
Article 68.
The States shall organize themselves in such a manner as to
assure the autonomy of the municipalities in everything that
concerns their peculiar interests.
Article 69.
The following shall be Brazilian citizens:
(1) Natives of Brazil, though of foreign parentage (father),
provided he be not in the service of his nation.
(2) Sons of a Brazilian father, and illegitimate sons of a
Brazilian mother, born in foreign parts, if they take up their
residence (domicile) in the republic.
(3) Sons of a Brazilian father who may be in another country
in the service of the Republic, although they do not make
their domicile in Brazil.
(4) Foreigners, who, being in Brazil on the 15th of November,
1889, shall not declare, within 6 months from the time when
the Constitution enters into force, their desire to preserve
their original nationality.
(5) Foreigners who possess property (real estate) in Brazil
and are married to Brazilian women, or have Brazilian
children, provided they reside in Brazil, unless they shall
declare their intention of not changing their nationality.
(6) Foreigners naturalized in any other way.
Article 70.
Citizens of more than 21 years of age, and registered
according to law, shall be electors.
§ 1. The following shall not be registered as electors for
federal or State elections:
(1) Beggars.
(2) Persons ignorant of the alphabet.
(3) Soldiers on pay, except alumni of the military schools of
higher instruction.
(4) Members of monastic orders, companies, congregations, or
communities of whatsoever denomination, who are subject to
vows of obedience, rule, or statute, which implies the
surrender of individual liberty.
§ 2. Citizens who can not be registered shall not be eligible.
Article 71.
The rights of the Brazilian citizen can be suspended or lost
only in the following cases:
§ 1. The rights may be suspended:
(a) For physical or moral incapacity.
(b) For criminal conviction, during the operation of the
sentence.
§ 2. They may be lost:
(a) By naturalization in a foreign country.
(b) By acceptance of employment or pension from a foreign
power, without permission of the federal executive.
§ 3. The means of reacquiring lost rights of the Brazilian
citizen shall be specified by federal law.
Article 72.
The Constitution secures to Brazilians and foreigners residing
in the country the inviolability of their rights touching
individual liberty, and security, and property, in the
following terms:
§ 1. No person shall be forced to do, or leave undone,
anything whatever, except by virtue of law.
§ 2. Before the law all persons are equal. The Republic does
not recognize privileges of birth, or titles of nobility, and
abolishes all existing honorary orders, with all their
prerogatives and decorations, as well as all hereditary and
conciliar titles.
{524}
§ 3. All persons and religious professions may exercise,
publicly and freely, the right of worship, and may associate
themselves for that purpose, acquire property, observance
being had to the provisions of the common law.
§ 4. The Republic recognizes only the civil marriage, the
celebration of which shall be gratuitous.
§ 5. The cemeteries shall be secular in character, and be
managed by the municipal authorities, being free to all
religious sects for the exercise of their respective rites as
regards their members, provided they do not offend public
morals or the laws.
§ 6. The instruction given in the public institutions shall be
secular.
§ 7. No sect or church shall receive official aid, nor be
dependent on, nor connected with, the Government of the Union,
or of the States.
§ 8. All persons have the right of free association and
assembly, without arms; and the police force shall not
intervene, except to maintain the public order.
§ 9. Any person whatsoever shall have the right to address, by
petition, the public powers, denounce abuses of the
authorities, and appeal to the responsibility of the accused.
§ 10. In time of peace any person may, without passport, enter
or leave the territory of the Republic, with his fortune and
goods, whenever and however he may choose.
§ 11. The house is the inviolable asylum of the person; no one
can enter it at night without the consent of the inhabitant,
except to aid the victims of a crime or disaster; nor by day,
unless in the cases and in the form prescribed by law.
§ 12. The expression of opinion shall be free, in respect to
whatever subject, through the press or through the tribune,
without subjection to censorship, each one being responsible
for the abuses he may commit, in the cases and in the form
prescribed by law. Anonymous publications are forbidden.
§ 13. Cases of flagrante delicto alone excepted, no arrest
shall be made, unless after declaration of the charge (save in
cases determined by law), and by written order of the
competent authorities.
§ 14. No person shall be kept in prison without charge
formally made, save the exceptions mentioned in the law, or
taken to prison, or detained there, if he give bail, in cases
where such is lawful.
§ 15. No person shall be condemned, except by competent
authority, and in virtue of law already existing and in the
form prescribed by it.
§ 16. The law shall secure to the accused the fullest defense
by all the recourses and means essential to the same,
including the notice of the charge, delivered to the prisoner
within 24 hours and signed by the proper authority along with
the names of the accusers and witnesses.
§ 17. The rights of property are maintained in all their
plenitude, and no disappropriation shall be made, except from
necessity or public utility, and indemnity shall, in such
cases, be made beforehand. Mines belong to the owners of the
soil, under the limitations to be established by the law to
encourage the development of this branch of industry.
§ 18. Correspondence under seal is inviolable.
§ 19. No penalty shall extend beyond the person of the
delinquent.
§ 20. The penalty of the galleys is abolished, as also
judicial banishment.
§ 21. The death penalty is abolished, except in the cases
under military law in time of war.
§ 22. The habeas corpus shall always be granted when the
individual suffers violence or compulsion, through illegality
or abuse of power, or considers himself in imminent danger of
the same.
§ 23. There shall be no privileged tribunal, except in such
cases as, from their nature, belong to special courts.
§ 24. The free exercise of any profession, moral,
intellectual, or industrial, is guarantied.
§ 25. Industrial inventions belong to their authors, to whom
the law will grant a temporary privilege, or to whom the
Congress will give a reasonable premium, when it is desirable
to make the invention public property.
§ 26. To authors of literary and artistic works is guarantied
the exclusive right of reproducing them through the press or
by any other mechanical process, and their heirs shall enjoy
the same right during the space of time determined by the law.
§ 27. The law shall also secure the rights of property in
trade-marks.
§ 28. No Brazilian can be deprived of his civil and political
rights on account of religious belief or duty, nor be exempted
from the performance of any civic duty.
§ 29. Those who shall claim exemption from any burden imposed
by the laws of the Republic on its citizens, on account of
religious belief, or who shall accept any foreign decoration
or title of nobility, shall lose all their political rights.
§ 30. No tax of any kind shall be collected except in virtue
of a law authorizing the same.
§ 31. The institution of trial by jury is maintained.
Article 73.
Public offices, civil or military, are accessible to all
Brazilian citizens, always observing the conditions of
particular capacity fixed by the law; but the accumulation of
remunerations is forbidden.
Article 74.
Commissions, offices, and positions not subject to removal are
guarantied in all their plenitude.
Article 75.
Only such public officials as have become infirm in the
service of the nation shall be retired on pay.
Article 76.
Officers of the army and navy shall lose their commissions
only in case of condemnation to more than 2 years in prison,
pronounced in judgment by the competent tribunals.
Article 77.
There shall be a special court for the trial of military
offenses committed by soldiers or marines.
§ 1. This court shall be composed of a supreme military
tribunal, whose members shall hold their seats for life, and
of the councils necessary for the formulation of the charge
and the judgment of the crimes.
§ 2. The organization and powers of the supreme military
tribunal shall be determined by law.
Article 78.
The enumeration of the rights and guaranties expressed in the
Constitution does not exclude other guaranties and rights, not
enumerated, but resulting from the form of government
established and principles settled by said Constitution.
Article 79.
The citizen vested with the functions of either of these three
federal powers shall not exercise those of another.
Article 80.
Any part of the territory of the Union may be declared in
state of siege, and the constitutional guaranties suspended
for a determined period, whenever the security of the Republic
so demands in case of foreign aggression or intestine
disturbance. (Article 34, No. 21.)
§ 1. The power to execute the above provision may, if the
Congress be not in session and the country be in imminent
peril, be used by the federal executive. (Article 48, No. 15.)
§ 2. In the exercise of this power, during the state of siege,
the executive shall be restricted to the following
measures of repression against persons:
{525}
(1) To their detention in a place not allotted to persons
accused of common crimes.
(2) To banishment to other parts of the national territory.
§ 3. As soon as the Congress shall have assembled, the
President of the Republic shall make a report to that body of
the exceptional measures which may have been taken.
§ 4. The authorities who shall have ordered such measures
shall be responsible for any abuses that may have been
committed.
Article 81.
In criminal cases, trials concluded may be reviewed at any
time, in favor of the condemned parties, by the federal
supreme court, for the purpose of correcting or of confirming
the sentence.
§ 1. The law shall determine the cases and the form of such
revision, which may be asked for by the condemned, by anyone
of the people, or by the attorney-general of the Republic, ex
officio.
§ 2. In such revision the penalties imposed by the sentence
reviewed can not be increased.
§ 3. The provisions of the present article are applicable to
military trials.
Article 82.
Public officers shall be strictly responsible for the abuses
and omissions that occur in the exercise of the duties of
their offices, as well as for the indulgences and negligences
for which they do not hold their subordinates responsible.
_Sole paragraph_.—They shall all be bound by formal
obligation, on taking possession of their offices, to
discharge the lawful duties of the same.
Article 83.
Until revoked, the laws of the ancien regime shall remain in
force, in as far as they are not, explicitly or implicitly,
contrary to the system of government established by the
Constitution, and to the principles laid down in the same.
Article 84.
The federal government guaranties the payment of the public
debt, both internal and foreign.
Article 85.
The officers of the line and of the annexed classes of the
navy shall have the same commissions and advantage as those of
the army of corresponding rank.
Article 86.
Every Brazilian shall be bound to military service in defense
of the country and the Constitution, as provided by the
federal laws.
Article 87.
The federal army shall be made up of contingents which the
states and the Federal District are bound to furnish,
constituted in conformity with the annual law regulating the
number of the forces.
§ 1. The general organization of the army shall be determined
by a federal law, in accordance with No. 18 of article 34.
§ 2. The Union shall have charge of the military instruction
of the troops and of the higher military instruction.
§ 3. Compulsory recruiting for military purposes is abolished.
§ 4. The army and navy shall be made up by volunteering
without bounties, or, if this means be not sufficient, by lot
previously determined. The crews for the navy shall be made up
from the naval school, the schools of marine apprentices, and
the merchant marine, by means of lot.
Article 88.
In no case, either directly or indirectly, alone or in
alliance with another nation, shall the United States of
Brazil engage in a war of conquest.
Article 89.
A tribunal of accounts shall be instituted for the auditing of
the receipt and expense accounts and examining into their
legality before their presentation to the Congress. The
members of this tribunal shall be appointed by the President
of the Republic, with the approval of the Senate, and can lose
their seats only by sentence.
Article 90.
The Constitution may be amended, at the initiative of the
national Congress, or of the legislatures of the States.
§ 1. An amendment shall be considered as proposed, when,
having been presented by one-fourth, at least, of the members
of either house of the Congress, it shall have been accepted
in three readings (discussions) by two-thirds of the votes in
both houses of the Congress, or when it shall have been asked
for by two-thirds of the States represented, each one by a
majority of the votes of its legislature, said votes to be
taken in the course of 1 year.
§ 2. The proposed amendment shall be considered approved, if,
in the following year, after three discussions, it shall have
been adopted by a majority of two-thirds of the votes in the
two houses of the Congress.
§ 3. The amendment adopted shall be published with the
signatures of the presidents and clerks of the two chambers,
and be incorporated into the Constitution as a part of the
same.
§ 4. No project having a tendency to abolish the federative
republican form, or the equal representation of the States in
the Senate, shall be admitted for consideration in the
Congress.
Article 91.
This Constitution, after approval, shall be promulgated by the
president of the Congress and signed by the members of the
same.
Temporary Provisions.
Article I.
After the promulgation of this Constitution, the Congress, in
joint assembly, shall choose consecutively, by an absolute
majority of votes in the first balloting, and, if no candidate
shall receive such, by a plurality in the second balloting,
the President and Vice President of the United States of
Brazil.
§ 1. This election shall be in two distinct ballotings, for
the President and Vice President respectively, the ballots for
President being taken and counted, in the first place, and
afterwards for Vice President.
§ 2. The President and Vice President, thus elected, shall
occupy the Presidency and Vice Presidency of the Republic
during the first Presidential term.
§ 3. For said election there shall be no incompatibilities
admitted.
§ 4. As soon as said election shall be concluded, the Congress
shall consider as terminated its mission in joint session and,
separating into Chamber and Senate, shall enter upon the
exercise of its functions as defined by law, on the 15th of
June of the present year, and can not in any case be
dissolved.
§ 5. In the first year of the first legislature, among its
preparatory measures, the Senate shall designate the first and
second third of its members, whose term of office shall cease
at the end of the first and second 3-year terms.
§ 6. The discrimination shall be made in three lists,
corresponding to the three classes, allotting to them the
senators of each State and of the Federal District according
to the number of votes received by them respectively, so as to
allot to the third for the last 3 years the one receiving the
highest number of votes in the Federal District and in each
State, and to the other two-thirds the remaining two names in
the order of the number of votes received by them
respectively.
§ 7. In case of tie, the oldest shall be preferred, and if the
ages are equal, the choice shall be made by lot.
{526}
Article 2.
The State which, by the end of the year 1892, shall not have
adopted its constitution, shall, by act of the federal
legislative power, be placed under that of one of the other
States, which it shall judge most suitable, until the State
thus subjected to said constitution, shall amend it in the
manner provided in the same.
Article 3.
As fast as the States shall be organized, the Federal
Government shall deliver to them the administration of the
services which belong to them, and shall settle the
responsibility of the federal administration in all that
relates to said services and to the payment of the respective
officials.
Article 4.
While, during the period of organization of their services,
the States shall be engaged in regulating their expenses, the
Federal Government shall, for this purpose, open special
credits to them, under conditions determined by the Congress.
Article 5.
In the States which shall become organized the classification
of the revenues established in the Constitution shall enter
into force.
Article 6.
In the first appointments for the federal magistracy and for
that of the States, the preference shall be given to the
justices and magistrates of the higher courts of the greatest
note. Such as are not admitted into the new organization of
the judiciary, and have served 30 years, shall be retired on
full pay. Those who have served for less than 30 years shall
continue to receive their salaries until they shall be
employed, or retired with pay corresponding to their length of
service. The payment of salaries of magistrates retired or set
aside shall be made by the Federal Government.
Article 7.
To D. Pedro de Alcantara, ex-Emperor of Brazil, a pension is
granted, to run from the 15th of November, 1889, sufficient to
guaranty him a decent subsistence during his lifetime. The
Congress, at its first session, shall fix the amount of said
pension.
Article 8.
The Federal Government shall acquire for the nation the house
in which Dr. Benjamin Constant Botelho de Magalhães died, and
shall have placed on it a memorial slab in memory of that
great patriot, the founder of the Republic. _Sole
paragraph_.—The widow of the said Dr. Benjamin Constant
shall have, during her lifetime, the usufruct of the said
house. We order, then, all the authorities to whom the
recognition and execution of this Constitution belongs, to
execute it and have it executed and observed faithfully and
fully in all its provisions. Let the same be published and
observed throughout the territory of the nation.
Hall of the sessions of the National Constitutional Congress,
in the city of Rio de Janeiro, in the year 1891, and the third
of the Republic.
See BRAZIL: 1889-1891.
----------CONSTITUTION OF BRAZIL: End----------
CONSTITUTION OF CALIFORNIA.
For an account of the main features of this singular
constitution,
See CALIFORNIA: A. D. 1877-1880.
----------CONSTITUTION OF CALIFORNIA: End----------
CONSTITUTION OF CANADA.
CONSTITUTION OF CANADA: A. D. 1774.
The Quebec Act.
See CANADA: A. D. 1763-1774.
CONSTITUTION OF CANADA: A. D. 1791.
The Constitutional Act.
See CANADA: A. D. 1791.
CONSTITUTION OF CANADA: A. D. 1840.
The Union Act.
See CANADA: A. D. 1840-1867.
CONSTITUTION OF CANADA: A. D. 1867.
The British North America Act.
The history of the Confederation of the provinces of British
North America, forming the Dominion of Canada, is given
briefly under CANADA: A. D. 1867. The following is the text of
the Act of the Parliament of Great Britain by which the
Confederation was formed and its constitution established:
An Act for the Union of Canada, Nova Scotia, and New
Brunswick, and the Government thereof; and for purposes
connected therewith.
29TH MARCH, 1867.
WHEREAS the Provinces of Canada, Nova Scotia, and New
Brunswick have expressed their desire to be federally united
into one Dominion under the Crown of the United Kingdom of
Great Britain and Ireland, with a constitution similar in
principle to that of the United Kingdom: And whereas such a
Union would conduce to the welfare of the Provinces and
promote the interests of the British Empire; And whereas on
the establishment of the Union by authority of Parliament it
is expedient, not only that the Constitution of the
Legislative Authority in the Dominion be provided for, but
also that the nature of the Executive Government therein be
declared: And whereas it is expedient that provision be made
for the eventual admission into the Union of other parts of
British North America: Be it therefore enacted and declared by
the Queen's most Excellent Majesty, by and with the advice and
consent of the Lords Spiritual and Temporal, and Commons, in
this present Parliament assembled, and by the authority of the
same, as follows:
1. This Act may be cited as The British North America Act,
1867.
2. The provisions of this Act referring to Her Majesty the
Queen extend also to the heirs and successors of Her Majesty,
Kings and Queens of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and
Ireland.
3. It shall be lawful for the Queen, by and with the advice of
Her Majesty's Most Honourable Privy Council, to declare by
Proclamation that, on and after a day therein appointed, not
being more than six months after the passing of this Act, the
Provinces of Canada, Nova Scotia, and New Brunswick shall form
and be one Dominion under the name of Canada; and on and after
that day those three Provinces shall form and be one Dominion
under that name accordingly.
4. The subsequent provisions of this Act shall, unless it is
otherwise expressed or implied, commence and have effect on
and after the Union, that is to say, on and after the day
appointed for the Union taking effect in the Queen's
Proclamation; and in the same provisions, unless it is
otherwise expressed or implied, the name Canada shall be taken
to mean Canada as constituted under this Act.
5. Canada shall be divided into four Provinces, named Ontario,
Quebec, Nova Scotia, and New Brunswick.
{527}
6. The parts of the Province of Canada (as it exists at the
passing of this Act) which formerly constituted respectively
the Provinces of Upper Canada and Lower Canada shall be deemed
to be severed, and shall form two separate Provinces. The part
which formerly constituted the Province of Upper Canada shall
constitute the Province of Ontario; and the part which
formerly constituted the Province of Lower Canada shall
constitute the Province of Quebec.
7. The Provinces of Nova Scotia and New Brunswick shall have
the same limits as at the passing of this Act.
8. In the general census of the population of Canada, which is
hereby required to be taken in the year one thousand eight
hundred and seventy-one, and in every tenth year thereafter,
the respective populations of the four Provinces shall be
distinguished.
9. The Executive Government and authority of and over Canada
is hereby declared to continue and be vested in the Queen.
10. The provisions of this Act referring to the Governor
General extend and apply to the Governor General for the time
being of Canada, or other the Chief Executive Officer or
Administrator, for the time being carrying on the Government
of Canada on behalf and in the name of the Queen, by whatever
title he is designated.
11. There shall be a Council to aid and advise in the
Government of Canada, to be styled the Queen's Privy Council
for Canada; and the persons who are to be members of that
Council shall be from time to time chosen and summoned by the
Governor General and sworn in as Privy Councillors, and
members thereof may be from time to time removed by the
Governor General.
12. All powers, authorities, and functions which under any Act
of the Parliament of Great Britain, or of the Parliament of
the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, or of the
Legislature of Upper Canada, Lower Canada, Canada, Nova
Scotia, or New Brunswick, are at the Union vested in or
exerciseable by the respective Governors or Lieutenant
Governors of those Provinces, with the advice, or with the
advice and consent, of the respective Executive Councils
thereof, or in conjunction with those Councils, or with any
number of members thereof, or by those Governors or Lieutenant
Governors individually, shall, as far as the same continue in
existence and capable of being exercised after the Union in
relation to the Government of Canada, be vested in and
exerciseable by the Governor General, with the advice or with
the advice and consent of or in conjunction with the Queen's
Privy Council for Canada, or any members thereof, or by the
Governor General individually, as the case requires, subject
nevertheless (except with respect to such as exist under Acts
of the Parliament of Great Britain or of the Parliament of the
United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland) to be abolished
or altered by the Parliament of Canada.
13. The provisions of this Act referring to the Governor
General in Council shall be construed as referring to the
Governor General acting by and with the advice of the Queen's
Privy Council for Canada.
14. It shall be lawful for the Queen, if Her Majesty thinks
fit, to authorize the Governor General from time to time to
appoint any person or any persons, jointly or severally, to be
his Deputy or Deputies within any part or parts of Canada, and
in that capacity to exercise during the pleasure of the
Governor General such of the powers, authorities, and
functions of the Governor General as the Governor General
deems it necessary and expedient to assign to him or them,
subject to any limitations or directions expressed or given by
the Queen; but the appointment of such a Deputy or Deputies
shall not affect the exercise by the Governor General himself
of any power, authority or function.
15. The Command-in-Chief of the Land and Naval Militia, and of
all Naval and Military Forces, of and in Canada, is hereby
declared to continue and be vested in the Queen.
16. Until the Queen otherwise directs, the seat of Government
of Canada shall be Ottawa.
17. There shall be one Parliament for Canada, consisting of
the Queen, an Upper House styled the Senate, and the House of
Commons.
18. The privileges, immunities, and powers to be held,
enjoyed, and exercised by the Senate and by the House of
Commons, and by the members thereof respectively, shall be
such as are from time to time defined by Act of the Parliament
of Canada, but so that the same shall never exceed those at
the passing of this Act held, enjoyed, and exercised by the
Commons House of Parliament of the United Kingdom of Great
Britain and Ireland and by the members thereof.
19. The Parliament of Canada shall be called together not
later than six months after the Union.
20. There shall be a Session of the Parliament of Canada once
at least in every year, so that twelve months shall not
intervene between the last sitting of the Parliament in one
Session and its first sitting in the next Session.
21. The Senate shall, subject to the provisions of this Act,
consist of seventy-two members, who shall be styled Senators.
22. In relation to the constitution of the Senate, Canada
shall be deemed to consist of three divisions—1. Ontario; 2.
Quebec; 3. The Maritime Provinces, Nova Scotia and New
Brunswick; which three divisions shall (subject to the
provisions of this Act) be equally represented in the Senate
as follows: Ontario by twenty-four Senators; Quebec by
twenty-four Senators; and the Maritime Provinces by
twenty-four Senators, twelve thereof representing Nova Scotia,
and twelve thereof representing New Brunswick. In the case of
Quebec each of the twenty-four Senators representing that
Province shall be appointed for one of the twenty-four
Electoral Divisions of Lower Canada specified in Schedule A.
to chapter one of the Consolidated Statutes of Canada.
23. The qualification of a Senator shall be as follows:
(l) He shall be of the full age of thirty years:
(2) He shall be either a natural born subject of the Queen, or
a subject of the Queen naturalized by an Act of the Parliament
of Great Britain, or of the Parliament of the United Kingdom
of Great Britain and Ireland, or of the Legislature of one of
the Provinces of Upper Canada, Lower Canada, Canada, Nova
Scotia, or New Brunswick, before the Union, or of the
Parliament of Canada after the Union:
(3) He shall be legally or equitably seised as of freehold for
his own use and benefit of lands or tenements held in free and
common socage, or seised or possessed for his own use and
benefit of lands or tenements held in franc-alleu or in
roture, within the Province for which he is appointed, of the
value of four thousand dollars, over and above all rents,
dues, debts, charges, mortgages, and incumbrances due or
payable out of or charged on or affecting the same:
{528}
(4) His real and personal property shall be together worth
$4,000 over and above his debts and liabilities:
(5) He shall be resident in the Province for which he is
appointed:
(6) In the case of Quebec he shall have his real property
qualification in the Electoral Division for which he is
appointed, or shall be resident in that Division.
24. The Governor General shall from time to time, in the
Queen's name, by instrument under the Great Seal of Canada,
summon qualified persons to the Senate; and, subject to the
provisions of this Act, every person so summoned shall become
and be a member of the Senate and a Senator.
25. Such persons shall be first summoned to the Senate as the
Queen by warrant under Her Majesty's Royal Sign Manual thinks
fit to approve, and their names shall be inserted in the
Queen's Proclamation of Union.
26. If at any time on the recommendation of the Governor
General the Queen thinks fit to direct that three or six
members be added to the Senate, the Governor General may by
summons to three or six qualified persons (as the case may
be), representing equally the three divisions of Canada, add
to the Senate accordingly.
27. In case of such addition being at any time made the
Governor General shall not summon any person to the Senate,
except on a further like direction by the Queen on the like
recommendation, until each of the three divisions of Canada is
represented by twenty-four Senators and no more.
28. The number of Senators shall not at any time exceed
seventy-eight.
29. A Senator shall, subject to the provisions of this Act,
hold his place in the Senate for life.
30. A Senator may by writing under his hand addressed to the
Governor General resign his place in the Senate, and thereupon
the same shall be vacant.
31. The place of a Senator shall become vacant in any of the
following cases:
(1) If for two consecutive Sessions of the Parliament he fails
to give his attendance in the Senate:
(2) If he takes an oath or makes a declaration or
acknowledgment of allegiance, obedience, or adherence to a
foreign power, or does an act whereby he becomes a subject or
citizen, or entitled to the rights or privileges of a subject
or citizen of a foreign power:
(3) If he is adjudged bankrupt or insolvent, or applies for
the benefit of any law relating to insolvent debtors, or
becomes a public defaulter:
(4) If he is attainted of treason or convicted of felony or of
any infamous crime:
(5) If he ceases to be qualified in respect of property or of
residence; provided, that a Senator shall not be deemed to
have ceased to be qualified in respect of residence by reason
only of his residing at the seat of the Government of Canada
while holding an office under that Government requiring his
presence there.
32. When a vacancy happens in the Senate by resignation,
death, or otherwise, the Governor General shall by summons to
a fit and qualified person fill the vacancy.
33. If any question arises respecting the qualification of a
Senator or a vacancy in the Senate the same shall be heard and
determined by the Senate.
34. The Governor General may from time to time, by instrument
under the Great Seal of Canada, appoint a Senator to be
Speaker of the Senate, and may remove him and appoint another
in his stead.
35. Until the Parliament of Canada otherwise provides, the
presence of at least fifteen Senators, including the Speaker,
shall be necessary to constitute a meeting of the Senate for
the exercise of its powers.
36. Questions arising in the Senate shall be decided by a
majority of voices, and the Speaker shall in all cases have a
vote, and when the voices are equal the decision shall be
deemed to be in the negative.
37. The House of Commons shall, subject to the provisions of
this Act, consist of one hundred and eighty-one members, of
whom eighty-two shall be elected for Ontario, sixty-five for
Quebec, nineteen for Nova Scotia, and fifteen for New
Brunswick.
38. The Governor General shall from time to time, in the
Queen's name, by instrument under the Great Seal of Canada,
summon and call together the House of Commons.
39. A Senator shall not be capable of being elected or of
sitting or voting as a member of the House of Commons.
40. Until the Parliament of Canada otherwise provides,
Ontario, Quebec, Nova Scotia, and New Brunswick shall, for the
purposes of the election of members to serve in the House of
Commons, be divided into Electoral Districts as follows:
(1) Ontario shall be divided into the Counties, Ridings of
Counties, Cities, parts of Cities, and Towns enumerated in the
first Schedule to this Act, each whereof shall be an Electoral
District, each such District as numbered in that Schedule
being entitled to return one member.
(2) Quebec shall be divided into sixty-five Electoral
Districts, composed of the sixty-five Electoral Divisions into
which Lower Canada is at the passing of this Act divided under
chapter two of the Consolidated Statutes of Canada, chapter
seventy-five of the Consolidated Statutes for Lower Canada,
and the Act of the Province of Canada of the twenty-third year
of the Queen, chapter one, or any other Act amending the same
in force at the Union, so that each such Electoral Division
shall be for the purposes of this Act an Electoral District
entitled to return one member.
(3) Each of the eighteen Counties of Nova Scotia shall be an
Electoral District. The County of Halifax shall be entitled to
return two members, and each of the other Counties one member.
(4) Each of the fourteen Counties into which New Brunswick is
divided, including the City and County of St. John, shall be
an Electoral District; the City of St. John shall also be a
separate Electoral District. Each of those fifteen Electoral
Districts shall be entitled to return one member.
{529}
41. Until the Parliament of Canada otherwise provides, all
laws in force in the several Provinces at the Union relative
to the following matters or any of them, namely,—the
qualifications and disqualifications of persons to be elected
or to sit or vote as members of the House of Assembly or
Legislative Assembly in the several Provinces, the voters at
elections of such members, the oaths to be taken by voters,
the returning officers, their powers and duties, the
proceedings at elections, the periods during which elections
may be continued, the trial of controverted elections, and
proceedings incident thereto, the vacating of seats of
members, and the execution of new writs in case of seats
vacated otherwise than by dissolution,—shall respectively
apply to elections of members to serve in the House of Commons
for the same several Provinces. Provided that, until the
Parliament of Canada otherwise provides, at any election for a
Member of the House of Commons for the District of Algoma, in
addition to persons qualified by the law of the Province of
Canada to vote, every male British subject aged twenty-one
years or upwards, being a householder, shall have a vote.
42. For the first election of members to serve in the House of
Commons the Governor General shall cause writs to be issued by
such person, in such form, and addressed to such returning
officers as he thinks fit. The person issuing writs under this
section shall have the like powers as are possessed at the
Union by the officers charged with the issuing of writs for
the election of members to serve in the respective House of
Assembly or Legislative Assembly of the Province of Canada,
Nova Scotia, or New Brunswick; and the Returning Officers to
whom writs are directed under this section shall have the like
powers as are possessed at the Union by the officers charged
with the returning of writs for the election of members to
serve in the same respective House of Assembly or Legislative
Assembly.
43. In case a vacancy in the representation in the House of
Commons of any Electoral District happens before the meeting
of the Parliament, or after the meeting of the Parliament
before provision is made by the Parliament in this behalf, the
provisions of the last foregoing section of this Act shall
extend and apply to the issuing and returning of a writ in
respect of such vacant District.
44. The House of Commons on its first assembling after a
general election shall proceed with all practicable speed to
elect one of its members to be Speaker.
45. In case of a vacancy happening in the office of Speaker by
death, resignation or otherwise, the House of Commons shall
with all practicable speed proceed to elect another of its
members to be Speaker.
46. The Speaker shall preside at all meetings of the House of
Commons.
47. Until the Parliament of Canada otherwise provides, in case
of the absence for any reason of the Speaker from the chair of
the House of Commons for a period of forty-eight consecutive
hours, the House may elect another of its members to act as
Speaker, and the member so elected shall during the
continuance of such absence of the Speaker have and execute
all the powers, privileges, and duties of Speaker.
48. The presence of at least twenty members of the House of
Commons shall be necessary to constitute a meeting of the
House for the exercise of its powers, and for that purpose the
Speaker shall be reckoned as a member.
49. Questions arising in the House of Commons shall be decided
by a majority of voices other than that of the Speaker, and
when the voices are equal, but not otherwise, the Speaker
shall have a vote.
50. Every House of Commons shall continue for five years from
the day of the return of the writs for choosing the House
(subject to be sooner dissolved by the Governor General), and
no longer.
51. On the completion of the census in the year one thousand
eight hundred and seventy-one, and of each subsequent
decennial census, the representation of the four Provinces
shall be re-adjusted by such authority, in such manner and
from such time as the Parliament of Canada from time to time
provides, subject and according to the following rules:
(1) Quebec shall have the fixed number of sixty-five members:
(2) There shall be assigned to each of the other Provinces
such a number of members as will bear the same proportion to
the number of its population (ascertained at such census) as
the number sixty-five bears to the number of the population of
Quebec (so ascertained):
(3) In the computation of the number of members for a Province
a fractional part not exceeding one-half of the whole number
requisite for entitling the Province to a member shall be
disregarded; but a fractional part exceeding one-half of that
number shall be equivalent to the whole number:
(4) On any such re-adjustment the number of members for a
Province shall not be reduced unless the proportion which the
number of the population of the Province bore to the number of
the aggregate population of Canada at the then last preceding
re-adjustment of the number of members for the Province is
ascertained at the then latest census to be diminished by
one-twentieth part or upwards: (5) Such re-adjustment shall
not take effect until the termination of the then existing
Parliament.
52. The number of members of the House of Commons may be from
time to time increased by the Parliament of Canada, provided
the proportionate representation of the Provinces prescribed
by this Act is not thereby disturbed.
53. Bills for appropriating any part of the public revenue, or
for imposing any tax or impost, shall originate in the House
of Commons.
54. It shall not be lawful for the House of Commons to adopt
or pass any vote, resolution, address, or bill for the
appropriation of any part of the public revenue, or of any tax
or impost, to any purpose that has not been first recommended
to that House by message of the Governor General in the
Session in which such vote, resolution, address, or bill is
proposed.
55. Where a bill passed by the Houses of the Parliament is
presented to the Governor General for the Queen's assent, he
shall declare according to his discretion, but subject to the
provisions of this Act and to Her Majesty's instructions,
either that he assents thereto in the Queen's name, or that he
withholds the Queen's assent, or that he reserves the bill for
the signification of the Queen's pleasure.
56. Where the Governor General assents to a bill in the
Queen's name, he shall by the first convenient opportunity
send an authentic copy of the Act to one of Her Majesty's
Principal Secretaries of State, and if the Queen in Council
within two years after receipt thereof by the Secretary of
State thinks fit to disallow the Act, such disallowance (with
a certificate of the Secretary of State of the day on which
the Act was received by him) being signified by the Governor
General, by speech or message to each of the Houses of the
Parliament, or by proclamation, shall annul the Act from and
after the day of such signification.
{530}
57. A bill reserved for the signification of the Queen's
pleasure shall not have any force unless and until within two
years from the day on which it was presented to the Governor
General for the Queen's assent, the Governor General
signifies, by speech or message to each of the Houses of the
Parliament or by proclamation, that it has received the assent
of the Queen in Council. An entry of every such speech,
message, or proclamation shall be made in the Journal of each
House, and a duplicate thereof duly attested shall be
delivered to the proper officer to be kept among the Records
of Canada.
58. For each Province there shall be an officer, styled the
Lieutenant Governor, appointed by the Governor General in
Council by instrument under the Great Seal of Canada.
59. A Lieutenant Governor shall hold office during the
pleasure of the Governor General; but any Lieutenant Governor
appointed after the commencement of the first Session of the
Parliament of Canada shall not be removable within five years
from his appointment, except for cause assigned, which shall
be communicated to him in writing within one month after the
order for his removal is made, and shall be communicated by
message to the Senate and to the House of Commons within one
week thereafter if the Parliament is then sitting, and if not
then within one week after the commencement of the next
Session of the Parliament.
60. The salaries of the Lieutenant Governors shall be fixed
and provided by the Parliament of Canada.
61. Every Lieutenant Governor shall, before assuming the
duties of his office, make and subscribe before the Governor
General, or' some person authorized by him, oaths of
allegiance and office similar to those taken by the Governor
General.
62. The provisions of this Act referring to the Lieutenant
Governor extend and apply to the Lieutenant Governor for the
time being of each Province or other the chief executive
officer or administrator for the time being carrying on the
government of the Province, by whatever title he is
designated.
63. The Executive Council of Ontario and of Quebec shall be
composed of such persons as the Lieutenant Governor from to
time thinks fit, and in the first instance of the following
officers, namely:—The Attorney-General, the Secretary and
Registrar of the Province, the Treasurer of the Province, the
Commissioner of Crown Lands, and the Commissioner of
Agriculture and Public Works, with in Quebec the Speaker of
the Legislative Council and the Solicitor General.
64. The Constitution of the Executive Authority in each of the
Provinces of Nova Scotia and New Brunswick shall, subject to
the provisions of this Act, continue as it exists at the Union
until altered under the authority of this Act.
65. All powers, authorities, and functions which under any Act
of the Parliament of Great Britain, or of the Parliament of
the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, or of the
Legislature of Upper Canada, Lower Canada, or Canada, were or
are before or at the Union vested in or exerciseable by the
respective Governors or Lieutenant Governors of those
Provinces, with the advice, or with the advice and consent, of
the respective Executive Councils thereof, or in conjunction
with those Councils, or with any number of members thereof, or
by those Governors or Lieutenant Governors individually,
shall, as far as the same are capable of being exercised after
the Union in relation to the Government of Ontario and Quebec,
respectively, be vested in, and shall or may be exercised by
the Lieutenant Governor of Ontario and Quebec respectively,
with the advice or with the advice and consent of or in
conjunction with the respective Executive Councils, or any
members thereof, or by the Lieutenant Governor individually,
as the case requires, subject nevertheless (except with
respect to such as exist under Acts of the Parliament of Great
Britain, or of the Parliament of the United Kingdom of Great
Britain and Ireland), to be abolished or altered by the
respective Legislatures of Ontario and Quebec.
66. The provisions of this Act, referring to the Lieutenant
Governor in Council shall be construed as referring to the
Lieutenant Governor of the Province acting by and with the
advice of the Executive Council thereof.
67. The Governor General in Council may from time to time
appoint an administrator to execute the office and functions
of Lieutenant Governor during his absence, illness, or other
inability.
68. Unless and until the Executive Government of any Province
otherwise directs with respect to the Province, the seats of
Government of the Provinces shall be as follows, namely,—of
Ontario, the City of Toronto; of Quebec, the City of Quebec;
of Nova Scotia, the City of Halifax; and of New Brunswick, the
City of Fredericton.
69. There shall be a Legislature for Ontario consisting of the
Lieutenant Governor and of one House, styled the Legislative
Assembly of Ontario.
70. The Legislative Assembly of Ontario shall be composed of
eighty-two members, to be elected to represent the eighty-two
Electoral Districts set forth in the first Schedule to this
Act.
71. There shall be a Legislature for Quebec consisting of the
Lieutenant Governor and of two Houses, styled the Legislative
Council of Quebec and the Legislative Assembly of Quebec.
72. The Legislative Council of Quebec shall be composed of
twenty-four members, to be appointed by the Lieutenant
Governor in the Queen's name, by instrument under the Great
Seal of Quebec, one being appointed to represent each of the
twenty-four Electoral Divisions of Lower Canada in this Act
referred to, and each holding office for the term of his life,
unless the Legislature of Quebec otherwise provides under the
provisions of this Act.
73. The qualifications of the Legislative Councillors of
Quebec shall be the same as those of the Senators for Quebec.
74. The place of a Legislative Councillor of Quebec shall
become vacant in the cases, 'mutatis mutandis' in which the
place of Senator becomes vacant.
{531}
75. When a vacancy happens in the Legislative Council of
Quebec, by resignation, death, or otherwise, the Lieutenant
Governor, in the Queen's name, by instrument under the Great
Seal of Quebec, shall appoint a fit and qualified person to
fill the vacancy.
76. If any question arises respecting the qualification of a
Legislative Councillor of Quebec, or a vacancy in the
Legislative Council of Quebec, the same shall be heard and
determined by the Legislative Council.
77. The Lieutenant Governor may from time to time, by
instrument under the Great Seal of Quebec, appoint a member of
the Legislative Council of Quebec to be Speaker thereof, and
may remove him and appoint another in his stead.
78. Until the Legislature of Quebec otherwise provides, the
presence of at least ten members of the Legislative Council,
including the Speaker, shall be necessary to constitute a
meeting for the exercise of its powers.
79. Questions arising in the Legislative Council of Quebec
shall be decided by a majority of voices, and the Speaker
shall in all cases have a vote, and when the voices are equal
the decision shall be deemed to be in the negative.
80. The Legislative Assembly of Quebec shall be composed of
sixty-five members, to be elected to represent the sixty-five
Electoral Divisions or Districts of Lower Canada in this Act
referred to, subject to alteration thereof by the Legislature
of Quebec: Provided that it shall not be lawful to present to
the Lieutenant Governor of Quebec for assent any bill for
altering the limits of any of the Electoral Divisions or
Districts mentioned in the second Schedule to this Act, unless
the second and third readings of such bill have been passed in
the Legislative Assembly with the concurrence of the majority
of the members representing all those Electoral Divisions or
Districts, and the assent shall not be given to such bills
unless an address has been presented by the Legislative
Assembly to the Lieutenant Governor stating that it has been
so passed.
81. The Legislatures of Ontario and Quebec respectively shall
be called together not later than six months after the Union.
82. The Lieutenant Governor of Ontario and of Quebec shall
from time to time, in the Queen's name, by instrument under
the Great Seal of the Province, summon and call together the
Legislative Assembly of the Province.
83. Until the Legislature of Ontario or of Quebec otherwise
provides, a person accepting or holding in Ontario or in
Quebec any office, commission, or employment, permanent or
temporary, at the nomination of the Lieutenant Governor, to
which an annual salary, or any fee, allowance, emolument, or
profit of any kind or amount whatever from the Province is
attached, shall not be eligible as a member of the Legislative
Assembly of the respective Province, nor shall he sit or vote as
such; but nothing in this section shall make ineligible any
person being a member of the Executive Council of the
respective Province, or holding any of the following offices,
that is to say, the offices of Attorney-General, Secretary and
Registrar of the Province, Treasurer of the Province,
Commissioner of Crown Lands, and Commissioner of Agriculture
and Public Works and, in Quebec, Solicitor-General, or shall
disqualify him to sit or vote in the House for which he is
elected, provided he is elected while holding such office.
84. Until the Legislatures of Ontario and Quebec respectively
otherwise provide, all laws which at the Union are in force in
those Provinces respectively, relative to the following
matters, or any of them, namely,—the qualifications and
disqualifications of persons to be elected or to sit or vote
as members of the Assembly of Canada, the qualifications or
disqualifications of voters, the oaths to be taken by voters,
the Returning Officers, their powers and duties, the
proceedings at elections, the periods during which such
elections may be continued, and the trial of controverted
elections and the proceedings incident thereto, the vacating
of the seats of members and the issuing and execution of new
writs in case of seats vacated otherwise than by dissolution,
shall respectively apply to elections of members to serve in
the respective Legislative Assemblies of Ontario and Quebec.
Provided that until the Legislature of Ontario otherwise
provides, at any election for a member of the Legislative
Assembly of Ontario for the District of Algoma, in addition to
persons qualified by the law of the Province of Canada to
vote, every male British subject, aged twenty-one years or
upwards, being a householder, shall have a vote.
85. Every Legislative Assembly of Ontario and every
Legislative Assembly of Quebec shall continue for four years
from the day of the return of the writs for choosing the same
(subject nevertheless to either the Legislative Assembly of
Ontario or the Legislative Assembly of Quebec being sooner
dissolved by the Lieutenant Governor of the Province), and no
longer.
86. There shall be a session of the Legislature of Ontario and
of that of Quebec once at least in every year, so that twelve
months shall not intervene between the last sitting of the
Legislature in each Province in one session and its first
sitting in the next session.
87. The following provisions of this Act respecting the House
of Commons of Canada, shall extend and apply to the
Legislative Assemblies of Ontario and Quebec, that is to
say,—the provisions relating to the election of a Speaker
originally and on vacancies, the duties of the Speaker, the
absence of the Speaker, the quorum, and the mode of voting, as
if those provisions were here re-enacted and made applicable
in terms to each such Legislative Assembly.
88. The constitution of the Legislature of each of the
Provinces of Nova Scotia and New Brunswick shall, subject to
the provisions of this Act, continue as it exists at the Union
until altered under the authority of this Act; and the House
of Assembly of New Brunswick existing at the passing of this
Act shall, unless sooner dissolved, continue for the period
for which it was elected.
89. Each of the Lieutenant Governors of Ontario, Quebec, and
Nova Scotia shall cause writs to be issued for the first
election of members of the Legislative Assembly thereof in
such form and by such person as he thinks fit, and at such
time and addressed to such Returning Officer as the Governor
General directs, and so that the first election of member of
Assembly for any Electoral District or any subdivision thereof
shall be held at the same time and at the same places as the
election for a member to serve in the House of Commons of
Canada for that Electoral District.
{532}
90. The following provisions of this Act respecting the
Parliament of Canada, namely,—the provisions relating to
appropriation and tax bills, the recommendation of money
votes, the assent to bills, the disallowance of Acts. and the
signification of pleasure on bills reserved,—shall extend and
apply to the Legislatures of the several Provinces as if those
provisions were here re-enacted and made applicable in terms
to the respective Provinces and the Legislatures thereof, with
the substitution of the Lieutenant Governor of the Province
for the Governor General, of the Governor General for the
Queen and for a Secretary of State, of one year for two years,
and of the Province for Canada.
91. It shall be lawful for the Queen, by and with the advice
and consent of the Senate and House of Commons, to make laws
for the peace, order, and good government of Canada, in
relation to all matters not coming within the classes of
subjects by this Act assigned exclusively to the Legislatures
of the Provinces; and for greater certainty, but not so as to
restrict the generality of the foregoing terms of this
section, it is hereby declared that (notwithstanding anything
in this Act) the exclusive legislative authority of the
Parliament of Canada extends to all matters coming within the
classes of subjects next hereinafter enumerated, that is to
say,—
1. The Public Debt and Property.
2. The regulation of Trade and Commerce.
3. The raising of money by any mode or system of Taxation.
4. The borrowing of money on the public credit.
5. Postal service.
6. The Census and Statistics.
7. Militia, Military and Naval Service, and Defence.
8. The fixing of and providing for the salaries and allowances
of civil and other officers of the Government of Canada.
9. Beacons, Buoys, Lighthouses, and Sable Island.
10. Navigation and Shipping.
11. Quarantine and the establishment and maintenance of Marine
Hospitals.
12. Sea coast and inland Fisheries.
13. Ferries between a Province and any British or Foreign
country, or between two Provinces.
14. Currency and Coinage.
15. Banking, incorporation of banks, and the issue of paper
money.
16. Savings Banks.
17. Weights and Measures.
18. Bills of Exchange and Promissory Notes.
19. Interest.
20. Legal tender.
21. Bankruptcy and Insolvency.
22. Patents of invention and discovery.
23. Copyrights.
24. Indians, and lands reserved for the Indians.
25. Naturalization and Aliens.
26. Marriage and Divorce.
27. The Criminal Law, except the Constitution of Courts of
Criminal Jurisdiction, but including the Procedure in Criminal
Matters.
28. The Establishment, Maintenance, and Management of
Penitentiaries.
29. Such classes of subjects as are expressly excepted in the
enumeration of the classes of subjects by this Act assigned
exclusively to the Legislatures of the Provinces. And any
matter coming within any of the classes of subjects enumerated
in this section shall not be deemed to come within the class
of matters of a local or private nature comprised in the
enumeration of the classes of subjects by this Act assigned
exclusively to the Legislatures of the Provinces.
92. In each Province the Legislature may exclusively make laws
in relation to matters coming within the classes of subjects
next hereinafter enumerated; that is to say,—
1. The amendment from time to time, notwithstanding anything
in this Act, of the Constitution of the Province, except as
regards the office of Lieutenant Governor.
2. Direct Taxation within the Province in order to the raising
of a Revenue for Provincial purposes.
3. The borrowing of money on the sole credit of the Province.
4. The establishment and tenure of Provincial offices and the
appointment and payment of Provincial officers.
5. The management and sale of the Public Lands belonging to
the Province and of the timber and wood thereon.
6. The establishment, maintenance, and management of public
and reformatory prisons in and for the Province.
7. The establishment, maintenance, and management of
hospitals, asylums, charities, and eleemosynary institutions
in and for the Province, other than marine hospitals.
8. Municipal institutions in the Province.
9. Shop, saloon, tavern, auctioneer, and other licenses in
order to the raising of a revenue for Provincial, local, or
municipal purposes.
10. Local works and undertakings other than such as are of the
following classes,
_a._ Lines of steam or other ships, railways, canals,
telegraphs, and other works and undertakings connecting the
Province with any other or others of the Provinces, or
extending beyond the limits of the Province:
_b._ Lines of steamships between the Province and any
British or foreign country.
_c._ Such works as, although wholly situate within the
Province, are before or after their execution declared by the
Parliament of Canada to be for the general advantage of Canada
or for the advantage of two or more of the Provinces.
11. The incorporation of companies with Provincial objects.
12. The solemnization of marriage in the Province.
13. Property and civil rights in the Province.
14. The administration of justice in the Province, including
the constitution, maintenance, and organization of Provincial
Courts, both of civil and of criminal jurisdiction, and
including procedure in Civil matters in those Courts.
15. The imposition of punishment by fine, penalty, or
imprisonment for enforcing any law of the Province made in
relation to any matter coming within any of the classes of
subjects enumerated in this section.
16. Generally all matters of a merely local or private nature
in the Province.
93. In and for each Province the Legislature may exclusively
make laws in relation to education, subject and according to
the following provisions:
(1) Nothing in any such law shall prejudicially affect any
right or privilege with respect to denominational schools
which any class of persons have by law in the Province at the
Union.
(2) All the powers, privileges, and duties at the Union by law
conferred and imposed in Upper Canada on the separate schools
and school trustees of the Queen's Roman Catholic subjects
shall be and the same are hereby extended to the dissentient
schools of the Queen's Protestant and Roman Catholic subjects
in Quebec.
(3) Where in any Province a system of separate or dissentient
schools exists by law at the Union or is thereafter,
established by the Legislature of the Province, an appeal
shall lie to the Governor General in Council from any Act or
decision of any Provincial authority affecting any right or
privilege of the Protestant or Roman Catholic minority of the
Queen's subjects in relation to education:
{533}
(4) In case any such Provincial law as from time to time seems
to the Governor General in Council requisite for the due
execution of the provisions of this section is not made, or in
case any decision of the Governor General in Council on any
appeal under this section is not duly executed by the proper
Provincial authority in that behalf, then find in every such
case, and as far only as the circumstances of each case
require, the Parliament of Canada may make remedial laws for
the due execution of the provisions of this section and of any
decision of the Governor General in Council under this
section.
94. Notwithstanding anything in this Act, the Parliament of
Canada may make provision for the uniformity of all or any of
the laws relative to property and civil rights in Ontario,
Nova Scotia, and New Brunswick, and of the procedure of all or
any of the Courts in those three Provinces; and from and after
the passing of any Act in that behalf the power of the
Parliament of Canada to make laws in relation to any matter
comprised in any such Act shall, notwithstanding anything in
this Act, be unrestricted; but any Act of the Parliament of
Canada making provision for such uniformity shall not have
effect in any Province unless and until it is adopted and
enacted as law by the Legislature thereof.
95. In each Province the Legislature may make laws in relation
to Agriculture in the Province, and to Immigration into the
Province; and it is hereby declared that the Parliament of
Canada may from time to time make laws in relation to
Agriculture in all or any of the Provinces, and to Immigration
into all or any of the Provinces; and any law of the
Legislature of a Province relative to Agriculture or to
Immigration shall have effect in and for the Province as long
and as far only as it is not repugnant to any Act of the
Parliament of Canada.
96. The Governor General shall appoint the Judges of the
Superior, District, and County Courts in each Province, except
those of the Courts of Probate in Nova Scotia and New
Brunswick.
97. Until the laws relative to property and civil rights in
Ontario, Nova Scotia, and New Brunswick, and the procedure of
the Courts in those Provinces, are made uniform, the Judges of
the Courts of those Provinces appointed by the Governor
General shall be selected from the respective Bars of those
Provinces.
98. The Judges of the Courts of Quebec shall be selected from
the Bar of that Province.
99. The Judges of the Superior Courts shall hold office during
good behaviour, but shall be removable by the Governor General
on address of the Senate and House of Commons.
100. The salaries, allowances, and pensions of the Judges of
the Superior, District, and County Courts (except the Courts
of Probate in Nova Scotia and New Brunswick), and of the
Admiralty Courts in cases where the Judges thereof are for the
time being paid by salary, shall be fixed and provided by the
Parliament of Canada.
101. The Parliament of Canada may, notwithstanding anything in
this Act, from time to time, provide for the constitution,
maintenance, and organization of a general Court of Appeal for
Canada, and for the establishment of any additional Courts for
the better administration of the Laws of Canada.
102. All duties and revenues over which the respective
Legislatures of Canada, Nova Scotia, and New Brunswick before
and at the Union had and have power of appropriation, except
such portions thereof as are by this Act reserved to the
respective Legislatures of the Provinces, or are raised by
them in accordance with the special powers conferred on them
by this Act, shall form one Consolidated Revenue Fund, to be
appropriated for the public service of Canada in the manner
and subject to the charges in this Act provided.
103. The Consolidated Revenue Fund of Canada shall be
permanently charged with the costs, charges, and expenses
incident to the collection, management, and receipt thereof,
and the same shall form the first charge thereon, subject to
be reviewed and audited in such manner as shall be ordered by
the Governor General in Council until the Parliament otherwise
provides.
104. The annual interest of the public debts of the several
Provinces of Canada, Nova Scotia, and New Brunswick at the
Union shall form the second charge on the Consolidated Revenue
Fund of Canada.
105. Unless altered by the Parliament of Canada, the salary of
the Governor General shall be ten thousand pounds sterling
money of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland,
payable out of the Consolidated Revenue Fund of Canada, and
the same shall form the third charge thereon.
106. Subject to the several payments by this Act charged on
the Consolidated Revenue Fund of Canada, the same shall be
appropriated by the Parliament of Canada for the public
service.
107. All stocks, cash, banker's balances, and securities for
money belonging to each Province at the time of the Union,
except as in this Act mentioned, shall be the property of
Canada, and shall be taken in reduction of the amount of the
respective debts of the Provinces at the Union.
108. The public works and property of each Province,
enumerated in the third schedule to this Act, shall be the
property of Canada.
109. All lands, mines, minerals, and royalties belonging to
the several Provinces of Canada, Nova Scotia and New Brunswick
at the Union, and all sums then due or payable for such lands,
mines, minerals, or royalties, shall belong to the several
Provinces of Ontario, Quebec, Nova Scotia and New Brunswick in
which the same are situate or arise, subject to any trusts
existing in respect thereof, and to any interest other than
that of the Province in the same.
110. All assets connected with such portions of the public
debt of each Province as are assumed by that Province shall
belong to that Province.
111. Canada shall be liable for the debts and liabilities of
each Province existing at the Union.
112. Ontario and Quebec conjointly shall be liable to Canada
for the amount (if any) by which the debt of the Province of
Canada exceeds at the Union sixty-two million five hundred
thousand dollars, and shall be charged with interest at the
rate of five per centum per annum thereon.
113. The assets enumerated in the fourth Schedule to this Act
belonging at the Union to the Province of Canada shall be the
property of Ontario and Quebec conjointly.
{534}
114. Nova Scotia shall be liable to Canada for the amount (if
any) by which its public debt exceeds at the Union eight
million dollars, and shall be charged with interest at the
rate of five per centum per annum thereon.
115. New Brunswick shall be liable to Canada for the amount
(if any) by which its public debt exceeds at the Union seven
million dollars, and shall be charged with interest at the
rate of five per centum per annum thereon.
116. In case the public debt of Nova Scotia and New Brunswick
do not at the Union amount to eight million dollars and seven
million dollars respectively, they shall respectively receive
by half-yearly payments in advance from the Government of
Canada interest at five per centum per annum on the difference
between the actual amounts of their respective debts and such
stipulated amounts.
117. The several provinces shall retain all their respective
public property not otherwise disposed of in this Act, subject
to the right of Canada to assume any lands or public property
required for fortifications or for the defence of the country.
118. The following sums shall be paid yearly by Canada to the
several Provinces for the support of their Governments and
Legislatures: Ontario, eighty thousand dollars; Quebec,
seventy thousand dollars; Nova Scotia, sixty thousand dollars;
New Brunswick, fifty thousand dollars; [total] two hundred and
sixty thousand dollars; and an annual grant in aid of each
Province shall be made, equal to eighty cents per head, of the
population us ascertained by the census of one thousand eight
hundred and sixty-one, and in the case of Nova Scotia and New
Brunswick, by each subsequent decennial census until the
population of each of those two Provinces amounts to four
hundred thousand souls, at which rate such grant shall
thereafter remain. Such grant shall be in full Settlement of
all future demands on Canada, and shall be paid half-yearly in
advance to each Province; but the Government of Canada shall
deduct from such grants, as against any Province, all sums
chargeable as interest on the Public Debt of that Province in
excess of the several amounts stipulated in this Act.
119. New Brunswick shall receive by half-yearly payments in
advance from Canada, for the period of ten years from the
Union, an additional allowance of sixty-three thousand dollars
per annum; but as long as the Public Debt of that Province
remains under seven million dollars a deduction equal to the
interest at five per centum per annum on such deficiency shall
be made from that allowance of sixty-three thousand dollars.
120. All payments to be made under this Act, or in discharge
of liabilities created under any Act of the Provinces of
Canada, Nova Scotia and New Brunswick respectively, and
assumed by Canada, shall, until the Parliament of Canada
otherwise directs, be made in such form and manner as may from
time to time be ordered by the Governor General in Council.
121. All articles of the growth, produce, or manufacture of
anyone of the Provinces shall, from and after the Union, be
admitted free into each of the other Provinces.
122. The Customs and Excise Laws of each Province shall,
subject to the provisions of this Act, continue in force until
altered by the Parliament of Canada.
123. Where Customs duties are, at the Union, leviable on any
goods, wares or merchandises in any two Provinces, those
goods, wares and merchandises may, from and after the Union,
be imported from one of those Provinces into the other of them
on proof of payment of the Customs duty leviable thereon in
the Province of exportation, and on payment of such further
amount (if any) of Customs duty as is leviable thereon in the
Province of importation.
124. Nothing in this Act shall affect the right of New
Brunswick to levy the lumber dues provided in chapter fifteen,
of title three, of the Revised Statutes of New Brunswick, or
in any Act amending that act before or after the Union, and
not increasing the amount of such dues; but the lumber of any
of the Provinces other than New Brunswick stall not be
subjected to such dues.
125. No lands or property belonging to Canada or any Province
shall be liable to taxation.
126. Such portions of the duties and revenues over which the
respective Legislatures of Canada, Nova Scotia, and New
Brunswick had before the Union power of appropriation as are
by this Act reserved to the respective Governments or
Legislatures of the Provinces, and all duties and revenues
raised by them in accordance with the special powers conferred
upon them by this act, shall in each Province form one
Consolidated Revenue Fund to be appropriated for the public
service of the Province.
127. If any person being at the passing of this Act a member
of the Legislative Council of Canada, Nova Scotia, or New
Brunswick, to whom a place in the Senate is offered, does not
within thirty days thereafter, by writing under his hand,
addressed to the Governor General of the Province of Canada,
or to the Lieutenant Governor of Nova Scotia or New Brunswick
(as the case may be), accept the same, he shall be deemed to
have declined the same; and any person who, being at the
passing of this Act a member of the Legislative Council of
Nova Scotia or New Brunswick, accepts a place in the Senate,
shall thereby vacate his seat in such Legislative Council.
128. Every member of the Senate or House of Commons of Canada
shall before taking his seat therein, take and subscribe
before the Governor General or some person authorized by him,
and every member of a Legislative Council or Legislative
Assembly of any Province shall before taking his seat therein,
take and subscribe before the Lieutenant Governor of the
Province, or some person authorized by him, the oath of
allegiance contained in the fifth Schedule to this Act; and
every member of the Senate of Canada and every member of the
Legislative Council of Quebec shall also, before taking his
seat therein, take and subscribe before the Governor General,
or some person authorized by him, the declaration of
qualification contained in the same Schedule.
{535}
129. Except as otherwise provided by this Act, all laws in
force in Canada, Nova Scotia, or New Brunswick at the Union,
and all courts of civil and criminal jurisdiction, and all
legal commissions, powers and authorities, and all officers,
judicial, administrative, and ministerial, existing therein at
the Union, shall continue in Ontario, Quebec, Nova Scotia, and
New Brunswick respectively, as if the Union had not been made,
subject nevertheless (except with respect to such as are
enacted by or exist under Acts of the Parliament of Great
Britain or of the Parliament of the United Kingdom of Great
Britain and Ireland), to be repealed, abolished or altered by
the Parliament of Canada, or by the Legislature of the
respective Province, according to the authority of the
Parliament or of that Legislature under this Act.
130. Until the Parliament of Canada otherwise provides, all
officers of the several Provinces having duties to discharge
in relation to matters other than those coming within the
classes of subjects by this Act assigned exclusively to the
Legislatures of the Provinces shall be officers of Canada, and
shall continue to discharge the duties of their respective
offices under the same liabilities, responsibilities and
penalties as if the Union had not been made.
131. Until the Parliament of Canada otherwise provides, the
Governor General in Council may from time to time appoint such
officers as the Governor General in Council deems necessary or
proper for the effectual execution of this Act.
132. The Parliament and Government of Canada shall have all
powers necessary or proper for performing the obligations of
Canada or of any Province thereof, as part of the British
Empire towards foreign countries, arising under treaties
between the Empire and such foreign countries.
133. Either the English or the French language may be used by
any person in the debates of the Houses of Parliament of
Canada and of the Houses of the Legislature of Quebec; and
both those languages shall be used in the respective records
and journals of those Houses; and either of those languages
may be used by any person or in any pleading or process in or
issuing from any Court of Canada established under this Act,
and in or from all or any of the Courts of Quebec. The Acts of
the Parliament of Canada and of the Legislature of Quebec
shall be printed and published in both those languages.
134. Until the Legislature of Ontario or of Quebec otherwise
provides, the Lieutenant Governors of Ontario and Que bee may
each appoint under the Great Seal of the Province the
following officers, to hold office during pleasure, that is to
say,—the Attorney General, the Secretary and Registrar of the
Province, the Treasurer of the Province, the Commissioner of
Crown Lands and the Commissioner of Agriculture and Public
Works, and, in the case of Quebec, the Solicitor General; and
may, by order of the Lieutenant Governor in Council from time
to time prescribe the duties of those officers and of the
several departments over which they shall preside or to which
they shall belong, and of the officers and clerks thereof; and
may also appoint other and additional officers to hold office
during pleasure, and may from time to time prescribe the
duties of those officers, and of the several departments over
which they shall preside or to which they shall belong, and of
the officers and clerks thereof.
130. Until the Legislature of Ontario or Quebec otherwise
provides, all rights, powers, duties, functions,
responsibilities or authorities at the passing of this Act
vested in or imposed on the Attorney General, Solicitor
General, Secretary and Registrar of the Province of Canada,
Minister of Finance, Commissioner of Crown Lands, Commissioner
of Public Works, and Minister of Agriculture and Receiver
General, by any law, statute or ordinance of Upper Canada,
Lower Canada, or Canada, and not repugnant to this Act, shall
be vested in or imposed on any officer to be appointed by the
Lieutenant Governor for the discharge of the same or any of
them; and the Commissioner of Agriculture and Public Works
shall perform the duties and functions of the office of
Minister of Agriculture at the passing of this Act imposed by
the law of the Province of Canada as well as those of the
Commissioner of Public Works.
136. Until altered by the Lieutenant Governor in Council, the
Great Seals of Ontario and Quebec respectively, shall be the
same or of the same design, as those used in the Provinces of
Upper Canada and Lower Canada respectively before their Union
as the Province of Canada.
137. The words "and from thence to the end of the then next
ensuing Session of the Legislature," or words to the same
effect, used in any temporary Act of the Province of Canada
not expired before the Union, shall be construed to extend and
apply to the next Session of Parliament of Canada, if the
subject matter of the Act is within the powers of the same as
defined by this Act, or to the next Sessions of the
Legislatures of Ontario and Quebec respectively, if the
subject matter of the Act is within the powers of the same as
defined by this Act.
138. From and after the Union, the use of the words "Upper
Canada," instead of "Ontario," or "Lower Canada" instead of
"Quebec," in any deed, writ, process, pleading, document,
matter or thing, shall not invalidate the same.
139. Any Proclamation under the Great Seal of the Province of
Canada, issued before the Union to take effect at a time which
is subsequent to the Union, whether relating to that Province
or to Upper Canada, or to Lower Canada, and the several
matters and things therein proclaimed shall be and continue of
like force and effect as if the Union had not been made.
140. Any proclamation which is authorized by any Act of the
Legislature of the Province of Canada to be issued under the
Great Seal of the Province of Canada, whether relating to that
Province or to Upper Canada, or to Lower Canada, and which is
not issued before the Union, may be issued by the Lieutenant
Governor of Ontario or of Quebec, as its subject matter
requires, under the Great Seal thereof; and from and after the
issue of such Proclamation the same and the several matters
and things therein proclaimed shall be and continue of the
like force and effect in Ontario or Quebec as if the Union had
not been made.
141. The Penitentiary of the Province of Canada shall, until
the Parliament of Canada otherwise provides, be and continue
the Penitentiary of Ontario and of Quebec.
142. The division and adjustment of the debts, credits,
liabilities, properties and assets of Upper Canada and Lower
Canada shall be referred to the arbitrament of three
arbitrators, one chosen by the Government of Ontario, one by
the Government of Quebec, and one by the Government of Canada;
and the selection of the Arbitrators shall not be made until
the Parliament of Canada and the Legislatures of Ontario and
Quebec have met; and the arbitrator chosen by the Government
of Canada shall not be a resident either in Ontario or in
Quebec.
{536}
143. The Governor General in Council may from time to time
order that such and so many of the records, books, and
documents of the Province of Canada as he thinks fit shall be
appropriated and delivered either to Ontario or to Quebec, and
the same shall henceforth be the property of that Province:
and any copy thereof or extract therefrom, duly certified by
the officer having charge of the original thereof shall be
admitted as evidence.
144. The Lieutenant Governor of Quebec may from time to time,
by Proclamation under the Great Seal of the Province, to take
effect from a day to be appointed therein, constitute
townships in those parts of the Province of Quebec in which
townships are not then already constituted, and fix the metes
and bounds thereof.
145. Inasmuch as the Provinces of Canada, Nova Scotia, and New
Brunswick have joined in a declaration that the construction
of the Intercolonial Railway is essential to the consolidation
of the Union of British North America, and to the assent thereto
of Nova Scotia and New Brunswick, and have consequently agreed
that provision should be made for its immediate construction
by the Government of Canada: Therefore, in order to give
effect to that agreement, it shall be the duty of the
Government and Parliament of Canada to provide for the
commencement, within six months after the Union, of a railway
connecting the River St. Lawrence with the City of Halifax in
Nova Scotia, and for the construction thereof without
intermission, and the completion thereof with all practicable
speed.
146. It shall be lawful for the Queen, by and with the advice
of Her Majesty's Most Honourable Privy Council, on Addresses
from the Houses of the Parliament of Canada, and from the
Houses of the respective Legislatures of the Colonies or
Provinces of Newfoundland, Prince Edward Island, and British
Columbia, to admit those Colonies or Provinces, or any of
them, into the Union, and on Address from the Houses of the
Parliament of Canada to admit Rupert's Land and the
North-western Territory, or either of them, into the Union, on
such terms and conditions in each case as are in the Addresses
expressed and as the Queen thinks fit to approve, subject to
the provisions of this Act, and the provisions of any Order in
Council in that behalf shall have effect as if they had been
enacted by the Parliament of the United Kingdom of Great
Britain and Ireland.
147. In case of the admission of Newfoundland and Prince
Edward Island, or either of them, each shall be entitled to a
representation in the Senate of Canada of four members, and
(notwithstanding anything in this Act) in case of the
admission of Newfoundland the normal number of Senators shall
be seventy-six and their maximum number shall be eighty-two;
but Prince Edward Island when admitted shall be deemed to be
comprised in the third of the three divisions into which
Canada is, in relation to the constitution of the Senate,
divided by this Act, and accordingly, after the admission of
Prince Edward Island, whether Newfoundland is admitted or not,
the representation of Nova Scotia and New Brunswick in the
Senate shall, as vacancies occur, be reduced from twelve to
ten members respectively; and the representation of each of
those Provinces shall not be increased at any time beyond ten,
except under the provisions of this Act for the appointment of
three or six additional Senators under the direction of the
Queen.
CONSTITUTION OF CANADA: A. D. 1871.
British North America Act, 1871.
An Act respecting the Establishment of Provinces in the
Dominion of Canada. [29TH JUNE, 1871.]
WHEREAS doubts have been entertained respecting the powers of
the Parliament of Canada to establish Provinces in territories
admitted, or which may hereafter be admitted, into the
Dominion of Canada, and to provide for the representation of
such Provinces in the said Parliament, and it is expedient to
remove such doubts, and to vest such powers in the said
Parliament: Be it enacted by the Queen's Most Excellent
Majesty, by and with the advice and consent of the Lords,
Spiritual and Temporal, and Commons in this present Parliament
assembled, and by the authority of the same, as follows:
1. This Act may be cited for all purposes as The British North
America Act, 1871.
2. The Parliament of Canada may from time to time establish
new Provinces in any territories forming for the time being
part of the Dominion of Canada, but not included in any
Province thereof, and may, at the time of such establishment,
make provision for the constitution and administration of any
such Province, and for the passing of laws for the peace,
order and good government of such Province, and for its
representation in the said Parliament.
3. The Parliament of Canada may from time to time, with the
consent of the Legislature of any Province of the said
Dominion, increase, diminish, or otherwise alter the limits of
such Province, upon such terms and conditions as may be agreed
to by the said Legislature, and may, with the like consent,
make provision respecting the effect and operation of any such
increase or diminution or alteration of territory in relation
to any Province affected thereby.
4. The Parliament of Canada may from time to time make
provision for the administration, peace, order, and good
government of any territory not for the time being included in
any Province.
5. The following Acts passed by the said Parliament of Canada,
and intituled respectively: "An Act for the temporary
government of Rupert's Land and the North-Western Territory
when united with Canada;" and "An Act to amend and continue
the Act thirty-two and thirty-three Victoria, chapter three,
and to establish and provide for the government of the
Province of Manitoba," shall be and be deemed to have been
valid and effectual for all purposes whatsoever from the date
at which they respectively received the assent, in the Queen's
name, of the Governor General of the said Dominion of Canada.
6. Except as provided by the third section of this Act, it
shall not be competent for the Parliament of Canada to alter
the provisions of the last mentioned Act of the said
Parliament in so far as it relates to the Province of
Manitoba, or of any other Act hereafter establishing new
Provinces in the said Dominion, subject always to the right of
the Legislature of the Province of Manitoba to alter from time
to time the provisions of any law respecting the qualification
of electors and members of the Legislative Assembly, and to
make laws respecting elections in the said Province.
{537}
CONSTITUTION OF CANADA: A. D. 1875.
Parliament of Canada Act, 1875.
An Act to remove certain doubts with respect to the powers of
the Parliament of Canada, under Section 18 of the British
North America Act, 1867. [19TH JULY, 1875.]
WHEREAS by section 18 of The British North America Act, 1867,
it is provided as follows:-
"The privileges, immunities, and powers to be held, enjoyed,
and exercised by the Senate and by the House of Commons, and
by the members thereof respectively, shall be such as are from
time to time defined by Act of the Parliament of Canada, but
so that the same shall never exceed those at the passing of
this Act held, enjoyed, and exercised by the Commons House of
Parliament of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland,
and by the members thereof." And whereas doubts have arisen
with regard to the power of defining by an Act of the
Parliament of Canada, in pursuance of the said section, the
said privileges, powers or immunities; and it is expedient to
remove such doubts: Be it therefore enacted by the Queen's
Most Excellent Majesty, by and with the advice and consent of
the Lords Spiritual and Temporal, and Commons, in this present
Parliament assembled, and by the authority of the same, as
follows:-
1. Section 18 of The British North America Act, 1867, is
hereby repealed, without prejudice to anything done under that
section, and the following section shall be substituted for
the section so repealed:—The privileges, immunities, and
powers to be held, enjoyed and exercised by the Senate and by
the House of Commons, and by the members thereof respectively,
shall be such as are from time to time defined by Act of the
Parliament of Canada, but so that any Act of the Parliament of
Canada defining such privileges, immunities and powers shall
not confer any privileges, immunities, or powers exceeding
those at the passing of such Act held, enjoyed, and exercised
by the Commons House of Parliament of the United Kingdom of
Great Britain and Ireland, and by the members thereof.
2. The Act of the Parliament of Canada passed in the
thirty-first year of the reign of her present Majesty, chapter
twenty-four, intituled An Act to provide for oaths to
witnesses being administered in certain cases for the purposes
of either House of Parliament, shall be deemed to be valid,
and to have been valid as from the date at which the royal
assent was given thereto by the Governor General of the
Dominion of Canada.
3. This Act may be cited as The Parliament of Canada Act,
1875.
CONSTITUTION OF CANADA: A. D. 1886.
British North America Act, 1886.
An Act respecting the Representation in the Parliament of
Canada of Territories which for the time being form part of
the Dominion of Canada, but are not included in any Province.
[25TH JUNE, 1886.]
WHEREAS it is expedient to empower the Parliament of Canada to
provide for the representation in the Senate and House of
Commons of Canada, or either of them, of any territory which
for the time being forms part of the Dominion of Canada, but
is not included in any Province: Be it therefore enacted by
the Queen's. Most Excellent Majesty, by and with the advice
and consent of the Lords Spiritual and Temporal, and Commons,
in the present Parliament assembled, and by the authority of
the same, as follows:
1. The Parliament of Canada may from time to time make
provision for the representation in the Senate and House of
Commons of Canada, or in either of them, of any territories
which for the time being form part of the Dominion of Canada,
but are not included in any Province thereof.
2. Any Act passed by the Parliament of Canada before the
passing of this Act for the purpose mentioned in this Act
shall, if not disallowed by the Queen, be, and shall be deemed
to have been, valid and effectual from the date at which it
received the assent, in Her Majesty's name, of the
Governor-General of Canada. It is hereby declared that any Act
passed by the Parliament of Canada, whether before or after
the passing of this Act, for the purpose mentioned in this
Act, or in The British North America Act, 1871, has effect,
notwithstanding anything in The British North America Act,
1867, and the number of Senators or the number of Members of
the House of Commons specified in the last-mentioned Act is
increased by the number of Senators or of Members, as the case
may be, provided by any such Act of the Parliament of Canada
for the representation of any provinces or territories of
Canada.
3. This Act maybe cited as The British North America Act,
1886. This Act and The British North America Act, 1867, and
The British North America Act, 1871, shall be construed
together, and may be cited together as The British North
America Acts, 1861 to 1886.
----------CONSTITUTION OF CANADA: End----------
CONSTITUTION OF (OR FOR) THE CAROLINAS (Locke's).
See NORTH CAROLINA: A. D. 1669-1693.
CONSTITUTION OF CHILE.
See CHILE: A. D. 1833-1884, and 1885-1891.
CONSTITUTION OF CLEISTHENES.
See ATHENS: B. C. 510-507.
CONSTITUTION OF COLOMBIA.
See COLOMBIAN STATES: A. D. 1830-1886, and 1885-1891.
CONSTITUTION OF THE CONFEDERATE STATES OF AMERICA.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
A. D. 1861 (FEBRUARY).
CONSTITUTION OF CONNECTICUT
(1639—the Fundamental Agreement of New Haven).
See CONNECTICUT; A. D. 1636-1639, and 1639.
CONSTITUTION OF DENMARK.
See SCANDINAVIAN STATES (DENMARK-ICELAND): A. D. 1849-1874.
CONSTITUTION OF THE DUTCH REPUBLIC, or the United Netherlands.
See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1584-1585.
{538}
CONSTITUTION OF ENGLAND.
"Our English Constitution was never made, in the sense in
which the Constitutions of many other countries have been
made. There never was any moment when Englishmen drew out
their political system in the shape of a formal document,
whether as the carrying out of any abstract political theories
or as the imitation of the past or present system of any other
nation. There are indeed certain great political documents,
each of which forms a landmark in our political history. There
is the Great Charter [see ENGLAND: A. D. 1215], the Petition
of Rights [ENGLAND: A. D. 1625-1628, and 1628], the Bill of
Rights [ENGLAND: A. D. 1689 (October)]. But not one of these
gave itself out as the enactment of anything new. All claimed
to set forth, with new strength, it might be, and with new
clearness, those rights of Englishmen which were already old.
… The life and soul of English law has ever been precedent;
we have always held that whatever our fathers once did their
sons have a right to do again."
_E. A. Freeman,
The Growth of the English Constitution,
chapter 2._
"It is, in the first place, necessary to have a clear
understanding of what we mean when we talk about 'the English
Constitution.' Few terms in our language have been more laxly
employed. … Still, the term, 'the English Constitution' is
susceptible of full and accurate explanation: though it may
not be easy to set it lucidly forth, without first
investigating the archaeology of our history, rather more
deeply than may suit hasty talkers and superficial thinkers.
… Some furious Jacobins, at the close of the last century,
used to clamour that there was no such thing as the English
Constitution, because it could not be produced in full written
form, like that of the United States. … But an impartial and
earnest investigator may still satisfy himself that England
has a constitution, and that there is ample cause why she
should cherish it. And by this it is meant that he will
recognise and admire, in the history, the laws and the
institutions of England, certain great leading principles,
which have existed from the earliest period of our nationality
down to the present time; expanding and adapting themselves to
the progress of society and civilization, advancing and
varying in development, but still essentially the same in
substance and spirit. These great primeval and enduring
principles are the principles of the English Constitution. And
we are not obliged to learn them from imperfect evidences or
precarious speculation; for they are imperishably recorded in
the Great Charter, and in Charters and Statutes connected with
and confirmatory of Magna Charta [see ENGLAND: A. D. 1215].
… These great primeval and enduring principles of our
Constitution are as follows: The government of the country by
an hereditary sovereign, ruling with limited powers, and bound
to summon and consult a parliament of the whole realm,
comprising hereditary peers and elective representatives of
the commons. That without the sanction of parliament no tax of
any kind can be imposed; and no law can be made, repealed, or
altered. That no man be arbitrarily fined or imprisoned, that
no man's property or liberties be impaired, and that no man be
in any way punished, except after a lawful trial. Trial by jury.
That justice shall not be sold or delayed. These great
constitutional principles can all be proved, either by express
terms or by fair implication, from Magna Carta, and its …
supplement [the statute 'Confirmatio Cartarum ']. Their
vigorous development was aided and attested in many subsequent
statutes, especially in the Petition of Rights and the Bill of
Rights. … Lord Chatham called these three 'The Bible of the
English Constitution,' to which appeal is to be made on every
grave political question."
_E. S. Creasy,
Rise and Progress of the English Constitution,
chapter 1._
"The fact that our constitution has to be collected from
statutes, from legal decisions, from observation of the course
of conduct of the business of politics; that much of what is
written is of a negative sort, stating what the Crown and its
ministers cannot do; that there is no part of it which an
omnipotent Parliament may not change at will; all this is a
puzzle not only to foreign jurists who are prepared to say,
with De Tocqueville, that the English constitution does not
exist, but to ourselves who are prepared to maintain that it
is a monument, if only we can find it, of political sagacity.
Those who praise it call it flexible; those who criticise it
unstable."
_Sir W. R. Anson,
The Law and Custom of the Constitution,
part 1, page 35._
ALSO IN:
_William Stubbs,
Constitutional History of England
in its Origin and Development._
_H. Hallam,
Constitutional History of England: Henry VII. to George II._
_T. E. May,
Constitutional History of England, 1760-1860._
_R. Gneist,
History of the English Constitution._
_E. Fischel,
The English Constitution._
_W. Bagehot,
The English Constitution._
_E. Boutmy,
The English Constitution._
See, also, PARLIAMENT, THE ENGLISH,
and CABINET, THE ENGLISH.
----------CONSTITUTION OF ENGLAND: End----------
CONSTITUTION OF FRANCE.
CONSTITUTION OF FRANCE: A. D. 1791.
The Constitution accepted by Louis XVI.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1789-1791,
and 1791 (JULY-SEPTEMBER).
CONSTITUTION OF FRANCE: A. D. 1793 (or the Year One).
The Jacobin Constitution.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1793 (JUNE-OCTOBER).
CONSTITUTION OF FRANCE: A. D. 1795 (or the Year Three).
The Constitution of the Directory.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1795 (JUNE-SEPTEMBER).
CONSTITUTION OF FRANCE: A. D. 1799.
The Constitution of the Consulate.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1799 (NOVEMBER-DECEMBER).
CONSTITUTION OF FRANCE: A. D. 1814.
The Constitution of the Restoration.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1814 (APRIL-JUNE).
CONSTITUTION OF FRANCE: A. D. 1848.
The Constitution of the Second Republic.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1848 (APRIL-DECEMBER).
CONSTITUTION OF FRANCE: A. D. 1852.-
The Constitution of the Second Empire.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1851-1852.
CONSTITUTION OF FRANCE: A. D. 1875-1889.
The Constitution of the Third Republic.
The circumstances of the framing and adoption in 1875 of the
Constitution of the Third Republic will be found narrated
under FRANCE: A. D. 1871-1876.
The following is the text of the organic law of 1875, with the
later amendatory and supplemental enactments, down to July 17,
1889, as translated and edited, with an historical
introduction, by Mr. Charles F. A. Currier, and published in
the Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social
Science, March, 1893. It is reproduced here with the kind
permission of the President of the Academy, Professor Edmund
J. James:
{539}
CONSTITUTION OF FRANCE: 1875.
Law on the Organization of the Public Powers. February 25.
ARTICLE 1.
The legislative power is exercised by two assemblies: the
Chamber of Deputies and the Senate. The Chamber of Deputies is
elected by universal suffrage, under the conditions determined
by the electoral law.
[Footnote: See law of November 30, 1875, infra.]
The composition, the method of election, and the powers of the
Senate shall be regulated by a special law.
[Footnote: See laws of February 24, and August 2, 1875, infra.]
ARTICLE 2.
The President of the Republic is chosen by an absolute
majority of votes of the Senate and Chamber of Deputies united
in National Assembly. He is elected for seven years. He is
re-eligible.
ARTICLE 3.
The President of the Republic has the initiative of the laws,
concurrently with the members of the two Chambers. He
promulgates the laws when they have been voted by the two
Chambers; he looks after and secures their execution. He has
the right of pardon; amnesty can be granted by law only. He
disposes of the armed force. He appoints to all civil and
military positions. He presides over national festivals;
envoys and ambassadors of foreign powers are accredited to
him. Every act of the President of the Republic must be
countersigned by a Minister.
ARTICLE 4.
As vacancies occur on and after the promulgation of the
present law, the President of the Republic appoints, in the
Council of Ministers, the Councilors of State in ordinary
service. The Councilors of State thus chosen may be dismissed
only by decree rendered in the Council of Ministers. The
Councilors of State chosen by virtue of the law of May 24,
1872, cannot, before the expiration of their powers, be
dismissed except in the manner determined by that law. After
the dissolution of the National Assembly, revocation may be
pronounced only by resolution of the Senate.
ARTICLE 5.
The President of the Republic may, with the advice of the
Senate, dissolve the Chamber of Deputies before the legal
expiration of its term. [In that case the electoral colleges
are summoned for new elections within the space of three
months.]
[Footnote: Amended by constitutional law of
August 14, 1884, infra.]
ARTICLE 6.
The Ministers are jointly and severally ('solidairement')
responsible to the Chambers for the general policy of the
government, and individually for their personal acts. The
President of the Republic is responsible in case of high
treason only.
[Footnote: See ARTICLE 12, law of July 16, 1875, infra.]
ARTICLE 7.
In case of vacancy by death or for any other reason, the two
Chambers assembled together proceed at once to the election of
a new President. In the meantime the Council of Ministers is
invested with the executive power.
[Footnote: See ARTICLES. 3 and 11, law of July 16, 1875, infra.]
ARTICLE 8.
The Chambers shall have the right by separate resolutions,
taken in each by an absolute majority of votes, either upon
their own initiative or upon the request of the President of
the Republic, to declare a revision of the Constitutional Laws
necessary. After each of the two Chambers shall have come to
this decision, they shall meet together in National Assembly
to proceed with the revision. The acts effecting revision of
the constitutional laws, in whole or in part, must be by an
absolute majority of the members composing the National
Assembly. [During the continuance, however, of the powers
conferred by the law of November 20, 1873, upon Marshal de
MacMahon, this revision can take place only upon the
initiative of the President of the Republic.]
[Footnote: Amended by constitutional law of
August 14, 1884, _infra_.]
[ARTICLE 9.
The seat of the Executive Power and of the two Chambers is at
Versailles.]
[Footnote: Repealed by constitutional law
of June 21, 1879, _infra._]
CONSTITUTION OF FRANCE: 1875.
Law on the Organization of the Senate. February 24.
[Footnote: By the constitutional law of
August 14, 1884, it was provided that Articles 1 to 7
of this law should no longer have a constitutional
character; and they were repealed
by the law of December 9, 1884, _infra_.]
[ARTICLE 1.
The Senate consists of three hundred members: Two hundred and
twenty-five elected by the departments and colonies, and
seventy-five elected by the National Assembly.]
[ARTICLE 2.
The departments of the Seine and Nord elect each five
senators. The following departments elect four senators each:
Seine-Inférieure, Pas-dc-Calais, Gironde, Rhône, Finistère,
Côtes-du-Nord. The following departments elect three senators
each: Loire-Inférieure, Saône-et-Loire, Ille-et-Vilaine,
Seine-et-Oise, Isère, Puy-de-Dôme, Somme, Bouches-du-Rhône,
Aisne, Loire, Manche, Maine-et-Loire, Morbihan, Dordogne,
Haute-Garonne, Charente-Inférieure, Calvados, Sarthe, Hérault,
Basses-Pyrénées, Gard, Aveyron, Vendée, Orne, Oise, Vosges,
Allier. All the other departments elect two senators each. The
following elect one senator each: The Territory of Belfort,
the three departments of Algeria, the four colonies:
Martinique, Guadeloupe, Reunion and the French Indies.]
[ARTICLE 3.
No one can be senator unless he is a French citizen, forty
years of age at least, and enjoying civil and political
rights.]
[ARTICLE 4.
The senators of the departments and colonies are elected by an
absolute majority and by 'scrutin de liste', by a college
meeting at the capital of the department or colony and
composed: (1) of the deputies; (2) of the general councilors;
(3) of the arrondissement councilors; (4) of delegates
elected, one by each municipal council, from among the voters
of the commune. In the French Indies the members of the
colonial council or of the local councils are substituted for
the general councilors, arrondissement councilors and
delegates from the municipal councils. They vote at the
capital of each district.]
[ARTICLE 5.
The senators chosen by the Assembly are elected by 'scrutin de
liste' and by an absolute majority of votes.]
[ARTICLE 6.
The senators of the departments and colonies are elected for
nine years and renewable by thirds every three years. At the
beginning of the first session the departments shall be
divided into three series containing an equal number of
senators each. It shall be determined by lot which series
shall be renewed at the expiration of the first and second
triennial periods.]
[ARTICLE 7.
The senators elected by the Assembly are irremovable.
Vacancies by death, by resignation, or for any other reason,
shall, within the space of two months, be filled by the Senate
itself.]
{540}
ARTICLE 8.
The Senate has, concurrently with the Chamber of Deputies, the
initiative and passing of laws. Money bills, however, must
first be introduced in, and passed by the Chamber of Deputies.
ARTICLE 9.
The Senate may be constituted a Court of Justice to judge
either the President of the Republic or the Ministers, and to
take cognizance of attacks made upon the safety of the State.
ARTICLE 10.
Elections to the Senate shall take place one month before the
time fixed by the National Assembly for its own dissolution.
The Senate shall organize and enter upon its duties the same
day that the National Assembly is dissolved.
ARTICLE 11.
The present law shall be promulgated only after the
passage of the law on the public powers.
[Footnote: i. e., the law of February 25, 1875, _supra_.]
CONSTITUTION OF FRANCE; 1875.
Law on the Relations of the Public Powers. July 16.
ARTICLE 1.
The Senate and the Chamber of Deputies shall assemble each
year the second Tuesday of January, unless convened earlier by
the President of the Republic. The two Chambers continue in
session at least five months each year. The sessions of each
begin and end at the same time. [On the Sunday following the
opening of the session, public prayers shall be addressed to
God in the churches and temples, to invoke His aid in the
labors of the Chambers.]
[Footnote: Repealed by law of August 14, 1884, _infra_.]
ARTICLE 2.
The President of the Republic pronounces the closure of the
session. He may convene the Chambers in extra session. He must
convene them if, during the recess, an absolute majority of
the members of each Chamber request it. The President may
adjourn the Chambers. The adjournment, however, must not
exceed one month, nor take place more than twice in the same
session.
ARTICLE 3.
One month at least before the legal expiration of the powers
of the President of the Republic, the Chambers must be called
together in National Assembly and proceed to the election of a
new President. In default of a summons, this meeting shall
take place, as of right, the fifteenth day before the
expiration of those powers. In case of the death or
resignation of the President of the Republic, the two Chambers
shall reassemble immediately, as of right. In case the Chamber
of Deputies, in consequence of Article 5 of the law of
February 25, 1875, is dissolved at the time when the
presidency of the Republic becomes vacant, the electoral
colleges shall be convened at once, and the Senate shall
reassemble as of right.
ARTICLE 4.
Every meeting of either of the two Chambers which shall be
held at a time other than the common session of both is
illegal and void, except the case provided for in the
preceding article, and that when the Senate meets as a court
of justice; and in this last case, judicial duties alone shall
be performed.
ARTICLE 5.
The sittings of the Senate and of the Chamber of Deputies are
public. Nevertheless each Chamber may meet in secret session,
upon the request of a fixed number of its members, determined
by the rules. It decides by absolute majority whether the
sitting shall be resumed in public upon the same subject.
ARTICLE 6.
The President of the Republic communicates with the Chambers
by messages, which are read from the tribune by a Minister.
The Ministers have entrance to both Chambers, and must be
heard when they request it. They may be represented, for the
discussion of a specific bill, by commissioners designated by
decree of the President of the Republic.
ARTICLE 7.
The President of the Republic promulgates the laws within the
month following the transmission to the Government of the law
finally passed. He must promulgate, within three days, laws
whose promulgation shall have been declared urgent by an
express vote in each Chamber. Within the time fixed for
promulgation the President of the Republic may, by a message
with reasons assigned, request of the two Chambers a new
discussion, which cannot be refused.
ARTICLE 8.
The President of the Republic negotiates and ratifies
treaties. He communicates them to the Chambers as soon as the
interests and safety of the State permit. Treaties of peace,
and of commerce, treaties which involve the finances of the
State, those relating to the persons and property of French
citizens in foreign countries, shall become definitive only
after having been voted by the two Chambers. No cession, no
exchange, no annexation of territory shall take place except
by virtue of a law.
ARTICLE 9.
The President of the Republic cannot declare war except by the
previous assent of the two Chambers.
ARTICLE 10.
Each Chamber is the judge of the eligibility of its members,
and of the legality of their election; it alone can receive
their resignation.
ARTICLE 11.
The bureau of each Chamber is elected each year for the entire
session, and for every extra session which may be held before
the ordinary session of the following year. When the two
Chambers meet together as a National Assembly, their bureau
consists of the President, Vice-Presidents and Secretaries of
the Senate.
[Footnote: The bureau of the Senate consists of a president,
four vice-presidents, six secretaries and three questors; the
bureau of the Chamber of Deputies is the same, except that
there are eight secretaries instead of six.]
ARTICLE 12.
The President of the Republic may be impeached by the Chamber
of Deputies only, and tried by the Senate only. The Ministers
may be impeached by the Chamber of Deputies for offences
committed in the performance of their duties. In this case
they are tried by the Senate. The Senate may be constituted a
court of Justice, by a decree of the President of the
Republic, issued in the Council of Ministers, to try all
persons accused of attempts upon the safety of the State. If
procedure is begun by the ordinary courts, the decree
convening the Senate may be issued any time before the
granting of a discharge. A law shall determine the method of
procedure for the accusation, trial and judgment.
[Footnote: Fixed by law of April 10, 1880.]
ARTICLE 13.
No member of either Chamber shall be prosecuted or held
responsible on account of any opinions expressed or votes cast
by him in the performance of his duties.
{541}
ARTICLE 14.
No member of either Chamber shall, during the session, be
prosecuted or arrested for any offence or misdemeanor, except
on the authority of the Chamber of which he is a member,
unless he be caught in the very act. The detention or
prosecution of a member of either Chamber is suspended for the
session, and for its [the Chamber's] entire term, if it
demands it.
CONSTITUTION OF FRANCE: 1879.
Law Revising Article 9 of the Constitutional Law of
February 25, 1875, June 21.
Article 9 of the constitutional law of February 25, 1875, is
repealed.
CONSTITUTION OF FRANCE: 1884.
Law Partially Revising the Constitutional Laws, August 14.
ARTICLE 1.
Paragraph 2 of Article 5 of the constitutional law of February
25, 1875, on the Organization of the Public Powers, is amended
as follows: "In that case the electoral colleges meet for new
elections within two months, and the Chamber within the ten
days following the close of the elections."
ARTICLE 2.
To Paragraph 3 of Article 8 of the same law of February 25,
1875, is added the following: "The Republican form of the
Government cannot be made the subject of a proposed revision.
Members of families that have reigned in France are ineligible
to the presidency of the Republic."
ARTICLE 3.
Articles 1 to 7 of the constitutional law of February 24,
1875, on the Organization of the Senate, shall no longer have
a constitutional character.
[Footnote: And may therefore be amended by ordinary
legislation. See the law of December 9, 1884, _infra_.]
ARTICLE 4.
Paragraph 3 of Article 1 of the constitutional law of July 16,
1875, on the Relation of the Public Powers, is repealed.
CONSTITUTION OF FRANCE: 1875.
Law on the Election of Senators. August 2.
ARTICLE 1.
A decree of the President of the Republic, issued at least six
weeks in advance, determines the day for the elections to the
Senate, and at the same time that for the choice of delegates
of the municipal councils. There must be an interval of at
least one month between the choice of delegates and the
election of senators.
ARTICLE 2.
Each municipal council elects one delegate. The election is
without debate, by secret ballot, and by an absolute majority
of votes. After two ballots a plurality is sufficient, and in
case of an equality of votes, the oldest is declared elected.
If the Mayor is not a member of the municipal council, he
presides, but shall not vote.
[Footnote: Amended by Article 8, law of December 9, 1884,
_infra_.]
On the same day and in the same way an alternate is elected,
who takes the place of the delegate in case of refusal or
inability to serve.
[Footnote: See Article 4, law of February 24, 1875, _supra._]
The choice of the municipal councils shall not extend to a
deputy, a general councilor, or an arrondissement councilor.
[Footnote: See Article 4, law of February 24, 1875, _supra._ ]
All communal electors, including the municipal councilors, are
eligible without distinction.
ARTICLE 3.
In the communes where a municipal committee exists, the
delegate and alternate shall be chosen by the old council.
[Footnote: Amended by Article 8,
law of December 9, 1884, _infra_. ]
ARTICLE 4.
If the delegate was not present at the election, the Mayor
shall see to it that he is notified within twenty-four hours.
He must transmit to the Prefect, within five days, notice of
his acceptance. In case of refusal or silence, he is replaced
by the alternate, who is then placed upon the list as the
delegate of the commune.
[Footnote: See Article 8, law of December 9, 1884, _infra_.]
ARTICLE 5.
The official report of the election of the delegate and
alternate is transmitted at once to the Prefect; it states the
acceptance or refusal of the delegates and alternates, as well
as the protests raised, by one or more members of the
municipal council, against the legality of the election. A
copy of this official report is posted on the door of the town
hall.
[Footnote: See Article 8, law of December 9, 1884, _infra_.]
ARTICLE 6.
A statement of the results of the election of delegates and
alternates is drawn up within a week by the Prefect; this is
given to all requesting it, and may be copied and published.
Every elector may, at the bureaux of the prefecture, obtain
information and a copy of the list, by communes, of the
municipal councilors of the department, and, at the bureaux of
the sub-prefectures a copy of the list, by communes, of the
municipal councilors of the arrondissement.
ARTICLE 7.
Every communal elector may, within three days, address
directly to the Prefect a protest against the legality of the
election. If the Prefect deems the proceedings illegal, he may
request that they be set aside.
ARTICLE 8.
Protests concerning the election of the delegate or alternate
are decided, subject to an appeal to the Council of State, by
the council of the prefecture, and, in the colonies, by the
privy council. A delegate whose election is annulled because
he does not satisfy the conditions demanded by law, or on
account of informality, is replaced by the alternate. In case
the election of the delegate and alternate is rendered void,
as by the refusal or death of both after their acceptance, new
elections are held by the municipal council on a day fixed by
an order of the Prefect.
[Footnote: See Article 8, law of December 9, 1884, _infra_.]
ARTICLE 9.
Eight days, at the latest, before the election of senators,
the Prefect, and, in the colonies, the Director of the
Interior, arranges the list of the electors of the department
in alphabetical order. The list is communicated to all
demanding it, and may be copied and published. No elector has
more than one vote.
ARTICLE 10.
The deputies, the members of the general council, or of the
arrondissement councils, who have been announced by the
returning committees, but whose powers have not been verified,
are enrolled upon the list of electors and are allowed to
vote.
ARTICLE 11.
In each of the three departments of Algeria the electoral
college is composed: (1) of the deputies; (2) of the members
of the general councils, of French citizenship; (3) of
delegates elected by the French members of each municipal
council from among the communal electors of French
citizenship.
ARTICLE 12.
The electoral college is presided over by the President of the
civil tribunal of the capital of the department or colony. The
President is assisted by the two oldest and two youngest
electors present at the opening of the meeting. The bureau
thus constituted chooses a secretary from among the electors.
If the President is prevented [from presiding] his place is
taken by the Vice-President [of the civil tribunal], and, in
his absence, by the oldest justice.
{542}
ARTICLE 13.
The bureau divides the electors in alphabetical order into
sections of at least one hundred voters each. It appoints the
President and Inspectors of each of these sections. It decides
all questions and contests which may arise in the course of
the election, without, however, power to depart from the
decisions rendered by virtue of Article 8 of the present law.
ARTICLE 14.
The first ballot begins at eight o'clock in the morning and
closes at noon. The second begins at two o'clock and closes at
four o'clock. The third, if it takes place, begins at six
o'clock and closes at eight o'clock. The results of the
ballotings are determined by the bureau and announced the same
day by the President of the electoral college.
[Footnote: See Article 8, law of December 9, 1884, infra.]
ARTICLE 15.
No one is elected senator on either of the first two ballots
unless he receives: (1) an absolute majority of the votes
cast; and (2) a number of votes equal to one-fourth of the
total number of electors registered. On the third ballot a
plurality is sufficient, and, in case of an equality of votes,
the oldest is elected.
ARTICLE 16.
Political meetings for the nomination of senators may take
place conformably to the rules laid down by the law of June 6,
1868 subject to the following conditions:
[Footnote: France is divided Into twenty-six judicial
districts, in each of which there is a cour d'appel. There are
similar courts in Algeria and the colonies. The Cour de
Cassation is the supreme court of appeal for all France,
Algeria and the colonies.]
I. These meetings may be held from the date of the election of
delegates up to the day of the election [of senators]
inclusive;
II. They must be preceded by a declaration made, at latest,
the evening before, by seven senatorial electors of the
arrondissement, and indicating the place, the day and the hour
the meeting is to take place, and the names, occupation and
residence of the candidates to be presented;
III. The municipal authorities will see to it that no one is
admitted to the meeting unless he is a deputy, general
councilor, arrondissement councilor, delegate or candidate.
The delegate will present, as a means of identification, a
certificate from the Mayor of his commune, the candidate a
certificate from the official who shall have received the
declaration mentioned in the preceding paragraph.
[Footnote: See Article 8, law of December 9, 1884, infra.]
ARTICLE 17.
Delegates who take part in all the ballotings shall, if they
demand it, receive from the State, upon the presentation of
their letter of summons, countersigned by the President of the
electoral college, a remuneration for traveling expenses,
which shall be paid to them upon the same basis and in the
same manner as that given to jurors by Articles 35, 90 and
following, of the decree of June 18, 1811. A public
administrative regulation shall determine the method of fixing
the amount and the method of payment of this remuneration.
[Footnote: Done by decree of December 26, 1875.]
ARTICLE 18.
Every delegate who, without lawful reason, shall not take part
in all the ballotings, or, having been hindered, shall not
have given notice to the alternate in sufficient season,
shall, upon the demand of the public prosecutor, be punished
by a fine of fifty francs by the civil tribunal of the
capital.
[Footnote: Of the department.] The same penalty may be
imposed upon the alternate who, after having been notified by
letter, telegram, or notice personally delivered in due
season, shall not have taken part in the election.
ARTICLE 19.
Every attempt at corruption by the employment of means
enumerated in Articles 177 and following, of the Penal Code,
to influence the vote of an elector, or to keep him from
voting, shall be punished by imprisonment of from three months
to two years, and a fine of from fifty to five hundred francs,
or by one of these two penalties alone. Article 463 of the
Penal Code shall apply to the penalties imposed by the present
article.
[Footnote: See Article 8, Jaw of December 9, 1884,
_infra_. ]
ARTICLE 20.
It is incompatible for a senator to be:
I. Councilor of State, Maitre de Requêtes, Prefect or
Sub-Prefect, except Prefect of the Seine and Prefect of
Police;
II. Member of the courts of appeal ("appel, ") or of the
tribunals of first instance, except public prosecutor at the
court of Paris;
[Footnote: France is divided Into twenty-six judicial
districts, in each of which there is a cour d'appel. There are
similar courts in Algeria and the colonies. The Cour de
Cassation is the supreme court of appeal for all France,
Algeria and the colonies.]
III. General Paymaster, Special Receiver, official or employé
of the central administration of the ministries.
ARTICLE 21.
The following shall not be elected by the department or the
colony included wholly or partially in their jurisdiction,
during the exercise of their duties and during the six months
following the cessation of their duties by resignation,
dismissal, change of residence, or other cause:
I. The First Presidents, Presidents, and members of the courts
of appeal ("appel");
II. The Presidents, Vice-Presidents, Examining Magistrates,
and members of the tribunals of first instance;
III. The Prefect of Police; Prefects and Sub-Prefects, and
Prefectorial General Secretaries; the Governors, Directors of
the Interior, and General Secretaries of the Colonies;
V. The Chief Arrondissement Engineers and Chief Arrondissement
Road-Surveyors;
V. The School Rectors and Inspectors;
VI. The Primary School Inspectors;
VII. The Archbishops, Bishops, and Vicars General;
VIII. The officers of all grades of the land and naval force;
IX. The Division Commissaries and the Military Deputy
Commissaries;
X. The General Paymasters and Special Receivers of Money;
XI. The Supervisors of Direct and Indirect Taxes, of
Registration of Lands and of Posts;
XII. The Guardians and Inspectors of Forests.
ARTICLE 22.
A senator elected in several departments, must let his choice
be known to the President of the senate within ten days
following the verification of the elections. If a choice is
not made in this time, the question is settled by lot in open
session. The vacancy shall be filled within one month and by
the same electoral body. The same holds true in case of an
invalidated election.
ARTICLE 23.
If by death or resignation the number of senators of a
department is reduced by one·half, the vacancies shall be
filled within the space of three months, unless the vacancies
occur within the twelve months preceding the triennial
elections. At the time fixed for the triennial elections, all
vacancies shall be filled which have occurred, whatever their
number and date.
[Footnote: See Article 8, law of December 9, 1884, _infra_. ]
[ARTICLE 24.
The election of senators chosen by the National Assembly takes
place in public sitting, by "scrutin de liste," and by an
absolute majority of votes, whatever the number of ballotings.]
{543}
[ARTICLE 25.
When it is necessary to elect successors of senators chosen by
virtue of Article 7 of the law of February 24, 1875, the
Senate proceeds in the manner indicated in the preceding
article].
[Footnote: Articles 24 and 25 repealed by law of December 9,
1584, _infra._]
ARTICLE 26.
Members of the Senate receive the same salary as members of
the Chamber of Deputies.
[Footnote: See Article 17, law of November 30, 1875, _infra_. ]
ARTICLE 27.
There are applicable to elections to the Senate all the
provisions of the electoral law relating:
I. to cases of unworthiness and incapacity;
II. to offences, prosecutions, and penalties;
III. to election proceedings, in all respects not contrary to
the provisions of the present law.
Temporary Provisions.
ARTICLE 28.
For the first election of members of the Senate, the law which
shall determine the date of the dissolution of the National
Assembly shall fix, without regard to the intervals
established by Article 1, the date on which the municipal
councils shall meet for the election of delegates and the day
for the election of Senators. Before the meeting of the
municipal councils, the National Assembly shall proceed to the
election of those Senators whom it is to choose.
ARTICLE 29.
The provisions of Article 21, by which an interval of six
months must elapse between the cessation of duties and
election, shall not apply to officials, except Prefects and
Sub-Prefects, whose duties shall have ceased either before the
promulgation of the present law or within twenty days
following.
CONSTITUTION OF FRANCE: 1875.
Law on the Election of Deputies. November 30.
[Footnote: See _infra_, the laws of June 10, 1885, and
February 13, 1889, amending the electoral law. ]
ARTICLE 1.
The deputies shall be chosen by the voters registered:
I. upon the lists drawn up in accordance with the law of July 7, 1874;
II. upon the supplementary list including those who have lived
in the commune six months. Registration upon the supplementary
list shall take place conformably to the laws and regulations
now governing the political electoral lists, by the committees
and according to the forms established by Articles 1, 2 and 3
of the law of July 7, 1874. Appeals relating to the formation
and revision of either list shall be carried directly before
the Civil Chamber of the Court of Appeal ("Cassation"). The
electoral lists drawn up March 31, 1875, shall serve until
March 31, 1876.
ARTICLE 2.
The soldiers of all ranks and grades, of both the land and
naval forces, shall not vote when they are with their
regiment, at their post or on duty. Those who, on election
day, are in private residence, in non-activity or in
possession of a regular leave of absence, may vote in the
commune on the lists of which they are duly registered. This
last provision applies equally to officers on the unattached
list or on the reserve list.
ARTICLE 3.
During the electoral period, circulars and platforms
("professions de foi") signed by the candidates, placards and
manifestoes signed by one or more voters, may, after being
deposited with the public prosecutor, be posted and
distributed without previous authorization. The distribution
of ballots is not subjected to this deposit.
[Footnote: See, however, a law of December 20, 1878, by which
deposit is made necessary.]
Every public or municipal official is forbidden to distribute
ballots, platforms and circulars of candidates. The provisions
of Article 19 of the organic law of August 2, 1875, on the
elections of Senators, shall apply to the elections of
deputies.
ARTICLE 4.
Balloting shall continue one day only. The voting occurs at
the chief place of the commune; each commune may nevertheless
be divided, by order of the Prefect, into as many sections as
may be demanded by local circumstances and the number of
voters. The second ballot shall take place the second Sunday
following the announcement of the first ballot, according to
the provisions of Article 65, of the law of March 15, 1849.
ARTICLE 5.
The method of voting shall be according to the provisions of
the organic and regulating decrees of February 2, 1852. The
ballot is secret. The voting lists used at the elections in
each section, signed by the President and Secretary, shall
remain deposited for eight days at the Secretary's office at
the town hall, where they shall be communicated to every voter
requesting them.
ARTICLE 6.
Every voter is eligible, without any tax qualification, at the
age of twenty-five years.
ARTICLE 7.
No soldier or sailor forming part of the active forces of land
or sea may, whatever his rank or position, be elected a member
of the Chamber of Deputies. This provision applies to soldiers
and sailors on the unattached list or in non-activity, but
does not extend to officers of the second section of the list
of the general staff, nor to those who, kept in the first
section for having been commander-in-chief in the field, have
ceased to be employed actively, nor to officers who, having
privileges acquired on the retired list, are sent to or
maintained at their homes while awaiting the settlement of
their pension. The decision by which the officer shall have
been permitted to establish his rights on the retired list
shall become, in this case, irrevocable. The rule laid down in
the first paragraph of the present Article shall not apply to
the reserve of the active army nor to the territorial army.
ARTICLE 8.
The exercise of public duties paid out of the treasury of the
State is incompatible with the office of deputy. Consequently
every official elected deputy shall be superseded in his
duties if, within the eight days following the verification of
powers, he has not signified that he does not accept the
office of deputy. There are excepted from the preceding
provisions the duties of Minister, Under Secretary of State,
Ambassador, Minister Plenipotentiary, Prefect of the Seine,
Prefect of Police, First President of the Court of Appeal
("cassation,") First President of the Court of Accounts, First
President of the Court of Appeal ("appel") of Paris, Attorney
General at the Court of Appeal ("cassation,") Attorney General
at the Court of Accounts, Attorney General at the Court of
Appeal ("appel") of Paris, Archbishop and Bishop, Consistorial
Presiding Pastor in consistorial districts whose capital has
two or more pastors, Chief Rabbi of the Central consistory,
Chief Rabbi of the Consistory of Paris.
ARTICLE 9.
There are also excepted from the provisions of Article 8:
I. titular professors of chairs which are filled by
competition or upon the nomination of the bodies where the
vacancy occurs;
II. persons who have been charged with a temporary mission.
All missions continuing more than six months cease to be
temporary and are governed by Article 8 above.
{544}
ARTICLE 10.
The official preserves the rights which he has acquired to a
retiring pension, and may, after the expiration of his term of
office, be restored to active service. The civil official who,
having had twenty years of service at the date of the
acceptance of the office of deputy, and shall be fifty years
of age at the time of the expiration of this term of office,
may establish his rights to an exceptional retiring pension.
This pension shall be regulated according to the third
Paragraph of Article 12 of the law of June 9, 1853. If the
official is restored to active service after the expiration of
his term of office, the provisions of Article 3, Paragraph 2,
and Article 28 of the law of June 9, 1853, shall apply to him.
In duties where the rank is distinct from the employment, the
official, by the acceptance of the office of deputy, loses the
employment and preserves the rank only.
ARTICLE 11.
Every deputy appointed or promoted to a salaried public
position ceases to belong to the Chamber by the very fact of
his acceptance; but he may be re-elected, if the office which
he occupies is compactible with the office of deputy. Deputies
who become Ministers or Under-Secretaries of State are not
subjected to a re-election.
ARTICLE 12.
There shall not be elected by the arrondissement or the colony
included wholly or partially in their jurisdiction, during the
exercise of their duties or for six months following the
expiration of their duties due to resignation, dismissal,
change of residence, or any other cause:
I. The First-Presidents, Presidents, and members of the Courts
of Appeal ("appel");
II. The Presidents, Vice-Presidents, Titular Judges, Examining
Magistrates, and members of the tribunals of first instance;
III. The Prefect of Police; the Prefects and General
Secretaries of the Prefectures; the Governors, Directors of
the Interior, and General Secretaries of the Colonies;
IV. The Chief Arrondissement Engineers and Chief
Arrondissement Road-Surveyors;
V. The School Rectors and Inspectors;
VI. The Primary School Inspectors;
VII. The Archbishops, Bishops, and Vicars General;
VIII. The General Paymasters and Special Receivers of Money;
IX. The Supervisors of Direct and Indirect Taxes, of
Registration of Lands, and of Posts;
X. The Guardians and Inspectors of Forests. The Sub-Prefects
shall not be elected in any of the arrondissements of the
department where they perform their duties.
ARTICLE 13.
Every imperative mandate is null and void.
ARTICLE 14.
Members of the Chamber of Deputies are elected by single
districts. Each administrative arrondissement shall elect one
deputy. Arrondissements having more than 100,000 inhabitants
shall elect one deputy in addition for every additional
100,000 inhabitants or fraction of 100,000. Arrondissements of
this kind shall be divided into districts whose boundaries
shall be established by law and may be changed only by law.
ARTICLE 15.
Deputies shall be chosen for four years. The Chamber is
renewable integrally.
ARTICLE 16.
In ease of vacancy by death, resignation, or otherwise, a new
election shall be held within three months of the date when
the vacancy occurred. In case of option, the vacancy shall be
filled within one month.
[Footnote: i. e., when a deputy had been elected from two or
more districts.]
ARTICLE 17.
The deputies shall receive a salary. This salary is regulated
by Articles 96 and 97 of the law of March 15, 1849, and by the
provisions of the law of February 16, 1872.
ARTICLE 18.
No one is elected on the first ballot unless he receives: (1)
an absolute majority of the votes cast; (2) a number of votes
equal to one-fourth of the number of voters registered. On the
second ballot a plurality is sufficient. In case of an equality
of votes, the oldest is declared elected.
ARTICLE 19.
Each department of Algeria elects one deputy.
ARTICLE 20.
The voters living in Algeria in a place not yet made a
commune, shall be registered on the electoral list of the
nearest commune. When it is necessary to establish electoral
districts, either for the purpose of grouping mixed communes
in each of which the number of voters shall be insufficient,
or to bring together voters living in places not formed into
communes the decrees for fixing the seat of these districts
shall be issued by the Governor-General, upon the report of
the Prefect or of the General commanding the division.
ARTICLE 21.
The four colonies to which senators have been assigned by the
law of February 24, 1875, on the organization of the Senate,
shall choose one deputy each.
ARTICLE 22.
Every violation of the prohibitive provisions of Article 3,
Paragraph 3, of the present law shall be punished by a fine of
from sixteen francs to three hundred francs. Nevertheless the
criminal courts may apply Article 463 of the Penal Code. The
provisions of Article 6 of the law of July 7, 1874, shall
apply to the political electoral lists. The decree of January
29, 1871, and the laws of April 10, 1871, May 2, 1871, and
February 18, 1873, are repealed. Paragraph 11 of Article 15 of
the organic decree of February 2, 1852, is also repealed, in
so far as it refers to the law of May 21, 1836, on lotteries,
reserving, however, to the courts the right to apply to
convicted persons Article 42 of the Penal Code. The provisions
of the laws and decrees now in force, with which the present
law does not conflict, shall continue to be applied.
ARTICLE 23.
The provision of Article 12 of the present law by which an
interval of six months must elapse between the expiration of
duties and election, shall not apply to officials, except
Prefects and Sub-Prefects, whose duties shall have ceased
either before the promulgation of the present law or within
the twenty days following it.
CONSTITUTION OF FRANCE: 1879.
Law Relating to the Seat of the Executive Power and of the
Chambers at Paris. July 22.
ARTICLE 1.
The seat of the Executive Power and of the two Chambers is at
Paris.
ARTICLE 2.
The Palace of the Luxemburg and the Palais-Bourbon are
assigned, the first to the use of the Senate, the second to
that of the Chamber of Deputies. Nevertheless each of the
Chambers is authorized to choose, in the city of Paris, the
palace which it wishes to occupy.
{545}
ARTICLE 3.
The various parts of the palace of Versailles now occupied by
the Senate and Chamber of Deputies preserve their
arrangements. Whenever, according to Articles 7 and 8 of the
law of February 25, 1875, on the organization of the public
powers, a meeting of the National Assembly takes place, it
shall sit at Versailles, in the present hall of the Chamber of
Deputies. Whenever, according to Article 9 of the law of
February 24, 1875, on the organization of the Senate, and
Article 12 of the constitutional law of July 16, 1875, on the
relations of the public powers, the Senate shall be called
upon to constitute itself a Court of Justice, it shall
indicate the town and place where it proposes to sit.
ARTICLE 4.
The Senate and Chamber of Deputies will sit at Paris on and
after November 3 next.
ARTICLE 5.
The Presidents of the Senate and Chamber of Deputies are
charged with the duty of securing the external and internal
safety of the Chambers over which they preside. To this end
they have the right to call upon the armed force and every
authority whose assistance they judge necessary. The demands
may be addressed directly to all officers, commanders, or
officials, who are bound to obey immediately, under the
penalties established by the laws. The Presidents of the
Senate and Chamber of Deputies may delegate to the questors or
to one of them their right of demanding aid.
ARTICLE 6.
Petitions to either of the Chambers can be made and presented
in writing only. It is forbidden to present them in person or
at the bar.
ARTICLE 7.
Every violation of the preceding article, every provocation,
by speeches uttered publicly, or by writings, or printed
matter, posted or distributed, to a crowd upon the public
ways, having for an object the discussion, drawing up, or
carrying to the Chambers or either of them, of petitions,
declarations, or addresses—whether or not any results follow
such action—shall be punished by the penalties enumerated in
Paragraph 1 of Article 5 of the law of June 7, 1848.
ARTICLE 8.
The preceding provisions do not diminish the force of the law
of June 7, 1848, on riotous assemblies.
ARTICLE 9.
Article 463 of the Penal Code applies to the offences
mentioned in the present law.
CONSTITUTION OF FRANCE: 1884.
Law Amending the Organic Laws on the Organization of the
Senate and the Elections of Senators. December 9.
ARTICLE 1.
The Senate consists of three hundred members, elected by the
departments and the colonies. The present members, without any
distinction between senators elected by the National Assembly
or the Senate and those elected by the departments and
colonies, maintain their term of office during the time for
which they have been chosen.
ARTICLE 2.
The department of the Seine elects ten senators. The
department of the Nord elects eight senators. The following
departments elect five senators each: Côtes-du-Nord,
Finistère, Gironde. Ille-et-Vilaine, Loire, Loire-Inférieure,
Pas-de-Calais, Rhône, Saône-et-Loire, Seine-Inférieure. The
following departments elect four senators each: Aisne,
Bouches-du-Rhône, Charente-Inférieure, Dordogne,
Haute-Garonne, Isère, Maine-et-Loire, Manche, Morbihan,
Puy-de-Dome, Seine-et-Oise, Somme. The following departments
elect three senators each: Ain, Allier, Ardèche, Ardennes,
Aube, Aude, Aveyron, Calvados, Charente, Cher, Corrèze, Corse,
Côte·d'Or, Creuse, Doubs, Drôme, Eure, Eure-et-Loir, Gard,
Gers, Hérault, Indre, Indre-et-Loire, Jura, Landes,
Loir-et-Cher, Haute-Loire, Loiret, Lot, Lot-et-Garonne, Marne,
Haute-Marne, Mayenne, Meurthe-et-Moselle, Meuse, Nièvre, Oise,
Orne, Basses-Pyréneées, Haute-Saône, Sarthe, Savoie,
Haute-Savoie, Seine-et-Marne, Deux-Sèvres, Tarn, Var, Vendée,
Vienne, Haute-Vienne, Vosges, Yonne. The following departments
elect two senators each: Basses-Alpes, Hautes-Alpes,
Alpes-Maritimes, Ariège, Cantal, Lozère, Hautes-Pyrénées,
Pyrénées-Orientales, Tarn-et-Garonne, Vancluse. The following
elect one senator each: the Territory of Belfort, the three
departments of Algeria, the four colonies: Martinique,
Guadeloupe, Réunion and French Indies.
ARTICLE 3.
In the departments where the number of senators is increased
by the present law, the increase shall take effect as
vacancies occur among the life senators. To this end, within
eight days after the vacancy occurs, it shall be determined by
lot what department shall be called upon to elect a senator.
This election shall take place within three months of the
determination by lot. Furthermore, if the vacancy occurs
within six months preceding the triennial election, the
vacancy shall be filled at that election. The term of office
in this case shall expire at the same time as that of the
other senators belonging to the same department.
ARTICLE 4.
No one shall be a senator unless he is a French citizen, forty
years of age, at least, and enjoying civil and political
rights. Members of families that have reigned in France are
ineligible to the Senate.
ARTICLE 5.
The soldiers of the land and naval forces cannot be elected
senators. There are excepted from this provision:
I. The Marshals and Admirals of France;
II. The general officers maintained without limit of age in
the first section of the list of the general staff and not
provided with a command;
III. The general officers placed in the second section of the
list of the general staff;
IV. Soldiers of the land and naval forces who belong either to
the reserve of the active army or to the territorial army.
ARTICLE 6.
Senators are elected by "scrutin de liste," by a college
meeting at the capital of the department or colony, and
composed:
(1) of the Deputies;
(2) of the General Councilors;
(3) of the Arrondissement Councilors;
(4) of delegates elected from among the voters of the commune,
by each Municipal Council.
Councils composed of ten members shall elect one delegate.
Councils composed of twelve members shall elect two delegates.
Councils composed of sixteen members shall elect three
delegates. Councils composed of twenty-one members shall elect
six delegates. Councils composed of twenty-three members shall
elect nine delegates. Councils composed of twenty-seven
members shall elect twelve delegates. Councils composed of
thirty members shall elect fifteen delegates. Councils
composed of thirty-two members shall elect eighteen delegates.
Councils composed of thirty-four members shall elect
twenty-one delegates. Councils composed of thirty-six members
or more shall elect twenty-four delegates. The Municipal
Council of Paris shall elect thirty delegates. In the French
Indies the members of the local councils take the place of
Arrondissement Councilors. The Municipal Council of Pondichéry
shall elect five delegates. The Municipal Council of Karikal
shall elect three delegates. All the other communes shall
elect two delegates each. The balloting takes place at the
capital of each district.
{546}
ARTICLE 7.
Members of the Senate are elected for nine years. The Senate
is renewed every three years according to the order of the
present series of departments and colonies.
ARTICLE 8.
Articles 2 (paragraphs 1 and 2), 3, 4, 5, 8, 14, 16, 19 and 23
of the organic law of August 2, 1875, on the Elections of
Senators are amended as follows:
"Article 2 (paragraphs 1 and 2). In each Municipal Council the
election of delegates takes place without debate and by secret
ballot, by "scrutin de liste" and by an absolute majority of
votes cast. After two ballots a plurality is sufficient, and
in case of an equality of votes the oldest is elected. The
procedure and method is the same for the election of
alternates. Councils having one, two, or three delegates to
choose shall elect one alternate. Those choosing six or nine
delegates elect two alternates. Those choosing twelve or
fifteen delegates elect three alternates. Those choosing
eighteen or twenty-one delegates elect four alternates. Those
choosing twenty-four delegates elect five alternates. The
Municipal Council of Paris elects eight alternates; The
alternates take the place of delegates in case of refusal or
inability to serve, in the order determined by the number of
votes received by each of them.
Article 3.
In communes where the duties of a Municipal Council are
performed by a special delegation organized by virtue of
Article 44 of' the law of April 5, 1884, the senatorial
delegates and alternates shall be chosen by the old council.
Article 4.
If the delegates were not present at the election, notice is
given them by the Mayor within twenty-four hours. They must
within five days notify the Prefect of their acceptance. In
case of declination or silence they shall be replaced by the
alternates, who are then placed upon the list as the delegates
of the commune.
Article 5.
The official report of the election of delegates and
alternates is transmitted at once to the Prefect. It indicates
the acceptance or declination of the delegates and alternates,
as well as the protests made by one or more members of the
Municipal Council against the legality of the election. A copy
of this official report is posted on the door of the town
hall.
Article 8.
Protests concerning the election of delegates or alternates
are decided, subject to an appeal to the Council of State, by
the Council of the Prefecture, and, in the colonies, by the
Privy Council. Delegates whose election is set aside because
they do not satisfy the conditions demanded by law, or because
of informality, are replaced by the alternates. In case the
election of a delegate and of an alternate is rendered void,
as by the refusal or death of both after their acceptance, new
elections are held by the Municipal Council on a day fixed by
decree of the Prefect.
Article 14.
The first ballot begins at eight o'clock in the morning and
closes at noon. The second begins at two o'clock and closes at
four o'clock. The third begins at seven o'clock and closes at
ten o'clock. The results of the ballotings are determined by
the bureau and announced immediately by the President of the
electoral college.
Article 16.
Political meetings for the nomination of senators may be held
from the date of the promulgation of the decree summoning the
electors up to the day of the election inclusive. The
declaration prescribed by Article 2 of the law of June 30,
1881, shall be made by two voters, at least. The forms and
regulations of this Article, as well as those of Article 3,
shall be observed. The members of Parliament elected or
electors in the department, the senatorial electors, delegates
and alternates, and the candidates, or their representatives,
may alone be present at these meetings. The municipal
authorities will see to it that no other person is admitted.
Delegates and alternates shall present as a means of
identification a certificate from the Mayor of the commune;
candidates or their representatives a certificate from the
official who shall have received the declaration mentioned in
Paragraph 2.
Article 19.
Every attempt at corruption or constraint by the employment of
means enumerated in Articles 177 and following of the Penal
Code, to influence the vote of an elector or to keep him from
voting, shall be punished by imprisonment of from three months
to two years, and by a fine of from fifty francs to five
hundred francs, or by one of these penalties alone. Article
463 of the Penal Code is applicable to the penalties provided
for by the present article.
Article 23.
Vacancies caused by the death or resignation of senators shall
be filled within three months; moreover, if the vacancy occurs
within the six months preceding the triennial elections, it
shall be filled at those elections."
ARTICLE 9.
There are repealed:
(1) Articles 1 to 7 of the law of February 24, 1875, on the
organization of the Senate;
(2) Articles 24 and 25 of the law of August 2, 1875, on the
elections of senators.
Temporary Provision.
In case a special law on parliamentary incompatibilities shall
not have been passed at the date of the next senatorial
elections, Article 8, of the law of November 30, 1875, shall
apply to those elections. Every official affected by this
provision, who has had twenty years of service and is fifty
years of age at the date of his acceptance of the office [of
senator], may establish his right to a proportional retiring
pension, which shall be governed by the third paragraph of
Article 12, of the law of June 9, 1853.
CONSTITUTION OF FRANCE: 1885.
Law Amending the Electoral Law. June 16.
[Footnote: Articles 1, 2 and 3 repealed
by the law of February 13 1889, _infra._]
[ARTICLE 1.
The members of the Chamber of Deputies are elected by "scrutin
de liste."]
[ARTICLE 2.
Each department elects the number
of deputies assigned to it in the table
(Footnote: This table may be found in the Bulletin des Lois,
twelfth series, No. 15,518; and in the Journal Officiel for
June 17, 1885, page 3074.)
annexed to the present law, on the basis of one deputy for
seventy thousand inhabitants, foreign residents not included.
Account shall be taken, nevertheless, of every fraction
smaller than seventy thousand.
(Footnote: i. e., fractions of less than 70,000 are entitled
to a deputy.)
Each department elects at least three deputies. Two deputies
are assigned to the territory of Belfort, six to Algeria, and
ten to the colonies, as is indicated by the table. This table
can be changed by law only.]
[ARTICLE 3.
The department forms a single electoral district.]
ARTICLE 4.
Members of families that have reigned in France are ineligible
to the Chamber of Deputies.
{547}
ARTICLE 5.
No one is elected on the first ballot unless he receives: (1)
an absolute majority of the votes cast; (2) a number of votes
equal to one-fourth of the total number of voters registered.
On the second ballot a plurality is sufficient. In case of an
equality of votes, the oldest of the candidates is declared
elected.
ARTICLE 6.
Subject to the case of a dissolution foreseen and regulated by
the Constitution, the general elections take place within
sixty days preceding the expiration of the powers of the
Chamber of Deputies.
ARTICLE 7.
Vacancies shall not be filled which occur in the six months
preceding the renewal of the Chamber.
CONSTITUTION OF FRANCE: 1887.
Law on Parliamentary Incompatibilities. December 26.
Until the passage of a special law on parliamentary
incompatibilities, Articles 8 and 9 of the law of November
30, 1875, shall apply to senatorial elections. Every official
affected by this provision who has had twenty years of service
and is fifty years of age at the time of his acceptance of the
office [of senator]. may establish his rights to a
proportional retiring pension, which shall be governed by the
third paragraph of Article 12 of the law of June 9, 1853.
CONSTITUTION OF FRANCE: 1889.
Law Re-establishing Single Districts for the Election of
Deputies. February 13.
ARTICLE 1.
Articles 1, 2 and 3 of the law of June 16, 1885, are repealed.
ARTICLE 2.
Members of the Chamber of Deputies are elected by single
districts. Each administrative arrondissement in the
departments, and each municipal arrondissement at Paris and at
Lyons, elects one deputy. Arrondissements whose population
exceeds one hundred thousand inhabitants elect an additional
deputy for every one hundred thousand or fraction of one
hundred thousand inhabitants. The arrondissements are in this
case divided into districts, a table of which is annexed to
the present law and can be changed by a law only.
[Footnote: This table may be found in the _Journal
Officiel_ for February 14, 1889. pages 76 and following; and
in the _Bulletin des Lois_, twelfth series, No. 20,475.]
ARTICLE 3.
One deputy is assigned to the territory of Belfort, six to
Algeria, and ten to the colonies, as is indicated by the
table.
ARTICLE 4.
On and after the promulgation of the present law, until the
renewal of the Chamber of Deputies, vacancies occurring in the
Chamber of Deputies shall not be filled.
CONSTITUTION OF FRANCE: 1889.
Law on Multiple Candidatures. July 17.
ARTICLE 1.
No one may be a candidate in more than one district.
ARTICLE 2.
Every citizen who offers himself or is offered at the general
or partial elections must, by a declaration signed or
countersigned by himself, and duly legalized, make known in
what district he means to be a candidate. This declaration is
deposited, and a provisional receipt obtained therefor, at the
Prefecture of the department concerned, the fifth day, at
latest, before the day of election. A definitive receipt shall
be delivered within twenty-four hours.
ARTICLE 3.
Every declaration made in violation of Article 1 of the
present law is void and not to be received. If declarations
are deposited by the same citizen in more than one district,
the earliest in date is alone valid. If they bear the same
date, all are void.
ARTICLE 4.
It is forbidden to sign or post placards, to carry or
distribute ballots, circulars, or platforms in the interest of
a candidate who has not conformed to the requirements of the
present law.
ARTICLE 5.
Ballots bearing the name of a citizen whose candidacy is put
forward in violation of the present law shall not be included
in the return of votes. Posters, placards, platforms, and
ballots posted or distributed to support a candidacy in a
district where such candidacy is contrary to the law, shall be
removed or seized.
ARTICLE 6.
A fine of ten thousand francs shall be imposed on the
candidate violating the provisions of the present law, and one
of five thousand francs on all persons acting in violation of
Article 4 of the present law.
----------CONSTITUTION OF FRANCE: End----------
CONSTITUTION OF GERMANY.
CONSTITUTION OF GERMANY: 13th-17th Centuries.
The Old (Holy Roman) Empire.
The Golden Bull.
See GERMANY: A. D. 1125-1152; 1347-1493;
and DIET, THE GERMANIC.
CONSTITUTION OF GERMANY: A. D. 1815.-
The Confederation.
See GERMANY: A. D. 1814-1820.
CONSTITUTION OF GERMANY: A. D. 1871.
The New Empire.
On the 18th day of January, 1871, at Versailles, King William
of Prussia assumed the title of German Emperor. On the 16th of
April following the Emperor issued a proclamation, by and with
the consent of the Council of the German Confederation, and of
the Imperial Diet, decreeing the adoption of a constitution
for the Empire.
See GERMANY: A. D. 1871 (JANUARY) and (APRIL).
The following is a translation of the text of the Constitution,
as transmitted by the American Minister at Berlin to his
Government:
His Majesty the King of Prussia, in the name of the North
German Union, His Majesty the King of Bavaria, His Majesty the
King of Würtemberg, His Royal Highness the Grand Duke of
Baden, and His Royal Highness the Grand Duke of Hesse, and by
Rhine for those parts of the Grand Duchy of Hesse which are
situated south of the Main, conclude an eternal alliance for
the protection of the territory of the confederation, and of
the laws of the same, as well as for the promotion of the
welfare of the German people. This confederation shall bear
the name of the German Empire, and shall have the following
constitution.
I. Territory.
Article I.
The territory of the confederation shall consist of the States
of Prussia, with Lauenburg, Bavaria, Saxony, Würtemberg,
Baden, Hesse, Mecklenburg-Schwerin, Saxe-Weimar,
Mecklenburg-Strelitz, Oldenburg, Brunswick, Saxe-Meiningen,
Saxe-Altenburg, Saxe-Coburg-Gotha, Anhalt,
Schwarzburg-Rudolstadt, Schwarzburg-Sondershnusen, Waldeck,
Reuss of the elder branch, Reuss of the younger branch,
Schaumburg-Lippe, Lippe, Lubeck, Bremen, and Hamburg.
{548}
II. Legislation of the Empire.
Article 2.
Within this territory the Empire shall have the right of
legislation according to the provisions of this constitution,
and the laws of the Empire shall take precedence of those of
each individual state. The laws of the Empire shall be
rendered binding by imperial proclamation, such proclamation
to be published in a journal devoted to the publication of the
laws of the Empire, (Reichsgesetzblatt.) If no other period
shall be designated in the published law for it to take
effect, it shall take effect on the fourteenth day after the
day of its publication in the law-journal at Berlin.
Article 3.
There is one citizenship for all Germany, and the citizens or
subjects of each state of the federation shall be treated in
every other state thereof as natives, and shall have the right
of becoming permanent residents, of carrying on business, of
filling public offices, and may acquire all civil rights on
the same conditions as those born in the state, and shall also
have the same usage as regards civil prosecutions and the
protection of the laws. No German shall be limited, in the
exercise of this privilege, by the authorities of his native
state, or by the authorities of any other state of the
confederation. The regulations governing the care of paupers,
and their admission into the various parishes, are not
affected by the principle enunciated in the first paragraph.
In like manner those treaties shall remain in force which have
been concluded between the various states of the federation in
relation to the custody of persons who are to be banished, the
care of sick, and the burial of deceased citizens. With regard
to the rendering of military service to the various states,
the necessary laws will be passed hereafter. All Germans in
foreign countries shall have equal claims upon the protection
of the Empire.
Article 4.
The following matters shall be under the supervision of the
Empire and its legislature:
1. The privilege of carrying on trade in more than one place;
domestic affairs and matters relating to the settlement of
natives of one state in the territory of another; the right of
citizenship; the issuing and examination of passports;
surveillance of foreigners and of manufactures, together with
insurance business, so far as these matters are not already
provided for by article 3 of this constitution, (in Bavaria,
however, exclusive of domestic affairs and matters relating to
the settlement of natives of one state in the territory of
another;) and likewise matters relating to colonization and
emigration to foreign countries.
2. Legislation concerning customs duties and commerce, and
such imposts as are to be applied to the uses of the Empire.
3. Regulation of weights and measures of the coinage, together
with the emission of funded and unfunded paper money.
4. Banking regulations in general.
5. Patents for inventions.
6. The protection of literary property.
7. The organization of a general system of protection for
German trade in foreign countries; of German navigation, and
of the German flag on the high seas; likewise the organization
of a general consular representation of the Empire.
8. Railway matters, (subject in Bavaria to the provisions of
article 46,) and the construction of means of communication by
land and water for the purposes of home defense and of general
commerce.
9. Rafting and navigation upon those waters which are common
to several States, and the condition of such waters, as
likewise river and other water dues.
10. Postal and telegraphic affairs; but in Bavaria and Hungary
these shall be subject to the provisions of article 52.
11. Regulations concerning the execution of judicial sentences
in civil matters, and the fulfillment of requisitions in
general.
12. The authentication of public documents.
13. General legislation regarding the law of obligations,
criminal law, commercial law, and the law of exchange;
likewise judicial proceedings.
14. The imperial army and navy.
15. The surveillance of the medical and veterinary
professions.
16. The press, trades' unions, &c.
Article 5.
The legislative power of the Empire shall be exercised by the
federal council and the diet. A majority of the votes of both
houses shall be necessary and sufficient for the passage of a
law. When a law is proposed in relation to the army or navy,
or to the imposts specified in article 35, the vote of the
presiding officer shall decide; in case of a difference of
opinion in the federal council, if said vote shall be in favor
of the retention of the existing arrangements.
III. Federal Council.
Article 6.
The federal council shall consist of the representatives of
the states of the confederation, among whom the votes shall be
divided in such a manner that Prussia, including the former
votes of Hanover, the electorate of Hesse, Holstein, Nassau,
and Frankfort shall have 17 votes; Bavaria, 6 votes; Saxony, 4
votes; Würtemberg, 4 votes; Baden, 3 votes; Hesse, 3 votes;
Mecklenburg-Schwerin, 2 votes; Saxe-Weimar, 1 vote;
Mecklenburg-Strelitz, 1 vote; Oldenburg, 1 vote; Brunswick, 2
votes; Saxe-Meiningen, 1 vote; Saxe-Altenburg, 1 vote;
Saxe-Coburg-Gotha, 1 vote; Anhalt, 1 vote;
Schwarzburg-Rudolstadt, 1 vote; Schwarzburg-Sondershansen, 1
vote; Waldeck, 1 vote; Reuss, elder branch, 1 vote; Reuss,
younger branch, 1 vote; Schaumburgh-Lippe, 1 vote; Lippe, 1
vote; Lubeck, 1 vote; Bremen, 1 vote; Hamburgh, 1 vote; total
58 votes. Each member of the confederation shall appoint as
many delegates to the federal council as it has votes; the
total of the votes of each state shall, however, be cast by
only one delegate.
Article 7.
The federal council shall take action upon:
1. The measures to be proposed to the diet and the resolutions
passed by the same.
2. The general provisions and regulations necessary for the
execution of the laws of the Empire, so far as no other
provision is made by said laws.
3. The defects which may be discovered in the execution of the
laws of the Empire, or of the provisions and regulations
heretofore mentioned. Each member of the confederation shall
have the right to introduce motions, and it shall be the duty
of the presiding officer to submit them for deliberation.
Legislative action shall take place by simple majority, with
the exceptions of the provisions in articles 5, 37, and 78.
Votes not represented or instructed shall not be counted. In
the case of a tie, the vote of the presiding officer shall
decide. When legislative action upon a subject which does not
affect, according to the provisions of this constitution, the
whole Empire is taken, the votes of only those states of the
confederation shall be counted which shall be interested in
the matter in question.
{549}
Article 8.
The federal council shall appoint from its own members
permanent committees:
1. On the army and the fortifications.
2. On naval affairs.
3. On duties and taxes.
4. On commerce and trade.
5. On railroads, post offices, and telegraphs.
6. On the judiciary.
7. On accounts.
In each of these committees there shall be representatives of
at least four states of the confederation, beside the
presiding officer, and each state shall be entitled to only
one vote in the same. In the committee on the army and
fortifications Bavaria shall have a permanent seat; the
remaining members of it, as well as the members of the
committee on naval affairs, shall be appointed by the Emperor;
the members of the other committees shall be elected by the
federal council. These committees shall be newly formed at
each session of the federal council, i. e., each year, when
the retiring members shall again be eligible. Besides, there
shall be appointed in the federal council a committee on
foreign affairs, over which Bavaria shall preside, to be
composed of the plenipotentiaries of the Kingdoms of Bavaria,
Saxony, and Würtemberg, and of two plenipotentiaries of the
other states of the Empire, who shall be elected annually by
the federal council. Clerks shall be placed at the disposal of
the committees to perform the necessary work appertaining
thereto.
Article 9.
Each member of the federal council shall have the right to
appear in the diet, and shall be heard there at any time when
he shall so request, to represent the views of his government,
even when the same shall not have been adopted by the majority
of the council. Nobody shall be at the same time a member of
the federal council and of the diet.
Article 10.
The Emperor shall afford the customary diplomatic protection
to the members of the federal council.
IV. Presidium.
Article II.
The King of Prussia shall be the president of the
confederation, and shall have the title of German Emperor. The
Emperor shall represent the Empire among nations, declare war,
and conclude peace in the name of the same, enter into
alliances and other conventions with foreign countries,
accredit embassadors, and receive them. For a declaration of
war in the name of the Empire, the consent of the federal
council shall be required, except in case of an attack upon
the territory of the confederation or its coasts. So far as
treaties with foreign countries refer to matters which,
according to article 4, are to be regulated by the legislature
of the Empire, the consent of the federal council shall be
required for their ratification, and the approval of the diet
shall be necessary to render them valid.
Article 12.
The Emperor shall have the right to convene the federal
council and the diet, and to open, adjourn, and close them.
Article 13.
The convocation of the federal council and the diet shall take
place annually, and the federal council may be called together
for the preparation of business without the diet; the latter,
however, shall not be convoked without the federal council.
Article 14.
The convocation of the federal council shall take place as
soon as demanded by one-third of its members.
Article 14.
The chancellor of the Empire, who shall be appointed by the
Emperor, shall preside in the federal council, and supervise
the conduct of its business. The chancellor of the Empire
shall have the right to delegate the power to represent him to
any member of the federal council.
Article 16.
The necessary bills shall be laid before the diet in the name
of the Emperor, in accordance with the resolutions of the
federal council, and they shall be represented in the diet by
members of the federal council or by special commissioners
appointed by said council.
Article 17.
To the Emperor shall belong the right to prepare and publish
the laws of the Empire. The laws and regulations of the
Emperor shall be published in the name of the Empire, and
require for their validity the signature of the chancellor of
the Empire, who thereby becomes responsible for their
execution.
Article 18.
The Emperor shall appoint the officers of the Empire, require
them to take the oath of allegiance, and dismiss them when
necessary. Officials appointed to an office of the Empire from
one of the states of the confederation shall enjoy the same
rights to which they were entitled in their native states by
their official position, provided no other legislative
provision shall have been made previously to their entrance
into the service of the Empire.
Article 19.
If states of the confederation shall not fulfill their
constitutional duties, proceedings may be instituted against
them by military execution. This execution shall be ordered by
the federal council, and enforced by the Emperor.
V. Diet.
Article 20.
The members of the diet shall be elected by universal
suffrage, and by direct secret ballot. Until regulated by law,
which is reserved by section 5 of the election law of May 31,
1869 (Bundesgesetzblatt, 1869, section 145,) 48 delegates
shall be elected in Bavaria, 17 in Würtemberg, 14 in Baden, 6
in Hesse, south of the river Main, and the total number of
delegates shall be 382.
Article 21.
Officials shall not require a leave of absence in order to
enter the diet. When a member of the diet accepts a salaried
office of the Empire, or a salaried office in one of the
states of the confederation, or accepts any office of the
Empire, or of a state, with which a high rank or salary is
connected, he shall forfeit his seat and vote in the diet, but
may recover his place in the same by a new election.
Article 22.
The proceedings of the diet shall be public. Truthful reports
of the proceedings of the public sessions of the diet shall
subject those making them to no responsibility.
Article 23.
The diet shall have the right to propose laws within the
jurisdiction of the Empire, and to refer petitions addressed
to it to the federal council or the chancellor of the Empire.
Article 24.
Each legislative period of the diet shall last three years.
The diet may be dissolved by a resolution of the federal
council, with the consent of the Emperor.
Article 25.
In the case of a dissolution of the diet, new elections shall
take place within a period of 60 days, and the diet shall
reassemble within a period of 90 days after the dissolution.
Article 26.
Unless by consent of the diet, an adjournment of that body
shall not exceed the period of 30 days, and shall not be
repeated during the same session, without such consent.
Article 27.
The diet shall examine into the legality of the election of
its members and decide thereon. It shall regulate the mode of
transacting business, and its own discipline, by establishing
rules therefor, and elect its president, vice-presidents, and
secretaries.
{550}
Article 28.
The diet shall pass laws by absolute majority. To render the
passage of laws valid, the presence of the majority of the
legal number of members shall be required. When passing laws
which do not affect the whole Empire, according to the
provisions of this constitution, the votes of only those
members shall be counted who shall have been elected in those
states of the confederation which the laws to be passed shall
affect.
Article 29.
The members of the diet shall be the representatives of the
entire people, and shall not be subject to orders and
instructions from their constituents.
Article 30.
No member of the diet shall at any time suffer legal
prosecution on account of his vote, or on account of
utterances made while in the performance of his functions, or
be held responsible outside of the diet for his actions.
Article 31.
Without the consent of the diet, none of its members shall be
tried or punished, during the session, for any offense
committed, except when arrested in the act of committing the
offense, or in the course of the following day. The same rule
shall apply in the case of arrests for debt. At the request of
the diet, all legal proceedings instituted against one of its
members, and likewise imprisonment, shall be suspended during
its session.
Article 32.
The members of the diet shall not be allowed to draw any
salary, or be compensated as such.
VI. Customs and Commerce.
Article 33.
Germany shall form a customs and commercial union, having a
common frontier for the collection of duties. Such territories
as cannot, by reason of their situation, be suitably embraced
within the said frontier, shall be excluded. It shall be
lawful to introduce all articles of commerce of a state of the
confederation into any other state of the confederation,
without paying any duty thereon, except so far as such
articles are subject to taxation therein.
Article 34.
The Hanseatic towns, Bremen and Hamburg, shall remain free
ports outside of the common boundary of the customs union,
retaining for that purpose a district of their own, or of the
surrounding territory, until they shall request to be admitted
into the said union.
Article 35.
The Empire shall have the exclusive power to legislate
concerning everything relating to the customs, the taxation of
salt and tobacco manufactured or raised in the territory of
the confederation; concerning the taxation of manufactured
brandy and beer, and of sugar and sirup prepared from beets or
other domestic productions. It shall have exclusive power to
legislate concerning the mutual protection of taxes upon
articles of consumption levied in the several states of the
Empire; against embezzlement; as well as concerning the
measures which are required, in granting exemption from the
payment of duties, for the security of the common customs
frontier. In Bavaria, Würtemberg, and Baden, the matter of
imposing duties on domestic brandy and beer is reserved for
the legislature of each country. The states of the
confederation shall, however, endeavor to bring about uniform
legislation regarding the taxation of these articles.
Article 36.
The imposing of duties and excises on articles of consumption,
and the collection of the same (article 35,) is left to each
state of the confederation within its own territory, so far as
this has been done by each state heretofore. The Emperor shall
have the supervision of the institution of legal proceedings
by officials of the empire, whom he shall designate as
adjuncts to the custom or excise offices, and boards of
directors of the several states, after hearing the committee
of the Confederate Council on customs and revenues. Notices
given by these officials as to defects in the execution of the
laws of the Empire (article 35) shall be submitted to the
confederate council for action.
Article 37.
In taking action upon the rules and regulations for the
execution of the laws of the Empire, (article 35,) the vote of
the presiding officer shall decide, whenever he shall
pronounce for upholding the existing rule or regulation.
Article 38.
The amounts accruing from customs and other revenues
designated in article 35 of the latter, so far as they are
subject to legislation by the diet, shall go to the treasury
of the Empire. This amount is made up of the total receipts
from the customs and other revenues, after deducting
therefrom:
I. Tax compensations and reductions in conformity with
existing laws or regulations.
2. Reimbursements for taxes unduly imposed.
3. The costs for collection and administration, viz.:
_a_. In the department of customs, the costs which are
required for the protection and collection of customs on the
frontiers and in the frontier districts.
_b._ In the department of the duty on salt, the costs
which are used for the pay of the officers charged with
collecting and controlling these duties in the salt mines.
_c_. In the department of duties on beet-sugar and
tobacco, the compensation which is to be allowed, according to
the resolutions of the confederate council, to the several
state governments for the costs of the collection of these
duties.
_d_. Fifteen per cent. of the total receipts in the
departments of the other duties.
The territories situated outside of the common customs
frontier shall contribute to the expenses of the Empire by
paying an 'aversum,' (a sum of acquittance.) Bavaria,
Würtemberg, and Baden shall not share in the revenues from
duties on liquors and beer, which go into the treasury of the
Empire, nor in the corresponding portion of the aforesaid
'aversum.'
Article 39.
The quarterly statements to be regularly made by the revenue
officers of the federal states at the end of every quarter,
and the final settlements (to be made at the end of the year,
and after the closing of the account-books) of the receipts
from customs, which have become due in the course of the
quarter, or during the fiscal year, and the revenues of the
treasury of the Empire, according to article 38, shall be
arranged by the boards of directors of the federal states,
after a previous examination in general summaries in which
every duty is to be shown separately; these summaries shall be
transmitted to the federal committee on accounts. The latter
provisionally fixes, every three months, taking as a basis
these summaries, the amount due to the treasury of the Empire
from the treasury of each state, and it shall inform the
federal council and the federal States of this act;
furthermore, it shall submit to the federal council, annually,
the final statement of these amounts, with its remarks. The
federal council shall act upon the fixing of these amounts.
{551}
Article 40.
The terms of the customs-union treaty of July 8, 1867, remain
in force, so far as they have not been altered by the
provisions of this constitution, and as long as they are not
altered in the manner designated in articles 7 and 78.
VII. Railways.
Article 41.
Railways, which are considered necessary for the defense of
Germany or for purposes of general commerce, may be built for
the account of the Empire by a law of the Empire, even in
opposition to the will of those members of the confederation
through whose territory the railroads run, without detracting
from the rights of the sovereign of that country; or private
persons may be charged with their construction and receive
rights of expropriation. Every existing railway company is
bound to permit new railroad lines to be connected with it, at
the expense of these latter. All laws granting existing
railway companies the right of injunction against the building
of parallel or competition lines are hereby abolished
throughout the Empire, without detriment to rights already
acquired. Such right of injunction can henceforth not be
granted in concessions to be given hereafter.
Article 42.
The governments of the federal states bind themselves, in the
interest of general commerce, to have the German railways
managed as a uniform net-work, and for this purpose to have
the lines constructed and equipped according to a uniform
system.
Article 43.
Accordingly, as soon as possible, uniform arrangements as to
management, shall be made, and especially shall uniform
regulations be instituted for the police of the railroads. The
Empire shall take care that the administrative officers of the
railway lines keep the roads always in such a condition as is
required for public security, and that they be equipped with
the necessary rolling stock.
Article 44.
Railway companies are bound to establish such passenger trains
of suitable velocity as may be required for ordinary travel,
and for the establishment of harmonizing schedules of travel;
also, to make provision for such freight trains as may be
necessary for commercial purposes, and to establish, without
extra remuneration, offices for the direct forwarding of
passengers and freight trains, to be transferred, when
necessary, from one road to another.
Article 45.
The Empire shall have control over the tariff of fares. The
same shall endeavor to cause:
1. Uniform regulations to be speedily introduced on all German
railway lines.
2. The tariff to be reduced and made uniform as far as
possible, and particularly to cause a reduction of the tariff
for the transport of coal, coke, wood, minerals, stone, salt,
crude iron, manure, and similar articles, for long distances,
as demanded by the interests of agriculture and industry, and
to introduce a one-penny tariff as soon as practicable.
Article 46.
In case of distress, especially in case of an extraordinary
rise in the price of provisions, it shall be the duty of the
railway companies to adopt temporarily a low special tariff,
to be fixed by the Emperor, on motion of the competent
committee, for the forwarding of grain, flour, vegetables, and
potatoes. This tariff shall, however, not be less than the
lowest rate for raw produce existing on the said line. The
foregoing provisions, and those of articles 42 to 45, shall
not apply to Bavaria. The imperial government has, however,
the power, also with regard to Bavaria, to establish, by way
of legislation, uniform rules for the construction and
equipment of such railways as may be of importance for the
defense of the country.
Article 47.
The managers of all railways shall be required to obey,
without hesitation, requisitions made by the authorities of
the Empire for the use of their roads for the defense of
Germany. Particularly shall the military and all material of
war be forwarded at uniform reduced rates.
VIII. Mails and Telegraphs.
Article 48.
The mails and telegraphs shall be organized and managed as
state institutions throughout the German Empire. The
legislation of the empire in regard to postal and telegraphic
affairs, provided for in article 4, does not extend to those
matters whose regulation is left to the managerial
arrangement, according to the principles which have controlled
the North German administration of mails and telegraphs.
Article 49.
The receipts of mails and telegraphs are a joint affair
throughout the Empire. The expenses shall be paid from the
general receipts. The surplus goes into the treasury of the
Empire. (Section 12.).
Article 50.
The Emperor has the supreme supervision of the administration
of mails and telegraphs. The authorities appointed by him are
in duty bound and authorized to see that uniformity be
established and maintained in the organization of the
administration and in the transaction of business, as also in
regard to the qualifications of employés. The Emperor shall
have the power to make general administrative regulations, and
also exclusively to regulate the relations which are to exist
between the post and telegraph offices of Germany and those of
other countries. It shall be the duty of all officers of the
post-office and telegraph department to obey imperial orders.
This obligation shall be included in their oath of office. The
appointment of superior officers (such as directors,
counselors, and superintendents,) as they shall be required
for the administration of the mails and telegraphs, in the
various districts; also the appointment of officers of the
posts and telegraphs (such as inspectors or comptrollers,)
acting for the aforesaid authorities in the several districts,
in the capacity of supervisors, shall be made by the Emperor
for the whole territory of the German Empire, and these
officers shall take the oath of fealty to him as a part of
their oath of office. The governments of the several states
shall be informed in due time, by means of imperial
confirmation and official publication, of the aforementioned
appointments, so far as they may relate to their territories.
Other officers required by the department of mails and
telegraphs, as also all officers to be employed at the various
stations, and for technical purposes, and hence officiating at
the actual centers of communication, &c., shall be appointed
by the respective governments of the states. Where there is no
independent administration of inland mails or telegraphs, the
terms of the various treaties are to be enforced.
{552}
Article 51.
In assigning the surplus of the post-office department to the
treasury of the Empire for general purposes, (article 49,) the
following proceeding is to be observed in consideration of the
difference which has heretofore existed in the clear receipts
of the post-office departments of the several territories, for
the purpose of securing a suitable equalization during the
period of transition below named. Of the post-office surplus,
which accumulated in the several mail districts during the
five years from 1861 to 1865, an average yearly surplus shall
be computed, and the share which every separate mail district
has had in the surplus resulting therefrom for the whole
territory of the Empire shall be fixed upon by a percentage.
In accordance with the proportion thus made, the several
states shall be credited on the account of their other
contributions to the expenses of the empire with their quota
accruing from the postal surplus in the Empire, for a period
of eight years subsequent to their entrance into the
post-office department of the Empire. At the end of the said
eight years this distinction shall cease, and any surplus in
the post-office department shall go, without division, into
the treasury of the Empire, according to the principle
enunciated in article 49. Of the quota of the post-office
department surplus resulting during the aforementioned period
of eight years in favor of the Hanseatic towns, one-half shall
every year be placed at the disposal of the Emperor, for the
purpose of providing for the establishment of uniform
post-offices in the Hanseatic towns.
Article 52.
The stipulations of the foregoing articles 48 to 51 do not
apply to Bavaria and Würtemberg. In their stead the following
stipulation shall be valid for these two states of the
confederation. The Empire alone is authorized to legislate
upon the privileges of the post-office and telegraph
departments, on the legal position of both institutions toward
the public, upon the franking privilege and rates of postage,
and upon the establishment of rates for telegraphic
correspondence into Hanseatic towns. Exclusive, however, of
managerial arrangements, and the fixing of tariffs for
internal communication within Bavaria and Würtemberg. In the
same manner the Empire shall regulate postal and telegraphic
communication with foreign countries, excepting the immediate
communication of Bavaria and Würtemberg with their neighboring
states, not belonging to the Empire, in regard to which
regulation the stipulations in article 49 of the postal treaty
of November 23, 1867, remains in force. Bavaria and Würtemberg
shall not share in the postal and telegraphic receipts which
belong to the treasury of the Empire.
IX. Marine and Navigation.
Article 53.
The navy of the Empire is a united one, under the supreme
command of the Emperor. The Emperor is charged with its
organization and arrangement, and he shall appoint the
officers and officials of the navy, and in his name these and
the seamen are to be sworn in. The harbor of Kiel and the
harbor of the Iade are imperial war harbors. The expenditures
required for the establishment and maintenance of the navy and
the institutions connected therewith shall be defrayed from
the treasury of the Empire. All sea-faring men of the Empire,
including machinists and hands employed in ship-building, are
exempt from service in the army, but obliged to serve in the
imperial navy. The apportionment of men to supply the wants of
the navy shall be made according to the actual sea-faring
population, and the quota furnished in accordance herewith by
each state shall be credited to the army account.
Article 54.
The merchant vessels of all states of the confederation shall
form a united commercial marine. The Empire shall determine
the process for ascertaining the tonnage of sea-going vessels,
shall regulate the issuing of tonnage-certificates and
sea-letters, and shall fix the conditions to which a permit
for commanding a sea-going vessel shall be subject. The
merchant vessels of all the states of the confederation shall
be admitted on an equal footing to the harbors, and to all
natural and artificial water-courses of the several states of
the confederation, and shall receive the same usage therein.
The duties which shall be collected from sea-going vessels, or
levied upon their freights, for the use of naval institutions
in the harbors, shall not exceed the amount required for the
maintenance and ordinary repair of these institutions. On all
natural water-courses, duties are only to be levied for the
use of special establishments, which serve for facilitating
commercial intercourse. These duties, as well as the duties
for navigating such artificial channels, which are property of
the state, are not to exceed the amount required for the
maintenance and ordinary repair of the institutions and
establishments. These rules apply to rafting, so far as it is
carried on on navigable water-courses. The levying of other or
higher duties upon foreign vessels or their freights than
those which are paid by the vessels of the federal states or
their freights does not belong to the various states, but to
the Empire.
Article 55.
The flag of the war and merchant navy shall be black, white,
and red.
X. Consular Affairs.
Article 56.
The Emperor shall have the supervision of all consular affairs
of the German Empire, and he shall appoint consuls, after
hearing the committee of the federal council on commerce and
traffic. No new state consulates are to be established within
the jurisdiction of the German consuls. German consuls shall
perform the functions of state consuls for the states of the
confederation not represented in their district. All the now
existing state consulates shall be abolished, as soon as the
organization of the German consulates shall be completed, in
such a manner that the representation of the separate
interests of all the federal states shall be recognized by the
federal council as secured by the German consulates.
XI. Military Affairs of the Empire.
Article 57.
Every German is subject to military duty, and in the discharge
of this duty no substitute can be accepted.
Article 58.
The costs and the burden of all the military system of the
Empire are to be borne equally by all the federal states and
their subjects, and no privileges or molestations to the
several states or classes are admissible. Where an equal
distribution of the burdens cannot be effected 'in natura'
without prejudice to the public welfare, affairs shall be
equalized by legislation in accordance with the principles of
justice.
{553}
Article 59.
Every German capable of bearing arms shall serve for seven
years in the standing army, ordinarily from the end of his
twentieth to the beginning of his twenty-eighth year; the
first three years in the army of the field, the last four
years in the reserve; during the next five years he shall
belong to the militia. In those states of the confederation in
which heretofore a longer term of service than twelve years
was required by law, the gradual reduction of the required
time of service shall take place in such a manner as is
compatible with the interests and the war-footing of the army
of the Empire. As regards the emigration of men belonging to
the reserve, only those provisions shall be in force which
apply to the emigration of members of the militia.
Article 60.
The strength of the German army in time of peace shall be,
until the 31st December, 1871, one per cent. of the population
of 1867, and shall be furnished by the several federal states
in proportion to their population. In future the strength of
the army in time of peace shall be fixed by legislation.
Article 61.
After the publication of this constitution the full Prussian
military system of legislation shall be introduced without
delay throughout the Empire, as well the statutes themselves
as the regulations, instructions, and ordinances issued for
their execution, explanation, or completion; thus, in
particular, the military penal code of April 3, 1845; the
military orders of the penal court of April 3, 1845; the
ordinance concerning the courts of honor of July 20, 1843; the
regulations with respect to recruiting, time of service,
matters relating to the service and subsistence, to the
quartering of troops, claims for damages, mobilizing, &c., for
times of peace and war. Orders for the attendance of the
military upon religious services is, however, excluded. When a
uniform organization of the German army shall have been
established, a comprehensive military law for the Empire shall
be submitted to the diet and the federal council for their
action in accordance with the constitution.
Article 62.
For the purpose of defraying the expenses of the whole German
army, and the institutions connected therewith, the sum of 225
(two hundred and twenty-five) thalers, shall be placed at the
disposal of the Emperor until the 31st of December, 1871, for
each man in the army on the peace-footing, according to
article 60. (See section 12.) After the 31st of December,
1871, the payment of these contributions of the several states
to the imperial treasury must be continued: The strength of
the army in time of peace, which has been temporarily fixed in
article 60, shall be taken as a basis for calculating these
amounts until it shall be altered by a law of the Empire. The
expenditure of this sum for the whole army of the Empire and
its establishments shall be determined by a budget law. In
determining the budget of military expenditures, the lawfully
established organization of the imperial army, in accordance
with this constitution, shall be taken as a basis.
Article 63.
The total land force of the Empire shall form one army, which,
in war and in peace, shall be under the command of the
Emperor. The regiments, &c., throughout the whole German army
shall bear continuous numbers. The principal colors and the
cut of the garments of the Royal Prussian army shall serve as
a pattern for the rest of the army. It is left to commanders
of contingent forces to choose the external badges, cockades,
&c. It shall be the duty and the right of the Emperor to take
care that, throughout the German army, all divisions be kept
full and well equipped, and that unity be established and
maintained in regard to organization and formation, equipment,
and command in the training of the men, as well as in the
qualification of the officers. For this purpose the Emperor
shall be authorized to satisfy himself at any time of the
condition of the several contingents, and to provide remedies
for existing defects. The Emperor shall determine the
strength, composition, and division of the contingents of the
imperial army, and also the organization of the militia, and
he shall have the right to designate garrisons within the
territory of the confederation, as also to call any portion of
the army into active service. In order to maintain the
necessary unity in the care, arming, and equipment of all
troops of the German army, all orders hereafter to be issued
for the Prussian army shall be communicated in due form to the
commanders of the remaining contingents by the committee on
the army and fortifications, provided for in article 8, No. 1.
Article 64.
All German troops are bound implicitly to obey the orders of
the Emperor. This obligation shall be included in the oath of
allegiance. The commander-in-chief of a contingent, as well as
all officers commanding troops of more than one contingent,
and all commanders of fortresses, shall be appointed by the
Emperor. The officers appointed by the Emperor shall take the
oath of fealty to him. The appointment of generals, or of
officers performing the duties of generals, in a contingent
force, shall be in each case subject to the approval of the
Emperor. The Emperor has the right with regard to the transfer
of officers, with or without promotion, to positions which are
to be filled in the service of the Empire, be it in the
Prussian army or in other contingents, to select from the
officers of all the contingents of the army of the Empire.
Article 65.
The right to build fortresses within the territory of the
Empire shall belong to the Emperor, who, according to section
12, shall ask for the appropriation of the necessary means
required for that purpose, if not already included in the
regular appropriation.
Article 66.
If not otherwise stipulated, the princes of the Empire and the
senates shall appoint the officers of their respective
contingents, subject to the restriction of article 64. They
are the chiefs of all the troops belonging to their respective
territories, and are entitled to the honors connected
therewith. They shall have especially the right to hold
inspections at any time, and receive, besides the regular
reports and announcements of changes for publication, timely
information of all promotions and appointments concerning
their respective contingents. They shall also have the right
to employ, for police purposes, not only their own troops but
all other contingents of the army of the Empire who are
stationed in their respective territories.
Article 67.
The unexpended portion of the military appropriation shall,
under no circumstances, fall to the share of a single
government, but at all times to the treasury of the Empire.
Article 68.
The Emperor shall have the power, if the public security of
the Empire demands it, to declare martial law in any part
thereof, until the publication of a law regulating the
grounds, the form of announcement, and the effects of such a
declaration, the provisions of the Prussian law of June 4,
1851, shall be substituted therefor. (Laws of 1851, page 451.)
{554}
Addition to section XI.
The provisions contained in this section shall go into effect
in Bavaria as provided for in the treaty of alliance of
November 23, 1870, ( Bundesgesetzblatt, 1871, section 9,)
under III, section 5, in Würtemberg, as provided for in the
military convention of November 21-25, 1870, (
Bundesgesetzblatt, 1870, section 658.)
XII. Finances of the Empire.
Article 69.
All receipts and expenditures of the Empire shall be estimated
yearly, and included in the financial estimate. The latter
shall be fixed by law before the beginning of the fiscal year,
according to the following principles:
Article 70.
The surplus of the previous year, as well as the customs
duties, the common excise duties, and the revenues derived
from the postal and telegraph service, shall be applied to the
defrayal of all general expenditure. In so far as these
expenditures are not covered by the receipts, they shall be
raised, as long as no taxes of the Empire shall have been
established, by assessing the several states of the Empire
according to their population, the amount of the assessment to
be fixed by the Chancellor of the Empire in accordance with
the budget agreed upon.
Article 71.
The general expenditure shall be, as a rule, granted for one
year; they may, however, in special cases, be granted for a
longer period. During the period of transition fixed in
Article 60, the financial estimate, properly classified, of
the expenditures of the army shall be laid before the federal
council and the diet for their information.
Article 72.
An annual report of the expenditure of all the receipts of
the Empire shall be rendered to the federal council and the
diet, through the Chancellor of the Empire.
Article 73.
In cases of extraordinary requirements, a loan may be
contracted in accordance with the laws of the Empire, such
loan to be granted by the Empire.
Addition to section XII.
Articles 69 and 71 apply to the expenditures for the Bavarian
army only according to the provisions of the addition to
section XI of the treaty of November 23, 1870; and article 72
only so far as is required to inform the federal council and
the diet of the assignment to Bavaria of the required sum for
the Bavarian army.
XIII. Settlement of Disputes and Modes of Punishment.
Article 74.
Every attempt against the existence, the integrity, the
security, or the constitution of the German Empire; finally,
any offense committed against the federal council, the diet, a
member of the federal council, or of the diet, a magistrate or
public official of the Empire, while in the execution of his
duty, or with reference to his official position, by word,
writing, printing, signs, or caricatures, shall be judicially
investigated, and upon conviction punished in the several
states of the Empire, according to the laws therein existing,
or which shall hereafter exist in the same, according to which
laws a similar offense against anyone of the states of the
Empire, its constitution, legislature, members of its
legislature, authorities or officials is to be judged.
Article 75.
For those offenses, specified in Article 74, against the
German Empire, which, if committed against one of the states
of the Empire, would be deemed high treason, the superior
court of appeals of the three free Hanseatic towns at Lubeck
shall be the competent deciding tribunal in the first and last
resort. More definite provisions as to the competency and the
proceedings of the superior court of appeals shall be adopted
by the Legislature of the Empire. Until the passage of a law
of the Empire, the existing competency of the courts in the
respective states of the Empire, and the provisions relative
to the proceedings of those courts, shall remain in force.
Article 76.
Disputes between the different states of the confederation, so
far as they are not of a private nature, and therefore to be
decided by the competent authorities, shall be settled by the
federal council, at the request of one of the parties.
Disputes relating to constitutional matters in those of the
states of the confederation whose constitution contains no
provision for the settlement of such differences, shall be
adjusted by the federal council, at the request of one of the
parties, or, if this cannot be done, they shall be settled by
the legislative power of the confederation.
Article 77.
If in one of the states of the confederation justice shall be
denied, and no sufficient relief can be procured by legal
measures, it shall be the duty of the federal council to
receive substantiated complaints concerning denial or
restriction of justice, which are to be judged according to
the constitution and the existing laws of the respective
states of the confederation, and thereupon to obtain judicial
relief from the confederate government in the matter which
shall have given rise to the complaint.
XIV. General Provision.
Amendments of the constitution shall be made by legislative
enactment. They shall be considered as rejected when 14 votes
are cast against them in the federal council. The provisions
of the constitution of the Empire, by which fixed rights of
individual states of the confederation are established in
their relation to the whole, shall only be modified with the
consent of that state of the confederation which is
immediately concerned.
----------CONSTITUTION OF GERMANY: End----------
CONSTITUTION OF JAPAN.
The following text of the Constitution of the Empire of Japan,
promulgated by the Emperor, February 11, 1889, is from a
pamphlet published at Johns Hopkins University on the occasion
of a meeting of professors, students and guests, April 17,
1889, to celebrate its promulgation:
{555}
Having, by virtue of the glories of Our Ancestors, ascended
the throne of a lineal succession unbroken for ages eternal;
desiring to promote the welfare of, and to give development to
the moral and intellectual faculties of Our beloved subjects,
the very same that have been favoured with the benevolent care
and affectionate vigilance of Our Ancestors; and hoping to
maintain the prosperity of the State, in concert with Our
people and with their support, We hereby promulgate, in
pursuance of Our Imperial Rescript of the 14th day of the 10th
month of the 14th year of Meiji, a fundamental law of State,
to exhibit the principles, by which We are to be guided in Our
conduct, and to point out to what Our descendants and Our
subjects and their descendants are forever to conform. The
rights of sovereignty of the State, We have inherited from Our
Ancestors, and We shall bequeath them to Our descendants.
Neither We nor they shall in future fail to wield them, in
accordance with the provisions of the Constitution hereby
granted. We now declare to respect and protect the security of
the rights and of the property of Our people, and to secure to
them the complete enjoyment of the same, within the extent of
the provisions of the present Constitution and of the law. The
Imperial Diet shall first be convoked for the 23d year of
Meiji, and the time of its opening shall be the date, when the
present Constitution comes into force. When in the future it
may become necessary to amend any of the provisions of the
present Constitution, We or Our successors shall assume the
initiative right, and submit a project for the same to the
Imperial Diet. The Imperial Diet shall pass its vote upon it,
according to the conditions imposed by the present
Constitution, and in no otherwise shall Our descendants or Our
subjects be permitted to attempt any alteration thereof. Our
Ministers of State, on Our behalf, shall be held responsible
for the carrying out of the present Constitution, and Our
present and future subjects shall forever assume the duty of
allegiance to the present Constitution. [His Imperial
Majesty's Sign-Manual.] The 11th day of the 2nd month of the
22nd year of Meiji. [Countersigned by Ministers.]
Chapter I.
Article I.
The Empire of Japan shall be reigned over and governed by a
line of Emperors unbroken for ages eternal.
Article II.
The Imperial Throne shall be succeeded to by Imperial male
descendants, according to the provisions of the Imperial House
Law.
Article III.
The Emperor is sacred and inviolable.
Article IV.
The Emperor is the head of the Empire, combining in Himself
the rights of sovereignty, and exercises them, according to
the provisions of the present Constitution.
Article V.
The Emperor exercises the legislative power with the consent
of the Imperial Diet.
Article VI.
The Emperor gives sanction to laws, and orders them to be
promulgated and executed.
Article VII.
The Emperor convokes the Imperial Diet, opens, closes, and
prorogues it, and dissolves the House of Representatives.
Article VIII.
The Emperor, in consequence of an urgent necessity to maintain
public safety or to avert public calamities, issues, when the
Imperial Diet is not sitting, Imperial Ordinances in the place
of law. Such Imperial Ordinances are to be laid before the
Imperial Diet at its next session, and when the Diet does not
approve the said Ordinances, the Government shall declare them
to be invalid for the future.
Article IX.
The Emperor issues, or causes to be issued, the Ordinances
necessary for the carrying out of the laws, or for the
maintenance of the public peace and order, and for the
promotion of the welfare of the subjects. But no Ordinance
shall in any way alter any of the existing laws.
Article X.
The Emperor determines the organization of the different
branches of the administration, and the salaries of all civil
and military officers, and appoints and dismisses the same.
Exceptions especially provided for in the present Constitution
or in other laws, shall be in accordance with the respective
provisions (bearing thereon).
Article XI.
The Emperor has the supreme command of the Army and Navy.
Article XII.
The Emperor determines the organization and peace standing of
the Army and Navy.
Article XIII.
The Emperor declares war, makes peace, and concludes treaties.
Article XIV.
The Emperor proclaims the law of siege. The conditions and
effects of the law of siege shall be determined by law.
Article XV
The Emperor confers titles of nobility, rank, orders, and
other marks of honor.
Article XVI.
The Emperor orders amnesty, pardon, commutation of punishment,
and rehabilitation.
Article XVII.
A Regency shall be instituted in conformity with the
provisions of the Imperial House Law. The Regent shall
exercise the powers appertaining to the Emperor in His name.
Chapter II.
Article XVIII.
The conditions necessary for being a Japanese subject shall be
determined by law.
Article XIX.
Japanese subjects may, according to qualifications determined
in law or ordinances, be appointed to civil or military
offices equally, and may fill any other public offices.
Article XX.
Japanese subjects are amenable to service in the Army or Navy,
according to the provisions of law.
Article XXI.
Japanese subjects are amenable to the duty of paying taxes,
according to the provisions of law.
Article XXII.
Japanese subjects shall have the liberty of abode and of
changing the same within the limits of law.
Article XXIII.
No Japanese subject shall be arrested, detained, tried, or
punished, unless according to law.
Article XXIV.
No Japanese subject shall be deprived of his right of being
tried by the judges determined by law.
Article XXV.
Except in the cases provided for in the law, the house of no
Japanese subject shall be entered or searched without his
consent.
Article XXVI.
Except in the cases mentioned in the law, the secrecy of the
letters of every Japanese subject shall remain inviolate.
Article XXVII.
The right of property of every Japanese subject shall remain
inviolate. Measures necessary to be taken for the public
benefit shall be provided for by law.
Article XXVIII.
Japanese subjects shall, within limits not prejudicial to
peace and order, and not antagonistic to their duties as
subjects, enjoy freedom of religious belief.
{556}
Article XXIX.
Japanese subjects shall, within the limits of law, enjoy the
liberty of speech, writing, publication, public meetings, and
associations.
Article XXX.
Japanese subjects may present petitions, by observing the
proper forms of respect, and by complying with the rules
specially provided for the same.
Article XXXI.
The provisions contained in the present Chapter shall not
affect the exercise of the powers appertaining to the Emperor
in times of war or in cases of a national emergency.
Article XXXII.
Each and everyone of the provisions contained in the preceding
Articles of the present Chapter, that are not in conflict with
the laws or the rules and discipline of the Army and Navy,
shall apply to the officers and men of the Army and of the
Navy.
Chapter III.
Article XXXIII.
The Imperial Diet shall consist of two Houses, a House of
Peers and a House of Representatives.
Article XXXIV.
The House of Peers shall, in accordance with the Ordinance
concerning the House of Peers, be composed of the members of
the Imperial Family, of the orders of nobility, and of those
persons who have been nominated thereto by the Emperor.
Article XXXV.
The House of Representatives shall be composed of Members
elected by the people according to the provisions of the Law
of Election.
Article XXXVI.
No one can at one and the same time be a member of both
Houses.
Article XXXVII.
Every law requires the consent of the Imperial Diet.
Article XXXVIII.
Both Houses shall vote upon projects of law submitted to it by
the Government, and may respectively initiate projects of law.
Article XXXIX.
A Bill, which has been rejected by either the one or the other
of the two houses, shall not be again brought in during the
same session.
Article XL.
Both Houses can make representations to the Government, as to
laws or upon any other subject. When, however, such
representations are not accepted, they cannot be made a second
time during the same session.
Article XLI.
The Imperial Diet shall be convoked every year.
Article XLII.
A session of the Imperial Diet shall last during three months.
In case of necessity, the duration of a session may be
prolonged by Imperial Order.
Article XLI II.
When urgent necessity arises, an extraordinary session may be
convoked, in addition to the ordinary one. The duration of an
extraordinary session shall be determined by Imperial Order.
Article XLIV.
The opening, closing, prolongation of session, and prorogation
of the Imperial Diet, shall be effected simultaneously for
both Houses. In case the House of Representatives has been
ordered to dissolve, the House of Peers shall at the same time
be prorogued.
Article XLV.
When the House of Representatives has been ordered to
dissolve, Members shall be caused by Imperial Order to be
newly elected, and the new House shall be convoked within five
months from the day of dissolution.
Article XLVI.
No debate can be opened and no vote can be taken in either
House of the Imperial Diet, unless not less than one-third of
the whole number of the members thereof is present.
Article XLVII.
Votes shall be taken in both Houses by absolute majority. In
the case of a tie vote, the President shall have the casting
vote.
Article XLVIII.
The deliberations of both Houses shall be held in public. The
deliberations may, however, upon demand of the Government or
by resolution of the House, be held in secret sitting.
Article XLIX.
Both Houses of the Imperial Diet may respectively present
addresses to the Emperor.
Article L.
Both Houses may receive petitions presented by subjects.
Article LI.
Both Houses may enact, besides what is provided for in the
present Constitution and in the Law of the Houses, rules
necessary for the management of their internal affairs.
Article LII.
No member of either House shall be held responsible outside
the respective Houses, for any opinion uttered or for any vote
given in the House. When, however, a Member himself has given
publicity to his opinions by public speech, by documents in
printing or in writing, or by any other similar means he
shall, in the matter, be amenable to the general law.
Article LIII.
The members of both Houses shall, during the session, be free
from arrest, unless with the consent of the House, except in
cases of flagrant delicts, or of offences connected with a
state of internal commotion or with a foreign trouble.
Article LIV.
The Ministers of State and the Delegates of the Government
may, at any time, take seats and speak in either House.
Chapter IV.
Article LV.
The respective Ministers of State shall give their advice to
the Emperor, and be responsible for it. All Laws, Imperial
Ordinances, and Imperial Rescripts of whatever kind, that
relate to the affairs of the State, require the
countersignature of a Minister of State.
Article LVI.
The Privy Council shall, in accordance with the provisions for
the organization of the Privy Council, deliberate upon
important matters of State, when they have been consulted by
the Emperor.
Chapter V.
Article LVII.
The Judicature shall be exercised by the Courts of Law
according to law, in the name of the Emperor. The organization
of the Courts of Law shall be determined by law.
Article LVIII.
The judges shall be appointed from among those, who possess
proper qualifications according to law. No judge shall be
deprived of his position, unless by way of criminal sentence
or disciplinary punishment. Rules for disciplinary punishment
shall be determined by law.
Article LIX.
Trials and judgments of a Court shall be conducted publicly.
When, however, there exists any fear that such publicity may
be prejudicial to peace and order, or to the maintenance of
public morality, the public trial may be suspended by
provision of law or by the decision of the Court of Law.
Article LX.
All matters, that fall within the competency of a special
Court, shall be specially provided for by law.
{557}
Article LXI.
No suit at law, which relates to rights alleged to have been
infringed by the legal measures of the executive authorities,
and which shall come within the competency of the Court of
Administrative Litigation specially established by law, shall
be taken cognizance of by a Court of Law.
Chapter VI.
Article LXII.
The imposition of a new tax or the modification of the rates
(of an existing one) shall be determined by law. However, all
such administrative fees or other revenue having the nature of
compensation shall not fall within the category of the above
clause. The raising of national loans and the contracting of
other liabilities to the charge of the National Treasury,
except those that are provided in the Budget, shall require
the consent of the Imperial Diet.
Article LXIII.
The taxes levied at present shall, in so far as they are not
remodelled by new law, be collected according to the old
system.
Article LXIV.
The expenditure and revenue of the State require the consent
of the Imperial Diet by means of an annual Budget. Any and all
expenditures overpassing the appropriations set forth in the
Titles and Paragraphs of the Budget, or that are not provided
for in the Budget, shall subsequently require the approbation
of the Imperial Diet.
Article LXV.
The Budget shall be first laid before the House of
Representatives.
Article LXVI.
The expenditures of the Imperial House shall be defrayed every
year out of the National Treasury, according to the present
fixed amount for the same, and shall not require the consent
thereto of the Imperial Diet, except in case an increase
thereof is found necessary.
Article LXVII.
Those already fixed expenditures based by the Constitution
upon the powers appertaining to the Emperor, and such
expenditures as may have arisen by the effect of law, or that
appertain to the legal obligations of the Government, shall be
neither rejected nor reduced by the Imperial Diet, without the
concurrence of the Government.
Article LXVIII.
In order to meet special requirements, the Government may ask
the consent of the Imperial Diet to a certain amount as a
Continuing Expenditure Fund, for a previously fixed number of
years.
Article LXIX.
In order to supply deficiencies which are unavoidable, in the
Budget, and to meet requirements unprovided for in the same, a
Reserve Fund shall be provided in the Budget.
Article LXX.
When the Imperial Diet cannot be convoked, owing to the
external or internal condition of the country, in case of
urgent need for the maintenance of public safety, the
Government may take all necessary financial measures, by means
of an Imperial Ordinance. In the case mentioned in the
preceding clause, the matter shall be submitted to the
Imperial Diet at its next session, and its approbation shall
be obtained thereto.
Article LXXI.
When the Imperial Diet has not voted on the Budget, or when
the Budget has not been brought into actual existence, the
Government shall carry out the Budget of the preceding year.
Article LXXII.
The final account of the expenditures and revenue of the State
shall be verified and confirmed by the Board of Audit, and it
shall be submitted by the Government to the Imperial Diet,
together with the report of verification of the said Board.
The organization and competency of the Board of Audit shall be
determined by law separately.
Chapter VII.
Article LXXIII.
When it has become necessary in future to amend the provisions
of the present Constitution, a project to that effect shall be
submitted to the Imperial Diet by Imperial Order. In the above
case, neither House can open the debate, unless not less than
two-thirds of the whole number of Members are present, and no
amendment can be passed, unless a majority of not less than
two-thirds of the Members present is obtained.
Article LXXIV.
No modification of the Imperial House Law shall be required to
be submitted to the deliberation of the Imperial Diet. No
provision of the present Constitution can be modified by the
Imperial House Law.
Article LXXV.
No modification can be introduced into the Constitution, or
into the Imperial House Law, during the time of a Regency.
Article LXXVI.
Existing legal enactments, such as laws, regulations,
Ordinances, or by whatever names they may be called, shall, so
far as they do not conflict with the present Constitution,
continue in force. All existing contracts or orders, that
entail obligations upon the Government, and that are connected
with expenditure shall come within the scope of Article LXVII.
----------CONSTITUTION OF JAPAN: End----------
CONSTITUTION OF LYCURGUS.
"The constitution of Lykourgos was especially adapted to make
heroes, and it made them. To serve his country and die for
her, this was the Spartan's chief ambition. 'Victory or
death!' was their war-cry; honor, their supreme law. 'That
most to be admired in Lykourgos,' says Xenophon, 'is that he
was able to make a noble death seem preferable to a dishonored
life. This great lawgiver provided for the happiness of the
brave man, and devoted the coward to infamy. … At Sparta men
would be ashamed to sit at table with the coward, to touch his
weapons or his hand: in the games neither party will receive
him. He has the lowest place at the dances and the dramatic
representations. In the street he is pushed aside by younger
men. His daughters share in his disgrace; they are excluded
from public feasts, and can obtain no husbands.'"
_V. Duruy, History of Greece, volume 1, section 2, page 467._
Mr. Grote remarks upon the "unparalleled steadiness" of the
Spartan constitution ascribed to Lycurgus, which was
maintained "for four or five successive centuries, in the
midst of governments like the Grecian, all of which had
undergone more or less of fluctuation. No considerable
revolution—not even any palpable or formal change—occurred
in it from the days of the Messenian war down to those of Agis
III.: in spite of the irreparable blow which the power and
territory of the state sustained from Epameinondas and the
Thebans, the form of government nevertheless remained
unchanged. It was the only government in Greece which could
trace an unbroken peaceable descent from a high antiquity and
from its real or supposed founder."
_G. Grote,
History of Greece,
part 2, chapter 6 (volume 2)._
See SPARTA, THE CONSTITUTION.
{558}
CONSTITUTION OF MEXICO.
The following translated text of the Constitution of Mexico is
from Bulletin No. 9 of the Bureau of the American Republics,
published in July, 1891:
Preamble.
In the name of God and with the authority of the Mexican
people. The representatives of the different States, of the
District and Territories which compose the Republic of Mexico,
called by the Plan proclaimed in Ayutla the 1st of March,
1854, amended in Acapulco the 11th day of the same month and
year, and by the summons issued the 17th of October, 1855, to
constitute the nation under the form of a popular,
representative, democratic republic, exercising the powers
with which they are invested, comply with the requirements of
their high office, decreeing the following political
Constitution of the Mexican Republic, on the indestructible
basis of its legitimate independence, proclaimed the 16th of
September, 1810, and completed the 27th of September, 1821.
Article I.
The Mexican people recognize that the rights of man are the
basis and the object of social institutions. Consequently they
declare that all the laws and all the authorities of the
country must respect and maintain the guarantees which the
present Constitution establishes.
Article 2.
In the Republic all are born free. Slaves who set foot upon
the national territory recover, by that act alone, their
liberty, and have a right to the protection of the laws.
Article 3.
Instruction is free. The law shall determine what professions
require a diploma for their exercise, and with what requisites
they must be issued.
Article 4.
Every man is free to adopt the profession, industrial pursuit,
or occupation which suits him, the same being useful and
honorable, and to avail himself of its products. Nor shall
anyone be hindered in the exercise of such profession,
industrial pursuit, or occupation, unless by judicial sentence
when such exercise attacks the rights of a third party, or by
governmental resolution, dictated in terms which the law marks
out, when it offends the rights of society.
Article 5.
No one shall be obliged to give personal services without just
compensation, and without his full consent. The state shall
not permit any contract, pact, or agreement to be carried into
effect which has for its object the diminution, loss, or
irrevocable sacrifice of the liberty of man, whether it be for
the sake of labor, education, or a religious vow. The law,
consequently, may not recognize monastic orders, nor may it
permit their establishment, whatever may be the denomination
or object with which they claim to be formed.
[Footnote: This sentence was introduced into the original
article September 25, 1873, with other less important
amendments.]
Neither may an agreement be permitted in which anyone
stipulates for his proscription or banishment.
Article 6.
The expression of ideas shall not be the object of any
judicial or administrative inquisition, except in case it
attacks morality, the rights of a third party, provokes some
crime or misdemeanor, or disturbs public order.
Article 7.
The liberty to write and to publish writings on any subject
whatsoever is inviolable. No law or authority shall establish
previous censure, nor require security from authors or
printers, nor restrict the liberty of the press, which has no
other limits than respect of private life, morality, and the
public peace. The crimes which are committed by means of the
press shall be judged by the competent tribunals of the
Federation, or by those of the States, those of the Federal
District and the Territory of Lower California, in accordance
with their penal laws.
[Footnote: This article was amended May 15, 1883, by
introducing the last sentence as a substitute for the
following: "The crimes of the press shall be judged by one
jury which attests the fact and by another which applies the
law and designates the punishment."]
Article 8.
The right of petition, exercised in writing in a peaceful and
respectful manner, is inviolable; but in political matters
only citizens of the Republic may exercise it. To every
petition must be returned a written opinion by the authority
to whom it may have been addressed, and the latter is obliged
to make the result known to the petitioner.
Article 9.
No one may be deprived of the right peacefully to assemble or
unite with others for any lawful object whatsoever, but only
citizens of the Republic may do this in order to take part in
the political affairs of the country. No armed assembly has a
right to deliberate.
Article 10.
Every man has a right to possess and carry arms for his
security and legitimate defence. The law shall designate what
arms are prohibited and the punishment which those shall incur
who carry them.
Article 11.
Every man has a right to enter and to go out of the Republic,
to travel through its territory and change his residence,
without the necessity of a letter of security, passport,
safe-conduct, or other similar requisite. The exercise of this
right shall not prejudice the legitimate faculties of the
judicial or administrative authority in cases of criminal or
civil responsibility.
Article 12.
There are not, nor shall there be recognized in the Republic,
titles of nobility, or prerogatives, or hereditary honors.
Only the people, legitimately represented, may decree
recompenses in honor of those who may have rendered or may
render eminent services to the country or to humanity.
Article 13.
In the Mexican Republic no one may be judged by special law
nor by special tribunals. No person or corporation may have
privileges, or enjoy emoluments, which are not compensation
for a public service and are established by law. Martial law
may exist only for crimes and offences which have a definite
connection with military discipline. The law shall determine
with all clearness the cases included in this exception.
Article 14.
No retroactive law shall be enacted. No one may be judged or
sentenced except by laws made prior to the act, and exactly
applicable to it, and by a tribunal which shall have been
previously established by law.
Article 15.
Treaties shall never be made for the extradition of political
offenders, nor for the extradition of those violators of the
public order who may have held in the country where they
committed the offence the position of slaves; nor agreements
or treaties in virtue of which may be altered the guarantees
and rights which this Constitution grants to the man and to
the citizen.
{559}
Article 16.
No one may be molested in his person, family, domicile, papers
and possessions, except in virtue of an order written by the
competent authority, which shall establish and assign the
legal cause for the proceedings. In the case of in flagrante
delicto any person may apprehend the offender and his
accomplices, placing them without delay at the disposal of the
nearest authorities.
Article 17.
No one may be arrested for debts of a purely civil character.
No one may exercise violence in order to reclaim his rights.
The tribunals shall always be prompt to administer justice.
This shall be gratuitous, judicial costs being consequently
abolished.
Article 18.
Imprisonment shall take place only for crimes which deserve
corporal punishment. In any state of the process in which it
shall appear that such a punishment might not be imposed upon
the accused, he shall be set at liberty under bail. In no case
shall the imprisonment or detention be prolonged for default
of payment of fees, or of any furnishing of money whatever.
Article 19.
No detention shall exceed the term of three days, unless
justified by a writ showing cause of imprisonment and other
requisites which the law establishes. The mere lapse of this
term shall render responsible the authority that orders or
consents to it, and the agents, ministers, wardens, or jailers
who execute it. Any maltreatment in the apprehension or in the
confinement of the prisoners, any injury which may be
inflicted without legal ground, any tax or contribution in the
prisons, is an abuse which the laws must correct and the
authorities severally punish.
Article 20.
In every criminal trial the accused shall have the following
guarantees:
I. That the grounds of the proceedings and the name of the
accuser, if there shall be one, shall be made known to him.
II. That his preparatory declaration shall be taken within
forty-eight hours, counting from the time he may be placed at
the disposal of the judge.
III. That he shall be confronted with the witnesses who
testify against him.
IV. That he shall be furnished with the data which he requires
and which appear in the process, in order to prepare for his
defence.
V. That he shall be heard in defence by himself or by counsel,
or by both, as he may desire. In case he should have no one to
defend him, a list of official defenders shall be presented to
him, in order that he may choose one or more who may suit him.
Article 21.
The application of penalties properly so called belongs
exclusively to the judicial authority. The political or
administrative authorities may only impose fines, as
correction, to the extent of five hundred dollars, or
imprisonment to the extent of one month, in the cases and
manner which the law shall expressly determine.
Article 22.
Punishments by mutilation and infamy, by branding, flogging,
the bastinado, torture of whatever kind, excessive fines,
confiscation of property, or any other unusual or
extraordinary penalties, shall be forever prohibited.
Article 23.
In order to abolish the penalty of death, the administrative
power is charged to establish, as soon as possible, a
penitentiary system. In the meantime the penalty of death
shall be abolished for political offences, and shall not be
extended to other cases than treason during foreign war,
highway robbery, arson, parricide, homicide with treachery,
premeditation or advantage, to grave offences of the military
order, and piracy, which the law shall define.
Article 24.
No criminal proceeding may have more than three instances. No
one shall be tried twice for the same offence, whether by the
judgment he be absolved or condemned. The practice of
absolving from the instance is abolished.
Article 25.
Sealed correspondence which circulates by the mails is free
from all registry. The violation of this guarantee is an
offence which the law shall punish severely.
Article 26.
In time of peace no soldier may demand quarters, supplies, or
other real or personal service without the consent of the
proprietor. In time of war he shall do this only in the manner
prescribed by the law.
Article 27.
Private property shall not be appropriated without the consent
of the owner, except for the sake of public use, and with
previous indemnification. The law shall determine the
authority which may make the appropriation and the conditions
under which it may be carried out. No corporation, civil or
ecclesiastical, whatever may be its character, denomination,
or object, shall have legal capacity to acquire in
proprietorship or administer for itself real estate, with the
single exception of edifices destined immediately and directly
to the service and object of the institution.
[Footnote: See Article 3 of Additions to the Constitution.]
Article 28.
There shall be no monopolies, nor places of any kind for the
sale of privileged goods, nor prohibitions under titles of
protection to industry. There shall be excepted only those
relative to the coining of money, to the mails, and to the
privileges which, for a limited time, the law may concede to
inventors or perfectors of some improvement.
Article 29.
In cases of invasion, grave disturbance of the public peace,
or any other cases whatsoever which may place society in great
danger or conflict, only the President of the Republic in
concurrence with the Council of Ministers and with the
approbation of the Congress of the Union, and, in the recess
thereof, of the permanent deputation, may suspend the
guarantees established by this Constitution, with the
exception of those which assure the life of man; but such
suspension shall be made only for a limited time, by means of
general provisions, and without being limited to a determined
person. If the suspension should take place during the session
of Congress, this body shall concede the authorizations which
it may esteem necessary in order that the Executive may meet
properly the situation. If the suspension should take place
during the recess, the permanent deputation shall convoke the
Congress without delay in order that it may make the
authorizations.
Article 30.
Mexicans are:
I. All those born, within or without the Republic, of Mexican
parents.
II. Foreigners who are naturalized in conformity with the laws
of the Federation.
III. Foreigners who acquire real estate in the Republic or
have Mexican children; provided they do not manifest their
resolution to preserve their nationality.
Article 31.
It is an obligation of every Mexican:
I. To defend the independence, the territory, the honor, the
rights and interests of his country.
II. To contribute for the public expenses, as well of the
Federation as of the State and municipality in which he
resides, in the proportional and equitable manner which the
laws may provide.
{560}
Article 32.
Mexicans shall be preferred to foreigners in equal
circumstances, for all employments, charges, or commissions of
appointment by the authorities, in which the condition of
citizenship may not be indispensable. Laws shall be issued to
improve the condition of Mexican laborers, rewarding those who
distinguish themselves in any science or art, stimulating
labor, and founding practical colleges and schools of arts and
trades.
Article 33.
Foreigners are those who do not possess the qualifications
determined in Article 30. They have a right to the guarantees
established by … [Articles 1-29] of the present
Constitution, except that in all cases the Government has the
right to expel pernicious foreigners. They are under
obligation to contribute to the public expenses in the manner
which the laws may provide, and to obey and respect the
institutions, laws, and authorities of the country, subjecting
themselves to the judgments and sentences of the tribunals,
without power to seek other protection than that which the
laws concede to Mexican citizens.
Article 34.
Citizens of the Republic are all those who, having the quality
of Mexicans, have also the following qualifications:
I. Eighteen years of age if married, or twenty-one if not
married.
II. An honest means of livelihood.
Article 35.
The prerogatives of the citizen are:
I. To vote at popular elections.
II. The privilege of being voted for for any office subject to
popular election, and of being selected for any other
employment or commission, having the qualifications
established by law.
III. To associate to discuss the political affairs of the
country.
IV. To take up arms in the army or in the national guard for
the defence of the Republic and its institutions.
V. To exercise in all cases the right of petition.
Article 36.
Every citizen of the Republic is under the following
obligations:
I. To be inscribed on the municipal roll, stating the property
which he has, or the industry, profession, or labor by which
he subsists.
II. To enlist in the national guard.
III. To vote at popular elections in the district to which he
belongs.
IV. To discharge the duties of the offices of popular election
of the Federation, which in no case shall be gratuitous.
Article 37.
The character of citizen is lost:
I. By naturalization in a foreign country.
II. By serving officially the government of another country or
accepting its decorations, titles, or employments without
previous permission from the Federal Congress; excepting
literary, scientific, and humanitarian titles, which may be
accepted freely.
Article 38.
The law shall prescribe the cases and the form in which may be
lost or suspended the rights of citizenship and the manner in
which they may be regained.
Article 39.
The national sovereignty resides essentially and originally in
the people. All public power emanates from the people, and is
instituted for their benefit. The people have at all times the
inalienable right to alter or modify the form of their
government.
Article 40.
The Mexican people voluntarily constitute themselves a
democratic, federal, representative republic, composed of
States free and sovereign in all that concerns their internal
government, but united in a federation established according
to the principles of this fundamental law.
Article 41.
The people exercise their sovereignty by means of Federal
officers in cases belonging to the Federation, and through
those of the States in all that relates to the internal
affairs of the States within the limits respectively
established by this Federal Constitution, and by the special
Constitutions of the States, which latter shall in no case
contravene the stipulations of the Federal Compact.
Article 42.
The National Territory comprises that of the integral parts of
the Federation and that of the adjacent islands in both
oceans.
Article 43.
The integral parts of the Federation are: the States of
Aguascalientes, Colima, Chiapas, Chihuahua, Durango,
Guanajuato, Guerrero, Jalisco, Mexico, Michoacan, Nuevo Leon
and Coahuila, Oajaca, Puebla, Querétaro, San Luis Potosi,
Sinaloa, Sonora, Tabasco, Tamaulipas, Tlascala, Valle de
Mexico, Veracruz, Yucatan, Zacatecas, and the Territory of
Lower California.
Article 44.
The States of Aguascalientes, Chiapas, Chihuahua, Durango,
Guerrero, Mexico, Puebla, Queretaro, Sinaloa, Sonora,
Tamaulipas, and the Territory of Lower California shall
preserve the limits which they now have.
Article 45.
The States of Colima and Tlascala shall preserve in their new
character of States the limits which they have had as
Territories of the Federation.
Article 46.
The State of the Valley of Mexico shall be formed of the
territory actually composing the Federal District, but the
erection into a State shall only have effect when the supreme
Federal authorities are removed to another place.
Article 47.
The State of Nuevo Leon and Coahuila shall comprise the
territory which has belonged to the two distinct States of
which it is now formed, except the part of the hacienda of
Bonanza, which shall be reincorporated in Zacatecas, on the
same terms in which it was before its incorporation in
Coahuila.
Article 48.
The States of Guanajuato, Jalisco, Michoacan, Oajaca, San Luis
Potosi, Tabasco, Veracruz, Yucatan, and Zacatecas shall
recover the extension and limits which they had on the 31st of
December, 1852, with the alterations the following Article
establishes.
Article 49.
The town of Contepec, which has belonged to Guanajuato, shall
be incorporated in Michoacan. . The municipality of Ahualulco,
which has belonged to Zacatecas, shall be incorporated in San
Luis Potosi. The municipalities of Ojo-Caliente and San
Francisco de los Adames, which have belonged to San Luis, as
well as the towns of Nueva Tlascala and San Andres del Teul,
which have belonged to Jalisco, shall be incorporated in
Zacatecas. The department of Tuxpan shall continue to form a
part of Veracruz. The canton of Huimanguillo, which has
belonged to Veracruz, shall be incorporated in Tabasco.
[Footnote: Besides the twenty-four States which are mentioned
in this section there have been created subsequently,
according to executive decrees issued in accordance with the
Constitution, the four following:
XXV. That of Campeche, separated from Yucatan.
XXVI. That of Coahuila, separated from Nuevo Leon.
XXVII. That of Hidalgo, in territory of the ancient State
of Mexico, which formed the second military district.
XXVIII. That of Morelos, in territory also of the ancient
State of Mexico, which formed the third military district.]
{561}
Article 50.
The supreme power of the Federation is divided for its
exercise into legislative, executive, and judicial. Two or
more of these powers shall never be united in one person or
corporation, nor the legislative power be deposited in one
individual.
Article 51.
The legislative power of the nation is deposited in a general
Congress, which shall be divided into two houses, one of
Deputies and the other of Senators.
[Footnote: The original form of this article was as
follows: "The exercise of the supreme legislative power is
vested in one assembly, which shall be denominated Congress of
the Union."]
Article 52.
The House of Deputies shall be composed of representatives of
the nation, elected in their entire number every two years by
Mexican citizens.
Article 53.
One deputy shall be elected for each forty thousand
inhabitants, or for a fraction which exceeds twenty thousand.
The territory in which the population is less than that
determined in this article shall, nevertheless, elect one
deputy.
Article 54.
For each deputy there shall be elected one alternate.
Article 55.
The election for deputies shall be indirect in the first
degree, and by secret ballot, in the manner which the law
shall prescribe.
Article 56.
In order to be eligible to the position of a deputy it is
required that the candidate be a Mexican citizen in the
enjoyment of his rights; that he be fully twenty-five years of
age on the day of the opening of the session; that he be a
resident of the State or Territory which makes the election,
and that he be not an ecclesiastic. Residence is not lost by
absence in the discharge of any public trust bestowed by
popular election.
Article 57.
The positions of Deputy and of Senator are incompatible with
any Federal commission or office whatsoever for which a salary
is received.
Article 58.
The Deputies and the Senators from the day of their election
to the day on which their trust is concluded, may not accept
any commission or office offered by the Federal Executive, for
which a salary is received, except with the previous license
of the respective house. The same requisites are necessary for
the alternates of Deputies and Senators when in the exercise
of their functions.
A. The Senate is composed of two Senators for each State and
two for the Federal District. The election of Senators shall
be indirect in the first degree. The Legislature of each State
shall declare elected the person who shall have obtained the
absolute majority of the votes cast, or shall elect from among
those who shall have obtained the relative majority in the
manner which the electoral law shall prescribe. For each
Senator there shall be elected an alternate.
B. The Senate shall be renewed one-half every two years. The
Senators named in the second place shall go out at the end of
the first two years, and thereafter the half who have held
longer.
C. The same qualifications are required for a Senator as for a
Deputy, except that of age, which must be at least thirty
years on the day of the opening of the session.
Article 59.
The Deputies and Senators are privileged from arrest for their
opinions manifested in the performance of their duties, and
shall never be liable to be called to account for them.
Article 60.
Each house shall judge of the election of its members, and
shall solve the doubts which may arise regarding them.
Article 61.
The houses may not open their sessions nor perform their
functions without the presence in the Senate of at least
two-thirds, and in the House of Deputies of more than one-half
of the whole number of their members, but those present of one
or the other body must meet on the day indicated by the law
and compel the attendance of absent members under penalties
which the law shall designate.
Article 62.
The Congress shall have each year two periods of ordinary
sessions: the first, which may be prorogued for thirty days,
shall begin on the 16th of September and end on the 15th of
December, and the second, which may be prorogued for fifteen
days, shall begin the 1st of April and end the last day of
May.
Article 63.
At the opening of the sessions of the Congress the President
of the Union shall be present and shall pronounce a discourse
in which he shall set forth the state of the country. The
President of the Congress shall reply in general terms.
Article 64.
Every resolution of the Congress shall have the character of a
law or decree. The laws and decrees shall be communicated to
the Executive, signed by the Presidents of both houses and by
a Secretary of each of them, and shall be promulgated in this
form: "The Congress of the United States of Mexico decrees:"
(Text of the law or decree.)
Article 65.
The right to initiate laws or decrees belongs:
I. To the President of the Union.
II. To the Deputies and Senators of the general Congress.
III. To the Legislatures of the States.
Article 66.
Bills presented by the President of the Republic, by the
Legislatures of the States, or by deputations from the same,
shall pass immediately to a committee. Those which the
Deputies or the Senators may present shall be subjected to the
procedure which the rules of debate may prescribe.
Article 67.
Every bill which shall be rejected in the house where it
originated, before passing to the other house, shall not again
be presented during the sessions of that year.
Article 68.
The second period of sessions shall be destined, in all
preference, to the examination of and action upon the
estimates of the following fiscal year, to passing the
necessary appropriations to cover the same, and to the
examination of the accounts of the past year, which the
Executive shall present.
Article 69.
The last day but one of the first period of sessions the
Executive shall present to the House of Deputies the bill of
appropriations for the next year following and the accounts of
the preceding year. Both shall pass to a committee of five
Representatives appointed on the same day, which shall be
under obligation to examine said documents, and present a
report on them at the second session of the second period.
Article 70.
The formation of the laws and of the decrees may begin
indiscriminately in either of the two houses, with the
exception of bills which treat of loans, taxes, or imposts, or
of the recruiting of troops, all of which must be discussed
first in the House of Deputies.
{562}
Article 71.
Every bill, the consideration of which does not belong
exclusively to one of the houses, shall be discussed
successively in both, the rules of debate being observed with
reference to the form, the intervals, and manner of proceeding
in discussions and voting.
A. A bill having been approved in the house where it
originated, shall pass for its discussion to the other house.
If the latter body should approve it, it will be remitted to
the Executive, who, if he shall have no observations to make,
shall publish it immediately.
B. Every bill shall be considered as approved by the Executive
if not returned with observations to the house where it
originated within ten working days, unless during this term
Congress shall have closed or suspended its sessions, in which
case the return must be made the first working day on which it
shall meet.
C. A bill rejected wholly or in part by the Executive must be
returned with his observations to the house where it
originated. It shall be discussed again by this body, and if
it should be confirmed by an absolute majority of votes, it
shall pass again to the other house. If by this house it
should be sanctioned with the same majority, the bill shall be
a law or decree, and shall be returned to the Executive for
promulgation. The voting on the law or decree shall be by
name.
D. If any bill should be rejected wholly in the house in which
it did not originate, it shall be returned to that in which it
originated with the observations which the former shall have
made upon it. If having been examined anew it should be
approved by the absolute majority of the members present, it
shall be returned to the house which rejected it, which shall
again take it into consideration, and if it should approve it
by the same majority it shall pass to the Executive, to be
treated in accordance with division A; but, if it should
reject it, it shall not be presented again until the following
sessions.
E. If a bill should be rejected only in part, or modified, or
receive additions by the house of revision, the new discussion
in the house where it originated shall treat only of the
rejected part, or of the amendments or additions, without
being able to alter in any manner the articles approved. If
the additions or amendments made by the house of revision
should be approved by the absolute majority of the votes
present in the house where it originated, the whole bill shall
be passed to the Executive, to be treated in accordance with
division A. But if the additions or amendments made by the
house of revision should be rejected by the majority of the
votes in the house where it originated, they shall be returned
to the former, in order that the reasons of the latter may be
taken into consideration; and if by the absolute majority of
the votes present said additions or amendments shall be
rejected in this second revision, the bill, in so far as it
has been approved by both houses, shall be passed to the
Executive, to be treated in accordance with division A; but if
the house of revision should insist, by the absolute majority
of the votes present, on said additions or amendments, the
whole bill shall not be again presented until the following
sessions, unless both houses agree by the absolute majority of
their members present that the law or decree shall be issued
solely with the articles approved, and that the parts added or
amended shall be reserved to be examined and voted in the
following sessions.
F. In the interpretation, amendment, or repeal of the laws or
decrees, the rules established for their formation shall be
observed.
G. Both houses shall reside in the same place, and they shall
not remove to another without first agreeing to the removal
and on the time and manner of making it, designating the same
point for the meeting of both. But if both houses, agreeing to
the removal, should differ as to time, manner, or place, the
Executive shall terminate the difference by choosing one of
the places in question. Neither house shall suspend its
sessions for more than three days without the consent of the
other.
H. When the general Congress meets in extra sessions, it shall
occupy itself exclusively with the object or objects
designated in the summons; and if the special business shall
not have been completed on the day on which the regular
session should open, the extra sessions shall be closed
nevertheless, leaving the points pending to be treated of in
the regular sessions. The Executive of the Union shall not
make observations on the resolutions of the Congress when this
body prorogues its sessions or exercises functions of an
electoral body or a jury.
Article 72.
The Congress has power:
I. To admit new States or Territories into the Federal Union,
incorporating them in the nation.
II. To erect Territories into States when they shall have a
population of eighty thousand inhabitants and the necessary
elements to provide for their political existence.
III. To form new States within the limits of those existing,
it being necessary to this end:
1. That the fraction or fractions which asked to be erected
into a State shall number a population of at least one hundred
and twenty thousand inhabitants.
2. That it shall be proved before Congress that they have
elements sufficient to provide for their political existence.
3. That the Legislatures of the States, the territories of
which are in question, shall have been heard on the expediency
or inexpediency of the establishment of the new State, and
they shall be obliged to make their report within six months,
counted from the day on which the communication relating to it
shall have been remitted to them.
4. That the Executive of the Federation shall likewise be
heard, who shall send his report within seven days, counted
from the date on which he shall have been asked for it.
5. That the establishment of the new State shall have been
voted for by two-thirds of the Deputies and Senators present
in their respective houses.
6. That the resolution of Congress shall have been ratified by
the majority of the Legislatures of the States, after
examining a copy of the proceedings; provided that the
Legislatures of the States whose territory is in question
shall have given their consent.
7. If the Legislatures of the States whose territory is in
question shall not have given their consent, the ratification
mentioned in the preceding clause must be made by two-thirds
of the Legislatures of the other States.
A. The exclusive powers of the House of Deputies are:
I. To constitute itself an Electoral College in order to
exercise the powers which the law may assign to it, in respect
to the election of the Constitutional President of the
Republic, Magistrates of the Supreme Court, and Senators for
the Federal District.
II. To judge and decide upon the resignations which the
President of the Republic or the Magistrates of the Supreme
Court of Justice may make. The same power belongs to it in
treating of licenses solicited by the first.
III. To watch over, by means of an inspecting committee from
its own body, the exact performance of the business of the
chief auditorship.
IV. To appoint the principal officers and other employés of
the same.
V. To constitute itself a jury of accusation, for the high
functionaries of whom Article 103 of this Constitution treats.
VI. To examine the accounts which the Executive must present
annually, to approve the annual estimate of expenses, and to
initiate the taxes which in its judgment ought to be decreed
to cover these expenses.
{563}
B. The exclusive powers of the Senate are:
I. To approve the treaties and diplomatic conventions which
the Executive may make with foreign powers.
II. To ratify the appointments which the President of the
Republic may make of ministers, diplomatic agents,
consuls-general, superior employés of the Treasury,
colonels and other superior officers of the national army
and navy, on the terms which the law shall provide.
III. To authorize the Executive to permit the departure of
national troops beyond the limits of the Republic, the
passage of foreign troops through the national territory,
the station of squadrons of other powers for more than a
month in the waters of the Republic.
IV. To give its consent in order that the Executive may
dispose of the national guard outside of their respective
States or Territories, determining the necessary force.
V. To declare, when the Constitutional legislative and
executive powers of a State shall have disappeared, that
the case has arrived for appointing to it a provisional
Governor, who shall call elections in conformity with the
Constitutional laws of the said State. The appointment of
Governor shall be made by the Federal Executive with the
approval of the Senate, and in its recesses with the
approval of the Permanent Commission. Said functionary
shall not be elected Constitutional Governor at the
elections which are had in virtue of the summons which he
shall issue.
VI. To decide political questions which may arise between
the powers of a State, when any of them may appear with
this purpose in the Senate, or when on account of said
questions Constitutional order shall have been interrupted
during a conflict of arms. In this case the Senate shall
dictate its resolution, being subject to the general
Constitution of the Republic and to that of the State. The
law shall regulate the exercise of this power and that of
the preceding.
VII. To constitute itself a jury of judgment in accordance
with Article 105 of this Constitution.
C. Each of the houses may, without the intervention of the
other:
I. Dictate economic resolutions relative to its internal
regimen.
II. Communicate within itself, and with the Executive of
the Union, by means of committees from its own body.
III. Appoint the employés of its secretaryship, and make
the internal regulations for the same.
IV. Issue summons for extraordinary elections, with the
object of filling the vacancies of their respective
members.
IV. To regulate definitely the limits of the States,
terminating the differences which may arise between them
relative to the demarcation of their respective
territories, except when these difficulties have a
contentious character.
V. To change the residence of the supreme powers of the
Federation.
VI. To establish the internal order of the Federal District
and Territories, taking as a basis that the citizens shall
choose by popular election the political, municipal, and
judicial authorities, and designating the taxes necessary
to cover their local expenditure.
VII. To approve the estimates of the Federal expenditure,
which the Executive must annually present to it, and to
impose the necessary taxes to cover them.
VIII. To give rules under which the Executive may make
loans on the credit of the nation; to approve said loans,
and to recognize and order the payment of the national
debt.
IX. To establish tariffs on foreign commerce, and to
prevent, by means of general laws, onerous restrictions
from being established with reference to the commerce
between the States.
X. To issue codes, obligatory throughout the Republic, of
mines and commerce, comprehending in this last banking
institutions.
XI. To create and suppress public Federal employments and
to establish, augment, or diminish their salaries.
XII. To ratify the appointments which the Executive may
make of ministers, diplomatic agents, and consuls, of the
higher employés of the Treasury, of the colonels and other
superior officers of the national army and navy.
XIII. To approve the treaties, contracts, or diplomatic
conventions which the Executive may make.
XIV. To declare war in view of the data which the Executive
may present to it.
XV. To regulate the manner in which letters of marque may
be issued; to dictate laws according to which must be
declared good or bad the prizes on sea and land, and to
issue laws relating to maritime rights in peace and war.
XVI. To permit or deny the entrance of foreign troops into
the territory of the Republic, and to consent to the
station of squadrons of other powers for more than a month
in the waters of the Republic.
XVII. To permit the departure of national troops beyond the
limits of the Republic.
[Footnote: Amended by Section B, Clause III., Article 72,
of the law of the 13th of November, 1874.]
XVIII. To raise and maintain the army and navy of the
Union, and to regulate their organization and service.
XIX. To establish regulations with the purpose of
organizing, arming, and disciplining the national guard,
reserving respectively to the citizens who compose it the
appointment of the commanders and officers, and to the
States the power of instructing it in conformity with the
discipline prescribed by said regulations.
XX. To give its consent in order that the Executive may
control the national guard outside of its respective States
and Territories, determining the necessary force.
XXI. To dictate laws on naturalization, colonization, and
citizenship.
XXII. To dictate laws on the general means of communication
and on the post-office and mails.
XXIII. To establish mints, fixing the conditions of their
operation, to determine the value of foreign money, and
adopt a general system of weights and measures.
XXIV. To fix rules to which must be subject the occupation
and sale of public lands and the price of these lands.
XXV. To grant pardons for crimes cognizable by the
tribunals of the Federation.
XXVI. To grant rewards or recompense for eminent services
rendered to the country or humanity.
XXVII. To prorogue for thirty working days the first period
of its ordinary sessions.
XXVIII. To form rules for its internal regulation, to take
the necessary measures to compel the attendance of absent
members, and to correct the faults or omissions of those
present.
XXIX. To appoint and remove freely the employés of its
secretaryship and those of the chief auditorship, which
shall be organized in accordance with the provisions of the
law.
XXX. To make all laws which may be necessary and proper to
render effective the foregoing powers and all others
granted by this Constitution and the authorities of the
Union.
[Footnote: See respecting this Article the additions A, B,
and C to Article 72 of the law of the 13th of November,
already cited.]
{564}
Article 73.
During the recess of Congress there shall be a Permanent
Deputation composed of twenty-nine members, of whom fifteen
shall be Deputies and fourteen Senators, appointed by their
respective houses the evening before the close of the
sessions.
Article 74.
The attributes of the Permanent Deputation are:
I. To give its consent to the use of the national guard in the
cases mentioned in Article 72, Clause XX.
II. To determine by itself, or on the proposal of the
Executive, after hearing him in the first place, the summons
of Congress, or of one house alone, for extra sessions, the
vote of two-thirds of the members present being necessary in
both cases. The summons shall designate the object or objects
of the extra sessions.
III. To approve the appointments which are referred to in
Article 85, Clause III.
IV. To administer the oath of office to the President of the
Republic, and to the Justices of the Supreme Court, in the
cases provided by this Constitution.
[Footnote: See the Amendment of September 25, 1873,
Article 4.]
V. To report upon all the business not disposed of, in order
that the Legislature which follows may immediately take up
such unfinished business.
Article 75.
The exercise of the supreme executive power of the Union is
vested in a single individual, who shall be called "President
of the United States of Mexico."
Article 76.
The election of President shall be indirect in the first
degree, and by secret ballot, in such manner as may be
prescribed by the electoral law.
Article 77.
To be eligible to the position of President, the candidate
must be a Mexican citizen by birth, in the exercise of his
rights, be fully thirty-five years old at the time of the
election, not belong to the ecclesiastical order, and reside
in the country at the time the election is held.
Article 78.
The President shall enter upon the performance of the duties
of his office on the first of December, and shall continue in
office four years, being eligible for the Constitutional
period immediately following; but he shall remain incapable
thereafter to occupy the presidency by a new election until
four years shall have passed, counting from the day on which
he ceased to perform his functions.
Article 79.
In the temporary default of the President of the Republic, and
in the vacancy before the installation of the newly-elected
President, the citizen who may have performed the duties of
President or Vice-President of the Senate, or of the Permanent
Commission in the periods of recess, during the month prior to
that in which said default may have occurred, shall enter upon
the exercise of the executive power of the Union.
A. The President and Vice-President of the Senate and of the
Permanent Commission shall not be reëlected to those offices
until a year after having held them.
B. If the period of sessions of the Senate or of the Permanent
Commission shall begin in the second half of a month, the
default of the President of the Republic shall be covered by
the President or Vice-President who may have acted in the
Senate or in the Permanent Commission during the first half of
the said month.
C. The Senate and the Permanent Commission shall renew, the
last day of each month, their Presidents and Vice-Presidents.
For these offices the Permanent Commission shall elect,
alternatively, in one month two Deputies and in the following
month two Senators.
D. When the office of President of the Republic is vacant, the
functionary who shall take it constitutionally as his
substitute must issue, within the definite term of fifteen
days, the summons to proceed to a new election, which shall be
held within the term of three months, and in accordance with
the provisions of Article 76 of this Constitution. The
provisional President shall not be eligible to the presidency
at the elections which are held to put an end to his
provisional term.
E. If, on account of death or any other reason, the
functionaries who, according to this law, should take the
place of the President of the Republic, might not be able in
any absolute manner to do so, it shall be taken, under
predetermined conditions, by the citizen who may have been
President or Vice-President of the Senate or the Permanent
Commission in the month prior to that in which they discharged
those offices.
F. When the office of President of the Republic shall become
vacant within the last six months of the constitutional
period, the functionary who shall take the place of the
President shall terminate this period.
G. To be eligible to the position of President or
Vice-President of the Senate or of the Permanent Commission,
one must be a Mexican citizen by birth.
H. If the vacancy in the office of President of the Republic
should occur when the Senate and Permanent Commission are
performing their functions in extra sessions, the President of
the Commission shall fill the vacancy, under conditions
indicated in this article.
I. The Vice-President of the Senate or of the Permanent
Commission shall enter upon the performance of the functions
which this Article confers upon them, in the vacancies of the
office of President of the Senate or of the Permanent
Commission, and in the periods only while the impediment
lasts.
J. The newly-elected President shall enter upon the discharge
of his duties, at the latest, sixty days after that of the
election. In case the House of Deputies shall not be in
session, it shall be convened in extra session, in order to
make the computation of votes within the term mentioned.
Article 80.
In the vacancy of the office of President, the period of the
newly-elected President shall be computed from the first of
December of the year prior to that of his election, provided
he may not have taken possession of his office on the date
which Article 78 determines.
Article 81.
The office of President of the Union may not be resigned,
except for grave cause, approved by Congress, before whom the
resignation shall be presented.
Article 82.
If for any reason the election of President shall not have
been made and published by the first of December, on which the
transfer of the office should be made, or the President-elect
shall not have been ready to enter upon the discharge of his
duties, the term of the former President shall end
nevertheless, and the supreme executive power shall be
deposited provisionally in the functionary to whom it belongs
according to the provisions of the reformed Article 79 of this
Constitution.
{565}
Article 83.
The President, on taking possession of his office, shall take
an oath before Congress, and in its recess before the
Permanent Commission, under the following formula: "I swear to
perform loyally and patriotically the duties of President of
the United States of Mexico, according to the Constitution,
and seek in everything for the welfare and prosperity of the
Union."
[Footnote: See the Amendments and Additions of September 25,
1873.]
Article 84.
The President may not remove from the place of the residence
of the Federal powers, nor lay aside the exercise of his
functions, without grave cause, approved by the Congress, and
in its recesses by the Permanent Commission.
Article 85.
The powers and obligations of the President are the following:
I. To promulgate and execute the laws passed by the Congress
of the Union, providing, in the administrative sphere, for
their exact observance.
II. To appoint and remove freely the Secretaries of the
Cabinet, to remove the diplomatic agents and superior employés
of the Treasury, and to appoint and remove freely the other
employés of the Union whose appointment and removal are not
otherwise provided for in the Constitution or in the laws.
III. To appoint ministers, diplomatic agents, consuls-general,
with the approval of Congress, and, in its recess, of the
Permanent Commission.
IV. To appoint, with the approval of Congress, the colonels
and other superior officers of the national army and navy, and
the superior employés of the treasury.
V. To appoint the other officers of the national army and
navy, according to the laws.
VI. To control the permanent armed force by sea and land for
the internal security and external defence of the Federation.
VII. To control the national guard for the same objects within
the limits established by Article 72, Clause XX.
VIII. To declare war in the name of the United States of
Mexico, after the passage of the necessary law by the Congress
of the Union.
IX. To grant letters of marque, subject to bases fixed by the
Congress.
X. To direct diplomatic negotiations and make treaties with
foreign powers, submitting them for the ratification of the
Federal Congress.
XI. To receive ministers and other envoys from foreign powers.
XII. To convoke Congress in extra sessions when the Permanent
Commission shall consent to it.
XIII. To furnish the judicial power with that assistance which
may be necessary for the prompt exercise of its functions.
XIV. To open all classes of ports, to establish maritime and
frontier custom-houses and designate their situation.
XV. To grant, in accordance with the laws, pardons to
criminals sentenced for crimes within the jurisdiction of the
Federal tribunals.
XVI. To grant exclusive privileges, for a limited time and
according to the proper law, to discoverers, inventors, or
perfecters of any branch of industry.
Article 86.
For the dispatch of the business of the administrative
department of the Federation there shall be the number of
Secretaries which the Congress may establish by a law, which
shall provide for the distribution of business and prescribe
what shall be in charge of each Secretary.
Article 87.
To be a Secretary of the Cabinet it is required that one shall
be a Mexican citizen by birth, in the exercise of his rights,
and fully twenty-five years old.
Article 88.
All the regulations, decrees, and orders of the President must
be signed by the Secretary of the Cabinet who is in charge of
the department to which the subject belongs. Without this
requisite they shall not be obeyed.
Article 89.
The Secretaries of the Cabinet, as soon as the sessions of the
first period shall be opened, shall render an account to the
Congress of the state of their respective departments.
Article 90.
The exercise of the judicial power of the Federation is vested
in a Supreme Court of Justice and in the district and circuit
courts.
Article 91.
The Supreme Court of Justice shall be composed of eleven
judges, four supernumeraries, one fiscal, and one
attorney-general.
Article 92.
Each of the members of the Supreme Court of Justice shall
remain in office six years, and his election shall be indirect
in the first degree, under conditions established by the
electoral law.
Article 93.
In order to be elected a member of the Supreme Court of
Justice it is necessary that one be learned in the science of
the law in the judgment of the electors, more than thirty-five
years old, and a Mexican citizen by birth, in the exercise of
his rights.
Article 94.
The members of the Supreme Court of Justice, on entering upon
the exercise of their charge, shall take an oath before
Congress, and, in its recesses, before the Permanent
Commission, in the following form: "Do you swear to perform
loyally and patriotically the charge of Magistrate of the
Supreme Court of Justice, which the people have conferred upon
you in conformity with the Constitution, seeking in everything
the welfare and prosperity of the Union?"
[Footnote: See Additions to the Constitution,
September 25, 1873. ]
Article 95.
A member of the Supreme Court of Justice may resign his office
only for grave cause, approved by the Congress, to whom the
resignation shall be presented. In the recesses of the
Congress the judgment shall be rendered by the Permanent
Commission.
Article 96.
The law shall establish and organize the circuit and district
courts.
Article 97.
It belongs to the Federal tribunals to take cognizance of:
I. All controversies which may arise in regard to the
fulfilment and application of the Federal laws, except in the
case in which the application affects only private interests;
such a case falls within the competence of the local judges
and tribunals of the common order of the States, of the
Federal District, and of the Territory of Lower California.
II. All cases pertaining to maritime law.
III. Those in which the Federation may be a party.
IV. Those that may arise between two or more States.
V. Those that may arise between a State and one or more
citizens of another State.
VI. Civil or criminal cases that may arise under treaties with
foreign powers.
VII. Cases concerning diplomatic agents and consuls.
Article 98.
It belongs to the Supreme Court of Justice, in the first
instance, to take cognizance of controversies which may arise
between one State and another, and of those in which the Union
may be a party.
Article 99.
It belongs also to the Supreme Court of Justice to determine
the questions of jurisdiction which may arise between the
Federal tribunals, between these and those of the States, or
between the courts of one State and those of another.
Article 100.
In the other cases comprehended in Article 97, the Supreme
Court of Justice shall be a court of appeal or, rather, of
last resort, according to the graduation which the law may
make in the jurisdiction of the circuit and district courts.
{566}
Article 101.
The tribunals of the Federation shall decide all questions
which arise:
I. Under laws or acts of whatever authority which violate
individual guarantees.
II. Under laws or acts of the State authority which violate or
restrain the sovereignty of the States.
III. Under laws or acts of the State authority which invade
the sphere of the Federal authority.
Article 102.
All the judgments which the preceding article mentions shall
be had on petition of the aggrieved party, by means of
judicial proceedings and forms which shall be prescribed by
law. The sentence shall be always such as to affect private
individuals only, limiting itself to defend and protect them
in the special case to which the process refers, without
making any general declaration respecting the law or act which
gave rise to it.
Article 103.
The Senators, the Deputies, the members of the Supreme Court
of Justice, and the Secretaries of the Cabinet are responsible
for the common crimes which they may commit during their terms
of office, and for the crimes, misdemeanors, and negligence
into which they may fall in the performance of the duties of
said office. The Governors of the States are likewise
responsible for the infraction of the Constitution and Federal
laws. The President of the Republic is also responsible; but
during the term of his office he may be accused only for the
crimes of treason against the country, express violation of
the Constitution, attack on the freedom of election, and grave
crimes of the common order. The high functionaries of the
Federation shall not enjoy any Constitutional privilege for
the official crimes, misdemeanors, or negligence into which
they may fall in the performance of any employment, office, or
public commission which they may have accepted during the
period for which, in conformity with the law, they shall have
been elected. The same shall happen with respect to those
common crimes which they may commit during the performance of
said employment, office, or commission. In order that the
cause may be initiated when the high functionary shall have
returned to the exercise of his proper functions, proceeding
should be undertaken in accordance with the provision of
Article 104 of this Constitution.
Article 104.
If the crime should be a common one, the House of
Representatives, formed into a grand jury, shall declare, by
an absolute majority of votes, whether there is or is not
ground to proceed against the accused. In the negative case,
there shall be no ground for further proceedings; in the
affirmative, the accused shall be, by the said act, deprived
of his office, and subjected to the action of the ordinary
tribunals.
Article 105.
The houses shall take cognizance of official crimes, the House
of Deputies as a jury of accusation, the Senators as a jury of
judgment. The jury of accusation shall have for its object to
declare, by an absolute majority of votes, whether the accused
is or is not culpable. If the declaration should be
absolutory, the functionary shall continue in the exercise of
his office; if it should be condemnatory, he shall be
immediately deprived of his office, and shall be placed at the
disposal of the Senate. The latter, formed into a jury of
judgment, and, with the presence of the criminal and of the
accuser, if there should be one, shall proceed to apply, by an
absolute majority of votes, the punishment which the law
designates.
Article 106.
A judgment of responsibility for official crimes having been
pronounced, no favor of pardon may be extended to the
offender.
Article 107.
The responsibility for official crimes and misdemeanors may be
required only during the period in which the functionary
remains in office, and one year thereafter.
Article 108.
With respect to demands of the Civil order, there shall be no
privilege or immunity for any public functionary.
Article 109.
The States shall adopt for their internal regimen the popular,
representative, republican form of government, and may provide
in their respective Constitutions for the reelection of the
Governors in accordance with what Article 78 provides for the
President of the Republic.
Article 110.
The States may regulate among themselves, by friendly
agreements, their respective boundaries; but those regulations
shall not be carried into effect without the approval of the
Congress of the Union.
Article 111.
The States may not in any case:
1. Form alliances, treaties, or coalitions with another State,
or with foreign powers, excepting the coalition which the
frontier States may make for offensive or defensive war
against the Indians.
II. Grant letters of marque or reprisal.
III. Coin money, or emit paper money or stamped paper.
Article 112.
Neither may any State, without the consent of the Congress of
the Union:
I. Establish tonnage duties, or any port duty, or impose taxes
or duties upon importations or exportations.
II. Have at any time permanent troops or vessels of war.
III. Make war by itself on any foreign power except in cases
of invasion or of such imminent peril as to admit of no delay.
In these cases the State shall give notice immediately to the
President of the Republic.
Article 113.
Each State is under obligation to deliver without delay the
criminals of other States to the authority that claims them.
Article 114.
The Governors of the States are obliged to publish and cause
to be obeyed the Federal laws.
Article 115.
In each State of the Federation entire faith and credit shall
be given to the public acts, records, and judicial proceedings
of all the other States. The Congress may, by means of general
laws, prescribe the manner of proving said acts, records, and
proceedings, and the effect thereof.
Article 116.
The powers of the Union are bound to protect the States
against all invasion or external violence. In case of
insurrection or internal disturbance they shall give them like
protection, provided the Legislature of the State, or the
Executive, if the Legislature is not in session, shall request
it.
Article 117.
The powers which are not expressly granted by this
Constitution to the Federal authorities are understood to be
reserved to the States.
Article 118.
No person may at the same time hold two Federal elective
offices; but if elected to two, he may choose which of them he
will fill.
Article 119.
No payment shall be made which is not comprehended in the
budget or determined by a subsequent law.
Article 120.
The President of the Republic, the members of the Supreme
Court of Justice, the Deputies, and other public officers of
the Federation, who are chosen by popular election, shall
receive a compensation for their services, which shall be
determined by law and paid by the Federal Treasury. This
compensation may not be renounced, and any law which augments
or diminishes it shall not have effect during the period for
which a functionary holds the office.
{567}
Article 121.
Every public officer, without any exception, before taking
possession of his office, shall take an oath to maintain this
Constitution and the laws which emanate from it.
[Footnote: See the Additions of September 25, 1873.]
Article 122.
In time of peace no military authority may exercise more
functions than those which have close connection with military
discipline. There shall be fixed and permanent military
commands only in the castles, fortresses, and magazines which
are immediately under the government of the Union; or in
encampments, barracks, or depots which may be established
outside of towns for stationing troops.
Article 123.
It belongs exclusively to the Federal authorities to exercise,
in matters of religious worship and external discipline, the
intervention which the laws may designate.
Article 124.
The States shall not impose any duty for the simple passage of
goods in the internal commerce. The Government of the Union
alone may decree transit duties, but only with respect to
foreign goods which cross the country by international or
interoceanic lines, without being on the national territory
more time than is necessary to traverse it and depart to the
foreign country. They shall not prohibit, either directly or
indirectly, the entrance to their territory, or the departure
from it, of any merchandise, except on police grounds; nor
burden the articles of national production on their departure
for a foreign country or for another State. The exemptions
from duties which they concede shall be general; they may not
be decreed in favor of the products of specified origin. The
quota of the import for a given amount of merchandise shall be
the same, whatever may have been its origin, and no heavier
burden may be assigned to it than that which the similar
products of the political entity in which the import is
decreed bear. The national merchandise shall not be submitted
to definite route nor to inspection or registry on the ways,
nor any fiscal document be demanded for its internal
circulation. Nor shall they burden foreign merchandise with a
greater quota than that which may have been permitted them by
the Federal law to receive.
Article 125.
The forts, military quarters, magazines, and other edifices
necessary to the government of the Union shall be under the
immediate inspection of the Federal authorities.
Article 126.
This Constitution, the laws of the Congress of the Union which
emanate from it, and all the treaties made or which shall be
made by the President of the Republic, with the approval of
Congress, shall be the supreme law of the whole Union. The
judges of each State shall be guided by said Constitution,
law, and treaties in spite of provisions to the contrary which
may appear in the Constitutions or laws of the States.
Article 127.
The present Constitution may be added to or reformed. In order
that additions or alterations may become part of the
Constitution, it is required that the Congress of the Union,
by a vote of two-thirds of the members present, shall agree to
the alterations or additions, and that these shall be approved
by the majority of the Legislatures of the States. The
Congress of the Union shall count the votes of the
Legislatures and make the declaration that the reforms or
additions have been approved.
Article 128.
This Constitution shall not lose its force and vigor even if
its observance be interrupted by a rebellion. In case that by
any public disturbance a government contrary to the principles
which it sanctions shall be established, as soon as the people
recover their liberty its observance shall be reestablished,
and in accordance with it and the laws which shall have been
issued in virtue of it, shall be judged not only those who
shall have figured in the government emanating from the
rebellion, but also those who shall have cooperated with it.
Additions.
Article 1.
The State and the Church are independent of one another. The
Congress may not pass laws establishing or prohibiting any
religion.
Article 2.
Marriage is a civil contract. This and the other acts relating
to the civil state of persons belong to the exclusive
jurisdiction of the functionaries and authorities of the civil
order, within limits provided by the laws, and they shall have
the force and validity which the same attribute to them.
Article 3.
No religious institution may acquire real estate or capital
fixed upon it, with the single exception established in
Article 27 of this Constitution.
Article 4.
The simple promise to speak the truth and to comply with the
obligations which have been incurred, shall be substituted for
the religious oath, with its effects and penalties.
----------CONSTITUTION OF MEXICO: End----------
CONSTITUTION OF NETHERLANDS KINGDOM.
After 1830, this became the Kingdom of Holland.
See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1830-1832, and 1830-1884.
----------NETHERLANDS: End----------
CONSTITUTION OF NORWAY.
"On May 17, 1814, … a constitution was granted to Norway.
The Fundamental Law of the constitution (Grundlöv), which
almost every peasant farmer now-a-days has framed and hung up
in the chief room of his house, bears the date the 4th of
November 1814."
_C. F. Keary, Norway and the Norwegians, chapter 13._
The following the text of the constitution as granted in 1814:
Title I.
Article 1.
The kingdom of Norway is a free, independent, undivisible, and
inalienable state, united to Sweden under the same king. The
form of its government is limited, hereditary, and
monarchical.
{568}
Article 2.
The Lutheran evangelical religion shall continue to be the
ruling religion of the kingdom; those of the inhabitants which
profess it are bound to bring up their children in its tenets;
Jesuits and monastic orders shall not be prohibited in the
kingdom. The admission of Jews into the kingdom shall always
be, as formerly, prohibited.
Title II.
Article 1.
The executive power is declared to be in the person of the
king.
Article 2.
The king shall always profess the evangelical Lutheran
religion, which he shall maintain and protect.
Article 3.
The person of the king is sacred: he can neither be blamed or
accused.
Article 4.
The succession is lineal, and collateral, such as it is
determined by the order of succession decreed by the general
estates of Sweden, and sanctioned by the king in the Act of
the 26th September 1810, of which a translation is annexed to
this Constitution. Of the number of legitimate heirs, is
comprehended the child in its mother's womb, which, as soon as
it shall be born, after the death of its father, takes the
place which is due to him in the line of succession. When a
Prince, heir of the re-united crowns of Norway and Sweden,
shall be born, his name, and the day of his birth shall be
announced at the first Storthing, and inscribed in the
registers.
Article 5.
Should there not be found any prince, a legitimate heir to the
throne, the king can propose his successor at the Storthing of
Norway, and at the same time to the states general of Sweden.
As soon as the king shall have made the proposition, the
representatives of the two nations shall choose from among
them a committee, invested with the right of determining the
election, in case the king's proposition should not, by the
plurality of voices, be approved of separately by the
representatives of each of the countries. The number of
members of this committee, shall be composed of an equal
number of Norwegians and Swedes, so that the step to follow in
the election shall be regulated by a law which the king shall
propose at the same time to the next Storthing, and the states
general of Sweden. They shall draw by lot one out of the
committee for its member.
Article 6.
The Storthing of Norway, and the states general of Sweden
shall concert to fix by a law the king's majority; if they
cannot agree, a committee, taken from the representatives of
the two nations, shall decide it in the manner established by
article 5th, title 2nd. As soon as the king shall have
attained the years of majority fixed by the law, he shall
publicly declare that he is of age.
[Footnote: Storthing is the national assembly, or general
estates of the kingdom.]
[Footnote: A law of the Storthing, 13th July 1815, and
sanctioned by the king, declared that the king is major on
arriving at the age of eighteen years.]
Article 7.
When the king comes of age he shall take into his hands the
reins of government, and make the following oath to the
Storthing: "I swear, on my soul and conscience, to govern the
kingdom of Norway conformably to its constitution and laws."
If the Storthing is not then assembled, this oath shall be
deposited in writing in the council, and solemnly repeated by
the king at the first Storthing, either vivâ voce or by
writing, by the person whom he shall have appointed to this
effect.
Article 8.
The coronation of the king shall take place when he is of age,
in the cathedral of Drontheim, at the time and with those
ceremonies that shall be fixed by himself.
Article 9.
The King shall pass some time in Norway yearly, unless this is
prevented by urgent circumstances.
Article 10.
The king shall exclusively choose a council of Norwegians,
citizens, who shall have attained the seventieth year of their
age. This council shall be composed at least of a minister of
state, and seven other members. In like manner the king can
create a viceroy or a government. The king shall arrange the
affairs between the members of the council, in such manner as
he shall consider expedient. Besides these ordinary members of
council, the king, or in his absence the viceroy (or the
government jointly with the ordinary members of council) may
on particular occasions, call other Norwegians, citizens, to
sit there, provided they are not members of the Storthing. The
father and son, or two brothers, shall not, at the same time,
have a seat in the council.
Article 11.
The king shall appoint a governor of the kingdom in his
absence, and on failure it shall be governed by the viceroy or
a governor, with five at least of the members of council. They
shall govern the kingdom in the name and behalf of the king;
and they shall observe inviolably, as much the principles
contained in this fundamental law as those relative precepts
the king shall lay down in his instructions. They shall make a
humble report to the king upon those affairs they have
decided. All matters shall be decided by plurality of votes.
If the votes happen to be equal, the viceroy or governor, or
in their absence the first member of council, shall have two.
Article 12.
The prince royal or his eldest son can be viceroy; but this
can only occur when they have attained the majority of the
king. In the case of a governor, either a Norwegian or a Swede
may be nominated. The viceroy shall remain in the kingdom, and
shall not be allowed to reside in a foreign one beyond three
months each year. When the king shall be present, the
viceroy's functions shall cease. If there is no viceroy, but
only a governor, the functions of the latter shall also cease,
in which event he is only the first member of council.
Article 13.
During the residence of the king in Sweden, he shall always
have near him the minister of state of Norway, and two of the
members of the Norwegian council, when they shall be annually
changed. These are charged with similar duties, and the same
constitutional responsibility attaches to them as to the
sitting council in Norway; and it is only in their presence
that state affairs shall be decided by the king. All petitions
addressed to the king by Norwegian citizens ought, first, to
be transmitted to the Norwegian council, that they may be duly
considered previously to decisions being pronounced. In
general, no affairs ought to be decided before the council has
expressed an opinion, in case it should be met with important
objections. The minister of state of Norway ought to report
the affairs, and he shall be responsible for expedition in the
resolutions which shall have been taken.
Article 14.
The king shall regulate public worship and its rites, as well
as all assemblies that have religion for their object, so that
ministers of religion may observe their forms prescribed to
them.
{569}
Article 15.
The king can give and abolish ordinances which respect
commerce, the custom-house, manufactures, and police. They
shall not, however, be contrary to the constitution nor the
laws adopted by the Storthing. They shall have provisional
force until the next Storthing.
Article 16.
The king shall in general regulate the taxes imposed by the
Storthing. The public treasurer of Norway shall remain in
Norway, and the revenues shall only be employed towards the
expenses of Norway.
Article 17.
The king shall superintend the manner in which the domains and
crown property of the state are employed and governed, in the
manner fixed by the Storthing, and which shall be most
advantageous to the country.
Article 18.
The king in council has the right to pardon criminals when the
supreme tribunal has pronounced its opinion. The criminal has
the choice of receiving pardon from the king or of submitting
to the punishment to which he is condemned. In the causes
which the Odelsthing would have ordered to be carried to the
Rigsret, there can be no other pardon but that which shall
liberate from a capital punishment.
Article 19.
The king, after having heard his Norwegian council, shall
dispose of all the civil, ecclesiastic, and military
employments. Those who assist in the functions shall swear
obedience and fidelity to the constitution and to the king.
The princes of the royal family cannot be invested with any
civil employment; yet the prince royal, or his eldest son, may
be nominated viceroy.
Article 20.
The governor of the kingdom, the minister of state, other
members of council, and those employed in the functions
connected with these offices, the envoys and consuls, superior
magistrates, civil and ecclesiastic commanders of regiments,
and other military bodies, governors of fortresses, and
commanders-in-chief of ships of war, shall, without previous
arrest, be deposed by the king and his Norwegian council. As
to the pension to be granted to those employed they shall be
decided by the first Storthing. In the mean time, they shall
enjoy two-third parts of their former salary. The others
employed can only be suspended by the king, and they shall
afterwards be brought before the tribunals, but cannot be
deposed excepting by order of an arrest, and the king cannot
make them change their situations contrary to their will.
Article 21.
The king can confer orders of knighthood on whomsoever he
chooses, in reward of distinguished services, which shall be
published; but he can confer no other rank, with the title,
than that which is attached to every employment. An order of
knighthood does not liberate the person on whom it is
conferred from those duties common to all citizens, and
particular titles are not conferred in order to obtain
situations in the state. Such persons shall preserve the title
and rank attached to those situations which they have
occupied. No person can, for the future, obtain personal,
mixed, or hereditary privileges.
Article 22.
The king elects and dismisses, whenever he thinks proper, all
the officers attached to his court.
Article 23.
The king is commander-in-chief of all the forces, by sea and
land, in the kingdom, and these cannot be increased or
diminished without the consent of the Storthing. They will not
be ceded to the service of any foreign power, and troops
belonging to a foreign power (except auxiliary troops in case
of a hostile invasion,) cannot enter the country without the
consent of the Storthing. During peace, the Norwegian troops
shall be stationed in Norway, and not in Sweden.
Notwithstanding this the king may have in Sweden a Norwegian
guard, composed of volunteers, and may for a short time, not
exceeding six weeks in a year, assemble troops in the environs
of the two countries, for exercising; but in case there are
more than 3,000 men, composing the army of one of the two
countries, they cannot in time of peace enter the other.
[Footnote: The law of the Storthing, 5th July 1816, bears,
that troops of the line shall be employed beyond the frontiers
of the kingdom, and the interpretation given by it to that law
is, that troops of the line shall be employed beyond the
frontiers of the two kingdoms.]
The Norwegian army and gun-boats shall not be employed without
the consent of the Storthing. The Norwegian fleet shall have
dry docks, and during peace its stations and harbours in
Norway. Ships of war of both countries shall be supplied with
the seamen of the other, so long as they shall voluntarily
engage to serve. The landwehr, and other Norwegian forces,
which are not calculated among the number of troops, of the
line, shall never be employed beyond the frontiers of the
kingdom of Norway.
Article 24.
The king has the right of assembling troops, commencing war,
making peace, concluding and dissolving treaties, sending
ministers to, and receiving those of, foreign courts. When he
begins war he ought to advise the council of Norway, consult
it, and order it to prepare an address on the state of the
kingdom, relative to its finances, and proper means of
defence. On this the king shall convoke the minister of state
of Norway, and those of the council of Sweden, at an
extraordinary assembly, when he shall explain all those
relative circumstances that ought to be taken into
consideration; with a representation of the Norwegian council,
and a similar one on the part of Sweden, upon the state of the
kingdom, shall then be presented. The king shall then require
advice upon these objects; and each shall be inserted in a
register, under the responsibility imposed by the
constitution, when the king shall then adopt that resolution
which he judges most, proper for the benefit of the state.
Article 25.
On this occasion all the members of council must be present,
if not prevented by some lawful cause, and no resolution ought
to be adopted unless one half of the members are present. In
Norwegian affairs, which, according to the fifteenth article,
are decided in Sweden, no resolution shall be taken unless the
minister of state of Norway and one of the members of council,
or two members, are present.
Article 26.
The representations respecting employments, and other
important acts, excepting those of a diplomatic and military
nature, properly so called, shall be referred to the council
by him who is one of the members in the department charged
with it, who shall accordingly draw up the resolution adopted
in council.
Article 27.
If any member of council is prevented from appearing, and
referring the affairs which belong to his peculiar department,
he shall be replaced in this office by one of the others
appointed to this purpose, either by the king, if personally
present, and if not, by him who has precedence in the council,
jointly with the other members composing it. Should several of
these be prevented from appearing, so that only one half of
the ordinary number is present, the other employed in the
offices shall in like manner have right to sit in council; and
in that event it shall be afterwards referred to the king, who
decides if they ought to continue to exercise this office.
{570}
Article 28.
The council shall keep a register of all affairs that may come
under its consideration. Every individual who sits in it shall
be at liberty to give his opinion freely, which the king is
obliged to hear; but it is reserved to his majesty to adopt
resolutions after he has consulted his own mind. If a member
of council finds that the king's resolution is contrary to the
form of government, the laws of the kingdom, or injurious to
the state, he shall consider it his duty to oppose it, and
record his opinion in the register accordingly; but he who
remains silent shall be presumed to have agreed with the king,
and shall be responsible for it, even in the case of being
referred to at a future period; and the Odelsthing is
empowered to bring him before the Rigsret.
Article 29.
All the orders issued by the king (military affairs excepted)
shall be countersigned by the Norwegian minister of state.
Article 30.
Resolutions made in absence of the king, by the council in
Norway, shall be publicly proclaimed and signed by the
viceroy, or the governor and council, and countersigned by him
who shall have referred them, and he is further responsible
for the accuracy and dispatch with the register in which the
resolution is entered.
Article 31.
All representations relative to the affairs of this country,
as well as writings concerning them, must be in the Norwegian
language.
Article 32.
The heir-apparent to the throne, if a son of the reigning
king, shall have the title of prince royal, the other
legitimate heirs to the crown shall be culled princes, and the
king's daughters princesses.
Article 33.
As soon as the heir shall have attained the age of eighteen,
he shall have a right to sit in council, without, however,
having a vote, or any responsibility.
Article 34.
No prince of the blood shall marry without permission of the
king, and in case of contravention, he shall forfeit his right
to the crown of Norway.
Article 35.
The princes and princesses of the royal family, shall not, so
far as respects their persons, be bound to appear before other
judges, but before the king or whomsoever he shall have
appointed for that purpose.
Article 36.
The minister of state of Norway, as well as the two members of
council who are near the king, shall have a seat and
deliberative voice in the Swedish council, where objects
relative to the two kingdoms shall be treated of. In affairs
of this nature the advice of the council ought also to be
understood, unless these require quick dispatch, so as not to
allow time.
Article 37.
If the king happens to die, and the heir to the throne is
under age, the council of Norway, and that of Sweden, shall
assemble, and mutually call a convocation of the Storthing in
Norway and Diet of Sweden.
Article 38.
Although the representatives of the two kingdoms should have
assembled, and regulated the administration during the king's
minority, a council composed of an equal number of Norwegian
and Swedish members shall govern the kingdoms, and follow
their fundamental reciprocal laws. The minister of state of
Norway who sits in this council, shall draw by ballot in order
to decide on which of its members the preference shall happen
to fall.
Article 39.
The regulations contained in the two last articles shall be
always equally adopted after the constitution of Sweden. It
belongs to the Swedish council, in this quality, to be at the
head of government.
Article 40.
With respect to more particular and necessary affairs that
might occur in cases under the three former articles, the king
shall propose to the first Storthing in Norway, and at the
first Diet in Sweden, a law having for its basis the principle
of a perfect equality existing between the two kingdoms.
Article 41.
The election of guardians to be at the head of government
during the king's minority, shall be made after the same rules
and manner formerly prescribed in the second title, Article
5th, concerning the election of an heir to the throne.
Article 42.
The individuals who in the cases under the 38th and 39th
articles, are at the head of government, shall be, the
Norwegians at the Storthing of Norway, and shall take the
following oath: "I swear, on my soul and conscience, to govern
the kingdom conformably to its constitution and laws;" and the
Swedes shall also make a similar oath. If there is not a
Storthing or Diet, it shall be deposited in writing in the
council, and afterwards repeated at the first of these when
they happen to assemble.
Article 43.
As soon as the governments have ceased, they shall be restored
to the king, and the Storthing.
Article 44.
If the Storthing is not convoked, agreeably to what is
expressed in the 38th and 39th articles, the supreme tribunal
shall consider it as an imperious duty, at the expiration of
four weeks, to call a meeting.
Article 45.
The charge of the education of the king, in case his father
may not have left in writing instructions regarding it, shall
be regulated in the manner laid down under the 5th and 41st
articles. It is held to be an invariable rule, that the king
during his minority shall learn the Norwegian language.
Article 46.
If the masculine line of the royal family is extinct, and
there has not been elected a successor to the throne, the
election of a new dynasty shall be proceeded in, and after the
manner prescribed under the 5th article. In the mean time the
executive power shall be exercised agreeably to the 41st
article.
Title III.
Article 1.
Legislative power is exercised by the Storthing, which is
constituted of two houses, namely, the Lagthing and
Odelsthing.
Article 2.
None shall have a right to vote but Norwegians, who have
attained twenty·five years, and resided in the country during
five years.
1. Those who are exercising, or who have exercised functions.
2. Possess land in the country, which has been let for more
than five years.
3. Are burgesses of some city, or possess either in it, or
some village, a house, or property of the value of at least
three hundred bank crowns in silver.
{571}
Article 3.
There shall be drawn up in cities by the magistrates, and in
every parish by the public authority and the priest, a
register of all the inhabitants who are voters. They shall
also note in it without delay, those changes which may
successively take place. Before being inscribed in the
register, everyone shall take an oath, before the tribunal, of
fidelity to the constitution.
4. Right of voting is suspended in the following cases:
1. By the accusation of crime before a tribunal;
2. By not attaining the proper age;
3. By insolvency or bankruptcy, until creditors have
obtained their payment in whole, unless it can be proved
that the former has arisen from fire, or other unforeseen
events.
5. The right of voting is forfeited definitively:
1. By condemnation to the house of correction, slavery, or
punishment for defamatory language;
2. By acceptance of the service of a foreign power, without
the consent of government.
3. By obtaining the right of citizen in a foreign country.
4. By conviction of having purchased and sold votes, and
having voted in more than one electoral assembly.
6. The electoral assemblies and districts are held every three
years, and shall finish before the end of the month of
December.
7. Electoral assemblies shall be held for the country, at the
manor-house of the parish, the church, town-hall, or some
other fit place. In the country they shall be directed by the
first minister and assistants; and in towns, by magistrates
and sheriffs; election shall be made in the order appointed by
the registers. Disputes concerning the right of voting shall
be decided by the directors of the assembly, from whose
judgment an appeal may be made to the Storthing.
8. Before proceeding to the election, the constitution shall
be read with a loud voice in the cities, by the first
magistrate, and in the country by the curate.
9. In cities, an elector shall be chosen by fifty eligible
inhabitants. They shall assemble eight days after, in the
place appointed by the magistrate, and choose, either from
amongst themselves, or from others who are eligible in the
department of their election, a fourth of their number to sit
at the Storthing, that is after the manner of three to six in
choosing one; seven to ten in electing two; eleven to fourteen
in choosing three, and fifteen to eighteen in electing four;
which is the greatest number permitted to a city to send. If
these consist of less than 150 eligible inhabitants, they
shall send the electors to the nearest city, to vote
conjointly with the electors of the former, when the two shall
only be considered as forming one district.
[Footnote: A law passed 8th February 1816, contains this
amendment. Twenty-five electors and more shall not elect
more than three representatives, which shall be, ad
interim, the greatest number which the bailiwick can send:
and, consequently, out of which the number of
representatives in the county, which are sixty-one, shall
be diminished from fifty to fifty-three.]
10. In each parish in the country the eligible inhabitants
shall choose in proportion to their number electors in the
following manner; that is to say, a hundred may choose one;
two to three hundred, three; and so on in the same proportion.
[Footnote: If future Storthings discover the number of
representatives of towns from an increase of population
should amount to thirty, the same Storthing shall have
right to augment of new the number of representatives of
the country, in the manner fixed by the principles of the
constitution, which shall be held as a rule in future.]
Electors shall assemble a month after, in the place appointed
by the bailiff, and choose, either from amongst themselves or
the others of the bailiwick eligible, a tenth of their own
number to sit at the Storthing, so that five to fourteen may
choose one; fifteen to twenty-four may choose two of them;
twenty-five to thirty-four, three; thirty-five and beyond it,
four. This is the greatest number.
11. The powers contained in the 9th and 10th articles shall
have their proper force and effect until next Storthing. If it
is found that the representatives of cities constitute more or
less than one-third of those of the kingdom, the Storthing, as
a rule for the future, shall have right to change these powers
in such a manner that representatives of the cities may join
with those of the country, as one to two; and the total number
of representatives ought not to be under seventy-five, nor
above one hundred.
12. Those eligible, who are in the country, and are prevented
from attending by sickness, military service, or other proper
reasons, can transmit their votes in writing to those who
direct the electoral assemblies, before their termination.
13. No person can be chosen a representative, unless he is
thirty years of age, and has resided ten years in the country.
14. The members of council, those employed in their offices,
officers of the court, and its pensioners, shall not be chosen
as representatives.
15. Individuals chosen to be representatives, are obliged to
accept of the election, unless prevented by motives considered
lawful by the electors, whose judgment may be submitted to the
decision of the Storthing. A person who has appeared more than
once as representative at an ordinary Storthing, is not
obliged to accept of the election for the next ordinary
Storthing. If legal reasons prevent a representative from
appearing at the Storthing, the person who after him has most
votes shall take his place.
16. As soon as representatives have been elected, they shall
receive a writing in the country from the superior magistrate,
and in the cities from the magistrate, also from all the
electors, as a proof that they have been elected in the manner
prescribed by the constitution. The Storthing shall judge of
the legality of this authority.
17. All representatives have a right to claim an
indemnification in travelling to and returning from the
Storthing; as well as subsistence during the period they shall
have remained there.
18. During the journey, and return of representatives, as well
as the time they may have attended the Storthing, they are
exempted from arrest; unless they are seized in some flagrant
and public act, and out of the Storthing they shall not be
responsible for the opinions they may have declared in it.
Everyone is bound to conform himself to the order established
in it.
19. Representatives, chosen in the manner above declared,
compose the Storthing of the kingdom of Norway.
20. The opening of the Storthing shall be made the first
lawful day in the month of February, every three years, in the
capital of the kingdom, unless the king, in extraordinary
circumstances, by foreign invasion or contagious disease,
fixes on some other city of the kingdom. Such change ought
then to be early announced.
21. In extraordinary cases, the king has the right of
assembling the Storthing, without respect to the ordinary
time. The king will then cause to be issued a proclamation,
which is to be read in all the principal churches six weeks at
least previous to the day fixed for the assembling of members
of the Storthing at the place appointed.
{572}
22. Such extraordinary Storthing may be dissolved by the king
when he shall judge fit.
23. Members of the Storthing shall continue in the exercise of
their office during three consecutive years, as much during an
extraordinary as any ordinary Storthing that might be held
during this time.
24. If an extraordinary Storthing is held at a time when the
ordinary Storthing ought to assemble, the functions of the
first will cease, as soon as the second shall have met.
25. The extraordinary Storthing, no more than the ordinary,
can be held if two-thirds of the members do not happen to be
present.
26. As soon as the Storthing shall be organized, the king, or
the person who shall be appointed by him for that purpose,
shall open it by an address, in which he is to describe the
state of the kingdom, and those objects to which he directs
the attention of the Storthing. No deliberation ought to take
place in the king's presence. The Storthing shall choose from
its members one-fourth part to form the Lagthing, and the
other three-fourths to constitute the Odelsthing. Each of
these houses shall have its private meetings, and nominate its
president and secretary.
27. It belongs to the Storthing,
1. To make and abolish laws, establish imposts, taxes,
custom-houses, and other public acts, which shall, however,
only exist until the 1st of July of that year, when a new
Storthing shall be assembled, unless this last is expressly
renewed by them.
2. To make loans, by means of the credit of the state.
3. To watch over the finances of the state.
4. To grant sums necessary for its expenses.
5. To fix the yearly grant for the maintenance of the king
and viceroy, and also appendages of the royal family; which
ought not, however, to consist in landed property.
6. To exhibit the register of the sitting council in
Norway, and all the reports, and public documents (the
affairs of military command excepted), and certified
copies, or extracts of the registers kept by the ministers
of state and members of council near the king, or the
public documents, which shall have been produced.
7. To communicate whatever treaties the king shall have
concluded in the name of the state with foreign powers,
excepting secret articles, provided these are not in
contradiction with the public articles.
8. To require all individuals to appear before the
Storthing on affairs of state, the king and royal family
excepted. This is not, however, applicable to the princes
of the royal family, as they are invested with other
offices than that of viceroy.
9. To examine the lists of provisional pensions; and to
make such alterations as shall be judged necessary.
10. To name five revisers, who are annually to examine the
accounts of the state, and publish printed extracts of
these, which are to be remitted to the revisers also every
year before the 1st of July. 11. To naturalize foreigners.
28. Laws ought first to be proposed to the Odelsthing, either
by its own members or the government, through one of the
members of council. If the proposition is accepted, it shall
be sent to the Lagthing, who approve or reject it; and in the
last case return it accompanied with remarks. These shall be
weighed by the Odelsthing, which sets the proposed law aside,
or remits it to the Lagthing, with or without alterations.
When a law shall have been twice proposed by the Odelsthing to
the Lagthing, and the latter shall have rejected it a second
time, the Storthing shall assemble, when two-thirds of the
votes shall decide upon it. Three days at least ought to pass
between each of those deliberations.
29. When a resolution proposed by the Odelsthing shall be
approved by the Lagthing, or by the Storthing alone, a
deputation of these two houses to the Storthing shall present
it to the king if he is present, and if not, to the viceroy,
or Norwegian council, and require it may receive the royal
sanction.
30. Should the king approve of the resolution, he subscribes
to it, and from that period it is declared to pass into a
public law. If he disapproves he returns it to the Odelsthing,
declaring that at this time he does not give it his sanction.
31. In this event, the Storthing, then assembled, ought to
submit the resolution to the king, who may proceed in it in
the same manner if the first ordinary Storthing presents again
to him the same resolution. But if, after reconsideration, it
is still adopted by the two houses of the third ordinary
Storthing, and afterwards submitted to the king, who shall
have been intreated not to withhold his sanction to a
resolution that the Storthing, after the most mature
deliberations, believes to be useful; it shall acquire the
strength of a law, even should it not receive the king's
signature before the closing of the Storthing.
32. The Storthing shall sit as long as it shall be judged
necessary, but not beyond three months, without the king's
permission. When the business is finished, or after it has
assembled for the time fixed, it is dissolved by the king. His
Majesty gives, at the same time, his sanction to the decrees
not already decided, either in corroborating or rejecting
them. All those not expressly sanctioned are held to be
rejected by him.
33. Laws are to be drawn up in the Norwegian language, and
(those mentioned in 31st article excepted) in name of the
king, under the seal of the kingdom, and in these terms:—"We,
&c. Be it known, that there has been submitted to us a decree
of the Storthing (of such a date) thus expressed (follows the
resolution); We have accepted and sanctioned as law the said
decree, in giving it our signature, and seal of the kingdom."
34. The king's sanction is not necessary to the resolutions of
the Storthing, by which the legislative body,
1. Declares itself organized as the Storthing, according to
the constitution.
2. Regulates its internal police.
3. Accepts or rejects writs of present members.
4. Confirms or rejects judgments relative to disputes
respecting elections.
5. Naturalizes foreigners.
6. And in short, the resolution by which the Odelsthing
orders some member of council to appear before the
tribunals.
35. The Storthing can demand the advice of the supreme
tribunal in judicial matters.
36. The Storthing will hold its sittings with open doors, and
its acts shall be printed and published, excepting in cases
where a contrary measure shall have been decided by the
plurality of votes.
37. Whoever molests the liberty and safety of the Storthing,
renders himself guilty of an act of high treason towards the
country.
{573}
Title IV.
Article 1.
The members of the Lagthing and supreme tribunal composing the
Rigsret, judge in the first and last instance of the affairs
entered upon by the Odelsthing, either against the members of
council or supreme tribunal for crimes committed in the
exercise of their offices, or against the members of Storthing
for acts committed by them in a similar capacity. The
president of the Lagthing has the precedence in the Rigsret.
2. The accused can, without declaring his motive for so doing,
refuse, even a third part of the members of the Rigsret,
provided, however, that the number of persons who compose this
tribunal be not reduced to less than fifteen.
3. The supreme tribunal shall judge in the last instance, and
ought not to be composed of a lesser number than the resident
and six assessors.
4. In time of peace the supreme tribunal, with two superior
officers appointed by the king, constitutes a tribunal of the
second and last resort in all military affairs which respect
life, honour, and loss of liberty for a time beyond the space
of three months.
5. The arrests of the supreme tribunal shall not in any case
be called upon to be submitted to revisal.
6. No person shall be named member of the supreme tribunal, if
he has not attained at least thirty years of age.
Title V.
Article 1.
Employments in the states shall be conferred only on Norwegian
citizens, who profess the Evangelical Lutheran religion—have
sworn fidelity to the constitution and king, speak the
language of the country, and are,—
1. Either born in the kingdom of parents who were then
subjects of the state.
2. Or born in a foreign country, their father and mother
being Norwegians, and at that period not the subjects of
another state.
3. Or, who on the 17th May, 1814, had a permanent residence
in the kingdom, and did not refuse to take an oath to
maintain the independence of Norway.
4. Or who in future shall remain ten years in the kingdom.
5. Or who have been naturalized by the Storthing.
Foreigners, however, may be nominated to these official
situations in the university and colleges, as well as to
those of physicians, and consuls in a foreign country. In
order to succeed to an office in the superior tribunal, the
person must be thirty years old; and to fill a place in the
inferior magistracy,—a judge of the tribunal of first
instance, or a public receiver, he must be twenty-five.
2. Norway does not acknowledge herself owing any other debt
than that of her own.
3. A new general code, of a civil and criminal nature,
shall first be published; or, if that is impracticable, at
the second ordinary Storthing. Meantime, the laws of the
state, as at present existing, shall preserve their effect,
since they are not contrary to this fundamental law, or
provisional ordinances published in the interval. Permanent
taxes shall continue to be levied until next Storthing.
4. No protecting dispensation, letter of respite, or
restitutions, shall be granted after the new general code
shall be published.
5. No persons can be judged but in conformity to the law, or
be punished until a tribunal shall have taken cognizance of
the charges directed against them. Torture shall never take
place.
6. Laws shall have no retro-active effect.
7. Fees due to officers of justice are not to be combined with
rents payable to the public treasury.
8. Arrest ought not to take place excepting in cases and in
the manner fixed by law. Illegal arrests, and unlawful delays,
render him who occasions them responsible to the person
arrested. Government is not authorized to employ military
force against the members of the state, but under the forms
prescribed by the laws, unless an assembly which disturbs the
public tranquillity does not instantly disperse after the
articles of the code concerning sedition shall have been read
aloud three times by the civil authorities.
9. The liberty of the press shall be established. No person
can be punished for a writing he has ordered to be printed or
published, whatever may be the contents of it, unless he has,
by himself or others, wilfully declared, or prompted others
to, disobedience of the laws, contempt for religion, and
constitutional powers, and resistance to their operations; or
has advanced false and defamatory accusations against others.
It is permitted to everyone to speak freely his opinion on the
administration of the state, or on any other object whatever.
10. New and permanent restrictions on the freedom of industry
are not to be granted in future to anyone.
11. Domiciliary visits are prohibited, excepting in the cases
of criminals.
12. Refuge will not be granted to those who shall be
bankrupts.
13. No person can in any case forfeit his landed property, and
fortune.
14. If the interest of the state requires that anyone should
sacrifice his moveable or immovable property for the public
benefit, he shall be fully indemnified by the public treasury.
15. The capital, as well as the revenues of the domains of the
church, can be applied only for the interests of the clergy,
and the prosperity of public instruction. The property of
benevolent institutions shall be employed only for their
profit.
16. The right of the power of redemption called Odelsret*, and
that of possession, called Afædesret (father's right), shall
exist. Particular regulations, which will render these of
utility to the states and agriculture, shall be determined by
the first or second Storthing.
[Footnote: In virtue of the right of "Odelsret," members
of a family to whom certain lands originally pertained, can
reclaim and retake possession of the same, even after the lapse
of centuries, provided these lands are representative of
the title of the family; that is, if for every ten years
successively they shall have judicially made reservation of
their right. This custom, injurious perhaps to the progress of
agriculture, does, however, attach the peasants to their
native soil.]
17. No county, barony, majorat or "fidei commis" shall be
created for the future.
[Footnote: "fidei commis"—Entail.]
18. Every citizen of the state, without regard to birth or
fortune, shall be equally obliged, during a particular period,
to defend his country. [Footnote: Every person is obliged to
serve from twenty-one to twenty-three, and not after.] The
application of this principle and its restrictions, as well as
the question of ascertaining to what point it is of benefit to
the country, that this obligation should cease at the age of
twenty-five,—shall be abandoned to the decision of the first
ordinary Storthing, after they shall have been discharged by a
committee; in the meantime, vigorous efforts shall preserve
their effect.
{574}
19. Norway shall retain her own language, her own finances and
coin: institutions which shall be determined upon by laws.
20. Norway has the right of having her own flag of trade and
war, which shall be an union flag.
21. If experience should show the necessity of changing some
part of this fundamental law, a proposition to this purpose
shall be made to an ordinary Storthing, published and printed;
and it only pertains to the next ordinary Storthing to decide
if the change proposed ought to be effectual or not. Such
alteration, however, ought never to be contrary to the
principles of this fundamental law; and should only have for
its object those modifications in which particular regulations
do not alter the spirit of the constitution. Two-thirds of the
Storthing ought to agree upon such a change.
Christiana, 4th November, 1814.
See SCANDINAVIAN STATES (NORWAY): A. D. 1814-1815.
----------CONSTITUTION OF NORWAY: End----------
CONSTITUTION OF PLYMOUTH COLONY
(Compact of the Pilgrim Fathers).
See MASSACHUSETTS: A. D. 1620.
CONSTITUTION OF POLAND (The old).
See POLAND: A. D. 1573, and 1578-1652.
CONSTITUTION OF POLAND: (of 1891).
See POLAND: A. D. 1791-1792.
----------CONSTITUTION OF POLAND: End----------
CONSTITUTION OF PRUSSIA.
The following text of the Constitution granted by Frederick
William, King of Prussia, on the 31st of January, 1850, with
subsequent alterations, is a translation made by Mr. Charles
Lowe, and published in the appendix to his Life of Prince
Bismarck, 1885.
We, Frederick William, &c., hereby proclaim and give to know
that, whereas the Constitution of the Prussian State,
promulgated by us on the 5th December, 1848, subject to
revision in the ordinary course of legislation, and recognised
by both Chambers of our Kingdom, has been submitted to the
prescribed revision; we have finally established that
Constitution in agreement with both Chambers. Now, therefore,
we promulgate, as a fundamental law of the State, as
follows:—
Article 1.
All parts of the Monarchy in its present extent form the
Prussian State Territory.
Article 2.
The limits of this State Territory can only be altered by law.
Article 3.
The Constitution and the laws determine under what conditions
the quality and civil rights of a Prussian may be acquired,
exercised, and forfeited.
Article 4.
All Prussians are equal before the law. Class privileges there
are none. Public offices, subject to the conditions imposed by
law, are equally accessible to all who are competent to hold
them.
Article 5.
Personal freedom is guaranteed. The forms and conditions under
which any limitation thereof, especially arrest, is
permissible, will be determined by law.
Article 6.
The domicile is inviolable. Intrusion and search therein, as
well as the seizing of letters and papers, are only allowed in
legally settled cases.
Article 7.
No one may be deprived of his lawful judge. Exceptional
tribunals and extraordinary commissions are inadmissible.
Article 8.
Punishments can only be threatened or inflicted according to
the law.
Article 9.
Property is inviolable. It can only be taken or curtailed from
reasons of public weal and expediency, and in return for
statutory compensation which, in urgent cases at least, shall
be fixed beforehand.
Article 10.
Civil death and confiscation of property, as punishments, are
not possible.
Article 11.
Freedom of emigration can only be limited by the State, with
reference to military service. Migration fees may not be
levied.
Article 12.
Freedom of religious confession, of meeting in religious
societies (Art. 30 and 31), and of the common exercise of
religion in private and public, is guaranteed. The enjoyment
of civil and political rights is independent of religious
belief, yet the duties of a citizen or a subject may not be
impaired by the exercise of religious liberty.
Article 13.
Religious and clerical societies, which have no corporate
rights, can only acquire those rights by special laws.
Article 14.
The Christian religion is taken as the basis of those State
institutions which are connected with the exercise of
religion—all religious liberty guaranteed by Art. 12
notwithstanding.
Article 15.
[Footnote: Affected by the Falk laws of 1875, and by
the act of 1887 which repealed them.
See GERMANY: A. D. 1873-1887.]
The Protestant and Roman Catholic Churches, as well as every
other religious society, regulate and administer their own
affairs in an independent manner, and remain in possession and
enjoyment of the institutions, foundations, and moneys
intended for their purposes of public worship, education, and
charity.
Article 16.
[Footnote: See Article 15.]
Intercourse between religious societies and their superiors
shall be unobstructed. The making public of Church ordinances
is only subject to those restrictions imposed on all other
publications.
Article 17.
A special law will be passed with respect to Church patronage,
and to the conditions on which it may be abolished.
Article 18.
[Footnote: See Article 15.]
Abolished is the right of nominating, proposing, electing, and
confirming, in the matter of appointments to ecclesiastical
posts, in so far as it belongs to the State, and is not based
on patronage or special legal titles.
Article 19.
Civil marriage will be introduced in accordance with a special
law, which shall also regulate the keeping of a civil
register.
Article 20.
Science and its doctrines are free.
Article 21.
The education of youth shall be sufficiently cared for by
public schools. Parents and their substitutes may not leave
their children or wards without that education prescribed for
the public folk-schools.
{585}
Article 22.
Every one shall be at liberty to give instruction, and
establish institutions for doing so, providing he shall have
given proof of his moral, scientific, and technical capacity
to the State authorities concerned.
Article 23.
All public and private institutions of an educational kind are
under the supervision of authorities appointed by the State.
Public teachers have the rights and duties of State servants.
Article 24.
[Footnote: We cannot translate "Volkschule" better
than by "folk-school."]
In the establishment of public folk-schools, confessional
differences shall receive the greatest possible consideration.
Religious instruction in the folk-schools will be
superintended by the religious societies concerned. Charge of
the other (external) affairs of the folk-schools belongs to
the Parish (Commune). With the statutory co-operation of the
Commune, the State shall appoint teachers in the public
folk-schools from the number of those qualified (for such
posts).
Article 25.
The means for establishing, maintaining, and enlarging the
public folk-schools shall be provided by the Communes, which
may, however, be assisted by the State in proven cases of
parochial inability. The obligations of third persons—based
on special legal titles—remain in force. The State,
therefore, guarantees to teachers in folk-schools a steady
income suitable to local circumstances. In public folk-schools
education shall be imparted free of charge.
Article 26.
A special law will regulate all matters of education.
Article 27.
Every Prussian is entitled to express his opinion freely by
word, writing, print, or artistic representation. Censorship
may not be introduced; every other restriction on freedom of
the Press will only be imposed by law.
Article 28.
Offences committed by word, writing, print, or artistic
representation will be punished in accordance with the general
penal code.
Article 29.
All Prussians are entitled to meet in closed rooms, peacefully
and unarmed, without previous permission from the authorities.
But this provision does not apply to open-air meetings, which
are subject to the law with respect to previous permission
from the authorities.
Article 30.
All Prussians have the right to assemble (in societies) for
such purposes as do not contravene the penal laws. The law
will regulate, with special regard to the preservation of
public security, the exercise of the right guaranteed by this
and the preceding article.
Article 31.
The law shall determine the conditions on which corporate
rights may be granted or refused.
Article 32.
The right of petitioning belongs to all Prussians. Petitions
under a collective name are only permitted to authorities and
corporations.
Article 33.
The privacy of letters is inviolable. The necessary
restrictions of this right, in cases of war and of criminal
investigation, will be determined by law.
Article 34.
All Prussians are bound to bear arms. The extent and manner of
this duty will be fixed by law.
Article 35.
The army comprises all sections of the standing army and the
Landwehr (territorial forces). In the event of war, the King
can call out the Landsturm in accordance with the law.
Article 36.
The armed force (of the nation) can only be employed for the
suppression of internal troubles, and the execution of the
laws, in the cases and manner specified by statute, and on the
requisition of the civil authorities. In the latter respect
exceptions will have to be determined by law.
Article 37.
The military judiciary of the army is restricted to penal
matters, and will be regulated by law. Provisions with regard
to military discipline will remain the subject of special
ordinances.
Article 38.
The armed force (of the nation) may not deliberate either when
on or off duty; nor may it otherwise assemble than when
commanded to do so. Assemblies and meetings of the Landwehr
for the purpose of discussing military institutions, commands
and ordinances, are forbidden even when it is not called out.
Article 39.
The provisions of Arts. 5, 6, 29, 30, and 32 will only apply
to the army in so far as they do not conflict with military
laws and rules of discipline.
Article 40.
The establishment of feudal tenures is forbidden. The Feudal
Union still existing with respect to surviving fiefs shall be
dissolved by law.
Article 41.
The provisions of Art. 40 do not apply to Crown fiefs or to
non-State fiefs.
Article 42.
Abolished without compensation, in accordance with special
laws passed, are:
1. The exercise or transfer of judicial power connected with
the possession of certain lands, together with the dues and
exemptions accruing from this right;
2. The obligations arising from patriarchal jurisdiction,
vassalage, and former tax and trading institutions. And with
these rights are also abolished the counter-services and
burdens hitherto therewith connected.
Article 43.
The person of the King is inviolable.
Article 44.
The King's Ministers are responsible. All Government acts
(documentary) of the King require for their validity the
approval of a Minister, who thereby assumes responsibility for
them.
Article 45.
The King alone is invested with executive power. He appoints
and dismisses Ministers. He orders the promulgation of laws,
and issues the necessary ordinances for their execution.
Article 46.
The King is Commander-in-Chief of the army.
Article 47.
The King fills all posts in the army, as well as in other
branches of the State service, in so far as not otherwise
ordained by law.
Article 48.
The King has the right to declare war and make peace, and to
conclude other treaties with foreign governments. The latter
require for their validity the assent of the Chambers in so
far as they are commercial treaties, or impose burdens on the
State, or obligations on its individual subjects.
Article 49.
The King has the right to pardon, and to mitigate punishment.
But in favour of a Minister condemned for his official acts,
this right can only be exercised on the motion of that Chamber
whence his indictment emanated. Only by special law can the
King suppress inquiries already instituted.
{576}
Article 50.
The King may confer orders and other distinctions, not
carrying with them privileges. He exercises the right of
coinage in accordance with the law.
Article 51.
The King convokes the Chambers, and closes their sessions. He
may dissolve both at once, or only one at a time. In such a
case, however, the electors must be assembled within a period
of 60 days, and the Chambers summoned within a period of 90
days respectively after the dissolution.
Article 52.
The King can adjourn the Chambers. But without their assent
this adjournment may not exceed the space of 30 days, nor be
repeated during the same session.
Article 53.
The Crown, according to the laws of the Royal House, is
hereditary in the male line of that House in accordance with
the law of primogeniture and agnatic succession.
Article 54.
The King attains his majority on completing his 18th year. In
presence of the united Chambers he will take the oath to
observe the Constitution of the Monarchy steadfastly and
inviolably, and to rule in accordance with it and the laws.
Article 55.
Without the consent of both Chambers the King cannot also be
ruler of foreign realms (Reiche).
Article 56.
If the King is a minor, or is otherwise lastingly prevented
from ruling himself, the Regency will be undertaken by that
agnate (Art. 53) who has attained his majority and stands
nearest the Crown. He has immediately to convoke the Chambers,
which, in united session, will decide as to the necessity of
the Regency.
Article 57.
If there be no agnate of age, and if no legal provision has
previously been made for such a contingency, the Ministry of
State will convoke the Chambers, which shall then elect a
Regent in united session. And until the assumption of the
Regency by him, the Ministry of State will conduct the
Government.
Article 58.
The Regent will exercise the powers invested in the King in
the latter's name; and, after institution of the Regency, he
will take an oath before the united Chambers to observe the
Constitution of the Monarchy steadfastly and inviolably, and
to rule in accordance with it and the laws. Until this oath is
taken, the whole Ministry of State for the time being will
remain responsible for all acts of the Government.
Article 59.
To the Crown Trust Fund appertains the annuity drawn from the
income of the forests and domains.
Article 60.
The Ministers, as well as the State officials appointed to
represent them, have access to each Chamber, and must at all
times be listened to at request. Each Chamber can demand the
presence of the Ministers. The Ministers are only entitled to
vote in one or other of the Chambers when members of it.
Article 61.
On the resolution of a Chamber the Ministers may be impeached
for the crime of infringing the Constitution, of bribery, and
of treason. The decision of such a case lies with the Supreme
Tribunal of the Monarchy sitting in United Senates. As long as
two Supreme Tribunals co-exist, they shall unite for the above
purpose. Further details as to matters of responsibility,
(criminal) procedure (thereupon), and punishments, are
reserved for a special law.
Article 62.
The legislative power will be exercised in common by the King
and by two Chambers. Every law requires the assent of the King
and the two Chambers. Money bills and budgets shall first be
laid before the Second Chamber; and the latter (i. e.,
budgets) shall either be wholly approved by the First Chamber,
or rejected altogether.
Article 63.
In the event only of its being urgently necessary to maintain
public security, or deal with an unusual state of distress
when the Chambers are not in session, ordinances, which do not
contravene the Constitution, may be issued with the force of
law, on the responsibility of the whole Ministry. But these
must be laid for approval before the Chambers at their next
meeting.
Article 64.
The King, as well as each Chamber, has the right of proposing
laws. Bills that have been rejected by one of the Chambers, or
by the King, cannot be re-introduced in the same session.
Articles 65-68.
The First Chamber is formed by royal ordinance, which can only
be altered by a law to be issued with the approval of the
Chambers. The First Chamber is composed of members appointed
by the King, with hereditary rights, or only for life.
Article 69.
The Second Chamber consists of 430 members. The electoral
districts are determined by law. They may consist of one or
more Circles (Arrondissements), or of one or more of the
larger towns.
[Footnote: Originally 350 only—a number which, in 1851, was
increased by 2, for the Principality of Hohenzollern, and in
1867 by 80 for the annexed provinces.]
Article 70.
Every Prussian who has completed his 25th year (i. e.,
attained his majority), and is capable of taking part in the
elections of the Commune where he is domiciled, is entitled to
act as a primary voter (Urwähler). Anyone who is entitled to
take part in the election of several Communes, can only
exercise his right as primary voter in one Commune.
Article 71.
For every 250 souls of the population, one (secondary) elector
(Wahlmann) shall be chosen. The primary voters fall into three
classes, in proportion to the amount of direct taxes they
pay—and in such a manner as that each class will represent a
third of the sum-total of the taxes paid by the primary
voters. This sum-total is reckoned:—
(a) by Parishes, in case the Commune does not form of itself a
primary electoral district.
(b) by (Government) Districts (Bezirke), in case the primary
electoral district consists of several Communes.
The first class consists of those primary voters, highest in
the scale of taxation, who pay a third of the total. The
second class consists of those primary voters, next highest in
the scale, whose taxes form a second third of the whole; and
the third class is made up of the remaining tax-payers (lowest
in the scale) who contribute the other third of the whole.
Each class votes apart, and for a third of the secondary
electors. These classes may be divided into several voting
sections, none of which, however, must include more than 500
primary voters. The secondary voters are elected in each class
from the number of the primary voters in their district,
without regard to the classes.
Article 72.
The deputies are elected by the secondary voters. Details will
be regulated by an electoral law, which must also make the
necessary provision for those cities where flour and slaughter
duties are levied instead of direct taxes.
{577}
Article 73.
The legislative period of the Second Chamber is fixed at three
years.
Article 74.
Eligible as deputy to the Second Chamber is every Prussian who
has completed his thirtieth year, has forfeited none of his
civil rights in consequence of a valid judicial sentence, and
has been a Prussian subject for three years. The president and
members of the Supreme Chamber of Accounts cannot sit in
either House of the Diet (Landtag).
Article 75.
After the lapse of a legislative period the Chambers will be
elected anew, and the same in the event of dissolution. In
both cases, previous members are re-eligible.
Article 76.
Both Houses of the Diet of the Monarchy shall be regularly
convened by the King in the period from the beginning of
November in each year till the middle of the following
January, and otherwise as often as circumstances require.
Article 77.
The Chambers will be opened and closed by the King in person,
or by a Minister appointed by him to do so, at a combined
sitting of the Chambers. Both Chambers shall be simultaneously
convened, opened, adjourned, and closed. If one Chamber is
dissolved, the other shall be at the same time prorogued.
Article 78.
Each Chamber will examine the credentials of its members, and
decide thereupon. It will regulate its own order of business
and discipline by special ordinances, and elect its president,
vice-presidents, and office-bearers. Civil servants require no
leave of absence in order to enter the Chamber. If a member of
the Chamber accepts a salaried office of the State, or is
promoted in the service of the State to a post involving
higher rank or increase of pay, he shall lose his seat and
vote in the Chamber, and can only recover his place in it by
re-election. No one can be member of both Chambers.
Article 79.
The sittings of both Chambers are public. On the motion of its
president, or of ten members, each Chamber may meet in private
sitting—at which this motion will then have to be discussed.
Article 80.
Neither of the Chambers can pass a resolution unless there be
present a majority of the legal number of its members. Each
Chamber passes its resolutions by absolute majority of votes,
subject to any exceptions that may be determined by the order
of business for elections.
Article 81.
Each Chamber has the separate right of presenting addresses to
the King. No one may in person present to the Chambers, or to
one of them, a petition or address. Each Chamber can transmit
the communications made to it to the Ministers, and demand of
them an answer to any grievances thus conveyed.
Article 82.
Each Chamber is entitled to appoint commissions of inquiry
into facts—for its own information.
Article 83.
The members of both Chambers are representatives of the whole
people. They vote according to their simple convictions, and
are not bound by commissions or instructions.
Article 84.
For their votes in the Chamber they can never be called to
account, and for the opinions they express therein they can
only be called to account within the Chamber, in virtue of the
order of business. No member of a Chamber can, without its
assent, be had up for examination, or be arrested during the
Parliamentary session for any penal offence, unless he be
taken in the act, or in the course of the following day. A
similar assent shall be necessary in the case of arrest for
debts. All criminal proceedings against a member of the
Chamber, and all arrests for preliminary examination, or civil
arrest, shall be suspended during the Parliamentary session on
demand from the Chamber concerned.
Article 85.
The members of the Second Chamber shall receive out of the
State Treasury travelling expenses and daily fees, according
to a statutory scale; and renunciation thereof shall be
inadmissible.
Article 86.
The judicial power will be exercised in the name of the King,
by independent tribunals subject to no other authority but
that of the law. Judgment shall be executed in the name of the
King.
Article 87.
The judges will be appointed for life by the King, or in his
name. They can only be removed or temporarily suspended from
office by judicial sentence, and for reasons foreseen by the
law. Temporary suspension from office (not ensuing on the
strength of a law), and involuntary transfer to another place,
or to the retired list, can only take place from the causes
and in the form mentioned by law, and in virtue of a judicial
sentence. But these provisions do not apply to cases of
transfer, rendered necessary by changes in the organisation of
the courts or their districts.
Article 88.
(abolished).
Article 89.
The organisation of the tribunals will only be determined by
law.
Article 90.
To the judicial office only those can be appointed who have
qualified themselves for it as prescribed by law.
Article 91.
Courts for special kinds of affairs, and, in particular,
tribunals for trade and commerce, shall be established by
statute in those places where local needs may require them.
The organisation and jurisdiction of such courts, as well as
their procedure and the appointment of their members, the
special status of the latter, and the duration of their
office, will be determined by law.
Article 92.
In Prussia there shall only be one supreme tribunal.
Article 93.
The proceedings of the civil and criminal courts shall be
public. But the public may be excluded by an openly declared
resolution of the court, when order or good morals may seem
endangered (by their admittance). In other cases publicity of
proceedings can only be limited by law.
Article 94.
In criminal cases the guilt of the accused shall be determined
by jurymen, in so far as exceptions are not determined by a
law issued with the previous assent of the Chambers. The
formation of a jury-court shall be regulated by a law.
Article 95.
By a law issued with the previous assent of the Chambers,
there may be established a special court whereof the
jurisdiction shall include the crimes of high treason, as well
as those crimes against the internal and external security of
the State, which may be assigned to it by law.
Article 96.
The competence of the courts and of the administrative
authorities shall be determined by law. Conflicts of authority
between the courts and the administrative authorities shall be
settled by a tribunal appointed by law.
{578}
Article 97.
A law shall determine the conditions on which public, civil,
and military officials may be sued for wrongs committed by
them in exceeding their functions. But the previous assent of
official superiors need not be requested.
Article 98.
The special legal status (Rechtsverhältnisse) of State
officials (including advocates and solicitors) not belonging
to the judicial class, shall be determined by a law, which,
without restricting the Government in the choice of its
executive agents, will grant civil servants proper protection
against arbitrary dismissal from their posts or diminution of
their pay.
Article 99.
All income and expenditure of the State must be pre-estimated
for every year, and be presented in the Budget, which shall be
annually fixed by a law.
Article 100.
Taxes and dues for the State Treasury may only be raised in so
far as they shall have been included in the Budget or ordained
by special laws.
Article 101.
In the matter of taxes there must be no privilege of persons.
Existing tax-laws shall be subjected to a revision, and all
such privileges abolished.
Article 102.
State and Communal officers can only levy dues on the strength
of a law.
Article 103.
The contracting of loans for the State Treasury can only be
effected on the strength of a law; and the same holds good of
guarantees involving a burden to the State.
Article 104.
Budget transgressions require subsequent approval by the
Chambers. The Budget will be examined and audited by the
Supreme Chamber of Accounts. The general Budget accounts of
every year, including tabular statistics of the National Debt,
shall, with the comments of the Supreme Chamber of Accounts,
be laid before the Chambers for the purpose of exonerating the
Government. A special law will regulate the establishment and
functions of the Supreme Chamber of Accounts.
Article 105.
The representation and administration of the Communes,
Arrondissements and Provinces of the Prussian State, will be
determined in detail by special laws.
Article 106.
Laws and ordinances become binding after having been published
in the form prescribed by law. The examination of the validity
of properly promulgated Royal ordinances is not within the
competence of the authorities, but of the Chambers.
Article 107.
The Constitution may be altered by ordinary legislative means;
and such alteration shall merely require the usual absolute
majority in both Chambers on two divisions (of the House),
between which there must elapse a period of at least
twenty-one days.
Article 108.
The members of both Chambers, and all State officials, shall
take the oath of fealty and obedience to the King, and swear
conscientiously to observe the Constitution. The army will not
take the oath to the Constitution.
Article 109.
Existing taxes and dues will continue to be raised; and all
provisions of existing statute-books, single laws, and
ordinances, which do not contravene the present Constitution,
will remain in force until altered by law.
Article 110.
All authorities holding appointments in virtue of existing
laws will continue their activity pending the issue of organic
laws affecting them.
Article 111.
In the event of war or revolution, and pressing danger to
public security therefrom ensuing, Articles 5, 6, 7, 27, 28,
29, 30, and 36 of the Constitution may be suspended for a
certain time, and in certain districts—the details to be
determined by law.
Article 112.
Until issue of the law contemplated in Article 26, educational
matters will be controlled by the laws at present in force.
Article 113.
Prior to the revision of the criminal code, a special law will
deal with offences committed by word, writing, print, or
artistic representation.
Article 114
(_abolished_).
Article 115.
Until issue of the electoral law contemplated in Article 72,
the ordinance of 30th May, 1849, touching the return of
deputies to the Second Chamber, will remain in force; and with
this ordinance is associated the provisional electoral law for
elections to the Second Chamber in the Hohenzollern
Principalities of 30th April, 1851.
Article 116.
The two supreme tribunals still existing shall be combined
into one-to be organised by a special law.
Article 117.
The claims of State officials appointed before the
promulgation of the Constitution shall be taken in to special
consideration by the Civil Servant Law.
Article 118.
Should changes in the present Constitution be rendered
necessary by the German Federal Constitution to be drawn up on
the basis of the Draft of 26th May, 1849, such alterations
will be decreed by the King; and the ordinances to this effect
laid before the Chambers, at their first meeting. The Chambers
will then have to decide whether the changes thus
provisionally ordained harmonise with the Federal Constitution
of Germany.
Article 119.
The Royal oath mentioned in Article 54, as well as the oath
prescribed to be taken by both Chambers and all State
officials, will have to be tendered immediately after the
legislative revision of the present Constitution (Articles 62
and 108).
In witness whereof we have hereunto set our signature and
seal.
Given at Charlottenburg, the 31st January, 1850.
(Signed) FRIEDRICH WILHELM.
In connection with Article 44 the course of domestic and
parliamentary politics drew forth the following Declaratory
Rescript from the German Emperor and King of Prussia, in
1882:—
"The right of the King to conduct the Government and policy of
Prussia according to his own discretion is limited by the
Constitution (of January 31, 1850), but not abolished. The
Government acts (documentary) of the King require the
counter-signature of a Minister, and, as was also the case
before the Constitution was issued, have to be represented by
the King's Ministers; but they nevertheless remain Government
acts of the King, from whose decisions they result, and who
thereby constitutionally expresses his will and pleasure. It
is therefore not admissible, and leads to obscuration of the
constitutional rights of the King, when their exercise is so
spoken of as if they emanated from the Ministers for the time
being responsible for them, and not from the King himself. The
Constitution of Prussia is the expression of the monarchical
tradition of this country, whose development is based on the
living and actual relations of its Kings to the people. These
relations, moreover, do not admit of being transferred to the
Ministers appointed by the King, for they attach to the person
of the King. Their preservation, too, is a political necessity
for Prussia. It is, therefore, my will that both in Prussia
and in the Legislative Bodies of the realm (or Reich), there
may be no doubt left as to my own constitutional right and
that of my successors to personally conduct the policy of my
Government; and that the theory shall always be gainsaid that
the [doctrine of the] inviolability of the person of the King,
which has always existed in Prussia, and is enunciated by
Article 43 of the Constitution, or the necessity of a
responsible counter-signature of my Government acts, deprives
them of the character of Royal and independent decisions. It
is the duty of my Ministers to support my constitutional
rights by protecting them from doubt and obscuration, and I
expect the same from all State servants (Beamten) who have
taken to me the official oath. I am far from wishing to impair
the freedom of elections, but in the case of those officials
who are intrusted with the execution of my Government acts,
and may, therefore, in conformity with the disciplinary law
forfeit their situations, the duty solemnly undertaken by
their oath of service also applies to the representation by
them of the policy of my Government during election times. The
faithful performance of this duty I shall thankfully
acknowledge, and I expect from all officials that, in view of
their oath of allegiance, they will refrain from all agitation
against my Government also during elections.
Berlin, January 4, 1882.
WILHELM. VON BISMARCK. To the Ministry of State."
----------CONSTITUTION OF PRUSSIA: End----------
{579}
CONSTITUTION OF THE ROMAN EMPIRE.
See ROME: B. C. 31-A. D. 14, and A. D. 284-305.
CONSTITUTION OF THE ROMAN REPUBLIC.
See ROME: B. C. 509, to B. C. 286;
also COMITIA CENTURIATA;
COMITIA CURIATA;
CONSULS, ROMAN;
CONSULAR TRIBUNES;
SENATE, ROMAN;
PLEBEIANS.
CONSTITUTION OF SOLON.
See ATHENS: B. C. 594.
CONSTITUTION OF SPAIN (1812).
See SPAIN: A. D. 1814-1827.
(1869). See SPAIN: A. D. 1866-1873.
(The Early Kingdoms.) See CORTES.
CONSTITUTION OF SULLA.
See ROME: B. C. 88-78.
----------End----------
CONSTITUTION OF SWEDEN.
"Four fundamental laws account for the present political
constitution of Sweden: the law concerning the form of
government (regerings-formen) dated June 6, 1809; the law on
representation (riksdags-ordningen), June 22, 1866; the order
of succession (successions-ordningen), September 26, 1810; and the
law on the liberty of the press (tryckfrihets-forordningen),
July 16, 1812. The union with Norway is regulated by the act
of union (riks-akten), Aug. 6, 1815. … The representation of
the nation, since the law of June 22, 1866, rests not as
formerly on the division of the nation into four orders, but
on election only. Two chambers, having equal authority,
compose the diet. The members of the first chamber are elected
for nine years by the 'landstingen' (species of provincial
assemblies) and by the 'stadsfullmäktige' (municipal
counsellors) of cities which do not sit in the 'landsting.'"
_Lalor's Cyclopedia of Political Science,
volume 3, pages 834-835._
"The First Chamber consists (1892) of 147 members, or one
deputy for every 30,000 of the population. The election of the
members takes place by the 'Landstings,' or provincial
representations, 25 in number, and the municipal corporations
of the towns, not already represented in the 'Landstings,'
Stockholm, Göteberg, Malmö and Norrköping. All members of the
First Chamber must be above 35 years of age, and must have
possessed for at least three years previous to the election
either real property to the taxed value of 80,000 kroner, or
4,444 l., or an annual income of 4,000 kroner, or 223 l. They
are elected for the term of nine years, and obtain no payment
for their services. The Second Chamber consists (Autumn 1892)
of 228 members, of whom 76 are elected by the towns and 146 by
the rural districts, one representative being returned for
every 10,000 of the population of towns, one for every
'Domsaga,' or rural district, of under 40,000 inhabitants, and
two for rural districts of over 40,000 inhabitants. All
natives of Sweden, aged 21, possessing real property to the
taxed value of 1,000 kroner, or 56 l., or farming, for a
period of not less than five years, landed property to the
taxed value of 6,000 kroner, or 333 l., or paying income tax
on an annual income of 800 kroner, or 45 l., are electors; and
all natives, aged 25, possessing, and having possessed at
least one year previous to the election, the same
qualifications, may be elected members of the Second Chamber.
The number of qualified electors to the Second Chamber in 1890
was 288,096, or 6.0 of the population; only 110,896, or 38.5
of the electors actually voted. In the smaller towns and
country districts the election may either be direct or
indirect, according to the wish of the majority. The election
is for the term of three years, and the members obtain
salaries for their services, at the rate of 1,200 kroner, or
67 l., for each session of four months, besides travelling
expenses. … The members of both Chambers are elected by
ballot, both in town and country."
_Statesman's Year-book, 1893,
page 965._
"The Diet, or Riksdag, assembles every year, in ordinary
session, on the 15th of January, or the day following, if the
15th is a holiday. It may be convoked in extraordinary session
by the king. In case of the decease, absence, or illness of
the king, the Diet may be convoked extraordinarily by the
Council of State, or even, if this latter neglects to do so,
by the tribunals of second instance. The king may dissolve the
two chambers simultaneously, or one of them alone, during the
ordinary sessions, but the new Diet assembles after the three
months of the dissolution, and can only be dissolved again
four months after resuming its sitting. The king dissolves the
extraordinary session when he deems proper. … The Diet
divides the right of initiative with the king: the consent of
the synod is necessary for ecclesiastical Laws. … Every
three years the Diet names a commission of twenty-four members
(twelve from each chamber), charged with the duty of electing
six persons who are commissioned under the presidency of the
Procureur general of the Diet to watch over the liberty of the
press."
_G. Demombynes,
Constitutions Européennes,
volume 1, pages 84-90._
{580}
The following is the text of the Constitution as adopted in
1809, the subsequent modifications of which are indicated
above:
Form of government adopted by the King and the Estates of the
Swedish Realm, at Stockholm, on the 6th of June, 1809;
together with the Alterations afterwards introduced.
We Charles, by the Grace of God, King of the Swedes, the
Goths, and the Vandals, &c. &e. &e. Heir to Norway, Duke of
Sleswick-Holstein; Stormarn, and Ditmarsen, Count of Oldenburg
and Delmenhorst, &c. &c. &c. make known, that having unlimited
confidence in the estates of the realm, charged them with
drawing up a new form of government, as the perpetual
groundwork of the prosperity and independence of our common
native land, We do hereby perform a dear and pleasing duty in
promulgating the fundamental law (which has been) upon mature
deliberation, framed and adopted by the estates of the realm,
and presented unto Us this day, together with their free and
unanimous offer of the Swedish crown. Having with deep emotion
and an affectionate interest in the prosperity of a nation
which has afforded Us so striking a proof of confidence and
attachment, complied with their request, We trust to our
endeavors to promote its happiness, as the reciprocal rights
and duties of the monarch and the subjects have been marked so
distinctly, that, without encroachment on the sacred nature
and power of majesty, the constitutional liberty of the people
is protected. We do therefore hereby adopt, sanction, and
ratify this form of government, such as it follows here:—
We the underwritten representatives of the Swedish realm,
counts, barons, bishops, knights, nobles, clergymen, burghers,
and peasants, assembled at a general Diet, in behalf of
ourselves and our brethren at home, Do hereby make known,
that, having by the late change of government, to which we,
the deputies of the Swedish people, gave our unanimous assent,
exercised our rights of drawing up a new and improved
constitution, we have, in repealing those fundamental laws,
which down to this day have been in force more or less;
viz.,—The Form of Government of the 21st of August 1772, the
Act of Union and Security, of the 21st of February and the 3d
of April 1789, the Ordinance of Diet, of the 24th of January
1617, as well as all those laws, acts, statutes, and
resolutions comprehended under the denomination of fundamental
laws;—We have Resolved to adopt for the kingdom of Sweden and
its dependencies the following constitution, which from
henceforth shall be the chief fundamental law of the realm,
reserving to Ourselves, before the expiration of the present
Diet, to consider the other fundamental laws, mentioned in the
85th article of this constitution.
Article 1.
The kingdom of Sweden shall be governed by a king, who shall
be hereditary in that order of succession which the estates
will further hereafter determine.
Article 2.
The king shall profess the pure evangelical faith, such as is
contained and declared m the Augsburgian Confession, and
explained in the Decree of the Diet at Upsala in the year
1593.
Article 3.
The majesty of the king shall be held sacred and inviolable;
and his actions shall not be subject to any censure.
Article 4.
The king shall govern the realm alone, in the manner
determined by this constitution. In certain cases, however,
(to be specified) he shall take the opinion of a council of
state, which shall be constituted of well-informed,
experienced, honest, and generally-esteemed native Swedes,
noblemen and commoners, who profess the pure evangelical
faith.
Article 5.
The council of state shall consist of nine members, viz., the
minister of state and justice, who shall always be a member of
the king's supreme court of judicature, the minister of state
for foreign affairs, six counsellors of state, three of whom
at least must have held civil offices, and the chancellor of
the court, or aulic chancellor. The secretaries of state shall
have a seat and vote in the council, when they have to report
matters there, and in cases that belong to their respective
departments. Father and son, or two brothers, shall not be
permitted to be constant members of the council of state.
Article 6.
The secretaries of state shall be four, viz.—One for
military affairs; a second for public economy, mining, and all
other affairs connected with the civil and interior
administration; a third for the finances of the realm, inland
and foreign commerce, manufactures, &c.; and the fourth, for
affairs relating to religion, public education, and charities.
Article 7.
All affairs of government shall be laid before the king, and
decided in a council of state: those of a ministerial nature,
however, excepted, concerning the relations of the realm with
foreign powers, and matters of military command, which the
king decides in his capacity of commander-in-chief of the land
and naval forces.
Article 8.
The king can make no decision in matters in which the council
of state are to be heard, unless at least three counsellors of
state, and the secretary of state whom it concerns, or his
deputy-secretary, are present.—All the members of the council
shall, upon due notice, attend all deliberations deemed of
importance, and which concern the general administration of
the affairs of the kingdom; such as questions for adopting new
statutes, repealing or altering those in existence,
introducing new institutions in the different branches of the
administration, &c.
Article 9.
Minutes shall be kept of all matters which shall come before
the king in his council of state. The ministers of state, the
counsellors of state, the aulic chancellor, and the
secretaries of state or deputy-secretaries, shall be
peremptorily bound to deliver their opinions: it is, however,
the prerogative of the king to decide. Should it, however,
unexpectedly occur, that the decisions of the king are
evidently contrary to the constitution and the common law of
the realm, it shall in that case be the duty of the members of
the council of state to make spirited remonstrances against
such decision or resolution. Unless a different opinion has
been recorded in the minutes (for then the counsellors present
shall be considered as having advised the king to the adopted
measure), the members of the council shall be responsible for
their advices, as enacted in the 106th article.
{581}
Article 10.
Necessary informations having been demanded and obtained from
the proper boards, authorities, and functionaries, the affairs
for deliberation shall be prepared by the secretary of state
and eight skilful and impartial men, consisting of four nobles
and four commoners, in order to their being laid before the
king in the council of state.—The secretary, as well as all
the other members of this committee (which are nominated by
the king) for preparing the general affairs of the kingdom,
shall upon all occasions, when so met, deliver their opinions
to the minutes, which shall afterwards be reported to the king
and the council of state.
Article 11.
As to the management of the ministerial affairs, they may be
prepared and conducted in the manner which appears most
suitable to the king. It appertains to the minister for
foreign affairs to lay such matters before him in the presence
of the aulic chancellor, or some other member of the council,
if the chancellor cannot attend. In the absence of the
minister of state this duty devolves upon the aulic
chancellor, or any other member of the council of state, whom
his majesty may appoint. After having ascertained the opinions
of these official persons entered in the minutes, and for
which they shall be responsible, the king shall pronounce his
decision in their presence. It shall be the duty of the aulic
chancellor to keep the minutes on these occasions. The king
shall communicate to the council of state the information on
these topics as may be necessary, in order that they may have
a general knowledge even of this branch of the administration.
Article 12.
The king can enter into treaties and alliances with foreign
powers, after having ascertained, as enacted in the preceding
article, the opinion of the minister of state for foreign
affairs, and of the aulic chancellor.
Article 13.
When the king is at liberty to commence war, or conclude
peace, he shall convoke an extraordinary council of state; the
ministers of state, the counsellors of state, the aulic
chancellor, and the secretaries of state; and, after having
explained to them the circumstances which require their
consideration, he shall desire their opinions thereon, which
each of them shall individually deliver, on the responsibility
defined in the 107th article. The king shall thereafter have a
right to adopt the resolutions, or make such decision as may
appear to him most beneficial for the kingdom.
Article 14.
The king shall have the supreme command of the military forces
by sea and land.
Article 15.
The king shall decide in all matters of military command, in
the presence of that minister or officer to whom he has
entrusted the general management thereof. It shall be the duty
of this person to give his opinion, under responsibility, upon
the resolutions taken by the king, and in case of these being
contrary to his advice, he shall be bound to enter his
objections and counsel in the minutes, which the king must
confirm by his own signature. Should this minister or official
person find the resolutions of the king to be of a dangerous
tendency, or founded on mistaken or erroneous principles, he
shall advise his majesty to convoke two or more military
officers of a superior rank into a council of war. The king
shall, however, be at liberty to comply with or to reject this
proposition for a council of war; and if approved of, he may
take what notice he pleases of the opinions of such council,
which shall, however, be entered in the minutes.
Article 16.
The king shall promote the exercise of justice and right, and
prevent partiality and injustice. He shall not deprive any
subject of life, honour, liberty, and property, without
previous trial and sentence, and in that order which the laws
of the country prescribe. He shall not disturb, or cause to be
disturbed, the peace of any individual in his house. He shall
not banish any from one place to another, nor constrain, or
cause to be constrained, the conscience of any; but shall
protect everyone in the free exercise of his religion,
provided he does not thereby disturb the tranquillity of
society, or occasion public offence. The king shall cause
everyone to be tried in that court to which he properly
belongs.
Article 17.
The king's prerogative of justice shall be invested in twelve
men, learned in the law, six nobles, and six commoners, who
have shown knowledge, experience, and integrity in judicial
matters. They shall be styled counsellors of justice, and
constitute the king's supreme court of justice.
Article 18.
The supreme court of justice shall take cognizance of
petitions to the king for cancelling sentences which have
obtained legal force, and granting extension of time in
lawsuits, when it has been, through some circumstances,
forfeited.
Article 19.
If information be sought by judges or courts of justice
concerning the proper interpretation of the law, the
explanation thus required shall be given by the said supreme
court.
Article 20.
In time of peace, all cases referred from the courts martial
shall be decided in the supreme court of justice. Two military
officers of a superior degree, to be nominated by the king,
shall, with the responsibility of judges, attend and have a
vote in such cases in the supreme court. The number of judges
may not, however, exceed eight. In time of war, all such cases
shall be tried as enacted by the articles of war.
Article 21.
The king, should he think fit to attend, shall have right to
two votes in causes decided by the supreme court. All
questions concerning explanations of the law shall be reported
to him, and his suffrages counted, even though he should not
have attended the deliberations of the court.
Article 22.
Causes of minor importance may be decided in the supreme court
by five members, or even four, if they are all of one opinion;
but in causes of greater consequence seven counsellors, at
least, must attend. More than eight members of the supreme
court, or four noblemen and four commoners, may not be at one
time in active service.
Article 23.
All the decrees of the supreme court of justice shall issue in
the king's name, and under his hand and seal.
Article 24.
The cases shall be prepared in the "king's inferior court for
revision of judiciary affairs," in order to be laid before, or
produced in the supreme court.
Article 25.
In criminal cases the king has a right to grant pardon, to
mitigate capital punishment, and to restore property forfeited
to the crown. In applications, however, of this kind, the
supreme court shall be heard, and the king give his decision
in the council of state.
Article 26.
When matters of justice are laid before the council of state,
the minister of state and justice, and, at least, two
counsellors of state, two members of the supreme court, and
the chancellor of justice shall attend, who must all deliver
their opinions to the minutes, according to the general
instruction for the members of the council of state, quoted in
the 91st article.
{582}
Article 21.
The king shall nominate, as chancellor of justice, a
juris-consult, an able and impartial man, who has previously
held the office of a judge. It shall be his chief duty, as the
highest legal officer or attorney general of the king, to
prosecute, either personally or through the officers or
fiscals under him, in all such cases as concern the public
safety and the rights of the crown, on the king's behalf, to
superintend the administration of justice, and to take
cognizance of, and correct, errors committed by judges or
other legal officers in the discharge of their official
duties.
Article 28.
The king, in his council of state, has a right to appoint
native Swedes to all such offices and places within the
kingdom for which the king's commissions are granted. The
proper authorities shall, however, send in the names of the
candidates to be put in nomination for such employments. The
king may, likewise, appoint foreigners of eminent talents to
military offices, without, however, entrusting to them the
command of the fortresses of the realm. In preferments the
king shall only consider the merits and the abilities of the
candidates, without any regard to their birth. Ministers and
counsellors of state and of justice, secretaries of state,
judges, and all other civil officers, must always be of the
pure evangelical faith.
Article 29.
The archbishop and bishops shall be elected as formerly, and
the king nominates one of the three candidates proposed to
him.
Article 30.
The king appoints, as formerly, the incumbents of rectories in
the gift of the crown. As to the consistorial benefices, the
parishioners shall be maintained in their usual right of
election.
Article 31.
Citizens, who are freemen of towns, shall enjoy their
privilege as heretofore, of proposing to the king three
candidates for the office of burgomaster or mayor, one of whom
the king selects. The aldermen and secretaries of the
magistracy of Stockholm shall be elected in the same manner.
Article 32.
The king appoints envoys to foreign courts and the officers of
the embassies, in the presence of the minister of state for
foreign affairs and the aulic chancellor.
Article 33.
When offices, for which candidates are proposed, are to be
filled up, the members of the council of state shall deliver
their opinions on the qualifications and merits of the
applicants. They shall also have right to make respectful
remonstrances against the nomination of the king respecting
other offices.
Article 34.
The new functionaries created by this constitution, viz.—the
ministers and counsellors of state and counsellors of justice,
shall be paid by the crown, and may not hold any other civil
offices. The two ministers of state are the highest
functionaries of the realm. The counsellors of state shall
hold the rank of generals, and the counsellors of justice that
of lieutenant-generals.
Article 35.
The minister of state for foreign affairs, the counsellors of
state, the presidents of the public boards, the grand governor
of Stockholm, the deputy governor, and the chief magistrate of
police in the city, the aulic chancellor, the chancellor of
justice, the secretaries of state, the governors or
lord-lieutenants of provinces, field marshals, generals and
admirals of all degrees, adjutant generals, adjutant in chief,
adjutants of the staff, the governors of fortresses, captain
lieutenants, and officers of the king's life guards, colonels
of the regiments, and officers second in command in the foot
and horse guards, lieutenant-colonels in the brigade of the
life regiments, chiefs of the artillery of the royal
engineers, ministers, envoys, and commercial agents with
foreign powers, and official persons employed in the king's
cabinet for the foreign correspondence, and at the embassies,
as holding places of trust, can be removed by the king, when
he considers it necessary for the benefit of the realm. The
king shall, however, signify his determination in the council
of state, the members whereof shall be bound to make
respectful remonstrances, if they see it expedient.
Article 36.
Judges, and all other official persons, not included in the
preceding article, cannot be suspended from their situations
without legal trial, nor be translated or removed to other
places, without having themselves applied for these.
Article 31.
The king has power to confer dignities on those who have
served their country with fidelity, bravery, virtue, and zeal.
He may also promote to the order of counts and barons,
persons, who by eminent merits have deserved such an honour.
Nobility and the dignity of a count and baron, granted from
this time, shall no longer devolve to any other than the
individual himself thus created a noble, and after him, to the
oldest of his male issue in a direct descending line, and this
branch of the family being extinct, to the nearest male
descendant of the ancestor.
Article 38.
All despatches and orders emanating from the king, excepting
such as concern military affairs, shall be countersigned by
the secretary who has submitted them to the council, and is
responsible for their being conformable to the minutes. Should
the secretary find any of the decisions made by the king to be
contrary to the spirit of the constitution, he shall make his
remonstrances respecting the same, in the council of state.
Should the king still persist in his determination, it shall
then be the duty of the secretary to refuse his countersign,
and resign his place, which he may not resume until the
estates of the realm shall have examined and approved of his
conduct. He shall, however, in the mean time, receive his
salary, and all the fees of his office as formerly.
Article 39.
If the king wishes to go abroad, he shall communicate his
resolution to the council of state, in a full assembly, and
take the opinion of all its members, as enacted in the ninth
article. During the absence of the king he may not interfere
with the government, or exercise the regal power, which shall
be carried on, in his name, by the council of state; the
council of state cannot, however, confer dignities or create
counts, barons, and knights; and all officers appointed by the
council shall only hold their places ad interim.
Article 40.
Should the king be in such a state of health as to be
incapable of attending to the affairs of the kingdom, the
council of state shall conduct the administration, as enacted
in the preceding article.
Article 41.
The king shall be of age after having completed eighteen
years. Should the king die before the heir of the crown has
attained this age, the government shall be conducted by the
council of state, acting with regal power and authority, in
the name of the king, until the estates of the realm shall
have appointed a provisional government or regency; and the
council of state is enjoined strictly to conform to the
enactments of this constitution.
{583}
Article 42.
Should the melancholy event take place, that the whole royal
family became extinct on the male side, the council of state
shall exercise the government with regal power and authority,
until the estates have chosen another royal house, and the new
king has taken upon himself the government. All occurrences or
things having reference to the four last articles, shall be
determined by the whole council of state and the secretaries
of state.
Article 43.
When the king takes the field of battle, or repairs to distant
parts of the kingdom, he shall constitute four of the members
of the council of state to exercise the government in those
affairs which he is pleased to prescribe.
Article 44.
No prince of the royal family shall be permitted to marry
without having obtained the consent of the king, and in the
contrary case shall forfeit his right of inheritance to the
kingdom, both for himself and descendants.
Article 45.
Neither the crown prince, or any other prince of the royal
family, shall have any appanage or civil place. The princes of
the blood may, however, bear titles of dukedoms and
principalities, as heretofore, but without any claims upon
those provinces.
Article 46.
The kingdom shall remain divided, as heretofore, into
governments, under the usual provincial administrations. No
governor-general shall, from this time, be appointed within
the kingdom.
Article 47.
The courts of justice, superior as well as inferior, shall
administer justice according to the laws and statutes of the
realm. The provincial governors, and all other public
functionaries, shall exercise the offices entrusted to them
according to existing regulations; they shall obey the orders
of the king, and be responsible to him if any act is done
contrary to law.
Article 48.
The court of the king is under his own management, and he may
at his own pleasure appoint or discharge all his officers and
attendants there.
Article 49.
The estates of the realm shall meet every fifth year. In the
decree of every Diet the day shall be fixed for the next
meeting of the estates. The king may, however, convoke the
estates to an extraordinary Diet before that time.
Article 50.
The Diets shall be held in the capital, except when the
invasion of an enemy, or some other important impediment, may
render it dangerous for the safety of the representatives.
Article 51.
When the king or council convokes the estates, the period for
the commencement of the Diet shall be subsequent to the
thirtieth, and within the fiftieth day, to reckon from that
day when the summons has been proclaimed in the churches of
the capital.
Article 52.
The king names the speakers of the nobles, the burghers and
the peasants: the archbishop is, at all times, the constant
speaker of the clergy.
Article 53.
The estates of the realm shall, immediately after the opening
of the Diet, elect the different committees, which are to
prepare the affairs intended for their consideration. Such
committees shall consist in,
a constitutional committee, which shall take cognizance of
questions concerning proposed alterations in the
fundamental laws, report thereupon to the representatives,
and examine the minutes held in the council of state;
a committee of finances, which shall examine and report
upon the state and management of the revenues;
a committee of taxation, for regulating the taxes;
a committee of the bank for inquiring into the
administration of the affairs of the national bank;
a law committee for digesting propositions concerning
improvements in the civil, criminal, and ecclesiastical
laws;
a committee of public grievances and matters of economy, to
attend to the defects in public institutions, suggest
alterations, &c.
Article 54.
Should the king desire a special committee for deliberating
with him on such matters as do not come within the cognizance
of any of the other committees, and are to be kept secret, the
estates shall select it. This committee shall, however, have
no right to adopt any resolutions, but only to give their
opinion on matters referred to them by the king.
Article 55.
The representatives of the realm shall not discuss any subject
in the presence of the king, nor can any other committee than
the one mentioned in the above article hold their
deliberations before him.
Article 56.
General questions started at the meetings or the orders of the
estates, cannot be immediately discussed or decided, but shall
be referred to the proper committees, which are to give their
opinion thereupon. The propositions or report of the
committees shall, in the first instance, without any
alteration or amendment, be referred to the estates at the
general meetings of all the orders. If at these meetings,
observations should be made which may prevent the adoption of
the proposed measure, these objections shall be communicated
to the committee, in order to its being examined and revised.
A proposition thus prepared having been again referred to the
estates, it shall remain with them to adopt it, with or
without alterations, or to reject it altogether. Questions
concerning alterations in the fundamental laws, shall be thus
treated:
If the constitutional committee approves of the suggestion
of one of the representatives, or the committee reports in
favour of or against a measure proposed by the king, the
opinion of the committee shall be referred to the estates,
who may discuss the topic, but not come to any resolution
during that Diet.
If at the general meetings of the orders no observations
are made against the opinion of the committee, the question
shall be postponed till the Diet following, and then be
decided solely by yes or no, as enacted in the 75th article
of the ordinance of Diet.
If, on the contrary, objections are urged at the general
meetings of the orders against the opinion of the
committee, these shall be referred back for its
reconsideration. If all the orders be of one opinion, the
question shall be postponed for final decision, as enacted
above. Should again a particular order differ from the
other orders, twenty members shall be elected from among
every order, and added to the committee, for adjusting the
differences. The question being thus prepared, shall be
decided at the following Diet.
Article 57.
The ancient right of the Swedish people, of imposing taxes on
themselves, shall be exercised by the estates only at a
general Diet.
Article 58.
The king shall at every Diet lay before the committee of
finances the state of the revenues in all their branches.
Should the crown have obtained subsidies through treaties with
foreign powers, these shall be explained in the usual way.
{584}
Article 59.
The king shall refer to the decision of this committee to
determine what the government may require beyond the ordinary
taxation, to be raised by an extraordinary grant.
Article 60.
No taxes of any description whatever can be increased without
the express consent of the estates. The king may not farm or
let on lease the revenues of state, for the sake of profit to
himself and the crown; nor grant monopolies to private
individuals, or corporations.
Article 61.
All taxes shall be paid to the end of that term for which they
have been imposed. Should, however, the estates meet before
the expiration of that term, new regulations shall take place.
Article 62.
The funds required by government having been ascertained by
the committee of finances, it shall rest with the estates
whether to assign proportionate means, and also to determine
how the various sums granted shall be appropriated.
Article 63.
Besides these means, two adequate sums shall be voted and set
apart for the disposal of the king, after he has consulted the
council of state,—for the defence of the kingdom, or some
other important object;—the other sum to be deposited in the
national bank, in case of war, after the king has ascertained
the opinion of the council and convened the estates. The seal
of the order for this latter sum may not be broken, nor the
money be paid by the commissioners of the bank, till the
summons to Diet shall have been duly proclaimed in the
churches of the capital.
Article 64.
The ordinary revenues of the land, as well as the
extraordinary grants which may be voted by the estates, shall
be at the disposal of the king for the civil list and other
specified purposes.
Article 65.
The above means may not be applied but for the assigned
purposes, and the council of state shall be responsible if
they permit any deviation in this respect, without entering
their remonstrances in the minutes, and pointing out what the
constitution in this case ordains.
Article 66.
The funds of amortissement or national debt, shall remain, as
heretofore, under the superintendence and direction of the
estates, who have guaranteed or come under a responsibility
for the national debt; and after having received the report of
the committee of finances on the affairs of that
establishment, the estates will provide, through a special
grant, the requisite means for paying the capital as well as
the interest of this debt, in order that the credit of the
kingdom may be maintained.
Article 67.
The deputy of the king shall not attend the meetings of the
directors or commissioners of the funds of amortissement, on
any other occasion than when the directors are disposed to
take his opinion.
Article 68.
The means assigned for paying off the national debt shall not,
under any pretence or condition, be appropriated to other
purposes.
Article 69.
Should the estates, or any particular order, entertain doubts
either in allowing the grant proposed by the committee of
finances, or as to the participation in the taxes, or the
principles of the management of the funds of amortissement,
these doubts shall be communicated to the committee for their
further consideration.—If the committee cannot coincide in
the opinions of the estates, or a single order, it shall
depute some members to explain circumstances. Should this
order still persist in its opinion, the question shall be
decided by the resolution of three orders. If two orders be of
one, and the other two of a different opinion, thirty new
members of every order shall be added to the committee—the
committee shall then vote conjointly, and not by orders, with
folded billets, for adopting, or rejecting, unconditionally
the proposition of the committee.
Article 70.
The committee of taxation shall at every Diet suggest general
principles for dividing the future taxes, and the amount
having been fixed, the committee shall also propose how these
are to be paid, referring their proposition to the
consideration and decision of the states.
Article 71.
Should a difference of opinion arise between the orders, as to
these principles and the mode of applying them, and dividing
the taxes; or, what hardly can be presumed, any order decline
participating in the proposed taxation, the order, which may
thus desire some alteration, shall communicate their views to
the other representatives, and suggest in what mode this
alteration may be effected without frustrating the general
object. The committee of taxation having again reported
thereon to the estates, they, the estates, shall decide the
question at issue. If three orders object to the proposition
of the committee, it shall be rejected. If, again, three
orders oppose the demands of a single order, or if two be of
an opinion contrary to that of the other two, the question
shall be referred to the committee of finances, with an
additional number of members, as enacted in the above article.
If the majority of this committee assent to the proposition of
the committee of taxation, in those points concerning which
the representatives have disagreed, the proposition shall be
considered as the general resolution of the estates. Should
it, on the contrary, be negatived by a majority of votes, or
be rejected by three orders, the committee of taxation shall
propose other principles for levying and dividing the taxes.
Article 72.
The national bank shall remain, as formerly, under the
superintendence and guarantee of the estates, and the
management of directors selected from among all the orders,
according to existing regulations. The states alone can issue
bank-notes, which are to be recognized as the circulating
medium of the realm.
Article 73.
No troops, new taxes or imposts, either in money or kind, can
be levied without the voluntary consent of the estates, in the
usual order, as aforesaid.
Article 74.
The king shall have no right to demand or levy any other aid
for carrying on war, than that contribution of provisions
which may be necessary for the maintenance of the troops
during their march through a province. These contributions
shall, however, be immediately paid out of the treasury,
according to the fixed price-current of provisions, with an
augmentation of a moiety, according to this valuation. Such
contributions may not be demanded for troops which have been
quartered in a place, or are employed in military operations,
in which case they shall be supplied with provisions from the
magazines.
Article 75.
The annual estimation of such rentes as are paid in kind shall
be fixed by deputies elected from among all the orders of the
estates.
Article 76.
The king cannot, without the consent of the estates, contract
loans within or without the kingdom, nor burthen the land with
any new debts.
{585}
Article 77.
He cannot also, without the consent of the estates, vend,
pledge, mortgage, or in any other way alienate domains, farms,
forests, parks, preserves of game, meadows, pasture-land,
fisheries, and other appurtenances of the crown. These shall
be managed according to the instructions of the estates.
Article 78.
No part of the kingdom can be alienated through sale,
mortgage, donation, or in any other way whatever.
Article 79.
No alteration can be effected in the standard value of the
coin, either for enhancing or deteriorating it, without the
consent of the estates.
Article 80.
The land and naval forces of the realm shall remain on the
same footing, till the king and the estates may think proper
to introduce some other principles. No regular troops can be
raised, without the mutual consent of the king and the
estates.
Article 81.
This form of government and the other fundamental laws cannot
be altered or repealed, without the unanimous consent of the
king and the estates. Questions to this effect cannot be
brought forward at the meetings of the orders, but must be
referred to the constitutional committee, whose province it is
to suggest such alterations in the fundamental laws, as may be
deemed necessary, useful, and practicable. The estates may not
decide on such proposed alterations at the same Diet. If all
the orders agree about the alteration, it shall be submitted
to the king, through the speakers, for obtaining his royal
sanction, After having ascertained the opinion of the council,
the king shall take his resolution, and communicate to the
estates either his approbation or reasons for refusing it. In
the event of the king proposing any alteration in the
fundamental laws, he shall, after having taken the opinion of
the council, deliver his proposition to the estates, who
shall, without discussing it, again refer it to the
constitutional committee. If the committee coincide in the
proposition of the king, the question shall remain till next
Diet. If again the committee is averse to the proposition of
the king, the estates may either reject it immediately or
adjourn it to the following Diet. In the case of all the
orders approving of the proposition, they shall request that a
day be appointed to declare their consent in the presence of
his majesty, or signify their disapprobation through their
speakers.
Article 82.
What the estates have thus unanimously resolved and the king
sanctioned, concerning alterations in the fundamental laws, or
the king has proposed and the estates approved of, shall for
the future have the force and effect of a fundamental law.
Article 83.
No explanation of the fundamental laws may be established by
any other mode or order, than that prescribed by the two
preceding articles. Laws shall be applied according to their
literal sense.
Article 84.
When the constitutional committee find no reason for approving
of the proposition, made by a representative concerning
alterations or explanations of the fundamental laws, it shall
be the duty of the committee to communicate to him, at his
request, their opinion, which the proposer of the resolution
may publish, with his own motion, and under the usual
responsibility of authors.
Article 85.
As fundamental laws of the present form of government, there
shall be considered the ordinance of Diet, the order of
succession, and the act concerning universal liberty of the
press.
Article 86.
By the liberty of the press is understood the right of every
Swedish subject to publish his writings, without any
impediment from the government, and without being responsible
for them, except before a court of justice, or liable to
punishment, unless their contents be contrary to a clear law,
made for the preservation of public peace. The minutes, or
protocols, or the proceedings, may be published in any case,
excepting the minutes kept in the council of state and before
the king in ministerial affairs, and those matters of military
command; nor may the records of the bank, and the office of
the funds of amortissement, or national debt, be printed.
Article 87.
The estates, together with the king, have the right to make
new and repeal old laws. In this view such questions must be
proposed at the general meetings of the orders of the estates,
and shall be decided by them, after having taken the opinion
of the law committee, as laid down in the 56th article. The
proposition shall be submitted, through the speakers, to the
king, who, after having ascertained the opinion of the council
of state and supreme court, shall declare either his royal
approbation, or motives for withholding it. Should the king
desire to propose any alteration in the laws, he shall, after
having consulted the council of state and supreme court, refer
his proposition, together with their opinion, to the
deliberation of the states, who, after having received the
report of the law committee, shall decide on the point. In all
such questions the resolution of three orders shall be
considered as the resolution of the estates of the realm. If
two orders are opposed to the other two, the proposition is
negatived, and the law is to remain as formerly.
Article 88.
The same course, or mode of proceeding, shall be observed in
explaining the civil, criminal, and ecclesiastical laws, as in
making these. Explanations concerning the proper sense of the
law given by the supreme court in the name of the king, in the
interval between the Diets, may be rejected by the states, and
shall not afterwards be valid, or cited by the courts of
judicature.
Article 89.
At the general meetings of the orders of the estates,
questions may be proposed for altering, explaining, repealing,
and issuing acts concerning public economy; and the principles
of public institutions of any kind may be discussed. These
questions shall afterwards be referred to the committee of
public grievances and economical affairs, and then be
submitted to the decision of the king, in a council of state.
When the king is pleased to invite the estates to deliberate
with him on questions concerning the general administration,
the same course shall be adopted as is prescribed for
questions concerning the laws.
Article 90.
During the deliberations of the orders, or their committees,
no questions shall be proposed but in the way expressly
prescribed by this fundamental law, concerning either
appointing or removing of officers, decisions and resolutions
of the government and courts of law, and the conduct of
private individuals and corporations.
Article 91.
When the king, in such cases as those mentioned in the 39th
article, is absent from the kingdom longer than twelve months,
the council shall convoke the estates to a general Diet, and
cause the summons to be proclaimed within fifteen days from
the above time, in the churches of the capital, and speedily
afterwards in the other parts of the kingdom. If the king,
after being informed thereof, does not return to the kingdom,
the estates shall adopt such measures as they deem most
beneficial for the country.
{586}
Article 92.
The same shall be enacted in case of any disease or ill health
of the king, which might prevent him from attending to the
affairs of the kingdom for more than twelve months.
Article 93.
When the heir of the crown, at the decease of the king, is
under age, the council of state shall issue summons to the
representatives to meet. The estates of the realm shall have
the right, without regard to the will of a deceased king
concerning the administration, to appoint one or several
guardians, to rule in the king's name, according to this
fundamental law, till the king becomes of age.
Article 94.
Should it ever happen that the royal family become extinct in
the male line, the council of state shall convene the estates,
to elect another royal family to rule conformably to this
fundamental law.
Article 95.
Should, contrary to expectation, the council of state fail to
convoke the estates, in the cases prescribed by the 91st, 93d,
and 94th articles, it shall be the positive duty of the
directors of the house of nobles, the chapters throughout the
kingdom, the magistrates in the capital, and the governors in
the provinces, to give public notice thereof, in order that
elections of deputies to the Diet may forthwith take place,
and the estates assemble to protect their privileges and
rights of the kingdom. Such a Diet shall be opened on the
fiftieth day from that period when the council of state had
proclaimed the summons in the churches of the capital.
Article 96.
The estates shall at every Diet appoint an officer,
distinguished for integrity and learning in the law, to watch
over, as their deputy, the conduct of the judges and other
official men, and who shall, in legal order and at the proper
court, arraign those who in the performance of their offices
have betrayed negligence and partiality, or else have
committed any illegal act. He shall, however, be liable to the
same responsibility as the law prescribes for public
prosecutors in general.
Article 97.
This deputy or attorney-general of the estates shall be chosen
by twelve electors out of every order.
Article 98.
The electors shall at the same time they choose the said
attorney-general, elect a person possessing equal or similar
qualities to succeed him, in case of his death before the next
Diet.
Article 99.
The attorney-general may, whenever he pleases, attend the
sessions of all the superior and inferior courts, and the
public offices, and shall have free access to their records
and minutes; and the king's officers shall be bound to give
him every assistance.
Article 100.
The attorney-general shall at every Diet present a report of
the performance of his office, explaining the state of the
administration of justice in the land, noticing the defects in
the existing laws, and suggesting new improvements. He shall
also, at the end of each year, publish a general statement
concerning these.
Article 101.
Should the supreme court, or any of its members, from
interest, partiality, or negligence, judge so wrong that an
individual, contrary to law and evidence, did lose or might
have lost life, liberty, honour, or property, the
attorney-general shall be bound, and the chancellor of justice
authorised, to arraign the guilty, according to the laws of
the realm, in the court after mentioned.
Article 102.
This court is to be denominated the court of justice for the
realm, and shall be formed by the president in the superior
court of Swea, the presidents of all the public boards, four
senior members of the council of state, the highest commander
of the troops within the capital, and the commander of the
squadron of the fleet stationed at the capital, two of the
senior members of the superior court of Swea, and the senior
member of all the public boards. Should any of the officers
mentioned above decline attending this court, he shall be
legally responsible for such a neglect of duty. After trial,
the judgment shall be publicly announced: no one can alter
such a sentence. The king may, however, extend pardon to the
guilty, but not admitting him any more into the service of the
kingdom.
Article 103.
The estates shall at every Diet nominate a jury of twelve
members from out of each order, for deciding if the members of
the supreme court of justice have deserved to fill their
important places, or if any member, without having been
legally convicted for the faults mentioned in the above
articles, yet ought to be removed from office.
Article 104.
The estates shall not resolve themselves into a court of
justice, nor enter into any special examination of the
decrees, verdicts, resolutions of the supreme court.
Article 105.
The constitutional committee shall have right to demand the
minutes of the council of state, except those which concern
ministerial or foreign affairs, and matters of military
command, which may only be communicated as far as these have a
reference to generally known events, specified by the
committee.
Article 106.
Should the committee find from these minutes that any member
of the council of state has openly acted against the clear
dictates of the constitution, or advised any infringement
either of the same or of the other laws of the realm, or that
he had omitted to remonstrate against such a violation, or
caused and promoted it by wilfully concealing any information,
the committee shall order the attorney-general to institute
the proper proceedings against the guilty.
Article 107.
If the constitutional committee should find that any or all
the members of the council of state have not consulted the
real interest of the kingdom, or that any of the secretaries
of state have not performed his or their official duties with
impartiality, activity, and skill, the committee shall report
it to the estates, who, if they deem it necessary, may signify
to the king their wish of having those removed, who may thus
have given dissatisfaction. Questions to this effect may be
brought forward at the general meetings of the orders, and
even be proposed by any of the committees. These cannot,
however, be decided until the constitutional committee have
delivered their opinion.
Article 108.
The estates shall at every Diet appoint six individuals, two
of whom must be learned in the law, besides the
attorney-general, to watch over the liberty of the press.
These deputies shall be bound to give their opinion as to the
legality of publications, if such be requested by the authors.
These deputies shall be chosen by six electors out of every
order.
{587}
Article 109.
Diets may not last longer than three months from the time that
the king has informed the representatives of the state of the
revenues. Should, however, the estates at the expiration of
that time not have concluded their deliberations, they may
demand the Diet to be prolonged for another month, which the
king shall not refuse. If again, contrary to expectation, the
estates at the expiration of this term have not regulated the
civil list, the king shall dissolve the Diet, and taxation
continue in its former state till the next meeting of
representatives.
Article 110.
No representative shall be responsible for any opinion uttered
at meetings of the orders, or of the committees, unless by the
express permission of at least five-sixths of his own order:
nor can a representative be banished from the Diet. Should any
individual or body, either civil or military, endeavour to
offer violence to the estates, or to any individual
representative, or presume to interrupt and disturb their
deliberations, it shall be considered as an act of treason,
and it rests with the estates to take legal cognizance of such
an offence.
Article 111.
Should any representative, after having announced himself as
such, be insulted, either at the Diet or on his way to or from
the same, it shall be punished as a violation of the peace of
the king.
Article 112.
No official person may exercise his official authority (his
authority in that capacity) to influence the elections of
deputies to the Diet, under pain of losing his place.
Article 113.
Individuals elected for regulating the taxation shall not be
responsible for their lawful deeds in this their capacity.
Article 114.
The king shall leave the estates in undisturbed possession of
their liberties, privileges, and immunities. Modifications
which the prosperity of the realm may demand can only be done
with the general concurrence and consent of the estates and
the sanction of the king. Nor can any new privileges be
granted to one order, without the consent of the other, and
the sanction of the sovereign.
This we have confirmed by our names and seals, on the sixth
day of the month of June, in the year after the birth of our
Lord one thousand eight hundred and nine.
On behalf of the Nobles, M. Ankarsvard.
On behalf of the Clergy, Jac. Ax. Lindblom.
On behalf of the Burghers, H. N. Schwan.
On behalf of the Peasantry, Lars Olsson, Speakers.
The above form of government we have not only acknowledged
Ourselves, but do also command all our faithful subjects to
obey it; in confirmation of which, we have thereto affixed our
manual signature and the seal of the realm. In the city of our
royal residence, Stockholm, on the sixth day of the month of
June, in the year after the birth of our Lord one thousand
eight hundred and nine.
CHARLES.
----------CONSTITUTION OF SWEDEN: End----------
CONSTITUTION OF THE SWISS CONFEDERATION.
After the Sonderbund secession and war of 1847 (see
SWITZERLAND: A. D. 1803-1848), the task of drawing up a
Constitution for the Confederacy was confided to a committee
of fourteen members, and the work was finished on the 14th of
April, 1848. "The project was submitted to the Cantons, and
accepted at once by thirteen and a half; others joined during
the summer, and the new Constitution was finally promulgated
with the assent of all on the 12th September. Hence arose the
seventh and last phase of the Confederation, by the adoption
of a Federal Constitution for the whole of Switzerland, being
the first which was entirely the work of Swiss, without any
foreign influence, although its authors had studied that of
the United States. … It was natural that, as in process of
time commerce and industry were developed, and as the
differences between the legislation of the various Cantons
became more apparent, a revision of the first really Swiss
Confederation should be necessary. This was proposed both in
1871 and 1872, but the partisans of a further centralization,
though successful in the Chambers, were defeated upon an
appeal to the popular vote on the 12th of May 1872, by a
majority of between five and six thousand, and by thirteen
Cantons to nine. The question was, however, by no means
settled, and in 1874 a new project of revision more acceptable
to the partisans of cantonal independence, was adopted by the
people, the numbers being 340,199, to 198,013. The Cantons
were about two to one in favour of the revision, 14½ declaring
for and 7½ against it. This Constitution bears date the 29th
May, 1874, and has since been added to and altered in certain
particulars."
_Sir F. O. Adams and C. D. Cunningham,
The Swiss Confederation,
chapter 1._
"Since 1848, … Switzerland has been a federal state,
consisting of a central authority, the Bund, and 19 entire and
six half states, the Cantons; to foreign powers she presents
an united front, while her internal policy allows to each
Canton a large amount of independence. … The basis of all
legislative division is the Commune or Gemeinde; corresponding
in some slight degree to the English Parish. The Commune in
its legislative and administrative aspect or
'Einwohnergemeinde' is composed of all the inhabitants of a
Commune. It is self-governing and has the control of the local
police; it also administers all matters connected with
pauperism, education, sanitary and funeral regulations, the
fire brigade, the maintenance of public peace and
trusteeships. … At the head of the Commune is the
Gemeinderath, or Communal Council, whose members are elected
from the inhabitants for a fixed period. It is presided over
by an Ammann, or Mayor, or President. … Above the Commune on
the ascending scale comes the Canton. … Each of the 19
Cantons and 6 half Cantons is a sovereign state, whose
privileges are nevertheless limited by the Federal
Constitution, particularly as regards legal and military
matters; the Constitution also defines the extent of each
Canton, and no portion of a Canton is allowed to secede and
join itself to another Canton. … Legislative power is in the
hands of the 'Volk'; in the political sense of the word the
'Volk' consists of all the Swiss living in the Canton, who
have passed their 20th year and are not under disability from
crime or bankruptcy.
{588}
The voting on the part of the people deals mostly with
alterations in the cantonal constitution, treaties, laws,
decisions of the First Council involving expenditures of Frs.
100,000 and upward, and other decisions which the Council
considers advisable to subject to the public vote, which also
determines the adoption of propositions for the creation of
new laws, or the alteration or abolition of old ones, when
such a plebiscite is demanded by a petition signed by 5,000
voters. … The First Council (Grosse Rath) is the highest
political and administrative power of the Canton. It
corresponds to the 'Chamber' of other countries. Every 1,300
inhabitants of an electoral circuit send one member. … The
Kleine Rath or special council (corresponding to the
'Ministerium' of other continental countries) is composed of
three members and has three proxies. It is chosen by the First
Council for a period of two years. It superintends all
cantonal institutions and controls the various public boards.
… The populations of the 22 sovereign Cantons constitute
together the Swiss Confederation."
_P. Hauri,
Sketch of the Constitution of Switzerland
(in Strickland's The Engadine)._
The following text of the Federal Constitution of the Swiss
Confederation is a translation from parallel French and German
texts, by Professor Albert Bushnell Hart, of Harvard College.
It appeared originally in "Old South Leaflets," No. 18, and is
now reprinted under permission from Professor Hart, who has
most kindly revised his translation throughout and introduced
the later amendments, to July, 1893.
In the Name of Almighty God.
The Swiss Confederation, desiring to confirm the alliance of
the Confederates, to maintain and to promote the unity,
strength, and honor of the Swiss nation, has adopted the
Federal Constitution following:
Chapter I. General Provisions.
ARTICLE 1.
The peoples of the twenty-two sovereign Cantons of
Switzerland, united by this present alliance, viz.: Zurich,
Bern, Luzern, Uri, Schwyz, Unterwalden (Upper and Lower),
Glarus, Zug, Freiburg, Solothurn, Basel (urban and rural),
Schaffhausen, Appenzell (the two Rhodes), St. Gallen, Grisons,
Aargau, Thurgau, Ticino, Vaud, Valais, Neuchâtel, and Geneva,
form in their entirety the Swiss Confederation.
ARTICLE 2.
The purpose of the Confederation is, to secure the
independence of the country against foreign nations, to
maintain peace and order within, to protect the liberty and
the rights of the Confederates, and to foster their common
welfare.
ARTICLE 3.
The Cantons are sovereign, so far as their sovereignty is not
limited by the Federal Constitution; and, as such, they
exercise all the rights which are not delegated to the federal
government.
ARTICLE 4.
All Swiss are equal before the law. In Switzerland there are
neither political dependents, nor privileges of place, birth,
persons, or families.
ARTICLE 5.
The Confederation guarantees to the Cantons their territory,
their sovereignty, within the limits fixed by Article 3, their
Constitutions, the liberty and rights of the people, the
constitutional rights of citizens, and the rights and powers
which the people have conferred on those in authority.
ARTICLE 6.
The Cantons are bound to ask of the Confederation the guaranty
of their Constitutions. This guaranty is accorded, provided:
(a) that the Constitutions contain nothing contrary to the
provisions of the Federal Constitution.
(b) That they assure the exercise of political rights,
according to republican forms, representative or democratic.
(c) That they have been ratified by the people, and may be
amended whenever the majority of all the citizens demand it.
ARTICLE 7.
All separate alliances and all treaties of a political
character between the Cantons are forbidden. On the other hand
the Cantons have the right to make conventions among
themselves upon legislative, administrative or judicial
subjects; in all cases they shall bring such conventions to
the attention of the federal officials, who are authorized to
prevent their execution, if they contain anything contrary to
the Confederation, or to the rights of other Cantons. Should
such not be the case, the covenanting Cantons are authorized
to require the cooperation of the federal officials in
carrying out the convention.
ARTICLE 8.
The Confederation has the sole right of declaring war, of
making peace, and of concluding alliances and treaties with
foreign powers, particularly treaties relating to tariffs and
commerce.
ARTICLE 9.
By exception the Cantons preserve the right of concluding
treaties with foreign powers, respecting the administration of
public property, and border and police intercourse; but such
treaties shall contain nothing contrary to the Confederation
or to the rights of other Cantons.
ARTICLE 10.
Official intercourse between Cantons and foreign governments,
or their representatives, shall take place through the Federal
Council. Nevertheless, the Cantons may correspond directly
with the inferior officials and officers of a foreign State,
in regard to the subjects enumerated in the preceding article.
ARTICLE 11.
No military capitulations shall be made.
ARTICLE 12.
No members of the departments of the federal government, civil
and military officials of the Confederation, or federal
representatives or commissioners, shall receive from any
foreign government any pension, salary, title, gift, or
decoration. Such persons, already in possession of pensions,
titles, or decorations, must renounce the enjoyment of
pensions and the bearing of titles and decorations during
their term of office. Nevertheless, inferior officials may be
authorized by the Federal Council to continue in the receipt
of pensions. No decoration or title conferred by a foreign
government shall be borne in the federal army. No officer,
non-commissioned officer, or soldier shall accept such
distinction.
ARTICLE 13.
The Confederation has no right to keep up a standing army. No
Canton or Half-Canton shall, without the permission of the
federal government keep up a standing force of more than three
hundred men; the mounted police [gendarmerie] is not included
in this number.
ARTICLE 14.
In case of differences arising between Cantons, the States
shall abstain from violence and from arming themselves; they
shall submit to the decision to be taken upon such differences
by the Confederation.
ARTICLE 15.
In case of sudden danger of foreign attack, the authorities of
the Cantons threatened shall request the aid of other members
of the Confederation and shall immediately notify the federal
government; the subsequent action of the latter shall not
thereby be precluded. The Cantons summoned are bound to give
aid. The expenses shall be borne by the Confederation.
{589}
Article 16.
In case of internal disturbance, or if the danger is
threatened by another Canton, the authorities of the Canton
threatened shall give immediate notice to the Federal Council,
in order that that body may take the measures necessary,
within the limits of its power (Article 102, §§ 3, 10, 11), or
may summon the Federal Assembly. In extreme cases the
authorities of the Canton are authorized, while giving
immediate notice to the Federal Council, to ask the aid of
other Cantons, which are bound to afford such aid. If the
executive of the Canton is unable to call for aid, the federal
authority having the power may, and if the safety of
Switzerland is endangered shall, intervene without
requisition. In case of federal intervention, the federal
authorities shall take care that the provisions of Article 5
be observed. The expenses shall be borne by the Canton asking
aid or occasioning federal intervention, except when the
Federal Assembly otherwise decides on account of special
circumstances.
Article 17.
In the cases mentioned in Articles 15 and 16, every Canton is
bound to afford undisturbed passage for the troops. The troops
shall immediately be placed under federal command.
Article 18.
Every Swiss is bound to perform military service. Soldiers who
lose their lives or suffer permanent injury to their health,
in consequence of federal service, are entitled to aid from
the Confederation for themselves or their families, in case of
need. Each soldier shall receive without expense his first
equipment, clothing, and arms. The weapon remains in the hands
of the soldier, under conditions which shall be prescribed by
federal legislation. The Confederation shall enact uniform
provisions as to an exemption tax.
Article 19.
The federal army is composed:
(a) Of the cantonal military corps.
(b) Of all Swiss who do not belong to such military corps, but
are nevertheless liable to military service.
The Confederation exercises control over the army and the
material of war provided by law. In cases of danger, the
Confederation has also the exclusive and direct control of men
not included in the federal army, and of all other military
resources of the Cantons. The Cantons have authority over the
military forces of their territory, so far as this right is
not limited by the Federal Constitution or laws.
Article 20.
The laws on the organization of the army are passed by the
Confederation. The enforcement of military laws in the Cantons
is intrusted to the cantonal officials, within limits which
shall be fixed by federal legislation, and under the
supervision of the Confederation. Military instruction of
every kind pertains to the Confederation. The same applies to
the arming of troops. The furnishing and maintenance of
clothing and equipment is within the power of the Cantons; but
the Cantons shall be credited with the expenses therefor,
according to a regulation to be established by federal
legislation.
Article 21.
So far as military reasons do not prevent, bodies of troops
shall be formed out of the soldiers of the same Cantons. The
composition of these bodies of troops, the maintenance of
their effective strength, the appointment and promotion of
officers of these bodies of troops, belong to the Cantons,
subject to general provisions which shall be established by
the Confederation.
Article 22.
On payment of a reasonable indemnity, the Confederation has
the right to use or acquire drill-grounds and buildings
intended for military purposes, within the Cantons, together
with the appurtenances thereof. The terms of the indemnity
shall be settled by federal legislation.
Article 23.
The Confederation may construct at its own expense, or may aid
by subsidies, public works which concern Switzerland or a
considerable part of the country. For this purpose it may
expropriate property, on payment of a reasonable indemnity.
Further enactments upon this matter shall be made by federal
legislation. The Federal Assembly may forbid public works
which endanger the military interests of the Confederation.
Article 24.
The Confederation has the right of superintendence over dike
and forest police in the upper mountain regions. It may
cooperate in the straightening and embankment of torrents as
well as in the afforesting of the districts in which they
rise. It may prescribe the regulations necessary to assure the
maintenance of these works, and the preservation of existing
forests.
Article 25.
The Confederation has power to make legislative enactments for
the regulation of the right of fishing and hunting,
particularly with a view to the preservation of the large game
in the mountains, as well as for the protection of birds
useful to agriculture and forestry.
Article 26.
Legislation upon the construction and operation of railroads
is in the province of the Confederation.
Article 27.
The Confederation has the right to establish, besides the
existing Polytechnic School, a Federal University and other
institutions of higher instruction, or to subsidize
institutions of such nature. The Cantons provide for primary
instruction, which shall be sufficient, and shall be placed
exclusively under the direction of the secular authority. It
is compulsory and, in the public schools, free. The public
schools shall be such that they may be frequented by the
adherents of all religious sects, without any offense to their
freedom of conscience or of belief. The Confederation shall
take the necessary measures against such Cantons as shall not
fulfill these duties.
Article 28.
The customs are in the province of the Confederation. It may
levy export and import duties.
Article 29.
The collection of the federal customs shall be regulated
according to the following principles:
1. Duties ou imports:
(a) Materials necessary for the manufactures and agriculture
of the country shall be taxed as low as possible.
(b) It shall be the same with the necessities of life.
(c) Luxuries shall be subjected to the highest duties.
Unless there are imperative reasons to the contrary, these
principles shall be observed also in the conclusion of
treaties of commerce with foreign powers.
2. The duties on exports shall also be as low as possible.
3. The customs legislation shall include suitable provisions
for the continuance of commercial and market intercourse
across the frontier. The above provisions do not prevent the
Confederation from making temporary exceptional provisions,
under extraordinary circumstances.
{590}
Article 30.
The proceeds of the customs belong to the Confederation. The
indemnity ceases which hitherto has been paid to the Cantons
for the redemption of customs, for road and bridge tolls,
customs duties and other like dues. By exception, and on
account of their international alpine roads, the Cantons of
Uri, Grisons, Ticino, and Valais receive an annual indemnity,
which, considering all the circumstances, is fixed as follows:
Uri, 80,000 francs. Grisons, 200,000 francs. Ticino, 200,000
francs. Valais, 50,000 francs. The Cantons of Uri and Ticino
shall receive in addition, for clearing the snow from the
Saint Gotthard road, an annual indemnity of 40,000 francs, so
long as that road shall not be replaced by a railroad.
Article 31.
The freedom of trade and of industry is guaranteed throughout
the whole extent of the Confederation. The following subjects
are excepted:
(a) The salt and gunpowder monopoly, the federal customs,
import duties on wines and other spirituous liquors, and other
taxes on consumption expressly permitted by the Confederation,
according to article 32.
(b) [_Added by Amendment of December_ 22, 1885.] The
manufacture and sale of alcohol, under Article 32 (ii).
(c) [_Added by Amendment of December_ 22, 1885.] Drinking
places, and the retail trade in spirituous liquors; but
nevertheless the Cantons may by legislation subject the
business of keeping drinking places, and the retail trade in
spirituous liquors, to such restrictions as are required for
the public welfare.
(d) [Originally (b)] Measures of sanitary police against
epidemics and cattle diseases.
(e) [Originally (c)] Provisions in regard to the exercise of
trades and manufactures, in regard to taxes imposed thereon,
and in regard to the police of the roads. These provisions
shall not contain anything contrary to the principle of
freedom of trade and manufacture.
Article 32.
The Cantons are authorized to collect the import duties on
wines and other spirituous liquors, provided in Article 31
(a), always under the following restrictions:
(a) The collection of these import duties shall in no wise
impede transportation: commerce shall be obstructed as little
as possible and shall not be burdened with any other dues.
(b) If the articles imported for consumption are reexported
from the Canton, the duties paid on importation shall be
refunded, without further charges.
(c) Products of Swiss origin shall be less burdened than those
of foreign countries.
(d) The existing import duties on wines and other spirituous
liquors of Swiss origin shall not be increased by the Cantons
which already levy them. Such duties shall not be established
upon such articles by Cantons which do not at present collect
them.
(e) The laws and ordinances of the Cantons on the collection
of import duties shall, before their going into effect, be
submitted to the federal government for approval, in order
that it may, if necessary, cause the enforcement of the
preceding provisions. All the import duties now levied by the
Cantons, as well as the similar duties levied by the Communes,
shall cease without indemnity, at the end of the year 1890.
Article 32 (ii).
[_Amendment of_ December 22, 1885.]
The Confederation is authorized by legislation to make
regulations for the manufacture and sale of alcohol. In this
legislation those products which are intended for exportation,
or which have been subjected to a process excluding them from
use as a beverage, shall be subjected to no tax. Distillation
of wine, fruit, and their by-products, of gentian root,
juniper berries, and similar products, is not subject to
federal legislation as to manufacture or tax. After the
cessation of the import duties on spirituous liquors, provided
for in Article 32 of the Constitution, the trade in liquors
not distilled shall not be subjected by the Cantons to any
special taxes or to other limitations than those necessary for
protection against adulterated or noxious beverages.
Nevertheless, the powers of the Cantons, defined in Article
31, are retained over the keeping of drinking places, and the
sale at retail of quantities less than two liters. The net
proceeds resulting from taxation on the sale of alcohol belong
to the Cantons in which the tax is levied. The net proceeds to
the Confederation from the internal manufacture of alcohol,
and the corresponding addition to the duty on imported
alcohol, are divided among all the Cantons, in proportion to
the actual population as ascertained from time to time by the
next preceding federal census. Out of the receipts therefrom
the Cantons must expend not less than one tenth in combating
drunkenness in its causes and effects. [_For additional
articles of this Amendment see Temporary Provisions, Article
6, at the end of this Constitution. _]
Article 33.
The Cantons may require proofs of competency from those who
desire to practice a liberal profession. Provision shall be
made by federal legislation by which such persons may obtain
certificates of competency which shall be valid throughout the
Confederation.
Article 34.
The Confederation has power to enact uniform provisions as to
the labor of children in factories, and as to the duration of
labor fixed for adults therein, and as to the protection of
workmen against the operation of unhealthy and dangerous
manufactures. The transactions of emigration agents and of
organizations for insurance, not instituted by the State, are
subject to federal supervision and legislation.
Article 34 (ii).
[_Amendment of December _17, 1890.]
The Confederation shall by law provide for insurance against
sickness and accident, with due regard for existing
sick-benefit funds. The Confederation may require
participation therein, either by all persons or by particular
classes of the population.
Article 35.
The opening of gaming houses is forbidden. Those which now
exist shall be closed December 31, 1877. The concessions which may
have been granted or renewed since the beginning of the year
1871 are declared invalid. The Confederation may also take
necessary measures concerning lotteries.
Article 36.
The posts and telegraphs in all Switzerland are controlled by
the Confederation. The proceeds of the posts and telegraphs
belong to the federal treasury. The rates shall, for all parts
of Switzerland, be fixed according to the same principle and
as fairly as possible. Inviolable secrecy of letters and
telegrams is guaranteed.
Article 37.
The Confederation exercises general oversight over those roads
and bridges in the maintenance of which it is interested. The
sums due to the Cantons mentioned in Article 30, on account of
their international alpine roads, shall be retained by the
federal government if such roads are not kept by them in
suitable condition.
{591}
Article 38.
The Confederation exercises all the exclusive rights
pertaining to coinage. It has the sole right of coining money.
It establishes the monetary system, and may enact provisions,
if necessary, for the rate of exchange of foreign coins.
[Article 39.
(_Abrogated by the article following it_).
_The Confederation has the power to make by law general
provisions for the issue and redemption of bank notes. But it
shall not create any monopoly for the issue of bank notes, nor
make such notes a legal tender_.]
Article 39.
[_Substitute for former Article 39, adopted October_ 18,
1891.] The Confederation has the exclusive power to issue bank
notes and other like currency. The Confederation may exercise
the exclusive power over the issue of bank notes through a
National Bank carried on under a special department of
administration; or it may assign the right to a central joint
stock bank hereafter to be created, which shall be
administered under the coöperation and supervision of the
Confederation; but the privilege to take over the bank, by
paying a compensation, shall be retained. The bank possessed
of the exclusive right to issue notes shall have for its chief
function to regulate the circulation of money in Switzerland
and to facilitate exchange. To the Cantons shall be paid at
least two-thirds of the net profits of the bank beyond a
reasonable interest or a reasonable dividend to the
stockholders, and the necessary transfers to the reserve fund.
The bank and its branches shall not be subjected to taxation
by the Cantons. The Confederation shall not make bank notes
and other like currency legal tender, except in urgent need in
time of war. The principal office of the bank and the details
of its organization, as well as in general the carrying into
effect this article, shall be determined by federal law.
Article 40.
The Confederation fixes the standard of weights and measures.
The Cantons, under the supervision of the Confederation,
[shall] enforce the laws relating thereto.
Article 41.
The manufacture and the sale of gunpowder throughout
Switzerland pertain exclusively to the Confederation. Powders
used for blasting and not suitable for shooting are not
included in the monopoly.
Article 42.
The expenditures of the Confederation are met as follows:
(a) Out of the income from federal property.
(b) Out of the proceeds of the federal customs levied at the
Swiss frontier.
(c) Out of the proceeds of the posts and telegraphs.
(d) Out of the proceeds of the powder monopoly.
(e) Out of half of the gross receipts from the tax on military
exemptions levied by the Cantons.
(f) Out of the contributions of the Cantons, which shall be
determined by federal legislation, with special reference to
their wealth and taxable resources.
Article 43.
Every citizen of a Canton is a Swiss citizen. As such he may
participate, in the place where he is domiciled, in all
federal elections and popular votes, after having duly proven
his qualification as a voter. No person can exercise political
rights in more than one Canton. The Swiss settled as a citizen
outside his native Canton enjoys in the place where he is
domiciled, all the rights of the citizens of the Canton,
including all the rights of the communal citizen.
Participation in municipal and corporate property, and the
right to vote upon purely municipal affairs, are excepted from
such rights, unless the Canton by legislation has otherwise
provided. In cantonal and communal affairs, he gains the right
to vote after a residence of three months. Cantonal laws
relating to the right of Swiss citizens to settle outside the
Cantons in which they were born, and to vote on communal
questions, are submitted for the approval of the Federal
Council.
Article 44.
No Canton shall expel from its territory one of its own
citizens, nor deprive him of his rights, whether acquired by
birth or settlement. [Origine ou cité.] Federal legislation
shall fix the conditions upon which foreigners may be
naturalized, as well as those upon which a Swiss may give up
his citizenship in order to obtain naturalization in a foreign
country.
Article 45.
Every Swiss citizen has the right to settle anywhere in Swiss
territory, on condition of submitting a certificate of origin,
or a similar document. By exception, settlement may be refused
to or withdrawn from, those who, in consequence of a penal
conviction, are not entitled to civil rights. In addition,
settlement may be withdrawn from those who have been
repeatedly punished for serious offenses, and also from those
who permanently come upon the charge of public charity, and to
whom their Commune or Canton of origin, as the case may be,
refuses sufficient succor, after they have been officially
asked to grant it. In the Cantons where the poor are relieved
in their place of residence the permission to settle, if it
relates to citizens of the Canton, may be coupled with the
condition that they shall be able to work, and that they shall
not, in their former domicile in the Canton of origin, have
permanently become a charge on public charity. Every expulsion
on account of poverty must be approved by the government of
the Canton of domicile, and previously announced to the
government of the Canton of origin. A Canton in which a Swiss
establishes his domicile may not require security, nor impose
any special obligations for such establishment. In like manner
the Communes cannot require from Swiss domiciled in their
territory other contributions than those which they require
from their own subjects. A federal law shall establish the
maximum fee to be paid the Chancery for a permit to settle.
Article 46.
Persons settled in Switzerland are, as a rule, subjected to
the jurisdiction and legislation of their domicile, in all
that pertains to their personal status and property rights.
The Confederation shall by law make the provisions necessary
for the application of this principle and for the prevention
of double taxation of a citizen.
Article 47.
A federal law shall establish the distinction between
settlement and temporary residence, and shall at the same time
make the regulations to which Swiss temporary residents shall
be subjected as to their political rights and their civil
rights.
Article 48.
A federal law shall provide for the regulation of the expenses
of the illness and burial of indigent persons amenable to one
Canton, who have fallen ill or died in another Canton.
{592}
Article 49.
Freedom of conscience and belief is inviolable. No person can
be constrained to take part in a religious society, to attend
religious instruction, to perform a religious rite, or to
incur penalties of any kind whatever on account of religious
opinion. The person who exercises the parent's or guardian's
authority has the right, conformably to the principles above
stated, to regulate the religious education of children up to
the age of sixteen completed years. The exercise of civil or
political rights shall not be abridged by any provisions or
conditions whatever of an ecclesiastical or religious kind. No
person shall, on account of a religious belief, release
himself from the accomplishment of a civil duty. No person is
bound to pay taxes of which the proceeds are specifically
appropriated to the actual expenses of the worship of a
religious body to which he does not belong. The details of the
carrying out of this principle are reserved for federal
legislation.
Article 50.
The free exercise of religious worship is guaranteed within
the limits compatible with public order and good morals. The
Cantons and the Confederation may take suitable measures for
the preservation of public order and of peace between the
members of different religious bodies, and also against
encroachments of ecclesiastical authorities upon the rights of
citizens and of the State. Contests in public and private law,
which arise out of the formation or the division of religious
bodies, may be brought by appeal before the competent federal
authorities. No bishopric shall be created upon Swiss
territory without the consent of the Confederation.
Article 51.
The order of the Jesuits, and the societies affiliated with
them, shall not be received into any part of Switzerland; and
all action in church and school is forbidden to its members.
This prohibition may be extended also, by federal ordinance,
to other religious orders, the action of which is dangerous to
the state or disturbs the peace between sects.
Article 52.
The foundation of new convents or religious orders, and the
reestablishment of those which have been suppressed, are
forbidden.
Article 53.
The civil status and the keeping of records thereof is subject
to the civil authority. The Confederation shall by law enact
detailed provisions upon this subject. The control of places o
burial is subject to the civil authority. It shall take care
that every deceased person may be decently interred.
Article 54.
The right of marriage is placed under the protection of the
Confederation. No limitation upon marriage shall be based upon
sectarian grounds, nor upon the poverty of either of the
contractants, nor on their conduct, nor on any other
consideration of good order. A marriage contracted in a Canton
or in a foreign country, conformably to the law which is there
in force, shall be recognized as valid throughout the
Confederation. By marriage the wife acquires the citizenship
of her husband. Children born before the marriage are made
legitimate by the subsequent marriage of their parents. No tax
upon admission or similar tax shall be levied upon either
party to a marriage.
Article 55.
The freedom of the press is guaranteed. Nevertheless the
Cantons by law enact the measures necessary for the
suppression of abuses. Such laws are submitted for the
approval of the Federal Council. The Confederation may enact
penalties for the suppression of press offenses directed
against it or its authorities.
Article 56.
Citizens have the right of forming associations, provided that
there be in the purpose of such associations, or in the means
which they employ, nothing unlawful or dangerous to the state.
The Cantons by law take the measures necessary for the
suppression of abuses.
Article 57.
The right of petition is guaranteed.
Article 58.
No person shall be deprived of his constitutional judge.
Therefore no extraordinary tribunal shall be established.
Ecclesiastical jurisdiction is abolished.
Article 59.
Suits for personal claims against a solvent debtor having a
domicile in Switzerland, must be brought before the judge of
his domicile; in consequence, his property outside the Canton
in which he is domiciled may not be attached in suits for
personal claims. Nevertheless, with reference to foreigners,
the provisions of international treaties shall not thereby be
affected. Imprisonment for debt is abolished.
Article 60.
All the Cantons are bound to treat the citizens of the other
confederated States like those of their own State in
legislation and in all judicial proceedings.
Article 61.
Civil judgments definitely pronounced in any Canton may be
executed anywhere in Switzerland.
Article 62.
The exit duty on property [traite foraine] is abolished in the
interior of Switzerland, as well as the right of redemption
[droit de retrait] by citizens of one Canton against those of
other confederated States.
Article 63.
The exit duty on property is abolished as respects foreign
countries, provided reciprocity be observed.
Article 64.
The Confederation has power to make laws:
On legal competency.
On all legal questions relating to commerce and to
transactions affecting chattels (law of commercial
obligations, including commercial law and law of exchange).
On literary and artistic copyright.
On the protection of new patterns and forms, and of inventions
which are represented in models and are capable of industrial
application. [Amendment of December 20, 1887.]
On the legal collection of debts and on bankruptcy. The
administration of justice remains with the Cantons, save as
affected by the powers of the Federal Court.
Article 65.
[(_Abrogated by Amendment of June_ 20, 1879.) _The
death penalty is abolished; nevertheless the provisions of
military law in time of war shall be observed. Corporal
punishment is abolished_.]
Article 65.
[Amendment of June 20, 1879.]
No death penalty shall be pronounced for a political crime.
Corporal punishment is abolished.
Article 66.
The Confederation by law fixes the limits within which a Swiss
citizen may be deprived of his political rights.
Article 67.
The Confederation by law provides for the extradition of
accused persons from one Canton to another; nevertheless,
extradition shall not be made obligatory for political
offenses and offenses of the press.
Article 68.
Measures are taken by federal law for the incorporation of
persons without country (Heimathlosen), and for the prevention
of new cases of that nature.
Article 69.
Legislation concerning measures of sanitary police against
epidemic and cattle diseases, causing a common danger, is
included in the powers of the Confederation.
Article 70.
The Confederation has power to expel from its territory
foreigners who endanger the internal or external safety of
Switzerland.
{593}
Chapter II.
Article 71.
With the reservation of the rights of the people and of the
Cantons (Articles 89 and 121), the supreme authority of the
Confederation is exercised by the Federal Assembly, [Assemblée
fédérale; Bundesversammlung] which consists of two sections or
councils, to wit:
(A) The National Council.
(B) The Council of States.
Article 72.
The National Council [Conseil National; Nationalrath] is
composed of representatives of the Swiss people, chosen in the
ratio of one member for each 20,000 persons of the total
population. Fractions of upwards of 10,000 persons are
reckoned as 20,000. Every Canton, and in the divided Cantons
every Half-Canton, chooses at least one representative.
Article 73.
The elections for the National Council are direct. They are
held in federal electoral districts, which in no case shall be
formed out of parts of different Cantons.
Article 74.
Every Swiss who has completed twenty years of age, and who in
addition is not excluded from the rights of a voter by the
legislation of the Canton in which he is domiciled, has the
right to vote in elections and popular votes. Nevertheless,
the Confederation by law may establish uniform regulations for
the exercise of such right.
Article 75.
Every lay Swiss citizen who has the right to vote is eligible
for membership in the National Council.
Article 76.
The National Council is chosen for three years, and entirely
renewed at each general election.
Article 77.
Representatives to the Council of States, members of the
Federal Council, and officials appointed by that Council,
shall not at the same time be members of the National Council.
Article 78.
The National Council chooses out of its own number, for each
regular or extraordinary session, a President and a
Vice-President. A member who has held the office of President
during a regular session is ineligible either as President, or
Vice-President at the next regular session. The same member
may not be Vice-President during two consecutive regular
sessions. When the votes are equally divided the President has
a casting vote; in elections he votes in the same manner as
other members.
Article 79.
The members of the National Council receive a compensation out
of the federal treasury.
Article 80.
The Council of States [Conseil des États; Ständerath] consists
of forty-four representatives of the Cantons. Each Canton
appoints two representatives; in the divided Cantons, each
Half-State chooses one.
Article 81.
The members of the National Council and those of the Federal
Council may not be representatives in the Council of States.
Article 82.
The Council of States chooses out of its own number for each
regular or extraordinary session a President and a
Vice-President. Neither the President nor the Vice-President
can be chosen from among the representatives of the Canton
from which the President has been chosen for the regular
session next preceding. Representatives of the same Canton
cannot occupy the position of Vice-President during two
consecutive regular sessions. When the votes are equally
divided the President has a casting vote; in elections he
votes in the same manner as the other members.
Article 83.
Representatives in the Council of States receive a
compensation from the Cantons.
Article 84.
The National Council and the Council of States consider all
the subjects which the present Constitution places within the
competence of the Confederation, and which are not assigned to
any other federal authority.
Article 85.
The subjects within the competence of the two Councils are
particularly the following:
1. Laws on the organization of and election of federal
authorities.
2. Laws and ordinances on subjects which by the Constitution
are placed within the federal competence.
3. The salary and compensation of members of the federal
governing bodies and of the Federal Chancery; the creation of
federal offices and the determination of salaries therefor.
4. The election of the Federal Council, of the Federal Court,
and of the Chancellor, and also of the Commander-in-chief of
the federal army. The Confederation may by law assign to the
Federal Assembly other powers of election or of confirmation.
5. Alliances and treaties with foreign powers, and also the
approval of treaties made by the Cantons between themselves or
with foreign powers; nevertheless the treaties made by the
Cantons shall be brought before the Federal Assembly only in
case the Federal Council or another Canton protests.
6. Measures for external safety and also for the maintenance
of the independence and neutrality of Switzerland; the
declaration of war and the conclusion of peace.
7. The guaranty of the Constitution and of the territory of
the Cantons; intervention in consequence of such guaranty;
measures for the internal safety of Switzerland, for the
maintenance of peace and order; amnesty and pardon.
8. Measures for the preservation of the Constitution, for
carrying out the guaranty of the cantonal constitutions, and
for fulfilling federal obligations.
9. The power of controlling the federal army.
10. The determination of the annual budget, the audit of
public accounts, and federal ordinances authorizing loans.
11. The superintendence of federal administration and of
federal courts.
12. Protests against the decisions of the Federal Council upon
administrative conflicts. (Article 113.)
13. Conflicts of jurisdiction between federal authorities.
14. The amendment of the federal Constitution.
Article 86.
The two Councils assemble annually in regular session upon a
day to be fixed by the standing orders. They are convened in
extra session by the Federal Council upon the request either
of one fourth of the members of the National Council, or of
five Cantons.
Article 87.
In either Council a quorum is a majority of the total number
of its members.
Article 88.
In the National Council and in the Council of States a
majority of those voting is required.
Article 89.
Federal laws, enactments, and resolutions shall be passed only
by the agreement of the two Councils. Federal laws shall be
submitted for acceptance or rejection by the people, if the
demand is made by 30,000 voters or by eight Cantons. The same
principle applies to federal resolutions which have a general
application, and which are not of an urgent nature.
Article 90.
The Confederation shall by law establish the forms and
intervals to be observed in popular votes.
{594}
Article 91.
Members of either Council vote without instructions.
Article 92.
Each Council takes action separately. But in the case of the
elections specified in Article 85, § 4, of pardons, or of
deciding a conflict of jurisdiction (Art. 85, § 13), the two
Councils meet in joint session, under the direction of the
President of the National Council, and a decision is made by
the majority of the members of both Councils present and
voting.
Article 93.
Measures may originate in either Council, and may be
introduced by any of their members. The Cantons may by
correspondence exercise the same right.
Article 94.
As a rule, the sittings of the Councils are public.
Article 95.
The supreme direction and executive authority of the
Confederation is exercised by a Federal Council [Conseil
fédéral; Bundesrath], composed of seven members.
Article 96.
The members of the Federal Council are chosen for three years
by the Councils in joint session from among all the Swiss
citizens eligible to the National Council. But not more than
one member of the Federal Council shall be chosen from the
same Canton. The Federal Council is chosen anew after each
election of the National Council. Vacancies which occur in the
course of the three years are filled at the first ensuing
session of the Federal Assembly, for the remainder of the term
of office.
Article 97.
The members of the Federal Council shall not, during their
term of office, occupy any other office, either in the service
of the Confederation or in a Canton, or follow any other
pursuit, or exercise a profession.
Article 98.
The Federal Council is presided over by the President of the
Confederation. There is a Vice-President. The President of the
Confederation and the Vice-President of the Federal Council
are chosen for one year by the Federal Assembly from among the
members of the Council. The retiring President shall not be
chosen as President or Vice-President for the year ensuing.
The same member shall not hold the office of Vice-President
during two consecutive years.
Article 99.
The President of the Confederation and the other members of
the Federal Council receive an annual salary from the federal
treasury.
Article 100.
A quorum of the Federal Council consists of four members.
Article 101.
The members of the Federal Council have the right to speak but
not to vote in either house of the Federal Assembly, and also
the right to make motions on the subject under consideration.
Article 102.
The powers and the duties of the Federal Council, within the
limits of this Constitution, are particularly the following:
1. It conducts federal affairs, conformably to the laws and
resolutions of the Confederation.
2. It takes care that the Constitution, federal laws and
ordinances, and also the provisions of federal concordats, be
observed; upon its own initiative or upon complaint, it takes
measures necessary to cause these instruments to be observed,
unless the consideration of redress be among the subjects
which should be brought before the Federal Court, according to
Article 113.
3. It takes care that the guaranty of the cantonal
constitutions be observed.
4. It introduces bills or resolutions into the Federal
Assembly, and gives its opinion upon the proposals submitted
to it by the Councils or the Cantons.
5. It executes the laws and resolutions of the Confederation
and the judgments of the Federal Court, and also the
compromises or decisions in arbitration upon disputes between
Cantons.
6. It makes those appointments which are not assigned to the
Federal Assembly, Federal Court, or other authority.
7. It examines the treaties made by Cantons with each other,
or with foreign powers, and approves them, if proper. (Article
85, § 5.)
8. It watches over the external interests of the
Confederation, particularly the maintenance of its
international relations, and is, in general, intrusted with
foreign relations.
9. It watches over the external safety of Switzerland, over
the maintenance of independence and neutrality.
10. It watches over the internal safety of the Confederation,
over the maintenance of peace and order.
11. In cases of urgency, and when the Federal Assembly is not
in session, the Federal Council has power to raise the
necessary troops and to employ them, with the reservation that
it shall immediately summon the Councils if the number of
troops exceeds two thousand men, or if they remain in arms
more than three weeks.
12. It administers the military establishment of the
Confederation, and all other branches of administration
committed to the Confederation.
13. It examines such laws and ordinances of the Cantons as
must be submitted for its approval; it exercises supervision
over such departments of the cantonal administration as are
placed under its control.
14. It administers the finances of the Confederation,
introduces the budget, and submits accounts of receipts and
expenses.
15. It supervises the conduct of an the officials and
employees of the federal administration.
16. It submits to the Federal Assembly at each regular session
an account of its administration and a report of the condition
of the Confederation, internal as well as external, and calls
attention to the measures which it deems desirable for the
promotion of the general welfare. It also makes special
reports when the Federal Assembly or either Council requires
it.
Article 103.
The business of the Federal Council is distributed by
departments among its members. This distribution has the
purpose only of facilitating the examination and despatch of
business; decisions emanate from the Federal Council as a
single authority.
Article 104.
The Federal Council and its departments have power to call in
experts on special subjects.
Article 105.
A Federal Chancery [Chancellerie fédérale; Bundeskanzlei], at
the head of which is placed the Chancellor of the
Confederation, conducts the secretary's business for the
Federal Assembly and the Federal Council. The Chancellor is
chosen by the Federal Assembly for the term of three years, at
the same time as the Federal Council. The Chancery is under
the special supervision of the Federal Council. A federal law
shall provide for the organization of the Chancery.
Article 106.
There shall be a Federal Court [Tribunal fédéral;
Bundesgericht] for the administration of justice in federal
concerns. There shall be, moreover, a jury for criminal cases.
(Article 112.)
{595}
Article 107.
The members and alternates of the Federal Court shall be
chosen by the Federal Assembly, which shall take care that all
three national languages are represented therein. A law shall
establish the organization of the Federal Court and of its
sections, the number of judges and alternates, their term of
office, and their salary.
Article 108.
Any Swiss citizen eligible to the National Council may be
chosen to the Federal Court. The members of the Federal
Assembly and of the Federal Council, and officials appointed
by those authorities, shall not at the same time belong to the
Federal Court. The members of the Federal Court shall not,
during their term of office, occupy any other office, either
in the service of the Confederation or in a Canton, nor engage
in any other pursuit, nor practice a profession.
Article 109.
The Federal Court organizes its own Chancery and appoints the
officials thereof.
Article 110.
The Federal Court has jurisdiction in civil suits:
1. Between the Confederation and the Cantons.
2. Between the Confederation on one part and corporations or
individuals on the other part, when such corporations or
individuals are plaintiffs, and when the amount involved is of
a degree of importance to be determined by federal
legislation.
3. Between Cantons.
4. Between Cantons on one part and corporations or individuals
on the other part, when one of the parties demands it, and the
amount involved is of a degree of importance to be determined
by federal legislation. It further has jurisdiction in suits
concerning the status of persons not subjects of any
government (heimathlosat), and the conflicts which arise
between Communes of different Cantons respecting the right of
local citizenship. [Droit de cité.]
Article 111.
The Federal Court is bound to give judgment in other cases
when both parties agree to abide by its decision, and when the
amount involved is of a degree of importance to be determined
by federal legislation.
Article 112.
The Federal Court, assisted by a jury to decide upon questions
of fact, has criminal jurisdiction in:
1. Cases of high treason against the Confederation, of
rebellion or violence against federal authorities.
2. Crimes and misdemeanors against the law of nations.
3, Political crimes and misdemeanors which are the cause or
the result of disturbances which occasion armed federal
intervention.
4. Cases against officials appointed by a federal authority,
where such authority relegates them to the Federal Court.
Article 113.
The Federal Court further has jurisdiction:
1. Over conflicts of jurisdiction between federal authorities
on one part and cantonal authorities on the other part.
2. Disputes between Cantons, when such disputes are upon
questions of public law.
3. Complaints of violation of the constitutional rights of
citizens, and complaints of individuals for the violation of
concordats or treaties. Conflicts of administrative
jurisdiction are reserved, and are to be settled in a manner
prescribed by federal legislation. In all the fore-mentioned
cases the Federal Court shall apply the laws passed by the
Federal Assembly and those resolutions of the Assembly which
have a general import. It shall in like manner conform to
treaties which shall have been ratified by the Federal
Assembly.
Article 114.
Besides the cases specified in Articles 110, 112, and 113, the
Confederation may by law place other matters within the
jurisdiction of the Federal Court; in particular, it may give
to that court powers intended to insure the uniform
application of the laws provided for in Article 64.
Article 115.
All that relates to the location of the authorities of the
Confederation is a subject for federal legislation.
Article 116.
The three principal languages spoken in Switzerland, German,
French, and Italian, are national languages of the
Confederation.
Article 117.
The officials of the Confederation are responsible for their
conduct in office. A federal law shall enforce this
responsibility.
Chapter III.
(These four articles abrogated by the four articles following
them, 118-122.) Article 118. The Federal Constitution may at
any time be amended.
[Article 119.
_Amendment is secured through the forms required for passing
federal laws._]
[Article 120.
_When either Council of the Federal Assembly passes a
resolution for amendment of the Federal Constitution and the
other Council does not agree; or when fifty thousand Swiss
voters demand amendment, the question whether the Federal
Constitution ought to be amended is, in either case, submitted
to a vote of the Swiss people, voting yes or no. If in either
case the majority of the Swiss citizens who vote pronounce in
the affirmative, there shall be a new election of both
Councils for the purpose of preparing amendments._]
[Article 121.
_The amended Federal Constitution shalt be in force when it
has been adopted by the majority of Swiss citizens who take
part in the vote thereon and by a majority of the States. In
making up a majority of the States the vote of a Half-Canton
is counted as half a vote. The result of the popular vote in
each Canton is considered to be the vote of the State._]
Article 118.
[_Amendment of July_ 5, 1891.] The Federal Constitution
may at any time be amended as a whole or in part.
Article 119.
[_Amendment of July_ 5, 1891.] General revision is
secured through the forms required for passing the federal
laws.
Article 120.
When either Council of the Federal Assembly passes a
resolution for general revision and the other Council does not
agree; or when fifty thousand Swiss voters demand general
revision the question whether there shall be such a revision
must, in either case, be submitted to the popular vote of the
Swiss people. If, in either case, the majority of the Swiss
citizens who vote on the question pronounce in the
affirmative, there shall be a new election of both Councils
for the purpose of preparing a general revision.
Article 121.
[_Amendment of July_ 5, 1891.] Specific amendments may be
brought forward either through a Proposition of the People
[Volksanregung] (Initiative) or by Federal legislation. A
Proposition of the People means a demand supported by fifty
thousand Swiss voters, either for suspension, repeal, or
alteration of specified articles of the Federal Constitution.
If by means of the method of Proposition of the People several
different subjects are brought forward either for alteration
or for incorporation into the Federal Constitution, each one
of those separate subjects must be presented in a separate
demand for a popular vote [Initintivbegehren]. The demand for
a popular vote may take the form either of a request in
general terms, or of a definite draft. If such a demand be
made in the form of a request in general terms and the
Councils of the Federal Assembly agree thereto, the said
Councils shall thereupon prepare a specific amendment of the
purport indicated by those asking amendment; and such specific
amendment shall be submitted to the people and to the states
for their acceptance or rejection. In case the Councils of the
Federal Assembly do not agree thereto, the question of
specific amendment shall then be subjected to the people for a
popular vote; and in case the majority of the Swiss voters
vote therefor, an amendment of the purport indicated by the
vote of the people shall then be prepared by the Federal
Assembly. In case the request shall take the form of a
specific draft and the Federal Assembly agree thereto, the
draft is then to be submitted to the people and the States for
acceptance or rejection. If the Federal Assembly shall not
agree thereto it may either prepare a substitute draft for
itself, or it may propose the rejection of the proposition.
The proposition to reject such substitute draft or proposition
shall be submitted to the vote of the people and of the States
at the same time with the general Proposition of the People.
{596}
Article 122.
[_Amendment of July_ 5, 1891.] The procedure upon the
Proposition of the People and the popular votes concerning
amendment of the Federal Constitution, shall be regulated in
detail by a Federal Law.
Article 123.
[_Amendment of July_ 5, 1891.] The amended Federal
Constitution or the specific amendments proposed, as the case
may be, shall be in force when adopted by the majority of the
Swiss citizens who take part in the vote thereon and by a
majority of the Cantons. In making up the majority of the
States the vote of a half of each Canton is counted as half a
vote. The result of the popular vote in each Canton is
considered to be the vote of the state.
Temporary Provisions.
Article 1.
The proceeds of the posts and customs shall be divided upon
the present basis, until such time as the Confederation shall
take upon itself the military expenses up to this time borne
by the Cantons. Federal legislation shall provide, besides,
that the loss which may be occasioned to the finances of
certain Cantons by the sum of the charges which result from
Articles 20, 30, 36 (§ 2), and 42 (e), shall fall upon such
Cantons only gradually, and shall not attain its full effect
till after a transition period of some years. Those Cantons
which, at the going into effect of Article 20 of the
Constitution, have not fulfilled the military obligations
which are imposed upon them by the former Constitution, or by
federal laws, shall be bound to carry them out at their own
expense.
Article 2.
The provisions of the federal laws and of the cantonal
concordats, constitutions or cantonal laws, which are contrary
to this Constitution, cease to have effect by the adoption of
the Constitution or the publication of the laws for which it
provides.
Article 3.
The new provisions relating to the organization and
jurisdiction of the Federal Court take effect only after the
publication of federal laws thereon.
Article 4.
A delay of five years is allowed to Cantons for the
establishment of free instruction in primary public education.
(Art. 27.)
Article 5.
Those persons who practice a liberal profession, and who,
before the publication of the federal law provided for in
Article 33, have obtained a certificate of competence from a
Canton or a joint authority representing several Cantons, may
pursue that profession throughout the Confederation.
Article 6.
[_Amendment of December_ 22, 1885. _For the remainder of
this amendment see article 32 (ii)._] If a federal law for
carrying out Article 32 (ii) be passed before the end of 1890,
the import duties levied on spirituous liquors by the Cantons
and Communes, according to Article 32, cease on the going into
effect of such law. If, in such case, the shares of any Canton
or Commune, out of the sums to be divided, are not sufficient
to equal the average annual net proceeds of the taxes they
have levied on spirituous liquors in the years 1880 to 1884
inclusive, the Cantons and Communes affected shall, till the
end of 1890, receive the amount of the deficiency out of the
amount which is to be divided among the other Cantons
according to population; and the remainder only shall be
divided among such other Cantons and Communes, according to
population. The Confederation shall further provide by law
that for such Cantons or Communes as may suffer financial loss
through the effect of this amendment, such loss shall not come
upon them immediately in its full extent, but gradually up to
the year 1895. The indemnities thereby made necessary shall be
previously taken out of the net proceeds designated in Article
32 (ii), paragraph 4.
Thus resolved by the National Council to be submitted to the
popular vote of the Swiss people and of the Cantons. Bern,
January 31, 1874. Ziegler, President. Schiess, Secretary.
Thus resolved by the Council of States, to be submitted to the
popular vote of the Swiss people and of the Cantons. Bern,
January 31, 1874. A. Kopp, President. J. L. Lutscher,
Secretary.
----------CONSTITUTION OF THE SWISS CONFEDERATION: End----------
CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA.
CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1781.
The Articles of Confederation.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1777-1781,
and 1783-1787.
CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
A. D. 1787-1789, and 1791-1870.
A sketch of the history of the framing and adoption of the
Federal Constitution of the United States will be found under
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1787,
and 1787-1789.
The following text of the original instrument, with the
subsequent amendments to it, is one prepared by Professor
Albert Bushnell Hart, and is the result of a careful
comparison with the original manuscripts, preserved in the
State Department at Washington. "It is intended to be
absolutely exact in word, spelling, capitalization and
punctuation. A few headings and paragraph numbers, inserted
for convenience of reference, are indicated by brackets."
"Those parts of the Constitution which were temporary in
their nature, or which have been superseded or altered by
later amendments, are included within the signs []." This
text, originally printed in the "American History Leaflets,"
is reproduced with Professor Hart's consent. The paragraphing
has been altered, to economize space, but it is otherwise
exactly reproduced:
{597}
"WE THE PEOPLE of the United States, in Order to form a more
perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility,
provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare,
and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our
Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the
United States of America.
Article I.
_Section_ 1.
All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a
Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate
and House of Representatives.
_Section_ 2
[§ 1.]
The House of Representatives shall be composed of Members
chosen every second Year by the People of the several States,
and the Electors in each State shall have the Qualifications
requisite for Electors of the most numerous Branch of the
State Legislature.
[Footnote: Modified by Fourteenth Amendment.]
[§ 2.]
No Person shall be a Representative who shall not have
attained to the Age of twenty-five Years, and been seven Years
a Citizen of the United States, and who shall not, when
elected, be an Inhabitant of that State in which he shall be
chosen.
[§ 3.]
Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among
the several States which may be included within this Union,
according to their respective Numbers, [which shall be
determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons,
including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and
excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other
Persons.]
[Footnote: Superseded by Fourteenth Amendment.]
The actual Enumeration shall be made within three Years after
the first Meeting of the Congress of the United States, and
within every subsequent Term of ten Years, in such Manner as
they shall by Law direct. The Number of Representatives shall
not exceed one for every thirty Thousand, but each State shall
have at Least one Representative; [and until such enumeration
shall be made, the State of New Hampshire shall be entitled to
chuse three, Massachusetts eight, Rhode-Island and Providence
Plantations one, Connecticut five, New-York six, New Jersey
four, Pennsylvania eight, Delaware one, Maryland six, Virginia
ten, North Carolina five, South Carolina five, and Georgia
three.]
[Footnote: Temporary clause.]
[§ 4.]
When vacancies happen in the Representation from any State,
the Executive Authority thereof shall issue Writs of Election
to fill such Vacancies.
[§ 5.]
The House of Representatives shall chuse their Speaker and
other Officers; and shall have the sole Power of Impeachment.
_Section_ 3.
[§ 1.]
The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two
Senators from each State, chosen by the Legislature thereof,
for six Years; and each Senator shall have one Vote.
[§ 2.]
Immediately after they shall be assembled in Consequence of
the first Election, they shall be divided as equally as may be
into three Classes. The Seats of the Senators of the first
Class shall be vacated at the Expiration of the second Year,
of the second Class at the Expiration of the fourth Year, and
of the third Class at the Expiration of the sixth Year, so
that one third may be chosen every second Year; and if
Vacancies happen by Resignation, or otherwise, during the
Recess of the Legislature of any State, the Executive thereof
may make temporary Appointments until the next Meeting of the
Legislature, which shall then fill such Vacancies.
[§ 3.]
No Person shall be a Senator who shall not have attained to
the Age of thirty Years, and been nine Years a Citizen of the
United States, and who shall not, when elected, be an
Inhabitant of that State for which he shall be chosen.
[§ 4.]
The Vice President of the United States shall be President of
the Senate, but shall have no Vote, unless they be equally
divided.
[§ 5.]
The Senate shall chuse their other Officers, and also a
President pro tempore, in the Absence of the Vice President,
or when he shall exercise the Office of President of the
United States.
[§ 6.]
The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments.
When sitting for that Purpose, they shall be on Oath or
Affirmation. When the President of the United States is tried,
the Chief Justice shall preside: And no Person shall be
convicted without the Concurrence of two thirds of the Members
present.
[§ 7.]
Judgment in Cases of Impeachment shall not extend further than
to removal from Office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy
any Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States:
but the Party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and
subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment,
according to Law.
_Section_ 4.
[§ 1.]
The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators
and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the
Legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time by Law
make or alter such Regulations, except as to the Places of
chusing Senators.
[§ 2.]
The Congress shall assemble at least once in every Year, and
such Meeting shall be on the first Monday in December, unless
they shall by Law appoint a different Day.
_Section_ 5.
[§ 1.]
Each House shall be the Judge of the Elections, Returns and
Qualifications of its own Members, and a Majority of each
shall constitute a Quorum to do Business; but a smaller Number
may adjourn from day to day, and may be authorized to compel
the Attendance of absent Members, in such Manner, and under
such Penalties as each House may provide.
[§ 2.]
Each House may determine the Rules of its Proceedings, punish
its Members for disorderly Behaviour, and, with the
Concurrence of two thirds, expel a Member.
[§ 3.]
Each House shall keep a Journal of its Proceedings, and from
time to time publish the same, excepting such Parts as may in
their Judgment require Secrecy; and the Yeas and Nays of the
Members of either House on any question shall, at the Desire
of one fifth of those Present, be entered on the Journal.
[§ 4.]
Neither House, during the Session of Congress, shall, without
the Consent of the other, adjourn for more than three days,
nor to any other Place than that in which the two Houses shall
be sitting.
_Section_ 6.
[§ 1.]
The Senators and Representatives shall receive a Compensation
for their Services, to be ascertained by Law, and paid out of
the Treasury of the United States. They shall in all Cases,
except Treason, Felony and Breach of the Peace, be privileged
from Arrest during their Attendance at the Session of their
respective Houses, and in going to and returning from the
same; and for any Speech or Debate in either House, they shall
not be questioned in any other Place.
{598}
[§ 2.]
No Senator or Representative shall, during the Time for which
he was elected, be appointed to any civil Office under the
Authority of the United States, which shall have been created,
or the Emoluments whereof shall have been increased during
such time; and no Person holding any Office under the United
States, shall be a Member of either House during his
Continuance in Office.
_Section_ 7.
[§ 1.]
All Bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House of
Representatives; but the Senate may propose or concur with
Amendments as on other Bills.
[§ 2.]
Every Bill which shall have passed the House of
Representatives and the Senate, shall, before it become a Law,
be presented to the President of the United States; If he
approve he shall sign it, but if not he shall return it, with
his Objections to that House in which it shall have
originated, who shall enter the Objections at large on their
Journal, and proceed to reconsider it. If after such
Reconsideration two thirds of that House shall agree to pass
the Bill, it shall be sent, together with the Objections, to
the other House, by which it shall likewise be reconsidered,
and if approved by two thirds of that House, it shall become a
Law. But in all such Cases the Votes of both Houses shall be
determined by yeas and Nays, and the Names of the Persons
voting for and against the Bill shall be entered on the
Journal of each House respectively. If any Bill shall not be
returned by the President within ten Days (Sundays excepted)
after it shall have been presented to him, the same shall be a
Law, in like Manner as if he had signed it, unless the
Congress by their Adjournment prevent its Return, in which
Case it shall not be a Law.
[§ 3.]
Every Order, Resolution, or Vote to which the Concurrence of
the Senate and House of Representatives may be necessary
(except on a question of Adjournment) shall be presented to
the President of the United States; and before the same shall
take Effect, shall be approved by him, or being disapproved by
him, shall be repassed by two thirds of the Senate and House
of Representatives, according to the Rules and Limitations
prescribed in the Case of a Bill.
_Section_ 8.
The Congress shall have Power
[§ 1.]
To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay
the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general
Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and
Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;
[§ 2.]
To borrow Money on the credit of the United States;
[§ 3.]
To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the
several States, and with the Indian Tribes;
[§ 4.]
To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform
Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United
States;
[§ 5.]
To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign
Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;
[§ 6.]
To provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the Securities
and current Coin of the United States;
[§ 7.]
To establish Post Offices and post Roads;
[§ 8.]
To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by
securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the
exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;
[§ 9.]
To constitute Tribunals inferior to the supreme Court;
[§ 10.]
To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the
high Seas, and Offences against the Law of Nations;
[§ 11.]
To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make
Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;
[§ 12.]
To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to
that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;
[§ 13.]
To provide and maintain a Navy;
[§ 14.]
To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land
and naval Forces;
[§ 15.]
To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws
of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;
[§ 16.]
To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining the
Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be
employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the
States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the
Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline
prescribed by Congress;
[§ 17.]
To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever,
over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by
Cession of particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress,
become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to
exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the
Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the same
shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals,
dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings;—And
[§ 18.]
To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for
carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other
Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the
United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.
_Section_ 9.
[§ 1.]
[The Migration or Importation of such Persons as any of the
States now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be
prohibited by the Congress prior to the Year one thousand
eight hundred and eight, but a Tax or duty may be imposed on
such Importation, not exceeding ten dollars for each Person.]
[Footnote: Temporary provision.]
[§ 2.]
The Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be
suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the
public Safety may require it.
[§ 3.]
No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed.
[Footnote: Extended by the first eight Amendments.]
[§ 4.]
No Capitation, or other direct, Tax shall be laid, unless in
Proportion to the Census or Enumeration herein before directed
to be taken.
[§ 5.]
No Tax or Duty shall be laid on Articles exported from any
State.
[§ 6.]
No Preference shall be given by any Regulation of Commerce or
Revenue to the Ports of one State over those of another: nor
shall Vessels bound to, or from, one State, be obliged to
enter, clear, or pay Duties in another.
[§ 7.]
No Money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in Consequence
of Appropriations made by Law; and a regular Statement and
Account of the Receipts and Expenditures of all public Money
shall be published from time to time.
[§ 8.]
No Title of Nobility shall be granted by the United States:
And no Person holding any Office of Profit or Trust under
them, shall, without the Consent of the Congress, accept of
any present, Emolument, Office, or Title, of any kind
whatever, from any King, Prince, or foreign State.
[Footnote: Extended by Ninth and Tenth Amendments.]
_Section_ 10.
[§ 1.]
No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or
Confederation; grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal; coin
Money; emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but gold and
silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts; pass any Bill of
Attainder, ex post facto Law, or Law impairing the Obligation
of Contracts, or grant any Title of Nobility.
{599}
[§ 2.]
No State shall, without the Consent of the Congress, lay any
Imposts or Duties on Imports or Exports, except what may be
absolutely necessary for executing its inspection Laws: and
the net Produce of all Duties and Imposts, laid by any State
on Imports or Exports, shall be for the Use of the Treasury of
the United States; and all such Laws shall be subject to the
Revision and Control of the Congress.
[§ 3.]
No State shall, without the Consent of Congress, lay any Duty
of Tonnage, keep Troops, or Ships of War in time of Peace,
enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State, or
with a foreign Power, or engage in War, unless actually
invaded, or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of
delay.
[Footnote: Extended by Thirteenth, Fourteenth and Fifteenth
Amendments.]
Article II.
Section 1.
[§ 1.]
The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the
United States of America. He shall hold his Office during the
Term of four Years, and, together with the Vice President,
chosen for the same Term, be elected, as follows
[§ 2.]
Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature
thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole
Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may
be entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative,
or Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the
United States, shall be appointed an Elector. [The Electors
shall meet in their respective States, and vote by Ballot for
two Persons, of whom one at least shall not be an Inhabitant
of the same State with themselves. And they shall make a List
of all the Persons voted for, and of the Number of Votes for
each; which List they shall sign and certify, and transmit
sealed to the Seat of the Government of the United States,
directed to the President of the Senate. The President of the
Senate shall, in the Presence of the Senate and House of
Representatives, open all the Certificates, and the Votes
shall then be counted. The Person having the greatest Number
of Votes shall be the President, if such Number be a Majority
of the whole Number of Electors appointed; and if there be
more than one who have such Majority, and have an equal Number
of Votes, then the House of Representatives shall immediately
chuse by Ballot one of them for President; and if no Person
have a Majority, then from the five highest on the List the
said House shall in like Manner chuse the President. But in
chusing the President, the Votes shall be taken by States, the
Representation from each State having one Vote: A quorum for
this Purpose shall consist of a Member or Members from two
thirds of the States, and a Majority of all the States shall
be necessary to a Choice. In every Case, after the Choice of
the President, the Person having the greatest Number of Votes
of the Electors shall be the Vice President. But if there
should remain two or more who have equal Votes, the Senate
shall chuse from them by Ballot the Vice President.]
[Footnote: Superseded by Twelfth Amendment.]
[§ 3.]
The Congress may determine the Time of chusing the Electors,
and the Day on which they shall give their Votes; which Day
shall be the same throughout the United States.
[§ 4.]
No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the
United States, at the time of the Adoption of this
Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President;
neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall
not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been
fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.
[§ 5.]
In Case of the Removal of the President from Office, or of his
Death, Resignation, or Inability to discharge the Powers and
Duties of the said Office, the Same shall devolve on the Vice
President, and the Congress may by Law provide for the Case of
Removal, Death, Resignation, or Inability, both of the
President and Vice President, declaring what Officer shall
then act as President, and such Officer shall act accordingly,
until the Disability be removed, or a President shall be
elected.
[§ 6.]
The President shall, at stated Times, receive for his
Services, a Compensation, which shall neither be increased nor
diminished during the Period for which he shall have been
elected, and he shall not receive within that Period any other
Emolument from the United States, or any of them.
[§ 7.]
Before he enter on the Execution of his Office, he shall take
the following Oath or Affirmation:—
"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully
execute the Office of President of the United States, and
will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and
defend the Constitution of the United States."
Section 2.
[§ 1.]
The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy
of the United States, and of the Militia of the several
States, when called into the actual Service of the United
States; he may require the Opinion, in writing, of the
principal Officer in each of the executive Departments, upon
any Subject relating to the Duties of their respective
Offices, and he shall have Power to grant Reprieves and
Pardons for Offences against the United States, except in
Cases of Impeachment.
[§ 2.]
He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the
Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators
present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the
Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors,
other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme
Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose
Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which
shall be established by Law: but the Congress may by Law vest
the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think
proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in
the Heads of Departments.
[§ 3.]
The President shall have Power to fill up all Vacancies that
may happen during the Recess of the Senate, by granting
Commissions which shall expire at the End of their next
Session.
_Section_ 3.
He shall from time to time give to the Congress Information of
the State of the Union, and recommend to their Consideration
such Measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient; he
may, on extraordinary Occasions, convene both Houses, or
either of them, and in Case of Disagreement between them, with
Respect to the Time of Adjournment, he may adjourn them to
such Time as he shall think proper; he shall receive
Ambassadors and other public Ministers: he shall take Care
that the Laws be faithfully executed, and shall Commission all
the Officers of the United States.
{600}
_Section_ 4.
The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the
United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment
for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes
and Misdemeanors.
Article III.
_Section_ 1.
The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in
one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress
may from time to time ordain and establish. The Judges, both
of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices
during good Behaviour, and shall, at stated Times, receive for
their Services, a Compensation, which shall not be diminished
during their Continuance in Office.
_Section_ 2.
[§ 1.]
The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and
Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the
United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made,
under their Authority;
—to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers
and Consuls;
—to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction;
—to Controversies to which the United States shall be a
Party;
—to Controversies between two or more States;
—between a State and Citizens of another State;
[Footnote: Limited by Eleventh Amendment.]
—between Citizens of different States,
—between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under
Grants of different States, and between a State, or the
Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects.
[§ 2.]
In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and
Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the
supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all the
other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have
appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such
Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall
make.
[§ 3.]
The Trial of all Crimes, except in Cases of Impeachment, shall
be by Jury; and such Trial shall be held in the State where
the said Crimes shall have been committed; but when not
committed within any State, the Trial shall be at such Place
or Places as the Congress may by Law have directed.
Section 3.
[§ 1.]
Treason against the United States, shall consist only in
levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies,
giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of
Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same
overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.
[§ 2.]
The Congress shall have Power to declare the Punishment of
Treason, but no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of
Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person
attainted.
Article IV.
_Section_ 1.
Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the
public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other
State. And the Congress may by general Laws prescribe the
Manner in which such Acts, Records and Proceedings shall be
proved, and the Effect thereof.
Section 2.
[§ 1.]
The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges
and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.
[Footnote: Extended by Fourteenth Amendment.]
[§ 2.]
A Person charged in any State with Treason, Felony, or other
Crime, who shall flee from Justice, and be found in another
State, shall on Demand of the executive Authority of the State
from which he fled, be delivered up, to be removed to the
State having Jurisdiction of the Crime.
[§ 3.]
[No Person held to Service or Labour in one State, under the
Laws thereof, escaping into another, shall, in Consequence of
any Law or Regulation therein, be discharged from such Service
or Labour, but shall be delivered up on Claim of the Party to
whom such Service or Labour may be due.]
[Footnote: Superseded by Thirteenth Amendment.]
_Section_ 3.
[§ 1.]
New States may be admitted by the Congress into this Union;
but no new State shall be formed or erected within the
Jurisdiction of any other State; nor any State be formed by
the Junction of two or more States, or Parts of States,
without the Consent of the Legislatures of the States
concerned as well as of the Congress.
[§ 2.]
The Congress shall have Power to dispose of and make all
needful Rules and Regulations respecting the Territory or
other Property belonging to the United States; and nothing in
this Constitution shall be so construed as to Prejudice any
Claims of the United States, or of any particular State.
_Section_ 4.
The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union
a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of
them against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature,
or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened)
against domestic Violence.
Article V.
The Congress, whenever two-thirds of both Houses shall deem it
necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or,
on the Application of the Legislatures of two-thirds of the
several States, shall call a Convention for proposing
Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all
Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when
ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several
States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one
or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the
Congress; Provided that [no Amendment which may be made prior
to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any
Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth
Section of the first Article; and] that no State, without its
Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the
Senate.
[Footnote: "[no amendment…]" is a Temporary provision.]
Article VI.
[§ 1.]
All Debts contracted and Engagements entered into, before the
Adoption of this Constitution, shall be as valid against the
United States under this Constitution, as under the
Confederation.
[Footnote: Extended by Fourteenth Amendment, Section 4.]
[§ 2.]
This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which
shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or
which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States,
shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every
State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or
Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.
[§ 3.]
The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the
Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive
and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the
several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to
support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be
required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust
under the United States.
Article VII.
The Ratification of the Conventions of nine States, shall be
sufficient for the Establishment of this Constitution between
the States so ratifying the Same.
{601}
DONE in Convention by the Unanimous Consent of the States
present the Seventeenth Day of September in the Year of our
Lord one thousand seven hundred and Eighty seven and of the
Independence of the United States of America the Twelfth In
Witness whereof We have hereunto subscribed our names.
Go WASHINGTON—Presidt and deputy from Virginia.
DELAWARE.
Geo: Read
John Dickinson
Gunning Bedford jun
Richard Bassett
Jaco: Broom
NEW HAMPSHIRE.
John Langdon
Nicholas Gilman
MASSACHUSETTS.
Nathaniel Gorham
Rufus King
MARYLAND.
James McHenry
Dan of St. Thos. Jenifer
Danl Carroll
CONNECTICUT.
Wm. Sami. Johnson
Roger Sherman
VIRGINIA.
John Blair
James Madison Jr.
NEW YORK.
Alexander Hamilton
NORTH CAROLINA.
Wm. Blount
Richd. Dobbs Spaight
Hu Williamson
NEW JERSEY.
Wil: Livingston
Wm: Paterson.
David Brearley
Jona: Dayton
SOUTH CAROLINA.
J. Rutledge,
Charles Pinckney
Charles Cotesworth Pinckney
Pierce Butler.
PENNSYLVANIA.
B Franklin
Thos. Fitz Simons
Thomas Mifflin
Jared Ingersoll
Robt. Morris
James Wilson.
Geo. Clymer
Gouv Morris
GEORGIA.
William Few
Abr Baldwin
[Footnote: These signatures have no other legal force than
that of attestation.]
ARTICLES in addition to and Amendment of the Constitution of
the United States of America, proposed by Congress, and
ratified by the Legislatures of the several States, pursuant
to the fifth Article of the original Constitution.
[Footnote: This heading appears only in the joint resolution
submitting the first ten amendments.]
[Article 1.]
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of
religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or
abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right
of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the
Government for a redress of grievances.
[Article II.]
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a
free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms,
shall not be infringed.
[Article III.]
No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house,
without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a
manner to be prescribed by law.
[Article IV.]
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses,
papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and
seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue,
but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and
particularly describing the place to be searched, and the
persons or things to be seized.
[Article V.]
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise
infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a
Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval
forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of
War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the
same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor
shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness
against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or
property, without due process of law; nor shall private
property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
[Article VI.]
In all criminal prosecutions the accused shall enjoy the right
to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the
State and district wherein the crime shall have been
committed, which district shall have been previously
ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause
of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against
him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his
favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.
[Article VII.]
In suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall
exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be
preserved, and no fact tried by a jury shall be otherwise
re-examined in any Court of the United States, than according
to the rules of the common law.
[Article VIII.]
Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines
imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.
[Article IX.]
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall
not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the
people.
[Article X.]
The powers not delegated to the United States by the
Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved
to the States respectively, or to the people.
[Footnote: Amendments First to Tenth appear to have been in
force from November 3, 1791. (See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D.
1791.)]
[Article XI.]
The Judicial power of the United States shall not be construed
to extend to any suit in law or equity, commenced or
prosecuted against one of the United States by Citizens of
another State, or by Citizens or Subjects of any Foreign
State.
[Footnote: Proclaimed to be in force January 8, 1798.]
{602}
[Article XII.]
The Electors shall meet in their respective states, and vote
by ballot for President and Vice-President, one of whom, at
least, shall not be an inhabitant of the same state with
themselves; they shall name in their ballots the person voted
for as President, and in distinct ballots the person voted for
as Vice-President, and they shall make distinct lists of all
persons voted for as President, and of all persons voted for
as Vice-President, and of the number of votes for each, which
lists they shall sign and certify, and transmit sealed to the
seat of the government of the United States, directed to the
President of the Senate;—The President of the Senate shall,
in the presence of the Senate and House of Representatives,
open all the certificates and the votes shall then be
counted;—The person having the greatest number of votes for
President, shall be the President, if such number be a
majority of the whole number of Electors appointed; and if no
person have such majority, then from the persons having the
highest numbers not exceeding three on the list of those voted
for as President, the House of Representatives shall choose
immediately, by ballot, the President. But in choosing the
President, the votes shall be taken by states, the
representation from each state having one vote; a quorum for
this purpose shall consist of a member or members from
two-thirds of the states, and a majority of all the states
shall be necessary to a choice. And if the House of
Representatives shall not choose a President whenever the
right of choice shall devolve upon them, before the fourth day
of March next following, then the Vice-President shall act as
President, as in the case of the death or other constitutional
disability of the President.—The person having the greatest
number of votes as Vice-President, shall be the
Vice-President, if such number be a majority of the whole
number of Electors appointed, and if no person have a
majority, then from the two highest numbers on the list, the
Senate shall choose the Vice-President; a quorum for the
purpose shall consist of two-thirds of the whole number of
Senators, and a majority of the whole number shall be
necessary to a choice. But no person constitutionally
ineligible to the office of President shall be eligible to
that of Vice-President of the United States.
[Footnote: Proclaimed to be in force September 25, 1804.]
Article XIII.
_Section_ 1.
Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a
punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly
convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place
subject to their jurisdiction.
_Section_ 2.
Congress shall have power to enforce this article by
appropriate legislation.
[Footnote: Proclaimed to be in force December 18, 1865.
[See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1865 (JANUARY).]]
Article XIV.
_Section_ 1.
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and
subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the
United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State
shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the
privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor
shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or
property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person
within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
_Section_ 2.
Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States
according to their respective numbers, counting the whole
number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed.
But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of
electors for President and Vice President of the United
States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and
Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the
Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants
of such State, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of
the United States, or in any way abridged, except for
participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of
representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion
which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole
number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State.
_Section_ 3.
No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or
elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office,
civil or military, under the United States, or under any
State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of
Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a
member of any State legislature, or as an executive or
judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of
the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or
rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the
enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of
each House, remove such disability.
_Section_ 4.
The validity of the public debt of the United States,
authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of
pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection
or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United
States nor any State shall assume or pay any debt or
obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion
against the United States, or any claim for the loss or
emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and
claims shall be held illegal and void.
_Section_ 5.
The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate
legislation, the provisions of this article.
[Footnote: Proclaimed to be in force July 28. 1868.
[See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1865-1866
(DECEMBER-APRIL); 1866 (JUNE),
and 1866-1867 (OCTOBER-MARCH).]]
Article XV.
_Section_ 1.
The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not
be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on
account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude.
_Section_ 2.
The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by
appropriate legislation."
[Footnote: Proclaimed to be in force March 30, 1870.
[See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1869-1870.]]
----------CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: End------
CONSTITUTION OF VENEZUELA.
The following text is taken from Bulletin No. 34 of the Bureau
of the American Republics:
Article I.
The States that the constitution of March 28, 1864, declared
independent and united to form the Venezuelan Federation, and
that on April 27, 1881, were denominated Apure, Bolivar,
Barquisimeto, Barcelona, Carabobo, Cojedes, Cumamá, Falcón,
Guzmán Blanco, Guárico, Gunynna, Guzmán, Maturin, Nuevn
Esparta, Portuguesa, Táchira, Trujillo, Yaracay, Zamora, and
Zulia are constituted into nine grand political bodies, viz:
The State of Bermudez, composed of Barcelona, Cumaná, and
Maturin; the State of Miranda, composed of Bolivar, Guzman
Blanco, Guárico, and Nueva Esparta; the State of Carabobo,
composed of Carabobo and Nirgua; the State of Zamora, composed
of Cojedes, Portuguesa, and Zamora; the State of Lara,
composed of Barquisimeto and Yaracuy, except the department of
Nirgua; the State of Los Andes, composed of Guzman, Trujillo,
and Táchira; the State of Bolivar, composed of Guayana and
Apure; the State of Zulia, and also the State of Falcón. And
they are thus constituted to continue one only nation, free,
sovereign, and independent, under the title of the United
States of Venezuela.
{603}
Article. 2.
The boundaries of these great States are determined by those
that the law of April 28, 1856, that arranged the last
territorial division, designated for the ancient provinces
until it shall be re-formed.
Article. 3.
The boundaries of the United States of the Venezuelan
Federation are the same that in 1810 belonged to the old
Captaincy-General of Venezuela.
Article. 4.
The States that are grouped together to form the grand
political bodies will be called Sections. These are equal
among themselves; the constitutions prescribed for their
internal organism must be harmonious with the federative
principles established by the present compact, and the
sovereignty not delegated resides in the State without any
other limitations than those that devolve from the compromise
of association.
Article. 5.
These are Venezuelans, viz:
1st, All persons that may have been or may be born on
Venezuelan soil, whatever may be the nationality of their
parents;
2d, The children of a Venezuelan father or mother that may
have been born on foreign soil, if they should come to take up
their domicile in the country and express the desire to become
citizens;
3d, Foreigners that may have obtained naturalization papers; and,
4th, Those born or that shall be born in any of the
Spanish-American republics or in the Spanish Antilles,
provided that they may have taken up their residence in the
territory of the Republic and express a willingness to become
citizens.
Article. 6.
Those that take up their residence and acquire nationality in
a foreign country do not lose the character of Venezuelans.
Article. 7.
Males over twenty-one years of age are qualified Venezuelan
citizens, with only the exceptions contained in this
constitution.
Article. 8.
All Venezuelans are obliged to serve the nation according to
the prescriptions of the laws, sacrificing his property and
his life, if necessary, to defend the country.
Article. 9.
Venezuelans shall enjoy, in all the States of the Union, the
rights and immunities inherent to their condition as citizens
of the Federation, and they shall also have imposed upon them
there the same duties that are required of those that are
natives or domiciled there.
Article. 10.
Foreigners shall enjoy the same civil rights as Venezuelans
and the same security in their persons and property. They can
only take advantage of diplomatic means in accordance with
public treaties and in cases when right permits it.
Article. 11.
The law will determine the right applicable to the condition
of foreigners, according as they may be domiciled or in
transit.
Article. 12.
The States that form the Venezuelan Federation reciprocally
recognize their respective autonomies; they are declared equal
in political entity, and preserve, in all its plenitude, the
sovereignty not expressly delegated in this constitution.
Article. 13.
The States of the Venezuelan Federation oblige themselves:
1st, To organize themselves in accord with the principles of
popular, elective, federal, representative, alternative, and
responsible government;
2d, To establish the fundamental regulations of their interior
regulation and government in entire conformity with the
principles of this constitution;
3d, To defend themselves against all violence that threatens
the sectional independence or the integrity of the Venezuelan
Federation;
4th, To not alienate to a foreign power any part of their
territory, nor to implore its protection, nor to establish or
cultivate political or diplomatic relations with other
nations, since this last is reserved to the Federal power;
5th, To not combine or ally themselves with another nation,
nor to separate themselves to the prejudice of the nationality
of Venezuela and her territory;
6th, To cede to the nation the territory that may be necessary
for the Federal district;
7th, To cede to the Government of the Federation the territory
necessary for the erection of forts, warehouses, shipyards,
and penitentiaries, and for the construction of other edifices
indispensable to the general administration;
8th, To leave to the Government of the Federation the
administration of the Amazonas and Goajira territories and
that of the islands which pertain to the nation, until it may
be convenient to elevate them to another rank;
9th, To reserve to the powers of the Federation all
legislative or executive jurisdiction concerning maritime,
coastwise, and fluvial navigation, and the national roads,
considering as such those that exceed the limits of a State
and lead to the frontiers of others and to the Federal
district;
10th, To not subject to contributions the products or articles
upon which national taxes are imposed, or those that are by
law exempt from tax before they have been offered for
consumption;
11th, To not impose contributions on cattle, effects, or any
class of merchandise in transit for another State, in order
that traffic may be absolutely free, and that in one section
the consumption of others may not be taxed;
12th, To not prohibit the consumption of the products of other
States nor to tax their productions with greater general or
municipal taxes than those paid on products raised in the
locality;
13th, To not establish maritime or territorial custom-houses
for the collection of imports, since there will be national
ones only;
14th, To recognise the right of each State to dispose of its
natural products;
15th, To cede to the Government of the Federation the
administration of mines, public lands, and salt mines, in
order that the first may be regulated by a system of uniform
working and that the latter may be applied to the benefit of
the people;
16th, To respect the property, arsenals, and forts of the
nation;
17th, To comply with and cause to be complied with and
executed the Constitution and laws of the federation and the
decrees and orders that the federal power, the tribunals, and
courts may expedite in use of their attributes and legal
faculties;
18th, To give entire faith to and to cause to be complied with
and executed the public acts and judicial procedures of the
other States;
19th, To organize their tribunals and courts for the
administration of justice in the State and to have for all of
them the same substantive civil and criminal legislation and
the same laws of civil and criminal procedure;
20th, To present judges for the court of appeals and to submit
to the decision of this supreme tribunal of the States;
21st, To incorporate the extradition of criminals as a
political principle in their respective Constitutions;
22d, To establish direct and public suffrage in popular
elections, making it obligatory and endorsing it in the
electoral registry. The vote of the suffragist must be cast in
full and public session of the respective board; it will be
inscribed in the registry books that the law prescribes for
elections, which can not be substituted in any other form, and
the elector, for himself or by another at his request in case
of impediment or through ignorance, will sign the memorandum
entry of his vote, and without this requisite it can not be
claimed that in reality he has voted;
{604}
23d, To establish a system of primary education and that of
arts and trades;
24th, To reserve to the powers of the Federation the laws and
provisions necessary for the creation, conservation, and
progress of general schools, colleges, or universities
designed for the teaching of the sciences;
25th, To not impose duties upon the national employés, except
in the quality of citizens of the State and insomuch as these
duties may not be incompatible with the national public
service;
26th, To furnish the proportional contingent that pertains to
them to compose the national public forces in time of peace or
war;
27th, To not permit in the States of the Federation forced
enlistments and levies that have or may have for their object
an attack on liberty or independence or a disturbance of the
public order of the Nation, of other States, or of another
Nation;
28th, To preserve a strict neutrality in the contentions that
may arise in other States;
29th, To not declare or carry on war in any case, one State
with another;
30th, To defer and submit to the decision of the Congress or
the High Federal Court in all the controversies that may arise
between two or more States when they can not, between
themselves and by pacific measures, arrive at an agreement.
If, for any cause, they may not designate the arbiter to whose
decision they may submit, they leave it, in fact, to the High
Federal Court;
31st, To recognize the competency of Congress and of the court
of appeals to take cognizance of the causes that, for treason
to the country or for the infraction of the Constitution and
laws of the Federation, may be instituted against those that
exercise executive authority in the States, it being their
duty to incorporate this precept in their constitutions. In
these trials the modes of procedure that the general laws
prescribe will be followed and they will be decided in
consonance with those laws;
32d, To have as the just income of the States, two-thirds of
the total product of the impost collected as transit tax in
all the custom-houses of the Republic and two-thirds of that
collected from mines, public lands, and salt mines
administered by the Federal Power and to distribute this
income among all the States of the Federation in proportion to
the population of each;
33d, To reserve to the Federal Power the amount of the third
part of the income from transit tax, the production of mines,
public lands, and salt mines, to be invested in the
improvement of the country;
34th, To keep far away from the frontier those individuals
that, through political motives, take refuge in a State,
provided that the State interested requests it.
Article. 14.
The nation guarantees to Venezuelans:
1st, The inviolability of life, capital punishment being
abolished in spite of any law that establishes it;
2d, Property, with all its attributes, rights and privileges,
will only be subjected to contributions decreed by legislative
authority, to judicial decision, and to be taken for public
works after indemnity and condemnation;
3d, The inviolability and secrecy of correspondence and other
private papers;
4th, The domestic hearth, that can not be approached except to
prevent the perpetration of crime, and this itself must be
done in accordance with law;
5th, Personal liberty, and consequently
(1) forced recruiting for armed service is abolished,
(2) slavery is forever proscribed,
(3) slaves that tread the soil of Venezuela are free, and
(4) nobody is obliged to do that which the law does not
command, nor is impeded from doing that which it does not
prohibit;
6th, The freedom of thought, expressed by word or through the
press, is without any restriction to be submitted to previous
censure. In cases of calumny or injury or prejudice to a third
party, the aggrieved party shall have every facility to have
his complaints investigated before competent tribunals of
justice in accordance with the common laws;
7th, The liberty of traveling without passport, to change the
domicil, observing the legal formalities, and to depart from
and return to the Republic, carrying off and bringing back his
or her property;
8th, The liberty of industry and consequently the
proprietorship of discoveries and productions. The law will
assign to the proprietors a temporary privilege or the mode of
indemnity in case that the author agrees to its publication;
9th, The liberty of reunion and assembling without arms,
publicly or privately, the authorities being prohibited from
exercising any act of inspection or coercion;
10th, The liberty of petition, with the right of obtaining
action by resolution; petition can be made by any functionary,
authority or corporation. If the petition shall be made in the
name of various persons, the first five will respond for the
authenticity of the signatures and all for the truth of the
assertions;
11th, The liberty of suffrage at popular elections without any
restriction except to males under eighteen years of age;
12th, The liberty of instruction will be protected to every
extent. The public power is obliged to establish gratuitous
instruction in primary schools, the arts, and trades;
13th, Religious liberty;
14th, Individual security, and, therefore
(1) no Venezuelan can be imprisoned or arrested in
punishment for debts not founded in fraud or crime;
(2) nor to be obliged to lodge or quarter soldiers in his
house;
(3) nor to be judged by special commissions or tribunals,
but by his natural judges and by virtue of laws dictated
before the commission of the crime or act to be judged;
(4) nor to be imprisoned nor arrested without previous
summary information that a crime meriting corporal
punishment has been committed, and a written order from the
functionary that orders the imprisonment, stating the cause
of arrest, unless the person may be caught in the
commission of the crime;
(5) nor to be placed in solitary confinement for any cause;
(6) nor to be obliged to give evidence, in criminal causes,
against himself or his blood relations within the fourth
degree of consanguinity or against his relations by
marriage within the second degree, or against husband or
wife;
(7) nor to remain in prison when the reasons that caused
the imprisonment have been dissipated;
(8) nor to be sentenced to corporal punishment for more
than ten years;
(9) nor to remain deprived of his liberty for political
reasons when order is reestablished.
{605}
Article. 15.
Equality: in virtue of which
(1) all must be judged by the very same laws and subject to
equal duty, service and contributions;
(2) no titles of nobility, hereditary honors, and
distinctions will be conceded, nor employments or offices
the salaries or emoluments of which continue after the
termination of service;
(3) no other official salutation than "citizen" and "you"
will be given to employés and corporations. The present
enumeration does not impose upon the States the obligation
to accord other guarantees to their inhabitants.
Article 16.
The laws in the States will prescribe penalties for the
infractions of these guarantees, establishing modes of
procedure to make them effective.
Article 17.
Those who may issue, sign, or execute, or order executed any
decrees, orders, or resolutions that violate or in any manner
infringe upon the guarantees accorded to Venezuelans are
culpable and must be punished according to the law. Every
citizen is empowered to bring charges.
Article 18.
The National Legislature will be composed of two chambers, one
of Senators and another of Deputies.
Article 19.
The States will determine the mode of election of Deputies.
Article 20.
To form the Chamber of Deputies, each State will name, by
popular election in accordance with paragraph 22 of Article 13
of this Constitution, one Deputy for each thirty-five thousand
inhabitants and another for an excess not under fifteen
thousand. In the same manner it will elect alternates in equal
number to the principals.
Article 21.
The Deputies will hold office for four years, when they will
be renewed in their entirety.
Article 22.
The prerogatives of the chamber of Deputies are:
First, to examine the annual account that the President of the
United States of Venezuela must render;
Second, to pass a vote of censure of the Ministers of the
Cabinet, in which event their posts will be vacant;
Third, to hear charges against the persons in charge of the
office of the National Executive for treason to the country,
for infraction of the constitution, or for ordinary crimes;
against the ministers and other National employés for
infraction of the Constitution and laws and for fault in the
discharge of their duties according to article 75 of this
constitution and of the general laws of the Republic. This
attribute is preventative and neither contracts nor diminishes
those that other authorities have to judge and punish.
Article 23.
When a charge is instituted by a Deputy or by any corporation
or individual the following rules will be observed:
(1) there will be appointed, in secret session, a commission
of three deputies;
(2) the commission will, within three days, render an opinion,
declaring whether or not there is foundation for instituting a
cause;
(3) the Chamber will consider the information and decide upon
the cause by the vote of an absolute majority of the members
present, the accusing Deputy abstaining from voting.
Article 24.
The declaration that there is foundation for the cause
operates to suspend from office the accused and incapacitates
him for the discharge of any public function during the trial.
Article 25.
To form this Chamber each State, through its respective
legislature, will elect three principal Senators and an equal
number of alternates to supply the vacancies that may occur.
Article 26.
To be a Senator it is required that he shall be a Venezuelan
by birth and thirty years of age.
Article 27.
The Senators will occupy their posts for four years and be
renewed in their entirety.
Article 28.
It is the prerogative of the Senate to substantiate and decide
the causes initiated in the Chamber of Deputies.
Article 29.
If the cause may not have been concluded during the sessions,
the Senate will continue assembled for this purpose only until
the cause is finished.
Article 30.
The National Legislature will assemble on the 20th day of
February of each year or as soon thereafter as possible at the
capital of the United States without the necessity of previous
notice. The sessions will last for seventy days to be
prolonged until ninety days at the judgment of the majority.
Article 31.
The Chambers will open their sessions with two-thirds of their
number at least; and, in default of this number, those present
will assemble in preparatory commission and adopt measures for
the concurrence of the absentees.
Article 32.
The sessions having been opened, they may be continued by
two-thirds of those that may have installed them, provided
that the number be not less than half of all the members
elected.
Article 33.
Although the Chambers deliberate separately, they may assemble
together in the Congress when the constitution and laws
provide for it or when one of the two Chambers may deem it
necessary. If the Chamber that is invited shall agree, it
remains to it to fix the day and the hour of the joint
session.
Article 34.
The sessions will be public and secret at the will of the
Chamber.
Article 35.
The Chambers have the right:
(1) to make rules to be observed in the sessions and to
regulate the debates;
(2) to correct infractors;
(3) to establish the police force in the hall of sessions;
(4) to punish or correct spectators who create disorder;
(5) to remove the obstacles to the free exercise of their
functions;
(6) to command the execution of their private resolutions;
(7) to judge of the qualifications of their members and to
consider their resignations.
Article 36.
One of the Chambers cannot suspend its sessions nor change its
place of meeting without the consent of the other; in case of
disagreement they will reassemble together and execute that
which the majority resolves.
Article 37.
The exercise of any other public function, during the
sessions, is incompatible with those of a Senator or Deputy.
The law will specify the remunerations that the members of the
national Legislature shall receive for their services. And
whenever an increase of said remunerations is decreed, the law
that sanctions it will not begin to be in force until the
following period when the Chambers that sanctioned it shall
have been renewed in their entirety.
Article 38.
The Senators and Deputies shall enjoy immunity from the 20th
day of January of each year until thirty days after the close
of the sessions and this consists in the suspension of all
civil or criminal proceeding, whatever may be its origin or
nature; when anyone shall perpetrate an act that merits
corporal punishment the investigation shall continue until the
end of the summing up and shall remain in this state while the
term of immunity continues.
Article 39.
The Congress will be presided over by the President of the
Senate and the presiding officer of the Chamber of Deputies
will act as Vice-President.
{606}
Article 40.
The members of the Chambers are not responsible for the
opinions they express or the discourses they pronounce in
session.
Article 41.
Senators and deputies that accept office or commission from
the National Executive thereby leave vacant the posts of
legislators in the Chambers to which they were elected.
Article 42.
Nor can senators and deputies make contracts with the general
Government or conduct the prosecution of claims of others
against it.
Article 43.
The National Legislature has the following prerogatives:
(1) to dissolve the controversies that may arise between two
or more States;
(2) to locate the Federal District in an unpopulated territory
not exceeding three miles square, where will be constructed
the capital city of the Republic. This district will be
neutral territory, and no other elections will be there held
than those that the law determines for the locality, The
district will be provisionally that which the constituent
assembly designated or that which the National Legislature may
designate;
(3) to organize everything relating to the custom-houses,
whose income will constitute the treasure of the Union until
these incomes are supplied from other sources;
(4) to dispose in everything relating to the habitation and
security of ports and seacoasts;
(5) to create and organize the postal service and to fix the
charges for transportation of correspondence;
(6) to form the National Codes in accordance with paragraph
19, article 13 of this Constitution;
(7) to fix the value, type law, weight, and coinage of
national money, and to regulate the admission and circulation
of foreign money;
(8) to designate the coat-of-arms and the national flag which
will be the same for all the States;
(9) to create, abolish, and fix salaries for national offices;
(10) to determine everything in relation to the national debt;
(11) to contract loans upon the credit of the nation;
(12) to dictate necessary measures to perfect the census of
the current population and the national statistics;
(13) to annually fix the armed forces by sea and land and to
dictate the army regulations;
(14) to decree rules for the formation and substitution of the
forces referred to in the preceding clause;
(15) to declare war and to require the National Executive to
negotiate peace;
(16) to ratify or reject the contracts for national public
works made by the President with the approval of the Federal
Council, without which requisite they will not be carried into
effect;
[Transcriber's note: (17) is missing.]
(18) to annually fix the estimates for public expenses;
(19) to promote whatever conduces to the prosperity of the
country and to its advancement in the general knowledge of the
arts and sciences;
(20) to fix and regulate the national weights and measures;
(21) to grant amnesties;
(22) to establish, under the names of territories, special
regulations for the government of regions inhabited by
unconquered and uncivilized Indians. Such territories will be
under the immediate supervision of the Executive of the Union;
(23) to establish the modes of procedure and to designate the
penalties to be imposed by the Senate in the trials originated
in the Chamber of Deputies;
(24) to increase the basis of population for the election of
deputies;
(25) to permit or refuse the admission of foreigners into the
service of the Republic;
(26) to make laws in respect to retirements from the military
service and army pensions;
(27) to dictate the law of responsibility on the part of all
national employés and those of the States for infraction of
the constitution and the general laws of the Union;
(28) to determine the mode of conceding military rank or
promotion;
(29) to elect the Federal Council provided for in this
constitution and to convoke the alternates of the senators and
deputies who may have been chosen for it.
Article 44.
Besides the preceding enumeration the National Legislature may
pass such laws of general character as may be necessary, but
in no case can they be promulgated, much less executed, if
they conflict with this constitution, which defines the
prerogatives of the public powers in Venezuela.
Article 45.
The laws and decrees of the National Legislature may be
proposed by the members of either chamber, provided that the
respective projects are conformed to the rules established for
the Parliament of Venezuela.
Article 46.
After a project may have been presented, it will be read and
considered in order to be admitted; and if it is, it must
undergo three discussions, with an interval of at least one
day between each, observing the rules established for debate.
Article 47.
The projects approved in the chamber in which they were
originated will be passed to the other for the purposes
indicated in the preceding article, and if they are not
rejected they will be returned to the chamber whence they
originated, with the amendments they may have undergone.
Article 48.
If the chamber of their origin does not agree to the
amendments, it may insist and send its written reasons to the
other. They may also assemble together in Congress and
deliberate, in general commission, over the mode of agreement,
but if this can not be reached, the project will be of no
effect after the chamber of its origin separately decides upon
the ratification of its insistence.
Article 49.
Upon the passing of the projects from one to the other
chamber, the days on which they have been discussed will be
stated.
Article 50.
The law reforming another law must be fully engrossed and the
former law, in all its parts, will be annulled.
Article 51.
In the laws this form will be used: "The Congress of the
United States of Venezuela decrees."
Article 52.
The projects defeated in one legislature cannot be
reintroduced except in another.
Article 53.
The projects pending in a chamber at the close of the sessions
must undergo the same three discussions in succeeding
legislatures.
Article 54.
Laws are annulled with the same formalities established for
their sanction.
Article 55.
When the ministers of Cabinet may have sustained, in a
chamber, the unconstitutionality of a project by word or in
writing, and, notwithstanding this, it may have been
sanctioned as law, the National Executive, with the
affirmative vote of the Federal Council, will suspend its
execution and apply to the legislatures of the States, asking
their vote in the matter.
Article 56.
In case of the foregoing article, each State will represent
one vote expressed by the majority of the members of the
legislature present, and the result will be sent to the High
Federal Court in this form: "I confirm" or "I reject."
{607}
Article 57.
If a majority of the legislatures of the States agree with the
Federal Executive, the High Federal Court will confirm the
suspension, and the Federal Executive himself will render an
account to the next Congress relative to all that has been
done in the matter.
Article 58.
The laws will not be observed until after being published in
the solemn form established.
Article 59.
The faculty conceded to sanction a law is not to be delegated.
Article 60.
No legislative disposition will have a retroactive effect,
except in matters of judicial procedure and that which imposes
a lighter penalty.
Article 61.
There will be a Federal Council composed of one senator and
one deputy for each State and of one more deputy for the
Federal District, who will be elected by the Congress each two
years from among the respective representations of the States
composing the Federation and from that of the Federal
District. This election will take place in the first fifteen
days of the meeting of Congress, in the first and third year
of the constitutional period.
Article 62.
The Federal Council elects from its members the President of
the United States of Venezuela, and in the same manner the
person who shall act in his stead in case of his temporal or
permanent disability during his term. The election of a person
to be President of the United States of Venezuela who is not a
member of the Federal Council, as well as of those who may
have to act in his stead in case of his temporal or permanent
disability, is null of right and void of efficacy.
Article 63.
The members of the Federal Council hold office for two years,
the same as the President of the United States of Venezuela,
whose term is of equal duration; and neither he nor they can
be reëlected for the term immediately succeeding, although
they may return to occupy their posts as legislators in the
chambers to which they belong.
Article 64.
The Federal Council resides in the district and exercises the
functions prescribed in this constitution. It cannot
deliberate with less than an absolute majority of all its
members; it dictates the interior regulations to be observed
in its deliberations, and annually appoints the person who
shall preside over its sessions.
Article 65.
The prerogatives of the President of Venezuela are:
(1) To appoint and remove the cabinet ministers;
(2) to preside over the cabinet, in whose discussions he will
have a vote, and to inform the Council of all the matters that
refer to the General Administration;
(3) to receive and welcome public ministers;
(4) to sign the official letters to the Sovereigns or
Presidents of other countries;
(5) to order the execution of the laws and decrees of the
National Legislature, and to take care that they are complied
with and executed;
(6) to promulgate the resolutions and decrees that may have
been proposed and received the approbation of the Federal
Council, in conformity with article 66 of this constitution;
(7) to organize the Federal District and to act therein as the
chief civil and political authority established by this
constitution;
(8) to issue registers of navigation to national vessels;
(9) to render an account to Congress, within the first eight
days of its annual session, of the cases in which, with the
approval of the Federal Council, he may have exercised all or
any of the faculties accorded to him in article 66 of this
compact;
(10) to discharge the other functions that the national laws
entrust to him.
Article 66.
Besides the foregoing prerogatives, that are personal to the
president of the United States of Venezuela, he can, with the
deliberate vote of the Federal Council, exercise the
following:
(1) To protect the Nation from all exterior attack;
(2) to administer the public lands, mines, and salt mines of
the States as their delegate;
(3) to convoke the National Legislature in its regular
sessions, and in extraordinary session when the gravity of any
subject demands it;
(4) to nominate persons for diplomatic positions,
consuls-general, and consuls; those named for the first and
second positions must be Venezuelans by birth;
(5) to direct negotiations and celebrate all kinds of treaties
with other nations, submitting these to the National
Legislature;
(6) to celebrate contracts of national interest in accordance
with the laws and to submit them the legislatures for their
approval;
(7) to nominate the employés of hacienda, which nominations
are not to be made by any other authority. It is required that
these employés shall be Venezuelan by birth;
(8) to remove and suspend employés of his own free motion,
ordering them to be tried if there should be cause for it;
(9) to declare war in the name of the Republic when Congress
shall have decreed it;
(10) in the case of foreign war he can,
first, demand from the States the assistance necessary for
the national defense;
second, require, in anticipation, the contributions and
negotiate the loans decreed by the National Legislature;
third, arrest or expel persons who pertain to the nation
with which war is carried on and who may be opposed to the
defense of the country;
fourth, to suspend the guaranties that may be incompatible
with the defense of the country, except that of life;
fifth, to select the place to which the General Power of
the Federation may be provisionally translated when there
may be grave reasons for it;
sixth, to bring to trial for treason to the country those
Venezuelans who may be, in any manner, hostile to the
national defense;
seventh, to issue registers to corsairs and privateers and
to prescribe the laws that they must observe in cases of
capture;
(11) to employ the public force and the powers contained in
numbers 1, 2, and 5 of the preceding clause with the object of
reëstablishing constitutional order in case of armed
insurrection against the institutions of the Nation;
(12) to dispose of the public force for the purpose of
quelling every armed collision between two or more States,
requiring them to lay down their arms and submit their
controversies to the arbitration to which they are pledged by
number 30, article 14 of this constitution;
(13) to direct the war and to appoint the person who shall
command the army;
(14) to organize the national force in time of peace;
(15) to concede general or particular exemptions;
(16) to defend the territory designated for the Federal
District when there may be reasons to apprehend that it will
be invaded by hostile forces.
Article 67.
The President of the United States of Venezuela shall have the
ministers for his cabinet that the law designates. It will
determine their functions and duties and will organize their
bureaus.
Article 68.
To be a minister of the cabinet it is required that the person
shall be twenty-five years of age, a Venezuelan by birth or
five years of naturalization.
{608}
Article 69.
The ministers are the natural and proper organs of the
President of the United States of Venezuela. All his acts must
be subscribed by them and without such requisite they will not
be complied with nor executed by the authorities, employees,
or private persons.
Article 70.
All the acts of the ministers must be conformed to this
Constitution and the laws; their personal responsibility is
not saved, although they may have the written order of the
President.
Article 71.
The settlement of all business, except the fiscal affairs of
the bureaus, will be determined in the council of ministers,
and their responsibility is collective and consolidated.
Article 72.
The ministers, within the five first sessions of each year,
will render an account to the Chambers of what they may have
done or propose to do in their respective branches. They will
also render written or verbal reports that may be requested of
them, reserving only that which, in diplomatic affairs, it may
not be convenient to publish.
Article 73.
Within the same period, they will present to the National
Legislature the estimates of public expenditures and the
general account of the past year.
Article 74.
The ministers have the right to be heard in the Chambers, and
are obliged to attend when they may be called upon for
information.
Article 75.
The ministers are responsible:
(1) for treason to the country;
(2) for infraction of this Constitution or the laws;
(3) for malversation of the public funds;
(4) for exceeding the estimates in their expenditures;
(5) for subornation or bribery in the affairs under their
charge or in the nominations for public employees;
(6) for failure in compliance with the decisions of the
Federal Council.
Article 76.
The High Federal Court will be composed of as many judges as
there may be States of the Federation and with the following
qualities:
(1) A judge must be a Venezuelan by birth;
(2) he must be thirty years of age.
Article 77.
For the nomination of judges of the High Federal Court the
Congress will convene on the fifteenth day of its regular
sessions and will proceed to group together the representation
of each State from which to form a list of as many candidates
for principal judges and an equal number of alternates as
there may be States of the Federation. The Congress, in the
same or following session, will elect one principal and one
alternate for each State, selecting them from the respective
lists.
Article 78. The law will determine the different functions of the
judges and other officers of the High Federal Court.
Article 79.
The judges and their respective alternates will hold office
for four years. The principals and their alternates in office
can not accept during this period any office in the gift of
the executive without previous resignation and lawful
acceptance. The infraction of this disposition will be
punished with four years of disability to hold public office
in Venezuela.
Article 80.
The matters within the competence of the High Federal Court
are:
(1) to take cognizance of civil or criminal causes that may be
instituted against diplomatic officers in those cases
permitted by the law of nations;
(2) to take cognizance of causes ordered by the President to
be instituted against cabinet ministers when they may be
accused according to the cases provided for in this
Constitution. In the matter of the necessity of suspension
from office, they will request the President to that effect
and he will comply;
[Transcriber's note: (3) is absent.]
(4) to have jurisdiction of the causes of responsibility
instituted against diplomatic agents accredited to another
nation for the wrong discharge of their functions;
(5) to have jurisdiction in civil trials when the nation is
defendant and the law sanctions it;
(6) to dissipate the controversies that may arise between the
officials of different States in political order in the matter
of jurisdiction or competence;
(7) to take cognizance of all matters of political nature that
the States desire to submit for their consideration;
(8) to declare which may be the law in force when the national
and State laws may be found to conflict with each other;
(9) to have jurisdiction in the controversies that may result
from contracts or negotiations celebrated by the president of
the federation;
(10) to have jurisdiction in causes of imprisonment;
(11) to exercise other prerogatives provided for by law.
Article 81.
The Court of Appeals referred to in paragraph 20, article 13
of this Constitution, is the tribunal of the states; it will
be composed of as many judges as there are states of the
federation, and their terms of office will last for four
years.
Article 82.
A judge of the Court of Appeals must have the following
qualifications:
(1) he must be an attorney at law in the exercise of his
profession, and must have had at least six years practice;
(2) he must be a Venezuelan, thirty years of age.
Article 83.
Every four years the legislature of each State will form a
list of as many attorneys, with the qualifications expressed
in the preceding article, as there are States, and will remit
it, duly certified, to the Federal Council in order that this
body, from the respective lists, may select a judge for each
State in the organization of this high tribunal.
Article 84.
After the Federal Council may have received the lists from all
the States, it will proceed, in public session, to verify the
election; forming thereafter a list of the attorneys not
elected, in order that from this general list, which will be
published in the official paper, the permanent vacancies that
may occur in the Court of Appeals may be filled by lot. The
temporary vacancies will be filled according to law.
Article 85.
The Court of Appeals will have the following prerogatives:
(1) to take cognizance of criminal causes or those of
responsibility that may be instituted against the high
functionaries of the different States, applying the laws of
the States themselves in matters of responsibility, and in
case of omission of the promulgation of a law of
constitutional precept, it will apply to the cause in question
the general laws of the land;
(2) to take cognizance and to decide in cases of appeal in the
form and terms directed by law;
(3) to annually report to the National Legislature the
difficulties that stand in the way of uniformity in the matter
of civil or criminal legislation;
(4) to dispose of the rivalries that may arise between the
officers or functionaries of judicial order in the different
States of the federation and amongst those of a single State,
provided that the authority to settle them does not exist in
the State.
{609}
Article 86.
The National Executive is exercised by the Federal Council,
the President of the United States of Venezuela, or the person
who fills his vacancies, in union with the cabinet ministers
who are his organs. The President of Venezuela must be a
Venezuelan by birth.
Article 87.
The functions of National Executive can not be exercised
outside of the federal district except in the case provided
for in number 5, paragraph 10, article 66 of the Constitution.
When the President, with the approval of the Council, shall
take command of the army or absent himself from the district
on account of matters of public interest that demand it, he
can not exercise any functions and will be replaced by the
Federal Council in accordance with article 62 of this
Constitution.
Article 88.
Everything that may not be expressly assigned to the general
administration of the nation in this Constitution is reserved
to the States.
Article 89.
The tribunals of justice in the States are independent; the
causes originated in them will be concluded in the same States
without any other review than that of the Court of Appeals in
the cases provided for by law.
Article 90.
Every act of Congress and of the National Executive that
violates the rights guaranteed to the States in this
Constitution, or that attacks their independence, must be
declared of no effect by the High Court, provided that a
majority of the legislatures demands it.
Article 91.
The public national force is divided into naval and land
troops, and will be composed of the citizen militia that the
States may organize according to law.
Article 92.
The force at the disposal of the federation will be organized
from citizens of a contingent furnished by each State in
proportion to its population, calling to service those
citizens that should render it according to their internal
laws.
Article 93.
In case of war the contingent can be augmented by bodies of
citizen militia up to the number of men necessary to fill the
draft of the National Government.
Article 94.
The National Government may change the commanders of the
public force supplied by the States in the cases and with the
formalities provided for in the national military law and then
their successors will be called for from the States.
Article 95.
The military and civil authority can never be exercised by the
same person or corporation.
Article 96.
The nation, being in possession of the right of ecclesiastical
patronage, will exercise it as the law upon the subject may
direct.
Article 97.
The Government of the Federation will have no other resident
employees with jurisdiction or authority in the States than
those of the States themselves. The officers of hacienda,
those of the forces that garrison national fortresses,
arsenals created by law, navy-yards, and habilitated ports,
that only have jurisdiction in matters peculiar to their
respective offices and within the limits of the forts and
quarters that they command, are excepted; but even these must
be subject to the general laws of the State in which they
reside. All the elements of war now existing belong to the
National Government; nevertheless it is not to be understood
that the States are prohibited from acquiring those that they
may need for domestic defense.
Article 98.
The National Government can not station troops nor military
officers with command in a State, although they may be from
that or another State, without permission of the government of
the State in which the force is to be stationed.
Article 99.
Neither the National Executive nor those of the States can
resort to armed intervention in the domestic contentions of a
State; it is only permitted to them to tender their good
offices to bring about a pacific solution in the case.
Article 100.
In case of a permanent or temporary vacancy in the office of
President of the United States of Venezuela, the States will
be immediately informed as to who has supplied the vacancy.
Article 101.
Exportation in Venezuela is free and no duty can be placed
upon it.
Article 102.
All usurped authority is without effect and its acts are null.
Every order granted for a requisition, direct or indirect, by
armed force or by an assemblage of people in subversive
attitude is null of right and void of efficacy.
Article 103.
The exercise of any function not conferred by the constitution
or laws is prohibited to every corporation or authority.
Article 104.
Any citizen may accuse the employees of the nation or the
States before the chamber of deputies, before their respective
superiors in office, or before the authorities designated by
law.
Article 105.
No payment shall be made from the National Treasury for which
Congress has not expressly provided in the annual estimate,
and those that may infringe this rule will be civilly
responsible to the National Treasury for the sums they have
paid out. In every payment from the public Treasury the
ordinary expenses will be preferred to the extraordinary
charges.
Article 106.
The offices of collection and disbursement of the national
taxes shall be always separate, and the officers of collection
may disburse only the salaries of their respective employees.
Article 107.
When, for any reason, the estimate of appropriations for a
fiscal period have not been made, that of the immediately
preceding period will continue in force.
Article 108.
In time of elections, the public national force or that of the
States themselves will remain closely quartered during the
holding of popular elections.
Article 109.
In international treaties of commerce and friendship this
clause will be inserted, to wit: "all the disagreements
between the contracting parties must be decided without an
appeal to war, by the decision of a power or friendly powers."
Article 110.
No individual can hold more than one office within the gift of
Congress and the National Executive. The acceptance of any
other is equivalent to resignation of the first. Officials
that are removable will cease to hold office upon accepting
the charge of a Senator or Deputy when they are dependents of
the National Executive.
Article 111.
The law will create and designate other national tribunals
that may be necessary.
Article 112.
National officers can not accept gifts, commissions, honors,
or emoluments from a foreign nation without permission from
the National Legislature.
Article 113.
Armed force can not deliberate; it is passive and obedient. No
armed body can make requisitions nor demand assistance of any
kind, but from the civil authorities, and in the mode and form
prescribed by law.
{610}
Article 114.
The Nation and the States will promote foreign immigration and
colonization in accordance with their respective laws.
Article 115.
A law will regulate the manner in which national officers,
upon taking charge of their posts, shall take the oath to
comply with their duties.
Article 116.
The National Executive will negotiate with the Governments of
America over treaties of alliance or confederation.
Article 117.
The law of Nations forms a part of the National Legislation;
its dispositions will be specially in force in cases of civil
war, which can be terminated by treaties between the
belligerents who will have to respect the humanitarian customs
of Christians and civilized nations, the guarantee of life being,
in every case, inviolable.
Article 118.
This constitution can be reformed by the National Legislature
if the legislatures of the States desire it, but there shall
never be any reform except in the parts upon which the
majority of the States coincide; also a reform can be made
upon one or more points when two-thirds of the members of the
National Legislature, deliberating separately and by the
proceedings established to sanction the laws, shall accord it;
but, in this second case, the amendment voted shall be
submitted to the legislatures of the States, and it will stand
sanctioned in the point or points that may have been ratified
by them.
Article 119.
This constitution will take effect from the day of its
official promulgation in each State, and in all public acts
and official documents there will be cited the date of the
Federation to begin with February 20, 1859, and the date of
the law to begin with March 28, 1864.
Article 120.
The constitutional period for the offices of the General
Administration of the Republic will continue to be computed
from February 20, 1882, the date on which the reformed
constitution took effect.
Article 121.
For every act of civil and political life of the States of the
Federation, its basis of population is that which is
determined in the last census approved by the National
Legislature.
Article 122.
The Federal Constitution of April 27, 1881, is repealed. Done
in Caracas, in the Palace of the Federal Legislative Corps,
and sealed with the seal of Congress on the 9th day of April,
1891. The 28th year of the Law and the 33rd year of the
Federation.
(Here follow the signatures of the Presidents,
Vice-Presidents, and Second Vice-Presidents of the Senate and
Chamber of Deputies, together with those of the Senators and
Deputies of the various States, followed by those of the
President and the ministers of his cabinet.)
See VENEZUELA: A. D. 1869-1892.
----------CONSTITUTION OF VENEZUELA: End----------
CONSTITUTION OF THE WATAUGA ASSOCIATION
(the first Western American Commonwealth).
See TENNESSEE: A. D. 1769-1772.
CONSTITUTIONS OF CLARENDON.
The "Constitutions of Clarendon" were a series of declarations
drawn up by a council which King Henry II. of England convened
at Clarendon, near Winchester, in 1164, and which were
intended to determine the law on various points in dispute
between the Crown and the laity, on one side, and the Church
on the other. The issues in question were those which brought
Henry into collision with Thomas Becket, Archbishop of
Canterbury. The general provisions embodied in the
Constitutions of Clarendon "would now be scarcely challenged
in the most Catholic country in the world.
1. During the vacancy of any archbishopric, bishopric, abbey,
or priory of royal foundation, the estates were to be in the
custody of the Crown. Elections to these preferments were to
be held in the royal chapel, with the assent of the king and
council.
2. In every suit to which a clerk was a party, proceedings
were to commence before the king's justices, and these
justices were to decide whether the case was to be tried
before a spiritual or a civil court. If it was referred to a
spiritual court, a civil officer was to attend to watch the
trial, and if a clerk was found guilty of felony the Church
was to cease to protect him.
3. No tenant-in-chief of the king, or officer of his
household, was to be excommunicated, or his lands laid under
an interdict, until application had been first made to the
king, or, in his absence, to the chief justice.
4. Laymen were not to be indicted in a bishop's court, either
for perjury or other similar offence, except in the bishop's
presence by a lawful prosecutor and with lawful witnesses. If
the accused was of so high rank that no prosecutor would
appear, the bishop might require the sheriff to call a jury to
inquire into the case.
5. Archbishops, bishops, and other great persons were
forbidden to leave the realm without the king's permission.
6. Appeals were to be from the archdeacon to the bishop, from
the bishop to the archbishop, from the archbishop to the king,
and no further; that, by the king's mandate, the case might be
ended in the archbishop's court.
The last article the king afterwards explained away. It was
one of the most essential, but he was unable to maintain it;
and he was rash, or he was ill-advised, in raising a second
question, on which the pope would naturally be sensitive,
before he had disposed of the first."
_J. A. Froude,
Life and Times of Becket,
pages 31-32._
See ENGLAND: A. D. 1162-1170.
CONSTITUTIONS, Roman Imperial.
See CORPUS JURIS CIVILIS.
CONSTITUTIONAL UNION PARTY, The.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1860 (APRIL-NOVEMBER).
CONSUL, Roman.
When the Romans had rid themselves of their kings and
established a republic, or, rather, an aristocratic
government, "the civil duties of the king were given to two
magistrates, chosen for a year, who were at first called
'prætores' or generals, 'judices' or judges, or consules (cf.
con 'together' and salio 'to leap') or 'colleagues.' In the
matter of their power, no violent departure was made from the
imperium of the king. The greatest limitation on the consuls
was the short period for which they were at the head of the
state; but even here they were thought of, by a fiction, as
voluntarily abdicating at the expiration of their term, and as
nominating their successors, although they were required to
nominate the men who had already been selected in the 'comitia
centuriata.' Another limitation was the result of the dual
character of the magistracy. The imperium was not divided
between the consuls, but each possessed it in full, as the
king had before. When, therefore, they did not agree, the veto
of the one prevailed over the proposal of the other, and there
was no action."
_A. Tighe,
Development of the Roman Constitution,
chapter 4._
{611}
"As judges, the consuls occupied altogether the place of the
kings. They decided the legal disputes of the citizens either
personally or by deputy. Their criminal jurisdiction was
probably limited to the most important cases. … In the
warlike state of the Romans the military character of the
consuls was no doubt most prominent and most important. When
the consul led the army into the field he possessed the
unlimited military power of the kings (the imperium). He was
entrusted with the direction of the war, the distribution of
the booty, and the first disposal of the conquered land. …
The oldest designation for the consuls, therefore, was derived
from their military quality, for they were called prætors,
that is, commanders. It was, however, precisely in war that
the division of power among two colleagues must often have
proved prejudicial … and the necessity of unity in the
direction of affairs was felt to be indispensable. The
dictatorship served this purpose. By decree of the senate one
of the consuls could be charged with naming a dictator for six
months, and in this officer the full power of the king was
revived for a limited period. The dictatorship was a formal
suspension of the constitution of the republic. … Military
was substituted for common law, and Rome, during the time of
the dictatorship, was in a state of siege."
_W. Ihne,
History of Rome,
book 2, chapter 1,
and book 6, chapters 3-5._
In the later years of the Roman empire, "two consuls were
created by the sovereigns of Rome and Constantinople for the
sole purpose of giving al date to the year and a festival to
the people. But the expenses of this festival, in which the
wealthy and the vain aspired to surpass their predecessors,
insensibly arose to the enormous sum of four score thousand
pounds; the wisest senators declined a useless honour which
involved the certain ruin of their families, and to this
reluctance I should impute the frequent chasms in the last age
of the consular Fasti. … The succession of consuls finally
ceased in the thirteenth year of Justinian [A. D. 541] whose
despotic temper might be gratified by the final extinction of
a title which admonished the Romans of their ancient freedom.
Yet the annual consulship still lived in the minds of the
people; they fondly expected its speedy restoration … and
three centuries elapsed after the death of Justinian before
that obsolete dignity, which had been suppressed by custom,
could be abolished by law. The imperfect mode of
distinguishing each year by the name of a magistrate was
usefully supplied by the date of a permanent era."
_E. Gibbon,
Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire,
chapter 40.
"There were no consuls in 531 and 532. The Emperor held the
office alone in 533, and with a colleague in 534. Belisarius
was sole consul in 535. The two following years, having no
consuls of their own, were styled the First and Second after
the Consulship of Belisarius. John of Cappadocia gave his name
to the year 538, and the years 539 and 540 had again consuls,
though one only for each year. In 541 Albinus Basilius sat in
the curule chair, and he was practically the last of the long
list of warriors, orators, demagogues, courtiers, which began
(in the year 500 B. C.) with the names of Lucius Junius Brutus
and Lucius Tarquinius Collatinus. All the rest of the years of
Justinian, twenty-four in number, were reckoned as Post
Consulatum Basilii."
_T. Hodgkin,
Italy and Her Invaders.
book 5, chapter 14._
See, also, ROME B. C. 500.
CONSULAR TRIBUNES, Roman.
The plebeians of Rome having demanded admission for their
order to the consulship, a compromise was arranged, B. C. 444,
which settled that, thereafter, "the people should be free to
elect either consuls—that is, patricians according to the old
law—or in their place other officers under the title of
'military tribunes with consular power,' consisting of
patricians and plebeians. … It is not reported in what
respect the official competency of the consular tribunes was
to differ from that of the consuls. Still, so much is plain,
that the difference consisted not alone in name. The number of
the consular tribunes was in the beginning fixed at three."
_W. Ihne,
History of Rome,
book 2, chapter 11._
CONSULATE GOVERNMENT OF FRANCE, The.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1799 (NOVEMBER-DECEMBER).
CONTINENTAL ARMY.
"The Continentals" of the American Revolution.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1775 (MAY-AUGUST).
CONTINENTAL CURRENCY, The.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1780 (JANUARY-APRIL).
CONTINENTAL SYSTEM OF NAPOLEON, The.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1801-1802, and 1806-1810.
CONTIONES, OR CONCIONES.
The contiones, or conciones, at Rome, were assemblies of the
people, "less formal than the comitia," held for the mere
purpose of discussing public questions, and incapable of
passing any binding resolution. "They could not be called
together by anybody except the magistrates, neither had every
man the liberty of speaking in them, of making proposals or of
declaring his opinion; … but even in this limited manner
public questions could be discussed and the people could be
enlightened. … The custom of discussing public questions in
the contiones became general after the comitia of the tribes
had obtained full legislative competency."
_W. Ihne,
History of Rome,
book 6, chapter 1._
See, also, COMITIA CURIATA.
CONTRABANDS.
In the early part of the American civil war of 1861-65, the
escaped slaves of the Confederates, who came within the Union
lines, were called contrabands, General Butler having supplied
the term by declaring them to be "contraband of war."
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1861 (MAY).
CONTRERAS, Battle of.
See MEXICO: A. D. 1847 (MARCH-SEPTEMBER).
CONVENT.
See MONASTERY.
CONVENTICLE ACT, The.
See ENGLAND: A. D. 1662-1665.
CONVENTION,
The French National, of the great Revolution.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1792 (AUGUST),
and 1792 (SEPTEMBER-NOVEMBER), to 1705 (OCTOBER-DECEMBER).
CONVOCATION.
The assemblies of the clergy in the two ecclesiastical
provinces of England are called the Convocation of Canterbury
and the Convocation of York. The former, which is the superior
body, frequently receives the name of Convocation, simply. It
is constituted upon the model of Parliament, and is, in fact,
the Parliament of the Church of England. It has two Houses:
the upper one consisting of the Archbishop and his Bishops;
the lower one composed of deans, archdeacons and proctors,
representing the inferior clergy. The Convocation of York has
but one House. Since 1716 Convocation has possessed slight
powers.
{612}
CONWAY CABAL, The.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1777-1778.
COOMASSIE, Burning of.
See ENGLAND: A. D. 1873-1880.
COPAIC REEDS.
See BŒOTIA.
COPAN, Ruins of.
See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: MAYAS;
and MEXICO, ANCIENT.
COPEHAN FAMILY, The.
See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: COPEHAN FAMILY.
COPENHAGEN: A. D. 1362.
Taken and pillaged by the Hanseatic League.
See SCANDINAVIAN STATES: A. D. 1018-1397.
COPENHAGEN: A. D. 1658-1660.
Sieges by Charles X. of Sweden.
See SCANDINAVIAN STATES (SWEDEN): A. D. 1644-1697.
COPENHAGEN: A. D. 1700.
Surrender to Charles XII. of Sweden.
See SCANDINAVIAN STATES (SWEDEN): A. D. 1697-1700.
COPENHAGEN: A. D. 1801.
Bombardment by the English fleet.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1801-1802.
COPENHAGEN: A. D. 1807.
Bombardment of the city by the English.
Seizure of the fleet.
See SCANDINAVIAN STATES: A. D. 1807-1810.
----------COPENHAGEN: End----------
COPPERHEADS.
During the American Civil War, the Democratic Party in the
Northern States "comprised two well-recognized classes: The
Anti-War (or Peace) Democrats, commonly called 'Copperheads,'
who sympathized with the Rebellion, and opposed the War for
the Union; and the War (or Union) Democrats, who favored a
vigorous prosecution of the War for the preservation of the
Union."
_J. A. Logan,
The Great Conspiracy,
page 574, foot-note._
See, also, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1864 (OCTOBER).
COPREDY BRIDGE, Battle of.
See ENGLAND: A. D. 1644 (JANUARY-JULY).
COPTS, The.
The descendants of the ancient Egyptian race, who form to this
day the larger part of the population of Egypt.
See EGYPT: ORIGIN OF THE ANCIENT PEOPLE.
COPTOS.
Destroyed by Diocletian.
See ALEXANDRIA: A. D. 296.
COR, The.
See EPHAH.
CORBIE,
Spanish capture of (1636).
See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1635-1638.
CORCYRA.
See KORKYRA.
CORDAY, Charlotte, and the assassination of Marat.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1793 (JULY).
CORDELIERS.
See MENDICANT ORDERS.
CORDELIERS, Club of the.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1790.
CORDOVA (Spain): A. D. 711.
Surrender to the Arab-Moors.
See SPAIN: A. D. 711-713.
CORDOVA: A. D. 756-1031.
The Caliphate at.
See MAHOMETAN CONQUEST AND EMPIRE: A. D. 756-1031.
CORDOVA: A. D. 1235.
Capture by the King of Castile.
See SPAIN: A. D. 1212-1238.
----------CORDOVA: End----------
CORDOVA (Mexico), Treaty of.
See MEXICO: A. D. 1820-1826.
CORDYENE.
See GORDYENE.
COREA.
See COREA in Supplement (volume 5).
COREISH, KOREISH.
See MAHOMETAN CONQUEST AND EMPIRE: A. D. 609-632.
COREY, Martha and Giles,
The execution for witchcraft of.
See MASSACHUSETTS: A. D. 1692.
CORFINIUM, Cæsar's Capture of.
See ROME: B. C. 50-49.
CORFU, Ancient.
See KORKYRA.
CORFU: A. D. 1216-1880.
Since the fall of the Greek Empire.
Corfu was won by the Venetians in the early years of the Latin
conquest of the Greek empire (1216), but was presently lost,
to come back again into the possession of the republic 170
years later. "No part of Greece has been so often cutoff from
the Greek body. Under Pyrrhos and Agathoklês, no less than
under Michael Angelos and Roger, it obeyed an Epeirot or
Sicilian master. … At last, after yet another turn of
Sicilian rule, it passed for 400 years [1386-. 1797] to the
great commonwealth [of Venice]. In our own day Corfu was not
added to free Greece till long after the deliverance of Attica
and Peloponnesos. But, under so many changes of foreign
masters, the island has always remained part of Europe and of
Christendom. Alone among the Greek lands, Corfu has never
passed under barbarian rule. It has seen the Turk only, for
one moment, as an invader [see TURKS: A. D. 1714-1718], for
another moment as a nominal overlord."
_E. A. Freeman,
Historical Geography of Europe,
page 408._
See IONIAN ISLANDS: To 1814.
----------CORFU: End----------
CORINIUM.
A Roman city in Britain, on the site of which is the modern
city of Cirencester. Some of the richest mosaic pavements
found in England have been uncovered there.
_T. Wright,
Celt, Roman and Saxon,
chapter 5._
CORINTH.
Corinth, the chief city and state, in ancient times, of the
narrow isthmus which connects Peloponnesus with northern
Greece, "owed everything to her situation. The double sea by
the isthmus, the confluence of the high road of the whole of
Hellas, the rocky citadel towering aloft over land and sea,
through which rushed—or around which flowed—an abundance of
springs; all these formed so extraordinary a commixture of
advantages, that, if the intercourse with other countries
remained undisturbed, they could not but call forth an
important city. As in Argolis, so on the isthmus also, other
besides Dorian families had in the days of the migration
helped to found the new state. … By the side of the Dorian,
five non-Dorian tribes existed in Corinth, attesting the
multitude and variety of population, which were kept together
as one state by the royal power of the Heraclidæ, supported by
the armed force of the Dorians. In the ninth century [B. C.]
the royal power passed into the hands of a branch of the
Heraclidæ deriving its descent from Bacchis [one of the
earliest of the kings]; and it was in the extraordinary genius
of this royal line that the greatness of the city originated.
The Bacchiadæ opened the city to the immigration of the
industrious settlers who hoped to make their fortunes more
speedily than elsewhere at this meeting point of all Greek
high-roads of commerce. They cherished and advanced every
invention of importance. … They took commerce into their own
hands, and established the tramway on the isthmus, along which
ships were, on rollers, transported from one gulf to the
other. … They converted the gulf which had hitherto taken
its name from Crisa into the Corinthian, and secured its
narrow inlet by means of the fortified place of Molycria. …
They continued their advance along the coast and occupied the
most important points on the Achelous."
_E. Curtius,
History of Greece,
book 2, chapter 1._
{613}
CORINTH: B. C. 745-725.
Constitutional Revolution.
End of Monarchy.
The prytanes.
Commercial progress.
A violent contention which arose between two branches of the
Bacchiadæ "no doubt gave the nobles of Corinth power and
opportunity to end the struggle by a change in the
constitution, and by the discontinuance of the monarchy; this
occurred in the year 745 B. C., after eight generations of
kings. … Yet the place at the head of the commonwealth was
not to be entirely taken away from the ancient royal house. A
presiding chief (a prytanis), newly elected each year by the
whole nobility from the members of the royal race, was
henceforward to conduct the government [see PRYTANIS]. It was
a peculiar arrangement which this change introduced into
Corinth. We may assume that the sovereignty was transferred to
the nobles collectively, or to their representative. This
representation seems to have been so regulated that each of
the eight tribes sent an equal number of members to the
Gerousia, i. e. the council of elders. … But the first of
these eight tribes, to which belonged the royal family, was
privileged. From it was chosen the head of the state, an
office for which only a Bacchiad was eligible—that is, only a
member of the old royal house, which took the foremost place
in the first tribe. This clan of the Bacchiadæ is said to have
contained 200 men. 'They were numerous and wealthy,' says
Strabo. Accordingly the royal house did not exclusively retain
the first rank in the state, but only in conjunction with the
families connected with it by kindred and race. … The new
constitution of Corinth, the government by nobles, under the
dynastic presidency of one family, became a type for other
cantons. It was a Corinthian of the Bacchiadæ who, twenty or
thirty years after the introduction of the prytanes, regulated
the oligarchy of the Thebans and gave them laws (about 725 B.
C.) … The fall of the monarchy in Corinth at first brought
with it disastrous consequences for the power and prestige of
the commonwealth. The communities of the Megarians—either
because the new government made increased demands upon them,
or because they considered their allegiance had ceased with
the cessation of monarchy, and thought the moment was
favourable—deserted Corinth and asserted their freedom. The
five communities on the isthmus united together around the
territory of Megara, lying in the plain by the Saronic Gulf,
where the majority of the Doric tribes had settled; the city
of Megara, in the vicinity of two ancient fortresses …
became the chief centre of the communities, now associated in
one commonwealth. … The important progress of Corinth under
the prytany of the Bacchiadæ was not due to successes upon the
mainland, but in another sphere. For navigation and commerce
no canton in Hellas was more favourably situated. Lying on the
neck of the isthmus, it extended from sea to sea, an
advantageous position which had indeed first attracted the
Phœnicians thither in ancient times. … Corinth, says
Thucydides, was always from the first a centre of commerce,
and abounded in wealth; for the population within and without
the Peloponnesus communicated with each other more in ancient
times by land across the isthmus than by sea. But when the
Hellenes became more practised in navigation, the Corinthians
with their ships put down piracy and established marts on both
sides; and through this influx of riches their city became
very powerful."
_M. Duncker,
History of Greece,
book 3, chapter 3 (volume 2)._
CORINTH: B. C. 509-506.
Opposition to the desire of Sparta to restore tyranny at
Athens.
See ATHENS: B. C. 509-506.
CORINTH: B. C. 481-479.
Congress and organized Hellenic union against Persia.
See GREECE: B. C.481-479.
CORINTH: B. C. 458-456.
Alliance with Ægina in unsuccessful war with Athens and Megara.
See GREECE: B. C. 458-456.
CORINTH: B. C. 440.
Opposition to Spartan interference with Athens in Samos.
See ATHENS: B. C. 440-437.
CORINTH: B. C. 435-432.
Quarrel with Korkyra.
Interference of Athens.
Events leading to the Peloponnesian War.
See GREECE: B. C. 435-432.
CORINTH: B. C. 432.
Great sea-fight with the Korkyrians and Athenians.
See GREECE: B. C. 432.
CORINTH: B. C. 429-427.
The Peloponnesian War: sea-fights and defeats.
Fruitless aid to the Mitylenæans.
See GREECE: B. C. 429-427.
CORINTH: B. C. 421.
Opposition to the Peace of Nicias.
See GREECE: B. C. 421-418.
CORINTH: B. C. 415-413.
Help to Syracuse against the Athenians.
See SYRACUSE: B. C. 415-413.
CORINTH: B. C. 395-387.
Confederacy against Sparta.
The Corinthian War.
Battle on the Nemea.
The Peace of Antalcidas.
See GREECE: B. C. 399-387.
CORINTH: B. C. 368-365.
Attempt of Epaminondas to surprise the city.
Attempt of the Athenians.
See GREECE: B. C. 371-362.
CORINTH: B. C. 337.
Congress of Greek states to acknowledge the hegemony of Philip
of Macedon.
See GREECE: B. C. 357-336.
CORINTH: B. C. 244.
Capture by Antigonus Gonatus, king of Macedon.
See MACEDONIA, &c.: B. C. 277-244.
CORINTH: B. C. 243-146.
In the Achaian League.
See GREECE: B. C. 280-146.
CORINTH: B. C. 146.
Sack by the Romans.
See GREECE: B. C. 280-146.
CORINTH: B. C. 44.
Restoration by Cæsar.
"In the desolate land of Greece, Cæsar, besides other plans,
… busied himself above all with the restoration of Corinth.
Not only was a considerable burgess-colony conducted thither,
but a plan was projected for cutting through the isthmus, so
as to avoid the dangerous circumnavigation of the Peloponnesus
and to make the whole traffic between Italy and Asia pass
through the Corintho-Saronic gulf."
_T. Mommsen,
History of Rome,
book 5, chapter 11._
"Cæsar sent to Corinth a large number of freedmen, and other
settlers were afterwards sent by Augustus; but it is certain
that many Greeks came to live in the new Corinth, for it
became a Greek town. Corinth was a mass of ruins when the new
settlers came, and while they were removing the rubbish, they
grubbed up the burial places, where they found a great number
of earthen figures and bronze urns, which they sold at a high
price and filled Rome with them."
_G. Long,
Decline of the Roman Republic,
volume 5, chapter 32._
{614}
"Corinth rapidly rose under these auspices, became a centre of
commerce and art, and took the lead among the cities of
European Hellas. Here was established the seat of the Roman
government of Achaia, and its population, though the
representations we have received of it are extravagant,
undoubtedly exceeded that of any Grecian rival."
_C. Merivale,
History of the Romans,
chapter 40._
CORINTH: A. D. 267.
Ravaged by the Goths.
See GOTHS: A. D. 258-267.
CORINTH: A. D. 395.
Plundered by the Goths.
See GOTHS: A. D. 395.
CORINTH: A. D. 1146.
Sacked by the Normans of Sicily.
Abduction of silk weavers.
See BYZANTINE EMPIRE: A. D. 1146.
CORINTH: A. D. 1445.
Destruction by the Turks.
The fortifications of the isthmus of Corinth were stormed and
the Peloponnesus invaded by Amurath II. in 1445. "Corinth
itself, a city sanctified by its antiquity, by its gods, by
its arts, by the beauty of its women, by its fountains, its
cypresses, its very ruins themselves, whence its unrivalled
situation had always restored it, fell anew, buried in its
flames, by the hands of Tourakhan, that ancient and ambitious
vizier of Amurath. Its flames were seen from Athens, from
Ægina, from Lepanto, from Cytheron, from Pindus. The
inhabitants, as also those of Patras, were led into slavery in
Asia, to the number of 60,000."
_A. Lamartine,
History of Turkey,
book 11, section 10._
CORINTH: A. D. 1463-1464.
Unsuccessful siege by the Venetians.
Fortification of the Isthmus.
See GREECE: A. D. 1454-1479.
CORINTH: A. D. 1687.
Taken by the Venetians.
See TURKS: A. D. 1684-1696.
CORINTH: A. D. 1822.
Revolt, siege and capture by the Turks.
See GREECE: A. D. 1821-1829.
----------CORINTH: End----------
CORINTH, Mississippi, Siege and Battle.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
A. D. 1862 (APRIL-MAY: TENNESSEE-MISSISSIPPI),
and (SEPTEMBER-OCTOBER: MISSISSIPPI).
CORINTH CANAL, The.
"On Sunday [August 6, 1893] the canal across the Isthmus of
Corinth—[projected by Cæsar—see ROME: B. C. 45-44] begun by
Nero, and completed, nearly 2,000 years later, by a Greek
engineer, M. Matsas—was opened by the King of Greece, who
steamed through the canal in his yacht, accompanied by a
procession consisting of four Greek torpedo-boats and other
vessels, including three English men-of-war and an English
despatch-boat. The canal … will be practicable for all but
the largest vessels."
_The Spectator, Aug. 12, 1893._
[Transcriber's note: "It was planned by the Hungarian
architects István Türr and Béla Gerster… Its
construction was started by a French company, which ceased
works only after the two ends had been dug, due to
financial difficulties. A Greek company took over, the main
contractor being Antonis Matsas, and continued (and
completed) the project."
http://wiki.phantis.com]
CORINTHIAN TALENT.
See TALENT.
CORINTHIAN WAR, The.
See GREECE: B. C. 399-387.
CORIONDI, The.
See IRELAND, TRIBES OF ANCIENT.
CORITANI, OR CORITAVI.
A British tribe which occupied the lower valley of the Trent
and its vicinity.
See BRITAIN, CELTIC TRIBES.
CORN LAWS (English) and their repeal.
See TARIFF LEGISLATION (ENGLAND):
A. D. 1815-1828; 1836-1839; 1842; and 1845-1846.
CORNABII, OR CORNAVII, The.
An ancient British tribe which dwelt near the mouths of the
Dee and the Mersey.
See BRITAIN, CELTIC TRIBES.
CORNWALL, Duchy of.
In the division of the spoils of his conquest of England,
William the Conqueror gave to his brother Robert almost the
whole shire of Cornwall, besides other vast estates. "Out of
those possessions," says Mr. Freeman, "arose that great
Earldom, and afterwards Duchy, of Cornwall, which was deemed
too powerful to be trusted in the hands of any but men closely
akin to the royal house, and the remains of which have for
ages formed the appanage of the heir-apparent to the Crown."
See, also, WALES, PRINCE OF.
CORNWALLIS, Charles, Lord.
In the War of the American Revolution.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
A. D. 1776 (AUGUST), (SEPTEMBER-NOVEMBER);
1780 (FEBRUARY-AUGUST); 1780-1781;
1781 (JANUARY-MAY); 1781 (MAY-OCTOBER).
Indian administration.
See INDIA: A. D. 1785-1793.
Irish administration.
See IRELAND: A. D. 1798-1800.
CORON, Battle of (B. C. 281).
See MACEDONIA, &c.: B. C. 297-280.
CORONADO, Expedition of.
See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: PUEBLOS.
CORONATION.
"The royal consecration in its most perfect form included both
coronation and unction. The wearing of a crown was a most
ancient sign of royalty, into the origin of which it is
useless now to inquire; but the solemn rite of crowning was
borrowed from the Old Testament by the Byzantine Cæsars; the
second Theodosius was the first emperor crowned with religious
ceremonies in Christian times. The introduction of the rite of
anointing is less certainly ascertained. It did not always
accompany coronation, and, although usual with the later
emperors is not recorded in the case of the earlier ones."
_William Stubbs,
Constitutional History of England,
chapter 6, section 60._
CORONATION STONE.
See SCOTLAND: 8TH-9TH CENTURIES;
also, LIA FAIL.
CORONEIA, Battles of (B. C. 447 and B. C. 394).
See GREECE: B. C. 449-445; and B. C. 399-387.
CORPS DE BELGIQUE.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1864 (OCTOBER).
CORPUS JURIS CIVILIS, The.
"The Corpus Juris Civilis represents the Roman law in the form
which it assumed at the close of the ancient period (a
thousand years after the decemviral legislation of the Twelve
Tables), and through which mainly it has acted upon modern
times. It was compiled in the Eastern Roman Empire (the
Western ceased in 476 A. D.) under the Emperor Justinian, …
who reigned 527-565 A. D. The plan of the work, as laid out
by [his great law-minister] Tribonian, included two principal
parts, to be made from the constitutions of the Roman
emperors, and from the treatises of the Roman lawyers. The
constitutiones' (law-utterances) of the emperors consisted
of:
1. 'Orationes,' proposals of law, submitted to and adopted by
the Senate;
2. 'Edicta,' laws issued directly by the emperor as head of
the state;
3. 'Mandata,' instructions addressed by the emperor to high
officers of law and justice;
4. 'Decreta,' decisions given by the emperor in cases brought
before him by appeal or otherwise;
5. 'Rescripta,' answers returned by the emperor when consulted
on questions of law by parties in a suit or by magistrates.
{615}
… Three or four collections had
already been made, in which the most important constitutions
were selected from the mass, presented in a condensed form,
and arranged according to their subjects. The last and most
elaborate of these collections was the Theodosian Code,
compiled about a century before the accession of Justinian; it
is still in great part extant. … The new Codex
Constitutionem, prepared in little more than a year, was
published in April, 529. The next work was to digest the
treatises of the most eminent law writers. Thirty-nine were
selected, nearly all of whom lived between 100 B. C. and 250
A. D. Their books (2,000 in number) were divided among a body
of collaborators (sixteen besides Tribonian), each of whom
from the books assigned to him extracted what he thought
proper. … and putting the extracts (9,000 in all) under an
arranged series of heads. … The Digest—or Pandects
(all-receiving), as it is also called from the multiplicity of
its sources—was issued with authority of law, in December,
533. … While the Digest or Pandects forms much the largest
fraction of the Corpus Juris, its relative value and
importance are far more than proportionate to its extent. The
Digest is, in fact, the soul of the Corpus. … To bring the
Codex Constitutionem into better conformity with the Digest,
it was revised in 534 and issued as we now have it in November
of that year. … The Corpus Juris includes also an elementary
text-book, the Institutiones (founded on the 'institutiones' of
Gaius, who flourished about 150). … The Institutes, Digest
and Codex were given, as a complete body of law, to the
law-schools at Constantinople, Rome, Berytus, Alexandria,
Cæsarea, to be studied in their five years' curriculum. In the
courts it was to supersede all earlier authorities. … Later
statutes of Justinian, arranged in order of time, form the
Novels ('novellae constitutione,' most of them in Greek), the
last component of the Corpus Juris."
_J. Hadley,
Introduction to Roman Law,
lecture 1._
ALSO IN:
_J. E. Goudsmit,
The Pandects._
CORREGIDOR.
See ALCALDE.
CORSICA: Early history.
"The original inhabitants of Corsica are supposed to have been
Ligurians, but at a very early period the people had
commercial intercourse with Spain, Ionia and Tuscany. The
island was subsequently occupied by the Carthaginians, who,
however, were expelled by the Romans during the first Punic
war. A few years later Corsica came under the dominion of
Rome, and that sway was nominally maintained until the
downfall of the Empire. It then fell under the dominion of the
Vandals, and after their expulsion owned successively the rule
of the Goths, the Saracens and the Pisans, and finally of the
Genoese. It came into the possession of the latter people in
the year 1120. Pisa subsequently made several attempts to
drive out her rivals, but they were in the end void of
results. But in 1448, Genoa, having sustained great losses in
the constant wars in which she was engaged, was induced to
surrender the administration of Corsica and of her colonies in
the Levant to a corporation known as the Bank of St George.
From that time the island was administered by governors
appointed by the Bank of St George, almost precisely in the
manner in which, in England, up to 1859, the East Indies were
administered by an 'imperium in imperio.'"
_G. B. Malleson,
Studies from Genoese History,
chapter 3._
CORSICA: A. D. 1558-1559.
Revolt against the Genoese rule, and re-subjection.
See GENOA: A. D. 1528-1559;
and FRANCE: A. D. 1547-1559.
CORSICA: A. D. 1729-1769.
The Struggle for independence.
Romance of King Theodore.
The Paolis.
Cession to France.
The revolt of 1558 was renewetl in 1564, but ended in 1567,
upon the death of its leader, Sampiero. For the next century
and a half, Corsica remained inactive; "depressed and
miserable under renewed Genoese exactions and tyrannies, but
too exhausted to resume hostilities. In 1729, however,
fighting again broke out, suddenly roused by one of the many
private wrongs then pressing upon the lower orders, and the
rebellion soon spread over the whole island. It was well
organized under two leaders of energy and ability, and was
more determined in its measures than ever. … Genoa had
recourse to the emperor of Germany, from whom she bought
several thousand mercenaries, who were sent across the sea to
try their skill upon these unconquerable islanders. … The
courage and chivalry of his insular foes … won for them the
regard of the opposing General Wachtendonk; and, chiefly
through his mediation, a treaty, supposed to be favourable to
the islanders, was concluded between Genoa and the Corte
legislative assembly in 1732. Wachtendonk remained in the
island another year to see the treaty carried out, and in
June, 1734, the German general returned to his own country.
… But he had scarcely retired before the treaty was broken.
Genoa began anew her system of illegal arrests and attempted
assassinations; and, once more, the people arose under
Hyacinth Paoli, an obscure native of the little village of
Morosaglia, but a man of spirit and talent, and a scholar.
Under the direction of this man, and of Giafferi, his
colleague, a democratic constitution, in the highest degree
prudent and practical, was framed for the Corsican people. …
Early in the next year occurred a strange and romantic
adventure in this adventureful country. A man, handsome and
well-dressed, surrounded by obsequious courtiers, and attended
by every luxury, landed in the island from a vessel
well-furnished with gold, ammunition, and arms. This man was a
German adventurer, Baron Theodore von Neuhoff, who, after a
romantic youth, had suddenly conceived a desire to become king
of Corsica. He was a man of great talent and personal
fascination, of good judgment, and enthusiastic disposition.
He had fallen in love with the bravery and determination of
the Corsicans, and longed to head such a nation. He had put
himself into communication with the leading islanders; and,
having really some little influence at the continental courts,
persuaded them that he had much more. He offered to obtain
such assistance from foreign potentates, by his persuasions,
as should effectually oust the Genoese; and, in return,
requested the crown of Corsica. His genius and his enthusiasm
were so great, and his promises so dazzling, that, after some
hesitation, the poor Corsicans, in their despair, seized upon
this last straw; and in March, 1736, Theodore was crowned
king. His exertions for the good of this country were
untiring. He established manufactures and promoted with all
his power art and commerce, at the same time that, with all
the force of his genius, he endeavoured to persuade foreign
powers to lend their assistance to his new subjects in the
field.
{616}
His style of living meanwhile was regal and sumptuous. …
Towards the conclusion of his first year of sovereignty,
Theodore left Corsica on a continental tour, with the avowed
object of hastening the promised succour. In two years he
returned, bringing with him three large and several smaller
war vessels, handsomely laden with ammunition, which had
actually been raised by means of his talents and persuasive
faculties, chiefly amongst the Dutch. But, meanwhile, the
Corsicans had had other affairs to which to attend. France had
interfered at the request of Genoa; and negotiations were
actively going on, which the arrival of the pseudo-king could
only interrupt. Theodore, although now so well attended, found
himself unheeded and disregarded; and after a few months was
forced to leave his new kingdom to its fate, and to return to
the continent. Five years later, in 1743, he again returned,
again well equipped, this time with English vessels, but with
the same ill success. Convinced now that his chance was over
and his dream of royalty destroyed, Theodore returned to
England with a sore heart, spending his remaining years in
this asylum for dethroned kings and ruined adventurers. His
tomb may be seen in Westminster Abbey. For the next five and
twenty years the war continued between Corsica and Genoa,
still fought out on the blood-deluged plains of the unhappy
little island. But the republic of Genoa was now long past her
prime, and her energies were fading into senility; and, had it
not been for the ever-increasing assistance of France, her
intrepid foes would long ere this have got the better of her.
In May, 1768, a treaty was signed between Genoa and France, by
which the republic ceded her now enfeebled claims on Corsica
to her ally, and left her long-oppressed victim to fight the
contest out with the French troops. During this time, first
Gaffori, then Pasquale Paoli, were the leaders of the people.
Gaffori, a man of refinement, and a hero of skill and
intrepidity, was murdered in a vendetta in 1753, and in 1755
Pasquale, youngest son of the old patriot Hyacinth Paoli, left
his position as officer in the Neapolitan service, and landed,
by the general desire of his own people, at Aleria, to
undertake the command of the Corsican army. … From 1764 to
1768 a truce was concluded between the foes. … In August,
1768, the truce was to expire; but, before the appointed day
had arrived, an army of 20,000 French suddenly swooped down
upon the luckless island. … It was a hopeless struggle for
Corsica; but the heroism of the undaunted people moved all
Europe to sympathy. … The Corsicans at first got the better
of their formidable foe, at the Bridge of Golo, in the taking
of Borgo, and in other lesser actions. … Meanwhile, the
country was being destroyed, and the troops becoming
exhausted. … The battle of Ponte Nuovo, on the 9th of May,
1769, at once and forever annihilated the Corsican cause. …
After this victory, the French rapidly gained possession of
the whole island, and shortly afterwards the struggle was
abandoned. … In the same year, 1769, Napoleon Buonaparte was
born in the house out of the Place du Marché at Ajaccio. 'I
was born,' he said himself in a letter to Paoli, 'the year my
country died.'"
_G. Forde,
A Lady's Tour in Corsica,
volume 2, chapter 18._
ALSO IN:
_P. Fitzgerald,
Kings and Queens of an Hour,
chapter 1._
_J. Boswell,
Journal of a Tour to Corsica._
Corsica: A. D. 1794.
Conquest by the English.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1794 (MARCH-JULY).
Corsica: A. D. 1796.
Evacuated by the English.
Reoccupied by the French.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1796 (SEPTEMBER).
----------Corsica: End----------
CORTENUOVA, Battle of (1236).
See ITALY: A. D. 1183-1250.
CORTES, HERNANDO,
Conquest of Mexico by.
See MEXICO: A. D. 1519 to 1521-1524.
CORTES, The early Spanish.
The old monarchical constitutions of Castile and Aragon.
"The earliest instance on record of popular representation in
Castile occurred at Burgos, in 1169; nearly a century
antecedent to the celebrated Leicester parliament. Each city
had but one vote, whatever might be the number of its
representatives. A much greater irregularity, in regard to the
number of cities required to send deputies to cortes [the name
signifying 'court'] on different occasions, prevailed in
Castile, than had ever existed in England; though, previously
to the 15th century, this does not seem to have proceeded from
any design of infringing on the liberties of the people. The
nomination of these was originally vested in the householders
at large, but was afterwards confined to the
municipalities,—a most mischievous alteration, which
subjected their election eventually to the corrupt influence
of the crown. They assembled in the same chamber with the
higher orders of the nobility and clergy, but on questions of
moment, retired to deliberate by themselves. After the
transaction of other business, their own petitions were
presented to the sovereign, and his assent gave them the
validity of laws. The Castilian commons, by neglecting to make
their money grants depend on corresponding concessions from
the crown, relinquished that powerful check on its operations
so beneficially exerted in the British parliament, but in vain
contended for even there till a much later period than that
now under consideration. Whatever may have been the right of
the nobility and clergy to attend in cortes, their sanction
was not deemed essential to the validity of legislative acts;
for their presence was not even required in many assemblies of
the nation which occurred in the 14th and 15th centuries. The
extraordinary power thus committed to the commons was, on the
whole, unfavorable to their liberties. It deprived them of the
sympathy and cooperation of the great orders of the state,
whose authority alone could have enabled them to withstand the
encroachments of arbitrary power, and who, in fact, did
eventually desert them in their utmost need. … The Aragonese
cortes was composed of four branches, or arms; the ricos
hombres, or great barons; the lesser nobles, comprehending the
knights; the clergy; and the commons. The nobility of every
denomination were entitled to a seat in the legislature. The
ricos hombres were allowed to appear by proxy, and a similar
privilege was enjoyed by baronial heiresses. The number of
this body was very limited, twelve of them constituting a quorum.
{617}
The arm of the ecclesiastics embraced an ample delegation from
the inferior as well as higher clergy. It is affirmed not to
have been a component of the national legislature until more
than a century and a half after the admission of the commons.
Indeed, the influence of the church was much less sensible in
Aragon than in the other kingdoms of the Peninsula. … The
commons enjoyed higher consideration and civil privileges. For
this they were perhaps somewhat indebted to the example of
their Catalan neighbors, the influence of whose democratic
institutions naturally extended to other parts of the
Aragonese monarchy. The charters of certain cities accorded to
the inhabitants privileges of nobility, particularly that of
immunity from taxation; while the magistrates of others were
permitted to take their seats in the order of hidalgos. From a
very early period we find them employed in offices of public
trust, and on important missions. The epoch of their admission
into the national assembly is traced as far back as 1133,
several years earlier than the commencement of popular
representation in Castile. Each city had the right of sending
two or more deputies selected from persons eligible to its
magistracy; but with the privilege of only one vote, whatever
might be the number of its deputies. Any place which had been
once represented in cortes might always claim to be so. By a
statute of 1307, the convocation of the states, which had been
annual, was declared biennial. The kings, however, paid little
regard to this provision, rarely summoning them except for
some specific necessity. The great officers of the crown,
whatever might be their personal rank, were jealously excluded
from their deliberations. … It was in the power of any
member to defeat the passage of a bill, by opposing to it his
veto or dissent, formally registered to that effect. He might
even interpose his negative on the proceedings of the house,
and thus put a stop to the prosecution of all further business
during the session. This anomalous privilege, transcending
even that claimed in the Polish diet, must have been too
invidious in its exercise, and too pernicious in its
consequences, to have been often resorted to. This may be
inferred from the fact that it was not formally repealed until
the reign of Philip II., in 1502. … The cortes exercised the
highest functions, whether of a deliberative, legislative, or
judicial nature. It had a right to be consulted on all matters
of importance, especially on those of peace and war. No law
was valid, no tax could be imposed, without its consent; and
it carefully provided for the application of the revenue to
its destined uses. It determined the succession to the crown,
removed obnoxious ministers, reformed the household and
domestic expenditure of the monarch, and exercised the power,
in the most unreserved manner, of withholding supplies, as
well as of resisting what it regarded as an encroachment on
the liberties of the nation. … The statute-book affords the
most unequivocal evidence of the fidelity with which the
guardians of the realm discharged the high trust reposed in
them, in the numerous enactments it exhibits for the security
both of person and property. Almost the first page which meets
the eye in this venerable record contains the General
Privilege, the Magna Charta, as it has been well denominated,
of Aragon. It was granted by Peter the Great to the cortes at
Saragossa, in 1283. It embraces a variety of provisions for
the fair and open administration of justice; for ascertaining
the legitimate powers intrusted to the cortes; for the
security of property against exactions of the crown; and for
the conservation of their legal immunities to the municipal
corporations and the different orders of nobility. … The
Aragonese, who rightly regarded the General Privilege as the
broadest basis of their liberties, repeatedly procured its
confirmation by succeeding sovereigns. … The judicial
functions of the cortes have not been sufficiently noticed by
writers. They were extensive in their operation, and gave it
the name of the General Court."
_W. H. Prescott,
History of the Reign of Ferdinand and Isabella,
introduction, sections 1-2._
"Castile bore a closer analogy to England in its form of civil
polity than France or even Aragon. But the frequent disorders
of its government and a barbarous state of manners rendered
violations of law much more continual and flagrant than they
were in England under the Plantagenet dynasty. And besides
these practical mischiefs, there were two essential defects in
the constitution of Castile, through which perhaps it was
ultimately subverted. It wanted those two brilliants in the
coronet of British liberty, the representation of freeholders
among the commons, and trial by jury. The cortes of Castile
became a congress of deputies from a few cities, public
spirited, indeed, and intrepid, as we find them in bad times,
to an eminent degree, but too much limited in number, and too
unconnected with the territorial aristocracy, to maintain a
just balance against the crown. … Perhaps in no European
monarchy except our own was the form of government more
interesting than in Aragon, as a fortunate temperament of law
and justice with the royal authority. … Blancas quotes a
noble passage from the acts of cortes in 1451. 'We have always
heard of old time, and it is found by experience, that seeing
the great barrenness of this land, and the poverty of the
realm, if it were not for the liberties thereof, the folk
would go hence to live and abide in other realms and lands
more fruitful.' This high spirit of freedom had long animated
the Aragonese. After several contests with the crown in the
reign of James I., not to go back to earlier times, they
compelled Peter III. in 1283 to grant a law called the General
Privilege, the Magna Charta of Aragon, and perhaps a more full
and satisfactory basis of civil liberty than our own." They
further "established a positive right of maintaining their
liberties by arms. This was contained in the Privilege of
Union granted by Alfonso III. in 1287, after a violent
conflict with his subjects; but which was afterwards so
completely abolished, and even eradicated from the records of
the kingdom, that its precise words have never been recovered.
… That watchfulness over public liberty which originally
belonged to the aristocracy of ricos hombres … and which was
afterwards maintained by the dangerous Privilege of Union,
became the duty of a civil magistrate whose office and
functions are the most pleasing feature in the constitutional
history of Aragon. The Justiza or Justiciary of Aragon has
been treated by some writers as a sort of anomalous
magistrate. … But I do not perceive that his functions were,
in any essential respect, different from those of the chief
justice of England, divided, from the time of Edward I., among
the judges of the King's Bench. …
{618}
All the royal as well as territorial judges were
bound to apply for his opinion in case of legal difficulties
arising in their courts, which he was to certify within eight
days. By subsequent statutes of the same reign it was made
penal for anyone to obtain letters from the king, impeding the
execution of the Justiza's process, and they were declared
null. Inferior courts were forbidden to proceed in any
business after his prohibition. … There are two parts of his
remedial jurisdiction which deserve special notice. These are
the processes of juris firma, or firma del derechio, and of
manifestation. The former bears some analogy to the writs of
'pone' and 'certiorari' in England, through which the Court of
King's Bench exercises its right of withdrawing a suit from
the jurisdiction of inferior tribunals. But the Aragonese
juris firma was of more extensive operation. … The process
termed manifestation afforded as ample security for personal
liberty as that of juris firma did for property."
_H. Hallam,
The Middle Age,
chapter 4 (volume 2)._
For some account of the loss of the old constitutional
liberties of Castile and Aragon, under Charles V.,
See SPAIN: A. D. 1518-1522.
"The councils or meetings of the bishops after the reconquest,
like the later Councils of Toledo, were always 'jussu regis,'
and were attended by counts and magnates 'ad videndum sine ad
audiendum verbum Domini.' But when the ecclesiastical business
was ended, it was natural that the lay part of the assembly
should discuss the affairs of the kingdom and of the people;
and insensibly this after-part of the proceedings grew as the
first part diminished in importance. The exact date when the
Council merged into the Curia or Cortes is difficult to
determine; Señor Colmeiro takes the so-named Council of Leon
in 1020 as the true starting-point of the latter. The early
monarchy of Spain was elective, and the acclamation of the
assembled people (plebs) was at least theoretically necessary
to render the king's election valid. The presence of the
citizens at the Cortes or Zamora, though stated by Sandoval
and Morales, is impugned by Señor Colmeiro; but at the Council
of Oviedo in 1115 were present bishops of Spain and Portugal
'cum principibus et plebe praedictae regionis,' and these
latter also subscribed the Acts. Still, though present and
making their influence more and more felt, there is no record
of a true representation of cities until Alfonso IX. convoked
the Cortes of Leon in 1188, 'cum archiepiscopo, et episcopis,
et magnatibus regni mei et cum electis civibus ex singulis
civitatibus'; from this time the three estates—clergy,
nobles, citizens—were always represented in the Cortes of
Leon. Unfortunately, the political development of Castille did
not synchronise with that of Leon. In general, that of
Castille was fully half a century later. We pass by as more
than doubtful the alleged presence of citizens at Burgos in
1169; the 'majores civitatum et villarum' at the Cortes of
Carrion in 1188 were not deputies, but the judges or governors
of twenty-eight cities. It is not till the united Cortes of
both kingdoms met at Seville in 1250, that we find true
representation in Castille. Castille was always more feudal
than Leon. It is in this want of simultaneous development, and
in the presence of privileged classes, that we find the germ
of the evils which eventually destroyed the liberties of
Spain. Neither the number of deputies nor of the cities
represented was ever fixed; at Burgos, in 1315, we find 200
deputies (procuradores) from 100 cities; gradually the number
sank till seventeen, and finally twenty-two, cities alone were
represented. The deputies were chosen from the municipality
either by lot, by rotation, or by election; they were the mere
spokesmen of the city councils, whose mandate was imperative.
Their payment was at first by the cities, but, after 1422, by
the king; and there are constant complaints that the salary
was insufficient. The reign of Juan II. (1406-54) was fatal to
the liberties of Castille; the answers to the demands and
petitions of the deputies were deferred; and, in fact, if not
in form, the law that no tax should be levied without consent
of the Cortes was constantly violated. Still, but for the
death of Prince Juan, in 1497, and the advent of the Austrian
dynasty with the possession of the Low Countries, the old
liberties might yet have been recovered. … With the Cortes
of Toledo, in 1538, ended the meeting of the three estates.
The nobility first, then the clergy, were eliminated from the
Cortes, leaving only the proctors of the cities to become
servile instruments for the purposes of taxation."
_W. Webster,
Review of Colmeiro's
"Cortes de los Antiguos Reinos de Leon y de Castilla"
(Academy, August 16, 1884)._
CORUNNA, Battle of (1809).
See SPAIN: A. D. 1808-1809 (AUGUST-JANUARY).
CORUPEDION, Battle of.
A battle fought in western Phrygia, B. C. 281, in which
Lysimmachus, one of the disputants for Alexander's empire, was
defeated by Seleucus, and slain.
_C. Thirlwall,
History of Greece,
chapter 60._
CORVÉE.
One of the feudal rights possessed in France (under the old
regime, before the Revolution) "by the lord of the manor over
his subjects, by means of which he could employ for his own
profit a certain number of their days of labour, or of their
oxen and horses. The 'Corvée à volonté,' that is to say, at
the arbitrary will of the Seigneur, had been completely
abolished [before the Revolution]: forced labour had been for
some time past confined to a certain number of days a year."
_A. de Tocqueville,
On the State of Society in France before 1789,
note 4 E. (p. 499)._
CORVUS, The Roman.
See PUNIC WAR, THE FIRST.
COS, OR KOS.
One of the islands in the Ægean called the Sporades, near the
Carian coast of Asia Minor. The island was sacred to
Asclepius, or Æsculapeus, and was the birthplace of the
celebrated physician Hippocrates, as well as of the painter
Apelles. It was an Æolian colony, but joined the Dorian
confederacy.
COSIMO DE' MEDICI,
The ascendancy at Florence of.
See FLORENCE: A. D. 1433-1464.
COSMOS, COSMIOS, COSMOPOLIS.
See DEMIURGI.
{619}
COSSACKS, The.
"The origin of the Cossack tribes is lost in the obscurity of
ages; and many celebrated historians are still divided in
opinion as to whence the term Cossack, or rather Kosaque, is
properly to be derived. This word, indeed, is susceptible of
so many etymological explanations, as scarcely to offer for
anyone of them decided grounds of preference. Everything,
however, would seem to favour the belief that the word
Cossack, or Kosaque, was in much earlier use in the vicinity
of the Caucasus than in the Ukraine. … Sherer, in his
'Annals of Russia Minor,' (La Petite Russie,) traces back the
origin of the Cossacks to the ninth century; but he does not
support his assertion by any facts clothed with the dignity of
historical truth. It appears certain, however, that the vast
pasture lands between the Don and the Dnieper, the country
lying on the south of Kïow, and traversed by the Dnieper up to
the Black Sea, was the principal birthplace of the Cossacks.
When, in 1242, Batukhan came with 500,000 men to take
possession of the empire which fell to his share of the vast
inheritance left by Tchingis Khan [see MONGOLS: A. D.
1229-1294], he extirpated many nations and displaced many
others. One portion of the Komans flying from the horrors of
this terrific storm, and arriving on the borders of the
Caspian Sea, on the banks of the Iaïk, (now Ouralsek,) turned
to the left, and took refuge between the embouchures of that
river, where they dwelt in small numbers, apart from their
brethren, in a less fertile climate. These were,
incontestably, the progenitors of the Cossacks of the Iaïk,
who are, historically, scarcely important enough for notice.
… At the approach of this formidable invasion towards the
Don, that portion of the Komans located on the left bank took
refuge in the marshes, and in the numerous islands formed by
that river near its embouchure. Here they found a secure
retreat; and from thence, having, from their new position,
acquired maritime habits and seafaring experience, they not
only, themselves, resorted to piracy as a means of existence,
but likewise enlisted in a formidable confederacy, for
purposes of rapine and pillage, all the roving and
discontented tribes in their surrounding neighbourhood. These
latter were very numerous. The Tartars, ever but indifferent
seamen, had not the courage to join them in these piratical
expeditions. This division of the Komans is indubitably the
parent stock of the modern Cossacks of the Don, by far the
most numerous of the Cossack tribes: by amalgamation; however,
with whole hosts of Tartar and Calmuck hordes, lawless,
desperate, and nomadic as themselves, they lost, in some
degree, the primitive and deeply marked distinctive character
of their race. The Komans of the Dnieper offered no more
energetic resistance to the invading hordes of Batukhan than
had been shown by their brethren of the Don: they dispersed in
various directions, and from this people, flying at the
advance of the ferocious Tartars, descended a variety of
hordes, who occasionally figure in history as distinct and
independent nations. … [They] ultimately found a permanent
resting-place in the wild islets of the Dnieper, below the
cataracts, where dwelt already a small number of their ancient
compatriots, who had escaped the general destruction of their
nation. This spot became the cradle of the Cossacks of the
Ukraine, or of the tribes known in after times as the Polish
Cossacks. When Guedynum, Grand Duke of Lithuania, after having
defeated twelve Russian princes on the banks of the Piërna,
conquered Kïow with its dependencies in 1320, the wandering
tribes scattered over the steppes of the Ukraine owned his
allegiance. After the victories of Olgierd, of Vitold, and of
Ladislas Iagellon, over the Tartars and the Russians, large
bodies of Scythian militia, known subsequently by the
comprehensive denomination of Cossacks, or Kosaques, served
under these conquerors: and after the union of the Grand Duchy
of Lithuania with Poland, in 1386, they continued under the
dominion of the grand dukes of Lithuania, forming, apparently,
an intermediate tribe or caste, superior to the peasantry and
inferior to the nobles. At a later period, when the Ukraine
was annexed to the Polish crown, they passed under the
protection of the kings of Poland. … Although there may,
doubtless, exist several species or castes of Cossacks, and to
whom Russia in order to impose on Europe, is pleased to give
as many different names, yet there never have been, nor will
there ever be, properly speaking, more than two principal
tribes of the Cossack nation, namely the Cossacks of the Don,
or Don-Cossacks, and the Cossacks of the Black Sea, known in
ancient times as the Polish Cossacks, or Zaporowscy Kozacy.
… The Cossacks [of the Don] … have rendered signal service
to Russia, which, ever since the year 1549, has taken them
under her protection, without, however, the existence of any
official act, treaty, or stipulation, confirming their
submission to that power. … The Don-Cossacks enjoy a certain
kind of liberty and independence; they have a hetman, attaman,
or chief, nominated by the Emperor of Russia; and to this
chief they yield an obedience more or less willing and
implicit; in general, they are commanded only by Cossack
officers, who take equal rank in the Russian army. They have a
separate war administration of their own; although they are
compelled to furnish a stated number of recruits who serve in
a manner for life, inasmuch as they are rarely discharged
before attaining sixty years of age: on the whole, their
condition is happier than that of the rest of the Russian
population. They belong to the Greek-Russian church. The
existence of this small republic of the Don, in the very heart
of the most despotic and most extensive empire in the world,
appears to constitute a problem, the solution of which is not
as yet definitely known, and the ultimate solution of which
yet remains to be ascertained."
_H. Krasinski,
The Cossacks of the Ukraine,
chapter 1._
The Cossacks of the Ukraine transferred their allegiance from
the King of Poland to the Czar of Russia in 1654, after a
revolt led by their hetman, Bogdan Khmelnitski, in which they
were assisted by the neighboring Tartars, and which was
accompanied by terrible scenes of slaughter and destruction.
See POLAND: A. D. 1648-1654.
COSSÆANS, The.
See KOSSÆANS.
COSTA RICA: A. D. 1502.
Discovery by Columbus.
See AMERICA: A. D. 1498-1505.
COSTA RICA: A. D. 1813-1871.
Independence of Spain.
Brief annexation to Mexico.
The failures of federation, the wars and revolutions of
Central America.
See CENTRAL AMERICA: A. D. 1821-1871.
COSTA RICA: A. D. 1850.
The Clayton Bulwer Treaty and the projected Nicaragua Canal.
See NICARAGUA: A. D. 1850.
----------COSTA RICA: End----------
COSTANOAN FAMILY, The.
See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: COSTANOAN FAMILY.
COSTER, Laurent, and the invention of printing.
See PRINTING: A. D. 1430-1456.
COTARII.
See SLAVERY, MEDIÆVAL AND MODERN: ENGLAND.
{620}
COTHON OF CARTHAGE, The.
"There were two land-locked docks or harbours, opening the one
into the other, and both, it would seem, the work of human
hands. … The outer harbour was rectangular, about 1,400 feet
long and 1,100 broad, and was appropriated to merchant
vessels; the inner was circular like a drinking cup, whence it
was called the Cothon, and was reserved for ships of war. It
could not be approached except through the merchant harbour,
and the entrance to this last was only 70 feet wide, and could
be closed at any time by chains. The war harbour was entirely
surrounded by quays, containing separate docks for 220 ships.
In front of each dock were two Ionic pillars of marble, so
that the whole must have presented the appearance of a
splendid circular colonnade. Right in the centre of the
harbour was an island, the headquarters of the admiral."
_R. B. Smith,
Carthage and the Carthaginians,
chapter 20._
COTSETI.
See SLAVERY, MEDIÆVAL AND MODERN: ENGLAND.
COTTON, Reverend John and the colony of Massachusetts Bay.
See MASSACHUSETTS: A. D. 1631-1636.
COTTON FAMINE, The.
See ENGLAND: A. D. 1861-1865.
COTTON-GIN:
Eli Whitney's invention and its effects.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1818-1821.
COTTON MANUFACTURE:
The great inventions in spinning and weaving.
"Cotton had been used in the extreme East and in the extreme
West from the earliest periods of which we have any record.
The Spaniards, on their discovery of America, found the
Mexicans clothed in cotton. … But though the use of cotton
had been known from the earliest ages, both in India and
America, no cotton goods were imported into Europe; and in the
ancient world both rich and poor were clothed in silk, linen,
and wool. The industrious Moors introduced cotton into Spain.
Many centuries afterwards cotton was imported into Italy,
Saxony and the Low Countries. Isolated from the rest of
Europe, with little wealth, little industry, and no roads;
rent by civil commotions; the English were the last people in
Europe to introduce the manufacture of cotton goods into their
own homes. Towards the close of the 16th century, indeed,
cotton goods were occasionally mentioned in the Statute Book,
and the manufacture of the cottons of Manchester was regulated
by Acts passed in the reigns of Henry VIII., Edward VI., and
Elizabeth. But there seem to be good reasons for concluding
that Manchester cottons, in the time of the Tudors, were
woollen goods, and did not consist of cotton at all. More than
a century elapsed before any considerable trade in cotton
attracted the attention of the legislature. The woollen
manufacturers complained that people were dressing their
children in printed cottons; and Parliament was actually
persuaded to prohibit the introduction of Indian printed
calicoes. Even an Act of Parliament, however, was unable to
extinguish the growing taste for Indian cottons. … The taste
for cotton led to the introduction of calico-printing in
London; Parliament in order to encourage the new trade, was
induced to sanction the importation of plain cotton cloths
from India under a duty. The demand, which was thus created
for calicoes, probably promoted their manufacture at home. …
Up to the middle of the last century cotton goods were really
never made at all. The so-called cotton manufactures were a
combination of wool or linen and cotton. No Englishman had
been able to produce a cotton thread strong enough for the
warp; … The superior skill of the Indian manufacturers
enabled them to use cotton for a warp; while clumsy
workmanship made the use of cotton as a warp unattainable at
home. In the middle of the 18th century, then, a piece of
cotton cloth in the true sense of the term, had never been
made in England. The so-called cotton goods were all made in
the cottages of the weavers. The yarn was carded by hand; it
was spun by hand; it was worked into cloth by a hand loom. …
The operation of weaving was, however, much more rapid than
that of spinning. The weaver consumed more weft than his own
family could supply him with; and the weavers generally
experienced the greatest difficulty in obtaining sufficient
yarn. About the middle of the 18th century the ingenuity of
two persons, a father and a son, made this difference more
apparent. The shuttle had originally been thrown by the hand
from one end of the loom to the other. John Kay, a native of
Bury, by his invention of the fly-shuttle [patented in 1733],
saved the weaver from this labour. … Robert Kay, John Kay's
son, added the drop-box, by means of which the weaver was able
'to use any one of three shuttles, each containing a different
coloured weft, without the trouble of taking them from and
replacing them in the lathe.' By means of these inventions the
productive power of each weaver was doubled. … Carding and
roving were both slowly performed. … The trade was in this
humble and primitive state when a series of extraordinary and
unparalleled inventions revolutionised the conditions on which
cotton had been hitherto prepared. A little more than a
century ago John Hargreaves, a poor weaver in the
neighbourhood of Blackburn, was returning home from a long
walk, in which he had been purchasing a further supply of yarn
for his loom. As he entered his cottage, his wife Jenny
accidentally upset the spindle which she was using. Hargreaves
noticed that the spindles which were now thrown into an
upright position, continued to revolve, and that the thread
was still spinning in his wife's hand. The idea immediately
occurred to him that it would be possible to connect a
considerable number of upright spindles with one wheel, and
thus multiply the productive power of each spinster. …
Hargreaves succeeded in keeping his admirable invention secret
for a time; but the powers of his machine soon became known.
His ignorant neighbours hastily concluded that a machine,
which enabled one spinster to do the work of eight, would
throw multitudes of persons out of employment. A mob broke
into his house and destroyed his machine. Hargreaves himself
had to retire to Nottingham, where, with the friendly
assistance of another person, he was able to take out a patent
[1770] for the spinning-jenny, as the machine, in compliment
to his industrious wife, was called. The invention of the
spinning-jenny gave a new impulse to the cotton manufacture.
But the … yarn spun by the jenny, like that which had
previously been spun by hand, was neither fine enough nor hard
enough to be employed as warp, and linen or woollen threads
had consequently to be used for this purpose.
{621}
In the very year, however, in which Hargreaves moved from
Blackburn to Nottingham, Richard Arkwright [who began life as
a barber's assistant] took out a patent [1769] for his still
more celebrated machine. … 'After many years intense and
painful application,' he invented his memorable machine for
spinning by rollers; and laid the foundations of the gigantic
industry which has done more than any other trade to
concentrate in this country the wealth of the world. … He
passed the thread over two pairs of rollers, one of which was
made to revolve much more rapidly than the other. The thread,
after passing the pair revolving slowly, was drawn into the
requisite tenuity by the rollers revolving at a higher
rapidity. By this simple but memorable invention Arkwright
succeeded in producing thread capable of employment as warp.
From the circumstance that the mill at which his machinery was
first erected was driven by water power, the machine received
the somewhat inappropriate name of the water frame; the thread
spun by it was usually called the water twist. Invention of
the spinning-jenny and the water frame would have been useless
if the old system of hand-carding had not been superseded by a
more efficient and more rapid process. Just as Arkwright
applied rotatory motion to spinning, so Lewis Paul introduced
revolving cylinders for carding cotton. … This extraordinary
series of inventions placed an almost unlimited supply of yarn
at the disposal of the weaver. But the machinery, which had
thus been introduced, was still incapable of providing yarn
fit for the finer qualities of cotton cloth. … This defect,
however, was removed by the ingenuity of Samuel Crompton, a
young weaver residing near Bolton. Crompton succeeded in
combining in one machine the various excellences 'of
Arkwright's water frame and Hargreaves' jenny.' Like the
former, his machine, which from its nature is happily called
the mule, 'has a system of rollers to reduce the roving; and
like the latter it has spindles without bobbins to give the
twist. … The effects of Crompton's great invention may be
stated epigrammatically. … The natives of India could spin a
pound of cotton into a thread 119 miles long.' The English
succeed in spinning the same thread to a length of 160 miles.
Yarn of the finest quality was at once at the disposal of the
weaver. … The ingenuity of Hargreaves, Arkwright and
Crompton had been exercised to provide the weaver with yarn.
… The spinster had beaten the weaver. … Edmund Cartwright,
a clergyman residing in Kent, happened to be staying at
Matlock in the summer of 1784, and to be thrown into the
company of some Manchester gentlemen. The conversation turned
on Arkwright's machinery, and 'one of the company observed
that, as soon as Arkwright's patent expired, so many mills
would be erected and so much cotton spun that hands would
never be found to weave it.' Cartwright replied 'that
Arkwright must then set his wits to work to invent a weaving
mill.' … Within three years he had himself proved that the
invention was practicable by producing the power-loom.
Subsequent inventors improved the idea which Cartwright had
originated, and within fifty years from the date of his
memorable visit to Matlock there were not less than 100,000
power-looms at work in Great Britain alone. … Other
inventions, less generally remembered, were hardly less
wonderful or less beneficial than these. … Scheele, the
Swedish philosopher, discovered in 1774 the bleaching
properties of chlorine, or oxymuriatic acid. Berthollet, the
French chemist, conceived the idea of applying the acid to
bleaching cloth. … In the same year in which Watt and Henry
were introducing the new acid to the bleacher, Bell, a
Scotchman, was laying the foundations of a trade in printed
calicoes. 'The old method of printing was by blocks of
sycamore.' … This clumsy process was superseded by cylinder
printing. … Such are the leading inventions, which made
Great Britain in less than a century the wealthiest country in
the world."
_S. Walpole,
History of England from 1815,
volume 1, chapter 1._
ALSO IN:
R. W. C. Taylor,
Introduction to a History of the Factory System,
chapter 10.
E. Baines,
History of the Cotton Manufacture in Great Britain.
A. Ure,
The Cotton Manufacture of Great Britain.
COULMIERS, Battle of (1870).
See FRANCE: A. D. 1870-1871.
COUNCIL BLUFFS, The Mormons at.
See MORMONISM: A. D. 1846-1848.
COUNCIL FOR NEW ENGLAND.
See NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1620-1623; 1621-1631; and 1635.
COUNCIL OF BLOOD, The.
See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1567.
COUNCIL OF FIVE HUNDRED, The Athenian.
See ATHENS: B. C. 510-507.
The French.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1795 (JUNE-SEPTEMBER).
COUNCIL OF TEN, The.
See VENICE: A. D. 1032-1319.
COUNCIL OF THE ANCIENTS, The.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1795 (JUNE-SEPTEMBER).
COUNCIL, THE PRIVY.
See PRIVY COUNCIL.
COUNCILS OF THE CHURCH, General or Ecumenical.
There are seven councils admitted by both the Greek and Latin
churches as œcumenical (or ecumenical)—that is general, or
universal. The Roman Catholics recognize thirteen more, making
twenty in all—as follows:
1. The synod of apostles in Jerusalem.
2. The first Council of Nice, A. D. 325
(see NICÆA, THE FIRST COUNCIL).
3. The first Council of Constantinople, A. D. 381.
4. The first Council of Ephesus, A. D. 431.
5. The Council of Chalcedon, A. D. 451.
6. The second Council of Constantinople, A. D. 553.
7. The third Council of Constantinople, A. D. 681.
8. The second Council of Nice, A. D. 787.
9. The fourth Council of Constantinople, A. D. 869.
10. The first Lateran Council, A. D. 1123.
11. The second Lateran Council, A. D. 1139.
12. The third Lateran Council, A. D. 1179.
13. The fourth Lateran Council, A. D. 1215.
14. The first œcumenical synod of Lyon, A. D. 1245.
15. The second œcumenical synod of Lyon, A. D. 1274.
16. The Synod of Vienne in Gaul, A. D. 1311.
17. The Council of Constance,
A. D. 1414 (see PAPACY: A. D. 1414-1418).
18. The Council of Basel, A. D. 1431
(see PAPACY: A. D. 1431-1448).
19. The Council of Trent, A. D. 1545
(see PAPACY: A. D. 1537-1563).
20. The Council of the Vatican, A. D. 1869
(see PAPACY: A. D. 1869-1870).
{622}
COUNT AND DUKE, Roman.
Origin of the titles.
"The defence of the Roman empire was at length committed
[under Constantine and his successors] to eight
masters-general of the cavalry and infantry. Under their
orders thirty-five military commanders were stationed in the
provinces—three in Britain, six in Gaul, one in Spain, one in
Italy, five on the Upper and four on the Lower Danube, in Asia
eight, three in Egypt, and four in Africa. The titles of
Counts and Dukes, by which they were properly distinguished,
have obtained in modern languages so very different a sense
that the use of them may occasion some surprise. But it should
be recollected that the second of those appellations is only a
corruption of the Latin word which was indiscriminately
applied to any military chief. All these provincial generals
were therefore dukes; but no more than ten among them were
dignified with the rank of counts or companions, a title of
honour, or rather of favour, which had been recently invented
in the court of Constantine. A gold belt was the ensign which
distinguished the office of the counts and dukes."
_E. Gibbon,
Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire,
chapter 17.
"The Duke and the Count of modern Europe—what are they but
the Generals and Companions (Duces and Comites) of a Roman
province? Why or when they changed places, the Duke climbing
up into such unquestioned pre-eminence over his former
superior the Count, I know not, nor yet by what process it was
discovered that the latter was the precise equivalent of the
Scandinavian Jarl."
_T. Hodgkin,
Italy and Her Invaders,
book 1, chapter 3._
COUNT OF THE DOMESTICS.
In the organization of the Imperial Household, during the
later period of the Roman empire, the officers called Counts
of the Domestics "commanded the various divisions of the
household troops, known by the names of Domestici and
Protectores, and thus together replaced the Prætorian Prefect
of the earlier days of the Empire. … Theoretically, their
duties would not greatly differ from those of a Colonel in the
Guards."
_T. Hodgkin,
Italy and Her Invaders,
book 1, chapter 3._
COUNT OF THE SACRED LARGESSES.
In the later Roman empire, "the Count who had charge of the
Sacred (i. e. Imperial) Bounty, should have been by his title
simply the Grand Almoner of the Empire. … In practice,
however, the minister who took charge of the Imperial
Largesses had to find ways and means for every other form of
Imperial expenditure. … The Count of the Sacred Largesses
was therefore in fact the Chancellor of the Exchequer of the
Empire."
_T. Hodgkin,
Italy and Her Invaders,
book 1, chapter 3._
COUNT OF THE SAXON SHORE.
See SAXON SHORE.
COUNT PALATINE.
See PALATINE, COUNTS.
COUNTER-REFORMATION, The.
See PAPACY: A. D. 1534-1540; 1537-1563; 1555-1603.
COUNTRY PARTY, The.
See ENGLAND; A. D. 1672-1673.
COUP D' ETAT OF LOUIS NAPOLEON, The.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1851; and 1851-1852.
COUREURS DE BOIS.
"Out of the beaver trade [in the 17th century] rose a huge
evil, baneful to the growth and the morals of Canada. All that
was most active and vigorous in the colony took to the woods,
and escaped from the control of intendants, councils and
priests, to the savage freedom of the wilderness. Not only
were the possible profits great, but, in the pursuit of them,
there was a fascinating element of adventure and danger. The
bush rangers, or coureurs de bois, were to the king an object
of horror. They defeated his plans for the increase of the
population, and shocked his native instinct of discipline and
order. Edict after edict was directed against them; and more
than once the colony presented the extraordinary spectacle of
the greater part of its young men turned into forest outlaws.
… We hear of seigniories abandoned; farms turning again into
forests; wives and children left in destitution. The exodus of
the coureurs de bois would take at times the character of an
organized movement. The famous Du Lhut is said to have made a
general combination of the young men of Canada to follow him
into the woods. Their plan was to be absent four years, in
order that the edicts against them might have time to relent.
The intendant Duchesneau reported that 800 men out of a
population of less than 10,000 souls had vanished from sight
in the immensity of a boundless wilderness. Whereupon the king
ordered that any person going into the woods without a license
should be whipped and branded for the first offence, and sent
for life to the galleys for the second. … Under such leaders
as Du Lhut, the coureurs de bois built forts of palisades at
various points throughout the West and Northwest. They had a
post of this sort at Detroit some time before its permanent
settlement, as well as others on Lake Superior and in the
Valley of the Mississippi. They occupied them as long as it
suited their purposes, and then abandoned them to the next
comer. Michillimackinac was, however, their chief resort."
_F. Parkman,
The Old Regime in Canada,
chapter 17._
COURLAND, Christian conquest of.
See, LIVONIA: 12TH-13TH CENTURIES.
COURT BARON.
See MANORS.
COURT CUSTOMARY.
See MANORS.
COURT-LEET.
See MANORS,
and SAC AND SOC.
COURT OF CHANCERY.
See CHANCELLOR.
COURT OF COMMON PLEAS.
See CURIA REGIS.
COURT OF HIGH COMMISSION.
See ENGLAND: A. D. 1559;
and A. D. 1686.
COURT OF KING'S BENCH.
See CURIA REGIS.
COURT, SUPREME, of the United States.
See SUPREME COURT.
COURTRAI: A. D. 1382.
Pillaged and burned by the French.
See FLANDERS: A. D. 1382.
COURTRAI: A. D. 1646.
Siege and capture by the French.
See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1645-1646.
COURTRAI: A. D. 1648.
Taken by the Spaniards.
See NETHERLANDS (SPANISH PROVINCES): A. D. 1647-1648.
COURTRAI: A. D. 1667.
Taken by the French.
See NETHERLANDS (THE SPANISH PROVINCES): A. D. 1667.
COURTRAI: A. D. 1668.
Ceded to France.
See NETHERLANDS (HOLLAND); A. D. 1668.
COURTRAI: A. D. 1679.
Restored to Spain.
See NIMEGUEN, THE PEACE OF.
----------COURTRAI: End----------
{623}
COURTRAI, The Battle of.
The battle of Courtrai (July 11, A. D. 1302), in which the
barons and knights of France were fearfully slaughtered by the
sturdy burghers of Flanders, was sometimes called the Day of
the Spurs, on account of the great number of gilt spurs which
was taken from the bodies of the dead and hung up by the
victors in Courtrai cathedral.
_G. W. Kitchen,
History of France,
book 3, chapter 10, section 2._
See FLANDERS: A. D. 1299-1304.
COURTS OF LOVE.
See PROVENCE: A.D. 1179-1207.
COUTHON,
and the French Revolutionary Committee of Public Safety.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1793 (JUNE-OCTOBER), to 1794 (JULY).
COUTRAS, Battle of (1587).
See FRANCE: A. D. 1584-1589.
COVADONGA, Cave of.
See SPAIN: A. D. 713-737.
COVENANT, The Halfway.
See BOSTON: A. D. 1657-1669.
COVENANT, The Solemn League and.
See ENGLAND: A. D. 1643 (JULY-SEPTEMBER).
COVENANTERS.
The name given to the signers and supporters of the Scottish
National Covenant (see SCOTLAND: A. D. 1557, 1581 and 1638)
and afterwards to all who adhered to the Kirk of Scotland. The
war of Montrose with the Covenanters will be found narrated
under SCOTLAND: A. D. 1644-1645. For the story of the
persecution which they suffered under the restored Stuarts,
See SCOTLAND: A. D. 1660-1666; 1669-1679; 1679; and 1681-1689.
COVENANTS, The Scottish.
See SCOTLAND: A. D. 1557-1581; and 1638.
COWBOYS.
During the War of the American Revolution, "there was a venal
and bloody set which hung on the skirts of the British army,
well known as Cow-boys. They were plunderers and ruffians by
profession, and came to have their name from their
cattle-stealing. Some of the most cruel and disgraceful
murders and barbarities of the war were perpetrated by them.
Whenever they were caught they were hung up at once."
_C. W. Elliott,
The New England History,
volume 2, page 372._
See, also, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1780
(AUGUST-SEPTEMBER).
COWPENS, Battle of the (1781).
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1780-1781.
CRACOW: A. D. 1702.
Taken by Charles XII. of Sweden.
See SCANDINAVIAN STATES (SWEDEN): A. D. 1701-1707.
CRACOW: A. D. 1793-1794.
Occupied by the Russians.
Rising of the citizens.
Surrender and cession to Austria.
See POLAND: A. D. 1793-1796.
CRACOW: A. D. 1815.
Creation of the Republic.
See VIENNA, THE CONGRESS OF.
CRACOW: A. D. 1831-1846.
Occupation by the Austrians, Russians and Prussians.
Extinction of the Republic.
Annexation to Austria.
See AUSTRIA: A. D. 1815-1846.
----------CRACOW: End----------
CRADLE OF LIBERTY.
See FANEUIL HALL.
CRAFT-GUILDS.
See GUILDS, MEDIÆVAL.
CRAGIE TRACT, The.
See NEW YORK: A. D. 1786-1799.
CRAL.-KRALE.
"The princes of Servia (Ducange, Famil, Dalmaticæ, &c., c.
2-4, 9) were styled 'despots' in Greek, and Cral in their
native idiom (Ducange, Gloss. Græc., page 751). That title, the
equivalent of king, appears to be of Sclavonic origin, from
whence it has been borrowed by the Hungarians, the modern
Greeks, and even by the Turks (Leunclavius, Pandect. Turc., p.
422), who reserve the name of Padishah for the Emperor."
_E. Gibbon,
Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire,
chapter 63, note.
See, also,
BALKAN AND DANUBIAN STATES: A. D. 1341-1356 (SERVIA).
CRANNOGES.
See LAKE DWELLINGS.
CRANNON (KRANNON), Battle of (B. C. 322).
See GREECE: B. C. 323-322.
CRAONNE, Battle of.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1814 (JANUARY-MARCH).
CRASSUS AND THE FIRST TRIUMVIRATE.
See ROME: B. C. 78-68, to 57-52.
CRATER, Battle of the Petersburg.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1864 (JULY: VIRGINIA).
CRATERUS, AND THE WARS OF THE DIADOCHI.
See MACEDONIA: B. C. 323-316.
CRANGALLIDÆ, The.
See HIERODULI.
CRAYFORD, Battle of (A. D. 457).
The second battle fought between the Britons and the invading
Jutes, under Hengest, for the possession of southeastern
Britain.
See ENGLAND: A. D. 449-473.
CRÉCY, Battle of (1346).
See FRANCE: A. D. 1337-1360.
CREDIT MOBILIER SCANDAL.
On the meeting of the Congress of the United States in
December, 1872, attention was called by the Speaker to charges
made in the preceding canvass "that the Vice-President, the
Vice-President elect, the Secretary of the Treasury, several
Senators, the Speaker of the House, and a large number of
Representatives had been bribed, during the years 1867 and
1868, by presents of stock in a corporation known as the
Credit Mobilier [organized to contract for building the Union
Pacific Railroad] to vote and act for the benefit of the Union
Pacific Railroad Company. On his motion, an investigating
committee was appointed, L. P. Poland, of Vermont, being
chairman. The Poland Committee reported February 18th, 1873,
recommending the expulsion of Oakes Ames, of Massachusetts,
for selling to members of Congress shares of the stock of the
Credit Mobilier below their real value, with intent thereby to
influence the votes of such members,' and of James Brooks, of
New York, for receiving such stock. The House modified the
proposed expulsion into an 'absolute condemnation' of the
conduct of both members."
_A. Johnston,
History of American Politics,
pages 210-220._
_Report of Select Committee
(42d Congress, 3d session, H. R. report no. 77)._
ALSO IN:
_J. B. Crawford,
The Credit Mobilier of America._
CREEKS.
Creek Wars.
See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: MUSKHOGEAN FAMILY;
also UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1813-1814 (AUGUST-APRIL),
and FLORIDA: A. D. 1816-1818.
CREES, The.
See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: ALGONQUIAN FAMILY.
CREFELD, Battle of.
See GERMANY: A. D. 1758.
CREMA, Siege of (1159-1160).
See ITALY: A. D. 1154-1162.
CREMONA: The Roman Colony.
Siege by the Gauls.
See ROME: B. C. 295-191.
CREMONA: A. D. 69.
Destruction by the Flavians.
See ROME: A. D. 69.
CREMONA: A. D. 1702.
Defeat of the French.
See ITALY (SAVOY AND PIEDMONT): A. D. 1701-1713.
{624}
CREOLE.
"In Europe it is very common to attach to the term Creole the
idea of a particular complexion. This is a mistake. The
designation Creole [in Spanish American regions] properly
belongs to all the natives of America born of parents who have
emigrated from the Old World, be those parents Europeans or
Africans. There are, therefore, white as well as black
Creoles. … The term Creole is a corruption of the Spanish
word 'criollo,' which is derived from 'criar,' to create or to
foster. The Spaniards apply the term 'criollo' not merely to
the human race, but also to animals propagated in the
colonies, but of pure European blood: thus they have creole
horses, bullocks, poultry, &c."
_J. J. Von Tschudi,
Travels in Peru,
chapter 5, and foot-note._
"The term Creole is commonly applied in books to the native of
a Spanish colony descended from European ancestors, while
often the popular acceptation conveys the idea of an origin
partly African. In fact, its meaning varies in different times
and regions, and in Louisiana alone has, and has had, its
broad and its close, its earlier and its later, significance.
For instance, it did not here first belong to the descendants
of Spanish, but of French settlers. But such a meaning implied
a certain excellence of origin, and so came early to include
any native of French or Spanish descent by either parent,
whose pure non-mixture with the slave race entitled him to
social rank. Much later the term was adopted by, not conceded
to, the natives of European-African, or Creole-African blood,
and is still so used among themselves. At length the spirit of
commerce availed itself of the money value of so honored a
title, and broadened its meaning to take in any creature or
thing of variety or manufacture peculiar to Louisiana, that
might become an object of sale, as Creole ponies, chickens,
cows, shoes, eggs, wagons, baskets, cabbages, etc. … There
are no English, Scotch, Irish, Western, or Yankee Creoles,
these all being included under the distinctive term
'Americans.' … There seems to be no more serviceable
definition of the Creoles of Louisiana or of New Orleans than
to say they are the French-speaking, native, ruling class."
_G. E. Waring, Jr., and G. W Cable,
History and Present Condition of New Orleans
(Tenth Census of the U. S., volume 19, page 218)._
CREONES, The.
See BRITAIN, CELTIC TRIBES.
CRESCENT, The Order of the.
A Turkish Order instituted in 1799 by the reforming sultan,
Selim III. Lord Nelson, after the victory of Aboukir, was the
first to receive this decoration.
CRESPY IN VALOIS, Treaty of (1544).
See FRANCE: A. D. 1532-1547.
CRETAN LABYRINTH.
See LABYRINTHS.
CRETE.
"The institutions of the Cretan state show in many points so
great a similarity to those of Sparta, that it is not
surprising if it seemed to the ancients as though either Crete
were a copy of Sparta, or Sparta of Crete. Meanwhile this
similarity may be explained, apart from intentional imitation,
by the community of nationality, which, under like conditions,
must produce like institutions. For in Crete, as in Laconia,
Dorians were the ruling people, who had subdued the old
inhabitants of the island and placed them in a position of
subordination. … It is, however, beyond doubt that
settlements were made in Crete by the Phoenicians, and that a
large portion of the island was subject to them. In the
historical period, it is true, we no longer find them here; we
find, on the contrary, only a number of Greek states, all
moreover Dorian. Each of these consisted of a city with its
surrounding district, in which no doubt also smaller cities in
their turn were found standing in a relation of subordination
to the principal city. For that each city of the
'ninety-citied' or 'hundred-citied' isle, as Homer calls it,
formed also an independent state, will probably not be
supposed. As independent states our authorities give us reason
to recognize about seventeen. The most important of these were
in earlier times Cnossus, Gortyn and Cydonia."-
_G. Schömann,
Antiquities of Greece: The State,
part 3, chapter 2._
See ASIA MINOR: THE GREEK COLONIES.
CRETE: B. C. 68-66.
The Roman Conquest.
The Romans came into collision with the Cretans during their
conflict with the Cilician pirates. The Cretans, degenerate
and half piratical themselves, had formed an alliance with the
professional buccaneers, and defeated, off Cydonia, a Roman
fleet that had been sent against the latter, B. C. 71. They
soon repented of the provocation they had offered and sent
envoys to Rome to buy peace by heavy bribes; but neither the
penitence nor the bribes prevailed. Three years passed,
however, before the proconsul, Quintus Metellus, appeared in
Crete (B. C. 68) to exact satisfaction, and two years more
were spent in overcoming the stubborn resistance of the
islanders. The taking of Cydonia cost Metellus a bloody battle
and a prolonged siege. Cnossus and other towns held out with
equal courage. In the end, however, Crete was added to the
conquered dominions of Rome. At the last of the struggle there
occurred a conflict of jurisdiction between Metellus and
Pompey, and their respective forces fought with one another on
the Cretan soil.
_T. Mommsen,
History of Rome,
book 5, chapter 4._
CRETE: A. D. 823.
Conquest by the Saracens.
"The reign of Al Hakem, the Ommiade Caliph of Spain, was
disturbed by continual troubles; and some theological disputes
having created a violent insurrection in the suburbs of
Cordova, about 15,000 Spanish Arabs were compelled to emigrate
in the year 815. The greater part of these desperadoes
established themselves at Alexandria, where they soon took an
active part in the civil wars of Egypt. The rebellion of
Thomas [an officer who disputed the Byzantine throne with
Michael II.], and the absence of the naval forces of the
Byzantine Empire from the Archipelago, left the island of
Crete unprotected. The Andalusian Arabs of Alexandria availed
themselves of this circumstance to invade the island, and
establish a settlement on it, in the year 823. Michael was
unable to take any measures for expelling the invaders, and an
event soon happened in Egypt which added greatly to the
strength of this Saracen colony. The victories of the
lieutenants of the Caliph Almamum compelled the remainder of
the Andalusian Arabs to quit Alexandria; so that Abou Hafs,
called by the Greeks Apochaps, joined his countrymen in Crete
with forty ships, determined to make the new settlement their
permanent home. It is said by the Byzantine writers that they
commenced their conquest of the island by destroying their
fleet, and constructing a strong fortified camp, surrounded by
an immense ditch, from which it received the name of Chandak,
now corrupted by the western nations into Candia. … The
Saracens retained possession of Crete for 135 years."
_G. Finlay,
History of the Byzantine Empire, from 716 to 1057,
book 1, chapter 3._
{625}
During the stay of these piratical Andalusian Arabs at
Alexandria, "they cut in pieces both friends and foes,
pillaged the churches and mosques, sold above 6,000 Christian
captives, and maintained their station in the capital of Egypt
till they were oppressed by the forces and presence of Almamon
himself."
_E. Gibbon,
Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire,
chapter 52.
ALSO IN:
_S. A. Dunham,
History of Spain and Portugal,
book 3, chapter 1._
CRETE: A. D. 961-963.
Recovery from the Saracens.
"In the subordinate station of great domestic, or general of
the East, he [Nicephorus Phocas, afterwards emperor, on the
Byzantine throne], reduced the island of Crete, and extirpated
the nest of pirates who had so long defied, with impunity, the
majesty of the Empire. … Seven months were consumed in the
siege of Candia; the despair of the native Cretans was
stimulated by the frequent aid of their brethren of Africa and
Spain; and, after the massy wall and double ditch had been
stormed by the Greeks, a hopeless conflict was still
maintained in the streets and houses of the city. The whole
island was subdued in the capital, and a submissive people
accepted, without resistance, the baptism of the conqueror."
_E. Gibbon,
Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire,
chapter 52.
CRETE: A. D. 1204-1205.
Acquired by the Venetians.
See BYZANTINE EMPIRE: A. D.1204-1205.
CRETE: A. D. 1645-1669.
The long siege of Candia.
Surrender to the Turks.
See TURKS: A. D. 1645-1669.
CRETE: A. D. 1715.
Complete Expulsion of the Venetians by the Turks.
See TURKS: A. D. 1714-1718.
CRETE: A. D. 1866-1868.
Unsuccessful revolt.
Struggle for independence.
Turkish concession of the Organic Regulation.
See GREECE: A. D. 1862-1881.
----------CRETE: End----------
CRETE, Party of the.
Crêtois.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1795 (APRIL).
CRIMEA, OR CRIM TARTARY:
Early history.
See TAURICA;
also BOSPORUS, CITY AND KINGDOM.
CRIMEA: 7th Century.
Conquest and occupation by the Khazars.
See KHAZARS.
CRIMEA: 12th-13th Centuries.
Genoese commercial colonies.
See GENOA: A. D. 1261-1299.
CRIMEA: 13th-14th Centuries.
The khanate to Krim.
See MONGOLS: A. D. 1238-1391.
CRIMEA: A. D. 1475.
Conquest by the Ottoman Turks.
See TURKS (THE OTTOMANS): A. D. 1451-1481.
CRIMEA: A. D. 1571.
Expedition of the Khan to Moscow.
The city stormed and sacked.
See RUSSIA: A. D. 1569-1571.
CRIMEA: A. D. 1735-1738.
Russian invasions and fruitless conquests.
See RUSSIA: A. D. 1725-1739.
CRIMEA: A. D. 1774.
The khanate declared independent of the Porte.
See TURKS: A. D. 1768-1774.
CRIMEA: A. D. 1776-1784.
The process of acquisition by Russia.
Final recognition of Russian sovereignty by the Sultan.
See TURKS: A. D. 1776-1792.
CRIMEA: A. D. 1853-1855.
War of Russia with Turkey and her allies.
Siege of Sebastopol.
See RUSSIA: A. D. 1853-1854, to 1854-1856.
----------CRIMEA: End----------
CRISIS OF 1837, The.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1835-1837.
CRISIS OF 1857.
See TARIFF LEGISLATION
(UNITED STATES): A. D. 1846-1861.
CRISSA.
Crissæan or Sacred War.
See DELPHI.
CRITTENDEN COMPROMISE, The.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
A. D. 1860 (DECEMBER).
CROATANS, The.
See AMERICA: A. D. 1587-1590.
CROATIA: 7th Century.
Sclavonic occupation and settlement.
See BALKAN AND DANUBIAN STATES,
7TH CENTURY (SERVIA, CROATIA, BOSNIA, ETC.)
CROATIA: A. D. 1102.
Subjection and annexation to Hungary.
See HUNGARY: A. D. 972-1114.
CROATIA: A. D. 1576.
Transferred to the Duke of Styria.
Military colonization.
See HUNGARY: A. D. 1567-1604.
----------CROATIA: End----------
CROIA, Turkish massacre at.
See GREECE: A. D. 1454-1479.
CROMLECHS.
Rude stone monuments found in many parts of the British
Islands, France, and elsewhere, usually formed by three or
more huge, rough, upright stones, with a still larger stone
lying flatly upon them. In France these are called Dolmens.
They were formerly thought to be "Druids altars," to which
notion they owe the name Cromlechs; but it is now very
generally concluded by archæologists that they were
constructed for burial chambers, and that originally, in most
cases, they were covered with mounds of earth, forming the
well known barrows, or grave mounds, or tumuli.
_L. Jewett,
Grave Mounds._
ALSO IN:
_T. Wright,
The Celt, the Roman and the Saxon._
_Sir J. Lubbock,
Prehistoric Times,
chapter 5._
See, also, AMORITES.
CROMPTON'S MULE, The invention of.
See COTTON MANUFACTURES.
CROMWELL, Oliver.
Campaigns and Protectorate.
See ENGLAND: A. D. 1644 to 1658-1660;
and IRELAND: A. D. 1649-1650.
CROMWELL, Thomas,
The suppression of the Monasteries.
See ENGLAND: A. D. 1535-1539.
CROMWELLIAN SETTLEMENT OF IRELAND.
See IRELAND: A. D. 1653.
CROMWELL'S IRONSIDES.
See ENGLAND: A. D. 1643 (MAY).
CROSS, The "True."
Its capture by the Persians and recovery by Heraclius.
See ROME: A. D. 565-628;
And JERUSALEM: A. D. 615.
CROSS KEYS, Battle of.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
A. D. 1862 (MAY-JUNE: VIRGINIA).
CROTON.
KROTON.
See SYBARIS.
CROTONA, Battle of (A. D. 983).
See ITALY (SOUTHERN): A. D. 800-1016.
CROWN, The iron.
See LOMBARDY, THE IRON CROWN OF.
CROWN OF INDIA, The Order of the.
An order, for women, instituted by Queen Victoria in 1878.
{626}
CROWN POINT: A. D. 1727.
Fort built by the French.
See CANADA (NEW FRANCE): A. D. 1700-1735.
CROWN POINT: A. D. 1755.
English Expedition against.
See CANADA (NEW FRANCE): A. D. 1755 (SEPTEMBER).
CROWN POINT: A. D: 1759.
Abandoned to the English by the French.
See CANADA (NEW FRANCE): A. D. 1759 (JULY-AUGUST).
CROWN POINT: A. D. 1775.
Surprise and capture by the Americans.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1775 MAY.
----------CROWN POINT: End----------
CROWS, OR UPSAROKAS, The.
See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: SIOUAN FAMILY.
CRUITHNIGH.-CRUITHNIANS.
The Irish name of the Picts and Scots of ancient Ireland and
Scotland.
See SCOTLAND: THE PICTS AND SCOTS.
CRUSADES:
Causes and introductory events.
"Like all the great movements of mankind, the Crusades must be
traced to the coincidence of many causes which influenced men
of various nations and discordant feelings, at the same period
of time, to pursue one common end with their whole heart.
Religious zeal, the fashion of pilgrimages, the spirit of
social development, the energies that lead to colonisation or
conquest, and commercial relations, only lately extended so
widely as to influence public opinion, all suddenly received a
deep wound. Every class of society felt injured and insulted,
and unity of action was created as if by a divine impulse. The
movement was facilitated by the circumstance that Europe began
to adopt habits of order just at the time when Asia was thrown
into a state of anarchy by the invasions of the Seljouk Turks.
Great numbers of pilgrims had always passed through the
Byzantine empire to visit the holy places in Palestine. We
still possess an itinerary of the road from Bordeaux to
Jerusalem, by the way of Constantinople, written in the fourth
century for the use of pilgrims. Though the disturbed and
impoverished state of Europe, after the fall of the Western
Empire, diminished the number of pilgrims, still, even in
times of the greatest anarchy, many passed annually through
the Eastern Empire to Palestine. The improvement which dawned
on the western nations during the eleventh century, and the
augmented commerce of the Italians, gave additional importance
to the pilgrimage to the East. About the year 1064, during the
reign of Constantine X., an army or caravan of seven thousand
pilgrims passed through Constantinople, led by the Archbishop
of Mentz and four bishops. They made their way through Asia
Minor, which was then under the Byzantine government; but in
the neighbourhood of Jerusalem they were attacked by the
Bedouins, and only saved from destruction by the Saracen emir
of Ramla, who hastened to their assistance. These pilgrims are
reported to have lost 3,000 of their number, without being
able to visit either the Jordan or the Dead Sea. The invasions
of the Seljouks [see TURKS (THE SELJUKS): A. D. 1073-1092]
increased the disorders in Palestine. … In the year 1076 the
Seljouk Turks took possession of Jerusalem, and immediately
commenced harassing the pilgrims with unheard-of exactions.
The Saracens had in general viewed the pilgrims with favour,
as men engaged in fulfilling a pious duty, or pursuing lawful
gain with praiseworthy industry, and they had levied only a
reasonable toll on the pilgrims, and a moderate duty on their
merchandise; while in consideration of these imposts, they had
established guards to protect them on the roads by which they
approached the holy places. The Turks, on the contrary, acting
like mere nomads, uncertain of retaining possession of the
city, thought only of gratifying their avarice. They plundered
the rich pilgrims, and insulted the poor. The religious
feelings of the Christians were irritated, and their commerce
ruined; a cry for vengeance arose throughout all Europe, and
men's minds were fully prepared for an attempt to conquer
Palestine, when Peter the Hermit began to preach that it was a
sacred duty to deliver the tomb of Christ from the hands of
the Infidels."
_G. Finlay,
History of the Byzantine and Greek Empires,
book 3, chapter 2, section 1._
CRUSADES: A. D. 1091.
The Council of Clermont.
Pope Urban II., one of two rival pontiffs then contending for
recognition by the Church, entered with great eagerness into
the movement stirred by Peter the Hermit, and gave it a
powerful impulse through his support, while obtaining for
himself, at the same time, a decisive advantage over his
competitor, by the popularity of the agitation. A great
Council was convened at Piacenza, A. D. 1094, and a second at
Clermont, in the autumn of the same year, to deliberate upon
the action to be taken. The city of Clermont could not contain
the vast multitude of bishops, clergy and laity which
assembled, and an army of many thousands was tented in the
surrounding country. To that excited congregation, at a
meeting in the great square of Clermont, Pope Urban addressed
a speech which is one of the notable utterances of History.
"He began by detailing the miseries endured by their brethren
in the Holy Land; how the plains of Palestine were desolated
by the outrageous heathen, who with the sword and the
firebrand carried wailing into the dwellings and flames into
the possessions of the faithful; how Christian wives and
daughters were defiled by pagan lust; how the altars of the
true God were desecrated, and the relics of the saints trodden
under foot. 'You,' continued the eloquent pontiff (and Urban
II. was one of the most eloquent men of the day), 'you, who
hear me, and who have received the true faith, and been
endowed by God with power, and strength, and greatness of
soul,—whose ancestors have been the prop of Christendom, and
whose kings have put a barrier against the progress of the
infidel,—I call upon you to wipe off these impurities from
the face of the earth, and lift your oppressed
fellow-Christians from the depths into which they have been
trampled.' … The warmth of the pontiff communicated itself
to the crowd, and the enthusiasm of the people broke out
several times ere he concluded his address. He went on to
portray, not only the spiritual but the temporal advantages
that would accrue to those who took up arms in the service of
the cross. Palestine was, he said, a land flowing with milk
and honey, and precious in the sight of God, as the scene of
the grand events which had saved mankind. That land, he
promised, should be divided among them. Moreover, they should
have full pardon for all their offences, either against God or
man. 'Go, then,' he added, 'in expiation of your sins; and
go assured, that after this world shall have passed away,
imperishable glory shall be yours in the world which is to
come.' The enthusiasm was no longer to be restrained, and loud
shouts interrupted the speaker; the people exclaiming as if
with one voice, 'Dieu le veult! Dieu le veult!' … The news
of this council spread to the remotest parts of Europe in an
incredibly short space of time. Long before the fleetest
horseman could have brought the intelligence, it was known by
the people in distant provinces; a fact which was considered
as nothing less than supernatural. But the subject was in
everybody's mouth, and the minds of men were prepared for the
result. The enthusiastic merely asserted what they wished, and
the event tallied with their prediction."
_C. Mackay,
Memoirs of Extraordinary Popular Delusions: The Crusades,
(volume 2)._
ALSO IN:
_H. H. Milman,
History of Latin Christianity,
book 7, chapter 6._
{627}
CRUSADES: A. D. 1094-1095,
Peter the Hermit and his appeal.
"About twenty years after the conquest of Jerusalem by the
Turks, the holy sepulchre was visited by an hermit of the name
of Peter, a native of Amiens, in the province of Picardy in
France. His resentment and sympathy were excited by his own
injuries, and the oppression of the Christian name; he mingled
his tears with those of the patriarch, and earnestly inquired,
if no hopes of relief could be entertained from the Greek
emperors of the East. The patriarch exposed the vices and
weakness of the successors of Constantine. 'I will rouse,'
exclaimed the hermit, 'the martial nations of Europe in your
cause;' and Europe was obedient to the call of the hermit. The
astonished patriarch dismissed him with epistles of credit and
complaint, and no sooner did he land at Bari, than Peter
hastened to kiss the feet of the Roman pontiff. His stature
was small, his appearance contemptible; but his eye was keen
and lively, and he possessed that vehemence of speech which
seldom fails to impart the persuasion of the soul. He was born
of a gentleman's family (for we must now adopt a modern
idiom), and his military service was under the neighbouring
counts of Boulogne, the heroes of the first crusade.
Invigorated by the approbation of the pontiff, this zealous
missionary traversed, with speed and success, the provinces of
Italy and France. His diet was abstemious, his prayers long
and fervent, and the alms which he received with one hand, he
distributed with the other; his head was bare, his feet naked,
his meagre body was wrapt in a coarse garment; he bore and
displayed a weighty crucifix; and the ass on which he rode was
sanctified in the public eye by the service of the man of God.
He preached to innumerable crowds in the churches, the
streets, and the highways. … When he painted the sufferings
of the natives and pilgrims of Palestine, every heart was
melted to compassion; every breast glowed with indignation,
when he challenged the warriors of the age to defend their
brethren and rescue their Saviour: his ignorance of art and
language was compensated by sighs and tears, and ejaculations;
and Peter supplied the deficiency of reason by loud and
frequent appeals to Christ and his Mother, to the saints and
angels of paradise, with whom he had personally conversed. The
most perfect orator of Athens might have envied the success of
his eloquence; the rustic enthusiast inspired the passions
which he felt, and Christendom expected with impatience the
counsels and decrees of the supreme pontiff."
_E. Gibbon,
Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire,
chapter 58.
ALSO IN:
_J. C. Robertson,
History of the Christian Church,
book 6, chapter 4 (volume 4)._
CRUSADES: A. D. 1096-1099.
The First Great Movement.
The first army of Crusaders to set out on the long march to
Jerusalem was a mob of men, women and children which had not
patience to wait for the organized movement of the military
leaders. They gathered in vast numbers on the banks of the
Moselle and the Meuse, in the spring of 1096, with Peter the
Hermit for their chosen chief. There were nine knights, only,
in the swarm, and but few who had horses to ride, or efficient
arms to bear, or provisions to feed upon. Knowing nothing, and
therefore fearing nothing, they marched away, through France,
Germany, Hungary and beyond, begging food where they could and
subsisting by pillage when it needed. A knight called Walter
the Penniless led the van, and Peter followed, with his second
division, by a somewhat different route. Walter escaped
serious trouble until he reached the country of the savage
Bulgarians. Peter's senseless mob provoked the just wrath of
the Hungarians by storming the small city of Semlin and
slaying 4,000 of its inhabitants. The route of both was lined
with the bones of thousands who perished of hunger, of
exposure, of disease, and by the swords of Hungarians and
Bulgarians. A third and a fourth host of like kind followed in
their wake, led by a monk, Gotschalk, a priest named Volkmar,
and a Count Emicon. These terrorized even more all the
countries through which they passed,—especially where Jews
were to be hunted and killed,—and were destroyed in Hungary
to almost the last man. Peter and Walter reached
Constantinople with 100,000 followers, it is said, even yet,
after all who had fallen by the way. Still refusing to wait
for the better appointed expeditions that were in progress,
and still appalling eastern Christendom by their lawless
barbarities, they passed into Asia Minor, and their miserable
career soon came to an end. Attacking the Turks in the city of
Nicæa,—which had become the capital of the Seljouk sultan of
Roum,—they were beaten, routed, scattered, slaughtered, until
barely 3,000 of the great host escaped. "Of the first
Crusaders," says Gibbon, "300,000 had already perished before
a single city was rescued from the infidels,—before their
graver and more noble brethren had completed the preparations
of their enterprise." Meantime the knights and princes of the
crusade had gathered their armies and were now (in the summer
of 1096) beginning to move eastward, by different routes. Not
one of the greater sovereigns of Europe had enlisted in the
undertaking. The chiefs of one armament were Godfrey de
Bouillon, duke of the Lower Lorraine, or Brabant; his
brothers, Eustace, count of Boulogne, and Baldwin; his cousin,
Baldwin de Bourg, with Baldwin, count of Hainaut, Dudon de
Contz, and other knights celebrated in the "Jerusalem
Delivered" of Tasso. This expedition followed nearly the route
of Peter the Hermit, through Hungary and Bulgaria, giving
hostages for its orderly conduct and winning the good-will of
those countries, even maddened as they were by the foregoing mobs.
{628}
Another larger following from France was led by Hugh, count of
Vermandois, brother of the king of France; Robert, duke of
Normandy, eldest son of William the Conqueror; Stephen, count
of Blois, the Conqueror's son-in-law, and Robert, count of
Flanders. These took the road into Italy, and to Bari, whence,
after spending the winter, waiting for favorable weather, they
were transported by ships to Greece, and pursued their march
to Constantinople. They were followed by a contingent from
southern Italy, under Bohemond, the Norman prince of Tarentum,
son of Robert Guiscard, and his knightly cousin, Tancred. A
fourth army, gathered in southern France by count Raymond of
Toulouse and Bishop Adhemer, the appointed legate and
representative of the pope, chose still another route, through
Lombardy, Dalmatia and Macedonia, into Thrace. On passing
through the territories of the Byzantine emperor (Alexius I.),
all the crusaders experienced his distrust, his duplicity, and
his cautious ill-will—which, under the circumstances were
natural enough. Alexius managed so well that he extorted from
each of the princes an acknowledgment of his rights of
sovereignty over the region of their expected conquests, with
an oath of fealty and homage, and he pushed them across the
Bosphorus so adroitly that no two had the opportunity to unite
their forces under the walls of Constantinople. Their first
undertaking in Asia [May and June, A. D. 1097] was the siege
of Nicæa, and they beleaguered it with an army which Gibbon
believes to have been never exceeded within the compass of a
single camp. Here, again, they were mastered by the cunning
diplomacy of the Greek emperor. When the sultan of Roum
yielded his capital, he was persuaded to surrender it to
Alexius, and the imperial banner protected it from the rage of
the discomfited crusaders. But they revenged themselves on the
Turk at Dorylæum, where he attacked them during their
subsequent march, and where he suffered a defeat which ended
all fighting in Asia Minor. Baldwin, brother of Godfrey, now
improved his opportunities by stealing away from the army,
with a few hundred knights and men, to make conquests on his
own account; with such success that he won the city of Edessa,
with a sweep of country around it, and founded a principality
which subsisted for half a century. The rest fared on, meeting
no opposition from infidel swords, but sickening and dying by
thousands, from heat and from want of water and food, until
they came to Antioch. There, the Turkish emir in command, with
a stout garrison of horse and foot, had prepared for a
stubborn defence, and he held the besiegers at bay for seven
months, while they starved in their ill-supplied camps. The
city was delivered to them by a traitor, at length, but prince
Bohemond, the crafty Norman, secured the benefit of the
treason to himself, and forced his compatriots to concede to
him the sovereignty of Antioch. The sufferings of the
crusaders did not end with the taking of the city. They
brought famine and pestilence upon themselves anew by their
greedy and sensual indulgence, and they were soon under siege
in their own turn, by a great army which the Turks had brought
against them. Death and desertion were in rivalry to thin
their wasted ranks. The survivors were in gloom and despair,
when an opportune miracle occurred to excite them afresh. A
lance, which visions and apparitions certified to be the very
spear that pierced the Redeemer's side, was found buried in a
church at Antioch. Under the stimulus of this amazing
discovery they sallied from the town and dispersed the great
army of the Turks in utter rout. Still the quarrels of the
leaders went on, and ten months more were consumed before the
remains of the Latin army advanced to Jerusalem. It was June,
A. D. 1099, when they saw the Holy City and assailed its
formidable walls. Their number was now reduced to 40,000, but
their devotion and their ardor rose to frenzy, and after a
siege of little more than a month they forced an entrance by
storm. Then they spared neither age nor sex until they had
killed all who denied the Savior of mankind—the Prince of
Peace.
_E. Gibbon,
Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire,
chapter 58.
ALSO IN:
_J. F. Michaud,
History of the Crusades,
book 1._
_W. Besant and E. H. Palmer,
Jerusalem,
chapter 6._
_C. Mills,
History of the Crusades,
chapters 2-6._
See also, JERUSALEM: A. D. 1099.
CRUSADES: A. D. 1099-1144.
The Latin conquests in the east.
The Kingdom of Jerusalem.
See JERUSALEM: A. D. 1099-1144.
CRUSADES: A. D. 1101-1102.
The after-wave of the first movement.
"The tales of victory brought home by the pilgrims excited the
most extravagant expectations in the minds of their auditors,
and nothing was deemed capable of resisting European valour.
The pope called upon all who had taken the cross to perform
their vow, the emperor Henry IV. had the crusade preached, in
order to gain favour with the clergy and laity. Many princes
now resolved to visit in person the new empire founded in the
East. Three great armies assembled: the first in Italy under
the archbishop of Milan, and the two counts of Blandrate; the
second in France under Hugh the Great and Stephen of Blois
[who had deserted their comrades of the first expedition at
Antioch, and] whom shame and remorse urged to perform their
vow, William, duke of Guienne and count of Poitou, who
mortgaged his territory to William Rufus of England to procure
funds, the count of Nevers, the duke of Burgundy, the bishops
of Laon and Soissons; the third in Germany, under the bishop
of Saltzburg, the aged duke Welf of Bavaria, Conrad the master
of the horse to the emperor, and many other knights and
nobles. Ida also, the margravine of Austria, declared her
resolution to share the toils and dangers of the way, and pay
her vows at the tomb of Christ. Vast numbers of women of all
ranks accompanied all these armies,—nay, in that of the duke
of Guienne, who was inferior to none in valour, but united to
it the qualities of a troubadour and glee-man, there appeared
whole troops of young women. The Italian pilgrims were the
first to arrive at Constantinople. They set out early in the
spring, and took their way through Carinthia, Hungary, and
Bulgaria. Though the excesses committed by them were great,
the emperor gave them a kind reception, and the most prudent
and friendly advice respecting their future progress. While
they abode at Constantinople, Conrad and the count of Blois,
and the duke of Burgundy, arrived, and at Whitsuntide they all
passed over, and encamped at Nicomedia."
{629}
With ignorant fatuity, and against all experienced advice, the
new Crusaders resolved to direct their march to Bag-dad and to
overthrow the caliphate. The first body which advanced was cut
to pieces by the Turks on the banks of the Halys, and only a
few thousands, out of more than one hundred thousand, are said
to have made their escape by desperate flight. The second and
third armies were met successively by the victorious Moslems,
before they had advanced so far, and were even more completely
annihilated. The latter body contained, according to the
chroniclers of the time, 150,000 pilgrims, of whom scarcely
one thousand were saved from slavery or death. The men fell
under the swords of the Turks; the women and girls, in great
numbers, finished out their days in the harems of the East.
Out of the wreck of the three vast armaments a slender column
of 10,000 men was got together after some weeks at Antioch and
led to Jerusalem (A. D. 1102). Most of these perished in
subsequent battles, and very few ever saw Europe again. "Such
was the fruitless termination of this second great movement of
the West, in which perhaps a third of a million of pilgrims
left their homes, never to revisit them."
_T. Keightley,
The Crusaders,
chapter 2._
ALSO IN:
_J. F. Michaud,
History of the Crusades,
book 4._
Crusades: A. D. 1104-1111.
Conquest of maritime cities of Syria and Palestine.
Destruction of the Library of Tripoli.
"The prosperity and the safety of Jerusalem appeared closely
connected with the conquest of the maritime cities of Syria
and Palestine; it being by them alone that it could receive
succour, or establish prompt and easy communications with the
West. The maritime nations of Europe were interested in
seconding, in this instance, the enterprises of the king of
Jerusalem. … From the period of the first crusades, the
Pisans and the Genoese had constantly sent vessels to the seas
of the East; and their fleets had aided the Christians in
several expeditions against the Mussulmans. A Genoese fleet
had just arrived in the seas of Syria when Baldwin undertook
the siege of Ptolemaïs [Acre]. The Genoese were invited to
assist in this conquest; but as religion was not the principle
to bring them into action, they required, in return for their
assistance and their labour, that they should have a third of
the booty; they likewise stipulated to have a separate church
for themselves, and a national factory and tribunal in the
conquered city. Ptolemaïs was besieged by land and sea, and
after a bloody resistance of twenty days, the inhabitants and
the garrison proposed to surrender, and implored the clemency
of the conquerors. The city opened its gates to the
Christians, and the inhabitants prepared to depart, taking
with them whatever they deemed most valuable; but the Genoese,
at the sight of such rich booty, paid no respect to the
capitulation, and massacred without pity a disarmed and
defenceless people. … In consequence of this victory,
several places which the Egyptians still held on the coasts of
Syria fell into the hands of the Christians." Among those was
the city of Tripoli. "Raymond, Count de St. Gilles and of
Thoulouse, one of the companions of Godfrey, after having
wandered for a long time about Asia, had died before this
place, of which he had commenced the siege. In memory of his
exploits in the first crusade, the rich territory of Tripoli
was created a county, and became the inheritance of his
family. This territory was celebrated for its productions. …
A library established in this city, and celebrated through all
the East, contained the monuments of the ancient literature of
the Persians, the Arabians, the Egyptians, and the Greeks. A
hundred copyists were there constantly employed in
transcribing manuscripts. … After the taking of the city, a
priest attached to Count Bernard de St. Gilles, entered the
room in which were collected a vast number of copies of the
Koran, and as he declared the library of Tripoli contained
only the impious books of Mahomet, it was given up to the
flames. … Bibles, situated on the smiling and fertile shores
of Phoenicia, Sarepta, where St. Jerome saw still in his day
the tower of Isaiah; and Berytus, famous in the early days of
the church for its school of eloquence, shared the fate of
Tripoli, and became baronies bestowed upon Christian knights.
After these conquests, the Pisans, the Genoese, and several
warriors who had followed Baldwin in his expeditions, returned
into Europe; and the king of Jerusalem, abandoned by these
useful allies, was obliged to employ the forces which remained
in repulsing the invasions of the Saracens."
_J. F. Michaud,
History of the Crusades,
volume 1, book 5._
CRUSADES: A. D. 1147-1149.
The Second Great Movement.
During the reign of Fulk, the fourth king of Jerusalem, the
Latin power in Palestine and its neighboring territories began
to be seriously shaken by a vigorous Turkish prince named
Zenghi, on whom the sultan Mahmoud had conferred the
government of all the country west of the Tigris. It was the
first time since the coming of the Christians of the West that
the whole strength of Islam in that region had been so nearly
gathered into one strong hand, to be used against them, and
they felt the effect speedily, being themselves weakened by
many quarrels. In 1143 King Fulk died, leaving the crown to a
young son, Baldwin III.,—a boy of thirteen, whose mother
governed in his name. The next year Zenghi captured the
important city of Edessa, and consternation was produced by
his successes. Europe was then appealed to for help against
the advancing Turk, and the call from Jerusalem was taken up
by St. Bernard of Clairvaux, the irresistible enthusiast,
whose influence accomplished, in his time, whatever he willed
to have done. Just half a century after Peter the Hermit, St.
Bernard preached a Second Crusade, and with almost equal
effect, notwithstanding the better knowledge now possessed of
all the hardships and perils of the expedition. This time,
royalty took the lead. King Conrad of Germany commanded a
great army from that country, and another host followed King
Louis VII. from France. "Both armies marched down the Danube,
to Constantinople, in the summer of 1147. At the same moment
King Roger [of Naples], with his fleet, attacked, not the
Turks, but the Greek seaport towns of the Morea. Manuel [the
Byzantine emperor] thereupon, convinced that the large armies
were designed for the destruction of his empire in the first
place, with the greatest exertions, got together troops from
all his provinces, and entered into a half-alliance with the
Turks of Asia Minor. The mischief and ill-feeling was
increased by the lawless conduct of the German hordes; the
Greek troops attacked them more than once; whereupon numerous
voices were raised in Louis's headquarters to demand open war
against the faithless Greeks.
{630}
The kings were fully agreed not to permit this, but on
arriving in Constantinople they completely fell out, for,
while Louis made no secret of his warm friendship for Roger,
Conrad promised the Emperor of Constantinople to attack the
Normans as soon as the Crusade should be ended. This was a bad
beginning for a united campaign in the East, and moreover, at
every step eastward, new difficulties arose. The German army,
broken up into several detachments, and led without ability or
prudence, was attacked in Asia Minor by the Emir of Iconium,
and cut to pieces, all but a few hundred men. The French,
though better appointed, also suffered severe losses in that
country, but contrived nevertheless, to reach Antioch with a
very considerable force, and from thence might have carried
the project which the second Baldwin had conceived in vain,
namely, the defence of the northeastern frontier, upon which,
especially since Zenki [Zenghi] had made his appearance, the
life or death of the Christian states depended. But in vain
did Prince Raymond of Antioch try to prevail upon King Louis
to take this view, and to attack without delay the most
formidable of all their adversaries, Noureddin [son of Zenghi,
now dead]. Louis would not hear or do anything till he had
seen Jerusalem and prayed at the Holy Sepulchre. … In
Jerusalem he [King Louis] was welcomed by Queen Melisende (now
regent, during her son's minority, after Fulco's death), with
praise and gratitude, because he had not taken part in the
distant wars of the Prince of Antioch, but had reserved his
forces for the defence of the holy city of Jerusalem. It was
now resolved to lead the army against Damascus, the only
Turkish town whose Emir had always refused to submit to either
Zenki or Noureddin. Nevertheless Noureddin instantly collected
all his available forces, to succour the besieged town." But
he was spared further exertion by the jealous disagreement of
the Christians, who began to take thought as to what should be
done with Damascus when they took it. The Syrian barons
concluded that they would prefer to leave the city in Turkish
hands, and by treacherous manœuvres they forced king Louis to
raise the siege. "The German king, long since tired of his
powerless position, returned home in the autumn of 1148, and
Louis, after much pressing, stayed a few months longer, and
reached Europe in the following spring. The whole expedition
… had been wrecked, without honour and without result, by
the most wretched personal passions, and the most narrow and
selfish policy."
_H. Von Sybel,
History and Literature of the Crusades,
chapter 3._
"So ended in utter shame and ignominy the Second Crusade. The
event seemed to give the lie to the glowing promises and
prophecies of St. Bernard. So vast had been the drain of
population to feed this holy war that, in the phrase of an
eye-witness, the cities and castles were empty, and scarcely
one man was left to seven women; and now it was known that the
fathers, the husbands, the sons, or the brothers of these
miserable women would see their earthly homes no more. The cry
of anguish charged Bernard with the crime of sending them
forth on an errand in which they had done absolutely nothing
and had reaped only wretchedness and disgrace. For a time
Bernard himself was struck dumb: but he soon remembered that
he had spoken with the authority of God and his vicegerent,
and that the guilt or failure must lie at the door of the
pilgrims."
_G. W. Cox,
The Crusades,
chapter 5._
CRUSADES: A. D. 1187.
The loss of Jerusalem.
See JERUSALEM: A. D. 1149-1187.
CRUSADES: A. D. 1188-1192.
The Third Great Movement.
When the news reached Europe that Saladin, the redoubtable new
champion of Islam had expelled the Christians and the Cross
from Jerusalem, polluting once more the precincts of the Holy
Sepulchre, the effect produced was something not easily
understood at the present day. If we may believe historians of
the time, the pope (Urban III.) died of grief; "Christians
forgot all the ills of their own country to weep over
Jerusalem. … Luxury was banished from cities; injuries were
forgotten and alms were given abundantly, Christians slept
upon ashes, clothed themselves in haircloth, and expiated
their disorderly lives by fasting and mortification. The
clergy set the example; the morals of the cloister were
reformed, and cardinals, condemning themselves to poverty,
promised to repair to the Holy Land, supported on charity by
the way. These pious reformations did not last long; but men's
minds were not the less prepared for a new crusade by them,
and all Europe was soon roused by the voice of Gregory VIII.,
who exhorted the faithful to assume the cross and take up
arms."
_J. F. Michaud,
History of the Crusades,
book 7._
"The emperor Frederic Barbarossa and the kings of France and
England assumed the cross; and the tardy magnitude of their
armaments was anticipated by the maritime states of the
Mediterranean and the ocean. The skilful and provident
Italians first embarked in the ships of Genoa, Pisa, and
Venice. They were speedily followed by the most eager pilgrims
of France, Normandy and the Western Isles. The powerful
succour of Flanders, Frise, and Denmark filled near a hundred
vessels; and the northern warriors were distinguished in the
field by a lofty stature and a ponderous battle-axe. Their
increasing multitudes could no longer be confined within the
walls of Tyre [which the Latins still held], or remain
obedient to the voice of Conrad [Marquis of Montferrat, who
had taken command of the place and repelled the attacks of
Saladin]. They pitied the misfortunes and revered the dignity
of Lusignan [the nominal king of Jerusalem, lately captive in
Saladin's hands], who was released from prison, perhaps to
divide the army of the Franks. He proposed the recovery of
Ptolemais, or Acre, thirty miles to the south of Tyre; and the
place was first invested [July, 1189] by 2,000 horse and
30,000 foot under his nominal command. I shall not expatiate
on the story of this memorable siege, which lasted near two
years, and consumed, in a narrow space, the forces of Europe
and Asia. … At the sound of the holy trumpet the Moslems of
Egypt, Syria, Arabia, and the Oriental provinces assembled
under the servant of the prophet: his camp was pitched and
removed within a few miles of Acre; and he laboured, night and
day, for the relief of his brethren and the annoyance of the
Franks. … In the spring of the second year, the royal fleets
of France and England cast anchor in the bay of Acre, and the
siege was more vigorously prosecuted by the youthful emulation
of the two kings, Philip Augustus and Richard Plantagenet.
{631}
After every resource had been tried, and every hope was
exhausted, the defenders of Acre submitted to their fate. …
By the conquest of Acre the Latin powers acquired a strong
town and a convenient harbour; but the advantage was most
dearly purchased. The minister and historian of Saladin
computes, from the report of the enemy, that their numbers, at
different periods, amounted to 500,000 or 600,000; that more
than 100, 000 Christians were slain; that a far greater number
was lost by disease or shipwreck." On the reduction of Acre,
king Philip Augustus returned to France, leaving only 500
knights and 10,000 men behind him. Meantime, the old emperor,
Frederick Barbarossa, coming by the landward route, through
the country of the Greeks and Asia Minor, with a well-trained
army of 20,000 knights and 50,000 men on foot, had perished by
the way, drowned in a little Cilician torrent, and only 5,000
of his troops had reached the camp at Acre. Old as he was, (he
was seventy when he took the cross) Barbarossa might have
changed the event of the Crusade if he had reached the scene
of conflict; for he had brains with his valor and character
with his ferocity, which Richard Cœur de Lion had not. The
latter remained another year in the Holy Land; recovered
Cæsarea and Jaffa; threatened Saladin in Jerusalem seriously,
but to no avail; and stirred up more and fiercer quarrels
among the Christians than had been customary, even on the soil
which was sacred to them. In the end, a treaty was arranged
which displeased the more devout on both sides. "It was
stipulated that Jerusalem and the holy sepulchre should be
open, without tribute or vexation, to the pilgrimage of the
Latin Christians; that, after the demolition of Ascalon, they
should inclusively possess the sea-coast from Jaffa to Tyre;
that the count of Tripoli and the prince of Antioch should be
comprised in the truce; and that, during three years and three
months, all hostilities should cease. … Richard embarked for
Europe, to seek a long captivity and a premature grave; and
the space of a few months concluded the life and glories of
Saladin."
_E. Gibbon,
Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire,
chapter 59.
"A halo of false glory surrounds the Third Crusade from the
associations which connect it with the lion-hearted king of
England. The exploits of Richard I. have stirred to enthusiasm
the dullest of chroniclers, have furnished themes for jubilant
eulogies, and have shed over his life that glamour which
cheats even sober-minded men when they read the story of his
prototype Achilleus in the tale of Troy. … When we turn from
the picture to the reality, we shall see in this Third Crusade
an enterprise in which the fiery zeal which does something
towards redeeming the savage brutalities of Godfrey and the
first crusaders is displaced by base and sordid greed, by
intrigues utterly of the earthy, by wanton crimes from which
we might well suppose that the sun would hide away its face;
and in the leaders of this enterprise we shall see men in whom
morally there is scarcely a single quality to relieve the
monotonous blackness of their infamy; in whom, strategically,
a very little generalship comes to the aid of a blind brute
force."
_G. W. Cox,
The Crusades,
chapter 7._
ALSO IN:
_Mrs. W. Busk,
Mediaeval Popes, Emperors, Kings and Crusaders,
book 2, chapter 12,
and book 3, chapters 1-2._
CRUSADES: A. D. 1196-1197.
The Fourth Expedition.
A crusading expedition of German barons and their followers,
which went to the Holy Land, by way of Italy, in 1196, is
generally counted as the Fourth Crusade, though some writers
look upon it as a movement supplementary to the Third Crusade.
The Germans, who numbered some 40,000, do not seem to have
been welcomed by the Christians of Palestine. The latter
preferred to maintain the state of peace then prevailing; but
the new crusaders forced hostilities at once. Saladin was
dead; his brother Saphadin accepted the challenge to war with
prompt vigor and struck the first hard blow, taking Jaffa,
with great slaughter, and demolishing its fortifications. But
Saphadin was presently defeated in a battle fought between
Tyre and Sidon, and Jaffa was recovered, together with other
towns and most of the coast. But, a little later, the Germans
suffered, in their turn, a most demoralizing reverse at the
castle of Thoron, which they besieged, and were further
disturbed, in the midst of their depression, by news of the
death of their emperor, Henry VI. A great part of them,
thereupon, returned home. Those who remained, or many of them,
occupied Jaffa, where they were attacked, a few months later,
and cut to pieces.
_G. W. Cox,
The Crusades,
chapter 8._
CRUSADES: A. D. 1201-1203.
The Fifth Movement.-
Treachery of the Venetians.
Conquest of Constantinople.
"Every traveller returning from Syria brought a prayer for
immediate help from the survivors of the Third Crusade. It was
necessary to act at once if any portion even of the wreck of
the kingdom of Jerusalem were to be saved. Innocent the Third,
and some, at least, of the statesmen of the West were fully
alive to the progress which Islam had made since the departure
of the Western kings. In 1197, however, after five years of
weary waiting, the time seemed opportune for striking a new
blow for Christendom. Saladin, the great Sultan, had died in
1193, and his two sons were already quarreling about the
partition of his empire. The contending divisions of the Arab
Moslems were at this moment each bidding for the support of
the Christians of Syria. The other great race of Mahometans
which had threatened Europe, the Seljukian Turks, had made a
halt in their progress through Asia Minor. … Other special
circumstances which rendered the moment favourable for a new
crusade, combined with the profound conviction of the
statesmen of the West of the danger to Christendom from the
progress of Islam, urged Western Europe to take part in the
new enterprise. The reigning Pope, Innocent III., was the
great moving spirit of the Fourth Crusade." The popular
preacher of the Crusade was found in an ignorant priest named
Fulk, of Neuilly, whose success in kindling public enthusiasm
was almost equal to that of Peter the Hermit. Vast numbers
took the cross, with Theobald, count of Champagne, Louis,
count of Blois and Chartres, Simon de Montfort, Walter of
Brienne, Baldwin, count of Flanders, Hugh of St. Pol, Geoffrey
de Villehardouin, marshal of Champagne and future historian of
the Crusade, and many other prominent knights and princes
among the leaders. The young count of Champagne was the chosen
chief; but he sickened and died and his place was taken by
Boniface, marquis of Montferrat.
{632}
It was the decision of the leaders that the expedition should
be directed in the first instance against the Moslem power in
Egypt, and that it should be conveyed to the attack of Egypt
by sea. Venice, alone, seemed to be able to furnish ships,
sailors and supplies for so great a movement, and a contract
with Venice for the service was concluded in the spring of
120l. But Venice was mercenary, unscrupulous and treacherous,
caring for nothing but commercial gains. Before the crusaders
could gather at her port for embarkation, she had betrayed
them to the Moslems. By a secret treaty with the sultan of
Egypt, the fact of which is coming more and more conclusively
to light, she had undertaken to frustrate the Crusade, and to
receive important commercial privileges at Alexandria as
compensation for her treachery. When, therefore, in the early
summer of 1202, the army of the Crusade was collected at
Venice to take ship, it encountered difficulties,
discouragements and ill-treatments which thickened daily. The
number assembled was not equal to expectation. Some had gone
by sea from Flanders; some by other routes. But Venice had
provided transport for the whole, and inflexibly demanded pay
for the whole. The money in hand was not equal to this claim.
The summer was lost in disputes and attempted compromises.
Many of the crusaders withdrew in disgust and went home. At
length, in defiance of the censures of the pope and of the
bitter opposition of many leaders and followers of the
expedition, there was a bargain struck, by the terms of which
the crusaders were to assist the Venetians in taking and
plundering the Christian city of Zara, a dreaded commercial
rival on the Dalmatian coast of the Adriatic, belonging to the
king of Hungary, himself one of the promoters of the very
crusade which was now to be turned against him. The infamous
compact was carried out. Zara was taken, and in the end it was
totally destroyed by the Venetians. In the meantime, the
doomed city was occupied by the crusading army through the
winter, while a still more perfidious plot was being formed.
Old Dandolo, the blind doge of Venice, was the master spirit
of it. He was helped by the influence of Philip, one of the
two rivals then fighting for the imperial crown in Germany and
Italy. Philip had married a daughter of Isaac II. (Angelos),
made emperor at Constantinople on the fall of the dynasty of
Comnenus, and that feeble prince had lately been dethroned by
his brother. The son and heir of Isaac, named Alexius, had
escaped from Constantinople and had made his way to Philip
imploring help. Either Philip conceived the idea, or it was
suggested to him, that the armament of the Crusade might be
employed to place the young Alexius on the throne of his
father. To the Venetians the scheme was more than acceptable.
It would frustrate the Crusade, which they had pledged
themselves to the sultan of Egypt to accomplish; it would
satisfy their ill-will towards the Byzantines, and, more
important than all else, it would give them an opportunity to
secure immeasurable advantages over their rivals in the great
trade which Constantinople held at command. The marquis of
Montferrat, commander of the Crusade, had some grievances of
his own and some ambitions of his own, which made him
favorable to the new project, and he was easily won to it. The
three influences thus combined—those of Philip, of Dandolo,
and of Montferrat—overcame all opposition. Some who opposed
were bribed, some were intimidated, some were deluded by
promises, some deserted the ranks. Pope Innocent remonstrated,
appealed and threatened in vain. The pilgrim host, "changed
from a crusading army into a filibustering expedition," set
sail from Zara in the spring of the year 1203, and was landed,
the following June, not on the shores of Egypt or Syria, but
under the walls of Constantinople. Its conquest, pillage and
brutally destructive treatment of the great city are described
in another place.
_E. Pears,
The Fall of Constantinople,
chapters 8-13._
ALSO IN:
_G. Finlay,
History of the Byzantine and Greek Empires, 716-1453,
book 3, chapter 3._
_E. Gibbon,
Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire,
chapter 59.
See, also,
BYZANTINE EMPIRE: A. D. 1203-1204
CRUSADES: A. D. 1201-1283.
Against the heathen Sclavonians on the Baltic.
See LIVONIA: 12TH-13TH CENTURIES;
and PRUSSIA: 13TH CENTURY.
CRUSADES: A. D. 1209-1242.
Against the Albigenses.
See ALBIGENSES.
CRUSADES: A. D. 1212.
The Children's Crusade.
"The religious wars fostered and promoted vice; and the
failure of army after army was looked on as a clear
manifestation of God's wrath against the sins of the camp.
This feeling was roused to its highest pitch when, in the year
1212, certain priests—Nicolas was the name of one of these
mischievous madmen—went about France and Germany calling on
the children to perform what the fathers, through their
wickedness, had been unable to effect, promising that the sea
should be dry to enable them to march across; that the
Saracens would be miraculously stricken with a panic at the
sight of them; that God would, through the hands of children
only, whose lives were yet pure, work the recovery of the
Cross and the Sepulchre. Thousands—it is said fifty
thousand—children of both sexes responded to the call. They
listened to the impassioned preaching of the monks, believed
their lying miracles, their visions, their portents, their
references to the Scriptures, and, in spite of all that their
parents could do, rushed to take the Cross, boys and girls
together, and streamed along the roads which led to Marseilles
and Genoa, singing hymns, waving branches, replying to those
who asked whither they were going, 'We go to Jerusalem to
deliver the Holy Sepulchre,' and shouting their rallying cry,
'Lord Jesus, give us back thy Holy Cross.' They admitted
whoever came, provided he took the Cross; the infection
spread, and the children could not be restrained from joining
them in the towns and villages along their route. Their
miserable parents put them in prison; they escaped; they
forbade them to go; the children went in spite of prohibition.
They had no money, no provisions, no leaders; but the charity
of the towns they passed through supported them. At their rear
streamed the usual tail of camp followers. … There were two
main bodies. One of these directed its way through Germany,
across the Alps, to Genoa. On the road they were robbed of all
the gifts which had been presented them; they were exposed to
heat and want, and very many either died on the march or
wandered away from the road and so became lost to sight; when
they reached Italy they dispersed about the country, seeking
food, were stripped by the villagers, and in some cases were
reduced to slavery.
{633}
Only seven thousand out of their number arrived at Genoa. Here
they stayed for some days. They looked down upon the
Mediterranean, hoping that its bright waves would divide to
let them pass. But they did not; there was no miracle wrought
in their favour; a few of noble birth were received among the
Genoese families, and have given rise to distinguished houses
of Genoa; among them is the house of Vivaldi. The rest,
disappointed and disheartened, made their way back again, and
got home at length, the girls with the loss of their virtue,
the boys with the loss of their belief, all barefooted and in
rags, laughed at by the towns they went through, and wondering
why they had ever gone at all. This was the end of the German
army. That of the French was not so fortunate, for none of
them ever got back again at all. When they arrived at
Marseilles, thinned probably by the same causes as those which
had dispersed the Germans, they found, like their brethren,
that the sea did not open a path for them, as had been
promised. Perhaps some were disheartened and went home again.
But fortune appeared to favour them. There were two worthy
merchants at Marseilles, named Hugh Ferrens, and William
Porcus, Iron Hugh and Pig William, who traded with the East,
and had in port seven ships, in which they proposed to convey
the children to Palestine. With a noble generosity they
offered to take them for nothing, all for love of religion,
and out of the pure kindness of their hearts. Of course this
offer was accepted with joy, and the seven vessels laden with
the happy little Crusaders, singing their hymns and flying
their banners, sailed out from Marseilles, bound for the East,
accompanied by William the Good and Hugh the Pious. It was not
known to the children, of course, that the chief trade of
these merchants was the lucrative business of kidnapping
Christian children for the Alexandrian market. It was so,
however, and these respectable tradesmen had never before made
so splendid a coup. Unfortunately, off the Island of St.
Peter, they encountered bad weather, and two ships went down
with all on board. What must have been the feelings of the
philanthropists, Pig William and Iron Hugh, at this
misfortune? They got, however, five ships safely to
Alexandria, and sold all their cargo, the Sultan of Cairo
buying forty of the boys, whom he brought up carefully and
apart, intending them, doubtless, for his best soldiers. A
dozen refusing to change their faith were martyred. None of
the rest ever came back. Nobody in Europe seems to have taken
much notice of this extraordinary episode."
_W. Besant and E. H. Palmer,
Jerusalem,
chapter 18._
ALSO IN:
_J. H. Michaud,
History of the Crusades,
appendix number 28._
_G. Z. Gray,
The Children's Crusade._
CRUSADE: A. D. 1212.
Against the Moors in Spain.
See SPAIN: A. D. 1146-1232.
CRUSADE: A. D. 1216-1229.
The Sixth Movement.
Frederic II. in Jerusalem.
For six years after the betrayal of the vows of the crusaders
of 1202-1204—who sacked Constantinople instead of rescuing
Jerusalem—the Christians of Palestine were protected by a
truce with Saphadin, the brother of Saladin, who had succeeded
the latter in power. Hostilities were then rashly provoked by
the always foolish Latins, and they soon found themselves
reduced to sore straits, calling upon Europe for fresh help.
Pope Innocent III. did not scruple to second their appeal. A
new crusade was preached with great earnestness, and a general
Council of the Church—the Fourth of Lateran—was convened for
the stimulation of it. "The Fifth Crusade [or the Sixth, as
more commonly numbered], the result of this resolution, was
divided in the sequel into three maritime expeditions: the
first [A. D. 1216] consisting principally of Hungarians under
their king, Andrew; the second [A. D. 1218] composed of
Germans, Italians, French and English nobles and their
followers; and the third [A. D. 1228] led by the Emperor
Frederic II. in person. … Though the King of Hungary was
attended by the flower of a nation which, before its
conversion to Christianity, had been the scourge and terror of
Western Europe, the arms of that monarch, even aided by the
junction of numerous German crusaders under the dukes of
Austria and Bavaria, performed nothing worthy of notice: and
after a single campaign in Palestine, in which the Mussulman
territories were ineffectually ravaged, the fickle Andrew
deserted the cause and returned with his forces to Europe. His
defection did not prevent the duke of Austria, with the German
crusaders, from remaining, in concert with the King of
Jerusalem, his barons, and the knights of the three religious
orders, for the defence of Palestine; and, in the following
year, the constancy of these faithful champions of the Cross
was rewarded by the arrival of numerous reinforcements from
Germany. … It was resolved to change the scene of warfare
from the narrow limits of the Syrian shore to the coast of
Egypt, … and the situation of Damietta, at the mouth of the
Nile, pointed out that city as the first object of attack."
After a siege of seventeen months, during which both the
besieged and the besiegers suffered horribly, from famine and
from pestilence, Damietta was taken (A. D. 1219), Nine-tenths
of its population of 80,000 had perished. "Both during the
siege and after the capture of Damietta, the invasion of Egypt
had filled the infidels with consternation; and the alarm
which was betrayed in their counsels proved that the
crusaders, in choosing that country for the theatre of
operations, had assailed the Mussulman power in its most vital
and vulnerable point. Of the two sons of Saphadin, Coradinus
and Camel, who were now uneasily seated on the thrones of
Damascus and Cairo, the former, in despair of preserving
Jerusalem, had already demolished its fortifications; and the
brothers agreed in repeatedly offering the cession of the holy
city and of all Palestine to the Christians, upon the single
condition of their evacuating Egypt. Every object which had
been ineffectually proposed in repeated Crusades, since the
fatal battle of Tiberias, might now have been gloriously
obtained by the acceptance of these terms, and the King of
Jerusalem, the French and English leaders, and the Teutonic
knights, all eagerly desired to embrace the offer of the
Sultans. But the obstinate ambition and cupidity of the
surviving papal legate, Cardinal Pelagius, of the Italian
chieftains, and of the knights of the other two religious
orders, by holding out the rich prospect of the conquest and
plunder of Egypt, overruled every wise and temperate argument
in the Christian councils, and produced a rejection of all
compromise with the infidels.
{634}
After a winter of luxurious inaction, the legate led the
crusading host from Damietta toward Cairo (A. D. 1220)." The
expedition was as disastrous in its result as it was imbecile
in its leadership. The whole army, caught by the rising of the
Nile, was placed in so helpless a situation that it was glad
to purchase escape by the surrender of Damietta and the
evacuation of Egypt. The retreat of the greater part of these
crusaders did not end until they had reached home. Pope
Honorius III. (who had succeeded Innocent III. in 1216) strove
to shift responsibility for the failure from his wretched
legate to the Emperor Frederic II., who had thus far evaded
the fulfilment of his crusading promises and vows, being
occupied in struggles with the papacy. At length, in 1228,
Frederic embarked for Palestine with a small force, pursued by
the maledictions of the pope, who denounced him for daring to
assume the Cross while under the ban of the church, as much as
he had denounced him before for neglecting it. But the
free-thinking Hohenstauffen cared little, apparently, and went
his way, shunned scrupulously by all pious souls, including
the knights of Palestine, except those of the Teutonic order.
With the help of the latter he occupied and refortified Jaffa
and succeeded in concluding a treaty with the Sultan which
restored Jerusalem to the Christians, reserving certain rights
to the Mahometans; giving up likewise Bethlehem, Nazareth
and some other places to the Christians, and securing peace
for ten years. Frederic had married, a few years before, for
his second empress, Iolante, daughter and heiress of the
titular king of Jerusalem, John de Brienne. With the hand of
this princess, he received from her father a solemn transfer
of all his rights to that shadowy throne. He now claimed those
rights, and, entering Jerusalem, with the Teutonic knights (A.
D. 1229), he crowned himself its king. The patriarch, the
Templars and the Hospitallers refused to take part in the
ceremony; the pope denounced Frederic's advantageous treaty as
soon as he had news of it, and all that it gained for the
Christians of Palestine was thrown away by them as speedily as
possible.
_Major Procter,
History of the Crusades,
chapter 5, section 2._
"No Crusader, since Godfrey de Bouillon, had effected so much
as Frederick the Second. What would he not have obtained, had
the Pope, the Patriarch and the Orders given him their hearty
cooperation?"
_T. L. Kington,
History of Frederick II.,
chapter 8._
CRUSADES: A. D. 1238-1280.
Against the Bogomiles.
See BALKAN AND DANUBIAN STATES:
9TH-16TH CENTURIES (BOSNIA, ETC.)
CRUSADES: A. D. 1242.
The Invasion of Palestine by the Carismians.
See JERUSALEM: A. D. 1242.
CRUSADES: A. D. 1248-1254.
The Seventh Movement.
Expedition of Saint Louis to Egypt.
The Seventh Crusade was undertaken, with little aid from other
countries, by the devout and wonderfully Christian-like young
king of France, Louis IX., afterwards canonized, and known in
history as St. Louis. "He carried it out with a picked army,
furnished by the feudal chivalry and by the religious and
military orders dedicated to the service of the Holy Land. The
Isle of Cyprus was the trysting-place appointed for all the
forces of the expedition. Louis arrived there on the 12th of
September, 1248, and reckoned upon remaining there only a few
days; for it was Egypt that he was in a hurry to reach. The
Christian world was at that time of opinion that, to deliver
the Holy Land, it was necessary first of all to strike a blow
at Islamism in Egypt, wherein its chief strength resided. But
scarcely had the crusaders formed a junction in Cyprus, when
the vices of the expedition and the weaknesses of its chief
began to be manifest. Louis, unshakable in his religious zeal,
was wanting in clear ideas and fixed resolves as to the
carrying out of his design. … He did not succeed in winning
a majority in the council of chiefs over to his opinion as to
the necessity for a speedy departure for Egypt; it was decided
to pass the winter in Cyprus. … At last a start was made
from Cyprus in May, 1249, and, in spite of violent gales of
wind which dispersed a large number of vessels, they arrived
on the 4th of June before Damietta. … Having become masters
of Damietta, St. Louis and the crusaders committed the same
fault there as in the Isle of Cyprus: they halted there for an
indefinite time. They were expecting fresh crusaders; and they
spent the time of expectation in quarreling over the partition
of the booty taken in the city. They made away with it, they
wasted it blindly. … Louis saw and deplored these
irregularities, without being in a condition to stop them. At
length, on the 20th of November, 1249, after more than five
months' inactivity at Damietta, the crusaders put themselves
once more in motion, with the determination of marching upon
Babylon, that outskirt of Cairo, now called Old Cairo, which
the greater part of them, in their ignorance, mistook for the
real Babylon, and where they flattered themselves they would
find immense riches, and avenge the olden sufferings of the
Hebrew captives. The Mussulmans had found time to recover from
their first fright, and to organize, at all points, a vigorous
resistance. On the 8th of February, 1250, a battle took place
twenty leagues from Damietta, at Mansourah ('the city of
victory'), on the right bank of the Nile. … The battle-field
was left that day to the crusaders; but they were not allowed
to occupy it as conquerors, for, three days afterwards, on the
11th of February, 1250, the camp of St. Louis was assailed by
clouds of Saracens, horse and foot, Mamelukes and Bedouins.
All surprise had vanished, the Mussulmans measured at a glance
the numbers of the Christians, and attacked them in full
assurance of success, whatever heroism they might display; and
the crusaders themselves indulged in no more self·illusion,
and thought only of defending themselves. Lack of provisions
and sickness soon rendered defence almost as impossible as
attack; every day saw the Christian camp more and more
encumbered with the famine-stricken, the dying, and the dead;
and the necessity for retreating became evident." An attempt
to negotiate with the enemy failed, because they insisted on
the surrender of the king as hostage,—which none would
concede. "On the 5th of April, 1250, the crusaders decided
upon retreating. This was the most deplorable scene of a
deplorable drama; and at the same time it was, for the king,
an occasion for displaying, in their most sublime and
attractive traits, all the virtues of the Christian. Whilst
sickness and famine were devastating the camp, Louis made
himself visitor, physician and comforter; and his presence and
his words exercised upon the worst cases a searching influence. …
{635}
When the 5th of April, the day fixed for the retreat, had
come, Louis himself was ill and much enfeebled. He was urged
to go aboard one of the vessels which were to descend the
Nile, carrying the wounded and the most suffering; but he
refused absolutely, saying, 'I don't separate from my people
in the hour of danger.' He remained on land, and when he had
to move forward he fainted away. When he came to himself, he
was amongst the last to leave the camp. … At four leagues
distance from the camp it had just left, the rear-guard of the
crusaders, harassed by clouds of Saracens, was obliged to
halt. Louis could no longer keep on his horse. 'He was put up
at a house,' says Joinville, 'and laid, almost dead, upon the
lap of a tradeswoman from Paris; and it was believed that he
would not last till evening.'" The king, in this condition,
with the whole wreck of his army,—only 10,000 in number
remaining to him,—were taken prisoners. Their release from
captivity was purchased a month later by the surrender of
Damietta and a ransom-payment of 500,000 livres. They made
their way to St. Jean d' Acre, in Palestine, whence many of
them returned home. But King Louis, with some of his knights
and men-at-arms—how many is not known—stayed yet in the Holy
Land for four years, striving and hoping against hope to
accomplish something for the deliverance of Jerusalem, and
expending "in small works of piety, sympathy, protection, and
care for the future of the Christian population in Asia, his
time, his strength, his pecuniary resources, and the ardor of
a soul which could not remain idly abandoned to sorrowing over
great desires unsatisfied." The good and pious but ill-guided
king returned to France in the summer of 1254, and was
received with great joy.
_F. P. Guizot,
Popular History of France,
chapter 17;
ALSO IN:
_Sire De Joinville,
Memoirs of Saint Louis,
part 2._
_J. F. Michaud,
History of the Crusades,
books 13-14._
Crusades: A. D. 1252.
The movement of "the Pastors."
On the arrival in France of the news of the disastrous failure
of Saint Louis's expedition to Egypt, there occurred an
outbreak of fanaticism as insensate as that of the children's
crusade of forty years before. It was said to have originated
with a Hungarian named Jacob, who began to proclaim that
Christ rejected the great ones of the earth from His service,
and that the deliverance of the Holy City must be accomplished
by the poor and humble. "Shepherds left their flocks, labourers
laid down the plough, to follow his footsteps. … The name of
Pastors was given to these village crusaders. … At length,
assembled to the number of more than 100,000, these
redoubtable pilgrims left Paris and divided themselves into
several troops, to repair to the coast, whence they were to
embark for the East. The city of Orleans, which happened to be
in their passage, became the theatre of frightful disorders.
The progress of their enormities at length created serious
alarm in the government and the magistracy; orders were sent
to the provinces to pursue and disperse these turbulent and
seditious bands. The most numerous assemblage of the Pastors
was fixed to take place at Bourges, where the 'master of
Hungary' [Jacob] was to perform miracles and communicate the
will of Heaven. Their arrival in that city was the signal for
murder, fire and pillage. The irritated people took up arms
and marched against these disturbers of the public peace; they
overtook them between Mortemer and Villeneuve-sur-le-Cher,
where, in spite of their numbers, they were routed, and
received the punishment due to their brigandages. Jacob had
his head cut off by the blow of an axe; many of his companions
and disciples met with death on the field of battle, or were
consigned to punishment; the remainder took to flight."
_J. F. Michaud,
History of the Crusades,
book 14._
Crusades: A. D. 1256-1259.
Against Eccelino di Romano.
See VERONA: A. D. 1236-1259.
Crusades: A. D. 1270-1271.
The last undertakings.
Saint Louis at Tunis.
Prince Edward in Palestine.
"For seven years after his return to France, from 1254 to
1261, Louis seemed to think no more about them [the crusades],
and there is nothing to show that he spoke of them even to his
most intimate confidants; but, in spite of his apparent
calmness, he was living, so far as they were concerned, in a
continual ferment of imagination and internal fever, even
flattering himself that some favorable circumstance would call
him back to his interrupted work. … In 1261, Louis held, at
Paris, a Parliament, at which, without any talk of a new
crusade, measures were taken which revealed an idea of it. …
In 1263 the crusade was openly preached. … All objections,
all warnings, all anxieties came to nothing in the face of
Louis's fixed idea and pious passion. He started from Paris on
the 16th of March, 1270, a sick man almost already, but with
soul content, and probably the only one without misgiving in
the midst of all his comrades. It was once more at
Aigues-Mortes that he went to embark. All was as yet dark and
undecided as to the plan of the expedition. … Steps were
taken at hap-hazard with full trust in Providence and utter
forgetfulness that Providence does not absolve men from
foresight. … It was only in Sardinia, after four days' halt
at Cagliari, that Louis announced to the chiefs of the
crusade, assembled aboard his ship, the 'Mountjoy,' that he
was making for Tunis, and that their Christian work would
commence there. The king of Tunis (as he was then called),
Mohammed Mostanser, had for some time been talking of his
desire to become a Christian, if he could be efficiently
protected against the seditions of his subjects. Louis
welcomed with transport the prospect of Mussulman conversions.
… But on the 17th of July, when the fleet arrived before
Tunis, the admiral, Florent de Varennes, probably without the
king's orders, and with that want of reflection which was
conspicuous at each step of the enterprise, immediately took
possession of the harbor and of some Tunisian vessels as
prize, and sent word to the king 'that he had only to support
him and that the disembarkation of the troops might be
effected with perfect safety.' Thus war was commenced at the
very first moment against the Mussulman prince whom there had
been promise of seeing before long a Christian. At the end of
a fortnight, after some fight between the Tunisians and the
crusaders, so much political and military blindness produced
its natural consequences. The re-enforcements promised to
Louis by his brother Charles of Anjou, king of Sicily, had not
arrived; provisions were falling short; and the heats of an
African summer were working havoc amongst the army with such
rapidity that before long there was no time to bury the dead;
but they were cast pell-mell into the ditch which surrounded
the camp, and the air was tainted thereby.
{636}
On the 3d of August Louis was attacked by the epidemic fever."
On the 25th of August he died. His son and successor, Philip
III., held his ground before Tunis until November, when he
gladly accepted a payment of money from the Tunisian prince
for withdrawing his army. Disaster followed him. A storm
destroyed part of his fleet, with 4,000 or 5,000 men, and sunk
all the treasure he had received from the Moslems. On the
journey home through Italy his wife met with an accident which
ended her life and that of her prematurely born child. The
young king arrived at Paris, May, 1271, bringing the remains
of five of his family for burial at St. Denis: his wife, his
son, his father, his brother, and his brother-in-law,—all
victims of the fatal crusade. While France was thus burying
the last of her crusaders, Prince Edward (afterwards King
Edward I.) of England, landed in Syria at the head of a few
hundred knights and men at arms. Joined by the Templars and
Hospitallers, he had an army of 6,000 or 7,000 men, with which
he took Nazareth and made there a bloody sacrifice to the
memory of the gentle Nazarene. He did nothing more. Being
wounded by an assassin, he arranged a truce with the Sultan of
Egypt and returned home. His expedition was the last from
Europe which strove with the Moslems for the Holy Land. The
Christians of Palestine, who still held Acre and Tyre, Sidon
and a few other coast cities, were soon afterwards
overwhelmed, and the dominion of the Crescent in Syria was
undisputed any more by force of arms, though many voices cried
vainly against it. The spirit of the Crusades had expired.
_F. P. Guizot,
Popular History of France,
chapter 17.
ALSO IN:
_J. F. Michaud,
History of the Crusades,
book 15._
CRUSADES: A. D. 1291.
The end of the Christian Kingdom of Jerusalem.
See JERUSALEM: A. D. 1291.
CRUSADES: A. D. 1299.
The last campaign of the Templars.
"After the fall of Acre [A. D. 1291] the headquarters of the
Templars were established at Limisso in the island of Cyprus,
and urgent letters were sent to Europe for succour." In 1295,
James de Molay, the head of the English province, became Grand
Master, and soon after his arrival in Palestine he entered
into an alliance with Ghazan Khan, the Mongol ruler of Persia,
who had married a Christian princess of Armenia and was not
unfriendly to the Christians, as against the Mamelukes of
Egypt, with whom he was at war. The Mongol Khan invited the
Templars to join him in an expedition against the Sultan of
Egypt, and they did so in the spring of 1299, at Antioch. "An
army of 30,000 men was placed by the Mogul emperor under the
command of the Grand Master, and the combined forces moved up
the valley of the Orontes towards Damascus. In a great battle
fought at Hems, the troops of the sultans of Damascus and
Egypt were entirely defeated and pursued with great slaughter
until nightfall. Aleppo, Hems, Damascus, and all the principal
cities, surrendered to the victorious arms of the Moguls, and
the Templars once again entered Jerusalem in triumph, visited
the Holy Sepulchre and celebrated Easter on Mount Zion." The
khan sent ambassadors to Europe, offering the possession of
Palestine to the Christian powers if they would give him their
alliance and support, but none responded to the call. Ghazan
Khan fell ill and withdrew from Syria; the Templars retreated
to Cyprus once more and their military career, as the
champions of the Cross, was at an end.
_C. G. Addison,
The Knights Templars,
chapter 6._
ALSO IN:
_H. H. Howarth,
History of the Mongols,
part 3, chapter 8._
CRUSADES:
Effects and consequences of the Crusades, in Europe.
"The principle of the crusades was a savage fanaticism; and
the most important effects were analogous to the cause. Each
pilgrim was ambitious to return with his sacred spoils, the
relics of Greece and Palestine; and each relic was preceded
and followed by a train of miracles and visions. The belief of
the Catholics was corrupted by new legends, their practice by
new superstitions; and the establishment of the inquisition,
the mendicant orders of monks and friars, the last abuse of
indulgences, and the final progress of idolatry, flowed from
the baleful fountain of the holy war. The active spirit of the
Latins preyed on the vitals of their reason and religion; and
if the ninth and tenth centuries were the times of darkness,
the thirteenth and fourteenth were the age of absurdity and
fable. … Some philosophers have applauded the propitious
influence of these holy wars, which appear to me to have
checked rather than forwarded the maturity of Europe."
_E. Gibbon,
Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire,
chapter 61.
"The crusades may be considered as material pilgrimages on an
enormous scale, and their influence upon general morality
seems to have been altogether pernicious. Those who served
under the cross would not indeed have lived very virtuously at
home; but the confidence in their own merits which the
principle of such expeditions inspired must have aggravated
the ferocity and dissoluteness of their ancient habits.
Several historians attest the depravation of morals which
existed, both among the crusaders and in the states formed out
of their conquests."
_H. Hallam,
The Middle Ages,
chapter 9, part 1._
"It was not possible for the crusaders to travel through so
many countries, and to behold their various customs and
institutions, without acquiring information and improvement.
Their views enlarged; their prejudices wore off; new ideas
crowded into their minds; and they must have been sensible, on
many occasions, of the rusticity of their own manners when
compared with those of a more polished people. …
Accordingly, we discover, soon after the commencement of the
crusades, greater splendour in the courts of princes, greater
pomp in public ceremonies, a more refined taste in pleasure
and amusements, together with a more romantic spirit of
enterprise spreading gradually over Europe; and to these wild
expeditions, the effect of superstition and folly, we owe the
first gleams of light which tended to dispel barbarism and
ignorance. But the beneficial consequences of the crusades
took place slowly; their influence upon the state of property,
and, consequently, of power, in the different kingdoms of
Europe, was more immediate as well as discernible."
_W. Robertson,
View of the Progress of Society in Europe,
section 1._
{637}
"The crusades are not, in my mind, either the popular
delusions that our cheap literature has determined them to be,
nor papal conspiracies against kings and peoples, as they
appear to the Protestant controversialist; nor the savage
outbreaks of expiring barbarism, thirsting for blood and
plunder, nor volcanic explosions of religious intolerance. I
believe them to have been, in their deep sources, and in the
minds of their best champions, and in the main tendency of
their results, capable of ample justification. They were the
first great effort of mediæval life to go beyond the pursuit
of selfish and isolated ambitions; they were the trial-feat of
the young world, essaying to use, to the glory of God and the
benefit of man, the arms of its new knighthood. … That in
the end they were a benefit to the world no one who reads can
doubt; and that in their course they brought out a love for
all that is heroic in human nature, the love of freedom, the
honour of prowess, sympathy with sorrow, perseverance to the
last and patient endurance without hope, the chronicles of the
age abundantly prove; proving, moreover, that it was by the
experience of those times that the forms of those virtues were
realized and presented to posterity."
_William Stubbs,
Seventeen Lectures on the Study of Mediæval
and Modern History,
lecture 8._
"Though begun under the name and influence of religious
belief, the crusades deprived religious ideas, I shall not say
of their legitimate share of influence, but of their exclusive
and despotic possession of the human mind. This result, though
undoubtedly unforeseen, arose from various causes. The first
was evidently the novelty, extent, and variety of the scene
which displayed itself to the crusaders; what generally
happens to travellers happened to them. It is mere
common-place to say, that travelling gives freedom to the
mind; that the habit of observing different nations, different
manners and different opinions, enlarges the ideas, and
disengages the judgment from old prejudices. The same thing
happened to those nations of travellers who have been called
the crusaders; their minds were opened and raised by having
seen a multitude of different things, of having become
acquainted with other manners than their own. They found
themselves also placed in connexion with two states of
civilization, not only different from their own, but more
advanced—the Greek state of society on the one hand, and the
Mussulman on the other. … It is curious to observe in the
chronicles the impression made by the crusaders on the
Mussulmans, who regarded them at first as the most brutal,
ferocious, and stupid barbarians they had ever seen. The
crusaders, on their part, were struck with the riches and
elegance of manners which they observed among the Mussulmans.
These first impressions were succeeded by frequent relations
between the Mussulmans and Christians. These became more
extensive and important than is commonly believed. … There
is another circumstance which is worthy of notice. Down to the
time of the crusades, the court of Rome, the centre of the
Church, had been very little in communication with the laity,
unless through the medium of ecclesiastics; either legates
sent by the court of Rome, or the whole body of the bishops
and clergy. There were always some laymen in direct relation
with Rome; but upon the whole, it was by means of churchmen
that Rome had any communication with the people of different
countries. During the crusades, on the contrary, Rome became a
halting-place for a great portion of the crusaders, either in
going or returning. A multitude of laymen were spectators of
its policy and its manners, and were able to discover the
share which personal interest had in religious disputes. There
is no doubt that this newly-acquired knowledge inspired many
minds with a boldness hitherto unknown. When we consider the
state of the general mind at the termination of the crusades,
especially in regard to ecclesiastical matters, we cannot fail
to be struck with a singular fact: religious notions underwent
no change, and were not replaced by contrary or even different
opinions. Thought, notwithstanding, had become more free;
religious creeds were not the only subject on which the human
mind exercised its faculties; without abandoning them, it
began occasionally to wander from them, and to take other
directions. … The social state of society had undergone an
analogous change. … Without entering into the details … we
may collect into a few general facts the influence of the
crusades on the social state of Europe. They greatly
diminished the number of petty fiefs, petty domains, and petty
proprietors; they concentrated property and power in a smaller
number of hands. It is from the time of the crusades that we
may observe the formation and growth of great fiefs—the
existence of feudal power on a large scale. … This was one
of the most important results of the crusades. Even in those
cases where small proprietors preserved their fiefs, they did
not live upon them in such an insulated state as formerly. The
possessors of great fiefs became so many centres around which
the smaller ones were gathered, and near which they came to
live. During the crusades, small proprietors found it
necessary to place themselves in the train of some rich and
powerful chief, from whom they received assistance and
support. They lived with him, shared his fortune, and passed
through the same adventures that he did. When the crusaders
returned home, this social spirit, this habit of living in
intercourse with superiors continued to subsist, and had its
influence on the manners of the age. … The extension of the
great fiefs, and the creation of a number of central points in
society, in place of the general dispersion which previously
existed, were the two principal effects of the crusades,
considered with respect to their influence upon feudalism. As
to the inhabitants of the towns, a result of the same nature
may easily be perceived. The crusades created great civic
communities. Petty commerce and petty industry were not
sufficient to give rise to communities such as the great
cities of Italy and Flanders. It was commerce on a great
scale—maritime commerce, and, especially, the commerce of the
East and West, which gave them birth; now it was the crusades
which gave to the maritime commerce the greatest impulse it
had yet received. On the whole, when we survey the state of
society at the end of the crusades, we find that the movement
tending to dissolution and dispersion, the movement of
universal localization (if I may be allowed such an
expression), had ceased, and had been succeeded by a movement
in the contrary direction, a movement of centralization. All
things tended to mutual approximation; small things were
absorbed in great ones, or gathered round them. Such was the
direction then taken by the progress of society."
_F. Guizot,
History of Civilization,
lecture 8 (volume 1).
{638}
CRUSADES: A. D. 1383.
The Bishop of Norwich's Crusade in Flanders.
See FLANDERS: A. D. 1383.
CRUSADES: A. D. 1420-1431.
Crusade against the Hussites.
See BOHEMIA: A. D. 1419-1434.
CRUSADES: A. D. 1442-1444.
Christian Europe against the Turks.
See TURKS (THE OTTOMANS): A. D. 1402-1451.
CRUSADES: A. D. 1467-1471.
Crusade Instigated by the Pope against George Podiebrad, king
of Bohemia.
See BOHEMIA: A. D. 1458-1471.
----------CRUSADES: End----------
CRYPTEIA, The.
See KRYPTEIA.
CTESIPHON.
"The Parthian monarchs, like the Mogul sovereigns of
Hindostan, delighted in the pastoral life of their Scythian
ancestors, and the imperial camp was frequently pitched in the
plain of Ctesiphon, on the eastern banks of the Tigris, at the
distance of only three miles from Seleucia. The innumerable
attendants on luxury and despotism resorted to the court, and
the little village of Ctesiphon insensibly swelled into a
great city. Under the reign of Marcus, the Roman generals
penetrated as far as Ctesiphon and Seleucia. They were
received as friends by the Greek colony; they attacked as
enemies the seat of the Parthian kings; yet both cities
experienced the same treatment. The sack and conflagration of
Seleucia, with the massacre of 300,000 of the inhabitants,
tarnished the glory of the Roman triumph, Seleucia, already
exhausted by the neighborhood of a too powerful rival, sunk
under the fatal blow; but Ctesiphon, in about thirty-three
years, had sufficiently recovered its strength to maintain an
obstinate siege against the emperor Severus. The city was,
however, taken by assault; the king, who defended it in
person, escaped with precipitation; 100,000 captives and a
rich booty rewarded the fatigues of the Roman soldiers.
Notwithstanding these misfortunes, Ctesiphon succeeded to
Babylon and to Seleucia as one of the great capitals of the
East."
_E. Gibbon,
Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire,
chapter 8.
In 637 A. D. Ctesiphon passed into the possession of the
Saracens.
See MAHOMETAN CONQUEST AND EMPIRE: A. D. 632-651.
ALSO IN:
_G. Rawlinson, Sixth Great Oriental Monarchy, chapter 6._
See, also, MEDAIN.
CUATOS, The.
See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: PAMPAS TRIBES.
CUBA: A. D. 1492-1493.
Discovery by Columbus.
See AMERICA: A. D. 1492; and 1493-1496.
CUBA: A. D. 1511.
Spanish conquest and occupation of the island.
"Of the islands, Cuba was the second discovered; but no
attempt had been made to plant a colony there during the
lifetime of Columbus; who, indeed, after skirting the whole
extent of its southern coast, died in the conviction that it
was part of the continent. At length, in 1511, Diego, the son
and successor of the 'admiral,' who still maintained the seat
of government in Hispaniola, finding the mines much exhausted
there, proposed to occupy the neighbouring island of Cuba, or
Fernandina, as it is called, in compliment to the Spanish
monarch. He prepared a small force for the conquest, which he
placed under the command of Don Diego Velasquez. …
Velasquez, or rather his lieutenant Narvaez, who took the
office on himself of scouring the country, met with no serious
opposition from the inhabitants, who were of the same family
with the effeminate natives of Hispaniola." After the
conquest, Velasquez was appointed governor, and established
his seat of government at St. Jago, on the southeast corner of
the island.
_W. H. Prescott,
Conquest of Mexico,
book 2, chapter 1._
ALSO IN:
_Sir A. Helps,
Spanish Conquest in America,
book 7._
CUBA: A. D. 1514-1851.
Slow development of the island.
Capture of Havana by the English.
Discontent with Spanish rule.
Conspiracies of revolution.
"Velasquez founded many of the towns of the island, the first
of which was Baracoa, then Bayamo, and in 1514 Trinidad, Santo
Espiritu, Puerto Principe; next, in 1515, Santiago de Cuba, as
also, in the same year, the town of Habana. … This period
(1511-1607) is particularly interesting to the general reader
from the fact that in it the explorations of Hernandez de
Cadoba and Grijalva to Darien, Yucatan, etc., were
inaugurated,—events which had so much to do with the spread
of Spanish rule and discovery, paving the way as they did for
the exploration of Mexico under Hernando Cortes, who, in the
early history of Cuba, figures largely as the lieutenant of
the Governor Velasquez. … In 1524, Diego Velasquez died,
—his death hastened, it is said, by the troubles brought upon
him by his disputes with his insubordinate lieutenant, Cortes.
… In the history of the improvement of the island, his
government will bear favorable comparison with many of the
later governments; and while that great evil, slavery, was
introduced into the island in his time, so also was the sugar
cane. … Up to 1538, there seems to be nothing specially
striking in the general history of the island, if we except
the constant attacks with fire and sword of the
'filibusteros,' or pirates of all nations, from which most all
the sea-coast towns suffered more or less; but in that year
there arrived at Santiago de Cuba a man destined to play an
important part in the history and discovery of the new world,
and named as Provincial Governor of Florida as well as of
Cuba,—I allude to Hernando de Soto, who brought with him 10
large vessels, prepared and fitted out expressly for the
conquest of the new Spanish territory of Florida. After much
care and preparation, this expedition started out from the
city of Habana, the 12th of May [see FLORIDA: A. D.
1528-1542]. … In this period, also, was promulgated that
order, secured, it is believed, by the noble efforts of Padre
Las Casas, prohibiting the enslaving of the aborigines; while,
also, such had become its importance as a town, all vessels
directed to and from Mexico were ordered to stop at Havana. In
the period of years that elapsed from 1607 to 1762, the island
seems to have been in a perfect state of lethargy, except the
usual changes of its many Governors, and the raids made upon
it by pirates, or by more legalized enemies in the form of
French and English men-of-war. In this latter year, however,
occurred an event of much import, from the fact that after it,
or upon its occurrence, the Government of Spain was led to see
the great importance of Cuba, and particularly Havana, as the
'Key to the New World,'—this event was the taking of Havana
by the English.
{639}
On the 6th of June, 1762, there arrived off the port of Havana
an English squadron of 32 ships and frigates, with some 200
transports, bringing with them a force of nearly 20,000 men of
all arms, under command of the Duke of Albemarle. This
formidable armament, the largest that America had ever seen,
laid siege to the city of Havana, whose garrison consisted at
that time of only about 2,700 regulars and the volunteers that
took up arms immediately for the defense of the place. … The
garrison, however, made a very gallant and prolonged defense,
notwithstanding the smallness of their numbers, and finally,
surrendering, were permitted to march out with the honors of
war, the English thus coming into possession of the most
important defences on the coast, and, subsequently, taking
possession of the town of Matanzas. Remaining in possession of
this portion of the Island of Cuba for many months (until July
6, 1763), the English, by importing negro labor to cultivate
the large tracts of wild land, and by shipping large
quantities of European merchandize, gave a start to the trade
and traffic of the island that pushed it far on its way to the
state of prosperity it has now reached; but by the treaty of
peace, at Paris, in February, 1763 [see Seven Years War], was
restored to Spain the portion of the island wrested from her
by the English. … In this period (1762-1801) the island made
rapid advances in improvement and civilization, many of the
Captains-General of this period doing much to improve the
towns and the people, beautifying the streets, erecting
buildings, etc. In 1763, a large emigration took place from
Florida, and in 1795 the French emigrants from Santo Domingo
came on to the island in large numbers. … From 1801, rapid
increase in the prosperity of the island has taken place. …
At various times insurrections, some of them quite serious in
their nature, have shown what the natural desire of the native
population is for greater privileges and freedom. … In 1823,
there was a society of 'soles,' as it was called, formed for
the purpose of freeing the island, having at its head young D.
Francisco Lemus, and having for its pretext that the island
was about to be sold to England. In 1829, there was discovered
the conspiracy of the Black Eagle, as it was called (Aguila
Negra), an attempt on the part of the population to obtain
their freedom, some of the Mexican settlers in the island
being prominent in it. The insurrection, or attempt at one, by
the blacks in 1844, was remarkable for its wide-spread
ramifications among the slaves of the island, as well as its
thorough organization,—the intention being to murder all the
whites on the island. Other minor insurrections there were,
but it remained for Narciso Lopez, with a force of some 300
men, to make the most important attempt [1851], in which he
lost his life, to free the island."
_S. Hazard,
Cuba with Pen and Pencil,
pages 547-550._
ALSO IN:
_M. M. Ballou,
History of Cuba,
chapters 1-3._
_Lord Mahon (Earl Stanhope),
History of England, 1713-1783,
chapter 38 (volume 4)._
_J. Entick,
History of the Late War,
volume 5, pages 363-386._
_D. Turnbull,
Cuba,
chapters 22-24._
CUBA: A. D. 1845-1860.
Acquisition coveted by the slave-power in the United States.
Attempted purchase.
Filibustering schemes.
The Ostend Manifesto.
"When the Spanish colonies in America became independent, they
abolished slavery. Apprehensive that the republics of Mexico
and Columbia would be anxious to wrest Cuba and Porto Rico
from Spain, secure their independence, and introduce into
those islands the idea, if they did not establish the fact, of
freedom, the slave-masters [of the United States] at once
sought to guard against what they deemed so calamitous an
event. … But after the annexation of Texas, there was a
change of feeling and purpose, and Cuba, from being an object
of dread, became an object of vehement desire. The
propagandists, strengthened and emboldened by that signal
triumph, now turned their eyes towards this beautiful 'isle of
the sea,' as the theatre of new exploits; and they determined
to secure the 'gem of the Antilles' for the coronet of their
great and growing power. During Mr. Polk's administration an
attempt was made to purchase it, and the sum of $100,000,000
was offered therefor. But the offer was promptly declined.
What, however, could not be bought it was determined to steal,
and filibustering movements and expeditions became the order
of the day. For no sooner was President Taylor inaugurated
than he found movements on foot in that direction; and, in
August, 1849, he issued a proclamation, affirming his belief
that an 'armed expedition' was being fitted out 'against Cuba
or some of the provinces of Mexico,' and calling upon all good
citizens' to discountenance and prevent any such enterprise.'
In 1851 an expedition, consisting of some 500 men, sailed from
New Orleans under Lopez, a Cuban adventurer. But though it
effected a landing, it was easily defeated, and its leader and
a few of his followers were executed. Soon afterward, a secret
association, styling itself the Order of the Lone Star, was
formed in several of the Southern cities, having a similar
object in view; but it attracted little notice and
accomplished nothing. … In August, 1854, President Pierce
instructed Mr. Marcy, his Secretary of State, to direct
Buchanan, Mason and Soulé, ministers respectively at the
courts of London, Paris and Madrid, to convene in some
European city and confer with each other in regard to the
matter of gaining Cuba to the United States. They met
accordingly, in October, at Ostend. The results of their
deliberations were published in a manifesto, in which the
reasons are set forth for the acquisition; and the declaration
was made that the Union could never enjoy repose and security 'as
long as Cuba is not embraced within its boundaries.' But the
great source of anxiety, the controlling motive, was the
apprehension that, unless so annexed, she would 'be
Africanized and become a second San Domingo,' thus 'seriously
to endanger' the Union. This paper attracted great attention
and caused much astonishment. It was at first received with
incredulity, as if there had been some mistake or imposition
practised. … But there was no mistake. … It was the
deliberate utterance of the conference, and it received the
indorsement of Mr. Pierce and his administration. The
Democratic national conventions of 1856 and of 1860 were quite
as explicit as were the authors of the Ostend manifesto 'in
favor of the acquisition of Cuba.'"
_H. Wilson,
History of the Rise and Fall of the Slave Power in America,
volume 2, chapter 47._
{640}
ALSO IN:
_H. Von Holst,
Constitutional and Political History of the United States,
volume 4, chapter 2,
and volume 5, chapter 1._
_G. T. Curtis,
Life of James Buchanan,
volume 2, chapter 6._
_M. M. Ballou,
History of Cuba,
chapter 3._
_J. J. Roche,
The Story of the Filibusters,
chapter 3._
----------CUBA: End----------
CUBIT, The.
"The length of the Egyptian foot is … shown to be equal to
1.013 English foot, or 12.16 inches (0.3086 metre) and the
cubit to 18.24 English inches, or 0.463 metre. This cubit was
identical with the Phœnician or Olympic cubit, afterwards
adopted in Greece. … The second of the two Egyptian cubits
was the royal cubit, or cubit of Memphis, of seven palms or
twenty-eight digits. … The mean length of the Egyptian royal
cubit is … ascertained to be 20.67 English inches, or 525
mm. … There is much conflict of opinion as to the actual
length of the several cubits in use by the Jews at different
periods; but the fact that Moses always mentions the Egyptian
measures … as well as the Egyptian weights … proves that
the Hebrews originally brought their weights and measures from
Egypt. … In his dissertation on cubits, Sir Isaac Newton
states grounds for his opinion that the sacred cubit of the
Jews was equal to 24.7 of our inches, and that the royal cubit
of Memphis was equivalent to five-sixths of this sacred Jewish
cubit, or 20.6 inches."
_H. W. Chisholm,
On the Science of Weighing and Measuring,
chapter 2._
CUCUTA, The Convention of.
See COLOMBIAN STATES: A. D. 1819-1830.
CUFA.
See BUSSORAH and KUFA.
CUICIDH, The.
See TUATH, THE.
CULDEES, The.
It used to be set forth by religious historians that the
Culdees were an ardent religious fraternity in Scotland,
probably founded by Columba, the saintly Irish missionary of
the sixth century, and having its principal seat in Iona; that
they "were the lights of Scotland in a dark and superstitious
age"; that they struggled for several centuries against the
errors and the oppressive pretensions of Rome, and that "the
strength and vigor of the Reformation in Scotland, where the
Papal power received its first and most decisive check, may be
traced not indirectly to the faith, the doctrines, and the
spirit of the ancient Culdees." It was claimed for the
Presbyterian Church that its form of church government
prevailed among the Culdees, while the supporters of
Episcopacy found evidences to the contrary. But all these
views, with all the controversies fomented by them, have been
dissipated by modern historical investigation. The facts
gathered by Dean Reeves and published in 1864, in his work on
the "Culdees of the British Islands," supported by the more
recent studies of Mr. W. F. Skene, are now generally accepted.
Says Mr. Skene, (Celtic Scotland, book 2, chapter 6): "It is not
till after the expulsion of the Columban monks from the
kingdom of the Picts, in the beginning of the eighth century,
that the name of Culdee appears. To Adamnan, to Eddi and to
Bede it was totally unknown. They knew of no body of clergy
who bore this name, and in the whole range of ecclesiastical
history there is nothing more utterly destitute of authority
than the application of this name to the Columban monks of the
sixth and seventh centuries, or more utterly baseless than the
fabric which has been raised upon that assumption." Mr.
Skene's conclusion is that the Culdees sprang from an ascetic
order called Deicolæ or God-worshippers; that in Irish the
name became Ceile De, thence corrupted into Culdee; that they
were hermits, who became in time associated in communities,
and were finally brought under the canonical rule of the Roman
church, along with the secular clergy.
CULEUS, The.
See AMPHORA.
CULHUACAN.
See MEXICO, ANCIENT: THE TOLTEC EMPIRE.
CULLODEN, Battle of (1746).
See SCOTLAND: A. D. 1745-1746.
CULM, OR KULM, Battle of.
See GERMANY: A. D. 1813 (AUGUST).
CULTURKAMPF, The.
See GERMANY: A. D. 1873-1887.
CUMÆ.
CUMÆAN SIBYL.
"Earlier than 735 B. C., … though we do not know the precise
era of its commencement, there existed one solitary Grecian
establishment in the Tyrrhenian Sea,—the Campanian Cumæ, near
Cape Misenum; which the more common opinion of chronologists
supposed to have been founded in 1050 B. U. and which has even
been carried back by some authors to 1139 B. C. … We may at
least feel certain that it is the most ancient Grecian
establishment in any part of Italy. … The Campanian
Cumæ—known almost entirely by this its Latin
designation—received its name and a portion of its
inhabitants from the Æolic Kymê in Asia Minor. … Cumæ,
situated on the neck of the peninsula which terminates in Cape
Misenum, occupied a lofty and rocky hill overhanging the sea
and difficult of access on the land side. … In the hollow
rock under the very walls of the town was situated the cavern
of the prophetic Sibyl,—a parallel and reproduction of the
Gergithian Sibyl, near Kymê in Æolis: in the immediate
neighborhood, too, stood the wild woods and dark lake of
Avernus, consecrated to the subterranean gods, and offering an
establishment of priests, with ceremonies evoking the dead,
for purposes of prophecy or for solving doubts and mysteries.
It was here that Grecian imagination localized the Cimmerians
and the fable of Odysseus; and the Cumæans derived gains from
the numerous visitors to this holy spot, perhaps hardly less
than those of the inhabitants of Krissa from the vicinity of
Delphi. Of the relations of these Cumæans with the Hellenic
world generally, we unfortunately know nothing; but they seem
to have been in intimate connection with Rome during the time
of the kings, and especially during that of the last king
Tarquin,—forming the intermediate link between the Greek and
Latin world, whereby the feelings of the Teukrians and
Gergitheans near the Æolic Kymê and the legendary stories of
Trojan as well as Grecian heroes,—Æneas and Odysseus—passed
into the antiquarian imagination of Rome and Latium. The
writers of the Augustan age knew Cumæ only in its decline, and
wondered at the vast extent of its ancient walls, yet
remaining in their time. But during the two centuries prior to
500 B. C. these walls inclosed a full and thriving population,
in the plenitude of prosperity."
_G. Grote,
History of Greece,
part 2, chapter 22._
See, also, SIBYLS
CUMANS, OR KOMANS, The.
See HUNGARY: A. D. 1114-1301.
CUMBERLAND GAP, The capture of.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
A. D. 1863 (AUGUST-SEPTEMBER: TENNESSEE).
{641}
CUMBRIA:
The British kingdom.
"The Britons of Cumbria occupy a tolerably large space on the
map, but a very small one in history;—their annals have
entirely perished;—and nothing authentic remains concerning
them, except a very few passages, wholly consisting of
incidental notices relating to their subjection and their
misfortunes. Romance would furnish much more; for it was in
Cumbria that Rhyderc, or Roderic the magnificent, is therein
represented to have reigned, and Merlin to have prophesied.
Arthur held his court in merry Carlisle; and Peredur, the
Prince of Sunshine, whose name we find amongst the princes of
Strathclyde, is one of the great heroes of the 'Mabinogion,'
or tales of youth, long preserved by tradition amongst the
Cymri. These fantastic personages, however, are of importance
in one point of view, because they show, what we might
otherwise forget—that from the Ribble in Lancashire, or
thereabouts, up to the Clyde, there existed a dense population
composed of Britons, who preserved their national language and
customs, agreeing in all respects with the Welsh of the
present day. So that even in the tenth century, the ancient
Britons still inhabited the greater part of the western coast
of the island, however much they had been compelled to yield
to the political supremacy of the Saxon invaders. The 'Regnum
Cumbrense' comprehended many districts, probably governed by
petty princes or Reguli, in subordination to a chief monarch
or Pendragon. Reged appears to have been somewhere in the
vicinity of Annandale. Strathclyde is of course the district
or vale of Clydesdale. In this district, or state, was
situated Alcluyd, or Dunbritton, now Dumbarton, where the
British kings usually resided; and the whole Cumbrian kingdom
was not infrequently called Strathclyde, from the ruling or
principal state; just as the United Kingdom of Great Britain
and Ireland is often designated in common language as
'England,' because England is the portion where the monarch
and legislature are found. Many dependencies of the Cumbrian
kingdom extended into modern Yorkshire, and Leeds was the
frontier town between the Britons and the Angles. … The
kings of Cumbria became the vassals, or 'men,' of the
Anglo-Saxon kings. Eugenius had thus submitted to Athelstane.
Of the nature of the obligation I shall speak hereafter. The
Anglo-Saxon kings appear to have been anxious to extend and
confirm their supremacy; Edmund proceeded against Donald, or
Dumhnail, the Scottish King of Cumbria (A. D. 945), with the
most inveterate and implacable hostility. … Edmund, having
thus obtained possession of Cumbria, granted the country to
Malcolm, King of the Scots, upon condition, as the chronicles
say, of being his co-operator, both by sea and by land. …
From this period the right of the Scottish kings or princes to
the kingdom of Cumbria, as vassals of the English crown, seems
to have been fully admitted: and the rights of the Scottish
kings to the 'Earldom of Cumberland'—for such it was
afterwards termed—were founded upon Edmund's grant. The
Britons of Strathclyde, and Reged, and Cumbria, gradually
melted away into the surrounding population; and, losing their
language, ceased to be discernible as a separate race. Yet it
is most probable that this process was not wholly completed
until a comparatively recent period."
_F. Palgrave,
History of the Anglo-Saxons,
chapter 11._
Cumbria and Cambria (Wales), the two states long maintained by
the Britons, against the Angles and Saxons, bore, in reality,
the same name, Cumbria being the more correct form of it. The
earliest development of the so-called Welsh poetry seems to
have been in Cumbria rather than in Wales. Taliesen and
Aneurin were Cumbrian bards, and Arthur, if any historical
personage stands behind his kingly shadow, was probably a
Cumbrian hero.
_J. Rhys,
Celtic Britain._
ALSO IN:
_W. F. Skene,
The Four Ancient Books of Wales._
See, also, KYMRY, ALCLYDE,
and SCOTLAND: 10TH-11TH CENTURIES.
CUNARD LINE, The founding of the.
See STEAM NAVIGATION: ON THE OCEAN.
CUNAXA, Battle of (B. C. 401).
See PERSIA: B. C. 401-400.
CUNEIFORM WRITING.
The characters employed for the written languages of ancient
Babylonia and Assyria, have been called cuneiform, from the
Latin cunens, a wedge, because the marks composing them are
wedge-shaped. All knowledge of those characters and of the
languages expressed in them had been lost for many centuries,
and its recent recovery is one of the most marvelous
achievements of our age. "Travellers had discovered
inscriptions engraved in cuneiform, or, as they were also
termed, arrow-headed characters, on the ruined monuments of
Persepolis and other ancient sites in Persia. Some of these
monuments were known to have been erected by the Achæmenian
princes—Darius, the son of Hystaspes, and his successors—and
it was therefore inferred that the inscriptions also had been
carved by order of the same kings. The inscriptions were in
three different systems of cuneiform writing; and since the
three kinds of inscription were always placed side by side, it
was evident that they represented different versions of the
same text. … It was clear that the three versions of the
Achæmenian inscriptions were addressed to the three chief
populations of the Persian Empire, and that the one which
invariably came first was composed in ancient Persian, the
language of the sovereign himself. Now this Persian version
happened to offer the decipherer less difficulties than the
two others which accompanied it. The number of distinct
characters employed in writing it did not exceed forty, while
the words were divided from one another by a slanting wedge.
Some of the words contained so many characters that it was
plain that these latter must denote letters and not syllables,
and that consequently the Persian cuneiform system must have
consisted of an alphabet, and not of a syllabary. It was
further plain that the inscriptions had to be read from left
to right, since the ends of all the lines were exactly
underneath one another on the left side, whereas they
terminated irregularly on the right. … The clue to the
decipherment of the inscriptions was first discovered by the
successful guess of a German scholar, Grotefend. Grotefend
noticed that the inscriptions generally began with three or
four words, one of which varied, while the others remained
unchanged. The variable word had three forms, though the same
form always appeared on the same monument. Grotefend,
therefore, conjectured that this word represented the name of
a king, the words which followed it being royal titles."
Working on this conjecture, he identified the three names with
Darius, Xerxes and Artaxerxes, and one of the supposed titles
with a Zend word for "king," which gave him a considerable
part of the cuneiform alphabet. He was followed in the work by
Burnouf, Lassen and Sir Henry Rawlinson, until, finally,
Assyrian inscriptions were read with "almost as much certainty
as a page of the Old Testament."
_A. H. Sayce,
Fresh Light from the ancient monuments,
chapter 1._
{642}
CUNIBERTUS, King of the Lombards, A. D. 691-700.
CUNIMARÉ, The.
See AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
GUCK OR Coco GROUP.
CURDS, OR KURDS, The.
See CARDUCHI.
CURFEW-BELL, The.
"Except from its influence upon the imagination, it would be
hardly worth while to notice the legend of the curfew-bell, so
commonly supposed to have been imposed by William [the
Conqueror] upon the English, as a token of degradation and
slavery; but the 'squilla di lontano, che paja il giorno
pianger che si muore,' was a universal custom of police
throughout the whole of mediaeval Europe, not unconnected with
devotional feeling."
Sir F. Palgrave,
History of Normandy and England,
volume 3, page 627.
"In the year [1061] after King Henry's death [Henry I. of
France], in a Synod held at Caen by the Duke's authority [Duke
William of Normandy, who became in 1066 the Conqueror, and
King of England], and attended by Bishops, Abbots, and Barons,
it was ordered that a bell should be rung every evening, at
hearing of which prayer should be offered, and all people
should get within their houses and shut their doors. This odd
mixture of piety and police seems to be the origin of the
famous and misrepresented Curfew. Whatever was its object, it
was at least not ordained as any special hardship on William's
English subjects."
_E. A. Freeman,
History of the Norman Conquest of England,
chapter 12, section 3 (volume 3)._
CURIA, Ancient Roman.
See COMITIA-CURIATA.
CURIA, Municipal, of the later Roman empire.
Decuriones.
"It is only necessary in this work to describe the general
type of the municipal organization which existed in the
provinces of the Roman Empire after the time of Constantine.
… The proprietors of land in the Roman provinces generally
dwelt in towns and cities, as a protection against brigands
and man-stealers. Every town had an agricultural district
which formed its territory, and the landed proprietors
constituted the municipality. The whole local authority was
vested in an oligarchical senate called the Curia, consisting
probably of one hundred of the wealthiest landed proprietors
in the city or township. This body elected the municipal
authorities and officers, and filled up vacancies in its own
body. It was therefore independent of the proprietors from
among whom it was taken, and whose interests it ought to have
represented. The Curia—not the body of landed
proprietors—formed therefore the Roman municipality. The
Curia was used by the imperial government as an instrument of
fiscal extortion."
_G. Finlay,
Greece under the Romans,
chapter 2, section 1._
"When the progress of fiscal tyranny had almost sapped the
vigor of society, the decuriones [members of the municipal
curiæ, called, also, curiales] … being held jointly
responsible for the taxation, became the veriest slaves of the
empire. Responsible jointly for the taxes, they were, by the
same token, responsible for their colleagues and their
successors; their estates were made the securities of the
imperial dues; and if any estate was abandoned by its
proprietor, they were compelled to occupy it and meet the
imposts exigible from it. Yet they could not relinquish their
offices; they could not leave the city except by stealth; they
could not enter the army, or the priesthood, or any office
which might relieve them from municipal functions. … Even
the children of the Curial were adscribed to his functions,
and could engage in no course of life inconsistent with the
onerous and intolerable duty. In short, this dignity was so
much abhorred that the lowest plebeian shunned admission to
it, the members of it made themselves bondmen, married
slave-women, or joined the barbaric hordes in order to escape
it; and malefactors, Jews and heretics were sometimes
condemned to it, as an appropriate penalty for their
offenses."
_P. Godwin,
History of France: Ancient Gaul,
book 2, chapter 8._
ALSO IN:
_T. Hodgkin,
Italy and her Invaders,
book 3, chapter 9._
_F. Guizot,
History of Civilization,
volume 2 (volume 1, France), lecture 2._
See, also ROME: A. D. 363-379.
CURIA, Papal.
College of Cardinals.
Consistory.
"The Court of Rome, commonly called the Roman Curia, consisted
of a number of dignified ecclesiastics who assisted the Pope
in the executive administration. The Pontiff's more intimate
advisers, or, as we should say, his privy council, were the
College of Cardinals [see PAPACY: A. D. 1059], consisting of a
certain number of cardinal bishops, cardinal priests, and
cardinal deacons. The cardinal deacons, at first seven and
afterwards fourteen in number, were originally ecclesiastics
appointed as overseers and guardians of the sick and poor in
the different districts of Rome. Equal to them in rank were
the fifty cardinal priests, as the chief priests of the
principal Roman churches were called; who, with the cardinal
deacons, formed, in very early times, the presbytery, or
senate of the Bishop of Rome. … According to some
authorities, cardinal bishops were instituted in the 9th
century; according to others not till the 11th, when seven
bishops of the dioceses nearest to Rome—Ostia, Porto,
Velitrae, Tusculum, Præneste, Tibur, and the Sabines—were
adopted by the Pope partly as his assistants in the service of
the Lateran, and partly in the general administration of the
Church. In process of time, the appointment of such cardinal
bishops was extended not only to the rest of Italy but also to
foreign countries. Though the youngest of the cardinals in
point of time, cardinal bishops were the highest in rank, and
enjoyed the pre-eminence in the College. Their titles were
derived from their dioceses. … But they were also called by
their own names. The number of the cardinals was indefinite
and varying. The Council of Basle endeavoured to restrict it
to 24. But this was not carried out, and Pope Sixtus V. at
length fixed the number at 70. The Council called the
Consistory, which advised with the Pope both in temporal and
ecclesiastical matters, was ordinarily private, and confined
to the cardinals alone; though on extraordinary occasions, and
for solemn purposes of state, as in the audiences of foreign
ambassadors, &c., other prelates, and even distinguished
laymen, might appear in it."
_T. H. Dyer, History of Modern Europe,
volume 1, page 38._
{643}
CURIA REGIS OF THE NORMAN KINGS.
"The Curia Regis [under the Norman Kings of England], the
supreme tribunal of judicature, of which the Exchequer was the
financial department or session, was … the court of the king
sitting to administer justice with the advice of his
counsellors; those counsellors being, in the widest
acceptation, the whole body of tenants-in-chief, but in the
more limited usage, the great officers of the household and
specially appointed judges. The great gatherings of the
national council may be regarded as full sessions of the Curia
Regis, or the Curia Regis as a perpetual committee of the
national council."
_William Stubbs,
Constitutional History of England,
chapter 11, section 127._
"Not long after the granting of Magna Charta, the Curia Regis
was permanently divided into three committees or courts, each
taking a certain portion of the business:
(1) Fiscal matters were confined to the Exchequer;
(2) civil disputes, where neither the king's interest nor any
matter savouring of a criminal nature were involved, were
decided in the Common Pleas; and
(3) the court of King's Bench retained all the remaining
business and soon acquired the exclusive denomination of the
ancient Curia Regis."
"But the same staff of judges was still retained for all three
courts, with the chief justiciar at their head. Towards the
end of Henry III.'s reign, the three courts received each a
distinct staff, and on the abolition by Edward I. of the
office of chief justiciar, the only remaining bond of union
being severed, they became completely separated. Some trace of
their ancient unity of organization always survived, however,
in the court of Exchequer Chamber; until at length after six
centuries of independent existence they were again united by
the Judicature Act, 1873. Together with the Court of Chancery
and the Probate, Divorce and Admiralty courts, they now form
divisions of a consolidated High Court of Justice, itself a
branch of the Supreme Court of Judicature."
_T. P. Taswell-Langmead,
English Constitutional History,
page 154._
"The Aula Regia, or Curia Regis … has been described in
various and at first sight contradictory terms. Thus it has
been called the highest Law Court, the Ministry of the King, a
Legislative Assembly, &c. The apparent inconsistency of these
descriptions vanishes on closer inspection, and throws great
light on mediæval history. For the Curia Regis possessed every
attribute which has been ascribed to it."
_A. V. Dicey,
The Privy Council,
part 1._
ALSO IN:
_R. Gneist,
History of the English Constitution,
chapter 19._
CURIALES.
See CURIA, MUNICIPAL.
CURIOSOLITÆ, The.
See VENETI OF WESTERN GAUL.
CURTIS, George W., and Civil-Service Reform.
See CIVIL SERVICE REFORM IN THE UNITED STATES.
CURULE ÆDILES.
See ROME: B. C. 494-492.
CURULE CHAIR.
In ancient Rome, "certain high offices of state conferred upon
the holder the right of using, upon public occasions, an ivory
chair of peculiar form. This chair was termed Sella Curulis.
… This was somewhat in the form of a modern camp-stool."
_W. Ramsay,
Manual of Roman Antiquity,
chapters 2 and 4._
CURZOLA, Battle of (1298).
See GENOA: A. D. 1261-1299.
CUSCO: The Capital of the Incas of Peru.
See PERU: A. D. 1533-154.8.
CUSH.
CUSHITES.
"Genesis, like the Hebrews of later date, includes under the
name of Cush the nations dwelling to the South, the Nubians,
Ethiopians and tribes of South Arabia."
_M. Duncker,
History of Antiquity,
book 2, chapter 1._
See, also, HAMITES, and ARABIA.
CUSHING, Lieutenant William B.
Destruction of the ram Albemarle.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
A. D.1864 (OCTOBER: NORTH CAROLINA).
CUSTER'S LAST BATTLE.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1876.
CUSTOMS DUTIES.
See TARIFF.
CUSTOMS UNION, The German (Zollverein).
See TARIFF: A. D. 1833.
CUSTOZZA, Battles of (1848 and 1866).
See ITALY: A. D. 1848-1849; and 1862-1866.
CUTLER, Manasseh, and the Ordinance of 1787.
See NORTHWEST TERRITORY OF THE
UNITED STATES: A. D. 1787.
CUYRIRI, The.
See AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
GUCK OR COCO GROUP.
CYCLADES, The.
SPORADES, The.
"Among the Ionic portion of Hellas are to be reckoned (besides
Athens) Eubœa, and the numerous group of islands included
between the southernmost Eubœan promontory, the eastern coast
of Peloponnesus, and the northwestern coast of Krête. Of these
islands some are to be considered as outlying prolongations,
in a southeasterly direction, of the mountain-system of
Attica; others of that of Eubœa; while a certain number of
them lie apart from either system, and seem referable to a
volcanic origin. To the first class belong Keôs, Kythnus,
Seriphus, Pholegandrus, Sikinus, Gyarus, Syra, Paros, and
Antiparos; to the second class Andros, Tênos, Mykonos, Dêlos,
Naxos, Amorgos; to the third class Kimôlus, Mêlos, Thêra.
These islands passed amongst the ancients by the general name
of the Cyclades and the Sporades; the former denomination
being commonly understood to comprise those which immediately
surrounded the sacred island of Dêlos,—the latter being given
to those which lay more scattered and apart. But the names are
not applied with uniformity or steadiness even in ancient
times: at present, the whole group are usually known by the
title of Cyclades."
_G. Grote,
History of Greece,
part 2, chapter 12._
CYDONIA, Battles and siege of (B. C. 71-68).
See CRETE: B. C. 68-66.
CYLON, Conspiracy of.
See ATHENS: B. C. 612-595.
CYMBELINE, Kingdom of.
See COLCHESTER, ORIGIN OF.
CYMRY, The.
See KYMRY, THE.
CYNOSARGES AT ATHENS, The.
See GYMNASIA, GREEK.
CYNOSCEPHALÆ, Battle of (B. C. 364).
The battle in which Pelopidas, the Theban patriot, friend and
colleague of Epaminondas, was slain. It was fought B. C. 364,
in Thessaly, near Pharsalus, on the heights called
Cynoscephalæ, or the Dog's Heads, and delivered the Thessalian
cities from the encroachments of the tyrant of Pheræ.
_C. Thirlwall,
History of Greece,
chapter 40._
CYNOSCEPHALÆ: (B. C. 197).
See GREECE: B. C. 214-146.
{644}
CYNOSSEMA, Naval battle of.
Two successive naval battles fought, one in July and the
second in October, B. C. 411, between the Athenians and the
Peloponnesian allies, in the Hellespont, are jointly called
the Battle of Cynossema. The name was taken from the headland
called Cynossema, or the "Dog's Tomb," "ennobled by the legend
and the chapel of the Trojan queen Hecuba." The Athenians had
the advantage in both encounters, especially in the latter
one, when they were joined by Alcibiades, with reenforcements,
just in time to decide the doubtful fortunes of the day.
_E. Curtius,
History of Greece,
book 4, chapter 5._
ALSO IN:
_G. Grote,
History of Greece,
part 2, chapter 63._
See GREECE: B. C. 411-407.
CYNURIANS, The.
See KYNURIANS.
CYPRUS: Origin of the name.
"The Greek name of the island was derived from the abundance
in which it produced the beautiful plant ('Copher') which
furnishes the 'al-henna,' coveted throughout the East for the
yellow dye which it communicates to the nails. It was rich in
mines of copper, which has obtained for it the name by which
it is known in the modern languages of the West."
_J. Kenrick,
Phœnicia,
chapter 4._
CYPRUS: Early History.
"The first authentic record with regard to Cyprus is an
inscription on an Egyptian tombstone of the 17th century B.
C., from which it appears that the island was conquered by
Thothmes III. of Egypt, in whose reign the exodus of the
Children of Israel is supposed to have taken place. This was
no doubt anterior to the establishment of any Greek colonies,
and probably, also, before the Phœnicians had settled in the
island. … As appears from various inscriptions and other
records, Cyprus became subject successively to Egypt, as just
mentioned, to Assyria, to Egypt again in 568 B. C., when it
was conquered by Amasis, and in 525 B. C. to Persia. Meanwhile
the power of the Greeks had been increasing. … The
civilization of the West was about to assert itself at
Marathon and Salamis; and Cyprus, being midway between East
and West, could not fail to be involved in the coming
conflict. On the occasion of the Ionic revolt [see PERSIA: B.
C. 521-493] the Greek element in Cyprus showed its strength:
and in 502 B. C. the whole island, with the single exception
of the Phœnician town of Amathus, took part with the Ionians
in renouncing the authority of the Persian king." But in the
war which followed, the Persians, aided by the Phœnicians of
the mainland, reconquered Cyprus, and the Cyprian Greeks were
long disheartened. They recovered their courage, however,
about 410 B. C. when Evagoras, a Greek of the royal house of
Teucer, made himself master of Salamis, and finally
established a general sovereignty over the island—even
extending his power to the mainland and subjugating Tyre. "The
reign of Evagoras is perhaps the most brilliant period in the
history of Cyprus. Before his death, which took place in 374
B. C., he had raised the island from the position of a mere
dependency of one or other of the great Eastern monarchies,
had gained for it a place among the lending states of Greece,
and had solved the question as to which division of the
ancient world the Cyprian people should be assigned.
Consequently when, some forty years later, the power of Persia
was shattered by Alexander the Great at the battle of Issus,
the kings of the island hastened to offer him their submission
as the leader of the Greek race, and sent 120 ships to assist
him in the siege of Tyre." After Alexander's death, Cyprus was
disputed between Antigonus and Ptolemy.
See MACEDONIA: B. C. 310-301.
The king of Egypt secured the prize, and the island remained
under the Greek-Egyptian crown, until it passed, with the rest
of the heritage of the Ptolemys to the Romans. "When the
[Roman] empire was divided, on the death of Constantine the
Great, Cyprus, like Malta, passed into the hands of the
Byzantine Emperors. Like Malta, also, it was exposed to
frequent attacks from the Arabs; but, although they several
times occupied the island and once held it for no less than
160 years, they were always expelled again by the Byzantine
Emperors, and never established themselves there as firmly as
they did in Malta. The crusades first brought Cyprus into
contact with the western nations of modern Europe."
_C. P. Lucas,
Historical Geography of British Colonies,
section 1, chapter 2._
ALSO IN:
_R. H. Lang,
CYPRUS,
chapters 1-8._
_F. Von Loher,
CYPRUS,
chapters 12 and 30._
_L. P. Di Cesnola,
Cyprus; its ancient cities, &c._
CYPRUS: B. C. 58.
Annexed to the Roman Dominions.
"The annexation of Cyprus was decreed in 696 [B. C. 58] by the
people [of Rome], that is, by the leaders of the democracy,
the support given to piracy by the Cypriots being alleged as
the official reason why that course should now be adopted.
Marcus Cato, intrusted by his opponents with the execution of
this measure, came to the island without an army; but he had
no need of one. The king [a brother of the king of Egypt] took
poison; the inhabitants submitted without offering resistance
to their inevitable fate, and were placed under the governor
of Cilicia."
_T. Mommsen,
History of Rome,
book 5, chapter 4._
CYPRUS: A. D. 117.
Jewish insurrection.
"This rich and pleasant territory [the island of Cyprus] had
afforded a refuge to the Jews of the continent through three
generations of disturbance and alarm, and the Hebrew race was
now [A. D. 117] probably not inferior there in number to the
native Syrians or Greeks. On the first outburst of a Jewish
revolt [against the Roman domination, in the last year of the
reign of Trajan] the whole island fell into the hands of the
insurgents, and became an arsenal and rallying point for the
insurrection, which soon spread over Egypt, Cyrene and
Mesopotamia. The leader of the revolt in Cyprus bore the name
of Artemion, but we know no particulars of the war in this
quarter, except that 240,000 of the native population is said
to have fallen victims to the exterminating fury of the
insurgents. When the rebellion was at last extinguished in
blood, the Jews were forbidden thenceforth to set foot on the
island; and even if driven thither by stress of weather, the
penalty of death was mercilessly enforced. … The Jewish
population of Cyrenaica outnumbered the natives. … The
hostility of the Jews in these parts was less directed against
the central government and the Roman residents than the native
race. … Of these 220,000 are said to have perished."
_C. Merivale,
History of the Romans,
chapter 65._
{645}
CYPRUS: A. D. 1191.
Conquest by Richard Cœur de Lion.
Founding of the Latin Kingdom.
During the civil strife and confusion of the last years of the
Comnenian dynasty of emperors at Constantinople, one of the
members of the family, Isaac Comnenos, secured the sovereignty
of Cyprus and assumed the title of emperor. With the alliance
of the king of Sicily, he defeated the Byzantine forces sent
against him, and was planted securely, to all appearance, on
his newly built throne at the time of the Third Crusade.
Circumstances at that time (A. D. 1191) gave him a fatal
opportunity to provoke the English crusaders. First, he seized
the property and imprisoned the crews of three English ships
that were wrecked on the Cyprian coast. Not satisfied with
that violence, he refused shelter from the storm to a vessel
which bore Berengaria of Navarre, the intended wife of King
Richard. "The king of England immediately sailed to Cyprus;
and when Isaac refused to deliver up the ship-wrecked
crusaders, and to restore their property, Richard landed his
army and commenced a series of operations, which ended in his
conquering the whole island, in which he abolished the
administrative institutions of the Eastern Empire, enslaving
the Greek race, introducing the feudal system, by which he
riveted the chains of a foreign domination, and then gave it
as a present to Guy of Lusignan, the titular king of
Jerusalem, who became the founder of a dynasty of Frank kings
in Cyprus."
_G. Finlay,
History of the Byzantine and Greek Empires, from 716 to 1453,
book 3, chapter 3, section 1._
Before giving Cyprus to Guy of Lusignan, Richard had sold the
island to the Templars, and Guy had to pay the knights heavily
for the extinguishment of their rights. Richard, therefore,
was rather a negotiator than a giver in the transaction.
_William Stubbs,
Seventeen Lectures on the Study of Mediæval
and Modern History,
lecture 8._
CYPRUS: A. D. 1192-1489.
The kingdom under the house of Lusignan.
"The house of Lusignan maintained itself in Cyprus for nearly
three centuries, during which, although fallen somewhat from
the blessedness which had been broken up by Isaac Comnenus,
the island seems to have retained so much fertility and
prosperity as to make its later history very dark by contrast.
… Guy, we are told, received Cyprus for life only, and did
homage for the island to Richard. As he already bore the title
of king, the question whether he should hold Cyprus as a
kingdom does not seem to have arisen. … On his death, in
April, 1194, Richard putting in no claim for the reversion,
his brother, Amalric of Lusignan, constable of Palestine,
entered on the possession as his heir. … Amalric succeeded
to the crown of Jerusalem; the crown of Jerusalem, which,
after the year 1269, became permanently united with that of
Cyprus, was an independent crown, and the king of Jerusalem an
anointed king: the union of the crowns therefore seems to have
precluded any question as to the tenure by which the kingdom
of Cyprus should be held. … The homage then due to Richard,
or to the crown of England, ceased at the death of Guy."
_William Stubbs,
Seventeen Lectures on the Study of Mediæval
and Modern History,
lecture 8._
See, also, JERUSALEM: A. D. 1291.
CYPRUS: A. D. 1291-1310.
The Knights Hospitallers of St. John.
See HOSPITALLERS OF ST. JOHN: A. D. 1118-1310.
CYPRUS: A. D. 1489-1570.
A Venetian dependency.
The last reigning king of Cyprus was James II., a bastard
brother of Queen Charlotte, whom he drove from the Cypriot
throne in 1464. This king married a Venetian lady, Caterina
Cornaro, in 1471 and was declared to be "the son-in·law of the
Republic." The unscrupulous republic is said to have poisoned
its son·in-law in order to secure the succession. He died in
1473, and a son, born after his death, lived but two years.
Cyprus was then ruled by the Venetians for fifteen years in
the name of Caterina, who finally renounced her rights wholly
in favor of the republic. After 1489, until its conquest by
the Turks, Cyprus was a Venetian dependency, in form as well
as in fact, but tributary to the Sultan of Egypt.
_William Stubbs,
Seventeen Lectures on the Study of Mediæval
and Modern History,
lecture 8._
CYPRUS: A. D. 1570-1571.
Conquest by the Turks.
See TURKS: A. D. 1566-1571.
CYPRUS: A. D. 1821.
Turkish massacre of Christians.
See GREECE: A. D. 1821-1829.
CYPRUS: A. D. 1878.
Control surrendered by Turkey to England.
See TURKS: A. D. 1878, THE TREATIES OF
SAN STEFANO AND BERLIN.
----------CYPRUS: End----------
CYREANS, The.
See PERSIA: B. C. 401-400.
CYRENAICA.
CYRENE.
KYRENE.
A city, growing into a kingdom, which was founded at an early
day by the Greeks, on that projecting part of the coast of
Libya, or northern Africa, which lies opposite to Greece. The
first settlers were said to have been from the little island
of Thera, whose people were bold and enterprising. The site
they chose "was of an unusual nature, especially for
islanders, and lay several miles away from the sea, the shores
of which were devoid of natural bays for anchorage. But, with
this exception, every advantage was at hand: instead of the
narrow stony soil of their native land, they found the most
fertile corn-fields, a broad table-land with a healthy
atmosphere and watered by fresh springs; a well-wooded
coast-land, unusually well adapted for all the natural
products which the Hellenes deemed essential; while in the
background spread mysteriously the desert, a world passing the
comprehension of the Hellenes, out of which the Libyan tribes
came to the shore with horses and camels, with black slaves,
with apes, parrots and other wonderful animals, with dates and
rare fruits. … An abundant spring of water above the shore
was the natural point at which the brown men of the deserts
and the mariners assembled. Here regular meetings became
customary. The bazaar became a permanent market, and the
market a city which arose on a grand scale, broad and lofty,
on two rocky heights, which jut out towards the sea from the
plateau of the desert. This city was called Cyrene. … Large
numbers of population immigrated from Crete, the islands and
Peloponnesus. A large amount of new land was parcelled out,
the Libyans were driven back, the landing-place became the
port of Apollonia, and the territory occupied by the city
itself was largely extended. Cyrene became, like Massalia, the
starting point of a group of settlements, the centre of a
small Greece: Barca and Hesperides [afterwards called
Berenice] were her daughters. Gradually a nation grew up,
which extended itself and its agriculture, and contrived to
cover a large division of African land with Hellenic culture.
This was the new era which commenced for Cyrene with the reign
of the third king, the Battus who, on account of the
marvellously rapid rise of his kingdom, was celebrated as 'the
fortunate' in all Hellas. The Battiadæ [the family or dynasty
of Battus] were soon regarded as a great power."
_E. Curtius,
History of Greece,
book 2, chapter 3._
{646}
Cyrenaica became subject to Egypt under the Ptolemys, and was
then usually called Pentapolis, from the five cities of
Cyrene, Apollonia, Arsinoë (formerly Teuchira), Berenice
(formerly Hesperis, or Hesperides) and Ptolemais (the port of
Barca). Later it became a province of the Roman Empire, and
finally, passing under Mahometan rule, sank to its present
state, as a district, called Barca, of the kingdom of
Tripoli.—Cyrene was especially famous for the production of a
plant called silphium—supposed to be assafœtida—on which
the ancients seem to have set an extraordinary value. This was
one of the principal sources of the wealth of Cyrene.
_E. H. Bunbury,
History of Ancient Geography,
chapter 8, section 1,
and chapter 12, section 2._
CYRENAICA: B. C. 525.
Tributary to Persia.
See EGYPT: B. C. 525-332.
CYRENAICA: B. C. 322.
Absorbed in the Kingdom of Egypt by Ptolemy Lagus.
See EGYPT: B. C. 323-30.
CYRENAICA: B. C. 97.
Transferred to the Romans by will.
"In the middle of this reign [of Ptolemy, called Lathyrus,
king of Egypt] died Ptolemy Apion, king of Cyrene. He was the
half-brother of Lathyrus and Alexander, and having been made
king of Cyrene by his father Euergetes II., he had there
reigned quietly for twenty years. Being between Egypt and
Carthage, then called the Roman province of Africa, and having
no army which he could lead against the Roman legions, he had
placed himself under the guardianship of Rome; he had bought a
truce during his lifetime, by making the Roman people his
heirs in his will, so that on his death they were to have his
kingdom. Cyrene had been part of Egypt for above two hundred
years, and was usually governed by a younger son or brother of
the king. But on the death of Ptolemy Apion, the Roman senate,
who had latterly been grasping at everything within their
reach, claimed his kingdom as their inheritance, and in the
flattering language of their decree by which the country was
enslaved, they declared Cyrene free."
_S. Sharpe,
History of Egypt,
chapter 11._
CYRENAICA: A. D. 117.
Jewish insurrection.
See CYPRUS: A. D. 117.
CYRENAICA: A. D. 616.
Destroyed by Chosroes.
See EGYPT: A. D. 616-628.
CYRENAICA: 7th Century.
Mahometan conquest.
See MAHOMETAN CONQUEST: A. D. 647-709.
----------CYRENAICA: End----------
CYRUS, The empire of.
See PERSIA: B. C. 549-521.
CYRUS THE YOUNGER,
The expedition of.
See PERSIA: B. C. 401-400.
CYZICUS: B. C. 411-410, Battles at.
See GREECE: B. C. 411-407.
CYZICUS: B. C. 74.
Siege by Mithridates.
Cyzicus, which had then become one of the largest and
wealthiest cities of Asia Minor, was besieged for an entire
year (B. C. 74-73) by Mithridates in the Third Mithridatic
war. The Roman Consul Lucullus came to the relief of the city
and succeeded in gaining a position which blockaded the
besiegers and cut off their supplies. In the end, Mithridates
retreated with a small remnant only, of his great armament,
and never recovered from the disaster.
_G. Long,
Decline of the Roman Republic,
volume 3, chapter 1._
CYZICUS: A. D. 267.
Capture by the Goths.
See GOTHS: A. D. 258-267.
----------CYZICUS: End----------
CZAR, OR TZAR.
See RUSSIA: A. D. 1547.
CZARTORISKYS, The, and the fall of Poland.
See POLAND: A. D. 1763-1773.
CZASLAU, OR CHOTUSITZ, Battle of (A. D. 1742).
See AUSTRIA: A. D. 1742 (JANUARY-MAY).
CZEKHS, The.
See BOHEMIA: ITS PEOPLE.
----------CZEKHS, End----------
D.
DACHTELFIELD, The.
See SAXONS: A. D. 772-804.
DACIA, The Dacians.
Ancient Dacia embraced the district north of the Danube
between the Theiss and the Dneister. "The Dacians [at the time
of Augustus, in the last half century B. C.] occupied the
whole of what now forms the southern part of Hungary, the
Banat and Transylvania. … The more prominent part which they
henceforth assumed in Roman history was probably owing
principally to the immediate proximity in which they now found
themselves to the Roman frontier. The question of the relation
in which the Dacians stood to the Getæ, whom we find in
possession of these same countries at an earlier period, was
one on which there existed considerable difference of opinion
among ancient writers: but the prevailing conclusion was that
they were only different names applied to the same people.
Even Strabo, who describes them as distinct, though cognate
tribes, states that they spoke the same language. According to
his distinction the Getæ occupied the more easterly regions,
adjoining the Euxine, and the Dacians the western, bordering
on the Germans."
_E. H. Bunbury,
History of Ancient Geography,
chapter 20, section 1._
DACIA: A. D. 102-106.
Trajan's conquest.
At the beginning of the second century, when Trajan conquered
the Dacians and added their country to the Roman Empire, "they
may be considered as occupying the broad block of land bounded
by the Theiss, the Carpathians, the lower Danube or Ister, and
the Pruth." In his first campaign, A. D. 102, Trajan
penetrated the country to the heart of modern Transylvania,
and forced the Dacians to give him battle at a place called
Tapæ, the site of which is not known. He routed them with much
slaughter, as they had been routed at the same place, Tapæ,
sixteen years before, in one of the ineffectual campaigns
directed by Domitian. They submitted, and Trajan established
strong Roman posts in the country; but he had scarcely reached
Rome and celebrated his triumph there, before the Dacians were
again in arms. In the spring of the year 104, Trajan repaired
to the lower Danube in person, once more, and entered the
Dacian country with an overwhelming force. This time the
subjugation was complete, and the Romans established their
occupation of the country by the founding of colonies and the
building of roads.
{647}
Dacia was now made a Roman province, and "the language of the
Empire became, and to this day substantially remains, the
national tongue of the inhabitants. … Of the Dacian
province, the last acquired and the first to be surrendered of
the Roman possessions, if we except some transient
occupations, soon to be commemorated, in the East, not many
traces now exist; but even these may suffice to mark the
moulding power of Roman civilization. … The accents of the
Roman tongue still echo in the valleys of Hungary and
Wallachia; the descendants of the Dacians at the present day
repudiate the appellation of Wallachs, or strangers, and still
claim the name of Romúni."
_C. Merivale,
History of the Romans,
chapter 63._
DACIA: A. D. 270.
Given up to the Goths.
See GOTHS: A. D. 268-270.
DACIA: 4th Century.
Conquest by the Huns.
See GOTHS (VISIGOTHS): A. D. 376,
and HUNS: A. D. 433-453.
DACIA: 6th Century.
Occupied by the Avars.
See AVARS.
DACIA: Modern history.
See BALKAN AND DANUBIAN STATES.
----------DACIA: End----------
DACOITS.
See DAKOITS.
DACOTAS.
See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: SIOUAN FAMILY,
and PAWNEE (CADDOAN) FAMILY.
DÆGSASTAN, Battle of.
Fought, A. D. 603, between the Northumbrians and the Scots of
Dalriada, the army of the latter being almost wholly
destroyed.
DAGOBERT I.,
King of the Franks
(Neustria), A. D. 628-638;
(Austrasia), 622-633:
(Burgundy), 628-638.
Dagobert II., King of the Franks
(Austrasia), A. D. 673-678.
Dagobert III., King of the Franks
(Neustria and Burgundy), A. D. 711-715.
DAHIS, The.
See BALKAN AND DANUBIAN STATES,
14TH-19TH CENTURIES (SERVIA).
DAHLGREN, Admiral John A.
Siege of Charleston.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
A. D. 1863 (JULY, and AUGUST-DECEMBER: S. CAROLINA).
DAHLGREN, Ulric.
Raid to Richmond.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
A. D. 1864 (FEBRUARY-MARCH: VIRGINIA).
DAKOITS.
DAKOITEE.
The Dakoits of India, who were suppressed soon after the
Thugs, were "robbers by profession, and even by birth."
Dakoitee "was established upon a broad basis of hereditary
caste, and was for the most part an organic state of society.
'I have always followed the trade of my ancestors, Dakoitee.'
said Lukha, a noted Dakoit, who subsequently became approver.
'My ancestors held this profession before me,' said another,
'and we train boys in the same manner. In my caste if there
were any honest persons, i. e., not robbers, they would be
turned out.'" The hunting down of the Dakoits was begun in
1838, under the direction of Colonel Sleeman, who had already
hunted down the Thugs.
_J. W. Kaye,
The Administration of the East India Co.,
part 3, chapter 3._
DAKOTA, North and South: A. D. 1803.-
Embraced in the Louisiana Purchase.
See LOUISIANA: A. D. 1798-1803.
DAKOTA: A. D. 1834-1838.
Partly joined, in succession, to Michigan, Wisconsin,
and Iowa Territories.
See WISCONSIN: A. D. 1805-1848.
DAKOTA: A. D. 1889.
Admission to the Union.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1889-1890.
DAKOTAS.
See AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
SIOUAN FAMILY and PAWNEE (CADDOAN) FAMILY.
DALAI LAMA.
See LAMAS.
DALCASSIANS.
The people of North Munster figure prominently under that name
in early Irish history.
_T. Moore,
History of Ireland,
volume 2._
DALHOUSIE, Lord, The India administration of.
See INDIA: A. D. 1845-1849; 1848-1856; and 1852.
DALMATIA.
"The narrow strip of land on the eastern side of the Hadriatic
on which the name of Dalmatia has settled down has a history
which is strikingly analogous to its scenery. … As the
cultivation and civilization of the land lies in patches, as
harbours and cities alternate with barren hills, so Dalmatia
has played a part in history only by fits and starts. This
fitful kind of history goes on from the days of Greek colonies
and Illyrian piracy to the last war between Italy and Austria.
But of continuous history, steadily influencing the course of
the world's progress, Dalmatia has none to show."
_E. A. Freeman,
Subject and Neighbour Lands of Venice,
pages 85-87._
ALSO IN:
_T. G. Jackson,
Dalmatia, the Quarnero and Istria,
chapters 1-2._
See, also, ILLYRICUM OF THE ROMANS; SALONA;
and BALKAN AND DANUBIAN STATES.
DALMATIA: 6th-7th Centuries:
Slavonic occupation.
See SLAVONIC PEOPLES: 6TH AND 7TH CENTURIES;
also, BALKAN AND DANUBIAN STATES: 7TH CENTURY.
DALMATIA: A. D. 944.
Beginning of Venetian Conquest.
See VENICE: A. D. 810-961.
DALMATIA: A. D. 1102.
Conquest by the king of Hungary.
See HUNGARY: A. D. 972-1114.
DALMATIA: 14th Century.
Conquest from the Venetians by Louis the Great of Hungary.
See HUNGARY: A. D. 1301-1442.
DALMATIA: 16th Century.
The Uscocks.
See USCOCKS.
DALMATIA: A. D. 1694-1696.
Conquests by the Venetians.
See TURKS: A. D. 1684-1696.
DALMATIA: A. D. 1699.
Cession in great part to Venice by the Turks.
See HUNGARY: 1683-1699.
DALMATIA: A. D. 1797.
Acquisition by Austria.
See, FRANCE: A. D. 1797 (MAY-OCTOBER).
DALMATIA: A. D. 1805.
Ceded by Austria to the kingdom of Italy.
See GERMANY: A. D. 1805-1806.
DALMATIA: A. D. 1809.
Incorporated in the Illyrian Provinces of Napoleon.
See GERMANY: A. D. 1809 (JULY-SEPTEMBER).
DALMATIA: A. D. 1814.
Restored to Austria.
Austria recovered possession of Dalmatia under the
arrangements of the Congress of Vienna.
----------DALMATIA: End----------
DALRIADA.
"A district forming the northeast corner of Ireland and
comprising the north half of the county of Antrim, was called
Dalriada. It appears to have been one of the earliest
settlements of the Scots among the Picts of Ulster and to have
derived its name from its supposed founder Cairbre, surnamed
Righfhada or Riada. It lay exactly opposite the peninsula of
Kintyre [Scotland] from whence it was separated by a part of
the Irish channel of no greater breadth than about fourteen
miles; and from this Irish district the colony of Scots, which
was already Christian [fifth century] passed over and settled
in Kintyre and in the island of Isla"—establishing a Scotch
Dalriada.
_W. F. Skene,
Celtic Scotland,
book 1, chapter 3._
For some account of the Scotch Dalriada,
See SCOTLAND: 7TH CENTURY.
{648}
DAMASCUS, Kingdom of.
The kingdom of Damascus, or "Aram of Damascus" as it was
entitled, was formed soon after that Syrian region threw off
the yoke of dependence which David and Solomon had imposed
upon it. "Rezon, the outlaw, was its founder. Hader, or Hadad,
and Rimmon, were the chief divinities of the race, and from
them the line of its kings derived their names,—Hadad,
Ben-hadad, Hadad-ezer, Tabrimmon."
_Dean Stanley,
Lectures on the History of the Jewish Church,
lecture 33._
"Though frequently captured and plundered in succeeding
centuries by Egypt and Assyria, neither of those nations was
able to hold it long in subjection because of the other. It
was probably a temporary repulse of the Assyrians, under
Shalmaneser II., by the Damascene general Naaman to which
reference is made in 2 Kings volume 1: 'by him the Lord had given
deliverance unto Syria.' … After the great conquerors of
Egypt and Asia, each in his day, had captured and plundered
Damascus, it was taken without resistance by Parmenio for
Alexander the Great [B. C. 333]. In it Pompey spent the
proudest year of his life, 64 B. C., distributing at his
pleasure the thrones of the East to the vassals of Rome.
Cleopatra had received the city as a love-gift from Mark
Antony, and Tiberius had bestowed it upon Herod the Great,
before Aretas of Petra, the father of the princess whom Herod
Antipas divorced for Herodias' sake, and the ruler whose
officers watched the city to prevent the escape of Paul, made
it, we know not how, a part of his dominions."
_W. B. Wright,
Ancient Cities,
chapter 7._
DAMASCUS: A. D. 634.
Conquest by the Arabs.
See MAHOMETAN CONQUEST: A. D. 632-639.
DAMASCUS: A. D. 661.
Becomes the seat of the Caliphate.
See MAHOMETAN CONQUEST: A. D. 661.
DAMASCUS: A. D. 763.
The Caliphate transferred to Bagdad.
See MAHOMETAN CONQUEST: A. D. 763.
DAMASCUS: A. D. 1148-1217.
Capital of the Atabeg and the Ayoubite sultans.
See SALADIN, THE EMPIRE OF.
DAMASCUS: A. D. 1401.
Sack and massacre by Timour.
See Timour.
DAMASCUS: A. D. 1832.
Capture by Mehemed Ali.
See TURKS: A. D. 1831-1840.
----------DAMASCUS: End----------
DAMASUS II., Pope, A. D. 1048, July to August.
DAMIETTA: A. D. 1219-1220.
Siege, capture and surrender by the Crusaders.
See CRUSADES: A. D. 1216-1229.
DAMIETTA: A. D. 1249-1250.
Capture and loss by Saint Louis.
See CRUSADES: A. D. 1248-1254.
DAMIETTA: A. D. 1252.
Destruction by the Mamelukes.
"Two years after the deliverance of the king [Saint Louis],
and whilst he was still in Palestine, the Mamelukes, fearing a
fresh invasion of the Franks, in order to prevent their
enemies from taking Damietta and fortifying themselves in that
city, entirely destroyed it. Some years after, as their fears
were not yet removed, and the second crusade of Louis IX.
spread fresh alarms throughout the East, the Egyptians caused
immense heaps of stone to be cast into the mouth of the Nile,
in order that the Christian fleets might not be able to sail
up the river. Since that period a new Damietta has been built
at a small distance from the site of the former city."
_J. F. Michaud,
History of the Crusades,
book 14._
DAMNONIA.
See BRITAIN: 6TH CENTURY.
DAMNONII, OR DAMNII, The.
See DUMNONII.
DAMOISEL.
DAMOISELLE.
DONZELLO.
"In mediæval Latin 'domicella' is used for the unmarried
daughter of a prince or noble, and 'domicellus,' contracted
from 'domnicellus,' the diminutive of 'dominus,' for the son.
These words are the forerunners of the old French 'dâmoisel'
in the masculine, and 'damoiselle' in the feminine gender.
Froissart calls Richard, prince of Wales, son of Edward: 'le
jeune damoisil Richart.' In Romance the word is indifferently
'damoisel' and' 'danzel,' in Italian 'donzello.' All of these
are evidently titles under the same notion as that of child
and 'enfant,' of which the idea belongs to the knights of an
earlier period."
_R. T. Hampson,
Origines Patriciæ,
page 328._
DANAIDÆ, The.
See ARGOS. ARGOLIS.
DANCING PLAGUE.
See PLAGUE, A. D. 1374.
DANDRIDGE, Engagement at.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
A. D. 1863-1864 (DECEMBER-APRIL:
TENNESSEE-MISSISSIPPI).
DANEGELD, The.
"A tax of two shillings on the hide of land, originally levied
as tribute to the Danes under Ethelred, but continued [even
under the Plantagenets], like the income tax, as a convenient
ordinary resource."
_William Stubbs,
The Early Plantagenets,
page 53._
See ENGLAND: A. D. 979-1016.
DANELAGH, OR DANELAGA, OR DANELAU.
The district in England held by the Danes after their treaty
with Alfred the Great, extending south to the Thames, the Lea
and the Ouse; north to the Tyne; west of the mountain district
of Yorkshire, Westmoreland and Cumberland. "Over all this
region the traces of their colonization abound in the villages
whose names end in by, the Scandinavian equivalent of the English
tun or ham."
_William Stubbs,
Constitutional History of England,
chapter 7, section 77._
See, also, ENGLAND: A. D. 855-880.
DANES AS VIKINGS.
See, also, NORMANS.—NORTHMEN.
DANES: In England.
See ENGLAND: A. D. 855-880, 979-1016,
and 1016-1042;
also NORMANS: A. D. 787-880.
DANES: In Ireland.
See IRELAND: 9TH-10TH CENTURIES.
----------DANES: End----------
DANITES, The.
See MORMONISM: A. D. 1830-1846.
DANTE AND THE FACTIONS OF FLORENCE.
See FLORENCE: A. D. 1295-1300; and 1301-1313.
DANTON AND THE FRENCH REVOLUTION.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1791 (OCTOBER),
to 1793-1794 (NOVEMBER-JUNE).
DANTZIC:
In the Hanseatic League.
See HANSA TOWNS.
DANTZIC: A. D. 1577.
Submission to the king of Poland.
See POLAND: A. D. 1574-1590.
DANTZIC: A. D. 1793.
Acquisition by Prussia.
See POLAND: A. D. 1793-1796.
DANTZIC: A. D. 1806-1807.
Siege and capture by the French.
See GERMANY: A. D. 1807 (FEBRUARY-JUNE).
DANTZIC: A. D. 1807.
Declared a Free state.
See GERMANY: A. D. 1807 (JUNE-JULY).
DANTZIC: A. D. 1813.
Siege and capture by the Allies.
See GERMANY: A. D. 1813 (OCTOBER-DECEMBER).
{649}
DARA.
One of the capitals of the Parthian kings, the site of which
has not been identified.
DARA, Battle of (A. D. 529).
See PERSIA: A. D. 226-627.
DARDANIANS OF THE TROAD.
See TROJA;
and ASIA MINOR: THE GREEK COLONIES;
also, AMORITES.
DARIEN, The Isthmus of.
See PANAMA.
DARIEN: The Scottish colony.
See SCOTLAND: A. D. 1695-1699.
DARINI, The.
See IRELAND, TRIBES OF EARLY CELTIC
INHABITANTS.
DARIUS,
King of Persia, B. C. 521-486.
Darius II., B. C. 425-405.
Darius III. (Codomannus), B. C. 336-331.
DARK AGES, The.
The historical period, so-called, is nearly identical with
that more commonly named the Middle Ages; but its duration may
be properly considered as less by a century or two. From the
5th to the 13th century is a definition of the period which
most historians would probably accept.
See MIDDLE AGES.
DARORIGUM.
Modern Vannes.
See VENETI OF WESTERN GAUL.
DAR-UL-ISLAM AND DAR-UL-HARB.
"The Koran divides the world into two portions, the House of
Islam, Dar-ul-Islam, and the House of War, Dar-ul-harb. It has
generally been represented by Western writers on the
institutes of Mahometanism and on the habits of Mahometan
nations, that the Dar-ul-harb, the House of War, comprises all
lands of the misbelievers. … There is even a widely-spread
idea among superficial talkers and writers that the holy
hostility, the Jehad [or Dhihad] of Mussulmans against
non-Mussulmans is not limited to warfare between nation and
nation; but that 'it is a part of the religion of every
Mahometan to kill as many Christians as possible, and that by
counting up a certain number killed, they think themselves
secure of heaven.' But careful historical investigators, and
statesmen long practically conversant with Mahometan
populations have exposed the fallacy of such charges against
those who hold the creed of Islam. … A country which is
under Christian rulers, but in which Mahometans are allowed
free profession of their faith, and peaceable exercise of
their ritual, is not a portion of the House of War, of the
Dar-ul-harb; and there is no religious duty of warfare, no
Jehad, on the part of true Mussulmans against such a state.
This has been of late years formally determined by the chief
authorities in Mahometan law with respect to British India."
_Sir E. S. Creasy,
History of the Ottoman Turks,
chapter 6._
DASTAGERD.
The favorite residence of the last great Persian king and
conqueror, Chosroes (A. D. 590-628), was fixed at Dastagerd,
or Artemita, sixty miles north of Ctesiphon, and east of the
Tigris. His palaces and pleasure grounds were of extraordinary
magnificence.
_E. Gibbon,
Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire,
chapter 46.
DASYUS.
See INDIA: THE ABORIGINAL INHABITANTS.
DAUPHINS OF FRANCE.
DAUPHINE.
In 1349, Philip VI., or Philip de Valois, of France, acquired
by purchase from Humbert II., count of Vienne, the sovereignty
of the province of Dauphine. This principality became from
that time the appanage of the eldest sons of the kings of
France and gave them their peculiar name or title of the
Dauphins. The title in question had been borne by the counts
of Vienne (in Dauphiné), "on account of the dolphin which they
carried upon their helmets and on their armorial bearings."
_E. De Bonnechose,
History of France,
book 2, chapter 2, footnote._
ALSO IN:
_E. Smedley,
History of France,
part 1, chapter 9._
See, also, BURGUNDY: A. D. 1127-1378.
DAVENPORT, John, and the founding of New Haven Colony.
See CONNECTICUT: A. D. 1638, and 1639.
DAVID, King of Israel and Judah.
See JEWS: THE KINGDOMS OF ISRAEL AND
JUDAH, and JERUSALEM: CONQUEST, &c.
DAVID I.,
King of Scotland, A. D. 1124-1153.
David II., 1329-1370.
DAVIS, Jefferson.
Election to the Presidency of the rebellious
"Confederate States."
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
A. D. 1861 (FEBRUARY).
Flight and capture.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
A. D. 1865 (APRIL-MAY).
DAVOUT, Marshal, Campaigns of.
See GERMANY: A. D. 1806 (OCTOBER);
1806-1807; 1807 (FEBRUARY-JUNE);
also RUSSIA: A. D. 1812;
and GERMANY: A. D. 1812-1813;
1813 (AUGUST), (OCTOBER-DECEMBER).
DAY OF BARRICADES, The.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1584-1589.
DAY OF DUPES, The.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1630-1632.
DAY OF THE SECTIONS, The.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1795 (OCTOBER-DECEMBER).
DAYAKS, OR DYAKS, The.
See MALAYAN RACE.
DEAK, Francis, and the recovery of Hungarian nationality.
See AUSTRIA: A. D. 1866-1867.
DEAN FOREST.
The "Royal Forest of Dean," situated in the southwestern angle
of the county of Gloucester, England, between the Severn and
the Wye, is still so extensive that it covers some 23,000
acres, though much reduced from its original dimensions. Its
oaks and its iron mines have played important parts in British
history. The latter were worked by the Romans and still give
employment to a large number of miners. The former were
thought to be so essential to the naval power of England that
the destruction of the Forest is said to have been one of the
special duties prescribed to the Spanish Armada.
_J. C. Brown,
Forests of England._
DEANE, Silas, and the American transactions
with Beaumarchais in France.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1776-1778.
DEARBORN, General Henry, and the War of 1812.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
A. D. 1812 (JUNE-OCTOBER),
(SEPTEMBER-NOVEMBER);
A. D. 1813 (OCTOBER-NOVEMBER).
DEBRECZIN, Battle of (1849).
See AUSTRIA: A. D. 1848-1849.
DEBT, Laws concerning: Ancient Greek.
At Athens, in the time of Solon (6th century, B. C.) the
Thetes—"the cultivating tenants, metayers and small
proprietors of the country … are exhibited as weighed down
by debts and dependence, and driven in large numbers out of a
state of freedom into slavery—the whole mass of them (we are
told) being in debt to the rich, who were proprietors of the
greater part of the soil. They had either borrowed money for
their own necessities, or they tilled the lands of the rich as
dependent tenants, paying a stipulated portion of the produce,
and in this capacity they were largely in arrear.
{650}
All the calamitous effects were here seen of the old harsh law
of debtor and creditor—once prevalent in Greece, Italy, Asia,
and a large portion of the world—combined with the
recognition of slavery as a legitimate status, and of the
right of one man to sell himself as well as that of another
man to buy him. Every debtor unable to fulfil his contract was
liable to be adjudged as the slave of his creditor, until he
could find means either of paying it or working it out; and
not only he himself, but his minor sons and unmarried
daughters and sisters also, whom the law gave him the power of
selling. The poor man thus borrowed upon the security of his
body (to translate literally the Greek phrase) and upon that
of the persons in his family. So severely had these oppressive
contracts been enforced, that many debtors had been reduced
from freedom to slavery in Attica itself,—many others had
been sold for exportation,—and some had only hitherto
preserved their own freedom by selling their children. … To
their relief Solon's first measure, the memorable
Seisachtheia, shaking off of burthens, was directed. The
relief which it afforded was complete and immediate. It
cancelled at once all those contracts in which the debtor had
borrowed on the security either of his person or of his land:
it forbade all future loans or contracts in which the person
of the debtor was pledged as security: it deprived the
creditor in future of all power to imprison, or enslave, or
extort work from, his debtor, and confined him to an effective
judgment at law authorizing the seizure of the property of the
latter. It swept off all the numerous mortgage pillars from
the landed properties in Attica, leaving the land free from
all past claims. It liberated and restored to their full
rights all debtors actually in slavery under previous legal
adjudication; and it even provided the means (we do not know
how) of re-purchasing in foreign lands, and bringing back to a
renewed life of liberty in Attica, many insolvents who had
been sold for exportation. And while Solon forbad every
Athenian to pledge or sell his own person into slavery, he
took a step farther in the same direction by forbidding him to
pledge or sell his son, his daughter, or an unmarried sister
under his tutelage—excepting only the case in which either of
the latter might be detected in unchastity. … One thing is
never to be forgotten in regard to this measure, combined with
the concurrent amendments introduced by Solon in the law—it
settled finally the question to which it referred. Never again
do we hear of the law of debtor and creditor as disturbing
Athenian tranquility. The general sentiment which grew up at
Athens, under the Solonian money-law and under the
democratical government, was one of high respect for the
sanctity of contracts. … There can be little doubt that
under the Solonian law, which enabled the creditor to seize
the property of his debtor, but gave him no power over the
person, the system of money-lending assumed a more beneficial
character."
_G. Grote,
History of Greece,
part 2, chapter 11 (volume 3)._
DEBT: Ancient Roman.
"The hold of the creditor was on the person of the debtor. The
obligation of a debt was a tying up or binding, or bondage, of
the person: the payment was a solution, a loosing or release
of the person from that bondage. The property of the debtor
was not a pledge for the debt. It could be made so by special
agreement, though in the earliest law only by transferring it
at once to the ownership of the creditor. Without such special
agreement, the creditor whose debtor failed to pay could not
touch his property. Even when the debtor had been prosecuted
and condemned to pay, if he still failed, the creditor could
not touch his property. He could seize his person—I speak
now of the early law, in the first centuries of the
republic—and after holding him in rigorous confinement for
sixty days, with opportunities, however, either to pay himself
or get somebody to pay for him, if payment still failed, he
could sell him as a slave, or put him to death; if there were
several creditors, they could cut his body into pieces and
divide it among them. This extreme severity was afterward
softened; but the principle remained long unchanged, that the
hold of the creditor was on the person of the debtor. If the
debtor obstinately and to the last refused to surrender his
property, the creditor could not touch it."
_J. Hadley,
Introduction to Roman Law,
lecture 10._
"During the first half of the Samnite war [B. C. 326-304], but
in what year is uncertain, there was passed that famous law
which prohibited personal slavery for debt. No creditor might
for the future attach the person of his debtor, but he might
only seize his property; and all those whose personal freedom
was pledged for their debts (nexi), were released from their
liability, if they could swear that they had property enough
to meet their creditor's demands. It does not appear that this
great alteration in the law was the work of any tribune, or
that it arose out of any general or deliberate desire to
soften the severity of the ancient practice. It was
occasioned, we are told, by one scandalous instance of abuse
of power on the part of a creditor. … But although personal
slavery for debt was thus done away with, yet the consequences
of insolvency were much more serious at Rome than they are in
modern Europe. He whose property had once been made over to
his creditors by the prætor's sentence, became, ipso facto,
infamous; he lost his tribe, and with it all his political
rights; and the forfeiture was irrevocable, even though he
might afterwards pay his debts to the full; nor was it even in
the power of the censors to replace him on the roll of
citizens. So sacred a thing did credit appear in the eyes of
the Romans."
_T. Arnold,
History of Rome,
chapter 32 (volume 2)._
DEBT: In England.
"Debt has been regarded as a crime by primitive society in
every part of the world. In Palestine, as in Rome, the
creditor had power over the person of the debtor, and
misfortune was commonly treated with a severity which was not
always awarded to crime."
_[Leviticus 12 xxv., 39-41,
and 2 Kings iv., 1]_
{651}
"In this country [England] the same system was gradually
introduced in Plantagenet times. The creditor, who had been
previously entitled to seize the goods, or even the land of
the debtor, was at last authorised to seize his person. In one
sense, indeed, the English law was, in this respect, more
irrational than the cruel code of the Jews, or the awful
punishment [death and dismemberment or slavery—Gibbon, chapter
44] which the law of the Twelve Tables reserved for debtors.
In Palestine the creditor was, at least, entitled to the
service of the debtor or of his children, and the slave had
the prospect of an Insolvent Debtor's Relief Act in the
Sabbatical year. Even the law of the Twelve Tables allowed the
creditors to sell the debtor into slavery, instead of
resorting to the horrible alternative of partitioning his
body. But in England the creditors had no such choice. They
had nothing to do but to throw the debtor into prison; and by
his imprisonment deprive themselves of the only chance of his
earning money to pay their debts. A law of this kind was
intolerable to a commercial people. The debtor languished in
gaol, the creditor failed to obtain payment of his debt. When
trade increased in Tudor times, the wits of legislators were
exercised in devising some expedient for satisfying the
creditor without imprisoning the debtor. The Chancellor was
authorised to appoint commissioners empowered to divide the
debtor's property among the creditors. By an Act of Anne the
debtor who complied with the law was released from further
liability, and was practically enabled to commence life anew.
In 1826, a debtor was allowed to procure his own bankruptcy;
while in 1831, commissioners were appointed to carry out the
arrangements which had been previously conducted under the
Court of Chancery. The law of bankruptcy which was thus
gradually developed by the legislation of three centuries only
applied to persons in trade. No one who was not a trader could
become a bankrupt; the ordinary debtor became as a matter of
course an insolvent, and passed under the insolvent laws. The
statutes, moreover, omitted to give any very plain definition
of a trader. The distinction between trader and non-trader
which had been gradually drawn by the Courts was not based on
any very clear principle. A person who made bricks on his own
estate of his own clay was not a trader; but a person who
bought the clay and then made the bricks was a trader.
Farmers, again, were exempt from the bankruptcy law; but
farmers who purchased cattle for sale at a profit were liable
to it. The possibility, moreover, of a trader being made a
bankrupt depended on the size of his business. A petitioning
creditor in bankruptcy was required to be a person to whom at
least £100 was due; if two persons petitioned, their debts
were required to amount to £150; if more than two persons
petitioned, to £200. A small shopkeeper, therefore, who could
not hope to obtain credit for £200, £150, or £100, could not
become a bankrupt; he was forced to become an insolvent. The
treatment of the insolvent was wholly different from that of
the bankrupt. The bankruptcy law was founded on the principle
that the goods and not the person of the debtor should be
liable for the debt; the insolvency law enabled the person of
the debtor to be seized, but provided no machinery for
obtaining his goods. … Up to 1838 the first step in
insolvency was the arrest of the debtor. Any person who made a
deposition on oath that some other person was in debt to him,
could obtain his arrest on what was known as 'mesne process.'
The oath might possibly be untrue; the debt might not be due;
the warrant issued on the sworn deposition as a matter of
course. But, in addition to the imprisonment on mesne process,
the insolvent could be imprisoned for a further period on what
was known as 'final process.' Imprisonment on mesne process
was the course which the creditor took to prevent the flight
of the debtor; imprisonment on final process was the
punishment which the Court awarded to the crime of debt. Such
a system would have been bad enough if the debtors' prisons
had been well managed. The actual condition of these prisons
almost exceeds belief. Dickens, indeed, has made the story of
a debtor's imprisonment in the Marshalsea familiar to a world
of readers. … The Act of 1813 had done something to mitigate
the misery which the law occasioned. The Court which was
constituted by it released 50,000 debtors in 13 years. But
large numbers of persons were still detained in prison for
debt. In 1827 nearly 6,000 persons were committed in London
alone for debt. The Common Law Commissioners, reporting in
1830, declared that the loud and general complaints of the law
of insolvency were well founded; and Cottenham, in 1838,
introduced a bill to abolish imprisonment for debt in all
cases. The Lords were not prepared for so complete a remedy;
they declined to abolish imprisonment on final process, or to
exempt from imprisonment on mesne process, persons who owed
more than £20, and who were about to leave the country.
Cottenham, disappointed at these amendments, decided on
strengthening his own hands by instituting a fresh inquiry. He
appointed a commission in 1839, which reported in 1840, and
which recommended the abolition of imprisonment on final
process, and the union of bankruptcy and insolvency. In 1841,
in 1842, in 1843, and in 1844 Cottenham introduced bills to
carry out this report. The bills of 1841, 1842, and 1843 were
lost. The bill of 1844 was not much more successful. Brougham
declared that debtors who refused to disclose their property,
who refused to answer questions about it, who refused to give
it up, or who fraudulently made away with it, as well as
debtors who had been guilty of gross extravagance, deserved
imprisonment. He introduced an alternative bill giving the
Cou rt discretionary power to imprison them. The Lords,
bewildered by the contrary counsels of two such great lawyers
as Cottenham and Brougham, decided on referring both bills to
one Select Committee. The Committee preferred Brougham's bill,
amended it, and returned it to the House. This bill became
ultimately law. It enabled both private debtors and traders
whose debts amounted to less than the sums named in the
Bankruptcy Acts to become bankrupts; and it abolished
Imprisonment in all cases where the debt did not exceed £20."
_S. Walpole,
History of England from 1815,
chapter 17 (volume 4)._
DEBT: In the United States.
"In New York, by the act of April 26, 1831, c. 300, and which
went into operation on March 1st, 1832, arrest and
imprisonment on civil process at law, and on execution in
equity founded upon contract, were abolished. The provision
under the act was not to apply to any person who should have
been a non-resident of the state for a month preceding (and
even this exception was abolished by the act of April 25th,
1840); nor to proceedings as for a contempt to enforce civil
remedies; nor to actions for fines and penalties; nor to suits
founded in torts … nor on promises to marry; or for moneys
collected by any public officer; or for misconduct or neglect
in office, or in any professional employment.
{652}
The plaintiff, however, in any suit, or upon any judgment or
decree, may apply to a judge for a warrant to arrest the
defendant, upon affidavit stating a debt or demand due, to
more than $50; and that the defendant is about to remove
property out of the jurisdiction of the court, with intent to
defraud his creditors; or that he has property or rights in
action which he fraudulently conceals; or public or corporate
stock, money, or evidences of debt, which he unjustly refuses
to apply to the payment of the judgment or decree in favor of
the plaintiff; or that he has assigned, or is about to assign
or dispose of his property, with intent to defraud his
creditors; or has fraudulently contracted the debt, or
incurred the obligation respecting which the suit is brought.
If the judge shall be satisfied, on due examination, of the
truth of the charge, he is to commit the debtor to jail,
unless he complies with certain prescribed conditions or some
one of them, and which are calculated for the security of the
plaintiff's claim. Nor is any execution against the body to be
issued on justices' judgments, except in cases essentially the
same with those above stated. … By the New York act of 1846,
c. 150, the defendant is liable for imprisonment as in actions
for wrong, if he be sued and judgment pass against him in
actions on contracts for moneys received by him (and it
applies to all male persons) in a fiduciary character. The
legislature of Massachusetts, in 1834 and 1842, essentially
abolished arrest and imprisonment for debt, unless on proof
that the debtor was about to abscond. As early as 1790, the
constitution of Pennsylvania established, as a fundamental
principle, that debtors should not be continued in prison
after surrender of their estates in the mode to be prescribed
by law, unless in cases of a strong presumption of fraud. In
February, 1819, the legislature of that state exempted women
from arrest and imprisonment for debt; and this provision as
to women was afterwards applied in New York to all civil
actions founded upon contract. … Females were first exempted
from imprisonment for debt in Louisiana and Mississippi; and
imprisonment for debt, in all cases free from fraud, is now
abolished in each of those states. The commissioners in
Pennsylvania, in their report on the Civil Code, in January,
1835, recommended that there be no arrest of the body of the
debtor on mesne process, without an affidavit of the debt, and
that the defendant was a non-resident, or about to depart
without leaving sufficient property, except in cases of force,
fraud, or deceit, verified by affidavit. This suggestion was
carried into effect by the act of the legislature of
Pennsylvania of July 12th, 1842, entitled 'An Act to abolish
imprisonment for debt, and to punish fraudulent debtors.' In
New Hampshire, imprisonment on mesne process and execution for
debt existed under certain qualifications, until December 23,
1840, when it was abolished by statute, in cases of contract
and debts accruing after the first of March, 1841. In Vermont,
imprisonment for debt, on contracts made after first January,
1839, is abolished, as to resident citizens, unless there be
evidence that they are about to abscond with their property;
so, also, the exception in Mississippi applies to cases of
torts, frauds, and meditated concealment, or fraudulent
disposition of property."
_J. Kent,
Commentaries on American Law;
edited by O. W. Holmes, Jr.,
volume 2 (foot-note)._
"In many states the Constitution provides
(A) that there shall be no imprisonment for debt:
Indiana. C. 1, 22;
Minnesota. C. I, 12;
Kansas. C. B. Rts. 16;
Maryland. C. 3, 38;
North Carolina. C. 1, 16;
Missouri. C. 2. 16;
Texas. C. 1, 18;
Oregon. C. 1, 19;
Nevada. C. 1, 14;
South Carolina. C. 1, 20;
Georgia. C. 1, 1, 21;
Alabama. C. 1, 21;
Mississippi. C. 1, 11;
Florida. C. Decl'n Rts. 15.
(B) That there shall be no imprisonment for debt
(1) in any civil action on mesne or final process, in seven states:
Ohio. C. 1, 15;
Iowa. C. 1, 19;
Nebraska. C. 1, 20;
Tennessee. C. 1, 18;
Arkansas. C. 2, 16;
California. C. 1, 15;
Oregon. C. 1, 15;
Arizona. B. Uts. 18.
(2) In any action or judgment founded upon contract, in
three states:
New Jersey. C. 1, 17;
Michigan. C. 6, 33;
Wisconsin. C. 1, 16.
(C) In six, that there shall be no person imprisoned for debt
in any civil action when he has delivered up his property for
the benefit of his creditors in the manner prescribed by law;
Vermont. C. 2, 33;
Rhode Island. C. 1, 11;
Pennsylvania. C. 1, 16;
Illinois. C. 2, 12;
Kentucky. C. 13, 19;
Colorado. C. 2, 12.
… But the above principles are subject to the following
exceptions in the several states respectively:
(1) a debtor may be imprisoned in criminal actions: Tennessee.
So (2) for the non-payment of fines or penalties imposed by
law: Missouri.
So (3) generally, in civil or criminal actions, for fraud:
Vermont,
Rhode Island,
New Jersey,
Pennsylvania,
Ohio,
Indiana,
Illinois,
Michigan,
Iowa,
Minnesota,
Kansas,
Nebraska,
North Carolina,
Kentucky,
Arkansas,
California,
Oregon,
Nevada,
Colorado,
South Carolina,
Florida,
Arizona.
And so, in two, the legislature has power to provide for the
punishment of fraud and for reaching property of the debtor
concealed from his creditors:
Georgia. C. 1, 2, 6;
Louisiana. C. 223.
So (4) absconding debtors may be imprisoned: Oregon.
Or debtors (5) in cases of libel or slander: Nevada.
(6) In civil cases of tort generally: California, Colorado.
(7) In cases of malicious mischief: California.
(8) Or of breach of trust: Michigan, Arizona.
(9) Or of moneys collected by public officers,
or in any professional employment: Michigan, Arizona."
_F. J. Stimson, American Statute Law:
Digest of Constitutions and Civil Public
Statutes of all the States and Territories relating
to Persons and Property, in force January 1, 1886,
art. 8._
----------DEBT: End----------
DÉCADI OF THE FRENCH REPUBLICAN CALENDAR.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1793 (OCTOBER).
The new republican calendar.
DECAMISADOS, The.
See SPAIN: A. D. 1814-1827.
DECATUR, Commodore Stephen.
Burning of the "Philadelphia."
See BARBARY STATES: A. D. 1803-1805.
In the War of 1812.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
A. D. 1812-1813; 1814.
DECCAN, The.
See INDIA: THE NAME;
and IMMIGRATION AND CONQUESTS OF THE ARYAS.
DECELIAN WAR, The.
See GREECE: B. C. 413.
DECEMVIRS, The.
See ROME: B. C. 451-449.
DECIUS: Roman Emperor. A. D. 249-251.
DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE (American).
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
A. D. 1776 (JANUARY-JUNE),
and (JULY);
also, INDEPENDENCE HALL.
{653}
DECLARATION OF PARIS, The.
"At the Congress of Paris in 1856, subsequently to the
conclusion of the treaty, which ended the Crimean war [see
RUSSIA: A. D. 1854-1856], a declaration of principles was
signed on April 16th, by the plenipotentiaries of all the
powers represented there, which contained four articles:
'First. Privateering is and remains abolished. Second, The
neutral flag covers enemies' goods, with the exception of
contraband of war. Third, Neutral goods, except of contraband
of war, are not liable to capture under an enemy's flag.
Fourth, Blockades, to be binding, must be effective—that is
to say, maintained by a force really sufficient to prevent
access to the coast of the enemy.' The adherence of other
powers was requested to these principles," and all joined in
signing it except the United States, Spain, and Mexico. The
objection on the part of the United States was stated in a
circular letter by Mr. Marcy, then Secretary of State, who
"maintained that the right to resort to privateers is as
incontestable as any other right appertaining to belligerents;
and reasoned that the effect of the declaration would be to
increase the maritime preponderance of Great Britain and
France, without even benefiting the general cause of
civilization; while, if public ships retained the right of
capturing private property, the United States, which had at
that time a large mercantile marine and a comparatively small
navy, would be deprived of all means of retaliation. … The
President proposes, therefore [wrote Mr. Marcy] to add to the
first proposition contained in the declaration of the Congress
of Paris the following words: 'and that the private property
of the subjects and citizens of a belligerent on the high seas
shall be exempted from seizure by public armed vessels of the
other belligerent, except it be contraband.' … Among the
minor states of Europe there was complete unanimity and a
general readiness to accept our amendment to the rules"; but
England opposed, and the offered amendment was subsequently
withdrawn. "Events … have shown that … our refusal to
accept the Declaration of Paris has brought the world nearer
to the principles which we proposed, which became known as the
'Marcy amendment for the abolition of war against private
property on the seas.'"
_E. Schuyler,
American Diplomacy,
chapter 7._
ALSO IN:
_F. Wharton,
Digest of the International law of the United States,
chapter 17, section 342 (volume 3)._
_H. Adams,
Historical Essays,
chapter 6._
See, also, PRIVATEERS.
DECLARATION OF RIGHTS.
See ENGLAND: A. D. 1689 (JANUARY-FEBRUARY).
DECLARATION OF THE RIGHTS OF MAN,
French Revolutionary.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1789 (AUGUST-OCTOBER).
DECLARATORY ACT, The.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1766.
DECRETA, Roman imperial.
See CORPUS JURIS CIVILIS.
DECRETALS, The False.
See PAPACY: A. D. 829-847.
DECUMÆ.
See VECTIGAL.
DECUMATES LAND.
See AGRI DECUMATES,
also ALEMANNI;
and SUEVI.
DECURIONES.
See CURIA, MUNICIPAL, OF THE LATER ROMAN EMPIRE.
DEDITITIUS.
COLONUS.
SERVUS.
"The poor Provincial [of the provinces of the Roman empire at
the time of the breaking up in the fifth century] who could
not fly to the Goths because his whole property was in land,
hunted to despair by the tax-gatherer, would transfer that
land to some wealthy neighbour, apparently on condition of
receiving a small life annuity out of it. He was then called
the Dedititius (or Surrenderer) of the new owner, towards whom
he stood in a position of a certain degree of dependence. Not
yet, however, were his sorrows or those of his family at an
end, for the tax-gatherer still regarded him as responsible
for his land. … On his death his sons, who had utterly lost
their paternal inheritance, and still found themselves
confronted with the claim for taxes, were obviously without
resource. The next stage of the process accordingly was that
they abdicated the position of free citizens and implored the
great man to accept them as Coloni, a class of labourers,
half-free, half-enslaved, who may perhaps with sufficient
accuracy be compared to the serfs 'adscripti glebæ' of the
middle ages. … Before long they became mere slaves (Servi)
without a shadow of right or claim against their new lords."
_T. Hodgkin,
Italy and her Invaders,
book 1, chapter 10._
With the "increase of great estates and simultaneous increase
in the number of slaves (so many Goths were made slaves by
Claudius [A. D. 268-270], to give one instance, that there was
not a district without them), the small proprietors could no
longer maintain the fruitless struggle, and, as a class,
wholly disappeared. Some, no doubt, became soldiers; others
crowded into the already overflowing towns; while others
voluntarily resigned their freedom, attached themselves to the
land of some rich proprietor, and became his villeins, or
coloni. But this was not the chief means by which this class
was formed and increased. … After a successful war these
serfs were given … to landed proprietors without payment;
and in this way not only was the class of free peasants
diminished or altogether destroyed—a happier result—the
slave system was directly attacked. The coloni themselves were
not slaves. The codes directly distinguish them from slaves,
and in several imperial constitutions they are caned
'ingenui.' They could contract a legal marriage and could hold
property. … On the other hand, the coloni were like slaves
in that they were liable to personal punishment. … A colonus
was indissolubly attached to the land, and could not get quit
of the tie, even by enlisting as a soldier. The proprietor
could sell him with the estate, but had no power whatever of
selling him without it; and if he sold the estate, he was
compelled to sell the coloni along with it. … The position
of these villeins was a very miserable one. … These coloni
in Gaul, combined together, were joined by the free peasants
still left [A. D. 287], whose lot was not less wretched than
their own, and forming into numerous bands, spread themselves
over the country to pillage and destroy. They were called
Bagaudæ, from a Celtic word meaning a mob or riotous assembly;
and under this name recur often in the course of the next
century both in Gaul and Spain."
_W. T. Arnold,
The Roman System of Provincial Administration,
chapter 4._
DEEMSTERS.
See MANX KINGDOM, THE.
DEFENDERS.
See IRELAND: A. D. 1784.
DEFENESTRATION AT PRAGUE, The.
See BOHEMIA: A. D. 1611-1618.
DEFTERDARS.
See SUBLIME PORTE.
DEICOLÆ, The.
See CULDEES.
DEIRA, The kingdom of.
One of the kingdoms of the Angles, covering what is now called
the East Riding of Yorkshire, with some territory beyond it.
Sometimes it was united with the kingdom of Bernicia, north of
it, to form the greater kingdom of Northumbria.
See ENGLAND: A. D. 547-633.
{654}
DEKARCHIES.
See SPARTA: B. C. 404-403.
DEKELEIA.
DEKELEIAN WAR.
See GREECE: B. C. 413.
DELATION.
DELATORS.
Under the empire, there was soon bred at Rome an infamous
class of men who bore a certain resemblance—with significant
contrasts likewise—to the sycophants of Athens. They were
known as delators, and their occupation was delation. "The
delator was properly one who gave notice to the fiscal
officers of moneys that had become due to the treasury of the
state, or more strictly to the emperor's fiscus." But the
title was extended to informers generally, who dragged their
fellow-citizens before the tribunals for alleged violations of
law. Augustus made delation a profession by attaching rewards
to the information given against transgressors of his marriage
laws. Under the successor of Augustus, the sullen and
suspicious Tiberius, delation received its greatest
encouragement and development. "According to the spirit of
Roman criminal procedure, the informer and the pleader were
one and the same person. There was no public accuser, … but
the spy who discovered the delinquency was himself the man to
demand of the senate, the prætor or the judge, an opportunity
of proving it by his own eloquence and ingenuity. The odium of
prosecution was thus removed from the government to the
private delator."
_C. Merivale,
History of the Romans,
chapter 44._
See, also, ROME: A. D. 14-37.
DELAWARE BAY: A. D. 1609.
Discovered by Henry Hudson.
See AMERICA: A. D. 1609.
DELAWARE BAY:
The error perpetuated in its name.
"Almost every writer on American history that I have met with
appears to have taken pains to perpetuate the stereotyped
error that 'Lord Delawarr touched at this bay in his passage
to Virginia in 1610.' … Lord Delawarr himself, in his letter
of the 7th of July, 1610, giving an account of his voyage to
Virginia, not only makes no mention of that bay, or of his
approaching it, but expressly speaks of his first reaching the
American coast on the '6th of June, at what time we made land
to the southward of our harbor, the Chesiopiock Bay.' The
first European who is really known to have entered the bay,
after Hudson, was Capt. Samuel Argall [July 1610]. … The
name of Lord Delawarr, however, seems to have been given to
the bay soon afterwards by the Virginians."
_J. R. Brodhead,
History of the State of New York,
volume 1, appendix, note D._
----------DELAWARE BAY: End----------
DELAWARE: A. D. 1629-1631.
The Dutch occupancy and first settlement.
The first attempt at settlement on the Delaware was made by
the Dutch, who claimed the country in right of Hudson's
discovery and Mey's exploration of the Bay, notwithstanding
the broad English claim, which covered the whole of it as part
of an indefinite Virginia. In 1629, pursuant to the patroon
ordinance of the Dutch West India Company, which opened New
Netherland territory to private purchasers, "Samuel Godyn and
Samuel Blommaert, both directors of the Amsterdam Chamber,
bargained with the natives for the soil from Cape Henlopen to
the mouth of Delaware river; in July, 1630, this purchase of
an estate more than thirty miles long was ratified at Fort
Amsterdam by Minuit [then Governor of New Netherland] and his
council. It is the oldest deed for land in Delaware, and
comprises the water-line of the two southern counties of that
state. … A company was soon formed to colonize the tract
acquired by Godyn and Blommaert. The first settlement in
Delaware, older than any in Pennsylvania, was undertaken by a
company, of which Godyn, Van Rensselaer, Blommaert, the
historian De Laet, and a new partner, David Petersen de Vries,
were members. By joint enterprise, in December, 1630, a ship
of 18 guns, commanded by Pieter Heyes, and laden with
emigrants, store of seeds, cattle and agricultural implements,
embarked from the Texel, partly to cover the southern shore of
Delaware Bay with fields of wheat and tobacco, and partly for
a whale fishery on the coast. … Early in the spring of 1631,
the … vessel reached its destination, and just within Cape
Henlopen, on Lewes Creek, planted a colony of more than thirty
souls. The superintendence of the settlement was intrusted to
Gillis Hosset. A little fort was built and well beset with
palisades: the arms of Holland were affixed to a pillar; the
country received the name Swaanendael; the water that of
Godyn's Bay. The voyage of Heyes was the cradling of a state.
That Delaware exists as a separate commonwealth is due to this
colony. According to English rule, occupancy was necessary to
complete a title to the wilderness; and the Dutch now occupied
Delaware. On the 5th of May, Heyes and Hosset, in behalf of
Godyn and Blommaert, made a further purchase from Indian
chiefs of the opposite coast of Cape May, for twelve miles on
the bay, on the sea, and in the interior; and, in June, this
sale of a tract twelve miles square was formally attested at
Manhattan. Animated by the courage of Godyn, the patroons of
Swaanendael fitted out a second expedition under the command
of De Vries. But, before he set sail, news was received of the
destruction of the fort, and the murder of its people. Hasset,
the commandant, had caused the death of an Indian chief; and
the revenge of the savages was not appeased till not one of
the emigrants remained alive. De Vries, on his arrival, found
only the ruins of the house and its palisades, half consumed
by fire, and here and there the bones of the colonists."
_G. Bancroft,
History of the United States,
part 2, chapter 13 (volume 1)._
ALSO IN:
_J. R. Brodhead,
History of the State of New York,
volume 1, chapter 7._
DELAWARE: A. D. 1632.
Embraced in the Maryland grant to Lord Baltimore.
See MARYLAND: A. D. 1632.
DELAWARE: A. D. 1634.
Embraced in the Palatine grant of New Albion.
See NEW ALBION.
DELAWARE: A. D. 1638-1640.
The planting of the Swedish colony.
"William Usselinx, a distinguished merchant in Stockholm, was
the first to propose to the Swedish government a scheme for
planting a colony in America. He was a native of Antwerp, and
had resided in Spain, Portugal and the Azores, at a time when
the spirit of foreign adventure pervaded every class of
society. … In the year 1624 he proposed to the Swedish
monarch, Gustavus Adolphus, a plan for the organization of a
trading company, to extend its operations to Asia, Africa,
America and Terra Magellanica. …
{655}
Whether Usselinx had ever been in America is uncertain, but he
had, soon after the organization of the Dutch West India
Company, some connection with it, and by this and other means
was able to give ample information in relation to the country
bordering on the Delaware, its soil, climate, and productions.
… His plan and contract were translated into the Swedish
language by Schrader, the royal interpreter, and published to
the nation, with an address strongly appealing both to their
piety and their love of gain. The king recommended it to the
States, and an edict dated at Stockholm, July 2d, 1626, was
issued by royal authority, in which people of all ranks were
invited to encourage the project and support the Company.
Books were opened for subscription to the stock … and
Gustavus pledged the royal treasure for its support to the
amount of 400,000 dollars. … The work was ripe for
execution, when the German war [the Thirty Years War], and
afterwards the king's death, prevented it, and rendered the
fair prospect fruitless. … The next attempt on the part of
the Swedes to plant a colony in America was more successful.
But there has been much difference among historians in
relation to the period when that settlement was made. … It
is owing to the preservation, among the Dutch records at
Albany, of an official protest issued by Kieft, the Governor
at New Amsterdam, that we do certainly know the Swedes were
here in the spring of 1638. Peter Minuit, who conducted to our
shore the first Swedish colony, had been Commercial Agent, and
Director General of the Dutch West India Company, and Governor
of the New Netherlands. … At this time Christina, the infant
daughter of Gustavus Adolphus, had ascended the throne of
Sweden. … Under the direction of Oxenstiern, the celebrated
chancellor of Sweden, whose wisdom and virtue have shed a
glory on the age in which he lived, the patent which had been
granted in the reign of Gustavus to the company formed under
the influence of Usselinx was renewed, and its privileges
extended to the citizens of Germany. Minuit, being now out of
employment, and probably deeming himself injured by the
conduct of the Dutch Company [which had displaced him from the
governorship of the New Netherlands, through the influence of
the patroons, and appointed Wouter Van Twiller, a clerk, to
succeed him], had determined to offer his services to the
crown of Sweden. … Minuit laid before the chancellor a plan
of procedure, urged a settlement on the Delaware, and offered
to conduct the enterprise. Oxenstiern represented the case to
the queen … and Minuit was commissioned to command and
direct the expedition."
_B. Ferris,
History of the Original Settlements on the Delaware,
part 1, chapters 2-3._
"With two ships laden with provisions and other supplies
requisite for the settlement of emigrants in a new country,
and with fifty colonists, Minuit sailed from Sweden late in
1637, and entered Delaware Bay in April, 1638. He found the
country as he had left it, without white inhabitants. Minqua
Kill, now Wilmington, was selected as the place for the first
settlement, where he bought a few acres of land of the
natives, landed his colonists and stores, erected a fort, and
began a small plantation. He had conducted his enterprise with
some secrecy, that he might avoid collision with the Dutch;
but the watchful eyes of their agents soon discovered him, and
reported his presence to the director at New Amsterdam. Kieft
[successor to Van Twiller] had just arrived, and it became one
of his first duties to notify a man who had preceded him in
office that he was a trespasser and warn him off. Minuit,
knowing that Kieft was powerless to enforce his protest, being
without troops or money, paid no attention to his missive, and
kept on with his work. … He erected a fort of considerable
strength, named Christina, for the Swedish queen, and
garrisoned it with 24 soldiers. Understanding the character of
the Indians, he conciliated their sachems by liberal presents
and secured the trade. In a few months he was enabled to load
his ships with peltries and despatch them to his patrons. …
The colony had to all appearance a promising future. …
Within two years, however, their prospects were clouded. The
Company had failed to send out another ship with supplies and
merchandise for the Indian trade. Provisions failed, trade
fell off, and sickness began to prevail. … They resolved to
remove to Manhattan, where they could at least have 'enough to
eat.' On the eve of 'breaking up' to carry their resolution
into effect, succor came from an unexpected quarter. The fame
of New Sweden, as the colony was called, of its fertile lands
and profitable trade, had reached other nations of Europe. In
Holland itself a company was formed to establish a settlement
under the patronage of the Swedish Company." This Dutch
company "freighted a ship with colonists and supplies, which
fortunately arrived when the Swedish colony was about to be
broken up and the country abandoned. The spirits of the Swedes
were revived. … Their projected removal was indefinitely
deferred and they continued their work with fresh vigor. The
Dutch colonists were located in a settlement by themselves,
only a few miles from Fort Christina. They were loyal to the
Swedes. … In the autumn of the same year, 1640, Peter
Hollaendare, who had been appointed deputy governor of the
colony, and Moens Kling, arrived from Sweden with three ships
laden with provisions and merchandise for the straitened
colonists. They also brought out a considerable company of new
emigrants. New Sweden was now well established and prosperous.
More lands were bought, and new settlements were made. Peter
Minuit died the following year."
_G. W. Schuyler,
Colonial New York,
volume 1, introduction, section 2._
ALSO IN:
_I. Acrelius,
History of New Sweden
(Pennsylvania Historical Society Mem., volume 11)
chapter 1._
_Documents relative to Colonial History of New York,
volume 12._
_G. B. Keen,
New Sweden
(Narrative and Critical History of America,
volume 4, chapter 9)._
_J. F. Jameson,
Willem Usselinx
(Papers of the American Historical Association,
volume 2, number 3)._
DELAWARE: A. D. 1640-1643.
Intrusions of the English from New Haven.
See NEW JERSEY: A. D. 1640-1655.
DELAWARE. A. D. 1640-1656.
The struggle between the Swedes and the Dutch and the final
victory of the latter.
"The [Swedish] colony grew to such importance that John
Printz, a lieutenant-colonel of cavalry, was sent out in 1642
as governor, with orders for developing industry and trade. He
took pains to command the mouth of the river, although the
Dutch had established Fort Nassau on its eastern bank, and the
Swedish settlements were on the western bank exclusively.
{656}
Collisions arose between the Dutch and the Swedes, and when
the former put up the arms of the States General on the
completion of a purchase of lands from the Indians, Printz in
a passion ordered them to be torn down. The Swedes gained in
strength while the Dutch lost ground in the vicinity. In 1648
the Dutch attempted to build a trading post on the Schuylkill,
when they were repulsed by force by the Swedes. Individuals
seeking to erect houses were treated in the same way. The
Swedes in turn set up a stockade on the disputed ground.
Director Stuyvesant found it necessary in 1651 to go to confer
with Printz with a view to holding the country against the
aggressive English. The Indians were called into council and
confirmed the Dutch title, allowing the Swedes little more
than the site of Fort Christina. Fort Casimir was erected
lower down the river, to protect Dutch interests. The two
rulers agreed to be friends and allies, and so continued for
three years. The distress of the Swedish colony led to appeals
for aid from the home country whither Governor Printz had
returned. In 1654 help was given, and a new governor, John
Claude Rysingh, marked his coming by the capture of Fort
Casimir, pretending that the Dutch West India Company
authorized the act. The only revenge the Dutch could take was
the seizure of a Swedish vessel which by mistake ran into
Manhattan Bay. But the next year orders came from Holland
exposing the fraud of Rysingh, and directing the expulsion of
the Swedes from the South River. A fleet was organized and
Director Stuyvesant recovered Fort Casimir without firing a
gun. After some parley Fort Christina was also surrendered.
Such Swedes as would not take the oath of allegiance to the
Dutch authorities were sent to the home country. Only twenty
persons accepted the oath, and of three clergymen two were
expelled, and the third escaped like treatment by the sudden
outbreak of Indian troubles. In 1656 the States General and
Sweden made these transactions [a] matter of international
discussion. The Swedes presented a protest against the action
of the Dutch, and it was talked over, but the matter was
finally dropped. In the same year the West India Company sold
its interests on the South River to the city of Amsterdam, and
the colony of New Amstel was erected, so that the authority of
New Netherland was extinguished."
_E. H. Roberts,
New York,
volume 1, chapter 7._
ALSO IN:
_E. Armstrong,
Introduction to the Record of Upland
(Historical Society of Pennsylvania Memoirs, volume 7)._
_B. Ferris,
History of the Original Settlements on the Delaware,
part 1, chapter 6-7._
_S. Hazard,
Annals of Pennsylvania,
pages 62-228._
_Report of the Amsterdam Chamber of the W. I. Co.
(Documents relative to Colonial History of New York,
volume 1, pages 587-646)._
DELAWARE: A. D. 1664.
Conquest by the English, and annexation to New York.
"Five days after the capitulation of New Amsterdam
[surrendered by the Dutch to the English, Aug. 29, 1664 see
NEW YORK: A. D. 1664] Nicolls, with Cartwright and Maverick
… commissioned their colleague, Sir Robert Carr, to go,"
with three ships and an adequate military force, "and reduce
the Delaware settlements. Carr was instructed to promise the
Dutch the possession of all their property and all their
present privileges, 'only that they change their masters.' To
the Swedes he was to 'remonstrate their happy return under a
monarchical government, and his majesty's good inclination to
that nation.' To Lord Baltimore's officers in Maryland, he was
to declare that their proprietor's pretended right to the
Delaware being 'a doubtful case,' possession would be kept for
the king 'till his majesty is informed and satisfied
otherwise.' … The Swedes were soon made friends," but the
Dutch attempted [October] some resistance, and yielded only
after a couple of broadsides from the ships had killed three
and wounded ten of their garrison. "Carr now landed … and
claimed the pillage for himself as 'won by the sword.'
Assuming an authority independent of Nicolls, he claimed to be
the 'sole and chief commander and disposer' of all affairs on
the Delaware." His acts of rapacity and violence, when
reported to his fellow commissioners, at New York, were
condemned and repudiated, and Nicolls, the presiding
commissioner, went to the Delaware in person to displace him.
"Carr was severely rebuked, and obliged to give up much of his
ill-gotten spoil. Nevertheless, he could not be persuaded to
leave the place for some time. The name of New Amstel was now
changed to New Castle, and an infantry garrison established
there. … Captain John Carr was appointed commander of the
Delaware, in subordination to the government of New York, to
which it was annexed 'as an appendage'; and thus affairs
remained for several years."
_J. R. Brodhead,
History of the State of New York,
volume 2, chapter 2._
DELAWARE: A. D. 1673.
The Dutch reconquest.
See NEW YORK: A. D. 1673.
DELAWARE: A. D. 1674.
Final recovery by the English.
See NETHERLANDS (HOLLAND): A. D. 1674.
DELAWARE: A. D. 1674-1760.
In dispute between the Duke of York and the
Proprietary of Maryland.
Grant by the Duke to William Penn:
See PENNSYLVANIA; A. D. 1682; 1685; and 1760-1767.
DELAWARE: A. D. 1691-1702.
The practical independence of Penn's "lower counties" acquired.
"In April, 1691, with the reluctant consent of William Penn,
the 'territories,' or 'lower counties,' now known as the State
of Delaware, became for two years a government by themselves
under Markham. … The disturbance by Keith [see PENNSYLVANIA;
A. D. 1692-1696] creating questions as to the administration
of justice, confirmed the disposition of the English
government to subject Pennsylvania to a royal commission; and
in April 1693, Benjamin Fletcher, appointed governor by
William and Mary, once more united Delaware to Pennsylvania."
But Penn, restored to his authority in 1694, could not resist
the jealousies which tended so strongly to divide the Delaware
territories from Pennsylvania proper. "In 1702, Pennsylvania
convened its legislature apart, and the two colonies were
never again united. The lower counties became almost an
independent republic; for, as they were not included in the
charter, the authority of the proprietary over them was by
sufferance only, and the executive power intrusted to the
governor of Pennsylvania was too feeble to restrain the power
of their people. The legislature, the tribunals, the
subordinate executive officers of Delaware knew little of
external control."
_G. Bancroft, History of the United States.
(author's last revision),
part 3, chapter 2 (volume 2)._
The question of jurisdiction over Delaware was involved
throughout in the boundary dispute between the proprietaries
of Pennsylvania and Maryland.
See PENNSYLVANIA; A. D. 1685; and 1760-1767.
{657}
DELAWARE: A. D. 1760-1766.
The question of taxation by Parliament.
The Stamp Act and its repeal.
The Declaratory Act.
The First Continental Congress.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
A. D. 1760-1775; 1763-1764; 1765; and 1766.
DELAWARE: A. D. 1766-1774
Opening events of the Revolution.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
A. D. 1766-1767 to 1774;
and BOSTON: A. D. 1768 to 1773.
DELAWARE: A. D. 1775.
The beginning of the war of the American Revolution.
Lexington.
Concord.
Action taken on the news.
Ticonderoga.
The siege of Boston.
Bunker Hill.
The Second Continental Congress.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1775.
DELAWARE: A. D. 1776.
Further introduction of slaves prohibited.
See SLAVERY, NEGRO: A. D.1776-1808.
DELAWARE: A. D. 1776-1783.
The War of Independence.
Peace with Great Britain.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1776 to 1783.
DELAWARE: A. D. 1777-1779.
Withholding ratification from the Articles of Confederation.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1781-1786.
DELAWARE: A. D. 1787.
The adoption and ratification of the Federal Constitution.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
A. D. 1787, and 1787-1789.
DELAWARE: A. D. 1861 (April).
Refusal of troops on the call of President Lincoln.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1861 (APRIL).
----------DELAWARE: End----------
DELAWARE RIVER,
Washington's passage of the.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1776-1777.
DELAWARES, The.
See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: DELAWARES.
DELFT: Assassination of the Prince of Orange (1584).
See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1581-1584.
DELHI: 11th Century.
Capture by Mahmoud of Gazna.
See TURKS: A. D. 999-1183.
DELHI: A. D. 1192-1290.
The capital of the Mameluke or Slave dynasty.
See INDIA: A. D. 977-1290.
DELHI: A. D. 1399.
Sack and massacre by Timour.
See TIMOUR.
DELHI: A. D. 1526-1605.
The founding of the Mogul Empire by Babar and Akbar.
See INDIA: A. D. 1399-1605.
DELHI: A. D. 1739.
Sack and massacre by Nadir Shah.
See INDIA: A. D. 1662-1748.
DELHI: A. D. 1760-1761.
Taken and plundered by the Mahrattas.
Then by the Afghans.
Collapse of the Mogul Empire.
See INDIA: A. D. 1747-1761.
DELHI: A. D. 1857.
The Sepoy Mutiny.
Massacre of Europeans.
Explosion of the magazine.
English siege and capture of the city.
See INDIA: A. D. 1857 (MAY-AUGUST)
and (JUNE-SEPTEMBER).
----------DELHI: End----------
DELIAN CONFEDERACY.
See GREECE: B. C. 478-477;
and ATHENS: B. C. 466-454, and after.
DELIAN FESTIVAL.
See DELOS.
DELIUM, Battle of (B. C. 424).
A serious defeat suffered by the Athenians in the
Peloponnesian War, B. C. 424, at the hands of the Thebans and
other Bœotians. It was consequent upon the seizure by the
Athenians of the Bœotian temple of Delium—a temple of
Apollo—on the sea-coast, about five miles from Tanagra, which
they fortified and intended to hold. After the defeat of the
army which was returning from this exploit, the garrison left
at Delium was besieged and mostly captured. Among the hoplites
who fought at Delium was the philosopher Socrates. The
commander Hippocrates was slain.
_Thucydides,
History,
book 4, sections 89-100._
ALSO IN:
_G. Grote,
History of Greece,
part 2, chapter 53._
See GREECE: B. C. 424-421.
DELOS.
Delos, the smallest island of the group called the Cyclades,
but the most important in the eyes of the Ionian Greeks, being
their sacred isle, the fabled birthplace of Apollo and long
the chief seat and center of his worship. "The Homeric Hymn to
Apollo presents to us the island of Delos as the centre of a
great periodical festival in honour of Apollo, celebrated by
all the cities, insular and continental, of the Ionic name.
What the date of this hymn is, we have no means of
determining: Thucydides quotes it, without hesitation, as the
production of Homer, and, doubtless, it was in his time
universally accepted as such,—though modern critics concur in
regarding both that and the other hymns as much later than the
Iliad and Odyssey. It cannot probably be later than 600 B. C.
The description of the Ionic visitors presented to us in this
hymn is splendid and imposing; the number of their ships, the
display of their finery, the beauty of their women, the
athletic exhibitions as well as the matches of song and
dance,—all these are represented as making an ineffaceable
impression on the spectator: 'the assembled Ionians look as if
they were beyond the reach of old age or death.' Such was the
magnificence of which Delos was the periodical theatre, and
which called forth the voices and poetical genius not merely
of itinerant bards, but also of the Delian maidens in the
temple of Apollo, during the century preceding 560 B. C. At
that time it was the great central festival of the Ionians in
Asia and Europe."
_G. Grote,
History of Greece,
part 2, chapter 12._
During the war with Persia, Delos was made the common treasury
of the Greeks; but Athens subsequently took the custody and
management of the treasury to herself and reduced Delos to a
dependency. The island was long the seat of an extensive
commerce, and Delian bronze was of note in the arts.
DELOS: B. C. 490.
Spared by the Persians.
See GREECE: B. C. 490.
DELOS: B. C. 477.
The Delian Confederacy.
See GREECE: B. C. 478-477;
and ATHENS: B. C. 466-454, and after.
DELOS: B. C. 461-454 (?).
Removal of the Confederate treasury to Athens.
See ATHENS: B. C. 466-454.
DELOS: B. C. 425-422.
Purifications.
"In the midst of the losses and turmoil of the [Peloponnesian]
war it had been determined [at Athens] to offer a solemn
testimony of homage to Apollo on Delos, [B. C. 425]—a homage
doubtless connected with the complete cessation of the
pestilence, which had lasted as long as the fifth year of the
war. The solemnity consisted in the renewed consecration of
the entire island to the divine Giver of grace; all the
coffins containing human remains being removed from Delos, and
Rhenea appointed to be henceforth the sole burial-place. This
solemnity supplemented the act formerly performed by the
orders of Pisistratus, and it was doubtless in the present
instance also intended, by means of a brilliant renewal of the
Delian celebration, to strengthen the power of Athens in the
island sea, to give a festive centre to the Ionic world. …
But the main purpose was clearly one of morality and religion.
It was intended to calm and edify the minds of the citizens."
_E. Curtius,
History of Greece,
book 4, chapter 2._
{658}
Three years later (B. C. 422) the Athenians found some reason
for another purification of Delos which was more radical,
consisting in the expulsion of all the inhabitants from the
island. The unfortunate Delians found an asylum at Adramyttium
in Asia, until they were restored to their homes next year,
through the influence of the Delphic oracle.
_Thucydides,
History,
book 5, section 1._
DELOS: B. C. 88.
Pontic Massacre.
Early in the first war of Mithridates with the Romans (B. C.
88), Delos, which had been made a free port and had become the
emporium of Roman commerce in the east, was seized by a Pontic
fleet, and pillaged, 20,000 Italians being massacred on the
island. The treasures of Delos were sent to Athens and the
island restored to the Athenian control.
_W. Ihne,
History of Rome,
book 7, chapter 17._
DELOS: B. C. 69.
Ravaged by Pirates.
"Almost under the eyes of the fleet of Lucullus, the pirate
Athenodorus surprised in 685 [B. C. 69] the island of Delos,
destroyed its far-famed shrines and temples, and carried off
the whole population into slavery."
_T. Mommsen,
History of Rome,
book 5, chapter 2._
DELOS: Slave Trade under the Romans.
"Thrace and Sarmatia were the Guinea Coast of the Romans. The
entrepôt of this trade was Delos, which had been made a free
port by Rome after the conquest of Macedonia. Strabo tells us
that in one day 10,000 slaves were sold there in open market.
Such were the vile uses to which was put the Sacred Island,
once the treasury of Greece."
_H. G. Liddell,
History of Rome,
book 5, chapter 48._
----------DELOS: End----------
DELPHI.
KRISSA (CRISSA).
KIRRHA (CIRRHA).
"In those early times when the Homeric Hymn to Apollo was
composed the town of Krissa [in Phocis, near Delphi] appears
to have been great and powerful, possessing all the broad
plain between Parnassus, Kirphis, and the gulf, to which
latter it gave its name,—and possessing also, what was a
property not less valuable, the adjoining sanctuary of Pytho
itself, which the Hymn identifies with Krissa, not indicating
Delphi as a separate place. The Krissæans, doubtless, derived
great profits from the number of visitors who came to visit
Delphi, both by land and by sea, and Kirrha was originally
only the name for their seaport. Gradually, however, the port
appears to have grown in importance at the expense of the
town; … while at the same time the sanctuary of Pytho with
its administrators expanded into the town of Delphi, and came
to claim an independent existence of its own. … In addition
to the above facts, already sufficient in themselves as seeds
of quarrel, we are told that the Kirrhæans abused their
position as masters of the avenue to the temple by sea, and
levied exorbitant tolls on the visitors who landed there. …
Besides such offence against the general Grecian public, they
had also incurred the enmity of their Phocian neighbours by
outrages upon women, Phocian as well as Argeian, who were
returning from the temple. Thus stood the case, apparently,
about 595 B. C., when the Amphiktyonic meeting interfered …
to punish the Kirrhæans. After a war of ten years, the first
Sacred War in Greece, this object was completely accomplished,
by a joint force of Thessalians under Eurylochus, Sikyonians
under Kleisthenes, and Athenians under Alkmæon; the Athenian
Solon being the person who originated and enforced, in the
Amphiktyonic council, the proposition of interference. Kirrha
… was destroyed, or left to subsist merely as a landing
place; and the whole adjoining plain was consecrated to the
Delphian god, whose domains thus touched the sea. … The fate
of Kirrha in this war is ascertained: that of Krissa is not so
clear, nor do we know whether it was destroyed, or left
subsisting in a position of inferiority with regard to Delphi.
From this time forward, the Delphian community appears as
substantive and autonomous, exercising in their own right the
management of the temple; though we shall find, on more than
one occasion, that the Phocians contest this right. … The
spoils of Kirrha were employed by the victorious allies in
founding the Pythian Games. The octennial festival hitherto
celebrated at Delphi in honour of the god, including no other
competition except in the harp and the pæan, was expanded into
comprehensive games on the model of the Olympic, with matches
not only of music, but also of gymnastics and
chariots,—celebrated, not at Delphi itself, but on the
maritime plain near the ruined Kirrha,—and under the direct
superintendence of the Amphiktyons themselves. … They were
celebrated in the latter half of summer, or first half of
every third Olympic year. … Nothing was conferred but
wreaths of laurel."
_G. Grote,
History of Greece,
part 2, chapter 28._
See, also, ATHENS: B. C. 610-586;
PYTHO; ORACLES OF THE GREEKS;
and AMPHIKTYONIC COUNCIL.
DELPHI: B. C. 357-338.
Seizure by the Phocians.
The Sacred Wars.
Deliverance by Philip of Macedon.
War with Amphissa.
See GREECE: B. C. 357-336.
DELPHI: B. C. 279.
Discomfiture of the Gauls.
See GAULS: B. C. 280-279.
----------DELPHI: End----------
DELPHIC ORACLE, The.
See ORACLES OF THE GREEKS.
DELPHIC SIBYL, The.
See SIBYLS.
DEMES.
DEMI.
See PHYLÆ; also, ATHENS: B. C. 510-507.
DEMETES, The.
One of the tribes of ancient Wales.
See BRITAIN, CELTIC TRIBES.
DEMETRIUS,
The Impostor.
See RUSSIA: A. D. 1533-1682.
Demetrius Poliorcetes, and the wars of the Diadochi.
See MACEDONIA: B. C. 315-310, 310-301;
also GREECE: B. C. 307-301;
and RHODES: B. C. 305-304.
DEMIURGI.
COSMOS.
TAGOS OR TAGUS.
Of the less common titles applied among the ancient Greeks to
their supreme magistrates, are "Cosmos, or Cosmios, and Tagos
(signifying Arranger and Commander), the former of which we
find in Crete, the latter in the Thessalian cities. With the
former we may compare the title of Cosmopolis, which was in
use among the Epizephyrian Locrians. A more frequent title is
that of Demiurgi, a name which seems to imply a constitution
no longer oligarchical, but which bestowed certain rights on
the Demos. In the time of the Peloponnesian war magistrates of
this kind existed in Elis and in the Arcadian Mantinæa. …
The title is declared by Grammarians to have been commonly
used among the Dorians. … A similar title is that of
Demuchus, which the supreme magistrates of Thespiæ in Bœotia
seem to have borne. … The Artyni at Epidaurus and Argos we
have already mentioned."
_G. Schömann,
Antiquity of Greece: The State,
part 2, chapter 5._
{659}
DEMOCRATIC OR DEMOCRATIC REPUBLICAN PARTY OF THE UNITED STATES.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
A. D. 1789-1792; 1825-1828; 1845-1846.
DEMOSTHENES,
the general at Sphacteria and at Syracuse.
See GREECE: B. C. 425,
and SYRACUSE: B. C. 415-413;
and ATHENS: B. C. 415-413.
Demosthenes the orator,
The Phillipics, and the Death of.
See GREECE: B. C. 357-336, 351-348,
and 323-322;
and ATHENS: B. C. 359-338, and 336-322.
DEMOTIC WRITING.
See HIEROGLYPHICS.
DEMUCHUS.
See DEMIURGI.
DENAIN. Battle of (1712).
See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1710-1712.
DENARIUS, The.
See AS.
DENDERMONDE.
Surrender to the Spaniards (1584).
See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1584-1585.
DENIS, King of Portugal, A. D. 1279-1323.
DENMARK.
See SCANDINAVIAN STATES.
DENNEWITZ, OR JÜTERBOGK, Battle of.
See GERMANY: A. D. 1813 (SEPTEMBER-OCTOBER).
DENNIKON, Peace of (1531).
See SWITZERLAND: A. D. 1531-1648.
DENVER, The founding of.
See COLORADO: A. D. 1806-1876.
DEORHAM, Battle of.
Fought A. D. 577, near Bath, England, between the invading
West Saxons and the Britons. The victory of the former gave
them possession of the lower valley of the Severn and
practically completed the Saxon conquest of England.
_J. R. Green,
The Making of England,
pages 125-131._
DERBEND, Pass of.
See JUROIPACH.
DERBY-DISRAELI MINISTRIES The.
See ENGLAND: A. D. 1851-1852; 1858-1859;
and 1868-1870.
DERRY.
See LONDONDERRY.
DE RUSSY, Fort, Capture of.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
A. D. 1864 (MARCH-MAY: LOUISIANA).
DESERET, The proposed state of.
See UTAH: A. D. 1849-1850.
DESMONDS, The.
See GERALDINES.
DESMOULINS, Camille, and the French Revolution.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1789 (JULY); 1790;
1792 (AUGUST), to 1793-1794 (NOVEMBER-JUNE).
DESPOT OF EPIRUS.
"The title of despot, by which they [the mediæval princes of
Epirus] are generally distinguished, was a Byzantine honorary
distinction, never borne by the earlier members of the family
until it had been conferred on them by the Greek Emperor."
_G. Finlay,
History of Greece from its conquest by the Crusaders,
chapter 6, section 1._
See EPIRUS: A. D. 1204-1350.
DESPOTS,
Greek.
See TYRANTS.
Italian.
See ITALY: A. D. 1250-1520.
DESSAU, Battle of (1626).
See GERMANY: A. D. 1624-1626.
DESTRIERS.
PALFREYS.
"A cavaliere or man-at-arms was accompanied by one 'Destriero'
or strong war-horse, and one or two, sometimes three, mounted
squires who led the animal fully caparisoned; or carried the
helmet; lance and shield of their master: these 'Destrieri'
('rich and great horses' as Villani calls them), were so named
because they were led on the right hand without any rider, and
all ready for mounting: the squire's horses were of an
inferior kind called 'Ronzini,' and on the 'Palafreni' or
palfreys the knight rode when not in battle."
_H. E. Napier,
Florentine History,
volume 1, page 633._
DESTROYING ANGELS, OR DANITES.
See MORMONISM: A. D. 1830-1846.
DETROIT:
First occupied by the Coureurs de Bois.
See COUREURS DE BOIS.
DETROIT: A. D. 1686-1701.
The first French forts.
Cadillac's founding of the city.
At the beginning of the war called "Queen Anne's War" (1702)
"Detroit had already been established. In June, 1701, la Mothe
Cadillac, with a Jesuit father and 100 men, was sent to
construct a fort and occupy the country; hence he is spoken of
as the founder of the city. In 1686, a fort [called Fort St.
Joseph] had been constructed to the south of the present city,
where Fort Gratiot now stands, but it soon fell into decay and
was abandoned. It was not the site selected by Cadillac."
_W. Kingsford,
History of Canada,
volume 2, page 408._
"Fort St. Joseph was abandoned in the year 1688. The
establishment of Cadillac was destined to a better fate and
soon rose to distinguished importance among the western
outposts of Canada."
_F. Parkman,
The Conspiracy of Pontiac,
volume 1, page 218._
DETROIT: A. D. 1701-1755.
Importance to the French.
See CANADA: A. D. 1700-1735.
DETROIT: A. D. 1712.
Siege by the Foxes and Massacre of that tribe.
See CANADA: A. D. 1711-1713.
DETROIT: A. D. 1760.
The French settlement when surrendered to the English.
"The French inhabitants here are settled on both sides of the
river for about eight miles. When I took possession of the
country soon after the surrender of Canada [see CANADA: A. D.
1760], they were about 2,500 in number, there being near 500
that bore arms (to whom I administered oaths of allegiance)
and near 300 dwelling houses. Our fort here is built of
stockadoes, is about 25 feet high, and 1,200 yards in
circumference. … The inhabitants raise wheat and other grain
in abundance, and have plenty of cattle, but they enrich
themselves chiefly by their trade with the Indians, which is
here very large and lucrative."
_Major R. Rogers,
Concise Account of North America,
page 168._
DETROIT: A. D. 1763.
Pontiac's Siege.
See PONTIAC'S WAR.
DETROIT: A. D. 1775-1783.
Held by the British throughout the War of Independence.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1778-1779,
CLARK'S CONQUEST.
DETROIT: A. D. 1805.
Made the seat of government of the Territory of Michigan.
See INDIANA: A. D. 1800-1818.
DETROIT: A. D. 1812.
The surrender of General Hull.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
A. D. 1812 (JUNE-OCTOBER).
DETROIT: A. D 1813.
American recovery.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1812-1813.
{660}
DETTINGEN, Battle of (1743).
See AUSTRIA: A. D. 1743.
DEUSDEDIT, Pope, A. D. 615-618.
DEUTSCH. Origin of the name.
See GERMANY: THE NATIONAL NAME.
DEUTSCHBROD, Battle of (1422).
See BOHEMIA: A. D. 1419-1434.
DEVA.
One of the Roman garrison towns in
Britain, on the site of which is modern Chester,
taking its name from the castra or fortified
station of the legions. It was the station of
the 20th legion.
T. Mommsen,
History of Rome,
book 8, chapter 5.
DEVE-BOYUN, Battle of (1878).
See TURKS: A. D. 1877-1878.
DEVIL'S CAUSEWAY, The.
The popular name of an old Roman road in England which runs
from Silchester to London.
DEVIL'S HOLE,
The ambuscade and massacre at.
On the 13th of September, 1763, during the progress of
Pontiac's War, a train of wagons and packhorses, traversing
the Niagara portage between Lewiston and Fort Schlosser,
guarded by an escort of 24 soldiers, was ambuscaded by a party
of Seneca warriors at the place called the Devil's Hole, three
miles below the Niagara cataract. Seventy of the whites were
slain, and only three escaped.
_F. Parkman,
The Conspiracy of Pontiac,
chapter 21 (volume 2)._
DEVON COMMISSION, The.
See IRELAND: A. D. 1843-1848.
DEVONSHIRE, in the British age.
See DUMNONII.
DE WITT, John,
The administration and the murder of.
See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1651-1660, to 1672-1674.
DHIHAD.
See DAR-UL-ISLAM.
DIACRII, The.
See ATHENS: B. C. 594.
DIADOCHI, The.
The immediate successors of Alexander the Great, who divided
his empire, are sometimes so-called. "The word diadochi means
'successors,' and is used to include Antigonus, Ptolemy,
Seleucus, Lysimachus, etc.—the actual companions of
Alexander."
_J. P. Mahaffy,
Story of Alexander's Empire,
chapter 5._
See MACEDONIA: B. C. 323-316.
DIAMOND, Battle of the (1795).
See IRELAND: A. D. 1795-1796.
DIAMOND DISCOVERY IN SOUTH AFRICA (1867).
See GRIQUAS.
DIAMOND NECKLACE, The affair of the.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1784-1785.
DIASPORA, The.
A name applied to the Jews scattered throughout the Roman
world.
DIAZ, Porfirio, The Mexican presidency of.
See MEXICO: A. D. 1867-1888.
DICASTERIA.
The great popular court, or jury, in ancient Athens, called
the Heliæa, or Heliastæ consisting at one time of six thousand
chosen citizens, was divided into ten sections, called
Dicasteria. Their places of meeting also bore the same name.
_G. F. Schömann,
Antiquity of Greece: The State,
part 3, chapter 3._
See ATHENS: B. C.445-431.
DICKINSON, John, in the American Revolution.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
A. D. 1767-1768; 1774 (SEPTEMBER);
1776 (JULY).
DICTATOR, Roman.
See CONSULS, ROMAN.
DIDIAN LAW, The.
See ORCHIAN, FANNIAN, DIDIAN LAWS.
DIDIER, OR DESIDERIUS,
King of the Lombards, A. D. 759-774.
DIDYMÆUM, The oracle of.
See ORACLES OF THE GREEKS.
DIEDENHOFEN, Battle of (1639).
See GERMANY: A. D. 1634-1639.
DIEPPE.
Bombardment and destruction by an English fleet.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1694.
DIES ATRI.
The days on which the Romans thought it unlucky to undertake
business of importance—for example, the day after the
Calends, Nones and Ides of each month—were called Dies Atri.
_W. Ramsay,
Manual of Roman Antiquity,
chapter 11._
DIES FASTI.
Dies Nefasti.
Dies Festi.
See FASTI, and LUDI.
DIET.
"An assembly, council, … Parliament. … The peculiar sense
of the word undoubtedly arose from a popular etymology that
connected it with the Latin 'dies,' a day, especially a set day, a
day appointed for public business; whence, by extension, a
meeting for business, an assembly."
_W. W. Skeat,
Etymological Dictionary_
DIET:
The Germanic.
"The annual general councils and special councils of Charles
the Great did not long survive him, and neither his
descendants nor their successors revived them. They were
compelled, to be sure, both by custom and by policy to advise
with the chief men of the kingdom before taking any important
step or doing anything that depended for success on their
consent and cooperation, but they varied the number of their
counsellors and the time, place, and manner of consulting them
to suit their own convenience. Great formal assemblies of
counsellors summoned from all parts of the realm were termed
Imperial Diets (Reichstage); small, or local, or informal
assemblies of a similar kind were known as Court Diets
(Hoftage). Princes and other royal vassals, margraves,
palsgraves, Graves, barons, and even royal Dienstmannen were
indiscriminately summoned, but the Diets were in no sense
representative bodies until the Great Interregnum [see
GERMANY: A. D. 1250-1272] when certain cities acquired such
influence in public affairs that they were invited to send
delegates. The first Diet in which they participated was held
at Worms in February, 1255, by King William of Holland. Most
of the cities of the Rhenish League were there represented,
and they constituted an important factor of the assembly. The
affairs of the church shared attention with temporal affairs
in the Diets until the Popes succeeded in making good their
claims to supremacy in spiritual matters. Thereafter they were
altogether left to synods and church councils. … Imperial
Diets and Court Diets continued to be held at irregular
intervals, whenever and wherever it pleased the king to
convene them, but Imperial Diets were usually held in Imperial
cities. These were not such heterogenous assemblies as
formerly, for few royal vassals, except princes, and no royal
Dienstmannen whatever were now invited to attend. Graves and
barons, and prelates who were not princes, continued to be
summoned, but the number and influence of the Graves and
barons in the Diets steadily waned. Imperial cities were for
many years only occasionally asked to participate, that is to
say, only when the king had especial need of their good
offices, but in the latter half of the 14th century they began
to be regularly summoned.
{661}
Imperial Diets were so frequently held during the Hussite War
and thereafter, that it became pretty well settled what
persons and what cities should take part in them, and only
those persons and those cities that were entitled to take part
in them were regarded as Estates of the realm. In the 15th
century they developed into three chambers or colleges, viz.,
the College of Electors [see GERMANY: A. D. 1125-1152], the
College of Princes, Graves, and Barons, usually called the
Council of Princes of the Empire (Reichsfürstenrath), and the
College of Imperial Cities. The Archbishop of Mentz presided
in the College of Electors, and the Archbishop of Salzburg and
the Duke of Austria presided alternately in the Council of
Princes of the Empire. The office of presiding in the College
of Imperial Cities devolved upon the Imperial city in which
the Diet sat. The king and members of both the upper Colleges
sometimes sent deputies to represent them, instead of
attending in person. In 1474 the cities adopted a method of
voting which resulted in a division of their College into two
Benches, called the Rhenish Bench and the Swabian Bench,
because the Rhenish cities were conspicuous members of the
one, and the Swabian cities conspicuous members of the other.
In the Council of Princes, at least, no regard was had to the
number of votes cast, but only to the power and influence of
the voters, whence a measure might pass the Diet by less than
a majority of the votes present. Having passed, it was
proclaimed as the law of the realm, upon receiving the king's
assent, but was only effective law in so far as the members of
the Diet, present or absent, assented to it. … Not a single
Imperial Diet was summoned between 1613 and 1640. The king
held a few Court Diets during that long interval, consisting
either of the Electors alone, or of the Electors and such
other Princes of the Empire as he chose to summon. The
conditions of membership, and the manner of voting in the
College of Electors and the College of Imperial Cities
remained unchanged. … The cities long strove in vain to have
their votes recognized as of equal weight with the others, but
the two upper Colleges insisted on regarding them as summoned
for consultation only, until the Peace of Westphalia settled
the matter by declaring that 'a decisive vote (votum
decisivum) shall belong to the Free Imperial Cities not less
than to the rest of the Estates of the Empire.' Generally, but
not always, the sense of each College was expressed by the
majority of votes cast. The Peace of Westphalia provided that
'in religious matters and all other business, when the Estates
cannot be considered one body (corpus), as also when the
Catholic Estates and those of the Augsburg Confession go into
two parts (in duas partes euntibus), a mere amicable agreement
shall settle the differences without regard to majority of
votes.' When the 'going into parts,' (itio in partes) took
place each College deliberated in two bodies, the Corpus
Catholicorum and the Corpus Evangelicorum. The king no longer
attended the Imperial Diets in person, but sent commissioners
instead, and it was now the common practice of members of both
the upper Colleges to send deputies to represent them."
_S. E. Turner,
Sketch of the Germanic Constitution,
chapters 4, 5, and 6._
"The establishment of a permanent diet, attended, not by the
electors in person, but by their representatives, is one of
the most striking peculiarities of Leopold's reign" (Leopold
I., 1657-1705). This came about rather accidentally than with
intention, as a consequence of the unusual prolongation of the
session of a general diet which Rudolph convoked at Ratisbon,
soon after his accession to the throne. "'So many new and
important objects … occurred in the course of the
deliberations that the diet was unusually prolonged, and at
last rendered perpetual, as it exists at present, and
distinguishes the Germanic constitution as the only one of its
kind—not only for a certain length of time, as was formerly,
and as diets are generally held in other countries, where
there are national states; but the diet of the Germanic empire
was established by this event for ever. The diet acquired by
this circumstance an entirely different form. So long as it
was only of short duration, it was always expected that the
emperor, as well as the electors, princes, counts and
prelates, if not all, yet the greatest part of them, should
attend in person. … It is true, it had long been customary
at the diets of Germany, for the states to deliver their votes
occasionally by means of plenipotentiaries; but it was then
considered only as an exception, whereas it was now
established as a general rule, that all the states should send
their plenipotentiaries, and never appear themselves. … The
whole diet, therefore, imperceptibly acquired the form of a
congress, consisting solely of ministers, similar in a great
degree to a congress where several powers send their envoys to
treat of peace. In other respects, it may be compared to a
congress held in the name of several states in perpetual
alliance with each other, as in Switzerland, the United
Provinces, and as somewhat of a similar nature exists at
present in North America; but with this difference,—that in
Germany the assembly is held under the authority of one common
supreme head, and that the members do not appear merely as
deputies, or representatives invested with full power by their
principals, which is only the case with the imperial cities;
but so that every member of the two superior colleges of the
empire is himself an actual sovereign of a state, who permits
his minister to deliver his vote in his name and only
according to his prescription.'"
S. A. Dunham,
History of the Germanic Empire,
book 3, chapter 3 (volume 3)—(quoting Putter's Historical
Development of the Germanic Constitution.)
Of the later Diet, of the Germanic Confederation, something
may be learned under GERMANY: A. D. 1814-1820, and 1848
(MARCH-SEPTEMBER).
----------DIET: End----------
DIFFIDATION, The Right of.
See LANDFRIEDE.
DIGITI.
See FOOT, THE ROMAN.
DIJON, Battle at.
See BURGUNDIANS: A. D. 500.
DIJON, Origin of.
Dijon, the old capital of the Dukes of Burgundy, was
originally a strong camp-city—an "urbs quadrata"—of the
Romans, known as the Castrum Divionense. Its walls were 30
feet high, 15 feet thick, and strengthened with 33 towers.
_T. Hodgkin,
Italy and Her Invaders,
book 4, chapter 9._
DILEMITES, The.
See MAHOMETAN CONQUEST: A. D. 815-945.
DIMETIA.
See BRITAIN: 6th CENTURY.
DINAN, Battle of (1597).
See FRANCE: A. D. 1593-1598.
{662}
DINANT, Destruction of.
In the 15th century, down to the year 1466, Dinant was a
populous and thriving town. It was included in the little
state of the prince-bishop of Liege, and was involved in the
war of the Duke of Burgundy with Liege, which ruined both
Liege and Dinant. "It was inhabited by a race of industrious
artisans, preëminent for their skill in the manufacture of
copper. The excellence of their workmanship is attested by
existing specimens—organ-screens, baptismal fonts, and other
ecclesiastical decorations. But the fame of Dinant had been
chiefly spread by its production of more common and useful
articles, especially of kitchen utensils,—'pots and pans and
similar wares,'—which, under the name of 'Dinanderie,' were
known to housewives throughout Europe." In the course of the
war a party of rude young men from Dinant gave deep,
unforgivable provocation to the Duke of Burgundy by
caricaturing and questioning the paternity of his son, the
count of Charolais, afterwards Duke Charles the Bold. To
avenge this insult nothing less than the destruction of the
whole city would satisfy the implacable and ferocious
Burgundians. It was taken by the count of Charolais in August,
1466. His first proceeding was to sack the town, in the most
thorough and deliberate manner. Then 800 of the more obnoxious
citizens were tied together in pairs and drowned in the Meuse,
while others were hanged. This accomplished, the surviving
women, children and priests were expelled from the town and
sent empty-handed to Liege, while the men were condemned to
slavery, with the privilege of ransoming themselves at a heavy
price, if they found anywhere the means. Finally, the torch
was applied, Dinant was burned, and contractors were
subsequently employed by the Duke for several months, to
demolish the ruins and remove the very materials of which the
city had been built.
_J. F. Kirk,
History of Charles the Bold,
book 1, chapters 8-9._
ALSO IN:
_E. de Monstrelet (Johnes),
Chronicles,
book 3, chapters 138-139._
_Philip de Commines,
Memoirs,
book 2, chapter 1._
DINWIDDIE COURT HOUSE, Action at.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
A. D. 1865 (MARCH-APRIL: VIRGINIA).
DIOBOLY, The.
Pericles "was the proposer of the law [at Athens] which
instituted the 'Dioboly,' or free gift of two obols to each
poor citizen, to enable him to pay the entrance-money at the
theatre during the Dionysia."
_C. W. C. Oman,
History of Greece,
page 271._
See ATHENS: B. C. 435-431.
DIOCESES OF THE ROMAN EMPIRE.
"The civil government of the empire was distributed [under
Constantine and his successors] into thirteen great dioceses,
each of which equalled the just measure of a powerful kingdom.
The first of these dioceses was subject to the jurisdiction of
the Count of the East. The place of Augustal Præfect of Egypt
was no longer filled by a Roman knight, but the name was
retained. … The eleven remaining dioceses—of Asiana,
Pontica, and Thrace; of Macedonia, Dacia and Pannonia, or
Western Illyricum; of Italy and Africa; of Gaul, Spain, and
Britain—were governed by twelve vicars or vice-præfects."
_E. Gibbon,
Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire,
chapter 17.
See PUÆTORIAN PRÆFECTS.
DIOCLETIAN, Roman Emperor.
See ROME: A. D. 284-305.
DIOCLETIAN: Abdication.
"The ceremony of his abdication was performed in a spacious
plain about three miles from Nicomedia [May 1, A. D. 305]. The
Emperor ascended a lofty throne, and, in a speech full of
reason and dignity, declared his intention, both to the people
and to the soldiers who were assembled on this extraordinary
occasion. As soon as lie had divested himself of the purple,
he withdrew from the gazing multitude, and, traversing the
city in a covered chariot, proceeded without delay to the
favourite retirement [Salona] which he had chosen in his
native country of Dalmatia."
_E. Gibbon,
Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire,
chapter 13.
See, also, SALONA.
DIOKLÉS, Laws of.
A code of laws framed at Syracuse, immediately after the
Athenian siege, by a commission of ten citizens the chief of
whom was one Dioklês. These laws were extinguished in a few
years by the Dyonisian tyranny, but revived after a lapse of
sixty years. The code is "also said to have been copied in
various other Sicilian cities, and to have remained in force
until the absorption of all Sicily under the dominion of the
Romans."
_G. Grote,
History of Greece,
part 2, chapter 81._
DIONYSIA AT ATHENS.
"The four principal Attik Dionysiak festivals were (1) the
Dionysia Mikra, the Lesser or Rural Dionysia; (2) the Dionysia
Lenaia; (3) the Anthesteria; and (4) the Dionysia Megala, the
Greater or City Dionysia. The Rural Dionysia, celebrated
yearly in the month Posideon (December-January) throughout the
various townships of Attike, was presided over by the demarch
or mayor. The celebration occasioned a kind of rustic
carnival, distinguished like almost all Bakchik festivals, by
gross intemperance and licentiousness, and during which slaves
enjoyed a temporary freedom, with licence to insult their
superiors and behave in a boisterous and disorderly manner. It
is brought vividly before us in the 'Acharnes' of
Aristophanes. … The Anthesteria, or Feast of Flowers,
celebrated yearly in the month Anthesterion (February-March), …
lasted for three days, the first of which was called
Pithoigia, or Tap-barrel-day, on which they opened the casks
and tried the wine of the previous year. … The Dionysia
Megala, the Greater or City Dionysia, celebrated yearly in the
month Elaphebolion (March-April) was presided over by the
Archon Eponymos, so-called because the year was registered in
his name, and who was first of the nine. The order of the
solemnities was as follows:
I. The great public procession.
II. The chorus of Youths.
III. The Komos, or band of Dionysiak revellers, whose
ritual is best illustrated in Milton's exquisite poem.
IV. The representation of Comedy and Tragedy; for at
Athenai the stage was religion and the theatre a temple.
At the time of this great festival the capital was filled with
rustics from the country townships, and strangers from all
parts of Hellas and the outer world."
_R. Brown,
The Great Dionysiak Myth,
chapter 6._
DIONYSIAN TYRANNY AT SYRACUSE, The.
See SYRACUSE: B. C. 397-396, and 344.
DIPLAX, The.
See PEPLUM.
DIPYLUM, The.
See CERAMICUS OF ATHENS.
DIRECTORY, The French.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1795 (JUNE-SEPTEMBER);
(OCTOBER-DECEMBER); 1797 (SEPTEMBER).
{663}
DISINHERITED BARONS, The.
See SCOTLAND: A. D. 1332-1333.
DISRAELI-DERBY AND BEACONSFIELD MINISTRIES.
See ENGLAND: A. D. 1851-1852: 1858-1859;
1868-1870: and 1873-1880.
DISRUPTION OF THE CHURCH OF SCOTLAND.
See SCOTLAND: A. D. 1843.
DISSENTERS, OR NONCONFORMISTS, English:
First bodies organized.
Persecutions under Charles II. and Anne.
Removal of Disabilities.
See ENGLAND: A. D. 1559-1566; 1662-1665:
1672-1673: 1711-1714; 1827-1828.
DISTRIBUTION OF THE SURPLUS, The.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1835-1837.
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, The.
See WASHINGTON (CITY): A. D. 1791.
DIVAN, The.
See SUBLIME PORTE.
DIVODURUM.
The Gallic name of the city afterwards called
Mediomatrici—now Metz.
DIVONA.
Modern Cahors.
See CADURCI.
DIWANI.
See INDIA: A. D. 1757-1772.
DIX, General John A.:
Message to New Orleans.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
A. D. 1860-1861 (DECEMBER-FEBRUARY).
DJEM, OR JEM, Prince, The Story of.
See TURKS: A. D. 1481-1520.
DOAB, The English acquisition of the.
See INDIA: A. D. 1798-1805.
DOBRIN, Knights of the Order of the Brethren of.
See PRUSSIA: 13TH CENTURY.
DOBRUDJA, The.
The peninsula formed between the Danube, near its mouth, and
the Black Sea.
DOBUNI, The.
A tribe of ancient Britons who held a region between the two
Avons.
See BRITAIN, CELTIC TRIBES.
DOCETISM.
"We note another phase of gnosticism in the doctrine so
directly and warmly combated in the epistles of John: we refer
to docetism—that is, the theory which refused to recognize
the reality of the human body of Christ."
_E. Reuss,
History of Christian Theology in the Apostolic Age,
page 323._
DODONA.
See HELLAS.
DOGE.
See VENICE: A. D. 697-810.
DOGGER BANKS, Naval Battle of the (1781).
See NETHERLANDS (HOLLAND): A. D. 1746-1787.
DOKIMASIA.
"All magistrates [in ancient Athens] whether elected by
cheirotonia or by lot, were compelled, before entering upon
their office, to subject themselves to a Dokimasia, or
scrutiny into their fitness for the post."
_G. F. Schöman,
Antiquity of Greece: The State,
part 3, chapter 3._
DÖLICHOCEPHALIC MEN.
A term used in ethnology, signifying "long-headed," as
distinguishing one class of skulls among the remains of
primitive men, from another class called brachycephalic, or
"broad-headed."
DOLLINGER, Doctor, and the dogma of Papal Infallibility.
See PAPACY: A. D. 1869-1870.
DOLMENS.
See CROMLECHS.
DOMESDAY, OR DOOMSDAY BOOK.
See ENGLAND: A. D. 1085-1086.
DOMINICAN REPUBLIC, The.
See HAYTI: A. D. 1804-1880.
DOMINICANS.
See MENDICANT ORDERS:
also, INQUISITION: A. D. 1203-1525.
DOMINION OF CANADA.-DOMINION DAY.
See CANADA: A. D. 1867.
DOMINUS.
See IMPERATOR, FINAL SIGNIFICATION OF
THE ROMAN TITLE.
DOMITIAN, Roman Emperor, A. D. 81-96.
DOMITZ, Battle of (1635).
See GERMANY: A. D. 1634-1639.
DON JOHN OF AUSTRIA.
See JOHN (DON) OF AUSTRIA.
DON PACIFICO AFFAIR, The.
See ENGLAND: A. D. 1849-1850;
and GREECE: A. D. 1846-1850.
DONALD BANE, King of Scotland, A. D. 1093-1098
(expelled during part of the period by Duncan II.)
DONATI, The.
See FLORENCE: A. D. 1295-1300, and 1301-1313.
DONATION OF CONSTANTINE.
See PAPACY: A. D. 774 (?).
DONATION OF THE COUNTESS MATILDA.
See PAPACY: A. D. 1077-1102.
DONATIONS OF PEPIN AND CHARLEMAGNE.
See PAPACY: A. D. 755-774.
DONATISTS, The.
"The Donatist controversy was not one of doctrine, but of
ecclesiastical discipline; the contested election for the
archbishopric of Carthage. Two competitors, Cecilius and
Donatus, had been concurrently elected while the church was
yet in a depressed state, and Africa subject to the tyrant
Maxentius [A. D. 306-312]. Scarcely had Constantine subdued
that province, when the two rivals referred their dispute to
him. Constantine, who still publicly professed paganism, but
had shown himself very favourable to the Christians,
instituted a careful examination of their respective claims,
which lasted from the year 312 to 315, and finally decided in
favour of Cecilius. Four hundred African bishops protested
against this decision; from that time they were designated by
the name of Donatists. … In compliance with an order of the
emperor, solicited by Cecilius, the property of the Donatists
was seized and transferred to the antagonist body of the
clergy. They revenged themselves by pronouncing sentence of
excommunication against all the rest of the Christian world.
… Persecution on one side and fanaticism on the other were
perpetuated through three centuries, up to the period of the
extinction of Christianity in Africa. The wandering preachers
of the Donatist faction had no other means of living than the
alms of their flocks. … As might be expected, they outdid
each other in extravagance, and soon gave in to the most
frantic ravings: thousands of peasants, drunk with the effect
of these exhortations, forsook their ploughs and fled to the
deserts of Getulia. Their bishops, assuming the title of
captains of the saints, put themselves at their head, and they
rushed onward, carrying death and desolation into the adjacent
provinces: they were distinguished by the name of
Circumcelliones: Africa was devastated by their ravages."
_J. C. L. de Sismondi,
Fall of the Roman Empire,
chapter 4._
ALSO IN:
_P. Schaff,
History of the Christian Church,
volume 2, chapter 6._
DONAUWÖRTH: A. D. 1632.
Taken by Gustavus Adolphus.
See GERMANY: A. D. 1631-1632.
DONAUWÖRTH: A. D. 1704.
Taken by Marlborough.
See GERMANY: A. D. 1704.
----------DONAUWÖRTH: End----------
DONELSON, Fort, Capture of.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
A. D. 1862 (JANUARY-FEBRUARY:
KENTUCKY-TENNESSEE).
{664}
DONGAN CHARTER, The.
See NEW YORK (CITY): A. D. 1686.
DONUM.
See TALLAGE.
DONUS I., Pope, A. D. 676-678.
Donus II., Pope, A. D. 974-975.
DONZELLO.
See DÂMOISEL.
DOOMS OF INE, The.
"These laws were republished by King Alfred as 'The Dooms of
Ine' who [Ine] came to the throne in A. D. 688. In their first
clause they claim to have been recorded by King Ine with the
counsel and teaching of his father Cenred and of Hedde, his
bishop (who was Bishop of Winchester from A. D. 676 to 705)
and of Eorcenweld, his bishop (who obtained the see of London
in 675); and so, if genuine, they seem to represent what was
settled customary law in Wessex during the last half of the
seventh century."
_F. Seebohm,
English Village Community,
chapter 4._
DOOMSDAY, OR DOMESDAY BOOK.
See ENGLAND: A. D. 1085-1086.
DOORANEES, OR DURANEES, The
See INDIA: A. D. 1747-1761.
DORDRECHT, OR DORT, Synod of.
See DORT;
also, NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1603-1619.
DORIA, Andrew, The deliverance of Genoa by.
See ITALY: A. D. 1527-1529.
DORIANS AND IONIANS, The.
"Out of the great Pelasgian population [see PELASGIANS], which
covered Anterior Asia Minor and the whole European peninsular
land, a younger people had issued forth separately, which we
find from the first divided into two races. These main races
we may call, according to the two dialects of the Greek
language, the Dorian and the Ionian, although these names are
not generally used until a later period to designate the
division of the Hellenic nation. No division of so thorough a
bearing could have taken place unless accompanied by an early
local separation. We assume that the two races parted company
while yet in Asia Minor. One of them settles in the
mountain-cantons of Northern Hellas, the other along the
Asiatic coast. In the latter the historic movement begins.
With the aid of the art of navigation, learnt from the
Phœnicians the Asiatic Greeks at an early period spread over
the sea; domesticating themselves in lower Egypt, in countries
colonized by the Phœnicians, in the whole Archipelago, from
Crete to Thrace; and from their original as well as from their
subsequent seats send out numerous settlements to the coast of
European Greece, first from the East side, next, after
conquering their timidity, also taking in the country, beyond
Cape Malea from the West. At first they land as pirates and
enemies, then proceed to permanent settlements in gulfs and
straits of the sea, and by the mouths of rivers, where they
unite with the Pelasgian population. The different periods of
this colonization may be judged of by the forms of divine
worship, and by the names under which the maritime tribes were
called by the natives. Their rudest appearance is as Carians;
as Leleges their influence is more beneficent and permanent."
_Dr. E. Curtius,
History of Greece,
book 1, chapter 2._
In the view of Dr. Curtius, the later migration of Ionian
tribes from Southern Greece to the coasts of Asia
Minor,—which is an undoubted historic fact,—was really a
return "into the home of their ancestors"—"the ancient home
of the great Ionic race." Whether that be the true view or
not, the movement in question was connected, apparently, with
important movements among the Dorian Greeks in Greece itself.
These latter, according to all accounts, and the agreement of
all historians, were long settled in Thessaly, at the foot of
Olympus (see GREECE: THE MIGRATIONS). It was there that their
moral and political development began; there that they learned
to look at Olympus as the home of the gods, which all Greeks
afterwards learned to do from them. "The service rendered by
the Dorian tribe," says Dr. Curtius, "lay in having carried
the germs of national culture out of Thessaly, where the
invasion of ruder peoples disturbed and hindered their farther
growth, into the land towards the south, where these germs
received an unexpectedly new and grand development. … A race
claiming descent from Heracles united itself in this
Thessalian coast-district with the Dorians and established a
royal dominion among them. Ever afterwards Heraclidæ and
Dorians remained together, but without ever forgetting the
original distinction between them. In their seats by Olympus
the foundations were laid of the peculiarity of the Dorians in
political order and social customs; at the foot of Olympus was
their real home."-
_Dr. E. Curtius,
History of Greece,
book 1, chapter 4._
From the neighborhood of Olympus the Dorians moved southwards
and found another home in "the fertile mountain-recess between
Parnassus and Œta, … the most ancient Doris known to us by
name." Their final movement was into Peloponnesus, which was
"the most important and the most fertile in consequences of
all the migrations of Grecian races, and which continued, even
to the latest periods to exert its influence upon the Greek
character." Thenceforwards the Dorians were the dominant race
in Peloponnesus, and to their chief state, Lacedæmonia, or
Sparta, was generally conceded the headship of the Hellenic
family. This Doric occupation of Peloponnesus, the period of
which is supposed to have been about 1100 B. C., no doubt
caused the Ionic migration from that part of Greece and
colonization of Asia Minor.
_C. O. Müller,
History and Antiquities of the Doric race,
book 1, chapter 3._
The subsequent division of the Hellenic world between Ionians
and Dorians is thus defined by Schömann: "To the Ionians
belong the inhabitants of Attica, the most important part of
the population of Eubœa, and the islands of the Ægean included
under the common name of Cyclades, as well as the colonists
both on the Lydian and Carian coasts of Asia Minor and in the
two larger islands Of Chios and Samos which lie opposite. To
the Dorians within the Peloponnese belong the Spartans, as
well as the dominant populations of Argos, Sicyon, Philus,
Corinth, Troezene and Epidaurus, together with the island of
Ægina; outside the Peloponnese, but nearest to it, were the
Megarid, and the small Dorian Tetrapolis [also called
Pentapolis and Tripolis] near Mount Parnassus; at a greater
distance were the majority of the scattered islands and a
large portion of the Carian coasts of Asia Minor and the
neighbouring islands, of which Cos and Rhodes were the most
important. Finally, the ruling portion of the Cretan
population was of Dorian descent."
_G. F. Schömann,
Antiquities of Greece: The State,
part 1, chapter 1._
See, also,
GREECE: THE MIGRATIONS; ASIA MINOR:
THE GREEK COLONIES; HERACLIDÆ; SPARTA;
and ÆOLIANS.
{665}
DORIS AND DRYOPIS.
"The little territory [in ancient Greece] called Doris and
Dryopis occupied the southern declivity of Mount Œta, dividing
Phokis on the north and northwest from the Ætolians, Ænianes
and Malians. That which was called Doris in the historical
times, and which reached in the times of Herodotus nearly as
far eastward as the Maliac gulf, is said to have formed a part
of what had been once called Dryopis; a territory which had
comprised the summit of Œta as far as the Sperchius,
northward, and which had been inhabited by an old Hellenic
tribe called Dryopes. The Dorians acquired their settlement in
Dryopis by gift from Hêraklês, who, along with the Malians (so
ran the legend), had expelled the Dryopes and compelled them
to find for themselves new seats at Hermionê, and Asinê, in
the Argolic peninsula of Peloponnesus,—at Styra and Karystus
in Eubœa,—and in the island of Kythnus; it is only in these
five last-mentioned places that history recognizes them. The
territory of Doris was distributed into four little
townships,—Pindus, or Akyphas, Bœon, Kytinion and Erineon.
… In itself this tetrapolis is so insignificant that we
shall rarely find occasion to mention it; but it acquired a
factitious consequence by being regarded as the metropolis of
the great Dorian cities in Peloponnesus, and receiving on that
ground special protection from Sparta."
_G. Grote,
History of Greece,
part 2, chapter 3._
ALSO IN:
_C. O. Müller,
History and Antiquity of the Doric Race,
book 1, chapter 2._
See also, DORIANS AND IONIANS.
DORMANS, Battle of (1575).
See FRANCE: A. D. 1573-1576.
DORNACH, Battle of (1499).
See SWITZERLAND: A. D. 1396-1499.
DORR REBELLION, The.
See RHODE ISLAND: A. D. 1841-1843.
DORT, OR DORDRECHT, The Synod of.
"In the low-countries the supreme government, the
states-general, interfered [in the Calvinistic controversy],
and in the year 1618 convoked the first and only synod bearing
something of the character of a general council that has been
convened by protestants. It assembled at Dort, and continued
its sittings from November till May following. Its business
was to decide the questions at issue between the Calvinists
and Arminians; the latter party were also termed remonstrants.
James [I.] was requested to send over representatives for the
English Church, and chose four divines:—Carlton bishop of
Llandaff, Hall dean of Worcester, afterwards bishop
successively of Exeter and Norwich, Davenant afterwards bishop
of Salisbury, and Dr. S. Ward of Cambridge. They were men of
learning and moderation. … The history of this famous synod
is told in various ways. Its decisions were in favour of the
doctrines termed Calvinistic, and the remonstrants were
expelled from Holland. … The majority were even charged by
the other party with having bound themselves by an oath before
they entered upon business, to condemn the remonstrants."
_J. B. Marsden,
History of Early Puritans,
page 329._
See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1603-1619.
DORYLAEUM, Battle of (1097).
See CRUSADES: A. D. 1096-1099.
DOUAI: A. D.1667.
Taken by the French.
See NETHERLANDS (THE SPANISH PROVINCES): A. D. 1667.
DOUAI: A. D. 1668.
Ceded to France.
See NETHERLANDS (HOLLAND): A. D. 1668.
DOUAI: A. D. 1710.
Siege and capture by Marlborough.
See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1710-1712.
----------DOUAI: End----------
DOUAI, The Catholic Seminary at.
See ENGLAND: A. D. 1572-1603.
DOUBLOON.
DOBLON.
See SPANISH COINS.
DOUGHFACES.
The "Missouri Compromise," of 1820, in the United States, "was
a Northern measure, carried by Northern votes. With some the
threats of disunion were a sufficient influence; some, whom in
the debate Randolph [John Randolph, of Virginia] called
doughfaces, did not need even that. … There has been always
a singular servility in the character of a portion of the
American people. In that class the slaveholder has always
found his Northern servitor. Randolph first gave it a name to
live by in the term doughface."
_W. C. Bryant and S. H. Gay,
Popular History of the United States,
volume 4, pages 270 and 294._
DOUGLAS, Stephen A.,
and the doctrine of Squatter Sovereignty.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1854.
Defeat in Presidential election.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
A. D. 1860 (APRIL.-NOVEMBER).
DOURO, Battle of the (1580).
See PORTUGAL: A. D. 1579-1580.
Wellington's passage of the.
See SPAIN: A. D. 1809 (FEBRUARY-JULY).
DOVER, Roman Origin of.
See DUBRIS
DOVER, Tennessee, Battle at.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
A. D. 1863 (FEBRUARY-APRIL: TENNESSEE).
DOVER, Treaty of.
See ENGLAND: A. D. 1668-1670.
DOWLAH, Surajah, and the English in India.
See INDIA: A. D. 1755-1757, and 1757.
DRACHMA.
See TALENT.
DRACONIAN LAWS.
See ATHENS: B. C. 624.
DRAFT RIOTS, The.
See NEW YORK (CITY): A. D. 1863.
DRAGON.
PENDRAGON.
A title sometimes given in Welsh poetry to a king or great
military leader. Supposed to be derived from the figure of a
dragon on their flags, which they borrowed from the Romans.
See CUMBRIA.
DRAGONNADES, The.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1681-1698.
DRAKE'S PIRACIES, and his famous voyage.
See AMERICA: A. D. 1572-1580.
DRANGIANS, The.
See SARANGIANS.
DRAPIER'S LETTERS, The.
See IRELAND: A. D. 1722-1724.
DRAVIDIAN RACES.
See TURANIAN RACES;
also, INDIA: THE ABORIGINAL INHABITANTS.
DRED SCOTT CASE, The.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1857.
DREPANA, Naval battle at, B. C. 249.
See PUNIC WAR, THE FIRST.
DRESDEN: A. D. 1756.
Capture and occupation by Frederick the Great.
See GERMANY: A. D. 1756.
DRESDEN: A. D. 1759-1760.
Capture by the Austrians.
Bombardment by Frederick.
See GERMANY: A. D. 1759 (JULY-NOVEMBER), and 1760.
DRESDEN: A. D. 1813.
Occupied by the Prussians and Russians.
Taken by the French.
Invested by the Allies.
Great battle before the city and victory for Napoleon.
French reverses.
St Cyr's surrender.
See GERMANY: A. D. 1812-1813;
1813 (APRIL-MAY); (AUGUST);
(SEPTEMBER-OCTOBER);
and (OCTOBER-DECEMBER).
----------DRESDEN: End----------
{666}
DRESDEN, Treaty of.
See AUSTRIA: A. D. 1744-1745.
DREUX, Battle of (1562).
See FRANCE: A. D. 1560-1563.
DROGHEDA, OR TREDAH,
Cromwell's massacre at.
See IRELAND: A. D. 1649-1650.
DROITWICH, Origin of.
See SALINÆ.
DROMONES.
A name given to the light galleys of the Byzantine empire.
_E. Gibbon,
Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire,
chapter 53.
DRUIDS.
The priesthood of a religion which existed among the Celts of
Gaul and Britain before they were Christianized. "Greek and
Roman writers give us very little information on this subject
and the early Welsh records and poetry none at all. Modern
Welsh writers have, however, made up for this want in their
genuine literature by inventing an elaborate Druidical system
of religion and philosophy which, they pretend, survived the
introduction of Christianity and was secretly upheld by the
Welsh bards in the Middle Ages. This Neo-Druidic imposture has
found numerous adherents."
_W. K. Sullivan,
Article, "Celtic Literature,"
Encyclopedia Britannica._
"Pliny, alluding to the Druids' predilection for groves of
oak, adds the words: 'ut inde appellati quoque interpretatione
Græca possint Druidæ videri.' … Had he possessed knowledge
enough of the Gaulish language, he would have seen that it
supplied an explanation which rendered it needless to have
recourse to Greek, namely in the native word 'dru,' which we
have in 'Drunemeton,' or the sacred Oak-grove, given by Strabo
as the name of the place of assembly of the Galatians. In
fact, one has, if I am not mistaken, been skeptic with regard
to this etymology, not so much on phonological grounds as from
failing exactly to see how the oak could have given its name
to such a famous organization as the druidic one must be
admitted to have been. But the parallels just indicated, as
showing the importance of the sacred tree in the worship of
Zeus and the gods representing him among nations other than
the Greek one, help to throw some light on this point.
According to the etymology here alluded to, the Druids would
be the priests of the god associated or identified with the
oak; that is, as we are told, the god who seemed to those who
were familiar with the pagan theology of the Greeks, to stand
in the same position in Gaulish theology that Zeus did in the
former. This harmonizes thoroughly with all that is known
about the Druids."
_J. Rhys,
Hibbert Lectures, 1886, on Celtic Heathendom,
lecture 2, part 2._
"Our traditions of the Scottish and Irish Druids are evidently
derived from a time when Christianity had long been
established. These insular Druids are represented as being
little better than conjurors, and their dignity is as much
diminished as the power of the king is exaggerated. … He is
a Pharaoh or Belshazzar with a troop of wizards at his
command; but his Druids are sorcerers and rain-doctors. …
The Druids of Strabo's description walked in scarlet and gold
brocade and wore golden collars and bracelets; but their
doctrines may have been much the same as those of the
soothsayers by the Severn, the Irish medicine-men or those
rustic wizards by the Loire. … After the conversion of
Ireland was accomplished the Druids disappear from history.
Their mystical powers were transferred without much alteration
to the abbots and bishops who ruled the 'families of the
saints.'"
_C. Elton,
Origins of English History,
chapter 10._
ALSO IN:
_Julius Cæsar,
Gallic War,
book 6, chapters 13-18._
_Strabo,
Geography,
book 4, chapter 4, sections 4-6._
For an account of the final destruction of the Druids, in
their last retreat, on the island of Mona, or Anglesey,
See BRITAIN: A. D. 61.
DRUMCLOG, The Covenanters at.
See SCOTLAND: A. D. 1679 (MAY-JUNE).
DRURY'S BLUFF, Battle of.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
A. D. 1864 (MAY: VIRGINIA)
THE ARMY OF THE JAMES.
DRUSUS, Germanic campaigns of.
See GERMANY: B. C. 12-9.
DRYOPIANS, The.
One of the aboriginal nations of ancient Greece, whose
territory was in the valley of the Spercheus and extended as
far as Parnassus and Thermopylæ; but who were afterwards
widely dispersed in many colonies. It is, says C. O. Müller,
"historically certain that a great part of the Dryopians were
consecrated as a subject people to the Pythian Apollo (an
usage of ancient times, of which there are many instances) and
that for a long time they served as such."
_History and Antiquity of the Doric Race,
book 1, chapter 2._
See, also, DORIS; and HIERODULI.
DUBARRY, Countess, Ascendancy of.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1723-1774.
DUBH GALLS.
See IRELAND: 9TH-10TH CENTURIES.
DUBIENKA, Battle of(1792).
See POLAND: A. D. 1791-1792.
DUBITZA: Taken by the Austrians (1787).
See TURKS: A. D. 1776-1792.
DUBLIN: The Danish Kingdom.
See IRELAND: 9TH-10TH CENTURIES:
also NORMANS.
NORTHMEN: 8TH-9TH CENTURIES.
DUBLIN: A. D. 1014.
The battle of Clontarf and the great defeat of the Danes.
See IRELAND: A. D. 1014.
DUBLIN: A. D. 1170
Taken by the Norman-English.
See IRELAND: A. D. 1169-1175.
DUBLIN: A. D. 1646-1649.
Sieges in the Civil War.
See IRELAND: A. D. 1646-1649.
DUBLIN: A. D. 1750.
The importance of the city.
"In the middle of the 18th century it was in dimensions and
population the second city in the empire, containing,
according to the most trustworthy accounts, between 100,000
and 120,000 inhabitants. Like most things in Ireland, it
presented vivid contrasts, and strangers were equally struck
with the crowds of beggars, the inferiority of the inns, the
squalid wretchedness of the streets of the old town, and with
the noble proportions of the new quarter, and the brilliant
and hospitable society that inhabited it. The Liffey was
spanned by four bridges, and another on a grander scale was
undertaken in 1753. St. Stephen's Green was considered the
largest square in Europe. The quays of Dublin were widely
celebrated."
_W. E. H. Lecky,
History of England,
18th Century, chapter 7 (volume 2)._
----------DUBLIN: End----------
DUBRIS, OR DUBRÆ.
The Roman port on the east coast of Britain which is now known
as Dover. In Roman times, as now, it was the principal
landing-place on the British side of the channel.
_T. Wright,
Celt, Roman and Saxon,
chapter 5._
{667}
DUCAT, Spanish.
See SPANISH COINS.
DUCES.
See COUNT AND DUKE.
DUDLEY, Thomas,
and the colony of Massachusetts Bay.
See MASSACHUSETTS: A. D. 1629-1630, and after.
DUFFERIN, Lord.
The Indian Administration of.
See INDIA: A. D. 1880-1888.
DU GUESCLIN'S CAMPAIGNS:
See FRANCE: A. D. 1360-1380.
DUKE, The Roman.
Origin of the title.
See COUNT AND DUKE.
DUKE'S LAWS, The.
See NEW YORK: A. D. 1665.
DULGIBINI AND CHASAURI, The.
"These people [tribes of the ancient Germans] first resided
near the head of the Lippe, and then removed to the
settlements of the Chamavi and the Angrevarii, who had
expelled the Bructeri."
_Tacitus,
Germany,
chapter 34, Oxford translation, note._
See also, SAXONS.
DUMBARTON, Origin of.
See ALCLYDE.
DUMBARTON CASTLE, Capture of (1571).
Dumbarton Castle, held by the party of Mary Queen of Scots, in
the civil war which followed her deposition and detention in
England, was captured in 1571, for the regent Lennox, by an
extraordinary act of daring on the part of one Capt. Crawford.
_P. F. Tytler,
History of Scotland,
volume 3, chapter 10._
DUMNONIA, OR DAMNONIA, The kingdom of.
See ENGLAND: A. D. 477-527.
DUMNONII, The.
"It is … a remarkable circumstance that the Dumnonii, whom
we find in the time of Ptolemy occupying the whole of the
southwestern extremity of Britain, including both Devonshire
and Cornwall, and who must therefore have been one of the most
powerful nations in the island, are never once mentioned in
the history of the conquest of the country by the Romans; nor
is their name found in any writer before Ptolemy. … The
conjecture of Mr. Beale Poste … that they were left in
nominal independence under a native king … appears to me
highly probable."
_E. H. Bunbury,
History of Ancient Geography,
chapter 23, note B._
There appears to have been a northern branch of the Dumnonii
or Damnonii, which held an extensive territory on the Clyde
and the Forth.
See BRITAIN, CELTIC TRIBES.
DUMOURIEZ, Campaigns and treason of.
See FRANCE:
A. D. 1792 (SEPTEMBER-DECEMBER);
1792-1793; and 1793 (FEBRUARY-APRIL).
DUNBAR: A. D. 1296.
Battle.
See SCOTLAND: A. D. 1290-1305.
DUNBAR: A. D. 1339. Siege.
The fortress of Dunbar, besieged by the English under the Earl
of Salisbury in 1339, was successfully defended in the absence
of the governor, the Earl of March, by his wife, known
afterwards in Scotch history and tradition as "Black Agnes of
Dunbar."
DUNBAR: A. D. 1650.-Battle.
See SCOTLAND: A. D. 1650 (SEPTEMBER).
----------DUNBAR: End----------
DUNCAN I.,
King of Scotland, A. D. 1033-1039.
Duncan II., A. D. 1094-1095.
DUNDALK, Battle of (1318).
See IRELAND: A. D. 1314-1318.
DUNDEE (CLAVERHOUSE) AND THE COVENANTERS.
See SCOTLAND: A. D. 1679 (MAY-JUNE);
1681-1689; and 1689 (JULY).
DUNDEE: A. D. 1645.
Pillaged by Montrose.
See SCOTLAND: A. D. 1644-1645.
DUNDEE: A. D. 1651.
Storm and massacre by Monk.
See SCOTLAND: A. D. 1651 (AUGUST-SEPTEMBER).
----------DUNDEE: End----------
DUNES, Battle of the (1658).
See ENGLAND: A. D. 1655-1658.
DUNKELD, Battle of.
See SCOTLAND: A. D. 1689 (AUGUST).
DUNKIRK: A. D. 1631.
Unsuccessful siege by the Dutch.
See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1621-1633.
DUNKIRK: A. D. 1646.
Siege and capture by the French.
Importance of the port.
Its harborage of pirates.
See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1645-1646.
DUNKIRK: A. D. 1652.
Recovered by the Spaniards.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1652.
DUNKIRK: A. D. 1658.
Acquired by Cromwell for England.
See ENGLAND: A. D. 1655-1658;
and FRANCE: A. D. 1655-1658.
DUNKIRK: A. D. 1662.
Sold by Charles II. to France.
See ENGLAND: A. D. 1662.
DUNKIRK: A. D. 1713.
Fortifications and harbor destroyed.
See UTRECHT: A. D. 1712-1713.
DUNKIRK: A. D. 1748.
Demolition of fortifications again stipulated.
See AIX-LA-CHAPELLE: THE CONGRESS.
DUNKIRK: A. D. 1763.
The demolition of fortifications pledged once more.
See SEVEN YEARS WAR: THE TREATIES.
DUNKIRK: A. D. 1793.
Unsuccessful siege by the English.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1793 (JULY-DECEMBER);
PROGRESS OF THE WAR.
----------DUNKIRK: End----------
DUNMORE, Lord,
and the end of royal government in Virginia.
See VIRGINIA: A. D. 1775 (JUNE); and 1775-1776.
DUNMORE'S WAR.
See OHIO (VALLEY): A. D. 1774.
DUNNICHEN, Battle of (A. D. 685).
See SCOTLAND: 7TH CENTURY.
DUPLEIX AND THE FRENCH IN INDIA.
See INDIA: A. D. 1743-1752.
DUPONT, Admiral Samuel F.
Naval attack on Charleston.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
A. D. 1863 (APRIL: SOUTH CAROLINA).
DÜPPEL, Siege and capture of (1864).
See GERMANY: A. D. 1861-1866.
DUPPELN, Battle of (1848).
See SCANDINAVIAN STATES (DENMARK):
A. D. 1848-1862.
DUPPLIN MOOR, Battle of (1332).
See SCOTLAND: A. D. 1332-1333.
DUQUESNE, Fort.
See PITTSBURGH.
DURA, Treaty of.
The humiliating treaty of peace concluded with the Persians,
A. D. 363, after the defeat and death of the Roman emperor
Julian, by his successor Jovian.
G. Rawlinson, Seventh Great Oriental Monarchy chapter 10.
DURANEES, OR DOORANEES, The.
See INDIA: A. D. 1747-1761.
DURAZZO, Neapolitan dynasty of.
See ITALY (SOUTHERN): A. D. 1343-1389; 1386-1414,
and ITALY: A. D. 1412-1447.
DURBAR, OR DARBAR.
An audience room in the palace of an East Indian prince. Hence
applied to a formal audience or levee given by the
governor-general of India, or by one of the native princes.
_Century Dictionary_
DURHAM, OR NEVILLE'S CROSS, Battle of (A. D. 1346).
See SCOTLAND: A. D. 1333-1370.
{668}
DUROBRIVÆ.
A name given to two Roman towns in Britain; one of which has
been identified with modern Rochester, the other with the town
of Castor, near Peterborough.
DUROBRIVIAN WARE.
See CASTOR WARE.
DUROCOBRIVÆ.
An important market-town in Roman Britain, supposed to have
been situated at or near modern Dunstable.
_T. Wright,
Celt, Roman and Saxon,
chapter 5._
DUROTRIGES.
One of the tribes of ancient Britain whose home was in the
modern county of Dorset.
See BRITAIN, CELTIC TRIBES.
DUROVERNUM.
A Roman town in Britain, identified with the modern
Canterbury. Durovernum was destroyed by the Jutes in 455.
See ENGLAND: A. D. 449-473.
DUTCH EAST INDIA COMPANY.
See EAST INDIA COMPANY, THE DUTCH.
DUTCH GAP CANAL.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
A. D. 1864 (AUGUST: VIRGINIA).
DUTCH REPUBLIC,
The constitution and declared independence of the.
See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1577-1581, and 1584-1585.
DUTCH WEST INDIA COMPANY.
See NEW YORK: A. D. 1621-1646;
and BRAZIL: A. D. 1510-1661.
DÜTLINGEN, OR TUTTLINGEN, Battle of (1643).
See GERMANY: A. D. 1643-1644.
DYAKS, OR DAYAKS, The.
See MALAYAN RACE.
DYRRHACHIUM: The founding of.
See KORKYRA.
DYRRHACHIUM: Provoking cause of the Peloponnesian War.
See GREECE: B. C. 435-432.
DYRRHACHIUM: B. C. 48.
Cæsar's reverse.
See ROME: B. C. 48.
DYRRHACHIUM: A. D. 1081-1082.
Siege by Robert Guiscard.
See BYZANTINE EMPIRE: A. D. 1081-1085.
DYRRHACHIUM: A. D. 1204.
Acquired by the Despot of Epirus.
See EPIRUS: A. D. 1204-1350.
----------DYRRHACHIUM: End----------
DYRRHACHIUM, Peace of.
See GREECE: B. C. 214-146.
DYVED.
See BRITAIN: 6TH CENTURY.
E.
EADMUND, EADWINE, ETC.
See EDMUND, ETC.
EALDORMAN.
"The chieftains of the first settlers in our own island bore
no higher title than Ealdorman or Heretoga. … The name of
Ealdorman is one of a large class; among a primitive people
age implies command and command implies age; hence in a
somewhat later stage of language the elders are simply the
rulers and the eldest are the highest in rank, without any
thought of the number of years which they may really have
lived. It is not perfectly clear in what the authority or
dignity of the King exceeded that of the Ealdorman. … Even
the smallest Kingdom was probably formed by the union of the
districts of several Ealdormen."
_E. A. Freeman, Norman Conquest, chapter 3, section 1._
"The organisation of the shire was of much the same character
as that of the hundred [each shire containing, however, a
number of hundreds], but it was ruled by an ealdorman as well
as by a gerefa, and in some other respects bore evidence of
its previous existence as an independent unity. Its gemot was
not only the scir-gemot but the folc-gemot also, the assembly
of the people; its ealdorman commanded not merely the military
force of the hundreds, but the lords of the franchises and the
church vassals with their men. Its gerefa or sheriff collected
the fiscal us well as the local imposts. Its ealdorman was one
of the king's witan. The ealdorman, the princeps of Tacitus,
and princeps, or satrapa, or subregulus of Bede, the dux of
the Latin chroniclers and the comes of the Normans, was
originally elected in the general assembly of the nation. …
The hereditary principle appears however in the early days of
the kingdom as well as in those of Edward the Confessor; in
the case of an under-kingdom being annexed to a greater the
old royal dynasty seems to have continued to hand down its
delegated authority from father to son. The under-kings of
Hwiccia thus continued to act as ealdormen under Mercia for a
century; and the ealdormanship of the Gyrwas or fen-countrymen
seems likewise to have been hereditary. The title of ealdorman
is thus much older than the existing division of shires, nor
was it ever the rule for every shire to have an ealdorman to
itself as it had its sheriff. … But each shire was under an
ealdorman, who sat with the sheriff and bishop in the
folkmoot, received a third part of the profits of the
jurisdiction, and commanded the military force of the whole
division. From the latter character he derived the name of
heretoga, leader of the host ('here'), or dux, which is
occasionally given him in charters."
_William Stubbs,
Constitutional History of England,
chapter 5, sections 48-49._
EARL.
"The title of earl had begun to supplant that of ealdorman in
the reign of Ethelred; and the Danish jarl, from whom its use
in this sense was borrowed, seems to have been more certainly
connected by the tie of comitatus with his king than the
Anglo-Saxon ealdorman need be supposed to have been."
_William Stubbs,
Constitutional History of England,
chapter 6, section 66._
See, also, EORL and EALDORMAN.
EARLDOMS, English:
Canute's creation.
See ENGLAND: A. D. 1016-1042.
EARLDOMS:
The Norman change.
See PALATINE, THE ENGLISH COUNTIES.
----------EARLDOMS: End----------
EARLY, General Jubal, Campaigns in the Shenandoah.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
A. D. 1864 (MAY-JUNE: VIRGINIA);
(JULY: VIRGINIA-MARYLAND);
(AUGUST-OCTOBER: VIRGINIA);
and 1865 (FEBRUARY-MARCH: VIRGINIA).
EARTHQUAKE: B. C. 464.
Sparta.
See MESSENIAN WAR, THE THIRD.
EARTHQUAKE: A. D. 115.
At Antioch.
See ANTIOCH: A. D. 115.
EARTHQUAKE: A. D. 365.
In the Roman world.
"In the second year of the reign of Valentinian and Valens [A.
D. 365], on the morning of the 21st day of July, the greater
part of the Roman world was shaken by a violent and
destructive earthquake. The impression was communicated to the
waters; the shores of the Mediterranean were left dry by the
sudden retreat of the sea. … But the tide soon returned with
the weight of an immense and irresistible deluge, which was
severely felt on the coasts of Sicily, of Dalmatia, of Greece
and of Egypt. … The city of Alexandria annually commemorated
the fatal day on which 50,000 persons had lost their lives in
the inundation."
_E. Gibbon,
Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire,
chapter 26.
{669}
EARTHQUAKE: A. D. 526.
In the reign of Justinian.
See ANTIOCH: A. D. 526;
also, BERYTUS.
EARTHQUAKE: A. D. 1692.
In Jamaica.
See JAMAICA: A. D. 1692.
EARTHQUAKE: A. D. 1755.
At Lisbon.
See LISBON: A. D. 1755.
EARTHQUAKE: A. D. 1812.
In Venezuela.
See COLOMBIAN STATES: A. D. 1810-1819.
----------EARTHQUAKE: End----------
EAST AFRICA ASSOCIATIONS, British and German.
See AFRICA: A. D. 1884-1889.
EAST ANGLIA.
The kingdom formed in Britain by that body of the Angles which
settled in the eastern district now embraced in the counties
of Norfolk and Suffolk (North-folk and South-folk).
EAST INDIA COMPANY,
The Dutch: A. D. 1602.
Its formation and first enterprises.
See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1594-1620.
EAST INDIA COMPANY: A. D. 1652.
Settlement at Cape of Good Hope.
See SOUTH AFRICA: A. D. 1486-1806.
EAST INDIA COMPANY: A. D. 1799.
Its dissolution.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1799 (SEPTEMBER-OCTOBER).
----------EAST INDIA COMPANY (DUTCH): End----------
EAST INDIA COMPANY, The English: A. D. 1600-1702.
Its rise and early undertakings.
See INDIA: A. D. 1600-1702.
EAST INDIA COMPANY: A. D. 1773.
Constitution of the Company changed by the Acts of Lord North.
See INDIA: A. D. 1770-1773.
EAST INDIA COMPANY: A. D. 1813-1833.-
Deprived of its monopoly of trade.
Reconstitution of government.
See INDIA: A. D. 1823-1833.
EAST INDIA COMPANY: A. D. 1858.
The end of its rule.
See INDIA: A. D. 1858.
----------EAST INDIA COMPANY (ENGLISH): End----------
EAST INDIA COMPANY, The French.
See INDIA: A. D. 1665-1743.
EAST INDIES, Portuguese in the.
See INDIA: A. D. 1498-1580.
EASTERN CHURCH, The.
See CHRISTIANITY: A. D. 330-1054.
EASTERN EMPIRE, The.
See ROME: 717-800;
and BYZANTINE EMPIRE.
EASTERN QUESTION, The.
"For a number of generations in Europe there has been one
question that, carelessly or maliciously touched upon, has
never failed to stimulate strife and discord among the
nations. This is 'the Eastern Question,' the problem how to
settle the disputes, political and religious, in the east of
Europe."
_H. Murdock,
The Reconstruction of Europe,
page 17._
The first occasion in European politics on which the problems
of the Ottoman empire received the name of the Eastern
Question seems to have been that connected with the revolt of
Mehemet Ali in 1831 (see TURKS: A. D. 1831-1840). M. Guizot,
in his "Memoirs," when referring to that complication, employs
the term, and remarks: "I say the Eastern Question, for this
was in fact the name given by all the world to the quarrel
between the Sultan Mahmoud, and his subject the Pacha of
Egypt, Mehemet Ali. Why was this sounding title applied to a
local contest? Egypt is not the whole Ottoman empire. The
Ottoman empire is not the entire East. The rebellion, even the
dismemberment of a province, cannot comprise the fate of a
sovereignty. The great states of Western Europe have
alternately lost or acquired, either by internal dissension or
war, considerable territories; yet under the aspect of these
circumstances no one has spoken of the Western question. Why
then has a term never used in the territorial crises of
Christian Europe, been considered and admitted to be perfectly
natural and legitimate when the Ottoman empire is in argument?
It is that there is at present in the Ottoman empire no local
or partial question. If a shock is felt in a corner of the
edifice, if a single stone is detached, the entire building
appears to be, and is in fact, ready to fall. … The Egyptian
question was in 1839 the question of the Ottoman empire
itself. And the question of the Ottoman empire is in reality
the Eastern question, not only of the European but of the
Asiatic East; for Asia is now the theatre of the leading
ambitions and rivalries of the great powers of Europe; and the
Ottoman empire is the highway, the gate, and the key of Asia."
_F. P. Guizot,
Memoirs to Illustrate the History of My Own Time,
volume 4, page 322._
The several occasions since 1840 on which the Eastern Question
has troubled Europe may be found narrated under the following
captions:
RUSSIA: A. D. 1853-1854, to 1854-1856;
TURKS: A. D. 1861-1877, 1877-1878, and 1878;
also BALKAN AND DANUBIAN STATES.
Among English writers, the term "the Eastern Question" has
acquired a larger meaning, which takes in questions connected
with the advance of Russia upon the Afghan and Persian
frontiers.
_Duke of Argyll,
The Eastern Question._
See AFGHANISTAN: A. D. 1860-1881.
EATON, Dorman B., and Civil-Service Reform.
See CIVIL-SERVICE REFORM IN THE UNITED STATES.
EBBSDORF, OR LUNEBURG HEATH, Battle of.
A great and disastrous battle of the Germans with the Danes,
or Northmen, fought February 2, 880. The Germans were terribly
beaten, and nearly all who survived the fight were swept away
into captivity and slavery. The slain received "martyrs'
honours; and their commemoration was celebrated in the
Sachsen-land churches till comparatively recent times. An
unexampled sorrow was created throughout Saxony by this
calamity, which, for a time, exhausted the country;
—Scandinavia and Jutland and the Baltic isles resounded with
exultation."
_Sir F. Palgrave,
History of Normandy and England,
book 1, chapter 4._
EBBSFLEET.
The supposed first landing-place in Britain of the Jutes,
under Hengest, A. D. 449 or 450, when English history, as
English, begins. It was also the landing-place, A. D. 597, of
Augustine and his fellow missionaries when they entered the
island to undertake the conversion of its new inhabitants to
Christianity. Ebbsfleet is in the Isle of Thanet, at the mouth
of the Thames.
See ENGLAND: 449-473, and 597-685.
EBERSBURG, Battle of.
See GERMANY: A. D. 1809 (JANUARY-JUNE).
EBIONISM.
The heresy (so branded) of a sect of Jewish Christians, which
spread somewhat extensively in the second, third and fourth
centuries. "The characteristic marks of Ebionism in all its
forms are: degradation of Christianity to the level of
Judaism; the principle of the universal and perpetual validity
of the Mosaic law; and enmity to the apostle Paul." The name
of the Ebionites came from a Hebrew word signifying "poor."
_P. Schaff,
History of the Christian Church,
second period, chapter 4, section 68._
{670}
EBLANI, The.
See IRELAND, TRIBES OF EARLY CELTIC INHABITANTS.
EBORACUM, OR EBURACUM.
The military capital of Roman Britain, and afterwards of the
Anglian kingdoms of Deira and Northumbria. In Old English its
name became Eorforwick, whence, by further corruption,
resulted the modern English name York. The city was one of
considerable splendor in Roman times, containing the imperial
palace with many temples and other imposing buildings.
See ENGLAND: A. D. 457-633.
EBURONES, Destruction of the.
The Eburones were a strong Germanic tribe, who occupied in
Cæsar's time the country between Liége and Cologne, and whose
ancestors were said to have formed part of the great migrant
horde of the Cimbri and Teutones. Under a young chief,
Ambiorix, they had taken the lead in the formidable revolt
which occurred among the Belgic tribes, B. C. 54-53. Cæsar,
when he had suppressed the revolt, determined to bring
destruction on the Eburones, and he executed his purpose in a
singular manner. He circulated a proclamation through all the
neighboring parts of Gaul and Germany, declaring the Eburones
to be traitors to Rome and outlaws, and offering them and
their goods as common prey to any who would fall on them. This
drew the surrounding barbarians like vultures to a feast, and
the wretched Eburones were soon hunted out of existence. Their
name disappeared from the annals of Gaul.
_C. Merivale,
History of the Romans,
chapter 10._
ALSO IN:
_Cæsar,
Gallic Wars,
book 5, chapters 25-58; book 6, chapters 1-34._
_G. Long,
Decline of the Roman Republic,
volume 4, chapters 13-14._
See, also, BELGÆ.
ECBATANA.
"The Southern Ecbatana or Agbatana,—which the Medes and
Persians themselves knew as Hagmatán,—was situated, as we
learn from Polybius and Diodorus, on a plain at the foot of
Mount Orontes, a little to the east of the Zagros range. The
notices of these authors … and others, render it as nearly
certain as possible that the site was that of the modern town
of Hamadan. … The Median capital has never yet attracted a
scientific expedition. … The chief city of northern Media,
which bore in later times the names of Gaza, Gazaca, or
Canzaca, is thought to have been also called Ecbatana, and to
have been occasionally mistaken by the Greeks for the southern
or real capital."
_G. Rawlinson,
Five Great Monarchies: Media,
chapter 1._
ECCELINO, OR EZZELINO DI ROMANO,
The tyranny of, and the crusade against.
See VERONA: A. D. 1236-1259.
ECCLESIA.
The general legislative assembly of citizens in ancient Athens
and Sparta.
_G. F. Schömann,
Antiquity of Greece: The State,
part 3._
ALSO IN:
_G. Grote,
History of Greece,
chapter 31._
See ATHENS: B. C. 445-429.
ECCLESIASTICAL TITLES BILL, The.
See PAPACY: A. D. 1850.
ECENI, OR ICENI, The.
See BRITAIN: A. D. 61.
ECGBERHT, King of Wessex, A. D. 800-836.
ECKMÜHL, Battle of.
See GERMANY: A. D. 1809 (JANUARY-JUNE).
ECNOMUS, Naval battle of (B. C. 256).
See PUNIC WAR, THE FIRST.
ECORCHEURS, Les.
In the later period of the Hundred Years War, after the death
of the Maid of Orleans, when the English were being driven
from France and the authority of the king was not yet
established, lawless violence prevailed widely. "Adventurers
spread themselves over the provinces under a name, 'the
Skinners,' Les Ecorcheurs, which sufficiently betokens the
savage nature of their outrages, if we trace it to even its
mildest derivation, stripping shirts, not skins."
_E. Smedley,
History of France,
part 1, chapter 14._
ECTHESIS OF HERACLIUS.
See MONOTHELITE CONTROVERSY.
ÉCU, The order of the.
See BOURBON, THE HOUSE OF.
ECUADOR: Aboriginal inhabitants.
See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: ANDESIANS.
ECUADOR:
The aboriginal kingdom of Quito and its conquest by the
Peruvians and the Spaniards.
"Of the old Quitu nation which inhabited the highlands to the
north and south of the present capital, nothing is known to
tradition but the name of its last king, Quitu, after whom his
subjects were probably called. His domains were invaded and
conquered by the nation of the Caras, or Carans, who had come
by sea in balsas (rafts) from parts unknown. These Caras, or
Carans, established the dynasty of the Scyris at Quito, and
extended their conquests to the north and south, until checked
by the warlike nation of the Puruhas, who inhabited the
present district of Riobamba. … In the reign of Hualcopo
Duchicela, the 13th Scyri, the Peruvian Incas commenced to
extend their conquests to the north. … About the middle of
the 15th century the Inca Tupac Yupanqui, father of
Huaynacapac, invaded the dominions of the Scyris, and after
many bloody battles and sieges, conquered the kingdom of
Puruha and returned in triumph to Cuzco. Hualcopo survived his
loss but a few years. He is said to have died of grief, and
was succeeded by his son Cacha, the 15th and last of the
Scyris. Cacha Duchicela at once set out to recover his
paternal dominions. Although of feeble health, he seems to
have been a man of great energy and intrepidity. He fell upon
the garrison which the Inca had left at Mocha, put it to the
sword, and reoccupied the kingdom of Puruha, where he was
received with open arms. He even carried his banners further
south, until checked by the Cañares, the inhabitants of what
is now the district of Cuenca, who had voluntarily submitted
to the Inca, and now detained the Scyri until Huaynacapac, the
greatest of the Inca dynasty, came to their rescue." On the
plain of Tiocajas, and again on the plain of Hatuntaqui, great
battles were fought, in both of which the Scyri was beaten,
and in the last of which he fell. "On the very field of battle
the faithful Caranquis proclaimed Pacha, the daughter of the
fallen king, as their Scyri. Huaynacapac now regulated his
conduct by policy. He ordered the dead king to be buried with
all the honors due to royalty, and made offers of marriage to
young Pacha, by whom he was not refused. … The issue of the
marriage was Atahuallpa, the last of the native rulers of
Peru. …
{671}
As prudent and highly politic as the conduct of Huaynacapac is
generally reputed to have been, so imprudent and unpolitic was
the division of the empire which he made on his death bed,
bequeathing his paternal dominions to his first-born and
undoubtedly legitimate son, Huascar, and to Atahuallpa the
kingdom of Quito. He might have foreseen the evil consequences
of such a partition. His death took place about the year 1525.
For five or seven years the brothers lived in peace." Then
quarrels arose, leading to civil war, resulting in the defeat
and death of Huascar. Atahuallpa had just become master of the
weakened and shaken empire of the Incas, when the invading
Spaniards, under Pizarro, fell on the doomed land and made its
riches their own. The conquest of the Spaniards did not
include the kingdom of Quito at first, but was extended to the
latter in 1533 by Sebastian de Benalcazar, whom Pizarro had
put in command of the Port of San Miguel. Excited by stories
of the riches of Quito, and invited by ambassadors from the
Canares, the old enemies of the Quito tribes, Benalcazar,
"without orders or permission from Pizarro … left San
Miguel, at the head of about 150 men. His second in command
was the monster Juan de Ampudia." The fate of Quito was again
decided on the plain of Tiocajas, where Rumiñagui, a chief who
had seized the vacant throne, made a desperate but vain
resistance. He gained time, however, to remove whatever
treasures there may have been at Quito beyond the reach of its
rapacious conquerors, and "where he hid them is a secret to
the present day. … Traditions of the great treasures hidden
in the mountains by Rumiñagui are eagerly repeated and
believed at Quito. … Having removed the gold and killed the
Virgins of the Sun, and thus placed two objects so eagerly
coveted by the invaders beyond their reach, Rumiñagui set fire
to the town, and evacuated it with an his troops and
followers. It would be difficult to describe the rage,
mortification and despair of the Spaniards, on finding smoking
ruins instead of the treasures which they had expected. …
Thousands of innocent Indians were sacrificed to their
disappointed cupidity. … Every nook and corner of the
province was searched; but only in the sepulchres some little
gold was found. … Of the ancient buildings of Quito no stone
was left upon the other, and deep excavations were made under
them to search for hidden treasures. Hence there is no vestige
left at Quito of its former civilization; not a ruin, not a
wall, not a stone to which the traditions of the past might
cling. … On the 28th of August, 1534, the Spanish village of
Quito [San Francisco de Quito] was founded."
_F. Hassaurek,
Fours Years among Spanish Americans,
chapter 16._
ALSO IN:
_W. H. Prescott,
History of Conquest of Peru,
book 3, chapter 2 (volume 1),
and chapter 9 (volume 2)._
ECUADOR:
In the empire of the Incas.
See PERU: THE EMPIRE OF THE INCAS.
ECUADOR: A. D. 1542.
The Audiencia of Quito established.
See AUDIENCIAS.
ECUADOR: A. D. 1821-1854.
Emancipation of slaves.
See COLOMBIAN STATES: A. D. 1821-1854.
ECUADOR: A. D. 1822-1888.
Confederated with New Granada and Venezuela in the Colombian
Republic.
Dissolution of the Confederacy.
The rule of Flores.
In 1822 "the Province of Quito was incorporated into the
Colombian Republic [see COLOMBIAN STATES: A. D. 1819-1830]. It
was now divided into three departments on the French system:
and the southernmost of these received its name from the
Equator (Ecuador) which passes through it. Shortly after
Venezuela had declared itself independent of the Colombian
Republic [1826—see, as above], the old province of Quito did
the same, and placed its fortunes in the hands of one of
Bolivar's lieutenants, named Flores. The name of Ecuador was
now extended to all three departments. Flores exercised the
chief authority for 15 years. The constitution limited the
Presidency to four: but Flores made an arrangement with one of
his lieutenants called Roca-Fuerte, by which they succeeded
each other, the outgoing President becoming governor of
Guayaquil. In 1843 Flores found himself strong enough to
improve upon this system. He called a convention, which
reformed the constitution in a reactionary sense, and named
him dictator for ten years. In 1845 the liberal reaction had
set in all over Colombia; and it soon became too strong for
Flores. Even his own supporters began to fail him, and he
agreed to quit the country on being paid an indemnity of
$20,000." During the next 15 years Ecuador was troubled by the
plots and attempts of Flores to regain his lost power. In
1860, with Peruvian help, he succeeded in placing one of his
party, Dr. Moreno, in the presidency, and he, himself, became
governor of Guayaquil. In August, 1875, Moreno was
assassinated.
_E. J. Payne,
History of European Colonies,
pages 251-252._
After the assassination of President Moreno, "the clergy
succeeded in seating Dr. Antonio Barrero in the presidential
chair by a peaceful and overwhelming election. … Against his
government the liberal party made a revolution, and, September
8, 1876, succeeded in driving him from power, seating in his
place General Ygnacio de Veintemilla, who was one of Barrero's
officers, bound to him by many tics. … He called an obedient
convention at Ambato, in 1878, which named him President ad
interim, and framed a constitution, the republicanism of which
it is difficult to find. Under this he was elected President
for four years, terminating 30th August, 1882, without right
of re-election except after an interval of four years."
_G. E. Church,
Report on Ecuador
(Senate Ex. Doc. 69, U. S. 47th Congress,
2d session, volume 3)._
President Veintemilla seized power as a Dictator, by a
pronunciamento, April 2, 1882; but civil war ensued and he was
overthrown in 1883. Senor José M. P. Caamaño was then chosen
Provisional President, and in February, 1884, he was elected
President, by the Legislative body. He was succeeded in 1888
by Don Antonio Flores.
_Statesman's Year-book, 1889._
----------ECUADOR: End----------
ECUMENICAL, OR ŒCUMENICAL COUNCIL.
A general or universal council of the Christian Church.
See COUNCILS OF THE CHURCH.
EDDAS, The.
"The chief depositories of the Norse mythology are the Elder
or Saemund's Edda (poetry) and the Younger or Snorre's Edda.
(prose). In Icelandic Edda means 'great-grand-mother,' and
some think this appellation refers to the ancient origin of
the myths it contains. Others connect it with the Indian
'Veda' and the Norse 'vide,' (Swedish 'vela,' to know)."
_R. B. Anderson,
Norse Mythology,
chapter 7._
{672}
"The word Edda is never found at all in any of the dialects of
the Old Northern tongue, nor indeed in any other tongue known
to us. The first time it is met with is in the Lay of Righ,
where it is used as a title for great-grandmother, and from
this poem the word is cited (with other terms from the same
source) in the collection at the end of Scaldscaparmal. How or
why Snorri's book on the Poetic Art came to be called Edda we
have no actual testimony. … Snorri's work, especially the
second part of it, Scaldscaparmal, handed down in copies and
abridgments through the Middle Ages, was looked on as setting
the standard and ideal of poetry. It seems to have kept up
indeed the very remembrance of court-poetry, the memory of
which, but for it, would otherwise have perished. But though
the mediæval poets do not copy Edda (i. e., Snorri's rules)
they constantly allude to it, and we have an unbroken series
of phrases from 1340 to 1640 in which Edda is used as a
synonym for the technical laws of the court-metre (a use, it
may be observed, entirely contrary to that of our own days)."
_G. Vigfusson and F. Y. Powell,
Corpus Poeticum Boreale,
volume 1, introduction, section 4._
EDESSA (Macedonia).
Edessa, or Ægre, the ancient Macedonian capital, "a place of
primitive antiquity, according to a Phrygian legend the site
of the gardens of Midas, at the northern extremity of Mount
Bermius, where the Lydias comes forth from the mountains. …
Ægre was the natural capital of the land. With its foundation
the history of Macedonia had its beginning; Ægre is the germ
out of which the Macedonian empire grew."
_E. Curtius,
History of Greece,
book 7, chapter 1._
See, also, MACEDONIA.
EDESSA (Mesopotamia).
See OSRHŒNE.
EDESSA: The Church.
See CHRISTIANITY: A. D. 33-100, and 100-312.
EDESSA: The Theological School.
Sec NESTORIANS.
EDESSA: A. D. 260.
Battle of.
See PERSIA: A. D. 226-627.
EDESSA: A. D. 1097-1144.
The Frank principality.
On the march of the armies of the First Crusade, as they
approached Syria, Baldwin, the able, selfish and self-willed
brother of Godfrey of Bouillon, left the main body of the
crusaders, with a band of followers, and moved off eastwards,
seeking the prizes of a very worldly ambition, and leaving his
devouter comrades to rescue the holy sepulchre without his
aid. Good fortune rewarded his enterprise and he secured
possession of the important city of Edessa. It was governed by
a Greek prince, who owed allegiance to the Byzantine emperor,
but who paid tribute to the Turks. "It had surrendered to
Pouzan, one of the generals of Malek-shah, in the year 1087,
but during the contests of the Turks and Saracens in the north
of Syria it had recovered its independence. Baldwin now
sullied the honour of the Franks, by exciting the people to
murder their governor Theodore, and rebel against the
Byzantine authority [other historians say that he was guilty
of no more than a passive permission of these acts]; he then
took possession of the place in his own name and founded the
Frank principality of Edessa, which lasted about 47 years."
_G. Finlay,
History of Byzantine and Greek Empires A. D. 716-1453,
book 3, chapter 2, section 1._
See, also, CRUSADES: A. D. 1006-1099, and 1147-1149;
also, JERUSALEM: A. D. 1099-1144.
----------EDESSA: End----------
EDGAR,
King of Scotland, A. D.1098-1107.
Edgar, King of Wessex, A. D. 958-975.
EDGECOTE, Battle of.
See BANBURY, BATTLE OF.
EDGEHILL OR KEYNTON, Battle of.
See ENGLAND: A. D. 1642 (OCTOBER-DECEMBER).
EDHEL
See ADEL.
EDHILING, OR ÆDHILING, The.
See ETHELING.
EDICT OF NANTES, and its revocation.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1508-1599, and 1681-1608.
EDICT OF RESTITUTION, The.
See GERMANY: A. D. 1627-1620.
EDICTS, Roman imperial.
See CORPUS JURIS CIVILIS.
EDINBURGH:
Origin of the city.
See ENGLAND: A. D. 547-633.
EDINBURGH:11th Century.
Made the capital of Scotland.
See SCOTLAND: A. D. 1066-1003.
EDINBURGH: A. D. 1544.
Destroyed by the English.
See SCOTLAND: A. D. 1544-1548.
EDINBURGH: A. D. 1559-1560.
Seized by the Lords of the Congregation.
The Treaty of July, 1560.
See SCOTLAND: A. D. 1558-1560.
EDINBURGH: A. D. 1572-1573.
n the civil war.
See SCOTLAND: A. D. 1570-1573.
EDINBURGH: A. D. 1637.
Laud's Liturgy and the tumult at St. Giles'.
See SCOTLAND: A. D. 1637.
EDINBURGH: A. D. 1638.
The signing of the National Covenant.
See SCOTLAND: A. D. 1638.
EDINBURGH: A. D. 1650.
Surrender to Cromwell.
Siege and reduction of the Castle.
See SCOTLAND: A. D. 1650 (SEPTEMBER);
and 1651 (AUGUST).
EDINBURGH: A. D. 1688.
Rioting and revolution.
See SCOTLAND: A. D. 1688-1690.
EDINBURGH: A. D. 1707.
The city at the time of the union.
"Edinburgh, though still but a small town, excited the
admiration of travellers who were acquainted with the greatest
cities of England and the Continent; nor was their admiration
entirely due to the singular beauty of its situation. The
quaint architecture of the older houses—which sometimes rose
to the height of nine, ten or eleven stories—indeed, carried
back the mind to very barbarous times; for it was ascribed to
the desire of the population to live as near as possible to
the protection of the castle. The filth of the streets in the
early years of the 18th century was indescribable. … The new
quarter, which now strikes every stranger by its spacious
symmetry, was not begun till the latter half of the 18th
century, but as early as 1723 an English traveller described
the High Street as 'the stateliest street in the world.' …
Under the influence of the Kirk the public manners of the town
were marked by much decorum and even austerity, but the
populace were unusually susceptible of fierce political
enthusiasm, and when excited they were extremely formidable.
… A city guard, composed chiefly of fierce Highlanders,
armed and disciplined like regular soldiers, and placed under
the control of the magistrates, was established in 1606; and
it was not finally abolished till the present century.
Edinburgh, at the beginning of the 18th century, was more than
twice as large as any other Scotch town. Its population at the
time of the union slightly exceeded 30,000, while that of
Glasgow was not quite 15,000, that of Dundee not quite 10,000,
and that of Perth about 7,000."
_W. E. H. Lecky,
History of England in the 18th Century,
chapter 5 (volume 2)._
{673}
EDINBURGH: A. D. 1736.
The Porteous Riot.
"The circumstances of the Porteous Riot are familiar wherever
the English tongue is spoken, because they were made the
dramatic opening of one of his finest stories by that
admirable genius who, like Shakespeare in his plays, has
conveyed to plain men more of the spirit and action of the
past in noble fiction, than they would find in most professed
chronicles of fact. The early scenes of the 'Heart of
Midlothian' are an accurate account of the transaction which
gave so much trouble to Queen Caroline and the minister
[Walpole]. A smuggler who had excited the popular imagination
by his daring and his chivalry was sentenced to be hanged;
after his execution the mob pressed forward to cut down his
body: Porteous, the captain of the City Guard, ordered his men
to fire, and several persons were shot dead: he was tried for
murder, convicted, and sentenced, but at the last moment a
reprieve arrived from London, to the intense indignation of a
crowd athirst for vengeance: four days later, under mysterious
ringleaders who could never afterwards be discovered, fierce
throngs suddenly gathered together at nightfall to the beat of
drum, broke into the prison, dragged out the unhappy Porteous,
and sternly hanged him on a dyer's pole close by the common
place of public execution."
_J. Morley,
Walpole,
chapter 9._
ALSO IN:
_J. McCarthy,
History of the Four Georges,
chapter 24 (volume 2)._
EDINBURGH: A. D. 1745.
The Young Pretender in the city.
See SCOTLAND: A. D. 1745-1746.
EDINBURGH: A. D. 1779.
No-Popery riots.
See ENGLAND: A. D. 1778-1780.
----------EDINBURGH: End----------
EDINGTON, OR ETHANDUN, Battle of (A. D.878).
See ENGLAND: A. D. 855-880.
EDMUND,
King of Wessex, A. D. 940-947.
Edmund Ironside, King of Wessex, A. D. 1016.
EDOMITES, OR lDUMEANS, The.
"From a very early period the Edomites were the chief of the
nations of Arabia Petræa. Amongst the branches sprung,
according to Arab tradition, from the primitive Amalika, they
correspond to the Arcam, and the posterity of Esau, after
settling amongst them as we have seen, became the dominant
family from which the chiefs were chosen. The original
habitation of the Edomites was Mount Seir, whence they spread
over all the country called by the Greeks Gebalene, that is
the prolongation of the mountains joining on the north the
land of Moab, into the Valley of Arabah, and the surrounding
heights. … Saul successfully fought the Edomites; under
David, Joab and Abishai, his generals, completely defeated
them, and David placed garrisons in their towns. In their
ports of Elath and Eziongeber were built the fleets sent to
India by Hiram and Solomon. … After the schism of the ten
tribes, the Edomites remained dependent on the King of Judah."
_F. Lenormant,
Manual of Ancient History of the East,
book 7, chapter 4._
See, also,
NABATHEANS; JEWS: THE EARLY HEBREW
HISTORY; and AMALEKITES.
EDRED, King of Wessex, A. D. 947-955.
EDRISITES, The.
After the revolt of Moorish or Mahometan Spain from the
caliphate of Bagdad, the African provinces of the Moslems
assumed independence, and several dynasties became
seated—among them that of the Edrisites, which founded the
city and kingdom of Fez, and which reigned from A. D. 829 to
907.
_E. Gibbon,
Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire,
chapter 52.
See, also, MAHOMETAN CONQUEST: A. D. 715-750.
----------EDRISITES: End----------
EDUCATION.
EDUCATION: Ancient.
Egypt.
"In the education of youth [the Egyptians] were particularly
strict; and 'they knew,' says Plato, 'that children ought to
be early accustomed to such gestures, looks, and motions as
are decent and proper; and not to be suffered either to hear
or learn any verses and songs other than those which are
calculated to inspire them with virtue; and they consequently
took care that every dance and ode introduced at their feasts
or sacrifices should be subject to certain regulations.'"
_Sir J. G. Wilkinson,
The Manners and Customs of the Ancient Egyptians,
volume 1, page 321._
"The children were educated according to their station and
their future position in life. They were kept in strict
subjection by their parents, and respect to old age was
particularly inculcated; the children of the priests were
educated very thoroughly in writing of all kinds,
hieroglyphic, hieratic, and demotic, and in the sciences of
astronomy, mathematics, etc. The Jewish deliverer Moses was
educated after the manner of the priests, and the 'wisdom of
the Egyptians' became a proverbial expression among the
outside nations, as indicating the utmost limit of human
knowledge."
_E. A. W. Budge,
The Dwellers on the Nile,
chapter 10._
"On the education of the Egyptians, Diodorus makes the
following remarks:—'The children of the priests are taught
two different kinds of writing,—what is called the sacred,
and the more general; and they pay great attention to geometry
and arithmetic. For the river, changing the appearance of the
country very materially every year, is the cause of many and
various discussions among neighbouring proprietors about the
extent of their property; and it would be difficult for any
person to decide upon their claims without geometrical
reasoning, founded on actual observation. Of arithmetic they
have also frequent need, both in their domestic economy, and
in the application of geometrical theorems, besides its
utility in the cultivation of astronomical studies; for the
orders and motions of the stars are observed at least as
industriously by the Egyptians as by any people whatever; and
they keep record of the motions of each for an incredible
number of years, the study of this science having been, from
the remotest times, an object of national ambition with them.
… But the generality of the common people learn only from
their parents or relations that which is required for the
exercise of their peculiar professions, … a few only being
taught anything of literature, and those principally the
better class of artificers.' Hence it appears they were not
confined to any particular rules in the mode of educating
their children, and it depended upon a parent to choose
the degree of instruction he deemed most suitable to their
mode of life and occupations, as among other civilised
nations."
_Sir J. G. Wilkinson,
The Manners and Customs of the Egyptians,
volume 1, pages 175-176._
{674}
"There is nothing like being a scribe,' the wise say; 'the
scribe gets all that is upon earth.' … The scribe is simply
a man who knows how to read and write, to draw up
administrative formulas, and to calculate interest. The
instruction which he has received is a necessary complement of
his position if he belongs to a good family, whilst if he be
poor it enables him to obtain a lucrative situation in the
administration or at the house of a wealthy personage. There
is, therefore, no sacrifice which the smaller folk deem too
great, if it enables them to give their sons the acquirements
which may raise them above the common people, or at least
insure a less miserable fate. If one of them, in his infancy,
displays any intelligence, they send him, when about six or
eight years old, to the district school, where an old
pedagogue teaches him the rudiments of reading, writing, and
arithmetic. Towards ten or twelve years old, they withdraw him
from the care of this first teacher and apprentice him to a
scribe in some office, who undertakes to make him a 'learned
scribe.' The child accompanies his master to his office or
work-yard, and there passes entire months in copying letters,
circulars, legal documents, or accounts, which he does not at
first understand, but which he faithfully remembers. There are
books for his use full of copies taken from well-known
authors, which he studies perpetually. If he requires a brief,
precise report, this is how Ennana worded one of his:—'I
reached Elephantine and accomplished my mission. I reviewed
the infantry and the chariot soldiers from the temples, as
well as the servants and subordinates who are in the houses of
Pharaoh's … officials. As my journey is for the purpose of
making a report in the presence of his Majesty, … the course
of my business is as rapid as that of the Nile; you need not,
therefore, feel anxious about me.' There is not a superfluous
word. If, on the other hand, a petition in a poetical style be
required, see how Pentoïrit asked for a holiday. 'My heart has
left me, it is travelling and does not know how to return, it
sees Memphis and hastens there. Would that I were in its
place. I remain here, busy following my heart, which
endeavours to draw me towards Memphis. I have no work in hand,
my heart is tormented. May it please the god Ptah to lead me
to Memphis, and do thou grant that I may be seen walking
there. I am at leisure, my heart is watching, my heart is no
longer in my bosom, languor has seized my limbs; my eye is
dim, my ear hardened, my voice feeble, it is a failure of all
my strength. I pray thee remedy all this.' The pupil copies
and recopies, the master inserts forgotten words, corrects the
faults of spelling, and draws on the margin the signs or
groups unskilfully traced. When the book is duly finished and
the apprentice can write all the formulas from memory,
portions of phrases are detached from them, which he must join
together, so as to combine new formulas; the master then
entrusts him with the composition of a few letters, gradually
increasing the number and adding to the difficulties. As soon
as he has fairly mastered the ordinary daily routine his
education is ended, and an unimportant post is sought for. He
obtains it and then marries, becoming the head of a family,
sometimes before he is twenty years old; he has no further
ambition, but is content to vegetate quietly in the obscure
circle where fate has thrown him."
_G. Maspéro,
Life in Ancient Egypt and Assyria,
chapter 1._
"In the schools, where the poor scribe's child sat on the
same bench beside the offspring of the rich, to be trained in
discipline and wise learning, the masters knew how by timely
words to goad on the lagging diligence of the ambitious
scholars, by holding out to them the future reward which
awaited youths skilled in knowledge and letters. Thus the
slumbering spark of self-esteem was stirred to a flame in the
youthful breast, and emulation was stimulated among the boys.
The clever son of the poor man, too, might hope by his
knowledge to climb the ladder of the higher offices, for
neither his birth nor position raised any barrier, if only
the youth's mental power justified fair hopes for the future.
In this sense, the restraints of caste did not exist, and
neither descent nor family hampered the rising career of the
clever. Many a monument consecrated to the memory of some
nobleman gone to his long home, who during life had held high
rank at the court of Pharaoh, is decorated with the simple
but laudatory inscription, 'His ancestors were unknown
people.' It is a satisfaction to avow that the training and
instruction of the young interested the Egyptians in the
highest degree. For they fully recognised in this the sole
means of cultivating their national life, and of fulfilling
the high civilizing mission which Providence seemed to have
placed in their hands. But above all things they regarded
justice, and virtue had the highest price in their eyes."
_H. Brugsch-Bey,
History of Egypt under the Pharaohs,
volume 1, page 22._
EDUCATION:
Babylonia and Assyria.
"The primitive Chaldeans were pre-eminently a literary people,
and it is by their literary relics, by the scattered contents
of their libraries, that we can know and judge them. As
befitted the inventors of a system of writing, like the
Chinese they set the highest value on education, even though
examinations may have been unknown among them. Education,
however, was widely diffused. … Assur-bani-pal's library was
open to the use and enjoyment of all his subjects, and the
syllabaries, grammars, lexicons, and reading-books that it
contained, show the extent to which not only their own
language was studied by the Assyrians, but the dead language
of ancient Accad as well. It became as fashionable to compose
in this extinct tongue as it is now-a-days to display one's
proficiency in Latin prose, and 'dog-Accadian' was perpetrated
with as little remorse as 'dog-Latin' at the present time. One
of the Babylonian cylinders found by General di Cesnola in the
temple-treasure of Kurium, which probably belongs to the
period of Nebuchadnezzar's dynasty, has a legend which
endeavours to imitate the inscriptions of the early Accadian
princes; but the very first word, by an unhappy error, betrays
the insufficient knowledge of the old language possessed by
its composer. Besides a knowledge of Accadian, the educated
Assyrian was required to have also a knowledge of Aramaic,
which had now become the 'lingua franca' of trade and
diplomacy; and we find the Rabshakeh (Rab-sakki), or prime
minister, who was sent against Hezekiah by Sennacherib,
acquainted with Hebrew as well.
{675}
The grammatical and lexical works in the library of
Nineveh are especially interesting, as being the earliest
attempts of the kind of which we know, and it is curious to
find the Hamiltonian method of learning languages forestalled
by the scribes of Assur-bani-pal. In this case, as in all
others, the first enquiries into the nature of speech, and the
first grammars and dictionaries, were due to the necessity of
comparing two languages together; it was the Accadian which
forced the Semitic Assyrian or Babylonian to study his own
tongue. And already in these first efforts the main principles
of Semitic grammar are laid down clearly and definitely."
_A. H. Sayce,
Babylonian Literature,
pages 71-72._
"The Babylonians were the Chinese of the ancient world. They
were essentially a reading and writing people. … The books
were for the most part written upon clay with a wooden reed or
metal stylus, for clay was cheap and plentiful, and easily
impressed with the wedge-shaped lines of which the characters
were composed. But besides clay, papyrus and possibly also
parchment were employed as writing materials. … The use of
clay for writing purposes extended, along with Babylonian
culture, to the neighbouring populations of the East. … It
is astonishing how much matter can be compressed into the
compass of a single tablet: The cuneiform system of writing
allowed the use of many abbreviations—thanks to its
'ideographic' nature—and the characters were frequently of a
very minute size. Indeed, so minute is the writing on many of
the Assyrian (as distinguished from the Babylonian) tablets
that it is clear not only that the Assyrian scribes and
readers must have been decidedly short-sighted, but also that
they must have made use of magnifying glasses. We need not be
surprised, therefore, to learn that Sir A. H. Layard
discovered a crystal lens, which had been turned on a lathe,
upon the site of the great library of Nineveh. … To learn
the cuneiform syllabary was a task of much time and labour.
The student was accordingly provided with various means of
assistance. The characters of the syllabary were classified
and named; they were further arranged according to a certain
order, which partly depended on the number of wedges or lines
of which each was composed. Moreover, what we may term
dictionaries were compiled. … To learn the signs, however,
with their multitudinous phonetic values and ideographic
significations, was not the whole of the labour which the
Babylonian boy had to accomplish. The cuneiform system of
writing, along with the culture which had produced it, had
been the invention of the non-Semitic Accado-Sumerian race,
from whom it had been borrowed by the Semites. In Semitic
hands the syllabary underwent further modifications and
additions, but it bore upon it to the last the stamp of its
alien origin. On this account alone, therefore, the Babylonian
student who wished to acquire a knowledge of reading and
writing was obliged to learn the extinct language of the older
population of the country. There was, however, another reason
which even more imperatively obliged him to study the earlier
tongue. A large proportion of the ancient literature, more
especially that which related to religious subjects, was
written in Accado-Sumerian. Even the law-cases of earlier
times, which formed precedents for the law of a later age,
were in the same language. In fact, Accado-Sumerian stood in
much the same relation to the Semitic Babylonians that Latin
has stood to the modern inhabitants of Europe. … Besides
learning the syllabary, therefore, the Babylonian boy had to
learn the extinct of Accad and Sumer. … The study of foreign
tongues naturally brought with it an inquisitiveness about the
languages of other people, as well as a passion for etymology.
… But there were other things besides languages which the
young student in the schools of Babylonia and Assyria was
called upon to learn. Geography, history, the names and nature
of plants, birds, animals, and stones, as well as the elements
of law and religion, were all objects of instruction. The
British Museum possesses what may be called the historical
exercise of some Babylonian lad in the age of Nebuchadnezzar
or Cyrus, consisting of a list of the kings belonging to one
of the early dynasties, which he had been required to learn by
heart. … A considerable proportion of the inhabitants of
Babylonia could read and write. The contract tablets are
written in a variety of running hands, some of which are as
bad as the worst that passes through the modern post. Every
legal document required the signatures of a number of
witnesses, and most of these were able to write their own
names. … In Assyria, however, education was by no means so
widely spread. Apart from the upper and professional classes,
including the men of business, it was confined to a special
body of men—the public scribes. … There was none of that
jealous exclusion of women in ancient Babylonia which
characterizes the East of today, and it is probable that boys
and girls pursued their studies at the same schools. The
education of a child must have begun early."
_A. H. Sayce,
Social Life among the Babylonians,
chapter 3._
EDUCATION:
China.
"It is not, perhaps, generally known that Peking contains an
ancient university; for, though certain buildings connected
with it have been frequently described, the institution itself
has been but little noticed. It gives, indeed, so few signs of
life that it is not surprising it should be overlooked. … If
a local situation be deemed an essential element of identity,
this old university must yield the palm of age to many in
Europe, for in its present site it dates, at most, only from
the Yuen, or Mongol, dynasty, in the beginning of the
fourteenth century. But as an imperial institution, having a
fixed organization and definite objects, it carries its
history, or at least its pedigree, back to a period far
anterior to the founding of the Great Wall. Among the
Regulations of the House of Chow, which flourished a thousand
years before the Christian era, we meet with it already in
full-blown vigor, and under the identical name which it now
bears, that of Kwotszekien, or 'School for the Sons of the
Empire.' It was in its glory before the light of science
dawned on Greece, and when Pythagoras and Plato were pumping
their secrets from the priests of Heliopolis. And it still
exists, but it is only an embodiment of 'life in death:' its
halls are tombs, and its officers living mummies. In the 13th
Book of the Chowle (see Rites de Tcheou, traduction par
Édouard Biot), we find the functions of the heads of the
Kwotszekien laid down with a good deal of minuteness.
{676}
The presidents were to admonish the Emperor of that which is
good and just, and to instruct the Sons of the State in the
'three constant virtues' and the 'three practical duties'—in
other words, to give a course of lectures on moral philosophy.
The vice-presidents were to reprove the Emperor for his faults
(i. e., to perform the duty of official censors) and to
discipline the Sons of the State in the sciences and
arts—viz., in arithmetic, writing, music, archery,
horsemanship and ritual ceremonies. … The old curriculum is
religiously adhered to, but greater latitude is given, as we
shall have occasion to observe, to the term 'Sons of the
State.' In the days of Chow, this meant the heir-apparent,
princes of the blood, and children of the nobility. Under the
Tatsing dynasty it signifies men of defective scholarship
throughout the provinces, who purchase literary degrees, and
more specifically certain indigent students of Peking, who are
aided by the imperial bounty. The Kwotszekien is located in
the northeastern angle of the Tartar city, with a temple of
Confucius attached, which is one of the finest in the Empire.
The main edifice (that of the temple) consists of a single
story of imposing height, with a porcelain roof of tent-like
curvature. … It contains no seats, as all comers are
expected to stand or kneel in presence of the Great Teacher.
Neither does it boast anything in the way of artistic
decoration, nor exhibit any trace of that neatness and taste
which we look for in a sacred place. Perhaps its vast area is
designedly left to dust and emptiness, in order that nothing
may intervene to disturb the mind in the contemplation of a
great name which receives the homage of a nation. … In an
adjacent block or square stands a pavilion known as the
'Imperial Lecture-room,' because it is incumbent on each
occupant of the Dragon throne to go there at least once in his
life-time to hear a discourse on the nature and
responsibilities of his office. … A canal spanned by marble
bridges encircles the pavilion, and arches of glittering
porcelain, in excellent repair, adorn the grounds. But neither
these nor the pavilion itself constitutes the chief attraction
of the place. Under a long corridor which encloses the entire
space may be seen as many as one hundred and eighty-two
columns of massive granite, each inscribed with a portion of
the canonical books. These are the 'Stone Classics'—the
entire 'Thirteen,' which formed the staple of a Chinese
education, being here enshrined in a material supposed to be
imperishable. Among all the Universities in the world, the
Kwotszekien is unique in the possession of such a library.
This is not, indeed, the only stone library extant—another of
equal extent being found at Singanfu, the ancient capital of
the Tangs. But, that too, was the property of the Kwotszekien
ten centuries ago, when Singan was the seat of empire. The
'School for the Sons of the Empire' must needs follow the
migrations of the court; and that library, costly as it was,
being too heavy for transportation, it was thought best to
supply its place by the new edition which we have been
describing. … In front of the temple stands a forest of
columns of scarcely inferior interest. They are three hundred
and twenty in number, and contain the university roll of
honor, a complete list of all who since the founding of the
institution have attained to the dignity of the doctorate.
Allow to each an average of two hundred names, and we have an
army of doctors sixty thousand strong! (By the doctorate I
mean the third or highest degree.) All these received their
investiture at the Kwotszekien, and, throwing themselves at
the feet of its president, enrolled themselves among the 'Sons
of the Empire.' They were not, however—at least the most of
them were not—in any proper sense alumni of the Kwotszekien,
having pursued their studies in private, and won their honors
by public competition in the halls of the Civil-service
Examining Board. … There is an immense area occupied by
lecture-rooms, examination-halls and lodging-apartments. But
the visitor is liable to imagine that these, too, are
consecrated to a monumental use—so rarely is a student or a
professor to be seen among them. Ordinarily they are as
desolate as the halls of Baalbec or Palmyra. In fact, this
great school for the 'Sons of the Empire' has long ceased to
be a seat of instruction, and degenerated into a mere
appendage of the civil-service competitive examinations on
which it hangs as a dead weight, corrupting and debasing
instead of advancing the standard of national education."
_W. A. P. Martin,
The Chinese, their Education, Philosophy and Letters,
pages 85-90._
EDUCATION:
Persia.
"All the best authorities are agreed that great pains were
taken by the Persians—or, at any rate, by those of the
leading clans—in the education of their sons. During the
first five years of his life the boy remained wholly with the
women, and was scarcely, if at all, seen by his father. After
that time his training commenced. He was expected to rise
before dawn, and to appear at a certain spot, where he was
exercised with other boys of his age in running, slinging
stones, shooting with the bow, and throwing the javelin. At
seven he was taught to ride, and soon afterward he was allowed
to begin to hunt. The riding included, not only the ordinary
management of the horse, but the power of jumping on and off
his back when he was at speed, and of shooting with the bow
and throwing the javelin with unerring aim, while the horse
was still at full gallop. The hunting was conducted by
state-officers, who aimed at forming by its means in the
youths committed to their charge all the qualities needed in
war. The boys were made to bear extremes of heat and cold, to
perform long marches, to cross rivers without wetting their
weapons, to sleep in the open air at night, to be content with
a single meal in two days, and to support themselves
occasionally on the wild products of the country, acorns, wild
pears and the fruit of the terebinth tree. On days when there
was no hunting they passed their mornings in athletic
exercises, and contests with the bow or the javelin, after
which they dined simply on the plain food mentioned above as
that of the men in the early times, and then employed
themselves during the afternoon in occupations regarded as not
illiberal—for instance, in the pursuits of agriculture,
planting, digging for roots, and the like, or in the
construction of arms and hunting implements, such as nets and
springes. Hardy and temperate habits being secured by this
training, the point of morals on which their preceptors mainly
insisted was the rigid observance of truth. Of intellectual
education they had but little. It seems to have been no part
of the regular training of a Persian youth that he should
learn to read.
{677}
He was given religious notions and a certain amount of moral
knowledge by means of legendary poems, in which the deeds of
gods and heroes were set before him by his teachers, who
recited or sung them in his presence, and afterwards required
him to repeat what he had heard, or, at any rate, to give some
account of it. This education continued for fifteen years,
commencing when the boy was five, and terminating when he
reached the age of twenty. The effect of this training was to
render the Persian an excellent soldier and a most
accomplished horseman. … At fifteen years of age the Persian
was considered to have attained to manhood, and was enrolled
in the ranks of the army, continuing liable to military
service from that time till he reached the age of fifty. Those
of the highest rank became the body-guard of the king, and
these formed the garrison of the capital. … Others, though
liable to military service, did not adopt arms as their
profession, but attached themselves to the Court and looked to
civil employment, as satraps, secretaries, attendants, ushers,
judges, inspectors, messengers. … For trade and commerce the
Persians were wont to express extreme contempt."
_G. Rawlinson,
The Five Great Monarchies of the Ancient Eastern World,
volume 3, pages 238-242._
After the death of Cyrus, according to Xenophon, the Persians
degenerated, in the education of their youth and otherwise.
"To educate the youth at the gates of the palace is still the
custom," he says; "but the attainment and practice of
horsemanship are extinct, because they do not go where they
can gain applause by exhibiting skill in that exercise.
Whereas, too, in former times, the boys, hearing causes justly
decided there, were considered by that means to learn justice,
that custom is altogether altered; for they now see those gain
their causes who offer the highest bribes. Formerly, also,
boys were taught the virtues of the various productions of the
earth, in order that they might use the serviceable, and avoid
the noxious; but now they seem to be taught those particulars
that they may do as much harm as possible; at least there are
nowhere so many killed or injured by poison as in that
country."
_Xenophon,
Cyropædia and Hellenics;
translated by J. S. Watson and H. Dale,
pages 284-285._
EDUCATION:
Judæa.
"According to the statement of Josephus, Moses had already
prescribed 'that boys should learn the most important laws,
because that is the best knowledge and the cause of
prosperity.' 'He commanded to instruct children in the
elements of knowledge (reading and writing), to teach them to
walk according to the laws, and to know the deeds of their
forefathers. The latter, that they might imitate them; the
former, that growing up with the laws they might not
transgress them, nor have the excuse of ignorance.' Josephus
repeatedly commends the zeal with which the instruction of the
young was carried on. 'We take most pains of all with the
instruction of children, and esteem the observance of the laws
and the piety corresponding with them the most important
affair of our whole life.' 'If anyone should question one of
us concerning the laws, he would more easily repeat all than
his own name. Since we learn them from our first
consciousness, we have them, as it were, engraven on our
souls; and a transgression is rare, but the averting of
punishment impossible.' In like manner does Philo express
himself: 'Since the Jews esteem their laws as divine
revelations, and are instructed in the knowledge of them from
their earliest youth, they bear the image of the law in their
souls.' … In view of all this testimony it cannot be
doubted, that in the circles of genuine Judaism boys were from
their tenderest childhood made acquainted with the demands of
the law. That this education in the law was, in the first
place, the duty and task of parents is self-evident. But it
appears, that even in the age of Christ, care was also taken
for the instruction of youth by the erection of schools on the
part of the community. … The later tradition that Joshua ben
Gamla (Jesus the son of Gamaliel) enacted that teachers of
boys … should be appointed in every province and in every
town, and that children of the age of six or seven should be
brought to them, is by no means incredible. The only Jesus the
son of Gamaliel known to history is the high priest of that
name, about 63-65 after Christ. … It must therefore be he
who is intended in the above notice. As his measures
presuppose a somewhat longer existence of boys' schools, we
may without hesitation transfer them to the age of Christ,
even though not as a general and established institution. The
subject of instruction, as already appears from the above
passages of Josephus and Philo, was as good as exclusively the
law. For only its inculcation in the youthful mind, and not
the means of general education, was the aim of all this zeal
for the instruction of youth. And indeed the earliest
instruction was in the reading and inculcation of the text of
scripture. … Habitual practice went hand in hand with
theoretical instruction. For though children were not actually
bound to fulfil the law, they were yet accustomed to it from
their youth up."
_E. Schürer,
History of the Jewish People in the time of Jesus Christ,
volume 2, pages 47-50._
In the fourth century B. C. the Council of Seventy Elders
"instituted regularly appointed readings from the Law; on
every sabbath and on every week day a portion from the
Pentateuch was to be read to the assembled congregation. Twice
a week, when the country people came up from the villages to
market in the neighbouring towns, or to appeal at the courts
of justice, some verses of the Pentateuch, however few, were
read publicly. At first only the learned were allowed to read,
but at last it was looked upon as so great an honour to belong
to the readers, that everyone attempted or desired to do so.
Unfortunately the characters in which the Torah was written
were hardly readable. Until that date the text of the Torah
had been written in the ancient style with Phœnician or old
Babylonian characters, which could only be deciphered by
practised scribes. … From the constant reading of the Law,
there arose among the Judæans an intellectual activity and
vigour, which at last gave a special character to the whole
nation. The Torah became their spiritual and intellectual
property, and their own inner sanctuary. At this time there
sprang up other important institutions, namely, schools, where
the young men could stimulate their ardour and increase their
knowledge of the Law and its teachings. The intellectual
leaders of the people continually enjoined on the rising
generation, 'Bring up a great many disciples.' And what they
enjoined so strenuously they themselves must have assisted to
accomplish. One of these religious schools (Beth-Waad) was
probably established in Jerusalem.
{678}
The teachers were called scribes (sopherim) or wise men; the
disciples, pupils of the wise (Talmude Chachamim). The wise
men or scribes had a two-fold work; on the one hand they had
to explain the Torah, and on the other, to make the laws
applicable to each individual and to the community at large.
This supplementary interpretation was called 'explanation'
(Midrash); it was not altogether arbitrary, but rested upon
certain rules laid down for the proper interpretation of the
law. The supreme council and the houses of learning worked
together, and one completed the other. A hardly perceptible,
but most important movement was the result; for the
descendants of the Judæans of that age were endowed with a
characteristic, which they might otherwise have claimed as
inborn, the talent for research and the intellectual
penetration, needed for turning and returning words and data,
in order to discover some new and hidden meaning."
_H. Graetz,
History of the Jews,
volume 1, chapter 20._
EDUCATION:
Schools of the Prophets.
"In his [Samuel's] time we first hear of what in modern
phraseology are called the Schools of the Prophets. Whatever
be the precise meaning of the peculiar word, which now came
first into use as the designation of these companies, it is
evident that their immediate mission consisted in uttering
religious hymns or songs, accompanied by musical
instruments—psaltery, tabret, pipe and harp, and cymbals. In
them, as in the few solitary instances of their predecessors,
the characteristic element was that the silent seer of visions
found an articulate voice, gushing forth in a rhythmical flow,
which at once riveted the attention of the hearer. These, or
such as these, were the gifts which under Samuel were now
organized, if one may say so, into a system."
_Dean Stanley,
Lectures on the History of the Jewish Church,
lecture 18._
EDUCATION:
Greece.
A description of the Athenian education of the young is given
by Plato in one of his dialogues: "Education," he says, "and
admonition commence in the first years of childhood, and last
to the very end of life. Mother and nurse and father and tutor
are quarrelling about the improvement of the child as soon as
ever he is able to understand them: he cannot say or do
anything without their setting forth to him that this is just
and that is unjust; this is honourable, that is dishonourable;
this is holy, that is unholy; do this and abstain from that.
And if he obeys, well and good; if not, he is straightened by
threats and blows, like a piece of warped wood. At a later
stage they send him to teachers, and enjoin them to see to his
manners even more than to his reading and music; and the
teachers do as they are desired. And when the boy has learned
his letters and is beginning to understand what is written·,
as before he understood only what was spoken, they put into
his hands the works of great poets, which he reads at school;
in these are contained many admonitions, and many tales, and
praises, and encomia of ancient famous men, which he is
required to learn by heart, in order that he may imitate or
emulate them and desire to become like them. Then, again, the
teachers of the lyre take similar care that their young
disciple is temperate and gets into no mischief; and when they
have taught him the use of the lyre, they introduce him to the
poems of other excellent poets, who are the lyric poets; and
these they set to music, and make their harmonies and rhythms
quite familiar to the children, in order that they may learn
to be more gentle, and harmonious, and rhythmical, and so more
fitted for speech and action; for the life of men in every
part has need of harmony and rhythm. Then they send them to
the master of gymnastic, in order that their bodies may better
minister to the virtuous mind, and that the weakness of their
bodies may not force them to play the coward in war or on any
other occasion. This is what is done by those who have the
means, and those who have the means are the rich; their
children begin education soonest and leave off latest. When
they have done with masters, the state again compels them to
learn the laws, and live after the pattern which they furnish,
and not after their own fancies; and just as in learning to
write, the writing-master first draws lines with a style for
the use of the young beginner, and gives him the tablet and
makes him follow the lines, so the city draws the laws, which
were the invention of good law-givers who were of old times;
these are given to the young man, in order to guide him in his
conduct whether as ruler or ruled; and he who transgresses
them is to be corrected, or, in other words, called to
account, which is a term used not only in your country, but
also in many others. Now when there is all this care about
virtue private and public, why, Socrates, do you still wonder
and doubt whether virtue can be taught?"
_Plato,
Protagoras
(Dialogue; translated by Jowett, volume 1)._
The ideas of Aristotle on the subject are in the following:
"There can be no doubt that children should be taught those
useful things which are really necessary, but not all thing's;
for occupations are divided into liberal and illiberal; and to
young children should be imparted only such kinds of knowledge
as will be useful to them without vulgarizing them. And any
occupation, art, or science, which makes the body or soul or
mind of the freeman less fit for the practice or exercise of
virtue, is vulgar; wherefore we call those arts vulgar which
tend to deform the body, and likewise all paid employments,
for they absorb and degrade the mind. There are also some
liberal arts quite proper for a freeman to acquire, but only
in a certain degree, and if he attend to them too closely, in
order to obtain perfection in them, the same evil effects will
follow. The object also which a man sets before him makes a
great difference; if he does or learns anything for his own
sake or for the sake of his friends, or with a view to
excellence, the action will not appear illiberal; but if done
for the sake of others, the very same action will be thought
menial and servile. The received subjects of instruction, as I
have already remarked, are partly of a liberal and partly of
an illiberal character. The customary branches of education
are in number four; they are—(l) reading and writing, (2)
gymnastic exercises, (3) music, to which is sometimes added
(4) drawing. Of these, reading and writing and drawing are
regarded as useful for the purposes of life in a variety of
ways, and gymnastic exercises are thought to infuse courage.
Concerning music a doubt may be raised—in our own day most
men cultivate it for the sake of pleasure, but originally it
was included in education, because nature herself, as has been
often said, requires that we should be able, not only to work
well, but to use leisure well; for, as I must repeat once and
again, the first principle of all action is leisure.
{679}
Both are required, but leisure is better than occupation; and
therefore the question must be asked in good earnest, what
ought we to do when at leisure? Clearly we ought not to be
amusing ourselves, for then amusement would be the end of
life. But if this is inconceivable, and yet amid serious
occupations amusement is needed more than at other times (for
he who is hard at work has need of relaxation, and amusement
gives relaxation, whereas occupation is always accompanied
with exertion and effort), at suitable times we should
introduce amusements, and they should be our medicines, for
the emotion which they create in the soul is a relaxation, and
from the pleasure we obtain rest. … It is clear then that
there are branches of learning and education which we must
study with a view to the enjoyment of leisure, and these are
to be valued for their own sake; whereas those kinds of
knowledge which are useful in business are to be deemed
necessary, and exist for the sake of other things. And
therefore our fathers admitted music into education, not on
the ground either of its necessity or utility, for it is not
necessary, nor indeed useful in the same manner as reading and
writing, which are useful in money-making, in the management
of a house-hold, in the acquisition of knowledge and in
political life, nor like drawing, useful for a more correct
judgment of the works of artists, nor again like gymnastic,
which gives health and strength; for neither of these is to be
gained from music. There remains, then, the use of music for
intellectual enjoyment in leisure; which appears to have been
the reason of its introduction, this being one of the ways in
which it is thought that a freeman should pass his leisure.
… We are now in a position to say that the ancients witness
to us; for their opinion may be gathered from the fact that
music is one of the received and traditional branches of
education. Further, it is clear that children should be
instructed in some useful things,—for example, in reading and
writing,—not only for their usefulness, but also because many
other sorts of knowledge are acquired through them. With a
like view they may be taught drawing, not to prevent their
making mistakes in their own purchases, or in order that they
may not be imposed upon in the buying or selling of articles,
but rather because it makes them judges of the beauty of the
human form. To be always seeking after the useful does not
become free and exalted souls. … We reject the professional
instruments and also the professional mode of education in
music—and by professional we mean that which is adopted in
contests, for in this the performer practises the art, not for
the sake of his own improvement, but in order to give
pleasure, and that of a vulgar sort, to his hearers. For this
reason the execution of such music is not the part of a
freeman but of a paid performer, and the result is that the
performers are vulgarized, for the end at which they aim is
bad."
_Aristotle,
Politics
(Jowett's Translation),
book 8._
"The most striking difference between early Greek education
and ours was undoubtedly this; that the physical development
of boys was attended to in a special place and by a special
master. It was not thought sufficient for them to play the
chance games of childhood; they underwent careful bodily
training under a very fixed system, which was determined by
the athletic contests of after life. … When we compare what
the Greeks afforded to their boys, we find it divided into two
contrasted kinds of exercise: hunting, which was practised by
the Spartans very keenly, and no doubt also by the Eleans and
Arcadians, as may be seen from Xenophon's 'Tract on (Hare)
Hunting'; and gymnastics, which in the case of boys were
carried on in the so-caned palæstra, a sort of open-air
gymnasium (in our sense) kept by private individuals as a
speculation, and to which the boys were sent, as they were to
their ordinary school-master. We find that the Spartans, who
had ample scope for hunting with dogs in the glens and coverts
of Mount Taygetus, rather despised mere exercises of dexterity
in the palæstra, just as our sportsmen would think very little
of spending hours in a gymnasium. But those Greeks who lived
in towns like Athens, and in the midst of a thickly populated
and well-cultivated country, could not possibly obtain
hunting, and therefore found the most efficient substitute.
Still we find them very far behind the English in their
knowledge or taste for out-of-door games. … The Greeks had
no playgrounds beyond the palæstra or gymnasium; they had no
playgrounds in our sense, and though a few proverbs speak of
swimming as a universal accomplishment which boys learned, the
silence of Greek literature on the subject makes one very
suspicious as to the generality of such training. … In one
point, certainly, the Greeks agreed more with the modern
English than with any other civilised nation. They regarded
sport as a really serious thing. … The names applied to the
exercising-places indicate their principal uses. Palæstra
means a wrestling place; gymnasium originally a place for
naked exercise, but the word early lost this connotation and
came to mean mere physical training. … In order to leave
home and reach the palæstra safely as well as to return, Greek
boys were put under the charge of a pædagogue, in no way to be
identified (as it now is) with a schoolmaster. … I think we
may be justified in asserting that the study of the epic
poets, especially of the Iliad and Odyssey, was the earliest
intellectual exercise of schoolboys, and, in the case of
fairly educated parents, even anticipated the learning of
letters. For the latter is never spoken of as part of a
mother's or of home education. Reading was not so universal or
so necessary as it now is. … We may assume that books of
Homer were read or recited to growing boys, and that they were
encouraged or required to learn them off by heart. This is
quite certain to all who estimate justly the enormous
influence ascribed to Homer, and the principles assumed by the
Greeks to have underlain his work. He was universally
considered to be a moral teacher, whose characters were drawn
with a moral intent, and for the purpose of example or
avoidance. … Accordingly the Iliad and Odyssey were supposed
to contain all that was useful, not only for godliness, but
for life. All the arts and sciences were to be derived (by
interpretation) from these sacred texts. … In early days,
and in poor towns, the place of teaching was not well
appointed, nay, even in many places, teaching in the open air
prevailed. … This was … like the old hedge schools of
Ireland, and no doubt of Scotland too. They also took
advantage, especially in hot weather, of colonnades, or shady
corners among public buildings, as at Winchester the summer
term was called cloister-time, from a similar practice, even
in that wealthy foundation, of instructing in the cloisters.
On the other hand, properly appointed schools in respectable
towns were furnished with some taste, and according to
traditional notions. …
{680}
We may be sure that there were no tables or desks, such
furniture being unusual in Greek houses; it was the universal
custom, while reading or writing, to hold the book or roll on
the knee—to us an inconvenient thing to do, but still common
in the East. There are some interesting sentences, given for
exercise in Greek and Latin, in the little known
'Interpretamenta' of Dositheus, now edited and explained by
German scholars. The entry of the boy is thus described, in
parallel Greek and Latin: 'First I salute the master, who
returns my salute: Good morning, master; good morning, school
fellows. Give me my place, my seat, my stool. Sit closer. Move
up that way. This is my place, I took it first.' This mixture
of politeness and wrangling is amusing, and no doubt to be
found in all ages. It seems that the seats were movable. …
The usual subdivision of education was into three parts;
letters, … including reading, writing, counting, and
learning of the poets; music in the stricter sense, including
singing and playing on the lyre; and lastly gymnastic, which
included dancing. … It is said that at Sparta the education
in reading and writing was not thought necessary, and there
have been long discussions among the learned whether the
ordinary Spartan in classical days was able to read. We find
that Aristotle adds a fourth subject to the three above
named—drawing, which he thinks requisite, like music, to
enable the educated man to judge rightly of works of art. But
there is no evidence of a wide diffusion of drawing or
painting among the Greeks, as among us. … Later on, under
the learned influences of Alexandria, and the paid
professoriate of Roman days, subjects multiplied with the
decline of mental vigour and spontaneity of the age, and
children began to be pestered, as they now are, with a
quantity of subjects, all thought necessary to a proper
education, and accordingly all imperfectly acquired. This was
called the encyclical education, which is preserved in our
Encyclopædia of knowledge. It included,(1) grammar,(2)
rhetoric, (3) dialectic, (4) arithmetic, (5) music, (6)
geometry, (7) astronomy, and these were divided into the
earlier Trivium, and the later Quadrivium."
_J. P. Mahaffy,
Old Greek Education,
chapters 3-5._
"Reading was taught with the greatest pains, the utmost care
was taken with the intonation of the voice, and the
articulation of the throat. We have lost the power of
distinguishing between accent and quantity. The Greeks did not
acquire it without long and anxious training of the ear and
the vocal organs. This was the duty of the phonascus. Homer
was the common study of all Greeks. The Iliad and Odyssee were
at once the Bible, the Shakespeare, the Robinson Crusoe, and
the Arabian Nights of the Hellenic race. Long passages and
indeed whole books were learnt by heart. The Greek, as a rule,
learnt no language but his own. Next to reading and repetition
came writing, which was carefully taught. Composition
naturally followed, and the burden of correcting exercises,
which still weighs down the backs of schoolmasters, dates from
these early times. Closely connected with reading and writing
is the art of reckoning, and the science of numbers leads us
easily to music. Plato considered arithmetic as the best spur
to a sleepy and uninstructed spirit; we see from the Platonic
dialogues how mathematical problems employed the mind and
thoughts of young Athenians. Many of the more difficult
arithmetical operations were solved by geometrical methods,
but the Greeks carried the art of teaching numbers to
considerable refinement. They used the abacus, and had an
elaborate method of finger reckoning, which was serviceable up
to 10,000. Drawing was the crowning accomplishment to this
vestibule of training. By the time the fourteenth year was
completed, the Greek boy would have begun to devote himself
seriously to the practice of athletics."
_O. Browning,
An Introduction to the History of Educational Theories,
chapter 1._
"It has sometimes been imagined that in Greece separate
edifices were not erected as with us expressly for
school-houses, but that both the didaskalos and the
philosopher taught their pupils in fields, gardens or shady
groves. But this was not the common practice, though many
schoolmasters appear to have had no other place wherein to
assemble their pupils than the portico of a temple or some
sheltered corner in the street, where in spite of the din of
business and the throng of passengers the worship of learning
was publicly performed. … But these were the schools of the
humbler classes. For the children of the noble and the opulent
spacious structures were raised, and furnished with tables,
desks,—for that peculiar species of grammateion which
resembled the plate cupboard, can have been nothing but a
desk,—forms, and whatsoever else their studies required.
Mention is made of a school at Chios which contained one
hundred and twenty boys, all of whom save one were killed by
the falling in of the roof. … The apparatus of an ancient
school was somewhat complicated: there were mathematical
instruments, globes, maps, and charts of the heavens, together
with boards whereon to trace geometrical figures, tablets,
large and small, of box-wood, fir, or ivory, triangular in
form, some folding with two, and others with many leaves;
books too and paper, skins of parchment, wax for covering the
tablets, which, if we may believe Aristophanes, people
sometimes ate when they were hungry. To the above were added
rulers, reed-pens, pen-cases, pen-knives, pencils, and last,
though not least, the rod which kept them to the steady use of
all these things: At Athens these schools were not provided by
the state. They were private speculations, and each master was
regulated in his charges by the reputation he had acquired and
the fortunes of his pupils. Some appear to have been extremely
moderate in their demands. … The earliest task to be
performed at school was to gain a knowledge of the Greek
characters, large and small, to spell next, next to read. …
In teaching the art of writing their practice nearly resembled
our own. … These things were necessarily the first step in
the first class of studies, which were denominated music, and
comprehended everything connected with the development of the
mind; and they were carried to a certain extent before the
second division called gymnastics was commenced. They reversed
the plan commonly adopted among ourselves, for with them
poetry preceded prose, a practice which, coöperating with
their susceptible temperament, impressed upon the national
mind that imaginative character for which it was preëminently
distinguished.
{681}
And the poets in whose works they were first initiated were of
all the most poetical, the authors of lyrical and dithyrambic
pieces, selections from whose verses they committed to memory,
thus acquiring early a rich store of sentences and imagery
ready to be adduced in argument or illustration, to furnish
familiar allusions or to be woven into the texture of their
style. … Among the other branches of knowledge most
necessary to be studied, and to which they applied themselves
nearly from the outset, was arithmetic, without some inkling
of which, a man, in Plato's opinion, could scarcely be a
citizen at all. … The importance attached to this branch of
education, nowhere more apparent than in the dialogues of
Plato, furnishes one proof that the Athenians were
preëminently men of business, who in all their admiration for
the good and beautiful never lost sight of those things which
promote the comfort of life, and enable a man effectually to
perform his ordinary duties. With the same views were geometry
and astronomy pursued. … The importance of music, in the
education of the Greeks, is generally understood. It was
employed to effect several purposes. First, to sooth and
mollify the fierceness of the national character, and prepare
the way for the lessons of the poets, which, delivered amid
the sounding of melodious strings, when the soul was rapt and
elevated by harmony, by the excitement of numbers, by the
magic of the sweetest associations, took a firm hold upon the
mind, and generally retained it during life. Secondly, it
enabled the citizens gracefully to perform their part in the
amusements of social life, every person being in his turn
called upon at entertainments to sing or play upon the lyre.
Thirdly, it was necessary to enable them to join in the sacred
choruses, rendered frequent by the piety of the state, and for
the due performance in old age of many offices of religion,
the sacerdotal character belonging more or less to all the
citizens of Athens. Fourthly, as much of the learning of a
Greek was martial and designed to fit him for defending his
country, he required some knowledge of music that on the field
of battle his voice might harmoniously mingle with those of
his countrymen, in chaunting those stirring, impetuous, and
terrible melodies, called pæans, which preceded the first
shock of fight. For some, or all of these reasons, the science
of music began to be cultivated among the Hellenes, at a
period almost beyond the reach even of tradition."
_J. A. St. John,
The Hellenes,
book 2, chapter 4._
"In thinking of Greek education as furnishing a possible model
for us moderns, there is one point which it is important to
bear in mind: Greek education was intended only for the few,
for the wealthy and well-born. Upon all others, upon slaves,
barbarians, the working and trading classes, and generally
upon all persons spending their lives in pursuit of wealth or
any private ends whatsoever, it would have seemed to be thrown
away. Even well-born women were generally excluded from most
of its benefits. The subjects of education were the sons of
full citizens, themselves preparing to be full citizens, and
to exercise all the functions of such. The duties of such
persons were completely summed up under two heads, duties to
the family and duties to the State, or, as the Greeks said,
œconomic and political duties. The free citizen not only
acknowledged no other duties besides these, but he looked down
upon persons who sought occupation in any other sphere.
Œconomy and Politics, however, were very comprehensive terms.
The former included the three relations of husband to wife,
father to children, and master to slaves and property; the
latter, three public functions, legislative, administrative,
and judiciary. All occupations not included under these six
heads the free citizen left to slaves or resident foreigners.
Money-making, in the modern sense, he despised, and, if he
devoted himself to art or philosophy, he did so only for the
benefit of the State."
_T. Davidson,
Aristotle,
book 1, chapter 4._
EDUCATION: Greek
Spartan Training.
"From his birth every Spartan belonged to the state, which
decided … whether he was likely to prove a useful member of
the community, and extinguished the life of the sickly or
deformed infant. To the age of seven however the care of the
child was delegated to its natural guardians, yet not so as to
be left wholly to their discretion, but subject to certain
established rules of treatment, which guarded against every
mischievous indulgence of parental tenderness. At the end of
seven years began a long course of public discipline, which
grew constantly more and more severe as the boy approached
toward manhood. The education of the young was in some degree
the business of all the elder citizens; for there was none who
did not contribute to it, if not by his active interference,
at least by his presence and inspection. But it was placed
under the especial superintendence of an officer selected from
the men of most approved worth; and he again chose a number of
youths, just past the age of twenty, and who most eminently
united courage with discretion, to exercise a more immediate
command over the classes, into which the boys were divided.
The leader of each class directed the sports and tasks of his
young troop, and punished their offences with military rigour,
but was himself responsible to his elders for the mode in
which he discharged his office. The Spartan education was
simple in its objects; it was not the result of any general
view of human nature, or of any attempt to unfold its various
capacities: it aimed at training men who were to live in the
midst of difficulty and danger, and who could only be safe
themselves while they held rule over others. The citizen was
to be always ready for the defence of himself and his country,
at home and abroad, and he was therefore to be equally fitted
to command and to obey. His body, his mind, and his character
were formed for this purpose, and for no other: and hence the
Spartan system, making directly for its main end, and
rejecting all that was foreign to it, attained, within its own
sphere, to a perfection which it is impossible not to admire.
The young Spartan was perhaps unable either to read or write:
he scarcely possessed the elements of any of the arts or
sciences by which society is enriched or adorned: but he could
run, leap, wrestle, hurl the disk, or the javelin, and wield
every other weapon, with a vigour and agility, and grace which
were no where surpassed. These however were accomplishments to
be learnt in every Greek palæstra: he might find many rivals
in all that he could do; but few could approach him in the
firmness with which he was taught to suffer. From the tender
age at which he left his mother's lap for the public schools,
his life was one continued trial of patience. Coarse and
scanty fare, and this occasionally withheld, a light dress,
without any change in the depth of winter, a bed of reeds,
which he himself gathered from the Eurotas, blows exchanged
with his comrades, stripes inflicted by his governors, more by
way of exercise than of punishment, inured him to every form
of pain and hardship. …
{682}
The Muses were appropriately honoured at Sparta with a
sacrifice on the eve of a battle, and the union of the spear
and the lyre was a favourite theme with the Laconian poets,
and those who sang of Spartan customs. Though bred in the
discipline of the camp, the young Spartan, like the hero of
the Iliad, was not a stranger to music and poetry. He was
taught to sing, and to play on the flute and the lyre: but the
strains with which his memory was stored, and to which his voice
was formed, were either sacred hymns, or breathed a martial
spirit; and it was because they cherished such sentiments that
the Homeric lays, if not introduced by Lycurgus, were early
welcomed at Sparta. … As these musical exercises were
designed to cultivate, not so much an intellectual, as a moral
taste; so it was probably less for the sake of sharpening
their ingenuity, than of promoting presence of mind, and
promptness of decision, that the boys were led into the habit
of answering all questions proposed to them, with a ready,
pointed, sententious brevity, which was a proverbial
characteristic of Spartan conversation. But the lessons which
were most studiously inculcated, more indeed by example than
by precept, were those of modesty, obedience, and reverence
for age and rank; for these were the qualities on which, above
all others, the stability of the commonwealth reposed. The
gait and look of the Spartan youths, as they passed along the
streets, observed Xenophon, breathed modesty and reserve. In
the presence of their elders they were bashful as virgins, and
silent as statues, save when a question was put to them. …
In truth, the respect for the laws, which rendered the Spartan
averse to innovation at home, was little more than another
form of that awe with which his early habits inspired him for
the magistrates and the aged. With this feeling was intimately
connected that quick and deep sense of shame, which shrank
from dishonour as the most dreadful of evils, and enabled him
to meet death so calmly, when he saw in it the will of his
country."
_C. Thirlwall,
History of Greece,
volume 1, chapter 8._
EDUCATION:
Free-School Ideas in Greece.
"It is a prevalent opinion that common schools, as we now have
them, were an American invention. No legislation, it is
asserted, taxing all in order that all may be taught can be
traced back further than to the early laws of Massachusetts.
Those who deny this assertion are content with showing
something of the sort in Scotland and Germany a generation or
two before the landing of the Plymouth pilgrims. The truth is,
however, that, as much of our social wit is now credited to
the ancient Greeks, something of our educational wisdom ought
to be. Two centuries ago John Locke, as an able political
writer, was invited to draw up a code of fundamental laws for
the new colony of Carolina, and in like manner, more than
2,300 years ago, Charondas, a master of a similar type in
Magna Græcia, was called to a similar task. This was to frame
a series of statutes for the government of a Greek colony
founded about 446 B. C., in the foot of Italy. This colony was
Thurii, and conspicuous among the enactments of Charondas was
the following: 'Charondas made a law unlike those of lawgivers
before him, for he enacted that the sons of the citizens
should all learn letters (or writing) … the city making
payment to the teachers. He thought that the poor, not able to
pay wages themselves, would otherwise fail of the best
training. He counted writing the most important study, and
with reason. Through writing, most things in life, and those
the most useful, are accomplished—as ballots, epistles, laws,
covenants. Who can sufficiently praise the learning of
letters? … Writing alone preserves the most brilliant
utterances of wise men and the oracles of gods, nay philosophy
and all culture. All these things it alone hands down to all
future generations. Wherefore nature should be viewed as the
source of life, but the source of living well we should
consider the culture derived from writing. Inasmuch, then, as
illiterates are deprived of a great good, Charondas came to
their help, judging them worthy of public care and outlay.
Former legislators had caused the sick to be attended by
physicians at the public expense, thinking their bodies worthy
of cure. He did more, for he cured souls afflicted with
ignorance. The doctors of the body we pray that we may never
need, while we would fain abide for ever with those who
minister to the mind diseased.'—This extract is from the
'Bibliotheca Historica' of Diodorus Siculus (Book x. § 13),
who was flourishing at the birth of Christ and was the most
painstaking chronicler of the Augustan age. The legislation is
worth notice for more than one reason. It rebukes the
self-conceit of those who hold that the education of all at
the charge of all is an idea born in our own time or country.
It has also been strangely unnoticed by historians who ought
to have kept it before the people."
_The Nation,
March 24, 1892, pages 280-231._
EDUCATION:
Socrates and the Philosophical Schools.
"Before the rise of philosophy, the teacher of the people had
been the rhapsode, or public reciter; after that event he
gradually gives place to the sophist (… one who makes wise),
or, as he later with more modesty calls himself, the
philosopher (… lover of wisdom). The history of Greece for
centuries is, on its inner side, a history of the struggle
between what the rhapsode represents and what the philosopher
represents, between popular tradition and common sense on the
one hand, and individual opinion and philosophy on the other.
The transition from the first to the second of these mental
conditions was accomplished for the world, once for all, by
the Greeks."
_T. Davidson,
Aristotle,
book 1, chapter 5._
"There is no instance on record of a philosopher whose
importance as a thinker is so closely bound up with the
personality of the man as it was in the case of Socrates. …
His teaching was not of a kind to be directly imparted and
faithfully handed down, but could only be left to propagate
itself freely by stirring up others to a similar self·culture.
… The youth and early manhood of Socrates fall in the most
brilliant period of Grecian history. Born during the last
years of the Persian war, he was a near contemporary of all
those great men who adorned the age of Pericles. As a citizen
of Athens he could enjoy the opportunities afforded by a city,
which united every means of culture by its unrivalled
fertility of thought. Poverty and low birth were but slender
obstacles in the Athens of Pericles. … Socrates, no doubt,
began life by learning his father's trade, … which he
probably never practised, and certainly soon gave up.
{683}
He considered it to be his special calling to labour for the
moral and intellectual improvement of himself and others—a
conviction which he felt so strongly that it appeared to him
in the light of a divine revelation. Moreover he was confirmed
in it by a Delphic oracle, which, of course, must not be
regarded as the cause of, but rather as an additional support
to his reforming zeal. … To be independent, he tried, like
the Gods, to rise superior to his wants; and by carefully
practising self-denial and abstemiousness, he was really able
to boast that his life was more pleasant and more free from
troubles than that of the rest of mankind. Thus he was able to
devote his whole powers to the service of others, without
asking or taking reward; and thus he became so engrossed by
his labours for his native city, that he rarely passed its
boundaries or even went outside its gates. He did not,
however, feel himself called upon to take part in the affairs
of the state. … Anyone convinced as he was, that care for
one's own culture must precede care for public business, and
that a thorough knowledge of self, together with a deep and
many-sided experience, was a necessary condition of public
activity, must have thought that, to educate individuals by
influence, was the more pressing need, and have held that he
was doing his country a better service by educating able
statesmen for it, than by actually discharging a statesman's
duties. Accordingly, Socrates never aimed at being anything
but a private citizen. … Just as little was he desirous of
being a public teacher like the Sophists. He not only took no
pay, but he gave no methodical course. He did not profess to
teach, but to learn in common with others, not to force his
convictions upon them, but to examine theirs; not to pass the
truth that came to hand like a coin fresh from the mint, but
to stir up a desire for truth and virtue, to point out the way
to it, to overthrow what was spurious, and to seek out real
knowledge. Never weary of talking, he was on the look out for
every opportunity of giving an instructive and moral turn to
the conversation. Day by day he was about in the market and
public promenades, in schools and workshops, ever ready to
converse with friends or strangers, with citizens and
foreigners, but always prepared to lead them to higher
subjects; and whilst thus in his higher calling serving God,
he was persuaded that he was also serving his country in a way
that no one else could do. Deeply as he deplored the decline
of discipline and education in his native city, he felt that
he could depend but little on the Sophists, the moral teachers
of his day. The attractive powers of his discourse won for him
a circle of admirers, for the most part consisting of young
men of family, drawn to him by the most varied motives,
standing to him in various relations, and coming to him, some
for a longer, others for a shorter time. For his own part, he
made it his business not only to educate these friends, but to
advise them in everything, even in worldly matters. But out of
this changing, and in part loosely connected, society, a
nucleus was gradually formed of decided admirers,—a Socratic
school, which we must consider united far less by a common set
of doctrines, than by a common love for the person of
Socrates."
_E. Zeller,
Socrates and the Socratic Schools,
chapter 3._
"Nowhere, except in Athens, do we hear of a philosophic body
with endowments, legal succession, and the other rights of a
corporation. This idea, which has never since died out of the
world, was due to Plato, who bequeathed his garden and
appointments in the place called after the hero Hekademus, to
his followers. But he was obliged to do it in the only form
possible at Athens. He made it a religious foundation, on the
basis of a fixed worship to the Muses. … The head or
President of Plato's 'Association of the Muses,' was the
treasurer and manager of the common fund, who invited guests
to their feasts, to which each member contributed his share.
… The members had, moreover, a right to attend lectures and
use the library or scientific appointments, such as maps,
which belonged to the school. It was this endowment on a
religious basis which saved the income and position of Plato's
school for centuries. … This then is the first Academy, so
often imitated in so many lands, and of which our colleges are
the direct descendants. … The school of Plato, then governed
by Xenocrates, being the bequest of an Athenian citizen who
understood the law, seems never to have been assailed. The
schools of Epicurus and Zeno were perhaps not yet recognised.
But that of Theophrastus, perhaps the most crowded, certainly
the most distinctly philo-Macedonian, … this was the school
which was exiled, and which owed its rehabilitation not only
to the legal decision of the courts, but still more to the
large views of King Demetrius, who would not tolerate the
persecution of opinion. But it was the other Demetrius, the
philosopher, the pupil of Aristotle, the friend of
Theophrastus, to whom the school owed most, and to whom the
world owes most in the matter of museums and academies, next
after Plato. For this was the man who took care, during his
Protectorate of Athens in the interest of Casander, to
establish a garden and 'peripatos' for the Peripatetic school,
now under Theophrastus. … It is remarkable that the Stoic
school—it too the school of aliens—did not establish a local
foundation or succession, but taught in public places, such as
the Painted Portico. In this the Cynical tone of the Porch
comes out. Hence the succession depended upon the genius of
the leader."
_J. P. Mahaffy,
Greek Life and Thought,
chapter 7._
An account of the Academy, the Lyceum, etc., will be found
under the caption GYMNASIA.
EDUCATION:
University of Athens.
"Some scholars … may doubt if there was anything at Athens
which could answer to the College Life of modern times. Indeed
it must be owned that formal history is nearly silent on the
subject, that ancient writers take little notice of it, and
such evidences as we have are drawn almost entirely from a
series of inscriptions on the marble tablets, which were
covered with the ruins and the dust of ages, till one after
another came to light in recent days, to add fresh pages to
the story of the past. Happily they are both numerous and
lengthy, and may be already pieced together in an order which
extends for centuries. They are known to Epigraphic students
as the records which deal with the so-called Ephebi; with the
youths, that is, just passing into manhood, for whom a special
discipline was provided by the State, to, fit them for the
responsibilities of active life. It was a National system with
a many-sided training; the teachers were members of the Civil
Service; the registers were public documents, and, as such,
belonged to the Archives of the State.
{684}
The earlier inscriptions of the series date from the
period of Macedonian ascendency, but in much earlier times
there had been forms of public drill prescribed for the
Ephebi. … We find from a decree, which, if genuine, dates
even from the days of Pericles, that the young men of Cos were
allowed by special favour to share the discipline of the
Athenian Ephebi. Soon afterwards others were admitted on all
sides. The aliens who had gained a competence as merchants or
as bankers, found their sons welcomed in the ranks of the
oldest families of Athens; strangers flocked thither from
distant countries, not only from the isles of Greece, and from
the coasts of the Ægean, but, as Hellenic culture made its way
through the far East, students even of the Semitic race were
glad to enrol their names upon the College registers, where we
may still see them with the marks of their several
nationalities affixed. The young men were no longer, like
soldiers upon actual service, beginning already the real work
of life, and on that account, perhaps, the term was shortened
from the two years to one; but the old associations lasted on
for ages, even in realistic Athens, which in early politics at
least had made so clean a sweep. The outward forms were still
preserved, the soldier's drill was still enforced, and though
many another feature had been added, the whole institution
bore upon its face the look rather of a Military College than
of a training school for a scholar or a statesman. The College
year began somewhat later than the opening of the civil year,
and it was usual for all the students to matriculate together;
that is, to enter formally their names upon the registers,
which were copied afterwards upon the marble tablets, of which
large fragments have survived. … 'To put the gown on,' or,
as we should say, 'to be a gownsman,' was the phrase which
stood for being a member of the College; and the gown, too,
was of black, as commonly among ourselves. But Philostratus
tells us, by the way, that a change was made from black to
white at the prompting of Herodes Atticus, the munificent and
learned subject of the Antonines, who was for many years the
presiding genius of the University of Athens. The fragment of
an inscription lately found curiously confirms and supplements
the writer's statement. … The members of the College are spoken
of as 'friends' and 'messmates'; and it is probable that some
form of conventual life prevailed among them, without which
the drill and supervision, which are constantly implied in the
inscriptions, could scarcely have been enforced by the
officials. But we know nothing of any public buildings for
their use save the gymnasia, which in all Greek towns were the
centres of educational routine, and of which there were
several well known at Athens. … The College did not try to
monopolise the education of its students. It had, indeed, its
own tutors or instructors, but they were kept for humbler
drill; it did not even for a long time keep an organist or
choirmaster of its own; it sent its students out for teaching
in philosophy and rhetoric and grammar, or, in a word, for all
the larger and more liberal studies. Nor did it favour any
special set of tenets to the exclusion of the rest. It
encouraged impartially all the schools of higher thought. …
The Head of the College held the title of Cosmetes, or of
rector. … The Rector, appointed only for a year by popular
election, was no merely honorary head, but took an important
part in the real work of education. He was sometimes clothed
with priestly functions. … The system of education thus
described was under the control of the government throughout.
… It may surprise us that our information comes almost
entirely from the inscriptions, and that ancient writers are
all nearly silent on the subject. … But there was little to
attract the literary circles in arrangements so mechanical and
formal; there was too much of outward pageantry, and too
little of real character evolved."
_W. W. Capes,
University Life in Ancient Athens,
chapter 1._
_J. H. Newman,
Historical Sketches,
chapter 4._
The reign of the Emperor Justinian "may be signalised as the
fatal epoch at which several of the noblest institutions of
antiquity were abolished. He shut the schools of Athens (A. D.
529), in which an uninterrupted succession of philosophers,
supported by a public stipend, had taught the doctrines of
Plato, Aristotle, Zeno, and Epicurus, ever since the time of
the Antonines. They were, it is true, still attached to
paganism, and even to the arts of magic."
_J. C. L. de Sismondi,
Fall of the Roman Empire,
volume 1, chapter 10._
See ATHENS: A. D. 529.
EDUCATION:
Alexandria.
"Ptolemy, upon whom, on Alexander's death, devolved the
kingdom of Egypt, supplies us with the first great instance of
what may be called the establishment of Letters. He and
Eumenes may be considered the first founders of public
libraries. … A library, however, was only one of two great
conceptions brought into execution by the first Ptolemy; and
as the first was the embalming of dead genius, so the second
was the endowment of living. … Ptolemy, … prompted, or at
least, encouraged, by the celebrated Demetrius of Phalerus,
put into execution a plan for the formal endowment of
literature and science. The fact indeed of the possession of
an immense library seemed sufficient to render Alexandria a
University; for what could be a greater attraction to the
students of all lands, than the opportunity afforded them of
intellectual converse, not only with the living, but with the
dead, with all who had anywhere at any time thrown light upon
any subject of inquiry? But Ptolemy determined that his
teachers of knowledge should be as stationary and as permanent
as his books; so, resolving to make Alexandria the seat of a
'Studium Generale,' he founded a College for its domicile, and
endowed that College with ample revenues. Here, I consider, he
did more than has been commonly done, till modern times. It
requires considerable knowledge of medieval Universities to be
entitled to give an opinion; as regards Germany, for instance,
or Poland, or Spain; but, as far as I have a right to speak,
such an endowment has been rare down to the sixteenth century,
as well as before Ptolemy. … To return to the Alexandrian
College. It was called the Museum,—a name since appropriated
to another institution connected with the seats of science.
… There was a quarter of the city so distinct from the rest
in Alexandria, that it is sometimes spoken of as a suburb. It
was pleasantly situated on the water's edge, and had been set
aside for ornamental buildings, and was traversed by groves of
trees. Here stood the royal palace, here the theatre and
amphitheatre; here the gymnasia and stadium; here the famous
Serapeum.
{685}
And here it was, close upon the Port, that Ptolemy placed his
Library and College. As might be supposed, the building was
worthy of its purpose; a noble portico stretched along its
front, for exercise or conversation, and opened upon the
public rooms devoted to disputations and lectures. A certain
number of Professors were lodged within the precincts, and a
handsome hall, or refectory, was provided for the common meal.
The Prefect of the house was a priest, whose appointment lay
with the government. Over the Library a dignified person
presided. … As to the Professors, so liberal was their
maintenance, that a philosopher of the very age of the first
foundation called the place a 'bread basket,' or a 'bird
coop'; yet, in spite of accidental exceptions, so careful on
the whole was their selection, that even six hundred years
afterwards, Ammianus describes the Museum under the title of
'the lasting abode of distinguished men.' Philostratus, too,
about a century before, calls it 'a table gathering together
celebrated men.' … As time went on new Colleges were added
to the original Museum; of which one was a foundation of the
Emperor Claudius, and called after his name. … A diversity
of teachers secured an abundance of students. 'Hither,' says
Cave, 'as to a public emporium of polite literature,
congregated, from every part of the world, youthful students,
and attended the lectures in Grammar, Rhetoric, Poetry,
Philosophy, Astronomy, Music, Medicine, and other arts and
sciences'; and hence proceeded, as it would appear, the great
Christian writers and doctors, 'Clement, … Origen,
Anatolius, and Athanasius. St. Gregory Thaumaturgus, in the
third century, may be added; he came across Asia Minor and
Syria from Pontus, as to a place, says his namesake of Nyssa,
'to which young men from all parts gathered together, who were
applying themselves to philosophy.' As to the subjects taught
in the Museum, Cave has already enumerated the principal; but
he has not done justice to the peculiar character of the
Alexandrian school. From the time that science got out of the
hands of the pure Greeks, into those of a power which had a
talent for administration, it became less theoretical, and
bore more distinctly upon definite and tangible objects. …
Egyptian Antiquities were investigated, at least by the
disciples of the Egyptian Manetho, fragments of whose history
are considered to remain; while Carthaginian and Etruscan had
a place in the studies of the Claudian College. The Museum was
celebrated, moreover, for its grammarians; the work of
Hephæstion 'de Metris' still affords matter of thought to a
living Professor of Oxford; and Aristarchus, like the Athenian
Priscian, has almost become the nickname for a critic. Yet,
eminent as is the Alexandrian school in these departments of
science, its fame rests still more securely upon its
proficiency in medicine and mathematics. Among its physicians
is the celebrated Galen, who was attracted thither from
Pergamus; and we are told by a writer of the fourth century,
that in his time the very fact of a physician having studied
at Alexandria, was an evidence of his science which superseded
further testimonial. As to Mathematics, it is sufficient to
say, that, of four great ancient names, on whom the modern
science is founded, three came from Alexandria. Archimedes
indeed was a Syracusan; but the Museum may boast of Apollonius
of Perga, Diophantus, a native Alexandrian, and Euclid, whose
country is unknown. To these illustrious names, may be added,
Eratosthenes of Cyrene, to whom astronomy has obligations so
considerable; Pappus; Theon; and Ptolemy, said to be of
Pelusium, whose celebrated system, called after him the
Ptolemaic, reigned in the schools till the time of Copernicus,
and whose Geography, dealing with facts, not theories, is in
repute still. Such was the celebrated 'Studium' or University
of Alexandria; for a while in the course of the third and
fourth centuries, it was subject to reverses, principally from
war. The whole of the Bruchion, the quarter of the city in
which it was situated, was given to the flames; and, when
Hilarion came to Alexandria, the holy hermit, whose rule of
life did not suffer him to lodge in cities, took up his
lodgment with a few solitaries among the ruins of its
edifices. The schools, however, and the library continued; the
library was reserved for the Caliph Omar's famous judgment; as
to the schools, even as late as the twelfth century, the Jew,
Benjamin of Tudela, gives us a surprising report of what he
found in Alexandria."
_J. H. Newman,
Historical Sketches: Rise and Progress of Universities,
chapter 8._
"In the three centuries which intervened between Alexander and
Augustus, Athens was preëminently the training school for
philosophy, Rhodes, on the other hand, as the only Greek state
of political importance in which a career of grand and
dignified activity was open for the orator, distinguished
itself in the study of eloquence, while Alexandria rested its
fame chiefly on the excellence of its instruction in Philology
and Medicine. At a subsequent period the last mentioned
University obtained even greater celebrity as having given
birth to a school of philosophers who endeavored to combine
into a species of theosophic doctrine the mental science of
Europe with the more spiritual minded and profoundly human
religions of the East. In the third century Alexandria became
conspicuous as the headquarters of the Eclectics and
Neo·Platonists."
_E. Kirkpatrick,
Historical Development of Superior Instruction
(Barnard's American Journal of Education,
volume 24, pages 466-467)._
EDUCATION:
Rome.
"If we cast a final glance at the question of education, we
shall find but little to say of it, as far as regards the
period before Cicero. In the republican times the state did
not trouble itself about the training of youth: a few
prohibitory regulations were laid down, and the rest left to
private individuals. Thus no public instruction was given;
public schools there were, but only as private undertakings
for the sake of the children of the rich. All depended on the
father; his personal character and the care taken by the
mother in education decided the development of the child's
disposition. Books there were none; and therefore they could
not be put into the hands of children. A few rugged hymns,
such as those of the Salii and Arval brothers, with the songs
in Fescennine verse, sung on festivals and at banquets, formed
the poetical literature. A child would hear, besides, the
dirges, or memorial verses, composed by women in honour of the
dead, and sometimes, too, the public panegyrics pronounced on
their departed relatives, a distinction accorded to women also
from the time of Camillus.
{686}
Whatever was taught a boy by father or mother, or acquired
externally to the house, was calculated to make the Roman
'virtus' appear in his eyes the highest aim of his ambition;
the term including self-mastery, an unbending firmness of
will, with patience, and an iron tenacity of purpose in
carrying through whatever was once acknowledged to be right.
The Greek palestra and its naked combatants always seemed
strange and offensive to Roman eyes. In the republican times
the exercises of the gymnasium were but little in fashion;
though riding, swimming, and other warlike exercises were
industriously practised, as preparations for the campaign. The
slave pædagogus, assigned to young people to take charge of
them, had a higher position with the Romans than the Greeks;
and was not allowed to let his pupils out of his sight till
their twentieth year. The Latin Odyssey of Livius Andronicus
was the school-book first in use; and this and Ennius were the
only two works to create and foster a literary taste before
the destruction of Carthage. The freedman Sp. Carvilius was
the first to open a school for higher education. After this
the Greek language and literature came into the circle of
studies, and in consequence of the wars in Sicily, Macedon,
and Asia, families of distinction kept slaves who knew Greek.
Teachers quickly multiplied, and were either liberti, or their
descendants. No free-born Roman would consent to be a paid
teacher, for that was held to be a degradation. The Greek
language remained throughout the classical [age] one for
Romans: they even made their children begin with Homer. As, by
the seventh century of the republic, Ennius, Plautus,
Pacuvius, and Terence, had already become old poets,
dictations were given to scholars from their writings. The
interpretation of Virgil began under Augustus, and by this
time the younger Romans were resorting to Athens, Rhodes,
Apollonia, and Mitylene, in order to make progress in Greek
rhetoric and philosophy. As Roman notions were based entirely
on the practical and the useful, music was neglected as a part
of education; while, as a contrast, boys were compelled to
learn the laws of the twelve tables by heart. Cicero, who had
gone through this discipline with other boys of his time,
complains of the practice having begun to be set aside; and
Scipio Æmilianus deplored, as an evil omen of degeneracy, the
sending of boys and girls to the academies of actors, where
they learnt dancing and singing, in company with young women
of pleasure. In one of these schools were to be found as many
as five hundred young persons, all being instructed in
postures and motions of the most abandoned kind. … On the
other hand, the gymnastic exercises, which had once served the
young men as a training for war, fell into disuse, having
naturally become objectless and burdensome, now that, under
Augustus, no more Roman citizens chose to enlist in the
legions. Still slavery was, and continued to be, the foremost
cause of the depravation of youth, and of an evil education.
… It was no longer the mothers who educated their own
children: they had neither inclination nor capacity for such
duty, for mothers of the stamp of Cornelia had disappeared.
Immediately on its birth, the child was intrusted to a Greek
female slave, with some male slave, often of the worst
description, to help her. … The young Roman was not educated
in the constant companionship of youths of his own age, under
equal discipline: surrounded by his father's slaves and
parasites, and always accompanied by a slave when he went out,
he hardly received any other impressions than such as were
calculated to foster conceit, indolence, and pride in him."
_J. J. I. Döllinger,
The Gentile and the Jew,
volume 2, pages 279-281._
EDUCATION:
Higher Education under the Empire.
"Besides schools of high eminence in Mytilene, Ephesus,
Smyrna, Sidon, etc., we read that Apollonia enjoyed so high a
reputation for eloquence and political science as to be
entrusted with the education of the heir-apparent of the Roman
Empire. Antioch was noted for a Museum modelled after that of
the Egyptian metropolis, and Tarsus boasted of Gymnasia and a
University which Strabo does not hesitate to describe as more
than rivaling those of Athens and Alexandria. There can be
little doubt that the philosophers, rhetoricians, and
grammarians who swarmed in the princely retinues of the great
Roman aristocracy, and whose schools abounded in all the most
wealthy and populous cities of the empire east and west, were
prepared for their several callings in some one or other of
these institutions. Strabo tells us … that Rome was overrun
with Alexandrian and Syrian grammarians, and Juvenal describes
one of the Quirites of the ancient stamp as emigrating in
sheer disgust from a city which from these causes had become
thoroughly and utterly Greek. … That external inducements
were held out amply sufficient to prevail upon poor and
ambitious men to qualify themselves at some cost for vocations
of this description is evident from the wealth to which, as we
are told, many of them rose from extreme indigence and
obscurity. Suetonius, in the still extant fragment of his
essay 'de claris rhetoribus,' after alluding to the immense
number of professors and doctors met with in Rome, draws
attention to the frequency with which individuals who had
distinguished themselves as teachers of rhetoric had been
elevated into the senate, and advanced to the highest
dignities of the state. That the profession of a philologist
was occasionally at least well remunerated is evident from the
facts recorded by the same author in his work 'de claris
grammaticis,' section 3. He there mentions that there were at
one time upwards of twenty well attended schools devoted to
this subject at Rome, and that one fortunate individual, Q.
Remmius Palaemon, derived four hundred thousand sesterces, or
considerably above three thousand a year, from instruction in
philology alone. Julius Caesar conferred the citizenship,
together with large bounties in money, and immunity from
public burthens, on distinguished rhetoricians and
philologists, in order to encourage their presence at Rome.
… That individuals who thus enjoyed an income not greatly
below the revenues of an English Bishopric were not, as the
name might lead us to imagine, employed in teaching the
accidents of grammar, but possessed considerable pretensions
to that higher and more thoughtful character of the scholar
which it has been reserved for modern Europe to exhibit in
perfection, is not only in itself highly probable, but
supported by the distinctest and most unimpeachable evidence.
Seneca tells us that history was amongst the subjects
professed by grammarians, and Cicero regards the most thorough
and refined perception of all that pertains to the spirit and
individuality of the author as an indispensable requisite in
those who undertake to give instruction in this subject. …
The grammatici appear to have occupied a position very closely
analogous to that of the teachers of collegiate schools in
England, and the gymnasial professors in Germany."
_E. Kirkpatrick,
Historical Development of Superior Instruction
(Barnard's American Journal of Education,
volume 24, pages 468-470.)_
{687}
EDUCATION: Mediæval.
The Chaos of Barbaric Conquest.
"The utter confusion subsequent upon the downfall of the Roman
Empire and the irruption of the Germanic races was causing, by
the mere brute force of circumstance, a gradual extinction of
scholarship too powerful to be arrested. The teaching of
grammar for ecclesiastical purposes was insufficient to check
the influence of many causes leading to this overthrow of
learning. It was impossible to communicate more than a mere
tincture of knowledge to students separated from the classical
tradition, for whom the antecedent history of Rome was a dead
letter. The meaning of Latin words derived from the Greek was
lost. … Theological notions, grotesque and childish beyond
description, found their way into etymology and grammar. The
three persons of the Trinity were discovered in the verb, and
mystic numbers in the parts of speech. Thus analytical studies
like that of language came to be regarded as an open field for
the exercise of the mythologising fancy; and etymology was
reduced to a system of ingenious punning. … Virgil, the only
classic who retained distinct and living personality, passed
from poet to philosopher, from philosopher to Sibyl, from
Sibyl to magician, by successive stages of transmutation, as
the truth about him grew more dim and the faculty to apprehend
him weakened. Forming the staple of education in the schools
of the grammarians, and metamorphosed by the vulgar
consciousness into a wizard, he waited on the extreme verge of
the dark ages to take Dante by the hand, and lead him, as the
type of human reason, through the realms of Hell and
Purgatory."
_J. A. Symonds,
Renaissance in Italy: the Revival of Learning;
chapter 2._
EDUCATION: Mediæval.
Gaul: 4th-5th Centuries.
"If institutions could do all, if laws supplied and the means
furnished to society could do everything, the intellectual
state of Gaulish civil society at this epoch [4th-5th
centuries] would have been far superior to that of the
religious society. The first, in fact, alone possessed all the
institutions proper to second the development of mind, the
progress and empire of ideas. Roman Gaul was covered with
large schools. The principal were those of Trèves, Bordeaux,
Autun, Toulouse, Poitiers, Lyons, Narbonne, Aries, Marseilles,
Vienne, Besançon, &c. Some were very ancient; those of
Marseilles and of Autun, for example, dated from the first
century. They were taught philosophy, medicine, jurisprudence,
literature, grammar, astrology, all the sciences of the age.
In the greater part of these schools, indeed, they at first
taught only rhetoric and grammar; but towards the fourth
century, professors of philosophy and law were everywhere
introduced. Not only were these schools numerous, and provided
with many chairs, but the emperors continually took the
professors of new measures into favor. Their interests are,
from Constantine to Theodosius the younger, the subject of
frequent imperial constitutions, which sometimes extended,
sometimes confirmed their privileges. … After the Empire was
divided among many masters, each of them concerned himself
rather more about the prosperity of his states and the public
establishments which were in them. Thence arose a momentary
amelioration, of which the schools felt the effects,
particularly those of Gaul, under the administration of
Constantius Clorus, of Julian, and of Gratian. By the side of
the schools were, in general, placed other analogous
establishments. Thus, at Trèves there was a grand library of
the imperial palace, concerning which no special information
has reached us, but of which we may judge by the details·
which have reached us concerning that of Constantinople. This
last had a librarian and seven scribes constantly
occupied—four for Greek, and three for Latin. They copied
both ancient and new works. It is probable that the same
institution existed at Trèves, and in the great towns of Gaul.
Civil society, then, was provided with means of instruction
and intellectual development. It was not the same with
religious society. It had at this epoch no institution
especially devoted to teaching; it did not receive from the
state any aid to this particular aim. Christians, as well as
others, could frequent the public schools; but most of the
professors were still pagans. … It was for a long time in
the inferior classes, among the people, that Christianity was
propagated, especially in the Gauls, and it was the superior
classes which followed the great schools. Moreover, it was
hardly until the commencement of the fourth century that the
Christians appeared there, and then but few in number. No
other source of study was open to them. The establishments
which, a little afterwards, became, in the Christian church,
the refuge and sanctuary of instruction, the monasteries, were
hardly commenced in the Gauls. It was only after the year 360
that the two first were founded by St. Martin—one at Ligugé,
near Poitiers, the other at Marmoutiers, near Tours; and they
were devoted rather to religious contemplation than to
teaching. Any great school, any special institution devoted to
the service and to the progress of intellect, was at that
time, therefore, wanting to the Christians. … All things in
the fifth century, attest the decay of the civil schools. The
contemporaneous writers, Sidonius Apollinaris and Mamertius
Claudianus, for example, deplore it in every page, saying that
the young men no longer studied, that professors were without
pupils, that science languished and was being lost. … It was
especially the young men of the superior classes who frequented
the schools; but these classes … were in rapid dissolution.
The schools fell with them; the institutions still existed,
but they were void—the soul had quitted the body. The
intellectual aspect of Christian society was very different.
… Institutions began to rise, and to be regulated among the
Christians of Gaul. The foundation of the greater portion of
the large monasteries of the southern provinces belongs to the
first half of the fifth century. … The monasteries of the
south of Gaul were philosophical schools of Christianity; it
was there that intellectual men meditated, discussed, taught;
it was from thence that new ideas, daring thoughts, heresies,
were sent forth. …
{688}
Towards the end of the sixth century, everything is changed:
there are no longer civil schools; ecclesiastical schools
alone subsist. Those great municipal schools of Treves, of
Poitiers, of Vienne, of Bordeaux, &c., have disappeared; in
their place have arisen schools called cathedral or episcopal
schools, because each episcopal see had its own. The cathedral
school was not always alone; we find in certain dioceses other
schools, of an uncertain nature and origin, wrecks, perhaps,
of some ancient civil school, which, in becoming
metamorphosed, had perpetuated itself. … The most
flourishing of the episcopal schools from the sixth to the
middle of the eighth century were those of:
1. Poitiers. There were many schools in the monasteries of the
diocese at Poitiers itself, at Ligugé, at Ansion, &c.
2. Paris.
3. LeMans.
4. Bourges.
5. Clermont. There was another school in the town where they
taught the Theodosian code; a remarkable circumstance, which I
do not find elsewhere.
6. Vienne.
7. Châlons-sur-Saone.
8. ArIes.
9. Gap.
The most flourishing of the monastic schools of the same epoch
were those of:
1. Luxeuil, in Franche-Comté.
2. Fontenelle, or Saint Vandrille, in Normandy; in which were
about 300 students.
3. Sithiu, in Normandy.
4. Saint Médard, at Soissons.
5. Lerens.
It were easy to extend this list; but the prosperity of
monastic schools was subject to great vicissitudes; they
flourished under a distinguished abbot, and declined under his
successor. Even in nunneries, study was not neglected; that
which Saint Cesaire founded at Aries contained, at the
commencement of the sixth century, two hundred nuns, for the
most part occupied in copying books, sometimes religious
books, sometimes, probably, even the works of the ancients.
The metamorphosis of civil schools into ecclesiastical schools
was complete. Let us see what was taught in them. We shall
often find in them the names of sciences formerly professed in
the civil schools, rhetoric, logic, grammar, geometry,
astrology, &c.; but these were evidently no longer taught
except in their relations to theology. This is the foundation
of the instruction: all was turned into commentary of the
Scriptures, historical, philosophical, allegorical, moral,
commentary. They desired only to form priests; all studies,
whatsoever their nature, were directed towards this result.
Sometimes they went even further: they rejected the profane
sciences themselves, whatever might be the use made of them."
_F. Guizot,
History of Civilization to the French Revolution,
volume 2, lecture 4 and 16._
EDUCATION:
Ireland.
Scotland.
Schools of Iona.
Popular accounts represent St. Patrick as "founding at least a
hundred monasteries, and even those who consider that the
greater number of the Irish colleges were raised by his
followers after his death, admit the fact of his having
established an episcopal monastery and school at Armagh, where
he and his clergy carried out the same rule of life that he
had seen followed in the churches of Gaul. … The school,
which formed a portion of the Cathedral establishment, soon
rose in importance. Gildas taught here for some years before
joining St. Cadoc at Llancarvan; and in process of time the
number of students, both native and foreign, so increased that
the university, as we may justly call it, was divided into
three parts, one of which was devoted entirely to students of
the Anglo-Saxon race. Grants for the support of the schools
were made by the Irish kings in the eighth century; and all
through the troublous times of the ninth and tenth centuries,
when Ireland was overrun by the Danes, and so many of her
sanctuaries were given to the flames, the succession of
divinity professors at Armagh remained unbroken, and has been
carefully traced by Usher. We need not stop to determine how
many other establishments similar to those of Armagh were
really founded in the lifetime of St. Patrick. In any case the
rapid extension of the monastic institute in Ireland, and the
extraordinary ardour with which the Irish cœnobites applied
themselves to the cultivation of letters remain undisputed
facts. 'Within a century after the death of St. Patrick,' says
Bishop Nicholson, 'the Irish seminaries had so increased that
most parts of Europe sent their children to be educated here,
and drew thence their bishops and teachers.' The whole country
for miles round Leighlin was denominated the 'land of saints
and scholars.' By the ninth century Armagh could boast of
7,000 students, and the schools of Cashel, Dindaleathglass,
and Lismore vied with it in renown. This extraordinary
multiplication of monastic seminaries and scholars may be
explained partly by the constant immigration of British
refugees who brought with them the learning and religious
observances of their native cloisters, and partly by that
sacred and irresistible impulse which animates a newly
converted people to heroic acts of sacrifice. In Ireland the
infant church was not, as elsewhere, watered with the blood of
martyrs. … The bards, who were to be found in great numbers
among the early converts of St. Patrick, had also a
considerable share in directing the energies of their
countrymen to intellectual labour. They formed the learned
class, and on their conversion to Christianity were readily
disposed to devote themselves to the culture of sacred
letters. … It would be impossible, within the limits of a
single chapter, to notice even the names of all the Irish
seats of learning, or of their most celebrated teachers,
everyone of whom has his own legend in which sacred and poetic
beauties are to be found blended together. One of the earliest
monastic schools was that erected by Enda, prince of Orgiel,
in that western island called from the wild flowers which even
still cover its rocky soil, Aran-of-the-Flowers, a name it
afterwards exchanged for that of Ara-na-naomh, or
Aran-of-the-Saints. … A little later St. Finian founded his
great school of Clonard, whence, says Usher, issued forth a
stream of saints and doctors, like the Greek warriors from the
wooden horse. …. This desolate wilderness was soon peopled
by his disciples, who are said to have numbered 3,000, of whom
the twelve most eminent are often termed the Twelve Apostles
of Ireland. … Among them none were more famous than St.
Columba, St. Kieran, and St. Brendan. The first of these is
known to every English reader as the founder of Iona; and
Kieran, the carpenter's son, as he is called, is scarcely less
renowned among his own countrymen. … It was in the year 563
that St. Columba, after founding the monasteries of
Doire-Calgaich and Dair-magh in his native land, and incurring
the enmity of one of the Irish kings, determined on crossing
over into Scotland in order to preach the faith to the
Northern Picts. Accompanied by twelve companions, he passed
the Channel in a rude wicker boat covered with skins, and
landed at Port-na Currachan, on a spot now marked by a heap of
huge conical stones.
{689}
Conall, king of the Albanian Scots, granted him the island of
I, Hi, or Ai, hitherto occupied by the Druids, and there he
erected the monastery which, in time, became the mother of
three hundred religious houses. … Iona, or I-Colum-kil, as
it was called by the Irish, came to be looked on as the chief
seat of learning, not only in Britain, but in the whole
Western world. 'Thither, as from a nest,' says Odonellus,
playing on the Latin name of the founder, 'these sacred doves
took their flight to every quarter.' They studied the
classics, the mechanical arts, law, history, and physic. They
improved the arts of husbandry and horticulture, supplied the
rude people whom they had undertaken to civilise with
ploughshares and other utensils of labour, and taught them the
use of the forge, in the mysteries of which every Irish monk
was instructed from his boyhood. They transferred to their new
homes all the learning of Armagh or Clonard. … In every
college of Irish origin, by whomsoever they were founded or on
whatever soil they flourished, we thus see study blended with
the duties of the missionary and the cœnobite. They were
religious houses, no doubt, in which the celebration of the
Church office was often kept up without intermission by day
and night; but they were also seminaries of learning, wherein
sacred and profane studies were cultivated with equal success.
Not only their own monasteries but those of every European
country were enriched with their manuscripts, and the
researches of modern bibliopolists are continually
disinterring from German or Italian libraries a Horace, or an
Ovid, or a Sacred Codex whose Irish gloss betrays the hand
which traced its delicate letters."
_A. T. Drane,
Christian Schools and Scholars,
chapter 2._
EDUCATION:
Charlemagne.
"If there ever was a man who by his mere natural endowments
soared above other men, it was Charlemagne. His life, like his
stature, was colossal. Time never seemed wanting to him for
anything that he willed to accomplish, and during his ten
years campaign against the Saxons and Lombards, he contrived
to get leisure enough to study grammar, and render himself
tolerably proficient as a Latin writer in prose and verse. He
found his tutors in the cities that he conquered. When he
became master of Pisa, he gained the services of Peter of
Pisa, whom he set over the Palatine school, which had existed
even under the Merovingian kings, though as yet it was far
from enjoying the fame to which it was afterwards raised by
the teaching of Alcuin. He possessed the art of turning
enemies into friends, and thus drew to his court the famous
historian, Paul Warnefrid, deacon of the Church of Rome, who
had previously acted as secretary to Didier, king of the
Lombards. … Another Italian scholar, St. Paulinus, of
Aquileja, was coaxed into the service of the Frankish
sovereign after his conquest of Friuli; I will not say that he
was bought, but he was certainly paid for by a large grant of
confiscated territory made over by diploma to 'the Venerable
Paulinus, master of the art of grammar.' But none of these
learned personages were destined to take so large a part in
that revival of learning which made the glory of Charlemagne's
reign, as our own countryman Alcuin. It was in 781, on
occasion of the king's second visit to Italy, that the meeting
took place at Parma, the result of which was to fix the
English scholar at the Frankish court. Having obtained the
consent of his own bishop and sovereign to this arrangement,
Alcuin came over to France in 782, bringing with him several
of the best scholars of York, among whom were Wizo, Fredegis,
and Sigulf. Charlemagne received him with joy, and assigned
him three abbeys for the maintenance of himself and his
disciples, those namely, of Ferrières, St. Lupus of Troyes,
and St. Josse in Ponthieu. From this time Alcuin held the
first place in the literary society that surrounded the
Frankish sovereign, and filled an office the duties of which
were as vast as they were various. Three great works at once
claimed his attention, the correction of the liturgical books,
the direction of the court academy, and the establishment of
other public schools throughout the empire. … But it was as
head of the Palatine school that Alcuin's influence was
chiefly to be felt in the restoration of letters. Charlemagne
presented himself as his first pupil, together with the three
princes, Pepin, Charles, and Louis, his sister Gisla and his
daughter Richtrude, his councillors Adalard and Angilbert, and
Eginhard his secretary. Such illustrious scholars soon found
plenty to imitate their example, and Alcuin saw himself called
on to lecture daily to a goodly crowd of bishops, nobles, and
courtiers. The king wished to transform his court into a new
Athens preferable to that of ancient Greece, in so far as the
doctrine of Christ is to be preferred to that of Plato. All
the liberal arts were to be taught there, but in such a way as
that each should bear reference to religion, for this was
regarded as the final end of of all learning. Grammar was
studied in order better to understand the Holy Scriptures and
to transcribe them more correctly; music, to which much
attention was given, was chiefly confined to the
ecclesiastical chant; and it was principally to explain the
Fathers and refute errors contrary to the faith that rhetoric
and dialectics were studied. 'In short,' says Crevier, 'the
thought both of the king and of the scholar who laboured with
him was to refer all things to religion, nothing being
considered as truly useful which did not bear some relation to
that end.' At first Alcuin allowed the study of the classic
poets, and in his boyhood, as we know, he had been a greater
reader of Virgil than of the Scriptures. … The authors whose
study Charlemagne and Alcuin desired to promote, were not so
much Virgil and Cicero, as St. Jerome and St. Augustine; and
Charlemagne, in his excessive admiration of those Fathers,
gave utterance to the wish that he had a dozen such men at his
court. The 'City of God' was read at the royal table, and the
questions addressed by the court students to their master
turned rather on the obscurities of Holy Writ than the
difficulties of prosody. In one thing, however, they betrayed
a classic taste, and that was in their selection of names. The
Royal Academicians all rejoiced in some literary soubriquet;
Alcuin was Flaccus; Angilbert, Homer; but Charlemagne himself
adopted the more scriptural appellation of David. The
eagerness with which this extraordinary man applied himself to
acquire learning for himself, and to extend it throughout his
dominions, is truly admirable, when we remember the enormous
labours in which he was constantly engaged."
_A. T. Drane,
Christian Schools and Scholars,
chapter 5._
See, also,
SCHOOL OF THE PALACE, CHARLEMAGNE'S.
{690}
EDUCATION: England
King Alfred.
King Alfred "gathered round him at his own court the sons of
his nobility to receive, in conjunction with his own children,
a better education than their parents would be able or willing
to give them in their own households. To this assemblage of
pupils Asser has attached the name of school, and a violent
controversy once distracted the literary world concerning the
sense in which the word was to be understood, and whether it
was not the beginning or origin of a learned institution still
existing. In speaking of this subject, Asser has taken
occasion to enumerate and describe the children who were born
to Alfred from his wife Elswitha, daughter of Ethelred the
'Big,' alderman of the Gaini, and a noble of great wealth and
influence in Mercia. 'The sons and daughters,' says Asser,
'which he had by his wife above mentioned, were Ethelfled the
eldest, after whom came Edward, then Ethelgiva, then
Ethelswitha, and Ethelwerd, besides those who died in their
infancy, one of whom was Edmund. Ethelfled, when she arrived
at a marriageable age, was united to Ethelred, earl of Mercia;
Ethelgiva was dedicated to God, and submitted to the rules of
a monastic life; Ethelwerd, the youngest, by the Divine
counsels and admirable prudence of the king, was consigned to
the schools of learning, where, with the children of almost
all the nobility of the country, and many also who were not
noble, he prospered under the diligent care of his teachers.
Books in both languages, namely, in Latin and Saxon, were read
in the school. They also learned to write; so that, before
they were of an age to practise manly arts, namely hunting and
such other pursuits as befit noblemen, they became studious
and clever in the liberal arts. Edward and Ethelswitha were
bred up in the king's court, and received great attention from
their servants and nurses; nay, they continue to this day,
with the love of all about them, and shew affability, and even
gentleness, towards all, both foreigners and natives, and are
in complete subjection to their father; nor, among their other
studies which appertain to this life and are fit for noble
youths, are they suffered to pass their time idly and
unprofitably, without learning the liberal arts; for they have
carefully learned the Psalms and Saxon books, especially the
Saxon Poems, and are continually in the habit of making use of
books.' The schools of learning, to which Asser alludes in
this passage, as formed for the use of the king's children and
the sons of his nobles, are again mentioned elsewhere by the
same author, as 'the school which he had studiously collected
together, consisting of many of the nobility of his own
nation:' and in a third passage, Asser speaks of the 'sons of
the nobility who were bred up in the royal household.' It is
clear, then, from these expressions, that the king's exertions
to spread learning among his nobles and to educate his own
children, were of a most active and personal nature,
unconnected with any institutions of a more public character:
the school was kept in his own household, and not in a public
seat of learning. We may perhaps adduce these expressions of
Asser as militating against the notion, that an University or
Public Seminary of Learning existed in the days of Alfred.
Though it is most probable that the several monasteries, and
other societies of monks and churchmen, would employ a portion
of their idle time in teaching youth, and prosecuting their
own studies; yet there is no proof that an authorized seat of
learning, such as the Universities of Oxford or Cambridge,
existed in England, until many hundred years after the time of
Alfred."
_J. A. Giles,
Life and Times of Alfred the Great,
chapter 21._
EDUCATION:
Saracenic and Moorish learning.
"Even as early as the tenth century, persons having a taste
for learning and for elegant amenities found their way into
Spain from all adjoining countries; a practice in subsequent
years still more indulged in, when it became illustrated by
the brilliant success of Gilbert, who … passed from the
Infidel University of Cordova to the papacy of Rome. The
khalifs of the West carried out the precepts of Ali, the
fourth successor of Mohammed, in the patronage of literature.
They established libraries in all their chief towns; it is
said that not fewer than seventy were in existence. To every
mosque was attached a public school, in which the children of
the poor were taught to read and write, and instructed in the
precepts of the Koran. For those in easier circumstances there
were academies, usually arranged in twenty-five or thirty
apartments, each calculated for accommodating four students;
the academy being presided over by a rector. In Cordova,
Granada, and other great cities, there were universities
frequently under the superintendence of Jews; the Mohammedan
maxim being that the real learning of a man is of more public
importance than any particular religious opinions he may
entertain. In this they followed the example of the Asiatic
khalif, Haroun Alraschid, who actually conferred the
superintendence of his schools on John Masué, a Nestorian
Christian. The Mohammedan liberality was in striking contrast
with the intolerance of Europe. … In the universities some
of the professors of polite literature gave lectures on Arabic
classical works; others taught rhetoric or composition, or
mathematics, or astronomy. From these institutions many of the
practices observed in our colleges were derived. They held
Commencements, at which poems were read and orations delivered
in presence of the public. They had also, in addition to these
schools of general learning, professional ones, particularly
for medicine. With a pride perhaps not altogether inexcusable,
the Arabians boasted of their language as being the most
perfect spoken by man. … It is not then surprising that, in
the Arabian schools, great attention was paid to the study of
language, and that so many celebrated grammarians were
produced. By these scholars, dictionaries, similar to those
now in use, were composed; their copiousness is indicated by
the circumstance that one of them consisted of sixty volumes,
the definition of each word being illustrated or sustained by
quotations from Arab authors of acknowledged repute. They had
also lexicons of Greek, Latin, Hebrew; and cyclopedias such as
the Historical Dictionary of Sciences of Mohammed Ibn
Abdallah, of Granada."
_J. W. Draper,
History of the Intellectual Development of Europe,
volume 2, chapter 2._
"The Saracenic kings formed libraries of unparalleled size and
number. That of Hakem amounted to 600,000 volumes, of which 44
were employed in the mere catalogue. Upwards of 70 public
libraries were established in his dominions. 100,000 volumes
were numbered in the library of Cairo, and were freely lent to
the studious citizen. The taste of the sovereign communicated
itself to the subject, and a private doctor declared that his
books were sufficient to load 400 camels.
{691}
Nor were the Saracens less attentive to the foundation
of schools and colleges. Eighty of the latter institutions
adorned Cordova in the reign of Hakem; in the fifteenth
century fifty were scattered over the city and plain of
Granada. 200,000 dinars (about £100,000 sterling) were
expended on the foundation of a single college at Baghdad. It
was endowed with an annual revenue of 15,000 dinars, and was
attended by 6,000 students. The princes of the house of Omeya
honoured the Spanish academies by their presence and studies,
and competed, not without success, for the prizes of learning.
Numerous schools for the purpose of elementary instruction
were founded by a long series of monarchs. … In this manner
the Arabians, within two centuries, constructed an apparatus
for mental improvement which hitherto had not been equalled
save in Alexandria, and to which the Church, after ruling the
intellect of Europe for more than five hundred years, could
offer no parallel."
_The Intellectual Revival of the Middle Ages
(Westminster Review, January, 1876)._
EDUCATION:
Scholasticism.
Schoolmen.
In the later times of the Roman empire, "the loss of the
dignity of political freedom, the want of the cheerfulness of
advancing prosperity, and the substitution of the less
philosophical structure of the Latin language for the delicate
intellectual mechanism of the Greek, fixed and augmented the
prevalent feebleness and barrenness of intellect. Men forgot,
or feared, to consult nature, to seek for new truths, to do
what the great discoverers of other times had done; they were
content to consult libraries, to study and defend old
opinions, to talk of what great geniuses had said. They sought
their philosophy in accredited treatises, and dared not
question such doctrines as they there found. … In the mean
time the Christian religion had become the leading subject of
men's thoughts; and divines had put forward its claims to be,
not merely the guide of men's lives, and the means of
reconciling them to their heavenly Master, but also to be a
Philosophy in the widest sense in which the term had been
used;—a consistent speculative view of man's condition and
nature, and of the world in which he is placed. … It was
held, without any regulating principle, that the philosophy
which had been bequeathed to the world by the great geniuses
of heathen antiquity, and the philosophy which was deduced
from, and implied by, the Revelations made by God to man, must
be identical; and, therefore, that Theology is the only true
philosophy. … This view was confirmed by the opinion which
prevailed, concerning the nature of philosophical truth; a
view supported by the theory of Plato, the practice of
Aristotle, and the general propensities of the human mind: I
mean the opinion that all science may be obtained by the use
of reasoning alone;—that by analyzing and combining the
notions which common language brings before us, we may learn
all that we can know. Thus Logic came to include the whole of
Science; and accordingly this Abelard expressly maintained.
… Thus a Universal Science was established, with the
authority of a Religious Creed. Its universality rested on
erroneous views of the relation of words and truth; its
pretensions as a science were admitted by the servile temper
of men's intellects; and its religious authority was assigned
it, by making all truth part of religion. And as Religion
claimed assent within her own jurisdiction under the most
solemn and imperative sanctions, Philosophy shared in her
imperial power, and dissent from their doctrines was no longer
blameless or allowable. Error became wicked, dissent became
heresy; to reject the received human doctrines, was nearly the
same as to doubt the Divine declarations. The Scholastic
Philosophy claimed the assent of all believers. The external
form, the details, and the text of this Philosophy, were
taken, in a great measure, from Aristotle; though, in the
spirit, the general notions, and the style of interpretation,
Plato and the Platonists had no inconsiderable share. … It
does not belong to our purpose to consider either the
theological or the metaphysical doctrines which form so large
a portion of the treatises of the schoolmen. Perhaps it may
hereafter appear, that some light is thrown on some of the
questions which have occupied metaphysicians in all ages, by
that examination of the history of the Progressive Sciences in
which we are now engaged; but till we are able to analyze the
leading controversies of this kind, it would be of little
service to speak of them in detail. It may be noticed,
however, that many of the most prominent of them refer to the
great question, 'What is the relation between actual things
and general terms?' Perhaps in modern times, the actual things
would be more commonly taken as the point to start from; and
men would begin by considering how classes and universals are
obtained from individuals. But the schoolmen, founding their
speculations on the received modes of considering such
subjects, to which both Aristotle and Plato had contributed,
travelled in the opposite direction, and endeavored to
discover how individuals were deduced from genera and
species;—what was 'the Principle of Individuation.' This was
variously stated by different reasoners. Thus Bonaventura
solves the difficulty by the aid of the Aristotelian
distinction of Matter and Form. The individual derives from
the Form the property of being something, and from the Matter
the property of being that particular thing. Duns Scotus, the
great adversary of Thomas Aquinas in theology, placed the
principle of Individuation in 'a certain determining positive
entity,' which his school called Hæcceity or 'thisness.' 'Thus
an individual man is Peter, because his humanity is combined
with Petreity.' The force of abstract terms is a curious
question, and some remarkable experiments in their use had
been made by the Latin Aristotelians before this time. In the
same way in which we talk of the quantity and quality of a
thing, they spoke of its 'quiddity.' We may consider the reign
of mere disputation as fully established at the time of which
we are now speaking [the Middle Ages]; and the only kind of
philosophy henceforth studied was one in which no sound
physical science had or could have a place."
_W. Whewell,
History of the Inductive Sciences,
book 4, chapter 4 (volume 1)._
"Scholasticism was philosophy in the service of established
and accepted theological doctrines. … More particularly,
Scholasticism was the reproduction of ancient philosophy under
the control of ecclesiastical doctrine. … The name of
Scholastics (doctores scholastici) which was given to the
teachers of the septem liberales artes [seven liberal arts]
(grammar, dialectic, rhetoric, in the Trivium; arithmetic,
geometry, music and astronomy, in the Quadrivium), or at least
some of them, in the Cloister-Schools founded by Charlemagne,
as also to teachers of theology, was afterwards given to all
who occupied themselves with the sciences, and especially with
philosophy. … Johannes Scotus, or Erigena [ninth century]
is the earliest noteworthy philosopher of the Scholastic
period. He was of Scottish nationality, but was probably born
and brought up in Ireland. At the call of Charles the Bald he
emigrated to France."
_F. Ueberweg,
History of Philosophy,
volume 1, pages 355-484._
{692}
"Scholasticism, at the last, from the prodigious mental
activity which it kept up, became a tacit universal
insurrection against authority: it was the swelling of the
ocean before the storm. … It was a sign of a great awakening
of the human mind when theologians thought it both their duty
and their privilege to philosophize. There was a vast waste of
intellectual labor, but still it was intellectual labor, and,
as we shall see, it was not in the end unfruitful."
_C. J. Stillé, Studies in Mediæval
History, chapter 13._
"Scholasticism had its hour of glory, its erudite doctors, its
eloquent professors, chief among whom was Abelard (1070-1142).
… At a time when printing did not exist, when manuscript
copies were rare, a teacher who combined knowledge with the
gift of speech was a phenomenon of incomparable interest, and
students flocked from all parts of Europe to take advantage of
his lectures. Abelard is the most brilliant representative of
the scholastic pedagogy, with an original and personal
tendency towards the emancipation of the mind. 'It is
ridiculous,' he said, 'to preach to others what we can neither
make them understand nor understand ourselves.' With more
boldness than Saint Anselm, he applied dialectics to theology,
and attempted to reason out the grounds of his faith. The
seven liberal arts constituted what may be called the
secondary instruction of the Middle Age, such as was given in
the claustral or conventual schools, and later, in the
universities. The liberal arts were distributed into two
courses of study, known as the 'trivium' and the 'quadrivium.'
The 'trivium' comprised grammar (Latin grammar, of course),
dialectics, or logic, and rhetoric; and the 'quadrivium,'
music, arithmetic, geometry, and astronomy. It is important to
note the fact that this programme contains only abstract and
formal studies,—no real and concrete studies. The sciences
which teach us to know man and the world, such as history,
ethics, the physical and natural sciences, were omitted and
unknown, save perhaps in a few convents of the Benedictines.
Nothing which can truly educate man, and develop his faculties
as a whole, enlists the attention of the Middle Age. From a
course of study thus limited there might come skillful
reasoners and men formidable in argument, but never fully
developed men. The methods employed in the ecclesiastical
schools of the Middle Age were in accord with the spirit of
the times, when men were not concerned about liberty and
intellectual freedom; and when they thought more about the
teaching of dogmas than about the training of the
intelligence. The teachers recited or read their lectures, and
the pupils learned by heart. The discipline was harsh. Corrupt
human nature was distrusted. In 1363, pupils were forbidden
the use of benches and chairs, on the pretext that such high
seats were an encouragement to pride. For securing obedience,
corporal chastisements were used and abused. The rod is in
fashion in the fifteenth as it was in the fourteenth century.
'There is no other difference,' says an historian, 'except
that the rods in the fifteenth century are twice as long as
those in the fourteenth.'"
_G. Compayré,
The History of Pedagogy,
translated by W. H. Payne,
chapter 4._
EDUCATION: Universities, Their Rise.
Abelard.
"Up to the end of the eleventh century the instruction was,
speaking generally, and allowing for transitory periods of
revival, and for a few exceptional schools, a shrunken
survival of the old 'trivium et quadrivium.' The lessons, when
not dictated and learnt by heart from notes, were got up from
bald epitomes. All that was taught, moreover, was taught
solely with a view to 'pious uses.' Criticism did not exist;
the free spirit of speculation could not, of course, exist.
… As we approach the period which saw the birth of those
institutions known as Studia Publica or Generalia, and ere
long to be known as 'universities,' we have to extend our
vision and recognize the circumstances of the time, and those
changes in the social condition of Europe which made great
central schools possible—schools to be frequented not merely
by the young ecclesiastic, but by laymen. Among other causes
which led to the diffusion of a demand for education among the
laity, was, I think, the institution or reorganization of
municipalities. It was about the end of the eleventh century
that the civic Communes (Communia) began to seek and obtain,
from royal and other authorities, charters of incorporation
constituting their internal government and conferring certain
freedoms and privileges as against the encroachment of lay and
ecclesiastical feudal barons. … About the same time, and
somewhat prior to this, trade guilds had been formed in many
cities for mutual protection, the advancement of commerce, and
the internal regulation of the various crafts. There
immediately followed a desire for schools in the more
important commercial towns. In Italy such schools arose in
Bologna, Milan, Brescia, and Florence; and in Germany they
arose in Lübeck, Hamburg, Breslau, Nordhausen, Stettin,
Leipsic, and Nürnberg. The distinctive characteristic of these
city schools was, that they do not seem to have been under the
direct control of the Church, or to have been always taught by
priests; further, that the native tongue (German or Italian,
as the case might be) was taught. Reading, writing, and a
little arithmetic seem to have formed the staple of the
instruction. The custom of dictating, writing down, and then
learning by heart what was written—universal in the schools
of the preceding centuries—was, of course, still followed in
these burgh schools. This custom was almost inevitable. …
The increased communication with Africa and the East through
the Crusades had introduced men to a standard of learning
among the Arabs, unknown in Europe. Outside the school, the
order of chivalry had introduced a new and higher ethical
spirit than had been known in the previous centuries. Civic
communities and trade guilds were forming themselves and
seeking charters of incorporation. Above all; the Crusades, by
stimulating the ardour and exciting the intellects of men, had
unsettled old convention by bringing men of all ranks within
the sacred circle of a common enthusiasm, and into contact
with foreign civilizations.
{693}
The desire for a higher education, and the impulse to more
profound investigation, that characterized the beginning and
course of the twelfth century, was thus only a part of a
widespread movement, political and moral. … While the
Romano-Hellenic schools had long disappeared, there still
existed, in many towns, episcopal schools of a high class,
many of which might be regarded as continuations of the old
imperial provincial institutions. … In Bologna and Paris,
Rheims and Naples, it was so. The arts curriculum professed in
these centres was, for the time and state of knowledge, good.
These schools, indeed, had never quite lost the fresh impulse
given by Charlemagne and his successors. … According to my
view of educational history, the great 'studia publica' or
'generalia' arose out of them. They were themselves, in a
narrow sense, already 'studia publica.' … Looking, first, to
the germ out of which the universities grew, I think we must
say that the universities may be regarded as a natural
development of the cathedral and monastery schools; but if we
seek for an external motive force urging men to undertake the
more profound and independent study of the liberal arts, we
can find it only in the Saracenic schools of Bagdad, Babylon,
Alexandria, and Cordova. … To fix precisely the date of the
rise of the first specialized schools or universities is
impossible, for the simple reason that they were not founded.
… The simplest account of the new university origins is the
most correct. It would appear that certain active-minded men
of marked eminence began to give instruction in medical
subjects at Salerno, and in law at Bologna, in a spirit and
manner not previously attempted, to youths who had left the
monastery and cathedral schools, and who desired to equip
themselves for professional life. Pupils flocked to them; and
the more able of these students, finding that there was a
public demand for this higher specialized instruction,
remained at headquarters, and themselves became teachers or
doctors. The Church did not found universities any more than
it founded the order of chivalry. They were founded by a
concurrence (not wholly fortuitous) of able men who had
something they wished to teach, and of youths who desired to
learn. None the less were the acquiescence and protection of
Church and State necessary in those days for the fostering of
these infant seminaries. … Of the three great schools which
we have named, there is sufficient ground for believing that
the first to reach such a development as to entitle it to the
name of a studium generale or university was the 'Schola
Salernitana,' although it never was a university, technically
speaking."
_S. S. Laurie,
Rise and Early Constitution of Universities,
lectures 6-7._
"Ideas, till this time scattered, or watched over in the
various ecclesiastical schools, began to converge to a common
centre. The great name of University was recognised in the
capital of France, at the moment that the French tongue had
become almost universal. The conquests of the Normans, and the
first crusade, had spread its powerfully philosophic idiom in
every direction, to England, to Sicily, and to Jerusalem. This
circumstance alone invested France, central France, Paris,
with an immense attractive power. By degrees, Parisian French
became a proverb. Feudalism had found its political centre in
the royal city; and this city was about to become the capital
of human thought. The beginner of this revolution was not a
priest, but a handsome young man of brilliant talents, amiable
and of noble family. None wrote love verses, like his, in the
vulgar tongue; he sang them, too. Besides, his erudition was
extraordinary for that day. He alone, of his time, knew both
Greek and Hebrew. May be, he had studied at the Jewish schools
(there were many in the South), or under the rabbins of
Troyes, Vitry, or of Orleans. There were then in Paris two
leading schools: the old Episcopal school of the parvis Notre
Dame, and that of St. Geneviève, on the hill, where shone
William of Champeaux. Abelard joined his pupils, submitted to
him his doubts, puzzled him, laughed at him, and closed his
mouth. He would have served Anselm of Laon the same, had not
the professor, being a bishop, expelled him from his diocese.
In this fashion this knight-errant of logic went on, unhorsing
the most celebrated champions. He himself declared that he had
only renounced tilt and tourney through his passion for
intellectual combats. Henceforward, victorious and without a
rival, he taught at Paris and Melun, the residence of
Louis-le-Gros, and the lords flocked to hear him; anxious to
encourage one of themselves, who had discomfited the priests
on their own ground, and had silenced the ablest clerks.
Abelard's wonderful success is easily explained. All the lore
and learning which had been smothered under the heavy,
dogmatical forms of clerical instruction, and hidden in the
rude Latin of the middle age, suddenly appeared arrayed in the
simple elegance of antiquity, so that men seemed for the first
time to hear and recognise a human voice. The daring youth
simplified and explained everything; presenting philosophy in
a familiar form, and bringing it home to men's bosoms. He
hardly suffered the obscure or supernatural to rest on the
hardest mysteries of faith. It seemed as if till then the
Church had lisped and stammered; while Abelard spoke. All was
made smooth and easy. He treated religion courteously and
handled her gently, but she melted away in his hands. Nothing
embarrassed the fluent speaker: he reduced religion to
philosophy, and morality to humanity. 'Crime,' he said,
'consists not in the act, but in the intention.' It followed,
that there was no such thing as sins of habit or of
ignorance—'They who crucified Jesus, not knowing him to have
been the Saviour, were guilty of no sin.' What is original
sin?—'Less a sin, than a punishment.' But then, wherefore the
redemption and the passion, if there was no sin?—'It was an
act of pure love. God desired to substitute the law of love
for that of fear.'"
_J. Michelet,
History of France,
volume 1, book 4, chapter 4._
"It is difficult, by a mere perusal of Abelard's works, to
understand the effect he produced upon his hearers by the
force of his argumentation, whether studied or improvised, and
by the ardor and animation of his eloquence, and the grace and
attractiveness of his person. But the testimony of his
contemporaries is unanimous; even his adversaries themselves
render justice to his high oratorical qualities. No one ever
reasoned with more subtlety, or handled the dialectic tool
with more address; and assuredly, something of these qualities
is to be found in the writings he has left us. But the intense
life, the enthusiastic ardor which enlivened his discourses,
the beauty of his face, and the charm of his voice cannot be
imparted by cold manuscripts.
{694}
Héloise, whose name is inseparably linked with that of her
unfortunate husband, and whom Charles de Rémusat does not
hesitate to call 'the first of women'; who, in any case, was a
superior person of her time; Héloise, who loved Abelard with
'an immoderate love,' and who, under the veil of a
'religieuse' and throughout the practice of devotional duties,
remained faithful to him until death; Héloise said to him in
her famous letter of 1136: 'Thou hast two things especially
which could instantly win thee the hearts of all women: the
charm thou knowest how to impart to thy voice in speaking and
singing.' External gifts combined with intellectual qualities
to make of Abelard an incomparable seducer of minds and
hearts. Add to this an astonishing memory, a knowledge as
profound as was compatible with the resources of his time, and
a vast erudition which caused his contemporaries to consider
him a master of universal knowledge. … How can one be
astonished that with such qualities Abelard gained an
extraordinary ascendency over his age; that, having become the
intellectual ruler and, as it were, the dictator of the
thought of the twelfth century, he should have succeeded in
attracting to his chair and in retaining around it thousands
of young men; the first germ of those assemblages of students
who were to constitute the universities several years later?
… It is not alone by the outward success of his scholastic
apostolate that Abelard merits consideration as the precursor
of the modern spirit and the promoter of the foundation of the
universities; it is also by his doctrine, or at least by his
method. … No one claims that Abelard was the first who, in
the Middle Ages, had introduced dialectics into theology,
reason into authority. In the ninth century, Scotus Erigena
had already said: 'Authority is derived from reason.'
Scholasticism, which is nothing but logic enlightening
theology, an effort of reason to demonstrate dogma, had begun
before Abelard; but it was he who gave movement and life to
the method by lending it his power and his renown."
_G. Compayré,
Abelard,
part 1, chapters 2-3._
EDUCATION: Latin Language.
"Greek was an unknown tongue: only a very few of the Latin
classics received a perfunctory attention: Boethius was
preferred to Cicero, and the Moral Sentences ascribed to Cato
to either. Rules couched in barbarous Latin verse were
committed to memory. Aristotle was known only in incorrect
Latin translations, which many of the taught, and some of the
teachers probably, supposed to be the originals. Matters were
not mended when the student, having passed through the
preliminary course of arts, advanced to the study of the
sciences. Theology meant an acquaintance with the 'Sentences'
of Peter Lombard, or, in other cases, with the 'Summa' of
Thomas Aquinas; in medicine, Galen was an authority from which
there was no appeal. On every side the student was fenced
round by traditions and prejudices, through which it was
impossible to break. In truth, he had no means of knowing that
there was a wider and fairer world beyond. Till the classical
revival came, every decade made the yoke of prescription
heavier, and each generation of students, therefore, a feebler
copy of the last."
_C. Beard,
Martin Luther and the Reformation,
chapter 3._
"What at first had been everywhere a Greek became in Western
Europe a Latin religion. The discipline of Rome maintained the
body of doctrine which the thought of Greece had defined. A
new Latin version, superseding alike the venerable Greek
translation of the Old Testament and the original words of
Evangelists and Apostles, became the received text of Holy
Scripture. The Latin Fathers acquired an authority scarcely
less binding. The ritual, lessons, and hymns of the Church
were Latin. Ecclesiastics transacted the business of civil
departments requiring education. Libraries were armories of
the Church: grammar was part of her drill. The humblest
scholar was enlisted, in her service: she recruited her ranks
by founding Latin schools. 'Education in the rudiments of
Latin,' says Hallam, 'was imparted to a greater number of
individuals than at present;' and, as they had more use for it
than at present, it was longer retained. If a boy of humble
birth had a taste for letters, or if a boy of high birth had a
distaste for arms, the first step was to learn Latin. His foot
was then on the ladder. He might rise by the good offices of
his family to a bishopric, or to the papacy itself by merit
and the grace of God. Latin enabled a Greek from Tarsus
(Theodore) to become the founder of learning in the English
church; and a Yorkshireman (Alcuin) to organize the schools of
Charlemagne. Without Latin, our English Winfrid (St. Boniface)
could not have been apostle of Germany and reformer of the
Frankish Church; or the German Albert, master at Paris of
Thomas Aquinas; or Nicholas Breakspeare, Pope of Rome. With
it, Western Christendom was one vast field of labor: calls for
self-sacrifice, or offers of promotion, might come from north
or south, from east or west. Thus in the Middle Ages Latin was
made the groundwork of education; not for the beauty of its
classical literature, nor because the study of a dead language
was the best mental gymnastic, or the only means of acquiring
a masterly freedom in the use of living tongues, but because
it was the language of educated men throughout Western Europe,
employed for public business, literature, philosophy, and
science; above all, in God's providence, essential to the
unity, and therefore enforced by the authority of, the Western
Church."
_C. S. Parker,
Essay on the History of Classical Education
(quoted in Dr. Henry Barnard's "Letters, Essays and
Thoughts on Studies and Conduct," page 467)._
EDUCATION: France.
"The countries of western Europe, leavened, all of them, by
the one spirit of the feudal and catholic Middle Age, formed
in some sense one community, and were more associated than
they have been since the feudal and catholic unity of the
Middle Age has disappeared and given place to the divided and
various life of modern Europe. In the mediæval community
France held the first place. It is now well known that to
place in the 15th century the revival of intellectual life and
the re-establishment of civilisation, and to treat the period
between the 5th century, when ancient civilisation was ruined
by the barbarians, and the 15th, when the life and intellect
of this civilisation reappeared and transformed the world, as
one chaos, is a mistake. The chaos ends about the 10th
century; in the 11th there truly comes the first
re-establishment of civilisation, the first revival of
intellectual life; the principal centre of this revival is
France, its chief monuments of literature are in the French
language, its chief monuments of art are the French cathedrals.
{695}
This revival fills the 12th and 13th centuries with its
activity and with its works; all this time France has the
lead; in the 14th century the lead passes to Italy; but now
comes the commencement of a wholly new period, the period of
the Renaissance properly so called, the beginning of modern
European life, the ceasing of the life of the feudal and
catholic Middle Age. The anterior and less glorious
Renaissance, the Renaissance within the limits of the Middle
Age itself, a revival which came to a stop and could not
successfully develop itself, but which has yet left profound
traces in our spirit and our literature,—this revival belongs
chiefly to France. France, then, may well serve as a typical
country wherein to trace the mediæval growth of intellect and
learning; above all she may so stand for us, whose connection
with her in the Middle Age, owing to our Norman kings and the
currency of her language among our cultivated class, was so
peculiarly close; so close that the literary and intellectual
development of the two countries at that time intermingles,
and no important event can happen in that of the one without
straightway affecting and interesting that of the other. …
With the hostility of the long French Wars of Edward the Third
comes the estrangement, never afterwards diminishing but
always increasing."
_M. Arnold,
Schools and Universities on the Continent,
chapter 1._
EDUCATION:
University of Paris.
"The name of Abelard recalls the European celebrity and
immense intellectual ferment of this school [of Paris] in the
12th century. But it was in the first year of the following
century, the 13th, that it received a charter from Philip
Augustus, and thenceforth the name of University of Paris
takes the place of that of School of Paris. Forty-nine years
later was founded University College, Oxford, the oldest
college of the oldest English University. Four nations
composed the University of Paris,—the nation of France, the
nation of Picardy, the nation of Normandy, and (signal mark of
the close intercourse which then existed between France and
us!) the nation of England. The four nations united formed the
faculty of arts. The faculty of theology was created in 1257,
that of law in 1271, that of medicine in 1274. Theology, law,
and medicine had each their Dean; arts had four Procurators,
one for each of the four nations composing this faculty. Arts
elected the rector of the University, and had possession of
the University chest and archives. The preeminence of the
Faculty of Arts indicates, as indeed does the very development
of the University, an idea, gradually strengthening itself, of
a lay instruction to be no longer absorbed in theology, but
separable from it. The growth of a lay and modern spirit in
society, the preponderance of the crown over the papacy, of
the civil over the ecclesiastical power, is the great feature
of French history in the 14th century, and to this century
belongs the highest development of the University. … The
importance of the University in the 13th and 14th centuries
was extraordinary. Men's minds were possessed with a wonderful
zeal for knowledge, or what was then thought knowledge, and
the University of Paris was the great fount from which this
knowledge issued. The University and those depending on it
made at this time, it is said, actually a third of the
population of Paris; when the University went on a solemn
occasion in procession to Saint Denis, the head of the
procession, it is said, had reached St. Denis before the end
of it had left its starting place in Paris. It had immunities
from taxation, it had jurisdiction of its own, and its members
claimed to be exempt from that of the provost of Paris; the
kings of France strongly favoured the University, and leaned
to its side when the municipal and academical authorities were
in conflict; if at any time the University thought itself
seriously aggrieved, it had recourse to a measure which threw
Paris into dismay,—it shut up its schools and suspended its
lectures. In a body of this kind the discipline could not be
strict, and the colleges were created to supply centres of
discipline which the University in itself,—an apparatus
merely of teachers and lecture-rooms,—did not provide. The
14th century is the time when, one after another, with
wonderful rapidity, the French colleges appeared. Navarre,
Montaigu, Harcourt, names so familiar in the school annals of
France, date from the first quarter of the 14th century. The
College of Navarre was founded by the queen of Philip the
Fair, in 1304; the College of Montaigu, where Erasmus,
Rabelais, and Ignatius Loyola were in their time students, was
founded in 1314 by two members of the family of Montaigu, one
of them Archbishop of Rouen. The majority of these colleges
were founded by magnates of the church, and designed to
maintain a certain number of bursars, or scholars, during
their university course. … Along with the University of
Paris there existed in France, in the 14th century, the
Universities of Orleans, Angers, Toulouse, and Montpellier.
Orleans was the great French school for the study of the civil
law. … The civil law was studiously kept away from the
University of Paris, for fear it should drive out other
studies, and especially the study of theology; so late as the
year 1679 there was no chair of Roman or even of French law in
the University of Paris. The strength of this University was
concentrated on theology and arts, and its celebrity arose
from the multitude of students which in these branches of
instruction it attracted."
_M. Arnold,
Schools and Universities on the Continent,
chapter 1._
EDUCATION:
The Sorbonne.
The University of Paris acquired the name of "the Sorbonne"
"from Robert of Sorbon, aulic chaplain of St. Louis, who
established one of the 63 colleges of the University. … The
name of Sorbonne was first applied to the theological faculty
only; but at length the whole University received this
designation."
_J. Alzog,
Manual of Universal Church History,
volume 3, page 24, foot-note._
EDUCATION:
The Nations.
"The precise date of the organization at Paris of the four
Nations which maintained themselves there until the latest
days of the university escapes the most minute research.
Neither for the Nations nor for the Faculties was there any
sudden blossoming, but rather a slow evolution, an insensible
preparation for a definite condition. Already at the close of
the twelfth century there is mention in contemporary documents
of the various provinces of the school of Paris. The Nations
are mentioned in the bulls of Gregory IX. (1231) and of
Innocent IV. (1245). In 1245, they already elect their
attendants, the beadles. In 1249, the existence of the four
Nations—France, Picardy, Normandy, and England—is proved by
their quarrels over the election of a rector. … Until the
definitive constitution of the Faculties, that is, until 1270
or 1280, the four Nations included the totality of students
and masters.
{696}
After the formation of the Faculties, the four Nations
comprised only the members of the Faculty of Arts and those
students of other Faculties who had not yet obtained the grade
of Bachelor of Arts. The three superior Faculties, Theology,
Medicine, and Law, had nothing in common thenceforward with
the Nations. … At Bologna, as at Paris, the Nations were
constituted in the early years of the thirteenth century, but
under a slightly different form. There the students were
grouped in two distinct associations, the Ultramontanes and
the Citramontanes, the foreigners and the Italians, who formed
two universities, the Transalpine and the Cisalpine, each with
its chiefs, who were not styled procurators but counsellors;
the first was composed of eighteen Nations and the second of
seventeen. At Padua twenty-two Nations were enumerated.
Montpellier had only three in 1339,—the Catalans, the
Burgundians, the Provençals; each sub-divided, however, into
numerous groups. Orleans had ten: France, Germany, Lorraine,
Burgundy, Champagne, Picardy, Normandy, Touraine, Guyanne, and
Scotland; Poitiers had four: France, Aquitaine, Touraine, and
Berry; Prague had four also, in imitation of Paris; Lerida had
twelve, in imitation of Bologna, etc. But whether more or less
numerous, and whatever their special organization, the Nations
in all the universities bore witness to that need of
association which is one of the characteristics of the Middle
Ages. … One of the consequences of their organization was to
prevent the blending and fusion of races, and to maintain the
distinction of provinces and nationalities among the pupils of
the same university."
_G. Compayré,
Abelard,
part 2, chapter 2._
EDUCATION: Italy
Revived Study of Roman Law.
"It is known that Justinian established in Rome a school of
law, similar to those of Constantinople and Berytus. When Rome
ceased to be subject to Byzantine rule, this law-school seems
to have been transferred to Ravenna, where it continued to keep
alive the knowledge of the Justinian system. That system
continued to be known and used, from century to century, in a
tradition never wholly interrupted, especially in the free
cities of Northern Italy. It seems even to have penetrated
beyond Italy into Southern France. But it was destined to
have, at the beginning of the twelfth century, a very
extraordinary revival. This revival was part of a general
movement of the European mind which makes its appearance at
that epoch. The darkness which settled down on the world, at
the time of the barbarian invasions, had its midnight in the
ninth and tenth centuries. In the eleventh, signs of progress
and improvement begin to show themselves, becoming more
distinct towards its close, when the period of the Crusades
was opening upon Europe. Just at this time we find a famous
school of law established in Bologna, and frequented by
multitudes of pupils, not only from all parts of Italy, but
from Germany, France, and other countries. The basis of all
its instruction was the Corpus Juris Civilis [see CORPUS JURIS
CIVILIS]. Its teachers, who constitute a series of
distinguished jurists extending over a century and a half,
devoted themselves to the work of expounding the text and
elucidating the principles of the Corpus Juris, and especially
the Digest. From the form in which they recorded and handed
down the results of their studies, they have obtained the name
of glossators. On their copies of the Corpus Juris they were
accustomed to write glosses, i. e., brief marginal
explanations and remarks. These glosses came at length to be
an immense literature. … Here, then, in this school of the
glossators, at Bologna, in the twelfth and thirteenth
centuries, the awakened mind of Europe was brought to
recognize the value of the Corpus Juris, the almost
inexhaustible treasure of juristic principles, precepts,
conceptions, reasonings, stored up in it."
_Jas. Hadley,
Introduction to Roman Law,
lecture 2._
EDUCATION: Italy
University of Bologna.
"In the twelfth century the law school of the University of
Bologna eclipsed all others in Europe. The two great branches
of legal study in the middle ages, the Roman law and the canon
law, began in the teaching of Irnerius and Gratian at Bologna
in the first half of the twelfth century. At the beginning of
this century the name of university first replaces that of
school; and it is said that the great university degree, that
of doctor, was first instituted at Bologna, and that the
ceremony for conferring it was devised there. From Bologna the
degree and its ceremonial travelled to Paris. A bull of Pope
Honorius, in 1220, says that the study of 'bomæ literæ' had at
that time made the city of Bologna famous throughout the
world. Twelve thousand students from all parts of Europe are
said to have been congregated there at once. The different
nations had their colleges, and of colleges at Bologna there
were fourteen. These were founded and endowed by the
liberality of private persons; the university professors, the
source of attraction to this multitude of students, were paid
by the municipality, who found their reward in the fame,
business, and importance brought to their town by the
university. The municipalities of the great cities of northern
and central Italy were not slow in following the example of
Bologna; in the thirteenth century Padua, Modena, Piacenza,
Parma, Ferrara, had each its university. Frederick II. founded
that of Naples in 1224; in the fourteenth century were added
those of Pavia, Perugia, Pisa, and Turin. Colleges of
examiners, or, as we should say, boards, were created by Papal
bull to examine in theology, and by imperial decree to examine
in law and medicine. It was in these studies of law and
medicine that the Italian universities were chiefly
distinguished."
_M. Arnold,
Schools and Universities on the Continent,
chapter 9._
"The Bologna School of jurisprudence was several times
threatened with total extinction. In the repeated difficulties
with the city the students would march out of the town, bound
by a solemn oath not to return; and if a compromise was to be
effected, a papal dispensation from that oath must first be
obtained. Generally on such occasions, the privileges of the
university were reaffirmed and often enlarged. In other cases,
a quarrel between the pope and the city, and the ban placed
over the latter, obliged the students to leave; and then the
city often planned and furthered the removal of the
university. King Frederic II., in 1226, during the war against
Bologna, dissolved the school of jurisprudence, which seems to
have been not at all affected thereby, and he formally
recalled that ordinance in the following year. Originally the
only school in Bologna was the school of jurisprudence, and in
connection with it alone a university could be formed. ….
Subsequently eminent teachers of medicine and the liberal arts
appeared, and their pupils, too, sought to form a university
and to choose their own rector.
{697}
As late as 1295 this innovation was disputed by the jurists
and interdicted by the city, so that they had to connect
themselves with the university of jurisprudence. But a few
years later we find them already in possession again of a few
rectors, and in 1316 their right was formally recognized in a
compromise between the university of jurisprudence and the
city. The students called themselves 'philosophi et medici' or
'physici'; also by the common name of 'artistæ.' Finally a
school of theology, founded by pope Innocent VI., was added in
the second half of the 14th century; it was placed under the
bishop, and organized in imitation of the school at Paris, so
that it was a 'universitas magistrorum,' not 'scholarium.' As,
however, by this arrangement the students of theology in the
theological university had no civil privileges of their own,
they were considered individually as belonging to the
'artistæ.' From this time Bologna had four universities, two
of jurisprudence, the one of medicine and philosophy, and the
theological, the first two having no connection with the
others, forming a unit, and therefore frequently designated as
one university."
_F. C. Savigny,
The Universities of the Middle Ages
(Barnard's American Journal of Education,
volume 22, pages 278-279)._
EDUCATION:
Other Universities.
"The oldest and most frequented university in Italy, that of
Bologna, is represented as having flourished in the twelfth
century. Its prosperity in early times depended greatly on the
personal conduct of the principal professors, who, when they
were not satisfied with their entertainment, were in the habit
of seceding with their pupils to other cities. Thus high
schools were opened from time to time in Modena, Reggio, and
elsewhere by teachers who broke the oaths that bound them to
reside in Bologna, and fixed their centre of education in a
rival town. To make such temporary changes was not difficult
in an age when what we have to call an university, consisted
of masters and scholars, without college buildings, without
libraries, without endowments, and without scientific
apparatus. The technical name for such institutions seems to
have been 'studium scholarium,' Italianised into 'studio' or
'studio pubblico.' Among the more permanent results of these
secessions may be mentioned the establishment of the high
school at Vicenza by translation from Bologna in 1204, and the
opening of a school at Arezzo under similar circumstances in
1215; the great University of Padua first saw the light in
consequence of political discords forcing the professors to
quit Bologna for a season. The first half of the thirteenth
century witnessed the foundation of these 'studi' in
considerable numbers. That of Vercelli was opened in 1228, the
municipality providing two certified copyists for the
convenience of students who might wish to purchase textbooks.
In 1224 the Emperor Frederick II., to whom the south of Italy
owed a precocious eminence in literature, established the
University of Naples by an Imperial diploma. With a view to
rendering it the chief seat of learning in his dominions, he
forbade the subjects of the Regno to frequent other schools,
and suppressed the University of Bologna by letters general.
Thereupon Bologna joined the Lombard League, defied the
Emperor, and refused to close the schools, which numbered at
that period about ten thousand students of various
nationalities. In 1227 Frederick revoked his edict, and
Bologna remained thenceforward unmolested. Political and
internal vicissitudes, affecting all the Italian universities
at this period, interrupted the prosperity of that of Naples.
In the middle of the thirteenth century Salerno proved a
dangerous rival. … An important group of 'studi pubblici'
owed their origin to Papal or Imperial charters in the first
half of the fourteenth century. That of Perugia was founded in
1307 by a Bull of Clement V. That of Rome dated from 1303, in
which year Boniface VIII. gave it a constitution by a special
edict; but the translation of the Papal See to Avignon caused
it to fall into premature decadence. The University of Pisa
had already existed for some years, when it received a charter
in 1343 from Clement VI. That of Florence was first founded in
1321. … The subjects taught in the high schools were Canon
and Civil Law, Medicine, and Theology. These faculties,
important for the professional education of the public, formed
the staple of the academical curriculum. Chairs of Rhetoric,
Philosophy, and Astronomy were added according to occasion,
the last sometimes including the study of judicial astrology.
If we enquire how the humanists or professors of classic
literature were related to the universities, we find that, at
first at any rate, they always occupied a second rank. The
permanent teaching remained in the hands of jurists, who
enjoyed life engagements at a high rate of pay, while the
Latinists and Grecians could only aspire to the temporary
occupation of the Chair of Rhetoric, with salaries
considerably lower than those of lawyers or physicians."
_J. A. Symonds,
Renaissance in Italy: the Revival of Learning,
chapter 3._
"Few of the Italian universities show themselves in their full
vigour till the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries, when the
increase of wealth rendered a more systematic care for
education possible. At first there were generally three sorts
of professorships—one for civil law, another for canonical
law, the third for medicine; in course of time professorships
of rhetoric, of philosophy, and of astronomy were added, the
last commonly, though not always, identical with astrology.
The salaries varied greatly in different cases. Sometimes a
capital sum was paid down. With the spread of culture
competition became so active that the different universities
tried to entice away distinguished teachers from one another,
under which circumstances Bologna is said to have sometimes
devoted the half of its public income (20,000 ducats) to the
university. The appointments were as a rule made only for a
certain time, sometimes for only half a year, so that the
teachers were forced to lead a wandering life, like actors.
Appointments for life were, however, not unknown. … Of the
chairs which have been mentioned, that of rhetoric was
especially sought by the humanist; yet it depended only on his
familiarity with the matter of ancient learning whether or no
he could aspire to those of law, medicine, philosophy, or
astronomy. The inward conditions of the science of the day
were as variable as the outward conditions of the teacher.
Certain jurists and physicians received by far the largest
salaries of all, the former chiefly as consulting lawyers for
the suits and claims of the state which employed them. …
{698}
Personal intercourse between the teachers and the taught,
public disputations, the constant use of Latin and often of
Greek, the frequent changes of lecturers and the scarcity of
books, gave the studies of that time a colour which we cannot
represent to ourselves without effort. There were Latin
schools in every town of the least importance, not by any
means merely as preparatory to higher education, but because,
next to reading, writing, and arithmetic, the knowledge of
Latin was a necessity; and after Latin came logic. It is to be
noted particularly that these schools did not depend on the
Church, but on the municipality; some of them, too, were
merely private enterprises. This school system, directed by a
few distinguished humanists, not only attained a remarkable
perfection of organisation, but became an instrument of higher
education in the modern sense of the phrase."
_J. Burckhardt,
The Civilisation of the Period of the Renaissance in Italy,
volume 1, part 3, chapter 5._
EDUCATION: Germany.
Prague and its Offspring.
"The earliest university in Germany was that of Prague. It was
in 1348, under the Emperor Charles IV., when the taste for
letters had revived so signally in Europe, when England may be
said to have possessed her two old universities already for
three centuries, Paris her Sorbonne already for four, that
this university was erected as the first of German
Universities. The idea originated in the mind of the Emperor,
who was educated in Paris, at the university of that town, and
was eagerly taken up by the townspeople of that ancient and
wealthy city, for they foresaw that affluence would shower
upon them if they could induce a numerous crowd of students to
flock together within their walls. But the Pope and the
Emperor took an active part in favouring and authorizing the
institution; they willingly granted to it wide privileges, and
made it entirely independent of Church and State. The teaching
of the professors, and the studies of the students, were
submitted to no control whatever. After the model of the
University of Paris, they divided themselves into different
faculties, and made four such divisions—one for divinity,
another for medical science, a third for law, and a fourth for
philosophy. The last order comprised those who taught and
learned the fine arts and the sciences, which two departments
were separate at Sorbonne. All the German universities have
preserved this outward constitution, and in this, as in many
other circumstances, the precedent of Prague has had a
prevailing influence on her younger sister institutions. The
same thing may be said particularly of the disciplinary tone
of the university. In other countries, universities sprang
from rigid clerical and monastic institutions, or bore a more
or less ecclesiastical character which imposed upon them
certain more retired habits, and a severer kind of discipline.
Prague took from the beginning a course widely different. The
students, who were partly Germans, partly of Slavonian blood,
enjoyed a boundless liberty. They lodged in the houses of the
townspeople, and by their riches, their mental superiority,
and their number (they are recorded to have been as many as
twenty thousand in the year 1409), became the undisputed
masters of the city. The professors and the inhabitants of
Prague, far from checking them, rather protected the
prerogatives of the students, for they found out that all
their prosperity depended on them. … Not two generations had
passed since the erection of an institution thus constituted,
before Huss and Jerome of Prague began to teach the necessity
of an entire reformation of the Church. The phenomenon is
characteristic of the bold spirit of inquiry that must have
grown up at the new University. However, the political
consequences that attended the promulgation of such doctrines
led almost to the dissolution of the University itself. For,
the German part of the students broke up, in consequence of
repeated and serious quarrels that had taken place with the
Bohemian and Slavonic party, and went to Leipzig, where
straightway a new and purely German University was erected.
While Prague became the seat of a protracted and sanguinary
war, a great number of Universities rose into existence around
it, and attracted the crowds that had formerly flocked to the
Bohemian capital. It appeared as if Germany, though it had
received the impulse from abroad, would leave all other
countries behind itself in the erection and promotion of these
learned institutions, for all the districts of the land vied
with each other in creating universities. Thus arose those of
Rostock, Ingolstadt, Vienna, Heidelberg, Cologne, Erfurt,
Tübingen, Greifswalde, Trèves, Mayence and Bâles-schools which
have partly disappeared again during the political storms of
subsequent ages. The beginning of the sixteenth century added
to them one at Frankfort on the Oder, and another, the most
illustrious of all, Wittenberg. Everyone who is acquainted
with the history and origin of the Reformation, knows what an
important part the latter of these universities took in the
weighty transactions of those times. … Wittenberg remained
by no means the only champion of Protestantism. At Marburg,
Jena, Königsberg, and Helmstadt, universities of a professedly
Protestant character were erected. These schools became the
cradle and nurseries of the Reformation."
_The Universities of Germany
(Dublin University Magazine,
volume 46, pages 83-85)._
"The German universities of the fourteenth and fifteenth
centuries were founded in the following order: Prague, 1348;
Vienna, 1388; Erfurt, 1392; Leipsic, 1409; Rostock, 1419;
Greifswald, 1456; Freiburg, 1457; Ingolstadt, 1472; Tübingen,
1477; and Mayence, 1477. Thus, it will be seen that they were
established in quick succession—an unmistakable proof of the
growing scientific interest of the age."
_F. V. N. Painter,
History of Education,
chapter 3, section 5 (k)._
EDUCATION: Netherlands.
"Tradition reports that a school had … been founded at
Utrecht, by some zealous missionary, in the time of Charles
Martel, at which his son Pepin received his education. However
this may have been, the renown of the Utrecht School of St.
Martin is of very ancient date. … During the invasion by the
Normans, this school at Utrecht was suppressed, but was
reëstablished in 917, and regained its former renown. The
Emperor, Henry the Fowler, placed here his three sons, Otto,
Henry and Bruno, to be educated, of whom the last became
afterward archbishop of Cologne and archduke of Lottringen,
and was noted for his extraordinary learning and friendship
for the poet Prudentius. At the beginning of the 12th century,
Utrecht possessed no less than five flourishing schools,
several of which had each a 'rector' in addition to the
priests who had the general control. At about the same time,
several convents became distinguished as educational
institutions, especially those of Egmond, Nymwegen,
Middleburg, in Zealand, and Aduwert, near Gröningen.
{699}
In Holland, as in Belgium, in addition to the schools that
were attached to the cathedrals, convents, and chapters, there
were established in the course of the twelfth century, by the
more wealthy communities, public schools especially designed
for the instruction of the citizens and laity. It is also
worthy of notice that the authority to open such schools was
always derived from the counts—by whom it was conferred,
sometimes upon the cities as an especial privilege, and
sometimes upon merely private persons as a mark of particular
favor. The jurisdiction of the feudal lords was the same here
as in Belgium; but while in the latter country, with the
exception perhaps of the elementary schools in some of the
cities, the right of supervision everywhere devolved upon the
chapters, instruction in these public schools of Holland was
wholly withdrawn from the clergy, and they were made
essentially secular in their character. The privilege of thus
establishing schools was conferred upon some of the cities at
the following dates:
Dort, by Count Floris V., A. D. 1290;
the Hague, 1322;
Leyden, 1324;
and Rotterdam in 1328, by William III.;
Delft and Amsterdam, in 1334, by William IV.;
Leyden again, 1357;
Haarlem, 1389;
Alkmar, 1398;
Hoorn, 1358 and 1390;
the Hague, 1393;
Schiedam and Ondewater, 1394;
and Rotterdam, in 1402, by Albert of Bavaria.
These schools, adds Stallaert, on the authority of Buddingh,
were generally styled 'School en Schryfambacht,' 'Schoole en
Kostern,' (school and writing offices, schools and clerks'
houses,) and the 'Schoolmijsters' (school-masters) were looked
upon as professional men or craftsmen—as was the case also in
Belgium, where they formed distinct guilds and fraternities.
These public schools of Holland were divided into 'large' and
'small' schools, (groote en bijschoolen,) Latin being taught
in the first division. The institution at Zwolle, attained
special notoriety in the fourteenth century, under the
direction of the celebrated Johan Cele. According to Thomas à
Kempis and Ten Bussche, its pupils numbered about a thousand,
gathered from Holland, Belgium, and the principal provinces of
Germany."
_Public Instruction in Holland
(Barnard's American Journal of Education, volume 14)._
EDUCATION: England.
Early Oxford.
"The University of Oxford did not spring into being in any
particular year, or at the bidding of any particular founder:
it was not established by any formal charter of incorporation.
Taking its rise in a small and obscure association of teachers
and learners, it developed spontaneously into a large and
important body, long before its existence was recognised by
prince or by prelate. There were certainly schools at Oxford
in the reign of Henry I., but the previous history of the
place does not throw much light on their origin, or explain
the causes of their popularity. The town seems to have grown
up under the shadow of a nunnery, which is said to have been
founded by St. Frideswyde as far back as the eighth century.
Its authentic annals, however, begin with the year 912, when
it was occupied and annexed by Edward the Elder, King of the
West Saxons. … Oxford was considered a place of great
strategical importance in the eleventh century. Its position
on the borders of Mercia and Wessex rendered it also,
particularly convenient for parleys between Englishmen and
Danes, and for great national assemblies. … Retaining for a
while its rank as one of the chief centres of political life
in the south of England, and as a suitable meeting-place for
parliaments and synods, Oxford became thenceforward more and
more distinctively known as a seat of learning and a nursery
of clerks. The schools which existed at Oxford before the
reign of King John, are so seldom and so briefly noticed in
contemporary records, that it would be difficult to show how
they developed into a great university, if it were not for the
analogy of kindred institutions in other countries. There can
be little doubt, however, that the idea of a university, the
systems of degrees and faculties, and the nomenclature of the
chief academical officers, were alike imported into England
from abroad. … In the earliest and broadest sense of the
term, a university had no necessary connexion with schools or
literature, being merely a community of individuals bound
together by some more or less acknowledged tie. Regarded
collectively in this light, the inhabitants of any particular
town might be said to constitute a university, and in point of
fact the Commonalty of the townsmen of Oxford was sometimes
described as a university in formal documents of the middle
ages. The term was, however, specially applied to the whole
body of persons frequenting the schools of a large studium.
Ultimately it came to be employed in a technical sense as
synonymous with studium, to denote the institution itself.
This last use of the term seems to be of English origin, for
the University of Oxford is mentioned as such in writs and
ordinances of the years 1238, 1240, and 1253, whereas the
greater seat of learning on the banks of the Seine was, until
the year 1263, styled 'the University of the Masters,' or 'the
University of the Scholars,' of Paris. The system of
academical degrees dates from the second half of the twelfth
century."
_H. C. M. Lyte,
A History of the University of Oxford,
chapter 1._
"In the early Oxford … of the twelfth and most of the
thirteenth centuries, colleges with their statutes were
unknown. The University was the only corporation of the
learned, and she struggled into existence after hard fights
with the town, the Jews, the Friars, the Papal courts. The
history of the University begins with the thirteenth century.
She may be said to have come into being as soon as she
possessed common funds and rents, as soon as fines were
assigned, or benefactions contributed to the maintenance of
scholars. Now the first recorded fine is the payment of
fifty-two shillings by the townsmen of Oxford as part of the
compensation for the hanging of certain clerks. In the year
1214 the Papal Legate, in a letter to his 'beloved sons in
Christ, the burgesses of Oxford,' bade them excuse the
'scholars studying in Oxford' half the rent of their halls, or
hospitia, for the space of ten years. The burghers were also
to do penance, and to feast the poorer students once a year;
but the important point is, that they had to pay that large
yearly fine 'propter suspendium clericorum'—all for the
hanging of the clerks. Twenty-six years after this decision of
the Legate, Robert Grossteste, the great Bishop of Lincoln,
organized the payment and distribution of the fine, and
founded the first of the chests, the chest of St. Frideswyde.
{700}
These chests were a kind of Mont de Piété, and to found them
was at first the favourite form of benefaction. Money was left
in this or that chest, from which students and masters would
borrow, on the security of pledges, which were generally
books, cups, daggers, and so forth. Now, in this affair of
1214 we have a strange passage of history, which happily
illustrates the growth of the University. The beginning of the
whole affair was the quarrel with the town, which in 1209, had
hanged two clerks, 'in contempt of clerical liberty.' The
matter was taken up by the Legate—in those bad years of King
John, the Pope's viceroy in England—and out of the
humiliation of the town the University gained money,
privileges, and halls at low rental. These were precisely the
things that the University wanted. About these matters there
was a constant strife, in which the Kings as a rule, took part
with the University. … Thus gradually the University got the
command of the police, obtained privileges which enslaved the
city, and became masters where they had once been despised,
starveling scholars. … The result, in the long run, was that
the University received from Edward III. 'a most large
charter, containing many liberties, some that they had before,
and others that he had taken away from the town.' Thus Edward
granted to the University 'the custody of the assize of bread,
wine, and ale,' the supervising of measures and weights, the
sole power of clearing the streets of the town and suburbs.
Moreover, the Mayor and the chief Burghers were condemned
yearly to a sort of public penance and humiliation on St.
Scholastica's Day. Thus, by the middle of the fourteenth
century, the strife of Town and Gown had ended in the complete
victory of the latter."
_A. Lang,
Oxford,
chapter 2._
"To mark off the Middle Age from the Modern Period of the
University is certainly very difficult. Indeed the earlier
times do not form a homogeneous whole, but appear perpetually
shifting and preparing for a new state. The main transition
however was undoubtedly about the middle of the fourteenth
century; and the Reformation, a remarkable crisis, did but
confirm what had been in progress for more than a century and
a half: so that the Middle Age of the University contained the
thirteenth century, and barely the former half of the
fourteenth. … There is no question, that during this Middle
Age the English Universities were distinguished far more than
ever afterwards by energy and variety of intellect. Later
times cannot produce a concentration of men eminent in all the
learning and science of the age, such as Oxford and Cambridge
then poured forth, mightily influencing the intellectual
development of all Western Christendom. Their names indeed may
warn us against an undiscriminating disparagement of the
Monasteries, as 'hotbeds of ignorance and stupidity'; when so
many of those worthies were monks of the Benedictine,
Franciscan, Dominican, Carmelite, or reformed Augustinian
order. But in consequence of this surpassing celebrity, Oxford
became the focus of a prodigious congregation of students, to
which nothing afterwards bore comparison. The same was
probably true of Cambridge in relative proportion. … A
tolerably well authenticated account, attacked of late by
undue scepticism, fixes [the number of] those of Oxford at
thirty thousand, in the middle of the thirteenth century. The
want indeed of contemporary evidence must make us cautious of
yielding absolute belief to this: in fact we have no document
on this matter even as old as the Reformation. … Not only
did the Church and the new orders of Monks draw great numbers
thither, but the Universities themselves were vast High
Schools, comprising boys and even children. It is not
extravagant, if Cambridge was not yet in great repute, to
imagine fifteen thousand students of all ages at Oxford, and
as many more attendants. Nor was it at all difficult to
accommodate them in the town, when Oxford contained three
hundred Halls and Inns: and as several students dwelt in one
room, and were not careful for luxury, each building on an
average might easily hold one hundred persons. The style of
Architecture was of the simplest and cheapest kind, and might
have been easily run up on a sudden demand: and a rich flat
country, with abundant water carriage, needed not to want
provisions. That the numbers were vast, is implied by the
highly respectable evidence which we have, that as many as
three thousand migrated from Oxford on the riots of 1209;
although the Chronicler expressly states that not all joined
in the secession. In the reign of Henry III. the reduced
numbers are reckoned at fifteen thousand. After the middle of
the fourteenth century, they were still as many as from three
to four thousand; and after the Reformation they mount again
to five thousand. On the whole therefore the computation of
thirty thousand, as the maximum, may seem, if not positively
true, yet the nearest approximation which we can expect. Of
Cambridge we know no more than that the numbers were much
lower than at Oxford. … While in the general, there was a
substantial identity between the scholastic learning of Oxford
and of Paris, yet Oxford was more eager in following positive
science:—and this, although such studies were disparaged by
the Church, and therefore by the public. Indeed originally the
Church had been on the opposite side; but the speculative
tendency of the times had carried her over, so that
speculation and theology went hand in hand. In the middle of
the thirteenth century we may name Robert Grosseteste and John
Basingstock, as cultivating physical science, and (more
remarkable still) the Franciscan Roger Bacon: a man whom the
vulgar held to be equal to Merlin and Michael Scott as a
magician, and whom posterity ranks by the noblest spirits of
the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries, in all branches of
positive science,—except theology. A biography of Roger Bacon
should surely be written! Unfortunately, we know nothing as to
the influence of these men on their times, nor can we even
learn whether the University itself was at all interested in
their studies. … We have … a strange testimony to the
interest which in the beginning of the fourteenth century the
mass of the students took in the speculation of their elders;
for the street rows were carried on under the banners of
Nominalists and Realists. … The coarse and ferocious manners
prevalent in the Universities of the Middle Ages are every
where in singular contrast to their intellectual pretensions:
but the Universities of the Continent were peaceful, decorous,
dignified,—compared with those of England. The storms which
were elsewhere occasional, were at Oxford the permanent
atmosphere. For nearly two centuries our 'Foster Mother' of
Oxford lived in a din of uninterrupted furious warfare; nation
against nation, school against school, faculty against
faculty. Halls, and finally Colleges, came forward as
combatants; and the University, as a whole, against the Town;
or against the Bishop of Lincoln; or against the Archbishop of
Canterbury. Nor was Cambridge much less pugnacious."
_V. A. Huber,
The English Universities,
volume 1, chapter 3._
{701}
EDUCATION:
Cambridge.
"Various facts and circumstances … lend probability to the
belief that, long before the time when we have certain
evidence of the existence of Cambridge as a university, the
work of instruction was there going on. The Camboritum of the
Roman period, the Grantebrycgr of the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle,
the Grentebrige of Domesday, must always have been a place of
some importance. It was the meeting-place of two great Roman
roads,—Akeman Street, running east and west, and the Via
Devana, traversing the north and the south. … Confined at
first to the rising ground on the left bank of the river, it
numbered at the time of the Norman Conquest as many as four
hundred houses, of which twenty-seven were pulled down to make
way for the castle erected by William the Conqueror. … Under
the castle walls, with the view, it would seem, of making some
atonement for many a deed of violence and wrong, the Norman
sheriff, Picot by name, founded the Church of St. Giles, and
instituted in connection with it a small body of secular
canons. … The year 1112 was marked by the occurrence of an
event of considerable importance in connection with the
subsequent history of the university. The canons of St. Giles,
attended by a large concourse of the clergy and laity, crossed
the river, and took up their abode in a new and spacious
priory at Barnwell. … The priory at Barnwell, which always
ranked among the wealthiest of the Cambridge foundations,
seems from the first to have been closely associated with the
university; and the earliest university exhibitions were those
founded by William de Kilkenny, bishop of Ely from 1254 to
1257, for two students of divinity, who were to receive
annually the sum of two marks from the priory. In the year
1133 was founded the nunnery of St. Rhadegund, which, in the
reign of Henry VII., was converted into Jesus College; and in
1135 a hospital of Augustinian canons, dedicated to St. John
the Evangelist, was founded by Henry Frost, a burgess of the
town. … It was … a very important foundation, inasmuch as
it not only became by conversion in the sixteenth century the
College of St. John the Evangelist, but was also … the
foundation of which Peterhouse, the earliest Cambridge
college, may be said to have been in a certain sense the
offshoot. … In the year 1229 there broke out at Paris a feud
of more than ordinary gravity between the students and the
citizens. Large numbers of the former migrated to the English
shores; and Cambridge, from its proximity to the eastern
coast, and as the centre where Prince Louis, but a few years
before, had raised the royal standard, seems to have attracted
the great majority. … The university of Cambridge, like that
of Oxford, was modelled mainly on the university of Paris. Its
constitution was consequently oligarchic rather than
democratic, the government being entirely in the hands of the
teaching body, while the bachelors and undergraduates had no
share in the passing of new laws and regulations."
_J. B. Mullinger,
A History of the University of Cambridge,
chapters 1-2._
"The earliest existing college at Cambridge is St. Peter's,
generally called Peterhouse, historically founded A. D. 1257,
in the reign of Henry III. The Universities are known merely
by their situation; as Oxford, Cambridge, Durham, St.
Andrews'; but each college has a name, according to the taste
of its founder or first members. These names may be divided
into two classes, those named from the founder, as Pembroke,
Clare, Gonville and Caius (this had two founders, the restorer
being Dr. Kaye, who Latinized his name into Caius, always
pronounced Keys), King's (from King Henry VI.),—Queens' (from
the queens both of Henry VI. and Edward IV.), Sidney Sussex,
and Downing;—and those named for beatified persons and
objects of worship,—St. Peter's, St. John's, St. Catharine's,
St. Mary Magdalene, Corpus Christi, Emmanuel, Jesus Christ's,
Trinity and Trinity Hall. The apparent impiety of these names,
which in one case of an ancient name now changed, was
absolutely revolting, entirely passes off with a few days'
use. St. Catharine's soon becomes Cats, and St. Mary Magdalene
is always called Maudlin. You readily admit the superiority of
Trinity over Corpus ale; go to see a friend who lives on
Christ's piece; and hear with regret, that in the boat races
Emmanuel has been bumped by Jesus; an epithet being probably
prefixed to the last name. These names of course were given in
monkish times,—Trinity by Henry VIII., but all the colleges
except one were founded before the reign of James I. … The
seventeen colleges … are distinct corporations. Their
foundations, resources, buildings, governing authorities and
students, are entirely separate from each other. Nor has any
one college the least control in any other. The plan, however,
is much the same in all. The presiding authority is in most
cases called the Master, or speaking more generally, the Head;
while the net proceeds of all the college funds—for the vast
wealth supposed to belong to the University really is in the
hands of the separate colleges—are distributed among certain
of the graduates, called Fellows, who with the Head constitute
the corporation. These corporations give board and lodging on
various terms to such students as choose to enter the college
and comply with its rules, in order to receive its assistance
in obtaining the honors of the University; and each college
offers its own peculiar inducements to students. … The whole
body of the colleges, taken together, constitutes the
University. All those who after residing seven years at some
college, have taken the degree of Master of Arts, or a higher
one, and keep their name on the college lists by a small
payment, vote at the University elections for members of
Parliament and all other officers, and manage its affairs. …
The colleges, at certain intervals; present such students as
comply with their conditions to University authorities for
matriculation, for certain examinations, and for the reception
of degrees; and until one receives the degree of Master of
Arts, he must remain a member of some college, not necessarily
one and the same, to hold any University privileges. After
this stage, he may, under certain conditions, break up all his
college connections, and yet remain in the University."
_W. Everett,
On the Cam.,
lecture 1._
{702}
EDUCATION:
Spain and Portugal.
"Salamanca was founded in the 13th-century, and received its
statutes in the year 1422, out of which was developed the
following constitution. The rector, with eight 'consiliarii,'
all students, who could appoint their successors, administered
the university. The doctors render the oath of obedience to
the rector. The 'domscholaster' is the proper judge of the
school; but he swears obedience to the rector. A bachelor of
law must have studied six years, and after five years more he
could become licentiate. In filling a paid teachership, the
doctor was chosen next in age of those holding the diploma,
unless a great majority of the scholars objected, in which
case the rector and council decided. This liberal constitution
for the scholars is in harmony with the code of Alphonzo X.,
soon after 1250, in which the liberty of instruction was made
a general principle of law. This constitution continued in
Salamanca into the 17th century, for Retes speaks of a
disputation which the rector held at that time under his
presidency. Alcala university was established by cardinal
Ximenes, in 1510, for the promotion of the study of theology
and philosophy, for which reason it contained a faculty of
canon, but not of civil law. The center of the university was
the college of St. Ildefons, consisting of thirty-three
prebendaries, who could be teachers or scholars, since for
admission were required only poverty, the age of twenty, and
the completion of the course of the preparatory colleges.
These thirty-three members elected annually a rector and three
councilors, who controlled the entire university. Salaried
teachers were elected, not by the rector and council alone,
but by all the students. It had wide reputation. When visited
by Francis I., while a prisoner of Spain, he was welcomed by
11,000 students. The Coimbra university, in Portugal, received
statutes in 1309, from king Dionysius, with a constitution
similar to those just mentioned."
_F. C. Savigny,
The Universities of the Middle Ages
(Barnard's American Journal of Education,
volume 22, page 324)._
EDUCATION:
Renaissance.
"Modern education begins with the Renaissance. The educational
methods that we then begin to discern will doubtless not be
developed and perfected till a later period; the new doctrines
will pass into practice only gradually, and with the general
progress of the times. But from the sixteenth century
education is in possession of its essential principles. …
The men of the sixteenth century having renewed with classical
antiquity an intercourse that had been too long interrupted,
it was natural that they should propose to the young the study
of the Greeks and the Romans. What is called secondary
instruction really dates from the sixteenth century. The crude
works of the Middle Age are succeeded by the elegant
compositions of Athens and Rome, henceforth made accessible to
all through the art of printing; and, with the reading of the
ancient authors, there reappear through the fruitful effect of
imitation, their qualities of correctness in thought, of
literary taste, and of elegance in form. In France, as in
Italy, the national tongues, moulded, and, as it were,
consecrated by writers of genius, become the instruments of an
intellectual propaganda. Artistic taste, revived by the rich
products of a race of incomparable artists, gives an extension
to the horizon of life, and creates a new class of emotions.
Finally, the Protestant Reform develops individual thought and
free inquiry, and at the same time, by its success, it imposes
still greater efforts on the Catholic Church. This is not
saying that everything is faultless in the educational efforts
of the sixteenth century. First, as is natural for innovators,
the thought of the teachers of this period is marked by
enthusiasm rather than by precision. They are more zealous in
pointing out the end to be attained, than exact in determining
the means to be employed. Besides, some of them are content to
emancipate the mind, but forget to give it proper direction.
Finally, others make a wrong use of the ancients; they are too
much preoccupied with the form and the purity of language;
they fall into Ciceromania, and it is not their fault if a new
superstition, that of rhetoric, does not succeed the old
superstition, that of the Syllogism."
_G. Compayré,
The History of Pedagogy,
chapter 5 (sections 92-93)._
EDUCATION:
Rabelais' Gargantua.
Rabelais' description of the imaginary education of Gargantua
gives us the educational ideas of a man of genius in the 16th
century: "Gargantua," he writes, "awaked, then, about four
o'clock in the morning. Whilst they were rubbing him, there
was read unto him some chapter of the Holy Scripture aloud and
clearly, with a pronunciation fit for the matter, and hereunto
was appointed a young page born in Basché, named Anagnostes.
According to the purpose and argument of that lesson, he
oftentimes gave himself to revere, adore, pray, and send up
his supplications to that good God whose word did show His
majesty and marvellous judgments. Then his master repeated
what had been read, expounding unto him the most obscure and
difficult points. They then considered the face of the sky, if
it was such as they had observed it the night before, and into
what signs the sun was entering, as also the moon for that
day. This done, he was appareled, combed, curled, trimmed and
perfumed, during which time they repeated to him the lessons
of the day before. He himself said them by heart, and upon
them grounded practical cases concerning the estate of man,
which he would prosecute sometimes two or three hours, but
ordinarily they ceased as soon as he was fully clothed. Then
for three good hours there was reading. This done, they went
forth, still conferring of the substance of the reading, and
disported themselves at ball, tennis, or the 'pile trigone,'
gallantly exercising their bodies, as before they had done
their minds. All their play was but in liberty, for they left
off when they pleased, and that was commonly when they did
sweat, or were otherwise weary. Then were they very well dried
and rubbed, shifted their shirts, and walking soberly, went to
see if dinner was ready. Whilst they stayed for that, they did
clearly and eloquently recite some sentences that they had
retained of the lecture. In the mean time Master Appetite
came, and then very orderly sat they down at table. At the
beginning of the meal there was read some pleasant history of
ancient prowess, until he had taken his wine. Then, if they
thought good, they continued reading, or began to discourse
merrily together; speaking first of the virtue, propriety,
efficacy, and nature of all that was served in at that table;
of bread, of wine, of water, of salt, of flesh, fish, fruits,
herbs, roots, and of their dressing. By means whereof, he
learned in a little time all the passages that on these
subjects are to be found in Pliny, Athenæus, Dioscorides,
Julius, Pollux, Galen, Porphyrius, Oppian, Polybius,
Heliodorus, Aristotle, Œlian, and others.
{703}
Whilst they talked of these things, many times, to be the more
certain, they caused the very books to be brought to the
table, and so well and perfectly did he in his memory retain
the things above said, that in that time there was not a
physician that knew half so much as he did. Afterwards they
conferred of the lessons read in the morning, and ending their
repast with some conserve of quince, he washed his hands and
eyes with fair fresh water, and gave thanks unto God in some
fine canticle, made in praise of the divine bounty and
munificence. This done, they brought in cards, not to play,
but to learn a thousand pretty tricks and new inventions,
which were all grounded upon arithmetic. By this means he fell
in love with that numerical science, and every day after
dinner and supper he passed his time in it as pleasantly as he
was wont to do at cards and dice. … After this they
recreated themselves with singing musically, in four or five
parts, or upon a set theme, as it best pleased them. In matter
of musical instruments, he learned to play the lute, the
spinet, the harp, the German flute, the flute with nine holes,
the violin, and the sackbut. This hour thus spent, he betook
himself to his principal study for three hours together, or
more, as well to repeat his matutinal lectures as to proceed
in the book wherein he was, as also to write handsomely, to
draw and form the antique and Roman letters. This being done,
they went out of their house, and with them a young gentleman
of Touraine, named Gymnast, who taught the art of riding.
Changing then his clothes, he mounted on any kind of horse,
which he made to bound in the air, to jump the ditch, to leap
the palisade, and to turn short in a ring both to the right
and left hand. … The time being thus bestowed, and himself
rubbed, cleansed, and refreshed with other clothes, they
returned fair and softly; and passing through certain meadows,
or other grassy places, beheld the trees and plants: comparing
them with what is written of them in the books of the
ancients, such as Theophrastus, Dioscorides, Marinus, Pliny,
Nicander, Macer, and Galen, and carried home to the house
great handfuls of them, whereof a young page called Rhizotomos
had charge—together with hoes, picks, spuds, pruning-knives,
and other instruments requisite for herborising. Being come to
their lodging, whilst supper was making ready, they repeated
certain passages of that which had been read, and then sat
down at table. … During that repast was continued the lesson
read at dinner as long as they thought good: the rest was
spent in good discourse, learned and profitable. After that
they had given thanks, they set themselves to sing musically,
and play upon harmonious instruments, or at those pretty
sports made with cards, dice or cups,—thus made merry till it
was time to go to bed; and sometimes they would go make visits
unto learned men, or to such as had been travellers in strange
countries. At full night they went into the most open place of
the house to see the face of the sky, and there beheld the
comets, if any were, as likewise the figures, situations,
aspects, oppositions, and conjunctions of the stars. Then with
his master did he briefly recapitulate, after the manner of
the Pythagoreans, that which he had read, seen, learned, done,
and understood in the whole course of that day. Then they
prayed unto God the Creator, falling down before Him, and
strengthening their faith towards Him, and glorifying Him for
His boundless bounty; and, giving thanks unto Him for the time
that was past, they recommended themselves to His divine
clemency for the future. Which being done, they entered upon
their repose."
_W. Besant,
Readings in Rabelais,
pages 20-29._
EDUCATION:
Germany.
"The schools of France and Italy owed little to the great
modern movement of the Renaissance. In both these countries
that movement operated, in both it produced mighty results;
but of the official establishments for instruction it did not
get hold. In Italy the mediæval routine in those
establishments at first opposed a passive resistance to it;
presently came the Catholic reaction, and sedulously shut it
out from them. In France the Renaissance did not become a
power in the State, and the routine of the schools sufficed to
exclude the new influence till it took for itself other
channels than the schools. But in Germany the Renaissance
became a power in the State; allied with the Reformation,
where the Reformation triumphed in German countries the
Renaissance triumphed with it, and entered with it, into the
public schools. Melancthon and Erasmus were not merely enemies
and subverters of the dominion of the Church of Rome, they
were eminent humanists; and with the great but single
exception of Luther, the chief German reformers were all of
them distinguished friends of the new classical learning, as
well as of Protestantism. The Romish party was in German
countries the ignorant party also, the party untouched by the
humanities and by culture. Perhaps one reason why in England
our schools have not had the life and growth of the schools of
Germany and Holland is to be found in the separation, with us,
of the power of the Reformation and the power of the
Renaissance. With us, too, the Reformation triumphed and got
possession of our schools; but our leading reformers were not
at the same time, like those of Germany, the nation's leading
spirits in intellect and culture. In Germany the best spirits
of the nation were then the reformers; in England our best
spirits,—Shakspeare, Bacon, Spenser,—were men of the
Renaissance, not men of the Reformation, and our reformers
were men of the second order. The Reformation, therefore,
getting hold of the schools in England was a very different
force, a force far inferior in light, resources, and
prospects, to the Reformation getting hold of the schools in
Germany. But in Germany, nevertheless, as Protestant orthodoxy
grew petrified like Catholic orthodoxy, and as, in
consequence, Protestantism flagged and lost the powerful
impulse with which it started, the school flagged also, and in
the middle of the last century the classical teaching of
Germany, in spite of a few honourable names like Gesner's,
Ernesti's, and Heyne's, seems to have lost all the spirit and
power of the 16th century humanists, to have been sinking into
a mere church appendage, and fast becoming torpid. A
theological student, making his livelihood by teaching till he
could get appointed to a parish, was the usual school-master.
'The schools will never be better,' said their great
renovator, Friedrich August Wolf, the well-known critic of
Homer, 'so long as the school-masters are theologians by
profession.
{704}
A theological course in a university, with its smattering of
classics, is about as good a preparation for a classical
master as a course of feudal law would be.' Wolf's coming to
Halle in 1783, invited by Von Zedlitz, the minister for public
worship under Frederick the Great, a sovereign whose civil
projects and labours were not less active and remarkable than
his military, marks an era from which the classical schools of
Germany, reviving the dormant spark planted in them by the
Renaissance, awoke to a new life."
_M. Arnold,
Schools and Universities on the Continent,
chapter 14._
It is surprising to learn "how much was left untaught, in the
sixteenth century, in the schools. Geography and history were
entirely omitted in every scheme of instruction, mathematics
played but a subordinate part, while not a thought was
bestowed either upon natural philosophy or natural history.
Every moment and every effort were given to the classical
languages, chiefly to the Latin. But we should be overhasty,
should we conclude, without further inquiry, that these
branches, thus neglected in the schools, were therefore every
where untaught. Perhaps they were reserved for the university
alone, and there, too, for the professors of the philosophical
faculty, as is the case even at the present day with natural
philosophy and natural history; nay, logic, which was a
regular school study in the sixteenth century, is, in our day,
widely cultivated at the university. We must, therefore, in
order to form a just judgment upon the range of subjects
taught in the sixteenth century, as well as upon the methods
of instruction, first cast a glance at the state of the
universities of that period, especially in the philosophical
faculties. A prominent source of information on this point is
to be found in the statutes of the University of Wittenberg,
revised by Melancthon, in the year 1545. The theological
faculty appears, by these statutes, to have consisted of four
professors, who read lectures on the Old and New
Testaments,—chiefly on the Psalms, Genesis, Isaiah, the
Gospel of John, and the Epistle to the Romans. They also
taught dogmatics, commenting upon the Nicene creed and
Augustine's book, 'De spiritu et litera.' The Wittenberg
lecture schedule for the year 1561, is to the same effect;
only we have here, besides exegesis and dogmatics, catechetics
likewise. According to the statutes, the philosophical faculty
was composed of ten professors. The first was to read upon
logic and rhetoric; the second, upon physics, and the second
book of Pliny's natural history; the third, upon arithmetic
and the 'Sphere' of John de Sacro Busto; the fourth, upon
Euclid, the 'Theoriæ Planetarum' of Burbach, and Ptolemy's'
Almagest'; the fifth and sixth, upon the Latin poets and
Cicero; the seventh, who was the 'Pedagogus,' explained to the
younger class, Latin Grammar, Linacer 'de emendata structura
Latini sermonis,' Terence, and some of Plautus; the eighth,
who was the 'Physicus,' explained Aristotle's 'Physics and
Dioscorides'; the ninth gave instruction in Hebrew; and the
tenth reviewed the Greek Grammar, read lectures on Greek
Classics at intervals, also on one of St. Paul's Epistles,
and, at the same time, on ethics. … Thus the philosophical
faculty appears to have been the most fully represented at
Wittenberg, as it included ten professors, while the
theological had but four, the medical but three. … We have a
… criterion by which to judge of the limited nature of the
studies of that period, as compared with the wide field which
they cover at the present day, in the then almost total lack
of academical apparatus and equipments. The only exception was
to be found in the case of libraries; but, how meager and
insufficient all collections of books must have been at that
time, when books were few in number and very costly, will
appear from the fund, for example, which was assigned to the
Wittenberg library; it yielded annually but one hundred
gulden, (about $63,) with which, 'for the profit of the
university and chiefly of the poorer students therein, the
library may be adorned and enriched with books in all the
faculties and in every art, as well in the Hebrew and Greek
tongues.' Of other apparatus, such as collections in natural
history, anatomical museums, botanical gardens, and the like,
we find no mention; and the less, inasmuch as there was no
need of them in elucidation of such lectures as the professors
ordinarily gave. When Paul Eber, the theologian, read lectures
upon anatomy, he made no use of dissection."
_K. von Raumer,
Universities in the Sixteenth Century
(Barnard's American Journal of Education,
volume 5, pages 535-540)._
EDUCATION:
Luther and the Schools.
"Luther … felt that, to strengthen the Reformation, it was
requisite to work on the young, to improve the schools, and to
propagate throughout Christendom the knowledge necessary for a
profound study of the holy Scriptures. This, accordingly, was
one of the objects of his life. He saw it in particular at the
period which we have reached, and wrote to the councillors of
all the cities of Germany, calling upon them to found
Christian schools. 'Dear sirs,' said he, 'we annually expend
so much money on arquebuses, roads, and dikes; why should we
not spend a little to give one or two schoolmasters to our
poor children? God stands at the door, and knocks; blessed are
we if we open to him. Now the word of God abounds. O my dear
Germans, buy, buy, while the market is open before your
houses. … Busy yourselves with the children,' continues
Luther, still addressing the magistrates; 'for many parents
are like ostriches; they are hardened towards their little
ones, and satisfied with having laid the egg, they care
nothing for it afterwards. The prosperity of a city does not
consist merely in heaping up great treasures, in building
strong walls, in erecting splendid mansions, in possessing
glittering arms. If madmen fall upon it, its ruin will only be
the greater. The true wealth of a city, its safety, and its
strength, is to have many learned, serious, worthy,
well-educated citizens. And whom must we blame because there
are so few at present, except you magistrates, who have
allowed our youth to grow up like trees in a forest?' Luther
particularly insisted on the necessity of studying literature
and languages: 'What use is there, it may be asked, in
learning Latin, Greek, and Hebrew? We can read the Bible very
well in German. Without languages,' replies he, 'we could not
have received the gospel. … Languages are the scabbard that
contains the sword of the Spirit; they are the casket that
guards the jewels; they are the vessel that holds the wine;
and as the gospel says, they are the baskets in which the
loaves and fishes are kept to feed the multitude. If we
neglect the languages, we shall not only eventually lose the
gospel, but be unable to speak or write in Latin or in German.
{705}
No sooner did men cease to cultivate them than Christendom
declined, even until it fell under the power of the pope. But
now that languages are again honored, they shed such light
that all the world is astonished, and everyone is forced to
acknowledge that our gospel is almost as pure as that of the
apostles themselves. In former times the holy fathers were
frequently mistaken, because they were ignorant of languages.
… If the languages had not made me positive as to the
meaning of the word, I might have been a pious monk, and
quietly preached the truth in the obscurity of the cloister;
but I should have left the pope, the sophists, and their
antichristian empire still unshaken."
_J. H. Merle d' Aubigné,
History of the Reformation of the 16th Century,
book 10, chapter 9 (volume 3)._
Luther, in his appeal to the municipal magistrates of Germany,
calls for the organization of common schools to be supported
at public cost. "Finally, he gives his thought to the means of
recruiting the teaching service. 'Since the greatest evil in
every place is the lack of teachers, we must not wait till
they come forward of themselves; we must take the trouble to
educate them and prepare them.' To this end Luther keeps the
best of the pupils, boys and girls, for a longer time in
school; gives them special instructors, and opens libraries
for their use. In his thought he never distinguishes women
teachers from men teachers; he wants schools for girls as well
as for boys. Only, not to burden parents and divert children
from their daily labor, he requires but little time for school
duties. … 'My opinion is [he says] that we must send the
boys to school one or two hours a day, and have them learn a
trade at home for the rest of the time. It is desirable that
these two occupations march side by side.' … Luther gives
the first place to the teaching of religion: 'Is it not
reasonable that every Christian should know the Gospel at the
age of nine or ten?' Then come the languages, not, as might be
hoped, the mother tongue, but the learned languages, Latin,
Greek, and Hebrew. Luther had not yet been sufficiently rid of
the old spirit to comprehend that the language of the people
ought to be the basis of universal instruction. He left to
Comenius the glory of making the final separation of the
primary school from the Latin school. … Physical exercises
are not forgotten in Luther's pedagogical regulations. But he
attaches an especial importance to singing. 'Unless a
school-master know how to sing, I think him of no account.'
'Music,' he says again, 'is a half discipline which makes men
more indulgent and more mild.' At the same time that he
extends the programme of studies, Luther introduces a new
spirit into methods. He wishes more liberty and more joy in
the school. 'Solomon,' he says, 'is a truly royal
schoolmaster. He does not, like the monks, forbid the young to
go into the world and be happy. Even as Anselm said: "A young
man turned aside from the world is like a young tree made to
grow in a vase." The monks have imprisoned young men like
birds in their cage. It is dangerous to isolate the young.'
… Do not let ourselves imagine, however, that Luther at once
exercised a decisive influence on the current education of his
day. A few schools were founded, called writing schools; but
the Thirty Years' War, and other events, interrupted the
movement of which Luther has the honor of having been the
originator. … In the first half of the seventeenth century,
Ratich, a German, and Comenius, a Slave, were, with very
different degrees of merit, the heirs of the educational
thought of Luther. With something of the charlatan and the
demagogue, Ratich devoted his life to propagating a novel art
of teaching, which be called didactics, and to which he
attributed marvels. He pretended, by his method of languages,
to teach Hebrew, Greek, and Latin, in six months. But
nevertheless, out of many strange performances and lofty
promises, there issue some thoughts of practical value. The
first merit of Ratich was to give the mother tongue, the
German language, the precedence over the ancient languages."
_G. Compayré,
The History of Pedagogy,
chapter 6 (sections 130-134)._
EDUCATION:
Netherlands.
"When learning began to revive after the long sleep of the
Middle Ages, Italy experienced the first impulse. Next came
Germany and the contiguous provinces of the Low Countries. The
force of the movement in these regions is shown by an event of
great importance, not always noticed by historians. In 1400,
there was established at Deventer, in the northeastern
province of the Netherlands, an association or brotherhood,
usually called Brethren of the Life in Common [see BRETHREN OF
THE COMMON LOT]. In their strict lives, partial community of
goods, industry in manual labor, fervent devotion, and
tendency to mysticism, they bore some resemblance to the
modern Moravians. But they were strikingly distinguished from
the members of this sect by their earnest cultivation of
knowledge, which was encouraged among themselves and promoted
among others by schools, both for primary and advanced
education. In 1430, the Brethren had established forty-five
branches, and by 1460 more than thrice that number. They were
scattered through different parts of Germany and the Low
Countries, each with its school subordinate to the head
college at Deventer. It was in these schools, in the middle of
the fifteenth century, that a few Germans and Netherlanders
were, as Hallam says, roused to acquire that extensive
knowledge of the ancient languages which Italy as yet
exclusively possessed. Their names should never be omitted in
any remembrance of the revival of letters; for great was their
influence upon subsequent times. Chief among these men were
Wessels, of Groningen, 'one of those who contributed most
steadily to the purification of religion'; Hegius of Deventer,
under whom Erasmus obtained his early education, and who
probably was the first man to print Greek north of the Alps;
Dringeberg, who founded a good school in Alsace; and Longius,
who presided over one at Munster. Thanks to the influence of
these pioneers in learning, education had made great progress
among the Netherlanders by the middle of the sixteenth
century. … We have the testimony of the Italian Guicciardini
to the fact that before the outbreak of the war with Spain
even the peasants in Holland could read and write well. As the
war went on, the people showed their determination that in
this matter there should be no retrogression. In the first
Synod of Dort, held in 1574, the clergy expressed their
opinion upon the subject by passing a resolution or ordinance
which, among other things, directed 'the servants of the
Church' to obtain from the magistrates in every locality a
permission for the appointment of schoolmasters, and an order
for their compensation as in the past.
{706}
Before many years had elapsed the civil authorities began to
establish a general school system for the country. In 1582,
the Estates of Friesland decreed that the inhabitants of towns
and villages should, within the space of six weeks, provide
good and able Reformed schoolmasters, and those who neglected
so to do would be compelled to accept the instructors
appointed for them. This seems to have been the beginning of
the supervision of education by the State, a system which soon
spread over the whole republic. In these schools, however,
although they were fostered by the State, the teachers seem,
in the main, to have been paid by their pupils. But as years
went on, a change came about in this part of the system. It
probably was aided by the noteworthy letter which John of
Nassau, the oldest brother of William the Silent, the noble
veteran who lived until 1606, wrote to his son Lewis William,
Stadtholder of Friesland. In this letter, which is worthy of a
place on the walls of every schoolhouse in America, the
gallant young stadt-holder is instructed to urge on the
States-General 'that they, according to the example of the
pope and Jesuits, should establish free schools, where
children of quality as well as of poor families, for a very
small sum, could be well and christianly educated and brought
up. This would be the greatest and most useful work, and the
highest service that you could ever accomplish for God and
Christianity, and especially for the Netherlands themselves.
… In summa, one may jeer at this as popish trickery, and
undervalue it as one will: there still remains in the work an
inexpressible benefit. Soldiers and patriots thus educated,
with a true knowledge of God and a Christian conscience, item,
churches and schools, good libraries, books, and
printing-presses, are better than all armies, arsenals,
armories, munitions, alliances, and treaties that can be had
or imagined in the world.' Such were the words in which the
Patriarch of the Nassaus urged upon his countrymen a
common-school system. In 1609, when the Pilgrim Fathers took
up their residence in Leyden, the school had become the common
property of the people, and was paid for among other municipal
expenses. It was a land of schools supported by the State—a
land, according to Motley, 'where every child went to school,
where almost every individual inhabitant could write and read,
where even the middle classes were proficient in mathematics
and the classics, and could speak two or more modern
languages.' Does any reader now ask whence the settlers of
Plymouth, who came directly from Holland, and the other
settlers of New England whose Puritan brethren were to be
found in thousands throughout the Dutch Republic, derived
their ideas of schools first directed, and then supported by
the State."
EDUCATION:
Leyden University.
To commemorate the deliverance of Leyden from the Spanish
siege in 1574 (see NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1573-1574), "and as a
reward for the heroism of the citizens, the Prince of Orange,
with the consent of the Estates of the province, founded the
University of Leyden. Still, the figment of allegiance
remained; the people were only fighting for their
constitutional rights, and so were doing their duty to the
sovereign. Hence the charter of the university ran in the name
of Philip, who was credited with its foundation, as a reward
to his subjects for their rebellion against his evil
counsellors and servants, 'especially in consideration of the
differences of religion, and the great burdens and hardships
borne by the citizens of our city of Leyden during the war
with such faithfulness.' Motley calls this 'ponderous irony,'
but the Hollanders were able lawyers and intended to build on
a legal basis. This event marks an epoch in the intellectual
history of Holland and of the world. … The new university
was opened in 1575, and from the outset took the highest rank.
Speaking, a few years ago, of its famous senate chamber,
Niebuhr called it 'the most memorable room of Europe in the
history of learning.' The first curator was John Van der Does,
who had been military commandant of the city during the siege.
He was of a distinguished family, but was still more
distinguished for his learning, his poetical genius, and his
valor. Endowed with ample funds, the university largely owed
its marked pre-eminence to the intelligent foresight and wise
munificence of its curators. They sought out and obtained the
most distinguished scholars of all nations, and to this end
spared neither pains nor expense. Diplomatic negotiation and
even princely mediation were often called in for the
acquisition of a professor. Hence it was said that it
surpassed all the universities of Europe in the number of its
scholars of renown. These scholars were treated with princely
honors. … The 'mechanicals' of Holland, as Elizabeth called
them, may not have paid the accustomed worship to rank, but to
genius and learning they were always willing to do homage.
Space would fail for even a brief account of the great men,
foreign and native, who illuminated Leyden with their
presence. … But it was not alone in scholarship and in
scientific research that the University of Leyden gave an
impetus to modern thought. Theological disputes were developed
there at times, little tempests which threatened destruction
to the institution, but they were of short duration. The right
of conscience was always respected, and in the main the right
of full and public discussion. … When it was settled that
dissenters could not be educated in the English universities,
they flocked to Leyden in great numbers, making that city,
next to Edinburgh, their chief resort. Eleven years after the
opening of the University of Leyden, the Estates of democratic
Friesland, amid the din of war, founded the University of
Franeker, an institution which was to become famous as the
home of Arminius. … Both of these universities were
perpetually endowed with the proceeds of the ecclesiastical
property which had been confiscated during the progress of the
war."
_D. Campbell,
The Puritan in Holland, England, and America,
chapters 2, 20, and 3._
EDUCATION:
England.
"In contemplating the events of the fifteenth and sixteenth
centuries, in their influence on English civilisation, we are
reminded once more of the futility of certain modern
aspirations. No amount of University Commissions, nor of
well-meant reforms, will change the nature of Englishmen. It
is impossible, by distributions of University prizes and
professorships, to attract into the career of letters that
proportion of industry and ingenuity which, in Germany for
example, is devoted to the scholastic life.
{707}
Politics, trade, law, sport, religion, will claim their own in
England, just as they did at the Revival of Letters. The
illustrious century which Italy employed in unburying,
appropriating, and enjoying the treasures of Greek literature
and art, our fathers gave, in England, to dynastic and
constitutional squabbles, and to religious broils. The
Renaissance in England, and chiefly in Oxford, was like a
bitter and changeful spring. There was an hour of genial
warmth, there breathed a wind from the south, in the lifetime
of Chaucer; then came frosts and storms; again the brief
sunshine of court favour shone on literature for a while, when
Henry VIII. encouraged study, and Wolsey and Fox founded
Christ Church and Corpus Christi College, once more the bad
days of religious strife returned, and the promise of learning
was destroyed. Thus the chief result of the awakening thought
of the fourteenth century in England was not a lively delight
in literature, but the appearance of the Lollards. The
intensely practical genius of our race turned, not to letters,
but to questions about the soul and its future, about property
and its distribution. The Lollards were put down in Oxford;
'the tares were weeded out' by the House of Lancaster, and in
the process the germs of free thought, of originality, and of
a rational education, were destroyed. 'Wyclevism did domineer
among us,' says Wood; and, in fact, the intellect of the
University was absorbed, like the intellect of France during
the heat of the Jansenist controversy, in defending or
assailing '267 damned conclusions,' drawn from the books of
Wyclife. The University 'lost many of her children through the
profession of Wyclevism.'"
_A. Lang,
Oxford,
chapter 3._
EDUCATION:
Colet and St. Paul's School.
Dr. John Colet, appointed Dean of St. Paul's in 1505,
"resolved, whilst living and in health, to devote his
patrimony to the foundation of a school in St. Paul's
Churchyard, wherein 153 children, without any restriction as
to nation or country, who could already read and write, and
were of 'good parts and capacities,' should receive a sound
Christian education. The 'Latin adulterate, which ignorant
blind fools brought into this world,' poisoning thereby 'the
old Latin speech, and the very Roman tongue used in the time
of Tully and Sallust, and Virgil and Terence, and learned by
St. Jerome, St. Ambrose, and St. Augustine,'—all that
'abusion which the later blind world brought in, and which may
rather be called Blotterature than Literature,'—should be
'utterly abanished and excluded' out of this school. The
children should be taught good literature, both Latin and
Greek, 'such authors that have with wisdom joined pure chaste
eloquence'—'specially Christian authors who wrote their
wisdom in clean and chaste Latin, whether in prose or verse;
for,' said Colet, 'my intent is by this school specially to
increase knowledge, and worshipping of God and Our Lord Jesus
Christ, and good Christian life and manners in the children.'
… The building consisted of one large room, divided into an
upper and lower school by a curtain, which could be drawn at
pleasure; and the charge of the two schools devolved upon a
high-master and a sub-master respectively. The forms were
arranged so as each to seat sixteen boys, and were provided
each with a raised desk, at which the head-boy sat as
president. The building also embraced an entrance-porch and a
little chapel for divine service. Dwelling-houses were
erected, adjoining the school, for the residence of the two
masters; and for their support, Colet obtained, in the spring
of 1510, a royal license to transfer to the Wardens and Guild
of Mercers in London, real property to the value of £53 per
annum (equivalent to at least £530 of present money). Of this
the head-master was to receive as his salary £35 (say £350)
and the under-master £18 (say £180) per annum. Three or four
years after, Colet made provision for a chaplain to conduct
divine service in the chapel, and to instruct the children in
the Catechism, the Articles of the faith, and the Ten
Commandments,—in English; and ultimately, before his death,
he appears to have increased the amount of the whole endowment
to £122 (say £1,200) per annum. So that it, may be considered,
roughly, that the whole endowment, including the buildings,
cannot have represented a less sum than £30,000 or £40,000 of
present money. And if Colet thus sacrificed so much of his
private fortune to secure a liberal (and it must be conceded
his was a liberal) provision for the remuneration of the
masters who should educate his 153 boys, he must surely have
had deeply at heart the welfare of the boys themselves. And,
in truth, it was so. Colet was like a father to his
schoolboys. … It was not to be expected that he should find
the school-books of the old grammarians in any way adapted to
his purpose. So at once he set his learned friends to work to
provide him with new ones. The first thing wanted was a Latin
Grammar for beginners. Linacre undertook to provide this want,
and wrote with great pains and labour, a work in six books,
which afterwards came into general use. But when Colet saw it,
at the risk of displeasing his friend, he put it altogether
aside. It was too long and too learned for his 'little
beginners.' So he condensed within the compass of a few pages
two little treatises, an 'Accidence' and a 'Syntax,' in the
preface to the first of which occur the gentle words quoted
above. These little books, after receiving additions from the
hands of Erasmus, Lilly, and others, finally became generally
adopted and known as Lilly's Grammar. This rejection of his
Grammar seems to have been a sore point with Linacre, but
Erasmus told Colet not to be too much concerned about it. …
Erasmus, in the same letter in which he spoke of Linacre's
rejected Grammar … put on paper his notions of what a
schoolmaster ought to be, and the best method of teaching
boys, which he fancied Colet might not altogether approve, as
he was wont somewhat more to despise rhetoric than Erasmus
did. He stated his opinion that—'In order that the teacher
might be thoroughly up to his work, he should not merely be a
master of one particular branch of study. He should himself
have travelled through the whole circle of knowledge. In
philosophy he should have studied Plato and Aristotle,
Theophrastus and Plotinus; in Theology the Sacred Scriptures,
and after them Origen, Chrysostom, and Basil among the Greek
fathers, and Ambrose and Jerome among the Latin fathers; among
the poets, Homer and Ovid; in geography, which is very
important in the study of history, Pomponins Mela, Ptolemy,
Pliny, Strabo. He should know what ancient names of rivers,
mountains, countries, cities, answer to the modern ones; and
the same of trees, animals, instruments, clothes, and, gems,
with regard to which it is incredible how ignorant even
educated men are.
{708}
He should take note of little facts about agriculture,
architecture, military and culinary arts, mentioned by
different authors. He should be able to trace the origin of
words, their gradual corruption in the languages of
Constantinople, Italy, Spain, and France. Nothing should be
beneath his observation which can illustrate history or the
meaning of the poets. But you will say what a load you are
putting on the back of the poor teacher! It is so; but I
burden the one to relieve the many. I want the teacher to have
traversed the whole range of knowledge, that it may spare each
of his scholars doing it. A diligent and thoroughly competent
master might give boys a fair proficiency in both Latin and
Greek, in a shorter time and with less labour than the common
run of pedagogues take to teach their babble.' On receipt of
this … Colet wrote to Erasmus: … '"What! I shall not
approve!" So you say! What is there of Erasmus's that I do not
approve?'"
_F. Seebohm,
The Oxford Reformers,
chapter 6._
EDUCATION:
Ascham and "The Scholemaster."
Roger Ascham, the friend of Lady Jane Grey and the tutor of
Queen Elizabeth, was born in 1515, and died in 1568. "It was
partly with the view to the instruction of his own children,
that he commenced the 'Schole-master,' the work by which he is
most and best known, to which he did not live to set the last
hand. He communicated the design and import of the book in a
letter to Sturmius, in which he states, that not being able to
leave his sons a large fortune, he was resolved to provide
them with a preceptor, not one to be hired for a great sum of
money, but marked out at home with a homely pen. In the same
letter he gives his reasons for employing the English
language, the capabilities of which he clearly perceived and
candidly acknowledged, a high virtue for a man of that age,
who perhaps could have written Latin to his own satisfaction
much more easily than his native tongue. But though the
benefit of his own offspring might be his ultimate object, the
immediate occasion of the work was a conversation at Cecil's,
at which Sir Richard Sackville expressed great indignation at
the severities practiced at Eton and other great schools, so
that boys actually ran away for fear of merciless
flagellation. This led to the general subject of school
discipline, and the defects in the then established modes of
tuition. Ascham coinciding with the sentiments of the company,
and proceeding to explain his own views of improvement,
Sackville requested him to commit his opinions to paper and
the 'Schole-master' was the result. It was not published till
1670. … We … quote a few passages, which throw light upon
the author's good sense and good nature. To all violent
coercion, and extreme punishment, he was decidedly
opposed:—'I do agree,' says he, 'with all good school-masters
in all these points, to have children brought to good
perfectness in learning, to all honesty in manners; to have
all faults rightly amended, and every vice severely corrected,
but for the order and way that leadeth rightly to these
points, we somewhat differ.' 'Love is better than fear,
gentleness than beating, to bring up a child rightly in
learning.' 'I do assure you there is no such whetstone to
sharpen a good wit, and encourage a will to learning, as is
praise.'… 'The scholar is commonly beat for the making, when
the master were more worthy to be beat for the mending, or
rather marring, of the same; the master many times being as
ignorant as the child what to say properly and fitly to the
matter.' … This will I say, that even the wisest of your
great beaters do as oft punish nature as they do correct
faults. Yea many times the better nature is the sorer
punished. For if one by quickness of wit take his lesson
readily, another by hardness of wit taketh it not so speedily;
the first is always commended, the other is commonly punished,
when a wise school-master should rather discreetly consider
the right disposition of both their natures, and not so much
weigh what either of them is able to do, as what either of
them is likely to do hereafter. For this I know, not only by
reading of books in my study, but also by experience of life
abroad in the world, that those which be commonly the wisest,
the best learned, and best men also, when they be old, were
never commonly the quickest of wit when they were young. Quick
wits commonly be apt to take, unapt to keep. Some are more
quick to enter speedily than be able to pierce far, even like
unto oversharp tools, whose edges be very soon turned.'"
_H. Coleridge,
Biographia Borealis,
pages 328-330._
EDUCATION:
Jesuit Teaching and Schools.
"The education of youth is set forth in the Formula of
Approval granted by Paul III. in 1540," to the plans of
Ignatius Loyola for the foundation of the Society of Jesus,
"as the first duty embraced by the new Institute. … Although
the new religious were not at once able to begin the
establishment of colleges, yet the plan of those afterwards
founded, was gradually ripening in the sagacious mind of St.
Ignatius, who looked to these institutions as calculated to
oppose the surest bulwarks against the progress of heresy. The
first regular college of the Society was that established at
Gandia in 1546, through the zeal of St. Francis Borgia, third
General of the Society; and the regulations by which it was
governed, and which were embodied in the constitutions, were
extended to all the Jesuit colleges afterwards founded. The
studies were to include theology, both positive and
scholastic, as well as grammar, poetry, rhetoric, and
philosophy. The course of philosophy was to last three years,
that of theology four; and the Professors of Philosophy were
enjoined to treat their subject in such a way as to dispose
the mind for the study of theology, instead of setting up
faith and reason in opposition to one another. The theology of
St. Thomas, and the philosophy of Aristotle, were to be
followed, except on those points where the teaching of the
latter was opposed to the Catholic faith."
_A. T. Drane,
Christian Schools and Scholars,
page 708._
"As early as the middle of the sixteenth century … [the
Society of Jesus] had several colleges in France, particularly
those of Billom, Mauriac, Rodez, Tournon, and Pamiers. In 1561
it secured a footing in Paris, notwithstanding the resistance
of the Parliament, of the university, and of the bishops
themselves. A hundred years later it counted nearly fourteen
thousand pupils in the province of Paris alone. The college of
Clermont, in 1651, enrolled more than two thousand young men.
The middle and higher classes assured to the colleges of the
society an ever-increasing membership.
{709}
At the end of the seventeenth century, the Jesuits could
inscribe on the roll of honor of their classes a hundred
illustrious names, among others those of Condé and Luxembourg,
Fléchier and Bossuet, Lamoignon and Séguier, Descartes,
Comeille, and Moliere. In 1710 they controlled six hundred and
twelve colleges and a large number of universities. They were
the real masters of education, and they maintained this
educational supremacy till the end of the eighteenth century.
Voltaire said of these teachers: 'The Fathers taught me
nothing but Latin and nonsense.' But from the seventeenth
century, opinions are divided, and the encomiums of Bacon and
Descartes must be offset by the severe judgment of Leibnitz.
'In the matter of education, says this great philosopher, 'the
Jesuits have remained below mediocrity.' Directly to the
contrary, Bacon had written: 'As to whatever relates to the
instruction of the young, we must consult the schools of the
Jesuits, for there can be nothing that is better done.' … A
permanent and characteristic feature of the educational policy
of the Jesuits is, that, during the whole course of their
history, they have deliberately neglected and disdained
primary instruction. The earth is covered with their Latin
colleges; and wherever they have been able, they have put
their hands on the institutions for university education; but
in no instance have they founded a primary school. Even in
their establishment for secondary instruction, they entrust
the lower classes to teachers who do not belong to their
order, and reserve to themselves the direction of the higher
classes."
_G. Compayré,
History of Pedagogy,
pages 141-143._
See, also, JESUITS: A. D. 1540-1556.
"The Jesuits owed their success partly to the very narrow task
which they set themselves, little beyond the teaching of Latin
style, and partly to the careful training which they gave
their students, a training which often degenerated into mere
mechanical exercise. But the mainspring of their influence was
the manner in which they worked the dangerous force of
emulation. Those pupils who were most distinguished at the end
of each month received the rank of prætor, censor, and
decurion. The class was divided into two parts, called Romans
and Carthaginians, Greeks and Trojans. The students sat
opposite each other, the master in the middle, the walls were
hung with swords, spears and shields which the contending
parties carried off in triumph as the prize of victory. These
pupils' contests wasted a great deal of time. The Jesuits
established public school festivals, at which the pupils might
be exhibited, and the parents flattered. They made their own
school books, in which the requirements of good teaching were
not so important as the religious objects of the order. They
preferred extracts to whole authors; if they could not prune
the classics to their fancy they would not read them at all.
What judgment are we to pass on the Jesuit teaching as a
whole? It deserves praise on two accounts. First, it
maintained the dignity of literature in an age which was too
liable to be influenced by considerations of practical
utility. It maintained the study of Greek in France at a
higher level than the University, and resisted the assaults of
ignorant parents on the fortress of Hellenism. Secondly, it
seriously set itself to understand the nature and character of
the individual pupil, and to suit the manner of education to
the mind that was to receive it. Whatever may have been the
motives of Jesuits in gaining the affections, and securing the
devotion of the children under their charge; whether their
desire was to develop the individuality which they probed, or
to destroy it in its germ, and plant a new nature in its
place; it must be admitted that the loving care which they
spent upon their charge was a new departure in education, and
has become a part of every reasonable system since their time.
Here our praise must end. … They amused the mind instead of
strengthening it. They occupied in frivolities such as Latin
verses the years which they feared might otherwise be given to
reasoning and the acquisition of solid knowledge. …
Celebrated as the Jesuit schools have been, they have owed
much more to the fashion which filled them with promising
scholars, than to their own excellence in dealing with their
material. … They have never stood the test of modern
criticism. They have no place in a rational system of modern
education."
_O. Browning,
Introduction to the History of Educational Theories,
chapter 8._
EDUCATION: Modern: European Countries.
Austria.
"The annual appropriations passed by Parliament allow the
minister of public instruction $8,307,774 for all kinds of
public educational institutions, elementary and secondary
schools, universities, technical and art schools, museums, and
philanthropic institutions. Generally, this principle is
adhered to by the state, to subsidize the highest institutions
of learning most liberally, to share the cost of maintaining
secondary schools with church and community, and to leave the
burden of maintaining elementary schools almost entirely to
the local or communal authorities. … In the Austrian public
schools no distinctions are made with the pupils as regards
their religious confessions. The schools are open to all, and
are therefore common schools in the sense in which that term
is employed with us. In Prussia it is the policy of the
Government to separate the pupils of different religious
confessions in … elementary, but not to separate them in
secondary schools. In Austria and Hungary, special teachers of
religion for the elementary and secondary schools are
employed; in Prussia this is done only in secondary schools,
while religion is taught by the secular teachers in elementary
schools. This is a very vital difference, and shows how much
nearer the Austrian schools have come to our ideal of a common
school."
_United States Commissioner of Education,
Report, 1889-90,
pages 465-466._
EDUCATION: Modern: European Countries.
Belgium.
"The treaty of Paris, of March 30, 1814, fixed the boundaries
of the Netherlands, and united Holland and Belgium. In these
new circumstances, the system of public instruction became the
subject of much difficulty between the Calvinists of the
northern provinces and the Catholics of the southern. The
government therefore undertook itself to manage the
organization of the system of instruction in its three grades.
… William I. desired to free the Belgians from French
influence, and with this object adopted the injudicious
measure of attempting to force the Dutch language upon them.
He also endeavored to familiarize them with Protestant ideas,
and to this end determined to get the care of religious
instruction exclusively into the hands of the state. But the
clergy were energetic in asserting their rights; the boldness
of the Belgian deputies to the States-General increased daily;
and the project for a system of public and private instruction
which was laid before the second chamber on the 26th November,
1829, was very unfavorably received by the Catholics. The
government very honorably confessed its error by repealing the
obnoxious ordinances of 1825. But it was too late, and the
Belgian provinces were lost to Holland. On the 12th October,
1830, the provisory government repealed all laws restricting
the freedom of instruction, and the present system, in which
liberty of instruction and governmental aid and supervision
are recognized, commenced."
_Public Instruction in Belgium
(Barnard's American Journal of Education,
volume 8, pages 582-583)._
{710}
EDUCATION: Modern: European Countries.
Denmark.
"Denmark has long been noted for the excellence of her
schools. … The perfection and extension of the system of
popular instruction date from the beginning of the eighteenth
century, when Bishop Thestrup, of Aalberg, caused 6 parish
schools to be established in Copenhagen and when King
Frederick IV. (1699-1730) had 240 school-houses built. …
Christian VI. (17301746), … ordained in 1739 the
establishment of common or parish schools in every town and in
every larger village. The branches of instruction were to be
religion, reading, writing, and arithmetic. No one was to be
allowed to teach unless he had shown himself qualified to the
satisfaction of the clergyman of the parish. …. Many
difficulties, however (especially the objections of the landed
proprietors, who had their own schools on their estates),
hindered the free development of the common school system, and
it was not until 1814 that a new and more favorable era was
inaugurated by the law of July 29 of that year. According to
this law the general control of the schools is in the hands of
a minister of public instruction and subordinate
superintendents for the several departments of the kingdom."
_Education in Denmark
(United States Bureau of Education,
Circulars of Information, 1877, no. 2),
pages 40-41._
"With a population in 1890 of 2,185,157, the pupils enrolled
in city and rural schools in Denmark numbered 231,940, or
about 10 per cent. of the population receiving the foundation
of an education. In 1881 the illiterates to 100 recruits
numbered 0.36; in Sweden at that date, the per cent. was
0.39."
_United States Commissioner of Education,
Report, 1889-90,
page 523._
EDUCATION: Modern: European Countries.
England: Oxford and Cambridge.
"Oxford and Cambridge, as establishments for education,
consist of two parts—of the University proper, and of the
Colleges. The former, original and essential, is founded,
controlled, and privileged by public authority, for the
advantage of the nation. The latter, accessory and contingent,
are created, regulated, and endowed by private munificence,
for the interest of certain favored individuals. Time was,
when the Colleges did not exist, and the University was there;
and were the Colleges again abolished, the University would
remain entire. The former, founded solely for education,
exists only as it accomplishes the end of its institution; the
latter, founded principally for aliment and habitation, would
still exist, were all education abandoned within their walls.
The University, as a national establishment, is necessarily
open to the lieges in general; the Colleges, as private
institutions, might universally do, as some have actually
done—close their gates upon all, except their foundation
members. The Universities and Colleges are thus neither
identical, nor vicarious of each other. If the University
ceases to perform its functions, it ceases to exist; and the
privileges accorded by the nation to the system of public
education legally organized in the University, can not,
without the consent of the nation—far less without the
consent of the academical legislature—be lawfully transferred
to the system of private education precariously organized in
the Colleges, and over which neither the State nor the
University have any control. They have, however, been
unlawfully usurped. Through the suspension of the University,
and the usurpation of its functions and privileges by the
Collegial bodies, there has arisen the second of two systems,
diametrically opposite to each other.—The one, in which the
University was paramount, is ancient and statutory; the other,
in which the Colleges have the ascendant, is recent and
illegal.—In the former, all was subservient to public
utility, and the interests of science; in the latter, all is
sacrificed to private monopoly, and to the convenience of the
teacher. … In the original constitution of Oxford, as in
that of all the older Universities of the Parisian model, the
business of instruction was not confided to a special body of
privileged professors. The University was governed, the
University was taught, by the graduates at large. Professor,
Master, Doctor, were originally synonymous. Every graduate had
an equal right of teaching publicly in the University the
subjects competent to his faculty, and to the rank of his
degree; nay, every graduate incurred the obligation of
teaching publicly, for a certain period, the subjects of his
faculty, for such was the condition involved in the grant of
the degree itself."
_Sir William Hamilton,
Discussions on Philosophy and Literature, etc.: Education,
chapter 4._
EDUCATION: Modern: European Countries.
England: The "Great Public Schools."
What is a public school in England? "The question is one of
considerable difficulty. To some extent, however, the answer
has been furnished by the Royal Commission appointed in 1861
to inquire into the nature and application of the endowments
and revenues, and into the administration and management of
certain specified colleges and schools commonly known as the
Public Schools Commission. Nine are named in the Queen's
letter of appointment, viz., Eton, Winchester, Westminster,
the Charterhouse, St. Paul's, Merchant Taylors', Harrow,
Rugby, and Shrewsbury. The reasons probably which suggested
this selection were, that the nine named foundations had in
the course of centuries emerged from the mass of endowed
grammar-schools, and had made for themselves a position which
justified their being placed in a distinct category, and
classed as 'public schools.' It will be seen as we proceed
that all these nine have certain features in common,
distinguishing them from the ordinary grammar-schools which
exist in almost every country town in England. Many of these
latter are now waking up to the requirements of the new time
and following the example of their more illustrious sisters.
The most notable examples of this revival are such schools as
those at Sherborne, Giggleswick, and Tunbridge Wells, which,
while remodelling themselves on the lines laid down by the
Public Schools Commissioners, are to some extent providing a
training more adapted to the means and requirements of our
middle classes in the nineteenth century than can be found at
any of the nine public schools.
{711}
But twenty years ago the movement which has since made such
astonishing progress was scarcely felt in quiet country places
like these, and the old endowments were allowed to run to
waste in a fashion which is now scarcely credible. The same
impulse which has put new life into the endowed
grammar-schools throughout England has worked even more
remarkably in another direction. The Victorian age bids fair
to rival the Elizabethan in the number and importance of the
new schools which it has founded and will hand on to the
coming generation. Marlborough, Haileybury, Uppingham,
Rossall, Clifton, Cheltenham, Radley, Malvern, and Wellington
College, are nine schools which have taken their place in the
first rank. … In order, then, to get clear ideas on the
general question, we must keep these three classes of schools
in mind—the nine old foundations recognized in the first
instance by the Royal Commission of 1861; the old foundations
which have remained local grammar-schools until within the
last few years, but are now enlarging their bounds, conforming
more or less to the public-school system, and becoming
national institutions; and, lastly, the modern foundations
which started from the first as public schools, professing to
adapt themselves to the new circumstances and requirements of
modern English life. The public schools of England fall under
one or other of these categories. … We may now turn to the
historic side of the question, dealing first, as is due to
their importance, with the nine schools of our first category.
The oldest, and in some respects most famous of these, is
Winchester School, or, as it was named by its founder William
of Wykeham, the College of St. Mary of Winchester, founded in
1382. Its constitution still retains much of the impress left
on it by the great Bishop of the greatest Plantagenet King,
five centuries ago. Toward the end of the fourteenth century
Oxford was already the center of English education, but from
the want of grammar-schools boys went up by hundreds untaught
in the simplest rudiments of learning, and when there lived in
private hostels or lodging-houses, in a vast throng, under no
discipline, and exposed to many hardships and temptations. In
view of this state of things, William of Wykeham founded his
grammar-school at Winchester and his college at Oxford,
binding the two together, so that the school might send up
properly trained scholars to the university, where they would
be received at New College, in a suitable academical home,
which should in its turn furnish governors and masters for the
school. … Next in date comes the royal foundation of Eton,
or 'The College of the Blessed Mary of Eton, near Windsor.' It
was founded by Henry VI., A. D. 1446, upon the model of
Winchester, with a collegiate establishment of a provost, ten
fellows (reduced to seven in the reign of Edward IV.), seventy
scholars, and ten chaplains (now reduced to two; who are
called 'conducts'), and a head and lower master, ten lay
clerks, and twelve choristers. The provost and fellows are the
governing body, who appoint the head master. … Around this
center the great school, numbering now a thousand boys, has
gathered, the college, however, still retaining its own
separate organization and traditions. Besides the splendid
buildings and playing-fields at Eton, the college holds real
property of the yearly value of upward of £20,000, and forty'
livings ranging from £100 to £1,200 of yearly value. … The
school next in date stands out in sharp contrast to Winchester
and Eton. It is St. Paul's School, founded by Dean Colet. …
Shrewsbury School, which follows next in order of seniority,
claims a royal foundation, but is in reality the true child of
the town's folk. The dissolution of the monasteries destroyed
also the seminaries attached to many of them, to the great
injury of popular education. This was specially the case in
Shropshire, so in 1551 the bailiffs, burgesses, and
inhabitants of Shrewsbury and the neighborhood petitioned
Edward VI. for a grant of some portion of the estates of the
dissolved collegiate churches for the purpose of founding a
free school. The King consented, and granted to the
petitioners the appropriated tithes of several livings and a
charter, but died before the school was organized. It was in
abeyance during Mary's reign, but opened in the fourth year of
Elizabeth, 1562, by Thomas Aston. … We have now reached the
great group of Elizabethan schools, to which indeed Shrewsbury
may also be said to belong, as it was not opened until the
Queen had been three years on the throne. The two metropolitan
schools of Westminster and Merchant Taylors' were in fact
founded in 1560, two years before the opening of Shrewsbury.
Westminster as a royal foundation must take precedence. It is
a grammar-school attached by the Queen to the collegiate
church of St. Peter, commonly called Westminster Abbey, and
founded for the free education of forty scholars in Latin,
Greek, and Hebrew. The Queen, with characteristic thriftiness,
provided no endowment for her school, leaving the cost of
maintenance as a charge on the general revenues of the dean
and chapter, which indeed were, then as now, fully competent
to sustain the burden. … Merchant Taylors', the other
metropolitan school founded in 1560, owes its origin to Sir
Thomas White, a member of the Court of Assistants of the
company, and founder of St. John's College, Oxford. It was
probably his promise to connect the school with his college
which induced the Company to undertake the task. … Sir
Thomas White redeemed his promise by endowing the school with
thirty-seven fellowships at St. John's College. … Rugby, or
the free school of Lawrence Sheriff, follows next in order,
having been founded in 1567 by Lawrence Sheriff, grocer, and
citizen of London. His 'intent' (as the document expressing
his wishes is called) declares that his lands in Rugby and
Brownsover, and his 'third of a pasture-ground in Gray's Inn
Fields, called Conduit Close,' shall be applied to maintain a
free grammar school for the children of Rugby and Brownsover,
and the places adjoining, and four poor almsmen of the same
parishes. These estates, after providing a fair schoolhouse
and residences for the master and almsmen, at first produced a
rental of only £24 13s. 4d. In due time, however, Conduit
Close became a part of central London, and Rugby School the
owner of eight acres of houses in and about the present Lamb's
Conduit Street. The income of the whole trust property amounts
now to about £6,000, of which £255 is expended on the
maintenance of the twelve almsmen. … Harrow School was
founded in 1571, four years later than Rugby, by John Lyon, a
yeoman of the parish.
{712}
He was owner of certain small estates in and about Harrow and
Barnet, and of others at Paddington and Kilburn. All these he
devoted to public purposes, but unfortunately gave the former
for the perpetual education of the children and youth of the
parish, and the latter for the maintenance and repair of the
highways from Harrow and Edgeware to London. The present
yearly revenue of the school estates is barely over £1,000,
while that of the highway trust is nearly £4,000. But, though
the poorest in endowments, Harrow, from its nearness to
London, and consequent attractions for the classes who spend a
large portion of their year in the metropolis either in
attendance in Parliament, or for pleasure, has become the
rival of Eton as a fashionable school. … Last on the list of
the nine schools comes the Charterhouse (the Whitefriars of
Thackeray's novels). It may be fairly classed with the
Elizabethan schools, though actually founded in 1609, after
the accession of James I. In that year a substantial yeoman,
Thomas Sutton by name, purchased from Lord Suffolk the lately
dissolved Charterhouse, by Smithfield, and obtained letters
patent empowering him to found a hospital and school on the
old site."
_T. Hughes,
The Public Schools of England
(North American Review, April, 1879)._
EDUCATION: England
Fagging.
"In rougher days it was found, that in large schools the
stronger and larger boys reduced the smaller and weaker to the
condition of Helots. Here the authorities stepped in, and
despairing of eradicating the evil, took the power which mere
strength had won, and conferred it upon the seniors of the
school—the members, that is, of the highest form or forms. As
in those days, promotion was pretty much a matter of rotation,
everyone who remained his full time at the school, was pretty
sure to reach in time the dominant class, and the humblest fag
looked forward to the day when he would join the ranks of the
ruling aristocracy. Meantime he was no longer at the beck of
any stronger or ruder classfellow. His 'master' was in theory,
and often in practice, his best protector: he imposed upon him
very likely what may be called menial offices—made him carry
home his 'Musæ'—field for him at cricket—brush his coat; if
we are to believe school myths and traditions, black his
shoes, and even take the chill off his sheets. The boy,
how-ever, saw the son of a Howard or a Percy similarly
employed by his side, and in cheerfully submitting to an
ancient custom, he was but following out the tendencies of the
age and class to which he belonged. … The mere abolition of
the right of fagging, vague and undefined as were the duties
attached to it, would have been a loss rather than a gain to
the oppressed as a class. It would merely have substituted for
the existing law, imperfect and anomalous as that law might
be, the licence of brute force and the dominion of boyish
truculence. … Such was, more or less, the state of things
when he to whom English education owes so incalculable a debt,
was placed at the head of Rugby School. … It was hoped that
he who braved the anger of his order by his pamphlet on Church
Reform—at whose bold and uncompromising language bishops
stood aghast and courtly nobles remonstrated in vain—would
make short work of ancient saws and mediæval traditions—that
a revolution in school life was at hand. And they were not
mistaken. … What he did was to seize on the really valuable
part of the existing system—to inspire it with that new life,
and those loftier purposes, without which mere institutions,
great or small, must, sooner or later, wither away and perish.
His first step was to effect an important change in the actual
machinery of the school—one which, in itself, amounted to a
revolution. The highest form in the school was no longer open
to all whom a routine promotion might raise in course of time
to its level. Industry and talent as tested by careful
examinations (in the additional labour of which he himself
bore the heaviest burden), were the only qualifications
recognised. The new-modelled 'sixth form' were told, that the
privileges and powers which their predecessors had enjoyed for
ages were not to be wrested from them; but that they were to
be held for the common good, as the badges and instruments of
duties and responsibilities, such as anyone with less
confidence in those whom he addressed would have hesitated to
impose. They were told plainly that without their co-operation
there was no hope of keeping in check the evils inherent in a
society of boys. Tyranny, falsehood, drinking, party-spirit,
coarseness, selfishness—the evil spirits that infest
schools—these they heard Sunday after Sunday put in their
true light by a majestic voice and a manly presence, with
words, accents, and manner which would live in their memory
for years; but they were warned that, to exercise such
spirits, something more was needed than the watchfulness of
masters and the energy of their chief. They themselves must
use their large powers, entrusted to them in recognition of
the principle, or rather of the fact, that in a large society
of boys some must of necessity hold sway, to keep down, in
themselves and those about them, principles and practices
which are ever ready, like hideous weeds, to choke the growth
of all that is fair and noble in such institutions. Dr. Arnold
persevered in spite of opposition, obloquy, and
misrepresentation. … But he firmly established his system,
and his successors, men differing in training and temperament
from himself and from each other, have agreed in cordially
sustaining it. His pupils and theirs, men in very different
walks of life, filling honourable posts at the universities
and public schools, or ruling the millions of India, or
working among the blind and toiling multitudes of our great
towns, feel daily how much of their usefulness and power they
owe to the sense of high trust and high duty which they
imbibed at school."
_Our Public Schools—Their Discipline and Instruction
(Fraser's Magazine, volume 1, pages 407-409)._
EDUCATION: England: A. D. 1699-1870.
The rise of Elementary Schools.
"The recognition by the English State of its paramount duty in
aiding the work of national education is scarcely more than a
generation old. The recognition of the further and far more
extensive work of supplementing by State aid, or by State
agency, all deficiencies in the supply of schools, dates only
thirteen years back [to 1870]; while the equally pressing duty
of enforcing, by a universal law, the use of the opportunities
of education thus supplied, is a matter almost of yesterday.
The State has only slowly stepped into its proper place; more
slowly in the case of England than in the case of any other of
the leading European nations. … In 1699 the Society for the
Propagation of Christian Knowledge was founded, and by it
various schools were established throughout the country.
{713}
In 1782 Robert Raikes established his first Sunday school, and
in a few years the Union, of which he was the founder, had
under its control schools scattered all over the country. But
the most extensive efforts made for popular education were
those of Andrew Bell and Joseph Lancaster towards the close of
the eighteenth century. … They misconceived and misjudged
the extent of the work that had to be accomplished. They
became slaves to their system—that which was called the
Monitorial system … and by elevating it to undue importance
they did much to discredit the very work in which they were
engaged. … Amongst the Nonconformist followers of Lancaster
there arose the British and Foreign School Society; while by
those of Bell there was established, on the side representing
the Church, the National Society. The former became the
recognised agency of the Dissenters, the latter of the Church;
and through one or other of these channels State aid, when it
first began to flow, was obliged to take its course. … In
1802 the first Sir Robert Peel passed a Bill which restricted
children's labour in factories, and required that reading,
writing, and arithmetic should be taught to them during a part
of each day. This was the beginning of the factory
legislation. … In 1807 Mr. Whitebread introduced a Bill for
the establishment of parochial schools through the agency of
local vestries, who were empowered to draw on the rates for
the purpose. The House of Commons accepted the Bill, but it
was thrown out in the House of Lords. … The movement for a
State recognition of education was pressed more vigorously
when the fears and troubles of European war were clearing
away. It was in 1816 that Brougham obtained his Select
Committee for Inquiring into the Education of the Poor in the
Metropolis. … In 1820 Brougham introduced, on the basis of
his previous inquiries, an Education Bill. … By this Bill
the issue between the contending parties in the State, which
was henceforward destined to be the chief stumbling-block in
the way of a State education, was placed on a clear and
well-defined basis. … The Church was alarmed at anything
which seemed to trench upon what she naturally thought to be
her appointed task. The Dissenters dreaded what might add to
the impregnability of the Church's strongholds. … When the
beginning was actually made it came … as an almost unnoticed
proposal of the Executive. In 1832 the sum of £20,000 for
public education was placed in the estimates; it was passed by
the Committee of Supply; and the first step was taken on that
course from which the State has never since drawn back. No
legislation was necessary. … The next great step was taken
in 1839, when the annual vote was increased from £20,000 to
£30,000, and when a special department was created to
supervise the work. Hitherto grants had been administered by
the Treasury to meet a certain amount of local exertion, and
in general reliance upon vague assurances as to maintenance of
the schools by local promoters. … The conditions which were
soon found to be necessary as securities, either for
continuance or for efficiency, were not yet insisted upon. To
do this it was necessary to have a Department specially
devoted to this work; and the means adopted for creating such
a Department was one which had the advantage of requiring no
Act of Parliament. By an order in Council a Special Committee
of the Privy Council was established, and, in connection with
this Committee, a special staff of officers was engaged. The
same year saw the appointment of the first inspectors of
schools. It was thus that the Education Department was
constituted. The plan which the advisers of the Government in
this new attempt had most at heart was that of a Normal
Training College for teachers. … But it was surrounded with
so much matter for dispute, gathered during a generation of
contention, that the proposal all but wrecked the Government
of Lord Melbourne. The Church objected to the scheme. … In
the year 1844, after five years of the new administration, it
was possible to form some estimate, not only of the solid work
accomplished, but of the prospects of the immediate future.
… Between 1839 and 1844, under the action of the Committee
of Council, £170,000 of Imperial funds had been distributed to
meet £430,000 from local resources. In all, therefore, about
one million had been spent in little more than ten years. What
solid good had this accomplished? … According to a careful
and elaborate report in the year 1845, only about one in six,
even of the children at school, was found able to read the
Scriptures with any ease. Even for these the power of reading
often left them when they tried a secular book. Of reading
with intelligence there was hardly any; and about one-half of
the children who came to school left, it was calculated,
unable to read. Only about one child in four had mastered,
even in the most mechanical way, the art of writing. As
regards arithmetic, not two per cent. of the children had
advanced as far as the rule of three. … The teaching of the
schools was in the hands of men who had scarcely any training,
and who had often turned to the work because all other work
had turned away from them. Under them it was conducted upon
that monitorial system which was the inheritance from Dr.
Bell, the rival of Lancaster. The pupils were set to teach one
another. … The inquiries of the Committee of Council thus
gave the death-blow, in public estimation, to the once
highly-vaunted monitorial system. But how was it to be
replaced? The model of a better state of things was found in
the Dutch schools. There a selected number of the older
pupils, who intended to enter upon the profession of teachers,
were apprenticed, when they had reached the age of thirteen,
to the teacher. … After their apprenticeship they passed to
a Training College. … Accordingly, a new and important start
was made by the Department on the 25th of August 1846. … In
1851 twenty-five Training Colleges had been established; and
these had a sure supply of qualified recruits in the 6,000
pupil teachers who were by that time being trained to the
work. … The ten years between 1842 and 1852 saw the
Parliamentary grant raised from £40,000 to £160,000 a year,
with the certainty of a still further increase as the
augmentation grants to teachers and the stipends to pupil
teachers grew in number. Nearly 3,800 schools had been built
with Parliamentary aid, providing accommodation for no less
than 540,000 children. The State had contributed towards this
more than £400,000; and a total expenditure had been incurred
in providing schools of more than £1,000,000. … But the
system was as yet only tentative; and a mass of thorny
religious questions had to be faced before a really national
system could be established.
{714}
… All parties became convinced that the first step was to
inquire into the merits and defects of the existing system,
and on the basis of sound information to plan some method of
advance. Under this impression it was that the Commission on
Public Education, of which the Duke of Newcastle was chairman,
was appointed in 1858." The result of the Commission of 1858
was a revision of the educational Code which the Committee of
the Privy Council had formulated. The New Code proved
unsatisfactory in its working, and every year showed more
plainly the necessity of a fully organized system of national
education. "Out of the discussions there arose two societies,
which fairly expressed two different views. … The first of
these was the Education League, started at Birmingham in 1869.
… Its basis, shortly stated, was that of a compulsory system
of school provision, by local authorities through means of
local rates; the schools so provided to be at once free and
unsectarian. … In this programme the point which raised most
opposition was the unsectarian teaching. It was chiefly to
counteract this part of the League's objects that there was
formed the Education Union, which urged a universal system
based upon the old lines. … By common consent the time for a
settlement was now come. Some guarantee must be taken that the
whole edifice should not crumble to pieces; that for local
agencies there should be substituted local authorities; and
that the State should be supplied with some machinery whereby
the gaps in the work might be supplied. It was in this
position of opinion that Mr. Forster, as Vice-President,
introduced his Education Bill in 1870. … The measure passed
the House of Lords without any material alteration; and
finally became Law on the 9th of August 1870."
_R. Craik,
The State in its Relation to Education._
The schools to which the provisions of the Act of 1870
extends, and the regulations under which such schools are to
be conducted, are defined in the Act as follows: "Every
elementary school which is conducted in accordance with the
following regulations shall be a public elementary school
within the meaning of this Act; and every public elementary
school shall be conducted in accordance with the following
regulations (a copy of which regulations shall be
conspicuously put up in every such school); namely
(1.) It shall not be required, as a condition of any child
being admitted into or continuing in the school, that he shall
attend or abstain from attending any Sunday school, or any
place of religious worship, or that he shall attend any
religious observance or any instruction in religious subjects
in the school or elsewhere, from which observance or
instruction he may be withdrawn by his parent, or that he
shall, if withdrawn by his parent, attend the school on any
day exclusively set apart for religious observance by the
religious body to which his parent belongs:
(2.) The time or times during which any religious observance
is practised or instruction in religious subjects is given at
any meeting of the school shall be either at the beginning or
at the end or at the beginning and the end of such meeting,
and shall be inserted in a time-table to be approved by the
Education Department, and to be kept permanently and
conspicuously affixed in every school-room; and any scholar
may be withdrawn by his parent from such observance or
instruction without forfeiting any of the other benefits of
the school:
(3.) The school shall be open at all times to the inspection
of any of Her Majesty's inspectors, so, however, that it shall
be no part of the duties of such inspector to inquire into any
instruction in religious subjects given at such school, or to
examine any scholar therein in religious knowledge or in any
religious subject or book:
(4.) The school shall be conducted in accordance with the
conditions required to be fulfilled by an elementary school in
order to obtain an annual parliamentary grant."
_J. R. Rigg,
National Education,
appendix A._
"The new Act retained existing inspected schools, … it also
did away with all denominational classifications of schools
and with denominational inspection, treating all inspected
schools as equally belonging to a national system of schools
and under national inspection, the distinctions as to
inspectors and their provinces being henceforth purely
geographical. But the new Act no longer required that public
elementary schools established by voluntary agency and under
voluntary management should have in them any religious
character or element whatever, whether as belonging to a
Christian Church or denomination, or as connected with a
Christian philanthropic society, or as providing for the
reading of the Scriptures in the school. It was left open to
any party or any person to establish purely voluntary schools
if they thought fit. But, furthermore, the Act made provision
for an entirely new class of schools, to be established and
(in part) supported out of local rates, to be governed by
locally-elected School Boards, and to have just such and so
much religious instruction given in them as the governing
boards might think proper, at times preceding or following the
prescribed secular school hours, and under the protection of a
time-table Conscience Clause, as in the case of voluntary
schools, with this restriction only, that in these schools no
catechism or denominational religious formulary of any sort
was to be taught. The mode of electing members to the School
Boards was to be by what is called the cumulative vote—that
is, each elector was to have as many votes as there were
candidates, and these votes he could give all to one, or else
distribute among the candidates as he liked; and all
ratepayers were to be electors. … The new law … made a
clear separation, in one respect, between voluntary and Board
schools. Both were to stand equally in relation to the
National Education Department, under the Privy Council; but
the voluntary schools were to have nothing to do with local
rates or rate aid, nor Local Boards to have any control over
voluntary schools."
_J. H. Rigg,
National Education,
chapter 10._
"To sum up … in few words what may be set down as the chief
characteristics of our English system of Elementary Education,
I should say
(1) first, that whilst about 30 per cent. of our school
accommodation is under the control of school boards, the cost
of maintenance being borne in part by local rates as well as
by the Parliamentary grant, fully 70 per cent. is still in the
hands of voluntary school-managers, whose subscriptions take
the place of the rates levied by school boards.
(2) In case a deficiency in school accommodation is reported
in any school district, the Education Department have the
power to require that due provision shall be made for the same
within a limited time; the 'screw' to be applied to wilful
defaulters in a voluntary school district being the threat of
a board, and in a school board district the supercession of
the existing board by a new board, nominated by the
Department, and remunerated out of the local rates.
{715}
(3) Attendance is enforced everywhere by bye-laws, worked
either by the school board or by the School Attendance
Committee: and although these local authorities are often very
remiss in discharging their duties, and the magistrates not
seldom culpably lenient in dealing with cases brought before
them, there are plenty of districts in which regularity of
school attendance has been improved fully 10 per cent. in the
past two or three years. …
(4) The present provision for teachers, and the means in
existence for keeping up the supply, are eminently
satisfactory. Besides a large but somewhat diminishing body of
apprenticed pupil teachers, there is a very considerable and
rapidly increasing number of duly qualified assistants, and at
their head a large array of certificated teachers, whose ranks
are being replenished, chiefly from the Training Colleges, at
the rate of about 2,000 a year.
(5) The whole of the work done is examined and judged every
year by inspectors and inspectors' assistants organised in
districts each superintended by a senior inspector—the total
cost of this inspection for the present year being estimated
at about £150,000."
_Reverend H. Roe,
The English System of Elementary Education
(International Health Exhibition, London,
1884: Conference on Education, section A)._
"The result of the work of the Education Department is causing
a social revolution in England. If the character of the
teaching is too mechanical, if the chief aim of the teacher is
to earn as much money as possible for his managers, it must be
remembered that this cannot be done without at least giving
the pupil the ability to read and write. Of course the schools
are not nearly so good as the friends of true education wish.
Much remains to be done. … Free education will shortly be an
accomplished fact; the partial absorption of the voluntary
schools by the School Boards will necessarily follow, and
further facilitate the abolition of what have been the cause
of so much evil—result examinations, and 'grant payments.'
'Write "Grant factory" on three-fourths of our schools,' said
an educator to me. … The schools are known as
(1) Voluntary Schools, which have been built, and are partly
supported by voluntary subscriptions. These are under
denominational control.
(2) Board Schools: viz., schools built and supported by money
raised by local taxation, and controlled by elected School
Boards.
Out of 4,688,000 pupils in the elementary schools, 2,154,000
are in the schools known as Voluntary, provided by, and under
the control of the Church of England; 1,780,000 are in Board
Schools; 330,000 attend schools under the British School
Society, or other undenominational control; 248,000 are in
Roman Catholic schools; and 174,000 belong to Wesleyan
schools. The schools here spoken of correspond more nearly
than any other in England to the Public School of the United
States and Australia; but are in many respects very different,
chiefly from the fact that they are provided expressly for the
poor, and in many cases are attended by no other class."
_W. C. Grasby,
Teaching in Three Continents,
chapter 2._
EDUCATION: England: A. D. 1891.
Attainment of Free Education.
In 1891, a bill passed Parliament which aims at making the
elementary schools of the country free from the payment of
fees. The bill as explained in the House of Commons, "proposed
to give a grant of 10s. per head to each scholar in average
attendance between five and fourteen years of age, and as
regarded such children schools would either become wholly
free, or would continue to charge a fee reduced by the amount
of the grant, according as the fee at present charged did or
did not exceed 10s. When a school had become free it would
remain free, or when a fee was charged, the fee would remain
unaltered unless a change was required for the educational
benefit of the locality; and under this arrangement he
believed that two-thirds of the elementary schools in England
and Wales would become free. There would be no standard
limitations, but the grant would be restricted to schools
where the compulsory power came in, and as to the younger
children, it was proposed that in no case should the fee
charged exceed 2d." In a speech made at Birmingham on the free
education bill, Mr. Chamberlain discussed the opposition to it
made by those who wished to destroy the denominational
schools, and who objected to their participation in the
proposed extension of public support. "To destroy
denominational schools," he said, "was now an impossibility,
and nothing was more astonishing than the progress they had
made since the Education Act of 1870. He had thought, he said,
they would die out with the establishment of Board schools,
but he had been mistaken, for in the last twenty-three years
they had doubled their accommodation, and more than doubled
their subscription list. At the present time they supplied
accommodation for two-thirds of the children of England and
Wales. That being the case, to destroy voluntary schools—to
supply their places with Board schools, as the Daily News
cheerfully suggested—would be to involve a capital
expenditure of £50,000,000, and £5,000,000 extra yearly in
rates, But whether voluntary or denominational schools were
good or bad, their continued existence had nothing to do with
the question of free education, and ought to be kept quite
distinct from it. To make schools free was not to give one
penny extra to any denominational endowment. At the present
time the fee was a tax, and if the parents did not pay fees
they were brought before the magistrates, and if they still
did not pay they might be sent to gaol. The only thing the
Government proposed to do was not to alter the tax but to
alter the incidence. The same amount would be collected; it
would be paid by the same people, but it would be collected
from the whole nation out of the general taxation." The bill
was passed by the Commons July 8, and by the Lords on the 24th
of the same month. The free education proposals of the
Government are said to have been generally accepted throughout
the country by both Board and Voluntary schools.
_Annual Register, 1891,
pages 128 and 97, and part 2, page 51._
{716}
EDUCATION: France: A. D. 1565-1802.
The Jesuits.
Port Royal.
The Revolution.
Napoleon.
"The Jesuits invaded the province long ruled by the University
alone. By that adroit management of men for which they have
always been eminent, and by the more liberal spirit of their
methods, they outdid in popularity their superannuated rival.
Their first school at Paris was established in 1565, and in
1762, two years before their dissolution, they had eighty-six
colleges in France. They were followed by the Port Royalists,
the Benedictines, the Oratorians. The Port Royal schools [see
PORT ROYAL], from which perhaps a powerful influence upon
education might have been looked for, restricted this
influence by limiting very closely the number of their pupils.
Meanwhile the main funds and endowments for public education
in France were in the University's hands, and its
administration of these was as ineffective as its teaching.
… The University had originally, as sources of revenue, the
Post Office and the Messageries, or Office of Public
Conveyance; it had long since been obliged to abandon the Post
Office to Government, when in 1719 it gave up to the same
authority the privilege of the Messageries, receiving in
return from the State a yearly revenue of 150,000 livres. For
this payment, moreover, it undertook the obligation of making
the instruction in all its principal colleges gratuitous. Paid
or gratuitous, however, its instruction was quite inadequate
to the wants of the time, and when the Jesuits were expelled
from France in 1764, their establishments closed, and their
services as teachers lost, the void that was left was
strikingly apparent, and public attention began to be drawn to
it. It is well known how Rousseau among writers, and Turgot
among statesmen, busied themselves with schemes of education;
but the interest in the subject must have reached the whole
body of the community, for the instructions of all three
orders of the States General in 1789 are unanimous in
demanding the reform of education, and its establishment on a
proper footing. Then came the Revolution, and the work of
reform soon went swimmingly enough, so far as the abolition of
the old schools was concerned. In 1791 the colleges were all
placed under the control of the administrative authorities; in
1792 the jurisdiction of the University was abolished; in 1793
the property of the colleges was ordered to be sold, the
proceeds to be taken by the State; in September of the same
year the suppression of all the great public schools and of
all the University faculties was pronounced. For the work of
reconstruction Condorcet's memorable plan had in 1792 been
submitted to the Committee of Public Instruction appointed by
the Legislative Assembly. This plan proposed a secondary
school for every 4,000 inhabitants; for each department, a
departmental institute, or higher school; nine lycées, schools
carrying their studies yet higher than the departmental
institute, for the whole of France; and to crown the edifice,
a National Society of Sciences and Arts, corresponding in the
main with the present institute of France. The whole expense
of national instruction was to be borne by the State, and this
expense was estimated at 29,000,000 of francs. But 1792 and
1793 were years of furious agitation, when it was easier to
destroy than to build. Condorcet perished with the Girondists,
and the reconstruction of public education did not begin till
after the fall of Robespierre. The decrees of the Convention
for establishing the Normal School, the Polytechnic, the
School of Mines, and the écoles centrales, and then Daunou's
law in 1795, bore, however, many traces of Condorcet's design.
Daunou's law established primary schools, central schools,
special schools, and at the head of all the Institute of
France, this last a memorable and enduring creation, with
which the old French Academy became incorporated. By Daunou's
law, also, freedom was given to private persons to open
schools. The new legislation had many defects. … The
country, too, was not yet settled enough for its education to
organise itself successfully. The Normal School speedily broke
down; the central schools were established slowly and with
difficulty; in the course of the four years of the Directory
there were nominally instituted ninety·one of these schools,
but they never really worked. More was accomplished by private
schools, to which full freedom was given by the new
legislation, at the same time that an ample and open field lay
before them. They could not, however, suffice for the work,
and education was one of the matters for which Napoleon, when
he became Consul, had to provide. Foureroy's law, in 1802,
took as the basis of its school-system secondary schools,
whether established by the communes or by private individuals;
the Government undertook to aid these schools by grants for
buildings, for scholarships, and for gratuities to the
masters; it prescribed Latin, French, geography, history, and
mathematics as the instruction to be given in them. They were
placed under the superintendence of the prefects. To continue
and complete the secondary schools were instituted the
lyceums; here the instruction was to be Greek and Latin,
rhetoric, logic, literature, moral philosophy, and the
elements of the mathematical and physical sciences. The pupils
were to be of four kinds: boursiers nationaux, scholars
nominated to scholarships by the State; pupils from the
secondary schools, admitted as free scholars by competition;
paying boarders, and paying day-scholars."
_M. Arnold,
Schools and Universities on the Continent,
chapter 1._
EDUCATION: France: A. D. 1833-1889.
The present System of Public Instruction.
"The question of the education of youth is one of those in
which the struggle between the Catholic Church and the civil
power has been, and still is, hottest. It is also one of those
in which France, which for a long time had remained far in the
rear, has made most efforts, and achieved most progress in
these latter years. … Napoleon I. conceived education as a
means of disciplining minds and wills and moulding them into
conformity with the political system which he had put in
force; accordingly he gave the University the monopoly of
public education. Apart from the official system of teaching,
no competition was allowed except that specially authorised,
regulated, and controlled by the State itself. Religious
instruction found a place in the official programmes, and
members of the clergy were even called on to supply it, but
this instruction itself, and these priests themselves, were
under the authority of the State. Hence two results: on the
one hand the speedy impoverishment of University education,
… on the other hand, the incessant agitation of all those
who were prevented by the special organisation given to the
University from expounding their ideas or the faith that was
in them from the professorial chair. This agitation was begun
and carried on by the Catholic Church itself, as soon as it
felt more at liberty to let its ambitions be discerned.
{717}
On this point the Church met with the support of a good number
of Liberals, and it is in a great measure to its initiative
that are due the three important laws of 1833, 1850, and 1875,
which have respectively given to France freedom of primary
education, of secondary education, and finally that of higher
education; which have given, that is to say, the right to
everyone, under certain conditions of capacity and character,
to open private schools in competition with the three orders
of public schools. But the Church did not stop there. Hardly
had it insured liberty to its educational institutions—a
liberty by which all citizens might profit alike, but of which
its own strong organisation and powerful resources enabled it
more easily to take advantage—hardly was this result obtained
than the Church tried to lay hands on the University itself,
and to make its doctrines paramount there. … Thence arose a
movement hostile to the enterprises of the Church, which has
found expression since 1880 in a series of laws which Excluded
her little by little from the positions she had won, and only
left to her, as to all other citizens, the liberty to teach
apart from, and concurrently with, the State. The right to
confer degrees has been given back to the State alone; the
privilege of the 'letter of obedience' has been abolished;
religious teaching has been excluded from the primary schools;
and after having 'laicized,' as the French phrase is, the
curriculum, the effort was persistently made to 'laicize' the
staff. …. From the University point of view, the territory
of France is divided into seventeen academies, the chief towns
of which are Paris, Douai, Caen, Rennes, Poitiers, Bordeaux,
Toulouse, Montpellier, Aix, Grenoble, Chambéry, Lyons,
Besançon, Nancy, Dijon, Clermont, and Algiers. Each academy
has a rector at its head, who, under the authority of the
Minister of Public Instruction, is charged with the material
administration of higher and secondary education, and with the
methods of primary instruction in his district. The
administration of this last belongs to the prefect of each
department, assisted by an academy-inspector. In each of these
three successive stages—department, academy, and central
administration—is placed a council, possessing administrative
and disciplinary powers. The Departmental Council of Public
Instruction, which comprises six officials … forms a
disciplinary council for primary education, either public or
free (i. e., State or private). This council sees to the
application of programmes, lays down rules, and appoints one
or more delegates in each canton to superintend primary
schools. The Academic Council … performs similar functions
with regard to secondary and higher education. The Higher
Council of Public Instruction sits at Paris. It comprises
forty-four elected representatives of the three educational
orders, nine University officials, and four 'free'
schoolmasters appointed by the Minister, and is the
disciplinary court of appeal for the two preceding councils.
… Such is the framework, administrative as well as judicial,
in which education, whether public or free, lives and moves.
… Since 1882 Primary Education has been compulsory for all
children of both sexes, from the age of six to the end of the
thirteenth year, unless before reaching the latter age they
have been able to pass an examination, and to gain the
certificate of primary studies. To satisfy the law, the
child's name must be entered at a public or private school; he
may, however, continue to receive instruction at home, but in
this case, after he has reached the age of eight, he must be
examined every year before a State board. … At the age of
thirteen the child is set free from further teaching, whatever
may be the results of the education he has received. … In
public schools the course of instruction does not include, as
we have said, religious teaching; but one day in the week the
school must take a holiday, to allow parents to provide such
teaching for their children, if they wish to do so. The school
building cannot be used for that purpose. In private schools
religious instruction may be given, but this is optional. The
programme of primary education includes: moral and civic
instruction; reading, writing, French, geography and history
(particularly those of France); general notions of law and
science; the elements of drawing, modelling, and music; and
gymnastics. No person of either sex can become a teacher,
either public or private, unless he possesses the 'certificate
of capacity for primary instruction' given by a State board.
For the future—putting aside certain temporary
arrangements—no member of a religious community will be
eligible for the post of master in a public school. … As a
general rule, every commune is compelled to maintain a public
school, and, if it has more than 500 inhabitants, a second
school for girls only. … The sum total of the State's
expenses for primary education in 1887 is as high as
eighty-five million francs (£3,400,000), and that without
mentioning grants for school buildings, whereas in 1877 the
sum total was only twelve millions (£480,000). … From 1877
to 1886, the number of public schools rose from 61,000 to
66,500; that of the pupils from 4,200,000 to 4,500,000, with
96,600 masters and mistresses; that of training schools for
male teachers from 79 to 89, of training schools for female
teachers from 18 to 77, with 5,400 pupils (3,500 of them
women), and 1,200 masters. As to the results a single fact
will suffice. In these ten years, before the generations newly
called to military service have been able to profit fully by
the new state of things, the proportion of illiterate recruits
(which is annually made out directly after the lots are drawn)
has already fallen from 15 to 11 per cent."
_A. Lebon and P. Pelet,
France as it is,
chapter 5._
"In 1872, after the dreadful disaster of the war, Monsieur
Thiers, President of the Gouvernement de la Défense Nationale,
and Monsieur Jules Simon, Minister of Public Instruction, felt
that what was most important for the nation was a new system
of public instruction, and they set themselves the task of
determining the basis on which this new system was to be
established. In September, 1882, Monsieur Jules Simon issued a
memorable circular calling the attention of all the most
distinguished leaders of thought to some proposed plans. He
did not long remain in power, but in his retirement he wrote a
book entitled: 'Réforme de l'Enseignement Secondaire.'
Monsieur Bréal, who was commissioned to visit the schools of
Germany, soon after published another book which aroused new
enthusiasm in France. … From that day a complete educational
reform was decided on.
{718}
In 1872 we had at the Ministeré de l'Instruction Publique
three distinguished men: Monsieur Dumont for the Enseignement
Supérieur, one from whom we hoped much and whose early death
we had to mourn in 1884; Monsieur Zévort for the Enseignement
Secondaire, who also died ere the good seed which he had sown
had sprung up and borne fruit (1887); and Monsieur Buisson to
whose wisdom, zeal, and energy we owe most of the work of the
Enseignement Primaire. At their side, of maturer years than
they, stood Monsieur Gréard, Recteur de l'Académie de Paris.
… All the educationists of the first French Revolution had
insisted on the solidarity of the three orders of education;
maintaining that it was not possible to separate one from
another, and that there ought to be a close correspondence
between them. This principle lies at the root of the whole
system of French national instruction. Having established this
principle, the four leaders called upon all classes of
teachers to work with them, and professors who had devoted
their life to the promotion of superior instruction brought
their experience and their powers of organization to bear upon
schools for all classes, from the richest to the poorest. …
But to reform and to reconstruct a system of instruction is
not a small task. It is not easy to change at once the old
methods, to give a new spirit to the masters, to teach those
who think that what had been sufficient for them need not be
altered and is sufficient forever. However, we must say that
as soon as the French teachers heard of the great changes
which were about to take place, they were all anxious to rise
to the demands made on them, and were eager for advice and
help. Lectures on pedagogy and psychology were given to them
by the highest professors of philosophy, and these lessons
were so much appreciated that the attention of the University
of France was called to the necessity for creating at the
Sorbonne a special course of lectures on pedagogy. Eleven
hundred masters and mistresses attended them the first year
that they were inaugurated; from that time till now their
number has always been increasing. Now we have at the Sorbonne
a Chaire Magistrale and Conférences for the training of
masters and professors; and the faculties at Lyons, Bordeaux,
Nancy, and Montpellier have followed the example given at the
Sorbonne, Paris. … In 1878, the Musée Pedagogique was
founded; in 1882, began the publication of the Revue
Pedagogique and the Revue Internationale de l'Enseignement.
Four large volumes of the Dictionnaire de Pédagogie, each
containing about 3,000 closely printed pages, have also come
out under the editorship of Monsieur Buisson, all the work of
zealous teachers and educationists. In 1879 normal schools
were opened. Then in 1880 primary schools, and in 1882 we may
say that the Ecoles Maternelles and the Ecoles Enfantines were
created, so different are they from the infant schools or the
Salles d'Asile; in 1883 a new examination was established for
the Professorat and the Direction des Ecoles Normales, as well
as for the inspectors of primary instruction; and in July,
1889, the law about public and private teaching was
promulgated, perhaps one of the most important that has ever
been passed by the Republic."
_Mme. Th. Armagnac,
The Educational Renaissance of France
(Education, September, 1890)._
EDUCATION: France: A. D. 1890-1891.
Statistics.
The whole number of pupils registered in the primary,
elementary and superior schools, public and private, of France
and Algiers (excluding the "écoles maternelles") for the
school-year 1890-91, was 5,593,883; of which 4,384,905 were in
public schools (3,760,601, "laïque," and 624,304
"congréganiste"), and 1,208,978 in private schools (151,412
"laïques," and 1,057,566 "congréganiste"). Of 36,484
communes, 35,503 possessed a public school, and 875 were
joined for school purposes with another commune. The male
teachers employed in the elementary and superior public
schools numbered 28,657; female teachers, 24,273; total
52,930.
_Ministère de l'Instruction publique,
Résumé des états de situation de l'enseignement primaire
pour l'année scolaire 1890-1891._
EDUCATION:
Ireland.
"The present system of National Education in Ireland was
founded in 1831. In this year grants of public money for the
education of the poor were entrusted to the lord-lieutenant in
order that they might be applied to the education of the
people. This education was to be given to children of every
religious belief, and to be superintended by commissioners
appointed for the purpose. The great principle on which the
system was founded was that of 'united secular and separate
religious instruction.' No child should be required to attend
any religious instruction which should be contrary to the
wishes of his or her parents or guardians. Times were to be
set apart during which children were to have such religious
instruction as their parents might think proper. It was to be
the duty of the Commissioners to see that these principles
were carried out and not infringed on in any way. They had
also power to give or refuse money to those who applied for
aid to build schools. Schools are 'vested' and 'non-vested.'
Vested schools are those built by the Board of National
Education; non-vested schools are the ordinary schools, and
are managed by those who built them. If a committee of persons
build a school, it is looked on by the Board as the 'patron.'
If a landowner or private person builds a school, he is
regarded as the patron if he has no committee. The patron,
whether landlord or committee, has power to appoint or dismiss
a manager, who corresponds with the Board. The manager is also
responsible for the due or thorough observance of the laws and
rules. Teachers are paid by him after he certifies that the
laws have been kept, and gives the attendance for each
quarter. When an individual is patron, he may appoint himself
manager and thus fill both offices. … The teachers are paid
by salaries and by results fees. The Boards of Guardians have
power to contribute to these results fees. Some unions do so
and are called 'contributory.' School managers in Ireland are
nearly always clerics of some denomination. There are
sometimes, but very rarely, lay managers. … From the census
returns of 1881 it appears that but fifty-nine per cent. of
the people of Ireland are able to read and write, The greater
number of national schools through Ireland are what are
called 'unmixed,' that is, attended by children of one
denomination only. The rest of the schools are called 'mixed,'
that is, attended by children of different forms of religion.
The percentage of schools that show a 'mixed' attendance tends
to become smaller each year. … There are also twenty-nine
'model' schools in different parts of Ireland. These schools
are managed directly by the Board of National Education. …
{719}
According to the report of the Commissioners of National
Education for 1890, the 'percentage of average attendance to
the average number of children on the rolls of the schools was
but 59.0,' and the percentage of school attendance to the
estimated population of school age in Ireland would be less
than 50. Different reasons might be given for this small
percentage of attendance. The chief reasons are, first,
attendance at school not being compulsory, and next, education
not being free. … The pence paid for school fees in Ireland
may seem, to many people, a small matter. But in a country
like Ireland, where little money circulates, and a number of
the people are very poor, school pence are often not easily
found every week. In 1890, £104,550 4s. and 8d. was paid in
school fees, being an average of 4s. 32¾d. per unit of average
attendance."
_The Irish Peasant;
by a Guardian of the Poor,
chapter 8._
EDUCATION:
Norway.
"In 1739 the schools throughout the country were regulated by
a royal ordinance, but this paid so little regard to the
economical and physical condition of Norway that it had to be
altered and modified as early as 1741. Compulsory instruction,
however, had thus been adopted, securing to every child in the
country instruction in the Christian doctrine and in reading,
and this coercion was retained in all later laws. … Many
portions of the country are intersected by high mountains and
deep fiords, so that a small population is scattered over a
surface of several miles. In such localities the law has
established 'ambulatory schools,' whose teachers travel from
one farm to another, living with the different peasants.
Although this kind of instruction has often been most
incomplete and the teachers very mediocre, still educational
coercion has everywhere been in force, and Christian
instruction everywhere provided for the children. These
'ambulatory schools' formerly existed in large numbers, but
with the increase of wealth and population, and the growing
interest taken in education, their number has gradually
diminished, and that of fixed circle-schools augmented in the
same proportion."
_G. Gade,
Report on the Educational System of Norway
(United States Bureau of Education,
Circulars of Information, July, 1871)._
"School attendance is compulsory for at least 12 weeks each
year for all children in the country districts from 8 years of
age to confirmation, and from 7 years to confirmation in the
towns. According to the law of 1889, which in a measure only
emphasizes preceding laws, each school is to have the
necessary furnishings and all indispensable school material.
The Norwegians are so intent upon giving instruction to all
children that in case of poverty of the parents the
authorities furnish text-books and the necessary clothing, so
that school privileges may be accorded to all of school age."
_U. S. Commissioner of Education, Report, 1889-90,
page 513._
EDUCATION: Prussia: A. D. 1809.
Education and the liberation movement.
"The most important era in the history of public instruction
in Prussia, as well as in other parts of Germany, opens with
the efforts put forth by the king and people, to rescue the
kingdom from the yoke of Napoleon in 1809. In that year the
army was remodeled and every citizen converted into a soldier;
landed property was declared free of feudal service;
restrictions on freedom of trade were abolished, and the whole
state was reorganized. Great reliance was placed on infusing a
German spirit into the people by giving them freer access to
improved institutions of education from the common school to
the university. Under the councils of Hardenberg, Humboldt,
Stein, Altenstein, these reforms and improvements were
projected, carried on, and perfected in less than a single
generation. The movement in behalf of popular schools
commenced by inviting C. A. Zeller, of Wirtemberg, to Prussia.
Zeller was a young theologian, who had studied under
Pestalozzi in Switzerland, and was thoroughly imbued with the
method and spirit of his master. On his return he had convened
the school teachers of Wirtemberg in barns, for want of better
accommodations being allowed him, and inspired them with a
zeal for Pestalozzi's methods, and for a better education of
the whole people. On removing to Prussia he first took charge
of the seminary at Koenigsberg, soon after founded the
seminary at Karalene, and went about into different provinces
meeting with teachers, holding conferences, visiting schools,
and inspiring school officers with the right spirit. The next
step taken was to send a number of young men, mostly
theologians, to Pestalozzi's institution at Ifferten, to
acquire his method, and on their return to place them in new,
or reorganized teachers' seminaries. To these new agents in
school improvement were joined a large body of zealous
teachers, and patriotic and enlightened citizens, who, in ways
and methods of their own, labored incessantly to confirm the
Prussian state, by forming new organs for its internal life,
and new means of protection from foreign foes. They proved
themselves truly educators of the people. Although the
government thus not only encouraged, but directly aided in the
introduction of the methods of Pestalozzi into the public
schools of Prussia, still the school board in the different
provinces sustained and encouraged those who approved and
taught on different systems. … Music, which was one of
Pestalozzi's great instruments of culture, was made the
vehicle of patriotic songs, and through them the heart of all
Germany was moved to bitter hatred of the conqueror who had
desolated her fields and homes, and humbled the pride of her
monarchy. All these efforts for the improvement of elementary
education, accompanied by expensive modifications in the
establishments of secondary and superior education, were made
when the treasury was impoverished, and taxes the most
exorbitant in amount were levied on every province and commune
of the kingdom."
_H. Barnard,
National Education in Europe,
pages 83-84._
For this notable educational work begun in Prussia in 1809,
and which gave a new character to the nation, "the
Providential man appeared in Humboldt, as great a master of
the science and art of education as Scharnhorst was a master
of the organisation of war. Not only was he himself, as a
scholar and an investigator, on a level with the very first of
his age, not only had he lived with precisely those masters of
literature, Schiller and Goethe, who were most deliberate in
their self-culture, and have therefore left behind most
instruction on the higher parts of education, but he had been
specially intimate with F. A. Wolf. It is not generally known
in England that Wolf was not merely the greatest philologer
but also the greatest teacher and educationist of his time.
… Formed by such teachers, and supported by a more intense
belief in culture than almost any man of his time, Humboldt
began his work in April, 1809.
{720}
In primary education Fichte had already pointed
to Pestalozzi as the best guide. One of that reformer's
disciples, C. A. Zeller, was summoned to Königsberg to found a
normal school, while the reformer himself, in his weekly
educational journal, cheered fallen Prussia by his panegyric,
and wrote enthusiastically to Nicolovius pronouncing him and
his friends the salt and leaven of the earth that would soon
leaven the whole mass. It is related that in the many
difficulties which Zeller not unnaturally had to contend with,
the King's genuine benevolence, interest in practical
improvement, and strong family feeling, were of decisive use.
… The reform of the Gymnasia was also highly successful.
Süvern here was among the most active of those who worked
under Humboldt's direction. In deference to the authority of
Wolf the classics preserved their traditional position of
honour, and particular importance was attached to Greek. …
But it was on the highest department of education that
Humboldt left his mark most visibly. He founded the University
of Berlin; he gave to Europe a new seat of learning, which has
ever since stood on an equality with the very greatest of
those of which Europe boasted before. We are not indeed to
suppose that the idea of such a University sprang up for the
first time at this moment, or in the brain of Humboldt. Among
all the losses which befell Prussia by the Peace of Tilsit
none was felt more bitterly than the loss of the University of
Halle, where Wolf himself had made his fame. Immediately after
the blow fell, two of the Professors of Halle made their way
to Memel and laid before the King a proposal to establish a
High School at Berlin. This was on August 22nd, 1807. … On
September 4th came an Order of Cabinet, in which it was
declared to be one of the most important objects to compensate
the loss of Halle. It was added that neither of the two
Universities which remained to Prussia, those of Königsberg
and Frankfurt-on-the-Oder, could be made to supply the place
of Halle, Königsberg being too remote from the seat of
Government and Frankfurt not sufficiently provided with means.
At Berlin a University could best, and at least expense, be
established. Accordingly all funds which had hitherto gone to
Halle were to go for the future to Berlin, and assurances were
to be given to the expelled Professors which might prevent
their talents being lost to the country. A University is not
founded in a day, and accordingly while Stein held office the
design did not pass beyond the stage of discussion. …
Humboldt sent in his Report on May 12, 1809, and on August
16th followed the Order of Cabinet assigning to the new
University, along with the Academies of Science and Art, an
annual dotation of 150,000 thalers, and the Palace of Prince
Henry as its residence. During the rest of his term of office
Humboldt was occupied in negotiations with eminent men of
science all over Germany, whose services he hoped to procure.
He was certainly not unsuccessful. He secured Fichte for
Philosophy; Schleiermacher, De Wette, and Marheineke for
Theology; Savigny and Schmalz for Jurisprudence; Friedländer,
Kohlrausch, Hufeland, and Reil for Medicine; Wolf, Buttmann,
Böckh, Heindorf, and Spalding for the Study of Antiquity;
Niebuhr and Rühs for History; Tralles for Mathematics (Gauss
refused the invitation). The University was opened at
Michaelmas of 1810, and as the first result of it the first
volume of Niebuhr's Roman History, opening so vast a field of
historical speculation, was published in 1811. … Altogether
in that period of German history the relations of literature,
or rather culture in general, to politics are remarkable and
exceptional. There had been a most extraordinary intellectual
movement, a great outpouring of genius, and yet this had taken
place not, as according to some current theories it ought to
have done, in the bosom of political liberty, but in a country
where liberty was unknown. And as it was not the effect, so
the new literature did not seem disposed to become the cause,
of liberty. Not only was it careless of internal liberty, but
it was actually indifferent to national independence. The
golden age of German literature is the very period when
Germany was conquered by France. … So far literature and
culture seemed a doubtful benefit, and might almost be
compared to some pernicious drug, which should have the power
to make men forget their country and their duties. Not
unreasonably did Friedrich Perthes console himself for the
disasters of Germany by reflecting that at least they had
brought to an end 'the paper time,' the fool's paradise of a
life made up of nothing more substantial than literature. In
Humboldt's reform we have the compensation for all this. Here
while on the one hand we see the grand spectacle of a nation
in the last extremity refusing to part with the treasures of
its higher life, on the other hand that higher life is no
longer unnaturally divorced from political life. It is prized
as one of the bulwarks of the State, as a kind of spiritual
weapon by which the enemy may be resisted. And in the new and
public-spirited generation of thinkers, of which Fichte and
Sehleiermacher were the principal representatives, culture
returns to politics the honour that has been done to it. …
In Humboldt and his great achievements of 1809, 1810, meet and
are reconciled the two views of life which found their most
extreme representatives in Goethe and Stein."
_J. R. Seeley,
Life and Times of Stein,
part 6, chapter 3 (volume 2)._
EDUCATION: Prussia: A. D. 1874.
The Educational Administration.
"There is no organic school-law in Prussia, … though
sketches and projects of such a law have more than once been
prepared. But at present the public control of the higher
schools is exercised through administrative orders and
instructions, like the minutes of our Committee of Council on
Education. But the administrative authority has in Prussia a
very different basis for its operations from that which it has
in England, and a much firmer one. It has for its basis these
articles of the Allgemeine Landrecht, or common law of
Prussia, which was drawn up in writing in Frederick the
Great's reign, and promulgated in 1794, in the reign of his
successor:—'Schools and universities are State institutions,
having for their object the instruction of youth in useful and
scientific knowledge. Such establishments are to be instituted
only with the State's previous knowledge and consent. All
public schools and public establishments of education are
under the State's supervision, and must at all times submit
themselves to its examinations and inspections.
{721}
Whenever the appointment of teachers is not by virtue of the
foundation or of a special privilege vested in certain persons
or corporations, it belongs to the State. Even where the
immediate supervision of such schools and the appointment of
their teachers is committed to certain private persons or
corporations, new teachers cannot be appointed, and important
changes in the constitution and teaching of the school cannot
be adopted without the previous knowledge or consent of the
provincial school authorities. The teachers in the gymnasiums
and other higher schools have the character of State
functionaries.' … It would be a mistake to suppose that the
State in Prussia shows a grasping and centralising spirit in
dealing with education; on the contrary, it makes the
administration of it as local as it possibly can; but it takes
care that education shall not be left to the chapter of
accidents. … Prussia is now divided into eight provinces,
and these eight provinces are again divided into twenty-six
governmental districts, or Regierungen. There is a Provincial
School Board (Provinzial-Schulcollegium) in the chief town of
each of the eight provinces, and a Governmental District Board
in that of each of the twenty-six Regierungen. In general, the
State's relations with the higher class of secondary schools
are exercised through the Provincial Board; its relations with
the lower class of them, and with the primary schools, through
the District Board. In Berlin, the relations with these also
are managed by the Provincial Board. A
Provinzial-Schulcollegium has for its president the High
President of the province; for its director the vice-president
of that governmental district which happens to have for its
centre the provincial capital. The Board has two or three
other members, of whom, in general, one is a Catholic and one
is a Protestant; and one is always a man practically
conversant with school matters. The District Board has in the
provincial capitals the same president and director as the
Provincial Board; in the other centres of Regierungen it has
for its president the President of the Regierung, and three or
four members selected on the same principle as the members of
the Provincial Board. The provincial State authority,
therefore, is, in general, for gymnasiums, the larger
progymnasiums, and Realschulen of the first rank, the
Provincial School Board; for the smaller progymnasiums,
Realschulen of the second rank, the higher Burgher Schools,
and the primary schools of all kinds, the Governmental
District Board. Both boards are in continual communication
with the Educational Minister at Berlin. … Besides the
central and provincial administration there is a local or
municipal administration for schools that are not Crown
patronage schools. … In most towns the local authority for
schools of municipal patronage is the town magistracy,
assisted by a Stadtschulrath; sometimes the local authority is
a Curntorium or Schulcommission."
_M. Arnold,
Higher Schools and Universities in Germany,
chapter 3._
"The secondary school differs from the elementary schools by a
course of instruction going beyond the immediate demands of
every-day life; from the special school, by the more general
character of the courses of instruction; from the university,
by its preparatory character. It has the special aim to give
that sound basis of scientific and literary education which
enables a man to participate in solving the higher problems of
life in church, state, and society, In accordance with their
historical development, two directions can be clearly traced,
viz., the gymnasium and the real-school: the former comprising
gymnasia and pro-gymnasia; and the latter real-schools of the
first class, real-schools of the second class, and higher
burgher-schools."
_History of Secondary Instruction in Germany
(U. S. Bureau of Education, Circulars of Information,
1874, number 3), page 41._
"The name gymnasium came into use as early as the sixteenth
century. The ministerial decree of the 12th of November, 1812,
ordered that all learned school institutions, such as lyceums,
pedagogiums, collegiums, Latin schools, etc., should bear the
name gymnasium. A gymnasium is and has long been a classical
school."
_U. S. Commissioner of Education, Report, 1889-90, page 318._
ALSO IN: _V. Cousin, Report on the state of
public instruction in Prussia._
EDUCATION: Prussia: A. D. 1885-1889.
The Elementary School-System.
"The New Yorker, anxious for a high degree of perfection in
the elementary schools of his State, must be struck forcibly
by the following merits of the Elementary School System of
Prussia. …
1. Compulsory education laws, necessitating a full and regular
attendance of the children of school age.
2. Official courses of study fixing the work to be
accomplished in each of the different grades of schools.
Uniformity is thus secured in the work done in all schools of
the same class.
3. Definite qualifications and experience in teaching for
eligibility to the office of school commissioner.
4. Provisions elevating teaching to the dignity of a
profession and making the tenure of office secure.
5. Trained teachers in rural as well as city districts and a
school year of at least forty weeks.
6. General supervision of instruction for children of school
age in private schools and families, including the
qualifications of instructors. …
Every Prussian child between the ages of 6 and 14 must, except
in cases of severe illness or other extraordinary cause, be
present at every session of the school he attends. The lists
of the children of school age, in charge of the local police
(in rural districts the Burgermeister), are kept so carefully
that it is impossible to escape the provisions of the
compulsory education laws, as much so as it is to evade the
military service. Dispensations amounting to more than four
weeks in the school year are never given to children under 12
years of age, and to them only when sickness in the family or
other unusual cause make it advisable. … In order to
understand the qualifications required of school commissioners
(Kreisschulinspektoren) in Prussia, let us review briefly the
requirements of male teachers.
1. Elementary schools. It may be stated at the outset that
almost all the male elementary school teachers are normal
school graduates. To insure similarity in training and a
thorough knowledge of character, few foreigners and few beside
normal school (Schullehrer-Seminar) graduates are admitted to
the male teaching force. From 6 to 14 the would-be teacher has
attended, let us suppose, an elementary school. He must then
absolve the three years' course laid down for the preparatory
schools. … He is now ready for the normal school. At the
close of a three years' course at the normal school he is
admitted to the first teachers' examination. If successful, he
must next practice as candidate or assistant teacher not less
than two years and not more than five years before his
admission to the final test. … If a teacher fails to pass
the examination within five years, he is dropped.
{722}
2. Middle schools. For teachers of lower classes the same
requirements with the addition of ability to teach a foreign
tongue, or natural history in its broadest sense, and the
attainment of the mark 'good' in all subjects at the final
examination. … For higher classes, a special examination
provided for middle school teachers. … There is really no
gradation between elementary and middle schools. The latter
merely go on somewhat further with elementary school work,
introducing French, Latin and English.
3. High schools (Realschulen, Realgymnasien, Progymnasien and
Gymnasien). All high school teachers, except those engaged in
technical departments, must first absolve the nine years'
gymnasial course, which commences at the close of the third
school year.
Next comes the university course of three or four years. The
candidate is now ready for the State examination. The subjects
for this State examination … are divided into four classes:
1. The ancient languages and German;
2. Mathematics and natural sciences;
3. History and geography;
4. Religion and Hebrew.
At the close of one year's practice to test teaching capacity
he receives a second certificate and is thereupon engaged
provisionally. … The school commissioners … are either
former regular high school teachers, general doctors of
philosophy or more rarely theologians, or former normal school
teachers. All must have had practical experience in teaching.
… The work to be accomplished in each Prussian elementary
school is definitely laid down by law. Each school is not a
law unto itself as to what shall be done and when and how this
is to be done. I have learned by practical experience that the
work in ungraded schools compares most favorably with that of
graded schools."
_J. R. Parsons, Jr.,
Prussian Schools through American eyes,
chapter 1, sections 5-10._
Prussian elementary schools are now free. "In this respect
Prussia has passed through three stages. Under the first
elementary schools were entirely self-supporting; under the
second they received State aid, but were still largely
self-supporting; under the third, Laws of 1888 and 1889,
elementary schools were made free and the State pays a larger
proportion of the cost of maintenance. Districts must pay for
repairs, new buildings and cost of heating. If unwilling to
provide proper accommodations for the children of school age,
they can be forced by the government to do so. Poor districts
may receive special government aid to meet such expenses. …
The direct aim of the laws of June 14, 1888, and March 31,
1889, was to lighten the burden of local taxation for schools
for children of school age. These laws have had a beneficial
effect in increasing slightly the wages of teachers. Teachers'
salaries are still quite small in Prussia, particularly in the
case of females. Allowances are generally made for house-rent
and fuel. Teachers in rural districts are provided with a
house and garden. Their salaries are often not much more than
half those paid city teachers of the same grade, and yet, as
regards professional training and character of work, they are
fully equal to city teachers. … The average annual salary
received by teachers in Prussia in 1886 was $267.50. The
average for the same year in New York was $409.27. The
Prussian teacher, however, received fuel and dwelling free, in
addition to his regular salary. … In 1885 the population of
Prussia was 28,318,470, and the total cost of public education
per caput was $1,7717. Drs. Schneider and Petersilie of
Berlin, in 'Preussische Statistik 101,' published in 1889,
reckon the total cost for 1888, excluding army and navy
schools, at $50,192,857. … In Prussia, elementary
instruction is the first consideration. The resolution adopted
by the national assembly (Landtag) December 22, 1870, is a
good illustration of this. It was at the very crisis of the
Franco-German war, yet the Landtag called on the government to
increase the number of normal schools and the capacity of
those already existing, and 'thus to put an end to the
practice of filling up teachers' vacancies by appointing
unqualified individuals.'"
_J. R. Parsons, Jr.,
Prussian Schools through American eyes,
chapter 1, sections 15-17._
"Throughout Prussia there is now one school-room and one
teacher to 446 inhabitants and 78.8 children actually
attending school. This shows that there are far too few
teachers. But the government and the cities have recently
devoted considerable sums to the establishment of new places
for teachers, so that, in the year 1881, there were 10,000
more teachers working in the public schools than in 1873. The
salaries of the teachers were also raised. The average payment
in the country is 954 marks, in the cities 1,430 marks. …
The expense of maintaining the Prussian national schools
amounts annually to about 102,000,000 of marks, 43,000,000 of
which are paid by the cities. One hundred and ten colleges for
the training of teachers are now engaged in the education of
male and female instructors, with an attendance of 9,892
pupils; that is, there is one pupil to every 2,758
inhabitants. In the case of the female teachers only, a
considerable degree of assistance is rendered by private
institutions. … The intermediary schools established in
1872, and recently converted into the higher citizen schools,
form a transition from the national schools to the higher
schools. These teach religion, German, French, English,
history and geography, arithmetic and mathematics, natural
history and physics, writing, drawing, singing, and
gymnastics. The course embraces six years without Latin, with
the privilege of one year's service in the army instead of
three. Complementary to the national school is the finishing
school. There are a large number in Prussia, namely, 1,261
with 68,766 pupils: 617 with 10,395 in the country, and 644
with 58,371 in the cities. Of these 644,342 are obligatory by
local statutes, 302 are optional. Since the law of 1878
special care has been devoted to the compulsory education of
orphaned children. … The preparatory instruction of female
teachers leaves much to be desired."
_F. Kirchner,
Contemporary Educational Thought in Prussia
(Educational Review, May, 1891)._
"About 25 per cent. of all the teachers in public middle
schools are women, hence … women hold positions in these
schools more frequently than in the lower, the purely
elementary, schools of the kingdom. The greatest ratio of
women teachers in Prussia is found in private middle schools,
where 2,422 of 3,126 (or nearly 80 percent.) are women. … In
all the public schools of Prussia (elementary, middle, and
secondary) only 10,600 women teachers were employed [1887], or
14¼ per cent. of all the teachers in the kingdom. … Before
the public schools of the kingdom had the care and close
supervision on the part of the state which they have now, many
more private schools were in existence than at present. During
the last 25 years the private schools have not increased in
numbers, but perceptibly decreased."
_United States Commissioner of Education, Report, 1889-90,
pages 287-289._
{723}
EDUCATION:
Russia.
"After serfdom had been abolished, the Emperor Alexander II.
saw that the indispensable consequence of this great reform
must be a thorough reorganization of public instruction. In
1861 a committee was appointed to draw up the plan of a law.
In 1862 M. Taneef submitted to the Emperor a 'General plan for
the organization of popular education,' which contained some
very excellent points. The result was the General Regulations
of 1864, which are still in force. … The difficulties which
a complete reorganization of popular education meets in Russia
are enormous. They are principally caused by the manner in
which the inhabitants live, scattered over a large extent of
country, and by their extreme poverty. … The density of
population is so small that there are only 13.6 inhabitants to
one square kilometer (2.6 square kilometers to 1 square mile),
instead of 69 as in France. Under these circumstances only the
children from the center hamlet and those living-nearest to it
could attend school regularly, especially during the
winter-months. The remainder of the inhabitants would pay
their dues without having any benefit, which would necessarily
foster discontent. As Prince Gagarin says, 'It has, therefore,
not been possible to make education in Russia compulsory, as
in Germany, nor even to enforce the establishment of a school
in each community.' It is doubtless impossible at present to
introduce into Russia the educational systems of the western
countries."
_E. de Laveleye,
Progress of Education in Russia
(United States Bureau of Education,
Circulars of Information, 1875, number 3), pages 31-32._
EDUCATION:
Scotland.
"The existing system of education in Scotland is an outcome of
causes deeply involved in the political and religious history
of the country. … This system was preceded by a complicated
variety of educational agencies, of which the chief were
parish schools, founded upon a statute of 1646, which was
revived and made operative in 1696. Parish and burgh schools,
supported by local funds and by tuition fees, made up the
public provision for education. In addition there were schools
partly maintained by parliamentary grants, mission and
sessional schools maintained by the Established Church and the
Free Church, and other parochial and private schools. Parish
and burgh schools carried instruction to the level of the
universities, which were easily accessible to all classes. The
date of the passage of the 'Scotch Education Act' (1872) was
opportune for the organization of these various agencies into
a system maintained by the combined action of the Government
and local authorities. In framing the Scotch act care was
taken, as in framing the English act two years before, to
guard the rights of the Government with respect to funds
appropriated from the public treasury. At the same time equal
care was shown for the preservation of the Scotch ideal. This
was a broad and comprehensive ideal, embracing the different
grades of scholastic work. … This ideal differentiates the
Scotch act from the English act passed two years before. The
latter related to elementary schools exclusively; the former
has a wider scope, providing the foundations of a system of
graded schools correlated to the universities which lie beyond
its province. With respect to the interests of the Government,
the two acts are substantially the same. … For the general
direction of the system a Scotch educational department was
created, composed, like the English department, of lords of
the privy council, and having the same president. … The act
ordered every parent to secure the instruction of his children
between the ages of 5 and 13, or until a certificate of
exemption should be secured. Parents failing in this
obligation are subject to prosecution and penalty by fine or
imprisonment. The compulsory provision extends to blind
children. Parochial or burghal authorities were authorized to
pay the tuition fees of those children whose parents could not
meet the expenditure, a provision rendered unnecessary by the
recent remission of all fees. The Scotch act, by a sweeping
clause, made compulsory attendance universal; the English act
left the matter of compulsion to local managers. A subsequent
act (1878) fixed the standard of exemption in Scotland at the
fifth [grade, or year of study], which pupils should pass at
11 years of age. In 1883, the upper limit of compulsory
attendance in Scotland was raised to 14 years. … The
universities of Scotland have been more intimately related to
the life of the common people than those of any other country.
In this respect, even more if possible than in their
constitution, they present a marked contrast to the English
universities. To their democratic spirit may be traced many of
the characteristics which differentiate the Scotch people and
policies from those of England. To their widespread influence,
to the ambitions which they awakened, and the opportunities
which they brought within the reach of the whole body of
Scottish youth is due, in large measure, the independent and
honorable part that Scotland has played in the history of the
United Kingdom. This popular character of the universities has
been fostered by the curriculum of the common schools, by the
easy passage from the schools to the higher institutions; by
the inexpensive mode of student life in the university towns,
and by the great number of scholarship funds available for the
poor. These conditions, however, have not been without their
disadvantages. Of these, the chief are the low entrance
standards and the consequent forcing of preparatory
instruction upon the university professors. … As a result of
long-continued efforts a Scotch universities act was passed in
1889. This act provided for the reorganization of the four
universities; for the elevation of their standards; the
enrichment of their curricula, and the increase of their
resources. … The Scotch universities have taken part in the
popular movements of the last decade. They maintain local
examinations for secondary schools and students. St. Andrews
has been particularly active in promoting the higher education
of women, having instituted the special degree of L. L. A.
(lady literate in arts). Edinburgh also grants a certificate
in arts to women. Aberdeen has recently appointed a lecturer
on education, following thus the precedent set by Edinburgh
and St. Andrews. The four universities are united in a scheme
of university extension."
_United States Commissioner of Education, Report, 1889-90,
volume 1, pages 188-207._
{724}
EDUCATION:
Sweden.
"Sweden has two ancient and famous universities—Upsala and
Lund. That of Lund is in the south part of the kingdom, and
when founded was on Danish territory. The income from its
estates is about 176,000 rix-dollars ($46,315) per annum. It
also receives yearly aid from the state. In 1867 it had 75
professors and tutors, and 400 students. Upsala is the larger
university, located at the old town of that name—the ancient
capital of Sweden—an hour and a half by rail north of
Stockholm. It has 100 professors and tutors, and 1,449
students, an increase of 131 over the year 1869. … This
university had its beginning as an institution of learning as
far back as 1250. In 1438 it had one academic professorship,
and was dedicated as an university in 1477. Its principal
endowment was by Gustavus Adolphus in 1624, when he donated to
it all of the estate in lands that he possessed, amounting in
all to 300 farms."
_C. C. Andrews,
Report on the Educational System of Sweden
(United States Bureau of Education, Circulars
of Information, July, 1871)._
EDUCATION:
Switzerland.
"The influence of the Reformation, and, in the following age,
of the Jesuit reaction, gave to Switzerland, as to Germany,
its original and fundamental means and agencies of national
education, and impressed also upon the population a habit of
dutiful regard for schools and learning. It was not, however,
till forty years ago that the modern education of Switzerland
was organized. 'The great development of public education in
Switzerland,' to quote Mr. Kay, 'dates from 1832, after the
overthrow of the old oligarchical forms of cantonal government
and the establishment of the present democratic forms.'
Zürich, Lausanne, and Geneva take the lead in Switzerland as
centres of educational influence. The canton in which the work
of educational reform began was Zürich. … The instrument of
the reform, rather the revolution, was Scherr, a trained
school-teacher from Würtemberg, a teacher, in particular, of
deaf mutes to speak articulately. This man initiated in Zürich
the new scheme and work of education, and founded the first
Training College. He was looked upon by the oligarchs, partly
feudalists, and partly manufacturers, as a dangerous
revolutionist, and was exiled from Zürich. But now a monument
to his memory adorns the city. The work which he began could
not be suppressed or arrested. Zürich has ever since taken the
lead in education among the cantons of Switzerland. Derived
originally from Germany, the system is substantially identical
with that of Germany. … The principles and methods are
substantially alike throughout. There are, first, the communal
schools—these of course in largest number—one to every
village, even for every small hamlet, provided and maintained,
wholly or chiefly, by the commune; there are burgher schools
in towns, including elementary, real, and superior schools,
supported by the towns; there are cantonal schools—gymnasia
and industrial or technical schools—supported by the State,
that is, by the canton. There is often a Cantonal University.
There is of course a Cantonal Training School or College, and
there are institutes of various kinds. The Cantonal
Universities, however, are on a small and economical scale; as
yet there is no Federal University. School life in Switzerland
is very long, from six to fourteen or fifteen, and for all who
are to follow a profession, from fifteen to twenty-two."
_J. H. Rigg,
National Education,
chapter 4._
EDUCATION: Modern: Asiatic Countries.
China.
"Every step in the process of teaching is fixed by unalterable
usage. So much is this the case, that in describing one school
I describe all, and in tracing the steps of one student I
point out the course of all; for in China there are no new
methods or short roads. In other countries, a teacher, even in
the primary course, finds room for tact and originality. In
those who dislike study, a love of it is to be inspired by
making 'knowledge pleasant to the taste'; and the dull
apprehension is to be awakened by striking and apt
illustrations. … In China there is nothing of this. The land
of uniformity, all processes in arts and letters are as much
fixed by universal custom as is the cut of their garments or
the mode of wearing their hair. The pupils all tread the path
trodden by their ancestors of a thousand years ago, nor has it
grown smoother by the attrition of so many feet. The
undergraduate course may be divided into three stages, in each
of which there are two leading studies: In the first the
occupations of the student are committing to memory (not
reading) the canonical books and writing an infinitude of
diversely formed characters, as a manual exercise. In the
second, they are the translation of his text books (i. e.,
reading), and lessons in composition. In the third, they are
belles lettres and the composition of essays. Nothing could be
more dreary than the labors of the first stage. … Even the
stimulus of companionship in study is usually denied, the
advantages resulting from the formation of classes being as
little appreciated as those of other labor saving machinery.
Each pupil reads and writes alone, the penalty for failure
being so many blows with the ferule or kneeling for so many
minutes on the rough brick pavement which serves for a floor.
At this period fear is the strongest motive addressed to the
mind of the scholar. … This arctic winter of monotonous toil
once passed, a more auspicious season dawns on the youthful
understanding. The key of the cabala which he has been so long
and so blindly acquiring is put into his hands. He is
initiated in the translation and exposition of those sacred
books which he had previously stored away in his memory. …
The light however is let in but sparingly, as it were, through
chinks and rifts in the long dark passage. A simple character
here and there is explained, and then, it may be after the
lapse of a year or two, the teacher proceeds to the
explication of entire sentences. Now for the first time the
mind of the student begins to take in the thoughts of those he
has been taught to regard as the oracles of wisdom. … The
value of this exercise can hardly be overestimated. When
judiciously employed it does for the Chinese what translation
into and out of the dead languages of the west does for us. It
calls into play memory, judgment, taste, and gives him a
command of his own vernacular which, it is safe to assert, he
would never acquire in any other way. … The first step in
composition is the yoking together of double characters.
{725}
The second is the reduplication of these binary compounds and the
construction of parallels—an idea which runs so completely through
the whole of Chinese literature that the mind of the student
requires to be imbued with it at the very outset. This is the
way he begins: The teacher writes, 'wind blows,' the pupil
adds, 'rain falls'; the teacher writes, 'rivers are long,' the
pupil adds, 'seas are deep,' or 'mountains are high,' &c. From
the simple subject and predicate, which in their rude grammar
they describe as 'dead' and' living' characters, the teacher
conducts his pupil to more complex forms, in which qualifying
words and phrases are introduced. He gives as a model some
such phrase as 'The Emperor's grace is vast as heaven and
earth,' and the lad matches it by 'The Sovereign's favor is
profound as lake and sea.' These couplets often contain two
propositions in each member, accompanied by all the usual
modifying terms; and so exact is the symmetry required by the
rules of the art that not only must noun, verb, adjective, and
particle respond to each other with scrupulous exactness, but
the very tones of the characters are adjusted to each other
with the precision of music. Begun with the first strokes of
his untaught pencil, the student, whatever his proficiency,
never gets beyond the construction of parallels. When he
becomes a member of the institute or a minister of the
imperial cabinet, at classic festivals and social
entertainments, the composition of impromptu couplets, formed
on the old model, constitutes a favorite pastime. Reflecting a
poetic image from every syllable, or concealing the keen point
of a cutting epigram, they afford a fine vehicle for sallies
of wit; and poetical contests such as that of Melibœus and
Menalcas are in China matters of daily occurrence. If a
present is to be given, on the occasion of a marriage, a
birth-day, or any other remarkable occasion, nothing is deemed
so elegant or acceptable as a pair of scrolls inscribed with a
complimentary distich. When the novice is sufficiently
exercised in the 'parallels' for the idea of symmetry to have
become an instinct, he is permitted to advance to other
species of composition which afford freer scope for his
faculties. Such are the 'shotiah,' in which a single thought
is expanded in simple language, the 'lun,' the formal
discussion of a subject more or less extended, and epistles
addressed to imaginary persons and adapted to all conceivable
circumstances. In these last, the forms of the 'complete
letter writer' are copied with too much servility; but in the
other two, substance being deemed of more consequence than
form, the new fledged thought is permitted to essay its powers
and to expatiate with but little restraint. In the third
stage, composition is the leading object, reading being wholly
subsidiary. It takes for the most part the artificial form of
verse, and of a kind of prose called 'wen-chang,' which is, if
possible, still more artificial. The reading required embraces
mainly rhetorical models and sundry anthologies. History is
studied, but only that of China, and that only in compends;
not for its lessons of wisdom, but for the sake of the
allusions with which it enables a writer to embellish classic
essays. The same may be said of other studies; knowledge and
mental discipline are at a discount and style at a premium.
The goal of the long course, the flower and fruit of the whole
system, is the 'wen-chang '; for this alone can insure success
in the pubic examinations for the civil service, in which
students begin to adventure soon after entering on the third
stage of their preparatory course. … We hear it asserted
that 'education is universal in China; even coolies are taught
to read and write.' In one sense this is true, but not as we
understand the terms 'reading and writing.' In the
alphabetical vernaculars of the west, the ability to read and
write implies the ability to express one's thoughts by the pen
and to grasp the thoughts of others when so expressed. In
Chinese, and especially in the classical or book language, it
implies nothing of the sort. A shopkeeper may be able to write
the numbers and keep accounts without being able to write
anything else; and a lad who has attended school for several
years will pronounce the characters of an ordinary book with
faultless precision, yet not comprehend the meaning of a
single sentence. Of those who can read understandingly (and
nothing else ought to be called reading), the proportion is
greater in towns than in rural districts. But striking an
average, it does not, according to my observation, exceed one
in twenty for the male sex and one in ten thousand for the
female." The literary examinations, "coming down from the
past, with the accretions of many centuries, … have expanded
into a system whose machinery is as complex as its proportions
are enormous. Its ramifications extend to every district of
the empire; and it commands the services of district
magistrates, prefects, and other civil functionaries up to
governors and viceroys. These are all auxiliary to the regular
officers of the literary corporation. In each district there
are two resident examiners, with the title of professor, whose
duty it is to keep a register of all competing students and to
exercise them from time to time in order to stimulate their
efforts and keep them in preparation for the higher
examinations in which degrees are conferred. In each province
there is one chancellor or superintendent of instruction, who
holds office for three years, and is required to visit every
district and hold the customary examinations within that time,
conferring the first degree on a certain percentage of the
candidates. There are, moreover, two special examiners for
each province, generally members of the Hanlin, deputed from
the capital to conduct the great triennial examination and
confer the second degree. The regular degrees are three:
1st. 'Siu-tsai' or 'Budding talent.'
2d. 'Ku-jin' or 'Deserving of promotion.'
3d. 'Tsin-shi' or 'Fit for office.'
To which may be added, as a fourth degree, the Hanlin, or
member of the 'Forest of Pencils.' … The first degree only
is conferred by the provincial chancellor, and the happy
recipients, fifteen or twenty in each department, or 1 per
cent. of the candidates, are decorated with the insignia of
rank and admitted to the ground floor of the nine storied
pagoda. The trial for the second degree is held in the capital
of each province, by special commissioners, once in three years.
It consists of three sessions of three days each, making nine
days of almost continuous exertion—a strain to the mental and
physical powers, to which the infirm and aged frequently
succumb. In addition to composition in prose and verse, the
candidate is required to show his acquaintance with history,
(the history of China;) philosophy, criticism, and various
branches of archæology. Again 1 per cent. is decorated; but it
is not until the more fortunate among them succeed in passing
the metropolitan triennial that the meed of civil office is
certainly bestowed.
{726}
They are not, however, assigned to their respective offices
until they have gone through two special examinations within
the palace and in the presence of the emperor. On this
occasion the highest on the list is honored with the title of
'chuang yuen' or 'laureate,' a distinction so great that in
the last reign it was not thought unbefitting the daughter of
a 'chuang yuen' to be raised to the position of consort of
the Son of Heaven. A score of the best are admitted to
membership in the Academy, two or three score are attached to
it as pupils or probationers, and the rest drafted off to
official posts in the capital or in the provinces, the
humblest of which is supposed to compensate the occupant for
a life of penury and toil."
_Reverend W. A. P. Martin,
Report on the System of Public Instruction in China
(United States Bureau of Education,
Circulars of Information, 1877, number 1)._
ALSO IN:
_W. A. P. Martin,
The Chinese: their Education, &C._
EDUCATION:
Japan.
From the fourth to the eighth centuries of the Christian era,
"after the conquest of Corea by the Japanese emperor Jigo
Kogo, came letters, writing, books, literature, religion,
ethics, politics, medicine, arts, science, agriculture,
manufactures, and the varied appliances of civilization; and
with these entered thousands of immigrants from Corea and
China. Under the intellectual influence of Buddhism—the
powerful and aggressive faith that had already led captive the
half of Asia—of the Confucian ethics and philosophy, and
Chinese literature, the horizon of the Japanese mind was
immensely broadened. … In the time of the European 'dark
ages' the Japanese were enjoying what, in comparison, was a
high state of civilization. … Under the old regime of the
Sho-guns, all foreign ideas and influences were systematically
excluded, and the isolation of Japan from the rest of the
world was made the supreme policy of the government. Profound
peace lasted from the beginning of the seventeenth century to
1868. During this time, schools and colleges, literature and
learning, flourished. It was the period of scholastic, not of
creative, intellectual activity. The basis of education was
Chinese. What we consider the means of education, reading and
writing, were to them the ends. Of classified science there
was little or none. Mathematics was considered as fit only for
merchants and shop-keepers. No foreign languages were studied,
and their acquisition was forbidden. … There was no
department of education, though universities were established
at Kioto and Yedo, large schools in the daimio's capitals, and
innumerable private schools all over the country. Nine-tenths
of the people could read and write. Books were very numerous
and cheap. Circulating libraries existed in every city and
town. Literary clubs and associations for mutual improvement
were common even in country villages. Nevertheless, in
comparison with the ideal systems and practice of the
progressive men of New Japan, the old style was as different
from the present as the training of an English youth in
mediæval times is from that of a London or Oxford student of
the present day. Although an attempt to meet some of the
educational necessities arising from the altered conditions of
the national life were made under the Sho-gun's regime, yet
the first attempt at systematic work in the large cities was
made under the Mikado's government, and the idea of a new
national plan of education is theirs only. In 1871 the Mom Bu
Sho, or department of education, was formed, of which the high
counselor Oki, a man of indomitable vigor and perseverance,
was made head. … According to the scheme of national
education promulgated in 1872, the empire is divided into
eight Dai Gaku Ku, (Daigakku,) or great educational divisions.
In each of' these there is to be a university, normal school,
schools of foreign languages, high schools, and primary
schools. The total number of schools will number, it is
expected, over 55,000. Only in the higher schools is a foreign
language to be taught. In the lower schools the Japanese
learning and elementary science translated or adopted from
European or American text-books are to be taught. The general
system of instruction, methods, discipline, school-aids,
furniture, architecture, are to be largely adopted from
foreign models, and are now to a great extent in vogue
throughout the country."
_W. E. Griffis,
Education in Japan
(United States Bureau of Education,
Circulars of Information, 1875, number 2)._
EDUCATION: Modern: America. A. D. 1619-1819.
Virginia.
College of William and Mary.
"In 1619—one year before the Pilgrim Fathers came to the land
named New England by Captain John Smith—Sir Edwin Sandys,
president of the Virginia Company in old England, moved the
grant of ten thousand acres of land for the establishment of a
university at Henrico. The proposed grant, which was duly
made, included one thousand acres for an Indian college; the
remainder was to be 'the foundation of a seminary of learning
for the English.' The very same year the bishops of England,
at the suggestion of the King, raised the sum of fifteen
hundred pounds for the encouragement of Indian Education. …
Tenants were sent over to occupy the university lands, and Mr.
George Thorpe, a gentleman of His Majesty's Privy Chamber,
came over to be the superintendent of the university itself.
This first beginning of philanthropy toward the Indians and of
educational foundations for the Indians in America was
suspended by reason of the Indian massacre, in the spring of
1622, when Mr. Thorpe and three hundred and forty settlers,
including tenants of the university, were cut off by an
insurrection of savages. It was only two years after this
terrible catastrophe that the idea of a university in Virginia
was revived. Experience with treacherous Indians suggested
that the institution should be erected upon a secluded
sheltered site—an island in the Susquehanna River. … The
plan was broken off by the death of its chief advocate and
promoter, Mr. Edward Palmer. But the idea of a university for
Virginia was not lost. … In 1660, the colonial Assembly of
Virginia took into their own hands the project of founding
educational institutions within their borders. The motive of
the Virginians was precisely the same as that of the great and
general Court of Massachusetts, when it established Harvard
College, and grammar schools to fit youth 'for ye university.'
The Virginians voted 'that for the advance of learning,
education of youth, supply of the ministry, and promotion of
piety, there be land taken upon purchases for a college and
free schoole, and that there be, with as much speede as may be
convenient, housing erected thereon for entertainment of
students and schollers.'
{727}
It was also voted in 1660 that the various commissioners of
county courts take subscriptions on court days for the benefit
of the college, and that the commissioners send orders
throughout their respective counties to the vestrymen of all
the parishes for the purpose of raising money from such
inhabitants as 'have not already subscribed.' It appears from
the record of this legislation in Hening's Statutes of
Virginia that already in 1660, 'His Majestie's Governour,
Council of State, and Burgesses of the present grand Assembly
have severally subscribed severall considerable sumes of money
and quantityes of tobacco,' to be paid upon demand after a
place had been provided and built upon for educational
purposes. A petition was also recommended to Sir William
Berkeley, then governor of Virginia, that the King be
petitioned for letters patent authorizing collections from
'well disposed people in England for the erecting of colledges
and schooles in this countrye.' This action of the Virginians
in 1660 ought to be taken as much better evidence of an early
regard for education in that colony than the well-known saying
of Governor Berkeley would seem to indicate. In reply to an
inquiry by the lords commissioners of trades and plantations
respecting the progress of learning in the colony of Virginia,
Berkeley said, 'I thank God there are no free schools nor
printing, and I hope we shall not have these hundred years.'
This answer by a crusty old governor has been quoted perhaps
too often as an index of the real sentiments of colonial
Virginia toward the cause of education. Not only is the tone
of popular legislation entirely opposed to the current view,
but Berkeley's own acts should modify our judgment of his
words. He actually subscribed, with other gentlemen of the
colony, for 'a Colledge of students of the liberal arts and
sciences.' Undoubtedly Sir William did not believe in popular
education as it is now understood. If he had done so, he would
have been much in advance of his time. … Some writers would
have us believe that the college was actually planted as early
as 1661, but this is highly improbable. Early educational
enactments in Virginia were like many of those early towns—on
paper only. And yet the Virginians really meant to have both
towns and a college. In 1688-'89, twenty-five hundred pounds
were subscribed by a few wealthy gentlemen in the colony and
by their merchant friends in England toward the endowment of
the higher education. In 1691 the colonial Assembly sent the
Reverend James Blair, the commissary or representative of the
Bishop of London, back to England to secure a charter for the
proposed college. Virginia's agent went straight to Queen Mary
and explained the educational ambition of her colony in
America. The Queen favored the idea of a college, and William
wisely concurred. The royal pair agreed to allow two thousand
pounds out of the quit-rents of Virginia toward building the
college. … The English Government concluded to give not only
£2,000 in money, but also 20,000 acres of land, with a tax of
one penny on every pound of tobacco exported from Maryland and
Virginia, together with all fees and profits arising from the
office of surveyor-general, which were to be controlled by the
president and faculty of the college. They were authorized to
appoint special surveyors for the counties whenever the
governor and his council thought it necessary. These
privileges, granted by charter in 1693, were of great
significance in the economic history of Virginia. They brought
the entire land system of the colony into the hands of a
collegiate land office. Even after the Revolution, one-sixth
of the fees to all public surveyors continued to be paid into
the college treasury down to the year 1819, when this custom
was abolished."
_H. B. Adams,
The College of William and Mary
(Circulars of Information of the Bureau of Education,
1887, number 1)._
EDUCATION: Modern: America: A. D. 1635.
Massachusetts.
Boston Latin School.
"The Public Latin School of Boston enjoys the distinction of
being the oldest existing school within the bounds of the
United States. It was founded in the spring of 1635, thus
ante-dating Harvard College, and has been in continuous
existence ever since, with the interruption of a few months,
during the siege of Boston, 1775-1776." The two hundred and
fiftieth anniversary of the founding of the school was
celebrated April 23, 1885, on which occasion the Reverend Phillips
Brooks, D. D., delivered an address from which the following
passages are taken: "The colony under Winthrop arrived in the
Arabella and founded Boston in 1630. On the 4th of September,
1633, the Griffin brought John Cotton from the Lincolnshire
Boston, full of pious spirit and wise plans for the new colony
with which he had cast in his lot. It has been suggested that
possibly we owe to John Cotton the first suggestion of the
first town-school. … However this may be, here is the town
record of the 13th of the second month, 1635. It is forever
memorable, for it is the first chapter of our Book of Genesis,
the very cradle of all our race: 'At a general meeting upon
publique notice … it was then generally agreed upon that our
brother Philemon Pormort shall be entreated to become
scholemaster, for the teaching and nourtering of children
among us.' It was two hundred and fifty years ago to-day
[April 23, 1885] just nineteen years after the day when
William Shakespeare died, just seventy-one years after the day
when he was born. How simple that short record is, and how
unconscious that short view is of the future which is wrapped
up in it! Fifty-nine thousand children who crowd the Boston
public schools to-day—and who can count what thousands yet
unborn?—are to be heard crying out for life in the dry,
quaint words of that old vote. By it the first educational
institution, which was to have continuous existence in
America, and in it the public school system of the land, came
into being. Philemon Pormort, the first teacher of the Latin
School, is hardly more than a mere shadow of a name. It is not
even clear that he ever actually taught the school at all. A
few years later, with Mr. Wheelwright, after the Hutchinson
excitement, he disappears into the northern woods, and is one
of the founders of Exeter, in New Hampshire. There are rumors
that he came back to Boston and died here, but it is all very
uncertain. … The name 'free school' in those days seems to
have been used to characterize an institution which should not
be restricted to any class of children, and which should not
be dependent on the fluctuating attendance of scholars for its
support. It looked forward to ultimate endowment, like the
schools of England. The town set apart the rent of Deer
Island, and some of the other islands in the harbor, for its help.
{728}
All the great citizens, Governor Winthrop, Governor Vane, Mr.
Bellingham, and the rest, made generous contributions to it.
But it called, also, for support from those who sent their
children to it, and who were able to pay something; and it was
only of the Indian children that it was distinctly provided
that they should be 'taught gratis.' It was older than any of
the schools which, in a few years, grew up thick around it.
The same power which made it spring out of the soil was in all
the rich ground on which these colonists, unlike any other
colonists which the world has ever seen, had set their feet.
Roxbury had its school under the Apostle Eliot in 1645.
Cambridge was already provided before 1643. Charlestown did
not wait later than 1636. Salem and Ipswich were, both of
them, ready in 1637. Plymouth did not begin its system of
public instruction till 1663. It was in 1647 that the General
Court enacted that resolve which is the great charter of free
education in our Commonwealth, in whose preamble and ordinance
stand the immortal words: 'That learning may not be buried in
the grave of our fathers, in church and Commonwealth, the Lord
assisting our endeavors, it is therefore ordered that every
township in this jurisdiction, after the Lord hath increased
them to the number of fifty householders, shall then forthwith
appoint one within their town to teach all such children as
shall resort to him to write and read.' There can be no doubt,
then, of our priority. But mere priority is no great thing.
The real interest of the beginning of the school is the large
idea and scale on which it started. It taught the children,
little Indians and all, to read and write. But there seems
every reason to suppose that it taught also the Latin tongue,
and all that then was deemed the higher knowledge. It was the
town's only school till 1682."
_The Oldest School in America,
pages 5-24._
EDUCATION: A. D. 1636.
Massachusetts.
Harvard College.
"The first settlers in New England, recognizing the importance
of a higher education than could be given in the common
schools, began at once the founding of a university. The
avowed object of this university was the training of young men
for the ministry. Nothing could show clearer the spirit of
these early colonists. Though less than four thousand in
number, and scattered along the shores of Massachusetts Bay in
sixteen hamlets, they were, nevertheless, able to engage in
such an enterprise before adequate provision had been made for
food, raiment, shelter, a civil government, or divine worship;
at a time when soil and climate had disappointed them, and
their affairs were in a most critical condition; for, not only
were they called to face famine, disease, and death, but the
mother country and the surrounding savage tribes were
threatening them with war. … It was near the close of 1636,
a little more than six years after the landing of the
Puritans, when this first step was taken by the General Court
of the Massachusetts Colony. At this assembly, presided over
by Sir Henry Vane, governor of the colony, the General Court
agreed to give £400 (a munificent sum for the time) towards
the founding of a school or college, but left the question of
its location and building to be determined by the Court that
was to sit in September of the following year. This, it is
said, was the first assembly 'in which the people by their
representatives ever gave their own money to found a place of
education.' At the next Court it was decided to locate the
college at Newtown, or 'the New Towne,' and twelve of the
principal magistrates and ministers were chosen to carry out
this design. A few months later, they changed the name of the
town to Cambridge, not only to tell their posterity whence
they came, but also, as Quincy aptly says, to indicate 'the
high destiny to which they intended the institution should
aspire.' Another year, however, passed before the College was
organized. The impulse given to it then was due to aid which
came from so unexpected a quarter that it must have seemed to
the devout men of New England as a clear indication of the
divine favor. The Reverend John Harvard, a Non-conformist
minister, was graduated, in 1635, from the Puritan college of
Emmanuel, at Cambridge, England, and came, two years later, to
America and settled in Charlestown, where he immediately took
a prominent part in town affairs. His contemporaries gave him
the title of reverend, and he is said to have officiated
occasionally in Charlestown as 'minister of God's word.' One
has recently said of him that he was 'beloved and honored, a
well-trained and accomplished scholar of the type then
esteemed,' and that in the brief period of his life in America
—scarcely more than a year—he cemented more closely
friendships that had been begun in earlier years. The project
of a college was then engrossing the thought of these early
friends and doubtless he also became greatly interested in it.
Thus it happened that, when his health failed, through his own
love of learning and through sympathy with the project of his
daily associates, he determined to bequeath one-half of his
estate, probably about £800, besides his excellent library of
three hundred and twenty volumes, towards the endowment of the
college. This bequest rendered possible the immediate
organization of the college, which went into operation 'on the
footing of the ancient institutions of Europe,' and, out of
gratitude to Harvard, the General Court voted that the new
institution should bear his name."
_G. G. Bush,
Harvard,
pages 12-15._
ALSO IN:
_J. Quincy,
History of Harvard University._
_S. A. Eliot,
Sketch of the History of Harvard College._
EDUCATION: A. D. 1642-1732.
New England and New York.
Early Common Schools.
"New England early adopted, and has, with a single exception,
constantly maintained the principle that the public should
provide for the instruction of all the youth. That which
elsewhere, as will be found, was left to local provision, as
in New York; or to charity, as in Pennsylvania; or to parental
interest, as in Virginia, was in most parts of New England
early secured by law. … The act of 1642 in Massachusetts,
whose provisions were adopted in most of the adjacent
colonies, was admirable as a first legislative school law. It
was watchful of the neglect of parents, and looked well after
the ignorant and the indigent. But it neither made schooling
free, nor imposed a penalty for its neglect. … Schools were
largely maintained by rates, were free only to the
necessitous, and in not a few of the less populous districts
closed altogether or never opened. This led, five years later,
to more stringent legislation. … As suggesting the general
scope and tenor of the law, the following extract is made. …
{729}
'It is therefore ordered by this Court and authority thereof
that every township within this jurisdiction, after the Lord
hath increased them to the number of fifty householders, shall
then forthwith appoint one within their town to teach all such
children as shall resort to him, to write and read; whose
wages shall be paid, either by the parents or masters of such
children, or by the inhabitants in general, by way of supply,
as the major part of those who order the prudentials of the
town shall appoint; provided that those who send their
children be not oppressed by paying much more than they can
have them taught for in the adjoining towns. And it is further
ordered that where any town shall increase to the number of
one hundred families or house-holders, they shall set up a
grammar-school, the master thereof being able to instruct
youths so far as they may be fitted for the university; and if
any town neglect the performance hereof, above one year, then
every such town shall pay five pounds per annum to the next
such school, till they shall perform this order.' … Three
years after the law just cited Connecticut passed a very
similar one. … In Rhode Island there was no attempt at a
school system prior to the efforts of John Howland about 1790.
There were schools in both Providence and Newport; but the
colony was small (with a population of less than ten thousand
in 1700), broken into feeble settlements, and offering little
opportunity for organization. … It is claimed that, at the
surrender of the Dutch in New York (1664), so general was the
educational spirit, almost every town in the colony had its
regular school and more or less permanent teachers. After the
occupation of the province by the English, little attention
was given to education. … Thirteen years after the
surrender, a Latin school was opened in the city; but the
first serious attempt to provide regular schooling was in the
work of the 'Society for the Propagation of the Gospel' (1704)
in the founding of Trinity School. The society kept up an
efficient organization, for many years, and at the opening of
the Revolution had established and chiefly supported more than
twenty schools in the colony. About 1732, also, there was
established in New York city a school after the plan of the
Boston Latin School, free as that was free, and which became,
according to eminent authority, the germ of the later King's
(now Columbia) College."
_R. G. Boone,
Education in the United States,
chapter 3._
EDUCATION: A. D. 1683-1779. Pennsylvania.
Origin of the University of Pennsylvania.
"Education had not been over-looked in the policy of Penn. In
his Frame of Government we read: 'The governor and provincial
council shall erect and order all public schools, and
encourage and reward the authors of useful sciences and
laudable inventions, in the said province. … And … a
committee of manners, education and arts, that all wicked and
scandalous living may be prevented, and that youth may be
successively trained up in virtue and useful knowledge and
arts.' The first movement to establish an educational
institution of a high grade was in the action of the Executive
Council which proposed, November 17, 1683, 'That Care be Taken
about the Learning and Instruction of Youth, to wit: A School
of Arts and Sciences.' It was not until 1689, however, that
the 'Public Grammar School' was set up in Philadelphia. This
institution, founded upon the English idea of a 'free'
school,' was formally chartered in 1697 as the 'William Penn
Charter School.' It was intended as the head of a system of
schools for all, rather than a single school for a select few,
an idea which the founders of the Charitable School, fifty
years later, had also in mind—an idea which was never carried
out in the history of either institution. The failure of
Penn's scheme of government, and the turmoil during the early
part of the eighteenth century arising from the conflicts
between different political parties, for a time influenced
very decidedly educational zeal in the province. The
government, which at the outset had taken such high ground on
the subject, ceased to exert itself in behalf of education,
and the several religious denominations and the people
themselves in neighborhood organizations took up the burden
and planted schools as best they could throughout the growing
colony. … Feeling the importance for some provision to
supplement the education then given in the established
schools, Benjamin Franklin as early as 1743 drew up a proposal
for establishing an academy. … He secured the assistance of
a number of friends, many of them members of the famous Junto,
and then published his pamphlet entitled 'Proposals Relating
to the Education of Youth in Pennsylvania.' … On all sides
the paper met with great favor and generous support. The
result was the organization of a board of trustees, consisting
of 24 of those who had subscribed to the scheme of the
Academy, with Franklin as president. This body immediately set
about to realize the object of the pamphlet, and nourished by
subscriptions, lotteries, and gifts the Academy was placed in
a flourishing condition. … The Academy comprised three
schools, the Latin, the English, and the mathematical, over
each of which was placed a master, one of whom was the rector
of the institution. … The English School was neglected. The
other schools were favored, especially the Latin School. In
the eyes of Franklin and many of the supporters of the
Academy, the English School was the one of chief importance.
What we would call a 'starving out' process was begun by which
the English School was kept in a weak condition, most of the
funds going to the Latin School. … The success of the
Academy was so gratifying to all interested in it that it was
determined to apply for a charter. This was granted to the
trustees by Thomas and Richard Penn, the proprietors, on July
13, 1753. Desirous at the same time of enlarging the course of
instruction, the trustees elected Mr. William Smith teacher of
logic, rhetoric, natural and moral philosophy. Mr. Smith
accepted the position and entered upon his duties at the
Academy in May, 1754. The history of the institution from this
date, whether known as the Academy or the College, to 1779 is
the history of the life of William Smith."
_J. L. Stewart,
Historical Sketch of the University of Pennsylvania
(United States Bureau of Education,
Circular of Information, 1892, number 2:
Benjamin Franklin and the University, chapter 4)._
{730}
EDUCATION: A. D. 1701-1717.
Connecticut.
Yale College.
"For sixty years the only school for higher education in New
England had been Harvard College, at Cambridge. The people,
and especially the clergy, of Connecticut naturally desired
the benefit of a similar establishment nearer home. The three
ministers of New Haven, Milford, and Branford first moved in
the enterprise. Ten ministers, nine of them being graduates of
Harvard College, met at Branford [1701] and made a
contribution from their libraries of about forty volumes in
folio 'for the founding of a college.' Other donations
presently came in. An Act of Incorporation was granted by the
General Court. It created a body of trustees, not to be more
than eleven in number nor fewer than seven, all to be
clergymen and at least forty years of age. The Court endowed
the College with an annual grant, subject to be discontinued
at pleasure, of one hundred and twenty pounds in 'country
pay,'—equivalent to sixty pounds sterling. The College might
hold property 'not exceeding the value of five hundred pounds
per annum'; its students were exempted from the payment of
taxes and from military service; and the Governor and his
Council gave a formal approval of its application to the
citizens for pecuniary id. … The first President was Abraham
Pierson, minister of Killingworth, at which place he continued
to reside, though the designated seat of the College was at
Saybrook. Eight students were admitted, and arranged in
classes. At each of the first two annual commencements one
person, at the third three persons, received the degree of
Bachelor of Arts. President Pierson was succeeded, at his
death, by Mr. Andrew, minister at Milford, to which place the
elder pupils were accordingly transferred, while the rest went
to Saybrook, where two tutors had been provided to assist
their studies. … For nearly twenty years the College of
Connecticut … continued to be an unsatisfactory experiment.
While the rector taught some youth at Milford, and two tutors
had other pupils at Saybrook, and the few scores of books
which had been obtained for a library were divided between the
two places, there was small prospect of the results for which
institutions of learning are created. Notwithstanding the
general agreement that whatever facilities for the higher
education could be commanded should be brought together and
combined, the choice of the place was embarrassed by various
considerations. … Saybrook, Wethersfield, Hartford, and New
Haven competed with each other for the preference, offering
such contributions as they were able towards the erection of a
college building. The offer from New Haven, larger than that
of any other town, was seven hundred pounds sterling. The plan
of fixing the College there, promoted by the great influence
of Governor Saltonstall, was adopted by the trustees; and with
money obtained by private gifts, and two hundred and fifty
pounds accruing from a sale of land given by the General
Assembly, a building was begun [1717], which finally cost a
thousand pounds sterling. … The Assembly gave the College a
hundred pounds. Jeremiah Dummer sent from England a
substantial present of books. Governor Saltonstall contributed
fifty pounds sterling, and the same sum was presented by
Jahleel Brenton, of Newport, in Rhode Island. But the chief
patronage came from Elihu Yale,—a native of New Haven, but
long resident in the East Indies, where he had been Governor
of Fort St. George. He was now a citizen of London, and
Governor of the East India Company. His contributions,
continued through seven years, amounted to some four hundred
pounds sterling; and he was understood to have made
arrangements for a further bounty of five hundred pounds,
which, however, through unfortunate accidents, never came to
its destination. The province made a grant of forty pounds
annually for seven years."
_J. G. Palfrey,
History of New England,
book 4, chapter 11,
and book 5, chapter 4 (volume 4)._
EDUCATION: A. D. 1746-1787.
New York.
King's College, now Columbia College.
"The establishment of a college in the city of New York was
many years in agitation before the design was carried into
effect. At length, under an act of Assembly passed in
December, 1746, and other similar acts which followed, moneys
were raised by public lottery 'for the encouragement of
learning and towards the founding a college' within the
colony. These moneys were, in November, 1751, vested in
trustees. … The trustees, in November, 1753, invited Dr.
Samuel Johnson, of Connecticut, to be President of the
intended college. Dr. Johnson consequently removed to New York
in the month of April following, and in July, 1754, commenced
the instruction of a class of students in a room of the
school-house belonging to Trinity Church; but he would not
absolutely accept the presidency until after the passing of
the charter. This took place on the 31st of October in the
same year, 1754; from which period the existence of the
college is properly to be dated. The Governors of the college,
named in the charter, are the Archbishop of Canterbury, and
the first Lord Commissioner for Trade and Plantations, both
empowered to act by proxies; the Lieutenant-governor of the
province, and several other public officers; together with the
rector of Trinity Church, the senior minister of the Reformed
Protestant Dutch Church, the ministers of the German Lutheran
Church, of the French Church, of the Presbyterian
Congregation, and the President of the college, all ex
officio, and twenty-four of the principal gentlemen of the
city. The college was to be known by the name of King's
College. Previously to the passing of the charter, a parcel of
ground to the westward of Broadway, bounded by Barclay,
Church, and Murray streets and the Hudson River, had been
destined by the vestry of Trinity Church as a site for the
college edifice; and, accordingly, after the charter was
granted, a grant of the land was made on the 13th of May,
1755. … The part of the land thus granted by Trinity Church,
not occupied for college purposes, was leased, and became a
very valuable endowment to the college. The sources whence the
funds of the institution were derived, besides the proceeds of
the lotteries above mentioned, were the voluntary
contributions of private individuals in this country, and sums
obtained by agents who were subsequently sent to England and
France. In May, 1760, the college buildings began to be
occupied. In 1763 a grammar school was established. In March,
1763, Dr. Johnson resigned the presidency, and the Reverend Dr.
Myles Cooper, of Oxford, who had previously been appointed
Professor of Moral Philosophy and assistant to the President,
was elected in his place. … In consequence of the dispute
between this and the parent country, Dr. Cooper returned to
England, and the Reverend Benjamin Moore was appointed praeses pro
tempore during the absence of Dr. Cooper, who, however, did
not return. On the breaking out of the Revolutionary War the
business of the college was almost entirely broken up, and it
was not until after the return of peace that its affairs were
again regularly attended to.
{731}
In May, 1784, the college, upon its own application, was
erected into a university; its corporate title was changed
from King's College to Columbia College, and it was placed
under the control of a board termed Regents of the University.
… The college continued under that government until April,
1787, when the Legislature of the State restored it to its
original position under the present name of Columbia College.
… At the same time a new body was created, called by the
same name, 'The Regents of the University,' under which all
the seminaries of learning mentioned in the act creating it
were placed by the legislature. This body still exists under
its original name."
_Columbia College Handbook,
pages 5-9._
EDUCATION: A. D. 1776-1880.
New England and New York.
State School Systems.
"It was not until over thirty years after the close of the war
of 1776 that a regular system of schools at the public expense
was established. New England boasted with pride of being the
first in education, as she had been in war. Her example was
closely followed by the other States. In New York, in 1805,
many gentlemen of prominence associated for the purpose of
establishing a free school in New York City for the education
of the children of persons in indigent circumstances, and who
did not belong to, or were not provided for by, any religious
society. These public-spirited gentlemen presented a memorial
to the Legislature, setting forth the benefits that would
result to society from educating such children, and that it
would enable them more effectually to accomplish the objects
of their institution if the schools were incorporated. The
bill of incorporation was passed April 9, 1805. This was the
nucleus from which the present system of public schools
started into existence. Later on, in the year 1808, we find
from annual printed reports that two free schools were opened
and were in working order. … It was the intention of the
founders of these schools—among whom the names of De Witt
Clinton, Ferdinand de Peyster, John Murray, and Leonard
Bleecker stand prominent as officers—to avoid the teachings
of any religious society; but there were among the people many
who thought that sufficient care was not being bestowed upon
religious instruction: to please these malcontents the
literary studies of the pupils were suspended one afternoon in
every week, and an association of fifty ladies of
'distinguished consideration ·in society' met on this day and
examined the children in their respective catechisms. … To
read, write, and know arithmetic in its first branches
correctly, was the extent of the educational advantages which
the founders of the free-school system deemed necessary for
the accomplishment of their purposes."
_A. H. Rhine,
The Early Free Schools of America.
(Popular Science Monthly, March, 1880)._
EDUCATION: A. D. 1785-1880.
The United States.
Land-grants for Schools.
"The question of the endowment of educational institutions by
the Government in aid of the cause of education seems to have
met no serious opposition in the Congress of the
Confederation, and no member raised his voice against this
vital and essential provision relating to it in the ordinance
of May 20, 1785, 'for ascertaining the mode of disposing of
lands in the Western Territory.' This provided: 'There shall
be reserved the lot No. 16 of every township for the
maintenance of public schools within said township.' This was
an endowment of 640 acres of land (one section of land, one
mile square) in a township 6 miles square, for the support and
maintenance of public schools' within said township.' The
manner of establishment of public schools thereunder, or by
whom, was not mentioned. It was a reservation by the United
States, and advanced and established a principle which finally
dedicated one thirty-sixth part of all public lands of the
United States, with certain exceptions as to mineral, &c., to
the cause of education by public schools. … In the
Continental Congress, July 13, 1787, according to order, the
ordinance for the government of the 'Territory of the United
States northwest of the river Ohio' came on, was read a third
time, and passed [see NORTHWEST TERRITORY: A. D.1787]. It
contained the following: 'Art. 3. Religion, morality, and
knowledge being necessary to good government and the happiness
of mankind, schools and the means of education shall forever
be encouraged.' The provision of the ordinance of May 20,
1785, relating to the reservation of the sixteenth section in
every township of public land, was the inception of the
present rule of reservation of certain sections of land for
school purposes. The endowment was the subject of much
legislation in the years following. The question was raised
that there was no reason why the United States should not
organize, control, and manage these public schools so endowed.
The reservations of lands were made by surveyors and duly
returned. This policy at once met with enthusiastic approval
from the public, and was tacitly incorporated into the
American system as one of its fundamental organic ideas.
Whether the public schools thus endowed by the United States
were to be under national or State control remained a
question, and the lands were held in reservation merely until
after the admission of the State of Ohio in 1802. … To each
organized Territory, after 1803, was and now is reserved the
sixteenth section (until after the Oregon Territory act
reserved the thirty-sixth as well) for school purposes, which
reservation is carried into grant and confirmation by the
terms of the act of admission of the Territory or State into
the Union; the State then becoming a trustee for school
purposes. These grants of land were made from the public
domain, and to States only which were known as public-land
States. Twelve States, from March 3, 1803, known as
public-land States, received the allowance of the sixteenth
section to August 14, 1848. … Congress, June 13, 1812, and
May 26, 1824, by the acts ordering the survey of certain towns
and villages in Missouri, reserved for the support of schools
in the towns and villages named, provided that the whole
amount reserved should not exceed one-twentieth part of the
whole lands included in the general survey of such town or
village. These lots were reserved and sold for the benefit of
the schools. Saint Louis received a large fund from this
source. … In the act for the organization of the Territory
of Oregon, August 14, 1848, Senator Stephen A. Douglas
inserted an additional grant for school purposes of the
thirty-sixth section in each township, with indemnity for all
public-land States thereafter to be admitted, making the
reservation for school purposes the sixteenth and thirty-sixth
sections, or 1,280 acres in each township of six miles square
reserved in public-land States and Territories, and confirmed
by grant in terms in the act of admission of such State or
Territory into the Union. From March 13, 1853, to June 30,
1880, seven States have been admitted into the Union having a
grant of the sixteenth and thirty-sixth sections, and the
same area has been reserved in eight Territories."
_T. Donaldson,
The Public Domain,
chapter 13._
{732}
EDUCATION: A. D. 1789.
The United States.
"The Constitution of the United States makes no provision for
the education of the people; and in the Convention that framed
it, I believe the subject was not even mentioned. A motion to
insert a clause providing for the establishment of a national
university was voted down. I believe it is also the fact, that
the Constitutions of only three of the thirteen original
States made the obligation to maintain a system of Free
Schools a part of their fundamental law."
_H. Mann,
Lectures and Annual Reports on Education,
lecture 5._
EDUCATION: A. D. 1793.
Massachusetts.
Williams College.
"Williams College, at Williamstown, Berkshire County, Mass.,
was chartered in 1793. The town and the college were named in
honor of Colonel Ephraim Williams, who had command of the forts
in the Hoosac Valley, and was killed in a battle with the
French and Indians, September 8, 1755. By his will he
established a free school in the township which was to bear
his name. The most advanced students of this free school
became the first college class, numbering 4, and received the
regular degree of bachelor of arts in the autumn of 1795. The
small amount left by the will of Colonel Williams was
carefully managed for 30 years by the executors, and they then
obtained permission from the State legislature to carry out
the benevolent purposes of the testator. The fund for building
was increased by individual subscriptions, and by the avails
of a lottery, which the general court granted for that
purpose. The building which is now known as West College was
then erected for the use of the free school and was finished
in 1790. … The free school was opened in 1791, with Reverend
Ebenezer Fitch, a graduate of Yale College, as preceptor, and
Mr. John Lester as assistant. … The success of the school
was so great that the next year the trustees asked the
legislature to incorporate the school into a college. This was
done, and a grant of $4,000 was made from the State treasury
for the purchase of books and philosophical apparatus. The
college was put under the care of 12 trustees, who elected
Preceptor Fitch the first president of the college."
_E. B. Parsons
(United States Bureau of Education,
Circular of Information, 1891, number 6:
History of Higher Education in Massachusetts, chapter 9)._
EDUCATION: A. D. 1795-1867.
The United States.
State School Funds.
"Connecticut took the lead in the creation of a permanent fund
for the support of schools. The district known as the Western
Reserve, in Northern Ohio, had been secured to her in the
adjustment of her claims to lands confirmed to her by the
charter of King Charles II. The Legislature of the State, in
1795, passed an act directing the sale of all the land
embraced in the Reserve, and setting apart the avails as a
perpetual fund for the maintenance of common schools. The
amount realized was about $1,120,000. … New York was the
next State to establish a common school fund for the aid and
maintenance of schools in the several school districts of the
State. The other Northern States except New Hampshire,
Vermont, Pennsylvania, and one or two others, have established
similar funds. … In all the new States, the 500,000 acres,
given by act of Congress, on their admission into the Union,
for the support of schools, have been sacredly set apart for
that purpose, and generally other lands belonging to the
States have been added to the fund. … Prior to the war the
Slave States had made attempts to establish plans for popular
education, but with results of an unsatisfactory character. In
Virginia a school system was in force for the education of the
children of indigent white persons. In North Carolina a large
school fund, exceeding two millions of dollars, had been set
apart for the maintenance of schools. In all of these States
common schools had been introduced, but they did not flourish
as in the North and West. … There was not the same
population of small and independent farmers, whose families
could be united into a school district. … A more serious
obstacle was the slave population, constituting one-third of
the whole, and in some of the States more than half, whom it
was thought dangerous to educate."
_V. M. Rice,
Special Report on the Present State of Education, 1867,
pages 19-23._
EDUCATION: A. D. 1804-1837.
Michigan.
The University.
"In 1804, when Michigan was organized as a Territory, Congress
granted a township of land for a seminary of learning, and the
university to be established in 1817 was to be in accordance
with this grant. The Territorial government committed the
interests of higher education to the care of the Governor and
the Judges, and it is supposed that through the exertions of
Honorable A. B. Woodward, then presiding Judge of the Supreme Court
of the Territory of Michigan, that the act establishing a
university was framed. A portion of this most curious document
of the early History of Michigan will be given. It is entitled
'An act to establish the Catholepistemiad or University
Michigania.' 'Be it enacted by the Governor and Judges of the
Territory of Michigan, That there shall be in the said
Territory a catholepistemiad or university denominated the
Catholepistemiad or University Michigania. The
Catholepistemiad or University of Michigania shall be composed
of thirteen didaxum or professorships; first, a didaxia or
professorship catholepistemia, or universal science, the
dictator or professor of which shall be president of the
institution; second, a didaxia or professorship of
anthropoglassica, or literature embracing all of the
episternum or sciences relative to language; third, a didaxia
or professorship of mathematica or mathematics; fourth, a
didaxia or professorship of physiognostica or natural history,
etc.' The act thus continues through the whole range of the
'thirteen didaxum'; the remaining nine are as follows: Natural
philosophy, astronomy, chemistry, medical sciences, economical
sciences, ethical sciences, military sciences, historical
sciences, and intellectual. The university was to be under the
control of the professors and president, who were to be
appointed by the Governor, while the institution was to be the
center and controlling power of the educational system of the
State.
{733}
It was to be supported by taxation by an increase of the
amount of taxes already levied, by 15 per cent. Also power was
given to raise money for the support of the university by
means of lotteries. This remarkable document was not without
its influence in shaping the public school policy of Michigan,
but it was many years before the State approximated its
learned provisions. Impracticable as this educational plan
appears for a handful of people in the woods of Michigan, it
served as a foundation upon which to build. The officers and
president were duly appointed, and the work of the new
university began at once. At first the university appeared as
a school board, to establish and maintain primary schools
which they held under their charge. Then followed a course of
study for classical academies, and finally, in October, 1817,
an act was passed establishing a college in the city of
Detroit called 'The First College of Michigania.' … The
people contributed liberally to these early schools, the sum
of three thousand dollars being subscribed at the beginning.
… An act was passed on the 30th of April, 1821, by the
Governor and Judges establishing a university in Detroit to
take the place of the catholepistemiad and to be called the
'University of Michigan.' In its charter nearly all the powers
of the former institution were substantially confirmed, except
the provision for taxes and lotteries. … The second
corporation, known as the 'University of Michigan,' carried on
the work of education already begun from 1821 to the third
organization, in 1837. The education was very limited,
consisting in one classical academy at Detroit, and part of
the time a Lancasterian school. The boards of education kept
up and transmitted the university idea to such an extent that
it may be said truly and legally that there was one University
of Michigan, which passed through three successive stages of
development marked by the dates 1817, 1821, and 1837," at
which time it was removed to Ann Arbor.
_F. W. Blackmar,
Federal and State Aid to Higher Education
(United States Bureau of Education.
Circular of Information, 1890, number 1), pages 239-241._
ALSO IN:
_E. M. Farrand,
History of the University of Michigan._
_A. Ten Brook,
American State Universities._
EDUCATION: A. D. 1818-1821.
Massachusetts.
Amherst College.
"Amherst College originated in a strong desire on the part of
the people of Massachusetts to have a college near the central
part of the State, where the students should be free from the
temptations of a large city, where the expenses of an
education should not be beyond the means of those who had but
little money, and where the moral and religious influences
should be of a decidedly Christian character. … The
ministers of Franklin County, at a meeting held in Shelburne
May 18, 1815, expressed it as their opinion that a literary
institution of high order ought to be established in Hampshire
County, and that the town of Amherst appeared to them to be
the most eligible place for it. Their early efforts for a
literary institution in Hampshire County resulted in the first
place in the establishment of an academy in Amherst, which was
incorporated in the year 1816. … In the year 1818 a
constitution was adopted by the trustees of Amherst Academy,
for the raising and management of a fund of at least $50,000,
for the classical education of indigent young men of piety and
talents for the Christian ministry. … This charity fund may
be said to be the basis of Amherst College, for though it was
raised by the trustees of Amherst Academy it was really
intended to be the foundation of a college, and has always
been a part of the permanent funds of Amherst College, kept
sacredly from all other funds for the specific object for
which it was given. … This was for many years the only
permanent fund of Amherst College, and without this it would
have seemed impossible at one time to preserve the very
existence of the college. So Amherst College grew out of
Amherst Academy, and was built permanently on the charity fund
raised by the trustees of that academy. … Although the
charity fund of $50,000 had been received in 1818, it was not
till 1820 that the recipient felt justified in going forward
to erect buildings for a college in Amherst. Efforts were made
for the removal of Williams College from Williamstown to
Hampshire County, and to have the charity fund used in
connection with that college; and, if that were done, it was
not certain that Amherst could be regarded as the best
location for the college. But the legislature of Massachusetts
decided that Williams College could not be removed from
Williamstown, and nothing remained but for the friends of the
new institution to go on with their plans for locating it at
Amherst. … This first college edifice was ready for
occupation and dedicated on the 18th of September, 1821. In
the month of May, 1821, Reverend Zephaniah Swift Moore, D. D., was
unanimously elected by the trustees of Amherst Academy
president of the new institution."
_T. P. Field
(United States Bureau of Education, Circular of
Information, 1891, number 6: History of Higher Education
in Massachusetts), chapter 11._
EDUCATION: A. D. 1837.
Massachusetts.
Horace Mann and the State System.
"When Massachusetts, in 1837, created a Board of Education,
then were first united into a somewhat related whole the more
or less excellent but varied and independent organizations,
and a beginning made for a State system. It was this massing
of forces, and the hearty co-operation he initiated, in which
the work of Horace Mann showed its matchless greatness.
'Rarely,' it has been said, 'have great ability, unselfish
devotion, and brilliant success, been so united in the course
of a single life.' A successful lawyer, a member of the State
Legislature, and with but limited experience as a teacher, he
has left his impress upon the educational sentiments of, not
only New England, but the United States."
_R. G. Boone,
Education in the United States,
page 103._
EDUCATION: A. D. 1840-1886.
The United States.
Proportion of College Students.
"It is estimated that in 1840 the proportion of college
students to the entire population in the United States was 1
to 1,540; in 1860, 1 to 2,012; in 1870,1 to 2,546; in 1880, 1
to 1,840; and in 1886, 1 to about 1,400, Estimating all our
combined efforts in favor of higher education, we fall far
short of some of the countries of the Old World."
_F. W. Blackmar,
Federal and State Aid to Higher Education
in the United States (U. S. Bureau of Education,
Circulars of Information, 1890, number 1), page 36._
{734}
EDUCATION: A. D. 1844-1876.
Canada.
Ontario School System.
"From the earliest settlement of Ontario, schools were
established as the wants of the inhabitants required. The
Legislature soon recognized the needs of the country, and made
grants of land and money in aid of elementary, secondary, and
superior education. Statutes were passed from time to time for
the purpose of opening schools to meet the demands of the
people. The sparsely settled condition of the Province delayed
for a while the organization of the system. It was not until
1844 that the elementary schools were put on a comprehensive
basis. In that year the Reverend Egerton Ryerson, LL. D., was
appointed Chief Superintendent of Education, and the report
which he presented to the House of Assembly sketched in an
able manner the main features of the system of which he was
the distinguished founder, and of which he continued for
thirty-three years to be the efficient administrator. In 1876
the office of chief superintendent was abolished, and the
schools of the Province placed under the control of a member
of the Government with the title of Minister of Education. …
The system of education in Ontario may be said to combine the
best features of the systems of several countries. To the Old
World it is indebted for a large measure of its stability,
uniformity and centralization; to the older settled parts of
the New World for its popular nature, its flexibility and its
democratic principles which have given, wherever desirable,
local control and individual responsibility. From the State of
New York we have borrowed the machinery of our school; from
Massachusetts the principle of local taxation; from Ireland
our first series of text books; from Scotland the co-operation
of parents with the teacher, in upholding his authority; from
Germany the system of Normal Schools and the Kindergarten; and
from the United States generally the non-denominational
character of elementary, secondary, and university education.
Ontario may claim to have some features of her system that are
largely her own. Among them may be mentioned a division of
state and municipal authority on a judicious basis; clear
lines separating the function of the University from that of
the High Schools, and the function of the High Schools from
that of the Public or elementary schools; a uniform course of
study; all High and Public Schools in the hands of
professionally trained teachers; no person eligible to the
position of inspector who does not hold the highest grade of a
teacher's certificate, and who has not had years of experience
as a teacher; inspectors removable if inefficient, but not
subject to removal by popular vote; the examinations of
teachers under Provincial instead of local control; the
acceptance of a common matriculation examination for admission
to the Universities and to the learned professions; a uniform
series of text books for the whole Province; the almost entire
absence of party politics in the manner in which school
boards, inspectors and teachers discharge their duties; the
system national instead of sectarian, but affording under
constitutional guarantees and limitations protection to Roman
Catholic and Protestant Separate Schools and denominational
Universities."
_J. Millar,
Educational System of the Province of Ontario._
EDUCATION: A. D. 1862.
The United States.
Land-grant for industrial Colleges.
"Next to the Ordinance of 1787, the Congressional grant of
1862 is the most important educational enactment in America.
… By this gift forty-eight colleges and universities have
received aid, at least to the extent of the Congressional
grant; thirty-three of these, at least, have been called into
existence by means of this act. In thirteen States the
proceeds of the land scrip were devoted to institutions
already in existence. The amount received from the sales of
land scrip from twenty-four of these States aggregates the sum
of $13,930,456, with land remaining unsold estimated at nearly
two millions of dollars. These same institutions have received
State endowments amounting to over eight million dollars. The
origin of this gift must be sought in local communities. In
this country all ideas of national education have arisen from
those States that have felt the need of local institutions for
the education of youth. In certain sections of the Union,
particularly the North and West, where agriculture was one of
the chief industries, it was felt that the old classical
schools were not broad enough to cover all the wants of
education represented by growing industries. There was
consequently a revulsion from these schools toward the
industrial and practical side of education. Evidences of this
movement are seen in the attempts in different States to found
agricultural, technical, and industrial schools. These ideas
found their way into Congress, and a bill was introduced in
1858, which provided for the endowment of colleges for the
teaching of agriculture and the mechanical arts. The bill was
introduced by Honorable Justin S. Morrill, of Vermont; it was
passed by a small majority, and was vetoed by President
Buchanan. In 1862 the bill was again presented with slight
changes, passed and signed, and became a law July 2, 1862. …
It stipulated to grant to each State thirty thousand acres of
land for each Senator and Representative in Congress to which
the States were respectively entitled by the census of 1860,
for the purpose of endowing 'at least one college where the
leading object shall be, without excluding other scientific
and classical studies, and including military tactics, to
teach such branches of learning as are related to agriculture
and the mechanic arts, in such manner as the Legislatures of
the States may respectively prescribe, in order to promote the
liberal and practical education of the industrial classes in
the several pursuits and professions of life.' … From this
proposition all sorts of schools sprang up, according to the
local conception of the law and local demands. It was thought
by some that boys were to be taught agriculture by working on
a farm, and purely agricultural schools were founded with the
mechanical arts attached. In other States classical schools of
the stereotyped order were established, with more or less
science; and, again, the endowment in others was devoted to
scientific departments. The instruction of the farm and the
teaching of pure agriculture have not succeeded in general,
while the schools that have made prominent those studies
relating to agriculture and the mechanic arts, upon the whole,
have succeeded best. … In several instances the managers of
the land scrip have understood that by this provision the
State could not locate the land within the borders of another
State, but its assignees could thus locate lands, not more
than one million acres in any one State. By considering this
question, the New York land scrip was bought by Ezra Cornell,
and located by him for the college in valuable lands in the
State of Wisconsin, and thus the fund was augmented. However,
the majority of the States sold their land at a sacrifice,
frequently for less than half its value. There was a lull in
the land market during the Civil War, and this cause, together
with the lack of attention in many States, sacrificed the gift
of the Federal Government. The sales ranged all the way from
fifty cents to seven dollars per acre, as the average price
for each State."
_F. W. Blackmar, Federal and State Aid to Higher Education
(United States Bureau of Education,
Circulars of Information, 1890, number 1), pages 47-49._
{735}
EDUCATION: A. D. 1862-1886.
New York.
Cornell University.
"On the second of July, 1862, … [President Lincoln] signed
the act of congress, donating public lands for the
establishment of colleges of agriculture and mechanic arts.
This act had been introduced into congress by the Honorable Justin
S. Morrill. … The Morrill act provided for a donation of
public land to the several states, each state to receive
thirty thousand acres for each senator and representative it
sent to congress. States not containing within their own
borders public land subject to sale at private entry received
land scrip instead. But this land scrip the recipient states
were not allowed to locate within the limits of any other
state or of any territory of the United States. The act
laconically directed 'said scrip to be sold by said states.'
The proceeds of the sale, whether of land or scrip, in each
state were to form a perpetual fund. … In the execution of
this trust the State of New York was hampered by great and
almost insuperable obstacles. For its distributive share it
received land scrip to the amount of nine hundred and ninety
thousand acres. The munificence of the endowment awakened the
cupidity of a multitude of clamorous and strangely unexpected
claimants. … If the princely domain granted to the State of
New York by congress was not divided and frittered away, we
owe it in great measure to the foresight, the energy, and the
splendid courage of a few generous spirits in the legislature
of whom none commanded greater respect or exercised more
influence than Senator Andrew Dickson White, the gentleman who
afterwards became first president of Cornell University. …
But the all-compelling force which prevented the dispersion
and dissipation of the bounty of congress was the generous
heart of Ezra Cornell. While rival institutions clamored for a
division of the 'spoils,' and political tricksters played
their base and desperate game, this man thought only of the
highest good of the State of New York, which he loved with the
ardor of a patriot and was yet to serve with the heroism of a
martyr. … When the legislature of the State of New York was
called upon to make some disposition of the congressional
grant, Ezra Cornell sat in the senate. … Of his minor
legislative achievements I shall not speak. One act, however,
has made his name as immortal as the state it glorified. By a
gift of half a million dollars (a vast sum in 1865, the last
year of the war!) he rescued for the higher education of New
York the undivided grant of congress; and with the united
endowments he induced the legislature to establish, not merely
a college of applied science but a great modern
university—'an institution,' according to his own admirable
definition, 'where any person can find instruction in any
study.' It was a high and daring aspiration to crown the
educational system of our imperial state with an organ of
universal knowledge, a nursery of every science and of all
scholarship, an instrument of liberal culture and of practical
utility to all classes of our people. This was, however, the
end; and to secure it Ezra Cornell added to his original gift
new donations of land, of buildings, and of money. … But one
danger threatened this latest birth of time. The act of
congress donating land scrip required the states to sell it.
The markets were immediately glutted. Prices fell. New York
was selling at an average price of fifty cents an acre. Her
princely domain would bring at this rate less than half a
million dollars! Was the splendid donation to issue in such
disaster? If it could be held till the war was over, till
immigration opened up the Northwest, it would be worth five
times five hundred thousand dollars! So at least thought one
far-seeing man in the State of New York. And this man of
foresight had the heart to conceive, the wisdom to devise, and
the courage to execute—he alone in all the states—a plan for
saving to his state the future value of the lands donated by
congress. Ezra Cornell made that wonderful and dramatic
contract with the State of New York! He bound himself to
purchase at the rate of sixty cents per acre the entire right
of the commonwealth to the scrip, still unsold; and with the
scrip, thus purchased by him as an individual he agreed to
select and locate the lands it represented, to pay the taxes,
to guard against trespasses and defend from fires, to the end
that within twenty years when values had appreciated he might
sell the land and turn into the treasury of the State of New
York for the support of Cornell University the entire net
proceeds of the enterprise. Within a few years Ezra Cornell
had located over half a million acres of superior pine land in
the Northwestern states, principally in Wisconsin. Under bonds
to the State of New York to do the state's work he had spent
about $600,000 of his own cash to carry out the trust
committed to him by the state, when, alas, in the crisis of
1874, fortune and credit sank exhausted and death came to free
the martyr-patriot from his bonds. The seven years that
followed were the darkest in our history. … Ezra Cornell was
our founder; Henry W. Sage followed him as wise masterbuilder.
The edifices, chairs and libraries which bear the name of
'Sage' witness to [his] later gifts: but though these now
aggregate the princely sum of $1,250,000, [his] management of
the university lands has been [his] greatest achievement. From
these lands, with which the generosity and foresight of Ezra
Cornell endowed the university, there have been netted under
[Mr. Sage's] administration, not far short of $4,000,000, with
over 100,000 acres still to sell. Ezra Cornell's contract with
the state was for twenty years. It expired August 4, 1886,
when a ten years' extension was granted by the state. The
trust will be closed in 1896."
_J. G. Schurman,
Address at Inauguration to the Presidency of
Cornell University, November 11, 1892._
EDUCATION: A. D. 1866-1869.
The United States.
Bureau of Education.
"Educators, political economists, and statesmen felt the need
of some central agency by which the general educational
statistics of the country could be collected, preserved,
condensed, and properly arranged for distribution. This need
found expression finally in the action taken at a convention
of the superintendence department of the National Educational
Association, held at Washington February, 1866, when it was
resolved to petition Congress in favor of a National Bureau of
Education. …
{736}
The memorial was presented in the House of Representatives by
General Garfield, February 14, 1866, with a bill for the
establishment of a National Bureau on essentially the basis
the school superintendents had proposed. Both bill and
memorial were referred to a committee of seven members. …
The bill was reported back from the committee, with an
amendment in the nature of a substitute, providing for the
creation of a department of education instead of the bureau
originally proposed. Thus altered, it was passed by a vote of
nearly two to one. In the Senate it was referred to the
Committee on the Judiciary … who the following winter
reported it without amendment and with a recommendation that
it pass, which it did on the 1st of March, 1867, receiving on
the next day the approval of the President. By the act of July
28, 1868, which took effect June 30, 1869, the Department of
Education was abolished, and an Office of Education in the
Department of the Interior was established, with the same
objects and duties. … The act of March 2, 1867, …
established an agency 'for the purpose of collecting such
statistics and facts as shall show the condition and progress
of education in the several States and Territories, and of
diffusing such information respecting the organization and
management of school systems and methods of teaching as shall
aid the people of the United States in the establishment and
maintenance of efficient school systems and otherwise promote
the cause of education.' It will be perceived that the chief
duty of the office under the law is to act as an educational
exchange. Exercising and seeking to exercise no control
whatever over its thousands of correspondents, the office
occupies a position as the recipient of voluntary information
which is unique."
_C. Warren,
Answers to Inquiries about the United States Bureau
of Education, chapters 2-3._
EDUCATION: A. D. 1867.
New York.
Public Schools made entirely free.
The public schools of the State of New York were not entirely
free until 1867. In his report to the Legislature made in
February of that year, the State Superintendent of Public
Instruction, Honorable Victor M. Rice, said: "The greatest defect
in our school system is, as I have urged in previous reports,
the continuance of the rate bill system. Our common schools
can never reach their highest degree of usefulness until they
shall have been made entirely free. … To meet this public
demand, to confer upon the children of the State the blessings
of free education, a bill has already been introduced into
your honorable body. … The main features of the bill are the
provisions to raise, by State tax, a sum about equal to that
raised in the districts by rate bills, and to abolish the rate
bill system; to facilitate the erection and repair of school
houses." The bill referred to was passed at the same session
of the Legislature, and in his next succeeding report,
Superintendent Rice gave the following account of the law and
its immediate effects: "While the general structure of the
school law was not disturbed, a material modification was made
by the Act (chap. 406, Laws of 1867), which took effect on the
first day of October of the same year, and which, among other
things, provided for the abolishment of rate-bills, and for
increased local and State taxation for school purposes. This
was primarily a change in the manner of raising the requisite
funds; not an absolute increase of the aggregate amount to be
raised. It involved and encouraged such increase, so far as
the inhabitants in the several school districts should
authorize it, by substituting taxation exclusively on
property, for a mixed assessment which, in part, was a tax on
attendance. Thus relieved of an old impediment, and supplied
with additional power and larger resources, the cause of
public instruction, during the last fiscal year, has wrought
results unequaled in all the past. … The effect of this
amendment has not been confined to the financial policy
thereby inaugurated. It is distinctly traceable in lengthened
terms of school, in a larger and more uniform attendance, and
in more liberal expenditures for school buildings and
appliances."
_Superintendent of Public Instruction of the State
of New York,
Annual Report, 1869,
pages 5-6._
EDUCATION: A. D. 1867.
Maryland.
Johns Hopkins University.
"By the will of Johns Hopkins, a merchant of Baltimore, the
sum of $7,000,000 was devoted to the endowment of a university
[chartered in 1867] and a hospital, $3,500,000 being
appropriated to each. … To the bequest no burdensome
conditions were attached. … Just what this new university
was to be proved a very serious question to the trustees. The
conditions of Mr. Hopkins's bequest left the determination of
this matter open. … A careful investigation led the trustees
to believe that there was a growing demand for opportunities
to study beyond the ordinary courses of a college or a
scientific school, particularly in those branches of learning
not included in the schools of law, medicine and theology.
Strong evidence of this demand was afforded by the increasing
attendance of American students upon the lectures of the
German universities, as well as by the number of students who
were enrolling themselves at Harvard and Yale for the
post-graduate courses. It was therefore determined that the
Johns Hopkins should be primarily a university, with advanced
courses of lectures and fully equipped laboratories; that the
courses should be voluntary, and the teaching not limited to
class instruction. The foundation is both old and new. In so
far as each feature is borrowed from some older university,
where it has been fairly tried and tested, it is old, but at
the same time this particular combination of separate features
has here been made for the first time. … In the ordinary
college course, if a young man happens to be deficient in
mathematics, for example, he is either forced to lose any
advantage he may possess in Greek or Latin, or else is obliged
to take a position in mathematics for which he is unprepared.
In the college department of the Johns Hopkins, this
disadvantage does not exist; the classifying is specific for
each study. The student has also the privilege of pushing
forward in any one study as rapidly as he can with advantage;
or, on the other hand, in case of illness or of unavoidable
interruption, of prolonging the time devoted to the course, so
that no part of it shall be omitted. As the studies are
elective, it is possible to follow the usual college course if
one desires. Seven different courses of study are indicated,
any of which leads to the Baccalaureate degree, thus enabling
the student to direct and specialize his work. The same
standard of matriculation and the same severity of
examinations are maintained in all these courses.
{737}
A student has the privilege of extending his study beyond the
regular class work, and he will be credited with all such
private and outside study, if his examiners are satisfied of
his thoroughness and accuracy."
_S. B. Herrick,
The Johns Hopkins University
(Scribner's Monthly, December 1879)._
EDUCATION: A. D. 1867-1891.
The United States.
The Peabody Education Fund.
"The letter announcing and creating the Peabody endowment was
dated February 7, 1867. In that letter, after referring to the
ravages of he late war, the founder of the Trust said: 'I feel
most deeply that it is the duty and privilege of the more
favoured and wealthy portions of our nation to assist those
who are less fortunate.' He then added: 'I give one million of
dollars for the encouragement and promotion of intellectual,
moral, and industrial education among the young of the more
destitute portions of the Southern and Southwestern States of
the Union.' On the day following, ten of the Trustees selected
by him held a preliminary meeting in Washington. Their first
business meeting was held in the city of New York, the 19th of
March following, at which a general plan was adopted and an
agent appointed. Mr. Peabody returned to his native country
again in 1869, and on the 1st day of July, at a special
meeting of the Trustees held at Newport, added a second
million to the cash capital of the fund. … According to the
donor's directions, the principal must remain intact for
thirty years. The Trustees are not authorized to expend any
part of it, nor yet to add to it any part of the accruing
interest. The manner of using the interest, as well as the
final distribution of the principal, was left entirely to the
discretion of a self-perpetuating body of Trustees. Those
first appointed had, however, the rare advantage of full
consultation with the founder of the Trust while he still
lived, and their plans received his cordial and emphatic
approbation. … The pressing need of the present seemed to be
in the department of primary education for the masses, and so
they determined to make appropriations only for the assistance
of public free schools. The money is not given as a charity to
the poor. It would be entirely inadequate to furnish any
effectual relief if distributed equally among all those who
need it, and would, moreover, if thus widely dissipated,
produce no permanent results. But the establishment of good
public schools provides for the education of all children,
whether rich or poor, and initiates a system which no State
has ever abandoned after a fair trial. So it seemed to the
donor as well as to his Trustees, that the greatest good of
the greatest number would be more effectually and more
certainly attained by this mode of distribution than by any
other. No effort is made to distribute according to
population. It was Mr. Peabody's wish that those States which
had suffered most from the ravages of war should be assisted
first."
_American Educational Cyclopædia, 1875,
pages 224-225._
The report made by the treasurer of the Fund in 1890, showed a
principal sum invested to the amount of $2,075,175.22,
yielding an income that year of $97,818. In the annual report
of the U. S. Commissioner of Education made February 1, 1891, he
says: "It would appear to the student of education in the
Southern States that the practical wisdom in the
administration of the Peabody Fund and the fruitful results
that have followed it could not be surpassed in the history of
endowments."
_Proceedings of the Trustees of the Peabody Education Fund,
1887-1892._
EDUCATION: A. D. 1884-1891.
California.
Leland Stanford Junior University.
"The founding at Palo Alto of 'a university for both sexes,
with the colleges, schools, seminaries of learning, mechanical
institutes, museums, galleries of art, and all other things
necessary and appropriate to a university of high degree,' was
determined upon by the Honorable Leland Stanford and Jane Lathrop
Stanford in 1884. In March of the year following the
Legislature of California passed an Act providing for the
administration of trust funds in connection with institutions
of learning. November 14, 1885, the Grant of Endowment was
publicly made, in accordance with this Act, and on the same
day the Board of Trustees held its first meeting in San
Francisco. The work of construction was at once begun, and the
cornerstone laid May 14, 1887. The University was formally
opened to students October 1, 1891. The idea of the
university, in the words of its founders, 'came directly and
largely from our son and only child, Leland, and in the belief
that had he been spared to advise as to the disposition of our
estate, he would have desired the devotion of a large portion
thereof to this purpose, we will that for all time to come the
institution hereby founded shall bear his name, and shall be
known as The Leland Stanford Junior University.' The object of
the University, as stated in its Charter, is 'to qualify
students for personal success and direct usefulness in life';
and its purposes, 'to promote the public welfare by exercising
an influence in behalf of humanity and civilization, teaching
the blessings of liberty regulated by law, and inculcating
love and reverence for the great principles of government as
derived from the inalienable rights of man to life, liberty,
and the pursuit of happiness.' The University is located on
the Palo Alto estate in the Santa Clara valley, thirty-three
miles southeast of San Francisco, on the Coast Division of the
Southern Pacific Railway. The estate consists of over eight
thousand acres, partly lowland and partly rising into the
foothills of the Santa Cruz range. On the grounds is the
residence of the Founders, and an extensive and beautiful
arboretum containing a very great variety of shrubs and trees.
The property conveyed to the University, in addition to the
Palo Alto estate, consists of the Vina estate, in Tehama
County, of fifty-five thousand acres, of which about four
thousand acres are planted in vines, and the Gridley estate,
in Butte County, of twenty-two thousand acres, devoted mainly
to the raising of wheat. … The founders of the Leland
Stanford Junior University say: 'As a further assurance that
the endowment will be ample to establish and maintain a
university of the highest grade, we have, by last will and
testament, devised to you and your successors additional
property. We have done this as a security against the
uncertainty of life and in the hope that during our lives the
full endowment may go to you. The aggregate of the domain
thus dedicated to the founding of the University, is over
eighty-five thousand acres, or more than one hundred and
thirty-three square miles, among the best improved and most
valuable lands in the State."
_Leland Stanford Junior University,
Circulars of Information, numbers 6 and 1-2._
{738}
EDUCATION: A. D. 1887-1889.
Massachusetts.
Clark University.
"Clark University was founded [at Worcester] by … a native
of Worcester County, Massachusetts. It was 'not the outcome of
a freak of impulse, or of a sudden wave of generosity, or of
the natural desire to perpetuate in a worthy way one's
ancestral name. To comprehend the genesis of the enterprise we
must go back along the track of Mr. Clark's personal history
20 years at least. For as long ago as that, the idea came home
with force to his mind that all civilized communities are in
the hands of experts. … Looking around at the facilities
obtainable in this country for the prosecution of original
research, he was struck with the meagerness and the
inadequacy. Colleges and professional schools we have in
abundance, but there appeared to be no one grand inclusive
institution, unsaddled by an academic department, where
students might pursue as far as possible their investigation
of any and every branch of science. … Mr. Clark went abroad
and spent eight years visiting the institutions of learning in
almost every country of Europe. He studied into their history
and observed their present working.' … It is his strong and
expressed desire that the highest possible academic standards
be here forever maintained; that special opportunities and
inducements be offered to research; that to this end the
instructors be not overburdened with teaching or examinations.
… A charter was granted early in 1887. Land and other
property that had been before secured by the founder was
transferred to the board, and the erection of a central
building was begun. In the spring of 1888 G. Stanley Hall,
then a professor at the Johns Hopkins University, was invited
to the presidency. … The plans of the university had so far
progressed that work was begun in October, 1889, in
mathematics, physics, chemistry, biology, and psychology."
_G. G. Bush,
History of Higher Education in Massachusetts
(United States Bureau of Education,
Circular of Information, 1891, number 6), chapter 18._
EDUCATION: A. D. 1889-1892.
Illinois.
Chicago University.
"At its Annual Meeting in May, 1889, the Board of the American
Baptist Education Society resolved to take immediate steps
toward the founding of a well-equipped college in the city of
Chicago. At the same time John D. Rockefeller made a
subscription of $600,000 and this sum was increased during the
succeeding year by about $600,000 more in subscriptions
representing more than two thousand persons. Three months
after the completion of this subscription, Mr. Rockefeller
made an additional proffer of $1,000,000. The site of the
University consists of three blocks of ground—about two
thousand feet long and three hundred and sixty-two feet wide,
lying between the two South Parks of Chicago, and fronting on
the Midway Plaisance, which is itself a park connecting the
other two. One-half of this site is a gift of Marshall Field
of Chicago, and the other half has been purchased at a cost of
$132,500. At the first meeting of the Board after it had
become an incorporated body, Professor William R. Harper, of
Yale University, was unanimously elected President of the
University. … It has been decided that the University will
begin the work of instruction on the first day of October,
1892. … The work of the University shall be arranged under
three general divisions, viz., The University Proper, The
University-Extension Work, The University Publication Work."
_University of Chicago,
Official Bulletin no. 1, January, 1891._
EDUCATION: A. D. 1890.
United States.
Census Statistics.
The following statistics of education in the United States are
from the returns gathered for the Eleventh Census, 1890. In
these statistics the states and territories are classed in
five great geographical divisions, defined as follows: North
Atlantic Division, embracing the New England States, New York,
New Jersey, and Pennsylvania; South Atlantic Division,
embracing the States of the eastern coast, from Delaware to
Florida, together with the District of Columbia; North Central
Division, embracing Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, Michigan,
Wisconsin, Minnesota, Iowa, Missouri, North and South Dakota,
Nebraska, and Kansas; South Central Division, embracing
Kentucky, Tennessee, Alabama, Mississippi, Louisiana, Texas,
Arkansas, and Oklahoma; Western Division, embracing all the
remaining States and Territories. The total taxation for
public schools in the United States, as reported by this
census, was $102,164,796; of which $37,619,786 was raised in
the North Atlantic Division, $5,678,474 in the South Atlantic
Division, $47,033,142 in the North Central Division,
$5,698.562 in the South Central Division, and $6,134,832 in
the Western Division. From funds and rents there were raised
for school purposes a total of $25,694,449 in the United
States at large, of which $8,273,147 was raised in the North
Atlantic Division, $2,307,051 in the South Atlantic Division,
$8,432,593 in the North Central Division, $3,720,158 in the
South Central Division, and $2,961,500 in the Western
Division. The total of all "ordinary" receipts for school
support in the United States, was $139,619,440, of which
$49,201,216 were in the North Atlantic Division, $8,685,223 in
the South Atlantic Division. $61,108,263 in the North Central
Division, $10,294,621 in the South Central Division, and
$10,330,117 in the Western Division. The total "ordinary
expenditures" were $138,786,393 in the whole United States;
being $47,625,548 in the North Atlantic Division, $8,630,711
in the South Atlantic Division, $62,815.531 in the North
Central Division, $9,860,050 in the South Central Division,
and $9,854,544 in the Western Division. For teachers' wages
there was a total expenditure of $88,705,992, $28,067,821
being in the North Atlantic Division, $6,400,063 in the South
Atlantic Division, $39,866,831 in the North Central Division,
$8,209,509 in the South Central Division, and $6,161,768 in
the Western Division. The total expenditure for Libraries and
Apparatus was $1,667,787, three-fourths of which was in the
North Atlantic and North Central Divisions. The expenditure
reported for construction and care of buildings, was
$24,224,793, of which $10,687,114 was in the North Atlantic
Division, $884,277 was in the South Atlantic Division,
$9,869,489 in the North Central Division, $770,257 in the
South Central Division, and $2,013,656 in the Western
Division. Reported estimates of the value of buildings and
other school property are incomplete, but $27,892,831 are
given for Massachusetts, $41,626,735 for New York, $35,435,412
for Pennsylvania, $32,631,549 for Ohio, $26,814,480 for
Illinois, and these are the States that stand highest in the
column.
{739}
The apparent enrollment in Public Schools for the
census year, reported to July, 1891, was as follows:
North Atlantic Division, 3,124,417;
South Atlantic Division, 1,758,285;
North Central Division, 5,032,182;
South Central Division, 2,334,694;
Western Division, 520,286;
Total for the United States, 12,769,864
being 20.39 per cent. of the population, against 19.84 per
cent. in 1880. The reported enrollment in Private Schools at
the same time was:
North Atlantic Division, 196,173;
South Atlantic Division, 165,253;
North Central Division, 187,827;
South Central Division, 200,202;
Western Division, 54,749;
Total for the United States, 804,204.
The reported enrollment in Parochial Schools was:
North Atlantic Division, 311,684;
South Atlantic Division, 30,869;
North Central Division, 398,585;
South Central Division, 41,115;
Western Division, 17,349;
Total for the United States, 799,602.
Of this total, 626,496 were enrolled in Catholic and 151,651
in Lutheran Parochial Schools; leaving only 21,455 in the
schools of all other denominations. Total enrollment reported
in all schools 14,373,670. The colored public school
enrollment in the Southern States was 1,288,229 in 1890,
against 797,286 in 1880,—an increase of more than 61 per
cent. The enrollment of whites was 3,358,527, against
2,301,804,—an increase of nearly 46 per cent. The approximate
number of Public School-houses in the United States, for the
census year 1890 is given at 219,992, being 42,949 in the
North Atlantic Division, 32,142 in the South Atlantic
Division, 97,166 in the North Central Division, 38,962 in the
South Central Division, 8,773 in the Western Division. The
largest number reported is 14,214 in Pennsylvania. Of 6,408
school-houses in Virginia 4,568 are for white, and 1,840 for
colored children; in North Carolina, 3,973 white and 1,820
colored. The above statistics are taken in part from the
Compendium of the Eleventh Census, published in 1894, and
partly from tables courteously furnished from the Census
Bureau in advance of their publication.
EDUCATION: Modern: Reforms and Movements.
EDUCATION: A. D. 1638-1671.
Comenius.
"To know Comenius [born in Moravia, 1592] and the part he
played in the seventeenth century, to appreciate this grand
educational character, it would be necessary to begin by
relating his life; his misfortunes; his journeys to England
[1638], where Parliament invoked his aid; to Sweden [1642],
where the Chancellor Oxenstiern employed him to write manuals
of instruction; especially his relentless industry, his
courage through exile, and the long persecutions he suffered
as a member of the sect of dissenters, the Moravian Brethren;
and the schools he founded at Fulneck, in Bohemia, at Lissa
and at Patak, in Poland."
_G. Compayré,
The History of Pedagogy,
chapter 6 (section 137)._
"Comenius's inspiring motive, like that of all leading
educationalists, was social regeneration. He believed that
this could be accomplished through the school. He lived under
the hallucination that by a proper arrangement of the
subject-matter of instruction, and by a sound method, a
certain community of thought and interests would be
established among the young, which would result in social
harmony and political settlement. He believed that men could
be manufactured. … The educational spirit of the Reformers,
the conviction that all—even the humblest—must be taught to
know God, and Jesus Christ whom he has sent, was inherited by
Comenius in its completeness. In this way, and in this way
only, could the ills of Europe be remedied, and the progress
of humanity assured. While, therefore, he sums up the
educational aim under the threefold heads of Knowledge,
Virtue, and Piety or Godliness, he in truth has mainly in view
the last two. Knowledge is of value only in so far as it forms
the only sound basis, in the eyes of a Protestant theologian,
of virtue and godliness. We have to train for a hereafter. …
By knowledge Comenius meant knowledge of nature and of man's
relation to nature. It is this important characteristic of
Comenius's educational system that reveals the direct
influence of Bacon and his school. … It is in the department
of Method, however, that we recognise the chief contribution
of Comenius to education. The mere attempt to systematise was
a great advance. In seeking, however, for foundations on which
to erect a coherent system, he had to content himself with
first principles which were vague and unscientific. … In the
department of knowledge, that is to say, knowledge of the
outer world, Comenius rested his method on the scholastic
maxim, 'Nihil est in intellectu quod non prius fuerit in
sensu.' This maxim he enriched with the Baconian induction,
comprehended by him only in a general way. … From the simple
to the complex, from the particular to the general, the concrete
before the abstract, and all, step by step, and even by
insensible degrees,—these were among his leading principles
of method. But the most important of all his principles was
derived from the scholastic maxim quoted above. As all is from
sense, let the thing to be known be itself presented to the
senses, and let every sense be engaged in the perception of
it. When it is impossible, from the nature of the case, to
present the object itself, place a vivid picture of it before
the pupil. The mere enumeration of these few principles, even
if we drop out of view all his other contributions to method
and school-management, will satisfy any man familiar with all
the more recent treatises on Education, that Comenius, even
after giving his precursors their due, is to be regarded as
the true founder of modern Method, and that he anticipates
Pestalozzi and all of the same school. … Finally, Comenius's
views as to the inner organisation of a school were original,
and have proved themselves in all essential respects correct.
The same may be said of his scheme for the organisation of a
State-system—a scheme which is substantially, mutatis
mutandis, at this moment embodied in the highly-developed
system of Germany. When we consider, then, that Comenius first
formally and fully developed educational method, that he
introduced important reforms into the teaching of languages,
that he introduced into schools the study of Nature, that he
advocated with intelligence, and not on purely sentimental
grounds, a milder discipline, we are justified in assigning to
him a high, if not the highest, place among modern educational
writers."
_S. S. Laurie,
John Amos Comenius,
pages 217-226._
{740}
EDUCATION: A. D. 1681-1878.
The Christian Brothers.
"Any description of popular education in Europe would be
incomplete, which should not give prominence to the Institute
of the Christian Brothers—or the Brothers of the Christian
Doctrine—including in that term the earliest professional
school for the training of teachers in Europe; one of the most
remarkable body of teachers devoted exclusively and without
pay to the education of the children of the poor that the
world has ever seen. … The Institute was established as a
professional school in 1681, and to Abbe John Baptist de la
Salle, belongs the high honor not only of founding it, but of
so infusing into its early organization his own profound
conviction of the Christ-like character of its mission among
the poor, that it has retained for nearly two centuries the
form and spirit of its origin. This devoted Christian teacher
was born at Rheims on the 30th of April, 1651. … He was
early distinguished for his scholarly attainments and maturity
of character; and at the age of seventeen, before he had
completed his full course of theological study, he was
appointed Canon in the Cathedral church of Rheims. From the
first, he became interested in the education of the young, and
especially of the poor, as the most direct way of leading them
to a Christian life;—and with this view before he was
twenty-one years old, he assumed the direction of two
charities, devoted to female education. From watching the
operation of these schools, conducted by teachers without
professional training, without plan and without mutual
sympathy and aid, he conceived the design of bringing the
teachers of this class of schools from the neighboring
parishes into a community for their moral and professional
improvement. For this purpose, he invited them first to meet,
and then to lodge at his house, and afterwards, about the year
1681, he purchased a house for their special accommodation.
Here, out of school hours and during their holy days, they
spent their time in the practice of religious duties, and in
mutual conferences on the work in which they were engaged.
About this period, a large number of free schools for the poor
were established in the neighboring towns; and applications
were constantly made to the Abbe for teachers formed under his
training, care, and influence. To meet this demand, and make
himself more directly useful in the field of Christian
education, he resigned his benefice, that he might give his
whole attention to the work. To close the distance between
himself, having a high social position and competence from his
father's estate, and the poor schoolmasters to whom he was
constantly preaching an unreserved consecration of themselves
to their vocation—he not only resigned his canonry, with its
social and pecuniary advantages, but distributed his
patrimony, in a period of scarcity, in relieving the
necessities of the poor, and in providing for the education of
their children. He thus placed himself on a footing of
equality—as to occupation, manner of life, and entire
dependence on the charity of others—with the schoolmasters of
the poor. The annals of education or religion show but few
such examples of practical self-denial, and entire
consecration to a sense of duty. … Having completed his act
of resignation and self-imposed poverty, he assembled his
teachers, announced to them what he had done, and sung with
them a Te Deum. After a retreat—a period set apart to prayer
and fasting-continued for seventeen days, they devoted
themselves to the consideration of the best course to give
unity, efficiency, and permanence to their plans of Christian
education for the poor. They assumed the name of 'The Brothers
of the Christian Doctrine,' as expressive of their
vocation—which by usage came to be abbreviated into
'Christian Brothers.' They took on themselves vows of poverty,
celibacy, and obedience for three years. They prescribed to
themselves the most frugal fare, to be provided in turns by
each other, They adopted at that time some rules of behavior,
which have since been incorporated into the fundamental rules
of the order. … In 1702 the first step was taken to
establish an Institute at Rome, under the mission of one of
the brothers, Gabriel Drolin, who after years of poverty, was
made conductor of one of the charitable schools founded by
Pope Clement XI. This school became afterwards the foundation
of the house which the brothers have had in Rome since the
pontificate of Benedict XIII., who conferred on the institute
the constitution of a religious order. In 1703, under the
pecuniary aid of M. Chateau Blanc, and the countenance of the
archbishop, M. de Gontery, a school was opened at Avignon. …
In 1789, the National Assembly prohibited vows to be made in
communities; and in 1790, suppressed all religious societies;
and in 1791, the institute was dispersed. At that date there
were one hundred and twenty houses, and over one thousand
brothers, actively engaged in the duties of the school room.
The continuity of the society was secured by the houses
established in Italy, to which many of the brothers fled. …
In 1801, on the conclusion of a Concordat between the Pope and
the government, the society was revived in France by the
opening of a school at Lyons; and in 1815, they resumed their
habit, and opened a novitiate, the members of which were
exempt from military service. At the organization of the
university in 1808, the institute was legally reorganized, and
from that time has increased in numbers and usefulness. … In
1842, there were 390 houses (of which 326 were in France),
with 3,030 brothers, and 585 novices. There were 642 schools
with 163,700 children, besides evening schools with 7,800
adults in attendance, and three reformatory schools with 2,000
convicts under instruction."
_Henry Barnard,
National Education in Europe,
pages 435-441._
"In 1878 their numbers had increased to 11,640; they had 1,249
establishments, and the number of their scholars was 390,607."
_Mrs. R. F. Wilson,
The Christian Brothers, their Origin and Work,
chapter 21._
EDUCATION: A. D. 1762.
Rousseau.
"Rousseau, who had educated himself, and very badly at that,
was impressed with the dangers of the education of his day. A
mother having asked his advice, he took up the pen to write
it; and, little by little, his counsels grew into a book, a
large work, a pedagogic romance ['Emile']. This romance, when
it appeared in 1762, created a great noise and a great
scandal. The Archbishop of Paris, Christophe de Beaumont, saw
in it a dangerous, mischievous work, and gave himself the
trouble of writing a long encyclical letter in order to point
out the book to the reprobation of the faithful. This document
of twenty-seven chapters is a formal refutation of the
theories advanced in 'Emile.' … In those days, such a
condemnation was a serious matter; its consequences to an
author might be terrible. Rousseau had barely time to flee.
His arrest was decreed by the parliament of Paris, and his
book was burned by the executioner. … As a fugitive,
Rousseau did not find a safe retreat even in his own country.
{741}
He was obliged to leave Geneva, where his book was also
condemned, and Berne, where he had sought refuge, but whence
he was driven by intolerance. He owed it to the protection of
Lord Keith, governor of Neufchâtel, a principality belonging
to the King of Prussia, that he lived for some time in peace
in the little town of Motiers in the Val de Travers. … The
renown of the book, condemned by so high an authority, was
immense. Scandal, by attracting public attention to it, did it
good service. What was most serious and most suggestive in it
was not, perhaps, seized upon; but the 'craze' of which it was
the object had, notwithstanding, good results. Mothers were
won over, and resolved to nurse their own infants; great lords
began to learn handicrafts, like Rousseau's imaginary pupil;
physical exercises came into fashion; the spirit of innovation
was forcing itself a way. … Three men above all the rest are
noted for having popularized the pedagogic method of Rousseau,
and for having been inspired in their labors by 'Emile.' These
were Basedow, Pestalozzi, and Froebel. Basedow, a German
theologian, had devoted himself entirely to dogmatic
controversy, until the reading of 'Emile' had the effect of
enlarging his mental horizon, and of revealing to him his true
vocation. … Pestalozzi of Zurich, one of the foremost
educators of modern times, also found his whole life
transformed by the reading of 'Emile,' which awoke in him the
genius of a reformer. … The most distinguished among his
disciples and continuators is Froebel, the founder of those
primary schools … known by the name of 'kindergartens,' and
the author of highly esteemed pedagogic works. These various
attempts, these new and ingenious processes which, step by
step, have made their way among us, and are beginning to make
their workings felt, even in institutions most stoutly opposed
to progress, are all traceable to Rousseau's 'Emile.' … It
is true that 'Emile' contains pages that have outlived their
day, many odd precepts, many false ideas, many disputable and
destructive theories; but at the same time we find in it so
many sagacious observations, such upright counsels, suitable
even to modern times, so lofty an ideal, that, in spite of
everything, we cannot read and study it without profit. …
There is absolutely nothing practicable in his [Rousseau's]
system. It consists in isolating a child from the rest of the
world; in creating expressly for him a tutor, who is a phœnix
among his kind; in depriving him of father, mother, brothers,
and sisters, his companions in study; in surrounding him with
a perpetual charlatanism, under the pretext of following
nature; and in showing him only through the veil of a
factitious atmosphere the society in which he is to live. And,
nevertheless, at each step it is sound reason by which we are
met; by an astonishing paradox, this whimsicality is full of
good sense; this dream overflows with realities; this
improbable and chimerical romance contains the substance and
the marrow of a rational and truly modern treatise on
pedagogy. Sometimes we must read between the lines, add what
experience has taught us since that day, transpose into an
atmosphere of open democracy those pages, written under the
old order of things, but even then quivering with the new
world which they were bringing to light, and for which they
prepared the way. Reading 'Emile' in the light of modern
prejudices, we can see in it more than the author wittingly
put into it; but not more than logic and the instinct of
genius set down there. To unfold the powers of children in due
proportion to their age; not to transcend their ability; to
arouse in them the sense of the observer and of the pioneer;
to make them discoverers rather than imitators: to teach them
accountability to themselves and not slavish dependence upon
the words of others; to address ourselves more to the will
than to custom, to the reason rather than to the memory; to
substitute for verbal recitations lessons about things; to
lead to theory by way of art; to assign to physical movements
and exercises a prominent place, from the earliest hours of
life up to perfect maturity; such are the principles scattered
broadcast in this book, and forming a happy counterpoise to
the oddities of which Rousseau was perhaps most proud."
_J. Steeg,
Introduction to Rousseau's 'Emile.'_
EDUCATION: A. D. 1798-1827.
Pestalozzi.
In Switzerland, up to the end of the eighteenth century, the
state of primary instruction was very bad. "The teachers were
gathered up at hazard; their pay was wretched; in general they
had no lodgings of their own, and they were obliged to hire
themselves out for domestic service among the well-off
inhabitants of the villages, in order to find food and lodging
among them. A mean spirit of caste still dominated
instruction, and the poor remained sunk in ignorance. It was
in the very midst of this wretched and unpropitious state of
affairs that there appeared, towards the end of the eighteenth
century, the most celebrated of modern educators. … Born at
Zurich in 1746, Pestalozzi died at Brugg in Argovia in 1827.
This unfortunate great man always felt the effects of the
sentimental and unpractical education given him by his mother,
who was left a widow with three children in 1751. He early
formed the habit of feeling and of being touched with emotion,
rather than of reasoning and of reflecting. The laughing-stock
of his companions, who made sport of his awkwardness, the
little scholar of Zurich accustomed himself to live alone and
to become a dreamer. Later, towards 1760, the student of the
academy distinguished himself by his political enthusiasm and
his revolutionary daring. At that early period he had
conceived a profound feeling for the miseries and the needs of
the people, and he already proposed as the purpose of his life
the healing of the diseases of society. At the same time there
was developed in him an irresistible taste for a simple,
frugal, and almost ascetic life. To restrain his desires had
become the essential rule of his conduct, and, to put it in
practice, he forced himself to sleep on a plank, and to
subsist on bread and vegetables."
_G. Compayré,
The History of Pedagogy,
chapter 18._
"In spite … of Pestalozzi's patent disqualifications in many
respects for the task he undertook; in spite of his ignorance
of even common subjects (for he spoke, read, wrote, and
cyphered badly, and knew next to nothing of classics or
science); in spite of his want of worldly wisdom, of any
comprehensive and exact knowledge of men and of things; in
spite of his being merely an elementary teacher,—through the
force of his all-conquering love, the nobility of his heart,
the resistless energy of his enthusiasm, his firm grasp of a
few first principles, his eloquent exposition of them in
words, his resolute manifestation of them in deeds,—he stands
forth among educational reformers as the man whose influence
on education is wider, deeper, more penetrating, than that of
all the rest—the prophet and the sovereign of the domain in
which he lived and laboured. …
{742}
It was late in life—he was fifty-two years of age—before
Pestalozzi became a practical school-master. He had even begun
to despair of ever finding the career in which he might
attempt to realize the theories over which his loving heart
and teeming brain had been brooding from his earliest youth.
… At fifty-two years of age, then, we find Pestalozzi
utterly unacquainted with the science and the art of
education, and very scantily furnished even with elementary
knowledge, undertaking at Stanz, in the canton of Unterwalden,
the charge of eighty children, whom the events of war had
rendered homeless and destitute. … The house in which the
eighty children were assembled to be boarded, lodged, and
taught, was an old tumble-down Ursuline convent, scarcely
habitable, and destitute of all the conveniences of life. The
only apartment suitable for a schoolroom was about twenty-four
feet square, furnished with a few desks and forms; and into
this were crowded the wretched children, noisy, dirty,
diseased, and ignorant, with the manners and habits of
barbarians. Pestalozzi's only helper in the management of the
institution was an old woman, who cooked the food and swept
the rooms; so that he was, as he tells us himself, not only
the teacher, but the paymaster, man-servant, and almost the
housemaid of the children. … 'My wishes [he writes] were now
accomplished. I felt convinced that my heart would change the
condition of my children as speedily as the springtide sun
reanimates the earth frozen by the winter. Nor,' he adds, 'was
I mistaken. Before the springtide sun melted away the snow
from our mountains, you could no longer recognise the same
children.' … 'I was obliged,' he says, 'unceasingly to be
everything to my children. I was alone with them from morning
to night. It was from my hand they received whatever could be
of service both to their bodies and minds. All succour, all
consolation, all instruction came to them immediately from
myself. Their hands were in my hand; my eyes were fixed on
theirs, my tears mingled with theirs, my smiles encountered
theirs, my soup was their soup, my drink was their drink. I
had around me neither family, friends, nor servants; I had
only them. I was with them when they were in health, by their
side when they were ill. I slept in their midst. I was the
last to go to bed, the first to rise in the morning. When we
were in bed I used to pray with them and talk to them till
they went to sleep. They wished me to do so.' … 'I knew,' he
says, 'no system, no method, no art but that which rested on
the simple consequences of the firm belief of the children in
my love towards them. I wished to know no other.' …
Gradually … Pestalozzi advanced to the main principles of
his system of moral education. … He says:—'Nature develops
all the human faculties by practice, and their growth depends
on their exercise.' 'The circle of knowledge commences close
around a man, and thence extends concentrically.' 'Force not
the faculties of children into the remote paths of knowledge,
until they have gained strength by exercise on things that are
near them.' 'There is in Nature an order and march of
development. If you disturb or interfere with it, you mar the
peace and harmony of the mind. And this you do, if, before you
have formed the mind by the progressive knowledge of the
realities of life, you fling it into the labyrinth of words,
and make them the basis of development.' 'The artificial march
of the ordinary school, anticipating the order of Nature,
which proceeds without anxiety and without haste, inverts this
order by placing words first, and thus secures a deceitful
appearance of success at the expense of natural and safe
development.' In these few sentences we recognise all that is
most characteristic in the educational principles of
Pestalozzi. … To set the intellectual machinery in
motion—to make it work, and keep it working; that was the
sole object at which he aimed; of all the rest he took little
account. … He relied upon a principle which must be insisted
on as cardinal and essential in education. He secured the
thorough interest of his pupils in the lesson, and mainly
through their own direct share in it. … Observation, …
according to Pestalozzi (and Bacon had said the same thing
before him), is the absolute basis of all knowledge, and is
therefore the prime agent in elementary education. It is
around this theory, as a centre of gravity, that Pestalozzi's
system revolves."
_J. Payne,
Lectures on the History of Education,
lecture. 9._
"During the short period, not more than a year, which
Pestalozzi spent among the children at Stanz, he settled the
main features of the Pestalozzian system. Sickness broke out
among the children, and the wear and tear was too great even
for Pestalozzi. He would probably have sunk under his efforts
if the French, pressed by the Austrians, had not entered
Stanz, in January, 1799, and taken part of the Ursuline
Convent for a military hospital. Pestalozzi was, therefore,
obliged to break up the school, and he himself went to a
medicinal spring on the Gurnigel in the Canton Bern. … He
came down from the Gurnigel, and began to teach in the primary
schools (i. e., schools for children from four to eight years
old) of Burgdorf, the second town in the Canton. Here the
director was jealous of him, and he met with much opposition.
… In less than a year Pestalozzi left this school in bad
health, and joined Krüsi in opening a new school in Burgdorf
Castle, for which he afterward (1802) obtained Government aid.
Here he was assisted in carrying out his system by Krüsi,
Tobler, and Bluss. He now embodied the results of his
experience in a work which has obtained great celebrity—'How
Gertrude Teaches her Children' [also published in England
under the title of 'Leonard and Gertrude]. In 1802 Pestalozzi,
for once in his life a successful and popular man, was elected
a member of a deputation sent by the Swiss people to Paris. On
the restoration of the Cantons in 1804. the Castle of Burgdorf
was again occupied by one of the chief magistrates, and
Pestalozzi and his establishment were moved to the Monastery
of Buchsee. Here the teachers gave the principal direction to
another, the since celebrated Fellenburg, 'not without my
consent,' says Pestalozzi, 'but to my profound mortification.'
He therefore soon accepted an invitation from the inhabitants
of Yverdun to open an institution there, and within a
twelvemonth he was followed by his old assistants, who had
found government by Fellenburg less to their taste than
no-government by Pestalozzi.
{743}
The Yverdun Institute had soon a world-wide reputation.
Pestalozzian teachers went from it to Madrid, to Naples, to
St. Petersburg. Kings and philosophers joined in doing it
honor. But, as Pestalozzi himself has testified, these praises
were but as a laurel-wreath encircling a skull. The life of
the Pestalozzian institutions had been the love which the old
man had infused into all the members, teachers as well as
children; but this life was wanting at Yverdun. The
establishment was much too large to be carried on successfully
without more method and discipline than Pestalozzi,
remarkable, as he himself says, for his 'unrivalled incapacity
to govern,' was master of. The assistants began each to take
his own line, and even the outward show of unity was soon at
an end. … Thus the sun went down in clouds, and the old man,
when he died at the age of eighty, in 1827, had seen the
apparent failure of all his toils. He had not, however, failed
in reality. It has been said of him that his true fortune was
to educate ideas, not children, and when twenty years later
the centenary of his birth was celebrated by school-masters,
not only in his native country, but throughout Germany, it was
found that Pestalozzian ideas had been sown, and were bearing
fruit, over the greater part of central Europe."
_R. H. Quick,
Essays on Educational Reformers,
chapter 8._
EDUCATION: A. D. 1804-1891.
Co-education and the Higher Education of
Women in the United States.
"When to a few daring minds the conviction came that education
was a right of personality rather than of sex, and when there
was added to this growing sentiment the pressing demand for
educated women as teachers and as leaders in philanthropy, the
simplest means of equipping women with the needful preparation
was found in the existing schools and colleges. … In nearly
every State west of the Alleghanies, 'Universities' had been
founded by the voluntary tax of the whole population.
Connected with all the more powerful religious denominations
were schools and colleges which called upon their adherents
for gifts and students. These democratic institutions had the
vigor of youth, and were ambitious and struggling. 'Why,'
asked the practical men of affairs who controlled them,
'should not our daughters go on with our sons from the public
schools to the university which we are sacrificing to equip
and maintain?' It is not strange that with this and much more
practical reasoning of a similar kind, co-education was
established in some colleges at their beginning, in others
after debate, and by a radical change in policy. When once the
chivalrous desire was aroused to give girls as good an
education as their brothers, Western men carried out the
principle unflinchingly. From the kindergarten to the
preparation for the doctorate of philosophy, educational
opportunities are now practically alike for men and women. The
total number of colleges of arts and sciences empowered by law
to give degrees, reporting to Washington in 1888, was three
hundred and eighty-nine. Of these, two hundred and
thirty-seven, or nearly two-thirds, were co-educational. Among
them are nearly all the State universities, and nearly all the
colleges under the patronage of the Protestant sects. Hitherto
I have spoken as if co-education were a Western movement; and
in the West it certainly has had greater currency than
elsewhere. But it originated, at least so far as concerns
superior secondary training, in Massachusetts. Bradford
Academy, chartered in 1804, is the oldest incorporated
institution in the country to which boys and girls were from
the first admitted; but it closed its department for boys in
1836, three years after the foundation of co-educational
Oberlin, and in the very year when Mount Holyoke was opened by
Mary Lyon, in the large hope of doing for young women what
Harvard had been founded to do for young men just two hundred
years before. Ipswich and Abbot Academies in Massachusetts had
already been chartered to educate girls alone. It has been the
dominant sentiment in the East that boys and girls should be
educated separately. The older, more generously endowed, more
conservative seats of learning, inheriting the complications
of the dormitory system, have remained closed to women. … In
the short period of the twenty years after the war the four
women's colleges which are the richest in endowments and
students of any in the world were founded and set in motion.
These colleges—Vassar, opened in 1865, Wellesley and Smith in
1875, and Bryn Mawr in 1885—have received in gifts of every
kind about $6,000,000, and are educating nearly two thousand
students. For the whole country the Commissioner of Education
reports two hundred and seven institutions for the superior
instruction of women, with more than twenty-five, thousand
students. But these resources proved inadequate. There came an
increasing demand, especially from teachers, for education of
all sorts. … In an attempt to meet a demand of this sort the
Harvard Annex began twelve years ago [in 1879] to provide a
few women with instruction from members of the Harvard
faculty. … Barnard College in New York is an annex of
Columbia only in a sense, for not all her instruction is given
by Columbia's teaching force, though Columbia will confer
degrees upon her graduates. The new woman's college at
Cleveland sustains temporarily the same relations to, Adelbert
College, though to a still greater extent she provides
independent instruction."
_A. F. Palmer,
Review of the Higher Education of Women
(Woman and the Higher Education, pages 105-127)._
"The Cleveland College for Women, Cleveland, Ohio, was first
opened for instruction in 1888 as a department of Western
Reserve University. At the same time the trustees of the
university decided to receive no more women into Adelbert
College. That the success of the new school might be assured,
the faculty of Adelbert College generously offered their
services for a term of years as instructors. During the first
year twenty-three young women were admitted, but two of whom
were in the regular courses. During 1889-90 the number of
students increased to thirty-eight. … In 1887 Evelyn
College, an institution for women, was opened at Princeton, N.
J. Its location at this place gives the institution very great
advantages, inasmuch as the use of the libraries and museums
of the College of New Jersey, popularly known as Princeton
College, are granted to the students."
_U. S. Commissioner of Education, Report, 1889-90,
volume 2, page 744._
{744}
"The latest report of the United States Commissioner of
Education contains over two hundred institutions for the
superior education of women. The list includes colleges and
seminaries entitled to confer degrees, and a few seminaries,
whose work is of equal merit, which do not give degrees. Of
these more than two hundred institutions for the education of
women exclusively, only 47 are situated within [western
states]. … Of these 47, but 30 are chartered with authority
to confer degrees. … The extent to which the higher
education of women is in the West identified with
co-education, can be seen by comparing the two statements
above given. Of the total 212 higher institutions receiving
women, and of the total 195 such institutions which confer the
regular degrees in arts, science, and letters, upon their
graduates, 165 are co-educational. … Among colleges
characterized from birth by a liberal and progressive spirit
may be mentioned 'The Cincinnati Wesleyan Woman's College.'
This institution was chartered in 1842, and claims to be 'the
first liberal collegiate institution in the world for the
exclusive education of women.' … The West is committed to
co-education, excepting only the Roman Catholic, the Lutheran,
and the Protestant Episcopal sects,—which are not yet, as
sects, committed to the collegiate education of women at
all,—and the Presbyterian sect, whose support, in the West,
of 14 co-educational colleges against 4 for the separate
education of young men, almost commits it to the
co-educational idea. … In 1853, Antioch College was opened
at Yellow Springs, Ohio. It was the first endeavor in the West
to found a college under Christian but non-sectarian auspices.
Its president, Horace Mann, wrote of it: 'Antioch is now the
only first-class college in all the West that is really an
unsectarian institution.' … Antioch was from the first
avowedly co-educational."
_M. W. Sewall,
Education of Women in the Western States
(Woman's Work in America, pages 61-70)._
"Most people would probably be ready to say that except for
the newly founded Woman's College in Baltimore and Tulane
University [State university of Louisiana], the collegiate
education of women does not exist in the South. But as matter
of fact, there are no less than one hundred and fifty
institutions in the South which are authorized by the
Legislatures of their respective States to confer the regular
college degrees upon women. Of these, forty-one are
co-educational, eighty-eight are for women alone, and
twenty-one are for colored persons of both sexes. The bureau
of education makes no attempt to go behind the verdict of the
State Legislatures, but on looking over the catalogues of all
these institutions it is, as might have been expected, easy to
see that the great majority of them are not in any degree
colleges, in the ordinary sense of the word. Not a single one
of the so-called female colleges presents a real college
course, and many of the co-educational colleges are colleges
only in name."
_C. L. Franklin,
Education of Women in the Southern States
(Woman's Work in America, pages 93-94)._
EDUCATION: A. D. 1816-1892,
Froebel and the Kindergarten.
"Frœbel (Friedrich Wilhelm August) was born April 21, 1782, at
Oberweissbach, in the principality of Schwanburg-Rudolstadt.
His mother died when he was so young that he never even
remembered her; and he was left to the care of an ignorant
maid-of-all-work, who simply provided for his bodily wants.
… Not until he was ten years of age did he receive the
slightest regular instruction. He was then sent to school, to
an uncle who lived in the neighborhood, … He pronounced the
boy to be idle (which, from his point of view, was quite true)
and lazy (which certainly was not true)—a boy, in short, that
you could do nothing with. … It was necessary for him to
earn his bread, and we next find him a sort of apprentice to a
woodsman in the great Thuringian forest. Here, as he afterward
tells us, he lived some years in cordial intercourse with
nature and mathematics, learning even then, though
unconsciously, from the teaching he received, how to teach
others. … In 1801 he went to the University of Jena, where
he attended lectures on natural history, physics, and
mathematics; but, as he tells us, gained little from them. …
This … was put an end to by the failure of means to stay at
the University. For the next few years he tried various
occupations. … While engaged in an architect's office at
Frankfort, he formed an acquaintance with the Rector of the
Model School, a man named Gruner. Gruner saw the capabilities
of Frœbel, and detected also his entire want of interest in
the work that he was doing; and one day suddenly said to him:
'Give up your architect's business; you will do nothing at it.
Be a teacher. We want one now in the school; you shall have
the place.' This was the turning point in Frœbel's life. He
accepted the engagement, began work at once, and tells us that
the first time he found himself in the midst of a class of 30
or 40 boys, he felt that he was in the element that he had
missed so long—'the fish was in the water.' He was
inexpressibly happy. … In a calmer mood he severely
questioned himself as to the means by which he was to satisfy
the demands of his new position. About this time he met with
some of Pestalozzi's writings, which so deeply impressed him
that he determined to go to Yverdun and study Pestalozzi on
the spot. He accomplished his purpose, and lived and worked
for two years with Pestalozzi. His experience at Yverdun
impressed him with the conviction that the science of
education had still to draw out from Pestalozzi's system those
fundamental principles which Pestalozzi himself did not
comprehend. 'And therefore,' says Schmidt, 'this genial
disciple of Pestalozzi supplemented his system by advancing
from the point which Pestalozzi had reached through pressure
from without, to the innermost conception of man, and arriving
at the thought of the true development and culture of
mankind.' … His educational career commenced November 13th,
1816, in Greisheim, a little village near Stadt-Ilm, in
Thuringia; but in 1817, when his Pestalozzian friend,
Middendorf, joined him … the school was transferred to the
beautiful village of Keilhau, near Rudolstadt, which may be
considered as his chief starting-place. … Langenthal,
another Pestalozzian, associated himself with them, and they
commenced building a house. The number of pupils rose to
twelve in 1818. Then the daughter of war-counselor Hoffman of
Berlin, from enthusiasm for Frœbel's educational ideas, became
his wife. She had a considerable dowry, which, together with
the accession of Frœbel's elder brother, increased the funds
and welfare of the school. In 1831 he was invited by the
composer, Schnyder von Wartensee, to erect a similar garden on
his estate, near the lake of Sempach, in the canton Luzern. It
was done. Frœbel changed his residence the next year, from
Keilhau to Switzerland. In 1834 the government of Bern invited
him to arrange a training course for teachers in Burgdorf. In
1835 he became principal of the orphan asylum in Burgdorf, but
in 1836 he and his wife wished to return to Germany. There he
was active in Berlin, Keilhau, Blankenburg, Dresden,
Liebenstein in Thuringia, Hamburg, (1849,) and Marienthal,
near Liebenstein, where he lived until his decease in 1852,
among the young ladies, whom he trained as nurses for the
kindergarten, and the little children who attended his
school."
_H. Barnard, editor,
Papers on Froebel's Kindergarten: Memoir._
{745}
"The child thinks only through symbols. In other words, it
explains all it sees not by the recorded experience of others,
as does an adult, but by marshaling and comparing its own
concept or symbol of what it has itself seen. Its sole
activity is play. 'The school begins with teaching the
conventionalities of intelligence. Froebel would have the
younger children receive a symbolic education in plays, games,
and occupations which symbolize the primitive arts of man.'
For this purpose, the child is led through a series of
primitive occupations in plaiting, weaving, and modeling,
through games and dances, which bring into play all the social
relations, and through songs and the simple use of number,
form and language. The 'gifts' all play their manifold
purpose, inspiring the child, awakening its interest, leading
the individual along the path the race has trod, and teaching
social self-control. The system has its palpable dangers. The
better and more intricate the tool, the more skill needed in
its safe use. … The kindergarten requires trained hands.
With trivial teachers its methods may easily degenerate into
mere amusement, and thwart all tendency to attention,
application, or industry. Valuable as it is in its hints for
the care and development of children, its gay round needs to
be ballasted with the purpose and theory uppermost in
Froebel's mind when he opened his first school in a German
peasant village, down whose main street a brook tumbled, and
through whose lanes the halberdier still walked by night and
sang the hours. It is idle to suppose that Froebel founded a
perfect system, or to insist on all the details of the
professional kindergartner's creed. Here as elsewhere, and
aforetime, it has taken only forty years from the founder's
death for faith to degenerate into religion and sect. But the
central purpose he had in view must be steadily maintained. He
sought his ends through play, and not through work. It is as
dangerous for this method to harden into an approach to the
primary school as it is for it to soften into a riot of
misrule, and lax observance of order. … Switzerland, then
the only republic in Europe, was the first country to adopt
Froebel's method, though in some Swiss towns the kindergarten
is still supported by private associations. France, another
republic, has more children beginning school under an
adaptation of Froebel than all the rest of the world put
together. It was Froebel's own opinion that 'the spirit of
American nationality was the only one in the world with which
his method was in complete harmony, and to which its
legitimate institutions would present no barriers.' The
figures given below of the growth of the kindergarten in this
country are the best possible proof of the truth of Froebel's
prescient assertion. … In 1870 there were in this country
only five kindergarten schools, and in 1872 the National
Education Association at its Boston meeting appointed a
committee which reported a year later recommending the system.
Between 1870 and 1873, experimental kindergartens were
established in Boston, Cleveland, and St. Louis, public
attention was enlisted by the efforts of Miss Elizabeth Palmer
Peabody, the most important worker in the early history of the
kindergarten in this country, and the system began a rapid
growth. Taking private and public kindergartens together, the
advance of the system has displayed this most rapid progress:
1875 1880 1885 1891-2
Schools. 95 232 413 1,001
Teachers. 216 524 902 2,242
Pupils. 2,809 8,871 18,780 50,423
Down to 1880, these figures, outside of St. Louis, relate
almost altogether to private schools. By 1885 the public
kindergartens were not over a fifth in number of the schools,
and held not over a fourth of the pupils. In the figures last
given in this table there are 724 private kindergartens with
1,517 teachers and 29,357 pupils, and 277 public kindergartens
with 725 teachers and 21,066 pupils, so that the latter have
now 27 per cent. of the schools, 33 per cent. of the teachers,
and 42 per cent. of the pupils. … Yet great as is this
advance, the kindergarten as yet plays but an infinitesimal
part in our educational system as a whole. … Of the sixteen
American cities with a population of over 200,000 in 1890,
only four—Philadelphia, Boston, Milwaukee, and St. Louis
have incorporated the kindergarten on any large scale in their
public-school systems. Four more—New York, Chicago, Brooklyn,
and Buffalo—have kindergarten associations organized to
introduce the new method as a part of free public education."
_T. Williams,
The Kindergarten Movement
(The Century, January, 1893)._
EDUCATION: A. D. 1865-1883.
The Higher Education of Women in England.
The movement in England to secure a higher education for women
dates from 1865. "In that year a Royal Commission was
appointed to inquire into and report on the endowed grammar
schools of England and Wales, and on what is called
'secondary' education generally. Several ladies who were
already alive to the deficiencies in the education of their
own sex, memorialized this Commission to extend the scope of
its inquiry to girls' schools, and the Commission taking what
was then thought quite a bold step, consented to do so. …
One of the points brought out was the absence of any
institutions doing for women what the universities did for
men, and the consequent difficulty in which women stood of
obtaining the highest kind of education—a difficulty which
told on girls' schools by making it hard for them to procure
thoroughly competent mistresses. This led in the course of the
next year or two—the report of the Commission having been
published in 1868—to the establishment of a college for
women, which was first placed at Hitchin, a town on the Great
Northern Railway, between London and Cambridge, and in a
little while, when money had been collected sufficient for the
erection of buildings, this college was finally settled at
Girton, a spot about two miles from Cambridge, whence it takes
the name of Girton College. Its purpose was to provide for
women the same teaching in the same subjects as men receive in
Cambridge University, and the teachers were nearly all of them
professors or tutors there, men in some cases of high
eminence.
{746}
Meanwhile, in Cambridge itself, a system of day classes for
women, taught by University teachers, had been created, at
first as an experiment for one year only. When several years
had passed, when the number attending had increased, and it
was found that women came to lodge in Cambridge in order to
profit by these lectures, a house was hired in which to
receive them, and ultimately a company was formed and a
building erected a little way out of Cambridge, under the name
of Newnham Hall, to which the lectures, now mainly designed
for these students coming from a distance, were attached.
Thus, at about the same time, though from somewhat different
origins, Girton and Newnham came into being and began their
course of friendly rivalry. Both have greatly developed since
then. Their buildings have been repeatedly enlarged. Their
numbers have risen steadily. … In Girton the charge for
lodging, board and instruction is £100 per annum, in Newnham a
little less. The life in both is very similar, a lady being
placed at the head as resident principal, while the affairs
are managed by a committee including both men and women. The
lectures are delivered partly by Cambridge men, professors in
the University, or tutors or lecturers in some of the
colleges, partly by ladies, who, having once been students
themselves, have come back as teachers. These lectures cover
all the subjects required in the degree examinations of the
University; and although students are not obliged to enter
themselves for those examinations, they are encouraged to do
so, and do mostly set the examinations before them as their
goal. Originally the University took no official notice of the
women students, and their being examined by the regular degree
examiners of the University was a matter of pure favor on the
part of those gentlemen. … At last, however, some examiners
came into office (for the examiners are changed every two
years) who disapproved of this informal examination of the
women candidates, and accordingly a proposal was made to the
University that it should formally authorize and impose on the
examiners the function heretofore discharged by them in their
individual capacity. This proposal, after some discussion and
opposition, was carried, so that now women may enter both for
the honor examinations and the pass examinations for the
University degree as a matter of right. Their names do not
appear in the official lists among those of the men, but
separately; they are, however, tested by the same question
papers and judged by the same standard. … Some Oxford
graduates and their friends, stimulated by the success of
Girton and Newnham, have founded two similar institutions in
Oxford, one of which, Episcopalian and indeed High Church in
its proclivities, is called Lady Margaret Hall, while the
other, in compliment to the late Mrs. Somerville, has been
given the title of Somerville Hall. These establishments are
conducted on much the same lines as the two Cambridge
colleges. … In the large towns where new colleges have been
lately founded or courses of lectures established, such as
Manchester, Liverpool, and Leeds, steps are usually taken to
provide lectures for women. … What is called among you the
question of co-education has come up very little in England.
All the lectures given inside the walls of the four English
colleges I have mentioned are, of course, given to women only,
the colleges being just as exclusively places for women as
Trinity and St. John's are places for men. … At this moment
the principal of one of the two halls of which Newnham
consists is a daughter of the Prime Minister [Miss Helen
Gladstone], while her predecessor was a niece of the Marquis
of Salisbury. The principal of Girton is a niece of the late
Lord Lawrence, the famous Governor-General of India. Of the
students a fair proportion belong to the wealthy classes,
while a somewhat larger proportion mean to take teaching as
their profession."
_Progress of Female Education in England.
(Nation, July 5, 1883)._
See, also, above, SCOTLAND.
EDUCATION: A. D. 1865-1886.
Industrial Education in the United States.
"In 1865 John Boynton of Templeton, Mass., gave $100,000 for
the endowment and perpetual support of a Free Institute for
the youth of Worcester County, Mass. He thus explained his
objects: 'The aim of this school shall ever be the instruction
of youth in those branches of education not usually taught in
the public schools, which are essential and best adapted to
train the young for practical life'; especially such as were
intending to be mechanics, or manufacturers, or farmers. In
furtherance of this object, ten months later, in 1866, Ichabod
Washburn of Worcester gave $25,000, and later $50,000 more to
erect, equip, and endow a machine-shop which should
accommodate twenty apprentices and a suitable number of
skilled workmen to instruct them and to carry on the shop as a
commercial establishment. The apprentices were to be taught
the use of tools in working wood and metals, and to be
otherwise instructed, much as was customary fifty years ago
for boys learning a trade. The Worcester Free Institute was
opened for students in November, 1868, as a technical school
of about college grade; and the use of the shops and shop
instruction was limited to those students in the course of
mechanical engineering. Thus did the Worcester School under
the leadership of Prest. C. O. Thompson incorporate
tool-instruction and shop-practice into the training of
mechanical engineers. … In the same year, 1868, Victor
Della-Vos introduced into the Imperial Technical (engineering)
School at Moscow the Russian method of class-instruction in
the use of tools. … The great value of the work of Della-Vos
lay in the discovery of the true method of tool-instruction,
for without his discovery the later steps would have been
impossible. In 1870, under the direction of Professor Robinson and
Prest. J. M. Gregory of the University of Illinois, a
wood-working shop was added to the appliances for the course
in architecture, and an iron-working shop to the course in
mechanical engineering in that institution. In 1871, the
Stevens Institute of Hoboken, N. J., munificently endowed by
Edwin A. Stevens, as a school of mechanical engineering,
fitted up a series of shops for the use of its students. The
next step forward was taken by Washington University in St.
Louis in providing for all its engineering students systematic
instruction in both wood and metals. In 1872, a large shop in the
Polytechnic School was equipped with work-benches, two lathes,
a forge, a gear-cutter and full sets of carpenters',
machinists', and forging tools. …
{747}
Thus far had we progressed when the Philadelphia Exposition of
1876 was opened. None of us knew anything of the Moscow
school, or of the one in Bohemia in which the Russian method
had been adopted in 1874. … In his report of 1876, Prest. J.
D. Runkle, of the Mass. Institute of Technology, gave a full
exposition of the theory and practice of tool-instruction of
Della-Vos as exhibited at the Philadelphia Exposition, and he
recommended that without delay the course in mechanical
engineering at the Institute be completed by the addition of a
series of Instruction Shops. The suggestion was acted on, and
in the spring of 1877 a class of mechanical engineering
students was given instruction in chipping and filing. … The
St. Louis Manual Training School was established June 6, 1879.
It embodied hopes long cherished and plans long formed. For
the first time in America the age of admission to school-shops
was reduced to fourteen years as a minimum, and a very general
three-years' course of study was organized. The ordinance by
which the school was established specified its objects in very
general terms:—'Its objects shall be instruction in
mathematics, drawing, and the English branches of a
high-school course, and instruction and practice in the use of
tools. The tool-instruction, as at present contemplated, shall
include carpentry, wood-turning, pattern-making, iron clipping
and filing, forge-work, brazing and soldering, the use of
machine-shop tools, and such other instruction of a similar
character, its it may be deemed advisable to add to the
foregoing from time to time. The students will divide their
working hours, as nearly as possible, equally between mental
and manual exercises.' … The Baltimore Manual Training
School, a public school, on the same footing as the high
school, was opened in 1883. The Chicago Manual Training
School, established as an incorporated school by the
Commercial Club of that city, was opened in January, 1884. …
Manual training was introduced into the high school of Eau
Claire, Wisconsin, in 1884. The 'Scott Manual Training School'
was organized as a part of the high school of Toledo in 1884.
… Manual training was introduced into the College (high
school) of the City of New York in 1884. The Philadelphia
Manual Training School, a public high school, was opened in
September, 1885. The Omaha high school introduced manual
training in 1885. … Dr. Adler's Workingman's School for poor
children has for several years taught manual training to the
very lowest grades. … The Cleveland Manual Training School
was incorporated in 1885, and opened in connection with the
city high school, in 1886. New Haven, which had for some time
encouraged the use of tools by the pupils of several of its
grammar schools, in September, 1886, opened a regular shop and
furnished systematic instruction in tool-work. The school
board of Chicago added manual training to the course of the
'West Side High School' in September, 1886."
_C. M. Woodward,
The Manual Training School,
chapter 1._
"Concerning the manual-training school there are two widely
different views. The one insists that it shall teach no trade,
but the rudiments of all of them; the other that the
particular industries may properly be held to maintain schools
to recruit their own ranks. The first would teach the use of
the axe, the saw, the plane, the hammer, the square, the
chisel, and the file; claiming that 'the graduate from such a
course at the end of three years is within from one to three
months of knowing quite as thoroughly as an apprentice who had
served seven years any one of the twenty trades to which he
may choose to turn.' Of this class are, besides most of those
already named, the Haish Manual Training School of Denver;
that of Tulane University, New Orleans; the Felix Adler's
'Workingman's School, of New York City; and the School of
Manual Technology, Vanderbilt University, Nashville. Among
schools of the second class are some interesting institutions.
They include the numerous general and special trade-schools
for boys, instruction in the manifold phases of domestic
economy for girls, and the yet small but rapidly growing class
of industries open alike to both. Sewing is taught in public
or private schools in Baltimore, Boston, Cincinnati, Chicago,
New York, Philadelphia, Providence, St. Louis, and about a
dozen other cities, besides in a number of special
institutions. Cooking-schools are no longer a novelty in half
as many of the larger cities, since their introduction into
New York city in 1876. Printing may be learned in the Kansas
Agricultural College; Cooper Union, New York; Girard College,
Philadelphia, and elsewhere. Telegraphy, stenography,
wood-engraving, various kinds of smithing, and carpentry,
have, especially the last two, numerous representatives. The
New York Kitchen Garden, for the instruction of children in
the work of the household, is an interesting modification of
the Kindergarten along the industrial line. For young ladies,
the Elizabeth Aull Seminary, Lexington, Missouri, is a school
of home-work, in which 'are practically taught the mysteries
of the kitchen and laundry,' and upon whose graduates is
conferred the degree of 'Mistress of Home-Work.' The Lasell
Seminary at Auburndale, Massachusetts, also has recently
(1885) undertaken a similar but more comprehensive experiment,
including lessons and lectures in anatomy and physiology, with
hygiene and sanitation, the principles of common law by an
eminent attorney, instruction and practice in the arts of
domestic life, the principles of dress, artistic
house-furnishing, healthy homes, and cooking. Of
training-schools for nurses there are thirty-one. … Of
schools of a different character still, there have been or are
the Carriage Builder's Apprenticeship School, New York; those
of Hoe & Co., printing-press manufacturers; and Tiffany & Co.,
jewelers; and the Tailors' 'Trades School' recently
established and flourishing in Baltimore, besides the
Pennsylvania Railroad novitiate system, at Altoona; in which
particular trades or guilds or corporations have sought to
provide themselves with a distinct and specially trained class
of artisans. The latest and in some respects the most
interesting experiment of the kind is that of the 'Baltimore
and Ohio Railroad service' at Mt. Clare, Baltimore. It was
inaugurated in 1885, apprentices being selected from
applicants by competitive examination."
_R. G. Boone,
Education in the United States,
chapter 13._
{748}
EDUCATION: A. D. 1873-1889.
University Extension in England.
"The University Extension Movement, which has now been before
the country eighteen years, has revealed the existence of a
real need for larger opportunities of higher education amongst
the middle and working classes. From the time of its
inauguration in 1873 by the University of Cambridge, owing
mainly to the enthusiastic advocacy and skill in practical
affairs of Mr. James Stuart (at that time Fellow and Lecturer
of Trinity College), down to the present day, when the
principle has been accepted by all the Universities in Great
Britain and by some in countries beyond the seas, the movement
has shown marvellous vitality and power of adjustment to
changing conditions. From a small beginning in three towns in
the Midlands, it has grown until the centres in connection
with the various branches are to be numbered by hundreds and
the students by tens of thousands. The success attained by
Cambridge in the first three years led, in 1876, to the
formation of the London Society for the Extension of
University Teaching, for the express purpose of carrying on
similar work within the metropolitan area. In 1878 the
University of Oxford undertook to make similar arrangements
for Lectures, but after a year or two, they were for the time
abandoned. Subsequently in 1885 the Oxford work was revived
and has since been carried on with vigour and success. The
University of Durham is associated with Cambridge in this work
in the northeast of England, while courses of Lectures on the
Extension plan have been given for several years in connection
with Victoria University in centres around Manchester. Two or
three years ago the four Scottish Universities united in
forming a like scheme for Scotland, while at the close of 1889
a Society for the Extension of University Teaching was formed
in the north of Ireland. Finally the movement has spread to
Greater Britain and the United States, and there are signs
that work on similar lines is about to be established in
various countries on the continent of Europe."
_R. D. Roberts,
Eighteen years of University Extension,
chapter 1._
"One of the chief characteristics of the system is the method
of teaching adopted in connection with it. A working man at
one of the centres in the north of England who had attended
the lectures for several terms, described the method as
follows in a paper read by him at a meeting:
'Any town or village which is prepared to provide an audience,
and pay the necessary fees, can secure a course of twelve
lectures on any subject taught in the University, by a
lecturer who has been educated at the University, and who is
specially fitted for lecturing work. A syllabus of the course
is printed and put into the hands of students. This syllabus
is a great help to persons not accustomed to note-taking.
Questions are given on each lecture, and written answers can
be sent in by anyone, irrespective of age or sex. All the
lectures, except the first, are preceded by a class, which
lasts about an hour. In this class the students and the
lecturer talk over the previous lecture. The written answers
are returned with such corrections as the lecturer deems
necessary. At the end of the course an examination is held and
certificates are awarded to the successful candidates. These
lectures are called University Extension Lectures.'
Another definition which has been given is this:
'Advanced systematic teaching for the people, without
distinction of rank, sex, or age, given by means of lectures,
classes, and written papers during a connected course,
conducted by men "who believe in their work, and intend to do
it," teachers who connect the country with the University by
manner, method, and information.'"
_R. D. Roberts,
The University Extension Scheme,
pages 6-7._
EDUCATION: A. D. 1887-1892.
University Extension in the United States.
"The first conscious attempts to introduce English University
Extension methods into this country were made in 1887, by
individuals connected with the Johns Hopkins University. The
subject was first publicly presented to the American Library
Association at their meeting upon one of the Thousand Islands
in September, 1887. The idea was heartily approved," and the
first result of the suggestion was a course of lectures on
economic questions given in one of the lecture-rooms of the
Buffalo Library the following winter by Dr. Edward W. Bemis.
The next winter "Dr. Bemis repeated his course on 'Economic
Questions of the Day' in Canton, Ohio. … The Canton
experiment was followed in February, 1889, by another course,
conducted by Dr. Bemis, in connection with the Public Library
at St. Louis. … About the time when these various
experiments were being tried in St. Louis, Canton, and
Buffalo, individual members of Johns Hopkins University were
attempting to introduce University Extension methods in
connection with local lectures in the city of Baltimore. …
The idea of University Extension in connection with Chautauqua
was conceived by Dr. J. H. Vincent during a visit to England,
in 1886, when he saw the English lecture system in practical
operation and his own methods of encouraging home reading in
growing favor with university men. The first definite American
plan, showing at once the aims, methods, cost, and history, of
University Extension lectures, was drawn up at Chautauqua by
the writer of this article in the early summer of 1888. …
Contemporary with the development of Chautauqua College and
University Extension was the plan of Mr. Seth T. Stewart, of
Brooklyn, New York, for 'University and School Extension.' …
Several public meetings were held in New York in 1889-90 for
the promotion of University and School Extension. … One of
the most gratifying recent experiments in University Extension
in America has been in the city of Philadelphia under the
auspices of the American Society for the Extension of
University Teaching. At various local centres Mr. Richard G.
Moulton, one of the most experienced lecturers from Cambridge,
England, lectured for ten weeks in the winter and spring of
1891 to large and enthusiastic audiences. All the essential
features of English University Extension were methodically and
persistently carried out. … The American field for
University Extension is too vast for the missionary labors of
any one society or organization. … The most significant sign
of the times with regard to University Extension in America is
the recent appropriation of the sum of $10,000 for this very
object by the New York legislature. The money is to be
expended under the direction of the Regents of the University
of the State of New York. … The intention of the New York
act is simply to provide the necessary means for organizing a
State system of University Extension … and to render such
general assistance and co-operation as localities may
require."
_H. B. Adams,
University Extension in America,
(Forum, July, 1891)._
On the opening, in 1892, of the Chicago University,
munificently endowed by Mr. John D. Rockefeller, of Cleveland,
University Extension was made one of the three grand divisions
of its organization.
{749}
EDWARD,
King of Portugal,
A. D. 1433-1438.
Edward, called the Confessor, King of England,
A. D. 1042-1065.
Edward, called the Elder, King of Wessex,
A. D. 901-925.
Edward, called the Martyr, King of Wessex,
A. D. 975.
Edward I., King of England,
A. D. 1274-1307.
Edward II., King of England,
A. D. 1307-1327.
Edward III., King of England,
A. D. 1327-1377.
Edward V., King of England (first king of the House of York),
A. D. 1461-1483.
Edward V., titular King of England,
A. D. 1483 (from April 9, when his father, Edward IV.,
died, until June 22, when he is believed to have been
murdered in the Tower by command of his uncle, the usurper,
Richard III.).
Edward VI., King of England,
A. D. 1547-1553.
EDWARD, Fort: A. D. 1755.
Built by the New England troops.
See CANADA: A. D. 1755 (SEPTEMBER).
EDWARD, Fort: A. D. 1717.
Abandoned to the British.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
A. D.1777(JULY-OCTOBER).
----------EDWARD, Fort: End----------
EDWIG, King of Wessex, A. D. 955-957.
EDWIN, King of Northumbria, A. D. 617-633.
Egesta.
See SYRACUSE: B. C. 415-413;
and SICILY: B. C. 409-405.
EGFRITH, King of Northumbria, A. D. 670-685.
EGINA.
EGINETANS.
See ÆGINA.
EGMONT, Count, and the struggle in the Netherlands.
See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1562-1566, and 1566-1568.
EGNATIAN WAY, The.
A Roman road constructed from Apollonia on the Adriatic to the
shores of the Hellespont; finally carried to Byzantium.
EGRA: A. D. 1647.
Siege and capture by the Swedes.
See GERMANY: A. D. 1646-1648.
EGYPT:
Its Names.
"Egypt is designated in the old inscriptions, as well as in
the books of the later Christian Egyptians, by a word which
signifies 'the black land,' and which is read in the Egyptian
language Kern, or Kami."
[Footnote: Kamit in the edition of 1891.]
"The ancients had early remarked that the cultivable land of
Egypt was distinguished by its dark and almost black colour.
… The neighbouring region of the Arabian desert bore the
name of Tesher, or the red land. … The Egyptians designated
themselves simply as 'the people of the black land,' and …
the inscriptions, so far as we know, have handed down to us no
other appellation. … A real enigma is proposed to us in the
derivation and meaning of the curious proper name, by which
the foreign peoples of Asia, each in its own dialect, were
accustomed to designate Egypt. The Hebrews gave the land the
name of Mizraim; the Assyrians Muzur; the Persians, Mudraya.
We may feel assured that at the basis of all these
designations there lies an original form which consisted of
the three letters M-z-r, all explanations of which have been
as yet unsuccessful. Although I intend hereafter to consider
more particularly the derivation of this puzzling name, which
is still preserved at the present day in the Arabic
appellation Misr, I will here premise the remark that this
name was originally applied only to a certain definite part of
Egypt, in the east of the Delta, which, according to the
monuments, was covered and defended by many 'zor,' or
fortresses, and was hence called in Egyptian Mazor (that is,
fortified)."
_H. Brugsch-Bey,
History of Egypt under the Pharaohs,
chapter 2._
"Brugsch explains the name Egypt by 'ha-ka-ptah,' i. e. 'the
precinct of Ptah.' As Ptah was more especially the god of
Memphis, this name would have come from Memphis."
_M. Duncker,
History of Antiquity,
book 1, chapter 1, note._
"The last use of Kem died out in the form Chemi in Coptic, the
descendant of the classical language, which ceased to be
spoken a century ago. It survives among us in the terms
'chemistry' and 'alchemy,' sciences thought to be of Egyptian
origin."
_R. S. Poole,
Cities of Egypt,
introduction._
EGYPT:
Its Historical Antiquity.
The lists of Egyptian kings which have been found "agree in
presenting the name of Mena [or Menes] as that of the first
Pharaoh of Egypt, and as such he is unhesitatingly accepted,
although no contemporary monumental record of the fact has yet
been discovered. According to Manetho, the age of Mena dates
back to a period of 5,004 years before the Christian era, a
date which is nearly equal to 7,000 years from the present
day. Brugsch favours a somewhat less interval, namely, 4455 B. C.;
others place it as low as 2700 B. C., whilst Birch and
Chabas adopt a medium date, namely 4000 B. C., which is
equivalent to 6000 years backward from the existing time.
These extreme variations are chiefly referable to the
difficulty of ascertaining the precise length of each
individual reign, and especially to the occasional
contemporaneous reign of two or more kings, and sometimes the
existence of two or more dynasties in different parts of the
empire. … Lieblein gives full credit to the chronology of
Manetho [a priest of Heliopolis, who wrote about 260 B. C.],
as recorded by the historian Africanus, as likewise did the
distinguished Mariette, and differs very little from the
standard adopted by Birch. He assigns to Mena, as the pioneer
of the first monarchy, a date in round numbers of 3900 years."
_E. Wilson,
The Egypt of the Past,
chapter 1._
"As to the era … when the first Pharaoh mounted the throne,
the German Egyptologers have attempted to fix it at the
following epochs: Boeckh, B. C. 5702; Unger, 5613; Brugsch,
4455; Lauth, 4157; Lepsius, 3892; Bunsen, 3623. The difference
between the two extreme points of the series is amazingly
great, for its number of years amounts to no less than 2079.
… The calculations in question are based on the extracts
already often mentioned from a work by the Egyptian priest
Manetho on the history of Egypt. That learned man had then at
his command the annals of his country's history, which were
preserved in the temples, and from them, the best and most
accurate sources, be derived the materials for his work,
composed in the Greek language, on the history of the ancient
Egyptian Dynasties. His book, which is now lost, contained a
general review of the kings of the land, divided into Thirty
Dynasties, arranged in the order of their names, with the
lengths of their reigns, and the total duration of each
dynasty. Though this invaluable work was little known and
certainly but little regarded by the historians of the old
classical age, large extracts were made from it by some of the
ecclesiastical writers. In process of time the copyists,
either by error or designedly, corrupted the names and the
numbers, and thus we only possess at the present day the ruins
instead of the complete building. The truth of the original,
and the authenticity of its sources were first proved by the
deciphering of the Egyptian writings. And thus the Manethonian
list served, and still serves, as a guide for assigning to the
royal names read on the monuments their places in the
Dynasties."
_H. Brugsch-Bey,
History of Egypt under the Pharaohs,
chapter 4._
See, also, MANETHO, LIST OF.
{750}
EGYPT:
Origin of the ancient people.
"The Egyptians, together with some other nations, form, as it
would seem, a third branch of that [the Caucasian] race,
namely, the family called Cushite, which is distinguished by
special characters from the Pelasgian and the Semitic
families. Whatever relations may be found always to exist
between these great races of mankind, thus much may be
regarded as certain, that the cradle of the Egyptian people
must be sought in the interior of the Asiatic quarter of the
world. In the earliest ages of humanity, far beyond all
historical remembrance, the Egyptians, for reasons unknown to
us, left the soil of their primeval home, took their way
towards the setting sun, and finally crossed that bridge of
nations, the Isthmus of Suez, to find a new fatherland on the
favoured banks of the holy Nile. Comparative philology, in its
turn, gives powerful support to this hypothesis. The Egyptian
language … shows in no way any trace of a derivation and
descent from the African families of speech. On the contrary,
the primitive roots and the essential elements of the Egyptian
grammar point to such an intimate connection with the
Indo-Germanic and Semitic languages that it is almost
impossible to mistake the close relations which formerly
prevailed between the Egyptians and the races called
Indo-Germanic and Semitic."
_H. Brugsch-Bey,
History of Egypt under the Pharaohs,
chapter 1._
"It has been maintained by some that the immigration was from
the south, the Egyptians having been a colony from Ethiopia
which gradually descended the Nile and established itself in
the middle and lower portions of the valley; and this theory
can plead in its favour, both a positive statement of
Diodorus, and the fact, which is quite certain, of an ethnic
connection between the Egyptians and some of the tribes who
now occupy Abyssinia (the ancient Ethiopia). But modern
research has shown quite unmistakably that the movement of the
Egyptians was in the opposite direction. … We must look,
then, rather to Syria or Arabia than to Ethiopia as the cradle
of the Egyptian nation. At the same time we must admit that
they were not mere Syrians or Arabs, but had, from the
remotest time whereto we can go back, distinct
characteristics, whereby they have a good claim to be
considered as a separate race."
_G. Rawlinson,
History of Ancient Egypt,
chapter 3._
"So far as our knowledge reaches, the northern edge of Africa,
like the valley of the Nile as far as the marshes at the foot
of the Abyssinian hills, was inhabited by nations who in
colour, language, and customs were sharply distinguished from
the negro. These nations belong to the whites: their languages
were most closely allied to the Semitic. From this, and from
their physical peculiarities, the conclusion has been drawn
that these nations at some time migrated from Asia to the soil
of Africa. They formed a vast family, whose dialects still
continue in the language of the Berbers. Assisted by the
favourable conditions of their land, the tribe which settled
on the Lower Nile quickly left their kinsmen far behind.
Indeed the latter hardly rose above a pastoral life. The
descendants of these old inhabitants of the valley of the
Nile, in spite of the numerous layers which the course of
centuries has subsequently laid upon the soil of the land,
still form the larger part of the population of Egypt, and the
ancient language is preserved in the dialect of the Copts."
_M. Duncker,
History of Antiquity,
book 1, chapter 1._
EGYPT:
The Old Empire and the Middle Empire.
The following are the Egyptian Dynasties, from the first
Pharaoh, Mena, to the epoch of the Hyksos, or Shepherd kings,
with the dates and periods assigned to each by Brugsch:
The First Dynasty; of Thinis: B. C. 4400-4166.
The Second; of Thinis: 4133-4000.
The Third; of Memphis: 3966-3766.
The Fourth; of Memphis: 3733-3600.
The Fifth; of Elephantine: 3566-3333.
The Sixth; of Memphis: 3300-3066.
The Seventh to the Eleventh
(a confused and obscure period): 3033-2500.
The Twelfth; of Thebes: 2466-2266.
_H. Brugsch-Bey,
History of Egypt under the Pharaohs,
appendix A._
"The direct descendants of Menes [or Mena] form the First
Dynasty, which, according to Manetho, reigned 253 years. No
monument contemporary with these princes has come down to us.
… The Second Dynasty, to which Manetho assigns nine kings,
lasted 302 years. It was also originally from This [or
Thinis], and probably related to the First. … When this
family had become extinct, a Dynasty, originally from Memphis,
seized the throne, forming the Third, and to it a duration of
214 years is attributed. … With the Fourth Dynasty, Memphite
like the Third, and which reigned 284 years, history becomes
clearer and monuments more numerous. This was the age of the
three Great Pyramids, built by the three kings, Khufu (the
Cheops of Herodotus), Shafra (Chefren), and Menkara
(Mycerinus). … The Fifth Dynasty came originally from
Elephantine, at the southern extremity of Upper Egypt, and
there possibly the kings generally resided, though at the same
time Memphis was not deprived of its importance. … On the
death of the last king of the Fifth Dynasty, a new family, of
Memphitic origin according to Manetho, came to the throne. …
Primitive art attained its highest point under the Sixth
Dynasty. … But, from the time of the civil commotions in
which Neit-aker [the Nitocris of Herodotus] perished, Egyptian
civilization underwent a sudden and unaccountable eclipse.
From the end of the Sixth Dynasty to the commencement of the
Eleventh, Manetho reckons 436 years, and for this whole period
the monuments are absolutely silent. Egypt seems then to have
disappeared from the rank of nations; and when this long
slumber ended, civilization commenced a new career, entirely
independent of the past. …
{751}
Thus ends that period of nineteen centuries, which modern
scholars know as the Old Empire. … Thebes did not exist in
the days of the glory of the Old Empire. The holy city of Amen
seems to have been founded during the period of anarchy and
obscurity, succeeding, as we have said, to the Sixth Dynasty.
Here was the birthplace of that renewed civilization, that new
monarchy, we are accustomed to call the Middle Empire, the
middle age in fact of ancient Egypt—a middle age anterior to
the earliest ages of all other history. From Thebes cane the
six kings of the Eleventh Dynasty. … We again quote the
excellent remarks of M. Mariette: 'When, with the Eleventh
Dynasty, we see Egypt awake from her long slumber, all old
traditions appear to be forgotten; the proper names used in
ancient families, the titles of functionaries, the style of
writing, and even the religion—all seem new. This,
Elephantine, and Memphis, are no longer the favourite
capitals. Thebes for the first time becomes the seat of
sovereign power. Egypt, moreover, has lost a considerable
portion of her territory, and the authority of her legitimate
kings hardly extends beyond the limited district of the
Thebaid. The study of the monuments confirms these general
views; they are rude, primitive, sometimes coarse; and when we
look at them we may well believe that Egypt, under the
Eleventh Dynasty, again passed through a period of infancy, as
she had already done under the Third Dynasty.' A dynasty
probably related to, and originally from the same place as
these first Theban princes succeeded them. … This Twelfth
Dynasty reigned for 213 years, and its epoch was one of
prosperity, of peace at home and glorious achievements abroad.
… Although the history of the Twelfth Dynasty is clear and
well known, illustrated by numerous monuments, there is,
nevertheless, no period in the annals of Egypt more obscure
than the one closing with the Thirteenth Dynasty. It is one
long series of revolutions, troubles, and internal
dissensions, closed by a terrible catastrophe, the greatest
and most lasting recorded in Egyptian history, which a second
time interrupted the march of civilization on the banks of the
Nile, and for a while struck Egypt from the list of nations."
_F. Lenormant and E. Chevallier,
Manual of Ancient History of the East,
book 3, chapter 1-2._
ALSO IN:
_C. C. J. Bunsen,
Egypt's Place in Universal History,
volume 2._
See, also, MEMPHIS, and THEBES, EGYPT.
EGYPT:
The Hyksos, or Shepherd-Kings.
According to the Manethouian account which the Jewish
historian Josephus has preserved to us by transcribing it, the
Egyptian Netherlands were at a certain time overspread by a
wild and rough people, which came from the countries of the
east, overcame the native kings who dwelt there, and took
possession of the whole country, without finding any great
opposition on the part of the Egyptians. They were called
Hyksos, which Josephus interpreted as meaning Shepherd-kings.
"Hyk," he explained, meant King, in the holy language, and
"sos," in the dialect of the people, signified Shepherd. But
Dr. Brugsch identifies "sos" with the name "Shasu," which the
old Egyptians gave to the Bedouins, whose name became
equivalent to Shepherds. Hence Dr. Brugsch inclines to the
ancient opinion transmitted by Josephus, that the Hyksos were
Arabs or Bedouins—the Shasu of the Egyptian records, who hung
on the northeastern frontier of Egypt from the most ancient
times and were always pressing into the country, at every
opportunity. But many objections against this view are raised
and the different theories advanced to account for the Hyksos
are quite numerous. Canon Rawlinson says: "The Egyptians of
the time of Herodotus seem to have considered that they were
Philistines. Moderns have regarded them as Canaanites,
Syrians, Hittites. It is an avoidance rather than a solution
of the difficulty to say that they were 'a collection of all
the nomad hordes of Arabia and Syria' [Lenormant], since there
must have been a directing hand. … On the whole, therefore,
we lean to the belief that the so-called Hyksos or Shepherds
were Hittites."
_G. Rawlinson,
History of Ancient Egypt,
chapter 19._
"It is maintained on good authority that the Hyksos, or
Shepherd-Kings, had secured possession of the eastern frontier
of Lower Egypt immediately after the close of the Twelfth
Dynasty; that at this time the Thirteenth and the Fourteenth
Dynasties ruled contemporaneously, the former in Upper, the
latter in Lower Egypt; one was illegitimate, the other the
illegitimate line; but authors are not in accord as to their
right of priority. It is supposed that, while Egypt claimed
the Thirteenth Dynasty as her own, the Hyksos usurped the
mastery over the Fourteenth Dynasty, and governed through the
agency of its kings, treating them meanwhile as vassal chiefs.
These local kings had cities from which they were unable to
escape, and were deprived of an army of defence. Such was the
state of the country for 184 years, when the Fourteenth
Dynasty died out, and when the Fifteenth Dynasty, constituted
of six successive Hyksos kings, took the reins of government
into their own hands. Lieblein, whose views we are now
endeavouring to express, assigns as the date of the invasion
of the Hyksos 2108 years B. C. … It is not improbable that
the well-known journey of Abraham to Egypt was made during the
early period of the reign of the Shepherd-Kings; whilst the
visit of Joseph occurred near the close of their power."
_E. Wilson,
The Egypt of the Past,
chapter 5._
"'The Shepherds possessed themselves of Egypt by violence,'
writes Mariette-Bey, 'but the civilization which they
immediately adopted on their conquest was rather Egyptian than
Asiatic, and the discoveries of Avaris (San) prove that they
did not even banish from their temples the gods of the ancient
Egyptian Pantheon.' In fact the first shepherd-king, Solatis
himself, employed an Egyptian artist to inscribe … his title
on the statue of a former legitimate Pharaoh. 'They did not
disturb the civilization more than the Persians or the Greeks,
but simply accepted the higher one they had conquered.' So our
revered scholar Dr. Birch has summed up the matter; and Professor
Maspero has very happily described it thus: 'The popular
hatred loaded them with ignominious epithets, and treated them
as accursed, plague-stricken, leprous. Yet they allowed
themselves very quickly to be domesticated. … Once admitted
to the school of Egypt, the barbarians progressed quickly in
the civilized life. The Pharaonic court reappeared around
these shepherd-kings, with all its pomp and all its following
of functionaries great and small. The royal style and title of
Cheops and the Amenemhas were fitted to the outlandish names
of Jannes and Apapi. The Egyptian religion, without being
officially adopted, was tolerated, and the religion of the
Canaanites underwent some modifications to avoid hurting
beyond measure the susceptibility of the worshippers of
Osiris.'"
_H. G. Tomkins,
Studies on the Times of Abraham,
chapter 8._
{752}
In a late Italian work ("Gli Hyksos") by Dr. C. A. de Cara,
"he puts together all that is ascertained in regard to them
[the Hyksos], criticises the theories that have been
propounded on their behalf, and suggests a theory of his own.
Nothing that has been published on the subject seems to have
escaped his notice. … His own view is that the Hyksos
represented a confederacy of various Asiatic tribes, under the
leadership of the northern Syrians. That their ruling class
came from this part of the world seems to me clear from the
name of their supreme god Sutekh, who occupied among them the
position of the Semitic Baal."
_A. H. Sayce,
The Hyksôs
(Academy, September 20, 1890)._
"Historical research concerning the history of the Hyksos may
be summed up as follows:
I. A certain number of non-Egyptian kings of foreign
origin, belonging to the nation of the Menti, ruled for a
long time in the eastern portion of the Delta.
II. These chose as their capitals the cities of Zoan and
Avaris, and provided them with strong fortifications.
III. They adopted not only the manners and customs of the
Egyptians, but also their official language and writing,
and the order of their court was arranged on Egyptian
models.
IV. They were patrons of art, and Egyptian artists erected,
after the ancient models, monuments in honour of these
usurpers, in whose statues they were obliged to reproduce
the Hyksos physiognomy, the peculiar arrangement of the
beard und head-dress, as well as other variations of their
costume.
V. They honored Sutekh, the son of Nut, as the supreme god
of their newly acquired country, with the surname Nub, 'the
golden.' He was the origin of all that is evil and perverse
in the visible and invisible world, the opponent of good
and the enemy of light. In the cities of Zoan and Avaris,
splendid temples were constructed in honour of this god,
and other monuments raised, especially Sphinxes, carved out
of stone from Syene.
VI. In all probability one of them was the founder of a new
era, which most likely began with the first year of his
reign. Down to the time of the second Ramses, four hundred
years had elapsed of this reckoning which was acknowledged
even by the Egyptians.
VII. The Egyptians were indebted to their contact with them
for much useful knowledge. In particular their artistic views
were expanded and new forms and shapes, notably that of the
winged sphinx, were introduced, the Semitic origin of which is
obvious at a glance. …
The inscriptions on the monuments designate that foreign
people who once ruled in Egypt by the name of Men or Menti. On
the walls of the temple of Edfû it is stated that 'the
inhabitants of the land of Asher are called Menti.' … In the
different languages, … and in the different periods of
history, the following names are synonymous: Syria, Rutennu of
the East, Asher, and Menti."—"Since, on the basis of the
most recent and best investigations in the province of ancient
Egyptian chronology, we reckon the year 1350 B. C. as a mean
computation for the reign of Ramses, the reign of the Hyksos
king, Nub, and probably its beginning, falls in the year 1750
B. C., that is, 400 years before Ramses II. Although we are
completely in the dark as to the place King Nub occupied in
the succession of the kindred princes of his house, yet the
number mentioned is important, as an approximate epoch for the
stay of the foreign kings in Egypt. According to the statement
in the Bible, the Hebrews from the immigration of Jacob into
Egypt until the Exodus remained 430 years in that land. Since
the Exodus from Egypt took place in the time of Meneptah II.,
the son of Ramses II.—the Pharaoh of the oppression—the
year B. C. 1300 may be an approximate date. If we add to this
430 years, as expressing the total duration of the sojourn of
the Hebrews in Egypt, we arrive at the year 1730 B. C. as the
approximate date for the immigration of Jacob into Egypt, and
for the time of the official career of Joseph at the court of
Pharaoh. In other words, the time of Joseph (1730 B. C.) must
have fallen in the period of the Hyksos domination, about the
reign of the above-mentioned prince Nub (1750 B. C)."
_H. Brugsch-Bey,
Egypt under the Pharaohs
(edition of 1891, by M. Brodrick),
pages 106-109, and 126._
See JEWS: THE CHILDREN OF ISRAEL IN EGYPT.
ALSO IN:
F. C. H. Wendel, History of Egypt, chapter 4.
EGYPT: About B. C. 1700-1400.
The New Empire.
The Eighteenth Dynasty.
"The dominion of the Hyksos by necessity gave rise to profound
internal divisions, alike in the different princely families
and in the native population itself. Factions became rampant
in various districts, and reached the highest point in the
hostile feeling of the inhabitants of Patoris or the South
country against the people of Patomit or North country, who
were much mixed with foreign blood. … From this condition of
divided power and of mutual jealousy the foreign rulers
obtained their advantage and their chief strength, until King
Aahmes made himself supreme."
_H. Brugsch-Bey,
Egypt under the Pharaohs
(edition of 1891, by M. Brodrick)._
"The duration of the reign of this first Pharaoh of the New
Empire was twenty-five years. He was succeeded by his son
Amenhotep I. and the latter by his son Thothmes I. "The reign
of Thothmes 1. … derives its chief distinction from the fact
that, at this period of their history, the Egyptians for the
first time carried their arms deep into Asia, overrunning
Syria, and even invading Mesopotamia, or the tract between the
Tigris and the Euphrates. Hitherto the furthest point reached
in this direction had been Sharuhen in Southern Palestine. …
Syria was hitherto almost an undiscovered region to the
powerful people which nurturing its strength in the Nile
valley, had remained content with its own natural limits and
scarcely grasped at any conquests. A time was now come when
this comparative quietude and absence of ambition were about
to cease. Provoked by the attack made upon her from the side
of Asia, and smarting from the wounds inflicted upon her pride
and prosperity by the Hyksos during the period of their rule,
Egypt now set herself to retaliate, and for three centuries
continued at intervals to pour her armies into the Eastern
continent, and to carry fire and sword over the extensive and
populous regions which lay between the Mediterranean and the
Zagros mountain range. There is some uncertainty as to the
extent of her conquests; but no reasonable doubt can be
entertained that for a space of three hundred years Egypt was
the most powerful and the most aggressive state that the world
contained, and held a dominion that has as much right to be
called an 'Empire' as the Assyrian, the Babylonian or the Persian.
{753}
While Babylonia, ruled by Arab conquerors, declined in
strength, and Assyria proper was merely struggling into
independence, Egypt put forth her arm and grasped the fairest
regions of the earth's surface." The immediate successor of
Thothmes I. was his son, Thothmes II., who reigned in
association with a sister of masculine character, queen
Hatasu. The strong-minded queen, moreover, prolonged her reign
after the death of this elder brother, until a younger
brother, Thothmes III. displaced her. The Third Thothmes was
the greatest of Egyptian conquerors and kings. He carried his
arms beyond the Euphrates, winning a memorable victory at
Megiddo over the confederated kings of the Syrian and
Mesopotamian countries. He left to his son (Amenhotep II.) "a
dominion extending about 1,100 miles from north to south, and
(in places) 450 miles from west to east." He was a great
builder, likewise, and "has left the impress of his presence
in Egypt more widely than almost any other of her kings, while
at the same time he has supplied to the great capitals of the
modern world their most striking Egyptian monuments." The
larger of the obelisks now standing in Rome and
Constantinople, as well as those at London and New York were
all of them produced in the reign of this magnificent Pharaoh.
The two obelisks last named stood originally, and for fourteen
centuries at the front of the great temple of the sun, in
Heliopolis. They were removed by the Roman Emperor, Augustus,
B. C: 23, to Alexandria, where they took in time the name of
Cleopatra's Needles,—although Cleopatra had no part in their
long history. After nineteen centuries more of rest, these
strangely coveted monuments were again disturbed, and
transported into lands which their builder knew not of. The
later kings of the Eighteenth Dynasty seem to have, none of
them, possessed the energy and character of Thothmes III. The
line ended about 1400 B. C. with Horemheb, who left no heirs.
_G. Rawlinson,
History of Ancient Egypt,
chapter 20._
ALSO IN:
_H. Brugsch-Bey,
Egypt under the Pharaohs,
chapter 13._
_H. H. Gorringe,
Egyptian Obelisks._
EGYPT: About B. C. 1500-1400.
The Tell el-Amarna Tablets.
Correspondence of the Egyptian kings with Babylonia, Assyria,
Armenia, Asia Minor, Syria and Palestine.
"The discovery made in 1887 by a peasant woman of Middle Egypt
may be described as the most important of all contributions to
the early political history of Western Asia. We have become
possessed of a correspondence, dating from the fifteenth
century B. C., which was carried on during the reigns of three
Egyptian kings, with the rulers of Babylon, Assyria, Armenia,
Asia Minor, Syria, and Palestine, during a period of great
activity, when revolutions which affected the whole history of
the east shore lands of the Mediterranean were in progress;
and we find in these tablets a contemporary picture of the
civilisation of the age. … The Tell Amarna tablets represent
a literature equal in bulk to about half the Pentateuch, and
concerned almost exclusively with political affairs, They are
clay tablets, varying from two inches to a foot in length,
with a few as large as eighteen inches, covered with cuneiform
writing generally on both sides, and often on the edges as
well. The peasantry unearthed nearly the complete collection,
including some 320 pieces in all; and explorers afterwards
digging on the site have added only a few additional
fragments. The greater number were bought for the Berlin
Museum, while eighty-two were acquired for England, and the
rest remain either in the Boulak Museum at Cairo; or, in a few
instances, in the hands of private collectors. … Tell Amarna
(apparently 'the mound of the tumuli ') is an important ruined
site on the east bank of the Nile, about a hundred and fifty
miles in a straight line south of Cairo. Its Egyptian name is
said to have been Khu-en-aten, 'Glory of the Sun-disk.'"
_The Tell Amarna Tablets
(Edinburgh Review, July, 1893)._
"The collection of Cuneiform Tablets recently found [1887] at
Tell el-Amarna in Upper Egypt, consisted of about three
hundred and twenty documents, or portions of documents. The
British Museum possesses eighty-two … the Berlin Museum has
one hundred and sixty, a large number being fragments; the
Gizeh Museum has sixty; and a few are in the hands of private
persons. … In color the Tablets vary from a light to a dark
dust tint, and from a flesh-color to dark brick-red. The
nature of the clay of which they are made sometimes indicates
the countries from which they come. The size of the Tablets in
the British Museum varies from 8¾ inches x 4-7/8 inches to 2-1/8
inches x 1-11/16 inches; the longest text contains 98 lines, the
shortest 10. … The greater number are rectangular, and a few
are oval; and they differ in shape from any other cuneiform
documents known to us. … The writing … resembles to a
certain extent the Neo-Babylonian, i. e., the simplification
of the writing of the first Babylonian Empire used commonly in
Babylonia and Assyria for about seven centuries B. C. It
possesses, however, characteristics different from those of
any other style of cuneiform writing of any period now known
to exist; and nearly every tablet contains forms of characters
which have hitherto been thought peculiar to the Ninevite or
Assyrian style of writing. But, compared with the neat,
careful hand employed in the official documents drawn up for
the kings of Assyria, it is somewhat coarse and careless, and
suggests the work of unskilled scribes. One and the same hand,
however, appears in tablets which come from the same person
and the same place. On some of the large tablets the writing
is bold and free; on some of the small ones the characters are
confused and cramped, and are groups of strokes rather than
wedges. The spelling … is often careless, and in some
instances syllables have been omitted. At present it is not
possible to say whether the irregular spelling is due to the
ignorance of the scribe or to dialectic peculiarities. … The
Semitic dialect in which these letters are written is
Assyrian, and is, in some important details, closely related
to the Hebrew of the Old Testament. … The documents were
most probably written between the years B. C. 1500 to 1450.
… They give an insight into the nature of the political
relations which existed between the kings of Western Asia and
the kings of Egypt, and prove that an important trade existed
between the two countries from very early times. … A large
number of the present tablets are addressed to 'the King of
Egypt,' either Amenophis III. or Amenophis IV. Nearly all of
them consist of reports of disasters to the Egyptian power and
of successful intrigues against it, coupled by urgent
entreaties for help, pointing to a condition of distraction
and weakness in Egypt. … The most graphic details of the
disorganized condition, and of the rival factions, of the
Egyptian dependencies lying on the coastline of Phoenicia and
Northern Palestine, are to be gathered from a perusal of the
dispatches of the governors of the cities of Byblos, Beyrut
and Tyre."
_The Tell el-Amarna Tablets in the British Museum,
introduction._
{754}
"In the present state of cuneiform research I believe it to be
impossible to give a translation of the Tell el-Amarna texts
which would entirely satisfy the expert or general reader. No
two scholars would agree as to any interpretation which might
be placed upon certain rare grammatical forms and unknown
words in the Babylonian text, and any literal translation in a
modern language would not be understood by the general reader
on account of the involved style and endless repetition of
phrases common to a Semitic idiom and dialect. About the
general meaning of the contents of the greater number of the
letters there can be no doubt whatever, and it is therefore
possible to make a summary of the contents of each letter,
which should, as a rule, satisfy the general reader, and at
the same time form a guide to the beginner in cuneiform.
Summaries of the contents of the Tell el-Amarna tablets in the
British Museum have been published in 'The Tell el-Amarna
Tablets in the British Museum, with autotype facsimiles,'
printed by order of the Trustees, London, 1892, and it is
hoped that the transliteration, given in the following pages
may form a useful supplement to that work." …
No. 1. A Letter from Egypt—Amenophis III. to Kallimma (?)
Sin, King of Karaduniyash, referring to his proposed marriage
with Sukharti, the daughter of Kallimma-Sin, and containing
the draft of a commercial treaty, and an allusion to the
disappearance of certain chariots and horses.
No.2. Letters from Babylonia-Burraburiyash, King of
Karaduniyash, to Amenophis IV., referring to the friendship
which had existed between their respective fathers, and the
help which had been rendered to the King of Egypt by
Burraburiyash himself; the receipt of two manahs of gold is
acknowledged and a petition is made for more.
No. 3. Burraburiyash, King of Karaduniyash to Amenophis IV.,
complaining that the Egyptian messengers had visited his
country thrice without bringing gifts, and that they withheld
some of the gold which had been sent to him from Egypt;
Burraburiyash announces the despatch of a gift of lapis-lazuli
for the Egyptian princess who was his son's wife. …
No. 30. Letter from Abi-milki, governor of Tyre, to the King
of Egypt, reporting that he believes Zimrida will not be able
to stir up disaffection in the city of Sidon, although he has
caused much hostility against Tyre. He asks for help to
protect the city, and for water to drink and wood to burn, and
he sends with his messenger Ili-milki five talents of copper
and other gifts for the King of Egypt. He reports that the
King of Danuna is dead and that his brother reigns in his
stead; one half of the city of Ugarit has been destroyed by
fire; the soldiers of the Khatti have departed; Itagamapairi,
governor of Kedesh, and Aziru are fighting against Namyawiza.
If the King of Egypt will but send a few troops, all will be
well with Tyre. …
No. 43. Letter from the governor of a town in Syria to the
King of Egypt, reporting that the rebels have asserted their
independence; that Biridashwi has stirred up rebellion in the
city of Inu-Amma; that its people have captured chariots in
the city of Ashtarti: that the kings of the cities of Buzruna
and Khalunni have made a league with Biridashwi to slay
Namyawiza (who, having taken refuge in Damascus and being
attacked by Arzawiya, declared himself to be a vassal of
Egypt); that Arzawiya went to the city of Gizza and afterwards
captured the city of Shaddu; that Itakkama ravaged the country
of Gizza; and that Arzawiya and Biridashwi have wasted the
country of Abitu.
No. 44. Continuation (1) of a letter to the King of Egypt,
reporting that, owing to the hostilities of Abd-Ashirta,
Khâya, an official, was unable to send ships to the country of
Amurri, as he had promised. The ships from Arvad which the
writer has in his charge, lack their full complement of men
for war service, and he urges the king to make use of the
ships and crews which he has had with him in Egypt. The writer
of the letter also urges the King of Egypt to appoint an
Egyptian official over the naval affairs of Sidon, Beyrut and
Arvad, and to seize Abd-Ashirta and put him under restraint to
prevent him obstructing the manning of the ships of war. …
No. 58. Letter from the governor of a district in Palestine
(?) to the governors of neighbouring states in the land of
Canaan, informing them that he is about to send his messenger
Akiya on a mission to the King of Egypt, and to place himself
and every thing that he has at his disposal. Akiya will go to
Egypt by the way of Canaan, and the writer of this letter
suggests that any gifts they may have to send to Egypt should
be carried by him, for Akiya is a thoroughly trustworthy man.
_C. Bezold,
Oriental Diplomacy: Being the transliterated
text of the Cuneiform Despatches,
preface._
Under the title of "The Story of a 'Tell,'" Mr. W. M. Flinders
Petrie, the successful excavator and explorer of Egyptian
antiquities, gave a lecture in London, in June, 1892, in which
he described the work and the results of an excavation then in
progress under his direction on the supposed site of Lachish,
at a point where the maritime plain of Philistia rises to the
mountains of Judæa, on the route from Egypt into Asia. The
chairman who introduced Mr. Petrie defined the word "Tell" as
follows: "A Tell is a mound of earth showing by the presence
of broken pottery or worked stone that it is the site of a
ruined city or village. In England when a house falls down or
is pulled down the materials are usually worth the expense of
removing for use in some new building. But in Egypt common
houses have for thousands of years been built of sun-dried
bricks; in Palestine of rough rubble walling, which, on
falling, produces many chips, with thick flat roofs of
plaster. It is thus often less trouble to get new than to use
old material; the sites of towns grow in height, and
depressions are filled up." The mound excavated by Mr. Petrie
is known as Tell el Hesy. After he left the work it was
carried on by Mr. Bliss, and Mr. Petrie in his lecture says
"The last news is that Mr. Bliss has found the long looked for
prize, a cuneiform tablet. … From the character of the
writing, which is the same as on the tablets written in
Palestine in 1400. B. C., to the Egyptian king at Tel el
Amarna, we have a close agreement regarding the chronology of
the town. Further, it mentions Zimrida as a governor, and this
same man appears as governor of Lachish on the tablets found
at Tel el Amarna. We have thus at last picked up the other end
of the broken chain of correspondence between Palestine and
Egypt, of which one part was so unexpectedly found in Egypt a
few years ago on the tablets at Tel el Amarna; and we may hope
now to recover the Palestinian part of this intercourse and so
establish the pre-Israelite history of the land."
W_. M. F. Petrie,
The Story of a "Tell"
(The City and the Land, lecture 6)._
See, also, PALESTINE.
ALSO IN:
_C. R. Conder,
The Tell Amarna Tablets,
translated._
{755}
EGYPT: About B. C. 1400-1200.
The first of the Ramesides.
The Pharaohs of the Oppression and the Exodus.
"Under the Nineteenth Dynasty, which acquired the throne after
the death of Har-em-Hebi [or Hor-em-heb] the fortune of Egypt
maintained to some extent its ascendancy; but, though the
reigns of some war-like kings throw a bright light on this
epoch, the shade of approaching trouble already darkens the
horizon." Ramses I. and his son, or son-in-law, Seti I., were
involved in troublesome wars with the rising power of the
Hittites, in Syria, and with the Shasu of the Arabian desert.
Seti was also at war with the Libyans, who then made their
first appearance in Egyptian history. His son Ramses II., the
Sesostris of the Greeks, who reigned for sixty-seven years, in
the fourteenth century B. C., has always been the most famous
of the Egyptian kings, and, by modern discovery, has been made
the most interesting of them to the Christian world. He was a
busy and boastful warrior, who accomplished no important
conquests; but "among the Pharaohs he is the builder 'par
excellence.' It is almost impossible to find in Egypt a ruin
or an ancient mound, without reading his name." … It was to
these works, probably, that the Israelites then in Egypt were
forced to contribute their labor; for the Pharaoh of the
oppression is identified, by most scholars of the present day,
with this building and boasting Sesostris.
_F. Lenormant and E. Chevallier,
Manual of the Ancient History of the East,
book 3, chapter 3._
"The extreme length of the reign of Ramses was, as in other
histories, the cause of subsequent weakness and disaster. His
successor was an aged son, Menptah, who had to meet the
difficulties which were easily overcome by the youth of his
energetic father. The Libyans and their maritime allies broke
the long tranquillity of Egypt by a formidable invasion and
temporary conquest of the north-west. The power of the
monarchy was thus shaken, and the old king was not the leader
to restore it. His obscure reign was followed by others even
obscurer, and the Nineteenth Dynasty ended in complete
anarchy, which reached its height when a Syrian chief, in what
manner we know not, gained the rule of the whole country. It
is to the reign of Menptah that Egyptian tradition assigned
the Exodus, and modern research has come to a general
agreement that this is its true place in Egyptian history. …
Unfortunately we do not know the duration of the oppression of
the Israelites, nor the condition of Lower Egypt during the
Eighteenth Dynasty, which, according to the hypothesis here
adopted, corresponds to a great part of the Hebrew sojourn. It
is, however, clear from the Bible that the oppression did not
begin till after the period of Joseph's contemporaries, and
had lasted eighty years before the Exodus. It seems almost
certain that this was the actual beginning of the oppression,
for it is very improbable that two separate Pharaohs are
intended by the 'new king which knew not Joseph' and the
builder of Rameses, or, in other words, Ramses II., and the
time from the accession of Ramses II. to the end of Menptah's
reign can have little exceeded the eighty years of Scripture
between the birth of Moses and the Exodus. … If the
adjustment of Hebrew and Egyptian history for the oppression,
as stated above, be accepted, Ramses II. was probably the
first, and certainly the great oppressor. His character suits
this theory; he was an undoubted autocrat who … covered
Egypt and Lower Nubia with vast structures that could only
have been produced by slave-labor on the largest scale."
_R. S. Poole,
Ancient Egypt
(Contemporary Review, March, 1879)._
ALSO IN:
_H. Brugsch-Bey,
Egypt Under the Pharaohs,
chapter 14._
_H. G. Tomkins,
Life and Times of Joseph._
See, also:
JEWS: THE CHILDREN OF ISRAEL IN EGYPT.
EGYPT: About B. C. 1300.
Exodus of the Israelites.
See JEWS: THE ROUTE OF THE EXODUS.
EGYPT: About B. C. 1200-670.
The decline of the empire of the Pharaohs.
From the anarchy in which the Nineteenth Dynasty came to its
end, order was presently restored by the seating in power of a
new family, which claimed to be of the Rameside stock. The
second of its kings, who called himself Ramses III. and who is
believed to be the Rhampsinitus of the Greeks, appears to have
been one of the ablest of the monarchs of his line. The
security and prosperity of Egypt were recovered under his
reign and he left it in a state which does not seem to have
promised the rapid decay which ensued. "It is difficult to
understand and account for the suddenness and completeness of
the collapse. … The hieratic chiefs, the high priests of the
god Ammon at Thebes, gradually increased in power, usurped one
after another the prerogatives of the Pharaohs, by degrees
reduced their authority to a shadow, and ended with an open
assumption not only of the functions, but of the very insignia
of royalty. A space of nearly two centuries elapsed, however,
before this change was complete. Ten princes of the name of
Ramses, and one called Meri-Tum, all of them connected by
blood with the great Rameside house, bore the royal title and
occupied the royal palace, in the space between B. C. 1280 and
B. C. 1100. Egyptian history during this period is almost
wholly a blank. No military expeditions are conducted—no
great buildings are reared—art almost disappears—literature
holds her tongue." Then came the dynasty of the priest-kings,
founded by Her-Hor, which held the throne for more than a
century and was contemporary in its latter years with David
and Solomon. The Twenty-Second Dynasty which succeeded had its
capital at Bubastis and is concluded by Dr. Brugsch to have
been a line of Assyrian kings, representing an invasion and
conquest of Egypt by Nimrod, the great king of Assyria. Other
Egyptologists disagree with Dr. Brugsch in this, and Professor
Rawlinson, the historian of Assyria, finds objections to the
hypothesis from his own point of view.
{756}
The prominent monarch of this dynasty was the Sheshonk of
Biblical history, who sheltered Jeroboam, invaded Palestine
and plundered Jerusalem. Before this dynasty came to an end it
had lost the sovereignty of Egypt at large, and its Pharaohs
contended with various rivals and invaders. Among the latter,
power grew in the hands of a race of Ethiopians, who had risen
to importance at Napata, on the Upper Nile, and who extended
their power, at last, over the whole of Egypt. The Ethiopian
domination was maintained for two-thirds of a century, until
the great wave of Assyrian conquest broke upon Egypt in 672 B.
C. and swept over it, driving the Ethiopians back to Napata
and Meroë.
_G. Rawlinson,
History of Ancient Egypt,
chapter 25._
ALSO IN:
_H. Brugsch-Bey,
Egypt under the Pharaohs,
chapter 15-18._
_E. Wilson,
Egypt of the Past,
chapter 8._
See, also, ETHIOPIA.
EGYPT: B. C. 670-525.
Assyrian conquest and restored independence.
The Twenty-sixth Dynasty.
The Greeks at Naucratis.
Although Syria and Palestine had then been suffering for more
than a century from the conquering arms of the Assyrians, it
was not until 670 B. C., according to Professor Rawlinson, that
Esarhaddon passed the boundaries of Egypt and made himself
master of that country. His father Sennacherib, had attempted
the invasion thirty years before, at the time of his siege of
Jerusalem, and had recoiled before some mysterious calamity
which impelled him to a sudden retreat. The son avenged his
father's failure. The Ethiopian masters of Egypt were expelled
and the Assyrian took their place. He "broke up the country
into twenty governments, appointing in each town a ruler who
bore the title of king, but placing all the others to a
certain extent under the authority of the prince who reigned
at Memphis. This was Neco, the father of Psammetichus (Psamtik
I.)—a native Egyptian of whom we have some mention both in
Herodotus and in the fragments of Manetho. The remaining
rulers were likewise, for the most part, native Egyptians."
These arrangements were soon broken up by the expelled
Ethiopian king, Tirhakah, who rallied his forces and swept the
Assyrian kinglets out of the country; but Asshur-bani-pal, son
and successor of Esarhaddon, made his appearance with an army
in 668 or 667 B. C. and Tirhakah fled before him. Again and
again this occurred, and for twenty years Egypt was torn
between the Assyrians and the Ethiopians, in their struggle
for the possession of her. At length, out of the chaos
produced by these conflicts there emerged a native ruler—the
Psammetichus mentioned above—who subjugated his fellow
princes and established a new Egyptian monarchy, which
defended itself with success against Assyria and Ethiopia,
alike. The Twenty-Sixth Dynasty, of Sais, founded by
Psammetichus, is suspected to have been of Libyan descent. It
ruled Egypt until the Persian conquest, and brought a great
new influence to bear on the country and people, by the
introduction of Greek soldiers and traders. It was under this
dynasty that the Greek city of Naucratis was founded, on the
Canobic branch of the Nile.
_G. Rawlinson,
The Five Great Monarchies: Assyria,
chapter 9._
The site of Naucratis, near the Canobic branch of the Nile,
was determined by excavations which Mr. W. M. Flinders Petrie
began in 1884, and from which much has been learned of the
history of the city and of early relations between the
Egyptians and the Greeks. It is concluded that the settlement
of Naucratis dates from about 660 B. C.—not long after the
beginning of the reign of Psammitichus—and that its Greek
founders became the allies of that monarch and his successors
against their enemies. "All are agreed that before the reign
of Psammitichus and the founding of Naucratis, Egypt was a
sealed book to the Greeks. It is likely that the Phoenicians,
who were from time to time the subjects of the Pharaohs, were
admitted, where aliens like the Greeks were excluded. We have
indeed positive evidence that the Egyptians did not wish
strange countries to learn their art, for in a treaty between
them and the Hittites it is stipulated that neither country
shall harbour fugitive artists from the other. But however the
fact may be accounted for, it is an undoubted fact that long
before Psammitichus threw Egypt open to the foreigner, the
Phoenicians had studied in the school of Egyptian art, and
learned to copy all sorts of handiwork procured from the
valley of the Nile. … According to Herodotus and Diodorus,
the favour shown to the Greeks by the King was the cause of a
great revolt of the native Egyptian troops, who left the
frontier fortresses, and marched south beyond Elephantine,
where they settled, resisting all the entreaties of
Psammitichus, who naturally deplored the loss of the mainstay
of his dominions, and developed into the race of the Sebridae.
Wiedemann, however, rejects the whole story as unhistorical,
and certainly, if we closely consider it, it contains great
inherent improbabilities. … Psammitichus died in B. C: 610,
and was succeeded by his son Necho, who was his equal in
enterprise and vigour. This King paid great attention to the
fleet of Egypt, and Greek shipwrights were set to work on both
the Mediterranean and Red Seas to build triremes for the State
navy. A fleet of his ships, we are told, succeeded in sailing
round Africa, a very great feat for the age. The King even
attempted the task, of which the completion was reserved for
the Persian Darius, the Ptolemies, and Trajan, of making a
canal from the Mediterranean to the Red Sea. Herodotus says
that, after sacrificing the lives of 120,000 men to the labour
and heat of the task, he gave it up, in consequence of the
warning of an oracle that he was toiling only for the
barbarians. … Necho, like his father, must needs try the
edge of his new weapon, the Ionian mercenaries, on Asia. At
first he was successful. Josiah, King of Judah, came out
against him, but was slain, and his army dispersed. Greek
valour carried Necho as far as the Euphrates. … But
Nebuchadnezzar, son of the King of Babylon, marched against
the invaders, and defeated them in a great battle near
Carehemish. His father's death recalled him to Babylon, and
Egypt was for the moment saved from counter-invasion by the
stubborn resistance offered to the Babylonian arms by
Jehoiakim, King of Judah, a resistance fatal to the Jewish
race; for Jerusalem was captured after a long siege, and most
of the inhabitants carried into captivity. Of Psammitichus
II., who succeeded Necho, we should know but little were it
not for the archaeological record. Herodotus only says that he
attacked Ethiopia, and died after a reign of six years.
{757}
But of the expedition thus summarily recorded we have a
lasting and memorable result in the well-known inscriptions
written by Rhodians and other Greek mercenaries on the legs of
the colossi at Abu Simbel in Nubia, which record how certain
of them came thither in the reign of Psammitichus, pushing up
the river in boats as far as it was navigable, that is,
perhaps, up to the second cataract. … Apries, the Hophra of
the Bible, was the next king. The early part of his reign was
marked by successful warfare against the Phoenicians and the
peoples of Syria; but, like his predecessor, he was unable to
maintain a footing in Asia in the face of the powerful and
warlike Nebuchadnezzar. The hostility which prevailed between
Egypt and Babylon at this time caused King Apries to open a
refuge for those Jews who fled from the persecution of
Nebuchadnezzar. He assigned to their leaders, among whom were
the daughters of the King of Judah, a palace of his own at
Daphnae, 'Pharaoh's house at Tahpanhes,' as it is called by
Jeremiah. That prophet was among the fugitives, and uttered in
the palace a notable prophecy, (xliii. 9) that King
Nebuchadnezzar should come and spread his conquering tent over
the pavement before it. Formerly it was supposed that this
prophecy remained unfulfilled, but this opinion has to be
abandoned. Recently discovered Egyptian and Babylonian
inscriptions prove that Nebuchadnezzar conquered Egypt as far
as Syene. … The fall of Apries as brought about by his
ingratitude to the Greeks, and his contempt for the lives of
his own subjects. He had formed the project of bringing under
his sway the Greek cities of the Cyrenaica. … Apries
despatched against Cyrene a large force; but the Cyreneans
bravely defended themselves, and as the Egyptians on this
occasion marched without their Greek allies, they were
entirely defeated, and most of them perished by the sword, or
in the deserts which separate Cyrene from Egypt. The defeated
troops, and their countrymen who remained behind in garrison
in Egypt, imputed the disaster to treachery on the part of
Apries. … They revolted, and chose as their leader Amasis, a
man of experience and daring. But Apries, though deserted by
his subjects, hoped still to maintain his throne by Greek aid.
At the head of 30,000 Ionians and Carians he marched against
Amasis. At Momemphis a battle took place between the rival
kings and between the rival nations; but the numbers of the
Egyptians prevailed over the arms and discipline of the
mercenaries, and Apries was defeated and captured by his
rival, who, however, allowed him for some years to retain the
name of joint-king. It is the best possible proof of the
solidity of Greek influence in Egypt at this time that Amasis,
though set on the throne by the native army after a victory
over the Greek mercenaries, yet did not expel these latter
from Egypt, but, on the contrary, raised them to higher favour
than before. … In the delightful dawn of connected European
history we see Amasis as a wise and wealthy prince, ruling in
Egypt at the time when Polycrates was tyrant of Samos; and
when Croesus of Lydia, the richest king of his time, was
beginning to be alarmed by the rapid expansion of the Persian
power under Cyrus. … In the days of Psammitichus III., the
son of Amasis, the storm which had overshadowed Asia broke
upon Egypt. One of the leaders of the Greek mercenaries in
Egypt named Phanes, a native of Halicarnassus, made his way to
the Persian Court, and persuaded Cambyses, who, according to
the story, had received from Amasis one of those affronts
which have so often produced wars between despots, to invade
Egypt in full force."
_P. Gardner,
New Chapters in Greek History,
chapter 7._
ALSO IN:
_W. M. F. Petrie,
Naukratis._
See, also, NAUKRATIS.
EGYPT: B. C. 525-332.
Persian conquest and sovereignty.
The kings of the Twenty-Sixth or Saite Dynasty maintained the
independence of Egypt for nearly a century and a half, and
even revived its military glories briefly, by Necho's
ephemeral conquests in Syria and his overthrow of Josiah king
of Judah. In the meantime, Assyria and Babylonia had fallen
and the Persian power raised up by Cyrus had taken their
place. In his own time, Cyrus did not finish a plan of
conquest which included Egypt; his son Cambyses took up the
task. "It appears that four years were consumed by the Persian
monarch in his preparations for his Egyptian expedition. It
was not until B. C. 525 that he entered Egypt at the head of
his troops and fought the great battle which decided the fate
of the country. The struggle was long and bloody [see PERSIA:
B. C. 549-521]. Psammenitus, who had succeeded his father
Amasis, had the services, not only of his Egyptian subjects,
but of a large body of mercenaries besides, Greeks and
Carians. … In spite of their courage and fanaticism, the
Egyptian army was completely defeated. … The conquest of
Egypt was followed by the submission of the neighbouring
tribes. … Even the Greeks of the more remote Barca and
Cyrene sent gifts to the conqueror and consented to become his
tributaries." But Cambyses wasted 50,000 men in a disastrous
expedition through the Libyan desert to Ammon, and he
retreated from Ethiopia with loss and shame. An attempted
rising of the Egyptians, before he had quitted their country,
was crushed with merciless severity. The deities, the temples
and the priests of Egypt were treated with insult and contempt
and the spirit of the people seems to have been entirely
broken. "Egypt became now for a full generation the obsequious
slave of Persia, and gave no more trouble to her subjugator
than the weakest, or the most contented, of the provinces."
_George Rawlinson,
The Five Great Monarchies: Persia,
chapter 7._
"The Persian kings, from Cambyses to Darius II. Nothus, are
enrolled as the Twenty-Seventh Dynasty of Manetho. The ensuing
revolts [see ATHENS: B. C. 460-449] are recognized in the
Twenty-Eighth (Saite) Dynasty, consisting only of Amyrtæus,
who restored the independence of Egypt (B. C. 414-408), and
the Twenty-Ninth (Mendesian) and Thirtieth (Sebennyte)
Dynasties (about B. C. 408-353), of whose intricate history we
need only here say that they ruled with great prosperity and
have left beautiful monuments of art. The last king of
independent Egypt was Nectanebo II., who succumbed to the
invasion of Artaxerxes Ochus, and fled to Ethiopia (B. C.
353). The last three kings of Persia, Ochus, Arses, and Darius
Codomannus, form the Thirty-First Dynasty of Manetho, ending
with the submission of Egypt to Alexander the Great (B. C.
332)."
_P. Smith,
Ancient History of the East (Students'),
chapter 8._
ALSO IN: _S. Sharpe,
History of Egypt,
chapter 5._
{758}
EGYPT: B. C. 332.
Alexander's conquest.
"In the summer of 332 [after the siege and destruction of
Tyre—see TYRE: B. C. 332, and MACEDONIA, &c.: B. C. 334-330]
Alexander set forward on his march toward Egypt, accompanied
by the fleet, which he had placed under the orders of
Hephæstion." But, being detained on the way several months by
the siege of Gaza, it was not before December that he entered
Egypt. "He might safely reckon not merely on an easy conquest,
but on an ardent reception, from a people who burnt to shake
off the Persian tyranny. … Mazaces [the Persian commander]
himself, as soon as he heard of the battle of Issus, became
aware that all resistance to Alexander would be useless, and
met him with a voluntary submission. At Pelusium he found the
fleet, and, having left a garrison in the fortress, ordered it
to proceed up the Nile as far as Memphis, while he marched
across the desert. Here he conciliated the Egyptians by the
honours which he paid to all their gods, especially to Apis,
who had been so cruelly insulted by the Persian invaders. …
He then embarked, and dropt down the western or Canobic arm of
the river to Canobus, to survey the extremity of the Delta on
that side, and having sailed round the lake Mareotis, landed
on the narrow belt of low ground which parts it from the sea,
and is sheltered from the violence of the northern gales …
by a long ridge of rock, then separated from the main land by
a channel, nearly a mile (seven stades) broad and forming the
isle of Pharos. On this site stood the village of Racotis,
where the ancient kings of Egypt had stationed a permanent
guard to protect this entrance of their dominions from
adventurers. … Alexander's keen eye was immediately struck
by the advantages of this position for a city, which should
become a great emporium of commerce, and a link between the
East and the West. … He immediately gave orders for the
beginning of the work, himself traced the outline, which was
suggested by the natural features of the ground itself, and
marked the site of some of the principal buildings, squares,
palaces and temples" (see ALEXANDRIA: B. C. 332). Alexander
remained in Egypt until the spring of 331, arranging the
occupation and administration of the country. "The system
which he established served in some points as a model for the
policy of Rome under the Emperors." Before quitting the
country he made a toilsome march along the coast, westward,
and thence, far into the desert, to visit the famous oracle of
Ammon.
_C. Thirlwall,
History of Greece,
chapter 50._
EGYPT: B. C. 323-30.
The kingdom of the Ptolemies.
In the division of the empire of Alexander the Great between
his generals, when he died, Ptolemy Lagus—reputed to be a
natural son of Alexander's father Philip—chose Egypt (see
MACEDONIA: B. C. 323-316), with a modesty which proved to be
wise. In all the provinces of the Macedonian conquest, it was
the country most easily to be held as an independent state, by
reason of the sea and desert which separated it from the rest
of the world. It resulted from the prudence of Ptolemy that he
founded a kingdom which lasted longer and enjoyed more
security and prosperity than any other among the monarchies of
the Diadochi. He was king of Egypt, in fact, for seventeen
years before, in 307, B. C., he ventured to assume the name
(see MACEDONIA: B. C. 310-301). Meantime, he had added to his
dominion the little Greek state of Cyrene, on the African
coast with Phœnicia, Judæa, Cœle-Syria, and the island of
Cyprus. These latter became disputed territory, fought over
for two centuries, between the Ptolemies and the Seleucids,
sometimes dominated by the one and sometimes by the other (see
SELEUCIDÆ: B. C. 281-224, and 224-187). At its greatest
extent, the dominion of the Ptolemies, under Ptolemy
Philadelphus, son of Ptolemy Lagus, included large parts of
Asia Minor and many of the Greek islands. Egypt and Cyrene
they held, with little disturbance, until Rome absorbed them.
Notwithstanding the vices which the family of Ptolemy
developed, and which were as rank of their kind as history can
show, Egypt under their rule appears to have been one of the
most prosperous countries of the time. In Alexandria, they
more than realized the dream of its Macedonian projector. They
made it not only the wealthiest city of their day, but the
greatest seat of learning,—the successor of Athens as the
capital of Greek civilization in the ancient world.
_S. Sharpe,
History of Egypt,
chapters 7-12._
The first Ptolemy abdicated in favor of his son, Ptolemy
Philadelphus, in 284 B. C., and died in the second year
following.
See MACEDONIA: B. C. 297-280.
"Although the political constitution of Egypt was not greatly
altered when the land fell into Greek hands, yet in other
respects great changes took place. The mere fact that Egypt
took its place among a family of Hellenistic nations, instead
of claiming as of old a proud isolation, must have had a great
effect on the trade, the manufactures, and the customs of the
country. To begin with trade. Under the native kings Egypt had
scarcely any external trade, and trade could scarcely spring
up during the wars with Persia. But under the Ptolemies,
intercourse between Egypt and Sicily, Syria or Greece, would
naturally and necessarily advance rapidly. Egypt produced
manufactured goods which were everywhere in demand; fine
linen, ivory, porcelain, notably that papyrus which Egypt
alone produced, and which was necessary to the growing trade
in manuscripts. Artificial barriers being once removed,
enterprising traders of Corinth and Tarentum, Ephesus and
Rhodes, would naturally seek these goods in Egypt, bringing in
return whatever of most attractive their own countries had to
offer. It seems probable that the subjects of the Ptolemies
seldom or never had the courage to sail direct down the Red
Sea to India. In Roman times this voyage became not unusual,
but at an earlier time the Indian trade was principally in the
hands of the Arabs of Yemen and of the Persian Gulf.
Nevertheless the commerce of Egypt under the Ptolemies spread
eastwards as well as westwards. The important towns of Arsinoë
and Berenice arose on the Red Sea as emporia of the Arabian
trade. And as always happens when Egypt is in vigorous hands,
the limits of Egyptian rule and commerce were pushed further
and further up the Nile. The influx into Alexandria and
Memphis of a crowd of Greek architects, artists, and artizans,
could not fail to produce movement in that stream of art which
had in Egypt long remained all but stagnant. … If we may
trust the somewhat over-coloured and flighty panegyrics which
have come down to us, the material progress of Egypt under
Ptolemy Philadelphus was most wonderful. We read, though we
cannot for a moment trust the figures of Appian, that in his
reign Egypt possessed an army of 200,000 foot soldiers and
40,000 horsemen, 300 elephants and 2,000 chariots of war. The
fleet at the same period is said to have included 1,500 large
vessels, some of them with twenty or thirty banks of oars.
Allowing for exaggeration, we must suppose that Egypt was then
more powerful than it had been since the days of Rameses."
_P. Gardner,
New Chapters in Greek History,
chapter 7._
See, also, ALEXANDRIA: B. C. 282-246;
and EDUCATION, ANCIENT: ALEXANDRIA.
{759}
EGYPT: B. C. 80-48.
Strife among the Ptolemies.
Roman pretensions.
The throne of Egypt being disputed, B. C. 80, between
Cleopatra Berenice, who had seized it, and her step-son,
Ptolemy Alexander, then in Rome, the latter bribed the Romans
to support his claims by making a will in which he named the
Roman Republic as his heir. The Senate, thereat, sent him to
Alexandria with orders that Berenice should marry him and that
they should reign jointly, as king and queen. The order was
obeyed. The foully mated pair were wedded, and, nineteen days
afterwards, the young king procured the death of his queen.
The crime provoked an insurrection in which Ptolemy Alexander
was slain by his own guard. This ended the legitimate line of
the Ptolemies; but an illegitimate prince, usually called
Auletes, or "the piper," was put on the throne, and he
succeeded in holding it for twenty-four years. The claim of
the Romans, under the will of Ptolemy Alexander, seems to have
been kept in abeyance by the bribes which Auletes employed
with liberality among the senatorial leaders. In 58 B. C. a
rising at Alexandria drove Auletes from the throne; in 54 B.
C. he bought the support of Gabinius, Roman pro-consul in
Syria, who reinstated him. He died in 51 B. C. leaving by will
his kingdom to his elder daughter, Cleopatra, and his elder
son, Ptolemy, who, according to the abominable custom of the
Ptolemies, were to marry one another and reign together. The
Roman people, by the terms of the will were made its
executors. When, therefore, Cæsar, coming to Alexandria, three
years afterwards, found the will of Auletes set at nought,
Ptolemy occupying the throne, alone, and Cleopatra struggling
against him, he had some ground for a pretension of right to
interfere.
_S. Sharpe,
History of Egypt,
chapter 11._
EGYPT: B. C. 48-47.
Civil war between Cleopatra and Ptolemy.
Intervention of Cæsar.
The rising against him.
The Romans besieged in Alexandria.
Their ruthless victory.
See ALEXANDRIA: B. C. 48-47.
EGYPT: B. C. 30.
Organized as a Roman province.
After the battle of Actium and the death of Cleopatra, Egypt
was reduced by Octavius to the rank of a Roman province and
the dynasty of the Ptolemies extinguished. But Octavius "had
no intention of giving to the senate the rich domain which he
tore from its native rulers. He would not sow in a foreign
soil the seeds of independence which he was intent upon
crushing nearer home. … In due time he persuaded the senate
and people to establish it as a principle, that Egypt should
never be placed under the administration of any man of
superior rank to the equestrian, and that no senator should be
allowed even to visit it, without express permission from the
supreme authority."
_C. Merivale,
History of the Romans,
chapter 29._
EGYPT: A. D. 100-500.
Roman and Christian.
See ALEXANDRIA: B. C. 48-47 to A. D. 413-415;
and CHRISTIANITY: A. D. 33-100, and 100-312.
EGYPT: A. D. 296.
Revolt crushed by Diocletian.
See ALEXANDRIA: A. D. 296.
EGYPT: A. D. 616-628.
Conquest by Chosroes, the Persian.
The career of conquest pursued by Chosroes, the last Persian
conqueror, extended even to Egypt, and beyond it. "Egypt
itself, the only province which had been exempt since the time
of Diocletian from foreign and domestic war, was again subdued
by the successors of Cyrus. Pelusium, the key of that
impervious country, was surprised by the cavalry of the
Persians: they passed with impunity the innumerable channels
of the Delta, and explored the long valley of the Nile from
the pyramids of Memphis to the confines of Æthiopia.
Alexandria might have been relieved by a naval force, but the
archbishop and the præfect embarked for Cyprus; and Chosroes
entered the second city of the empire, which still preserved a
wealthy remnant of industry and commerce. His western trophy
was erected, not on the walls of Carthage, but in the
neighbourhood of Tripoli: the Greek colonies of Cyrene were
finally extirpated." By the peace concluded in 628, after the
death of Chosroes, all of his conquests were restored to the
empire and the cities of Syria and Egypt evacuated by their
Persian garrisons.
_E. Gibbon,
Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire,
chapter 46.
See PERSIA: A. D. 226-627.
EGYPT: A. D. 640-646.
Moslem conquest.
See MAHOMETAN CONQUEST: A. D. 640-646.
EGYPT: A. D. 967-1171.
Under the Fatimite Caliphs.
See MAHOMETAN CONQUEST: A. D. 908-1171.
EGYPT: A. D. 1168-1250.
Under the Atabeg and Ayoubite sultans.
See SALADIN, THE EMPIRE OF.
EGYPT: A. D. 1218-1220.
Invasion by the Fifth Crusade.
See CRUSADES: A. D. 1216-1229.
EGYPT: A. D. 1249-1250.
The crusading invasion by Saint Louis of France.
See CRUSADES: A. D. 1248-1254.
EGYPT: A. D. 1250-1517.
The Mameluke Sultans.
The Mamelukes were a military body created by Saladin. "The
word means slave (literally, the possessed'), and … they
were brought in youth from northern countries to serve in the
South. Saladin himself was a Kurd, and long before his
accession to power, Turkish and Kurdish mercenaries were
employed by the Caliphs of Bagdad and Cairo, as the Pope
employs Swiss. … Subsequently, however, Circassia became the
country which most largely furnished this class of troops.
Their apprenticeship was a long and laborious one: they were
taught, first of all, to read the Koran and to write; then
followed lance-exercise, during which time nobody was allowed
to speak to them. At first they either resided in the castle,
or were exercised living under tents; but after the time of
Sultan Barkouk they were allowed to live in the town [Cairo],
and the quarter now occupied by the Jews was at that time
devoted to the Circassian Mamelukes. After this period they
neglected their religious and warlike exercises, and became
degenerate and corrupt. … The dynasty of Saladin … was of
no duration, and ended in 648 A. H., or 1250 of the Christian era.
{760}
Then began the so-called Bahrite Sultans, in consequence of
the Mamelukes of the sultan Negm-ed-din having lodged in
Rodah, the Island in the Nile (Bahr-en-Nil). The intriguer of
the period was Sheger-ed-dur, the widow of the monarch, who
married one of the Mamelukes, Moez-eddin-aibek-el-Turcomany,
who became the first of these Bahrite Sultans, and was himself
murdered in the Castle of Cairo through this woman. … Their
subsequent history, until the conquest of Egypt by Sultan
Selim in 1517, presents nothing but a series of acts of lust,
murder and rapine. So rapidly did they expel each other from
power, that the average reign of each did not exceed five or
six years. … The 'fleeting purple' of the decline and fall
of the Roman Empire is the spectacle which these Mameluke
Dynasties constantly present."
_A. A. Paton,
History of the Egyptian Revolution,
volume 1, chapters 3-5._
EGYPT: A. D. 1516-1517.
Overthrow of the Mameluke Sultans.
Ottoman conquest by Sultan Selim.
See TURKS: A. D. 1481-1520.
EGYPT: A. D. 1798-1799.
The French conquest and occupation by Bonaparte.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1798 (MAY-AUGUST),
and 1798-1799 (AUGUST-AUGUST).
EGYPT: A. D. 1798-1799.
Bonaparte's organization of government.
His victory at Aboukir.
His return to France.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1798-1799 (AUGUST-AUGUST),
and 1799 (NOVEMBER).
EGYPT: A. D. 1800.
Discontent and discouragement of the French.
The repudiated Treaty of El Arish.
Turkish defeat at Heliopolis.
Revolt crushed at Cairo.
Assassination of Kleber.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1800 (JANUARY-JUNE).
EGYPT: A. D. 1801-1802.
Expulsion of the French by the English.
Restoration of the province to Turkey.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1801-1802.
EGYPT: A. D. 1803-1811.
The rise of Mohammad 'Aly (or Mehemet Ali) to power.
His treacherous destruction of the Mamelukes.
"It was during the French occupation that Mohammad 'Aly [or
Mehemet Ali] came on the scene. He was born in 1768 at the
Albanian port of Kaballa, and by the patronage of the governor
was sent to Egypt in 1801 with the contingent of troops
furnished by Kaballa to the Ottoman army then operating with
the English against the French. He rapidly rose to the command
of the Arnaut or Albanian section of the Turkish army, and
soon found himself an important factor in the confused
political position which followed the departure of the British
army. The Memluk Beys had not been restored to their former
posts as provincial governors, and were consequently ripe for
revolt against the Porte; but their party was weakened by the
rivalry of its two leaders, El-Elfy and El-Bardisy, who
divided their followers into two hostile camps. On the other
hand, the Turkish Pasha appointed by the Porte had not yet
gained a firm grip of the country, and was perpetually
apprehensive of a recall to Constantinople. Mohammad 'Aly at
the head of his Albanians was an important ally for either
side to secure, and he fully appreciated his position. He
played off one party against the other, the Pasha against the
Beys, so successfully, that he not only weakened both sides,
but made the people of Cairo, who were disgusted with the
anarchy of Memluk and Turk alike, his firm friends; and at
last suffered himself, with becoming hesitation, to be
persuaded by the entreaty of the populace to become [1805]
their ruler, and thus stepped to the supreme power in the
curious guise of the people's friend. A fearful time followed
Mohammad 'Aly's election—for such it was—to the governorship
of Egypt. The Turkish Pasha, Khurshid, held the citadel, and
Mohammad 'Aly, energetically aided by the people of Cairo,
laid siege to it. From the minaret of the mosque of Sultan
Hasan, and from the heights of Mukattam, the besiegers poured
their fire into the citadel, and Khurshid replied with an
indiscriminate cannonade upon the city. The firing went on for
weeks (pausing on Fridays), till a messenger arrived from
Constantinople bringing the confirmation of the popular vote,
in the form of a firman, appointing Mohammad 'Aly governor of
Egypt. Khurshid shortly afterwards retired, and the soldiery
amused themselves in the approved Turkish and (even worse)
Albanian fashion by making havoc of the houses of the
citizens. Mohammad 'Aly now possessed the title of Governor of
Egypt, but beyond the walls of Cairo his authority was
everywhere disputed by the Beys. … An attempt was made to
ensnare certain of the Beys, who were encamped north of the
metropolis. On the 17th of August, 1805, the dam of the canal
of Cairo was to be cut, and some chiefs of Mohammad 'Aly's
party wrote informing them that he would go forth early on
that morning with most of his troops to witness the ceremony,
inviting them to enter and seize the city, and, to deceive
them, stipulating for a certain sum of money as a reward. The
dam, however, was cut early in the preceding night, without
any ceremony. On the following morning these Beys, with their
Memluks, a very numerous body, broke open the gate of the
suburb El-Hosey-niyeh, and gained admittance into the city.
… They marched along the principal street for some distance,
with kettle-drums behind each company, and were received with
apparent joy by the citizens. At the mosque called the
Ashrafiyeh they separated, one party proceeding to the Azhar
and the houses of certain sheykhs, and the other party
continuing along the main street, and through the gate called
Bab-Zuweyleh, where they turned up towards the citadel. Here
they were fired on by some soldiers from the houses; and with
this signal a terrible massacre commenced. Falling back
towards their companions, they found the by-streets closed;
and in that part of the main thoroughfare called
Beyn-el-Kasreyn, they were suddenly placed between two fires.
Thus shut up in a narrow street, some sought refuge in the
collegiate mosque of the Barkukiyeh, while the remainder
fought their way through their enemies, and escaped over the
city wall with the loss of their horses. Two Memluks had in
the meantime succeeded, by great exertions, in giving the
alarm to their comrades in the quarter of the Azhar, who
escaped by the eastern gate called Bab-el-Ghureyyib. A
horrible fate awaited those who had shut themselves up in the
Barkukiyeh. Having begged for quarter and surrendered, they
were immediately stripped nearly naked, and about fifty were
slaughtered on the spot; and about the same number were
dragged away. … The wretched captives were then chained and
left in the court of the Pasha's house; and on the following
morning the heads of their comrades, who had perished the day
before, were skinned and stuffed with straw before their eyes.
{761}
One Bey and two other men paid their ransom, and were
released; the rest, without exception, were tortured, and put
to death in the course of the ensuing night. … The Beys were
disheartened by this revolting butchery, and most of them
retired to the upper country. Urged by England, or more
probably by the promise of a bribe from El-Elfy, the Porte
began a leisurely interference in favour of the Memluks; but
the failure of El-Elfy's treasury, and a handsome bribe from
Mohammad 'Aly, soon changed the Sultan's views, and the
Turkish fleet sailed away. … An attempt of the English
Government to restore the Memluks by the action of a force of
5,000 men under General Fraser ended in disaster and
humiliation, and the citizens of Cairo had the satisfaction of
seeing the heads of Englishmen exposed on stakes in the
Ezbekiyeh. Mohammad 'Aly now adopted a more conciliatory
policy towards the Memluks, granted them land, and encouraged
them to return to Cairo. The clemency was only assumed in
order to prepare the way for the act of consummate treachery
which finally uprooted the Memluk power. … Early in the year
1811, the preparations for an expedition against the Wahhabis
in Arabia being complete, all the Memluk Beys then in Cairo
were invited to the ceremony of investing Mohammad 'Aly's
favourite son, Tusun, with a pelisse and the command of the
army. As on the former occasion, the unfortunate Memluks fell
into the snare. On the 1st of March, Shahin Bey and the other
chiefs (one only excepted) repaired with their retinues to the
citadel, and were courteously received by the Pasha. Having
taken coffee, they formed in procession, and, preceded and
followed by the Pasha's troops, slowly descended the steep and
narrow road leading to the great gate of the citadel; but as
soon as the Memluks arrived at the gate it was suddenly closed
before them. The last of those who made their exit before the
gate was shut were Albanians under Salih Kush. To those troops
their chief now made known the Pasha's orders to massacre all
the Memluks within the citadel; therefore having returned by
another way, they gained the summit of the walls and houses,
that hem in the road in which the Memluks were, and some
stationed themselves upon the eminences of the rock through
which that road is partly cut. Thus securely placed, they
commenced a heavy fire on their defenceless victims, and
immediately the troops who closed the procession, and who had
the advantage of higher ground, followed their example. …
470 Memluks entered the citadel, and of these very few, if
any, escaped. One of these is said to have been a Bey.
According to some, he leaped his horse from the ramparts, and
alighted uninjured, though the horse was killed by the fall.
Others say that he was prevented from joining his comrades,
and discovered the treachery while waiting without the gate.
He fled and made his way to Syria. This massacre was the
signal for an indiscriminate slaughter of the Memluks
throughout Egypt, orders to this effect being transmitted to
every governor; and in Cairo itself, the houses of the Beys
were given over to the soldiery, who slaughtered all their
adherents, treated their women in the most shameless manner,
and sacked their dwellings. … The last of his rivals being
now destroyed, Mohammad 'Aly was free to organize the
administration of the country, and to engage in expeditions
abroad."
_S. Lane-Poole,
Egypt,
chapter 8._
ALSO IN:
_A. A. Paton,
History of the Egyptian Revolution,
volume 2._
EGYPT: A. D. 1807.
Occupation of Alexandria by the English.
Disastrous failure of their expedition.
See TURKS: A. D. 1806-1807.
EGYPT: A. D. 1831-1840.
Rebellion of Mehemet Ali.
Successes against the Turks.
Intervention of the Western Powers.
Egypt made an hereditary Pashalik.
See TURKS: A. D. 1831-1840.
EGYPT: A. D. 1840-1869.
Mehemet Ali and his successors.
The khedives.
The opening of the Suez Canal.
"By the treaty of 1840 between the Porte and the European
Powers, … his title to Egypt having been … affirmed …
Mehemet Ali devoted himself during the next seven years to the
social and material improvement of the country, with an
aggregate of results which has fixed his place in history as
the 'Peter the Great' of Egypt. Indeed, except some additions
and further reforms made during the reign of his reputed
grandson, Ismail Pasha, the whole administrative system, up
till less than ten years ago, was, in the main, his work; and
notwithstanding many admitted defects, it was at his death
incomparably the most civilised and efficient of then existing
Mussulman Governments. In 1848, this great satrap, then
verging on his eightieth year, was attacked by a mental
malady, induced, as it was said, by a potion administered in
mistaken kindness by one of his own daughters, and the
government was taken over by his adopted son, Ibrahim Pasha,
the hero of Koniah and Nezib. He lingered till August 1849,
but Ibrahim had already pre-deceased him; and Abbas, a son of
the latter, succeeded to the viceregal throne. Though born and
bred in Egypt, Abbas was a Turk of the worst type—ignorant,
cowardly, sensual, fanatic, and opposed to reforms of every
sort. Thus his feeble reign of less than six years was, in
almost everything, a period of retrogression. On a night in
July, 1854, he was strangled in his sleep by a couple of his
own slaves,—acting, it was variously said, on a secret order
from Constantinople, or at the behest of one of his wives. To
Abbas succeeded Said, the third son of Mehemet Ali, an amiable
and liberal-minded prince who retrieved much of the mischief
done by his predecessor, but lacked the vigorous intelligence
and force of character required to carry on the great work
begun by his father. His reign will be chiefly memorable for
the concession and commencement of the Suez Canal, the
colossal work which, while benefiting the trade of the world,
has cost so much to Egypt. Said died in January 1863, and was
succeeded by his nephew Ismail Pasha, the second son of
Ibrahim. As most of the leading incidents of this Prince's
reign, as also the chief features of his character, are still
fresh in the public memory, I need merely recall a few of the
more salient of both. Amongst the former, history will give
the first place to his creation of the huge public debt which
forms the main element of a problem that still confronts
Europe.
{762}
But, for this the same impartial judge will at least
equally blame the financial panderers who ministered to his
extravagance, with exorbitant profit to themselves, but at
ruinous cost to Egypt. On the other hand, it is but historical
justice to say that Ismail did much for the material progress
of the country. He added more than 1,000 to the 200 miles of
railway in existence at the death of Said. He greatly improved
the irrigation, and so increased the cultivable area of the
country; multiplied the primary schools, and encouraged native
industries. For so much, at least, history will give him
credit. As memorable, though less meritorious, were the
magnificent fetes with which, in 1869, he opened the Suez
Canal, the great work which England had so long opposed, but
through which—as if by the irony of history—the first ship
that passed flew the English flag, and to the present traffic
of which we contribute more than eighty per cent. In personal
character, Ismail was of exceptional intelligence, but cruel,
crafty, and untrustworthy both in politics and in his private
relations. … It may be mentioned that Ismail Pasha was the
first of these Ottoman Viceroys who bore the title of
'Khedive,' which is a Perso-Arabic designation signifying rank
a shade less than regal. This he obtained in 1867 by heavy
bribes to the Sultan and his chief ministers, as he had the
year before by similar means ousted his brother and uncle from
the succession, and secured it for his own eldest son,—in
virtue of which the latter now [1890] nominally reigns."
_J. C. M'Coan,
Egypt
(National Life and Thought, lecture 18)._
_J. C. M'Coan,
Egypt under Ismail,
chapters 1-4._
EGYPT: A. D. 1870-1883.
Conquest of the Soudan.
Measures for the suppression of the slave-trade.
The government of General Gordon.
Advent of the Mahdi and beginning of his revolt.
In 1870, Ismail Pasha "made an appeal for European assistance
to strengthen him in completing the conquest of Central
Africa. [Sir Samuel] Baker was accordingly placed in command
of 1,200 men, supplied with cannon and steam-boats, and
received the title of Governour-General of the provinces which
he was commissioned to subdue. Having elected to make
Gondokoro the seat of his government, he changed its name to
Ismailia. He was not long in bringing the Bari to submission,
and then, advancing southwards, he came to the districts of
Dufilé and Fatiko, a healthy region endowed by nature with
fertile valleys and irrigated by limpid streams, but for years
past converted into a sort of hell upon earth by the
slave-hunters who had made it their headquarters. From these
pests Baker delivered the locality, and having by his tact and
energy overcome the distrust of the native rulers, he
established over their territory a certain number of small
military settlements. … Baker returned to Europe flattering
himself with the delusion that he had put an end to the
scourge of slave dealing. It was true that various
slave-dealers' dens on the Upper Nile had been destroyed, a
number of outlaws had been shot, and a few thousand miserable
slaves had been set at liberty; but beyond that nothing had
been accomplished; no sooner had the liberator turned his back
than the odious traffic recommenced with more vigour than
before through the region south of Gondokoro. This, however,
was only one of the slave-hunting districts, and by no means
the worst. … Under European compulsion … the Khedive
Ismail undertook to promote measures to put a stop to the
scandal. He entered into various conventions with England on
the subject; and in order to convince the Powers of the
sincerity of his intentions, he consented to put the
equatorial provinces under the administration of an European
officer, who should be commissioned to carry on the work of
repression, conquest and organisation that had been commenced
by Baker. His choice fell upon a man of exceptional ability, a
brilliant officer trained at Woolwich, who had already gained
high renown in China, not only for military talent, but for
his adroitness and skill in negotiation and diplomacy. This
was Colonel Gordon, familiarly known as 'Chinese Gordon,' who
was now to add fresh lustre to his name in Egypt as Gordon
Pasha. Gordon was appointed Governour-General of the Soudan in
1874. With him were associated Chaillé-Long, an American
officer, who was chief of his staff; the German, Dr. Emin
Effendi, medical officer to the expedition; Lieutenants
Chippendall and Watson; Gessi and Kemp, engineers. …
Thenceforward the territories, of which so little had hitherto
been known, became the continual scene of military movements
and scientific excursions. … The Soudan was so far conquered
as to be held by about a dozen military outposts stationed
along the Nile from Lake No to Lakes Albert and Ibrahim. …
In 1876 Gordon went back to Cairo. Nevertheless, although he
was wearied with the continual struggle of the past two years,
worn down by the incessant labours of internal organisation
and geographical investigations, disheartened, too, by the
jealousies, rivalries, and intrigues of all around him, and by
the ill feeling of the very people whom the Khedive's
Government had sent to support him, he consented to return
again to his post; this time with the title of
Governour-General of the Soudan, Darfur, and the Equatorial
Provinces. At the beginning of 1877 he took possession of the
Government palace at Khartoum. … Egyptian authority, allied
with European civilisation, appeared now at length to be
taking some hold on the various districts, and the Cairo
Government might begin to look forward to a time when it could
reckon on some reward for its labours and sacrifices. The area
of the new Egyptian Soudan had now become immense.
Geographically, its centre included the entire valley of the
Nile proper, from Berber to the great lakes; on the east were
such portions of the valleys of the Blue Nile and Atbara as
lay outside Abyssinia; and on the west were the districts
watered by the Bahr-el-Ghazal, and the Bahr-el-Arab, right
away to the confines of Wadai. … Unfortunately in 1879
Ismail Pasha was deposed, and, to the grievous loss of the
Soudan, Gordon was recalled. As the immediate consequence, the
country fell back into the hands of Turkish pashas; apathy,
disorder, carelessness, and ill feeling reappeared at
Khartoum, and the Arab slave-dealers, who had for a period
been kept under by Baker, Gessi, and Gordon, came once more to
the front. … It was Raouf Pasha who, in 1879, succeeded
Gordon as Governour-General. He had three Europeans as his
subordinates—Emin Bey, who before Gordon left, had been
placed in charge of the province of the equator; Lupton Bey,
an Englishman, who had followed Gessi as Governour on the
Bahr-el-Ghazal; and Slatin Bey, an Austrian, in command of
Darfur. Raouf had barely been two years at Khartoum when the
Mahdi appeared on the scene.
{763}
Prompted either by personal ambition or by religious hatred,
the idea of playing the part of 'Mahdi' had been acted upon by
many an Arab fanatic [see MAHDI]. Such an idea, at an early
age, had taken possession of a certain Soudanese of low birth,
a native of Dongola, by name Mohammed Ahmed. Before openly
aspiring to the role of the regenerator of Islam he had filled
several subordinate engagements, notably one under Dr. Peney,
the French surgeon-general in the Soudan, who died in 1861.
Shortly afterwards he received admittance into the powerful
order of the Ghelani dervishes, and then commenced his schemes
for stirring up a revolution in defence of his creed. His
proceedings did not fail to attract the attention of Gessi
Pasha, who had him arrested at Shekka and imprisoned for five
months. Under the government of Raouf he took up his abode
upon the small island of Abba, on the Nile above Khartoum,
where he gained a considerable notoriety by the austerity of
his life and by the fervour of his devotions, thus gradually
gaining a high reputation for sanctity. Not only offerings but
followers streamed in from every quarter. He became rich as
well as powerful. … Waiting till May 1881, he then assumed
that a propitious time had arrived for the realisation of his
plans, and accordingly had himself publicly proclaimed as
'Mahdi,' inviting every fakir and every religious leader of
Islam to come and join him at Abba. … Convinced that it was
impolitic to tolerate any longer the revolutionary intrigues
of such an adventurer at the very gates of Khartoum, Raouf
Pasha resolved to rid the country of Mohammed and to send him
to Cairo for trial. An expedition was accordingly despatched
to the island of Abba, but unfortunately the means employed
were inadequate to the task. Only a small body of black
soldiers were sent to arrest the agitator in his quarters, and
they, inspired no doubt by a vague and superstitious dread of
a man who represented himself as the messenger of Allah,
wavered and acted with indecision. Before their officers could
rally them to energy, the Mahdi, with a fierce train of
followers, knife in hand, rushed upon them, and killing many,
put the rest to flight; then, seeing that a renewed assault
was likely to be made, he withdrew the insurgent band into a
retreat of safety amongst the mountains of Southern Kordofan.
Henceforth revolt was openly declared. Such was the condition
of things in August 1881. Chase was given, but every effort to
secure the person of the pretended prophet was baffled. A
further attempt was made to arrest him by the Mudir of Fashoda
with 1,500 men, only to be attended with a still more
melancholy result. After a desperate struggle the Mudir lay
stretched upon the ground, his soldiers murdered all around
him. One single officer, with a few straggling cavalry,
escaped the massacre, and returned to report the fatal news.
The reverse caused an absolute panic in Khartoum, an intense
excitement spreading throughout the Soudan…. Meantime the
Mahdi's prestige was ever on the increase, and he soon felt
sufficiently strong to assume the offensive. His troops
overran Kordofan and Sennar, advancing on the one hand to the
town of Sennar, which they set on fire, and on the other to
El-Obeid, which they placed in a state of siege. In the
following July a fresh and more powerful expedition, this time
numbering 6,000 men, under the command of Yussuf Pasha, left
Fashoda and made towards the Mahdi's headquarters. It met with
no better fate than the expeditions that had gone before. …
And then it was that the English Government, discerning danger
for Egypt in this insurrection of Islam, set to work to act
for the Khedive. It told off 11,000 men, and placed them under
the command of Hicks Pasha, an officer in the Egyptian service
who had made the Abyssinian campaign. At the end of December
1882 this expedition embarked at Suez for Suakin, crossed the
desert, reached the Nile at Berber, and after much endurance
on the way, arrived at Khartoum. Before this, El-Obeid had
fallen into the Mahdi's power, and there he had taken up his
headquarters. Some trifling advantages were gained by Hicks,
but having entered Kordofan with the design of retaking
El-Obeid, he was, on the 5th of November 1883, hemmed in
amongst the Kasgil passes, and after three days' heroic
fighting, his army of about 10,000 men was overpowered by a
force five or six times their superior in numbers, and
completely exterminated. Hicks Pasha himself, his European
staff, and many Egyptian officers of high rank, were among the
dead, and forty-two guns fell into the hands of the enemy.
Again, not a man was left to carry the fatal tidings to
Khartoum. Rebellion continued to spread. After being agitated
for months, the population of the Eastern Soudan also made a
rising. Osman Digna, the foremost of the Mahdi's lieutenants,
occupied the road between Suakin and Berber, and surrounded
Sinkat and Tokar; then, having destroyed, one after another,
two Egyptian columns that had been despatched for the relief
of these towns, he finally cut off the communication between
Khartoum and the Red Sea. The tide of insurrection by this
time had risen so high that it threatened not only to
overthrow the Khedive's authority in the Soudan, but to become
the source of serious peril to Egypt itself."
_A. J. Wauters,
Stanley's Emin Pasha Expedition,
chapters 1-2._
ALSO IN:
_Major R. F. Wingate,
Mahdiism and the Egyptian Sudan,
books 1-4._
_Colonel Sir W. F. Butler,
Charles George Gordon,
chapters 5-6._
_A. E. Hake,
The Story of Chinese Gordon,
chapters 10-15._
EGYPT: A. D. 1875-1882.
Bankruptcy of the state.
English and French control of finances.
Native hostility to the foreigners.
Rebellion, led by Arabi.
English bombardment of Alexandria.
"The facilities given by foreign money-lenders encouraged
extravagance and ostentation on the part of the sovereign and
the ruling classes, while mismanagement and corrupt practices
were common among officials, so that the public debt rose in
1875 to ninety-one millions, and in January, 1881, to
ninety-eight millions. … The European capitalists obtained
for their money nominally six to nine per cent., but really
not less than eight to ten per cent., as the bonds were issued
at low rates. … The interest on these borrowed millions was
punctually paid up to the end of 1875, when the Khedive found
that he could not satisfy his creditors, and the British
government interfered in his favour. Mr. Cave was sent to
examine into Egyptian finances, and he reported that loans at
twelve and thirteen per cent. were being agreed to and renewed
at twenty-five per cent., and that some measure of
consolidation was necessary. The two western Powers now took
the matter in hand, but they thereby recognized the whole of
these usurious demands.
{764}
The debt, although under their control, and therefore
secured, was not reduced by the amount already paid in
premiums for risk. Nor was the rate of interest diminished to
something more nearly approaching the rate payable on English
consols, which was three per cent. A tribunal under the
jurisdiction of united European and native judges was also
established in Egypt to decide complaints of foreigners
against natives, and vice versa. In May, 1876, this tribunal
gave judgment that the income of the Khedive Ismail, from his
private landed property, could be appropriated to pay the
creditors of the state, and an execution was put into the
Viceregal palace, Er Ramleh, near Alexandria. The Khedive
pronounced the judgment invalid, and the tribunal ceased to
act. Two commissioners were now again sent to report on
Egyptian finances—M. Joubert, the director of the Paris Bank,
for France, and Mr. Goschen, a former minister, for England.
These gentlemen proposed to hand over the control of the
finances to two Europeans, depriving the state of all
independence and governing power. The Khedive, in order to
resist these demands, convoked a sort of Parliament in order
to make an appeal to the people. From this Parliament was
afterwards developed the Assembly of Notables, and the
National party, now so often spoken of. In 1877 a European
commission of control over Egyptian finance was named. …
Nubar Pasha was made Prime minister in 1878; the control of
the finances was entrusted to Mr. Wilson, an Englishman; and
later, the French controller, M. de Blignières, entered the
Cabinet. Better order was thus restored to the finances.
Rothschild's new loan of eight and a half millions was issued
at seventy-three, and therefore brought in from six to eight
per cent. nett. … But to be able to pay the creditors their
full interest, economy had to be introduced into the national
expenditure. To do this, clumsy arrangements were made, and
the injustice shown in carrying them out embittered many
classes of the population, and laid the foundations of a
fanatical hatred of race against race. … In consequence of
all this, the majority of the notables, many ulemas, officers,
and higher officials among the Egyptians, formed themselves
into a National party, with the object of resisting the
oppressive government of the foreigner. They were joined by
the great mass of the discharged soldiers and subordinate
officials, not to mention many others. At the end of February,
1870, a revolt broke out in Cairo. Nubar, hated by the
National party, was dismissed by the Khedive Ismail, who
installed his son Tewfik as Prime minister. In consequence of
this, the coupons due in April were not paid till the
beginning of May, and the western Powers demanded the
reinstatement of Nubar. That Tewfik on this occasion retired
and sided with the foreigners is the chief cause of his
present [1882] unpopularity in Egypt. Ismail, however, now
dismissed Wilson and De Blignières, and a Cabinet was formed,
consisting chiefly of native Egyptians, with Sherif Pasha as
Prime minister. Sherif now raised for the first time the cry
of which we have since heard so much, and which was inscribed
by Arabi on his banners, 'Egypt for the Egyptians.' The
western Powers retorted by a menacing naval demonstration, and
demanded of the Sultan the deposition of the Khedive. In June,
1870, this demand was agreed to. Ismail went into exile, and
his place was filled br Mahomed Tewfik. … The new Khedive,
with apathetic weakness, yielded the reconstruction of his
ministry and the organization of his finances to the western
Powers. Mr. Baring and M. de Blignières, as commissioners of
the control, aided by officials named by Rothschild to watch
over his private interests, now ruled the land. They devoted
forty-five millions (about sixteen shillings per head on the
entire population) to the payment of interest. The people were
embittered by the distrust shown towards them, and the further
reduction of the army from fifty to fifteen thousand men threw
a large number out of employment. … Many acts of military
insubordination occurred, and at last, on the 8th of November,
1881, the great military revolt broke out in Cairo. … Ahmed
Arabi, colonel of the 4th regiment, now first came into public
notice. Several regiments, headed by their officers, openly
rebelled against the orders of the Khedive, who was compelled
to recall the nationalist, Sherif Pasha, and to refer the
further demands of the rebels for the increase of the army,
and for a constitution, to the Sultan. Sherif Pasha, however,
did not long enjoy the confidence of the National Egyptian
party, at whose head Arabi now stood, winning every day more
reputation and influence. The army, in which he permitted
great laxity of discipline, was entirely devoted to him. … A
pretended plot of Circassian officers against his life he
dexterously used to increase his popularity. … Twenty-six
officers were condemned to death by court-martial, but the
Khedive, at the instance of the western Powers, commuted the
sentence, and they were banished to Constantinople. This
leniency was stigmatized by the National party as treachery to
the country, and the Chamber of Notables retorted by naming
Arabi commander-in-chief of the army and Prime minister
without asking the consent of the Khedive. The Chamber soon
afterwards came into conflict with the foreign comptrollers.
… This ended in De Blignières resigning his post, and in the
May of the present year (1882) the consuls of the European
Powers declared that a fleet of English and French ironclads
would appear before Alexandria, to demand the disbanding of
the army and the punishment of its leaders. The threat was
realized, and, in spite of protests from the Sultan, a fleet
of English and French ironclads entered the harbour of
Alexandria. The Khedive, at the advice of his ministers and
the chiefs of the National party, appealed to the Sultan. …
The popular hatred of foreigners now became more and more
apparent, and began to assume threatening dimensions. … On
the 30th of May, Arabi announced that a despatch from the
Sultan had reached him, promising the deposition of Tewfik in
favour of his uncle Halim Pasha. … On the 3rd of June,
Dervish Pasha, a man of energy notwithstanding his years, had
sailed from Constantinople. … His object was to pacify Egypt
and to reconcile Tewfik and Arabi Pasha. … Since the
publication of the despatch purporting to proclaim Halim Pasha
as Khedive, Arabi had done nothing towards dethroning the
actual ruler. But on the 2nd of June he began to strengthen
the fortifications of Alexandria with earthworks. …
{765}
The British admiral protested, and the Sultan, on the
remonstrances of British diplomacy, forbad the continuation of
the works. … Serious disturbances took place in Alexandria
on the 11th. The native rabble invaded the European quarter,
plundered the shops, and slew many foreigners. … Though the
disturbances were not renewed, a general emigration of
foreigners was the result. … On the 22nd a commission,
consisting of nine natives and nine Europeans … began to try
the ringleaders of the riot. … But events were hurrying on
towards war. The works at Alexandria were recommenced, and the
fortifications armed with heavy guns. The English admiral
received information that the entrance to the harbour would be
blocked by sunken storeships, and this, he declared, would be
an act of open war. A complete scheme for the destruction of
the Suez canal was also discovered. … The English, on their
side, now began to make hostile demonstrations; and Arabi,
while repudiating warlike intentions, declared himself ready
for resistance. … On the 27th the English vice-consul
advised his fellow-countrymen to leave Alexandria, and on the
3rd of July, according to the 'Times,' the arrangements for
war were complete. … Finally, as a reconnaissance on the 9th
showed that the forts were still being strengthened, he [the
English admiral] informed the governor of Alexandria, Zulficar
Pasha, that unless the forts had been previously evacuated and
surrendered to the English, he intended to commence the
bombardment at four the next morning. … As the French
government were unable to take part in any active measures (a
grant for that purpose having been refused by the National
Assembly), the greater part of their fleet, under Admiral
Conrad, left Alexandria for Port Said. The ironclads of other
nations, more than fifty in number, anchored outside the
harbour of Alexandria. … On the evening of the 10th of July
… and at daybreak on the 11th, the … ironclads took up the
positions assigned to them. There was a gentle breeze from the
east, and the weather was clear. At 6.30 a. m. all the ships
were cleared for action. At seven the admiral signalled to the
Alexandra to fire a shell into Fort Ada. … The first shot
fired from the Alexandra was immediately replied to by the
Egyptians; whereupon the ships of the whole fleet and the
Egyptian forts and batteries opened fire, and the engagement
became general. … At 8.30 Fort Marsa-el-Kanat was blown up
by shells from the Invincible and Monarch, and by nine o'clock
the Téméraire, Monarch, and Penelope had silenced most of the
guns in Fort Meks, although four defied every effort from
their protected situation. By 11.45 Forts Marabout and Adjemi
had ceased firing, and a landing party of seamen and marines
was despatched, under cover of the Bittern's guns, to spike
and blow up the guns in the forts. At 1.30 a shell from the
Superb burst in the chief powder magazine of Fort Ada and blew
it up. By four o'clock all the guns of Fort Pharos, and half
an hour later those of Fort Meks, were disabled, and at 5.30
the admiral ordered the firing to cease. The ships were
repeatedly struck and sustained some damage. … The English
casualties were five killed and twenty-eight wounded, a
comparatively small loss. The Egyptian loss is not known. …
At 1 p. m. on the 12th of July, the white flag was hoisted by
the Egyptians. Admiral Seymour demanded, as a preliminary
measure, the surrender of the forts commanding the entrance to
the harbour, and the negotiations on this point were
fruitlessly protracted for some hours. As night approached the
city was seen to be on fire in many places, and the flames
were spreading in all directions. The English now became aware
that the white flag had merely been used as means to gain time
for a hasty evacuation of Alexandria by Arabi and his army.
Sailors and marines were now landed, and ships of other
nations sent detachments on shore to protect their countrymen.
But it was too late; Bedouins, convicts, and ill-disciplined
soldiers had plundered and burnt the European quarter, killed
many foreigners, and a Reuter's telegram of the 14th said,
'Alexandria is completely destroyed.'"
_H. Vogt,
The Egyptian War of 1882,
pages 2-32._
ALSO IN:
_J. C. McCoan,
Egypt under Ismail,
chapters 8-10._
_C. Royle,
The Egyptian Campaigns,
volume 1, chapters 1-20._
_Khedives and Pashas._
_C. F. Goodrich,
Report on British Military and Naval Operations in Egypt,
1882,
part 1._
EGYPT: A. D. 1882-1883.
The massacre and destruction in Alexandria.
Declared rebellion of Arabi.
Its suppression by the English.
Banishment of Arabi.
English occupation.
The city of Alexandria had become "such a scene of pillage,
massacre, and wanton destruction as to make the world shudder.
It was the old tale of horrors. Houses were plundered and
burned; the European quarter, including the stately buildings
surrounding the Great Square of Mehemet Ali, was sacked and
left a heap of smoldering ruins; and more than two thousand
Europeans, for the most part Levantines, were massacred with
all the cruelty of oriental fanaticism. This was on the
afternoon of the 12th. It was the second massacre that had
occurred under the very eyes of the British fleet. The
admiral's failure to prevent it has been called unfortunate by
some and criminal by others. It seems to have been wholly
without excuse. … The blue-jackets were landed on the 13th,
and cleared the way before them with a Gatling gun. The next
day, more ships having arrived, a sufficient force was landed
to take possession of the entire city. The khedive was
escorted back to Ras-el-Tin from Ramleh, and given a strong
guard. Summary justice was dealt out to all hostile Arabs who
had been captured in the city. In short, English intervention
was followed by English occupation. The bombardment of
Alexandria had defined clearly the respective positions of
Arabi and the khedive toward Egypt and the Egyptian people.
… The khedive was not only weak in the eyes of his people,
but he was regarded as the tool of England. … From the
moment the first shot was fired upon Alexandria, Arabi was the
real ruler of the people. … The conference at Constantinople
was stirred by the news of the bombardment of Alexandria. It
presented a note to the Porte, July 15, requesting the
dispatch of Turkish troops to restore the status quo in Egypt.
But the sultan had no idea of taking the part of the Christian
in what all Islam regarded as a contest between the Moslem and
the unbeliever. … In Egypt, the khedive had been prevailed
upon, after some demur, to proclaim Arabi a rebel and
discharge him from his cabinet. Arabi had issued a
counter-proclamation, on the same day, declaring Tewfik a
traitor to his people and his religion.
{766}
Having received the news of the khedive's proclamation, Lord
Dufferin, the British ambassador at Constantinople, announced
to the conference that England was about to send an expedition
to Egypt to suppress the rebellion and to restore the
authority of the khedive. Thereupon the sultan declared that
he had decided to send a Turkish expedition. Lord Dufferin
feigned to accept the sultan's cooperation, but demanded that
the Porte, as a preliminary step, should declare Arabi a
rebel. Again the sultan was confronted with the danger of
incurring the wrath of the Moslem world. He could not declare
Arabi a rebel. … In his desperation, he sent a force of
3,000 men to Suda bay with orders to hold themselves in
readiness to enter Egypt at a moment's notice. … In the
meantime, however, the English expedition had arrived in Egypt
and was proceeding to crush the rebellion, regardless of the
diplomatic delays and bickerings at Constantinople. … It was
not until the 15th of August that Sir Garnet Wolseley arrived
with his force in Egypt. The English at that time held only
two points, Alexandria and Suez, while the entire Egyptian
interior, as well as Port Said and Ismailia, were held by
Arabi, whose force, it was estimated, now amounted to about
70,000 men, of whom at least 50,000 were regulars. The
objective point of General Wolseley's expedition to crush
Arabi was, of course, the city of Cairo. There were two ways
of approaching that city, one from Alexandria, through the
Delta, and the other from the Suez canal. There were many
objections to the former route. … The Suez canal was
supposed to be neutral water. … But England felt no
obligation to recognize any neutrality, … acting upon the
principle, which is doubtless sound, that 'the neutrality of
any canal joining the waters of the Atlantic and Pacific
oceans will be maintained, if at all, by the nation which can
place and keep the strongest ships at each extremity.' In
other words, General Wolseley decided to enter Cairo by way of
the Suez canal and Ismailia. But he kept his plan a profound
secret. Admiral Seymour alone knew his purpose. … On the
19th, the transports moved eastward from Alexandria, as if to
attack Abukir; but under the cover of darkness that night,
they were escorted on to Port Said, where they learned that
the entire canal, owing to the preconcerted action of Admiral
Seymour, was in the hands of the British. On the 21st, the
troops met Sir Henry McPherson's Indian contingent at
Ismailia. Two days were now consumed in rest and preparation.
The Egyptians cut off the water supply, which came from the
Delta by the Sweet Water Canal, by damming the canal. A sortie
to secure possession of the dam was therefore deemed
necessary, and was successfully made on the 24th. Further
advances were made, and on the 26th, Kassassin, a station of
some importance on the canal and railway, was occupied. Here
the British force was obliged to delay for two weeks, while
organizing a hospital and a transport service. This gave Arabi
opportunity to concentrate his forces at Zagazig and
Tel-el-Kebir. But he knew it was for his interest to strike at
once before the British transports could come up with the
advance. He therefore made two attempts, one on August 28, and
the other on September 9, to regain the position lost at
Kassassin. But he failed in both, though inflicting some loss
upon his opponents. On the 12th of September preparations were
made by General Wolseley for a decisive battle. He had become
convinced from daily reconnoissance and from the view obtained
in the engagement of September 9, that the fortifications at
Tel-el-Kebir were both extensive and formidable. … It was
therefore decided to make the approach under cover of
darkness. … At 1.30 on the morning of the 13th General
Wolseley gave the order for the advance, his force consisting
of about 11,000 infantry, 2,000 cavalrymen, and sixty
field-guns. They had only the stars to guide them, but so
accurately was the movement conducted that the leading
brigades of each division reached the enemy's outposts within
two minutes of each other. 'The enemy (says General Wolseley)
were completely surprised, and it was not until one or two of
their advanced sentries fired their rifles that they realized
our close proximity to their works.' … The intrenchments
were not carried without a severe struggle. The Egyptians
fought with a desperate courage and hundreds of them were
bayoneted at their posts. … But what could the rank and file
accomplish when 'each officer knew that he would run, but
hoped his neighbor would stay.' At the first shot Arabi and
his second in command took horse and galloped to Belbeis,
where they caught a train for Cairo. Most of the other
officers, as the reports of killed and wounded show, did the
same. The Egyptians fired their first shot at 4.55 A. M., and
at 6.45 the English had possession of Arabi's headquarters and
the canal bridge. The British loss was 57 killed, 380 wounded,
and 22 missing. The Egyptian army left about 2,000 dead in the
fortifications. … A proof of the completeness of the success
was the entire dissipation of Arabi's army. Groups of
soldiers, it is true, were scattered to different parts of
Egypt; but the army organization was completely broken up with
the battle of Tel-el-Kebir. … 'Major-General Lowe was
ordered to push on with all possible speed to Cairo. …
General Lowe [reached] the great barracks of Abbassieh, just
outside of Cairo, at 4.45 P. M., on the 14th instant. The
cavalry marched sixty-five miles in these two days. … A
message was sent to Arabi Pasha through the prefect of the
city, calling upon him to surrender forthwith, which he did
unconditionally.' … Before leaving England, Wolseley had
predicted that he would enter Cairo on the 16th of September;
but with still a day to spare the feat was accomplished, and
Arabi's rebellion was completely crushed. England now stood
alone. Victory had been won without the aid of France or the
intervention of Turkey. In Constantinople negotiations
regarding Turkish expeditions were still pending when Lord
Dufferin received the news of Wolseley's success, and
announced to the Porte that there was now no need of a Turkish
force in Egypt, as the war was ended. France at once prepared
to resume her share in the control; but England, having borne
the sole burden of the war, did not propose now to share the
influence her success had given her. And it was for the
interest of Egypt that she should not. … England's first
duty, after quiet was assured, was to send away all the
British troops except a force of about 11,000 men, which it
was deemed advisable to retain in Egypt until the khedive's
authority was placed on a safe footing throughout the land. …
{767}
What should be done with Arabi was the question of paramount
interest, when once the khedive's authority was re-established
and recognized. Tewfik and his ministers, if left to
themselves, would unquestionably have taken his life. … But
England was determined that Arabi should have a fair trial.
… It was decided that the rebel leaders should appear before
a military tribunal, and they were given English counsel to
plead their cause. … The trial was a farce. Everything was
'cut and dried' beforehand. It was arranged that Arabi was to
plead guilty to rebellion, that he was forthwith to be
condemned to death by the court, and that the khedive was
immediately to commute the sentence to perpetual exile. In
fact, the necessary papers were drawn up and signed before the
court met for Arabi's trial on December 3. … On the 26th of
December Arabi and his six companions … upon whom the same
sentence had been passed, left Cairo for the Island of Ceylon,
there to spend their life of perpetual exile. … Lord
Dufferin … had been sent from Constantinople to Cairo, early
in November, with the special mission of bringing order out of
governmental chaos. In two months he had prepared a scheme of
legislative reorganization. This was, however, somewhat
altered; so that it was not until May, 1883, that the plan in
its improved form was accepted by the decree of the khedive.
The new constitution provided for three classes of assemblies:
the 'Legislative' Council,' the 'General Assembly,' and the
'Provincial Councils,' of which there were to be fourteen, one
for each province. … Every Egyptian man, over twenty years
of age, was to vote (by ballot) for an 'elector-delegate' from
the village in the neighborhood of which he lived, and the
'electors-delegate' from all the villages in a province were
to form the constituency that should elect the provincial
council. … The scheme for reorganization was carried forward
to the extent of electing the 'electors-delegate' in
September; but by that time Egypt was again in a state of such
disquietude that the British advisers of the khedive
considered it unwise to put the new institutions into
operation. In place of legislative council and general
assembly, the khedive appointed a council of state, consisting
of eleven Egyptians, two Armenians, and ten Europeans. The
reforms were set aside for the time being in view of impending
troubles and dangers in the Sudan."
_J. E. Bowen,
The Conflict of East and West in Egypt,
chapter 5-6._
ALSO IN:
_Colonel J. F. Maurice,
Military History of the Campaign of 1882 in Egypt._
_C. Royle,
The Egyptian Campaigns,
volume 1, chapters 22-44._
EGYPT: A. D. 1884-1885.
General Gordon's Mission to Khartoum.
The town beleaguered by the Mahdists.
English rescue expedition.
The energy that was too late.
"The abandonment of the Soudan being decided upon, the British
Government confided to General Gordon the task of extricating
the Egyptian garrisons scattered throughout the country. …
Gordon's original instructions were dated the 18th January,
1884. He was to proceed at once to Egypt, to report on the
military situation in the Soudan, and on the measures which it
might be advisable to take for the security of the Egyptian
garrisons and for the safety of the European population in
Khartoum. … He was to be accompanied by Colonel Stewart. …
Gordon's final instructions were given him by the Egyptian
Government in a firman appointing him Governor-General. …
Gordon arrived at Khartoum on the 18th February. … While
Gordon was sending almost daily expressions of his view as to
the only way of carrying out the policy of eventual
evacuation, it was also becoming clear to him that he would
very soon be cut off from the rest of Egypt. His first remark
on this subject was to express 'the conviction that I shall be
caught in Khartoum'; and he wrote,—'Even if I was mean enough
to escape I have no power to do so.' The accuracy of this
forecast was speedily demonstrated. Within a few days
communications with Khartoum were interrupted, and although
subsequently restored for a time, the rising of the riparian
tribes rendered the receipt and despatch of messages
exceedingly uncertain. … Long before the summer of 1884, it
was evident that the position of Gordon at Khartoum had become
so critical, that if he were to be rescued at all, it could
only be by the despatch of a British force. … Early in May,
war preparations were commenced in England, and on the 10th of
the month the military authorities in Cairo received
instructions to prepare for the despatch in October of an
expedition for the relief of the Soudanese capital. 12,000
camels were ordered to be purchased and held in readiness for
a forward march in the autumn. On the 16th May a
half-battalion of English troops was moved up the Nile to Wady
Halfa. A few weeks later some other positions on the Nile were
occupied by portions of the Army of Occupation. Naval officers
were also sent up the river to examine and report upon the
cataracts and other impediments to navigation. Still it was
not till the 5th August that Mr. Gladstone rose in the House
of Commons to move a vote of credit of £300,000 to enable the
Government to undertake operations for the relief of Gordon.
… It was agreed that there were but two routes by which
Khartoum could be approached by an expedition. One by way of
the Nile, and the other via Souakim and Berber. … The Nile
route having been decided on, preparations on a large scale
were begun. … It was at first arranged that not more than
5,000 men should form the Expedition, but later on the number
was raised to 7,000. … The instructions given to Lord
Wolseley stated that the primary object of the Expedition was
to bring away Gordon and Stewart from Khartoum; and when that
purpose should be effected, no further offensive operations of
any kind were to be undertaken."
_C. Royle,
The Egyptian Campaigns, 1882-1885,
volume 2, chapters 12-18._
"First, it was said that our troops would be before the gates
of Khartoum on January 14th; next it was the middle of
February; and then the time stretched out to the middle of
March. … Lord Wolseley offered a hundred pounds to the
regiment covering the distance from Sarras to Debbeh most
expeditiously and with least damage to boats. … He also
dispatched Sir Herbert Stewart on the immortal march to
Gakdul. Stewart's force, composed principally of the Mounted
Infantry and Camel Corps, and led by a troop of the 19th
Hussars, acting as scouts—numbering about 1,100 in all—set
out from Korti on December 30th. Its destination was about 100
miles from headquarters, and about 80 from the Nile at Shendy.
{768}
The enterprise, difficult and desperate as it was, was
achieved with perfect success. … On the 17th January Sir
Herbert Stewart engaged the enemy on the road to Metemneh, and
after defeating some 10,000 Arabs—collected from Berber,
Metemneh, and Omdurman—pushed forward to the Abu Klea Wells.
His tactics were much the same as those of General Graham at
Elteb, and those of the Mahdi's men—of attacking when thirst
and fatigue had well-nigh prostrated the force—were at all
points similar to those adopted against Hicks. Our losses were
65 non-commissioned officers and men killed and 85 wounded,
with 9 officers killed—among them Colonel Burnaby—and 9
wounded. Stewart at once pushed on for Metemneh and the Nile.
He left the Wells on the 18th January to occupy Metemneh, if
possible, but, failing that, to make for the Nile and entrench
himself. After a night's march, some five miles south of
Metemneh, the column found itself in presence of an enemy said
to have been about 18,000 strong. Stewart halted and formed a
zareba under a deadly fire. He himself was mortally hurt in
the groin, and Mr. Cameron, of the Standard, and Mr. Herbert,
of the Morning Post, were killed. The zareba completed, the
column advanced in square, and the Arabs, profiting by Abu
Klea, moved forward in echelon, apparently with the purpose of
charging. At thirty yards or so they were brought to bay, so
terrific was the fire from the square, and so splendidly
served was Norton's artillery. For two hours the battle raged;
and then the Arabs, 'mown down in heaps,' gave way. Meantime
Sir Charles Wilson had made a dash for the Nile, where he
found steamers and reinforcements from Gordon, and the laconic
message, 'An right at Khartoum. Can hold out for years.' …
In the joy at the good news, none had stopped to consider the
true meaning of the message, 'All right. Can hold out for
years,' for none was aware that nearly two months before
Gordon had said he had just provisions enough for 40 days, and
that what he really meant was that he had come to his last
biscuit. The message—which was written for the enemy—was
dated December 20, and Sir Charles Wilson would reach Khartoum on
January 28, just a month after its despatch. … The public,
carefully kept in ignorance … and hopeful beyond their wont,
were simply stupefied to hear, on February 5, that Khartoum was in
the hands of the Mahdi and Gordon captured or dead."
_A. E. Hake,
The Story of Chinese Gordon,
volume 2, chapter 10._
ALSO IN:
_H. M. Stanley,
In Darkest Africa,
chapter 1._
_Colonel H. E. Colvile,
History of the Soudan Campaign._
_Colonel C. W. Wilson,
From Korti to Khartoum._
_Colonel Sir W. F. Butler,
The Campaign of the Cataracts._
_W. M. Pimblett,
The Story of the Soudan War._
_General C. G. Gordon,
Journals at Khartoum._
_H. W. Gordon,
Events in the Life of Charles George Gordon,
chapters 14-20._
EGYPT: A. D. 1893.
The reigning khedive.
Mohamed Tewfik died in January, 1802 and was succeeded by his
son Abbas, born in 1874.
_Statesman's Year-book, 1893._
----------EGYPT: End----------
EGYPTIAN EDUCATION.
See EDUCATION, ANCIENT.
EGYPTIAN TALENT.
See TALENT.
EIDGENOSSEN.
The German word Eidgenossen, signifying "confederates," is
often used in a special sense, historically, as applied to the
members of the Swiss Confederation/
See SWITZERLAND: THE THREE FOREST CANTONS.
The name of the Huguenots is believed by some writers to be a
corruption of the same term.
EIGHT SAINTS OF WAR, The.
See FLORENCE: A. D. 1375-1378.
EIKON BASILIKE, The.
See ENGLAND: A. D. 1649 (FEBRUARY).
EION, Siege and capture of (B. C. 470).
See ATHENS: B. C. 470-466.
EIRE.
See IRELAND: THE NAME.
EKKLESIA.
See ECCLESIA.
EKOWE, Defence of (1879).
See SOUTH AFRICA: A. D. 1877-1870.
ELAGABALUS, Roman Emperor, A. D. 218-222.
ELAM.
"Genesis calls a tribe dwelling on the Lower Tigris, between
the river and the mountains of Iran, the Elamites, the oldest
son of Shem. Among the Greeks the land of the Elamites was
known as Kissia [Cissia], and afterwards as Susiana, from the
name of the capital. It was also called Elymais."
_M. Duncker,
History of Antiquity,
book 2, chapter 1._
About 2300 B. C. Chaldea, or Babylonia, was overwhelmed by an
Elamite invasion—an invasion recorded by king Asshurbanipal,
and which is stated to have laid waste the land of Accad and
desecrated its temples. "Nor was this a passing inroad or raid
of booty-seeking mountaineers. It was a real conquest.
Khudur-Nankhundi and his successors remained in Southern
Chaldea. … This is the first time we meet authentic
monumental records of a country which was destined through the
next sixteen centuries to be in continual contact, mostly
hostile, with both Babylonia and her northern rival, Assyria,
until its final annihilation by the latter [B. C. 649, under
Asshurbanipal, the Sardanapulus of the Greeks, who reduced the
whole country to a wilderness]. Its capital was Shushan
(afterwards pronounced by foreigners Susa), and its own
original name Shushinak. Its people were of Turanian stock,
its language was nearly akin to that of Shumir and Accad. …
Elam, the name under which the country is best known, both
from the Bible and later monuments, is a Turanian word, which
means, like 'Accad,' 'Highlands.' … One of
Khudur-Nankhundi's next successors, Khudur-Lagamar, was not
content with the addition of Chaldea to his kingdom of Elam.
He had the ambition of a born conqueror, and the generalship
of one. The Chapter xiv, of Genesis—which calls him
Chedorlaomer—is the only document we have descriptive of this
king's warlike career, and a very striking picture it gives of
it, … Khudur-Lagamar … lived, according to the most
probable calculations, about 2200 B. C."
_Z. A. Ragozin,
Story of Chaldea,
chapter 4._
It is among the discoveries of recent times, derived from the
records in clay unearthed in Babylonia, that Cyrus the Great
was originally king of Elam, and acquired Persia, as he
acquired his later dominions, by conquest.
See PERSIA, B. C. 549-521.
See, also, BABYLONIA.
EL ARISH, Treaty of.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1800 (JANUARY-JUNE).
ELBA: A. D. 1735.
Ceded to Spain by Austria.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1733-1735.
ELBA: A. D. 1802.
Annexation to France.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1802 (AUGUST-SEPTEMBER).
ELBA: A. D. 1814.
Napoleon in exile.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1814 (MARCH-APRIL),
and (APRIL-JUNE).
{i}
APPENDIX A.
NOTES TO ETHNOGRAPHICAL MAP, PLACED AT THE BEGINNING OF THIS VOLUME.
To the eye of modern scholarship "language" forms the basis of
every ethnic distinction. Physical and exterior features like the
stature, the color of the skin, the diversity of habits and
customs, the distinctions which once formed in great part the
basis of ethnic research have all in our own day been relegated
to a subordinate place.
The "language" test is of course subject to very serious
limitations. The intermingling of different peoples, more general
to be sure in our own day than in past ages, has nevertheless
been sufficiently great in every age to make the tracing of
linguistic forms a task of great difficulty. In special cases
where both the civilization and language of one people have
become lost in that of another the test must of course fail
utterly.
With all these restrictions however the adoption of the
linguistic method by modern criticism has been practically
universal. Its defence, if it requires any, is apparent. It is
the only method of ethnic study the deductions of which, where
successful at all, approach anything like certainty. The points
wherein linguistic criticism has failed have been freely
admitted; on the other hand the facts which it has established
are unassailable by any other school of criticism.
Taking language then as the only tangible working basis the
subject resolves itself from the start into a two-fold division:
the debatable and the certain. It is the purpose to indicate in
the course of these notes, what is merely conjecture and what may
be safely accepted as fact.
The ethnology of Europe, studied on this basis, has for its
central feature the _Indo-Germanic_ (_Indo-European_)
or _Aryan_ race. The distinction between the races clearly
Aryan and those doubtful or non-Aryan forms the primary division
of the subject. As the map is intended to deal only with the
Europe of the present, a historical distinction must be made at
the outset between the doubtful or non-Aryan peoples who preceded
the Aryans and the non-Aryan peoples who have appeared in Europe
in comparatively recent times. The simple formula, _pre-Aryan,
Aryan, non-Aryan,_ affords the key to the historical
development of European ethnology.
PRE-ARYAN PEOPLES.
Of the presumably pre-Aryan peoples of western Europe the
_Iberians_ occupy easily the first place. The seat of this
people at the dawn of history was in Spain and southern France;
their ethnology belongs entirely to the realm of conjecture. They
are of much darker complexion than the Aryans and their racial
characteristic is conservatism even to stubbornness, which places
them in marked contrast to their immediate Aryan neighbors, the
volatile Celts. Among the speculations concerning the origin of
the Iberians a plausible one is that of Dr. Bodichon, who assigns
to them an African origin making them, indeed, cognate with the
modern Berbers (see R. H. Patterson's "Ethnology of Europe" in
"Lectures on History and Art"). This generalization is made to
include also the _Bretons_ of the north west. It is clear
however that the population of modern Brittany is purely Celtic:
made up largely from the immigrations from the British Isles
during the fifth century.
To the stubbornness with which the Iberians resisted every
foreign aggression and refused intermingling with surrounding
races is due the survival to the present day of their
descendants, the _Basques_.
The mountain ranges of northern Spain, the Cantabrians and
Eastern Pyrenees have formed the very donjon-keep of this people
in every age. Here the _Cantabri_ successfully resisted the
Roman arms for more than a century after the subjugation of the
remainder of Spain, the final conquest not occurring until the
last years of Augustus. While the _Iberian_ race as a whole
has become lost in the greater mass of Celtic and Latin
intruders, it has remained almost pure in this quarter. The
present seat of the Basques is in the Spanish provinces of
Viscaya, Alava, Guipuzcoa, and Navarre and in the French
department of Basses Pyrénées. The Ivernians of Ireland, now lost
in the Celtic population, and the Ligurians along the shores of
the Genoese gulf, later absorbed by the Romans, both belong
likewise to this pre-Aryan class. (Modern research concerning
these pre-Aryan peoples has in large part taken its inspiration
from the "Untersuchungen" of Humboldt, whose view concerning the
connection between the Basques and Iberians is substantially the
one stated.)
Another early non-Aryan race now extinct were the Etruscans of
Italy. Their origin was manifestly different from that of the
pre-Aryan peoples just mentioned. By many they have been regarded
as a branch of the great Ural-Altaic family. This again is
conjecture.
ARYAN PEOPLES.
In beginning the survey of the Aryan peoples it is necessary to
mention the principal divisions of the race. As generally
enumerated there are seven of these, viz., the _Sanskrit_
(Hindoo), _Zend_ (Persian), _Greek, Latin, Celtic,
Germanic_ and _Slavic_. To these may be added two others
not definitely classified, the _Albanian_ and the
_Lithuanian_. These bear the closest affinity respectively
to the Latin and the _Slavic_.
Speculation concerning the origin of the Aryans need not concern
us. It belongs as yet entirely to the arena of controversy. The
vital question which divides the opposing schools is concerning
their European or Asiatic origin. Of the numerous writers on this
subject the two who perhaps afford the reader of English the best
view of the opposing opinions are, on the Asiatic side, Dr. Max
Müller (Lectures on the Science of Language); on the other, Professor
A. H. Sayce (Introduction to the Science of Language).
{ii}
Of the divisions of the Aryan race above enumerated the first two
do not appear in European ethnology. Of the other branches, the
_Latin_, _Germanic_ and _Slavic_ form by great
odds the bulk of the European population.
THE LATIN BRANCH.
The _Latin_ countries are France, Spain, Portugal, Italy and
the territory north of the Danube, between the Dniester and the
Theiss. In the strictest ethnic sense however the term Latin can
be applied only to Italy and then only to the central part. As
Italy first appears in history it is inhabited by a number of
different races: the _Iapygians_ and _Oenotrians_ of
the south who were thrown in direct contact with the Greek
settlers; the _Umbrians, Sabines, Latins, Volscians_ and
_Oscans_ in the centre; the _Etruscans_ on the west
shore north of the Tiber; while in the north we find the
_Gauls_ in the valley of the Po, with the _Ligurians_
and _Venetians_ respectively on the west and east coasts. Of
this motley collection the central group bore a close affinity to
the Latin, yet all alike received the Latin stamp with the
growing power of Rome.
The ethnic complexion of Italy thus formed was hardly modified by
the great Germanic invasions which followed with the fall of the
West-Roman Empire.
This observation applies with more or less truth to all the Latin
countries, the Germanic conquerors becoming everywhere merged and
finally lost in the greater mass of the conquered. Only in
Lombardy where a more enduring Germanic kingdom existed for over
two centuries (568-774), has the Germanic made any impression,
and this indeed a slight one, on the distinctly Latin character
of the Italian peninsula.
In Spain an interval between the Iberian period and the Roman
conquest appears to have existed, during which the population is
best described as _Celt-Iberian_. Upon this population the
Latin stamp was placed by the long and toilsome, but for that
reason more thorough, Roman conquest. The ethnic character of
Spain thus formed has passed without material change through the
ordeal both of Germanic and Saracenic conquest. The _Gothic_
kingdom of Spain (418-714) and the _Suevic_ kingdom of
northern Portugal (406-584) have left behind them scarcely a
trace. The effects of the great Mohammedan invasion cannot be
dismissed so lightly.
Conquered entirely by the Arabs and Moors in 714, the entire
country was not freed from the invader for nearly eight
centuries. In the south (Granada) where the Moors clung longest
their influence has been greatest. Here their impress on the pure
Aryan stock has never been effaced.
The opening phrase of Cæsar's Gallic war, "all Gaul is divided
into three parts," states a fact as truly ethnic as it is
geographical or historical. In the south (Aquitania) we find the
Celtic blending with the _Iberian_; in the northeast the
Cimbrian Belgae, the last comers of the Celtic family, are
strongly marked by the characteristics of the Germans; while in
the vast central territory the people "calling themselves Galli"
are of pure Celtic race. This brief statement of Caesar, allowing
for the subsequent influx of the German, is no mean description
of the ethnic divisions of France as they exist at the present
day, and is an evidence of the remarkable continuity of
ethnological as opposed to mere political conditions.
The four and a half centuries of Roman rule placed the Latin
stamp on the Gallic nation, a preparation for the most determined
siege of Germanic race influence which any Latin nation was fated
to undergo.
In Italy and Spain the exotic kingdoms were quickly overthrown;
the _Frankish_ kingdom in northern Gaul was in strictness
never overthrown at all.
In addition we soon have in the extreme north a second Germanic
element in the Scandinavian _Norman_. Over all these outside
elements, however, the Latin influence eventually triumphed.
While the _Franks_ have imposed their name upon the natives,
the latter have imposed their language and civilization on the
invaders.
The result of this clashing of influences is seen, however, in
the present linguistic division of the old Gallic lands. The line
running east and west through the centre of France marks the
division between the French and the _Provençal_ dialects,
the _langued'oil_ and the _langued'oc_. It is south of
this line in the country of the _langued'oc_ that the Latin
or Romance influence reigns most absolute in the native speech.
In the northeast, on the other hand, in the _Walloon_
provinces of Belgium, we have, as with the Belgae of classic
times, the near approach of the Gallic to the Germanic stems.
Our survey of the Latin peoples must close with a short notice of
its outlying members in the Balkan and Danubian lands. The
_Albanians_ (_Skipetars_) and the _Roumans_
(_Vlachs_ or _Wallachs_) represent as nearly as
ethnology can determine the ancient populations respectively of
Illyricum and Thrace. The ethnology of the Albanians is entirely
uncertain. Their present location, considerably to the south of
their supposed pristine seat in Illyricum, indicates some
southern migration of the race. This migration occurred at an
entirely unknown time, though it is generally believed to have
been contemporary with the great southward movement of the Slavic
races in the seventh century.
The _Albanian_ migrations of the time penetrated Attica,
Aetolia and the entire Peloponnesus; with the _Slavs_ and
_Vlachs_ they formed indeed a great part of the population
of Greece during the Middle Ages. While the Slavic stems have
since been merged in the native Greek population, and the
_Vlachs_ have almost entirely disappeared from these
southern lands, the Albanians in Greece have shown a greater
tenacity. Their part in later Greek history has been a prominent
one and they form to-day a great part of the population of Attica
and Argolis.
The _Roumans_ or _Vlachs_, the supposed native
population of Thrace, are more closely identified than the
Albanians with the other Latin peoples. They occupy at present
the vast country north of the Danube, their boundary extending on
the east to the Dniester, on the west almost to the Theiss.
Historically these people form a perplexing yet interesting
study. The theory once general that they represented a continuous
Latin civilization north of the Danube, connecting the classic
Dacia by an unbroken chain to the present, has now been generally
abandoned. (See Roesler's "Romänische Studien" or Freeman's
"Historical Geography of Europe," page 435.)
{iii}
The present geographical location of the Vlach peoples is
probably the result of a migration from the Thracian lands south
of the Danube, which occurred for unexplained causes in the
twelfth and thirteenth centuries. The kernel of the race at the
present day is the separate state of Roumania; in the East and
West they come under the respective rules of Russia and Hungary.
In mediaeval times the part played by them south of the Balkans
was an important one, and to this day they still linger in
considerable numbers on either side of the range of Pindus. (For
a short dissertation on the Vlach peoples, see Finlay, "History
of Greece," volume 3, pages 224-230.)
THE GERMANIC BRANCH.
The _Germanic_ nations of modern Europe are _England,
Germany, Holland, Denmark, Norway_ and _Sweden_. The
Germanic races also form the major part of the population of
Switzerland, the Cis-Leithan division of the Austrian Empire, and
appear in isolated settlements throughout Hungary and Russia.
Of the earlier Germanic nations who overthrew the Roman Empire of
the West scarcely a trace remains.
The population of the British Isles at the dawn of history
furnishes a close parallel to that of Gaul. The pre-Aryan
_Ivernians_ (the possible _Iberians_ of the British
Isles) had been forced back into the recesses of Scotland and
Ireland; next to them came the Celts, like those of Gaul, in two
divisions, the _Goidels_ or _Gaels_ and the
_Britons_.
In Britain, contrary to the usual rule, the Roman domination did
not give the perpetual Latin stamp to the island; it is in fact
the only country save the Pannonian and Rhaetian lands south of
the upper Danube, once a Roman possession, where the Germanic
element has since gained a complete mastery. The invasion of the
Germanic races, the _Angles, Saxons_ and _Jutes_, from
the sixth to the eighth centuries, were practically wars of
extermination. The Celtic race is to-day represented on the
British Isles only in _Wales_ and the western portions of
_Scotland_ and _Ireland_. The invasions of the
_Danes_, and later the _Norman_ conquest, bringing with
them only slight infusions of kindred Germanic nations, have
produced in England no marked modification of the _Saxon_
stock.
The _German_ Empire, with the smaller adjoining realms,
Holland and Switzerland and the Austrian provinces of Austria,
Styria, Carinthia, Salzburg and Tyrol, contain the great mass of
the Germanic peoples of the continent.
During the confusion following the overthrow of the West-Roman
Empire the _Germanic_ peoples were grouped much further
westward than they are at present; the eastward reaction
involving the dispossession of the _Slavic_ peoples on the
Elbe and Oder, has been going on ever since the days of
Charlemagne. Germany like France possesses a linguistic division,
Low German (Nieder-Deutsche) being generally spoken in the lands
north of the cross line, High German (Hoch-Deutsche) from which
the written language is derived, to the south of it, Holland uses
the _Flemish_, a form of the Nieder-Deutsche; Belgium is
about equally divided between the _Flemish_ and the
_Walloon_. Switzerland, though predominantly German, is
encroached upon by the French in the western cantons, while in
the southeast is used the Italian and a form allied to the same,
the Romance speech of the Rhaetian (Tyrolese) Alps. This form
also prevails in Friuli and some mountainous parts of northern
Italy.
The present population of the German Empire is almost exclusively
Germanic, the exceptions being the Slavic _Poles_ of Posen,
Pomerellen, southeastern Prussia and eastern Silesia, the remnant
of the _Wends_ of Lusatia and the French element in the
recently acquired Imperial lands of Alsace and Lorraine. Beyond
the Empire we find a German population in the Austrian
territories already noted, in the border lands of Bohemia, and in
isolated settlements further east. The great settlement in the
Siebenbürgen was made by German emigrants in the eleventh century
and similar settlements dot the map both of Hungary and Russia.
On the Volga indeed exists the greatest of them all.
Denmark, Norway and Sweden are peopled by the _Scandinavian_
branch of the Germanic race. Only in the extreme north do we find
another and non-Aryan race, the _Lapps_. On the other hand a
remnant of the Swedes still retain a precarious hold on the coast
line of their former possession, the Russian Finland.
THE SLAVIC BRANCH.
The _Slavs_, though the last of the Aryan nations to appear
in history, form numerically by far the greatest branch of the
Indo-European family. Their present number in Europe is computed
at nearly one hundred million souls.
At the time of the great migrations they extended over nearly all
modern Germany; their slow dispossession by the Germanic peoples,
beginning in the eighth century, has already been noticed. In the
course of this dispossession the most westerly Slavic group, the
_Polabic_, between the Elbe and the Oder, were merged in the
German, and, barring the remnant of _Wends_ in Lusatia (the
_Sorabi_ or _Northern Serbs_), have disappeared
entirely from ethnic geography.
The great _Slavic_ nation of the present day is Russia, but
the great number of Slavic peoples who are not Russian and the
considerable Russian population which is not Slavic renders
impossible the study of this race on strictly national lines.
The Slavic peoples are separated, partly by geographical
conditions, into three great divisions: the _Eastern_, the
_Western_ and the _Southern_. The greatest of these
divisions, the Eastern, lies entirely within the boundaries of
the Russian Empire. The sub-divisions of the Eastern group are as
follows: The _Great Russians_ occupying the vast inland
territory and numbering alone between forty and fifty millions,
the _Little Russians_ inhabiting the entire south of Russia
from Poland to the Caspian, and the _White Russians_, the
least numerous of this division, in Smolensk, Wilna, and Minsk,
the west provinces bordering on the Lithuanians and Poles.
The _West Slavic_ group, omitting names of peoples now
extinct, are the _Poles, Slovaks, Czechs_ and the remnants
of the Lusatian _Wends_. The _Poles_, excepting those
already mentioned as within the German empire, and the Austrian
Poles of Cracow, are all under the domination of Russia. Under
the sovereignty of Austria are the _Slovaks, Moravians_ and
_Czechs_ of Bohemia, the latter the most westerly as well as
historically the oldest of the surviving Slavic peoples, having
appeared in their present seats in the last years of the fifth
century.
{iv}
In connection with this West Slavic group we should also refer to
the _Lithuanians_ whose history, despite the racial
difference, is so closely allied with that of Poland. Their
present location in the Russian provinces of Kowno, Kurland and
Livland has been practically the same since the dawn of history.
The _South Slavic_ peoples were isolated from their northern
kinsmen by the great _Finno-Tatar_ invasions.
The invasion of Europe by the Avars in the sixth century clove
like a wedge the two great divisions of the Slavic race, the
southernmost being forced upon the confines of the East-Roman
Empire. Though less imposing as conquests than the Germanic
invasions of the Western Empire, the racial importance of these
Slavic movements is far greater since they constitute, in
connection with the _Finno-Tatar_ invasions which caused
them, the most important and clearly defined series of ethnic
changes which Europe has experienced during the Christian Era.
During the sixth and seventh centuries these Slavic emigrants
spread over almost the entire Balkan peninsula, including Epirus
and the Peloponnesus. In Greece they afterwards disappeared as a
separate people, but in the region between the Danube, the Save
and the Balkans they immediately developed separate states
(Servia in 641, Bulgaria in 678). As they exist at present they
may be classed in three divisions. The _Bulgarians_, so
called from the _Finno-Tatar_ people whom they absorbed
while accepting their name, occupy the district included in the
separate state of Bulgaria and Eastern Roumelia, with a
considerable territory to the south of it in Macedonia and
Thrace. It was this last named territory or one very nearly
corresponding to it that was actually ceded to Bulgaria by the
peace of San Stefano, though she unfortunately lost it by the
subsequent compromise effected at the Congress of Berlin. The
second division includes the _Servians, Montenegrans,
Bosnians_ and _Croatians_, the last two under Austrian
control; the third and smallest are the _Slovenes_ of
Carniola, likewise under Austrian sovereignty. (Schafarik's
"Slawische Alterthümer" is the greatest single authority on the
early history and also comparative ethnology of the
_Slavs_.)
The territory occupied by the _Greek_ speaking people is
clearly shown on the accompanying map. As in all history, it is
the coast lands where they seem to have formed the strongest
hold. In free Greece itself and in the Turkish territories
immediately adjoining, the _Greek_ population overwhelmingly
preponderates.
Nevertheless there is still a considerable Albanian element in
Attica and Argolis, a _Vlach_ element in Epirus while the
_Turk_ himself still lingers in certain quarters of
Thessaly. All these are remnants left over from the successive
migrations of the Middle Ages. The _Slavs_, who also figured
most prominently in these migrations, have disappeared in Greece
as a distinct race. The question as to the degree of Slavic
admixture among the modern Greeks is however another fruitful
source of ethnic controversy. The general features of the
question are most compactly stated in Finlay, volume 4, pages 1-37.
NON-ARYAN PEOPLES.
The _Non-Aryan_ peoples on the soil of modern Europe,
excepting the Jews and also probably excepting those already
placed in the unsolved class of pre-Aryan, all belong to the
_Finno-Tatar_ or _Ural-Altaic_ family, and all,
possibly excepting the _Finns_, date their arrival in Europe
from comparatively recent and historic times. The four principal
divisions of this race, the _Ugric, Finnic, Turkic_ and
_Mongolic_, all have their European representatives.
Of the first the only representatives are the _Hungarians_
(_Magyars_). The rift between the North and South Slavic
peoples opened by the _Huns_ in the fifth century, reopened
and enlarged by the _Avars_ in the sixth, was finally
occupied by their kinsmen the _Magyars_ in the ninth. The
receding of this wave of Asiatic invasion left the _Magyars_
in utter isolation among their Aryan neighbors. It follows as a
natural consequence that they have been the only one of the
_Ural-Altaic_ peoples to accept the religion and
civilization of the West. Since the conversion of their king St.
Stephen in the year 1000, their geographical position has not
altered. Roughly speaking, it comprises the western half of
Hungary, with an outlying branch in the Carpathians.
More closely allied to the _Magyars_ than to their more
immediate neighbors of the same race are the _Finnic_ stems
of the extreme north. Stretching originally over nearly the whole
northern half of Scandinavia and Russia they have been gradually
displaced, in the one case by their Germanic, in the other by
their Slavic neighbors. Their present representatives are the
_Ehsts_ and _Tschudes_ of Ehstland, the _Finns_
and _Karelians_ of Finland, the _Tscheremissians_ of
the upper Volga, the _Siryenians_ in the basin of the
Petchora and the _Lapps_ in northern Scandinavia and along
the shores of the Arctic ocean.
East of the _Lapps_, also bordering the Arctic ocean, lie
the _Samojedes_, a people forming a distinct branch of the
Ural-Altaic family though most closely allied to the Finnic
peoples. The great division of the Ural-Altaic family known
indifferently as _Tatar_ (_Tartar_) or _Turk_,
has, like the Aryan Slavs, through the accidents of historical
geography rather than race divergence been separated into two
great divisions: the northern or Russian division commonly
comprised under the specific name of _Tartar_; and the
southern, the _Turk_.
These are the latest additions to the European family of races.
The _Mongol-Tatar_ invasion of Russia occurred as late as
the thirteenth century, while the _Turks_ did not gain their
first foothold in Europe through the gates of Gallipoli until
1353. The bulk of the Turks of the present day are congregated in
Asia-Minor.
Barring the _Armenians_, the _Georgians_ of the
northeast, the _Greeks_ of the seacoast and the scattered
_Circassians_, the whole peninsula is substantially Turkish.
In Europe proper the Turks as a distinct people never cut a great
figure. Even in the grandest days of Osmanli conquest they were
always outnumbered by the conquered nations whose land they
occupied, and with the decline of their power this numerical
inferiority has become more and more marked. At the present day
there are very few portions of the Balkan peninsula where the
Turkish population actually predominates; their general
distribution is clearly shown on the map.
{v}
The _Tartars_ or _Russian Turks_ represent the siftings
of the Asiatic invasions of the thirteenth century.
Their number has been steadily dwindling until they now count
scarcely three millions, a mere handful in the mass of their
former Slavic subjects.
The survivors are scattered in irregular and isolated groups over
the south and east. Prominent among them are the _Crim
Tartars_, the kindred Nogais of the west shores of the
Caspian, the _Kirghis_ of the north shore and Ural valley,
and the _Bashkirs_ between the upper Ural and the Volga,
with an isolated branch of Tartars in the valley of the Araxes
south of the Caucasus.
The great Asiatic irruption of the thirteenth century has been
commonly known as the Mongol invasion. Such it was in leadership,
though the residuum which it has left behind in European Russia
proves that the rank and file were mostly Tartars. One Mongol
people however, the _Kalmucks_, did make their way into
Europe and still exist in the steppes between the lower Don and
the lower Volga.
The ethnology of the Caucasian peoples is the most difficult part
of the entire subject. On the steppes of the Black and Caspian
seas up to the very limit of the Caucasus we have two races
between whom the ethnic distinction is clearly defined, the
Mongol-Tartar and the Slav. Entering the Caucasus however we find
a vast number of races differing alike from these and from each
other.
To enumerate all the different divisions of these races, whose
ethnology is so very uncertain, would be useless. Grouped in
three general divisions however they are as follows: the
so-called _Circassians_ who formerly occupied the whole
western Caucasus with the adjoining Black sea coast but who,
since the Russian conquest of 1864, have for the most part
emigrated to different quarters of the Turkish Empire; the
_Lesghians_, under which general name are included the
motley crowd of peoples inhabiting the eastern Caucasus; and the
_Georgians_, the supposed descendants of the ancient
_Iberians_ of the Caucasus, who inhabit the southern slope,
including all the Tiflis province and the Trapezuntine lands on
the southeast coast of the Black sea.
The _Tartars_ are hardly found in the Caucasus though they
reappear immediately south of it in the lower basin of the Kura
and the Araxes. Here also appear the various _Iranian_ stems
of the Asiatic Aryans, the _Armenians_, the _Persians_
and the _Kurds_.
R. H. Latham's works on "European Ethnology" are the best general
authority in English. Of more recent German guides, map and
otherwise, the following are noteworthy: Bastain's
"Ethnologisches Bilderbuch," "Das Beständige in den
Menschenrassen," "Allgemeine Grundzüge der Ethnologie," Kiepert's
"Ethnographische Uebersichtskarte des Europäischen Orients,"
Menke's "Europa nach seinen Ethnologischen Verhältnissen in der
Mitte des 19. Jahrhundert," Rittich's "Ethnographie des
europäischen Russland," Sax's "Ethnographische Karte der
europäischen Turkei," Berghaus's "Ethnographische Karte vom
österreichischen Kaiserstaat," Wendt's "Bilder Atlas der Länder
und Völkerkunde," Andree's "Allgemeiner Hand-atlas
(Ethnographischen Karten)," Gerland's "Atlas der Ethnographie."
A. C. Reiley.
{vi}
APPENDIX B.
NOTES TO FOUR MAPS OF THE BALKAN PENINSULA.
(TWELFTH TO THE FIFTEENTH CENTURY.)
There exists to-day upon the map of Europe no section whose
historical geography has a greater present interest than the
Danubian, Balkan and Levantine states. It is these and the
Austro-Hungarian lands immediately adjoining which have formed
one of the great fulcrums for those national movements which
constitute the prime feature of the historical geography of the
present age.
Upon the present map of Europe in this quarter we discover a
number of separate and diminutive national entities, the
_Roumanian, Bulgarian, Servian_ and Montenegrin, the
_Greek_ and _Albanian_, all struggling desperately to
establish themselves on the debris of the crumbling Turkish
Empire.
What the issue will be of these numerous and mutually conflicting
struggles for separate national existence it is out of our
province to forecast.
It is only intended in this map series to throw all possible
light on their true character from the lessons and analogies of
the past. At first sight the period treated in the four Levantine
maps (from the last of the twelfth to the middle of the fifteenth
century) must appear the most intricate and the most obscure in
the entire history of this region. The most intricate it
certainly is, and possibly the most obscure, though the obscurity
arises largely from neglect. Its importance, however, arises from
the fact that it is the only past period of Levantine history
which presents a clear analogy to the present, not alone in its
purely transitionary character, but also from the several
national movements which during this time were diligently at
work.
During the Roman and the earlier Byzantine periods, which from
their continuity may be taken as one, any special tendency was of
course stifled under the preponderant rule of a single great
empire.
The same was equally true at a later time, when all of these
regions passed under the rule of the _Turk_. These four maps
treat of that most interesting period intervening between the
crumbling of the Byzantine power and the Turkish conquest. That
in our own day the crumbling in turn of the Turkish power has
repeated, in its general features, the same historical situation,
is the point upon which the interest must inevitably centre.
What the outcome will be in modern times forms the most
interesting of political studies. Whether the native races of the
Danube, the Balkans and the southern peninsula are to work out
their full national development, either federately or
independently, or whether they are destined to pass again, as is
threatened, under the domination of another and greater empire,
is one of the most important of the questions which agitates the
mind of the modern European statesman. That the latter outcome is
now the less likely is due to the great unfolding of separate
national spirit which marks so strongly the age in which we live.
The reason why the previous age treated in this map series ended
in nothing better than foreign and Mohammedan conquest may
perhaps be sought in the imperfect development of this same
national spirit.
THE BYZANTINE EMPIRE.
The first map (Asia Minor and the Balkans near the close of the
twelfth century) is intended to show the geographical situation
as it existed immediately prior to the dismemberment of the
Byzantine Empire. The Byzantine Empire of this period is in
itself an important study. It must be regarded more as the
offspring than the direct continuation of the great East-Roman
Empire of Arcadius and Justinian; for with the centuries which
had intervened the great changes in polity, internal geography,
external neighbors and lastly the continual geographical
contraction, present us with an entirely new series of relations.
It is this geographical contraction which concerns us most
vitally, for with it the frontiers of the empire conform more and
more closely to the ethnic limits of the _Greek_ nation. The
later Byzantine Empire was, therefore, essentially a Greek
Empire, and as such it appeals most vividly to the national
consciousness of the Greek of our own time. The restoration of
this empire, with the little kingdom of free Greece as the
nucleus, is the vision which inspires the more aggressive and
venturesome school of modern Greek politicians. In the twelfth
century the bulk of Asia Minor had been wrested from the
Byzantine Empire by the _Turks_, but it was the Crusaders,
not the _Turks_, who overthrew the first empire. In one view
this fact is fortunate, otherwise there would have been no
transition period whose study would be productive of such
fruitful results.
Owing to the artful policy of the Comnenian emperors, the
Byzantine Empire actually profited by the early crusades and was
enabled through them to recover a considerable part of Asia Minor
from the Turks. This apparent success, however, was only the
prelude to final disaster.
Isolated from western Christendom by the schism, the
_Greeks_ were an object of suspicion and hatred to the Latin
Crusaders and it only required a slight abatement of the original
crusading spirit for their warlike ardor to be diverted from
Jerusalem to Constantinople. Cyprus was torn away from the Greek
Empire and created a separate kingdom under Latin rule, in 1191.
Finally, the so-called Fourth Crusade, controlled by Venetian
intrigue, ended in the complete dismemberment of the Byzantine
Empire (1204).
{vii}
This nefarious enterprise forms a dark spot in history: it also
ushers in the greatest period of geographical intricacy in
Levantine annals, the geography which immediately resulted from
it is not directly shown in this Levantine map series, but can be
seen on the general map of Europe at the opening of the
thirteenth century. Briefly stated, it represented the
establishment of a fragmentary and disjointed Latin Empire in the
place of the former Greek Empire of Constantinople. Known as the
Latin Empire of Romania, this new creation included the Empire of
Constantinople proper and its feudal dependencies, the kingdom of
Thessalonica, the duchy of Athens, and the principality of
Achaia.
Three orphan Greek states survived the fall of the parent power:
in Europe, the despotat of Epirus, and in Asia, the empires of
Nicæa and Trebizond.
The Latin states of the East are scarcely worthy the historian's
notice. They have no place whatever in the natural development,
either political or geographical, of the Levantine states. They
were not only forced by foreign lances upon an unwilling
population, but were clumsy feudalisms, established among a
people to whom the feudal idea was unintelligible and barbarous.
Like their prototypes, the Crusading states of Syria, they
resembled artificial encroachments upon the sea, standing for a
time, but with the ordinary course of nature the ocean reclaims
its own.
Even the weak little Greek states were strong in comparison and
immediately began to recover ground at their expense. The kingdom
of Thessalonica was overthrown by the despot of Epirus in 1222;
the Latin Empire of Constantinople itself fell before the Greek
Emperor of Nicæa in 1261; while the last of the barons of the
principality of Achaia submitted to the Byzantine despots of the
Morea in 1430.
The duchy of Athens alone of all these Latin states survived long
enough to fall at last before the _Turkish_ conquest. The
Levantine possessions won by Venice at this and later times were
destined, partly from their insular or maritime location, and
partly from the greater vitality of trade relations, to enjoy a
somewhat longer life.
To the Nicæan emperors of the house of Paleologus belongs the
achievement of having restored the Byzantine Empire in the event
of 1261. The expression Restored Byzantine Empire has been
employed, since it has the sanction of usage, though a complete
restoration never occurred. The geography of the Restored Empire
as shown on the second map (1265 A. D.) fails to include the
greater part of what we may term the cradle of the Greek race.
The only subsequent extension was over the balance of the Morea.
In every other quarter the frontiers of the Restored Empire soon
began to recede until it included only the city of Constantinople
and an ever decreasing portion of Thrace. With the commencement
of the fourteenth century the _Turks_, having thrown off the
Mongol-Tartar dominion, began under the house of Osmanlis their
final career of conquest. This, of course, was the beginning of
the end. Their first foothold in Europe was gained in 1353, but
over a century was destined to elapse before the completion of
their sovereignty in all the lands south of the Danube. There
remains, therefore, a considerable period during which whatever
separate national tendencies existed had full opportunity to
work.
THE FIRST AND SECOND BULGARIAN KINGDOMS.
It was this age which saw not only the highest point in the
national greatness of Bulgaria and Servia, but also witnessed the
evolution of the Wallachian principalities in the lands north of
the Danube.
The separate states of Bulgaria and Servia, born in the seventh
century of the great southward migration of the _Slavic_
peoples, had in after times risen or fallen according to the
strength or weakness of the Byzantine Empire. Bulgaria had
hitherto shown the greatest power. At several different periods,
notably under Simeon (883-927), and again under Samuel
(976-1014), it developed a strength which fairly overawed the
Empire itself. These _Slavic_ states had, however, been
subjected by the Byzantine Empire in the first half of the
eleventh century, and, though Servia enjoyed another period of
independence (1040-1148), it was not until the final crumbling of
the Byzantine Empire, the premonition of the event of 1204, that
their expansion recommences. The Wallachian, or Second Bulgarian
kingdom, which came into existence in 1187 in the lands between
the Balkans and the Danube, has been the subject of an ethnic
discussion which need not detain us. That it was not purely
_Slavic_ is well established, for the great and singular
revival of the _Vlach_ or _Rouman_ peoples and their
movement from the lands south of Haemus to their present seats
north of the Danube, which is one of the great features of this
age, had already begun. (The country between the Danube and the
Balkans, the seat of the Second Bulgarian kingdom, appears as
Aspro or White-Wallachia in some Byzantine writings. So also
north of the Danube the later Moldavia and Great Wallachia are
known respectively as Mavro [Black] and Hungarowallachia. Still
the fact of a continuous Roumnn civilization north of the Danube
is not established. The theory of a great northward movement of
the Vlach peoples is the one now generally accepted and is ably
advocated in Roesler's "Romänische Studien.")
At the present day this movement has been so long completed that
scarcely the trace of _Vlach_ population remains in the
lands south of the Danube. These emigrants appear, as it were, in
passing, to have shared with the native Bulgarians in the
creation of this Second Bulgarian kingdom. This realm achieved a
momentary greatness under its rulers of the house of Asau. The
dismemberment of the Byzantine Empire in 1204 enabled them to
make great encroachments to the south, and it seemed for a time
that to the Bulgarian, not the Greek, would fall the task of
overthrowing the Latin Empire of Roumania (see general map of
Europe at the opening of the thirteenth century). With the
reëstablishment, however, of the Greek Empire of Constantinople,
in 1261, the Bulgarian kingdom began to lose much of its
importance, and its power was finally broken in 1285 by the
Mongols.
SERVIA.
In the following century it was the turn of Servia to enjoy a
period of preeminent greatness. The latter kingdom had recovered
its independence under the house of Nemanja in 1183.
{viii}
Under the great giant conqueror Stephen Dushan (1321-1355) it
enjoyed a period of greater power than has ever before or since
fallen to the lot of a single Balkan state. The Restored
Byzantine Empire had sustained no permanent loss from the period
of Bulgarian greatness: it was by the sudden Servian conquest
that it was deprived forever of nearly all its European
possessions (see Balkan map III). A Byzantine reaction might have
come under other conditions, but already another and greater
enemy was at her gates. Dushan died in 1355; and already, in
1353, two years before, the Turk at Gallipoli had made his
entrance into Europe. From this time every Christian state of the
East grew steadily weaker until Bulgaria, Servia, the Greek
Empire, and finally even Hungary, had passed under the Turkish
dominion.
THE VLACHS.
Passing on from these Slavic peoples, another national
manifestation of the greatest importance belonging to this
period, one which, unlike the Greek and Slavic, may be said in
one sense to have originated in the period, was that of the
_Vlachs_. This _Latin_ population, which ethnologists
have attempted to identify with the ancient _Thracians_,
was, previous to the twelfth century, scattered in irregular
groups throughout the entire Balkan peninsula. During the twelfth
century their great northward migration began. A single result of
this movement has already been noticed in the rise of the Second
Bulgarian kingdom. South of the Danube, however, their influence
was transitory. It was north of the river that the evolution of
the two principalities, Great Wallachia (Roumania) and Moldavia,
and the growth of a _Vlach_ population in the Transylvanian
lands of Eastern Hungary, has yielded the ethnic and in great
part the political geography of the present day.
The process of this evolution may be understood from a
comparative study of the four Balkan maps. Upon the first map the
_Cumanians_, a Finno-Tatar people, who in the twelfth
century had displaced a kindred race, the Patzinaks or
Petschenegs, occupy the whole country between the Danube and the
Transylvanian Alps. These were in turn swept forever from the map
of Europe by the Mongols (1224). With the receding of this
exterminating wave of Asiatic conquest the great wilderness was
thrown open to new settlers. The settlements of the _Vlachs_
north of the Danube and east of the Aluta became the principality
of Great Wallachia, the nucleus of the modern Roumania. West of
the Aluta the district of Little Wallachia was incorporated for a
long period, as the banat of Severin, in the Hungarian kingdom.
Finally, the principality of Moldavia came into existence in
1341, in land previously won by the Hungarians from the Mongols,
between the Dniester and the Carpathians. Both the principalities
of Great Wallachia and Moldavia were in the fourteenth century
dependencies of Hungary. The grasp of Hungary was loosened,
however, towards the close of the century and after a period of
shifting dependence, now on Hungary, now on Turkey, and for a
time, in the case of Moldavia, on Poland, we come to the period
of permanent Turkish supremacy.
With the presence and influence of the _Vlachs_ south of the
Balkans, during this period, we are less interested, since their
subsequent disappearance has removed the subject from any direct
connection with modern politics. The only quarter where they
still linger and where this influence led to the founding of an
independent state, was in the country east of the range of
Pindus, the Great Wallachia of the Byzantines. Here the
principality of Wallachian Thessaly appeared as an offshoot of
the Greek despotat of Epirus in 1259 (see map II).
This state retained its independent existence until 1308, when it
was divided between the Catalan dukes of Athens and the Byzantine
Empire.
ALBANIANS.
The _Skipetars_ (_Albanians_) during this period appear
to have been the slowest to grasp out for a separate national
existence. The southern section of Albania formed, after the fall
of Constantinople, a part of the despotat of Epirus, and whatever
independence existed in the northern section was lost in the
revival, first of the Byzantine, then, in the ensuing century, of
the Servian power. It was not until 1444 that a certain George
Castriot, known to the Turks as Iskander-i-beg, or Scanderbeg,
created a Christian principality in the mountain fastnesses of
Albania. This little realm stretched along the Adriatic from
Butrinto almost to Antivari, embracing, further inland, Kroja and
the basin of the Drin (see map IV).
It was not until after Scanderbeg's death that Ottoman control
was confirmed over this spirited Albanian population.
THE TURKISH CONQUEST.
The reign of Mohammed II. (1451-1481) witnessed the final
conquest of the entire country south of the Danube and the Save.
The extent of the Turkish Empire at his accession is shown on map
IV. The acquisitions of territory during his reign included in
Asia Minor the old Greek Empire of Trebizond (1461) and the
Turkish dynasty of Karaman; in Europe, Constantinople, whose fall
brought the Byzantine Empire to a close in 1453, the duchy of
Athens (1456), the despotats of Patras and Misithra (1460),
Servia (1458), Bosnia (1463), Albania (1468), Epirus and
Acarnania, the continental dominion of the Counts of Cephalonia
(1479), and Herzegovina (1481). In the mountainous district
immediately south of Herzegovina, the principality of Montenegro,
situated in lands which had formed the southern part of the first
Servian kingdom, alone preserved its independence, even at the
height of the Turkish domination.
The chronicle of Turkish history thereafter records only conquest
after conquest. The islands of the Ægean were many of them won
during Mohammed's own reign, the acquisition of the remainder
ensued shortly after. Venice was hunted step by step out of all
her Levantine possessions save the Ionian Islands; the
superiority over the _Crim Tartars_, Wallachia, Moldavia and
Jedisan followed, finally, the defeat at Mohacs (1526), and the
subsequent internal anarchy left nearly all Hungary at the mercy
of the Ottoman conqueror.
The geographical homogeneity thus restored by the Turkish
conquest was not again disturbed until the present century. The
repetition of almost the same conditions in our own time, though
with the process reversed, has been referred to in the sketch of
Balkan geography of the present day. The extreme importance of
the period just described, for the purposes of minute historical
analogy, will be apparent at once wherever comparison is
attempted.
{ix}
The thirteenth, fourteenth, and fifteenth centuries were of
course periods of far greater geographical intricacy, but the
purpose has been rather to indicate the nature of this intricacy
than to describe it in detail. The principal feature, namely, the
national movements, wherever they have manifested themselves,
have been more carefully dwelt upon. The object has been simply
to show that the four separate national movements, the
_Greek_, the _Slavic_, the _Rouman_, and the
_Albanian_, which may be said to have created the present
Levantine problem, were all present, and in the case of the two
last may even be said to have had their inception, in the period
just traversed.
In the present century the unfolding of national spirit has been
so much greater and far-reaching that a different outcome may be
looked for. It is sufficient for the present that the incipient
existence of these same movements has been shown to have existed
in a previous age. The best general text authority in English for
the geography of this period is George Finlay's "History of
Greece," volumes. III. and IV.; a more exhaustive guide in German is
Hopf's "Geschichte Griechenlands." For the purely geographical
works see the general bibliography of historical geography.
A. C. Reiley.
{x}
APPENDIX C.
NOTES TO THE MAP OF THE BALKAN PENINSULA. (PRESENT CENTURY.)
The present century has been a remarkable one for the settlement
of great political and geographical questions. These questions
resolve themselves into two great classes, which indicate the
political forces of the present age,—the first, represented in
the growth of democratic thought, and the second arising from the
awakening of national spirit. The first of these concerns
historical geography only incidentally, but the second has
already done much to reconstruct the political geography of our
time.
RECENT NATIONAL MOVEMENTS.
Within a little over thirty years it has changed the map of
central Europe from a medley of small states into a united Italy
and a united Germany; it has also led to a reconstruction of the
Austro-Hungarian Empire, In Italy, Germany and Austria-Hungary,
the national questions may, however, be regarded as settled; and
if, in the case of Austria-Hungary, owing to exactly reverse
conditions, the settlement has been a tentative one, it has at
least removed the question from the more immediate concern of the
present. In a different quarter of Europe, however, the rise of
the national movements has led to a question, infinitely more
complicated than the others, and which, so far from being
settled, is becoming ever more pressing year by year. This
reference is to the great Balkan problem. That this question has
been delayed in its solution for over four centuries, is due, no
doubt, to the conquests of the Turk, and it is still complicated
by his presence. In the notes to the four previous Balkan maps
(1191-1451), attention was especially directed to the national
movements, so far as they had opportunity to develop themselves
during this period. These movements, feeble in their character,
were all smothered by the Turkish conquest. With the decline of
this power in the present century these forces once more have
opportunity for reappearance. In this regard the history of the
Balkans during the nineteenth century is simply the history of
the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries read backwards.
The Turkish Empire had suffered terrible reverses during the
eighteenth century. Hungary (1699), the Crim Tartars (1774),
Bukovina (1777), Jedisan (1792), Bessarabia and Eastern Moldavia
(1812) were all successively wrested from the Ottomans, while
Egypt on one side and Moldavia and Wallachia on another recovered
practical autonomy, the one under the restored rule of the
Mamelukes (1766), the other under native hospodars.
THE SERVIAN AND GREEK REVOLTS.
All of these losses, though greatly weakening the Ottoman power,
did not destroy its geographical integrity. It was with the
Servian revolt of 1804 that the series of events pointing to the
actual disruption of the Turkish Empire may be said to have
begun. The first period of dissolution was measured by the reign
of Mahmoud II. (1808-1839), at once the greatest and the most
unfortunate of all the later Turkish sultans. Servia, first under
Kara Georg, then under Milosch Obrenovitch, the founder of the
present dynasty, maintained a struggle which led to the
recognition of Servian local autonomy in 1817. The second step in
the process of dissolution was the tragic Greek revolution
(1821-1828). The Sultan, after a terrible war of extermination,
had practically reduced Greece to subjection, when all his work
was undone by the intervention of the great powers.
The Turkish fleet was destroyed by the combined squadrons of
England, France and Russia at Navarin, October 20, 1827, and in
the campaign of the ensuing year the Moscovite arms for the first
time in history penetrated south of the Balkans. The treaty of
Adrianople, between Russia and Turkey (September 14, 1829), gave
to the Czar the protectorate over Moldavia and Wallachia. By the
treaty of London earlier in this year Greece was made autonomous
under the suzerainty of the Sultan, and the protocol of March 22,
1829, drew her northern frontier in a line between the gulfs of
Arta and Volo. The titular sovereignty of the Sultan over Greece
was annulled later in the year at the peace of Adrianople, though
the northern boundary of the Hellenic kingdom was then curtailed
to a line drawn from the mouth of the Achelous to the gulf of
Lamia. With the accession of the Bavarian king Otho, in 1833,
after the failure of the republic, the northern boundary was
again adjusted, returning to about the limits laid down in the
March protocol of 1829. Greece then remained for over fifty years
bounded on the north by Mount Othrys, the Pindus range and the
gulf of Arta. In 1863, on the accession of the Danish king George
I., the Ionian Isles, which had been under English administration
since the Napoleonic wars, were ceded to the Greek kingdom, and
in May, 1881, almost the last change in European geography to the
present day was accomplished in the cession, by the Sultan, of
Thessaly and a small part of Epirus. The agitation in 1886 for a
further extension of Greek territory was unsuccessful.
THE TREATY OF UNKIAR SKELESSI.
A series of still greater reverses brought the reign of the
Sultan Mahmoud to a close. The chief of these were the defeats
sustained at the hands of his rebellious vassal Mehemet Ali,
pacha of Egypt, a man who takes rank even before the Sultan
himself as the greatest figure in the Mohammedan world during the
present century. The immediate issue of this struggle was the
practical independence of Egypt, where the descendants of Mehemet
still rule, their title having been changed in 1867 from viceroy
to that of khedive. An event incidental to the strife between
Mehemet Ali and the Sultan is of far greater importance in the
history of European Turkey.
{xi}
Mahmoud in his distress looked for aid to the great powers, and
the final issue of the rival interests struggling at
Constantinople was the memorable treaty of Unkiar Skelessi (July,
1833) by which the Sultan resigned himself completely to the
interests of his former implacable foe, the Czar of Russia. In
outward appearance this treaty was an offensive and defensive
alliance; in practical results it gave the Moscovite, in exchange
for armed assistance, when needed, the practical control of the
Dardanelles. It is no extravagance of statement to say that this
treaty forms absolutely the high watermark of Russian
predominance in the affairs of the Levant. During the subsequent
sixty years, this influence, taken as a whole, strange paradox as
it may seem, has rather receded than advanced. The utter
prostration of the Turkish Empire on the death of Mahmoud (1839)
compelled Russia to recede from the conditions of Unkiar Skelessi
while a concert of the European powers undertook the task of
rehabilitating the prostrate power; the Crimean war (1854-1855)
struck a more damaging blow at the Russian power, and the events
of 1878, though they again shattered the Turkish Empire, did not,
as will be shown, lead to corresponding return of the Czar's
ascendency.
THE CRIMEAN WAR AND TREATY OF PARIS.
The Crimean War was brought on by the attempt of the Czar to
dictate concerning the internal affairs of the Ottoman Empire—a
policy which culminated in the occupation of Moldavia and
Wallachia (1853). All Europe became arrayed against Russia on
this question,—Prussia and Austria in tacit opposition, while
England, France, and afterwards Piedmont, drifted into war with
the northern power.
By the treaty of Paris (1856), which terminated the sanguinary
struggle, the Danube, closed since the peace of Adrianople
(1829), was reopened; the southern part of Bessarabia was taken
from Russia and added to the principality of Moldavia; the treaty
powers renounced all right to interfere in the internal affairs
of the Porte; and, lastly, the Black Sea, which twenty years
before, by the treaty of Unkiar Skelessi, had become a private
Russian pond, was swept of the Russian fleets and converted into
a neutral sea. The latter condition however was abrogated by the
powers (March 13, 1871).
Despite the defeat of Russia, the settlement effected at the
congress of Paris was but tentative. The most that the allied
powers could possibly have hoped for, was so far to cripple
Russia as to render her no longer a menace to the Ottoman Empire.
They succeeded only in so far as to defer the recurrence of a
Turkish crisis for another twenty years.
The chief event of importance during this interval was the birth
of the united Roumania. In 1857 the representative councils of
both Moldavia and Wallachia voted for their union under this
name. This personal union was accomplished by the choice of a
common ruler, John Cuza (1859), whose election was confirmed by a
new conference at Paris in 1861. A single ministry and single
assembly were formed at Bucharest in 1862. Prince Karl of
Hohenzollern-Sigmaringen was elected hospodar in 1866, and
finally crowned as king in 1881.
THE REVIVED EASTERN QUESTION OF 1875-78.
The Eastern question was reopened with all its perplexities in
the Herzegovinian and Bosnian revolt of August, 1875. These
provinces, almost cut off from the Turkish Empire by Montenegro
and Servia, occupied a position which rendered their subjugation
almost a hopeless task. Preparations were already under way for a
settlement by joint action of the powers, when a wave of
fanatical fury sweeping over the Ottoman Empire rendered all
these efforts abortive. Another Christian insurrection in
Bulgaria was suppressed in a series of wholesale and atrocious
massacres. Servia and Montenegro in a ferment declared war on
Turkey (July 2, 1876). The Turkish arms, however, were easily
victorious, and Russia only saved the Servian capital by
compelling an armistice (October 30). A conference of the
representatives of the powers was then held at Constantinople in
a final effort to arrange for a reorganization of the Empire,
which should include the granting of autonomy to Bosnia,
Herzegovina and Bulgaria. These conditions, though subsequently
embodied in a general ultimatum, the London protocol of March 31,
1877, were rejected by the Porte, and Russia, who had determined
to proceed alone in the event of this rejection, immediately
declared war (April 24). Into this war, owing to the horror
excited in England by the Bulgarian massacres, and the altered
policy of France, the Turk was compelled to go without allies,
and thus unassisted his defeat was assured. Then followed the
sanguinary campaigns in Bulgaria, the memories of which are still
recent and unobscured. Plevna, the central point of the Turkish
resistance, fell on December 10th; Adrianople was occupied by the
Russians on January 20th, 1878; and on January 31st., an
armistice was granted.
Great Britain now seemed roused to a sense of the danger to
herself in the Russian approach to Constantinople, and public
opinion at last permitted Lord Beaconsfield to send a fleet to
the Bosporus.
By the Russo-Turkish peace of San Stephano (March 3, 1878) Turkey
recognized the complete independence of Servia, Roumania and
Montenegro, while Bulgaria became what Servia and Roumania had
just ceased to be, an autonomous principality under nominal
Turkish sovereignty. Russia received the Dobrutcha in Europe,
which was to be given by the Czar to Roumania in exchange for the
portion of Bessarabia lost in 1856. Servia and Montenegro
received accessions of territory, the latter securing Antivari on
the coast, but the greatest geographical change was the frontier
assigned to the new Bulgaria, which was to include all the
territory bounded by an irregular line beginning at Midia on the
Black Sea and running north of Adrianople, and, in addition, a
vast realm in Macedonia, bounded on the west only by Albania,
approaching Salonica, and touching the Ægean on either side of
the Chalcidice.
It was evident that the terms of this treaty involved the
interests of other powers, especially of Great Britain. An
ultimate settlement which involved as parties only the conqueror
and conquered was therefore impossible. A general congress of the
Powers was seen to be the only solvent of the difficulty; but
before such a congress was possible it was necessary for Great
Britain and Russia to find at least a tangible basis of
negotiation for the adjustment of their differences.
{xii}
By the secret agreement of May 30th, Russia agreed to abandon the
disputed points—chief among these the creation of a Bulgarian
seaboard on the Ægean—and the congress of Berlin then assembled
(June 13-July 13, 1878).
ARRANGEMENTS OF THE TREATY OF BERLIN.
Great Britain was represented at the congress by the Marquis of
Salisbury and the premier, the Earl of Beaconsfield. The treaty
of Berlin modified the conditions of San Stephano by reducing the
Russian acquisitions in Asia Minor and also by curtailing the
cessions of territory to Servia and Montenegro. A recommendation
was also made to the Porte to cede Thessaly and a part of Epirus
to Greece, a transfer which was accomplished in 1881. A more
important provision was the transfer of the administrative
control of the provinces of Bosnia and Herzegovina to Austria.
This cession was the outcome of the secret agreement between
Russia and Austria at Reichstadt, in July of the previous year,
by which the former had secured from her rival a free hand in the
Turkish war. These districts were at once occupied by Austria,
despite the resistance of the Mohammedan population, and the
sanjak of Novibazar, the military occupation of which was agreed
to by the Porte, was also entered by Austrian troops in September
of the following year. England secured as her share of the spoil
the control of the island of Cyprus.
The greatest work accomplished at Berlin, however, was the
complete readjustment of the boundaries of the new Bulgarian
principality. This result was achieved through the agency of
Great Britain. The great Bulgarian domain, which by the treaty of
San Stephano would have conformed almost to the limits of the
Bulgarian Empire of the tenth century, was, with the exception of
a small western strip including the capital, Sofia, pushed
entirely north of the Balkans. This new principality was to enjoy
local autonomy; and immediately south of the Balkans was formed a
new province, Eastern Roumelia, also with local autonomy,
although under the military authority of the Sultan.
The result of the Berlin Congress was the apparent triumph of the
Beaconsfield policy. It is doubtful, however, if the idea of this
triumph has been fully sustained by the course of subsequent
events. The idea of Beaconsfield appears to have been that the
new Bulgaria could not become other than a virtual dependency of
Russia, and that in curtailing its boundaries he was checking by
so much the growth of Russian influence. If he could have
foreseen, however, the unexpected spirit with which the
Bulgarians have defended their autonomy, not from Turkish but
from Russian aggression, it is doubtful if he would have lent
himself with such vigor to that portion of his policy which had
for its result the weakening of this "buffer" state. The
determination to resist Russian aggression in the Balkans
continues to form the purpose of English politicians of nearly
all schools; but the idea that this policy is best served by
maintaining the integrity of the Ottoman Empire in Europe has
been steadily losing adherents since Beaconsfield's day. The one
event of importance in Balkan history since 1878 has served well
to illustrate this fact.
LATER CHANGES.
In September, 1885, the revolt of Eastern Roumelia partially
undid the work of the Berlin treaty. After the usual negotiations
between the Powers, the question at issue was settled by a
conference of ambassadors at Constantinople in November, by which
Eastern Roumelia was placed under the rule of the Bulgarian
prince as vassal of the Sultan. This result was achieved through
the agency of England, and against the opposition of Russia and
other continental powers. England and Russia had in fact
exchanged policies since 1878, now that the real temper of the
Bulgarian people was more generally understood.
The governments of Greece and Servia, alarmed at the predominance
thus given to Bulgaria among the liberated states, sought similar
compensation, but were both foiled.
Servia, which sought this direct from Bulgaria, was worsted in a
short war (Nov.-December 1885), and Greece was checked in her
aspiration for further territorial aggrandizement at the expense
of Turkey by the combined blockade of the Powers in the spring of
1886.
Since then, no geographical change has taken place in the old
lands of European Turkey. Prince Alexander of Bulgaria was forced
to abdicate by Russian intrigue in September 1886; but under his
successor, Prince Ferdinand of Saxe-Coburg (crowned in 1887), und
his able minister Stambouloff, Bulgaria has successfully
preserved its autonomy.
THE PRESENT-DAY PROBLEM.
A general statement of the Balkan problem as it exists to-day may
be briefly given. The non-_Turkish_ populations of European
Turkey, for the most part Christian, are divided ethnically into
four groups: the _Roumans_ or _Vlachs_, the
_Greeks_, the _Albanians_ and the _Slavs_. The
process of liberation, as it has proceeded during the present
century, has given among these people the following separate
states. The _Vlachs_ are represented in the present kingdom
of Roumania ruled by a Hohenzollern prince; the _Greeks_ are
represented in the little kingdom of Greece ruled by a prince of
the house of Denmark; while the _Slavs_ are represented by
three autonomous realms: Bulgaria under Ferdinand of Saxe-Coburg,
Servia under the native dynasty of Obrenovitch, and the little
principality of Montenegro, the only one of all which had never
yielded to Turkish supremacy, under the Petrovic house, which is
likewise native.
The _Albanians_ alone of the four races, owing in part,
perhaps, to their more or less general acceptance of
Mohammedanism, have not as yet made a determined effort for
separate national existence.
To these peoples, under any normal process of development,
belongs the inheritance of the Turkish Empire in Europe. The time
has long passed when any such process can be effectually hindered
on the Turkish side. It will be hindered, if at all, either by
the aggressive and rival ambitions of their two great neighbors,
Austria and Russia, or by the mutual jealousies and opposing
claims of the peoples themselves. The unfortunate part which
these jealousies are likely to play in the history of the future
was dimly foreshadowed in the events of 1885.
{xiii}
It is indeed these rival aspirations, rather than the collapse of
the Turkish power, which are most likely to afford Russia and
even Austria the opportunity for territorial extension over the
Balkan lands. A confederation, or even a tacit understanding
between the Balkan states, would do much to provide against this
danger; but the idea of a confederation, though often suggested
and even planned, belongs at present only to the realm of
possibilities. On the one hand Servia, menaced by the proximity
of Austria, leans upon Russian support; on the other, Bulgaria,
under exactly reverse conditions, yields to the influence of
Austria. It will be seen at once that these are unfavorable
conditions on which to build up any federative action. If at the
next crisis, however, the liberated states are fated to act
independently, it will be seen at once that Greece and Bulgaria
possess the better chance. Not only are they the most remote from
any of the great powers, but they alone possess a geography which
is entirely open on the Turkish side. Moreover, what is of still
greater consequence, it is they who, from an ethnic standpoint,
have the most legitimate interest in the still unliberated
population of European Turkey. The unliberated _Greek_
population predominates in southern Macedonia, the Chalcidian
peninsula and along almost the entire seaboard, both of Thrace
and Asia Minor; on the other hand the ethnographical limits of
the _Bulgarian_ people conform almost exactly to the
boundaries of Bulgaria as provided for at San Stephano. The
creation of a political Bulgaria to correspond to the ethnic
Bulgaria was indeed the purpose of the Russian government in
1878, though with the repetition of the same conditions it would
hardly be its purpose again. Barring, therefore, the Albanians of
the west, who as yet have asserted no clearly defined national
claim, the _Greeks_ and the Bulgarians are the logical heirs
to what remains of European Turkey.
These observations are not intended as a fore-cast; they merely
indicate what would be an inevitable outcome, were the question
permitted a natural settlement.
Concerning the _Turks_ themselves a popular fallacy has ever
been to consider their destiny as a whole. But here again an
important division of the subject intrudes itself.
In Asia Minor, where the Turkish population overwhelmingly
preponderates, the question of their destiny, barring the ever
threatened Russian interference, ought not to arouse great
concern in the present. But in European Turkey the utter lack of
this predominance seems to deprive the Ottoman of his only
legitimate title. The _Turkish_ population in Thrace and the
Balkans never did in fact constitute a majority; and with its
continual decline, measured indeed by the decline of the Ottoman
Empire itself, the greatest of all obstacles to an equitable and
final settlement has been removed. (See the ethnic map of Europe
at the present day.)
The historical geography of the Balkans during the present
century is not so intricate that it may not be understood even
from the current literature of the subject. The best purely
geographical authority is E. Hertslet's "Map of Europe by
Treaty." Of text works A. C. Fyffe's. "History of Modern Europe,"
and J. H. Rose's "A Century of Continental History" afford
excellent general views. The facts concerning the settlement of
the first northern boundary of free Greece are given in Finlay's
"History of Greece," Volume VII. Of excellent works dealing more or
less directly with present Balkan politics there is hardly an
end. It is necessary to mention but a few: E. de Laveleye's "The
Balkan Peninsula," E. A. Freeman's "The Ottoman Power in Europe,"
the Duke of Argyll's "The Eastern Question," and James Baker's
"Turkey." See also the general bibliography of historical
geography.
A. C. Reiley.
{xiv}
APPENDIX D.
NOTES TO THE DEVELOPMENT MAP OF CHRISTIANITY.
The subject matter contained in this map is of a character so
distinct from that of the other maps of this series that the
reader must expect a corresponding modification in the method of
treatment.
The use of historical maps is confined, for the most part, to the
statement of purely political conditions.
This is in fact almost the only field which admits of exact
portrayal, within the limits of historical knowledge, by this
method. Any other phase of human life, whether religious or
social, which concerns the belief or the thought of the people
rather than the exact extent of their race or their government,
must remain, so far as the limitations of cartography is
concerned, comparatively intangible.
Again, it should be noted that, even in the map treatment of a
subject as comparatively exact as political geography, it is one
condition of exactness that this treatment should be specific in
its relation to a date, or at least to a limited period.
The map which treats a subject in its historical development has
the undoubted merit of greater comprehensiveness; but this
advantage cannot be gained without a certain loss of relation and
proportion. Between the "development" map and the "date" map
there is this difference: In the one, the whole subject passes
before the eye in a sort of moving panorama, the salient points
evident, but with their relation to external facts often
obscured: in the other, the subject stands still at one
particular point and permits itself to be photographed. A
progressive series of such photographs, each forming a perfect
picture by itself, yet each showing the clear relation with what
precedes and follows, affords the method which all must regard as
the most logical and the most exact. But from the very intangible
nature of the subject treated in this map, the date method, with
its demand for exactness, becomes impracticable. These
observations are necessary in explaining the limitations of
cartography in dealing with a subject of this nature. The notes
that follow are intended as a simple elucidation of the plan of
treatment.
The central feature in the early development of Christianity is
soon stated. The new faith spread by churches from city to city
until it became the religion of the Roman Empire; afterwards this
spread was continued from people to people until it became the
religion of Europe. The statement of the general fact in this
crude and untempered form might in an ordinary case provoke
criticism, and its invariable historic truth with reference to
the second period be open to some question; but within the limits
of map presentation it is substantially accurate. It forms,
indeed, the key upon which the entire map is constructed.
THE ANTE-NICENE CHURCHES.
During the first three centuries of the Christian era, up to the
Constantinian or Nicene period, there is no country, state or
province which can be safely described as Christian; yet as early
as the second century there is hardly a portion of the Empire
which does not number some Christians in its population. The
subject of the historical geography of the Christian church
during the ante-Nicene period is confined, therefore, to the
locating of these Christian bodies wherever they are to be found.
On this portion of the subject the map makes its own statement.
It is possible merely to elucidate this statement, with the
suggestion, in addition, of a few points which the map does not
and cannot contain.
Concerning the ante-Nicene churches there is only one division
attempted. This division, into the "Apostolic" and
"post-Apostolic," concerns merely the period of their foundation.
Concerning the churches founded in the Apostolic period (33-100),
our knowledge is practically limited to the facts culled from the
Acts, the Epistles and the Apocalypse. The churches of the
post-Apostolic period afford a much wider field for research,
although the materials for study bearing upon them are almost as
inadequate. According to the estimate of the late Professor R. D.
Hitchcock, there were in the Roman Empire at the close of the
persecutions about 1,800 churches, 1,000 in the East and 800 in
the West. Of this total, the cities in which churches have been
definitely located number only 525. They are distributed as
follows: Europe 188, Asia 214, Africa 123 (see volume I, page 443).
Through the labors of Professor Henry W. Hulbert, the locations of
these 525 cities, so far as established, have been cast in
available cartographic form.
It is much to be regretted that, despite the sanction of the
author, it has been found impossible, owing to the limitations of
space, to locate all of these cities in the present map. The
attempt has been limited therefore to the placing of only the
more prominent cities, or those whose location is subject to the
least dispute.
The Apostolic and post-Apostolic churches, as they appear upon
the map, are distinguished by underlines in separate colors. A
special feature has been the insertion of double underlines to
mark the greater centres of diffusion, so far as their special
activity in this respect can be safely assumed. In this class we
have as centres in Apostolic times _Jerusalem, Antioch,
Ephesus, Philippi, Thessalonica_ and _Corinth_; in
post-Apostolic times, when the widening of the field necessitates
special and limited notices, we may name _Alexandria, Edessa,
Rome_ and _Carthage_.
The city of _Rome_ contains a Christian community in
Apostolic times, but its activity as a great diffusion centre,
prior to early post-Apostolic times, is a point of considerable
historical controversy. In this respect it occupies a peculiar
position, which is suggested by the special underlines in the
map.
{xv}
CONVERSION OF THE EMPIRE.
The above method of treatment carries us in safety up to the
accession in the West of the first Christian Emperor (311). The
attempt, however, to pursue the same method beyond that period
would involve us at once in insurmountable difficulties.
The exact time of the advent of the Christian-Roman world it is
indeed impossible to define with precision. The Empire after the
time of Constantine was predominantly Christian, yet paganism
still lingered in formidable though declining strength. A map of
religions designed to explain this period, even with unlimited
historical material, could hardly be executed by any system, for
the result could be little better than a chaos, the fragments of
the old religion everywhere disappearing or blending with the
new. The further treatment of the growth of Christianity by
cities or churches is now impossible; for the rapid increase of
the latter has carried the subject into details and intricacies
where it cannot be followed: on the other hand, to describe the
Roman world in the fourth century as a Christian world would be
taking an unwarranted liberty with the plain facts of history.
The last feeble remnants of paganism were in fact burned away in
the fierce heat of the barbaric invasions of the fifth century.
After that time we can safely designate the former limits of the
Roman Empire as the Christian world. From this point we can
resume the subject of church expansion by the "second method"
indicated at the head of this article. But concerning the
transition period of the fourth and fifth centuries, from the
time Christianity is predominant in the Roman world until it
becomes the sole religion of the Roman world, both methods fail
us and the map can tell us practically nothing.
BARBARIANS OF THE INVASION.
Another source of intricacy occurring at this point should not
escape notice. It was in the fourth century that Christianity
began its spread among the barbarian Teutonic nations north of
the Danube. The _Goths_, located on the Danube, between the
Theiss and the Euxine, were converted to Christianity, in the
form known as Arianism, by the missionary bishop Ulphilas, and
the faith extended in the succeeding century to many other
confederations of the Germanic race. This fact represented, for a
time, the Christianization, whole or partial, of some peoples
beyond the borders of the Empire. With the migrations of the
fifth and sixth centuries, however, these converts, without
exception, carried their new faith with them into the Empire, and
their deserted homes, left open to new and pagan settlers, simply
became the field for the renewed missionary effort of a later
age. It is a historical fact, from a cartographic standpoint a
fortunate one, that, with all the geographic oscillations of this
period between Christianity and paganism, the Christian world
finally emerged with its boundaries conforming, with only a few
exceptions, to the former frontiers of the Roman Empire.
Whether or not this is a historical accident it nevertheless
gives technical accuracy from the geographic standpoint to the
statement that Christianity first made the conquest of the Roman
world; from thence it went out to complete the conquest of
Europe.
CONVERSION OF EUROPE.
With the view, as afforded on the map, of the extent of
Christianity at the commencement of the seventh century, we have
entered definitely upon the "second method." Indeed, in Ireland,
Wales and Scotland, where the Celtic church has already put forth
its missionary effort, the method has, in point of date, been
anticipated; but this fact need cause no confusion in treatment.
Henceforth the spread of Christianity is noted as it made its way
from "people to people." At this point, however, occurs the
greatest intangibility of the subject. The dates given under each
country represent, as stated in the key to the map, "the
approximate periods of conversion." It is not to be inferred,
however, that Christianity was completely unknown in any of these
countries prior to the periods given, or that the work of
conversion was in each case entirely completed within the time
specified. But it is an absolute necessity to give some
definiteness to these "periods of conversion"; to assign with all
distinctness possible the time when each land passed from the
list of pagan to the list of Christian nations. The dates marking
the limits to these periods are perhaps chosen by an arbitrary
method. The basis of their selection, however, has been almost
invariably some salient point, first in the introduction and
finally in the general acceptance of the Christian faith. In
order that the reader may possess the easy means of independent
opinion or critical judgment, the explanation is appended of the
dates thus used, concerning which a question might legitimately
arise.
Goths.
Converted to Arian Christianity by Ulphilas, 341-381.
These dates cover the period of the ministry of Ulphilas,
whose efforts resulted in the conversion of the great body of
the Danubian Goths. He received his ordination and entered
upon his work in 341, and died at Constantinople in 381. (See
C. A. A. Scott's "Ulfilas.")
Suevi, Burgundians and Lombards.
These people, like the Goths, passed from paganism through the
medium of Arian Christianity to final Orthodoxy. Concerning
the first process, it is possible to establish nothing, save
that these Teutonic peoples appeared in the Empire in the
fifth century as professors of the Arian faith. The exact time
of the acceptance of this faith is of less consequence. The
second transition from Arianism to Orthodoxy occurred at a
different time in each case. The Suevi embraced the Catholic
faith in 550; the Visigoths, through their Catholic king
Reccared, were brought within the church at the third council
of Toledo (589). Further north the Burgundians embraced
Catholicism through their king Sigismond in 517, and, finally,
the Lombards, the last of the Arians, accepted Orthodoxy in
the beginning of the seventh century. The Vandals, another
Arian German nation of this period, figured in Africa in the
fourth century.
They were destroyed, however, by the arms of Belisarius in
534, and their early disappearance renders unnecessary their
representation on the present map.
Franks.
Christianity introduced in 496.
This is the date of the historic conversion of Clovis and his
warriors on the battlefield of Tolbiac. The Franks were the
first of the Germanic peoples to pass, as a nation, to
orthodoxy direct from paganism, and their conversion, as we
have seen, was soon followed by the progress from Arianism to
Orthodoxy of the other Germanic nations within the borders of
the Empire.
{xvi}
Ireland.
Christianity introduced by Patrick, 440-493.
St. Patrick entered upon his missionary work in Ireland in
440; he died on the scene of his labors in 493. This period
witnessed the conversion of the bulk of the Irish nation.
Picts.
Christianity introduced from Ireland by Columba, 563-597.
These dates cover the period of St. Columba's ministry. The
work of St. Ninian, the "apostle of the Lowlands" in the
previous century, left very few enduring results. The period
from 563, the date of the founding of the famous Celtic
monastery of Iona, to the death of Columba in 597, witnessed,
however, the conversion of the great mass of the Pictish
nation.
Strathclyde.
Christianity introduced by Kentigern, 550-603.
These dates, like the two preceding, cover the period of the
ministry of a single man, Kentigern, the "apostle of
Strathclyde." The date marking the commencement of Kentigern's
labors is approximate. He died in 603.
England.
The Celtic church had been uprooted in England by the
Anglo-Saxon invasions of the fifth and sixth centuries. While
its missionary efforts were now being expended on Scotland,
Strathclyde, and Cornwall, its pristine seat had thus fallen
away to complete paganism. The Christianization of England was
the work of the seventh century, and in this work the Celtic
church, though expending great effort, was anticipated and
ultimately outstripped by the church of Rome.
Kent.
Christianity introduced by Augustine, 597-604.
These dates cover the ministry of St. Augustine, the apostle
of Kent. This was the first foothold gained by the Roman
church on the soil of Britain.
Northumbria.—627-651.
Edwin (Eadwine), king of Northumbria, received baptism from
the Kentish missionary Paulinus on Easter Eve, 627.
The process of conversion was continued by the Celtic
missionary, Aidin, who died in 651. The Christianity of
Northumbria had begun before the latter date, however, to
influence the surrounding states.
East Anglia.—630-647.
East Anglia had one Christian king prior to this period; but
it was only with the accession of Sigebert (630) that great
progress was made in the conversion of the people. The reign
of king Anna witnesses the practical completion of this work.
In 647 the efforts of this sovereign led to the baptism of
Cenwalch, king of the West Saxons.
Wessex.—634-648.
The conversion of the West Saxons was begun by the missionary
Birinus in 634. The year 648 witnessed the restoration of the
Christian king Cenwalch.
Mercia.—654-670.
Mercia was one of the last of the great English kingdoms to
accept the faith. Their king, Penda, was indeed the most
formidable foe the church encountered in the British Isles.
The conversion of Penda's son Peada admitted the gospel to the
Middle Angles, who accepted Christianity in 653. The East
Saxons embraced the faith at about the same time. Finally in
654 the defeat and death of Penda at the hand of Oswy, the
Christian king of Northumbria, opened the doors of Mercia as
well. The conversion of the realm was practically accomplished
during the next few years.
Sussex.—681.
The leaders of the South Saxons received baptism at the hands
of the apostle Wilfred in 681. Sussex was the last retreat of
paganism on the English mainland, and five years later the
conversion of the inhabitants of the Isle of Wight completed
the spread of Christianity over every portion of the British
Isles.
Frisians.
Christianity introduced by Willibrord, 690-739.
The work of St. Willibrord among the Frisians was one of many
manifestations of the missionary activity of the Celtic
church. Willibrord introduced Christianity among these people
during the years of his ministry, but to judge by the
subsequent martyrdom of Boniface in Friesland (755) the work
of conversion was not fully completed in all quarters until a
later time.
Mission Field of Boniface.—722-755.
The object of the map is not merely to locate the mission
field of the great "apostle of Germany," but also to give the
location and date of the various bishoprics which owed their
foundation to his missionary efforts.
Saxons.—787-805.
Of all the nations converted to Christianity up to this time
the Saxons were the first conquest of the sword. The two most
powerful Saxon chiefs were baptized in 787; but it was not
until their complete defeat and subjugation by Charlemagne in
805 that the work of conversion showed a degree of
completeness. With the Christianization of the Saxons the
cordon of the church was completed around the Germanic
nations.
Moravia.
Christianity introduced by Cyrillus and Methodius, 863-900.
St. Cyrillus, the "apostle of the Slavs," entered upon his
mission in Moravia in 863. The political Moravia of the ninth
century, under Rastislav and Sviatopluk, exceeded greatly the
limits of the modern province; but the missionary labor of the
brothers Cyrillus and Methodius seems to have produced its
principal results in the modern Moravian territory, as
indicated on the map. Methodius, the survivor of the brothers,
died about 900. In the tenth century Moravia figures as
Christian.
Czechs.—880-1039.
The door to Bohemia was first opened from Moravia in the time
of Sviatopluk. The reactions in favor of paganism were,
however, unusually prolonged and violent. Severus, Archbishop
of Prague, finally succeeded in enforcing the various rules of
the Christian cultus (1039).
Poles.—966-1034.
The Polish duke Mieczyslav was baptized in 966. Mieczyslav II.
died in 1034. These dates cover the active missionary time
when, indeed, the efforts of the clergy were backed by the
strong arm of the sovereign. Poland did not, however, become
completely Christian until a somewhat later period.
Bulgarians.—863-900.
The Bulgarian prince Bogoris was baptized in 863. Again, as in
so many other cases, the faith was compelled to pass to the
people through the medium of the sovereign. The second date is
arbitrary, although Bulgaria appears definitely as a Christian
country at the commencement of the tenth century.
Magyars.—950-1050.
Missionaries were admitted into the territory of the Magyars
in 950.
{xvii}
The coronation of St. Stephen, the "apostolic king," (1000)
marked the real triumph of Christianity in Hungary. A number of
pagan reactions occurred, however, in the eleventh century, so
that it is impossible to place the conversion of the Magyars at
an earlier date than the last one assigned.
Russians.—988-1015.
The Russian grand-duke Vladimir was baptized on the occasion
of his marriage to the princess Anne, sister of the Byzantine
Emperor, in 988. Before his death in 1015 Christianity had
through his efforts become the accepted religion of his
people.
Danes.—Converted by Ansgar and his successors, 827-1035.
The Danes had been visited by missionaries prior to the ninth
century, but their work had left no permanent result. The
arrival of Ansgar, the "apostle of the North" (827), marks the
real beginning of the period of conversion. This period in
Denmark was an unusually long one. It was not fully complete
until the reign of Canute the Great (1019-1035).
Swedes (Gothia).
Christianity introduced by Ansgar and his successors, 829-1000.
Ansgar made his first visit to Sweden in 829, two years after
his arrival in Denmark. The period of conversion, as in
Denmark, was a long one; but by the year 1000 the southern
section, Gothia or Gothland, had become Christian. The
conversion of the northern Swedes was not completed for
another century.
Norwegians.—935-1030.
The period of conversion in Norway began with the reign of the
Christian king Hakon the Good. The faith made slow progress,
however, until the reign of Olaf Trygveson, who ascended the
throne near the end of the tenth century. The work of
conversion was completed in the reign of Olaf the Saint
(1014-1030).
Pomeranians.
Christianity introduced by Otho of Bamberg, 1124-1128.
The attempt of the Poles to convert the Pomeranians by the
sword prior to these dates had proven unavailing, and
missionaries had been driven from the country. Within the
short space of four years, however, Otho of Bamberg succeeded
in bringing the great mass of the people within the pale of
the church.
Abotrites.—1125-1162.
The conversion of these people was clearly the work of the
sword. It was accomplished within the time specified by Albert
the Bear, first margrave of Brandenburg, and Henry the Lion,
duke of Saxony. The last heathen king became the first
Christian duke of Mecklenburg in 1162. Further south the
kindred Wend nations between the Elbe and the Oder had been
the object of German effort, both missionary and military, for
over two centuries, but had generally come within the church
before this time.
Lives and Prussians.
Christianity introduced by the Sword Brothers, 1202-1236,
and by the Teutonic Knights, 1230-1289.
These conversions, the work of the transplanted military
orders of Palestine, were direct conquests of the sword, and
as such possess a definiteness which is so unfortunately
lacking in so many other cases.
So much for the character and the purpose of the dates which
appear on this map. In the employment of the colors, the periods
covered are longer, and as a consequence the general results are
somewhat more definite. The use of a color system directly over a
date system is intended to afford an immediate though general
view, From this to the special aspects presented by the date
features is a simple step in the development of the subject.
Another feature of the map which may not escape notice is the
different systems used, respectively, in the Roman and Mediæval
period for the spelling of urban names. A development map
covering a long period of history cannot be entirely free from
anachronisms of this nature; but a method has nevertheless been
followed in the spelling of these place names:—to give in each
case the spelling current at the period of conversion. The fact
that the labors of the Christian missionaries were confined
mostly to the Roman world in the Roman period, and did not extend
to non-Roman lands until the Middle Ages, enables us to limit our
spelling of civic names to a double system. The cities of the
Roman and of the Mediæval period are shown on the map and in the
key in two different styles of type. Only in the cases of cities
like Rome, Constantinople and Antioch, where the current form has
the absolute sanction of usage even for classic times, has there
been any deviation from the strict line of this method.
In conclusion, the general features of the subject present
themselves as follows: Had the advance of Christianity, like
Mohammedanism, been by conquest, had the bounds of the Christian
faith been thus rendered ever conterminous with the limits of a
people or an empire, then, indeed, the subject of church
expansion would possess a tangibility and coherency concerning
which exact statement would be possible. The historical geography
of the Christian church would then partake of some of the
precision of political division. But the non-political element in
the Christian cultus deprives us, in the study of the subject, of
this invaluable aid. At a later time, when the conquests of the
soul were backed by the strong arm of power, and when the new
faith, as often happened, passed to the people from the
sovereign, a measure of this exactness is perhaps possible.
We have witnessed an indication of these tendencies in many
cases, as we approached the termination of the period covered by
this map. But the fact remains that the fundamental character of
the Christian faith precludes, in the main, the possibility of
its growth being measured by the rules which govern ordinary
political expansion.
This being then a subject on which definiteness is well nigh
impossible, it has been treated by a method correspondingly
elastic. A working basis for the study of the subject is,
however, afforded by this system. This basis secured, the student
may then systematically pursue his theme.
BIBLIOGRAPHY.
The historical geography of the Christian church, if studied only
within narrow limits, can be culled from the pages of general
church history. All of these accounts, however, are brief—those
in the smaller histories extremely so. If studied thus, the
reader will derive the most help from:
Neander's "History of the Christian Religion and Church,"
volume I, pages 68-86.
volume II, pages 1-84, 93-129;
Schaff's "History of the Christian Church,"
volume I, pages 224-406,
volume II, pages 13-84,
volume III, pages 10-71,
volume IV, pages 17-142,
Moeller's "History of the Christian Church."
{xviii}
These works may be supplemented by a vast number of books
treating of special phases of church history, though the number
in English dealing specifically with geographical expansion is
very small.
The most recent, dealing with the ante-Nicene period, is Ramsey's
"Church in the Roman Empire before A. D. 170," to which the same
author's "Historical Geography of Asia Minor" forms a most
indispensible prelude.
Entering the mediæval period, the best general guides are the
little books of G. F. Maclear, entitled respectively the
conversion of the Celts, English, Continental Teutons, Northmen
and Slavs. These works may be supplemented by Thomas Smith's
"Mediæval Missions," and for special subjects by G. T. Stokes'
"Ireland and the Celtic Church," W. F. Skene's "Celtic Scotland"
(volume II), and S. Baring Gould's "The Church in Germany."
The texts of the Councils as contained in Harduin, Labbe, and
Mansi are indispensible original aids in the study of church
geography.
Of German Works, J. E. T. Wiltsch's "Atlas Sacer," and the same
author's "Church Geography and Statistics," translated by John
Leitch, have long remained the standard guides for a study of the
historical geography of the church. The Atlas Sacer, containing
five large plates, is the only pure atlas guide to the subject.
The "Church Geography and Statistics," being an ecclesiastical
work, dwells with great fulness on the internal facts of church
geography, but the outward expansion, barring the early growth of
the church, is not so concisely treated. For the history of
mediæval missions the reader will be better served elsewhere. To
the reader using German, C. G. Blumhardt's "Die
Missionsgeschichte der Kirche Christi" (3 volumes, 1828-1837), and
a later work, "Handbuch der Missionsgeschichte und
Missionsgeographie" (2 volumes, 1863), may be noted.
For modern missions there is a very full literature.
Comprehensive works on this subject are Grundemann's "Allgemeine
Missions Atlas," Burkhardt and Grundemann's "Les Missions
Evangéliques" (4 vols.), and in English the "Encyclopædia of
Missions." Several articles in the "Encyclopædia of Missions"
should not escape notice. Among them are "Mediæval Missions," and
the "Historical Geography of Missions," the latter by Dr. Henry
W. Hulbert. The writer is glad at this point to return his thanks
to Dr. Hulbert for the valued aid extended in the location of the
Church of the ante-Nicene period.
A. C. Reiley
{xix}
APPENDIX E.
THE FOLLOWING NOTES AND CORRECTIONS TO MATTER
RELATING TO AMERICAN ABORIGINES.
(PP. 76-108) HAVE BEEN KINDLY MADE BY MAJOR J. W. POWELL
AND MR. J. OWEN DORSEY, OF THE BUREAU OF ETHNOLOGY.
Adai.
This tribe, formerly classed as a distinct family—the
Adaizan—is now regarded by the Bureau of Ethnology as but a
part of the Caddoan or Pawnee.
Apache Group.
Indians of different families are here mentioned together:
(A) the Comanches, etc., of the Shoshonean Family;
(B) the Apaches (including the Chiricaguis, or Chiri cahua,
Coyoteros, etc., but excluding the Tejuas who are Tañoan) of
the Athapascan Family, the Navajos of the same family; and
(C) the Yuman Family, including the Cosninos, who are not
Apache (Athapascan stock).
Athapascan Family.
Not an exact synonym of "Chippewyans, Tinneh and Sarcees." The
whole family is sometimes known as Tinneh, though that
appellation is more frequently limited to part of the Northern
group, the Chippewyans. The Surcees are an offshoot of the
Beaver tribe, which latter form part of one of the
subdivisions of the Northern group of the Athapascan Family.
The Sarcees are now with the Blackfeet.
Atsinas (Caddoes).
The Atsinas are not a Caddoan people, but they are Algonquian,
as are the Blackfeet (Sik-sik-a). The Atsinas are the "Fall
Indians," "Minnetarees of the Plains," or "Gros Ventres of the
Plains," as distinguished from the Hidatsa, who are sometimes
called the "Minnetarees of the Missouri," "Gros Ventres of the
Missouri."
Blackfeet or Siksikas.
The Sarcee are a Tinneh or Athapascan tribe, but they are not
the Tinneh (see above). The "Atsina" are not a Caddo tribe
(see above).
Cherokees.
These people are now included in the Iroquoian Family. See
Powell, in Seventh Annual Report, Bureau of Ethnology, page 79.
Flatheads (Salishan Family).
The "Cherakis," though included among the Flatheads by Force,
are of the Iroquoian Family. The "Chicachas" or Chickasaws,
are not Salishan, but Muskhogean. See Powell, Seventh Annual
Report, Bureau of Ethnology, page 95. The Totiris of Force, are
the Tutelos, a tribe of the Siouan Family. See Powell,
Seventh, Annual Report, Bureau of Ethnology, page 116. The
Cathlamahs, Killmucks (i. e., Tillamooks), Clatsops, Chinooks
and Chilts are of the Chinookan Family. See Powell, Seventh
Annual Report, Bureau of Ethnology, pages 65, 66.
Gros Ventres (Minnetaree; Hidatsa).
There are two distinct tribes which are often confounded, both
being known as the Gros Ventres or Minnetarees. 1. The Atsina
or Fall Indians, an Algonquian tribe, the "Gros Ventres of the
Plains," or the "Minnetarees of the Plains." 2. The Hidatsa, a
Siouan tribe, the "Gros Ventres of the Missouri," or the
"Minnetarees of the Missouri." The former, the Atsina, have
been wrongly styled "Caddoes" on page 81.
Hidatsa, or Minnetaree, or Gros Ventres.
Often confounded with the Atsina, who belong to the Algonquian
Family, the Hidatsa being a tribe of the Siouan Family. The
Hidatsa have been called Gros Ventres, "Big Paunches," but
this nickname could have no reference to any personal
peculiarities of the Hidatsa. It seems to have originated in a
quarrel between some Indians over the big paunch of a buffalo,
resulting in the separation of the people into the present
tribes of Hidatsas and Absarokas or Crows, the latter of whom
now call the Hidatsa, "Ki-kha-tsa," from ki-kha, a paunch.
Hupas.
They belong to the Athapascan Family: the reference to the
Modocs is misleading.
Iroquois Tribes of the South.
"The Meherrins or Tuteloes."
These were not identical, the Tutelos being a Siouan tribe,
the Meherrins being now identified with the Susquehannocks.
Kenai or Blood Indians.
The Kenai are an Athapascan people inhabiting the shores of
Cook's Inlet and the Kenai Peninsula, Southern Alaska; while
the Blood Indians are a division of the Blackfeet (Siksika),
an Algonquian tribe, in Montana.
Kusan Family.
The villages of this family were on Coos River and Bay, and on
both sides of Coquille River, near the mouth. See Powell,
Seventh, Annual Report, Bureau of Ethnology, page 80.
ALSO IN:
J. Owen Dorsey, The Gentile System of the
Siletz Tribes, in Journal American Folk-Lore,
July-Sept., 1890, page 231.
Minnetarees.
See above, ATSINA and HIDATSA.
Modocs (Klamaths) and their California and Oregon neighbors.
The Klamaths and Modocs are of the Lutuamian Family; the
Shastas of the Sastean; the Pit River Indians of the
Palaihnihan; the Eurocs of the Weitspekan; the Cahrocs of the
Quoratean; the Hoopahs, Tolewas, and the lower Rogue River
Indians of the Athapascan; the upper Rogue River Indians of
the Takilman.
Muskhogean Family.
The Biloxi tribe is not Muskhogean but Siouan. See Dorsey
(James Owen), "The Biloxi Indians of Louisiana," reprinted
from volume 42, Proc. American Association Advancement
of Science., Madison meeting, 1893.
Natchitoches.
A tribe of the Caddoan Family.
_Dorsey (J. Owen),
MS. in the Bureau of Ethnology, 1882._
ALSO IN:
_Powell,
Seventh Annual Report, Bureau of Ethnology,
page 61._
Pueblos.
"That Zuni was Cibola it is needless to attempt to prove any
further."
A. F. Bandelier,
Journal of American Eth. and Arch., volume 3,
page 19, 1892.
{xx}
Rogue River Indians.
This includes tribes of various families: the upper Rogue
River Indians being the Takelma, who are assigned to a special
family, the Takilman; and the lower Rogue River Indians, who
are Athapascan tribes.
See _Dorsey (J. Owen),
"The Gentile System of the Siletz Tribes,"
in Journal of American Folk-Lore,
July-September, 1890, pages 228, 232-236._
Santees.
Two divisions of the Siouan Family are known by this name: 1.
The I san-ya-ti or Dwellers on Knife Lake, Minnesota,
identical with the Mdewakantonwan Dakota. These figured in the
Minnesota outbreak of 1862. The survivors are in Knox County,
Nebraska, on what was once the Santee reservation, and near
Flandreau, South Dakota. 2. The Santees of South Carolina were
part of the Catawba confederacy. The Santee river is named
after them.
Sarcee.
These are not all of the Tinneh, nor are they really
Blackfeet, though living with them. The Sarcees are an
offshoot of the Beaver Indians, a tribe of one of the
divisions of the Northern group of the Athapascan Family.
Siouan Family.
All the tribes of this family do not speak the Sioux language,
as is wrongly stated on page 103. Those who speak the "Sioux"
language are the Dakota proper, nicknamed Sioux, and the
Assiniboin. There are, or have been, nine other groups of
Indians in this family: to the Cegiha or Dhegiha group belong
the Omahas, Ponkas, Osages, Kansas or Kaws, and Kwapas or
Quapaws; to the Tchiwere group belong the Iowas, Otos, and
Missouris; the Winnebago or Hochangara constitute another
group; the fifth group consists of the survivors of the Mandan
nation; to the sixth group belong the Hidatsa and the
Absarokas or Crows; the Tutelos, Keyauwees, Aconeechis, etc.,
constituted the seventh group; the tribes of the Catawba
confederacy, the eighth; the Biloxis, the ninth; and certain
Virginia tribes the tenth group. The Winnebagos call
themselves Hochangara, or First Speech (not "Trout Nation"),
they are not called Horoje ("fish-eaters") by the Omahas, but
Hu-tan-ga, Big Voices, a mistranslation of Hochangara. The
Dakotas proper sometimes speak of themselves as the "O-che-ti
sha-ko-win," or the Seven Council-fires. Their Algonquian foes
called them Nadowe-ssi-wak, the Snake-like ones, from nadowe,
a snake; this was corrupted by the Canadian French to
Nadouessioux, of which the last syllable is Sioux. The seven
primary divisions of the Dakota are as follow: Mdewakantonwan,
Wakhpekute, Sisitonwan or Sisseton, Wakhpetonwan or Warpeton,
Ihanktonwan or Yankton, Ihanktonwanna or Yanktonnai, and
Titonwan or Teton.
The Sheyennes or Cheyennes, mentioned in connection with the
Sioux by Gallatin and Carver, are an Algonquian people. Gallatin
styles the "Mandanes" a Minnetaree tribe; but as has just been
stated, the survivors of the Mandan nation, a people that
formerly inhabited many villages (according to Dr. Washington
Matthews and others) belong to a distinct group of the Siouan
Family, and the Hidatsa (including the Amakhami or "Annahawas" of
Gallatin) and the Absaroka, Upsaroka or Crows constitute the
sixth group of that family. The "Quappas or Arkansas" of Gallatin
are the Kwapas or Quapaws of recent times. The Osages call
themselves, not "Wausashe," but Wa-sha-she.
Takilman Family.
"The Takilma formerly dwelt in villages along upper Rogue
River, Oregon, all the latter, with one exception, being on
the south side, from Illinois River on the southwest, to Deep
Rock, which was nearer the head of the stream. They are now
included among the 'Rogue River Indians,' and they reside on
the Siletz Reservation, Tillamook County, Oregon, where Dorsey
found them in 1884."
_Powell,
Seventh Annual Report, Bureau of Ethnology,
page 121._
They call themselves, Ta-kel-ma
_Dorsey._
Dorsey had their chief make a map showing the locations of all
their villages.
{xxi}
[Transcriber's note:
The internet links listed were active at the time of this
production in 2021. The link may be to a different edition than
both excellent repositories of free books.
An internet search (duckduckgo, google, bing, …) will provide
links to many other sources. These were produced by entering the
author and title, as shown in the list, eg.,
BANCROFT, GEORGE. History of the United States of America, site:archive.org
Without the site restriction (site:archive.org) the search
results are flooded with links to commercial sites, hiding the
actual targets.
Results can be extended by noting the sequence number in a link such as:
(Volume 4) https://archive.org/details/historyofuniteds04banciala
(Volume 5) https://archive.org/details/historyofuniteds05banciala
Try modifying the number for adjacent volumes of the same title.]
APPENDIX F.
BIBLIOGRAPHY.
THE BETTER LITERATURE OF HISTORY IN THE ENGLISH LANGUAGE
ON SUBJECTS NAMED BELOW.
_In the following Classified List, the date of the first
appearance of each one among the older works is given in
parentheses, if ascertained. The period covered by the several
memoirs, and other works limited in time, is stated in
brackets._
AMERICA.
DISCOVERY.
EXPLORATION.
SETTLEMENT.
ARCHÆOLOGY.
ETHNOLOGY.
GENERAL.
BANCROFT, GEORGE.
History of the United States of America, part 1.
(Author's last revision.)
New York: D. Appleton & Company 1883-5. 6 volumes.
https://archive.org/details/historyoftheunit037605mbp
(Volume 1) https://archive.org/details/historyofusa01bancrich
(Volume 2) https://archive.org/details/historyofunited32banc
(Volume 3) https://archive.org/details/historyofusa03bancrich
(Volume 4) https://archive.org/details/historyofuniteds04banciala
(Volume 5) https://archive.org/details/historyofuniteds05banciala
(Volume 6) https://archive.org/details/historyofuniteds06banciala
(Volume 2) https://archive.org/details/historyoftheunit037606mbp
(Volume 4) https://archive.org/details/historyofuniteds0004banc/page/n7/mode/2up
BANCROFT, HUBERT HOWE.
History of the Pacific States of North America:
Central America, volumes 1-2;
Mexico, volumes 1-2.
San Francisco: A. L. Bancroft & Company 1882-3.
(Volume 1) https://archive.org/details/historypacifics11bategoog
(Volume 2) https://archive.org/details/historypacifics15bategoog
(Volume 2) https://archive.org/details/historypacifics16bategoog
(Volume 2) https://archive.org/details/historypacifics26bategoog
(Volume 4) https://archive.org/details/historypacifics24bategoog
(Volume 5) https://archive.org/details/historypacifics13bategoog
(Volume 6) https://archive.org/details/historypacifics30bategoog
(Volume 7) https://archive.org/details/historypacifics02bategoog
(Volume 7) https://archive.org/details/historypacifics23bategoog
(Volume 8) https://archive.org/details/historypacifics04bategoog
(Volume 8) https://archive.org/details/historypacifics29bategoog
(Volume 9) https://archive.org/details/historypacifics03bategoog
(Volume 10) https://archive.org/details/historypacifics06bategoog
(Volume 11) https://archive.org/details/historypacifics07bategoog
(Volume 12) https://archive.org/details/historypacifics05bategoog
(Volume 13) https://archive.org/details/historyofpacific13bancrich
(Volume 14) https://archive.org/details/historyofpacific14bancrich
(Volume 14) https://archive.org/details/historypacifics09bategoog
(Volume 15) https://archive.org/details/historypacifics01bategoog
(Volume 16) https://archive.org/details/historypacifics10bategoog
(Volume 17) https://archive.org/details/historyofpacific17bancrich
(Volume 17) https://archive.org/details/historypacifics22bategoog
(Volume 18) https://archive.org/details/historypacifics08bategoog
(Volume 19) https://archive.org/details/historypacifics20bategoog
(Volume 19) https://archive.org/details/historypacifics27bategoog
(Volume 20) https://archive.org/details/historypacifics31bategoog
(Volume 21) https://archive.org/details/historypacifics17bategoog
(Volume 22) https://archive.org/details/historypacifics18bategoog
(Volume 23) https://archive.org/details/historypacifics28bategoog
(Volume 24) https://archive.org/details/historypacifics19bategoog
(Volume 25) https://archive.org/details/historypacifics26bategoog
(Volume 26) https://archive.org/details/historypacifics12bategoog
(Volume 27) https://archive.org/details/historypacifics21bategoog
(Volume 31) https://archive.org/details/historypacifics25bategoog
(Volume 32) https://archive.org/details/historypacifics15bategoog
(Volume 33) https://archive.org/details/historypacifics14bategoog
BANVARD, REVEREND JOSEPH.
Novelties of the new world.
Boston: Gould & Lincoln. 1851.
https://archive.org/details/noveltiesofnew00banv
BELKNAP, JEREMY.
American biography, volume 1. (1794-8.)
New York: Harper & Brothers. 3 volumes.
(Volume 1) https://archive.org/details/americanbiograph185101belk
(Volume 1) https://archive.org/details/cihm_48978
(Volume 2) https://archive.org/details/cihm_37965
BOSTON PUBLIC LIBRARY.
Notes of Americana.
(Bulletins, volume 3. pages 205-209.)
BROWNELL, HENRY.
North and South America Illustrated, from its first discovery.
Hartford: Hurlbut, Kellogg & Company 1800. 2 volumes.
https://archive.org/details/northsouthameric11brow
(Volume 1) https://archive.org/details/northsouthamill01browrich
(Volume 1) https://archive.org/details/northandsoutham00browgoog
BRYANT, WILLIAM CULLEN, and SIDNEY H. GAY.
Popular history of the United States, volume 1.
New York: Scribner, Armstrong & Co. 1870-81. 4 volumes.
https://archive.org/details/3704730.1-4
BUMP, C. W.
Bibliographies of America. Baltimore. 1892.
(Johns Hopkins University studies in historical
and political science. 10th series, nos. 10-11. appendix)
CARVER, ELVIRA, _and_ MARA L. PRATT.
Our fatherland. [Juvenile.]
Boston: Educational Publication Company. 1890. volume 1-.
(Volume 1) https://archive.org/details/ourfatherland00carv
(Volume 1) https://archive.org/details/ourfatherlandvol01carvuoft
FISKE, JOHN.
The discovery of America: with some account of
ancient America and the Spanish conquest.
Boston: Houghton, Mifflin & Company. 1892. 2 volumes.
(Volume 1) https://archive.org/details/discoveryamerica01fisk
(Volume 2) https://archive.org/details/discoveryofameri02fisk
GORDON, THOMAS F.
History of America, volumes. 1-2;
containing the history of the Spanish discoveries
prior to 1520. Philadelphia. 1832. 2 volumes.
(Volume 2) https://archive.org/details/historyamericab00gordgoog
HAKLUYT, RICHARD. collection
Divers voyages touching the discovery of America and
the Islands adjacent (1582); with notes by John W. Jones.
London: Hakluyt Society. 1850.
https://archive.org/details/diversvoyagesto00thorgoog
HARRISSE, HENRY.
The discovery of North America: a critical, documentary,
and historic investigation.
London: H. Stevens & Son. 1892.
HIGGINSON, THOMAS WENTWORTH.
A book of American explorers.
Boston: Lee & Shepard. 1877.
Larger history of the United States of America, chapters 1-5.
New York: Harper & Brothers. 1880.
HOLMES, ABIEL.
The annals of America, 1492-1826 (1805); 2d edition.
Cambridge: Hilliard & Brown. 1829. 2 volumes.
https://archive.org/details/annalsamer00holmrich
(Volume 1) https://archive.org/details/annalsamerica02holmgoog
(Volume 2) https://archive.org/details/cihm_47269
(Volume 2) https://archive.org/details/americanannals00unkngoog
HUMBOLDT, ALEXANDER VON.
Cosmos (1845-58), translated by E. C. Otté,
part 2, section 6 (volume 2).
London: H. Bohn. 1847-58. 5 volumes
(Audio) https://archive.org/details/cosmos_1603_librivox
(Volume 1) https://archive.org/details/cosmosasketchap00dallgoog
(Volume 2) https://archive.org/details/cosmossketchofph0002humb/page/n5/mode/2up
(Volume 3) https://archive.org/details/cosmosofph03humbrich
(Volume 4) https://archive.org/details/sketchofphcosmos04humbrich
New York: Harper & Brothers 1850-. 5 volumes.
https://archive.org/details/cosmos01humbgoog
KERR, ROBERT, ed.
General history and collection of voyages and travels (1811-1824).
volumes 1-6.
Edinburgh: W. Blackwood. 18 volumes.
(Volume 1) https://archive.org/details/ageneralhistory06kerrgoog
(Volume 2) https://archive.org/details/generalhistoryco02kerrrich
(Volume 2) https://archive.org/details/ageneralhistory02kerrgoog
(Volume 3) https://archive.org/details/bub_gb_zb46AAAAIAAJ
(Volume 3) https://archive.org/details/ageneralhistory07kerrgoog
(Volume 4) https://archive.org/details/ageneralhistory08kerrgoog
(Volume 5) https://archive.org/details/generalhistoryco05kerrrich
(Volume 6) https://archive.org/details/ageneralhistory15kerrgoog
(Volume 7) https://archive.org/details/ageneralhistory10kerrgoog
(Volume 8) https://archive.org/details/ageneralhistory12kerrgoog
(Volume 9) https://archive.org/details/ageneralhistory09kerrgoog
(Volume 10) https://archive.org/details/ageneralhistory11kerrgoog
(Volume 11) https://archive.org/details/ageneralhistory04kerrgoog
(Volume 11) https://archive.org/details/dli.granth.18187
(Volume 12) https://archive.org/details/ageneralhistory14kerrgoog
(Volume 13) https://archive.org/details/ageneralhistory05kerrgoog
(Volume 15) https://archive.org/details/ageneralhistory13kerrgoog
(Volume 18) https://archive.org/details/ageneralhistory10unkngoog/page/n5/mode/2up
(Volume 18) https://archive.org/details/ageneralhistory03kerrgoog
KINGSLEY, CHARLES.
The first discovery of America.
(Lectures delivered in America in 1874.
London: Longmans, Green & Company. 1875.
Philadelphia: Porter & Coates. 1875.)
https://archive.org/details/lecturesdelivere00king
LODGE, H. C.
Gravier's Découverte de l'Amérique.
(North American Review 119: 166. 1874.)
MACGREGOR, JOHN.
Progress in America.
London: Whittaker & Company. 1847. 2 volumes.
(Volume 1) https://archive.org/details/progressofameric01macguoft
(Volume 2) https://archive.org/details/progressamerica02macggoog
MACKENZIE, ROBERT.
America; a history.
London: Nelson & Sons. 1882.
https://archive.org/details/in.ernet.dli.2015.87679
MAVOR, WILLIAM.
Historical account of the most celebrated voyages.
volumes 1 and 17.
London: 1790-7. 20 volumes.
(Volume 1) https://archive.org/details/historicalaccou01conggoog/page/n9/mode/2up
(Volume 5) https://archive.org/details/historicalaccou02conggoog/page/n6/mode/2up
(Volume 6) https://archive.org/details/historicalaccou13conggoog
(Volume 7) https://archive.org/details/cihm_37601
(Volume 10) https://archive.org/details/cihm_37604
(Volume 10) https://archive.org/details/anhistoricalacc03mavogoog
(Volume 13) https://archive.org/details/historicalaccou11conggoog
(Volume 16) https://archive.org/details/historicalaccou09conggoog
(Volume 17) https://archive.org/details/historicalaccou17mavogoog
(Volume 19) https://archive.org/details/historicalaccou09mavogoog
(Volume 20) https://archive.org/details/cihm_37614
(Volume 21) https://archive.org/details/cihm_37615
(Volume 22) https://archive.org/details/anhistoricalacc10mavogoog
(Volume 23) https://archive.org/details/cihm_37617
(Volume 24) https://archive.org/details/historicalaccou08mavogoog/page/n8/mode/2up
(Volume 24) https://archive.org/details/cihm_37618
PALFREY, JOHN G.
History of New England, volume 1, chapter 2.
Boston: Little, Brown & Company. 1858-90.
(Volume 1) https://archive.org/details/historynewengla23palfgoog
(Volume 2) https://archive.org/details/historyofnewengl02palf
(Volume 2) https://archive.org/details/historyofnewengl0002palf/page/n5/mode/2up
(Volume 3) https://archive.org/details/historyofnewengl00palf
PAYNE, EDWARD JOHN.
History of the new world called America.
Oxford: Clarendon Press. 1892-. volume 1-.
New York: Macmillan & Company. 1892-. volume 1-.
(Volume 1) https://archive.org/details/histnewworld01paynrich
(Volume 2) https://archive.org/details/histnewworld02paynrich
PINKERTON, JOHN, ed.
General collection of the best and most interesting
voyages and travels, volume 14.
London: Longman. 1808-14. 17 volumes.
(Volume 1) https://archive.org/details/cihm_18698
(Volume 1) https://archive.org/details/generalcollectio01pink
(Volume 2) https://archive.org/details/generalcollectio02pink
(Volume 4) https://archive.org/details/generalcollectio04pink
(Volume 4) https://archive.org/details/generalcollectio04pinkuoft
(Volume 5) https://archive.org/details/ageneralcollect05pinkgoog/page/n15/mode/2up
(Volume 6) https://archive.org/details/cihm_18703
(Volume 7) https://archive.org/details/generalcollectio07pink
(Volume 8) https://archive.org/details/ageneralcollect03unkngoog/page/n11/mode/2up
(Volume 9) https://archive.org/details/generalcollectio09pink
(Volume 10) https://archive.org/details/generalcollectio10pink
(Volume 11) https://archive.org/details/generalcollectio11pink
(Volume 13) https://archive.org/details/generalcollectio12pink
(Volume 14) https://archive.org/details/generalcollectio14pink
(Volume 16) https://archive.org/details/dli.bengal.10689.5489
(Volume 17) https://archive.org/details/dli.bengal.10689.1668
ROBERTSON, WILLIAM.
History of America (1777-96).
(Works, volumes 6-8.
Oxford: Talboys & Wheeler. 1825.)
(Volume 1) https://archive.org/details/historyamerica12robegoog
(Volume 2) https://archive.org/details/americarobertson00willrich/page/n3/mode/2up
(Volume 3) https://archive.org/details/historyamericab00robegoog
(Volume 3) https://archive.org/details/historyofamerica03robe
(Volume 4) https://archive.org/details/historyamerica01unkngoog
SCAIFE, WALTER B.
America, its geographical history, 1492-1892.
(Johns Hopkins University studies in historical and
political science, extra volume 13.) Baltimore. 1892.
https://archive.org/details/americaitsgeogra00scairich
SNOWDEN, RICHARD.
History of North and South America, from its discovery
to the death of General Washington. (1806.)
Philadelphia: B. Warner. 2 volumes.
(Volume 1, 2) /phttps://archive.org/details/historynorthand00snowgoog
STEVENS, HENRY.
Historical and geographical notes on the earliest
discoveries in America, 1453-1530.
London: Henry Stevens. 1869.
New Haven: American Journal of Science. 1869.
https://archive.org/details/historicalandge00stevgoog
WILLSON, MARCIUS.
American history.
New York: Mark H. Newman & Company. 1847.
https://archive.org/details/americanhistory00will
WINSOR, JUSTIN.
Harrisse's Discovery of North America
Nation, 55: 244. 264.
https://archive.org/details/jstor-196715/page/n11/mode/2up
Editor, Narrative and critical history of America
Boston: Houghton, Mifflin & Company 1886. 8 volumes.
(Volume 1) https://archive.org/details/narrativecritica01wins/page/n11/mode/2up
(Volume 1, 1)https://archive.org/details/narrativecritica51wins
(Volume 1, 2) https://archive.org/details/narrativecritica12wins
(Volume 2 )https://archive.org/details/narrcrithistamerica02winsrich
(Volume 2, 1) https://archive.org/details/narrativecritica21wins
(Volume 2, 2) https://archive.org/details/narrativecritica22wins
(Volume 3) https://archive.org/details/narrativecritica0003wins/page/n7/mode/2up
(Volume 3, 1) https://archive.org/details/narrativecritica31wins
(Volume 3, 2) https://archive.org/details/narrativecritica32wins
(Volume 4 ) https://archive.org/details/narrativecritica04wins
(Volume 4, 1) https://archive.org/details/narrativecritica41wins
(Volume 4, 2) https://archive.org/details/narrativecritica42wins
(Volume 5 ) https://archive.org/details/narrativecritica0005wins/page/n7/mode/2up
(Volume 5, 2) https://archive.org/details/narrativecritica52wins
(Volume 6, 1) https://archive.org/details/narrativecritica61wins
(Volume 6, 2) https://archive.org/details/narrativecritica62wins/page/n7/mode/2up
(Volume 7) https://archive.org/details/narrativecritica0007wins/page/n5/mode/2up
(Volume 7, 2) https://archive.org/details/narrativecritica72wins
(Volume 8) https://archive.org/details/narrativecritica0008wins/page/n7/mode/2up
(Volume 8, 2) https://archive.org/details/narrativecritica82wins
YATES, JOHN V. N., _and_ MOULTON, JOS. W.
History of the state of New York, volume 1, part 1.
New York: A. T. Goodrich. 1924-6. 2 volumes.
(Volume1, 1)https://archive.org/details/historyofstateof12moul_0
(Part 2)https://archive.org/details/historyofstateof02moul/page/n3/mode/2up
PRE-COLUMBIAN DISCOVERIES.
ANDERSON, RASMUS B.
America not discovered by Columbus.
Chicago: S. C. Griggs & Company. 1874.
https://archive.org/details/americanotdiscov00andeiala
BEAMISH, NORTH LUDLOW.
The discovery of America by the Northmen in the 10th century.
London: T. & W. Boone 1841.
https://archive.org/details/discoveryameric00beamgoog
BOWEN, _Reverend_ BENJ. F.
America discovered by the Welsh in 1170. A. D.
Philadelphia: J. B. Lippincott & Company. 1876.
https://archive.org/details/americadiscovere00boweuoft
DALL, W. H.
Alleged early Chinese voyages to America.
(Science, 8: 402. 1886.)
DAVIS, ASAHEL.
Discovery of America by the Northmen.
Rochester: D. Hoyt. 1839.
https://archive.org/details/lectureondiscove00davi
DE COSTA, Reverend BENJAMIN FRANKLIN, editor.
The pre-Columbian discovery of America by the Northmen,
illustrated by translations from the Icelandic sagas.
Albany: Joel Munsell. 1868.
https://archive.org/details/precolumbiandisc00deco
{xxii}
DIMAN, J. L.
De Costa's Pre-Columbian discovery of America,
(North American Review, 109: 205. 1869.)
DISCOVERY OF AMERICA BY THE NORTHMEN.
(Atlantic Monthly, 54: 282. 1884.)
DU BOIS, B. H.
Did the Norse discover America?
(Magazines of American History, 27: 369. 1892.)
ELLIOTT, CHARLES W.
The New England history, chapter 1.
New York: Charles Scribner. 1857. 2 volumes.
https://archive.org/details/newenglandhisto04elligoog
EVERETT, EDWARD.
Discovery of America by the Northmen.
(North American Review, 46: 161. 1838.)
FISKE, JOHN.
How America came to be discovered.
(Harper's Magazine, 64: 111. 1881.)
HIGGINSON, THOMAS W.
The visit of the Vikings,
(Harper's Magazine, 65: 515. 1882.)
HORSFORD, EBEN NORTON.
The problem of the Northmen.
Cambridge: J. Wilson & Son. 1889.
https://archive.org/details/problemofnorthme00hors
LEGENDS OF OLD America.
(Cornhill Magazine 26: 452. 1872.)
LELAND, CHARLES GODFREY.
The ante-Norse discoverers of America
(Continental Monthly, 1: 389,530. 1862)
Fusang: or the discovery of America by Chinese Buddhist
priests in the 5th century.
London: Trübner. 1875.
New York: J. W. Bouton, 1875.
http://link.archive.org/portal/Fusang-or-The-discovery-of-America-by-Chinese/ZD2URRe5Nbs/
MacLEAN, J. P. Pre-Columbian discovery of America
(American Antiquarian, 14, 1892)
MAJOR, RICHARD HENRY.
The life of prince Henry of Portugal,
surnamed the navigator, and its results.
London: A. Asher & Company, 1868.
https://archive.org/details/lifeofprincehenr00majo
On the voyages of the Venetian brothers Zeno.
(Massachusetts History Society Proceedings, 1873-75.)
_Translator and editor._
Voyages of the Venetian brothers, Nicolò and Antonio Zeno,
to the northern seas, in the 14th century.
London: Hakluyt Society. 1873.
https://archive.org/details/voyagesofvenetia00zenorich
ONDERDONK, J. L.
Pre-Columbian discoveries of America,
(National Quarterly Review, 33: 1. 1876.)
https://archive.org/details/precolumbiandis00ondegoog/page/n4/mode/2up
PILON, M. R.
Visits of Europeans to America
in the 10th and 11th centuries.
(Potter's American Monthly, 5: 903. 1875.)
RANKING, JOHN,
Historical researches on the conquest of Peru, Mexico, etc.,
in the 13th century, by the Mongols.
London: Longman. 1827.
https://archive.org/details/historicalresear00rank
REEVES, ARTHUR MIDDLETON.
The finding of Wineland the good.
London: Henry Frowde. 1890.
https://archive.org/details/winelandthegood00reevrich
ROPES, A. R.
Early explorations of America, real and imaginary.
(English Historical Review, 2: 78. 1887.)
SHORT, JOHN T.
Claims to the discovery of America
(Galaxy, 20: 509. 1875.)
SLAFTER, _Rev_. EDMUND F.
The discovery of America by the Northmen 985-1015:
a discourse delivered before the New Hampshire
Historical Society, April 24, 1888.
https://archive.org/details/winelandthegood00reevrich
_Editor._
Voyages of the Northmen to America; including extracts from
the Icelandic sagas in an English translation by N. L. Beamish,
opinion of Professor Rafn, etc.
Boston: Prince Society. 1877.
https://archive.org/details/voyagesofnorthme00slafiala
SMITH, JOSHUA TOULMIN.
The discovery of America by the Northmen In the 10th century;
comprising translations of all the most important original
narratives (1839). 2d edition.
London: William S. Orr & Company 1842.
https://archive.org/details/discoveryofameri00smit
SOUTHEY, ROBERT.
Madoc (1805).
London: Longmans.
Boston: Houghton, Mifflin & Company
(Volume 1) https://archive.org/details/madoc03soutgoog/page/n11/mode/2up
(Volume 2) https://archive.org/details/madoc00soutgoog/page/n6/mode/2up
STEPHENS, THOMAS.
Madoc; an essay on the discovery of America by
Madoc ap Owen Gwynedd in the 12th century.
London: Longmans, Green & Company. 1893.
https://archive.org/details/madocessayondisc00stepuoft
STORM, GUSTAV.
Studies on the Vineland voyages.
Copenhagen: Thiele. 1889.
VINING, EDWARD P.
An inglorious Columbus; or, evidence that Hwui Shán
and a party of Buddhist monks from Afghanistan discovered
America in the 5th century.
New York: D. Appleton & Company. 1885.
https://archive.org/details/ingloriouscolumb00vini
VOYAGES TO VINLAND, THE; from the saga of Eric the red.
Boston: D. C. Heath & Company.
(Old South leaflets, general series, No.31.)
https://archive.org/details/cihm_07112/page/n5/mode/2up
WATSON, PAUL B.
Bibliography of the pre-Columbian discoveries of America.
(Library Journal, 6: 227. 1881.)
WINSOR, JUSTIN.
America prefigured: an address at Harvard, October 21, 1892.
Cambridge. 1893.
https://archive.org/details/prefiguredamerica00winsrich/page/4/mode/2up
COLUMBUS
ADAMS, CHARLES KENDALL.
Christopher Columbus, his life and work.
("Makers of America.")
New York: Dodd, Mead & Company. 1892.
https://archive.org/details/christophercolum00adamrich
Some recent discoveries concerning Columbus.
(Magazine of American History, 27: 161, 1892.)
ADAMS, HERBERT B., and HENRY WOOD.
Columbus and his discovery of America.
(Johns Hopkins University studies in historical and political
science, 10th series, Numbers 10-11,)
Baltimore, October-November, 1892.
https://archive.org/details/columbusandhisd00woodgoog
BLIND, K.
The forerunners of Columbus.
(New Review, 7: 346, Living Age, 195: 387. 1892.)
CASTELAR, EMILIO.
Christopher Columbus.
(Century, 22: 123-921. 1892.)
https://archive.org/details/centuryillustrat44newyuoft
COLUMBUS, CHRISTOPHER.
Journal, 1492-3; and documents relating to the voyages of John
[and Sebastian] Cabot and Gaspar Corte Real; translated by
C. R. Markham.
London: Hakluyt Society. 1893.
https://archive.org/details/cihm_05312
The letter on the discovery of America; a facsimile
of the pictorial edition, with a new and literal translation.
Printed by the Lenox Library. New York. 1882.
https://archive.org/details/letterofcolumbus00colum
Letter to Gabriel Sanchez, 1493.
Boston: D. C. Heath & Company.
(Old South leaflets, general series, No. 33.)
https://archive.org/details/spanishletterco00kerngoog
Select letters, with other original documents; translated
and edited by R. H. Major.
London: Hakluyt Society. 1847.
Writings descriptive of the discovery and occupation
of the new world; edited by Paul Leicester Ford.
New York: C. L. Webster & Company. 1892.
COLUMBUS, FERDINAND.
The discovery of America; from the life of Columbus.
Boston: D. C. Heath & Company.
(Old South leaflets, general series, No. 29.)
ELTON, CHARLES.
The career of Columbus.
New York: Cassell Publishing Company. 1892.
https://archive.org/details/careercolumbus00eltogoog
GOODRICH, AARON.
History of the character and achievements of the
so-called Christopher Columbus.
New York: D. Appleton & Company, 1874.
https://archive.org/details/historyofcharact00good
HELPS, _Sir_ ARTHUR, and H. P. Thomas.
Life of Columbus.
London: Bell & Daldy. 1869.
IRVING, WASHINGTON.
Life and voyages of Christopher Columbus (1828);
to which are added those of his companions (1831).
New York: G. P. Putnam. 3 volumes.
(Volume 1) https://archive.org/details/historyoflifeand01irviiala
(Volume 2) https://archive.org/details/historyoflifeand02irviiala
(Volume 3) https://archive.org/details/historyoflifeand03irviiala
(Volume 3) https://archive.org/details/lifeandvoyagesc05irvigoog
LORGUES, ROSELLY DE.
Life of Christopher Columbus, from Spanish and Italian
documents; comp. from the French by J. J. Barry.
Boston: P. Donahoe. 1870.
https://archive.org/details/lifeofchristophe00rose
MACKIE, CHARLES PAUL.
The last voyages of the Admiral of the Ocean Sea,
as related by himself and his companions.
Chicago: A. C. McClurg & Company. 1892.
https://archive.org/details/lastvoyagesadmi00paulgoog
MACKINTOSH, J.
The discovery of America by Columbus and the
origin of the North American Indians.
Toronto. 1836.
https://archive.org/details/discoveryameric00mcingoog
MARKHAM, CLEMENTS R.
Life of Christopher Columbus.
London: George Philip & Son. 1892.
https://archive.org/details/cu31924020393413
MAURY, M.
An examination of the claims of Columbus.
(Harper's Magazines, 42: 425, 527. 1871.)
OBER, FREDERICK A.
In the wake of Columbus; adventures of the special
commissioner sent by the World's Columbian Exposition
to the West Indies.
Boston: D. Lothrop Company. 1893.
https://archive.org/details/inwakecolumbusa00obergoog
SEELYE, ELIZABETH EGGLESTON.
The story of Columbus; with introduction by Edward Eggleston.
New York: D. Appleton & Company. 1892.
https://archive.org/details/storyofcolumbus00seel
SPALDING, J. L.,
Columbus, (Catholic World, 56: 1. 1892.)
TARDUCCI, FRANCESCO.
The life of Christopher Columbus;
translated from the Italian by H. F. Brownson.
Detroit: H. F. Brownson. 1890. 2 volumes.
(Volume 1) https://archive.org/details/lifechriscolum01tardrich
(Volume 2) https://archive.org/details/lifechristopher00browgoog
WINSOR, JUSTIN.
Christopher Columbus, and how he received and imparted
the spirit of discovery.
Boston: Houghton, Mifflin & Company. 1891.
https://archive.org/details/in.ernet.dli.2015.158654
Columbiana. (Nation, 52: 297. 1891.)
POST-COLUMBIAN DISCOVERIES.
ARBER, EDWARD. editor.
The first three English books on America (?1511)-1555 A. D.;
being chiefly translations, compilations, &c., by
Richard Eden, from the writings of Pietro Martire,
Sebastian Münster, Sebastian Cabot.
Birmingham. 1885.
https://archive.org/details/firstthreeenglis00arberich
ASHER, G. M., editor
Henry Hudson the navigator: original documents in which
his career is recorded.
London: Hakluyt Society. 1860.
https://archive.org/details/henryhudsonnavig27ashe
BIDDLE, RICHARD.
Memoir of Sebastian Cabot.
Philadelphia: Carey & Lea. 1831.
https://archive.org/details/sebastiancabot00biddrich
BOSTON PUBLIC LIBRARY.
America in the 16th century
(bibliographical note in Bulletins, volume 3, pages 130-141).
Early English explorations in America
(bibliographical note in Bulletins, volume 3, pages 241-244).
Early explorations in America
(bibliographical note in Bulletins, volume 3, pages 103-100).
{xxiii}
BREVOORT, J. C.
Verrazano the navigator [from report of the American
Geographical Society of New York for 1873].
New York. 1874.
https://archive.org/details/verrazanonavigator00brevrich
CHAMPLAIN, SAMUEL DE.
Voyages (1603-1610): translated Charles P. Otis, [editor]
with memoir by E. F. Slafter.
Boston: Prince Society. 1878-82. 3 volumes.
(Volume 1) https://archive.org/details/cihm_26911
(Volume 2) https://archive.org/details/voyagessamuelde00massgoog
(Volume 3) https://archive.org/details/voyagessamuelde00unkngoog
DE VRIES. D. P.
Extracts from the voyages; translated from a
Dutch ms. in the Philadelphia Library, by Dr. G.
Troost. (Collections of the New York Historical Society.,
2d series, volume 1.
New York. 1841.)
Voyages from Holland to America, 1632-1644;
translated by H. C. Murphy. (Collections of the New
York Historical Society, 2d series, volume 3.
New York. 1857.)
https://archive.org/details/cu31924028729402/page/n25/mode/2up
FISKE, JOHN.
The romance of the Spanish and French explorers.
(Harper's Magazines, 64: 438. 1882.)
FORCE, M. F.
Some observations on the letters of Amerigo Vespucci (1879).
Cincinnati: Robert Clarke & Company 1885.
https://archive.org/details/someobservation01forcgoog
HAKLUYT, RICHARD, editor.
The principal navigations, voyages, traffiques and
discoveries of the English nation
(1589); edited by E. Goldsmid. volume 12-15.
Edinburgh: E. & G. Goldsmid. 1889-90.
(Volume 1) https://archive.org/details/in.ernet.dli.2015.178849
(Volume 2) https://archive.org/details/principalnavigat02hakluoft
(Volume 5) https://archive.org/details/principalnaviga00haklgoog
(Volume 6) https://archive.org/details/principalnaviga06hakl
(Volume 8) https://archive.org/details/principalnaviga00unkngoog
(Volume 9) https://archive.org/details/cihm_33125
(Volume 10) https://archive.org/details/principalnavigat10hakl
(Volume 11) https://archive.org/details/principalnavigat11hakl
(Volume 12) https://archive.org/details/principalnavigat12hakl
(Volume 13) https://archive.org/details/theprincipalnavi25645gut
(Volume 16) https://archive.org/details/cihm_33132
HIGGINSON, THOMAS W.
The old English seamen.
(Harper's Mag., 66: 217. 1883)
The Spanish discoverers.
(Harper's Magazine. 65: 729. 1882.)
HUDSON, HENRY.
Divers voyages and northern discoveries.
(Purchas his pilgrimes, volume 3.
Collections of the New York Historical Society, volume 1.
New York. 1811.)
JUET, ROBERT.
Extract from the journal of the voyage
of the Half-Moon, Henry Hudson, master, 1609.
(Collections of the New York Historical Society,
2d series, volume 1.
New York. 1841.)
http://halfmoon.mus.ny.us/Juets-journal.pdf
KOHL, J. G.
History of the discovery of Maine; with
an appendix on the voyages of the Cabots.
(Collections of the Maine Historical Society.,
2d series, volume 1.
Portland: 1869.)
(Volume 1) https://archive.org/details/historyofdiscove00kohl
LESTER, C. EDWARDS, and A. FOSTER.
Life and voyages of Americus Vespucius.
New York: Baker & Scribner. 1846.
https://archive.org/details/lifeandvoyages00lestrich/page/n3/mode/2up
https://archive.org/details/lifevoyagesofame00lestiala
https://archive.org/details/cu31924020421867
NICHOLLS, J. F.
Remarkable life, adventures and discoveries of Sebastian Cabot.
London: Sampson Low, Son & Marston. 1869.
https://archive.org/details/remarkablelifead00nich
PARKMAN, FRANCIS.
Pioneers of France in the New World.
Boston: Little. Brown & Company. 1865.
https://archive.org/details/pioneers_of_france_in_new_world_0908_librivox1
PAYNE, EDWARD JAMES.
Voyages of the Elizabethan seamen to America;
13 original narratives from the collection of Hakluyt.
London: Thomas de la Rue & Company. 1880.
https://archive.org/details/voyagesofelizabe02hakluoft
READ, JOHN MEREDITH, Jr.
Historical inquiry concerning Henry Hudson.
Albany: J. Munsell. 1866.
https://archive.org/details/historicalinquir00readuoft
SANTAREM, _Viscount_. Researches respecting Americus
Vespucius and his voyages (1842); translated by E. V. Childe.
Boston: C. C. Little & Jas. Brown. 1850.
https://archive.org/details/researchesrespe02conggoog
STANLEY OF ALDERLEY. Lord.
The first voyage round the world, by Magellan; translated from
the accounts of Pigafetta and other contemporary writers; with
documents, notes, etc.
London: Hakluyt Society. 1874.
https://archive.org/details/firstvoyageround00piga
TARDUCCI, FRANCESCO.
John and Sebastian Cabot, biographical notice, with documents;
translated from the Italian by Henry F. Brownson.
Detroit: H. F. Brownson. 1893.
https://archive.org/details/johnsebast00tardrich
TOWLE, GEORGE M.
Magellan.
Boston: Lee & Shepard. 1880.
https://archive.org/details/magellan00towl/page/n5/mode/2up
VERRAZANO, JOHN DE. The relation of.
(Collections of the New York Historical Society., volume 1.
New York. 1811.)
The same: a new translation, by J. G. Cogswell.
(Collections of the New York Historical Society,
2d series, volume 1.
New York. 1841.)
Voyage, 1524.
(Old South leaflets, general series, No. 17.)
Boston: D. C. Heath & Company.
VESPUCCI, AMERIGO.
Account of his first voyage; letter to Pier Soderini.
(Old South leaflets, general series, No. 34.)
Boston: D. C. Heath & Company.
The first four voyages; reprinted in facsimile and
translated from the rare original edition. (1505-6).
London: Bernard Quaritch. 1893.
https://archive.org/details/lettersofamerigo00vesp
https://archive.org/details/lettersofamerigo00vesprich
VOYAGES OF THE CABOTS, THE.
From Hakluyt's "Principal navigations."
Boston: D. C. Heath & Company.
(Old South leaflets, general series, No. 37.)
SPANISH AND PORTUGUESE CONQUEST AND OCCUPATION.
ANDAGOYA, PASCUAL DE.
Narrative of the proceedings of Pedrarias Davila [1514-1541];
translated and edited by C. R. Markham.
London: Hakluyt Society. 1865.
https://archive.org/details/narrativeofproce00anda
BANDELIER, ADOLF F. A.
Discovery of New Mexico [Cibola] by Fray Marcos of Nizza.
(Magazine of Western History, 4: 659. 1886.)
BENZONI, GIROLAMO.
History of the new world, shewing his travels in America,
1541-1556; translated and edited by W. H. Smyth.
London: Hakluyt Society. 1857.
https://archive.org/details/historynewworld00smytgoog/page/n10/mode/2up
BLACKMAR, FRANK W.
Spanish Institutions of the southwest.
Baltimore. 1801. (Johns Hopkins University studies in
history and political science. Extra volume 10.)
https://archive.org/details/spanishinstituti00blac
CHARLEVOIX, Father F. P. X. DE.
History of Paraguay (1756);
[translated from the French].
London: L. Davis. 1769. 2 volumes.
(French) https://archive.org/details/histoireduparag04chargoog
(English) https://books.google.com/books?id=40sIAAAAQAAJ&printsec=frontcover&source=gbs_ge_summary_r&cad=0#v=onepage&q&f=false
CHEVALIER, MICHEL.
Mexico, ancient and modern; translated by T. Alpass.
London: J. Maxwell & Company. 1864. 2 volumes.
(Volume 1) https://archive.org/details/gri_33125000251625/page/n3/mode/2up
(Volume 2) https://archive.org/details/mexicoancientan01alpagoog
CIEZA DE LEON, PEDRO DE.
Travels, A. D. 1532-50, contained in the first and
second parts of his Chronicle of Peru (1553-):
translated an edited by C. R. Markham.
London: Hakluyt Society 1864-83.
https://archive.org/details/travelsofpedrode33ciez/page/n31/mode/2up
CLAVIGERO, _Abbé_ D. FRANCESCO SAVERIO.
History of Mexico, collected from Spanish and Mexican
historians, from MSS. and ancient paintings of the Indians;
translated from the Italian by Charles Cullen.
Philadelphia: Thomas Dobson. 1804. 3 volumes.
https://archive.org/details/historyofmexicoc03clav
CORTEZ, HERNANDO.
Despatches addressed to the emperor Charles V. during
the conquest: translated from the Spanish, with
introduction and notes by George Folsom.
New York: Wiley & Putnam. 1843.
https://archive.org/details/despatchesofhern0cort
DIAZ DEL CASTILLO, BERNAL.
Memoirs, containing a true and full account of the
discovery and conquest of Mexico and New Spain (1612):
translated from the Spanish by John I. Lockhart.
London: J. Hatchard & Son. 1844. 2 volumes.
(Volume 1) https://archive.org/details/memoirsofconquis01dauoft
(Volume 1) https://archive.org/details/memoirsconquist01lockgoog
(Volume 2) https://archive.org/details/dli.granth.40349/page/n3/mode/2up
(Volume 2) https://archive.org/details/memoirsofconquis02di
DISCOVERY and conquest of Terra Florida, by Don Fernando de Solo;
written by a gentleman of Elvas (1557), and translated out of
Portuguese by Richard Hakluyt: edited by W. B. Rye.
London: Hakluyt Society 1851.
https://archive.org/details/discoveryandcon00haklgoog
FANCOURT, CHARLES. ST. J.
History of Yucatan.
London: J. Murray. 1854.
https://archive.org/details/historyofyucatan00fanc
HELPS, _Sir_ ARTHUR.
Life of Hernando Cortes.
London: Bell & Son. 1871. 2 volumes.
(Volume 1) https://archive.org/details/lifehernandocor00goog/page/n9/mode/2up
(Volume 1) https://archive.org/details/dli.granth.85399/page/ii/mode/2up
(Volume 1) https://archive.org/details/lifeofhernandoco01helpuoft
(Volume 2) https://archive.org/details/lifeofhernandoco02helpuoft
(Volume 2) https://archive.org/details/dli.granth.86033
Life of Las Casas.
London: Bell & Son. 1868.
https://archive.org/details/lifeoflascasasth00help/page/n7/mode/2up
Life of Pizarro.
London: Bell & Son. 1869.
https://archive.org/details/lifeofpizarrowit00help
The Spanish conquest In America.
London: Parker & Son. (1855-61.)
New York: Harper & Brothers. 1867. 4 volumes.
(Volume 1) https://archive.org/details/spanishconquesti01helpuoft
(Volume 1) https://archive.org/details/spanishconquest00conggoog
(Volume 2) https://archive.org/details/spanishconquest06oppegoog
(Volume 3) https://quod.lib.umich.edu/m/moa/agf7071.0003.001
(Volume 4) https://archive.org/details/spanish_conquest_in_america_vol4/page/n3/mode/2up
IRVING, THEODORE.
History of De Soto's conquest of Florida (1835).
New York: G. P. Putnam's Sons.
(Volume 1) https://archive.org/details/conquestflorida01irvirich/page/n5/mode/2up
(Volume 2) https://archive.org/details/conquestflorida01irvigoog
MARKHAM, CLEMENTS R.
History of Peru, chapters 1-4.
Chicago: C. H. Sergel & Co. 1892.
https://archive.org/details/ahistoryperu01markgoog
_Edited and translated_.
Reports on the discovery of Peru.
London: Hakluyt Society 1872.
https://archive.org/details/reportsondiscove04mark
MAYER, BRANTZ.
Mexico, Aztec, Spanish and republican, book. 1.
Hartford: S. Drake & Company. 1851. 2 volumes.
https://books.google.com/books/about/Mexico_Aztec_Spanish_and_republican.html?id=4QNQAQAAIAAJ
(Volume 1) https://archive.org/details/mexicoaztecspan01mayegoog
(Volume 2) https://archive.org/details/mexicoaztecspani02maye
RESCOTT, WILLIAM H.
History of the conquest of Mexico (1843);
edited by J. F. Kirk.
Philadelphia: J. B. Lippincott & Company. 3 volumes.
(Volume 1) https://archive.org/details/conquestofmexico01presrich
(Volume 2) https://archive.org/details/conquestmexico02presuoft
(Volume 3) https://archive.org/details/historyconmex03pres
(Volume 4) https://archive.org/details/historyofconques04pres
History of the conquest of Peru (1847);
edited by J. F. Kirk.
Philadelphia: J. B. Lippincott & Company. 2 volumes.
(Volume 1) https://archive.org/details/historyofconques01presiala
(Volume 2) https://archive.org/details/historyofconques02presiala
(Volume 3) https://archive.org/details/historyofconques03presiala
RAYNAL, _Abbé_.
A philosophical and political history of the settlements and
trade of the Europeans in the east and west Indies (1770);
translated from the French by J. O. Justamond.
London. 1788. 8 volumes.
(Volume 1) https://archive.org/details/philosophicalpol01rayn
(Volume 2) https://archive.org/details/philosophicalpol02rayn
(Volume 3) https://archive.org/details/philosophicalpol03rayn
(Volume 4) https://archive.org/details/philosophicalpol04rayn
(Volume 5) https://archive.org/details/philosophicalpol06rayn
(Volume 6) https://archive.org/details/philosophicalpol05rayn
(Volume 7) https://archive.org/details/philosophicalpol07rayn
(Volume 8) https://archive.org/details/philosophicalpol08rayn/
RIVERO, M. E., and TSCHUDI, J. J. VON.
Peruvian antiquities:
translated from the Spanish by F. L. Hawks.
New York: G. P. Putnam & Company. 1853.
https://archive.org/details/peruvianantiqui01tschgoog/page/n10/mode/2up
SIMPSON, J. H.
Coronado's march in search of the "Seven cities of Cibola."
Washington. 1871.
https://archive.org/details/coronadosmarchin00simprich/page/n11/mode/2up
SOLIS, _Don_ ANTONIO DE
History of the conquest of Mexico by the Spaniards (1684);
translated from the Spanish by T. Townsend,
revised and corrected by N. Hook.
London: T. Woodward. 1738. 2 volumes.
(Volume 1) https://books.google.com/books/about/The_History_of_the_Conquest_of_Mexico.html?id=ejQVAAAAQAAJ
SOUTHEY, ROBERT.
History of Brazil, volume 1.
London: Longman. 1810-19. 3 volumes.
(Volume 1) https://archive.org/details/historyofbrazil01sout
(Volume 1) https://archive.org/details/historyofbrazil02sout
(Volume 3) https://archive.org/details/historyofbrazil03sout
SOUTHEY, THOMAS.
Chronological history of the West Indies, volume 1.
London: Longman. 1827. 3 volumes.
(Volume 1) https://archive.org/details/chronologicalhis01sout
(Volume 2) https://archive.org/details/chronologicalhis02sout
(Volume 3) https://archive.org/details/chronologicalhis03sout
TOWLE, GEORGE M.
Pizarro.
Boston: Lee & Shepard. 1879.
https://archive.org/details/pizarrohisadvent00towlrich/page/n5/mode/2up
TYLOR, EDWARD B.
Anahuac; or Mexico and the Mexicans, ancient and modern.
London: Longman, Green & Company. 1861.
https://archive.org/details/b24883360
WASHBURN, CHARLES A.
History of Paraguay, chapters 1-4.
Boston: Lee & Shepard. 1871. 2 volumes.
(volume 1) https://archive.org/details/historyofparagua01washuoft/page/n3/mode/2up
(volume 2) https://archive.org/details/historyofparagua02wash
WATSON, ROBERT G.
The Spanish and Portuguese in South America during
the colonial period, volume 1.
London: Trübner & Company. 1884. 2 volumes.
(volume 1) https://archive.org/details/spanishportugues01watsuoft
WILSON, ROBERT A.
A new history of the conquest of Mexico, in which
Las Casas' denunciations of the popular historians
of that war are vindicated.
Philadelphia: Jas. Challen & Son. 1859.
https://archive.org/details/anewhistoryconq00goog
{xxiv}
ENGLISH AND FRENCH COLONIZATION.
ACRELIUS, ISRAEL.
History of New Sweden. (Memoirs of the Pennsylvania
Historical Society, volume 11.
Philadelphia. 1876.)
https://archive.org/details/historyofnewswed11acre
https://archive.org/details/historyofnewswed00acre
https://archive.org/details/cihm_12822/page/n5/mode/2up
ADAMS, CHARLES FRANCIS.
Three episodes of Massachusetts history.
Boston: Houghton, Mifflin & Company. 1892 2 volumes.
(Volume 1) https://archive.org/details/threeepisodesofm01adamuoft
(Volume 2) https://archive.org/details/threeepisodesofm02adam
BAYLIES, FRANCIS.
Historical memoir of the colony of New Plymouth (1830).
Boston: Wiggin & Lunt. 1866. 2 volumes.
(Volume 1) https://archive.org/details/historicalmemoir11bayl
(Volume 2) https://archive.org/details/historicalmemoir02bayl
BEVERLEY, ROBERT.
History of Virginia (1705).
Richmond: J. W. Randolph. 1855.
https://archive.org/details/historyvirginia00campgoog
BOZMAN, JOHN LEEDS
History of Maryland, 1633-1660.
Baltimore: Lucas & Deaver. 1837 (introduction 1811.)
Baltimore: John Murphy & Co.
(Volume 1) https://archive.org/details/historyofmarylan00bozm
(Volume 2) https://archive.org/details/historymaryland02bozmgoog
BRADFORD, WILLIAM.
History of Plymouth Plantation.
(Collections of the Massachusetts Historical Society,
4th series, volume 3. Boston. 1856.)
(Volume 1) https://archive.org/details/historyofplymout1162brad
(Volume 2) https://archive.org/details/historymaryland02bozmgoog
BRIDGES, GEORGE W.
Annals of Jamaica, volume 1.
London: J. Murray. 1827. 2 volumes.
(Volume 1) https://archive.org/details/annalsofjamaica01briduoft
(Volume 2 )https://archive.org/details/annalsjamaica05bridgoog
BRODHEAD, JOHN R., _editor_
Documents relating to the colonial history
of the state of New York.
Albany. 1856-87. 14 volumes.
(Volume 1) https://archive.org/details/documentsrelativ01brod
(Volume 2) https://archive.org/details/documentsrelativ02brod/page/n9/mode/2up
(Volume 3) https://archive.org/details/documentsrelativ03brod/page/n7/mode/2up
(Volume 4) https://archive.org/details/documentsrelativ04brod/page/n7/mode/2up
(Volume 5) https://archive.org/details/documentsrelativ05brod/page/n9/mode/2up
(Volume 6) https://archive.org/details/documentsrelativ06brod/page/n7/mode/2up
(Volume 7) https://archive.org/details/documentsrelativ07brod/page/n9/mode/2up
(Volume 8) https://archive.org/details/documentsrelativ08brod/page/n5/mode/2up
(Volume 9) https://archive.org/details/documentsrelativ09brod/page/n7/mode/2up
(Volume 10) https://archive.org/details/documentsrelativ10brod/page/n7/mode/2up
History of the state of New York, volume 1.
New York: Harper & Brothers. 1853. 2 volumes.
(Volume 1) https://archive.org/details/documentsrelativ01brod
(Volume 2) https://archive.org/details/documentsrelativ02brod
(Volume 3) https://archive.org/details/documentsrelativ03brod
(Volume 4) https://archive.org/details/documentsrelativ04b/page/n7/mode/2up
(Volume 5) https://archive.org/details/documentsrelativ05brod/
(Volume 6) https://archive.org/details/documentsrelativ06brod/
(Volume 7) https://archive.org/details/documentsrelativ07brod/
(Volume 8) https://archive.org/details/documentsrelativ08brod/
(Volume 9) https://archive.org/details/documentsrelativ09brod/
(Volume 10) https://archive.org/details/documentsrelativ10brod/
(Index) https://archive.org/details/documentsrelativ11brod/page/n7/mode/2up
BROWN, ALEXANDER editor
The genesis of the United States [a collection of
historical mss. and tracts, with notes, etc.].
Boston: Houghton, Mifflin & Company. 1890. 2 volumes.
(Volume 1) https://archive.org/details/genesisofuniteds01brow
(Volume 2) https://archive.org/details/genesisofuniteds02brow
BROWN, WILLIAM HAND, editor.
Archives of Maryland.
Baltimore. 1883-.
https://msa.maryland.gov/megafile/msa/speccol/sc2900/sc2908/000001/000021/html/am21p--1.html
Has links to other volumes.
BURKE, EDMUND.
An account of the European settlements in America.
London: R. & J. Dodsley. 1757. 2 volumes.
(Volume 1) https://archive.org/details/accountofeuropea01burk
(Volume 2) https://archive.org/details/accountofeuropea02burk
BURY, _Viscount_.
Exodus of the western nations.
London: Richard Bentley. 1865. 2 volumes.
(Volume 1) https://archive.org/details/exodusofwesternn01albeuoft
(Volume 2) https://archive.org/details/exodusofwesternn02albeuoft
(Volume 2) https://archive.org/details/in.ernet.dli.2015.82499
CAMPBELL, CHARLES.
Introduction to the history of the colony and
ancient dominion of Virginia.
Richmond: D. B. Minor. 1847.
https://archive.org/details/introductiontohi00campb
History of the colony and ancient dominion of Virginia.
Philadelphia: J. B. Lippincott & Company.
https://archive.org/details/historyofcolonya00camp
CAMPBELL, DOUGLAS.
The Puritan in Holland, England and America.
New York: Harper & Brothers. 1892. 2 volumes.
(Volume 1) https://archive.org/details/puritaninholland01camp
(Volume 2) https://archive.org/details/puritaninholland02camp
CARROLL, B. R., _editor_.
Historical collections of South Carolina.
New York: Harper & Brothers. 1836. 2 volumes.
(Volume 1) https://archive.org/details/historicalcolle00carrgoog/page/n9/mode/2up
(Volume 2) https://archive.org/details/historicalcolle02carrgoog/page/n6/mode/2up
CHARLEVOIX, _Father_ PIERRE F. X. DE.
History and general description of New France (1744):
translated, with notes, by John G. Shea.
New York: J. G. Shea. 1866-7.2. 6 volumes.
(Volume 1) https://archive.org/details/cihm_32251
(Volume 2) https://archive.org/details/cihm_32765
(Volume 3) https://archive.org/details/historygeneralde03char
(Volume 4) https://archive.org/details/historygeneralde04char
(Volume 5) https://archive.org/details/historygenerald05achar
(Volume 6) https://archive.org/details/historygeneralde06char
CHEEVER, GEORGE B., _editor_
Journal of the Pilgrims at Plymouth in 1620.
New York: J. Wiley. 1848.
https://archive.org/details/journalofpilgrim00mouruoft
DALTON, HENRY G.
History of British Guiana, chapter 2.
London: Longmans. 1855. 2 volumes.
(Volume 1) https://archive.org/details/historybritishg01daltgoog
(Volume 1) https://archive.org/details/historybritishg02daltgoog
(Volume 2) https://archive.org/details/historybritishg03daltgoog
(Volume 2) https://archive.org/details/historybritishg00daltgoog/page/n10/mode/2up
DOUGLASS, WILLIAM.
Summary, historical and political, of the British settlements
in North America.
London: R. Baldwin. 1755. 2 volumes.
(Volume 1) https://archive.org/details/summaryhistorica01doug/page/n7/mode/2up
(Volume 2) https://archive.org/details/McGillLibrary-rbsc_lc_summary-historical-political_Lande00193_v2-15869
DOYLE, JOHN A.
The American colonies (Arnold prize essay).
London: Rivingtons. 1869.
The English In America: Virginia.
Maryland and the Carolinas (1882).
The Puritan colonies (1887), 2 volumes.
London: Longmans, Green & Company.
New York: Henry Holt & Co.
https://archive.org/details/englishcoloniesi01doyl
(Volume 3) https://archive.org/details/englishcoloniesi03doyl
(Volume 4) https://archive.org/details/englishcoloniesi04doyl/page/n7/mode/2up/page/n7/mode/2up
DRAKE, SAMUEL ADAMS.
The making of New England, 1580-1643.
New York: Charles Scribner's Sons. 1886.
https://archive.org/details/makingofnewengla00drakrich
The making of Virginia and the middle colonies.
New York: Charles Scribner's Sons. 1893.
https://archive.org/details/makingofvirginia00drak
DRAKE, SAMUEL G.
History and antiquities of Boston, 1630-1770.
Boston: L. Stevens. 1856.
https://archive.org/details/historyantiquiti00dra
EDWARDS, BRYAN.
History, civil and commercial, of the British colonies
in the West Indies. [Caribs, etc.]
London: J. Stockdale. 1793-1801. 3 volumes.
(Volume 1) https://archive.org/details/cihm_44458
(Volume 2) https://archive.org/details/historycivilcomm04edwa
https://archive.org/details/historycivilcomm06edwa/page/n5/mode/2up
FERRIS, BENJAMIN.
History of the original settlements on the Delaware.
Wilmington: Wilson & Heald. 1846.
https://archive.org/details/historyoforigina00ferr
FISHER. GEORGE P.
The colonial era (American History series).
New York: Charles Scribner's Sons. 1892.
(1906) https://archive.org/details/colonialera00fishuoft
(1910) https://archive.org/details/colonialerabygeo00fish
FISKE, JOHN.
The beginnings of New England.
Boston: Houghton, Mifflin & Company. 1889.
(1897) https://archive.org/details/beginningsofne00fisk
FORCE, PETER. editor.
Tracts and other papers relating principally to the origin,
settlement and progress of the colonies in North America.
Washington. 1886-47. 4 volumes.
(Volume 1) https://archive.org/details/tractsotherpaper01forc
(Volume 2) https://archive.org/details/tractsotherpaper02forc
(Volume 3) https://archive.org/details/tractsotherpaper1844forc
(Volume 4) https://archive.org/details/tractsotherpaper04forc
GAYARRÉ, CHARLES.
History of Louisiana; the French domination (1851-4).
New York: William J. Widdleton. 1861.
(1867) https://archive.org/details/historyoflouisia03gaya
GOODWIN, JOHN A.
The pilgrim republic.
Boston: Ticknor & Company. 1888.
https://archive.org/details/pilgrimrepublich00good/page/n11/mode/2up
GRAHAME, JAMES.
History of the rise and progress of the United States
of North America. till 1688, volume 1.
London: Longman. 1827. 2 volumes.
(Volume 1) https://archive.org/details/historyofrisepro01grah/page/n5/mode/2up
(Volume 2) https://archive.org/details/historyofrisepro02grah/page/n5/mode/2up
(Volume 4, 1836) https://archive.org/details/historyriseandp01grahgoog/page/n8/mode/2up
The same, enlarged [to 1776] and amended [edited by
Josiah Quincy, and published under the title of
"History of the United States"].
Philadelphia: Lea & Blanchard. 1846.
HAWKS, FRANCIS L.
History of North Carolina [to 1729] (1857-60).
Fayetteville: Hale & Son. 2 volumes.
(Volume 1) https://archive.org/details/cu31924028788374
(Volume 1) https://archive.org/details/historynorthcar00lillgoog
(Volume 1) https://archive.org/details/historynorthcar00pittgoog
(Volume 2) https://archive.org/details/historynorthcar00unkngoog
(Volume 2) https://archive.org/details/bub_gb_MzgTAAAAYAAJ/page/n3/mode/2up
HIGGINSON, THOMAS W.
The French Voyageurs.
(Harper's Mag., 66: 505. 1883.)
HUBBARD, _Rev_. WILLIAM.
General history of New England, to 1680 (1815).
(Collections of the Massachusetts History Society,
2d series, volumes 5-11. Boston. 1848.)
https://archive.org/details/generalhistoryof00hubb
HUTCHINSON, THOMAS.
History of the colony [and province] of Massachusetts-Bay
[to 1749].
Boston: T. & J. Fleet. 1764-7. 2 volumes.
https://archive.org/details/historyofcolonyo00hutc
LAMBRECHTSEN, N. C.
Short description of the discovery and subsequent history
of the New Netherlands (1818): [translated from the Dutch].
(Collections of the New York Historical Society,
2d series, volume 1. New York. 1841.)
LODGE, HENRY CABOT.
Short history of the English colonies in America.
New York: Harper & Brothers. 1881.
https://archive.org/details/histenglishcolonies00lodgrich
MARSHALL, JOHN.
History of the colonies planted by the English on the continent
of North America.
Philadelphia: A. Small. 1824.
https://archive.org/details/plantedcolonies00marsrich
MOORE, N.
Pilgrims and Puritans: the story of the planting of Plymouth
and Boston.
Boston: Ginn & Co. 1888.
https://archive.org/details/pilgrimspuritans00tiff
MOURT, GEORGE.
Relation, or journal of the plantation at Plymouth (1622);
with introduction and notes by H. M. Dexter.
Boston: J. K. Wiggin. 1865.
https://archive.org/details/mourtsrelationo00dextgoog
NEILL, EDWARD D.
English colonization of America during the 17th century.
London: Strahan & Company. 1871.
https://archive.org/details/cu31924032746145
History of the Virginia Company of London.
Albany: J. Munsell. 1869.
https://archive.org/details/cu31924028784738
Virginia vetusta [Supplement to above].
Albany: J. Munsell's Sons. 1885.
https://archive.org/details/virginiavetusta00neilgoog
O'CALLAGHAN, E. B.
Register of New Netherland, 1626-1674.
Albany: J. Munsell. 1865.
https://archive.org/details/registerofnewnet00ocal
PALFREY, JOHN G.
History of New England during the Stuart dynasty.
Boston: Little, Brown & Company. 1858-1864. 3 volumes.
(Volume 1) https://archive.org/details/historyofnewengl01bost
(Volume 2) https://archive.org/details/historynewengla19palfgoog
(Volume 3) https://archive.org/details/historynewengla18palfgoog/page/n6/mode/2up
PRINCE, THOMAS.
Chronological history of New England [to 1633] (1736-55).
Boston: Cummings, Hilliard & Company. 1826.
https://archive.org/details/achronologicalh00halegoog/page/n6/mode/2up
SAINSBURY, W. N. _editor_.
Calendar of state papers: colonial series
[America and the West Indies].
London: Longman. 1860-89. 3 volumes. 1860-84. 6 volumes.
(1675-1676) https://archive.org/details/calendarstatepa19offigoog
(1677-1680) https://archive.org/details/calendarstatepa08offigoog/page/n11/mode/2up
(1685-1688) https://archive.org/details/calendarstatepa18offigoog/page/n9/mode/2up
(1689-1692) https://archive.org/details/calendarstatepa14offigoog
(1696-1697) https://archive.org/details/cu31924087794685
(1719-1720) https://archive.org/details/colonialrecordsc31greauoft/page/n3/mode/2up
(1699) https://archive.org/details/calendarstatepa15offigoog
SHURTLEFF, N. B., _editor_.
Records of the governor and Company of the Massachusetts Bay,
1628-86. Printed by order of the Legislature.
Boston. 1853-4; 5 volumes in 6.
(Volume 1) https://archive.org/details/recordsofgoverno01mass
(Volume 4, Part 1) https://archive.org/details/cu31924091024590
(Volume 4, Part 2) https://archive.org/details/recordsofgoverno42mass
SHURTLEFF, N. B., and D. PULSIFER. _editors_.
Records of the colony of New Plymouth.
Printed by order of the Legislature.
Boston. 1855-61. 12 volumes. in 10.
(Volume 1) https://archive.org/details/recordsofcolonyo0102newp/page/n5/mode/2up
(Volume 5) https://archive.org/details/recordsofcolonyo05newp
https://www.plymouthcolony.net/resources/pcr.html#pcrarchive
STITH, WILLIAM.
History of the first discovery and settlement of Virginia (1747).
New York: Reprinted for Jos. Sabin. 1865.
https://archive.org/details/101292821.nlm.nih.gov/page/n3/mode/2up
TARBOX, _Rev_. INCREASE N.
Sir Walter Raleigh and his colony in America.
Boston: Prince Society. 1884.
https://archive.org/details/sirwalterralegh00lanegoog
TRUMBULL, BENJAMIN.
General history of the United States of America to 1792.
Boston: Farrand, Mallory & Company. 1810. volume 1.
https://archive.org/details/generalhistoryof03trum
(Volume 1 of 3) https://archive.org/details/ageneralhistory01trumgoog/page/n8/mode/2up
https://archive.org/details/generalhistoryof03trum/page/n13/mode/2up
TYTLER, PATRICK F.
Historical view of the progress of discovery on the
more northern coasts of America; with natural history,
by Jas. Wilson.
Edinburgh: Oliver & Boyd. 1832.
New York: Harper Brothers.
https://archive.org/details/historicalviewp00goog
WHITEFIELD, WILLIAM A., _editor_.
Documents relating to the colonial history of the state of New
Jersey.
Newark. 1880-. 11 volumes.
(Volume 1) https://archive.org/details/documentsrelati01socigoog/page/n10/mode/2up
(Volume 1) https://archive.org/details/documentsrelati04socigoog/page/n12/mode/2up
(Volume 3) https://archive.org/details/documentsrelati05socigoog/page/n6/mode/2up
(William Nelson)
(Volume 10) https://archive.org/details/documentsrelati03socigoog/page/n10/mode/2up
(Volume 19) https://archive.org/details/documentsrelati02socigoog/page/n4/mode/2up
(Volume 22) https://archive.org/details/documentsrelati00socigoog/page/n10/mode/2up
WILSON, JAMES GRANT, _editor_
Memorial history of the city of New York, volume 1.
New York: History Co. 1892. 4 volumes.
(Volume 2) https://archive.org/details/cu31924024757290
(Volume 1) https://archive.org/details/memorialhistoryo01wilsuoft
(Volume 2) https://archive.org/details/memorialhistoryo02wilsuoft/page/n9/mode/2up
(Volume 3) https://archive.org/details/memorialhistoryo03wilsuoft/page/n7/mode/2up
(Volume 4) https://archive.org/details/memorialhistoryo04wilsuoft/page/n13/mode/2up
WINTHROP, JOHN.
History of New England, 1630-1649 (1825-6). New edition.
Boston: Little, Brown & Company. 1853. 2 volumes.
(Volume 1) https://archive.org/details/winthropsjournal00wint/page/n11/mode/2up
(Volume 2) https://archive.org/details/winthropsjournal02wint
YOUNG, ALEXANDER.
Chronicles of the first planters of the colony of
Massachusetts Bay, 1623-1636.
Boston: Little & Brown. 1846.
https://archive.org/details/chroniclesoffirs00younuoft
https://archive.org/details/chroniclesoffirs00youn
https://archive.org/details/chroniclesoffirs00youn_0
Chronicles of the pilgrim fathers, 1602-1625.
Boston: Little & Brown. 1841.
https://archive.org/details/chroniclesofpilg00youn
{xxv}
AMERICAN ARCHÆOLOGY.
ABBOTT, CHARLES. C.
Primitive Industry; or illustrations of the handiwork, in
stone, bone and clay, of the native races of the northern
Atlantic seaboard of America.
Salem: G. A. Bates. 1881.
https://archive.org/details/primitiveindustry00abborich
Traces of an American autocthon.
(American Naturalist, 10: 329. 1876.)
AMERICAN ANTIQUARIAN AND ORIENTAL JOURNAL.
Chicago. 1878-.
AMERICAN ANTIQUARIAN SOCIETY.
Proceedings.
Boston.
AMERICAN JOURNAL OF ARCHÆOLOGY.
Baltimore. 1885-7.
Boston: Ginn & Company. 1888-.
ANTHROPOLOGICAL SOCIETY OF WASHINGTON.
Proceedings (1879-).
(Smithsonian miscellaneous collections, volume 25-.
Washington. 1882-.)
ATWATER, CALEB.
Description of the antiquities discovered in Ohio and other
western states.
(Archæologia Americana, volume 1.
Worcester: American Antiquities Society. 1820.)
https://archive.org/details/descriptionofant0000atwa/page/n3/mode/2up
BACON, A. T.
Ruins of the Colorado valley.
(Lippincott's Magazine, 20: 521. 1880.)
BAILEY, _Rev_. JACOB.
Observations and conjectures on the antiquities of America.
(Collections of the Massachusetts Historical Society.,
volume 4. Boston. 1795.)
BALDWIN, JOHN D.
Ancient America.
New York: Harper & Brothers. 1872.
https://archive.org/details/ancientamericain00bald/page/n7/mode/2up
Pre-historic nations.
New York: Harper & Brothers. 1869.
https://archive.org/details/in.ernet.dli.2015.115963
BANDELIER, ADOLF
A historical introduction to studies among the sedentary Indians
of New Mexico. Report on the ruins of the Pueblo of Pecos.
Boston: A. Williams & Company. 1881.
(Papers Archæological Institute of America.)
https://archive.org/details/historicalintrod00bandrich/page/n7/mode/2up
Report of an archæological tour in Mexico, in 1881.
Boston: Cupples, Upham & Company. 1884.
https://archive.org/details/archaeologmexico02bandrich/page/n5/mode/2up
BARBER, EDWIN A.
Ancient pueblos, Rio San Juan.
(American Naturalist, 12: 526, 606. 1878.)
https://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/pdfplus/10.1086/272184
Pueblo pottery. (American Naturalist, 15: 453. 1881.)
Rock inscriptions of the "ancient pueblos."
(American Naturalist, 10: 716. 1876.)
BAXTER, SYLVESTER.
The father of the pueblos [Zuni].
(Harper's Magazine, 65: 72. 1882.)
BEAUCHAMP, W. M.
Indian occupation of New York.
(Science, 19: 76. 1892.)
https://archive.org/details/aboriginaloccupa00beau
https://archive.org/details/aboriginaloccupa00beau_0
BOSTON PUBLIC LIBRARY.
America before Columbus.
(Bibliographical note in Bulletins, volume 3, pages 65-71.)
BOSTON SOCIETY OF NATURAL HISTORY.
Palæolithic implements of the valley of the Delaware;
by C. C. Abbott and others (from Proceedings, volume 21).
Cambridge. 1881.
BRINTON, DANIEL G.
The books of Chilan Balam, the prophetic and historic records
of the Mayas of Yucatan.
Philadelphia: Edw. Stern & Company. 1882.
https://archive.org/details/bookschilanbala00bringoog/page/n6/mode/2up
https://archive.org/details/cu31924020440115
Essays of an Americanist.
Philadelphia: Porter & Coates. 1890.
https://archive.org/details/essaysofamerican00brin/page/n5/mode/2up
Prehistoric chronology of America.
(Science, 10: 76. 1887.)
BRYANT, W. C.
Interesting archæological studies in and about Buffalo.
[Buffalo. 1890.]
BRYCE, GEORGE.
The mound builders.
Winnipeg Historical Society. 1884-5.
https://archive.org/details/moundbuilders00bryc
CARR, LUCIEN.
The mounds of the Mississippi valley, historically considered.
Cincinnati: Robert Clarke & Company. 1883.
https://archive.org/details/cu31924104076934
CHARNAY, DÉSIRÉ.
Ancient cities of the new world, being voyages and
explorations in Mexico and Central America, 1857-82;
translated from the French by J. Gonino and H. S. Conant.
New York: Harper & Brothers. 1887.
https://archive.org/details/ancientcitiesofn00char_1
CONANT, A. J.
Footprints of vanished races in the Mississippi valley.
St. Louis: C. R. Barns. 1879.
https://archive.org/details/footprintsvanrace00conarich
CUSHING, FRANK H.
The nation of the willows [Zunis].
(Atlantic Monthly, 50: 362,541. 1882.)
Zuni social, mythic and religious systems.
(Popular Science Monthly, 21: 186. 1882.)
DALL, W. H.
On the remains of later pre-historic man obtained from caves
in the Catherina Archipelago, Alaska (1876).
(Smithsonian contributions to knowledge, volume 22.
Washington. 1880.)
https://archive.org/details/cu31924104074822/page/n3/mode/2up
https://archive.org/details/ontheremains00dallrich/page/n5/mode/2up
EVERETT, J. T.
The earliest American people.
(Magazine of American History, 22: 114. 1889.)
https://archive.org/details/magazineamerica05stevgoog
https://archive.org/stream/magazineamerica05stevgoog/magazineamerica05stevgoog_djvu.txt
FISKE, JOHN.
The discovery of America.
Boston: Houghton, Mifflin & Company 1892. 2 volumes.
(Volume 1) https://archive.org/details/discoveryamerica01fisk
(Volume 2) https://archive.org/details/discoveryofameri02fisk
FORCE, M. F.
Some early notices of the Indians of Ohio;
to what race did the mound builders belong.
Cincinnati: Robert Clarke & Company. 1879.
https://archive.org/details/someearlynotice00ohiogoog
FOSTER, J. W.
Prehistoric races of the United States of America:
Chicago: S. C. Griggs & Company. 1873.
https://archive.org/details/prehistoricraces00fostiala/page/n5/mode/2up
GANNETT, HENRY.
Prehistoric ruins in southern Colorado.
(Popular Science Monthly, 16: 666. 1880.)
HABEL, S.
The sculptures of Santa Lucia Cosumalwhuapa in Guatemala (1878).
(Smithsonian contributions to knowledge, volume 22.
Washington. 1880.)
(French) https://archive.org/details/sculpturesdesant00habe
HALE, HORATIO.
Indian migrations, as evidenced by language; comprising the
Huron-Cherokee stock, Dakota, Algonkins, Chahta-Muskoki,
mound-builders, Iberians.
Chicago. 1883.
(American Association for the Advancement of Science., 1882,
American Antiquarian, January, April, 1883.)
https://archive.org/details/indianmigrations00halerich
HARVARD UNIVERSITY.
Peabody Museum of American archæology and ethnology. Reports.
Cambridge. 1868-.
HAVEN, SAMUEL F.
Archæology of the United States. (1855).
(Smithsonian contributions to knowledge, volume 8.
Washington. 1856.)
https://archive.org/details/archologyunited00havegoog/page/n5/mode/2up
https://archive.org/details/archaeologyus00haverich
HIGGINSON, T. W.
The first Americans.
(Harper's Magazine, 65: 342. 1882.)
HUMBOLDT, ALEXANDER von.
Researches concerning the Institutions and monuments of the
ancient inhabitants of America;
translated by Helen M. Williams.
London: Longman 1814. 2 volumes.
https://archive.org/details/researchesconcer01humb
JACKSON, W. H.
Ancient ruins in southwestern Colorado.
(American Naturalist, 10: 31. 1876.)
JONES, CHARLES C. Jr.
Antiquities of the southern Indians, particularly of the
Georgia tribes.
New York: D. Appleton & Company. 1873.
https://archive.org/details/antiquitiesofsou00jone_0/antiquitiesofsou00jone_0?view=theater
Monumental remains of Georgia, part 1.
Savannah: J. M. Cooper & Company. 1861.
https://archive.org/details/monumentalremain01jone
JONES, JOSEPH
Explorations of the aboriginal remains of Tennessee (1876).
(Smithsonian contributions to knowledge, volume 22.
Washington. 1880.)
JOURNAL OF AMERICAN ETHNOLOGY AND ARCHÆOLOGY.
Boston: Houghton, Mifflin & Co. 1891-.
KINGSBOROUGH, _Lord_.
Antiquities of Mexico: comprising fac-similes of ancient
Mexican paintings and hieroglyphics, etc., illustrated by many
valuable inedited mss.
London. R. Havell. 1830-48. 9 volumes.
(Volume 1) https://archive.org/details/AntiquitiesMexi1King
(Volume 2) https://archive.org/details/AntiquitiesMexiv2King
(Volume 3) https://archive.org/details/AntiquitiesMexiv3King
(Volume 4) https://archive.org/details/AntiquitiesMexi4King
(Volume 5) https://archive.org/details/AntiquitiesMexi5King
(Volume 6) https://archive.org/details/AntiquitiesMexi6King
(Volume 7) https://archive.org/details/AntiquitiesMexi7King
(Volume 8) https://archive.org/details/AntiquitiesMexiv8King
(Volume 9) https://archive.org/details/AntiquitiesMexiv9King
LAPHAM, I. A.
The antiquities of Wisconsin (1853),
(Smithsonian contributions to knowledge, volume 7.
Washington 1855.)
https://archive.org/details/antiquitiesofwis00laph
LARKIN, FREDERICK.
Ancient man in America. 1880.
MacLEAN, J. P.
The mound builders.
Cincinnati: Robert Clarke & Company. 1879.
https://archive.org/details/moundbuilders00maclgoog/page/n10/mode/2up
MINDELEFF, V.
Origin of pueblo architecture.
(Science, 9: 593. 1887.)
MITCHILL, _Dr._ SAMUEL.
Communications [on American antiquities, ethnology, etc.].
(Archæologia Americana, volume 1.
Worcester: American Antiquarian Society, 1820.)
MOOREHEAD, WARREN K.
Fort Ancient, the great prehistoric earthwork of Warren
County, Ohio; compiled from a careful survey.
Cincinnati: Robert Clarke & Company. 1890.
https://archive.org/details/fortancientgrea00moorgoog
NADAILLAC, _Marquis de_.
Prehistoric America (1882);
translated by N. d'Anvers.
edited by W. H. Dall.
New York: G. W. Putnam's Sons. 1884.
https://archive.org/details/cihm_52727/page/n7/mode/2up
NEWBERRY, JOHN S.
Ancient civilizations of America.
(Popular Science Monthly, 41: 187. 1892.)
OHIO STATE ARCHÆOLOGICAL SOCIETY.
Report on the antiquities of Ohio.
(Final report of the Ohio State board of Centennial managers.
Columbus. 1877.)
PEET, _Reverend_ STEPHEN D.
Prehistoric America.
Chicago: American Antiquarian Office. 1890-. 5 volumes. volume 1.
(Volume 2) https://archive.org/details/cu31924088416932
The mound builders, volume 2.
Emblematic mounds and animal effigies.
(Volume 1) https://archive.org/details/prehistoricameri01peetuoft/page/n7/mode/2up
(Volume 2) https://archive.org/details/prehistoricameri02peet
https://archive.org/details/prehistoricameri04peet/page/n7/mode/2up
https://archive.org/details/prehistoricameri03peet
https://archive.org/details/prehistoricameri05peet
https://archive.org/details/cu31924088416932
https://archive.org/details/cu31924088416924/page/n7/mode/2up
PHILADELPHIA. Numismatic and Antiquarian Society.
Proceedings.
POWELL, J. W.
Annual reports of the Bureau of Ethnology.
Washington.
(1) https://archive.org/details/rosettaproject_dak_vertxt-1/page/n3/mode/2up
(1st) https://archive.org/details/rosettaproject_dak_vertxt-1/page/n3/mode/2up
(10th) https://archive.org/details/annualreportofbu108889smit
(11th)https://archive.org/details/eleventhannualre1889powe
(12th) https://archive.org/details/annualreportofbu1218901891smit
(Pubs) https://ia902705.us.archive.org/26/items/listofpubethno00smitrich/listofpubethno00smitrich.pdf
Prehistoric man in America.
(Forum, 8: 489. 1890.)
PRIEST, JOSIAH.
American antiquities and discoveries in the west, 2d edition,
revised.
Albany: Hoffman 1835
https://archive.org/details/americanantiqui05priegoog
PUTNAM, F. W.
Archæological notes, and other pamphlets.
Prehistoric remains in the Ohio valley.
(Century, 17: 698. 1890.)
QUATREFAGES, A. DE.
The peopling of America.
(Popular Science Monthly, 38: 305. 1891.)
RAU, CHARLES.
The archæological collection of the United States National
Museum (1876).
(Smithsonian contributions to knowledge, volume 22.
Washington. 1880.)
https://archive.org/details/archaeologicalc00raugoog
The Palenque tablet in the United States National Museum (1879).
(Smithsonian contributions to knowledge,
volume 22. Washington. 1880.)
https://archive.org/details/palenquetabletin00rauc
{xxvi}
READ, Matthew Canield
Archæology of Ohio.
Cleveland: Western Reserve History Society. [1888.]
https://archive.org/details/archaeologyohio00readrich
REISS, W., and A. STÜBEL.
The necropolis of Ancon in Peru.
Berlin: A. Asher & Company. 1880-7. 8 volumes.
https://archive.org/details/gri_33125012875635
RIO, _Don_ ANTONIO DEL.
Description of the ruins of an ancient city, discovered near
Palengue, Guatemala (1787); translated: [also] Teatro Critico
Americano, by Dr. Paul Felix Cabrera.
London: Henry Berthoud. 1822.
https://archive.org/details/descriptionofrui00roan_0
RIVERO, MARIANO EDW., and JOHN JAMES VON TSCHUDI.
Peruvian antiquities: translated from the Spanish by
Francis L. Hawks.
New York: G. P. Putnam. 1853.
https://archive.org/details/peruvianantiqui01tschgoog
ST. LOUIS ACADEMY OF SCIENCE.
Contributions to the archæology of Missouri, part 1: Pottery.
Salem: George A. Bates. 1880.
SHORT, JOHN T.
The North Americans of antiquity; their origin, migrations and
type of civilization considered.
New York: Harper & Brothers. 1880.
https://archive.org/details/northamericansof00shorrich
STEPHENS, JOHN L.
Incidents of travel in Central America, Chiapas, and Yucatan.
New York: Harper & Brothers. 1843. 2 volumes.
(Volume 1) https://archive.org/details/incidentsoftrave11841step
(Volume 1) https://archive.org/details/incidentstravel07stepgoog
(Volume 1) https://archive.org/details/b2935030x_0001
(Volume 2) https://archive.org/details/b2935030x_0002
Incidents of travel In Yucatan.
New York: Harper & Brothers. 1843. 2 volumes.
(Volume 1) https://archive.org/details/travelinyucatan01step
(Volume 1) https://archive.org/details/incidentsoftrave01step_1
(Volume 2) https://archive.org/details/travelyucatan02step
(Volume 2) https://archive.org/details/incidentsoftrave21843step
SQUIER E. G.
Aboriginal monuments of New York. (1849).
(Smithsonian contributions to knowledge, volume 2.
Washington. 1851.)
https://archive.org/details/aboriginalmonume0000squi/page/n5/mode/2up
Antiquities of the state of New York; with a
supplement on the antiquities of the west.
Buffalo: G. H. Derby & Company. 1851.
https://archive.org/details/antiquitiesofsta00squirich
Nicaragua: its people, scenery, monuments.
New York: D. Appleton & Company. 1852. 2 volumes.
(Volume 1) https://archive.org/details/gri_nicaraguaits01squi
(Volume 2) https://archive.org/details/nicaraguaitspeo05squigoog/page/n8/mode/2up
SQUIER E. G., and E. H. DAVIS.
Ancient monuments of the Mississippi valley (1847).
(Smithsonian contributions to knowledge, volume 1.
Washington. 1848.)
https://archive.org/details/ancientmonuments00squi
THOMAS, CYRUS.
Catalogue of prehistoric works east of the Rocky Mountains.
Washington. 1891.
(Smithsonian Institute Bureau of Ethnology.)
https://archive.org/details/catalogueprehis01thomgoog
The Cherokees In pre-Columbian times.
New York: N. D. C. Hodges. 1800.
https://archive.org/details/cherokeesinpreco00thom
The circular, square, and octagonal earthworks of Ohio.
Washington. 1889. (Smithsonian Institute Bureau of Ethnology.)
https://archive.org/details/b30477633
The problem of the Ohio mounds.
Washington. 1889.
(Smithsonian Institute Bureau of Ethnology.)
https://archive.org/details/problemofohiomou01thom
A study of the Manuscript Troano.
(United States geography and geological survey.
Contributions to North American ethnology, volume 5.
Washington. 1882.)
https://archive.org/details/studyofmanuscrip00thom_0/page/n5/mode/2up
THRUSTON, GATES P.
The antiquities of Tennessee and the adjacent states, and the
state of aboriginal society in the scale of civilization
represented by them.
Cincinnati: Robert Clarke & Company. 1890.
https://archive.org/details/antiquitiestenn00thurrich
UNITED STATES.
Bureau of Ethnology, John W. Powell, director.
Annual reports. Washington.
See POWELL, J. W.
WALLACE, A. R.
American museums, of American pre-historic archæology.
(Fortnightly Review, 48: 665. 1887.)
WHITTLESEY, CHARLES.
Description of ancient works in Ohio (1850).
(Smithsonian contributions to knowledge, volume 3.
Washington. 1852.)
https://archive.org/details/descriptionsofan00whit
WINSOR, JUSTIN, _editor_.
Narrative and critical history of America, volume 1.
Boston: Houghton, Mifflin & Company. 1886. 8 volumes.
(Volume 1) https://archive.org/details/narrativecritica01wins
(Volume 2) https://archive.org/details/narrativecritica02wins
(Volume 3) https://archive.org/details/narrativecritica03wins
(Volume 4) https://archive.org/details/narrativecritica04wins
(Volume 5) https://archive.org/details/narrativecritica05wins
(Volume 6) https://archive.org/details/narrativecritica06wins
(Volume 7) https://archive.org/details/narrativecritica07wins
(Volume 8) https://archive.org/details/narrativecritica08wins
AMERICAN ABORIGINES.
ADAIR, JAMES.
The history of the American Indians, particularly those
nations adjoining to the Mississippi, East and West Florida,
Georgia, South and North Carolina, and Virginia.
London: E. & C. Dilly. 1775.
https://archive.org/details/historyofamerica00adairich
ALLEN, PAUL.
History of the expedition under the command of Lewis and
Clarke, to the Pacific Ocean, 1804-6.
Philadelphia. Dublin: J. Christie. 1817. 2 volumes.
(Volume 1) https://archive.org/details/historyexpediti01allegoog/page/n12/mode/2up
(Volume 1) https://archive.org/details/historyexpediti04allegoog/page/n6/mode/2up
(Volume 2) https://archive.org/details/historyexpediti02allegoog/page/n6/mode/2up
(Volume 2) https://archive.org/details/historyexpediti03allegoog/page/n15/mode/2up
AMERICAN STATE PAPERS:
Indian affairs, 1789-1827.
Washington: 1852-4. 2 volumes.
(Volume 1) https://archive.org/details/americanstatepap_c11unit
ATWATER, CALEB.
Remarks made on a tour to Prairie du Chien in 1829.
Columbus, Ohio: I. N. Whiting. 1831.
https://archive.org/details/remarksmadeontou00atwa
BANCROFT, GEORGE.
History of the United States of America; the authors's last
revision, volume 2.
New York: D. Appleton & Company. 1883-5. 6 volumes.
(Volume 1) https://archive.org/details/historyoftheunit037605mbp
(Volume 2) https://archive.org/details/historyofunited32banc/page/n3/mode/2up
(Volume 3) https://archive.org/details/in.ernet.dli.2015.506697
(Volume 3) https://archive.org/details/historyofusa03bancrich
(Volume 4) https://archive.org/details/historyofuniteds0004banc/page/n7/mode/2up
(Volume 5) https://archive.org/details/historyofuniteds05banciala
BANCROFT, HUBERT HOWE.
The native races of the Pacific States of North America.
New York: D. Appleton & Company. 1874-6. 5 volumes.
(Volume 1) https://archive.org/details/nativeraces01bancrich
(Volume 1) https://archive.org/details/nativeracespaci03bancgoog
(Volume 2) https://archive.org/details/nativeracespaci02bancgoog
(Volume 3) https://archive.org/details/nativeracespaci01bancgoog
(Volume 4) https://archive.org/details/nativeracespaci00bancgoog
https://archive.org/details/nativeracespaci04bancgoog/page/n18/mode/2up
BARROWS, William.
The Indian's side of the Indian question.
Boston: D. Lothrop & Company. 1887.
https://archive.org/details/cihm_03383
BEACH, W. W., editor.
The Indian miscellany.
Albany: J. Munsell. 1877.
https://archive.org/details/rsindianmiscella00beacuoft
BOSTON PUBLIC LIBRARY.
The Indian question (list in Bulletins,
volume 4, pages 68-70).
BRINTON, DANIEL G.
The American race; a linguistic classification and
ethnographic description of the native tribes of North and
South America.
New York: N. D. C. Hodges. 1891.
Races and peoples: lectures on the science of ethnography.
New York: N. D. C. Hodges. 1890.
https://archive.org/details/racesandpeoplesl57315gut
BROOKS, ELBRIDGE S.
The story of the American Indian, his origin, development,
decline and destiny.
Boston: D. Lothrop & Co. 1887.
https://archive.org/details/storyofamericani00broo/page/n5/mode/2up
BROWN, ROBERT.
The races of mankind, volume 1.
London: Cassell, Petter & Galpin. 1873-6: 4 volumes.
https://archive.org/details/racesofmankindbe01browuoft
BROWNELL, CHARLES DE WOLF.
The Indian races of North and South America.
New York: American Subscription House. 1857.
https://archive.org/details/indianracesofnor00brow
CANADA.
Department of Indian affairs.
Annual reports. Ottawa.
CATLIN, GEORGE.
Illustrations of the manners, customs and condition of the
North American Indians (1841).
London: Henry G. Bohn. 1861. 2 volumes.
Chatto & Windus. 1876. 2 volumes.
(Volume 1) https://archive.org/details/illustrationsofm01catl
(Volume 2) https://archive.org/details/illustrationsofm02catl
North American portfolio of hunting scenes, etc.
London: H. Bohn. 1844.
https://archive.org/details/Ayer_250_45_C2_1844_Catlin/page/n27/mode/2up
CHARLEVOIX, _Father_.
Letters to the Dutchess of Lesdiguieres [containing account of
the North American tribes, 1720-22; translated]
London. 1763.
https://archive.org/details/letterstodutche00char
COLDEN, CADWALLADER.
History of the five Indian nations of Canada, which are
dependent on the province of New York in America.
New York. 1727.
[Enlarged edition].
London. 1747.
https://archive.org/details/McGillLibrary-131832-5200
COLTON, C.
Tour of the American lakes in 1830.
London: F. Westley & A. H. Davis. 1833. 2 volumes.
(Volume 1) https://archive.org/details/tourofamericanla0000colt/page/n1/mode/2up
(Volume 1) https://archive.org/details/touramericanlak00coltgoog
(Volume 2) https://archive.org/details/touramericanlak01coltgoog
CRAIG, NEVILLE B., editor.
The olden time.
Pittsburg. 1846-8.
Cincinnati: Robert Clarke & Company. 1876. 2 volumes.
(Volume 1) https://archive.org/details/GR_3089-1/page/n5/mode/2up
(Volume 2) https://archive.org/details/oldentimeamonth00craigoog
DODGE, _Colonel_ RICHARD I.
Our wild Indians: thirty-three years' personal experience
among the red men of the great west; with an introduction by
General Sherman.
Hartford: A. D. Worthington & Company. 1882.
https://archive.org/details/ourwildindiansth00dodgrich
DOMENECH, Abbé EM.
Seven years' residence in the great deserts of North America.
London: Longman, Green & Company. 1860. 2 volumes.
(Volume 1) https://archive.org/details/sevenyearsreside01domeuoft
(Volume 2) https://archive.org/details/sevenyearsresid00domegoog
DONALDSON, THOMAS
The George Catlin Indian gallery, United States National
Museum, Washington.
(Report of the Smithsonian Institute, 1885, part 2.)
DRAKE, FRANCIS S.
Indian history for young folks.
New York: Harper & Brothers. 1885.
https://archive.org/details/indianhistoryfo00dowdgoog/page/n12/mode/2up
DRAKE, SAMUEL G.
The aboriginal races of North America, 15th edition.
Philadelphia: C. Desilver & Sons. 1859.
https://archive.org/details/aboriginalraceso01drak
Biography and history of the Indians of North America.
(1841), 11th edition.
Boston: B. B. Mussey & Company. 1851.
(Edition 8) https://archive.org/details/cihm_34854
(Edition 9) https://archive.org/details/cihm_37353
The old Indian chronicle; being a collection of exceeding rare
tracts written and published in the time of king Philip's war.
Boston: Antiquarian Institute. 1836.
https://archive.org/details/oldindianchroni00lithgoog
ELLIS, GEORGE E.
The red man and the white man in North America.
Boston: Little, Brown & Company. 1882.
https://archive.org/details/cu31924028719007
https://archive.org/details/redmanwhitemanin00ellirich
FIELD, THOMAS. W.
An essay towards an Indian bibliography.
New York: Scribner, Armstrong & Company. 1873.
https://archive.org/details/essaytowardsindi00fielrich
FLETCHER, ALICE C.
Indian education and civilization; a report.
Washington. 1888.
https://archive.org/details/indianeducationa00unitrich
GALLATIN, ALBERT.
A synopsis of the Indian tribes of North America.
(Archæologia Americana, volume 2.
Cambridge: American Antiquarian Society. 1836.)
Writings; edited by H. Adams. Lippincott. 1879. 3 volumes.
https://archive.org/details/synopsisofindian01gall/page/n3/mode/2up
HOLMES, _Reverend_ ABIEL.
Annals of America, 1492-1826 (1895).
Cambridge: Hilliard & Brown. 1829. 2 volumes.
(Volume 1, 1826) https://archive.org/details/cihm_47268/page/n3/mode/2up
(Volume 1, 1826) https://archive.org/details/annalsamer00holmrich
(Volume 2, 1826) https://archive.org/details/cihm_47269
HUMBOLDT ALEXANDER VON.
Personal narrative of travels to the equinoctial regions of
the new continent, 1799-1804, by Alexander de Humboldt and
Aimé Bonpland;
translated by Helen Maria Williams, volume 5, pages 315-334.
London: Longman. 1826. 7 volumes.
(Volume 1) https://archive.org/details/personalnarrati00humbgoog/page/n6/mode/2up
(Volume 1, 2) https://archive.org/details/personalnarrati01humbgoog/page/n10/mode/2up
INDIAN RIGHTS ASSOCIATION.
Annual reports of the executive committee.
Philadelphia.
( 6th, 1888) https://archive.org/details/annualreportexe00assogoog/page/n10/mode/2up
(30th, 1912) https://archive.org/details/annualreportexe02commgoog
(31st, 1913) https://archive.org/details/annualreportexe00assogoog/page/n10/mode/2up
JACKSON. _Mrs_. HELEN HUNT.
A century of dishonor (1881). New edition, with appendix.
Boston: Roberts Brothers, 1885.
https://archive.org/details/centuryofdishono005246mbp/page/n23/mode/2up
KINGSLEY, JOHN STERLING, editor.
The standard natural history, volume 6.
Boston: S. E. Cassino & Company. 1885. 6 volumes.
(Volume 1) https://archive.org/details/standardnaturalh01king
(Volume 2) https://archive.org/details/standardnaturalh02king
(Volume 3) https://archive.org/details/cu31924003839358/page/n11/mode/2up
(Volume 3) https://archive.org/details/standardnaturalh03king
(Volume 4) https://archive.org/details/standardnaturalh04king/page/n9/mode/2up
(Volume 5) https://archive.org/details/standardnaturalh05king/page/n11/mode/2up
(Volume 6) https://archive.org/details/standardnaturalh06king/page/n11/mode/2up
KIP, _Reverend_ WILLIAM INGRAHAM.
The early Jesuit, missions in North America; composed and
translated from the letters of the French Jesuits.
New York: Wiley & Putnam. 1846. 2 volumes.
https://archive.org/details/earlyjesuitmissi00kip/page/n7/mode/2up
(Part 1) https://archive.org/details/earlyjesuitmissi00kipw_0
(Part 1) https://archive.org/details/earlyjesuitmissi02kipw
LAHONTAN, _Baron_.
New voyages to North America, containing an account of the
several nations of that vast continent, 1683-1694 (1703):
[translated from the French.] 2d edition.
London. 1735. 2 volumes.
(Volume 1, 1905) https://archive.org/details/newvoyagestonort01laho
(Volume 2, 1905) https://archive.org/details/newvoyagestonort02laho/page/n7/mode/2up
{xxvii}
LAKE MOHONK annual conference of friends of the Indian.
Proceedings. Philadelphia.
https://www.maquah.net/Historical/Mohonk.html
(17th, 1890)https://archive.org/details/proceedingsannu00unkngoog
(1896) https://archive.org/details/proceedingsannu01unkngoog/page/n6/mode/2up
(17th, 1899) https://archive.org/details/proceedingsannu39unkngoog
McKENNEY, THOMAS L., _and_ JAMES HALL.
History of the Indian tribes of North America, with 120
portraits from the Indian gallery at Washington (1838-44).
Philadelphia: D. Rice & A. N. Hart. 1854. 3 volumes.
(Volume 1, 1872) https://archive.org/details/historyofindiant01mckerich/page/n7/mode/2up
(Volume 2, 1872) https://archive.org/details/historyofindiant02mckerich/page/n7/mode/2up
MANYPENNY, GEORGE W.
Our Indian wards.
Cincinnati: Robert Clarke & Company. 1880.
https://archive.org/details/Ayer_155_M25_1880
MASON, _Professor_ OTIS T., editor.
Miscellaneous papers relating to anthropology, from the
Smithsonian report for 1881.
Washington. 1883.
MASSACHUSETTS.
The Indian question; report of the committee appointed by
Governor Long.
Boston. 1880.
MORGAN, LEWIS H.
Houses and house-life of the American aborigines.
Washington. 1881.
(U. S. geographic and geological survey,
Contributions to North American ethnology, volume 4.)
https://archive.org/details/houseshouselifeo00morg_0
Systems of consanguinity and affinity of the human family
(1868). (Smithsonian contributions to knowledge, volume 17.
Washington. 1871.)
https://archive.org/details/systemsofconsang00morgrich/page/n21/mode/2up
MORSE, _Reverend_ JEDIDIAH.
A report to the secretary of war of the United States, on
Indian affairs, comprising a narrative of a tour in 1820.
New Haven: S. Converse. 1822.
https://archive.org/details/reporttosecretar00mors
MORTON, SAMUEL G.
Crania Americana; or a comparative view of the skulls of
various aboriginal nations of North and South America.
Philadelphia: J. Penington. 1839.
https://archive.org/details/Craniaamericana00Mort
NOTT, J. C., GEORGE. R. GLIDDON, _and others_.
Indigenous races of the earth.
Philadelphia: J. B. Lippincott & Co. 1857.
https://archive.org/details/indigenousraceso01nott
OTIS, ELWELL S.
The Indian question.
New York: Sheldon & Company. 1878.
https://archive.org/details/indianquestion00otisrich
PARKMAN, FRANCIS.
History of the conspiracy of Pontiac (1851).
Boston: Little, Brown & Company. 1888. 2 volumes.
The Jesuits in North America.
Boston: Little, Brown & Company. 1867.
PESCHEL, OSCAR.
The races of man and their geographical distribution;
from the German. (1874).
New York: D. Appleton & Company. 1876.
(1876) https://archive.org/details/in.ernet.dli.2015.501969
(1888) https://archive.org/details/racesofmantheirg00pescuoft
PRICHARD, JAMES C.
Researches into the physical history of mankind (1813). 2d ed.
London: J. & A. Arch. 1826. 2 volumes.
(Volume 1, 1841) https://archive.org/details/researchesintop08pricgoog
(Volume 1, 1851) https://archive.org/details/researchesintop03pricgoog
(Volume 1, 1836) https://archive.org/details/researchesintop06pricgoog/page/n8/mode/2up
(Volume 2, 1837) https://archive.org/details/researchesintop02pricgoog
(Volume 2, 1851) https://archive.org/details/researchesintop04pricgoog
(Volume 3, 1811) https://archive.org/details/researchesintop09pricgoog
(Volume 3, 1841) https://archive.org/details/researchesintop10pricgoog
(Volume 3, 1841) https://archive.org/details/researchesintop05pricgoog/page/n8/mode/2up
(Volume 4, 1844) https://archive.org/details/researchesintop01pricgoog
(Volume 5, 1847) https://archive.org/details/researchesintop07pricgoog
RADISSON, PETER ESPRIT.
Voyages, being an account of his travels and experiences among
the North American Indians, 1652-1684; with historical
illustrations and an introduction by Gideon D. Scull.
Boston: Prince Society. 1885.
https://archive.org/details/voyagespeteresp00sculgoog/page/n14/mode/2up
RAWLE, WILLIAM.
A vindication of Heckewelder's "History of the Indian
nations." (Memoirs of the Pennsylvania Historical Society,
volume 1.
Philadelphia. 1826.
J. B. Lippincott & Co. 1864.)
https://archive.org/details/5f1b0c76-4bcd-4e48-b937-081944dc88aa/mode/2up
ROGERS, _Major_ ROBERT.
A concise account of North America.
London. 1765.
https://archive.org/details/aconciseaccount00rogeuoft/page/n5/mode/2up
SCHOOLCRAFT, HENRY R.
Historical and statistical information respecting the history,
condition and prospects of the Indian tribes; prepared under
the direction of the Bureau of Indian affairs.
Philadelphia: Lippincott, Grambo & Company. 1851-5. 5 volumes.
(Part 1) https://archive.org/details/cu31924032190161
(Part 2) https://archive.org/details/historicalstatis02scho
(Part 3) https://archive.org/details/cu31924091889976
(Part 4) https://archive.org/details/historicalstatipt4scho
(Part 5) https://archive.org/details/historicalstatis05scho
(Part 5) https://archive.org/details/historicalstati00schoa
(Part 6) https://archive.org/details/historicalstatis06scho/page/n7/mode/2up
SHALER, NATHANIEL S.
Nature and man in America.
New York: Charles Scribner's Sons. 1891.
(1891) https://archive.org/details/natureandmanina00shalgoog
(1924) https://archive.org/details/naturemaninameri00
STANFORD'S COMPENDIUM OF GEOGRAPHY AND TRAVEL:
North America; edited and enlarged by Professor F. V. Hayden
and Professor A. R. C. Selwyn.
London: E. Stanford. 1883.
https://archive.org/details/dli.granth.86162
STANLEY'S PORTRAITS OF NORTH AMERICAN INDIANS IN SMITHSONIAN
INSTITUTION.
Catalogue (1852).
(Smithsonian miscellaneous collections, volume 2. Washington. 1862.)
https://archive.org/details/portraitsnaindians00stanrich
THATCHER, B. B.
Indian biography.
New York: J. & J. Harper. 1832. 2 volumes.
UNITED STATES.
Board of Indian Commissioners. Annual reports. Washington.
(2nd, 1870) https://archive.org/details/annualreportofbo02unitrich/page/n5/mode/2up
(3rd, 1871) https://archive.org/details/annualreportofbo03unitrich/page/n5/mode/2up
(4th, 1872) https://archive.org/details/annualreportofbo04unitrich/page/n3/mode/2up
(5th, 1873) https://archive.org/details/annualreportofbo05unitrich/page/n5/mode/2up
(6th, 1874) https://archive.org/details/annualreportofbo06unitrich/page/n5/mode/2up
(7th, 1875) https://archive.org/details/annualreportofbo07unitrich/page/n5/mode/2up
(8th, 1876) https://archive.org/details/annualreportofbo08unitrich/page/n3/mode/2up
(17th, 1885) https://archive.org/details/annualreportofbo17unitrich
(20th, 1888) https://archive.org/details/20annualreport00unitrich
(1928) https://archive.org/details/annualreportofbo00unitrich/page/n3/mode/2up
Commissioner of Indian affairs. Annual reports. Washington.
WALKER, FRANCIS A.
The Indian question.
Boston: J. R. Osgood & Company. 1874.
https://archive.org/details/indianquestion00walk
WOMEN'S NATIONAL INDIAN ASSOCIATION.
Annual reports. Philadelphia.
AMERICAN ABORIGINES.
SPECIAL TRIBES, GROUPS AND REGIONS.
AB-SA-RA-KA, HOME OF THE CROWS.
Philadelphia: J. B. Lippincott & Company. 1868.
https://archive.org/details/absarakahomeofcr00carr/page/n5/mode/2up
BANDELIER, ADOLF F.
The delight makers.
New York: Dodd, Mead & Company. 1890.
https://archive.org/details/delightmakers00bandrich
The gilded man (El Dorado).
New York: D. Appleton & Company. 1893.
https://archive.org/details/gildedmaneldorad00bandrich/page/n7/mode/2up
BARTRAM, WILLIAM.
Travels through North and South Carolina, Georgia, etc.
[1773-8]. [Creeks, Cherokees and Choctaws.]
Philadelphia. 1791.
https://archive.org/details/travelsthroughno00bart
BEAUCHAMP, William Martin
The Iroquois trail; in which are included David Cusick's
sketches of ancient history of the six nations.
Fayetteville, New York: H. C. Beauchamp. 1892.
https://archive.org/details/cihm_04555
BECKWOURTH, JAMES P., Chief of the Crows.
Life and adventures (1856).
New York: Harper & Brothers. 1858.
https://archive.org/details/lifeadventuresof00beckrich
BENSON, HENRY C.
Life among the Choctaw Indians.
Cincinnati: L. Swormstedt & A. Poe. 1860.
https://archive.org/details/lifeamongchoctaw00bens
BIART, LUCIEN.
The Aztecs, their history, manners and customs (1885);
translated from the French, by J. L. Garner.
Chicago: A. C. McClurg & Co. 1887.
(1919) https://archive.org/details/aztecstheirhist01garngoog
BLACKBIRD, ANDREW J. (MACK-AW-DE-BE-NESSY).
History of the Ottawa and Chippewa Indians of Michigan, a
grammar of their language, etc.
Ypsilanti, Michigan. 1887.
https://archive.org/details/completebothearl01blac
BLAKE, Lady.
The Beothuks of Newfoundland.
(Nineteenth Century, 24: 899. 1888.)
BRETT, Reverend W. H.
The Indian tribes of Guiana.
London: Bell & Daldy. 1868.
https://archive.org/details/indiantribesofgu00bret
BRINTON, DANIEL G., _editor_.
The annals of the Cakchiquels; the original text, with a
translation, notes and introduction.
Philadelphia. 1885.
https://archive.org/details/bp_684862
The Lenâpé and their legends, with the complete text and
symbols of the Walam Olum.
Philadelphia. 1885.
https://archive.org/details/lenptheirleg00brin
_Editor_. The Maya chronicles.
Philadelphia: D. G. Brinton. 1882.
https://archive.org/details/mayachronicles00briniala
Notes on the Floridian peninsula.
Philadelphia: Jos. Sabin. 1859.
https://archive.org/details/notesonfloridia01bringoog
The Shawnees and their migrations.
(Historical magazine, volume. 10, January, 1866.)
BRODHEAD, JOHN Romeyn
History of the state of New York., volume 1.
New York: Harper & Brothers. 1853-71. 2 volumes.
(Volume 1) https://archive.org/details/historyofstateof01brod_0
(Volume 1) https://archive.org/details/documentsrelativ01brod
(Volume 2) https://archive.org/details/documentsrelativ02brod
(Volume 3) https://archive.org/details/documentsrelativ03brod
(Volume 4) https://archive.org/details/documentsrelativ04brod
(Volume 5) https://archive.org/details/documentsrelativ05brod
(Volume 6) https://archive.org/details/documentsrelativ06brod
(Volume 7) https://archive.org/details/documentsrelativ07brod
(Volume 8) https://archive.org/details/documentsrelativ08brod
(Volume 9) https://archive.org/details/documentsrelativ09brod
CASWELL, _Mrs_. HARRIET S.
Our life among the Iroquois Indians.
Boston: Congregational Sunday School and Publishing Society. 1892.
https://archive.org/details/ourlifeamongiroq00caswiala
CATON, JOHN D.
The last of the Illinois, and a sketch of the Pottawatomies
(1870).
(Fergus historical series.)
Chicago: Fergus Printing Company. 1876.
https://archive.org/details/cihm_04014
CLAIBORNE, J. F. H.
Mississippi, as a province, territory and state.
Jackson, Mississippi: Power & Barksdale. 1880. volume 1.
(Volume 1) https://archive.org/details/cu31924028795405
CLARKE, PETER D.
Origin and traditional history of the Wyandotts, etc.
Toronto: Hunter, Rose & Company. 1870.
https://archive.org/details/origintraditiona00clar
COPWAY, GEORGE (KAH-GE-GA-GAH-BOWH), _Chief_.
Traditional history and characteristic sketches of the Ojibway
nation.
London: C. Gilpin. 1850.
https://archive.org/details/traditionalhist00bookgoog
COX, ROSS.
Adventures on the Columbia River.
London. 2 volumes.
New York: J. & J. Harper. 1832.
(Volume 1) https://archive.org/details/adventuresoncolu00coxr
(Volume 1) https://archive.org/details/dli.bengal.10689.7215
(Volume 2) https://archive.org/details/cihm_33605
COZZENS, SAMUEL W.
The marvellous country; or, three years in Arizona and New
Mexico, the Apaches' home (1873).
Boston: Lee & Shepard.
https://archive.org/details/marvellouscountry00cozzrich/page/n9/mode/2up
https://archive.org/details/marvellouscountr00cozz_0
https://archive.org/details/marvellouscountr00cozzrich
CRANTZ, DAVID.
History of Greenland, book 4 (volume 1).
London: 1767. 2 volumes.
(Volume 1) https://archive.org/details/historyofgree01cran
(Volume 2) https://archive.org/details/historyofgreen02cran
CRUISE OF THE REVENUE-STEAMER CORWIN IN ALASKA AND THE North West
ARCTIC OCEAN IN 1881.
Washington. 1883. (H. of Rep's, 47th congress, 2d session.
Ex. doc. 105.)
https://archive.org/details/cruiseofrevenues00muir
CUSHING, FRANK HAMILTON.
My adventures in Zuni.
(Century, volumes 3-4, December, 1882, February, May, 1883.)
https://archive.org/details/zunifolktales00cushrich
(Volume 8) https://archive.org/details/zuibreadstuff00cush/page/n3/mode/2up
https://archive.org/details/zuifetiches00cush/page/n3/mode/2up
https://archive.org/details/cu31924104094010
CUSTER, _General_. G. A.
My life on the plains.
New York: Sheldon & Co. 1874.
https://archive.org/details/mylifeonplainsor00cust
DALL, WILLIAM. H.
Tribes of the extreme northwest.
(United States geography and geology survey.
Contributions to North American ethnology, volume 1.
Washington. 1877.)
https://archive.org/details/tribesextremeno01dallgoog/page/n8/mode/2up
DALTON, HENRY G.
History of British Guiana, volume 1.
London: Longman. 1855. 2 volumes.
(Volume 1) https://archive.org/details/historybritishg02daltgoog
(Volume 2) https://archive.org/details/historybritishg03daltgoog
https://archive.org/details/historybritishg01daltgoog/mode/2up
DEFOREST, JOHN W.
History of the Indians of Connecticut (1853).
Albany: J. Munsell. 1871.
(1851) https://archive.org/details/historyindiansc00darlgoog
(1851) https://archive.org/details/historyindiansc01darlgoog
DENTON, DANIEL.
A brief description of New York; likewise a brief relation of
the customs of the Indians there (1670).
New York: William Gowans. 1845.
https://archive.org/details/briefdescription11dent/page/n13/mode/2up
DOBRIZHOFFER, MARTIN
An account of the Abipones, an equestrian people of Paraguay
(1784); from the Latin.
London: John Murray. 1822. 3 volumes.
(Volume 1) https://archive.org/details/accountofabipone04dobr
(Volume 2) https://archive.org/details/accountofabipone05dobr
(Volume 3) https://archive.org/details/accountofabiponex03dobr
DODGE. J. R.
Red men of the Ohio valley, 1650-1795.
Springfield, Ohio: Ruralist Publishing Company. 1860.
https://archive.org/details/redmenofohiovall00dodg
{xxviii}
DORSEY, JAMES OWEN.
The Biloxi Indians of Louisiana.
Salem. 1893.
https://archive.org/details/dictionaryofbilo0047dors/page/n5/mode/2up
https://archive.org/details/jstor-534279/page/n1/mode/2up
The gentile system of the Siletz tribes.
https://archive.org/details/jstor-532806/page/n1/mode/2up
Migrations of Siouan tribes.
(American Naturalist, volume 20, March, 1886.)
https://archive.org/details/jstor-2449921/page/n1/mode/2up
DUNBAR, J. B.
The Pawnee Indians.
(Magazine of American History, volume 4, April, 1880.)
EASTMAN, _Mrs._ MARY.
Dahcotah; or life and legends of the Sioux around Fort
Snelling.
New York: John Wiley. 1849.
https://archive.org/details/cihm_35037
EELLS, MYRON.
Indians of Puget Sound.
(American Antiquarian, 9: 1,271. 10: 26, 174. 1887-8.)
EGGLESTON, EDWARD, _and_ LILLIE E. SEELYE.
Pocahontas.
New York: Dodd, Mead & Company. [1879.]
https://archive.org/details/pocahontas00seel
GATSCHET, ALBERT S.
The Klamath Indians of southwestern Oregon.
Washington. 1890. 2 volumes.
(United States geographical and geological survey.
Contributions to North American ethnology, volume 2.)
https://archive.org/details/klamathindiansof02gatsuoft
https://archive.org/details/cihm_52744/page/n7/mode/2up
A migration legend of the Creek Indians, with a linguistic,
historic and ethnographic introduction.
Philadelphia: D. G. Brinton. 1884. volume 1.
(Volume 1) https://archive.org/details/cu31924096785484
(Volume 1) https://archive.org/details/migrationcreek00gatsrich
GIBBS, GEORGE.
Tribes of western Washington and northwestern Oregon.
(United States geographical and geological survey.
Contributions to North American ethnology, volume 1.
Washington. 1877.)
https://archive.org/details/cihm_14847/page/n9/mode/2up
https://archive.org/details/tribesextremeno00dallgoog/page/n8/mode/2up
GOOKIN, DANIEL.
Historical account of the doings and sufferings of the
Christian Indians of New England.
(Archæologia Americana, volume 2.
Cambridge: American Antiquarian Society. 1886.)
https://books.google.com/books/about/Historical_Account_of_the_Doings_and_Suf.html?id=Qmhumu27RG0C
Historical collections of the Indians in New England.
(Collections of the Mass. Historical Society, volume 1.
Boston. 1792.)
GRANT, _Mrs_. ANNE (of Laggan).
Memoirs of an American lady [Mrs. Philip Schuyler] (1808).
(Mohawks.) New York.
https://archive.org/details/memoirsanameric03grangoog
GRINNELL, GEORGE BIRD.
Pawnee hero stories and folk-tales, with notes on the origin,
customs and character of the Pawnee people.
New York: Forest and Stream Pub. Company, 1889.
(1893) https://archive.org/details/pawneeherostorie00grinrich/page/n3/mode/2up
GWYTHER, G.
Pueblo Indians.
(Overland Monthly, 6: 260. 1871.)
HALE, HORATIO, _editor_.
The Iroquois book of rites.
Philadelphia: D. G. Brinton. 1883.
https://archive.org/details/cu31924099385514
HARDACRE, EMMA C.
The cliff-dwellers.
(Scribner's Monthly, 17: 266. 1878.)
HAUGHTON, JAMES
Additional memoir of the Moheagans.
(Collections of the Massachusetts Historical Society, volume 9.
Boston. 1804.)
https://archive.org/details/memoirjameshaug00hauggoog
HEALY, _Capt_. M. A.
Report of the cruise of the revenue marine steamer Corwin in
the Arctic Ocean in 1885.
Washington. 1887. (House of Representatives,
49th congress, 1st session. Ex. doc. 153.)
https://archive.org/details/cihm_04426
HEARNE, SAMUEL.
A journey from Hudson's Bay to the Northern Ocean, 1769-72.
London: A. Strahan & T. Cadell. 1795.
https://archive.org/details/journeyfromprin00hear
HECKEWELDER, _Reverend_ JOHN.
History of the manners and customs of the Indian nations
who once inhabited Pennsylvania, etc. (1818; new edition,
with introduction by Reverend William C. Reichel.
Memoirs of the Pennsylvania Historical Society, volume 12.
Philadelphia. 1876).
https://archive.org/details/histmannerscust00heckrich
Narrative of the mission of the United Brethren among
the Delaware and Mohegan Indians, 1740-1808.
Philadelphia: M'Carthy & Davis. 1820.
https://archive.org/details/narrativeofmissi00heck
HENRY, ALEXANDER
Travels and adventures in Canada and the Indian territories,
1760-76.
New York: I. Riley. 1809.
(1809) https://archive.org/details/travelsandadven00henrgoog/page/n8/mode/2up
(1901) https://archive.org/details/travelsadventur00henr
(1901) https://archive.org/details/travelsadventure00henr/page/n7/mode/2up
HILLARD, G. S.
Life of captain John Smith.
(Library of American biography: conducted by Jared Sparks. 1884.
New York: Harper & Brothers. 10 volumes.)
https://archive.org/details/lifeofcaptainjoh00simms
https://archive.org/details/lifecaptainsmith00simmrich
HIND, HENRY YOULE.
Explorations in the interior of the Labrador peninsula; the
country of the Montagnais and Nasquapee Indians.
London: Longman, Green & Company. 1863. 2 volumes.
(Volume 1) https://archive.org/details/cihm_42676
(Volume 2) https://archive.org/details/explorationsinin021863hind
(Volume 2) https://archive.org/details/cihm_42677
Narrative of the Canadian Red River exploring expedition of
1857, and of the Assinniboine and Saskatchewan expedition of 1858.
London: Longman, Green & Company. 1860. 2 volumes.
(Volume 1) https://archive.org/details/cihm_35699
(Volume 2) https://archive.org/details/narrativeofcanad02hind
HOWARD, OLIVER OTIS.
Nez Percé Joseph; an account of his ancestors, his lands, etc.
Boston: Lee & Shepard. 1881.
https://archive.org/details/nezpercejoseph01howa
https://archive.org/details/nezpercejosepha01howagoog
HUBBARD, J. NILES.
An account of Sa·go-ye-wat·ha, or Red Jacket and his people,
1750-1830.
Albany: Joel Munsell's Sons. 1886.
https://archive.org/details/accountofsagoyew00hubbuoft
HUNTER, JOHN D.
Manners and customs of several Indian tribes located west of
the Mississippi.
Philadelphia. 1823.
https://archive.org/details/mannerscustoms00huntrich
Memoirs of a captivity among the Indians.
London: Longman. 1824.
https://archive.org/details/memoirsacaptivi01huntgoog
https://archive.org/details/in.ernet.dli.2015.82979
HURT, Dr. GARLAND.
Indians of Utah. (Simpson's Report of explorations, 1850.
Washington. 1876.)
HUTCHINSON, THOMAS. J.
The Parana.
London: Edward Stanford. 1868.
https://archive.org/details/paranwithincide00hutcgoog
IM THURN, EVERARD FERDINAND.
Among the Indians of Guiana.
London: Kegan Paul, Trench & Company. 1883.
https://archive.org/details/amongindiansgui00thurgoog
IRVING, JOHN TREAT.
Indian sketches taken during a United States expedition to
make treaties with the Pawnee and other tribes of Indians in
1833 (1833).
New York. G. P. Putnam's Sons. 1888.
(Volume 1) https://archive.org/details/indiansketchest01irvigoog
(Volume 2) https://archive.org/details/GR_2157-2
https://archive.org/details/indiansketchesta00irvirich/page/ii/mode/2up
JAMES, EDWIN, _comp_.
Account of an expedition from Pittsburgh to the Rocky
Mountains., 1819-20, under command of Major Long.
Philadelphia: Carey & Lea. 1823. 2 volumes, with atlas.
(Volume 1) https://archive.org/details/accountofexpedit01jame
(Volume 2) https://archive.org/details/account02ofexpeditjame
JEWITT, JOHN R.
Narrative of adventures and sufferings among the Indians of
Nootka Sound.
Ithaca, New York: Andrus, Gauntlett & Company. 1851.
https://archive.org/details/narrativeofadven00jewi
JOGUES PAPERS, THE (1642-6);
translated, with a memoir, by J. G. Shea.
(Collections of the New York Historical Society,
2d series, volume 3. New York, 1857.)
JOHNSON, ELIAS, _Tuscarora chief_.
Legends, traditions and laws of the Iroquois or six
nations, and history of the Tuscarora Indians.
Lockport. 1881.
https://archive.org/details/cihm_24792
https://archive.org/details/bp_583763/page/3/mode/2up
JONES, _Reverend_ PETER (KAHKEWAQUONABY).
History of the Ojebway Indians.
London: A. W. Bennett. 1861.
https://archive.org/details/historyofojebway00jone
KEATING, WILLIAM H., _comp._
Narrative of an expedition to the source of St. Peter's River,
Lake Winnepeek, &c., in 1823, under command of Major Long.
Philadelphia: Carey & Lea. 1824. 2 volumes.
(Volume 1) https://archive.org/details/narrativeofexped01keat
https://archive.org/details/narrativeofanexp010860mbp/page/n7/mode/2up
KETCHUM, WILLIAM.
Authentic and comprehensive history of Buffalo, with some
account of its early inhabitants; comprising historic notices
of the six nations [Senecas, chiefly].
Buffalo: Rockwell, Baker & Hill. 1864. 2 volumes.
(Volume 1) https://archive.org/details/anauthenticandc01ketcgoog
(Volume 1) https://archive.org/details/anauthenticandc00ketcgoog
(Volume 2) https://archive.org/details/authenticcompreh02ketc
KIDDER, FREDERIC.
The Abenaki Indians. (Collections of the Main Historical
Society., volume 6. Portland: 1859.)
https://archive.org/details/abenakiindiansw00kiddgoog
https://archive.org/details/cihm_36479
KIP, _Reverend_. WILLIAM INGRAHAM, _compo. and translator._
The early Jesuit missions in North America; from the letters
of the Fr. Jesuits, with notes.
New York: Wiley & Putnam. 1846. 2 volumes.
Albany: J. Munsell. 1873.
https://archive.org/details/earlyjesuitmissi00kip
https://archive.org/details/earlyjesuitmissi00kipwrich
KOHL, J. G.
Kitchi-gami; wanderings round Lake Superior [translated from
the German]. [Ojibbewas.] London: Chapman & Hall. 1860.
https://archive.org/details/kitchigamiwander00kohl/page/n7/mode/2up
LA ROCHEFOUCAULT LIANCOURT, _Duc de_.
Travels through the United States, the country of the Iroquois
and upper Canada, 1795-7.
London. 1799.
(Volume 1) https://archive.org/details/travelsthroughun01larorich
LE CLERCQ, Father CHRISTIAN.
First establishment of the faith in New France (1691); now
first translation, with notes, by John G. Shea.
New York: J. G. Shea. 1881. 2 volumes.
(Volume 1) https://archive.org/details/firstestablishme01lecl
(Volume 2) https://archive.org/details/firstestablishme02lecl
LEWIS AND CLARKE.
Journal to the Rocky Mountains., 1804-6, as related by Patrick
Gass (1807).
Dayton: Ells, Claflin & Company. 1847.
https://archive.org/details/lewisclarksjourn00gassrich
LORD, JOHN K.
The naturalist in Vancouver's Island and British Columbia,
volume 2.
London: Richard Bentley. 1866. 2 volumes.
(Volume 1) https://archive.org/details/naturalistinvanc01lord
(Volume 2) https://archive.org/details/naturalistinvanc00lord
LOSKIEL, GEORGE HENRY.
History of the mission of the United Brethren among the Indians
of North America; translated from the German by C. I. La Trobe.
London 1794.
https://archive.org/details/historyofmiss00losk
https://archive.org/details/historyofmission01losk
LUMMIS, CHARLES. F.
The land of poco tiempo [New Mexico].
New York: Charles Scribner's Sons. 1893.
https://archive.org/details/cu31924028915036
McKENNA, J. A. J.
Indians of Canada.
(Catholic World, 53: 350. 1891.)
McKENNEY, THOMAS. L.
Sketches of a tour to the lakes [1826],
the Chippeway Indians, etc.
Baltimore: F. Lucas, Jr. 1827.
https://archive.org/details/sketchesatourto01mckegoog
MARCY, Colonel R. B.
Thirty years of army life on the border.
New York: Harper & Brothers. 1866.
https://archive.org/details/thirtyyearsofarm01marc
MARCY, Colonel. R. B., and GEORGE. D. McCLELLAN.
Exploration of the Red River of Louisiana In 1852.
[Comanches and Kiowas.]
Washington. 1854. (House of Representatives, 33d congress,
1st session Ex. doc)
https://archive.org/details/explorationredr00mcclgoog
MARSHALL, ORSAMUS H.
Historical writings relating to the early history of the west;
with introduction by William L. Stone.
Albany: Joel Munsell's Sons. 1887.
https://archive.org/details/historicalwritin01mars
https://archive.org/details/historicalwriti00marsgoog/page/n21/mode/2up
https://archive.org/details/cihm_09926
The Niagara frontier; read before the Buffalo Historical Club.
February 27, 1865. [Buffalo: The author.]
https://archive.org/details/niagarafrontiere00mars/page/n5/mode/2up
https://archive.org/details/cihm_40160
MATTHEWS, WASHINGTON.
Ethnography and philology of the Hidatsa Indians.
Washington. 1877.
(United States geographical and geological survey.
F. V. Hayden in charge: miscellaneous publications. No.7.)
https://archive.org/details/ethnographyandp00mattgoog
https://archive.org/details/ethnographyandp01mattgoog
https://archive.org/details/ethnographyphilo00mattrich
https://archive.org/details/rosettaproject_hid_morsyn-2
MEGAPOLENSIS, J., _Jr_.
Short sketch of the Mohawk Indians in New Netherland (1644);
translated, revised, with an introduction, by J. H. Brodhead.
(Collections of the New York Historical Society. 2d series,
volume 3.
New York. 1857.)
MEMOIR OF THE PEQUOTS, etc.
(Collections of the Massachusetts Historical Society.,
volume 10. Boston. 1800.)
MILLER, JOAQUIN.
Unwritten history; life amongst the Modocs.
Hartford: American Pub. Company. 1874.
https://archive.org/details/amongstthemodocs00millrichs://archive.org/details/unwrittenhist00millrich
https://archive.org/details/unwrittenhist00millrich
MILLER. WILLIAM. J.
Notes concerning the Wampanoag tribe of Indians.
Providence: S. S. Rider. 1880.
https://archive.org/details/notesconcerningw00mill/page/n5/mode/2up
{xxix}
MINER, LEWIS H.
The valley of Wyoming.
New York: Robert H. Johnston & Company. 1866.
https://archive.org/details/valleywyomingro00minegoog
https://archive.org/details/valleyofwyomingr00mine
MÖLLHAUSEN, BALDWIN.
Diary of a journey from the Mississippi to the coasts of the
Pacific, with a United States government expedition [1853-4];
translated by Mrs. Percy Sinnett.
London: Longman. 1858. 2 volumes.
(Volume 1) https://archive.org/details/diaryajourneyfr00sinngoog/page/n10/mode/2up
(Volume 2) https://archive.org/details/Diaryjourneyfro11Moll
MORELET, ARTHUR.
Travels in Central America; translated from the French by
Mrs. M. F. Squier; introduction by M. G. Squier.
London: Trübner & Company. 1871.
New York: Henry Holt & Company. 1871.
https://archive.org/details/travelsincentra00moregoog
MORGAN, LEWIS H.
League of the Ho-dé-no-sau-nee, or Iroquois.
Rochester: Sage & Brother. 1851.
https://archive.org/details/leagueofhodnos00inmorg
(2 volumes, 1922) https://archive.org/details/hodenosaunee00morgrich
https://archive.org/details/leagueofhodnos00inmorg
Report on the fabrics, inventions, implements and utensils of
the Iroquois, made to the regents of the university [of New
York.], 1851.
NEW YORK STATE.
Commissioners of Indian affairs, for the extinguishment of
Indian titles. Proceedings, with introduction and notes by
F. B. Hough.
Albany: Joel Munsell. 1861. 2 volumes.
(Volume 1) https://archive.org/details/proceedingsofcom01newy
(Volume 1) https://archive.org/details/proceedingsofcom01newy_0
https://archive.org/details/bp_616923/page/n3/mode/2up
Regents of the university. Annual reports on the condition of
the state cabinet of natural history and the historical and
antiquarian collection.
Albany.
Special committee to Investigate the Indian problem.
Report. Albany. 1889.
NORMAN, B. M.
Rambles in Yucatan; including a visit to the remarkable ruins
of Chi-Chen, Kabah, Zayi, and Uxmal.
New York: J. & H. G. Langley. 1842.
https://archive.org/details/ramblesinyucatan00norm
NUTTALL, THOMAS.
Journal of travels into the Arkansa territory, 1819.
Philadelphia. T. H. Palmer. 1821.
https://archive.org/details/journaloftravels00nutt
https://archive.org/details/journaloftravels00nutt_0
OBER, F. A.
Acoma, a picturesque pueblo.
(American architect, 29: 65. 1890.)
PALFREY, JOHN GORHAM.
Compendious history of New England. 1494-1775 (1884). volume 1.
Boston: Houghton, Mifflin & Company. 4 volumes.
https://archive.org/details/historynewengla23palfgoog
(Volume 1) https://archive.org/details/compendioushisto01palfuoft
(Volume 2) https://archive.org/details/compendioushisto02palfuoft
(Volume 3) https://archive.org/details/compendioushisto03palfuoft
(Volume 4) https://archive.org/details/compendioushisto04palfuoft
PIDGEON, WILLIAM.
Traditions of De-coo-dah, comprising extensive explorations,
surveys and excavations of the remains of the mound builders in
America. (1853).
New York: Horace Thayer. 1858.
https://archive.org/details/traditionsofdeco00inpidg
POWERS, STEPHEN.
Tribes of California.
Washington. 1877.
(United States geographical and geological survey,
Contributions to North American ethnology, volume 3.)
https://archive.org/details/tribescaliforni00powegoog/page/n9/mode/2up
RAE, J.
Indians of Hudson's Bay territories.
(Journal of the Society of Arts, 30: 483. 1882.)
REPORT OF THE INTERNATIONAL POLAR EXPEDITION TO POINT BARROW,
ALASKA [1881-2].
Washington. 1885. (House of Representatives, 48th congress,
2d session Ex. doc. 44.)
https://archive.org/details/reportofpolar00inteuoft
RIGGS, _Reverend_ Dr. STEPHEN R.
Mary and I; forty years with the Sioux.
Chicago: W. G. Holmes. 1880.
https://archive.org/details/maryandifortyyea00riggrich
RINK, Dr. HENRY.
The Eskimo tribes; their distribution and characteristics,
with a comparative vocabulary (volume 11 of the "Middelelser
om Gronland").
Copenhagen: C. A. Reitzel.
London: Williams & Norgate. 1887.
https://archive.org/details/eskimotribesthei00rinkrich
Tales and traditions of the Eskimo, with a sketch of their
habits, religions, language, etc. (1866-71); translated from
the Danish by the author, edited by Dr. R. Brown.
Edinburgh: William Blackwood & Sons. 1875.
https://archive.org/details/talestraditionso01rink
RONAN, PETER.
Historical sketch of the Flathead Indian nation, 1813-1890.
Helena: Journal Publishing Company. 1800.
https://archive.org/details/historicalsketch00ronarich
RONDTHALER, _Reverend_ EDWARD.
Life of John Heckewelder;
edited by B. H. Coates.
Philadelphia: T. Ward. 1847.
https://archive.org/details/lifeofjohnheckew00rondt
RUTTENBER. E. M.
History of the Indian tribes of Hudson's River: their origin,
manners, etc.
Albany: J. Munsell. 1872.
https://archive.org/details/ruttenberindians00ruttrich
SCHERMERHORN, J. F.
Report, on the western Indians.
(Collections of the Massachusetts Historical Society.,
2d series, volume 2.
Boston. 1814.)
https://archive.org/details/correctviewoftha00sche
SCHOOLCRAFT, HENRY R.
Notes on the Iroquois.
Albany: E. H. Pease & Company. 1847.
Personal memoirs of a residence of thirty years with
the Indian tribes on the American frontiers, 1-12-1842 (1831).
Philadelphia: J. B. Lippincott & Company.
http://www.fullbooks.com/Personal-Memoirs-Of-A-Residence-Of-Thirty.html
SCHWEINITZ, EDMUND DE.
Life and times of David Zeisberger, apostle of the Indians.
Philadelphia: J. B. Lippincott & Company. 1870.
https://archive.org/details/cihm_26078
SEAVER, JAS. E.
Life of Mary Jemison: Deh-he-wä-mis (1842).
New York: Miller, Orton & Mulligan. 1856.
(1918) https://archive.org/details/narrativeoflifeo00seavuoft
SHEA, J. G.
Inquiries respecting the lost neutral nation.
(Schoolcraft's Information respecting the Indian tribes, part. 4.)
See SCHOOLCRAFT, HENRY R.
SHELDON, WILLIAM.
Account of the Caraibs.
(Archæologia Americana, volume 1.
Worcester: American Antiquarian Society. 1820.)
SIMPSON, JAMES H.
Journal of a military reconnoissance from Santa Fe to the
Navajo country, 1840. [Navajos and Pueblos.]
Philadelphia: Lippincott, Grambo & Company. 1852.
https://archive.org/details/journalamilitar00simpgoog
The shortest route to California, with some account
of the Indian tribes [of Utah].
Philadelphia: J. B. Lippincott & Company. 1860.
https://archive.org/details/shortestroutetoc00simp
SITGREAVES, _Capt_. L.
Report of an expedition down the Zuni and Colorado rivers.
Washington, 1854.
(Senate ex. doc's, 33d congress, 1st session.)
https://archive.org/details/reportanexpidit00sitggoog
https://archive.org/details/reportanexpedit00engigoog
SKENANDOAH.
Letters on the Iroquois; addressed to Albert Gallatin.
(Reprinted in volume 2 of Craig's "The olden time."
Pittsburgh: Wright & Charlton. 1848. 2 volumes.)
SMET, _Father_ P. J. DE.
Letters and sketches, with a narrative of a year's residence
among the Indian tribes of the Rocky Mountains.
Philadelphia: M. Fithian. 1843.
https://archive.org/details/letterssketchesw00smet
Oregon missions and travels over the Rocky Mountains. 1845-6.
New York: Edward Dunigan. 1847.
https://archive.org/details/cihm_40687
Western missions and missionaries.
New York: T. W. Strong. 1859.
https://archive.org/details/westernmissionsm01smet/page/n7/mode/2up
https://archive.org/details/westernmissionsm0000smet/page/n3/mode/2up
https://archive.org/details/westernmissionsa00smetrich
SMITH, Capt. JOHN.
Description of Virginia. General historie of Virginia. (Works,
1608-1631); edited by E. Arber, Birmingham. 1884.
SPRAGUE, JOHN T.
The origin, progress, and conclusion of the Florida war.
New York: D. Appleton & Company. 1843.
https://archive.org/details/originprogressa03spragoog
Historical and mythological traditions of the Algonquins, with
a translation of the "Walumolum."
(New York Historical Society.)
STONE, WILLIAM L.
Life and times of Sa-go-ye-wat-ha, or Red Jacket (1841).
Albany: J. Munsell. 1866.
https://archive.org/details/lifeandtimessag01stongoog
Life of Joseph Brant--Thayendanegea (1838).
Albany: J. Munsell. 1865. 2 volumes.
(Volume 1) https://archive.org/details/lifeofjosephbran01ston
(Volume 2) https://archive.org/details/lifejosephbrant03stongoog
STRACHEY, WILLIAM.
Historie of travaile into Virginia Britannia. (1618?).
London: Hakluyt Society. 1849.
https://archive.org/details/historietravail00majogoog
SWAN, JAMES G.
The Haidah Indians of Queen Charlotte's Islands (1874).
(Smithsonian contributions to knowledge, volume 21.
Washington. 1876.)
https://archive.org/details/haidahindians00swanrich
https://archive.org/details/cihm_23957
The Indians of Cape Flattery, Washington Territory. (1868).
(Smithsonian contributions to knowledge, volume 16.
Washington. 1870.)
https://archive.org/details/indianscapeflatt00swanrich
https://archive.org/details/b21914084
The northwest coast;
or three years [1852-5] in Washington Territory.
New York: Harper & Brothers. 1857.
https://archive.org/details/northwestcoastor00swan
SULLIVAN, _Honorable_ JAMES.
History of the Penobscott Indians.
(Collections of the Massachusetts Historical Society.,
volume 9. Boston. 1804.)
VETROMILE, EUGENE.
The Abnaki Indians.
(Collections of the Maine Historical Society., volume 6.
Portland. 1859.)
https://archive.org/details/abnakisandtheir00vetrgoog
The Abnakis and their history.
New York: J. B. Kirker. 1866.
https://archive.org/details/abnakistheirhist00vetr
WILLIAMSON, WILLIAM. D.
Indian tribes in New England (1839)
(Collections of the Massachusetts Historical Society.,
3d series, volume 9. 1846.)
WILLIS, WILLIAM.
The language of the Abnaquies or eastern Indians: appendix by
C. E. Potter. (Collections of the Maine Historical Society,
volume 4.
Portland. 1856.)
WILSON, DANIEL.
The Huron-Iroquois of Canada.
(Translation Royal Society, Canada. 1884.)
https://archive.org/details/cihm_29131/page/n5/mode/2up
ZEISBERGER, DAVID, _Moravian Missionary, Ohio._
Diary [1781-1798]; translated from the German and
edited by E. F. Bliss.
Cincinnati: Robert Clarke & Company. 1885. 2 volumes.
(Volume 1) https://archive.org/details/diaryofdavid01zeisrich
(Volume 2) https://archive.org/details/diaryofdavid02zeisrich
ZYLYFF.
The Ponca chiefs, an Indian's attempt to appeal from the
tomahawk to the courts; with introduction by Inshtatheamba
(Bright Eyes), and dedication by Wendell Phillips.
Boston: Lockwood, Brooks & Company. 1880.
https://archive.org/details/poncachiefsanin01tibbgoog
AUSTRIA.
GENERAL.
BRYCE, JAMES.
The holy Roman empire (1864).
London: Macmillan & Company.
(1915) https://archive.org/details/in.ernet.dli.2015.213191
COXE, WILLIAM.
History of the house of Austria, 1218-1792 (1807).
London: H. G. Bohn. 3 volumes.
(Volume 1) https://archive.org/details/historyofhouseof01coxeuoft
(Volume 2) https://archive.org/details/historyofhouseof02coxeiala
(Volume 2) https://archive.org/details/historyofhouseof02coxeuoft
(Volume 3) https://archive.org/details/historyofhouseof03coxeuoft
(Volume 2) https://archive.org/details/in.ernet.dli.2015.458810
DUNHAM, S. A.
History of the Germanic empire.
London: Longman. 1834. 3 volumes.
(Volume 1) https://archive.org/details/historyofgermani01dunhiala/page/n5/mode/2up
(Volume 2) https://archive.org/details/historyofgermani02dunhiala/page/n9/mode/2up
(Volume 3) https://archive.org/details/historyofgermani03dunhiala/page/n7/mode/2up
DYER, THOMAS HENRY.
History of modern Europe, 1453-1857.
London: John Murray, 4 volumes; George Bell & Sons. 4 volumes.
(Volume 1) https://archive.org/details/historyofmodern01dyer
(Volume 2) https://archive.org/details/in.ernet.dli.2015.40858
FREEMAN, EDWARD A.
The historical geography of Europe.
London: Longmans, Green & Company. 1881. 2 volumes.
https://archive.org/details/b31349638
(Volume 1) https://archive.org/details/historicalgeog01free
(Volume 1) https://archive.org/details/historicalgeogra01freeuoft
(Volume 1) https://archive.org/details/historicalgeogra01free
(Volume 2) https://archive.org/details/historicalgeogra02freeuoft
{xxxi}
GOULD, S. BARING.
GOULD, S. BARING-GOULD.
The story of Germany (Story of the nations).
London: T. F. Unwin.
New York: G. P. Putnam's Sons. 1886.
https://archive.org/details/storyofgermany00bari/page/n11/mode/2up
HEEREN, A. H. L.
A manual of the history of the political system of Europe and
its colonies (1809); translated from the German.
London: H. G. Bohn.
(Volume 2) https://archive.org/details/in.ernet.dli.2015.501449/page/n1/mode/2up
https://archive.org/details/manualofhistoryo00heerrich
https://archive.org/details/manual00ofhistoryoheerrich
KOCH, CHRISTOPHER WILLIAM.
The revolutions of Europe (1771);
from the French.
London: Whittaker & Company. 1839.
https://archive.org/details/revolutionseurop00koch
KOHLRAUSCH, FRIEDRICH.
History of Germany (1816); [translated by J. D. Haas].
London: Chapman & Hall. 1844.
https://archive.org/details/ahistorygermany00haasgoog
New York: Appleton. 1845.
https://archive.org/details/ahistorygermany00haasgoog
LATHAM, ROBERT. G.
Ethnology of Europe.
London: J. Van Voorst. 1852.
https://archive.org/details/ethnologyofeurop00lathuoft/page/n5/mode/2up
The nationalities of Europe. volume 2.
London: W. H. Allen & Company. 1863. 2 volumes.
(Volume 2) https://archive.org/details/in.ernet.dli.2015.31028
LAVISSE, ERNEST.
General view of the political history of Europe;
translated by Charles Gross.
London: Longmans, Green & Company. 1891.
https://archive.org/details/generalviewofpol00laviiala
https://archive.org/details/generalviewofpol00lavi
https://archive.org/details/generalviewpoli01grosgoog
LEGER, LOUIS.
History of Austro-Hungary (1666; 2d edition., 1878-88);
translated by Mrs. Birkbeck Hill.
London: Rivingtons.
New York: G. P. Putnam's Sons.
https://archive.org/details/historyofaustroh00lege
https://archive.org/details/ahistoryaustroh00hillgoog
LEWIS, CHARLTON T.
History of Germany.
New York: Harper & Brothers. 1874.
https://archive.org/details/historyofgermany00lewi
https://archive.org/details/ahistorygermany00unkngoog
LODGE, RICHARD.
History of modern Europe, 1453-1878.
London: J. Murray. 1885.
New York: Harper Brothers.
https://archive.org/details/historyofmoderne00lodguoft
https://archive.org/details/historyofmoderne017244mbp
https://archive.org/details/cu31924027987092
MALLESON, G. B.
Lost opportunities of the house of Austria
(Royal Historical Society Papers, volume 12, page 225).
MENZEL, WOLFGANG.
History of Germany (1824-5);
translated from 4th German edition by Mrs. G. Horrocks.
London: H. G. Bohn. 1848. 3 volumes.
(Volume 1) https://archive.org/details/historyofgermany01menzuoft
(Volume 2) https://archive.org/details/historyofgermany02menzuoft
(Volume 3) https://archive.org/details/historyofgermany03menzuoft
(Volume 1) https://archive.org/details/historygermanyf00menzgoog
MICHELET, JULES.
A summary of modern history (1827);
translated and continued by M. C. M. Simpson.
London: Macmillan & Co. 1875.
https://archive.org/details/asummarymodernh00michgoog
https://archive.org/details/summaryofmodernh00michuoft
RUSSELL, WILLIAM.
History of modern Europe (1779).
London: George Routledge & Sons. 4 volumes.
Whittaker & Company. 4 volume
New York: Harper Brothers. 3 volumes.
(Volume 3) https://archive.org/details/historymoderneu01jonegoog
(Epitomized) https://archive.org/details/russellshistory00russgoog/page/n6/mode/2up
SIME, JAMES.
History of Germany.
London: Macmillan & Company. 1874.
New York: Henry Holt & Co. 1874.
https://archive.org/details/historyofgermany00simerich
https://archive.org/details/historygermany00simegoog
https://archive.org/details/historyofgermany0000unse_n7z0/page/n7/mode/2up
https://archive.org/details/historyofgermany00sime
https://archive.org/details/historyofgermany00simeuoft
SMYTH, WILLIAM.
Lectures on modern history (1840).
London: H. G. Bohn. 2 volumes.
(Volume 1) https://archive.org/details/dli.bengal.10689.3073
(Volume 2) https://archive.org/details/dli.bengal.10689.2173
TURNER, SAMUEL EPES.
Sketch of the Germanic constitution from early times to the
dissolution of the empire.
New York: G. P. Putnam's Sons. 1888.
https://archive.org/details/asketchgermanic01turngoog
VOLTAIRE, F. M. AROUET DE.
Annals of the empire, from the time of Charlemagne
(Works, translated by Smollett and others, 1761, volumes 20-22).
(Volume 1) https://archive.org/details/annalsoftheempir01voltuoft
MEDIÆVAL.
BUSK, Mrs. WILLIAM.
Mediæval popes, emperors, kings and crusaders.
London: Hookham & Sons. 1854-6. 4 volumes.
(Volume 1) https://archive.org/details/medivalpopesem01buskuoft
(Volume 1) https://archive.org/details/medivalpopesemp01buskgoog
(Volume 2) https://archive.org/details/medivalpopesem02buskuoft
(Volume 2) https://archive.org/details/MediaevalPopesEmperorsKingsCrusadersV2
(Volume 3) https://archive.org/details/medivalpopesemp00buskgoog
(Volume 3) https://archive.org/details/medivalpopesem03buskuoft
(Volume 4) https://archive.org/details/medivalpopesem04buskuoft
(Volume 4) https://archive.org/details/MediaevalPopesEmperorsKingsCrusadersV4
COMYN, _Sir_ ROBERT.
History of the western empire, from Charlemagne to Charles V.
[800-1520],
London: W. H. Allen & Company. 1841. 2 volumes.
(Volume 1) https://archive.org/details/historywesterne01unkngoog
(Volume 1) https://archive.org/details/historywesterne02unkngoog/page/n7/mode/2up
DURUY, VICTOR.
The history of the middle ages (1839);
translated by E. H. and M. D. Whitney, with notes and
revisions by G. B. Adams.
New York: Henry Holt & Company. 1891.
https://archive.org/details/historyofmiddlea00dur
https://archive.org/details/historyofmiddlea00duru
https://archive.org/details/historyofmiddlea00duruuoft
https://archive.org/details/in.ernet.dli.2015.169467
HALLAM, HENRY.
View of the state of Europe during the middle ages.
London: J. Murray. 3 volumes.
New York: W. J. Widdleton. 3 volumes.
(Volume 1) https://archive.org/details/viewofstateofe01hall
(Volume 1) https://archive.org/details/viewofstateofeur01hall
(Volume 2) https://archive.org/details/viewofstateofeur02hall
(Volume 3) https://archive.org/details/viewofstateofeur03hall
https://archive.org/details/cu31924027794654/page/n3/mode/2up
HENDERSON, ERNEST F.,
Select historical documents of the middle ages.
London: George Bell & Sons. 1892.
New York: Macmillan & Company.
https://archive.org/details/selecthistorical00hendiala
https://archive.org/details/ErnestF.HendersonSelectHistoricalDocumentsOfTheMiddleAges
https://archive.org/details/cu31924014186161
https://archive.org/details/selectdocuments00hend
https://archive.org/details/cu31924014186526
STUBBS, WILLIAM.
Seventeen lectures on the study of medieval and modern history.
Oxford: Clarendon Press. 1886.
New York: MacMillan & Company. 1887.
https://archive.org/details/seventeenlecture00stub
https://archive.org/details/cu31924027811011
The Constitutional History of England in Its Origin and Development
https://archive.org/details/constitutionalh04stubgoog
The Early Plantagenets
https://archive.org/details/earlyplantagenet01stub
16TH-17TH CENTURIES.
REFORMATION.
THIRTY YEARS WAR.
CUST, _Sir_ EDWARD,
Lives of the warriors of the thirty years' war.
London: John Murray. 1865. 2 volumes.
(Volume 1) https://archive.org/details/livesofwarriorspt1custuoft/page/n3/mode/2up
(Volume 2) https://archive.org/details/livesofwarriorspt2custuoft
GARDINER, SAMUEL R.
The thirty years' war, 1618-1648 (Epochs of history).
London: Longmans, Green & Company. 1874.
New York: Charles Scribner's Sons.
https://archive.org/details/gardinersamuel00rawsrich
https://archive.org/details/thirtyyearswar00gardgoog
https://archive.org/details/thirtyyearswar1600gard
https://archive.org/details/thirtyyearswar1600
GINDELY, ANTON.
History of the thirty years' war (1869-80):
translated by A. Ten Brook.
London: Richard Bentley & Son.
New York: G. P. Putnam's Sons. 1884. 2 volumes.
(Volume 1) https://archive.org/details/historythirtyye01broogoog
MALDEN, HENRY E.
Vienna, 1683.
London: Kegan Paul & Company. 1883.
MARTIN, HENRI.
History of France: age of Louis XIV.(1860);
translated by Mrs. Booth.
Boston: Walker, Wise & Company. 2 volumes.
(Volume 1) https://archive.org/details/bub_gb_nW0PAAAAYAAJ
(Volume 2) https://archive.org/details/bub_gb_T30PAAAAYAAJ
MAXWELL, _Sir_ WILLIAM STIRLING.
Don John of Austria, 1547-78.
London: Longmans, Green & Company. 1883. 2 volumes.
(Volume 1) https://archive.org/details/donjohnofaustria01stiriala
(Volume 2) https://archive.org/details/donjohnofaustria02stiruoft
MITCHELL, Lieut.-Colonel J.
Life of Wallenstein.
London: Jas. Fraser. 1837.
https://archive.org/details/dli.granth.94161
PRAET, JULES VAN.
Essays on the political history of the 15th, 16th and 17th
centuries; [translated] edited by Sir Edmund Head.
London: Richard Bentley. 1868.
https://archive.org/details/dli.granth.77834
RANKE, LEOPOLD VON.
Ferdinand I. and Maximilian II. of Austria (1832);
translated by Lady Duff Gordon.
London: Longman.
(1853) https://archive.org/details/FerdinandIAndMaximilianIIOfAustria/page/n5/mode/2up
History of the Latin and Teutonic nations, 1494-1514 (1824);
translated from the German by Philip A. Ashworth.
London: George Bell & Sons. 1887.
(1887) https://archive.org/details/historyoflatinte01rank
(1909) https://archive.org/details/historyoflatinte00rankiala
(1915) https://archive.org/details/historyoflatinte00rankrich
History of the reformation in Germany (1839-43);
translated by Sarah Austin.
London: Longman. 1845-7. 3 volumes.
(1905) https://archive.org/details/historyreformat02rankgoog/page/n6/mode/2up
ROBERTSON, WILLIAM.
History of the reign of the emperor Charles V. (1769); with
life of the emperor after his abdication, by W. H. Prescott
(1857).
London: George Routledge & Sons. 2 volumes.
(Volume 1)https://archive.org/details/historyreignemp42robegoog
(Volume 1) https://archive.org/details/historyofreign01robe
(Volume 2) https://archive.org/details/reignofemperorch02robe
https://archive.org/details/historyreignemp27robegoog/page/n10/mode/2up
Philadelphia: J. B. Lippincott Co. 3 volumes.
(Volume 1) https://archive.org/details/historyofreignof1864robe
(Volume 2) https://archive.org/details/historyofreignof02robe
(Volume 3) https://archive.org/details/historyofreignof03robe
New York: Hopkins & Seymore
(Volume 1) https://archive.org/details/historyofreignof01robguat/page/n11/mode/2up
(Volume 3) https://archive.org/details/historyofreignof03roguat/page/n11/mode/2up
https://archive.org/details/historyreignemp32robegoog/page/n6/mode/2up
(Complete) https://archive.org/details/historyofreignof00roberich
TRENCH, RICHARD C.
Gustavus Adolphus in Germany.
London: Macmillan & Company, 2d edition. 1872.
(Volume 1)https://archive.org/details/historyreignemp27robegoog/page/n10/mode/2up
18TH CENTURY.
BRACKENBURY. _Colonel_. C. B.
Frederick the great.
New York: G. P. Putnam's Sons. 1884.
https://archive.org/details/frederickgreat00bracrich
BROGLIE, Duc de.
Frederick the great and Maria Theresa (1882);
translated by Mrs. Hoey and J. Lillie.
London: Low, Marston & Company. 2 volumes.
(Volume 1) https://archive.org/details/frederickgreatma01brogiala
(Volume 2) https://archive.org/details/frederickgreatma02brogiala
CARLYLE, THOMAS.
History of Friedrich II. of Prussia, called Frederick the
great (1858).
London: Chapman & Hall.
(Volume 2) https://archive.org/details/historyfriedric37carlgoog
(Volume 3) https://archive.org/details/historyfriedric27carlgoog
(Volume 4) https://archive.org/details/historyfriedric47carlgoog
(Volume 5) https://archive.org/details/historyfriedric57carlgoog
New York: Harper & Brothers.
(Books 1-5) https://archive.org/details/historyoffriedri01carl
(Books 8-10) https://archive.org/details/friedrichiiofpru03carl
(Books 15-17) https://archive.org/details/historyfriedric47carlgoog
New York: Dana Estes and Charles E. Lauriat
(Volume 1) https://archive.org/details/historyoffriedri01carl/page/n7/mode/2up
(Volume 2) https://archive.org/details/historyoffriedri02carl
(Volume 3) https://archive.org/details/historyoffriedri03carl
(Volume 4) https://archive.org/details/historyoffriedri04carl
(Volume 5) https://archive.org/details/historyoffriedri05carl
(Volume 6) https://archive.org/details/historyoffriedri06carl
New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons
(Volume 4) https://archive.org/details/historyfriedric54carlgoog/page/n12/mode/2up
(Volume 7) https://archive.org/details/historyfriedric51carlgoog/page/n8/mode/2up
Leipzig: Bernard Tauchnitz
(Volume 8) https://archive.org/details/historyfriedric10carlgoog
CUST, _Sir_ Edward.
Annals of the wars of the eighteenth century.
London: John Murray. 1862. 5 volumes.
(Volume 1) https://archive.org/details/annalswarseight05custgoog
(Volume 2) https://archive.org/details/annalswarseight00custgoog/page/n4/mode/2up
(Volume 3) https://archive.org/details/annalswarseight03custgoog
(Volume 4) https://archive.org/details/annalswarseight04custgoog
(Volume 5) https://archive.org/details/dli.granth.106238/page/n1/mode/2up
DOVER, _Lord_.
Life of Frederick II., King of Prussia.
London: Longman. 1831.
New York: Harper & Brothers. 2 volumes.
(Volume 1) https://archive.org/details/lifeoffredericse01doveuoft
(Volume 2) https://archive.org/details/lifefredericsec08dovegoog/page/n8/mode/2up
FREDERICK II. (called the great).
History of my own times [1740-1745].
(Posthumous works; translated by Thomas Holcroft. Volume 1.
London. 1789. 13 volumes.)
(Part 1) https://archive.org/details/vol2historyofmyo00fred
(Part 2) https://archive.org/details/vol3historyofmyo00fred
See CARLYLE, THOMAS for mant other volumes.
GERARD, JAMES W.
The peace of Utrecht, 1713-14.
New York: G. P. Putnam's Sons. 1885.
https://archive.org/details/cu31924027872021
https://archive.org/details/peaceutrechtahi00geragoog
KUGLER, FRANCIS.
Pictorial history of Germany during the reign of Frederick the
great (1842); [translated from the German.].
London: H. G. Bohn.
https://archive.org/details/pictorialhistor00menzgoog
LECKY, WILLIAM EDWARD HARTPOLE
History of England in the 18th century.
London: Longmans, Green & Company. 1878-90. 8 volumes.
New York: D. Appleton & Company. 1878-90. 8 volumes.
https://archive.org/details/historyofengland06leck/page/n7/mode/2up
LONGMAN, F. W.
Frederick the great and the seven years' war.
London: Longmans, Green & Company. 1881.
New York: Charles Scribner's Sons.
https://archive.org/details/in.ernet.dli.2015.41356
https://archive.org/details/frederickgreatse01long
MACAULAY, _Lord_.
Essays: Frederick the great (1842).
London: Longmans, Green & Company.
Boston: Estes & Lauriat. 3 volumes.
New York: Maynard, Merrill, &: Co.
https://archive.org/details/essayonfredericg00maca/page/n5/mode/2up
MALLESON, _Colonel_. G. B.
Loudon [Austrian fieldmarshal, 1743-1790].
London: Chapman & Hall. 1884.
MALLET, CHARLES EDWARD.
The French revolution.
New York: Charles Scribner's Sons. 1893.
(1897) https://archive.org/details/frenchrevolution00malluoft
(1893) https://archive.org/details/frenchrevolution00mallrich
(1893) https://archive.org/details/cu31924031498128/page/n9/mode/2up
MIGNET, FRANÇOIS A. M.
History of the French revolution, 1789-1814 (1824);
translated from the French.
London: George Bell & Sons.
https://archive.org/details/historyoffrenchr00migniala
https://archive.org/details/historyfrenchre03conggoog
RAUMER, FREDERICK VON.
Contributions to modern history: Frederick II. and his times.
London: Charles Knight & Company. 1837.
https://archive.org/details/dli.granth.91064
SCHLOSSER, F. C.
History of the eighteenth century, etc.;
translated by D. Davison.
London: Chapman & Hall. 1843-52. 8 volumes.
(Volume 3) https://archive.org/details/historyeighteen03schlgoog
(Volume 4) https://archive.org/details/historyeighteen08schlgoog
(Volume 5) https://archive.org/details/historyeighteen01schlgoog/page/n6/mode/2up
(Volume 6) https://archive.org/details/historyeighteen02schlgoog/page/n5/mode/2up
STANHOPE, _Earl_ (Lord Mahon).
History of England 1713-1783 (1836-53).
London: John Murray. 7 volumes.
(Volume 1) https://archive.org/details/historyofengland01stan
(Volume 2) https://archive.org/details/historyofengland02stan
(Volume 3) https://archive.org/details/historyofengland03stan/page/n5/mode/2up
(Volume 4) https://archive.org/details/historyofengland04stan
(Volume 5) https://archive.org/details/historyofengland05stan/page/n7/mode/2up
(Volume 7) https://archive.org/details/historyofengland07stan/page/n5/mode/2up
Leipzig: Bernhard Tauchnitz 1853
(Volume 5) https://archive.org/details/bub_gb_4CFTAAAAcAAJ
STEPHENS, H. MORSE.
History of the French revolution. Volumes 1-2.
London: Rivingtons. 1880.
New York: Charles Scribner's Sons. 1886-91.
(Volume 1) https://archive.org/details/historyoffrenchr01stepiala
(Volume 1) https://archive.org/details/cu31924024309480
THIERS, LOUIS ADOLPHE.
History of the French revolution (1827);
translated by F. Shoberl (1854).
New York: D. Appleton & Co. 4 volumes.
London: Richard Bentley & Son. 5 volumes.
(Volume 1) https://archive.org/details/historyoffrench01thieuoft
(Volume 2) https://archive.org/details/historyoffrench02thieuoft
(Volume 3) https://archive.org/details/v3a4historyoffren03thieuoft
(Volume 4) https://archive.org/details/historyoffrench04thieuoft
(Volume 5) https://archive.org/details/historyoffrench05thieuoft
{xxxi}
19TH CENTURY: EARLY AND GENERAL.
ADAMS, _Major_ CHARLES.
Great campaigns in Europe from 1796 to 1870;
edited by C. C. King.
Edinburgh: William Blackwood & Sons. 1877.
https://archive.org/details/greatcampaignssu00adam
ALISON, _Sir_ ARCHIBALD.
History of Europe, 1789-1815 (1842). 10 volumes.
(Volume 3) https://archive.org/details/historyeuropefr04alisgoog/page/n8/mode/2up
https://archive.org/details/historyeuropefr37alisgoog
History of Europe, 1815-1852 (1857). 6 volumes.
Edinburgh: William Blackwood & Sons.
New York: Harper & Brothers.
(Volume 1) https://archive.org/details/historyofeurope701alisuoft
(Volume 2) https://archive.org/details/historyofeuropef02alis
(Volume 3) https://archive.org/details/historyofeurope703alisuoft
(Volume 4) https://archive.org/details/historyofeuropefc04alis
(Volume 5) https://archive.org/details/historyofeurope705alisuoft
(Volume 6) https://archive.org/details/historyofeurope706alisuoft
(Volume 7) https://archive.org/details/historyofeurope707alisuoft
(Volume 8) https://archive.org/details/historyofeuropef08alisuoft
(Volume 9) https://archive.org/details/historyofeuropef09alisuoft
(Volume 9) https://archive.org/details/historyofeuropef09alis
(Volume 11) https://archive.org/details/historyofeuropef11alisiala
(Volume 12) https://archive.org/details/historyofeuropef12alisuoft
(Volume 13) https://archive.org/details/historyofeuropef13alisuoft
(Volume 14) https://archive.org/details/historyofeuropef14alisuoft
(Volume 15) https://archive.org/details/historyofeuropef15alisuoft
(Volume 16) https://archive.org/details/historyofeuropef16alisuoft
(Volume 17) https://archive.org/details/historyofeuropef17alisuoft
(Volume 20) https://archive.org/details/historyofeuropef00alisuoft
AUSTRIA.
(North British Review, 44: 27. 1866.)
AUSTRIAN NATIONALITIES AND AUSTRIAN POLICY:
by J. W. W. (Fraser's Magazine., 52: 163. 1855).
DUFF, MOUNTSTUART E. GRANT-.
Studies in European politics.
Edinburgh: Edmonston &: Douglas. 1866.
https://archive.org/details/studiesineurope01duffgoog
https://archive.org/details/studiesineurope00duffgoog
https://archive.org/details/cu31924027804248
https://archive.org/details/studiesineuropea00granrich
FYFFE, C. A.
History of modern Europe. [1792-1878].
London: Cassell. 1880-1889. 3 volumes.
New York: Henry Holt & Company. 1881-90. 3 volumes.
(Volume 1) https://archive.org/details/in.ernet.dli.2015.172930/page/n1/mode/2up
https://archive.org/details/historyofmoderne00fyffuoft
JOURNAL OF A NOBLEMAN:
his residence at Vienna during the congress.
London. Philadelphia. 1833.
KELLY, WALTER K.
History of the house of Austria [1792-1848]. _And_
Genesis or the late Austrian revolution: by an officer of
state [Count Hartig]: translated from the German.
London: H. G. Bohn. 1853.
https://archive.org/details/historyofhouseof00kell
KOHL, J. G.
Austria.
London: Chapman & Hall. 1844.
https://archive.org/details/austriaviennapr00kohlgoog
KRAUSE, GUSTAV.
The growth of German unity.
London: David Nutt. 1892.
LANFREY, P.
History of Napoleon I. [translated from the French.].
London: Macmillan & Company. 1871-1879. 4 volumes.
(Volume 1) https://archive.org/details/historyofnapoleo01lanfuoft
(Volume 2) https://archive.org/details/historyofnapole02lanf
(Volume 2) https://archive.org/details/cu31924024344834
(Volume 3) https://archive.org/details/historyofnapoleo03lanfuoft
(Volume 3) https://archive.org/details/cu31924024344842
(Volume 4) https://archive.org/details/historyofnapoleo04lanfuoft
MALLESON, _Colonel_ George Bruce
Life of Prince Metternich (Statesmen series).
London: W. H. Allen & Company. 1888.
Philadelphia: J. B. Lippincott &: Co.
https://archive.org/details/lifeofprincemett00mall
https://archive.org/details/in.ernet.dli.2015.181131/page/n3/mode/2up
https://archive.org/details/lifeofprincemet00mall
https://archive.org/details/lifeofprincemett00malluoft
(Audio) https://archive.org/details/life_of_prince_metternich_1611_librivox/lifeofprincemetternich_01_malleson_128kb.mp3
METTERNICH, _Prince_.
Memoirs [1773-1835]: translated by Mrs. Alexander Napier.
London: Bentley & Son. 1880.
New York: Charles Scribner's Sons.
https://archive.org/details/memoirsofprincem02mettuoft/page/n5/mode/2up
(Volume 1) https://archive.org/details/dli.granth.85236/page/ii/mode/2up
MICHIELS, ALFRED, _compiler_.
Secret history of the Austrian government.
London: Chapman & Hall. 1859.
https://archive.org/details/secrethistoryau00michgoog
MÜLLER, W.
Political history of recent times, 1816-1875:
translated [and continued to 1881] by John P. Peters.
New York: Harper & Brothers. 1882.
https://archive.org/details/politicalhistory00mulliala
https://archive.org/details/politicalhistory00mluoft
https://archive.org/details/politicalhistory00ml
https://archive.org/details/politicalhistor00mlgoog
https://archive.org/details/politicalhistor00petegoog
ROSE, J. H.
A century of continental history, 1780-1880.
London: Edward Stanford. 1889.
https://archive.org/details/cu31924031187804
STEPHENS, H. MORSE.
Europe, 1789-1815.
London: Macmillan &: Company. 1893.
https://archive.org/details/europestephens00step
THIERS, ADOLPH.
History of the consulate and the empire of France under
Napoleon (1845-62); translated by D. F. Campbell and H. W. Herbert.
London: George Bell & Sons (Bohn).
Philadelphia: J. B. Lippincott & Company. 5 volumes.
Philadelphia: J. B. Lippincott & Company. 1894. 12 volumes.
(Volume 1) https://archive.org/details/consulateempire01thieiala
(Volume 2) https://archive.org/details/historyconsulate02thieiala
(Volume 3) https://archive.org/details/consulateempire03thieiala
(Volume 4) https://archive.org/details/consulateempire04thieiala
(Volume 5) https://archive.org/details/historyofconsula05thieiala
(Volume 6) https://archive.org/details/consulateempire06thieiala
(Volume 7) https://archive.org/details/consulateempire07thieiala
(Volume 8) https://archive.org/details/consulateempire08thieiala
(Volume 9) https://archive.org/details/historyofconsula09thieiala
(Volume 10) https://archive.org/details/consulateempire10thieiala
(Volume 11) https://archive.org/details/consulateempire11thieiala
(Volume 12) https://archive.org/details/consulateempire12thieiala
TURNBULL, PETER EVAN
Austria, volume 2.
London: J. Murray. 1840. 2 volumes.
(Volume 1) https://archive.org/details/austria01turngoog/page/n10/mode/2up
(Volume 2) https://archive.org/details/austria02turngoog/page/n8/mode/2up
(Volume 1) https://archive.org/details/austria03turngoog/page/n6/mode/2up
VEHSE, E.
Memoirs of the court, aristocracy and diplomacy of Austria;
translated by Franz Demmler.
London: Longmans, Green & Company. 1856. 2 volumes.
(Volume 1) https://archive.org/details/memoirsofcourtof01vehs
(Volume 2) https://archive.org/details/memoirsofcourtar02vehs
(Volume 1) https://archive.org/details/memoirscourtari00vehsgoog
(Volume 2) https://archive.org/details/cu31924088019769
WEIR, ARCHIBALD.
The historical basis of modern Europe, 1760-1815.
London: Swan Sonnenschein & Company. 1886.
https://archive.org/details/in.ernet.dli.2015.501799
https://archive.org/details/cu31924027892375/page/n7/mode/2up
WHITMAN, SIDNEY.
The realm of the Habsburgs.
London: William Heinemann. 1893.
https://archive.org/details/realmofhabsburgs00whituoft
https://archive.org/details/realmofhabsburgs00whit/page/n9/mode/2up
AUSTRIA, HUNGARY, AND THE LESSER PROVINCES.
AUSTRIA AND HUNGARY.
(Edinburgh Review, 90: 230. 1849.)
AUSTRIA IN 1848-9.
(Edinburgh Review, 174: 440. 1891.)
BONER, CHARLES.
Transylvania.
London: Longmans. 1865.
https://archive.org/details/transylvaniaits00bonegoog
BRACE, CHARLES LORING.
Hungary in 1851.
New York: Charles Scribner. 1852.
https://archive.org/details/hungaryin1851wit01brac
https://archive.org/details/hungaryinwithan00bracgoog
FELBERMANN, LOUIS.
Hungary and its people.
London: Griffith, Farran & Company. 1892.
https://archive.org/details/hungaryitspeople00felb
FITZMAURICE, EDMOND.
Home rule in Austria.
(Nineteenth Century, 19: 443. 1886.)
FORSTER, FLORENCE A.
Francis Deak, Hungarian statesman: a memoir, with a preface by
M. E. Grant Duff.
London: Macmillan & Company. 1880.
https://archive.org/details/francisdekhung00arnoiala
https://archive.org/details/francisdekhunga00forgoog
GERARD, E.
The land beyond the forest [Transylvania].
Edinburgh: William Blackwood & Sons. 1888. 2 volumes.
https://archive.org/details/cu31924011921420
GODKIN, EDWIN LAWRENCE
History of Hungary and the Magyars.
London: Cassell & Company. 1858.
https://archive.org/details/historyofhungary00godkiala/page/n5/mode/2up
https://archive.org/details/historyhungarya00godkgoog
GÖRGEI, ARTHUR.
My life and acts in Hungary, 1848-9 (1851); translated.
London: D. Bogue.
New York: Harper & Brothers.
https://archive.org/details/mylifeactsinhung00grrich
HOFER, ANDREW,
Memoirs of the life of: containing an account of the
transactions in the Tyrol, 1809: [translated] from the German,
by C. H. Hall.
London: John Murray. 1820.
https://archive.org/details/memoirslifeandr00unkngoog
KAY, DAVID.
Home rule in Austria-Hungary.
(Nineteenth Century, 19: 41. 1886.)
https://archive.org/details/austriahungary00kayd
KLAPKA, _General_ GEORGE.
Memoirs of the war of independence in Hungary:
translated by O. Wenckstern.
London: C. Gilpin. 1850. 2 volumes.
(Volume 1) https://archive.org/details/memoirswarindep00wencgoog
(Volume 2) https://archive.org/details/memoirswarindep01klapgoog
MAURICE, C. EDMUND.
Revolutionary movement of 1848-9 in Italy, Austria-Hungary,
and Germany.
London: George Bell & Sons. 1887.
New York: G. P. Putnam's Sons.
https://archive.org/details/revolutionarymo00maurgoog/page/n16/mode/2up
https://archive.org/details/revolutionarymo00unkngoog
https://archive.org/details/therevolutionary39540gut
https://archive.org/details/revolutionarymov00maur
PAGET, JOHN.
Travels in Hungary and Transylvania (1839).
London: John Murray.
Philadelphia: Lea &: Blanchard. 1850. 2 volumes.
(Volume 1) https://archive.org/details/dli.granth.36331/page/n5/mode/2up
(Volume 1) https://archive.org/details/agw0321.0001.001.umich.edu/page/II/mode/2up
(Volume 2) https://archive.org/details/hungarytransylva02pageuoft/page/n7/mode/2up
(Volume 2) https://archive.org/details/agw0321.0002.001.umich.edu/page/n9/mode/2up
PARDOE, Miss JULIA.
The city of the Magyar, or Hungary and her institutions in 1839-40.
London: G. Virtue. 1840. 3 volumes.
https://books.google.com/books/about/The_City_of_the_Magyar.html?id=S-gDAAAAQAAJ
PATON, A. A.
Highlands and islands of the Adriatic.
London: Chapman & Hall. 1849. 2 volumes.
(Volume 1) https://archive.org/details/highlandsislands00pato/page/n7/mode/2up
(Volume 2) https://archive.org/details/bub_gb_dzbNcsnbcOYC
PATTERSON, ARTHUR J.
The Magyars: their country and institutions.
London: Smith, Elder & Company. 1869. 2 volumes.
(Volume 1) https://archive.org/details/magyarstheircou06johngoog
(Volume 2) https://archive.org/details/magyarstheircou01pattgoog/page/n6/mode/2up
PLANTA, JOSEPH.
History of the Helvetic confederacy.
London. 1800. 2 volumes.
(Volume 1) https://archive.org/details/historyofhelveti01planuoft
(Volume 1) https://archive.org/details/historyhelvetic02plangoog
(Volume 2) https://archive.org/details/historyhelvetic00plangoog
PRICE, BONAMY.
Austria and Hungary.
(Fraser's Magazine, 65: 384. 1862.)
STILES, WILLIAM. H.
Austria in 1848-49.
New York: Harper & Brothers. 1852-3. 2 volumes.
(Volume 1) https://archive.org/details/cu31924088020130
(Volume 2) https://archive.org/details/cu31924088020148
SZABAD, EMERIC.
Hungary, past and present.
Edinburgh: A. & C. Black. 1854.
https://archive.org/details/hungarypastandp00szabgoog/page/n4/mode/2up
VÁMBÉRY, ARMINIUS, _and_ LOUIS HEILPRIN.
The story of Hungary (Story of the nations).
New York: G. P. Putnam's Sons. 1886.
London: T. F. Unwin.
https://archive.org/details/storyhungary00vmgoog
AUSTRIA AND ITALY.
ARRIVABENE, Count CHARLES.
Italy under Victor Emmanuel.
London: Hurst & Blackett. 1862. 2 volumes.
(Volume 1) https://archive.org/details/italyundervicto02arrigoog
(Volume 2) https://archive.org/details/italyundervicto01arrigoog
AUSTRIA, FRANCE AND ITALY.
(Edinburgh Review., 109: 286. 1859.)
AUSTRIANS AND ITALY, The.
(Eclectic Magazine, 47: 538. 1859.)
GARIBALDI, GIUSEPPE.
Autobiography: translated by A. Werner,
with a supplement by Jessie White Mario.
London: Walter Smith & Innes. 1889. 3 volumes.
(Volume 1) https://archive.org/details/autobiography01gariuoft
(Volume 2) https://archive.org/details/autobiographygi00garigoog
(Volume 3) https://archive.org/details/autobiographygi02garigoog
ITALY AND THE WAR OF 1866.
(Westminster Review., 87: 275. 1867.)
MAZADE, CHARLES DE.
Life of Count Cavour.
New York: G. P. Putnam's Sons. 1877.
https://archive.org/details/lifeofcountcavou00mazarich
O'CLERY, PATRICK KEYES (The Chevalier O'Clery).
The history of the Italian revolution: 1st period, 1796-1849.
London: R. Washbourne. 1875.
https://archive.org/details/historyitalianr00oclgoog/page/n8/mode/2up
The making of Italy.
London: Kegan, Paul, Trench &: Company. 1892.
https://archive.org/details/makingofitaly18500oclerich
https://archive.org/details/makingitaly00oclgoog
https://archive.org/details/makingofitaly0000ocle/page/n5/mode/2up
https://archive.org/details/makingitaly01oclgoog
PROBYN, JOHN W.
Italy, 1815-1890.
London: Cassell & Company. 1891.
https://archive.org/details/italyfromfallofn00probuoft
https://archive.org/details/italyfromfallna00probgoog
https://archive.org/details/italyfromfallna01probgoog/italyfromfallna01probgoog
STUART, R.
The Austro-Italian alliance.
(Contemporary Review., 40: 921. 1881.)
THAYER, WILLIAM ROSCOE.
The dawn of Italian Independence, 1814-1849.
Boston: Houghton, Mifflin & Company. 1893. 2 volumes.
(Volume 1) https://archive.org/details/dawnofitalianind01thayiala
(Volume 2) https://archive.org/details/dawnofitalianind02thayuoft
(Volume 1) https://archive.org/details/cu31924082152400
WRIGHTSON, RICHARD HEBER
A history of modern Italy [1800-50].
London: Richard Bentley. 1855.
https://archive.org/details/dli.ministry.14113
https://archive.org/details/ahistorymoderni00wriggoog
AUSTRIA AND GERMANY.
CHESNEY, C. C.
The campaign [of 1866] in western Germany.
(Blackwood's Magazine, 101: 68. 1867.)
DICEY, EDWARD.
The battlefields of 1866.
London: Tinsley Brothers. 1866.
https://archive.org/details/battlefields00dicegoog
The campaign [of 1866] in Germany.
(Macmillan's Magazine, 14: 386. 1866.)
DICEY, EDWARD T.
The campaign [of 1866] in Italy.
(Macmillan's Magazine, 14: 241. 1866.)
GERMANIC CONFEDERATION and the Austrian empire, The.
(Quarterly Review, 84: 425. 1849.)
HOZIER, H. M.
The seven weeks' war [1866].
London: Macmillan & Company. 1867. 2 volumes.
(Volume 2) https://archive.org/details/in.ernet.dli.2015.238477
(Volume 2) https://archive.org/details/in.ernet.dli.2015.45879
{xxxii}
LOWE, CHARLES.
Prince Bismarck; an historical biography.
London: Cassell & Company. 1885. 2 volumes.
https://archive.org/details/princebismarkhis00lowe
(Volume 1) https://archive.org/details/princebismarckhi01loweiala
(Volume 1) https://archive.org/details/princebismarcka01lowegoog
(Volume 2) https://archive.org/details/princebismarcka02lowegoog
MALET, _Sir_ ALEXANDER.
The overthrow of the Germanic confederation. 1866.
London: Longmans, Green & Company. 1870.
https://archive.org/details/dli.granth.77288/page/iii/mode/2up
MALLESON, _Colonel_. G. B.
Battle-fields of Germany.
London: W. H. Allen & Company. 1884.
https://archive.org/details/battlefieldsofge00malluoft
The refounding of the German empire. 1848-71.
London: Seeley & Company. 1893.
https://archive.org/details/refoundingofgerm00mall
PRUSSIAN CAMPAIGN OF 1806.
(Edinburgh Review, 125: 187. 1867.)
RECONSTRUCTION OF GERMANY, The.
(North British Review, 51: 133. 1869.)
SIMON, EDOUARD.
The emperor William and his reign:
from the French.
London: Remington & Company. 1886. 2 volumes.
(Volume 1) https://archive.org/details/emperorwilliama00simogoog
(Volume 2) https://archive.org/details/emperorwilliama01simogoog
SYBEL, HEINRICH VON.
The founding of the German empire by William I.;
based chiefly upon Prussian state documents:
translated by M. L. Perrin and G. Bradford, Jr.
New York: T. Y. Crowell & Company. 1890-1. 5 volumes.
(Volume 1) https://archive.org/details/foundingofgerman01sybe
(Volume 2) https://archive.org/details/foundingofgerman02sybe
(Volume 3) https://archive.org/details/foundingofgerman03sybe
(Volume 4) https://archive.org/details/foundingofgerman04sybe
(Volume 5) https://archive.org/details/foundingofgerman05sybe
(Volume 6) https://archive.org/details/foundingofgerman06sybe
AUSTRIA AND THE SOUTHEASTERN STATES.
AUSTRIA, GERMANY AND THE EASTERN QUESTION.
(Fraser's Magazine, 96: 407. 1877.)
AUSTRIA'S POLICY IN THE EAST.
(Macmillan's Magazine, 53: 17. 1885.)
BOURCHIER, John David
The sentinel of the Balkans.
(Fortnightly Review., 52: 806. 1889.)
CAILLARD, VINCENT.
The Bulgarian imbroglio.
(Fortnightly Review, 44: 740. 1885.)
FREEMAN; EDWARD A.
The house of Habsburg in south-eastern Europe.
(Fortnightly Review., 51: 839. 1889.)
The position of the Austrian power in south-eastern Europe.
(Contemporary Review., 41: 727. 1882.)
THE RECONSTRUCTED EMPIRE: ITS REFORMS AND POLICY.
AUSTRIA AND HER REFORMS.
(Westminster Review. 75: 503. 1801.)
AUSTRIA SINCE SADOWA.
(Quarterly Review., 131: 90. 1871.)
AUSTRIA: qu'est que c'est l'Austrie?
(Edinburgh Review, 40: 298. 1824.)
AUSTRIAN CONSTITUTIONALISM.
(Westminster Review, 79: 333. 1863.)
BEUST, FRIEDRICH F. _Count_ VON.
Memoirs [1830-1885].
London: Remington & Company. 2 volumes.
(Volume 1) https://archive.org/details/in.ernet.dli.2015.92139
(Volume 2) https://archive.org/details/memoirsfriedric00beusgoog
BOURCHIER, J. D.
The heritage of the Hapsburgs.
(Fortnightly Review, 51: 377. 1889.)
DILKE, _Sir_ CHARLES W.
Position of European politics, 1887.
London: Chapman & Hall. 1887.
https://archive.org/details/dli.granth.91722
DUALISM IN AUSTRIA.
(Westminster Review, 88: 431. 1867.)
FOREIGN POLICY AND INTERNAL ADMINISTRATION OF THE AUSTRIAN
EMPIRE.
(Foreign Quarterly Review, 18: 257. 1837.)
NATIONAL LIFE AND THOUGHT.
London: T. F. Unwin. 1891.
----------Volume 1: End--------
----------Volume 2: Start--------
LIST OF MAPS.
Map of Europe at the close of the Tenth Century,
To follow page 1020.
Map of Europe in 1768,
To follow page 1086.
Four maps of France, A. D. 1154, 1180, 1814 and 1860,
To follow page 1168.
Two maps of Central Europe, A. D. 848 and 888,
On page 1404.
Map of Germany at the Peace of Westphalia,
To follow page 1486.
Maps of Germany, A. D. 1815 and 1866;
of the Netherlands, 1880-1889; and of the Zollverein,
To follow page 1540
LOGICAL OUTLINES, IN COLORS.
English history,
To follow page 730.
French history,
To follow page 1158.
German history,
To follow page 1428.
CHRONOLOGICAL TABLES.
The Fifth Century,
On page 1433.
The Sixth Century,
On page 1434.
{769}
EL DORADO,
The quest of.
"When the Spaniards had conquered and pillaged the civilized
empires on the table lands of Mexico, Bogota, and Peru, they
began to look round for new scenes of conquest, new sources of
wealth; the wildest rumours were received as facts, and the
forests and savannas, extending for thousands of square miles
to the eastward of the cordilleras of the Andes, were covered,
in imagination, with populous kingdoms, and cities filled with
gold. The story of El Dorado, of a priest or king smeared with
oil and then coated with gold dust, probably originated in a
custom which prevailed among the civilized Indians of the
plateau of Bogota; but El Dorado was placed, by the credulous
adventurers, in a golden city amidst the impenetrable forests
of the centre of South America, and, as search after search
failed, his position was moved further and further to the
eastward, in the direction of Guiana. El Dorado, the phantom
god of gold and silver, appeared in many forms. … The
settlers at Quito and in Northern Peru talked of the golden
empire of the Omaguas, while those in Cuzco and Charcas dreamt
of the wealthy cities of Paytiti and Enim, on the banks of a
lake far away, to the eastward of the Andes. These romantic
fables, so firmly believed in those old days led to the
exploration of vast tracts of country, by the fearless
adventurers of the sixteenth century, portions of which have
never been traversed since, even to this day. The most famous
searches after El Dorado were undertaken from the coast of
Venezuela, and the most daring leaders of these wild
adventures were German knights."
_C. R. Markham,
Introduction to Simon's Account of the
Expedition of Ursua and Aguirre
(Hakluyt Society 1861)._
"There were, along the whole coast of the Spanish Main,
rumours of an inland country which abounded with gold. These
rumours undoubtedly related to the kingdoms of Bogota and
Tunja, now the Nuevo Reyno de Granada. Belalcazar, who was in
quest of this country from Quito, Federman, who came from
Venezuela, and Gonzalo Ximenez de Quesada, who sought it by
way of the River Madalena, and who effected its conquest, met
here. But in these countries also there were rumours of a rich
land at a distance; similar accounts prevailed in Peru; in
Peru they related to the Nuevo Reyno, there they related to
Peru; and thus adventurers from both sides were allured to
continue the pursuit after the game was taken. An imaginary
kingdom was soon shaped out as the object of their quest, and
stories concerning it were not more easily invented than
believed. It was said that a younger brother of Atabalipa
fled, after the destruction of the Incas, took with him the
main part of their treasures, and founded a greater empire
than that of which his family had been deprived. Sometimes the
imaginary Emperor was called the Great Paytite, sometimes the
Great Moxo, sometimes the Enim or Great Paru. An impostor at
Lima affirmed that he had been in his capital, the city of
Manoa, where not fewer than 3,000 workmen were employed in the
silversmiths' street; he even produced a map of the country,
in which he had marked a hill of gold, another of silver, and
a third of salt. … This imaginary kingdom obtained the name
of El Dorado from the fashion of its Lord, which has the merit
of being in savage costume. His body was anointed every
morning with a certain fragrant gum of great price, and gold
dust was then blown upon him, through a tube, till he was
covered with it: the whole was washed off at night. This the
barbarian thought a more magnificent and costly attire than
could be afforded by any other potentate in the world, and
hence the Spaniards called him El Dorado, or the Gilded One. A
history of all the expeditions which were undertaken for the
conquest of his kingdom would form a volume not less
interesting than extraordinary."
_R. Southey,
History of Brazil,
volume 1, chapter 12._
The most tragical and thrilling of the stories of the seekers
after El Dorado is that which Mr. Markham introduces in the
quotation above, and which Southey has told with full details
in _The Expedition of Orsua; and the Crimes of Aguirre._
The most famous of the expeditions were those in which Sir
Walter Raleigh engaged, and two of which he personally led—in
1595, and in 1617-18. Released from his long imprisonment in
the Tower to undertake the latter, he returned from it, broken
and shamed, to be sent to the scaffold as a victim sacrificed
to the malignant resentment of Spain. How far Raleigh shared
in the delusion of his age respecting El Dorado, and how far
he made use of it merely to promote a great scheme for the
"expansion of England," are questions that will probably
remain forever in dispute.
_Sir Walter Raleigh,
Discoverie of the Large, Rich and
Beautiful Empire of Guiana
(Hakluyt Society 1848)._
ALSO IN:
_J. A. Van Heuvel,
El Dorado._
_E. Edwards,
Life of Raleigh,
volume 1, chapters 10 and 25._
_P. F. Tytler,
Life of Raleigh,
chapters 3 and 6._
_E. Gosse,
Raleigh,
chapters 4 and 9._
_A. F. Bandelier,
The gilded man._
ELECTORAL COLLEGE, The Germanic:
Its rise and constitution.
Its secularization and extinction.
See GERMANY: A. D. 1125-1152,
and 1347-1493;
also, 1801-1803,
and 1805-1806.
ELECTORAL COMMISSION, The.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1876-1877.
ELECTORS,
Presidential, of the United States of America.
See PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES.
ELECTRICAL DISCOVERY AND INVENTION.
"Electricity, through its etymology at least, traces its
lineage back to Homeric times. In the Odyssey reference is
made to the 'necklace hung with bits of amber' presented by
the Phœnician traders to the Queen of Syra. Amber was highly
prized by the ancients, having been extensively used as an
ornamental gem, and many curious theories were suggested as to
its origin. Some of these, although mythical, were singularly
near the truth, and it is an interesting coincidence that in
the well-known myth concerning the ill-fated and rash youth
who so narrowly escaped wrecking the solar chariot and the
terrestrial sphere, amber, the first known source of
electricity, and the thunder-bolts of Jupiter are linked
together. It is not unlikely that this substance was indebted,
for some of the romance that clung to it through ages, to the
fact that when rubbed it attracts light bodies. This property
it was known to possess in the earliest times: it is the one
single experiment in electricity which has come down to us
from the remotest antiquity. … The power of certain fishes,
notably what is known as the 'torpedo,' to produce
electricity, was known at an early period, and was commented
on by Pliny and Aristotle.
{770}
… Up to the sixteenth [century] there seems to have been no
attempt to study electrical phenomena in a really scientific
manner. Isolated facts which almost thrust themselves upon
observers, were noted, and, in common with a host of other
natural phenomena, were permitted to stand alone, with no
attempt at classification, generalization, or examination
through experiment. … Dr. Gilbert can justly be called the
creator of the science of electricity and magnetism. His
experiments were prodigious in number, and many of his
conclusions were correct and lasting. To him we are indebted
for the name 'electricity,' which he bestowed upon the power
or property which amber exhibited in attracting light bodies,
borrowing the name from the substance itself, in order to
define one of its attributes. … This application of
experiment to the study of electricity, begun by Gilbert three
hundred years ago, was industriously pursued by those who came
after him, and the next two centuries witnessed a rapid
development of science. Among the earlier students of this
period were the English philosopher, Robert Boyle, and the
celebrated burgomaster of Magdeburg, Otto von Guericke. The
latter first noted the sound and light accompanying electrical
excitation. These were afterwards independently discovered by
Dr. Wall, an Englishman, who made the somewhat prophetic
observation, 'This light and crackling seems in some degree to
represent thunder and lightning.' Sir Isaac Newton made a few
experiments in electricity, which he exhibited to the Royal
Society. … Francis Hawksbee was an active and useful
contributor to experimental investigation, and he also called
attention to the resemblance between the electric spark and
lightning. The most ardent student of electricity in the early
years of the eighteenth century was Stephen Gray. He performed
a multitude of experiments, nearly all of which added
something to the rapidly accumulating stock of knowledge, but
doubtless his most important contribution was his discovery of
the distinction between conductors and non-conductors. …
Some of Gray's papers fell into the hands of Dufay, an officer
of the French army, who, after several years' service, had
resigned his post to devote himself to scientific pursuits.
… His most important discovery was the existence of two
distinct species of electricity, which he named 'vitreous' and
'resinous.' … A very important advance was made in 1745 in
the invention of the Leyden jar or phial. As has so many times
happened in the history of scientific discovery, it seems
tolerably certain that this interesting device was hit upon by
at least three persons, working independently of each other.
One Cuneus, a monk named Kleist, and Professor Muschenbroeck,
of Leyden, are all accredited with the discovery. … Sir
William Watson perfected it by adding the outside metallic
coating, and was by its aid enabled to fire gunpowder and
other inflammables."
_T. C. Mendenhall,
A Century of Electricity,
chapter 1._
ELECTRICITY: A. D. 1745-1747.
Franklin's identification of Electricity with Lightning.
"In 1745 Mr. Peter Collinson of the Royal Society sent a
[Leyden] jar to the Library Society of Philadelphia, with
instructions how to use it. This fell into the hands of
Benjamin Franklin, who at once began a series of electrical
experiments. On March 28, 1747, Franklin began his famous
letters to Collinson. … In these letters he propounded the
single-fluid theory of electricity, and referred all electric
phenomena to its accumulation in bodies in quantities more
than their natural share, or to its being withdrawn from them
so as to leave them minus their proper portion." Meantime,
numerous experiments with the Leyden jar had convinced
Franklin of the identity of lightning and electricity, and he
set about the demonstration of the fact. "The account given by
Dr. Stuber of Philadelphia, an intimate personal friend of
Franklin, and published in one of the earliest editions of the
works of the great philosopher, is as follows:—'The plan
which he had originally proposed was to erect on some high
tower, or other elevated place, a sentry-box, from which
should rise a pointed iron rod, insulated by being fixed in a
cake of resin. Electrified clouds passing over this would, he
conceived, impart to it a portion of their electricity, which
would be rendered evident to the senses by sparks being
emitted when a key, a knuckle, or other conductor was
presented to it. Philadelphia at this time offered no
opportunity of trying an experiment of this kind. Whilst
Franklin was waiting for the erection of a spire, it occurred
to him that he might have more ready access to the region of
clouds by means of a common kite. He prepared one by attaching
two cross-sticks to a silk handkerchief, which would not
suffer so much from the rain as paper. To his upright stick
was fixed an iron point. The string was, as usual, of hemp,
except the lower end, which was silk. Where the hempen string
terminated, a key was fastened. With this apparatus, on the
appearance of a thunder-gust approaching, he went into the
common, accompanied by his son, to whom alone he communicated
his intentions, well knowing the ridicule which, too generally
for the interest of science, awaits unsuccessful experiments in
philosophy. He placed himself under a shed to avoid the rain.
His kite was raised. A thunder-cloud passed over it. No signs
of electricity appeared. He almost despaired of success, when
suddenly he observed the loose fibres of his string move
toward an erect position. He now pressed his knuckle to the
key, and received a strong spark. How exquisite must his
sensations have been at this moment! On his experiment
depended the fate of his theory. Doubt and despair had begun
to prevail, when the fact was ascertained in so clear a
manner, that even the most incredulous could no longer
withhold their assent. Repeated sparks were drawn from the
key, a phial was charged, a shock given, and all the
experiments made which are usually performed with
electricity.' And thus the identity of lightning and
electricity was proved. … Franklin's proposition to erect
lightning rods which would convey the lightning to the ground,
and so protect the buildings to which they were attached, found
abundant opponents. … Nevertheless, public opinion became
settled … that they did protect buildings. … Then the
philosophers raised a new controversy as to whether the
conductors should be blunt or pointed; Franklin, Cavendish,
and Watson advocating points, and Wilson blunt ends. … The
logic of experiment, however, showed the advantage of pointed
conductors; and people persisted then in preferring them, as
they have done ever since."
{771}
_P. Benjamin,
The Age of Electricity,
chapter 3._
ELECTRICITY: A. D. 1753-1820.
The beginnings of the Electric Telegraph.
"The first actual suggestion of an electric telegraph was made
in an anonymous letter published in the Scots Magazine at
Edinburgh, February 17th, 1753. The letter is initialed 'C.
M.,' and many attempts have been made to discover the author's
identity. … The suggestions made in this letter were that a
set of twenty-six wires should be stretched upon insulated
supports between the two places which it was desired to put in
connection, and at each end of every wire a metallic ball was
to be suspended, having under it a letter of the alphabet
inscribed upon a piece of paper. … The message was to be
read off at the receiving station by observing the letters
which were successively attracted by their corresponding
balls, as soon as the wires attached to the latter received a
charge from the distant conductor. In 1787 Monsieur Lomond, of
Paris, made the very important step of reducing the twenty-six
wires to one, and indicating the different letters by various
combinations of simple movements of an indicator, consisting
of a pith-ball suspended by means of a thread from a conductor
in contact with the wire. … In the year 1790 Chappe, the
inventor of the semaphore, or optico-mechanical telegraph,
which was in practical use previous to the introduction of the
electric telegraph, devised a means of communication,
consisting of two clocks regulated so that the second hands
moved in unison, and pointed at the same instant to the same
figures. … In the early form of the apparatus, the exact
moment at which the observer at the receiving station should
read off the figure to which the hand pointed was indicated by
means of a sound signal produced by the primitive method of
striking a copper stew pan, but the inventor soon adopted the
plan of giving electrical signals instead of sound signals.
… In 1795 Don Francisco Salva … suggested … that instead
of twenty-six wires being used, one for each letter, six or
eight wires only should be employed, each charged by a Leyden
jar, and that different letters should be formed by means of
various combinations of signals from these. … Mr.
(afterwards Sir Francis) Ronalds … took up the subject of
telegraphy in the year 1816, and published an account of his
experiments in 1823," based on the same idea as that of
Chappe. … "Ronalds drew up a sort of telegraphic code by
which words, and sometimes even complete sentences, could be
transmitted by only three discharges. … Ronalds completely
proved the practicability of his plan, not only on [a] short
underground line, …. but also upon an overhead line some
eight miles in length, constructed by carrying a telegraph
wire backwards and forwards over a wooden frame-work erected
in his garden at Hammersmith. … The first attempt to employ
voltaic electricity in telegraphy was made by Don Francisco
Salva, whose frictional telegraph has already been referred
to. On the 14th of May, 1800, Salva read a paper on 'Galvanism
and its application to Telegraphy' before the Academy of Sciences
at Barcelona, in which he described a number of experiments
which he had made in telegraphing over a line some 310 metres
in length. … A few years later he applied the then recent
discovery of the Voltaic pile to the same purpose, the
liberation of bubbles of gas by the decomposition of water at
the receiving station being the method adopted for indicating
the passage of the signals. A telegraph of a very similar
character was devised by Sömmering, and described in a paper
communicated by the inventor to the Munich Academy of Sciences
in 1809. Sömmering used a set of thirty-five wires corresponding
to the twenty-five letters of the German alphabet and the ten
numerals. … Oersted's discovery of the action of the
electric current upon a suspended magnetic needle provided a
new and much more hopeful method of applying the electric
current to telegraphy. The great French astronomer Laplace
appears to have been the first to suggest this application of
Oersted's discovery, and he was followed shortly afterwards by
Ampere, who in the year 1820 read a paper before the Paris
Academy of Sciences."
_G. W. De Tunzelmann,
Electricity in Modern Life,
chapter 9._
ELECTRICITY: A. D. 1786-1800.
Discoveries of Galvani and Volta.
"The fundamental experiment which led to the discovery of
dynamical electricity [1786] is due to Galvani, professor of
anatomy in Bologna. Occupied with investigations on the
influence of electricity on the nervous excitability of
animals, and especially of the frog, he observed that when the
lumbar nerves of a dead frog were connected with the crural
muscles by a metallic circuit, the latter became briskly
contracted. … Galvani had some time before observed that the
electricity of machines produced in dead frogs analogous
contractions, and he attributed the phenomena first described
to an electricity inherent in the animal. He assumed that this
electricity, which he called vital fluid, passed from the
nerves to the muscles by the metallic arc, and was thus the
cause of contraction. This theory met with great support,
especially among physiologists, but it was not without
opponents. The most considerable of these was Alexander Volta,
professor of physics in Pavia. Galvani's attention had been
exclusively devoted to the nerves and muscles of the frog;
Volta's was directed upon the connecting metal. Resting on the
observation, which Galvani had also made, that the contraction
is more energetic when the connecting arc is composed of two
metals than where there is only one, Volta attributed to the
metals the active part in the phenomenon of contraction. He
assumed that the disengagement of electricity was due to their
contact, and that the animal parts only officiated as
conductors, and at the same time as a very sensitive
electroscope. By means of the then recently invented
electroscope, Volta devised several modes of showing the
disengagement of electricity on the contact of metals. … A
memorable controversy arose between Galvani and Volta. The
latter was led to give greater extension to his contact
theory, and propounded the principle that when two
heterogeneous substances are placed in contact, one of them
always assumes the positive and the other the negative
electrical condition. In this form Volta's theory obtained the
assent of the principal philosophers of his time."
_A. Ganot,
Elementary Treatise on Physics;
translated by Atkinson, book 10, chapter 1._
Volta's theory, however, though somewhat misleading, did not
prevent his making what was probably the greatest step in the
science up to this time, in the invention (about 1800) of the
Voltaic pile, the first generator of electrical energy by
chemical means, and the forerunner of the vast number of types
of the modern "battery."
{772}
ELECTRICITY: A. D. 1810-1890.
The Arc light.
"The earliest instance of applying Electricity to the
production of light was in 1810, by Sir Humphrey Davy, who
found that when the points of two carbon rods whose other ends
were connected by wires with a powerful primary battery were
brought into contact, and then drawn a little way apart, the
Electric current still continued to jump across the gap,
forming what is now termed an Electric Arc. … Various
contrivances have been devised for automatically regulating
the position of the two carbons. As early as 1847, a lamp was
patented by Staite, in which the carbon rods were fed together
by clockwork. … Similar devices were produced by Foucault
and others, but the first really successful arc lamp was
Serrin's, patented in 1857, which has not only itself survived
until the present day, but has had its main features
reproduced in many other lamps. … The Jablochkoff Candle
(1876), in which the arc was formed between the ends of a pair
of carbon rods placed side by side, and separated by a layer of
insulating material, which slowly consumed as the carbons
burnt down, did good service in accustoming the public to the
new illuminant. Since then the inventions by Brush,
Thomson-Houston, and others have done much to bring about its
adoption for lighting large rooms, streets, and spaces out of
doors."
_J. B. Verity,
Electricity up to Date for Light, Power, and Traction,
chapter 3._
ELECTRICITY: A. D. 1820-1825.
Oersted, Ampere, and the discovery of the Electro-Magnet.
"There is little chance … that the discoverer of the magnet,
or the discoverer and inventor of the magnetic needle, will
ever be known by name, or that even the locality and date of
the discovery will ever be determined [see COMPASS]. … The
magnet and magnetism received their first scientific treatment
at the hands of Dr. Gilbert. During the two centuries
succeeding the publication of his work, the science of
magnetism was much cultivated. … The development of the
science went along parallel with that of the science of
electricity … although the latter was more fruitful in novel
discoveries and unexpected applications than the former. It is
not to be imagined that the many close resemblances of the two
classes of phenomena were allowed to pass unnoticed. … There
was enough resemblance to suggest an intimate relation; and
the connecting link was sought for by many eminent
philosophers during the last years of the eighteenth and the
earlier years of the present century."
_T. C. Mendenhall,
A Century of Electricity,
chapter 3._
"The effect which an electric current, flowing in a wire, can
exercise upon a neighbouring compass needle was discovered by
Oersted in 1820. This first announcement of the possession of
magnetic properties by an electric current was followed
speedily by the researches of Ampere, Arago, Davy, and by the
devices of several other experimenters, including De la Rive's
floating battery and coil, Schweigger's multiplier, Cumming's
galvanometer, Faraday's apparatus for rotation of a permanent
magnet, Marsh's vibrating pendulum and Barlow's rotating
star-wheel. But it was not until 1825 that the electromagnet
was invented. Arago announced, on 25th September 1820, that a
copper wire uniting the poles of a voltaic cell, and
consequently traversed by an electric current, could attract
iron filings to itself laterally. In the same communication he
described how he had succeeded in communicating permanent
magnetism to steel needles laid at right angles to the copper
wire, and how, on showing this experiment to Ampere, the
latter had suggested that the magnetizing action would be more
intense if for the straight copper wire there were substituted
one wrapped in a helix, in the centre of which the steel
needle might be placed. This suggestion was at once carried
out by the two philosophers. 'A copper wire wound in a helix
was terminated by two rectilinear portions which could be
adapted, at will, to the opposite poles of a powerful
horizontal voltaic pile; a steel needle wrapped up in paper
was introduced into the helix.' 'Now, after some minutes'
sojourn in the helix, the steel needle had received a
sufficiently strong dose of magnetism.' Arago then wound upon
a little glass tube some short helices, each about 2¼ inches
long, coiled alternately right-handedly and left-handedly, and
found that on introducing into the glass tube a steel wire, he
was able to produce 'consequent poles' at the places where the
winding was reversed. Ampère, on October 23rd, 1820, read a
memoir, claiming that these facts confirmed his theory of
magnetic actions. Davy had, also, in 1820, surrounded with
temporary coils of wire the steel needles upon which he was
experimenting, and had shown that the flow of electricity
around the coil could confer magnetic power upon the steel
needles. … The electromagnet, in the form which can first
claim recognition … was devised by William Sturgeon, and is
described by him in the paper which he contributed to the
Society of Arts in 1825."
_S. P. Thompson,
The Electromagnet,
chapter 1._
ELECTRICITY: A. D. 1825-1874.
The Perfected Telegraph.
"The European philosophers kept on groping. At the end of five
years [after Oersted's discovery], one of them reached an
obstacle which he made up his mind was so entirely
insurmountable, that it rendered the electric telegraph an
impossibility for all future time. This was [1825] Mr. Peter
Barlow, fellow of the Royal Society, who had encountered the
question whether the lengthening of the conducting wire would
produce any effect in diminishing the energy of the current
transmitted, and had undertaken to resolve the problem. … 'I
found [he said] such a considerable diminution with only 200
feet of wire as at once to convince me of the impracticability
of the scheme.' … The year following the announcement of
Barlow's conclusions, a young graduate of the Albany (N. Y.)
Academy—by name Joseph Henry—was appointed to the
professorship of mathematics in that institution. Henry there
began the series of scientific investigations which is now
historic. … Up to that time, electro-magnets had been made
with a single coil of naked wire wound spirally around the
core, with large intervals between the strands. The core was
insulated as a whole: the wire was not insulated at all.
Professor Schweigger, who had previously invented the
multiplying galvanometer, had covered his wires with silk.
Henry followed this idea, and, instead of a single coil of
wire, used several. … Barlow had said that the gentle
current of the galvanic battery became so weakened, after
traversing 200 feet of wire, that it was idle to consider the
possibility of making it pass over even a mile of conductor
and then affect a magnet.
{773}
Henry's reply was to point out that the trouble lay in the way
Barlow's magnet was made. … Make the magnet so that the
diminished current will exercise its full effect. Instead of
using one short coil, through which the current can easily
slip, and do nothing, make a coil of many turns; that
increases the magnetic field: make it of fine wire, and of
higher resistance. And then, to prove the truth of his
discovery, Henry put up the first electro-magnetic telegraph
ever constructed. In the academy at Albany, in 1831, he
suspended 1,060 feet of bell-wire, with a battery at one end
and one of his magnets at the other; and he made the magnet
attract and release its armature. The armature struck a bell,
and so made the signals. Annihilating distance in this way was
only one part of Henry's discovery. He had also found, that,
to obtain the greatest dynamic effect close at hand, the
battery should be composed of a very few cells of large
surface, combined with a coil or coils of short coarse wire
around the magnet,—conditions just the reverse of those
necessary when the magnet was to be worked at a distance. Now,
he argued, suppose the magnet with the coarse short coil, and
the large-surface battery, be put at the receiving station;
and the current coming over the line be used simply to make
and break the circuit of that local battery. … This is the
principle of the telegraphic 'relay.' In 1835 Henry worked a
telegraph-line in that way at Princeton. And thus the
electro-magnetic telegraph was completely invented and
demonstrated. There was nothing left to do, but to put up the
posts, string the lines, and attach the instruments."
_P. Benjamin,
The Age of Electricity,
chapter 11._
"At last we leave the territory of theory and experiment and
come to that of practice. 'The merit of inventing the modern
telegraph, and applying it on a large scale for public use,
is, beyond all question, due to Professor Morse of the United
States.' So writes Sir David Brewster, and the best
authorities on the question substantially agree with him. …
Leaving for future consideration Morse's telegraph, which was
not introduced until five years after the time when he was
impressed with the notion of its feasibility, we may mention
the telegraph of Gauss and Weber of Göttingen. In 1833, they
erected a telegraphic wire between the Astronomical and
Magnetical Observatory of Göttingen, and the Physical Cabinet
of the University, for the purpose of carrying intelligence
from the one locality to the other. To these great
philosophers, however, rather the theory than the practice of
Electric Telegraphy was indebted. Their apparatus was so
improved as to be almost a new invention by Steinheil of
Munich, who, in 1837 … succeeded in sending a current from
one end to the other of a wire 36,000 feet in length, the
action of which caused two needles to vibrate from side to
side, and strike a bell at each movement. To Steinheil the
honour is due of having discovered the important and
extraordinary fact that the earth might be used as a part of
the circuit of an electric current. The introduction of the
Electric Telegraph into England dates from the same year as
that in which Steinheil's experiments took place. William
Fothergill Cooke, a gentleman who held a commission in the
Indian army, returned from India on leave of absence, and
afterwards, because of his bad health, resigned his
commission, and went to Heidelberg to study anatomy. In 1836,
Professor Mönke, of Heidelberg, exhibited an
electro-telegraphic experiment, 'in which electric currents,
passing along a conducting wire, conveyed signals to a distant
station by the deflexion of a magnetic needle enclosed in
Schweigger's galvanometer or multiplier.' … Cooke was so
struck with this experiment, that he immediately resolved to
apply it to purposes of higher utility than the illustration
of a lecture. … In a short time he produced two telegraphs
of different construction. When his plans were completed, he
came to England, and in February, 1837, having consulted
Faraday and Dr. Roget on the construction of the
electric-magnet employed in a part of his apparatus, the
latter gentleman advised him to apply to Professor Wheatstone.
… The result of the meeting of Cooke and Wheatstone was that
they resolved to unite their several discoveries; and in the
month of May 1837, they took out their first patent 'for
improvements in giving signals and sounding alarms in distant
places by means of electric currents transmitted through
metallic circuits.' … By-and-by, as might probably have been
anticipated, difficulties arose between Cooke and Wheatstone,
as to whom the main credit of introducing the Electric
Telegraph into England was due. Mr. Cooke accused Wheatstone
(with a certain amount of justice, it should seem) of entirely
ignoring his claims; and in doing so Mr. Cooke appears to have
rather exaggerated his own services. Most will readily agree
to the wise words of Mr. Sabine: "It was once a popular
fallacy in England that Messrs. Cooke and Wheatstone were the
original inventors of the Electric Telegraph. The Electric
Telegraph had, properly speaking, no inventor; it grew up as
we have seen little by little."
_H. J. Nicoll,
Great Movements,
pages 424-429._
"In the latter part of the year 1832, Samuel F. B. Morse, an
American artist, while on a voyage from France to the United
States, conceived the idea of an electromagnetic telegraph
which should consist of the following parts, viz: A single
circuit of conductors from some suitable generator of
electricity; a system of signs, consisting of dots or points
and spaces to represent numerals; a method of causing the
electricity to mark or imprint these signs upon a strip or
ribbon of paper by the mechanical action of an electro-magnet
operating upon the paper by means of a lever, armed at one end
with a pen or pencil; and a method of moving the paper ribbon
at a uniform rate by means of clock-work to receive the
characters. … In the autumn of the year 1835 he constructed
the first rude working model of his invention. … The first
public exhibition … was on the 2d of September, 1837, on
which occasion the marking was successfully effected through
one third of a mile of wire. Immediately afterwards a
recording instrument was constructed … which was
subsequently employed upon the first experimental line between
Washington and Baltimore. This line was constructed in 1843-44
under an appropriation by Congress, and was completed by May
of the latter year. On the 27th of that month the first
despatch was transmitted from Washington to Baltimore. … The
experimental line was originally constructed with two wires,
as Morse was not at that time acquainted with the discovery of
Steinheil, that the earth might be used to complete the circuit.
{774}
Accident, however, soon demonstrated this fact. … The
following year (1845) telegraph lines began to be built over
other routes. … In October, 1851, a convention of deputies
from the German States of Austria, Prussia, Bavaria,
Würtemberg and Saxony, met at Vienna, for the purpose of
establishing a common and uniform telegraphic system, under
the name of the German-Austrian Telegraph Union. The various
systems of telegraphy then in use were subjected to the most
thorough examination and discussion. The convention decided
with great unanimity that the Morse system was practically far
superior to all others, and it was accordingly adopted. Prof.
Steinheil, although himself … the inventor of a telegraphic
system, with a magnanimity that does him high honor, strongly
urged upon the convention the adoption of the American
system." … The first of the printing telegraphs was patented
in the United States by Royal E. House, in 1846. The Hughes
printing telegraph, a remarkable piece of mechanism, was
patented by David E. Hughes, of Kentucky, in 1855. A system
known as the automatic method, in which the signals
representing letters are transmitted over the line through the
instrumentality of mechanism, was originated by Alexander Bain
of Edinburgh, whose first patents were taken out in 1846. An
autographic telegraph, transmitting despatches in the
reproduced hand-writing of the sender, was brought out in
1850, by F. C. Bakewell, of London. The same result was
afterwards accomplished with variations of method by Charles
Cros, of Paris, Abbé Caseli, of Florence, and others; but none
of these inventions has been extensively used. "The
possibility of making use of a single wire for the
simultaneous transmission of two or more communications seems
to have first suggested itself to Moses G. Farmer, of Boston,
about the year 1852." The problem was first solved with
partial success by Dr. Gintl, on the line between Prague and
Vienna, in 1853, but more perfectly by Carl Frischen, of
Hanover, in the following year. Other inventors followed in
the same field, among them Thomas A. Edison, of New Jersey,
who was led by his experiments finally, in 1874 to devise a
system "which was destined to furnish the basis of the first
practical solution of the curious and interesting problem of
quadruplex telegraphy."
_G. B. Prescott,
Electricity and the Electric Telegraph,
chapter 29-40._
ELECTRICITY: A. D. 1831-1872.
Dynamo
Electrical Machines, and Electric Motors.
"The discovery of induction by Faraday, in 1831, gave rise to
the construction of magneto-electro machines. The first of
such machines that was ever made was probably a machine that
never came into practical use, the description of which was
given in a letter, signed 'P. M.,' and directed to Faraday,
published in the Philosophical Magazine of 2nd August, 1832.
We learn from this description that the essential parts of
this machine were six horse-shoe magnets attached to a disc,
which rotated in front of six coils of wire wound on bobbins."
Sept. 3rd, 1832, Pixii constructed a machine in which a single
horse-shoe magnet was made to rotate before two soft iron
cores, wound with wire. In this machine he introduced the
commutator, an essential element in all modern continuous
current machines. "Almost at the same time, Ritchie, Saxton,
and Clarke constructed similar machines. Clarke's is the best
known, and is still popular in the small and portable
'medical' machines so commonly sold. … A larger machine
[was] constructed by Stöhrer (1843), on the same plan as
Clarke's, but with six coils instead of two, and three
compound magnets instead of one. … The machines, constructed
by Nollet (1849) and Shepard (1856) had still more magnets and
coils. Shepard's machine was modified by Van Malderen, and was
called the Alliance machine. … Dr. Werner Siemens, while
considering how the inducing effect of the magnet can be most
thoroughly utilised, and how to arrange the coils in the most
efficient manner for this purpose, was led in 1857 to devise
the cylindrical armature. … Sinsteden in 1851 pointed out
that the current of the generator may itself be utilised to
excite the magnetism of the field magnets. … Wilde [in 1863]
carried out this suggestion by using a small steel permanent
magnet and larger electro magnets. … The next great
improvement of these machines arose from the discovery of what
may be called the dynamo-electric principle. This principle
may be stated as follows:—For the generation of currents by
magneto-electric induction it is not necessary that the
machine should be furnished with permanent magnets; the
residual or temporary magnetism of soft iron quickly rotating
is sufficient for the purpose. … In 1867 the principle was
clearly enunciated and used simultaneously, but independently,
by Siemens and by Wheatstone. … It was in February, 1867,
that Dr. C. W. Siemens' classical paper on the conversion of
dynamical into electrical energy without the aid of permanent
magnetism was read before the Royal Society. Strangely enough,
the discovery of the same principle was enunciated at the same
meeting of the Society by Sir Charles Wheatstone. … The
starting-point of a great improvement in dynamo-electric
machines, was the discovery by Pacinotti of the ring armature
… in 1860. … Gramme, in 1871, modified the ring armature,
and constructed the first machine, in which he made use of the
Gramme ring and the dynamic principle. In 1872,
Hefner-Alteneck, of the firm of Siemens and Halske,
constructed a machine in which the Gramme ring is replaced by
a drum armature, that is to say, by a cylinder round which
wire is wound. … Either the Pacinotti-Gramme ring armature,
or the Hefner-Alteneck drum armature, is now adopted by nearly
all constructors of dynamo-electric machines, the parts
varying of course in minor details." The history of the dynamo
since has been one of a gradual perfection of parts, resulting
in the production of a great number of types, which can not
here even be mentioned.
_A. R. von Urbanitzky,
Electricity in the Service of Man,
pages 227-242._
_S. P. Thompson,
Dynamo Electrical Machines._
ELECTRICITY:
Electric Motors.
It has been known for forty years that every form of electric
motor which operated on the principle of mutual mechanical
force between a magnet and a conducting wire or coil could
also be made to act as a generator of induced currents by the
reverse operation of producing the motion mechanically. And
when, starting from the researches of Siemens, Wilde, Nollet,
Holmes and Gramme, the modern forms of magneto-electric and
dynamo-electric machines began to come into commercial use, it
was discovered that any one of the modern machines designed as
a generator of currents constituted a far more efficient
electric motor than any of the previous forms which had been
designed specially as motors.
{775}
It required no new discovery of the law of reversibility to
enable the electrician to understand this; but to convince the
world required actual experiment."
_A. Guillemin,
Electricity and Magnetism,
part 2, chapter 10, section 3._
ELECTRICITY: A. D. 1835-1889.
The Electric Railway.
"Thomas Davenport, a poor blacksmith of Brandon, Vt.,
constructed what might be termed the first electric railway.
The invention was crude and of little practical value, but the
idea was there. In 1835 he exhibited in Springfield,
Massachusetts, a small model electric engine running upon a
circular track, the circuit being furnished by primary
batteries carried in the car. Three years later, Robert
Davidson, of Aberdeen, Scotland, began his experiments in this
direction. … He constructed quite a powerful motor, which
was mounted upon a truck. Forty battery cells, carried on the
car, furnished power to propel the motor. The battery elements
were composed of amalgamated zinc and iron plates, the
exciting liquid being dilute sulphuric acid. This locomotive
was run successfully on several steam railroads in Scotland,
the speed attained was four miles an hour, but this machine
was afterwards destroyed by some malicious person or persons
while it was being taken home to Aberdeen. In 1849 Moses
Farmer exhibited an electric engine which drew a small car
containing two persons. In 1851, Dr. Charles Grafton Page, of
Salem, Massachusetts, perfected an electric engine of
considerable power. On April 29 of that year the engine was
attached to a car and a trip was made from Washington to
Bladensburg, over the Baltimore and Ohio Railroad track. The
highest speed attained was nineteen miles an hour. The
electric power was furnished by one hundred Grove cells
carried on the engine. … The same year, Thomas Hall, of
Boston, Mass., built a small electric locomotive called the
Volta. The current was furnished by two Grove battery cells
which were conducted to the rails, thence through the wheels
of the locomotive to the motor. This was the first instance of
the current being supplied to the motor on a locomotive from a
stationary source. It was exhibited at the Charitable
Mechanics fair by him in 1860. … In 1879, Messrs. Siemen and
Halske, of Berlin, constructed and operated an electric
railway at the Industrial Exposition. A third rail placed in
the centre of the two outer rails, supplied the current, which
was taken up into the motor through a sliding contact under
the locomotive. … In 1880 Thomas A. Edison constructed an
experimental road near his laboratory in Menlo Park, N. J. The
power from the locomotive was transferred to the car by belts
running to and from the shafts of each. The current was taken
from and returned through the rails. Early in the year of 1881
the Lichterfelde, Germany, electric railway was put into
operation. It is a third rail system and is still running at
the present time. This may be said to be the first commercial
electric railway constructed. In 1883 the Daft Electric
Company equipped and operated quite successfully an electric
system on the Saratoga & Mt. McGregor Railroad, at Saratoga,
N. Y." During the next five or six years numerous electric
railroads, more or less experimental, were built." October 31,
1888, the Council Bluffs & Omaha Railway and Bridge Company
was first operated by electricity, they using the
Thomson-Houston system. The same year the Thomson-Houston Co.
equipped the Highland Division of the Lynn & Boston Horse
Railway at Lynn, Massachusetts. Horse railways now began to be
equipped with electricity all over the world, and especially
in the United States. In February, 1889, the Thomson-Houston
Electric Co. had equipped the line from Bowdoin Square,
Boston, to Harvard Square, Cambridge, of the West End Railway
with electricity and operated twenty cars, since which time it
has increased its electrical apparatus, until now it is the
largest electric railway line in the world."
_E. Trevert,
Electric Railway Engineering,
appendix A._
ELECTRICITY: A. D. 1841-1880.
The Incandescent Electric Light.
"While the arc lamp is well adapted for lighting large areas
requiring a powerful, diffused light, similar to sunlight, and
hence is suitable for outdoor illumination, and for workshops,
stores, public buildings, and factories, especially those
where colored fabrics are produced, its use in ordinary
dwellings, or for a desk light in offices, is impractical, a
softer, steadier, and more economical light being required.
Various attempts to modify the arc-light by combining it with
the incandescent were made in the earlier stages of electric
lighting. … The first strictly incandescent lamp was
invented in 1841 by Frederick de Molyens of Cheltenham,
England, and was constructed on the simple principle of the
incandescence produced by the high resistance of a platinum
wire to the passage of the electric current. In 1849 Petrie
employed iridium for the same purpose, also alloys of iridium
and platinum, and iridium and carbon. In 1845 J. W. Starr of
Cincinnati first proposed the use of carbon, and, associated
with King, his English agent, produced, through the financial
aid of the philanthropist Peabody, an incandescent lamp. …
In all these early experiments, the battery was the source of
electric supply; and the comparatively small current required
for the incandescent light as compared with that required for
the arc light, was an argument in favor of the former. …
Still, no substantial progress was made with either system
till the invention of the dynamo resulted in the practical
development of both systems, that of the incandescent
following that of the arc. Among the first to make
incandescent lighting a practical success were Sawyer and Man
of New York, and Edison. For a long time, Edison experimented
with platinum, using fine platinum wire coiled into a spiral,
so as to concentrate the heat, and produce incandescence; the
same current producing only a red heat when the wire, whether
of platinum or other metal, is stretched out. … Failing to
obtain satisfactory results from platinum, Edison turned his
attention to carbon, the superiority of which as an
incandescent illuminant had already been demonstrated; but its
rapid consumption, as shown by the Reynier and similar lamps,
being unfavorable to its use as compared with the durability
of platinum and iridium, the problem was, to secure the
superior illumination of the carbon, and reduce or prevent its
consumption. As this consumption was due chiefly to oxidation,
it was questionable whether the superior illumination were not
due to the same cause, and whether, if the carbon were inclosed
in a glass globe, from which oxygen was eliminated, the same
illumination could be obtained.
{776}
Another difficulty of equal magnitude was to obtain a
sufficiently perfect vacuum, and maintain it in a hermetically
sealed globe inclosing the carbon, and at the same time
maintain electric connection with the generator through the
glass by a metal conductor, subject to expansion and
contraction different from that of the glass, by the change of
temperature due to the passage of the electric current. Sawyer
and Man attempted to solve this problem by filling the globe
with nitrogen, thus preventing combustion by eliminating the
oxygen. … The results obtained by this method, which at one
time attracted a great deal of attention, were not
sufficiently satisfactory to become practical; and Edison and
others gave their preference to the vacuum method, and sought
to overcome the difficulties connected with it. The invention
of the mercurial air pump, with its subsequent improvements,
made it possible to obtain a sufficiently perfect vacuum, and
the difficulty of introducing the current into the interior of
the globe was overcome by imbedding a fine platinum wire in
the glass, connecting the inclosed carbon with the external
circuit; the expansion and contraction of the platinum not
differing sufficiently from that of the glass, in so fine a
wire, as to impair the vacuum. … The carbons made by Edison
under his first patent in 1879, were obtained from brown paper
or cardboard. … They were very fragile and short-lived, and
consequently were soon abandoned. In 1880 he patented the
process which, with some modifications, he still adheres to.
In this process he uses filaments of bamboo, which are taken
from the interior, fibrous portion of the plant."
_P. Atkinson,
Elements of Electric Lighting,
chapter 8._
ELECTRICITY: A. D. 1854-1866.
The Atlantic Cable.
"Cyrus Field … established a company in America (in 1854),
which … obtained the right of landing cables in Newfoundland
for fifty years. Soundings were made in 1856 between Ireland
and Newfoundland, showing a maximum depth of 4,400 metres.
Having succeeded after several attempts in laying a cable
between Nova Scotia and Newfoundland, Field founded the
Atlantic Telegraph Company in England. … The length of the
… cable [used] was 4,000 kilometres, and was carried by the
two ships Agamemnon and Niagara. The distance between the two
stations on the coasts was 2,640 kilometres. The laying of the
cable commenced on the 7th of August, 1857, at Valentia
(Ireland); on the third day the cable broke at a depth of
3,660 metres, and the expedition had to return. A second
expedition was sent in 1858; the two ships met each other
half-way, the ends of the cable were joined, and the lowering
of it commenced in both directions; 149 kilometres were thus
lowered, when a fault in the cable was discovered. It had,
therefore, to be brought on board again, and was broken during
the process. After it had been repaired, and when 476
kilometres had been already laid, another fault was
discovered, which caused another breakage; this time it was
impossible to repair it, and the expedition was again
unsuccessful, and had to return. In spite of the repeated
failures, two ships were again sent out in the same year, and
this time one end of the cable was landed in Ireland, and the
other at Newfoundland. The length of the sunk cable was 3,745
kilometres. Field's first telegram was sent on the 7th of
August, from America to Ireland. The insulation of the cable,
however, became more defective every day, and failed
altogether on the 1st of September. From the experience
obtained, it was concluded that it was possible to lay a
trans-Atlantic cable, and the company, after consulting a
number of professional men, again set to work. … The Great
Eastern was employed in laying this cable. This ship, which is
211 metres long, 25 metres broad, and 16 metres in height,
carried a crew of 500 men, of which 120 were electricians and
engineers, 179 mechanics and stokers, and 115 sailors. The
management of all affairs relating to the laying of the cable
was entrusted to Canning. The coast cable was laid on the 21st
of July, and the end of it was connected with the Atlantic
cable on the 23rd. After 1,326 kilometres had been laid, a
fault was discovered, an iron wire was found stuck right
across the cable, and Canning considered the mischief to have
been done with a malevolent purpose. On the 2nd of August,
2,196 kilometres of cable were sunk, when another fault was
discovered. While the cable was being repaired it broke, and
attempts to recover it at the time were all unsuccessful; in
consequence of this the Great Eastern had to return without
having completed the task. A new company, the Anglo-American
Telegraph Company, was formed in 1866, and at once entrusted
Messrs. Glass, Elliott and Company with the construction of a
new cable of 3,000 kilometres. Different arrangements were
made for the outer envelope of the cable, and the Great
Eastern was once more equipped to give effect to the
experiments which had just been made. The new expedition was
not only to lay a new cable, but also to take up the end of
the old one, and join it to a new piece, and thus obtain a
second telegraph line. The sinking again commenced in Ireland
on the 13th of July, 1866, and it was finished on the 27th. On
the 4th of August, 1866, the Trans-Atlantic Telegraph Line was
declared open."
_A. R. von Urbanitzky,
Electricity in the Service of Man,
pages 767-768._
ELECTRICITY: A. D. 1876-1892.
The Telephone.
"The first and simplest of all magnetic telephones is the Bell
Telephone." In "the first form of this instrument, constructed
by Professor Graham Bell, in 1876 … a harp of steel rods was
attached to the poles of a permanent magnet. … When we sing
into a piano, certain of the strings of the instrument are set
in vibration sympathetically by the action of the voice with
different degrees of amplitude, and a sound, which is an
approximation to the vowel uttered, is produced from the
piano. Theory shows that, had the piano a much larger number
of strings to the octave, the vowel sounds would be perfectly
reproduced. It was upon this principle that Bell constructed
his first telephone. The expense of constructing such an
apparatus, however, deterred Bell from making the attempt, and
he sought to simplify the apparatus before proceeding further in
this direction. After many experiments with more, or less
unsatisfactory results, he constructed the instrument …
which he exhibited at Philadelphia in 1876. In this apparatus,
the transmitter was formed by an electro-magnet, through which
a current flowed, and a membrane, made of gold-beater's skin,
on which was placed as a sort of armature, a piece of soft
iron, which thus vibrated in front of the electro-magnet when
the membrane was thrown into sonorous vibration.
{777}
… It is quite clear that when we speak into a Bell
transmitter only a small fraction of the energy of the
sonorous vibrations of the voice can be converted into
electric currents, and that these currents must be extremely
weak. Edison applied himself to discover some means by which
he could increase the strength of these currents. Elisha Gray
had proposed to use the variation of resistance of a fine
platinum wire attached to a diaphragm dipping into water, and
hoped that the variation of extent of surface in contact would
so vary the strength of current as to reproduce sonorous
vibrations; but there is no record of this experiment having
been tried. Edison proposed to utilise the fact that the
resistance of carbon varied under pressure. He had
independently discovered this peculiarity of carbon, but it
had been previously described by Du Moncel. … The first
carbon transmitter was constructed in 1878 by Edison."
_W. H. Preece, and J. Maier,
The Telephone,
chapters 3-4._
In a pamphlet distributed at the Columbian Exposition,
Chicago, 1893, entitled "Exhibit of the American Bell
Telephone Co.," the following statements are made: "At the
Centennial Exposition, in Philadelphia, in 1876, was given the
first general public exhibition of the telephone by its
inventor, Alexander Graham Bell. To-day, seventeen years
later, more than half a million instruments are in daily use
in the United States alone, six hundred million talks by
telephone are held every year, and the human voice is carried
over a distance of twelve hundred miles without loss of sound
or syllable. The first use of the telephone for business
purposes was over a single wire connecting only two
telephones. At once the need of general inter-communication
made itself felt. In the cities and larger towns exchanges
were established and all the subscribers to any one exchange
were enabled to talk to one another through a central office.
Means were then devised to connect two or more exchanges by
trunk lines, thus affording means of communication between all
the subscribers of all the exchanges so connected. This work
has been pushed forward until now have been gathered into what
may be termed one great exchange all the important cities from
Augusta on the east to Milwaukee on the west, and from
Burlington and Buffalo on the north to Washington on the
south, bringing more than one half the people of this country
and a much larger proportion of the business interests, within
talking distance of one another. … The lines which connect
Chicago with Boston, via New York, are of copper wire of extra
size. It is about one sixth of an inch in diameter, and weighs
435 pounds to the mile. Hence each circuit contains 1,044,000
pounds of copper. … In the United States there are over a
quarter of a million exchange subscribers, and … these make
use of the telephone to carry on 600,000,000 conversations
annually. There is hardly a city or town of 5,000 inhabitants
that has not its Telephone Exchange, and these are so knit
together by connecting lines that intercommunication is
constant." The number of telephones in use in the United
States, on the 20th of December in each year since the first
introduction, is given as follows;
1877, 5,187;
1878, 17,567;
1879, 52,517;
1880, 123,380;
1881, 180,592;
1882, 237,728;
1883, 298,580;
1884, 325,574;
1885, 330,040;
1886, 353,518;
1887, 380,277;
1888, 411,511;
1889, 444,861;
1890, 483,790;
1891, 512,407;
1892, 552,720.
----------End: Electricity----------
ELEPHANT, Order of the.
A Danish order of knighthood instituted in 1693 by
King Christian V.
ELEPHANTINE.
See EGYPT: THE OLD EMPIRE AND THE MIDDLE EMPIRE.
ELEUSINIAN MYSTERIES, The.
Among the ancient Greeks, "the mysteries were a source of
faith and hope to the initiated, as are the churches of modern
times. Secret doctrines, regarded as holy, and to be kept with
inviolable fidelity, were handed down in these brotherhoods,
and no doubt were fondly believed to contain a saving grace by
those who were admitted, amidst solemn and imposing rites,
under the veil of midnight, to hear the tenets of the ancient
faith, and the promises of blessings to come to those who,
with sincerity of heart and pious trust, took the obligations
upon them. The Eleusinian mysteries were the most imposing and
venerable. Their origin extended back into a mythical
antiquity, and they were among the few forms of Greek worship
which were under the superintendence of hereditary
priesthoods. Thirlwall thinks that 'they were the remains of a
worship which preceded the rise of the Hellenic mythology and
its attendant rites, grounded on a view of Nature less
fanciful, more earnest, and better fitted to awaken both
philosophical thought and religious feeling.' This conclusion
is still further confirmed by the moral and religious tone of
the poets,—such as Æschylus,—whose ideas on justice, sin and
retribution are as solemn and elevated as those of a Hebrew
prophet. The secrets, whatever they were, were never revealed
in express terms; but Isocrates uses some remarkable
expressions, when speaking of their importance to the
condition of man. 'Those who are initiated,' says he
'entertain sweeter hopes of eternal life'; and how could this
be the case, unless there were imparted at Eleusis the
doctrine of eternal life, and some idea of its state and
circumstances more compatible with an elevated conception of
the Deity and of the human soul than the vague and shadowy
images which haunted the popular mind. The Eleusinian
communion embraced the most eminent men from every part of
Greece,—statesmen, poets, philosophers, and generals; and
when Greece became a part of the Roman Empire, the greatest
minds of Rome drew instruction and consolation from its
doctrines. The ceremonies of initiation—which took place
every year in the early autumn, a beautiful season in
Attica—were a splendid ritual, attracting visitors from every
part of the world. The processions moving from Athens to
Eleusis over the Sacred Way, sometimes numbered twenty or
thirty thousand people, and the exciting scenes were well
calculated to leave a durable impression on susceptible minds.
… The formula of the dismissal, after the initiation was
over, consisted in the mysterious words 'konx,' 'ompax'; and
this is the only Eleusinian secret that has illuminated the
world from the recesses of the temple of Demeter and
Persephone. But it is a striking illustration of the value
attached to these rites and doctrines, that, in moments of
extremest peril—as of impending shipwreck, or massacre by a
victorious enemy,—men asked one another, 'Are you initiated?'
as if this were the anchor of their hopes for another life."
{778}
_C. C. Felton,
Greece, Ancient and Modern,
chapter 2, lecture 10._
"The Eleusinian mysteries continued to be celebrated during
the whole of the second half of the fourth century, till they
were put an end to by the destruction of the temple at
Eleusis, and by the devastation of Greece in the invasion of
the Goths under Alaric in 395."
See GOTHS: A. D. 395.
_W. Smith,
Note to Gibbon's Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire,
chapter 25._
ALSO IN:
_R. Brown,
The Great Dionysiak Myth,
chapter 6, section. 2._
_J. J. I. von Dollinger,
The Gentile and the Jew,
book 3 (volume 1)._
See, also, ELEUSIS.
ELEUSIS.
Eleusis was originally one of the twelve confederate townships
into which Attica was said to have been divided before the
time of Theseus. It "was advantageously situated [about
fourteen miles Northwest of Athens] on a height, at a small
distance from the shore of an extensive bay, to which there is
access only through narrow channels, at the two extremities of
the island of Salamis: its position was important, as
commanding the shortest and most level route by land from
Athens to the Isthmus by the pass which leads at the foot of
Mount Cerata along the shore to Megara. … Eleusis was built
at the eastern end of a low rocky hill, which lies parallel to
the sea-shore. … The eastern extremity of the hill was
levelled artificially for the reception of the Hierum of Ceres
and the other sacred buildings. Above these are the traces of an
Acropolis. A triangular space of about 500 yards each side,
lying between the hill and the shore, was occupied by the town
of Eleusis. … To those who approached Eleusis from Athens,
the sacred buildings standing on the eastern extremity of the
height concealed the greater part of the town, and on a nearer
approach presented a succession of magnificent objects, well
calculated to heighten the solemn grandeur of the ceremonies
and the awe and reverence of the Mystæ in their initiation.
… In the plurality of enclosures, in the magnificence of the
pylæ or gateways, in the absence of any general symmetry of
plan, in the small auxiliary temples, we recognize a great
resemblance between the sacred buildings of Eleusis and the
Egyptian Hiera of Thebes and Philæ. And this resemblance is
the more remarkable, as the Demeter of Attica was the Isis of
Egypt. We cannot suppose, however, that the plan of all these
buildings was even thought of when the worship of Ceres was
established at Eleusis. They were the progressive creation of
successive ages. … Under the Roman Empire … it was
fashionable among the higher order of Romans to pass some time
at Athens in the study of philosophy and to be initiated in
the Eleusinian mysteries. Hence Eleusis became at that time
one of the most frequented places in Greece; and perhaps it
was never so populous as under the emperors of the first two
centuries of our æra. During the two following centuries, its
mysteries were the chief support of declining polytheism, and
almost the only remaining bond of national union among the
Greeks; but at length the destructive visit of the Goths in
the year 396, the extinction of paganism and the ruin of
maritime commerce, left Eleusis deprived of every source of
prosperity, except those which are inseparable from its
fertile plain, its noble bay, and its position on the road
from Attica to the Isthmus. … The village still preserves
the ancient name, no further altered than is customary in
Romaic conversions."
_W. M. Leake,
Topography of Athens;
volume 2: The Demi, section 5._
ELGIN, Lord.
The Indian administration of.
See INDIA: A. D. 1862-1876.
ELIS.
Elis was an ancient Greek state, occupying the country on the
western coast of Peloponnesus, adjoining Arcadia, and between
Messenia at the south and Achaia on the north. It was noted
for the fertility of its soil and the rich yield of its
fisheries. But Elis owed greater importance to the inclusion
within its territory of the sacred ground of Olympia, where
the celebration of the most famous festival of Zeus came to be
established at an early time. The Elians had acquired Olympia
by conquest of the city and territory of Pisa, to which it
originally belonged, and the presidency of the Olympic games
was always disputed with them by the latter. Elis was the
close ally of Sparta down to the year B. C. 421, when a bitter
quarrel arose between them, and Elis suffered heavily in the
wars which ensued. It was afterwards at war with the
Arcadians, and joined the Ætolian League against the Achaian
League. The city of Elis was one of the most splendid in
Greece; but little now remains, even of ruins, to indicate its
departed glories.
See, also, OLYMPIC GAMES.
ELISII, The.
See LYGIANS.
ELIZABETH,
Czarina of Russia, A. D. 1741-1761.
Elizabeth, Queen of Bohemia, and the Thirty Years War.
See GERMANY: A. D. 1618-1620; 1620; 1621-1623;
1631-1632, and 1648.
Elizabeth, Queen of England, A. D. 1558-1603.
Elizabeth Farnese, Queen of Spain.
See ITALY: A. D. 1715-1735; and
SPAIN: A. D. 1713-1725, and 1726-1731.
ELIZABETH, N. J.
The first settlement of.
See NEW JERSEY: A. D. 1664-1667.
ELK HORN, OR PEA RIDGE, Battle of.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
A. D. 1862 (JANUARY-MARCH: MISSOURI-ARKANSAS).
ELKWATER, OR CHEAT SUMMIT, Battle of.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
A. D. 1861 (AUGUST-DECEMBER: WEST VIRGINIA).
ELLANDUM, Battle of.
Decisive victory of Ecgberht, the West Saxon king, over the
Mercians, A. D. 823.
ELLEBRI, The.
See IRELAND, TRIBES OF EARLY CELTIC INHABITANTS.
ELLENBOROUGH, Lord, The Indian administration of.
See INDIA: A. D. 1836-1845.
ELLSWORTH, Colonel, The death of.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
A. D. 1861 (MAY: VIRGINIA).
ELMET.
A small kingdom of the Britons which was swallowed up in the
English kingdom of Northumbria early in the seventh century.
It answered, roughly speaking, to the present West-Riding of
Yorkshire. … Leeds "preserves the name of Loidis, by which
Elmet seems also to have been known."
J. R. Green, The Making of England, page 254.
ELMIRA, N. Y. (then Newtown).
General Sullivan's Battle with the Senecas.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
A. D. 1779 (AUGUST-SEPTEMBER).
ELSASS.
See ALSACE.
ELTEKEH, Battle of.
A victory won by the Assyrian, Sennacherib, over the
Egyptians, before the disaster befell his army which is
related in 2 Kings xix. 35. Sennacherib's own account of the
battle has been found among the Assyrian records.
{779}
_A. H. Sayce,
Fresh Light from the Ancient Monuments,
chapter 6._
ELUSATES, The.
See AQUITAINE, TRIBES OF ANCIENT.
ELVIRA, Battle of(1319).
See SPAIN: A. D. 1273-1460.
ELY, The Camp of Refuge at.
See ENGLAND: A. D. 1069-1071.
ELYMAIS.
See ELAM.
ELYMEIA.
See MACEDONIA.
ELYMIANS, The.
See SICILY: EARLY INHABITANTS.
ELYSIAN FIELDS.
See CANARY ISLANDS.
ELZEVIRS.
See PRINTING: A. D. 1617-1680.
EMANCIPATION, Catholic.
See IRELAND: A. D. 1811-1829.
EMANCIPATION, Compensated;
Proposal of President Lincoln.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1862 (MARCH).
EMANCIPATION, Prussian Edict of.
See GERMANY: A. D. 1807-1808.
EMANCIPATION PROCLAMATIONS,
President Lincoln's.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
A. D. 1862 (SEPTEMBER), and 1863 (JANUARY).
EMANUEL,
King of Portugal, A. D. 1495-1521.
Emanuel Philibert, Duke of Savoy, A. D. 1553-1580.
EMBARGO OF 1807, The American.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
A. D. 1804-1809, and 1808.
EMERICH, King of Hungary, A. D. 1196-1204.
EMERITA AUGUSTA.
A colony of Roman veterans settled in Spain, B. C. 27, by the
emperor Augustus. It is identified with modern Merida, in
Estremadura.
C. Merivale, History of the Romans, chapter 34, note.
EMESSA.
Capture by the Arabs (A. D. 636).
See MAHOMETAN CONQUEST: A. D. 632-639.
ÉMIGRÉS OF THE FRENCH REVOLUTION.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1789-1791;
1791 (JULY-SEPTEMBER); and 1791-1792.
EMITES, The.
See JEWS: EARLY HEBREW HISTORY.
EMMAUS, Battle of.
Defeat of a Syrian army under Gorgias by Judas Maccabæus,
B. C. 166.
Josephus, Antiquity of the Jews, book 12, chapter 7.
EMMENDINGEN, Battle of.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1796 (APRIL-OCTOBER). .
EMMET INSURRECTION, The.
See IRELAND: A. D. 1801-1803.
EMPEROR.
A title derived from the Roman title Imperator.
See IMPERATOR.
EMPORIA, The.
See CARTHAGE, THE DOMINION OF.
ENCOMIENDAS.
See SLAVERY, MODERN: OF THE INDIANS;
also, REPARTIMIENTOS.
ENCUMBERED ESTATES ACT, The.
See IRELAND: A. D. 1843-1848.
ENCYCLICAL AND SYLLABUS OF 1864, The.
See PAPACY: A. D. 1864.
ENCYCLOPÆDISTS, The.
"French literature had never been so brilliant as in the
second half of the 18th century. Buffon, Diderot, D'Alembert,
Rousseau, Duclos, Condillac, Helvetius, Holbach, Raynal,
Condorcet, Mably, and many others adorned it, and the
'Encyclopædia,' which was begun in 1751 under the direction of
Diderot, became the focus of an intellectual influence which
has rarely been equalled. The name and idea were taken from a
work published by Ephraim Chambers in Dublin, in 1728. A noble
preliminary discourse was written by D'Alembert; and all the
best pens in France were enlisted in the enterprise, which was
constantly encouraged and largely assisted by Voltaire. Twice
it was suppressed by authority, but the interdict was again
raised. Popular favour now ran with an irresistible force in
favour of the philosophers, and the work was brought to its
conclusion in 1771."
W. E. H. Lecky, History of England in the 18th Century,
chapter. 20 (volume 5).
ALSO IN:
_J. Morley,
Diderot and the Encyclopædists,
chapter 5 (volume 1)._
_E. J. Lowell,
The Eve of the French Revolution,
chapter 16._
ENDICOTT, John, and the Colony of Massachusetts Bay.
See MASSACHUSETTS: A. D. 1623-1629, and after.
ENDIDJAN, Battle of (1876).
See RUSSIA: A. D. 1859-1876.
ENGADINE, The.
See SWITZERLAND: A. D. 1396-1499.
ENGEN, Battle of (1800).
See FRANCE: A. D. 1800-1801 (MAY-FEBRUARY).
ENGERN, Duchy of.
See SAXONY: THE OLD DUCHY.
ENGHIEN, Duc d',
The abduction and execution of.
See FRANCE: 1804-1805.
ENGLAND:
Before the coming of the English.
The Celtic and Roman periods.
See BRITAIN.
ENGLAND: A. D.449-547.
The three tribes of the English conquest.
The naming of the country.
"It was by … three tribes [from Northwestern Germany], the
Saxons, the Angles, and the Jutes, that southern Britain was
conquered and colonized in the fifth and sixth centuries,
according to the most ancient testimony. … Of the three, the
Angli almost if not altogether pass away into the migration:
the Jutes and the Saxons, although migrating in great numbers,
had yet a great part to play in their own homes and in other
regions besides Britain; the former at a later period in the
train and under the name of the Danes; the latter in German
history from the eighth century to the present day."
_W. Stubbs,
Constitutional History of England,
volume 1, chapter 3._
"Among the Teutonic settlers in Britain some tribes stand out
conspicuously; Angles, Saxons, and Jutes stand out
conspicuously above all. The Jutes led the way; from the
Angles the land and the united nation took their name; the
Saxons gave us the name by which our Celtic neighbours have
ever known us. But there is no reason to confine the area from
which our forefathers came to the space which we should mark
on the map as the land of the continental Angles, Saxons, and
Jutes. So great a migration is always likely to be swollen by
some who are quite alien to the leading tribe; it is always
certain to be swollen by many who are of stocks akin to the
leading tribe, but who do not actually belong to it.
{780}
As we in Britain are those who stayed behind at the time of
the second great migration of our people [to America], so I
venture to look on all our Low-Dutch kinsfolk on the continent
of Europe as those who stayed behind at the time of the first
great migration of our people. Our special hearth and cradle
is doubtless to be found in the immediate marchland of Germany
and Denmark, but the great common home of our people is to be
looked on as stretching along the whole of that long coast
where various dialects of the Low-Dutch tongue are spoken. If
Angles and Saxons came, we know that Frisians came also, and
with Frisians as an element among us, it is hardly too bold to
claim the whole Netherlands as in the widest sense Old
England, as the land of one part of the kinsfolk who stayed
behind. Through that whole region, from the special Anglian
corner far into what is now northern France, the true tongue
of the people, sometimes overshadowed by other tongues, is
some dialect or other of that branch of the great Teutonic
family which is essentially the same as our own speech. From
Flanders to Sleswick the natural tongue is one which differs
from English only as the historical events of fourteen hundred
years of separation have inevitably made the two tongues—two
dialects, I should rather say, of the same tongue—to differ.
From these lands we came as a people. That was our first
historical migration. Our remote forefathers must have made
endless earlier migrations as parts of the great Aryan body,
as parts of the smaller Teutonic body. But our voyage from the
Low-Dutch mainland to the isle of Britain was our first
migration as a people. … Among the Teutonic tribes which
settled in Britain, two, the Angles and the Saxons, stood out
foremost. These two between them occupied by far the greater
part of the land that was occupied at all. Each of these two
gave its name to the united nation, but each gave it on
different lips. The Saxons were the earlier invaders; they had
more to do with the Celtic remnant which abode in the land. On
the lips then of the Celtic inhabitants of Britain, the whole
of the Teutonic inhabitants of Britain were known from the
beginning, and are known still, as Saxons. But, as the various
Teutonic settlements drew together, as they began to have
common national feelings and to feel the need of a common
national name, the name which they chose was not the same as
that by which their Celtic neighbours called them. They did
not call themselves Saxons and their land Saxony; they called
themselves English and their land England. I used the word
Saxony in all seriousness; it is a real name for the Teutonic
part of Britain, and it is an older name than the name
England. But it is a name used only from the outside by Celtic
neighbours and enemies; it was not used from the inside by the
Teutonic people themselves. In their mouths, as soon as they
took to themselves a common name, that name was English; as
soon as they gave their land a common name, that name was
England. … And this is the more remarkable, because the age
when English was fully established as the name of the people,
and England as the name of the land, was an age of Saxon
supremacy, an age when a Saxon state held the headship of
England and of Britain, when Saxon kings grew step by step to
be kings of the English and lords of the whole British island.
In common use then, the men of the tenth and eleventh
centuries knew themselves by no name but English."
_E. A. Freeman,
The English People in its Three Homes
(Lectures to American Audiences,
pages 30-31, and 45-47)._
See ANGLES AND JUTES, and SAXONS.
ENGLAND: A. D. 449-473.
The Beginning of English history.
The conquest of Kent by the Jutes.
"In the year 449 or 450 a band of warriors was drawn to the
shores of Britain by the usual pledges of land and pay. The
warriors were Jutes, men of a tribe which has left its name to
Jutland, at the extremity of the peninsula that projects from
the shores of North-Germany, but who were probably akin to the
race that was fringing the opposite coast of Scandinavia and
settling in the Danish Isles. In three 'keels'—so ran the
legend of their conquest—and with their Ealdormen, Hengest
and Horsa, at their head, these Jutes landed at Ebbsfleet in
the Isle of Thanet. With the landing of Hengest and his
war-band English history begins. … In the first years that
followed after their landing, Jute and Briton fought side by
side; and the Picts are said to have been scattered to the
winds in a great battle on the eastern coast of Britain. But
danger from the Pict was hardly over when danger came from the
Jutes themselves. Their numbers probably grew fast as the news
of their settlement in Thanet spread among their fellow
pirates who were haunting the channel; and with the increase
of their number must have grown the difficulty of supplying
them with rations and pay. The dispute which rose over these
questions was at last closed by Hengest's men with a threat of
war." The threat was soon executed; the forces of the Jutes
were successfully transferred from their island camp to the
main shore, and the town of Durovernum (occupying the site of
modern Canterbury) was the first to experience their rage.
"The town was left in blackened and solitary ruin as the
invaders pushed along the road to London. No obstacle seems to
have checked their march from the Stour to the Medway." At
Aylesford (A. D. 455), the lowest ford crossing the Medway,
"the British leaders must have taken post for the defence of
West Kent; but the Chronicle of the conquering people tells
… only that Horsa fell in the moment of victory; and the
flint-heap of Horsted which has long preserved his name …
was held in aftertime to mark his grave. … The victory of
Aylesford was followed by a political change among the
assailants, whose loose organization around ealdormen was
exchanged for a stricter union. Aylesford, we are told, was no
sooner won than 'Hengest took to the kingdom, and Ælle, his
son.' … The two kings pushed forward in 457 from the Medway
to the conquest of West Kent." Another battle at the passage
of the Cray was another victory for the invaders, and, "as the
Chronicle of their conquerors tells us, the Britons' forsook
Kent-land and fled with much fear to London.' … If we trust
British tradition, the battle at Crayford was followed by a
political revolution in Britain itself. … It would seem …
that the Romanized Britons rose in revolt under Aurelius
Ambrosianus, a descendant of the last Roman general who
claimed the purple as an Emperor in Britain. … The
revolution revived for a while the energy of the province."
The Jutes were driven back into the Isle of Thanet, and held
there, apparently, for some years, with the help of the strong
fortresses of Richborough and Reculver, guarding the two
mouths of the inlet which then parted Thanet from the
mainland.
{781}
"In 465 however the petty conflicts which had gone on along
the shores of the Wantsum made way for a decisive struggle.
… The overthrow of the Britons at Wipped'sfleet was so
terrible that all hope of preserving the bulk of Kent seems
from this moment to have been abandoned; and … no further
struggle disturbed the Jutes in its conquest and settlement.
It was only along its southern shore that the Britons now held
their ground. … A final victory of the Jutes in 473 may mark
the moment when they reached the rich pastures which the Roman
engineers had reclaimed from Romney Marsh. … With this
advance to the mouth of the Weald the work of Hengest's men
came to an end; nor did the Jutes from this time play any
important part in the attack on the island, for their
after-gains were limited to the Isle of Wight and a few
districts on the Southampton Water."
_J. R. Green,
The Making of England,
chapter 1._
ALSO IN:
_J. M. Lappenberg,
History of England under the Anglo-Saxon Kings,
volume 1, pages 67-101._
-----------------------------------------------------------
A Logical Outline of English History
IN WHICH THE DOMINANT CONDITIONS AND
INFLUENCES ARE DISTINGUISHED BY COLORS.
Physical or material (Orange).
Ethnological (Dark Blue).
Social and political (Green).
Intellectual, moral and religious (Tan).
Foreign (Black).
5th-7th centuries.
Conquest: and settlement by Saxons, Angles and Jutes.
The Island of Britain, separated from the Continent of Europe
by a narrow breadth of sea, which makes friendly commerce easy
and hostile invasion difficult;—its soil in great part
excellent; its northern climate tempered by the humid warmth
of the Gulf Stream; its conditions good for breeding a robust
population, strongly fed upon corn and meats; holding,
moreover, in store, for later times, a rare deposit of iron
and coal, of tin and potter's clay, and other minerals of like
utility; was occupied and possessed by tribes from Northern
Europe, of the strongest race in history; already schooled in
courage and trained to enterprise by generations of sea-faring
adventure; uncorrupted by any mercenary contact with the
decaying civilization of Rome, but ready for the knowledge it
could give.
7th-11th Centuries.
Fused, after much warring with one another and with their
Danish kin, into a nation of Englishmen, they lived, for five
centuries, an isolated life, until their insular and
independent character had become deeply ingrained, and the
primitive system of their social and political
organization—their Townships, their Hundreds, their Shires,
and the popular Moots, or courts, which determined and
administered law in each—was rooted fast; though their king's
power waxed and the nobles and the common people drew farther
apart.
A. D. 1066.—Norman conquest.
Then they were mastered (in the last successful invasion that
their Island ever knew) by another people, sprung from their
own stock, but whose blood had been warmed and whose wit had
been quickened by Latin and Gallic influences in the country
of the Franks.
11th-18th Centuries.
A new social and political system now formed itself in England
as the result:—Feudalism modified by the essential democracy
inherent in Old English institutions—producing a stout
commonality to daunt the lords, and a strong aristocracy to
curb the king.
A. D. 1215. Magna charta.
English royalty soon weakened itself yet more by ambitious
strivings to maintain and extend a wide dominion over-sea, in
Normandy and Aquitaine; and was helpless to resist when barons
and commons came together to demand the signing and sealing of
the Great Charter of Englishmen's rights.
A. D. 1265-1295—Parliament.
Out of the conditions which gave birth to Magna Charta there
followed, soon, the development of the English Parliament as a
representative legislature, from the Curia Regis of the Normans
and the Witenagemot of the older English time.
A. D. 1337-1453—The Hundred Years War.
From the woful wars of a hundred years with France, which
another century brought upon it, the nation, as a whole,
suffered detriment, no doubt, and it progress was hindered in
many ways; but politically the people took some good from
the troubled times, because their kings were more dependant on
them for money and men.
A. D. 1453-1485—War of the Roses
So likewise, they were bettered in some ways by the dreadful
civil Wars of the Roses, which distracted England for thirty
years. The nobles well-nigh perished, as an order, in these
wars, while the middle-class people at large suffered relatively
little, in numbers or estate.
A. D. 1348—The Great Plague.
But, previously, the great Plague, by diminishing the ranks of
the laboring class, had raised wages and the standard of living
among them, and had helped, with other causes, to multiply the
small landowners and tenant farmers of the country, increasing
the independent common class.
A. D. 1327-1377—Immigration of Flemish weavers.
Moreover, from the time of Edward III., who encouraged Flemish
weavers to settle in England and to teach their art to his
people, manufactures began to thrive; trade extended; towns
grew in population and wealth, and the great burgher
middle-class rose rapidly to importance and weight in the
land.
A. D. 1485-1603—Absolutism of the Tudors.
But the commons of England were not prepared to make use of
the actual power which they held. The nobles had led them in
the past; it needed time to raise leaders among themselves,
and time to organize their ranks. Hence no new checks on
royalty were ready to replace those constraints which had been
broken by the ruin of great houses in the civil wars, and the
crown made haste to improve its opportunity for grasping
power. There followed, under the Tudors, a period of
absolutism greater than England had known before.
15th-16th Centuries—Renaissance.
But this endured only for the time of the education of the
commons, who conned the lessons of the age with eagerness and
with understanding. The new learning from Greece and Rome; the
new world knowledge that had been found in the West; the new
ideas which the new art of the printer had furnished with
wings,—all these had now gained their most fertile planting
in the English mind. Their flower was the splendid literature
of the Elizabethan age; they ripened fruits more substantial
at a later day.
The intellectual development of the nation tended first toward
a religious independence, which produced two successive
revolts—from Roman Papacy and from the Anglican Episcopacy
that succeeded it.
This religious new departure of the English people gave
direction to a vast expansion of their energies in the outside
world. It led them into war with Spain, and sent forth Drake
and Hawkins and the Buccaneers, to train the sailors and pilot
the merchant adventurers who would soon make England mistress
of all the wide seas.
A. D. 1608-1688.
The Stuarts.
The Civil War.
The Commonwealth.
The Revolution.
Then, when these people, strong, prosperous and intelligent,
had come to be ripely sufficient for self-government, there
fell to them a foolish race of kings, who challenged them to a
struggle which stripped royalty of all but its fictions, and
established the sovereignty of England in its House of Commons
for all time.
18th-19th Centuries.
Science
Invention.
Material progress.
Economic enlightenment.
Unassailable in its island,—taking part in the great wars of
the 18th century by its fleets and its subsidies
chiefly,—busy with its undisturbed labors at home,—vigorous
in its conquests, its settlements and its trade, which it
pushed into the farthest parts of the earth,—creating wealth
and protecting it from spoliation and from waste,—the English
nation now became the industrial and economic school of the
age. It produced the mechanical inventions which first opened
a new era in the life of mankind on the material side; it
attained to the splendid enlightenment of freedom in trade; it
made England the workshop and mart of the world, and it spread
her Empire to every Continent, through all the seas.
--------- End: A Logical Outline of English History --------------------
ENGLAND: A. D. 477-527.
The conquests of the Saxons.
The founding of the kingdoms of Sussex, Wessex and Essex.
"Whilst the Jutes were conquering Kent, their kindred took
part in the war. Ship after ship sailed from the North Sea,
filled with eager warriors. The Saxons now arrived—Ella and
his three sons landed in the ancient territory of the Regni
(A. D. 477-491). The Britons were defeated with great
slaughter, and driven into the forest of Andreade, whose
extent is faintly indicated by the wastes and commons of the
Weald. A general confederacy of the Kings and 'Tyrants' of the
Britons was formed against the invaders, but fresh
reinforcements arrived from Germany; the city of
Andreades-Ceastre was taken by storm, all its inhabitants were
slain and the buildings razed to the ground, so that its site
is now entirely unknown. From this period the kingdom of the
South Saxons was established in the person of Ella; and though
ruling only over the narrow boundary of modern Sussex, he was
accepted as the first of the Saxon Bretwaldas, or Emperors of
the Isle of Britain. Encouraged, perhaps, by the good tidings
received from Ella, another band of Saxons, commanded by
Cerdic and his son Cynric, landed on the neighbouring shore,
in the modern Hampshire (A. D. 494). At first they made but
little progress. They were opposed by the Britons; but
Geraint, whom the Saxon Chroniclers celebrate for his
nobility, and the British Bards extol for his beauty and
valour, was slain (A. D. 501). The death of the Prince of the
'Woodlands of Dyfnaint,' or Damnonia, may have been avenged,
but the power of the Saxons overwhelmed all opposition; and
Cerdic, associating his son Cynric in the dignity, became the
King of the territory which he gained. Under Cynric and his
son Ceaulin, the Saxons slowly, yet steadily, gained ground.
The utmost extent of their dominions towards the North cannot
be ascertained; but they had conquered the town of Bedford;
and it was probably in consequence of their geographical
position (A. D. 571) with respect to the countries of the
Middle and East Saxons, that the name of the West Saxons was
given to this colony. The tract north of the Thames was soon
lost; but on the south of that river and of the Severn, the
successors of Cerdic, Kings of Wessex, continued to extend
their dominions. The Hampshire Avon, which retains its old
Celtic name, signifying 'the Water,' seems at first to have
been their boundary. Beyond this river, the British princes of
Damnonia retained their power; and it was long before the
country as far as the Exe became a Saxon March-land, or
border. About the time that the Saxons under Cerdic and Cynric
were successfully warring against the Britons, another colony
was seen to establish itself in the territory or kingdom
which, from its geographical position, obtained the name of
East Saxony; but whereof the district of the Middle Saxons,
now Middlesex, formed a part. London, as you well know, is
locally included in Middle Saxony; and the Kings of Essex, and
the other sovereigns who afterwards acquired the country,
certainly possessed many extensive rights of sovereignty in
the city. Yet, I doubt much whether London was ever
incorporated in any Anglo-Saxon kingdom; and I think we must
view it as a weak, tributary, vassal state, not very well able
to resist the usurpations of the supreme Lord or Suzerain,
Æscwin, or Ercenwine, who was the first King of the East
Saxons (A. D. 527). His son Sleda was married to Ricola,
daughter to Ethelbert of Kent, who afterwards appears as the
superior, or sovereign of the country; and though Sleda was
King, yet Ethelbert joined in all important acts of
government. This was the fate of Essex—it is styled a
kingdom, but it never enjoyed any political independence,
being always subject to the adjoining kings."
_F. Palgrave,
History of the Anglo Saxons,
chapter 2._
"The descents of [the West Saxons], Cerdic and Cynric, in 495
at the mouth of the Itchen, and a fresh descent on Portchester
in 501, can have been little more than plunder raids; and
though in 508 a far more serious conflict ended in the fall of
5,000 Britons and their chief, it was not till 514 that the
tribe whose older name seems to have been that of the
Gewissas, but who were to be more widely known as the West
Saxons, actually landed with a view to definite conquest."
_J. R. Green,
The Making of England,
chapter 3._
"The greatness of Sussex did not last beyond the days of its
founder Ælle, the first Bretwalda. Whatever importance Essex,
or its offshoot, Middlesex, could claim as containing the
great city of London was of no long duration. We soon find
London fluctuating between the condition of an independent
commonwealth, and that of a dependency of the Mercian Kings.
Very different was the destiny of the third Saxon Kingdom.
Wessex has grown into England, England into Great Britain,
Great Britain into the United Kingdom, the United Kingdom into
the British Empire. Every prince who has ruled England before
and since the eleventh century [the interval of the Danish
kings, Harold, son of Godwine, and William the Conqueror, who
were not of the West Saxon house] has had the blood of Cerdic
the West Saxon in his veins. At the close of the sixth century
Wessex had risen to high importance among the English
Kingdoms, though the days of its permanent supremacy were
still far distant."
_E. A. Freeman,
History of the Norman Conquest of England,
chapter 2, section 1._
{782}
ENGLAND: A. D. 547-633.
The conquests of the Angles.
The founding of their kingdoms.
Northwards of the East Saxons was established the kingdom of
the East Angles, in which a northern and a southern people
(Northfolc and Suthfolc) were distinguished. It is probable
that, even during the last period of the Roman sway, Germans
were settled in this part of Britain; a supposition that gains
probability from several old Saxon sagas, which have reference
to East Anglia at a period anterior to the coming of Hengest
and Horsa. The land of the Gyrwas, containing 1,200 hides …
comprised the neighbouring marsh districts of Ely and
Huntingdonshire, almost as far as Lincoln. Of the East Angles
Wehwa, or Wewa, or more commonly his son Uffa, or Wuffa, from
whom his race derived their patronymic of Uffings or Wuffings,
is recorded as the first king. The neighbouring states of
Mercia originated in the marsh districts of the Lindisware, or
inhabitants of Lindsey (Lindesig), the northern part of
Lincolnshire. With these were united the Middle Angles. This
kingdom, divided by the Trent into a northern and a southern
portion, gradually extended itself to the borders of Wales.
Among the states which it comprised was the little Kingdom of
the Hwiccas, conterminous with the later diocese of Worcester,
or the counties of Gloucester, Worcester, and a part of
Warwick. This state, together with that of the Hecanas, bore
the common Germanic appellation of the land of the Magesætas.
… The country to the north of the Humber had suffered the
most severely from the inroads of the Picts and Scots. It
became at an early period separated into two British states,
the names of which were retained for some centuries, viz.:
Deifyr (Deora rice), afterwards Latinized into Deira,
extending from the Humber to the Tyne, and Berneich (Beorna
rice), afterwards Bernicia, from the Tyne to the Clyde. Here
also the settlements of the German races appear anterior to
the date given in the common accounts of the first Anglian
kings of those territories, in the middle of the sixth
century."
_J. M. Lappenberg,
History of England under the Anglo-Saxon Kings (Thorpe),
volume 1, pages 112-117._
The three Anglian kingdoms of Northumberland, Mercia and East
Anglia, "are altogether much larger than the Saxon and Jutish
Kingdoms, so you see very well why the land was called
'England' and not 'Saxony.' … 'Saxonia' does occur now and
then, and it was really an older name than 'Anglia,' but it
soon went quite out of use. … But some say that there were
either Jutes or Saxons in the North of England as soon or
sooner than there were in the south. If so, there is another
reason why the Scotch Celts as well as the Welsh, call us
Saxons. It is not unlikely that there may have been some small
Saxon or Jutish settlements there very early, but the great
Kingdom of Northumberland was certainly founded by Ida the
Angle in 547. It is more likely that there were some Teutonic
settlements there before him, because the Chronicle does not
say of him, as it does of Hengest, Cissa and Cerdie, that he
came into the land by the sea, but only that he began the
Kingdom. … You must fully understand that in the old times
Northumberland meant the whole land north of the Humber,
reaching as far as the Firth of Forth. It thus takes in part
of what is now Scotland, including the city of Edinburgh, that
is Eadwinesburh, the town of the great Northumbrian King
Eadwine, or Edwin [Edwin of Deira, A. D. 617-633]. … You
must not forget that Lothian and all that part of Scotland was
part of Northumberland, and that the people there are really
English, and still speak a tongue which has changed less from
the Old-English than the tongue of any other part of England.
And the real Scots, the Gael in the Highlands, call the
Lowland Scots 'Saxons,' just as much as they do the people of
England itself. This Northumbrian Kingdom was one of the
greatest Kingdoms in England, but it was often divided into
two, Beornicia [or Bernicia] and Deira, the latter of which
answered pretty nearly to Yorkshire. The chief city was the
old Roman town of Eboracum, which in Old-English is Eoforwic,
and which we cut short into York. York was for a long time the
greatest town in the North of England. There are now many
others much larger, but York is still the second city in
England in rank, and it gives its chief magistrate the title
of Lord-Mayor, as London· does, while in other cities and
towns the chief magistrate is merely the Mayor, without any
Lord. … The great Anglian Kingdom of the Mercians, that is
the Marchmen, the people on the march or frontier, seems to
have been the youngest of all, and to have grown up gradually
by joining together several smaller states, including all the
land which the West Saxons had held north of the Thames. Such
little tribes or states were the Lindesfaras and the Gainas in
Lincolnshire, the Magesætas in Herefordshire, the Hwiccas in
Gloucester, Worcester, and part of Warwick, and several
others. … When Mercia was fully joined under one King, it
made one of the greatest states in England, and some of the
Mercian Kings were very powerful princes. It was chiefly an
Anglian Kingdom; and the Kings were of an Anglian stock, but
among the Hwiccas and in some of the other shires in southern
and western Mercia, most of the people must really have been
Saxons."
_E. A. Freeman,
Old English History for Children,
chapter 5._
ENGLAND: A. D. 560.
Ethelbert becomes king of Kent.
ENGLAND: A. D. 593.
Ethelfrith becomes king of Northumbria.
ENGLAND: A. D. 597-685.
The conversion of the English.
"It happened that certain Saxon children were to be sold for
slaves at the marketplace at Rome; when Divine Providence, the
great clock-keeper of time, ordering not only hours, but even
instants (Luke ii. 38), to his own honour, so disposed it,
that Gregory, afterwards first bishop of Rome of that name,
was present to behold them. It grieved the good man to see the
disproportion betwixt the faces and fortunes, the complexions
and conditions, of these children, condemned to a servile
estate, though carrying liberal looks, so legible was
ingenuity in their faces. It added more to his sorrow, when he
conceived that those youths were twice vassals, bought by
their masters, and 'sold under sin' (Romans vii. 14), servants
in their bodies, and slaves in their souls to Satan; which
occasioned the good man to enter into further inquiry with the
merchants (which set them to sale) what they were and whence
they came, according to this ensuing dialogue:
Gregory.—'Whence come these captives?'
Merchants.—'From the isle of Britain.'
Gregory.—'Are those islanders Christians?'
Merchants.—'O no, they are Pagans.'
Gregory.—'It is sad that the author of darkness should
possess men with so bright faces. But what is the name of
their particular nation?'
Merchants.—'They are called Angli.'
Gregory.—'And well may, for their "angel like faces"; it
becometh such to be coheirs with the angels in heaven. In what
province of England did they live?'
Merchants.—'In Deira.'
Gregory.—'They are to be freed de Dei irâ, "from the anger of
God." How call ye the king of that country?'
Merchants.—'Ella.'
Gregory.—'Surely hallelujah ought to be sung in his kingdom
to the praise of that God who created all things.'
{783}
Thus Gregory's gracious heart set the sound of every word to
the time of spiritual goodness. Nor can his words be justly
censured for levity, if we consider how, in that age, the
elegance of poetry consisted in rhythm, and the eloquence of
prose in allusions. And which was the main, where his pleasant
conceits did end, there his pious endeavours began; which did
not terminate in a verbal jest, but produce real effects,
which ensued hereupon."
_Thomas Fuller,
The Church History of Britain,
book 2, section 1._
In 590 the good Gregory became Bishop of Rome, or Pope, and
six years later, still retaining the interest awakened in him
by the captive English youth, he dispatched a band of
missionary monks to Britain, with their prior, Augustine, at
their head. Once they turned back, affrighted by what they
heard of the ferocity of the new heathen possessors of the
once-Christian island of Britain; but Gregory laid his
commands upon them again, and in the spring of 597 they
crossed the channel from Gaul, landing at Ebbsfleet, in the
Isle of Thanet, where the Jutish invaders had made their first
landing, a century and a half before. They found Ethelbert of
Kent, the most powerful of the English kings at that time,
already prepared to receive them with tolerance, if not with
favor, through the influence of a Christian wife—queen
Bertha, of the royal family of the Franks. The conversion and
baptism of the Kentish king and court, and the acceptance of
the new faith by great numbers of the people followed quickly.
In November of the same year, 597, Augustine returned to Gaul
to receive his consecration as "Archbishop of the English,"
establishing the See of Canterbury, with the primacy which has
remained in it to the present day. The East Saxons were the
next to bow to the cross and in 604 a bishop, Mellitus, was
sent to London. This ended Augustine's work—and Gregory's—
for both died that year. Then followed an interval of little
progress in the work of the mission, and, afterwards, a
reaction towards idolatry which threatened to destroy it
altogether. But just at this time of discouragement in the
south, a great triumph of Christianity was brought about in
Northumberland, and due, there, as in Kent, to the influence
of a Christian queen. Edwin, the king, with many of his nobles
and his people, were baptised on Easter Eve, A. D. 627, and a new
center of missionary work was established at York. There, too,
an appalling reverse occurred, when Northumberland was
overrun, in 633, by Penda, the heathen king of Mercia; but the
kingdom rallied, and the Christian Church was reestablished,
not wholly, as before, under the patronage and rule of Rome,
but partly by a mission from the ancient Celtic Church, which
did not acknowledge the supremacy of Rome. In the end,
however, the Roman forms of Christianity prevailed, throughout
Britain, as elsewhere in western Europe. Before the end of the
7th century the religion of the Cross was established firmly
in all parts of the island, the South Saxons being the latest
to receive it. In the 8th century English missionaries were
laboring zealously for the conversion of their Saxon and
Frisian brethren on the continent.
_G. F. Maclear,
Conversion of the West; The English._
ALSO IN:
_The Venerable Bede,
Ecclesiastical History._
_H. Soames,
The Anglo Saxon Church._
_R. C. Jenkins,
Canterbury,
chapter 2._
ENGLAND:
End of the 6th. Century.
The extent, the limits and the character
of the Teutonic conquest.
"Before the end of the 6th century the Teutonic dominion
stretched from the German ocean to the Severn, and from the
English Channel to the Firth of Forth. The northern part of
the island was still held by Picts and Scots, Celtic tribes,
whose exact ethnical relation to each other hardly concerns
us. And the whole west side of the island, including not only
modern Wales, but the great Kingdom of Strathclyde, stretching
from Dumbarton to Chester, and the great peninsula containing
Cornwall, Devon and part of Somerset, was still in the hands
of independent Britons. The struggle had been a long and
severe one, and the natives often retained possession of a
defensible district long after the surrounding country had
been occupied by the invaders. It is therefore probable that,
at the end of the 6th century and even later, there may have
been within the English frontier inaccessible points where
detached bodies of Welshmen still retained a precarious
independence. It is probable also that, within the same
frontier, there still were Roman towns, tributary to the
conquerors rather than occupied by them. But by the end of the
6th century even these exceptions must have been few. The work
of the Conquest, as a whole, was accomplished. The Teutonic
settlers had occupied by far the greater part of the territory
which they ever were, in the strictest sense, to occupy. The
complete supremacy of the island was yet to be won; but that
was to be won, when it was won, by quite another process. The
English Conquest of Britain differed in several important
respects from every other settlement of a Teutonic people
within the limits of the Roman Empire. … Though the literal
extirpation of a nation is an impossibility, there is every
reason to believe that the Celtic inhabitants of those parts
of Britain which had become English at the 6th century had
been as nearly extirpated as a nation can be. The women would
doubtless be largely spared, but as far as the male sex is
concerned, we may feel sure that death, emigration or personal
slavery were the only alternatives which the vanquished found
at the hands of our fathers. The nature of the small Celtic
element in our language would of itself prove the fact. Nearly
every Welsh word which has found its way into English
expresses some small domestic matter, such as women and slaves
would be concerned with."
_E. A. Freeman,
History of the Norman Conquest of England,
chapter 2, section 1._
"A glance at the map shows that the mass of the local
nomenclature of England begins with the Teutonic conquest,
while the mass of the local nomenclature of France is older
than the Teutonic conquest. And, if we turn from the names on
the map to the living speech of men, there is the most
obvious, but the most important, of all facts, the fact that
Englishmen speak English and that Frenchmen speak French.
{784}
That is to say, in Gaul the speech of Rome lived through the
Teutonic conquest, while in Britain it perished in the
Teutonic conquest, if it had not passed away before. And
behind this is the fact, very much less obvious, a good deal
less important, but still very important, that in Gaul tongues
older than Latin live on only in corners as mere survivals,
while in Britain, while Latin has utterly vanished, a tongue
older than Latin still lives on as the common speech of an
appreciable part of the land. Here then is the final result
open to our own eyes. And it is a final result which could not
have come to pass unless the Teutonic conquest of Britain had
been something of an utterly different character from the
Teutonic conquest of Gaul—unless the amount of change, of
destruction, of havoc of every kind, above all, of slaughter
and driving out of the existing inhabitants, had been far
greater in Britain than it was in Gaul. If the Angles and
Saxons in Britain had been only as the Goths in Spain, or even
as the Franks in Gaul, it is inconceivable that the final
results should have been so utterly different in the two
cases. There is the plain fact: Gaul remained a Latin-speaking
land; England became a Teutonic-speaking land. The obvious
inference is that, while in Gaul the Teutonic conquest led to
no general displacement of the inhabitants, in England it did
lead to such a general displacement. In Gaul the Franks simply
settled among a subject people, among whom they themselves
were gradually merged; in Britain the Angles and Saxons slew
or drove out the people whom they found in the land, and
settled it again as a new people."
_E. A. Freeman,
The English People in its Three Homes
(Lectures to American Audiences),
pages 114-115._
"Almost to the close of the 6th century the English conquest
of Britain was a sheer dispossession of the conquered people;
and, so far as the English sword in these earlier days
reached, Britain became England, a land, that is, not of
Britons, but of Englishmen. There is no need to believe that
the clearing of the land meant the general slaughter of the
men who held it, or to account for such a slaughter by
supposed differences between the temper of the English and
those of other conquerors. … The displacement of the
conquered people was only made possible by their own stubborn
resistance, and by the slow progress of the conquerors in the
teeth of it. Slaughter no doubt there was on the battlefield
or in towns like Anderida, whose long defence woke wrath in
their besiegers. But for the most part the Britons cannot have
been slaughtered; they were simply defeated and drew back."
_J. R. Green,
The Making of England,
chapter 4._
The view strongly stated above, as to the completeness of the
erasure of Romano-British society and influence from the whole
of England except its southwestern and north· western
counties, by the English conquest, is combated as strongly by
another less prominent school of recent historians,
represented, for example, by Mr. Henry C. Coote (The Romans of
Britain) and by Mr. Charles H. Pearson, who says: "We know
that fugitives from Britain settled largely during the 5th
century in Armorica and in Ireland; and we may perhaps accept
the legend of St. Ursula as proof that the flight, in some
instances, was directed to the more civilized parts of the
continent. But even the pious story of the 11,000 virgins is
sober and credible by the side of that history which assumes
that some million men and women were slaughtered or made
homeless by a few ship-loads of conquerors."
_C. H. Pearson,
History of England during the Early and Middle Ages,
volume 1, chapter 6._
The opinion maintained by Prof. Freeman and Mr. Green (and, no
less, by Dr. Stubbs) is the now generally accepted one.
ENGLAND: 7th Century.
The so-called "Heptarchy."
"The old notion of an Heptarchy, of a regular system of seven
Kingdoms, united under the regular supremacy of a single
over-lord, is a dream which has passed away before the light
of historic criticism. The English Kingdoms in Britain were
ever fluctuating, alike in their number and in their relations
to one another. The number of perfectly independent states was
sometimes greater and sometimes less than the mystical seven,
and, till the beginning of the ninth century, the whole nation
did not admit the regular supremacy of any fixed and permanent
over-lord. Yet it is no less certain that, among the mass of
smaller and more obscure principalities, seven Kingdoms do
stand out in a marked way, seven Kingdoms of which it is
possible to recover something like a continuous history, seven
Kingdoms which alone supplied candidates for the dominion of
the whole island." These seven kingdoms were Kent, Sussex,
Essex, Wessex, East Anglia, Northumberland and Mercia.
_E. A. Freeman,
History of the Norman Conquest of England,
chapter 2._
"After the territorial boundaries had become more settled,
there appeared at the commencement of the seventh century
seven or eight greater and smaller kingdoms. … Historians
have described this condition of things as the Heptarchy,
disregarding the early disappearance of Sussex, and the
existence of still smaller kingdoms. But this grouping was
neither based upon equality, nor destined to last for any
length of time. It was the common interest of these smaller
states to withstand the sudden and often dangerous invasions
of their western and northern neighbours; and, accordingly,
whichever king was capable of successfully combating the
common foe, acquired for the time a certain superior rank,
which some historians denote by the title of Bretwalda. By
this name can only be understood an actual and recognized
temporary superiority; first ascribed to Ælla of Sussex, and
later passing to Northumbria, until Wessex finally attains a
real and lasting supremacy. It was geographical position which
determined these relations of superiority. The small kingdoms
in the west were shielded by the greater ones of
Northumberland, Mercia and Wessex, as though by
crescent-shaped forelands—which in their struggles with the
Welsh kingdoms, with Strathclyde and Cumbria, with Picts and
Scots, were continually in a state of martial activity. And so
the smaller western kingdoms followed the three warlike ones;
and round these Anglo-Saxon history revolved for two whole
centuries, until in Wessex we find a combination of most of
the conditions which are necessary to the existence of a great
State."
_R. Gneist,
History of the English Constitution,
chapter 3._
ENGLAND: A. D. 617.
Edwin becomes king of Northumbria.
ENGLAND: A. D. 634.
Oswald becomes king of Northumbria.
ENGLAND: A. D. 655.
Oswi becomes king of Northumbria.
{785}
ENGLAND: A. D. 670.
Egfrith becomes king of Northumbria.
ENGLAND: A. D. 688.
Ini becomes king of the West Saxons.
ENGLAND: A. D. 716.
Ethelbald becomes king of Mercia.
ENGLAND: A. D. 758.
Offa becomes king of Mercia.
ENGLAND: A. D. 794.
Cenwulf becomes king of Mercia.
ENGLAND: A. D. 800.
Accession of the West Saxon king Ecgberht.
ENGLAND: A. D. 800-836.
The supremacy of Wessex.
The first king of all the English.
"And now I have come to the reign of Ecgberht, the great
Bretwalda. He was an Ætheling of the blood of Cerdic, and he
is said to have been the son of Ealhmund, and Ealhmund is said
to have been an Under-king of Kent. For the old line of the
Kings of Kent had come to an end and Kent was now sometimes
under Wessex and sometimes under Mercia. … When Beorhtric
died in 800, he [Ecgberht] was chosen King of the West-Saxons.
He reigned until 836, and in that time he brought all the
English Kingdoms, and the greater part of Britain, more or
less under his power. The southern part of the island, all
Kent, Sussex, and Essex, he joined on to his own Kingdom, and
set his sons or other Æthelings to reign over them as his
Under-kings. But Northumberland, Mercia, and East-Anglia were
not brought so completely under his power as this. Their Kings
submitted to Ecgberht and acknowledged him as their over-lord,
but they went on reigning in their own Kingdoms, and
assembling their own Wise Men, just as they did before. They
became what in after times was called his 'vassals,' what in
English was called being his 'men.' … Besides the English
Kings, Ecgberht brought the Welsh, both in Wales and in
Cornwall, more completely under his power. … So King
Ecgberht was Lord from the Irish Sea to the German Ocean, and
from the English Channel to the Firth of Forth. So it is not
wonderful if, in his charters, he not only called himself King
of the West-Saxons or King of the West-Saxons and Kentishmen,
but sometimes 'Rex Anglorum,' or 'King of the English.' But
amidst all this glory there were signs of great evils at hand.
The Danes came several times."
_E. A. Freeman,
Old English History for Children,
chapter 7._
ENGLAND: A. D. 836.
Accession of the West Saxon king Ethelwulf.
ENGLAND: A. D. 855-880.
Conquests and settlements of the Danes.
The heroic struggle of Alfred the Great.
The "Peace of Wedmore" and the "Danelaw."
King Alfred's character and reign.
"The Danish invasions of England … fall naturally into three
periods, each of which finds its parallel in the course of the
English Conquest of Britain. … We first find a period in
which the object of the invaders seems to be simple plunder.
They land, they harry the country, they fight, if need be, to
secure their booty, but whether defeated or victorious, they
equally return to their ships, and sail away with what they
have gathered. This period includes the time from the first
recorded invasion [A. D. 787] till the latter half of the
ninth century. Next comes a time in which the object of the
Northmen is clearly no longer mere plunder, but settlement.
… In the reign of Æthelwulf the son of Ecgberht it is
recorded that the heathen men wintered for the first time in
the Isle of Sheppey [A. D. 855]. This marks the transition
from the first to the second period of their invasions. … It
was not however till about eleven years from this time that
the settlement actually began. Meanwhile the sceptre of the
West-Saxons passed from one hand to another. … Four sons of
Æthelwulf reigned in succession, and the reigns of the first
three among them [Ethelbald, A. D. 858, Ethelberht, 860,
Ethelred, 866] make up together only thirteen years. In the
reign of the third of these princes, Æthelred I., the second
period of the invasions fairly begins. Five years were spent
by the Northmen in ravaging and conquering the tributary
Kingdoms. Northumberland, still disputed between rival Kings,
fell an easy prey [867-869], and one or two puppet princes did
not scruple to receive a tributary crown at the hands of the
heathen invaders. They next entered Mercia [868], they seized
Nottingham, and the West-Saxon King hastening to the relief of
his vassals, was unable to dislodge them from that stronghold.
East Anglia was completely conquered [866-870] and its King
Eadmund died a martyr. At last the full storm of invasion
burst upon Wessex itself [871]. King Æthelred, the first of a
long line of West-Saxon hero-Kings, supported by his greater
brother Ælfred [Alfred the Great] met the invaders in battle
after battle with varied success. He died and Ælfred
succeeded, in the thick of the struggle. In this year [871],
the last of Æthelred and the first of Ælfred, nine pitched
battles, besides smaller engagements, were fought with the
heathens on West-Saxon ground. At last peace was made; the
Northmen retreated to London, within the Mercian frontier;
Wessex was for the moment delivered, but the supremacy won by
Ecgberht was lost. For a few years Wessex was subjected to
nothing more than temporary incursions, but Northumberland and
part of Mercia were systematically occupied by the Northmen,
and the land was divided among them. … At last the Northmen,
now settled in a large part of the island, made a second
attempt to add Wessex itself to their possessions [878]. For a
moment the land seemed conquered; Ælfred himself lay hid in the
marshes of Somersetshire; men might well deem that the Empire
of Ecgberht and the Kingdom of Cerdic itself, had vanished for
ever. But the strong heart of the most renowned of Englishmen,
the saint, the scholar, the hero, and the lawgiver, carried
his people safely through this most terrible of dangers.
Within the same year the Dragon of Wessex was again victorious
[at the battle of Ethandun, or Edington], and the Northmen
were driven to conclude a peace which Englishmen, fifty years
sooner, would have deemed the lowest depth of degradation, but
which might now be fairly looked upon as honourable and even
as triumphant. By the terms of the Peace of Wedmore the
Northmen were to evacuate Wessex and the part of Mercia
south-west of Watling-Street; they, or at least their chiefs,
were to submit to baptism, and they were to receive the whole
land beyond Watling-Street as vassals of the West-Saxon King.
… The exact boundary started from the Thames, along the Lea
to its source, then right to Bedford and along the Ouse till
it meets Watling-Street, then along Watling-Street to the
Welsh border. See Ælfred and Guthrum's Peace,' Thorpe's 'Laws
and Institutes,' i. 152. This frontier gives London to the
English; but it seems that Ælfred did not obtain full
possession of London till 886."
{786}
The territory thus conceded to the Danes, which included all
northeastern England from the Thames to the Tyne, was
thenceforth known by the name of the Danelagh or Danelaw,
signifying the country subject to the law of the Danes. The
Peace of Wedmore ended the second period of the Danish
invasions. The third period, which was not opened until a full
century later, embraced the actual conquest of the whole of
England by a Danish king and its temporary annexation to the
dominions of the Danish crown.
_E. A. Freeman,
History of the Norman Conquest of England,
chapter 2, with foot-note._
"Now that peace was restored, and the Danes driven out of his
domains, it remained to be seen whether Alfred was as good a
ruler as he was a soldier. … What did he see? The towns,
even London itself, pillaged, ruined, or burnt down; the
monasteries destroyed; the people wild and lawless; ignorance,
roughness, insecurity everywhere. It is almost incredible with
what a brave heart he set himself to repair all this; how his
great and noble aims were still before him; how hard he
strove, and how much he achieved. First of all he seems to
have sought for helpers. Like most clever men, he was good at
reading characters. He soon saw who would be true, brave, wise
friends, and he collected these around him. Some of them he
fetched from over the sea, from France and Germany; our friend
Asser from Wales, or, as he calls his country, 'Western
Britain,' while England, he calls 'Saxony.' He says he first
saw Alfred 'in a royal vill, which is called Dene' in Sussex.
'He received me with kindness, and asked me eagerly to devote
myself to his service, and become his friend; to leave
everything which I possessed on the left or western bank of
the Severn, and promised that he would give more than an
equivalent for it in his own dominions. I replied that I could
not rashly and incautiously promise such things; for it seemed
to be unjust that I should leave those sacred places in which
I had been bred, educated, crowned, and ordained for the sake
of any earthly honour and power, unless upon compulsion. Upon
this he said, "If you cannot accede to this, at least let me
have your service in part; spend six months of the year with
me here, and the other six months in Britain."' And to this
after a time Asser consented. What were the principal things
he turned his mind to after providing for the defence of his
kingdom, and collecting his friends and counsellors about him?
Law—justice—religion—education. He collected and studied
the old laws of his nation; what he thought good he kept, what
he disapproved he left out. He added others, especially the
ten commandments and some other parts of the law of Moses.
Then he laid them all before his Witan, or wise men, and with
their approval published them. … The state of justice in
England was dreadful at this time. … Alfred's way of curing
this was by inquiring into all cases, as far as he possibly
could, himself; and Asser says he did this 'especially for the
sake of the poor, to whose interest, day and night, he ever
was wonderfully attentive; for in the whole kingdom the poor,
besides him, had few or no protectors.' … When he found that
the judges had made mistakes through ignorance, he rebuked them,
and told them they must either grow wiser or give up their
posts; and soon the old earls and other judges, who had been
unlearned from their cradles, began to study diligently. …
For reviving and spreading religion among his people he used
the best means that he knew of; that is, he founded new
monasteries and restored old ones, and did his utmost to get
good bishops and clergymen. For his own part, he strove to
practise in all ways what he taught to others. … Education
was in a still worse condition than everything else. … All
the schools had been broken up. Alfred says that when he began
to reign there were very few clergymen south of the Humber who
could even understand the Prayer-book. (That was still in
Latin, as the Roman missionaries had brought it.) And south of
the Thames he could not remember one. His first care was to
get better-educated clergy and bishops. And next to get the
laymen taught also. … He founded monasteries and schools,
and restored the old ones which had been ruined. He had a
school in his court for his own children and the children of
his nobles. But at the very outset a most serious difficulty
confronted Alfred. Where was he to get books? At this time, as
far as we can judge, there can only have been one, or at most
two books in the English language—the long poem of Cædmon
about the creation of the world, &c., and the poem of Beowulf
about warriors and fiery dragons. There were many English
ballads and songs, but whether these were written down I do
not know. There was no book of history, not even English
history; no book of geography, no religious books, no
philosophy. Bede, who had written so many books, had written
them all in Latin. … So when they had a time of 'stillness'
the king and his learned friends set to work and translated
books into English; and Alfred, who was as modest and candid
as he was wise, put into the preface of one of his
translations that he hoped, if anyone knew Latin better than
he did, that he would not blame him, for he could but do
according to his ability. … Beside all this, he had a great
many other occupations. Asser, who often lived with him for
months at a time, gives us an account of his busy life.
Notwithstanding his infirmities and other hindrances, 'he
continued to carry on the government, and to exercise hunting
in all its branches; to teach his workers in gold and
artificers of all kinds, his falconers, hawkers, and
dog-keepers; to build houses, majestic and good, beyond all
the precedents of his ancestors, by his new mechanical
inventions; to recite the Saxon books (Asser, being a
Welshman, always calls the English, Saxon), and especially to
learn by heart the Saxon poems, and to make others learn them;
he never desisted from studying most diligently to the best of
his ability; he attended the mass and other daily services of
religion; he was frequent in psalm-singing and prayer; … he
bestowed alms and largesses on both natives and foreigners of
all countries; he was affable and pleasant to all, and
curiously eager to investigate things unknown.'"
_M. J. Guest,
Lectures on the History of England,
lecture 9._
"It is no easy task for anyone who has been studying his
[Alfred's] life and works to set reasonable bounds to their
reverence, and enthusiasm, for the man. Lest the reader should
think my estimate tainted with the proverbial weakness of
biographers for their heroes; let them turn to the words in
which the earliest, and the last of the English historians of
that time, sum up the character of Alfred.
{787}
Florence of Worcester, writing in the century after his death,
speaks of him as 'that famous, warlike, victorious king; the
zealous protector of widows, scholars, orphans and the poor;
skilled in the Saxon poets; affable and liberal to all;
endowed with prudence, fortitude, justice, and temperance;
most patient under the infirmity which he daily suffered; a
most stern inquisitor in executing justice; vigilant and
devoted in the service of God.' Mr. Freeman, in his 'History
of the Norman Conquest,' has laid down the portrait in bold
and lasting colours, in a passage as truthful as it is
eloquent, which those who are familiar with it will be glad to
meet again, while those who do not know it will be grateful to me
for substituting for any poor words of my own. 'Alfred, the
unwilling author of these great changes, is the most perfect
character in history. He is a singular instance of a prince
who has become a hero of romance, who, as such, has had
countless imaginary exploits attributed to him, but to whose
character romance has done no more than justice, and who
appears in exactly the same light in history and in fable. No
other man on record has ever so thoroughly united all the
virtues both of the ruler and of the private man. In no other
man on record were so many virtues disfigured by so little
alloy. A saint without superstition, a scholar without
ostentation, a warrior all whose wars were fought in the
defence of his country, a conqueror whose laurels were never
stained by cruelty, a prince never cast down by adversity,
never lifted up to insolence in the day of triumph—there is
no other name in history to compare with his. Saint Lewis
comes nearest to him in the union of a more than monastic
piety with the highest civil, military, and domestic virtues.
Both of them stand forth in honourable contrast to the abject
superstition of some other royal saints, who were so selfishly
engaged in the care of their own souls that they refused
either to raise up heirs for their throne, or to strike a blow
on behalf of their people. But even in Saint Lewis we see a
disposition to forsake an immediate sphere of duty for the
sake of distant and unprofitable, however pious and glorious,
undertakings. The true duties of the King of the French
clearly lay in France, and not in Egypt or Tunis. No such
charge lies at the door of the great King of the West Saxons.
With an inquiring spirit which took in the whole world, for
purposes alike of scientific inquiry and of Christian
benevolence, Alfred never forgot that his first duty was to
his own people. He forestalled our own age in sending
expeditions to explore the Northern Ocean, and in sending alms
to the distant Churches of India; but he neither forsook his
crown, like some of his predecessors, nor neglected his
duties, like some of his successors. The virtue of Alfred,
like the virtue of Washington, consisted in no marvellous
displays of super-human genius, but in the simple,
straightforward discharge of the duty of the moment. But
Washington, soldier, statesman, and patriot, like Alfred, has
no claim to Alfred's further characters of saint and scholar.
William the Silent, too, has nothing to set against Alfred's
literary merits; and in his career, glorious as it is, there
is an element of intrigue and chicanery utterly alien to the
noble simplicity of both Alfred and Washington. The same union
of zeal for religion and learning with the highest gifts of
the warrior and the statesman is found, on a wider field of
action, in Charles the Great. But even Charles cannot aspire
to the pure glory of Alfred. Amidst all the splendour of
conquest and legislation, we cannot be blind to an alloy of
personal ambition, of personal vice, to occasional unjust
aggressions and occasional acts of cruelty. Among our own
later princes, the great Edward alone can bear for a moment
the comparison with his glorious ancestor. And, when tried by
such a standard, even the great Edward fails. Even in him we
do not see the same wonderful union of gifts and virtues which
so seldom meet together; we cannot acquit Edward of occasional
acts of violence, of occasional recklessness as to means; we
cannot attribute to him the pure, simple, almost childlike
disinterestedness which marks the character of Alfred.' Let
Wordsworth, on behalf of the poets of England, complete the
picture:
'Behold a pupil of the monkish gown,
The pious Alfred, king to justice dear!
Lord of the harp and liberating spear;
Mirror of princes! Indigent renown
Might range the starry ether for a crown
Equal to his deserts, who, like the year,
Pours forth his bounty, like the day doth cheer,
And awes like night, with mercy-tempered frown.
Ease from this noble miser of his time
No moment steals; pain narrows not his cares—
Though small his kingdom as a spark or gem,
Of Alfred boasts remote Jerusalem,
And Christian India, through her widespread clime,
In sacred converse gifts with Alfred shares.'"
_Thomas Hughes,
Alfred the Great,
chapter 24._
ALSO IN:
_R. Pauli,
Life of Alfred the Great._
_Asser,
Life of Alfred._
See, also, NORMANS, and EDUCATION, MEDIÆVAL.
ENGLAND: A. D. 901.
Accession of the West Saxon king Edward, called The Elder.
ENGLAND: A. D. 925.
Accession of the West Saxon king Ethelstan.
ENGLAND: A. D. 938.
The battle of Brunnaburgh.
Alfred the Great, dying in 901, was succeeded by his son,
Edward, and Edward, in turn, was followed, A. D. 925, by his
son Athelstane, or Æthalsten. In the reign of Athelstane a
great league was formed against him by the Northumbrian Danes
with the Scots, with the Danes of Dublin and with the Britons
of Strathclyde and Cumbria. Athelstane defeated the
confederates in a mighty battle, celebrated in one of the
finest of Old-English war-songs, and also in one of the Sagas
of the Norse tongue, as the Battle of Brunnaburgh or
Brunanburh, but the site of which is unknown. "Five Kings and
seven northern Iarls or earls fell in the strife. …
Constantine the Scot fled to the north, mourning his
fair-haired son, who perished in the slaughter. Anlaf [or
Olaf, the leader of the Danes or Ostmen of Dublin], with a sad
and scattered remnant of his forces, escaped to Ireland. …
The victory was so decisive that, during the remainder of the
reign of Athelstane, no enemy dared to rise up against him;
his supremacy was acknowledged without contest, and his glory
extended to distant realms."
_F. Palgrave,
History of the Anglo-Saxons,
chapter 10._
Mr. Skene is of opinion that the battle of Brunnaburgh was
fought at Aldborough, near York.
_W. F. Skene,
Celtic Scotland,
volume 1, page 357._
ENGLAND: A. D. 940.
Accession of the West Saxon king Edmund.
ENGLAND: A. D. 946.
Accession of the West Saxon king Edred.
ENGLAND: A. D. 955.
Accession of the West Saxon king Edwig.
{788}
ENGLAND: A. D. 958.
Accession of the West Saxon king Edgar.
ENGLAND: A. D. 958.
Completed union of the realm.
Increase of kingly authority.
Approach towards feudalism.
Rise of the Witenagemot.
Decline of the Freemen.
"Before Alfred's son Edward died, the whole of Mercia was
incorporated with his immediate dominions. The way in which
the thing was done was more remarkable than the thing itself.
Like the Romans, he made the fortified towns the means of
upholding his power. But unlike the Romans, he did not
garrison them with colonists from amongst his own immediate
dependents. He filled them, as Henry the Fowler did afterwards
in Saxony, with free townsmen, whose hearts were at one with
their fellow countrymen around. Before he died in 924, the
Danish chiefs in the land beyond the Humber had acknowledged
his overlordship, and even the Celts of Wales and Scotland had
given in their submission in some form which they were not
likely to interpret too strictly. His son and his two
grandsons, Athelstan, Edmund, and Edred completed the work,
and when after the short and troubled interval of Edwy's rule
in Wessex, Edgar united the undivided realm under his sway in
958, he had no internal enemies to suppress. He allowed the
Celtic Scottish King who had succeeded to the inheritance of
the Pictish race to possess the old Northumbrian land north of
the Tweed, where they and their descendants learned the habits
and speech of Englishmen. But he treated him and the other
Celtic kings distinctly as his inferiors, though it was
perhaps well for him that he did not attempt to impose upon
them any very tangible tokens of his supremacy. The story of
his being rowed by eight kings on the Dee is doubtless only a
legend by which the peaceful king was glorified in the
troubled times which followed. Such a struggle, so
successfully conducted, could not fail to be accompanied by a
vast increase of that kingly authority which had been on the
growth from the time of its first establishment. The
hereditary ealdormen, the representatives of the old kingly
houses, had passed away. The old tribes, or—where their
limitations had been obliterated by the tide of Danish
conquest, as was the case in central and northern England—the
new artificial divisions which had taken their place, were now
known as shires, and the very name testified that they were
regarded only as parts of a greater whole. The shire mote
still continued the tradition of the old popular assemblies.
At its head as presidents of its deliberations were the
ealdorman and the bishop, each of them owing their appointment
to the king, and it was summoned by the shire-reeve or
sheriff, himself even more directly an officer of the king,
whose business it was to see that all the royal dues were paid
within the shire. In the more general concerns of the kingdom,
the king consulted with his Witan, whose meetings were called
the Witenagemot, a body, which, at least for all ordinary
purposes, was composed not of any representatives of the
shire-motes, but of his own dependents, the ealdormen, the
bishops, and a certain number of thegns whose name, meaning
'servants', implied at least at first, that they either were
or had at one time been in some way in the employment of the
king. … The necessities of war … combined with the
sluggishness of the mass of the population to favour the
growth of a military force, which would leave the tillers of
the soil to their own peaceful occupations. As the conditions
which make a standing army possible on a large scale did not
yet exist, such a force must be afforded by a special class,
and that class must be composed of those who either had too
much land to till themselves, or, having no land at all, were
released from the bonds which tied the cultivator to the soil,
in other words, it must be composed of a landed aristocracy
and its dependents. In working out this change, England was
only aiming at the results which similar conditions were
producing on the Continent. But just as the homogeneousness of
the population drew even the foreign element of the church
into harmony with the established institutions, so it was with
the military aristocracy. It grouped itself round the king,
and it supplemented, instead of overthrowing, the old popular
assemblies. Two classes of men, the eorls and the gesiths, had
been marked out from their fellows at the time of the
conquest. The thegn of Edgar's day differed from both, but he
had some of the distinguishing marks of either. He was not
like the gesith, a mere personal follower of the king. He did
not, like the eorl, owe his position to his birth. Yet his
relation to the king was a close one, and he had a hold upon
the land as firm as that of the older eorl. He may, perhaps,
best be described as a gesith, who had acquired the position
of an eorl without entirely throwing off his own
characteristics. … There can be little doubt that the change
began in the practice of granting special estates in the
folkland, or common undivided land, to special persons. At
first this land was doubtless held to be the property of the
tribe. [This is now questioned by Vinogradoff and others. See
FOLCLAND.] … When the king rose above the tribes, he
granted it himself with the consent of his Witan. A large
portion was granted to churches and monasteries. But a large
portion went in privates estates, or book land, as it was
called, from the book or charter which conveyed them to the
king's own gesiths, or to members of his own family. The
gesith thus ceased to be a mere member of the king's military
household. He became a landowner as well, with special duties.
to perform to the king. … He had special jurisdiction given
him over his tenants and serfs, exempting him and them from
the authority of the hundred mote, though they still remained,
except in very exceptional cases, under the authority of the
shire mote. … Even up to the Norman conquest this change was
still going on. To the end, indeed, the old constitutional
forms were not broken down. The hundred mote was not
abandoned, where freemen enough remained to fill it. Even
where all the land of a hundred had passed under the
protection of a lord there was little outward change. …
There was thus no actual breach of continuity in the nation.
The thegnhood pushed its roots down, as it were, amongst the
free classes. Nevertheless there was a danger of such a breach
of continuity coming about. The freemen entered more and more
largely into a condition of' dependence, and there was a great
risk lest such a condition of dependence should become a
condition of servitude. Here and there, by some extraordinary
stroke of luck, a freeman might rise to be a thegn. But the
condition of the class to which he belonged was deteriorating
every day.
{789}
The downward progress to serfdom was too easy to take, and by
large masses of the population it was already taken. Below the
increasing numbers of the serfs was to be found the lower
class of slaves, who were actually the property of their
masters. The Witenagemot was in reality a select body of
thegns, if the bishops, who held their lands in much the same
way, be regarded as thegns. In was rather an inchoate House of
Lords, than an inchoate Parliament, after our modern ideas. It
was natural that a body of men which united a great part of
the wealth with almost all the influence in the kingdom should
be possessed of high constitutional powers. The Witenagemot
elected the king, though as yet they always chose him out of
the royal family, which was held to have sprung from the god
Woden. There were even cases in which they deposed unworthy
kings."
_S. R. Gardiner and J. B. Mullinger,
Introduction to the Study of English History,
part 1, chapter 2, section 16-21._
ENGLAND: A. D. 975.
Accession of the West Saxon king Edward, called The Martyr.
ENGLAND: A. D. 979.
Accession of the West Saxon king Ethelred, called The Unready.
ENGLAND: A. D. 979-1016.
The Danish conquest.
"Then [A. D. 979] commenced one of the longest and most
disastrous reigns of the Saxon kings, with the accession of
Ethelred II., justly styled Ethelred the Unready. The Northmen
now renewed their plundering and conquering expeditions
against England; while England had a worthless waverer for her
ruler, and many of her chief men turned traitors to their king
and country. Always a laggart in open war, Ethelred tried in
1001 the cowardly and foolish policy of buying off the enemies
whom he dared not encounter. The tax called Dane-gelt was then
levied to provide 'a tribute for the Danish men on account of
the great terror which they caused.' To pay money thus was in
effect to hire the enemy to renew the war. In 1002 Ethelred
tried the still more weak and wicked measure of ridding
himself of his enemies by treacherous massacre. Great numbers
of Danes were now living in England, intermixed with the
Anglo-Saxon population. Ethelred resolved to relieve himself
from all real or supposed danger of these Scandinavian
settlers taking part with their invading kinsmen, by sending
secret orders throughout his dominions for the putting to
death of every Dane, man, woman, and child, on St. Brice's
Day, Nov. 13. This atrocious order was executed only in
Southern England, that is, in the West-Saxon territories; but
large numbers of the Danish race were murdered there while
dwelling in full security among their Saxon neighbours. …
Among the victims was a royal Danish lady, named Gunhilde, who
was sister of Sweyn, king of Denmark, and who had married and
settled in England. … The news of the massacre of St. Brice
soon spread over the Continent, exciting the deepest
indignation against the English and their king. Sweyn
collected in Denmark a larger fleet and army than the north
had ever before sent forth, and solemnly vowed to conquer
England or perish in the attempt. He landed on the south coast
of Devon, obtained possession of Exeter by the treachery of
its governor, and then marched through western and southern
England, marking every shire with fire, famine and slaughter;
but he was unable to take London, which was defended against
the repeated attacks of the Danes with strong courage and
patriotism, such as seemed to have died out in the rest of
Saxon England. In 1013, the wretched king Ethelred fled the
realm and sought shelter in Normandy. Sweyn was acknowledged
king in all the northern and western shires, but he died in
1014, while his vow of conquest was only partly accomplished.
The English now sent for Ethelred back from Normandy,
promising loyalty to him as their lawful king, 'provided he
would rule over them more justly than he had done before.'
Ethelred willingly promised amendment, and returned to reign
amidst strife and misery for two years more. His implacable
enemy, Sweyn, was indeed dead; but the Danish host which Sweyn
had led thither was still in England, under the command of
Sweyn's son, Canute [or Cnut], a prince equal in military
prowess to his father, and far superior to him and to all
other princes of the time in statesmanship and general
ability. Ethelred died in 1016, while the war with Canute was
yet raging. Ethelred's son, Edmund, surnamed Ironside, was
chosen king by the great council then assembled in London, but
great numbers of the Saxons made their submission to Canute.
The remarkable personal valour of Edmund, strongly aided by
the bravery of his faithful Londoners, maintained the war for
nearly a year, when Canute agreed to a compromise, by which he
and Edmund divided the land between them. But within a few
months after this, the royal Ironside died by the hand of an
assassin, and Canute obtained the whole realm of the English
race. A Danish dynasty was now [A. D. 1016] established in
England for three reigns."
_Sir E. S. Creasy,
History of England,
volume 1, chapter 5._
ALSO IN:
_J. M. Lappenberg,
England under the Anglo-Saxon Kings,
volume 2, pages 151-233._
See, also, MALDEN, and ASSANDUN, BATTLES OF.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1016.
Accession and death of King Edmund Ironside.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1016-1042.
The Reign of the Danish kings.
"Cnut's rule was not as terrible as might have been feared. He
was perfectly unscrupulous in striking down the treacherous
and mischievous chieftains who had made a trade of Ethelred's
weakness and the country's divisions. But he was wise and
strong enough to rule, not by increasing but by allaying those
divisions. Resting his power upon his Scandinavian kingdoms
beyond the sea, upon his Danish countrymen in England, and his
Danish huscarles, or specially trained soldiers in his
service, he was able, without even the appearance of weakness,
to do what in him lay to bind Dane and Englishman together as
common instruments of his power. Fidelity counted more with
him than birth. To bring England itself into unity was beyond
his power. The device which he hit upon was operative only in
hands as strong as his own. There were to be four great earls,
deriving their name from the Danish word jarl, centralizing
the forces of government in Wessex, in Mercia, in East Anglia,
and in Northumberland. With Cnut the four were officials of
the highest class. They were there because he placed them
there. They would cease to be there if he so willed it. But it
could hardly be that it would always be so. Some day or
another, unless a great catastrophe swept away Cnut and his
creation, the earldoms would pass into territorial
sovereignties and the divisions of England would be made
evident openly."
_S. R. Gardiner and J. B. Mullinger,
Introduction to the Study of English History,
chapter 2, section 25._
{790}
"He [Canute] ruled nominally at least, a larger European
dominion than any English sovereign has ever done; and perhaps
also a more homogeneous one. No potentate of the time came
near him except the king of Germany, the emperor, with whom he
was allied as an equal. The king of the Norwegians, the Danes,
and a great part of the Swedes, was in a position to found a
Scandinavian empire with Britain annexed. Canute's division of
his dominions on his death-bed, showed that he saw this to be
impossible; Norway, for a century and a half after his strong
hand was removed, was broken up amongst an anarchical crew of
piratic and blood-thirsty princes, nor could Denmark be
regarded as likely to continue united with England. The
English nation was too much divided and demoralised to retain
hold on Scandinavia, even if the condition of the latter had
allowed it. Hence Canute determined that during his life, as
after his death, the nations should be governed on their own
principles. … The four nations of the English,
Northumbrians, East Angles, Mercians and West Saxons, might,
each under their own national leader, obey a sovereign who was
strong enough to enforce peace amongst them. The great
earldoms of Canute's reign were perhaps a nearer approach to a
feudal division of England than anything which followed the
Norman Conquest. … And the extent to which this creation of
the four earldoms affected the history of the next
half-century cannot be exaggerated. The certain tendency of
such an arrangement to become hereditary, and the certain
tendency of the hereditary occupation of great fiefs
ultimately to overwhelm the royal power, are well
exemplified. … The Norman Conquest restored national unity
at a tremendous temporary sacrifice, just as the Danish
Conquest in other ways, and by a reverse process, had helped
to create it."
_W. Stubbs,
Constitutional History of England,
chapter 7, section 77._
Canute died in 1035. He was succeeded by his two sons, Harold
Harefoot (1035-1040) and Harthacnute or Hardicanute
(1040-1042), after which the Saxon line of kings was
momentarily restored.
_E. A. Freeman,
History of the Norman Conquest of England,
chapter 6._
ENGLAND: A. D. 1035.
Accession of Harold, son of Cnut.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1040.
Accession of Harthacnut, or Hardicanute.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1042.
Accession of Edward the Confessor.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1042-1066.
The last of the Saxon kings.
"The love which Canute had inspired by his wise and
conciliatory rule was dissipated by the bad government of his
sons, Harold and Harthacnut, who ruled in turn. After seven
years of misgovernment, or rather anarchy, England, freed from
the hated rule of Harthacnut by his death, returned to its
old line of kings, and 'all folk chose Edward [surnamed The
Confessor, son of Ethelred the Unready] to king,' as was his
right by birth. Not that he was, according to our ideas, the
direct heir, since Edward, the son of Edmund Ironside, still
lived, an exile in Hungary. But the Saxons, by choosing Edward
the Confessor, reasserted for the last time their right to
elect that one of the hereditary line who was most available.
With the reign of Edward the Confessor the Norman Conquest
really began. We have seen the connection between England and
Normandy begun by the marriage of Ethelred the Unready to Emma
the daughter of Richard the Fearless, and cemented by the
refuge offered to the English exiles in the court of the
Norman duke. Edward had long found a home there in Canute's
time. … Brought up under Norman influence, Edward had
contracted the ideas and sympathies of his adopted home. On
his election to the English throne the French tongue became
the language of the court, Norman favourites followed in his
train, to be foisted into important offices of State and
Church, and thus inaugurate that Normanizing policy which was
to draw on the Norman Conquest. Had it not been for this,
William would never have had any claim on England." The
Normanizing policy of king Edward roused the opposition of a
strong English party, headed by the great West-Saxon Earl
Godwine, who had been lifted from an obscure origin to vast
power in England by the favor of Canute, and whose son Harold
held the earldom of East Anglia. "Edward, raised to the throne
chiefly through the influence of Godwine, shortly married his
daughter, and at first ruled England leaning on the
assistance, and almost overshadowed by the power of the great
earl." But Edward was Norman at heart and Godwine was
thoroughly English; whence quarrels were not long in arising.
They came to the crisis in 1051, by reason of a bloody tumult
at Dover, provoked by insolent conduct on the part of a train
of French visitors returning home from Edward's Court. Godwine
was commanded to punish the townsmen of Dover and refused,
whereupon the king obtained a sentence of outlawry, not only
against the earl, but against his sons. "Godwine, obliged to
bow before the united power of his enemies, was forced to fly
the land. He went to Flanders with his son Swegen, while
Harold and Leofwine went to Ireland, to be well received by
Dermot king of Leinster. Many Englishmen seem to have followed
him in his exile: for a year the foreign party was triumphant,
and the first stage of the Norman Conquest complete. It was at
this important crisis that William [Duke of Normandy], secure
at home, visited his cousin Edward. … Friendly relations we
may be sure had existed between, the two cousins, and if, as
is not improbable, William had begun to hope that he might
some day succeed to the English throne, what more favourable
opportunity for a visit could have been found? Edward had lost
all hopes of ever having any children. … William came, and
it would seem, gained all that he desired. For this most
probably was the date of some promise on Edward's part that
William should succeed him on his death. The whole question is
beset with difficulties. The Norman chroniclers alone mention
it, and give no dates. Edward had no right to will away his
crown, the disposition of which lay with King and Witenagemot
(or assembly of Wise Men, the grandees of the country), and
his last act was to reverse the promise, if ever given, in
favour of Harold, Godwine's son. But were it not for some such
promise, it is hard to see how William could have subsequently
made the Normans and the world believe in the sacredness of
his claim. … William returned to Normandy; but next year
Edward was forced to change his policy." Godwine and his sons
returned to England, with a fleet at their backs; London
declared for them, and the king submitted himself to a
reconciliation.
{791}
"The party of Godwine once more ruled supreme, and no mention
was made of the gift of the crown to William. Godwine, indeed,
did not long survive his restoration, but dying the year
after, 1053, left his son Harold Earl of the West-Saxons and
the most important man in England." King Edward the Confessor
lived yet thirteen years after this time, during which period
Earl Harold grew continually in influence and conspicuous
headship of the English party. In 1062 it was Harold's
misfortune to be shipwrecked on the coast of France, and he
was made captive. Duke William of Normandy intervened in his
behalf and obtained his release; and "then, as the price of
his assistance, extorted an oath from Harold, soon to be used
against him. Harold, it is said, became his man, promised to
marry 'William's daughter Adela, to place Dover at once in
William's hands, and support his claim to the English throne
on Edward's death. By a stratagem of William's the oath was
unwittingly taken on holy relics, hidden by the duke under the
table on which Harold laid hands to swear, whereby, according
to the notions of those days, the oath was rendered more
binding." But two years later, when Edward the Confessor died,
the English Witenagemot chose Harold to be king, disregarding
Edward's promise and Harold's oath to the Duke of Normandy.
_A. H. Johnson,
The Normans in Europe,
chapters 10 and 12._
ALSO IN:
_E. A. Freeman,
History of the Norman Conquest of England,
chapters 7-10._
_J. R. Green,
The Conquest of England,
chapter 10._
ENGLAND: A. D. 1066.
Election and coronation of Harold.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1066 (spring and summer).
Preparations of Duke William to enforce his claim to the
English crown.
On receiving news of Edward's death and of Harold's acceptance
of the crown, Duke William of Normandy lost no time in
demanding from Harold the performance of the engagements to
which he had pledged himself by his oath. Harold answered that
the oath had no binding effect, by reason of the compulsion
under which it was given; that the crown of England was not
his to bestow, and that, being the chosen king, he could not
marry without consent of the Witenagemot. When the Duke had
this reply he proceeded with vigor to secure from his own
knights and barons the support he would need for the enforcing
of his rights, as he deemed them, to the sovereignty of the
English realm. A great parliament of the Norman barons was
held at Lillebonne, for the consideration of the matter. "In
this memorable meeting there was much diversity of opinion.
The Duke could not command his vassals to cross the sea; their
tenures did not compel them to such service. William could
only request their aid to fight his battles in England: many
refused to engage in this dangerous expedition, and great
debates arose. …William, who could not restore order,
withdrew into another apartment: and, calling the barons to
him one by one, he argued and reasoned with each of these
sturdy vassals separately, and apart from the others. He
exhausted all the arts of persuasion;—their present courtesy,
he engaged, should not be tamed into a precedent, … and the
fertile fields of England should be the recompense of their
fidelity. Upon this prospect of remuneration, the barons
assented. … William did not confine himself to his own
subjects. All the adventurers and adventurous spirits of the
neighbouring states were invited to join his standard. … To
all, such promises were made as should best incite them to the
enterprise—lands,—liveries,—money,—according to their
rank and degree; and the port of St. Pierre-sur-Dive was
appointed as the place where all the forces should assemble.
William had discovered four most valid reasons for the
prosecution of his offensive warfare against a neighbouring
people:—the bequest made by his cousin;—the perjury of
Harold;—the expulsion of the Normans, at the instigation, as
he alleged, of Godwin;—and, lastly, the massacre of the Danes
by Ethelred on St. Brice's Day. The alleged perjury of Harold
enabled William to obtain the sanction of the Papal See.
Alexander, the Roman Pontiff, allowed, nay, even urged him to
punish the crime, provided England, when conquered, should be
held as the fief of St. Peter. … Hildebrand, Archdeacon of
the Church of Rome, afterwards the celebrated Pope Gregory
VII., greatly assisted by the support which he gave to the
decree. As a visible token of protection, the Pope transmitted
to William the consecrated banner, the Gonfanon of St. Peter,
and a precious ring, in which a relic of the chief of the
Apostles was enclosed."
_Sir F. Palgrave,
History of Normandy and England,
volume 3, pages 300-303._
"William convinced, or seemed to convince, all men out of
England and Scandinavia that his claim to the English crown
was just and holy, and that it was a good work to help him to
assert it in arms. … William himself doubtless thought his
own claim the better; he deluded himself as he deluded others.
But we are more concerned with William as a statesman; and if
it be statesmanship to adapt means to ends, whatever the ends
may be, if it be statesmanship to make men believe the worse
cause is the better, then no man ever showed higher
statesmanship than William showed in his great pleading before
all Western Christendom. … Others had claimed crowns; none
had taken such pains to convince all mankind that the claim
was a good one. Such an appeal to public opinion marks on one
side a great advance."
_E. A. Freeman,
William the Conqueror,
chapter 6._
ENGLAND: A. D. 1066 (September).
The invasion of Tostig and Harold Hardrada and their
overthrow at Stamford Bridge.
"Harold [the English king], as one of his misfortunes, had to
face two powerful armies, in distant parts of the kingdom,
almost at the same time. Rumours concerning the intentions and
preparations of the Duke of Normandy soon reached England.
During the greater part of the summer, Harold, at the head of
a large naval and military force, had been on the watch along
the English coast. But months passed away and no enemy became
visible. William, it was said, had been apprised of the
measures which had been taken to meet him. … Many supposed
that, on various grounds, the enterprise had been abandoned.
Provisions also, for so great an army, became scarce. The men
began to disperse; and Harold, disbanding the remainder,
returned to London. But the news now came that Harold
Hardrada, king of Norway, had landed in the north, and was
ravaging the country in conjunction with Tostig, Harold's
elder brother. This event came from one of those domestic
feuds which did so much at this juncture to weaken the power
of the English.
{792}
Tostig had exercised his authority in Northumbria [as earl] in
the most arbitrary manner, and had perpetrated atrocious
crimes in furtherance of his objects. The result was an amount
of disaffection which seems to have put it out of the power of
his friends to sustain him. He had married a daughter of
Baldwin, count of Flanders, and so became brother-in-law to
the duke of Normandy. His brother Harold, as he affirmed, had
not done a brother's part towards him, and he was more
disposed, in consequence, to side with the Norman than with
the Saxon in the approaching struggle. The army with which he
now appeared consisted mostly of Norwegians and Flemings, and
their avowed object was to divide not less than half the
kingdom between them. … [The young Mercian earls Edwin and
Morcar] summoned their forces … to repel the invasion under
Tostig. Before Harold could reach the north, they hazarded an
engagement at a place named Fulford, on the Ouse, not far from
Bishopstoke. Their measures, however, were not wisely taken.
They were defeated with great loss. The invaders seem to have
regarded this victory as deciding the fate of that part of the
kingdom. They obtained hostages at York, and then moved to
Stamford Bridge, where they began the work of dividing the
northern parts of England between them. But in the midst of
these proceedings clouds of dust were seen in the distance.
The first thought was, that the multitude which seemed to be
approaching must be friends. But the illusion was soon at an
end. The dust raised was by the march of an army of West
Saxons under the command of Harold."
_R. Vaughan,
Revolutions of English History,
book 3, chapter 1._
"Of the details of that awful day [Sept. 25, 1066] we have no
authentic record. We have indeed a glorious description [in
the Heimskringla of Snorro Sturleson], conceived in the
highest spirit of the warlike poetry of the North; but it is a
description which, when critically examined, proves to be
hardly more worthy of belief than a battle-piece in the Iliad.
… At least we know that the long struggle of that day was
crowned by complete victory on the side of England. The
leaders of the invading host lay each man ready for all that
England had to give him, his seven feet of English ground.
There Harold of Norway, the last of the ancient Sea-Kings,
yielded up that fiery soul which had braved death in so many
forms and in so many lands. … There Tostig, the son of
Godwine, an exile and a traitor, ended, in crime and sorrow a
life which had begun with promises not less bright than that
of his royal brother. … The whole strength of the Northern
army was broken; a few only escaped by flight, and found means
to reach the ships at Riccall."
_E. A. Freeman,
History of the Norman Conquest of England,
chapter 14, section. 4._
ENGLAND: A. D. 1066 (October).
The Norman invasion and battle of Senlac or Hastings.
The battle of Stamford-bridge was fought on Monday, September
25, A. D. 1066. Three days later, on the Thursday, September
28, William of Normandy landed his more formidable army of
invasion at Pevensey, on the extreme southeastern coast. The
news of William's landing reached Harold, at York, on the
following Sunday, it is thought, and his victorious but worn
and wasted army was led instantly back, by forced marches,
over the route it had traversed no longer than the week
before. Waiting at London a few days for fresh musters to join
him, the English king set out from that city October 12, and
arrived on the following day at a point seven miles from the
camp which his antagonist had entrenched at Hastings. Meantime
the Normans had been cruelly ravaging the coast country, by
way of provoking attack. Harold felt himself driven by the
devastation they committed to face the issue of battle without
waiting for a stronger rally. "Advancing near enough to the coast
to check William's ravages, he intrenched himself on the hill
of Senlac, a low spur of the Sussex Downs, near Hastings, in a
position which covered London, and forced the Norman army to
concentrate. With a host subsisting by pillage, to concentrate
is to starve, and no alternative was left to William but a
decisive victory or ruin. Along the higher ground that leads
from Hastings the Duke led his men in the dim dawn of an
October morning to the mound of Telham. It was from this
point, that the Normans saw the host of the English gathered
thickly behind a rough trench and a stockade on the height of
Senlac. Marshy ground covered their right. … A general
charge of the Norman foot opened the battle; in front rode the
minstrel Taillefer, tossing his sword in the air and catching
it again while he chanted the song of Roland. He was the first
of the host who struck a blow, and he was the first to fall.
The charge broke vainly on the stout stockade behind which the
English warriors plied axe and javelin with fierce cries of 'Out,
Out,' and the repulse of the Norman footmen was followed by
the repulse of the Norman horse. Again and again the Duke
rallied and led them to the fatal stockade. … His Breton
troops, entangled in the marshy ground on his left, broke in
disorder, and a cry arose, as the panic spread through the
army, that the Duke was slain. 'I live,' shouted William as he
tore off his helmet, 'and by God's help will conquer yet.'
Maddened by repulse, the Duke spurred right at the standard;
unhorsed, his terrible mace struck down Gyrth, the King's
brother, and stretched Leofwine, a second of Godwine's sons,
beside him; again dismounted, a blow from his hand hurled to
the ground an unmannerly rider who would not lend him his
steed. Amid the roar and tumult of the battle he turned the
flight he had arrested into the means of victory. Broken as
the stockade was by his desperate onset, the shield-wall of
the warriors behind it still held the Normans at bay, when
William by a feint of flight drew a part of the English force
from their post of vantage. Turning on his disorderly
pursuers, the Duke cut them to pieces, broke through the
abandoned line, and was master of the central plateau, while
French and Bretons made good their ascent on either flank. At
three the hill seemed won, at six the fight still raged around
the standard, where Harold's hus-carls stood stubbornly at bay
on the spot marked afterward by the high altar of Battle
Abbey. An order from the Duke at last brought his archers to
the front, and their arrow-flight told heavily on the dense
masses crowded around the King. As the sun went down, a shaft
pierced Harold's right eye; he fell between the royal ensigns,
and the battle closed with a desperate mélée over his corpse."
_J. R. Green,
A Short History of the English People,
chapter 2, section 4._
ALSO IN:
_E. A. Freeman,
History of the Norman Conquest of England,
chapter 15, section 4._
_E. S. Creasy,
Fifteen Decisive Battles of the World,
chapter 8._
_Wace,
Roman de Rou,
translated by Sir A. Malet._
{793}
England: A. D. 1066-1071.
The Finishing of the Norman Conquest.
"It must be well understood that this great victory [of
Senlac] did not make Duke William King nor put him in
possession of the whole land. He still held only part of
Sussex, and the people of the rest of the kingdom showed as
yet no mind to submit to him. If England had had a leader left
like Harold or Gyrth, William might have had to fight as many
battles as Cnut had, and that with much less chance of winning
in the end. For a large part of England fought willingly on
Cnut's side, while William had no friends in England at all,
except a few Norman settlers. William did not call himself
King till he was regularly crowned more than two months later,
and even then he had real possession only of about a third of
the kingdom. It was more than three years before he had full
possession of all. Still the great fight on Senlac none the
less settled the fate of England. For after that fight William
never met with any general resistance. … During the year 1067
William made no further conquests; all western and northern
England remained unsubdued; but, except in Kent and
Herefordshire, there was no fighting in any part of the land
which had really submitted. The next two years were the time
in which all England was really conquered. The former part of
1068 gave him the West. The latter part of that year gave him
central and northern England as far as Yorkshire, the extreme
north and northwest being still unsubdued. The attempt to win
Durham in the beginning of 1069 led to two revolts at York.
Later in the year all the north and west was again in arms,
and the Danish fleet [of King Swegen, in league with the
English patriots] came. But the revolts were put down one by
one, and the great winter campaign of 1069-1070 conquered the
still unsubdued parts, ending with the taking of Chester.
Early in 1070 the whole land was for the first time in
Williams's possession; there was no more fighting, and he was
able to give his mind to the more peaceful part of his
schemes, what we may call the conquest of the native Church by
the appointment of foreign bishops. But in the summer of 1070
began the revolt of the Fenland, and the defence of Ely, which
lasted till the autumn of 1071. After that William was full
King everywhere without dispute. There was no more national
resistance; there was no revolt of any large part of the
country. … The conquest of the land, as far as fighting
goes, was now finished."
_E. A. Freeman,
Short History of the Norman Conquest of England,
chapter 8, section 9; chapter 10, section 16._
ENGLAND: A. D. 1067-1087.
The spoils of the Conquest.
"The Norman army … remained concentrated around London [in
the winter of 1067], and upon the southern and eastern coasts
nearest Gaul. The partition of the wealth of the invaded
territory now almost solely occupied them. Commissioners went
over the whole extent of country in which the army had left
garrisons; they took an exact inventory of property of every
kind, public and private, carefully registering every
particular. … A close inquiry was made into the names of all
the English partisans of Harold, who had either died in
battle, or survived the defeat, or by involuntary delays had
been prevented from joining the royal standard. All the
property of these three classes of men, lands, revenues,
furniture, houses, were confiscated; the children of the first
class were declared forever disinherited; the second class,
were, in like manner, wholly dispossessed of their estates
and property of every kind, and, says one of the Norman
writers, were only too grateful for being allowed to retain
their lives. Lastly, those who had not taken up arms were also
despoiled of all they possessed, for having had the intention
of taking up arms; but, by special grace, they were allowed to
entertain the hope that after many long years of obedience and
devotion to the foreign power, not they, indeed, but their
sons, might perhaps obtain from their new masters some portion
of their paternal heritage. Such was the law of the conquest,
according to the unsuspected testimony of a man nearly
contemporary with and of the race of the conquerors [Richard
Lenoir or Noirot, bishop of Ely in the 12th century]. The
immense product of this universal spoliation became the pay of
those adventurers of every nation who had enrolled under the
banner of the duke of Normandy. … Some received their pay in
money, others had stipulated that they should have a Saxon
wife, and William, says the Norman chronicle, gave them in
marriage noble dames, great heiresses, whose husbands had
fallen in the battle. One, only, among the knights who had
accompanied the conqueror, claimed neither lands, gold, nor
wife, and would accept none of the spoils of the conquered.
His name was Guilbert Fitz-Richard: he said that he had
accompanied his lord to England because such was his duty, but
that stolen goods had no attraction for him."
_A. Thierry,
History of the Conquest of England by the Normans,
book 4._
"Though many confiscations took place, in order to gratify the
Norman army, yet the mass of property was left in the hands of
its former possessors. Offices of high trust were bestowed
upon Englishmen, even upon those whose family renown might
have raised the most aspiring thoughts. But, partly through
the insolence and injustice of William's Norman vassals,
partly through the suspiciousness natural to a man conscious
of having overturned the national government, his yoke soon
became more heavy. The English were oppressed; they rebelled,
were subdued, and oppressed again. … An extensive spoliation
of property accompanied these revolutions. It appears by the
great national survey of Domesday Book, completed near the
close of the Conqueror's reign, that the tenants in capite of
the crown were generally foreigners. … But inferior
freeholders were much less disturbed in their estates than the
higher. … The valuable labours of Sir Henry Ellis, in
presenting us with a complete analysis of Domesday Book,
afford an opportunity, by his list of mesne tenants at the
time of the survey, to form some approximation to the relative
numbers of English and foreigners holding manors under the
immediate vassals of the crown. … Though I will not now
affirm or deny that they were a majority, they [the English]
form a large proportion of nearly 8,000 mesne tenants, who are
summed up by the diligence of Sir Henry Ellis. …
{794}
This might induce us to suspect that, great as the spoliation
must appear in modern times, and almost completely as the
nation was excluded from civil power in the commonwealth,
there is some exaggeration in the language of those writers
who represent them as universal reduced to a state of penury
and servitude. And this suspicion may be in some degree just.
Yet those writers, and especial the most English in feeling of
them all, M. Thierry, are warranted by the language of
contemporary authorities."
_H. Hallam,
The Middle Ages.
chapter 8, part 2._
"By right of conquest William claimed nothing. He had come to
take his crown, and he had unluckily met with some opposition
in taking it. The crown-lands of King Edward passed of course
to his successor. As for the lands of other men, in William's
theory all was forfeited to the crown. The lawful heir had
been driven to seek his kingdom in arms; no Englishman had
helped him; many Englishmen had fought against him. All then
were directly or indirectly traitors. The King might lawfully
deal with the lands of all as his own. … After the general
redemption of lands, gradually carried out as William's power
advanced, no general blow was dealt at Englishmen as such. …
Though the land had never seen so great a confiscation, or one
so largely for the behoof of foreigners, yet there was nothing
new in the thing itself. … Confiscation of land was the
every-day punishment for various public and private crimes.
… Once granting the original wrong of his coming at all and
bringing a host of strangers with him, there is singularly
little to blame in the acts of the Conqueror."
_E. A. Freeman,
William the Conqueror,
pages 102-104, 126._
"After each effort [of revolt] the royal hand was laid on more
heavily: more and more land changed owners, and with the
change of owners the title changed. The complicated and
unintelligible irregularities of the Anglo-Saxon tenures were
exchanged for the simple and uniform feudal theory. … It was
not the change from alodial to feudal so much as from
confusion to order. The actual amount of dispossession was no
doubt greatest in the higher ranks."
_W. Stubbs,
Constitutional History of England,
chapter 9, section. 95._
ENGLAND: A. D. 1069-1071.
The Camp of Refuge in the Fens.
"In the northern part of Cambridgeshire there is a vast extent
of low and marshy land, intersected in every direction by
rivers. All the waters from the centre of England which do not
flow into the Thames or the Trent, empty themselves into these
marshes, which in the latter end of autumn overflow, cover the
land, and are charged with fogs and vapours. A portion of this
damp and swampy country was then, as now, called the Isle of
Ely; another the Isle of Thorney, a third the Isle of
Croyland. This district, almost a moving bog, impracticable
for cavalry and for soldiers heavily armed, had more than once
served as a refuge for the Saxons in the time of the Danish
conquest; towards the close of the year 1069 it became the
rendezvous of several bands of patriots from various quarters,
assembling against the Normans. Former chieftains, now
dispossessed of their lands, successively repaired hither with
their clients, some by land, others by water, by the mouths of
the rivers. They here constructed entrenchments of earth and
wood, and established an extensive armed station, which took
the name of the Camp of Refuge. The foreigners at first
hesitated to attack them amidst their rushes and willows, and
thus gave them time to transmit messages in every direction,
at home and abroad, to the friends of old England. Become
powerful, they undertook a partisan war by land and by sea,
or, as the conquerors called it, robbery and piracy."
_A. Thierry,
History of the Conquest of England by the Normans,
book 4._
"Against the new tyranny the free men of the Danelagh and of
Northumbria rose. If Edward the descendant of Cerdic had been
little to them, William the descendant of Rollo was still
less. … So they rose, and fought; too late, it may be, and
without unity or purpose; and they were worsted by an enemy
who had both unity and purpose; whom superstition, greed, and
feudal discipline kept together, at least in England, in one
compact body of unscrupulous and terrible confederates. And
theirs was a land worth fighting for—a good land and large:
from Humber mouth inland to the Trent and merry Sherwood,
across to Chester and the Dee, round by Leicester and the five
burghs of the Danes; eastward again to Huntingdon and
Cambridge (then a poor village on the site of an old Roman
town); and then northward again into the wide fens, the land
of the Girvii, where the great central plateau of England
slides into the sea, to form, from the rain and river washings
of eight shires, lowlands of a fertility inexhaustible,
because ever-growing to this day. Into those fens, as into a
natural fortress, the Anglo-Danish noblemen crowded down
instinctively from the inland to make their last stand against
the French. … Most gallant of them all, and their leader in
the fatal struggle against William, was Hereward the Wake,
Lord of Bourne and ancestor of that family of Wake, the arms
of whom appear on the cover of this book."
_C. Kingsley,
Hereward the Wake,
Prelude._
The defence of the Camp of Refuge was maintained until
October, 1071, when the stronghold is said to have been
betrayed by the monks of Ely, who grew tired of the
disturbance of their peace. But Hereward did not submit. He
made his escape and various accounts are given of his
subsequent career and his fate.
_E. A. Freeman,
History of the Norman Conquest of England,
chapter 20, section 1._
ALSO IN:
_C. M. Yonge,
Cameos from English History,
first series, chapter 8._
ENGLAND: A. D. 1085-1086.
The Domesday Survey and Domesday Book.
"The distinctive characteristic of the Norman kings [of
England] was their exceeding greed, and the administrative
system was so directed as to insure the exaction of the
highest possible imposts. From this bent originated the great
registration that William [the Conqueror] caused to be taken
of all lands, whether holden in fee or at rent; as well as the
census of the entire population. The respective registers were
preserved in the Cathedral of Winchester, and by the Norman
were designated 'Ie grand rôle,' 'Ie rôle royal,' 'Ie rôle de
Winchester'; but by the Saxons were termed 'the Book of the
Last Judgment,' 'Doomesdaege Boc,' 'Doomsday Book.'"
_E. Fischel,
The English Constitution,
chapter 1._
For a different statement see the following: "The recently
attempted invasion from Denmark seems to have impressed the
king with the desirability of· an accurate knowledge of his
resources, military and fiscal, both of which were based upon
the land. The survey was completed in the remarkably short
space of a single year [1085-1086]. In each shire the
commissioners made their inquiries by the oaths of the
sheriffs, the barons and their Norman retainers, the parish
priests, the reeves and six ceorls of each township.
{795}
The result of their labours was a minute description of all
the lands of the kingdom, with the exception of the four
northern counties of Northumberland, Cumberland, Westmoreland
and Durham, and part of what is now Lancashire. It enumerates
the tenants-in-chief, under tenants, freeholders, villeins,
and serfs, describes the nature and obligations of the
tenures, the value in the time of King Eadward, at the
conquest, and at the date of the survey, and, which gives the
key to the whole inquiry, informs the king whether any advance
in the valuation could be made. … The returns were
transmitted to Winchester, digested, and recorded in two
volumes which have descended to posterity under the name of
Domesday Book. The name itself is probably derived from Domus
Dei, the appellation of a chapel or vault of the cathedral at
Winchester in which the survey was at first deposited."
_T. P. Taswell-Langmead,
English Constitutional History,
chapter 2._
"Of the motives which induced the Conqueror and his council to
undertake the Survey we have very little reliable information,
and much that has been written on the subject savours more of
a deduction from the result than of a knowledge of the
immediate facts. We have the statement from the Chartulary of
St. Mary's, Worcester, of the appointment of the Commissioners
by the king himself to make the Survey. We have also the
heading of the 'Inquisitio Eliensis' which purports to give,
and probably does truly give, the items of the articles of
inquiry, which sets forth as follows:
I. What is the manor called?
II. Who held it in the time of King Edward?
III. Who now holds it?
IV. How many hides?
V. What teams are there in demesne?
VI. What teams of the men?
VII. What villans?
VIII. What cottagers?
IX. What bondmen?
X. What freemen and what sokemen?
XI. What woods?
XII. What meadow?
XIII. What pastures?
XIV. What mills?
XV. What fisheries?
XVI. What is added or taken away?
XVII. What the whole was worth together, and what now?
XVIII. How much each freeman or sokeman had or has?
All this to be estimated three times, viz. in the time of King
Edward, and when King William gave it, and how it is now, and
if more can be had for it than has been had. This document is,
I think, the best evidence we have of the form of the inquiry,
and it tallies strictly with the form of the various returns
as we now have them. … An external evidence failing, we are
driven back to the Record itself for evidence of the
Conqueror's intention in framing it, and anyone who carefully
studies it will be driven to the inevitable conclusion that it
was framed and designed in the spirit of perfect equity. Long
before the Conquest, in the period between the death of Alfred
and that of Edward the Confessor, the kingdom had been rapidly
declining into a state of disorganisation and decay. The
defence of the kingdom and the administration of justice and
keeping of the peace could not be maintained by the king's
revenues. The tax of Danegeld, instituted by Ethelred at first
to buy peace of the Danes, and afterwards to maintain the
defence of the kingdom, had more and more come to be levied
unequally and unfairly. The Church had obtained enormous
remissions of its liability, and its possessions were
constantly increasing. Powerful subjects had obtained further
remission, and the tax had come to be irregularly collected
and was burdensome upon the smaller holders and their poor
tenants, while the nobility and the Church escaped with a
small share in the burden. In short the tax had come to be
collected upon an old and uncorrected assessment. It had
probably dwindled in amount, and at last had been ultimately
remitted by Edward the Confessor. Anarchy and confusion
appears to have reigned throughout the realm. The Conqueror
was threatened with foreign invasion, and pressed on all sides
by complaints of unfair taxation on the part of his subjects.
Estates had been divided and subdivided, and the incidence of
the tax was unequal and unjust. He had to face the
difficulties before him and to count the resources of his
kingdom for its defence, and the means of doing so were not at
hand. In this situation his masterly and order-loving Norman
mind instituted this great inquiry, but ordered it to be taken
(as I maintain the study of the Book will show) in the most
public and open manner, and with the utmost impartiality, with
the view of levying the taxes of the kingdom equally and
fairly upon all. The articles of his inquiry show that he was
prepared to study the resources of his kingdom and consider
the liability of his subjects from every possible point of
view."
_Stuart Moore,
On the Study of Domesday Book
(Domesday Studies, volume 1)._
"Domesday Book is a vast mine of materials for the social and
economical history of our country, a mine almost
inexhaustible, and to a great extent as yet unworked. Among
national documents it is unique. There is nothing that
approaches it in interest and value except the Landnámabók,
which records the names of the original settlers in Iceland
and the designations they bestowed upon the places where they
settled, and tells us how the island was taken up and
apportioned among them. Such a document for England,
describing the way in which our forefathers divided the
territory they conquered, and how 'they called the lands after
their own names,' would indeed be priceless. But the Domesday
Book does, indirectly, supply materials for the history of the
English as well as of the Norman Conquest, for it records not
only how the lands of England were divided among the Norman
host which conquered at Senlac, but it gives us also the names
of the Saxon and Danish holders who possessed the lands before
the great battle which changed all the future history of
England, and enables us to trace the extent of the transfer of
the land from Englishmen to Normans; it shows how far the
earlier owners were reduced to tenants, and by its enumeration
of the classes of population—freemen, sokemen, villans,
cottiers, and slaves—it indicates the nature and extent of
the earlier conquests. Thus we learn that in the West of
England slaves were numerous, while in the East they were
almost unknown, and hence we gather that in the districts
first subdued the British population was exterminated or
driven off, while in the West it was reduced to servitude."
_I. Taylor,
Domesday Survivals
(Domesday Studies, volume 1)._
ALSO IN:
_E. A. Freeman,
History of the Norman Conquest,
chapters 21-22 and appendix A in volume 5._
_W. de Gray Birch,
Domesday Book._
_F. W. Maitland,
Domesday Book (Dict. Pol. Econ.)._
{796}
ENGLAND: A. D. 1087-1135.
The sons of the Conqueror and their reigns.
William the Conqueror, when he died, left Normandy and Maine
to his elder son Robert, the English crown to his stronger
son, William, called Rufus, or the Red, and only a legacy of
£5,000 to his third son, Henry, called Beauclerc, or The
Scholar. The Conqueror's half-brother, Odo, soon began to
persuade the Norman barons in England to displace William
Rufus and plant Robert on the English throne. "The claim of
Robert to succeed his father in England, was supported by the
respected rights of primogeniture. But the Anglo-Saxon crown
had always been elective. … Primogeniture … gave at that
time no right to the crown of England, independent of the
election of its parliamentary assembly. Having secured this
title, the power of Rufus rested on the foundation most
congenial with the feelings and institutions of the nation,
and from their partiality received a popular support, which
was soon experienced to be impregnable. The danger compelled
the king to court his people by promises to diminish their
grievances; which drew 30,000 knights spontaneously to his
banners, happy to have got a sovereign distinct from hated
Normandy. The invasion of Robert, thus resisted by the English
people, effected nothing but some temporary devastations. …
The state of Normandy, under Robert's administration, for some
time furnished an ample field for his ambitious uncle's
activity. It continued to exhibit a negligent government in
its most vicious form. … Odo's politics only facilitated the
Reannexation of Normandy to England. But this event was not
completed in William's reign. When he retorted the attempt of
Robert, by an invasion of Normandy, the great barons of both
countries found themselves endangered by the conflict, and
combined their interest to persuade their respective
sovereigns to a fraternal pacification. The most important
article of their reconciliation provided, that if either
should die without issue, the survivor should inherit his
dominions. Hostilities were then abandoned; mutual courtesies
ensued; and Robert visited England as his brother's guest. The
mind of William the Red King, was cast in no common mould. It
had all the greatness and the defects of the chivalric
character, in its strong but rudest state. Impetuous, daring,
original, magnanimous, and munificent; it was also harsh,
tyrannical, and selfish; conceited of its own powers, loose in
its moral principles, and disdaining consequences. … While
Lanfranc lived, William had a counsellor whom he respected,
and whose good opinion he was careful to preserve. … The
death of Lanfranc removed the only man whose wisdom and
influence could have meliorated the king's ardent, but
undisciplined temper. It was his misfortune, on this event, to
choose for his favourite minister, an able, but an
unprincipled man. … The minister advised the king, on the
death of every prelate, to seize all his temporal possessions.
… The great revenues obtained from this violent innovation,
tempted both the king and his minister to increase its
productiveness, by deferring the nomination of every new
prelate for an indefinite period. Thus he kept many
bishoprics, and among them the see of Canterbury, vacant for
some years; till a severe illness alarming his conscience, he
suddenly appointed Anselm to the dignity; … His disagreement
with Anselm soon began. The prelate injudiciously began the
battle by asking the king to restore, not only the possessions
of his see, which were enjoyed by Lanfranc—a fair
request—but also the lands which had before that time
belonged to it; a demand that, after so many years alteration
of property, could not be complied with without great
disturbance of other persons. Anselm also exacted of the king
that in all things which concerned the church, his counsels
should be taken in preference to every other. … Though
Anselm, as a literary man, was an honour and a benefit to his
age, yet his monastic and studious habits prevented him from
having that social wisdom, that knowledge of human nature,
that discreet use of his own virtuous firmness, and that mild
management of turbulent power, which might have enabled him to
have exerted much of the influence of Lanfranc over the mind
of his sovereign. … Anselm, seeing the churches and abbeys
oppressed in their property, by the royal orders, resolved to
visit Rome, and to concert with the pope the measures most
adapted to overawe the king. … William threatened, that if
he did go to Rome, he would seize all the possessions of the
archbishopric. Anselm declared, that he would rather travel
naked and on foot, than desist from his resolution; and he
went to Dover with his pilgrim's staff and wallet. He was
searched before his departure, that he might carry away no
money, and was at last allowed to sail. But the king
immediately executed his threat, and sequestered all his lands
and property. This was about three years before the end of the
reign. … Anselm continued in Italy till William's death. The
possession of Normandy was a leading object of William's
ambition, and he gradually attained a preponderance in it. His
first invasion compelled Robert to make some cessions; these were
increased on his next attack: and when Robert determined to
join the Crusaders, he mortgaged the whole of Normandy to
William for three years, for 10,000 marks. He obtained the
usual success of a powerful invasion in Wales. The natives
were overpowered on the plains, but annoyed the invaders in
their mountains. He marched an army against Malcolm, king of
Scotland, to punish his incursions. Robert advised the
Scottish king to conciliate William; Malcolm yielded to his
counsel and accompanied Robert to the English court, but on
his return, was treacherously attacked by Mowbray, the earl of
Northumbria, and killed. William regretted the perfidious
cruelty of the action. … The government of William appears
to have been beneficial, both to England and Normandy. To the
church it was oppressive. … He had scarcely reigned twelve
years, when he fell by a violent death." He was hunting with a
few attendants in the New Forest. "It happened that, his friends
dispersing in pursuit of game, he was left alone, as some
authorities intimate, with Walter Tyrrel, a noble knight, whom
he had brought out of France, and admitted to his table, and
to whom he was much attached. As the sun was about to set, a
stag passed before the king, who discharged an arrow at it.
… At the same moment, another stag crossing, Walter Tyrrel
discharged an arrow at it. At this precise juncture, a shaft
struck the king, and buried itself in his breast. He fell,
without a word, upon the arrow, and expired on the spot. …
It seems to be a questionable point, whether Walter Tyrrel
actually shot the king. That opinion was certainly the most
prevalent at the time, both here and in France. …
{797}
None of the authorities intimate a belief of a purposed
assassination; and, therefore, it would be unjust now to
impute it to anyone. … Henry was hunting in a different part
of the New Forest when Rufus fell. … He left the body to the
casual charity of the passing rustic, and rode precipitately
to Winchester, to seize the royal treasure. … He obtained
the treasure, and proceeding hastily to London, was on the
following Sunday, the third day after William's death, elected
king, and crowned. … He began his reign by removing the
unpopular agents of his unfortunate brother. He recalled
Anselm, and conciliated the clergy. He gratified the nation,
by abolishing the oppressive exactions of the previous reign.
He assured many benefits to the barons, and by a charter,
signed on the day of his coronation, restored to the people
their Anglo-Saxon laws and privileges, as amended by his
father; a measure which ended the pecuniary oppressions of his
brother, and which favoured the growing liberties of the
nation. The Conqueror had noticed Henry's expanding intellect
very early; had given him the best education which the age
could supply. … He became the most learned monarch of his
day, and acquired and deserved the surname of Beauclerc, or
fine scholar. No wars, no cares of state, could afterwards
deprive him of his love of literature. The nation soon felt
the impulse and the benefit of their sovereign's intellectual
taste. He acceded at the age of 32, and gratified the nation
by marrying and crowning Mathilda, daughter of the sister of
Edgar Etheling by Malcolm the king of Scotland, who had been
waylaid and killed."
_S. Turner,
History of England during the Middle Ages,
volume 1, chapters 5-6._
The Norman lords, hating the "English ways" of Henry, were
soon in rebellion, undertaking to put Robert of Normandy (who
had returned from the Crusade) in his place. The quarrel went
on till the battle of Tenchebray, 1106, in which Robert was
defeated and taken prisoner. He was imprisoned for life. The
duchy and the kingdom were again united. The war in Normandy
led to a war with Louis king of France, who had espoused
Robert's cause. It was ended by the battle of Brêmule, 1119,
where the French suffered a bad defeat. In Henry's reign all
south Wales was conquered; but the north Welsh princes held
out. Another expedition against them was preparing, when, in
1135, Henry fell ill at the Castle of Lions in Normandy, and
died.
_E. A. Freeman,
The Reign of William Rufus and accession of Henry I._
ALSO IN:
_Sir F. Palgrave,
History of Normandy and England,
volume 4._
ENGLAND: A. D. 1135-1154.
The miserable reign of Stephen.
Civil war, anarchy and wretchedness in England.
The transition to hereditary monarchy.
After the death of William the Conqueror, the English throne
was occupied in succession by two of his sons, William II., or
William Rufus (1087-1100), and Henry I., or Henry Beauclerk
(1100-1135). The latter outlived his one legitimate son, and
bequeathed the crown at his death to his daughter, Matilda,
widow of the Emperor Henry V. of Germany and now wife of
Geoffrey, Count of Anjou. This latter marriage had been very
unpopular, both in England and Normandy, and a strong party
refused to recognize the Empress Matilda, as she was commonly
called. This party maintained the superior claims of the
family of Adela, daughter of William the Conqueror, who had
married the Earl of Blois. Naturally their choice would have
fallen upon Theobald of Blois, the eldest of Adela's sons; but
his more enterprising younger brother Stephen supplanted him.
Hastening to England, and winning the favour of the citizens
of London, Stephen secured the royal treasure and persuaded a
council of peers to elect him king. A most grievous civil war
ensued, which lasted for nineteen terrible years, during which
long period there was anarchy and great wretchedness in
England. "The land was filled with castles, and the castles
with armed banditti, who seem to have carried on their
extortions under colour of the military commands bestowed by
Stephen on every petty castellan. Often the very belfries of
churches were fortified. On the poor lay the burden of
building these strongholds; the rich suffered in their
donjeons. Many were starved to death, and these were the
happiest. Others were flung into cellars filled with reptiles,
or hung up by the thumbs till they told where their treasures
were concealed, or crippled in frames which did not suffer
them to move, or held just resting on the ground by sharp iron
collars round the neck. The Earl of Essex used to send out
spies who begged from door to door, and then reported in what
houses wealth was still left; the alms-givers were presently
seized and imprisoned. The towns that could no longer pay the
blackmail demanded from them were burned. … Sometimes the
peasants, maddened by misery, crowded to the roads that led
from a field of battle, and smote down the fugitives without
any distinction of sides. The bishops cursed vainly, when the
very churches were burned and monks robbed. 'To till the
ground was to plough the sea; the earth bare no corn, for the
land was all laid waste by such deeds, and men said openly
that Christ slept, and his saints. Such things, and more than
we can say, suffered we nineteen winters for our sins' (A. S.
Chronicle). … Many soldiers, sickened with the unnatural
war, put on the white cross and sailed for a nobler
battle-field in the East." As Matilda's son Henry—afterwards
Henry II.—grew to manhood, the feeling in his favor gained
strength and his party made head against the weak and
incompetent Stephen. Finally, in 1153, peace was brought about
under an agreement "that Stephen should wear the crown till
his death, and Henry receive the homage of the lords and towns
of the realm as heir apparent." Stephen died the next year and
Henry came to the throne with little further dispute.
_C. H. Pearson,
History of England During the Early and Middle Ages,
chapter 28._
"Stephen, as a king, was an admitted failure. I cannot,
however, but view with suspicion the causes assigned to his
failure by often unfriendly chroniclers. That their criticisms
had some foundation it would not be possible to deny. But in
the first place, had he enjoyed better fortune, we should have
heard less of his incapacity, and in the second, these writers,
not enjoying the same stand-point as ourselves, were, I think,
somewhat inclined to mistake effects for causes. … His
weakness throughout his reign … was due to two causes, each
supplementing the other.
{798}
These were—(1) the essentially unsatisfactory character of
his position, as resting, virtually, on a compact that he
should be king so long only as he gave satisfaction to those
who had placed him on the throne; (2) the existence of a rival
claim, hanging over him from the first, like the sword of
Damocles, and affording a lever by which the malcontents could
compel him to adhere to the original understanding, or even to
submit to further demands. … The position of his opponents
throughout his reign would seem to have rested on two
assumptions. The first, that a breach, on his part, of the
'contract' justified ipso facto revolt on theirs; the second,
that their allegiance to the king was a purely feudal
relation, and, as such, could be thrown off at any moment by
performing the famous diffidatio. This essential feature of
continental feudalism had been rigidly excluded by the
Conqueror. He had taken advantage, as is well known, of his
position as an English king, to extort an allegiance from his
Norman followers more absolute than he could have claimed as
their feudal lord. It was to Stephen's peculiar position that
was due the introduction for a time of this pernicious
principle into England. … Passing now to the other point,
the existence of a rival claim, we approach a subject of great
interest, the theory of the succession to the English Crown at
what may be termed the crisis of transition from the principle
of election (within the royal house) to that of hereditary
right according to feudal rules. For the right view on this
subject, we turn, as ever, to Dr. Stubbs, who, with his usual
sound judgment, writes thus of the Norman period:—'The crown
then continued to be elective. … But whilst the elective
principle was maintained in its fulness where it was necessary
or possible to maintain it, it is quite certain that the right
of inheritance, and inheritance as primogeniture, was
recognized as coordinate. … The measures taken by Henry I.
for securing the crown to his own children, whilst they prove
the acceptance of the hereditary principle, prove also the
importance of strengthening it by the recognition of the
elective theory.' Mr. Freeman, though writing with a strong
bias in favour of the elective theory, is fully justified in
his main argument, namely, that Stephen 'was no usurper in the
sense in which the word is vulgarly used.' He urges,
apparently with perfect truth, that Stephen's offence, in the
eyes of his contemporaries, lay in his breaking his solemn
oath, and not in his supplanting a rightful heir. And he aptly
suggests that the wretchedness of his reign may have hastened
the growth of that new belief in the divine right of the heir
to the throne, which first appears under Henry II., and in the
pages of William of Newburgh. So far as Stephen is concerned the
case is clear enough. But we have also to consider the
Empress. On what did she base her claim? I think that, as
implied in Dr. Stubbs' words, she based it on a double, not a
single, ground. She claimed the kingdom as King Henry's
daughter ('regis Henrici filia '), but she claimed it further
because the succession had been assured to her by oath ('sibi
juratum') as such. It is important to observe that the oath in
question can in no way be regarded in the light of an
election. … The Empress and her partisans must have largely,
to say the least, based their claim on her right to the throne
as her father's heir, and … she and they appealed to the
oath as the admission and recognition of that right, rather
than as partaking in any way whatever of the character of a
free election. … The sex of the Empress was the drawback to
her claim. Had her brother lived, there can be little question
that he would, as a matter of course, have succeeded his
father at his death. Or again, had Henry II. been old enough
to succeed his grandfather, he would, we may be sure, have
done so. … Broadly speaking, to sum up the evidence here
collected, it tends to the belief that the obsolescence of the
right of election to the English crown presents considerable
analogy to that of canonical election in the case of English
bishoprics. In both cases a free election degenerated into a
mere assent to a choice already made. We see the process of
change already in full operation when Henry I. endeavours to
extort beforehand from the magnates their assent to his
daughter's succession, and when they subsequently complain of
this attempt to dictate to them on the subject. We catch sight
of it again when his daughter bases her claim to the crown,
not on any free election, but on her rights as her father's
heir, confirmed by the above assent. We see it, lastly, when
Stephen, though owing his crown to election, claims to rule by
Divine right ('Dei gratia'), and attempts to reduce that
election to nothing more than a national 'assent' to his
succession. Obviously, the whole question turned on whether
the election was to be held first, or was to be a mere
ratification of a choice already made. … In comparing
Stephen with his successor the difference between their
circumstances has been insufficiently allowed for. At
Stephen's accession, thirty years of legal and financial
oppression had rendered unpopular the power of the Crown, and
had led to an impatience of official restraint which opened
the path to a feudal reaction: at the accession of Henry, on
the contrary, the evils of an enfeebled administration and of
feudalism run mad had made all men eager for the advent of a
strong king, and had prepared them to welcome the introduction
of his centralizing administrative reforms. He anticipated the
position of the house of Tudor at the close of the Wars of the
Roses, and combined with it the advantages which Charles II.
derived from the Puritan tyranny. Again, Stephen was hampered
from the first by his weak position as a king on sufferance,
whereas Henry came to his work unhampered by compact or
concession. Lastly, Stephen was confronted throughout by a
rival claimant, who formed a splendid rallying-point for all
the discontent in his realm: but Henry reigned for as long as
Stephen without a rival to trouble him; and when he found at
length a rival in his own son, a claim far weaker than that
which had threatened his predecessor seemed likely for a time
to break his power as effectually as the followers of the
Empress had broken that of Stephen. He may only, indeed, have
owed his escape to that efficient administration which years
of strength and safety had given him the time to construct. It
in no way follows from these considerations that Henry was not
superior to Stephen; but it does, surely, suggest itself that
Stephen's disadvantages were great, and that had he enjoyed
better fortune, we might have heard less of his defects."
_J. H. Round,
Geoffrey de Mandeville,
chapter. 1._
ALSO IN:
_Mrs. J. R. Green,
Henry the Second,
chapter 1._
See, also,
STANDARD, BATTLE OF THE (A. D. 1137).
{799}
ENGLAND: A. D. 1154-1189.
Henry II., the first of the Angevin kings (Plantagenets)
and his empire.
Henry II., who came to the English throne on Stephen's death,
was already, by the death of his father, Geoffrey, Count of
Anjou, the head of the great house of Anjou, in France. From
his father he inherited Anjou, Touraine and Maine; through his
mother, Matilda, daughter of Henry I., he received the dukedom
of Normandy as well as the kingdom of England; by marriage
with Eleanor, of Aquitaine, or Guienne, he added to his empire
the princely domain which included Gascony, Poitou, Saintonge,
Perigord, Limousin, Angoumois, with claims of suzerainty over
Auvergne and Toulouse. "Henry found himself at twenty-one
ruler of dominions such as no king before him had ever dreamed
of uniting. He was master of both sides of the English
Channel, and by his alliance with his uncle, the Count of
Flanders, he had command of the French coast from the Scheldt
to the Pyrenees, while his claims on Toulouse would carry him
to the shores of the Mediterranean. His subjects told with
pride how 'his empire reached from the Arctic Ocean to the
Pyrenees'; there was no monarch save the Emperor himself who
ruled over such vast domains. … His aim [a few years Inter]
seems to have been to rival in some sort the Empire of the
West, and to reign as an over-king, with sub-kings of his
various provinces, and England as one of them, around him. He
was connected with all the great ruling houses. … England
was forced out of her old isolation; her interest in the world
without was suddenly awakened. English scholars thronged the
foreign universities; English chroniclers questioned
travellers, scholars, ambassadors, as to what was passing
abroad.' The influence of English learning and English
statecraft made itself felt all over Europe. Never, perhaps,
in all the history of England was there a time when Englishmen
played so great a part abroad." The king who gathered this
wide, incongruous empire under his sceptre, by mere
circumstances of birth and marriage, proved strangely equal,
in many respects, to its greatness. "He was a foreign king who
never spoke the English tongue, who lived and moved for the
most part in a foreign camp, surrounded with a motley host of
Brabançons and hirelings. … It was under the rule of a
foreigner such as this, however, that the races of conquerors
and conquered in England first learnt to feel that they were
one. It was by his power that England, Scotland and Ireland
were brought to some vague acknowledgement of a common
suzerain lord, and the foundations laid of the United Kingdom
of Great Britain and Ireland. It was he who abolished
feudalism as a system of government, and left it little more
than a system of land tenure. It was he who defined the
relations established between Church and State, and decreed
that in England churchman as well as baron was to be held
under the Common Law. … His reforms established the judicial
system whose main outlines have been preserved to our own day.
It was through his 'Constitutions' and his 'Assizes' that it
came to pass that over all the world the English-speaking
races are governed by English and not by Roman law. It was by
his genius for government that the servants of the royal
household became transformed into Ministers of State. It was
he who gave England a foreign policy which decided our
continental relations for seven hundred years. The impress
which the personality of Henry II. left upon his time meets us
wherever we turn."
_Mrs. J. R. Green,
Henry the Second,
chapters 1-2._
Henry II. and his two sons, Richard I. (Cœur de Lion), and
John, are distinguished, sometimes, as the Angevin kings, or
kings of the House of Anjou, and sometimes as the
Plantagenets, the latter name being derived from a boyish
habit ascribed to Henry's father, Count Geoffrey, of "adorning
his cap with a sprig of 'plantagenista,' the broom which in
early summer makes the open country of Anjou and Maine a blaze
of living gold." Richard retained and ruled the great realm of
his father; but John lost most of his foreign inheritance,
including Normandy, and became the unwilling benefactor of
England by stripping her kings of alien interests and alien
powers and bending their necks to Magna Charta.
_K. Norgate,
England under the Angevin Kings._
ALSO IN:
_W. Stubbs,
The Early Plantagenets._
See, also,
AQUITAINE (GUIENNE): A. D. 1137-1152;
IRELAND: A. D. 1169-1175.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1162-1170.
Conflict of King and Church.
The Constitutions of Clarendon.
Murder of Archbishop Becket.
"Archbishop Theobald was at first the King's chief favourite
and adviser, but his health and his influence declining,
Becket [the Archdeacon of Canterbury] was found apt for
business as well as amusement, and gradually became intrusted
with the exercise of all the powers of the crown. … The
exact time of his appointment as Chancellor has not been
ascertained, the records of the transfer of the Great Seal not
beginning till a subsequent reign, and old biographers being
always quite careless about dates. But he certainly had this
dignity soon after Henry's accession. … Becket continued
Chancellor till the year 1162, without any abatement in his
favour with the King, or in the power which he possessed, or
in the energy he displayed, or in the splendour of his career.
… In April, 1161, Archbishop Theobald died. Henry declared
that Becket should succeed,—no doubt counting upon his
co-operation in carrying on the policy hitherto pursued in
checking the encroachments of the clergy and of the see of
Rome. … The same opinion of Becket's probable conduct was
generally entertained, and a cry was raised that 'the Church
was in danger.' The English bishops sent a representation to
Henry against the appointment, and the electors long refused
to obey his mandate, saying that 'it was indecent that a man
who was rather a soldier than a priest, and who had devoted
himself to hunting and falconry instead of the study of the
Holy Scriptures, should be placed in the chair of St.
Augustine.' … The universal expectation was, that Becket
would now attempt the part so successfully played by Cardinal
Wolsey in a succeeding age; that, Chancellor and Archbishop,
he would continue the minister and personal friend of the
King; that he would study to support and extend all the
prerogatives of the Crown, which he himself was to exercise;
and that in the palaces of which he was now master he would
live with increased magnificence and luxury. … Never was
there so wonderful a transformation. Whether from a
predetermined purpose, or from a sudden change of inclination,
he immediately became in every respect an altered man.
{800}
Instead of the stately and fastidious courtier, was seen the
humble and squalid penitent. Next [to] his skin he wore
hair-cloth, populous with vermin; he lived upon roots, and his
drink was water, rendered nauseous by an infusion of fennel.
By way of further penance and mortification, he frequently
inflicted stripes on his naked back. … He sent the Great
Seal to Henry, in Normandy, with this short message, 'I desire
that you will provide yourself with another Chancellor, as I
find myself hardly sufficient for the duties of one office,
and much less of two.' The fond patron, who had been so eager
for his elevation, was now grievously disappointed and
alarmed. … He at once saw that he had been deceived in his
choice. … The grand struggle which the Church was then
making was, that all churchmen should be entirely exempted
from the jurisdiction of the secular courts, whatever crime
they might have committed. … Henry, thinking that he had a
favourable opportunity for bringing the dispute to a crisis,
summoned an assembly of all the prelates at Westminster, and
himself put to them this plain question: 'Whether they were
willing to submit to the ancient laws and customs of the
kingdom?' Their reply, framed by Becket, was: 'We are willing,
saving our own order.' … The King, seeing what was
comprehended in the reservation, retired with evident marks of
displeasure, deprived Becket of the government of Eye and
Berkhamstead, and all the appointments which he held at the
pleasure of the Crown, and uttered threats as to seizing the
temporalities of all the bishops, since they would not
acknowledge their allegiance to him as the head of the state.
The legate of Pope Alexander, dreading a breach with so
powerful a prince at so unseasonable a juncture, advised
Becket to submit for the moment; and he with his brethren,
retracting the saving clause, absolutely promised 'to observe
the laws and customs of the kingdom.' To avoid all future
dispute, Henry resolved to follow up his victory by having
these laws and customs, as far as the Church was concerned,
reduced into a code, to be sanctioned by the legislature, and
to be specifically acknowledged by all the bishops. This was
the origin of the famous 'Constitutions of Clarendon.'''
Becket left the kingdom (1164). Several years later he made
peace with Henry and returned to Canterbury; but soon he again
displeased the King, who cried in a rage, 'Who will rid me of
this turbulent priest?' Four knights who were present
immediately went to Canterbury, where they slew the Archbishop
in the cathedral (December 29, 1170). "The government tried to
justify or palliate the murder. The Archbishop of York likened
Thomas à Becket to Pharaoh, who died by the Divine vengeance,
as a punishment for his hardness of heart; and a proclamation
was issued, forbidding anyone to speak of Thomas of Canterbury
as a martyr: but the feelings of men were too strong to be
checked by authority; pieces of linen which had been dipped in
his blood were preserved as relics; from the time of his death
it was believed that miracles were worked at his tomb; thither
flocked hundreds of thousands, in spite of the most violent
threats of punishment; at the end of two years he was
canonised at Rome; and, till the breaking out of the
Reformation, St. Thomas of Canterbury, for pilgrimages and
prayers, was the most distinguished Saint in England."
_Lord Campbell,
Lives of the Lord Chancellors,
chapter 3._
"What did Henry II. propose to do with a clerk who was accused
of a crime? … Without doing much violence to the text, it is
possible to put two different interpretations upon that famous
clause in the Constitutions of Clarendon which deals with
criminous clerks. … According to what seems to be the
commonest opinion, we might comment upon this clause in some
such words as these:—Offences of which a clerk may be accused
are of two kinds. They are temporal or they are
ecclesiastical. Under the former head fall murder, robbery,
larceny, rape, and the like; under the latter, incontinence,
heresy, disobedience to superiors, breach of rules relating to
the conduct of divine service, and so forth. If charged with
an offence of the temporal kind, the clerk must stand his
trial in the king's court; his trial, his sentence, will be
like that of a layman. For an ecclesiastical offence, on the
other hand, he will be tried in the court Christian. The king
reserves to his court the right to decide what offences are
temporal, what ecclesiastical; also he asserts the right to
send delegates to supervise the proceedings of the spiritual
tribunals. … Let us attempt a rival commentary. The author
of this clause is not thinking of two different classes of
offences. The purely ecclesiastical offences are not in
debate. No one doubts that for these a man will be tried in
and punished by the spiritual court. He is thinking of the
grave crimes, of murder and the like. Now every such crime is
a breach of temporal law, and it is also a breach of canon
law. The clerk who commits murder breaks the king's peace, but
he also infringes the divine law, and—no canonist will doubt
this—ought to be degraded. Very well. A clerk is accused of
such a crime. He is summoned before the king's court, and he
is to answer there—let us mark this word respondere—for what
he ought to answer for there. What ought he to answer for
there? The breach of the king's peace and the felony. When he
has answered, … then, without any trial, he is to be sent to
the ecclesiastical court. In that court he will have to answer
as an ordained clerk accused of homicide, and in that court
there will be a trial (res ibi tractabitur). If the spiritual
court convicts him it will degrade him, and thenceforth the
church must no longer protect him. He will be brought back
into the king's court, … and having been brought back, no
longer a clerk but a mere layman, he will be sentenced
(probably without any further trial) to the layman's
punishment, death or mutilation. The scheme is this:
accusation and plea in the temporal court; trial, conviction,
degradation, in the ecclesiastical court; sentence in the
temporal court to the layman's punishment. This I believe to
be the meaning of the clause."
_F. W. Maitland,
Henry II. and the Criminous Clerks
(English Historical Review, April, 1892),
pages 224-226._
The Assize of Clarendon, sometimes confused with the
Constitutions of Clarendon, was an important decree approved
two years later. It laid down the principles on which the
administration of justice was to be carried out, in twenty-two
articles drawn up for the use of the judges.
_Mrs. J. R Green,
Henry the Second,
chapters 5-6._
{801}
"It may not be without instruction to remember that the
Constitutions of Clarendon, which Becket spent his life in
opposing, and of which his death procured the suspension, are
now incorporated in the English law, and are regarded, without
a dissentient voice, as among the wisest and most necessary of
English institutions; that the especial point for which he
surrendered his life was not the independence of the clergy
from the encroachments of the Crown, but the personal and now
forgotten question of the superiority of the see of Canterbury
to the see of York."
_A. P. Stanley,
Historical Memorials of Canterbury,
page 124._
ALSO IN:
_W. Stubbs,
Constitutional History of England,
chapter 12, sections 139-141._
_W. Stubbs,
Select Charters,
part 4._
_J. C. Robertson,
Becket._
_J. A. Giles,
Life and Letters of Thomas à Becket._
_R. H. Froude,
History of the Contest between Archbishop
Thomas à Becket and Henry II.
(Remains, part 2, volume 2)._
_J. A. Froude,
Life and Times of Thomas Becket._
_C. H. Pearson,
History of England during the Early and Middle Ages,
volume 1, chapter 29._
See, also,
BENEFIT OF CLERGY,
and JURY, TRIAL BY.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1189.
Accession of King Richard I. (called Cœur de Lion).
ENGLAND: A. D. 1189-1199.
Reign of Richard Cœur de Lion.
His Crusade and campaigns in France.
"The Third Crusade [see CRUSADES: A. D. 1188-1192], undertaken
for the deliverance of Palestine from the disasters brought
upon the Crusaders' Kingdom by Saladin, was the first to be
popular in England. … Richard joined the Crusade in the very
first year of his reign, and every portion of his subsequent
career was concerned with its consequences. Neither in the
time of William Rufus nor of Stephen had the First or Second
Crusades found England sufficiently settled for such
expeditions. … But the patronage of the Crusades was a
hereditary distinction in the Angevin family now reigning in
England: they had founded the kingdom of Palestine; Henry II.
himself had often prepared to set out; and Richard was
confidently expected by the great body of his subjects to
redeem the family pledge. … Wholly inferior in statesmanlike
qualities to his father as he was, the generosity,
munificence, and easy confidence of his character made him an
almost perfect representative of the chivalry of that age. He
was scarcely at all in England, but his fine exploits both by
land and sea have made him deservedly a favourite. The
depreciation of him which is to be found in certain modern
books must in all fairness be considered a little mawkish. A
King who leaves behind him such an example of apparently
reckless, but really prudent valour, of patience under jealous
ill-treatment, and perseverance in the face of extreme
difficulties, shining out as the head of the manhood of his
day, far above the common race of kings and emperors,—such a
man leaves a heritage of example as well as glory, and incites
posterity to noble deeds. His great moral fault was his
conduct to Henry, and for this he was sufficiently punished;
but his parents must each bear their share of the blame. …
The interest of English affairs during Richard's absence
languishes under the excitement which attends his almost
continuous campaigns. … Both on the Crusade and in France
Richard was fighting the battle of the House which the English
had very deliberately placed upon its throne; and if the war
was kept off its shores, if the troubles of Stephen's reign
were not allowed to recur, the country had no right to
complain of a taxation or a royal ransom which times of peace
enabled it, after all, to bear tolerably well. … The great
maritime position of the Plantagenets made these sovereigns
take to the sea."
_M. Burrows,
Commentaries on the History of England,
book 1, chapter 18._
Richard "was a bad king; his great exploits, his military
skill, his splendour and extravagance, his poetical tastes,
his adventurous spirit, do not serve to cloak his entire want
of sympathy, or even consideration for his people. He was no
Englishman. … His ambition was that of a mere warrior."
_W. Stubbs,
Constitutional History of England,
section. 150 (volume 1)._
ALSO IN:
_K. Norgate,
England under the Angevin Kings,
volume 2, chapter 7-8._
ENGLAND: A. D. 1199.
Accession of King John.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1205.
The loss of Normandy and its effects.
In 1202 Philip Augustus, king of France, summoned John of
England, as Duke of Normandy (therefore the feudal vassal of
the French crown) to appear for trial on certain grave charges
before the august court of the Peers of France. John refused
to obey the summons; his French fiefs were declared forfeited,
and the armies of the French king took possession of them (see
FRANCE: A. D. 1180-1224). This proved to be a lasting
separation of Normandy from England,—except as it was
recovered momentarily long afterwards in the conquests of
Henry V. "The Norman barons had had no choice but between John
and Philip. For the first time since the Conquest there was no
competitor, son, brother, or more distant kinsman, for their
allegiance. John could neither rule nor defend them. Bishops
and barons alike welcomed or speedily accepted their new lord.
The families that had estates on both sides of the Channel
divided into two branches, each of which made terms for
itself; or having balanced their interests in the two
kingdoms, threw in their lot with one or other, and renounced
what they could not save. Almost immediately Normandy settles
down into a quiet province of France. … For England the
result of the separation was more important still. Even within
the reign of John it became clear that the release of the
barons from their connexion with the continent was all that
was wanted to make them Englishmen. With the last vestiges of
the Norman inheritances vanished the last idea of making
England a feudal kingdom. The Great Charter was won by men who
were maintaining, not the cause of a class, as had been the
case in every civil war since 1070, but the cause of a nation.
From the year 1203 the king stood before the English people
face to face."
_W. Stubbs,
Constitutional History of England,
chapter 12, section 152._
See FRANCE: A. D. 1180-1224.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1205-1213.
King John's quarrel with the Pope and the Church.
On the death, in 1205, of Archbishop Hubert, of Canterbury,
who had long been chief minister of the crown, a complicated
quarrel over the appointment to the vacant see arose between
the monks of the cathedral, the suffragan bishops of the
province, King John, and the powerful Pope Innocent III. Pope
Innocent put forward as his candidate the afterwards famous
Stephen Langton, secured his election in a somewhat irregular
way (A. D. 1207), and consecrated him with his own hands. King
John, bent on filling the primacy with a creature of his own,
resisted the papal action with more fury than discretion, and
proceeded to open war with the whole Church.
{802}
"The monks of Canterbury were driven from their monastery, and
when, in the following year, an interdict which the Pope had
intrusted to the Bishops of London, Ely and Worcester, was
published, his hostility to the Church became so extreme that
almost all the bishops fled; the Bishops of Winchester,
Durham, and Norwich, two of whom belonged to the ministerial
body, being the only prelates left in England. The interdict
was of the severest form; all services of the Church, with the
exception of baptism and extreme unction, being forbidden,
while the burial of the dead was allowed only in unconsecrated
ground; its effect was however, weakened by the conduct of
some of the monastic orders, who claimed exemption from its
operation, and continued their services. The king's anger knew
no bounds. The clergy were put beyond the protection of the
law; orders were issued to drive them from their benefices,
and lawless acts committed at their expense met with no
punishment. … Though acting thus violently, John showed the
weakness of his character by continued communication with the
Pope, and occasional fitful acts of favour to the Church; so
much so, that, in the following year, Langton prepared to come
over to England, and, upon the continued obstinacy of the
king, Innocent, feeling sure of his final victory, did not
shrink from issuing his threatened excommunication. John had
hoped to be able to exclude the knowledge of this step from
the island … ; but the rumour of it soon got abroad, and its
effect was great. … In a state of nervous excitement, and
mistrusting his nobles, the king himself perpetually moved to
and fro in his kingdom, seldom staying more than a few days in
one place. None the less did he continue his old line of policy.
… In 1211 a league of excommunicated leaders was formed,
including all the princes of the North of Europe; Ferrand of
Flanders, the Duke of Brabant, John, and Otho [John's Guelphic
Saxon nephew, who was one of two contestants for the imperial
crown in Germany], were all members of it, and it was chiefly
organized by the activity of Reinald of Dammartin, Count of
Boulogne. The chief enemy of these confederates was Philip of
France; and John thought he saw in this league the means of
revenge against his old enemy. To complete the line of
demarcation between the two parties, Innocent, who was greatly
moved by the description of the disorders and persecutions in
England, declared John's crown forfeited, and intrusted the
carrying out of the sentence to Philip. In 1213 armies were
collected on both sides. Philip was already on the Channel,
and John had assembled a large army on Barhamdown, not far
from Canterbury." But, at the last moment, when the French
king was on the eve of embarking his forces for the invasion
of England, John submitted himself abjectly to Pandulf, the
legate of the Pope. He not only surrendered to all that he had
contended against, but went further, to the most shameful
extreme. "On the 15th of May, at Dover, he formally resigned
the crowns of England and Ireland into the hands of Pandulf,
and received them again as the Pope's feudatory."
_J. F. Bright,
History of England (3d edition),
volume 1, pages 130-134._
ALSO IN:
_C. H. Pearson,
History of England during the Early and Middle Ages,
volume 2, chapter 2._
_E. F. Henderson,
Select Historical Documents of the Middle Ages,
Book 4, number 5._
See, also, BOUVINES, BATTLE OF.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1206-1230.
Attempts of John and Henry III. to recover Anjou and Maine.
See ANJOU: A. D. 1206-1442.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1215.
Magna Carta.
"It is to the victory of Bouvines that England owes her Great
Charter [see BOUVINES]. … John sailed for Poitou with the
dream of a great victory which should lay Philip [of France]
and the barons alike at his feet. He returned from his defeat
to find the nobles no longer banded together in secret
conspiracies, but openly united in a definite claim of liberty
and law. The author of this great change was the new
Archbishop [Langton] whom Innocent had set on the throne of
Canterbury. … In a private meeting of the barons at St.
Paul's, he produced the Charter of Henry I., and the
enthusiasm with which it was welcomed showed the sagacity with
which the Primate had chosen his ground for the coming
struggle. All hope, however, hung on the fortunes of the
French campaign; it was the victory at Bouvines that broke the
spell of terror, and within a few days of the king's landing
the barons again met at St. Edmundsbury. … At Christmas they
presented themselves in arms before the king and preferred their
claim. The few months that followed showed John that he stood
alone in the land. … At Easter the barons again gathered in
arms at Brackley and renewed their claim. 'Why do they not ask
for my kingdom?' cried John in a burst of passion; but the
whole country rose as one man at his refusal. London threw
open her gates to the army of the barons, now organized under
Robert Fitz-Walter, 'the marshal of the army of God and the
holy Church.' The example of the capital was at once followed
by Exeter and Lincoln; promises of aid came from Scotland and
Wales; the northern nobles marched hastily to join their
comrades in London. With seven horsemen in his train John
found himself face to face with a nation in arms. … Nursing
wrath in his heart the tyrant bowed to necessity, and summoned
the barons to a conference at Runnymede. An island in the
Thames between Staines and Windsor had been chosen as the
place of conference: the king encamped on one bank, while the
barons covered the marshy flat, still known by the name of
Runnymede, on the other. Their delegates met in the island
between them. … The Great Charter was discussed, agreed to,
and signed in a single day [June 15, A. D. 1215]. One copy of
it still remains in the British Museum, injured by age and
fire, but with the royal seal still hanging from the brown,
shriveled parchment."
_J. R Green,
Short History of the England People,
chapter 3, sections 2-3._
"As this was the first effort towards a legal government, so
is it beyond comparison the most important event in our
history, except that, Revolution without which its benefits
would have been rapidly annihilated. The constitution of
England has indeed no single date from which its duration is
to be reckoned. The institutions of positive law, the far more
important changes which time has wrought in the order of
society, during six hundred years subsequent to the Great
Charter, have undoubtedly lessened its direct application to
our present circumstances. But it is still the key-stone of
English liberty. All that has since been obtained is little
more than as confirmation or commentary. … The essential
clauses of Magna Charta are those which protect the personal
liberty and property of all freemen, by giving security from
arbitrary imprisonment and arbitrary spoliation.
{803}
'No freeman (says the 29th chapter of Henry III.'s charter,
which, as the existing law, I quote in preference to that of
John, the variations not being very material) shall be taken
or imprisoned, or be disseised of his freehold, or liberties,
or free customs, or be outlawed, or exiled, or any otherwise
destroyed; nor will we pass upon him, nor send upon, but by
lawful judgment of his peers, or by the law of the land. We
will sell to no man, we will not deny or delay to any man,
justice or right.' It is obvious that these words, interpreted
by any honest court of law, convey an ample security for the
two main rights of civil society."
_H. Hallam,
The Middle Ages,
chapter 8, part 2._
"The Great Charter, although drawn up in the form of a royal
grant, was really a treaty between the king and his subjects.
… It is the collective people who really form the other high
contracting party in the great capitulation,—the three
estates of the realm, not, it is true, arranged in order
according to their profession or rank, but not the less
certainly combined in one national purpose, and securing by
one bond the interests and rights of each other, severally and
all together. … The barons maintain and secure the right of
the whole people as against themselves as well as against
their master. Clause by clause the rights of the commons are
provided for as well as the rights of the nobles. … The
knight is protected against the compulsory exaction of his
services, and the horse and cart of the freeman against the
irregular requisition even of the sheriff. … The Great
Charter is the first great public act of the nation, after it
has realised its own identity. … The whole of the
constitutional history of England is little more than a
commentary on Magna Carta."
_W. Stubbs,
Constitutional History of England,
chapter 12, section 155._
The following is the text of Magna Carta;
"John, by the Grace of God, King of England, Lord of Ireland,
Duke of Normandy, Aquitaine, and Count of Anjou, to his
Archbishops, Bishops, Abbots, Earls, Barons, Justiciaries,
Foresters, Sheriffs, Governors, Officers, and to all Bailiffs,
and his faithful subjects, greeting. Know ye, that we, in the
presence of God, and for the salvation of our soul, and the
souls of all our ancestors and heirs, and unto the honour of
God and the advancement of Holy Church, and amendment of our
Realm, by advice of our venerable Fathers, Stephen, Archbishop
of Canterbury, Primate of all England and Cardinal of the Holy
Roman Church; Henry, Archbishop of Dublin; William, of London;
Peter, of Winchester; Jocelin, of Bath and Glastonbury; Hugh,
of Lincoln; Walter, of Worcester; William, of Coventry;
Benedict, of Rochester—Bishops; of Master Pandulph,
Sub-Deacon and Familiar of our Lord the Pope; Brother Aymeric,
Master of the Knights-Templars in England; and of the noble
Persons, William Marescall, Earl of Pembroke; William, Earl of
Salisbury; William, Earl of Warren; William, Earl of Arundel;
Alan de Galloway, Constable of Scotland; Warin FitzGerald,
Peter FitzHerbert, and Hubert de Burgh, Seneschal of Poitou;
Hugh de Neville, Matthew FitzHerbert, Thomas Basset, Alan
Basset, Philip of Albiney, Robert de Roppell, John Mareschal,
John FitzHugh, and others, our liegemen, have, in the first
place, granted to God, and by this our present Charter
confirmed, for us and our heirs forever;
1. That the Church of England shall be free, and have her
whole rights, and her liberties inviolable; and we will have
them so observed, that it may appear thence that the freedom
of elections, which is reckoned chief and indispensable to the
English Church, and which we granted and confirmed by our
Charter, and obtained the confirmation of the same from our
Lord the Pope Innocent III., before the discord between us and
our barons, was granted of mere free will; which Charter we
shall observe, and we do will it to be faithfully observed by
our heirs for ever.
2. We also have granted to all the freemen of our kingdom, for
us and for our heirs for ever, all the underwritten liberties,
to be had and holden by them and their heirs, of us and our
heirs for ever; If any of our earls, or barons, or others, who
hold of us in chief by military service, shall die, and at the
time of his death his heir shall be of full age, and owe a
relief, he shall have his inheritance by the ancient
relief—that is to say, the heir or heirs of an earl, for a
whole earldom, by a hundred pounds; the heir or heirs of a
baron, for a whole barony, by a hundred pounds; the heir or
heirs of a knight, for a whole knight's fee, by a hundred
shillings at most; and whoever oweth less shall give less,
according to the ancient custom of fees.
3. But if the heir of any such shall be under age, and shall
be in ward, when he comes of age he shall have his inheritance
without relief and without fine.
4. The keeper of the land of such an heir being under age,
shall take of the land of the heir none but reasonable issues,
reasonable customs, and reasonable services, and that without
destruction and waste of his men and his goods; and if we
commit the custody of any such lands to the sheriff, or any
other who is answerable to us for the issues of the land, and
he shall make destruction and waste of the lands which he hath
in custody, we will take of him amends, and the land shall be
committed to two lawful and discreet men of that fee, who
shall answer for the issues to us, or to him to whom we shall
assign them; and if we sell or give to anyone the custody of
any such lands, and he therein make destruction or waste, he
shall lose the same custody, which shall be committed to two
lawful and discreet men of that fee, who shall in like manner
answer to us as aforesaid.
5. But the keeper, so long as he shall have the custody of the
land, shall keep up the houses, parks, warrens, ponds, mills,
and other things pertaining to the land, out of the issues of
the same land; and shall deliver to the heir, when he comes of
full age, his whole land, stocked with ploughs and carriages,
according as the time of wainage shall require, and the issues
of the land can reasonably bear.
6. Heirs shall be married without disparagement, and so that
before matrimony shall be contracted, those who are near in
blood to the heir shall have notice.
7. A widow, after the death of her husband, shall forthwith
and without difficulty have her marriage and inheritance; nor
shall she give anything for her dower, or her marriage, of her
inheritance, which her husband and she held at the day of his
death; and she may remain in the mansion house of her husband
forty days after his death, within which time her dower shall
be assigned.
8. No widow shall be distrained to marry herself, so long as
she has a mind to live without a husband; but yet she shall
give security that she will not marry without our assent, if
she hold of us; or without the consent of the lord of whom she
holds, if she hold of another.
{804}
9. Neither we nor our bailiffs shall seize any land or rent
for any debt so long as the chattels of the debtor are
sufficient to pay the debt; nor shall the sureties of the
debtor be distrained so long as the principal debtor has
sufficient to pay the debt; and if the principal debtor shall
fail in the payment of the debt, not having wherewithal to pay
it, then the sureties shall answer the debt; and if they will
they shall have the lands and rents of the debtor, until they
shall be satisfied for the debt which they paid for him,
unless the principal debtor can show himself acquitted thereof
against the said sureties.
10. If anyone have borrowed anything of the Jews, more or
less, and die before the debt be satisfied, there shall be no
interest paid for that debt, so long as the heir is under age,
of whomsoever he may hold; and if the debt falls into our
hands, we will only take the chattel mentioned in the deed.
11. And if anyone shall die indebted to the Jews, his wife
shall have her dower and pay nothing of that debt; and if the
deceased left children under age, they shall have necessaries
provided for them, according to the tenement of the deceased;
and out of the residue the debt shall be paid, saving,
however, the service due to the lords, and in like manner
shall it be done touching debts due to others than the Jews.
12. No scutage or aid shall be imposed in our kingdom, unless
by the general council of our kingdom; except for ransoming
our person, making our eldest son a knight, and once for
marrying our eldest daughter; and for these there shall be
paid no more than a reasonable aid. In like manner it shall be
concerning the aids of the City of London.
13. And the City of London shall have all its ancient
liberties and free customs, as well by land as by water:
furthermore, we will and grant that all other cities and
boroughs, and towns and ports, shall have all their liberties
and free customs.
14. And for holding the general council of the kingdom
concerning the assessment of aids, except in the three cases
aforesaid, and for the assessing of scutages, we shall cause
to be summoned the archbishops, bishops, abbots, earls, and
greater barons of the realm, singly by our letters. And
furthermore, we shall cause to be summoned generally, by our
sheriffs and bailiffs, all others who hold of us in chief, for
a certain day, that is to say, forty days before their meeting
at least, and to a certain place; and in all letters of such
summons we will declare the cause of such summons. And summons
being thus made, the business shall proceed on the day
appointed, according to the advice of such as shall be
present, although all that were summoned come not.
15. We will not for the future grant to anyone that he may
take aid of his own free tenants, unless to ransom his body,
and to make his eldest son a knight, and once to marry his
eldest daughter; and for this there shall be only paid a
reasonable aid.
16. No man shall be distrained to perform more service for a
knight's fee, or other free tenement, than is due from thence.
17. Common pleas shall not follow our court, but shall be
holden in some place certain.
18. Trials upon the Writs of Novel Disseisin, and of Mort
d'ancestor, and of Darrein Presentment, shall not be taken but
in their proper counties, and after this manner: We, or if we
should be out of the realm, our chief justiciary, will send
two justiciaries through every county four times a year, who,
with four knights of each county, chosen by the county, shall
hold the said assizes in the county, on the day, and at the
place appointed.
19. And if any matters cannot be determined on the day
appointed for holding the assizes in each county, so many of
the knights and freeholders as have been at the assizes
aforesaid shall stay to decide them as is necessary, according
as there is more or less business.
20. A freeman shall not be amerced for a small offence, but
only according to the degree of the offence; and for a great
crime according to the heinousness of it, saving to him his
contenement; and after the same manner a merchant, saving to
him his merchandise. And a villein shall be amerced after the
same manner, saving to him his wainage, if he falls under our
mercy; and none of the aforesaid amerciaments shall be
assessed but by the oath of honest men in the neighbourhood.
21. Earls and barons shall not be amerced but by their peers,
and after the degree of the offence.
22. No ecclesiastical person shall be amerced for his lay
tenement, but according to the proportion of the others
aforesaid, and not according to the value of his
ecclesiastical benefice.
23. Neither a town nor any tenant shall be distrained to make
bridges or embankments, unless that anciently and of right
they are bound to do it.
24. No sheriff, constable, coroner, or other our bailiffs,
shall hold "Pleas of the Crown."
25. All counties, hundreds, wapentakes, and trethings, shall
stand at the old rents, without any increase, except in our
demesne manors.
26. If anyone holding of us a lay fee die, and the sheriff, or
our bailiffs, show our letters patent of summons for debt
which the dead man did owe to us, it shall be lawful for the
sheriff or our bailiff to attach and register the chattels of
the dead, found upon his lay fee, to the amount of the debt,
by the view of lawful men, so as nothing be removed until our
whole clear debt be paid; and the rest shall be left to the
executors to fulfil the testament of the dead; and if there be
nothing due from him to us, all the chattels shall go to the
use of the dead, saving to his wife and children their
reasonable shares.
27. If any freeman shall die intestate, his chattels shall be
distributed by the hands of his nearest relations and friends,
by view of the Church, saving to everyone his debts which the
deceased owed to him.
28. No constable or bailiff of ours shall take corn or other
chattels of any man unless he presently give him money for it,
or hath respite of payment by the good-will of the seller.
29. No constable shall distrain any knight to give money for
castle-guard, if he himself will do it in his person, or by
another able man, in case he cannot do it through any
reasonable cause. And if we have carried or sent him into the
army, he shall be free from such guard for the time he shall
be in the army by our command.
30. No sheriff or bailiff of ours, or any other, shall take
horses or carts of any freeman for carriage, without the
assent of the said freeman.
31. Neither shall we nor our bailiffs take any man's timber
for our castles or other uses, unless by the consent of the
owner of the timber.
32. We will retain the lands of those convicted of felony only
one year and a day, and then they shall be delivered to the
lord of the fee.
33. All kydells (wears) for the time to come shall be put down
in the rivers of Thames and Medway, and throughout all
England, except upon the seacoast.
{805}
34. The writ which is called prœcipe, for the future, shall
not be made out to anyone, of any tenement, whereby a freeman
may lose his court.
35. There shall be one measure of wine and one of ale through
our whole realm; and one measure of corn, that is to say, the
London quarter; and one breadth of dyed cloth, and russets,
and haberjeets, that is to say, two ells within the lists; and
it shall be of weights as it is of measures.
36. Nothing from henceforth shall be given or taken for a writ
of inquisition of life or limb, but it shall be granted
freely, and not denied.
37. If any do hold of us by fee-farm, or by socage, or by
burgage, and he hold also lands of any other by knight's
service, we will not have the custody of the heir or land,
which is holden of another man's fee by reason of that
fee-farm, socage, or burgage; neither will we have the custody
of the fee-farm, or socage, or burgage, unless knight's
service was due to us out of the same fee-farm. We will not
have the custody of an heir, nor of any land which he holds of
another by knight's service, by reason of any petty serjeanty
by which he holds of us, by the service of paying a knife, an
arrow, or the like.
38. No bailiff from henceforth shall put any man to his law
upon his own bare saying, without credible witnesses to prove
it.
39. No freeman shall be taken or imprisoned, or disseised, or
outlawed, or banished, or any ways destroyed, nor will we pass
upon him, nor will we send upon him, unless by the lawful
judgment of his peers, or by the law of the land.
40. We will sell to no man, we will not deny to any man,
either justice or right.
41. All merchants shall have safe and secure conduct, to go
out of, and to come into England, and to stay there and to
pass as well by land as by water, for buying and selling by
the ancient and allowed customs, without any unjust tolls;
except in time of war, or when they are of any nation at war
with us. And if there be found any such in our land, in the
beginning of the war, they shall be attached, without damage
to their bodies or goods, until it be known unto us, or our
chief justiciary, how our merchants be treated in the nation
at war with us; and if ours be safe there, the others shall be
safe in our dominions.
42. It shall be lawful, for the time to come, for anyone to go
out of our kingdom, and return safely and securely by land or
by water, saving his allegiance to us; unless in time of war,
by some short space, for the common benefit of the realm,
except prisoners and outlaws, according to the law of the
land, and people in war with us, and merchants who shall be
treated as is above mentioned.
43. If any man hold of any escheat, as of the honour of
Wallingford, Nottingham, Boulogne, Lancaster, or of other
escheats which be in our hands, and are baronies, and die, his
heir shall give no other relief, and perform no other service
to us than he would to the baron, if it were in the baron's
hand; and we will hold it after the same manner as the baron
held it.
44. Those men who dwell without the forest from henceforth
shall not come before our justiciaries of the forest, upon
common summons, but such as are impleaded, or are sureties for
any that are attached for something concerning the forest.
45. We will not make any justices, constables, sheriffs, or
bailiffs, but of such as know the law of the realm and mean
duly to observe it.
46. All barons who have founded abbeys, which they hold by
charter from the kings of England, or by ancient tenure, shall
have the keeping of them, when vacant, as they ought to have.
47. All forests that have been made forests in our time shall
forthwith be disforested; and the same shall be done with the
water-banks that have been fenced in by us in our time.
48. All evil customs concerning forests, warrens, foresters,
and warreners, sheriffs and their officers, water-banks and
their keepers, shall forthwith be inquired into in each
county, by twelve sworn knights of the same county, chosen by
creditable persons of the same county; and within forty days
after the said inquest be utterly abolished, so as never to be
restored: so as we are first acquainted therewith, or our
justiciary, if we should not be in England.
49. We will immediately give up all hostages and charters
delivered unto us by our English subjects, as securities for
their keeping the peace, and yielding us faithful service.
50. We will entirely remove from their bailiwicks the
relations of Gerard de Atheyes, so that for the future they
shall have no bailiwick in England; we will also remove
Engelard de Cygony, Andrew, Peter, and Gyon, from the
Chancery; Gyon de Cygony, Geoffrey de Martyn, and his
brothers; Philip Mark, and his brothers, and his nephew,
Geoffrey, and their whole retinue.
51. As soon as peace is restored, we will send out of the
kingdom all foreign knights, cross-bowmen, and stipendiaries,
who are come with horses and arms to the molestation of our
people.
52. If anyone has been dispossessed or deprived by us, without
the lawful judgment of his peers, of his lands, castles,
liberties, or right, we will forthwith restore them to him;
and if any dispute arise upon this head, let the matter be
decided by the five-and-twenty barons hereafter mentioned, for
the preservation of the peace. And for all those things of
which any person has, without the lawful judgment of his
peers, been dispossessed or deprived, either by our father
King Henry, or our brother King Richard, and which we have in
our hands, or are possessed by others, and we are bound to
warrant and make good, we shall have a respite till the term
usually allowed the crusaders; excepting those things about
which there is a plea depending, or whereof an inquest hath
been made, by our order before we undertook the crusade; but
as soon as we return from our expedition, or if perchance we
tarry at home and do not make our expedition, we will
immediately cause full justice to be administered therein.
53. The same respite we shall have, and in the same manner,
about administering justice, disafforesting or letting
continue the forests, which Henry our father, and our brother
Richard, have afforested; and the same concerning the wardship
of the lands which are in another's fee, but the wardship of
which we have hitherto had, by reason of a fee held of us by
knight's service; and for the abbeys founded in any other fee
than our own, in which the lord of the fee says he has a
right; and when we return from our expedition, or if we tarry
at home, and do not make our expedition, we will immediately
do full justice to all the complainants in this behalf.
54. No man shall be taken or imprisoned upon the appeal of a
woman, for the death of any other than her husband.
{806}
55. All unjust and illegal fines made by us, and all
amerciaments imposed unjustly and contrary to the law of the
land, shall be entirely given up, or else be left to the
decision of the five-and-twenty barons hereafter mentioned for
the preservation of the peace, or of the major part of them,
together with the aforesaid Stephen, Archbishop of Canterbury,
if he can be present, and others whom he shall think fit to
invite; and if he cannot be present, the business shall
notwithstanding go on without him; but so that if one or more
of the aforesaid five-and-twenty barons be plaintiffs in the
same cause, they shall be set aside as to what concerns this
particular affair, and others be chosen in their room, out of
the said five-and-twenty, and sworn by the rest to decide the
matter.
56. If we have disseised or dispossessed the Welsh of any
lands, liberties, or other things, without the legal judgment
of their peers, either in England or in Wales, they shall be
immediately restored to them; and if any dispute arise upon
this head, the matter shall be determined in the Marches by
the judgment of their peers; for tenements in England
according to the law of England, for tenements in Wales
according to the law of Wales, for tenements of the Marches
according to the law of the Marches: the same shall the Welsh
do to us and our subjects.
57. As for all those things of which a Welshman hath, without
the lawful judgment of his peers, been disseised or deprived
of by King Henry our father, or our brother King Richard, and
which we either have in our hands or others are possessed of,
and we are obliged to warrant it, we shall have a respite till
the time generally allowed the crusaders; excepting those
things about which a suit is depending, or whereof an inquest
has been made by our order, before we undertook the crusade:
but when we return, or if we stay at home without performing
our expedition, we will immediately do them full justice,
according to the laws of the Welsh and of the parts before
mentioned.
58. We will without delay dismiss the son of Llewellin, and
all the Welsh hostages, and release them from the engagements
they have entered into with us for the preservation of the
peace.
59. We will treat with Alexander, King of Scots, concerning
the restoring his sisters and hostages, and his right and
liberties, in the same form and manner as we shall do to the
rest of our barons of England; unless by the charters which we
have from his father, William, late King of Scots, it ought to
be otherwise; and this shall be left to the determination of
his peers in our court.
60. All the aforesaid customs and liberties, which we have
granted to be holden in our kingdom, as much as it belongs to
us, all people of our kingdom, as well clergy as laity, shall
observe, as far as they are concerned, towards their
dependents.
61. And whereas, for the honour of God and the amendment of
our kingdom, and for the better quieting the discord that has
arisen between us and our barons, we have granted all these
things aforesaid; willing to render them firm and lasting, we
do give and grant our subjects the underwritten security,
namely that the barons may choose five-and-twenty barons of
the kingdom, whom they think convenient; who shall take care,
with all their might, to hold and observe, and cause to be
observed, the peace and liberties we have granted them, and by
this our present Charter confirmed in this manner; that is to
say, that if we, our justiciary, our bailiffs, or any of our
officers, shall in any circumstance have failed in the
performance of them towards any person, or shall have broken
through any of these articles of peace and security, and the
offence be notified to four barons chosen out of the
five-and-twenty before mentioned, the said four barons shall
repair to us, or our justiciary, if we are out of the realm,
and, laying open the grievance, shall petition to have it
redressed without delay: and if it be not redressed by us, or
if we should chance to be out of the realm, if it should not
be redressed by our justiciary within forty days, reckoning
from the time it has been notified to us, or to our justiciary
(if we should be out of the realm), the four barons aforesaid
shall lay the cause before the rest of the five-and-twenty
barons; and the said five-and-twenty barons, together with the
community of the whole kingdom, shall distrain and distress us
in all the ways in which they shall be able, by seizing our
castles, lands, possessions, and in any other manner they can,
till the grievance is redressed, according to their pleasure;
saving harmless our own person, and the persons of our Queen
and children; and when it is redressed, they shall behave to
us as before. And any person whatsoever in the kingdom may
swear that he will obey the orders of the five-and-twenty
barons aforesaid in the execution of the premises, and will
distress us, jointly with them, to the utmost of his power;
and we give public and free liberty to anyone that shall
please to swear to this, and never will hinder any person from
taking the same oath.
62. As for all those of our subjects who will not, of their
own accord, swear to join the five-and-twenty barons in
distraining and distressing us, we will issue orders to make
them take the same oath as aforesaid. And if anyone of the
five-and-twenty barons dies, or goes out of the kingdom, or is
hindered any other way from carrying the things aforesaid into
execution, the rest of the said five-and-twenty barons may
choose another in his room, at their discretion, who shall be
sworn in like manner as the rest. In all things that are
committed to the execution of these five-and-twenty barons,
if, when they are all assembled together, they should happen
to disagree about any matter, and some of them, when summoned,
will not or cannot come, whatever is agreed upon, or enjoined,
by the major part of those that are present shall be reputed
as firm and valid as if all the five-and-twenty had given
their consent; and the aforesaid five-and-twenty shall swear
that all the premises they shall faithfully observe, and cause
with all their power to be observed. And we will procure
nothing from anyone, by ourselves nor by another, whereby any
of these concessions and liberties may be revoked or lessened;
and if any such thing shall have been obtained, let it be null
and void; neither will we ever make use of it either by
ourselves or any other. And all the ill-will, indignations,
and rancours that have arisen between us and our subjects, of
the clergy and laity, from the first breaking out of the
dissensions between us, we do fully remit and forgive:
moreover, all trespasses occasioned by the said dissensions,
from Easter in the sixteenth year of our reign till the
restoration of peace and tranquillity, we hereby entirely
remit to all, both clergy and laity, and as far as in us lies
do fully forgive. We have, moreover, caused to be made for
them the letters patent testimonial of Stephen, Lord
Archbishop of Canterbury, Henry, Lord Archbishop of Dublin,
and the bishops aforesaid, as also of Master Pandulph, for the
security and concessions aforesaid.
{807}
63. Wherefore we will and firmly enjoin, that the Church of
England be free, and that all men in our kingdom have and hold
all the aforesaid liberties, rights, and concessions, truly
and peaceably, freely and quietly, fully and wholly to
themselves and their heirs, of us and our heirs, in all things
and places, for ever, as is aforesaid. It is also sworn, as
well on our part as on the part of the barons, that all the
things aforesaid shall be observed in good faith, and without
evil subtilty. Given under our hand, in the presence of the
witnesses above named, and many others, in the meadow called
Runingmede, between Windsor and Staines, the 15th day of June,
in the 17th year of our reign."
_W. Stubbs,
Select Charters,
part 5._
_Old South Leaflets,
General Series,
number 5._
Also IN:
_E. F. Henderson,
Select Historical Documents of the Middle Ages,
book 1, number 7._
_C. H. Pearson,
History of England during the Early and Middle Ages,
volume 2, chapter 3._
ENGLAND: A. D. 1216-1274.
Character and reign of Henry III.
The Barons' War.
Simon de Montfort and the evolution of the English Parliament.
King John died October 17, 1216. "His legitimate successor was
a child of nine years of age. For the first time since the
Conquest the personal government was in the hands of a minor.
In that stormy time the great Earl of Pembroke undertook the
government, as Protector. … At the Council of Bristol, with
general approbation and even with that of the papal legate,
Magna Charta was confirmed, though with the omission of
certain articles. … After some degree of tranquillity had
been restored, a second confirmation of the Great Charter took
place in the autumn of 1217, with the omission of the clauses
referring to the estates, but with the grant of a new charta
de foresta, introducing a vigorous administration of the
forest laws. In 9 Henry III. Magna Charta was again confirmed,
and this is the form in which it afterwards took its place
among the statutes of the realm. Two years later, Henry III.
personally assumes the reins of government at the Parliament
of Oxford (1227), and begins his rule without confirming the
two charters. At first the tutorial government still
continues, which had meanwhile, even after the death of the
great Earl of Pembroke (1219), remained in a fairly orderly
condition. The first epoch of sixteen years of this reign must
therefore be regarded purely as a government by the nobility
under the name of Henry III. The regency had succeeded in
removing the dominant influence of the Roman Curia by the
recall of the papal legate, Pandulf, to Rome (1221), and in
getting rid of the dangerous foreign mercenary soldiery
(1224). … With the disgraceful dismissal of the chief
justiciary, Hubert de Burgh, there begins a second epoch of a
personal rule of Henry III. (1232-1252), which for twenty
continuous years, presents the picture of a confused and
undecided struggle between the king and his foreign favourites
and personal adherents on the one side, and the great barons,
and with them soon the prelates, on the other. … In 21 Henry
III. the King finds himself, in consequence of pressing money
embarrassments, again compelled to make a solemn confirmation
of the charter, in which once more the clauses relating to the
estates are omitted. Shortly afterwards, as had happened just
one hundred years previously in France, the name
'parliamentum' occurs for the first time (Chron. Dunst., 1244;
Matth. Paris, 1246), and curiously enough, Henry III. himself,
in a writ addressed to the Sheriff of Northampton, designates
with this term the assembly which originated the Magna Charta.
… The name 'parliament,' now occurs more frequently, but
does not supplant the more definite terms concilium,
colloquium, etc. In the meanwhile the relations with the
Continent became complicated, in consequence of the family
connections of the mother and wife of the King, and the greed
of the papal envoys. … From the year 1244 onwards, neither a
chief justice nor a chancellor, nor even a treasurer, is
appointed, but the administration of the country is conducted
at the Court by the clerks of the offices."
_R. Gneist,
History of the English Constitution,
volume 1, pages 313-321._
"Nothing is so hard to realise as chaos; and nothing nearer to
chaos can be conceived than the government of Henry III. Henry
was, like all the Plantagenets, clever; like very few of them,
he was devout; and if the power of conceiving a great policy
would constitute a great King, he would certainly have been
one. … He aimed at making the Crown virtually independent of
the barons. … His connexion with Louis IX., whose
brother-in-law he became, was certainly a misfortune to him.
In France the royal power had during the last fifty years been
steadily on the advance; in England it had as steadily
receded; and Henry was ever hearing from the other side of the
Channel maxims of government and ideas of royal authority
which were utterly inapplicable to the actual state of his own
kingdom. This, like a premature Stuart, Henry was incapable of
perceiving; a King he was, and a King he would be, in his own
sense of the word. It is evident that with such a task before
him, he needed for the most shadowy chance of success, an iron
strength of will, singular self-control, great forethought and
care in collecting and husbanding his resources, a rare talent
for administration, the sagacity to choose and the
self-reliance to trust his counsellors. And not one of these
various qualities did Henry possess. … Henry had imbibed
from the events and the tutors of his early childhood two
maxims of state, and two alone: to trust Rome, and to distrust
the barons of England. … He filled the places of trust and
power about himself with aliens, to whom the maintenance of
Papal influence was like an instinct of self-preservation.
Thus were definitely formed the two great parties out of whose
antagonism the War of the Barons arose, under whose influence
the relations between the crown and people of England were
remodelled, and out of whose enduring conflict rose,
indirectly, the political principles which contributed so
largely to bring about the Reformation of the English Church.
The few years which followed the fall of Hubert de Burgh were
the heyday of Papal triumph. And no triumph could have been
worse used. … Thus was the whole country lying a prey to the
ecclesiastical aliens maintained by the Pope, and to the lay
aliens maintained by the King, … when Simon de Montfort
became … inseparably intermixed with the course of our
history. … In the year 1258 opened the first act of the
great drama which has made the name of Simon de Montfort
immortal. … The Barons of England, at Leicester's
suggestion, had leagued for the defence of their rights. They
appeared armed at the Great Council. …
{808}
They required as the condition of their assistance that the
general reformation of the realm should be entrusted to a
Commission of twenty-four members, half to be chosen by the
crown, and half by themselves. For the election of this body,
primarily, and for a more explicit statement of grievances,
the Great Council was to meet again at Oxford on the 11th of
June, 1258. When the Barons came, they appeared at the head of
their retainers. The invasion of the Welsh was the plea; but
the real danger was nearer home. They seized on the Cinque
Ports; the unrenewed truce with France was the excuse; they
remembered too vividly King John and his foreign mercenaries.
They then presented their petition. This was directed to the
redress of various abuses. … To each and every clause the
King gave his inevitable assent. One more remarkable
encroachment was made upon the royal prerogative; the election
in Parliament of a chief justiciar. … The chief justiciar
was the first officer of the Crown. He was not a mere chief
justice, after the fashion of the present day, but the
representative of the Crown in its high character of the
fountain of justice. … But the point upon which the barons
laid the greatest stress, from the beginning to the end of
their struggle, was the question of the employment of aliens.
That the strongest castles and the fairest lands of England
should be in the hands of foreigners, was an insult to the
national spirit which no free people could fail to resent. …
England for the English, the great war cry of the barons, went
home to the heart of the humblest. … The great question of
the constitution of Parliament was not heard at Oxford; it
emerged into importance when the struggle grew fiercer, and
the barons found it necessary to gather allies round them. …
One other measure completed the programme of the barons;
namely, the appointment, already referred to, of a committee
of twenty-four. … It amounted to placing the crown under the
control of a temporary Council of Regency [see OXFORD,
PROVISIONS OF]. … Part of the barons' work was simple
enough. The justiciar was named, and the committee of
twenty-four. To expel the foreigners was less easy. Simon de
Montfort, himself an alien by birth, resigned the two castles
which he held, and called upon the rest to follow. They simply
refused. … But the barons were in arms, and prepared to use
them. The aliens, with their few English supporters, fled to
Winchester, where the castle was in the hands of the foreign
bishop Aymer. They were besieged, brought to terms, and
exiled. The barons were now masters of the situation. …
Among the prerogatives of the crown which passed to the Oxford
Commission not the least valuable, for the hold which it gave
on the general government of the country, was the right to
nominate the sheriffs. In 1261 the King, who had procured a
Papal bull to abrogate the Provisions of Oxford, and an army
of mercenaries to give the bull effect, proceeded to expel the
sheriffs who had been placed in office by the barons. The
reply of the barons was most memorable; it was a direct appeal
to the order below their own. They summoned three knights
elected from each county in England to meet them at St. Albans
to discuss the state of the realm. It was clear that the day
of the House of Commons could not be far distant, when at such
a crisis an appeal to the knights of the shire could be made,
and evidently made with success. For a moment, in this great
move, the whole strength of the barons was united; but
differences soon returned, and against divided counsels the
crown steadily prevailed. In June, 1262, we find peace
restored. The more moderate of the barons had acquiesced in
the terms offered by Henry; Montfort, who refused them, was
abroad in voluntary exile. … Suddenly, in July, the Earl of
Gloucester died, and the sole leadership of the barons passed
into the hands of Montfort. With this critical event opens the
last act in the career of the great Earl. In October he returns
privately to England. The whole winter is passed in the
patient reorganising of the party, and the preparation for a
decisive struggle. Montfort, fervent, eloquent, and devoted,
swayed with despotic influence the hearts of the younger
nobles (and few in those days lived to be grey), and taught
them to feel that the Provisions of Oxford were to them what
the Great Charter had been to their fathers. They were drawn
together with an unanimity unknown before. … They demanded
the restoration of the Great Provisions. The King refused, and
in May, 1263, the barons appealed to arms. … Henry, with a
reluctant hand, subscribed once more to the Provisions of
Oxford, with a saving clause, however, that they should be
revised in the coming Parliament. On the 9th of September,
accordingly, Parliament was assembled. … The King and the
barons agreed to submit their differences to the arbitration
of Louis of France. … Louis IX. had done more than any one
king of France to enlarge the royal prerogative; and Louis was
the brother-in-law of Henry. His award, given at Amiens on the
23d of January, 1264. was, as we should have expected,
absolutely in favour of the King. The whole Provisions of
Oxford were, in his view, an invasion of the royal power. …
The barons were astounded. … They at once said that the
question of the employment of aliens was never meant to be
included. … The appeal was made once again to the sword.
Success for a moment inclined to the royal side, but it was
only for a moment; and on the memorable field of Lewes the
genius of Leicester prevailed. … With the two kings of
England and of the Romans prisoners in his hands, Montfort
dictated the terms of the so-called Mise of Lewes. … Subject
to the approval of Parliament, all differences were to be
submitted once more to French arbitration. … On the 23d of
June the Parliament met. It was no longer a Great Council,
after the fashion of previous assemblies; it included four
knights, elected by each English county. This Parliament gave
such sanction as it was able to the exceptional authority of
Montfort, and ordered that until the proposed arbitration
could be carried out, the King's council should consist of
nine persons, to be named by the Bishop of Chichester, and the
Earls of Gloucester and Leicester. The effect was to give
Simon for the time despotic power. … It was at length agreed
that all questions whatever, the employment of aliens alone
excepted, should be referred to the Bishop of London, the
justiciar Hugh le Despenser, Charles of Anjou, and the Abbot
of Bec. If on any point they could not agree, the Archbishop
of Rouen was to act as referee. … It was … not simply the
expedient of a revolutionary chief in difficulties, but the
expression of a settled and matured policy, when, in December
1264, [Montfort] issued in the King's name the ever-memorable
writs which summoned the first complete Parliament which ever
met in England.
{809}
The earls, barons, and bishops received their summons as of
course; and with them the deans of cathedral churches, an
unprecedented number of abbots and priors, two knights from
every shire, and two citizens or burgesses from every city or
borough in England. Of their proceedings we know but little;
but they appear to have appointed Simon de Montfort to the
office of Justiciar of England, and to have thus made him in
rank, what he had before been in power, the first subject in
the realm. … Montfort … had now gone so far, he had
exercised such extraordinary powers, he had done so many
things which could never really be pardoned, that perhaps his
only chance of safety lay in the possession of some such
office as this. It is certain, moreover, that something which
passed in this Parliament, or almost exactly at the time of
its meeting, did cause deep offence to a considerable section
of the barons. … Difficulties were visibly gathering thicker
around him, and he was evidently conscious that disaffection
was spreading fast. … Negotiations went forward, not very
smoothly, for the release of Prince Edward. They were
terminated in May by his escape. It was the signal for a
royalist rising. Edward took the command of the Welsh border;
before the middle of June he had made the border his own. On
the 29th Gloucester opened its gates to him. He had many
secret friends. He pushed fearlessly eastward, and surprised
the garrison of Kenilworth, commanded by Simon, the Earl's
second son. The Earl himself lay at Evesham, awaiting the
troops which his son was to bring up from Kenilworth. … On
the fatal field of Evesham, fighting side by side to the last,
fell the Earl himself, his eldest son Henry, Despenser the
late Justiciar, Lord Basset of Drayton, one of his firmest
friends, and a host of minor name. With them, to all
appearance, fell the cause for which they had fought."
_Simon de Montfort
(Quarterly Review, January, 1866)._
See PARLIAMENT, THE ENGLISH:
EARLY STAGES OF ITS EVOLUTION.
"Important as this assembly [the Parliament of 1264] is in the
history of the constitution, it was not primarily and
essentially a constitutional assembly. It was not a general
convention of the tenants in chief or of the three estates,
but a parliamentary assembly of the supporters of the existing
government."
_W. Stubbs,
Constitutional History of England,
chapter 14, section 177 (volume 2)._
ALSO IN:
_W. Stubbs,
The Early Plantagenets._
_G. W. Prothero,
Life of Simon de Montfort,
chapter 11-12._
_H. Blaauw,
The Barons' War._
_C. H. Pearson,
England, Early and Middle Ages,
volume 2._
ENGLAND: A. D. 1271.
Crusade of Prince Edward:
See CRUSADES: A. D. 1270-1271.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1272.
Accession of King Edward I.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1275-1295.
Development of Parliamentary representation under Edward 1.
"Happily, Earl Simon [de Montfort] found a successor, and more
than a successor, in the king's [Henry III.'s] son. … Edward
I. stood on the vantage ground of the throne. … He could do
that easily and without effort which Simon could only do
laboriously, and with the certainty of rousing opposition.
Especially was this the case with the encouragement given by
the two men to the growing aspirations after parliamentary
representation. Earl Simon's assemblies were instruments of
warfare. Edward's assemblies were invitations to peace. …
Barons and prelates, knights and townsmen, came together only
to support a king who took the initiative so wisely, and who,
knowing what was best for all, sought the good of his kingdom
without thought of his own ease. Yet even so, Edward was too
prudent at once to gather together such a body as that which
Earl Simon had planned. He summoned, indeed, all the
constituent parts of Simon's parliament, but he seldom
summoned them to meet in one place or at one time. Sometimes
the barons and prelates met apart from the townsmen or the
knights, sometimes one or the other class met entirely alone.
… In this way, during the first twenty years of Edward's
reign, the nation rapidly grew in that consciousness of
national unity which would one day transfer the function of
regulation from the crown to the representatives of the
people."
_S. R. Gardiner and J. B. Mullinger,
Introduction to the Study of English History,
chapter 4, section 17._
"In 1264 Simon de Montfort had called up from both shires and
boroughs representatives to aid him in the new work of
government. That part of Earl Simon's work had not been
lasting. The task was left for Edward I. to be advanced by
gradual safe steps, but to be thoroughly completed, as a part
of a definite and orderly arrangement, according to which the
English parliament was to be the perfect representation of the
Three Estates of the Realm, assembled for purposes of
taxation, legislation and united political action. …
Edward's first parliament, in 1275, enabled him to pass a
great statute of legal reform, called the Statute of
Westminster the First, and to exact the new custom on wool;
another assembly, the same year, granted him a fifteenth. …
There is no evidence that the commons of either town or county
were represented. … In 1282, when the expenses of the Welsh
war were becoming heavy, Edward again tried the plan of
obtaining money from the towns and counties by separate
negotiation; but as that did not provide him with funds
sufficient for his purpose, he called together, early in 1283,
two great assemblies, one at York and another at Northampton,
in which four knights from each shire and four members from
each city and borough were ordered to attend; the cathedral
and conventual clergy also of the two provinces were
represented at the same places by their elected proctors. At
these assemblies there was no attendance of the barons; they
were with the king in Wales; but the commons made a grant of
one-thirtieth on the understanding that the lords should do
the same. Another assembly was held at Shrewsbury the same
year, 1283, to witness the trial of David of Wales; to this
the bishops and clergy were not called, but twenty towns and
all the counties were ordered to send representatives. Another
step was taken in 1290: knights of the shire were again
summoned; but still much remained to be done before a perfect
parliament was constituted. Counsel was wanted for
legislation, consent was wanted for taxation. The lords were
summoned in May, and did their work in June and July, granting
a feudal aid and passing the statute 'Quia Emptores,' but the
knights only came to vote or to promise a tax, after a law had
been passed; and the towns were again taxed by special
commissions. In 1294, … under the alarm of war with France,
an alarm which led Edward into several breaches of
constitutional law, he went still further, assembling the
clergy by their representatives in August, and the shires by
their representative knights in October.
{810}
The next year, 1295, witnessed the first summons of a perfect
and model parliament; the clergy represented by their bishops,
deans, archdeacons, and elected proctors; the barons summoned
severally in person by the king's special writ, and the
commons summoned by writs addressed to the sheriffs, directing
them to send up two elected knights from each shire, two
elected citizens from each city, and two elected burghers from
each borough. The writ by which the prelates were called to
this parliament contained a famous sentence taken from the
Roman law, 'That which touches all should be approved by all,'
a maxim which might serve as a motto for Edward's
constitutional scheme, however slowly it grew upon him, now
permanently and consistently completed."
_W. Stubbs,
The Early Plantagenets,
chapter 10._
"Comparing the history of the following ages with that of the
past, we can scarcely doubt that Edward had a definite idea of
government before his eyes, or that that idea was successful
because it approved itself to the genius and grew out of the
habits of the people. Edward saw, in fact, what the nation was
capable of, and adapted his constitutional reforms to that
capacity. But although we may not refuse him the credit of
design, it may still be questioned whether the design was
altogether voluntary, whether it was not forced upon him by
circumstances and developed by a series of careful
experiments. … The design, as interpreted by the result, was
the creation of a national parliament, composed of the three
estates. … This design was perfected in 1295. It was not the
result of compulsion, but the consummation of a growing policy.
… But the close union of 1295 was followed by the compulsion
of 1297: out of the organic completeness of the constitution
sprang the power of resistance, and out of the resistance the
victory of the principles, which Edward might guide, but which
he failed to coerce."
_W. Stubbs,
Constitutional History of England,
chapter 15, section 244
and chapter 14, section 180-182._
_W. Stubbs,
Select Charters,
part 7._
"The 13th century was above all things the age of the lawyer
and the legislator. The revived study of Roman law had been
one of the greatest results of the intellectual renaissance of
the twelfth century. The enormous growth of the universities
in the early part of the thirteenth century was in no small
measure due to the zeal, ardour and success of their legal
faculties. From Bologna there flowed all over Europe a great
impulse towards the systematic and scientific study of the
Civil Law of Rome. … The northern lawyers were inspired by
their emulation of the civilians and canonists to look at the
rude chaos of feudal custom with more critical eyes. They
sought to give it more system and method, to elicit its
leading principles, and to coordinate its clashing rules into
a harmonious body of doctrine worthy to be put side by side
with the more pretentious edifices of the Civil and Canon Law.
In this spirit Henry de Bracton wrote the first systematic
exposition of English law in the reign of Henry III. The
judges and lawyers of the reign of Edward sought to put the
principles of Bracton into practice. Edward himself strove
with no small success to carry on the same great work by new
legislation. … His well-known title of the 'English
Justinian' is not so absurd as it appears at first sight. He
did not merely resemble Justinian in being a great legislator.
Like the famous codifier of the Roman law, Edward stood at the
end of a long period of legal development, and sought to arrange
and systematise what had gone before him. Some of his great
laws are almost in form attempts at the systematic
codification of various branches of feudal custom. … Edward
was greedy for power, and a constant object of his legislation
was the exaltation of the royal prerogative. But he nearly
always took a broad and comprehensive view of his authority,
and thoroughly grasped the truth that the best interests of
king and kingdom were identical. He wished to rule the state,
but was willing to take his subjects into partnership with
him, if they in return recognised his royal rights. … The
same principles which influenced Edward as a lawgiver stand
out clearly in his relations to every class of his subjects.
… It was the greatest work of Edward's life to make a
permanent and ordinary part of the machinery of English
government, what in his father's time had been but the
temporary expedient of a needy taxgatherer or the last
despairing effort of a revolutionary partisan. Edward I.
is—so much as one man can be—the creator of the historical
English constitution. It is true that the materials were ready
to his hand. But before he came to the throne the parts of the
constitution, though already roughly worked out, were
ill-defined and ill-understood. Before his death the national
council was no longer regarded as complete unless it contained
a systematic representation of the three estates. All over
Europe the thirteenth century saw the establishment of a
system of estates. The various classes of the community, which
had a separate social status and a common political interest,
became organised communities, and sent their representatives
to swell the council of the nation. By Edward's time there had
already grown up in England some rough anticipation of the
three estates of later history. … It was with no intention
of diminishing his power, but rather with the object of
enlarging it, that Edward called the nation into some sort of
partnership with him. The special clue to this aspect of his
policy is his constant financial embarrassment. He found that
he could get larger and more cheerful subsidies if he laid his
financial condition before the representatives of his people.
… The really important thing was that Edward, like Montfort,
brought shire and borough representatives together in a single
estate, and so taught the country gentry, the lesser
landowners, who, in a time when direct participation in
politics was impossible for a lower class, were the real
constituencies of the shire members, to look upon their
interests as more in common with the traders of lower social
status than with the greater landlords with whom in most
continental countries the lesser gentry were forced to
associate their lot. The result strengthened the union of
classes, prevented the growth of the abnormally numerous
privileged nobility of most foreign countries, and broadened
and deepened the main current of the national life."
_T. F. Tout,
Edward the First,
chapter 7-8._
{811}
"There was nothing in England which answered to the 'third
estate' in France—a class, that is to say, both isolated and
close, composed exclusively of townspeople, enjoying no
commerce with the rural population (except such as consisted
in the reception of fugitives), and at once detesting and
dreading the nobility by whom it was surrounded. In England
the contrary was the case. The townsfolk and the other classes
in each county were thrown together upon numberless occasions;
a long period of common activity created a cordial
understanding between the burghers on the one hand and their
neighbours the knights and landowners on the other, and
finally prepared the way for the fusion of the two classes."
_E. Boutmy,
The English Constitution,
chapter 3._
ENGLAND: A. D. 1279.
The Statute of Mortmain.
"For many years past, the great danger to the balance of power
appeared to come from the regular clergy, who, favoured by the
success of the mendicant orders, were adding house to house
and field to field. Never dying out like families, and rarely
losing by forfeitures, the monasteries might well nigh
calculate the time, when all the soil of England should be
their own. … Accordingly, one of the first acts of the
barons under Henry III. had been to enact, that no fees should
be aliened to religious persons or corporations. Edward
re-enacted and strengthened this by various provisions in the
famous Statute of Mortmain. The fee illegally aliened was now
to be forfeited to the chief lord under the King; and if, by
collusion or neglect, the lord omitted to claim his right, the
crown might enter upon it. Never was statute more unpopular
with the class at whom it was aimed, more ceaselessly eluded,
or more effectual. … Once the clergy seem to have meditated
open resistance, for, in 1281, we find the king warning the
bishops, who were then in convocation at Lambeth, as they
loved their baronies, to discuss nothing that appertained to
the crown, or the king's person, or his council. The warning
appears to have proved effectual, and the clergy found less
dangerous employment in elaborating subtle evasions of the
obnoxious law. At first fictitious recoveries were practised;
an abbey bringing a suit against a would-be donor, who
permitted judgment against him to go by default. When this was
prohibited, special charters of exemption were procured. Once
an attempt was made to smuggle a dispensing bill through
parliament. One politic abbot in the 15th century encouraged
his friends to make bequests of land, suffered them to
escheat, and then begged them back of the crown, playing on
the religious feelings of Henry VI. Yet it is strong proof of
the salutary terror which the Statute of Mortmain inspired
that even then the abbot was not quieted, and procured an Act
of Parliament to purge him from any consequences of his
illegal practices. In fact, the fear, lest astute crown
lawyers should involve a rich foundation in wholesale
forfeitures, seems sometimes to have hampered its members in
the exercise of their undoubted rights as citizens."
_C. H. Pearson,
History of England during the Early and Middle Ages,
volume 2, chapter 9._
ALSO IN:
_E. F. Henderson,
Select Historical Documents._
_K. E. Digby,
Law of Real Property (4th edition)._
ENGLAND: A. D. 1282-1284.
Subjugation of Wales.
See WALES: A. D. 1282-1284.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1290-1305.
Conquest of Scotland by Edward I.
See SCOTLAND: A. D. 1290-1305.
ENGLAND: 14th Century.
Immigration of Flemish artisans.
The founding of English manufactures.
See FLANDERS: A. D. 1335-1337.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1306-1393.
Resistance to the Pope.
"For one hundred and fifty years succeeding the Conquest, the
right of nominating the archbishops, bishops, and mitred
abbots had been claimed and exercised by the king. This right
had been specially confirmed by the Constitutions of
Clarendon, which also provided that the revenues of vacant
sees should belong to the Crown. But John admitted all the
Papal claims, surrendering even his kingdom to the Pope, and
receiving it back as a fief of the Holy See. By the Great
Charter the Church recovered its liberties; the right of free
election being specially conceded to the cathedral chapters
and the religious houses. Every election was, however, subject
to the approval of the Pope, who also claimed a right of veto
on institutions to the smaller church benefices. … Under
Henry III. the power thus vested in the Pope and foreign
superiors of the monastic orders was greatly abused, and soon
degenerated into a mere channel for draining money into the
Roman exchequer. Edward I. firmly withstood the exactions of
the Pope, and reasserted the independence of both Church and
Crown. … In the reign of the great Edward began a series of
statutes passed to check the aggressions of the Pope and
restore the independence of the national church. The first of
the series was passed in 1306-7. … This statute was
confirmed under Edward III. in the 4th, and again in the 5th
year of his reign; and in the 25th of his reign [A. D. 1351],
roused 'by the grievous complaints of all the commons of his
realm,' the King and Parliament passed the famous Statute of
Provisors, aimed directly at the Pope, and emphatically
forbidding his nominations to English benefices. … Three
years afterwards it was found necessary to pass a statute
forbidding citations to the court of Rome—[the prelude to the
Statute of Præmunire, described below]. … In 1389, there was an
expectation that the Pope was about to attempt to enforce his
claims, by excommunicating those who rejected them. … The
Parliament at once passed a highly penal statute. … Matters
were shortly afterwards brought to a crisis by Boniface IX.,
who after declaring the statutes enacted by the English
Parliament null and void, granted to an Italian cardinal a
prebendal stall at Wells, to which the king had already
presented. Cross suits were at once instituted by the two
claimants in the Papal and English courts. A decision was
given by the latter, in favour of the king's nominee, and the
bishops, having agreed to support the Crown, were forthwith
excommunicated by the Pope. The Commons were now roused to the
highest pitch of indignation,"—and the final great Statute of
Præmunire was passed, A. D. 1393. "The firm and resolute
attitude assumed by the country caused Boniface to yield; 'and
for the moment,' observes Mr. Froude, 'and indeed for ever
under this especial form, the wave of papal encroachment was
rolled back.'"
_T. P. Taswell-Langmead,
English Constitutional History,
chapter 11._
"The great Statute of Provisors, passed in 1351, was a very
solemn expression of the National determination not to give
way to the pope's usurpation of patronage. … All persons
procuring or accepting papal promotions were to be arrested.
… In 1352 the purchasers of Provisions were declared
outlaws; in 1365 another act repeated the prohibitions and
penalties; and in 1390 the parliament of Richard II. rehearsed
and confirmed the statute. By this act, forfeiture and
banishment were decreed against future transgressors."
{812}
The Statute of Præmunire as enacted finally in 1393, provided
that "all persons procuring in the court of Rome or elsewhere
such translations, processes, sentences of excommunication,
bulls, instruments or other things which touch the king, his
crown, regality or realm, should suffer the penalties of
præmunire"—which included imprisonment and forfeiture of
goods. "The name præmunire which marks this form of
legislation is taken from the opening word of the writ by
which the sheriff is charged to summon the delinquent."
_W. Stubbs,
Constitutional History of England,
chapter 19, section 715-716._
ENGLAND: A. D. 1307.
Accession of King Edward II.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1310-1311.
The Ordainers.
"At the parliament which met in March 1310 [reign of Edward
II.] a new scheme of reform was promulgated, which was framed
on the model of that of 1258 and the Provisions of Oxford. It
was determined that the task of regulating the affairs of the
realm and of the king's household should be committed to an
elected body of twenty-one members, or Ordainers, the chief of
whom was Archbishop Winchelsey. … The Ordainers were
empowered to remain in office until Michaelmas 1311, and to
make ordinances for the good of the realm, agreeable to the
tenour of the king's coronation oath. The whole administration
of the kingdom thus passed into their hands. … The Ordainers
immediately on their appointment issued six articles directing
the observance of the charters, the careful collection of the
customs, and the arrest of the foreign merchants; but the
great body of the ordinances was reserved for the parliament
which met in August 1311. The famous document or statute known
as the Ordinances of 1311 contained forty-one clauses, all
aimed at existing abuses."
_W. Stubbs,
The Early Plantagenets,
chapter 12._
ENGLAND: A. D. 1314-1328.
Bannockburn and the recovery of Scottish independence.
See SCOTLAND: A. D. 1314; 1314-1328.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1327.
Accession of King Edward III.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1328.
The Peace of Northampton with Scotland.
See SCOTLAND: A. D. 1328.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1328-1360.
The pretensions and wars of Edward III. in France.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1328-1339; and 1337-1360.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1332-1370.
The wars of Edward III. with Scotland.
See SCOTLAND: A. D. 1332-1333, and 1333-1370.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1333-1380.
The effects of the war in France.
"A period of great wars is generally favourable to the growth
of a nobility. Men who equipped large bodies of troops for the
Scotch or French wars, or who had served with distinction in
them, naturally had a claim for reward at the hands of their
sovereign. … The 13th century had broken up estates all over
England and multiplied families of the upper class; the 14th
century was consolidating properties again, and establishing a
broad division between a few powerful nobles and the mass of
the community. But if the gentry, as an order, lost a little
in relative importance by the formation of a class of great
nobles, more distinct than had existed before, the middle
classes of England, its merchants and yeomen, gained very much
in importance by the war. Under the firm rule of the 'King of
the Sea,' as his subjects lovingly called Edward III., our
commerce expanded. Englishmen rose to an equality with the
merchants of the Hanse Towns, the Genoese, or the Lombards,
and England for a time overflowed with treasure. The first
period of war, ending with the capture of Calais, secured our
coasts; the second, terminated by the peace of Brétigny,
brought the plunder of half [of] France into the English
markets; and even when Edward's reign had closed on defeat and
bankruptcy, and our own shores were ravaged by hostile fleets,
it was still possible for private adventurers to retaliate
invasion upon the enemy. … The romance of foreign conquest,
of fortunes lightly gained and lightly lost, influenced
English enterprise for many years to come. … The change to
the lower orders during the reign arose rather from the
frequent pestilences, which reduced the number of working men
and made labour valuable, than from any immediate
participation in the war. In fact, English serfs, as a rule,
did not serve in Edward's armies. They could not be
men-at-arms or archers for want of training and equipment; and
for the work of light-armed troops and foragers, the Irish and
Welsh seem to have been preferred. The opportunity of the
serfs came with the Black Death, while districts were
depopulated, and everywhere there was a want of hands to till
the fields and get in the crops. The immediate effect was
unfortunate. … The indifference of late years, when men were
careless if their villans stayed on the property or emigrated,
was succeeded by a sharp inquisition after fugitive serfs, and
constant legislation to bring them back to their masters. …
The leading idea of the legislator was that the labourer,
whose work had doubled or trebled in value, was to receive the
same wages as in years past; and it was enacted that he might
be paid in kind, and, at last, that in all cases of contumacy
he should be imprisoned without the option of a fine. … The
French war contributed in many ways to heighten the feeling of
English nationality. Our trade, our language and our Church
received a new and powerful influence. In the early years of
Edward III.'s reign, Italian merchants were the great
financiers of England, farming the taxes and advancing loans
to the Crown. Gradually the instinct of race, the influence of
the Pope, and geographical position, contributed, with the
mistakes of Edward's policy, to make France the head, as it
were, of a confederation of Latin nations. Genoese ships
served in the French fleet, Genoese bowmen fought at Crécy,
and English privateers retorted on Genoese commerce throughout
the course of the reign. In 1376 the Commons petitioned that
all Lombards might be expelled [from] the kingdom, bringing
amongst other charges against them that they were French
spies. The Florentines do not seem to have been equally
odious, but the failure of the great firm of the Bardi in
1345, chiefly through its English engagements, obliged Edward
to seek assistance elsewhere; and he transferred the privilege
of lending to the crown to the merchants of the rising Hanse
Towns."
_C. H. Pearson,
English History in the Fourteenth Century,
chapter 9._
"We may trace the destructive nature of the war with France in
the notices of adjoining parishes thrown into one for want of
sufficient inhabitants, 'of people impoverished by frequent
taxation of our lord the king,' until they had fled, of
churches allowed to fall into ruin because there were none to
worship within their walls, and of religious houses
extinguished because the monks and nuns had died, and none bad
been found to supply their places. …
{813}
To the poverty of the country and the consequent inability of
the nation to maintain the costly wars of Edward III., are
attributed the enactments of sumptuary laws, which were passed
because men who spent much on their table and dress were
unable 'to help their liege lord' in the battle field."
_W. Denton,
England in the 15th Century,
introduction, part 2._
ENGLAND: A. D. 1318-1349.
The Black Death and its effects.
"The plague of 1349 … produced in every country some marked
social changes. … In England the effects of the plague are
historically prominent chiefly among the lower classes of
society. The population was diminished to an extent to which
it is impossible now even to approximate, but which bewildered
and appalled the writers of the time; whole districts were
thrown out of cultivation, whole parishes depopulated, the
number of labourers was so much diminished that on the one
hand the survivors demanded an extravagant rate of wages, and
even combined to enforce it, whilst on the other hand the
landowners had to resort to every antiquated claim of service
to get their estates cultivated at all; the whole system of
farming was changed in consequence, the great landlords and
the monastic corporations ceased to manage their estates by
farming stewards, and after a short interval, during which the
lands with the stock on them were let to the cultivator on
short leases, the modern system of letting was introduced, and
the permanent distinction between the farmer and the labourer
established."
_W. Stubbs,
Constitutional History of England,
chapter 16, section 259._
"On the first of August 1348 the disease appeared in the
seaport towns of Dorsetshire, and travelled slowly westwards
and northwards, through Devonshire and Somersetshire to
Bristol. In order, if possible, to arrest its progress, all
intercourse with the citizens of Bristol was prohibited by the
authorities of the county of Gloucester. These precautions
were however taken in vain; the Plague continued to Oxford,
and, travelling slowly in the same measured way, reached
London by the first of November. It appeared in Norwich on the
first of January, and thence spread northwards. … The
mortality was enormous. Perhaps from one-third to one-half the
population fell victims to the disease. Adam of Monmouth says
that only a tenth of the population survived. Similar
amplifications are found in all the chroniclers. We are told
that 60,000 persons perished in Norwich between January and
July 1349. No doubt Norwich was at that time the second city
in the kingdom, but the number is impossible. … It is stated
that in England the weight of the calamity fell on the poor,
and that the higher classes were less severely affected. But
Edward's daughter Joan fell a victim to it and three
archbishops of Canterbury perished in the same year. … All
contemporary writers inform us that the immediate consequence
of the Plague was a dearth of labour, and excessive
enhancement of wages, and thereupon a serious loss to the
landowners. To meet this scarcity the king issued a
proclamation directed to the sheriffs of the several counties,
which forbad the payment of higher than the customary wages,
under the penalties of amercement. But the king's mandate was
every where disobeyed. … Many of the labourers were thrown
into prison; many to avoid punishment fled to the forests, but
were occasionally captured and fined; and all were constrained
to disavow under oath that they would take higher than
customary wages for the future."
_J. E. T. Rogers,
History of Agriculture and Prices in England,
volume 1, chapter 15._
ALSO IN:
_F. A. Gasquet,
The Great Pestilence._
_W. Longman,
Edward III.,
volume 1; chapter 10._
_A. Jessop,
The Coming of the Friars, &c.,
chapter 4-5._
ENGLAND: A. D. 1350-1400.
Chaucer and his relations to English language and literature.
"At the time when the conflict between church and state was
most violent, and when Wyclif was beginning to draw upon
himself the eyes of patriots, there was considerable talk at
the English court about a young man named Geoffrey Chaucer,
who belonged to the king's household, and who both by his
personality and his connections enjoyed the favor of the royal
family. … On many occasions, even thus early, he had
appeared as a miracle of learning to those about him—he read
Latin as easily as French; he spoke a more select English than
others; and it was known that he had composed, or, as the
expression then was, 'made,' many beautiful English verses.
The young poet belonged to a well-to-do middle-class family
who had many far-reaching connections, and even some influence
with the court. … Even as a boy he may have heard his
father, John Chaucer, the vintner of Thames Street, London,
telling of the marvelous voyage he had made to Antwerp and
Cologne in the brilliant suite of Edward III. in 1338. When a
youth of sixteen or seventeen, Geoffrey served as a page or
squire to Elizabeth, duchess of Ulster, first wife of Lionel,
duke of Clarence, and daughter-in-law of the king. He bore
arms when about nineteen years of age, and went to France in
1359, in the army commanded by Edward III. … This epoch
formed a sort of 'Indian summer' to the age of chivalry, and
its spirit found expression in great deeds of war as well as
in the festivals and manners of the court. The ideal which men
strove to realize did not quite correspond to the spirit of
the former age. On the whole, people had become more worldly
and practical, and were generally anxious to protect the real
interests of life from the unwarranted interference of
romantic aspirations. The spirit of chivalry no longer formed
a fundamental element, but only an ornament of life—an
ornament, indeed, which was made much of, and which was looked
upon with a sentiment partaking of enthusiasm. … In the
midst of this outside world of motley pomp and throbbing life
Geoffrey could observe the doings of high and low in various
situations. He was early initiated into court intrigues, and
even into many political secrets, and found opportunities of
studying the human type in numerous individuals and according
to the varieties developed by rank in life, education, age,
and sex. … Nothing has been preserved from his early
writings. … The fact is very remarkable that from the first,
or at least from a very early period, Chaucer wrote in the
English language—however natural this may seem to succeeding
ages in 'The Father of English Poetry.' The court of Edward
III. favored the language as well as the literature of France;
a considerable number of French poets and 'menestrels' were in
the service and pay of the English king.
{814}
Queen Philippa, in particular, showing herself in this a true
daughter of her native Hainault, formed the centre of a
society cultivating the French language and poetry. She had in
her personal service Jean Froissart, one of the most eminent
representatives of that language and poetry; like herself he
belonged to one of the most northern districts of the
French-speaking territory; he had made himself a great name,
as a prolific and clever writer of erotic and allegoric
trifles, before he sketched out in his famous chronicle the
motley-colored, vivid picture of that eventful age. We also
see in this period young Englishmen of rank and education
trying their flight on the French Parnassus. … To these
Anglo-French poets there belonged also a Kentishman of noble
family, named John Gower. Though some ten years the senior of
Chaucer, he had probably met him about this time. They were
certainly afterwards very intimately acquainted. Gower … had
received a very careful education, and loved to devote the
time he could spare from the management of his estates to
study and poetry. His learning was in many respects greater
than Chaucer's. He had studied the Latin poets so diligently
that he could easily express himself in their language, and he
was equally good at writing French verses, which were able to
pass muster, at least in England. … But, Chaucer did not let
himself be led astray by examples such as these. It is
possible that he would have found writing in French no easy
task, even if he had attempted it. At any rate his bourgeois
origin, and the seriousness of his vocation as poet, threw a
determining weight into the scale and secured his fidelity to
the English language with a commendable consistency."
_B. Ten Brink,
History of English Literature,
book 4, chapter 4 (volume 2, part 1)._
"English was not taught in the schools, but French only, until
after the accession of Richard II., or possibly the latter
years of Edward III., and Latin was always studied through the
French. Up to this period, then, as there were no standards of
literary authority, and probably no written collections of
established forms, or other grammatical essays, the language
had no fixedness or uniformity, and hardly deserved to be
called a written speech. … From this Babylonish confusion of
speech, the influence and example of Chaucer did more to
rescue his native tongue than any other single cause; and if
we compare his dialect with that of any writer of an earlier
date, we shall find that in compass, flexibility,
expressiveness, grace, and all the higher qualities of
poetical diction, he gave it at once the utmost perfection
which the materials at his hand would permit of. The English
writers of the fourteenth century had an advantage which was
altogether peculiar to their age and country. At all previous
periods, the two languages had co-existed, in a great degree
independently of each other, with little tendency to intermix;
but in the earlier part of that century, they began to
coalesce, and this process was going on with a rapidity that
threatened a predominance of the French, if not a total
extinction of the Saxon element. … When the national spirit
was aroused, and impelled to the creation of a national
literature, the poet or prose writer, in selecting his
diction, had almost two whole vocabularies before him. That
the syntax should be English, national feeling demanded; but
French was so familiar and habitual to all who were able to
read, that probably the scholarship of the day would scarcely
have been able to determine, with respect to a large
proportion of the words in common use, from which of the two
great wells of speech they had proceeded. Happily, a great
arbiter arose at the critical moment of severance of the two
peoples and dialects, to preside over the division of the
common property, and to determine what share of the
contributions of France should be permanently annexed to the
linguistic inheritance of Englishmen. Chaucer did not
introduce into the English language words which it had
rejected as aliens before, but out of those which had been
already received, he invested the better portion with the
rights of citizenship, and stamped them with the mint-mark of
English coinage. In this way, he formed a vocabulary, which,
with few exceptions, the taste and opinion of succeeding
generations has approved; and a literary diction was thus
established, which, in all the qualities required for the
poetic art, had at that time no superior in the languages of
modern Europe. The soundness of Chaucer's judgment, the nicety
of his philological appreciation, and the delicacy of his
sense of adaptation to the actual wants of the English people,
are sufficiently proved by the fact that, of the Romance words
found in his writings, not much above one hundred have been
suffered to become obsolete, while a much larger number of
Anglo-Saxon words employed by him have passed altogether out
of use. … In the three centuries which elapsed between the
Conquest and the noon-tide of Chaucer's life, a large
proportion of the Anglo-Saxon dialect of religion, of moral
and intellectual discourse, and of taste, had become utterly
obsolete, and unknown. The place of the lost words had been
partly supplied by the importation of Continental terms; but
the new words came without the organic power of composition
and derivation which belonged to those they had supplanted.
Consequently, they were incapable of those modifications of
form and extensions of meaning which the Anglo-Saxon roots
could so easily assume, and which fitted them for the
expression of the new shades of thought and of sentiment born
of every hour in a mind and an age like those of Chaucer."
_G. P. Marsh,
Origin and History of the English Language,
lecture 9._
ALSO IN:
_T. R. Lounsbury,
Studies in Chaucer._
_A. W. Ward,
Chaucer._
_W. Godwin,
Life of Geoffrey Chaucer._
ENGLAND: A. D. 1360-1414.
The Lollards.
"The Lollards were the earliest 'Protestants' of England. They
were the followers of John Wyclif, but before his time the
nickname of Lollard had been known on the continent. A little
brotherhood of pious people had sprung up in Holland, about
the year 1300, who lived in a half-monastic fashion and
devoted themselves to helping the poor in the burial of their
dead; and, from the low chants they sang at the
funerals—lollen being the old word for such singing—they
were called Lollards. The priests and friars hated them and
accused them of heresy, and a Walter Lollard, probably one of
them, was burnt in 1322 at Cologne as a heretic, and gradually
the name became a nickname for such people. So when Wyclif's
simple priests' were preaching the new doctrines, the name
already familiar in Holland and Germany, was given to them,
and gradually became the name for that whole movement of
religious reformation which grew up from the seed Wyclif
sowed."
_B. Herford,
Story of Religion in England,
chapter 16._
{815}
"A turning point arrived in the history of the reforming party
at the accession of the house of Lancaster. King Henry the
Fourth was not only a devoted son of the Church, but he owed
his success in no slight measure to the assistance of the
Churchmen, and above all to that of Archbishop Arundel. It was
felt that the new dynasty and the hierarchy stood or fell
together. A mixture of religious and political motives led to
the passing of the well-known statute 'De hæretico comburendo'
in 1401 and thenceforward Lollardy was a capital offence."
_R. L. Poole,
Wycliffe and Movements for Reform,
chapter 8._
"The abortive insurrection of the Lollards at the commencement
of Henry V. 's reign, under the leadership of Sir John
Oldcastle, had the effect of adding to the penal laws already
in existence against the sect." This gave to Lollardy a
political character and made the Lollards enemies against the
State, as is evident from the king's proclamation in which it
was asserted "that the insurgents intended to 'destroy him,
his brothers and several of the spiritual and temporal lords,
to confiscate the possessions of the Church, to secularize the
religious orders, to divide the realm into confederate
districts, and to appoint Sir John Oldcastle president of the
commonwealth.'"
_T. P. Taswell-Langmead,
English Constitutional History (4th edition),
chapter 11._
"The early life of Wycliffe is obscure. … He emerges into
distinct notice in 1360, ten years subsequent to the passing
of the first Statute of Provisors, having then acquired a
great Oxford reputation as a lecturer in divinity. … He was
a man of most simple life; austere in appearance; with bare
feet and russet mantle. As a soldier of Christ, he saw in his
Great Master and his Apostles the patterns whom he was bound
to imitate. By the contagion of example he gathered about him
other men who thought as he did; and gradually, under his
captaincy, these 'poor priests' as they were called—vowed to
poverty because Christ was poor—vowed to accept no benefice
… spread out over the country as an army of missionaries, to
preach the faith which they found in the Bible—to preach, not of
relics and of indulgences, but of repentance and of the grace
of God. They carried with them copies of the Bible which
Wycliffe had translated, … and they refused to recognize the
authority of the bishops, or their right to silence them. If
this had been all, and perhaps if Edward III. had been
succeeded by a prince less miserably incapable than his
grandson Richard, Wycliffe might have made good his ground;
the movement of the parliament against the pope might have
united in a common stream with the spiritual move against the
church at home, and the Reformation have been antedated by a
century. He was summoned to answer for himself before the
Archbishop of Canterbury in 1377. He appeared in court
supported by the presence of John of Gaunt, Duke of Lancaster,
the eldest of Edward's surviving sons, and the authorities
were unable to strike him behind so powerful a shield. But the
'poor priests' had other doctrines. … His [Wycliffe's]
theory of property, and his study of the character of Christ,
had led him to the near confines of Anabaptism." The rebellion
of Wat Tyler, which occurred in 1381, cast odium upon all such
opinions. "So long as Wycliffe lived, his own lofty character was
a guarantee for the conduct of his immediate disciples; and
although his favour had far declined, a party in the state
remained attached to him, with sufficient influence to prevent
the adoption of extreme measures against the 'poor priests.'
… They were left unmolested for the next twenty years. …
On the settlement of the country under Henry IV. they fell
under the general ban which struck down all parties who had
shared in the late disturbances."
_J. A. Froude,
History of England,
chapter 6._
"Wycliffe's translation of the Bible itself created a new era,
and gave birth to what may be said never to have existed till
then—a popular theology. … It is difficult in our day to
imagine the impression such a book must have produced in an
age which had scarcely anything in the way of popular
literature, and which had been accustomed to regard the
Scriptures as the special property of the learned. It was
welcomed with an enthusiasm which could not be restrained, and
read with avidity both by priests and laymen. … The homely
wisdom, blended with eternal truth, which has long since
enriched our vernacular speech with a multitude of proverbs,
could not thenceforth be restrained in its circulation by mere
pious awe or time-honoured prejudice. Divinity was discussed
in ale-houses. Popular preachers made war upon old prejudices.
and did much to shock that sense of reverence which belonged
to an earlier generation. A new school had arisen with a
theology of its own, warning the people against the delusive
preaching of the friars, and asserting loudly its own claims
to be true and evangelical, on the ground that it possessed
the gospel in the English tongue. Appealing to such an
authority in their favour, the eloquence of the new teachers
made a marvellous impression. Their followers increased with
extraordinary rapidity. By the estimate of an opponent they
soon numbered half the population, and you could hardly see
two persons in the street but one of them was a Wycliffite.
… They were supported by the powerful influence of John of
Gaunt, who shielded not only Wycliffe himself, but even the
most violent of the fanatics. And, certainly, whatever might
have been Wycliffe's own view, doctrines were promulgated by
his reputed followers that were distinctly subversive of
authority. John Ball fomented the insurrection of Wat Tyler,
by preaching the natural equality of men. … But the
popularity of Lollardy was short-lived. The extravagance to
which it led soon alienated the sympathies of the people, and
the sect fell off in numbers almost as rapidly as it had
risen."
_J. Gairdner,
Studies in English History, 1-2._
"Wyclif … was not without numerous followers, and the
Lollardism which sprang out of his teaching was a living force
in England for some time to come. But it was weak through its
connection with subversive social doctrines. He himself stood
aloof from such doctrines, but he could not prevent his
followers from mingling in the social fray. It was perhaps
their merit that they did so. The established constitutional
order was but another name for oppression and wrong to the
lower classes. But as yet the lower classes were not
sufficiently advanced in moral and political training to make
it safe to entrust them with the task of righting their own
wrongs as they would have attempted to right them if they had
gained the mastery. It had nevertheless become impossible to
leave the peasants to be once more goaded by suffering into
rebellion. The attempt, if it had been made, to enforce
absolute labour-rents was tacitly abandoned, and gradually
during the next century the mass of the villeins passed into
the position of freemen.
{816}
For the moment, nobles and prelates, landowners and clergy,
banded themselves together to form one great party of
resistance. The church came to be but an outwork of the
baronage."
_S. R. Gardiner and J. B. Mullinger,
Introduction to the Study of English History,
part 1, chapter 5, sections 14-15._
ALSO IN
_L. Sergeant,
John Wyclif._
_G. Lechler,
John Wiclif and his English Precursors._
See, also,
BOHEMIA; A. D. 1405-1415,
and BEGUINES.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1377.
Accession of King Richard II.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1377-1399.
The character and reign of Richard II.
"Richard II. was a far superior man to many of the weaker
kings of England; but being self-willed and unwarlike, he was
unfitted for the work which the times required. Yet, on a
closer inspection than the traditional view of the reign has
generally encouraged, we cannot but observe that the finer
qualities which came out in certain crises of his reign appear
to have frequently influenced his conduct: we know that he was
not an immoral man, that he was an excellent husband to an
excellent wife, and that he had devoted friends, willing to
lay down their lives for him when there was nothing whatever
left for them to gain. … Richard, who had been brought up in
the purple quite as much as Edward II., was kept under
restraint by his uncles, and not being judiciously guided in
the arts of government, fell, like his prototype, into the
hands of favourites. His brilliant behaviour in the
insurrection of 1381 indicated much more than mere possession
of the Plantagenet courage and presence of mind. He showed a
real sympathy with the villeins who had undeniable grievances.
… His instincts were undoubtedly for freedom and
forgiveness, and there is no proof, nor even probability, that
he intended to use the villeins against his enemies. His early
and happy marriage with Anne of Bohemia ought, one might
think, to have saved him from the vice of favouritism; but he
was at least more fortunate than Edward II. in not being cast
under the spell of a Gaveston. When we consider the effect of
such a galling government as that of his uncle Gloucester, and
his cousin Derby, afterwards Henry IV., who seems to have been
pushing Gloucester on from the first, we can hardly be
surprised that he should require some friend to lean upon. The
reign is, in short, from one, and perhaps the truest, point of
view, a long duel between the son of the Black Prince and the
son of John of Gaunt. One or other of them must inevitably
perish. A handsome and cultivated youth, who showed himself at
fifteen every inch a king, who was married at sixteen, and led
his own army to Scotland at eighteen, required a different
treatment from that which he received. He was a man, and
should have been dealt with as such. His lavish and
reprehensible grants to his favourites were made the excuse
for Gloucester's violent interference in 1386, but there is
good ground for believing that the movement was encouraged by
the anti-Wicliffite party, which had taken alarm at the
sympathy with the Reformers shown at this time by Richard and
Anne."
_M. Burrows,
Commentaries on the History of England,
book 2, chapter 5._
ALSO IN:
_J. R. Green,
History of the English People,
book 4, chapter 4 (volume 1)._
_C. H. Pearson,
English History in the 14th Century,
chapter 10-12._
ENGLAND: A. D. 1381.
Wat Tyler's Rebellion.
"In June 1381 there broke out in England the formidable
insurrection known as Wat Tyler's Rebellion. The movement
seems to have begun among the bondmen of Essex and of Kent;
but it spread at once to the counties of Sussex Hertford,
Cambridge, Suffolk and Norfolk. The peasantry, armed with
bludgeons and rusty swords, first occupied the roads by which
pilgrims went to Canterbury, and made everyone swear that he
would be true to king Richard and not accept a king named
John. This, of course, was aimed at the government of John of
Gaunt [Duke of Lancaster], … to whom the people attributed
every grievance they had to complain of. The principal, or at
least the immediate cause of offence arose out of a poll-tax
which had been voted in the preceding year."
_J. Gairdner,
Houses of Lancaster and York,
chapter 2._
The leaders of the insurgents were Wat the Tyler, who had been
a soldier, John Ball, a priest and preacher of democratic and
socialistic doctrines, and one known as Jack Straw. They made
their way to London. "It ought to have been easy to keep them
out of the city, as the only approach to it was by London
Bridge, and the mayor and chief citizens proposed to defend
it. But the Londoners generally, and even three of the
aldermen, were well inclined to the rebels, and declared that
they would not let the gates be shut against their friends and
neighbours, and would kill the mayor himself if he attempted
to do it. So on the evening of Wednesday, June 13, the
insurgents began to stream in across the bridge, and next
morning marched their whole body across the river, and
proceeded at once to the Savoy, the splendid palace of the
Duke of Lancaster. Proclamation was made that any one found
stealing the smallest article would be beheaded; and the place
was then wrecked and burned with all the formalities of a
solemn act of justice. Gold and silver plate was shattered
with battle-axes and thrown into the Thames; rings and smaller
jewels were brayed in mortars; silk and embroidered dresses
were trampled under feet and torn up. Then the Temple was
burned with all its muniments. The poet Gower was among the
lawyers who had to save their lives by flight, and he passed
several nights in the woods of Essex, covered with grass and
leaves and living on acorns. Then the great house of the
Hospitallers at Clerkenwell was destroyed, taking seven days
to burn." The young king (Richard II.) and his court and
council had taken refuge in the Tower. The insurgents now
threatened to storm their stronghold if the king did not come
out and speak to them. The king consented and appointed a
rendezvous at Mile End. He kept the appointment and met his
turbulent subjects with so much courage and tact and so many
promises, that he persuaded a great number to disperse to
their homes. But while this pacific interview took place, Wat
Tyler, John Ball, and some 400 of their followers burst into
the Tower, determined to find the archbishop of Canterbury and
the Lord Treasurer, Sir Robert de Hales, who were the most
obnoxious ministers. "So great was the general consternation
that the soldiers dared not raise a hand while these ruffians
searched the different rooms, not sparing even the king's
bedroom, running spears into the beds, asked the king's mother
to kiss them, and played insolent jokes on the chief officers.
{817}
Unhappily they were not long in finding the archbishop, who
had said mass in the chapel, and was kneeling at the altar in
expectation of their approach." The Lord Treasurer was also
found, and both he and the archbishop were summarily beheaded
by the mob. "Murder now became the order of the day, and
foreigners were among the chief victims; thirteen Flemings
were dragged out of one church and beheaded, seventeen out of
another, and altogether it is said 400 perished. Many private
enmities were revenged by the London rabble on this day." On
the next day, June 15, the king, with an armed escort, went to
the camp of the insurgents, at Smithfield, and opened
negotiations with Tyler, offering successively three forms of
a new charter of popular rights and liberties, all of which
were rejected. Finally, Tyler was invited to a personal
conference, and there, in the midst of the king's party, on
some provocation or pretended provocation in his words or
bearing, the popular leader was struck from his horse and
killed. King Richard immediately rode out before the ranks of
the rebels, while they were still dazed by the suddenness and
audacity of the treacherous blow, crying "I will be your
leader; follow me." The thoughtless mob followed and soon
found itself surrounded by bodies of troops whose courage had
revived. The king now commanded the trembling peasants "to
fall on their knees, cut the strings of their bows, and leave
the city and its neighbourhood, under pain of death, before
nightfall. This command was instantly obeyed." Meantime and
afterwards there were many lesser risings in various parts of
the country, all of which were suppressed, with such rigorous
prosecutions in the courts that 1,500 persons are said to have
suffered judicially.
_C. H. Pearson,
English History in the Fourteenth Century,
chapter 10._
The Wat Tyler insurrection proved disastrous in its effect on
the work of Church reform which Wyclif was then pursuing. "Not
only was the power of the Lancastrian party, on which Wyclif
had relied, for the moment annihilated, but the quarrel
between the Baronage and Church, on which his action had
hitherto been grounded, was hushed in the presence of a common
danger. Much of the odium of the outbreak, too, fell on the
Reformer. … John Ball, who had figured in the front rank of
the revolt, was claimed as one of his adherents. … Whatever
belief such charges might gain, it is certain that from this
moment all plans for the reorganization of the Church were
confounded in the general odium which attached to the projects
of the socialist peasant leaders."
_J. R. Green,
Short History of the English People,
chapter 5, section 3._
"When Parliament assembled it proved itself as hostile as the
crown to the conceding any of the demands of the people; both
were faithful to all the records of history in similar cases;
they would have belied all experience if, being victorious,
they had consented to the least concession to the vanquished.
The upper classes repudiated the recognition of the rights of
the poor to a degree, which in our time would be considered
sheer insanity. The king had annulled, by proclamation to the
sheriffs, the charters of manumission which he had granted to
the insurgents, and this revocation was warmly approved by
both Lords and Commons, who, not satisfied with saying that
such enfranchisement could not be made without their consent,
added, that they would never give that consent, even to save
themselves from perishing altogether in one day. There was, it
is true, a vague rumour about the propriety and wisdom of
abolishing villanage; but the notion was scouted, and the
owners of serfs showed that they neither doubted the right by
which they held their fellow-creatures in a state of slavery,
nor would hesitate to increase the severity of the laws
affecting them. They now passed a law by which 'all riots and
rumours, and other such things were turned into high treason';
this law was most vaguely expressed, and would probably
involve those who made it in inextricable difficulties. It was
self-apparent, that this Parliament acted under the impulses
of panic, and of revenge for recent injuries. … It might be
said that the citizens of the municipalities wrote their
charters of enfranchisement with the very blood of their lords
and bishops; yet, during the worst days of oppression, the
serfs of the cities had never suffered the cruel excesses of
tyranny endured by the country people till the middle of the
fifteenth century. And, nevertheless, the long struggles of
the townships, despite the bloodshed and cruelties of the
citizens, are ever considered and narrated as glorious
revolutions, whilst the brief efforts of the peasants for
vengeance, which were drowned in their own blood, have
remained as a stigma flung in the face of the country
populations whenever they utter a word claiming some
amelioration in their condition. Whence the injustice? The
bourgeoisie was victorious and successful. The rural
populations were vanquished and trampled upon. The
bourgeoisie, therefore, has had its poets, historians, and
flatterers, whilst the poor peasant, rude, untutored, and
ignorant, never had a lyre nor a voice to bewail his
lamentable sorrows and sufferings."
_Prof. De Vericour,
Wat Tyler
(Royal Historical Society, Transactions,
number 8, volume 2)._
ALSO IN:
_G. Lechler,
John Wiclif,
chapter 9, section 3._
_C. Knight,
Popular History of England,
volume 2, chapter 1._
ENGLAND: A. D. 1383.
The Bishop of Norwich's Crusade in Flanders.
See FLANDERS: A. D. 1383.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1388.
The Merciless or Wonderful Parliament.
See PARLIAMENT, THE WONDERFUL.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1399.
Accession of King Henry IV.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1399-1471.
House of Lancaster.
This name is given in English history to the family which
became royal in the person of Henry of Bolingbroke, Duke of
Lancaster, who deposed his cousin, Richard II., or forced him
to abdicate the throne, and who was crowned king (Henry IV.),
Oct. 11, 1399, with what seemed to be the consent of the
nation. He not only claimed to be the next in succession to
Richard, but he put forward a claim of descent through his
mother, more direct than Richard's had been, from Henry III.
"In point of fact Henry was not the next in succession. His
father, John of Gaunt [or John of Ghent, in which city he was
born], was the fourth son of Edward III., and there were
descendants of that king's third son, Lionel Duke of Clarence,
living. … At one time Richard himself had designated as his
successor the nobleman who really stood next to him in the
line of descent. This was Roger Mortimer, Earl of March, the
same who was killed by the rebels in Ireland. This Roger had
left a son Edmund to inherit his title, but Edmund was a mere
child, and the inconvenience of another minority could not
have been endured."
_J. Gairdner,
Houses of Lancaster and York,
chapter 2._
{818}
As for Henry's pretensions through his mother, they were
founded upon what Mr. Gairdner calls an "idle story," that
"the eldest son of Henry III. was not king Edward, but his
brother Edmund Crouchback, Earl of Lancaster, who was commonly
reputed the second son; and that this Edmund had been
purposely set aside on account of his personal deformity. The
plain fact of the matter was that Edmund Crouchback was six
years younger than his brother Edward I.; and that his surname
Crouchback had not the smallest reference to personal
deformity, but only implied that he wore the cross upon his
back as a crusader." Mr. Wylie (History of England under Henry
IV., volume 1, chapter 1) represents that this latter claim
was put forward under the advice of the leading jurists of the
time, to give the appearance of a legitimate succession;
whereas Henry took his real title from the will and assent of
the nation. Henry IV. was succeeded by his vigorous son, Henry
V. and he in turn by a feeble son, Henry VI., during whose
reign England was torn by intrigues and factions, ending in
the lamentable civil wars known as the "Wars of the Roses,"
the deposition of Henry VI. and the acquisition of the throne
by the "House of York," in the persons of Edward IV. and
Richard III. It was a branch of the House of Lancaster that
reappeared, after the death of Richard III. in the royal
family better known as the Tudors.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1400-1436.
Relations with Scotland.
See SCOTLAND: A. D. 1400-1436.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1402-1413.
Owen Glendower's Rebellion in Wales.
See WALES: A. D.1402-1413.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1403.
Hotspur's Rebellion.
The earl of Northumberland and his son, Henry Percy, called
"Hotspur," had performed great services for Henry IV., in
establishing and maintaining him upon the throne. "At the
outset of his reign their opposition would have been fatal to
him; their adhesion ensured his victory. He had rewarded them
with territory and high offices of trust, and they had by
faithful services ever since increased their claims to
gratitude and consideration. … Both father and son were
high-spirited, passionate, suspicious men, who entertained an
exalted sense of their own services and could not endure the
shadow of a slight. Up to this time [early in 1403] not a
doubt had been cast on their fidelity. Northumberland was
still the king's chief agent in Parliament, his most valued
commander in the field, his Mattathias. It has been thought
that Hotspur's grudge against the king began with the notion
that the release of his brother-in-law, Edmund Mortimer [taken
prisoner, the year before, by the Welsh], had been neglected
by the king, or was caused by Henry's claim to deal with the
prisoners taken at Homildon; the defenders of the Percies
alleged that they had been deceived by Henry in the first
instance, and only needed to be persuaded that Richard lived
in order to desert the king. It is more probable that they
suspected Henry's friendship, and were exasperated by his
compulsory economies. … Yet Henry seems to have conceived no
suspicion. … Northumberland and Hotspur were writing for
increased forces [for the war with Scotland]. … On the 10th
of July Henry had reached Northamptonshire on his way
northwards; on the 17th he heard that Hotspur with his uncle
the earl of Worcester were in arms in Shropshire. They raised
no cry of private wrongs, but proclaimed themselves the
vindicators of national right: their object was to correct the
evils of the administration, to enforce the employment of wise
counsellors, and the proper expenditure of public money. …
The report ran like wildfire through the west that Richard was
alive, and at Chester. Hotspur's army rose to 14,000 men, and
not suspecting the strength and promptness of the king, he sat
down with his uncle and his prisoner, the earl of Douglas,
before Shrewsbury. Henry showed himself equal to the need.
From Burton-on-Trent, where on July 17 he summoned the forces
of the shires to join him, he marched into Shropshire, and
offered to parley with the insurgents. The earl of Worcester
went between the camps, but he was either an impolitic or a
treacherous envoy, and the negotiations ended in mutual
exasperation. On the 21st the battle of Shrewsbury was fought;
Hotspur was slain; Worcester was taken and beheaded two days
after. The old earl, who may or may not have been cognizant of
his son's intentions from the first, was now marching to his
succour. The earl of Westmoreland, his brother-in-law, met him
and drove him back to Warkworth. But all danger was over. On
the 11th of August he met the king at York, and submitted to
him."
_W. Stubbs,
Constitutional History of England,
chapter 18, section 632._
ALSO IN:
_J. H. Wylie,
History of England under Henry IV.,
volume 1, chapter 25._
_W. Shakespeare,
King Henry IV.,
part 1._
ENGLAND: A. D. 1413.
Accession of King Henry V.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1413-1422.
Parliamentary gains under Henry V.
"What the sword had won the sword should keep, said Henry V.
on his accession; but what was meant by the saying has its
comment in the fact that, in the year which witnessed his
victory at Agincourt, he yielded to the House of Commons the
most liberal measure of legislation which until then it had
obtained. The dazzling splendour of his conquests in France
had for the time cast into the shade every doubt or question
of his title, but the very extent of those gains upon the
French soil established more decisively the worse than
uselessness of such acquisitions to the English throne. The
distinction of Henry's reign in constitutional history will
always be, that from it dates that power, indispensable to a
free and limited monarchy, called Privilege of Parliament; the
shield and buckler under which all the battles of liberty and
good government were fought in the after time. Not only were
its leading safeguards now obtained, but at once so firmly
established, that against the shock of incessant resistance in
later years they stood perfectly unmoved. Of the awful right
of impeachment, too, the same is to be said. It was won in the
same reign, and was never afterwards lost."
_J. Forster,
Historical and Biographical Essays,
volume 1, page 207._
ENGLAND: A. D. 1415-1422.
Conquests of Henry V. in France.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1415; and 1417-1422.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1422.
Accession of King Henry VI.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1431-1453.
Loss of English conquests and possessions in France.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1431-1453,
and AQUITAINE: A. D. 1360-1453.
{819}
ENGLAND: A. D. 1450.
Cade's Rebellion.
A formidable rebellion broke out in Kent, under the leadership
of one Jack Cade, A. D. 1450. Overtaxation, the bad management
of the council, the extortion of the subordinate officers, the
injustice of the king's bench, the abuse of the right of
purveyance, the "enquestes" and amercements, and the
illegitimate control of elections were the chief causes of the
rising of 1450. "The rising was mainly political, only one
complaint was economical, not a single one was religious. We
find not a single demand for new legislation. … The movement
was by no means of a distinctly plebeian or disorderly
character, but was a general and organized rising of the
people at large. It was a political upheaval. We find no trace
of socialism or of democracy. … The commons in 1450 arose
against Lancaster and in favor of York. Their rising was the
first great struggle in the Wars of the Roses."
_Kriehn,
Rising in 1450,
Chapter IV., VII._
Cade and his rebels took possession of London; but they were
beaten in a battle and forced to quit the city. Cade and some
followers continued to be turbulent and soon afterwards he was
killed.
_J. Gairdner,
Houses of Lancaster and York,
chapter 7, section 6._
ALSO IN:
_C. M. Yonge,
Cameos from English History,
3d series, chapter 7._
ENGLAND: A. D. 1455.
Demoralized state of the nation.
Effects of the wars in France.
"The whole picture of the times is very depressing on the
moral if not on the material side. There are few more pitiful
episodes in history than the whole tale of the reign of Henry
VI., the most unselfish and well-intentioned king that ever
sat upon the English throne—a man of whom not even his
enemies and oppressors could find an evil word to say; the
troubles came, as they confessed, 'all because of his false
lords, and never of him.' We feel that there must have been
something wrong with the heart of a nation that could see
unmoved the meek and holy king torn from wife and child, sent
to wander in disguise up and down the kingdom for which he had
done his poor best, and finally doomed to pine for five years a
prisoner in the fortress where he had so long held his royal
Court. Nor is our first impression concerning the
demoralisation of England wrong. Every line that we read bears
home to us more and more the fact that the nation had fallen
on evil times. First and foremost among the causes of its
moral deterioration was the wretched French War, a war begun
in the pure spirit of greed and ambition,—there was not even
the poor excuse that had existed in the time of Edward
III.—carried on by the aid of hordes of debauched foreign
mercenaries … and persisted in long after it had become
hopeless, partly from misplaced national pride, partly because
of the personal interests of the ruling classes. Thirty-five
years of a war that was as unjust as it was unfortunate had
both soured and demoralised the nation. … When the final
catastrophe came and the fights of Formigny [or Fourmigny] and
Chatillon [Castillon] ended the chapter of our disasters, the
nation began to cast about for a scapegoat on whom to lay the
burden of its failures. … At first the unfortunate Suffolk
and Somerset had the responsibility laid upon them. A little
later the outcry became more bold and fixed upon the
Lancastrian dynasty itself as being to blame not only for
disaster abroad, but for want of governance at home. If King
Henry had understood the charge, and possessed the wit to
answer it, he might fairly have replied that his subjects must
fit the burden upon their own backs, not upon his. The war had
been weakly conducted, it was true; but weakly because the men
and money for it were grudged. … At home, the bulwarks of
social order seemed crumbling away. Private wars, riot, open
highway robbery, murder, abduction, armed resistance to the
law, prevailed on a scale that had been unknown since the
troublous times of Edward II.—we might almost say since the
evil days of Stephen. But it was not the Crown alone that
should have been blamed for the state of the realm. The nation
had chosen to impose over-stringent constitutional checks on
the kingly power before it was ripe for self-government, and
the Lancastrian house sat on the throne because it had agreed
to submit to those checks. If the result of the experiment was
disastrous, both parties to the contract had to bear their
share of the responsibility. But a nation seldom allows that
it has been wrong; and Henry of Windsor had to serve as a
scapegoat for all the misfortunes of the realm, because Henry
of Bolingbroke had committed his descendants to the unhappy
compact. Want of a strong central government was undoubtedly
the complaint under which England was labouring in the middle
of the 15th century, and all the grievances against which
outcry was made were but symptoms of one latent disease. …
All these public troubles would have been of comparatively
small importance if the heart of the nation had been sound.
The phenomenon which makes the time so depressing is the
terrible decay in private morals since the previous century.
… There is no class or caste in England which comes well out
of the scrutiny. The Church, which had served as the conscience
of the nation in better times, had become dead to spiritual
things. It no longer produced either men of saintly life or
learned theologians or patriotic statesmen. … The baronage
of England had often been unruly, but it had never before
developed the two vices which distinguished it in the times of
the Two Roses—a taste for indiscriminate bloodshed and a turn
for political apostacy. … Twenty years spent in contact with
French factions, and in command of the godless mercenaries who
formed the bulk of the English armies, had taught our nobles
lessons of cruelty and faithlessness such as they had not
before imbibed. … The knights and squires showed on a
smaller scale all the vices of the nobility. Instead of
holding together and maintaining a united loyalty to the
Crown, they bound themselves by solemn sealed bonds and the
reception of 'liveries' each to the baron whom he preferred.
This fatal system, by which the smaller landholder agreed on
behalf of himself and his tenants to follow his greater
neighbour in peace and war, had ruined the military system of
England, and was quite as dangerous as the ancient feudalism.
… If the gentry constituted themselves the voluntary
followers of the baronage, and aided their employers to keep
England unhappy, the class of citizens and burgesses took a
very different line of conduct. If not actively mischievous,
they were solidly inert. They refused to entangle themselves
in politics at all. They submitted impassively to each ruler
in turn, when they had ascertained that their own persons and
property were not endangered by so doing. A town, it has been
remarked, seldom or never stood a siege during the Wars of the
Roses, for no town ever refused to open its gates to any
commander with an adequate force who asked for entrance."
_C. W. Oman,
Warwick the King-maker,
chapter 1._
{820}
ENGLAND: A. D. 1455-1471.
The Wars of the Roses.
Beginning with a battle fought at St. Albans on the 23d of
May, 1455, England was kept in a pitiable state of civil war,
with short intervals of troubled peace, during thirty years.
The immediate cause of trouble was in the feebleness of King
Henry VI., who succeeded to the throne while an infant, and
whose mind, never strong, gave way under the trials of his
position when he came to manhood. The control of the
government, thus weakly commanded, became a subject of strife
between successive factions. The final leaders in such
contests were Queen Margaret of Anjou, the energetic consort
of the helpless king (with the king himself sometimes in a
condition of mind to cooperate with her), on one side, and, on
the other side, the Duke of York, who traced his lineage to
Edward III., and who had strong claims to the throne if Henry
should leave no heir. The battle at St. Albans was a victory
for the Yorkists and placed them in power for the next two
years, the Duke of York being named Protector. In 1456 the
king recovered so far as to resume the reigns of government,
and in 1459 there was a new rupture between the factions. The
queen's adherents were beaten in the battle of Bloreheath,
September 23d of that year; but defections in the ranks of the
Yorkists soon obliged the latter to disperse and their
leaders, York, Warwick and Salisbury, fled to Ireland and to
Calais. In June, 1460, the earls of Warwick, Salisbury and
March (the latter being the eldest son of the Duke of York)
returned to England and gathered an army speedily, the city of
London opening its gates to them. The king's forces were
defeated at Northampton (July 10) and the king taken prisoner.
A parliament was summoned and assembled in October. Then the Duke
of York came over from Ireland, took possession of the royal
palace and laid before parliament a solemn claim to the crown.
After much discussion a compromise was agreed upon, under
which Henry VI. should reign undisturbed during his life and
the Duke of York should be his undisputed successor. This was
embodied in an act of parliament and received the assent of
the king; but queen Margaret who had retired into the north,
refused to surrender the rights of her infant son, and a
strong party sustained her. The Duke of York attacked these
Lancastrian forces rashly, at Wakefield, December 30, 1460, and
was slain on the field of a disastrous defeat. The queen's
army, then, marching towards London, defeated the Earl of
Warwick at St. Albans, February 17, 1461 (the second battle of
the war at that place), and recovered possession of the person
of the king. But Edward, Earl of March (now become Duke of
York, by the death of his father), who had just routed a
Lancastrian force at Mortimer's Cross, in Wales, joined his
forces with those of Warwick and succeeded in occupying
London, which steadily favored his cause. Calling together a
council of lords, Edward persuaded them to declare King Henry
deposed, on the ground that he had broken the agreement made
with the late Duke of York. The next step was to elect Edward
king, and he assumed the royal title and state at once. The
new king lost no time in marching northwards against the army
of the deposed sovereign, which lay near York. On the 27th of
March the advanced division of the Lancastrians was defeated
at Ferrybridge, and, two days later, their main body was
almost destroyed in the fearful battle of Towton,—said to
have been the bloodiest encounter that ever took place on
English soil. King Henry took refuge in Scotland and Queen
Margaret repaired to France. In 1464 Henry reappeared in the
north with a body of Scots and refugees and there were risings
in his favor in Northumberland, which the Yorkists crushed in
the successive battles of Hedgeley Moor and Hexham. The
Yorkist king (Edward IV.) now reigned without much disturbance
ntil 1470, when he quarreled with the powerful Earl of Warwick—
the "king-maker," whose strong hand had placed him on the
throne. Warwick then passed to the other side, offering his
services to Queen Margaret and leading an expedition which
sailed from Harfleur in September, convoyed by a French fleet.
Edward found himself unprepared to resist the Yorkist risings
which welcomed Warwick and he fled to Holland, seeking aid
from his brother-in-law, the Duke of Burgundy. For nearly six
months, the kingdom was in the hands of Warwick and the
Lancastrians; the unfortunate Henry VI., released from
captivity in the Tower, was once more seated on the throne.
But on the 14th of March, 1471, Edward reappeared in England,
landing at Ravenspur, professing that he came only to recover
his dukedom of York. As he moved southwards he gathered a
large force of supporters and soon reassumed the royal title
and pretensions. London opened its gates to him, and, on the
14th of April—exactly one month after his landing—he
defeated his opponents at Barnet, where Warwick, "the
king-maker"—the last of the great feudal barons—was slain.
Henry, again a captive, was sent back to the Tower. But
Henry's dauntless queen, who landed at Weymouth, with a body
of French allies on the very day of the disastrous Barnet
fight, refused to submit. Cornwall and Devon were true to her
cause and gave her an army with which she fought the last
battle of the war at Tewksbury on the 4th of May. Defeated and
taken prisoner, her young son slain—whether in the battle or
after it is unknown—the long contention of Margaret of Anjou
ended on that bloody field. A few days later, when the
triumphant Yorkist King Edward entered London, his poor,
demented Lancastrian rival died suddenly and suspiciously in
the Tower. The two parties in the long contention had each
assumed the badge of a rose—the Yorkists a white rose, the
Lancastrians a red one. Hence the name of the Wars of the
Roses. "As early as the time of John of Ghent, the rose was
used as an heraldic emblem, and when he married Blanche, the
daughter of the Duke of Lancaster, he used the red rose for a
device. Edmund of Langley, his brother, the fifth son of
Edward III., adopted the white rose in opposition to him; and
their followers afterwards maintained these distinctions in
the bloody wars of the fifteenth century. There is, however,
no authentic account of the precise period when these badges
were first adopted."
_Mrs. Hookham,
Life and Times of Margaret of Anjou,
volume 2, chapter 1._
ALSO IN:
_J. Gairdner,
Houses of Lancaster and York._
_Sir J. Ramsay,
Lancaster and York._
_C. W. Oman;
Warwick, the King-maker,
chapter 5-17._
See, also,
TOWTON, BARNET, and TEWKSBURY.
{821}
The effects of the Wars of the Roses.
"It is astonishing to observe the rapidity with which it [the
English nation] had settled down to order in the reign of
Henry VII. after so many years of civil dissension. It would
lead us to infer that those wars were the wars of a class, and
not of the nation; and that the effects of them have been
greatly exaggerated. With the single exception of Cade's
rebellion, they had nothing in common with the revolutions of
later or earlier times. They were not wars against classes,
against forms of government, against the order or the
institutions of the nation. It was the rivalry of two
aristocratic factions struggling for superiority, neither of
them hoping or desiring, whichever obtained the upper hand, to
introduce momentous changes in the State or its
administration. The main body of the people took little
interest in the struggle; in the towns at least there was no
intermission of employment. The war passed over the nation,
ruffling the surface, toppling down high cliffs here and
there, washing away ancient landmarks, attracting the
imagination of the spectator by the mightiness of its waves,
and the noise of its thunders; but the great body below the
surface remained unmoved. No famines, no plagues, consequent
on the intermittance of labour caused by civil war, are
recorded; even the prices of land and provisions scarcely
varied more than they have been known to do in times of
profoundest peace. But the indirect and silent operation of
these conflicts was much more remarkable. It reft into
fragments the confederated ranks of a powerful territorial
aristocracy, which had hitherto bid defiance to the King,
however popular, however energetic. Henceforth the position of
the Sovereign in the time of the Tudors, in relation to all
classes of the people, became very different from what it had
been; the royal supremacy was no longer a theory; but a fact.
Another class had sprung up on the decay of the ancient
nobility. The great towns had enjoyed uninterrupted
tranquility, and even flourished, under the storm that was
scourging the aristocracy and the rural districts. Their
population had increased by numbers whom fear or the horrors
of war had induced to find shelter behind stone walls. The
diminution of agricultural labourers converted into soldiers
by the folly of their lords had turned corn-lands into
pasture, requiring less skill, less capital, and less labour."
_J. S. Brewer,
The Reign of Henry VIII.,
volume 1, chapter 2._
"Those who would estimate the condition of England aright
should remember that the War of the Roses was only a
repetition on a large scale of those private wars which
distracted almost every county, and, indeed, by taking away
all sense of security, disturbed almost every manor and every
class of society during the same century. … The lawless
condition of English society in the 15th century resembled
that of Ireland in as recent a date as the beginning of the
19th century. … In both countries women were carried off,
sometimes at night; they were first violated, then dragged to
the altar in their night-dress and compelled to marry their
captors. … Children were seized and thrown into a dungeon
until ransomed by their parents."
_W. Denton,
England in the 15th Century,
chapter 3._
"The Wars of the Roses which filled the second half of the
15th century furnished the barons with an arena in which their
instincts of violence had freer play than ever; it was they
who, under the pretext of dynastic interests which had ceased
to exist, of their own free choice prolonged the struggle.
Altogether unlike the Italian condottieri, the English barons
showed no mercy to their own order; they massacred and
exterminated each other freely, while they were careful to
spare the commonalty. Whole families were extinguished or
submerged in the nameless mass of the nation, and their
estates by confiscation or escheat helped to swell the royal
domain. When Henry VII. had stifled the last movements of
rebellion and had punished, through the Star Chamber, those
nobles who were still suspected of maintaining armed bands,
the baronage was reduced to a very low ebb; not more than
twenty-nine lay peers were summoned by the king to his first
Parliament. The old Norman feudal nobility existed no longer;
the heroic barons of the great charter barely survived in the
persons of a few doubtful descendants; their estates were
split up or had been forfeited to the Crown. A new class came
forward to fill the gap, that rural middle class which was
formed … by the fusion of the knights with the free
landowners. It had already taken the lead in the House of
Commons, and it was from its ranks that Henry VII. chose
nearly all the new peers. A peerage renewed almost throughout,
ignorant of the habits and traditions of the earlier nobility,
created in large batches, closely dependent on the monarch who
had raised it from little or nothing and who had endowed it
with his bounty—this is the phenomenon which confronts us at
the end of the fifteenth century."
_E. Boutmy,
The English Constitution,
chapter 5._
ENGLAND: A. D. 1461.
Accession of King Edward IV.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1461-1485.
House of York.
The House of York, which triumphed in the Wars of the Roses,
attaining the throne in the person of Edward IV. (A. D. 1461),
derived its claim to the crown through descent, in the female
line, from Lionel, Duke of Clarence, the third son of Edward
III. (the second son who lived to manhood and left children);
while the House of Lancaster traced its lineage to John of
Gaunt, a younger son of the same king Edward III., but the
line of Lancastrian succession was through males. "Had the
crown followed the course of hereditary succession, it would
have devolved on the posterity of Lionel. … By the decease
of that prince without male issue, his possessions and
pretensions fell to his daughter Philippa, who by a singular
combination of circumstances had married Roger Mortimer earl
of March, the male representative of the powerful baron who
was attainted and executed for the murder of Edward II., the
grandfather of the duke of Clarence. The son of that potent
delinquent had been restored to his honours and estates at an
advanced period in the reign of Edward III. … Edmund, his
grandson, had espoused Philippa of Clarence. Roger Mortimer,
the fourth in descent from the regicide, was lord lieutenant
of Ireland and was considered, or, according to some writers,
declared to be heir of the crown in the early part of
Richard's reign. Edmund Mortimer, earl of March, in whom the
hereditary claim to the crown was vested at the deposition of
Richard, was then only an infant of ten years of age. …
{822}
Dying without issue, the pretensions to the crown, which he
inherited through the duke of Clarence, devolved on his sister
Anne Mortimer, who espoused Richard of York earl of Cambridge,
the grandson of Edward III. by his fourth [fifth] son Edmund
of Langley duke of York." Edward IV. was the grandson of this
Anne Mortimer and Richard of York.
_Sir J. Mackintosh,
History of England,
volume 1, pages 338-339._
The House of York occupied the throne but twenty-four years.
On the death of Edward IV., in 1483, the crown was secured by
his brother, Richard, duke of Gloucester, who caused Edward's
two sons to be murdered in the Tower. The elder of these
murdered princes is named in the list of English kings as
Edward V.; but he cannot be said to have reigned. Richard III.
was overthrown and slain on Bosworth field in 1485.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1471-1485.
The New Monarchy.
The rise of Absolutism and the decline of Parliamentary
government.
"If we use the name of the New Monarchy to express the
character of the English sovereignty from the time of Edward
IV. to the time of Elizabeth, it is because the character of
the monarchy during this period was something wholly new in
our history. There is no kind of sibilantly between the
kingship of the Old English, of the Norman, the Angevin, or
the Plantagenet sovereigns, and the kingship of the Tudors.
… What the Great Rebellion in its final result actually did
was to wipe away every trace of the New Monarchy, and to take
up again the thread of our political development just where it
had been snapped by the Wars of the Roses. … The founder of
the New Monarchy was Edward IV. … While jesting with
aldermen, or dallying with his mistresses, or idling over the
new pages from the printing press [Caxton's] at Westminster,
Edward was silently laying the foundations of an absolute rule
which Henry VII. did little more than develop and consolidate.
The almost total discontinuance of Parliamentary life was in
itself a revolution. Up to this moment the two Houses had
played a part which became more and more prominent in the
government of the realm. … Under Henry VI. an important step
in constitutional progress had been made by abandoning the old
form of presenting the requests of the Parliament in the form
of petitions which were subsequently moulded into statutes by
the Royal Councils; the statute itself, in its final form, was
now presented for the royal assent, and the Crown was deprived
of its former privilege of modifying it. Not only does this
progress cease, but the legislative activity of Parliament
itself comes abruptly to an end. … The necessity for
summoning the two Houses had, in fact, been removed by the
enormous tide of wealth which the confiscation of the civil
war poured into the royal treasury. … It was said that
nearly a fifth of the land had passed into the royal
possession at one period or another of the civil war. Edward
added to his resources by trading on a vast scale. … The
enterprises he had planned against France … enabled Edward
not only to increase his hoard, but to deal a deadly blow at
liberty. Setting aside the usage of loans sanctioned by the
authority of Parliament, Edward called before him the
merchants of the city and requested from each a present or
benevolence in proportion to the need. Their compliance with
his prayer was probably aided by his popularity with the
merchant class; but the system of benevolence was soon to be
developed into the forced loans of Wolsey and the ship-money
of Charles I."
_J. R. Green,
Short History of the English People,
chapter 6, section 3._
ALSO IN:
_W. Stubbs,
Constitutional History of England,
chapter 18, section 696._
ENGLAND: A. D. 1474.
Treaty with the Hanseatic League.
See HANSA TOWNS.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1476.
Introduction of Printing by Caxton.
See PRINTING, &c.: A. D. 1476-1491.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1483-1485.
Murder of the young king, Edward V.
Accession of Richard III.
The battle of Bosworth and the fall of the House of York.
On the death of Edward IV., in 1483, his crafty and
unscrupulous brother, Richard, Duke of Gloucester, gathered
quickly into his hands the reins of power, proceeding with
consummate audacity and ruthlessness to sweep every strong
rival out of his path. Contenting himself for a few weeks,
only, with the title of Protector, he soon disputed the
validity of his brother Edward's marriage, caused an
obsequious Parliament to set aside the young sons whom the
latter had left, declaring them to be illegitimate, and placed
the crown on his own head. The little princes (King Edward V.,
and Richard, Duke of York), immured in the Tower, were
murdered presently at their uncle's command, and Richard III.
appeared, for the time, to have triumphed in his ambitious
villainy. But, popular as he made himself in many cunning
ways, his deeds excited a horror which united Lancastrians
with the party of York in a common detestation. Friends of
Henry, Earl of Richmond, then in exile, were not slow to take
advantage of this feeling. Henry could claim descent from the
same John of Gaunt, son of Edward III., to whom the House of
Lancaster traced its lineage; but his family—the
Beauforts—sprang from the mistress, not the wife, of the
great Duke of Lancaster, and had only been legitimated by act
of Parliament. The Lancastrians, however, were satisfied with
the royalty of his blood, and the Yorkists were made content
by his promise to marry a daughter of Edward IV. On this
understanding being arranged, Henry came over from Brittany to
England, landing at Milford Haven on the 7th or 8th of August,
1485, and advancing through Wales, being joined by great
numbers as he moved. Richard, who had no lack of courage,
marched quickly to meet him, and the two forces joined battle
on Bosworth Field, in Leicestershire, on Sunday, August 21. At
the outset of the fighting Richard was deserted by a large
division of his army and saw that his fate was sealed. He
plunged, with despairing rage, into the thickest of the
struggle and was slain. His crowned helmet, which he had worn,
was found by Sir Reginald Bray, battered and broken, under a
hawthorn bush, and placed on the head of his rival, who soon
attained a more solemn coronation, as Henry VII.
_C. M. Yonge,
Cameos from English History,
3d Series, chapters 19-20._
"I must record my impression that a minute study of the facts
of Richard's life has tended more and more to convince me of
the general fidelity of the portrait with which we have been
made familiar by Shakespeare and Sir Thomas More. I feel quite
ashamed, at this day, to think how I mused over this subject
long ago, wasting a great deal of time, ink and paper, in
fruitless efforts to satisfy even my own mind that traditional
black was real historical white, or at worst a kind of grey.
…
{823}
Both the character and personal appearance of Richard III.
have furnished matter of controversy. But with regard to the
former the day has now gone by when it was possible to doubt
the evidence at least of his principal crime; and that he was
regarded as a tyrant by his subjects seems almost equally
indisputable. At the same time he was not destitute of better
qualities. … As king he seems really to have studied his
country's welfare, passed good laws, endeavoured to put an end
to extortion, declined the free gifts offered to him by
several towns, and declared he would rather have the hearts of
his subjects than their money. His munificence was especially
shown in religious foundations. … His hypocrisy was not of
the vulgar kind which seeks to screen habitual baseness of
motive by habitual affectation of virtue. His best and his
worst deeds were alike too well known to be either concealed
or magnified; at least, soon after he became king, all doubt
upon the subject must have been removed. … His ingratiating
manners, together with the liberality of his disposition, seem
really to have mitigated to a considerable extent the alarms
created by his fitful deeds of violence. The reader will not
require to be reminded of Shakespeare's portrait of a murderer
who could cajole the woman whom he had most exasperated and
made a widow into marrying himself. That Richard's ingenuity
was equal to this extraordinary feat we do not venture to
assert; but that he had a wonderful power of reassuring those
whom he had most intimidated and deceiving those who knew him
best there can be very little doubt. … His taste in building
was magnificent and princely. … There is scarcely any
evidence of Richard's [alleged] deformity to be derived from
original portraits. The number of portraits of Richard which
seem to be contemporary is greater than might have been
expected. … The face in all the portraits is a remarkable
one, full of energy and decision, yet gentle and sad-looking,
suggesting the idea not so much of a tyrant as of a mind
accustomed to unpleasant thoughts. Nowhere do we find depicted
the warlike hard-favoured visage attributed to him by Sir
Thomas More. … With such a one did the long reign of the
Plantagenets terminate. The fierce spirit and the valour of
the race never showed more strongly than at the close. The
Middle Ages, too, as far as England was concerned, may be said
to have passed away with Richard III."
_J. Gairdner,
History of the Life, and Reign of Richard The Third,
introduction and chapter 6._
ENGLAND: A. D. 1485.
Accession of King Henry VII.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1485-1528.
The Sweating Sickness.
See SWEATING SICKNESS.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1485-1603.
The Tudors.
The Tudor family, which occupied the English throne from the
accession of Henry VII., 1485, until the death of Elizabeth,
1603, took its name, but not its royal lineage, from Sir Owen
Tudor, a handsome Welsh chieftain, who won the heart and the
hand of the young widow of Henry V., Catherine of France. The
eldest son of that marriage, made Earl of Richmond, married in
his turn Margaret Beaufort, great-granddaughter to John of
Gaunt, or Ghent, who was one of the sons of Edward III. From
this latter union came Henry of Richmond, as he was known, who
disputed the crown with Richard III. and made his claim good
on Bosworth Field, where the hated Richard was killed. Henry's
pretensions were based on the royal descent of his
mother—derived, however, through John of Gaunt's mistress—
and the dynasty which he founded was closely related in origin
to the Lancastrian line. Henry of Richmond strengthened his
hold upon the crown, though not his title to it, by marrying
Elizabeth, daughter of Edward IV., thus joining the white rose
to the red. He ascended the throne as Henry VII., A. D. 1485;
was succeeded by his son, Henry VIII., in 1509, and the latter
by his three children, in order as follows: Edward VI., 1547;
Mary, 1553; Elizabeth, 1558. The Tudor family became extinct
on the death of Queen Elizabeth, in 1603. "They [the Tudors]
reigned in England, without a successful rising against them,
for upwards of a hundred years; but not more by a studied
avoidance of what might so provoke the country, than by the
most resolute repression of every effort, on the part of what
remained of the peerage and great families, to make head
against the throne. They gave free indulgence to their tyranny
only within the circle of the court, while they unceasingly
watched and conciliated the temper of the people. The work
they had to do, and which by more scrupulous means was not
possible to be done, was one of paramount necessity; the
dynasty uninterruptedly endured for only so long as was
requisite to its thorough completion; and to each individual
sovereign the particular task might seem to have been
specially assigned. It was Henry's to spurn, renounce and
utterly cast off, the Pope's authority, without too suddenly
revolting the people's usages and habits; to arrive at blessed
results by ways that a better man might have held to be
accursed; during the momentous change in progress to keep in
necessary check both the parties it affected; to persecute
with an equal hand the Romanist and the Lutheran; to send the
Protestant to the stake for resisting Popery, and the Roman
Catholic to the scaffold for not admitting himself to be Pope;
while he meantime plundered the monasteries, hunted down and
rooted out the priests, alienated the abbey lands, and glutted
himself and his creatures with that enormous spoil. It was
Edward's to become the ready and undoubting instrument of
Cranmer's design, and, with all the inexperience and more than
the obstinacy of youth, so to force upon the people his
compromise of doctrine and observance, as to render possible,
even perhaps unavoidable, his elder sister's reign. It was
Mary's to undo the effect of that precipitate eagerness of the
Reformers, by lighting the fires of Smithfield; and
opportunely to arrest the waverers from Protestantism, by
exhibiting in their excess the very worst vices, the cruel
bigotry, the hateful intolerance, the spiritual slavery, of
Rome. It was Elizabeth's finally and forever to uproot that
slavery from amongst us, to champion all over the world a new
and nobler faith, and immovably to establish in England the
Protestant religion."
_J. Forster,
Historical and Biographical Essays,
pages 221-222._
ALSO IN:
_S. R. Gardiner and J. B. Mullinger,
Introduction to the Study of English History,
chapter 6._
_C. E. Moberly,
The Early Tudors._
{824}
ENGLAND: A. D. 1487-1497.
The Rebellions of Lambert Simnel and Perkin Warbeck.
Although Henry VII., soon after he attained the throne,
married Elizabeth of York, daughter of Edward IV., and thus
united the two rival houses, the Yorkists were discontented
with his rule. "With the help of Margaret of Burgundy, Edward
IV. 's sister, and James IV. of Scotland, they actually set up
two impostors, one after the other, to claim the throne. There
was a real heir of the House of York still alive—young
Edward, Earl of Warwick [son of the Duke of Clarence, brother
to Edward IV.], … and Henry had taken the precaution to
keep him in the Tower. But in 1487 a sham Earl of Warwick
appeared in Ireland, and being supported by the Earl of
Kildare, was actually crowned in Dublin Cathedral. Henry soon
put down the imposture by showing the real earl to the people
of London, and defeating the army of the pretended earl at
Stoke, near Newark, June, 1487. He proved to be a lad named
Lambert Simnel, the son of a joiner at Oxford, and he became a
scullion in the king's kitchen." In 1492 another pretender of
like character was brought forward. "A young man, called
Perkin Warbeck, who proved afterwards to be a native of
Tournay, pretended that he was Richard, Duke of York, the
younger of the two little princes in the Tower, and that he
had escaped when his brother Edward V. was murdered. He
persuaded the king of France and Margaret of Burgundy to
acknowledge him, and was not only received at the foreign
courts, but, after failing in Ireland, he went to Scotland,
where James IV. married him to his own cousin Catharine
Gordon, and helped him to invade England in 1496. The invasion
was defeated however, by the Earl of Surrey, and then Perkin
went back to Ireland, where the people had revolted against
the heavy taxes. There he raised an army and marched to
Exeter, but meeting the king's troops at Taunton, he lost
courage, and fled to the Abbey of Beaulieu, where he was taken
prisoner, and sent to the Tower in 1497." In 1501 both Perkin
Warbeck and the young Earl of Warwick were executed.
_A. B. Buckley,
History of England for Beginners,
chapter 13._
ALSO IN:
_J. Gairdner,
Story of Perkin Warbeck
(appendix to Life of Richard III.)._
_C. M. Yonge,
Cameos from English History,
3d series, chapters 21 and 24._
_J. Gairdner,
Henry VII.,
chapters 4 and 7._
ENGLAND: 15th-16th Centuries.
The Renaissance.
Life in "Merry England."
Preludes to the Elizabethan Age of literature.
"Toward the close of the fifteenth century … commerce and
the woollen trade made a sudden advance, and such an enormous
one that corn-fields were changed into pasture-lands, 'whereby
the inhabitants of the said town (Manchester) have gotten and
come into riches and wealthy livings,' so that in 1553, 40,000
pieces of cloth were exported in English ships. It was already
the England which we see to-day, a land of meadows, green,
intersected by hedgerows, crowded with cattle, abounding in
ships, a manufacturing, opulent land, with a people of
beef-eating toilers, who enrich it while they enrich
themselves. They improved agriculture to such an extent, that
in half a century the produce of an acre was doubled. They
grew so rich, that at the beginning of the reign of Charles I.
the Commons represented three times the wealth of the Upper
House. The ruin of Antwerp by the Duke of Parma sent to
England 'the third part of the merchants and manufacturers,
who made silk, damask, stockings, taffetas, and serges.' The
defeat of the Armada and the decadence of Spain opened the
seas to their merchants. The toiling hive, who would dare,
attempt, explore, act in unison, and always with profit, was
about to reap its advantages and set out on its voyages,
buzzing over the universe. At the base and on the summit of
society, in all ranks of life, in all grades of human
condition, this new welfare became visible. … It is not when
all is good, but when all is better, that they see the bright
side of life, and are tempted to make a holiday of it. This is
why at this period they did make a holiday of it, a splendid
show, so like a picture that it fostered painting in Italy, so
like a representation, that it produced the drama in England.
Now that the battle-axe and sword of the civil wars had beaten
down the independent nobility, and the abolition of the law of
maintenance had destroyed the petty royalty of each great
feudal baron, the lords quitted their sombre castles,
battlemented fortresses, surrounded by stagnant water, pierced
with narrow windows, a sort of stone breast-plates of no use
but to preserve the life of their masters. They flock into new
palaces, with vaulted roofs and turrets, covered with
fantastic and manifold ornaments, adorned with terraces and
vast staircases, with gardens, fountains, statues, such as
were the palaces of Henry VIII. and Elizabeth, half Gothic and
half Italian, whose convenience, grandeur, and beauty
announced already habits of society and the taste for
pleasure. They came to court and abandoned their old manners;
the four meals which scarcely sufficed their former voracity
were reduced to two; gentlemen soon became refined, placing
their glory in the elegance and singularity of their
amusements and their clothes. … To vent the feelings, to
satisfy the heart and eyes, to set free boldly on all the
roads of existence the pack of appetites and instincts, this
was the craving which the manners of the time betrayed. It was
'merry England,' as they called it then. It was not yet stern
and constrained. It expanded widely, freely, and rejoiced to
find itself so expanded. No longer at court only was the drama
found but in the village. Strolling companies betook
themselves thither, and the country folk supplied any
deficiencies when necessary. Shakspeare saw, before he
depicted them, stupid fellows, carpenters, joiners,
bellow-menders, play Pyramus and Thisbe, represent the lion
roaring as gently as possible, and the wall, by stretching out
their hands. Every holiday was a pageant, in which
townspeople, workmen, and children bore their parts. … A few
sectarians, chiefly in the towns and of the people, clung
gloomily to the Bible. But the court and the men of the world
sought their teachers and their heroes from pagan Greece and
Rome. About 1490 they began to read the classics; one after
the other they translated them; it was soon the fashion to
read them in the original. Elizabeth, Jane Grey, the Duchess
of Norfolk, the Countess of Arundel, many other ladies, were
conversant with Plato, Xenophon, and Cicero in the original,
and appreciated them. Gradually, by an insensible change, men
were raised to the level of the great and healthy minds who
had freely handled ideas of all kinds fifteen centuries ago.
They comprehended not only their language, but their thought;
they did not repeat lessons from, but held conversations with
them; they were their equals, and found in them intellects as
manly as their own. …
{825}
Across the train of hooded school men and sordid cavillers the
two adult and thinking ages were united, and the moderns,
silencing the infantine or snuffling voices of the middle-age,
condescended only to converse with the noble ancients. They
accepted their gods, at least they understand them, and keep
them by their side. In poems, festivals, tapestries, almost
all ceremonies they appear, not restored by pedantry merely,
but kept alive by sympathy, and glorified by the arts of an
age as flourishing and almost as profound as that of their
earliest birth. After the terrible night of the middle-age,
and the dolorous legends of spirits and the damned, it was a
delight to see again Olympus shining upon us from Greece; its
heroic and beautiful deities once more ravishing the heart of
men, they raised and instructed this young world by speaking
to it the language of passion and genius; and the age of
strong deeds, free sensuality, bold invention, had only to
follow its own bent, in order to discover in them the eternal
promoters of liberty and beauty. Nearer still was another
paganism, that of Italy; the more seductive because more
modern, and because it circulates fresh sap in an ancient
stock; the more attractive, because more sensuous and present,
with its worship of force and genius, of pleasure and
voluptuousness. … At that time Italy clearly led in every
thing, and civilisation was to be drawn thence as from its
spring. What is this civilisation which is thus imposed on the
whole of Europe, whence every science and every elegance
comes, whose laws are obeyed in every court, in which Surrey,
Sidney, Spenser, Shakspeare sought their models and their
materials? It was pagan in its elements and its birth; in its
language, which is but slightly different from Latin; in its
Latin traditions and recollections, which no gap has come to
interrupt; in its constitution, whose old municipal life first
led and absorbed the feudal life; in the genius of its race,
in which energy and enjoyment always abounded."
_H. A. Taine,
History of English Literature,
book 2, chapter 1 (volume 1)._
"The intellectual movement, to which we give the name of
Renaissance, expressed itself in England mainly through the
Drama. Other races in that era of quickened activity, when
modern man regained the consciousness of his own strength and
goodliness after centuries of mental stagnation and social
depression, threw their energies into the plastic arts and
scholarship. The English found a similar outlet for their
pent-up forces in the Drama. The arts and literature of Greece
and Rome had been revealed by Italy to Europe. Humanism had
placed the present once more in a vital relation to the past.
The navies of Portugal and Spain had discovered new continents
beyond the ocean; the merchants of Venice and Genoa had
explored the farthest East. Copernicus had revolutionised
astronomy, and the telescope was revealing fresh worlds beyond
the sun. The Bible had been rescued from the mortmain of the
Church; scholars studied it in the language of its authors,
and the people read it in their own tongue. In this rapid
development of art, literature, science, and discovery, the
English had hitherto taken but little part. But they were
ready to reap what other men had sown. Unfatigued by the
labours of the pioneer, unsophisticated by the pedantries and
sophistries of the schools, in the freshness of their youth
and vigour, they surveyed the world unfolded to them. For more
than half a century they freely enjoyed the splendour of this
spectacle, until the struggle for political and religious
liberty replunged them in the hard realities of life. During
that eventful period of spiritual disengagement from absorbing
cares, the race was fully conscious of its national
importance. It had shaken off the shackles of oppressive
feudalism, the trammels of ecclesiastical tyranny. It had not
yet passed under the Puritan yoke, or felt the encroachments
of despotic monarchy. It was justly proud of the Virgin Queen,
with whose idealised personality the people identified their
newly acquired sense of greatness. … What in those fifty
years they saw with the clairvoyant eyes of artists, the poets
wrote. And what they wrote, remains imperishable. It is the
portrait of their age, the portrait of an age in which
humanity stood self-revealed, a miracle and marvel to its own
admiring curiosity. England was in a state of transition when
the Drama came to perfection. That was one of those rare
periods when the past and the future are both coloured by
imagination, and both shed a glory on the present. The
medieval order was in dissolution; the modern order was in
process of formation. Yet the old state of things had not
faded from memory and usage; the new had not assumed despotic
sway. Men stood then, as it were, between two dreams—a dream
of the past, thronged with sinister and splendid
reminiscences; a dream of the future, bright with unlimited
aspirations and indefinite hopes. Neither the retreating
forces of the Middle Ages nor the advancing forces of the
modern era pressed upon them with the iron weight of
actuality. The brutalities of feudalism had been softened; but
the chivalrous sentiment remained to inspire the Surreys and
the Sidneys of a milder epoch. … What distinguished the
English at this epoch from the nations of the South was not
refinement of manners, sobriety, or self-control. On the
contrary they retained an unenviable character for more than
common savagery. … Erasmus describes the filth of their
houses, and the sicknesses engendered in their cities by bad
ventilation. What rendered the people superior to Italians and
Spaniards was the firmness of their moral fibre, the sweetness
of their humanity, a more masculine temper, less vitiated
instincts and sophisticated intellects, a law-abiding and
religious conscience, contempt for treachery and baseness,
intolerance of political or ecclesiastical despotism combined
with fervent love of home and country. They were coarse, but
not vicious; pleasure-loving, but not licentious; violent, but
not cruel; luxurious but not effeminate. Machiavelli was a
name of loathing to them. Sidney, Essex, Raleigh, More, and
Drake were popular heroes; and whatever may be thought of
these men, they certainly counted no Marquis of Pescara, no
Duke of Valentino, no Malatesta Baglioni, no Cosimo de' Medici
among them. The Southern European type betrayed itself but
faintly in politicians like Richard Cromwell and Robert
Dudley. … Affectations of foreign vices were only a
varnish on the surface of society. The core of the nation
remained sound and wholesome. Nor was the culture which the
English borrowed from less unsophisticated nations, more than
superficial. The incidents of Court gossip show how savage was
the life beneath.
{826}
Queen Elizabeth spat, in the presence of her nobles, at a
gentleman who had displeased her; struck Essex on the cheek;
drove Burleigh blubbering from her apartment. Laws in merry
England were executed with uncompromising severity. Every
township had its gallows; every village its stocks,
whipping-post and pillory. Here and there, heretics were
burned upon the market-place; and the block upon Tower Hill
was seldom dry. … Men and women who read Plato, or discussed
the elegancies of Petrarch, suffered brutal practical jokes,
relished the obscenities of jesters, used the grossest
language of the people. Carrying farms and acres on their
backs in the shape of costly silks and laces, they lay upon
rushes filthy with the vomit of old banquets. Glittering in
suits of gilt and jewelled mail, they jostled with
town-porters in the stench of the bear-gardens, or the bloody
bull-pit. The church itself was not respected. The nave of old
S. Paul's became a rendezvous for thieves and prostitutes. …
It is difficult, even by noting an infinity of such
characteristics, to paint the many-coloured incongruities of
England at that epoch. Yet in the midst of this confusion rose
cavaliers like Sidney, philosophers like Bacon, poets like
Spenser; men in whom all that is pure, elevated, subtle,
tender, strong, wise, delicate and learned in our modern
civilisation displayed itself. And the masses of the people
were still in harmony with these high strains. They formed the
audience of Shakspere. They wept for Desdemona, adored Imogen,
listened with Jessica to music in the moon-light at Belmont,
wandered with Rosalind through woodland glades of Arden. Such
was the society of which our theatre became the mirror."
_J. A. Symonds,
Shakspere's Predecessors in the English Drama,
chapter 2, section 1, 2, and 5._
ENGLAND: A. D. 1497.
Cabot's discovery of the North American Continent.
See AMERICA: A. D. 1497.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1498.
Voyage and discoveries of Sebastian Cabot.
Ground of English claims in the New World.
See AMERICA: A. D. 1498.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1502.
The marriage which brought the Stuarts to the English throne.
See SCOTLAND: A. D. 1502.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1509.
The character and reign of Henry VII.
"As a king, Bacon tells us that he was 'a wonder for wise
men.' Few indeed were the councillors that shared his
confidence, but the wise men, competent to form an estimate of
his statesmanship, had but one opinion of his consummate
wisdom. Foreigners were greatly struck with the success that
attended his policy. Ambassadors were astonished at the
intimate knowledge he displayed of the affairs of their own
countries. From the most unpropitious beginnings, a proscribed
man and an exile, he had won his way in evil times to a throne
beset with dangers; he had pacified his own country, cherished
commerce, formed strong alliances over Europe, and made his
personal influence felt by the rulers of France, Spain, Italy,
and the Netherlands as that of a man who could turn the scale
in matters of the highest importance to their own domestic
welfare. … From first to last his policy was essentially his
own; for though he knew well how to choose the ablest
councillors, he asked or took their advice only to such an
extent as he himself deemed expedient. … No one can
understand his reign, or that of his son, or, we might add, of
his granddaughter Queen Elizabeth, without appreciating the
fact that, however well served with councillors, the sovereign
was in those days always his own Prime Minister. … Even the
legislation of the reign must be regarded as in large measure
due to Henry himself. We have no means, it is true, of knowing
how much of it originated in his own mind; but that it was all
discussed with him in Council and approved before it was
passed we have every reason to believe. For he never appears
to have put the royal veto upon any Bill, as constitutional
usage both before and after his days allowed. He gave his
assent to all the enactments sent up to him for approval,
though he sometimes added to them provisos of his own. And
Bacon, who knew the traditions of those times, distinctly
attributes the good legislation of his days to the king
himself. 'In that part, both of justice and policy, which is
the most durable part, and cut, as it were, in brass or
marble, the making of good laws, he did excel.' This
statement, with but slight variations in the wording, appears
again and again throughout the History; and elsewhere it is
said that he was the best lawgiver to this nation after Edward
I. … The parliaments, indeed, that Henry summoned were only
seven in number, and seldom did anyone of them last over a
year, so that during a reign of nearly twenty-four years many
years passed away without a Parliament at all. But even in
those scanty sittings many Acts were passed to meet evils that
were general subjects of complaint. … He could scarcely be
called a learned man, yet he was a lover of learning, and gave
his children an excellent education. His Court was open to
scholars. … He was certainly religious after the fashion of
his day. … His religious foundations and bequests perhaps do
not necessarily imply anything more than conventional feeling.
But we must not overlook the curious circumstance that he once
argued with a heretic at the stake at Canterbury and got him
to renounce his heresy. It is melancholy to add that he did
not thereupon release him from the punishment to which he had
been sentenced; but the fact seems to show that he was afraid
of encouraging insincere conversions by such leniency. During
the last two or three years of the 15th century there was a
good deal of procedure against heretics, but on the whole, we
are told, rather by penances than by fire. Henry had no desire
to see the old foundations of the faith disturbed. His zeal
for the Church was recognised by no less than three Popes in
his time, who each sent him a sword and a cap of maintenance.
… To commerce and adventure he was always a good friend. By
his encouragement Sebastian Cabot sailed from Bristol and
discovered Newfoundland—The New Isle, as it at first was
called. Four years earlier Columbus had first set foot on the
great western continent, and had not his brother been taken by
pirates at sea, it is supposed that he too might have made his
great discovery under Henry's patronage."
_James Gairdner,
Henry the Seventh,
chapter 13._
ALSO IN:
_Lord Bacon,
History of the Reign of King Henry VII._
ENGLAND: A. D. 1509,
Accession of King Henry VIII.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1151-1513.
Enlisted In the Holy League of Pope Julius II. against France.
See ITALY: A. D. 1510-1513.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1513.
Henry's invasion of France.
The victory of the Battle of the Spurs.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1513-1515.
{827}
ENGLAND: A. D. 1513-1529.
The ministry of Cardinal Wolsey.
From 1513 to 1529, Thomas Wolsey, who became Archbishop of
York in 1514, and Cardinal in 1515, was the minister who
guided the policy of Henry VIII., so far as that head-strong
and absolute monarch could be guided at all. "England was
going through a crisis, politically, socially, and
intellectually, when Wolsey undertook the management of
affairs. … We must regret that he put foreign policy in the
first place, and reserved his constructive measures for
domestic affairs. … Yet even here we may doubt if the
measures of the English Reformation would have been possible
if Wolsey's mind had not inspired the king and the nation with
a heightened consciousness of England's power and dignity.
Wolsey's diplomacy at least tore away all illusions about Pope
and Emperor, and the opinion of Europe, and taught Henry VIII.
the measure of his own strength. It was impossible that
Wolsey's powerful hand should not leave its impression upon
everything which it touched. If Henry VIII. inherited a strong
monarchy, Wolsey made the basis of monarchical power still
stronger. … Wolsey saw in the royal power the only possible
means of holding England together and guiding it through the
dangers of impending change. … Wolsey was in no sense a
constitutional minister, nor did he pay much heed to
constitutional forms. Parliament was only summoned once during
the time that he was in office, and then he tried to browbeat
Parliament and set aside its privileges. In his view the only
function of Parliament was to grant money for the king's
needs. The king should say how much he needed, and Parliament
ought only to advise how this sum might be most conveniently
raised. … He was unwise in his attempt to force the king's
will upon Parliament as an unchangeable law of its action.
Henry VIII. looked and learned from Wolsey's failure, and when
he took the management of Parliament into his own hands he
showed himself a consummate master of that craft. … He was
so skilful that Parliament at last gave him even the power
over the purse, and Henry, without raising a murmur, imposed
taxes which Wolsey would not have dared to suggest. … Where
Wolsey would have made the Crown independent of Parliament,
Henry VIII. reduced Parliament to be a willing instrument of
the royal will. … Henry … clothed his despotism with the
appearance of paternal solicitude. He made the people think
that he lived for them, and that their interests were his,
whereas Wolsey endeavoured to convince the people that the
king alone could guard their interests, and that their only
course was to put entire confidence in him. Henry saw that men
were easier to cajole than to convince. … In spite of the
disadvantage of a royal education, Henry was a more thorough
Englishman than Wolsey, though Wolsey sprang from the people.
It was Wolsey's teaching, however, that prepared Henry for his
task. The king who could use a minister like Wolsey and then
throw him away when he was no longer useful, felt that there
was no limitation to his self-sufficiency. … For politics in
the largest sense, comprising all the relations of the nation
at home and abroad, Wolsey had a capacity which amounted to
genius, and it is doubtful if this can be said of any other
Englishman. … Taking England as he found her, he aimed at
developing all her latent possibilities, and leading Europe to
follow in her train. … He made England for a time the centre
of European politics, and gave her an influence far higher
than she could claim on material grounds. … He was indeed a
political artist, who worked with a free hand and a certain
touch. … He was, though he knew it not, fitted to serve
England, but not to serve the English king. He had the aims of
a national statesman, not of a royal servant. Wolsey's
misfortune was that his lot was cast on days when the career
of a statesman was not distinct from that of a royal servant."
_M. Creighton,
Cardinal Wolsey,
chapters 8 and 11._
ALSO IN:
_J. S. Brewer,
The Reign of Henry VIII._
_J. A. Froude,
History of England from the Fall of Wolsey,
chapters 1-2._
_G. Cavendish,
Life of Wolsey._
ENGLAND: A. D. 1514.
Marriage of the king's sister with Louis XII. of France.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1513-1515.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1516-1517.
Intrigues against France.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1516-1517.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1519.
Candidacy of Henry VIII. for the imperial crown.
See GERMANY: A. D. 1519.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1520-1521.
Rivalry of the Emperor and the French King
for the English alliance.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1520-1523.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1525.
The king changes sides in European politics and breaks his
alliance with the Emperor.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1525-1526.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1527.
New alliance with France and Venice against Charles V.
Formal renunciation of the claim of the English kings to the
crown of France.
See ITALY: A. D. 1527-1529.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1527-1534.
Henry VIII. and the Divorce question.
The rupture with Rome.
Henry VIII. owed his crown to the early death of his brother
Arthur, whose widow, Catharine of Aragon, the daughter of
Ferdinand, and consequently the aunt of Charles V. [emperor],
Henry was enabled to marry through a dispensation obtained by
Henry VII. from Pope Julius II.,—marriage with the wife of a
deceased brother being forbidden by the laws of the Church.
Henry was in his twelfth year when the marriage was concluded,
but it was not consummated until the death of his father. …
The question of Henry's divorce from Catharine soon became a
subject of discussion, and the effort to procure the annulling
of the marriage from the pope was prosecuted for a number of
years. Henry professed, and perhaps with sincerity, that he
had long been troubled with doubts of the validity of the
marriage, as being contrary to the divine law, and therefore
not within the limit of the pope's dispensing power. The death
of a number of his children, leaving only a single daughter,
Mary, had been interpreted by some as a mark of the
displeasure of God. At the same time the English people, in
the fresh recollection of the long dynastic struggle, were
anxious on account of the lack of a male heir to the throne.
On the queen's side it was asserted that it was competent for
the pope to authorize a marriage with a brother's widow, and
that no doubt could possibly exist in the present case, since,
according to her testimony, her marriage with Arthur had never
been completed. The eagerness of Henry to procure the divorce
increased with his growing passion for Anne Boleyn. The
negotiations with Rome dragged slowly on. Catharine was six
years older than himself, and had lost her charms.
{828}
He was enamored of this young English girl, fresh from the
court of France. He resolved to break the marriage bond with
the Spanish princess who had been his faithful wife for nearly
twenty years. It was not without reason that the king became
more and more incensed at the dilatory and vacillating course
of the pope. … Henry determined to lay the question of the
validity of his marriage before the universities of Europe,
and this he did, making a free use of bribery abroad and of
menaces at home. Meantime, he took measures to cripple the
authority of the pope and of the clergy in England. In these
proceedings he was sustained by a popular feeling, the growth
of centuries, against foreign ecclesiastical interference and
clerical control in civil affairs. The fall of Wolsey was the
effect of his failure to procure the divorce, and of the
enmity of Anne Boleyn and her family. … In order to convict
of treason this minister, whom he had raised to the highest
pinnacle of power, the king did not scruple to avail himself
of the ancient statute of præmunire, which Wolsey was accused
of having transgressed by acting as the pope's legate in
England—it was dishonestly alleged, without the royal
license. Early in 1531 the king charged the whole body of the
clergy with having incurred the penalties of the same law by
submitting to Wolsey in his legatine character. Assembled in
convocation, they were obliged to implore his pardon, and
obtained it only in return for a large sum of money. In their
petition he was styled, in obedience to his dictation, 'The
Protector and Supreme Head of the Church and Clergy of
England,' to which was added, after long debate, at the
suggestion of Archbishop Warham—'as far as is permitted by
the law of Christ.' The Church, prostrate though it was at the
feet of the despotic king, showed some degree of self-respect
in inserting this amendment. Parliament forbade the
introduction of papal bulls into England. The king was
authorized if he saw fit, to withdraw the annats—first-fruits
of benefices—from the pope. Appeals to Rome were forbidden.
The retaliatory measures of Henry did not move the pope to
recede from his position. On or about January 25, 1533, the
king was privately married to Anne Boleyn. … In 1534 Henry
was conditionally excommunicated by Clement VII. The papal
decree deposing him from the throne, and absolving his
subjects from their allegiance, did not follow until 1538, and
was issued by Paul III. Clement's bull was sent forth on the
23 of March. On the 23 of November Parliament passed the Act
of Supremacy, without the qualifying clause which the clergy
had attached to their vote. The king was, moreover, clothed
with full power and authority to repress and amend all such
errors, heresies, and abuses as 'by any manner of spiritual
authority or jurisdiction ought or may lawfully be reformed.'
Thus a visitatorial function of vast extent was recognized as
belonging to him. In 1532 convocation was driven to engage not
'to enact or promulge or put in execution' any measures
without the royal license, and to promise to change or to
abrogate any of the 'provincial constitutions' which he should
judge inconsistent with his prerogative. The clergy were thus
stripped of all power to make laws. A mixed commission, which
Parliament ordained for the revision of the whole canon law,
was not appointed in this reign. The dissolution of the king's
marriage thus dissolved the union of England with the papacy."
_G. P. Fisher,
History of the Christian Church,
period 8, chapter 6._
ALSO IN:
_J. S. Brewer,
The Reign of Henry VIII.,
volume 2, chapters 27-35._
_J. A. Froude,
History of England,
volume 1, chapter 2._
_S. H. Burke,
Historical Portraits of the Tudor Dynasty,
volume 1, chapters 8-25._
_J. Lingard,
History of England,
volume 6, chapter 3._
_T. E. Bridgett,
Life and Writings of Sir T. More._
ENGLAND: A. D. 1529-1535.
The execution of Sir Thomas More.
On the 25th of October, 1529, the king, by delivering the
great seal to Sir Thomas More, constituted him Lord
Chancellor. In making this appointment, Henry "hoped to
dispose his chancellor to lend his authority to the projects
of divorce and second marriage, which now agitated the king's
mind, and were the main objects of his policy. … To pursue
this subject through the long negotiations and discussions
which it occasioned during six years, would be to lead us far
from the life of Sir Thomas More. … All these proceedings
terminated in the sentence of nullity in the case of Henry's
marriage with Catherine, pronounced by Cranmer, the espousal
of Anne Boleyn by the king, and the rejection of the papal
jurisdiction by the kingdom, which still, however, adhered to
the doctrines of the Roman catholic church. The situation of
More during a great part of these memorable events was
embarrassing. The great offices to which he was raised by the
king, the personal favour hitherto constantly shown to him,
and the natural tendency of his gentle and quiet disposition,
combined to disincline him to resistance against the wishes of
his friendly master. On the other hand, his growing dread and
horror of heresy, with its train of disorders; his belief that
universal anarchy would be the inevitable result of religious
dissension, and the operation of seven years' controversy for
the Catholic church, in heating his mind on all subjects
involving the extent of her authority, made him recoil from
designs which were visibly tending towards disunion with the
Roman pontiff. … Henry used every means of procuring an
opinion favourable to his wishes from his chancellor, who
excused himself as unmeet for such matters, having never
professed the study of divinity. … But when the progress
towards the marriage was so far advanced that he saw how soon
the active co-operation of a chancellor must be required, he
made suit to 'his singular dear friend,' the duke of Norfolk,
to procure his discharge from this office. The duke, often
solicited by More, then obtained, by importunate suit, a clear
discharge for the chancellor. … The king directed Norfolk,
when he installed his successor, to declare publicly, that his
majesty had with pain yielded to the prayers of sir Thomas
More, by the removal of such a magistrate. …. It must be
owned that Henry felt the weight of this great man's opinion,
and tried every possible means to obtain at least the
appearance of his spontaneous approbation. … The king …
sent the archbishop of Canterbury, the chancellor, the duke of
Norfolk, and Cromwell, to attempt the conversion of More.
Audley reminded More of the king's special favour and many
benefits. More admitted them; but modestly added, that his
highness had most graciously declared that on this matter More
should be molested no more.
{829}
When in the end they saw that no persuasion could move him,
they then said, 'that the king's highness had given them in
commandment, if they could by no gentleness win him, in the
king's name with ingratitude to charge him, that never was
servant to his master so villainous, nor subject to his prince
so traitorous as he.'. . . By a tyrannical edict, mis-called a
law, in the same session of 1533-4, it was made high treason,
after the 1st of May, 1534, by writing, print, deed, or act,
to do or to procure, or cause to be done or procured, anything
to the prejudice, slander, disturbance, or derogation of the
king's lawful matrimony with queen Anne. If the same offences
were committed by words, they were only misprision. The same
act enjoined all persons to take an oath to maintain the whole
contents of the statute, and an obstinate refusal to make such
oath was subjected to the penalties of misprision. … Sir T.
More was summoned to appear before these commissioners at
Lambeth, on Monday the 13th of April, 1534. … After having
read the statute and the form of the oath, he declared his
readiness to swear that he would maintain and defend the order
of succession to the crown as established by parliament. He
disclaimed all censure of those who had imposed, or on those
who had taken, the oath, but declared it to be impossible that
he should swear to the whole contents of it, without offending
against his own conscience. … He never more returned to his
house, being committed to the custody of the abbot of
Westminster, in which he continued four days; and at the end
of that time he was conveyed to the Tower on Friday the 17th
of April, 1534. … On the 6th of May, 1535, almost
immediately after the defeat of every attempt to practise on
his firmness, More was brought to trial at Westminster, and it
will scarcely be doubted, that no such culprit stood at any
European bar for a thousand years. … It is lamentable that
the records of the proceedings against such a man should be
scanty. We do not certainly know the specific offence of which
he was convicted. … On Tuesday, the 6th of July (St.
Thomas's eve), 1535, sir Thomas Pope, 'his singular good
friend,' came to him early with a message from the king and
council, to say that he should die before nine o'clock of the
same morning. … The lieutenant brought him to the scaffold,
which was so weak that it was ready to fall, on which he said,
merrily, 'Master Lieutenant, I pray you see me safe up, and
for my coming down let me shift for myself.' When he laid his
head on the block he desired the executioner to wait till he
had removed his beard, for that had never offended his
highness."
_Sir J. Mackintosh,
Sir Thomas More
(Cabinet Cyclopedia:
Eminent British Statesmen, volume 1)._
ALSO IN:
_S. R. Gardiner,
Historical Biographies,
chapter 3._
_T. E. Bridgett,
Life and Writings of Sir Thomas More,
chapters 12-24._
_S. H. Burke,
Historical Portraits of the Tudor Dynasty,
volume 1, chapter 29._
ENGLAND: A. D. 1531-1563,
The genesis of the Church of England.
"Henry VIII. attempted to constitute an Anglican Church
differing from the Roman Catholic Church on the point of the
supremacy, and on that point alone. His success in this
attempt was extraordinary. The force of his character, the
singularly favorable situation in which he stood with respect
to foreign powers, the immense wealth which the spoliation of
the ah beys placed at his disposal, and the support of that
class which still halted between two opinions, enabled him to
bid defiance to both the extreme parties, to burn as heretics
those who avowed the tenets of the Reformers, and to hang as
traitors those who owned the authority of the Pope. But
Henry's system died with him. Had his life been prolonged, he
would have found it difficult to maintain a position assailed
with equal fury by all who were zealous either for the new or
for the old opinions. The ministers who held the royal
prerogatives in trust for his infant son could not venture to
persist in so hazardous a policy; nor could Elizabeth venture
to return to it. It was necessary to make a choice. The
government must either submit to Rome, or must obtain the aid
of the Protestants. The government and the Protestants had
only one thing in common, hatred of the Papal power. The
English reformers were eager to go as far as their brethren on
the Continent. They unanimously condemned as Antichristian
numerous dogmas and practices to which Henry had stubbornly
adhered, and which Elizabeth reluctantly abandoned. Many felt
a strong repugnance even to things indifferent which had
formed part of the polity or ritual of the mystical Babylon.
Thus Bishop Hooper, who died manfully at Gloucester for his
religion, long refused to wear the episcopal vestments. Bishop
Ridley, a martyr of still greater renown, pulled down the
ancient altars of his diocese, and ordered the Eucharist to be
administered in the middle of churches, at tables which the
Papists irreverently termed oyster boards. Bishop Jewel
pronounced the clerical garb to be a stage dress, a fool's
coat, a relique of the Amorites, and promised that he would
spare no labour to extirpate such degrading absurdities.
Archbishop Grindal long hesitated about accepting a mitre from
dislike of what he regarded as the mummery of consecration.
Bishop Parkhurst uttered a fervent prayer that the Church of
England would propose to herself the Church of Zurich as the
absolute pattern of a Christian community. Bishop Ponet was of
opinion that the word Bishop should be abandoned to the
Papist, and that the chief officers of the purified church
should be called Superintendents. When it is considered that
none of these prelates belonged to the extreme section of the
Protestant party, it cannot be doubted that, if the general
sense of that party had been followed, the work of reform
would have been carried on as unsparingly in England as in
Scotland. But, as the government needed the support of the
Protestants, so the Protestants needed the protection of the
government. Much was therefore given up on both sides: an
union was effected; and the fruit of that union was the Church
of England."
_Lord Macaulay,
History of England,
chapter 1._
"The Reformation in England was, singular amongst the great
religious movements of the sixteenth century. It was the least
heroic of them all—the least swayed by religious passion, or
moulded and governed by spiritual and theological necessities.
From a general point of view, it looks at first little more
than a great political change. The exigencies of royal
passion, and the dubious impulses of statecraft, seem its
moving and really powerful springs. But, regarded more
closely, we recognise a significant train both of religious
and critical forces at work. The lust and avarice of Henry,
the policy of Cromwell, and the vacillations of the leading
clergy, attract prominent notice; but there may be traced
beneath the surface a wide-spread evangelical fervour amongst
the people, and, above all, a genuine spiritual earnestness
and excitement of thought at the universities.
{830}
These higher influences preside at the first birth of the
movement. They are seen in active operation long before the
reforming task was taken up by the Court and the bishops."
_J. Tulloch,
Rational Theology and Christian Philosophy
in England in the 17th Century,
volume 1, chapter 2._
"The miserable fate of Anne Boleyn wins our compassion, and
the greatness to which her daughter attained has been in some
degree reflected back upon herself. Had she died a natural
death, and had she not been the mother of Queen Elizabeth, we
should have estimated her character at a very low value
indeed. Protestantism might still, with its usual unhistorical
partizanship, have gilded over her immoralities; but the
Church of England must ever look upon Anne Boleyn with
downcast eyes full of sorrow and shame. By the influence of
her charms, Henry was induced to take those steps which ended
in setting the Church of England free from an uncatholic yoke:
but that such a result should be produced by such an influence
is a fact which must constrain us to think that the land was
guilty of many sins, and that it was these national sins which
prevented better instruments from being raised up for so
righteous an object."
_J. H. Blunt,
The Reformation of the Church of England,
pages 197-198._
"Cranmer's work might never have been carried out, there might
have been no English Bible, no Ten Articles or 'Institution,'
no reforming Primers, nor Proclamations against Ceremonies,
had it not been for the tact, boldness and skill of Thomas
Crumwell, who influenced the King more directly and constantly
than Cranmer, and who knew how to make his influence
acceptable by an unprincipled confiscation and an absurd
exaggeration of the royal supremacy. Crumwell knew that in his
master's heart there was a dislike and contempt of the clergy.
… It is probable that Crumwell's policy was simply
irreligious, and only directed towards preserving his
influence with the King; but as the support of the reforming
part of the nation was a useful factor in it, he was thus led
to push forward religious information in conjunction with
Cranmer. It has been before said that purity and
disinterestedness are not to be looked for in all the actors
in the English Reformation. To this it may be added that
neither in the movement itself nor in those who took part in
it is to be found complete consistency. This, indeed, is not
to be wondered at. Men were feeling their way along untrodden
paths, without any very clear perception of the end at which
they were aiming, or any perfect understanding of the
situation. The King had altogether misapprehended the meaning
of his supremacy. A host of divines whose views as to the
distinction between the secular and the spiritual had been
confused by the action of the Popes, helped to mislead him.
The clergy, accustomed to be crushed and humiliated by the
Popes, submitted to be crushed and humiliated by the King; and
as the tide of his autocratic temper ebbed and flowed, yielded
to each change. Hence there was action and reaction throughout
the reign. But in this there were obvious advantages for the
Church. The gradual process accustomed men's thoughts to a
reformation which should not be drastic or iconoclastic, but
rather conservative and deliberate."
_G. G, Perry,
History of the Reformation in England,
chapter 5._
"With regard to the Church of England, its foundations rest
upon the rock of Scripture, not upon the character of the King
by whom they were laid. This, however, must be affirmed in
justice to Henry, that mixed as the motives were which first
induced him to disclaim the Pope's authority, in all the
subsequent measures he acted sincerely, knowing the importance
of the work in which he had engaged, and prosecuting it
sedulously and conscientiously, even when most erroneous. That
religion should have had so little influence upon his moral
conduct will not appear strange, if we consider what the
religion was wherein he was trained up;—nor if we look at the
generality of men even now, under circumstances immeasurably
more fortunate than those in which he was placed. Undeniable
proofs remain of the learning, ability, and diligence, with
which he applied himself to the great business of weeding out
superstition, and yet preserving what he believed to be the
essentials of Christianity untouched. This praise (and it is
no light one) is his due: and it is our part to be thankful to
that all-ruling Providence, which rendered even his passions
and his vices subservient to this important end."
_R. Southey,
The Book of the Church,
chapter 12._
ENGLAND: A. D. 1535-1539.
The suppression of the Monasteries.
"The enormous, and in a great measure ill-gotten, opulence of
the regular clergy had long since excited jealousy in every
part of Europe. … A writer much inclined to partiality
towards the monasteries says that they held [in England]
one-fifth part of the kingdom; no insignificant patrimony. …
As they were in general exempted from episcopal visitation,
and intrusted with the care of their own discipline, such
abuses had gradually prevailed and gained strength by
connivance as we may naturally expect in corporate bodies of
men leading almost of necessity useless and indolent lives,
and in whom very indistinct views of moral obligations were
combined with a great facility of violating them. The vices
that for many ages had been supposed to haunt the monasteries,
had certainly not left their precincts in that of Henry VIII.
Wolsey, as papal legate, at the instigation of Fox, bishop of
Hereford, a favourer of the Reformation, commenced a
visitation of the professed as well as secular clergy in 1523,
in consequence of the general complaint against their manners.
… Full of anxious zeal for promoting education, the noblest
part of his character, he obtained bulls from Rome suppressing
many convents (among which was that of St. Frideswide at
Oxford), in order to erect and endow a new college in that
university, his favourite work, which after his fall was more
completely established by the name of Christ Church. A few
more were afterwards extinguished through his instigation; and
thus the prejudice against interference with this species of
property was somewhat worn off, and men's minds gradually
prepared for the sweeping confiscations of Cromwell [Thomas
Cromwell, who succeeded Wolsey as chief minister of Henry
VIII.]. The king indeed was abundantly willing to replenish
his exchequer by violent means, and to avenge himself on those
who gainsayed his supremacy; but it was this able statesman
who, prompted both by the natural appetite of ministers for
the subjects' money and by a secret partiality towards the
Reformation, devised and
carried on with complete success, if not with the utmost
prudence, a measure of no inconsiderable hazard and
difficulty. …
{831}
It was necessary, by exposing the gross corruptions of
monasteries, both to intimidate the regular clergy, and to
excite popular indignation against them. It is not to be
doubted that in the visitation of these foundations, under the
direction of Cromwell, as lord vice-gerent of the king's
ecclesiastical supremacy, many things were done in an
arbitrary manner, and much was unfairly represented. Yet the
reports of these visitors are so minute and specific that it
is rather a preposterous degree of incredulity to reject their
testimony whenever it bears hard on the regulars. … The
dread of these visitors soon induced a number of abbots to
make surrenders to the king; a step of very questionable
legality. But in the next session the smaller convents, whose
revenues were less than £200 a year, were suppressed by act of
parliament, to the number of 376, and their estates vested in
the crown. This summary spoliation led to the great northern
rebellion soon afterwards," headed by Robert Ask, a gentleman
of Yorkshire, and assuming the title of a Pilgrimage of Grace.
_H. Hallam,
Constitutional History of England,
chapter 2._
"Far from benefiting the cause of the monastic houses, the
immediate effect of the Pilgrimage of Grace was to bring ruin
on those monasteries which had as yet been spared. For their
complicity or alleged complicity in it, twelve abbots were
hanged, drawn and quartered, and their houses were seized by
the Crown. Every means was employed by a new set of
Commissioners to bring about the surrender of others of the
greater abbeys. The houses were visited, and their pretended
relics and various tricks to encourage the devotion of the
people were exposed. Surrenders went rapidly on during the
years 1537 and 1538, and it became necessary to obtain a new
Act of Parliament to vest the property of the later surrenders
in the Crown. … Nothing, indeed, can be more tragical than
the way in which the greater abbeys were destroyed on
manufactured charges and for imaginary crimes. These houses
had been described in the first Act of Parliament as 'great
and honourable,' wherein 'religion was right well kept and
observed.' Yet now they were pitilessly destroyed. A revenue
of about £131,607 is computed to have thus come to the Crown,
while the movables are valued at £400,000. How was this vast
sum of money expended?
(1) By the Act for the suppression of the greater monasteries
the King was empowered to erect six new sees, with their deans
and chapters, namely, Westminster, Oxford, Chester,
Gloucester, Bristol and Peterborough. …
(2) Some monasteries were turned into collegiate churches, and
many of the abbey churches … were assigned as parish
churches.
(3) Some grammar schools were erected.
(4) A considerable sum is said to have been spent in making
roads and in fortifying the coasts of the Channel.
(5) But by far the greater part of the monastic property
passed into the hands of the nobility and gentry, either by
purchase at very easy rates, or by direct gift from the Crown.
…
The monks and nuns ejected from the monasteries had small
pensions assigned to them, which are said to have been
regularly paid; but to many of them the sudden return into a
world with which they had become utterly unacquainted, and in
which they had no part to play, was a terrible hardship, …
greatly increased by the Six Article Law, which … made the
marriage of the secularized 'religious' illegal under heavy
penalties."
_G. G. Perry,
History of the Reformation in England,
chapter 4._
"The religious bodies, instead of uniting in their common
defence, seem to have awaited singly their fate with the
apathy of despair. A few houses only, through the agency of
their friends, sought to purchase the royal favour with offers
of money and lands; but the rapacity of the king refused to
accept a part when the whole was at his mercy."
_J. Lingard,
History of England,
volume 6, chapter 4._
Some of the social results of the suppression "may be summed
up in a few words. The creation of a large class of poor to
whose poverty was attached the stigma of crime; the division
of class from class, the rich mounting up to place and power,
the poor sinking to lower depths; destruction of custom as a
check upon the exactions of landlords; the loss by the poor of
those foundations at schools and universities intended for
their children, and the passing away of ecclesiastical tithes
into the hands of lay owners."
_F. A. Gasquet,
Henry VIII. and the English Monasteries,
volume 2, page 523._
ENGLAND: A. D. 1536-1543.
Trial and execution of Anne Boleyn.
Her successors, the later wives of Henry VIII.
Anne Boleyn had been secretly married to the king in January,
1533, and had been crowned on Whitsunday of that year. "The
princess Elizabeth, the only surviving child, was born on the
7th of September following. … The death of Catherine, which
happened at Kimbolton on the 29th of January, 1536, seemed to
leave queen Anne in undisturbed possession of her splendid
seat." But the fickle king had now "cast his affections on
Jane Seymour, the daughter of Sir John Seymour, a young lady
then of the Queen's bed-chamber, as Anne herself had been in
that of Catherine." Having lost her charms in the eyes of the
lustful despot who had wedded her, her influence was gone—
and her safety. Charges were soon brought against the
unfortunate woman, a commission (her own father included in
it) appointed to inquire into her alleged misdeeds, and "on
the 10th of May an indictment for high treason was found by
the grand jury of Westminster against the Lady Anne, Queen of
England; Henry Norris, groom of the stole; Sir Francis Weston
and William Brereton, gentlemen of the privy chamber; and Mark
Smeaton, a performer on musical instruments, and a person 'of
low degree,' promoted to be a groom of the chamber for his
skill in the fine art which he professed. It charges the queen
with having, by all sorts of bribes, gifts, caresses, and
impure blandishments, which are described with unblushing
coarseness in the barbarous Latinity of the indictment,
allured these members of the royal household into a course of
criminal connection with her, which had been carried on for
three years. It included also George Boleyn viscount Rochford,
the brother of Anne, as enticed by the same lures and snares
with the rest of the accused, so as to have become the
accomplice of his sister, by sharing her treachery and
infidelity to the king. It is hard to believe that Anne could
have dared to lead a life so unnaturally dissolute, without
such vices being more early and very generally known in a
watchful and adverse court.
{832}
It is still more improbable that she should in every instance
be the seducer. … Norris, Weston, Brereton, and Smeaton were
tried before a commission of oyer and terminer at Westminster,
on the 12th of May, two days after the bill against them was
found. They all, except Smeaton, firmly denied their guilt to
the last moment. On Smeaton's confession it must be observed
that we know not how it was obtained, how far it extended, or
what were the conditions of it. … On the 12th of May, the
four commoners were condemned to die. Their sentence was
carried into effect amidst the plaints of the bystanders. …
On the 15th of May, queen Anne and her brother Rochford were
tried." The place of trial was in the Tower, "which concealed
from the public eye whatever might be wanting in justice."
Condemnation duly followed, and the unhappy queen was executed
May 19, 1536. The king lost little time in wedding Jane
Seymour. "She died in childbed of Edward VI. on the 13th of
October, 1537. The next choice made by or for Henry, who
remained a widower for the period of more than two years," was
the "princess Anne, sister of the duke of Cleves, a
considerable prince on the lower Rhine. … The pencil of
Holbein was employed to paint this lady for the king, who,
pleased by the execution, gave the flattering artist credit
for a faithful likeness. He met her at Dover, and almost
immediately betrayed his disappointment. Without descending
into disgusting particulars, it is necessary to state that,
though the marriage was solemnised, the king treated the
princess of Cleves as a friend." At length, by common action
of an obsequious parliament and a more obsequious convocation
of the church, the marriage was declared to be annulled, for
reasons not specified. The consent of the repudiated wife was
"insured by a liberal income of £3,000 a year, and she lived
for 16 years in England with the title of princess Anne of
Cleves. … This annulment once more displayed the triumph of
an English lady over a foreign princess." The lady who now
captivated the brutally amorous monarch was lady Catherine
Howard, niece to the duke of Norfolk, who became queen on the
8th of August, 1540. In the following November, the king
received such information of lady Catherine's dissolute life
before marriage "as immediately caused a rigid inquiry into
her behaviour. … The confessions of Catherine and of lady
Rochford, upon which they were attainted in parliament, and
executed in the Tower on the 14th of February, are not said to
have been at any time questioned. … On the 10th of July,
1543, Henry wedded Catherine Parr, the widow of Lord Latimer,
a lady of mature age," who survived him.
_Sir J. Mackintosh,
History of England (L. L. C.),
volume 2, chapters 7-8._
ALSO IN:
_P. Friedmann,
Ann Boleyn._
_H. W. Herbert,
Memoirs of Henry VIII. and his Six Wives._
ENGLAND: A. D. 1539.
The Reformation checked.
The Six Articles.
"Yielding to the pressure of circumstances, he [Henry VIII.]
had allowed the Reformers to go further than he really
approved. The separation from the Church of Rome, the
absorption by the Crown of the powers of the Papacy, the unity
of authority over both Church and State centred in himself, had
been his objects. In doctrinal matters he clung to the Church
of which he had once been the champion. He had gained his
objects because he had the feeling of the nation with him. In
his eagerness he had even countenanced some steps of doctrinal
reform. But circumstances had changed. … Without detriment
to his position he could follow his natural inclinations. He
listened, therefore, to the advice of the reactionary party,
of which Norfolk was the head. They were full of bitterness
against the upstart Cromwell, and longed to overthrow him as
they had overthrown Wolsey. The first step in their triumph
was the bill of the Six Articles, carried in the Parliament of
1539. These laid down and fenced round with extraordinary
severity the chief points of the Catholic religion at that
time questioned by the Protestants. The bill enacted, first,
'that the natural body and blood of Jesus Christ were present
in the Blessed Sacrament,' and that 'after consecration there
remained no substance of bread and wine, nor any other but the
substance of Christ'; whoever, by word or writing, denied this
article was a heretic, and to be burned. Secondly, the
Communion in both kinds was not necessary, both body and blood
being present in each element; thirdly, priests might not
marry; fourthly, vows of chastity by man or woman ought to be
observed; fifthly, private masses ought to be continued;
sixthly, auricular confession must be retained. Whoever wrote
or spoke against these … Articles, on the first offence his
property was forfeited; on the second offence he was a felon,
and was put to death. Under this 'whip with six strings' the
kingdom continued for the rest of the reign. The Bishops at
first made wild work with it. Five hundred persons are said to
have been arrested in a fortnight; the king had twice to
interfere and grant pardons. It is believed that only
twenty-eight persons actually suffered death under it."
_J. F. Bright,
History of England,
volume 2, page 411._
ALSO IN:
_J. H. Blunt,
Reformation of the Church of England,
volume 1, chapter 8-9._
_S. H. Burke,
Men and Women of the English Reformation,
volume 2, pages 17-24._
ENGLAND: A. D. 1542-1547.
Alliance with Charles V. against Francis I.
Capture and restoration of Boulogne.
Treaty of Guines.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1532-1547.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1544-1548.
The wooing of Mary Queen of Scots.
See SCOTLAND: A. D. 1544-1548.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1547.
Accession of King Edward VI.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1547-1553.
The completing of the Reformation.
Henry VIII., dying on the 28th of January, 1547, was succeeded
by his son Edward,—child of Jane Seymour,—then only nine
years old. By the will of his father, the young king (Edward
VI.) was to attain his majority at eighteen, and the
government of his kingdom, in the meantime, was entrusted to a
body of sixteen executors, with a second body of twelve
councillors to assist with their advice. "But the first act of
the executors and counsellors was to depart from the
destination of the late king in a material article. No sooner
were they met, than it was suggested that the government would
lose its dignity for want of some head who might represent the
royal majesty." The suggestion was opposed by none except the
chancellor, Wriothesley,—soon afterwards raised to the
peerage as Earl of Southampton. "It being therefore agreed to
name a protector, the choice fell of course on the Earl of
Hertford [afterwards Duke of Somerset], who, as he was the
king's maternal uncle, was strongly interested in his safety."
{833}
The protector soon manifested an ambition to exercise his
almost royal authority without any constraint, and, having
found means to remove his principal opponent, Southampton,
from the chancellorship, and to send him into disgrace, he
procured a patent from the infant king which gave him
unbounded power. With this power in his hand he speedily
undertook to carry the work of church reform far beyond the
intentions of Henry VIII. "The extensive authority and
imperious character of Henry had retained the partisans of
both religions in subjection; but upon his demise, the hopes
of the Protestants, and the fears of the Catholics began to
revive, and the zeal of these parties produced every where
disputes and animosities, the usual preludes to more fatal
divisions. The protector had long been regarded as a secret
partisan of the reformers; and being now freed from restraint,
he scrupled not to discover his intention of correcting all
abuses in the ancient religion, and of adopting still more of
the Protestant innovations. He took care that all persons
intrusted with the king's education should be attached to the
same principles; and as the young prince discovered a zeal for
every kind of literature, especially the theological, far
beyond his tender years, all men foresaw, in the course of his
reign, the total abolition of the Catholic faith in England;
and they early began to declare themselves in favour of those
tenets which were likely to become in the end entirely
prevalent. After Southhampton's fall, few members of the
council seemed to retain any attachment to the Romish
communion; and most of the counsellors appeared even sanguine
in forwarding the progress of the reformation. The riches
which most of them had acquired from the spoils of the clergy,
induced them to widen the breach between England and Rome; and by
establishing a contrariety of speculative tenets, as well as
of discipline and worship, to render a coalition with the
mother church altogether impracticable. Their rapacity, also,
the chief source of their reforming spirit, was excited by the
prospect of pillaging the secular, as they had already done
the regular clergy; and they knew, that while any share of the
old principles remained, or any regard to the ecclesiastics,
they could never hope to succeed in that enterprise. The
numerous and burdensome superstitions with which the Romish
church was loaded had thrown many of the reformers, by the
spirit of opposition, into an enthusiastic strain of devotion;
and all rites, ceremonies, pomp, order, and extreme
observances were zealously proscribed by them, as hindrances
to their spiritual contemplations, and obstructions to their
immediate converse with heaven."
_D. Hume,
History of England,
volume 3, chapter 34._
"'This year' [1547] says a contemporary, 'the Archbishop of
Canterbury [Cranmer] did eat meat openly in Lent in the hall
of Lambeth, the like of which was never seen since England was
a Christian country.' This significant act was followed by a
rapid succession of sweeping changes. The legal prohibitions
of Lollardry were removed; the Six Articles were repealed; a
royal injunction removed all pictures and images from the
churches; priests were permitted to marry; the new communion
which had taken the place of the mass was ordered to be
administered in both kinds, and in the English tongue; an
English Book of Common Prayer, the Liturgy, which with slight
alterations is still used in the Church of England, replaced
the missal and breviary, from which its contents are mainly
drawn; a new catechism embodied the doctrines of Cranmer and
his friends; and a Book of Homilies compiled in the same sense
was appointed to be read in churches. … The power of
preaching was restricted by the issue of licenses only to the
friends of the Primate. … The assent of the nobles about the
Court was won by the suppression of chantries and religious
guilds, and by glutting their greed with the last spoils of
the Church. German and Italian mercenaries were introduced to
stamp out the wider popular discontent which broke out in the
East, in the West, and in the Midland counties. … The rule
of the upstart nobles who formed the Council of Regency became
simply a rule of terror. 'The greater part of the people,' one
of their creatures, Cecil, avowed, 'is not in favour of
defending this cause, but of aiding its adversaries, the
greater part of the nobles who absent themselves from court,
all the bishops save three or four, almost all the judges and
lawyers, almost all the justices of the peace, the priests who
can move their flocks any way; for the whole of the commonalty
is in such a state of irritation that it will easily follow
any stir towards change.' But with their triumph over the
revolt, Cranmer and his colleagues advanced yet more boldly in
the career of innovation. … The Forty-two Articles of
Religion, which were now [1552] introduced, though since
reduced by omissions to thirty-nine, have remained to this day
the formal standard of doctrine in the English Church."
_J. R. Green,
Short History of the English People,
chapter 7, section 1._
ALSO IN:
_J. Strype,
Memorials of Cranmer,
book 2._
_G. Burnet,
History of the Reformation of Church of England,
volume 2, book 1._
_L. Von Ranke,
History of England,
book 2, chapter 6._
ENGLAND: A. D. 1548.
First Act for encouragement of Newfoundland fisheries.
See NEWFOUNDLAND: A. D. 1501-1578.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1553.
The right of succession to the throne,
on the death of Edward VI.
"If Henry VII. be considered as the stock of a new dynasty, it
is clear that on mere principles of hereditary right, the
crown would descend, first, to the issue of Henry VIII.;
secondly, to those of [his elder sister] Margaret Tudor, queen
of Scots; thirdly, to those of [his younger sister] Mary
Tudor, queen of France. The title of Edward was on all
principles equally undisputed; but Mary and Elizabeth might be
considered as excluded by the sentence of nullity, which had
been pronounced in the case of Catharine and in that of Anne
Boleyn, both which sentences had been confirmed in parliament.
They had been expressly pronounced to be illegitimate
children. Their hereditary right of succession seemed thus to
be taken away, and their pretensions rested solely on the
conditional settlement of the crown on them, made by their
father's will, in pursuance of authority granted to him by act
of parliament. After Elizabeth Henry had placed the
descendants of Mary, queen of France, passing by the progeny
of his eldest sister Margaret. Mary of France, by her second
marriage with Charles Brandon, duke of Suffolk, had two
daughters,—lady Frances, who wedded Henry Grey, marquis of
Dorset, created duke of Suffolk; and lady Elinor, who espoused
Henry Clifford, earl of Cumberland.
{834}
Henry afterwards settled the crown by his will on the heirs of
these two ladies successively, passing over his nieces
themselves in silence. Northumberland obtained the hand of
lady Jane Grey, the eldest daughter of Grey duke of Suffolk,
by lady Frances Brandon, for lord Guilford Dudley, the
admiral's son. The marriage was solemnised in May, 1553, and
the fatal right of succession claimed by the house of Suffolk
devolved on the excellent and unfortunate lady Jane."
_Sir J. Mackintosh,
History of England,
volume 2, chapter 9._
ENGLAND: A. D. 1553.
Accession of Queen Mary.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1553.
The doubtful conflict of religions.
"Great as was the number of those whom conviction or self
interest enlisted under the Protestant banner, it appears
plain that the Reformation moved on with too precipitate a
step for the majority. The new doctrines prevailed in London,
in many large towns, and in the eastern counties. But in the
north and west of England, the body of the people were
strictly Catholics. The clergy, though not very scrupulous
about conforming to the innovations, were generally averse to
most of them. And, in spite of the church lands, I imagine
that most of the nobility, if not the gentry, inclined to the
same persuasion. … An historian, whose bias was certainly
not unfavourable to Protestantism [Burnet, iii. 190, 196]
confesses that all endeavours were too weak to overcome the
aversion of the people towards reformation, and even intimates
that German troops were sent for from Calais on account of the
bigotry with which the bulk of the nation adhered to the old
superstition. This is somewhat an humiliating admission, that
the protestant faith was imposed upon our ancestors by a
foreign army. … It is certain that the re-establishment of
popery on Mary's accession must have been acceptable to a
large part, or perhaps to the majority, of the nation."
_H. Hallam,
Constitutional History of England,
volume 1, chapter 2._
"Eight weeks and upwards passed between the proclaiming of
Mary queen and the Parliament by her assembled; during which
time two religions were together set on foot, Protestantism
and Popery; the former hoping to be continued, the latter
labouring to be restored. … No small justling was there
betwixt the zealous promoters of these contrary religions. The
Protestants had possession on their side, and the protection
of the laws lately made by King Edward, and still standing in
free and full force unrepealed. … The Papists put their
ceremonies in execution, presuming on the queen's private
practice and public countenance. … Many which were neuters
before, conceiving to which side the queen inclined, would not
expect, but prevent her authority in alteration: so that
superstition generally got ground in the kingdom. Thus it is
in the evening twilight, wherein light and darkness at first
may seem very equally matched, but the latter within little
time doth solely prevail."
_T. Fuller,
Church History of Britain,
book 8, section 1, ¶ 5._
ALSO IN:
J. II. Blunt, Reformation of the Church of England,
volume 1; chapters 8-9.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1554.
Wyat's Insurrection.
Queen Mary's marriage with Philip of Spain was opposed with
great bitterness of popular feeling, especially in London and
its neighborhood. Risings were undertaken in Kent, Devonshire,
and the Midland counties, intended for the frustration of the
marriage scheme; but they were ill-planned and soon
suppressed. That in Kent, led by Sir Thomas Wyat, threatened
to be formidable at first, and the Queen's troops retreated
before it. Wyat, however, lost his opportunity for securing
London, by delays, and his followers dispersed. He was taken
prisoner and executed. "Four hundred persons are said to have
suffered for this rebellion."
_D. Hume,
History of England,
chapter 36._
ENGLAND: A. D. 1555-1558.
The restoration of Romanism.
The persecution of Protestants by Queen Mary.
"An attempt was made, by authority of King Edward's will, to
set aside both his sisters from the succession, and raise Lady
Jane Grey to the throne, who had lately been married to one of
Northumberland's sons. This was Northumberland's doing; he was
actuated by ambition, and the other members of the government
assented to it, believing, like the late young King, that it
was necessary for the preservation of the Protestant faith.
Cranmer opposed the measure, but yielded. … But the
principles of succession were in fact well ascertained at that
time, and, what was of more consequence, they were established
in public opinion. Nor could the intended change be supported
on the ground of religion, for popular feeling was decidedly
against the Reformation. Queen Mary obtained possession of her
rightful throne without the loss of a single life, so
completely did the nation acknowledge her claim; and an after
insurrection, rashly planned and worse conducted, served only
to hasten the destruction of the Lady Jane and her husband.
… If any person may be excused for hating the Reformation,
it was Mary. She regarded it as having arisen in this country
from her mother's wrongs, and enabled the King to complete an
iniquitous and cruel divorce. It had exposed her to
inconvenience, and even danger, under her father's reign, to
vexation and restraint under her brother; and, after having
been bastardized in consequence of it, … an attempt had been
made to deprive her of the inheritance, because she continued
to profess the Roman Catholic faith. … Had the religion of
the country been settled, she might have proved a good and
beneficent, as well as conscientious, queen. But she delivered
her conscience to the direction of cruel men; and, believing
it her duty to act up to the worst principles of a persecuting
Church, boasted that she was a virgin sent by God to ride and
tame the people of England. … The people did not wait till
the laws of King Edward were repealed; the Romish doctrines
were preached, and in some places the Romish clergy took
possession of the churches, turned out the incumbents, and
performed mass in jubilant anticipation of their approaching
triumph. What course the new Queen would pursue had never been
doubtful; and as one of her first acts had been to make
Gardiner Chancellor, it was evident that a fiery persecution
was at hand. Many who were obnoxious withdrew in time, some
into Scotland, and more into Switzerland and the Protestant
parts of Germany. Cranmer advised others to fly; but when his
friends entreated him to preserve himself by the like
precaution, he replied, that it was not fitting for him to
desert his post. … The Protestant Bishops were soon
dispossessed of their sees; the marriages which the Clergy and
Religioners had contracted were declared unlawful, and their
children bastardized.
{835}
The heads of the reformed Clergy, having been brought forth to
hold disputations, for the purpose rather of intimidating than
of convincing them, had been committed to different prisons,
and after these preparatories the fiery process began."
_R. Southey,
Book of the Church,
chapter 14._
"The total number of those who suffered in this persecution,
from the martyrdom of Rogers, in February, 1555, to September,
1558, when its last ravages were felt, is variously related,
in a manner sufficiently different to assure us that the
relaters were independent witnesses, who did not borrow from
each other, and yet sufficiently near to attest the general
accuracy of their distinct statements. By Cooper they are
estimated at about 290. According to Burnet they were 284.
Speed calculates them at 274. The most accurate account is
probably that of Lord Burleigh, who, in his treatise called
'The Execution of Justice in England,' reckons the number of
those who died in that reign by imprisonment, torments, famine
and fire, to be near 400, of which those who were burnt alive
amounted to 290. From Burnet's Tables of the separate years,
it is apparent that the persecution reached its full force in
its earliest year."
_Sir J. Mackintosh,
History of England,
volume 2, chapter 11._
"Though Pole and Mary could have laid their hands on earl and
baron, knight and gentleman, whose heresy was notorious,
although, in the queen's own guard, there were many who never
listened to a mass, they durst not strike where there was
danger that they would be struck in return. … They took the
weaver from his loom, the carpenter from his workshop, the
husbandman from his plough; they laid hands on maidens and
boys 'who had never heard of any other religion than that
which they were called on to abjure'; old men tottering into
the grave, and children whose lips could but just lisp the
articles of their creed; and of these they made their
burnt-offerings; with these they crowded their prisons, and
when filth and famine killed them, they flung them out to
rot."
_J. A. Froude,
History of England,
chapter 24._
Queen Mary's marriage with Philip of Spain and his arbitrary
disposition, "while it thoroughly alienated the kingdom from
Mary, created a prejudice against the religion which the
Spanish court so steadily favoured. … Many are said to have
become Protestants under Mary who, at her coming to the
throne, had retained the contrary persuasion."
_H. Hallam,
Constitutional History of England,
volume 1, chapter 2._
ALSO IN:
_J. Collier,
Ecclesiastical History of Great Britain,
part 2, book 5._
_J. Lingard,
History of England,
volume 7, chapter 2-3._
_J. Fox,
Book of Martyrs._
_P. Heylyn,
Ecclesia Restaurata,
volume 2._
_J. Strype,
Memorials of Cranmer,
book 3._
ENGLAND: A. D. 1557-1559.
Involved by the Spanish husband of Queen Mary in war with France.
Loss of Calais.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1547-1559.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1558.
Accession of Queen Elizabeth.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1558-1588.
The Age of Elizabeth:
Recovery of Protestantism.
"The education of Elizabeth, as well as her interest, led her
to favour the reformation; and she remained not long in
suspense with regard to the party which she should embrace.
But though determined in her own mind, she resolved to proceed
by gradual and secure steps, and not to imitate the example of
Mary, in encouraging the bigots of her party to make
immediately a violent invasion on the established religion.
She thought it requisite, however, to discover such symptoms
of her intentions as might give encouragement to the
Protestants, so much depressed by the late violent
persecutions. She immediately recalled all the exiles, and
gave liberty to the prisoners who were confined on account of
religion. … Elizabeth also proceeded to exert, in favour of
the reformers, some acts of power, which were authorized by
the extent of royal prerogative during that age. Finding that
the Protestant teachers, irritated by persecution, broke out
in a furious attack on the ancient superstition, and that the
Romanists replied with no less zeal and acrimony, she
published a proclamation, by which she inhibited all preaching
without a special licence; and though she dispensed with these
orders in favour of some preachers of her own sect, she took
care that they should be the most calm and moderate of the
party. She also suspended the laws, so far as to order a great
part of the service, the litany, the Lord's prayer, the creed,
and the gospels, to be read in English. And, having first
published injunctions that all churches should conform
themselves to the practice of her own chapel, she forbad the
host to be any more elevated in her presence: an innovation
which, however frivolous it may appear, implied the most
material consequences. These declarations of her intentions,
concurring with preceding suspicions, made the bishops
foresee, with certainty, a revolution in religion. They
therefore refused to officiate at her coronation; and it was
with some difficulty that the Bishop of Carlisle was at last
prevailed on to perform the ceremony. … Elizabeth, though
she threw out such hints as encouraged the Protestants,
delayed the entire change of religion till the meeting of the
Parliament, which was summoned to assemble. The elections had
gone entirely against the Catholics, who seem not indeed to
have made any great struggle for the superiority; and the
Houses met, in a disposition of gratifying the queen in every
particular which she could desire of them. … The first bill
brought into Parliament, with a view of trying their
disposition on the head of religion, was that for suppressing
the monasteries lately erected, and for restoring the tenths
and first-fruits to the queen. This point being gained without
much difficulty, a bill was next introduced, annexing the
supremacy to the crown; and though the queen was there
denominated governess, not head, of the church, it conveyed
the same extensive power, which, under the latter title, had
been exercised by her father and brother. … By this act, the
crown, without the concurrence either of the Parliament or
even of the convocation, was vested with the whole spiritual
power; might repress all heresies, might establish or repeal
all canons, might alter every point of discipline, and might
ordain or abolish any religious rite or ceremony. … A law
was passed, confirming all the statutes enacted in King
Edward's time with regard to religion; the nomination of
bishops was given to the crown without any election of the
chapters. … A solemn and public disputation was held during
this session, in presence of Lord Keeper Bacon, between the
divines of the Protestant and those of the Catholic communion.
The champions appointed to defend the religion of the
sovereign were, as in all former instances, entirely
triumphant; and the popish disputants, being pronounced
refractory and obstinate, were even punished by imprisonment.
{836}
Emboldened by this victory, the Protestants ventured on the
last and most important step, and brought into Parliament a
bill for abolishing the mass, and re-establishing the liturgy
of King Edward. Penalties were enacted as well against those
who departed from this mode of worship, as against those who
absented themselves from the church and the sacraments. And
thus, in one session, without any violence, tumult, or
clamour, was the whole system of religion altered, on the very
commencement of a reign, and by the will of a young woman,
whose title to the crown was by many thought liable to great
objections."
_D. Hume,
History of England,
chapter 38, pages 375-380 (volume 3)._
"Elizabeth ascended the throne much more in the character of a
Protestant champion than her own convictions and inclinations
would have dictated. She was, indeed, the daughter of Ann
Boleyn, whom by this time the Protestants were beginning to
regard as a martyr of the faith; but she was also the child of
Henry VIII., and the heiress of his imperious will. Soon,
however, she found herself Protestant almost in her own
despite. The Papacy, in the first pride of successful
reaction, offered her only the alternative of submission or
excommunication, and she did not for a moment hesitate to
choose the latter. Then commenced that long and close alliance
between Catholicism and domestic treason which is so differently
judged as it is approached from the religious or the political
side. These seminary priests, who in every various disguise
come to England, moving secretly about from manor-house to
manor-house, celebrating the rites of the Church, confirming
the wavering, consoling the dying, winning back the lapsed to
the fold, too well acquainted with Elizabeth's prisons, and
often finding their way to her scaffolds,—what are they but
the intrepid missionaries, the self-devoted heroes, of a
proscribed faith? On the other hand, the Queen is
excommunicate, an evil woman, with whom it is not necessary to
keep faith, to depose whom would be the triumph of the Church,
whose death, however compassed, its occasion: how easy to
weave plots under the cloak of religious intercourse, and to
make the unity of the faith a conspiracy of rebellion! The
next heir to the throne, Mary of Scotland, was a Catholic,
and, as long as she lived, a perpetual centre of domestic and
European intrigue: plot succeeded plot, in which the
traitorous subtlety was all Catholic—the keenness of
discovery, the watchfulness of defence, all Protestant. Then,
too, the shadow of Spanish supremacy began to cast itself
broadly over Europe: the unequal struggle with Holland was
still prolonged: it was known that Philip's dearest wish was
to recover to his empire and the Church the island kingdom
which had once unwillingly accepted his rule. It was thus the
instinct of self-defence which placed Elizabeth at the head of
the Protestant interest in Europe: she sent Philip Sidney to
die at Zutphen: her sailor buccaneers, whether there were
peace at home or not, bit and tore at everything Spanish upon
the southern main: till at last, 1588, Philip gathered up all
his naval strength and hurled the Armada at our shores.
'Afflavit Deus, et dissipati sunt.' The valour of England did
much; the storms of heaven the rest. Mary of Scotland had gone
to her death the year before, and her son had been trained to
hate his mother's faith. There could be no question any more
of the fixed Protestantism of the English people."
_C. Beard,
Hibbert Lectures, 1883: The Reformation,
lecture 9._
ENGLAND: A. D. 1558-1598.
The Age of Elizabeth:
The Queen's chief councillors.
"Sir William Cecil, afterwards Lord Burleigh, already
officially experienced during three reigns, though still
young, was the queen's chief adviser from first to last—that
is to say, till he died in 1598. Philip II., who also died in
that year, was thus his exact contemporary; for he mounted the
Spanish throne just when Elizabeth and her minister began
their work together. He was not long in discovering that there
was one man, possessed of the most balanced judgment ever
brought to the head of English affairs, who was capable of
unwinding all his most secret intrigues; and, in fact, the two
arch-enemies, the one in London and the other in Madrid, were
pitted against each other for forty years. Elizabeth had also
the good sense to select the wisest and most learned
ecclesiastic of his day, Matthew Parker, for her Primate and
chief adviser in Church affairs. It should be noted that both
of these sages, as well as the queen herself, had been
Conformists to the Papal obedience under Mary—a position far
from heroic, but not for a moment to be confused with that of
men whose philosophical indifference to the questions which
exercised all the highest minds enabled them to join in the
persecution of Romanists and Anglicans at different times with
a sublime impartiality. … It was under the advice of Cecil
and Parker that Elizabeth, on coming to the throne, made her
famous settlement or Establishment of religion."
_M. Burrows,
Commentaries on the History of England,
book 2, chapter 17._
ENGLAND: A. D. 1558-1603.
The Age of Elizabeth: Parliament.
"The house of Commons, upon a review of Elizabeth's reign, was
very far, on the one hand, from exercising those
constitutional rights which have long since belonged to it, or
even those which by ancient precedent they might have claimed
as their own; yet, on the other hand, was not quite so servile
and submissive an assembly as an artful historian has
represented it. If many of its members were but creatures of
power, … there was still a considerable party, sometimes
carrying the house along with them, who with patient
resolution and inflexible aim recurred in every session to the
assertion of that one great privilege which their sovereign
contested, the right of parliament to inquire into and suggest
a remedy for every public mischief or danger. It may be
remarked that the ministers, such as Knollys, Hatton, and
Robert Cecil, not only sat among the commons, but took a very
leading part in their discussions; a proof that the influence
of argument could no more be dispensed with than that of
power. This, as I conceive, will never be the case in any
kingdom where the assembly of the estates is quite subservient
to the crown. Nor should we put out of consideration the
manner in which the commons were composed. Sixty-two members
were added at different times by Elizabeth to the
representation; as well from places which had in earlier times
discontinued their franchise, as from those to which it was
first granted; a very large proportion of them petty boroughs,
evidently under the influence of the crown or peerage. The
ministry took much pains with ejections, of which many proofs,
remain.
{837}
The house accordingly was filled with placemen, civilians, and
common lawyers grasping at preferment. The slavish tone of
these persons, as we collect from the minutes of D'Ewes, is
strikingly contrasted by the manliness of independent
gentlemen. And as the house was by no means very fully
attended, the divisions, a few of which are recorded, running
from 200 to 250 in the aggregate, it may be perceived that the
court, whose followers were at hand, would maintain a
formidable influence. But this influence, however pernicious
to the integrity of parliament, is distinguishable from that
exertion of almost absolute prerogative which Hume has assumed
as the sole spring of Elizabeth's government, and would never
be employed till some deficiency of strength was experienced
in the other."
_H. Hallam,
Constitutional History of England,
chapter 5._
ENGLAND: A. D. 1558-1603.
The Age of Elizabeth: Literature.
"The age of Elizabeth was distinguished beyond, perhaps, any
other in our history by a number of great men, famous in
different ways, and whose names have come down to us with
unblemished honours: statesmen, warriors, divines, scholars,
poets, and philosophers; Raleigh, Drake, Coke, Hooker,
and—high and more sounding still, and still more frequent in
our mouths—Shakespear, Spenser, Sidney, Bacon, Jonson,
Beaumont, and Fletcher, men whom fame has eternised in her
long and lasting scroll, and who, by their words and acts,
were benefactors of their country, and ornaments of human
nature. Their attainments of different kinds bore the same
general stamp, and it was sterling; what they did had the mark
of their age and country upon it. Perhaps the genius of Great
Britain (if I may so speak without offence or flattery) never
shone out fuller or brighter, or looked more like itself, than
at this period. Our writers and great men had something in
them that savoured of the soil from which they grew: they were
not French; they were not Dutch, or German, or Greek, or
Latin; they were truly English. They did not look out of
themselves to see what they should be; they sought for truth
and nature, and found it in themselves. There was no tinsel,
and but little art; they were not the spoilt children of
affectation and refinement, but a bold, vigorous, independent
race of thinkers, with prodigious strength and energy, with
none but natural grace, and heartfelt, unobtrusive delicacy.
… For such an extraordinary combination and development of
fancy and genius many causes may be assigned; and we may seek
for the chief of them in religion, in politics, in the
circumstances of the time, the recent diffusion of letters, in
local situation, and in the character of the men who adorned
that period, and availed themselves so nobly of the advantages
placed within their reach. … The first cause I shall
mention, as contributing to this general effect, was the
Reformation, which had just then taken place. This event gave
a mighty impulse and increased activity to thought and
inquiry, and agitated the inert mass of accumulated prejudices
throughout Europe. … The translation of the Bible was the
chief engine in the great work. It threw open, by a secret
spring, the rich treasures of religion and morality, which had
been there locked up as in a shrine. It revealed the visions
of the prophets, and conveyed the lessons of inspired teachers
(such they were thought) to the meanest of the people. It gave
them a common interest in the common cause. Their hearts burnt
within them as they read. It gave a mind to the people, by
giving them common subjects of thought and feeling. … The
immediate use or application that was made of religion to
subjects of imagination and fiction was not (from an obvious
ground of separation) so direct or frequent as that which was
made of the classical and romantic literature. For much about
the same time, the rich and fascinating stores of the Greek
and Roman mythology, and those of the romantic poetry of Spain
and Italy, were eagerly explored by the curious, and thrown
open in translations to the admiring gaze of the vulgar. …
What also gave an unusual impetus to the mind of man at this
period, was the discovery of the New World, and the reading of
voyages and travels. Green islands and golden sands seemed to
arise, as by enchantment, out of the bosom of the watery
waste, and invite the cupidity, or wing the imagination of the
dreaming speculator. Fairyland was realised in new and unknown
worlds. … Again, the heroic and martial spirit which
breathes in our elder writers, was yet in considerable
activity in the reign of Elizabeth. The age of chivalry was
not then quite gone, nor the glory of Europe extinguished
forever. … Lastly, to conclude this account: What gave a
unity and common direction to all these causes, was the
natural genius of the country, which was strong in these
writers in proportion to their strength. We are a nation of
islanders, and we cannot help it, nor mend ourselves if we
would. We are something in ourselves, nothing when we try to
ape others. Music and painting are not our forte: for what we
have done in that way has been little, and that borrowed from
others with great difficulty. But we may boast of our poets
and philosophers. That's something. We have had strong heads
and sound hearts among us. Thrown on one side of the world,
and left to bustle for ourselves, we have fought out many a
battle for truth and freedom. That is our natural style; and
it were to be wished we had in no instance departed from it.
Our situation has given us a certain cast of thought and
character; and our liberty has enabled us to make the most of
it. We are of a stiff clay, not moulded into every fashion,
with stubborn joints not easily bent. We are slow to think,
and therefore impressions do not work upon us till they act in
masses. … We may be accused of grossness, but not of
flimsiness; of extravagance, but not of affectation; of want
of art and refinement, but not of a want of truth and nature.
Our literature, in a word, is Gothic and grotesque; unequal
and irregular; not cast in a previous mould, nor of one
uniform texture, but of great weight in the whole, and of
incomparable value in the best parts. It aims at an excess of
beauty or power, hits or misses, and is either very good
indeed, or absolutely good for nothing. This character applies
in particular to our literature in the age of Elizabeth, which
is its best period, before the introduction of a rage for
French rules and French models."
_W. Hazlitt,
Lectures on the Literature of the Age of Elizabeth,
lecture 1._
{838}
"Humanism, before it moulded the mind of the English, had
already permeated Italian and French literature. Classical
erudition had been adapted to the needs of modern thought.
Antique authors had been collected, printed, annotated, and
translated. They were fairly mastered in the south, and
assimilated to the style of the vernacular. By these means
much of the learning popularised by our poets, essayists, and
dramatists came to us at second-hand, and bore the stamp of
contemporary genius. In like manner, the best works of
Italian, French, Spanish, and German literature were
introduced into Great Britain together with the classics. The
age favoured translation, and English readers before the close
of the sixteenth century, were in possession of a cosmopolitan
library in their mother tongue, including choice specimens of
ancient and modern masterpieces. These circumstances
sufficiently account for the richness and variety of
Elizabethan literature. They also help to explain two points
which must strike every student of that literature—its native
freshness, and its marked unity of style. Elizabethan
literature was fresh and native, because it was the utterance
of a youthful race, aroused to vigorous self-consciousness
under conditions which did not depress or exhaust its
energies. The English opened frank eyes upon the discovery of
the world and man, which had been effected by the Renaissance.
They were not wearied with collecting, collating, correcting,
transmitting to the press. All the hard work of assimilating
the humanities had been done for them. They had only to survey
and to enjoy, to feel and to express, to lay themselves open
to delightful influences, to con the noble lessons of the
past, to thrill beneath the beauty and the awe of an authentic
revelation. Criticism had not laid its cold, dry finger on the
blossoms of the fancy. The new learning was still young enough to
be a thing of wonder and entrancing joy."
_J. A. Symonds,
A Comparison of Elizabethan with Victorian Poetry
(Fortnightly Rev., volume 45, page 56)._
ENGLAND: A. D. 1559.
The Act of Supremacy, the Act of Uniformity, and the Court of
High Commission.
"When Elizabeth's first Parliament met in January 1559,
Convocation, of course, met too. It at once claimed that the
clergy alone had authority in matters of faith, and proceeded
to pass resolutions in favour of Transubstantiation, the Mass,
and the Papal Supremacy. The bishops and the Universities
signed a formal agreement to this effect. That in the
constitution of the English Church, Convocation, as
Convocation, has no such power as this, was proved by the
steps now taken. The Crown, advised by the Council and
Parliament, took the matter in hand. As every element, except
the Roman, had been excluded from the clerical bodies, a
consultation was ordered between the representatives of both
sides, and all preaching was suspended till a settlement had
been arrived at between the queen and the Three Estates of the
realm. The consultation broke upon the refusal of the Romanist
champions to keep to the terms agreed upon; but even before it
took place Parliament restored the Royal Supremacy, repealed
the laws of Mary affecting religion, and gave the queen by her
own desire, not the title of 'Supreme Head,' but 'Supreme
Governor,' of the Church of England."
_M. Burrows,
Commentaries on the History of England,
book 2, chapter 17._
This first Parliament of Elizabeth passed two memorable acts
of great importance in English history,—the Act of Supremacy
and the Act of Uniformity of Common Prayer. "The former is
entitled 'An act for restoring to the crown the ancient
jurisdiction over the State Ecclesiastical and Spiritual; and
for abolishing foreign power.' It is the same for substance
with the 25th of Henry VIII. … but the commons incorporated
several other bills into it; for besides the title of 'Supreme
Governor in all causes Ecclesiastical and Temporal,' which is
restored to the Queen, the act revives those laws of King
Henry VIII. and King Edward VI. which had been repealed in the
late reign. It forbids all appeals to Rome, and exonerates the
subjects from all exactions and impositions heretofore paid to
that court; and as it revives King Edward's laws, it repeals a
severe act made in the late reign for punishing heresy. …
'Moreover, all persons in any public employs, whether civil or
ecclesiastical, are obliged to take an oath in recognition of
the Queen's right to the crown, and of her supremacy in all
causes ecclesiastical and civil, on penalty of forfeiting all
their promotions in the church, and of being declared
incapable of holding any public office.' … Further, 'The act
forbids all writing, printing, teaching, or preaching, and all
other deeds or acts whereby any foreign jurisdiction over
these realms is defended, upon pain that they and their
abettors, being thereof convicted, shall for the first offence
forfeit their goods and chattels; … spiritual persons shall
lose their benefices, and all ecclesiastical preferments; for
the second offence they shall incur the penalties of a
præmunire; and the third offence shall be deemed high
treason.' There is a remarkable clause in this act, which gave
rise to a new court, called 'The Court of High Commission.'
The words are these, 'The Queen and her successors shall have
power, by their letters patent under the great seal, to
assign, name, and authorize, as often as they shall think
meet, and for as long a time as they shall please, persons
being natural-born subjects, to use, occupy, and exercise,
under her and them, all manner of jurisdiction, privileges,
and preeminences, touching any spiritual or ecclesiastical
jurisdiction within the realms of England and Ireland, &c., to
visit, reform, redress, order, correct and amend all errors,
heresies, schisms, abuses, contempts, offences and enormities
whatsoever. Provided, that they have no power to determine
anything to be heresy, but what has been adjudged to be so by
the authority of the canonical scripture, or by the first four
general councils, or any of them; or by any other general
council wherein the same was declared heresy by the express
and plain words of canonical scripture; or such as shall
hereafter be declared to be heresy by the high court of
parliament, with the assent of the clergy in convocation.'
Upon the authority of this clause the Queen appointed a
certain number of 'Commissioners' for ecclesiastical causes,
who exercised the same power that had been lodged in the hands
of one vicegerent in the reign of King Henry VIII. And how
sadly they abused their power in this and the two next reigns
will appear in the sequel of this history. They did not
trouble themselves much with the express words of scripture,
or the four first general councils, but entangled their
prisoners with oaths ex-officio, and the inextricable mazes of
the popish canon law. … The papists being vanquished, the
next point was to unite the reformed among themselves. …
Though all the reformers were of one faith, yet they were far
from agreeing about discipline and ceremonies, each party
being for settling the church according to their own model. …
{839}
The Queen … therefore appointed a committee of divines to
review King Edward's liturgy, and to see if in any particular
it was fit to be changed; their names were Dr. Parker,
Grindal, Cox, Pilkington, May, Bill, Whitehead, and Sir Thomas
Smith, doctor of the civil law. Their instructions were, to
strike out all offensive passages against the pope, and to
make people easy about the belief of the corporal presence of
Christ in the sacraments; but not a word in favour of the
stricter protestants. Her Majesty was afraid of reforming too
far; she was desirous to retain images in churches, crucifixes
and crosses, vocal and instrumental music, with all the old
popish garments; it is not therefore to be wondered, that in
reviewing the liturgy of King Edward, no alterations were made
in favour of those who now began to be called Puritans, from
their attempting a purer form of worship and discipline than
had yet been established. … The book was presented to the
two houses and passed into a law. … The title of the act is
'An act for the Uniformity of Common Prayer and Service in the
Church, and administration of the Sacraments.' It was brought
into the House of Commons April 18th, and was read a third
time April 20th. It passed the House of Lords April 28th, and
took place from the 24th of June 1559."
_D. Neal,
History of the Puritans,
volume 1, chapter 4._
ALSO IN:
_G. Burnet,
History of the Reformation of the Church of England.,
volume 2, book 3._
_P. Heylyn,
Ecclesia Restaurata: Elizabeth, Anno 1._
ENGLAND: A. D. 1559-1566.
Puritanism taking form.
"The Church of England was a latitudinarian experiment, a
contrivance to enable men of opposing creeds to live together
without shedding each others' blood. It was not intended, and
it was not possible, that Catholics or Protestants should find
in its formulas all that they required. The services were
deliberately made elastic; comprehending in the form of
positive statement only what all Christians agreed in
believing, while opportunities were left open by the rubric to
vary the ceremonial according to the taste of the
congregations. The management lay with the local authorities
in town or parish: where the people were Catholics the
Catholic aspect could be made prominent; where Popery was a
bugbear, the people were not disturbed by the obtrusion of
doctrines which they had outgrown. In itself it pleased no
party or section. To the heated controversialist its chief
merit was its chief defect. … Where the tendencies to Rome
were strongest, there the extreme Reformers considered
themselves bound to exhibit in the most marked contrast the
unloveliness of the purer creed. It was they who furnished the
noble element in the Church of England. It was they who had
been its martyrs; they who, in their scorn of the world, in
their passionate desire to consociate themselves in life and
death to the Almighty, were able to rival in self-devotion the
Catholic Saints. But they had not the wisdom of the serpent,
and certainly not the harmlessness of the dove. Had they been
let alone—had they been unharassed by perpetual threats of
revolution and a return of the persecutions—they, too, were
not disinclined to reason and good sense. A remarkable
specimen survives, in an account of the Church of Northampton,
of what English Protestantism could become under favouring
conditions. … The fury of the times unhappily forbade the
maintenance of this wise and prudent spirit. As the power of
evil gathered to destroy the Church of England, a fiercer
temper was required to combat with them, and Protestantism
became impatient, like David, of the uniform in which it was
sent to the battle. It would have fared ill with England had
there been no hotter blood there than filtered in the sluggish
veins of the officials of the Establishment. There needed an
enthusiasm fiercer far to encounter the revival of Catholic
fanaticism; and if the young Puritans, in the heat and glow of
their convictions, snapped their traces and flung off their
harness, it was they, after all, who saved the Church which
attempted to disown them, and with the Church saved also the
stolid mediocrity to which the fates then and ever committed
and commit the government of it."
_J. A. Froude,
History of England,
volume 10, chapter 20._
"The compromise arranged by Cranmer had from the first been
considered by a large body of Protestants as a scheme for
serving two masters, as an attempt to unite the worship of the
Lord with the worship of Baal. In the days of Edward VI. the
scruples of this party had repeatedly thrown great
difficulties in the way of the government. When Elizabeth came
to the throne, those difficulties were much increased.
Violence naturally engenders violence. The spirit of
Protestantism was therefore far fiercer and more intolerant
after the cruelties of Mary than before them. Many persons who
were warmly attached to the new opinions had, during the evil
days, taken refuge in Switzerland and Germany. They had been
hospitably received by their brethren in the faith, had sate
at the feet of the great doctors of Strasburg, Zurich and
Geneva, and had been, during some years, accustomed to a more
simple worship, and to a more democratical form of church
government, than England had yet seen. These men returned to
their country, convinced that the reform which had been
effected under King Edward had been far less searching and
extensive than the interests of pure religion required. But it
was in vain that they attempted to obtain any concession from
Elizabeth. Indeed, her system, wherever it differed from her
brother's, seemed to them to differ for the worse. They were
little disposed to submit, in matters of faith, to any human
authority. … Since these men could not be convinced, it was
determined that they should be persecuted. Persecution
produced its natural effect on them. It found them a sect: it
made them a faction. … The power of the discontented
sectaries was great. They were found in every rank; but they
were strongest among the mercantile classes in the towns, and
among the small proprietors in the country. Early in the reign
of Elizabeth they began to return a majority of the House of
Commons. And doubtless, had our ancestors been then at liberty
to fix their attention entirely on domestic questions, the
strife between the crown and the Parliament would instantly
have commenced. But that was no season for internal
dissensions. … Roman Catholic Europe and reformed Europe
were struggling for death or life. … Whatever might be the
faults of Elizabeth, it was plain that, to speak humanly, the
fate of the realm and of all reformed churches was staked on
the security of her person and on the success of her
administration. …
{840}
The Puritans, even in the depths of the prisons to which she
had sent them, prayed, and with no simulated fervour, that she
might be kept from the dagger of the assassin, that rebellion
might be put down under her feet, and that her arms might be
victorious by sea and land."
_Lord Macaulay,
History of England,
volume 1, chapter 1._
"Two parties quickly evolved themselves out of the mass of
Englishmen who held Calvinistic opinions; namely those who
were willing to conform to the requirements of the Queen, and
those who were not. To both is often given indiscriminately by
historians the name of Puritan; but it seems more correct, and
certainly is more convenient, to restrict the use of the name
to those who are sometimes called conforming Puritans. … To
the other party fitly belongs the name of Nonconformist. …
It was against the Nonconformist organization that Elizabeth's
efforts were chiefly directed. … The war began in the
enforcement by Archbishop Parker in 1565 of the Advertisements
as containing the minimum of ceremonial that would be
tolerated. In 1566 the clergy of London were required to make
the declaration of Conformity which was appended to the
Advertisements, and thirty-seven were suspended or deprived
for refusal. Some of the deprived ministers continued to
conduct services and preach in spite of their deprivation, and
so were formed the first bodies of Nonconformists, organized
in England."
_H. O. Wakeman,
The Church and the Puritans,
chapter 3._
ALSO IN:
_J. Tulloch,
English Puritanism and its Leaders,
introduction._
_D. Neal,
History of the Puritans,
volume 1, chapter 4._
_D. Campbell,
The Puritan in Holland, England, and America,
chapters 8-10 (volume 1)._
ENGLAND: A. D. 1562-1567.
Hawkins' slave-trading voyages to America.
First English enterprise in the New World.
See AMERICA: A. D. 1562-1567.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1564-1565 (?).
The first naming of the Puritans.
"The English bishops, conceiving themselves empowered by their
canons, began to show their authority in urging the clergy of
their dioceses to subscribe to the Liturgy, ceremonies and
discipline of the Church; and such as refused the same were
branded with the odious name of Puritans. A name which in this
notion first began in this year [A. D. 1564]; and the grief
had not been great if it had ended in the same. The
philosopher banisheth the term, (which is Polysæmon), that is
subject to several senses, out of the predicaments, as
affording too much covert for cavil by the latitude thereof.
On the same account could I wish that the word Puritan were
banished common discourse, because so various in the
acceptations thereof. We need not speak of the ancient Cathari
or primitive Puritans, sufficiently known by their heretical
opinions. Puritan here was taken for the opposers of the
hierarchy and church service, as resenting of superstition.
But profane mouths quickly improved this nickname, therewith
on every occasion to abuse pious people; some of them so far
from opposing the Liturgy, that they endeavoured (according to
the instructions thereof in the preparative to the Confession)
'to accompany the minister with a pure heart,' and laboured
(as it is in the Absolution) 'for a life pure and holy.' We
will, therefore, decline the word to prevent exceptions;
which, if casually slipping from our pen, the reader knoweth
that only nonconformists are thereby intended."
_T. Fuller,
Church History of Britain,
book 9, section 1._
"For in this year [1565] it was that the Zuinglian or
Calvinian faction began to be first known by the name of
Puritans, if Genebrard, Gualter, and Spondanus (being all of
them right good chronologers) be not mistaken in the time.
Which name hath ever since been appropriate to them, because
of their pretending to a greater purity in the service of God
than was held forth unto them (as they gave out) in the Common
Prayer Book; and to a greater opposition to the rites and
usages of the Church of Rome than was agreeable to the
constitution of the Church of England."
_P. Heylyn,
Ecclesia Restaurata: Elizabeth,
Anno 7, section 6._
ENGLAND: A. D. 1568.
Detention and imprisonment of Mary Queen of Scots.
See SCOTLAND: A. D. 1561-1568.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1569.
Quarrel with the Spanish governor of the Netherlands.
See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1568-1572.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1572-1580.
Drake's piratical warfare with Spain and his famous voyage.
See AMERICA: A. D. 1572-1580.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1572-1603.
Queen Elizabeth's treatment of the Roman Catholics.
Persecution of the Seminary Priests and the Jesuits.
"Camden and many others have asserted that by systematic
connivance the Roman Catholics enjoyed a pretty free use of
their religion for the first fourteen years of Elizabeth's
reign. But this is not reconcilable to many passages in
Strype's collections. We find abundance of persons harassed
for recusancy, that is, for not attending the protestant
church, and driven to insincere promises of conformity. Others
were dragged before ecclesiastical commissions for harbouring
priests, or for sending money to those who had fled beyond
sea. … A great majority both of clergy and laity yielded to
the times; and of these temporizing conformists it cannot be
doubted that many lost by degrees all thought of returning to
their ancient fold. But others, while they complied with
exterior ceremonies, retained in their private devotions their
accustomed mode of worship. … Priests … travelled the
country in various disguises, to keep alive a flame which the
practice of outward conformity was calculated to extinguish.
There was not a county throughout England, says a Catholic
historian, where several of Mary's clergy did not reside, and
were commonly called the old priests. They served as chaplains
in private families. By stealth, at the dead of night, in
private chambers, in the secret lurking places of an
ill-peopled country, with all the mystery that subdues the
imagination, with all the mutual trust that invigorates
constancy, these proscribed ecclesiastics celebrated their
solemn rites, more impressive in such concealment than if
surrounded by all their former splendour. … It is my
thorough conviction that the persecution, for it can obtain no
better name, carried on against the English Catholics, however
it might serve to delude the government by producing an
apparent conformity, could not but excite a spirit of
disloyalty in many adherents of that faith. Nor would it be
safe to assert that a more conciliating policy would have
altogether disarmed their hostility, much less laid at rest
those busy hopes of the future, which the peculiar
circumstances of Elizabeth's reign had a tendency to produce."
_H. Hallam,
Constitutional History of England,
chapter 3._
{841}
"The more vehement Catholics had withdrawn from the country,
on account of the dangers which there beset them. They had
taken refuge in the Low Countries, and there Allen, one of the
chief among them, had established a seminary at Douay, for the
purpose of keeping up a supply of priests in England. To Douay
numbers of young Englishmen from Oxford continually flocked.
The establishment had been broken up by Requescens, and
removed to Rheims, and a second college of the same
description was established at Rome. From these two centres of
intrigue numerous enthusiastic young men constantly repaired
to England, and in the disguise of laymen carried on their
priestly work and attempted to revive the Romanist religion.
But abler and better disciplined workmen were now wanted.
Allen and his friends therefore opened negotiations with
Mercuriano, the head of the Jesuit order, in which many
Englishmen had enrolled themselves. In 1580, as part of a
great combined Catholic effort, a regular Jesuit mission,
under two priests, Campion and Parsons, was despatched to
England. … The new missionaries were allowed to say that
that part of the Bull [of excommunication issued against
Elizabeth] which pronounced censures upon those who clung to
their allegiance applied to heretics only, that Catholics
might profess themselves loyal until the time arrived for
carrying the Bull into execution; in other words, they were
permitted to be traitors at heart while declaring themselves
loyal subjects. This explanation of the Bull was of itself
sufficient to justify severity on the part of the government.
It was impossible henceforward to separate Roman Catholicism
from disloyalty. Proclamations were issued requiring English
parents to summon their children from abroad, and declaring
that to harbour Jesuit priests was to support rebels. …
Early in December several priests were apprehended and closely
examined, torture being occasionally used for the purpose. In
view of the danger which these examinations disclosed,
stringent measures were taken. Attendance at church was
rendered peremptorily necessary. Parliament was summoned in
the beginning of 1581 and laws passed against the action of
the Jesuits. … Had Elizabeth been conscious of the full
extent of the plot against her, had she known the intention of
the Guises [then dominant in France] to make a descent upon
England in co-operation with Spain, and the many ramifications
of the plot in her own country, it is reasonable to suppose
that she would have been forced at length to take decided
measures. But in ignorance of the abyss opening before her
feet, she continued for some time longer her old temporizing
policy." At last, in November, 1583, the discovery of a plot
for the assassination of the queen, and the arrest of one
Throgmorton, whose papers and whose confession were of
startling import, brought to light the whole plan and extent
of the conspiracy. "Some of her Council urged her at once to
take a straightforward step, to make common cause with the
Protestants of Scotland and the Netherlands, and to bid
defiance to Spain. To this honest step, she as usual could not
bring herself, but strong measures were taken in England.
Great numbers of Jesuits and seminary priests were apprehended
and executed, suspected magistrates removed, and those
Catholic Lords whose treachery might have been fatal to her
ejected from their places of authority and deprived of
influence."
_J. F. Bright,
History of England,
period 2, pages 546-549._
"That the conspiracy with which these men were charged was a
fiction cannot be doubted. They had come to England under a
prohibition to take any part in secular concerns, and with the
sole view of exercising the spiritual functions of the
priesthood. … At the same time it must be owned that the
answers which six of them gave to the queries were far from
satisfactory. Their hesitation to deny the opposing power (a
power then indeed maintained by the greater number of divines
in Catholic kingdoms) rendered their loyalty very
problematical, in case of an attempt to enforce the bull by
any foreign prince. It furnished sufficient reason to watch
their conduct with an eye of jealousy … but could not
justify their execution for an imaginary offence."
_J. Lingard,
History of England,
volume 8, chapter 3._
"It is probable that not many more than 200 Catholics were
executed, as such, in Elizabeth's reign, and this was ten
score too many. … 'Dod reckons them at 191; Milner has
raised the list to 204. Fifteen of these, according to him,
suffered for denying the Queen's supremacy, 126 for exercising
their ministry, and the rest for being reconciled to the
Romish church. Many others died of hardships in prison, and
many were deprived of their property. There seems,
nevertheless [says Hallam], to be good reason for doubting
whether anyone who was executed might not have saved his life
by explicitly denying the Pope's power to depose the Queen.'"
_J. L. Motley,
History of the United Netherlands,
chapter 17, with foot-note._
ALSO IN:
_J. Foley,
Records of the English Province of the Society of
Jesus._
ENGLAND: A. D. 1574.
Emancipation of villeins on the royal domains.
Practical end of serfdom.
See SLAVERY, MEDIÆVAL: ENGLAND.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1575.
Sovereignty of Holland and Zealand offered to Queen Elizabeth,
and declined.
See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1575-1577.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1581.
Marriage proposals of the Duke of Anjou declined by Queen
Elizabeth.
See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1581-1584.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1583.
The expedition of Sir Humphrey Gilbert.
Formal possession taken of Newfoundland.
See AMERICA: A. D. 1583.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1584-1590.
Raleigh's colonizing attempts in America.
See AMERICA: A. D. 1584-1586; and 1587-1590.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1585-1586.
Leicester in the Low Countries.
Queen Elizabeth's treacherous dealing with the
struggling Netherlanders.
See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1585-1586.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1585-1587.
Mary Queen of Scots and the Catholic conspiracies.
Her trial and execution.
"Maddened by persecution, by the hopelessness of rebellion
within or deliverance from without, the fiercer Catholics
listened to schemes of assassination, to which the murder of
William of Orange lent at the moment a terrible significance.
The detection of Somerville, a fanatic who had received the
host before setting out for London 'to shoot the Queen with
his dagg,' was followed by measures of natural severity, by
the flight and arrest of Catholic gentry, by a vigourous
purification of the Inns of Court, where a few Catholics
lingered, and by the dispatch of fresh batches of priests to
the block. The trial and death of Parry, a member of the House
of Commons who had served in the Queen's household, on a
similar charge, brought the Parliament together in a transport
of horror and loyalty.
{842}
All Jesuits and seminary priests were banished from the realm
on pain of death. A bill for the security of the Queen
disqualified any claimant of the succession who had instigated
subjects to rebellion or hurt to the Queen's person from ever
succeeding to the crown. The threat was aimed at Mary Stuart.
Weary of her long restraint, of her failure to rouse Philip or
Scotland to aid her, of the baffled revolt of the English
Catholics and the baffled intrigues of the Jesuits, she bent
for a moment to submission. 'Let me go,' she wrote to
Elizabeth; 'let me retire from this island to some solitude
where I may prepare my soul to die. Grant this and I will sign
away every right which either I or mine can claim.' But the
cry was useless, and her despair found a new and more terrible
hope in the plots against Elizabeth's life. She knew and
approved the vow of Anthony Babington and a band of young
Catholics, for the most part connected with the royal
household, to kill the Queen; but plot and approval alike
passed through Walsingham's hands, and the seizure of Mary's
correspondence revealed her guilt. In spite of her protests, a
commission of peers sat as her judges at Fotheringay Castle;
and their verdict of 'guilty' annihilated, under the
provisions of the recent statute, her claim to the crown. The
streets of London blazed with bonfires, and peals rang out
from steeple to steeple, at the news of her condemnation; but,
in spite of the prayer of Parliament for her execution, and
the pressure of the Council, Elizabeth shrank from her death.
The force of public opinion, however, was now carrying all
before it, and the unanimous demand of her people wrested at
last a sullen consent from the Queen. She flung the warrant
signed upon the floor, and the Council took on themselves the
responsibility of executing it. Mary died [February 8, 1587]
on a scaffold which was erected in the castle hall at
Fotheringay, as dauntlessly as she had lived. 'Do not weep,'
she said to her ladies, 'I have given my word for you.' 'Tell
my friends,' she charged Melville, 'that I die a good
Catholic.'"
_J. R. Green,
Short History of the English People,
chapter 7, section 6._
"'Who now doubts,' writes an eloquent modern writer, 'that it
would have been wiser in Elizabeth to spare her life?' Rather,
the political wisdom of a critical and difficult act has never
in the world's history been more signally justified. It cut
away the only interest on which the Scotch and English
Catholics could possibly have combined. It determined Philip
upon the undisguised pursuit of the English throne, and it
enlisted against him and his projects the passionate
patriotism of the English nobility."
_J. A. Froude,
History of England,
volume 12, chapter 34._
ALSO IN:
_A. De Lamartine,
Mary Stuart,
chapter 31-34._
_L. S. F. Buckingham,
Memoirs of Mary Stuart,
volume 2, chapter 5-6._
_L. von Ranke,
History of England,
book 3, chapter 5._
_J. D. Leader,
Mary Queen of Scots in Captivity._
_C. Nau,
History of Mary Stuart._
_F. A. Mignet,
History of Mary Queen of Scots,
chapters 9-10._
England: A. D. 1587-1588.
The wrath of Catholic Europe.
Spanish vengeance and ambition astir.
"The death of Mary [Queen of Scots] may have preserved England
from the religious struggle which would have ensued upon her
accession to the throne, but it delivered Elizabeth from only
one, and that the weakest of her enemies; and it exposed her
to a charge of injustice and cruelty, which, being itself well
founded, obtained belief for any other accusation, however
extravagantly false. It was not Philip [of Spain] alone who
prepared for making war upon her with a feeling of personal
hatred: throughout Romish Christendom she was represented as a
monster of iniquity; that representation was assiduously set
forth, not in ephemeral libels, but in histories, in dramas,
in poems, and in hawker's pamphlets; and when the king of
Spain equipped an armament for the invasion of England,
volunteers entered it with a passionate persuasion that they
were about to bear a part in a holy war against the wickedest
and most inhuman of tyrants. The Pope exhorted Philip to
engage in this great enterprize for the sake of the Roman
Catholic and apostolic church, which could not be more
effectually nor more meritoriously extended than by the
conquest of England; so should he avenge his own private and
public wrongs; so should he indeed prove himself most worthy
of the glorious title of Most Catholic King. And he promised,
as soon as his troops should have set foot in that island, to
supply him with a million of crowns of gold towards the
expenses of the expedition. … Such exhortations accorded
with the ambition, the passions, and the rooted principles of
the king of Spain. The undertaking was resolved."
_R. Southey,
Lives of the British Admirals,
volume 2, page 319._
"The succours which Elizabeth had from time to time afforded
to the insurgents of the Netherlands was not the only cause of
Philip's resentment and of his desire for revenge. She had
fomented the disturbances in Portugal, … and her captains,
among whom Sir Francis Drake was the most active, had for many
years committed unjustifiable depredations on the Spanish
possessions of South America, and more than once on the coasts
of the Peninsula itself. … By Spanish historians, these
hostilities are represented as unprovoked in their origin, and
as barbarous in their execution, and candor must allow that
there is but too much justice in the complaint."
_S. A. Dunham,
History of Spain and Portugal,
book 4, section 1, chapter 1._
ALSO IN:
_J. A. Froude,
History of England,
volume 12, chapter 35._
ENGLAND: A. D. 1588.
The Spanish Armada.
"Perhaps in the history of mankind there has never been a vast
project of conquest conceived and matured in so protracted and
yet so desultory a manner, as was this famous Spanish
invasion. … At last, on the 28th, 29th and 30th May, 1588,
the fleet, which had been waiting at Lisbon more than a month
for favourable weather, set sail from that port, after having
been duly blessed by the Cardinal Archduke Albert, viceroy of
Portugal. There were rather more than 130 ships in all,
divided into 10 squadrons. … The total tonnage of the fleet
was 59,120: the number of guns was 3,165. Of Spanish troops
there were 19,295 on board: there were 8,252 sailors and 2,088
galley-slaves. Besides these, there was a force of noble
volunteers, belonging to the most illustrious houses of Spain,
with their attendants, amounting to nearly 2,000 in all. …
The size of the ships ranged from 1,200 tons to 300. The
galleons, of which there were about 60, were huge
round-stemmed clumsy vessels, with bulwarks three or four feet
thick, and built up at stem and stern, like castles.
{843}
The galeasses—of which there were four—were a third larger
than the ordinary galley, and were rowed each by 300
galley-slaves. They consisted of an enormous towering fortress
at the stern, a castellated structure almost equally massive
in front, with seats for the rowers amidships. At stem and
stern and between each of the slaves' benches were heavy
cannon. These galeasses were floating edifices, very wonderful
to contemplate. They were gorgeously decorated. There were
splendid state-apartments, cabins, chapels, and pulpits in
each, and they were amply provided with awnings, cushions,
streamers, standards, gilded saints and bands of music. To
take part in an ostentatious pageant, nothing could be better
devised. To fulfil the great objects of a war-vessel—to sail
and to fight—they were the worst machines ever launched upon
the ocean. The four galleys were similar to the galeasses in
every respect except that of size, in which they were by
one-third inferior. All the ships of the fleet—galeasses,
galleys, galleons, and hulks—were so encumbered with
top-hamper, so over-weighted in proportion to their draught of
water, that they could bear but little canvas, even with
smooth seas and light and favourable winds. … Such was the
machinery which Philip had at last set afloat, for the purpose
of dethroning Elizabeth and establishing the inquisition in
England. One hundred and forty ships, 11,000 Spanish veterans,
as many more recruits, partly Spanish, partly Portuguese, 2,000
grandees, as many galley slaves, and 300 barefooted friars and
inquisitors. The plan was simple. Medina Sidonia [the
captain-general of the Armada] was to proceed straight from
Lisbon to Calais roads: there he was to wait for the Duke of
Parma [Spanish commander in the Netherlands], who was to come
forth from Newport, Sluys, and Dunkirk, bringing with him his
17,000 veterans, and to assume the chief command of the whole
expedition. They were then to cross the channel to Dover, land
the army of Parma, reinforced with 6,000 Spaniards from the
fleet, and with these 23,000 men Alexander was to march at
once upon London. Medina Sidonia was to seize and fortify the
Isle of Wight, guard the entrance of the harbours against any
interference from the Dutch and English fleets, and—so soon
as the conquest of England had been effected—he was to
proceed to Ireland. … A strange omission had however been
made in the plan from first to last. The commander of the
whole expedition was the Duke of Parma: on his head was the
whole responsibility. Not a gun was to be fired—if it could
be avoided—until he had come forth with his veterans to make
his junction with the Invincible Armada off Calais. Yet there
was no arrangement whatever to enable him to come forth—not
the slightest provision to effect that junction. … Medina
could not go to Farnese [Alexander Farnese, Duke of Parma],
nor could Farnese come to Medina. The junction was likely to
be difficult, and yet it had never once entered the heads of
Philip or his counsellors to provide for that difficulty. …
With as much sluggishness as might have been expected from
their clumsy architecture, the ships of the Armada consumed
nearly three weeks in sailing from Lisbon to the neighbourhood
of Cape Finisterre. Here they were overtaken by a tempest. …
Of the squadron of galleys, one was already sunk in the sea,
and two of the others had been conquered by their own slaves.
The fourth rode out the gale with difficulty, and joined the
rest of the fleet, which ultimately reassembled at Coruña; the
ships having, in distress, put in first at Vivera, Ribadeo,
Gijon, and other northern ports of Spain. At the Groyne—as
the English of that day were accustomed to call Coruña—they
remained a month, repairing damages and recruiting; and on the
22d of July (N. S.) the Armada set sail. Six days later, the
Spaniards took soundings, thirty leagues from the Scilly
Islands, and on Friday, the 29th of July, off the Lizard, they
had the first glimpse of the land of promise presented them by
Sixtus V. of which they had at last come to take possession.
On the same day and night the blaze and smoke of ten thousand
beacon-fires from the Land's End to Margate, and from the Isle
of Wight to Cumberland, gave warning to every Englishman that
the enemy was at last upon them."
_J. L. Motley,
History of the United Netherlands,
chapter 19._
ALSO IN:
_J. A. Froude,
History of England,
volume 12, chapter 36._
_J. A. Froude,
The Spanish Story of the Armada._
_R. Southey,
Lives of British Admirals,
volume 2, pages 327-334._
_C. M. Yonge,
Cameos from English History,
5th series, chapter 27._
ENGLAND: A. D. 1588.
The Destruction of the Armada.
"The great number of the English, the whole able-bodied
population being drilled, counterbalanced the advantage
possessed, from their universal use of firearms, by the
invaders. In all the towns there were trained bands (a civic
militia); and, either in regular service or as volunteers,
thousands of all ranks had received a military training on the
continent. The musters represented 100,000 men as ready to
assemble at their head-quarters at a day's notice. It was, as
nearly always, in its military administration that the
vulnerable point of England lay. The fitting-out and
victualling of the navy was disgraceful; and it is scarcely an
excuse for the councillors that they were powerless against
the parsimony of the Queen. The Government maintained its
hereditary character from the days of Ethelred the Unready,
and the arrangements for assembling the defensive forces were
not really completed by them until after the Armada was
destroyed. The defeat of the invaders, if they had landed,
must have been accomplished by the people. The flame of
patriotism never burnt purer: all Englishmen alike, Romanists,
Protestant Episcopalians, and Puritans, were banded together
to resist the invader. Every hamlet was on the alert for the
beacon-signal. Some 15,000 men were already under arms in
London; the compact Tilbury Fort was full, and a bridge of
boats from Tilbury to Gravesend blocked the Thames. Philip's
preparations had been commensurate with the grandeur of his
scheme. The dockyards in his ports in the Low Countries, the
rivers, the canals, and the harbours of Spain, Portugal,
Naples, and Italy, echoed the clang of the shipwrights'
hammers. A vast armament, named, as if to provoke Nemesis, the
'Invincible Armada,' on which for three years the treasures of
the American mines had been lavished, at length rode the seas,
blessed with Papal benedictions and under the patronage of the
saints. It comprised 65 huge galleons, of from 700 to 1,300
tons, with sides of enormous thickness, and built high like
castles; four great galleys, each carrying 50 guns and 450
men, and rowed by 300 slaves; 56 armed merchantmen, and 20
pinnaces. These 129 vessels were armed with 2,430 brass and
iron guns of the best manufacture, but each gun was furnished
only with 50 rounds.
{844}
They carried 5,000 seamen: Parma's army amounted to 30,000
men—Spaniards, Germans, Italians and Walloons; and 19,000
Castilians and Portuguese, with 1,000 gentlemen volunteers,
were coming to join him. To maintain this army after it had
effected a landing, a great store of provisions—sufficient
for 40,000 men for six months—was placed on board. The
overthrow of this armament was effected by the navy and the
elements. From the Queen's parsimony the State had only 36
ships in the fleet; but the City of London furnished 33
vessels; 18 were supplied by the liberality of private
individuals; and nearly 100 smaller ships were obtained on
hire; so that the fleet was eventually brought up to nearly
30,000 tons, carrying 16,000 men, and equipped with 837 guns.
But there was sufficient ammunition for only a single day's
fighting. Fortunately for Elizabeth's Government, the
Spaniards, having been long driven from the channel by
privateers, were now unacquainted with its currents; and they
could procure, as the Dutch were in revolt, only two or three
competent pilots. The Spanish commander was the Duke of
Medina-Sidonia, an incapable man, but he had under him some of
the ablest of Philip's officers. When the ships set out from
the Tagus, on the 29th May, 1588, a storm came on, and the
Armada had to put into Coruña to refit. From that port the
Armada set out at the beginning of July, in lovely weather,
with just enough wind to wave from the mastheads the red
crosses which they bore as symbols of their crusade. The Duke
of Medina entered the Channel on the 18th July, and the rear
of his fleet was immediately harassed by a cannonade from the
puny ships of England, commanded by Lord Howard of Effingham
(Lord High Admiral), with Drake, Hawkins, Frobisher, Winter,
Fenner, and other famous captains. With the loss of three
galleons from fire or boarding, the Spanish commander, who was
making for Flanders to embark Parma's army, anchored in Calais
roads. In the night fire-ships—an ancient mode of warfare
which had just been reintroduced by the Dutch—passed in among
the Armada, a fierce gale completed their work, and morning
revealed the remnant of the Invincible Armada scattered along
the coast from Calais to Ostend. Eighty vessels remained to
Medina, and with these he sailed up the North Sea, to round
the British Isles. But the treacherous currents of the Orkneys
and the Hebrides were unknown to his officers, and only a few
ships escaped the tempests of the late autumn. More than
two-thirds of the expedition perished, and of the remnant that
again viewed the hills of Spain all but a few hundreds
returned only to die."
_H. R. Clinton,
From Crécy to Assye,
chapter 7._
In the fighting on the 23d of July, "the Spaniards' shot flew
for the most part over the heads of the English, without doing
execution, Cock being the only Englishman that died bravely in
the midst of his enemies in a ship of his own. The reason of
this was, that the English ships, being far less than the
enemy's, made the attack with more quickness and agility; and
when they had given a broadside, they presently sheered off to
a convenient distance, and levelled their shot so directly at
the bigger and more unwieldy ships of the Spaniards, as seldom
to miss their aim; though the Lord Admiral did not think it
safe or proper to grapple with them, as some advised, with
much more heat than discretion, because that the enemy's fleet
carried a considerable army within their sides, whereas ours had
no such advantage. Besides their ships far exceeded ours in
number and bulk, and were much stronger and higher built;
insomuch that their men, having the opportunity to ply us from
such lofty hatches, must inevitably destroy those that were
obliged, as it were, to fight beneath them. … On the 24th
day of the month there was a cessation on both sides, and the
Lord Admiral sent some of his smaller vessels to the nearest
of the English harbours, to fetch a supply of powder and
ammunition; then he divided the fleet into four squadrons, the
first of which he commanded himself, the second he committed
to Drake, the third to Hawkins, and the fourth to Frobisher.
He likewise singled out of the main fleet some smaller vessels
to begin the attack on all sides at once, in the very dead of
the night; but a calm happening spoiled his design." On the
26th "the Spanish fleet sailed forward with a fair and soft
gale at southwest and by south; and the English chased them
close at the heels; but so far was this Invincible Armada from
alarming the sea-coasts with any frightful apprehensions, that
the English gentry of the younger sort entered themselves
volunteers, and taking leave of their parents, wives, and
children, did, with incredible cheerfulness, hire ships at
their own charge; and, in pure love to their country, joined
the grand fleet in vast numbers. … On the 27th of this month
the Spanish Fleet came to an anchor before Calais, their
pilots having acquainted them that if they ventured any
farther there was some danger that the force of the current
might drive them away into the Northern Channel. Not far from
them came likewise the English Admiral to an anchor, and lay
within shot of their ships. The English fleet consisted by
this time of 140 sail; all of them ships of force, and very
tight and nimble sailors, and easily manageable upon a tack.
But, however, the main brunt of the engagement lay not upon
more than 15 or 16 of them. … The Lord Admiral got ready
eight of his worst ships the very day after the Spaniards came
to an anchor; and having bestowed upon them a good plenty of
pitch, tar, and rosin, and lined them well with brimstone and
other combustible matter, they sent them before the wind, in
the dead time of the night, under the conduct of Young and
Prowse, into the midst of the Spanish fleet. … The Spaniards
reported that the duke, upon the approach of the fire-ships,
ordered the whole fleet to weigh anchor and stand to sea, but
that when the danger was over every ship should return to her
station. This is what he did himself, and he likewise
discharged a great gun as a signal to the rest to do as he
did; the report, however, was heard but by very few, by reason
their fears had dispersed them at that rate that some of them
ventured out of the main ocean, and others sailed up the
shallows of Flanders. In the meantime Drake and Fenner played
briskly with their cannon upon the Spanish fleet, as it was
rendezvousing over against Graveling. … On the last day of
the month the wind blew hard at north-west early in the
morning, and the Spanish fleet attempting to get back again to
the Straits of Calais, was driven toward Zealand.
{845}
The English then gave over the chase, because, in the
Spaniards' opinion, they perceived them making haste enough to
their own destruction. For the wind, lying at the W. N. W.
point, could not choose but force them on the shoals and sands
on the coast of Zealand. But the wind happening to come about
in a little time to Southwest and by West they went before the
wind. … Being now, therefore, clear of danger in the main
ocean, they steered northward, and the English fleet renewed
the chase after them. … The Spaniards having now laid aside
all the thoughts and hopes of returning to attempt the
English, and perceiving their main safety lay in their flight,
made no stay or stop at any port whatever. And thus this
mighty armada, which had been three whole years fitting out,
and at a vast expense, met in one month's time with several
attacks, and was at last routed, with a vast slaughter on
their side, and but a very few of the English missing, and not
one ship lost, except that small vessel of Cock's. … When,
therefore, the Spanish fleet had taken a large compass round
Britain, by the coasts of Scotland, the Orcades, and Ireland,
and had weathered many storms, and suffered as many wrecks and
blows, and all the inconveniences of war and weather, it made
a shift to get home again, laden with nothing but shame and
dishonour. … Certain it is that several of their ships
perished in their flight, being cast away on the coasts of
Scotland and Ireland, and that above 700 soldiers were cast on
shore in Scotland. … As for those who had the ill fortune to
be drove upon the Irish shore, they met with the most
barbarous treatment; for some of them were butchered by the
wild Irish, and the rest put to the sword by the Lord Deputy."
_W. Camden,
History of Queen Elizabeth._
ALSO IN:
_S. R. Gardiner,
Historical Biographies: Drake._
_E. S. Creasy,
Fifteen Decisive Battles,
chapter 10._
_C. Kingsley,
Westward Ho!
chapter 31._
_R. Hakluyt,
Principal Navigations, &C.
(E. Goldsmid's ed.), volume 7._
ENGLAND: A. D. 1596.
Alliance with Henry IV. of France against Spain.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1593-1598.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1596.
Dutch and English expedition against Cadiz.
See SPAIN: A. D. 1596.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1597.
Abolition of the privileges of the Hanse merchants.
See HANSA TOWNS.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1600.
The first charter to the East India Company.
See INDIA: A. D. 1600-1702.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1601.
The first Poor Law.
See POOR LAWS, THE ENGLISH.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1603.
Accession of King James I.
The Stuart family.
On the death of Queen Elizabeth, in 1603, James VI. of
Scotland became also the accepted king of England (under the
title of James I.), by virtue of his descent from that
daughter of Henry VII. and sister of Henry VIII., Margaret
Tudor, who married James IV. king of Scots. His grandfather
was James V.; his mother was Marie Stuart, or Mary, Queen of
Scots, born of her marriage with Lord Darnley. He was the
ninth in the line of the Scottish dynasty of the Stuarts, or
Stewarts, for an account of the origin of which see SCOTLAND:
A. D. 1370. He had been carefully alienated from the religion
of his mother and reared in Protestantism, to make him an
acceptable heir to the English throne. He came to it at a time
when the autocratic spirit of the Tudors, making use of the
peculiar circumstances of their time, had raised the royal
power and prerogative to their most exalted pitch; and he
united the two kingdoms of Scotland and England under one
sovereignty. "The noble inheritance fell to a race who,
comprehending not one of the conditions by which alone it was
possible to be retained, profligately misused until they lost
it utterly. The calamity was in no respect foreseen by the
statesman, Cecil, to whose exertion it was mainly due that
James was seated on the throne: yet in regard to it he cannot
be held blameless. He was doubtless right in the course he
took, in so far as he thereby satisfied a national desire, and
brought under one crown two kingdoms that with advantage to
either could not separately exist; but it remains a reproach
to his name that he let slip the occasion of obtaining for the
people some ascertained and settled guarantees which could not
then have been refused, and which might have saved half a
century of bloodshed. None such were proposed to James. He was
allowed to seize a prerogative, which for upwards of fifty
years had been strained to a higher pitch than at any previous
period of the English history; and his clumsy grasp closed on
it without a sign of question or remonstrance from the leading
statesmen of England. 'Do I mak the judges? Do I mak the
bishops?' he exclaimed, as the powers of his new dominion
dawned on his delighted sense: 'Then, God's wauns! I mak what
likes me, law and gospel!' It was even so. And this license to
make gospel and law was given, with other far more
questionable powers, to a man whose personal appearance and
qualities were as suggestive of contempt, as his public acts
were provocative of rebellion. It is necessary to dwell upon
this part of the subject; for it is only just to his not more
culpable but far less fortunate successor to say, that in it
lies the source and explanation of not a little for which the
penalty was paid by him. What is called the Great Rebellion
can have no comment so pregnant as that which is suggested by
the character and previous career of the first of the Stuart
kings."
_J. Forster,
Historical and Biographical Essays,
p.227._
ENGLAND: A. D. 1604.
The Hampton Court Conference.
James I. "was not long seated on the English throne, when a
conference was held at Hampton Court, to hear the complaints
of the puritans, as those good men were called who scrupled to
conform to the ceremonies, and sought a reformation of the
abuses of the church of England. On this occasion, surrounded
with his deans, bishops, and archbishops, who breathed into
his ears the music of flattery, and worshipped him as an
oracle, James, like king Solomon, to whom he was fond of being
compared, appeared in all his glory, giving his judgment on
every question, and displaying before the astonished prelates,
who kneeled every time they addressed him, his polemic powers and
theological learning. Contrasting his present honours with the
scenes from which he had just escaped in his native country,
he began by congratulating himself that, 'by the blessing of
Providence, he was brought into the promised land, where
religion was professed in its purity; where he sat among
grave, learned, and reverend men; and that now he was not, as
formerly, a king without state and honour, nor in a place
where order was banished, and beardless boys would brave him
to his face.'
{846}
After long conferences, during which the king gave the most
extraordinary exhibitions of his learning, drollery, and
profaneness, he was completely thrown off his guard by the
word presbytery, which Dr. Reynolds, a representative of the
puritans, had unfortunately employed. Thinking that he aimed
at a 'Scotch presbytery,' James rose into a towering passion,
declaring that presbytery agreed as well with monarchy as God
and the devil. 'Then,' said he, 'Jack and Tom, and Will and
Dick, shall meet, and at their pleasures censure me and my
council, and all our proceedings. Then Will shall stand up and
say, It must be thus: Then Dick shall reply, and say, Nay
marry, but we will have it thus. And, therefore, here I must
once reiterate my former speech, Le Roy s'avisera (the king
will look after it). Stay, I pray you, for one seven years
before you demand that of me; and if you then find me pursy
and fat, and my wind-pipes stuffed, I will perhaps hearken to
you; for let that government be once up, I am sure I shall be
kept in breath; then we shall all of us have work enough, both
our hands full. But, Dr. Reynolds, till you find that I grow
lazy, let that alone." Then, putting his hand to his hat, 'My
lords the bishops,' said his majesty, 'I may thank you that
these men plead for my supremacy; they think they can't make
their party good against you, but by appealing unto it. But if
once you are out, and they in place, I know what would become
of my supremacy; for no bishop, no king, as I said before.'
Then rising from his chair, he concluded the conference with,
'If this be all they have to say, I'll make them conform, or
I'll harry them out of this land, or else do worse.' The
English lords and prelates were so filled with admiration at
the quickness of apprehension and dexterity in controversy
shown by the king, that, as Dr. Barlow informs us, 'one of
them said his majesty spoke by the instinct of the Spirit of
God; and the lord chancellor, as he went out, said to the dean
of Chester, I have often heard that Rex est mixta persona cum
sacerdote (that a king is partly a priest), but I never saw
the truth thereof till this day!' In these circumstances,
buoyed up with flattery by his English clergy, and placed
beyond the reach of the faithful admonitions of the Scottish
ministry, we need not wonder to find James prosecuting, with
redoubled ardour, his scheme of reducing the church of
Scotland to the English model."
_T. McCrie,
Sketches of Scottish Church History,
chapter 5._
ALSO IN:
_S. R. Gardiner,
The First Two Stuarts and the Puritan Revolution,
chapter 1, sections 3._
_G. G. Perry,
History of the Church of England,
volume 1, chapter 2._
_T. Fuller,
Church History of Britain,
book 10, section 1 (volume 3)._
England: A. D. 1605.
The Gunpowder Plot.
"The Roman Catholics had expected great favour and indulgence
on the accession of James, both as he was descended from Mary,
whose life they believed to have been sacrificed to their
cause, and as he himself, in his early youth, was imagined to
have shown some partiality towards them. … Very soon they
discovered their mistake; and were at once surprised and
enraged to find James, on all occasions, express his intention
of strictly executing the laws enacted against them, and of
persevering in all the rigorous measures of Elizabeth.
Catesby, a gentleman of good parts and of an ancient family,
first thought of a most extraordinary method of revenge; and
he opened his intention to Piercy, a descendant of the
illustrious house of Northumberland. In vain, said he, would
you put an end to the king's life: he has children. … To
serve any good purpose, we must destroy, at one blow, the
king, the royal family, the Lords, the Commons, and bury all
our enemies in one common ruin. Happily, they are all
assembled on the first meeting of Parliament, and afford us
the opportunity of glorious and useful vengeance. Great
preparations will not be requisite. A few of us, combining,
may run a mine below the hall in which they meet, and choosing
the very moment when the king harangues both Houses, consign over
to destruction these determined foes to all piety and
religion. … Piercy was charmed with this project of Catesby;
and they agreed to communicate the matter to a few more, and
among the rest to Thomas Winter, whom they sent over to
Flanders, in quest of Fawkes, an officer in the Spanish
service, with whose zeal and courage they were all thoroughly
acquainted. … All this passed in the spring and summer of
the year 1604; when the conspirators also hired a house in
Piercy's name, adjoining to that in which the Parliament was
to assemble. Towards the end of that year they began their
operations. … They soon pierced the wall, though three yards
in thickness; but on approaching the other side they were
somewhat startled at hearing a noise which they knew not how
to account for. Upon inquiry, they found that it came from the
vault below the House of Lords; that a magazine of coals had
been kept there; and that, as the coals were selling off, the
vault would be let to the highest bidder. The opportunity was
immediately seized; the place hired by Piercy; thirty-six
barrels of powder lodged in it; the whole covered up with
faggots and billets; the doors of the cellar boldly flung
open, and everybody admitted, as if it contained nothing
dangerous. … The day [November 5, 1605], so long wished for,
now approached, on which the Parliament was appointed to
assemble. The dreadful secret, though communicated to above
twenty persons, had been religiously kept, during the space of
near a year and a half. No remorse, no pity, no fear of
punishment, no hope of reward, had as yet induced any one
conspirator, either to abandon the enterprise or make a
discovery of it." But the betrayal was unwittingly made, after
all, by one in the plot, who tried to deter Lord Monteagle
from attending the opening session of Parliament, by sending
him a mysterious message of warning. Lord Monteagle showed the
letter to Lord Salisbury, secretary of state, who attached
little importance to it, but who laid it before the king. The
Scottish Solomon read it with more anxiety and was shrewdly
led by some expressions in the missive to order an inspection
of the vaults underneath the parliamentary houses. The
gunpowder was discovered and Guy Fawkes was found in the
place, with matches for the firing of it on his person. Being
put to the rack he disclosed the names of his accomplices.
They were seized, tried and executed, or killed while
resisting arrest.
_D. Hume,
History of England,
volume 4, chapter 46._
ALSO IN:
_S. R. Gardiner,
History of England,
chapter 6, (volume 1)._
_J. Lingard,
History of England,
volume 9, chapter 1._
ENGLAND: A. D. 1606.
The chartering of the Virginia Company, with its London and
Plymouth branches.
See VIRGINIA: A. D. 1606-1607.
{847}
ENGLAND: A. D. 1620.
The Monopoly granted to the Council for New England.
See NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1620-1623.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1620.
The exodus of the Pilgrims and the planting of their colony at
New Plymouth.
See MASSACHUSETTS (PLYMOUTH COLONY): A. D. 1620.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1621.
Claims in North America conflicting with France.
Grant of Nova Scotia to Sir William Alexander.
See NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1621-1631.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1623-1638.
The grants in Newfoundland to Baltimore and Kirke.
See NEWFOUNDLAND: A. D. 1610-1655.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1625.
The Protestant Alliance in the Thirty Years War.
See GERMANY: A. D. 1624-1626.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1625.
The gains of Parliament in the reign of James I.
"The commons had now been engaged [at the end of the reign of
James I.], for more than twenty years, in a struggle to
restore and to fortify their own and their fellow subjects'
liberties. They had obtained in this period but one
legislative measure of importance, the late declaratory act
against monopolies. But they had rescued from disuse their
ancient right of impeachment. They had placed on record a
protestation of their claim to debate all matters of public
concern. They had remonstrated against the usurped
prerogatives of binding the subject by proclamation, and of
levying customs at the out-ports. They had secured beyond
controversy their exclusive privilege of determining contested
elections of their members. They had maintained, and carried
indeed to an unwarrantable extent, their power of judging and
inflicting punishment, even for offences not committed against
their house. Of these advantages some were evidently
incomplete; and it would require the most vigorous exertions
of future parliaments to realize them. But such exertions the
increased energy of the nation gave abundant cause to
anticipate. A deep and lasting love of freedom had taken hold
of every class except perhaps the clergy; from which, when
viewed together with the rash pride of the court, and the
uncertainty of constitutional principles and precedents,
collected through our long and various history, a calm
by-stander might presage that the ensuing reign would not pass
without disturbance, nor perhaps end without confusion."
_H. Hallam,
Constitutional History of England,
chapter 6._
ENGLAND: A. D. 1625.
Marriage of Charles with Henrietta Maria of France.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1624-1626.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1625-1628.
The accession of Charles I.
Beginning of the struggle of King and Parliament.
"The political and religious schism which had originated in
the 16th century was, during the first quarter of the 17th
century, constantly widening. Theories tending to Turkish
despotism were in fashion at Whitehall. Theories tending to
republicanism were in favour with a large portion of the House
of Commons. … While the minds of men were in this state, the
country, after a peace of many years, at length engaged in a
war [with Spain, and with Austria and the Emperor in the
Palatinate] which required strenuous exertions. This war
hastened the approach of the great constitutional crisis. It
was necessary that the king should have a large military
force. He could not have such a force without money. He could
not legally raise money without the consent of Parliament. It
followed, therefore, that he either must administer the
government in conformity with the sense of the House of
Commons, or must venture on such a violation of the
fundamental laws of the land as had been unknown during
several centuries. … Just at this conjuncture James died
[March 27, 1625]. Charles I. succeeded to the throne. He had
received from nature a far better understanding, a far
stronger will, and a far keener and firmer temper than his
father's. He had inherited his father's political theories,
and was much more disposed than his father to carry them into
practice. … His taste in literature and art was excellent,
his manner dignified though not gracious, his domestic life
without blemish. Faithlessness was the chief cause of his
disasters, and is the chief stain on his memory. He was, in
truth, impelled by an incurable propensity to dark and crooked
ways. … He seems to have learned from the theologians whom
he most esteemed that between him and his subjects there could
be nothing of the nature of mutual contract; that he could
not, even if he would, divest himself of his despotic
authority; and that, in every promise which he made, there was
an implied reservation that such promise might be broken in
case of necessity, and that of the necessity he was the sole
judge. And now began that hazardous game on which were staked
the destinies of the English people. It was played on the side
of the House of Commons with keenness, but with admirable
dexterity, coolness and perseverance. Great statesmen who
looked far behind them and far before them were at the head of
that assembly. They were resolved to place the king in such a
situation that he must either conduct the administration in
conformity with the wishes of his Parliament, or make
outrageous attacks on the most sacred principles of the
constitution. They accordingly doled out supplies to him very
sparingly. He found that he must govern either in harmony with
the House of Commons, or in defiance of all law. His choice
was soon made. He dissolved his first Parliament, and levied
taxes by his own authority. He convoked a second Parliament
[1626] and found it more intractable than the first. He again
resorted to the expedient of dissolution, raised fresh taxes
without any show of legal right, and threw the chiefs of the
opposition into prison. At the same time a new grievance,
which the peculiar feelings and habits of the English nation
made insupportably painful, and which seemed to all discerning
men to be of fearful augury, excited general discontent and
alarm. Companies of soldiers were billeted on the people; and
martial law was, in some places, substituted for the ancient
jurisprudence of the realm. The king called a third Parliament
[1628], and soon perceived that the opposition was stronger
and fiercer than ever. He now determined on a change of
tactics. Instead of opposing an inflexible resistance to the
demands of the commons, he, after much altercation and many
evasions, agreed to a compromise which, if he had faithfully
adhered to it, would have averted a long series of calamities.
The Parliament granted an ample supply. The King ratified, in
the most solemn manner, that celebrated law which is known by
the name of the Petition of Right, and which is the second
Great Charter of the liberties of England."
_Lord Macaulay,
History of England,
chapter 1._
ALSO IN:
_J. R. Green,
History of the English People,
book 7, chapter 5 (volume 3)._
_F. P. Guizot,
History of the English Revolution,
book 1._
{848}
ENGLAND: A. D. 1627-1628.
Buckingham's war with France and expedition to La Rochelle.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1627-1628.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1628.
The Petition of Right.
"Charles had recourse to many subterfuges in hopes to elude
the passing of this law; rather perhaps through wounded pride,
as we may judge from his subsequent conduct, than much
apprehension that it would create a serious impediment to his
despotic schemes. He tried to persuade them to acquiesce in
his royal promise not to arrest anyone without just cause, or
in a simple confirmation of the Great Charter and other
statutes in favour of liberty. The peers, too pliant in this
instance to his wishes, and half receding from the patriot
banner they had lately joined, lent him their aid by proposing
amendments (insidious in those who suggested them, though not
in the body of the house) which the commons firmly rejected.
Even when the bill was tendered to him for that assent which
it had been necessary, for the last two centuries, that the
king should grant or refuse in a word, he returned a long and
equivocal answer, from which it could only be collected that
he did not intend to remit any portion of what he had claimed
as his prerogative. But on an address from both houses for a
more explicit answer, he thought fit to consent to the bill in
the usual form. The commons, of whose harshness towards Charles
his advocates have said so much, immediately passed a bill for
granting five subsidies, about £350,000; a sum not too great
for the wealth of the kingdom or for his exigencies, but
considerable according to the precedents of former times, to
which men naturally look. … The Petition of Right, … this
statute is still called, from its not being drawn in the
common form of an act of parliament." Although the king had
been defeated in his attempt to qualify his assent to the
Petition of Right, and had been forced to accede to it
unequivocally, yet "he had the absurd and audacious
insincerity (for we can use no milder epithets), to circulate
1,500 copies of it through the country, after the prorogation,
with his first answer annexed; an attempt to deceive without
the possibility of success. But instances of such ill-faith,
accumulated as they are through the life of Charles, render
the assertion of his sincerity a proof either of historical
ignorance or of a want of moral delicacy."
_H. Hallam,
Constitutional History of England,
volume 1, chapter 7._
The following is the text of the Petition of Right:
"To the King's Most Excellent Majesty. Humbly show unto our
Sovereign Lord the King, the Lords Spiritual and Temporal, and
Commons in Parliament assembled, that whereas it is declared
and enacted by a statute made in the time of the reign of King
Edward the First, commonly called, 'Statutum de Tallagio non
concedendo,' that no tallage or aid shall be laid or levied by
the King or his heirs in this realm, without the goodwill and
assent of the Archbishops, Bishops, Earls, Barons, Knights,
Burgesses, and other the freemen of the commonalty of this
realm: and by authority of Parliament holden in the five and
twentieth year of the reign of King Edward the Third, it is
declared and enacted, that from thenceforth no person shall be
compelled to make any loans to the King against his will,
because such loans were against reason and the franchise of
the land; and by other laws of this realm it is provided, that
none should be charged by any charge or imposition, called a
Benevolence, or by such like charge, by which the statutes
before-mentioned, and other the good laws and statutes of this
realm, your subjects have inherited this freedom, that they
should not be compelled to contribute to any tax, tallage,
aid, or other like charge, not set by common consent in
Parliament: Yet nevertheless, of late divers commissions
directed to sundry Commissioners in several counties with
instructions have issued, by means whereof your people have
been in divers places assembled, and required to lend certain
sums of money unto your Majesty, and many of them upon their
refusal so to do, have had an oath administered unto them, not
warrantable by the laws or statutes of this realm, and have
been constrained to become bound to make appearance and give
attendance before your Privy Council, and in other places, and
others of them have been therefore imprisoned, confined, and
sundry other ways molested and disquieted: and divers other
charges have been laid and levied upon your people in several
counties, by Lords Lieutenants, Deputy Lieutenants,
Commissioners for Musters, Justices of Peace and others, by
command or direction from your Majesty or your Privy Council,
against the laws and free customs of this realm: And where
also by the statute called, 'The Great Charter of the
Liberties of England,' it is declared and enacted, that no
freeman may be taken or imprisoned or be disseised of his
freeholds or liberties, or his free customs, or be outlawed or
exiled; or in any manner destroyed, but by the lawful judgment
of his peers, or by the law of the land: And in the eight and
twentieth year of the reign of King Edward the Third, it was
declared and enacted by authority of Parliament, that no man
of what estate or condition that he be, should be put out of
his lands or tenements, nor taken, nor imprisoned, nor
disherited, nor put to death, without being brought to answer
by due process of law: Nevertheless, against the tenor of the
said statutes, and other the good laws and statutes of your
realm, to that end provided, divers of your subjects have of
late been imprisoned without any cause showed, and when for
their deliverance they were brought before your Justices, by
your Majesty's writs of Habeas Corpus, there to undergo and
receive as the Court should order, and their keepers commanded
to certify the causes of their detainer; no cause was
certified, but that they were detained by your Majesty's
special command, signified by the Lords of your Privy Council,
and yet were returned back to several prisons, without being
charged with anything to which they might make answer
according to the law: And whereas of late great companies of
soldiers and mariners have been dispersed into divers counties
of the realm, and the inhabitants against their wills have
been compelled to receive them into their houses, and there to
suffer them to sojourn, against the laws and customs of this
realm, and to the great grievance and vexation of the people:
And whereas also by authority of Parliament, in the 25th year
of the reign of King Edward the Third, it is declared and
enacted, that no man shall be forejudged of life or limb
against the form of the Great Charter, and the law of the
land:
{849}
and by the said Great Charter and other the laws and statutes
of this your realm, no man ought to be adjudged to death; but
by the laws established in this your realm, either by the
customs of the same realm or by Acts of Parliament: and
whereas no offender of what kind soever is exempted from the
proceedings to be used, and punishments to be inflicted by the
laws and statutes of this your realm: nevertheless of late
divers commissions under your Majesty's Great Seal have issued
forth, by which certain persons have been assigned and
appointed Commissioners with power and authority to proceed
within the land, according to the justice of martial law
against such soldiers and mariners, or other dissolute persons
joining with them, as should commit any murder, robbery,
felony, mutiny, or other outrage or misdemeanour whatsoever,
and by such summary course and order, as is agreeable to
martial law, and is used in armies in time of war, to proceed
to the trial and condemnation of such offenders, and them to
cause to be executed and put to death, according to the law
martial: By pretext whereof, some of your Majesty's subjects
have been by some of the said Commissioners put to death, when
and where, if by the laws and statutes of the land they had
deserved death, by the same laws and statutes also they might,
and by no other ought to have been, adjudged and executed: And
also sundry grievous offenders by colour thereof, claiming an
exemption, have escaped the punishments due to them by the
laws and statutes of this your realm, by reason that divers of
your officers and ministers of justice have unjustly refused,
or forborne to proceed against such offenders according to the
same laws and statutes, upon pretence that the said offenders
were punishable only by martial law, and by authority of such
commissions as aforesaid, which commissions, and all other of
like nature, are wholly and directly contrary to the said laws
and statutes of this your realm: They do therefore humbly pray
your Most Excellent Majesty, that no man hereafter be
compelled to make or yield any gift, loan, benevolence, tax,
or such like charge, without common consent by Act of
Parliament; and that none be called to make answer, or take
such oath, or to give attendance, or be confined, or otherwise
molested or disquieted concerning the same, or for refusal
thereof; and that no freeman, in any such manner as is
before-mentioned, be imprisoned or detained; and that your
Majesty will be pleased to remove the said soldiers and
mariners, and that your people may not be so burdened in time
to come; and that the foresaid commissions for proceeding by
martial law, may be revoked and annulled; and that hereafter
no commissions of like nature may issue forth to any person or
persons whatsoever, to be executed as aforesaid, lest by
colour of them any of your Majesty's subjects be destroyed or
put to death, contrary to the laws and franchise of the land.
All which they most humbly pray of your Most Excellent
Majesty, as their rights and liberties according to the laws
and statutes of this realm: and that your Majesty would also
vouchsafe to declare, that the awards, doings, and proceedings
to the prejudice of your people, in any of the premises, shall
not be drawn hereafter into consequence or example: and that
your Majesty would be also graciously pleased, for the further
comfort and safety of your people, to declare your royal will
and pleasure, that in the things aforesaid all your officers
and ministers shall serve you, according to the laws and
statutes of this realm, as they tender the honour of your
Majesty, and the prosperity of this kingdom. [Which Petition
being read the 2nd of June 1628, the King's answer was thus
delivered unto it. The King willeth that right be done
according to the laws and customs of the realm; and that the
statutes be put in due execution, that his subjects may have
no cause to complain of any wrong or oppressions, contrary to
their just rights and liberties, to the preservation whereof
he holds himself as well obliged as of his prerogative. On
June 7 the answer was given in the accustomed form, 'Soit
droit fait comme il est désiré.']"
ALSO IN:
_S. R. Gardiner,
History of England,
chapter 63 (volume 6)._
_S. R. Gardiner,
Constitutional Documents of the Puritan Revolution,
page 1._
_J. L. De Lolme,
The English Constitution,
chapter 7 (volume 1)._
ENGLAND: A. D. 1628.
Assassination of Buckingham.
"While the struggle [over the Petition of Right] was going on,
the popular hatred of Buckingham [the King's favourite, whose
influence at court was supreme] showed itself in a brutal
manner. In the streets of London, the Duke's physician, Dr.
Lambe, was set upon by the mob, called witch, devil, and the
Duke's conjuror, and absolutely beaten to death. The Council
set inquiries on foot, but no individual was brought before
it, and the rhyme went from mouth to mouth—'Let Charles and
George do what they can, The Duke shall die like Doctor
Lambe.' … Charles, shocked and grieved, took his friend in
his own coach through London to see the ten ships which were
being prepared at Deptford for the relief of Rochelle. It was
reported that he was heard to say, 'George, there are some
that wish that both these and thou might perish. But care not
thou for them. We will both perish together if thou dost.'
There must have been something strangely attractive about the
man who won and kept the hearts of four personages so
dissimilar as James and Charles of England, Anne of Austria,
and William Laud. … In the meantime Rochelle held out." One
attempt to relieve the beleaguered town had failed. Buckingham
was to command in person the armament now in preparation for
another attempt. "The fleet was at Portsmouth, and Buckingham
went down thither in high spirits to take the command. The
King came down to Sir Daniel Norton's house at Southwick. On
the 23d of August Buckingham rose and 'cut a caper or two'
before the barber dealt with his moustache and lovelocks. Then
he was about to sit down to breakfast with a number of
captains, and as he rose he received letters which made him
believe that Rochelle had been relieved. He said he must tell
the King instantly, but Soubise and the other refugees did not
believe a word of it, and there was a good deal of disputing
and gesticulation between them. He crossed a lobby, followed
by the eager Frenchmen, and halted to take leave of an
officer, Sir Thomas Fryar. Over the shoulder of this
gentleman, as he bowed, a knife was thrust into Buckingham's
breast. There was an effort to withdraw it; a cry 'The
Villain!' and the great Duke, at 36 years old, was dead. The
attendants at first thought the blow came from one of the
noisy Frenchmen, and were falling on them." But a servant had
seen the deed committed, and ran after the assassin, who was
arrested and proved to be one John Felton, a soldier and a man
of good family. He had suffered wrongs which apparently
unhinged his mind.
{850}
_C. M. Yonge,
Cameos from English History,
6th series, chapter 17._
ALSO IN:
_S. R. Gardiner,
History of England, 1603-1642,
chapter 65._
ENGLAND: A. D. 1628-1632.
Conquest and brief occupation of Canada and Nova Scotia.
See CANADA (NEW FRANCE): A. D. 1628-1635.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1629.
The royal charter granted to the Governor and Company of
Massachusetts Bay.
See: MASSACHUSETTS: A. D. 1623-1629.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1629.
The King's Carolina grant to Sir Robert Heath.
See AMERICA: A. D. 1629.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1629.
Tonnage and Poundage.
The tumult in Parliament and the dissolution.
Charles' third Parliament, prorogued on the 26th of June,
1628, reassembled on the 20th of January, 1629. "The
Parliament Session proved very brief; but very energetic, very
extraordinary. Tonnage and Poundage, what we now call
Customhouse duties, a constant subject of quarrel between
Charles and his Parliaments hitherto, had again been levied
without Parliamentary consent; in the teeth of old 'Tallagio
non concedendo,' nay even of the late solemnly confirmed
Petition of Right; and naturally gave rise to Parliamentary
consideration. Merchants had been imprisoned for refusing to
pay it; Members of Parliament themselves had been 'supoena'd':
there was a very ravelled coil to deal with in regard to
Tonnage and Poundage. Nay the Petition of Right itself had
been altered in the Printing; a very ugly business too. In
regard to Religion also, matters looked equally ill. Sycophant
Mainwaring, just censured in Parliament, had been promoted to
a fatter living. Sycophant Montague, in the like
circumstances, to a Bishopric: Laud was in the act of
consecrating him at Croydon, when the news of Buckingham's
death came thither. There needed to be a Committee of
Religion. The House resolved itself into a Grand Committee of
Religion; and did not want for matter. Bishop Neile of
Winchester, Bishop Laud now of London, were a frightfully
ceremonial pair of Bishops; the fountain they of innumerable
tendencies to Papistry and the old clothes of Babylon. It was
in this Committee of Religion, on the 11th day of February,
1628-9, that Mr. Cromwell, Member for Huntingdon, stood up and
made his first speech, a fragment of which has found its way
into History. … A new Remonstrance behoves to be resolved
upon; Bishops Neile and Laud are even to be 'named' there.
Whereupon, before they could get well 'named' … the King
hastily interfered. This Parliament, in a fortnight more, was
dissolved; and that under circumstances of the most
unparalleled sort. For Speaker Finch, as we have seen, was a
Courtier, in constant communication with the King: one day,
while these high matters were astir, Speaker Finch refused to
'put the question' when ordered by the House! He said he had
orders to the contrary; persisted in that;—and at last took
to weeping. What was the House to do? Adjourn for two days;
and consider what to do! On the second day, which was
Wednesday, Speaker Finch signified that by his Majesty's
command they were again adjourned till Monday next. On Monday
next, Speaker Finch, still recusant, would not put the former
nor indeed any question, having the King's order to adjourn
again instantly. He refused; was reprimanded, menaced; once
more took to weeping; then started up to go his ways. But
young Mr. Holles, Denzil Holles, the Earl of Clare's second
son, he and certain other honourable members were prepared for
that movement: they seized Speaker Finch, set him down in his
chair, and by main force held him there! A scene of such
agitation as was never seen in Parliament before. 'The House
was much troubled.' 'Let him go,' cried certain Privy
Councillors, Majesty's Ministers as we should now call them,
who in those days sat in front of the Speaker, 'Let Mr.
Speaker go!' cried they imploringly. 'No!' answered Holles;
'God's wounds, he shall sit there till it please the House to
rise!' The House in a decisive though almost distracted
manner, with their Speaker thus held down for them, locked
their doors; redacted Three emphatic Resolutions, their
Protest against Arminianism, Papistry, and illegal Tonnage and
Poundage; and passed the same by acclamation; letting no man
out, refusing to let even the King's Usher in; then swiftly
vanishing so soon as the resolutions were passed, for they
understood the soldiery was coming. For which surprising
procedure, vindicated by Necessity the mother of Invention,
and supreme of Lawgivers, certain honourable gentlemen, Denzil
Holles, Sir John Eliot, William Strode, John Selden, and
others less known to us, suffered fine, imprisonment, and much
legal tribulation: nay Sir John Eliot, refusing to submit, was
kept in the Tower till he died. This scene fell out on Monday,
2d of March, 1629."
_T. Carlyle,
Introduction to Oliver Cromwell's Letters and Speeches,
chapter 4._
ALSO IN:
J. Forster,
Sir John Eliot: a Biography,
book 10, section 6-8 (volume 2).
ENGLAND: A. D. 1630.
Emigration of the Governor and Company of Massachusetts Bay,
with their royal charter.
See MASSACHUSETTS: A. D. 1629-1630.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1631.
Aid to Gustavus Adolphus in Germany.
See GERMANY: A. D. 1631-1632.
ENGLAND: A. D: 1632.
Cession of Acadia (Nova Scotia) to France.
See NOVA SCOTIA (ACADIA): A. D. 1621-1668.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1632.
The Palatine grant of Maryland to Lord Baltimore.
See MARYLAND: A. D. 1632.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1633-1640.
The Ecclesiastical despotism of Laud.
"When Charles, having quarreled with his parliament, stood
alone in the midst of his kingdom, seeking on all sides the
means of governing, the Anglican clergy believed this day [for
establishing the independent and uncontrolled power of their
church] was come. They had again got immense wealth, and
enjoyed it without dispute. The papists no longer inspired
them with alarm. The primate of the church, Laud, possessed
the entire confidence of the king and alone directed all
ecclesiastical affairs. Among the other ministers, none
professed, like lord Burleigh under Elizabeth, to fear and
struggle against the encroachments of the clergy. The
courtiers were indifferent, or secret papists. Learned men
threw lustre over the church. The universities, that of Oxford
more especially, were devoted to her maxims. Only one
adversary remained—the people, each day more discontented
with uncompleted reform, and more eager fully to accomplish
it. But this adversary was also the adversary of the throne;
it claimed at the same time, the one to secure the other,
evangelical faith and civil liberty.
{851}
The same peril threatened the sovereignty of the crown and of
episcopacy. The king, sincerely pious, seemed disposed to
believe that he was not the only one who held his authority
from God, and that the power of the bishops was neither of
less high origin, nor of less sacred character. Never had so
many favourable circumstances seemed combined to enable the
clergy to achieve independence of the crown, dominion over the
people. Laud set himself to work with his accustomed
vehemence. First, it was essential that all dissensions in the
bosom of the church itself should cease, and that the
strictest uniformity should infuse strength into its
doctrines, its discipline, its worship. He applied himself to
this task with the most unhesitating and unscrupulous
resolution. Power was exclusively concentrated into the hands
of the bishops. The court of high commission, where they took
cognizance of and decided everything relating to religious
matters, became day by day more arbitrary, more harsh in its
jurisdiction, its forms and its penalties. The complete
adoption of the Anglican canons, the minute observance of the
liturgy, and the rites enforced in cathedrals, were rigorously
exacted on the part of the whole ecclesiastical body. A great
many livings were in the hands of nonconformists; they were
withdrawn from them. The people crowded to their sermons; they
were forbidden to preach. … Persecution followed and reached
them everywhere. … Meantime, the pomp of catholic worship
speedily took possession of the churches deprived of their
pastors; while persecution kept away the faithful,
magnificence adorned the walls. They were consecrated amid
great display, and it was then necessary to employ force to
collect a congregation. Laud was fond of prescribing minutely
the details of new ceremonies—sometimes borrowed from Rome,
sometimes the production of his own imagination, at once
ostentatious and austere. On the part of the nonconformists,
every innovation, the least derogation from the canons or the
liturgy, was punished as a crime; yet Laud innovated without
consulting anybody, looking to nothing beyond the king's
consent, and sometimes acting entirely upon his own authority.
… And all these changes had, if not the aim, at all events
the result, of rendering the Anglican church more and more
like that of Rome. … Books were published to prove that the
doctrine of the English bishops might very well adapt itself
to that of Rome; and these books, though not regularly
licensed, were dedicated to the king or to Laud, and openly
tolerated. … The splendour and exclusive dominion of
episcopacy thus established, at least so he flattered himself,
Laud proceeded to secure its independence. … The divine
right of bishops became, in a short time, the official
doctrine, not only of the upper clergy, but of the king
himself. … By the time things had come to this pass, the
people were not alone in their anger. The high nobility, part
of them at least, took the alarm. They saw in the progress of
the church far more than mere tyranny; it was a regular
revolution, which, not satisfied with crushing popular
reforms, disfigured and endangered the first reformation; that
which kings had made and the aristocracy adopted."
_F. P. Guizot,
History of the English Revolution of 1640,
book 2._
ALSO IN:
_D. Neal,
History of the Puritans,
volume 2, chapters 4-6._
_G. G. Perry,
History of the Church of England,
chapters 13-16 (volume l)._
_P. Bayne,
The Chief Actors of the Puritan Revolution,
chapter 3._
ENGLAND: A. D. 1634-1637.
Hostile measures against the Massachusetts Colony.
See MASSACHUSETTS: A. D. 1634-1637.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1634-1637.
Ship-money.
"The aspect of public affairs grew darker and darker. … All
the promises of the king were violated without scruple or
shame. The Petition of Right, to which he had, in
consideration of moneys duly numbered, given a solemn assent,
was set at naught. Taxes were raised by the royal authority.
Patents of monopoly were granted. The old usages of feudal
times were made pretexts for harassing the people with
exactions unknown during many years. The Puritans were
persecuted with cruelty worthy of the Holy Office. They were
forced to fly from the country. They were imprisoned. They
were whipped. Their ears were cut off. Their noses were slit.
Their cheeks were branded with red-hot iron. But the cruelty
of the oppressor could not tire out the fortitude of the
victims. … The hardy sect grew up and flourished, in spite
of everything that seemed likely to stunt it, struck its roots
deep into a. barren soil, and spread its branches wide to an
inclement sky. … For the misgovernment of this disastrous
period, Charles himself is principally responsible. After the
death of Buckingham, he seemed to have been his own prime
minister. He had, however, two counsellors who seconded him,
or went beyond him, in intolerance and lawless violence; the
one a superstitious driveller, as honest as a vile temper
would suffer him to be; the other a man of great valour and
capacity, but licentious, faithless, corrupt, and cruel. Never
were faces more strikingly characteristic of the individuals
to whom they belonged than those of Laud and Strafford, as
they still remain portrayed by the most skilful hand of that
age. The mean forehead, the pinched features, the peering eyes
of the prelate suit admirably with his disposition. They mark
him out as a lower kind of Saint Dominic. … But
Wentworth—whoever names him without thinking of those harsh
dark features, ennobled by their expression into more than the
majesty of an antique Jupiter! … Among the humbler tools of
Charles were Chief-Justice Finch, and Noy, the
attorney-general. Noy had, like Wentworth, supported the cause
of liberty in Parliament, and had, like Wentworth, abandoned that
cause for the sake of office. He devised, in conjunction with
Finch, a scheme of exaction which made the alienation of the
people from the throne complete. A writ was issued by the
king, commanding the city of London to equip and man ships of
war for his service. Similar writs were sent to the towns
along the coast. These measures, though they were direct
violations of the Petition of Right, had at least some show of
precedent in their favour. But, after a time, the government
took a step for which no precedent could be pleaded, and sent
writs of ship-money to the inland counties. This was a stretch
of power on which Elizabeth herself had not ventured, even at
a time when all laws might with propriety have been made to
bend to that highest law, the safety of the state. The inland
counties had not been required to furnish ships, or money in
the room of ships, even when the Armada was approaching our
shores.
{852}
It seemed intolerable that a prince, who, by assenting to the
Petition of Right, had relinquished the power of levying
ship-money even in the outports, should be the first to levy
it on parts of the kingdom where it had been unknown, under
the most absolute of his predecessors. Clarendon distinctly
admits that this tax was intended, not only for the support of
the navy, but 'for a spring and magazine that should have no
bottom, and for an everlasting supply on all occasions.' The
nation well understood this; and from one end of England to
the other, the public mind was strongly excited.
Buckinghamshire was assessed at a ship of 450 tons, or a sum
of £4,500. The share of the tax which fell to Hampden was very
small [twenty shillings]; so small, indeed, that the sheriff
was blamed for setting so wealthy a man at so low a rate. But,
though the sum demanded was a trifle, the principle of the
demand was despotism. Hampden, after consulting the most
eminent constitutional lawyers of the time, refused to pay the
few shillings at which he was assessed; and determined to
incur all the certain expense and the probable danger of
bringing to a solemn hearing this great controversy between
the people and the crown. … Towards the close of the year
1636, this great cause came on in the Exchequer Chamber before
all the judges of England. The leading counsel against the
writ was the celebrated Oliver St. John; a man whose temper
was melancholy, whose manners were reserved, and who was as
yet little known in Westminster Hall; but whose great talents
had not escaped the penetrating eye of Hampden. The arguments
of the counsel occupied many days; and the Exchequer Chamber
took a considerable time for deliberation. The opinion of the
bench was divided. So clearly was the law in favour of
Hampden, that though the judges held their situations only
during the royal pleasure, the majority against him was the
least possible. Four of the twelve pronounced decidedly in his
favour; a fifth took a middle course. The remaining seven gave
their voices in favour of the writ. The only effect of this
decision was to make the public indignation stronger and
deeper. 'The judgment,' says Clarendon, 'proved of more
advantage and credit to the gentleman condemned than to the
king's service.' The courage which Hampden had shown on this
occasion, as the same historian tells us, 'raised his
reputation to a great height generally throughout the
kingdom.'"
_Lord Macaulay,
Essays,
volume 2 (Nugent's Memorials of Hampden)._
ALSO IN:
_J. Forster,
Statesmen of the Commonwealth: Hampden._
_S. R. Gardiner,
History of England, 1603-1642,
chapter 74 (volume 7),
and chapters 77 and 82 (volume 8);_
ALSO
_Constitutional Documents of the Puritan Revolution,
pages 37-53, and 115._
ENGLAND: A. D. 1638-1640.
Presbyterianism of the Puritan party.
Rise of the independents.
"It is the artifice of the favourers of the Catholic and of
the prelatical party to call all who are sticklers for the
constitution in church or state, or would square their actions
by any rule, human or divine, Puritans."
_J. Rushworth,
Historical Collection,
volume 2, 1355._
"These men [the Puritan party], at the commencement of the
civil war, were presbyterians: and such had at that time been
the great majority of the serious, the sober, and the
conscientious people of England. There was a sort of
imputation of laxness of principles, and of a tendency to
immorality of conduct, upon the adherents of the
establishment, which was infinitely injurious to the episcopal
church. But these persons, whose hearts were in entire
opposition to the hierarchy, had for the most part no
difference of opinion among themselves, and therefore no
thought of toleration for difference of opinion in others.
Their desire was to abolish episcopacy and set up presbytery.
They thought and talked much of the unity of the church of
God, and of the cordial consent and agreement of its members,
and considered all sects and varieties of sentiment as a
blemish and scandal upon their holy religion. They would put
down popery and episcopacy with the strong hand of the law,
and were disposed to employ the same instrument to suppress
all who should venture to think the presbyterian church itself
not yet sufficiently spiritual and pure. Against this party,
which lorded it for a time almost without contradiction,
gradually arose the party of the independents. … Before the
end of the civil war they became almost as strong as the party
of the presbyterians, and greatly surpassed them in abilities,
intellectual, military and civil."
_W. Godwin,
History of the Commonwealth,
book 2, chapter 1 (volume 2)._
See, also,
INDEPENDENTS; ENGLAND:
A. D. 1643 (JULY) and (JULY-SEPTEMBER),
A. D. 1646 (MARCH),
A. D. 1647 (APRIL-AUGUST),
and A. D. 1648 (NOVEMBER-DECEMBER).
ENGLAND: A. D. 1639.
The First Bishops' War in Scotland.
See SCOTLAND: A. D. 1638-1640.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1640.
The Short Parliament and the Second Bishops' War.
The Scots Army in England.
"His Majesty having burnt Scotch paper Declarations 'by the
hands of the common hangman,' and almost cut the Scotch
Chancellor Loudon's head off, and being again resolute to
chastise the rebel Scots with an Army, decides on summoning a
Parliament for that end, there being no money attainable
otherwise. To the great and glad astonishment of England;
which, at one time, thought never to have seen another
Parliament! Oliver Cromwell sat in this Parliament for
Cambridge; recommended by Hampden, say some; not needing any
recommendation in those Fen-countries, think others. Oliver's
Colleague was a Thomas Meautys, Esq. This Parliament met, 13th
April, 1640: it was by no means prompt enough with supplies
against the rebel Scots; the king dismissed it in a huff, 5th
May; after a Session of three weeks: Historians call it the
Short Parliament. His Majesty decides on raising money and an
Army 'by other methods': to which end Wentworth, now Earl
Strafford and Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland, who had advised that
course in the Council, did himself subscribe £20,000.
Archbishop Laud had long ago seen 'a cloud rising' against the
Four surplices at Allhallowtide; and now it is covering the
whole sky in a most dismal and really thundery-looking manner.
His Majesty by 'other methods,' commission of array, benevolence,
forced loan, or how he could, got a kind of Army on foot, and
set it marching out of the several Counties in the South
towards the Scotch Border; but it was a most hopeless Army.
The soldiers called the affair a Bishops' War; they mutinied
against their officers, shot some of their officers: in
various Towns on their march, if the Clergyman were reputed
Puritan, they went and gave him three cheers; if of
Surplice-tendency, they sometimes threw his furniture out of
the window.
{853}
No fighting against poor Scotch Gospellers was to be hoped for
from these men. Meanwhile the Scots, not to be behindhand, had
raised a good Army of their own; and decided on going into
England with it, this time, 'to present their grievances to
the King's Majesty.' On the 20th of August, 1640, they cross
the Tweed at Coldstream; Montrose wading in the van of them
all. They wore uniform of hodden gray, with blue caps; and
each man had a moderate haversack of oatmeal on his back.
August 28th, the Scots force their way across the Tyne, at
Newburn, some miles above Newcastle; the King's Army making
small fight, most of them no fight; hurrying from Newcastle,
and all town and country quarters, towards York again, where
his Majesty and Strafford were. The Bishops' War was at an
end. The Scots, striving to be gentle as doves in their
behaviour, and publishing boundless brotherly Declarations to
all the brethren that loved Christ's Gospel and God's Justice
in England,—took possession of Newcastle next day; took
possession gradually of all Northumberland and Durham,—and
stayed there, in various towns and villages, about a year. The
whole body of English Puritans looked upon them as their
saviours. … His Majesty and Strafford, in a fine frenzy at
the turn of affairs, found no refuge, except to summon a
'Council of Peers,' to enter upon a 'Treaty' with the Scots;
and alas, at last, summon a New Parliament. Not to be helped
in any way. … A Parliament was appointed for the 3d of
November next;—whereupon London cheerfully lent £200,000; and
the Treaty with the Scots at Ripon, 1st October, 1640, by and
by transferred to London, went peaceably on at a very
leisurely pace. The Scotch Army lay quartered at Newcastle,
and over Northumberland and Durham, on an allowance of £850 a
day; an Army indispensable for Puritan objects; no haste in
finishing its Treaty. The English army lay across in
Yorkshire; without allowance except from the casualties of the
King's Exchequer; in a dissatisfied manner, and occasionally
getting into 'Army-Plots.' This Parliament, which met on the
3d of November; 1640, has become very celebrated in History by
the name of the 'Long Parliament.'"
_T. Carlyle,
Cromwell's Letters and Speeches,
part 1: 1640._
ALSO IN:
_J. Forster,
Statesmen of the Commonwealth: Strafford._
_S. R. Gardiner,
History of England, 1603-1642,
chapter 91-94._
_J. H. Burton,
History of Scotland,
chapter 72-73 (volume 7)._
ENGLAND: A. D. 1640.
Acquisition and settlement of Madras.
See INDIA: A. D. 1600-1702.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1640-1641.
The Long Parliament and the beginning of its work.
Impeachment and Execution of Strafford.
"The game of tyranny was now up. Charles had risked and lost
his last stake. It is impossible to trace the mortifications
and humiliations which this bad man now had to endure without
a feeling of vindictive pleasure. His army was mutinous; his
treasury was empty; his people clamoured for a Parliament;
addresses and petitions against the government were presented.
Strafford was for shooting those who presented them by martial
law, but the king could not trust the soldiers. A great
council of Peers was called at York, but the king would not
trust even the Peers. He struggled, he evaded, he hesitated,
he tried every shift rather than again face the
representatives of his injured people. At length no shift was
left. He made a truce with the Scots, and summoned a
Parliament. … On the 3d of November, 1640—a day to be long
remembered—met that great Parliament, destined to every
extreme of fortune—to empire and to servitude, to glory and
to contempt;—at one time the sovereign of its sovereign, at
another time the servant of its servants, and the tool of its
tools. From the first day of its meeting the attendance was
great, and the aspect of the members was that of men not
disposed to do the work negligently. The dissolution of the
late Parliament had convinced most of them that half measures
would no longer suffice. Clarendon tells us that 'the same men
who, six months before, were observed to be of very moderate
tempers, and to wish that gentle remedies might be applied,
talked now in another dialect both of kings and persons; and
said that they must now be of another temper than they were
the last Parliament.' The debt of vengeance was swollen by all
the usury which had been accumulating during many years; and
payment was made to the full. This memorable crisis called
forth parliamentary abilities, such as England had never
before seen. Among the most distinguished members of the House
of Commons were Falkland, Hyde, Digby, Young, Harry Vane, Oliver
St. John, Denzil Hollis, Nathaniel Fiennes. But two men
exercised a paramount influence over the legislature and the
country—Pym and Hampden; and, by the universal consent of
friends and enemies, the first place belonged to Hampden."
_Lord Macaulay,
Nugent's Memorials of Hampden
(Critical and Miscellaneous Essays, volume 2)._
"The resolute looks of the members as they gathered at
Westminster contrasted with the hesitating words of the king,
and each brought from borough or county a petition of
grievances. Fresh petitions were brought every day by bands of
citizens or farmers. Forty committees were appointed to
examine and report on them, and their reports formed the
grounds on which the Commons acted. One by one the illegal
acts of the Tyranny were annulled. Prynne and his fellow
'martyrs' recalled from their prisons, entered London in
triumph, amid the shouts of a great multitude who strewed
laurel in their path. The civil and criminal jurisdiction of
the Privy Council, the Star Chamber, the Court of High
Commission, the irregular jurisdictions of the Council of the
North, of the Duchy of Lancaster, the County of Chester, and a
crowd of lesser tribunals, were summarily abolished.
Ship-money was declared illegal, and the judgment in Hampden's
case annulled. A statute declaring 'the ancient right of the
subjects of this kingdom that no subsidy, custom, impost, or
any charge whatsoever, ought or may be laid or imposed upon
any merchandize exported or imported by subjects, denizens or
allies, without common consent of Parliament,' put an end
forever to all pretensions to a right of arbitrary taxation on
the part of the crown. A Triennial Bill enforced the Assembly
of the Houses every three years, and bound the sheriff and
citizens to proceed to election if the Royal writ failed to
summon them. Charles protested, but gave way. He was forced to
look helplessly on at the wreck of his Tyranny, for the Scotch
army was still encamped in the north. … Meanwhile the
Commons were dealing roughly with the agents of the Royal
system. …
{854}
Windebank, the Secretary of State, with the Chancellor, Finch,
fled in terror over sea. Laud himself was flung into prison.
… But even Laud, hateful as he was to all but the poor
neighbours whose prayers his alms had won, was not the centre
of so great and universal a hatred as the Earl of Strafford.
Strafford's guilt was more than the guilt of a servile
instrument of tyranny—it was the guilt of 'that grand
apostate to the Commonwealth who,' in the terrible words which
closed Lord Digby's invective, 'must not expect to be pardoned
in this world till he be dispatched to the other.' He was
conscious of his danger, but Charles forced him to attend the
Court.' He came to London with the solemn assurance of his
master that, "while there was a king in England, not a hair of
Strafford's head should be touched by the Parliament."
Immediately impeached of high treason by the Commons, and sent
to the Tower, he received from the king a second and more
solemn pledge, by letter, that, "upon the word of a king, you
shall not suffer in life, honour or fortune." But the "word of
a king" like Charles Stuart, had neither honor nor gratitude, nor
a decent self respect behind it. He could be false to a friend
as easily as to an enemy. When the Commons, fearing failure on
the trial of their impeachment, resorted to a bill of
attainder, Charles signed it with a little resistance, and
Strafford went bravely and manfully to the block. "As the axe
fell, the silence of the great multitude was broken by a
universal shout of joy. The streets blazed with bonfires. The
bells clashed out from every steeple."
_J. R. Green,
Short History of England,
chapter 8, section 6._
The king "was as deeply pledged to Strafford as one man could
be to another; he was as vitally concerned in saving the life
and prolonging the service of incomparably his ablest servant
as was ever any sovereign in the case of any minister; yet it
is clear that for some days past, probably ever since the
first signs of popular tumult began to manifest themselves, he
had been wavering. Four days before the Bill passed the Lords,
Strafford as is well known, entreated the king to assent to
it. There is no reason to doubt the absolute sincerity with
which, at the moment of its conception, the prisoner penned
his famous letter from the Tower. That passionate chivalry of
loyalty, which has never animated any human heart in equal
intensity since Strafford's ceased to beat, inspires every
line. … Charles turned distractedly from one adviser to
another, not so much for counsel as for excuse. He did not
want his judgment guided, but his conscience quieted; and his
counsellors knew it. They had other reasons, too, for urging
him to his dishonour. Panic seems to have seized upon them
all. The only man who would not have quailed before the fury
of the populace was the man himself whose life was trembling
in the balance. The judges were summoned to declare their
opinion, and replied, with an admirable choice of
non-committing terms, that 'upon all that which their
Lordships have voted to be proved the Earl of Strafford doth
deserve to undergo the pains and forfeitures of high treason.'
Charles sent for the bishops, and the bishops, with the
honourable exception of Juxon, informed him that he had two
consciences,—a public and a private conscience,—and that
'his public conscience as a king might not only dispense with,
but oblige him to do, that which was against his conscience as
a man.' What passed between these two tenants in common of the
royal breast during the whole of Sunday, May 9th, 1641, is
within no earthly knowledge; but at some time on that day
Charles's public conscience got the better of its private
rival. He signed a commission for giving the royal assent to
the Bill, and on Monday, May 10th, in the presence of a House
scarcely able to credit the act of betrayal which was taking
place before them, the Commissioners pronounced the fatal Le
roi le veult over the enactment which condemned his Minister
to the block. Charles, of course, might still have reprieved
him by an exercise of the prerogative, but the fears which
made him acquiesce in the sentence availed to prevent him from
arresting its execution."
_H. D. Traill,
Lord Stafford,
pages 195-198._
"It is a sorry office to plant the foot on a worm so crushed
and writhing as the wretched king … [who abandoned
Strafford] for it was one of the few crimes of which he was in
the event thoroughly sensible, and friend has for once
cooperated with foe in the steady application to it of the
branding iron. There is in truth hardly any way of relieving
the 'damned spot' of its intensity of hue even by distributing
the concentrated infamy over other portions of Charles's
character. … When we have convinced ourselves that this
'unthankful king' never really loved Strafford; that, as much
as in him lay, he kept the dead Buckingham in his old
privilege of mischief, by adopting his aversions and abiding
by his spleenful purposes; that, in his refusals to award
those increased honours for which his minister was a
petitioner, on the avowed ground of the royal interest, may be
discerned the petty triumph of one who dares not dispense with
the services thrust upon him, but revenges himself by
withholding their well-earned reward;—still does the
blackness accumulate to baffle our efforts. The paltry tears
he is said to have shed only burn that blackness in. If his
after conduct indeed had been different, he might have availed
himself of one excuse,—but that the man, who, in a few short
months, proved that he could make so resolute a stand
somewhere, should have judged this event no occasion for
attempting it, is either a crowning infamy or an infinite
consolation, according as we may judge wickedness or weakness
to have preponderated in the constitution of Charles I. … As
to Strafford's death, the remark that the people had no
alternative, includes all that it is necessary to urge. The
king's assurances of his intention to afford him no further
opportunity of crime, could surely weigh nothing with men who
had observed how an infinitely more disgusting minister of his
will had only seemed to rise the higher in his master's
estimation for the accumulated curses of the nation. Nothing
but the knife of Felton could sever in that case the weak head
and the wicked instrument, and it is to the honour of the
adversaries of Strafford that they were earnest that their
cause should vindicate itself completely, and look for no
adventitious redress. Strafford had outraged the people—this
was not denied. He was defended on the ground of those
outrages not amounting to a treason against the king. For my
own part, this defence appears to me decisive, looking at it
in a technical view, and with our present settlement of
evidence and treason.
{855}
But to concede that point, after the advances they had made,
would have been in that day to concede all. It was to be shown
that another power had claim to the loyalty and the service of
Strafford—and if a claim, then a vengeance to exact for its
neglect. And this was done. … One momentary emotion …
escaped … [Strafford] when he was told to prepare for death.
He asked if the king had indeed assented to the bill.
Secretary Carleton answered in the affirmative; and Strafford,
laying his hand on his heart, and raising his eyes to heaven,
uttered the memorable words,—'Put not your trust in princes,
nor in the sons of men, for in them there is no salvation.'
Charles's conduct was indeed incredibly monstrous."
_R. Browning,
Thomas Wentworth, Earl of Strafford
(Eminent British Statesmen, by John Forster, volume 2,
pages 403-406)._
ALSO IN:
_J. Forster,
Statesmen of the Commonwealth: Strafford; Pym._
_Earl of Clarendon,
History of the Rebellion,
book 3 (volume 1)._
_Lord Nugent,
Memorials of Hampden.
parts 5-6 (volumes 1-2)._
_Lady T. Lewis,
Life of Lord Falkland._
The following are the Articles of Impeachment under which
Strafford was tried and condemned:
"Articles of the Commons, assembled in Parliament, against
Thomas Earl of Strafford, in Maintenance of their Accusation,
whereby he stands charged with High Treason.
I. That he the said Thomas earl of Strafford hath traiterously
endeavoured to subvert the fundamental laws and government of
the realms of England and Ireland, and, instead thereof, to
introduce an arbitrary and tyrannical government, against law,
which he hath declared by traiterous words, counsels, and
actions, and by giving his majesty advice, by force of arms,
to compel his loyal subjects to submit thereunto.
II. That he hath traiterously assumed to himself regal power
over the lives, liberties of persons, lands, and goods of his
majesty's subjects, in England and Ireland, and hath exercised
the same tyrannically, to the subversion and undoing of many,
both peers and others, of his majesty's liege people.
III. The better to inrich, and enable himself to go through
with his traiterous designs, he hath detained a great part of
his majesty's revenue, without giving any legal accounts; and
hath taken great sums of money out of the exchequer,
converting them to his own use, when his majesty was
necessitated for his own urgent occasions, and his army had
been a long time unpaid.
IV. That he hath traiterously abused the power and authority
of his government, to the increasing, countenancing, and
encouraging of Papists, that so he might settle a mutual
dependence and confidence betwixt himself and that party, and
by their help prosecute and accomplish his malicious and
tyrannical designs.
V. That he hath maliciously endeavoured to stir up enmity and
hostility between his majesty's subjects of England and those
of Scotland.
VI. That he hath traiterously broken the great trust reposed
in him by his majesty, of lieutenant general of his Army, by
wilfully betraying divers of his majesty's subjects to death,
his majesty's Army to a dishonourable defeat by the Scots at
Newborne, and the town of Newcastle into their hands, to the
end that, by effusion of blood, by dishonour, by so great a
loss as of Newcastle, his majesty's realm of England might be
engaged in a national and irreconcilable quarrel with the
Scots.
VII. That, to preserve himself from being questioned for these
and other his traiterous courses, he laboured to subvert the
right of parliaments, and the ancient course of parliamentary
proceedings, and, by false and malicious slanders, to incense
his maj. against parliaments.—By which words, counsels, and
actions, he hath traiterously, and contrary to his allegiance,
laboured to alienate the hearts of the king's liege people
from his maj. to set a division between them, and to ruin and
destroy his majesty's kingdoms, for which they do impeach him
of High Treason against our sovereign lord the king, his crown
and dignity. And he the said earl of Strafford was lord deputy
of Ireland, or lord lieutenant of Ireland, and lieutenant
general of the Army there, under his majesty, and a sworn
privy counsellor to his maj. for his kingdoms both of England
and Ireland, and lord president of the North, during the time
that all and every of the crimes and offences before set forth
were done and committed; and he the said earl was lieutenant
general of his majesty's Army in the North parts of England,
during the time that the crimes and offences in the 5th and
6th Articles set forth were done and committed.—And the said
commons, by protestation, saving to themselves the liberty of
exhibiting at any time hereafter any other Accusation or
Impeachment against the said earl, and also of replying to the
Answer that he the said earl shall make unto the said
Articles, or to any of them, and of offering proof also of the
premises, or any of them, or of any other Accusation or
Impeachment that shall be by them exhibited, as the case
shall, according to the course of parliaments, require; and do
pray that the said earl may be put to answer to all and every
the premises; and that such proceedings, examination, trial,
and judgment, may be upon every of them had and used, as is
agreeable to law and justice."
_Cobbett's Parliamentary History of England,
volume 2, pages 737-739._
ENGLAND: A. D. 1641 (March-May).
The Root and Branch Bill.
"A bill was brought in [March, 1641], known as the Restraining
Bill, to deprive Bishops of their rights of voting in the
House of Lords. The opposition it encountered in that House
induced the Commons to follow it up [May 27] with a more
vehement measure, 'for the utter abolition of Archbishops,
Bishops. Deans, Archdeacons, Prebendaries and Canons,' a
measure known by the title of the Root and Branch Bill. By the
skill of the royal partisans, this bill was long delayed in
Committee."
_J. F. Bright,
History of England,
period 2 (volume 2), page 650._
ALSO IN:
_D. Masson,
Life of John Milton,
volume 2, book 2, chapter 3._
ENGLAND: A. D. 1641 (October).
Roundheads and Cavaliers.
The birth of English parties.
"After ten months of assiduous toil, the Houses, in September,
1641, adjourned for a short vacation and the king visited
Scotland. He with difficulty pacified that kingdom, by
consenting not only to relinquish his plans of ecclesiastical
reform, but even to pass, with a very bad grace, an act
declaring that episcopacy was contrary to the word of God. The
recess of the English Parliament lasted six weeks. The day on
which the houses met again is one of the most remarkable
epochs in our history. From that day dates the corporate
existence of the two great parties which have ever since
alternately governed the country. …
{856}
During the first months of the Long Parliament, the
indignation excited by many years of lawless oppression was so
strong and general that the House of Commons acted as one man.
Abuse after abuse disappeared without a struggle. If a small
minority of the representative body wished to retain the Star
Chamber and the High Commission, that minority, overawed by
the enthusiasm and by the numerical superiority of the
reformers, contented itself with secretly regretting
institutions which could not, with any hope of success, be
openly defended. At a later period the Royalists found it
convenient to antedate the separation between themselves and
their opponents, and to attribute the Act which restrained the
king from dissolving or proroguing the Parliament, the
Triennial Act, the impeachment of the ministers, and the
attainder of Strafford, to the faction which afterwards made
war on the king. But no artifice could be more disingenuous.
Everyone of those strong measures was actively promoted by the
men who were afterwards foremost among the Cavaliers. No
republican spoke of the long misgovernment of Charles more
severely than Colepepper. The most remarkable speech in favour
of the Triennial Bill was made by Digby. The impeachment of
the Lord Keeper was moved by Falkland. The demand that the
Lord Lieutenant should be kept close prisoner was made at the
bar of the Lords by Hyde. Not till the law attainting
Strafford was proposed did the signs of serious disunion
become visible. Even against that law, a law which nothing but
extreme necessity could justify, only about sixty members of
the House of Commons voted. It is certain that Hyde was not in
the minority, and that Falkland not only voted with the
majority, but spoke strongly for the bill. Even the few who
entertained a scruple about inflicting death by a
retrospective enactment thought it necessary to express the
utmost abhorrence of Strafford's character and administration.
But under this apparent concord a great schism was latent; and
when, in October 1641, the Parliament reassembled after a
short recess, two hostile parties, essentially the same with
those which, under different names, have ever since contended,
and are still contending, for the direction of public affairs,
appeared confronting each other. During some years they were
designated as Cavaliers and Roundheads. They were subsequently
called Tories and Whigs; nor does it seem that these
appellations are likely soon to become obsolete."
_Lord Macaulay,
History of England,
chapter 1._
It was not until some months later, however, that the name of
Roundheads was applied to the defenders of popular rights by
their royalist adversaries.
See ROUNDHEADS.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1641 (November).
The Grand Remonstrance.
Early in November, 1641, the king being in Scotland, and news
of the insurrection in Ireland having just reached London, the
party of Pym, Hampden, and Cromwell "resolved on a great
pitched battle between them and the opposition, which should
try their relative strengths before the king's return; and
they chose to fight this battle over a vast document, which
they entitled 'A Declaration and Remonstrance of the State of
the Kingdom,' but which has come to be known since as The
Grand Remonstrance. … The notion of a great general document
which, under the name of 'A Remonstrance,' should present to
the king in one view a survey of the principal evils that had
crept into the kingdom in his own and preceding reigns, with a
detection of their causes, and a specification of the
remedies, had more than once been before the Commons. It had
been first mooted by Lord Digby while the Parliament was not a
week old. Again and again set aside for more immediate work, it
had recurred to the leaders of the Movement party, just before
the king's departure for Scotland, as likely to afford the
broad battle-ground with the opposition then becoming
desirable. 'A Remonstrance to be made, how we found the
Kingdom and the Church, and how the state of it now stands,'
such was the description of the then intended document (August
7). The document had doubtless been in rehearsal through the
Recess, for on the 8th of November the rough draft of it was
presented to the House and read at the clerk's table. When we
say that the document in its final form occupies thirteen
folio pages of rather close print in Rushworth, and consists
of a preamble followed by 206 articles or paragraphs duly
numbered, one can conceive what a task the reading of even the
first draft of it must have been, and through what a storm of
successive debates over proposed amendments and additions it
reached completeness. There had been no such debates yet in
the Parliament."
_D. Masson,
Life of John Milton,
volume 2, book 2, chapter 6._
"It [The Grand Remonstrance] embodies the case of the
Parliament against the Ministers of the king. It is the most
authentic statement ever put forth of the wrongs endured by
all classes of the English people, during the first fifteen
years of the reign of Charles I.; and, for that reason, the
most complete justification upon record of the Great
Rebellion." The debates on The Grand Remonstrance were begun
November 9 and ended November 22, when the vote was taken:
Ayes, 159.—Noes, 148.—So evenly were the parties in the
great struggle then divided.
_J. Forster,
History and Biographical Essays,
volume 1: Debates on the Grand Remonstrance._
The following is the text of "The Grand Remonstrance," with
that of the Petition preceding it:
"Most Gracious Sovereign: Your Majesty's most humble and
faithful subjects the Commons in this present Parliament
assembled, do with much thankfulness and joy acknowledge the
great mercy and favour of God, in giving your Majesty a safe
and peaceable return out of Scotland into your kingdom of
England, where the pressing dangers and distempers of the
State have caused us with much earnestness to desire the
comfort of your gracious presence, and likewise the unity and
justice of your royal authority, to give more life and power
to the dutiful and loyal counsels and endeavours of your
Parliament, for the prevention of that eminent ruin and
destruction wherein your kingdoms of England and Scotland are
threatened. The duty which we owe to your Majesty and our
country, cannot but make us very sensible and apprehensive,
that the multiplicity, sharpness and malignity of those evils
under which we have now many years suffered, are fomented and
cherished by a corrupt and ill-affected party, who amongst
other their mischievous devices for the alteration of religion
and government, have sought by many false scandals and
imputations, cunningly insinuated and dispersed amongst the
people, to blemish and disgrace our proceedings in this
Parliament, and to get themselves a party and faction amongst
your subjects, for the better strengthening themselves in
their wicked courses; and hindering those provisions and
remedies which might, by the wisdom of your Majesty and
counsel of your Parliament, be opposed against them.
{857}
For preventing whereof, and the better information of your
Majesty, your Peers and all other your loyal subjects, we have
been necessitated to make a declaration of the state of the
kingdom, both before and since the assembly of this
Parliament, unto this time, which we do humbly present to your
Majesty, without the least intention to lay any blemish upon
your royal person, but only to represent how your royal
authority and trust have been abused, to the great prejudice
and danger of your Majesty, and of all your good subjects. And
because we have reason to believe that those malignant
parties, whose proceedings evidently appear to be mainly for
the advantage and increase of Popery, is composed, set up, and
acted by the subtile practice of the Jesuits and other
engineers and factors for Rome, and to the great danger of
this kingdom, and most grievous affliction of your loyal
subjects, have so far prevailed as to corrupt divers of your
Bishops and others in prime places of the Church, and also to
bring divers of these instruments to be of your Privy Council,
and other employments of trust and nearness about your
Majesty, the Prince, and the rest of your royal children. And
by this means have had such an operation in your counsel and
the most important affairs and proceedings of your government,
that a most dangerous division and chargeable preparation for
war betwixt your kingdoms of England and Scotland, the
increase of jealousies betwixt your Majesty and your most
obedient subjects, the violent distraction and interruption of
this Parliament, the insurrection of the Papists in your
kingdom of Ireland, and bloody massacre of your people, have
been not only endeavoured and attempted, but in a great
measure compassed and effected. For preventing the final
accomplishment whereof, your poor subjects are enforced to
engage their persons and estates to the maintaining of a very
expensive and dangerous war, notwithstanding they have already
since the beginning of this Parliament undergone the charge of
£150,000 sterling, or thereabouts, for the necessary support
and supply of your Majesty in these present and perilous
designs. And because all our most faithful endeavours and
engagements will be ineffectual for the peace, safety and
preservation of your Majesty and your people, if some present,
real and effectual course be not taken for suppressing this
wicked and malignant party:—We, your most humble and obedient
subjects, do with all faithfulness and humility beseech your
Majesty,
1. That you will be graciously pleased to concur with the
humble desires of your people in a parliamentary way, for the
preserving the peace and safety of the kingdom from the
malicious designs of the Popish party:
For depriving the Bishops of their votes in Parliament, and
abridging their immoderate power usurped over the Clergy,
and other your good subjects, which they have perniciously
abused to the hazard of religion, and great prejudice and
oppression of the laws of the kingdom, and just liberty of
your people:
For the taking away such oppressions in religion, Church
government and discipline, as have been brought in and
fomented by them;
For uniting all such your loyal subjects together as join
in the same fundamental truths against the Papists, by
removing some oppressions and unnecessary ceremonies by
which divers weak consciences have been scrupled, and seem
to be divided from the rest, and for the due execution of
those good laws which have been made for securing the
liberty of your subjects.
2. That your Majesty will likewise be pleased to remove from
your council all such as persist to favour and promote any of
those pressures and corruptions wherewith your people have
been grieved, and that for the future your Majesty will
vouchsafe to employ such persons in your great and public
affairs, and to take such to be near you in places of trust,
as your Parliament may have cause to confide in; that in your
princely goodness to your people you will reject and refuse
all mediation and solicitation to the contrary, how powerful
and near soever.
3. That you will be pleased to forbear to alienate any of the
forfeited and escheated lands in Ireland which shall accrue to
your Crown by reason of this rebellion, that out of them the
Crown may be the better supported, and some satisfaction made
to your subjects of this kingdom for the great expenses they
are like to undergo [in] this war. Which humble desires of
ours being graciously fulfilled by your Majesty, we will, by
the blessing and favour of God, most cheerfully undergo the
hazard and expenses of this war, and apply ourselves to such
other courses and counsels as may support your real estate
with honour and plenty at home, with power and reputation
abroad, and by our loyal affections, obedience and service,
lay a sure and lasting foundation of the greatness and
prosperity of your Majesty, and your royal prosperity in
future times.
The Commons in this present Parliament assembled, having with
much earnestness and faithfulness of affection and zeal to the
public good of this kingdom, and His Majesty's honour and
service for the space of twelve months, wrestled with great
dangers and fears, the pressing miseries and calamities, the
various distempers and disorders which had not only assaulted,
but even overwhelmed and extinguished the liberty, peace and
prosperity of this kingdom, the comfort and hopes of all His
Majesty's good subjects, and exceedingly weakened and
undermined the foundation and strength of his own royal
throne, do yet find an abounding malignity and opposition in
those parties and factions who have been the cause of those
evils, and do still labour to cast aspersions upon that which
hath been done, and to raise many difficulties for the
hindrance of that which remains yet undone, and to foment
jealousies between the King and Parliament, that so they may
deprive him and his people of the fruit of his own gracious
intentions, and their humble desires of procuring the public
peace, safety and happiness of this realm. For the preventing
of those miserable effects which such malicious endeavours may
produce, we have thought good to declare the root and the
growth of these mischievous designs: the maturity and ripeness
to which they have attained before the beginning of the
Parliament: the effectual means which have been used for the
extirpation of those dangerous evils, and the progress which
hath therein been made by His Majesty's goodness and the
wisdom of the Parliament: the ways of obstruction and
opposition by which that progress hath been interrupted: the
courses to be taken for the removing those obstacles, and for
the accomplishing of our most dutiful and faithful intentions
and endeavours of restoring and establishing the ancient
honour, greatness and security of this Crown and nation.
{858}
The root of all this mischief we find to be a malignant and
pernicious design of subverting the fundamental laws and
principles of government, upon which the religion and justice
of this kingdom are firmly established. The actors and
promoters hereof have been:
1. The Jesuited Papists, who hate the laws, as the obstacles
of that change and subversion of religion which they so much
long for.
2. The Bishops, and the corrupt part of the Clergy, who
cherish formality and superstition as the natural effects and
more probable supports of their own ecclesiastical tyranny and
usurpation.
3. Such Councillors and Courtiers as for private ends have
engaged themselves to further the interests of some foreign
princes or states to the prejudice of His Majesty and the
State at home. The common principles by which they moulded and
governed all their particular counsels and actions were these:
First, to maintain continual differences and discontents
between the King and the people, upon questions of prerogative
and liberty, that so they might have the advantage of siding
with him, and under the notions of men addicted to his
service, gain to themselves and their parties the places of
greatest trust and power in the kingdom. A second, to suppress
the purity and power of religion, and such persons as were
best affected to it, as being contrary to their own ends, and
the greatest impediment to that change which they thought to
introduce. A third, to conjoin those parties of the kingdom
which were most propitious to their own ends, and to divide
those who were most opposite, which consisted in many
particular observations. To cherish the Arminian part in those
points wherein they agree with the Papists, to multiply and
enlarge the difference between the common Protestants and
those whom they call Puritans, to introduce and countenance
such opinions and ceremonies as are fittest for accommodation
with Popery, to increase and maintain ignorance, looseness and
profaneness in the people; that of those three parties,
Papists, Arminians and Libertines, they might compose a body
fit to act such counsels and resolutions as were most
conducible to their own ends. A fourth, to disaffect the King
to Parliaments by slander and false imputations, and by
putting him upon other ways of supply, which in show and
appearance were fuller of advantage than the ordinary course
of subsidies, though in truth they brought more loss than gain
both to the King and people, and have caused the great
distractions under which we both suffer. As in all compounded
bodies the operations are qualified according to the
predominant element, so in this mixed party, the Jesuited
counsels, being most active and prevailing, may easily be
discovered to have had the greatest sway in all their
determinations, and if they be not prevented, are likely to
devour the rest, or to turn them into their own nature. In the
beginning of His Majesty's reign the party began to revive and
flourish again, having been somewhat damped by the breach with
Spain in the last year of King James, and by His Majesty's
marriage with France; the interests and counsels of that State
being not so contrary to the good of religion and the
prosperity of this kingdom as those of Spain; and the Papists
of England, having been ever more addicted to Spain than
France, yet they still retained a purpose and resolution to
weaken the Protestant parties in all parts, and even in
France, whereby to make way for the change of religion which
they intended at home.
1. The first effect and evidence of their recovery and
strength was the dissolution of the Parliament at Oxford,
after there had been given two subsidies to His Majesty, and
before they received relief in any one grievance many other
more miserable effects followed.
2. The loss of the Rochel fleet, by the help of our shipping,
set forth and delivered over to the French in opposition to
the advice of Parliament, which left that town without defence
by sea, and made way, not only to the loss of that important
place, but likewise to the loss of all the strength and
security of the Protestant religion in France.
3. The diverting of His Majesty's course of wars from the West
Indies, which was the most facile and hopeful way for this
kingdom to prevail against the Spaniard, to an expenseful and
successless attempt upon Cadiz, which was so ordered as if it
had rather been intended to make us weary of war than to
prosper in it.
4. The precipitate breach with France, by taking their ships
to a great value without making recompense to the English,
whose goods were thereupon imbarred and confiscated in that
kingdom.
5. The peace with Spain without consent of Parliament,
contrary to the promise of King James to both Houses, whereby
the Palatine's cause was deserted and left to chargeable and
hopeless treaties, which for the most part were managed by
those who might justly be suspected to be no friends to that
cause.
6. The charging of the kingdom with billeted soldiers in all
parts of it, and the concomitant design of German horse, that
the land might either submit with fear or be enforced with
rigour to such arbitrary contributions as should be required
of them.
7. The dissolving of the Parliament in the second year of His
Majesty's reign, after a declaration of their intent to grant
five subsidies.
8. The exacting of the like proportion of five subsidies,
after the Parliament dissolved, by commission of loan, and
divers gentlemen and others imprisoned for not yielding to pay
that loan, whereby many of them contracted such sicknesses as
cost them their lives.
9. Great sums of money required and raised by privy seals.
10. An unjust and pernicious attempt to extort great payments
from the subject by way of excise, and a commission issued
under the seal to that purpose.
11. The Petition of Right, which was granted in full
Parliament, blasted, with an illegal declaration to make it
destructive to itself, to the power of Parliament, to the
liberty of the subject, and to that purpose printed with it,
and the Petition made of no use but to show the bold and
presumptuous injustice of such ministers as durst break the
laws and suppress the liberties of the kingdom, after they had
been so solemnly and evidently declared.
12. Another Parliament dissolved 4 Car., the privilege of
Parliament broken, by imprisoning divers members of the House,
detaining them close prisoners for many months together,
without the liberty of using books, pen, ink or paper; denying
them all the comforts of life, all means of preservation of
health, not permitting their wives to come unto them even in
the time of their sickness.
{859}
13. And for the completing of that cruelty, after years spent
in such miserable durance, depriving them of the necessary
means of spiritual consolation, not suffering them to go
abroad to enjoy God's ordinances in God's House, or God's
ministers to come to them to minister comfort to them in their
private chambers.
14. And to keep them still in this oppressed condition, not
admitting them to be bailed according to law, yet vexing them
with informations in inferior courts, sentencing and fining
some of them for matters done in Parliament; and extorting the
payments of those fines from them, enforcing others to put in
security of good behaviour before they could be released.
15. The imprisonment of the rest, which refused to be bound,
still continued, which might have been perpetual if necessity
had not the last year brought another Parliament to relieve
them, of whom one died [Sir John Eliot] by the cruelty and
harshness of his imprisonment, which would admit of no
relaxation, notwithstanding the imminent danger of his life,
did sufficiently appear by the declaration of his physician,
and his release, or at least his refreshment, was sought by
many humble petitions, and his blood still cries either for
vengeance or repentance of those Ministers of State, who have
at once obstructed the course both of His Majesty's justice
and mercy.
16. Upon the dissolution of both these Parliaments, untrue and
scandalous declarations were published to asperse their
proceedings, and some of their members unjustly; to make them
odious, and colour the violence which was used against them;
proclamations set out to the same purpose; and to the great
dejecting of the hearts of the people, forbidding them even to
speak of Parliaments.
17. After the breach of the Parliament in the fourth of His
Majesty, injustice, oppression and violence broke in upon us
without any restraint or moderation, and yet the first project
was the great sums exacted through the whole kingdom for
default of knighthood, which seemed to have some colour and
shadow of a law, yet if it be rightly examined by that
obsolete law which was pretended for it, it will be found to
be against all the rules of justice, both in respect of the
persons charged, the proportion of the fines demanded, and the
absurd and unreasonable manner of their proceedings.
18. Tonnage and Poundage hath been received without colour or
pretence of law; many other heavy impositions continued
against law, and some so unreasonable that the sum of the
charge exceeds the value of the goods.
19. The Book of Rates lately enhanced to a high proportion,
and such merchants that would not submit to their illegal and
unreasonable payments, were vexed and oppressed above measure;
and the ordinary course of justice, the common birthright of
the subject of England, wholly obstructed unto them.
20. And although all this was taken upon pretence of guarding
the seas, yet a new unheard-of tax of ship-money was devised,
and upon the same pretence, by both which there was charged
upon the subject near £700,000 some years, and yet the
merchants have been left so naked to the violence of the
Turkish pirates, that many great ships of value and thousands
of His Majesty's subjects have been taken by them, and do
still remain in miserable slavery.
21. The enlargements of forests, contrary to 'Carta de
Foresta,' and the composition thereupon.
22. The exactions of coat and conduct money and divers other
military charges.
23. The taking away the arms of trained bands of divers
counties.
24. The desperate design of engrossing all the gunpowder into
one hand, keeping it in the Tower of London, and setting so
high a rate upon it that the poorer sort were not able to buy
it, nor could any have it without licence, thereby to leave
the several parts of the kingdom destitute of their necessary
defence, and by selling so dear that which was sold to make an
unlawful advantage of it, to the great charge and detriment of
the subject.
25. The general destruction of the King's timber, especially
that in the Forest of Deane, sold to Papists, which was the
best store-house of this kingdom for the maintenance of our
shipping.
26. The taking away of men's right, under the colour of the
King's title to land, between high and low water marks.
27. The monopolies of soap, salt, wine, leather, sea-coal, and
in a manner of all things of most common and necessary use.
28. The restraint of the liberties of the subjects in their
habitation, trades and other interests.
29. Their vexation and oppression by purveyors, clerks of the
market and saltpetre men.
30. The sale of pretended nuisances, as building in and about
London.
31. Conversion of arable into pasture, continuance of pasture,
under the name of depopulation, have driven many millions out
of the subjects' purses, without any considerable profit to
His Majesty.
32. Large quantities of common and several grounds hath been
taken from the subject by colour of the Statute of
Improvement, and by abuse of the Commission of Sewers, without
their consent, and against it.
33. And not only private interest, but also public faith, have
been broken in seizing of the money and bullion in the mint,
and the whole kingdom like to be robbed at once in that
abominable project of brass money.
34. Great numbers of His Majesty's subjects for refusing those
unlawful charges, have been vexed with long and expensive
suits, some fined and censured, others committed to long and
hard imprisonments and confinements, to the loss of health in
many, of life in some, and others have had their houses broken
up, their goods seized, some have been restrained from their
lawful callings.
35. Ships have been interrupted in their voyages, surprised at
sea in a hostile manner by projectors, as by a common enemy.
36. Merchants prohibited to unlade their goods in such ports
as were for their own advantage, and forced to bring them to
those places which were much for the advantage of the
monopolisers and projectors.
{860}
37. The Court of Star Chamber hath abounded in extravagant
censures, not only for the maintenance and improvement of
monopolies and other unlawful taxes, but for divers other
causes where there hath been no offence, or very small;
whereby His Majesty's subjects have been oppressed by grievous
fines, imprisonments, stigmatisings, mutilations, whippings,
pillories, gags, confinements, banishments; after so rigid a
manner as hath not only deprived men of the society of their
friends, exercise of their professions, comfort of books, use
of paper or ink, but even violated that near union which God
hath established between men and their wives, by forced and
constrained separation, whereby they have been bereaved of the
comfort and conversation one of another for many years
together, without hope of relief, if God had not by His
overruling providence given some interruption to the
prevailing power, and counsel of those who were the authors
and promoters of such peremptory and heady courses.
38. Judges have been put out of their places for refusing to
do against their oaths and consciences; others have been so
awed that they durst not do their duties, and the better to
hold a rod over them, the clause 'Quam diu se bene gesserit'
was left out of their patents, and a new clause 'Durante bene
placito' inserted.
39. Lawyers have been checked for being faithful to their
clients; solicitors and attorneys have been threatened, and
some punished, for following lawful suits. And by this means
all the approaches to justice were interrupted and forecluded.
40. New oaths have been forced upon the subject against law.
41. New judicatories erected without law. The Council Table
have by their orders offered to bind the subjects in their
freeholds, estates, suits and actions.
42. The pretended Court of the Earl Marshal was arbitrary and
illegal in its being and proceedings.
43. The Chancery, Exchequer Chamber, Court of Wards, and other
English Courts, have been grievous in exceeding their
jurisdiction.
44. The estate of many families weakened, and some ruined by
excessive fines, exacted from them for compositions of
wardships.
45. All leases of above a hundred years made to draw on
wardship contrary to law.
46. Undue proceedings used in the finding of offices to make
the jury find for the King.
47. The Common Law Courts, feeling all men more inclined to
seek justice there, where it may be fitted to their own
desire, are known frequently to forsake the rules of the
Common Law, and straying beyond their bounds, under pretence
of equity, to do injustice.
48. Titles of honour, judicial places, sergeantships at law,
and other offices have been sold for great sums of money,
whereby the common justice of the kingdom hath been much
endangered, not only by opening a way of employment in places
of great trust, and advantage to men of weak parts, but also
by giving occasion to bribery, extortion, partiality, it
seldom happening that places ill-gotton are well used.
49. Commissions have been granted for examining the excess of
fees, and when great exactions have been discovered,
compositions have been made with delinquents, not only for the
time past, but likewise for immunity and security in offending
for the time to come, which under colour of remedy hath but
confirmed and increased the grievance to the subject.
50. The usual course of pricking Sheriffs not observed, but
many times Sheriffs made in an extraordinary way, sometimes as
a punishment and charge unto them; sometimes such were pricked
out as would be instruments to execute whatsoever they would
have to be done.
51. The Bishops and the rest of the Clergy did triumph in the
suspensions, ex-communications, deprivations, and degradations
of divers painful, learned and pious ministers, in the
vexation and grievous oppression of great numbers of His
Majesty's good subjects.
52. The High Commission grew to such excess of sharpness and
severity as was not much less than the Romish Inquisition, and
yet in many cases by the Archbishop's power was made much more
heavy, being assisted and strengthened by authority of the
Council Table.
53. The Bishops and their Courts were as eager in the country;
although their jurisdiction could not reach so high in rigour
and extremity of punishment, yet were they no less grievous in
respect of the generality and multiplicity of vexations, which
lighting upon the meaner sort of tradesmen and artificers did
impoverish many thousands.
54. And so afflict and trouble others, that great numbers to
avoid their miseries departed out of the kingdom, some into
New England and other parts of America, others into Holland.
55. Where they have transported their manufactures of cloth,
which is not only a loss by diminishing the present stock of
the kingdom, but a great mischief by impairing and endangering
the loss of that particular trade of clothing, which hath been
a plentiful fountain of wealth and honour to this nation.
56. Those were fittest for ecclesiastical preferment, and
soonest obtained it, who were most officious in promoting
superstition, most virulent in railing against godliness and
honesty.
57. The most public and solemn sermons before His Majesty were
either to advance prerogative above law, and decry the
property of the subject, or full of such kind of invectives.
58. Whereby they might make those odious who sought to
maintain the religion, laws and liberties of the kingdom, and
such men were sure to be weeded out of the commission of the
peace, and out of all other employments of power in the
government of the country.
59. Many noble personages were councillors in name, but the
power and authority remained in a few of such as were most
addicted to this party, whose resolutions and determinations
were brought to the table for countenance and execution, and
not for debate and deliberation, and no man could offer to
oppose them without disgrace and hazard to himself.
60. Nay, all those that did not wholly concur and actively
contribute to the furtherance of their designs, though
otherwise persons of never so great honour and abilities, were
so far from being employed in any place of trust and power,
that they were neglected, discountenanced, and upon all
occasions injured and oppressed.
61. This faction was grown to that height and entireness of
power, that now they began to think of finishing their work,
which consisted of these three parts.
62. I. The government must be set free from all restraint of
laws concerning our persons and estates.
{861}
63. II. There must be a conjunction between Papists and
Protestants in doctrine, discipline and ceremonies; only it
must not yet be called Popery.
64. III. The Puritans, under which name they include all those
that desire to preserve the laws and liberties of the kingdom,
and to maintain religion in the power of it, must be either
rooted out of the kingdom with force, or driven out with fear.
65. For the effecting of this it was thought necessary to
reduce Scotland to such Popish superstitions and innovations
as might make them apt to join with England in that great
change which was intended.
66. Whereupon new canons and a new liturgy were pressed upon
them, and when they refused to admit of them, an army was
raised to force them to it, towards which the Clergy and the
Papists were very forward in their contribution.
67. The Scots likewise raised an army for their defence.
68. And when both armies were come together, and ready for a
bloody encounter, His Majesty's own gracious disposition, and
the counsel of the English nobility and dutiful submission of
the Scots, did so far prevail against the evil counsel of
others, that a pacification was made, and His Majesty returned
with peace and much honour to London.
69. The unexpected reconciliation was most acceptable to all
the kingdom, except to the malignant party; whereof the
Archbishop and the Earl of Strafford being heads, they and
their faction begun to inveigh against the peace, and to
aggravate the proceedings of the states, which so increased
[incensed?] His Majesty, that he forthwith prepared again for
war.
70. And such was their confidence, that having corrupted and
distempered the whole frame and government of the kingdom,
they did now hope to corrupt that which was the only means to
restore all to a right frame and temper again.
71. To which end they persuaded His Majesty to call a
Parliament, not to seek counsel and advice of them, but to
draw countenance and supply from them, and to engage the whole
kingdom in their quarrel.
72. And in the meantime continued all their unjust levies of
money, resolving either to make the Parliament pliant to their
will, and to establish mischief by a law, or else to break it,
and with more colour to go on by violence to take what they
could not obtain by consent. The ground alleged for the
justification of this war was this,
73. That the undutiful demands of the Parliaments in Scotland
was a sufficient reason for His Majesty to take arms against
them, without hearing the reason of those demands, and
thereupon a new army was prepared against them, their ships
were seized in all ports both of England and Ireland, and at
sea, their petitions rejected, their commissioners refused
audience.
74. The whole kingdom most miserably distempered with levies
of men and money, and imprisonments of those who denied to
submit to those levies.
75. The Earl of Strafford passed into Ireland, caused the
Parliament there to declare against the Scots, to give four
subsidies towards that war, and to engage themselves, their
lives and fortunes, for the prosecution of it, and gave
directions for an army of eight thousand foot and one thousand
horse to be levied there, which were for the most part
Papists.
76. The Parliament met upon the 13th of April, 1640. The Earl
of Strafford and Archbishop of Canterbury, with their party,
so prevailed with His Majesty, that the House of Commons was
pressed to yield a supply for maintenance of the war with
Scotland, before they had provided any relief for the great
and pressing grievances of the people, which being against the
fundamental privilege and proceeding of Parliament, was yet in
humble respect to His Majesty, so far admitted as that they
agreed to take the matter of supply into consideration, and
two several days it was debated.
77. Twelve subsidies were demanded for the release of
ship-money alone, a third day was appointed for conclusion,
when the heads of that party begun to fear the people might
close with the King, in falsifying his desires of money; but
that withal they were like to blast their malicious designs
against Scotland, finding them very much indisposed to give
any countenance to that war.
78. Thereupon they wickedly advised the King to break off the
Parliament and to return to the ways of confusion, in which
their own evil intentions were most likely to prosper and
succeed.
79. After the Parliament ended the 5th of May, 1640, this
party grew so bold as to counsel the King to supply himself
out of his subjects' estates by his own power, at his own
will, without their consent.
80. The very next day some members of both Houses had their
studies and cabinets, yea, their pockets searched: another of
them not long after was committed close prisoner for not
delivering some petitions which he received by authority of
that House.
81. And if harsher courses were intended (as was reported) it
is very probable that the sickness of the Earl of Strafford,
and the tumultuous rising in Southwark and about Lambeth were
the causes that such violent intentions were not brought to
execution.
82. A false and scandalous Declaration against the House of
Commons was published in His Majesty's name, which yet wrought
little effect with the people, but only to manifest the
impudence of those who were authors of it.
83. A forced loan of money was attempted in the City of
London.
84. The Lord Mayor and Aldermen in their several wards,
enjoined to bring in a list of the names of such persons as
they judged fit to lend, and of the sums they should lend. And
such Aldermen as refused to do so were committed to prison.
85. The Archbishop and the other Bishops and Clergy continued
the Convocation, and by a new commission turned it into a
provincial Synod, in which, by an unheard-of presumption, they
made canons that contain in them many matters contrary to the
King's prerogative, to the fundamental laws and statutes of
the realm, to the right of Parliaments, to the property and
liberty of the subject, and matters tending to sedition and of
dangerous consequence, thereby establishing their own
usurpations, justifying their altar-worship, and those other
superstitious innovations which they formerly introduced
without warrant of law.
{862}
86. They imposed a new oath upon divers of His Majesty's
subjects, both ecclesiastical and lay, for maintenance of
their own tyranny, and laid a great tax on the Clergy, for
supply of His Majesty, and generally they showed themselves
very affectionate to the war with Scotland, which was by some
of them styled 'Bellum Episeopale,' and a prayer composed and
enjoined to be read in all churches, calling the Scots rebels,
to put the two nations in blood and make them irreconcilable.
87. All those pretended canons and constitutions were armed
with the several censures of suspension, excommunication,
deprivation, by which they would have thrust out all the good
ministers, and most of the well-affected people of the
kingdom, and left an easy passage to their own design of
reconciliation with Rome.
88. The Popish party enjoyed such exemptions from penal laws
as amounted to a toleration, besides many other encouragements
and Court favours.
89. They had a Secretary of State, Sir Francis Windebanck, a
powerful agent for speeding all their desires.
90. A Pope's Nuncio residing here, to act and govern them
according to such influences as he received from Rome, and to
intercede for them with the most powerful concurrence of the
foreign princes of that religion.
91. By his authority the Papists of all sorts, nobility,
gentry, and clergy were convocated after the manner of a
Parliament.
92. New jurisdictions were erected of Romish Archbishops,
taxes levied, another state moulded within this state
independent in government, contrary in interest and affection,
secretly corrupting the ignorant or negligent professors of
our religion, and closely uniting and combining themselves
against such as were found in this posture, waiting for an
opportunity by force to destroy those whom they could not hope
to seduce.
93. For the effecting whereof they were strengthened with arms
and munitions, encouraged by superstitious prayers, enjoined
by the Nuncio to be weekly made for the prosperity of some
great design.
94. And such power had they at Court, that secretly a
commission was issued out, or intended to be issued to some
great men of that profession, for the levying of soldiers, and
to command and employ them according to private instructions,
which we doubt were framed for the advantage of those who were
the contrivers of them.
95. His Majesty's treasure was consumed, his revenue
anticipated.
96. His servants and officers compelled to lend great sums of
money.
97. Multitudes were called to the Council Table, who were
tired with long attendances there for refusing illegal
payments.
98. The prisons were filled with their commitments; many of
the Sheriffs summoned into the Star Chamber, and some
imprisoned for not being quick enough in levying the
ship-money; the people languished under grief and fear, no
visible hope being left but in desperation.
99. The nobility began to weary of their silence and patience,
and sensible of the duty and trust which belongs to them: and
thereupon some of the most ancient of them did petition His
Majesty at such a time, when evil counsels were so strong,
that they had occasion to expect more hazard to themselves,
than redress of those public evils for which they interceded.
100. Whilst the kingdom was in this agitation and distemper,
the Scots, restrained in their trades, impoverished by the
loss of many of their ships, bereaved of all possibility of
satisfying His Majesty by any naked supplication, entered with
a powerful army into the kingdom, and without any hostile act
or spoil in the country they passed, more than forcing a
passage over the Tyne at Newburn, near Newcastle, possessed
themselves of Newcastle, and had a fair opportunity to press
on further upon the King's army.
101. But duty and reverence to His Majesty, and brotherly love
to the English nation, made them stay there, whereby the King
had leisure to entertain better counsels.
102. Wherein God so blessed and directed him that he summoned
the Great Council of Peers to meet at York upon the 24th of
September, and there declared a Parliament to begin the 3d of
November then following.
103. The Scots, the first day of the Great Council, presented
an humble Petition to His Majesty, whereupon the Treaty was
appointed at Ripon.
104. A present cessation of arms agreed upon, and the full
conclusion of all differences referred to the wisdom and care
of the Parliament.
105. At our first meeting, all oppositions seemed to vanish,
the mischiefs were so evident which those evil counsellors
produced, that no man durst stand up to defend them: yet the
work itself afforded difficulty enough.
106. The multiplied evils and corruption of fifteen years,
strengthened by custom and authority, and the concurrent
interest of many powerful delinquents, were now to be brought
to judgment and reformation.
107. The King's household was to be provided for:—they had
brought him to that want, that he could not supply his
ordinary and necessary expenses without the assistance of his
people.
108. Two armies were to be paid, which amounted very near to
eighty thousand pounds a month.
109. The people were to be tenderly charged, having been
formerly exhausted with many burdensome projects.
110. The difficulties seemed to be insuperable, which by the
Divine Providence we have overcome. The contrarieties
incompatible, which yet in a great measure we have reconciled.
111. Six subsidies have been granted and a Bill of poll-money,
which if it be duly levied, may equal six subsidies more, in
all £600,000.
112. Besides we have contracted a debt to the Scots of
£220,000, yet God hath so blessed the endeavours of this
Parliament, that the kingdom is a great gainer by all these
charges.
113. The ship-money is abolished, which cost the kingdom about
£200,000 a year.
114. The coat and conduct-money, and other military charges
are taken away, which in many countries amounted to little
less than the ship-money.
115. The monopolies are all suppressed, whereof some few did
prejudice the subject, above £1,000,000 yearly.
116. The soap £100,000.
117. The wine £300,000.
118. The leather must needs exceed both, and salt could be no
less than that.
{863}
119. Besides the inferior monopolies, which, if they could be
exactly computed, would make up a great sum.
120. That which is more beneficial than all this is, that the
root of these evils is taken away, which was the arbitrary
power pretended to be in His Majesty of taxing the subject, or
charging their estates without consent in Parliament, which is
now declared to be against law by the judgment of both Houses,
and likewise by an Act of Parliament.
121. Another step of great advantage is this, the living
grievances, the evil counsellors and actors of these mischiefs
have been so quelled.
122. By the justice done upon the Earl of Strafford, the
flight of the Lord Finch and Secretary Windebank.
123. The accusation and imprisonment of the Archbishop of
Canterbury, of Judge Berkeley; and
124. The impeachment of divers other Bishops and Judges, that
it is like not only to be an ease to the present times, but a
preservation to the future.
125. The discontinuance of Parliaments is prevented by the
Bill for a triennial Parliament, and the abrupt dissolution of
this Parliament by another Bill, by which it is provided it
shall not be dissolved or adjourned without the consent of
both Houses.
126. Which two laws well considered may be thought more
advantageous than all the former, because they secure a full
operation of the present remedy, and afford a perpetual spring
of remedies for the future.
127. The Star Chamber.
128. The High Commission.
129. The Courts of the President and Council in the North were
so many forges of misery, oppression and violence, and are all
taken away, whereby men are more secured in their persons,
liberties and estates, than they could be by any law or
example for the regulation of those Courts or terror of the
Judges.
130. The immoderate power of the Council Table, and the
excessive abuse of that power is so ordered and restrained,
that we may well hope that no such things as were frequently
done by them, to the prejudice of the public liberty, will
appear in future times but only in stories, to give us and our
posterity more occasion to praise God for His Majesty's
goodness, and the faithful endeavours of this Parliament.
131. The canons and power of canon-making are blasted by the
votes of both Houses.
132. The exorbitant power of Bishops and their courts are much
abated, by some provisions in the Bill against the High
Commission Court, the authors of the many innovations in
doctrine and ceremonies.
133. The ministers that have been scandalous in their lives,
have been so terrified in just complaints and accusations,
that we may well hope they will be more modest for the time to
come; either inwardly convicted by the sight of their own
folly, or outwardly restrained by the fear of punishment.
134. The forests are by a good law reduced to their right
bounds.
135. The encroachments and oppressions of the Stannary Courts,
the extortions of the clerk of the market.
136. And the compulsion of the subject to receive the Order of
Knighthood against his will, paying of fines for not receiving
it, and the vexatious proceedings thereupon for levying of
those fines, are by other beneficial laws reformed and
prevented.
137. Many excellent laws and provisions are in preparation for
removing the inordinate power, vexation and usurpation of
Bishops, for reforming the pride and idleness of many of the
clergy, for easing the people of unnecessary ceremonies in
religion, for censuring and removing unworthy and unprofitable
ministers, and for maintaining godly and diligent preachers
through the kingdom.
138. Other things of main importance for the good of this
kingdom are in proposition, though little could hitherto be
done in regard of the many other more pressing businesses,
which yet before the end of this Session we hope may receive
some progress and perfection.
139. The establishing and ordering the King's revenue, that so
the abuse of officers and superfluity of expenses may be cut
off, and the necessary disbursements for His Majesty's honour,
the defence and government of the kingdom, may be more
certainly provided for.
140. The regulating of courts of justice, and abridging both
the delays and charges of lawsuits.
141. The settling of some good courses for preventing the
exportation of gold and silver, and the inequality of
exchanges between us and other nations, for the advancing of
native commodities, increase of our manufactures, and well
balancing of trade, whereby the stock of the kingdom may be
increased, or at least kept from impairing, as through neglect
hereof it hath done for many years last past.
142. Improving the herring-fishing upon our coasts, which will
be of mighty use in the employment of the poor, and a
plentiful nursery of mariners for enabling the kingdom in any
great action.
143. The oppositions, obstructions and other difficulties
wherewith we have been encountered, and which still lie in our
way with some strength and much obstinacy, are these: the
malignant party whom we have formerly described to be the
actors and promoters of all our misery, they have taken heart
again.
144. They have been able to prefer some of their own factors
and agents to degrees of honour, to places of trust and
employment, even during the Parliament.
145. They have endeavoured to work in His Majesty ill
impressions and opinions of our proceedings, as if we had
altogether done our own work, and not his; and had obtained
from him many things very prejudicial to the Crown, both in
respect of prerogative and profit.
146. To wipe out this slander we think good only to say thus
much: that all that we have done is for His Majesty, his
greatness, honour and support, when we yield to give £25,000 a
month for the relief of the Northern Counties; this was given
to the King, for he was bound to protect his subjects.
147. They were His Majesty's evil counsellors, and their ill
instruments that were actors in those grievances which brought
in the Scots.
148. And if His Majesty please to force those who were the
authors of this war to make satisfaction, as he might justly
and easily do, it seems very reasonable that the people might
well be excused from taking upon them this burden, being
altogether innocent and free from being any cause of it.
{864}
149. When we undertook the charge of the army, which cost
above £50,000 a month, was not this given to the King? Was it
not His Majesty's army? Were not all the commanders under
contract with His Majesty, at higher rates and greater wages
than ordinary?
150. And have not we taken upon us to discharge all the
brotherly assistance of £300,000, which we gave the Scots? Was
it not toward repair of those damages and losses which they
received from the King's ships and from his ministers?
151. These three particulars amount to above £1,100,000.
152. Besides, His Majesty hath received by impositions upon
merchandise at least £400,000.
153. So that His Majesty hath had out of the subjects' purse
since the Parliament began, £1,500,000 and yet these men can
be so impudent as to tell His Majesty that we have done
nothing for him.
154. As to the second branch of this slander, we acknowledge
with much thankfulness that His Majesty hath passed more good
Bills to the advantage of the subjects than have been in many
ages.
155. But withal we cannot forget that these venomous councils
did manifest themselves in some endeavours to hinder these
good acts.
156. And for both Houses of Parliament we may with truth and
modesty say thus much: that we have ever been careful not to
desire anything that should weaken the Crown either in just
profit or useful power.
157. The triennial Parliament for the matter of it, doth not
extend to so much as by law we ought to have required (there
being two statutes still in force for a Parliament to be once
a year), and for the manner of it, it is in the King's power
that it shall never take effect, if he by a timely summons
shall prevent any other way of assembling.
158. In the Bill for continuance of this present Parliament,
there seems to be some restraint of the royal power in
dissolving of Parliaments, not to take it out of the Crown,
but to suspend the execution of it for this time and occasion
only: which was so necessary for the King's own security and
the public peace, that without it we could not have undertaken
any of these great charges, but must have left both the armies
to disorder and confusion, and the whole kingdom to blood and
rapine.
159. The Star Chamber was much more fruitful in oppression
than in profit, the great fines being for the most part given
away, and the rest stalled at long times.
160. The fines of the High Commission were in themselves
unjust, and seldom or never came into the King's purse. These
four Bills are particularly and more specially instanced.
161. In the rest there will not be found so much as a shadow
of prejudice to the Crown.
162. They have sought to diminish our reputation with the
people, and to bring them out of love with Parliaments.
163. The aspersions which they have attempted this way have
been such as these:
164. That we have spent much time and done little, especially
in those grievances which concern religion.
165. That the Parliament is a burden to the kingdom by the
abundance of protections which hinder justice and trade; and
by many subsidies granted much more heavy than any formerly
endured.
166. To which there is a ready answer; if the time spent in
this Parliament be considered in relation backward to the long
growth and deep root of those grievances, which we have
removed, to the powerful supports of those delinquents, which
we have pursued, to the great necessities and other charges of
the commonwealth for which we have provided.
167. Or if it be considered in relation forward to many
advantages, which not only the present but future ages are
like to reap by the good laws and other proceedings in this
Parliament, we doubt not but it will be thought by all
indifferent judgments, that our time hath been much better
employed than in a far greater proportion of time in many
former Parliaments put together; and the charges which have
been laid upon the subject, and the other inconveniences which
they have borne, will seem very light in respect of the
benefit they have and may receive.
168. And for the matter of protections, the Parliament is so
sensible of it that therein they intended to give them
whatsoever ease may stand with honour and justice, and are in
a way of passing a Bill to give them satisfaction.
169. They have sought by many subtle practices to cause
jealousies and divisions betwixt us and our brethren of
Scotland, by slandering their proceedings and intentions
towards us, and by secret endeavours to instigate and incense
them and us one against another.
170. They have had such a party of Bishops and Popish lords in
the House of Peers, as hath caused much opposition and delay
in the prosecution of delinquents, hindered the proceedings of
divers good Bills passed in the Commons' House, concerning the
reformation of sundry great abuses and corruptions both in
Church and State.
171. They have laboured to seduce and corrupt some of the
Commons' House to draw them into conspiracies and combinations
against the liberty of the Parliament.
172. And by their instruments and agents they have attempted
to disaffect and discontent His Majesty's army, and to engage
it for the maintenance of their wicked and traitorous designs;
the keeping up of Bishops in votes and functions, and by force
to compel the Parliament to order, limit and dispose their
proceedings in such manner as might best concur with the
intentions of this dangerous and potent faction.
173. And when one mischievous design and attempt of theirs to
bring on the army against the Parliament and the City of
London, hath been discovered and prevented;
174. They presently undertook another of the same damnable
nature, with this addition to it, to endeavour to make the
Scottish army neutral, whilst the English army, which they had
laboured to corrupt and envenom against us by their false and
slanderous suggestions, should execute their malice to the
subversion of our religion and the dissolution of our
government.
175. Thus they have been continually practising to disturb the
peace, and plotting the destruction even of all the King's
dominions; and have employed their emissaries and agents in
them, all for the promoting their devilish designs, which the
vigilancy of those who were well affected hath still
discovered and defeated before they were ripe for execution in
England and Scotland.
{865}
176. Only in Ireland, which was farther off, they have had
time and opportunity to mould and prepare their work, and had
brought it to that perfection that they had possessed
themselves of that whole kingdom, totally subverted the
government of it, routed out religion, and destroyed all the
Protestants whom the conscience of their duty to God, their
King and country, would not have permitted to join with them,
if by God's wonderful providence their main enterprise upon
the city and castle of Dublin, had not been detected and
prevented upon the very eve before it should have been
executed.
177. Notwithstanding they have in other parts of that kingdom
broken out into open rebellion, surprising towns and castles,
committed murders, rapes and other villainies, and shaken off
all bonds of obedience to His Majesty and the laws of the
realm.
178. And in general have kindled such a fire, as nothing but
God's infinite blessing upon the wisdom and endeavours of this
State will be able to quench it.
179. And certainly had not God in His great mercy unto this
land discovered and confounded their former designs, we had
been the prologue to this tragedy in Ireland, and had by this
been made the lamentable spectacle of misery and confusion.
180. And now what hope have we but in God, when as the only
means of our subsistence and power of reformation is under Him
in the Parliament?
181. But what can we the Commons, without the conjunction of
the House of Lords, and what conjunction can we expect there,
when the Bishops and recusant lords are so numerous and
prevalent that they are able to cross and interrupt our best
endeavours for reformation, and by that means give advantage
to this malignant party to traduce our proceedings?
182. They infuse into the people that we mean to abolish all
Church government, and leave every man to his own fancy for
the service and worship of God, absolving him of that
obedience which he owes under God unto His Majesty, whom we
know to be entrusted with the ecclesiastical law as well as
with the temporal, to regulate all the members of the Church
of England, by such rules of order and discipline as are
established by Parliament, which is his great council in all
affairs both in Church and State.
183. We confess our intention is, and our endeavours have
been, to reduce within bounds that exorbitant power which the
prelates have assumed unto themselves, so contrary both to the
Word of God and to the laws of the land, to which end we
passed the Bill for the removing them from their temporal
power and employments, that so the better they might with
meekness apply themselves to the discharge of their functions,
which Bill themselves opposed, and were the principal
instruments of crossing it.
184. And we do here declare that it is far from our purpose or
desire to let loose the golden reins of discipline and
government in the Church, to leave private persons or
particular congregations to take up what form of Divine
Service they please, for we hold it requisite that there
should be throughout the whole realm a conformity to that
order which the laws enjoin according to the Word of God. And
we desire to unburden the consciences of men of needless and
superstitious ceremonies, suppress innovations, and take away
the monuments of idolatry.
185. And the better to effect the intended reformation, we
desire there may be a general synod of the most grave, pious,
learned and judicious divines of this island; assisted with
some from foreign parts, professing the same religion with us,
who may consider of all things necessary for the peace and
good government of the Church, and represent the results of
their consultations unto the Parliament, to be there allowed
of and confirmed, and receive the stamp of authority, thereby
to find passage and obedience throughout the kingdom.
186. They have maliciously charged us that we intend to
destroy and discourage learning, whereas it is our chiefest
care and desire to advance it, and to provide a competent
maintenance for conscionable and preaching ministers
throughout the kingdom, which will be a great encouragement to
scholars, and a certain means whereby the want, meanness and
ignorance, to which a great part of the clergy is now subject,
will be prevented.
187. And we intended likewise to reform and purge the
fountains of learning, the two Universities, that the streams
flowing from thence may be clear and pure, and an honour and
comfort to the whole land.
188. They have strained to blast our proceedings in
Parliament, by wresting the interpretations of our orders from
their genuine intention.
189. They tell the people that our meddling with the power of
episcopacy hath caused sectaries and conventicles, when
idolatrous and Popish ceremonies, introduced into the Church
by the command of the Bishops have not only debarred the
people from thence, but expelled them from the kingdom.
190. Thus with Elijah, we are called by this malignant party
the troublers of the State, and still, while we endeavour to
reform their abuses, they make us the authors of those
mischiefs we study to prevent.
191. For the perfecting of the work begun, and removing all
future impediments, we conceive these courses will be very
effectual, seeing the religion of the Papists hath such
principles as do certainly tend to the destruction and
extirpation of all Protestants, when they shall have
opportunity to effect it.
192. It is necessary in the first place to keep them in such
condition as that they may not be able to do us any hurt, and
for avoiding of such connivance and favour as hath heretofore
been shown unto them.
193. That His Majesty be pleased to grant a standing
Commission to some choice men named in Parliament, who may
take notice of their increase, their counsels and proceedings,
and use all due means by execution of the laws to prevent all
mischievous designs against the peace and safety of this
kingdom.
194. Thus some good course be taken to discover the
counterfeit and false conformity of Papists to the Church, by
colour whereof persons very much disaffected to the true
religion have been admitted into place of greatest authority
and trust in the kingdom.
{866}
195. For the better preservation of the laws and liberties of
the kingdom, that all illegal grievances and exactions be
presented and punished at the sessions and assizes.
196. And that Judges and Justices be very careful to give this
in charge to the grand jury, and both the Sheriff and Justices
to be sworn to the due execution of the Petition of Right and
other laws.
197. That His Majesty be humbly petitioned by both Houses to
employ such counsellors, ambassadors and other ministers, in
managing his business at home and abroad as the Parliament may
have cause to confide in, without which we cannot give His
Majesty such supplies for support of his own estate, nor such
assistance to the Protestant party beyond the sea, as is
desired.
198. It may often fall out that the Commons may have just
cause to take exceptions at some men for being councillors,
and yet not charge those men with crimes, for there be grounds
of diffidence which lie not in proof.
199. There are others, which though they may be proved, yet
are not legally criminal.
200. To be a known favourer of Papists, or to have been very
forward in defending or countenancing some great offenders
questioned in Parliament; or to speak contemptuously of either
Houses of Parliament or Parliamentary proceedings.
201. Or such as are factors or agents for any foreign prince
of another religion; such are justly suspected to get
councillors' places, or any other of trust concerning public
employment for money; for all these and divers others we may
have great reason to be earnest with His Majesty, not to put
his great affairs into such hands, though we may be unwilling
to proceed against them in any legal way of charge or
impeachment.
202. That all Councillors of State may be sworn to observe
those laws which concern the subject in his liberty, that they
may likewise take an oath not to receive or give reward or
pension from any foreign prince, but such as they shall within
some reasonable time discover to the Lords of His Majesty's
Council.
203. And although they should wickedly forswear themselves,
yet it may herein do good to make them known to be false and
perjured to those who employ them, and thereby bring them into
as little credit with them as with us.
204. That His Majesty may have cause to be in love with good
counsel and good men, by shewing him in an humble and dutiful
manner how full of advantage it would be to himself, to see
his own estate settled in a plentiful condition to support his
honour; to see his people united in ways of duty to him, and
endeavours of the public good; to see happiness, wealth, peace
and safety derived to his own kingdom, and procured to his
allies by the influence of his own power and government."
ENGLAND: A. D. 1642 (JANUARY).
The King's attempt against the Five Members.
On the 3d of January, "the king was betrayed into … an
indiscretion to which all the ensuing disorders and civil wars
ought immediately and directly to be ascribed. This was the
impeachment of Lord Kimbolton and the five members. …
Herbert, attorney-general, appeared in the House of Peers,
and, in his majesty's name, entered an accusation of high
treason against Lord Kimbolton and five commoners, Hollis, Sir
Arthur Hazlerig, Hambden, Pym, and Strode. The articles were,
That they had traitorously endeavoured to subvert the
fundamental laws and government of the kingdom, to deprive the
king of his regal power, and to impose on his subjects an
arbitrary and tyrannical authority; that they had endeavoured,
by many foul aspersions on his majesty and his government, to
alienate the affections of his people, and make him odious to
them; that they had attempted to draw his late army to
disobedience of his royal commands, and to side with them in
their traitorous designs; that they had invited and encouraged
a foreign power to invade the kingdom; that they had aimed at
subverting the rights and very being of Parliament; that, in
order to complete their traitorous designs, they had
endeavoured, as far as in them lay, by force and terror, to
compel the Parliament to join with them, and to that end had
actually raised and countenanced tumults against the king and
Parliament; and that they had traitorously conspired to levy,
and actually had levied, war against the king. The whole world
stood amazed at this important accusation, so suddenly entered
upon, without concert, deliberation or reflection. … But men
had not leisure to wonder at the indiscretion of this measure:
their astonishment was excited by new attempts, still more
precipitate and imprudent. A sergeant at arms, in the king's
name, demanded of the House the five members, and was sent
back without any positive answer. Messengers were employed to
search for them and arrest them. Their trunks, chambers, and
studies, were sealed and locked. The House voted all these
acts of violence to be breaches of privilege, and commanded
everyone to defend the liberty of the members. The king,
irritated by all this opposition, resolved next day to come in
person to the House, with an intention to demand, perhaps
seize, in their presence, the persons whom he had accused.
This resolution was discovered to the Countess of Carlisle,
sister to Northumberland, a lady of spirit, wit, and intrigue.
She privately sent intelligence to the five members; and they
had time to withdraw, a moment before the king entered. He was
accompanied by his ordinary retinue, to the number of above
two hundred, armed as usual, some with halberts, some with
walking swords. The king left them at the door, and he himself
advanced alone through the hall, while all the members rose to
receive him. The speaker withdrew from his chair, and the king
took possession of it. The speech which he made was as
follows: 'Gentlemen, I am sorry for this occasion of coming to
you. Yesterday, I sent a sergeant at arms, to demand some,
who, by my order, were accused of high treason. Instead of
obedience, I received a message. … Therefore am I come to
tell you, that I must have these men wheresoever I can find
them. Well, since I see all the birds are flown, I do expect
that you will send them to me as soon as they return. But I
assure you, on the word of a king, I never did intend any
force, but shall proceed against them in a fair and legal way,
for I never meant any other.' … When the king was looking
around for the accused members, he asked the speaker, who
stood below, whether any of these persons were in the House?
The speaker, falling on his knee, prudently replied: 'I have,
sir, neither eyes to see, nor tongue to speak, in this place,
but as the House is pleased to direct me, whose servant I am.
{867}
And I humbly ask pardon, that I cannot give any other answer
to what your majesty is pleased to demand of me.' The Commons
were in the utmost disorder; and when the king was departing,
some members cried aloud so as he might hear them, Privilege!
Privilege! and the House immediately adjourned till next day.
That evening, the accused members, to show the greater
apprehension, removed into the city, which was their fortress.
The citizens were the whole night in arms. … When the House
of Commons met, they affected the greatest dismay; and
adjourning themselves for some days, ordered a committee to
sit in Merchant-Tailors' hall in the city. … The House again
met, and after confirming the votes of their committee, instantly
adjourned, as if exposed to the most imminent perils from the
violence of their enemies. This practice they continued for
some time. When the people, by these affected panics, were
wrought up to a sufficient degree of rage and terror, it was
thought proper, that the accused members should, with a
triumphant and military procession, take their seats in the
House. The river was covered with boats, and other vessels,
laden with small pieces of ordnance, and prepared for fight.
Skippon, whom the Parliament had appointed, by their own
authority, major-general of the city militia, conducted the
members, at the head of this tumultuary army, to
Westminster-hall. And when the populace, by land and by water,
passed Whitehall, they still asked, with insulting shouts,
What has become of the king and his cavaliers? And whither are
they fled? The king, apprehensive of danger from the enraged
multitude, had retired to Hampton-court, deserted by all the
world, and overwhelmed with grief, shame, and remorse for the
fatal measures into which he had been hurried."
_D. Hume,
History of England,
volume 5, chapter 55, pages 85-91._
ALSO IN:
_S. R. Gardiner,
The First Two Stuarts and the Puritan Revolution,
chapter 6, section 5._
_S. R. Gardiner,
History of England, 1603-1642,
chapter 103 (volume 10)._
_J. Forster,
Statesmen of the Commonwealth: Pym; Hampden._
_L. von Ranke,
History of England, 17th Cent.,
book 8, chapter 10 (volume 2)._
ENGLAND: A. D. 1642 (JANUARY-AUGUST).
Preparations for war.
The marshalling of forces.
The raising of the King's standard.
"January 10th. The King with his Court quits Whitehall; the
Five Members and Parliament proposing to return tomorrow, with
the whole City in arms round them. He left Whitehall; never
saw it again till he came to lay down his head there.
March 9th. The King has sent away his Queen from Dover, 'to be
in a place of safety,'—and also to pawn the Crown-jewels in
Holland, and get him arms. He returns Northward again,
avoiding London. Many messages between the Houses of
Parliament and him: 'Will your Majesty grant us Power of the
Militia; accept this list of Lord-Lieutenants?' On the 9th of
March, still advancing Northward without affirmative response,
he has got to Newmarket; where another Message overtakes him,
earnestly urges itself upon him: 'Could not your Majesty
please to grant us Power of the Militia for a limited time?'
'No, by God!' answers his Majesty, 'not for an hour.'
On the 19th of March he is at York; where his Hull Magazine,
gathered for service against the Scots, is lying near; where a
great Earl of Newcastle, and other Northern potentates, will
help him; where at least London and its Puritanism, now grown
so fierce, is far off. There we will leave him; attempting
Hull Magazine, in vain; exchanging messages with his
Parliament; messages, missives, printed and written Papers
without limit: Law-pleadings of both parties before the great
tribunal of the English Nation, each party striving to prove
itself right and within the verge of Law: preserved still in
acres of typography, once thrillingly alive in every fibre of
them; now a mere torpor, readable by few creatures, not
rememberable by any."
_T. Carlyle,
Oliver Cromwell's Letters and Speeches,
part 2, preliminary._
"As early as June 2 a ship had arrived on the North English
coast, bringing the King arms and ammunition from Holland,
purchased by the sale of the crown-jewels which the Queen had
taken abroad. On the 22d of the same month more than forty of
the nobles and others in attendance on the King at York had
put down their names for the numbers of armed horse they would
furnish respectively for his service. Requisitions in the
King's name were also out for supplies of money; and the two
Universities, and the Colleges in each, were invited to send
in their plate. On the other hand, the Parliament had not been
more negligent. There had been contributions or promises from
all the chief Parliamentarian nobles and others; there was a
large loan from the city; and hundreds of thousands, on a
smaller scale, were willing to subscribe. And already, through
all the shires, the two opposed powers were grappling and
jostling with each other in raising levies. On the King's side
there were what were called Commissions of Array, or powers
granted to certain nobles and others by name to raise troops
for the King. On the side of Parliament, in addition to the
Volunteering which had been going on in many places (as, for
example, in Cambridgeshire, where Oliver Cromwell was forming
a troop of Volunteer horse … ), there was the Militia
Ordinance available wherever the persons named in that
ordinance were really zealous for Parliament, and able to act
personally in the districts assigned them. And so on the 12th
of July the Parliament had passed the necessary vote for
supplying an army, and had appointed the Earl of Essex to be
its commander-in-chief, and the Earl of Bedford to be its
second in command as general of horse. It was known, on the
other side, that the Earl of Lindsey, in consideration of his
past experience of service both on sea and land, was to have
the command of the King's army, and that his master of horse
was to be the King's nephew, young Prince Rupert, who was
expected from the Continent on purpose. Despite all these
preparations, however, it was probably not till August had
begun that the certainty of Civil War was universally
acknowledged. It was on the 9th of that month that the King
issued his proclamation 'for suppressing the present Rebellion
under the command of Robert, Earl of Essex,' offering pardon
to him and others if within six days they made their
submission. The Parliamentary answer to this was on the 11th;
on which day the Commons resolved, each man separately rising
in his place and giving his word, that they would stand by the
Earl of Essex with their lives and fortunes to the end. Still,
even after that, there were trembling souls here and there who
hoped for a reconciliation.
{868}
Monday the 22d of August put an end to all such fluttering:
—On that day, the King, who had meanwhile left York, and come
about a hundred miles farther south, into the very heart of
England, … made a backward movement as far as the town of
Nottingham, where preparations had been made for the great
scene that was to follow. … This consisted in bringing out
the royal standard and setting it up in due form. It was about
six o'clock in the evening when it was done. … A herald read
a proclamation, declaring the cause why the standard had been
set up, and summoning all the lieges to assist his Majesty.
Those who were present cheered and threw up their hats, and,
with a beating of drums and a sounding of trumpets, the
ceremony ended. … From that evening of the 22d of August,
1642, the Civil War had begun."
_D. Masson,
Life of John Milton,
book 2, chapter 8 (volume 2)._
ALSO IN:
_John Forster,
Statesmen of the Commonwealth: Pym; Hampden._
_S. R. Gardiner,
History of England, 1603-1642,
chapters 104-105 (volume 10)._
ENGLAND: A. D. 1642 (AUGUST-SEPTEMBER).
The nation choosing sides.
"In wealth, in numbers, and in cohesion the Parliament was
stronger than the king. To him there had rallied most of the
greater nobles, many of the lesser gentry, some proportion of
the richer citizens, the townsmen of the west, and the rural
population generally of the west and north of England. For the
Parliament stood a strong section of the peers and greater
gentry, the great bulk of the lesser gentry, the townsmen of
the richer parts of England, the whole eastern and home
counties, and lastly, the city of London. But as the Civil War
did not sharply divide classes, so neither did it
geographically bisect England. Roughly speaking, aristocracy
and peasantry, the Church, universities, the world of culture,
fashion, and pleasure were loyal: the gentry, the yeomanry,
trade, commerce, morality, and law inclined to the Parliament.
Broadly divided, the north and west went for the king; the
south and east for the Houses; but the lines of demarcation
were never exact: cities, castles, and manor-houses long held
out in an enemy's county. There is only one permanent
limitation. Draw a line from the Wash to the Solent. East of
that line the country never yielded to the king; from first to
last it never failed the Parliament. Within it are enclosed
Norfolk, Suffolk, Essex, Cambridge, Huntingdon, Bedford,
Bucks, Herts, Middlesex, Surrey, Kent, Sussex. This was the
wealthiest, the most populous, and the most advanced portion
of England. With Gloucester, Reading, Bristol, Leicester, and
Northampton, it formed the natural home of Puritanism."
_F. Harrison,
Oliver Cromwell,
chapter 4._
ENGLAND: A. D. 1642 (OCTOBER-DECEMBER).
Edgehill—the opening battle of the war.
The Eastern Association.
Immediately after the raising of his standard at Nottingham,
the King, "aware at last that he could not rely on the
inhabitants of Yorkshire, moved to Shrewsbury, at once to
collect the Catholic gentry of Lancashire and Cheshire, to
receive the Royalist levies of Wales, and to secure the valley
of the Severn. The movement was successful. In a few days his
little army was increased fourfold, and he felt himself strong
enough to make a direct march towards the capital. Essex had
garrisoned Northampton, Coventry and Warwick, and lay himself
at Worcester; but the King, waiting for no sieges, left the
garrisoned towns unmolested and passed on towards London, and
Essex received peremptory orders to pursue and interpose if
possible between the King and London. On the 22nd of October
he was close upon the King's rear at Keynton, between
Stratford and Banbury. But his army was by no means at its
full strength; some regiments had been left to garrison the
West, others, under Hampden had not yet joined him. But delay
was impossible, and the first battle of the war was fought on
the plain at the foot of the north-west slope of Edgehill,
over which the royal army descended, turning back on its
course to meet Essex. Both parties claimed the victory. In
fact it was with the King. The Parliamentary cavalry found
themselves wholly unable to withstand the charge of Rupert's
cavaliers. Whole regiments turned and fled without striking a
blow; but, as usual, want of discipline ruined the royal
cause. Rupert's men fell to plundering the Parliamentary
baggage, and returned to the field only in time to find that
the infantry, under the personal leading of Essex, had
reestablished the fight. Night closed the battle [which is
sometimes named from Edgehill and sometimes from Keynton]. The
King's army withdrew to the vantage-ground of the hills, and
Essex, reinforced by Hampden, passed the night upon the field.
But the Royalist army was neither beaten nor checked in its
advance, while the rottenness of the Parliamentary troops had
been disclosed." Some attempts at peace-making followed this
doubtful first collision; but their only effect was to
embitter the passions on both sides. The King advanced,
threatening London, but the citizens of the capital turned out
valiantly to oppose him, and he "fell back upon Oxford, which
henceforward became the centre of their operations. … War
was again the only resource, and speedily became universal.
… There was local fighting over the whole of England. …
The headquarters of the King were constantly at Oxford, from
which, as from a centre, Rupert would suddenly make rapid
raids, now in one direction, now in another. Between him and
London, about Reading, Aylesbury, and Thame, lay what may be
spoken of as the main army of Parliament, under the command of
Lord-General Essex. … The other two chief scenes of the war
were Yorkshire and the West. In Yorkshire the Fairfaxes,
Ferdinando Lord Fairfax and his son Sir Thomas, made what head
they could against what was known as the Popish army under the
command of the Earl, subsequently Marquis of Newcastle, which
consisted mainly of the troops of the Northern counties, which
had become associated under Newcastle in favour of Charles.
Newark, in Nottinghamshire, was early made a royal garrison,
and formed the link of connection between the operations in
Yorkshire and at Oxford. In the extreme South-west, Lord
Stamford, the Parliamentary General, was making a somewhat
unsuccessful resistance against Sir Ralph, afterwards Lord
Hopton. Wales was wholly Royalist, and one of the chief
objects of Charles's generals was to secure the Severn valley,
and thus connect the war in Devonshire with the central
operations at Oxford. In the Eastern counties matters assumed
rather a different form. The principle of forming several
counties into an association … was adopted by the
Parliament, and several such associations were formed, but
none of these came to much except that of the Eastern
counties, which was known by way of preeminence as 'The
Association.' Its object was to keep the war entirely beyond
the borders of the counties of which it consisted. The reason
of its success was the genius and energy of Cromwell."
_J. F. Bright,
History of England, period 2,
page 659._
{869}
"This winter there arise among certain Counties 'Associations'
for mutual defence, against Royalism and plunderous Rupertism;
a measure cherished by the Parliament, condemned as
treasonable by the King. Of which 'Associations,' countable to
the number of five or six, we name only one, that of Norfolk,
Suffolk, Essex, Cambridge, Herts; with Lord Gray of Wark for
Commander; where and under whom Oliver was now serving. This
'Eastern Association' is alone worth naming. All the other
Associations, no man of emphasis being in the midst of them,
fell in a few months to pieces; only this of Cromwell
subsisted, enlarged itself, grew famous;—and kept its own
borders clear of invasion during the whole course of the War."
_T. Carlyle,
Oliver Cromwell's Letters and Speeches,
part 2, preliminary._
ALSO IN:
_S. R. Gardiner,
History of the Great Civil War,
chapters 2-4 (volume l)._
_W. Godwin,
History of the Commonwealth,
chapter 2 (volume 1)._
ENGLAND: A. D. 1643 (May).
Cromwell's Ironsides.
"It was … probably, a little before Edgehill, that there
took place between Cromwell and Hampden the memorable
conversation which fifteen years afterwards the Protector
related in a speech to his second Parliament. It is a piece of
autobiography so instructive and pathetic that it must be set
forth in full in the words of Cromwell himself:
'I was a person who, from my first employment, was suddenly
preferred and lifted up from lesser trusts to greater; from my
first being Captain of a Troop of Horse. … I had a very
worthy friend then; and he was a very noble person, and I know
his memory was very grateful to all,—Mr. John Hampden. At my
first going out into this engagement, I saw our men were
beaten at every hand. … Your troops, said I, are most of
them old decayed serving-men, and tapsters, and such kind of
fellows; and, said I, their troops are gentlemen's sons,
younger sons and persons of quality: do you think that the
spirits of such base mean fellows will ever be able to
encounter gentlemen, that have honour and courage and
resolution in them? Truly I did represent to him in this
manner conscientiously; and truly I did tell him: You must get
men of a spirit: and take it not ill what I say,—I know you
will not,—of a spirit that is likely to go on as far as
gentlemen will go: or else you will be beaten still. I told
him so; I did truly. He was a wise and worthy person; and he
did think that I talked a good notion, but an impracticable
one. … I raised such men as had the fear of God before them,
as made some conscience of what they did; and from that day
forward, I must say to you, they were never beaten, and
wherever they were engaged against the enemy they beat
continually.' … The issue of the whole war lay in that word.
It lay with 'such men as had some conscience in what they
did.' 'From that day forward they were never beaten.' … As
for Colonel Cromwell,' writes a news-letter of May, 1643, 'he
hath 2,000 brave men, well disciplined; no man swears but he
pays his twelve-pence; if he be drunk, he is set in the
stocks, or worse; if one calls the other roundhead he is
cashiered: insomuch that the countries where they come leap
for joy of them, and come in and join with them. How happy
were it if all the forces were thus disciplined!' These were
the men who ultimately decided the war, and established the
Commonwealth. On the field of Marston, Rupert gave Cromwell
the name of Ironside, and from thence this famous name passed
to his troopers. There are two features in their history which
we need to note. They were indeed 'such men as had some
conscience in their work'; but they were also much more. They
were disciplined and trained soldiers. They were the only body
of 'regulars' on either side. The instinctive genius of
Cromwell from the very first created the strong nucleus of a
regular army, which at last in discipline, in skill, in
valour, reached the highest perfection ever attained by
soldiers either in ancient or modern times. The fervour of
Cromwell is continually pressing towards the extension of this
'regular' force. Through all the early disasters, this body of
Ironsides kept the cause alive: at Marston it overwhelmed the
king: as soon as, by the New Model, this system was extended
to the whole army, the Civil War was at an end."
_F. Harrison,
Oliver Cromwell,
chapter 4._
ALSO IN:
_J. Forster,
Statesmen of the Commonwealth: Cromwell._
ENGLAND: A. D. 1643 (JUNE-SEPTEMBER).
The King calls in the Irish.
"To balance the accession of power which the alliance with
Scotland brought to the Parliament, Charles was so unwise, men
then said so guilty, as to conclude a peace with the Irish
rebels, with the intent that thus those of his forces which
had been employed against them, might be set free to join his
army in England. No act of the King, not the levying of
ship-money, not the crowd of monopolies which enriched the
court and impoverished the people, neither the extravagance of
Buckingham, the tyranny of Strafford nor the prelacy of Laud, not
even the attempted arrest of the five members, raised such a
storm of indignation and hatred throughout the kingdom, as did
this determination of the King to withdraw (as men said), for
the purpose of subduing his subjects, the force which had been
raised to avenge the blood of 100,000 Protestant martyrs. …
To the England of the time this act was nauseous, was
exasperating to the highest degree, while to the cause of the
King it was fatal; for, from this moment, the condition of the
Parliamentary party began to mend."
_N. L. Walford,
Parliamentary Generals of the Great Civil War,
chapter 2._
"None of the king's schemes proved so fatal to his cause as
these. On their discovery, officer after officer in his own
army flung down their commissions, the peers who had fled to
Oxford fled back again to London, and the Royalist reaction in
the Parliament itself came utterly to an end."
_J. R. Green,
Short History of England,
chapter 8, section 7._
ALSO IN:
_S. R. Gardiner,
History of the Great Civil War,
chapter 11 (volume 1)._
ENGLAND: A. D. 1643 (JULY).
Meeting of the Westminster Assembly of Divines.
At the beginning of July, 1643, "London was astir with a new
event of great consequence in the course of the national
revolution. This was the meeting of the famous Westminster
Assembly. The necessity of an ecclesiastical Synod or
Convocation, to cooperate with the Parliament, had been long
felt.
{870}
Among the articles of the Grand Remonstrance of December 1641
had been one desiring a convention of 'a General Synod of the
most grave, pious, learned, and judicious divines of this
island, assisted by some from foreign parts,' to consider of
all things relating to the Church and report thereon to
Parliament. It is clear from the wording of this article that
it was contemplated that the Synod should contain
representatives from the Presbyterian Church of Scotland.
Indeed, by that time, the establishment of a uniformity of
Doctrine, Discipline, and Worship between the Churches of
England and Scotland was the fixed idea of those who chiefly
desired a Synod. … In April, 1642 … it was ordered by the
House, in pursuance of previous resolutions on the subject,
'that the names of such divines as shall be thought fit to be
consulted with concerning the matter of the Church be brought
in tomorrow morning,' the understood rule being that the
knights and burgesses of each English county should name to
the House two divines, and those of each Welsh county one
divine, for approval. Accordingly, on the 20th, the names were
given in. … By the stress of the war the Assembly was
postponed. At last, hopeless of a bill that should pass in the
regular way by the King's consent, the Houses resorted, in
this as in other things, to their peremptory plan of Ordinance
by their own authority. On the 13th of May, 1643, an Ordinance
for calling an Assembly was introduced in the Commons; which
Ordinance, after due going and coming between the two Houses,
came to maturity June 12, when it was entered at full length
in the Lords' Journals. 'Whereas, amongst the infinite
blessings of Almighty God upon this nation,'—so runs the
preamble of the Ordinance,—'none is, or can be, more dear to
us than the purity of our religion; and for as much as many
things yet remain in the discipline, liturgy and government of
the Church which necessarily require a more perfect
reformation: and whereas it has been declared and resolved, by
the Lords and Commons assembled in Parliament, that the
present Church Government by Archbishops, Bishops, their
Chancellors, Commissaries, Deans, Deans and Chapters,
Archdeacons, and other ecclesiastical officers depending on
the hierarchy, is evil and justly offensive and burdensome to
the kingdom, and a great impediment to reformation and growth
of religion, and very prejudicial to the state and government
of this kingdom, and that therefore they are resolved the same
shall be taken away, and that such a government shall be
settled in the Church as may be agreeable to God's Holy Word,
and most apt to procure and preserve the peace of the Church
at home, and nearer agreement with the Church of Scotland, and
other reformed Churches abroad. … Be it therefore ordained,
&c.' What is ordained is that 149 persons, enumerated by name
in the Ordinance … shall meet on the 1st of July next in
King Henry VII.'s Chapel at Westminster; … 'to confer and
treat among themselves of such matters and things, concerning
the liturgy, discipline and government of the Church of
England … as shall be proposed by either or both Houses of
Parliament, and no other.' … Notwithstanding a Royal
Proclamation from Oxford, dated June 22, forbidding the
Assembly and threatening consequences, the first meeting duly
took place on the day appointed—Saturday, July 1, 1643; and
from that day till the 22d of February, 1648-9, or for more
than five years and a half, the Westminster Assembly is to be
borne in mind as a power or institution in the English realm,
existing side by side with the Long Parliament, and in
constant conference and cooperation with it. The number of its
sittings during these five years and a half was 1,163 in all;
which is at the rate of about four sittings every week for the
whole time. The earliest years of the Assembly were the most
important."
_D. Masson,
Life of John Milton,
book 3, chapter 3 (volume 2)._
ALSO IN:
_A. F. Mitchell,
The Westminster Assembly,
lectures 4-5._
_D. Neal,
History of the Puritans,
volume 3, chapters 2 and 4._
SEE, also, INDEPENDENTS.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1643 (JULY-SEPTEMBER).
The Solemn League and Covenant with the Scottish nation.
"Scotland had been hitherto kept aloof from the English
quarrel. … Up to this time the pride and delicacy of the
English patriots withheld them, for obvious reasons, from
claiming her assistance. Had it been possible, they would
still have desired to engage no distant party in this great
domestic struggle; but when the present unexpected crisis
arrived … these considerations were laid aside, and the
chief leaders of the Parliament resolved upon an embassy to
the North, to bring the Scottish nation into the field. The
conduct of this embassy was a matter of the highest difficulty
and danger. The Scots were known to be bigoted to their own
persuasions of narrow and exclusive church government, while
the greatest men of the English Parliament had proclaimed the
sacred maxim that every man who worshipped God according to
the dictates of his conscience was entitled to the protection
of the State. But these men, Vane, Cromwell, Marten and St.
John, though the difficulties of the common cause had brought
them into the acknowledged position of leaders and directors
of affairs, were in a minority in the House of Commons, and
the party who were their superiors in numbers were as bigoted
to the most exclusive principles of Presbyterianism as the
Scots themselves. Denzil Holies stood at the head of this
inferior class of patriots. … The most eminent of the
Parliamentary nobility, particularly Northumberland, Essex and
Manchester belonged also to this body; while the London
clergy, and the metropolis itself, were almost entirely
Presbyterian. These things considered, there was indeed great
reason to apprehend that this party, backed by the Scots, and
supported with a Scottish army, would be strong enough to
overpower the advocates of free conscience, and 'set up a
tyranny not less to be deplored than that of Laud and his
hierarchy, which had proved one of the main occasions of
bringing on the war.' Yet, opposing to all this danger only
their own high purposes and dauntless courage, the smaller
party of more consummate statesmen were the first to propose
the embassy to Scotland. … On the 20th of July, 1643, the
commissioners set out from London. They were four; and the man
principally confided in among them was Vane [Sir Henry, the
younger]. He, indeed, was the individual best qualified to
succeed Hampden as a counsellor in the arduous struggle in
which the nation was at this time engaged. … Immediately on
his arrival in Edinburgh the negotiation commenced, and what
Vane seems to have anticipated at once occurred. The Scots
offered their assistance heartily on the sole condition of an
adhesion to the Scottish religious system on the part of
England.
{871}
After many long and very warm debates, in which Vane held to
one firm policy from the first, a solemn covenant was
proposed, which Vane insisted should be named a solemn league
and covenant, while certain words were inserted in it on his
subsequent motion, to which he also adhered with immovable
constancy, and which had the effect of leaving open to the
great party in England, to whose interests he was devoted,
that last liberty of conscience which man should never
surrender. … The famous article respecting religion ran in
these words;
'That we shall sincerely, really, and constantly, through the
grace of God, endeavour, in our several places and callings,
the preservation of the Reformed religion in the Church of
Scotland, in doctrine, worship, discipline and government,
against our common enemies; the reformation of religion in the
kingdoms of England and Ireland, in doctrine, worship,
discipline, and government, according to the Word of God, and
the example of the best Reformed churches; and we shall
endeavour to bring the churches of God in the three kingdoms
to the nearest conjunction and uniformity in religion,
confessing of faith, form of church government directory for
worship and catechizing; that we and our posterity after us,
may as brethren live in faith and love, and the Lord may
delight to dwell in the midst of us. That we shall in like
manner, without respect of persons, endeavour the extirpation
of popery, prelacy (that is, church government by archbishops,
bishops, their chancellors and commissaries, deans, deans and
chapters, archdeacons, and all other ecclesiastical officers
depending on that hierarchy).' Vane, by this introduction of
'according to the Word of God,' left the interpretation of
that word to the free conscience of every man. On the 17th of
August, the solemn league and covenant was voted by the
Legislature and the Assembly of the Church at Edinburgh. The
king in desperate alarm, sent his commands to the Scotch
people not to take such a covenant. In reply, they 'humbly
advised his majesty to take the covenant himself.' The
surpassing service rendered by Vane on this great occasion to
the Parliamentary cause, exposed him to a more violent hatred
from the Royalists than he had yet experienced, and Clarendon
has used every artifice to depreciate his motives and his
sincerity. … The solemn league and covenant remained to be
adopted in England. The Scottish form of giving it authority
was followed as far as possible. It was referred by the two
Houses to the Assembly of Divines, which had commenced its
sittings on the 1st of the preceding July, being called
together to be consulted with by the Parliament for the
purpose of settling the government and form of worship of the
Church of England. This assembly already referred to,
consisted of 121 of the clergy; and a number of lay assessors
were joined with them, consisting of ten peers, and twenty
members of the House of Commons. All these persons were named
by the ordinance of the two Houses of Parliament which gave
birth to the assembly. The public taking of the Covenant was
solemnized on the 25th of September, each member of either
House attesting his adherence by oath first, and then by
subscribing his name. The name of Vane, subscribed immediately
on his return, appears upon the list next to that of
Cromwell."
_J. Forster,
Statesmen of the Commonwealth: Vane._
ALSO IN:
_J. K. Hosmer,
Life of Young Sir Henry Vane,
chapter 8._
_A. F. Mitchell,
The Westminster Assembly,
lectures 5-6._
_D. Neal,
History of the Puritans,
volume 3, chapter 2._
_S. R. Gardiner,
Constitutional Documents of the Puritan Revolution,
page 187._
The following is the text of the Solemn League and Covenant:
"A solemn league and covenant for Reformation and defence of
religion, the honour and happiness of the King, and the peace
and safety of the three kingdoms of England, Scotland and
Ireland. We noblemen, barons, knights, gentlemen, citizens,
burgesses, ministers of the Gospel, and commons of all sorts
in the kingdoms of England, Scotland and Ireland, by the
providence of God living under one King, and being of one
reformed religion; having before our eyes the glory of God,
and the advancement of the kingdom of our Lord and Saviour
Jesus Christ, the honour and happiness of the King's Majesty
and his posterity, and the true public liberty, safety and
peace of the kingdoms, wherein everyone's private condition is
included; and calling to mind the treacherous and bloody
plots, conspiracies, attempts and practices of the enemies of
God against the true religion and professors thereof in all
places, especially in these three kingdoms, ever since the
reformation of religion; and how much their rage, power and
presumption are of late, and at this time increased and
exercised, whereof the deplorable estate of the Church and
kingdom of Ireland, the distressed estate of the Church and
kingdom of England, and the dangerous estate of the Church and
kingdom of Scotland, are present and public testimonies: we
have (now at last) after other means of supplication,
remonstrance, protestations and sufferings, for the
preservation of ourselves and our religion from utter ruin and
destruction, according to the commendable practice of these
kingdoms in former times, and the example of God's people in
other nations, after mature deliberation, resolved and
determined to enter into a mutual and solemn league and
covenant, wherein we all subscribe, and each one of us for
himself, with our hands lifted up to the most high God, do
swear,
I. That we shall sincerely, really and constantly, through the
grace of God, endeavour in our several places and callings,
the preservation of the reformed religion in the Church of
Scotland, in doctrine, worship, discipline and government,
against our common enemies; the reformation of religion in the
kingdoms of England and Ireland, in doctrine, worship,
discipline and government, according to the Word of God, and
the example of the best reformed Churches; and we shall
endeavour to bring the Churches of God in the three kingdoms
to the nearest conjunction and uniformity in religion,
confession of faith, form of Church government, directory for
worship and catechising, that we, and our posterity after us,
may, as brethren, live in faith and love, and the Lord may
delight to dwell in the midst of us.
II. That we shall in like manner, without respect of persons,
endeavour the extirpation of Popery, prelacy (that is, Church
government by Archbishops, Bishops, their Chancellors and
Commissaries, Deans, Deans and Chapters, Archdeacons, and all
other ecclesiastical officers depending on that hierarchy),
superstition, heresy, schism, profaneness and whatsoever shall
be found to be contrary to sound doctrine and the power of
godliness lest we partake in other men's sins, and thereby be
in danger to receive of their plagues; and that the Lord may
be one, and His name one in the three kingdoms.
{872}
III. We shall with the same sincerity, reality and constancy,
in our several vocations, endeavour with our estates and lives
mutually to preserve the rights and privileges of the
Parliaments, and the liberties of the kingdoms, and to
preserve and defend the King's Majesty's person and authority,
in the preservation and defence of the true religion and
liberties of the kingdoms, that the world may bear witness
with our consciences of our loyalty, and that we have no
thoughts or intentions to diminish His Majesty's just power
and greatness.
IV. We shall also with all faithfulness endeavour the
discovery of all such as have been or shall be incendiaries,
malignants or evil instruments, by hindering the reformation
of religion, dividing the King from his people, or one of the
kingdoms from another, or making any faction or parties
amongst the people, contrary to the league and covenant, that
they may be brought to public trial and receive condign
punishment, as the degree of their offences shall require or
deserve, or the supreme judicatories of both kingdoms
respectively, or others having power from them for that
effect, shall judge convenient.
V. And whereas the happiness of a blessed peace between these
kingdoms, denied in former times to our progenitors, is by the
good providence of God granted to us, and hath been lately
concluded and settled by both Parliaments: we shall each one
of us, according to our places and interest, endeavour that
they may remain conjoined in a firm peace and union to all
posterity, and that justice may be done upon the wilful
opposers thereof, in manner expressed in the precedent
articles.
VI. We shall also, according to our places and callings, in
this common cause of religion, liberty and peace of the
kingdom, assist and defend all those that enter into this
league and covenant, in the maintaining and pursuing thereof;
and shall not suffer ourselves, directly or indirectly, by
whatsoever combination, persuasion or terror, to be divided
and withdrawn from this blessed union and conjunction, whether
to make defection to the contrary part, or give ourselves to a
detestable indifferency or neutrality in this cause, which so
much concerneth the glory of God, the good of the kingdoms,
and the honour of the King; but shall all the days of our
lives zealously and constantly continue therein, against all
opposition, and promote the same according to our power,
against all lets and impediments whatsoever; and what we are
not able ourselves to suppress or overcome we shall reveal and
make known, that it may be timely prevented or removed: all
which we shall do as in the sight of God. And because these
kingdoms are guilty of many sins and provocations against God,
and His Son Jesus Christ, as is too manifest by our present
distresses and dangers, the fruits thereof: we profess and
declare, before God and the world, our unfeigned desire to be
humbled for our own sins, and for the sins of these kingdoms;
especially that we have not as we ought valued the inestimable
benefit of the Gospel; that we have not laboured for the
purity and power thereof; and that we have not endeavoured to
receive Christ in our hearts, nor to walk worthy of Him in our
lives, which are the causes of other sins and transgressions
so much abounding amongst us, and our true and unfeigned
purpose, desire and endeavour, for ourselves and all others
under our power and charge, both in public and in private, in
all duties we owe to God and man, to amend our lives, and each
one to go before another in the example of a real reformation,
that the Lord may turn away His wrath and heavy indignation,
and establish these Churches and kingdoms in truth and peace.
And this covenant we make in the presence of Almighty God, the
Searcher of all hearts, with a true intention to perform the
same, as we shall answer at that Great Day when the secrets of
all hearts shall be disclosed: most humbly beseeching the Lord
to strengthen us by His Holy Spirit for this end, and to bless
our desires and Proceedings with such success as may be a
deliverance and safety to His people, and encouragement to the
Christian Churches groaning under or in danger of the yoke of
Anti-Christian tyranny, to join in the same or like
association and covenant, to the glory of God, the enlargement
of the kingdom of Jesus Christ, and the peace and tranquility
of Christian kingdoms and commonwealths."
ENGLAND: A. D. 1643 (August-September).
Siege of Gloucester and first Battle of Newbury.
"When the war had lasted a year, the advantage was decidedly
with the Royalists. They were victorious, both in the western
and in the northern counties. They had wrested Bristol, the
second city in the kingdom, from the Parliament. They had won
several battles, and had not sustained a single serious or
ignominious defeat. Among the Roundheads, adversity had begun
to produce dissension and discontent. The Parliament was kept
in alarm, sometimes by plots and sometimes by riots. It was
thought necessary to fortify London against the royal army,
and to hang some disaffected citizens at their own doors.
Several of the most distinguished peers who had hitherto
remained at Westminster fled to the court at Oxford; nor can
it be doubted that, if the operations of the Cavaliers had, at
this season, been directed by a sagacious and powerful mind,
Charles would soon have marched in triumph to Whitehall. But
the King suffered the auspicious moment to pass away; and it
never returned. In August, 1643, he sate down before the city
of Gloucester. That city was defended by the inhabitants and
by the garrison, with a determination such as had not, since
the commencement of the war, been shown by the adherents of
the Parliament. The emulation of London was excited. The
trainbands of the City volunteered to march wherever their
services might be required. A great force was speedily
collected, and began to move westward. The siege of Gloucester
was raised. The Royalists in every part of the kingdom were
disheartened; the spirit of the parliamentary party revived;
and the apostate Lords, who had lately fled from Westminster
to Oxford, hastened back from Oxford to Westminster."
_Lord Macaulay,
History of England,
chapter 1._
After accomplishing the relief of Gloucester, the
Parliamentary army, marching back to London, was intercepted
at Newbury by the army of the king, and forced to fight a
battle, September 20, 1643, in which both parties, as at
Edgehill, claimed the victory. The Royalists, however, failed
to bar the road to London, as they had undertaken to do, and
Essex resumed his march on the following morning.
{873}
"In this unhappy battle was slain the lord viscount Falkland;
a person of such prodigious parts of learning and knowledge,
of that inimitable sweetness and delight in conversation, of
so flowing and obliging a humanity and goodness to mankind,
and of that primitive sincerity and integrity of life, that if
there were no other brand upon this odious and accursed war
than that single loss, it must be most infamous and execrable
to all posterity."
_Earl of Clarendon,
History of the Rebellion,
book 7, section 217._
This lamented death on the royal side nearly evened, so to
speak, the great, unmeasured calamity which had befallen the
better cause three months before, when the high-souled patriot
Hampden was slain in a paltry skirmish with Rupert's horse, at
Chalgrove Field, not far from the borders of Oxfordshire. Soon
after the fight at Newbury, Charles, having occupied Reading,
withdrew his army to Oxford and went into winter quarters.
_N. L. Walford,
Parliamentary Generals of the Great Civil War,
chapter 2._
ALSO IN:
_Sir E. Cust,
Lives of the Warriors of the Civil Wars,
part 2._
_S. R. Gardiner,
History of the Great Civil War,
chapter 10 (volume 1)._
ENGLAND: A. D. 1644 (January).
Battle of Nantwich and siege of Lathom House.
The Irish army brought over by King Charles and landed in
Flintshire, in November, 1643, under the command of Lord
Byron, invaded Cheshire and laid siege to Nantwich, which was
the headquarters of the Parliamentary cause in that region.
Young Sir Thomas Fairfax was ordered to collect forces and
relieve the town. With great difficulty he succeeded, near the
end of January, 1644, in leading 2,500 foot-soldiers and
twenty-eight troops of horse, against the besieging army,
which numbered 3,000 foot and 1,800 horse. On the 28th of
January he attacked and routed the Irish royalists completely.
"All the Royalist Colonels, including the subsequently
notorious Monk, 1,500 soldiers, six pieces of ordnance, and
quantities of arms, were captured." Having accomplished this
most important service, Sir Thomas, "to his great annoyance,"
received orders to lay siege to Lathom House, one of the
country seats of the Earl of Derby, which had been fortified
and secretly garrisoned, with 300 soldiers. It was held by the
high-spirited and dauntless Countess of Derby, in the absence
of her husband, who was in the Isle of Man. Sir Thomas Fairfax
soon escaped from this ignoble enterprise and left it to be
carried on, first, by his cousin, Sir William Fairfax, and
afterwards by Colonel Rigby. The Countess defended her house
for three months, until the approach of Prince Rupert forced
the raising of the siege in the following spring. Lathom House
was not finally surrendered to the Roundheads until December
6, 1645, when it was demolished.
_C. R. Markham,
Life of the Great Lord Fairfax,
chapter 13._
ALSO IN:
_Mrs. Thompson,
Recollections of Literary Characters and Celebrated Places,
volume 2, chapter 2._
_E. Warburton,
Memoirs of Prince Rupert and the Cavaliers,
page 2, chapter 4._
ENGLAND: A. D. 1644 (January-July).
The Scots in England.
The Battle of Marston Moor.
"On the 19th of January, 1644, the Scottish army entered
England. Lesley, now earl of Leven, commanded them. … In the
meantime, the parliament at Westminster formed a council under
the title of 'The Committee of the Two Kingdoms,' consisting
of seven Lords, fourteen members of the Commons, and four
Scottish Commissioners. Whatever belongs to the executive
power as distinguished from the legislative devolved upon this
Committee. In the spring of 1644 the parliament had five
armies in the field, paid by general or local taxation, and by
voluntary contributions. Including the Scottish army there
were altogether 56,000 men under arms; the English forces
being commanded, as separate armies, by Essex, Waller,
Manchester, and Fairfax. Essex and Waller advanced to blockade
Oxford. The queen went to Exeter in April, and never saw
Charles again. The blockading forces around Oxford had become
so strong that resistance appeared to be hopeless. On the
night of the 3d of June the king secretly left the city and
passed safely between the two hostile armies. There had again
been jealousies and disagreements between Essex and Waller.
Essex, supported by the council of war, but in opposition to
the committee of the two kingdoms, had marched to the west.
Waller, meanwhile, went in pursuit of the king into
Worcestershire, Charles suddenly returned to Oxford; and then
at Copredy Bridge, near Banbury, defeated Waller, who had
hastened back to encounter him. Essex was before the walls of
Exeter, in which city the queen had given birth to a princess.
The king hastened to the west. He was strong enough to meet
either of the parliamentary armies thus separated. Meanwhile
the combined English and Scottish armies were besieging York.
Rupert had just accomplished the relief of Lathom House, which
had been defended by the heroic countess of Derby for eighteen
weeks, against a detachment of the army of Fairfax. He then
marched towards York with 20,000 men. The allied English and
Scots retired from Hessey Moor, near York, to Tadcaster.
Rupert entered York with 2,000 cavalry. The Earl of Newcastle
was in command there. He counselled a prudent delay. The
impetuous Rupert said he had the orders of the king for his
guidance, and he was resolved to fight. On the 2nd of July,
having rested two days in and near York, and enabled the city
to be newly provisioned, the royalist army went forth to
engage. They met their enemy on Marston Moor. The issue of the
encounter would have been more than doubtful, but for
Cromwell, who for the first time had headed his Ironsides in a
great pitched battle. The right wing of the parliamentary army
was scattered. Rupert was chasing and slaying the Scottish
cavalry. … The charges of Fairfax and Cromwell decided the
day. The victory of the parliamentary forces was so complete
that the Earl of Newcastle left York, and embarked at
Scarborough for the continent. Rupert marched away also, with
the wreck of his army, to Chester. Fifteen hundred prisoners,
all the artillery, more than 100 banners, remained with the
victors; 4,150 bodies lay dead on the plain."
_C. Knight,
Crown History of England,
chapter 25._
ALSO IN:
_T. Carlyle,
Oliver Cromwell's Letters and Speeches,
part 2, letter 8._
_B. M. Cordery and J. S. Phillpotts,
King and Commonwealth,
chapter 7._
_W. Godwin,
History of the Commonwealth,
chapter 12, (volume 1)._
_E. Warburton,
Memoirs of Prince Rupert and the Cavaliers,
volume 2, chapter 4._
ENGLAND: A. D. 1644 (August-September).
Essex's surrender.
The second Battle of Newbury.
{874}
"The great success at Marston, which had given the north to
the Parliament, was all undone in the south and west through
feebleness and jealousies in the leaders and the wretched
policy that directed the war. Detached armies, consisting of a
local militia, were aimlessly ordered about by a committee of
civilians in London. Disaster followed on disaster. Essex,
Waller, and Manchester would neither agree amongst themselves
nor obey orders. Essex and Waller had parted before Marston
was fought; Manchester had returned from York to protect his
own eastern counties. Waller, after his defeat at Copredy, did
nothing, and naturally found his army melting away. Essex,
perversely advancing into the west, was out-manœuvred by
Charles, and ended a campaign of blunders by the surrender of
all his infantry [at Fowey, in Cornwall, September 2, 1644].
By September 1644 throughout the whole south-west the
Parliament had not an army in the field. But the Committee of
the Houses still toiled on with honourable spirit, and at last
brought together near Newbury a united army nearly double the
strength of the King's. On Sunday, the 29th of October, was
fought the second battle of Newbury, as usual in these
ill-ordered campaigns, late in the afternoon. An arduous day
ended without victory, in spite of the greater numbers of the
Parliament's army, though the men fought well, and their
officers led them with skill and energy. At night the King was
suffered to withdraw his army without loss, and later to carry
off his guns and train. The urgent appeals of Cromwell and his
officers could not infuse into Manchester energy to win the
day, or spirit to pursue the retreating foe."
_F. Harrison,
Oliver Cromwell, chapter 5._
ALSO IN:
_B. M. Cordery and J. S. Phillpotts,
King and Commonwealth,
chapters 7._
_S. R. Gardiner,
History of the Great Civil War,
chapters 19 and 21._
ENGLAND: A. D. 1644-1645.
The Self-denying Ordinance.
"Cromwell had shown his capacity for organization in the
creation of the Ironsides; his military genius had displayed
itself at Marston Moor. Newbury first raised him into a
political leader. 'Without a more speedy, vigorous and
effective prosecution of the war,' he said to the Commons
after his quarrel with Manchester, 'casting off all lingering
proceedings, like those of soldiers of fortune beyond sea to
spin out a war, we shall make the kingdom weary of us, and
hate the name of a Parliament.' But under the leaders who at
present conducted it a vigorous conduct of the war was
hopeless. They were, in Cromwell's plain words, 'afraid to
conquer.' They desired not to crush Charles, but to force him
back, with as much of his old strength remaining as might be,
to the position of a constitutional King. … The army, too,
as he long ago urged at Edgehill, was not an army to conquer
with. Now, as then, he urged that till the whole force was new
modeled, and placed under a stricter discipline, 'they must
not expect any notable success in anything they went about.'
But the first step in such a reorganization must be a change
of officers. The army was led and officered by members of the
two Houses, and the Self-renouncing [or Self-denying]
Ordinance, which was introduced by Cromwell and Vane, declared
the tenure of civil or military offices incompatible with a
seat in either. In spite of a long and bitter resistance,
which was justified at a later time by the political results
which followed this rupture of the tie which had hitherto
bound the army to the Parliament, the drift of public opinion
was too strong to be withstood. The passage of the Ordinance
brought about the retirement of Essex, Manchester, and Waller;
and the new organization of the army went rapidly on under a
new commander-in-chief, Sir Thomas Fairfax, the hero of the
long contest in Yorkshire, and who had been raised into fame
by his victory at Nantwich and his bravery at Marston Moor."
_J. R. Green,
Short History of England,
chapter 8, section 7._
ALSO IN:
_W. Godwin,
History of the Commonwealth,
chapter 15 (volume l)._
_J. K. Hosmer,
Life of Young Sir Henry Vane,
chapter 11._
_J. A. Picton,
Oliver Cromwell,
chapter 10._
_J. Forster,
Statesmen of the Commonwealth: Vane._
ENGLAND: A. D. 1645 (January-February).
The attempted Treaty of Uxbridge.
A futile negotiation between the king and Parliament was
opened at Uxbridge in January, 1645. "But neither the king nor
his advisers entered on it with minds sincerely bent on peace;
they, on the one hand, resolute not to swerve from the utmost
rigour of a conqueror's terms, without having conquered; and
he though more secretly, cherishing illusive hopes of a more
triumphant restoration to power than any treaty could be
expected to effect. The three leading topics of discussion
among the negotiators at Uxbridge were, the church, the
militia, and the state of Ireland. Bound by their unhappy
covenant, and watched by their Scots colleagues, the English
commissioners on the parliament's side demanded the complete
establishment of a presbyterian polity, and the substitution
of what was called the directory for the Anglican liturgy.
Upon this head there was little prospect of a union."
_H. Hallam,
Constitutional History of England,
chapter 10, part 1._
ALSO IN:
_Earl of Clarendon,
History of the Rebellion,
book 8, sections 209-252 (volume 3)._
ENGLAND: A. D. 1645 (January-April).
The New Model of the army.
The passage of the Self-denying Ordinance was followed, or
accompanied, by the adoption of the scheme for the so-called
New Model of the army. "The New Model was organised as
follows:
10 Regiments of Cavalry of 600 men, 6,000;
10 Companies of Dragoons of 100 men, 1,000;
10 Regiments of Infantry of 1,400 men, 14,000:
Total, 21,000 men.
All officers were to be nominated by Sir Thomas Fairfax, the
new General, and (as was insisted upon by the Lords, with the
object of excluding the more fanatical Independents) every
officer was to sign the covenant within twenty days of his
appointment. The cost of this force was estimated at £539,460
per annum, about £1,600,000 of our money. … Sir Thomas
Fairfax having been appointed Commander-in-Chief by a vote of
both Houses on the 1st of April [A. D. 1645], Essex,
Manchester and others of the Lords resigned their commissions
on the 2nd. … The name of Cromwell was of course, with those
of other members of the Commons, omitted from the original
list of the New Model army; but with a significance which
could not have escaped remark, the appointment of
lieutenant-general was left vacant, while none doubted by whom
that vacancy would be filled."
_N. L. Walford,
The Parliamentary Generals of the Great Civil War,
chapter 4._
ALSO IN:
_Sir E. Cust,
Lives of the Warriors of the Civil Wars,
part. 2: Fairfax._
{875}
ENGLAND: A. D. 1645 (JUNE).
The Battle of Naseby.
"Early in April, Fairfax with his new army advanced westward
to raise the siege of Taunton, which city Goring was
besieging. Before that task was completed he received orders
to enter on the siege of Oxford. This did not suit his own
views or those of the Independents. They had joined their new
army upon the implied condition that decisive battles should
be fought. It was therefore with great joy that Fairfax
received orders to proceed in pursuit of the royal forces,
which, having left Worcester, were marching apparently against
the Eastern Association, and had just taken Leicester on their
way. Before entering on this active service, Fairfax demanded
and obtained leave for Cromwell to serve at least for one
battle more in the capacity of Lieutenant-General. He came up
with the king in the neighbourhood of Harborough. Charles
turned back to meet him, and just by the village of Naseby the
great battle known by that name was fought. Cromwell had
joined the army, amid the rejoicing shouts of the troops, two
days before, with the Association horse. Again the victory
seems to have been chiefly due to his skill. In detail it is
almost a repetition of the battle of Marston Moor."
_J. F. Bright,
History of England, period 2,
page 675._
"The old Hamlet of Naseby stands yet, on its old hill-top,
very much as it did in Saxon days, on the Northwestern border
of Northamptonshire; nearly on a line, and nearly midway,
between that Town and Daventry. A peaceable old Hamlet, of
perhaps five hundred souls; clay cottages for laborers, but
neatly thatched and swept; smith's shop, saddler's shop,
beer-shop all in order; forming a kind of square, which leads
off, North and South, into two long streets; the old Church
with its graves, stands in the centre, the truncated spire
finishing itself with a strange old Ball, held up by rods; a
'hollow copper Ball, which came from Boulogne in Henry the
Eighth's time,'—which has, like Hudibras's breeches, 'been
at the Siege of Bullen.' The ground is upland, moorland,
though now growing corn; was not enclosed till the last
generation, and is still somewhat bare of wood. It stands
nearly in the heart of England; gentle Dullness, taking a turn
at etymology, sometimes derives it from 'Navel'; 'Navesby,
quasi Navelsby, from being, &c.' … It was on this high
moor-ground, in the centre of England, that King Charles, on
the 14th of June, 1645, fought his last Battle; dashed
fiercely against the New-Model Army which he had despised till
then: and saw himself shivered utterly to ruin thereby.
'Prince Rupert, on the King's right wing, charged up the hill,
and carried all before him'; but Lieutenant-General Cromwell
charged down hill on the other wing, likewise carrying all
before him,—and did not gallop off the field to plunder, he.
Cromwell, ordered thither by the Parliament, had arrived from
the Association two days before, 'amid shouts from the whole
Army': he had the ordering of the Horse this morning. Prince
Rupert, on returning from his plunder, finds the King's
Infantry a ruin; prepares to charge again with the rallied
Cavalry; but the Cavalry too, when it came to the point,
'broke all asunder,'—never to reassemble more. … There were
taken here a good few 'ladies of quality in carriages';—and
above a hundred Irish ladies not of quality, tattery
camp-followers 'with long skean-knives about a foot in
length,' which they well knew how to use; upon whom I fear the
Ordinance against Papists pressed hard this day. The King's
Carriage was also taken, with a Cabinet and many Royal
Autographs in it, which when printed made a sad impression
against his Majesty,—gave in fact a most melancholy view of
the veracity of his Majesty, 'On the word of a King.' All was
lost!"
_T. Carlyle,
Oliver Cromwell's Letters and Speeches,
part 2, letter 29._
ALSO IN:
_Earl of Clarendon,
History of the Rebellion,
book 9, sections 30-42 (volume 4)._
_E. Warburton,
Memoirs of Prince Rupert and the Cavaliers,
volume 3, chapter 1._
ENGLAND: A. D. 1645 (JUNE-DECEMBER).
Glamorgan's Commissions, and other perfidies of the King
disclosed.
"At the battle of Naseby, copies of some letters to the queen,
chiefly written about the time of the treaty of Uxbridge, and
strangely preserved, fell into the hands of the enemy and were
instantly published. No other losses of that fatal day were
more injurious to [the king's] cause. … He gave her [the
queen] power to treat with the English catholics, promising to
take away all penal laws against them as soon as God should
enable him to do so, in consideration of such powerful
assistance as might deserve so great a favour, and enable him
to affect it. … Suspicions were much aggravated by a second
discovery that took place soon afterwards, of a secret treaty
between the earl of Glamorgan and the confederate Irish
catholics, not merely promising the repeal of the penal laws,
but the establishment of their religion in far the greater
part of Ireland. The marquis of Ormond, as well as lord Digby,
who happened to be at Dublin, loudly exclaimed against
Glamorgan's presumption in concluding such a treaty, and
committed him to prison on a charge of treason. He produced
two commissions from the king, secretly granted without any
seal or the knowledge of any minister, containing the fullest
powers to treat with the Irish, and promising to fulfil any
conditions into which he should enter. The king, informed of
this, disavowed Glamorgan. … Glamorgan, however, was soon
released, and lost no portion of the king's or his family's
favour. This transaction has been the subject of much
historical controversy. The enemies of Charles, both in his
own and later ages, have considered it as a proof of his
indifference, at least, to the protestant religion, and of his
readiness to accept the assistance of Irish rebels on any
conditions. His advocates for a long time denied the
authenticity of Glamorgan's commissions. But Dr. Birch
demonstrated that they were genuine; and, if his dissertation
could have left any doubt, later evidence might be adduced in
confirmation."
_H. Hallam,
Constitutional History of England,
chapter 10 (volume 2)._
ALSO IN:
_S. R. Gardiner,
History of the Great Civil War,
chapters 39 and 44 (volume 2)._
_T. Carte,
Life of James, Duke of Ormond,
book 4 (volume 3)._
_J. Lingard,
History of England,
volume 10, chapter 3._
{876}
ENGLAND: A. D. 1645 (JULY-AUGUST).
The Clubmen.
"When Fairfax and Cromwell marched into the west [after Naseby
fight], they found that in these counties the country-people
had begun to assemble in bodies, sometimes 5,000 strong, to
resist their oppressors, whether they fought in the name of
King or Parliament. They were called clubmen from their arms,
and carried banners, with the motto—'If you offer to plunder
our cattle, Be assured we will give you battle.' The clubmen,
however, could not hope to control the movements of the
disciplined troops who now appeared against them. After a few
fruitless attempts at resistance they dispersed."
_B. M. Cordery and J. S. Phillpotts,
King and Commonwealth,
chapter 8._
"The inexpugnable Sir Lewis Dives (a thrasonical person known
to the readers of Evelyn), after due battering, was now soon
stormed; whereupon, by Letters found on him it became apparent
how deeply Royalist this scheme of Clubmen had been:
'Commissions for raising Regiments of Clubmen'; the design to
be extended over England at large, 'yea into the Associated
Counties': however, it has now come to nothing."
_T. Carlyle,
Oliver Cromwell's Letters and Speeches,
part 2, letter 14._
ENGLAND: A. D. 1645 (JULY-SEPTEMBER).
The storming of Bridgewater and Bristol.
"The continuance of the civil war for a whole year after the
decisive battle of Naseby is a proof of the King's
selfishness, and of his utter indifference to the sufferings
of the people. All rational hope was gone, and even Rupert
advised his uncle to make terms with the Parliament. Yet
Charles, while incessantly vacillating as to his plans,
persisted in retaining his garrisons, and required his
adherents to sacrifice all they possessed in order to prolong
a useless struggle for a few months. Bristol, therefore, was
to stand a siege, and Charles expected the garrison to hold
out, without an object, to the last extremity, entailing
misery and ruin on the second commercial city in the kingdom.
Rupert was sent to take the command there, and when the army
of Sir Thomas Fairfax approached, towards the end of August,
he had completed his preparations." Fairfax had marched
promptly and rapidly westward, after the battle of Naseby. He
had driven Goring from the siege of Taunton, had defeated him
in a sharp battle at Langport, taking 1,400 prisoners, and had
carried Bridgewater by storm, July 21, capturing 2,000 prisoners,
with 36 pieces of artillery and 5,000 stand of arms. On the
21st of August he arrived before Bristol, which Prince Rupert
had strongly fortified, and which he held with an effective
garrison of 2,300 men. On the morning of the 10th of September
it was entered by storm, and on the following day Rupert, who
still occupied the most defensible forts, surrendered the
whole place. This surrender so enraged the King that he
deprived his nephew of all his commissions and sent him a pass
to quit the kingdom. But Rupert understood, as the King would
not, that fighting was useless—that the royal cause was lost.
_C. R. Markham,
Life of the Great Lord Fairfax,
chapter 21-22._
ALSO IN.
_Earl of Clarendon,
History of the Rebellion,
book 9._
_W. Hunt,
Bristol,
chapter 7._
_E. Warburton,
Memoirs of Prince Rupert and the Cavaliers,
volume 3, chapter 1._
ENGLAND: A. D. 1645 (SEPTEMBER).
Defeat of Montrose at Philiphaugh.
See SCOTLAND: A. D. 1644-1645.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1646 (MARCH).
Adoption of Presbyterianism by Parliament.
"For the last three years the Assembly of Divines had been
sitting almost daily in the Jerusalem Chamber of Westminster
Abbey. … They were preparing a new Prayer-book, a form of
Church Government, a Confession of Faith, and a Catechism; but
the real questions at issue were the establishment of the
Presbyterian Church and the toleration of sectarians. The
Presbyterians, as we know, desired to establish their own form
of Church government by assemblies and synods, without any
toleration for non-conformists, whether Catholics,
Episcopalians, or sectarians. But though they formed a large
majority in the assembly, there was a well-organized
opposition of Independents and Erastians, whose union made it
no easy matter for the Presbyterians to carry every vote their
own way. … After the Assembly had sat a year and a half, the
Parliament passed an ordinance for putting a directory,
prepared by the divines, into force, and taking away the
Common Prayer-book (3rd January, 1645). The sign of the cross
in baptism, the ring in marriage, the wearing of vestments,
the keeping of saints' days, were discontinued. The communion
table was ordered to be set in the body of the church, about
which the people were to stand or sit; the passages of
Scripture to be read were left to the minister's choice; no
forms of prayer were prescribed. The same year a new directory
for ordination of ministers was passed into an ordinance. The
Presbyterian assemblies, called presbyteries, were empowered
to ordain, and none were allowed to enter the ministry without
first taking the covenant (8th November, 1645). This was
followed by a third ordinance for establishing the
Presbyterian system of Church government in England by way of
trial for three years. As originally introduced into the
House, this ordinance met with great opposition, because it
gave power to ministers of refusing the sacrament and turning
men out of the Church for scandalous offences. Now, in what,
argued the Erastians, did scandalous offences consist? … A
modified ordinance accordingly was passed; scandalous
offences, for which ministers might refuse the sacrament and
excommunicate, were specified; assemblies were declared
subject to Parliament, and leave was granted to those who
thought themselves unjustly sentenced, to appeal right up from
one Church assembly after another to the civil power—the
Parliament (16th March, 1646). Presbyterians, both in England
and Scotland, felt deeply mortified. After all these years'
contending, then, just when they thought they were entering on
the fruits of their labours, to see the Church still left
under the power of the State—the disappointment was intense
to a degree we cannot estimate. They looked on the
Independents as the enemies of God; this 'lame Erastian
Presbytery' as hardly worth the having. … The Assembly of
Divines practically came to an end in 1649, when it was
changed into a committee for examining candidates for the
Presbyterian ministry. It finally broke up without any formal
dismissal on the dispersion of the Rump Parliament in March,
1653."
_B. M. Cordery and J. S. Phillpotts,
King and Commonwealth,
chapter 9._
ALSO IN:
_S. R. Gardiner,
History of the Great Civil War.
chapter 40 (volume 2)._
_A. F. Mitchell,
The Westminster Assembly,
lectures 7, 9, 13._
_Minutes of the Sessions of the Westminster Assembly._
See, also, INDEPENDENTS.
{877}
ENGLAND: A. D. 1646-1647.
The King in the hands of the Scots.
His duplicity and his intrigues.
The Scots surrender him.
"On the morning of May 6th authentic news came that the King
had ridden into the Scottish army, and had entrusted to his
northern subjects the guardianship of his royal person.
Thereupon the English Parliament at once asserted their right
to dispose of their King so long as he was on English soil;
and for the present ordered that he be sent to Warwick Castle,
an order, however, which had no effect. Newark, impregnable
even to Ironsides, was surrendered at last by royal order; and
the Scots retreated northwards to Newcastle, carrying their
sovereign with them. … Meantime the City Presbyterians were
petitioning the House to quicken the establishment of the
godly and thorough reformation so long promised; and they were
supported by letters from the Scottish Parliament, which, in
the month of February, 1646, almost peremptorily required that
the Solemn League and Covenant should be carried out in the
Scottish sense of it. … The question as to the disposal of
the King's person became accidentally involved in the issues
between Presbyterianism and the sects. For if the King had
been a man to be trusted, and if he had frankly accepted the
army programme of free religion, a free Parliament, and
responsible advisers, there is little doubt that he might have
kept his crown and his Anglican ritual—at least for his own
worship—and might yet have concluded his reign prosperously
as the first constitutional King of England. Instead of this,
he angered the army by making their most sacred purposes mere
cards in a game, to be played or held as he thought most to
his own advantage in dealing with the Presbyterian Parliament.
On July 11th, 1646, Commissioners from both Houses were
appointed to lay certain propositions for peace before the
King at Newcastle. These of course involved everything for
which the Parliament had contended, and in a form developed
and exaggerated by the altered position of affairs. All armed
forces were to be absolutely under the control of Parliament
for a period of 20 years. Speaking generally, all public acts
done by Parliament, or by its authority, were to be confirmed;
and all public acts done by the King or his Oxford
anti-Parliament, without due authorisation from Westminster,
were to be void. … On August 10th the Commissioners who had
been sent to the King returned to Westminster. … The King
had given no distinct answer. It was a suspicious circumstance
that the Duke of Hamilton had gone into Scotland, especially
as Cromwell learned that, in spite of an ostensible order from
the King, Montrose's force had not been disbanded. The
labyrinthine web of royal intrigue in Ireland was beginning to
be discovered. … The death of the Earl of Essex on September
14th increased the growing danger of a fatal schism in the
victorious party. The Presbyterians had hoped to restore him
to the head of the army, and so sheathe or blunt the terrible
weapon they had forged and could not wield. They were now left
without a man to rival in military authority the commanders
whose exploits overwhelmed their employers with a too complete
success. Not only were the political and religious opinions of
the soldiers a cause of anxiety, but the burden of their
sustenance and pay was pressing heavily on the country. … No
wonder that the City of London, always sensitive as to public
security, began to urge upon the Parliament the necessity for
diminishing or disbanding the army in England. … The
Parliament, however, could not deal with the army, for two
reasons; First, the negotiations with the Scotch lingered; and
next, they could not pay the men. The first difficulty was
overcome, at least for the time, by the middle of January,
1647, when a train of wagons carried £200,000 to Newcastle in
discharge of the English debt to the Scottish army. But the
successful accomplishment of this only increased the remaining
difficulty of the Parliament—that of paying their own
soldiers. We need not notice the charge made against the
Scotch of selling their King further than to say, that it is
unfairly based upon only one subordinate feature of a very
complicated negotiation. If the King would have taken the
Covenant, and guaranteed to them their precious Presbyterian
system, his Scottish subjects would have fought for him almost
to the last man. The firmness of Charles in declining the
Covenant for himself is, no doubt, the most creditable point
in his resistance. But his obstinacy in disputing the right of
two nations, in their political establishment of religion, to
override his convictions by their own, illustrates his entire
incapacity to comprehend the new light dawning on the
relations of sovereign and people. The Scots did their best
for him. They petitioned him, they knelt to him, they preached
to him. … But to have carried with them an intractable man
to form a wedge of division amongst themselves, at the same
time that he brought against them the whole power of England,
would have been sheer insanity. Accordingly, they made the
best bargain they could both for him and themselves; and,
taking their wages, they left him with his English subjects,
who conducted him to Holdenby House, in Northamptonshire, on
the 6th of February, 1647."
_J. A. Picton,
Oliver Cromwell,
chapter 13._
ALSO IN:
_S. R. Gardiner,
The First two Stuarts and the Puritan Revolution,
chapter 7, section 4._
_S. R. Gardiner,
History of the Great Civil War,
chapter 3845 (volume 2)._
_W. Godwin,
History of the Commonwealth, book 1,
chapters 24-27, and book 2,
chapter 1-6 (volume 2)._
_Earl of Clarendon,
History of chapter Rebellion,
book 9, section 161-178,
and book 10 (volume 3)._
ENGLAND: A. D. 1647 (APRIL-AUGUST).
The Army takes things in hand.
The King was surrendered to Parliament, and all now looking
toward peace, the Presbyterians were uppermost, discredit
falling upon the Army and its favorers. Many of the Recruiters
[i. e., the new members, elected to fill vacancies in the
Parliament], who at first had acted with the Independents,
inclined now to their opponents. The Presbyterians, feeling
that none would dare to question the authority of Parliament,
pushed energetically their policy as regards the Army, of
sending to Ireland, disbanding, neglecting the payment of
arrears, and displacing the old officers. But suddenly there
came for them a rude awakening. On April 30, 1647, Skippon,
whom all liked, whom the Presbyterians indeed claimed, but who
at the same time kept on good terms with the Army and
Independents, rose in his place in St. Stephens and produced a
letter, brought to him the day before by three private
soldiers, in which eight regiments of horse expressly refused
to serve in Ireland, declaring that it was a perfidious design
to separate the soldiers from the officers whom they
loved,—framed by men who, having tasted of power, were
degenerating into tyrants. Holles and the Presbyterians were
thunder-struck, and laying aside all other business summoned
the three soldiers to appear at once. …
{878}
A violent tumult arose in the House. The Presbyterians
declared that the three sturdy Ironsides standing there, with
their buff stained from their corselets, ought to be at once
committed; to which it was answered, that if there were to be
commitment, it should be to the best London tavern, and sack
and sugar provided. Cromwell, leaning over toward Ludlow, who
sat next to him, and pointing to the Presbyterians, said that
those fellows would never leave till the Army pulled them out
by the ears. That day it became known that there existed an
organization, a sort of Parliament, in the Army, the officers
forming an upper council and the representatives of the rank
and file a lower council. Two such representatives stood in
the lower council for each squadron or troop, known as
'Adjutators,' aiders, or 'Agitators.' This organization had
taken upon itself to see that the Army had its rights. … At
the end of a month, there was still greater occasion for
astonishment. Seven hundred horse suddenly left the camp, and
appearing without warning, June 2, at Holmby House, where
Charles was kept, in charge of Parliamentary commissioners,
proposed to assume the custody of the King. A cool, quiet
fellow, of rank no higher than that of cornet, led them and
was their spokesman, Joyce. 'What is your authority?' asked
the King. The cornet simply pointed to the mass of troopers at
his back. … So bold a step as the seizure of the King made
necessary other bold steps on the part of the Army. Scarcely a
fortnight had passed, when a demand was made for the exclusion
from Parliament of eleven Presbyterians, the men most
conspicuous for extreme views. The Army meanwhile hovered,
ever ominously, close at hand, to the north and east of the
city, paying slight regard to the Parliamentary prohibition to
remain at a distance. The eleven members withdrew. … But if
Parliament was willing to yield, Presbyterian London and the
country round about were not, and in July broke out into sheer
rebellion. … The Speakers of the Lords and Commons, at the
head of the strength of the Parliament, fourteen Peers and one
hundred Commoners, betook themselves to Fairfax, and on August
2 they threw themselves into the protection of the Army at
Hounslow Heath, ten miles distant. A grand review took place.
The consummate soldier, Fairfax, had his troops in perfect
condition, and they were drawn out 20,000 strong to receive
the seceding Parliament. The soldiers rent the air with shouts
in their behalf, and all was made ready for a most impressive
demonstration. On the 6th of August, Fairfax marched his
troops in full array through the city, from Hammersmith to
Westminster. Each man had in his hat a wreath of laurel. The
Lords and Commons who had taken flight were escorted in the
midst of the column; the city officials joined the train. At
Westminster the Speakers were ceremoniously reinstalled, and
the Houses again put to work, the first business being to
thank the General and the veterans who had reconstituted them.
The next day, with Skippon in the centre and Cromwell in the
rear, the Army marched through the city itself, a heavy tramp
of battle-seasoned platoons, at the mere sound of which the
war-like ardor of the turbulent youths of the work-shops and
the rough watermen was completely squelched. Yet the soldiers
looked neither to the right nor left; nor by act, word, or
gesture was any offence given."
_J. K. Hosmer,
Life of Young Sir Henry Vane,
chapter 12._
ALSO IN:
_C. R. Markham,
Life of the Great Lord Fairfax,
chapter 24._
_T. Carlyle,
Oliver Cromwell's Letters and Speeches,
part 3, letter 26._
_W. Godwin,
History of the Commonwealth,
book 2, chapter 7-11._
ENGLAND: A. D. 1647 (AUGUST-DECEMBER).
The King's "Game" with Cromwell and the army,
and the ending of it.
After reinstating the Parliament at Westminster, "the army
leaders resumed negotiations with the King. The indignation of
the soldiers at his delays and intrigues made the task hourly
more difficult; but Cromwell … clung to the hope of
accommodation with a passionate tenacity. His mind,
conservative by tradition, and above all practical in temper,
saw the political difficulties which would follow on the
abolition of Royalty, and in spite of the King's evasions, he
persisted in negotiating with him. But Cromwell stood almost
alone; the Parliament refused to accept Ireton's proposals as
a basis of peace, Charles still evaded, and the army then grew
restless and suspicious. There were cries for a wide reform,
for the abolition of the House of Peers, for a new House of
Commons, and the Adjutators called on the Council of Officers
to discuss the question of abolishing Royalty itself. Cromwell
was never braver than when he faced the gathering storm, forbade
the discussion, adjourned the Council, and sent the officers
to their regiments. But the strain was too great to last long,
and Charles was still resolute to 'play his game.' He was, in
fact, so far from being in earnest in his negotiations with
Cromwell and Ireton, that at the moment they were risking
their lives for him he was conducting another and equally
delusive negotiation with the Parliament. … In the midst of
his hopes of an accommodation, Cromwell found with
astonishment that he had been duped throughout, and that the
King had fled [November 11, 1647]. … Even Cromwell was
powerless to break the spirit which now pervaded the soldiers,
and the King's perfidy left him without resource. 'The King is
a man of great parts and great understanding,' he said at
last, 'but so great a dissembler and so false a man that he is
not to be trusted.' By a strange error, Charles had made his
way from Hampton Court to the Isle of Wight, perhaps with some
hope from the sympathy of Colonel Hammond, the Governor of
Carisbrooke Castle, and again found himself a prisoner. Foiled
in his effort to put himself at the head of the new civil war, he
set himself to organize it from his prison; and while again
opening delusive negotiations with the Parliament, he signed a
secret treaty with the Scots for the invasion of the realm.
The rise of Independency, and the practical suspension of the
Covenant, had produced a violent reaction in his favour north
of the Tweed. … In England the whole of the conservative
party, with many of the most conspicuous members of the Long
Parliament at its head, was drifting, in its horror of the
religious and political changes which seemed impending, toward
the King; and the news from Scotland gave the signal for
fitful insurrections in almost every quarter."
_J. R. Green,
Short History of England,
chapter 8, section 8._
ALSO IN:
_F. P. Guizot,
History of the English Revolution of 1640,
books 7-8._
_L. von Ranke,
History of England, 17th Century,
book 10, chapter 4._
_W. Godwin,
History of the Commonwealth._
_G. Hillier,
Narrative of attempted Escapes of Charles I. from
Carisbrooke Castle, &c._
{879}
ENGLAND: A. D. 1648 (April-August).
The Second Civil War.
Defeat of the Scots at Preston.
"The Second Civil War broke out in April, and proved to be a
short but formidable affair. The whole of Wales was speedily
in insurrection; a strong force of cavaliers were mustering in
the north of England; in Essex, Surrey, and the southern
counties various outbreaks arose; Berwick, Carlisle, Chester,
Pembroke, Colchester, were held for the king; the fleet
revolted; and 40,000 men were ordered by the Parliament of
Scotland to invade England. Lambert was sent to the north;
Fairfax to take Colchester; and Cromwell into Wales, and
thence to join Lambert and meet the Scotch. On the 24th of May
Cromwell reached Pembroke, but being short of guns, he did not
take it till 11th July. The rising in Wales crushed, Cromwell
turned northwards, where the northwest was already in revolt,
and 20,000 Scots, under the Duke of Hamilton, were advancing
into the country. Want of supplies and shoes, and sickness,
detained him with his army, some 7,000 strong, 'so extremely
harassed with hard service and long marches, that they seemed
rather fit for a hospital than a battle.' Having joined
Lambert in Yorkshire he fought the battle of Preston on 17th
of August. The battle of Preston was one of the most decisive
and important victories ever gained by Cromwell, over the most
numerous enemy he ever encountered, and the first in which he
was in supreme command. … Early on the morning of the 17th
August, Cromwell, with some 9,000 men, fell upon the army of
the Duke of Hamilton unawares, as it proceeded southwards in a
long, straggling, unprotected line. The invaders consisted of
17,000 Scots and 7,000 good men from northern counties. The
long ill-ordered line was cut In half and rolled back northward
and southward, before they even knew that Cromwell was
upon them. The great host, cut into sections, fought with
desperation from town to town. But for three days it was one
long chase and carnage, which ended only with the exhaustion
of the victors and their horses. Ten thousand prisoners were
taken. 'We have killed we know not what,' writes Cromwell,
'but a very great number; having done execution upon them
above thirty miles together, besides what we killed in the two
great fights.' His own loss was small, and but one superior
officer. … The Scottish invaders dispersed, Cromwell
hastened to recover Berwick and Carlisle, and to restore the
Presbyterian or Whig party in Scotland."
_F. Harrison,
Oliver Cromwell,
chapter 7._
ALSO IN:
_J. H. Burton,
History of Scotland,
chapter 74 (volume 7)._
_Earl of Clarendon,
History of the Rebellion,
book 11 (volume 4)._
ENGLAND: A. D. 1648 (SEPTEMBER-NOVEMBER).
The Treaty at Newport.
"The unfortunate issue of the Scots expedition under the duke
of Hamilton, and of the various insurrections throughout
England, quelled by the vigilance and good conduct of Fairfax
and Cromwell, is well known. But these formidable
manifestations of the public sentiment in favour of peace with
the king on honourable conditions, wherein the city of London,
ruled by the presbyterian ministers, took a share, compelled
the house of commons to retract its measures. They came to a
vote, by 165 to 90, that they would not alter the fundamental
government by king, lords, and commons; they abandoned their
impeachment against seven peers, the most moderate of the
upper house and the most obnoxious to the army: they restored
the eleven members to their seats; they revoked their
resolutions against a personal treaty with the king, and even
that which required his assent by certain preliminary
articles. In a word the party for distinction's sake called
presbyterian, but now rather to be denominated constitutional,
regained its ascendancy. This change in the counsels of
parliament brought on the treaty of Newport. The treaty of
Newport was set on foot and managed by those politicians of
the house of lords, who, having long suspected no danger to
themselves but from the power of the king, had discovered,
somewhat of the latest, that the crown itself was at stake,
and that their own privileges were set on the same cast.
Nothing was more remote from the intentions of the earl of
Northumberland, or lord Say, than to see themselves pushed
from their seats by such upstarts as Ireton and Harrison; and
their present mortification afforded a proof how men reckoned
wise in their generation become the dupes of their own
selfish, crafty, and pusillanimous policy. They now grew
anxious to see a treaty concluded with the king. Sensible that
it was necessary to anticipate, if possible, the return of
Cromwell from the north, they implored him to comply at once
with all the propositions of parliament, or at least to yield
in the first instance as far as he meant to go. They had not,
however, mitigated in any degree the rigorous conditions so
often proposed; nor did the king during this treaty obtain any
reciprocal concession worth mentioning in return for his
surrender of almost all that could be demanded."
_H. Hallam,
Constitutional History of England,
chapter 10, part 2._
The utter faithlessness with which Charles carried on these
negotiations, as on all former occasions, was shown at a later
day when his correspondence came to light. "After having
solemnly promised that all hostilities in Ireland should
cease, he secretly wrote to Ormond (October 10): 'Obey my
wife's orders, not mine, until I shall let you know I am free
from all restraint; nor trouble yourself about my concessions
as to Ireland; they will not lead to anything;' and the day on
which he had consented to transfer to parliament for twenty
years the command of the army (October 9), he wrote to sir
William Hopkins: 'To tell you the truth, my great concession
this morning was made only with a view to facilitate my
approaching escape; without that hope, I should never have
yielded in this manner. If I had refused, I could, without
much sorrow, have returned to my prison; but as it is, I own
it would break my heart, for I have done that which my escape
alone can justify.' The parliament, though without any exact
information, suspected all this perfidy; even the friends of
peace, the men most affected by the king's condition, and most
earnest to save him, replied but hesitatingly to the charges
of the independents."
_F. P. Guizot,
History of the English Revolution of 1640,
book 8._
ALSO IN:
_Earl of Clarendon,
History of the Rebellion,
book 11, sections 153-190 (volume 4)._
_I. Disraeli,
Commentaries on the Life and Reign of Charles I.,
volume 2, chapters 39-40._
{880}
ENGLAND: A. D. 1648 (NOVEMBER-DECEMBER).
The Grand Army Remonstrance and Pride's Purge.
The Long Parliament cut down to the Rump.
On the 20th of November, 1648, Colonel Ewer and other officers
presented to the house of commons a remonstrance from the Army
against the negotiations and proposed treaty with the king.
This was accompanied by a letter from Fairfax, stating that it
had been voted unanimously in the council of officers, and
entreating for it the consideration of parliament. The
remonstrance recommended an immediate ending of the treaty
conferences at Newport, demanded that the king be brought to
justice, as the capital source of all grievances, and called
upon parliament to enact its own dissolution, with provision
for the electing and convening of future annual or biennial
parliaments. Ten days passed without attention being given to
this army manifesto, the house having twice adjourned its
consideration of the document. On the first of December there
appeared at Newport a party of horse which quietly took
possession of the person of the king, and conveyed him to
Hurst Castle, "a fortress in Hampshire, situated at the
extreme point of a neck of land, which shoots into the sea
towards the isle of Wight." The same day on which this was
done, "the commissioners who had treated with the king at
Newport made their appearance in the two houses of parliament;
and the two following days were occupied by the house of
commons in an earnest debate as to the state of the
negotiation. Vane was one of the principal speakers against
the treaty; and Fiennes, who had hitherto ranked among the
independents, spoke for it. At length, after the house had sat
all night, it was put and carried, at five in the morning of
the 5th, by a majority of 129 to 83, that the king's answers
to the propositions of both houses were a ground for them to
proceed upon, to the settlement of the peace of the kingdom.
On the same day this vote received the concurrence of the
house of lords." Meantime, on the 30th of November, the
council of the army had voted a second declaration more fully
expressive of its views and announcing its intention to draw
near to London, for the accomplishment of the purposes of the
remonstrance. "On the 2d of December Fairfax marched to
London, and quartered his army at Whitehall, St. James's, the
Mews, and the villages near the metropolis. … On the 5th of
December three officers of the army held a meeting with three
members of parliament, to arrange the plan by which the sound
members might best be separated from those by whom their
measures were thwarted, and might peaceably be put in
possession of the legislative authority. The next morning a
regiment of horse, and another of foot were placed as a guard
upon the two houses, Skippon, who commanded the city-militia,
having agreed with the council of the army to keep back the
guard under his authority which usually performed that duty. A
part of the foot were ranged in the Court of Requests, upon
the stairs, and in the lobby leading to the house of commons.
Colonel Pride was stationed near the door, with a list in his
hand of the persons he was commissioned to arrest; and
sometimes one of the door-keepers, and at others Lord Grey of
Groby, pointed them out to him, as they came up with an
intention of passing into the house. Forty-one members were
thus arrested. … On the following day more members were
secured, or denied entrance, amounting, with those of the day
before, to about one hundred. At the same time Cromwell took
his seat; and Henry Marten moved that the speaker should
return him thanks for his great and eminent services performed
in the course of the campaign. The day after, the two houses
adjourned to the 12th. During the adjournment many of the
members who had been taken into custody by the military were
liberated. … Besides those who were absolutely secured, or
shut out from their seats by the power of the army, there were
other members that looked with dislike on the present
proceedings, or that considered parliament as being under
force, and not free in their deliberations, who voluntarily
abstained from being present at their sittings and debates."
_W. Godwin,
History of the Commonwealth,
book 2, chapters 23-24 (volume 2)._
"The famous Pride's Purge was accomplished. By military force
the Long Parliament was cut down to a fraction of its number,
and the career begins of the mighty 'Rump,' so called in the
coarse wit of the time because it was 'the sitting part.'"
_J. K. Hosmer,
Life of Young Sir Henry Vane,
chapter 13._
"This name [the Rump] was first given to them by Walker, the
author of the History of Independency, by way of derision, in
allusion to a fowl all devoured but the rump."
_D. Neal,
History of the Puritans,
volume 4, chapter 1, foot-note._
ALSO IN:
_C. R Markham,
Life of the Great Lord Fairfax,
chapter 28._
_D. Masson,
Life of John Milton,
book 4, chapters 1 and 3 (volume 3)._
ENGLAND: A. D. 1649 (JANUARY).
The trial and execution of the King.
"During the month in which Charles had remained at Windsor
[whither he had been brought from Hurst Castle on the 17th of
December], there had been proceedings in Parliament of which
he was imperfectly informed. On the day he arrived there, it
was resolved by the Commons that he should be brought to
trial. On the 2nd of January, 1649, it was voted that, in
making war against the Parliament, he had been guilty of
treason; and a High Court was appointed to try him. One
hundred and fifty commissioners were to compose the Court,—
peers, members of the Commons, aldermen of London. The
ordinance was sent to the Upper House, and was rejected. On
the 6th, a fresh ordinance, declaring that the people being,
after God, the source of all just power, the representatives
of the people are the supreme power in the nation; and that
whatsoever is enacted or declared for law by the Commons in
Parliament hath the force of a law, and the people are
concluded thereby, though the consent of King or Peers be not
had thereto. Asserting this power, so utterly opposed either
to the ancient constitution of the monarchy, or to the
possible working of a republic, there was no hesitation in
constituting the High Court of Justice in the name of the
Commons alone. The number of members of the Court was now
reduced to 135. They had seven preparatory meetings, at which
only 58 members attended. 'All men,' says Mrs. Hutchinson,
'were left to their free liberty of acting, neither persuaded
nor compelled; and as there were some nominated in the
commission who never sat, and others who sat at first but
durst not hold on, so all the rest might have declined it if
they would, when it is apparent they should have suffered
nothing by so doing.' … On the 19th of January, major
Harrison appeared … at Windsor with his troop. There was a
coach with six horses in the court-yard, in which the King
took his seat; and, once more, he entered London, and was
lodged at St. James's palace.
{881}
The next day, the High Court of Justice was opened in
Westminster-hall. … After the names of the members of the
court had been called, 69 being present, Bradshaw, the
president, ordered the serjeant to bring in the prisoner.
Silently the King sat down in the chair prepared for him. He
moved not his hat, as he looked sternly and contemptuously
around. The sixty-nine rose not from their seats, and remained
covered. … The clerk reads the charge, and when he is
accused therein of being tyrant and traitor, he laughs in the
face of the Court. 'Though his tongue usually hesitated, yet
it was very free at this time, for he was never discomposed in
mind,' writes Warwick. … Again and again contending against
the authority of the Court, the King was removed, and the
sitting was adjourned to the 22nd. On that day the same scene
was renewed; and again on the 23rd. A growing sympathy for the
monarch became apparent. The cries of 'Justice, justice,'
which were heard at first, were now mingled with 'God save the
King.' He had refused to plead; but the Court nevertheless
employed the 24th and 25th of January in collecting evidence
to prove the charge of his levying war against the Parliament.
Coke, the solicitor-general, then demanded whether the Court
would proceed to pronouncing sentence; and the members
adjourned to the Painted Chamber. On the 27th the public
sitting was resumed. … The Court, Bradshaw then stated, had
agreed upon the sentence. Ludlow records that the King'
desired to make one proposition before they proceeded to
sentence; which he earnestly pressing, as that which he
thought would lead to the reconciling of all parties, and to
the peace of the three kingdoms, they permitted him to offer
it; the effect of which was, that he might meet the two Houses
in the Painted Chamber, to whom he doubted not to offer that
which should satisfy and secure all interests.' Ludlow goes on
to say, 'Designing, as I have since been informed, to propose
his own resignation, and the admission of his son to the
throne upon such terms as should have been agreed upon.' The
commissioners retired to deliberate, 'and being satisfied,
upon debate, that nothing but loss of time would be the
consequence of it, they returned into the Court with a
negative to his demand.' Bradshaw then delivered a solemn
speech to the King. … The clerk was lastly commanded to read
the sentence, that his head should be severed from his body;
'and the commissioners,' says Ludlow, 'testified their
unanimous assent by standing up.' The King attempted to speak;
'but being accounted dead in law, was not permitted.' On the
29th of January, the Court met to sign the sentence of
execution, addressed to 'colonel Francis Hacker, colonel
Huncks, and lieutenant-colonel Phayr, and to every one of
them.' … There were some attempts to save him. The Dutch
ambassador made vigorous efforts to procure a reprieve, whilst
the French and Spanish ambassadors were inert. The ambassadors
from the States nevertheless persevered; and early in the day
of the 30th obtained some glimmering of hope from Fairfax.
'But we found,' they say in their despatch, 'in front of the
house in which we had just spoken with the general, about 200
horsemen; and we learned, as well as on our way as on reaching
home, that all the streets, passages, and squares of London were
occupied by troops, so that no one could pass, and that the
approaches of the city were covered with cavalry, so as to
prevent anyone from coming in or going out; … The same day,
between two and three o'clock, the King was taken to a
scaffold covered with black, erected before Whitehall.' To
that scaffold before Whitehall, Charles walked, surrounded by
soldiers, through the leafless avenues of St. James's Park. It
was a bitterly cold morning. … His purposed address to the
people was delivered only to the hearing of those upon the
scaffold, but its purport was that the people mistook the
nature of government; for people are free under a government,
not by being sharers in it, but by due administration of the
laws of it.' His theory of government was a consistent one. He
had the misfortune not to understand that the time had been
fast passing away for its assertion. The headsman did his
office; and a deep groan went up from the surrounding
multitude."
_Charles Knight,
Popular History of England,
volume 4, chapter 7._
"In the death-warrant of 29th January 1649, next after the
President and Lord Grey, stands the name of Oliver Cromwell.
He accepted the responsibility of it, justified, defended it
to his dying day. No man in England was more entirely
answerable for the deed than he, 'I tell you,' he said to
Algernon Sidney, 'we will cut off his head with the crown upon
it.' … Slowly he had come to know—not only that the man,
Charles Stuart, was incurably treacherous, but that any
settlement of Parliament with the old Feudal Monarchy was
impossible. As the head of the king rolled on the scaffold the
old Feudal Monarchy expired for ever. In January 1649 a great
mark was set in the course of the national life—the Old Rule
behind it, the New Rule before it. Parliamentary government,
the consent of the nation, equality of rights, and equity in
the law—all date from this great New Departure. The Stuarts
indeed returned for one generation, but with the sting of the
Old Monarchy gone, and only to disappear almost without a
blow. The Church of England returned; but not the Church of
Laud or of Charles. The peers returned, but as a meek House of
Lords, with their castles razed, their feudal rights and their
political power extinct. It is said that the regicides killed
Charles I. only to make Charles II. king. It is not so, They
killed the Old Monarchy; and the restored monarch was by no
means its heir, but a royal Stadtholder or Hereditary
President."
_F. Harrison,
Oliver Cromwell,
chapter 7._
"Respecting the death of Charles it has been pronounced by
Fox, that 'it is much to be doubted whether his trial and
execution have not, as much as any other circumstance, served
to raise the character of the English nation in the opinion of
Europe in general.' And he goes on to speak with considerable
favour of the authors of that event. One of the great
authorities of the age having so pronounced, an hundred and
fifty years after the deed, it may be proper to consider for a
little the real merits of the actors, and the act. It is not
easy to imagine a greater criminal than the individual against
whom the sentence was awarded. … Liberty is one of the
greatest negative advantages that can fall to the lot of a
man; without it we cannot possess any high degree of
happiness, or exercise any considerable virtue. Now Charles,
to a degree which can scarcely be exceeded, conspired against
the liberty of his country, to assert his own authority
without limitation, was the object of all his desires and all
his actions, so far as the public was concerned.
{882}
To accomplish this object he laid aside the use of a
parliament. When he was compelled once more to have recourse
to this assembly, and found it retrograde to his purposes, he
determined to bring up the army, and by that means to put an
end to its sittings. Both in Scotland and England, the scheme
that he formed for setting aside all opposition, was by force
of arms. For that purpose he commenced war against the English
parliament, and continued it by every expedient in his power
for four years. Conquered, and driven out of the field, he did
not for that, for a moment lose sight of his object and his
resolution. He sought in every quarter for the materials of a
new war; and, after an interval of twenty months, and from the
depths of his prison, he found them. To this must be added the
most consummate insincerity and duplicity. He could never be
reconciled; he could never be disarmed; he could never be
convinced. His was a war to the death, and therefore had the
utmost aggravation that can belong to a war against the
liberty of a nation. … The proper lesson taught by the act
of the thirtieth of January, was that no person, however high
in station, however protected by the prejudices of his
contemporaries, must expect to be criminal against the welfare
of the state and community, without retribution and
punishment. The event however sufficiently proved that the
condemnation and execution of Charles did not answer the
purposes intended by its authors. It did not conciliate the
English nation to republican ideas. It shocked all those
persons in the country who did not adhere to the ruling party.
This was in some degree owing to the decency with which
Charles met his fate. He had always been in manners, formal,
sober and specious. … The notion was every where prevalent,
that a sovereign could not be called to account, could not be
arraigned at the bar of his subjects. And the violation of
this prejudice, instead of breaking down the wall which
separated him from others, gave to his person a sacredness
which never before appertained to it. Among his own partisans
the death of Charles was treated, and was spoken of, as a sort
of deicide. And it may be admitted for a universal rule, that
the abrupt violation of a deep-rooted maxim and persuasion of
the human mind, produces a reaction, and urges men to hug the
maxim closer than ever. I am afraid, that the day that saw
Charles perish on the scaffold, rendered the restoration of
his family certain."
_W. Godwin,
History of the Commonwealth of England
to the Restoration of Charles II.,
book 2, chapter 26 (volume 2)._
"The situation, complicated enough already, had been still
further complicated by Charles's duplicity. Men who would have
been willing to come to terms with him, despaired of any
constitutional arrangement in which he was to be a factor; and
men who had long been alienated from him were irritated into
active hostility. By these he was regarded with increasing
intensity as the one disturbing force with which no
understanding was possible and no settled order consistent. To
remove him out of the way appeared, even to those who had no
thought of punishing him for past offences, to be the only
possible road to peace for the troubled nation. It seemed that
so long as Charles lived deluded nations and deluded parties
would be stirred up, by promises never intended to be
fulfilled, to fling themselves, as they had flung themselves
in the Second Civil War, against the new order of things which
was struggling to establish itself in England."
_S. R. Gardiner,
History of the Great Civil War,
1642-1649, chapter 71 (volume 3)._
ALSO IN:
_John Forster,
Statesmen of the Commonwealth: Henry Marten._
_S. R. Gardiner,
Constitutional Documents of the Puritan Revolution,
pages 268-290._
The following is the text of the Act which arraigned the King
and constituted the Court by which he was tried:
"Whereas it is notorious that Charles Stuart, the now king of
England, not content with the many encroachments which his
predecessors had made upon the people in their rights and
freedom, hath had a wicked design totally to subvert the
antient and fundamental laws and liberties of this nation, and
in their place to introduce an arbitrary and tyrannical
government; and that, besides all other evil ways and means to
bring his design to pass, he hath prosecuted it with fire and
sword, levied and maintained a civil war in the land, against
the parliament and kingdom; whereby this country hath been
miserably wasted, the public treasure exhausted, trade
decayed, thousands of people murdered, and infinite other
mischiefs committed; for all which high and treasonable
offences the said Charles Stuart might long since have justly
been brought to exemplary and condign punishment: whereas also
the parliament, well hoping that the restraint and imprisonment
of his person after it had pleased God to deliver him into
their hands, would have quieted the distempers of the kingdom,
did forbear to proceed judicially against him; but found, by
sad experience, that such their remissness served only to
encourage him and his accomplices in the continuance of their
evil practices and in raising new commotions, rebellions, and
invasions: for prevention therefore of the like or greater
inconveniences, and to the end no other chief officer or
magistrate whatsoever may hereafter presume, traiterously and
maliciously, to imagine or contrive the enslaving or
destroying of the English nation, and to expect impunity for
so doing; be it enacted and ordained by the [Lords] and
commons in Parliament assembled, and it is hereby enacted and
ordained by the authority thereof, That the earls of Kent,
Nottingham, Pembroke, Denbigh, and Mulgrave; the lord Grey of
Warke; lord chief justice Rolle of the king's bench, lord
chief justice St. John of the common Pleas, and lord chief
baron Wylde; the lord Fairfax, lieutenant general Cromwell,
&c. [in all about 150,] shall be, and are hereby appointed and
required to be Commissioners and Judges, for the Hearing,
Trying, and Judging of the said Charles Stuart; and the said
Commissioners, or any 20 or more of them, shall be, and are
hereby authorized and constituted an High Court of Justice, to
meet and sit at such convenient times and place as by the said
commissioners, or the major part, or 20 or more of them, under
their hands and seals, shall be appointed and notified by
public Proclamation in the Great Hall, or Palace Yard of
Westminster; and to adjourn from time to time, and from place
to place, as the said High Court, or the major part thereof,
at meeting, shall hold fit; and to take order for the charging
of him, the said Charles Stuart, with the Crimes and Treasons
above-mentioned, and for receiving his personal Answer
thereunto, and for examination of witnesses upon oath, (which
the court hath hereby authority to administer) or otherwise,
and taking any other Evidence concerning the same; and
thereupon, or in default of such Answer, to proceed to final
Sentence according to justice and the merit of the cause; and
such final Sentence to execute, or cause to be executed,
speedily and impartially.
{883}
And the said court is hereby and required to chuse and
appoint all such officers, attendants, and other circumstances
as they, or the major part of them, shall in any sort judge
necessary or useful for the orderly and good managing of the
premises; and Thomas lord Fairfax the General, and all
officers and soldiers, under his command, and all officers of
justice, and other well-affected persons, are hereby
authorized and required to be aiding and assisting unto the
said court in the due execution of the trust hereby committed
unto them; provided that this act, and the authority hereby
granted, do continue in force for the space of one month from
the date of the making hereof, and no longer."
_Cobbett's Parliamentary History of England,
volume 3, pages 1254-1255._
ENGLAND: A. D. 1649 (FEBRUARY).
The Commonwealth established.
"England was now a Republic. The change had been virtually
made on Thursday, January 4, 1648-9, when the Commons passed
their three great Resolutions, declaring
(1) that the People of England were, under God, the original
of all just power in the State,
(2) that the Commons, in Parliament assembled, having been
chosen by the People, and representing the People, possessed
the supreme power in their name, and
(3) that whatever the Commons enacted should have the force of
a law, without needing the consent of either King or House of
Peers.
On Tuesday, the 30th of January, the theory of these
Resolutions became more visibly a fact. On the afternoon of
that day, while the crowd that had seen the execution in front
of Whitehall were still lingering round the scaffold, the
Commons passed an Act 'prohibiting the proclaiming of any
person to be King of England or Ireland, or the dominions
thereof.' It was thus declared that Kingship in England had
died with Charles. But what of the House of Peers? It was
significant that on the same fatal day the Commons revived
their three theoretical resolutions of the 4th, and ordered
them to be printed. The wretched little rag of a House might
then have known its doom. But it took a week more to convince
them." On the 6th of February it was resolved by the House of
Commons, "'That the House of Peers in Parliament is useless
and dangerous, and ought to be abolished, and that an Act be
brought in to that purpose.' Next day, February 7, after
another long debate, it was further resolved 'That it hath
been found by experience, and this House doth declare, that
the office of a King in this realm, and to have the power
thereof in any single person, is unnecessary, burdensome, and
dangerous to the liberty, safety, and public interest of the
People of this nation, and therefore ought to be abolished,
and that an Act be brought in to that purpose.' Not till after
some weeks were these Acts deliberately passed after the
customary three readings. The delay, however, was matter of
mere Parliamentary form. Theoretically a Republic since January
4, 1648-9, and visibly a Republic from the day of Charles's
death, England was a Republic absolutely and in every sense
from February 7, 1648-9." For the administration of the
government of the republican Commonwealth, the Commons
resolved, on the 7th of February, that a Council of State be
erected; to consist of not more than forty persons. On the
13th, Instructions to the intended Council of State were
reported and agreed to, "these Instructions conferring almost
plenary powers, but limiting the duration of the Council to
one year." On the 14th and 15th forty-one persons were
appointed to be members of the Council, Fairfax, Cromwell,
Vane, St. John, Whitlocke, Henry Marten, and Colonels
Hutchinson and Ludlow being in the number; nine to constitute
a quorum, and no permanent President to be chosen.
_D. Masson,
Life of John Milton,
volume 4, book 1, chapter 1._
ALSO IN:
_J. Lingard,
History of England,
volume. 10, chapter 5._
_A. Bisset,
Omitted Chapters of History of England,
chapter 1._
ENGLAND: A. D. 1649 (FEBRUARY).
The Eikon Basilike.
"A book, published with great secrecy, and in very mysterious
circumstances, February 9, 1648-9, exactly ten days after the
late King's death, had done much to increase the Royalist
enthusiasm.
'Eikon Basilike: The True Portraicture of His Sacred Majestie
in his Solitudes and Sufferings.—Romans viii. More than
conquerour, &c.—Bona agere et mala pati Regium est.
MDCXLVIII':
such was the title-page of this volume (of 269 pages of text,
in small octavo), destined by fate, rather than by merit, to
be one of the most famous books of the world. … The book, so
elaborately prepared and heralded, consists of twenty-eight
successive chapters, purporting to have been written by the
late King, and to be the essence of his spiritual
autobiography in the last years of his life. Each chapter,
with scarcely an exception, begins with a little narrative, or
generally rather with reflections and meditations on some
passage of the King's life the narrative of which is supposed
to be unnecessary, and ends with a prayer in italics
appropriate to the circumstances remembered. … Save for a
few … passages … , the pathos of which lies in the
situation they represent, the Eikon Basilike is a rather dull
performance, in third-rate rhetoric, modulated after the
Liturgy; and without incision, point, or the least shred of
real information as to facts. But O what a reception it had!
Copies of it ran about instantaneously, and were read with
sobs and tears. It was in vain that Parliament, March 16, gave
orders for seizing the book. It was reprinted at once in
various forms, to supply the constant demand—which was not
satisfied, it is said, with less than fifty editions within a
single year; it became a very Bible in English Royalist
households. … By means of this book, in fact, acting on the
state of sentiment which it fitted, there was established,
within a few weeks after the death of Charles I., that
marvellous worship of his memory, that passionate recollection
of him as the perfect man and the perfect king, the saint, the
martyr, the all but Christ on earth again, which persisted
till the other day as a positive religious cultus of the
English mind, and still lingers in certain quarters."
_D. Masson,
Life and Times of John Milton,
volume 4, book 1, chapter 1._
{884}
"I struggled through the Eikon Basilike yesterday; one of the
paltriest pieces of vapid, shovel-hatted, clear-starched,
immaculate falsity and cant I have ever read. It is to me an
amazement how any mortal could ever have taken that for a
genuine book of King Charles's. Nothing but a surpliced
Pharisee, sitting at his ease afar off, could have got up such
a set of meditations. It got Parson Gauden [John Gauden,
Bishop of Exeter and Worcester, successively, after the
Restoration, and who is believed to have been the author of
the Eikon Basilike] a bishopric."
_T. Carlyle,
History of his Life in London,
by Froude, volume 1, chapter 7, November 26, 1840._
ENGLAND: A. D. 1649 (APRIL-MAY).
Mutiny of the Levellers.
See LEVELLERS.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1649-1650.
Cromwell's campaign in Ireland.
See IRELAND: A. D. 1649-1650.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1650 (JULY).
Charles II. proclaimed King in Scotland.
See SCOTLAND: A. D. 1650 (MARCH-JULY).
ENGLAND: A. D. 1650 (SEPTEMBER).
War with the Scots and Cromwell's victory at Dunbar.
See SCOTLAND: A. D. 1650 (SEPTEMBER).
ENGLAND: A. D. 1651 (SEPTEMBER).
The Scots and Charles II. overthrown at Worcester.
See SCOTLAND: A. D. 1651.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1651-1653.
The Army and the Rump.
"'Now that the King is dead and his son defeated,' Cromwell
said gravely to the Parliament, 'I think it necessary to come
to a settlement.' But the settlement which had been promised
after Naseby was still as distant as ever after Worcester. The
bill for dissolving the present Parliament, though Cromwell
pressed it in person, was only passed, after bitter
opposition, by a majority of two; and even this success had
been purchased by a compromise which permitted the House to
sit for three years more. Internal affairs were simply at a
dead lock. … The one remedy for all this was, as the army
saw, the assembly of a new and complete Parliament in place of
the mere 'rump' of the old; but this was the one measure which
the House was resolute to avert. Vane spurred it to a new
activity. … But it was necessary for Vane's purposes not
only to show the energy of the Parliament, but to free it from
the control of the army. His aim was to raise in the navy a
force devoted to the House, and to eclipse the glories of
Dunbar and Worcester by yet greater triumphs at sea. With this
view the quarrel with Holland had been carefully nursed. …
The army hardly needed the warning conveyed by the
introduction of a bill for its disbanding to understand the
new policy of the Parliament. … The army petitioned not only
for reform in Church and State, but for an explicit
declaration that the House would bring its proceedings to a
close. The Petition forced the House to discuss a bill for 'a
New Representative,' but the discussion soon brought out the
resolve of the sitting members to continue as a part of the
coming Parliament without re-election. The officers, irritated
by such a claim, demanded in conference after conference an
immediate dissolution, and the House as resolutely refused. In
ominous words Cromwell supported the demands of the army. 'As
for the members of this Parliament, the army begins to take
them in disgust. I would it did so with less reason.' … Not
only were the existing members to continue as members of the
New Parliament, depriving the places they represented of their
right of choosing representatives, but they were to constitute
a Committee of Revision, to determine the validity of each
election, and the fitness of the members returned. A
conference took place [April 19, 1653] between the leaders of
the Commons and the officers of the army. … The conference
was adjourned till the next morning, on an understanding that
no decisive step should be taken; but it had no sooner
reassembled, than the absence of the leading members confirmed
the news that Vane was fast pressing the bill for a new
Representative through the House. 'It is contrary to common
honesty,' Cromwell angrily broke out; and, quitting Whitehall,
he summoned a company of musketeers to follow him as far as
the door of the House of Commons."
_J. R Green,
Short History of England,
chapter 8, section 9._
ALSO IN:
_J. Forster,
Statesmen of the Commonwealth: Cromwell._
_J. A. Picton,
Oliver Cromwell,
chapter 22._
ENGLAND: A. D. 1651-1672.
The Navigation Acts and the American colonies.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1651-1672;
also, NAVIGATION LAWS.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1652-1654.
War with the Dutch Republic.
"After the death of William, Prince of Orange, which was
attended with the depression of his party and the triumph of
the Dutch republicans [see NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1647-1650], the
Parliament thought that the time was now favourable for
cementing a closer confederacy with the states. St. John,
chief justice, who was sent over to the Hague, had entertained
the idea of forming a kind of coalition between the two
republics, which would have rendered their interests totally
inseparable; … but the states, who were unwilling to form a
nearer confederacy with a government whose measures were so
obnoxious, and whose situation seemed so precarious, offered
only to renew 'the former alliances with England; and the
haughty St. John, disgusted with this disappointment, as well
as incensed at many affronts which had been offered him, with
impunity, by the retainers of the Palatine and Orange
families, and indeed by the populace in general, returned into
England and endeavoured to foment a quarrel between the
republics. …. There were several motives which at this time
induced the English Parliament to embrace hostile measures.
Many of the members thought that a foreign war would serve as
a pretence for continuing the same Parliament, and delaying
the new model of a representative, with which the nation had
so long been flattered. Others hoped that the war would
furnish a reason for maintaining, some time longer, that
numerous standing army which was so much complained of. On the
other hand, some, who dreaded the increasing power of
Cromwell, expected that the great expense of naval armaments
would prove a motive for diminishing the military
establishment. To divert the attention of the public from
domestic quarrels towards foreign transactions, seemed, in the
present disposition of men's minds, to be good policy. … All
these views, enforced by the violent spirit of St. John, who
had great influence over Cromwell, determined the Parliament
to change the purposed alliance into a furious war against the
United Provinces. To cover these hostile intentions, the
Parliament, under pretence of providing for the interests of
commerce, embraced such measures as they knew would give
disgust to the states. They framed the famous act of
navigation, which prohibited all nations from importing into
England in their bottoms any commodity which was not the
growth and manufacture of their own country. … The minds of
men in both states were every day more irritated against each
other; and it was not long before these humours broke forth
into action."
_D. Hume,
History of England,
chapter 60 (volume 5)._
{885}
"The negotiations … were still pending when Blake, meeting
Van Tromp's fleet in the Downs, in vain summoned the Dutch
Admiral to lower his flag. A battle was the consequence, which
led to a declaration of war on the 8th of July (1652). The
maritime success of England was chiefly due to the genius of
Blake, who having hitherto served upon shore, now turned his
whole attention to the navy. A series of bloody fights took
place between the two nations. For some time the fortunes of
the war seemed undecided. Van Tromp, defeated by Blake, had to
yield the command to De Ruyter. De Ruyter in his turn was
displaced to give way again to his greater rival. Van Tromp
was reinstated in command. A victory over Blake off the Naze
(November 28) enabled him to cruise in the Channel with a
broom at his mast-head, implying that he had swept the English
from the seas. But the year 1653 again saw Blake able to fight
a drawn battle of two days' duration between Portland and La
Hogue; while at length, on the 2d and 3d of June, a decisive
engagement was fought off the North Foreland, in which Monk
and Deane, supported by Blake, completely defeated the Dutch
Admiral, who, as a last resource, tried in vain to blow up his
own ship, and then retreated to the Dutch coast, leaving
eleven ships in the hands of the English. In the next month,
another victory on the part of Blake, accompanied by the death
of the great Dutch Admiral, completed the ruin of the naval
power of Holland. The States were driven to treat. In 1654 the
treaty was signed, in which Denmark, the Hanseatic towns, and
the Swiss provinces were included. … The Dutch acknowledged
the supremacy of the English flag in the British seas; they
consented to the Navigation Act."
_J. F. Bright,
History of England,
period 2, page 701._
ALSO IN:
_W. H. Dixon,
Robert Blake, Admiral and General at Sea,
chapters 6-7._
_D. Hannay,
Admiral Blake,
chapters 6-7._
_J. Campbell,
Naval History of Great Britain,
chapter 15 (volume 2)._
_G. Penn,
Memorials of Sir William Penn,
chapter 4._
_J. Corbett,
Monk,
chapter 7._
_J. Geddes,
History of the Administration of John De Witt,
volume 1, books 4-5._
See, also, NAVIGATION LAWS, ENGLISH: A. D. 1651.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1653 (APRIL).
Cromwell's expulsion of the Rump.
"In plain black clothes and gray worsted stockings, the
Lord-General came in quietly and took his seat [April 20], as
Vane was pressing the House to pass the dissolution Bill
without delay and without the customary forms. He beckoned to
Harrison and told him that the Parliament was ripe for
dissolution, and he must do it. 'Sir,' said Harrison, 'the
work is very great and dangerous.'—'You say well,' said the
general, and thereupon sat still for about a quarter of an
hour. Vane sat down, and the Speaker was putting the question
for passing the Bill. Then said Cromwell to Harrison again,
'This is the time; I must do it.' He rose up, put off his hat,
and spoke. Beginning moderately and respectfully, he presently
changed his style, told them of their injustice, delays of
justice, self interest, and other faults; charging them not to
have a heart to do anything for the public good, to have
espoused the corrupt interest of Presbytery and the lawyers,
who were the supporters of tyranny and oppression, accusing
them of an intention to perpetuate themselves in power. And
rising into passion, 'as if he were distracted,' he told them
that the Lord had done with them, and had chosen other
instruments for the carrying on His work that were worthy. Sir
Peter Wentworth rose to complain of such language in
Parliament, coming from their own trusted servant. Roused to
fury by the interruption, Cromwell left his seat, clapped on
his hat, walked up and down the floor of the House, stamping
with his feet, and cried out, 'You are no Parliament, I say
you are no Parliament. Come, come, we have had enough of this;
I will put an end to your prating. Call them in!' Twenty or
thirty musketeers under Colonel Worsley marched in onto the
floor of the House. The rest of the guard were placed at the
door and in the lobby. Vane from his place cried out, 'This is
not honest, yea, it is against morality and common honesty.'
Cromwell, who evidently regarded Vane as the breaker of the
supposed agreement, turned on him with a loud voice, crying,
'O Sir Henry Vane, Sir Henry Vane, the Lord deliver me from
Sir Henry Vane.' Then looking upon one of the members, he
said, 'There sits a drunkard;' to another he said, 'Some of
you are unjust, corrupt persons, and scandalous to the
profession of the Gospel.' 'Some are whoremasters,' he said,
looking at Wentworth and Marten. Going up to the table, he
said, 'What shall we do with this Bauble? Here, take it away!'
and gave it to a musketeer. 'Fetch him down,' he cried to
Harrison, pointing to the Speaker. Lenthall sat still, and
refused to come down unless by force. 'Sir,' said Harrison, 'I
will lend you my hand,' and putting his hand within his, the
Speaker came down. Algernon Sidney sat still in his place.
'Put him out,' said Cromwell. And Harrison and Worsley put
their hands on his shoulders, and he rose and went out. The
members went out, fifty-three in all, Cromwell still calling
aloud. To Vane he said that he might have prevented this; but
that he was a juggler and had not common honesty. 'It is you,'
he said, as they passed him, 'that have forced me to do this,
for I have sought the Lord night and day, that He would rather
slay me than put me on the doing of this work.' He snatched
the Bill of dissolution from the hand of the clerk, put it
under his cloak, seized on the records, ordered the guard to
clear the House of all members, and to have the door locked,
and went away to Whitehall. Such is one of the most famous
scenes in our history, that which of all other things has most
heavily weighed on the fame of Cromwell. In truth it is a
matter of no small complexity, which neither constitutional
eloquence nor boisterous sarcasm has quite adequately
unravelled. … In strict constitutional right the House was
no more the Parliament than Cromwell was the king. A House of
Commons, which had executed the king, abolished the Lords,
approved the 'coup d'état' of Pride, and by successive
proscriptions had reduced itself to a few score of extreme
partisans, had no legal title to the name of Parliament. The
junto which held to Vane was not more numerous than the junto
which held to Cromwell; they had far less public support; nor
had their services to the Cause been so great.
{886}
In closing the House, the Lord-General had used his office of
Commander-in-Chief to anticipate one 'coup d'état' by another.
Had he been ten minutes late, Vane would himself have
dissolved the House; snapping a vote which would give his
faction a legal ascendancy. Yet, after all, the fact remains
that Vane and the remnant of the famous Long Parliament had
that 'scintilla juris,' as lawyers call it, that semblance of
legal right, which counts for so much in things political."
_F. Harrison,
Oliver Cromwell,
chapter 10._
ALSO IN:
_J. K. Hosmer,
Life of Young Sir Henry Vane,
part 3, chapter 17._
_F. P. Guizot,
History of Oliver Cromwell,
book 4 (volume l)._
_L. von Ranke,
History of England, 17th century,
book 11, chapter 5 (volume 3)._
_W. Godwin,
History of the Commonwealth,
volume 3, chapters 27-29._
ENGLAND: A. D. 1653 (JUNE-DECEMBER).
The Barebones, or Little Parliament.
Six weeks after the expulsion of the Rump, Cromwell, in his
own name, and upon his own authority, as "Captain-General and
Commander-in-Chief," issued (June 6) a summons to one hundred
and forty "persons fearing God and of approved fidelity and
honesty," chosen and "nominated" by himself, with the advice
of his council of officers, requiring them to be and appear at
the Council Chamber of Whitehall on the following fourth day
of July, to take upon themselves "the great charge and trust"
of providing for "the peace, safety, and good government" of
the Commonwealth, and to serve, each, "as a Member for the
county" from which he was called. "Of all the Parties so
summoned, 'only two' did not attend. Disconsolate Bulstrode
says: 'Many of this Assembly being persons of fortune and
knowledge, it was much wondered by some that they would at
this summons, and from such hands, take upon them the Supreme
Authority of this Nation; considering how little right
Cromwell and his Officers had to give it, or those Gentlemen
to take it.' My disconsolate friend, it is a sign that Puritan
England in general accepts this action of Cromwell and his
Officers, and thanks them for it, in such a case of extremity;
saying as audibly as the means permitted: Yea, we did wish it
so. Rather mournful to the disconsolate official mind. … The
undeniable fact is, these men were, as Whitlocke intimates, a
quite reputable Assembly; got together by anxious
'consultation of the godly Clergy' and chief Puritan lights in
their respective Counties; not without much earnest revision,
and solemn consideration in all kinds, on the part of men
adequate enough for such a work, and desirous enough to do it
well. The List of the Assembly exists; not yet entirely gone
dark for mankind. A fair proportion of them still recognizable
to mankind. Actual Peers one or two: founders of Peerage
Families, two or three, which still exist among us,—Colonel
Edward Montague, Colonel Charles Howard, Anthony Ashley
Cooper. And better than King's Peers, certain Peers of Nature;
whom if not the King and his pasteboard Norroys have had the
luck to make Peers of, the living heart of England has since
raised to the Peerage and means to keep there,—Colonel Robert
Blake the Sea-King, for one. 'Known persons,' I do think; 'of
approved integrity, men fearing God'; and perhaps not entirely
destitute of sense anyone of them! Truly it seems rather a
distinguished Parliament,—even though Mr. Praisegod Barbone,
'the Leather merchant in Fleet-street,' be, as all mortals
must admit, a member of it. The fault, I hope, is forgivable.
Praisegod, though he deals in leather, and has a name which
can be misspelt, one discerns to be the son of pious parents;
to be himself a man of piety, of understanding and
weight,—and even of considerable private capital, my witty
flunkey friends! We will leave Praisegod to do the best he
can, I think. … In fact, a real Assembly of the Notables in
Puritan England; a Parliament, Parliamentum, or
Speaking-Apparatus for the now dominant Interest in England,
as exact as could well be got,—much more exact, I suppose,
than any ballot-box, free hustings or ale-barrel election
usually yields. Such is the Assembly called the Little
Parliament, and wittily Bare-bone's Parliament; which meets on
the 4th of July. Their witty name survives; but their history
is gone all dark."
_T. Carlyle,
Oliver Cromwell's Letters and Speeches,
part 7, speech. 1._
The "assembly of godly persons" proved, however, to be quite
an unmanageable body, containing so large a number of erratic
and impracticable reformers that everything substantial among
English institutions was threatened with overthrow at their
hands. After five months of busy session, Cromwell was happily
able to bring about a dissolution of his parliament, by the
action of a majority, surrendering back their powers into his
hands,—which was done on the 10th of December, 1653.
_F. P. Guizot,
History of Oliver Cromwell,
book 5 (volume 2)._
ALSO IN:
_J. A. Picton,
Oliver Cromwell,
chapter 23._
ENGLAND: A. D. 1653 (December).
The Establishment and Constitution of the Protectorate.
The Instrument of Government.
"What followed the dissolution of the Little Parliament is
soon told. The Council of Officers having been summoned by
Cromwell as the only power de facto, there were dialogues and
deliberations, ending in the clear conclusion that the method
of headship in a 'Single Person' for his whole life must now
be tried in the Government of the Commonwealth, and that
Cromwell must be that 'Single Person.' The title of King was
actually proposed; but, as there were objections to that,
Protector was chosen as a title familiar in English History
and of venerable associations. Accordingly, Cromwell having
consented, and all preparations having been made, he was, on
Friday, December 16, in a great assembly of civic, judicial
and military dignities, solemnly sworn and installed in the
Chancery Court, Westminster Hall, as Lord Protector of the
Commonwealth of England, Scotland and Ireland. There were some
of his adherents hitherto who did not like this new elevation
of their hero, and forsook him in consequence, regarding any
experiment of the Single Person method in Government 'as a
treason to true Republicanism, and Cromwell's assent to it as
unworthy of him. Among these was Harrison. Lambert, on the
other hand, had been the main agent in the change, and took a
conspicuous part in the installation-ceremony. In fact, pretty
generally throughout the country and even among the
Presbyterians, the elevation of Cromwell to some kind of
sovereignty had come to be regarded as an inevitable necessity
of the time, the only possible salvation of the Commonwealth from
the anarchy, or wild and experimental idealism, in matters
civil and religious, which had been the visible drift at last
of the Barebones or Daft Little Parliament. … The powers and
duties of the Protectorate had been defined, rather elaborately,
in a Constitutional Instrument of forty-two Articles, called
'The Government of the Commonwealth' [more commonly known as
The Instrument of Government] to which Cromwell had sworn
fidelity at his installation."
{887}
_D. Masson,
Life of John Milton,
volume 4, book 4, chapters 1 and 3._
ALSO IN:
_J. Forster,
Statesmen of the Commonwealth: Cromwell._
_L. von Ranke,
History of England, 17th Century,
book 12, chapter 1 (volume 3)._
_S. R. Gardiner,
Constitutional Documents of the Puritan Revolution,
introduction, section 4 and pages 314-324._
_Cobbett's Parliamentary History of England,
volume 3, pages 1417-1426._
The following is the text Of the Instrument of Government:
The government of the Commonwealth of England, Scotland, and
Ireland, and the dominions thereunto belonging.
I. That the supreme legislative authority of the Commonwealth
of England, Scotland, and Ireland, and the dominions thereunto
belonging, shall be and reside in one person, and the people
assembled in Parliament; the style of which person shall be
the Lord Protector of the Commonwealth of England, Scotland,
and Ireland.
II. That the exercise of the chief magistracy and the
administration of the government over the said countries and
dominions, and the people thereof, shall be in the Lord
Protector, assisted with a council, the number whereof shall
not exceed twenty-one, nor be less than thirteen.
III. That all writs, processes, commissions, patents, grants,
and other things, which now run in the name and style of the
keepers of the liberty of England by authority of Parliament,
shall run in the name and style of the Lord Protector, from
whom, for the future, shall be derived all magistracy and
honours in these three nations; and have the power of pardons
(except in case of murders and treason) and benefit of all
forfeitures for the public use; and shall govern the said
countries and dominions in all things by the advice of the
council, and according to these presents and the laws.
IV. That the Lord Protector, the Parliament sitting, shall
dispose and order the militia and forces, both by sea and
land, for the peace and good of the three nations, by consent
of Parliament; and that the Lord Protector, with the advice
and consent of the major part of the council, shall dispose
and order the militia for the ends aforesaid in the intervals
of Parliament."
V. That the Lord Protector, by the advice aforesaid, shall
direct in all things concerning the keeping and holding of a
good correspondency with foreign kings, princes, and states;
and also, with the consent of the major part of the council,
have the power of war and peace.
VI. That the laws shall not be altered, suspended, abrogated,
or repealed, nor any new law made, nor any tax, charge, or
imposition laid upon the people, but by common consent in
Parliament, save only as is expressed in the thirtieth
article.
VII. That there shall be a Parliament summoned to meet at
Westminster upon the third day of September, 1654, and that
successively a Parliament shall be summoned once in every
third year, to be accounted from the dissolution of the
present Parliament.
VIII. That neither the Parliament to be next summoned, nor any
successive Parliaments, shall, during the time of five months,
to be accounted from the day of their first meeting, be
adjourned, prorogued, or dissolved, without their own consent.
IX. That as well the next as all other successive Parliaments,
shall be summoned and elected in manner hereafter expressed;
that is to say, the persons to be chosen within England,
Wales, the Isles of Jersey, Guernsey, and the town of
Berwick-upon-Tweed, to sit and serve in Parliament, shall be,
and not exceed, the number of four hundred. The persons to be
chosen within Scotland, to sit and serve in Parliament, shall
be, and not exceed, the number of thirty; and the persons to
be chosen to sit in Parliament for Ireland shall be, and not
exceed, the number of thirty.
X. That the persons to be elected to sit in Parliament from
time to time, for the several counties of England, Wales, the
Isles of Jersey and Guernsey, and the town of
Berwick-upon-Tweed, and all places within the same
respectively, shall be according to the proportions and
numbers hereafter expressed: that is to say,
Bedfordshire, 5;
Bedford Town, 1;
Berkshire, 5;
Abingdon, 1;
Reading, 1;
Buckinghamshire, 5;
Buckingham Town, 1;
Aylesbury, 1;
Wycomb, 1;
Cambridgeshire, 4;
Cambridge Town, 1;
Cambridge University, 1;
Isle of Ely, 2;
Cheshire, 4;
Chester, 1;
Cornwall, 8;
Launceston, 1;
Truro, 1;
Penryn, 1;
East Looe and West Looe, 1;
Cumberland, 2;
Carlisle, 1;
Derbyshire, 4;
Derby Town, 1;
Devonshire, 11;
Exeter, 2;
Plymouth, 2
Clifton, Dartmouth, Hardness, 1;
Totnes, 1;
Barnstable, 1;
Tiverton, 1;
Honiton, 1;
Dorsetshire, 6;
Dorchester, 1;
Weymouth and Melcomb-Regis, 1;
Lyme-Regis, 1;
Poole, 1;
Durham, 2;
City of Durham, 1;
Essex, 13;
Malden, 1;
Colchester, 2;
Gloucestershire, 5;
Gloucester, 2;
Tewkesbury, 1;
Cirencester, 1;
Herefordshire, 4;
Hereford, 1;
Leominster, 1;
Hertfordshire, 5;
St. Alban's, 1:
Hertford, 1;
Huntingdonshire, 3;
Huntingdon, 1;
Kent, 11;
Canterbury, 2;
Rochester, 1
Maidstone, 1;
Dover, 1;
Sandwich, 1;
Queenborough, 1;
Lancashire, 4;
Preston, 1;
Lancaster, 1;
Liverpool, 1;
Manchester, 1;
Leicestershire, 4
Leicester, 2;
Lincolnshire, 10;
Lincoln, 2;
Boston, 1;
Grantham, 1;
Stamford, 1;
Great Grimsby, 1;
Middlesex, 4;
London, 6;
Westminster, 2;
Monmouthshire, 3;
Norfolk 10;
Norwich, 2;
Lynn-Regis, 2
Great Yarmouth, 2
Northamptonshire, 6;
Peterborough, 1;
Northampton, 1;
Nottinghamshire, 4;
Nottingham, 2;
Northumberland, 3;
Newcastle-upon-Tyne, 1;
Berwick, 1;
Oxfordshire, 5;
Oxford City, 1;
Oxford University, 1;
Woodstock, 1;
Rutlandshire, 2;
Shropshire, 4;
Shrewsbury, 2;
Bridgnorth, 1;
Ludlow, 1;
Staffordshire, 3;
Lichfield, 1;
Stafford, 1;
Newcastle-under-Lyne, 1;
Somersetshire, 11;
Bristol, 2;
Taunton, 2;
Bath, 1;
Wells, 1;
Bridgwater, 1;
Southamptonshire, 8;
Winchester, 1;
Southampton, 1
Portsmouth, 1;
Isle of Wight, 2;
Andover, 1;
Suffolk, 10;
Ipswich, 2;
Bury St. Edmunds, 2;
Dunwich, 1;
Sudbury, 1;
Surrey, 6;
Southwark, 2;
Guildford, 1;
Reigate, 1;
Sussex, 9;
Chichester, 1;
Lewes, 1;
East Grinstead, 1;
Arundel, 1;
Rye, 1;
Westmoreland, 2;
Warwickshire, 4;
Coventry, 2;
Warwick, 1;
Wiltshire, 10;
New Sarum, 2;
Marlborough, 1;
Devizes, 1;
Worcestershire, 5;
Worcester, 2.
YORKSHIRE.
West Riding, 6;
East Riding, 4;
North Riding, 4;
City of York, 2
Kingston-upon-Hull, 1;
Beverley, 1;
Scarborough, 1;
Richmond, 1;
Leeds, 1;
Halifax, 1.
{888}
WALES.
Anglesey, 2:
Brecknoekshire, 2;
Cardiganshire, 2;
Carmarthenshire, 2;
Carnarvonshire, 2;
Denbighshire, 2;
Flintshire, 2;
Glamorganshire, 2;
Cardiff, 1;
Merionethshire, 1;
Montgomeryshire, 2;
Pembrokeshire, 2;
Haverfordwest, 1;
Radnorshire, 2.
The distribution of the persons to be chosen for Scotland and
Ireland, and the several counties, cities, and places therein,
shall be according to such proportions and number as shall be
agreed upon and declared by the Lord Protector and the major
part of the council, before the sending forth writs of summons
for the next Parliament.
XI. That the summons to Parliament shall be by writ under the
Great Seal of England, directed to the sheriffs of the several
and respective counties, with such alteration as may suit with
the present government to be made by the Lord Protector and
his council, which the Chancellor, Keeper, or Commissioners of
the Great Seal shall seal, issue, and send abroad by warrant
from the Lord Protector. If the Lord Protector shall not give
warrant for issuing of writs of summons for the next
Parliament, before the first of June, 1654, or for the
Triennial Parliaments, before the first day of August in every
third year, to be accounted as aforesaid; that then the
Chancellor, Keeper, or Commissioners of the Great Seal for the
time being, shall, without any warrant or direction, within
seven days after the said first day of June, 1654, seal,
issue, and send abroad writs of summons (changing therein what
is to be changed as aforesaid) to the several and respective
sheriffs of England, Scotland, and Ireland, for summoning the
Parliament to meet at Westminster, the third day of September
next; and shall likewise, within seven days after the said
first day of August, in every third year, to be accounted from
the dissolution of the precedent Parliament, seal, issue, and
send forth abroad several writs of summons (changing therein
what is to be changed) as aforesaid, for summoning the
Parliament to meet at Westminster the sixth of November in
that third year. That the said several and respective
sheriffs, shall, within ten days after the receipt of such
writ as aforesaid, cause the same to be proclaimed and
published in every market-town within his county upon the
market-days thereof, between twelve and three of the clock;
and shall then also publish and declare the certain day of the
week and month, for choosing members to serve in Parliament for
the body of the said county, according to the tenor of the
said writ, which shall be upon Wednesday five weeks after the
date of the writ; and shall likewise declare the place where
the election shall be made: for which purpose he shall appoint
the most convenient place for the whole county to meet in; and
shall send precepts for elections to be made in all and every
city, town, borough, or place within his county, where
elections are to be made by virtue of these presents, to the
Mayor, Sheriff, or other head officer of such city, town,
borough, or place, within three days after the receipt of such
writ and writs; which the said Mayors, Sheriffs, and officers
respectively are to make publication of, and of the certain
day for such elections to be made in the said city, town, or
place aforesaid, and to cause elections to be made
accordingly.
XII. That at the day and place of elections, the Sheriff of
each county, and the said Mayors, Sheriffs, Bailiffs, and
other head officers within their cities, towns, boroughs, and
places respectively, shall take view of the said elections,
and shall make return into the chancery within twenty days
after the said elections, of the persons elected by the
greater number of electors, under their hands and seals,
between him on the one part, and the electors on the other
part; wherein shall be contained, that the persons elected
shall not have power to alter the government as it is hereby
settled in one single person and a Parliament.
XIII. That the Sheriff, who shall wittingly and willingly make
any false return, or neglect his duty, shall incur the penalty
of 2,000 marks of lawful English money; the one moiety to the
Lord Protector, and the other moiety to such person as will
sue for the same.
XIV. That all and every person and persons, who have aided,
advised, assisted, or abetted in any war against the
Parliament, since the first day of January 1641 (unless they
have been since in the service of the Parliament, and given
signal testimony of their good affection thereunto) shall be
disabled and incapable to be elected, or to give any vote in
the election of any members to serve in the next Parliament,
or in the three succeeding Triennial Parliaments.
XV. That all such, who have advised, assisted, or abetted the
rebellion of Ireland, shall be disabled and incapable for ever
to be elected, or give any vote in the election of any member
to serve in Parliament; as also all such who do or shall
profess the Roman Catholic religion.
XVI. That all votes and elections given or made contrary, or
not according to these qualifications, shall be null and void;
and if any person, who is hereby made incapable, shall give
his vote for election of members to serve in Parliament, such
person shall lose and forfeit one full year's value of his
real estate, and one full third part of his personal estate;
one moiety thereof to the Lord Protector, and the other moiety
to him or them who shall sue for the same.
XVII. That the persons who shall be elected to serve in
Parliament, shall be such (and no other than such) as are
persons of known integrity, fearing God, and of good
conversation, and being of the age of twenty-one years.
XVIII. That all and every person and persons seised or
possessed to his own use, of any estate, real or personal, to
the value of £200, and not within the aforesaid exceptions,
shall be capable to elect members to serve in Parliament for
counties.
XIX. That the Chancellor, Keeper, or Commissioners of the
Great Seal, shall be sworn before they enter into their
offices, truly and faithfully to issue forth, and send abroad,
writs of summons to Parliament, at the times and in the manner
before expressed: and in case of neglect or failure to issue
and send abroad writs accordingly, he or they shall for every
such offence be guilty of high treason, and suffer the pains
and penalties thereof.
XX. That in case writs be not issued out, as is before
expressed, but that there be a neglect therein, fifteen days
after the time wherein the same ought to be issued out by the
Chancellor, Keeper, or Commissioners of the Great Seal; that
then the Parliament shall, as often as such failure shall
happen, assemble and be held at Westminster, in the usual
place, at the times prefixed, in manner and by the means
hereafter expressed; that is to say, that the sheriffs of the
several and respective counties, sheriffdoms, cities,
boroughs, and places aforesaid, within England, Wales,
Scotland, and Ireland, the Chancellor, Masters, and Scholars
of the Universities of Oxford and Cambridge, and the Mayor and
Bailiffs of the borough of Berwick-upon-Tweed, and other
places aforesaid respectively, shall at the several courts and
places to be appointed as aforesaid, within thirty days after
the said fifteen days, cause such members to be chosen for
their said several and respective counties, sheriffdoms,
universities, cities, boroughs, and places aforesaid, by such
persons, and in such manner, as if several and respective
writs of summons to Parliament under the Great Seal had issued
and been awarded according to the tenor aforesaid: that if the
sheriff, or other persons authorized, shall neglect his or
their duty herein, that all and every such sheriff and person
authorized as aforesaid, so neglecting his or their duty,
shall, for every such offence, be guilty of high treason, and
shall suffer the pains and penalties thereof.
{889}
XXI. That the clerk, called the clerk of the Commonwealth in
Chancery for the time being, and all others, who shall
afterwards execute that office, to whom the returns shall be
made, shall for the next Parliament, and the two succeeding
Triennial Parliaments, the next day after such return, certify
the names of the several persons so returned, and of the
places for which he and they were chosen respectively, unto
the Council; who shall peruse the said returns, and examine
whether the persons so elected and returned be such as is
agreeable to the qualifications, and not disabled to be
elected: and that every person and persons being so duly
elected, and being approved of by the major part of the
Council to be persons not disabled, but qualified as
aforesaid, shall be esteemed a member of Parliament, and be
admitted to sit in Parliament, and not otherwise.
XXII. That the persons so chosen and assembled in manner
aforesaid, or any sixty of them, shall be, and be deemed the
Parliament of England, Scotland, and Ireland; and the supreme
legislative power to be and reside in the Lord Protector and
such Parliament, in manner herein expressed.
XXIII. That the Lord Protector, with the advice of the major
part of the Council, shall at any other time than is before
expressed, when the necessities of the State shall require it,
summon Parliaments in manner before expressed, which shall not
be adjourned, prorogued, or dissolved without their own
consent, during the first three months of their sitting. And
in case of future war with any foreign State, a Parliament
shall be forthwith summoned for their advice concerning the
same.
XXIV. That all Bills agreed unto by the Parliament, shall be
presented to the Lord Protector for his consent; and in case
he shall not give his consent thereto within twenty days after
they shall be presented to him, or give satisfaction to the
Parliament within the time limited, that then, upon
declaration of the Parliament that the Lord Protector hath not
consented nor given satisfaction, such Bills shall pass into
and become laws, although he shall not give his consent
thereunto; provided such Bills contain nothing in them
contrary to the matters contained in these presents.
XXV. That [Henry Lawrence, esq.; Philip lord vise. Lisle; the
majors general Lambert, Desborough, and Skippon; lieutenant
general Fleetwood; the colonels Edward Montagu, Philip Jones,
and Wm. Sydenham; sir Gilbert Pickering, sir Ch. Wolseley, and
sir Anth. Ashley Cooper, Barts., Francis Rouse, esq., Speaker
of the late Convention, Walter Strickland, and Rd. Major,
esqrs.]—or any seven of them, shall be a Council for the
purposes expressed in this writing; and upon the death or
other removal of any of them, the Parliament shall nominate
six persons of ability, integrity, and fearing God, for
everyone that is dead or removed; out of which the major part
of the Council shall elect two, and present them to the Lord
Protector, of which he shall elect one; and in case the
Parliament shall not nominate within twenty days after notice
given unto them thereof, the major part of the Council shall
nominate three as aforesaid to the Lord Protector, who out of
them shall supply the vacancy; and until this choice be made,
the remaining part of the Council shall execute as fully in
all things, as if their number were full. And in case of
corruption, or other miscarriage in any of the Council in
their trust, the Parliament shall appoint seven of their
number, and the Council six, who, together with the Lord
Chancellor, Lord Keeper, or Commissioners of the Great Seal
for the time being, shall have power to hear and determine
such corruption and miscarriage, and to award and inflict
punishment, as the nature of the offence shall deserve, which
punishment shall not be pardoned or remitted by the Lord
Protector; and, in the interval of Parliaments, the major part
of the Council, with the consent of the Lord Protector, may,
for corruption or other miscarriage as aforesaid, suspend any
of their number from the exercise of their trust, if they
shall find it just, until the matter shall be heard and
examined as aforesaid.
XXVI. That the Lord Protector and the major part of the
Council aforesaid may, at any time before the meeting of the
next Parliament, add to the Council such persons as they shall
think fit, provided the number of the Council be not made
thereby to exceed twenty-one, and the quorum to be
proportioned accordingly by the Lord Protector and the major
part of the Council.
XXVII. That a constant yearly revenue shall be raised,
settled, and established for maintaining of 10,000 horse and
dragoons, and 20,000 foot, in England, Scotland and Ireland,
for the defence and security thereof, and also for a
convenient number of ships for guarding of the seas; besides
£200,000 per annum for defraying the other necessary charges
of administration of justice, and other expenses of the
Government, which revenue shall be raised by the customs, and
such other ways and means as shall be agreed upon by the Lord
Protector and the Council, and shall not be taken away or
diminished, nor the way agreed upon for raising the same
altered, but by the consent of the Lord Protector and the
Parliament.
XXVIII. That the said yearly revenue shall be paid into the
public treasury, and shall be issued out for the uses
aforesaid.
XXIX. That in case there shall not be cause hereafter to keep
up so great a defence both at land or sea, but that there be
an abatement made thereof, the money which will be saved
thereby shall remain in bank for the public service, and not
be employed to any other use but by consent of Parliament, or,
in the intervals of Parliament, by the Lord Protector and
major part of the Council.
{890}
XXX. That the raising of money for defraying the charge of the
present extraordinary forces, both at sea and land, in respect
of the present wars, shall be by consent of Parliament, and
not otherwise: save only that the Lord Protector, with the
consent of the major part of the Council, for preventing the
disorders and dangers which might otherwise fall out both by
sea and land, shall have power, until the meeting of the first
Parliament, to raise money for the purposes aforesaid; and
also to make laws and ordinances for the peace and welfare of
these nations where it shall be necessary, which shall be
binding and in force, until order shall be taken in Parliament
concerning the same.
XXXI. That the lands, tenements, rents, royalties,
jurisdictions and hereditaments which remain yet unsold or
undisposed of, by Act or Ordinance of Parliament, belonging to
the Commonwealth (except the forests and chases, and the
honours and manors belonging to the same; the lands of the
rebels in Ireland, lying in the four counties of Dublin, Cork,
Kildare, and Carlow; the lands forfeited by the people of
Scotland in the late wars, and also the lands of Papists and
delinquents in England who have not yet compounded), shall be
vested in the Lord Protector, to hold, to him and his
successors, Lords Protectors of these nations, and shall not
be alienated but by consent in Parliament. And all debts,
fines, issues, amercements, penalties and profits, certain and
casual, due to the Keepers of the liberties of England by
authority of Parliament, shall be due to the Lord Protector,
and be payable into his public receipt, and shall be recovered
and prosecuted in his name.
XXXII. That the office of Lord Protector over these nations
shall be elective and not hereditary; and upon the death of
the Lord Protector, another fit person shall be forthwith
elected to succeed him in the Government; which election shall
be by the Council, who, immediately upon the death of the Lord
Protector, shall assemble in the Chamber where they usually
sit in Council; and, having given notice to an their members
of the cause of their assembling, shall, being thirteen at
least present, proceed to the election; and, before they
depart the said Chamber, shall elect a fit person to succeed
in the Government, and forthwith cause proclamation thereof to
be made in an the three nations as shall be requisite; and the
person that they, or the major part of them, shall elect as
aforesaid, shall be, and shall be taken to be, Lord Protector
over these nations of England, Scotland and Ireland, and the
dominions thereto belonging. Provided that none of the
children of the late King, nor any of his line or family, be
elected to be Lord Protector or other Chief Magistrate over
these nations, or any the dominions thereto belonging. And
until the aforesaid election be past, the Council shall take
care of the Government, and administer in an things as fully
as the Lord Protector, or the Lord Protector and Council are
enabled to do.
XXXIII. That Oliver Cromwell, Captain-General of the forces of
England, Scotland and Ireland, shall be, and is hereby
declared to be, Lord Protector of the Commonwealth of England,
Scotland and Ireland, and the dominions thereto belonging, for
his life.
XXXIV. That the Chancellor, Keeper or Commissioners of the
Great Seal, the Treasurer, Admiral, Chief Governors of Ireland
and Scotland, and the Chief Justices of both the Benches,
shall be chosen by the approbation of Parliament; and, in the
intervals of Parliament, by the approbation of the major part
of the Council, to be afterwards approved by the Parliament.
XXXV. That the Christian religion, as contained in the
Scriptures, be held forth and recommended as the public
profession of these nations; and that, as soon as may be, a
provision, less subject to scruple and contention, and more
certain than the present, be made for the encouragement and
maintenance of able and painful teachers, for the instructing
the people, and for discovery and confutation of error,
hereby, and whatever is contrary to sound doctrine; and until
such provision be made, the present maintenance shall not be
taken away or impeached.
XXXVI. That to the public profession held forth none shall be
compened by penalties or otherwise; but that endeavours be
used to win them by sound doctrine and the example of a good
conversation.
XXXVII. That such as profess faith in God by Jesus Christ
(though differing in judgment from the doctrine, worship or
discipline publicly held forth) shall not be restrained from,
but shall be protected in, the profession of the faith and
exercise of their religion; so as they abuse not this liberty
to the civil injury of others and to the actual disturbance of
the public peace on their parts: provided this liberty be not
extended to Popery or Prelacy, nor to such as, under the
profession of Christ, hold forth and practice licentiousness.
XXXVIII. That all laws, statutes and ordinances, and clauses
in any law, statute or ordinance to the contrary of the
aforesaid liberty, shall be esteemed as null and void.
XXXIX. That the Acts and Ordinances of Parliament made for the
sale or other disposition of the lands, rents and
hereditaments of the late King, Queen, and Prince, of
Archbishops and Bishops, &c., Deans and Chapters, the lands of
delinquents and forest-lands, or any of them, or of any other
lands, tenements, rents and hereditaments belonging to the
Commonwealth, shall nowise be impeached or made invalid, but
shall remain good and firm; and that the securities given by
Act and Ordinance of Parliament for any sum or sums of money,
by any of the said lands, the excise, or any other public
revenue; and also the securities given by the public faith of
the nation, and the engagement of the public faith for
satisfaction of debts and damages, shall remain firm and good,
and not be made void and invalid upon any pretence whatsoever.
XL. That the Articles given to or made with the enemy, and
afterwards confirmed by Parliament, shall be performed and
made good to the persons concerned therein; and that such
appeals as were depending in the last Parliament for relief
concerning bills of sale of delinquent's estates, may be heard
and determined the next Parliament, anything in this writing
or otherwise to the contrary notwithstanding.
{891}
XLI. That every successive Lord Protector over these nations
shall take and subscribe a solemn oath, in the presence of the
Council, and such others as they shall call to them, that he
will seek the peace, quiet and welfare of these nations, cause
law and justice to be equally administered; and that he will
not violate or infringe the matters and things contained in
this writing, and in all other things will, to his power and
to the best of his understanding, govern these nations
according to the laws, statutes and customs thereof.
XLII. That each person of the Council shall, before they enter
upon their trust, take and subscribe an oath, that they will
be true and faithful in their trust, according to the best of
their knowledge; and that in the election of every successive
Lord Protector they shall proceed therein impartially, and do
nothing therein for any promise, fear, favour or reward.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1654.
Re-conquest of Acadia (Nova Scotia).
See NOVA SCOTIA: A. D. 1621-1668.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1654 (April).
Incorporation of Scotland with the Commonwealth.
See SCOTLAND: A. D. 1654.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1654-1658.
The Protector, his Parliaments and his Major-Generals.
The Humble Petition and Advice.
Differing views of the Cromwellian autocracy.
"Oliver addressed his first Protectorate Parliament on Sunday,
the 3d of September. … Immediately, under the leadership of
old Parliamentarians, Haslerig, Scott, Bradshaw, and many
other republicans, the House proceeded to debate the
Instrument of Government, the constitutional basis of the
existing system. By five votes, it decided to discuss 'whether
the House should approve of government by a Single Person and
a Parliament.' This was of course to set up the principle of
making the Executive dependent on the House; a principle, in
Oliver's mind, fatal to settlement and order. He acted at
once. Calling on the Lord Mayor to secure the city, and
disposing his own guard round Westminster Hall, he summoned
the House again on the 9th day. … Members were called on to
sign a declaration, 'not to alter the government as settled in
a Single Person and a Parliament.' Some, 300 signed; the
minority—about a fourth—refused and retired. … The
Parliament, in spite of the declaration, set itself from the
first to discuss the constitution, to punish heretics,
suppress blasphemy, revise the Ordinances of the Council; and
they deliberately withheld all supplies for the services and
the government. At last they passed an Act for revising the
constitution de novo. Not a single bill had been sent up to
the Protector for his assent. Oliver, as usual, acted at once.
On the expiration of their five lunar months, 22d January
1655, he summoned the House and dissolved it, with a speech
full of reproaches."
_F. Harrison,
Oliver Cromwell,
chapter 11._
"In 1656, the Protector called a second Parliament. By
excluding from it about a hundred members whom he judged to be
hostile to his government, he found himself on amicable terms
with the new assembly. It presented to him a Humble Petition
and Advice, asking that certain changes of the Constitution
might be agreed to by mutual consent, and that he should
assume the title of King. This title he rejected, and the
Humble Petition and Advice was passed in an amended form on
May 25, 1657, and at once received the assent of the
Protector. On June 26, it was modified in some details by the
Additional Petition and Advice. Taking the two together, the
result was to enlarge the power of Parliament and to diminish
that of the Council. The Protector, in turn, received the
right of appointing his successor, and to name the
life-members of 'the other House,' which was now to take the
place of the House of Lords. … In accordance with the
Additional Petition and Advice, the Protector summoned
'certain persons to sit in the other House.' A quarrel between
the two Houses broke out, and the Protector [February 4, 1658]
dissolved the Parliament in anger."
_S. R. Gardiner,
Constitutional Documents of the Puritan Revolution,
pages lxiii-lxiv., and 334-350._
"To govern according to law may sometimes be an usurper's
wish, but can seldom be in his power. The protector [in 1655]
abandoned all thought of it. Dividing the kingdom into
districts, he placed at the head of each a major-general as a
sort of military magistrate, responsible for the subjection of
his prefecture. These were eleven in number, men bitterly
hostile to the royalist party, and insolent towards all civil
authority. They were employed to secure the payment of a tax
of 10 per cent., imposed by Cromwell's arbitrary will on those
who had ever sided with the king during the late wars, where
their estates exceeded £100 per annum. The major-generals, in
their correspondence printed among Thurloe's papers, display a
rapacity and oppression beyond their master's. … All
illusion was now gone as to the pretended benefits of the
civil war. It had ended in a despotism, compared to which all
the illegal practices of former kings, all that had cost
Charles his life and crown, appeared as dust in the balance.
For what was ship-money, a general burthen, by the side of the
present decimation of a single class, whose offence had long
been expiated by a composition and effaced by an act of
indemnity? or were the excessive punishments of the
star-chamber so odious as the capital executions inflicted
without trial by peers, whenever it suited the usurper to
erect his high court of justice? … I cannot … agree in the
praises which have been showered upon Cromwell for the just
administration of the laws under his dominion. That, between
party and party, the ordinary civil rights of men were fairly
dealt with, is no extraordinary praise; and it may be admitted
that he filled the benches of justice with able lawyers,
though not so considerable as those of the reign of Charles
II.; but it is manifest that, so far as his own authority was
concerned, no hereditary despot, proud in the crimes of a
hundred ancestors, could more have spurned at every limitation
than this soldier of a commonwealth."
_H. Hallam,
Constitutional History of England,
chapter 10, part 2._
"Cromwell was, and felt himself to be, a dictator called in by
the winning cause in a revolution to restore confidence and
secure peace. He was, as he said frequently, 'the Constable
set to keep order in the Parish.' Nor was he in any sense a
military despot. … Never did a ruler invested with absolute
power and overwhelming military force more obstinately strive
to surround his authority with legal limits and Parliamentary
control."
_F. Harrison,
Oliver Cromwell,
chapter 11._
"To this condition, then, England was now reduced. After the
gallantest fight for liberty that had ever been fought by any
nation in the world, she found herself trampled under foot by
a military despot. All the vices of old kingly rule were
nothing to what was now imposed upon her."
_J. Forster,
Statesmen of the Commonwealth:
Cromwell._
{892}
"His [Cromwell's] wish seems to have been to govern
constitutionally, and to substitute the empire of the laws for
that of the sword. But he soon found that, hated as he was,
both by Royalists and Presbyterians, he could be safe only by
being absolute. … Those soldiers who would not suffer him to
assume the kingly title, stood by him when he ventured on acts
of power as high as any English king has ever attempted. The
government, therefore, though in form a republic, was in truth
a despotism, moderated only by the wisdom, the sobriety and
the magnanimity of the despot."
_Lord Macaulay,
History of England,
chapter 1._
England: A. D. 1655-1658.
War with Spain, alliance with France.
Acquisition of Dunkirk.
"Though the German war ['the Thirty Years' War,' concluded in
1648 by the Treaty of Westphalia] was over, the struggle
between France and Spain was continued with great animosity,
each country striving to crush her rival and become the first
power in Europe. Both Louis XIV. and Philip IV. of Spain were
bidding for the protector's support. Spain offered the
possession of Calais, when taken from France; France the
possession of Dunkirk when taken from Spain (1655). Cromwell
determined to ally himself with France against Spain. … It
was in the West Indies that the obstructive policy of Spain
came most into collision with the interests of England. Her
kings based their claims to the possession of two continents
on the bull of Pope Alexander VI., who in 1493 had granted
them all lands they should discover from pole to pole, at the
distance of 100 leagues west from the Azores and Cape Verd
Islands. On the strength of this bull they held that the
discovery of an island gave them the right to the group, the
discovery of a headland the right to a continent. Though this
monstrous claim had quite broken down as far as the North
American continent was concerned, the Spaniards, still
recognizing 'no peace beyond the line,' endeavoured to shut
all Europeans but themselves out of any share in the trade or
colonization of at least the southern half of the New World.
… While war was now proclaimed with Spain, a treaty of peace
was signed between France and England, Louis XIV. agreeing to
banish Charles Stuart and his brothers from French territory
(October 24, 1655). This treaty was afterwards changed into a
league, offensive and defensive (March 23, 1657), Cromwell
undertaking to assist Louis with 6,000 men in besieging
Gravelines, Mardyke, and Dunkirk, on condition of receiving
the two latter towns when reduced by the allied armies. By the
occupation of these towns Cromwell intended to control the
trade of the Channel, to hold the Dutch in check, who were
then but unwilling friends, and to lessen the danger of
invasion from any union of Royalists and Spaniards. The war
opened in the year 1657 [Jamaica, however, had already been
taken from the Spaniards and St. Domingo attacked], with
another triumph by sea." This was Blake's last exploit. He
attacked and destroyed the Spanish bullion fleet, from Mexico,
in the harbor of Santa Cruz, island of Teneriffe, and silenced
the forts which guarded it. The great sea-captain died on his
voyage home, after striking this blow. The next spring "the
siege of Dunkirk was commenced (May, 1658). The Spaniards
tried to relieve the town, but were completely defeated in an
engagement called the Battle of the Dunes from the sand hills
among which it was fought; the defeat was mainly owing to the
courage and discipline of Oliver's troops, who won for
themselves the name of 'the Immortal Six Thousand.' … Ten
days after the battle Dunkirk surrendered, and the French had
no choice but to give over to the English ambassador the keys
of a town they thought 'unsi bon morceau' ['a good …'] (June
25)."
_B. M. Cordery and J. S. Phillpotts,
King and Commonwealth,
chapter 15._
ALSO IN:
_T. Carlyle,
Oliver Cromwell's Letters and Speeches,
book 9, speech 5 and book 10, letters 152-157._
_J. Campbell,
Naval History of Great Britain,
chapter 15 (volume 2)._
_J. Waylen,
The House of Cromwell and the Story of Dunkirk,
pages 173-272._
_W. H. Dixon,
Robert Blake,
chapters 9-10._
_D. Hannay,
Admiral Blake,
chapter 9-11._
See, also, FRANCE: A. D. 1655-1658.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1658-1660.
The fall of the Protectorate and Restoration of the Stuarts.
King Charles II.
When Oliver Cromwell died, on the 3d day of September,
1658—the anniversary of his victories at Dunbar and at
Worcester—his eldest son Richard, whom he had nominated, it
was said, on his death-bed, was proclaimed Protector, and
succeeded him "as quietly as any King had ever been succeeded
by any Prince of Wales. During five months, the administration
of Richard Cromwell went on so tranquilly and regularly that
all Europe believed him to be firmly established on the chair
of state." But Richard had none of his father's genius or
personal power, and the discontents and jealousies which the
former had rigorously suppressed soon tossed the latter from
his unstable throne by their fierce upheaval. He summoned a
new Parliament (January 27, 1659), which recognized and
confirmed his authority, though containing a powerful
opposition, of uncompromising republicans and secret
royalists. But the army, which the great Protector had tamed
to submissive obedience, was now stirred into mischievous
action once more as a political power in the state,
subservient to the ambition of Fleetwood and other commanders.
Richard Cromwell could not make himself the master of his
father's battalions. "He was used by the army as an instrument
for the purpose of dissolving the Parliament [April 22], and
was then contemptuously thrown aside. The officers gratified
their republican allies by declaring that the expulsion of the
Rump had been illegal, and by inviting that assembly to resume
its functions. The old Speaker and a quorum of the old members
came together [May 9] and were proclaimed, amidst the scarcely
stifled derision and execration of the whole nation, the
supreme power in the Commonwealth. It was at the same time
expressly declared that there should be no first magistrate
and no House of Lords. But this state of things could not
last. On the day on which the Long Parliament revived, revived
also its old quarrel with the army. Again the Rump forgot that
it owed its existence to the pleasure of the soldiers, and
began to treat them as subjects. Again the doors of the House
of Commons were closed by military violence [October 13]; and
a provisional government, named by the officers, assumed the
direction of affairs." The troops stationed in Scotland, under
Monk, had not been consulted, however, in these transactions,
and were evidently out of sympathy with their comrades in
England. Monk, who had never meddled with politics before, was
now induced to interfere.
{893}
He refused to acknowledge the military provisional government,
declared himself the champion of the civil power, and marched
into England at the head of his 7,000 veterans. His movement
was everywhere welcomed and encouraged by popular
demonstrations of delight. The army in England lost courage
and lost unity, awed and paralyzed by the public feeling at
last set free. Monk reached London without opposition, and was
the recognized master of the realm. Nobody knew his
intentions—himself, perhaps, as little as any—and it was
not until after a period of protracted suspense that he
declared himself for the convening of a new and free
Parliament, in the place of the Rump—which had again resumed
its sittings—for the settlement of the state. "The result of
the elections was such as might have been expected from the
temper of the nation. The new House of Commons consisted, with
few exceptions, of persons friendly to the royal family. The
Presbyterians formed the majority. … The new Parliament,
which, having been called without the royal writ, is more
accurately described as a Convention, met at Westminster
[April 26, 1660]. The Lords repaired to the hall, from which
they had, during more than eleven years, been excluded by
force. Both Houses instantly invited the King to return to his
country. He was proclaimed with pomp never before known. A
gallant fleet convoyed him from Holland to the coast of Kent.
When he landed [May 25, 1660], the cliffs of Dover were
covered by thousands of gazers, among whom scarcely one could
be found who was not weeping with delight. The journey to
London was a continued triumph."
_Lord Macaulay,
History of England,
chapter 1._
The only guarantee with which the careless nation took back
their ejected kings of the faithless race of Stuarts was
embodied in a Declaration which Charles sent over from "Our
Court at Breda" in April, and which was read in Parliament
with an effusive display of respect and thankfulness. In this
Declaration from Breda, "a general amnesty and liberty of
conscience were promised, with such exceptions and limitations
only as the Parliament should think fit to make. All delicate
questions, among others the proprietorship of confiscated
estates, were in like manner referred to the decision of
Parliament, thus leaving the King his liberty while
diminishing his responsibility; and though fully asserting the
ancient rights of the Crown, he announced his intention to
associate the two Houses with himself in all great affairs of
State."
_F. P. Guizot,
History of Richard Cromwell and the Restoration,
book 4 (volume 2)._
ALSO IN:
_G. Burnet,
History of My Own Time,
book 2, 1660-61._
_Earl of Clarendon,
History of the Rebellion,
book 16 (volume 6)._
_D. Masson,
Life of Milton,
volume 5, book 3._
_J. Corbett,
Monk,
chapter 9-14._
ENGLAND: A. D. 1660-1685.
The Merry Monarch.
"There never were such profligate times in England as under
Charles the Second. Whenever you see his portrait, with his
swarthy ill-looking face and great nose, you may fancy him in
his Court at Whitehall, surrounded by some of the very worst
vagabonds in the kingdom (though they were lords and ladies),
drinking, gambling, indulging in vicious conversation, and
committing every kind of profligate excess. It has been a
fashion to call Charles the Second 'The Merry Monarch.' Let me
try to give you a general idea of some of the merry things
that were done, in the merry days when this merry gentleman
sat upon his merry throne, in merry England. The first merry
proceeding was—of course—to declare that he was one of the
greatest, the wisest, and the noblest kings that ever shone,
like the blessed sun itself, on this benighted earth. The next
merry and pleasant piece of business was, for the Parliament,
in the humblest manner, to give him one million two hundred
thousand pounds a year, and to settle upon him for life that
old disputed 'tonnage and poundage' which had been so bravely
fought for. Then, General Monk, being made Earl of Albemarle,
and a few other Royalists similarly rewarded, the law went to
work to see what was to be done to those persons (they were
called Regicides) who had been concerned in making a martyr of
the late King. Ten of these were merrily executed; that is to
say, six of the judges, one of the council, Colonel Hacker and
another officer who had commanded the Guards, and Hugh Peters,
a preacher who had preached against the martyr with all his
heart. These executions were so extremely merry, that every
horrible circumstance which Cromwell had abandoned was revived
with appalling cruelty. … Sir Harry Vane, who had furnished
the evidence against Stratford, and was one of the most
staunch of the Republicans, was also tried, found guilty, and
ordered for execution. … These merry scenes were succeeded
by another, perhaps even merrier. On the anniversary of the
late King's death, the bodies of Oliver Cromwell, Ireton, and
Bradshaw, "Were torn out of their graves in 'Westminster
Abbey, dragged to Tyburn, hanged there on a gallows all day
long, and then beheaded. Imagine the head of Oliver Cromwell
set upon a pole to be stared at by a brutal crowd, not one of
whom would have dared to look the living Oliver in the face
for half a moment! Think, after you have read this reign, what
England was under Oliver Cromwell who was torn out of his
grave, and what it was under this merry monarch who sold it,
like a merry Judas, over and over again. Of course, the
remains of Oliver's wife and daughter were not to be spared,
either, though they had been most excellent women. The base
clergy of that time gave up their bodies, which had been
buried in the Abbey, and—to the eternal disgrace of
England—they were thrown into a pit, together with the
mouldering bones of Pym, and of the brave and bold old Admiral
Blake. … The whole Court was a great flaunting crowd of
debauched men and shameless women; and Catherine's merry
husband insulted and outraged her in every possible way, until
she consented to receive those worthless creatures as her very
good friends, and to degrade herself by their companionship. A
Mrs. Palmer, whom the King made Lady Castlemaine, and
afterwards Duchess of Cleveland, was one of the most powerful
of the bad women about the Court, and had great influence with
the King nearly all through his reign. Another merry lady
named Moll Davies, a dancer at the theatre, was afterwards her
rival. So was Nell Gwyn, first an orange girl and then an
actress, who really had good in her, and of whom one of the
worst things I know is, that actually she does seem to have
been fond of the King. The first Duke of St. Albans was this
orange girl's child. In like manner the son of a merry
waiting-lady, whom the King created Duchess of Portsmouth,
became the Duke of Richmond.
{894}
Upon the whole it is not so bad a thing to be a commoner. The
Merry Monarch was so exceedingly merry among these merry
ladies, and some equally merry (and equally infamous) lords
and gentlemen, that he soon got through his hundred thousand
pounds, and then, by way of raising a little pocket-money,
made a merry bargain. He sold Dunkirk to the French King for
five millions of livres. When I think of the dignity to which
Oliver Cromwell raised England in the eyes of foreign powers,
and when I think of the manner in which he gained for England
this very Dunkirk, I am much inclined to consider that if the
Merry Monarch had been made to follow his father for this
action, he would have received his just deserts."
_C. Dickens,
Child's History of England,
chapter 35._
ENGLAND: A. D. 1661.
Acquisition of Bombay.
See INDIA: A. D. 1600-1702.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1661.
The Savoy Conference.
"The Restoration had been the joint work of Episcopalian and
Presbyterian; would it be possible to reconcile them on this
question too [i. e., of the settlement of Church government]?
The Presbyterian indeed was willing enough for a compromise,
for he had an uneasy feeling that the ground was slipping from
beneath his feet. Of Charles's intentions he was still in
doubt; but he knew that Clarendon was the sworn friend of the
Church. The Churchman on the other hand was eagerly expecting
the approaching hour of triumph. It soon appeared that as King
and Parliament, so King and Church were inseparable in the
English mind; that indeed the return of the King was the
restoration of the Church even more than it was the
restoration of Parliament. In the face of the present
Presbyterian majority however it was necessary to temporise.
The former incumbents of Church livings were restored, and the
Commons took the Communion according to the rites of the
Church; but in other respects the Presbyterians were carefully
kept in play; Charles taking his part in the elaborate farce
by appointing ten of their leading ministers royal chaplains,
and even attending, their sermons." In October, 1660, Charles
"took the matter more completely into his own hands by issuing
a Declaration. Refusing, on the ground of constraint, to admit
the validity of the oaths imposed upon him in Scotland, by
which he was bound to uphold the Covenant, and not concealing
his preference for the Anglican Church, as 'the best fence God
hath yet raised against popery in the world,' he asserted that
nevertheless, to his own knowledge, the Presbyterians were not
enemies to Episcopacy or a set liturgy, and were opposed to
the alienation of Church revenues. The Declaration then went
on to limit the power of bishops and archdeacons in a degree
sufficient to satisfy many of the leading Presbyterians, one
of whom, Reynolds, accepted a bishopric. Charles then proposed
to choose an equal number of learned divines of both
persuasions to discuss alterations in the liturgy; meanwhile
no one was to be troubled regarding differences of practice.
The majority in the Commons at first welcomed the Declaration,
… and a bill was accordingly introduced by Sir Matthew Hale
to turn the Declaration into a law. But Clarendon at any rate
had no intention of thus baulking the Church of her revenge.
Anticipating Hale's action, he had in the interval been busy
in securing a majority against any compromise. The Declaration
had done its work in gaining time, and when the bill was
brought in it was rejected by 183 to 157 votes. Parliament was
at once (December 24) dissolved. The way was now open for the
riot of the Anglican triumph. Even before the new House met
the mask was thrown off by the issuing of an order to the
justices to restore the full liturgy. The conference indeed
took place in the Savoy Palace. It failed, like the Hampton
Court Conference of James I., because it was intended to fail.
Upon the two important points, the authority of bishops and
the liturgy, the Anglicans would not give way an inch. Both
parties informed the King that, anxious as they were for
agreement, they saw no chance of it. This last attempt at
union having fallen through, the Government had their hands
free; and their intentions were speedily made plain."
_O. Airy,
The English Restoration and Louis XIV.,
chapter 7._
"The Royal Commission [for the Savoy Conference] bore date the
25th of March. It gave the Commissioners authority to review
the Book of Common Prayer, to compare it with the most ancient
Liturgies, to take into consideration all things which it
contained, to consult respecting the exceptions against it,
and by agreement to make such necessary alterations as should
afford satisfaction to tender consciences, and restore to the
Church unity and peace; the instrument appointed 'the Master's
lodgings in the Savoy' as the place of meeting. … The
Commissioners were summoned to meet upon the 15th of April.
… The Bill of Uniformity, hereafter to be described,
actually passed the House of Commons on the 9th of July, about
a fortnight before the Conference broke up. The proceedings of
a Royal Commission to review the Prayer Book, and make
alterations for the satisfaction of tender consciences were,
by this premature act, really treated with mockery, a
circumstance which could not but exceedingly offend and annoy
the Puritan members, and serve to embitter the language of
Baxter as the end of these fruitless sittings approached."
_J. Stoughton,
History of Religion in English,
volume 3, chapter 5._
ALSO IN:
_E. Calamy,
Nonconformists' Memorial,
introduction, section 3._
_W. Orme,
Life and Times of Richard Baxter,
chapter 7._
ENGLAND: A. D. 1662.
The sale of Dunkirk.
"Unable to confine himself within the narrow limits of his
civil list, with his favorites and mistresses, he [Charles
II.] would have sought even in the infernal regions the gold
which his subjects measured out to him with too parsimonious a
hand. … [He] proposed to sell to France Dunkirk and its
dependencies, which, he said, cost him too much to keep up. He
asked twelve million francs; he fell at last to five millions,
and the treaty was signed October 27, 1662. It was time; the
Lord Mayor and Aldermen of London, informed of the
negotiation, had determined to offer Charles II. whatever he
wished in behalf of their city not to alienate Dunkirk.
Charles dared not retract his word, which would have been, as
D'Estrades told him, to break forever with Louis XIV., and on
the 2d of December Louis joyfully made his entry into his good
city, reconquered by gold instead of the sword."
_H. Martin,
History of France: Age of Louis XIV.,
translated by M. L. Booth, chapter 4 (volume 1)._
{895}
England: A. D. 1662-1665.
The Act of Uniformity and persecution of the Nonconformists.
The failure of the Savoy Conference "was the conclusion which
had been expected and desired. Charles had already summoned
the Convocation, and to that assembly was assigned the task
which had failed in the hands of the commissioners at the
Savoy. … The act of uniformity followed [passed by the
Commons July 9, 1661; by the Lords May 8, 1662; receiving the
royal assent May 19, 1662], by which it was enacted that the
revised Book of Common Prayer, and of Ordination of Ministers,
and no other, should be used in all places of public worship;
and that all beneficed clergymen should read the service from
it within a given time, and, at the close, profess in a set
form of words, their 'unfeigned assent and consent to
everything contained and prescribed in it.' … The act of
uniformity may have been necessary for the restoration of the
church to its former discipline and doctrine; but if such was
the intention of those who framed the declaration from Breda,
they were guilty of infidelity to the king and of fraud to the
people, by putting into his mouth language which, with the aid of
equivocation, they might explain away, and by raising in them
expectations which it was never meant to fulfil."
_J. Lingard,
History of England,
volume 11, chapter. 4._
"This rigorous act when it passed, gave the ministers, who
could not conform, no longer time than till Bartholomewday,
August 24th, 1662, when they were all cast out. … This was
an action without a precedent: The like to this the Reformed
church, nay the Christian world, never saw before. Historians
relate, with tragical exclamations, that between three and
four score bishops were driven at once into the island of
Sardinia by the African vandals; that 200 ministers were
banished by Ferdinand, king of Bohemia; and that great havock
was, a few years after, made among the ministers of Germany by
the Imperial Interim. But these all together fall short of the
number ejected by the act of uniformity, which was not less
than 2,000. The succeeding hardships of the latter were also
by far the greatest. They were not only silenced, but had no
room left for any sort of usefulness, and were in a manner
buried alive. Far greater tenderness was used towards the
Popish clergy ejected at the Reformation. They were suffered
to live quietly; but these were oppressed to the utmost, and
that even by their brethren who professed the same faith
themselves: not only excluded preferments, but turned out into
the wide world without any visible way of subsistence. Not so
much as a poor vicarage, not an obscure chapel, not a school
was left them. Nay, though they offered, as some of them did,
to preach gratis, it must not be allowed them. … The ejected
ministers continued for ten years in a state of silence and
obscurity. … The act of uniformity took place August the
24th, 1662. On the 26th of December following, the king
published a Declaration, expressing his purpose to grant some
indulgence or liberty in religion. Some of the Nonconformists
were hereupon much encouraged, and waiting privately on the
king, had their hopes confirmed, and would have persuaded
their brethren to have thanked him for his declaration; but
they refused, lest they should make way for the toleration of
the Papists, whom they understood the king intended to include
in it. … Instead of indulgence or comprehension, on the 30th
of June, an act against private meetings, called the
Conventicle Act, passed the House of Commons, and soon after
was made a law, viz.: 'That every person above sixteen years
of age, present at any meeting, under pretence of any exercise
of religion, in other manner than is the practice of the
church of England, where there are five persons more than the
household, shall for the first offence, by a justice of peace
be recorded, and sent to gaol three months, till he pay £5,
and for the second offence six months, till he pay £10, and
the third time being convicted by a jury, shall be banished to
some of the American plantations, excepting New England or
Virginia." … In the year 1665 the plague broke out"—and
the ejected ministers boldly took possession for the time of
the deserted London pulpits. "While God was consuming the
people by this judgment, and the Nonconformists were labouring
to save their souls, the parliament, which sat at Oxford, was
busy in making an act [called the Five Mile Act] to render
their case incomparably harder than it was before, by putting
upon them a certain oath ['that it is not lawful, upon any
pretence whatsoever, to take arms against the king,' &c.],
which, if they refused, they must not come (unless upon the
road) within five miles of any city or corporation, any place
that sent burgesses to parliament, any place where they had
been ministers, or had preached after the act of oblivion. …
When this act came out, those ministers who had any
maintenance of their own, found out some place of residence in
obscure villages, or market-towns, that were not
corporations."
_E. Calamy,
The Nonconformist's Memorial,
introduction, sections 4-6._
ALSO IN:
_J. Stoughton,
History of Religion in England,
volume 3, chapters 6-9._
_D. Neal,
History of the Puritans,
volume 4, chapter 6-7._
ENGLAND: A. D. 1663.
The grant of the Carolinas to Monk, Clarendon, Shaftesbury,
and others.
See NORTH CAROLINA: A. D. 1663-1670.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1663.
The King's charter to Rhode Island.
See RHODE ISLAND: A. D. 1660-1663.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1664.
The conquest of New Netherland (New York).
See NEW YORK: A. D. 1664.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1664-1665.
The first refractory symptoms in Massachusetts.
See MASSACHUSETTS: A. D. 1660-1665.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1665.
The grant of New Jersey to Carteret and Berkeley.
See NEW JERSEY: A. D. 1664-1667.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1665-1666.
War with Holland renewed.
The Dutch fleet in the Thames.
See NETHERLANDS (HOLLAND): A. D. 1665-1666.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1668.
The Triple Alliance with Holland and Sweden against Louis XIV.
See NETHERLANDS (HOLLAND): A. D. 1668.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1668.
Cession of Acadia (Nova Scotia) to France.
See NOVA SCOTIA: A. D. 1621-1668.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1668-1670.
The secret Catholicism and the perfidy of the King.
His begging of bribes from Louis XIV.
His betrayal of Holland.
His breaking of the Triple Alliance.
In 1668, the royal treasury being greatly embarrassed by the
king's extravagances, an attempt was made "to reduce the
annual expenditure below the amount of the royal income. …
But this plan of economy accorded not with the royal
disposition, nor did it offer any prospect of extinguishing
the debt. Charles remembered the promise of pecuniary
assistance from France in the beginning of his reign; and,
though his previous efforts to cultivate the friendship of
Louis had been defeated by an unpropitious course of events,
he resolved to renew the experiment.
{896}
Immediately after the peace of Aix-la-Chapelle, Buckingham
opened a negotiation with the duchess of Orleans, the king's
sister, in France, and Charles, in his conversations with the
French resident, apologised for his conduct in forming the
triple alliance, and openly expressed his wish to enter into a
closer union, a more intimate friendship, with Louis. …
About the end of the year the communications between the two
princes became more open and confidential; French money, or
the promise of French money, was received by the English
ministers; the negotiation began to assume a more regular
form, and the most solemn assurances of secrecy were given,
that their real object might be withheld from the knowledge,
or even the suspicion, of the States. In this stage of the
proceedings Charles received an important communication from
his brother James. Hitherto that prince had been an obedient
and zealous son of the Church of England; but Dr. Heylin's
History of the Reformation had shaken his religious credulity,
and the result of the inquiry was a conviction that it became
his duty to reconcile himself with the Church of Rome. He was
not blind to the dangers to which such a change would expose
him; and he therefore purposed to continue outwardly in
communion with the established church, while he attended at
the Catholic service in private. But, to his surprise, he
learned from Symonds, a Jesuit missionary, that no
dispensation could authorise such duplicity of conduct: a
similar answer was returned to the same question from the
pope; and James immediately took his resolution. He
communicated to the king in private that he was determined to
embrace the Catholic faith; and Charles without hesitation
replied that he was of the same mind, and would consult with
the duke on the subject in the presence of lord Arundell, lord
Arlington, and Arlington's confidential friend, sir Thomas
Clifford. … The meeting was held in the duke's closet.
Charles, with tears in his eyes, lamented the hardship of
being compelled to profess a religion which he did not
approve, declared his determination to emancipate himself from
this restraint, and requested the opinion of those present, as
to the most eligible means of effecting his purpose with
safety and success. They advised him to communicate his
intention to Louis, and to solicit the powerful aid of that
monarch. Here occurs a very interesting question,—was Charles
sincere or not? … He was the most accomplished dissembler in
his dominions; nor will it be any injustice to his character
to suspect that his real object was to deceive both his
brother and the king of France. … Now, however, the secret
negotiation proceeded with greater activity; and lord
Arundell, accompanied by sir Richard Bellings, hastened to the
French court. He solicited from Louis the present of a
considerable sum, to enable the king to suppress any
insurrection which might be provoked by his intended
conversion, and offered the co-operation of England in the
projected invasion of Holland, on the condition of an annual
subsidy during the continuation of hostilities." On the advice
of Louis, Charles postponed, for the time being, his intention
to enter publicly the Romish church and thus provoke a
national revolt; but his proposals were otherwise accepted,
and a secret treaty was concluded at Dover, in May, 1670,
through the agency of Charles' sister, Henrietta, the duchess
of Orleans, who came over for that purpose. "Of this treaty,
… though much was afterwards said, little was certainly
known. All the parties concerned, both the sovereigns and the
negotiators, observed an impenetrable secrecy. What became of
the copy transmitted to France is unknown; its counterpart was
confided to the custody of sir Thomas Clifford, and is still
in the keeping of his descendant, the lord Clifford of
Chudleigh. The principal articles were:
1. That the king of England should publicly profess himself
a Catholic at such time as should appear to him most
expedient, and subsequently to that profession should join
with Louis in a war against the Dutch republic at such time
as the most Christian king should judge proper.
2. That to enable the king of England to suppress any
insurrection which might be occasioned by his conversion,
the king of France should grant him an aid of 2,000,000 of
livres, by two payments, one at the expiration of three
months, the other of six months, after the ratification of
the treaty, and should also assist him with an armed force
of 6,000 men, if … necessary. …
4. That if, eventually, any new rights on the Spanish
monarchy should accrue to the king of France, the king of
England should aid him with all his power in the
acquisition of those rights. 5. That both princes should
make war on the united provinces, and that neither should
conclude peace or truce with them without the advice and
consent of his ally.".
_J. Lingard,
History of England,
volume 11, chapter 6._
ALSO IN:
_H. Hallam,
Constitutional History of England,
chapter 11._
_O. Airy,
The English Restoration and Louis XIV.,
chapter 16._
_G. Burnet,
History of My Own Time,
book 2 (volume 1)._
ENGLAND: A. D. 1671.
The Cabal.
"It was remarked that the committee of council, established
for foreign affairs, was entirely changed; and that Prince
Rupert, the Duke of Ormond, Secretary Trevor, and Lord-keeper
Bridgeman, men in whose honour the nation had great
confidence, were never called to any deliberations. The whole
secret was intrusted to five persons, Clifford, Ashley
[afterwards Earl of Shaftesbury], Buckingham, Arlington, and
Lauderdale. These men were known by the appellation of the
Cabal, a word which the initial letters of their names
happened to compose. Never was there a more dangerous ministry
in England, nor one more noted for pernicious counsels."
_D. Hume,
History of England,
chapter. 65 (volume 6)._
See, also, CABINET, THE ENGLISH.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1672-1673.
The Declaration of Indulgence and the Test Act.
"It would have been impossible to obtain the consent of the
party in the Royal Council which represented the old
Presbyterians, of Ashley or Lauderdale or the Duke of
Buckingham, to the Treaty of Dover. But it was possible to
trick them into approval of a war with Holland by playing on
their desire for a toleration of the Nonconformists. The
announcement of the King's Catholicism was therefore deferred.
… His ministers outwitted, it only remained for Charles to
outwit his Parliament. A large subsidy was demanded for the
fleet, under the pretext of upholding the Triple Alliance, and
the subsidy was no sooner granted than the two Houses were
adjourned.
{897}
Fresh supplies were obtained by closing the Exchequer, and
suspending—under Clifford's advice—the payment of either
principal or interest on loans advanced to the public
treasury. The measure spread bankruptcy among half the
goldsmiths of London; but it was followed in 1672 by one yet
more startling—the Declaration of Indulgence. By virtue of
his ecclesiastical powers, the King ordered 'that all manner
of penal laws on matters ecclesiastical against whatever sort
of Nonconformists or recusants should be from that day
suspended,' and gave liberty of public worship to all
dissidents save Catholics, who were allowed to practice their
religion only in private houses. … The Declaration of
Indulgence was at once followed by a declaration of war
against the Dutch on the part of both England and France. …
It was necessary in 1673 to appeal to the Commons [for war
supplies], but the Commons met in a mood of angry distrust.
… There was a general suspicion that a plot was on foot for
the establishment of Catholicism and despotism, and that the
war and the Indulgence were parts of the plot. The change of
temper in the Commons was marked by the appearance of what was
from that time called the Country party, with Lords Russell
and Cavendish and Sir William Coventry at its head—a party
which sympathized with the Nonconformists, but looked on it as
its first duty to guard against the designs of the Court. As to
the Declaration of Indulgence, however, all parties in the
House were at one. The Commons resolved 'that penal statutes
in matters ecclesiastical cannot be suspended but by consent
of Parliament,' and refused supplies till the Declaration was
recalled. The King yielded; but the Declaration was no sooner
recalled than a Test Act was passed through both Houses
without opposition, which required from everyone in the civil
and military employment of the State the oaths of allegiance
and supremacy, a declaration against transubstantiation, and a
reception of the sacrament according to the rites of the
Church of England. Clifford at once counseled resistance, and
Buckingham talked flightily about bringing the army to London,
but Arlington saw that all hope of carrying the 'great plan'
through was at an end, and pressed Charles to yield. …
Charles sullenly gave way. No measure has ever brought about
more startling results. The Duke of York owned himself a
Catholic, and resigned his office as Lord High Admiral. …
Clifford, too, … owned to being a Catholic, and … laid
down his staff of office. Their resignation was followed by
that of hundreds of others in the army and the civil service
of the Crown. … The resignations were held to have proved
the existence of the dangers which the Test Act had been
passed to meet. From this moment all trust in Charles was at
an end."
_J. R. Green,
Short History of England,
chapter 9, section 3._
"It is very true that the [Test Act] pointed only at
Catholics, that it really proposed an anti-Popish test, yet
the construction of it, although it did not exclude from
office such Dissenters as could occasionally conform, did
effectually exclude all who scrupled to do so. Aimed at the
Romanists, it struck the Presbyterians. It is clear that, had
the Nonconformists and the Catholics joined their forces with
those of the Court, in opposing the measure, they might have
defeated it; but the first of these classes for the present
submitted to the inconvenience, from the horror which they
entertained of Popery, hoping, at the same time, that some
relief would be afforded for this personal sacrifice in the
cause of a common Protestantism. Thus the passing of an Act,
which, until a late period, inflicted a social wrong upon two
large sections of the community, is to be attributed to the
course pursued by the very parties whose successors became the
sufferers."
_J. Stoughton,
History of Religion in England,
volume 3, chapter 11._
ALSO IN:
_D. Neal,
History of the Puritans,
volume 4, chapter 8, and volume 5, chapter 1._
_J. Collier,
Ecclesiastical History of Great Britain,
part 2, book 9 (volume 8)._
ENGLAND: A. D. 1672-1674.
Alliance with Louis XIV. of France in war with Holland.
See NETHERLANDS (HOLLAND): A. D. 1672-1674.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1673.
Loss of New York, retaken by the Dutch.
See NEW YORK: A. D. 1673.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1674.
Peace with the Dutch.
Treaty of Westminster.
Recovery of New York.
See NETHERLANDS (HOLLAND): A. D. 1674.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1675-1688.
Concessions to France in Newfoundland.
See NEWFOUNDLAND: A. D. 1660-1688.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1678-1679.
The Popish Plot.
"There was an uneasy feeling in the nation that it was being
betrayed, and just then [August, 1678] a strange story caused
a panic throughout all England. A preacher of low character,
named Titus Oates, who had gone over to the Jesuits, declared
that he knew of a plot among the Catholics to kill the king
and set up a Catholic Government. He brought his tale to a
magistrate, named Sir Edmund Bury Godfrey, and shortly
afterwards [October 17] Godfrey was found murdered in a ditch
near St. Pancras Church. The people thought that the Catholics
had murdered him to hush up the 'Popish plot,' and when
Parliament met a committee was appointed to examine into the
matter. Some papers belonging to a Jesuit named Coleman
alarmed them, and so great was the panic that an Act was
passed shutting out all Catholics, except the Duke of York,
from Parliament. After this no Catholic sat in either House
for a hundred and fifty years. But worse followed. Oates
became popular, and finding tale-bearing successful, he and
other informers went on to swear away the lives of a great
number of innocent Catholics. The most noted of these was Lord
Stafford, an upright and honest peer, who was executed in
1681, declaring his innocence. Charles laughed among his
friends at the whole matter, but let it go on, and
Shaftesbury, who wished to turn out Lord Danby, did all he
could to fan the flame."
_A. B. Buckley,
History of England for Beginners,
chapter 19._
"The capital and the whole nation went mad with hatred and
fear. The penal laws, which had begun to lose something of
their edge, were sharpened anew. Everywhere justices were
busied in searching houses and seizing papers. All the gaols
were filled with Papists. London had the aspect of a city in a
state of siege. The train bands were under arms all night.
Preparations were made for barricading the great
thoroughfares. Patroles marched up and down the streets.
Cannon were planted round Whitehall. No citizen thought
himself safe unless he carried under his coat a small flail
loaded with lead to brain the Popish assassins."
_Lord Macaulay,
History of England,
chapter. 2 (volume 1)._
{898}
"It being expected that printed Bibles would soon become rare,
or locked up in an unknown tongue, many honest people, struck
with the alarm, employed themselves in copying the Bible into
short-hand that they might not be destitute of its
consolations in the hour of calamity. … It was about the
year 1679 that the famous King's Head Club was formed, so
named from its being held at the King's Head Tavern in Fleet
Street. … They were terrorists and spread alarm with great
effect. It was at this club that silk armour, pistol proof,
was recommended as a security against assassination at the
hands of the Papists; and the particular kind of
life-preserver of that day, called a Protestant flail, was
introduced."
_G. Roberts,
Life of Monmouth,
chapter 5 (volume 1)._
"And now commenced, before the courts of justice and the upper
house, a sombre prosecution of the catholic lords Arundel,
Petre, Stafford, Powis, Bellasis, the Jesuits Coleman,
Ireland, Grieve, Pickering, and, in succession, all who were
implicated by the indefatigable denunciations of Titus Oates
and Bedloe. Unhappily, these courts of justice, desiring, in
common with the whole nation, to condemn rather than to
examine, wanted neither elements which might, if strictly
acted upon, establish legal proof of conspiracy against some
of the accused, nor terrible laws to destroy them when found
guilty. And it was here that a spectacle, at first imposing,
became horrible. No friendly voice arose to save those men who
were guilty only of impracticable wishes, of extravagant
conceptions. The king, the duke of York, the French
ambassador, thoroughly acquainted as they were with the real
nature of these imputed crimes, remained silent; they were
thoroughly cowed."
_A. Carrel,
History of the Counter-Revolution in England,
part 1, chapter 4._
"Although, … upon a review of this truly shocking
transaction, we may be fairly justified … in imputing to the
greater part of those concerned in it, rather an extraordinary
degree of blind credulity than the deliberate wickedness of
planning and assisting in the perpetration of legal murders;
yet the proceedings on the popish plot must always be
considered as an indelible disgrace upon the English nation,
in which king, parliament, judges, juries, witnesses,
prosecutors, have all their respective, though certainly not
equal, shares."
_C. J. Fox,
History of the Early Part of the Reign of James II.,
introduction, ch._
"In this dreadful scene of wickedness, it is difficult not to
assign the pre-eminence of guilt to Anthony Ashley Cooper,
earl of Shaftesbury. If he did not first contrive, he
certainly availed himself of the revelations of Oates, to work
up the nation to the fury which produced the subsequent
horrors. … In extenuation of the delusion of the populace,
something may be offered. The defamation of half a century had
made the catholics the objects of protestant odium and
distrust: and these had been increased by the accusation,
artfully and assiduously fomented, of their having been the
authors of the fire of the city of London. The publication,
too, of Coleman's letters, certainly announced a considerable
activity in the catholics to promote the catholic religion;
and contained expressions, easily distorted to the sense, in
which the favourers of the belief of the plot wished them to
be understood. Danby's correspondence, likewise, which had
long been generally known, and was about this time made
public, had discovered that Charles was in the pay of France.
These, with several other circumstances, had inflamed the
imaginations of the public to the very highest pitch. A
dreadful something (and not the less dreadful because its
precise nature was altogether unknown), was generally
apprehended. … For their supposed part in the plot, ten
laymen and seven priests, one of whom was seventy, another
eighty, years of age, were executed. Seventeen others were
condemned, but not executed. Some died in prison, and some
were pardoned. On the whole body of catholics the laws were
executed with horrible severity."
_C. Butler,
Historical Memoirs of the English Catholics,
chapter 32, section 3 (volume 2)._
ALSO IN:
_Lord Campbell,
Lives of the Lord Chancellors,
chapter 89 (volume 3)._
ENGLAND: A. D. 1679 (May).
The Habeas Corpus Act.
"Arbitrary imprisonment is a grievance which, in some degree,
has place in almost every government, except in that of Great
Britain; and our absolute security from it we owe chiefly to
the present Parliament; a merit which makes some atonement for
the faction and violence into which their prejudices had, in
other particulars, betrayed them. The great charter had laid
the foundation of this valuable part of liberty; the petition
of right had renewed and extended it; but some provisions were
still wanting to render it complete, and prevent all evasion
or delay from ministers and judges. The act of habeas corpus,
which passed this session, served these purposes. By this act
it was prohibited to send anyone to a prison beyond sea. No
judge, under severe penalties, must refuse to any prisoner a
writ of habeas corpus, by which the gaoler was directed to
produce in court the body of the prisoner (whence the writ has
its name), and to certify the cause of his detainer and
imprisonment. If the gaol lie within twenty miles of the
judge, the writ must be obeyed in three days; and so
proportionably for greater distances; every prisoner must be
indicted the first term after his commitment, and brought to
trial in the subsequent term. And no man, after being enlarged
by order of court, can be recommitted for the same offence."
_D. Hume,
History of England,
chapter 67 (volume 6)._
"The older remedies serving as a safeguard against unlawful
imprisonment, were—
1. The writ of Mainprise, ensuring the delivery of the accused
to a friend of the same, who gave security to answer for his
appearance before the court when required, and in token of
such undertaking he held him by the hand ('le prit par le
main').
2. The writ 'De odio et atiâ,' i. e., of hatred and malice,
which, though not abolished, has long since been antiquated.
… It directed the sheriff to make inquisition in the county
court whether the imprisonment proceeded from malice or not.
…
3. The writ 'De homine replegiando,' or replevying a man, that
is, delivering him out on security to answer what may be
objected against him.
A writ is, originally, a royal writing,
either an open patent addressed to all to whom it may come,
and issued under the great seal; or, 'litteræ clausæ,' a
sealed letter addressed to a particular person; such writs
were prepared in the royal courts or in the Court of Chancery.
The most usual instrument of protection, however, against
arbitrary imprisonment is the writ of 'Habeas corpus,' so
called from its beginning with the words, 'Habeas corpus ad
subjiciendum,' which, on account of its universal application
and the security it affords, has, insensibly, taken precedence
of all others.
{899}
This is an old writ of the common law, and must be prayed for
in any of the Superior courts of common law. … But this writ
… proved but a feeble, or rather wholly ineffectual
protection against the arbitrary power of the sovereign. The
right of an English subject to a writ of habeas corpus, and to
a release from imprisonment unless sufficient cause be shown
for his detention, was fully canvassed in the first years of
the reign of Charles I. … The parliament endeavoured to
prevent such arbitrary imprisonment by passing the 'Petition
of Right,' which enacted that no freeman, in any such manner
… should be imprisoned or detained. Even this act was found
unavailing against the malevolent interpretations put by the
judges; hence the 16 Charles I., c. 10, was passed, which
enacts, that when any person is restrained of his liberty by
the king in person, or by the Privy Council, or any member
thereof, he shall, on demand of his counsel, have a writ of
habeas corpus, and, three days after the writ, shall be
brought before the court to determine whether there is ground
for further imprisonment, for bail, or for his release.
Notwithstanding these provisions, the immunity of English
subjects from arbitrary detention was not ultimately
established in full practical efficiency until the passing of
the statute of Charles II., commonly called the 'Habeas Corpus
Act.'"
_E. Fischel,
The English Constitution,
book 1, chapter 9._
ALSO IN:
_Sir W. Blackstone,
Commentaries on the Laws of England,
book 3, chapter 8._
_H. J. Stephen,
Commentaries,
book 5, chapter 12, section 5 (volume 4)._
The following is the text of the Habeas Corpus Act of 1679:
I. Whereas great Delays have been used by Sheriffs, Gaolers
and other Officers, to whose Custody any of the King's
Subjects have been committed, for criminal or supposed
criminal Matters, in making Returns of Writs of Habeas Corpus
to them directed, by standing out an Alias and Pluries Habeas
Corpus, and sometimes more, and by other Shifts, to avoid
their yielding Obedience to such Writs, contrary to their
Duty, and the known Laws of the Land, whereby many of the
King's Subjects have been, and hereafter may be long detained
in Prison, in such cases where by Law they are bailable, to
their great Charges and Vexation.
II. For the Prevention whereof, and the more speedy Relief of
all Persons imprisoned for any such Criminal, or supposed
Criminal Matters: (2.) Be it Enacted by the King's most
Excellent Majesty, by and with the Advice and Consent of the
Lords Spiritual and Temporal and Commons in this present
Parliament assembled, and by the Authority thereof, that
whensoever any Person or Persons shall bring any Habeas Corpus
directed unto any Sheriff, or Sheriffs, Gaoler, Minister, or
other Person whatsoever, for any Person in his or their
Custody, and the said Writ shall be served upon the said
Officer, or left at the Gaol or Prison, with any of the under
Officers, under Keepers, or Deputy of the said Officers or
Keepers, that the said Officer or Officers, his or their Under
Officers, Under Keepers or Deputies, shall within three Days
after the Service thereof, as aforesaid (unless the Commitment
aforesaid were for Treason or Felony, plainly and specially
expressed in the Warrant of Commitment), upon Payment or
Tender of the Charges of bringing the said Prisoner, to be
ascertained by the Judge or Court that awarded the same, and
endorsed upon the said Writ, not exceeding Twelve-pence per
Mile, and upon Security given by his own Bond, to pay the
Charges of carrying back the Prisoner, if he shall be remanded
by the Court or Judge, to which he shall be brought, according
to the true Intent of this present Act, and that he will not
make any Escape by the way, make Return of such Writ. (3.) And
bring or cause to be brought the Body of the Party so
committed or restrained, unto or before the Lord Chancellor,
or Lord Keeper of the Great Seal of England for the time
being, or the Judges or Barons of the said Court from whence
the said Writ shall Issue, or unto and before such other
Person or Persons before whom the said Writ is made
returnable, according to the Command thereof. (4.) And shall
then likewise certifie the true causes of his Detainer, or
Imprisonment, unless the commitment of the said party be in
any place beyond the Distance of twenty Miles from the Place
or Places where such Court or Person is, or shall be residing;
and if beyond the Distance of twenty Miles, and not above One
Hundred Miles, then within the Space of Ten Days, and if
beyond the Distance of One Hundred Miles, then within the
space of Twenty Days, after such Delivery aforesaid, and not
longer.
III. And to the Intent that no Sheriff, Gaoler or other
Officer may pretend Ignorance of the Import of any such Writ,
(2.) Be it enacted by the Authority aforesaid, That all such
Writs shall be marked in this manner, Per Statutum Tricesimo
Primo Caroli Secundi Regis, and shall be signed by the Person
that awards the same. (3.) And if any Person or Persons shall
be or stand committed or detained, as aforesaid, for any
Crime, unless for Felony or Treason, plainly expressed in the
Warrant of Commitment, in the Vacation-time, and out of Term,
it shall and may be lawful to and for the Person or Persons so
committed or detained (other than Persons convict, or in
Execution by legal Process) or anyone on his or their Behalf,
to appeal, or complain to the Lord Chancellor, or Lord Keeper,
or anyone of His Majesty's Justices, either of the one Bench,
or of the other, or the Barons of the Exchequer of the Degree
of the Coif. (4.) And the said Lord Chancellor, Lord Keeper,
Justices, or Barons, or any of them, upon View of the Copy or
Copies of the Warrant or Warrants of Commitment and Detainer,
or otherwise upon Oath made, that such Copy or Copies were
denied to be given by such Person or Persons in whose custody
the Prisoner or Prisoners is or are detained, are hereby
authorized and required, upon Request made in Writing by such
Person or Persons, or any on his, her, or their Behalf,
attested and subscribed by two Witnesses, who were present at
the Delivery of the same, to award and grant an Habeas Corpus
under the Seal of such Court, whereof he shall then be one of
the Judges, (5.) to be directed to the Officer or Officers in
whose Custody the Party so committed or detained shall be,
returnable immediate before the said Lord Chancellor, or Lord
Keeper, or such Justice, Baron, or any other Justice or Baron,
of the Degree of the Coif, of any of the said Courts. (6.) And
upon Service thereof as aforesaid, the Officer or Officers,
his or their under Officer or under Officers, under Keeper or
under Keepers, or their Deputy, in whose Custody the Party is
so committed or detained, shall within the times respectively
before limited, bring such Prisoner or Prisoners before the
said Lord Chancellor or Lord Keeper, or such Justices, Barons,
or one of them, before whom the said Writ is made returnable,
and in case of his Absence, before any of them, with the
Return of such Writ, and the true Causes of the Commitment and
Detainer.
{900}
(7.) And thereupon within two Days after the Party shall be
brought before them the said Lord Chancellor, or Lord Keeper,
or such Justice or Baron, before whom the Prisoner shall be
brought as aforesaid, shall discharge the said Prisoner from
his Imprisonment, taking his or their Recognizance, with one
or more Surety or Sureties, in any Sum, according to their
Discretions, having regard to the Quality of the Prisoner, and
Nature of the Offence, for his or their Appearance in the
Court of King's Bench the Term following, or at the next
Assizes, Sessions, or general Gaol-Delivery, of and for such
County, City or Place, where the Commitment was, or where the
Offence was committed, or in such other Court where the said
Offence is properly cognizable, as the Case shall require, and
then shall certify the said Writ with the Return thereof, and
the said Recognizance or Recognizances into the said Court,
where such Appearance is to be made. (8.) Unless it shall
appear unto the said Lord Chancellor, or Lord Keeper, or
Justice, or Justices, or Baron or Barons, that the Party so
committed is detained upon a legal Process, Order, or Warrant
out of some Court that hath Jurisdiction of Criminal Matters,
or by some Warrant signed and sealed with the Hand and Seal of
any of the said Justices or Barons, or some Justice or
Justices of the Peace, for such Matters or Offences, for the
which by the Law, the Prisoner is not bailable.
IV. Provided always, and be it enacted, That if any Person
shall have wilfully neglected by the Space of two whole Terms
after his Imprisonment to pray a Habeas Corpus for his
Enlargement, such Person so wilfully neglecting, shall not
have any Habeas Corpus to be granted in Vacation-time in
Pursuance of this Act.
V. And be it further enacted by the Authority aforesaid, That
if any Officer or Officers, his or their under Officer, or
under Officers, under Keeper or under Keepers, or Deputy,
shall neglect or refuse to make the Returns aforesaid, or to
bring the Body or Bodies of the Prisoner or Prisoners,
according to the Command of the said Writ, within the
respective times aforesaid, or upon Demand made by the
Prisoner, or Person in his Behalf, shall refuse to deliver, or
within the Space of six Hours after Demand shall not deliver,
to the Person so demanding, a true Copy of the Warrant or
Warrants of Commitment and Detainer of such Prisoner, which he
and they are hereby required to deliver accordingly; all and
every the Head Gaolers and Keepers of such Prisons, and such
other Person, in whose Custody the Prisoner shall be detained,
shall for the first Offence, forfeit to the Prisoner, or Party
grieved, the Sum of One Hundred Pounds. (2.) And for the
second Offence, the Sum of Two Hundred Pounds, and shall and
is hereby made incapable to hold or execute his said Office.
(3.) The said Penalties to be recovered by the Prisoner or
Party grieved, his Executors or Administrators, against such
Offender, his Executors or Administrators, by any Action of
Debt, Suit, Bill, Plaint or Information, in any of the King's
Courts at Westminster, wherein no Essoin, Protection,
Priviledge, Injunction, Wager of Law, or stay of Prosecution,
by Non vult ulterius prosequi, or otherwise, shall be admitted
or allowed, or any more than one Imparlance. (4.) And any
Recovery or Judgment at the Suit of any Party grieved, shall
be a sufficient Conviction for the first Offence; and any
after Recovery or Judgment at the Suit of a Party grieved, for
any Offence after the first Judgment, shall be a sufficient
Conviction to bring the Officers or Person within the said
Penalty for the Second Offence.
VI. And for the Prevention of unjust Vexation, by reiterated
Commitments for the same offence; (2.) Be it enacted by the
Authority aforesaid, That no Person or Persons, which shall be
delivered or set at large upon any Habeas Corpus, shall at any
time hereafter be again imprisoned or committed for the same
Offence, by any Person or Persons whatsoever, other than by
the legal Order and Process of such Court wherein he or they
shall be bound by Recognizance to appear, or other Court
having Jurisdiction of the Cause. (3.) And if any other Person
or Persons shall knowingly, contrary to this Act, recommit or
imprison, or knowingly procure or cause to be recommitted or
imprisoned for the same Offence, or pretended Offence, any
Person or Persons delivered or set at large as aforesaid, or
be knowingly aiding or assisting therein, then he or they
shall forfeit to the Prisoner or Party grieved, the Sum of
Five Hundred Pounds; any colourable Pretence or Variation in
the Warrant or Warrants of Commitment notwithstanding, to be
recovered as aforesaid.
VII. Provided always, and be it further enacted, That if any
Person or Persons shall be committed for High Treason or
Felony, plainly and specially expressed in the Warrant of
Commitment, upon his Prayer or Petition in open Court the
first Week of the Term, or first Day of the Sessions of Oyer
and Terminer, or general Gaol Delivery, to be brought to his
Tryal, shall not be indicted sometime in the next Term,
Sessions of Oyer and Terminer, or general Gaol-Delivery after
such Commitment, it shall and may be lawful to and for the
Judges of the Court of King's Bench, and Justices of Oyer and
Terminer, or general Gaol-Delivery, and they are hereby
required, upon Motion to them made in open Court the last Day
of the Term, Sessions or Gaol-Delivery, either by the
Prisoner, or anyone in his Behalf, to set at Liberty the
Prisoner upon Bail, unless it appear to the Judges and
Justices upon Oath made, that the Witnesses for the King could
not be produced the same Term, Sessions, or general
Gaol-Delivery. (2.) And if any Person or Persons committed as
aforesaid, upon his Prayer or Petition in open Court, the
first Week of the Term, or first Day of the Sessions of Oyer
and Terminer, and general Gaol-Delivery, to be brought to his
Tryal, shall not be indicted and tryed the second Term,
Sessions of Oyer and Terminer, or general Gaol-Delivery, after
his Commitment, or upon his Tryal shall be acquitted, he shall
be discharged from his Imprisonment.
VIII. Provided always, that nothing in this Act shall extend
to discharge out of Prison, any Person charged in Debt, or
other Action, or with Process in any Civil Cause, but that
after he shall be discharged of his Imprisonment for such his
criminal Offence, he shall be kept in Custody, according to
the Law for such other Suit.
{901}
IX. Provided always, and be it enacted by the Authority
aforesaid, That if any Person or Persons, Subjects of this
Realm, shall be committed to any Prison, or in Custody of any
Officer or Officers whatsoever, for any Criminal or supposed
Criminal Matter, that the said Person shall not be removed
from the said Prison and Custody, into the Custody of any
other Officer or Officers. (2.) Unless it be by Habeas Corpus,
or some other legal Writ; or where the Prisoner is delivered
to the Constable or other inferiour Officer, to carry such
Prisoner to some common Gaol. (3.) Or where any Person is sent
by Order of any Judge of Assize, or Justice of the Peace, to
any common Workhouse, or House of Correction. (4.) Or where
the Prisoner is removed from one Prison or Place to another
within the same County, in order to his or her Tryal or
Discharge in due Course of Law. (5.) Or in case of sudden
Fire, or Infection, or other Necessity. (6.) And if any Person
or Persons shall after such Commitment aforesaid, make out and
sign, or countersign, any Warrant or Warrants for such Removal
aforesaid, contrary to this Act, as well he that makes or
signs, or countersigns, such Warrant or Warrants, as the
Officer or Officers, that obey or execute the same, shall
suffer & incur the Pains & Forfeitures in this Act
before-mentioned, both for the 1st & 2nd Offence,
respectively, to be recover'd in manner aforesaid, by the
Party grieved.
X. Provided also, and be it further enacted by the Authority
aforesaid, That it shall and may be lawful to and for any
Prisoner & Prisoners as aforesaid, to move, and obtain his or
their Habeas Corpus, as well out of the High Court of
Chancery, or Court of Exchequer, as out of the Courts of
King's Bench, or Common Pleas, or either of them. (2.) And if
the said Lord Chancellor or Lord Keeper, or any Judge or
Judges, Baron or Barons for the time being, of the Degree of
the Coif, of any of the Courts aforesaid, in the Vacation
time, upon view of the Copy or Copies of the Warrant or
Warrants of Commitment or Detainer, or upon Oath made that
such Copy or Copies were denied as aforesaid, shall deny any
Writ of Habeas Corpus by this Act required to be granted,
being moved for as aforesaid, they shall severally forfeit to
the Prisoner or Party grieved, the Sum of Five Hundred Pounds,
to be recovered in manner aforesaid.
XI. And be it declared and enacted by the Authority aforesaid,
That an Habeas Corpus according to the true Intent and meaning
of this Act, may be directed, and run into any County
Palatine, the Cinque Ports, or other priviledged Places,
within the Kingdom of England, Dominion of Wales, or Town of
Berwick upon Tweed, and the Isles of Jersey or Guernsey, any
Law or Usage to the contrary notwithstanding.
XII. And for preventing illegal Imprisonments in Prisons
beyond the Seas; (2.) Be it further enacted by the Authority
aforesaid, That no Subject of this Realm that now is, or
hereafter shall be, an Inhabitant or Resiant of this Kingdom
of England, Dominion of Wales, or Town of Berwick upon Tweed,
shall or may be sent Prisoner into Scotland, Ireland, Jersey,
Guernsey, Tangier, or into Parts, Garrisons, Islands, or
Places beyond the Seas, which are, or at any time hereafter
shall be within or without the Dominions of his Majesty, his
Heirs or Successors. (3.) And that every such Imprisonment is
hereby enacted and adjudged to be illegal. (4.) And that if
any of the said Subjects now is, or hereafter shall be so
imprisoned, every such Person and Persons so imprisoned, shall
and may for every such Imprisonment, maintain by Virtue of
this Act, an Action or Actions of False Imprisonment, in any
of his Majesty's Courts of Record, against the Person or
Persons by whom he or she shall be so committed, detained,
imprisoned, sent Prisoner or transported, contrary to the true
meaning of this Act, and against all or any Person or Persons,
that shall frame, contrive, write, seal or countersign any
Warrant or Writing for such Commitment, Detainer, Imprisonment
or Transportation, or shall be advising, aiding or assisting
in the same, or any of them. (5.) And the Plaintiff in every
such Action, shall have judgment to recover his treble Costs,
besides Damages; which Damages so to be given, shall not be
less than Five Hundred Pounds. (6.) In which Action, no Delay,
Stay, or Stop of Proceeding, by Rule, Order or Command, nor no
Injunction, Protection, or Priviledge whatsoever, nor any more
than one Imparlance shall be allowed, excepting such Rule of
the Court wherein the Action shall depend, made in open Court,
as shall be thought in justice necessary, for special Cause to
be expressed in the said Rule. (7.) And the Person or Persons
who shall knowingly frame, contrive, write, seal or
countersign any Warrant for such Commitment, Detainer, or
Transportation, or shall so commit, detain, imprison, or
transport any Person or Persons contrary to this Act, or be
any ways advising, aiding or assisting therein, being lawfully
convicted thereof, shall be disabled from thenceforth to bear
any Office of Trust or Profit within the said Realm of
England, Dominion of Wales, or Town of Berwick upon Tweed, or
any of the Islands, Territories or Dominions thereunto
belonging. (8.) And shall incur and sustain the Pains,
Penalties, and Forfeitures, limited, ordained, and Provided in
and by the Statute of Provision and Premunire made in the
Sixteenth Year of King Richard the Second. (9.) And be
incapable of any Pardon from the King, his Heirs or
Successors, of the said Forfeitures, Losses, or Disabilities,
or any of them.
XIII. Provided always, That nothing in this Act shall extend
to give Benefit to any Person who shall by Contract in
Writing, agree with any Merchant or Owner, of any Plantation,
or other Person whatsoever, to be transported to any part
beyond the Seas, and receive Earnest upon such Agreement,
altho' that afterwards such Person shall renounce such
Contract.
XIV. Provided always, and be it enacted, That if any Person or
Persons, lawfully convicted of any Felony, shall in open Court
pray to be transported beyond the Seas, and the Court shall
think fit to leave him or them in Prison for that Purpose,
such Person or Persons may be transported into any Parts
beyond the Seas; This Act, or any thing therein contained to
the contrary notwithstanding.
XV. Provided also, and be it enacted, That nothing herein
contained, shall be deemed, construed, or taken to extend to
the Imprisonment of any Person before the first Day of June,
One Thousand Six Hundred Seventy and Nine, or to any thing
advised, procured, or otherwise done, relating to such
Imprisonment; Any thing herein contained to the contrary
notwithstanding.
{902}
XVI. Provided also, That if any Person or Persons, at any time
resiant in this Realm, shall have committed any Capital
Offence in Scotland or Ireland, or any of the Islands, or
foreign Plantations of the King, his Heirs or Successors,
where he or she ought to be tryed for such Offence, such
Person or Persons may be sent to such Place, there to receive
such Tryal, in such manner as the same might have been used
before the making this Act; Any thing herein contained to the
contrary notwithstanding.
XVII. Provided also, and be it enacted, That no Person or
Persons, shall be sued, impleaded, molested or troubled for
any Offence against this Act, unless the Party offending be
sued or impleaded for the same within two Years at the most
after such time wherein the Offence shall be committed, in
Case the Party grieved shall not be then in Prison; and if he
shall be in Prison, then within the space of two Years after
the Decease of the Person imprisoned, or his, or her Delivery
out of Prison, which shall first happen.
XVIII. And to the Intent no Person may avoid his Tryal at the
Assizes, or general Gaol Delivery, by procuring his Removal
before the Assizes at such time as he cannot be brought back
to receive his Tryal there; (2.) Be it enacted, That after the
Assizes proclaimed for that County where the Prisoner is
detained, no Person shall be removed from the Common Gaol upon
any Habeas Corpus granted in pursuance of this Act, but upon
any such Habeas Corpus shall be brought before the Judge of
Assize in open Court, who is thereupon to do what to Justice
shall appertain.
XIX. Provided nevertheless, That after the Assizes are ended,
any Person or Persons detained may have his or her Habeas
Corpus, according to the Direction and Intention of this Act.
XX. And be it also enacted by the Authority aforesaid, That if
any Information, Suit or Action, shall be brought or exhibited
against any Person or Persons, for any Offence committed or to
be committed against the Form of this Law, it shall be lawful
for such Defendants to plead the general Issue, that they are
not guilty, or that they owe nothing, and to give such special
Matter in Evidence to the Jury, that shall try the same, which
Matter being pleaded, had been good and sufficient matter in
Law to have discharged the said Defendant or Defendants
against the said Information, Suit or Action, and the said
Matter shall be then as available to him or them, to all
Intents and Purposes, as if he or they had sufficiently
pleaded, set forth, or alleged the same Matter in Bar, or
Discharge of such Information, Suit or Action.
XXI. And because many times Persons charged with Petty-Treason
or Felony, or as Accessaries thereunto, are committed upon
Suspicion only, whereupon they are bailable or not, according
as the Circumstances making out that Suspicion are more or
less weighty, which are best known to the Justices of Peace
that committed the Persons, and have the Examinations before
them, or to other Justices of the Peace in the County; (2.) Be
it therefore enacted, That where any Person shall appear to be
committed by any Judge, or Justice of the Peace, and charged
as necessary before the Fact, to any Petty-Treason or Felony,
or upon Suspicion thereof, or with Suspicion of Petty-Treason
or Felony, which Petty-Treason or Felony, shall be plainly and
specially expressed in the Warrant of Commitment, that such
Person shall not be removed or bailed by Virtue of this Act,
or in any other manner than they might have been before the
making of this Act.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1679 (June).
The Meal-tub Plot.
"Dangerfield, a subtle and dexterous man, who had gone through
all the shapes and practices of roguery, and in particular was
a false coiner, undertook now to coin a plot for the ends of
the papists. He … got into all companies, and mixed with the
hottest men of the town, and studied to engage others with
himself to swear that they had been invited to accept of
commissions, and that a new form of government was to be set
up, and that the king and the royal family were to be sent
away. He was carried with this story, first to the duke, and
then to the king, and had a weekly allowance of money, and was
very kindly used by many of that side; so that a whisper run
about town, that some extraordinary thing would quickly break
out: and he having some correspondence with one colonel
Mansel, he made up a bundle of seditious but ill contrived
letters, and laid them in a dark corner of his room: and then
some searchers were sent from the custom house to look for
some forbidden goods, which they heard were in Mansel's
chamber. There were no goods found: but as it was laid, they
found that bundle of letters: and upon that a great noise was
made of a discovery: but upon inquiry it appeared the letters
were counterfeited, and the forger of them was suspected; so
they searched into all Dangerfield's haunts, and in one of
them they found a paper that contained the scheme of this
whole fiction, which, because it was found in a meal-tub, came
to be called the meal-tub plot. … This was a great disgrace
to the popish party, and the king suffered much by the
countenance he had given him."
_G. Burnet,
History of My Own Time,
book 3, 1679._
ENGLAND: A. D. 1679-1681.
The Exclusion Bill.
"Though the duke of York was not charged with participation in
the darkest schemes of the popish conspirators, it was evident
that his succession was the great aim of their endeavours, and
evident also that he had been engaged in the more real and
undeniable intrigues of Coleman. His accession to the throne,
long viewed with just apprehension, now seemed to threaten
such perils to every part of the constitution as ought not
supinely to be waited for, if any means could be devised to
obviate them. This gave rise to the bold measure of the
exclusion bill, too bold, indeed, for the spirit of the
country, and the rock on which English liberty was nearly
shipwrecked. In the long parliament, full as it was of
pensioners and creatures of court influence, nothing so
vigorous would have been successful. … But the zeal they
showed against Danby induced the king to put an end [January
24, 1679] to this parliament of seventeen years' duration; an
event long ardently desired by the popular party, who foresaw
their ascendancy in the new elections. The next house of
commons accordingly came together with an ardour not yet
quenched by corruption; and after reviving the impeachments
commenced by their predecessors, and carrying a measure long
in agitation, a test which shut the catholic peers out of
parliament, went upon the exclusion bill [the second reading
of which was carried, May 21, 1679, by 207 to 128].
{903}
Their dissolution put a stop to this; and in the next
parliament the lords rejected it [after the commons had passed
the bill, without a division, October, 1680]. … The bill of
exclusion … provided that the imperial crown of England
should descend to and be enjoyed by such person or persons
successively during the life of the duke of York as would have
inherited or enjoyed the same in case he were naturally dead.
… But a large part of the opposition had unfortunately other
objects in view." Under the contaminating influence of the
earl of Shaftesbury, "they broke away more and more from the
line of national opinion, till a fatal reaction involved
themselves in ruin, and exposed the cause of public liberty to
its most imminent peril. The countenance and support of
Shaftesbury brought forward that unconstitutional and most
impolitic scheme of the duke of Monmouth's succession. [James,
duke of Monmouth, was the acknowledged natural son of king
Charles, by Lucy Walters, his mistress while in exile at the
Hague.] There could hardly be a greater insult to a nation
used to respect its hereditary line of kings, than to set up
the bastard of a prostitute, without the least pretence of
personal excellence or public services, against a princess of
known virtue and attachment to the protestant religion. And
the effrontery of this attempt was aggravated by the libels
eagerly circulated to dupe the credulous populace into a
belief of Monmouth's legitimacy."
_H. Hallam,
Constitutional History of England,
chapter 12._
ALSO IN:
_A. Carrel,
History of the Counter-Revolution in England,
part 2, chapter 1._
_G. Roberts,
Life of Monmouth,
chapter 4-8 (volume 1)._
_G. Burnet,
History of My Own Time,
book 3, 1679-81._
_Sir W. Temple,
Memoirs,
part 3 (Works, volume 2)._
ENGLAND: A. D. 1680.
Whigs and Tories acquire their respective names.
"Factions indeed were at this time [A. D. 1680] extremely
animated against each other. The very names by which each
party denominated its antagonist discover the virulence and
rancour which prevailed. For besides petitioner and abhorrer,
appellations which were soon forgotten, this year is
remarkable for being the epoch of the well-known epithets of
Whig and Tory, by which, and sometimes without any material
difference, this island has been so long divided. The court
party reproached their antagonists with their affinity to the
fanatical conventiclers in Scotland, who were known by the
name of Whigs: the country party found a resemblance between
the courtiers and the popish banditti in Ireland, to whom the
appellation of Tory was affixed: and after this manner these
foolish terms of reproach came into public and general use."
_D. Hume,
History of England,
chapter 68 (volume 6)._
"The definition of the nickname Tory, as it originally arose,
is given in 'A New Ballad' (Narcissus Luttrell's
Collection):—
The word Tory's of Irish Extraction,
'Tis a Legacy that they have left here
They came here in their brogues,
And have acted like Rogues,
In endeavouring to learn us to swear."
_J. Grego,
History of Parliamentary Elections,
page 36._
ALSO IN:
_G. W. Cooke,
History of Party,
volume 1, chapter 2._
_Lord Macaulay,
History of England,
chapter 2._
For the origin of the name of the 'Whig party,
See WHIGS (WIGGAMORS); also, RAPPAREES.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1681-1683.
The Tory reaction and the downfall of the Whigs.
The Rye-house Plot.
"Shaftesbury's course rested wholly on the belief that the
penury of the Treasury left Charles at his mercy, and that a
refusal of supplies must wring from the King his assent to the
exclusion. But the gold of France had freed the King from his
thraldom. He had used the Parliament [of 1681] simply to
exhibit himself as a sovereign whose patience and conciliatory
temper was rewarded with insult and violence; and now that he
saw his end accomplished, he suddenly dissolved the Houses in
April, and appealed in a Royal declaration to the justice of
the nation at large. The appeal was met by an almost universal
burst of loyalty. The Church rallied to the King; his
declaration was read from every pulpit; and the Universities
solemnly decided that 'no religion, no law, no fault, no
forfeiture' could avail to bar the sacred right of hereditary
succession. … The Duke of York returned in triumph to St.
James's. … Monmouth, who had resumed his progresses through
the country as a means of checking the tide of reaction, was
at once arrested. … Shaftesbury, alive to the new danger,
plunged desperately into conspiracies with a handful of
adventurers as desperate as himself, hid himself in the City,
where he boasted that ten thousand 'brisk boys' were ready to
appear at his call, and urged his friends to rise in arms. But
their delays drove him to flight. … The flight of
Shaftesbury proclaimed the triumph of the King. His wonderful
sagacity had told him when the struggle was over and further
resistance useless. But the Whig leaders, who had delayed to
answer the Earl's call, still nursed projects of rising in
arms, and the more desperate spirits who had clustered around
him as he lay hidden in the City took refuge in plots of
assassination, and in a plan for murdering Charles and his
brother as they passed the Rye-house [a Hertfordshire farm
house, so-called] on their road from London to Newmarket. Both
the conspiracies were betrayed, and, though they were wholly
distinct from one another, the cruel ingenuity of the Crown
lawyers blended them into one. Lord Essex, the last of an
ill-fated race, saved himself from a traitor's death by
suicide in the Tower. Lord Russell, convicted on a charge of
sharing in the Rye-house Plot, was beheaded in Lincoln Inn
Fields. The same fate awaited Algernon Sidney. Monmouth fled
in terror over sea, and his flight was followed by a series of
prosecutions for sedition directed against his followers. In 1683
the Constitutional opposition which had held Charles so long
in check lay crushed at his feet. … On the very day when the
crowd around Russell's scaffold were dipping their
handkerchiefs in his blood, as in the blood of a martyr, the
University of Oxford solemnly declared that the doctrine of
passive obedience, even to the worst of rulers, was a part of
religion." During the brief remainder of his reign Charles was
a prudently absolute monarch, governing without a Parliament,
coolly ignoring the Triennial Act, and treating on occasions
the Test Act, as well as other laws obnoxious to him, with
contempt. He died unexpectedly, early in February, 1685, and
his brother, the Duke of York, succeeded to the throne, as
James II., with no resistance, but with much feeling opposed
to him.
_J. R. Green,
Short History of England,
chapter 9, sections 5-6._
{904}
ALSO IN:
_G. Roberts,
Life of Monmouth;
chapters 8-10 (volume 1)._
_D. Hume,
History of England,
chapters 68-69 (volume 6)._
_G. W. Cooke,
History of Party,
volume 1, chapters 6-11._
ENGLAND: A. D. 1685.
Accession of James II.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1685 (February).
The new King proclaims his religion.
"The King [James II.] early put the loyalty of his Protestant
friends to the proof. While he was a subject, he had been in
the habit of hearing mass with closed doors in a small oratory
which had been fitted up for his wife. He now ordered the
doors to be thrown open, in order that all who came to pay
their duty to him might see the ceremony. When the host was
elevated there was a strange confusion in the antechamber. The
Roman Catholics fell on their knees: the Protestants hurried
out of the room. Soon a new pulpit was erected in the palace;
and, during Lent, a series of sermons was preached there by
Popish divines."
_Lord Macaulay,
History of England,
chapter 4 (volume 2)._
ENGLAND: A. D. 1685 (May-July).
Monmouth's Rebellion.
"The Parliament which assembled on the 22nd of May … was
almost entirely Tory. The failure of the Rye-House Plot had
produced a reaction, which for a time entirely annihilated the
Whig influence. … The apparent triumph of the King and the
Tory party was completed by the disastrous failure of the
insurrection planned by their adversaries. A knot of exiled
malcontents, some Scotch, some English, had collected in
Holland. Among them was Monmouth and the Earl of Argyle, son
of that Marquis of Argyle who had taken so prominent a part on
the Presbyterian side in the Scotch troubles of Charles I.'s
reign. Monmouth had kept aloof from politics till, on the
accession of James, he was induced to join the exiles at
Amsterdam, whither Argyle, a strong Presbyterian, but a man of
lofty and moderate views, also repaired. National jealousy
prevented any union between the exiles, and two expeditions
were determined on,—the one under Argyle, who hoped to find
an army ready to his hand among his clansmen in the West of
Scotland, the other under Monmouth in the West of England.
Argyle's expedition set sail on the 2nd of May [1685]. …
Argyle's invasion was ruined by the limited authority
intrusted to him, and by the jealousy and insubordination of
his fellow leaders. … His army disbanded. He was himself
taken in Renfrewshire, and, after an exhibition of admirable
constancy, was beheaded. … A week before the final
dispersion of Argyle's troops, Monmouth had landed in England
[at Lyme, June 11]. He was well received in the West. He had
not been twenty-four hours in England before he found himself
at the head of 1,500 men; but though popular among the common
people, he received no support from the upper classes. Even
the strongest Whigs disbelieved the story of his legitimacy,
and thought his attempt ill-timed and fraught with danger. …
Meanwhile Monmouth had advanced to Taunton, had been there
received with enthusiasm, and, vainly thinking to attract the
nobility, had assumed the title of King. Nor was his reception
at Bridgewater less flattering. But difficulties already began
to gather round him; he was in such want of arms, that,
although rustic implements were converted into pikes, he was
still obliged to send away many volunteers; the militia were
closing in upon him in all directions; Bristol had been seized
by the Duke of Beaufort, and the regular army under Feversham
and Churchill were approaching." After feebly attempting
several movements, against Bristol and into Wiltshire,
Monmouth lost heart and fell back to Bridgewater. "The
Royalist army was close behind him, and on the fifth of July
encamped about three miles from Bridgewater, on the plain of
Sedgemoor." Monmouth was advised to undertake a night
surprise, and did so in the early morning of the 6th. "The
night was not unfitting for such an enterprise, for the mist
was so thick that at a few paces nothing could be seen. Three
great ditches by which the moor was drained lay between the
armies; of the third of these, strangely enough, Monmouth knew
nothing." The unexpected discovery of this third ditch, known
as "the Bussex Rhine," which his cavalry could not cross, and
behind which the enemy rallied, was the ruin of the
enterprise. "Monmouth saw that the day was lost, and with the
love of life which was one of the characteristics of his soft
nature, he turned and fled. Even after his flight the battle
was kept up bravely. At length the arrival of the King's
artillery put an end to any further struggle. The defeat was
followed by all the terrible scenes which mark a suppressed
insurrection. … Monmouth and Grey pursued their flight into
the New Forest, and were there apprehended in the
neighbourhood of Ringwood." Monmouth petitioned abjectly for
his life, but in vain. He was executed on the 15th of July.
"The failure of this insurrection was followed by the most
terrible cruelties. Feversham returned to London, to be
flattered by the King and laughed at by the Court for his
military exploits. He left Colonel Kirke in command at
Bridgewater. This man had learned, as commander at Tangier,
all the worst arts of cruel despotism. His soldiery in bitter
pleasantry were called Kirke's 'Lambs,' from the emblem of
their regiment. It is impossible to say how many suffered at
the hands of this man and his brutal troops; 100 captives are
said by some to have been put to death the week after the
battle. But this military revenge did not satisfy the Court."
_J. F. Bright,
History of England,
period 2, pages 764-768._
The number of Monmouth's men killed is computed by some at
2,000, by others at 300; a disparity, however, which may be
easily reconciled by supposing that the one account takes in
those who were killed in battle, while the other comprehends
the wretched fugitives who were massacred in ditches,
cornfields, and other hiding places, the following day."
_C. J. Fox,
History of the Early Part of the Reign of James II.,
chapter 3._
ALSO IN:
_G. Roberts,
Life of Monmouth,
chapters 13-28 (volumes 1-2)._
ENGLAND: A. D. 1685 (September).
The Bloody Assizes.
"Early in September, Jeffreys [Sir George Jeffreys, Chief
Justice of the Court of King's Bench], accompanied by four
other judges, set out on that circuit of which the memory will
last as long as our race and language. … At Winchester the
Chief Justice first opened his commission. Hampshire had not
been the theatre of war; but many of the vanquished rebels
had, like their leader, fled thither." Two among these had
been found concealed in the house of Lady Alice Lisle, a widow
of eminent nobility of character, and Jeffreys' first proceeding
was to arraign Lady Alice for the technical reason of the
concealment.
{905}
She was tried with extraordinary brutality of manner on the
part of the judge; the jury was bullied into a verdict of
guilty, and the innocent woman was condemned by the fiend on
the bench to be burned alive. By great exertion of many
people, the sentence was commuted from burning to beheading.
No mercy beyond this could be obtained from Jeffreys or his
fit master, the king. "In Hampshire Alice Lisle was the only
victim: but, on the day following her execution, Jeffreys
reached Dorchester, the principal town of the county in which
Monmouth had landed, and the judicial massacre began. The
court was hung, by order of the Chief Justice, with scarlet;
and this innovation seemed to the multitude to indicate a
bloody purpose. … More than 300 prisoners were to be tried.
The work seemed heavy; but Jeffreys had a contrivance for
making it light. He let it be understood that the only chance
of obtaining pardon or respite was to plead guilty.
Twenty-nine persons, who put themselves on their country and
were convicted, were ordered to be tied up without delay. The
remaining prisoners pleaded guilty by scores. Two hundred and
ninety-two received sentence of death. The whole number hanged
in Dorsetshire amounted to seventy-four. From Dorchester
Jeffreys proceeded to Exeter. The civil war had barely grazed
the frontier of Devonshire. Here, therefore, comparatively few
persons were capitally punished. Somersetshire, the chief seat
of the rebellion, had been reserved for the last and most
fearful vengeance. In this county two hundred and thirty-three
prisoners were in a few days hanged, drawn and quartered. At
every spot where two roads met, on every market place, on the
green of every large village which had furnished Monmouth with
soldiers, ironed corpses clattering in the wind, or heads and
quarters stuck on poles, poisoned the air, and made the
traveller sick with horror. … The Chief Justice was all
himself. His spirits rose higher and higher as the work went
on. He laughed, shouted, joked, and swore in such a way that
many thought him drunk from morning to night. … Jeffreys
boasted that he had hanged more traitors than all his
predecessors together since the Conquest. … Yet those rebels
who were doomed to death were less to be pitied than some of
the survivors. Several prisoners to whom Jeffreys was unable
to bring home the charge of high treason were convicted of
misdemeanours and were sentenced to scourging not less
terrible than that which Oates had undergone. … The number
of prisoners whom Jeffreys transported was eight hundred and
forty-one. These men, more wretched than their associates who
suffered death, were distributed into gangs, and bestowed on
persons who enjoyed favour at court. The conditions of the
gift were that the convicts should be carried beyond sea as
slaves, that they should not be emancipated for ten years, and
that the place of their banishment should be some West Indian
island. … It was estimated by Jeffreys that, on an average,
each of them, after all charges were paid, would be worth from
ten to fifteen pounds. There was therefore much angry
competition for grants. … And now Jeffreys had done his
work, and returned to claim his reward. He arrived at Windsor
from the West, leaving carnage, mourning and terror behind
him. The hatred with which he was regarded by the people of
Somersetshire has no parallel in our history. … But at the
court Jeffreys was cordially welcomed. He was a judge after
his master's own heart. James had watched the circuit with
interest and delight. … At a later period, when all men of
all parties spoke with horror of the Bloody Assizes, the
wicked Judge and the wicked King attempted to vindicate
themselves by throwing the blame on each other."
_Lord Macaulay,
History of England,
chapter 5._
ALSO IN:
_Sir James Mackintosh,
History of the Revolution
in England, chapter 1._
_Lord Campbell,
Lives of the Lord Chancellors,
chapter 100 (volume 3)._
_G. Roberts,
Life of Monmouth,
chapter 29-31 (volume 2)._
See, also, TAUNTON: A. D. 1685.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1685-1686.
Faithless and tyrannical measures against
the New England colonies.
See CONNECTICUT: A. D. 1685-1687;
and MASSACHUSETTS: A. D. 1671-1686.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1685-1689.
The Despotism of James II. in Scotland.
See SCOTLAND: A. D. 1681-1689.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1686.
The Court of High Commission revived.
"James conceived the design of employing his authority as head
of the Church of England as a means of subjecting that church
to his pleasure, if not of finally destroying it. It is hard
to conceive how he could reconcile to his religion the
exercise of supremacy in an heretical sect, and thus sanction
by his example the usurpations of the Tudors on the rights of
the Catholic Church. … He, indeed, considered the
ecclesiastical supremacy as placed in his hands by Providence
to enable him to betray the Protestant establishment. 'God,'
said he to Barillon, 'has permitted that all the laws made to
establish Protestantism now serve as a foundation for my
measures to re-establish true religion, and give me a right to
exercise a more extensive power than other Catholic princes
possess in the ecclesiastical affairs of their dominions.' He
found legal advisers ready with paltry expedients for evading
the two statutes of 1641 and 1660 [abolishing, and
re-affirming the abolition of the Court of High Commission],
under the futile pretext that they forbade only a court vested
with such powers of corporal punishment as had been exercised
by the old Court of High Commission; and in conformity to
their pernicious counsel, he issued, in July, a commission to
certain ministers, prelates, and judges, to act as a Court of
Commissioners in Ecclesiastical Causes. The first purpose of
this court was to enforce directions to preachers, issued by
the King, enjoining them to abstain from preaching on
controverted questions."
_Sir James Mackintosh,
History of the Revolution in England,
chapter 2._
ALSO IN:
_D. Neal,
History of the Puritans,
volume 5, chapter 3._
ENGLAND: A. D. 1686.
The consolidation of New England under a royal
Governor-General.
See NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1686.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1687.
Riddance of the Test Act by royal dispensing power.
"The abolition of the tests was a thing resolved upon in the
catholic council, and for this a sanction of some kind or
other was required, as they dared not yet proceed upon the
royal will alone. Chance, or the machinations of the
catholics, created an affair which brought the question of the
tests under another form before the court of king's bench.
{906}
This court had not the power to abolish the Test Act, but it
might consider whether the king had the right of exempting
particular subjects from the formalities. … The king …
closeted himself with the judges one by one, dismissed some,
and got those who replaced them, 'ignorant men,' says an
historian, 'and scandalously incompetent,' to acknowledge his
dispensing power. … The judges of the king's bench, after a
trial, … declared, almost in the very language used by the
crown counsel:
1. That the kings of England are sovereign princes;
2. That the laws of England are the king's laws;
3. That therefore it is an inseparable prerogative in the
kings of England to dispense with penal laws in particular
cases, and upon particular necessary reasons;
4. That of those reasons, and those necessities, the king
himself is sole judge; and finally, which is consequent
upon all,
5. That this is not a trust invested in, or granted to the
king by the people, but the ancient remains of the
sovereign power and prerogative of the kings of England,
which never yet was taken from them, nor can be.
The case thus decided, the king thought he might rely upon the
respect always felt by the English people for the decisions of
the higher courts, to exempt all his catholic subjects from
the obligations of the test. And upon this, it became no
longer a question merely of preserving in their commissions
and offices those whose dismissal had been demanded by
parliament. … To obtain or to retain certain employments, it
was necessary to be of the same religion with the king.
Papists replaced in the army and in the administration all
those who had pronounced at all energetically for the
maintenance of the tests. Abjurations, somewhat out of credit
during the last session of parliament, again resumed favour."
_A. Carrel,
History of the Counter-Revolution in England,
chapter 3._
ALSO IN:
_J. Stoughton,
History of Religion in England,
volume 4, chapter 4._
ENGLAND: A. D. 1687-1688.
Declarations of Indulgence.
Trial of the Seven Bishops.
"Under pretence of toleration for Dissenters, James
endeavoured, under another form, to remove obstacles from
Romanists. He announced an Indulgence. He began in Scotland by
issuing on the 12th of February, 1687, in Edinburgh, a
Proclamation granting relief to scrupulous consciences. Hereby
he professed to relieve the Presbyterians, but the relief of
them amounted to nothing; to the Romanists it was complete.
… On the 18th of March, 1687, he announced to the English
Privy Council his intention to prorogue Parliament, and to
grant upon his own authority entire liberty of conscience to
all his subjects. Accordingly on the 4th of April he published
his Indulgence, declaring his desire to see all his subjects
become members of the Church of Rome, and his resolution
(since that was impracticable) to protect them in the free
exercise of their religion; also promising to protect the
Established Church: then he annulled a number of Acts of
Parliament, suspended all penal laws against Nonconformists,
authorised Roman Catholics and Protestant Dissenters to
perform worship publicly, and abrogated all Acts of Parliament
imposing any religious test for civil or military offices.
This declaration was then notoriously illegal and
unconstitutional. James now issued a second and third
declaration for Scotland, and courted the Dissenters in
England, but with small encouragement. … On the 27th of
April, 1688, James issued a second Declaration of Indulgence
for England. … On the 4th of May, by an order in Council, he
directed his Declaration of the 27th of April to be publicly
read during divine service in all Churches and Chapels, by the
officiating ministers, on two successive Sundays—namely, on
the 20th and 27th of May in London, and on the 3d and 10th of
June in the country; and desired the Bishops to circulate this
Declaration through their dioceses. Hitherto the Bishops and
Clergy had held the doctrine of passive obedience to the
sovereign, however bad in character or in his measures—now
they were placed by the King himself in a dilemma. Here was a
violation of existing law, and an intentional injury to their
Church, if not a plan for the substitution of another. The
Nonconformists, whom James pretended to serve, coincided with
and supported the Church. A decided course must be taken. The
London Clergy met and resolved not to read the Declaration. On
the 12th of May, at Lambeth Palace, the Archbishop of
Canterbury and other Prelates assembled. They resolved that
the Declaration ought not to be read. On Friday, the 18th of
May, a second meeting of the Prelates and eminent divines was
held at Lambeth Palace. A petition to the King was drawn up by
the Archbishop of Canterbury in his own handwriting,
disclaiming all disloyalty and all intolerance, … but
stating that Parliament had decided that the King could not
dispense with Statutes in matters ecclesiastical—that the
Declaration was therefore illegal—and could not be solemnly
published by the petitioners in the House of God and during
divine service. This paper was signed by Sancroft, Archbishop
of Canterbury, Lloyd, Bishop of St. Asaph, Turner of Ely, Lake
of Chichester, Ken of Bath and Wells, White of Peterborough,
and Trelawny of Bristol. It was approved by Compton, Bishop of
London, but not signed, because he was under suspension. The
Archbishop had long been forbidden to appear at Court,
therefore could not present it. On Friday evening the six
Bishops who had signed were introduced by Sunderland to the
King, who read the document and pronounced it libellous [and
seditious and rebellious], and the Bishops retired. On Sunday,
the 20th of May, the first day appointed, the Declaration was
read in London only in four Churches out of one hundred. The
Dissenters and Church Laymen sided with the Clergy. On the
following Sunday the Declaration was treated in the same
manner in London, and on Sunday, the 3d of June, was
disregarded by Bishops and Clergy in all parts of England.
James, by the advice of Jeffreys, ordered the Archbishop and
Bishops to be indicted for a seditious libel. They were, on
the 8th of June, conveyed to the Tower amidst the most
enthusiastic demonstrations of respect and affection from all
classes. The same night the Queen was said to have given birth
to a son; but the national opinion was that some trick had
been played. On the 29th of June the trial of the seven
Bishops came on before the Court of King's Bench. … The
Jury, who, after remaining together all night (one being
stubborn) pronounced a verdict of not guilty on the morning of
the 30th June, 1688."
_W. H. Torriano,
William the Third,
chapter 2._
{907}
"The court met at nine o'clock. The nobility and gentry
covered the benches, and an immense concourse of people filled
the Hall, and blocked up the adjoining streets. Sir Robert
Langley, the foreman of the jury, being, according to
established form, asked whether the accused were guilty or not
guilty, pronounced the verdict 'Not guilty.' No sooner were
these words uttered than a loud huzza arose from the audience
in the court. It was instantly echoed from without by a shout
of joy, which sounded like a crack of the ancient and massy
roof of Westminster Hall. It passed with electrical rapidity
from voice to voice along the infinite multitude who waited in
the streets. It reached the Temple in a few minutes. … 'The
acclamations,' says Sir John Reresby, 'were a very rebellion
in noise.' In no long time they ran to the camp at Hounslow,
and were repeated with an ominous voice by the soldiers in the
hearing of the King, who, on being told that they were for the
acquittal of the bishops, said, with an ambiguity probably
arising from confusion, 'So much the worse for them.'"
_Sir J. Mackintosh,
History of the Revolution in England in 1688,
chapter 9._
ALSO IN:
_A. Strickland,
Lives of the Seven Bishops._
_R. Southey,
Book of the Church,
chapter 18._
_G. G. Perry,
History of the Church of England,
chapter 30 (volume 2)._
ENGLAND: A. D. 1688 (July).
William and Mary of Orange the hope of the nation.
"The wiser among English statesmen had fixed their hopes
steadily on the succession of Mary, the elder daughter and
heiress of James. The tyranny of her father's reign made this
succession the hope of the people at large. But to Europe the
importance of the change, whenever it should come about, lay
not so much in the succession of Mary as in the new power
which such an event would give to her husband, William, Prince
of Orange. We have come, in fact, to a moment when the
struggle of England against the aggression of its King blends
with the larger struggle of Europe against the aggression of
Lewis XIV."
_J. R. Green,
Short History of England,
chapter 9, section 7._
"William of Nassau, Prince of Orange, Stadtholder of the
republic of the United Provinces, was, before the birth of the
Prince of Wales, first prince of the blood royal of England
[as son of Princess Mary, daughter of Charles I., and,
therefore, nephew as well as son-in-law of James II.]; and his
consort, the Lady Mary, the eldest daughter of the King, was,
at that period, presumptive heiress to the crown."
_Sir J. Mackintosh,
History of the Revolution in England,
chapter 10._
ENGLAND: A. D. 1688 (JULY-NOVEMBER).
Invitation to William of Orange and his acceptance of it.
"In July, in almost exact coincidence of time with the Queen's
accouchement [generally doubted and suspected], came the
memorable trial of the Seven Bishops, which gave the first
demonstration of the full force of that popular animosity
which James's rule had provoked. Some months before, however,
Edward Russell, nephew of the Earl of Bedford, and cousin of
Algernon Sidney's fellow-victim, had sought the Hague with
proposals to William [prince of Orange] to make an armed
descent upon England, as vindicator of English liberties and
the Protestant religion. William had cautiously required a
signed invitation from at least a few representative statesmen
before committing himself to such an enterprise, and on the
day of the acquittal of the Seven Bishops a paper, signed in
cipher by Lords Shrewsbury, Devonshire, Danby, and Lumley, by
Compton, Bishop of Northampton, by Edward Russell, and by
Henry Sidney, brother of Algernon, was conveyed by Admiral
Herbert to the Hague. William was now furnished with the
required security for English assistance in the projected
undertaking, but the task before him was still one of extreme
difficulty. … On the 10th of October, matters now being ripe
for such a step, William, in conjunction with some of his
English advisers, put forth his famous declaration. Starting
with a preamble to the effect that the observance of laws is
necessary to the happiness of states, the instrument proceeds
to enumerate fifteen particulars in which the laws of England
had been set at naught. The most important of these were—
(1) the exercise of the dispensing power;
(2) the corruption, coercion, and packing of the judicial
bench;
(3) the violation of the test laws by the appointment of
papists to offices (particularly judicial and military
offices, and the administration of Ireland), and generally
the arbitrary and illegal measures resorted to by James for
the propagation of the Catholic religion;
(4) the establishment and action of the Court of High
Commission;
(5) the infringement of some municipal charters, and the
procuring of the surrender of others;
(6) interference with elections by turning out of all
employment such as refused to vote as they were required;
and
(7) the grave suspicion which had arisen that the Prince of
Wales was not born of the Queen, which as yet nothing had
been done to remove.
Having set forth these grievances, the Prince's manifesto went
on to recite the close interest which he and his consort had
in this matter as next in succession to the crown, and the
earnest solicitations which had been made to him by many lords
spiritual and temporal, and other English subjects of all
ranks, to interpose, and concluded by affirming in a very
distinct and solemn manner that the sole object of the
expedition then preparing was to obtain the assembling of a
free and lawful Parliament, to which the Prince pledged
himself to refer all questions concerning the due execution of
the laws, and the maintenance of the Protestant religion, and
the conclusion of an agreement between the Church of England
and the Dissenters, as also the inquiry into the birth of the
'pretended Prince of Wales'; and that this object being
attained, the Prince would, as soon as the state of the nation
should permit of it, send home his foreign forces. About a
week after, on the 16th of October, all things being now in
readiness, the Prince took solemn leave of the States-General.
… On the 19th William and his armament set sail from
Helvoetsluys, but was met on the following day by a violent
storm which forced him to put back on the 21st. On the 1st of
November the fleet put to sea a second time. … By noon of
the 5th of November, the Prince's fleet was wafted safely into
Torbay."
_H. D. Traill,
William the Third,
chapter 3._
ALSO IN:
_G. Burnet,
History of My Own Time, 1688
(volume 3)._
_L. von Ranke,
History of England, 17th Century,
book 18, chapters 1-4 (volume 4)._
_Lord Campbell,
Lives of the Lord Chancellors,
chapters 106-107: Somers (volume 4)._
_T. P. Courtenay,
Life of Danby (Lardner's Cab. Cyclop.),
pages 315-324._
{908}
ENGLAND: A. D. 1688 (NOVEMBER-DECEMBER).
The Revolution.
Ignominious flight of James.
"The declaration published by the prince [on landing]
consisted of sixteen articles. It enumerated those proceedings
of the government since the accession of the king, which were
regarded as in the greatest degree opposed to the liberty of
the subject and to the safety of the Protestant religion. …
To provide some effectual remedy against these and similar
evils, was the only design of the enterprise in which the
prince, in compliance with earnest solicitations from many
lords, both spiritual and temporal, from numbers among the
gentry and all ranks of people, had now embarked. …
Addresses were also published to the army and navy. … The
immediate effect of these appeals did not correspond with the
expectations of William and his followers. On the 8th of
November the people of Exeter received the prince with quiet
submission. The memory of Monmouth's expedition was still
fresh and terrible through the west. On the 12th, lord
Cornbury, son of the earl of Clarendon, went over, with some
officers, and about a hundred of his regiment, to the prince;
and most of the officers, with a larger body of the privates
belonging to the regiment commanded by the duke of St.
Alban's, followed their example. Of three regiments, however,
quartered near Salisbury, the majority could not be induced to
desert the service of the king. … Every day now brought with
it new accessions to the standard of the prince, and tidings
of movements in different parts of the kingdom in his favour;
while James was as constantly reminded, by one desertion after
another, that he lived in an atmosphere of treachery, with
scarcely a man or woman about him to be trusted. The defection
of the lords Churchill and Drumlaneric, and of the dukes of
Grafton and Ormond, was followed by that of prince George and
the princess Anne. Prince George joined the invader at
Sherburne; the princess made her escape from Whitehall at
night, under the guardianship of the bishop of London, and
found an asylum among the adherents of the prince of Orange
who were in arms in Northamptonshire. By this time Bristol and
Plymouth, Hull, York, and Newcastle, were among the places of
strength which had been seized by the partisans of the prince.
His standard had also been unfurled with success in the
counties of Derby, Nottingham, York, and Cheshire. … Even in
Oxford, several of the heads of colleges concurred in sending
Dr. Finch, warden of All Souls' College, to invite the prince
from Dorsetshire to their city, assuring him of their
willingness to receive him, and to melt down their plate for
his service, if it should be needed. So desperate had the
affairs of James now become, that some of his advisers urged
his leaving the kingdom, and negotiating with safety to his
person from a distance; but from that course he was dissuaded
by Halifax and Godolphin. In compliance with the advice of an
assembly of peers, James issued a proclamation on the 13th of
November, stating that writs had been signed to convene a
parliament on the 15th of January; that a pardon of all
offences should previously pass the great seal; and that
commissioners should proceed immediately to the head-quarters
of the prince of Orange, to negotiate on the present state of
affairs. The commissioners chosen by the king were Halifax,
Nottingham, and Godolphin; but William evaded for some days
the conference which they solicited. In the meantime a forged
proclamation in the name of the prince was made public in
London, denouncing the Catholics of the metropolis as plotting
the destruction of life and property on the largest possible
scale. … No one doubted the authenticity of this document,
and the ferment and disorder which it spread through the city
filled the king with the greatest apprehension for the safety
of himself and family. On the morning of the 9th of December,
the queen and the infant prince of Wales were lodged on board
a yacht at Gravesend, and commenced a safe voyage to Calais.
James pledged himself to follow within 24 hours. In the course
of that day the royal commissioners sent a report of their
proceedings to Whitehall. The demands of the prince were, that
a parliament should be assembled; that all persons holding
public trusts in violation of the Test-laws should relinquish
them; that the city should have command of the Tower; that the
fleet, and the places of strength through the kingdom should
be placed in the hands of Protestants; that the expense of the
Dutch armament should be defrayed, in part, from the English
Treasury; and that the king and the prince, and their
respective forces, should remain at an equal distance from
London during the sitting of parliament. James read these
articles with some surprise, observing that they were much
more moderate than he had expected. But his pledge had been
given to the queen; the city was still in great agitation; and
private letters, intimating that his person was not beyond the
reach of danger, suggested that his interests might possibly
be better served by his absence than by his presence. Hence
his purpose to leave the kingdom remained unaltered. At three
o'clock on the following morning the king left Whitehall with
sir Edward Hales, disguising himself as an attendant. The
vessel provided to convey him to France was a miserable
fishing-boat. It descended the river without interruption
until it came near to Feversham, where some fishermen,
suspecting Hales and the king to be Catholics, probably
priests endeavouring to make their escape in disguise, took
them from the vessel. … The arrest of the monarch at
Feversham on Wednesday was followed by an order of the privy
council, commanding that his carriage and the royal guards
should be sent to reconduct him to the capital. … After some
consultation the king was informed that the public interests
required his immediate withdrawment to some distance from
Westminster, and Hampton Court was named. James expressed a
preference for Rochester, and his wishes in that respect were
complied with. The day on which the king withdrew to Rochester
William took up his residence in St. James's. The king chose
his retreat, deeming it probable that it might be expedient
for him to make a second effort to reach the continent. …
His guards left him so much at liberty, that no impediment to
his departure was likely to arise; and on the last day of this
memorable year—only a week after his removal from Whitehall,
James embarked secretly at Rochester, and with a favourable
breeze safely reached the French coast."
_R. Vaughan,
History of England under the House of Stuart,
volume 2, pages 914-918._
ALSO IN:
_Lord Macaulay,
History of England,
chapters 9-10 (volume 2)._
_H. D. Traill,
William the Third,
chapter 4._
_Continuation of Sir J. Mackintosh's
History of the Revolution in 1688,
chapters 16-17._
_Sir J. Dalrymple,
Memoirs of Great Britain and Ireland,
part 1, books 6-7 (volume 2)._
{909}
ENGLAND: A. D. 1689 (JANUARY-FEBRUARY).
The settlement of the Crown on William and Mary.
The Declaration of Rights.
"The convention met on the 22nd of January. Their first care
was to address the prince to take the administration of
affairs and disposal of the revenue into his hands, in order
to give a kind of parliamentary sanction to the power he
already exercised. On the 28th of January the commons, after a
debate in which the friends of the late king made but a faint
opposition, came to their great vote: That king James II.,
having endeavoured to subvert the constitution of this
kingdom, by breaking the original contract between king and
people, and by the advice of Jesuits and other wicked persons
having violated the fundamental laws, and having withdrawn
himself out of the kingdom, has abdicated the government, and
that the throne is thereby vacant. They resolved unanimously
the next day, That it hath been found by experience
inconsistent with the safety and welfare of this protestant
kingdom to be governed by a popish prince. This vote was a
remarkable triumph of the Whig party, who had contended for
the exclusion bill. … The lords agreed with equal unanimity
to this vote; which, though it was expressed only as an
abstract proposition, led by a practical inference to the
whole change that the whigs had in view. But upon the former
resolution several important divisions took place." The lords
were unwilling to commit themselves to the two propositions,
that James had "abdicated" the government by his desertion of
it, and that the throne had thereby become "vacant." They
yielded at length, however, and adopted the resolution as the
commons had passed it. They "followed this up by a resolution,
that the prince and princess of Orange shall be declared king
and queen of England, and all the dominions thereunto
belonging. But the commons, with a noble patriotism, delayed
to concur in this hasty settlement of the crown, till they
should have completed the declaration of those fundamental
rights and liberties for the sake of which alone they had gone
forward with this great revolution. That declaration, being at
once an exposition of the mis-government which had compelled
them to dethrone the late king, and of the conditions upon
which they elected his successors, was incorporated in the
final resolution to which both houses came on the 13th of
February, extending the limitation of the crown as far as the
state of affairs required: That William and Mary, prince and
princess of Orange, be, and be declared, king and queen of
England, France and Ireland, and the dominions thereunto
belonging, to hold the crown and dignity of the said kingdoms
and dominions to them, the said prince and princess, during
their lives, and the life of the survivor of them; and that
the sole and full exercise of the regal power be only in, and
executed by, the said prince of Orange, in the names of the
said prince and princess, during their joint lives; and after
their decease the said crown and royal dignity of the said
kingdoms and dominions to be to the heirs of the body of the
said princess; for default of such issue, to the princess Anne
of Denmark [younger daughter of James II.], and the heirs of
her body; and for default of such issue, to the heirs of the
body of the said prince of Orange. … The Declaration of
Rights presented to the prince of Orange by the marquis of
Halifax, as speaker of the lords, in the presence of both
houses, on the 18th of February, consists of three parts: a
recital of the illegal and arbitrary acts committed by the
late king, and of their consequent vote of abdication; a
declaration, nearly following the words of the former part,
that such enumerated acts are illegal; and a resolution, that
the throne shall be filled by the prince and princess of
Orange, according to the limitations mentioned. … This
declaration was, some months afterwards [in October],
confirmed by a regular act of the legislature in the bill of
rights."
See ENGLAND: 1689 (OCTOBER).
_H. Hallam,
Constitutional History of England,
chapters 14-15 (volume 3)._
ALSO IN:
_Lord Macaulay,
History of England,
chapter 10 (volume 2)._
_L. von Ranke,
History of England, 17th Century,
book 19, chapters 2-3 (volume 4)._
_R. Gneist,
History of English Constitution,
chapter 42 (volume 2)._
ENGLAND: A. D. 1689 (APRIL-AUGUST).
The Church and the Revolution.
The Toleration Act.
The Non-Jurors.
"The men who had been most helpful in bringing about the late
changes were not all of the same way of thinking in religion;
many of them belonged to the Church of England; many were
Dissenters. It seemed, therefore, a fitting time to grant the
Dissenters some relief from the harsh laws passed against them
in Charles II.'s reign. Protestant Dissenters, save those who
denied the Trinity, were no longer forbidden to have places of
worship and services of their own, if they would only swear to
be loyal to the king, and that his power was as lawful in
Church as in State matters. The law that gave them this is
called the Toleration Act. Men's notions were still, however,
very narrow; care was taken that the Roman Catholics should
get no benefit from this law. Even a Protestant Dissenter
might not yet lawfully be a member of either House of
Parliament, or take a post in the king's service; for the Test
Acts were left untouched. King William, who was a Presbyterian
in his own land, wanted very much to see the Dissenters won
back to the Church of England. To bring this about, he wished
the Church to alter those things in the Prayer Book which kept
Dissenters from joining with her. But most of the clergy would
not have any change; and because these were the stronger party in
Convocation—as the Parliament of the Church is
called—William could get nothing done. At the same time a
rent, which at first seemed likely to be serious, was made in
the Church itself. There was a strong feeling among the clergy
in favour of the banished king. So a law was made by which
every man who held a preferment in the Church, or either of
the Universities, had to swear to be true to King William and
Queen Mary, or had to give up his preferment. Most of the
clergy were very unwilling to obey this law; but only 400 were
found stout-hearted enough to give up their livings rather
than do what they thought to be a wicked thing. These were
called 'non-jurors,' or men who would not swear. Among them
were five out of the seven Bishops who had withstood James II.
only a year before. The sect of non-jurors, who looked upon
themselves as the only true Churchmen, did not spread. But it
did not die out altogether until seventy years ago [i. e.,
early in the 19th century]. It was at this time that the names
High-Church and Low-Church first came into use."
_J. Rowley,
The Settlement of the Constitution,
chapter 1._
ALSO IN:
_J. Stoughton,
History of Religion in England,
volume 5, chapters 4-11._
_T. Lathbury,
History of the Non-jurors._
{910}
ENGLAND: A. D. 1689 (MAY).
War declared against France.
The Grand Alliance.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1689-1690.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1689 (OCTOBER).
The Bill of Rights.
The following is the text of the Bill of Rights, passed by
Parliament at its sitting in October, 1689:
Whereas the Lords Spiritual and Temporal, and Commons,
assembled at Westminster, lawfully, fully, and freely
representing all the estates of the people of this realm, did
upon the Thirteenth day of February, in the year of our Lord
One Thousand Six Hundred Eighty-eight [o. s.], present unto
their Majesties, then called and known by the names and style
of William and Mary, Prince and Princess of Orange, being
present in their proper persons, a certain Declaration in
writing, made by the said Lords and Commons, in the words
following, viz.:
"Whereas the late King James II., by the assistance of divers
evil counsellors, judges, and ministers employed by him, did
endeavour to subvert and extirpate the Protestant religion,
and the laws and liberties of this kingdom:
1. By assuming and exercising a power of dispensing with
and suspending of laws, and the execution of laws, without
consent of Parliament.
2. By committing and prosecuting divers worthy prelates for
humbly petitioning to be excused from concurring to the
said assumed power.
3. By issuing and causing to be executed a commission under
the Great Seal for erecting a court, called the Court of
Commissioners for Ecclesiastical Causes.
4. By levying money for and to the use of the Crown by
pretence of prerogative, for other time and in other manner
than the same was granted by Parliament.
5. By raising and keeping a standing army within this
kingdom in time of peace, without consent of Parliament,
and quartering soldiers contrary to law.
6. By causing several good subjects, being Protestants, to
be disarmed, at the same time when Papists were both armed
and employed contrary to law.
7. By violating the freedom of election of members to serve
in Parliament.
8. By prosecutions in the Court of King's Bench for matters
and causes cognisable only in Parliament, and by divers
other arbitrary and illegal causes.
9. And whereas of late years, partial, corrupt, and
unqualified persons have been returned, and served on
juries in trials, and particularly divers jurors in trials
for high treason, which were not freeholders.
10. And excessive bail hath been required of persons
committed in criminal cases, to elude the benefit of the
laws made for the liberty of the subjects.
11. And excessive fines have been imposed; and illegal and
cruel punishments inflicted.
12. And several grants and promises made of fines and
forfeitures before any conviction or judgment against the
persons upon whom the same were to be levied.
All which are utterly and directly contrary to the known laws
and statutes, and freedom of this realm. And whereas the said
late King James II. having abdicated the government, and the
throne being thereby vacant, his Highness the Prince of Orange
(whom it hath pleased Almighty God to make the glorious
instrument of delivering this kingdom from Popery and
arbitrary power) did (by the advice of the Lords Spiritual and
Temporal, and divers principal persons of the Commons) cause
letters to be written to the Lords Spiritual and Temporal,
being Protestants, and other letters to the several counties,
cities, universities, boroughs, and Cinque ports, for the
choosing of such persons to represent them as were of right to
be sent to Parliament, to meet and sit at Westminster upon the
two-and-twentieth day of January, in this year One Thousand
Six Hundred Eighty and Eight, in order to such an
establishment, as that their religion, laws, and liberties
might not again be in danger of being subverted; upon which
letters elections have been accordingly made. And thereupon
the said Lords Spiritual and Temporal, and Commons, pursuant
to their respective letters and elections, being now assembled
in a full and free representation of this nation, taking into
their most serious consideration the best means for attaining
the ends aforesaid, do in the first place (as their ancestors
in like case have usually done) for the vindicating and
asserting their ancient rights and liberties, declare:
1. That the pretended power of suspending of laws, or the
execution of laws, by regal authority, without consent of
Parliament, is illegal.
2. That the pretended power of dispensing with laws, or the
execution of laws by regal authority, as it hath been
assumed and exercised of late, is illegal.
3. That the commission for erecting the late Court of
Commissioners for Ecclesiastical Causes, and all other
commissions and courts of like nature, are illegal and
pernicious.
4. That levying money for or to the use of the Crown by
pretence and prerogative, without grant of Parliament, for
longer time or in other manner than the same is or shall be
granted, is illegal.
5. That it is the right of the subjects to petition the
King, and all commitments and prosecutions for such
petitioning are illegal.
6. That the raising or keeping a standing army within the
kingdom in time of peace, unless it be with consent of
Parliament, is against law.
7. That the subjects which are Protestants may have arms
for their defence suitable to their conditions, and as
allowed by law.
8. That election of members of Parliament ought to be free.
9. That the freedom of speech, and debates or proceedings
in Parliament, ought not to be impeached or questioned in
any court or place out of Parliament.
10. That excessive bail ought not to be required, nor
excessive fines imposed; nor cruel and unusual punishments
inflicted.
11. That jurors ought to be duly impanelled and returned,
and jurors which pass upon men in trials for high treason
ought to be freeholders.
12. That all grants and promises of fines and forfeitures
of particular persons before conviction are illegal and
void.
13. And that for redress of all grievances, and for the
amending, strengthening, and preserving of the laws,
Parliament ought to be held frequently.
{911}
And they do claim, demand, and insist upon all and singular
the premises, as their undoubted rights and liberties; and
that no declarations, judgments, doings or proceedings, to the
prejudice of the people in any of the said premises, ought in any
wise to be drawn hereafter into consequence or example. To
which demand of their rights they are particularly encouraged
by the declaration of his Highness the Prince of Orange, as
being the only means for obtaining a full redress and remedy
therein. Having therefore an entire confidence that his said
Highness the Prince of Orange will perfect the deliverance so
far advanced by him, and will still preserve them from the
violation of their rights, which they have here asserted, and
from all other attempts upon their religion, rights, and
liberties:
II. The said Lords Spiritual and Temporal, and
Commons, assembled at Westminster, do resolve, that William
and Mary, Prince and Princess of Orange, be, and be declared,
King and Queen of England, France, and Ireland, and the
dominions thereunto belonging, to hold the crown and royal
dignity of the said kingdoms and dominions to them the said
Prince and Princess during their lives, and the life of the
survivor of them; and that the sole and full exercise of the
regal power be only in, and executed by, the said Prince of
Orange, in the names of the said Prince and Princess, during
their joint lives; and after their deceases, the said crown
and royal dignity of the said kingdoms and dominions to be to
the heirs of the body of the said Princess; and for default of
such issue to the Princess Anne of Denmark, and the heirs of
her body; and for default of such issue to the heirs of the
body of the said Prince of Orange. And the Lords Spiritual and
Temporal, and Commons, do pray the said Prince and Princess to
accept the same accordingly.
III. And that the oaths hereafter mentioned be taken by all
persons of whom the oaths of allegiance and supremacy might be
required by law instead of them; and that the said oaths of
allegiance and supremacy be abrogated. 'I, A. B., do sincerely
promise and swear, That I will be faithful and bear true
allegiance to their Majesties King William and Queen Mary: So
help me God.' 'I, A. B., do swear, That I do from my heart
abhor, detest, and abjure as impious and heretical that
damnable doctrine and position, that princes excommunicated or
deprived by the Pope, or any authority of the See of Rome, may
be deposed or murdered by their subjects, or any other
whatsoever. And I do declare, that no foreign prince, person,
prelate, state, or potentate hath, or ought to have, any
jurisdiction, power, superiority, preeminence, or authority,
ecclesiastical or spiritual, within this realm: So help me
God.'"
IV. Upon which their said Majesties did accept the crown and
royal dignity of the kingdoms of England, France, and Ireland,
and the dominions thereunto belonging, according to the
resolution and desire of the said Lords and Commons contained
in the said declaration.
V. And thereupon their Majesties were pleased, that the said
Lords Spiritual and Temporal, and Commons, being the two
Houses of Parliament, should continue to sit, and with their
Majesties' royal concurrence make effectual provision for the
settlement of the religion, laws and liberties of this
kingdom, so that the same for the future might not be in
danger again of being subverted; to which the said Lords
Spiritual and Temporal, and Commons, did agree and proceed to
act accordingly.
VI. Now in pursuance of the premises, the said Lords Spiritual
and Temporal, and Commons, in Parliament assembled, for the
ratifying, confirming, and establishing the said declaration,
and the articles, clauses, matters, and things therein
contained, by the force of a law made in due form by authority
of Parliament, do pray that it may be declared and enacted,
That all and singular the rights and liberties asserted and
claimed in the said declaration are the true, ancient, and
indubitable rights and liberties of the people of this
kingdom, and so shall be esteemed, allowed, adjudged, deemed,
and taken to be, and that all and every the particulars
aforesaid shall be firmly and strictly holden and observed, as
they are expressed in the said declaration; and all officers
and ministers whatsoever shall serve their Majesties and their
successors according to the same in all times to come.
VII. And the said Lords Spiritual and Temporal, and Commons,
seriously considering how it hath pleased Almighty God, in his
marvellous providence, and merciful goodness to this nation,
to provide and preserve their said Majesties' royal persons
most happily to reign over us upon the throne of their
ancestors, for which they render unto Him from the bottom of
their hearts their humblest thanks and praises, do truly,
firmly, assuredly, and in the sincerity of their hearts,
think, and do hereby recognise, acknowledge, and declare, that
King James II. having abdicated the Government, and their
Majesties having accepted the Crown and royal dignity as
aforesaid, their said Majesties did become, were, are, and of
right ought to be, by the laws of this realm, our sovereign
liege Lord and Lady, King and Queen of England, France, and
Ireland, and the dominions thereunto belonging, in and to
whose princely persons the royal state, crown, and dignity of
the said realms, with all honours, styles, titles, regalities,
prerogatives, powers, jurisdictions, and authorities to the same
belonging and appertaining, are most fully, rightfully, and
entirely invested and incorporated, united, and annexed.
VIII. And for preventing all questions and divisions in this
realm, by reason of any pretended titles to the Crown, and for
preserving a certainty in the succession thereof, in and upon
which the unity, peace, tranquillity, and safety of this
nation doth, under God, wholly consist and depend, the said
Lords Spiritual and Temporal, and Commons, do beseech their
Majesties that it may be enacted, established, and declared,
that the Crown and regal government of the said kingdoms and
dominions, with all and singular the premises thereunto
belonging and appertaining, shall be and continue to their
said Majesties, and the survivor of them, during their lives,
and the life of the survivor of them. And that the entire,
perfect, and full exercise of the regal power and government
be only in, and executed by, his Majesty, in the names of both
their Majesties, during their joint lives; and after their
deceases the said Crown and premises shall be and remain to
the heirs of the body of her Majesty: and for default of such
issue, to her Royal Highness the Princess Anne of Denmark, and
the heirs of her body; and for default of such issue, to the
heirs of the body of his said Majesty: And thereunto the said
Lords Spiritual and Temporal, and Commons, do, in the name of
all the people aforesaid, most humbly and faithfully submit
themselves, their heirs and posterities, for ever: and do
faithfully promise, that they will stand to, maintain, and
defend their said Majesties, and also the limitation and
succession of the Crown herein specified and contained, to the
utmost of their powers, with their lives and estates, against
all persons whatsoever that shall attempt anything to the
contrary.
{912}
IX. And whereas it hath been found by experience, that it is
inconsistent with the safety and welfare of this Protestant
kingdom to be governed by a Popish prince, or by any king or
queen marrying a Papist, the said Lords Spiritual and
Temporal, and Commons, do further pray that it may be enacted,
That all and every person and persons that is, are, or shall be
reconciled to, or shall hold communion with, the See or Church
of Rome, or shall profess the Popish religion, or shall marry
a Papist, shall be excluded, and be for ever incapable to
inherit, possess, or enjoy the Crown and Government of this
realm, and Ireland, and the dominions thereunto belonging, or
any part of the same, or to have, use, or exercise, any regal
power, authority, or jurisdiction within the same; and in all
and every such case or cases the people of these realms shall
be and are hereby absolved of their allegiance, and the said
Crown and government shall from time to time descend to, and
be enjoyed by, such person or persons, being Protestants, as
should have inherited and enjoyed the same, in case the said
person or persons so reconciled, holding communion, or
professing, or marrying, as aforesaid, were naturally dead.
X. And that every King and Queen of this realm, who at any
time hereafter shall come to and succeed in the Imperial Crown
of this kingdom, shall, on the first day of the meeting of the
first Parliament, next after his or her coming to the Crown,
sitting in his or her throne in the House of Peers, in the
presence of the Lords and Commons therein assembled, or at his
or her coronation, before such person or persons who shall
administer the coronation oath to him or her, at the time of
his or her taking the said oath (which shall first happen),
make, subscribe, and audibly repeat the declaration mentioned
in the statute made in the thirteenth year of the reign of
King Charles II., intituled "An Act for the more effectual
preserving the King's person and Government, by disabling
Papists from sitting in either House of Parliament." But if it
shall happen that such King or Queen, upon his or her
succession to the Crown of this realm, shall be under the age
of twelve years, then every such King or Queen shall make,
subscribe, and audibly repeat the said declaration at his or
her coronation, or the first day of meeting of the first
Parliament as aforesaid, which shall first happen after such
King or Queen shall have attained the said age of twelve
years.
XI. All which their Majesties are contented and pleased shall
be declared, enacted, and established by authority of this
present Parliament, and shall stand, remain, and be the law of
this realm for ever; and the same are by their said Majesties,
by and with the advice and consent of the Lords Spiritual and
Temporal, and Commons, in Parliament assembled, and by the
authority of the same, declared, enacted, or established
accordingly.
XII. And be it further declared and enacted by the authority
aforesaid, That from and after this present session of
Parliament, no dispensation by "non obstante" of or to any
statute, or any part thereof, shall be allowed, but that the
same shall be held void and of no effect, except a
dispensation be allowed of in such statute, and except in such
cases as shall be specially provided for by one or more bill
or bills to be passed during this present session of
Parliament.
XIII. Provided that no charter, or grant, or pardon granted
before the three-and-twentieth day of October, in the year of
our Lord One thousand six hundred eighty-nine, shall be any
ways impeached or invalidated by this Act, but that the same
shall be and remain of the same force and effect in law, and
no other, than as if this Act had never been made.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1689-1696.
The war of the League of Augsburg, or the Grand Alliance
against Louis XIV. (called in American history "King William's
War ").
See FRANCE: A. D. 1689-1690; 1689-1691; 1692;
1693 (JULY); 1694; 1695-1696.
Also, CANADA: A. D. 1689-1690; 1692-1697;
and NEWFOUNDLAND: A. D. 1694-1697.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1690 (JUNE).
The Battle of Beachy Head.
The great peril of the kingdom.
"In June, 1690, whilst William was in Ireland, the French sent
a fleet, under Tourville, to threaten England. He left Brest
and entered the British Channel. Herbert (then Earl of
Torrington) commanded the English fleet lying in the Downs,
and sailed to Saint Helens, where he was joined by the Dutch
fleet under Evertsen. On the 26th of June the English and
French fleets were close to each other, and an important
engagement was expected, when unexpectedly Torrington
abandoned the Isle of Wight and retreated towards the Straits
of Dover. … The Queen and her Council, receiving this
intelligence, sent to Torrington peremptory orders to fight.
Torrington received these orders on the 29th June. Next day he
bore down on the French fleet in order of battle. He had less
than 60 ships of the line, whilst the French had 80. He placed
the Dutch in the van, and during the whole fight rendered them
little or no assistance. He gave the signal to engage, which
was immediately obeyed by Evertsen, who fought with the most
splendid courage, but at length, being unsupported, his second
in command and many other officers of high rank having fallen,
and his ships being fearfully shattered, Evertsen was obliged
to draw off his contingent from the unequal battle. Torrington
destroyed some of these injured ships, took the remainder in
tow, and sailed along the coast of Kent for the Thames. When
in that river he pulled up all the buoys to prevent pursuit.
… Upon his return to London he was sent to the Tower, and in
December was tried at Sheerness by court-martial, and on the
third day was acquitted; but William refused to see him, and
ordered him to be dismissed from the navy."
_W. H. Torriano,
William the Third,
chapter 24._
"There has scarcely ever been so sad a day in London as that
on which the news of the Battle of Beachy Head arrived. The
shame was insupportable; the peril was imminent. … At any
moment London might be appalled by news that 20,000 French
veterans were in Kent. It was notorious that, in every part of
the kingdom, the Jacobites had been, during some months,
making preparations for a rising. All the regular troops who
could be assembled for the defence of the island did not
amount to more than 10,000 men. It may be doubted whether our
country has ever passed through a more alarming crisis than
that of the first week of July 1690."
_Lord Macaulay,
History of England,
chapter 15 (volume 3)._
ALSO IN:
_J. Campbell,
Naval History of Great Britain,
chapter 18 (volume 2)._
ENGLAND: A. D. 1690-1691.
Defeat of James and the Jacobites in Ireland.
See IRELAND: A. D. 1689-1691.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1692.
The new charter to Massachusetts as a royal province.
See MASSACHUSETTS: A. D. 1689-1692.
{912}
ENGLAND: A. D. 1692.
Attempted invasion from France.
Battle of La Hogue.
"The diversion in Ireland having failed, Louis wished to make
an effort to attack England without and within. James II., who
had turned to so little advantage the first aid granted by the
King of France saw therefore in preparation a much more
powerful assistance, and obtained what had been refused him
after the days of the Boyne and Beachy-Head,—an army to
invade England. News received from that country explained this
change in the conduct of Louis. The opinion of James at
Versailles was no better than in the past; but England was
believed to be on the eve of counter-revolution, which it
would be sufficient to aid with a vigorous and sudden blow.
… Many eminent personages, among the Whigs as well as among
the Tories, among others the Duke of Marlborough (Churchill),
had opened a secret correspondence with the royal exile at
Saint-Germain. James had secret adherents in the English fleet
which he had so long commanded before reigning, and believed
himself able to count on Rear-Admiral Carter, and even on
Admiral Russell. Louis gave himself up to excessive confidence
in the result of these plots, and arranged his plan of naval
operations accordingly. An army of 30,000 men, with 500
transports, was assembled on the coast of Normandy, the
greater part at La Hogue and Cherbourg, the rest at Havre:
this was composed of all the Irish troops, a number of
Anglo-Scotch refugees, and a corps of French troops. Marshal
de Bellefonds commanded under King James. Tourville was to set
ut from Brest in the middle of April with fifty ships of the
line, enter the Channel, attack the English fleet before it
could be reinforced by the Dutch, and thus secure the
invasion. Express orders were sent to him to engage the enemy
'whatever might be his numbers.' It was believed that half of
the English fleet would go over to the side of the allies of
its king. The landing effected, Tourville was to return to
Brest, to rally there the squadron of Toulon, sixteen vessels
strong, and the rest of our large ships, then to hold the
Channel during the whole campaign. They had reckoned without
the elements, which, hitherto hostile to the enemies of
France, this time turned against her." The French fleets were
detained by contrary winds and by incomplete preparations.
Tourville was not reinforced, as he expected to be, by the
squadrons of Toulon and Rochefort. Before he found it possible
to sail from Brest, the Jacobite plot had been discovered in
England, the government was on its guard, and the Dutch and
English fleets had made their junction. Still, the French
admiral was under orders which left him no discretion, and he
went out to seek the enemy. "May 29, at daybreak, between the
Capes of La Hogue and Barfleur, Tourville found himself in
presence of the allied fleet, the most powerful that had ever
appeared on the sea. He had been joined by seven ships from
the squadron of Rochefort, and numbered 44 vessels against 99,
78 of which carried over 50 guns, and, for the most part, were
much larger than a majority of the French. The English had 63
ships and [4,540] guns; the Dutch, 36 ships and 2,614 guns; in
all, 7,154 guns; the French counted only 3,114. The allied
fleet numbered nearly 42,000 men; the French fleet less than
20,000." Notwithstanding this great inferiority of numbers and
strength, it was the French fleet which made the attack,
bearing down under full sail "on the immense mass of the
enemy." The attempt was almost hopeless; and yet, when night
fell, after a day of tremendous battle, Tourville had not yet
lost a ship; but his line of battle had been broken, and no
chance of success remained. "May 30, at break of day,
Tourville rallied around him 35 vessels. The other nine had
strayed, five towards La Hogue, four towards the English
coast, whence they regained Brest. If there had been a naval
port at La Hogue or at Cherbourg, as Colbert and Vauban had
desired, the French fleet would have preserved its laurels!
There was no place of retreat on all that coast. The fleet of
the enemy advanced in full force. It was impossible to renew
the prodigious effort of the day before." In this emergency,
Tourville made a daring attempt to escape with his fleet
through the dangerous channel called the Race of Alderney,
which separates the Channel Islands from the Normandy coast.
Twenty-two vessels made the passage safely and found a place
of refuge at St. Malo; thirteen were too late for the tide and
failed. Most of these were destroyed, during the next few
days, by the English and Dutch at Cherbourg and in the bay of
La Hogue,—in the presence and under the guns of King James'
army of invasion. "James II. had reason to say that 'his
unlucky star' everywhere shed a malign influence around him;
but this influence was only that of his blindness and
incapacity. Such was that disaster of La Hogue, which has left
among us such a fatal renown, and the name of which resounds in
our history like another Agincourt or Cressy. Historians have
gone so far as to ascribe to this the destruction of the
French navy. … La Hogue was only a reprisal for Beachy-Head.
The French did not lose in it a vessel more than the allies
had lost two years before, and the 15 vessels destroyed were
soon replaced."
_H. Martin,
History of France: Age of Louis XIV:
(translated by M. L. Booth),
volume 2, chapter 2.'_
ALSO IN:
_Lord Macaulay,
History of England,
chapter 18 (volume 4)._
_L. von Ranke,
History of England, 17th Century,
book 20, chapter 4 (volume 5)._
_Sir J. Dalrymple,
Memoirs of Great Britain and Ireland,
part 2, book 7 (volume 3)._
ENGLAND: A. D. 1695.
Expiration of censorship law.
Appearance of first newspapers.
See PRINTING AND THE PRESS: A. D. 1695.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1696-1749.
Measures of commercial and industrial restriction
in the American colonies.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1696-1749.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1697.
The Peace of Ryswick.
Recognition of William III. by France.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1697.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1698.
The founding of Calcutta.
See INDIA: A. D. 1600-1702.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1698-1700.
The question of the Spanish Succession.
The Treaties of Partition.
The Spanish king's will.
See SPAIN: A. D. 1698-1700.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1701.
The Act of Settlement.
The source of the sovereignty of the
House of Hanover or Brunswick.
"William and Mary had no children; and in 1700 the young Duke
of Gloucester, the only child of Anne that lived beyond
infancy, died. There was now no hope of there being anyone to
inherit the crown by the Bill of Rights after the death of
William and of Anne. In 1701, therefore, Parliament settled
the crown on the Electress Sophia of Hanover, and her heirs.
Sophia was one of the children of that Elizabeth, daughter of
James I., who in 1613 had married the Palsgrave Frederick. She
was chosen to come after William and Anne because she was the
nearest to the Stuart line who was a Protestant. The law that
did this is called the Act of Settlement; it gives Queen
Victoria her title to the throne. Parliament in passing it
tried to make the nation's liberties still safer. It was now
made impossible (1) for any foreigner to sit in Parliament or
to hold an office under the Crown; (2). for the king to go to
war in defence of countries that did not belong to England,
unless Parliament gave him leave; or (3) to pardon anyone so
that the Commons might not be able to impeach him."
_J. Rowley,
The Settlement of the Constitution,
book 1, chapter 5._
{914}
"Though the choice was truly free in the hands of parliament,
and no pretext of absolute right could be advanced on any
side, there was no question that the princess Sophia was the
fittest object of the nation's preference. She was indeed very
far removed from any hereditary title. Besides the pretended
prince of Wales, and his sister, whose legitimacy no one
disputed, there stood in her way the duchess of Savoy,
daughter of Henrietta duchess of Orleans, and several of the
Palatine family. These last had abjured the reformed faith, of
which their ancestors had been the strenuous assertors; but it
seemed not improbable that some one might return to it. …
According to the tenor and intention of the act of settlement,
all prior claims of inheritance, save that of the issue of
king William and the princess Anne, being set aside and
annulled, the princess Sophia became the source of a new royal
line. The throne of England and Ireland, by virtue of the
paramount will of parliament, stands entailed upon the heirs
of her body, being protestants. In them the right is as truly
hereditary as it ever was in the Plantagenets or the Tudors.
But they derive it not from those ancient families. The blood
indeed of Cerdic and of the Conqueror flows in the veins of
his present majesty [George IV.]. Our Edwards and Henries
illustrate the almost unrivalled splendour and antiquity of
the house of Brunswic. But they have transmitted no more right
to the allegiance of England than Boniface of Este or Henry
the Lion. That rests wholly on the act of settlement, and
resolves itself into the sovereignty of the legislature.
_H. Hallam,
Constitutional History of England,
chapter 15 (volume 3)._
ALSO IN:
_Sir A. Halliday,
Annals of the House of Hanover,
book 10 (volume 2)._
See, also, ENGLAND: A. D. 1714.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1701-1702.
The rousing of the nation to war with France.
When Louis XIV. procured and accepted for his grandson the
bequest of the Spanish crown, throwing over the Partition
Treaty, "William had the intolerable chagrin of discovering
not only that he had been befooled, but that his English
subjects had no sympathy with him or animosity against the
royal swindler who had tricked him. 'The blindness of the
people here,' he writes sadly to the Pensionary Heinsius, 'is
incredible. For though the affair is not public, yet it was no
sooner said that the King of Spain's will was in favour of the
Duke of Anjou, that it was the general opinion that it was
better for England that France should accept the will than
fulfil the Treaty of Partition.' … William dreaded the idea
of a Bourbon reigning at Madrid, but he saw no very grave
objection, as the two treaties showed, to Naples and Sicily
passing into French hands. With his English subjects the exact
converse was the case. They strongly deprecated the assignment
of the Mediterranean possessions of the Spaniard to the
Dauphin; but they were undisturbed by the sight of the Duke of
Anjou seating himself on the Spanish throne. … But just as,
under a discharge from an electric battery, two repugnant
chemical compounds will sometimes rush into sudden
combination, so at this juncture the King and the nation were
instantaneously united by the shock of a gross affront. The
hand that liberated the uniting fluid was that of the
Christian king. On the 16th of September 1701 James II.
breathed his last at St. Germains, and, obedient to one of
those impulses, half-chivalrous, half-arrogant, which so often
determined his policy, Louis XIV. declared his recognition of
the Prince of Wales as de jure King of England. No more timely
and effective assistance to the policy of its de facto king
could possibly have been rendered. Its effect upon English
public opinion was instantaneous; and when William returned
from Holland on the 4th of November, he found the country in
the temper in which he could most have wished it to be."
Dissolving the Parliament in which his plans had long been
factiously opposed, he summoned a new one, which met on the
last day of the year 1701. "Opposition in Parliament—in the
country it was already inaudible—was completely silenced. The
two Houses sent up addresses assuring the King of their firm
resolve to defend the succession against the pretended Prince
of Wales and all other pretenders whatsoever. … Nor did the
goodwill of Parliament expend itself in words. The Commons
accepted without a word of protest the four treaties
constituting the new Grand Alliance. … The votes of supply
were passed unanimously." But scarcely had the nation and the
King arrived at this agreement with one another than the
latter was snatched from his labors. On the 21st of February,
1702, William received an injury, through the stumbling of his
horse, which his frail and diseased body could not bear. His
death would not have been long delayed in any event, but it
was hastened by this accident, and occurred on the 8th of
March following. He was succeeded by Anne, the sister of his
deceased queen, Mary, and second daughter of the deposed
Stuart king, James II.
_H. D. Traill,
William the Third,
chapters 14-15._
ALSO IN:
_L. von Ranke,
History of England, 17th Century,
book 21, chapters 7-10 (volume 5)._
See, also, SPAIN: A. D. 1701-1702.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1702.
Accession of Queen Anne.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1702.
Union of rival East India Companies.
See INDIA: A. D. 1600-1702.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1702.
The War of the Spanish Succession.
Failure at Cadiz.
The treasure ships in Vigo Bay.
Marlborough's first campaigns.
See SPAIN: A. D. 1702;
and NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1702-1704.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1702-1711.
The War of the Spanish Succession in America
(called "Queen Anne's War").
See NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1702-1710;
CANADA: A. D. 1711-1713.
{915}
ENGLAND: A. D. 1702-1714.
The Age of Anne in literature.
"That which was once called the Augustan age of English
literature was specially marked by the growing development of
a distinct literary class. It was a period of transition from
the early system of the patronage of authors to the later
system of their professional independence. Patronage was being
changed into influence. The system of subscription, by which
Pope made his fortune, was a kind of joint-stock patronage.
The noble did not support the poet, but induced his friends to
subscribe. The noble, moreover, made another discovery. He found
that he could dispense a cheaper and more effective patronage
than of old by patronising at the public expense. During the
reign of Queen Anne, the author of a successful poem or an
effective pamphlet might look forward to a comfortable place.
The author had not to wear the livery, but to become the
political follower, of the great man. Gradually a separation
took place. The minister found it better to have a regular
corps of politicians and scribblers in his pay than
occasionally to recruit his ranks by enlisting men of literary
taste. And, on the other hand, authors, by slow degrees,
struggled into a more independent position as their public
increased. In the earlier part of the century, however, we
find a class of fairly cultivated people, sufficiently
numerous to form a literary audience, and yet not so numerous
as to split into entirely distinct fractions. The old
religious and political warfare has softened; the statesman
loses his place, but not his head; and though there is plenty
of bitterness, there is little violence. We have thus a
brilliant society of statesmen, authors, clergymen, and
lawyers, forming social clubs, meeting at coffee-houses,
talking scandal and politics, and intensely interested in the
new social phenomena which emerge as the old order decays;
more excitable, perhaps, than their fathers, but less
desperately in earnest, and waging a constant pamphleteering
warfare upon politics, literature, and theology, which is yet
consistent with a certain degree of friendly intercourse. The
essayist, the critic, and the novelist appear for the first
time in their modern shape; and the journalist is slowly
gaining some authority as the wielder of a political force.
The whole character of contemporary literature, in short, is
moulded by the social conditions of the class for which and by
which it was written, still more distinctly than by the ideas
current in contemporary speculation. … Pope is the typical
representative of the poetical spirit of the day. He may or
may not be regarded as the intellectual superior of Swift or
Addison; and the most widely differing opinions may be formed
of the intrinsic merits of his poetry. The mere fact, however,
that his poetical dynasty was supreme to the end of the
century proved that, in some sense, he is a most
characteristic product. Nor is it hard to see the main sources
of his power. Pope had at least two great poetical qualities.
He was amongst the most keenly sensitive of men, and he had an
almost unique felicity of expression, which has enabled him to
coin more proverbs than any writer since Shakespeare.
Sensitive, it may be said, is a polite word for morbid, and
his felicity of phrase was more adapted to coin epigrams than
poetry. The controversy is here irrelevant. Pope, whether, as
I should say, a true poet, or, as some have said, only the
most sparkling of rhymesters, reflects the thoughts of his day
with a curious completeness. … There is, however, another
wide province of literature in which writers of the eighteenth
century did work original in character and of permanent value.
If the seventeenth century is the great age of dramatists and
theologians, the eighteenth century was the age in which the
critic, the essayist, the satirist, the novelist, and the
moralist first appeared, or reached the highest mark.
Criticism, though still in its infancy, first became an
independent art with Addison. Addison and his various
colleagues set the first example of that kind of social essay
which is still popular. Satire had been practised in the
preceding century, and in the hands of Dryden had become a
formidable political weapon; but the social satire of which
Pope was, and remains, the chief master, began with the
century, and may be said to have expired with it, in spite of
the efforts of Byron and Gifford. De Foe, Richardson,
Fielding, and Smollett developed the modern novel out of very
crude rudiments; and two of the greatest men of the century,
Swift and Johnson, may be best described as practical
moralists in a vein peculiar to the time. … The English
novel, as the word is now understood, begins with De Foe.
Though, like all other products of mind or body, it was
developed out of previously existing material, and is related
to the great family of stories with which men have amused
themselves in all ages, it is, perhaps, as nearly an original
creation as anything can be. The legends of saints which
amused the middle ages, or the chivalrous romances which were
popular throughout the seventeenth century, had become too
unreal to amuse living human beings. De Foe made the discovery
that a history might be equally interesting if the recorded
events had never happened."
_L. Stephen,
History of English Thought in the Eighteenth Century,
chapter 12, sections 23-56 (volume 2)._
"This so-called classic age of ours has long ceased to be
regarded with that complacency which led the most flourishing
part of it to adopt the epithet 'Augustan.' It will scarcely
be denied by its greatest admirer, if he be a man of wide
reading, that it cannot be ranked with the poorest of the five
great ages of literature. Deficient in the highest
intellectual beauty, in the qualities which awaken the fullest
critical enthusiasm, the eighteenth century will be enjoyed
more thoroughly by those who make it their special study than
by those who skim the entire surface of literature. It has,
although on the grand scale condemned as second-rate, a
remarkable fulness and sustained richness which endear it to
specialists. If it be compared, for instance, with the real
Augustan age in Rome, or with the Spanish period of literary
supremacy, it may claim to hold its own against these rivals
in spite of their superior rank, because of its more copious
interest. If it has neither a Horace nor a Calderon, it has a
great extent and variety of writers just below these in merit,
and far more numerous than what Rome or Spain can show during
those blossoming periods. It is, moreover, fertile at far more
points than either of these schools. This sustained and
variegated success, at a comparatively low level of effort,
strikes one as characteristic of an age more remarkable for
persistent vitality than for rapid and brilliant growth. The
Elizabethan vivida vis is absent, the Georgian glow has not
yet dawned, but there is a suffused prosaic light of
intelligence, of cultivated form, over the whole picture, and
during the first half of the period, at least, this is bright
enough to be very attractive. Perhaps, in closing, the
distinguishing mark of eighteenth-century literature may be
indicated as its mastery of prose as a vehicle for general
thought."
_E. Gosse,
The Study of Eighteenth-Century Literature
(New Princeton Rev., July, 1888, page 21)._
ENGLAND: A. D. 1703.
The Methuen Treaty with Portugal.
See PORTUGAL: A. D. 1703;
and SPAIN: A. D. 1703-1704.
{916}
England: A. D. 1703.
The Aylesbury election case.
"Ashby, a burgess of Aylesbury, sued the returning officer for
maliciously refusing his vote. Three judges of the King's
Bench decided, against the opinion of Chief Justice Holt, that
the verdict which a jury had given in favor of Ashby must be
set aside, as the action was not maintainable. The plaintiff
went to the House of Lords upon a writ of error, and there the
judgment was reversed by a large majority of Peers. The Lower
House maintained that 'the qualification of an elector is not
cognizable elsewhere than before the Commons of England'; that
Ashby was guilty of a breach of privilege; and that all
persons who should in future commence such an action, and all
attorneys and counsel conducting the same, are also guilty of
a high breach of privilege. The Lords, led by Somers, then
came to counter-resolutions. … The prorogation of Parliament
put an end to the quarrel in that Session; but in the next it
was renewed with increased violence. The judgment against the
Returning Officer was followed up by Ashby levying his
damages. Other Aylesbury men brought new actions. The Commons
imprisoned the Aylesbury electors. The Lords took strong
measures that affected, or appeared to affect, the privileges
of the Commons. The Queen finally stopped the contest by a
prorogation; and the quarrel expired when the Parliament
expired under the Triennial Act. Lord Somers 'established the
doctrine which has been acted on ever since, that an action
lies against a Returning Officer for maliciously refusing the
vote of an elector.'"
_C. Knight,
Popular History of England,
volume 5, chapter 17._
ALSO IN:
_Lord Campbell,
Lives of the Lord Chancellors: Somers,
chapter. 110 (volume 4)._
ENGLAND: A. D. 1704-1707.
Marlborough's campaigns in the War of the Spanish Succession.
Campaigns in Spain.
See GERMANY: A. D. 1704;
SPAIN: A. D. 1703-1704, to 1707;
NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1705, and 1706-1707.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1707.
The Union with Scotland.
See SCOTLAND: A. D. 1707.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1707-1708.
Hostility to the Union in Scotland.
Spread of Jacobitism.
See SCOTLAND: A. D. 1707-1708.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1708-1709.
The War of the Spanish Succession:
Oudenarde and Malplaquet.
See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1708-1709;
and SPAIN: A. D. 1707-1710.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1709.
The Barrier Treaty with Holland.
"The influence of the Whig party in the affairs of government
in England, always irksome to the Queen, had now began visibly
to decline; and the partiality she was suspected of
entertaining for her brother, with her known dislike of the
house of Hanover, inspired them with alarm, lest the Tories
might seek still further to propitiate her favour, by
altering, in his favour, the line of succession, as at present
established. They had, accordingly, made it one of the
preliminaries of the proposed treaty of peace, that the
Protestant succession, in England, should be secured by a
general guarantee, and now sought to repair, as far as
possible, the failure caused by the unsuccessful termination
of the conferences, by entering into a treaty to that effect
with the States. The Marquis Townshend, accordingly, repaired
for this purpose to the Hague, when the States consented to
enter into an engagement to maintain the present succession to
the crown, with their whole force, and to make the recognition
of that succession, and the expulsion of the Pretender from
France, an indispensable preliminary to any peace with that
kingdom. In return for this important guarantee, England was
to secure to the States a barrier, formed of the towns of
Nieuport, Furnes and the fort of Knokke, Menin, Lille, Ryssel,
Tournay, Conde, and Valenciennes, Maubeuge, Charleroi, Namur,
Lier, Halle, and some forts, besides the citadels of Ghent and
Dendermonde. It was afterwards asserted, in excuse for the
dereliction from that treaty on the part of England, that
Townshend had gone beyond his instructions; but it is quite
certain that it was ratified without hesitation by the queen,
whatever may have been her secret feelings regarding it."
_C. M. Davies,
History of Holland,
part 3, chapter 11 (volume 3 ).
_
ENGLAND: A. D. 1710-1712.
Opposition to the war.
Trial of Sacheverell.
Fall of the Whigs and Marlborough.
"A 'deluge of blood' such as that of Malplaquet increased the
growing weariness of the war, and the rejection of the French
offers was unjustly attributed to a desire on the part of
Marlborough of lengthening out a contest which brought him
profit and power. The expulsion of Harley and St. John
[Bolingbroke] from the Ministry had given the Tories leaders
of a more vigorous stamp, and St. John brought into play a new
engine of political attack whose powers soon made themselves
felt. In the Examiner, and in a crowd of pamphlets and
periodicals which followed in its train, the humor of Prior,
the bitter irony of Swift, and St. John's own brilliant
sophistry spent themselves on the abuse of the war and of its
general. … A sudden storm of popular passion showed the way
in which public opinion responded to these efforts. A
High-Church divine, Dr. Sacheverell, maintained the doctrine
of non-resistance [the doctrine, that is, of passive obedience
and non-resistance to government, implying a condemnation of
the Revolution of 1688 and of the Revolution settlement], in a
sermon at St. Paul's, with a boldness which deserved
prosecution; but in spite of the warning of Marlborough and of
Somers the Whig Ministers resolved on his impeachment. His
trial in 1710 at once widened into a great party struggle, and
the popular enthusiasm in Sacheverell's favor showed the
gathering hatred of the Whigs and the war. … A small
majority of the peers found him guilty, but the light sentence
they inflicted was in effect an acquittal, and bonfires and
illuminations over the whole country welcomed it as a Tory
triumph. The turn of popular feeling freed Anne at once from
the pressure beneath which she had bent; and the skill of
Harley, whose cousin, Mrs. Masham, had succeeded the Duchess
of Marlborough in the Queen's favor, was employed in bringing
about the fall both of Marlborough and the Whig Ministers. …
The return of a Tory House of Commons sealed his
[Marlborough's] fate. His wife was dismissed from court. A
masterly plan for a march into the heart of France in the
opening of 1711 was foiled by the withdrawal of a part of his
forces, and the negotiations which had for some time been
conducted between the French and English Ministers without his
knowledge marched rapidly to a close. … At the opening of
1712 the Whig majority of the House of Lords was swamped by
the creation of twelve Tory peers. Marlborough was dismissed
from his command, charged with peculation, and condemned as
guilty by a vote of the House of Commons. He at once withdrew
from England, and with his withdrawal all opposition to the
peace was at an end."
_J. R. Green,
Short History of the English People,
section 9, chapter 9._
{917}
Added to other reasons for opposition to the war, the death of
the Emperor Joseph I., which occurred in April, 1711, had
entirely reversed the situation in Europe out of which the war
proceeded. The Archduke Charles, whom the allies had been
striving to place on the Spanish throne, was now certain to be
elected Emperor. He received the imperial crown, in fact, in
December, 1711. By this change of fortune, therefore, he
became a more objectionable claimant of the Spanish crown than
Louis XIV. 's grandson had been.
See AUSTRIA: A. D. 1711.
_Earl Stanhope,
History of England, Reign of Anne,
chapters 12-15._
"Round the fall of Marlborough has gathered the interest
attaching to the earliest political crisis at all resembling
those of quite recent times. It is at this moment that Party
Government in the modern sense actually commenced. William the
Third with military instinct had always been reluctant to
govern by means of a party. Bound as he was, closely, to the
Whigs, he employed Tory Ministers. … The new idea of a
homogeneous government was working itself into shape under the
mild direction of Lord Somers; but the form finally taken
under Sir Robert Walpole, which has continued to the present
time, was as yet some way off. Marlborough's notions were
those of the late King. Both abroad and at home he carried out
the policy of William. He refused to rely wholly upon the
Whigs, and the extreme Tories were not given employment. The
Ministry of Godolphin was a composite administration,
containing at one time, in 1705, Tories like Harley and St.
John as well as Whigs such as Sunderland and Halifax. … Lord
Somers was a type of statesman of a novel order at that time.
… In the beginning of the eighteenth century it was rare to
find a man attaining the highest political rank who was
unconnected by birth or training or marriage with any of the
great 'governing families,' as they have been called. Lord
Somers was the son of a Worcester attorney. … It was
fortunate for England that Lord Somers should have been the
foremost man of the Whig party at the time when constitutional
government, as we now call it, was in course of construction.
By his prudent counsel the Whigs were guided through the
difficult years at the end of Queen Anne's reign; and from the
ordeal of seeing their rivals in power they certainly managed,
as a party, to emerge on the whole with credit. Although he
was not nominally their leader, the paramount influence in the
Tory party was Bolingbroke's; and that the Tories suffered from
the defects of his great qualities, no unprejudiced critic can
doubt. Between the two parties, and at the head of the
Treasury through the earlier years of the reign, stood
Godolphin, without whose masterly knowledge of finance and
careful attention to the details of administration
Marlborough's policy would have been baffled and his campaigns
remained unfought. To Godolphin, more than to any other one
man, is due the preponderance of the Treasury control in
public affairs. It was his administration, during the absence
of Marlborough on the Continent, which created for the office
of Lord Treasurer its paramount importance, and paved the way
for Sir Robert Walpole's government of England under the title
of First Lord of the Treasury. … Marlborough saw and always
admitted that his victories were due in large measure to the
financial skill of Godolphin. To this statesman's lasting
credit it must be remembered that in a venal age, when the
standards of public honesty were so different from those which
now prevail, Godolphin died a poor man. … Bolingbroke is
interesting to us as the most striking figure among the
originators of the new parliamentary system. With Marlborough
disappeared the type of Tudor statesmen modified by contact
with the Stuarts. He was the last of the Imperial Chancellors.
Bolingbroke and his successor Walpole were the earlier types
of constitutional statesmen among whom Mr. Pitt and, later,
Mr. Gladstone stand pre-eminent. … He and his friends,
opponents of Marlborough, and contributors to his fall, are
interesting to us mainly as furnishing the first examples of
'Her Majesty's Opposition,' as the authors of party government
and the prototypes of cabinet ministers of to-day. Their ways
of thought, their style of speech and of writing, may be
dissimilar to those now in vogue, but they show greater
resemblance to those of modern politicians than to those of
the Ministers of William or of the Stuarts. Bolingbroke may
have appeared a strange product of the eighteenth century to
his contemporaries, but he would not have appeared peculiarly
misplaced among the colleagues of Lord Randolph Churchill or
Mr. Chamberlain."
_R. B. Brett,
Footprints of Statesmen,
chapter 3._
ALSO IN:
_W. Coxe,
Memoirs of Marlborough,
chapters 89-107._
_W. Coxe,
Memoirs of Walpole,
volume 1, chapters 5-6._
_G. Saintsbury,
Marlborough._
_G. W. Cooke,
Memoirs of Bolingbroke,
volume 1, chapters 6-13._
_J. C. Collins,
Bolingbroke._
_A. Hassall,
Life of Bolingbroke,
chapter 3._
ENGLAND: A. D. 1711-1714.
The Occasional Conformity Bill and the Schism Act.
"The Test Act, making the reception of the Anglican Sacrament
a necessary qualification for becoming a member of
corporations, and for the enjoyment of most civil offices, was
very efficacious in excluding Catholics, but was altogether
insufficient to exclude moderate Dissenters. … Such men,
while habitually attending their own places of worship, had no
scruple about occasionally entering an Anglican church, or
receiving the sacrament from an Anglican clergyman. The
Independents, it is true, and some of the Baptists, censured
this practice, and Defoe wrote vehemently against it, but it
was very general, and was supported by a long list of imposing
authorities. … In 1702, in 1703, and in 1704, measures for
suppressing occasional conformity were carried through the
Commons, but on each occasion they were defeated by the Whig
preponderance in the Lords." In 1711, the Whigs formed a
coalition with one section of the Tories to defeat the
negotiations which led to the Peace of Utrecht; but the Tories
"made it the condition of alliance that the Occasional
Conformity Bill should be accepted by the Whigs.
{918}
The bargain was made; the Dissenters were abandoned, and, on
the motion of Nottingham, a measure was carried providing that
all persons in places of profit or trust, and all common
councilmen in corporations, who, while holding office, were
proved to have attended any Nonconformist place of worship,
should forfeit the place, and should continue incapable of
public employment till they should depose that for a whole
year they had not attended a conventicle. The House of Commons
added a fine of £40, which was to be paid to the informer, and
with this addition the Bill became a law. Its effects during
the few years it continued in force were very inconsiderable,
for the great majority of conspicuous Dissenters remained in
office, abstaining from public worship in conventicles, but
having Dissenting ministers as private chaplains in their
houses. … The object of the Occasional Conformity Bill was
to exclude the Dissenters from all Government positions of
power, dignity or profit. It was followed in 1714 by the
Schism Act, which was intended to crush their seminaries and
deprive them of the means of educating their children in their
faith. … As carried through the House of Commons, it
provided that no one, under pain of three months'
imprisonment, should keep either a public or a private school,
or should even act as tutor or usher, unless he had obtained a
licence from the Bishop, had engaged to conform to the
Anglican liturgy, and had received the sacrament in some
Anglican church within the year. In order to prevent
occasional conformity it was further provided that if a
teacher so qualified were present at any other form of worship
he should at once become liable to three months' imprisonment,
and should be incapacitated for the rest of his life from
acting as schoolmaster or tutor. … Some important clauses,
however, were introduced by the Whig party qualifying its
severity. They provided that Dissenters might have
school-mistresses to teach their children to read; that the
Act should not extend to any person instructing youth in
reading, writing, or arithmetic, in any part of mathematics
relating to navigation, or in any mechanical art only. … The
facility with which this atrocious Act was carried, abundantly
shows the danger in which religious liberty was placed in the
latter years of the reign of Queen Anne."
_W. E. H. Lecky,
History of England, 18th Century,
chapter 1._
The Schism Act was repealed in 1719, during the administration
of Lord Stanhope.
_Cobbett's Parliamentary History,
volume 7, pages 567-587._
ALSO IN:
_J. Stoughton,
History of Religion in England,
volume 5, chapters 14-16._
ENGLAND: A. D. 1713.
Ending of the War of the Spanish Succession.
The Peace of Utrecht.
Acquisitions from Spain and France.
See UTRECHT: A. D. 1712-1714;
CANADA: A. D. 1711-1713;
also, NEWFOUNDLAND: A. D. 1713;
and SLAVERY, NEGRO: A. D. 1698-1776.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1713.
Second Barrier Treaty with the Dutch.
See NETHERLANDS (HOLLAND): A. D. 1713-1715.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1713-1714.
The desertion of the Catalans.
See SPAIN: A. D. 1713-1714.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1714.
The end of the Stuart line and the beginning of the
Hanoverians.
Queen Anne died, after a short illness, on the morning of
August 1, 1714. The Tories, who had just gained control of the
ministry, were wholly unprepared for this emergency. They
assembled in Privy Council, on the 29th of July, when the
probably fatal issue of the Queen's illness became apparent,
and "a strange scene is said to have occurred. Argyle and
Somerset, though they had contributed largely by their
defection to the downfall of the Whig ministry of Godolphin,
were now again in opposition to the Tories, and had recently
been dismissed from their posts. Availing themselves of their
rank of Privy Councillors, they appeared unsummoned in the
council room, pleading the greatness of the emergency.
Shrewsbury, who had probably concocted the scene, rose and
warmly thanked them for their offer of assistance; and these
three men appear to have guided the course of events. …
Shrewsbury, who was already Chamberlain and Lord Lieutenant of
Ireland, became Lord Treasurer, and assumed the authority of
Prime Minister. Summons were at once sent to all Privy
Councillors, irrespective of party, to attend; and Somers and
several other of the Whig leaders were speedily at their post.
They had the great advantage of knowing clearly the policy
they should pursue, and their measures were taken with
admirable promptitude and energy. The guards of the Tower were
at once doubled. Four regiments were ordered to march from the
country to London, and all seamen to repair to their vessels.
An embargo was laid on all shipping. The fleet was equipped,
and speedy measures were taken to protect the seaports and to
secure tranquility in Scotland and Ireland. At the same time
despatches were sent to the Netherlands ordering seven of the
ten British battalions to embark without delay; to Lord
Strafford, the ambassador at the Hague, desiring the
States-General to fulfil their guarantee of the Protestant
succession in England; to the Elector, urging him to hasten to
Holland, where, on the death of the Queen, he would be met by
a British squadron, and escorted to his new kingdom." When the
Queen's death occurred, "the new King was at once proclaimed,
and it is a striking proof of the danger of the crisis that
the funds, which had fallen on a false rumour of the Queen's
recovery, rose at once when she died. Atterbury is said to
have urged Bolingbroke to proclaim James III. at Charing
Cross, and to have offered to head the procession in his lawn
sleeves, but the counsel was mere madness, and Bolingbroke saw
clearly that any attempt to overthrow the Act of Settlement
would be now worse than useless. … The more violent spirits
among the Jacobites now looked eagerly for a French invasion,
but the calmer members of the party perceived that such an
invasion was impossible. … The Regency Act of 1705 came at
once into operation. The Hanoverian minister produced the
sealed list of the names of those to whom the Elector
entrusted the government before his arrival, and it was found
to consist of eighteen names taken from the leaders of the
Whig party. … Parliament, in accordance with the provisions
of the Bill, was at once summoned, and it was soon evident
that there was nothing to fear. The moment for a restoration
was passed."
_W. E. H. Lecky,
History of England, 18th Century,
chapter 1 (volume 1)._
{919}
"George I., whom circumstances and the Act of Settlement had
thus called to be King of Great Britain and Ireland, had been
a sovereign prince for sixteen years, during which time he had
been Elector of Brunswick-Lüneburg. He was the second who ever
bore that title. By right of his father he was Elector; it was
by right of his mother that he now became ruler of the United
Kingdom. The father was Ernest Augustus, Sovereign Bishop of
Osnaburg, who, by the death of his elder brothers, had become
Duke of Hanover, and then Duke of Brunswick and Lüneburg. In
1692 he was raised by the Emperor to the dignity of Elector.
… The mother of George I. was Sophia, usually known as the
Electress Sophia. The title was merely one of honour, and only
meant wife of an Elector. … The Electress Sophia was the
daughter of Elizabeth, daughter of King James I., and
Frederick, the Elector Palatine [whose election to the throne
of Bohemia and subsequent expulsion from that kingdom and from
his Palatine dominions were the first acts in the Thirty
Years' War]. … The new royal house in England is sometimes
called the House of Hanover, sometimes the House of Brunswick.
It will be found that the latter name is more generally used
in histories written during the last century, the former in
books written in the present day. If the names were equally
applicable, the modern use is the more convenient, because
there is another, and in some respects well known, branch of
the House of Brunswick; but no other has a right to the name
of Hanover. It is, however, quite certain that, whatever the
English use may be, Hanover is properly the name of a town and
of a duchy, but that the electorate was Brunswick-Lüneburg.
… The House of Brunswick was of noble origin, tracing itself
back to a certain Guelph d'Este, nicknamed 'the Robust,' son
of an Italian nobleman, who had been seeking his fortunes in
Germany. Guelph married Judith, widow of the English King,
Harold, who fell on the hill of Senlac. … One of Guelph's
descendants, later, married Maud, the daughter of King Henry
II., probably the most powerful king in Europe of his day, at
whose persuasion the Emperor conferred on the Guelphs the
duchy of Brunswick."
_E. E. Morris,
The Early Hanoverians,
book 1, chapter 2._
ALSO IN:
_P. M. Thornton,
The Brunswick Accession,
chapters 1-10._
_Sir A. Halliday,
Annals of the House of Hanover,
book 10 (volume 2)._
_J. McCarthy,
History of the Four Georges,
chapters 1-4._
_W. M. Thackeray,
The Four Georges,
lecture 1._
_A. W. Ward,
The Electress Sophia and the Hanoverian Succession (English
History Review, volume 1)._
See, also, ENGLAND: A. D. 1701,
THE ACT OF SETTLEMENT.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1714-1721.
First years of George I.
The rise of Walpole to power and the founding of Parliamentary
Government.
"The accession of the house of Hanover in the person of the
great-grandson of James I. was once called by a Whig of this
generation the greatest miracle in our history. It took place
without domestic or foreign disturbance. … Within our own
borders a short lull followed the sharp agitations of the last
six months. The new king appointed an exclusively Whig
Ministry. The office of Lord Treasurer was not revived, and
the title disappears from political history. Lord Townshend
was made principal Secretary of State, and assumed the part of
first Minister. Mr. Walpole [Sir Robert] took the subaltern
office of paymaster of the forces, holding along with it the
paymastership of Chelsea Hospital. Although he had at first no
seat in the inner Council or Cabinet, which seems to have
consisted of eight members, only one of them a commoner, it is
evident that from the outset his influence was hardly second
to that of Townshend himself. In little more than a year
(October 1715) he had made himself so prominent and valuable
in the House of Commons, that the opportunity of a vacancy was
taken to appoint him to be First Commissioner of the Treasury
and Chancellor of the Exchequer. … Besides excluding their
opponents from power, the Whigs instantly took more positive
measures. The new Parliament was strongly Whig. A secret
committee was at once appointed to inquire into the
negotiations for the Peace. Walpole was chairman, took the
lead in its proceedings, and drew the report." On Walpole's
report, the House "directed the impeachment of Oxford,
Bolingbroke, and Ormond for high treason, and other high
crimes and misdemeanours mainly relating to the Peace of
Utrecht. … The proceedings against Oxford and Bolingbroke
are the last instance in our history of a political
impeachment. They are the last ministers who were ever made
personally responsible for giving bad advice and pursuing a
discredited policy, and since then a political mistake has
ceased to be a crime. … The affair came to an abortive end.
… The opening years of the new reign mark one of the least
attractive periods in political history. George I. … cared
very little for his new kingdom, and knew very little about
its people or its institutions. … His expeditions to Hanover
threw the management of all domestic affairs almost without
control into the hands of his English ministers. If the two
first Hanoverian kings had been Englishmen instead of Germans,
if they had been men of talent and ambition, or even men of
strong and commanding will without much talent, Walpole would
never have been able to lay the foundations of government by
the House of Commons and by Cabinet so firmly that even the
obdurate will of George III. was unable to overthrow it
See CABINET, THE ENGLISH.
Happily for the system now established, circumstances
compelled the first two sovereigns of the Hanoverian line to
strike a bargain with the English Whigs, and it was faithfully
kept until the accession of the third George. The king was to
manage the affairs of Hanover, and the Whigs were to govern
England. It was an excellent bargain for England. Smooth as
this operation may seem in historic description, Walpole found
its early stages rough and thorny." The king was not easily
brought to understand that England would not make war for
Hanoverian objects, nor allow her foreign policy to be shaped
by the ambitions of the Electorate. Differences arose which
drove Townshend from the Cabinet, and divided the Whig party.
Walpole retired from the government with Townshend, and was in
opposition for three years, while Lord Stanhope and the Earl of
Sunderland controlled the administration. The Whig schism came
to an end in 1720, and Townshend and Walpole rejoined the
administration, the latter as Paymaster of the Forces without
a seat in the Cabinet. "His opposition was at an end, but he
took no part in the active work of government. … Before many
months had passed the country was overtaken by the memorable
disasters of the South Sea Bubble.
See SOUTH SEA BUBBLE.
{920}
All eyes were turned to Walpole. Though he had privately
dabbled in South Sea stock on his own account, his public
predictions came back to men's minds; they remembered that he
had been called the best man for figures in the House, and the
disgrace of' his most important colleagues only made his
sagacity the more prominent. … He returned to his old posts,
and once more became First Lord of the Treasury and Chancellor
of the Exchequer (April 1721), while Townshend was again
Secretary of State. Walpole held his offices practically
without a break for twenty-one years. The younger Pitt had an
almost equal span of unbroken supremacy, but with that
exception there is no parallel to Walpole's long tenure of
power. To estimate aright the vast significance of this
extraordinary stability, we must remember that the country had
just passed through eighty years of revolution. A man of 80 in
1721 could recall the execution of Charles I., the protectorate
of Oliver, the fall of Richard Cromwell, the restoration of
Charles II., the exile of James II., the change of the order
of succession to William of Orange, the reactionary ministry
of Anne, and finally the second change to the House of
Hanover. The interposition, after so long a series of violent
perturbations as this, of twenty years of settled system and
continuous order under one man, makes Walpole's government of
capital and decisive importance in our history, and
constitutes not an artificial division like the reign of a
king, but a true and definite period, with a beginning, an
end, a significance, and a unity of its own."
_J. Morley,
Walpole,
chapters 3-4._
ALSO IN:
W. Coxe,
Memoirs of Sir Robert Walpole,
chapters 9-21 (volume 1).
ENGLAND: A. D. 1715.
The Jacobite rising.
See SCOTLAND: A. D. 1715.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1716.
The Septennial Act.
The easy suppression of the Jacobite rebellion was far from
putting an end to the fears of the loyal supporters of the
Hanoverian dynasty. They regarded with especial anxiety the
approaching Parliamentary elections. "As, by the existing
statute of 6 William and Mary [the Triennial Act, of 1694],
Parliament would be dissolved at the close of the year, and a
new election held in the spring of 1717, there seemed great
probability of a renewal of the contest, or at least of very
serious riots during the election time. With this in view, the
ministers proposed that the existing Parliament should be
continued for a term of seven instead of three years. This,
which was meant for a temporary measure, has never been
repealed, and is still the law under which Parliaments are
held. It has been often objected to this action of Parliament,
that it was acting arbitrarily in thus increasing its own
duration. 'It was a direct usurpation,' it has been said, 'of
the rights of the people, analogous to the act of the Long
Parliament in declaring itself indestructible.' It has been
regarded rather as a party measure than as a forward step in
liberal government. We must seek its vindication in the
peculiar conditions of the time. It was useless to look to the
constituencies for the support of the popular liberty. The
return of members in the smaller boroughs was in the hands of
corrupt or corruptible freemen; in the counties, of great
landowners; in the larger towns, of small place-holders under
Government. A general election in fact only gave fresh
occasion for the exercise of the influence of the Crown and of
the House of Lords—freedom and independence in the presence
of these two permanent powers could be secured only by the
greater permanence of the third element of the Legislature,
the House of Commons. It was thus that, though no doubt in
some degree a party measure for securing a more lengthened
tenure of office to the Whigs, the Septennial Act received,
upon good constitutional grounds, the support and approbation
of the best statesmen of the time."
_J. F. Bright,
History of England,
period 3, page 938._
ALSO IN:
_Lord Mahon (Earl Stanhope),
History of England, 1713-1783,
volume 1, chapter 6._
ENGLAND: A. D. 1717-1719.
The Triple Alliance.
The Quadruple Alliance.
War with Spain.
See SPAIN: A. D. 1713-1725;
also, ITALY: A. D. 1715-1735.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1720.
The South Sea Bubble.
See SOUTH SEA BUBBLE.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1721-1742.
Development of the Cabinet System of ministerial government.
See CABINET, THE ENGLISH.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1725.
The Alliance of Hanover.
See SPAIN: A. D. 1713-1725.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1726-1731.
Fresh differences with Spain.
Gibraltar besieged.
The Treaty of Seville.
The Second Treaty of Vienna.
See SPAIN: A. D. 1726-1731.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1727.
Accession of King George II.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1727-1741.
Walpole's administration under George II.
"The management of public affairs during the six years of
George the First's reign in which Walpole was Prime Minister,
was easy. … His political fortunes seemed to be ruined by
George the First's death [1727]. That King's successor had
ransacked a very copious vocabulary of abuse, in order to
stigmatise the minister and his associates. Rogue and rascal,
scoundrel and fool, were his commonest utterances when Robert
Walpole's name was mentioned. … Walpole bowed meekly to the
coming storm," and an attempt was made to put Sir Spencer
Compton in his place. But Compton himself, as well as the king
and his sagacious queen, soon saw the futility of it, and the
old ministry was retained. "At first, Walpole was associated
with his brother-in-law, Townsend. But they soon disagreed,
and the rupture was total after the death of Walpole's sister,
Townsend's wife. … After Townsend's dismissal, Walpole
reigned alone, if, indeed, he could be said to exercise sole
functions while Newcastle was tied to him. Long before he was
betrayed by this person, of whom he justly said that his name
was perfidy, he knew how dangerous was the association. But
Newcastle was the largest proprietor of rotten boroughs in the
kingdom, and, fool and knave as he was, he had wit enough to
guess at his own importance, and knavery enough to make his
market. Walpole's chief business lay in managing the King, the
Queen, the Church, the House of Commons, and perhaps the
people. I have already said, that before his accession George
hated Walpole. But there are hatreds and hatreds, equal in
fervency while they last, but different in duration. The King
hated Walpole because he had served his father well. But one
George was gone, and another George was in possession. Then
came before the man in possession the clear vision of
Walpole's consummate usefulness. The vision was made clearer
by the sagacious hints of the Queen. It became clear as
noonday when Walpole contrived to add £115,000 to the civil
list. … Besides, Walpole was sincerely determined to support
the Hanoverian succession. He constantly insisted to George
that the final settlement of his House on the throne would be
fought out in England. … Hence he was able to check one of
the King's ruling passions, a longing to engage in war. …
{921}
It is generally understood that Walpole managed the House of
Commons by bribery; that the secret service money was thus
employed: and that this minister was the father of that
corruption which was reported to have disgraced the House
during the first half of the last century. I suspect that
these influences have been exaggerated. It is a stock story
that Walpole said he knew every man's price. It might have
been generally true, but the foundation of this apothegm is,
in all likelihood, a recorded saying of his about certain
members of the opposition. … Walpole has been designated,
and with justice, as emphatically a peace minister. He held
'that the most pernicious circumstances in which this country
can be, are those of war, as we must be great losers while the
war lasts, and cannot be great gainers when it ends.' He kept
George the Second at peace, as well as he could, by insisting
on it that the safety of his dynasty lay in avoiding foreign
embroilments. He strove in vain against the war which broke
out in 1739. … I do not intend to disparage Walpole's
administrative ability when I say that the country prospered
independently of any financial policy which he adopted or
carried out. … Walpole let matters take their course, for he
understood that the highest merit of a minister consists in
his doing no mischief. But Walpole's praise lies in the fact,
that, with this evident growth of material prosperity, he
steadily set his face against gambling with it. He resolved,
as far as lay in his power, to keep the peace of Europe; and
he was seconded in his efforts by Cardinal Fleury. He
contrived to smooth away the difficulties which arose in 1727;
and on January 13, 1730, negotiated the treaty of Seville [see
SPAIN: A. D. 1726-1731], the benefits of which lasted through
ten years of peace, and under which he reduced the army to
5,000 men." But the opposition to Walpole's peace policy
became a growing passion, which overcame him in 1741 and
forced him to resign. On his resignation he was raised to the
peerage, with the title of Earl of Orford, and defeated,
though with great difficulty, the determination of his enemies
to impeach him.
_J. E. T. Rogers,
Historical Gleanings,
volume 1, chapter 2._
"It is impossible, I think, to consider his [Walpole's] career
with adequate attention without recognising in him a great
minister, although the merits of his administration were often
rather negative than positive, and although it exhibits few of
those dramatic incidents, and is but little susceptible of
that rhetorical colouring, on which the reputation of
statesmen largely depends. … He was eminently true to the
character of his countrymen. He discerned with a rare sagacity
the lines of policy most suited to their genius and to their
needs, and he had a sufficient ascendancy in English politics
to form its traditions, to give a character and a bias to its
institutions. The Whig party, under his guidance, retained,
though with diminished energy, its old love of civil and of
religious liberty, but it lost its foreign sympathies, its
tendency to extravagance, its military restlessness. The
landed gentry, and in a great degree the Church, were
reconciled to the new dynasty. The dangerous fissures which
divided the English nation were filled up. Parliamentary
government lost its old violence, it entered into a period of
normal and pacific action, and the habits of compromise, of
moderation, and of practical good sense, which are most
essential to its success, were greatly strengthened. These
were the great merits of Walpole. His faults were very
manifest, and are to be attributed in part to his own
character, but in a great degree to the moral atmosphere of
his time. He was an honest man in the sense of desiring
sincerely the welfare of his country and serving his sovereign
with fidelity; but he was intensely wedded to power,
exceedingly unscrupulous about the means of grasping or
retaining it, and entirely destitute of that delicacy of
honour which marks a high-minded man. … His estimate of
political integrity was very similar to his estimate of female
virtue. He governed by means of an assembly which was
saturated with corruption, and he fully acquiesced in its
conditions and resisted every attempt to improve it. … It is
necessary to speak with much caution on this matter,
remembering that no statesman can emancipate himself from the
conditions of his time. … The systematic corruption of
Members of Parliament is said to have begun under Charles II.,
in whose reign it was practised to the largest extent. It was
continued under his successor, and the number of scandals
rather increased than diminished after the Revolution. … And
if corruption did not begin with Walpole, it is equally
certain that it did not end with him. His expenditure of
secret service money, large as it was, never equalled in an
equal space of time the expenditure of Bute. … The real
charge against him is that in a period of profound peace, when
he exercised an almost unexampled ascendancy in politics, and
when public opinion was strongly in favour of the diminution
of corrupt influence in Parliament, he steadily and
successfully resisted every attempt at reform. … It was his
settled policy to maintain his Parliamentary majority, not by
attracting to his ministry great orators, great writers, great
financiers, or great statesmen, … but simply by engrossing
borough influence and extending the patronage of the Crown."
_W. E. H. Lecky,
History of England in the 18th Century,
chapter. 3 (volume 1)._
"But for Sir Robert Walpole, we should have had the Pretender
back again. But for his obstinate love of peace, we should
have had wars, which the nation was not strong enough nor
united enough to endure. But for his resolute counsels and
good-humoured resistance, we might have had German despots
attempting a Hanoverian regimen over us: we should have had
revolt, commotion, want, and tyrannous misrule, in place of a
quarter of a century of peace, freedom and material
prosperity, such as the country never enjoyed, until that
corrupter of parliaments, that dissolute tipsy cynic, that
courageous lover of peace and liberty, that great citizen,
patriot and statesman governed it. … In private life the old
pagan revelled in the lowest pleasures: he passed his Sundays
tippling at Richmond; and his holidays bawling after dogs, or
boozing at Houghton with Boors over beef and punch. He cared
for letters no more than his master did: he judged human
nature so meanly that one is ashamed to have to own that he
was right, and that men could be corrupted by means so base.
But, with his hireling House of Commons, he defended liberty
for us; with his incredulity he kept Church-craft down. … He
gave Englishmen no conquests, but he gave them peace, and
ease, and freedom; the Three per Cents. nearly at par; and
wheat at five and six and twenty shillings a quarter."
_W. M. Thackeray,
The Four Georges,
chapter 2._
ALSO IN:
_W. Coxe,
Memoirs of Sir R. Walpole,
chapters 31-59 (volume 1)._
_Lord Mahon (Earl Stanhope),
History of England, 1713-1783,
chapters 15-23 (volumes 2-3)._
_Lord Hervey,
Memoirs of the Reign of George II._
{922}
ENGLAND: A. D. 1731-1740.
The question of the Austrian Succession.
Guarantee of the Pragmatic Sanction.
See AUSTRIA: A. D. 1718-1738, and 1740.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1732.
The grant of Georgia to General Oglethorpe.
See GEORGIA: A. D. 1732-1739.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1733.
The first Bourbon Family Compact.
Its hostility to Great Britain.
See FRANCE, A. D. 1733.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1733-1787
The great inventions which built up the
Cotton Manufacture.
See COTTON MANUFACTURE.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1739-1741.
The War of Jenkins' Ear.
"In spite of Walpole's love of peace, and determined efforts
to preserve it, in the year 1739 a war broke out with Spain,
which is an illustration of the saying that the occasion of a
war may be trifling, though its real cause be very serious.
The war is often called the War of Jenkins' Ear. The story ran
that eight years before (1731) a certain Captain Jenkins,
skipper of the ship 'Rebecca,' of London, had been maltreated
by the Spaniards. His ship was sailing from Jamaica, and
hanging about the entrance of the Gulf of Florida, when it was
boarded by the Spanish coast guard. The Spaniards could find
no proof that Jenkins was smuggling, though they searched
narrowly, and being angry at their ill-success they hanged him
to the yardarm, lowering him just in time to save his life. At
length they pulled off his ear and told him to take it to his
king. … Seven years later Captain Jenkins was examined by
the House of Commons, on which occasion some member asked him
how he felt when being maltreated, and Jenkins answered, 'I
recommended my soul to God and my cause to my country.' The
answer, whether made at the time or prepared for use in the
House of Commons, touched a chord of sympathy, and soon was
circulated through the country. 'No need of allies now,' said
one politician; 'the story of Jenkins will raise us
volunteers.' The truth of the matter is that this story from
its somewhat ridiculous aspect has remained in the minds of
men, but that it is only a specimen of many stories then
afloat, all pointing to insolence of Spaniards in insisting
upon what was after all strictly within their rights. But the
legal treaty rights of Spain were growing intolerable to
Englishmen, though not necessarily to the English Government;
and traders and sailors were breaking the international laws
which practically stopped the expansion of England in the New
World. The war arose out of a question of trade, in this as in
so many other cases the English being prepared to fight in
order to force an entrance for their trade, which the
Spaniards wished to shut out from Spanish America. This
question found a place amongst the other matters arranged by
the treaty of Utrecht, when the English obtained almost as
their sole return for their victories what was known as the
Assiento. This is a Spanish word meaning contract, but its use
had been for some time confined to the disgraceful privilege
of providing Spanish America with negroes kidnapped from their
homes in Africa. The Flemings, the Genoese, the Portuguese,
and the French Guinea Company received in turn from Spanish
kings the monopoly in this shameful traffic, which at the
treaty of Utrecht was passed on for a period of thirty years
to England, now becoming mistress of the seas, and with her
numerous merchant ships better able than others to carry on
the business. The English Government committed the contract to
the South Sea Company, and the number of negroes to be
supplied annually was no less than 4,800 'sound, healthy,
merchantable negroes, two-thirds to be male, none under ten or
over forty years old.' In the Assiento Treaty there was also a
provision for the trading of one English ship each year with
Spanish America; but in order to prevent too great advantage
therefrom it was carefully stipulated that the ship should not
exceed 600 tons burden. There is no doubt that this
stipulation was regularly violated by the English sending a
ship of the required number of tons, but with it numerous
tenders and smaller craft. Moreover smuggling, being very
profitable, became common; it was of this smuggling that
Captain Jenkins was accused. … Walpole, always anxious for
peace, by argument, by negotiation, by delays, resisted the
growing desire for war; at length he could resist no longer.
For the sake of his reputation he should have resigned office,
but he had enjoyed power too long to be ready to yield it, and
most unwisely he allowed himself to be forced into a
declaration of war October 19, 1739. The news was received
throughout England with a perfect frenzy of delight. … A
year and a day after this declaration of war an event
occurred—the death of the Emperor—which helped to swell the
volume of this war until it was merged into the European war,
called the War of the Austrian Succession, which includes
within itself the First and Second Silesian Wars, between
Austria and Frederick the Great of Prussia. The European war
went on until the general pacification in the treaty of
Aix-la-Chapelle, 1748. Within another ten years war broke out
again on somewhat similar grounds, but on a much wider scale
and with the combatants differently arranged, under the title
'Seven Years' War.' The events of this year, whilst the war
was only between Spain and England, were the attacks on
Spanish settlements in America, the capture of Porto Bello,
and the failure before Cartagena, which led to Anson's famous
voyage."
_E. E. Morris,
The Early Hanoverians,
book 2, chapter 3._
"Admiral Vernon, setting sail with the English fleet from
Jamaica, captured Porto Bello, on the Isthmus of Darien,
December 1st—an exploit for which he received the thanks of
both Houses of Parliament. His attempt on Carthagena, in the
spring of 1741, proved, however, a complete failure through
his dissensions, it is said, with General Wentworth, the
commander of the land forces. A squadron, under Commodore
Anson, despatched to the South Sea for the purpose of annoying
the Spanish colonies of Peru and Chili, destroyed the Peruvian
town of Paita, and made several prizes; the most important of
which was one of the great Spanish galleons trading between
Acapulco and Manilla, having a large treasure on board. It was
on this occasion that Anson circumnavigated the globe, having
sailed from England in 1740 and returned to Spithead in 1744."
_T. H. Dyer,
History of Modern Europe,
book 6, chapter 3._
{923}
ALSO IN:
_R. Walter,
Voyage around the World of George Anson._
_Sir J. Barrow,
Life of Lord George Anson,
chapter 1-2._
_W. Coxe,
Memoirs of the Bourbon Kings of Spain,
chapter 43 (volume 3)._
See, also,
FRANCE, A. D. 1733,
and GEORGIA: A. D. 1738-1743.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1740-1741.
Beginning of the War of the Austrian Succession.
See AUSTRIA: A. D. 1740-1741.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1742.
Naval operations in the Mediterranean.
See ITALY: A. D. 1741-1743.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1742-1745.
Ministries of Carteret and the Pelhams,
Pitt's admission to the Cabinet.
"Walpole resigned in the beginning of February, 1742; but his
retirement did not bring Pitt into office. The King had
conceived a violent prejudice against him, not only on account
of the prominent and effective part he had taken in the
general assault upon the late administration, but more
especially in consequence of the strong opinions he had
expressed on the subject of Hanover, and respecting the public
mischiefs arising from George the Second's partiality to the
interests of the Electorate. Lord Wilmington was the nominal
head of the new administration, which was looked on as little
more than a weak continuation of Walpole's. The same character
was generally given to Pelham's ministry, (Pelham succeeded
Wilmington as Premier, on the death of the latter in 1743,)
and Pitt soon appeared in renewed opposition to the Court. It
was about this time that he received a creditable and
convenient addition to his private fortune, which also
attested his celebrity. In 1744, the celebrated Duchess of
Marlborough died, leaving him a legacy' of 10,000 l. on
account of his merit in the noble defence he has made of the
laws of England, to prevent the ruin of his country.' Pitt was
now at the head of a small but determined band of Opposition
statesmen, with whom he was also connected by intermarriages
between members of their respective families and his own.
These were Lord Cobham, the Grenvilles, and his schoolfellow
Lord Lyttelton. The genius of Pitt had made the opposition of
this party so embarrassing to the minister, that Mr. Pelham,
the leader of the House of Commons, and his brother, the Duke
of Newcastle, found it necessary to get rid of Lord Carteret,
who was personally most obnoxious to the attacks of Pitt, on
account of his supposed zeal in favour of the King's
Hanoverian policy. Pitt's friends, Lyttelton and Grenville,
were taken into the ministry [called the Broad-bottomed
Administration], and the undoubted wish of the Pelhams was to
enlist Pitt also among their colleagues. But 'The great Mr.
Pitt,' says old Horace Walpole—using in derision an epithet
soon confirmed by the serious voice of the country—'the great
Mr. Pitt insisted on being Secretary at War';—but it was
found that the King's aversion to him was insurmountable; and
after much reluctance and difficulty, his friends were
persuaded to accept office without him, under an assurance
from the Duke of Newcastle that 'he should at no distant day
be able to remove this prejudice from his Majesty's mind.'
Pitt concurred in the new arrangement, and promised to give
his support to the remodelled administration. … On the
breaking out of the rebellion of 1745, Pitt energetically
supported the ministry in their measures to protect the
established government. George the Second's prejudices
against him, were, however, as strong as ever. At last a sort
of compromise was effected. Pitt waived for a time his demand
of the War Secretaryship, and on the 22nd of February, 1746,
he was appointed one of the joint Vice-treasurers for Ireland;
and on the 6th of May following he was promoted to the more
lucrative office of Paymaster-General of the Forces. … In
his office of Paymaster of the Forces Pitt set an example then
rare among statesmen, of personal disinterestedness. He held
what had hitherto been an exceedingly lucrative situation: for
the Paymaster seldom had less than 100,000 l. in his hands,
and was allowed to appropriate the interest of what funds he
held to his own use. In addition to this it had been customary
for foreign princes in the pay of England to allow the
Paymaster of the Forces a per-centage on their subsidies. Pitt
nobly declined to avail himself of these advantages, and would
accept of nothing beyond his legal salary."
_Sir E. Creasy,
Memoirs of Eminent Etonians,
chapter 4._
"From Walpole's death in 1745, when the star of the Stuarts
set for ever among the clouds of Culloden, to 1754, when Henry
Pelham followed his old chief, public life in England was
singularly calm and languid. The temperate and peaceful
disposition of the Minister seemed to pervade Parliament. At
his death the King exclaimed: 'Now I shall have no more
peace'; and the words proved to be prophetic. Both in
Parliament and in the country, as well as beyond its shores,
the elements of discord were swiftly at war. Out of
conflicting ambitions and widely divergent interests a new
type of statesman, very different from Walpole, or from
Bolingbroke, or from Pelham, or from the 'hubble-bubble
Newcastle,' was destined to arise. And along with the new
statesman a new force, of which he was in part the
representative, in part the creator, was to be introduced into
political life. This new force was the unrepresented voice of
the people. The new statesman was an ex-cornet of horse,
William Pitt, better known as Lord Chatham. The
characteristics of William Pitt which mainly influenced his
career were his ambition and his ill-health. Power, and that
conspicuous form of egotism called personal glory, were the
objects of his life. He pursued them with all the ardour of a
strong-willed purpose; but the flesh was in his case painfully
weak. Gout had declared itself his foe while he was still an
Eton boy. His failures, and prolonged withdrawal at intervals
from public affairs, were due to the inroads of this fatal
enemy, from whom he was destined to receive his death-blow.
Walpole had not been slow to recognise the quality of this
'terrible cornet of horse,' as he called him."
_R. B. Brett,
Footprints of Statesmen,
chapter 7._
ALSO IN:
_Lord Mahon (Earl Stanhope),
History of England, 1713-1783,
chapters 24-28 (volume 3)._
ENGLAND: A. D. 1743.
The British Pragmatic Army.
Battle of Dettingen.
See AUSTRIA: A. D. 1743.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1743 (OCTOBER).
The second Bourbon Family Compact.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1743 (OCTOBER).
ENGLAND: A. D. 1743-1752.
Struggle of French and English for supremacy in India.
The founding of British empire by Clive.
See INDIA: A. D. 1743-1752.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1744-1745.
War of the Austrian Succession:
Hostilities in America.
See NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1744: and 1745.
{924}
ENGLAND: A. D. 1745 (MAY).
War of the Austrian Succession in the Netherlands.
Fontenoy.
See NETHERLANDS (THE AUSTRIAN PROVINCES): A. D. 1745.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1745-1746.
The Young Pretender's invasion.
Last rising of the Jacobites.
See SCOTLAND: A. D. 1745-1746.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1745-1747.
War of the Austrian Succession
British incapacity.
Final successes at Sea.
"The extraordinary incapacity of English commanders, both by
land and sea, is one of the most striking facts in the war we
are considering. … Mismanagement and languor were general.
The battle of Dettingen was truly described as a happy escape
rather than a great victory; the army in Flanders can hardly
be said to have exhibited any military quality except courage,
and the British navy, though it gained some successes, added
little to its reputation. The one brilliant exception was the
expedition of Anson round Cape Horn, for the purpose of
plundering the Spanish merchandise and settlements in the
Pacific. It lasted for nearly four years. … The overwhelming
superiority of England upon the sea began, however, gradually
to influence the war. The island of Cape Breton, which
commanded the mouth of Gulf St. Lawrence, and protected the
Newfoundland fisheries, was captured in the June of 1745. In
1747 a French squadron was destroyed by a very superior
English fleet off Cape Finisterre. Another was defeated near
Belleisle, and in the same year as many as 644 prizes were
taken. The war on the part of the English, however, was most
efficiently conducted by means of subsidies, which were
enormously multiplied."
_W. E. H. Lecky,
History of England, 18th Century,
chapter 3 (volume 1)._
ENGLAND: A. D. 1746-1747.
War of the Austrian Succession in Italy.
Siege of Genoa.
See ITALY: A. D. 1746-1747.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1748 (OCTOBER).
End and results of the War of the Austrian Succession.
See AIX-LA-CHAPELLE: A. D. 1748;
and NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1745-1748.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1748-1754.
First movements to dispute possession of the Ohio Valley with
the French.
See OHIO (VALLEY): A. D. 1748-1754.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1749-1755.
Unsettled boundary disputes with France in America.
Preludes of the final contest.
See NOVA SCOTIA: A. D. 1749-1755;
CANADA: A. D. 1750-1753;
and OHIO (VALLEY): A. D. 1754.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1751.
Reformation of the Calendar.
See CALENDAR, GREGORIAN.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1753.
The Jewish Naturalization Bill.
See JEWS: A. D. 1662-1753.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1754.
Collision with the French in the Ohio Valley.
See OHIO (VALLEY): A. D. 1754.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1754-1755.
The Seven Years War.
Its causes and provocations.
"The seven years that succeeded the Peace of Aix-la-Chapelle
are described by Voltaire as among the happiest that Europe
ever enjoyed. Commerce revived, the fine arts flourished, and
the European nations resembled, it is said, one large family
that had been reunited after its dissensions. Unfortunately,
however, the peace had not exterminated all the elements of
discord. Scarcely had Europe begun to breathe again when new
disputes arose, and the seven years of peace and prosperity
were succeeded by another seven of misery and war. The ancient
rivalry between France and England, which had formerly vented
itself in continental struggles, had, by the progress of
maritime discovery and colonisation, been extended to all the
quarters of the globe. The interests of the two nations came
into collision in India, Africa and America, and a dispute
about boundaries in this last quarter again plunged them into
a war. By the 9th article of the Treaty of Aix-la-Chapelle,
France and England were mutually to restore their conquests in
such state as they were before the war. This clause became a
copious source of quarrel. The principal dispute regarded the
limits of Acadia, or Nova Scotia, which province had, by the
12th article of the Treaty of Utrecht, been ceded to England
'conformably to its ancient boundaries'; but what these were
had never been accurately determined, and each Power fixed
them according to its convenience. Thus, while the French
pretended that Nova Scotia embraced only the peninsula
extending from Cape St. Mary to Cape Canseau, the English
further included in it that part of the American continent
which extends to Pentagoet on the west, and to the river St.
Lawrence on the north, comprising all the province of New
Brunswick. Another dispute regarded the western limits of the
British North American settlements. The English claimed the
banks of the Ohio as belonging to Virginia, the French as
forming part of Louisiana; and they attempted to confine the
British colonies by a chain of forts stretching from Louisiana
to Canada. Commissaries were appointed to settle these
questions, who held their conferences at Paris between the
years 1750 and 1755. Disputes also arose respecting the
occupation by the French of the islands of St. Lucia,
Dominica, St. Vincent, and Tobago, which had been declared
neutral by former treaties. Before the Commissaries could
terminate their labours, mutual aggressions had rendered a war
inevitable. As is usual in such cases, it is difficult to say
who was the first aggressor. Each nation laid the blame on the
other. Some French writers assert that the English resorted to
hostilities out of jealousy at the increase of the French
navy. According to the plans of Rouillé, the French Minister
of Marine, 111 ships of the line, 54 frigates, and smaller
vessels in proportion, were to be built in the course of ten
years. The question of boundaries was, however, undoubtedly
the occasion, if not also the true cause, of the war. A series
of desultory conflicts had taken place along the Ohio, and on
the frontiers of Nova Scotia, in 1754, without being avowed by
the mother countries. A French writer, who flourished about
this time, the Abbé Raynal, ascribes "this clandestine warfare
to the policy of the Court of Versailles, which was seeking
gradually to recover what it had lost by treaties. Orders were
now issued to the English fleet to attack French vessels
wherever found. … It being known that a considerable French
fleet was preparing to sail from Brest and Rochefort for
America, Admiral Boscawen was despatched thither, and captured
two French men-of-war off Cape Race in Newfoundland, June 1755.
Hostilities were also transferred to the shores of Europe. …
A naval war between England and France was now unavoidable;
but, as in the case of the Austrian Succession, this was also
to be mixed up with a European war.
{925}
The complicated relations of the European system again caused
these two wars to run into one, though their origin had
nothing in common. France and England, whose quarrel lay in
the New World, appeared as the leading Powers in a European
contest in which they had only a secondary interest, and
decided the fate of Canada on the plains of Germany. The war
in Europe, commonly called the Seven Years' War, was chiefly
caused by the pride of one Empress [Maria Theresa], the vanity
of another [Elizabeth of Russia], and the subserviency of a
royal courtezan [Madame Pompadour], who became the tool of
these passions."
_T. H. Dyer,
History of Modern Europe,
book 6, chapter 5 (volume 3)._
"The Seven Years' War was in its origin not an European war at
all; it was a war between England and France on Colonial
questions with which the rest of Europe had nothing to do; but
the alliances and enmities of England and France in Europe,
joined with the fact that the King of England was also Elector
of Hanover, made it almost certain that a war between England
and France must spread to the Continent. I am far from
charging on the English Government of the time—for it was
they, and not the French, who forced on the war—as Macaulay
might do, the blood of the Austrians who perished at Leuthen,
of the Russians sabred at Zorndorf, and the Prussians mown
down at Kunersdorf. The States of the Continent had many old
enmities not either appeased or fought out to a result; and
these would probably have given rise to a war some day, even
if no black men, to adapt Macaulay again, had been previously
fighting on the coast of Coromandel, nor red men scalping each
other by the great lakes of North America. Still, it is to be
remembered that it was the work of England that the war took
place then and on those lines; and in view of the enormous
suffering and slaughter of that war, and of the violent and
arbitrary proceedings by which it was forced on, we may well
question whether English writers have any right to reprobate
Frederick's seizure of Silesia as something specially immoral
in itself and disastrous to the world. If the Prussians were
highway robbers, the English were pirates. … The origin of
the war between England and France, if a struggle which had
hardly been interrupted since the nominal peace could be said
to have an origin, was the struggle for America."
_A. R. Ropes,
The Causes of the Seven Years' War
(Royal Historical Society, Transactions,
new series, volume 4)._
ALSO IN:
_Lord Mahon (Earl Stanhope),
History of England, 1713-1783,
chapters 31-32 (volume 4)._
_F. Parkman,
Montcalm and Wolfe,
chapters 1-7._
See, also, GERMANY: A. D. 1755-1756;
CANADA: A. D. 1750-1753;
and OHIO (VALLEY): A. D. 1748-1754.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1755 (APRIL).
Demand of the royal governors in America for taxation of the
colonies by act of Parliament.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1755.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1755 (JUNE).
Boscawen's naval victory over the French.
See CANADA: A. D. 1755 (JUNE).
ENGLAND: A. D. 1755 (JULY).
Braddock's defeat in America.
See OHIO (VALLEY): A. D. 1755.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1755 (SEPTEMBER).
Victory at Lake George.
See CANADA: A. D. 1755 (SEPTEMBER).
ENGLAND: A. D. 1756.
Loss of Minorca and reverses in America.
See MINORCA: A. D. 1756;
and CANADA: A. D. 1756-1757.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1757-1759.
Campaigns on the Continent.
Defence of Hanover.
See GERMANY: A D. 1757 (JULY-DECEMBER),
to 1759 (APRIL-AUGUST).
ENGLAND: A. D. 1757-1760.
The great administration of the elder Pitt.
"In 1754 Henry Pelham died. The important consequence of his
death was the fact that it gave Pitt at last an opportunity of
coming to the front. The Duke of Newcastle, Henry Pelham's
brother, became leader of the administration, with Henry Fox
for Secretary at War, Pitt for Paymaster-general of the
Forces, and Murray, afterwards to be famous as Lord Mansfield,
for Attorney-general. There was some difficulty about the
leadership of the House of Commons. Pitt was still too much
disliked by the King, to be available for the position. Fox
for a while refused to accept it, and Murray was unwilling to
do anything which might be likely to withdraw him from the
professional path along which he was to move to such
distinction. An attempt was made to get on with a Sir Thomas
Robinson, a man of no capacity for such a position, and the
attempt was soon an evident failure. Then Fox consented to
take the position on Newcastle's own terms, which were those
of absolute submission to the dictates of Newcastle. Later
still he was content to descend to a subordinate office which
did not even give him a place in the Cabinet. Fox never
recovered the damage which his reputation and his influence
suffered by this amazing act. … The Duke of Newcastle's
Ministry soon fell. Newcastle was not a man who had the
slightest capacity for controlling or directing a policy of
war; and the great struggle known as the Seven Years' War had
now broken out. One lamentable event in the war has to be
recorded, although it was but of minor importance. This was
the capture of Minorca by the French under the romantic,
gallant, and profligate Duc de Richelieu. The event is
memorable chiefly, or only, because it was followed by the
trial and execution [March 14, 1757] of the unfortunate
Admiral Byng.
See MINORCA: A. D. 1756.
The Duke of Newcastle resigned office, and for a short time
the Duke of Devonshire was at the head of a coalition Ministry
which included Pitt. The King, however, did not stand this
long, and one day suddenly turned them all out of office. Then
a coalition of another kind was formed, which included
Newcastle and Pitt, with Henry Fox in the subordinate position
of paymaster. Pitt now for the first time had it all his own
way. He ruled everything in the House of Commons. He flung
himself with passionate and patriotic energy into the alliance
with that great Frederick whose genius and daring were like
his own."
_Justin McCarthy,
History of the Four Georges,
volume 2, chapter 41._
"Newcastle took the Treasury. Pitt was Secretary of State,
with the lead in the House of Commons, and with the supreme
direction of the war and of foreign affairs. Fox, the only man
who could have given much annoyance to the new Government, was
silenced with the office of Paymaster, which, during the
continuance of that war, was probably the most lucrative place
in the whole Government. He was poor, and the situation was
tempting. … The first acts of the new administration were
characterized rather by vigour than by judgment. Expeditions
were sent against different parts of the French coast with
little success. … But soon conquests of a very different
kind filled the kingdom with pride and rejoicing. A succession
of victories undoubtedly brilliant, and, as it was thought,
not barren, raised to the highest point the fame of the
minister to whom the conduct of the war had been intrusted.
{926}
In July, 1758, Louisburg fell. The whole island of Cape Breton
was reduced. The fleet to which the Court of Versailles had
confided the defence of French America was destroyed. The
captured standards were borne in triumph from Kensington
Palace to the city, and were suspended in St. Paul's Church,
amidst the roar of guns and kettle-drums, and the shouts of an
immense multitude. Addresses of congratulation came in from all
the great towns of England. Parliament met only to decree
thanks and monuments, and to bestow, without one murmur,
supplies more than double of those which had been given during
the war of the Grand Alliance. The year 1759 opened with the
conquest of Goree. Next fell Guadaloupe; then Ticonderoga;
then Niagara. The Toulon squadron was completely defeated by
Boscawen off Cape Lagos. But the greatest exploit of the year
was the achievement of Wolfe on the heights of Abraham. The
news of his glorious death and of the fall of Quebec reached
London in the very week in which the Houses met. All was joy
and triumph. Envy and faction were forced to join in the
general applause. Whigs and Tories vied with each other in
extolling the genius and energy of Pitt. His colleagues were
never talked of or thought of. The House of Commons, the
nation, the colonies, our allies, our enemies, had their eyes
fixed on him alone. Scarcely had Parliament voted a monument
to Wolfe when another great event called for fresh rejoicings.
The Brest fleet, under the command of Conflans, had put out to
sea. It was overtaken by an English squadron under Hawke.
Conflans attempted to take shelter close under the French
coast. The shore was rocky: the night was black: the wind was
furious: the waves of the Bay of Biscay ran high. But Pitt had
infused into every branch of the service a spirit which had
long been unknown. No British seaman was disposed to err on
the same side with Byng. The pilot told Hawke that the attack
could not be made without the greatest danger. 'You have done
your duty in remonstrating,' answered Hawke; 'I will answer
for everything. I command you to lay me alongside the French
admiral.' Two French ships of the line struck. Four were
destroyed. The rest hid themselves in the rivers of Brittany.
The year 1760 came; and still triumph followed triumph.
Montreal was taken; the whole Province of Canada was
subjugated; the French fleets underwent a succession of
disasters in the seas of Europe and America. In the meantime
conquests equalling in rapidity, and far surpassing in
magnitude, those of Cortes and Pizarro, had been achieved in
the East. In the space of three years the English had founded
a mighty empire. The French had been defeated in every part of
India. Chandernagore had surrendered to Clive, Pondicherry to
Coote. Throughout Bengal, Bahar, Orissa and the Carnatic, the
authority of the East India Company was more absolute than
that of Acbar or Aurungzebe had ever been. On the continent of
Europe the odds were against England. We had but one important
ally, the King of Prussia; and he was attacked, not only by
France, but also by Russia and Austria. Yet even on the
Continent, the energy of Pitt triumphed over all difficulties.
Vehemently as he had condemned the practice of subsidising
foreign princes, he now carried that practice farther than
Carteret himself would have ventured to do. The active and
able Sovereign of Prussia received such pecuniary assistance
as enabled him to maintain the conflict on equal terms against
his powerful enemies. On no subject had Pitt ever spoken with
so much eloquence and ardour as on the mischiefs of the
Hanoverian connection. He now declared, not without much show
of reason, that it would be unworthy of the English people to
suffer their King to be deprived of his electoral dominions in
an English quarrel. He assured his countrymen that they should
be no losers, and that he would conquer America for them in
Germany. By taking this line he conciliated the King, and lost
no part of his influence with the nation. In Parliament, such
was the ascendeney which his eloquence, his success, his high
situation, his pride, and his intrepidity had obtained for
him, that he took liberties with the House of which there had
been no example, and which have never since been imitated. …
The face of affairs was speedily changed. The invaders [of
Hanover] were driven out. … In the meantime, the nation
exhibited all the signs of wealth and prosperity. … The
success of our arms was perhaps owing less to the skill of his
[Pitt's] dispositions than to the national resources and the
national spirit. But that the national spirit rose to the
emergency, that the national resources were contributed with
unexampled cheerfulness, this was undoubtedly his work. The
ardour of his soul had set the whole kingdom on fire. … The
situation which Pitt occupied at the close of the reign of
George the Second was the most enviable ever occupied by any
public man in English history. He had conciliated the King; he
domineered over the House of Commons; he was adored by the
people; he was admired by all Europe. He was the first
Englishman of his time; and he had made England the first
country in the world. The Great Commoner, the name by which he
was often designated, might look down with scorn on coronets
and garters. The nation was drunk with joy and pride."
_Lord Macaulay,
First Essay on William Pitt, Earl of Chatham
(Essays, volume 3)._
ALSO IN:
_Lord Mahon (Earl Stanhope),
History of England, 1713-1783,
chapters 33-36 (volume 4)._
_Sir E. Creasy,
Memoirs of Eminent Etonians,
chapter 4._
England: A. D. 1758 (JUNE-AUGUST).
The Seven Years War.
Abortive expeditions against the coast of France.
Early in 1758 there was sent out "one of those joint military
and naval expeditions which Pitt seems at first to have
thought the proper means by which England should assist in a
continental war. Like all such isolated expeditions, it was of
little value. St. Malo, against which it was directed, was
found too strong to be taken, but a large quantity of shipping
and naval stores was destroyed. The fleet also approached
Cherbourg, but although the troops were actually in their
boats ready to land, they were ordered to re-embark, and the
fleet came home. Another somewhat similar expedition was sent
out later in the year. In July General Bligh and Commodore
Howe took and destroyed Cherbourg, but on attempting a similar
assault on St. Malo they found it too strong for them. The
army had been landed in the Bay of St. Cast, and, while
engaged in re-embarkation, it was attacked by some French
troops which had been hastily collected, and severely
handled."
_J. F. Bright,
History of England,
period 3, page 1027._
{927}
ENGLAND: A. D. 1758 (JULY-NOVEMBER).
The Seven Years War in America: Final capture of Louisbourg
and recovery of Fort Duquesne.
Bloody defeat at Ticonderoga.
See CANADA: A. D. 1758;
and CAPE BRETON ISLAND: A. D. 1758-1760.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1758-1761.
Breaking of French power in India.
See INDIA: A. D. 1758-1761.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1759.
Great victories in America.
Niagara, Ticonderoga, Crown Point, Quebec.
See CANADA: A. D. 1759.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1759 (AUGUST-NOVEMBER).
British naval supremacy established.
Victories off Lagos and in Quiberon Bay.
"Early in the year [1759] the French had begun to make
preparations for an invasion of the British Isles on a large
scale. Flat-bottomed boats were built at Havre and other
places along the coasts of Normandy and Brittany, and large
fleets were collected at Brest and Toulon, besides a small
squadron at Dunkirk. A considerable force was assembled at
Vannes in the south of Brittany, under the command of the Duc
d'Aiguillon, which was to be convoyed to the Irish coasts by
the combined fleets of Brest and Toulon, while the
flat-bottomed boats transported a second army across the
channel under cover of a dark night. The Dunkirk squadron,
under Admiral Thurot, a celebrated privateer, was to create a
diversion by attacking some part of the Scotch coast. The
design was bold and well contrived, and would not improbably
have succeeded three or even two years before, but the
opportunity was gone. England was no longer in 'that enervate
state in which 20,000 men from France could shake her.' Had a
landing been effected, the regular troops in the country, with
the support of the newly created militia, would probably have
been equal to the emergency; but a more effectual bulwark was
found in the fleet, which watched the whole French coast,
ready to engage the enemy as soon as he ventured out of his
ports. The first attempt to break through the cordon was made
by M. de la Clue from Toulon. The English Mediterranean fleet,
under Admiral Boscawen, cruising before that port, was
compelled early in July to retire to Gibraltar to take in
water and provisions and to refit some of' the ships. Hereupon
M. de la Clue put to sea, and hugging the African coast,
passed the straits without molestation. Boscawen, however,
though his ships were not yet refitted, at once gave chase,
and came up with the enemy off [Lagos, on] the coast of
Portugal, where an engagement took place [August 18], in which
three French ships were taken and two driven on shore and burnt.
The remainder took refuge in Cadiz, where they were blockaded
till the winter, when, the English fleet being driven off the
coast by a storm, they managed to get back to Toulon. The
discomfiture of the Brest fleet, under M. de Conflans, was
even more complete. On November 9 Admiral Sir Edward Hawke,
who had blockaded Brest all the summer and autumn, was driven
from his post by a violent gale, and on the 14th, Conflans put
to sea with 21 sail of the line and 4 frigates. On the same
day, Hawke, with 22 sail of the line, stood out from Torbay,
where he had taken shelter, and made sail for Quiberon Bay,
judging that Conflans would steer thither to liberate a fleet
of transports which were blocked up in the river Morbihan, by
a small squadron of frigates under Commodore Duff. On the
morning of the 20th, he sighted the French fleet chasing Duff
in Quiberon Bay. Conflans, when he discerned the English,
recalled his chasing ships and prepared for action; but on
their nearer approach changed his mind, and ran for shelter
among the shoals and rocks of the coast. The sea was running
mountains high and the coast was very dangerous and little
known to the English, who had no pilots; but Hawke, whom no
peril could daunt, never hesitated a moment, but crowded all
sail after them. Without regard to lines of battle, every ship
was directed to make the best of her way towards the enemy,
the admiral telling his officers he was for the old way of
fighting, to make downright work with them. In consequence
many of the English ships never got into action at all; but
the short winter day was wearing away, and all haste was
needed if the enemy were not to escape. … As long as
daylight lasted the battle raged with great fury, so near the
coast that '10,000 persons on the shore were the sad
spectators of the white flag's disgrace.' … By nightfall two
French ships, the Thésée 74, and Superb 70, were sunk, and two,
the Formidable 80, and the Héros 74, had struck. The Soleil
Royal afterwards went aground, but her crew escaped, as did
that of the Héros, whose captain dishonourably ran her ashore
in the night. Of the remainder, seven ships of the line and
four frigates threw their guns overboard, and escaped up the
river Vilaine, where most of them bumped their bottoms out in
the shallow water; the rest got away and took shelter in the
Charente, all but one, which was wrecked, but very few ever
got out again. With two hours more of daylight Hawke thought
he could have taken or destroyed all, as he was almost up with
the French van when night overtook him. Two English ships, the
Essex 64, and the Resolution 74, went ashore in the night and
could not be got off, but the crews were saved, and the
victory was won with the loss of 40 killed and 200 wounded.
The great invasion scheme was completely wrecked. Thurot had
succeeded in getting out from Dunkirk, and for some months was
a terror to the northern coast-towns, but early in the
following year an end was put to his career. For the rest of
the war the French never ventured to meet the English in
battle on the high seas, and could only look on helplessly
while their colonies and commerce fell into the hands of their
rivals. From the day of the fight in Quiberon Bay, the naval
and commercial supremacy of England was assured."
_F. W. Longman,
Frederick the Great and the Seven Years War,
chapter 12, section 3._
ALSO IN:
_C. D. Yonge,
History of the British Navy,
volume 1, chapter 12._
_J. Entick,
History of the late War,
volume 4, pages 241-290._
ENGLAND: A. D. 1760.
Completed conquest of Canada.
Successes of the Prussians and their allies.
See CANADA: A. D. 1760;
and GERMANY: A. D. 1760.
{928}
ENGLAND: A. D. 1760-1763.
Accession of George III.
His ignorance and his despotic notions of kingship.
Retirement of the elder Pitt.
Rise and fall of Bute.
The Grenville Ministry.
"When George III. came to the throne, in 1760, England had
been governed for more than half a century by the great Whig
families which had been brought into the foreground by the
revolution of 1688. … Under Walpole's wise and powerful
sway, the first two Georges had possessed scarcely more than
the shadow of sovereignty. It was the third George's ambition
to become a real king, like the king of France or the king of
Spain. From earliest babyhood, his mother had forever been
impressing upon him the precept, 'George be king!' and this
simple lesson had constituted pretty much the whole of his
education. Popular tradition regards him as the most ignorant
king that ever sat upon the English throne; and so far as
general culture is concerned, this opinion is undoubtedly
correct. … Nevertheless … George III. was not destitute of
a certain kind of ability, which often gets highly rated in
this not too clear-sighted world. He could see an immediate
end very distinctly, and acquired considerable power from the
dogged industry with which he pursued it. In an age where some
of the noblest English statesmen drank their gallon of strong
wine daily, or sat late at the gambling-table, or lived in
scarcely hidden concubinage, George III. was decorous in
personal habits and pure in domestic relations, and no
banker's clerk in London applied himself to the details of
business more industriously than he. He had a genuine talent
for administration, and he devoted this talent most
assiduously to selfish ends. Scantily endowed with human
sympathy, and almost boorishly stiff in his ordinary unstudied
manner, he could be smooth as oil whenever he liked. He was an
adept in gaining men's confidence by a show of interest, and
securing their aid by dint of fair promises; and when he found
them of no further use, he could turn them adrift with wanton
insult. Anyone who dared to disagree with him upon even the
slightest point of policy he straightway regarded as a natural
enemy, and pursued him ever afterward with vindictive hatred.
As a natural consequence, he surrounded himself with weak and
short-sighted advisers, and toward all statesmen of broad
views and independent character he nursed the bitterest
rancour. … Such was the man who, on coming to the throne in
1760, had it for his first and chiefest thought to break down
the growing system of cabinet government in England."
_J. Fiske,
The American Revolution,
chapter 1 (volume 1)._
"The dissolution of Parliament, shortly after his accession,
afforded an opportunity of strengthening the parliamentary
connection of the king's friends. Parliament was kept sitting
while the king and Lord Bute were making out lists of the
court candidates, and using every exertion to secure their
return. The king not only wrested government boroughs from the
ministers, in order to nominate his own friends, but even
encouraged opposition to such ministers as he conceived not to
be in his interest. … Lord Bute, the originator of the new
policy, was not personally well qualified for its successful
promotion. He was not connected with the great families who
had acquired a preponderance of political influence; he was no
parliamentary debater: his manners were unpopular: he was a
courtier rather than a politician: his intimate relations with
the Princess of Wales were an object of scandal; and, above
all, he was a Scotchman. … Immediately after the king's
accession he had been made a privy councillor, and admitted
into the cabinet. An arrangement was soon afterwards
concerted, by which Lord Holdernesse retired from office with
a pension, and Lord Bute succeeded him as Secretary of State.
It was now the object of the court to break up the existing
ministry, and to replace it with another, formed from among
the king's friends. Had the ministry been united, and had the
chiefs reposed confidence in one another, it would have been
difficult to overthrow them. But there were already jealousies
amongst them, which the court lost no opportunity of
fomenting. A breach soon arose between Mr. Pitt, the most
powerful and popular of the ministers, and his colleagues. He
desired to strike a sudden blow against Spain, which had
concluded a secret treaty of alliance with France, then at war
with this country.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1761 (AUGUST).
Though war minister he was opposed by all his colleagues
except Lord Temple. He bore himself haughtily at the council,
—declared that he had been called to the ministry by the
voice of the people, and that he could not be responsible for
measures which he was no longer allowed to guide. Being met
with equal loftiness in the cabinet, he was forced to tender
his resignation. The king overpowered the retiring minister
with kindness and condescension. He offered the barony of
Chatham to his wife, and to himself an annuity of £3,000 a
year for three lives. The minister had deserved these royal
favours, and he accepted them, but at the cost of his
popularity. … The same Gazette which announced his
resignation, also trumpeted forth the peerage and the pension,
and was the signal for clamors against the public favourite.
On the retirement of Mr. Pitt, Lord Bute became the most
influential of the ministers. He undertook the chief
management of public affairs in the cabinet, and the sole
direction of the House of Lords. … His ascendency provoked
the jealousy and resentment of the king's veteran minister,
the Duke of Newcastle: who had hitherto distributed all the
patronage of the Crown, but now was never consulted. … At
length, in May 1762, his grace, after frequent disagreements
in the cabinet and numerous affronts, was obliged to resign.
And now, the object of the court being at length attained,
Lord Bute was immediately placed at the head of affairs, as
First Lord of the Treasury. … The king and his minister were
resolved to carry matters with a high hand, and their
arbitrary attempts to coerce and intimidate opponents
disclosed their imperious views of the prerogative.
Preliminaries of a treaty of peace with France having been
agreed upon, against which a strong popular feeling was
aroused, the king's vengeance was directed against all who
ventured to disapprove them. The Duke of Devonshire having
declined to attend the council summoned to decide upon the
peace, was insulted by the king, and forced to resign his
office of Lord Chamberlain. A few days afterwards the king,
with his own hand, struck his grace's name from the list of
privy councillors. … No sooner had Lord Rockingham heard of
the treatment of the Duke of Devonshire than he … resigned
his place in the household. A more general proscription of the
Whig nobles soon followed. The Dukes of Newcastle and Grafton,
and the Marquess of Rockingham, having presumed, as peers of
Parliament, to express their disapprobation of the peace, were
dismissed from the lord-lieutenancies of their counties. …
Nor was the vengeance of the court confined to the heads of
the Whig party.
{929}
All placemen, who had voted against the preliminaries of
peace, were dismissed. … The preliminaries of peace were
approved by Parliament; and the Princess of Wales, exulting in
the success of the court, exclaimed, 'Now my son is king of
England.' But her exultation was premature. … These
stretches of prerogative served to unite the Whigs into an
organised opposition. … The fall of the king's favoured
minister was even more sudden than his rise. … Afraid, as he
confessed, 'not only of falling himself, but of involving his
royal master in his ruin,' he resigned suddenly [April 7,
1763],—to the surprise of all parties, and even of the king
himself,—before he had held office for eleven months. … He
retreated to the interior cabinet, whence he could direct more
securely the measures of the court; having previously negotiated
the appointment of Mr. George Grenville as his successor, and
arranged with him the nomination of the cabinet. The ministry
of Mr. Grenville was constituted in a manner favourable to the
king's personal views, and was expected to be under the
control of himself and his favorite."
_T. E. May,
Constitutional History of England, 1760-1860,
chapter 1._
ALSO IN:
_J. H. Jesse,
Memoirs of the Life and Reign of George III.,
chapter 1-10 (volume 1)._
_The Grenville Papers,
volumes 1-2._
_W. Massey,
History of England: Reign of George III.,
chapters 2-3 (volume 1)._
_G. O. Trevelyan,
Early History of Charles James Fox,
chapter 4._
ENGLAND: A. D. 1760-1775.
Crown, Parliament and Colonies.
The conflicting theories of their relations.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1760-1775.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1761-1762.
The third Family Compact of the Bourbon kings.
War with Spain.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1761 (AUGUST).
ENGLAND: A. D. 1761-1762.
The Seven Years War: Last Campaigns in Germany.
See GERMANY: A. D. 1761-1762.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1 762.
Capture of Havana.
See CUBA: A. D. 1514-1851.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1762-1764.
"The North Briton," No. 45, and the prosecution of Wilkes.
"The popular dislike to the new system of Government by
courtiers had found vent in a scurrilous press, the annoyance
of which continued unabated by the sham retirement of the
minister whose ascendancy had provoked this grievous kind of
opposition. The leader of the host of libellers was John
Wilkes, a man of that audacity and self-possession which are
indispensable to success in the most disreputable line of
political adventure. But Wilkes had qualities which placed him
far above the level of a vulgar demagogue. Great sense and
shrewdness, brilliant wit, extensive knowledge of the world,
with the manners of a gentleman, were among the
accomplishments which he brought to a vocation, but rarely
illustrated by the talents of a Catiline. Long before he
engaged in public life, Wilkes had become infamous for his
debaucheries, and, with a few other men of fashion, had tested
the toleration of public opinion by a series of outrages upon
religion and decency. Profligacy of morals, however, has not
in any age or country proved a bar to the character of a
patriot. … Wilkes' journal, which originated with the
administration of Lord Bute [first issued June 5, 1762], was
happily entitled 'The North Briton,' and from its boldness and
personality soon obtained a large circulation. It is surpassed
in ability though not often equalled in virulence by the
political press of the present day; but at a time when the
characters of public men deservedly stood lowest in public
estimation, they were protected, not unadvisedly perhaps, from
the assaults of the press by a stringent law of libel. … It
had been the practice since the Revolution, and it is now
acknowledged as an important constitutional right, to treat
the Speech from the Throne, on the opening of Parliament, as
the manifesto of the minister; and in that point of view, it
had from time to time been censured by Pitt, and other leaders
of party, with the ordinary license of debate. But when Wilkes
presumed to use this freedom in his paper, though in a degree
which would have seemed temperate and even tame had he spoken
to the same purport in his place in Parliament, it was thought
necessary to repress such insolence with the whole weight of
the law. A warrant was issued from the office of the Secretary
of State to seize—not any person named—but 'the authors,
printers, and publishers of the seditious libel, entitled the
North Briton, No. 45.' Under this warrant, forty-nine persons
were arrested and detained in custody for several days; but as
it was found that none of them could be brought within the
description in the warrant, they were discharged. Several of
the individuals who had been so seized, brought actions for
false imprisonment against the messengers; and in one of these
actions, in which a verdict was entered for the plaintiff
under the direction of the Lord Chief Justice of the Common
Pleas, the two important questions as to the claim of a
Secretary of State to the protection given by statute to
justices of the peace acting in that capacity, and as to the
legality of a warrant which did not specify any individual by
name, were raised by a Bill of Exceptions to the ruling of the
presiding judge, and thus came upon appeal before the Court of
King's Bench. … The Court of King's Bench … intimated a
strong opinion against the Crown upon the important
constitutional questions which had been raised, and directed
the case to stand over for further argument; but when the case
came on again, the Attorney-General Yorke prudently declined
any further agitation of the questions. … These proceedings
were not brought to a close until the end of the year 1765,
long after the administration under which they were instituted
had ceased to exist. … The prosecution of Wilkes himself was
pressed with the like indiscreet vigour. The privilege of
Parliament, which extends to every case except treason,
felony, and breach of the peace, presented an obstacle to the
vengeance of the Court. But the Crown lawyers, with a
servility which belonged to the worst times of prerogative,
advised that a libel came within the purview of the exception,
as having a tendency to a breach of the peace; and upon this
perversion of plain law, Wilkes was arrested, and brought
before Lord Halifax for examination. The cool and wary
demagogue, however, was more than a match for the Secretary of
State; but his authorship of the alleged libel having been
proved by the printer, he was committed close prisoner to the
Tower. In a few days, having sued out writs of habeas, he was
brought up before the Court of Common Pleas. … The argument
which would confound the commission of a crime with conduct
which had no more than a tendency to provoke it, was at once
rejected by an independent court of justice; and the result
was the liberation of Wilkes from custody.
{930}
But the vengeance of the Court was not turned aside by this
disappointment. An ex-officio prosecution for libel was
immediately instituted against the member for Aylesbury; he
was deprived of his commission as colonel of the
Buckinghamshire militia; his patron, Earl Temple, who provided
the funds for his defence, was at the same time dismissed from
the lord-lieutenancy of the same county, and from the Privy
Council. When Parliament assembled in the autumn, the first
business brought forward by the Government was this
contemptible affair—a proceeding not merely foolish and
undignified, but a flagrant violation of common justice and
decency. Having elected to prosecute Wilkes for this alleged
libel before the ordinary tribunals of the country, it is
manifest that the Government should have left the law to take
its course unprejudiced. But the House of Commons was now
required to pronounce upon the very subject-matter of inquiry
which had been referred to the decision of a court of law; and
this degenerate assembly, at the bidding of the minister,
readily condemned the indicted paper in terms of extravagant
and fulsome censure, and ordered that it should be burned by
the hands of the common hangman. Lord North, on the part of
the Government, then pressed for an immediate decision on the
question of privilege; but Pitt, in his most solemn manner,
insisting on an adjournment, the House yielded this point. On
the following day, Wilkes, being dangerously wounded in a duel
with Martin, one of the joint Secretaries to the Treasury, who
had grossly insulted him in the House, for the purpose of
provoking a quarrel, was disabled from attending in his place;
but the House, nevertheless, refused to postpone the question
of privilege beyond the 24th of the month. On that day, they
resolved 'that the privilege of Parliament does not extend to
the case of writing and publishing seditious libels, nor ought
to be allowed to obstruct the ordinary course of the laws in
the speedy and effectual prosecution of so heinous and
dangerous an offence.' Whatever may be thought of the public
spirit or prudence of a House of Commons which could thus
officiously define its privilege, the vote was practically
futile, since a court of justice had already decided in this
very case, as a matter of strict law, that the person of a
member of Parliament was protected from arrest on a charge of
this description. The conduct of Pitt on this occasion was
consistent with the loftiness of his character. … The
conduct of the Lords was in harmony with that of the Lower
House. … The session was principally occupied by the
proceedings against this worthless demagogue, whom the
unworthy hostility of the Crown and both Houses of Parliament
had elevated into a person of the first importance. His name
was coupled with that of Liberty; and when the executioner
appeared to carry into effect the sentence of Parliament upon
'The North Briton,' he was driven away by the populace, who
rescued the obnoxious paper from the flames, and evinced their
hatred and contempt for the Court faction by 'burning in its
stead the jack-boot and the petticoat, the vulgar emblems
which they employed to designate John Earl of Bute and his
supposed royal patroness. … Wilkes himself, however, was
forced to yield to the storm. Beset by the spies of
Government, and harassed by its prosecutions, which he had not
the means of resisting, he withdrew to Paris. Failing to attend
in his place in the House of Commons on the first day after
the Christmas recess, according to order, his excuse was
eagerly declared invalid; a vote of expulsion immediately
followed [January 19, 1764], and a new writ was ordered for
Aylesbury."
_W. Massey,
History of England: Reign of George III.,
chapter 4 (volume 1)._
ALSO IN:
_J. E. T. Rogers,
Historical Gleanings,
volume 2, chapter 3._
_Lord Mahon (Earl Stanhope),
History of England, 1713-1783,
chapters 41-42 (volume 5)._
ENGLAND: A. D. 1763.
The end and results of the Seven Years War:
The Peace of Paris and Peace of Hubertsburg.
America to be English, not French.
See SEVEN YEARS WAR.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1763-1764.
Determination to tax the American colonies.
The Sugar (or Molasses) Act.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1763-1764.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1764.
The climax of the mercantile colonial policy and its
consequences.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1764.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1765.
Passage of the Stamp Act for the colonies.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1765.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1765-1768.
Grenville dismissed.
The Rockingham and the Grafton-Chatham Ministries.
Repeal of the Stamp Act.
Fresh trouble in the American colonies.
"Hitherto the Ministry had only excited the indignation of the
people and the colonies. Not satisfied with the number of
their enemies, they now proceeded to quarrel openly with the
king. In 1765 the first signs of the illness, to which George
afterwards fell a victim, appeared; and as soon as he
recovered he proposed, with wonderful firmness, that a Regency
Bill should be brought in, limiting the king's choice of a
Regent to the members of the Royal Family. The Ministers,
however, in alarm at the prospect of a new Bute Ministry,
persuaded the king that there was no hope of the Princess's
name being accepted, and that it had better be left out of the
Bill. The king unwisely consented to this unparalleled insult
on his parent, apparently through lack of consideration.
Parliament, however, insisted on inserting the Princess's name
by a large majority, and thus exposed the trick of his
Ministers. This the king never forgave. They had been for some
time obnoxious to him, and now he determined to get rid of
them. With this view he induced the Duke of Cumberland to make
overtures to Chatham [Pitt, not yet titled], offering almost
any terms." But no arrangement was practicable, and the king
was left quite at the mercy of the Ministers be detested. "He
was obliged to consent to dismiss Bute and all Bute's
following. He was obliged to promise that he would use no
underhand influence for the future. Life, in fact, became a
burden to him under George Grenville's domination, and he
determined to dismiss him, even at the cost of accepting the
Whig Houses, whom he had pledged himself never to employ
again. Pitt and Temple still proving obdurate, Cumberland
opened negotiations with the Rockingham Whigs, and the
Grenville Ministry was at an end [July, 1765]. … The new
Ministry was composed as follows: Rockingham became First Lord
of the Treasury; Dowdeswell, Chancellor of the Exchequer;
Newcastle, Privy Seal; Northington, Lord Chancellor. …
{931}
Their leader Rockingham was a man of sound sense, but no power
of language or government. … He was totally free from any
suspicion of corruption. In fact there was more honesty than
talent in the Ministry altogether. … The back-bone of the
party was removed by the refusal of Pitt to co-operate. Burke
was undoubtedly the ablest man among them, but his time was
not yet come. Such a Ministry, it was recognized even by its
own members, could not last long. However, it had come in to
effect certain necessary legislation, and it certainly so far
accomplished the end of its being. It repealed the Stamp Act
[see UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1766], which had caused
so much indignation among the Americans; and at the same time
passed a law securing the dependence of the colonies. … The
king, however, made no secret of his hostility to his
Ministers. … The conduct of Pitt in refusing to join them
was a decided mistake, and more. He was really at one with
them on most points. Most of their acts were in accordance
with his views. But he was determined not to join a purely
party Ministry, though he could have done so practically on
whatever terms he pleased. In 1766, however, he consented to
form a coalition, in which were included men of the most
opposite views—'King's Friends,' Rockingham Whigs, and the
few personal followers of Pitt. Rockingham refused to take any
office, and retired to the more congenial occupation of
following the hounds. The nominal Prime Minister of this
Cabinet was the Duke of Grafton, for Pitt refused the
leadership, and retired to the House of Lords as Lord Chatham.
Charles Townshend became Chancellor of the Exchequer, and Lord
North, the leader of the 'King's Friends,' was Pay-master. The
Ministry included Shelburne, Barré, Conway, Northington,
Barrington, Camden, Granby—all men of the most opposite
views. … This second Ministry of Pitt was a mistake from the
very first. He lost all his popularity by taking a peerage.
… As a peer and Lord Privy Seal he found himself in an
uncongenial atmosphere. … His name, too, had lost a great
deal of its power abroad. 'Pitt' had, indeed, been a word to
conjure with; but there were no associations of defeat and
humiliation connected with the name of 'Chatham.' … There
were other difficulties, however, as well. His arrogance had
increased, and it was so much intensified by irritating gout,
that it became almost impossible to serve with him. His
disease later almost approached madness. … The Ministry
drifted helplessly about at the mercy of each wind and wave of
opinion like a water-logged ship; and it was only the utter want
of union among the Opposition which prevented its sinking
entirely. As it was, they contrived to renew the breach with
America, which had been almost entirely healed by Rockingham's
repeal of the Stamp Act. Charles Townshend, the Chancellor of
the Exchequer, was by far the ablest man left in the Cabinet,
and he rapidly assumed the most prominent position. He had
always been in favour of taxing America. He now brought
forward a plan for raising a revenue from tea, glass, and
paper [see UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1766-1767, and
1767-1768], by way of import duty at the American ports. …
This wild measure was followed shortly by the death of its
author, in September; and then the weakness of the Ministry
became so obvious that, as Chatham still continued incapable,
some fresh reinforcement was absolutely necessary. A coalition
was effected with the Bloomsbury Gang; and, in consequence, Lords
Gower, Weymouth, and Sandwich joined the Ministry. Lord
Northington and General Conway retired. North succeeded
Townshend at the Exchequer. Lord Hillsborough became the first
Secretary of State for the Colonies, thus raising the number
of Secretaries to three. This Ministry was probably the worst
that had governed England since the days of the Cabal; and the
short period of its existence was marked by a succession of
arbitrary and foolish acts. On every important question that
it had to deal with, it pursued a course diametrically opposed
to Chatham's views; and yet with singular irony his nominal
connection with it was not severed for some time"—that is,
not until the following year, 1768.
_B. C. Skottowe,
Our Hanoverian Kings,
pages 234-239._
ALSO IN:
_The Grenville Papers,
volumes 3-4._
_C. W. Dilke,
Papers of a Critic,
volume 2._
_E. Lodge,
Portraits,
volume 8, chapter 2._
ENGLAND: A. D. 1767-1769.
The first war with Hyder Ali, of Mysore.
See INDIA: A. D. 1767-1769.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1768-1770.
The quartering of troops in Boston and Its ill consequences.
See BOSTON: A. D. 1768; and 1770.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1768-1774.
John Wilkes and the King and Parliament again.
The Middlesex elections.
In March, 1768, Wilkes, though outlawed by the court, returned
to London from Paris and solicited a pardon from the king; but
his petition was unnoticed. Parliament being then dissolved
and writs issued for a new election, he offered himself as a
candidate to represent the City of London. "He polled 1,247
votes, but was unsuccessful. On the day following this
decision he issued an address to the freeholders of Middlesex.
The election took place at Brentford, on the 28th of March. At
the close of the poll the numbers were—Mr. Wilkes, 1,292; Mr.
Cooke, 827; Sir W. B. Proctor, 807. This was a victory which
astonished the public and terrified the ministry. The mob was
in ecstasies. The citizens of London were compelled to
illuminate their houses and to shout for 'Wilkes and liberty.'
It was the earnest desire of the ministry to pardon the man whom
they had persecuted, but the king remained inexorable. … A
month after the election he wrote to Lord North: 'Though
relying entirely on your attachment to my person as well as in
your hatred of any lawless proceeding, yet I think it highly
expedient to apprise you that the expulsion of Mr. Wilkes
appears to be very essential, and must be effected.' What the
sovereign counselled was duly accomplished. Before his
expulsion, Wilkes was a prisoner in the King's Bench. Having
surrendered, it was determined that his outlawry was informal;
consequently it was reversed, and sentence was passed for the
offences whereof he had been convicted. He was fined £1,000,
and imprisoned for twenty-two months. On his way to prison he
was rescued by the mob; but as soon as he could escape out of
the hands of his boisterous friends he went and gave himself
into the custody of the Marshal of the King's Bench.
Parliament met on the 10th of April, and it was thought that
he would be released in order to take his seat. A dense
multitude assembled before the prison, but, balked in its
purpose of escorting the popular favourite to the House,
became furious, and commenced a riot.
{932}
Soldiers were at hand prepared for this outbreak. They fired,
wounding and slaughtering several persons; among others, they
butchered a young man whom they found in a neighbouring house,
and who was mistaken for a rioter they had pursued. At the
inquest the jury brought in a verdict of wilful murder against
the magistrate who ordered the firing, and the soldier who did
the deed. The magistrate was tried and acquitted. The soldier
was dismissed the service, but received in compensation, as a
reward for his services, a pension of one shilling a day. A
general order sent from the War Office by Lord Barrington
conveyed his Majesty's express thanks to the troops employed,
assuring them 'that every possible regard shall be shown to
them; their zeal and good behaviour on this occasion deserve
it; and in case any disagreeable circumstance should happen in
the execution of their duty, they shall have every defence and
protection that the law can authorise and this office can
give.' This approbation of what the troops had done was the
necessary supplement to a despatch from Lord Weymouth sent
before the riot, and intimating that force was to be used
without scruple. Wilkes commented on both documents. His
observations on the latter drew a complaint from Lord Weymouth
of breach of privilege. This was made an additional pretext
for his expulsion from the House of Commons. Ten days
afterwards he was re-elected, his opponent receiving five
votes only. On the following day the House resolved 'that John
Wilkes, Esquire, having been in this session of Parliament
expelled this House, was and is incapable of being elected a
member to serve in this present Parliament'; and his election
was declared void. Again the freeholders of Middlesex returned
him, and the House re-affirmed the above resolution. At
another election he was opposed by Colonel Luttrell, a Court
tool, when he polled 1,143 votes against 296 cast for
Luttrell. It was declared, however, that the latter had been
elected. Now began a struggle between the country, which had
been outraged in the persons of the Middlesex electors, and a
subservient majority in the House of Commons that did not
hesitate to become instrumental in gratifying the personal
resentment of a revengeful and obstinate king. The cry of
'Wilkes and liberty' was raised in quarters where the very
name of the popular idol had been proscribed. It was evident
that not the law only had been violated in his person, but
that the Constitution itself had sustained a deadly wound.
Wilkes was overwhelmed with substantial marks of sympathy. In
the course of a few weeks £20,000 were subscribed to pay his
debts. He could boast, too, that the courts of law had at
length done what was right between him and one of the
Secretaries of State who had signed the General Warrant, the
other having been removed by death beyond the reach of
justice. Lord Halifax was sentenced to pay £4,000 damages.
These damages, and the costs of the proceedings, were defrayed
out of the public purse. Lord North admitted that the outlay had
exceeded £100,000. Thus the nation was doubly insulted by the
ministers, who first violated the law, and then paid the costs
of the proceedings out of the national taxes. On the 17th of
April, 1770, Wilkes left the prison, to be elected in rapid
succession to the offices—then much sought after, because
held in high honour—of Alderman, Sheriff, and Lord Mayor of
London. In 1774 he was permitted to take his seat as Member
for Middlesex. After several failures, he succeeded in getting
the resolutions of his incapacity to sit in the House formally
expunged from its journals. He was elected Chamberlain of the
City in 1779, and filled that lucrative and responsible post
till his death, in 1797, at the age of seventy. Although the
latter portion of his career as Member of Parliament has
generally been considered a blank, yet it was marked by
several incidents worthy of attention. He was a consistent and
energetic opponent of the war with America."
_W. F. Rae,
John Wilkes
(Fortnightly Review, September, 1868, volume 10)._
ALSO IN:
_W. F. Rae,
Wilkes, Sheridan, Fox,
part 1._
_G. O. Trevelyan,
Early History of Charles James Fox,
chapters 5-6, and 8._
ENGLAND: A. D. 1769-1772.
The Letters of Junius.
"One of the newspapers in London at this period was the
'Public Advertiser,' printed and directed by Mr. Henry Sampson
Woodfall. His politics were those of the Opposition of the
day; and he readily received any contributions of a like
tendency from unknown correspondents. Among others was a
writer whose letters beginning at the latest in April, 1767,
continued frequent through that and the ensuing year. It was
the pleasure of this writer to assume a great variety of
signatures in his communications, as Mnemon, Atticus, and
Brutus. It does not appear, however, that these letters
(excepting only some with the signature of Lucius which were
published in the autumn of 1768) attracted the public
attention to any unusual extent, though by no means wanting in
ability, or still less in acrimony. … Such was the state of
these publications, not much rising in interest above the
common level of many such at other times, when on the 21st of
January 1769 there came forth another letter from the same
hand with the novel signature of Junius. It did not differ
greatly from its predecessors either in superior merit or
superior moderation; it contained, on the contrary, a fierce
and indiscriminate attack on most men in high places,
including the Commander-in-Chief, Lord Granby. But, unlike its
predecessors, it roused to controversy a well-known and
respectable opponent. Sir William Draper, General in the army
and Knight of the Bath, undertook to meet and parry the blows
which it had aimed at his Noble friend. In an evil hour for
himself he sent to the Public Advertiser a letter subscribed
with his own name, and defending the character and conduct of
Lord Granby. An answer from Junius soon appeared, urging anew
his original charge, and adding some thrusts at Sir William
himself on the sale of a regiment, and on the nonpayment of
the Manilla ransom. Wincing at the blow, Sir William more than
once replied; more than once did the keen pen of Junius lay
him prostrate in the dust. The discomfiture of poor Sir
William was indeed complete. Even his most partial friends
could not deny that so far as wit and eloquence were concerned
the man in the mask had far, very far, the better in the
controversy. … These victories over a man of rank and
station such as Draper's gave importance to the name of
Junius. Henceforth letters with that signature were eagerly
expected by the public, and carefully prepared by the author.
{933}
He did not indeed altogether cease to write under other names;
sometimes especially adopting the part of a bystander, and the
signature of Philo-Junius; but it was as Junius that his main
and most elaborate attacks were made. Nor was it long before
he swooped at far higher game than Sir William. First came a
series of most bitter pasquinades against the Duke of Grafton.
Dr. Blackstone was then assailed for the unpopular vote which
he gave in the case of Wilkes. In September was published a
false and malignant attack upon the Duke of Bedford,—an
attack, however, of which the sting is felt by his descendants
to this day. In December the acme of audacity was reached by
the celebrated letter to the King. All this while conjecture
was busy as to the secret author. Names of well-known
statesmen or well-known writers—Burke or Dunning, Boyd or
Dyer, George Sackville or Gerard Hamilton—flew from mouth to
mouth. Such guesses were for the most part made at mere
hap-hazard, and destitute of any plausible ground.
Nevertheless the stir and talk which they created added not a
little to the natural effects of the writer's wit and
eloquence. 'The most important secret of our times!' cries
Wilkes. Junius himself took care to enhance his own importance
by arrogant, nay even impious, boasts of it. In one letter of
August 1771 he goes so far as to declare that 'the Bible and
Junius will be read when the commentaries of the Jesuits are
forgotten!' Mystery, as I have said, was one ingredient to the
popularity of Junius. Another not less efficacious was
supplied by persecution. In the course of 1770 Mr. Woodfall
was indicted for publishing, and Mr. Almon with several others
for reprinting, the letter from Junius to the King. The
verdict in Woodfall's case was: Guilty of printing and
publishing only. It led to repeated discussions and to
ulterior proceedings. But in the temper of the public at that
period such measures could end only in virtual defeat to the
Government, in augmented reputation to the libeller. During
the years 1770 and 1771 the letters of Junius were continued
with little abatement of spirit. He renewed invectives against
the Duke of Grafton; he began them against Lord Mansfield, who
had presided at the trials of the printers; he plunged into
the full tide of City politics; and he engaged in a keen
controversy with the Rev. John Horne, afterwards Horne Tooke.
The whole series of letters from January 1769, when it
commences, until January 1772, when it terminates, amounts to
69, including those with the signature of Philo-Junius, those
of Sir William Draper, and those of Mr. Horne. … Besides the
letters which Junius designed for the press, there were many
others which he wrote and sent to various persons, intending
them for those persons only. Two addressed to Lord Chatham
appear in Lord Chatham's correspondence. Three addressed to
Mr. George Grenville have until now remained in manuscript
among the papers at Wotton, or Stowe; all three were written
in the same year, 1768, and the two first signed with the same
initial C. Several others addressed to Wilkes were first made
known through the son of Mr. Woodfall. But the most important
of all, perhaps, are the private notes addressed to Mr.
Woodfall himself. Of these there are upwards of sixty, signed
in general with the letter C.; some only a few lines in
length; but many of great value towards deciding the question
of authorship. It seems that the packets containing the
letters of Junius for Mr. Woodfall or the Public Advertiser
were sometimes brought to the office-door, and thrown in, by
an unknown gentleman, probably Junius himself; more commonly
they were conveyed by a porter or other messenger hired in the
streets. When some communication from Mr. Woodfall in reply
was deemed desirable, Junius directed it to be addressed to
him under some feigned name, and to be left till called for at
the bar of some coffee-house. … It may be doubted whether
Junius had any confidant or trusted friend. … When
dedicating his collected letters to the English people, he
declares: 'I am the sole depository of my own secret, and it
shall perish with me.'"
_Lord Mahon (Earl Stanhope),
History of England, 1713-1783,
chapter 47 (v. 5)._
The following list of fifty-one names of persons to whom the
letters of Junius have been attributed at different times by
different writers is given in Cushing's "Initials and
Pseudonyms":
James Adair, M. P.;
Captain Allen;
Lieutenant-Colonel Isaac Barre, M. P.;
William Henry Cavendish Bentinck;
Mr. Bickerton;
Hugh M'Aulay Boyd;
Edmund Burke;
William Burke;
John Butler, Bishop of Hereford;
Lord Camden;
John Lewis De Lolme;
John Dunning, afterwards Lord Ashburton;
Samuel Dyer;
Henry Flood;
Sir Philip Francis;
George III.;
Edward Gibbon;
Richard Glover;
Henry Grattan;
William Greatrakes;
George Grenville;
James Grenville;
William Gerard Hamilton;
James Hollis;
Thomas Hollis;
Sir George Jackson;
Sir William Jones;
John Kent;
Major-General Charles Lee;
Charles Lloyd;
Thomas Lyttleton;
Laughlin Maclean;
Rev. Edmund Marshall;
Thomas Paine;
William Pitt, Earl of Chatham;
the Duke of Portland;
Thomas Pownall;
Lieutenant-Colonel Sir Robert Rich;
John Roberts;
Rev. Philip Rosenhagen;
George, Viscount Sackville;
the Earl of Shelburne;
Philip Dormer Stanhope, Earl of Chesterfield;
Richard Suett;
Earl Temple;
John Horne Tooke;
Horace Walpole;
Alexander Wedderburn, Lord Loughborough;
John Wilkes;
James Wilmot, D. D.;
Daniel Wray.
ALSO IN:
_G. W. Cooke,
History of Party,
volume 3, chapter 6._
_C. W. Dilke,
Papers of a Critic,
volume 2._
_Lord Macaulay,
Warren Hastings
(Essays, volume 5)._
_A. Bisset,
Short History of the English Parliament,
chapter 7._
ENGLAND: A. D. 1770.
Fall of the Grafton Ministry.
Beginning of the administration of Lord North.
"The incompetency of the ministry was … becoming obvious. In
the first place it was divided within itself. The Prime
Minister, with the Chancellor and some others, were remnants
of the Chatham ministry and admirers of Chatham's policy. The
rest of the Cabinet were either men who represented Bedford's
party, or members of that class whose views are sufficiently
explained by their name, 'the King's friends.' Grafton, fonder
of hunting and the turf than of politics, had by his indolence
suffered himself to fall under the influence of the last-named
party, and unconstitutional action had been the result which
had brought discontent in England to the verge of open
outbreak. Hillsborough, under the same influence, was hurrying
along the road which led to the loss of America. On this point
the Prime Minister had found himself in a minority in his own
Cabinet.
{934}
France too, under Choiseul, in alliance with Spain, was
beginning to think of revenge for the losses of the Seven
Years' War. A crisis was evidently approaching, and the
Opposition began to close their ranks. Chatham, yielding again
to the necessities of party, made a public profession of
friendship with Temple and George Grenville; and though there
was no cordial connection, there was external alliance between
the brothers and the old Whigs under Rockingham. In the first
session of 1770 the storm broke. Notwithstanding the state of
public affairs, the chief topic of the King's speech was the
murrain among 'horned beasts,'—a speech not of a king, but,
said Junius, of 'a ruined grazier.' Chatham at once moved an
amendment when the address in answer to this speech was
proposed. He deplored the want of all European alliances, the
fruit of our desertion of our allies at the Peace of Paris; he
blamed the conduct of the ministry with regard to America,
which, he thought, needed much gentle handling, inveighed
strongly against the action of the Lower House in the case of
Wilkes, and ended by moving that that action should at once be
taken into consideration. At the sound of their old leader's
voice his followers in the Cabinet could no longer be silent.
Camden declared he had been a most unwilling party to the
persecution of Wilkes, and though retaining the Seals attacked
and voted against the ministry. In the Lower House, Granby,
one of the most popular men in England, followed the same
course. James Grenville and Dunning, the Solicitor-General,
also resigned. Chatham's motion was lost but was followed up
by Rockingham, who asked for a night to consider the state of
the nation. … Grafton thus found himself in no state to meet
the Opposition, and in his heart still admiring Chatham, and
much disliking business, he suddenly and unexpectedly gave in
his resignation the very day fixed for Rockingham's motion.
The Opposition seemed to have everything in their own hands,
but there was no real cordiality between the two sections. …
The King with much quickness and decision, took advantage of
this disunion. To him it was of paramount importance to retain
his friends in office, and to avoid a new Parliament elected
in the present excited state of the nation. There was only one
of the late ministry capable of assuming the position of Prime
Minister. This was Lord North, Chancellor of the Exchequer,
and to him the King immediately and successfully applied, so
that while the different sections of the Opposition were still
unable to decide on any united action they were astonished to
find the old ministry reconstituted and their opportunity
gone. The new Prime Minister … had great capacity for
business and administration, and much sound sense; he was a
first-rate debater, and gifted with a wonderful sweetness of
temper, which enabled him to listen unmoved, or even to sleep,
during the most violent attacks upon himself, and to turn
aside the bitterest invectives with a happy joke. With his
accession to the Premiership the unstable character of the
Government ceased. Resting on the King, making himself no more
than an instrument of the King's will, and thus commanding the
support of all royal influence from whatever source derived,
North was able to bid defiance to all enemies, till the ill
effects of such a system of government, and of the King's
policy, became so evident that the clamour for a really
responsible minister grew too loud to be disregarded. Thus is
closed the great constitutional struggle of the early part of
the reign—the struggle of the King, supported by the
unrepresented masses, and the more liberal and independent of
those who were represented, against the domination of the
House of Commons. It was an attempt to break those trammels
which, under the guise of liberty, the upper classes, the
great lords and landed aristocracy, had succeeded after the
Revolution in laying on both Crown and people. In that
struggle the King had been victorious. But he did not
recognize the alliance which had enabled him to succeed. He
did not understand that the people had other objects much
beyond his own."
_J. F. Bright,
History of England,
period 3, pages 1057-1060._
ALSO IN:
_Correspondence of George III. with Lord North,
volume 1._
_W. Massey,
History of England: Reign of George III.,
chapters 10-13 (volume 1)._
_J. Adolphus,
History of England: Reign of George III.,
chapter 17 (volume 1)._
_E. Burke,
Thoughts on the Present Discontents
(Works, volume 1)._
ENGLAND: A. D. 1770-1773.
Repeal of the Townshend duties, except on tea.
The tea-ships and the Boston Tea-party.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1770,
and 1772-1773; and BOSTON: A. D. 1773.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1771.
Last contention of Parliament against the Press.
Freedom of reporting secured.
"The session of 1771 commenced with a new quarrel between the
House of Commons and the country. The standing order for the
exclusion of strangers, which had long existed (and which
still exists), was seldom enforced, except when it was thought
desirable that a question should be debated with closed doors.
It was now attempted, by means of this order, to prevent the
publication of the debates and proceedings of the House. It
had long been the practice of the newspapers, and other
periodical journals, to publish the debates of Parliament,
under various thin disguises, and with more or less fulness
and accuracy, from speeches furnished at length by the
speakers themselves, to loose and meagre notes of more or less
authenticity. One of the most attractive features of the
'Gentleman's Magazine,' a monthly publication of
respectability, which has survived to the present day, was an
article which purported to be a report of the debates in
Parliament. This report was, for nearly three years, prepared
by Dr. Johnson, who never attended the galleries himself, and
derived his information from persons who could seldom give him
more than the names of the speakers, and the side which each
of them took in the debate. The speeches were, therefore, the
composition of Johnson himself; and some of the most admired
oratory of the period was avowedly the product of his genius.
Attempts were made from time to time, both within and without
the walls of Parliament, to abolish, or at least to modify,
the standing order for the exclusion of strangers, by means of
which the license of reporting had been restricted; for there was
no order of either House specifically prohibiting the
publication of its debates. But such proposals had always been
resisted by the leaders of parties, who thought that the
privilege was one which might be evaded, but could not safely
be formally relinquished. The practice of reporting,
therefore, was tolerated on the understanding, that a decent
disguise should be observed; and that no publication of the
proceedings of Parliament should take place during the
session.
{935}
There can be little doubt, however, that the public journals
would have gone on, with the tacit connivance of the
parliamentary chiefs, until they had practically established a
right of reporting regularly the proceedings of both Houses,
had not the presumptuous folly of inferior members provoked a
conflict with the press upon this ground of privilege, and, in
the result, driven Parliament reluctantly to yield what they
would otherwise have quietly conceded. It was Colonel Onslow,
member for Guildford, who rudely agitated a question which
wiser men had been content to leave unvexed; and by his rash
meddling, precipitated the very result which he thought he
could prevent. He complained that the proceedings of the House
had been inaccurately reported; and that the newspapers had
even presumed to reflect on the public conduct of honourable
members."
_William Massey,
History of England,
volume 2, chapter 15._
"Certain printers were in consequence ordered to attend the
bar of the House. Some appeared and were discharged, after
receiving, on their knees, a reprimand from the Speaker.
Others evaded compliance; and one of them, John Miller, who
failed to appear, was arrested by its messenger, but instead
of submitting, sent for a constable and gave the messenger
into custody for an assault and false imprisonment. They were
both taken before the Lord Mayor (Mr. Brass Crosby), Mr.
Alderman Oliver, and the notorious John Wilkes, who had
recently been invested with the aldermanic gown. These civic
magistrates, on the ground that the messenger was neither a
peace-officer nor a constable, and that his warrant was not
backed by a city magistrate, discharged the printer from
custody, and committed the messenger to prison for an unlawful
arrest. Two other printers, for whose apprehension a reward had
been offered by a Government proclamation, were collusively
apprehended by friends, and taken before Aldermen Wilkes and
Oliver, who discharged the prisoners as 'not being accused of
having committed any crime.' These proceedings at once brought
the House into conflict with the Lord Mayor and Aldermen of
London. The Lord Mayor and Alderman Oliver, who were both
members of Parliament, were ordered by the House to attend in
their places, and were subsequently committed to the Tower.
Their imprisonment, instead of being a punishment, was one
long-continued popular ovation, and from the date of their
release, at the prorogation of Parliament shortly afterwards,
the publication of debates has been pursued without any
interference or restraint. Though still in theory a breach of
privilege, reporting is now encouraged by Parliament as one of
the main sources of its influence—its censure being reserved for
wilful misrepresentation only. But reporters long continued
beset with many difficulties. The taking of notes was
prohibited, no places were reserved for reporters, and the
power of a single member of either House to require the
exclusion of strangers was frequently and capriciously
employed. By the ancient usage of the House of Commons [until
1875] any one member by merely 'spying' strangers present
could compel the Speaker to order their withdrawal."
_T. P. Taswell-Langmead,
English Constitutional History,
chapter 17._
ALSO IN:
_R. F. D. Palgrave,
The House of Commons,
lecture 2._
_T. E. May,
Constitutional History of England,
chapter 7 (volume 1)._
ENGLAND: A. D. 1772.
The ending of Negro slavery in the British Islands.
See SLAVERY, NEGRO: A. D. 1685-1772.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1773.
Reconstitution of the Government of British India.
See INDIA: A. D. 1770-1773.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1774.
The Boston Port Bill, the Massachusetts Act and the Quebec Act.
The First Continental Congress in America.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1774.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1774.
Advent in English industries of the Steam-Engine as made
efficient by James Watt.
See STEAM ENGINE: A. D. 1765-1785.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1775.
The beginning of the War of the American Revolution.
Lexington.
Concord.
The colonies in arms and Boston beleaguered.
Ticonderoga.
Bunker Hill.
The Second Continental Congress.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1775.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1775-1776.
Successful defence of Canada against American invasion.
See CANADA: A. D. 1775-1776.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1776.
War measures against the colonies.
The drift toward American independence.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1776 (JANUARY-JUNE).
ENGLAND: A. D. 1776-1778.
The People, the Parties, the King, and Lord North, in their
relations to the American War.
"The undoubted popularity of the war [in America] in its first
stage had for some time continued to increase, and in the
latter part of 1776 and 1777 it had probably attained its
maximum. … The Whigs at this time very fully admitted that
the genuine opinion of the country was with the Government and
with the King. … The Declaration of Independence, and the
known overtures of the Americans to France, were deemed the
climax of insolence and ingratitude. The damage done to
English commerce, not only in the West Indies but even around
the English and Irish coast, excited a widespread bitterness.
… In every stage of the contest the influence of the
Opposition was employed to trammel the Government. … The
statement of Wraxall that the Whig colours of buff and blue
were first adopted by Fox in imitation of the uniform of
Washington's troops, is, I believe, corroborated by no other
writer; but there is no reason to question his assertion that
the members of the Whig party in society and in both Houses of
Parliament during the whole course of the war wished success
to the American cause and rejoiced in the American triumphs.
… While the Opposition needlessly and heedlessly intensified
the national feeling against them, the King, on his side, did
the utmost in his power to embitter the contest. It is only by
examining his correspondence with Lord North that we fully
realise how completely at this time he assumed the position
not only of a prime minister but of a Cabinet, superintending,
directing, and prescribing, in all its parts, the policy of
the Government. … 'Every means of distressing America,'
wrote the King, 'must meet with my concurrence.' He strongly
supported the employment of Indians. … It was the King's
friends who were most active in promoting all measures of
violence. … The war was commonly called the 'King's war,'
and its opponents were looked upon as opponents of the King.
The person, however, who in the eye of history appears most
culpable in this matter, was Lord North. …
{936}
The publication of the correspondence of George III. …
supplies one of the most striking and melancholy examples of
the relation of the King to his Tory ministers. It appears
from this correspondence that for the space of about five
years North, at the entreaty of the King, carried on a bloody,
costly, and disastrous war in direct opposition to his own
judgment and to his own wishes. … Again and again he
entreated that his resignation might be accepted, but again
and again he yielded to the request of the King, who
threatened, if his minister resigned, to abdicate the throne.
… The King was determined, under no circumstances, to treat
with the Americans on the basis of the recognition of their
independence; but he acknowledged, after the surrender of
Burgoyne, and as soon as the French war had become inevitable,
that unconditional submission could no longer be hoped for.
… He consented, too, though apparently with extreme
reluctance, and in consequence of the unanimous vote of the
Cabinet, that new propositions should be made to the
Americans." These overtures, conveyed to America by three
Commissioners, were rejected, and the colonies concluded, in
the spring of 1778, their alliance with France. "The moment
was one of the most terrible in English history. England had
not an ally in the world. … England, already exhausted by a
war which its distance made peculiarly terrible, had to
confront the whole force of France, and was certain in a few
months to have to encounter the whole force of Spain. …
There was one man to whom, in this hour of panic and
consternation, the eyes of all patriotic Englishmen were
turned. … If any statesman could, at the last moment,
conciliate [the Americans], dissolve the new alliance, and
kindle into a flame the loyalist feeling which undoubtedly
existed largely in America, it was Chatham. If, on the other
hand, conciliation proved impossible, no statesman could for a
moment be compared to him in the management of a war. Lord
North implored the King to accept his resignation, and to send
for Chatham. Bute, the old Tory favourite, breaking his long
silence, spoke of Chatham as now indispensable. Lord
Mansfield, the bitterest and ablest rival of Chatham, said,
with tears in his eyes, that unless the King sent for Chatham
the ship would assuredly go down. … The King was unmoved. He
consented indeed—and he actually authorised Lord North to make
the astounding proposition—to receive Chatham as a
subordinate minister to North. … This episode appears to me
the most criminal in the whole reign of George III., and in my
own judgment it is as criminal as any of those acts which led
Charles I. to the scaffold."
_W. E. H. Lecky,
History of England in the 18th Century,
chapter 14 (volume 4)._
"George III. and Lord North have been made scapegoats for sins
which were not exclusively their own. The minister, indeed,
was only the vizier, who hated his work, but still did not
shrink from it, out of a sentiment that is sometimes admired
under the name of loyalty, but which in such a case it is
difficult to distinguish from base servility. The impenetrable
mind of the King was, in the case of the American war, the
natural organ and representative of all the lurking ignorance
and arbitrary humours of the entire community. It is totally
unjust and inadequate to lay upon him the entire burden."
_J. Morley,
Edmund Burke: a Historical Study,
page 135_.
"No sane person in Great Britain now approves of the attempt
to tax the colonies. No sane person does otherwise than
rejoice that the colonies became free and independent. But let
us in common fairness say a word for King George. In all that
he did he was backed by the great mass of the British nation.
And let us even say a word for the British nation also. Had
the King and the nation been really wise, they would have let
the colonies go without striking a blow. But then no king and
no nation ever was really wise after that fashion. King George
and the British nation were simply not wiser than other
people. I believe that you may turn the pages of history from
the earliest to the latest times, without finding a time when
any king or any commonwealth, freely and willingly, without
compulsion or equivalent, gave up power or dominion, or even
mere extent of territory on the map, when there was no real
power or dominion. Remember that seventeen years after the
acknowledgment of American independence, King George still
called himself King of France. Remember that, when the title
was given up, some people thought it unwise to give it up.
Remember that some people in our own day regretted the
separation between the crowns of Great Britain and Hanover. If
they lived to see the year 1866, perhaps they grew wiser."
_E. A. Freeman,
The English People in its Three Homes
(Lectures to American Audiences),
pages 183-184._
ALSO IN:
_Correspondence of George III. with Lord North._
_Lord Brougham,
Historical Sketches of Statesmen
in the Reign of George III._
_T. Macknight,
History of the Life and Times of Edmund Burke,
chapters 22-26 (volume 2)._
ENGLAND: A. D. 1778.
War with France.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
A. D. 1778 (FEBRUARY).
ENGLAND: A.D. 1778-1780.
Repeal of Catholic penal laws.
The Gordon No-Popery Riots.
"The Quebec Act of 1774 [see CANADA: A. D. 1763-1774],
establishing Catholicism in Canada, would a generation earlier
have been impossible, and it was justly considered a
remarkable sign of the altered condition of opinion that such
a law should be enacted by a British Parliament, and should
have created no serious disturbances in the country. … The
success of the Quebec Act led Parliament, a few years later,
to undertake the relief of the Catholics at home from some
part of the atrocious penal laws to which they were still
subject. … The Act still subsisted which gave a reward of
£100 to any informer who procured the conviction of a Catholic
priest performing his functions in England, and there were
occasional prosecutions, though the judges strained the law to
the utmost in order to defeat them. … The worst part of the
persecution of Catholics was based upon a law of William III.,
and in 1778 Sir George Savile introduced a bill to repeal
those portions of this Act which related to the apprehending
of Popish bishops, priests, and Jesuits, which subjected these
and also Papists keeping a school to perpetual imprisonment,
and which disabled all Papists from inheriting or purchasing
land. … It is an honourable fact that this Relief Bill was
carried without a division in either House, without any
serious opposition from the bench of bishops, and with the
concurrence of both parties in the State. The law applied to
England only, but the Lord Advocate promised, in the ensuing
session, to introduce a similar measure for Scotland.
{937}
It was hoped that a measure which was so manifestly moderate
and equitable, and which was carried with such unanimity
through Parliament, would have passed almost unnoticed in the
country; but fiercer elements of fanaticism than politicians
perceived were still smouldering in the nation. The first
signs of the coming storm were seen among the Presbyterians of
Scotland. The General Assembly of the Scotch Established
Church was sitting when the English Relief Bill was pending,
and it rejected by a large majority a motion for a
remonstrance to Parliament against it. But in a few months an
agitation of the most dangerous description spread swiftly
through the Lowlands. It was stimulated by many incendiary
resolutions of provincial synods, by pamphlets, hand-bills,
newspapers, and sermons, and a 'Committee for the Protestant
Interests' was formed at Edinburgh to direct it. … Furious
riots broke out in January, 1779, both in Edinburgh and
Glasgow. Several houses in which Catholics lived, or the
Catholic worship was celebrated, were burnt to the ground. The
shops of Catholic tradesmen were wrecked, and their goods
scattered, plundered, or destroyed. Catholic ladies were
compelled to take refuge in Edinburgh Castle. The houses of
many Protestants who were believed to sympathise with the
Relief Bill were attacked, and among the number was that of
Robertson the historian. The troops were called out to
suppress the riot, but they were resisted and pelted, and not
suffered to fire in their defence. … The flame soon spread
southwards. For some years letters on the increase of Popery
had been frequently appearing in the London newspapers. Many
murmurs had been heard at the enactment of the Quebec Act, and
many striking instances in the last ten years had shown how
easily the spirit of riot could be aroused, and how impotent
the ordinary watchmen were to cope with it. … The fanatical
party had unfortunately acquired an unscrupulous leader in the
person of Lord George Gordon, whose name now attained a
melancholy celebrity. He was a young man of thirty, of very
ordinary talents, and with nothing to recommend him but his
connection with the ducal house of Gordon. … A 'Protestant
Association,' consisting of the worst agitators and fanatics,
was formed, and at a great meeting held on May 29, 1780, and
presided over by Lord George Gordon, it was determined that
20,000 men should march to the Parliament House to present a
petition for the repeal of the Relief Act. It was about
half-past two on the afternoon of Friday, June 2, that three
great bodies, consisting of many thousands of men, wearing
blue cockades, and carrying a petition which was said to have
been signed by near 120,000 persons, arrived by different
roads at the Parliament House. Their first design appears to
have been only to intimidate, but they very soon proceeded to
actual violence. The two Houses were just meeting, and the
scene that ensued resembled on a large scale and in an
aggravated form the great riot which had taken place around
the Parliament House in Dublin during the administration of
the Duke of Bedford. The members were seized, insulted,
compelled to put blue cockades in their hats, to shout 'No
Popery!' and to swear that they would vote for the repeal; and
many of them, but especially the members of the House of
Lords, were exposed to the grossest indignities. … In the
Commons Lord George Gordon presented the petition, and
demanded its instant consideration. The House behaved with
much courage, and after a hurried debate it was decided by 192
to 7 to adjourn its consideration till the 6th. Lord George
Gordon several times appeared on the stairs of the gallery,
and addressed the crowd, denouncing by name those who opposed
him, and especially Burke and North; but Conway rebuked him in
the sight and hearing of the mob, and Colonel Gordon, one of
his own relatives, declared that the moment the first man of
the mob entered the House he would plunge his sword into the
body of Lord George. The doors were locked. The strangers'
gallery was empty, but only a few doorkeepers and a few other
ordinary officials protected the House, while the mob is said
at first to have numbered not less than 60,000 men. Lord North
succeeded in sending a messenger for the guards, but many
anxious hours passed before they arrived. Twice attempts were
made to force the doors. … At last about nine o'clock the
troops appeared, and the crowd, without resisting, agreed to
disperse. A great part of them, however, were bent on further
outrages. They attacked the Sardinian Minister's chapel in
Duke Street, Lincoln's Inn Fields. They broke it open, carried
away the silver lamps and other furniture, burnt the benches in
the street, and flung the burning brands into the chapel. The
Bavarian Minister's chapel in Warwick Street Golden Square was
next attacked, plundered, and burnt before the soldiers could
intervene. They at last appeared upon the scene, and some
slight scuffling ensued, and thirteen of the rioters were
captured. It was hoped that the riot had expended its force,
for Saturday and the greater part of Sunday passed with little
disturbance, but on Sunday afternoon new outrages began in
Moorfields, where a considerable Catholic population resided.
Several houses were attacked and plundered, and the chapels
utterly ruined."
_W. E. H. Lecky,
History of English in the 18th Century,
chapter 13 (volume 3)._
"On Monday the rioters continued their outrages. …
Notwithstanding, however, that the town might now be said to
have been in the possession of the rioters for more than three
days, it does not appear that any more decided measures were
adopted to put them down. Their audacity and violence, as
might have been expected, increased under this treatment. On
Tuesday afternoon and evening the most terrible excesses were
perpetrated. Notwithstanding that a considerable military
force was stationed around and on the way to the Houses of
Parliament, several of the members were again insulted and
maltreated in the grossest manner. Indeed, the mob by this
time seem to have got over all apprehensions of the
interference of the soldiers." The principal event of the day
was the attack on Newgate prison, which was destroyed and the
prisoners released. "The New Prison, Clerkenwell, was also
broken open … and all the prisoners set at large. Attacks
were likewise made upon several … private houses. … But
the most lamentable of all the acts of destruction yet
perpetrated by these infuriated ruffians was that with which
they closed the day of madness and crime—the entire
demolition of the residence of Lord Mansfield, the venerable
Lord Chief Justice, in Bloomsbury Square. …
{938}
The scenes that took place on Wednesday were still more
dreadful than those by which Tuesday had been marked. The town
indeed was now in a state of complete insurrection: and it was
felt by all that the mob must be put down at any cost, if it
was intended to save the metropolis of the kingdom from utter
destruction. This day, accordingly, the military were out in
all quarters, and were everywhere employed against the
infuriated multitudes who braved their power. … The King's
Bench Prison, the New Gaol, the Borough Clink, the Surrey
Bridewell, were all burned today. … The Mansion House, the
Museum, the Exchange, the Tower, and the Bank, were all, it is
understood, marked for destruction. Lists of these and the
other buildings which it was intended to attack were
circulated among the mob. The bank was actually twice
assaulted; but a powerful body of soldiers by whom it was
guarded on both occasions drove off the crowd, though not
without great slaughter. At some places the rioters returned
the fire of the military. … Among other houses which were
set on fire in Holborn were the extensive premises of Mr.
Langdale, the distiller, who was a Catholic. … The worst
consequence of this outrage, however, was the additional
excitement which the frenzy of the mob received from the
quantities of spirits with which they were here supplied. Many
indeed drank themselves literally dead; and many more, who had
rendered themselves unable to move, perished in the midst of
the flames. Six and thirty fires, it is stated, were this
night to be seen, from one spot, blazing at the same time in
different quarters of the town. … By Thursday morning …
the exertions of Government, now thoroughly alarmed, had
succeeded in bringing up from different parts so large a force
of regular troops and of militia as to make it certain that
the rioters would be speedily overpowered. … The soldiers
attacked the mob in various places, and everywhere with
complete success. … On Friday the courts of justice were
again opened for business, and the House of Commons met in the
evening. … On this first day after the close of the riots,
'the metropolis,' says the Annual Register, 'presented in many
places the image of a city recently stormed and sacked.' …
Of the persons apprehended and brought to trial, 59 were
capitally convicted; and of these more than 20 were executed;
the others were sent to expiate their offences by passing the
remainder of their days in hard labour and bondage in a
distant land. … Lord George Gordon, in consequence of the
part he had borne in the measures which led to these riots,
was sent to the Tower, and some time afterwards brought to
trial on a charge of high treason," but was acquitted.
_Sketches of Popular Tumults,
section 1, chapter 3._
ALSO IN:
_J. H. Jesse,
Memoirs of the Life and Reign of George III.,
chapter 34 (volume 2)._
_H. Walpole,
Journal of the Reign of George III.,
volume 2, pages 403-424._
_Annual Register, 1780,
pages 254-287._
_C. Dickens,
Barnaby Rudge._
_W. J. Amherst,
History of Catholic Emancipation,
volume 1, chapters 1-5._
ENGLAND: A. D. 1780-1782.
Declining strength of the government.
Rodney's great naval victory.
The siege of Gibraltar.
"The fall of Lord North's ministry, and with it the overthrow
of the personal government of George III., was now close at
hand. For a long time the government had been losing favour.
In the summer of 1780, the British victories in South Carolina
had done something to strengthen, yet when, in the autumn of
that year, Parliament was dissolved, although the king
complained that his expenses for purposes of corruption had
been twice as great as ever before, the new Parliament was
scarcely more favourable to the ministry than the old one.
Misfortunes and perplexities crowded in the path of Lord North
and his colleagues. The example of American resistance had
told upon Ireland. … For more than a year there had been war
in India, where Hyder Ali, for the moment, was carrying
everything before him. France, eager to regain her lost
foothold upon Hindustan, sent a strong armament thither, and
insisted that England must give up all her Indian conquests
except Bengal. For a moment England's great Eastern empire
tottered, and was saved only by the superhuman efforts of
Warren Hastings, aided by the wonderful military genius of Sir
Eyre Coote. In May, 1781, the Spaniards had taken Pensacola,
thus driving the British from their last position in Florida.
In February, 1782, the Spanish fleet captured Minorca, and the
siege of Gibraltar, which had been kept up for nearly three
years, was pressed with redoubled energy. During the winter
the French recaptured St. Eustatius, and handed it over to
Holland; and Grasse's great fleet swept away all the British
possessions in the West Indies, except Jamaica, Barbadoes, and
Antigua. All this time the Northern League kept up its jealous
watch upon British cruisers in the narrow seas, and among all
the powers of Europe the government of George could not find a
single friend. The maritime supremacy of England was, however,
impaired but for a moment. Rodney was sent back to the West
Indies, and on the 12th of April, 1782, his fleet of 36 ships
encountered the French near the island of
Sainte-Marie-Galante. The battle of eleven hours which ensued,
and in which 5,000 men were killed or wounded, was one of the
most tremendous contests ever witnessed upon the ocean before
the time of Nelson. The French were totally defeated, and
Grasse was taken prisoner,—the first French
commander-in-chief, by sea or land, who had fallen into an
enemy's hands since Marshal Tallard gave up his sword to
Marlborough, on the terrible day of Blenheim. France could do
nothing to repair this crushing disaster. Her naval power was
eliminated from the situation at a single blow; and in the
course of the summer the English achieved another great
success by overthrowing the Spaniards at Gibraltar, after a
struggle which, for dogged tenacity, is scarcely paralleled in
modern warfare. By the autumn of 1782, England, defeated in
the United States, remained victorious and defiant as regarded
the other parties to the war."
_J. Fiske,
American Revolution,
chapter 15 (volume 2)._
"Gibraltar … had been closely invested for nearly three
years. At first, the Spanish had endeavoured to starve the
place; but their blockade having been on two occasions forced
by the British fleet, they relinquished that plan, and
commenced a regular siege. During the spring and summer of
1781, the fortress was bombarded, but with little success; in
the month of November, the enemy were driven from their
approaches, and the works themselves were almost destroyed by
a sally from the garrison. Early in the year, however, the
fall of Minorca enabled the Spanish to reform the siege of
Gibraltar.
{939}
De Grillon himself, the hero of Minorca, superseding Alvarez,
assumed the chief command. … The garrison of Gibraltar
comprised no more than 7,000 men; while the force of the
allied monarchies amounted to 33,000 soldiers, with an immense
train of artillery. De Grillon, however, who was well
acquainted with the fortress, had little hope of taking it
from the land side, but relied with confidence on the
formidable preparations which he had made for bombarding it
from the sea. Huge floating batteries, bomb-proof and
shot-proof, were constructed; and it was calculated that the
action of these tremendous engines alone would be sufficient
to destroy the works. Besides the battering ships, of which
ten were provided, a large armament of vessels of all rates
was equipped; and a grand attack was to take place, both from
sea and land, with 400 pieces of artillery. Six months were
consumed in these formidable preparations; and it was not
until September that they were completed. A partial cannonade
took place on the 9th and three following days; but the great
attack, which was to decide the fate of the beleaguered
fortress, was commenced on the 13th of September. On that day,
the combined fleets of France and Spain, consisting of 47 sail
of the line, besides numerous ships of inferior rate, were
drawn out in order of battle before Gibraltar. Numerous bomb
ketches, gun and mortar boats, dropped their anchors within
close range; while the ten floating batteries were moored with
strong iron chains within half gun-shot of the walls. On the
land 170 guns were prepared to open fire simultaneously with
the ships; and 40,000 troops were held in readiness to rush in
at the first practicable breach. … The grand attack was
commenced at ten o'clock in the forenoon, by the fire of 400
pieces of artillery. The great floating batteries, securely
anchored within 600 yards of the walls, poured in an incessant
storm, from 142 guns. Elliot had less than 100 guns to reply to
the cannonade both from sea and land; and of these he made the
most judicious use. Disregarding the attack from every other
quarter, he concentrated the whole of his ordnance on the
floating batteries in front of him; for unless these were
silenced, their force would prove irresistible. But for a long
time the thunder of 80 guns made no impression on the enormous
masses of wood and iron. The largest shells glanced harmless
from their sloping roofs; the heaviest shot could not
penetrate their hulls seven feet in thickness. Nevertheless,
the artillery of the garrison was still unceasingly directed
against these terrible engines of destruction. A storm of
red-hot balls was poured down upon them; and about midday it
was observed that the combustion caused by these missiles,
which had hitherto been promptly extinguished, was beginning
to take effect. Soon after, the partial cessation of the guns
from the battering ships, and the volumes of smoke which
issued from their decks, made it manifest they were on fire,
and that all the efforts of the crews were required to subdue
the conflagration. Towards evening, their guns became silent;
and before midnight, the flames burst forth from the principal
floating battery, which carried the Admiral's flag. … Eight
of the 10 floating batteries were on fire during the night;
and the only care of the besieged was to save from the flames
and from the waters, the wretched survivors of that terrible
flotilla, which had so recently menaced them with
annihilation. … The loss of the enemy was computed at
2,000; that of the garrison, in killed and wounded, amounted
to no more than 84. The labour of a few hours sufficed to
repair the damage sustained by the works. The French and
Spanish fleets remained in the Straits, expecting the
appearance of the British squadron under Lord Howe; and
relying on their superiority in ships and weight of metal,
they still hoped that the result of an action at sea might
enable them to resume the siege of Gibraltar. Howe, having
been delayed by contrary winds, did not reach the Straits
until the 9th of October; and, notwithstanding the superior
array which the enemy presented, he was prepared to risk an
engagement. But at this juncture, a storm having scattered the
combined fleet, the British Admiral was enabled to land his
stores and reinforcements without opposition. Having performed
this duty, he set sail for England; nor did the Spanish
Admiral, though still superior by eight sail of the line,
venture to dispute his passage. Such was the close of the
great siege of Gibraltar; an undertaking which had been
regarded by Spain as the chief object of the war, which she
had prosecuted for three years, and which, at the last, had
been pressed by the whole force of the allied monarchies.
After this event, the war itself was virtually at an end."
_W. Massey,
History of England, Reign of George III.,
chapter 27 (volume 3)._
ALSO IN:
_Lord Mahon (Earl Stanhope),
History of England, 1713-1783,
chapters 62-66 (volume 7)._
_J. Drinkwater,
History of the Siege of Gibraltar._
ENGLAND: A. D. 1780-1783.
Second war with Hyder Ali, or Second Mysore War.
See INDIA: A. D. 1780-1783.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1781-1783.
War with Holland.
See NETHERLANDS (HOLLAND): A. D. 1746-1787.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1782.
Legislative independence conceded to Ireland.
See IRELAND: A. D. 1778-1794.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1782-1783.
Fall of Lord North.
The second Rockingham Ministry.
Fox, Shelburne, and the American peace negotiations.
The Shelburne Ministry.
Coalition of Fox and North.
"There comes a point when even the most servile majority of an
unrepresentative Parliament finds the strain of party
allegiance too severe, and that point was reached when the
surrender of Cornwallis at Yorktown became known in November,
1781. 'O God, it is all over!' cried Lord North, wringing his
hands, when he heard of it. … On February 7, a vote of
censure, moved by Fox, upon Lord Sandwich, was negatived by a
majority of only twenty-two. On the 22nd, General Conway lost
a motion in favour of putting an end to the war by only one
vote. On the 27th, the motion was renewed in the form of a
resolution and carried by a majority of nineteen.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1782 (FEBRUARY-MAY).
Still the King would not give his consent to Lord North's
resignation. Rather than commit himself to the opposition, he
seriously thought of abdicating his crown and retiring to
Hanover. … Indeed, if it had not been for his large family,
and the character of the Prince of Wales, already too well
known, it is far from improbable that he would have carried
this idea into execution, and retired from a Government of
which he was no longer master.
{940}
By the 20th [of March], however, even George III. saw that the
game could not be kept up any longer. He gave permission to
Lord North to announce his resignation, and parted with him
with the characteristic words: 'Remember, my Lord, it is you
who desert me, not I who desert you.' … Even when the
long-deferred blow fell, and Lord North's Ministry was no
more, the King refused to send for Lord Rockingham. He still
flattered himself that he might get together a Ministry from
among the followers of Chatham and of Lord North, which would
be able to restore peace without granting independence, and
Shelburne was the politician whom he fixed upon to aid him in
this scheme. … Shelburne, however, was too clever to fall
into the trap. A Ministry which had against it the influence
of the Rockingham connection and the talents of Charles Fox,
and would not receive the hearty support of Lord North's
phalanx of placemen, was foredoomed to failure. The pear was
not yet ripe. He saw clearly enough that his best chance of
permanent success lay in becoming the successor, not the
supplanter, of Rockingham. … His game was to wait. He
respectfully declined to act without Rockingham. … Before
Rockingham consented to take office, he procured a distinct
pledge from the King that he would not put a veto upon
American independence, if the Ministers recommended it; and on
the 27th of March the triumph of the Opposition was completed
by the formation of a Ministry, mainly representative of the
old Whig families, pledged to a policy of economical reform,
and of peace with America on the basis of the acknowledgment
of independence. Fox received the reward of his services by
being appointed Foreign Secretary, and Lord Shelburne took
charge of the Home and Colonial Department. Rockingham himself
went to the Treasury, Lord John Cavendish became Chancellor of
the Exchequer, Lord Keppel First Lord of the Admiralty, Lord
Camden President of the Council. Burke was made Paymaster of
the Forces, and Sheridan Under-Secretary to his friend Fox. At
the King's special request, Thurlow was allowed to remain as
Chancellor. … The Cabinet no sooner met than it divided into
the parties of Shelburne and of Fox, while Rockingham, Conway,
and Cavendish tried to hold the balance between them, and
Thurlow artfully fomented the dissensions. … Few
Administrations have done so much in a short time as did the
Rockingham Ministry during the three months of its existence,
and it so happened that the lion's share of the work fell to
Fox. Upon his appointment to office his friends noticed a
change in habits and manner of life, as complete as that
ascribed to Henry V. on his accession to the throne. He is
said never to have touched a card during either of his three
short terms of office. … By the division of work among the
two Secretaries of State, all matters which related to the
colonies were under the control of Shelburne, while those
relating to foreign Governments belonged to the department of
Fox. Consequently it became exceedingly important to these two
Ministers whether independence was to be granted to the American
colonies by the Crown of its own accord, or should be reserved
in order to form part of the general treaty of peace.
According to Fox's plan, independence was to be offered at
once fully and freely to the Americans. They would thus gain
at a blow all that they wanted. Their jealousy of French and
Spanish interests in America would at once assert itself, and
England would have no difficulty in bringing them over to her
side in the negotiations with France. Such was Fox's scheme,
but unfortunately, directly America became independent, she
ceased to be in any way subject to Shelburne's management, and
the negotiations for peace would pass wholly out of his
control into the hands of Fox. … Shelburne at once threw his
whole weight into the opposite scale. He urged with great
effect that to give independence at once was to throw away the
trump card. It was the chief concession which England would be
required to make, the only one which she was, prepared to
make; and to make it at once, before she was even asked, was
wilfully to deprive herself of her best weapon. The King and
the Cabinet adopted Shelburne's view. Fox's scheme for the
isolation of France failed, and a double negotiation for peace
was set on foot. Shelburne and Franklin took charge of the
treaty with America [see UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1782
(SEPTEMBER)], Fox and M. de Vergennes that with France and
Spain and Holland. An arrangement of this sort could hardly
have succeeded had the two Secretaries been the firmest of
friends; since they were rivals and enemies it was foredoomed
to failure." Fox found occasion very soon to complain that
important matters in Shelburne's negotiation with Franklin
were kept from his knowledge, and once more he proposed to the
Cabinet an immediate concession of independence to the
Americans. Again he was outvoted, and, "defeated and
despairing, only refrained from resigning there and then
because he would not embitter Rockingham's last moments upon
earth." This was on the 30th of June. "On the 1st of, July
Rockingham died, and on the 2nd Shelburne accepted from the
King the task of forming a Ministry." Fox, of course, declined
to enter it, and suffered in influence because he could not
make public the reasons for his inability to act with Lord
Shelburne. "Only Lord Cavendish, Burke, and the
Solicitor-General, Lee, left office with Portland and Fox, and
the gap was more than supplied by the entrance of William Pitt
[Lord Chatham's son, who had entered Parliament in 1780] into
the Cabinet as Chancellor of the Exchequer. Fortune seemed to
smile on Shelburne. He … might well look forward to a long
and unclouded tenure of political power. His Administration
lasted not quite seven months." It was weakened by distrust
and dissatisfaction among its members, and overturned in
February, 1783, by a vote of censure on the peace which it had
concluded with France, Spain and the American States. It was
succeeded in the Government by the famous Coalition Ministry
formed under Fox and Lord North. "The Duke of Portland
succeeded Shelburne at the Treasury. Lord North and Fox became
the Secretaries of State. Lord John Cavendish returned to the
Exchequer, Keppel to the Admiralty, and Burke to the
Paymastership, the followers of Lord North … were rewarded
with the lower offices. Few combinations in the history of
political parties have been received by historians and
posterity with more unqualified condemnation than the
coalition of 1783. … There is no evidence to show that at
the time it struck politicians in general as being specially
heinous."
_H. O. Wakeman,
Life of Charles James Fox,
chapters 3-5._
ALSO IN:
_Lord J. Russell,
Life of Fox,
chapters 16-17 (volume l)._
_W. F. Rae,
Wilkes, Sheridan, Fox,
pages 307-317._
_Lord E. Fitzmaurice,
Life of William, Earl of Shelburne,
volume 3, chapters 3-6._
{941}
ENGLAND: A. D. 1783.
The definitive Treaty of Peace with the United States of
America signed at Paris.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1783 (SEPTEMBER).
ENGLAND: A. D. 1783-1787.
Fall of the Coalition.
Ascendancy of the younger Pitt.
His extraordinary grasp of power.
His attempted measures of reform.
"Parliament met on the 11th of November; on the 18th Fox asked
for leave to introduce a Bill for the Better Government of
India. That day month[?] the Government had ceased to exist.
Into the merits of the Bill it is not now necessary to enter.
… It was clear that it furnished an admirable weapon against
an unpopular Coalition which had resisted economical reform,
demanded a great income for a debauched prince, and now aimed
at securing a monopoly of the vast patronage of
India,—patronage which, genially exercised by Dundas, was
soon to secure Scotland for Pitt. In the House of Commons the
majority for the Bill was over 100; the loftiest eloquence of
Burke was exerted in its favour; and Fox was, as ever,
dauntless and crushing in debate. But outside Parliament the
King schemed, and controversy raged. … When the Bill arrived
at the House of Lords, the undertakers were ready. The King
had seen Temple, and empowered him to communicate to all whom
it might concern his august disapprobation. The uneasy whisper
circulated, and the joints of the lords became as water. The
peers who yearned for lieutenancies or regiments, for stars or
strawberry leaves; the prelates, who sought a larger sphere of
usefulness; the minions of the bedchamber and the janissaries
of the closet; all, temporal or spiritual, whose convictions
were unequal to their appetite, rallied to the royal nod. …
The result was overwhelming. The triumphant Coalition was
paralysed by the rejection of their Bill. They rightly refused
to resign, but the King could not sleep until he had resumed
the seals. Late at night he sent for them. The messenger found
North and Fox gaily seated at supper with their followers. At
first he was not believed. 'The King would not dare do it,'
exclaimed Fox. But the under Secretary charged with the
message soon convinced them of its authenticity, and the seals
were delivered with a light heart. In such dramatic fashion, and
the springtide of its youth, fell that famous government,
unhonoured and unwept. 'England,' once said Mr. Disraeli,
'does not love coalitions.' She certainly did not love this
one. On this occasion there was neither hesitation nor delay;
the moment had come, and the man. Within 12 hours of the
King's receiving the seals, Pitt had accepted the First
Lordship of the Treasury and the Chancellorship of the
Exchequer. That afternoon his writ was moved amid universal
derision. And so commenced a supreme and unbroken Ministry of
17 years. Those who laughed were hardly blamable, for the
difficulties were tremendous. … The composition of the
Government was … the least of Pitt's embarrassments. The
majority against him in the House of Commons was not less than
40 or 50, containing, with the exception of Pitt himself and
Dundas, every debater of eminence; while he had, before the
meeting of Parliament, to prepare and to obtain the approval
of the East India Company to a scheme which should take the
place of Burke's. The Coalition Ministers were only dismissed
on the 18th of December, 1783; but, when the House of Commons
met on the 12th of January, 1784, all this had been done. The
narrative of the next three months is stirring to read, but
would require too much detail for our limits. … On the day
of the meeting of Parliament, Pitt was defeated in two pitched
divisions, the majorities against him being 39 and 54. His
government seemed still-born. His colleagues were dismayed.
The King came up from Windsor to support him. But in truth he
needed no support. He had inherited from his father that
confidence which made Chatham once say, 'I am sure that I can
save this country, and that nobody else can'; which made
himself say later, 'I place much dependence on my new
colleagues; I place still more dependence on myself.' He had
refused, in spite of the King's insistance, to dissolve; for
he felt that the country required time. … The Clerkship of
the Pells, a sinecure office worth not less than £3,000 a
year, fell vacant the very day that Parliament met. It was
universally expected that Pitt would take it as of right, and
so acquire an independence, which would enable him to devote
his life to politics, without care for the morrow. He had not
£300 a year; his position was to the last degree precarious.
… Pitt disappointed his friends and amazed his enemies. He
gave the place to Barré. … To a nation inured to jobs this
came as a revelation. … Above and beyond all was the fact
that Pitt, young, unaided, and alone, held his own with the
great leaders allied against him. … In face of so resolute a
resistance, the assailants began to melt away. Their divisions,
though they always showed a superiority to the Government,
betrayed notable diminution. … On the 25th of March
Parliament was dissolved, the announcement being retarded by
the unexplained theft of the Great Seal. When the elections
were over, the party of Fox, it was found, had shared the fate
of the host of Sennacherib. The number of Fox's martyrs—of
Fox's followers who had earned that nickname by losing their
seats—was 160. … The King and Pitt were supported on the
tidal wave of one of those great convulsions of feeling, which
in Great Britain relieve and express pent-up national
sentiment, and which in other nations produce revolutions."
_Lord Rosebery,
Pitt,
chapter 3._
"Three subjects then needed the attention of a great
statesman, though none of them were so pressing as to force
themselves on the attention of a little statesman. These were,
our economical and financial legislation, the imperfection of
our parliamentary representation, and the unhappy' condition
of Ireland. Pitt dealt with all three. … He brought in a
series of resolutions consolidating our customs laws, of which
the inevitable complexity may be estimated by their number.
They amounted to 133, and the number of Acts of Parliament
which they restrained or completed was much greater. He
attempted, and successfully, to apply the principles of Free
Trade, the principles which he was the first of English
statesmen to learn from Adam Smith, to the actual commerce of
the country. … The financial reputation of Pitt has greatly
suffered from the absurd praise which was once lavished on the
worst part of it.
{942}
The dread of national ruin from the augmentation of the
national debt was a sort of nightmare in that age. … Mr.
Pitt sympathised with the general apprehension and created the
well-known 'Sinking Fund.' He proposed to apply annually a
certain fixed sum to the payment of the debt, which was in
itself excellent, but he omitted to provide real money to be
so paid. … He proposed to borrow the money to payoff the
debt, and fancied that he thus diminished it. … The exposure
of this financial juggle, for though not intended to be so,
such in fact it was, has reacted very unfavourably upon Mr.
Pitt's deserved fame. … The subject of parliamentary reform
is the one with which, in Mr. Pitt's early days, the public
most connected his name, and is also that with which we are
now least apt to connect it. … He proposed the abolition of
the worst of the rotten boroughs fifty years before Lord Grey
accomplished it. … If the strong counteracting influence of
the French Revolution had not changed the national opinion, he
would unquestionably have amended our parliamentary
representation. … The state of Ireland was a more pressing
difficulty than our financial confusion, our economical
errors, or our parliamentary corruption. … He proposed at
once to remedy the national danger of having two Parliaments,
and to remove the incredible corruption of the old Irish
Parliament, by uniting the three kingdoms in a single
representative system, of which the Parliament should sit in
England. … Of these great reforms he was only permitted to
carry a few into execution. His power, as we have described
it, was great when his reign commenced, and very great it
continued to be for very many years; but the time became
unfavourable for all forward-looking statesmanship."
_W. Bagehot,
Biographical Studies: William Pitt._
ALSO IN:
_Earl Stanhope,
Life of William Pitt,
chapters 4-9 (volume 1)._
_G. Tomline,
Life of William Pitt,
chapters 3-9 (volume 1-2)._
_Lord Rosebery,
Pitt,
chapters 3-4._
ENGLAND: A. D. 1788 (FEBRUARY).
Opening of the Trial of Warren Hastings.
See INDIA: A. D.1785-1795.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1788-1789.
The King's second derangement.
The king's second derangement, which began to show itself in
the summer of 1788, was more serious and of longer duration
than the first. "He was able … to sign a warrant for the
further prorogation of Parliament by commission, from the 25th
September to the 20th November. But, in the interval, the
king's malady increased: he was wholly deprived of reason, and
placed under restraint; and for several days his life was in
danger. As no authority could be obtained from him for a
further prorogation, both Houses assembled on the 20th
November. … According to long established law, Parliament,
without being opened by the Crown, had no authority to proceed
to any business whatever: but the necessity of an occasion,
for which the law had made no provision, was now superior to
the law; and Parliament accordingly proceeded to deliberate
upon the momentous questions to which the king's illness had
given rise." By Mr. Fox it was maintained that "the Prince of
Wales had as clear a right to exercise the power of
sovereignty during the king's incapacity as if the king were
actually dead; and that it was merely for the two Houses of
Parliament to pronounce at what time he should commence, the
exercise of his right. … Mr. Pitt, on the other hand,
maintained that as no legal provision had been made for
carrying on the government, it belonged to the Houses of
Parliament to make such provision." The discussion to which
these differences, and many obstructing circumstances in the
situation of affairs, gave rise, was so prolonged, that the
king recovered his faculties (February, 1789) before the
Regency Bill, framed by Mr. Pitt, had been passed.
_T. E. May,
Constitutional History of England,
volume 1, chapter 3._
ENGLAND: A. D. 1789-1792.
War with Tippoo Saib (third Mysore War).
See INDIA: A. D. 1785-1793.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1793.
The Coalition against Revolutionary France.
Unsuccessful siege of Dunkirk.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1793 (MARCH-SEPTEMBER),
and (JULY-DECEMBER).
ENGLAND: A. D. 1793-1796.
Popular feeling towards the French Revolution.
Small number of the English Jacobins.
Pitt forced into war.
Tory panic and reign of terror.
Violence of government measures.
"That the war [of Revolutionary France] with Germany would
widen into a vast European struggle, a struggle in which the
peoples would rise against their oppressors, and the freedom
which France had won diffuse itself over the world, no French
revolutionist doubted for an hour. Nor did they doubt that in
this struggle England would join them. It was from England
that they had drawn those principles of political and social
liberty which they believed themselves to be putting into
practice. It was to England that they looked above all for
approbation and sympathy. … To the revolutionists at Paris
the attitude of England remained unintelligible and
irritating. Instead of the aid they had counted on, they found
but a cold neutrality. … But that this attitude was that of the
English people as a whole was incredible to the French
enthusiasts. … Their first work therefore they held to be
the bringing about a revolution in England. … They strove,
through a number of associations which had formed themselves
under the name of Constitutional Clubs, to rouse the same
spirit which they had roused in France; and the French envoy,
Chauvelin, protested warmly against a proclamation which
denounced this correspondence as seditious. … Burke was
still working hard in writings whose extravagance of style was
forgotten in their intensity of feeling to spread alarm
throughout Europe. He had from the first encouraged the
emigrant princes to take arms, and sent his son to join them
at Coblentz. 'Be alarmists,' he wrote to them; 'diffuse
terror!' But the royalist terror which he sowed would have
been of little moment had it not roused a revolutionary terror
in France. … In November the Convention decreed that France
offered the aid of her soldiers to all nations who would
strive for freedom. … In the teeth of treaties signed only
two years before, and of the stipulation made by England when
it pledged itself to neutrality, the French Government
resolved to attack Holland, and ordered its generals to
enforce by arms the opening of the Scheldt [see FRANCE: A.
D.1792-1793 (DECEMBER-FEBRUARY)]. To do this was to force
England into war. Public opinion was already pressing every
day harder upon Pitt. … But even while withdrawing our
Minister from Paris on the imprisonment of the King, to whose
Court he had been commissioned, Pitt clung stubbornly to a
policy of peace. …
{943}
No hour of Pitt's life is so great as the hour when he stood
lonely and passionless before the growth of national passion,
and refused to bow to the gathering cry for war. … But
desperately as Pitt struggled for peace, his struggle was in
vain. … Both sides ceased from diplomatic communications,
and in February 1793 France issued her Declaration of War.
From that moment Pitt's power was at an end. His pride, his
immovable firmness, and the general confidence of the nation,
still kept him at the head of affairs; but he could do little
save drift along with a tide of popular feeling which he never
fully understood. Around him the country broke out in a fit of
passion and panic which rivalled the passion and panic
oversea. … The partisans of Republicanism were in reality
but a few handfuls of men. … But in the mass of Englishmen
the dread of these revolutionists passed for the hour into
sheer panic. Even the bulk of the Whig party believed property
and the constitution to be in peril, and forsook Fox when he
still proclaimed his faith in France and the Revolution."
_J. R. Green,
History of the English People,
book 9, chapter 4 (volume 4)._
"Burke himself said that not one man in a hundred was a
Revolutionist. Fox's revolutionary sentiments met with no
response, but with general reprobation, and caused even his
friends to shrink from his side. Of the so-called Jacobin
Societies, the Society for Constitutional Information numbered
only a few hundred members, who, though they held extreme
opinions, were headed by men of character, and were quite
incapable of treason or violence. The Corresponding Society
was of a more sinister character; but its numbers were
computed only at 6,000, and it was swallowed up in the loyal
masses of the people. … It is sad to say it, but when Pitt
had once left the path of right, he fell headlong into evil.
To gratify the ignoble fears and passions of his party, he
commenced a series of attacks on English liberty of speaking
and writing which Mr. Massey, a strong anti-revolutionist,
characterizes as unparalleled since the time of Charles I. The
country was filled with spies. A band of the most infamous
informers was called into activity by the government. …
There was a Tory reign of terror, to which a slight increase
of the panic among the upper classes would probably have lent
a redder hue. Among other measures of repression the Habeas
Corpus Act was suspended; and the liberties of all men were
thus placed at the mercy of the party in power. … In
Scotland the Tory reign of terror was worse than in England."
_Goldwin Smith,
Three English Statesmen,
pages 239-247._
"The gaols were filled with political delinquents, and no man
who professed himself a reformer could say, that the morrow
might not see him a prisoner upon a charge of high treason.
… But the rush towards despotism against which the Whigs
could not stand, was arrested by the people. Although the
Habeas Corpus had fallen, the Trial by Jury remained, and now,
as it had done before, when the alarm of fictitious plots had
disposed the nation to acquiesce in the surrender of its
liberties, it opposed a barrier which Toryism could not pass."
The trials which excited most interest were those of Hardy,
who organized the Corresponding Society, and Horne Tooke. But
no unlawful conduct or treasonable designs could be proved
against them by creditable witnesses, and both were
acquitted." The public joy was very general at these
acquittals. … The war lost its popularity; bread grew
scarce; commerce was crippled; … the easy success that had
been anticipated was replaced by reverses. The people
clamoured and threw stones at the king, and Pitt eagerly took
advantage of their violence to tear away the few shreds of the
constitution which yet covered them. He brought forward the
Seditious Meetings bill, and the Treasonable Practices bill.
Bills which, among other provisions, placed the conduct of
every political meeting under the protection of a magistrate,
and rendered disobedience to his command a felony."
_G. W. Cooke,
History of Party,
volume 3, chapter 17._
ALSO IN:
_J. Adolphus,
History of England: Reign of George III.,
chapters 81-89 and 95 (volumes 5-6)._
_J. Gifford,
History of the Political Life of William Pitt,
chapters 23-24, and 28-29 (volumes 3-4)._
_W. Massey,
History of England: Reign of George III.,
chapters 32-36 (volumes 3-4)._
_E. Smith,
The Story of the English Jacobins._
_A. Bisset,
Short History of the English Parliament,
chapter 8._
ENGLAND: A. D. 1794.
Campaigns of the Coalition against France.
French successes in the Netherlands and on the Rhine.
Conquest of Corsica.
Naval victory of Lord Howe.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1794 (MARCH-JULY).
ENGLAND: A. D. 1794.
Angry relations with the United States.
The Jay Treaty.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1794-1795.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1794-1795.
Withdrawal of troops from the Netherlands.
French conquest of Holland.
Establishment of the Batavian Republic.
Crumbling of the European Coalition.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1794-1795 (OCTOBER-MAY).
ENGLAND: A. D. 1795.
Disastrous expedition to Quiberon Bay.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1794-1796.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1795.
Capture of the Cape of Good Hope from the Dutch.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1795 (JUNE-DECEMBER).
ENGLAND: A. D. 1796 (SEPTEMBER).
Evacuation and abandonment of Corsica.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1796 (SEPTEMBER).
ENGLAND: A. D. 1796 (OCTOBER).
Unsuccessful peace negotiations with the French Directory.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1796 (OCTOBER).
ENGLAND: A. D. 1796-1798.
Attempted French invasions of Ireland.
Irish Insurrection.
See IRELAND: A. D. 1793-1798.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1797.
Monetary panic and suspension of specie payments.
Defeat of the first Reform movement.
Mutiny of the Fleet.
Naval victories of Cape St. Vincent and Camperdown.
"The aspect of affairs in Britain had never been so clouded
during the 18th century as at the beginning of the year 1797.
The failure of Lord Malmesbury's mission to Paris had closed
every hope of an honourable termination to the war, while of
all her original allies, Austria alone remained; the national
burdens were continually increasing, and the three-per-cents
had fallen to fifty-one; while party spirit raged with
uncommon violence, and Ireland was in a state of partial
insurrection. A still greater disaster resulted from the panic
arising from the dread of invasion, and which produced such a
run on all the banks, that the Bank of England itself was
reduced to payment in sixpences, and an Order in Council
appeared (February 26) for the suspension of all cash
payments. This measure, at first only temporary, was prolonged
from time to time by parliamentary enactments, making bank-notes
a legal-tender; and it was not till 1819, after the conclusion
of peace, that the recurrence to metallic currency took place.
{944}
The Opposition deemed this a favourable opportunity to renew
their cherished project of parliamentary reform; and on 26th
May, Mr. (afterwards Lord) Grey brought forward a plan chiefly
remarkable for containing the outlines of that subsequently
carried into effect in 1831. It was negatived, however, after
violent debates, by a majority of 258 against 93. After a
similar strife of parties, the motion for the continuance of
the war was carried by a great majority in both houses; and
the requisite supplies were voted. … Unknown to the
government, great discontent had for a long time prevailed in
the navy. The exciting causes were principality the low rate
of pay (which had not been raised since the time of Charles
II.), the unequal distribution of prize-money, and undue
severity in the maintenance of discipline. These grounds of
complaint, with others not less well founded, gave rise to a
general conspiracy, which broke out (April 15) in the Channel
fleet under Lord Bridport. All the ships fell under the power
of the insurgents; but they maintained perfect order, and
memorialised the Admiralty and the Commons on their
grievances: their demands being examined by government, and
found to be reasonable, were granted; and on the 7th of May
the fleet returned to its duty. But scarcely was the spirit of
disaffection quelled in this quarter, when it broke out in a
more alarming form (May 22) among the squadron at the Nore,
which was soon after (June 6) joined by the force which had
been cruising off the Texel under Lord Duncan. The mutineers
appointed a seaman named Parker to the command; and,
blockading the mouth of the Thames, announced their demands in
such a tone of menacing audacity as insured their instant
rejection by the government. This second mutiny caused
dreadful consternation in London; but the firmness of the King
remained unshaken, and he was nobly seconded by the
parliament. A bill was passed, prohibiting all communication
with the mutineers under pain of death. Sheerness and Tilbury
Fort were armed and garrisoned for the defence of the Thames;
and the sailors, finding the national feelings strongly
arrayed against them, became gradually sensible that their
enterprise was desperate. One by one the ships returned to
their duty; and on 15th June all had submitted. Parker and
several other ringleaders suffered death; but clemency was
extended to the multitude. … Notwithstanding all these
dissensions, the British navy was never more terrible to its
enemies than during this eventful year. On the 14th of
February, the Spanish fleet of 27 sail of the line and 12
frigates, which had put to sea for the purpose of raising the
blockade of the French harbours, was encountered off Cape St.
Vincent by Sir John Jarvis, who had only 15 ships and 6
frigates. By the old manœuvre of breaking the line, 9 of the
Spanish ships were cut off from the rest; and the admiral,
while attempting to regain them by wearing round the rear of
the British line, was boldly assailed by Nelson and
Collingwood,—the former of whom, in the Captain, of 74 guns,
engaged at once two of the enemy's gigantic vessels, the
Santissima Trinidad of 136 guns, and the San Josef of 112;
while the Salvador del Mundo, also of 112 guns, struck in a
quarter of an hour to Collingwood. Nelson at length carried
the San Josef by boarding, and received the Spanish admiral's
sword on his own quarterdeck. The Santissima Trinidad—an
enormous four-decker—though her colours were twice struck,
escaped in the confusion; but the San Josef and the Salvador,
with two 74-gun ships, remained in the hands of the British;
and the Spanish armament, thus routed by little more than half
its own force, retired in the deepest dejection to Cadiz, which
was shortly after insulted by a bombardment from the gallant
Nelson. A more important victory than that of Sir John Jarvis
(created in consequence Earl St. Vincent) was never gained at
sea, from the evident superiority of skill and seamanship
which it demonstrated in the British navy. The battle of St.
Vincent disconcerted the plans of Truguet for the naval
campaign; but later in the season a second attempt to reach
Brest was made by a Dutch fleet of 15 sail of the line and 11
frigates, under the command of De Winter, a man of tried
courage and experience. The British blockading fleet, under
Admiral Duncan, consisted of 16 ships and 3 frigates; and the
battle was fought (October 16) off Camperdown, about nine
miles from the shore of Holland. The manœuvres of the British
Admiral were directed to cut off the enemy's retreat to his
own shores; and this having been accomplished, the action
commenced yard-arm to yard-arm, and continued with the utmost
fury for more than three hours. The Dutch sailors fought with
the most admirable skill and courage, and proved themselves
worthy descendants of Van Tromp and De Ruyter; but the prowess
of the British was irresistible. 12 sail of the line,
including the flagship, two 56-gun ships, and 2 frigates,
struck their colours; but the nearness of the shore enabled
two of the prizes to escape, and one 74-gun ship foundered.
The obstinacy of the conflict was evidenced by the nearly
equal number of killed and wounded, which amounted to 1,040
English, and 1,160 Dutch. … The only remaining operations of
the year were the capture of Trinidad in February, by a force
which soon after was repulsed from before Porto Rico; and an
abortive attempt at a descent in Pembroke Bay by about 1,400
French."
_Epitome of Alison's History of Europe,
sections 190-196 (chapter 22,
volume 5 of complete work)._
ALSO IN:
_J. Adolphus,
History of England: Reign of George III.,
chapters 100-103 (volume 6)._
_R. Southey,
Life of Nelson,
chapter 4._
_E. J. De La Gravière,
Sketches of the Last Naval War,
volume 1, part 2._
_Captain A. T. Mahan,
Influence of Sea Power on the
French Revolution and Empire,
chapters 8 and 11 (volume 1)._
ENGLAND: A. D. 1798 (AUGUST).
Nelson's victory in the Battle of the Nile.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1798 (MAY-AUGUST).
ENGLAND: A. D. 1798.
Second Coalition against Revolutionary France.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1798-1799 (AUGUST-APRIL).
ENGLAND: A. D. 1799 (APRIL).
Final war with Tippoo Saib (third Mysore War).
See INDIA: A. D. 1798-1805.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1799 (AUGUST-OCTOBER).
Expedition against Holland.
Seizure of the Dutch fleet.
Ignominious ending of the enterprise.
Capitulation of the Duke of York.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1799 (APRIL-SEPTEMBER),
and (SEPTEMBER-OCTOBER).
ENGLAND: A. D. 1800.
Legislative union of Ireland with Great Britain.
Creation of the "United Kingdom."
See IRELAND: A. D. 1798-1800.
{945}
ENGLAND: A. D. 1801.
The first Factory Act.
See FACTORY LEGISLATION.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1801-1802.
Import of the Treaty of Luneville.
Bonaparte's preparations for conflict with Great Britain alone.
Retirement of Pitt.
The Northern Maritime League and its summary annihilation at
Copenhagen.
Expulsion of the French from Egypt.
The Peace of Amiens.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1801-1802.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1801-1806.
Pitt's promise to the Irish Catholics broken by the King.
His resignation.
The Addington Ministry.
The Peace of Amiens.
War resumed.
Pitt at the helm again.
His death.
The Ministry of "All the Talents."
"The union with Ireland introduced a new topic of party
discussion, which quickly became only second to that of
parliamentary reform. In transplanting the parliament of
College Green to St. Stephen's, Pitt had transplanted the
questions which were there debated; and, of these, none had
been more important than the demand of the Catholics to be
admitted to the common rights of citizens. Pitt, whose Toryism
was rather the imperiousness of a haughty master, than the
cautious cowardice of the miser of power, thought their
complaints were just. In his private negotiations with the
Irish popular leaders he probably promised that emancipation
should be the sequel to the union. In his place in parliament
he certainly gave an intimation, which from the mouth of a
minister could receive no second interpretation. Pitt was not
a minister who governed by petty stratagems, by ambiguous
professions, and by skilful shuffles: he was at least an
honourable enemy. He prepared to fulfil the pledge he had
given, and to admit the Catholics within the pale of the
constitution. It had been better for the character of George
III. had he imitated the candour of his minister; had he told
him that he had made a promise he would not be suffered to
fulfil, before he had obtained the advantage to gain which
that promise had been made. When Pitt proposed Catholic
emancipation as one of the topics of the king's speech, for
the session of 1801, the royal negative was at once
interposed, and when Dundas persisted in his attempt to
overcome his master's objections, the king abruptly terminated
the conference, saying, 'Scotch metaphysics cannot destroy
religious obligations.' Pitt immediately tendered his
resignation. … All that was brilliant in Toryism passed from
the cabinet with the late minister: When Pitt and Canning were
withdrawn, with their satellites, nothing remained of the Tory
party but the mere courtiers who lived upon the favour of the
king, and the insipid lees of the party; men who voted upon
every subject in accordance with their one ruling idea—the
certain ruin, which must follow the first particle of
innovation. Yet from these relicts the king was obliged to
form a new cabinet, for application to the Whigs was out of
the question. These were more strenuous for emancipation than
Pitt. Henry Addington, Pitt's speaker of the house of commons,
was the person upon whom the king's choice fell; and he
succeeded, with the assistance of the late premier, in filling
up the offices at his disposal. … The peace of Amiens was
the great work of this feeble administration [see FRANCE: A.
D. 1801-1802], and formed a severe commentary upon the
boastings of the Tories. 'Unless the monarchy of France be
restored,' Pitt had said, eight years before, 'the monarchy of
England is lost forever.' Eight years of warfare had succeeded,
yet the monarchy of France was not restored, and the crusade
was stayed. England had surrendered her conquests, France
retained hers; the landmarks of Europe had been in some degree
restored; England, alone, remained burdened with the enduring
consequences of the ruinous and useless strife. The peace was
approved by the Whigs, who were glad of any respite from such
a war, and by Pitt, who gave his support to the Addington
administration. But he could not control his adherents. … As
the instability of the peace grew manifest, the incompetency
of the administration became generally acknowledged: with Pitt
sometimes chiding, Windham and Canning, and Lords Spencer and
Grenville continually attacking, and Fox and the Whigs only
refraining from violent opposition from a knowledge that if
Addington went out Pitt would be his successor, the conduct of
the government was by no means an easy or a grateful task to a
man destitute of commanding talents. When to these
parliamentary difficulties were added a recommencement of the
war, and a popular panic at Bonaparte's threatened invasion,
Addington's embarrassments became inextricable. He had
performed the business which Pitt had assigned him; he had
made an experimental peace, and had saved Pitt's honour with
the Roman Catholics. The object of his appointment he had
unconsciously completed, and no sooner did his predecessor
manifest an intention of returning to office, than the
ministerial majorities began to diminish, and Addington found
himself without support. On the 12th of April it was announced
that Mr. Addington had resigned, and Pitt appeared to resume
his station as a matter of course. During his temporary
retirement, Pitt had, however, lost one section of his
supporters. The Grenville party and the Whigs had gradually
approximated, and the former now refused to come into the new
arrangements unless Fox was introduced into the cabinet. To
this Pitt offered no objection, but the king was firm—or
obstinate. … In the following year, Addington himself, now
created Viscount Sidmouth, returned to office with the
subordinate appointment of president of the council. The
conflagration had again spread through Europe. … Pitt had
the mortification to see his grand continental coalition, the
produce of such immense expense and the object of such hope,
shattered in one campaign. At home, Lord Melville, his most
faithful political supporter, was attacked by a charge from
which he could not defend him, and underwent the impeachment
of the commons for malpractices in his office as treasurer of
the navy. Lord Sidmouth and several others seceded from the
cabinet, and Pitt, broken in health, and dispirited by
reverses, had lost much of his wonted energy. Thus passed away
the year 1805. On the 23d of January, 1806, Pitt expired. …
The death of Pitt was the dissolution of his administration.
The Tory party was scattered in divisions and subdivisions
innumerable. Canning now recognised no political leader, but
retained his old contempt for Sidmouth and his friends, and
his hostility to the Grenvilles for their breach with Pitt.
Castlereagh, William Dundas, Hawkesbury, or Barham, although
sufficiently effective when Pitt was present to direct and to
defend, would have made a hopeless figure without him in face
of such an opposition as the house of commons now afforded.
{946}
The administration, which was ironically designated by its
opponents as 'All the Talents,' succeeded. Lord Grenville was
first lord of the treasury. Fox chose the office of secretary
for foreign affairs with the hope of putting an end to the
war. Windham was colonial secretary. Earl Spencer had the
seals of the home department. Erskine was lord chancellor. Mr.
Grey was first lord of the admiralty. Sheridan, treasurer of
the navy. Lord Sidmouth was privy seal. Lord Henry Petty, who,
although now only in his 26th year, had already acquired
considerable distinction as an eloquent Whig speaker, was
advanced to the post of chancellor of the exchequer, the
vacant chair of Pitt. Such were the men who now assumed the
reins under circumstances of unparalleled difficulty."
_G. W. Cooke,
History of Party,
volume 3, chapters 17-18._
ALSO IN:
_Earl Stanhope (Lord Mahon),
Life of Pitt,
chapters 29-44 (volumes 3-4)._
_A. G. Stapleton,
George Canning and His Times,
chapters 6-8._
_Earl Russell,
Life and Times of Charles James Fox,
chapters 58-69 (volume 3)._
_G. Pellew,
Life and Correspondence of Henry Addington,
1st Viscount Sidmouth,
chapters 10-26 (volumes 1-2)._
ENGLAND: A. D. 1802 (OCTOBER).
Protest against Bonaparte's interference in Switzerland.
His extraordinary reply.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1801-1803.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1802-1803.
Bonaparte's complaints and demands.
The Peltier trial.
The First Consul's rage.
Declaration of war.
Napoleon's seizure of Hanover.
Cruel detention of all English people in France, Italy,
Switzerland and the Netherlands.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1802-1803.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1804-1809.
Difficulties with the United States.
Questions of neutral rights.
Right of Search and Impressment.
The American Embargo.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1804-1809, and 1808.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1805 (JANUARY-APRIL).
Third Coalition against France.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1805 (JANUARY-APRIL).
ENGLAND: A. D. 1805.
Napoleon's threatened invasion.
Nelson's long pursuit of the French fleet.
His victory and death at Trafalgar.
The crushing of the Coalition at Austerlitz.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1805 (MARCH-DECEMBER).
ENGLAND: A. D. 1806.
Final seizure of Cape Colony from the Dutch.
See SOUTH AFRICA: A. D. 1486-1806.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1806.
Cession of Hanover to Prussia by Napoleon.
War with Prussia.
See GERMANY: A. D. 1806 (JANUARY-AUGUST).
ENGLAND: A. D. 1806.
Attempted reinstatement of the dethroned King of Naples.
The Battle of Maida.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1805-1806 (DECEMBER-SEPTEMBER).
ENGLAND: A. D. 1806.
Death of Pitt.
Peace negotiations with Napoleon.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1806 (JANUARY-OCTOBER).
ENGLAND: A. D. 1806-1807.
Expedition against Buenos Ayres.
See ARGENTINE REPUBLIC: A. D. 1806-1820.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1806-1810.
Commercial warfare with Napoleon.
Orders in Council.
Berlin and Milan Decrees.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1806-1810.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1806-1812.
The ministry of "All the Talents."
Abolition of the Slave Trade.
The Portland and the Perceval ministries.
Confirmed insanity of George III.
Beginning of the regency of the Prince of Wales.
Assassination of Mr. Perceval.
The "Ministry of All the Talents" is "remarkable solely for
its mistakes, and is to be remembered chiefly for the death of
Fox [September 13, 1806] and the abolition of the slave-trade.
Fox was now destined at the close of his career to be
disillusioned with regard to Napoleon. He at last thoroughly
realized the insincerity of his hero. … The second great
object of Fox's life he succeeded in attaining before his
death;—this was the abolition of the slave-trade. For more
than thirty years the question had been before the country,
and a vigorous agitation had been conducted by Clarkson,
Wilberforce, and Fox. . Pitt was quite at one with them on
this question, and had brought forward motions on the subject.
The House of Lords, however, rejected all measures of this
description during the Revolutionary War, under the influence
of the Anti-Jacobin feeling. It was reserved for Fox to
succeed in carrying a Bill inflicting heavy pecuniary
punishments on the traffic in slaves. And yet this
measure—the sole fruit of Fox's statesmanship—was wholly
inadequate; nor was it till the slave-trade was made felony in
1811 that its final extinction was secured. The remaining acts
of the Ministry were blunders. … Their financial system was
a failure. They carried on the war so as to alienate their
allies and to cover themselves with humiliation. Finally, they
insisted on bringing forward a measure for the relief of the
Catholics, though there was not the slightest hope of carrying
it, and it could only cause a disruption of the Government.
… The king and the Pittites were determined to oppose it,
and so the Ministry agreed to drop the question under protest.
George insisted on their withdrawing the protest, and as this was
refused he dismissed them. … This then was the final triumph
of George III. He had successfully dismissed this Ministry; he
had maintained the principle that every Ministry is bound to
withdraw any project displeasing to the king. These principles
were totally inconsistent with Constitutional Government, and
they indirectly precipitated Reform by rendering it absolutely
necessary in order to curb the royal influence. … The Duke
of Portland's sole claims to form a Ministry were his high
rank, and the length of his previous services. His talents
were never very great, and they were weakened by age and
disease. The real leader was Mr. Perceval, the Chancellor of
the Exchequer, a dexterous debater and a patriotic statesman.
This Government, being formed on the closest Tory basis and on
the king's influence, was pledged to pursue a retrograde
policy and to oppose all measures of Reform. The one really
high-minded statesman in the Cabinet was Canning, the Foreign
Minister. His advanced views, however, continually brought him
into collision with Castlereagh, the War Minister, a man of
much inferior talents and the narrowest Tory views. Quarrels
inevitably arose between the two, and there was no real Prime
Minister to hold them strongly under control. … At last the
ill-feeling ended in a duel, which was followed by a mutual
resignation on the ground that neither could serve with the
other. This was followed by the resignation of Portland, who
felt himself wholly unequal to the arduous task of managing
the Ministry any longer.
{947}
The leadership now devolved on Perceval, who found himself in
an apparently hopeless condition. His only supporters were
Lords Liverpool, Eldon, Palmerston, and Wellesley. Neither
Canning, Castlereagh, nor Sidmouth (Addington) would join him.
The miserable expedition to Walcheren had just ended in
ignominy. The campaign in the Peninsula was regarded as a
chimerical enterprise, got up mainly for the benefit of a Tory
commander. Certainly the most capable man in the Cabinet was
Lord Wellesley, the Foreign Minister, but he was continually
thwarted by the incapable men he had to deal with. However, as
long as he remained at the Foreign Office, he supported the
Peninsular War with vigour, and enabled his brother to carry
out more effectually his plans with regard to the defence of
Portugal. In November, 1810, the king was again seized with
insanity, nor did he ever recover the use of his faculties
during the rest of his life. The Ministry determined to bring
forward Pitt's old Bill of 1788 in a somewhat more modified
form, February, 1811. The Prince of Wales requested Grey and
Grenville to criticize this, but, regarding their reply as
lukewarm, he began to entertain an ill-will for them. At this
moment the judicious flattery of his family brought him over
from the Whigs, and he decided to continue Perceval in office.
Wellesley, however, took the opportunity to resign, and was
succeeded by Castlereagh, February, 1812. In May Perceval was
assassinated by Mr. Bellingham, a lunatic, and his Ministry at
once fell to pieces."
_B. C. Skottowe,
Our Hanoverian Kings,
book 10, chapter 3._
ALSO IN:
_F. H. Hill,
George Canning,
chapters 13-17._
_S. Walpole,
Life of Spencer Perceval,
volume 2._
_R. I. and S. Wilberforce,
Life of William Wilberforce,
chapter 20 (volume 3)._
ENGLAND: A. D. 1807.
Act for the Abolition of the Slave-Trade.
See SLAVERY, NEGRO: A. D. 1792-1807.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1807 (FEBRUARY-SEPTEMBER).
Operations in support of the Russians against the Turks and
French.
Bold naval attack on Constantinople and humiliating failure.
Disastrous expedition to Egypt.
See TURKS: A. D. 1806-1807.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1807 (JUNE-JULY).
Alliance formed at Tilsit between Napoleon and Alexander I. of
Russia.
See GERMANY: A. D. 1807 (JUNE-JULY).
ENGLAND: A. D. 1807 (AUGUST-NOVEMBER).
Bombardment of Copenhagen and seizure of the Danish fleet.
War with Russia and Denmark.
See SCANDINAVIAN STATES: A. D. 1807-1810.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1807 (OCTOBER-NOVEMBER).
Submission of Portugal to Napoleon under English advice.
Flight of the house of Braganza to Brazil.
See PORTUGAL: A. D. 1807.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1808 (MAY).
Ineffectual attempt to aid Sweden.
Expedition of Sir John Moore.
See SCANDINAVIAN STATES: A. D. 1807-1810.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1808 (JULY).
Peace and alliance with the Spanish people against the new
Napoleonic monarchy.
Opening of the Peninsular War.
See SPAIN: A. D.1808 (MAY-SEPTEMBER).
ENGLAND: A. D. 1808.
Expulsion of English forces from Capri.
See ITALY (SOUTHERN): A. D.1808-1809.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1808-1809.
Wellington's first campaign in the Peninsula.
Convention of Cintra.
Evacuation of Portugal by the French.
Sir John Moore's advance into Spain and his retreat.
His death at Corunna.
See SPAIN: A. D. 1808-1809 (AUGUST-JANUARY).
ENGLAND: A. D. 1809 (FEBRUARY-JULY).
Wellington sent to the Peninsula.
The passage of the Douro and the Battle of Talavera.
See SPAIN: A. D. 1809 (FEBRUARY-JULY).
ENGLAND: A. D. 1809 (JULY-DECEMBER).
The Walcheren Expedition.
"Three times before, during the war, it had occurred to one or
another, connected with the government, that it would be a
good thing to hold Antwerp, and command the Scheldt, seize the
French ships in the river, and get possession of their
arsenals and dockyards. On each occasion, men of military
science and experience had been consulted; and invariably they
had pronounced against the scheme. Now, however, what Mr. Pitt
had considered impracticable, Lord Castlereagh, with the
rashness of incapacity, resolved should be done: and, in order
not to be hindered, he avoided consulting with those who would
have objected to the enterprise. Though the scene of action
was to be the swamps at the mouths of the Scheldt, he
consulted no physician. Having himself neither naval,
military, nor medical knowledge, he assumed the
responsibility—except such as the King and the Duke of York
chose to share. … It was May, 1809, before any stir was
apparent which could lead men outside the Cabinet to infer
that an expedition for the Scheldt was in contemplation; but
so early as the beginning of April (it is now known), Mr.
Canning signified that he could not share in the
responsibility of an enterprise which must so involve his own
office. … The fleet that rode in the channel consisted of 39
ships of the line, and 36 frigates, and a due proportion of
small vessels: in all, 245 vessels of war: and 400 transports
carried 40,000 soldiers. Only one hospital ship was provided
for the whole expedition, though the Surgeon General implored
the grant of two more. He gave his reasons, but was refused.
… The naval commander was Sir Richard J. Strachan, whose
title to the responsibility no one could perceive, while many
who had more experience were unemployed. The military command
was given (as the selection of the present Cabinet bad been)
to Lord Chatham, for no better reason than that he was a
favourite with the King and Queen, who liked his gentle and
courtly manners, and his easy and amiable temper. … The
fatal mistake was made of not defining the respective
authorities of the two commanders; and both being
inexperienced or apathetic, each relied upon the other first,
and cast the blame of failure upon him afterwards. In the
autumn, an epigram of unknown origin was in every body's
mouth, all over England:
'Lord Chatham, with his sword undrawn,
Stood waiting for Sir Richard Strachan;
Sir Richard, longing to be at 'em,
Stood waiting for the Earl of Chatham.'
The fleet set sail on the 28th of July, and was on the coast
of Holland the next day. The first discovery was that there
were not boats enough to land the troops and the ordnance. The
next was that no plan had been formed about how to proceed.
The most experienced officers were for pushing on to Antwerp,
45 miles off, and taking it before it could be prepared for
defence; but the commanders determined to take Flushing first.
They set about it so slowly that a fortnight was consumed in
preparations.
{948}
In two days more, the 15th of August, Flushing was taken.
After this, Lord Chatham paused to consider what he should do
next; and it was the 21st before be began to propose to go on
to Antwerp. Then came the next discovery, that, by this time
two intermediate places had been so strengthened that there
must be some fighting on the way. So he did nothing more but
take possession of two small islands near Flushing. Not
another blow was struck; not another league was traversed by
this magnificent expedition. But the most important discovery
of all now disclosed itself. The army had been brought into
the swamps at the beginning of the sickly season. Fever sprang
up under their feet, and 3,000 men were in hospital in a few
days, just when it became necessary to reduce the rations,
because provisions were falling short. On the 27th of August,
Lord Chatham led a council of war to resolve that 'it was not
advisable to pursue further operations.' But, if they could
not proceed, neither could they remain where they were. The
enemy had more spirit than their invaders. On the 30th and
31st, such a fire was opened from both banks of the river,
that the ships were obliged to retire. Flushing was given up,
and everything else except the island of Walcheren, which it
was fatal to hold at this season. On the 4th of September,
most of the ships were at home again; and Lord Chatham
appeared on the 14th. Eleven thousand men were by that time in
the fever, and he brought home as many as he could. Sir Eyre
Coote, whom he left in command, was dismayed to see all the
rest sinking down in disease at the rate of hundreds in a day.
Though the men had been working in the swamps, up to the waist
in marsh water, and the roofs of their sleeping places had
been carried off by bombardment, so that they slept under a
canopy of autumn fog, it was supposed that a supply of Thames
water to drink would stop the sickness; and a supply of 500
tons per week was transmitted. At last, at the end of October,
a hundred English bricklayers, with tools, bricks, and mortar,
were sent over to mend the roofs; but they immediately dropped
into the hospitals. Then the patients were to be accommodated
in the towns; but to spare the inhabitants, the soldiers were
laid down in damp churches; and their bedding had from the
beginning been insufficient for their need. At last,
government desired the chief officers of the army Medical
Board to repair to Walcheren, and see what was the precise
nature of the fever, and what could be done. The
Surgeon-General and the Physician-General threw the duty upon
each other. Government appointed it to the Physician-General,
Sir Lucas Pepys; but he refused to go. Both officers were
dismissed, and the medical department of the army was
reorganized and greatly improved. The deaths were at this time
from 200 to 300 a week. When Walcheren was evacuated, on the
23rd of December, nearly half the force sent out five months
before were dead or missing; and of those who returned, 35,000
were admitted into the hospitals of England before the next 1st
of June. Twenty millions sterling were spent on this
expedition. It was the purchase money of tens of thousands of
deaths, and of ineffaceable national disgrace."
_H. Martineau,
History of England, 1800-1815,
book 2, chapter 2._
ALSO IN:
_C. Knight,
Popular History of England,
volume 7, chapter 20._
ENGLAND: A. D. 1809 (AUGUST-DECEMBER).
Difficulties of Wellington's campaign in the Peninsula.
His retreat into Portugal.
See SPAIN: A. D. 1809 (AUGUST-DECEMBER).
ENGLAND: A. D. 1810.
Capture of the Mauritius.
See INDIA: A. D. 1805-1816.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1810-1812.
The War in the Peninsula.
Wellington's Lines of Torres Vedras.
French recoil from them.
English advance into Spain.
See SPAIN: A. D. 1800-1810 (OCTOBER-SEPTEMBER),
and 1810-1812.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1811.
Capture of Java from the Dutch.
See INDIA: A. D. 1805-1816.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1811-1812.
Desertion of Napoleon's Continental System by Russia and Sweden.
Reopening of their ports to British commerce.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1810-1812.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1812 (JANUARY).
Building of the first passenger Steam-boat.
See STEAM NAVIGATION: THE BEGINNINGS.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1812 (JUNE-AUGUST).
The Peninsular War.
Wellington's victory at Salamanca and advance to Madrid.
See SPAIN: A. D. 1812 (JUNE-AUGUST).
ENGLAND: A. D. 1812-1813.
The Liverpool Ministry.
Business depression and bad harvests.
Distress and rioting.
The Luddites.
"Again there was much negotiation, and an attempt to introduce
Lord Wellesley and Mr. Canning to the ministry. Of course they
could not serve with Castlereagh; they were then asked to form
a ministry with Grenville and Grey, but these Lords objected
to the Peninsular War, to which Wellesley was pledged.
Grenville and Grey then attempted a ministry of their own but
quarrelled with Lord Moira on the appointments to the
Household; and as an American war was threatening, and the
ministry had already given up their Orders in Council (one of
the chief causes of their unpopularity), the Regent rather
than remain longer without a ministry, intrusted Lord
Liverpool with the Premiership, with Castlereagh as his
Foreign Secretary, and the old ministry remained in office.
Before the day of triumph of this ministry arrived, while
Napoleon was still at the height of his power, and the success
of Wellington as yet uncertain, England had drifted into war
with America. It is difficult to believe that this useless war
might not have been avoided had the ministers been men of
ability. It arose from the obstinate manner in which the
Government clung to the execution of their retaliatory
measures against France, regardless of the practical injury
they were inflicting upon all neutrals. … The same motive of
class aggrandizement which detracts from the virtue of the
foreign policy of this ministry underlay the whole
administration of home affairs. There was an incapacity to
look at public affairs from any but a class or aristocratic
point of view. The natural consequence was a constantly
increasing mass of discontent among the lower orders, only
kept in restraint by an overmastering fear felt by all those
higher in rank of the possible revolutionary tendencies of any
attempt at change. Much of the discontent was of course the
inevitable consequence of the circumstances in which England
was placed, and for which the Government was only answerable
in so far as it created those circumstances. At the same time
it is impossible not to blame the complacent manner in which
the misery was ignored and the occasional success of
individual merchants and contractors regarded as evidences of
national prosperity. …
{949}
A plentiful harvest in 1813, and the opening of many
continental ports, did much to revive both trade and
manufactures; but it was accompanied by a fall in the price of
corn from 171s. to 75s. The consequence was widespread
distress among the agriculturists, which involved the country
banks, so that in the two following years 240 of them stopped
payment. So great a crash could not fail to affect the
manufacturing interest also; apparently, for the instant, the
very restoration of peace brought widespread ruin. … Before
the end of the year 1811, wages had sunk to 7s. 6d. a week.
The manufacturing operatives were therefore in a state of
absolute misery. Petitions signed by 40,000 or 50,000 men
urged upon Parliament that they were starving; but there was
another class which fared still worse. Machinery had by no
means superseded hand-work. In thousands of hamlets and
cottages handlooms still existed. The work was neither so good
nor so rapid as work done by machinery; even at the best of
times used chiefly as an auxiliary to agriculture, this hand
labour could now scarcely find employment at all. Not
unnaturally, without work and without food, these hand workers
were very ready to believe that it was the machinery which
caused their ruin, and so in fact it was; the change, though
on the whole beneficial, had brought much individual misery.
The people were not wise enough to see this. They rose in
riots in many parts of England, chiefly about Nottingham,
calling themselves Luddites (from the name of a certain idiot
lad who some 30 years before, had broken stocking-frames),
gathered round them many of the disbanded soldiery with whom
the country was thronged, and with a very perfect secret
organization, carried out their object of machine-breaking.
The unexpected thronging of the village at nightfall, a crowd
of men with blackened faces, armed sentinels holding every
approach, silence on all sides, the village inhabitants
cowering behind closed doors, an hour or two's work of
smashing and burning, and the disappearance of the crowd as
rapidly as it had arrived—such were the incidents of the
night riots."
_J. F. Bright,
History of England, period 3,
pages 1325-1332._
ALSO IN:
_C. Knight,
Popular History of England,
volume 7, chapter 30._
_Pictorial History of England,
volume 8, chapter 4
(Reign of George III., volume 4)._
ENGLAND: A. D. 1812-1815.
War with the United States.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1804-1809;
1808; and 1810-1812, to 1815 (JANUARY).
ENGLAND: A. D. 1813 (JUNE).
Joined with the new European Coalition against Napoleon.
See GERMANY: A. D. 1813 (MAY-AUGUST).
ENGLAND: A. D. 1813-1814.
Wellington's victorious and final campaigns
in the Peninsular War.
See SPAIN: A. D. 1812-1814.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1813-1816.
War with the Ghorkas of Nepal.
See INDIA: A. D.1805-1816.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1814.
The allies in France and in possession of Paris.
Fall of Napoleon.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1814 (JANUARY-MARCH),
and (MARCH-APRIL).
ENGLAND: A. D. 1814 (May-June).
Treaty of Paris.
Acquisition of Malta, the Isle of France
and the Cape of Good Hope.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1814 (APRIL-JUNE).
ENGLAND: A. D. 1814 (DECEMBER).
The Treaty of Ghent, terminating war with the United States.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1814 (DECEMBER).
ENGLAND: A. D. 1814-1815.
The Congress of Vienna and its revision of the map of Europe.
See VIENNA, THE CONGRESS OF.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1815 (MARCH).
The Corn Law.
See TARIFF LEGISLATION (ENGLAND): A. D. 1815-1828.
[Transcriber's Note:]
INDONESIA: A. D. 1815 (APRIL).
Eruption of Mount Tambora precipitating the "Year without a
Summer" and widespread famine.
"Low temperatures and heavy rains resulted in failed harvests
in Britain and Ireland. … With the cause of the problems
unknown, hungry people demonstrated in front of grain markets
and bakeries. Later riots, arson, and looting took place in
many European cities. On some occasions, rioters carried flags
reading "Bread or Blood". Though riots were common during
times of hunger, the food riots of 1816 and 1817 were the
highest levels of violence since the French Revolution. It was
the worst famine of 19th-century mainland Europe.
_https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Year_Without_a_Summer#Europe_
[End Transcriber's Note]
ENGLAND: A. D. 1815 (JUNE).
The Waterloo campaign.
Defeat and final Overthrow of Napoleon.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1815 (JUNE).
ENGLAND: A. D. 1815 (JULY-AUGUST).
Surrender of Napoleon.
His confinement on the Island of St. Helena.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1815 (JUNE-AUGUST).
ENGLAND: A. D. 1815 (JULY-NOVEMBER).
Wellington's army in Paris.
The Second Treaty.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1815 (JULY-NOVEMBER).
ENGLAND: A. D. 1815 (SEPTEMBER).
The Holy Alliance.
See HOLY ALLIANCE.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1816-1820.
Agitation for Parliamentary Reform.
Hampden Clubs.
Spencean philanthropists.
Trials of William Hone.
The Spa-fields meeting and riot.
March of the Blanketeers.
Massacre of Peterloo.
The Six Acts.
Death of George III.
Accession of George IV.
"From this time the name of Parliamentary Reform became, for
the most part, a name of terror to the Government. … It
passed away from the patronage of a few aristocratic lovers of
popularity, to be advocated by writers of 'two-penny trash,'
and to be discussed and organized by 'Hampden Clubs' of
hungering philanthropists and unemployed 'weaver-boys.' Samuel
Bamford, who thought it no disgrace to call himself 'a
Radical' … says, 'at this time (1816) the writings of
William Cobbett suddenly became of great authority; they were
read on nearly every cottage hearth in the manufacturing
districts of South Lancashire, in those of Leicester, Derby,
and Nottingham; also in many of the Scottish manufacturing
towns. Their influence was speedily visible.' Cobbett
advocated Parliamentary Reform as the corrective of whatever
miseries the lower classes suffered. A new order of
politicians was called into action: 'The Sunday-schools of the
preceding thirty years had produced many working men of
sufficient talent to become readers, writers, and speakers in
the village meetings for Parliamentary Reform; some also were
found to possess a rude poetic talent, which rendered their
effusions popular, and bestowed an additional charm on their
assemblages; and by such various means, anxious listeners at
first, and then zealous proselytes, were drawn from the
cottages of quiet nooks and dingles to the weekly readings and
discussions of the Hampden Clubs.' … In a Report of the
Secret Committee of the House of Commons, presented on the
19th of February, 1817, the Hampden Clubs are described as
'associated professedly for the purpose of Parliamentary
Reform, upon the most extended principle of universal suffrage
and annual parliaments'; but that 'in far the greater number
of them … nothing short of a Revolution is the object
expected and avowed.' The testimony of Samuel Bamford shows
that, in this early period of their history, the Hampden Clubs
limited their object to the attainment of Parliamentary Reform.
… Bamford, at the beginning of 1817, came to London as a
delegate from the Middleton Club, to attend a great meeting of
delegates to be assembled in London. …
{950}
The Middleton delegate was introduced, amidst the reeking
tobacco-fog of a low tavern, to the leading members of a
society called the 'Spencean Philanthropists.' They derived
their name from that of a Mr. Spence, a school-master in
Yorkshire, who had conceived a plan for making the nation
happy, by causing all the lands of the country to become the
property of the State, which State should divide all the
produce for the support of the people. … The Committee of
the Spenceans openly meddled with sundry grave questions
besides that of a community in land; and, amongst other
notable projects, petitioned Parliament to do away with
machinery. Amongst these fanatics some dangerous men had
established themselves, such as Thistlewood, who subsequently
paid the penalty of five years of maniacal plotting." A
meeting held at Spa-fields on the 2d of December, 1816, in the
interest of the Spencean Philanthropists, terminated in a
senseless outbreak of riot, led by a young fanatic named
Watson. The mob plundered some gunsmiths' shops, shot one
gentleman who remonstrated, and set out to seize the Tower;
but was dispersed by a few resolute magistrates and
constables. "It is difficult to imagine a more degraded and
dangerous position than that in which every political writer
was placed during the year 1817. In the first place, he was
subject, by a Secretary of State's warrant, to be imprisoned
upon suspicion, under the Suspension of the Habeas Corpus Act.
Secondly, he was open to an ex-officio information, under
which he would be compelled to find bail, or be imprisoned.
The power of ex-officio information had been extended so as to
compel bail, by an Act of 1808; but from 1808 to 1811, during
which three years forty such informations were laid, only one
person was held to bail. In 1817 numerous ex-officio
informations were filed, and the almost invariable practice
then was to hold the alleged offender to bail, or, in default,
to commit to prison. Under this Act Mr. Hone and others were
committed to prison during this year. … The entire course of
these proceedings was a signal failure. There was only one
solitary instance of success—William Cobbett ran away. On the
28th of March he fled to America, suspending the publication
of his 'Register' for four months. On the 12th of May earl
Grey mentioned in the House of Lords that a Mr. Hone was
proceeded against for publishing some blasphemous parody; but
he had read one of the same nature, written, printed, and
published, some years ago, by other people, without any notice
having been officially taken of it. The parody to which earl
Grey alluded, and a portion of which he recited, was Canning's
famous parody, 'Praise Lepaux'; and he asked whether the
authors, be they in the cabinet or in any other place, would
also be found out and visited with the penalties of the law?
This hint to the obscure publisher against whom these
ex-officio informations had been filed for blasphemous and
seditious parodies, was effectually worked out by him in the
solitude of his prison, and in the poor dwelling where he had
surrounded himself, as he had done from his earliest years,
with a collection of odd and curious books. From these he had
gathered an abundance of knowledge that was destined to
perplex the technical acquirements of the Attorney-General, to
whom the sword and buckler of his precedents would be wholly
useless, and to change the determination of the boldest judge
in the land [Lord Ellenborough] to convict at any rate, into
the prostration of helpless despair. Altogether, the three
trials of William Hone are amongst the most remarkable in our
constitutional history. They produced more distinct effects
upon the temper of the country than any public proceedings of
that time. They taught the Government a lesson which has never
been forgotten, and to which, as much as to any other cause,
we owe the prodigious improvement as to the law of libel
itself, and the use of the law, in our own day,—an
improvement which leaves what is dangerous in the press to be
corrected by the remedial power of the press itself; and
which, instead of lamenting over the newly-acquired ability of
the masses to read seditious and irreligious works, depends
upon the general diffusion of this ability as the surest
corrective of the evils that are incident even to the best
gift of heaven,—that of knowledge."
_C. Knight,
Popular History of England,
volume 8, chapter 5._
In 1817 "there was widespread distress. There were riots in
the counties of England arising out of the distress. There
were riots in various parts of London. Secret Committees were
appointed by both Houses of the Legislature to inquire into
the alleged disaffection of part of the people. The Habeas
Corpus Act was suspended. The march of the Blanketeers from
Manchester [March, 1817] caused panic and consternation
through various circles in London. The march of the
Blanketeers was a very simple and harmless project. A large
number of the working-men in Manchester conceived the idea of
walking to London to lay an account of their distress before
the heads of the Government, and to ask that some remedy might
be found, and also to appeal for the granting of Parliamentary
reform. It was part of their arrangement that each man should
carry a blanket with him, as they would, necessarily, have to
sleep at many places along the way, and they were not exactly
in funds to pay for first-class hotel accommodation. The
nickname of Blanketeers was given to them because of their
portable sleeping-arrangements. The whole project was simple,
was touching in its simplicity. Even at this distance of time
one cannot read about it without being moved by its pathetic
childishness. These poor men thought they had nothing to do
but to walk to London, and get to speech of Lord Liverpool,
and justice would be done to them and their claims. The
Government of Lord Liverpool dealt very roundly, and in a very
different way, with the Blanketeers. If the poor men had been
marching on London with pikes, muskets and swords, they could
not have created a greater fury of panic and of passion in
official circles. The Government, availing itself of the
suspension of the Habeas Corpus Act, had the leaders of the
movement captured and sent to prison, stopped the march by
military force, and dispersed those who were taking part in
it. … The 'Massacre of Peterloo,' as it is not
inappropriately called, took place not long after. A great
public meeting was held [August 16, 1819] at St. Peter's
Field, then on the outskirts of Manchester, now the site of
the Free Trade Hall, which many years later rang so often to
the thrilling tones of John Bright. The meeting was called to
petition for Parliamentary reform. It should be remembered
that in those days Manchester, Birmingham, and other great
cities were without any manner of representation in
Parliament.
{951}
It was a vast meeting—some 80,000 men and women are stated to
have been present. The yeomanry [a mounted militia force], for
some reason impossible to understand, endeavoured to disperse
the meeting, and actually dashed in upon the crowd, spurring
their horses and flourishing their sabres. Eleven persons were
killed, and several hundreds were wounded. The Government
brought in, as their panacea for popular trouble and
discontent, the famous Six Acts. These Acts were simply
measures to render it more easy for the authorities to put
down or disperse meetings which they considered objectionable,
and to suppress any manner of publication which they chose to
call seditious. But among them were some Bills to prevent
training and drilling, and the collection and use of arms.
These measures show what the panic of the Government was. It
was the conviction of the ruling classes that the poor and the
working-classes of England were preparing a revolution. …
During all this time, the few genuine Radicals in the House of
Commons were bringing on motion after motion for Parliamentary
reform, just as Grattan and his friends were bringing forward
motion after motion for Catholic Emancipation. In 1818, a
motion by Sir Francis Burdett for annual Parliaments and
universal suffrage was lost by a majority of 106 to nobody.
… The motion had only two supporters—Burdett himself, and
his colleague, Lord Cochrane. … The forms of the House
require two tellers on either side, and a compliance with this
inevitable rule took up the whole strength of Burdett's party.
… On January 29, 1820, the long reign of George III. came to
an end. The life of the King closed in darkness of eyes and mind.
Stone-blind, stone-deaf, and, except for rare lucid intervals,
wholly out of his senses, the poor old King wandered from room
to room of his palace, a touching picture, with his long,
white, flowing beard, now repeating to himself the awful words
of Milton—the 'dark, dark, dark, amid the blaze of
noon—irrecoverably dark'—now, in a happier mood, announcing
himself to be in the companionship of angels. George, the
Prince Regent, succeeded, of course, to the throne; and George
IV. at once announced his willingness to retain the services
of the Ministry of Lord Liverpool. The Whigs had at one time
expected much from the coming of George IV. to the throne, but
their hopes had begun to be chilled of late."
_J. McCarthy,
Sir Robert Peel,
chapter 3._
ALSO IN:
_J. Routledge,
Chapters in the History of Popular Progress,
chapters 12-19._
_H. Martineau,
History of the Thirty Years' Peace,
book 1, chapters 5-17 (volume 1)._
_E. Smith,
William Cobbett,
chapters 21-23 (volume 2)._
See, also, TARIFF LEGISLATION (ENGLAND): A. D. 1815-1828.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1818.
Convention with the United States relating to Fisheries, etc.
See FISHERIES, NORTH AMERICAN: A. D. 1814-1818.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1820.
Accession of King George IV.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1820-1822.
Congresses of Troppau, Laybach and Verona.
Projects of the Holy Alliance.
English protests.
Canning's policy towards Spain and the Spanish American
colonies.
See VERONA, THE CONGRESS OF.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1820-1827.
The Cato Street Conspiracy.
Trial of Queen Caroline.
Canning in the Foreign Office.
Commercial Crisis of 1825.
Canning as Premier.
His death.
"Riot and social misery had, during the Regency, heralded the
Reign. They did not cease to afflict the country. At once we
are plunged into the wretched details of a conspiracy. Secret
intelligence reached the Home Office to the effect that a man
named Thistlewood, who had been a year in jail for challenging
Lord Sidmouth, had with several accomplices laid a plot to
murder the Ministers during a Cabinet dinner, which was to
come off at Lord Harrowby's. The guests did not go, and the
police pounced on the gang, arming themselves in a stable in
Cato Street, off the Edgeware Road. Thistlewood blew out the
candle, having first stabbed a policeman to the heart. For
that night he got off; but, being taken next day, he was soon
hanged, with his four leading associates. This is called the
Cato Street Conspiracy. … George IV., almost as soon as the
crown became his own, began to stir in the matter of getting a
divorce from his wife. He had married this poor Princess
Caroline of Brunswick in 1795, merely for the purpose of
getting his debts paid. Their first interview disappointed
both. After some time of semi-banishment to Blackheath she had
gone abroad to live chiefly in Italy, and had been made the
subject of more than one 'delicate investigation' for the
purpose of procuring evidence of infidelity against her. She
now came to England (June 6, 1820), and passed from Dover to
London through joyous and sympathizing crowds. The King sent a
royal message to the Lords, asking for an inquiry into her
conduct. Lord Liverpool and Lord Castlereagh laid before the
Lords and Commons a green bag, stuffed with indecent and
disgusting accusations against the Queen. Happily for her she
had two champions, whose names shall not readily lose the
lustre gained in her defence—Henry Brougham and Thomas
Denman, her Attorney-General and Solicitor-General. After the
failure of a negotiation, in which the Queen demanded two
things that the Ministers refused—the insertion of her name
in the Liturgy, and a proper reception at some foreign
court—Lord Liverpool brought into the Upper House a 'Bill of
Pains and Penalties,' which aimed at her degradation from the
throne and the dissolution of her marriage. Through the
fever-heat of a scorching summer the case went on, counsel and
witnesses playing their respective parts before the Lords. …
At length the Bill, carried on its third reading by a majority
of only nine, was abandoned by the Ministry (November 10). And
the country broke out into cheers and flaming windows. Had she
rested content with the vindication of her fair fame, it would
have been better for her own peace. But she went in public
procession to St. Paul's to return thanks for her victory. And
more rashly still in the following year she tried to force her
way into Westminster Abbey during the Coronation of her
husband (July 19, 1821). But mercy came a few days later from
the King of kings. The people, true to her even in death,
insisted that the hearse containing her remains should pass
through the city; and in spite of bullets from the carbines of
dragoons they gained their point, the Lord Mayor heading the
procession till it had cleared the streets. … George Canning
had resigned his office rather than take any part with the
Liverpool Cabinet in supporting the 'Bill of Pains and
Penalties,' and had gone to the Continent for the summer of
the trial year.
{952}
Early in 1822 Lord Sidmouth … resigned the Home Office. He
was succeeded by Robert Peel, a statesman destined to achieve
eminence. Canning about the same time was offered the post of
Governor-General of India," and accepted it; but this
arrangement was suddenly changed by the death of Castlereagh,
who committed suicide in August. Canning then became Foreign
Secretary. "The spirit of Canning's foreign policy was
diametrically opposed to that of Londonderry [Castlereagh].
… Refusing to interfere in Spanish affairs, he yet
acknowledged the new-won freedom of the South American States,
which had lately shaken off the Spanish yoke. To preserve peace
and yet cut England loose from the Holy Alliance were the
conflicting aims, which the genius of Canning enabled him to
reconcile [see VERONA, CONGRESS OF]. … During the years
1824-25, the country, drunk with unusual prosperity, took that
speculation fever which has afflicted her more than once
during the last century and a half. … A crop of fungus
companies sprang up temptingly from the heated soil of the
Stock Exchange. … Shares were bought and gambled in. The
winter passed; but spring shone on glutted markets.
depreciated stock, no buyers, and no returns from the shadowy
and distant investments in South America, which had absorbed
so much capital. Then the crashing began—the weak broke
first, the strong next, until banks went down by dozens, and
commerce for the time was paralyzed. By causing the issue of
one and two pound notes, by coining in great haste a new
supply of sovereigns, and by inducing the Bank of England to
lend money upon the security of goods—in fact to begin the
pawnbroking business—the Government met the crisis, allayed
the panic, and to some extent restored commercial credit.
Apoplexy having struck down Lord Liverpool early in 1827, it
became necessary to select a new Premier. Canning was the
chosen man." He formed a Cabinet with difficulty in April,
Wellington, Peel, Eldon, and others of his former colleagues
refusing to take office with him. His administration was
brought abruptly to an end in August by his sudden death.
_W. F. Collier,
History of England,
pages 526-529._
ALSO IN:
_Lord Brougham,
Life and Times, by Himself,
chapters 12-18 (volume 2)._
_A. G. Stapleton,
George Canning and His Times,
chapters 18-34._
_A. G. Stapleton,
Some Official Correspondence of George Canning,
2 volumes_
_F. H. Hill,
George Canning,
chapters 19-22._
_Sir T. Martin,
Life of Lord Lyndhurst,
chapter 7._
ENGLAND: A. D. 1824-1826.
The first Burmese War.
See INDIA: A. D. 1823-1833.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1825-1830.
The beginning of railroads.
See STEAM LOCOMOTION ON LAND.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1827-1828.
Removal of Disabilities from the Dissenters.
Repeal of the Test and Corporation Acts.
"Early in 1827 a private member, of little influence,
unexpectedly raised a dormant question. For the best part of a
century the Dissenters had passively submitted to the
anomalous position in which they had been placed by the
Legislature [see above: A. D. 1662-1665; 1672-1673;
1711-1714]. Nominally unable to hold any office under the
Crown, they were annually 'whitewashed' for their infringement
of the law by the passage of an Indemnity Act. The Dissenters
had hitherto been assenting parties to this policy. They
fancied that the repeal of the Test and Corporation Acts would
logically lead to the emancipation of the Roman Catholics, and
they preferred remaining under a disability themselves to
running the risk of conceding relief to others. The tacit
understanding, which thus existed between the Church on one
side and Dissent on the other, was maintained unbroken and
almost unchallenged till 1827. It was challenged in that year
by William Smith, the member for Norwich. Smith was a London
banker; he was a Dissenter; and he felt keenly the hard,
unjust, and unnecessary' law which disabled him from holding,
any office, however insignificant, under the Crown,' and from
sitting 'as a magistrate in any corporation without violating
his conscience.' Smith took the opportunity which the annual
Indemnity Act afforded him of stating these views in the House
of Commons. As he spoke the scales fell from the eyes of the
Liberal members. The moment he sat down Harvey, the member for
Colchester, twitted the Opposition with disregarding 'the
substantial claims of the Dissenters,' while those of the
Catholics were urged year after year' with the vehemence of
party,' and supported by 'the mightiest powers of energy and
eloquence.' The taunt called up Lord John Russell, and
elicited from him the declaration that he would bring forward
a motion on the Test and Corporation Acts, 'if the Protestant
Dissenters should think it to their interest that he should do
so.' A year afterwards—on the 26th of February, 1828—Lord
John Russell rose to redeem the promise which he thus gave."
His motion "was carried by 237 votes to 193. The Ministry had
sustained a crushing and unexpected reverse. For the moment it
was doubtful whether it could continue in office. It was saved
from the necessity of resigning by the moderation and
dexterity of Peel. Peel considered that nothing could be more
unfortunate for the Church than to involve the House of
Commons in a conflict with the House of Lords on a religious
question. … On his advice the Bishops consented to
substitute a formal declaration for the test hitherto in
force. The declaration, which contained a promise that the
maker of it would 'never exert any power or any influence to
injure or subvert the Protestant' Established Church, was to
be taken by the members of every corporation, and, at the
pleasure of the Crown, by the holder of every office. Russell,
though he disliked the declaration, assented to it for the
sake of securing the success of his measure." The bill was
modified accordingly and passed both Houses, though
strenuously resisted by all the Tories of the old school.
_S. Walpole,
History of England from 1815,
chapter 10 (volume 2)._
ALSO IN:
_J. Stoughton,
Religion in England from 1800 to 1850,
volume 1, chapter 2._
_H. S. Skeats,
History of the Free Churches of England,
chapter 9._
ENGLAND: A. D. 1827-1828.
The administration of Lord Goderich.
Advent of the Wellington Ministry.
"The death of Mr. Canning placed Lord Goderich at the head of
the government. The composition of the Cabinet was slightly
altered. Mr. Huskisson became Colonial Secretary, Mr. Herries
Chancellor of the Exchequer. The government was generally
considered to be weak, and not calculated for a long
endurance. … The differences upon financial measures between
Mr. Herries … and Mr. Huskisson … could not be reconciled
by Lord Goderich, and he therefore tendered his resignation to
the king on the 9th of January, 1828.
{953}
His majesty immediately sent to lord Lyndhurst to desire that
he and the duke of Wellington should come to Windsor. The king
told the duke that he wished him to form a government of which
he should be the head. … It was understood that lord
Lyndhurst was to continue in office. The duke of Wellington
immediately applied to Mr. Peel, who, returning to his post of
Secretary of State for the Home Department, saw the impossibility
of re-uniting in this administration those who had formed the
Cabinet of lord Liverpool. He desired to strengthen the
government of the duke of Wellington by the introduction of
some of the more important of Mr. Canning's friends into the
Cabinet and to fill some of the lesser offices. The earl of
Dudley, Mr. Huskisson, lord Palmerston, and Mr. Charles Grant,
became members of the new administration. Mr. William Lamb,
afterwards lord Melbourne, was appointed Chief Secretary for
Ireland. The ultra-Tories were greatly indignant at these
arrangements. They groaned and reviled as if the world was
unchanged."
_C. Knight,
Popular History of England,
volume 8, chapter 13._
ALSO IN:
_Sir T. Martin,
Life of Lord Lyndhurst,
chapter 9._
_W. M. Torrens,
Life of Viscount Melbourne,
volume 1, chapter 15._
ENGLAND: A. D. 1827-1829.
Intervention on behalf of Greece.
Battle of Navarino.
See GREECE: A. D. 1821-1829.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1828.
Corn Law amendment.
The Sliding Scale.
See TARIFF LEGISLATION (ENGLAND): A. D. 1815-1828.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1829.
Catholic Emancipation.
See IRELAND: A. D. 1811-1829.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1830.
The state of the Parliamentary representation before Reform.
Death of George IV.
Accession of William IV.
Fall of the Wellington Ministry.
"Down to the year 1800, when the Union between Great Britain
and Ireland was effected, the House consisted of 558 members;
after 1800, it consisted of 658 members. In the earlier days
of George III., it was elected by 160,000 voters, out of a
population of a little more than eight millions; in the later
days of that monarch, it was elected by about 440,000 voters,
out of a population of twenty-two millions. … But the
inadequacy of the representation will be even more striking if
we consider the manner in which the electors were broken up
into constituencies. The constituencies consisted either of
counties, or of cities or boroughs. Generally speaking, the
counties of England and Wales (and of Ireland, after the
Union) were represented by two members, and the counties of
Scotland by one member; and the voters were the forty-shilling
freeholders. The number of cities and boroughs which returned
members varied; but, from the date of the Union, there were
about 217 in England and Wales, 14 in Scotland, and 39 in
Ireland,—all the English and Welsh boroughs (with a few
exceptions) returning two members, and the Scotch and Irish
boroughs one member. How the particular places came to be
Parliamentary boroughs is a question of much historic
interest, which cannot be dealt with here in detail.
Originally, the places to which writs were issued seem to have
been chosen by the Crown, or, not unfrequently, by the
Sheriffs of the counties. Probably, in the first instance, the
more important places were selected; though other
considerations, such as the political opinions of the owners
of the soil, and the desire to recognise services (often of a
very questionable character) rendered by such owners to the
King, no doubt had their weight. In the time of Cromwell, some
important changes were made. In 1654, he disfranchised many small
boroughs, increased the number of county members, and
enfranchised Manchester, Leeds, and Halifax. All these reforms
were cancelled after the Restoration; and from that time very
few changes were made. … In the hundred and fifty years
which followed the Restoration, however, there were changes in
the condition of the country, altogether beyond the control of
either kings or parliaments. Old towns disappeared or decayed,
and new ones sprang up. Manchester, Birmingham, and Leeds were
remarkable examples of the latter,—Old Sarum was an example
of the former. … At one time a place of some importance, it
declined from the springing up of New Sarum (Salisbury); and,
even so far back as the reign of Henry VII., it existed as a
town only in imagination, and in the roll of the Parliamentary
boroughs. … Many other places might be named [known as Rotten
Boroughs and Pocket Boroughs]—such as Gatton in Surrey, and
Ludgershall in Wiltshire—which represented only their owners.
In fact, the representation of owners, and of owners only, was
a very prominent feature of the electoral system now under
consideration. Thus, the Duke of Norfolk was represented by
eleven members, who sat for places forming a part of his
estates; similarly, Lord Lonsdale was represented by nine
members, Lord Darlington by seven, the Duke of Rutland and
several other peers by six each; and it is stated by one
authority that the Duke of Newcastle, at one time, returned
one third of all the members for the boroughs, while, up to
1780, the members for the county of York—the largest and most
influential of the counties—were always elected in Lord
Rockingham's dining-room. But these are only selected
instances. Many others might be cited. According to a
statement made by the Duke of Richmond in 1780, 6,000 persons
returned a clear majority of the House of Commons. In 1793,
the Society of the Friends of the People asserted, and
declared that they were able to prove, that 84 individuals
returned 157 members; that 70 individuals returned 150
members; and that of the 154 individuals who thus returned 307
members—the majority of the House before the Union with
Ireland—no fewer than 40 were peers. The same Society
asserted in the same year, and declared that they were able to
prove, that 70 members were returned by 35 places, in which
there were scarcely any electors; that 90 members were
returned by 46 places, in which there were fewer than 50
electors; that 37 members were returned by 19 places, with not
more than 100 electors; and that 52 members were returned by
26 places, with not more than 200 electors: all these in
England alone. Even in the towns which had a real claim to
representation, the franchise rested upon no uniform basis.
… In some cases the suffrage was practically household
suffrage; in other cases the suffrage was extremely
restricted. But they all returned their two members equally;
it made no difference whether the voters numbered 3,000 or
only three or four. Such being the state of the
representation, corruption was inevitable. Bribery was
practised to an inconceivable extent. Many of the smaller
boroughs had a fixed price, and it was by no means uncommon to
see a borough advertised for sale in the newspapers. …
{954}
As an example of cost in contesting a county election, it is
on record that the joint expenses of Lord Milton and Mr.
Lascelles, in contesting the county of York in 1807, were
£200,000. … It is not to be supposed that a condition of
things which appears to us so intolerable attracted no
attention before what may be called the Reform era. So far
back as 1745, Sir Francis Dashwood (afterwards Lord de
Spencer) moved an amendment to the Address in favour of
Reform; Lord Chatham himself, in 1766 and 1770, spoke of the
borough representation as 'the rotten part of the
constitution,' and likened it to a 'mortified limb'; the Duke
of Richmond of that day, in 1780, introduced a bill into the
House of Lords which would have given manhood suffrage and
annual parliaments; and three times in succession, in 1782,
1783, and 1785, Mr. Pitt proposed resolutions in favour of
Reform. … After Mr. Pitt had abandoned the cause, Mr.
(afterwards Earl) Grey took up the subject. First, in 1792, he
presented that famous petition from the Society of the Friends
of the People, to which allusion has been already made, and
founded a resolution upon it. He made further efforts in 1793,
1795, and 1797, but was on every occasion defeated by large
majorities. … From the beginning of the 19th century to the
year 1815—with the exception of a few months after the Peace
of Amiens in 1802—England was at war. During that time Reform
dropped out of notice. … In 1817, and again in 1818 and
1819, Sir Francis Burdett, who was at that time member for
Westminster and a leading Reformer, brought the question of
Reform before the House of Commons. On each occasion he was
defeated by a tremendous majority. … The next ten years were
comparatively uneventful, so far as the subject of this
history is concerned. … Two events made the year 1830
particularly opportune for raising the question of
Parliamentary Reform. The first of these events was the death
of George IV. [June 26],—the second, the deposition of
Charles X. of France. … For the deposition of
Charles—followed as it was very soon by a successful
insurrection in Belgium—produced an immense impression upon
the Liberals of this country, and upon the people generally.
In a few days or weeks there had been secured in two
continental countries what the people of England had been
asking for in vain for years. … We must not omit to notice
one other circumstance that favoured the cause of Reform. This
was the popular distress. Distress always favours agitation.
The distress in 1830 was described in the House of Lords at
the time as 'unparalleled in any previous part of our
history.' Probably this was an exaggeration. But there can be
no doubt that the distress was general, and that it was acute.
… By the law as it stood when George IV. died, the demise of
the Crown involved a dissolution of Parliament. The Parliament
which was in existence in 1830 had been elected in 1826. Since
the beginning o£ 1828 the Duke of Wellington had been Prime
Minister, with Mr. (soon after Sir Robert) Peel as Home
Secretary, and Leader of the House of Commons. They decided to
dissolve at once. … In the Parliament thus dissolved, and
especially in the session just brought to a close, the
question of Reform had held a prominent place. At the very
beginning of the session, in the first week of February, the
Marquis of Blandford (afterwards Duke of Marlborough) moved an
amendment to the Address, in which, though a Tory, he affirmed
the conviction 'that the State is at this moment in the most
imminent danger, and that no effectual measures of salvation
will or can be adopted until the people shall be restored to
their rightful share in the legislation of the country.' …
He was supported on very different grounds by Mr. O'Connell,
but was defeated by a vote of 96 to 11. A few days later he
introduced a specific plan of Reform—a very Radical plan
indeed—but was again ignominiously defeated; then, on the 23d
of February, Lord John Russell … asked for leave to bring in
a bill for conferring the franchise upon Leeds, Manchester,
and Birmingham, as the three largest unrepresented towns in
the kingdom, but was defeated by 188 votes to 140; and
finally, on the 28th of May—scarcely two months before the
dissolution—Mr. O'Connell brought in a bill to establish
universal suffrage, vote by ballot, and triennial parliaments,
but found only 13 members to support him in a House of 332.
… Thus, the question of Reform was now before the country,
not merely as a popular but as a Parliamentary question. It is
not too much to say that, when the dissolution occurred, it
occupied all minds. … The whole of August and a considerable
part of September, therefore, were occupied with the
elections, which were attended by an unparalleled degree of
excite merit. … When all was over, and the results were
reckoned up, it was found that, of the 28 members who
represented the thirteen greatest cities in England (to say
nothing of Wales, Scotland, or Ireland), only 3 were
Minsterialists. … Of the 236 men who were returned by
elections, more or less popular, in England, only 79 were
Ministerialists. … The first Parliament of William IV. met
on the 26th of October, but the session was not really opened
till the 2d of November, when the King came down and delivered
his Speech. … The occasion was made memorable, however, not
by the King's Speech, but by a speech by the Duke of
Wellington, who was then Prime Minister. … 'The noble Earl
[Grey],' said the Duke, 'has alluded to something in the shape
of a Parliamentary Reform, but he has been candid enough to
acknowledge that he is not prepared with any measure of
Reform; and I have as little scruple to say that his Majesty's
Government is as totally unprepared as the noble lord. Nay, on
my own part, I will go further, and say, that I have never
read or heard of any measure, up to the present moment, which
could in any degree satisfy my mind that the state of the
representation could be improved, or be rendered more
satisfactory to the country at large than at the present
moment. … I am not only not prepared to bring forward any
measure of this nature, but I will at once declare that, as
far as I am concerned, as long as I hold any station in the
government of the country, I shall always feel it my duty to
resist such measures when proposed by others.' Exactly
fourteen days after the delivery of this speech, the Duke's
career' as Prime Minister came for the time to a close. On the
16th of November he came down to Westminster, and announced
that he had resigned office. In the meantime, there had been
something like a panic in the city, because Ministers,
apprehending disturbance, had advised the King and Queen to
abandon an engagement to dine, on the 9th, with the Lord Mayor
at the Guildhall.
{955}
On the 15th, too, the Government had sustained a defeat in the
House of Commons, on a motion proposed by Sir Henry Parnell on
the part of the Opposition, having reference to the civil
list. This defeat was made the pretext for resignation. But it
was only a pretext. After the Duke's declaration in regard to
Reform, and in view of his daily increasing unpopularity, his
continuance in office was impossible."
_W. Heaton,
The Three Reforms of Parliament,
chapters 1-2._
ALSO IN:
_A. Paul,
History of Reform,
chapters 1-6._
_W. Bagehot,
Essays on Parliamentary Reform,
essay 2._
_H. Cox,
Antient Parliamentary Elections._
_S. Walpole,
The Electorate and the Legislature,
chapter 4._
_E. A. Freeman,
Decayed Boroughs
(Historical Essays, 4th series)._
England: A. D. 1830-1832.
The great Reform of Representation in Parliament, under the
Ministry of Earl Grey.
"Earl Grey was the new Minister; and Mr. Brougham his Lord
Chancellor. The first announcement of the premier was that the
government would 'take into immediate consideration the state
of the representation, with a view to the correction of those
defects which have been occasioned in it, by the operation of
time; and with a view to the reestablishment of that
confidence upon the part of the people, which he was afraid
Parliament did not at present enjoy, to the full extent that
is essential for the welfare and safety of the country, and
the preservation of the government.' The government were now
pledged to a measure of parliamentary reform; and during the
Christmas recess were occupied in preparing it. Meanwhile, the
cause was eagerly supported by the people. … So great were
the difficulties with which the government had to contend,
that they needed all the encouragement that the people could
give. They had to encounter the reluctance of the king,—the
interests of the proprietors of boroughs, which Mr. Pitt,
unable to overcome, had sought to purchase,—the opposition of
two thirds of the House of Lords; and perhaps of a majority of
the House of Commons,—and above all, the strong Tory spirit
of the country. … On the 3d February, when Parliament
reassembled, Lord Grey announced that the government had
succeeded in framing 'a measure which would be effective,
without exceeding the bounds of a just and well-advised
moderation,' and which 'had received the unanimous consent of
the whole government.' … On the 1st March, this measure was
brought forward in the House of Commons by Lord John Russell,
to whom,—though not in the cabinet,—this honorable duty had
been justly confided. … On the 22d March, the second reading
of the bill was carried by a majority of one only, in a House
of 608,—probably the greatest number which, up to that time,
had ever been assembled at a division. On the 19th of April,
on going into committee, ministers found themselves in a
minority of eight, on a resolution proposed by General
Gascoyne, that the number of members returned for England
ought not to be diminished. On the 21st, ministers announced
that it was not their intention to proceed with the bill. On
that same night, they were again defeated on a question of
adjournment, by a majority of twenty-two. This last vote was
decisive. The very next day, Parliament was prorogued by the
king in person, 'with a view to its immediate dissolution.' It
was one of the most critical days in the history of our
country. … The people were now to decide the question;—and
they decided it. A triumphant body of reformers was returned,
pledged to carry the reform bill; and on the 6th July, the
second reading of the renewed measure was agreed to, by a
majority of 136. The most tedious and irritating discussions
ensued in committee,—night after night; and the bill was not
disposed of until the 21st September, when it was passed by a
majority of 109. That the peers were still adverse to the bill
was certain; but whether, at such a crisis, they would venture to
oppose the national will, was doubtful. On the 7th October,
after a debate of five nights,—one of the most memorable by
which that House has ever been distinguished, and itself a
great event in history,—the bill was rejected on the second
reading, by a majority of forty-one. The battle was to be
fought again. Ministers were too far pledged to the people to
think of resigning; and on the motion of Lord Ebrington, they
were immediately supported by a vote of confidence from the
House of Commons. On the 20th October, Parliament was
prorogued; and after a short interval of excitement,
turbulence, and danger [see BRISTOL: A. D. 1831], met again on
the 6th December. A third reform bill was immediately brought
in,—changed in many respects,—and much improved by reason of
the recent census, and other statistical investigations.
Amongst other changes, the total number of members was no
longer proposed to be reduced. This bill was read a second
time on Sunday morning, the 18th of December, by a majority of
162. On the 23d March, it was passed by the House of Commons,
and once more was before the House of Lords. Here the peril of
again rejecting it could not be concealed,—the courage of some
was shaken,—the patriotism of others aroused; and after a
debate of four nights, the second reading was affirmed by the
narrow majority of nine. But danger still awaited it. The
peers who would no longer venture to reject such a bill, were
preparing to change its essential character by amendments.
Meanwhile the agitation of the people was becoming dangerous.
… The time had come, when either the Lords must be coerced;
or the ministers must resign. This alternative was submitted
to the king. He refused to create peers: the ministers
resigned, and their resignation was accepted. Again the
Commons came to the rescue of the bill and the reform
ministry. On the motion of Lord Ebrington, an address was
immediately voted by them, renewing their expressions of
unaltered confidence in the late ministers, and imploring his
Majesty 'to call to his councils such persons only as will
carry into effect, unimpaired in all its essential provisions,
that bill for reforming the representation of the people,
which has recently passed this House.' … The public
excitement was greater than ever; and the government and the
people were in imminent danger of a bloody collision, when
Earl Grey was recalled to the councils of his sovereign. The
bill was now secure. The peers averted the threatened addition
to their numbers by abstaining from further opposition; and
the bill,—the Great Charter of 1832,—at length received the
Royal Assent. It is now time to advert to the provisions of
this famous statute; and to inquire how far it corrected the
faults of a system, which had been complained of for more than
half a century.
{956}
The main evil had been the number of nomination, or rotten
boroughs enjoying the franchise. Fifty-six of these,—having
less than 2,000 inhabitants, and returning 111 members,—were
swept away. Thirty boroughs, having less than 4,000
inhabitants, lost each a member. Weymouth and Melcombe Regis
lost two. This disfranchisement extended to 143 members. The
next evil had been, that large populations were unrepresented;
and this was now redressed. Twenty-two large towns, including
metropolitan districts, received the privilege of returning
two members; and 20 more of returning one. The large county
populations were also regarded in the distribution of
seats,—the number of county members being increased from 94
to 159. The larger counties were divided; and the number of
members adjusted with reference to the importance of the
constituencies. Another evil was the restricted and unequal
franchise. This too was corrected. All narrow rights of
election were set aside in Boroughs; and a £10 household
franchise was established. The freemen of corporate towns were
the only class of electors whose rights were reserved; but
residence within the borough was attached as a condition to
their right of voting. … The county constituency was
enlarged by the addition of copyholders and leaseholders, for
terms of years, and of tenants-at-will paying a rent of £50 a
year. … The defects of the Scotch representation, being even
more flagrant and indefensible than those of England, were not
likely to be omitted from Lord Grey's general scheme of
reform. … The entire representation was remodelled.
Forty-five members had been assigned to Scotland at the Union:
this number was now increased to 53 of whom 30 were allotted
to counties, and 23 to cities and burghs. The county franchise
was extended to all owners of property of £10 a year, and to
certain classes of leaseholders; and the burgh franchise to
all £10 householders. The representation of Ireland had many
of the defects of the English system. … The right of
election was taken away from the corporations, and vested in
£10 householders; and large additions were made to the county
constituency. The number of members in Ireland, which the Act
of Union had settled at 100, was now increased to 105."
_T. E. May,
Constitutional History of England, 1760-1860,
chapter 6 (volume 1)._
ALSO IN:
_W. N. Molesworth,
History of the Reform Bill of 1832._
_W. Jones,
Biographical Sketches of the Reform Ministers._
_Lord Brougham,
Life and Times, by Himself,
chapters 21-22._
_S. Walpole,
History of England from 1815,
chapter 11 (volume 2)._
ENGLAND: A. D. 1831.
First assumption of the name Conservatives by the Tories.
See CONSERVATIVE PARTY.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1831-1832.
Intervention in the Netherlands.
Creation of the kingdom of Belgium.
War with Holland.
See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1830-1832.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1832-1833.
Abolition of Slavery in the West Indies.
Trade monopoly of the East India Company withdrawn.
Factory Bill.
Irish tithes.
"The period which succeeded the passing of the Reform Bill was
one of immense activity and earnestness in legislation. …
The first great reform was the complete abolition of the
system of slavery in the British colonies. The slave trade had
itself been suppressed so far as we could suppress it long
before that time, but now the whole system of West Indian
slavery was brought to an end [see SLAVERY, NEGRO: A. D.
1834-1838]. … A long agitation of the small but energetic
anti-slavery party brought about this practical result in
1833. … Granville Sharpe, Zachary Macaulay, father of the
historian and statesman, Thomas Fowell Buxton, Wilberforce,
Brougham, and many others, had for a long time been striving
hard to rouse up public opinion to the abolition of the slave
system." The bill which passed Parliament gave immediate
freedom to all children subsequently born, and to all those
who were then under six years of age; while it determined for
all other slaves a period of apprenticeship, lasting five
years in one class and seven years in another, after which
they attained absolute freedom. It appropriated £20,000,000
for the compensation of the slave-owners. "Another reform of
no small importance was accomplished when the charter of the
East India Company came to be renewed in 1833. The clause
giving them a commercial monopoly of the trade of the East was
abolished, and the trade thrown open to the merchants of the
world [see INDIA: A. D. 1823-1833]. There were other slaves in
those days as well as the negro. There were slaves at home,
slaves to all intents and purposes, who were condemned to a
servitude as rigorous as that of the negro, and who, as far as
personal treatment went, suffered more severely than negroes in
the better class plantations. We speak now of the workers in
the great mines and factories. No law up to this time
regulated with anything like reasonable stringency the hours
of labour in factories. … A commission was appointed to
investigate the condition of those who worked in the
factories. Lord Ashley, since everywhere known as the Earl of
Shaftesbury, … brought forward the motion which ended in the
appointment of the commission. The commission quickly brought
together an immense amount of evidence to show the terrible
effect, moral and physical, of the over-working of women and
children, and an agitation set in for the purpose of limiting
by law the duration of the hours of labour. … The principle
of legislative interference to protect children working in
factories was established by an Act passed in 1833, limiting
the work of children to eight hours a day, and that of young
persons under eighteen to 69 hours a week [see FACTORY
LEGISLATION]. The agitation then set on foot and led by Lord
Ashley was engaged for years after in endeavouring to give
that principle a more extended application. … Irish tithes
were one of the grievances which came under the energetic
action of this period of reform. The people of Ireland
complained with justice of having to pay tithes for the
maintenance of the church establishment in which they did not
believe, and under whose roofs they never bent in worship." In
1832, committees of both Houses of Parliament reported in
favor of the extinction of tithes; but the Government
undertook temporarily a scheme whereby it made advances to the
Irish clergy and assumed the collection of tithes among its
own functions. It only succeeded in making matters worse, and
several years passed before the adoption (in 1838) of a bill
which "converted the tithe composition into a rent charge."
_J. McCarthy,
The Epoch of Reform,
chapters 7-8._
ALSO IN: C. Knight, Popular History of England,
volume 8, chapter 17.
_H. Martineau,
History of the Thirty Years' Peace,
book 4, chapters 6-9 (volumes 2-3)._
{957}
ENGLAND: A. D. 1833-1840.
Turko-Egyptian question and its settlement.
The capture of Acre.
Bombardment of Alexandria.
See TURKS: A. D. 1831-1840.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1833-1845.
The Oxford or Tractarian Movement.
See OXFORD OR TRACTARIAN MOVEMENT.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1834-1837.
Resignation of Lord Grey and the Reform Ministry.
The first Melbourne Administration.
Peel's first Ministry and Melbourne's second.
Death of William IV.
Accession of Queen Victoria.
"On May 27th, Mr. Ward, member of St. Albans, brought forward
… resolutions, that the Protestant Episcopal Church of
Ireland much exceeded the spiritual wants of the Protestant
population; that it was the right of the State, and of
Parliament, to distribute church property, and that the
temporal possessions of the Irish church ought to be reduced.
The ministers determined to adopt a middle course and appoint
a commission of inquiry; they hoped thereby to induce Mr. Ward
to withdraw his motion, because the question was already in
government hands. While the negotiations were going on, news
was received of the resignation of four of the most
conservative members of the Cabinet, who regarded any
interference with church property with abhorrence; they were
Mr. Stanley, Sir James Graham, the Duke of Richmond, and the
Earl of Ripon. … Owing to the difference of opinion in the
Cabinet on the Irish coercion bill, on July 9, 1834, Earl Grey
placed his resignation as Prime Minister in the hands of the
king. On the 10th the House of Commons adjourned for four
days. On the 14th, Viscount Melbourne stated in the House of
Lords that his Majesty had honored him with his commands for
the formation of a ministry. He had undertaken the task, but
it was not yet completed. There was very little change in the
Cabinet; Lord Melbourne's place in the Home Department was
filled by Lord Duncannon; Sir John Cam Hobhouse obtained a
seat as First Commissioner of Woods and Forests, and Lord
Carlisle surrendered the Privy Seal to Lord Mulgrave. The
Irish Church Bill was again brought forward, and although it
passed the Commons, was defeated in the Lords, August 1st. The
king much disliked the church policy of the Whigs, and dreaded
reform. He was eager to prevent the meeting of the House, and
circumstances favored him. Before the session Lord Spencer
died, and Lord Althorpe, his son, was thus removed to the
upper House. There was no reason why this should have broken
up the ministry, but the king seized the opportunity, sent for
Lord Melbourne, asserted that the ministry depended chiefly on
the personal influence of Lord Althorpe in the Commons,
declared that, deprived of it as it now was, the government
could not go on, and dismissed his ministers, instructing
Melbourne at once to send for the Duke of Wellington. The
sensation in London was great; the dismissal of the ministry
was considered unconstitutional; the act of the king was
wholly without precedent. … The Duke of Wellington, from
November 15th to December 9th, was the First Lord of the
Treasury, and the sole Secretary of State, having only one
colleague, Lord Lyndhurst, who held the great seal, while at
the same time he sat as Chief Baron of the Court of Exchequer.
This temporary government was called a dictatorship. … On
Sir Robert Peel's return from Italy, whence he had been
called, he waited upon the king and accepted the office of
First Lord of the Treasury and Chancellor of the Exchequer.
With the king's permission, he applied to Lord Stanley and Sir
James Graham, entreating them to give him the benefit of their
co-operation as colleagues in the Cabinet. They both declined.
Prevented from forming a moderate Conservative ministry, he
was reduced to fill his places with men of more pronounced
opinions, which promised ill for any advance in reform. …
The Foreign, Home, War, and Colonial offices were filled by
Wellington, Goulburn, Herries, and Aberdeen; Lord Lyndhurst
was Lord Chancellor; Harding, Secretary for Ireland; and Lord
Wharncliffe, Privy Seal. With this ministry Peel had to meet a
hostile House of Commons. … The Prime Minister therefore
thought it necessary to dissolve Parliament, and took the
opportunity [in what was called 'the Tamworth manifesto'] of
declaring his policy. He declared his acceptance of the Reform
Bill as a final settlement of the question. … The elections,
though they returned a House, as is generally the case, more
favorable to the existing government than that which had been
dissolved, still gave a considerable majority to the Liberals.
… Lord John Russell, on April 7th, proposed the resolution,
'That it is the opinion of this House that no measure upon the
subject of the tithes in Ireland can lead to satisfactory and
final adjustment which does not embody the temporalities of
the Church in Ireland.' This was adopted by a majority of 27,
and that majority was fatal to the ministry. On the following
day the Duke of Wellington, in the House of Lords, stated that
in consequence of the resolution in the House of Commons, the
ministry had tendered their resignation. Sir Robert made a
similar explanation in the Commons. Ten days later, Viscount
Melbourne, in moving the adjournment of the House of Lords,
stated that the king had been pleased to appoint him First
Lord of the Treasury. … On June 9, 1837, a bulletin issued
from Windsor Castle informing a loyal and really affectionate
people that the king was ill. From the 12th they were
regularly issued until the 19th, when the malady, inflammation
of the lungs, had greatly increased. … On Tuesday, June 20th,
the last of these official documents was issued. His Majesty
had expired that morning at 2 o'clock. William died in the
seventy-second year of his age and seventh year of his reign,
leaving no legitimate issue. He was succeeded by his niece,
Alexandrina Victoria."
_A. H. McCalman,
Abridged History of England,
pages 565-570._
ALSO IN:
_W. C. Taylor,
Life and Times of Sir Robert Peel,
volume 2, chapters 10-12._
_W. M. Torrens,
Memoirs of Viscount Melbourne,
volume 2, chapters 1-8._
_J. W. Croker,
Correspondence and Diaries,
chapters 18-20 (volume 2)._
ENGLAND: A. D. 1836-1839.
Beginning of the Anti-Corn-Law Agitation.
See TARIFF LEGISLATION (ENGLAND): A. D. 1836-1839.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1837.
Separation of Hanover.
See HANOVER: A. D. 1837.
{958}
ENGLAND: A. D. 1837-1839.
Opening of the reign of Queen Victoria.
End of personal rule.
Beginning of purely constitutional government.
Peel and the Bedchamber Question.
"The Duke of Wellington thought the accession of a woman to
the sovereign's place would be fatal to the present hopes of
the Tories [who were then expecting a turn of events in their
favor, as against the Whig administration of Lord Melbourne].
'Peel,' he said, 'has no manners, and I have no small talk.'
He seemed to take it for granted that the new sovereign would
choose her Ministers as a school-girl chooses her companions.
He did not know, did not foresee, that with the accession of
Queen Victoria the real reign of constitutional government in
these islands was to begin. The late King had advanced
somewhat on the ways of his predecessors, but his rule was
still, to all intents and purposes, a personal rule. With the
accession of Victoria the system of personal rule came to an
end. The elections which at that time were necessary on the
coming of a new sovereign went slightly in favour of the
Tories. The Whigs had many troubles. They were not reformers
enough for the great body of their supporters. … The
Radicals had split off from them. They could not manage
O'Connell. The Chartist fire was already burning. There was
many a serious crisis in foreign policy—in China and in
Egypt, for example. The Canadian Rebellion and the mission of
Lord Durham involved the Whigs in fresh anxieties, and laid
them open to new attacks from their enemies. On the top of all
came some disturbances, of a legislative rather than an
insurrectionary kind, in Jamaica, and the Government felt
called upon to bring in a Bill to suspend for five years the
Constitution of the island. A Liberal and reforming Ministry
bringing in a Bill to suspend a Constitution is in a highly
awkward and dangerous position. Peel saw his opportunity, and
opposed the Bill. The Government won by a majority of only 5.
Lord Melbourne accepted the situation, and resigned [May 7,
1839]. The Queen sent for the Duke of Wellington, and he, of
course, advised her to send for Peel. When Peel came, the
young Queen told him with all the frankness of a girl that she
was sorry to part with her late Ministers, and that she did
not disapprove of their conduct, but that she felt bound to
act in accordance with constitutional usages; Peel accepted
the task of forming an Administration. And then came the
famous dispute known as the 'Bedchamber Question'—the
'question de jupons.' The Queen wished to retain her
ladies-in-waiting; Peel insisted that there must be some
change. Two of these ladies were closely related to Whig
statesmen whose policy was diametrically opposed to that of
Peel on no less important a question than the Government of
Ireland. Peel insisted that he could not undertake to govern
under such conditions. The Queen, acting on the advice of her
late Ministers, would not give way. The whole dispute created
immense excitement at the time. There was a good deal of
misunderstanding on both sides. It was quietly settled, soon
after, by a compromise which the late Prince Consort
suggested, and which admitted that Peel had been in the right.
… Its importance to us now is that, as Peel would not give
way, the Whigs had to come back again, and they came back
discredited and damaged, having, as Mr. Molesworth puts it,
got back 'behind the petticoats of the ladies-in-waiting.'"
_J. McCarthy,
Sir Robert Peel,
chapter 12._
ALSO IN:
_W. N. Molesworth,
History of England, 1830-1874,
volume 2, chapter 1._
H_. Dunckley,
Lord Melbourne,
chapter 11._
ENGLAND: A. D. 1837.
The Victorian Age in Literature.
"It may perhaps be assumed without any undue amount of
speculative venturesomeness that the age of Queen Victoria
will stand out in history as the period of a literature as
distinct from others as the age of Elizabeth or Anne, although
not perhaps equal in greatness to the latter, and far indeed
below the former. At the opening of Queen Victoria's reign a
great race of literary men had come to a close. It is curious
to note how sharply and completely the literature of Victoria
separates itself from that of the era whose heroes were Scott,
Byron, and Wordsworth: Before Queen Victoria came to the
throne, Scott, Byron, Coleridge, and Keats were dead.
Wordsworth lived, indeed, for many years after; so did Southey
and Moore; and Savage Landor died much later still. But
Wordsworth, Southey, Moore, and Landor had completed their
literary work before Victoria came to the throne. Not one of
them added a cubit or an inch to his intellectual stature from
that time; some of them even did work which distinctly proved
that their day was done. A new and fresh breath was soon after
breathed into literature. Nothing, perhaps, is more remarkable
about the better literature of the age of Queen Victoria than
its complete severance from the leadership of that which had
gone before it, and its evidence of a fresh and genuine
inspiration. It is a somewhat curious fact, too, very
convenient for the purposes of this history, that the
literature of Queen Victoria's time thus far divides itself
clearly enough into two parts. The poets, novelists, and
historians who were making their fame with the beginning of
the reign had done all their best work and made their mark
before these later years, and were followed by a new and
different school, drawing inspiration from wholly different
sources, and challenging comparison as antagonists rather than
disciples. We speak now only of literature. In science the
most remarkable developments were reserved for the later years
of the reign."
_J. McCarthy,
The Literature of the Victorian Reign
(Appletons' Journal, January, 1879, page 498)._
"The age of Queen Victoria is as justly entitled to give name
to a literary epoch as any of those periods on which this
distinction has been conferred by posterity. A new tone of
thought and a new colour of style are discernible from about
the date of the Queen's accession, and, even should these
characteristics continue for generations without apparent
break, it will be remembered that the Elizabethan age did not
terminate with Elizabeth. In one important respect, however,
it differs from most of those epochs which derive their
appellation from a sovereign. The names of Augustus, Lorenzo,
Louis XIV., Anne, are associated with a literary advance, a
claim to have bequeathed models for imitation to succeeding
ages. This claim is not preferred on behalf of the age of
Victoria. It represents the fusion of two currents which had
alternately prevailed in successive periods. Delight and
Utility met, Truth and Imagination kissed each other.
Practical reform awoke the enthusiasm of genius, and genius
put poetry to new use, or made a new path for itself in prose.
The result has been much gain, some loss, and an originality
of aspect which would alone render our Queen's reign
intellectually memorable.
{959}
Looking back to the 18th century in England, we see the spirit
of utility entirely in the ascendant. Intellectual power is as
great as ever, immortal books are written as of old, but there
is a general incapacity not only for the production, but for
the comprehension of works of the imagination. Minds as robust
as Johnson's, as acute as Hume's, display neither strength nor
intelligence in their criticism of the Elizabethan writers,
and their professed regard for even the masterpieces of
antiquity is evidently in the main conventional. Conversely,
when the spell is broken and the capacity for imaginative
composition returns, the half-century immediately preceding
her Majesty's accession does not, outside the domain of the
ideal, produce a single work of the first class. Hallam, the
elder Mill, and others compose, indeed, books of great value,
but not great books. In poetry and romantic fiction, on the
other hand, the genius of that age reaches a height unattained
since Milton, and probably not destined to be rivalled for
many generations. In the age of Victoria we witness the fusion
of its predecessors."
_R. Garnett,
Literature (The Reign of Queen Victoria,
edited by T. H. Ward, volume 2, pages 445-446)._
"The most conspicuous of the substantial distinctions between
the literature of the present day and that of the first
quarter or third of the century may be described as consisting
in the different relative positions at the two dates of Prose
and Verse. In the Georgian era verse was in the ascendant; in
the Victorian era the supremacy has passed to prose. It is not
easy for anyone who has grown up in the latter to estimate
aright the universal excitement which used to be produced in
the former by a new poem of Scott's, or Byron's, or Moore's,
or Campbell's, or Crabbe's, or the equally fervid interest
that was taken throughout a more limited circle in one by
Wordsworth, or Southey, or Shelley. There may have been a
power in the spirit of poetry which that of prose would in
vain aspire to. Probably all the verse ages would be found to
have been of higher glow than the prose ones. The age in
question, at any rate, will hardly be denied by anyone who
remembers it to have been in these centuries, perhaps from the
mightier character of the events and circumstances in the
midst of which we were then placed, an age in which the
national heart beat more strongly than it does at present in
regard to other things as well as this. Its reception of the
great poems that succeeded one another so rapidly from the
first appearance of Scott till the death of Byron was like its
reception of the succession of great victories that, ever
thickening, and almost unbroken by a single defeat, filled up
the greater part of the ten years from Trafalgar to
Waterloo—from the last fight of Nelson to the last of
Wellington. No such huzzas, making the welkin ring with the
one voice of a whole people, and ascending alike from every
city and town and humblest village in the land, have been
heard since then. … Of course, there was plenty of prose
also written throughout the verse era; but no book in prose
that was then produced greatly excited the public mind, or
drew any considerable amount of attention, till the Waverley
novels began to appear; and even that remarkable series of
works did not succeed in at once reducing poetry to the second
place, however chief a share it may have had in hastening that
result. Of the other prose writing that then went on what was
most effective was that of the periodical press,—of the
Edinburgh Review and Cobbett's Register, and, at a later date,
of Blackwood's Magazine and the London Magazine (the latter
with Charles Lamb and De Quincey among its
contributors),—much of it owing more or less of its power to
its vehement political partisanship. A descent from poetry to
prose is the most familiar of all phenomena in the history of
literature. Call it natural decay or degeneracy, or only a
relaxation which the spirit of a people requires after having
been for a certain time on the wing or on the stretch, it is
what a period of more than ordinary poetical productiveness
always ends in."
_G. L. Craik,
Compendious History of English Literature,
volume 2, pages 553-555._
"What … are the specific channels of Victorian utterance in
verse? To define them is difficult, because they are so subtly
varied and so inextricably interwoven. Yet I think they may be
superficially described as the idyll and the lyric. Under the
idyll I should class all narrative and descriptive poetry, of
which this age has been extraordinarily prolific; sometimes
assuming the form of minstrelsy, as in the lays of Scott;
sometimes approaching to the classic style, as in the
Hellenics of Landor; sometimes rivalling the novellette, as in
the work of Tennyson; sometimes aiming at psychological
analysis, as in the portraits drawn by Robert Browning;
sometimes confining art to bare history, as in Crabbe;
sometimes indulging flights of pure artistic fancy, as in
Keats' "Endymion" and "Lamia." Under its many metamorphoses
the narrative and descriptive poetry of our century bears the
stamp of the idyll, because it is fragmentary and because it
results in a picture. … No literature and no age has been
more fertile of lyric poetry than English literature in the
age of Victoria. The fact is apparent. I should superfluously
burden my readers if I were to prove the point by reference to
Byron, Coleridge, Shelley, Keats, Wordsworth, Rossetti,
Clough, Swinburne, Arnold, Tennyson, and I do not know how
many of less illustrious but splendid names, in detail. The
causes are not far to seek. Without a comprehensive vehicle
like the epic, which belongs to the first period of national
life, or the drama, which belongs to its secondary period, our
poets of a later day have had to sing from their inner selves,
subjectively, introspectively, obeying impulses from nature
and the world, which touched them not as they were Englishmen,
but as they were this man or that woman. … When they sang,
they sang with their particular voice; and the lyric is the
natural channel for such song. But what a complex thing is
this Victorian lyric! It includes Wordsworth's sonnets and
Rossetti's ballads, Coleridge's' Ancient Mariner' and Keats'
odes, Clough's 'Easter day' and Tennyson's 'Maud,' Swinburne's
'Songs before Sunrise' and Browning's 'Dramatis Personæ,'
Thomson's 'City of Dreadful Night' and Mary Robinson's
'Handful of Honeysuckles,' Andrew Lang's Ballades and Sharp's
'Weird of Michael Scot,' Dobson's dealings with the eighteenth
century and Noel's 'Child's Garland,' Barnes's Dorsetshire
Poems and Buchanan's London Lyrics, the songs from Empedocles
on Etna and Ebenezer Jones's 'Pagan's Drinking Chant,'
Shelley's Ode to the West Wind and Mrs. Browning's 'Pan is
Dead,' Newman's hymns and Gosse's Chant Royal.
{960}
The kaleidoscope presented by this lyric is so inexhaustible
that any man with the fragment of a memory might pair off
scores of poems by admired authors, and yet not fall upon the
same parallels as those which I have made. The genius of our
century, debarred from epic, debarred from drama, falls back
upon idyllic and lyrical expression. In the idyll it satisfies
its objective craving after art. In the lyric it pours forth
personality. It would be wrong, however, to limit the wealth
of our poetry to these two branches. Such poems as
Wordsworth's 'Excursion,' Byron's 'Don Juan' and 'Childe
Harold,' Mrs. Browning's 'Aurora Leigh,' William Morris's
'Earthly Paradise,' Clough's 'Amours de Voyage,' are not to be
classified in either species. They are partly
autobiographical, and in part the influence of the tale makes
itself distinctly felt in them. Nor again can we omit the
translations, of which so many have been made; some of them
real masterpieces and additions to our literature."
_J. A. Symonds,
A Comparison of Elizabethan with Victorian Poetry
(Fortnightly Review, January 1, 1889,
pages 62-64)._
The difference between the drama and the novel "is one of
perspective; and it is this which in a wide sense
distinguishes the Elizabethan and the Victorian views of life,
and thence of art. … It is … the present aim of art to
throw on life all manner of side-lights, such as the stage can
hardly contrive, but which the novel professes to manage for
those who can read. The round unvarnished tale of the early
novelists has been dead for over a century, and in its place
we have fiction that seeks to be as complete as life itself.
… There is, then, in each of these periods an excellence and
a relative defect: in the Elizabethan, roundness and balance,
but, to us, a want of fulness; in the Victorian, amplified
knowledge, but a falling short of comprehensiveness. And
adapted to each respectively, the drama and the novel are its
most expressive literary form. The limitations and scope of
the drama are those of its time, and so of the novel. Even as
the Elizabethan lived with all his might and was not troubled
about many things, his art was intense and round, but
restricted; and as the Victorian commonly views life by the
light of a patent reading-lamp, and so, sitting apart, sees
much to perplex, the novel gives a more complex treatment of
life, with rarer success in harmony. This rareness is not,
however, due to the novel itself, but to the minds of its
makers. In possibility it is indeed the greater of the two,
being more epical; for it is as capable of grandeur, and is
ampler. This largeness in Victorian life and art argues in the
great novelists a quality of spirit which it is difficult to
name without being misunderstood, and which is peculiarly
non-Elizabethan. It argues what Burns would call a castigated
pulse, a supremacy over passion. Yet they are not Lucretian
gods, however calm their atmosphere; their minds are not built
above humanity, but, being rooted deep in it, rise high. …
Both periods are at heart earnest, and the stamp on the great
literature of each is that of reality, heightened and made
powerful by romance. Nor is their agreement herein greatly
shaken by the novel laying considerable stress on the outside
of life, while the drama is almost heedless of it; for they
both seek to break into the kernel, their variance being
chiefly one of method, dictated by difference of knowledge,
taste, and perception."
_T. D. Robb,
The Elizabethan Drama and the Victorian Novel
(Lippincott's Monthly Magazine, April, 1891,
pages 520-522)._
England: A. D. 1838-1842.
The Chartist agitation.
"When the Parliament was opened by the Queen on the 5th of
February, 1839, a passage in the Royal Speech had reference to
a state of domestic affairs which presented an unhappy
contrast to the universal loyalty which marked the period of
the Coronation. Her Majesty said: 'I have observed with pain
the persevering efforts which have been made in some parts of
the country to excite my subjects to disobedience and
resistance to the law, and to recommend dangerous and illegal
practices.' Chartism, which for ten subsequent years
occasionally agitated the country, had then begun to take
root. On the previous 12th of December a proclamation had been
issued against illegal Chartist assemblies, several of which
had been held, says the proclamation, 'after sunset by
torchlight.' The persons attending these meetings were armed
with guns and pikes; and demagogues, such as Feargus O'Connor
and the Rev. Mr. Stephens at Bury, addressed the people in the
most inflammatory language. … The document called 'The People's
Charter,' which was embodied in the form of a bill in 1838,
comprised six points:—universal suffrage, excluding,
however, women; division of the United Kingdom into equal
electoral districts; vote by ballot; annual parliaments; no
property qualification for members; and a payment to every
member for his legislative services. These principles so
quickly recommended themselves to the working-classes that in
the session of 1839 the number of signatures to a petition
presented to Parliament was upwards of a million and a
quarter. The middle classes almost universally looked with
extreme jealousy and apprehension upon any attempt for an
extension of the franchise. The upper classes for the most
part regarded the proceedings of the Chartists with a contempt
which scarcely concealed their fears. This large section of the
working population very soon became divided into what were
called physical-force Chartists and moral-force Chartists. As
a natural consequence, the principles and acts of the
physical-force Chartists disgusted every supporter of order
and of the rights of property."
_C. Knight,
Popular History of England,
volume 8, chapter 23._
"Nothing can be more unjust than to represent the leaders and
promoters of the movement as mere factious and self-seeking
demagogues. Some of them were men of great ability and
eloquence; some were impassioned young poets, drawn from the
class whom Kingsley has described in his 'Alton Locke'; some
were men of education; many were earnest and devoted fanatics;
and, so far as we can judge, all, or nearly all, were sincere.
Even the man who did the movement most harm, and who made
himself most odious to all reasonable outsiders, the once
famous, now forgotten, Feargus O'Connor, appears to have been
sincere, and to have personally lost more than he gained by
his Chartism. … He was of commanding presence, great
stature, and almost gigantic strength. He had education; he
had mixed in good society; he belonged to an old family. …
There were many men in the movement of a nobler moral nature
than poor, huge, wild Feargus O'Connor. There were men like
Thomas Cooper, … devoted, impassioned, full of poetic
aspiration, and no scant measure of poetic inspiration as
well. Henry Vincent was a man of unimpeachable character. …
{961}
Ernest Jones was as sincere and self-sacrificing a man as ever
joined a sinking cause. … It is necessary to read such a
book as Thomas Cooper's Autobiography to understand how
genuine was the poetic and political enthusiasm which was at
the heart of the Chartist movement, and how bitter was the
suffering which drove into its ranks so many thousands of
stout working men who, in a country like England, might well
have expected to be able to live by the hard work they were
only too willing to do. One must read the Anti-Corn-Law Rhymes
of Ebenezer Elliott to understand how the 'bread tax' became
identified in the minds of the very best of the working class,
and identified justly, with the system of political and
economical legislation which was undoubtedly kept up, although
not of conscious purpose, for the benefit of a class. … A
whole literature of Chartist newspapers sprang up to advocate
the cause. The 'Northern Star,' owned and conducted by Feargus
O'Connor, was the most popular and influential of them; but
every great town had its Chartist press. Meetings were held at
which sometimes very violent language was employed. … A
formidable riot took place in Birmingham, where the
authorities endeavoured to put down a Chartist meeting. …
Efforts were made at times to bring about a compromise with
the middle-class Liberals and the Anti-Corn-Law leaders; but
all such attempts proved failures. The Chartists would not
give up their Charter; many of them would not renounce the
hope of seeing it carried by force. The Government began to
prosecute some of the orators and leaders of the Charter
movement; and some of these were convicted, imprisoned and
treated with great severity. Henry Vincent's imprisonment at
Newport, in Wales, was the occasion of an attempt at rescue
[November 4, 1839] which bore a very close resemblance indeed
to a scheme of organised and armed rebellion." A conflict
occurred in which ten of the Chartists were killed, and some
50 were wounded. Three of the leaders, named Frost, Williams,
and Jones, were tried and convicted on the charge of high
treason, and were sentenced to death; but the sentence was
commuted to one of transportation. "The trial and conviction
of Frost, Williams, and Jones, did not put a stop to the
Chartist agitation. On the contrary, that agitation seemed
rather to wax and strengthen and grow broader because of the
attempt at Newport and its consequences. … There was no lack
of what were called energetic measures on the part of the
Government. The leading Chartists all over the country were
prosecuted and tried, literally by hundreds. In most cases
they were convicted and sentenced to terms of imprisonment.
… The working classes grew more and more bitter against the
Whigs, who they said had professed Liberalism only to gain
their own ends. … There was a profound distrust of the
middle class and their leaders," and it was for that reason
that the Chartists would not join hands with the Anti-Corn-Law
movement, then in full progress. "It is clear that at that
time the Chartists, who represented the bulk of the artisan
class in most of the large towns, did in their very hearts
believe that England was ruled for the benefit of aristocrats
and millionaires who were absolutely indifferent to the
sufferings of the poor. It is equally clear that most of what
are called the ruling class did really believe the English
working men who joined the Chartist movement to be a race of
fierce, unmanageable, and selfish communists, who, if they
were allowed their own way for a moment, would prove
themselves determined to overthrow throne, altar, and all
established securities of society."
_J. McCarthy,
History of Our Own Times,
chapter 5 (volume 1)._
Among the measures of coercion advocated in the councils of
the Chartists was that of appointing and observing what was to
be called a "'sacred month,' during which the working classes
throughout the whole kingdom were to abstain from every kind
of labour, in the hope of compelling the governing classes to
concede the charter."
_W. N. Molesworth,
History of England, 1830-1874,
volume 2, chapter 5._
ALSO IN:
_T. Cooper,
Life, by himself,
chapter 14-23._
_W. Lovett,
Life and Struggles,
chapters 8-15._
_T. Frost,
Forty Years' Recollections,
chapters 3-11._
_H. Jephson,
The Platform,
part 4, chapters 17 and 19 (volume 2)._
ENGLAND: A. D. 1839-1842.
The Opium War with China.
See CHINA: A. D. 1839-1842.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1840.
Adoption of Penny-Postage.
"In 1837 Mr. Rowland Hill had published his plan of a cheap
and uniform postage. A Committee of the House of Commons was
appointed in 1837, which continued its inquiries throughout
the session of 1838, and arrived at the conviction that the
plan was feasible, and deserving of a trial under legislative
sanction. After much discussion, and the experiment of a
varying charge, the uniform rate for a letter not weighing
more than half an ounce became, by order of the Treasury, one
penny. This great reform came into operation on the 10th of
January, 1840. Its final accomplishment is mainly due to the
sagacity and perseverance of the man who first conceived the
scheme."
_C. Knight,
Crown History of England,
page 883._
"Up to this time the rates of postage on letters were very
heavy, and varied according to the distance. For instance, a
single letter conveyed from one part of a town to another cost
2d.; a letter from Reading, to London 7d.; from Brighton, 8d.;
from Aberdeen, 1s. 3½d.; from Belfast, 1s. 4d. If the letter
was written on more than a single sheet, the rate of postage
was much higher."
_W. N. Molesworth,
History of England, 1830-1874,
volume 2, chapter 1._
ALSO IN:
_G. B. Hill,
Life of Sir Rowland Hill._
ENGLAND: A. D. 1840.
The Queen's marriage.
"On January 16, 1840, the Queen, opening Parliament in person,
announced her intention to marry her cousin, Prince Albert of
Saxe Coburg-Gotha—a step which she trusted would be
'conducive to the interests of my people as well as to my own
domestic happiness.' … It was indeed a marriage founded on
affection. … The Queen had for a long time loved her cousin.
He was nearly her own age, the Queen being the elder by three
months and two or three days. Francis Charles Augustus Albert
Emmanuel was the full name of the young Prince. He was the
second son of Ernest, Duke of Saxe-Coburg-Saalfeld, and of his
wife Louisa, daughter of Augustus, Duke of
Saxe-Gotha-Altenberg. Prince Albert was born at the Rosenau,
one of his father's residences, near Coburg, on August 26,
1819. … A marriage between the Princess Victoria and Prince
Albert had been thought of as desirable among the families on
both sides, but it was always wisely resolved that nothing
should be said to the young Princess on the subject unless she
herself showed a distinct liking for her cousin.
{962}
In 1836, Prince Albert was brought by his father to England,
and made the personal acquaintance of the Princess, and she
seems at once to have been drawn toward him in the manner
which her family and friends would most have desired. … The
marriage of the Queen and the Prince took place on February
10, 1840."
_J. McCarthy,
History of Our Own Times,
chapter 7 (volume 1)._
ENGLAND: A. D. 1841-1842.
Interference in Afghanistan.
The first Afghan War.
See AFGHANISTAN: A. D. 1803-1838; 1838-1842; 1842-1869.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1841-1842.
Fall of the Melbourne Ministry.
Opening of the second administration of Sir Robert Peel.
In 1841, the Whig Ministry (Melbourne's) determined "to do
something for freedom of trade. … Colonial timber and sugar
were charged with a duty lighter than was imposed on foreign
timber and sugar; and foreign sugar paid a lighter or a
heavier duty according as it was imported from countries of
slave labour or countries of free labour. It was resolved to
raise the duty on colonial timber, but to lower the duty on
foreign timber and foreign sugar, and at the same time to
replace the sliding scale of the Corn Laws then in force [see
TARIFF LEGISLATION (ENGLAND): A. D. 1815-1828] with a fixed
duty of 8s. per quarter. … The concessions offered by the
Ministry, too small to excite the enthusiasm of the free
traders, were enough to rally all the threatened interests
around Peel. Baring's revision of the sugar duties was
rejected by a majority of 36. Everybody expected the Ministers
to resign upon this defeat; but they merely announced the
continuance of the former duties. Then Peel gave notice of a
vote of want of confidence, and carried it on the 4th of June
by a single vote in a House of 623 members. Instead of
resigning, the Ministers appealed to the country. The
elections went on through the last days of June and the whole
of July. When the new Parliament was complete, it appeared
that the Conservatives could count upon 367 votes in the House
of Commons. The Ministry met Parliament on the 24th of August.
Peel in the House of Commons and Ripon in the House of Lords
moved amendments to the Address, which were carried by
majorities of 91 and 72 respectively." The Ministry resigned
and a Conservative Government was formed, with Peel at its
head, as First Lord of the Treasury. "Wellington entered the
Cabinet without office, and Lyndhurst assumed for the third
time the honours of Lord Chancellor." Among the lesser members
of the Administration—not in the Cabinet—was Mr. Gladstone,
who became Vice-President of the Board of Trade. "This time
Peel experienced no difficulty with regard to the Queen's
Household. It had been previously arranged that in the case of
Lord Melbourne's resignation three Whig Ladies, the Duchess of
Bedford, the Duchess of Sutherland, and Lady Normanby, should
resign of their own accord. One or two other changes in the
Household contented Peel, and these the Queen accorded with a
frankness which placed him entirely at his ease. … During
the recess Peel took a wide survey of the ills affecting the
commonwealth, and of the possible remedies. To supply the
deficiency in the revenue without laying new burthens upon the
humbler class; to revive our fainting manufactures by
encouraging the importation of raw material; to assuage
distress by making the price of provisions lower and more
regular, without taking away that protection which he still
believed essential to British agriculture: these were the
tasks which Peel now bent his mind to compass. … Having
solved [the problems] to his own satisfaction, he had to
persuade his colleagues that they were right. Only one proved
obstinate. The Duke of Buckingham would hear of no change in
the degree of protection afforded to agriculture. He
surrendered the Privy Seal, which was given to the Duke of
Buccleugh. … The Queen's Speech recommended Parliament to
consider the state of the laws affecting the importation of
corn and other commodities. It announced the beginning of a
revolution which few persons in England thought possible,
although it was to be completed in little more than ten
years."
_F. C. Montague,
Life of Sir Robert Peel,
chapter 7-8._
ALSO IN:
_J. R. Thursfield,
Peel,
chapter 7-8._
_W. C. Taylor,
Life and Times of Sir Robert Peel,
volume 3, chapters 3-5._
_J. W. Croker,
Correspondence and Diaries,
chapter 22 (volume 2_).
ENGLAND: A. D. 1842.
The Ashburton Treaty with the United States.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1842.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1845-1846.
Repeal of the Corn Laws and dissolution of the League.
See TARIFF LEGISLATION (ENGLAND): A. D. 1845-1846.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1845-1846.
First war with the Sikhs.
See INDIA: A. D. 1845-1849.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1846.
Settlement of the Oregon Boundary Question with the United
States.
See OREGON: A. D. 1844-1846.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1846.
The vengeance of the Tory-Protectionists.
Overthrow of Peel.
Advent of Disraeli.
Ministry of Lord John Russell.
"Strange to say, the day when the Bill [extinguishing the
duties on corn] was read in the House of Lords for the third
time [June 25] saw the fall of Peel's Ministry. The fall was
due to the state of Ireland. The Government had been bringing
in a Coercion Bill for Ireland. It was introduced while the
Corn Bill was yet passing through the House of Commons. The
situation was critical. All the Irish followers of Mr.
O'Connell would be sure to oppose the Coercion Bill. The
Liberal party, at least when out of office, had usually made
it their principle to oppose Coercion Bills, if they were not
attended with some promises of legislative reform. The English
Radical members, led by Mr. Cobden and Mr. Bright, were
certain to oppose coercion. If the protectionists should join
with these other opponents of the Coercion Bill, the fate of
the measure was assured, and with it the fate of the
Government. This was exactly what happened. Eighty
Protectionists followed Lord George Bentinck into the lobby
against the Bill, in combination with the Free Traders, the
Whigs, and the Irish Catholic and national members. The
division took place on the second reading of the Bill on
Thursday, June 25, and there was a majority of 73 against the
Ministry."
_J. McCarthy,
The Epoch of Reform,
page 183._
{963}
The revengeful Tory-Protectionist attack on Peel was led by
Sir George Bentinck and Benjamin Disraeli, then just making
himself felt in the House of Commons. It was distinctly
grounded upon no objection in principle to the Irish Coercion
Bill, but on the declaration that they could "no longer trust
Peel, and, must therefore refuse to give him unconstitutional
powers.' … He had twice betrayed the party who had trusted
his promises. … 'The gentlemen of England,' of whom it had
once been Sir Robert's proudest boast to be the leader,
declared against him. He was beaten by an overpowering
majority, and his career as an English Minister was closed.
Disraeli's had been the hand which dethroned him, and to
Disraeli himself, after three years of anarchy and
uncertainty, descended the task of again building together the
shattered ruins of the Conservative party. Very unwillingly
they submitted to the unwelcome necessity. Canning and the
elder Pitt had both been called adventurers, but they had
birth and connection, and they were at least Englishmen.
Disraeli had risen out of a despised race; he had never sued
for their favours; he had voted and spoken as he pleased,
whether they liked it or not. … He was without Court favour,
and had hardly a powerful friend except Lord Lyndhurst. He had
never been tried on the lower steps of the official ladder. He
was young, too—only 42—after all the stir that he had made.
There was no example of a rise so sudden under such
conditions. But the Tory party had accepted and cheered his
services, and he stood out alone among them as a debater of
superior power. Their own trained men had all deserted them.
Lord George remained for a year or two as nominal chief: but
Lord George died; the conservatives could only consolidate
themselves under a real leader, and Disraeli was the single
person that they had who was equal to the situation. … He
had overthrown Peel and succeeded to Peel's honours."
_J. A. Froude,
Lord Beaconsfield,
chapter 9._
Although the Tory-Protectionists had accomplished the
overthrow of Peel, they were not prepared to take the
Government into their own hands. The new Ministry was formed
under Lord John Russell, as First Lord of the Treasury, with
Lord Palmerston in the Foreign Office, Sir George Grey in the
Home Department, Earl Grey Colonial Secretary, Sir C. Wood
Chancellor of the Exchequer, and Mr. Macaulay
Paymaster-General.
W. C. Taylor, Life and Times of Sir Robert Peel,
volume 3, chapter 11.
The most important enactment of the Coercion Bill "(which
subsequently gave it the name of the Curfew Act) was that
which conferred on the executive Government the power in
proclaimed districts of forbidding persons to be out of their
dwellings between sunset and sunrise. The right of proclaiming
a district as a disturbed district was placed in the hands of
the Lord-Lieutenant, who might station additional constabulary
there, the whole expense of which was to be borne by the
district."
_J. F. Bright,
History of England,
period 4, page 137._
ALSO IN:
_S. Walpole,
Life of Lord John Russell,
chapter 16 (volume 1)._
_B. Disraeli,
Lord George Bentinck,
chapter 14-16._
ENGLAND: A. D. 1846.
Difference with France on the Spanish marriages.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1841-1848.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1848.
The last Chartist demonstration.
"The more violent Chartists had broken from the Radical
reformers, and had themselves divided into two sections; for
their nominal leader, Feargus O'Connor, was at bitter enmity
with more thoroughgoing and earnest leaders such as O'Brien
and Cooper. O'Connor had not proved a very efficient guide. He
had entered into a land scheme of a somewhat doubtful
character. … He had also injudiciously taken up a position
of active hostility to the free-traders, and while thus
appearing as the champion of a falling cause had alienated
many of his supporters. Yet the Parliament elected in 1846
contained several representatives of the Chartist principles,
and O'Connor himself had been returned for Nottingham by a
large majority over Hobhouse, a member of the new Ministry.
The revolution in France gave a sudden and enormous impulse to
the agitation. The country was filled with meetings at which
violent speeches were uttered and hints, not obscure, dropped
of the forcible establishment of a republic in England. A new
Convention was summoned for the 6th of April, a vast petition
was prepared, and a meeting, at which it was believed that
half a million of people would have been present, was summoned
to meet on Kennington Common on the 10th of April for the
purpose of carrying the petition to the House in procession.
The alarm felt in London was very great. It was thought
necessary to swear in special constables, and the wealthier
classes came forward in vast numbers to be enrolled. There are
said to have been no less than 170,000 special constables. The
military arrangements were entrusted to the Duke of
Wellington; the public offices were guarded and fortified;
public vehicles were forbidden to pass the streets lest they
should be employed for barricades; and measures were taken to
prevent the procession from crossing the bridges. … Such a
display of determination seemed almost ridiculous when
compared with what actually occurred. But it was in fact the
cause of the harmless nature of the meeting. Instead of half a
million, about 30,000 men assembled on Kennington Common.
Feargus O'Connor was there; Mr. Maine, the Commissioner of
Police, called him aside, told him he might hold his meeting,
but that the procession would be stopped, and that he would be
held personally responsible for any disorder that might occur.
His heart had already begun to fail him, and he … used all
his influence to put an end to the procession. His prudent
advice was followed, and no disturbance of any importance took
place. … The air of ridicule thrown over the Chartist movement
by the abortive close of a demonstration which had been
heralded with so much violent talk was increased by the
disclosures attending the presentation of the petition." There
were found to be only 2,000,000 names appended to the
document, instead of 5,000,000 as claimed, and great numbers
of them were manifestly spurious. "This failure proved a
deathblow to Chartism."
_J. F. Bright,
History of England,
period 4, pages 176-178._
ALSO IN:
_S. Walpole,
History of England from 1815,
chapter 20 (volume 4)._
ENGLAND: A. D. 1848-1849.
Second war with the Sikhs.
Conquest and annexation of the Punjab.
See INDIA: A. D. 1845-1849.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1849.
Repeal of the Navigation Laws.
See NAVIGATION LAWS: A. D. 1849.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1849-1850.
The Don Pacifico Affair.
Lord Palmerston's speech.
The little difficulty with Greece which came to a crisis in
the last weeks of 1849 and the first, of 1850 (see GREECE: A.
D. 1846-1850), and which was commonly called the Don Pacifico
Affair, gave occasion for a memorable speech in Parliament by
Lord Palmerston, defending his foreign policy against attacks.
{964}
The speech (June 24, 1850), which occupied five hours, "from
the dusk of one day till the dawn of another," was greatly
admired, and proved immensely effective in raising the
speaker's reputation. "The Don Pacifico debate was
unquestionably an important landmark in the life of Lord
Palmerston. Hitherto his merits had been known only to a
select few; for the British public does not read Blue Books,
and as a rule troubles itself very little about foreign
politics at all. … But the Pacifico speech caught the ear of
the nation, and was received with a universal verdict of
approval. From that hour Lord Palmerston became the man of the
people, and his rise to the premiership only a question of
time."
_L. C. Sanders,
Life of Viscount Palmerston,
chapter 8._
ALSO IN:
_Marquis of Lorne,
Viscount Palmerston,
chapter 7._
_J. McCarthy,
History of Our Own Times,
chapter 19 (volume 2)._
_J. Morley,
Life of Cobden,
volume 2, chapter 3._
_T. Martin,
Life of the Prince Consort,
chapter 38 (volume 2)._
ENGLAND: A. D. 1850.
The so-called Clayton-Bulwer Treaty with the United States,
establishing a joint protectorate over the projected Nicaragua
Canal.
See NICARAGUA: A. D. 1850.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1850.
Restoration of the Roman Episcopate.
The Ecclesiastical Titles Bill.
See PAPACY: A. D. 1850.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1850-1852.
The London protocol and treaty on the Schleswig-Holstein
Question.
See SCANDINAVIAN STATES (DENMARK): A. D. 1848-1862.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1851.
The Great Exhibition.
"The first of May, 1851, will always be memorable as the day
on which the Great Exhibition was opened in Hyde Park. …
Many exhibitions of a similar kind have taken place since.
Some of these far surpassed that of Hyde Park in the splendour
and variety of the collections brought together. Two of them
at least—those of Paris in 1867 and 1878—were infinitely
superior in the array and display of the products, the
dresses, the inhabitants of far-divided countries. But the
impression which the Hyde Park Exhibition made upon the
ordinary mind was like that of the boy's first visit to the
play—an impression never to be equalled. … It was the first
organised to gather all the representatives of the world's
industry into one great fair. … The Hyde Park Exhibition was
often described as the festival to open the long reign of
Peace. It might, as a mere matter of chronology, be called
without any impropriety the festival to celebrate the close of
the short reign of Peace. From that year, 1851, it may be said
fairly enough that the world has hardly known a week of peace.
… The first idea of the Exhibition was conceived by Prince
Albert; and it was his energy and influence which succeeded in
carrying the idea into practical execution. … Many persons
were disposed to sneer at it; many were sceptical about its
doing any good; not a few still regarded Prince Albert as a
foreigner and a pedant, and were slow to believe that anything
really practical was likely to be developed under his impulse
and protection. … There was a great deal of difficulty in
selecting a plan for the building. … Happily, a sudden
inspiration struck Mr. (afterward Sir Joseph) Paxton, who was
then in charge of the Duke of Devonshire's superb grounds at
Chatsworth. Why not try glass and iron? he asked himself. …
Mr. Paxton sketched out his plan hastily, and the idea was
eagerly accepted by the Royal Commissioners. He made many
improvements afterwards in his design; but the palace of glass
and iron arose within the specified time on the green turf of
Hyde Park."
_J. McCarthy,
History of Our Own Times,
chapter 21 (volume 2)._
ALSO IN:
_T. Martin,
Life of the Prince Consort,
chapters 33-36, 39, 42-43 (volume 2)._
ENGLAND: A. D. 1851-1852.
The Coup d'Etat in France and Lord Palmerston's dismissal from
the Cabinet.
Defeat and resignation of Lord John Russell.
The first Derby
Disraeli Ministry and the Aberdeen coalition Ministry.
The "coup d'etat" of December 2nd, 1851, by which Louis
Napoleon made himself master of France (see FRANCE: A. D.
1851) brought about the dismissal of Lord Palmerston from the
British Ministry, followed quickly by the overthrow of the
Ministry which expelled him. "Lord Palmerston not only
expressed privately to Count Walewski [the French ambassador]
his approval of the 'coup d'etat,' but on the 16th of December
wrote a despatch to Lord Normanby, our representative in
Paris, expressing in strong terms his satisfaction at the
success of the French President's arbitrary action. This
despatch was not submitted either to the Prime Minister or to
the Queen, and of course the offence was of too serious a
character to be passed over. A great deal of correspondence
ensued, and as Palmerston's explanations were not deemed
satisfactory, and he had clearly broken the undertaking he
gave some time previously, he was dismissed from office. …
There were some who thought him irretrievably crushed from
this time forward; but a very short time only elapsed before
he retrieved his fortunes and was as powerful as ever. In
February 1852 Lord John Russell brought in a Militia Bill
which was intended to develop a local militia for the defence
of the country. Lord Palmerston strongly disapproved of the
scope of the measure, and in committee moved an amendment to
omit the word 'local,' so as to constitute a regular militia,
which should be legally transportable all over the kingdom,
and thus be always ready for any emergency. The Government
were defeated by eleven votes, and as the Administration had
been very weak for some time, Lord John resigned. Lord Derby
formed a Ministry, and invited the cooperation of Palmerston,
but the offer was declined, as the two statesmen differed on
the question of imposing a duty on the importation of corn,
and other matters.'
_G. B. Smith,
The Prime Ministers of Queen Victoria,
pages 264-265._
"The new Ministry [in which Mr. Disraeli became Chancellor of
the Exchequer] took their seats on the 27th of February, but
it was understood that a dissolution of Parliament would take
place in the summer, by which the fate of the new Government
would be decided, and that in the meantime the Opposition
should hold its hand. The raw troops [of the Tory Party in the
House of Commons], notwithstanding their inexperience,
acquitted themselves with credit, and some good Bills were
passed, the Militia Bill among the number, while a
considerable addition to the strength of the Navy was effected
by the Duke of Northumberland. No doubt, when the general
election began, the party had raised itself considerably in
public estimation. But for one consideration the country would
probably have been quite willing to entrust its destinies to
their hands.
{965}
But that one consideration was all important. … The
Government was obliged to go to the country, to some extent,
on Protectionist principles. It was known that a Derbyite
majority meant a moderate import duty; and the consequence was
that Lord Derby just lost the battle, though by a very narrow
majority. When Parliament met in November, Lord Derby and Mr.
Disraeli had a very difficult game to play. … Negotiations
were again opened with Palmerston and the Peelites, and on
this occasion Gladstone and Mr. Sidney Herbert were willing to
join if Lord Palmerston might lead in the House of Commons.
But the Queen put her veto on this arrangement, which
accordingly fell to the ground; and Lord Derby had to meet the
Opposition attack without any reinforcements. … On the 16th
of December, … being defeated on the Budget by a majority of
19, Lord Derby at once resigned."
_T. E. Kebbel,
Life of the Earl of Derby,
chapter 6._
"The new Government [which succeeded that of Derby] was a
coalition of Whigs and Peelites, with Sir William Molesworth
thrown in to represent the Radicals. Lord Aberdeen became
Prime Minister, and Mr. Gladstone Chancellor of the Exchequer.
The other Peelites in the Cabinet were the Duke of Newcastle,
Sir James Graham, and Mr. Sidney Herbert."
_G. W. E. Russell,
The Rt. Hon. William Ewart Gladstone,
chapter 5._
ENGLAND: A. D. 1852.
Second Burmese War.
Annexation of Pegu.
See INDIA: A. D. 1852.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1852-1853.
Abandonment of Protection by the Conservatives.
Further progress in Free Trade.
See TARIFF LEGISLATION (ENGLAND): A. D. 1846-1879.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1853-1855.
Civil-Service Reform.
See CIVIL-SERVICE REFORM IN ENGLAND.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1853-1856.
The Crimean War.
See RUSSIA: A. D. 1853-1854, to 1854-1856.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1855.
Popular discontent with the management of the war.
Fall of the Aberdeen Ministry.
Palmerston's first premiership.
A brightening of prospects.
"Our army system entirely broke down [in the Crimea], and Lord
Aberdeen and the Duke of Newcastle were made the scapegoats of
the popular indignation. … But England was not only
suffering from unpreparedness and want of administrative power
in the War department; there were dissensions in the Cabinet.
… Lord John Russell gave so much trouble, that Lord
Aberdeen, after one of the numerous quarrels and
reconciliations which occurred at this juncture, wrote to the
Queen that nothing but a sense of public duty and the
necessity for avoiding the scandal of a rupture kept him at
his post. … At a little later stage … the difficulties
were renewed. Mr. Roebuck gave notice of his motion for the
appointment of a select committee to inquire into the
condition of the army before Sebastopol, and Lord John
definitively resigned. The Ministry remained in office to
await the fate of Mr. Roebuck's motion, which was carried
against them by the very large majority of 157. Lord Aberdeen
now placed the resignation of the Cabinet in the hands of the
Queen [January 31, 1855]. … Thus fell the Coalition Cabinet
of Lord Aberdeen. In talent and parliamentary influence it was
apparently one of the strongest Governments ever seen, but it
suffered from a fatal want of cohesion."
_G. B. Smith,
Prime Ministers of Queen Victoria,
pages 227-230._
"Lord Palmerston had passed his 70th year when the Premiership
came to him for the first time. On the fall of the Coalition
Government the Queen sent for Lord Derby, and upon his failure
for Lord John Russell. Palmerston was willing at the express
request of her Majesty to serve once more under his old chief,
but Clarendon and many of the Whigs not unnaturally positively
refused to do so. Palmerston finally undertook and
successfully achieved the task of forming a Government out of
the somewhat heterogeneous elements at his command. Lord
Clarendon continued at the Foreign Office, and Gladstone was
still Chancellor of the Exchequer. The War Department was
reorganised, the office of Secretary at War disappearing, and
being finally merged in that of Secretary of State for War.
Although Palmerston objected to Roebuck's Committee, he was
practically compelled to accept it, and this led to the
resignation of Gladstone, Graham and Herbert; their places
being taken by Sir G. C. Lewis, Sir Charles Wood, and Lord
John Russell."
_Marquis of Lorne,
Viscount Palmerston,
chapter 10._
"It was a dark hour in the history of the nation when Lord
Palmerston essayed the task which had been abandoned by the
tried wisdom of Derby, Lansdowne, and John Russell. Far away
in the Crimea the war was dragging on without much hope of a
creditable solution, though the winter of discontent and
mismanagement was happily over. The existence of the European
concert was merely nominal. The Allies had discovered, many
months previously, that, though Austria was staunch, Prussia
was a faithless friend. … Between the belligerent powers the
cloud of suspicion and distrust grew thicker; for
Abd-el-Medjid was known to be freely squandering his war loans
on seraglios and palaces while Kars was starving; and though
there was no reason for distrusting the present good faith of
the Emperor of the French, his policy was straight-forward
only as long as he kept himself free from the influence of the
gang of stock-jobbers and adventurers who composed his Ministry.
Nor was the horizon much brighter on the side of England. A
series of weak cabinets, and the absence of questions of
organic reform, had completely relaxed the bonds of Party. If
there was no regular Opposition, still less was there a
regular majority. … And the hand that was to restore order
out of chaos was not so steady as of yore. … Lord Palmerston
was not himself during the first weeks of his leadership. But
the prospect speedily brightened. Though Palmerston was
considerably over seventy, he still retained a wonderful
vigour of constitution. He was soon restored to health, and
was always to be found at his post. … His generalship
secured ample majorities for the Government in every division
during the session. Of the energy which Lord Palmerston
inspired into the operations against Sebastopol, there can
hardly be two opinions."
_L. C. Sanders,
Life of Viscount Palmerston,
chapter 10._
ENGLAND: A. D. 1855.
Mr. Gladstone's Commission to the Ionian Islands.
See IONIAN ISLANDS: A. D. 1815-1862.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1856-1860.
War with China.
French alliance in the war.
Capture of Canton.
Entrance into Pekin.
Destruction of the Summer Palace.
See CHINA: A. D. 1856-1860.
{966}
ENGLAND: A. D. 1857-1858.
The Sepoy Mutiny in India.
See INDIA: A. D. 1857, to 1857-1858 (JULY-JUNE).
ENGLAND: A. D. 1858.
Assumption of the government of India by the Crown.
End of the rule of the East India Co.
See INDIA: A. D. 1858.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1858-1859.
The Conspiracy Bill.
Fall of Palmerston's government.
Second Ministry of Derby and Disraeli.
Lord Palmerston again Premier.
"On January 14, 1858, an attempt was made to assassinate
Napoleon III. by a gang of desperadoes, headed by Orsini,
whose head-quarters had previously been in London. Not without
some reason it was felt in France that such men ought not to
be able to find shelter in this country, and the French
Minister was ordered to make representations to that effect.
Lord Palmerston, always anxious to cultivate the good feeling
of the French nation, desired to pass a measure which should
give to the British Government the power to banish from
England any foreigner conspiring in Britain against the life
of a foreign sovereign. … An unfortunate outburst of
vituperation against England in the French press, and the
repetition of such language by officers of the French army who
were received by the Emperor when they waited on him as a
deputation, aroused very angry English feeling. Lord
Palmerston had already introduced the Bill he desired to pass,
and it had been read the first time by a majority of 200. But the
foolish action of the French papers changed entirely the
current of popular opinion. Lord Derby saw his advantage. An
amendment to the second reading, which was practically a vote
of censure, was carried against Lord Palmerston, and to his
own surprise no less than to that of the country, he was
obliged to resign. Lord Derby succeeded to Palmerston's vacant
office. … Lord Derby's second Ministry was wrecked upon the
fatal rock of Reform early in 1859, and at once appealed to
the country. … The election of 1859 failed to give the
Conservatives a majority, and soon after the opening of the
session they were defeated upon a vote of want of confidence
moved by Lord Hartington. Earl Granville was commissioned by
the Queen to form a Ministry, because her Majesty felt that
'to make so marked a distinction as is implied in the choice
of one or other as Prime Minister of two statesmen so full of
years and honour as Lord Palmerston and Lord John Russell
would be a very invidious and unwelcome task.' Each of these
veterans was willing to serve under the other, but neither
would follow the lead of a third. And so Granville failed, and
to Palmerston was entrusted the task. He succeeded in forming
what was considered the strongest Ministry of modern times, so
far as the individual ability of its members was concerned.
Russell went to the Foreign Office and Gladstone to the
Exchequer."
_Marquis of Lorne,
Viscount Palmerston,
chapters 10-11._
ALSO IN:
_T. Martin,
Life of the Prince Consort,
chapters 82-84, 91-92,
and 94 (volume 4)._
_T. E. Kebbel,
Life of the Earl of Derby,
chapter 7._
ENGLAND: A. D. 1860.
The Cobden-Chevalier commercial treaty with France.
See TARIFF LEGISLATION (FRANCE): A. D. 1853-1860.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1861 (May).
The Queen's Proclamation of Neutrality with reference
to the American Civil War.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1861 (APRIL-MAY).
ENGLAND: A. D. 1861 (October).
The allied intervention in Mexico.
See MEXICO: A. D. 1861-1867.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1861 (November).
The Trent Affair.
Seizure of Mason and Slidell.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1861 (NOVEMBER).
ENGLAND: A. D. 1861-1865.
The Cotton Famine.
"Upon a population, containing half a million of cotton
operatives, in a career of rapid prosperity, the profits of
1860 reaching in some instances from 30 to 40 per cent upon
the capital engaged; and with wages also at the highest point
which they had ever touched, came the news of the American
war, with the probable stoppage of 85 per cent of the raw
material of their manufacture. A few wise heads hung
despondently down, or shook with fear for the fate of 'the
freest nation under heaven,' but the great mass of traders
refused to credit a report which neither suited their opinions
nor their interests. … There was a four months' supply held
on this side the water at Christmas (1860), and there had been
three months' imports at the usual rate since that time, and
there would be the usual twelve months' supply from other
sources; and by the time this was consumed, and the five
months' stock of goods held by merchants sold, all would be
right again. That this was the current opinion was proved by
the most delicate of all barometers, the scale of prices; for
during the greater part of the year 1861 the market was dull,
and prices scarcely moved upwards. But towards the end of the
year the aspect of affairs began to change. … The Federals
had declared a blockade of the Southern ports, and, although
as yet it was pretty much a 'paper blockade,' yet the newly
established Confederate government was doing its best to
render it effective. They believed that cotton was king in
England, and that the old country could not do without it, and
would be forced, in order to secure its release, to side with
those who kept it prisoner. Mills began to run short time or
to close in the month of October, but no noise was made about
it; and the only evidence of anything unusual was at the
boards of guardians, where the applications had reached the
mid-winter height three months earlier than usual. The
poor-law guardians in the various unions were aware that the
increase was not of the usual character—it was too early for
out-door labourers to present themselves; still the difference
was not of serious amount, being only about 3,000 in the whole
twenty-eight unions. In November, 7,000 more presented
themselves, and in December the increase was again 7,000; so
that the recipients of relief were at this time 12,000 (or
about 25 per cent) more than in the January previous. And now
serious thoughts began to agitate many minds; cotton was very
largely held by speculators for a rise, the arrivals were
meagre in quantity, and the rates of insurance began to show
that, notwithstanding the large profits on imports, the
blockade was no longer on paper alone. January, 1862, added
16,000 more to the recipients of relief, who were now 70 per
cent above the usual number for the same period of the year.
But from the facts as afterwards revealed, the statistics of
boards of guardians were evidently no real measure of the
distress prevailing. … The month of February usually lessens
the dependents on the poor-rates, for out-door labour begins
again as soon as the signs of spring appear; but in 1862 it
added nearly 9,000 to the already large number of extra cases,
the recipients being now 105 per cent above the average for the
same period of the year.
{967}
But this average gives no idea of the pressure in particular
localities. … The cotton operatives were now, if left to
themselves, like a ship's crew upon short provisions, and
those very unequally distributed, and without chart or
compass, and no prospect of getting to land. In Ashton there
were 3,197; in Stockport, 8,588; and in Preston, 9,488 persons
absolutely foodless; and who nevertheless declined to go to
the guardians. To have forced the high-minded heads of these
families to hang about the work-house lobbies in company with
the idle, the improvident, the dirty, the diseased, and the
vicious, would have been to break their heaving hearts, and to
hurl them headlong into despair. Happily there is spirit
enough in this country to appreciate nobility, even when
dressed in fustian, and pride and sympathy enough to spare
even the poorest from unnecessary humiliation; and
organisations spring up for any important work so soon as the
necessity of the case becomes urgent in any locality.
Committees arose almost simultaneously in Ashton, Stockport,
and Preston; and in April, Blackburn followed in the train,
and the guardians and the relief committees of these several
places divided an extra 6,000 dependents between them. The
month of May, which usually reduces pauperism to almost its
lowest ebb, added 6,000 more to the recipients from the
guardians, and 5,000 to the dependents on the relief
committees, which were now six in number, Oldham and Prestwich
(a part of Manchester) being added to the list. … The month
of June sent 6,000 more applicants to sue for bread to the
boards of guardians, and 5,000 additional to the six relief
committees; and these six committees had now as many
dependents as the whole of the boards of guardians in the
twenty-eight unions supported in ordinary years. … In the
month of July, when all unemployed operatives would ordinarily
be lending a hand in the hay harvest, and picking up the means
of living whilst improving in health and enjoying the glories
of a summer in the country, the distress increased like a
flood, 13,000 additional applicants being forced to appeal for
poor-law relief; whilst 11,000 others were adopted by the
seven relief committees. … In August the flood had become a
deluge, at which the stoutest heart might stand appalled. The
increased recipients of poor-law relief were in a single
month, 33,000, being nearly as many as the total number
chargeable in the same month of the previous year, whilst a
further addition of more than 34,000 became chargeable to the
relief committees. … Most of the cotton on hand at this
period was of Indian growth, and needed alterations of
machinery to make it workable at all, and in good times an
employer might as well shut up his mill as try to get it spun
or manufactured. But oh! how glad would the tens of thousands
of unwilling idlers have been now, to have had a chance even
of working at Surats, although they knew that it required much
harder work for one-third less than normal wages. … Another
month is past, and October has added to the number under the
guardians no less than 55,000, and to the charge of the relief
committees 39,000 more. … And now dread winter approaches,
and the authorities have to deal not only with hundreds of
thousands who are compulsorily idle, and consequently
foodless, but who are wholly unprepared for the inclemencies
of the season; who have no means of procuring needful
clothing, nor even of making a show of cheerfulness upon the
hearth by means of the fire, which is almost as useful as
food. … The total number of persons chargeable at the end of
November, 1862, was, under boards of guardians, 258,357, and on
relief committees, 200,084; total 458,441. … There were not
wanting men who saw, or thought they saw, a short way out of
the difficulty, viz., by a recognition on the part of the
English government of the Southern confederacy in America. And
meetings were called in various places to memorialise the
government to this effect. Such meetings were always balanced
by counter meetings, at which it was shown that simple
recognition would be waste of words; that it would not bring
to our shores a single shipload of cotton, unless followed up
by an armed force to break the blockade, which course if
adopted would be war; war in favour of the slave confederacy
of the South, and against the free North and North-west,
whence comes a large proportion of our imported corn. In
addition to the folly of interfering in the affairs of a
nation 3,000 miles away, the cotton, if we succeeded in
getting it, would be stained with blood and cursed with the
support of slavery, and would also prevent our getting the
food which we needed from the North equally as much as the
cotton from the South. … These meetings and counter meetings
perhaps helped to steady the action of the government
(notwithstanding the sympathy of some of its members towards
the South), to confirm them in the policy of the royal
proclamation, and to determine them to enforce the provisions
of the Foreign Enlistment Act against all offenders. … The
maximum pressure upon the relief committees was reached early
in December, 1862, but, as the tide had turned before the end
of the month, the highest number chargeable at any one time is
nowhere shown. The highest number exhibited in the returns is
for the last week in the year 1862, viz.: 485,434 persons; but
in the previous weeks of the same month some thousands more
were relieved."
_J. Watts,
The Facts of the Cotton Famine,
chapters 8 and 12._
ALSO IN:
_R. A. Arnold,
History of the Cotton Famine._
_E. Waugh,
Factory Folk during the Cotton Famine._
ENGLAND: A. D. 1862 (JULY).
The fitting out of the Confederate cruiser Alabama
at Liverpool.
See ALABAMA CLAIMS: A. D. 1862-1864.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1865.
Governor Eyre and the Jamaica Insurrection.
See JAMAICA: A. D. 1865.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1865-1868.
Death of Palmerston.
Ministry of Lord John Russell.
Its unsatisfactory Reform Bill and its resignation.
Triumph of the Adullamites.
Third administration of Derby and Disraeli,
and its Reform Bills.
"On the death of Lord Palmerston [which occurred October 18,
1865], the premiership was intrusted for the second time to
Earl Russell, with Mr. Gladstone as leader in the House of
Commons. The queen opened her seventh parliament (February 6,
1866), in person, for the first time since the prince
consort's death. On March 12th Mr. Gladstone brought forward
his scheme of reform, proposing to extend the franchise in
counties and boroughs, but the opposition of the moderate
Liberals, and their joining the Conservatives, proved fatal to
the measure, and in consequence the ministry of Earl Russell
resigned.
{968}
The government had been personally weakened by the successive
deaths of Mr. Sidney Herbert, Sir George Cornewall Lewis, the
Duke of Newcastle, Earl of Elgin, and Lord Palmerston. The
queen sent for the Earl of Derby to form a Cabinet, who,
although the Conservative party was in the minority in the
House of Commons, accepted the responsibility of undertaking
the management of the government: he as Premier and First Lord
of the Treasury; Mr. Disraeli, Chancellor of the Exchequer."
_A. H. McCalman,
Abridged History of England,
page 603._
"The measure, in fact, was too evidently a compromise. The
Russell and Gladstone section of the Cabinet wanted reform:
the remnants of Palmerston's followers still thought it
unnecessary. The result was this wretched, tinkering measure,
which satisfied nobody, and disappointed the expectation of
all earnest Reformers. … The principal opposition came not
from the Conservatives, as might have been expected, but from
Mr. Horsman and Mr. Robert Lowe, both members of the Liberal
party, who from the very first declared they would have none
of it. … Mr. Bright denounced them furiously as
'Adullamites'; all who were in distress, all who were
discontented, had gathered themselves together in the
political cave of Adullam for the attack on the Government.
But Mr. Lowe, all unabashed by denunciation or sarcasm,
carried the war straight into the enemy's camp in a swift
succession of speeches of extraordinary brilliance and power.
… The party of two, which in its origin reminded Mr. Bright
of 'the Scotch terrier which was so covered with hair that you
could not tell which was the head and which was the tail of
it,' was gradually reinforced by deserters from the ranks of
the Government until at last the Adullamites were strong
enough to turn the scale of a division. Then one wild night,
after a hot and furious debate, the combined armies of the
Adullamites and Conservatives carried triumphantly an
amendment brought forward by one of the Adullamite chiefs,
Lord Dunkellin, to the effect that a rating be substituted for
a rental qualification; and the Government was at an end. …
The failure of the bill brought Lord Russell's official career
to its close. He formally handed over the leadership of the
party to Mr. Gladstone, and from this time took but little
part in politics. Lord Derby, his opponent, was soon to follow
his example, and then the long-standing duel between Gladstone
and Disraeli would be pushed up to the very front of the
parliamentary stage, right in the full glare of the
footlights. Meanwhile, however, Lord Derby had taken office
[July 9, 1866]. Disraeli and Gladstone were changing weapons
and crossing the stage. … The exasperated Liberals, however,
were rousing a widespread agitation throughout the country in
favour of Reform: monster meetings were held in Hyde Park; the
Park railings were pulled down and trampled on by an excited
mob, and the police regulations proved as unable to bear the
unusual strain as police regulations usually do on such
occasions. The result was that Mr. Disraeli became convinced
that a Reform Bill of some kind or other was inevitable, and
Mr. Disraeli's opinion naturally carried the day. The
Government, however, did not go straight to the point at once.
They began by proposing a number of resolutions on the
subject, which were very soon laughed out of existence. Then
they brought a bill founded on them, which, however, was very
shortly afterwards withdrawn after a very discouraging
reception. Finally, the Ministry, lightened by the loss of
three of its members—the Earl of Carnarvon, Viscount
Cranborne, and General Peel—announced their intention of
bringing in a comprehensive measure. The measure in question
proposed household suffrage in the boroughs subject to the
payment of rates, and occupation franchise for the counties
subject to the same limitation, and a variety of fanciful
clauses, which would have admitted members of the liberal
professions, graduates of the universities, and a number of
other classes to the franchise. The most novel feature was a
clause which permitted a man to acquire two votes if he
possessed a double qualification by rating and by profession.
The great objection to the bill was that it excluded the
compound householder.' The compound householder is now as
extinct an animal as the potwalloper found in earlier
parliamentary strata, but he was the hero of the Reform
debates of 1867, and as such deserves more than a passing
reference. He was, in fact, an occupier of a small house who
did not pay his rates directly and in person, but paid them
through his landlord. Now the occupiers of these very small
houses were naturally by far the most numerous class of
occupiers in the boroughs, and the omission of them implied a
large exclusion from the franchise. The Liberal party,
therefore, rose in defence of the compound householder, and
the struggle became fierce and hot. It must be remembered,
however, that neither Mr. Gladstone nor Mr. Bright wished to
lower the franchise beyond a certain point, and a meeting was
held in consequence, in which it was agreed that the programme
brought forward in committee should begin by an alteration of
the rating laws, so that the compound householder above a
certain level should pay his own rates and be given a vote,
and that all occupiers below the level should be excluded from
the rates and the franchise alike. On what may be described
roughly as 'the great drawing-the-line question,' however, the
Liberal party once more split up. The advanced section were
determined that all occupiers should be admitted, and they
would have no 'drawing the line.' Some fifty or sixty of them
held a meeting in the tea-room of the House of Commons and
decided on this course of action: in consequence they acquired
the name of the 'Tea-Room Party.' The communication of their
views to Mr. Gladstone made him excessively indignant. He
denounced them in violent language, and his passion was
emulated by Mr. Bright. … Mr. Gladstone had to give in, and
his surrender was followed by that of Mr. Disraeli. The
Tea-Room Party, in fact, were masters of the day, and were
able to bring sufficient pressure to bear on the Government to
induce them to admit the principle of household suffrage pure
and simple, and to abolish all distinctions of rating. … Not
only was the household suffrage clause considerably extended,
the dual vote abolished, and most of the fancy franchises
swept away, but there were numerous additions which completely
altered the character of the bill, and transformed it from a
balanced attempt to enlarge the franchise without shifting the
balance of power to a sweeping measure of reform."
_B. C. Skottowe,
Short History of Parliament,
chapter 22._
{969}
The Reform Bill for England "was followed in 1868 by measures
for Scotland and Ireland. By these Acts the county franchise
in England was extended to all occupiers of lands or houses of
the yearly value of £12, and in Scotland to all £5 property
owners and £14 property occupiers; while that in Ireland was
not altered. The borough franchise in England and Scotland was
given to all ratepaying householders and to lodgers occupying
lodgings of the annual value of £10; and in Ireland to all
ratepaying £4 occupiers. Thus the House of Commons was made
nearly representative of all taxpaying commoners, except
agricultural labourers and women."
_D. W. Rannie,
Historical Outline of the English Constitution,
chapter 12, section 4._
ALSO IN:
_W. BAGEHOT,
Essays on Parliamentary Reform, 3._
_G. B. Smith,
Life of Gladstone,
chapters 17-18 (volume 2)._
_W. Robertson,
Life and Times of John Bright,
chapters 39-40._
ENGLAND: A. D. 1865-1869.
Discussion of the Alabama Claims of the United States.
The Johnson-Clarendon Treaty and its rejection.
See ALABAMA CLAIMS: A. D. 1862-1869.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1867-1868.
Expedition to Abyssinia.
See ABYSSINIA: A. D. 1854-1889.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1868-1870.
Disestablishment of the Irish Church.
Retirement of the Derby-Disraeli Ministry.
Mr. Gladstone in power.
His Irish Land Bill.
"On March 16, 1868, a remarkable debate took place in the
House of Commons. It had for its subject the condition of
Ireland, and it was introduced by a series of resolutions
which Mr. John Francis Maguire, an Irish member, proposed. …
It was on the fourth night of the debate that the importance
of the occasion became fully manifest. Then it was that Mr.
Gladstone spoke, and declared that in his opinion the time had
come when the Irish Church as a State institution must cease
to exist. Then every man in the House knew that the end was
near. Mr. Maguire withdrew his resolutions. The cause he had
to serve was now in the hands of one who, though not surely
more earnest for its success, had incomparably greater power
to serve it. There was probably not a single Englishman
capable of forming an opinion who did not know that from the
moment when Mr. Gladstone made his declaration, the fall of
the Irish State Church had become merely a question of time.
Men only waited to see how Mr. Gladstone would proceed to
procure its fall. Public expectation was not long kept in
suspense. A few days after the debate on Mr. Maguire's motion,
Mr. Gladstone gave notice of three resolutions on the subject
of the Irish State Church. The first declared that in the
opinion of the House of Commons it was necessary that the
Established Church of Ireland should cease to exist as an
Establishment, due regard being had to all personal interests
and to all individual rights of property. The second
resolution pronounced it expedient to prevent the creation of
new personal interests by the exercise of any public
patronage; and the third asked for an address to the Queen,
praying that Her Majesty would place at the disposal of
Parliament her interest in the temporalities of the Irish
Church. The object of these resolutions was simply to prepare
for the actual disestablishment of the Church, by providing
that no further appointments should be made, and that the
action of patronage should be stayed, until Parliament should
decide the fate of the whole institution. On March 30, 1868,
Mr. Gladstone proposed his resolutions. Not many persons could
have had much doubt as to the result of the debate. But if
there were any such, their doubts must have begun to vanish
when they read the notice of amendment to the resolutions
which was given by Lord Stanley. The amendment proclaimed even
more surely than the resolutions the impending fall of the Irish
Church. Lord Stanley must have been supposed to speak in the
name of the Government and the Conservative party; and his
amendment merely declared that the House, while admitting that
considerable modifications in the temporalities of the Church
in Ireland might appear to be expedient, was of opinion 'that
any proposition tending to the disestablishment or
disendowment of the Church ought to be reserved for the
decision of the new Parliament.' Lord Stanley's amendment
asked only for delay. … The debate was one of great power
and interest. … When the division was called there were 270
votes for the amendment, and 331 against it. The doom of the
Irish Church was pronounced by a majority of 61. An interval
was afforded for agitation on both sides. … Mr. Gladstone's
first resolution came to a division about a month after the
defeat of Lord Stanley's amendment. It was carried by a
majority somewhat larger than that which had rejected the
amendment—330 votes were given for the resolution; 265
against it. The majority for the resolution was therefore 65.
Mr. Disraeli quietly observed that the Government must take
some decisive step in consequence of that vote; and a few days
afterwards it was announced that as soon as the necessary
business could be got through, Parliament would be dissolved
and an appeal made to the country. On the last day of July the
dissolution took place, and the elections came on in November.
Not for many years had there been so important a general
election. The keenest anxiety prevailed as to its results. The
new constituencies created by the Reform Bill were to give
their votes for the first time. The question at issue was not
merely the existence of the Irish State Church. It was a
general struggle of advanced Liberalism against Toryism. …
The new Parliament was to all appearance less marked in its
Liberalism than that which had gone before it. But so far as
mere numbers went the Liberal party was much stronger than it
had been. In the new House of Commons it could count upon a
majority of about 120, whereas in the late Parliament it had
but 60. Mr. Gladstone it was clear would now have everything
in his own hands, and the country might look for a career of
energetic reform. … Mr. Disraeli did not meet the new
Parliament as Prime Minister. He decided very properly that it
would be a mere waste of public time to wait for the formal
vote of the House of Commons, which would inevitably command
him to surrender. He at once resigned his office, and Mr.
Gladstone was immediately sent for by the Queen, and invited
to form an Administration. Mr. Gladstone, it would seem, was
only beginning his career. He was nearly sixty years of age,
but there were scarcely any evidences of advancing years to be
seen on his face. … The Government he formed was one of
remarkable strength. … Mr. Gladstone went to work at once
with his Irish policy.
{970}
On March 1, 1869, the Prime Minister introduced his measure
for the disestablishment and partial disendowment of the Irish
State Church. The proposals of the Government were, that the
Irish Church should almost at once cease to exist as a State
Establishment, and should pass into the condition of a free
Episcopal Church. As a matter of course the Irish bishops were
to lose their seats in the House of Lords. A synodal, or
governing body, was to be elected from the clergy and laity of
the Church and was to be recognised by the Government, and
duly incorporated. The union between the Churches of England
and Ireland was to be dissolved, and the Irish Ecclesiastical
Courts were to be abolished. There were various and
complicated arrangements for the protection of the life
interests of those already holding positions in the Irish
Church, and for the appropriation of the fund which would
return to the possession of the State when all these interests
had been fairly considered and dealt with. … Many amendments
were introduced and discussed; and some of these led to a
controversy between the two Houses of Parliament; but the
controversy ended in compromise. On July 26, 1869, the measure
for the disestablishment of the Irish Church received the
royal assent. Lord Derby did not long survive the passing of
the measure which he had opposed with such fervour and so much
pathetic dignity. Be died before the Irish State Church had
ceased to live. … When the Irish Church had been disposed
of, Mr. Gladstone at once directed his energies to the Irish
land system. … In a speech delivered by him during his
electioneering campaign in Lancashire, he had declared that
the Irish upas-tree had three great branches: the State
Church, the Land Tenure System, and the System of Education,
and that he meant to hew them all down if he could. On
February 15, 1870, Mr. Gladstone introduced his Irish Land
Bill into the House of Commons. … It recognised a certain
property or partnership of the tenant in the land which he
tilled. Mr. Gladstone took the Ulster tenant-right as he found
it, and made it a legal institution. In places where the
Ulster practice, or something analogous to it, did not exist,
he threw upon the landlord the burden of proof as regarded the
right of eviction. The tenant disturbed in the possession of
his land could claim compensation for improvements, and the
bill reversed the existing assumption of the law by presuming
all improvements to be the property of the tenant, and leaving
it to the landlord, if he could, to prove the contrary. The
bill established a special judiciary machinery for carrying
out its provisions. … It put an end to the reign of the
landlord's absolute power; it reduced the landlord to the
level of every other proprietor, of every other man in the
country who had anything to sell or hire. … The bill passed
without substantial alteration. On August 1, 1870, the bill
received the Royal assent. The second branch of the upas-tree
had been hewn down. … Mr. Gladstone had dealt with Church
and land; he had yet to deal with university education. He had
gone with Irish ideas thus far."
_J. McCarthy,
Short History of Our Own Times,
chapter 23._
ALSO IN:
_W. N. Molesworth,
History of England, 1830-1874,
volume 3, chapter 6._
_Annual Register, 1869,
part 1: English History,
chapters 2-3, and 1870, chapters 1-2._
ENGLAND: A. D. 1870.
The Education Bill.
See EDUCATION, MODERN: EUROPEAN COUNTRIES,
ENGLAND: A. D. 1699-1870.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1871.
Abolition of Army Purchase and University Religious Tests.
Defeat of the Ballot Bill.
"The great measure of the Session [of 1871] was of course the
Army Bill, which was introduced by Mr. Cardwell, on the 16th
of February. It abolished the system by which rich men
obtained by purchase commissions and promotion in the army,
and provided £8,000,000 to buy all commissions, as they fell
in, at their regulation and over-regulation value [the
regulation value being a legal price, fixed by a Royal
Warrant, but which in practice was never regarded]. In future,
commissions were to be awarded either to those who won them by
open competition, or who had served as subalterns in the
Militia, or to deserving non-commissioned officers. … The
debate, which seemed interminable, ended in an anti-climax
that astonished the Tory Opposition. Mr. Disraeli threw over
the advocates of Purchase, evidently dreading an appeal to the
country. … The Army Regulation Bill thus passed the Second
Reading without a division," and finally, with some amendments
passed the House. "In the House of Lords the Bill was again
obstructed. … Mr. Gladstone met them with a bold stroke. By
statute it was enacted that only such terms of Purchase could
exist as her Majesty chose to permit by Royal Warrant. The
Queen, therefore, acting on Mr. Gladstone's advice, cancelled
her warrant permitting Purchase, and thus the opposition of
the Peers was crushed by what Mr. Disraeli indignantly termed
'the high-handed though not illegal' exercise of the Royal
Prerogative. The rage of the Tory Peers knew no bounds." They
"carried a vote of censure on the Government, who ignored it,
and then their Lordships passed the Army Regulation Bill
without any alterations. … The Session of 1871 was also made
memorable by the struggle over the Ballot Bill, in the course
of which nearly all the devices of factious obstruction were
exhausted. … When the Bill reached the House of Lords, the
real motive which dictated the … obstruction of the
Conservative Opposition in the House of Commons was quickly
revealed. The Lords rejected the Bill on the 18th of August,
not merely because they disliked and dreaded it, but because
it had come to them too late for proper consideration.
Ministers were more successful with some other measures. In
spite of much conservative opposition they passed a Bill
abolishing religious tests in the Universities of Oxford and
Cambridge, and throwing open all academic distinctions and
privileges except Divinity Degrees and Clerical Fellowships to
students of all creeds and faiths."
_R. Wilson,
Life and Times of Queen Victoria,
volume 2, chapter 16._
ALSO IN:
_G. W. E. Russell,
The Rt. Hon. W. E. Gladstone,
chapter 9._
ENGLAND: A. D. 1871-1872.
Renewed negotiations with the United States.
The Treaty of Washington and the Geneva Award.
See ALABAMA CLAIMS: A. D. 1869-1871; 1871; and 1871-1872.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1873-1879.
Rise of the Irish Home Rule Party
and organization of the Land League.
See IRELAND: A. D. 1873-1879.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1873-1880.
Decline and fall of the Gladstone government.
Disraeli's Ministry.
His rise to the peerage, as Earl of Beaconsfield.
The Eastern Question.
Overthrow of the administration.
The Second Gladstone Ministry.
{971}
"One of the little wars in which we had to engage broke out
with the Ashantees, a misunderstanding resulting from our
purchase of the Dutch possessions (1873) in their
neighbourhood. Troops and marines under Wolseley … were sent
out to West Africa. Crossing the Prah River, January 20th,
1874, he defeated the Ashantees on the last day of that month
at a place called Amoaful, entered and burnt their capital,
Coomassie, and made a treaty with their King, Koffee, by which
he withdrew all claims of sovereignty over the tribes under
our protection. The many Liberal measures carried by the
Ministry caused moderate men to wish for a halt. Some
restrictions on the licensed vintners turned that powerful
body against the Administration, which, on attempting to carry
an Irish University Bill in 1873, became suddenly aware of its
unpopularity, as the second reading was only carried by a
majority of three. Resignation followed. The erratic, but
astute, Disraeli declined to undertake the responsibility of
governing the country with the House of Commons then existing,
consequently Mr. Gladstone resumed office; yet Conservative
reaction progressed. He in September became Chancellor of the
Exchequer (still holding the Premiership) and 23rd January,
1874, he suddenly dissolved Parliament, promising in a letter
to the electors of Greenwich the final abolition of the income
tax, and a reduction in some other 'imposts.' The elections
went against him. The 'harassed' interests overturned the
Ministry (17th February, 1874). … On the accession of the
Conservative Government under Mr. Disraeli (February, 1874),
the budget showed a balance of six millions in favour of the
reduction of taxation. Consequently the sugar duties were
abolished and the income tax reduced to 2d. in the pound.
This, the ninth Parliament of Queen Victoria, sat for a little
over six years. … Mr. Disraeli, now the Earl of Beaconsfield,
was fond of giving the country surprises. One of these
consisted in the purchase of the interest of the Khedive of
Egypt in the Suez Canal for four millions sterling (February,
1876). Another was the acquisition of the Turkish Island of
Cyprus, handed over for the guarantee to Turkey of her Asiatic
provinces in the event of any future Russian encroachments.
… As war had broken out in several of the Turkish provinces
(1876), and as Russia had entered the lists for the insurgents
against the Sultan, whom England was bound to support by
solemn treaties, we were treated to a third surprise by the
conveyance, in anticipation of a breach with Russia, of 7,000
troops from India to Malta. The Earl of Derby, looking upon
this manœuvre as a menace to that Power, resigned his office,
which was filled by Lord Salisbury (1878). … The war proving
disastrous to Turkey, the treaty of St. Stephano (February,
1878), was concluded with Russia, by which the latter acquired
additional territory in Asia Minor in violation of the treaty
of Paris (1856). Our Government strongly remonstrated, and war
seemed imminent. Through the intercession, however, of
Bismarck, the German Chancellor, war was averted, and a
congress soon met in Berlin, at which Britain was represented
by Lords Salisbury and Beaconsfield; the result being the
sanction of the treaty already made, with the exception that
the town of Erzeroum was handed back to Turkey. Our
ambassadors returned home rather pompously, the Prime Minister
loftily declaring, that they had brought back 'peace with
honour.' … Our expenses had rapidly increased, the wealthy
commercial people began to distrust a Prime Minister who had
brought us to the brink of war, the Irish debates, Irish
poverty, and Irish outrages had brought with them more or less
discredit on the Ministry. … The Parliament was dissolved March
24th, but the elections went so decisively in favour of the
Liberals that Beaconsfield resigned (April 23rd). Early in the
following year he appeared in his place in the House of Peers,
but died April 19th. Though Mr. Gladstone had in 1875
relinquished the political leadership in favour of Lord
Hartington yet the 'Bulgarian Atrocities' and other writings
brought him again so prominent before the public that his
leadership was universally acknowledged by the party. … He
now resumed office, taking the two posts so frequently held
before by Prime Ministers since the days of William Pitt, who
also held them. … The result of the general election of 1880
was the return of more Liberals to Parliament than
Conservatives and Home Rulers together. The farming interest
continued depressed both in Great Britain and Ireland,
resulting in thousands of acres being thrown on the landlords'
hands in the former country, and numerous harsh evictions in the
latter for non-payment of rent. Mr. Gladstone determined to
legislate anew on the Irish Land Question: and (1881) carried
through both Houses that admirable measure known as the Irish
Land Act, which for the first time in the history of that
country secured to the tenant remuneration for his own
industry. A Land Commission Court was established to fix Fair
Rents for a period of 15 years. After a time leaseholders were
included in this beneficent legislation."
_R. Johnston,
A Short History of the Queen's Reign,
pages 49-57._
ALSO IN:
_J. A. Froude,
Lord Beaconsfield,
chapters 16-17._
_G. B. Smith,
Life of Gladstone,
chapters 22-28 (volume 2)._
_H. Jephson,
The Platform,
chapters 21-22 (volume 2)._
ENGLAND: A. D. 1877.
Assumption by the Queen of the title of Empress of India.
See INDIA: A. D. 1877.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1877-1878.
The Eastern Question again.
Bulgarian atrocities.
Excitement over the Russian successes in Turkey.
War-clamor of "the Jingoes."
The fleet sent through the Dardanelles.
Arrangement of the Berlin Congress.
See BALKAN AND DANUBIAN STATES: A. D. 1875-1878;
and TURKS: A. D. 1878.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1877-1881.
Annexation of the Transvaal.
The Boer War.
See SOUTH AFRICA: A. D. 1806-1881.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1878.
The Congress of Berlin.
Acquisition of the control of Cyprus.
See TURKS: A. D. 1878.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1878-1880.
The second Afghan War.
See AFGHANISTAN: A. D. 1869-1881.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1880.
Breach between the Irish Party and the English Liberals.
See IRELAND: A. D. 1880.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1882.
War in Egypt.
Bombardment of Alexandria.
Battle of Tel-el-Kebir.
See EGYPT: A. D. 1875-1882, and 1882-1883.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1883.
The Act for Prevention of Corrupt and Illegal Practices at
Parliamentary Elections.
{972}
"Prior to the General Election of 1880 there were those who
hoped and believed that Corrupt Practices at Elections were
decreasing. These hopes were based upon the growth of the
constituencies and their increased political intelligence, and
also upon the operation of the Ballot Act. The disclosures
following the General Election proved to the most sanguine
that this belief was an error. Corrupt practices were found to
be more prevalent than ever. If in olden times larger
aggregate sums were expended in bribery and treating, never
probably had so many persons been bribed and treated as at the
General Election of 1880. After that election nineteen
petitions against returns on the ground of corrupt practices
were presented. In eight instances the Judges reported that
those practices had extensively prevailed, and in respect of
seven of these the reports of the Commissioners appointed
under the Act of 1852 demonstrated the alarming extent to
which corruption of all kinds had grown. … A most serious
feature in the Commissioners' Reports was the proof they
afforded that bribery was regarded as a meritorious not as a
disgraceful act. Thirty magistrates were reported as guilty of
corrupt practices and removed from the Commission of the Peace
by the Lord Chancellor. Mayors, aldermen, town-councillors,
solicitors, the agents of the candidates, and others of a like
class were found to have dealt with bribery as if it were a
part of the necessary machinery for conducting an election.
Worst of all, some of these persons had actually attained
municipal honours, not only after they had committed these
practices, but even after their misdeeds had been exposed by
public inquiry. The Reports also showed, and a Parliamentary
Return furnished still more conclusive proof, that election
expenses were extravagant even to absurdity, and moreover were
on the increase. The lowest estimate of the expenditure during
the General Election of 1880 amounts to the enormous sum of
two and a half millions. With another Reform Bill in view, the
prospects of future elections were indeed alarming. … The
necessity for some change was self-evident. Public opinion
insisted that the subject should be dealt with, and the evil
encountered. … The Queen's Speech of the 6th of January,
1881, announced that a measure 'for the repression of corrupt
practices' would be submitted to Parliament, and on the
following day the Attorney-General (Sir Henry James), in
forcible and eloquent terms, moved for leave to introduce his
Bill. His proposals (severe as they seemed) were received with
general approval and sympathy, both inside and outside the
House of Commons, at a time when members and constituents
alike were ashamed of the excesses so recently brought to
light. It is true that the two and a half years' delay that
intervened between the introduction of the Bill and its
finally becoming law (a delay caused by the necessities of
Irish legislation), sufficed very considerably to cool the
enthusiasm of Parliament and the public. Yet enough desire for
reform remained to carry in July 1883 the Bill of January
1881, modified indeed in detail, but with its principles
intact and its main provisions unaltered. The measure which
has now become the Parliamentary Elections Act of 1883, was in
its conception pervaded by two principles. The first was to
strike hard and home at corrupt practices; the second was to
prohibit by positive legislation any expenditure in the
conduct of an election which was not absolutely necessary.
Bribery, undue influence, and personation, had long been
crimes for which a man could be fined and imprisoned. Treating
was now added to the same class of offences, and the
punishment for all rendered more deterrent by a liability to
hard labour. … Besides punishment on conviction,
incapacities of a serious character are to result from a
person being reported guilty of corrupt practices by Election
Judges or Election Commissioners. … A candidate reported
personally guilty of corrupt practices can never sit again for
the same constituency, and is rendered incapable of being a
member of the House of Commons for seven years. All persons,
whether candidates or not, are, on being reported, rendered
incapable of holding any public office or exercising any
franchise for the same period. Moreover, if any persons so
found guilty are magistrates, barristers, solicitors, or
members of other honourable professions, they are to be
reported to the Lord Chancellor, Inns of Court, High Court of
Justice, or other authority controlling their profession, and
dealt with as in the case of professional misconduct. Licensed
victuallers are, in a similar manner, to be reported to the
licensing justices, who may on the next occasion refuse to
renew their licenses. … The employment of all paid
assistants except a very limited number is forbidden; no
conveyances are to be paid for, and only a restricted number
of committee rooms are to be engaged. Unnecessary payments for
the exhibition of bills and addresses, and for flags, bands,
torches, and the like are declared illegal. But these
prohibitions of specific objects were not considered
sufficient. Had these alone been enacted, the money of wealthy
and reckless candidates would have found other channels in
which to flow. … And thus it was that the 'maximum scale'
was adopted as at once the most direct and the most
efficacious means of limiting expenditure. Whether by himself
or his agents, by direct payment or by contract, the candidate
is forbidden to spend more in 'the conduct and management of
an election' than the sums permitted by the Act, sums which
depend in each case on the numerical extent of the
constituency."
_H. Hobhouse,
The Parliamentary Elections
(Corrupt and Illegal Practices) Act, 1883,
pages 1-8._
ENGLAND: A. D. 1884-1885.
The Third Reform Bill and the Redistribution Bill.
The existing qualifications and disqualifications
of the Suffrage.
"Soon after Mr. Gladstone came into power in 1880, Mr.
Trevelyan became a member of his Administration. Already the
Premier had secured the co-operation of two other men new to
office—Mr. Chamberlain and Sir Charles Dilke. … Their
presence in the Administration was looked upon as a good
augury by the Radicals, and the augury was not destined to
prove misleading. It was understood from the first that, with
such men as his coadjutors, Mr. Gladstone was pledged to a
still further Reform. He was pledged already, in fact, by his
speeches in Midlothian. … On the 17th of October, 1883, a
great Conference was held at Leeds, for the purpose of
considering the Liberal programme for the ensuing season. The
Conference was attended by no fewer than 2,000 delegates, who
represented upwards of 500 Liberal Associations.
{973}
It was presided over by Mr. John Morley. … To a man the
delegates agreed as to the imperative necessity of household
suffrage being extended to the counties; and almost to a man
they agreed also as to the necessity of the measure being no
longer delayed. … When Parliament met on the 5th of the
following February … a measure for 'the enlargement of the
occupation franchise in Parliamentary Elections throughout the
United Kingdom' was distinctly promised in the Royal Speech;
and the same evening Mr. Gladstone gave notice that 'on the
first available day,' he would move for leave to bring in the
bill. So much was the House of Commons occupied with affairs
in Egypt and the Soudan, however, that it was not till the
29th of February that the Premier was able to fulfil his
pledge." Four months were occupied in the passage of the bill
through the House of Commons, and when it reached the Lords it
was rejected. This roused "an intense feeling throughout the
country. On the 21st of July, a great meeting was held in Hyde
Park, attended, it was believed, by upwards of 100,000
persons. … On the 30th of July, a great meeting of delegates
was held in St. James's Hall, London. … Mr. John Morley, who
presided, used some words respecting the House that had
rejected the bill which were instantly caught up by Reformers
everywhere. 'Be sure,' he said, 'that no power on earth can
separate henceforth the question of mending the House of
Commons from the question of mending, or ending, the House of
Lords.' On the 4th of August, Mr. Bright, speaking at
Birmingham, referred to the Lords as 'many of them the spawn
of the plunder and the wars and the corruption of the dark
ages of our country'; and his colleague, Mr. Chamberlain, used
even bolder words: 'During the last one hundred years the
House of Lords has never contributed one iota to popular
liberties or popular freedom, or done anything to advance the
common weal; and during that time it has protected every abuse
and sheltered every privilege. … It is irresponsible without
independence, obstinate without courage, arbitrary without
judgment, and arrogant without knowledge.' … In very many
instances, a strong disposition was manifested to drop the
agitation for the Reform of the House of Commons for a time,
and to concentrate the whole strength of the Liberal party on
one final struggle for the Reform (or, preferably, the
extinction) of the Upper House." But Mr. Gladstone gave no
encouragement to this inclination of his party. The outcome of
the agitation was the passage of the Franchise Bill a second time
in the House of Commons, in November, 1884, and by the Lords
soon afterwards. A concession was made to the latter by
previously satisfying them with regard to the contemplated
redistribution of seats in the House of Commons, for which a
separate bill was framed and introduced while the Franchise
Bill was yet pending. The Redistribution Bill passed the
Commons in May and the Lords in June, 1885.
_W. Heaton,
The Three Reforms of Parliament,
chapter 6._
"In regard to electoral districts, the equalization, in other
words, the radical refashioning of electoral districts, having
about the same number of inhabitants, is carried out. For this
purpose, 79 towns, having less than 15,000 inhabitants, are
divested of the right of electing a separate member; 36 towns,
with less than 50,000, return only one member; 14 large towns
obtain an increase of the number of the members in proportion
to the population; 35 towns, of nearly 50,000, obtain a new
franchise. The counties are throughout parcelled-out into
'electoral districts' of about the like population, to elect
one member each. This single-seat system is, regularly,
carried out in towns, with the exception of 28 middle-sized
towns, which have been left with two members. The County of
York forms, for example, 26 electoral districts; Liverpool 9.
To sum up, the result stands thus:—the counties choose 253
members (formerly 187), the towns 237 (formerly 297). The
average population of the county electoral districts is now
52,800 (formerly 70,800); the average number of the town
electoral districts 52,700 (formerly 41,200). … The number
of the newly-enfranchised is supposed, according to an average
estimate, to be 2,000,000."
_Dr. R. Gneist,
The English Parliament in its Transformations,
chapter 9._
ALSO IN:
_J. Murdoch,
History of Constitutional Reform in Great
Britain and Ireland,
pages 277-398._
_H. Jephson,
The Platform,
chapter 23 (volume 2)._
The following is the text of the "Third Reform Act," which is
entitled "The Representation of the People Act, 1884":
An Act to amend the Law relating to the Representation of
the People of the United Kingdom. [6th December, 1884.]
Be it enacted by the Queen's most Excellent Majesty, by and
with the advice and consent of the Lords Spiritual and
Temporal, and Commons, in this present Parliament
assembled, and by the authority of the same, as follows:
1. This Act may be cited as the Representation of the
People Act, 1884.
2. A uniform household franchise and a uniform lodger
franchise at elections shall be established in all counties
and boroughs throughout the United Kingdom, and every man
possessed of a household qualification or a lodger
qualification shall, if the qualifying premises be situate
in a county in England or Scotland, be entitled to be
registered as a voter, and when registered to vote at an
election for such county, and if the qualifying premises be
situate in a county or borough in Ireland, be entitled to
be registered as a voter, and when registered to vote at an
election for such county or borough.
3. Where a man himself inhabits any dwelling-house by
virtue of any office, service, or employment, and the
dwelling-house is not inhabited by any person under whom
such man serves in such office, service, or employment, he
shall be deemed for the purposes of this Act and of the
Representation of the People Acts to be an inhabitant
occupier of such dwelling-house as a tenant.
4. Subject to the saving in this Act for existing voters,
the following provisions shall have effect with reference
to elections:
(1.) A man shall not be entitled to be registered as a
voter in respect of the ownership of any rentcharge except
the owner of the whole of the tithe rentcharge of a
rectory, vicarage, chapelry, or benefice to which an
apportionment of tithe rentcharge shall have been made in
respect of any portion of tithes.
(2.) Where two or more men are owners either as joint
tenants or as tenants in common of an estate in any land or
tenement, one of such men, but not more than one, shall, if
his interest is sufficient to confer a qualification as a
voter in respect of the ownership of such estate, be
entitled (in the like cases and subject to the like
conditions as if he were the sole owner) to be registered
as a voter, and when registered to vote at an election.
{974}
Provided that where such owners have derived their interest
by descent, succession, marriage, marriage settlement, or
will, or where they occupy the land or tenement, and are
bonâ fide engaged as partners carrying on trade or business
thereon, each of such owners whose interest is sufficient
to confer on him a qualification as a voter shall be
entitled (in the like cases and subject to the like
conditions as if he were sole owner) to be registered as a
voter in respect of such ownership, and when registered to
vote at an election, and the value of the interest of each
such owner where not otherwise legally defined shall be
ascertained by the division of the total value of the land
or tenement equally among the whole of such owners.
5. Every man occupying any land or tenement in a county or
borough in the United Kingdom of a clear yearly value of
not less than ten pounds shall be entitled to be registered
as a voter and when registered to vote at an election for
such county or borough in respect of such occupation
subject to the like conditions respectively as a man is, at
the passing of this Act, entitled to be registered as a
voter and to vote at an election for such county in respect
of the county occupation franchise, and at an election for
such borough in respect of the borough occupation
franchise.
6. A man shall not by virtue of this Act be entitled to be
registered as a voter or to vote at any election for a
county in respect of the occupation of any dwelling-house,
lodgings, land, or tenement, situate in a borough.
7. (1.) In this Act the expression "a household
qualification" means, as respects England and Ireland, the
qualification enacted by the third section of the
Representation of the People Act, 1867 [see comments
appended to this text], and the enactments amending or
affecting the same, and the said section and enactments so
far as they are consistent with this Act, shall extend to
counties in England and to counties and boroughs in
Ireland.
(2.) In the construction of the said enactments, as amended
and applied to Ireland, the following dates shall be
substituted for the dates therein mentioned, that is to say,
the twentieth day of July for the fifteenth day of July, the
first day of July for the twentieth day of July, and the
first day of January for the fifth day of January.
(3.) The expression "a lodger qualification" means the
qualification enacted, as respects England, by the fourth
section of the Representation of the People Act, 1867 [see
comments appended to this text], and the enactments amending
or affecting the same, and as respects Ireland, by the
fourth section of the Representation of the People (Ireland)
Act, 1868, and the enactments amending or affecting the
same, and the said section of the English Act of 1867, and
the enactments amending or affecting the same, shall, so far
as they are consistent with this Act, extend to counties in
England, and the said section of the Irish Act of 1868, and
the enactments amending or affecting the same, shall, so far
as they are consistent with this Act, extend to counties in
Ireland; and sections five and six and twenty-two and
twenty-three of the Parliamentary and Municipal Registration
Act, 1878, so far as they relate to lodgings, shall apply to
Ireland, and for the purpose of such application the
reference in the said section six to the Representation of
the People Act, 1867, shall be deemed to be made to the
Representation of the People (Ireland) Act, 1868, and in the
said section twenty-two of the Parliamentary and Municipal
Registration Act, 1878, the reference to section thirteen of
the Parliamentary Registration Act, 1843, shall be construed
to refer to the enactments of the Registration Acts in
Ireland relating to the making out, signing, publishing, and
otherwise dealing with the lists of voters, and the
reference to the Parliamentary Registration Acts shall be
construed to refer to the Registration Acts in Ireland, and
the following dates shall be substituted in Ireland for the
dates in that section mentioned, that is to say, the
twentieth day of July for the last day of July, and the
fourteenth day of July for the twenty-fifth day of July,
and the word "overseers" shall be construed to refer in a
county to the clerk of the peace, and in a borough to the
town clerk.
(4.) The expression "a household qualification" means, as
respects Scotland, the qualification enacted by the third
section of the Representation of the People (Scotland) Act,
1868, and the enactments amending or affecting the same,
and the said section and enactments shall, so far as they
are consistent with this Act, extend to counties in
Scotland, and for the purpose of the said section and
enactments the expression "dwelling-house" in Scotland
means any house or part of a house occupied as a separate
dwelling, and this definition of a dwelling-house shall be
substituted for the definition contained in section
fifty-nine of the Representation of the People (Scotland)
Act, 1868.
(5.) The expression "a lodger qualification" means, as
respects Scotland, the qualification enacted by the fourth
section of the Representation of the People (Scotland) Act,
1868, and the enactments amending or affecting the same,
and the said section and enactments, so far as they are
consistent with this Act, shall extend to counties in
Scotland.
(6.) The expression "county occupation franchise" means, as
respects England, the franchise enacted by the sixth
section of the Representation of the People Act, 1867 [see
comments appended to this text]; and, as respects Scotland,
the franchise enacted by the sixth section of the
Representation of the People (Scotland) Act, 1868; and, as
respects Ireland, the franchise enacted by the first
section of the Act of the session of the thirteenth and
fourteenth years of the reign of Her present Majesty,
chapter sixty-nine.
(7.) The expression "borough occupation franchise" means,
as respects England, the franchise enacted by the
twenty-seventh section of the Act of the session of the
second and third years of the reign of King William the
Fourth, chapter forty-five [see comments appended to this
text]; and as respects Scotland, the franchise enacted by
the eleventh section of the Act of the session of the
second and third years of the reign of King William the
Fourth, chapter sixty-five; and as respects Ireland the
franchise enacted by section five of the Act of the session
of the thirteenth and fourteenth years of the reign of Her
present Majesty, chapter sixty-nine, and the third section
of the Representation of the People (Ireland) Act, 1868.
{975}
(8.) Any enactments amending or relating to the county
occupation franchise or 'borough occupation franchise other
than the sections in this Act in that behalf mentioned
shall be deemed to be referred to in the definition of the
county occupation franchise and the borough occupation
franchise in this Act mentioned.
8. (1.) In this Act the expression "the Representation of
the People Acts" means the enactments for the time being in
force in England, Scotland, and Ireland respectively
relating to the representation of the people, inclusive of
the Registration Acts as defined by this Act.
(2.) The expression "the Registration Acts" means the
enactments for the time being in force in England,
Scotland, and Ireland respectively, relating to the
registration of persons entitled to vote at elections for
counties and boroughs, inclusive of the Rating Acts as
defined by this Act.
(3.) The expressions "the Representation of the People
Acts" and "the Registration Acts" respectively, where used
in this Act, shall be read distributively in reference to
the three parts of the United Kingdom as meaning in the
case of each part the enactments for the time being in
force in that part.
(4.) All enactments of the Registration Acts which relate
to the registration of persons entitled to vote in boroughs
in England in respect of a household or a lodger
qualification, and in boroughs in Ireland in respect of a
lodger qualification, shall, with the necessary variations
and with the necessary alterations of precepts, notices,
lists, and other forms, extend to counties as well as to
boroughs.
(5.) All enactments of the Registration Acts which relate
to the registration in counties and boroughs in Ireland of
persons entitled to vote in respect of the county
occupation franchise and the borough occupation franchise
respectively, shall, with the necessary variations and with
the necessary alterations of precepts, notices, lists, and
other forms, extend respectively to the registration in
counties and boroughs in Ireland of persons entitled to
vote in respect of the household qualification conferred by
this Act.
(6.) In Scotland all enactments of the Registration Acts
which relate to the registration of persons entitled to
vote in burghs, including the provisions relating to dates,
shall, with the necessary variations, and with the
necessary alterations of notices and other forms, extend
and apply to counties as well as to burghs; and the
enactments of the said Acts which relate to the
registration of persons entitled to vote in counties shall,
so far as inconsistent with the enactments so applied, be
repealed: Provided that in counties the valuation rolls,
registers, and lists shall continue to be arranged in
parishes as heretofore.
9. (1.) In this Act the expression "the Rating Acts" means
the enactments for the time being in force in England,
Scotland, and Ireland respectively, relating to the placing
of the names of occupiers on the rate book, or other
enactments relating to rating in so far as they are
auxiliary to or deal with the registration of persons
entitled to vote at elections; and the expression "the
Rating Acts" where used in this Act shall be read
distributively in reference to the three parts of the
United Kingdom as meaning in the case of each part the Acts
for the time being in force in that part.
(2.) In every part of the United Kingdom it shall be the
duty of the overseers annually, in the months of April and
May, or one of them, to inquire or ascertain with respect
to every hereditament which comprises any dwelling-house or
dwelling-houses within the meaning of the Representation of
the People Acts, whether any man, other than the owner or
other person rated or liable to be rated in respect of such
hereditament, is entitled to be registered as a voter in
respect of his being an inhabitant occupier of any such
dwelling-house, and to enter in the rate book the name of
every man so entitled, and the situation or description of
the dwelling-house in respect of which he is entitled, and
for the purposes of such entry a separate column shall be
added to the rate book.
(3.) For the purpose of the execution of such duty the
overseers may serve on the person who is the occupier or
rated or liable to be rated in respect of such
hereditament, or on some agent of such person concerned in
the management of such hereditament, the requisition
specified in the Third Schedule of this Act requiring that
the form in that notice be accurately filled up and
returned to the overseers within twenty-one days after such
service; and if any such person or agent on whom such
requisition is served fails to comply therewith, he shall
be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding
forty shillings, and any overseer who fails to perform his
duty under this section shall be deemed guilty of a breach
of duty in the execution of the Registration Acts, and
shall be liable to be fined accordingly a sum not exceeding
forty shillings for each default.
(4.) The notice under this section may be served in manner
provided by the Representation of the People Acts with
respect to the service on occupiers of notice of
non-payment of rates, and, where a body of persons,
corporate or unincorporate, is rated, shall be served on
the secretary or agent of such body of persons; and where
the hereditament by reason of belonging to the Crown or
otherwise is not rated, shall be served on the chief local
officer having the superintendence or control of such
hereditament.
(5.) In the application of this section to Scotland the
expression rate book means the valuation roll, and where a
man entered on the valuation roll by virtue of this section
inhabits a dwelling-house by virtue of any office, service,
or employment, there shall not be entered in the valuation
roll any rent or value against the name of such man as
applicable to such dwelling-house, nor shall any such man
by reason of such entry become liable to be rated in
respect of such dwelling-house.
(6.) The proviso in section two of the Act for the
valuation of lands and heritages in Scotland passed in the
session of the seventeenth and eighteenth years of the
reign of Her present Majesty chapter ninety-one, and
section fifteen of the Representation of the People
(Scotland) Act, 1868, shall be repealed: Provided that in
any county in Scotland the commissioners of supply, or the
parochial board of any parish, or any other rating
authority entitled to impose assessments according to the
valuation roll, may, if they think fit, levy such
assessments in respect of lands and heritages separately
let for a shorter period than one year or at a rent not
amounting to four pounds per annum in the same manner and
from the same persons as if the names of the tenants and
occupiers of such lands and heritages were not inserted in
the valuation roll.
{976}
(7.) In Ireland where the owner of a dwelling-house is
rated instead of the occupier, the occupier shall
nevertheless be entitled to be registered as a voter, and
to vote under the same conditions under which an occupier
of a dwelling-house in England is entitled in pursuance of
the Poor Rate Assessment and Collection Act, 1869, and the
Acts amending the same, to be registered as a voter, and to
vote where the owner is rated, and the enactments referred
to in the First Schedule to this Act shall apply to Ireland
accordingly, with the modifications in that schedule
mentioned.
(8.) Both in England and Ireland where a man inhabits any
dwelling-house by virtue of any office, service, or
employment, and is deemed for the purposes of this Act and
of the Representation of the People Acts to be an
inhabitant occupier of such dwelling-house as a tenant, and
another person is rated or liable to be rated for such
dwelling-house, the rating of such other person shall for
the purposes of this Act and of the Representation of the
People Acts be deemed to be that of the inhabitant
occupier; and the several enactments of the Poor Rate
Assessment and Collection Act, 1869, and other Acts
amending the same referred to in the First Schedule to this
Act shall for those purposes apply to such inhabitant
occupier, and in the construction of those enactments the
word "owner" shall be deemed to include a person actually
rated or liable to be rated as aforesaid.
(9.) In any part of the United Kingdom where a man inhabits
a dwelling-house in respect of which no person is rated by
reason of such dwelling-house belonging to or being
occupied on behalf of the Crown, or by reason of any other
ground of exemption, such person shall not be disentitled
to be registered as a voter, and to vote by reason only
that no one is rated in respect of such dwelling-house, and
that no rates are paid in respect of the same, and it shall
be the duty of the persons making out the rate book or
valuation roll to enter any such dwelling-house as last
aforesaid in the rate book or valuation roll, together with
the name of the inhabitant occupier thereof.
10. Nothing in this Act shall deprive any person (who at
the date of the passing of this Act is registered in
respect of any qualification to vote for any county or
borough), of his right to be from time to time registered
and to vote for such county or borough in respect of such
qualification in like manner as if this Act had not passed.
Provided that where a man is so registered in respect of
the county or borough occupation franchise by virtue of a
qualification which also qualifies him for the franchise
under this Act, he shall be entitled to be registered in
respect of such latter franchise only. Nothing in this Act
shall confer on any man who is subject to any legal
incapacity to be registered as a voter or to vote, any
right to be registered as a voter or to vote.
11. This Act, so far as may be consistently with the tenor
thereof, shall be construed as one with the Representation
of the People Acts as defined by this Act; and the
expressions "election," "county," and "borough," and other
expressions in this Act and in the enactments applied by
this Act, shall have the same meaning as in the said Acts.
Provided that in this Act and the said enactments—The
expression "overseers" includes assessors, guardians,
clerks of unions, or other persons by whatever name known,
who perform duties in relation to rating or to the
registration of voters similar to those performed in
relation to such matters by overseers in England. The
expression "rentcharge" includes a fee farm rent, a feu
duty in Scotland, a rent seck, a chief rent, a rent of
assize, and any rent or annuity granted out of land. The
expression "land or tenement" includes any part of a house
separately occupied for the purpose of any trade, business,
or profession, and that expression, and also the expression
"hereditament" when used in this Act, in Scotland includes
"lands and heritages." The expressions "joint tenants" and
"tenants in common" shall include "pro indiviso
proprietors." The expression "clear yearly value" as
applied to any land or tenement means in Scotland the
annual value as appearing in the valuation roll, and in
Ireland the net annual value at which the occupier of such
land or tenement was rated under the last rate for the time
being, under the Act of the session of the first and second
years of the reign of Her present Majesty, chapter
fifty-six, or any Acts amending the same.
12. Whereas the franchises conferred by this Act are in
substitution for the franchises conferred by the enactments
mentioned in the first and second parts of the Second
Schedule hereto, be it enacted that the Acts mentioned in
the first part of the said Second Schedule shall be
repealed to the extent in the third column of that part of
the said schedule mentioned except in so far as relates to
the rights of persons saved by this Act; and the Acts
mentioned in the second part of the said Second Schedule
shall be repealed to the extent in the third column of that
part of the said schedule mentioned, except in so far as
relates to the rights of persons saved by this Act and
except in so far as the enactments so repealed contain
conditions made applicable by this Act to any franchise
enacted by this Act.
13. This Act shall commence and come into operation on the
first day of January one thousand eight hundred and
eighty-five: Provided that the register of voters in any
county or borough in Scotland made in the last-mentioned
year shall not come into force until the first day of
January one thousand eight hundred and eighty-six, and
until that day the previous register of voters shall
continue in force.
The following comments upon the foregoing act afford
explanations which are needed for the understanding of some of
its provisions:
"The introduction of the household franchise into counties is
the main work of the Representation of the People Act, 1884.
… The county household franchise is … made identical with
the borough franchise created by the Reform Act of 1867 (30 &
31 Vict., c. 102), to which we must, therefore, turn for the
definition of the one household franchise now established in
both counties and boroughs throughout the United Kingdom. The
third section of the Act in question provides that 'Every man
shall in and after the year 1868 be entitled to be registered
as a voter, and when registered to vote, for a member or
members to serve in Parliament for a borough [we must now add
"or for a county or division of a county"] who is qualified as
follows:
(1.) Is of full age and not subject to any legal
incapacity;
(2.) Is on the last day of July [now July 15th] in any
year, and has during the whole of the preceding twelve
calendar months been an inhabitant occupier as owner or
tenant of any dwelling house within the borough [or within
a county or division of a county];
{977}
(3.) Has during the time of such occupation been rated as
an ordinary occupier in respect of the premises so occupied
by him within the borough to all rates (if any) made for
the relief of the poor in respect of such premises; and,
(4.) Has on or before the 20th day of July in the same year
bona fide paid an equal amount in the pound to that payable
by other ordinary occupiers in respect of all poor rates
that have been payable by him in respect of the said
premises up to the preceding 5th day of January: Provided
that no man shall under this section be entitled to be
registered as a voter by reason of his being a joint
occupier of any dwelling house. … The lodger franchise
was the creation of the Reform Act of 1867 (30 & 31 Vict.,
c. 102), the 4th section of which conferred the suffrage
upon lodgers who, being of full age and not subject to any
legal incapacity, have occupied in the same borough
lodgings 'of a clear yearly value, if let unfurnished, of
£10 or upwards' for twelve months preceding the last day of
July, and have claimed to be registered as voters at the
next ensuing registration of voters. By this clause certain
limitations or restrictions were imposed on the lodger franchise;
but these were swept away by the 41 & 42 Vict., c. 26, the
6th section of which considerably enlarged the franchise by
enacting that:
(1.) Lodgings occupied by a person in any year or two
successive years shall not be deemed to be different
lodgings by reason only that in that year or either of
those years he has occupied some other rooms or place in
addition to his original lodgings.
(2.) For the purpose of qualifying a lodger to vote the
occupation in immediate succession of different lodgings of
the requisite value in the same house shall have the same effect
as continued occupation of the same lodgings.
(3.) Where lodgings are jointly occupied by more than one
lodger, and the clear yearly value of the lodgings if let
unfurnished is of an amount which, when divided by the
number of the lodgers, gives a sum of not less than £10 for
each lodger, then each lodger (if otherwise qualified and
subject to the conditions of the Representation of the
People Act, 1867) shall be entitled to be registered and
when registered to vote as a lodger, provided that not more
than two persons being such joint lodgers shall be entitled
to be registered in respect of such lodgings. … Until the
passing of the Representation of the People Act, 1884, no
householder was qualified to vote unless he not only
occupied a dwelling house, but occupied it either as owner
or as the tenant of the owner. And where residence in an
official or other house was necessary, or conducive to the
efficient discharge of a man's duty or service, and was
either expressly or impliedly made a part of such duty or
service then the relation of landlord or tenant was held
not to be created. The consequence was that a large number
of persons who as officials, as employes, or as servants
are required to reside in public buildings, on the premises
of their employers or in houses assigned to them by their
masters were held not to be entitled to the franchise. In
future such persons will … be entitled to vote as
inhabitant occupiers and tenants (under Section 3 of the
recent Act), notwithstanding that they occupy their
dwelling houses 'by virtue of any office, service or
employment.' But this is subject to the condition that a
subordinate cannot qualify or obtain a vote in respect of a
dwelling house which is also inhabited by any person under whom
'such man serves in such office, service or employment.'
… Persons seised of (i. e., owning) an estate of
inheritance (i. e., in fee simple or fee-tail) of freehold
tenure, in lands or tenements, of the value of 40s. per
annum, are entitled to a vote for the county or division of
the county in which the estate is situated. This is the
class of electors generally known as 'forty shilling
freeholders.' Originally all freeholders were entitled to
county votes, but by the 8 Henry VI., c. 7, it was provided
that no freehold of a less annual value than 40s. should
confer the franchise. Until the Reform Act of 1832, 40s.
freeholders, whether their estate was one of inheritance or
one for life or lives, were entitled to county votes. That Act,
however, restricted the county freehold franchise by
drawing a distinction between (1) freeholds of inheritance,
and (2) freeholds not of inheritance. While the owners of
the first class of freeholds were left in possession of
their former rights (except when the property is situated
within a Parliamentary borough), the owners of the latter
were subjected to a variety of conditions and restrictions. …
Before the passing of the Representation of the People Act,
1884, any number of persons might qualify and obtain county
votes as joint owners of a freehold of inheritance,
provided that it was of an annual value sufficient to give
40s. for each owner. But … this right is materially
qualified by Section 4 of the recent Act. … Persons
seised of an estate for life or lives of freehold tenure of
the annual value of 40s., but of less than £5, are entitled
to a county vote, provided that they
(1) actually and bonâ fide occupy the premises, or
(2) were seised of the property at the time of the passing
of the 2 Will. IV., c. 45 (June 7th, 1832), or
(3) have acquired the property after the date by marriage,
marriage settlement, devise, or promotion to a benefice or
office. … Persons seised of an estate for life or lives
or of any larger estate in lands or tenements of any tenure
whatever of the yearly value of £5 or upwards: This
qualification is not confined to the ownership of freehold
lands. Under the words 'of any tenure whatever' (30 & 31
Vict., c. 102, s. 5) copyholders have county votes if their
property is of the annual value of £5. … The electoral
qualifications in Scotland are defined by the 2 & 3 Will.
IV., c. 65, the 31 & 32 Vict., c. 48, and the
Representation of the People Act, 1884 (48 Vict., c. 3).
The effect of the three Acts taken together is that the
County franchises are as follows:
1. Owners of Land, &c., of the annual value of £5, after
deducting feu duty, ground annual, or other considerations
which an owner may be bound to pay or to give an account
for as a condition of his right.
2. Leaseholders under a lease of not less than 57 years or
for the life of the tenant of the clear yearly value of
£10, or for a period of not less than 19 years when the
clear yearly value is not less than £50, or the tenant is
in actual personal occupancy of the land.
3. Occupiers of land, &c., of the clear yearly value of £10.
4. Householders.
5. Lodgers.
6. The service franchise.
Borough franchises.
1. Occupiers of land or tenements of the annual value of £10.
2. Householders.
3. Lodgers.
4. The service franchise.
{978}
The qualification for these franchises is in all material
respects the same as for the corresponding franchises in
the Scotch counties, and in the counties and boroughs of
England and Wales. … The Acts relating to the franchise
in Ireland are 2 & 3 Will. IV., c. 88, 13 & 14 Vict., c.
69, the representation of the People (Ireland) Act, 1868,
and the Representation of the People Act, 1884. Read
together they give the following qualifications:
County franchises.
1. Owners of freeholds of inheritance or of freeholds for
lives renewable for ever rated to the poor at the annual
value of £5.
2. Freeholders and copyholders of a clear annual value of
£10.
3. Leaseholders of various terms and value.
4. Occupiers of land or a tenement of the clear annual
value of £10.
5. Householders.
6. The lodger franchise.
7. The service franchise.
Borough franchises.
1. Occupiers of lands and tenements of the annual value of
£10.
2. Householders. …
3. Lodgers.
4. The service franchise.
5. Freemen in certain boroughs. …
All the franchises we have described … are subject to this
condition, that no one, however qualified, can be registered
or vote in respect of them if he is subjected to any legal
incapacity to become or act as elector. … No alien unless
certificated or naturalised, no minor, no lunatic or idiot,
nor any person in such a state of drunkenness as to be
incapable—is entitled to vote. Police magistrates in London
and Dublin, and police officers throughout the country,
including the members of the Royal Irish Constabulary, are
disqualified from voting either generally or for
constituencies within which their duties lie. In the case of
the police the disqualification continues for six months after
an officer has left the force. … Persons are disqualified
who are convicted of treason or treason-felony, for which the
sentence is death or penal servitude, or any term of
imprisonment with hard labour or exceeding twelve months,
until they have suffered their punishment (or such as may be
substituted by competent authority), or until they receive a
free pardon. Peers are disqualified from voting at the
election of any member to serve in Parliament. A returning
officer may not vote at any election for which he acts, unless
the numbers are equal, when he may give a casting vote. No
person is entitled to be registered in any year as a voter for
any county or borough who has within twelve calendar months
next previous to the last day of July in such year received
parochial relief or other alms which by the law of Parliament
disqualify from voting. Persons employed at an election for
reward or payment are disqualified from voting thereat
although they may be on the register. … The Corrupt and
Illegal Practices Prevention Act, 1883 (46 & 47 Vict., c. 51),
disqualifies a variety of offenders [see above, A. D. 1883]
against its provisions from being registered or voting."
_W. A. Holdsworth,
The New Reform Act,
pages 20-36._
ENGLAND: A. D. 1881-1885.
Campaign in the Soudan for the relief of General Gordon.
See EGYPT: A. D. 1884-1885.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1885.
The fall of the Gladstone government.
The brief first Ministry of Lord Salisbury.
"Almost simultaneously with the assembling of Parliament
[February 19, 1885] had come the news of the fall of Khartoum
and the death of General Gordon [see EGYPT: A. D. 1884-1885].
These terrible events sent a thrill of horror and indignation
throughout the country, and the Government was severely
condemned in many quarters for its procrastination. Mr.
Gladstone, who was strongly moved by Gordon's death, rose to
the situation, and announced that it was necessary to
overthrow the Mahdi at Khartoum, to renew operations against
Osman Digma, and to construct a railway from Suakim to Berber
with a view to a campaign in the autumn. A royal proclamation
was issued calling out the reserves. Sir Stafford Northcote
initiated a debate on the Soudan question with a motion
affirming that the risks and sacrifices which the Government
appeared to be ready to encounter could only be justified by a
distinct recognition of our responsibility for Egypt, and
those portions of the Soudan which are necessary to its
security. Mr. John Morley introduced an amendment to the
motion, waiving any judgment on the policy of the Minister,
but expressing regret at its decision to continue the conflict
with the Mahdl. Mr. Gladstone skilfully dealt with both motion
and amendment. Observing that it was impossible to give rigid
pledges as to the future, he appealed to the Liberal party, if
they had not made up their minds to condemn and punish the
Government, to strengthen their hands by an unmistakable vote
of confidence. The Government obtained a majority of 14, the
votes being 302 in their favour with 288 against; but many of
those who supported the Government had also voted for the
amendment by Mr. Morley. … Financial questions were
extremely embarrassing to the Government, and it was not until
the 30th of April that the Chancellor of the Exchequer was
ready with his financial statement. He was called upon to deal
with a deficit of upwards of a million, with a greatly
depressed revenue, and with an estimated expenditure for the
current year—including the vote of credit—of no less than
£100,000,000. Amongst Mr. Childers's proposals was one to levy
upon land an amount of taxation proportioned to that levied on
personal property. There was also an augmentation of the
spirit duties and of the beer duty. The country members were
dissatisfied and demanded that no new charges should be thrown
on the land till the promised relief of local taxation had
been carried out. The agricultural and the liquor interests
were discontented, as well as the Scotch and Irish members
with the whiskey duty. The Chancellor made some concessions,
but they were not regarded as sufficient, and on the Monday
after the Whitsun holidays, the Opposition joined battle on a
motion by Sir M. Hicks Beach. … Mr. Gladstone stated at the
close of the debate that the Government would resign if
defeated. The amendment was carried against them by 264 to
252, and the Ministry went out. … Lord Salisbury became
Premier. … The general election … [was] fixed for November
1885."
_G. B. Smith,
The Prime Ministers of Queen Victoria,
pages 373-377._
ENGLAND: A. D. 1885-1886.
The partition of East Africa with Germany.
See AFRICA: A. D. 1884-1889.
{979}
ENGLAND: A. D. 1885-1886.
Mr. Gladstone's return to power.
His Home Rule Bill for Ireland and his Irish Land Bill.
Their defeat.
Division of the Liberal Party.
Lord Salisbury's Ministry.
"The House of Commons which had been elected in November and
December, 1885, was the first House of Commons which
represented the whole body of the householders and lodgers of
the United Kingdom. The result of the appeal to new
constituencies and an enlarged electorate had taken all
parties by surprise. The Tories found themselves, by the help
of their Irish allies, successful in the towns beyond all
their hopes; the Liberals, disappointed in the boroughs, had
found compensation in unexpected successes in the counties;
and the Irish Nationalists had almost swept the board. … The
English representation—exclusive of one Irish Nationalist for
Liverpool—gave a liberal majority of 28 in the English
constituencies; which Wales and Scotland swelled to 106. The
Irish representation had undergone a still more remarkable
change. Of 103 members for the sister island, 85 were Home
Rulers and only 18 were Tories. … The new House of Commons
was exactly divided between the Liberals on one side and the
Tories with their Irish allies on the other. Of its 670
members just one-half, or 335, were Liberals, 249 were Tories,
and 86 were Irish Nationalists [or Home Rulers]. … It was
soon clear enough that the alliance between the Tory Ministers
and the Irish Nationalists was at an end." On the 25th of
January 1886, the Government was defeated on an amendment to
the address, and on the 28th it resigned. Mr. Gladstone was
invited to form a Ministry and did so with Lord Herschell for
Lord Chancellor, Sir William Harcourt for Chancellor of the
Exchequer, Mr. Childers for Home Secretary, Lord Granville for
Secretary for the Colonies, Mr. John Morley for Chief
Secretary for Ireland, and Mr. Chamberlain for President of
the Local Government Board. On the 29th of March "Mr.
Gladstone announced in the House of Commons that on the 8th of
April he would ask for leave to bring in a bill 'to amend the
provision for the future government of Ireland'; and that on
the 15th he would ask leave to bring in a measure 'to make
amended provision for the sale and purchase of land in
Ireland.'" The same day Mr. Chamberlain and Mr. Trevelyan
(Secretary for Ireland) resigned their seats in the Cabinet,
and it was generally understood that differences of opinion on
the Irish bills had arisen. On the 8th of April the House of
Commons was densely crowded when Mr. Gladstone introduced his
measure for giving Home Rule to Ireland. In a speech which
lasted three hours and a half he set forth the details of his
plan and the reasons on which they were based. The essential
conditions observed in the framing of the measure, as he
defined them, were these: "The unity of the Empire must not be
placed in jeopardy; the minority must be protected; the
political equality of the three countries must be maintained,
and there must be an equitable distribution of Imperial
burdens. He then discussed some proposals which had been made
for the special treatment of Ulster—its exclusion from the
bill, its separate autonomy or the reservation of certain
matters, such as education, for Provincial Councils; all of
which he rejected. The establishment of an Irish legislature
involved the removal of Irish peers from the House of Lords
and the Irish representatives from the House of Commons. But
if Ireland was not represented at Westminster, how was it to
be taxed? The English people would never force on Ireland
taxation without representation. The taxing power would be in
the hands of the Irish legislature, but Customs and Excise
duties connected with Customs would be solely in the control
of the Imperial Parliament, Ireland's share in these being
reserved for Ireland's use. Ireland must have security against
her Magna Charta being tampered with; the provision of the Act
would therefore only be capable of modification with the
concurrence of the Irish legislature, or after the recall of
the Irish members to the two Houses of Parliament. The Irish
legislature would have all the powers which were not specially
reserved from it in the Act. It was to consist of two orders,
though not two Houses. It would be subject to all the
prerogatives of the Crown; it would have nothing to do with
Army or Navy, or with Foreign or Colonial relations; nor could
it modify the Act on which its own authority was based.
Contracts, charters, questions of education, religious
endowments and establishments, would be beyond its authority.
Trade and navigation, coinage, currency, weights and measures,
copyright, census, quarantine laws, and some other matters,
were not to be within the powers of the Irish Parliament. The
composition of the legislature was to be first, the 103
members now representing Ireland with 101, elected by the same
constituencies, with the exception of the University, with
power to the Irish legislature to give two members to the
Royal University if it chose; then the present Irish members
of the House of Lords, with 75 elected by the Irish people
under a property qualification. The Viceroyalty was to be
left, but the Viceroy was not to quit office with an outgoing
government, and no religious disability was to affect his
appointment. He would have a Privy Council, and the executive
would remain as at present, but might be changed by the action
of the legislative body. The present judges would preserve their
lien on the Consolidated Fund of Great Britain, and the Queen
would be empowered to antedate their pensions if it was seen
to be desirable. Future judges, with the exception of two in
the Court of Exchequer, would be appointed by the Irish
government, and, like English judges, would hold their office
during good behaviour. The Constabulary would remain under its
present administration, Great Britain paying all charges over
a million. Eventually, however, the whole police of Ireland
would be under the Irish government. The civil servants would
have two years' grace, with a choice of retirement on pension
before passing under the Irish executive. Of the financial
arrangements Mr. Gladstone spoke in careful and minute detail.
He fixed the proportion of Imperial charges Ireland should pay at
one-fifteenth, or in other words she would pay one part and
Great Britain fourteen parts. More than a million of duty is
paid on spirits in Ireland which come to Great Britain, and
this would be practically a contribution towards the Irish
revenue. So with Irish porter and with the tobacco
manufactured in Ireland and sold here. Altogether the British
taxpayers would contribute in this way £1,400,000 a year to
the Irish Exchequer; reducing the actual payment of Ireland
itself for Imperial affairs to one-twenty-sixth." On the 16th
of April Mr. Gladstone introduced his Irish Land Bill,
connecting it with the Home Rule Bill as forming part of one
great measure for the pacification of Ireland. In the meantime
the opposition to his policy within the ranks of the Liberal
party had been rapidly taking form. It Mr. Trevelyan, Sir
Henry James, Sir John Lubbock, Mr. Goschen, and Mr. Courtney.
It soon received the support of Mr. John Bright. The debate in
the House, which lasted until the 3rd of June, was passionate
and bitter.
{980}
It ended in the defeat of the Government by a majority of 30
against the bill. The division was the largest which had ever
been taken in the House of Commons, 657 members being present.
The majority was made up of 249 Conservatives and 94 Liberals.
The minority consisted of 228 Liberals and 85 Nationalists.
Mr. Gladstone appealed to the country by a dissolution of
Parliament. The elections were adverse to him, resulting in
the return to Parliament of members representing the several
parties and sections of parties as follows:
Home Rule Liberals, or Gladstonians, 194,
Irish Nationalists 85
total 279;
seceding Liberals 75,
Conservatives 316
total 391.
Mr. Gladstone and his colleagues resigned and a new Ministry
was formed under Lord Salisbury. The Liberals, in alliance
with the Conservatives and giving their support to Lord
Salisbury's Government, became organized as a distinct party
under the leadership of Lord Hartington, and took the name of
Liberal Unionists.
_P. W. Clayden,
England under the Coalition,
chapters 1-6._
ALSO IN:
_H. D. Traill,
The Marquis of Salisbury,
chapter 12._
Annual Register, 1885, 1886.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1885-1888.
Termination of the Fishery Articles of the Treaty of
Washington.
Renewed controversies with the United States.
The rejected Treaty.
See FISHERIES, NORTH AMERICAN: A. D. 1877-1888.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1886.
Defeat of Mr. Parnell's Tenants' Relief Bill.
The plan of campaign in Ireland.
See IRELAND: A. D. 1886.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1886-1893.
The Bering Sea Controversy and Arbitration.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1886-1893.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1890.
Settlement of African questions with Germany.
Cession of Heligoland.
See AFRICA: A. D. 1884-1889.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1891.
The Free Education Bill.
See EDUCATION, MODERN: EUROPEAN COUNTRIES.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1891.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1892-1893.
The fourth Gladstone Ministry.
Passage of the Irish Home Rule Bill by the House of Commons.
Its defeat by the Lords.
On the 28th of June, 1892, Parliament was dissolved, having
been in existence since 1886, and a new Parliament was
summoned to meet on the 4th of August. Great excitement
prevailed in the ensuing elections, which turned almost
entirely on the question of Home Rule for Ireland. The Liberal
or Gladstonian party, favoring Home Rule, won a majority of 42
in the House of Commons; but in the representation of England
alone there was a majority of 70 returned against it. In
Ireland, the representation returned was 103 for Home Rule,
and 23 against; in Scotland, 51 for and 21 against; in Wales,
28 for and 2 against. Conservatives and Liberal Unionists
(opposing Home Rule) lost little ground in the boroughs, as
compared with the previous Parliament, but largely in the
counties. As the result of the election, Lord Salisbury and
his Ministry resigned August 12, and Mr. Gladstone was
summoned to form a Government. In the new Cabinet, which was
announced four days later, Earl Rosebery became Foreign
Secretary; Baron Herschell, Lord Chancellor; Sir William
Vernon Harcourt, Chancellor of the Exchequer; Mr. Herbert H.
Asquith, Home Secretary; and Mr. John Morley, Chief Secretary
for Ireland. Although the new Parliament assembled in August,
1892, it was not until the 13th of February following that Mr.
Gladstone introduced his bill to establish Home Rule in
Ireland. The bill was under debate in the House of Commons
until the night of September 1, 1893, when it passed that body
by a vote of 301 to 267. "The bill provides for a Legislature
for Ireland, consisting of the Queen and of two Houses—the
Legislative Council and the Legislative Assembly. This
Legislature, with certain restrictions, is authorized to make
laws for the peace, order, and good government of Ireland in
respect of matters exclusively relating to Ireland or some
part thereof. The bill says that the powers of the Irish
Legislature shall not extend to the making of any law
respecting the establishment or endowment of religion or
prohibiting the free exercise thereof, or imposing any
disability or conferring any privilege on account of religious
belief, or whereby any person may be deprived of life,
liberty, or property without due process of law, or whereby
private property may be taken without just compensation.
According to the bill the executive power in Ireland shall
continue vested in her Majesty the Queen, and the Lord
Lieutenant, on behalf of her Majesty, shall exercise any
prerogatives or other executive power of the Queen the
exercise of which may be delegated to him by her Majesty, and
shall in the Queen's name summon, prorogue, and dissolve the
Legislature. An Executive Committee of the Privy Council of
Ireland is provided for, which 'shall aid and advise in the
government of Ireland.' The Lord Lieutenant, with the advice
and consent of the Executive Council, is authorized to give or
withhold the assent of her Majesty to bills passed by the houses
of the Legislature. The Legislative Council by the terms of
the bill shall consist of forty-eight Councilors. Every man
shall be entitled to vote for a Councilor who owns or occupies
any land or tenement of a ratable value of £20. The term of
office of the Councilors is to be for eight years, which is
not to be affected by dissolution, but one-half of the
Councilors shall retire in every fourth year and their seats
be filled by a new election. The Legislative Assembly is to
consist of 103 members returned by the Parliamentary
constituencies existing at present in Ireland. This Assembly,
unless sooner dissolved, may exist for five years. The bill
also provides for 80 Irish members in the House of Commons. In
regard to finance, the bill provides that for the purposes of
this act the public revenue shall be divided into general
revenue and special revenue, and general revenue shall consist
of the gross revenue collected in Ireland from taxes; the portion
due to Ireland of the hereditary revenues of the crown which
are managed by the Commissioners of Woods, an annual sum for
the customs and excise duties collected in Great Britain on
articles consumed in Ireland, provided that an annual sum of
the customs and excise duties collected in Ireland on articles
consumed in Great Britain shall be deducted from the revenue
collected in Ireland and treated as revenue collected in Great
Britain; these annual sums to be determined by a committee
appointed jointly by the Irish Government and the Imperial
Treasury. It is also provided that one-third of the general
revenue of Ireland and also that portion of any imperial
miscellaneous revenue to which Ireland may claim to be
entitled shall be paid into the Treasury of the United Kingdom
as the contribution of Ireland to imperial liabilities and
expenditures; this plan to continue for a term of six years,
at the end of which time a new scheme of tax division shall be
devised.
{981}
The Legislature, in order to meet expenses of the public
service, is authorized to impose taxes other than those now
existing in Ireland. Ireland should also have charged up
against her and be compelled to pay out of her own Treasury
all salaries and pensions of Judges and liabilities of all
kinds which Great Britain has assumed for her benefit. The
bill further provides that appeal from courts in Ireland to
the House of Lords shall cease and that all persons having the
right of appeal shall have a like right to appeal to the Queen in
council. The term of office of the Lord Lieutenant is fixed at
six years. Ultimately the Royal Irish Constabulary shall cease
to exist and no force other than the ordinary civil police
shall be permitted to be formed. The Irish Legislature shall
be summoned to meet on the first Tuesday in September, 1894,
and the first election for members shall be held at such time
before that day as may be fixed by her Majesty in council." In
the House of Lords, the bill was defeated on the 8th of
September—the second reading postponed to a day six months
from that date—by the overwhelming vote of 419 to 41.
----------ENGLAND: End----------
ENGLE.
ENGLISH.
See ANGLES AND JUTES;
also, ENGLAND: A. D. 547-633.
ENGLISH PALE, The.
See PALE, THE ENGLISH.
ENGLISH SWEAT, The.
See SWEATING SICKNESS.
ENGLISHRY.
To check the assassination of his tyrannical Norman followers
by the exasperated English, William the Conqueror ordained
that the whole Hundred within which one was slain should pay a
heavy penalty. "In connexion with this enactment there grew up
the famous law of 'Englishry,' by which every murdered man was
presumed to be a Norman, unless proofs of 'Englishry' were
made by the four nearest relatives of the deceased.
'Presentments of Englishry,' as they were technically termed,
are recorded in the reign of Richard I., but not later."
_T. P. Taswell-Langmead,
English Constitutional History.
page 68._
ENNISKILLEN, The defence of.
See IRELAND: A. D. 1688-1689.
ENÔMOTY, The.
In the Spartan military organization the enômoty "was a small
company of men, the number of whom was variable, being given
differently at 25, 32, or 36 men,—drilled and practised
together in military evolutions, and bound to each other by a
common oath. Each Enômoty had a separate captain or
enomotarch, the strongest and ablest soldier of the company."
_G. Grote,
History of Greece,
part 2, chapter 8._
ENRIQUE.
See HENRY.
ENSISHEIM, Battle of (1674).
See NETHERLANDS (HOLLAND): A. D. 1674-1678.
EORL AND CEORL.
"The modern English forms of these words have completely lost
their ancient meaning. The word 'Earl,' after several
fluctuations, has settled down as the title of one rank in the
Peerage; the word 'Churl' has come to be a word of moral
reprobation, irrespective of the rank of the person who is
guilty of the offence. But in the primary meaning of the
words, 'Eorl' and 'Ceorl'—words whose happy jingle causes
them to be constantly opposed to each other—form an
exhaustive division of the free members of the state. The
distinction in modern language is most nearly expressed br the
words 'Gentle' and 'Simple.' The 'Ceorl' is the simple
freeman, the mere unit in the army or in the assembly, whom no
distinction of birth or office marks out from his fellows."
_E. A. Freeman,
History of the Norman Conquest of England,
chapter 3, section 2._
See, also, ETHEL;
and ENGLAND: A. D. 958.
EORMEN STREET.
See ERMYN STREET.
EPAMINONDAS, and the greatness of Thebes.
See GREECE: B. C. 379-371, and 371-362;
also THEBES: B. C. 378.
EPEIROS.
See Epmus.
EPHAH, The.
"The ephah, or bath, was the unit of measures of capacity for
both liquids and grain [among the ancient Jews]. The ephah is
considered by Queipo to have been the measure of water
contained in the ancient Egyptian cubic foot, and thus
equivalent to 29.376 litres, or 6.468 imperial gallons, and to
have been nearly identical with the ancient Egyptian artaba
and the Greek metretes. For liquids, the ephah was divided
into six hin, and the twelfth part of the hin was the log. As
a grain measure, the ephah was divided into ten omers, or
gomers. The omer measure of manna gathered by the Israelites
in the desert as a day's food for each adult person was thus
equal to 2.6 imperial quarts. The largest measure of capacity
both for liquids and dry commodities was the cor of twelve
ephahs."
_H. W. Chisholm,
On the Science of Weighing and Measuring,
chapter 2._
EPHES-DAMMIM, Battle of.
The battle which followed David's encounter with Goliath, the
gigantic Philistine.
_1 Samuel, xvii._
EPHESIA, The.
See IONIC (PAN-IONIC) AMPHIKTYONY.
EPHESUS.
The Ephesian Temple.
"The ancient city of Ephesus was situated on the river
Cayster, which falls into the Bay of Scala Nova, on the
western coast of Asia Minor. Of the origin and foundation of
Ephesus we have no historical record. Stories were told which
ascribed the settlement of the place to Androklos, the son of
the Athenian king, Codrus. … With other Ionian cities of
Asia Minor, Ephesus fell into the hands of Crœsus, the last of
the kings of Lydia, and, on the overthrow of Crœsus by Cyrus,
it passed under the heavier yoke of the Persian despot.
Although from that time, during a period of at least five
centuries, to the conquest by the Romans, the city underwent
great changes of fortune, it never lost its grandeur and
importance. The Temple of Artemis (Diana), whose splendour has
almost become proverbial, tended chiefly to make Ephesus the most
attractive and notable of all the cities of Asia Minor. Its
magnificent harbour was filled with Greek and Phenician
merchantmen, and multitudes flocked from all parts to profit
by its commerce and to worship at the shrine of its tutelary
goddess. The City Port was fully four miles from the sea,
which has not, as has been supposed, receded far. … During
the generations which immediately followed the conquest of
Lydia and the rest of Asia Minor by the Persian kings, the
arts of Greece attained their highest perfection, and it was
within this short period of little more than two centuries
that the great Temple of Artemis was three times built upon
the same site, and, as recent researches have found, each time
on the same grand scale."
_J. T. Wood,
Discoveries at Ephesus,
chapter 1._
{982}
The excavations which were carried on at Ephesus by Mr. Wood,
for the British Museum, during eleven years, from 1863 until
1874, resulted in the uncovering of a large part of the site
of the great Temple and the determining of its architectural
features, besides bringing to light many inscriptions and much
valuable sculpture. The account given in the work named above
is exceedingly interesting.
EPHESUS: Ionian conquest and occupation.
See ASIA MINOR: THE GREEK COLONIES.
EPHESUS: Ancient Commerce.
"The spot on the Asiatic coast which corresponded most nearly
with Corinth on the European, was Ephesus, a city which, in
the time of Herodotus, had been the starting point of caravans
for Upper Asia, but which, under the change of dynasties and
ruin of empires, had dwindled into a mere provincial town. The
mild sway of Augustus restored it to wealth and eminence, and
as the official capital of the province of Asia, it was
reputed to be the metropolis of no less than 500 cities."
_C. Merivale,
History of the Romans,
chapter 40._
EPHESUS: A. D. 267.
Destruction by the Goths of the Temple of Diana.
See GOTHS: A. D. 258-267.
EPHESUS: A. D. 431 and 449.
The General Council and the "Robber Synod."
See NESTORIAN AND MONOPHYSITE CONTROVERSY.
----------EPHESUS: End----------
EPHETÆ, The.
A board of fifty-one judges instituted by the legislation of
Draco, at Athens, for the trial of crimes of bloodshed upon
the Areopagus.
_G. Schömann,
Antiquities of Greece: The State,
part 3, chapter 3._
EPHORS.
"Magistrates, called by the name of Ephors, existed in many
Dorian as well as in other States [of ancient Greece],
although our knowledge with regard to them extends no further
than to the fact of their existence; while the name, which
signifies quite generally 'overseers,' affords room for no
conclusion as to their political position or importance. In
Sparta, however, the Board of Five Ephors became, in the
course of time, a magistracy of such dignity and influence
that no other can be found in any free State with which it can
be compared. Concerning its first institution nothing certain
can be ascertained. … The following appears to be a probable
account:—The Ephors were originally magistrates appointed by
the kings, partly to render them special assistance in the
judicial decision of private disputes,—a function which they
continued to exercise in later times,—partly to undertake,
as lieutenants of the kings, other of their functions, during
their absence in military service, or through some other
cause. … When the monarchy and the Gerousia wished to
re-establish their ancient influence in opposition to the
popular assembly, they were obliged to agree to a concession
which should give some security to the people that this power
should not be abused to their detriment. This concession
consisted in the fact that the Ephors were independently
authorized to exercise control over the kings themselves. …
The Ephors were enabled to interfere in every department of
the administration, and to remove or punish whatever they
found to be contrary to the laws or adverse to the public
interest."
_G. F. Schömann,
Antiquities of Greece: The State,
part 3, chapter 1, section 8._
See, also, SPARTA: THE CONSTITUTION, &c.
EPHTHALITES, The.
See HUNS, THE WHITE.
EPIDAMNUS.
See GREECE: B. C. 435-432;
and KORKYRA.
EPIDII, The.
See BRITAIN, CELTIC TRIBES.
EPIGAMIA.
The right of marriage in ancient Athens.
G. F. Schömann, Antiquities of Greece: The State,
part 3, chapter 3.
EPIGONI, The.
See BŒOTIA.
EPIPOLÆ.
One of the parts or divisions of the ancient city of Syracuse,
Sicily.
EPIROT LEAGUE, The.
"The temporary greatness of the Molossian kingdom [of Epeiros,
or Epirus] under Alexander and Pyrrhus is matter of general
history. Our immediate business is with the republican
government which succeeded on the bloody extinction of royalty
and the royal line [which occurred B. C. 239]. Epeiros now
became a republic; of the details of its constitution we know
nothing, but its form can hardly fail to have been federal.
The Epeirots formed one political body; Polybios always speaks
of them, like the Achaians and Akarnanians, as one people
acting with one will. Decrees are passed, ambassadors are sent
and received, in the name of the whole Epeirot people, and
Epeiros had, like Akarnania, a federal coinage bearing the
common name of the whole nation."
_E. A. Freeman,
History of Federal Government,
book 4, section 1._
EPIRUS.
THE EPIROTS.
"Passing over the borders of Akarnania [in ancient western
Greece] we find small nations or tribes not considered as
Greeks, but known, from the fourth century B. C. downwards,
under the common name of Epirots. This word signifies,
properly, inhabitants of a continent, as opposed to those of
an island or a peninsula. It came only gradually to be applied
by the Greeks as their comprehensive denomination to designate
all those diverse tribes, between the Ambrakian Gulf on the
south and west, Pindus on the east, and the Illyrians and
Macedonians to the north and north-east. Of these Epirots the
principal were—the Chaonians, Thesprotians, Kassopians, and
Molossians, who occupied the country inland as well as
maritime along the Ionian Sea, from the Akrokeraunian
mountains to the borders of Ambrakia in the interior of the
Ambrakian Gulf. … Among these various tribes it is difficult
to discriminate the semi-Hellenic from the non-Hellenic; for
Herodotus considers both Molossians and Thesprotians as
Hellenic,—and the oracle of Dôdôna, as well as the
Nekyomanteion (or holy cavern for evoking the dead) of
Acheron, were both in the territory of the Thesprotians, and
both (in the time of the historian) Hellenic. Thucydides, on
the other hand, treats both Molossians and Thesprotians as
barbaric. … Epirus is essentially a pastoral country: its
cattle as well as its shepherds and shepherds' dogs were
celebrated throughout all antiquity; and its population then,
as now, found divided village residence the most suitable to
their means and occupations. … Both the Chaonians and
Thesprotians appear, in the time of Thucydides, as having no
kings: there was a privileged kingly race, but the presiding
chief was changed from year to year. The Molossians, however,
had a line of kings, succeeding from father to son, which
professed to trace its descent through fifteen generations
downward from Achilles and Neoptolemus to Tharypas about the
year 400 B. C."
_G. Grote,
History of Greece,
part 2, chapter 24._
{983}
The Molossian kings subsequently extended their sovereignty
over the whole country and styled themselves kings of Epirus.
Pyrrhus, whose war with Rome (see ROME: B. C. 282-275) is one
of the well known episodes of history, was the most ambitious
and energetic of the dynasty (see MACEDONIA: B. C. 297-280);
Hannibal reckoned him among the greatest of soldiers. In the
next century Epirus fell under the dominion of Rome.
Subsequently it formed part of the Byzantine empire; then
became a separate principality, ruled by a branch of the
imperial Comnenian family; was conquered by the Turks in 1466
and is now represented by the southern half of the province of
Turkey, called Albania.
See, also, ŒNOTRIANS.
EPIRUS: A. D. 1204-1350.
The Greek Despotat.
From the ruins of the Byzantine empire, overthrown by the
Crusaders and the Venetians in 1204, "that portion …
situated to the west of the range of Pindus was saved from
feudal domination by Michael, a natural son of Constantine
Angelos, the uncle of the Emperors Isaac II. and Alexius III.
After the conquest of Constantinople, he escaped into Epirus,
where his marriage with a lady of the country gave him some
influence; and assuming the direction of the administration of
the whole country from Dyrrachium to Naupactus, he collected a
considerable military force, and established the seat of his
authority generally at Ioannina or Arta. … History has
unfortunately preserved very little information concerning the
organisation and social condition of the different classes and
races which inhabited the dominions of the princes of Epirus.
Almost the only facts that have been preserved relate to the
wars and alliances of the despots and their families with the
Byzantine emperors and the Latin princes. … They all assumed
the name of Angelos Komnenos Dukas; and the title of despot,
by which they are generally distinguished, was a Byzantine
honorary distinction, never borne by the earlier members of
the family until it had been conferred on them by the Greek
emperor. Michael I, the founder of the despotat, distinguished
himself by his talents as a soldier and a negotiator. He
extended his authority over all Epirus, Acarnania and Etolia,
and a part of Macedonia and Thessaly. Though virtually
independent, he acknowledged Theodore I. (Laskaris), [at
Nicæa] as the lawful emperor of the East." The able and
unscrupulous brother of Michael, Theodore, who became his
successor in 1214, extinguished by conquest the Lombard
kingdom of Saloniki, in Macedonia (A. D. 1222), and assumed
the title of emperor, in rivalry with the Greek emperor at
Nicæa, establishing his capital at Thessalonica. The empire of
Thessalonica was short lived. Its capital was taken by the
emperor of Nicæa, in 1234, and Michael's son John, then
reigning, was forced to resign the imperial title. The
despotat of Epirus survived for another century, much torn and
distracted by wars and domestic conflicts. In 1350 its
remaining territory was occupied by the king of Servia, and
finally it was swallowed up in the conquests of the Turks.
_G. Finlay,
History of Greece from its Conquest by the Crusader,
chapter 6._
ALSO IN:
_Sir J. E. Tennent,
History of Modern Greece,
chapter 3._
EPIRUS: Modern History.
See ALBANIANS.
EPISCOPALIAN CHURCH.
See CHURCH OF ENGLAND.
EPISTATES.
The presiding officer of the ancient Athenian council and
popular assembly.
EPONYM.
EPONYMUS.
The name-giver,—the name-giving hero of primitive myths, in
which tribes and races of people set before themselves, partly
by tradition, partly by imagination, an heroic personage who
is supposed to be their common progenitor and the source of
their name.
EPONYM CANON OF ASSYRIA.
See ASSYRIA, EPONYM CANON OF.
EPPING FOREST.
Once so extensive that it covered the whole county of Essex,
England, and was called the Forest of Essex. Subsequently,
when diminished in size, it was called Waltham Forest. Still
later, when further retrenched, it took the name of Epping,
from a town that is embraced in it. It is still quite large,
and within recent years it has been formally declared by the
Queen "a people's park."
_J. C. Brown,
Forests of England._
EPULONES, The.
"The epulones [at Rome] formed a college for the
administration of the sacred festivals."
_C. Merivale,
History of the Romans,
chapter 31._
EQUADOR.
See ECUADOR.
EQUAL RIGHTS PARTY.
See NEW YORK: A. D. 1835-1837.
EQUESTRIAN ORDER, Roman.
"The selection of the burgess cavalry was vested in the
censors. It was, no doubt, the duty of these to make the
selection on purely military grounds, and at their musters to
insist that all horsemen incapacitated by age or otherwise, or
at all unserviceable, should surrender their public horse; but
it was not easy to hinder them from looking to noble birth
more than to capacity, and from allowing men of standing, who
were once admitted, senators particularly, to retain their
horse beyond the proper time. Accordingly it became the
practical rule for the senators to vote in the eighteen
equestrian centuries, and the other places in these were
assigned chiefly to the younger men of the nobility. The
military system, of course, suffered from this, not so much
through the unfitness for effective service of no small part
of the legionary cavalry, as through the destruction of
military equality to which the change gave rise; the noble
youth more and more withdrew from serving in the infantry, and
the legionary cavalry became a close aristocratic corps."
_T. Mommsen,
History of Rome,
book 3, chapter 11._
"The eighteen centuries, therefore, in course of time … lost
their original military character and remained only as a
voting body. It was by the transformation thus effected in the
character of the eighteen centuries of knights, whilst the
cavalry service passed over to the richer citizens not
included in the senatorial families, that a new class of Roman
citizens began gradually to be formed, distinct from the
nobility proper and from the mass of the people, and
designated as the equestrian order."
_W. Ihne,
History of Rome,
book 7, chapter. 1._
The equestrian order became a legally constituted class under
the judicial law of Caius Gracchus, B. C. 123, which fixed its
membership by a census, and transferred to it the judicial
functions previously exercised by the senators only. It formed
a kind of monetary aristocracy, as a counterweight to the
nobility.
_W. Ihne,
History of Rome,
book 7, chapter 6._
{984}
ERA, Christian.
"Unfortunately for ancient Chronology, there was no one fixed
or universally established Era. Different countries reckoned
by different eras, whose number is embarrassing, and their
commencements not always easily to be adjusted or reconciled
to each other; and it was not until A. D. 532 that the
Christian Era was invented by Dionysius Exiguus, a Scythian by
birth, and a Roman Abbot, who flourished in the reign of
Justinian. … Dionysius began his era with the year of our
Lord's incarnation and nativity, in U. C. 753, of the
Varronian Computation, or the 45th of the Julian Era. And at
an earlier period, Panodorus, an Egyptian monk, who flourished
under the Emperor Arcadius, A. D. 395, had dated the
incarnation in the same year. But by some mistake, or
misconception of his meaning, Bede, who lived in the next
century after Dionysius, adopted his year of the Nativity, U.
C. 753, yet began the Vulgar Era, which he first introduced,
the year after, and made it commence January 1, U. C. 754, which
was an alteration for the worse, as making the Christian Era
recede a year further from the true year of the Nativity. The
Vulgar Era began to prevail in the West about the time of
Charles Martel and Pope Gregory II. A. D. 730. … But it was
not established till the time of Pope Eugenius IV. A. D. 1431,
who ordered this era to be used in the public Registers. …
Dionysius was led to date the year of the Nativity, U. C. 753,
from the Evangelist Luke's account that John the Baptist began
his ministry 'in the fifteenth year of the reign of Tiberius
Cæsar'; and that Jesus, at his baptism, 'was beginning to be
about 30 years of age.' Luke iii. 1-23. … But this date of
the Nativity is at variance with Matthew's account, that
Christ was born before Herod's death; which followed shortly
after his massacre of the infants at Bethlehem. … Christ's
birth, therefore, could not have been earlier than U. C. 748,
nor later than U. C. 749. And if we assume the latter year, as
most conformable to the whole tenor of Sacred History, with
Chrysostom, Petavius, Prideaux, Playfair, &c., this would give
Christ's age at his baptism, about 34 years; contrary to
Luke's account."
_W. Hales,
New Analysis of Chronology,
volume 1, book l._
In a subsequent table, Mr. Hales gives the results of the
computations made by different chronologists, ancient and
modern, to fix the true year of the Nativity, as accommodated
to what is called "the vulgar," or popularly accepted,
Christian Era. The range is through no less than ten years,
from B. C. 7 to A. D. 3. His own conclusion, supported by
Prideaux and Playfair, is in favor of the year B. C. 5.
Somewhat more commonly at the present time, it is put at B. C.
4.
See, also, JEWS: B. C. 8-A. D. 1.
ERA, French Revolutionary.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1792 (SEPTEMBER-NOVEMBER),
and 1793 (OCTOBER).
ERA, Gregorian.
See CALENDAR, GREGORIAN.
ERA, Jalalæan.
See TURKS (THE SELJUK): A. D. 1073-1092.
ERA, Julian.
See CALENDAR, JULIAN.
ERA, Mahometan, or Era of the Hegira.
"The epoch of the Era of the Hegira is, according to the civil
calculation, Friday, the 16th of July, A. D. 622, the day of
the flight of Mahomet from Mecca to Medina, which is the date
of the Mahometans; but astronomers and some historians assign
it to the preceding day, viz., Thursday, the 15th of July; an
important fact to be borne in mind when perusing Arabian
writers. The years of the Hegira are lunar years, and contain
twelve months, each commencing with the new moon; a practice
which necessarily leads to great confusion and uncertainty,
inasmuch as every year must begin considerably earlier in the
season than the preceding. In chronology and history, however,
and in dating their public instruments, the Turks use months
which contain alternately thirty and twenty-nine days,
excepting the last month, which, in intercalary years,
contains thirty days. … The years of the Hegira are divided
into cycles of thirty years, nineteen of which are termed
common years, of 354 days each; and the eleven others
intercalary, or abundant, from their consisting of one day
more: these are the 2d, 5th, 7th, 10th, 13th, 16th, 18th,
21st, 24th, 26th and 29th. To ascertain whether any given year
be intercalary or not divide it by 30; and if either of the
above numbers remain, the year is one of 355 days."
_Sir H. Nicolas,
Chronology of History._
See, also, MAHOMETAN CONQUEST: A. D. 609-632.
ERA, Spanish.
"The Spanish era dates from 38 B. C. (A. U. 716) and is
supposed to mark some important epoch in the organization of
the province by the Romans. It may coincide with the campaign
of Calvinus, which is only known to us from a notice in the
Fasti Triumphales. … The Spanish era was preserved in Aragon
till 1358, in Castile till 1383, and in Portugal till 1415."
_C. Merivale,
History of the Romans,
chapter 34, note._
ERA OF DIOCLETIAN, or Era of Martyrs.
See ROME: A. D. 192-284.
ERA OF GOOD FEELING.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1821-1824.
ERA OF THE FOUNDATION OF ROME.
See ROME: B. C. 753.
ERA OF THE OLYMPIADS.
See OLYMPIADS, ERA OF THE.
ERANI.
Associations existing in ancient Athens which resembled the
mutual benefit or friendly-aid societies of modern times.
_G. F. Schömann,
Antiquity of Greece: The State,
part 3, chapter 3._
ERASTIANISM.
A doctrine which "received its name from Thomas Erastus, a
German physician of the 16th century, contemporary with
Luther. The work in which he delivered his theory and
reasonings on the subject is entitled 'De Excommunicatione
Ecclesiastica.' … The Erastians … held that religion is an
affair between man and his creator, in which no other man or
society of men was entitled to interpose. … Proceeding on
this ground, they maintained that every man calling himself a
Christian has a right to make resort to any Christian place of
worship, and partake in all its ordinances. Simple as this
idea is, it strikes at the root of all priestcraft."
_W. Godwin,
History of the Commonwealth,
volume 1, chapter 13._
ERCTÉ, Mount, Hamilcar on.
See PUNIC WAR, THE FIRST.
See, also, ERYX.
ERDINI, The.
See IRELAND, TRIBES OF EARLY CELTIC INHABITANTS.
EREMITES OF ST. FRANCIS.
See MINIMS.
ERETRIA.
See CHALCIS AND ERETRIA.
ERFURT, IMPERIAL CONFERENCE AND TREATY OF.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1808 (SEPTEMBER-OCTOBER).
{985}
ERECTHEION AT ATHENS, The.
"At a very early period there was, opposite the long northern
side of the Parthenon, a temple which, according to Herodot,
was dedicated jointly to Athene Polias and the Attic hero,
Erectheus. … This temple was destroyed by fire while the
Persians held the city. Not unlikely the rebuilding of the
Erectheion was begun by Perikles together with that of the
other destroyed temples of the Akropolis; but as it was not
finished by him, it is generally not mentioned amongst his
works. … This temple was renowned amongst the ancients as
one of the most beautiful and perfect in existence, and seems
to have remained almost intact down to the time of the Turks.
The siege of Athens by the Venetians in 1687 seems to have
been fatal to the Erectheion, as it was to the Parthenon."
_E. Guhl and W. Koner,
Life of the Greeks,
section 14._
See, also, ACROPOLIS OF ATHENS.
ERIC,
King of Denmark, Sweden and Norway, A. D. 1412-1439.
Eric Blodaexe, King of Norway, A. D. 934-940.
Eric I., King of Denmark, A. D: 850-854.
Eric I. (called Saint), King of Sweden, A. D. 1155-1161.
Eric II., King of Denmark, A. D. 854-883.
Eric II., King of·Norway, A. D. 1280-1299.
Eric II. (Knutsson), King of Sweden, A. D. 1210-1216.
Eric III., King of Denmark, A. D. 1095-1103.
Eric III. (called The Stammerer), King of Sweden, A. D. 1222-1250.
Eric IV., King of Denmark, A. D. 1134-1137.
Eric V., King of Denmark, A. D. 1137-1147.
Eric VI., King of Denmark, A. D. 1241-1250.
Eric VII., King of Denmark, A. D. 1259-1286.
Eric VIII., King of Denmark, A. D. 1286-1319.
Eric XIV., King of Sweden, A. D. 1560-1568.
ERICSSON, John
Invention and construction of the Monitor.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1862 (MARCH).
ERIE, The City of: A. D. 1735.
Site occupied by the French.
See CANADA: A. D. 1700-1735.
ERIE, Fort: A. D. 1764-1791.
Origin.
Four years after the British conquest of Canada, in 1764,
Colonel John Bradstreet built a blockhouse and stockade near
the site of the later Fort Erie, which was not constructed
until 1791. When war with the United States broke out, in
1812, the British considered the new fort untenable, or
unnecessary, and evacuated and partly destroyed it, in May,
1813.
_C. K. Remington,
Old Fort Erie._
ERIE, Fort: A. D. 1814.
The siege and the destruction.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1814 (JULY-SEPTEMBER).
ERIE, Fort: A. D. 1866.
The Fenian invasion.
See CANADA: A. D. 1866-1871.
----------ERIE: End----------
ERIE, Lake:
The Indian name.
See NIAGARA: THE NAME, &c.
ERIE, Lake: A. D. 1679.
Navigated by La Salle.
See CANADA: A. D. 1669-1687.
ERIE, Lake: A. D. 1813.
Perry's naval victory.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1812-1813.
----------ERIE, Lake: End----------
ERIE CANAL, Construction of the.
See NEW YORK: A. D. 1817-1825.
ERIES, The.
See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: HURONS, &c.,
and IROQUOIS CONFEDERACY: THEIR CONQUESTS.
ERIN.
See IRELAND.
ERMANRIC, OR HERMANRIC, The empire of.
See GOTHS (OSTROGOTHS): A. D. 350-375; and 376.
ERMYN STREET.
A corruption of Eormen street, the Saxon name of one of the
great Roman roads in Britain, which ran from London to
Lincoln. Some writers trace it northwards through York to the
Scottish border and southward to Pevensey.
See ROMAN ROADS IN BRITAIN.
ERNESTINE LINE OF SAXONY.
See SAXONY: A. D. 1180-1553.
ERPEDITANI, The.
See IRELAND, TRIBES OF EARLY CELTIC INHABITANTS.
ERTANG, The.
The sacred book of the Manicheans.
See MANICHEANS.
ERYTHRÆ.-ERYTHRÆAN SIBYL.
Erythræ was an ancient Ionian city on the Lydian coast of Asia
Minor, opposite the island of Chios or Scio. It was chiefly
famous as the home or seat of one of the most venerated of the
sibyls—prophetic women—of antiquity. The collection of
Sibylline oracles which was sacredly preserved at Rome appears
to have been largely derived from Erythræ. The Cumæan Sibyl is
sometimes identified with her Erythræan sister, who is said to
have passed into Europe.
See, also, SIBYLS.
ERYTHRÆAN SEA, The.
The Erythræan Sea, in the widest sense of the term, as used by
the ancients, comprised "the Arabian Gulf (or what we now call
the Red Sea), the coasts of Africa outside the straits of Bab
el Mandeb as far as they had then been explored, as well as
those of Arabia and India down to the extremity of the Malabar
coast." The Periplus of the Erythræan Sea is a geographical
treatise of great importance which we owe to some unknown
Greek writer supposed to be nearly contemporary with Pliny. It
is "a kind of manual for the instruction of navigators and
traders in the Erythræan Sea."
_E. H. Bunbury,
History of Ancient Geography,
chapter 25._
"The Erythrêam Sea is an appellation … in all appearance
deduced [by the ancients] from their entrance into it by the
straits of the Red Sea, styled Erythra by the Greeks, and not
excluding the gulph of Persia, to which the fabulous history
of a king Erythras is more peculiarly appropriate."
_W. Vincent,
Periplus of the Erythrêan Sea,
book 1, prelim. disquis._
ERYX.
ERCTE.
A town originally Phoœnician or Carthaginian on the
northwestern coast of Sicily. It stood on the slope of a
mountain which was crowned with an ancient temple of
Aphrodite, and which gave the name Erycina to the goddess when
her worship was introduced at Rome.
See PUNIC WAR, THE FIRST.
ERZEROUM: A. D. 1878.
Taken by the Russians.
See TURKS: A. D. 1877-1878.
ESCOCÉS, The party of the.
See MEXICO: A. D. 1822-1828.
ESCOMBOLI.
See STAMBOUL.
ESCORIAL, The.
See SPAIN: A. D. 1559-1563.
ESCUYER.
ESQUIRE.
See CHIVALRY.
ESDRAELON, Valley of.
See MEGIDDO.
ESKIMO, The.
See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: ESKIMAUAN FAMILY.
ESNE.
See THEOW.
ESPARTERO, Regency of.
See SPAIN: A. D. 1833-1846.
ESPINOSA, Battle of.
See SPAIN: A. D. 1808 (SEPTEMBER-DECEMBER).
{986}
ESQUILINE, The.
See SEVEN HILLS OF ROME.
ESQUIRE.
ESCUYER.
SQUIRE.
See CHIVALRY.
ESQUIROS, Battle of (1521).
See NAVARRE: A. D. 1442-1521.
ESSELENIAN FAMILY, The.
See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: ESSELENIAN FAMILY.
ESSENES, The.
See Supplement in volume 5.
ESSEX.
Originally the kingdom formed by that body of the Saxon
conquerors of Britain, in the fifth and sixth centuries, who
acquired, from their geographical position in the island, the
name of the East Saxons. It covered the present county of
Essex and also included London and Middlesex.
See ENGLAND: A. D. 477-527.
ESSEX JUNTO, The.
In the Massachusetts election of 1781, "the representatives of
the State in Congress, and some of the more moderate leaders
at home, opposed Governor Hancock, the popular candidate, and
supported James Bowdoin, who was thought to represent the more
conservative elements. … It was at this time that Hancock is
said to have bestowed on his opponents the title of the 'Essex
Junto,' and this is the first appearance of the name in
American politics. … The 'Junto' was generally supposed to
be composed of such men as Theophilus Parsons, George Cabot,
Fisher Ames, Stephen Higginson, the Lowells, Timothy
Pickering, &c., and took its name from the county to which
most of its reputed members originally belonged. … The
reputed members of the 'Junto' held political power in
Massachusetts [as leaders of the Federalist party] for more
than a quarter of a century." According to Chief Justice
Parsons, as quoted by Colonel Pickering in his Diary, the term
'Essex Junto' was applied by one of the Massachusetts royal
governors, before the Revolution, to certain gentlemen of
Essex county who opposed his measures. Hancock, therefore,
only revived the title and gave it currency, with a new
application.
_H. C. Lodge,
Life and Letters of George Cabot,
pages 17-22._
ESSLINGEN, OR ASPERN, Battle of.
See GERMANY: A. D. 1809 (JANUARY-JUNE).
ESSUVII, The.
A Gallic tribe established anciently in the modern French
department of the Orne.
_Napoleon III.,
History of Cæsar,
book 3, chapter 2, note._
ESTATES, Assembly of.
"An assembly of estates is an organised collection, made by
representation or otherwise, of the several orders, states or
conditions of men, who are recognised as possessing political
power. A national council of clergy and barons is not an
assembly of estates, because it does not include the body of
the people, the plebs, the simple freemen or commons."
_W. Stubbs,
Constitutional History of England,
chapter 15, section 185._
See, also, ESTATES, THE THREE.
ESTATES, The Three.
"The arrangement of the political factors in three estates is
common, with some minor variations, to all the European
constitutions, and depends on a principle of almost universal
acceptance. This classification differs from the system of
caste and from all divisions based on differences of blood or
religion, historical or prehistorical. … In Christendom it
has always taken the form of a distinction between clergy and
laity, the latter being subdivided according to national
custom into noble and non-noble, patrician and plebeian,
warriors and traders, landowners and craftsmen. … The
Aragonese cortes contained four brazos or arms, the clergy,
the great barons or ricos hombres, the minor barons, knights
or infanzones, and the towns. The Germanic diet comprised
three colleges, the electors, the princes and the cities, the
two former being arranged in distinct benches, lay and
clerical. … The Castilian cortes arranged the clergy, the
ricos hombres and the communidades, in three estates. The
Swedish diet was composed of clergy, barons, burghers and
peasants. … In France, both in the States General and in the
provincial estates, the division is into gentz de l'eglise,
nobles, and gentz des bonnes villes. In England, after a
transitional stage, in which the clergy, the greater and
smaller barons, and the cities and boroughs, seemed likely to
adopt the system used in Aragon and Scotland, and another in
which the county and borough communities continued to assert
an essential difference, the three estates of clergy, lords
and commons, finally emerge as the political constituents of
the nation, or, in their parliamentary form, as the lords
spiritual and temporal and the commons. This familiar formula
in either shape bears the impress of history. The term commons
is not in itself an appropriate expression for the third
estate; it does not signify primarily the simple freemen, the
plebs, but the plebs organised and combined in corporate
communities, in a particular way for particular purposes. The
commons are the communitates or universitates, the organised
bodies of freemen of the shires and towns. … The third
estate in England differs from the same estate in the
continental constitutions, by including the landowners under
baronial rank. In most of those systems it contains the
representatives of the towns or chartered communities only."
_W. Stubbs,
Constitutional History of England,
chapter 15, sections 185, 193._
"The words 'gens de tiers et commun état' are found in many
acts [France] of the 15th century. The expressions 'tiers
état,' 'commun état,' and 'le commun' are used indifferently,
… This name of 'Tiers État, when used in its ordinary sense,
properly comprises only the population of the privileged
cities; but in effect it extends much beyond this; it includes
not only the cities, but the villages and hamlets—not only
the free commonalty, but all those for whom civil liberty is a
privilege still to come."
_A. Thierry,
Formation and Progress of the Tiers État in France,
volume 1, pages 61 and 60._
ESTATES, or "States," of the Netherland Provinces.
See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1584-1585.
ESTATES GENERAL.
See STATES GENERAL.
ESTE, The House of.
"Descended from one of the northern families which settled in
Italy during the darkest period of the middle ages, the Este
traced their lineal descent up to the times of Charlemagne.
They had taken advantage of the frequent dissensions between
the popes and the German emperors of the houses of Saxony and
Swabia, and acquired wide dominions in Lunigiana, and the
March of Treviso, where the castle of Este, their family
residence, was situated. Towards the middle of the 11th
century, that family had been connected by marriages with the
Guelphs of Bavaria, and one of the name of Este was eventually
to become the common source from which sprung the illustrious
houses of Brunswick and Hanover. The Este had warmly espoused
the Guelph party [see GUELFS], during the wars of the Lombard
League. …
{987}
Towards the year 1200, Azzo V., Marquis of Este, married
Marchesella degli Adelardi, daughter of one of the most
conspicuous Guelphs at Ferrara, where the influence of the
House of Este was thus first established."
_L. Mariotti (A. Gallenga),
Italy,
volume 2, pages 62-63._
The Marquesses of Este became, "after some of the usual
fluctuations, permanent lords of the cities of Ferrara [1264]
and Modena [1288]. About the same time they lost their
original holding of Este, which passed to Padua, and with
Padua to Venice. Thus the nominal marquess of Este and real
lord of Ferrara was not uncommonly spoken of as Marquess of
Ferrara. In the 15th century these princes rose to ducal rank;
but by that time the new doctrine of the temporal dominion of
the Popes had made great advances. Modena, no man doubted, was
a city of the Empire; but Ferrara was now held to be under the
supremacy of the Pope. The Marquess Borso had thus to seek his
elevation to ducal rank from two separate lords. He was
created Duke of Modena [1453] and Reggio by the Emperor, and
afterwards Duke of Ferrara [1471] by the Pope. This difference
of holding … led to the destruction of the power of the
house of Este. In the times in which we are now concerned,
their dominions lay in two masses. To the west lay the duchy
of Modena and Reggio; apart from it to the east lay the duchy
of Ferrara. Not long after its creation, this last duchy was
cut short by the surrender of the border-district of Rovigo to
Venice. … Modena and Ferrara remained united, till Ferrara
was annexed [1598] as an escheated fief to the dominions of
its spiritual overlord. But the house of Este still reigned
over Modena with Reggio and Mirandola, while its dominions
were extended to the sea by the addition of Massa and other
small possessions between Lucca and Genoa. The duchy in the
end passed by female succession to the House of Austria
[1771-1803]."
_E. A. Freeman,
Historical Geography of Europe,
chapter 8, sections 3-4._
"The government of the family of Este at Ferrara, Modena, and
Reggio displays curious contrasts of violence and popularity.
Within the palace frightful deeds were perpetrated; a princess
was beheaded [1425] for alleged adultery with a stepson;
legitimate and illegitimate children fled from the court, and
even abroad their lives were threatened by assassins sent in
pursuit of them (1471). Plots from without were incessant; the
bastard of a bastard tried to wrest the crown from the lawful
heir, Hercules I.: this latter is said afterwards (1493) to
have poisoned his wife on discovering that she, at the
instigation of her brother, Ferrante of Naples, was going to
poison him. This list of tragedies is closed by the plot of
two bastards against their brothers; the ruling Duke Alfonso
I. and the Cardinal Ippolito (1506), which was discovered in
time, and punished with imprisonment for life. … It is
undeniable that the dangers to which these princes were
constantly exposed developed in them capacities of a
remarkable kind."
_J. Burckhardt,
The Civilization of the Period of the Renaissance in Italy,
part 1, chapter 5._
For the facts of the ending of the legitimate Italian line of
Este,
See PAPACY: A. D. 1597.
ESTHONIA, OR ESTONIA:
Origin of the name.
See ÆSTII.
ESTHONIA, OR ESTONIA: Christian conquest.
See LIVONIA: 12TH-13TH CENTURIES.
ESTIENNES, The Press of the.
See PRINTING: A. D. 1496-1598.
ESTREMOS, OR AMEIXAL, Battle of (1663).
See PORTUGAL: A. D. 1637-1668.
ETCHEMINS, The.
See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: ALGONQUIAN FAMILY.
ETHANDUN, OR EDINGTON, Battle of (A. D. 878).
See ENGLAND: A. D. 855-880.
ETHEL, ETHELINGS, OR ÆTHELINGS.
"The sons and brothers of the king [of the English] were
distinguished by the title of Æthelings. The word Ætheling,
like eorl, originally denoted noble birth simply; but as the
royal house of Wessex rose to pre-eminence and the other royal
houses and the nobles generally were thereby reduced to a
relatively lower grade, it became restricted to the near
kindred of the national king."
_T. P. Taswell-Langmead,
English Constitutional History,
page 29._
"It has been sometimes held that the only nobility of blood
recognized in England before the Norman Conquest was that of
the king's kin. The statement may be regarded as deficient in
authority, and as the result of a too hasty generalization
from the fact that only the sons and brothers of the kings
bear the name of ætheling. On the other hand must be alleged
the existence of a noble (edhiling) class among the
continental Saxons who had no kings at all. … The laws of
Ethelbert prove the existence of a class bearing the name of
eorl of which no other interpretation can be given. That
these, eorlas and æthel, were the descendants of the primitive
nobles of the first settlement, who, on the institution of
royalty, sank one step in dignity from the ancient state of
rude independence, in which they had elected their own chiefs
and ruled their own dependents, may be very reasonably
conjectured. … The ancient name of eorl, like that of
ætheling, changed its application, and, under the influence,
perhaps, of Danish association, was given like that of jarl to
the official ealdorman. Henceforth the thegn takes the place
of the æthel, and the class of thegns probably embraces all
the remaining families of noble blood. The change may have
been very gradual; the 'north people's law' of the tenth or
early eleventh century still distinguishes the eorl and
ætheling with a wergild nearly double that of the ealdorman
and seven times that of the thegn; but the north people's law
was penetrated with Danish influence, and the eorl probably
represents the jarl rather than the ealdorman, the great eorl
of the fourth part of England as it was divided by Canute. …
The word eorl is said to be the same as the Norse jarl and
another form of ealdor (?); whilst the ceorl answers to the
Norse Karl; the original meaning of the two being old man and
young man."
_W. Stubbs,
Constitutional History of England,
chapter 6, section 64, and note._
ETHEL.
Family-land.
See ALOD; and FOLCLAND.
ETHELBALD,
King of Mercia, A. D. 716-755.
Ethelbald, King of Wessex, A. D. 858-860.
ETHELBERT,
King of Kent, A. D. 565-616.
Ethelbert, King of Wessex, A. D. 860-866.
ETHELFRITH, King of Northumberland, A. D. 593-617.
ETHELRED,
King of Wessex, A. D. 866-871.
Ethelred, called the Unready, King of Wessex, A. D. 979-1016.
{988}
ETHELSTAN, King of Wessex, A. D. 925-940.
ETHELWULF, King of Wessex, A. D. 836-858.
ETHIOPIA.
The Ethiopia of the ancients, "in the ordinary and vague sense
of the term, was a vast tract extending in length above a
thousand miles, from the 9th to the 24th degree of north
latitude, and in breadth almost 900 miles, from the shores of
the Red Sea and Indian Ocean to the desert of the Sahara. This
tract was inhabited for the most part by wild and barbarous
tribes—herdsmen, hunters, or fishermen—who grew no corn,
were unacquainted with bread, and subsisted on the milk and
flesh of their cattle, or on game, turtle, and fish, salted or
raw. The tribes had their own separate chiefs, and
acknowledged no single head, but on the contrary were
frequently at war one with the other, and sold their prisoners
for slaves. Such was Ethiopia in the common vague sense; but
from this must be distinguished another narrower Ethiopia,
known sometimes as 'Ethiopia Proper' or 'Ethiopia above
Egypt,' the limits of which were, towards the south, the
junction of the White and Blue Niles, and towards the north
the Third Cataract. Into this tract, called sometimes 'the
kingdom of Meroë,' Egyptian civilisation had, long before the
eighth century [B. C.], deeply penetrated. Temples of the
Egyptian type, stone pyramids, avenues of sphinxes, had been
erected; a priesthood had been set up, which was regarded as
derived from the Egyptian priesthood; monarchical institutions
had been adopted; the whole tract formed ordinarily one
kingdom, and the natives were not very much behind the
Egyptians in arts or arms, or very different from them in
manners, customs, and mode of life. Even in race the
difference was not great. The Ethiopians were darker in
complexion than the Egyptians, and possessed probably a
greater infusion of Nigritic blood; but there was a common
stock at the root of the two races—Cush and Mizraim were
brethren. In the region of Ethiopia Proper a very important
position was occupied in the eighth century [B. C.] by Napata.
Napata was situated midway in the great bend of the Nile,
between latitude 18° and 19°. … It occupied the left bank of
the river in the near vicinity of the modern Gebel Berkal. . .
Here, when the decline of Egypt enabled the Ethiopians to
reclaim their ancient limits, the capital was fixed of that
kingdom, which shortly became a rival of the old empire of the
Pharaohs, and aspired to take its place. … The kingdom of
Meroë, whereof it was the capital, reached southward as far as
the modern Khartoum, and eastward stretched up to the
Abyssinian highlands, including the valleys of the Atbara and
its tributaries, together with most of the tract between the
Atbara and the Blue Nile. … Napata continued down to Roman
times a place of importance, and only sank to ruin in
consequence of the campaigns of Petronius against Candacé in
the first century after our era."
_G. Rawlinson,
History of Ancient Egypt,
chapter 25._
ALSO IN:
_A. H. L. Heeren,
Historical Researches, Carthaginians,
Ethiopians, &c., pages 143-249._
See, also, EGYPT: ABOUT B. C. 1200-670;
and LIBYANS, THE.
ETON SCHOOL.
See EDUCATION, MODERN: EUROPEAN COUNTRIES.--ENGLAND.
ETRURIA, Ancient.
See ETRUSCANS.
ETRURIA, The kingdom of.
See GERMANY: A. D. 1801-1803;
also PORTUGAL: A. D. 1807;
and FRANCE: A. D. 1807-1808(NOVEMBER-FEBRUARY).
ETRUSCANS, The.
"At the time when Roman history begins, we find that a
powerful and warlike race, far superior to the Latins in
civilisation and in the arts of life, hemmed in the rising
Roman dominion in the north. The Greeks called them Turrhenoi,
the Romans called them Etrusci, they called themselves the
Rasenna. Who they were and whence they came has ever been
regarded as one of the most doubtful and difficult problems in
ethnology. One conclusion only can be said to have been
universally accepted both in ancient and in modern times. It
is agreed on every hand that in all essential points, in
language, in religion, in customs, and in appearance, the
Etruscans were a race wholly different from the Latins. There
is also an absolute agreement of all ancient tradition to the
effect that the Etruscans were not the original inhabitants of
Etruria, but that they were an intrusive race of conquerors.
… It has been usually supposed that the Rasenna made their
appearance in Italy some ten or twelve centuries before the
Christian era. … For some six or seven centuries, the
Etruscan power and territory continued steadily to increase,
and ultimately stretched far south of the Tiber, Rome itself
being included in the Etruscan dominion, and being ruled by an
Etruscan dynasty. The early history of Rome is to a great
extent the history of the uprising of the Latin race, and its
long struggle for Italian supremacy with its Etruscan foe. It
took Rome some six centuries of conflict to break through the
obstinate barrier of the Etruscan power. The final conquest of
Etruria by Rome was effected in the year 281 B. C. … The
Rasennic people were collected mainly in the twelve great
cities of Etruria proper, between the Arno and the Tiber.
[Modern Tuscany takes its name from the ancient Etruscan
inhabitants of the region.] This region was the real seat of
the Etruscan power. … From the 'Shah-nameh,' the great
Persian epic, we learn that the Aryan Persians called their
nearest non-Aryan neighbours—the Turkic or Turcoman tribes to
the north of them—by the name Turan, a word from which we
derive the familiar ethnologic term Turanian. The Aryan
Greeks, on the other hand, called the Turkic tribe of the
Rasenna, the nearest non-Aryan race, by the name of Turrhenoi.
The argument of this book is to prove that the Tyrrhenians of
Italy were of kindred race with the Turanians of Turkestan. Is
it too much to conjecture that the Greek form Turrhene may be
identically the same word as the Persian form Turan?"
_I. Taylor,
Etruscan Researches,
chapter 2._
"The utmost we can say is that several traces, apparently
reliable, point to the conclusion that the Etruscans may be on
the whole included among the Indo-Germans. … But even
granting those points of connection, the Etruscan people
appears withal scarcely less isolated. 'The Etruscans,'
Dionysius said long ago, 'are like no other nation in language
and manners'; and we have nothing to add to his statement. …
Reliable traces of any advance of the Etruscans beyond the
Tiber, by land, are altogether wanting. … South of the Tiber
no Etruscan settlement can be pointed out as having owed its
origin to founders who came by land; and that no indication
whatever is discernible of any serious pressure by the
Etruscans upon the Latin nation."
_T. Mommsen,
History of Rome,
book 1, chapter 9._
{989}
EUBŒA.
"The island of Eubœa, long and narrow like Krête, and
exhibiting a continuous backbone of lofty mountains from
northwest to southeast, is separated from Bœotia at one point
by a strait so narrow (celebrated in antiquity under the name
of the Eurīpus) that the two were connected by a bridge for a
large portion of the historical period of Greece, erected
during the later times of the Peloponnesian war by the
inhabitants of Chalkis [Chalcis]. Its general want of breadth
leaves little room for plains. The area of the island consists
principally of mountain, rock, dell, and ravine, suited in
many parts for pasture, but rarely convenient for
grain-culture or town habitations. Some plains there were,
however, of great fertility, especially that of Lelantum,
bordering on the sea near Chalkis, and continuing from that
city in a southerly direction towards Eretria. Chalkis and
Eretria, both situated on the western coast, and both
occupying parts of this fertile plain, were the two principal
places in the island: the domain of each seems to have
extended across the island from sea to sea. … Both were in
early times governed by an oligarchy, which among the
Chalcidians was called the Hippobotæ, or Horse feeders,—
proprietors probably of most part of the plain called
Lelantum."
_G. Grote,
History of Greece,
part 2, chapter 12._
See, also, NEGROPONT.
EUBOIC TALENT.
See TALENT.
EUCHITES, The.
See MYSTICISM.
EUDES, King of France
(in partition with Charles the Simple), A. D. 887-898.
EUDOSES, The.
See AVIONES.
EUGENE (Prince) of Savoy, Campaigns of.
See HUNGARY: A. D. 1699-1718;
GERMANY: A. D. 1704;
ITALY (SAVOY AND PIEDMONT): A. D. 1701-1713;
NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1708-1709, and 1710-1712.
EUGENE I., Pope, A. D. 655-657.
Eugene II., Pope, A. D. 824-827.
Eugene III., Pope, A. D. 1145-1153.
Eugene IV., Pope, A. D. 1431-1447.
EUGENIANS, The.
See HY-NIALS.
EUMENES, and the wars of the Diadochi.
See MACEDONIA: B. C. 323-316.
EUMOLPHIDÆ, The.
See PHYLÆ.
EUPATRIDÆ, The.
"The Eupatridæ [in ancient Athens] are the wealthy and
powerful men, belonging to the most distinguished families in
all the various gentes, and principally living in the city of
Athens, after the consolidation of Attica: from them are
distinguished the middling and lower people, roughly
classified into husbandmen and artisans. To the Eupatridæ is
ascribed a religious as well as a political and social
ascendency. They are represented as the source of all
authority on matters both sacred and profane,"
_G. Grote,
History of Greece,
part 2, chapter 10._
EUROKS, OR YUROKS.
See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: MODOCS.
EUROPE.
A HISTORICAL SKETCH.
A general sketch of the history of Europe at large cannot, for
obvious reasons, be constructed of quotations from the
historians, on the plan followed in other parts of this work.
The editor has found it necessary, therefore, to introduce
here an essay of his own.
The first inhabitants of the continent of Europe have left no
trace of their existence on the surface of the land. The
little that we know of them has been learned by the discovery
of deeply buried remains, including a few bones and skulls,
many weapons and tools which they had fashioned out of stone
and bone, and some other rude marks of their hands which time
has not destroyed. The places in which these remains are
found—under deposits that formed slowly in ancient river beds
and in caves—have convinced geologists that the people whose
existence they reveal lived many thousands of years ago, and
that the continent of Europe in their time was very different
from the Europe of the present day, in its climate, in its
aspect, and in its form. They find reason to suppose that the
peninsula of Italy, as well as that of Spain, was then an
isthmus which joined Europe to Africa; and this helps to
explain the fact that remains of such animals as the elephant,
the lion, the rhinoceros, the hippopotamus, and the hyena, as
well as the mammoth, are found with the remains of these early
men. They all seem to have belonged, together, to a state of
things, on the surface of the earth, which was greatly changed
before the men and the animals that we have historical
knowledge of appeared.
The Stone Age.
These primitive Europeans were evidently quite at the bottom
of the savage state. They had learned no use of metals, since
every relic of their workmanship that can be found is of
stone, or bone, or wood. It is thought possible that they
shaped rough vessels out of unbaked clay; but that is
uncertain. There is nothing to show that they had domesticated
any animals. It is plain that they dwelt in caves, wherever
nature provided such dwellings; but what shelters they may
have built elsewhere for themselves is unknown.
In one direction, only, did these ancient people exhibit a
faculty finer than we see in the lowest savages of the present
day: they were artists, in a way. They have left carvings and
drawings of animals—the latter etched with a sharp point on
horns, bones, and stones—which are remarkable for uncultured
men.
The period in man's life on the earth at which these people
lived—the period before metals were known—has been named by
archæologists the Stone Age. But the Stone Age covers two
stages of human culture—one in which stone implements were
fashioned unskilfully, and a second in which they were
finished with expert and careful hands. The first is called
the Palæolithic or Old Stone Age, the second the Neolithic or
New Stone Age. Between the two periods in Europe there seems
to have been a long interval of time, and a considerable
change in the condition of the country, as well as in that of
its people.
{990}
In fact, the Europe of the Neolithic Age was probably not very
different in form and climate from the Europe of our own day.
Relics of the human life of that time are abundantly scattered
over the face of the continent. There are notable deposits of
them in the so-called "kitchen-middens" of Denmark, which are
great mounds of shells,—shells of oysters and other
molluscs,—which these ancient fishermen had opened and
emptied, and then cast upon a refuse heap. Buried in those
mounds, many bits of their workmanship have been preserved,
and many hints of their manner of life are gleaned from the
signs and tokens which these afford. They had evidently risen
some degrees above the state of the men of the Palæolithic or
Old Stone Age; but they were inferior in art.
The Bronze Age.
The discovery and use of copper—the metal most easily worked,
and most frequently found in the metallic state—is the event
by which archæologists mark the beginning of a second state in
early civilizations. The period during which copper, and
copper hardened by an alloy of tin, are the only metals found
in use, they call the Bronze Age. There is no line of positive
division between this and the Neolithic period which it
followed. The same races appear to have advanced from the one
stage to the other, and probably some were in possession of
tools and weapons of bronze, while others were still
contenting themselves with implements of stone.
Lake Dwellings.
In many parts of Europe, especially in Switzerland and
northern Italy, plain traces of some curious habitations of
people who lived through the later Stone Age into the Bronze
Age, and even after it, have been brought to light. These are
the "lake dwellings," or "lacustrine habitations," as they
have been called, which have excited interest in late years.
They were generally built on piles, driven into a lake-bottom,
at such distance from shore as would make them easy of defence
against enemies. The foundations of whole villages of these
dwellings have been found in the Swiss and North Italian
lakes, and less numerously elsewhere. From the lake-mud under
and around them, a great quantity of relics of the
lake-dwellers have been taken, and many facts about their arts
and mode of life have been learned. It is known that, even
before a single metal had come into their hands, they had
begun to cultivate the earth; had raised wheat and barley and
flax; had domesticated the horse, the ox, the sheep, the goat,
the pig and the dog; had become fairly skilful in weaving, in
rope-making, and in the art of the potter, but without the
potter's wheel.
Gradually copper and bronze made their appearance among the
implements of these people, as modern search discovers them
imbedded, layer upon layer, in the old ooze of the lake-beds
where they were dropped. In time, iron, too, reveals itself
among their possessions, showing that they lived in their
lake-villages from the later Stone Age into that third period
of the early process of civilization which is named the Iron
Age—when men first acquired the use of the most useful of all
the metals. It appears, in fact, that the lake-dwellings were
occupied even down to Roman times, since articles of Roman
make have been found in the ruins of them.
Barrows.
In nearly all parts of Europe there are found burial mounds,
called barrows, which contain buried relics of people who
lived at one or the other of the three periods named. For the
most part, they represent inhabitants of the Neolithic and of
the Bronze Ages. In Great Britain some of these barrows are
long, some are round; and the skulls found in the long barrows
are different in shape from those in the round ones, showing a
difference of race. The people to whom the first belonged are
called "long-headed," or "dolichocephalic"; the others are
called "broad-headed," or "brachycephalic." In the opinion of
some ethnologists, who study this subject of the distinctions
of race in the human family, the broad-headed people were
ancestors of the Celtic or Keltic tribes, whom the Romans
subdued in Gaul and Britain; while the long-headed men were of
a preceding race, which the Celts, when they came, either
drove out of all parts of Europe, except two or three
mountainous corners, or else absorbed by intermarriage. The
Basques of northwestern Spain, and some of their neighbors on
the French side of the Pyrenees, are supposed to be survivals
of this very ancient people; and there are suspected to be
traces of their existence seen in the dark-haired and
dark-skinned people of parts of Wales, Ireland, Corsica, North
Africa, and elsewhere.
The Aryan Nations.
At least one part of this conjecture has much to rest upon.
The inhabitants of western Europe when our historical
knowledge of them—that is, our recorded and reported
knowledge of them—begins, were, certainly, for the most
part, Celtic peoples, and it is extremely probable that they
had been occupying the country as long as the period
represented by the round barrows. It is no less probable that
they were the lake-dwellers of Switzerland, North Italy, and
other regions; and that they did, in fact, displace some
earlier people in most parts of Western Europe.
The Celts—whose nearly pure descendants are found now in the
Bretons of France, the Welsh, the Highland Scotch and the
Celtic Irish, and who formed the main stock of the larger part
of the French nation—were one branch of the great family of
nations called Aryan or Indo-European. The Aryan peoples are
assumed to be akin to one another—shoots from one
stem—because their languages are alike in grammatical
structure and contain great numbers of words that are
manifestly formed from the same original "root"; and because
they differ in these respects from all other languages. The
nations thus identified as Aryan are the nations that have
acted the most important parts in all human history except the
history of extremely ancient times. Besides the Celtic peoples
already mentioned, they include the English, the Dutch, the
Germans, and the Scandinavians, forming the Teutonic race; the
Russians, Poles, and others of the Slavonic group; the ancient
Greeks and Romans, with their modern representatives, and the
Persians and Hindus in Asia. According to the evidence of
their languages, there must have been a time and a place, in
the remote past, when and where a primitive Aryan race, which
was ancestral to all these nations, lived and multiplied until
it outgrew its original country and began to send forth
successive "swarms," or migrating hordes, as many unsettled
races have been seen to do within the historic age.
{991}
It is hopeless, perhaps, to think of determining the time when
such a dispersion of the Aryan peoples began; but many
scholars believe it possible to trace, by various marks and
indications, in language and elsewhere, the lines of movement
in the migration, so far as to guess with some assurance the
region of the primitive Aryan home; but thus far there are
great disagreements in the guessing. Until recent years, the
prevailing judgment pointed to that highland district in
Central Asia which lies north of the Hindoo-Koosh range of
mountains, and between the upper waters of the Oxus and
Jaxartes. But later studies have discredited this first theory
and started many opposing ones. The strong tendency now is to
believe that the cradle of all the peoples of Aryan speech was
somewhere in Europe, rather than in Asia, and in the north of
Europe rather than in the center or the south. At the same
time, there seems to be a growing opinion that the language of
the Aryans was communicated to conquered peoples so
extensively that its spread is not a true measure of the
existing diffusion of the race.
The Celtic Branch.
Whatever may have been the starting-point of the Aryan
migrations, it is supposed that the branch now distinguished
as Celtic was the first to separate from the parent stem and
to acquire for itself a new domain. It occupied southwestern
Europe, from northern Spain to the Rhine, and across the
Channel to the British islands, extending eastward into
Switzerland, North It&ly and the Tyrol. But little of what the
tribes and nations forming this Celtic race did is known,
until the time when another Aryan people, better civilized,
came into collision with them, and drew them into the written
history of the world by conquering them and making them its
subjects.
The people who did this were the Romans, and the Romans and
the Greeks are believed to have been carried into the two
peninsulas which they inhabited, respectively, by one and the
same movement in the Aryan dispersion. Their languages show
more affinity to one another than to the other Aryan tongues,
and there are other evidences of a near relationship between
them; though they separated, it is quite certain, long before
the appearance of either in history.
The Hellenes, or Greeks.
The Greeks, or Hellenes, as they called themselves, were the
first among the Aryan peoples in Europe to make themselves
historically known, and the first to write the record which
transmits history from generation to generation. The peninsula
in which they settled themselves is a very peculiar one in its
formation. It is crossed in different directions by mountain
ranges, which divide the land into parts naturally separated
from one another, and which form barriers easily defended
against invading foes. Between the mountains lie numerous
fertile valleys. The coast is ragged with gulfs and bays,
which notch it deeply on all sides, making the whole main
peninsula a cluster of minor peninsulas, and supplying the
people with harbors which invite them to a life of seafaring
and trade. It is surrounded, moreover, with islands, which
repeat the invitation.
Almost necessarily, in a country marked with such features so
strongly, the Greeks became divided politically into small
independent states—city-states they have been named—and
those on the sea-coast became engaged very early in trade with
other countries of the Mediterranean Sea. Every city of
importance in Greece was entirely sovereign in the government
of itself and of the surrounding territory which formed its
domain. The stronger among them extended their dominion over
some of the weaker or less valiant ones; but even then the
subject cities kept a considerable measure of independence.
There was no organization of national government to embrace
the whole, nor any large part, of Greece. Certain among the
states were sometimes united in temporary leagues, or
confederacies, for common action in war; but these were
unstable alliances, rather than political unions. In their
earliest form, the Greek city-states were governed by kings,
whose power appears to have been quite limited, and who were
leaders rather than sovereigns. But kingship disappeared from
most of the states in Greece proper before they reached the
period of distinct and accepted history. The kings were first
displaced by aristocracies—ruling families, which took all
political rights and privileges to themselves, and allowed
their fellows (whom they usually oppressed) no part or voice
in public affairs. In most instances these aristocracies, or
oligarchies, were overthrown, after a time, by bold agitators
who stirred up a revolution, and then contrived, while
confusion prevailed, to gather power into their own hands.
Almost every Greek city had its time of being ruled by one or
more of these Tyrants, as they were called. Some of them, like
Pisistratus of Athens, ruled wisely and justly for the most
part, and were not "tyrants" in the modern sense of the term;
but all who gained and held a princely power unlawfully were
so named by the Greeks. The reign of the Tyrants was nowhere
lasting. They were driven out of one city after another until
they disappeared. Then the old aristocracies came uppermost
again in some cities, and ruled as before. But some, like
Athens, had trained the whole body of their citizens to such
intelligence and spirit that neither kingship nor oligarchy
would be endured any longer, and the people undertook to
govern themselves. These were the first democracies—the first
experiments in popular government—that history gives any
account of. "The little commonwealths of Greece," says a great
historian, "were the first states at once free and civilized
which the world ever saw. They were the first states which
gave birth to great statesmen, orators, and generals who did
great deeds, and to great historians who set down those great
deeds in writing. It was in the Greek commonwealths, in short,
that the political and intellectual life of the world began."
In the belief of the Greeks, or of most men among them, their
early history was embodied with truth in the numerous legends
and ancient poems which they religiously preserved; but people
in modern times look differently upon those wonderful myths
and epics, studying them with deep interest, but under more
critical views. They throw much light on the primitive life of
the Hellenes, and more light upon the development of the
remarkable genius and spirit of those thoughtful and
imaginative people; but of actual history there are only
glimpses and guesses to be got from them.
{992}
The Homeric poems, the "Iliad" and the "Odyssey," describe a
condition of things in which the ruling state of Peloponnesus
(the southern peninsula of Greece) was a kingdom of the
Achaians, having its capital at Mycenæ, in Argolis,—the realm
of King Agamemnon,—and in which Athens is unknown to the
poet. Within recent years, Dr. Schliemann has excavated the
ruins of Mycenæ, and has found evidence that it really must
have been, in very early times, the seat of a strong and rich
monarchy. But the Achaian kingdom had entirely disappeared,
and the Achaian people had shrunk to an insignificant
community, on the Gulf of Corinth, when the first assured
views of Greek history open to us.
The Dorians.
It seems to be a fact that the Achaians had been overwhelmed
by a great invasion of more barbarous Greek tribes from the
North, very much as the Roman Empire, in later times, was
buried under an avalanche of barbarism from Germany. The
invaders were a tribe or league of tribes called Dorians, who
had been driven from their own previous home on the slopes of
the Pindus mountain range. Their movement southward was part,
as appears, of an extensive shifting of place, or migration,
that occurred at that time (not long, it is probable, before
the beginning of the historic period) among the tribes of
Hellas. The Dorians claimed that in conquering Peloponnesus
they were recovering a heritage from which their chiefs had
been anciently expelled, and their legends were shaped
accordingly. The Dorian chiefs appeared in these legends as
descendants of Hercules, and the tradition of the conquest
became a story of "The Return of the Heraclids."
The principal states founded or possessed and controlled by
the Dorians in Peloponnesus, after their conquest, were
Sparta, or Lacedæmon, Argos, and Corinth. The Spartans were
the most warlike of the Greeks,—the most resolute and
energetic,—and their leadership in practical affairs common
to the whole came to be generally acknowledged. At the same
time they had little of the intellectual superiority which
distinguished some of their Hellenic kindred in so remarkable
a degree. Their state was organized on military principles;
its constitution (the body of famous ordinances ascribed to
Lycurgus) was a code of rigid discipline, which dealt with the
citizen as a soldier always under training for war, and
demanded from him the utmost simplicity of life. Their form of
government combined a peculiar monarchy (having two royal
families and two kings) with an aristocratic senate (the
Gerousia), and a democratic assembly (which voted on matters
only as submitted to it by the senate), with an irresponsible
executive over the whole, consisting of five men called the
Ephors. This singular government, essentially aristocratic or
oligarchical, was maintained, with little disturbance or
change, through the whole independent history of Sparta. In
all respects, the Spartans were the most conservative and the
least progressive among the politically important Greeks.
At the beginning of the domination of the Dorians in
Peloponnesus, their city of Argos took the lead, and was the
head of a league which included Corinth and other city-states.
But Sparta soon rose to rivalry with Argos; then reduced it to
a secondary place, and finally subjugated it completely.
The Ionians.
The extensive shifting of population which had produced its
most important result in the invasion of Peloponnesus by the
Dorians, must have caused great commotions and changes
throughout the whole Greek peninsula; and quite as much north
of the Corinthian isthmus as south of it. But in the part
which lies nearest to the isthmus—the branch peninsula of
Attica—the old inhabitants appear to have held their ground,
repelling invaders, and their country was affected only by an
influx of fugitives, flying from the conquered Peloponnesus.
The Attic people were more nearly akin to the expelled
Achaians and Ionians than to the conquering Dorians, although
a common brotherhood in the Hellenic race was recognized by
all of them. Whatever distinction there may have been before
between Achaians and Ionians now practically disappeared, and
the Ionic name became common to the whole branch of the Greek
people which derived itself from them. The important division
of the race through all its subsequent history was between
Dorians and Ionians. The Æolians constituted a third division,
of minor importance and of far less significance. The
distinction between Ionians and Dorians was a very real one,
in character no less than in traditions and name. The Ionians
were the superior Greeks on the intellectual side. It was
among them that the wonderful genius resided which produced
the greater marvels of art, literature and philosophy in Greek
civilization. It was among them, too, that the institutions of
political freedom were carried to their highest attainment.
Their chief city was Athens, and the splendor of its history
bears testimony to their unexampled genius. On the other hand,
the Dorians were less thoughtful, less imaginative, less broad
in judgment or feeling—less susceptible, it would seem, of a
high refinement of culture; but no less capable in practical
pursuits, no less vigorous in effective action, and sounder,
perhaps, in their moral constitution. Sparta, which stood at
the head of the Doric states, contributed almost nothing to
Greek literature, Greek thought, Greek art, or Greek commerce,
but exercised a great influence on Greek political history.
Other Doric states, especially Corinth, were foremost in
commercial and colonizing enterprise, and attained some
brilliancy of artistic civilization, but with moderate
originality.
Greeks and Phœnicians.
It was natural, as noted above, that the Greeks should be
induced at an early day to navigate the surrounding seas, and
to engage in trade with neighboring nations. They were not
original, it is supposed, in these ventures, but learned more
or less of ship-building and the art of navigation from an
older people, the Phœnicians, who dwelt on the coast of Syria
and Palestine, and whose chief cities were Sidon and Tyre. The
Phœnicians had extended their commerce widely through the
Mediterranean before the Greeks came into rivalry with them.
Their ships, and their merchants, and the wares they bartered,
were familiar in the Ægean when the Homeric poems were
composed.
{993}
They seem to have been the teachers of the early Greeks in
many things. They gave them, with little doubt, the invention
of the alphabet, which they themselves had borrowed from
Egypt. They conveyed hints of art, which bore astonishing
fruits when planted in the fertile Hellenic imagination. They
carried from the East strange stories of gods and demigods,
which were woven into the mythology of the Greeks. They gave,
in fact, to Greek civilization, at its beginning, the greatest
impulse it received. But all that Hellas took from the outer
world it wrought into a new character, and put upon it the
stamp of its own unmistakable genius. In navigation and
commerce the Greeks of the coast-cities and the islands were
able, ere long, to compete on even terms with the Phœnicians,
and it happened, in no great space of time, that they had
driven the latter entirely from the Ægean and the Euxine seas.
Greek Colonies.
They had now occupied with colonies the coast of Asia Minor
and the islands on both their own coasts. The Ionian Greeks
were the principal colonizers of the Asiatic shore and of the
Cyclades. On the former and near it they founded twelve towns
of note, including Samos, Miletus, Ephesus, Chios, and Phocæa,
which are among the more famous cities of ancient times. Their
important island settlements in the Cyclades were Naxos,
Delos, Melos, and Paros. They possessed, likewise, the great
island of Eubœa, with its two wealthy cities of Chalcis and
Eretria. These, with Attica, constituted, in the main, the
Ionic portion of Hellas.
The Dorians occupied the islands of Rhodes and Cos, and
founded on the coast of Asia Minor the cities of Halicarnassus
and Cnidus. The important Æolian colonies in Asia were Smyrna
(acquired later by the Ionians), Temnos, Larissa, and Cyme. Of
the islands they occupied Lesbos and Tenedos.
From these settlements on neighboring coasts and islands the
vigorous Greeks pushed on to more distant fields. It is
probable that their colonies were in Cyprus and Crete before
the eighth century, B. C. In the seventh century B. C., during
a time of confusion and weakness in Egypt, they had entered
that country as allies or as mercenaries of the kings, and had
founded a city, Naucratis, which became an important agent in
the exchange of arts and ideas, as well as of merchandise,
between the Nile and the Ægean. Within a few years past the
site of Naucratis has been uncovered by explorers, and much
has been brought to light that was obscure in Greek and
Egyptian history before. Within the same seventh century,
Cyrene and Barca had been built on the African coast, farther
west. Even a century before that time, the Corinthians had
taken possession of Corcyra (modern Corfu), and they, with the
men of Chalcis and Megara, had been actively founding cities
that grew great and rich, in Sicily and in southern Italy,
which latter acquired the name of "Magna Græcia" (Great
Greece). At a not much later time they had pressed northwards
to the Euxine or Black Sea, and had scattered settlements
along the Thracian and Macedonian coast, including one
(Byzantium) on the Bosphorus, which became, after a thousand
years had passed, the imperial city of Constantinople. About
597 B. C., the Phocæans had planted a colony at Massalia, in
southern Gaul, from which sprang the great city known in
modern times as Marseilles. And much of all this had been
done, by Ionians and Dorians together, before Athens (in which
Attica now centered itself, and which loomed finally greater
in glory than the whole Hellenic world besides) had made a
known mark in history.
Rise of Athens.
At first there had been kings in Athens, and legends had
gathered about their names which give modern historians a
ground-work for critical guessing, and scarcely more. Then the
king disappeared and a magistrate called Archon took his
place, who held office for only ten years. The archons are
believed to have been chosen first from the old royal family
alone; but after a time the office was thrown open to all
noble families. This was the aristocratic stage of political
evolution in the city-state. The next step was taken in 683 B.
C. (which is said to be the beginning of authentic Athenian
chronology) when nine archons were created, in place of the
one, and their term of office was reduced to a single year.
Fifty years later, about 621 B. C., the people of Athens
obtained their first code of written law, ascribed to one
Draco, and described as a code of much severity. But it gave
certainty to law, for the first time, and was the first great
protective measure secured by the people. In 612 B. C. a noble
named Kylon attempted to overthrow the aristocratic government
and establish a tyranny under himself, but he failed.
Legislation of Solon.
Then there came forward in public life another noble, who was
one of the wisest men and purest patriots of any country or
age, and who made an attempt of quite another kind. This was
Solon, the famous lawgiver, who became archon in 594 B. C. The
political state of Athens at that time has been described for
us in an ancient Greek treatise lately discovered, and which
is believed to be one of the hitherto lost writings of
Aristotle. "Not only," says the author of this treatise, "was
the constitution at this time oligarchical in every respect,
but the poorer classes, men, women, and children, were in
absolute slavery to the rich. … The whole country was in the
hands of a few persons, and if the tenants failed to pay their
rent, they were liable to be haled into slavery, and their
children with them. Their persons were mortgaged to their
creditors." Solon saw that this was a state of things not to
be endured by such a people as the Athenians, and he exerted
himself to change it. He obtained authority to frame a new
constitution and a new code of laws for the state. In the
latter, he provided measures for relieving the oppressed class
of debtors. In the former, he did not create a democratic
government, but he greatly increased the political powers of
the people. He classified them according to their wealth,
defining four classes, the citizens in each of which had
certain political duties and privileges measured to them by
the extent of their property and income. But the whole body of
citizens, in their general assembly (the Ecclesia), were given
the important right of choosing the annual archons, whom they
must select, however, from the ranks of the wealthiest class.
At the same time, Solon enlarged the powers of the old
aristocratic senate—the Areopagus—giving it a supervision of
the execution of the laws and a censorship of the morals of
the people.
{994}
"These changes did not constitute Democracy,—a form of
government then unknown, and for which there was as yet no
word in the Greek language. But they initiated the democratic
spirit. … Athens, thus fairly started on her
way,—emancipated from the discipline of aristocratic
school-masters, and growing into an age of manly liberty and
self-restraint,—came eventually nearer to the ideal of 'the
good life' [Aristotle's phrase] than any other State in
Hellas."
(W. W. Fowler.)
Tyranny of Pisistratus.
But before the Athenians reached their nearness to this "good
life," they had to pass under the yoke of a "tyrant,"
Pisistratus, who won the favor of the poorer people, and, with
their help, established himself in the Acropolis (560 B. C.)
with a foreign guard to maintain his power. Twice driven out,
he was twice restored, and reigned quite justly and prudently,
on the whole, until his death in 527 B. C. He was succeeded by
his two sons, Hippias and Hipparchus; but the latter was
killed in 514, and Hippias was expelled by the Spartans in 510
B. C.; after which there was no tyranny in Athens.
The Democratic Republic.
On the fall of the Pisistratidæ, a majority of the noble or
privileged class struggled hard to regain their old
ascendancy; but one of their number, Cleisthenes, took the
side of the people and helped them to establish a democratic
constitution. He caused the ancient tribal division of the
citizens to be abolished, and substituted a division which
mixed the members of clans and broke up or weakened the
clannish influence in politics. He enlarged Solon's senate or
council and divided it into committees, and he brought the
"ecclesia," or popular assembly, into a more active exercise
of its powers. He also introduced the custom of ostracism,
which permitted the citizens of Athens to banish by their vote
any man whom they thought dangerous to the state. The
constitution of Cleisthenes was the final foundation of the
Athenian democratic republic. Monarchical and aristocratic
Sparta resented the popular change, and undertook to restore
the oligarchy by force of arms; but the roused democracy of
Athens defended its newly won liberties with vigor and
success.
The Persian Wars.
Not Athens only, but all Greece, was now about to be put to a
test which proved the remarkable quality of both, and formed
the beginning of their great career. The Ionian cities of Asia
Minor had recently been twice conquered, first by Crœsus, King
of Lydia, and then by Cyrus the Great, founder of the Persian
empire, who had overthrown Crœsus (B. C. 547), and taken his
dominions. The Persians oppressed them, and in 500 B. C. they
rose in revolt. Athens and Eretria sent help to them, while
Sparta refused. The revolt was suppressed, and Darius, the
king of Persia, planned vengeance upon the Athenians and
Eretrians for the aid they had given to it. He sent an
expedition against them in 493 B. C., which was mostly
destroyed by a storm. In 490 B. C. he sent a second powerful
army and fleet, which took Eretria and razed it to the ground.
The great Persian army then marched upon Athens, and was met at
Marathon by a small Athenian force of 9,000 men. The little
city of Platæa sent 1,000 more to stand with them in the
desperate encounter. They had no other aid in the fight, and
the Persians were a great unnumbered host. But Miltiades, the
Greek general that day, planned his battle-charge so well that
he routed the Asiatic host and lost but 192 men. The Persians
abandoned their attempt and returned to their wrathful king.
One citizen of Athens, Themistocles, had sagacity enough to
foresee that the "Great King," as he was known, would not rest
submissive under his defeat; and with difficulty he persuaded
his fellow citizens to prepare themselves for future conflicts
by building a fleet and by fortifying their harbors, thus making
themselves powerful at sea. The wisdom of his counsels was
proved in 480 B. C., when Xerxes, the successor of Darius, led
an army of prodigious size into Greece, crossing the
Hellespont by a bridge of boats. This time, Sparta, Corinth,
and several of the lesser states, rallied with Athens to the
defence of the common country; but Thebes and Argos showed
friendship to the Persians, and none of the important
island-colonies contributed any help. Athens was the brain and
right arm of the war, notwithstanding the accustomed
leadership of Sparta in military affairs.
The first encounter was at Thermopylæ, where Leonidas and his
300 Spartans defended the narrow pass, and died in their place
when the Persians found a way across the mountain to surround
them. But on that same day the Persian fleet was beaten at
Artemisium. Xerxes marched on Athens, however, found the city
deserted, and destroyed it. His fleet had followed him, and
was still stronger than the naval force of the Greeks.
Themistocles forced a battle, against the will of the
Peloponnesian captains, and practically destroyed the Persian
fleet. This most memorable battle of Salamis was decisive of
the war, and decisive of the independence of Greece. Xerxes,
in a panic, hastened back into Asia, leaving one of his
generals, Mardonius, with 300,000 men, to pursue the war. But
Mardonius was routed and his host annihilated, at Platæa, the
next year, while the Persian fleet was again defeated on the
same day at Mycale.
The Golden Age of Athens.
The war had been glorious for the Athenians, and all could see
that Greece had been saved by their spirit and their
intelligence much more than by the valor of Sparta and the
other states. But they were in a woful condition, with their
city destroyed and their families without homes. Wasting no
time in lamentations, they rebuilt the town, stretched its
walls to a wider circuit, and fortified it more strongly than
before, under the lead of the sagacious Themistocles. Their
neighbors were meanly jealous, and Sparta made attempts to
interfere with the building of the walls; but Themistocles
baffled them cunningly, and the new Athens rose proudly out of
the ashes of the old.
{995}
The Ionian islands and towns of Asia Minor (which had broken
the Persian yoke) now recognized the superiority and
leadership of Athens, and a league was formed among them,
which held the meetings of its deputies and kept its treasury
in the temple of Apollo on the sacred island of Delos; for
which reason it was called the Confederacy of Delos, or the
Delian League. The Peloponnesian states formed a looser rival
league under the headship of Sparta. The Confederacy of Delos
was in sympathy with popular governments and popular parties
everywhere, while the Spartans and their following favored
oligarchies and aristocratic parties. There were many
occasions for hostility between the two.
The Athenians, at the head of their Confederacy, were strong,
until they impaired their power by using it in tyrannical
ways. Many lesser states in the league were foolish enough to
commute in money payments the contribution of ships and men
which they had pledged themselves to make to the common naval
force. This gave Athens the power to use that force
despotically, as her own, and she did not scruple to exercise
the power. The Confederacy was soon a name; the states forming
it were no longer allies of Athens, but her subjects; she
ruled them as the sovereign of an Empire, and her rule was
neither generous nor just. Thereby the double tie of kinship
and of interest which might have bound the whole circle of
Ionian states to her fortunes and herself was destroyed by her
own acts. Provoking the hatred of her allies and challenging
the jealous fear of her rivals, Athens had many enemies.
At the same time, a dangerous change in the character of her
democratic institutions was begun, produced especially by the
institution of popular jury-courts, before which prosecutions
of every kind were tried, the citizens who constituted the
courts acting as jury and judge at once. This gave them a
valuable training, without doubt, and helped greatly to raise
the common standard of intelligence among the Athenians so
high; but it did unquestionably tend also to demoralizations
that were ruinous in the end. The jury service, which was
slightly paid, fell more and more to an unworthy class, made
up of idlers or intriguers. Party feeling and popular passions
gained an increasing influence over the juries, and demagogues
acquired an increasing skill in making use of them.
But these evils were scarcely more than in their seed during
the great period of "Athenian Empire," as it is sometimes
called, and everything within its bounds was suffused with the
shining splendor of that matchless half-century. The genius of
this little Ionic state was stimulated to amazing achievements
in every intellectual field. Æschylus, Sophocles, Euripides,
Aristophanes, within a single generation, crowded Athenian
literature with the masterpieces of classic drama. Pheidias
and his companions crowned the Acropolis and filled the city
with works that have been the models in art for all ages
since. Socrates began the quizzing which turned philosophy
into honest truth-seeking paths, and Plato listened to him and
was instructed for his mission. Thucydides watched events with
sagacious young eyes, and prepared his pen for the chronicling
of them; while Herodotus, pausing at Athens from his wide
travels, matured the knowledge he had gathered up and
perfected it for his final work. Over all of them came
Pericles to preside and rule, not as a master, or "tyrant,"
but as leader, guide, patron, princely republican,—statesman
and politician in one.
The Peloponnesian War.
The period of the ascendancy of Pericles was the "golden age"
of Athenian prosperity and power, both material and
intellectual. The beginning of the end of it was reached a
little before he died, when the long-threatened war between
Athens and the Peloponnesian league, led by Sparta, broke out
(B. C. 431). If Athens had then possessed the good will of the
cities of her own league, and if her citizens had retained
their old sobriety and intelligence, she might have triumphed
in the war; for she was all powerful at sea and fortified
almost invincibly against attacks by land. But the subject
states, called allies, were hostile, for the most part, and
helped the enemy by their revolts, while the death of Pericles
(B. C. 429) let loose on the people a swarm of demagogues who
flattered and deluded them, and baffled the wiser and more
honest, whose counsels and leadership might have given her
success.
The fatal folly of the long war was an expedition against the
distant city of Syracuse (B. C. 415-413), into which the
Athenians were enticed by the restless and unscrupulous
ambition of Alcibiades. The entire force sent to Sicily
perished there, and the strength and spirit of Athens were
ruinously sapped by the fearful calamity. She maintained the
war, however, until 404 B. C., when, having lost her fleet in
the decisive battle of Ægospotami, and being helplessly
blockaded by sea and land, the city was surrendered to the
Spartan general Lysander. Her walls and fortifications were
then destroyed and her democratic government was overthrown,
giving place to an oligarchy known as the "thirty tyrants."
The democracy soon suppressed the thirty tyrants and regained
control, and Athens, in time, rose somewhat from her deep
humiliation, but never again to much political power in
Greece. In intellect and cultivation, the superiority of the
Attic state was still maintained, and its greatest productions
in philosophy and eloquence were yet to be given to the world.
Spartan and Theban Ascendancy.
After the fall of Athens, Sparta was dominant in the whole of
Greece for thirty years and more, exercising her power more
oppressively than Athens had done. Then Thebes, which had been
treacherously seized and garrisoned by the Spartans, threw off
their yoke (B. C. 379) and led a rising, under her great and
high-souled citizen, Epaminondas, which resulted in bringing
Thebes to the head of Greek affairs. But the Theban ascendancy
was short-lived, and ended with the death of Epaminondas in
362 B. C.
Macedonian Supremacy.
Meantime, while the city-states of Hellas proper had been
wounding and weakening one another by their jealousies and
wars, the semi-Greek kingdom of Macedonia, to the north of
them, in their own peninsula, had been acquiring their
civilization and growing strong. And now there appeared upon
its throne a very able king, Philip, who took advantage of
their divisions, interfered in their affairs, and finally made
a practical conquest of the whole peninsula, by his victory at
the battle of Chæronea (B. C. 338). At Athens, the great
orator Demosthenes had exerted himself for years to rouse
resistance to Philip. If his eloquence failed then, it has
served the world immortally since, by delighting and
instructing mankind.
{996}
King Philip was succeeded by his famous son, Alexander the
Great, who led an army of Macedonians and Greeks into Asia (B.
C. 334), overthrew the already crumbling Persian power,
pursued his conquests through Afghanistan to India, and won a
great empire which he did not live to rule. When he died (B.
C. 323), his generals divided the empire among them and fought
with one another for many years. But the general result was
the spreading of the civilization and language of the Greeks,
and the establishing of their intellectual influence, in
Egypt, in Syria, in Asia Minor, and beyond.
In Greece itself, a state of disturbance and of political
confusion and weakness prevailed for another century. There
was promise of something better, in the formation, by several
of the Peloponnesian states, of a confederacy called the
Achaian League, which might possibly have federated and
nationalized the whole of Hellas in the end; but the Romans,
at this juncture, turned their conquering arms eastward, and
in three successive wars, between 211 and 146 B. C., they
extinguished the Macedonian kingdom, and annexed it, with the
whole peninsula, to the dominions of their wonderful republic.
The Romans.
The Romans, as stated already, are believed to have been
originally near kindred to the Greeks. The same movement, it
is supposed, in the successive outswarmings of Aryan peoples,
deposited in one peninsula the Italian tribes, and in the next
peninsula, eastward, the tribes of the Hellenes. Among the
Italian tribes were Latins, Umbrians, Sabines, Samnites, etc.,
occupying the middle and much of the southern parts of the
peninsula, while a mysterious alien people, the Etruscans,
whose origin is not known, possessed the country north of them
between the Arno and the Tiber. In the extreme south were
remnants of a primitive race, the Iapygian, and Greek colonies
were scattered there around the coasts. From the Latins sprang
the Romans, at the beginning of their separate existence; but
there seems to have been a very early union of these Romans of
the primitive tradition with a Sabine community, whereby was
formed the Roman city-state of historical times. That union
came about through the settlement of the two communities,
Latin and Sabine, on two neighboring hills, near the mouth of
the river Tiber, on its southern bank. In the view of some
historians, it is the geographical position of those hills,
hardly less than the masterful temper and capacity of the race
seated on them, which determined the marvellous career of the
city founded on that site. Says Professor Freeman: "The whole
history of the world has been determined by the geological
fact that at a point a little below the junction of the Tiber
and the Anio the isolated hills stand nearer to one another
than most of the other hills of Latium. On a site marked out
above all other sites for dominion, the centre of Italy, the
centre of Europe, as Europe then was, a site at the junction
of three of the great nations of Italy, and which had the
great river as its highway to lands beyond the bounds of
Italy, stood two low hills, the hill which bore the name of
Latin Saturn, and the hill at the meaning of whose name of
Palatine scholars will perhaps guess for ever. These two
hills, occupied by men of two of the nations of Italy, stood
so near to one another that a strait choice indeed was laid on
those who dwelled on them. They must either join together on
terms closer than those which commonly united Italian leagues,
or they must live a life of border warfare more ceaseless,
more bitter, than the ordinary warfare of Italian enemies.
Legend, with all likelihood, tells us that warfare was tried;
history, with all certainty, tells us that the final choice
was union. The two hills were fenced with a single wall; the
men who dwelled on them changed from wholly separate
communities into tribes of a single city."
The followers of Romulus occupied the Palatine Mount, and the
Sabines were settled on the Quirinal. At subsequent times, the
Cœlian, the Capitoline, the Aventine, the Esquiline and the
Viminal hills were embraced in the circumvallation, and the
city on the seven hills thus acquired that name.
If modern students and thinkers, throwing light on the
puzzling legends and traditions of early Rome from many
sources, in language and archæology, have construed their
meaning lightly, then great importance attaches to those first
unions or incorporations of distinct settlements in the
forming of the original city-state. For it was the beginning
of a process which went on until the whole of Latium, and then
the whole of Italy, and, finally, the whole Mediterranean
world, were joined to the seven hills of Rome. "The whole
history of Rome is a history of incorporation"; and it is
reasonable to believe that the primal spring of Roman
greatness is found in that early adoption and persistent
practice of the policy of political absorption, which gave
conquest a character it had never borne before. At the same
time, this view of the creation of the Roman state contributes
to an understanding of its early constitutional history. It
supposes that the union of the first three tribes which
coalesced—those of the Palatine, the Quirinal and Capitoline
(both occupied by the Sabines) and the Cœlian hills—ended the
process of incorporation on equal terms. These formed the
original Roman people—the "fathers," the "patres," whose
descendants appear in later times as a distinct class or
order, the "patricians"—holding and struggling to maintain
exclusive political rights, and exclusive ownership of the
public domain, the "ager publicus," which became a subject of
bitter contention for four centuries. Around these heirs of
the "fathers" of Rome arose another class of Romans, brought
into the community by later incorporations, and not on equal
terms. If the first class were "fathers," these were children,
in a political sense, adopted into the Roman family, but without
a voice in general affairs, or a share in the public lands, or
eligibility to the higher offices of the state. These were the
"plebeians" or "plebs" of Rome, whose long struggle with the
patricians for political and agrarian rights is the more
interesting side of Roman history throughout nearly the whole
of the prosperous age of the republic.
{997}
At Rome, as at Athens, there was a period of early kingship,
the legends of which are as familiar to us all as the stories
of the Bible, but the real facts of which are almost totally
unknown. It is surmised that the later kings—the well known
Tarquins of the classical tale—were Etruscan princes (it is
certain that they were Etruscans), who had broken for a time
the independence of the Romans and extended their sovereignty
over them. It is suspected, too, that this period of Etruscan
domination was one in which Roman civilization made a great
advance, under the tuition of a more cultivated people. But if
Rome in its infancy did know a time of subjugation, the
endurance was not long. It ended, according to Roman
chronology, in the 245th year of the city, or 509 B.C., by the
expulsion of Tarquin the Proud, the last of the kings.
The Roman Republic.
The Republic was then founded; but it was an aristocratic and
not a democratic republic. The consuls, who replaced the
kings, were required to be patricians, and they were chosen by
the landholders of the state. The senate was patrician; all
the important powers of government were in patrician hands,
and the plebs suffered grievous oppression in consequence.
They were not of a tamely submissive race. They demanded
powers for their own protection, and by slow degrees they won
them—strong as the patricians were in their wealth and their
trained political skill.
Precisely as in Athens, the first great effort among the
common people was to obtain relief from crushing burdens of
debt, which had been laid upon them in precisely the same
way—by loss of harvests while in military service, and by the
hardness of the laws which creditors alone had framed. An army
of plebs, just home from war, marched out of the city and
refused to return until magistrates of their own choosing had
been conceded to them. The patricians could not afford to lose
the bone and sinew of their state, and they yielded the point
in demand (B. C. 494). This first "secession of the plebs"
brought about the first great democratic change in the Roman
constitution, by calling into existence a powerful
magistracy—the Tribunes of the Plebs—who henceforth stood
between the consuls and the common people, for the protection
of the latter.
From this first success the plebeian order went forward, step
by step, to the attainment of equal political rights in the
commonwealth, and equal participation in the lands which Roman
conquest was continually adding to the public domain. In 450
B. C., after ten years of struggle, they secured the
appointment of a commission which framed the famous Twelve
Tables of the Law, and so established a written and certain
code. Five years later, the caste exclusiveness of the
patricians was broken down by a law which permitted marriages
between the orders. In 367 B. C. the patrician monopoly of the
consular office was extinguished, by the notable Licinian
Laws, which also limited the extent of land that any citizen
might occupy, and forbade the exclusive employment of slave
labor on any estate. One by one, after that, other
magistracies were opened to the plebs; and in 287 B. C. by the
Lex Hortensia, the plebeian concilium, or assembly, was made
independent of the senate and its acts declared to be valid
and binding. The democratic commonwealth was now completely
formed.
Roman Conquest of Italy.
While these changes in the constitution of their Republic were
in progress, the Romans had been making great advances toward
supremacy in the peninsula. First they had been in league with
their Latin neighbors, for war with the Æquians, the
Volscians, and the Etruscans. The Volscian war extended over
forty years, and ended about 450 B. C. in the practical
disappearance of the Volscians from history. Of war with the
Æquians, nothing is heard after 458 B. C., when, as the tale
is told, Cincinnatus left his plow to lead the Romans against
them. The war with the Etruscans of the near city of Veii had
been more stubborn. Suspended by a truce between 474 and 438
B. C., it was then renewed, and ended in 396 B. C., when the
Etruscan city was taken and destroyed. At the same time the
power of the Etruscans was being shattered at sea by the
Greeks of Tarentum and Syracuse, while at home they were
attacked from the north by the barbarous Gauls or Celts.
These last named people, having crossed the Alps from Gaul and
Switzerland and occupied northern Italy, were now pressing
upon the more civilized nations to the south of the Po. The
Etruscans were first to suffer, and their despair became so
great that they appealed to Rome for help. The Romans gave
little aid to them in their extremity; but enough to provoke
the wrath of Brennus, the savage leader of the Gauls. He
quitted Etruria and marched to Rome, defeating an army which
opposed him on the Allia, pillaging and burning the city (B.
C. 390) and slaying the senators, who had refused to take
refuge, with other inhabitants, in the capitol. The defenders
of the capitol held it for seven months; Rome was rebuilt,
when the Gauls withdrew, and soon took up her war again with
the Etruscan cities. By the middle of the same century she was
mistress of southern Etruria, though her territories had been
ravaged twice again by renewed incursions of the Gauls. In a
few years more, when her allies of Latium complained of their
meager share of the fruits of these common wars, and demanded
Roman citizenship and equal rights, she fought them fiercely
and humbled them to submissiveness (B. C. 339-338), reducing
their cities to the status of provincial towns.
And now, having awed or subdued her rivals, her friends, and
her enemies, near at hand, the young Republic swung into the
career of rapid conquest which subdued to her will, within
three-fourths of a century, the whole of Italy below the mouth
of the Arno.
In 343 B. C. the Roman arms had been turned against the
Samnites at the south, and they had been driven from the
Campania. In 327 B. C. the same dangerous rivals were again
assailed, with less impunity. At the Caudine Forks, in 321 B.
C., the Samnites inflicted both disaster and shame upon their
indomitable foes; but the end of the war (B. C. 304) found
Rome advanced and Samnium fallen back. A third contest ended
the question of supremacy; but the Samnites (B. C. 290)
submitted to become allies and not subjects of the Roman
state.
In this last struggle the Samnites had summoned Gauls and
Etruscans to join them against the common enemy, and Rome had
overcome their united forces in a great fight at Sentinum.
This was in 295 B. C. Ten years later she annihilated the
Senonian Gauls, annexed their territory and planted a colony
at Sena on the coast. In two years more she had paralyzed the
Boian Gauls by a terrible chastisement, and had nothing more
to fear from the northward side of her realm. Then she turned
back to finish her work in the south.
{998}
War with Pyrrhus.
The Greek cities of the southern coast were harassed by
various marauding neighbors, and most of them solicited the
protection of Rome, which involved, of course, some surrender
of their independence. But one great city, Tarentum, the most
powerful of their number, refused these terms, and hazarded a
war with the terrible republic, expecting support from the
ambitious Pyrrhus, king of Epirus, on the Greek coast opposite
their own. Pyrrhus came readily at their call, with dreams of
an Italian kingdom more agreeable than his own. Assisted in
the undertaking by his royal kinsmen of Macedonia and Syria,
he brought an army of 25,000 men, with 20 elephants—which
Roman eyes had never seen before. In two bloody fights (B. C.
280-279), Pyrrhus was victorious; but the cost of victory was
so great that he dared not follow it up. He went over to
Sicily, instead, and waged war for three years (B. C. 278-276)
with the Carthaginians, who had subjugated most of the island.
The Epirot king brought timely aid to the Sicilian Greeks, and
drove their Punic enemies into the western border of the
island; but he claimed sovereignty over all that his arms
delivered, and was not successful in enforcing the claim. He
returned to Italy and found the Romans better prepared than
before to face his phalanx and his elephants. They routed him
at Beneventum, in the spring of 275 B. C. and he went back to
Epirus, with his dreams dispelled. Tarentum fell, and Southern
Italy was added to the dominion of Rome.
Punic Wars.
During her war with Pyrrhus, the Republic had formed an
alliance with Carthage, the powerful maritime Phœnician city
on the African coast. But friendship between these two cities
was impossible. The ambition of both was too boundless and too
fierce. They were necessarily competitors for supremacy in the
Mediterranean world, from the moment that a narrow strait
between Italy and Sicily was all that held them apart. Rome
challenged her rival to the duel in 264 B. C., when she sent
help to the Mamertines, a band of brigands who had seized the
Sicilian city of Messina, and who were being attacked by both
Carthaginians and Syracusan Greeks. The "First Punic War,"
then begun, lasted twenty-four years, and resulted in the
withdrawal of the Carthaginians from Sicily, and in their
payment of an enormous war indemnity to Rome. The latter
assumed a protectorate over the island, and the kingdom of
Hiero of Syracuse preserved its nominal independence for the
time; but Sicily, as a matter of fact, might already be looked
upon as the first of those provinces, beyond Italy, which Rome
bound to herself, one by one, until she had compassed the
Mediterranean with her dominion and gathered to it all the
islands of that sea.
The "Second Punic war," called sometimes the "Hannibalic war,"
was fought with a great Carthaginian, rather than with
Carthage herself. Hamilcar Barca had been the last and ablest
of the Punic generals in the contest for Sicily. Afterwards he
undertook the conquest of Spain, where his arms had such
success that he established a very considerable power, more
than half independent of the parent state. He nursed an
unquenchable hatred of Rome, and transmitted it to his son
Hannibal, who solemnly dedicated his life to warfare with the
Latin city. Hamilcar died, and in due time Hannibal found
himself prepared to make good his oath. He provoked a
declaration of war (B. C. 218) by attacking Saguntum, on the
eastern Spanish coast—a town which the Romans "protected."
The latter expected to encounter him in Spain; but before the
fleet bearing their legions to that country had reached
Massilia, he had already passed the Pyrenees and the Rhone,
with nearly 100,000 men, and was crossing the Alps, to assail
his astounded foes on their own soil. The terrific barrier was
surmounted with such suffering and loss that only 20,000 foot
and 6,000 horse, of the great army which left Spain, could be
mustered for the clearing of the last Alpine pass. With this
small following, by sheer energy, rapidity and precision of
movement—by force, in other words, of a military genius never
surpassed in the world—he defeated the armies of Rome again
and again, and so crushingly in the awful battle of Cannæ (B.
C. 216) that the proud republic was staggered, but never
despaired. For fifteen years the great Carthaginian held his
ground in southern Italy; but his expectation of being joined
by discontented subjects of Rome in the peninsula was very
slightly realized, and his own country gave him little
encouragement or help. His brother Hasdrubal, marching to his
relief in 207 B. C., was defeated on the river Metaurus and
slain. The arms of Rome had prospered meantime in Sicily and
in Spain, even while beaten at home, and her Punic rival had
been driven from both. In 204 B. C. the final field of battle
was shifted to Carthaginian territory by Scipio, of famous
memory, thereafter styled Africanus, because he "carried the
war into Africa." Hannibal abandoned Italy to confront him,
and at Zama, in the autumn of 202 B. C., the long contention
ended, and the career of Carthage as a Power in the ancient
world was forever closed. Existing by Roman sufferance for
another half century, she then gave her implacable conquerors
another pretext for war, and they ruthlessly destroyed her
(B.C. 146).
Roman Conquest of Greece.
In that same year of the destruction of Carthage, the conquest
of Greece was finished. The first war of the Romans on that
side of the Adriatic had taken place during the Second Punic
war, and had been caused by an alliance formed between
Hannibal and King Philip of Macedonia (B. C. 214). They
pursued it then no further than to frustrate Philip's designs
against themselves; but they formed alliances with the Greek
states oppressed or menaced by the Macedonian, and these drew
them into a second war, just as the century closed. On
Cynoscephalæ, Philip was overthrown (B. C. 197), his kingdom
reduced to vassalage, and the freedom of all Greece was
solemnly proclaimed by the Roman Consul Flaminius.
{999}
And now, for the first time, Rome came into conflict with an
Asiatic power. The throne of the Syrian monarchy, founded by
one of the generals of Alexander the Great, was occupied by a
king more ambitious than capable, who had acquired a large and
loosely jointed dominion in the East, and who bore the
sounding name of Antiochus the Great. This vainglorious King,
having a huge army and many elephants at his disposal, was
eager to try a passage at arms with the redoubtable men of
Rome. He was encouraged in his desire by the Ætolians in
Greece, who bore ill-will to Rome. Under this encouragement,
and having Hannibal—then a fugitive at his court—to give him
counsel, which he lacked intelligence to use, Antiochus
crossed the Ægean and invaded Greece (B. C. 192). The Romans
met him at the pass of Thermopylæ; drove him back to the
shores from which he came; pursued him thither; crushed and
humbled him on the field of Magnesia, and took the kingdoms
and cities of Asia Minor under their protection, as the allies
(soon to be subjects) of Rome.
Twenty years passed with little change in the outward
situation of affairs among the Greeks. But discontent with the
harshness and haughtiness of Roman "protection" changed from
sullenness to heat, and Perseus, son of Philip of Macedonia,
fanned it steadily, with the hope of bringing it to a flame.
Rome watched him with keen vigilance, and before his plans
were ripe her legions were upon him. He battled with them
obstinately for three years (B. C. 171-168); but his fate was
sealed at Pydna. He went as a prisoner to Rome; his kingdom
was broken into four small republics; the Achæan League was
stricken by the captivity of a thousand of its chief men; the
whole of Greece was humbled to submissiveness, though not yet
formally reduced to the state of a Roman province. That
followed some years later, when risings in Macedonia and
Achaia were punished by the extinction of the last semblance
of political independence in both (B. C. 148-146).
The Zenith of the Republic.
Rome now gripped the Mediterranean (the ocean of the then
civilized world) as with four fingers of a powerful hand: one
laid on Italy and all its islands, one on Macedonia and
Greece, one on Carthage, one on Spain, and the little finger
of her "protection" reaching over to the Lesser Asia. Little
more than half a century, since the day that Hannibal
threatened her own city gates, had sufficed to win this vast
dominion. But the losses of the Republic had been greater,
after all, than the gains; for the best energies of its
political constitution had been expended in the acquisition,
and the nobler qualities in its character had been touched
with the incurable taints of a licentious prosperity.
Beginning of Decline.
A century and a half had passed since the practical ending of
the struggle of plebeians with patricians for political and
agrarian rights. In theory and in form, the constitution
remained as democratic as it was made by the Licinian Laws of
367 B. C., and by the finishing touch of the Hortensian Law of
287 B. C. But in practical working it had reverted to the
aristocratic mode. A new aristocracy had risen out of the
plebeian ranks to reinforce the old patrician order. It was
composed of the families of men who had been raised to
distinction and ennobled by the holding of eminent offices,
and its spirit was no less jealous and exclusive than that of
the older high caste.
The Senate and the Mob.
Thus strengthened, the aristocracy had recovered its
ascendancy in Rome, and the Senate, which it controlled, had
become the supreme power in government. The amazing success of
the Republic during the last century just reviewed—its
successes in war, in diplomacy, and in all the sagacious
measures of policy by which its great dominion had been
won—are reasonably ascribed to this fact. For the Senate had
wielded the power of the state, in most emergencies, with
passionless deliberation and with unity and fixity of aim.
But it maintained its ascendancy by an increasing employment
of means which debased and corrupted all orders alike. The
people held powers which might paralyze the Senate at any
moment, if they chose to exercise them, through their
assemblies and their tribunes. They had seldom brought those
powers into play thus far, to interfere with the senatorial
government of the Republic, simply because they had been
bribed to abstain. The art of the politician in Rome, as
distinguished from the statesman, had already become
demagoguery. This could not well have been otherwise under the
peculiar constitution of the Roman citizenship. Of the
thirty-five tribes who made up the Roman people, legally
qualified to vote, only four were within the city. The
remaining thirty-one were "plebs urbana." There was no
delegated representation of this country populace—citizens
beyond the walls. To exercise their right of suffrage they
must be personally present at the meetings of the "comitia
tributa"—the tribal assemblies; and those of any tribe who
chanced to be in attendance at such a meeting might give a
vote which carried with it the weight of their whole tribe.
For questions were decided by the majority of tribal, not
individual, votes; and a very few members of a tribe might act
for and be the tribe, for all purposes of voting, on occasions
of the greatest possible importance. It is quite evident that
a democratic system of this nature gave wide opportunity for
corrupt "politics." There must have been, always, an
attraction for the baser sort among the rural plebs, drawing
them into the city, to enjoy the excitement of political
contests, and to partake of the flatteries and largesses which
began early to go with these. And circumstances had tended
strongly to increase this sinister sifting into Rome of the
most vagrant and least responsible of her citizens, to make
them practically the deputies and representatives of that
mighty sovereign which had risen in the world—the "Populus
Romanus." For there was no longer either thrift or dignity
possible in the pursuits of husbandry. The long Hannibalic War
had ruined the farming class in Italy by its ravages; but the
extensive conquests that followed it had been still more
ruinous to that class by several effects combined. Corn
supplies from the conquered provinces were poured into Rome at
cheapened prices; enormous fortunes, gathered in the same
provinces by officials, by farmers of taxes, by money-lenders,
and by traders, were largely invested in great estates,
absorbing the small farms of olden time; and, finally,
free-labor in agriculture was supplanted, more and more, by
the labor of slaves, which war and increasing wealth combined
to multiply in numbers. Thus the "plebs urbana" of Rome were a
depressed and, therefore, a degenerating class, and the same
circumstances that made them so impelled them towards the
city, to swell the mob which held its mighty sovereignty in
their hands.
{1000}
So far, a lavish amusement of this mob with free games, and
liberal bribes, had kept it generally submissive to the
senatorial government. But the more it was debased by such
methods, and its vagrancy encouraged, the more extravagant
gratuities of like kind it claimed. Hence a time could never
be far away when the aristocracy and the senate would lose
their control of the popular vote on which they had built
their governing power.
Agrarian Agitations.
But they invited the quicker coming of that time by their own
greediness in the employment of their power for selfish and
dishonest ends. They had practically recovered their monopoly
of the use of the public lands. The Licinian law, which
forbade any one person to occupy more than five hundred jugera
(about three hundred acres) of the public lands, had been made
a dead letter. The great tracts acquired in the Samnite wars,
and since, had remained undistributed, while the use and
profit of them were enjoyed, under one form of authority or
another, by rich capitalists and powerful nobles.
This evil, among many that waxed greater each year, caused the
deepest discontent, and provoked movements of reform which
soon passed by rapid stages into a revolution, and ended in
the fall of the Republic. The leader of the movement at its
beginning was Tiberius Gracchus, grandson of Scipio Africanus
on the side of his mother, Cornelia. Elected tribune in 133 B.
C., he set himself to the dangerous task of rousing the people
against senatorial usurpations, especially in the matter of
the public domain. He only drew upon himself the hatred of the
senate and its selfish supporters; he failed to rally a
popular party that was strong enough for his protection, and
his enemies slew him in the very midst of a meeting of the
tribes. His brother Caius took up the perilous cause and won
the office of tribune (B. C. 123) in avowed hostility to the
senatorial government. He was driven to bid high for popular
help, even when the measures which he strove to carry were
most plainly for the welfare of the common people, and he may
seem to modern eyes to have played the demagogue with some
extravagance. But statesmanship and patriotism without
demagoguery for their instrument or their weapon were hardly
practicable, perhaps, in the Rome of those days, and it is not
easy to find them clean-handed in any political leader of the
last century of the Republic. The fall of Caius Gracchus was
hastened by his attempt to extend the Roman franchise beyond
the "populus Romanus," to all the freemen of Italy. The mob in
Rome was not pleased with such political generosity, and
cooled in its admiration for the large-minded tribune. He lost
his office and the personal protection it threw over him, and
then he, like his brother, was slain (B. C. 121) in a melee.
Jugurthine War.
For ten years the senate, the nobility, and the capitalists
(now beginning to take the name of the equestrian order), had
mostly their own way again, and effaced the work of the
Gracchi as completely as they could. Then came disgraceful
troubles in Numidia which enraged the people and moved them to
a new assertion of themselves. The Numidian king who helped
Scipio to pull Carthage down had been a ward of Rome since
that time. When he died, he left his kingdom to be governed
jointly by two young sons and an older nephew. The latter,
Jugurtha, put his cousins out of the way, took the kingdom to
himself, and baffled attempts at Rome to call him to account,
by heavy bribes. The corruption in the case became so flagrant
that even the corrupted Roman populace revolted against it, and
took the Numidian business into its own hands. War was
declared against Jugurtha by popular vote, and, despite
opposing action in the Senate, one Marius, an experienced
soldier of humble birth, was elected consul and sent out to
take command. Marius distinguished himself in the war much
less than did one of his officers, Cornelius Sulla; but he
bore the lion's share of glory when Jugurtha was taken captive
and conveyed to Rome (B. C. 104). Marius was now the great
hero of the hour, and events were preparing to lift him to the
giddiest heights of popularity.
Teutones and Cimbri.
Hitherto, the barbarians of wild Europe whom the Romans had
met were either the Aryan Celts, or the non-Aryan tribes found
in northern Italy, Spain and Gaul. Now, for the first time,
the armies of Rome were challenged by tribes of another grand
division of the Aryan stock, coming out of the farther North.
These were the Cimbri and the Teutones, wandering hordes of
the great Teutonic or Germanic race which has occupied Western
Europe north of the Rhine since the beginning of historic
time. So far as we can know, these two were the first of the
Germanic nations to migrate to the South. They came into
collision with Rome in 113 B. C., when they were in Noricum,
threatening the frontiers of her Italian dominion. Four years
later they were in southern Gaul, where the Romans were now
settling colonies and subduing the native Celts. Twice they
had beaten the armies opposed to them; two years later they
added a third to their victories; and in 105 B. C. they threw
Rome into consternation by destroying two great armies on the
Rhone. Italy seemed helpless against the invasion for which
these terrible barbarians were now preparing, when Marius went
against them. In the summer of 102 B. C. he annihilated the
Teutones, near Aquæ Sextiæ (modern Aix), and in the following
year he destroyed the invading Cimbri, on a bloody field in
northern Italy, near modern Vercellæ.
Marius.
From these great victories, Marius went back to Rome, doubly
and terribly clothed with power, by the devotion of a reckless
army and the hero-worship of an unthinking mob. The state was
at his mercy. A strong man in his place might have crushed the
class-factions and accomplished the settlement which Cæsar
made after half a century more of turbulence and shame. But
Marius was ignorant, he was weak, and he became a mere
blood-stained figure in the ruinous anarchy of his time.
{1001}
Optimates and Populares.
The social and political state of the capital had grown
rapidly worse. A middle-class in Roman society had practically
disappeared. The two contending parties or factions, which had
taken new names—"optimates" and "populares"—were now
divided almost solely by the line which separates rich from
poor. "If we said that 'optimates' signified the men who
bribed and abused office under the banner of the Senate and
its connections, and that 'populares' meant men who bribed and
abused office with the interests of the people outside the
Senatorial pale upon their lips, we might do injustice to many
good men on both sides, but should hardly be slandering the
parties" (Beesly). There was a desperate conflict between the
two in the year 100, B. C. and the Senate once more recovered
its power for a brief term of years.
The Social War.
The enfranchisement of the so-called "allies"—the Latin and
other subjects of Rome who were not citizens—was the burning
question of the time. The attempt of Caius Gracchus to extend
rights of citizenship to them had been renewed again and
again, without success, and each failure had increased the
bitter discontent of the Italian people. In 90 B. C. they drew
together in a formidable confederation and rose in revolt. In
the face of this great danger Rome sobered herself to action
with old time wisdom and vigor. She yielded her full
citizenship to all Italian freemen who had not taken arms, and
then offered it to those who would lay their arms down. At the
same time, she fought the insurrection with every army she
could put into the field, and in two years it was at an end.
Marius and his old lieutenant, Sulla, had been the principal
commanders in this "Social War," as it was named, and Sulla
had distinguished himself most. The latter had now an army at
his back and was a power in the state, and between the two
military champions there arose a rivalry which produced the
first of the Roman Civil Wars.
Marius and Sulla.
A troublesome war in the East had been forced upon the Romans
by aggressions of Mithridates, King of Pontus. Both Marius and
Sulla aspired to the command. Sulla obtained election to the
consulship in 88 B. C. and was named for the coveted place.
But Marius succeeded in getting the appointment annulled by a
popular assembly and himself chosen instead for the Eastern
command. Sulla, personally imperilled by popular tumults, fled
to his legions, put himself at their head, and marched back to
Rome—the first among her generals to turn her arms against
herself. There was no effective resistance; Marius fled; both
Senate and people were submissive to the dictates of the
consul who had become master of the city. He "made the tribes
decree their own political extinction, resuscitating the
comitia centuriata; he reorganized the Senate by adding three
hundred to its members and vindicating the right to sanction
legislation; conducted the consular elections, exacting from
L. Cornelius Cinna, the newly elected consul, a solemn oath
that he would observe the new regulations, and securing the
election of Cn. Octavius in his own interest, and then, like
'a countryman who had just shaken the lice off his coat,' to
use his own figure, he turned to do his great work in the
East."
(Horton).
Sulla went to Greece, which was in revolt and in alliance with
Mithridates, and conducted there a brilliant, ruthless
campaign for three years (B. C. 87-84), until he had restored
Roman authority in the peninsula, and forced the King of
Pontus to surrender all his conquests in Asia Minor. Until
this task was finished, he gave no heed to what his enemies
did at Rome; though the struggle there between "Sullans" and
"Marians" had gone fiercely and bloodily on, and his own
partisans had been beaten in the fight. The consul Octavius,
who was in Bulla's interest, had first driven the consul Cinna
out of the city, after slaying 10,000 of his faction. Cinna's
cause was taken up by the new Italian citizens; he was joined
by the exiled Marius, and these two returned together, with an
army which the Senate and the party of Sulla were unable to
resist. Marius came back with a burning heart and with savage
intentions of revenge. A horrible massacre of his opponents
ensued, which went on unchecked for five days, and was
continued more deliberately for several months, until Marius
died, at the beginning of the year 86 B. C. Then Cinna ruled
absolutely at Rome for three years, supported in the main by
the newly-made citizens; while the provinces generally
remained under the control of the party of the optimates. In
83 B. C. Sulla, having finished with carefulness his work in
the East, came back into Italy, with 40,000 veterans to attend
his steps. He had been outlawed and deprived of his command,
by the faction governing at the capital; but its decrees had
no effect and troubled him little. Cinna had been killed by
his own troops, even before Bulla's landing at Brundisium.
Several important leaders and soldiers on the Marian side,
such as Pompeius, then a young general, and Crassus, the
millionaire, went over to Sulla's camp. One of the consuls of
the year saw his troops follow their example, in a body; the
other consul was beaten and driven into Capua. Sulla wintered
in Campania, and the next spring he pressed forward to Rome,
fighting a decisive battle with Marius the younger on the way,
and took possession of the city; but not in time to prevent a
massacre of senators by the resentful mob.
Sulla's Dictatorship.
Before that year closed, the whole of Italy had been subdued,
the final battle being fought with the Marians and Italians at
the Colline Gate, and Sulla again possessed power supreme. He
placed it beyond dispute by a deliberate extermination of his
opponents, more merciless than the Marian massacre had been.
They were proscribed by name, in placarded lists, and rewards
paid to those who killed them; while their property was
confiscated, and became the source of vast fortunes to Sulla's
supporters, and of lands for distribution to his veterans.
When this terror had paralyzed all resistance to his rule, the
Dictator (for he had taken that title) undertook a complete
reconstruction of the constitution, aiming at a permanent
restoration of senatorial ascendancy and a curbing of the
powers which the people, in their assemblies, and the
magistrates who especially represented them, had gained during
the preceding century. He remodelled, moreover, the judicial
system, and some of his reforms were undoubtedly good, though
they did not prove enduring. When he had fashioned the state
to his liking, this extraordinary usurper quietly abdicated
his dictatorial office (B. C. 80) and retired to private life,
undisturbed until his death (B. C. 78).
{1002}
After Sulla.
The system he had established did not save Rome from renewed
distractions and disorder after Sulla died. There was no
longer a practical question between Senate and people—between
the few and the many in government. The question now, since
the legionaries held their swords prepared to be flung into
the scale, was what one should again gather the powers of
government into his hands, as Sulla had done.
The Great Game and the Players.
The history of the next thirty years—the last generation of
republican Rome—is a sad and sinister but thrilling chronicle
of the strifes and intrigues, the machinations and
corruptions, of a stupendous and wicked game in politics that
was played, against one another and against the Republic, by a
few daring, unscrupulous players, with the empire of the
civilized world for the stake between them. There were more
than a few who aspired; there were only three players who
entered really as principals into the game. These were
Pompeius, called "the Great," since he extinguished the Marian
faction in Sicily and in Spain; Crassus, whose wealth gave him
power, and who acquired some military pretensions besides, by
taking the field against a formidable insurrection of slaves
(B. C. 73-71); and Julius Cæsar, a young patrician, but nephew
of Marius by marriage, who assiduously strengthened that
connection with the party of the people, and who began, very
soon after Sulla's death, to draw attention to himself as a
rising power in the politics of the day. There were two other
men, Cicero and the younger Cato, who bore a nobler and
greater because less selfish part in the contest of that
fateful time. Both were blind to the impossibility of
restoring the old order of things, with a dominant Senate, a
free but well guided populace, and a simply ordered social
state; but their blindness was heroic and high-souled.
Pompeius in the East.
Of the three strong rivals for the vacant dictatorial chair
which waited to be filled, Pompeius held by far the greater
advantages. His fame as a soldier was already won; he had been
a favorite of Fortune from the beginning of his career;
everything had succeeded with him; everything was expected for
him and expected from him. Even while the issues of the great
struggle were pending, a wonderful opportunity for increasing
his renown was opened to him. The disorders of the civil war
had licensed a swarm of pirates, who fairly possessed the
eastern Mediterranean and had nearly extirpated the maritime
trade. Pompeius was sent against them (B. C. 67), with a
commission that gave him almost unlimited powers, and within
ninety days he had driven them from the sea. Then, before he
had returned from this exploit, he was invested with supreme
command in the entire East, where another troublesome war with
Mithridates was going on. He harvested there all the laurels
which belonged by better right to his predecessor, Lucullus,
finding the power of Mithridates already broken down. From
Pontus he passed into Armenia, and thence into Syria, easily
subjugating both, and extinguishing the monarchy of the
Seleucids. The Jews resisted him and he humbled them by the
siege and conquest of their sacred city. Egypt was now the
only Mediterranean state left outside the all-absorbing
dominion of Rome; and even Egypt, by bequest of its late king,
belonged to the Republic, though not yet claimed.
The First Triumvirate.
Pompeius came back to Rome in the spring of 61 B. C. so
glorified by his successes that he might have seemed to be
irresistible, whatever he should undertake. But, either
through an honest patriotism or an overweening confidence, he
had disbanded his army when he reached Italy, and he had
committed himself to no party. He stood alone and aloof, with
a great prestige, great ambitions, and no ability to use the
one or realize the other. Before another year passed, he was
glad to accept offers of a helping hand in politics from
Cæsar, who had climbed the ladder of office rapidly within
four or five years, spending vast sums of borrowed money to
amuse the people with games, and distinguishing himself as a
democratic champion. Cæsar, the far seeing calculator,
discerned the enormous advantages that he might gain for
himself by massing together the prestige of Pompeius, the
wealth of Crassus and his own invincible genius, which was
sure to be the master element in the combination. He brought
the coalition about through a bargain which created what is
known in history as the First Triumvirate, or supremacy of
three.
Cæsar in Gaul.
Under the terms of the bargain, Cæsar was chosen consul for 59
B. C., and at the end of his term was given the governorship
of Cisalpine and Transalpine Gaul, with command of three
legions there, for five years. His grand aim was a military
command—the leadership of an army—the prestige of a
successful soldier. No sooner had he secured the command than
fortune gave him opportunities for its use in the most
striking way and with the most impressive results. The Celtic
tribes of Gaul, north of the two small provinces which the
Romans had already acquired on the Mediterranean coast, gave
him pretexts or provocations (it mattered little to Cæsar
which) for war with them, and in a series of remarkable
campaigns, which all soldiers since have admired, he pushed
the frontiers of the dominion of Rome to the ocean and the
Rhine, and threatened the nations of Germany on the farther
banks of that stream. "The conquest of Gaul by Cæsar," says
Mr. Freeman, "is one of the most important events in the
history of the world. It is in some sort the beginning of
modern history, as it brought the old world of southern
Europe, of which Rome was the head, into contact with the
lands and nations which were to play the greatest part in
later times—with Gaul, Germany, and Britain." From Gaul
Cæsar crossed the channel to Britain in 55 B. C. and again in
the following year, exacting tribute from the Celtic natives,
but attempting no lodgment in the island.
{1003}
Meantime, while pursuing a career of conquest which excited
the Roman world, Cæsar never lost touch with the capital and
its seething politics. Each winter he repaired to Lucca, the
point in his province which was nearest to Rome, and conferred
there with his friends, who flocked to the rendezvous. He
secured an extension of his term, to enable him to complete
his plans, and year by year he grew more independent of the
support of his colleagues in the triumvirate, while they
weakened one another by their jealousies, and the Roman state
was more hopelessly distracted by factious strife.
End of the Triumvirate.
The year after Cæsar's second invasion of Britain, Crassus,
who had obtained the government of Syria, perished in a
disastrous war with the Parthians, and the triumvirate was at
an end. Disorder in Rome increased and Pompeius lacked energy
or boldness to deal with it, though he seemed to be the one
man present who might do so. He was made sole consul in 52 B.
C.; he might have seized the dictatorship, with approval of
many, but he waited for it to be offered to him, and the offer
never came. He drew at last into close alliance with the party
of the Optimates, and left the Populares to be won entirely to
Cæsar's side.
Civil War.
Matters came to a crisis in 50 B. C., when the Senate passed
an order removing Cæsar from his command and discharging his
soldiers who had served their term. He came to Ravenna with a
single legion and concerted measures with his friends. The
issue involved is supposed to have been one of life or death
to him, as well as of triumph or failure in his ambitions; for
his enemies were malignant. His friends demanded that he be
made consul, for his protection, before laying down his arms.
The Senate answered by proclaiming him a public enemy if he
failed to disband his troops with no delay. It was a
declaration of war, and Cæsar accepted it. He marched his
single legion across the Rubicon, which was the boundary of
his province, and advanced towards Rome.
Pompeius, with the forces he had gathered, retreated
southward, and consuls, senators and nobles generally streamed
after him. Cæsar followed them—turning aside from the
city—and his force gathered numbers as he advanced. The
Pompeians continued their flight and abandoned Italy,
withdrawing to Epirus, planning to gather there the forces of
the East and return with them. Cæsar now took possession of
Rome and secured the islands of Sicily and Sardinia, from
which it drew its supply of food. This done, he proceeded
without delay to Spain, where seven legions strongly devoted
to Pompeius were stationed. He overcame them in a single
campaign, enlisted most of the veterans in his own service,
and acquired a store of treasure. Before the year ended he was
again in Rome, where the citizens had proclaimed him dictator. He
held the dictatorship for eleven days, only, to legalize an
election which made him consul, with a pliant associate. He
reorganized the government, complete in all its branches,
including a senate, partly composed of former members of the
body who had remained or returned. Then (B. C. 48.—January) he
took up the pursuit of Pompeius and the Optimates. Crossing to
Epirus, after some months of changeful fortune, he fought and
won the decisive battle of Pharsalia. Pompeius, flying to
Egypt, was murdered there. Cæsar, following, with a small
force, was placed in great peril by a rising at Alexandria,
but held his ground until assistance came. He then garrisoned
Egypt with Roman troops and made the princess Cleopatra, who
had captivated him by her charms, joint occupant of the throne
with her younger brother. During his absence, affairs at Rome
were again disturbed, and he was once more appointed dictator,
as well as tribune for life. His presence restored order at
once, and he was soon in readiness to attack the party of his
enemies who had taken refuge in Africa. The battle of Thapsus,
followed by the suicide of Cato and the surrender of Utica,
practically finished the contest, though one more campaign was
fought in Spain the following year.
Cæsar Supreme.
Cæsar was now master of the dominions of Rome, and as entirely
a monarch as anyone of his imperial successors, who took his
name, with the power which he caused it to symbolize, and
called themselves "Cæsars," and "Imperators," as though the
two titles were equivalent. "Imperator" was the title under
which he chose to exercise his sovereignty. Other Roman
generals had been Imperators before, but he was the first to
be named Imperator for life, and the word (changed in our
tongue to Emperor) took a meaning from that day more regal
than Rex or King. That Cæsar, the Imperator, first of all
Emperors, ever coveted the crown and title of an
older-fashioned royalty, is not an easy thing to believe.
Having settled his authority firmly, he gave his attention to
the organization of the Empire (still Republic in name) and to
the reforming of the evils which afflicted it. That he did
this work with consummate judgment and success is the opinion
of all who study his time. He gratified no resentments,
executed no revenges, proscribed no enemies. All who submitted
to his rule were safe; and it seems to be clear that the
people in general were glad to be rescued by his rule from the
old oligarchical and anarchical state. But some of Cæsar's own
partisans were dissatisfied with the autocracy which they
helped to create, or with the slenderness of their own parts
in it. They conspired with surviving leaders of the Optimates,
and Cæsar was assassinated by them, in the Senate chamber, on
the 15th of March, B. C. 44.
Professor Mommsen has expressed the estimate of Cæsar which
many thoughtful historians have formed, in the following
strong words: "In the character of Cæsar the great contrasts
of existence meet and balance each other. He was of the
mightiest creative power, and yet of the most penetrating
judgment; of the highest energy of will and the highest
capacity of execution; filled with republican ideals, and at
the same time born to be king. He was 'the entire perfect
man'; and he was this because he was the entire and perfect
Roman." This may be nearly true if we ignore the moral side of
Cæsar's character. He was of too large a nature to do evil
things unnecessarily, and so he shines even morally in
comparison with many of his kind; but he had no scruples.
{1004}
After the Murder of Cæsar.
The murderers of Cæsar were not accepted by the people as the
patriots and "liberators" which they claimed to be, and they
were soon in flight from the city. Marcus Antonius, who had
been Cæsar's associate in the consulship, now naturally and
skilfully assumed the direction of affairs, and aspired to
gather the reins of imperial power into his own hands. But
rivals were ready to dispute with him the great prize of
ambition. Among them, it is probable that Antony gave little
heed at first to the young man, Caius Octavius, or Octavianus,
who was Cæsar's nephew, adopted son and heir; for Octavius was
less than nineteen years old, he was absent in Apollonia, and
he was little known. But the young Cæsar, coming boldly though
quietly to Rome, began to push his hereditary claims with a
patient craftiness and dexterity that were marvellous in one
so young.
The Second Triumvirate.
The contestants soon resorted to arms. The result of their
first indecisive encounter was a compromise and the formation
of a triumvirate, like that of Cæsar, Pompeius and Crassus.
This second triumvirate was made up of Antonius, Octavius, and
Lepidus, lately master of the horse in Cæsar's army. Unlike
the earlier coalition, it was vengeful and bloody-minded. Its
first act was a proscription, in the terrible manner of Sulla,
which filled Rome and Italy with murders, and with terror and
mourning. Cicero, the patriot and great orator, was among the
victims cut down.
After this general slaughter of their enemies at home,
Antonius and Octavius proceeded against Brutus and Cassius,
two of the assassins of Cæsar, who had gathered a large force
in Greece. They defeated them at Philippi, and both
"liberators" perished by their own hands. The triumvirs now
divided the empire between them, Antonius ruling the East,
Octavius the West, and Lepidus taking Africa—that is, the
Carthaginian province, which included neither Egypt nor
Numidia. Unhappily for Antonius, the queen of Egypt was among
his vassals, and she ensnared him. He gave himself up to
voluptuous dalliance with Cleopatra at Alexandria, while the
cool intriguer, Octavius, at Rome, worked unceasingly to
solidify and increase his power. After six years had passed,
the young Cæsar was ready to put Lepidus out of his way, which
he did mercifully, by sending him into exile. After five years
more, he launched his legions and his war galleys against
Antonius, with the full sanction of the Roman senate and
people. The sea-fight at Actium (B. C. 31) gave Octavius the
whole empire, and both Antonius and Cleopatra committed
suicide after flying to Egypt. The kingdom of the Ptolemies
was now extinguished and became a Roman province in due form.
Octavius (Augustus) Supreme.
Octavius was now more securely absolute as the ruler of Rome
and its great empire than Sulla or Julius Cæsar had been, and
he maintained that sovereignty without challenge for
forty-five years, until his death. He received from the Senate
the honorary title of "Augustus," by which he is most commonly
known. For official titles, he took none but those which had
belonged to the institutions of the Republic, and were
familiarly known. He was Imperator, as his uncle had been. He
was Princeps, or head of the Senate; he was Censor; he was
Tribune; he was Supreme Pontiff. All the great offices of the
Republic he kept alive, and ingeniously constructed his
sovereignty by uniting their powers in himself.
Organization of the Empire.
The historical position of Augustus, as the real founder of
the Roman Empire, is unique in its grandeur; and yet History
has dealt contemptuously, for the most part, with his name.
His character has been looked upon, to use the language of De
Quincey, as "positively repulsive, in the very highest
degree." "A cool head," wrote Gibbon of him, "an unfeeling
heart, and a cowardly disposition, prompted him, at the age of
nineteen, to assume the mask of hypocrisy, which he never
afterwards laid aside." And again: "His virtues, and even his
vices, were artificial; and according to the various dictates
of his interest, he was at first the enemy, and at last the
father, of the Roman world." Yet, how can we deny surpassing
high qualities of some description to a man who set the
shattered Roman Republic, with all its democratic bases broken
up, on a new—an imperial—foundation, so gently that it
suffered no further shock, and so solidly that it endured, in
whole or in part, for a millennium and a half?
In the reign of Augustus the Empire was consolidated and
organized; it was not much extended. The frontiers were
carried to the Danube, throughout, and the subjugation of
Spain was made complete. Augustus generally discouraged wars
of conquest. His ambitious stepsons, Drusus and Tiberius,
persuaded him into several expeditions beyond the Rhine,
against the restless German nations, which perpetually menaced
the borders of Gaul; but these gained no permanent footing in
the Teutonic territory. They led, on the contrary, to a
fearful disaster (A. D. 9), near the close of the reign of
Augustus, when three legions, under Varus, were destroyed in
the Teutoburg Forest by a great combination of the tribes,
planned and conducted by a young chieftain named Hermann, or
Arminius, who is the national hero of Germany to this day.
The policy of Drusus in strongly fortifying the northern
frontier against the Germans left marks which are
conspicuously visible at the present day. From the fifty
fortresses which he is said to have built along the line
sprang many important modern cities,—Basel, Strasburg, Worms,
Mainz, Bingen, Coblenz, Bonn, Cologne, and Leyden, among the
number. From similar forts on the Danubian frontier rose
Vienna, Regensburg and Passau.
Tiberius, Caligula, Claudius and Nero.
Augustus died A. D. 11, and was succeeded in his honors, his
offices, and his powers, by his step-son, Tiberius Claudius
Nero, whom he had adopted. Tiberius, during most of his reign,
was a vigorous ruler, but a detestable man, unless his
subjects belied him, which some historians suspect. Another
attempt at the conquest of Germany was made by his nephew
Germanicus, son of Drusus; but the jealousy of the emperor
checked it, and Germanicus died soon after, believing that he
had been poisoned. A son of Germanicus, Caius, better known by
his nick-name of Caligula, succeeded to the throne on the
death of Tiberius (A. D. 37), and was the first of many
emperors to be crazed and made beast-like, in lust, cruelty
and senselessness, by the awful, unbounded power which passed
into their hands.
{1005}
The Empire bore his madness for three years, and then he was
murdered by his own guards. The Senate had thoughts now of
restoring the commonwealth, and debated the question for a
day; but the soldiers of the prætorian guard took it out of
their hands, and decided it, by proclaiming Tiberius Claudius
(A. D. 41), a brother of Germanicus, and uncle of the emperor
just slain. Claudius was weak of body and mind, but not
vicious, and his reign was distinctly one of improvement and
advance in the Empire. He began the conquest of Britain, which
the Romans had neglected since Cæsar's time, and he opened the
Senate to the provincials of Gaul. He had two wives of
infamous character, and the later one of these, Agrippina,
brought him a son, not his own, whom he adopted, and who
succeeded him (A.D. 54). This was Nero, of foul memory, who
was madman and monster in as sinister a combination as history
can show. During the reign of Nero, the spread of
Christianity, which had been silently making its way from
Judæa into all parts of the Empire, began to attract the
attention of men in public place, and the first persecution of
its disciples took place (A. D. 64). A great fire occurred in
Rome, which the hated emperor was believed to have caused; but
he found it convenient to accuse the Christians of the deed,
and large numbers of them were put to death in horrible ways.
Vespasian and his Sons.
Nero was tolerated for fourteen years, until the soldiers in
the provinces rose against him, and he committed suicide (A.
D. 68) to escape a worse death. Then followed a year of civil
war between rival emperors—Galba, Otho, Vitellius, and
Vespasian—proclaimed by different bodies of soldiers in
various parts of the Empire. The struggle ended in favor of
Vespasian, a rude, strong soldier, who purged the government,
disciplined the army, and brought society back toward simpler
and more decent ways. The great revolt of the Jews (A. D.
66-70) had broken out before he received the purple, and he
was commanding in Judæa when Nero fell. The siege, capture and
destruction of Jerusalem was accomplished by his son Titus. A
more formidable revolt in the West (A. D. 69) was begun the
Batavians, a German tribe which occupied part of the
Netherland territory, near the mouth of the Rhine. They were
joined by neighboring Gauls and by disaffected Roman
legionaries, and they received help from their German kindred
on the northern side of the Rhine. The revolt, led by a
chieftain named Civilis, who had served in the Roman army, was
overcome with extreme difficulty.
Vespasian was more than worthily succeeded (A. D. 79) by his
elder son, Titus, whose subjects so admired his many virtues
that he was called "the delight of the human race." His short
reign, however, was one of calamities: fire at Rome, a great
pestilence, and the frightful eruption of Vesuvius which
destroyed Herculaneum and Pompeii. After Titus came his
younger brother Domitian (A. D. 81), who proved to be another
creature of the monstrous species that appeared so often in
the series of Roman emperors. The conquest of southern Britain
(modern England) was completed in his reign by an able
soldier, Agricola, who fought the Caledonians of the North,
but was recalled before subduing them. Domitian was murdered
by his own servants (A. D. 96), after a reign of fifteen
years.
Nerva, Trajan and Hadrian.
Rome and the Empire were happy at last in the choice that was
made of a sovereign to succeed the hateful son of Vespasian.
Not the soldiery, but the Senate, made the choice, and it fell
on one of their number, Cocceius Nerva, who was already an
aged man. He wore the purple but sixteen months, and his
single great distinction in Roman history is, that he
introduced to the imperial succession a line of the noblest
men who ever sat in the seat of the Cæsars. The first of these
was the soldier Trajan, whom Nerva adopted and associated with
himself in authority. When Nerva died (A. D. 97), his son by
adoption ascended the throne with no opposition. The new
Emperor was simple and plain in his habits and manners of
life; he was honest and open in all his dealings with men; he
was void of suspicion, and of malice and jealousy no less. He
gave careful attention to the business of state and was wise
in his administration of affairs, improving roads, encouraging
trade, helping agriculture, and developing the resources of the
Empire in very prudent and practical ways. But he was a
soldier, fond of war, and he unwisely reopened the career of
conquest which had been almost closed for the Empire since
Pompeius came back from the East. A threatening kingdom having
risen among the Dacians, in the country north of the lower
Danube—the Transylvania and Roumania of the present day—he
attacked and crushed it, in a series of vigorous campaigns (A.
D. 101-106), and annexed the whole territory to the dominion
of Rome. He then garrisoned and colonized the country, and
Romanized it so completely that it keeps the Roman name, and
its language to this day is of the Latin stock, though Goths,
Huns, Bulgarians and Slavs have swept it in successive
invasions, and held it among their conquests for centuries at
a time. In the East, he ravaged the territory of the Parthian
king, entered his capital and added Mesopotamia, Armenia, and
Arabia Petræa to the list of Roman provinces. But he died (A.
D. 117) little satisfied with the results of his eastern
campaigns.
His successor abandoned them, and none have doubted that he
did well; because the Empire was weakened by the new frontier
in Asia which Trajan gave it to defend. His Dacian conquests
were kept, but all beyond the Euphrates in the East were given
up. The successor who did this was Hadrian, a kinsman, whom
the Emperor adopted in his last hours. Until near the close of
his life, Hadrian ranked among the best of the emperors. Rome
saw little of him, and resented his incessant travels through
every part of his great realm. His manifest preference for
Athens, where he lingered longest, and which flourished anew
under his patronage, was still more displeasing to the ancient
capital. For the Emperor was a man of cultivation, fond of
literature, philosophy and art, though busy with the cares of
State. In his later years he was afflicted with a disease
which poisoned his nature by its torments, filled his mind
with dark suspicions, and made him fitfully tyrannical and
cruel. The event most notable in his generally peaceful and
prosperous reign was the renewed and final revolt of the Jews,
under Barchochebas, which resulted in their total expulsion
from Jerusalem, and its conversion into a heathen city, with a
Roman name.
{1006}
The Antonines.
Hadrian had adopted before his death (A. D. 138) a man of
blameless character, Titus Aurelius Antoninus, who received
from his subjects, when he became Emperor, the appellation
"Pius," to signify the dutiful reverence and kindliness of his
disposition. He justified the name of Antoninus Pius, by which
he is historically known, and his reign, though disturbed by
some troubles on the distant borders of the Empire, was happy
for his subjects in nearly all respects. "No great deeds are
told of him, save this, perhaps the greatest, that he secured
the love and happiness of those he ruled" (Capes).
Like so many of the emperors, Antoninus had no son of his own;
but even before he came to the throne, and at the request of
Hadrian, he had adopted a young lad who won the heart of the
late Emperor while still a child. The family name of this son
by adoption was Verus, and he was of Spanish descent; the name
which he took, in his new relationship, was Marcus Aurelius
Antoninus. It is unquestionably the most illustrious name in
the whole imperial line, from Augustus to the last
Constantine, and made so, not so much by deeds as by
character. He gave the world the solitary example of a
philosopher upon the throne. There have been a few—a very
few—surpassingly good men in kingly places; but there has
never been another whose soul was lifted to so serene a height
above the sovereignty of his station. Unlimited power tempted
no form of selfishness in him; he saw nothing in his imperial
exaltation but the duties which it imposed. His mind was
meditative, and inclined him to the studious life; but he
compelled himself to be a man of vigor and activity in
affairs. He disliked war; but he spent years of his life in
camp on the frontiers; because it fell to his lot to encounter
the first great onset of the barbarian nations of the north,
which never ceased from that time to beat against the barriers
of the Empire until they had broken them down. His struggle
was on the line of the Danube, with the tribes of the
Marcomanni, the Quadi, the Vandals, and others of less
formidable power. He held them back, but the resources of the
Empire were overstrained and weakened lastingly by the effort.
For the first time, too, there were colonies of barbarians
brought into the Empire, from beyond its lines, to be settled
for the supply of soldiers to the armies of Rome: It was a
dangerous sign of Roman decay and a fatal policy to begin. The
decline of the great world-power was, in truth, already well
advanced, and the century of good emperors which ended when
Marcus Aurelius died (A. D. 180), only retarded, and did not
arrest, the progress of mortal maladies in the state.
From Commodus to Caracalla.
The best of emperors was followed on the throne by a son,
Commodus, who went mad, like Nero and Caligula, with the
drunkenness of power, and who was killed (A. D. 192) by his
own servants, after a reign of twelve years. The soldiers of
the prætorian guard now took upon themselves the making of
emperors, and placed two upon the throne—first, Pertinax, an
aged senator, whom they murdered the next year, and then
Didius Julianus, likewise a senator, to whom, as the highest
bidder, they sold the purple. Again, as after Nero's death,
the armies on the frontiers put forward, each, a rival
claimant, and there was war between the competitors. The
victor who became sovereign was Septimius Severus (A. D.
194-211), who had been in command on the Danube. He was an
able soldier, and waged war with success against the Parthians
in the East, and with the Caledonians in Britain, which latter
he could not subdue. Of his two sons, the elder, nicknamed
Caracalla (A. D. 211-217), killed his brother with his own
hands, and tortured the Roman world with his brutalities for
six years, when he fell under the stroke of an assassin. The
reign of this foul beast brought one striking change to the
Empire. An imperial edict wiped away the last distinction
between Romans and Provincials, giving citizenship to every
free inhabitant of the Empire. "Rome from this date became
constitutionally an empire, and ceased to be merely a
municipality. The city had become the world, or, viewed from
the other side, the world had become 'the City'" (Merivale).
Anarchy and Decay.
The period of sixty-seven years from the murder of Caracalla
to the accession of Diocletian—when a great constitutional
change occurred—demands little space in a sketch like this.
The weakening of the Empire by causes inherent in its social
and political structure,—the chief among which were the
deadly influence of its system of slavery and the paralyzing
effects of its autocracy,—went on at an increasing rate,
while disorder grew nearly to the pitch of anarchy, complete.
There were twenty-two emperors in the term, which scarcely
exceeded that of two generations of men. Nineteen of these
were taken from the throne by violent deaths, through mutiny
or murder, while one fell in battle, and another was held
captive in Persia till he died. Only five among these
twenty-two ephemeral lords of the world,—namely Alexander
Severus, Decius (who was a vigorous soldier and ruler, but who
persecuted the Christians with exceptional cruelty), Claudius,
Aurelian, and Probus,—can be credited with any personal
weight or worth in the history of the time; and they held
power too briefly to make any notable mark.
The distractions of the time were made worse by a great number
of local "tyrants," as they were called—military adventurers
who rose in different parts of the Empire and established
themselves for a time in authority over some district, large
or small. In the reign of Gallienus (A. D. 260-268) there were
nineteen of these petty "imperators," and they were spoken of
as the "thirty tyrants." The more important of the "provincial
empires" thus created were those of Postumus, in Gaul, and of
Odenatus of Palmyra. The latter, under Zenobia; queen and
successor of Odenatus, became a really imposing monarchy,
until it was overthrown by Aurelian, A. D. 273.
{1007}
The Teutonic Nations.
The Germanic nations beyond the Rhine and the Danube had, by
this time, improved their organization, and many of the tribes
formerly separated and independent were now gathered into
powerful confederations. The most formidable of these leagues
in the West was that which acquired the common name of the
Franks, or Freemen, and which was made up of the peoples
occupying territory along the course of the Lower Rhine.
Another of nearly equal power, dominating the German side of
the Upper Rhine and the headwaters of the Danube, is believed
to have absorbed the tribes which had been known in the
previous century as Boii, Marcomanni, Quadi, and others. The
general name it received was that of the Alemanni. The
Alemanni were in intimate association with the Suevi, and
little is known of the distinction that existed between the
two. They had now begun to make incursions across the Rhine,
but were driven back in 238. Farther to the East, on the Lower
Danube, a still more dangerous horde was now threatening the
flanks of the Empire in its European domain. These were Goths,
a people akin, without doubt, to the Swedes, Norsemen and
Danes; but whence and when they made their way to the
neighborhood of the Black Sea is a question in dispute. It was
in the reign of Caracalla that the Romans became first aware
of their presence in the country since known as the Ukraine. A
few years later, when Alexander Severus was on the throne, they
began to make incursions into Dacia. During the reign of
Philip the Arabian (A. D. 244-249) they passed through Dacia,
crossed the Danube, and invaded Mœsia (modern Bulgaria). In
their next invasion (A. D. 251) they passed the Balkans,
defeated the Romans in two terrible battles, the last of which
cost the reigning Emperor, Decius, his life, and destroyed the
city of Philippopolis, with 100,000 of its people. But when, a
few years later, they attempted to take possession of even
Thrace and Macedonia, they were crushingly defeated by the
Emperor Claudius, whose successor Aurelian made peace by
surrendering to them the whole province of Dacia (A. D. 270),
where they settled, giving the Empire no disturbance for
nearly a hundred years. Before this occurred, the Goths,
having acquired the little kingdom of Bosporus (the modern
Crimea) had begun to launch a piratical navy, which plundered
the coast cities of Asia Minor and Greece, including Athens
itself.
On the Asiatic side of the Empire a new power, a revived and
regenerated Persian monarchy, had risen out of the ruins of
the Parthian kingdom, which it overthrew, and had begun
without delay to contest the rule of Rome in the East.
Diocletian.
Briefly described, this was the state and situation of the
Roman Empire when Diocletian, an able Illyrian soldier, came
to the throne (A. D. 284). His accession marks a new epoch.
"From this time," says Dean Merivale, "the old names of the
Republic, the consuls, the tribunes, and the Senate itself,
cease, even if still existing, to have any political
significance." "The empire of Rome is henceforth an Oriental
sovereignty." But the changes which Diocletian made in the
organization and administration of the Empire, if they did
weigh it down with a yet more crushing autocracy and
contribute to its exhaustion in the end, did also, for the
time, stop the wasting of its last energies, and gather them
in hand for potent use. It can hardly be doubted that he
lengthened the term of its career.
Finding that one man in the exercise of supreme sovereignty,
as absolute as he wished to make it, could not give sufficient
care to every part of the vast realm, he first associated one
Maximian with himself, on equal terms, as Emperor, or
Augustus, and six years later (A. D. 292) he selected two
others from among his generals and invested them with a
subordinate sovereignty, giving them the title of "Cæsars."
The arrangement appears to have worked satisfactorily while
Diocletian remained at the head of his imperial college. But
in 305 he wearied of the splendid burden that he bore, and
abdicated the throne, unwillingly followed by his associate,
Maximian. The two Cæsars, Constantius and Galerius, were then
advanced to the imperial rank, and two new Cæsars were named.
Jealousies, quarrels, and civil war were soon rending the
Empire again. The details are unimportant.
Constantine and Christianity.
After nine years of struggle, two competitors emerged (A. D.
314) alone, and divided the Empire between them. They were
Constantine, son of Constantius, the Cæsar, and one Licinius.
After nine years more, Licinius had disappeared, defeated and
put to death, and Constantine (A. D. 323) shared the
sovereignty of Rome with none. In its final stages, the
contest had become, practically, a trial of strength between
expiring Paganism in the Roman world and militant
Christianity, now grown to great strength. The shrewd
adventurer Constantine saw the political importance to which
the Christian Church had risen, and identified himself with it
by a "conversion" which has glorified his name most
undeservedly. If to be a Christian with sincerity is to be a
good man, then Constantine was none; for his life was full of
evil deeds, after he professed the religion of Christ, even
more than before. "He poured out the best and noblest blood in
torrents, more especially of those nearly connected with
himself. … In a palace which he had made a desert, the
murderer of his father-in-law, his brothers-in-law, his
sister, his wife, his son, and his nephew, must have felt the
stings of remorse, if hypocritical priests and courtier
bishops had not lulled his conscience to rest" (Sismondi).
But the so-called "conversion" of Constantine was an event of
vast import in history. It changed immensely, and with
suddenness, the position, the state, the influence, and very
considerably the character and spirit of the Christian Church.
The hierarchy of the Church became, almost at once, the
greatest power in the Empire, next to the Emperor himself, and
its political associations, which were dangerous from the
beginning, soon proved nearly fatal to its spiritual
integrity. "Both the purity and the freedom of the Church were
in danger of being lost. State and Church were beginning an
amalgamation fraught with peril. The State was becoming a kind
of Church, and the Church a kind of State. The Emperor
preached and summoned councils, called himself, though half in
jest, a 'bishop,' and the bishops had become State officials,
who, like the high dignitaries of the Empire, travelled by the
imperial courier-service, and frequented the ante-chambers of
the palaces in Constantinople." "The Emperor determined what
doctrines were to prevail in the Church, and banished Arius
to-day and Athanasius to-morrow." "The Church was surfeited
with property and privileges. The Emperor, a poor financier,
impoverished the Empire to enrich" it (Uhlhorn). That
Christianity had shared the gain of the Christian Church from
these great changes, is very questionable.
{1008}
By another event of his reign, Constantine marked it in
history with lasting effect. He rebuilt with magnificence the
Greek city of Byzantium on the Bosphorus, transferred to it
his imperial residence, and raised it to a nominal equality
with Rome, but to official find practical superiority, as the
capital of the Empire. The old Rome dwindled in rank and
prestige from that day; the new Rome—the city of Constantine,
or Constantinople—rose to the supreme place in the eyes and
the imaginations of men.
Julian and the Pagan Revival.
That Constantine added the abilities of a statesman to the
unscrupulous cleverness of an adventurer is not to be
disputed; but he failed to give proof of this when he divided
the Empire between his three sons at his death (A. D. 337).
The inevitable civil wars ensued, until, after sixteen years,
one survivor gathered the whole realm under his scepter again.
He (Constantius), who debased and disgraced the Church more
than his father had done, was succeeded (A. D. 361) by his
cousin, Julian, an honest, thoughtful, strong man, who, not
unnaturally, preferred the old pagan Greek philosophy to the
kind of Christianity which he had seen flourishing at the
Byzantine court. He publicly restored the worship of the
ancient gods of Greece and Rome; he excluded Christians from
the schools, and bestowed his favor on those who scorned the
Church; but he entered on no violent persecution. His reign
was brief, lasting only two years. He perished in a hapless
expedition against the Persians, by whom the Empire was now
almost incessantly harassed.
Valentinian and Valens.
His successor, Jovian, whom the army elected, died in seven
months; but Valentinian, another soldier, raised by his
comrades to the throne, reigned vigorously for eleven years.
He associated his brother, Valens, with him in the
sovereignty, assigning the latter to the East, while he took
the administration of the West.
Until the death of Valentinian, in 375, the northern frontiers
of the Empire, along the Rhine and the Danube, were well
defended. Julian had commanded in Gaul, with Paris for his
capital, six years before he became Emperor, and had organized
its defence most effectively. Valentinian maintained the line
with success against the Alemanni; while his lieutenant,
Theodosius, delivered Roman Britain from the ruinous attacks
of the Scots and Picts of its northern region. On the Danube,
there continued to be peace with the Goths, who held back all
other barbarians from that northeastern border.
The Goths in the Empire.
But the death of Valentinian was the beginning of fatal
calamities. His brother, Valens, had none of his capability or
his vigor, and was unequal to such a crisis as now occurred.
The terrible nation of the Huns had entered Europe from the
Asiatic steppes, and the Western Goths, or Visigoths, fled
before them. These fugitives begged to be permitted to cross
the Danube and settle on vacant lands in Mœsia and Thrace.
Valens consented, and the whole Visigothic nation, 200,000
warriors, with their women and children, passed the river (A.
D. 376). It is possible that they might, by fair treatment,
have been converted into loyal citizens, and useful defenders
of the land. But the corrupt officials of the court took
advantage of their dependent state, and wrung extortionate
prices from them for disgusting food, until they rose in
desperation and wasted Thrace with fire and sword. Fresh
bodies of Ostrogoths (Eastern Goths) and other barbarians came
over to join them (A. D. 378); the Roman armies were beaten in
two great battles, and Valens, the Emperor, was slain. The
victorious Goths swept on to the very walls of Constantinople,
which they could not surmount, and the whole open country,
from the Black Sea to the Adriatic, was ravaged by them at
will.
Theodosius.
In the meantime, the western division of the Empire had
passed, on the death of Valentinian, under the nominal rule of
his two young sons, Gratian, aged sixteen, and Valentinian
II., aged four. Gratian had made an attempt to bring help to
his uncle Valens; but the latter fought his fatal battle while
the boy emperor was on the way, and the latter, upon hearing
of it, turned back. Then Gratian performed his one great act.
He sought a colleague, and called to the throne the most
promising young soldier of the day. This was Theodosius, whose
father, Count Theodosius, the deliverer of Britain, had been
put to death by Valens, on some jealous accusation, only three
years before. The new Emperor took the East for his realm, having
Gratian and Valentinian II. for colleagues in the West. He
speedily checked the ravages of the Goths and restored the
confidence of the Roman soldiers. Then he brought diplomacy to
bear upon the dangerous situation, and succeeded in arranging
a peace with the Gothic chieftains, which enlisted them in the
imperial service with forty thousand of their men. But they
retained their distinctive organization, under their own
chiefs, and were called "fœderati," or allies. This concession
of a semi-independence to so great a body of armed barbarians
in the heart of the Empire was a fatal mistake, as was proved
before many years.
For the time being it secured peace, and gave Theodosius
opportunity to attend to other things. The controversies of
the Church were among the subjects of his consideration, and
by taking the side of the Athanasians, whom his predecessor
had persecuted, he gave a final victory to Trinitarianism, in
the Roman world. His reign was signalized, moreover, by the
formal, official abolition of paganism at Rome.
The weak but amiable Gratian, reigning at Paris, lost his
throne and his life, in 383, as the consequence of a revolt
which began in Britain and spread to Gaul. The successful
rebel and usurper, Maximus, seemed so strong that Theodosius
made terms with him, and acknowledged his sovereignty for a
number of years. But, not content with a dominion which
embraced Britain, Gaul and Spain, Maximus sought, after a
time, to add Italy, where the youth, Valentinian II., was
still enthroned (at Milan, not Rome), under the tutelage of
his mother. Valentinian fled to Theodosius; the Eastern
Emperor adopted his cause, and restored him to his throne,
defeating the usurper and putting him to death (A. D. 388).
Four years later Valentinian II. died; another usurper arose,
and again Theodosius (A. D. 394) recovered the throne.
{1009}
Final Division of the Empire.
Theodosius was now alone in the sovereignty. The Empire was
once more, and for the last time, in its full extent, united
under a single lord. It remained so for but a few months. At
the beginning of the year 395, Theodosius died, and his two
weak sons, Arcadius and Honorius, divided the perishing Empire
between them, only to augment, in its more venerable seat, the
distress of the impending fall.
Arcadius, at the age of eighteen, took the government of the
East; Hononus, a child of eleven, gave his name to the
administration of the West. Each emperor was under the
guardianship of a minister chosen by Theodosius before he
died. Rufinus, who held authority at Constantinople, was
worthless in all ways; Stilicho, who held the reins at Milan,
was a Vandal by birth, a soldier and a statesman of vigorous
powers.
Decay of the Western Empire.
The West seemed more fortunate than the East, in this
division; yet the evil days now fast coming near fell
crushingly on the older Rome, while the New Rome lived through
them, and endured for a thousand years. No doubt the Empire
had weakened more on its elder side; had suffered more
exhaustion of vital powers. It had little organic vitality now
left in it. If no swarms of barbaric invaders had been waiting
and watching at its doors, and pressing upon it from every
point with increasing fierceness, it seems probable that it
would have gone to pieces ere long through mere decay. And if,
on the other hand, it could have kept the vigorous life of its
best republican days, it might have defied Teuton and Slav
forever. But all the diseases, political and social, which the
Republic engendered in itself, had been steadily consuming the
state, with their virulence even increased, since it took on the
imperial constitution. All that imperialism did was to gather
waning energies in hand, and make the most of them for
external use. It stopped no decay. The industrial palsy,
induced by an ever-widening system of slave-labor, continued
to spread. Production decreased; the sum of wealth shrunk in
the hands of each succeeding generation; and yet the great
fortunes and great estates grew bigger from age to age. The
gulf between rich and poor opened deeper and wider, and the
bridges once built across it by middle-class thrift were
fallen down. The burden of imperial government had become an
unendurable weight; the provincial municipalities, which had
once been healthy centers of a local political life, were
strangled by the nets of taxation flung over them. Men sought
refuge even in death from the magistracies which made them
responsible to the imperial treasury for revenues which they
could not collect. Population dwindled, year by year.
Recruiting from the body of citizens for the common needs of
the army became more impossible. The state was fully
dependent, at last, on barbaric mercenaries of one tribe for
its defence against barbaric invaders of another; and it was
no longer able, as of old, to impress its savage servitors
with awe of its majesty and its name.
Stilicho and Alaric.
Stilicho, for a time, stoutly breasted the rising flood of
disaster. He checked the Picts and Scots of Northern Britain,
and the Alemanni and their allies on the frontiers of Gaul.
But now there arose again the more dreadful barbarian host
which had footing in the Empire itself, and which Theodosius
had taken into pay. The Visigoths elected a king (A. D. 395),
and were persuaded with ease to carve a kingdom for him out of
the domain which seemed waiting to be snatched from one or
both of the feeble monarchs, who sat in mockery of state at
Constantinople and Milan. Alaric, the new Gothic king, moved
first against the capital on the Bosphorus; but Rufinus
persuaded him to pass on into Greece, where he went pillaging
and destroying for a year. Stilicho, the one manly defender of
the Empire, came over from Italy with an army to oppose him;
but he was stopped on the eve of battle by orders from the
Eastern Court, which sent him back, as an officious meddler.
This act of mischief and malice was the last that Rufinus
could do. He was murdered, soon afterwards, and Arcadius,
being free from his influence, then called upon Stilicho for
help. The latter came once more to deliver Greece, and did so
with success. But Alaric, though expelled from the peninsula,
was neither crushed nor disarmed, and the Eastern Court had
still to make terms with him. It did so for the moment by
conferring on him the government of that part of Illyricum
which the Servia and Bosnia of the present day coincide with,
very nearly. He rested there in peace for four years, and then
(A. D. 400) he called his people to arms again, and led the whole
nation, men, women and children, into Italy. The Emperor,
Honorius, fled from Milan to Ravenna, which, being a safe
shelter behind marshes and streams, became the seat of the
court for years thereafter. Stilicho, stripping Britain and
Gaul of troops, gathered forces with which, at Eastertide in
the year 402, and again in the following year, he defeated the
Goths, and forced them to retreat.
He had scarcely rested from these exertions, when the valiant
Stilicho was called upon to confront a more savage leader,
Radagaisus by name, who came from beyond the lines (A. D.
405), with a vast swarm of mixed warriors from many tribes
pouring after him across the Alps. Again Stilicho, by superior
skill, worsted the invaders, entrapping them in the mountains
near Fiesole (modern Florence), and starving them there till
they yielded themselves to slavery and their chieftain to
death.
This was the last great service to the dying Roman state which
Stilicho was permitted to do. Undermined by the jealousies of
the cowardly court at Ravenna, he seems to have lost suddenly
the power by which he held himself so high. He was accused of
treasonable designs and was seized and instantly executed, by
the Emperor's command.
{1010}
Alaric and his Goths in Rome.
Stilicho dead, there was no one in Italy for Alaric to fear,
and he promptly returned across the Alps, with the nation of
the Visigoths behind him. There was no resistance to his
march, and he advanced straight upon Rome. He did not assail
the walls, but sat down before the gates (A. D. 408), until
the starving citizens paid him a great ransom in silver and
gold and precious spices and silken robes. With this booty he
retired for the winter into Tuscany, where his army was
swelled by thousands of fugitive barbarian slaves, and by
reinforcements of Goths and Huns. From his camp he opened
negotiations with Honorius, demanding the government of
Dalmatia, Venetia and Noricum, with certain subsidies of money
and corn. The contemptible court, skulking at Ravenna, could
neither make war nor make concessions, and it soon exhausted
the patience of the barbarian by its puerilities. He marched
again to Rome (A. D. 409), seized the port of Ostia, with its
supplies of grain, and forced the helpless capital to join him
in proclaiming a rival emperor. The prefect of the city, one
Attalus, accepted the purple at his hands, and played the
puppet for a few months in imperial robes. But the scheme
proved unprofitable, Attalus was deposed, and negotiations
were reopened with Honorius. Their only result was a fresh
provocation which sent Alaric once more against Rome, and this
time with wrath and vengeance in his heart. Then the great,
august capital of the world was entered, through treachery or
by surprise, on the night of the 24th of August, 410, and
suffered all that the lust, the ferocity and the greed of a
barbarous army let loose could inflict on an unresisting city.
It was her first experience of that supreme catastrophe of
war, since Brennus and the Gauls came in; but it was not to be
the last.
From the sack of Rome, Alaric moved southward, intending to
conquer Sicily; but a sudden illness brought his career to an
end.
The Barbarians Swarming in.
The Empire was now like a dying quarry, pulled down by fierce
hunting packs and torn on every side. The Goths were at its
throat; the tribes of Germany—Sueves, Vandals, Burgundians,
Alans—had leaped the Rhine (A. D. 406) and swarmed upon its
flanks, throughout Gaul and Spain. The inrush began after
Stilicho, to defend Italy against Alaric and Radagaisus, had
stripped the frontiers of troops. Sueves, Vandals, and Alans
passed slowly through the provinces, devouring their wealth
and making havoc of their civilization as they went. After
three years, they had reached and surmounted the Pyrenees, and
were spreading the same destruction through Spain.
The confederated tribes of the Franks had already been
admitted as allies into northwestern Gaul, and were settled
there in peace. At first, they stood faithful to the Roman
alliance, and valiantly resisted the new invasion; but its
numbers overpowered them, and their fidelity gave way when
they saw the pillage of the doomed provinces going on. They
presently joined the barbarous mob, and with an energy which
secured the lion's share of plunder and domain.
The Burgundians did not follow the Vandals and Sueves to the
southwest, but took possession of the left bank of the middle
Rhine, whence they gradually spread into western Switzerland
and Savoy, and down the valleys of the Rhone and Saone,
establishing in time an important kingdom, to which they gave
their name.
No help from Ravenna or Rome came to the perishing provincials
of Gaul in the extremity of their distress; but a pretender
arose in Britain, who assumed the imperial title and promised
deliverance. He crossed over to Gaul in 407 and was welcomed
with eagerness, both there and in Spain, to which he advanced.
He gained some success, partly by enlisting and partly by
resisting the invaders; but his career was brief. Other
pretenders appeared in various provinces, of the West; but the
anarchy of the time was too great for any authority,
legitimate or revolutionary, to establish itself.
The Visigoths in Gaul.
And, now, into the tempting country of the afflicted Gauls,
already crowded with rapacious freebooters, the Visigoths made
their way. Their new king, Ataulph, or Adolphus, who succeeded
Alaric, passed into Gaul, but not commissioned, as sometimes
stated, to restore the imperial sovereignty there. He moved
with his nation, as Alaric had moved, and Italy, by his
departure, was relieved; but Narbonne, Toulouse, Bordeaux, and
the Aquitainian country at large, was soon subject to his
command (A. D. 412-419). He passed the Pyrenees and entered
Spain, where an assassin took his life. His successor, Wallia,
drove the Sueves into the mountains and the Vandals into the
South; but did not take possession of the country until a
later time. The Visigoths, returning to Aquitaine, found
there, at last, the kingdom which Alaric set out from the
Danube to seek, and they were established in it with the Roman
Emperor's consent. It was known as the kingdom of Gothia, or
Septimania, but is more commonly called, from its capital, the
kingdom of Toulouse.
The Eastern Empire.
Affairs in the Eastern Empire had never arrived at so
desperate a state as in the West. With the departure of
Alaric, it had been relieved from its most dangerous immediate
foe. There had been tumults, disorders, assassinations, court
conspiracies, fierce religious strifes, and every evidence of
a government with no settled authority and no title to
respect; but yet the Empire stood and was not yet seriously
shaken. In 408 Arcadius died. His death was no loss, though he
left an infant son to take his place; for he also left a
daughter, Pulcheria, who proved to be a woman of rare virtue
and talents, and who reigned in her brother's name.
Aetius and the Huns.
The imbecile Honorius, with whose name the failing sovereignty
of Rome had been so disastrously linked for eight and twenty
rears, died in 423. An infant nephew was his heir, and
Placidia, the mother, ruled at Ravenna for a fourth of a
century, in the name of her child. Her reign was far stronger
than her wretched brother's had been, because she gave loyal
support to a valiant and able man, who stood at her side.
Aetius, her minister, did all, perhaps, that man could do to
hold some parts of Gaul, and to play barbarian against
barbarian—Hun against Goth and Frank—in skilful diplomacy
and courageous war. But nothing that he won was any lasting
gain. In his youth, Aetius had been a hostage in the camps of
both the Goths and the Huns, and had made acquaintances among
the chieftains of both which served his policy many times.
{1011}
He had employed the terrible Huns in the early years of his
ministry, and perhaps they had learned too much of the
weakness of the Roman State. These most fearful of all the
barbarian peoples then surging in Europe had been settled, for
some years, in the region since called Hungary, under Attila,
their most formidable king. He terrorized all the surrounding
lands and exercised a lordship from the Caspian to the Baltic
and the Rhine. The imperial court at the East stooped to pay
him annual tribute for abstaining from the invasion of its
domain. But in 450, when the regent Pulcheria became Empress
of the East, by her brother's death, and married a brave old
soldier, Marcian, in order to give him the governing power, a
new tone was heard in the voice from Constantinople which
answered Attila's demands.
Defeat of Attila.
The Hun then appears to have seen that the sinking Empire of
the West offered a more certain victim to his terrors and his
arms, and he turned them to that side. First forming an
alliance with the Vandals (who had crossed from Spain to
Africa in 429, had ravaged and subdued the Roman provinces,
and had established a kingdom on the Carthaginian ground, with
a naval power in the Carthaginian Sea), Attila led his huge
army into suffering Gaul. There were Ostrogoths, and warriors
from many German tribes, as well as Huns, in the terrific
host; for Attila's arm stretched far, and his subjects were
forced to follow when he led. His coming into Gaul affrighted
Romans and barbarians alike, and united them in a common
defense. Aetius formed an alliance with Theodoric, the
Visigothic king, and their forces were joined by Burgundians
and Franks. They met Attila near Chalons, and there, on a day
in June, A. D. 451, upon the Catalaunian fields, was fought a
battle that is always counted among the few which gave shape
to all subsequent history. The Huns were beaten back, and
Europe was saved from the hopeless night that must have
followed a Tartar conquest in that age.
Attila threatening Rome.
Attila retreated to Germany, foiled but not daunted. The next
year (A. D. 452) he invaded Italy and laid siege to Aquileia,
an important city which stood in his path. It resisted for
three months and was then utterly destroyed. The few
inhabitants who escaped, with fugitives from neighboring
ports, found a refuge in some islands of the Adriatic coast,
and formed there a sheltered settlement which grew into the
great city and republican state of Venice. Aetius made
strenuous exertions to gather forces for another battle with
the Huns; but the resources of the Empire had sunk very low.
While he labored to collect troops, the effect of a pacific
embassy was despairingly tried, and it went forth to the camp
of Attila, led by the venerable bishop of Rome—the first
powerful Pope—Leo I., called the Great. The impression which
Leo made on the Hunnish king, by his venerable presence, and
by the persuasiveness of his words, appears to have been
extraordinary. At all events, Attila consented to postpone his
designs on Rome; though he demanded and received promise of an
annual tribute. The next winter he died, and Rome was troubled
by him no more.
Rome Sacked by the Vandals.
But another enemy came, who rivalled Attila in ruthlessness,
and who gave a name to barbarity which it has kept to this
day. The Vandal king, Genseric, who now swept the
Mediterranean with a piratical fleet, made his appearance in
the Tiber (A. D. 455) and found the Roman capital powerless to
resist his attack. The venerable Pope Leo again interceded for
the city, and obtained a promise that captives should not be
tortured nor buildings burned,—which was the utmost stretch
of mercy that the Vandal could afford. Once more, then, was
Rome given up, for fourteen days and nights, to pillage and
the horrors of barbaric debauch. "Whatever had survived the
former sack,—whatever the luxury of the Roman Patriciate,
during the intervening forty-five years, had accumulated in
reparation of their loss,—the treasures of the imperial
palace, the gold and silver vessels employed in the churches,
the statues of pagan divinities and men of Roman renown, the
gilded roof of the temple of Capitolian Jove, the plate and
ornaments of private individuals, were leisurely conveyed to
the Vandal fleet and shipped off to Africa" (Sheppard).
The Vandal invasion had been preceded, in the same year, by a
palace revolution which brought the dynasty of Theodosius to
an end. Placidia was dead, and her unworthy son, Valentinian
III., provoked assassination by dishonoring the wife of a
wealthy senator, Maximus, who mounted to his place. Maximus
was slain by a mob at Rome, just before the Vandals entered
the city. The Empire was now without a head, and the throne
without an heir. In former times, the Senate or the army would
have filled the vacant imperial seat; now, it was a barbarian
monarch, Theodoric, the Visigothic king, who made choice of a
successor to the Cæsars. He named a Gallic noble, Avitus by
name, who had won his esteem, and the nomination was confirmed
by Marcian, Emperor of the East.
Ricimer and Majorian.
But the influence of Theodoric in Roman affairs was soon
rivalled by that of Count Ricimer, another Goth, or Sueve, who
held high command in the imperial army, and who resented the
elevation of Avitus. The latter was deposed, after reigning a
single year; and Majorian, a soldier of really noble and
heroic character, was promoted to the throne. He was too great
and too sincere a man to be Ricimer's tool, and the same hand
which raised him threw him down, after he had reigned four
years (A. D. 457-461). He was in the midst of a powerful
undertaking against the Vandals when he perished. Majorian was
the last Emperor in the Western line who deserves to be named.
The last Emperors in the West.
Ricimer ruled Italy, with the rigor of a despot, under the
modest title of Patrician, until 472. His death was soon
followed by the rise of another general of the barbarian
troops, Orestes, to like autocracy, and he, in turn, gave way
to a third, Odoacer, who slew him and took his place. The
creatures, half a dozen in number, who put on and put off the
purple robe, at the command of these adventurers, who played
with the majesty of Rome, need no further mention.
{1012}
The last of them was Romulus Augustulus, son of Orestes, who
escaped his father's fate by formally resigning the throne. He
was the last Roman Emperor in the West, until Charlemagne
revived the title, three centuries and a quarter later. "The
succession of the Western Emperors came to an end, and the way
in which it came to an end marks the way in which the names
and titles of Rome were kept on, while all power was passing
into the hands of the barbarians. The Roman Senate voted that
one Emperor was enough, and that the Eastern Emperor, Zeno,
should reign over the whole Empire. But at the same time Zeno
was made to entrust the government of Italy, with the title of
Patrician, to Odoacer. … Thus the Roman Empire went on at
Constantinople, or New Rome, while Italy and the Old Rome
itself passed into the power of the Barbarians. Still the
Roman laws and names went on, and we may be sure that any man
in Italy would have been much surprised if he had been told
that the Roman Empire had come to an end" (Freeman).
Odoacer.
The government of Odoacer, who ruled with the authority of a
king, though pretending to kingship only in his own nation,
was firm and strong. Italy was better protected from its
lawless neighbors than it had been for nearly a century
before. But nothing could arrest the decay of its
population—the blight that had fallen upon its prosperity.
Nor could that turbulent age afford any term of peace that
would be long enough for even the beginning of the cure of
such maladies and such wounds as had brought Italy low. For
fourteen years Odoacer ruled; and then he was overthrown by a
new kingdom-seeking barbarian, who came, like Alaric, out of
the Gothic swarm.
Theodoric the Ostrogoth.
The Ostrogoths had now escaped, since Attila died, from the
yoke of the Huns, and were prepared, under an able and
ambitious young king, Theodoric, who had been reared as a
hostage at Constantinople, to imitate the career of their
cousins, the Visigoths. Having troubled the Eastern Court
until it stood in fear of him, Theodoric asked for a
commission to overthrow Odoacer, in Italy, and received it
from the Emperor's hand. Thus empowered by one still
recognized as lawful lord on both sides of the Adriatic,
Theodoric crossed the Julian Alps (A. D. 489) with the
families of his nation and their household goods. Three
battles made him master of the peninsula and decided the fate
of his rival. Odoacer held out in Ravenna for two years and a
half, and surrendered on a promise of equal sovereignty with
the Ostrogothic king. But Theodoric did not scruple to kill
him with his own sword, at the first opportunity which came.
In that act, the native savagery in him broke loose; but
through most of his life he kept his passions decently tamed,
and acted the barbarian less frequently than the civilized
statesman and king. He gave Italy peace, security, and
substantial justice for thirty years. With little war, he
extended his sovereignty over Illyrium, Pannonia, Noricum,
Rhætia and Provence, in south-eastern Gaul. If the extensive
kingdom which he formed—with more enlightenment than any
other among those who divided the heritage of Rome—could have
endured, the parts of Europe which it covered might have fared
better in after times than they did. "Italy might have been
spared six hundred years of gloom and degradation." But
powerful influences were against it from the first, and they
were influences which proceeded mischievously from the
Christian Church. Had the Goths been pagans, the Church might
have turned a kindly face to them, and wooed them to
conversion as she wooed the Franks. But they were Christians,
of a heretic stamp, and the orthodox Christianity of Rome held
them in deadly loathing. While still beyond the Danube, they had
received the faith from an Arian apostle, at the time of the
great conflict of Athanasius against Arius, and were stubborn
in the rejection of Trinitarian dogma. Hence the Church in the
West was never reconciled to the monarchy of Theodoric in
Italy, nor to that of the Visigoths at Toulouse; and its
hostility was the ultimate cause of the failure of both.
The Empire in the East.
To understand the events which immediately caused the fall of
the Ostrogothic power, we must turn back for a moment to the
Empire in the East. Marcian, whom Pulcheria, the wise daughter
of Arcadius, made Emperor by marrying him, died in 457, and
Aspar, the barbarian who commanded the mercenaries, selected
his successor. He chose his own steward, one Leo, who proved
to have more independence than his patron expected, and who
succeeded in destroying the latter. After Leo I. came (474)
his infant grandson; Leo II., whose father, an Isaurian
chieftain, took his place when he died, within the year. The
Isaurian assumed a Greek name, Zeno, and occupied the
throne—with one interval of flight and exile for twenty
months—during seven years. When he died, his widow gave her
hand in marriage to an excellent officer of the palace,
Anastasius by name, and he was sovereign of the Empire for
twenty-seven years.
The reign of Justinian.
After Anastasius, came Justin I., born a peasant in Dacia
(modern Roumania), but advanced as a soldier to the command of
the imperial guards, and thence to the throne. He had already
adopted and educated his nephew, Justinian, and before dying,
in 527, he invested him with sovereignty as a colleague. The
reign of Justinian was the most remarkable in the whole
history of the Empire in the East. Without breadth of
understanding, or notable talents of any kind: without
courage; without the least nobility of character; without even
the virtue of fidelity to his ministers and friends,—this
remarkable monarch contrived to be splendidly served by an
extraordinary generation of great soldiers, great jurists,
great statesmen, who gave a brilliance to his reign that was
never rivalled while the Byzantine seat of Empire stood. It
owes, in modern esteem, its greatest fame to the noble
collection of Roman laws which was made, in the Pandects and
the Code, under the direction of the wise and learned
Tribonian. Transiently it was glorified by conquests that bore
a likeness to the march of the resistless legions of ancient
Rome; and the laurelled names of Belisarius and Narses claimed
a place on the columns of victory with the names of Cæsar and
Pompeius.
{1013}
But the splendors of the reign were much more than offset by
miseries and calamities of the darkest kind. "The reign of
Justinian, from its length, its glory and its disasters, may
be compared to the reign of Louis XIV., which exceeded it in
length, and equalled it in glory and disaster. … He extended
the limits of his empire; but he was unable to defend the
territory he had received from his predecessors. Everyone of
the thirty-eight years of his reign was marked by an invasion
of the barbarians; and it has been said that, reckoning those
who fell by the sword, who perished from want, or were led
into captivity, each invasion cost 200,000 subjects to the
empire. Calamities which human prudence is unable to resist
seemed to combine against the Romans, as if to compel them to
expiate their ancient glory. … So that the very period which
gave birth to so many monuments of greatness, may be looked
back upon with horror, as that of the widest desolation and
the most terrific mortality" (Sismondi). The first and longest
of the wars of Justinian was the Persian war, which he inherited
from his predecessors, and which scarcely ceased while the
Persian monarchy endured. It was in these Asiatic campaigns
that Belisarius began his career. But his first great
achievement was the overthrow and extinction of the Vandal
power in Africa, and the restoration of Roman authority (the
empire of the new Rome) in the old Carthaginian province (A.
D. 533-534). He accomplished this with a force of but 10,000
foot and 5,000 horse, and was hastily recalled by his jealous
lord on the instant of his success.
Conquests of Belisarius in Italy.
But the ambition of Justinian was whetted by this marvellous
conquest, and he promptly projected an expedition against the
kingdom of the Eastern Goths. The death of Theodoric had
occurred in 526. His successor was a child of ten years, his
grandson, whose mother exercised the regency. Amalsuentha, the
queen-regent, was a woman of highly cultivated mind, and she
offended her subjects by too marked a Romanization of her
ideas. Her son died in his eighteenth year, and she associated
with herself on the throne the next heir to it, a worthless
nephew of Theodoric, who was able, in a few weeks, to strip
all her power from her and consign her to a distant prison,
where she was soon put to death (A. D. 535). She had
previously opened negotiations with Justinian for the
restoration of his supremacy in Italy, and the ambitious
Emperor assumed with eagerness a right to avenge her
deposition and death. The fate of Amalsuentha was his excuse,
the discontent of Roman orthodoxy with the rule of the heretic
Goths was his encouragement, to send an army into Italy with
Belisarius at its head. First taking possession of Sicily,
Belisarius landed in Italy in 536, took Naples and advanced on
Rome. An able soldier, Vitiges, had been raised to the Gothic
throne, and he evacuated Rome in December; but he returned the
following March and laid siege to the ancient capital, which
Belisarius had occupied with a moderate force. It was defended
against him for an entire year, and the strength of the Gothic
nation was consumed on the outer side of the walls, while the
inhabitants within were wasted by famine and disease. The
Goths invoked the aid of the Franks in Gaul, and those fierce
warriors, crossing the Alps (A. D. 538), assailed both Goths
and Greeks, with indiscriminate hostility, destroyed Milan and
Genoa, and mostly perished of hunger themselves before they
retreated from the wasted Cisalpine country.
Released from Rome, Belisarius advanced in his turn against
Ravenna, and took the Gothic capital, making Vitiges a
prisoner (A. D. 539). His reward for these successes was a
recall from command. The jealous Emperor could not afford his
generals too much glory at a single winning. As a consequence
of his folly, the Goths, under a new king, Totila, were
allowed to recover so much ground in the next four years that,
when, in 544, Belisarius was sent back, almost without an
army, the work of conquest had to be done anew. Rome was still
being held against Totila, who besieged it, and the great
general went by sea to its relief. He forced the passage of
the Tiber, but failed through the misconduct of the commander
in the city to accomplish an entry, and once more the great
capital was entered and yielded to angry Goths (A. D. 546).
They spared the lives of the few people they found, and the
chastity of the women; but they plundered without restraint.
Rome a Solitude for Forty Days.
Totila commanded the total destruction of the city; but his
ruthless hand was stayed by the remonstrances of Belisarius.
After demolishing a third of the walls, he withdrew towards
the South, dragging the few inhabitants with him, and, during
forty days, Rome is said to have been an unpeopled solitude.
The scene which this offers to the imagination comes near to
being the most impressive in history. At the end of that
period it was entered by Belisarius, who hastily repaired the
walls, collected his forces, and was prepared to defend
himself when Totila came back by rapid marches from Apulia.
The Goths made three assaults and were bloodily repulsed.
End of the Ostrogothic Kingdom.
But again Belisarius was recalled by a mean and jealous court,
and again the Gothic cause was reanimated and restored. Rome
was taken again from its feeble garrison (A. D. 549), and this
time it was treated with respect. Most of Italy and Sicily,
with Corsica and Sardinia, were subdued by Totila's arms, and
that king, now successful, appealed to Justinian for peace. It
was refused, and in 552 a vigorous prosecution of the war
resumed, under a new commander—the remarkable eunuch Narses,
who proved himself to be one of the great masters of war.
Totila was defeated and slain in the first battle of the
campaign; Rome was again beleaguered and taken; and the last
blow needed to extinguish the Gothic kingdom in Italy was
given the following year (A. D. 553), when Totila's successor,
Teia, ended his life on another disastrous field of battle.
The Exarchate.
Italy was restored for the moment to the Empire, and was
placed under the government of an imperial viceroy, called
Exarch, which high office the valiant Narses was the first to
fill. His successors, known in history as the Exarchs of
Ravenna, resided in that capital for a long period, while the
arm of their authority was steadily shortened by the conquests
of new invaders, whose story is yet to be told.
{1014}
Events in the West.
Leaving Italy and Rome, once more in the imperial fold, but
mere provinces now of a distant and alienated sovereignty, it
is necessary to turn back to the West, and glance over the
regions in which, when we looked at them last, the
institutions of Roman government and society were being
dissolved and broken up by flood upon flood of barbaric
invasion from the Teutonic North.
Teutonic Conquest of Britain.
If we begin at the farthest West which the Roman dominion
reached, we shall find that the island of Britain was
abandoned, practically, by the imperial government earlier
than the year 410, when Rome was sinking under the blows of
Alaric. From that time the inhabitants were left to their own
government and their own defense. To the inroads of the savage
Caledonian Picts and Irish Scots, there were added, now, the
coast ravages of a swarm of ruthless pirates, which the tribes
of northwestern Europe had begun to launch upon the German or
North Sea. The most cruel and terrible of these ocean
freebooters were the Saxons, of the Elbe, and they gave their
name for a time to the whole. Their destructive raids upon the
coasts of Britain and Gaul had commenced more than a century
before the Romans withdrew their legions, and that part of the
British coast most exposed to their ravages was known as the
Saxon Shore. For about thirty years after the Roman and
Romanized inhabitants of Britain had been left to defend
themselves, they held their ground with good courage, as
appears; but the incessant attacks of the Picts wore out, at
last, their confidence in themselves, and they were fatally
led to seek help from their other enemies, who scourged them
from the sea. Their invitation was given, not to the Saxons,
but to a band of Jutes—warriors from that Danish peninsula in
which they have left their name. The Jutes landed at
Ebbsfleet, in the Isle of Thanet (A. D. 449 or 450), with two
chiefs, Hengest and Horsa, at their head. They came as allies,
and fought by the side of the Britons against the Picts with
excellent success. Then came quarrels, and presently, in 455,
the arms of Hengest and Horsa were turned against their
employers. Ten years later the Jutes had secure possession of
the part of Britain now called Kent, and Hengest was their
king, Horsa having fallen in the war. This was the beginning
of the transformation of Roman-Celtic Britain into the
Teutonic England of later history. The success of the Jutes
drew their cousins and piratical comrades, the Saxons and the
Angles, to seek kingdoms in the same rich island. The Saxons
came first, landing near Selsey, in 477, and taking gradual
possession of a district which became known as the kingdom of
the South Saxons, or Sussex. The next invasion was by Saxons
under Cerdic, and Jutes, who joined to form the kingdom of the
West Saxons, or Wessex, covering about the territory of modern
Hampshire. So much of their conquest was complete by the year
519. At about the same time, other colonies were established
and gave their names, as East Saxons and Middle Saxons, to the
Essex and Middlesex of modern English geography. A third tribe
from the German shore, the Angles, now came (A. D. 547) to
take their part in the conquest of the island, and these laid
their hands upon kingdoms in the East and North of England, so
much larger than the modest Jute and Saxon realms in the south
that their name fixed itself, at last, upon the whole country,
when it lost the name of Britain. Northumberland, which
stretched from the Humber to the Firth of Forth, Mercia, which
covered at one time the whole middle region of England, and
East Anglia, which became divided into the two English
counties of Norfolk (North-folk) and Suffolk (South-folk),
were the three great kingdoms of the Angles.
The Making of England.
Before the end of the sixth century, almost the whole of
modern England, and part of Scotland, on its eastern side, as
far to the north as Edinburgh, was in possession of the German
invaders. They had not merely subdued the former
possessors—Britons and Roman provincials (if Romans remained
in the island after their domination ceased),—but, in the
judgment of the best investigators of the subject, they had
practically swept them from all the parts of the island in
which their own settlements were established. That is to say,
the prior population was either exterminated by the merciless
swords of these Saxon and English pagans, or was driven into
the mountains of Wales, into the peninsula of Cornwall and
Devon, or into the Strathclyde corner of Scottish
territory,—in all which regions the ancient British race has
maintained itself to this day. Scarcely a vestige of its
existence remains elsewhere in England,—neither in language,
nor in local names, nor in institutions, nor in survivals of
any other kind; which shows that the inhabitants were effaced
by the conquest, as the inhabitants of Gaul, of Spain, and of
Italy, for example, were not.
The new society and the new states which now arose on the soil
of Britain, and began to shape themselves into the England of
the future, were as purely Germanic as if they had grown up in
the Jutish peninsula or on the Elbe. The institutions,
political and social, of the immigrant nations, had been
modified by changed circumstances, but they had incorporated
almost nothing from the institutions which they found existing
in their new home and which they supplanted. Broadly speaking,
nothing Roman and nothing Celtic entered into them. They were
constructed on German lines throughout.
The barbarism of the Saxons and their kin when they entered
Britain was far more unmitigated than that of most of the
Teutonic tribes which overwhelmed the continental provinces of
Rome had been. The Goths had been influenced to some extent
and for quite a period by Roman civilization, and had
nominally accepted Christian precepts and beliefs, before they
took arms against the Empire. The Franks had been allies of
Rome and in contact with the refinements of Roman Gaul, for a
century or two before they became masters in that province.
Most of the other nations which transplanted themselves in the
fifth century from beyond the Rhine to new homes in the
provinces of Rome, had been living for generations on the
borders of the Empire, or near; had acquired some
acquaintance, at least, with the civilization which they did
not share, and conceded to it a certain respect; while some of
them had borne arms for the Emperor and taken his pay. But the
Saxons, Angles and Jutes had thus far been remote from every
influence or experience of the kind.
{1015}
They knew the Romans only as rich strangers to be plundered
and foes to be fought. Christianity represented nothing to
them but an insult to their gods. There seems to be little
doubt, therefore, that the civilizing work which Rome had done
in western Europe was obliterated nowhere else so ruthlessly
and so wantonly as in Britain. Christianity, still sheltered
and strong in Ireland, was wholly extinguished in England for
a century and more, until the memorable mission of Augustine,
sent by Pope Gregory the Great (A. D. 597), began the
conversion of the savage islanders.
The Kingdom of the Franks.
In Gaul, meanwhile, and in southwestern Germany, the Franks
had become the dominant power. They had moved tardily to the
conquest, but when they moved it was with rapid strides. While
they dwelt along the Lower Rhine, they were in two divisions:
the Salian Franks, who occupied, first, the country near the
mouth of the river, and then spread southwards, to the Somme,
or beyond; and the Ripuarians, who lived farther up the Rhine,
in the neighborhood of Cologne, advancing thence to the
Moselle. In the later part of the fifth century a Roman
Patrician, Syagrius, still exercised some kind of authority in
northern Gaul; but in 486 he was defeated and overthrown by
Chlodvig, or Clovis, the chief of the Salian Franks. Ten years
later, Clovis, leading both the Salian and the Ripuarian
Franks in an attack upon the German Alemanni, beyond the Upper
Rhine, subdued that people completely, and took their country.
Their name survived, and adhered to the whole people of
Germany, whom the Franks and their successors the French have
called Allemands to this day. After his conquest of the
Alemanni, Clovis, who had married a Christian wife, accepted
her faith and was baptized, with three thousand of his chief
men. The professed conversion was as fortunate politically for
him as it had been for Constantine. He adopted the
Christianity which was that of the Roman Church—the Catholic
Christianity of the Athanasian creed—and he stood forth at
once as the champion of orthodoxy against the heretic Goths
and Burgundians, whose religion had been poisoned by the
condemned doctrines of Arius. The blessings, and the more
substantial endeavors, of the Roman Church were, therefore, on
his side, when he attacked the Burgundians and made them
tributary, and when, a few years later, he expelled the Goths
from Aquitaine and drove them into Spain (A.D. 500-508).
Beginning, apparently, as one of several chiefs among the
Salian Franks, he ended his career (510) as sole king of the
whole Frank nation, and master of all Gaul except a Gothic
corner of Provence, with a considerable dominion beyond the
Rhine.
The Merovingian Kings.
But Clovis left his realm to four sons, who divided it into as
many kingdoms, with capitals at Metz, Orleans, Paris, and
Soissons. There was strife and war between them, until one of
the brothers, Lothaire, united again the whole kingdom, which,
meantime, had been enlarged by the conquest of Thuringia and
Provence, and by the extinction of the tributary Burgundian
kings. When he died, his sons rent the kingdom again, and
warred with one another, and once more it was brought
together. Says Hallam: "It is a weary and unprofitable task to
follow these changes in detail, through scenes of tumult and
bloodshed, in which the eye meets with no sunshine, nor can
rest upon any interesting spot. It would be difficult, as
Gibbon has justly observed, to find anywhere more vice or less
virtue." But, as Dean Church has remarked, the Franks were
maintained in their ascendancy by the favor of the clergy and
the circumstances of their position, despite their divisions
and the worthless and detestable character of their kings,
after Clovis. "They occupied a land of great natural wealth,
and great geographical advantages, which had been prepared for
them by Latin culture; they inherited great cities which they
had not built, and fields and vineyards which they had not
planted; and they had the wisdom, not to destroy, but to use
their conquest. They were able with singular ease and
confidence to employ and trust the services, civil and
military, of the Latin population. … The bond between the
Franks and the native races was the clergy. … The forces of
the whole nation were at the disposal of the ruling race; and
under Frank chiefs, the Latins and Gauls learned once more to
be warriors." This no doubt suggests a quite true explanation
of the success of the Franks; but too much may easily be
inferred from it. It will not be safe to conclude that the
Franks were protectors of civilization in Gaul, and did not
lay destroying hands upon it. We shall presently see that it
sank to a very darkened state under their rule, though the
eclipse may have been less complete than in some other of the
barbarized provinces of Rome.
Rise of the Carolingians.
The division in the Frankish dominion which finally marked
itself deeply and became permanent was that which separated
the East Kingdom, or Austrasia, from the West Kingdom, or
Neustria. In Austrasia, the Germanic element prevailed; in
Neustria, the Roman and Gallic survivals entered most largely
into the new society. Austrasia widened into the Germany of
later history; Neustria into France. In both these kingdoms,
the Frankish kings sank lower and lower in character, until
their name (of Merwings or Merovingians, from an ancestor of
Clovis) became a byword for sloth and worthlessness. In each
kingdom there arose, beside the nominal monarch, a strong
minister, called the Major Domus, or Mayor of the Palace, who
exercised the real power and governed in the king's name.
During the last half of the seventh century, the Austrasian
Mayor, Pippin of Heristal, and the Neustrian Mayor, Ebroin,
converted the old antagonism of the two kingdoms into a
personal rivalry and struggle for supremacy. Ebroin was
murdered, and Pippin was the final victor, in a decisive
battle at Testry (687), which made him virtual master of the
whole Frank realm, although the idle Merwings still sat on
their thrones. Pippin's son, Charles Martel, strengthened and
extended the domination which his father had acquired. He
drove back the Saxons and subdued the Frisians in the North,
and, in the great and famous battle of Tours (732) he
repelled, once for all, the attempt of the Arab and Moorish
followers of Mahomet, already lodged in Spain, to push their
conquests beyond the Pyrenees.
{1016}
The next of the family, Pippin the Short, son of Charles
Martel, put an end to the pretence of governing in the name of
a puppet-king. The last of the Merovingians was quietly
deposed—lacking even importance enough to be put to death—
and Pippin received the crown at the hands of Pope Zachary (A.
D. 751). He died in 768, and the reign of his son, who
succeeded him—the Great Charles—the Charlemagne of mediæval
history—is the introduction to so new an era, and so changed
an order of circumstances in the European world, that it will
be best to finish with all that lies behind it in our hasty
survey before we take it up.
The Conquests of Islam.
Outside of Europe, a new and strange power had now risen, and
had spread its forces with extraordinary rapidity around the
southern and eastern circuit of the Mediterranean, until it
troubled both extremities of the northern shore. This was the
power of Islam—the proselyting, war-waging religion of
Mahomet, the Arabian prophet. At the death of Mahomet, in 632,
he was lord of Arabia, and his armies had just crossed the
border, to attack the Syrian possessions of the Eastern Roman
Empire. In seven years from that time, the whole of Palestine
and Syria had been overrun, Jerusalem, Damascus, Antioch, and
all the strong cities taken, and Roman authority expelled. In
two years more, they had dealt the last blow to the Sassanian
monarchy in Persia and shattered it forever. At the same time
they were besieging Alexandria and adding Egypt to their
conquests. In 668, only thirty-six years after the death of
the Prophet, they were at the gates of Constantinople, making
the first of their many attempts to gain possession of the New
Rome. In 698 they had taken Carthage, had occupied all North
Africa to the Atlantic coast, had converted the Mauretanians,
or Moors, and absorbed them into their body politic as well as
into their communion. In 711 the commingled Arabs and Moors
crossed the Straits and entered Spain, and the overthrow of
the Christian kingdom of the Visigoths was practically
accomplished in a single battle that same year. Within two
years more, the Moors (as they came to be most commonly
called) were in possession of the whole southern, central, and
eastern parts of the Spanish peninsula, treating the
inhabitants who had not fled with a more generous toleration
than differing Christians were wont to offer to one another.
The Spaniards (a mixed population of Roman, Suevic, Gothic,
and aboriginal descent) who did, not submit, took refuge in
the mountainous region of the Asturias and Galicia, where they
maintained their independence, and, in due time, became
aggressive, until, after eight centuries, they recovered their
whole land.
The Eastern Empire.
At the East, as we have seen, the struggle of the Empire with
the Arabs began at the first moment of their career of foreign
conquest. They came upon it when it was weak from many wounds,
and exhausted by conflict with many foes. Before the death of
Justinian (565), the transient glories of his reign had been
waning fast. His immediate successor saw the work of
Belisarius and Narses undone, for the most part, and the
Italian peninsula overrun by a new horde of barbarians, more
rapacious and more savage than the Goths. At the same time,
the Persian war broke out again, and drained the imperial
resources to pay for victories that had no fruit. Two better
and stronger emperors—Tiberius and Maurice—who came after
him, only made an honorable struggle, without leaving the
Empire in a better state. Then a brutal creature—Phocas—held
the throne for eight years (602-610) and sunk it very low by his
crimes. The hero, Heraclius, who was now raised to power, came
too late. Assailed suddenly, at the very beginning of his
reign, by a fierce Persian onset, he was powerless to resist.
Syria, Egypt and Asia Minor were successively ravaged and
conquered by the Persian arms. They came even to the
Bosphorus, and for ten years they held its eastern shore and
maintained a camp within sight of Constantinople itself; while
the wild Tartar nation of the Avars raged, at the same time,
through the northern and western provinces of the Empire, and
threatened the capital on its landward sides. The Roman Empire
was reduced, for a time, to "the walls of Constantinople, with
the remnant of Greece, Italy, and Africa, and some maritime
cities, from Tyre to Trebizond, of the Asiatic coast." But in
622 Heraclius turned the tide of disaster and rolled it back
upon his enemies. Despite an alliance of the Persians with the
Avars, and their combined assault upon Constantinople in 626,
he repelled the latter, and wrested from the former, in a
series of remarkable campaigns, all the territory they had
seized. He had but just accomplished this great deliverance of
his dominions, when the Arabs came upon him, as stated above.
There was no strength left in the Empire to resist the
terrible prowess of these warriors of the desert. They
extinguished its authority in Syria and Egypt, as we have
seen, in the first years of their career; but then turned
their arms to the East and the West, and were slow in
disputing Asia Minor with its Christian lords. "From the time
of Heraclius the Byzantine theatre is contracted and darkened:
the line of empire which had been defined by the laws of
Justinian and the arms of Belisarius recedes on all sides from
our view" (Gibbon). There was neither vigor nor virtue in the
descendants of Heraclius; and when the last of them was
destroyed by a popular rising against his vicious tyranny
(711), revolution followed revolution so quickly that three
reigns were begun and ended in six years.
The so-called Byzantine Empire.
Then came to the throne a man of strong character, who
redeemed it at least from contempt; who introduced a dynasty
which endured for a century, and whose reign is the beginning
of a new era in the history of the Eastern Empire, so marked
that the Empire has taken from that time, in the common usage,
a changed name, and is known thenceforth as the Byzantine,
rather than the Eastern or the Greek. This was Leo the
Isaurian, who saved Constantinople from a second desperate
Moslem siege; who checked for a considerable period the
Mahometan advance in the East; who reorganized the imperial
administration on lasting lines; and whose suppression of
image-worship in the Christian churches of his empire led to a
rupture with the Roman Church in the West,—to the breaking of
all relations of dependence in Rome and Italy upon the Empire
in the East, and to the creating of a new imperial sovereignty
in Western Europe which claimed succession to that of Rome.
{1017}
Lombard Conquest of Italy.
On the conquest of Italy by Belisarius and Narses, for
Justinian, the eunuch Narses, as related before, was made
governor, residing at Ravenna, and bearing the title of
Exarch. In a few years he was displaced, through the influence
of a palace intrigue at Constantinople. To be revenged, it is
said that he persuaded the Lombards, a German tribe lately
become threatening on the Upper Danube, to enter Italy. They
came, under their leader Alboin, and almost the whole northern
and middle parts of the peninsula submitted to them with no
resistance. Pavia stood a siege for three years before it
surrendered to become the Lombard capital; Venice received an
added population of fugitives, and was safe in her
lagoons—like Ravenna, where the new Exarch watched the march
of Lombard conquest, and scarcely opposed it. Rome was
preserved, with part of southern Italy and with Sicily; but no
more than a shadow of the sovereignty of the Empire now
stretched westward beyond the Adriatic.
Temporal Power of the Popes.
The city of Rome, and the territory surrounding it, still
owned a nominal allegiance to the Emperor at Constantinople;
but their immediate and real ruler was the Bishop of Rome, who
had already acquired, in a special way, the fatherly name of
"Papa" or Pope. Many circumstances had combined to place both
spiritual and temporal power in the hands of these Christian
pontiffs of Rome. They may have been originally, in the
constitution of the Church, on an equal footing of
ecclesiastical authority with the four other chiefs of the
hierarchy—the Patriarchs of Constantinople, Alexandria,
Antioch and Jerusalem; but the great name of Rome gave them
prestige and weight of superior influence to begin with. Then,
they stood, geographically and sympathetically, in nearest
relations with that massive Latin side of Christendom, in
western Europe, which was never much disturbed by the raging
dogmatic controversies that tore and divided the Church on its
Eastern, Greek side. It was inevitable that the Western Church
should yield homage to one head—to one bishopric above all
other bishoprics; and it was more inevitable that the See of
Rome should be that one. So the spiritual supremacy to which
the Popes arrived is easily enough explained. The temporal
authority which they acquired is accounted for as obviously.
Even before the interruption of the line of emperors in the
West, the removal of the imperial residence for long periods
from Rome, to Constantinople, to Milan, to Ravenna, left the
Pope the most impressive and influential personage in the
ancient capital. Political functions were forced on him,
whether he desired to exercise them or not. It was Pope Leo
who headed the embassy to Attila, and saved the city from the
Huns. It was the same Pope who pleaded for it with the Vandal
king, Genseric. And still more and more, after the imperial
voice which uttered occasional commands to his Roman subjects
was heard from a distant palace in Constantinople, and in
accents that had become wholly Greek, the chair of St. Peter
grew throne-like,—the respect paid to the Pope in civil
matters took on the spirit of obedience, and his aspect before
the people became that of a temporal prince.
This process of the political elevation of the Papacy was
completed by the Lombard conquest of Italy. The Lombard kings
were bent upon the acquisition of Rome; the Popes were
resolute and successful in holding it against them. At last
the Papacy made its memorable and momentous alliance with the
Carolingian chiefs of the Franks. It assumed the tremendous
super-imperial right and power to dispose of crowns, by taking
that of the kingdom of the Franks from Childeric and giving it
to Pippin (751); and this was the first assumption of that
right by the chief priest of Western Christendom. In return,
Pippin led an army twice to Italy (754-755), humbled the
Lombards, took from them the exarchate of Ravenna and the
Pentapolis (a district east of the Appenines, between Ancona
and Ferrara), and transferred this whole territory as a
conqueror's "donation" to the Apostolic See. The temporal
sovereignty of the Popes now rested on a base as political and
as substantial as that of the most worldly and vulgar
potentates around them.
Charlemagne's restored Roman Empire.
Pippin's greater son, Charlemagne, renewed the alliance of his
house with the Papacy, and strengthened it by completing the
conquest of the Lombards, extinguishing their kingdom (774),
and confirming his father's donation of the States of the
Church. Charlemagne was now supreme in Italy, and the Pope
became the representative of his sovereignty at Rome,—a
position which lastingly enhanced the political importance of
the Roman See in the peninsula. But while Pope and King stood
related, in one view, as agent and principal, or subject and
sovereign, another very different relationship slowly shaped
itself in the thoughts of one, if not of both. The Western
Church had broken entirely with the Eastern, on the question
of image-worship; the titular sovereignty of the Eastern
Emperor in the ancient Roman capital was a worn-out fiction;
the reign of a female usurper, Irene, at Constantinople
afforded a good occasion for renouncing and discarding it. But
a Roman Emperor there must be, somewhere, for lesser princes
and sovereigns to do homage to; the political habit and
feeling of the European world, shaped and fixed by the long
domination of Rome, still called for it. "Nor could the
spiritual head of Christendom dispense with the temporal;
without the Roman Empire there could not be," according to the
feeling of the ninth century, "a Roman, nor by necessary
consequence a Catholic and Apostolic Church." For "men could
not separate in fact what was indissoluble in thought:
Christianity must stand or fall along with the great Christian
state: they were but two names for one and the same thing"
(Bryce). Therefore the head of the Church, boldly enlarging
the assumption of his predecessor who bestowed the crown of
the Merovingians upon Pippin, now took it upon himself to set
the diadem of the Cæsars on the head of Charlemagne. On the
Christmas Day, in the year 800, in the basilica of St. Peter,
at Rome, the solemn act of coronation was performed by Pope
Leo III.; the Roman Empire lived again, in the estimation of
that age, and Charles the Great reopened the interrupted line
of successors to Augustus.
{1018}
Before this imperial coronation of Charlemagne occurred, he
had already made his dominion imperial in extent, by the
magnitude of his conquests. North, south, east, and west, his
armies had been everywhere victorious. In eighteen campaigns
against the fierce and troublesome Saxons, he subdued those
stubborn pagans and forced them to submit to a Christian
baptism—with how much of immediate religious effect may be
easily surmised. But by opening a way for the more Christ-like
missionaries of the cross, who followed him, this missionary
of the battle-ax did, no doubt, a very real apostolic work. He
checked the ravages of the piratical Danes. He crushed the
Avars and took their country, which comprised parts of the
Austria and Hungary of the present day. He occupied Bavaria,
on the one hand, and Brittany on the other. He crossed the
Pyrenees to measure swords with the Saracens, and drove them
from the north of Spain, as far as the Ebro. His lordship in
Italy has been noticed already. He was unquestionably one of
the greatest monarchs of any age, and deserves the title
Magnus, affixed to his name, if that title ever has been
deserved by the kings who were flattered with it. There was
much more in his character than the mere aggressive energy
which subjugated so wide a realm. He was a man of
enlightenment far beyond his time; a man who strove after
order, in that disorderly age, and who felt oppressed by the
ignorance into which the world had sunk. He was a seeker after
learning, and the friend and patron of all in his day who
groped in the darkness and felt their way towards the light.
He organized his Empire with a sense of political system which
was new among the Teutonic masters of Western Europe (except
as shown by Theodoric in Italy); but there were not years
enough in his own life for the organism to mature, and his
sons brought back chaos again.
Appearance of the Northmen.
Before Charlemagne died (814) he saw the western coasts and
river valleys of his Empire harried by a fresh outpouring of
sea-rovers from the far North, and it is said that he had sad
forebodings of the affliction they would become to his people
thereafter. These new pirates of the North Sea, who took up,
after several centuries, the abandoned trade of their kinsmen,
the Saxons (now retired from their wild courses and
respectably settled on one side of the water, while subdued
and kept in order on the other), were of the bold and rugged
Scandinavian race, which inhabited the countries since known
as Denmark, Sweden and Norway. They are more or less confused
under the general name of Northmen, or Norsemen—men of the
North; but that term appears to have been applied more
especially to the freebooters from the Norwegian coast, as
distinguished from the "Danes" of the lesser peninsula. It is
convenient, in so general a sketch as this, to ignore the
distinction, and to speak of the Northmen as inclusive, for
that age, of the whole Scandinavian race.
Their visitations began to terrify the coasts of England,
France and Germany, and the lower valleys of the rivers which
they found it possible to ascend, some time in the later half
of the eighth century. It is probable that their appearance on
the sea at this time, and not before, was due to a revolution
which united Norway under a single king and a stronger
government, and which, by suppressing independence and
disorder among the petty chiefs, drove many of them to their
ships and sent them abroad, to lead a life of lawlessness more
agreeable to their tastes. It is also probable that the
northern countries had become populated beyond their
resources, as seemed to have happened before, when the Goths
swarmed out, and that the outlet by sea was necessarily and
deliberately opened. Whatever the cause, these Norse
adventurers, in fleets of long boats, issued with some
suddenness from their "vics," or fiords (whence the name
"viking"), and began an extraordinary career. For more than
half a century their raids had no object but plunder, and what
they took they carried home to enjoy. First to the Frisian
coast, then to the Rhine—the Seine—the Loire,—they came
again and again to pillage and destroy; crossing at the same
time to the shores of their nearest kinsmen—but heeding no
kinship in their savage and relentless forays along the
English coasts—and around to Ireland and the Scottish
islands, where their earliest lodgments were made.
The Danes in England.
About the middle of the ninth century they began to seize
tracts of land in England and to settle themselves there in
permanent homes. The Angles in the northern and eastern parts
and the Saxons in the southern part of England had weakened
themselves and one another by rivalry and war between their
divided kingdoms. There had been for three centuries an
unceasing struggle among them for supremacy. At the time of
the coming of the Danes (who were prominent in the English
invasion and gave their name to it), the West Saxon kings had
won a decided ascendancy. The Danes, by degrees, stripped them
of what they had gained. Northumberland, Mercia and East
Anglia were occupied in succession, and Wessex itself was
attacked. King Alfred, the great and admirable hero of early
English history, who came to the throne in 871, spent the
first eight years of his reign in a deadly struggle with the
invaders. He was obliged in the end to concede to them the
whole northeastern part of England, from the Thames to the
Tyne, which was known thereafter as "the Danelaw"; but they
became his vassals, and submitted to Christian baptism. A
century later, the Norse rovers resumed their attacks upon
England, and a cowardly English king, distrusting the now
settled and peaceful Danes, ordered an extensive massacre of
them (1002). The rage which this provoked in Denmark led to a
great invasion of the country. England was completely
conquered, and remained subject to the Danish kings until
1042, when its throne was recovered for a brief space of time
by the English line.
{1019}
The Normans in Normandy.
Meanwhile the Northmen had gained a much firmer and more
important footing in the territory of the Western
Franks—which had not yet acquired the name of France. The
Seine and its valley attracted them again and again, and after
repeated expeditions up the river, even to the city of Paris,
which they besieged several times, one of their chiefs, Rolf
or Rollo, got possession of Rouen and began a permanent
settlement in the country. The Frank King, Charles the Simple,
now made terms with Rollo and granted him a district at the
mouth of the Seine, (912), the latter acknowledging the
suzerainty or feudal superiority of Charles, and accepting at
the same time the doubly new character of a baptised Christian
and a Frankish Duke. The Northmen on the Seine were known
thenceforth as Normans, their dukedom as Normandy, and they
played a great part in European history during the next two
centuries.
The Northmen in the West.
The northern sea-rovers who had settled neither in Ireland,
England, nor Frankland, went farther afield into the West and
North and had wonderful adventures there. They took possession
of the Orkneys, the Shetlands, the Hebrides, and other islands
in those seas, including Man, and founded a powerful
island-kingdom, which they held for a long period. Thence they
passed on to Faroë and Iceland, and in Iceland, where they
lived peaceful and quiet lives of necessity, they founded an
interesting republic, and developed a very remarkable
civilization, adorned by a literature which the world is
learning more and more to admire. From Iceland, it was a
natural step to the discovery of Greenland, and from
Greenland, there is now little doubt that they sailed
southwards and saw and touched the continent of America, five
centuries before Columbus made his voyage.
The Northmen in the East.
While the Northmen of the ninth and tenth centuries were
exciting and disturbing all Western Europe by their naval
exploits, other adventurers from the Swedish side of the
Scandinavian country were sallying eastwards under different
names. Both as warriors and as merchants, they made their way
from the Baltic to the Black Sea and the Bosphorus, and bands
of them entered the service of the Eastern Emperor, at
Constantinople, where they received the name of Varangians,
from the oath by which they bound themselves. One of the
Swedish chiefs, Rurik by name, was chosen by certain tribes of
the country now called Russia, to be their prince. Rurik's
capital was Novgorod, where he formed the nucleus of a kingdom
which grew, through many vicissitudes, into the modern empire
of Russia. His successors transferred their capital to Kief,
and ultimately it was shifted again to Moscow, where the
Muscovite princes acquired the title, the power, and the great
dominion of the Czars of all the Russias.
The Slavonic Race.
The Russian sovereigns were thus of Swedish origin; but their
subjects were of another race. They belonged to a branch of
the great Aryan stock, called the Slavic or Slavonic, which
was the last to become historically known. The Slavonians bore
no important part in events that we have knowledge of until
several centuries of the Christian era had passed. They were
the obscure inhabitants in that period of a wide region in
Eastern Europe, between the Vistula and the Caspian. In the
sixth century, pressed by the Avars, they crossed the Vistula,
moving westwards, along the Baltic; and, about the same time
they moved southwards, across the Danube, and established the
settlements which formed the existing Slavonic states in
South-eastern Europe—Servia, Croatia and their lesser
neighbors. But the principal seat of the Slavonic race within
historic times has always been in the region still occupied by
its principal representatives, the Russians and the Poles.
Mediæval Society.
The Feudal System.
We have now come to a period in European history—the middle
period of the Middle Ages—when it is appropriate to consider
the peculiar state of society which had resulted from the
transplanting of the Germanic nations of the North to the
provinces of the Roman Empire, and from placing the well
civilized surviving inhabitants of the latter in subjection to
and in association with masters so vigorous, so capable and so
barbarous. In Gaul, the conquerors, unused to town-life, not
attracted to town pursuits, and eager for the possession of
land, had generally spread themselves over the country and
left the cities more undisturbed, except as they pillaged them
or extorted ransom from them. The Roman-Gallic population of
the country had sought refuge, no doubt, to a large extent, in
the cities; the agricultural laborers were already, for the
most part, slaves or half-slaves—the coloni of the Roman
system—and remained in their servitude; while some of the
poorer class of freemen may have sunk to the same condition.
How far the new masters of the country had taken possession of
its land by actual seizure, ousting the former owners, and
under what rules, if any, it was divided among them, are
questions involved in great obscurity. In the time of
Charlemagne, there seems to have been a large number of small
landowners who cultivated their own holdings, which they
owned, not conditionally, but absolutely, by the tenure called
allodial. But alongside of these peasant proprietors there was
another landed class whose estates were held on very different
terms, and this latter class, at the time now spoken of, was
rapidly absorbing the former. It was a class which had not
existed before, neither among the Germans nor among the
Romans, and the system of land tenure on which it rested was
equally new to both, although both seem to have contributed
something to the origin of it. This was the Feudal System,
which may be described, in the words of Bishop Stubbs, as
being "a complete organization of society through the medium
of land tenure, in which, from the king down to the landowner,
all are bound together by obligation of service and defence:
the lord to protect his vassal, the vassal to do service to
his lord; the defence and service being based on, and
regulated by, the nature and extent of the land held by the
one of the other." Of course, the service exacted was, in the
main, military, and the system grew up as a military system,
expanding into a general governing system, during a time of
loose and ineffective administration. That it was a thing of
gradual growth is now fairly well settled, although little is
clearly known of the process of growth. It came to its
perfection in the tenth century, by which time most other
tenures of land had disappeared. The allodial tenure gave way
before it, because, in those disorderly times, men of small or
moderate property in land were in need of the protection which
a powerful lord, who had many retainers at his back, or a strong
monastery, could give, and were induced to surrender, to one
or the other, their free ownership of the land they held,
receiving it back as tenants, in order to establish the
relation which secured a protector.
{1020}
In its final organization, the feudal system, as stated
before, embraced the whole society of the kingdom.
Theoretically, the king was the pinnacle of the system. In the
political view of the time—so far as a political view
existed—he was the over-lord of the realm rather by reason of
being its ultimate land-lord, than by being the center of
authority and the guardian of law. The greater subordinate
lordships of the kingdom—the dukedoms and counties—were
held as huge estates, called fiefs, derived originally by
grant from the king, subject to the obligation of military
service, and to certain acts of homage, acknowledging the
dependent relationship. The greater feudatories, or vassals,
holding immediately from the king, were lords in their turn of
a second order of feudatories, who held lands under them; and
they again might divide their territories among vassals of a
third degree; for the process of sub-infeudation went on until
it reached the cultivator of the soil, who bore the whole
social structure of society on his bent back.
But the feudal system would have wrought few of the effects
which it did if it had involved nothing but land tenure and
military service. It became, however, as before intimated, a
system of government, and one which inevitably produced a
disintegration of society and a destruction of national bonds.
A grant of territory generally carried with it almost a grant
of sovereignty over the inhabitants of the territory, limited
only by certain rights and powers reserved to the king, which
he found extreme difficulty in exercising. The system was one
"in which every lord judged, taxed, and commanded the class
next below him, in which abject slavery formed the lowest and
irresponsible tyranny the highest grade, in which private war,
private coinage, private prisons, took the place of the
imperial institutions of government" (Stubbs). This was the
singular system which had its original and special growth
among the Franks, in the Middle Ages, and which spread from
them, under the generally similar conditions of the age, to
other countries, with various degrees of modification and
limitation. Its influence was obviously opposed to political
unity and social order, and to the development of institutions
favorable to the people.
But an opposing influence had kept life in one part of society
which feudalism was not able to envelope. That was in cities.
The cities, as before stated, had been the refuge of a large
and perhaps a better part of the Roman-Gallic free population
which survived the barbarian conquest. They, in conjunction
with the Church, preserved, without doubt, so much of the
plant of Roman civilization as escaped destruction. They
certainly suffered heavily, and languished for several
centuries; but a slow revival of industries and arts went on
in them,—trade crept again into its old channels, or found
new ones,—and wealth began to be accumulated anew. With the
consciousness of wealth came feelings of independence; and
such towns were now beginning to acquire the spirit which made
them, a little later, important instruments in the weakening
and breaking of the feudal system.
Rise of the Kingdom of France.
During the period between the death of Charlemagne and the
settlement of the Normans in the Carlovingian Empire, that
Empire had become permanently divided. The final separation
had taken place (887) between the kingdom of the East Franks,
or Germany, and the kingdom of the West Franks, which
presently became France. Between them stretched a region in
dispute called Lotharingia, out of which came the duchy of
Lorraine. The kingdom of Burgundy (sometimes cut into two) and
the kingdom of Italy, had regained a separate existence; and
the Empire which Charlemagne had revived was nothing but a
name. The last of the Carlovingian emperors was Arnulf, who
died in 899. The imperial title was borne afterwards by a
number of petty Italian potentates, but lost all imperial
significance for two-thirds of a century, until it was
restored to some grandeur again and to a lasting influence in
history, by another German king.
Before this occurred, the Carlovingian race of kings had
disappeared from both the Frank kingdoms. During the last
hundred years of their reign in the West kingdom, the throne
had been disputed with them two or three times by members of a
rising family, the Counts of Paris and Orleans, who were also
called Dukes of the French, and whose duchy gave its name to
the kingdom which they finally made their own. The kings of
the old race held their capital at Laon, with little power and
a small dominion, until 987, when the last one died. The then
Count of Paris and Duke of the French, Hugh, called Capet,
became king of the French, by election; Paris became the
capital of the kingdom, and the France of modern times had its
birth, though very far from its full growth.
The royal power had now declined to extreme weakness. The
development of feudalism had undermined all central authority,
and Hugh Capet as king had scarcely more power than he drew
from his own large fief. "At first he was by no means
acknowledged in the kingdom; but … the chief vassals
ultimately gave at least a tacit consent to the usurpation,
and permitted the royal name to descend undisputed upon his
posterity. But this was almost the sole attribute of
sovereignty which the first kings of the third dynasty
enjoyed. For a long period before and after the accession of
that family France has, properly speaking, no national
history" (Hallam).
The Communes.
When the royal power began to gain ascendancy, it seems to
have been largely in consequence of a tacitly formed alliance
between the kings and the commons or burghers of the towns.
The latter, as noted before, were acquiring a spirit of
independence, born of increased prosperity, and were
converting their guilds or trades unions into crude forms of
municipal organization, as "communes" or commons. Sometimes by
purchase and sometimes by force, they were ridding themselves
of the feudal pretensions which neighboring lords held over
them, and were obtaining charters which defined and guaranteed
municipal freedom to them. One or two kings of the time
happened to be wise enough to give encouragement to this
movement towards the enfranchisement of the communes, and it
proved to have an important influence in weakening feudalism
and strengthening royalty.
[Image: Europe at the close of the 10th century.]
{1021}
Germany.
In the German kingdom, much the same processes of
disintegration had produced much the same results as in
France. The great fiefs into which it was divided—the duchies
of Saxony, Franconia, Swabia and Bavaria—were even more
powerful than the great fiefs of France. When the Carlovingian
dynasty came to an end, in 911, the nobles made choice of a
king, electing Conrad of Franconia, and, after him (919),
Henry the Fowler, Duke of Saxony. The monarchy continued
thereafter to be elective, actually as well as in theory, for
a long period. Three times the crown was kept in the same
family during several successive generations: in the House of
Saxony from 919 to 1024; in the House of Franconia from 1024
to 1137; in the House of the Hohenstaufens, of Swabia, from
1137 to 1254: but it never became an acknowledged heritage
until long after the Hapsburgs won possession of it; and even
to the end the forms of election were preserved.
The Holy Roman Empire.
The second king of the Saxon dynasty, Otho I., called the
Great, recovered the imperial title, which had become extinct
again in the West, added the crown of Lombardy to the crown of
Germany, and founded anew the Germanic Roman Empire, which
Charlemagne had failed to establish enduringly, but which now
became one of the conspicuous facts of European history for
more than eight hundred years, although seldom more than a
shadow and a name. But the shadow and the name were those of
the great Rome of antiquity, and the mighty memory it had left
in the world gave a superior dignity and rank to these German
emperors, even while it diminished their actual power as kings
of Germany. It conferred upon them, indeed, more than rank and
dignity; it bestowed an "office" which the ideas and feelings
of that age could not suffer to remain vacant. The Imperial
office seemed to be required, in matters temporal, to balance
and to be the complement of the Papal office in matters
spiritual. "In nature and compass the government of these two
potentates is the same, differing only in the sphere of its
working; and it matters not whether we call the Pope a
spiritual Emperor, or the Emperor a secular Pope." "Thus the
Holy Roman Church and the Holy Roman Empire are one and the
same thing, in two aspects; and Catholicism, the principle of
the universal Christian society, is also Romanism; that is,
rests upon Rome as the origin and type of its universality"
(Bryce). These mediæval ideas of the "Holy Roman Empire," as
it came to be called (not immediately, but after a time), gave
importance to the imperial coronation thenceforth claimed by
the German kings. It was a factitious importance, so far as
concerned the immediate realm of those kings. In Germany,
while it brought no increase to their material power, it
tended to alarm feudal jealousies; it tended to draw the kings
away from their natural identification with their own country; it
tended to distract them from an effective royal policy at
home, by foreign ambitions and aims; and altogether it
interfered seriously with the nationalization of Germany, and
gave a longer play to the disrupting influences of feudalism
in that country than in any other.
Italy, the Empire and the Papacy.
Otto I. had won Italy and the Imperial crown (962) very
easily. For more than half a century the peninsula had been in
a deplorable state. The elective Lombard crown, quarreled over
by the ducal houses of Friuli, Spoleto, Ivrea, Provence, and
others, settled nowhere with any sureness, and lost all
dignity and strength, though several of the petty kings who
wore it had been crowned emperors by the Pope. At Rome, all
legitimate government, civil or ecclesiastical, had
disappeared. The city and the Church had been for years under
the rule of a family of courtesans, who made popes of their
lovers and their sons. Southern Italy was being ravaged by the
Saracens, who occupied Sicily, and Northern Italy was
desolated by the Hungarians. Under these circumstances, Otto
I., the German king, listened to an appeal from an oppressed
queen, Adelaide, widow of a murdered king, and crossed, the
Alps (951), like a gallant knight, to her relief. He chastised
and humbled the oppressor, rescued the queen, and married her. A
few years later, on further provocation, he entered Italy
again, deposed the troublesome King Berengar, caused himself
to be crowned King of Italy, and received the imperial crown
at Rome (962) from one of the vilest of a vile brood of popes,
John XII. Soon afterwards, he was impelled to convoke a synod
which deposed this disgraceful pope and elected in his place
Leo VIII., who had been Otto's chief secretary. The citizens
now conceded to the Emperor an absolute veto on papal
elections, and the new pope confirmed their act. The German
sovereigns, from that time, for many years, asserted their
right to control the filling of the chair of St. Peter, and
exercised the right on many occasions, though always with
difficulty.
Nominally they were sovereigns of Rome and Italy; but during
their long absences from the country they scarcely made a show
of administrative government in it, and their visits were
generally of the nature of expeditions for a reconquest of the
land. Their claims of sovereignty were resisted more and more,
politically throughout Italy and ecclesiastically at Rome. The
Papacy emancipated itself from their control and acquired a
natural leadership of Italian opposition to German imperial
pretensions. The conflict between these two forces became, as
will be seen later on, one of the dominating facts of European
history for four centuries—from the eleventh to the
fourteenth.
{1022}
The Italian City-republics.
The disorder that had been scarcely checked in Italy since the
Goths came into it,—the practical extinction of central
authority after Charlemagne dropped his sceptre, and the
increasing conflicts of the nobles among themselves,—had one
consequence of remarkable importance in Italian history. It
opened opportunities to many cities in the northern parts of
the peninsula for acquiring municipal freedom, which they did
not lack spirit to improve. They led the movement and set the
example which created, a little later, so many vigorous
communes in Flanders and France, and imperial free cities in
Germany at a still later day. They were earlier in winning
their liberties, and they pushed them farther,—to the point
in many cases of creating, as at Pisa, Genoa, Florence, and
Venice, a republican city state. Venice, growing up in the
security of her lagoons, from a cluster of fishing villages to
a great city of palaces, had been independent from the
beginning, except as she acknowledged for a time the nominal
supremacy of the Eastern Emperor. Others won their way to
independence through struggles that are now obscure, and
developed, before these dark centuries reached their close, an
energy of life and a splendor of genius that come near to
comparison with the power and the genius of the Greeks. But,
like the city-republics of Greece, they were perpetually at
strife with one another, and sacrificed to their mutual
jealousies, in the end, the precious liberty which made them
great, and which they might, by a well settled union, have
preserved.
The Saxon line of Emperors.
Such were the conditions existing or taking shape in Italy
when the Empire of the West—the Holy Roman Empire of later
times—was founded anew by Otho the Great. Territorially, the
Empire as he left it covered Germany to its full extent, and
two-thirds of Italy, with the Emperor's superiority
acknowledged by the subject states of Burgundy, Bohemia,
Moravia, Poland, Denmark, and Hungary—the last named with
more dispute.
Otho the Great died in 972. His two immediate successors, Otho
II. (973-983) and Otho III. (983-1002) accomplished little,
though the latter had great ambitions, planning to raise Rome
to her old place as the capital of the world; but he died in
his youth in Italy, and was succeeded by a cousin, Henry II.,
whose election was contested by rivals in Germany, and
repudiated in Italy. In the latter country the great nobles
placed Ardoin, marquis of Ivrea, on the Lombard throne; but
the factions among them soon caused his overthrow, and, Henry,
crossing the Alps, reclaimed the crown.
The Franconian Emperors.
Henry II. was the last of the Saxon line, and upon his death,
in 1024, the House of Franconia came to the throne, by the
election of Conrad II., called "the Salic." Under Conrad, the
kingdom of Burgundy, afterwards called the kingdom of Arles
(which is to be distinguished from the French Duchy of
Burgundy—the northwestern part of the old kingdom), was
reunited to the Empire, by the bequest of its last king,
Rudolph III. Conrad's son, grandson, and great grandson
succeeded him in due order; Henry III. from 1039 to 1056;
Henry IV. from 1056 to 1106; Henry V. from 1106 to 1125. Under
Henry III. the Empire was at the summit of its power. Henry
II., exercising the imperial prerogative, had raised the Duke
of Hungary to royal rank, giving him the title of king. Henry
III. now forced the Hungarian king to acknowledge the imperial
supremacy and pay tribute. The German kingdom was ruled with a
strong hand and peace among its members compelled. "In Rome,
no German sovereign had ever been so absolute. A disgraceful
contest between three claimants of the papal chair had shocked
even the reckless apathy of Italy. Henry deposed them all and
appointed their successor." "The synod passed a decree
granting to Henry the right of nominating the supreme pontiff;
and the Roman priesthood, who had forfeited the respect of the
world even more by habitual simony than by the flagrant
corruption of their manners, were forced to receive German
after German as their bishop, at the bidding of a ruler so
powerful, so severe, and so pious. But Henry's encroachments
alarmed his own nobles no less than the Italians, and the
reaction, which might have been dangerous to himself, was
fatal to his successor. A mere chance, as some might call it,
determined the course of history. The great Emperor died
suddenly in A. D. 1056, and a child was left at the helm,
while storms were gathering that might have demanded the
wisest hand" (Bryce).
Hildebrand and Henry IV.
The child was Henry IV., of unfortunate memory; the storms
which beset him blew from Rome. The Papacy, lifted from its
degradation by Henry's father and grandfather, had recovered
its boldness of tone and enlarged its pretensions and claims.
It had come under the influence of an extraordinary man, the
monk Hildebrand, who swayed the councils of four popes before
he became pope himself (1073), and whose pontifical reign as
Gregory VII. is the epoch of greatest importance in the
history of the Roman Church. The overmastering ascendancy of
the popes, in the Church and over all who acknowledge its
communion, really began when this invincible monk was raised
to the papal throne. He broke the priesthood and the whole
hierarchy of the West to blind obedience by his relentless
discipline. He isolated them, as an order apart, by enforcing
celibacy upon them; and he extinguished the corrupting
practices of simony. Then, when he had marshalled the forces
of the Church, he proclaimed its independence and its
supremacy in absolute terms. In the growth of feudalism
throughout Europe, the Church had become compromised in many
ways with the civil powers. Its bishoprics and abbeys had
acquired extensively the nature of fiefs, and bishops and
abbots were required to do homage to a secular lord before
they could receive an "investiture" of the rich estates which
had become attached by a feudal tenure to their sees. The
ceremony of investiture, moreover, included delivery of the
crozier and the pastoral ring, which were the very symbols of
their spiritual office. Against this dependence of the Church
upon temporal powers, Gregory now arrayed it in revolt, and
began the "War of Investitures," which lasted for half a
century. The great battle ground was Germany; the Emperor, of
necessity, was the chief opponent; and Henry IV., whose youth
had been badly trained, and whose authority had been weakened
by a long, ill-guardianed minority, was at a disadvantage in
the contest. His humiliation at Canossa (1077), when he stood
through three winter days, a suppliant before the door of the
castle which lodged his haughty enemy, praying to be released
from the dread penalties of excommunication, is one of the
familiar tableaux of history. He had a poor revenge seven
years later, when he took Rome, drove Gregory into the castle
St. Angelo, and seated an anti-pope in the Vatican. But his
triumph was brief. There came to the rescue of the
beleaguered Pope certain new actors in Italian history, whom
it is now necessary to introduce.
{1023}
The Normans in Italy and Sicily.
The settlement of predatory Northmen on the Seine, which took
the name of Normandy and the constitution of a ducal fief of
France, had long since grown into an important
half-independent state. Its people—now called Normans in the
smoother speech of the South—had lost something of their
early rudeness, and had fallen a little under the spell of the
rising chivalry of the age; but the goad of a warlike temper
which drove their fathers out of Norway still pricked the sons
and sent them abroad, in restless search of adventures and
gain. Some found their way into the south of Italy, where
Greeks, Lombards and Saracens were fighting merrily, and where
a good sword and a tough lance were tools of the only industry
well-paid. Presently there was banded among them there a
little army, which found itself a match for any force that
Greek or Lombard, or other opponent, could bring against it,
and which proceeded accordingly to work its own will in the
land. It seized Apulia (1042) and divided it into twelve
countships, as an aristocratic republic. Pope Leo IX. led an
army against it and was beaten and taken prisoner (1053). To
release himself he was compelled to grant the duchy they had
taken to them, as a fief of the Church, and to extend his
grant to whatever they might succeed in taking, beyond it. The
chiefs of the Normans thus far had been, in succession, three
sons of a poor gentleman in the Cotentin, Tancred by name, who
now sent a fourth son to the scene. This new comer was Robert,
having the surname of Guiscard, who became the fourth leader
of the Norman troop (1057), and who, in a few years, assumed
the title of Duke of Calabria and Apulia. His duchies
comprised, substantially, the territory of the later kingdom
of Naples. A fifth brother, Roger, had meantime crossed to
Sicily, with a small following of his countrymen; and, between
1060 and 1090, had expelled the Saracens from that island, and
possessed it as a fief of his brother's duchy. But in the next
generation these relations between the two conquests were
practically reversed. The son of Roger received the title of
King of Sicily from the Pope, and Calabria and Apulia were
annexed to his kingdom, through the extinction of Robert's
family.
These Normans of Southern Italy were the allies who came to
the rescue of Pope Gregory, when the Emperor, Henry IV.,
besieged him in Castle St. Angelo. He summoned Robert Guiscard
as a vassal of the Church, and the response was prompt. Henry
and his Germans retreated when the Normans came near, and the
latter entered Rome (1084). Accustomed to pillage, they began,
soon, to treat the city as a captured place, and the Romans
rose against them. They retaliated with torch and sword, and
once more Rome suffered from the destroying rage of a
barbarous soldiery let loose. "Neither Goth nor Vandal,
neither Greek nor German, brought such desolation on the city
as this capture by the Normans" (Milman). Duke Robert made no
attempt to hold the ruined capital, but withdrew to his own
dominions. The Pope went with him, and died soon afterwards
(1085), unable to return to Rome. But the imperious temper he
had imparted to the Church was lastingly fixed in it, and his
lofty pretensions were even surpassed by the pontiffs who
succeeded him. He spoke for the Papacy the first syllables of
that awful proclamation that was sounded in its finality,
after eight hundred years, when the dogma of infallibility was
put forth.
Norman Conquest of England.
The Normans in Italy established no durable power. In another
quarter they were more fortunate. Their kinsmen, the Danes,
who subjugated England and annexed it to their own kingdom in
1016, had lost it again in 1042, when the old line of kings
was restored, in the person of Edward, called the Confessor.
But William, Duke of Normandy, had acquired, in the course of
these shiftings of the English crown, certain claims which he
put forth when Edward died, and when Harold, son of the great
Earl Godwine, was elected king to succeed him, in 1066. To
enforce his claim, Duke William, commissioned by the Pope,
invaded England, in the early autumn of that year, and won the
kingdom in the great and decisive battle of Senlac, or
Hastings, where Harold was slain. On Christmas Day he was
crowned, and a few years sufficed to end all resistance to his
authority. He established on the English throne a dynasty
which, though shifting sometimes to collateral lines, has held
it to the present day.
The Norman Conquest, as estimated by its greatest historian,
Professor Freeman, wrought more good effects than ill to the
English people. It did not sweep away their laws, customs or
language, but it modified them all, and not unfavorably; while
"it aroused the old national spirit to fresh life, and gave
the conquered people fellow-workers in their conquerors." The
monarchy was strengthened by William's advantages as a
conqueror, used with the wisdom and moderation of a statesman.
Feudalism came into England stripped of its disrupting forces;
and the possible alternative of absolutism was hindered by
potent checks. At the same time, the Conquest brought England
into relations with the Continent which might otherwise have
arisen very slowly, and thus gave an early importance to the
nation in European history.
The Crusades.
At the period now reached in our survey, all Europe was on the
eve of a profounder excitement and commotion than it had ever
before known—one which stirred it for the first time with a
common feeling and with common thoughts. A great cry ran
through it, for help to deliver the holy places of the
Christian faith from the infidels who possessed them. The
pious and the adventurous, the fanatical and the vagrant, rose
up in one motley and tumultuous response to the appeal, and
mobs and armies (hardly distinguishable) of Crusaders—
warriors of the Cross—began to whiten the highways into Asia
with their bones. The first movement, in 1096, swept 300,000
men, women and children, under Peter the Hermit, to their
death, with no other result; but nearly at the same time there
went an army, French and Norman for the most part, which made its
way to Jerusalem, took the city by assault (1099) and founded
a kingdom there, which defended itself for almost a hundred
years. Long before it fell, it was pressed sorely by the
surrounding Moslems and cried to Europe for help.
{1024}
A Second Crusade, in 1147, accomplished nothing for its
relief, but spent vast multitudes of lives; and when the
feeble kingdom disappeared, in 1187, and the Sepulchre of the
Saviour was defiled again by unbelievers, Christendom grew
wild, once more, with passion, and a Third Crusade was led by
the redoubtable Emperor Frederick Barbarossa, of Germany, King
Richard Cœur de Lion, of England, and King Philip Augustus of
France. The Emperor perished miserably on the way and his army
was wasted in its march; the French and English exhausted
themselves in sieges which won nothing of durable advantage to
the Christian world; the Sultan Saladin gathered most of the
laurels of the war.
The Turks on the Scene.
The armies of Islam which the Crusaders encountered in Asia
Minor and the Holy Land were no longer, in their leadership,
of the race of Mahomet. The religion of the Prophet was still
triumphant in the East, but his nation had lost its lordship,
and Western Asia had submitted to new masters. These were the
Turks—Turks of the House of Seljuk—first comers of their
swarm from the great Aral basin. First they had been
disciples, won by the early armed missionaries of the
Crescent; then servants and mercenaries, hired to fight its
battles and guard its princes, when the vigor of the Arab
conquerors began to be sapped, and their character to be
corrupted by luxury and pride; then, at last, they were
masters. About the middle of the ninth century, the Caliph at
Bagdad became a puppet in their hands, and the Moslem Empire
in Asia (Africa and Spain being divided between rival Caliphs)
soon passed under their control.
These were the possessors of Jerusalem and its sacred shrines,
whose grievous and insulting treatment of Christian pilgrims,
in the last years of the eleventh century, had stirred Europe
to wrath and provoked the great movement of the Crusades. The
movement had important consequences, both immediate and
remote; but its first effects were small in moment compared
with those which lagged after. To understand either, it will
be necessary to glance back at the later course of events in
the Eastern or Byzantine Empire.
The Byzantine Empire.
The fortunes of the Empire, since it gave up Syria and Egypt
to the Saracens, had been, on the whole, less unhappy than the
dark prospect at that time. It had checked the onrush of Arabs
at the Taurus mountain range, and retained Asia Minor; it had
held Constantinople against them through two terrible sieges;
it had fought for three centuries, and finally subdued, a new
Turanian enemy, the Bulgarians, who had established a kingdom
south of the Danube, where their name remains to the present
day. The history of its court, during much of the period, had
been a black and disgusting record of conspiracies,
treacheries, murders, mutilations, usurpations and foul vices
of every description; with now and then a manly figure
climbing to the throne and doing heroic things, for the most
part uselessly; but the system of governmental administration
seems to have been so well constructed that it worked with a
certain independence of its vile or imbecile heads, and the
country was probably better and better governed than its
court.
At Constantinople, notwithstanding frequent tumults and
revolutions, there had been material prosperity and a great
gathering of wealth. The Saracen conquests, by closing other
avenues of trade between the East and the West, had
concentrated that most profitable commerce in the Byzantine
capital. The rising commercial cities of Italy—Amalphi,
Venice, Genoa, Pisa—seated their enterprises there. Art and
literature, which had decayed, began then to revive, and
Byzantine culture, on its surface, took more of superiority to
that of Teutonic Europe.
The conquests of the Seljuk Turks gave a serious check to this
improvement of the circumstances of the Empire. Momentarily,
by dividing the Moslem power in Asia, they had opened an
opportunity to an energetic Emperor, Nicephorus Phocas, to
recover northern Syria and Cilicia (961-969). But when, in the
next century, they had won a complete mastery of the dominions
of the Caliphate of Bagdad, they speedily swept back the
Byzantines, and overran and occupied the most of Asia Minor
and Armenia. A decisive victory at Manzikert, in 1071, when
the emperor of the moment was taken prisoner and his army
annihilated, gave them well nigh the whole territory to the
Hellespont. The Empire was nearly reduced to its European
domain, and suffered ten years of civil war between rivals for
the throne.
At the end of that time it acquired a ruler, in the person of
Alexius Comnenus, who is the generally best known of all the
Byzantine line, because he figures notably in the stories of
the First Crusade. He was a man of crafty abilities and
complete unscrupulousness. He took the Empire at its lowest
state of abasement and demoralization. In the first year of
his reign he had to face a new enemy. Robert Guiscard, the
Norman, who had conquered a dukedom in Southern Italy, thought
the situation favorable for an attack on the Eastern Empire,
and for winning the imperial crown. Twice he invaded the Greek
peninsula (1081-1084) and defeated the forces brought against
him by Alexius; but troubles in Italy recalled him on the
first occasion, and his death brought the second expedition to
naught.
Such was the situation of the Byzantines when the waves of the
First Crusade, rolling Asia-ward, surged up to the gates of
Constantinople. It was a visitation that might well appall
them,—these hosts of knights and vagabonds, fanatics and
freebooters, who claimed and proffered help in a common
Christian war with the infidels, and who, nevertheless, had no
Christian communion with them—schismatics as they were,
outside the fold of the Roman shepherd. There is not a doubt
that they feared the crusading Franks more than they feared
the Turks. They knew them less, and the little hearsay
knowledge they had was of a lawless, barbarous, fighting
feudalism in the countries of the West,—more rough and
uncouth, at least, than their own defter methods of murdering
and mutilating one another. They received their dangerous
visitors with nervousness and suspicion; but Alexius Comnenus
proved equal to the delicate position in which he found
himself placed. He burdened his soul with lies and perfidies;
but he managed affairs so wonderfully that the Empire plucked
the best fruits of the first Crusades, by recovering a great
part of Asia Minor, with all the coasts of the Euxine and the
Ægean, from the weakened Turks. The latter were so far shaken
and depressed by the hard blows of the Crusaders that they
troubled the Byzantines very little in the century to come.
{1025}
But against this immediate gain to the Eastern Empire from the
early Crusades, there were serious later offsets. The commerce
of Constantinople declined rapidly, as soon as the Moslem
blockade of the Syrian coast line was broken. It lost its
monopoly. Trade ran back again into other reopened channels.
The Venetians and Genoese became more independent. Formerly,
they had received privileges in the Empire as a gracious
concession. Now they dictated the terms of their commercial
treaties and their naval alliances. Their rivalries with one
another involved the Empire in quarrels with both, and a state
of things was brought about which had much to do with the
catastrophe of 1204, when the fourth Crusade was diverted to
the conquest of Constantinople, and a Latin Empire supplanted
the Empire of the Roman-Greeks.
Effects of the Crusades.
Briefly noted, these were the consequences of the early
Crusades in the East. In western Europe they had slower, but
deeper and more lasting effects. They weakened feudalism, by
sending abroad so many of the feudal lords, and by
impoverishing so many more; whereby the towns gained more
opportunity for enfranchisement, and the crown, in France
particularly, acquired more power. They checked smaller wars
and private quarrels for a time, and gave in many countries
unwonted seasons of peace, during which the thoughts and
feelings of men were acted on by more civilizing influences.
They brought men into fellowship who were only accustomed to
fight one another, and thus softened their provincial and
national antipathies. They expanded the knowledge—the
experience—the ideas—of the whole body of those who visited
the East and who survived the adventurous expedition; made
them acquainted with civilizations at least more polished than
their own; taught them many things which they could only learn in
those days by actual sight, and sent them back to their homes
throughout Europe, to be instructors and missionaries, who did
much to prepare Western Christendom for the Renaissance or new
birth of a later time. The twelfth century—the century of the
great Crusades—saw the gray day-break in Europe after the
long night of darkness which settled down upon it in the
fifth. In the thirteenth it reached the brightening dawn, and
in the fifteenth it stood in the full morning of the modern
day. Among all the movements by which it was pushed out of
darkness into light, that of the Crusades would appear to have
been the most important; important in itself, as a social and
political movement of great change, and important in the seeds
that it scattered for a future harvest of effects.
In both the Byzantine and Arabian civilizations of the East
there was much for western Europe to learn. Perhaps there was
more in the last named than in the first; for the Arabs, when
they came out from behind their deserts, and exchanged the
nomadic life for the life of cities, had shown an amazing
avidity for the lingering science of old Greece, which they
encountered in Egypt and Syria. They had preserved far more of
it, and more of the old fineness of feeling that went with it,
than had survived in Greece itself, or in any part of the
Teutonized empire of Rome. The Crusaders got glimpses of its
influence, at least, and a curiosity was wakened, which sent
students into Moorish Spain, and opened scholarly interchanges
which greatly advanced learning in Europe.
Rising Power of the Church.
Not the least important effect of the Crusades was the
atmosphere of religion which they caused to envelope the great
affairs of the time, and which they made common in politics
and society. The influence of the Church was increased by
this; and its organization was powerfully strengthened by the
great monastic revival that followed presently: the rise of
purer and more strictly disciplined orders of the "regular"
(that is the secluded or monastic) clergy—Cistercians,
Benedictines, Franciscans, Dominicans, etc.; as well as the
creation of the great military-religious orders—Knights
Templars, Knights of the Hospital of St. John, Teutonic
Knights, and others, which were immediately connected with the
Crusades.
To say that the Church gained influence is to say that the
clergy gained it, and that the chief of the clergy, the Pope,
concentrated the gain in himself. The whole clerical body was
making encroachments in every field of politics upon the
domain of the civil authority, using shrewdly the advantages
of superior learning, and busying itself more and more in
temporal affairs. The popes after Gregory VII. maintained his
high pretensions and pursued his audacious course. In most
countries they encountered resistance from the Crown; but the
brunt of the conflict still fell upon the emperors, who, in
some respects, were the most poorly armed for it.
Guelfs and Ghibellines.
Henry IV., who outlived his struggle with Gregory, was beaten
down at last—dethroned by a graceless son, excommunicated by
a relentless Church and denied burial when he died (1106) by
its clergy. The rebellious son, Henry V., in his turn fought
the same battle over for ten years, and forced a compromise
which saved about half the rights of investiture that his
father had claimed. His death (1125) ended the Franconian
line, and the imperial crown returned for a few years to the
House of Saxony, by the election of the Duke Lothaire. But the
estates of the Franconian family had passed, by his mother, to
Frederick of Hohenstaufen, duke of Swabia; and now a bitter
feud arose between the House of Saxony and the House of
Hohenstaufen or Swabia,—a feud that was the most memorable
and, the longest lasting in history, if measured by the
duration of party strifes which began in it and which took
their names from it. For the raging factions of Guelfs and
Ghibellines which divided Italy for two centuries had their
beginning in this Swabian-Saxon feud, among the Germans. The
Guelfs were the partisans of the House of Saxony; the
Ghibellines were the party of the Hohenstaufens. The
Hohenstaufens triumphed when Lothaire died (1138), and made
Conrad of their House Emperor. They held the crown, moreover,
in their family for four generations, extending through more
than a century; and so it happened that the German name of the
German party of the Hohenstaufens came to be identified in
Italy with the party or faction in that country which
supported imperial interests and claims in the free cities and
against the popes. Whereupon the opposed party name was
borrowed from Germany likewise and applied to the Italian
faction which took ground against the Emperors—although these
Italian Guelfs had no objects in common with the partisans of
Saxony.
{1026}
The Hohenstaufens in Italy.
The first Hohenstaufen emperor was succeeded (1152) by his
nephew Frederick I., called Barbarossa, because of his red
beard. The long reign of Frederick, until 1190, was mainly
filled with wars and contentions in Italy, where he pushed the
old quarrel of the Empire with the Papacy, and where,
furthermore, he resolutely undertook to check the growing
independence of the Lombard cities. Five times during his
reign he led a great army into the peninsula, like a hostile
invader, and his destroying marches through the country, of
which he claimed to be sovereign, were like those of the
barbarians who came out of the North seven centuries before.
The more powerful cities, like Milan, were undoubtedly
oppressing their weaker neighbors, and Barbarossa assumed to
be the champion of the latter. But he smote impartially the
weak and the strong, the village and the town, which provoked
his arrogant temper in the slightest degree. Milan escaped his
wrath on the first visitation, but went down before it when he
came again (1158), and was totally destroyed, the inhabitants
being scattered in other towns. Even the enemies of Milan were
moved to compassion by the savageness of this punishment, and
joined, a few years later, in rebuilding the prostrate walls
and founding Milan anew. A great "League of Lombardy" was
formed by all the northern towns, to defend their freedom
against the hated Emperor, and the party of the Ghibellines
was reduced for the time to a feeble minority. Meantime
Barbarossa had forced his way into Rome, stormed the very
Church of St. Peter, and seated an anti-pope on the throne.
But a sudden pestilence fell upon his army, and he fled before
it, out of Italy, almost alone. Yet he never relaxed his
determination to bend both the Papacy and the Lombard
republics to his will. After seven years he returned, for the
fifth time, and it proved to be the last. The League met him
at Legnano (1176) and administered to him an overwhelming
defeat. Even his obstinacy was then overcome, and after a
truce of six years he made peace with the League and the Pope,
on terms which conceded most of the liberties that the cities
claimed. It was in the reign of Frederick that the name "Holy
Roman Empire" began, it seems, to be used.
Frederick died while on a crusade and was succeeded (1190) by
his son, Henry VI., who had married the daughter and heiress
of the King of Sicily and who acquired that kingdom in her
right. His short reign was occupied mostly in subduing the
Sicilian possession. When he died (1197) his son Frederick was
a child. Frederick succeeded to the crown of Sicily, but his
rights in Germany (where his father had already caused him to
be crowned "King of the Romans"—the step preliminary to an
imperial election) were entirely ignored. The German crown was
disputed between a Swabian and a Saxon claimant, and the
Saxon, Otho, was King and Emperor in name, until 1218, when he
died. But he, too, quarreled with a pope, about the lands of
the Countess Matilda, which she gave to the Church; and his
quarrel was with Innocent III., a pope who realized the
autocracy which Hildebrand had looked forward to, and who
lifted the Papacy to the greatest height of power it ever
attained. To cast down Otho, Innocent took up the cause of
Frederick, who received the royal crown a second time, at
Aix-la-Chapelle (1215) and the imperial crown at Rome (1220).
Frederick II. (his designation) was one of the few men of
actual genius who have ever sprung from the sovereign families
of the world; a man so far in advance of his time that he
appears like a modern among his mediæval contemporaries. He
was superior to the superstitions of his age,—superior to its
bigotries and its provincialisms. His large sympathies and
cosmopolitan frame of mind were acted upon by all the new
impulses of the epoch of the crusades, and made him reflect,
in his brilliant character, as in a mirror, the civilizing
processes that were working on his generation.
Between such an emperor as Frederick II. and such popes as
Innocent III. and his immediate successors, there could not
fail to be collision and strife. The man who might, perhaps,
under other circumstances, have given some quicker movement to
the hands which measure human, progress on the dial of time,
spent his life in barely proving his ability to live and reign
under the anathemas and proscriptions of the Church. But he
fought a losing fight, even when he seemed to be winning
victories in northern Italy, over the Guelf cities of
Lombardy, and when the party of the Ghibellines appeared to be
ascendant throughout the peninsula. His death (1250) was the
end of the Hohenstaufens as an imperial family. His son,
Conrad, who survived him four years, was king of Sicily and
had been crowned king of Germany; but he never wore the crown
imperial. Conrad's illegitimate brother, Manfred, succeeded on
the Sicilian throne; but the implacable Papacy gave his
kingdom to Charles of Anjou, brother of King Louis IX. of
France, and invited a crusade for the conquest of it. Manfred
was slain in battle, Conrad's young son, Conradin, perished on
the scaffold, and the Hohenstaufens disappeared from history.
Their rights, or claims, in Sicily and Naples, passed to the
Spanish House of Aragon, by the marriage of Manfred's daughter
to the Aragonese king; whence long strife between the House of
Anjou and the House of Aragon, and a troubled history for the
Neapolitans and the Sicilians during some centuries. In the
end, Anjou kept Naples, while Aragon won Sicily; the kings in
both lines called themselves Kings of Sicily, and a subsequent
re-union of the two crowns created a very queerly named
"Kingdom of the Two Sicilies."
{1027}
Germany and the Empire.
After the death of Frederick II., the German kings, while
maintaining the imperial title, practically abandoned their
serious attempts to enforce an actual sovereignty in Italy.
The Holy Roman Empire, as a political factor comprehending
more than Germany, now ceased in reality to exist. The name
lived on, but only to represent a flattering fiction for
magnifying the rank and importance of the German kings. In
Italy, the conflict, as between Papacy and Empire, or between
Lombard republican cities and Empire, was at an end. No
further occasion existed for an imperial party, or an
anti-imperial party. The Guelf and Ghibelline names and
divisions had no more the little meaning that first belonged
to them. But Guelfs and Ghibellines raged against one another,
more furiously than before, and generations passed before
their feud died out.
While the long, profitless Italian conflict of the Emperors
went on, their kingship in Germany suffered sorely. As they
grasped at a shadowy imperial title, the substance of royal
authority slipped from them. Their frequent prolonged absence
in Italy gave opportunities for enlarged independence to the
German princes and feudal lords; their difficulties beyond the
Alps forced them to buy support from their vassals at home by
fatal concessions and grants; their neglect of German affairs
weakened the ties of loyalty, and provoked revolts. The result
might have been a dissolution of Germany so complete as to
give rise to two or three strong states, if another potent
influence had not worked injury in a different way. This came
from the custom of equalized inheritance which prevailed among
the Germans. The law of primogeniture, which already governed
hereditary transmissions of territorial sovereignty in many
countries, even where it did not give an undivided private
estate, as in England, to the eldest son of a family, got
footing in Germany very late and very slowly. At the time now
described, it was the quite common practice to divide
principalities between all the sons surviving a deceased duke
or margrave. It was this practice which gave rise to the
astonishing number of petty states into which Germany came to
be divided, and the forms of which are still intact. It was
this, in the main, which prevented the growth of any states to
a power that would absorb the rest. On the other hand, the
flimsy, half fictitious general constitution which the Empire
substituted for such an one as the Kingdom of Germany would
naturally have grown into, made an effective centralization of
sovereignty—easy as the conditions seemed to be prepared for
it—quite impossible.
Free Cities in Germany and their Leagues.
One happy consequence of this state of things was the
enfranchisement, either wholly or nearly so, of many thriving
cities. The growth of cities, as centers of industry and
commerce, and the development of municipal freedom among them,
was considerably later in Germany than in Italy, France and
the Netherlands; but the independence gained by some among
them was more entire than in the Low Countries or in France,
and more lasting than in Italy.
Most of the free cities of Germany were directly or
immediately subject to the Emperor, and wholly independent of
the princes whose territories surrounded them; whence they
were called "imperial cities." This relationship bound them to
the Empire by strong ties; they had less to fear from it than
from the nearer small potentates of their country; and it
probably drew a considerable part of such strength as it
possessed, in the twelfth and thirteenth centuries, from their
support. Their own power was being augmented at this period by
the formation of extensive Leagues among them, for common
defense, and for the protection, regulation and extension of
their trade. In that age of lawless violence, there was so
little force in government, everywhere, and so entire a want
of co-operation between governments, that the operations of
trade were exposed to piracy, robbery, and black-mail, on
every sea and in every land. By the organization of their
Leagues, the energetic merchants of north-western Europe did
for themselves what their half-civilized governments failed to
do for them. They not only created effective agencies for the
protection of their trade, but they legislated, nationally and
internationally, for themselves, establishing codes and
regulations, negotiating commercial treaties, making war, and
exercising many functions and powers that seem strange to
modern times. The great Hansa, or Hanseatic League, which rose
to importance in the thirteenth century among the cities in
the north of Germany, was the most extensive, the longest
lasting and the most formidable of these confederations. It
controlled the trade between Germany, England, Russia, the
Scandinavian countries, and the Netherlands, and through the
latter it made exchanges with southern Europe and the East. It
waged successful war with Denmark, Sweden and Norway combined,
in defiance of the opposition of the Emperor and the Pope. But
the growth of its power engendered an arrogance which provoked
enmity in all countries, while the slow crystalizing of
nationalities in Europe, with national sentiments and
ambitions, worked in all directions against the commercial
monopoly of the Hansa towns. By the end of the fifteenth
century their league had begun to break up and its power to
decline. The lesser associations of similar character—such as
the Rhenish and the Swabian—had been shorter-lived.
The Great Interregnum.
These city-confederations represented in their time the only
movement of concentration that appeared in Germany. Every
other activity seemed tending toward dissolution. Headship
there was none for a quarter of a century after Frederick II.
died. The election of the Kings, who took rank and title as
Emperors when crowned by the Pope, had now become the
exclusive privilege of three prince-bishops and four temporal
princes, who acquired the title of Electors. Jealous of one
another, and of all the greater lords outside their electoral
college, it was against their policy to confer the scepter on
any man who seemed likely to wield it with a strong hand. For
twenty years—a period in German history known as the Great
Interregnum—they kept the throne practically vacant. Part of
the Electors were bribed to choose Richard, Earl of Cornwall,
brother of the English King Henry III., and the other part
gave their votes to Alfonso, King of Castile. Alfonso never
came to be crowned, either as King or Emperor; Richard was
crowned King, but exercised no power and lived mostly in his
own country. The Empire was virtually extinct; the Kingdom
hardly less so. Burgundy fell away from the imperial
jurisdiction even more than Italy did. Considerable parts of
it passed to France.
{1028}
Rise of the House of Austria.
At last, in 1273, the interregnum was ended by the election of
a German noble to be King of Germany. This was Rodolph, Count
of Hapsburg,—lord of a small domain and of little importance
from his own possessions, which explains, without doubt, his
selection. But Rodolph proved to be a vigorous king, and he
founded a family of such lasting stamina and such self-seeking
capability that it secured in time permanent possession of the
German crown, and acquired, outside of Germany, a great
dominion of its own. He began the aggrandizement of his House
by taking the fine duchy of Austria from the kingdom of
Bohemia and bestowing it upon his sons. He was energetic in
improving opportunities like this, and energetic, too, in
destroying the castles of robber-knights and hanging the
robbers on their own battlements; but of substantial authority
or power he had little enough. He never went to Rome for the
imperial crown; nor troubled himself much with Italian
affairs.
On Rodolph's death (1291), his son Albert of Austria was a
candidate for the crown. The Electors rejected him and ejected
another poor noble, Adolphus of Nassau; but Adolphus
displeased them after a few years, and they decreed his
deposition, electing Albert in his place. War followed and
Adolphus was killed. Albert's reign was one of vigor, but he
accomplished little of permanent effect. He planted one of his
sons on the throne of Bohemia, where the reigning family had
become extinct; but the new king died in a few months, much
hated, and the Bohemians resisted an Austrian successor. In
1308, Albert was assassinated, and the electors raised Count
Henry of Luxemburg to the throne, as Henry VII. Henry VII. was
the first king of Germany since the Hohenstaufens who went to
Italy (1310) for the crown of Lombardy and the crown of the
Cæsars, both of which he received. The Ghibelline party was
still strong among the Italians. In the distracted state of
that country there were many patriots—the poet Dante
prominent among them—who hoped great things from the
reappearance of an emperor; but the enthusiastic welcome he
received was mainly from those furious partisans who looked
for a party triumph to be won under the new emperor's lead.
When they found that he would not let himself be made an
instrument of faction in the unhappy country, they turned
against him. His undertakings in Italy promised nothing but
failure, when he died suddenly (1313), from poison, as the
Germans believed. His successor in Germany, chosen by the
majority of the electors, was Lewis of Bavaria; but Frederick
the Fair of Austria, supported by a minority, disputed the
election, and there was civil war for twelve years, until
Frederick, a prisoner, so won the heart of Lewis that the
latter divided the throne with him and the two reigned
together.
France under the Capetians.
While Germany and the fictitious Empire linked with it were
thus dropping from the foremost place in western Europe into
the background, several kingdoms were slowly emerging out of
the anarchy of feudalism, and acquiring the organization of
authority and law which creates stable and substantial power.
France for two centuries, under the first three Capetian
kings, had made little progress to that end. At the accession
(1103) of the fourth of those kings, namely, Louis VI., it is
estimated that the actual possessions of the Crown, over which
it exercised sovereignty direct, equalled no more than about
five of the modern departments of France; while twenty-nine
were in the great fiefs of Flanders, Burgundy, Champagne,
Normandy, Brittany, Anjou, Vermandois, and Boulogne, where the
royal authority was but nominal; thirty-three, south of the
Loire, were hardly connected with the Crown, and twenty-one
were then dependent on the Empire. The actual "France," as a
kingdom, at that time, was very small. "The real domain of
Louis VI. was almost confined to the five towns of Paris,
Orleans, Estampes, Melun, and Compiegne, and to estates in
their neighbourhood." But the strengthening of the Crown was
slightly begun in the reign of this king, by his wise policy
of encouraging the enfranchisement of the communes, as noted
before, which introduced a helpful alliance between the
monarchy and the burgher-class, or third estate, as it came to
be called, of the cities, against the feudal aristocracy.
But progress in that direction was slight at first and slowly
made. Louis VII., who came to the throne in 1137, acquired
momentarily the great duchy of Aquitaine, or Guienne, by his
marriage with Eleanor, who inherited it; but he divorced her,
and she married Henry Plantagenet, who became Henry II., King
of England, being at the same time Duke of Normandy, by
inheritance from his mother, and succeeding his father in
Anjou, Maine and Touraine. Eleanor having carried to him the
great Aquitanian domain of her family, he was sovereign of a
larger part of modern France than owned allegiance to the
French king.
French recovery of Normandy and Anjou.
But the next king in France, Philip, called Augustus (1180),
who was the son of Louis VII., wrought a change of these
circumstances. He was a prince of remarkable vigor, and he
rallied with rare ability all the forces that the Crown could
command. He wrested Vermandois from the Count of Flanders, and
extorted submission from the rebellious Duke of Burgundy.
Suspending his projects at home for a time, to go crusading to
the Holy Land in company with King Richard of England, he
resumed them with fresh energy after Richard's death. The
latter was succeeded by his mean brother John, who seems to
have been hated with unanimity. John was accused of the murder
of his young nephew, Arthur of Brittany, who disputed the
inheritance from Richard. As Duke of Normandy and Anjou, John,
though King of England, was nevertheless a vassal of the King
of France. Philip summoned him, on charges, to be tried by his
peers. John failed to answer the summons, and the forfeiture
of his fiefs was promptly declared. The French king stood well
prepared to make the confiscation effective, while John, in
serious trouble with his English subjects, could offer little
resistance. Thus the Norman realm of the English kings—their
original dominion—was lost beyond recovery, and with it Anjou
and Maine. They held Guienne and Poitou for some years; but
the bases of the French monarchy were broadened immensely from
the day when the great Norman and Angevin fiefs became royal
domain.
{1029}
The Albigenses.
Events in the south of France, during Philip's reign, prepared
the way for a further aggrandisement of the Crown. Ancient
Latin civilization had lingered longer there, in spirit, at
least, than in the central and northern districts of the
kingdom, and the state of society intellectually was both
livelier and more refined. It was the region of Europe where
thought first showed signs of independence, and where the
spiritual despotism of Rome was disputed first. A sect arose
in Languedoc which took its name from the district of Albi,
and which offended the Church perhaps more by the freedom of
opinion that it claimed than by the heresy of the opinions
themselves. These Albigeois, or Albigenses, had been at issue
with the clergy of their country and with the Papacy for some
years before Innocent III., the pontifical autocrat of his
age, proclaimed a crusade against them (1208), and launched
his sentence of excommunication against Raymond, Count of
Toulouse, who gave them countenance if not sympathy. The
fanatical Simon de Montfort, father of the great noble of like
name who figures more grandly in English history, took the
lead of the Crusade, to which bigots and brutal adventurers
flocked together. Languedoc was wasted with fire and sword,
and after twenty years of intermittent war, in which Peter of
Aragon took part, assisting the Albigeois, the Count of
Toulouse purchased peace for his ruined land by ceding part of
it to the king of France, and giving his daughter in marriage
to the king's brother Alphonso,—by which marriage the
remainder of the country was transferred, a few years later,
to the French crown.
The Battle of Bouvines.
Philip Augustus, in whose reign this brutal crushing of
Provençal France began, took little part in it, but he saw
with no unwillingness another too powerful vassal brought low.
The next blow of like kind he struck with his own hand. John
of England had quarreled with the mighty Pope Innocent III.;
his kingdom had been placed under interdict and his subjects
absolved from their allegiance. Philip of France eagerly
offered to become the executor of the papal decree, and
gathered an army for the invasion of England, to oust John
from his throne. But John hastened now to make peace with the
Church, submitting himself, surrendering his kingdom to the
Pope, and receiving it back as a papal fief. This
accomplished, the all-powerful pontiff persuaded the French
king to turn his army against the Count of Flanders, who had
never been reduced to a proper degree of submission to his
feudal sovereign. He seems to have become the recognized head
of a body of nobles who showed alarm and resentment at the
growing power of the Crown, and the war which ensued was quite
extraordinary in its political importance. King John of
England came personally to the assistance of the Flemish
Count, because of the hatred he felt towards Philip of France.
Otho, Emperor of Germany, who had been excommunicated and
deposed by the Pope, and who was struggling for his crown with
the young Hohenstaufen, Frederick II., took part in the melee,
because John was his uncle, and because the Pope was for
Philip, and because Germany dreaded the rising power of
France. So the war, which seemed at first to be a trifling
affair in a corner, became in fact a grand clearing storm, for
the settlement of many large issues, important to all Europe.
The settlement was accomplished by a single decisive battle,
fought at Bouvines (1214), not far from Tournay. It
established effectively in France the feudal superiority and
actual sovereignty of the king. It evoked a national spirit
among the French people, having been their first national
victory, won under the banners of a definite kingdom, over
foreign foes. It was a triumph for the Papacy and the Church
and a crushing blow to those who dared resist the mandates of
Rome. It sent King John back to England so humbled and
weakened that he had little stomach for the contest which
awaited him there, and the grand event of the signing of Magna
Charta next year was more easily brought about. It settled the
fate of Otho of Germany, and cleared the bright opening of the
stormy career of Frederick II., his successor. Thus the battle
of Bouvines, which is not a famous field in common knowledge,
must really be numbered among the great and important battles
of the world.
When Philip Augustus died in 1223, the regality which he
bequeathed to his son, Louis VIII., was something vastly
greater than that which came to him from his predecessors. He
had enhanced both the dignity and the power, both the
authority and the prestige, of the Crown, and made a
substantial kingdom of France. Louis VIII. enlarged his
dominions by the conquest of Lower Poitou and the taking of
Rochelle from the English; but he sowed the seeds of future
weakness in the monarchy by creating great duchies for his
children, which became as troublesome to later kings as
Normandy and Anjou had been to those before him.
Saint Louis.
Louis IX.—Saint Louis in the calendar of the Catholic
Church—who came to the throne in 1226, while a child of
eleven years, was a king of so noble a type that he stands
nearly alone in history. Marcus Aurelius, the Emperor, and
King Alfred of England, are the only sovereigns who seem
worthy to be compared with him; and even the purity of those
rare souls is not quite so simple and so selfless, perhaps, as
that which shines in the beautiful character of this most
Christian king. His goodness was of that quality which rises
to greatness—above all other measures of greatness in the
distinction of men. It was of that quality which even a wicked
world is compelled to feel and to bend to as a power, much
exceeding the power of state-craft or of the sword. Of all the
kings of his line, this Saint Louis was probably the one who
had least thought of a royal interest in France distinct from
the interest of the people of France; and the one who
consciously did least to aggrandize the monarchy and enlarge
its powers; but no king before him or after him was so much
the true architect of the foundations of the absolute French
monarchy of later times. His constant purpose was to give
peace to his kingdom and justice to his people; to end
violence and wrong-doing.
{1030}
In pursuing this purpose, he gave a new character and a new
influence to the royal courts,—established them in public
confidence,—accustomed his subjects to appeal to them; he
denounced the brutal senselessness of trials by combat, and
commanded their abolition; he gave encouragement to the study
and the introduction of Roman law, and so helped to dispel the
crude political as well as legal ideas that feudalism rested
on. His measures in these directions all tended to the
undermining of the feudal system and to the breaking down of
the independence of the great vassals who divided sovereignty
with the king. At the same time the upright soul of King
Louis, devotedly pious son of the Church as he was, yielded
his conscience to it, and the just ordinances of his kingdom,
no more than he yielded to the haughty turbulence of the great
vassals of the crown.
The great misfortunes of the reign of Saint Louis were the two
calamitous Crusades in which he engaged (1248-1254, and 1270),
and in the last of which he died. They were futile in every
way—as unwisely conducted as they were unwisely conceived;
but they count among the few errors of a noble, great life.
Regarded altogether, in the light which after-history throws
back upon it, the reign of Louis IX. is more loftily
distinguished than any other in the annals of France.
Philip the Fair and Pope Boniface.
There is little to distinguish the reign of St. Louis' son,
Philip III., "le Hardi," "the Rash" (1270-1285), though the
remains of the great fief of Toulouse were added in his time
to the royal domain; but under the grandson of St. Louis, the
fourth Philip, surnamed "le Bel," there was a season of storms
in France. This Philip was unquestionably a man of clear, cold
intellect, and of powerful, unbending will. There was nothing
of the soldier in him, much of the lawyer-like mind and
disposition. The men of the gown were his counsellors; he
advanced their influence, and promoted the acceptance in
France of the principles of the Roman or civil law, which were
antagonistic to feudal ideas. In his attitude towards the
Papacy—which had declined greatly in character and power
within the century past—he was extraordinarily bold. His
famous quarrel with Pope Boniface VIII. resulted in
humiliations to the head of the Church from which, in some
respects, there was no recovery. The quarrel arose on
questions connected chiefly with the taxing of the clergy. The
Pope launched one angry Bull after another against the
audacious king, and the latter retorted with Ordinances which
were as effective as the Bulls. Excommunication was defied;
the Inquisition was suppressed in France; appeal taken to a
General Council of the Church. At last Boniface suffered
personal violence at the hands of a party of hired ruffians,
in French pay, who attacked him at his country residence, and
received such indignities that he expired soon after of shame
and rage. The pope immediately succeeding died a few months
later, and dark suspicions as to the cause of his death were
entertained; for he gave place (1305) to one, Clement V., who
was the tool of the French king, bound to him by pledges and
guarantees before his election. This Pope Clement removed the
papal residence from Rome to Avignon, and for a long
period—the period known as "the Babylonish Captivity"—the
Holy See was subservient to the monarchy of France.
In this contest with the Papacy, Philip threw himself on the
support of the whole body of his people, convoking (1302) the
first meeting of the Three Estates—the first of the few
general Parliaments—ever assembled in France.
Destruction of the Templars.
A more sinister event in the reign of Philip IV. was his
prosecution and destruction of the famous Order of the Knights
Templars. The dark, dramatic story has been told many times,
and its incidents are familiar. Perhaps there will never be
agreement as to the bottom of truth that might exist in the
charges brought against the Order; but few question the fact
that its blackest guilt in the eyes of the French King was its
wealth, which he coveted and which he was resolved to find
reasons for taking to himself. The knights were accused of
infidelity, blasphemy, and abominable vices. They were tried,
tortured, tempted to confessions, burned at the stake, and
their lands and goods were divided between the Crown and the
Knights of St. John.
Flemish Wealth and Independence.
The wilful king had little mercy in his cold heart and few
scruples in his calculating brain. His character was not
admirable; but the ends which he compassed were mostly good
for the strength and independence of the monarchy of France,
and, on the whole, for the welfare of the people subject to
it. Even the disasters of his reign had sometimes their good
effect: as in the case of his failure to subjugate the great
county of Flanders. Originally a fief of the Kings of France,
it had been growing apart from the French monarchy, through
the independent interests and feelings that rose in it with
the increase of wealth among its singularly industrious and
thrifty people. The Low Countries, or Netherlands, on both
sides of the Rhine, had been the first in western Europe to
develop industrial arts and the trade that goes with them in a
thoroughly intelligent and systematic way. The Flemings were
leaders in this industrial development. Their country was full
of busy cities,—communes, with large liberties in
possession,—where prosperous artisans, pursuing many crafts,
were organized in gilds and felt strong for the defense of
their chartered rights. Ghent exceeded Paris in riches and
population at the end of the thirteenth century. Bruges was
nearly its equal; and there were many of less note. The
country was already a prize to be coveted by kings; and the
kings of France, who claimed the rights of feudal superiority
over its count, had long been seeking to make their
sovereignty direct, while the spirit of the Flemings carried
them more and more toward independence.
In 1294, Philip IV. became involved in war with Edward I. of
England over Guienne. Flanders, which traded largely with
England and was in close friendship with the English king and
people, took sides with the latter, and was basely abandoned
when Philip and Edward made peace, in 1302. The French king
then seized his opportunity to subjugate the Flemings, which
he practically accomplished for a time, mastering all of their
cities except Ghent. His need and his greed made the burden of
taxes which he now laid on these new subjects very heavy and
they were soon in revolt. By accident, and the folly of the
French, they won a fearfully decisive victory at Courtray,
where some thousands of the nobles and knights of France
charged blindly into a canal, and were drowned, suffocated and
slaughtered in heaps. The carnage was so great that it broke
the strength of the feudal chivalry of France, and the French
crown, while it lost Flanders, yet gained power from the very
disaster.
{1031}
In 1314, Philip IV. died, leaving three sons, who occupied the
throne for brief terms in succession: Louis X, surnamed Hutin
(disorder), who survived his father little more than a year;
Philip V., called "the Long" (1316-1322), and Charles IV.,
known as "the Fair" (1322-1328). With the death of Charles the
Fair, the direct line of the Capetian Kings came to an end,
and Philip, Count of Valois, first cousin of the late kings,
and grandson of Philip III., came to the throne, as Philip
VI.—introducing the Valois line of kings.
Claims of Edward III. of England.
The so-called Salic law, excluding females, in France, from
the throne, had now, in the arrangement of these recent
successions, been affirmed and enforced. It was promptly
disputed by King Edward III. of England, who claimed the
French crown by right of his mother, daughter of Philip IV.
and sister of the last three kings. His attempt to enforce
this claim was the beginning of the wicked, desolating
"Hundred Years War" between England and France, which
well-nigh ruined the latter, while it contributed in the
former to the advancement of the commons in political power.
England after the Norman Conquest.
The England of the reign of Edward III., when the Hundred
Years War began, was a country quite different in condition
from that which our narrative left, at the time it had yielded
(about 1071) to William the Norman conqueror. The English
people were brought low by that subjugation, and the yoke
which the Normans laid upon them was heavy indeed. They were
stripped of their lands by confiscation; they were disarmed
and disorganized; every attempt at rebellion failed miserably,
and every failure brought wider confiscations. The old
nobility suffered most and its ranks were thinned. England
became Norman in its aristocracy and remained English in its
commons and its villeinage.
Modified Feudalism in England.
Before the Conquest, feudalism had crept into its southern
parts and was working a slow change of its old free Germanic
institutions. But the Normans quickened the change and widened
it. At the same time they controlled it in certain ways,
favorably both to the monarchy and the people. They
established a feudal system, but it was a system different
from that which broke up the unity of both kingdoms of the
Franks. William, shrewd statesman that he was, took care that
no dangerous great fiefs should be created; and he took care,
too, that every landlord in England should swear fealty direct
to the king,—thus placing the Crown in immediate relations
with all its subjects, permitting no intermediary lord to take
their first allegiance to himself and pass it on at second
hand to a mere crowned overlord.
The effect of this diluted organization of feudalism in
England was to make the monarchy so strong, from the
beginning, that both aristocracy and commons were naturally
put on their defence against it, and acquired a feeling of
association, a sense of common interest, a habit of alliance,
which became very important influences in the political
history of the nation. In France, as we have seen, there had
been nothing of this. There, at the beginning, the feudal
aristocracy was dominant, and held itself so haughtily above
the commons, or Third Estate, that no political cooperation
between the two orders could be thought of when circumstances
called for it. The kings slowly undermined the aristocratic
power, using the communes in the process; and when, at last,
the power of the monarchy had become threatening to both
orders in the state, they were separated by too great an
alienation of feeling and habit to act well together.
It was the great good fortune of England that feudalism was
curbed by a strong monarchy. It was the greater good fortune
of the English people that their primitive Germanic
institutions—their folk-moots, and their whole simple popular
system of local government—should have had so long and sturdy
a growth before the feudal scheme of society began seriously
to intrude upon them. The Norman conqueror did no violence to
those institutions. He claimed to be a lawful English king,
respecting English laws. The laws, the customs, the
organization of government, were, indeed, greatly modified in
time; but the modification was slow, and the base of the whole
political structure that rose in the Anglo-Norman kingdom
remained wholly English.
Norman Influences in England.
The Normans brought with them into England a more active,
enterprising, enquiring spirit than had animated the land
before. They brought an increase of learning and of the
appetite for knowledge. They brought a more educated taste in
art, to improve the building of the country and its
workmanship in general. They brought a wider acquaintance with
the affairs of the outside world, and drew England into
political relations with her continental neighbors, which were
not happy for her in the end, but which may have contributed
for a time to her development. They brought, also, a more
powerful organization of the Church, which gave England
trouble in later days.
The Conqueror's Sons.
When the Conqueror died (1087), his eldest son Robert
succeeded him in Normandy, but he wished the crown of England
to go to his son William, called Rufus, or "the Red." He could
not settle the succession by his will, because in theory the
succession was subject to the choice or assent of the nobles
of the realm. But, in fact, William Rufus became king through
mere tardiness of opposition; and when, a few months after his
coronation, a formidable rebellion broke out among the Normans
in England, who preferred his wayward brother Robert, it was
the native English who sustained him and established him on
the throne. The same thing occurred again after William Rufus
died (1100). The Norman English tried again to bring in Duke
Robert, while the native English preferred the younger
brother, Henry, who was born among them. They won the day.
Henry I., called Beauclerc, the Scholar, was seated on the
throne. Unlike William Rufus, who had no gratitude for the
support the English gave him, and ruled them harshly, Henry
showed favor to his English subjects, and, during his reign of
thirty-five years, the two races were so effectually
reconciled and drawn together that little distinction between
them appears thereafter.
{1032}
Henry acquired Normandy, as well as England, uniting again the
two sovereignties of his father. His thriftless brother,
Robert, had pledged the dukedom to William Rufus, who lent him
money for a crusading expedition. Returning penniless, Robert
tried to recover his heritage; but Henry claimed it and made
good the claim.
Anarchy in Stephen's Reign.
At Henry's death, the succession fell into dispute. He had
lost his only son. His daughter, Matilda, first married to the
Emperor Henry V., had subsequently wedded Count Geoffrey of
Anjou, by whom she had a son. Henry strove, during his life,
to bind his nobles by oath to accept Matilda and her son as
his successors. But on his death (1135) their promises were
broken. They gave the crown to Stephen of Blois, whose mother
was Henry's sister; whereupon there ensued the most dreadful
period of civil war and anarchy that England ever knew.
Stephen, at his coronation, swore to promises which he did not
keep, losing many of his supporters for that reason; the
Empress Matilda and her young son Henry had numerous
partisans; and each side was able to destroy effectually the
authority of the other. "The price of the support given to
both was the same—absolute licence to build castles, to
practise private war, to hang their private enemies, to
plunder their neighbours, to coin their money, to exercise
their petty tyrannies as they pleased." "Castles innumerable
sprang up, and as fast as they were built they were filled
with devils; each lord judged and taxed and coined. The feudal
spirit of disintegration had for once its full play. Even
party union was at an end, and every baron fought on his own
behalf. Feudalism had its day, and the completeness of its
triumph ensured its fall" (Stubbs).
Angevin Kings of England.
At length, in 1153, peace was made by a treaty which left
Stephen in possession of the throne during his life, but made
Henry, already recognized as Duke of Normandy, his heir.
Stephen died the following year, and Henry II., now twenty-one
years old, came quietly into his kingdom, beginning a new
royal line, called the Angevin kings, because of their descent
from Geoffrey of Anjou; also taking the name Plantagenets from
Geoffrey's fashion of wearing a bit of broom, Planta Genista,
in his hat.
Henry II. proved, happily, to be a king of the strong
character that was needed in the England of that wretched
time. He was bold and energetic, yet sagacious, prudent,
politic. He loved power and he used it with an unsparing hand;
but he used it with wise judgment, and England was the better
for it. He struck hard and persistently at the lawlessness of
feudalism, and practically ended it forever as a menace to
order and unity of government in England. He destroyed
hundreds of the castles which had sprung up throughout the
land in Stephen's time, to be nests of robbers and strongholds
of rebellion. He humbled the turbulent barons. He did in
England, for the promotion of justice, and for the enforcement
of the royal authority, what Louis IX. did a little later in
France: that is, he reorganized and strengthened the king's
courts, creating a judicial system which, in its most
essential features, has existed to the present time. His
organizing hand brought system and efficiency into every
department of the government. He demanded of the Church that
its clergy should be subject to the common laws of the
kingdom, in matters of crime, and to trial before the ordinary
courts; and it was this most just reform of a crying
abuse—the exemption of clerics from the jurisdiction of
secular courts—which brought about the memorable collision
of King Henry with Thomas Becket, the inflexible archbishop of
Canterbury. Becket's tragical death made a martyr of him, and
placed Henry in a penitential position which checked his great
works of reform; but, on the whole, his reign was one of
splendid success, and shines among the epochs that throw light
on the great after-career of the English nation.
Aside from his importance as an English statesman, Henry II.
figured largely, in his time, among the most powerful of the
monarchs of Europe. His dominions on the continent embraced
much more of the territory of modern France than was ruled
directly by the contemporary French king, though nominally he
held them as a vassal of the latter. Normandy came to him from
his grandfather; from his father he inherited the large
possessions of the House of Anjou; by his marriage with
Eleanor of Aquitaine (divorced by Louis VII. of France, as
mentioned already) he acquired her wide and rich domain. On
the continent, therefore, he ruled Normandy, Maine, Touraine,
Anjou, Guienne, Poitou and Gascony. He may be said to have
added Ireland to his English kingdom, for he began the
conquest. He held a great place, in his century, and
historically he is a notable figure in the time.
His rebellious, undutiful son Richard, Cœur de Lion, the
Crusader, the hard fighter, the knight of many rude
adventures, who succeeded Henry II. in 1189, is popularly
better known than he; but Richard's noisy brief career shows
poorly when compared with his father's life of thoughtful
statesmanship. It does not show meanly, however, like that of
the younger son, John, who came to the throne in 1199. The
story of John's probable murder of his young nephew, Arthur,
of Brittany, and of his consequent loss of all the Angevin
lands, and of Normandy (excepting only the Norman islands, the
Jerseys, which have remained English to our own day) has been
briefly told heretofore, when the reign of Philip Augustus of
France was under review.
{1033}
The whole reign of John was ignominious. He quarreled with the
Pope—with the inflexible Innocent III., who humbled many
kings—over a nomination to the Archbishopric of Canterbury
(1205); his kingdom was put under interdict (1208); he was
threatened with deposition; and when, in affright, he
surrendered, it was so abjectly done that he swore fealty to
the Pope, as a vassal to his suzerain, consenting to hold his
kingdom as a fief of the Apostolic See. The triumph of the
Papacy in this dispute brought one great good to England. It
made Stephen Langton Archbishop of Canterbury, and thereby
gave a wise and righteous leader to the opponents of the
king's oppressive rule. Lords and commons, laity and clergy,
were all alike sufferers from John's greed, his perfidy, his
mean devices and his contempt of law. Langton rallied them to
a sober, stern, united demonstration, which awed King John,
and compelled him to put his seal to Magna Charta—the grand
Charter of English liberties (1215). A few weeks later he
tried to annul what he had done, with encouragement from the
Pope, who anathematized the Charter and all who had to do with
it. Then certain of the barons, in their rage, offered the
English crown to the heir of France, afterwards Louis VIII.;
and the French prince actually came to England (1216) with an
army to secure it. But before the forces gathered on each side
were brought to any decisive battle, John died. Louis'
partisans then dropped away from him and the next year, after
a defeat at sea, he returned to France.
Henry III. and the Barons' War.
John left a son, a lad of nine years, who grew to be a better
man than himself, though not a good king, for he was weak and
untruthful in character, though amiable and probably
well-meaning. He held the throne for fifty-six years, during
which long time, after his minority was passed, no minister of
ability and honorable character could get and keep office in
the royal service. He was jealous of ministers, preferring
mere administrative clerks; while he was docile to favorites,
and picked them for the most part from a swarm of foreign
adventurers whom the nation detested. The Great Charter of his
father had been reaffirmed in his name soon after he received
the crown, and in 1225 he was required to issue it a third
time, as the condition of a grant of money; but he would not
rule honestly in compliance with its provisions, and sought
continually to lay and collect heavy taxes in unlawful ways.
He spent money extravagantly, and was foolish and reckless in
foreign undertakings, accepting, for example, the Kingdom of
Sicily, offered to his son Edmund by the Pope, whose gift
could only be made good by force of arms. At the same time he
was servile to the popes, whose increasing demands for money
from England were rousing even the clergy to resistance. So
the causes of discontent grew abundantly until they brought it
to a serious head. All classes of the people were drawn
together again, as they had been to resist the aggressions of
John. The great councils of the kingdom, or assemblies of
barons and bishops (which had taken the place of the
witenagemot of the old English time, and which now began to be
called Parliaments), became more and more united against the
king. At last the discontent found a leader of high capacity
and of heroic if not blameless character, in Simon de
Montfort, Earl of Leicester. Simon de Montfort was of foreign
birth,—son of that fanatical crusader of the same name, who
spread ruin over the fair country of the Albigeois. The
English earldom of Leicester had passed to his family, and the
younger Simon, receiving it, came to England and became an
Englishman. After some years he threw himself into the
struggle with the Crown, and his leadership was soon
recognized. In 1258, a parliament held at London compelled the
king to consent to the appointment of an extraordinary
commission of twenty-four barons, clothed with full power to
reform the government. The commission was named at a
subsequent meeting of parliament, the same year, at Oxford,
where the grievances to be redressed were set forth in a paper
known as the Provisions of Oxford. From the twenty-four
commissioners there were chosen fifteen to be the King's
Council. This was really the creation of a new constitution
for the kingdom, and Henry swore to observe it. But ere long
he procured a bull from the Pope, absolving him from his oath,
and he began to prepare for throwing off the restraints that
had been put upon him. The other side took up arms, under
Simon's lead; but peace was preserved for a time by referring
all questions in dispute to the arbitration of Louis IX. of
France. The arbiter decided against the barons (1264) and
Montfort's party refused to abide by the award. Then followed
the civil conflict known as the Barons' War. The king was
defeated and taken prisoner, and was obliged to submit to
conditions which practically transferred the administration of
the government to three counsellors, of whom Simon de Montfort
was the chief.
Development of the English Parliament;
In January, 1265, a memorable parliament was called together.
It was the first national assembly in which the larger element
of the English Commons made its appearance; for Montfort had
summoned to it certain representatives of borough towns, along
with the barons, the bishops and the abbots, and along,
moreover, with representative knights, who had been gaining
admittance of late years to what now became a convocation of
the Three Estates. The parliamentary model thus roughly shaped
by the great Earl of Leicester was not continuously followed
until another generation came; but it is his glory,
nevertheless, to have given to England the norm and principle
on which its unexampled parliament was framed. By dissensions
among themselves, Simon de Montfort and his party soon lost
the great advantage they had won, and on another appeal to
arms they were defeated (1265) by the king's valiant and able
son, afterwards King Edward I., and Montfort was slain. It was
seven years after this before Edward succeeded his father, and
nine before he came to the throne, because he was absent on a
Crusade; but when he did, it was to prove himself, not merely
one of the few statesmen-kings of England, but one large
enough in mind to take lessons from the vanquished enemies of
the Crown. He, in reality, took up the half-planned
constitutional work of Simon de Montfort, in the development
of the English Parliament as a body representative of all
orders in the nation, and carried it forward to substantial
completion. He did it because he had wit to see that the
people he ruled could be led more easily than they could be
driven, and that their free-giving of supplies to the Crown
would be more open-handed than their giving under compulsion.
The year 1295 "witnessed the first summons of a perfect and
model parliament; the clergy represented by their bishops,
deans, archdeacons, and elected proctors; the barons summoned
severally in person by the king's special writ, and the
commons summoned by writs addressed to the sheriffs, directing
them to send up two elected knights from each shire, two
elected citizens from each city, and two elected burghers from
each borough" (Stubbs).
{1034}
Two years later, the very fundamental principle of the English
Constitution was established, by a Confirmation of the
Charters, conceded in Edward's absence by his son, but
afterwards assented to by him, which definitely renounced the
right of the king to tax the nation without its consent. Thus
the reign of Edward I. was really the most important in the
constitutional history of England. It was scarcely less
important in the history of English jurisprudence; for Edward
was in full sympathy with the spirit of an age in which the
study and reform of the law were wonderfully awakened
throughout Europe. The great statutes of his reign are among
the monuments of Edward's statesmanship, and not the least
important of them are those by which he checked the
encroachments of the Church and its dangerous acquisition of
wealth.
At the same time, the temper of this vigorous king was warlike
and aggressive. He subdued the Welsh and annexed Wales as a
principality to England. He enforced the feudal supremacy
which the English kings claimed over Scotland, and, upon the
Scottish throne becoming vacant, in 1290, seated John Baliol,
as a vassal who did homage to him. The war of Scottish
Independence then ensued, of which William Wallace and Robert
Bruce were the heroes. Wallace perished on an English scaffold
in 1305; Bruce, the next year, secured the Scottish crown, and
eventually broke the bonds in which his country was held.
Edward I. died in 1307, and his kingly capability died with
him. He transmitted neither spirit nor wisdom to his son, the
second Edward, who gave himself and his kingdom up to foreign
favorites, as his grandfather had done. His angry subjects
practically took the government out of his hands (1310), and
confided it to a body of twenty-one members, called Ordainers.
His reign of twenty years was one of protracted strife and
disorder; but the constitutional power of Parliament made
gains. In outward appearance, however, there was nothing to
redeem the wretchedness of the time. The struggle of factions
was pushed to civil war; while Scotland, by the great blow
struck at Bannockburn (1314), made her independence complete.
In 1322, Thomas, Earl of Lancaster, whose descent was as royal
as the king's, but who headed the opponents of Edward and
Edward's unworthy favorites, was defeated in battle, taken
prisoner, and brought to the block. This martyrdom, as it was
called, embalmed Lancaster's memory in the hearts of the
people.
Edward III. and his French Claims.
The queen of Edward II., Isabella of France, daughter of
Philip the Fair, made, at last, common cause with his enemies.
In January, 1327, he was forced to formally resign the crown,
and in September of the same year he was murdered, the queen,
with little doubt, assenting to the deed. His son, Edward
III., who now came to the throne, founded claims to the crown
of France upon the rights of his mother, whose three brothers,
as we have seen, had been crowned in succession and had died,
bringing the direct line of royalty in France to an end. By
this claim the two countries were plunged into the miseries of
the dreadful Hundred Years War, and the progress of
civilization in Europe was seriously checked.
Recovery of Christian Spain.
Before entering that dark century of war, it will be necessary
to go back a little in time, and carry our survey farther
afield, in the countries of Europe more remote from the center
of the events we have already scanned. In Spain, for example,
there should be noticed, very briefly, the turning movement of
the tide of Mahometan conquest which drove the Spanish
Christians into the mountains of the North. In the eighth
century, their little principality of Asturia had widened into
the small kingdom of Leon, and the eastern county of Leon had
taken the name of Castella (Castile) from the number of forts
or castles with which it bristled, on the Moorish border. East
of Leon, in the Pyrenees, there grew up about the same time the
kingdom of Navarre, which became important in the eleventh
century, under an enterprising king, Sancho the Great, who
seized Castile and made a separate kingdom of it, which he
bequeathed to his son. The same Navarrese king extended his
dominion over a considerable part of the Spanish March, which
Charlemagne had wrested from the Moors in the ninth century,
and out of this territory the kingdom of Aragon was presently
formed. These four kingdoms, of Leon, Navarre, Castile, and
Aragon, were shuffled together and divided again, in changing
combinations, many times during the next century or two; but
Castile and Leon were permanently united in 1230. Meantime
Portugal, wrested from the Moors, became a distinct kingdom;
while Navarre was reduced in size and importance. Castile,
Aragon, and Portugal are from that time the Christian Powers
in the Peninsula which carried on the unending war with their
Moslem neighbors. By the end of the thirteenth century they
had driven the Moors into the extreme south of the peninsula,
where the latter, thenceforth, held little beyond the small
kingdom of Granada, which defended itself for two centuries
more.
Moorish Civilization and its Decay.
The Christians were winners and the Moslems were losers in
this long battle, because adversity had disciplined the one
and prosperity had relaxed and vitiated the other. Success
bred disunion, and the spoils of victory engendered
corruption, among the followers of Mahomet, very quickly in
their career. The middle of the eighth century was hardly
passed when the huge empire they had conquered broke in twain,
and two Caliphates on one side of the Mediterranean, imitated the
two Roman Empires on the other. We have seen how the Caliphate
of the East, with its seat at Bagdad, went steadily to wreck;
but fresh converts of Islam, out of deserts at the North, were
in readiness, there, to gather the fragments and construct a
new Mahometan power. In the West, where the Caliphs held their
court at Cordova, the same crumbling of their power befell
them, through feuds and jealousies and the decay of a sensuous
race; but there were none to rebuild it in the Prophet's name.
The Moor gave way to the Castilian in Spain for reasons not
differing very much from the reasons which explain the
supplanting of the Arab by the Turk in the East.
{1035}
While its grandeur lasted in Spain,—from the eighth to the
eleventh centuries—the empire of the Saracens, or Moors, was
the most splendid of its age. It developed a civilization
which must have been far finer, in the superficial showing,
and in much of its spirit as well, than anything found in
Christian Europe at that time. Its religious temper was less
fierce and intolerant. Its intellectual disposition was
towards broader thinking and freer inquiry. Its artistic
feeling was truer and more instinctive. It took lessons from
classic learning and philosophy before Germanized Europe had
become aware of the existence of either, and it gave the
lessons at second hand to its Christian neighbors. Its
industries were conducted with a knowledge and a skill that
could be found among no other people. Says Dr. Draper: "Europe
at the present day does not offer more taste, more refinement,
more elegance, than might have been seen, at the epoch of
which we are speaking, in the capitals of the Spanish Arabs.
Their streets were lighted and solidly paved. Their houses
were frescoed and carpeted; they were warmed in winter by
furnaces, and cooled in summer with perfumed air brought by
underground pipes from flower beds. They had baths, and
libraries, and dining halls, fountains of quicksilver and
water. City and country were full of conviviality, and of
dancing to lute and mandolin. Instead of the drunken and
gluttonous wassail orgies of their northern neighbors, the
feasts of the Saracens were marked with sobriety."
The brilliancy of the Moorish civilization seems like that of
some short-lived flower, which may spring from a thin soil of
no lasting fertility. The qualities which yielded it had their
season of ascendancy over the deeper-lying forces that worked
in the Gothic mind of Christian Spain; but time exhausted the
one, while it matured the other.
Mediæval Spanish Character.
There seems to be no doubt that the long conflict of races and
religions in the peninsula affected the character of the
Spanish Christians more profoundly, both for good and for ill,
than it affected the people with whom they strove. It hardened
and energized them, preparing them for the bold adventures
they were soon to pursue in a new-found world, and for a
lordly career in all parts of the rounded globe. It embittered
and gave fierceness to a sentiment among them which bore some
likeness to religion, but which was, in reality, the
partisanship of a church, and not the devotion of a faith. It
tended to put bigotry in the place of piety—religious rancor
in the place of charity—priests and images in the place of
Christ—much more among the Spaniards than among other
peoples; for they, alone, were Crusaders against the Moslem
for eight hundred years.
Early Free Institutions in Spain.
The political effects of those centuries of struggle in the
peninsula were also remarkable and strangely mixed. In all the
earlier stages of the national development, until the close of
the mediæval period, there seems to have been as promising a
growth of popular institutions, in most directions, as can be
found in England itself. Apparently, there was more good
feeling between classes than elsewhere in Europe. Nobles,
knights and commons fought side by side in so continuous a
battle that they were more friendly and familiar in
acquaintance with one another. Moreover, the ennobled and the
knighted were greatly more numerous in Spain than in the
neighboring countries. The kings were lavish of such honors in
rewarding valor, on every battlefield and after every campaign.
It was impossible, therefore, for so great a distance to widen
between the grandee and the peasant or the burgher as that
which separated the lord and the citizen in Germany or France.
The division of Christian Spain into several petty kingdoms,
and the circumstances under which they were placed, retarded
the growth of monarchical power, and yet did not tend to a
feudal disintegration of society; because the pressure of its
perpetual war with the infidels forced the preservation of a
certain degree of unity, sufficient to be a saving influence.
At the same time, the Spanish cities became prosperous, and
naturally, in the circumstances of the country, acquired much
freedom and many privileges. The inhabitants of some cities in
Aragon enjoyed the privileges of nobility as a body; the
magistrates of other cities were ennobled. Both in Aragon and
Castile, the towns had deputies in the Cortes before any
representatives of boroughs sat in the English Parliament; and
the Cortes seems to have been, in the twelfth and thirteenth
centuries, a more potent factor in government than any
assembly of estates in any other part of Europe.
But something was wanting in Spain that was not wanting in
England and in the Netherlands, for example, to complete the
evolution of a popular government from this hopeful beginning.
And the primary want, it would seem, was a political sense or
faculty in the people. To illustrate this in one particular:
the Castilian Commons did not grasp the strings of the
national purse when they had it in their hands, as the
practical Englishmen did. They allowed the election of
deputies from the towns to slip out of their hands and to
become an official function of the municipalities, where it
was corrupted and controlled by the Crown. In Aragon, the
popular rights were more efficiently maintained, perhaps; but
even there the political faculty of the people must have been
defective, as compared with that of the nations in the North
which developed free government from less promising germs.
And, yet, it is possible that the whole subsequent failure of
Spain may be fully explained by the ruinous prosperity of her
career in the sixteenth century,—by the fatal gold it gave
her from America, and the independent power it put into the
hands of her kings.
Northern and North-eastern Europe.
While the Spaniards in their southern peninsula were wrestling
with the infidel Moor, their Gothic kindred of Sweden, and the
other Norse nations of that opposite extremity of Europe, had
been casting off paganism and emerging from the barbarism of
their piratical age, very slowly. It was not until the tenth
and eleventh centuries that Christianity got footing among
them. It was not until the thirteenth century that unity and
order, the fruits of firm government, began to be really fixed
in any part of the Scandinavian peninsulas.
{1036}
The same is substantially true of the greater Slavic states on
the eastern side of Europe. The Poles had accepted
Christianity in the tenth century, and their dukes, in the
same century, had assumed the title of kings. In the twelfth
century they had acquired a large dominion and exercised great
power; but the kingdom was divided, was brought into collision
with the Teutonic Knights, who conquered Prussia, and it fell
into a disordered state. The Russians had been Christianized
in the same missionary century—the tenth; but civilization
made slow progress among them, and their nation was being
divided and re-divided in shifting principalities by
contending families and lords. In the thirteenth century they
were overwhelmed by the fearful calamity of a conquest by
Mongol or Tartar hordes, and fell under the brutal domination
of the successors of Genghis Khan.
Latin Conquest of Constantinople.
At Constantinople, the old Greek-Roman Empire of the East had
been passing through singular changes since we noticed it
last. The dread with which Alexius Comnenius saw the coming of
the Crusaders in 1097 was justified by the experience of his
successors, after little more than a hundred years. In 1204, a
crusade, which is sometimes numbered as the fourth and
sometimes as the fifth in the crusading series, was diverted
by Venetian influence from the rescue of Jerusalem to the
conquest of Constantinople, ostensibly in the interest of a
claimant of the Imperial throne. The city was taken and
pillaged, and the Greek line of Emperors was supplanted by a
Frank or Latin line, of which Baldwin, Count of Flanders, was
the first. But this Latin Empire was reduced to a fraction of
the conquered dominion, the remainder being divided among
several partners in the conquest; while two Greek princes of
the fallen house saved fragments of the ancient realm in Asia,
and throned themselves as emperors at Trebizond and Nicæa. The
Latin Empire was maintained, feebly and without dignity, a
little more than half a century; and then (1261) it was
extinguished by the sovereign of its Nicæan rival, Michael
Palæologus, who took Constantinople by a night surprise,
helped by treachery within. Thus the Greek or Byzantine Empire
was restored, but much shorn of its former European
possessions, and much weakened by loss of commerce and wealth.
It was soon involved in a fresh struggle for life with the
Turks.
The Thirteenth Century.
We have now, in our general survey of European history, just
passed beyond the thirteenth century, and it will be
instructive to pause here a moment and glance back over the
movements and events which distinguish that remarkable age.
For the thirteenth century, while it belongs chronologically
to mediæval times, seems nearer in spirit to the
Renaissance—shows more of the travail of the birth of our
modern mind and life—than the fourteenth, and even more than
the greater part of the years of the fifteenth century.
For England, it was the century in which the enduring bases of
constitutional government were laid down; within which Magna
Charta and its Confirmations were signed; within which the
Parliament of Simon de Montfort and the Parliaments of Edward
I. gave a representative form and a controlling power to the
wonderful legislature of the English nation. In France, it was
the century of the Albigenses; of Saint Louis and his judicial
reforms; and it stretched within two years of the first
meeting of the States-General of the kingdom. In Switzerland,
it was the century which began the union of the three forest
cantons. In Spain, it was the century which gave Aragon the
"General Privilege" of Peter III.; in Hungary, it was the
century of its Golden Bull. In Italy it was the century of
Frederick II.,—the man of modern spirit set in mediæval
circumstances; and it was the century, too, which moulded the
city-republics that resisted and defeated his despotic
pretensions. Everywhere, it was an age of impulses toward
freedom, and of mighty upward strivings out of the chaos and
darkness of the feudal state. It was an age of vast energies,
directed with practical judgment and power. It organized the
great league of the Hansa Towns, which surpassed, as an
enterprise of combination in commercial affairs, the most
stupendous undertakings of the present time. It put the
weavers and traders of Flanders on a footing with knights and
princes. In Venice and Genoa it crowned the merchant like a
king. It sent Marco Polo to Cathay, and inoculated men with
the itch of exploration from which they find no ease to this
day. It was the century which saw painting revived as a living
art in the world by Cimabue and Giotto, and sculpture restored
by Niccola Pisano. It was the age of great church-building in
Italy, in Germany and in France. It was the century of St.
Francis of Assisi, and of the creation of the mendicant orders
in the Church,—a true religious reformation in its spirit,
however unhappy in effect it may have been. It was the time of
the high tide of mediæval learning; the epoch of Aquinas, of
Duns Scotus, of Roger Bacon; the true birth-time of the
Universities of Paris and Oxford. It was the century which
educated Dante for his immortal work.
The Fourteenth Century.
The century which followed was a period of many wars—of
ruinous and deadly wars, and miserable demoralizations and
disorders, which depressed all Europe by their effects. In the
front of them all was the wicked Hundred Years War, forced on
France by the ambition of an English king to wear two crowns;
while with it came the bloody insurrection of the Jacquerie,
the ravages of the free companies, and ruinous anarchy
everywhere. Then, in Italy, there was a duel to the death
between Venice and Genoa; and a long, wasting contest of
rivals for the possession of Naples. In Germany, a contested
imperial election, and the struggle of the Swiss against the
Austrian Dukes. In Flanders, repeated revolts under the two
Artevelds. In the East, the terrible fight of Christendom with
the advancing Turk. And while men were everywhere so busily
slaying one another, there came the great pestilence which
they called the Black Death, to help them in the grim work,
and Europe was half depopulated by it. At the same time, the
Church, which might have kindled some beacon lights of faith
and hope in the midst of all this darkness and terror, was
sinking to its lowest state, and Rome had become an unruled
robbers' den.
There were a few voices heard, above the wailing and the
battle-din of the afflicted age, which charmed and comforted
it; voices which preached the pure gospel of Wycliffe and
Huss,—which recited the great epic of Dante,—which syllabled
the melodious verse of Petrarch and Chaucer,—which told the
gay tales of Boccaccio; but the pauses of peace in which men
might listen to such messages and give themselves to such
delights were neither many nor long.
{1037}
The Hundred Years War.
The conflict between England and France began in Flanders,
then connected with the English very closely in trade. Philip
VI. of France forced the Count of Flanders to expel English
merchants from his territory. Edward III. retaliated (1336) by
forbidding the exportation of wool to Flanders, and this
speedily reduced the Flemish weavers to idleness. They rose in
revolt, drove out their count, and formed an alliance with
England, under the lead of Jacob van Arteveld, a brewer, of
Ghent. The next year (1337) Edward joined the Flemings with an
army and entered France; but made no successful advance,
although his fleet won a victory, in a sea-fight off Sluys,
and hostilities were soon suspended by a truce. In 1341 they
were renewed in Brittany, over a disputed succession to the
dukedom, and the scattered sieges and chivalric combats which
made up the war in that region for two years are described
with minuteness by Froissart, the gossipy chronicler of the
time. After a second truce, the grimly serious stage of the
war was reached in 1346. It was in that year that the English
won the victory at Crécy, which was the pride and boast of
their nation for centuries; and the next season they took
Calais, which they held for more than two hundred years.
Philip died in 1350 and was succeeded by his son John. In
1355, Edward of England repeated his invasion, ravaging
Artois, while his son, the Black Prince, from Guienne (which
the English had held since the Angevin time), devastated
Languedoc. The next year, this last named prince made another
sally from Bordeaux, northwards, towards the Loire, and was
encountered by the French king, with a splendid army, at
Poitiers. The victory of the English in this case was more
overwhelming than at Crécy, although they were greatly
outnumbered. King John was taken prisoner and conveyed to
London. His kingdom was in confusion. The dauphin called
together the States-General of France, and that body, in which
the commons, or third estate, attained to a majority in numbers,
assumed powers and compelled assent to reforms which seemed
likely to place it on a footing of equal importance with the
Parliament of England. The leader of the third estate in these
measures was Etienne or Stephen Marcel, provost of Paris, a
man of commanding energy and courage. The dauphin, under
orders from his captive father, attempted to nullify the
ordinances of the States-General. Paris rose at the call of
Marcel and the frightened prince became submissive; but the
nobles of the provinces resented these high-handed proceedings
of the Parisians and civil war ensued. The peasants, who were
in great misery, took advantage of the situation to rise in
support of the Paris burgesses, and for the redressing of
their own wrongs. This insurrection of the Jacquerie, as it is
known, produced horrible deeds of outrage and massacre on both
sides, and seems to have had no other result. Paris, meantime
(1358), was besieged and hard pressed; Marcel, suspected of an
intended treachery, was killed, and with his death the whole
attempt to assert popular rights fell to the ground.
The state of France at this time was one of measureless
misery. It was overrun with freebooters—discharged soldiers,
desperate homeless and idle men, and the ruffians who always
bestir themselves when authority disappears. They roamed the
country in bands, large and small, stripped it of what war had
spared, and left famine behind them.
At length, in 1360, terms of peace were agreed upon, in a
treaty signed at Bretigny, and fighting ceased, except in
Brittany, where the war went on for four years more. By the
treaty, all French claims upon Aquitaine and the dependencies
were given up, and Edward acquired full sovereignty there, no
longer owing homage, as a vassal, to the king of France.
Calais, too, was ceded to England, and so heavy a ransom was
exacted from the captive King John that he failed to collect
money for the payment of it and died in London (1364).
Charles the Wise.
Charles V., who now ruled independently, as he had ruled for
some years in his father's name, proved to be a more prudent
and capable prince, and his counsellors and captains were
wisely chosen. He was a man of studious tastes and of
considerable learning for that age, with intelligence to see
and understand the greater sources of evil in his kingdom.
Above all, he had patience enough to plant better things in
the seed and wait for them to grow, which is one of the
grander secrets of statesmanship. By careful, judicious
measures, he and those who shared the task of government with
him slowly improved the discipline and condition of their
armies. The "great companies" of freebooters, too strong to be
put down, were lured out of the kingdom by an expedition into
Spain, which the famous warrior Du Guesclin commanded, and
which was sent against the detestable Pedro, called the Cruel,
of Castile, whom the English supported. A stringent economy in
public expenditure was introduced, and the management of the
finances was improved. The towns were encouraged to strengthen
their fortifications, and the state and feeling of the whole
country were slowly lifted from the gloomy depth to which the
war had depressed them.
At length, in 1369, Charles felt prepared to challenge another
encounter with the English, by repudiating the ignominious
terms of the treaty of Bretigny. Before the year closed,
Edward's armies were in the country again, but accomplished
nothing beyond the havoc which they wrought as they marched.
The French avoided battles, and their cities were well
defended. Next year the English returned, and the Black Prince
earned infamy by a ferocious massacre of three thousand men,
women, and children, in the city of Limoges, when he had taken
it by storm. It was his last campaign. Already suffering from
a mortal disease, he returned to England, and died a few years
later. The war went on, with no decisive results, until 1375,
when it was suspended by a truce. In 1377, Edward III. died,
and the French king began war again with great success. Within
three years he expelled the English from every part of France
except Bayonne, Bordeaux, Brest, Cherbourg and Calais.
If he had lived a little longer, there might soon have been an
end of the war. But he died in 1380, and fresh calamities fell
upon unhappy France.
{1038}
Rising Power of Burgundy.
The son who succeeded him, Charles VI., was an epileptic boy
of twelve years, who had three greedy and selfish uncles to
quarrel over the control of him, and to plunder the Crown of
territory and treasures. One of these was the Duke of
Burgundy, the first prince of a new great house which King
John had foolishly created. Just before that fatuous king
died, the old line of Burgundian dukes came to an end, and he
had the opportunity, which wise kings before him would have
improved very eagerly, to annex that fief to the crown.
Instead of doing so, he gave it as an appanage to his son
Philip, called "the Bold," and thus rooted a new plant of
feudalism in France which was destined to cause much trouble.
Another of the uncles was Louis, Duke of Anjou, heir to the
crown of Naples under a will of the lately murdered Queen
Joanna, and who was preparing for an expedition to enforce his
claim. The third was Duke of Berry, upon whom his father, King
John, had conferred another great appanage, including Berry,
Poitou and Auvergne.
The pillage and misgovernment of the realm under these
rapacious guardians of the young king was so great that
desperate risings were provoked, the most formidable of which
broke out in Paris. They were all suppressed, and with
merciless severity. At the same time, the Flemings, who had
again submitted to their count, revolted once more, under the
lead of Philip van Arteveld, son of their former leader. The
French moved an army to the assistance of the Count of
Flanders, and the sturdy men of Ghent, who confronted it
almost alone, suffered a crushing defeat at Roosebeke (1382).
Philip van Arteveld fell in the battle, with twenty-six
thousand of his men. Two years later, the Count of Flanders
died, and the Duke of Burgundy, who had married his daughter,
acquired that rich and noble possession. This beginning of the
union of Burgundy and the Netherlands, creating a power by the
side of the throne of France which threatened to overshadow
it, and having for its ultimate consequence the casting of the
wealth of the Low Countries into the lap of the House of
Austria and into the coffers of Spain, is an event of large
importance in European history.
Burgundians and Armagnacs.
When Charles VI. came of age, he took the government into his
own hands, and for some years it was administered by capable
men. But in 1392 the king's mind gave way, and his uncles
regained control of affairs. Philip of Burgundy maintained the
ascendancy until his death, in 1404. Then the controlling
influence passed to the king's brother, the Duke of Orleans,
between whom and the new Duke of Burgundy, John, called the
Fearless, a bitter feud arose. John, who was unscrupulous,
employed assassins to waylay and murder the Duke of Orleans,
which they did in November, 1407. This foul deed gave rise to
two parties in France. Those who sought vengeance ranged
themselves under the leadership of the Count of Armagnac, and
were called by his name. The Burgundians, who sustained Duke
John, were in the main a party of the people; for the Duke had
cultivated popularity, especially in Paris, by advocating
liberal measures and extending the rights and privileges of
the citizens.
The kingdom was kept in turmoil and terror for years by the
war of these factions, especially in and about Paris, where
the guild of the butchers took a prominent part in affairs, on
the Burgundian side, arming a riotous body of men who were
called Cabochiens, from their leader's name. In 1413 the
Armagnacs succeeded in recovering possession of the capital
and the Cabochiens were suppressed.
Second Stage of the Hundred Years War.
Meantime, Henry V. of England, the ambitious young Lancastrian
king who came to the throne of that country in 1413, saw a
favorable opportunity, in the distracted state of France, to
reopen the questions left unsettled by the breaking of the
treaty of Bretigny. He invaded France in 1415, as the rightful
king coming to dethrone a usurper, and began by taking
Harfleur at the mouth of the Seine, after a siege which cost
him so heavily that he found it prudent to retreat towards
Calais. The French intercepted him at Agincourt and forced him
to give them battle. He had only twenty thousand men, but they
formed a well disciplined and well ordered army. The French
had gathered eighty thousand men, but they were a feudal mob.
The battle ended, like those of Crécy and Poitiers, in the
routing and slaughter of the French, with small loss to
Henry's force. His army remained too weak in numbers, however,
for operations in a hostile country, and the English king
returned home, with a great train of captive princes and
lords.
He left the Armagnacs and Burgundians still fighting one
another, and disabling France as effectually as he could do if
he stayed to ravage the land. In 1417 he came back and began
to attack the strong cities of Normandy, one by one, taking
Caen first. In the next year, by a horrible massacre, the
Burgundian mob in Paris overcame the Armagnacs there, and
reinstated Duke John of Burgundy in possession of the capital.
The latter was already in negotiation with the English king,
and evidently prepared to sacrifice the kingdom for whatever
might seem advantageous to himself. But in 1419 Henry V. took
Rouen, and, when all of Normandy submitted with its capital,
he demanded nothing less than that great province, with
Brittany, Guienne, Maine, Anjou and Touraine in addition,—or,
substantially, the western half of France.
Burgundian and English Alliance.
Parleyings were brought to an end in September of that year by
the treacherous murder of Duke John. The Armagnacs slew him
foully, at an interview to which he had been enticed, on the
bridge of Montereau. His son, Duke Philip of Burgundy, now
reopened negotiations with the invader, in conjunction with
Queen Isabella (wife of the demented king), who had played an
evil part in all the factious troubles of the time. These two,
having control of the king's person, concluded a treaty with
Henry V. at Troyes, according to the terms of which Henry
should marry the king's daughter Catherine; should be
administrator of the kingdom of France while Charles VI.
lived, and should receive the crown when the latter died. The
marriage took place at once, and almost the whole of France
north of the Loire seemed submissive to the arrangement. The
States-General and the Parliament of Paris gave official
recognition to it; the disinherited dauphin of France, whose
own mother had signed away his regal heritage, retired, with
his Armagnac supporters, to the country south of the Loire,
and had little apparent prospect of holding even that.
{1039}
Two Kings in France.
But a mortal malady had already stricken King Henry V., and he
died in August, 1422. The unfortunate, rarely conscious French
king, whose crown Henry had waited for, died seven weeks
later. Each left an heir who was proclaimed king of France.
The English pretender (Henry VI. in England, Henry II. in
France) was an innocent infant, ten months old; but his court
was in Paris, his accession was proclaimed with due ceremony
at St. Denis, his sovereignty was recognized by the Parliament
and the University of that city, and the half of France
appeared resigned to the lapse of nationality which its
acceptance of him signified. The true heir of the royal house
of France (Charles VII.) was a young man of nearly mature age
and of fairly promising character; but he was proclaimed in a
little town of Berry, by a small following of lords and
knights, and the nation for which he stood hardly seemed to
exist.
The English supporters of the English king of France were too
arrogant and overbearing to retain very long the good will of
their allies among the French people. Something like a
national feeling in northern France was aroused by the
hostility they provoked, and the strength of the position in
which Henry V. left them was steadily but slowly lost. Charles
proved incapable, however, of using any advantages which
opened to him, or of giving his better counsellors an
opportunity to serve him with good effect, and no important
change took place in the situation of affairs until the
English laid siege, in 1428, to the city of Orleans, which was
the stronghold of the French cause.
Jeanne d'Arc, the Maid of Orleans.
Then occurred one of the most extraordinary episodes in
history; the appearance of the young peasant girl of Lorraine,
Jeanne d'Arc, whose coming upon the scene of war was like the
descent of an angel out of Heaven, sent with a Divine
commission to rescue France. Belief in the inspiration of this
simple maiden, who had faith in her own visions and voices,
was easier for that age than belief in a rational rally of
public energies, and it worked like a miracle on the spirit of
the nation. But it could not have done so with effect if the
untaught country girl of Domremy had not been endowed in a
wonderful way, with a wise mind, as well as with an
imaginative one, and with courage as well as with faith. When
the belief in her inspired mission gave her power to lead the
foolish king, and authority to command his disorderly troops,
she acted almost invariably with understanding, with good
sense, with a clear, unclouded judgment, with straightforward
singleness of purpose, and with absolute personal
fearlessness. She saw the necessity for saving Orleans; and
when that had been done under her own captaincy (1429), she
saw how greatly King Charles would gain in prestige if he made
his way to Rheims, and received, like his predecessors, a
solemn coronation and consecration in the cathedral of that
city. It was by force of her gentle obstinacy of determination
that this was done, and the effect vindicated the sagacity of
the Maid. Then she looked upon her mission as accomplished,
and would have gone quietly home to her village; for she seems
to have remained as simple in feeling as when she left her
father's house, and was innocent to the end of any selfish
pleasure in the fame she had won and the importance she had
acquired. But those she had helped would not let her go; and
yet they would not be guided by her without wrangle and
resistance. She wished to move the army straight from Rheims
to Paris, and enter that city before it had time to recover
from the consternation it was in. But other counsellors
retarded the march, by stopping to capture small towns on the
way, until the opportunity for taking Paris was lost. The
king, who had been braced up to a little energy by her
influence, sank back into his indolent pleasures, and faction
and frivolity possessed the court again. Jeanne strove with
high courage against malignant opposition and many
disheartenments, in the siege of Paris and after, exposing
herself in battle with the bravery of a seasoned warrior; and
her reward was to find herself abandoned at last, in a
cowardly way, to the enemy, when she had led a sortie from the
town of Compiegne, to drive back the Duke of Burgundy, who was
besieging it. Taken prisoner, she was given up to the Duke,
and sold by him to the English at Rouen.
That the Maid acted with supernatural powers was believed by
the English as firmly as by the French; but those powers, in
their belief, came, not from Heaven, but from Hell. In their
view she was not a saint, but a sorceress. They paid a high
price to the Duke of Burgundy for his captive, in order to put
her on trial for the witchcraft which they held she had
practised against them, and to destroy her mischievous power.
No consideration for her sex, or her youth, or for the beauty
and purity of character that is revealed in all the accounts
of her trial, moved her judges to compassion. They condemned
her remorselessly to the stake, and she was burned on the 31st
of May, 1431, with no effort put forth on the part of the
French or their ungrateful king to save her from that horrible
fate.
End of the Hundred Years War.
After this, things went badly with the English, though some
years passed before Charles VII. was roused again to any
display of capable powers. At last, in 1435, a general
conference of all parties in the war was brought about at
Arras. The English were offered Normandy and Aquitaine in full
sovereignty, but they refused it, and withdrew from the
conference when greater concessions were denied to them. The
Duke of Burgundy then made terms with King Charles, abandoning
the English alliance, and obtaining satisfaction for the
murder of his father. Charles was now able, for the first time
in his reign, to enter the capital of his kingdom (May, 1436),
and it is said that he found it so wasted by a pestilence and
so ruined and deserted, that wolves came into the city, and
that forty persons were devoured by them in a single week,
some two years later.
{1040}
Charles now began to show better qualities than had appeared
in his character before. He adopted strong measures to
suppress the bands of marauders who harassed and wasted the
country, and to bring all armed forces in the kingdom under
the control and command of the Crown. He began the creation of
a disciplined and regulated militia in France. He called into
his service the greatest French merchant of the day, Jacques
Cœur, who successfully reorganized the finances of the state,
and whose reward, after a few years, was to be prosecuted and
plundered by malignant courtiers, while the king looked
passively on, as he had looked on at the trial and execution
of Jeanne d'Arc.
In 1449, a fresh attack upon the English in Normandy was
begun; and as civil war—the War of the Roses—was then at the
point of outbreak in England, they could make no effective
resistance. Within a year, the whole of Normandy had become
obedient again to the rule of the king of France. In two years
more Guienne had been recovered, and when, in October, 1453,
the French king entered Bordeaux, the English had been finally
expelled from every foot of the realm except Calais and its
near neighborhood. The Hundred Years War was at an end.
England under Edward III.
The century of the Hundred Years War had been, in England, one
of few conspicuous events; and when the romantic tale of that
war—the last sanguinary romance of expiring Chivalry—is
taken out of the English annals of the time, there is not much
left that looks interesting on the surface of things. Below
the surface there are movements of no little importance to be
found.
When Edward III. put forward his claim to the crown of France,
and prepared to make it good by force of arms, the English
nation had absolutely no interest of its own in the
enterprise, from which it could derive no possible advantage,
but which did, on the contrary, promise harm to it, very
plainly, whatever might be the result. If the king succeeded,
his English realm would become a mere minor appendage to a far
more imposing continental dominion, and he and his successors
might easily acquire a power independent and absolute, over
their subjects. If he failed, the humiliation of failure would
wound the pride and the prestige of the nation, while its
resources would have been drained for naught. But these
rational considerations did not suffice to breed any
discoverable opposition to King Edward's ambitious
undertaking. The Parliament gave sanction to it; most probably
the people at large approved, with exultant expectations of
national glory; and when Crécy and Poitiers, with victories
over the hostile Scots, filled the measure of England's glory
to overflowing, they were intoxicated by it, and had little
thought then of the cost or the consequences.
But long before Edward's reign came to an end, the splendid
pageantries of the war had passed out of sight, and a new
generation was looking at, and was suffering from, the
miseries and mortifications that came in its train. The
attempt to conquer France had failed; the fruits of the
victories of Crécy and Poitiers had been lost; even Guienne,
which had been English ground since the days of Henry II., was
mostly given up. And England was weak from the drain of money
and men which the war had caused. The awful plague of the 14th
century, the Black Death, had smitten her people hard and left
diminished numbers to bear the burden. There had been famine
in the land, and grievous distress, and much sorrow.
But the calamities of this bitter time wrought beneficent
effects, which no man then living is likely to have clearly
understood. By plague, famine and battle, labor was made
scarce, wages were raised, the half-enslaved laborer was
speedily emancipated, despite the efforts of Parliament to
keep him in bonds, and land-owners were forced to let their
lands to tenant-farmers, who strengthened the English
middle-class. By the demands of the war for money and men, the
king was held more in dependence on Parliament than he might
otherwise have been, and the plant of constitutional
government, which began its growth in the previous century,
took deeper root.
In the last years of his life Edward III. lost all of his
vigor, and fell under the influence of a woman, Alice Perrers,
who wronged and scandalized the nation. The king's eldest son,
the Black Prince, was slowly dying of an incurable disease,
and took little part in affairs; when he interfered, it seems
to have been with some leanings to the popular side. The next
in age of the living sons of Edward was a turbulent, proud,
self-seeking prince, who gave England much trouble and was
hated profoundly. This was John, Duke of Lancaster, called
John of Gaunt, or Ghent, because of his birth in that city.
England under Richard II.
The Black Prince, dying in 1376, left a young son, Richard,
then ten years old, who was immediately recognized as the heir
to the throne, and who succeeded to it in the following year,
when Edward III. died. The Duke of Lancaster had been
suspected of a design to set Richard aside and claim the crown
for himself. But he did not venture the attempt; nor was he
able to secure even the regency of the kingdom during the
young king's minority. The distrust of him was so general that
Parliament and the lords preferred to invest Richard with full
sovereignty even in his boyhood. But John of Gaunt,
notwithstanding these endeavors to exclude him from any place
of authority, contrived to attain a substantial mastery of the
government, managing the war in France and the expenditure of
public moneys in his own way, and managing them very badly. At
least, he was held chiefly responsible for what was bad, and
his name was heard oftenest in the mutterings of popular
discontent. The peasants were now growing very impatient of
the last fetters of villeinage which they wore, and very
conscious of their right to complete freedom. Those feelings
were strongly stirred in them by a heavy poll-tax which
Parliament levied in 1381. The consequence was an outbreak of
insurrection, led by one Wat the Tyler, which became
formidable and dangerous. The insurgents began by making
everybody they encountered swear to be true to King Richard,
and to submit to no king named John, meaning John of Gaunt.
They increased in numbers and boldness until they entered and
took possession of the city of London, where they beheaded the
Archbishop of Canterbury, and other obnoxious persons; but
permitted no thieving to be done.
{1041}
The day after this occurred, Wat Tyler met the young king at
Smithfield, for a conference, and was suddenly killed by one
of those who attended the king. The excuse made for the deed
was some word of insolence on the part of the insurgent
leader; but there is every appearance of a foul act of
treachery in the affair. Richard on this occasion behaved
boldly and with much presence of mind, acquiring by his
courage and readiness a command over the angry rebels, which
resulted in their dispersion.
The Wat Tyler rebellion appears to have manifested a more
radically democratic state of thinking and feeling among the
common people than existed again in England before the
seventeenth century. John Ball, a priest, and others who were
associated with Wat Tyler in the leadership, preached
doctrines of social equality that would nearly have satisfied
a Jacobin of the French Revolution.
This temper of political radicalism had no apparent connection
with the remarkable religious feeling of the time, which the
great reformer, Wyclif, had aroused; yet the two movements of
the English mind were undoubtedly started by one and the same
revolutionary shock, which it took from the grave alarms and
anxieties of the age, and for which it had been prepared by
the awakening of the previous century. Wyclif was the first
English Puritan, and more of the spirit of the reformation of
religion which he sought, than the spirit of Luther's
reformation, went into the Protestantism that ultimately took
form in England. The movement he stirred was a more wonderful
anticipation of the religious revolt of the sixteenth century
than any other which occurred in Europe; for that of Huss in
Bohemia took its impulse from Wyclif and the English Lollards,
as Wyclif's followers were called.
Richard was a weak but wilful king, and the kingdom was kept
in trouble by his fitful attempts at independence and
arbitrary rule. He made enemies of most of the great lords,
and lost the good will and confidence of Parliament. He did
what was looked upon as a great wrong to Henry of Bolingbroke,
son of John of Gaunt, by banishing both him and the Duke of
Norfolk from the kingdom, when he should have judged between
them; and he made the wrong greater by seizing the lands of
the Lancastrian house when John of Gaunt died. This caused his
ruin. Henry of Bolingbroke, now Duke of Lancaster, came back to
England (1399), encouraged by the discontent in the kingdom,
and was immediately joined by so many adherents that Richard
could offer little resistance. He was deposed by act of
Parliament, and the Duke of Lancaster (a grandson of Edward
III., as Richard was), was elected to the throne, which he
ascended as Henry IV. By judgment of King and Parliament,
Richard was presently condemned to imprisonment for life in
Pomfret Castle; and, early in the following year, after a
conspiracy in his favor had been discovered, he died
mysteriously in his prison.
England Under Henry IV.
The reign of Henry IV., which lasted a little more than
thirteen years, was troubled by risings and conspiracies, all
originating among the nobles, out of causes purely personal or
factious, and having no real political significance. But no
events in English history are more commonly familiar, or seem
to be invested with a higher importance, than the rebellions
of Owen Glendower and the Percys,—Northumberland and Harry
Hotspur,—simply because Shakespeare has laid his magic upon
what otherwise would be a story of little note. Wars with the
always hostile Scots supplied other stirring incidents to the
record Of the time; but these came to a summary end in 1405,
when the crown prince, James, of Scotland, voyaging to France,
was driven by foul winds to the English coast and taken
prisoner. The prince's father, King Robert, died on hearing
the news, and James, the captive, was now entitled to be king.
But the English held him for eighteen years, treating him as a
guest at their court, rather than as a prisoner, and educating
him with care, but withholding him from his kingdom.
To strengthen his precarious seat upon the throne, Henry
cultivated the friendship of the Church, and seems to have
found this course expedient, even at considerable cost to his
popularity. For the attitude of the commons towards the Church
during his reign was anything but friendly. They went so far
as to pass a bill for the confiscation of Church property,
which the Lords rejected; and they seem to have repented of an
Act passed early in his reign, under which a cruel persecution
of the Lollards was begun. The clergy and the Lords, with the
favor of the king, maintained the barbarous law, and England
for the first time saw men burned at the stake for heresy.
England Under Henry V. and Henry VI.
Henry IV. died in 1413, and was succeeded by his spirited and
able, but too ambitious son, Henry V., the Prince Hal of
Shakespeare, who gave up riotous living when called to the
grave duties of government and showed himself to be a man of
no common mould. The war in France, which he renewed, and the
chief events of which have been sketched already, filled up
most of his brief reign of nine years. His early death (1422)
left two crowns to an infant nine months old. The English
crown was not disputed. The French crown, though practically
won by conquest, was not permanently secured, but was still to
be fought for; and in the end, as we have seen, it was lost.
No more need be said of the incidents of the war which had
that result.
The infant king was represented in France by his elder uncle,
the Duke of Bedford. In England, the government was carried on
for him during his minority by a council, in which his younger
uncle, Humphrey, Duke of Gloucester, occupied the chief place,
but with powers that were jealously restricted. While the war
in France lasted, or during most of the thirty-one years
through which it was protracted after Henry V.'s death, it
engrossed the English mind and overshadowed domestic
interests, so that the time has a meagre history.
Soon after he came of age, Henry VI. married (1444) Margaret
of Anjou, daughter of René, Duke of Anjou, who claimed to be
King of Naples and Jerusalem. The marriage, which aimed at
peace with France, and which had been brought about by the
cession to that country of Maine and Anjou, was unpopular in
England. Discontent with the feeble management of the war, and
with the general weakness and incapability of the government,
grew apace, and showed itself, among other exhibitions, in a
rebellion (1450) known as Jack Cade's, from the name of an
Irishman who got the lead of it. Jack Cade and his followers
took possession of London and held it for three days, only
yielding at last to an offer of general pardon, after they had
beheaded Lord Say, the most obnoxious adviser of the king. A
previous mob had taken the head of the Earl of Suffolk, who
was detested still more as the contriver of the king's
marriage and of the humiliating policy in France.
{1042}
The Wars of the Roses.
At length, the Duke of York, representing an elder line of
royal descent from Edward III., took the lead of the
discontented in the nation, and civil war was imminent in
1452; but pacific counsels prevailed for the moment. The king,
who had always been weak-minded, and entirely under the
influence of the queen, now sank for a time into a state of
complete stupor, and was incapable of any act. The Lords in
Parliament thereupon appointed the Duke of York Protector of
England, and the government was vigorously conducted by him
for a few months, until the king recovered. The queen, and the
councillors she favored, now regained their control of
affairs, and the opposition took arms.
The long series of fierce struggles between these two parties,
which is commonly called the Wars of the Roses, began on the
22d of May, 1455, with a battle at St. Albans—the first of
two that were fought on the same ground. At the beginning, it
was a contest for the possession of the unfortunate,
irresponsible king, and of the royal authority which resided
nominally in his person. But it became, ere long, a contest
for the crown which Henry wore, and to which the Duke of York
denied his right. The Duke traced his ancestry to one son of
Edward III., and King Henry to another son. But the Duke's
forefather, Lionel, was prior in birth to the King's
forefather, John of Gaunt, and, as an original proposition,
the House of York was clearly nearer than the House of
Lancaster to the royal line which had been interrupted when
Richard II. was deposed. The rights of the latter House were
such as it had gained prescriptively by half a century of
possession.
At one time it was decided by the Lords that Henry should be
king until he died, and that the Duke of York and his heirs
should succeed him. But Queen Margaret would not yield the
rights of her son, and renewed the war. The Duke of York was
killed in the next battle fought. His son, Edward, continued
the contest, and early in 1461, having taken possession of
London, he was declared king by a council of Lords, which
formally deposed Henry. The Lancastrians were driven from the
kingdom, and Edward held the government with little
disturbance for eight years. Then a rupture occurred between
him and his most powerful supporter, the Earl of Warwick.
Warwick put himself at the head of a rebellion which failed in
the first instance, but which finally, when Warwick had joined
forces with Queen Margaret, drove Edward to flight. The latter
took refuge in the Netherlands (1470), where he received
protection and assistance from the Duke of Burgundy, who was
his brother-in-law. Henry VI. was now restored to the throne;
but for no longer a time than six months. At the end of that
period Edward landed again in England, with a small force,
professing that he came only to demand his dukedom. As soon as
he found himself well received and strongly supported, he
threw off the mask, resumed the title of king, and advanced to
London, where the citizens gave him welcome. A few days later
(April 14, 1471) he went out to meet Warwick and defeated and
slew him in the fierce battle of Barnet. One more fight at
Tewkesbury, where Queen Margaret was taken prisoner, ended the
war. King Henry died, suspiciously, in the Tower, on the very
night of his victorious rival's return to London, and Edward
IV. had all his enemies under his feet.
England under the House of York.
For a few years England enjoyed peace within her borders, and
the material effects of the protracted civil wars were rapidly
effaced. Indeed, the greater part of England appears to have
been lightly touched by those effects. The people at large had
taken little part in the conflict, and had been less disturbed
by it, in their industries and in their commerce, than might
have been expected. It had been a strife among the great
families, enlisting the gentry to a large extent, no doubt,
but not the middle class. Hence its chief consequence had been
the thinning and weakening of the aristocratic order, which
relatively enhanced the political importance of the commons.
But the commons were not yet trained to act independently in
political affairs. Their rise in power had been through joint
action of lords and commons against the Crown, with the former
in the lead; they were accustomed to depend on aristocratic
guidance, and to lean on aristocratic support. For this
reason, they were not only unprepared to take advantage of the
great opportunity which now opened to them, for decisively
grasping the control of government, but they were unfitted to
hold what they had previously won, without the help of the
class above them. As a consequence, it was the king who
profited by the decimation and impoverishment of the nobles,
grasping not only the power which they lost, but the power
which the commons lacked skill to use. For a century and a
half following the Wars of the Roses, the English monarchy
approached more nearly to absolutism than at any other period
before or after.
The unsparing confiscations by which Edward IV. and his
triumphant party crushed their opponents enriched the Crown
for a time and made it independent of parliamentary subsidies.
When supply from that source began to fall short, the king
invented another. He demeaned himself so far as to solicit
gifts from the wealthy merchants of the kingdom, to which he
gave the name of "benevolences," and he practiced this system
of royal beggary so persistently and effectually that he had
no need to call Parliament together. He thus began, in a
manner hardly perceived or resisted, the arbitrary and
unconstitutional mode of government which his successors
carried further, until the nation roused itself and took back
its stolen liberties with vengeance and wrath.
{1043}
Richard III. and the first of the Tudors.
Edward IV. died in 1483, leaving two young sons, the elder not
yet thirteen. Edward's brother, Richard, contrived with
amazing ability and unscrupulousness to acquire control of the
government, first as Protector, and presently as King. The
young princes, confined in the Tower, were murdered there, and
Richard III. might have seemed to be secure on his wickedly
won throne; for he did not lack popularity, notwithstanding
his crimes. But an avenger soon came, in the person of Henry,
Earl of Richmond, who claimed the Crown. Henry's claim was not
a strong one. Through his mother, he traced his lineage to
John of Gaunt, as the Lancastrians had done; but it was the
mistress and not the wife of that prince who bore Henry's
ancestor. His grandfather was a Welsh chieftain, Sir Owen
Tudor, who won the heart of the widowed queen of Henry V.,
Catherine of France, and married her. But the claim of Henry
of Richmond, if a weak one genealogically, sufficed for the
overthrow of the red-handed usurper, Richard. Henry, who had
been in exile, landed in England in August, 1485, and was
quickly joined by large numbers of supporters. Richard
hastened to attack them, and was defeated and slain on
Bosworth Field. With no more opposition, Henry won the
kingdom, and founded, as Henry VII., the Tudor dynasty which
held the throne until the death of Elizabeth.
Under that dynasty, the history of England took on a new
character, disclosing new tendencies, new impulses, new
currents of influence, new promises of the future. We will not
enter upon it until we have looked at some prior events in
other regions.
Germany.
If we return now to Germany, we take up the thread of events
at an interesting point. We parted from the affairs of that
troubled country while two rival Emperors, Louis IV., or
Ludwig, of Bavaria, and Frederick of Austria, were endeavoring
(1325) to settle their dispute in a friendly way, by sharing
the throne together. Before noting the result of that
chivalric and remarkable compromise, let us glance backward
for a moment at the most memorable and important incident of
the civil war which led to it.
Birth of the Swiss Confederacy.
The three cantons of Switzerland which are known distinctively
as the Forest Cantons, namely, Schwytz (which gave its name in
time to the whole country), Uri, and Unterwalden, had stood in
peculiar relations to the Hapsburg family since long before
Rudolph became Emperor and his house became the House of
Austria. In those cantons, the territorial rights were held
mostly by great monasteries, and the counts of Hapsburg for
generations past had served the abbots and abbesses in the
capacity of advocates, or champions, to rule their vassals for
them and to defend their rights. Authority of their own in the
cantons they had none. At the same time, the functions they
performed so continually developed ideas in their minds,
without doubt, which grew naturally into pretensions that were
offensive to the bold mountaineers. On the other hand, the
circumstances of the situation were calculated to breed
notions and feelings of independence among the men of the
mountains. They gave their allegiance to the Emperor—to the
high sovereign who ruled over all, in the name of Rome—and
they opposed what came between them and him. It is manifest
that a threatening complication for them arose when the Count
of Hapsburg became Emperor, which occurred in 1273. They had
no serious difficulty with Rudolph, in his time; but they
wisely prepared themselves for what might come, by forming, or
by renewing, in 1291, a league of the three cantons,—the
beginning and nucleus of the Swiss Confederation, which has
maintained its independence and its freedom from that day to
this. The league of 1291 had existed something more than
twenty years when the confederated cantons were first called
upon to stand together in resistance to the Austrian
pretensions. This occurred in 1315, during the war between
Louis and Frederick, when Leopold, Duke of Austria, invaded
the Forest Cantons and was disastrously beaten in a fight at
the pass of Morgarten. The victory of the confederates and the
independence secured by it gave them so much prestige that
neighboring cities and cantons sought admission to their
league. In 1332 Luzern was received as a member; in 1351,
1352, and 1353, Zurich, Glarus, Zug, and Bern came in,
increasing the membership to eight. It took the name of the
Old League of High Germany, and its members were known as
Eidgenossen, or Confederates.
Such, in brief, are the ascertained facts of the origin of the
Swiss Confederacy. There is nothing found in authentic history
to substantiate the popular legend of William Tell.
The questions between the league and the Austrian princes,
which continued to be troublesome for two generations, were
practically ended by the two battles of Sempach and Naefels,
fought in 1386 and 1388, in both of which the Austrians were
overthrown.
The Emperor Louis IV. and the Papacy.
While the Swiss were gaining the freedom which they never
lost, Germany at large was making little progress in any
satisfactory direction. Peace had not been restored by the
friendly agreement of 1325 between Ludwig and Frederick. The
partisans of neither were contented with it. Frederick was
broken in health and soon retired from the government; in 1330
he died. The Austrian house persisted in hostility to Louis;
but his more formidable enemies were the Pope and the King of
France. The period was that known in papal history as "the
Babylonish Captivity," when the popes resided at Avignon and
were generally creatures of the French court and subservient
to its ambitions or its animosities. Philip of Valois, who now
reigned in France, aspired to the imperial crown, which the head
of the Church had conferred on the German kings, and which the
same supreme pontiff might claim authority to transfer to the
sovereigns of France. This is supposed to have been the secret
of the relentless hostility with which Louis was pursued by
the Papacy—himself excommunicated, his kingdom placed under
interdict, and every effort made to bring about his deposition
by the princes of Germany. But divided and depressed as the
Germans were, they revolted against these malevolent
pretensions of the popes, and in 1338 the electoral princes
issued a bold declaration, asserting the sufficiency of the
act of election to confer imperial dignity and power, and
denying the necessity for any papal confirmation whatever. Had
Louis been a commanding leader, and independent of the Papacy in
his own feelings, he could probably have rallied a national
sentiment on this issue that would have powerfully affected
the future of German history.
{1044}
But he lacked the needful character, and his troubles
continued until he died (1347). A year before his death, his
opponents had elected and put forward a rival emperor,
Charles, the son of King John of Bohemia. Charles (IV.) was
subsequently recognized as king without dispute, and secured
the imperial crown. "It may be affirmed with truth that the
genuine ancient Empire, which contained a German kingdom, came
to an end with the Emperor Ludwig the Bavarian. None strove
again after his death to restore the imperial power. The
golden bull of his successor Charles IV. sealed the fate of
the old Empire. Through it, and indeed through the entire
conduct of Charles IV., King of Bohemia as he really was, and
emperor scarcely more than in name, the imperial government
passed more and more into the hands of the prince-electors,
who came to regard the emperor no longer as their master, but
as the president of an assembly in which he shared the power
with themselves." "From the time of Charles IV. the main
object and chief occupation of the emperors was not the
Empire, but the aggrandisement and security of their own
house. The Empire served only as the means and instrument of
their purpose" (Dollinger).
The Golden Bull of Charles IV.
The Golden Bull referred to by Dr. Dollinger was an instrument
which became the constitution, so to speak, of the Holy Roman
or Germanic Empire. It prescribed the mode of the election of
the King, and definitively named the seven Electors. It also
conferred certain special powers and privileges on these seven
princes, which raised them much above their fellows and gave
them an independence that may be said to have destroyed every
hope of Germanic unity. This was the one mark which the reign
of Charles IV. left upon the Empire. His exertions as Emperor
were all directed to the aggrandizement of his own family, and
with not much lasting result. In his own kingdom of Bohemia he
ruled with better effect. He made its capital, Prague, an
important city, adorning it with noble buildings and founding
in it the most ancient of German universities. This University
of Prague soon sowed seeds from which sprang the first
movement of religious reformation in Germany.
Charles IV., dying in 1378, was succeeded by his son Wenzel,
or Wenceslaus, on the imperial throne as well as the Bohemian.
Wenceslaus neglected both the Empire and the Kingdom, and the
confusion of things in Germany grew worse. Some of the
principal cities continued to secure considerable freedom and
prosperity for themselves, by the combined efforts of their
leagues; but everywhere else great disorder and oppression
prevailed. It was at this time that the Swabian towns, to the
number of forty-one, formed a union and waged unsuccessful war
with a league which the nobles entered into against them. They
were defeated, and crushingly dealt with by the Emperor.
In 1400 Wenceslaus was deposed and Rupert of the Palatinate
was elected, producing another civil war, and reducing the
imperial government to a complete nullity. Rupert died in
1410, and, after some contention, Sigmund, or Sigismund,
brother of Wenceslaus, was raised to the throne. He was
Margrave of Brandenburg and King of Hungary, and would become
King of Bohemia when Wenceslaus died.
The Reformation of Huss in Bohemia.
Bohemia was about to become the scene of an extraordinary
religious agitation, which John Huss, teacher and preacher in
the new but already famous University of Prague, was beginning
to stir. Huss, who drew more or less of his inspiration from
Wyclif, anticipated Luther in the boldness of his attacks upon
iniquities in the Church. In his case as in Luther's, the
abomination which he could not endure was the sale of papal
indulgences; and it was by his denunciation of that impious
fraud that he drew on himself the deadly wrath of the Roman
hierarchy. He was summoned before the great Council of the
Church which opened at Constance in 1414. He obeyed the
summons and went to the Council, bearing a safe-conduct from
the Emperor which pledged protection to him until he returned.
Notwithstanding this imperial pledge, he was imprisoned for
seven months at Constance, and was then impatiently listened
to and condemned to the stake. On the 6th of July, 1415, he
was burned. In the following May, his friend and disciple,
Jerome of Prague, suffered the same martyrdom. The Emperor,
Sigismund, blustered a little at the insolent violation of his
safe-conduct; but dared do nothing to make it effective.
In Bohemia, the excitement produced by these outrages was
universal. The whole nation seemed to rise, in the first
wide-spread aggressive popular revolt that the Church of Rome
had yet been called upon to encounter. In 1419 there was an
armed assembly of 40,000 men, on a mountain which they called
Tabor, who placed themselves under the leadership of John
Ziska, a nobleman, one of Huss' friends. The followers of
Ziska soon displayed a violence of temper and a radicalism
which repelled the more moderate Hussites, or Reformers, and
two parties appeared, one known as the Taborites, the other as
the Calixtines, or Utraquists. The former insisted on entire
separation from the Church of Rome; the latter confined their
demands to four reforms, namely: Free preaching of the Word of
God; the giving of the Eucharistic cup to the laity; the
taking of secular powers and of worldly goods from the clergy;
the enforcing of Christian discipline by all authorities. So much
stress was laid by the Calixtines on their claim to the
chalice or cup (communion in both kinds) that it gave them
their name. The breach between these parties widened until
they were as hostile to each other as to the Catholics, and
the Bohemian reform movement was ruined in the end by their
division.
In 1419, the deposed Emperor Wenceslaus, who had still
retained his kingdom of Bohemia, was murdered in his palace,
at Prague. His brother, the Emperor Sigismund, was his heir;
but the Hussites refused the crown to him, and resisted his
pretensions with arms. This added a political conflict to the
religious one, and Bohemia was afflicted with a frightful
civil war for fifteen years. Ziska fortified mount Tabor and
took possession of Prague. The Emperor and the Pope allied
themselves, to crush an insurrection which was aimed against
both. They summoned Christendom to a new crusade, and
Sigismund led 100,000 men against Prague, in 1420. Ziska met
him and defeated him, and drove him, with his crusaders, from
the country. The Taborites were now maddened by their success,
and raged over the land, destroying convents and burning
priests. Their doctrines, moreover, began to take on a
socialistic and republican character, threatening property in
general and questioning monarchy, too. The well-to-do and
conservative classes were more and more repelled from them.
{1045}
In 1421 a second crusading army, 200,000 strong, invaded
Bohemia and was scattered like chaff by Ziska (now blind) and
his peasant soldiery. The next year they defeated the Emperor
again; but in 1424 Ziska died, and a priest called Procopius
the Great took his place. Under their new leader, the fierce
Taborites were as invincible as they had been under Ziska.
They routed an imperial army in 1426, and then carried the war
into Austria and Silesia, committing fearful ravages. Still
another crusade was set in motion against them by the Pope,
and still another disastrous failure was made of it. Then
Germany again suffered a more frightful visitation from the
vengeful Hussites than before. Towns and villages were
destroyed by hundreds, and wide tracks of ruin and death were
marked on the face of the land, to its very center. Once more,
and for the last time, in 1431, the Germans rallied a great force
to retaliate these attacks, and they met defeat, as in all
previous encounters, but more completely than ever before.
Then the Pope and the Emperor gave up hope of putting down the
indomitable revolutionists by force, and opened parleyings.
The Pope called a council at Basel for the discussion of
questions with the Hussites, and, finally, in 1433, their
moderate party was prevailed upon to accept a compromise which
really conceded nothing to them except the use of the cup in
the communion. The Taborites refused the terms, and the two
parties grappled each other in a fierce struggle for the
control of the state. But the extremists had lost much of
their old strength, and the Utraquists vanquished them in a
decisive battle at Lipan, in May, 1434. Two years later
Sigismund was formally acknowledged King of Bohemia and
received in Prague. In 1437 he died. His son-in-law, Albert of
Austria, who succeeded him, lived but two years, and the heir
to the throne then was a son, Ladislaus, born after his
father's death. This left Bohemia in a state of great
confusion and disorder for several years, until a strong man,
George Podiebrad, acquired the control of affairs.
Meantime, the Utraquists had organized a National Church of
Bohemia, considerably divergent from Rome. It failed to
satisfy the deeper religious feelings that were widely current
among the Bohemians in that age, and there grew up a sect
which took the name of "Unitas Fratrum," or "Unity of the
Brethren," but which afterwards became incorrectly known as
the Moravian Brethren. This sect, still existing, has borne an
important part in the missionary history of the Christian
world.
The Papacy.—The Great Schism.
The Papacy, at the time of its conflict with the Hussites, in
Bohemia, was rapidly sinking to that lowest level of
debasement which it reached in the later part of the fifteenth
century. Its state was not yet so abhorrent as it came to be
under the Borgias; but it had been brought even more into
contempt, perhaps, by the divisions and contentions of "the
Great Schism." The so-called "Babylonish Captivity" of the
series of popes who resided for seventy years at Avignon
(1305-1376), and who were under French influence, had been
humiliating to the Church; but the schism which immediately
followed (1378-1417), when a succession of rival popes, or
popes and antipopes, thundered anathemas and excommunications
at one another, from Rome and from Avignon, was even more
scandalous and shameful. Christendom was divided by the
quarrel. France, Spain, Scotland, and some lesser states, gave
their allegiance to the pope at Avignon; England, Germany and
the northern kingdoms adhered to the pope at Rome. In 1402, an
attempt to heal the schism was made by a general Council of
the Church convened at Pisa. It decreed the deposition of both
the contending pontiffs, and elected a third; but its
authority was not recognized, and the confusion of the Church
was only made worse by bringing three popes into the quarrel,
instead of two. Twelve years later, another Council, held at
Constance,—the same which burned Huss,—had more success.
Europe had now grown so tired of the scandal, and so disgusted
with the three pretenders to spiritual supremacy, that the
action of the Council was backed by public opinion, and they
were suppressed. A fourth pope, Martin V., whom the Council
then seated in the chair of St. Peter (1417), was universally
acknowledged, and the Great Schism was at an end.
But other scandals and abuses in the Church, which public
opinion in Europe had already begun to cry loudly against,
were untouched by these Councils. A subsequent Council at
Basel, which met in 1431, attempted some restraints upon papal
extortion (ignoring the more serious moral evils that claimed
attention); but was utterly beaten in the conflict with Pope
Eugenius IV., which this action brought on, and its decrees
lost all effect. So the religious autocracy at Rome, sinking
stage by stage below the foulest secular courts of the time,
continued without check to insult and outrage, more and more,
the piety, the common sense, and the decent feeling of
Christendom, until the habit of reverence was quite worn out
in the minds of men throughout the better half of Europe.
Rome and the last Tribune, Rienzi.
The city of Rome had fallen from all greatness of its own when
it came to be dependent on the fortunes of the popes. Their
departure to Avignon had reduced it to a lamentable state.
They took with them, in reality, the sustenance of the city;
for it lived, in the main, on the revenues of the Papacy, and
knew little of commerce beyond the profitable traffic in
indulgences, absolutions, benefices, relics and papal
blessings, which went to Avignon with the head of the Church.
Authority, too, departed with the Pope, and the wretched city
was given up to anarchy almost uncontrolled. A number of
powerful families—the Colonna, the Orsini, and
others—perpetually at strife with one another, fought out
their feuds in the streets, and abused and oppressed their
neighbors with impunity. Their houses were impregnable
castles, and their retainers were a formidable army.
{1046}
It was while this state of things was at its worst that the
famous Cola di Rienzi, "last of the Tribunes," accomplished a
revolution which was short-lived but extraordinary. He roused
the people to action against their oppressors and the
disturbers of their peace. He appealed to them to restore the
republican institutions of ancient Rome, and when they
responded, in 1347, by conferring on him the title and
authority of a Tribune, he actually succeeded in expelling the
turbulent nobles, or reducing them to submission, and
established in Rome, for a little time, what he called "the
Good Estate." But his head was quickly turned by his success;
he was inflated with conceit and vanity; he became arrogant
and despotic; the people tired of him, and after a few months
of rule he was driven from Rome. In 1354 he came back as a
Senator, appointed by the Pope, who thought to use him for the
restoration of papal authority; but his influence was gone,
and he was slain by a-riotous mob.
The return of the Pope to Rome in 1376 was an event so long
and ardently desired by the Roman people that they submitted
themselves eagerly to his government. But his sovereignty over
the States of the Church was substantially lost, and the
regaining of it was the principal object of the exertions of
the popes for a long subsequent period.
The Two Sicilies.
In Southern Italy and Sicily, since the fall of the
Hohenstaufens (1268), the times had been continuously evil.
The rule of the French conqueror, Charles of Anjou, was hard
and unmerciful, and the power he established became
threatening to the Papacy, which gave the kingdom to him. In
1282, Sicily freed itself, by the savage massacre of Frenchmen
which bears the name of the Sicilian Vespers. The King of
Aragon, Peter III., whose queen was the Hohenstaufen heiress,
supported the insurrection promptly and vigorously, took
possession of the island, and was recognized by the people as
their king. A war of twenty years' duration ensued. Both
Charles and Peter died and their sons continued the battle. In
the end, the Angevin house held the mainland, as a separate
kingdom, with Naples for its capital, and a younger branch of
the royal family of Aragon reigned in the island. But both
sovereigns called themselves Kings of Sicily, so that History,
ever since, has been forced to speak puzzlingly of "Two
Sicilies." For convenience it seems best to distinguish them
by calling one the kingdom of Naples and the other the kingdom
of Sicily. On the Neapolitan throne there came one estimable
prince, in Robert, who reigned from 1309 to 1343, and who was
a friend of peace and a patron of arts and letters. But after
him the throne was befouled by crimes and vices, and the
kingdom was made miserable by civil wars. His grand-daughter
Joanna, or Jane, succeeded him. Robert's elder brother
Caribert had become King of Hungary, and Joanna now married
one of that king's sons—her cousin Andrew. At the end of two
years he was murdered (1345) and the queen, a notoriously
vicious woman, was accused of the crime. Andrew's brother,
Louis, who had succeeded to the throne in Hungary, invaded
Naples to avenge his death, and Joanna was driven to flight.
The country then suffered from the worst form of civil war—a
war carried on by the hireling ruffians of the "free
companies" who roamed about Italy in that age, selling their
swords to the highest bidders. In 1351 a peace was brought
about which restored Joanna to the throne. The Hungarian
King's son, known as Charles of Durazzo, was her recognized
heir, but she saw fit to disinherit him and adopt Louis, of
the Second House of Anjou, brother of Charles V. in France.
Charles of Durazzo invaded Naples, took the queen prisoner and
put her to death. Louis of Anjou attempted to displace him, but
failed. In 1383 Louis died, leaving his claims to his son.
Charles of Durazzo was called to Hungary, after a time, to
take the crown of that kingdom, and left his young son,
Ladislaus, on the Neapolitan throne. The Angevin claimant,
Louis II., was then called in by his partisans, and civil war
was renewed for years. When Ladislaus reached manhood he
succeeded in expelling Louis, and he held the kingdom until
his death, in 1414. He was succeeded by his sister, Joanna
II., who proved to be as wicked and dissolute a woman as her
predecessor of the same name. She incurred the enmity of the
Pope, who persuaded Louis III., son of Louis II., to renew the
claims of his house. The most renowned "condottiere" (or
military contractor, as the term might be translated), of the
day, Atteridolo Sforza, was engaged to make war on Queen
Joanna in the interest of Louis. On her side she obtained a
champion by promising her dominions to Alfonso V., of Aragon
and Sicily. The struggle went on for years, with varying
fortunes. The fickle and treacherous Joanna revoked her
adoption of Alfonso, after a time, and made Louis her heir.
When Louis died, she bequeathed her crown to his brother René,
Duke of Lorraine. Her death occurred in 1435, but still the
war continued, and nearly all Italy was involved in it, taking
one side or the other. Alfonso succeeded at last (1442) in
establishing himself at Naples, and René practically gave up
the contest, although he kept the title of King of Naples. He
was the father of the famous English Queen Margaret of Anjou,
who fought for her weak-minded husband and her son in the Wars
of the Roses.
While the Neapolitan kingdom was passing through these endless
miseries of anarchy, civil war, and evil government, the
Sicilian kingdom enjoyed a more peaceful and prosperous
existence. The crown, briefly held by a cadet branch of the
House of Aragon, was soon reunited to that of Aragon; and
under Alfonso, as we have seen, it was once more joined with
that of Naples, in a "Kingdom of the Two Sicilies." But both
these unions were dissolved on the death of Alfonso, who
bequeathed Aragon and Sicily to his legitimate heir, and
Naples to a bastard son.
The Despots of Northern Italy.
In Northern Italy a great change in the political state of
many among the formerly free commonwealths had been going on
since the thirteenth century. The experience of the Greek
city-republics had been repeated in them. In one way and
another, they had fallen under the domination of powerful
families, who had established a despotic rule over them,
sometimes gathering several cities and their surrounding
territory into a considerable dominion, and obtaining from the
Emperor or the Pope a formally conferred and hereditary title.
Thus the Visconti had established themselves at Milan, and had
become a ducal house. After a few generations they gave way to
the military adventurer, Francesco Sforza, son of the Sforza
who made war for Louis III. of Anjou on Joanna II. of Naples.
In Verona, the Della Scala family reigned for a time, until
Venice overcame them; at Modena and Ferrara, the Estes; at
Mantua, the Gonzagas; at Padua, the Carraras.
{1047}
The Italian Republics.
In other cities, the political changes were of a different
character. Venice, which grew rich and powerful with
extraordinary rapidity, was tyrannically governed by a haughty
and exclusive aristocracy. In commerce and in wealth she
surpassed all her rivals, and her affairs were more shrewdly
conducted. She held large possessions in the East, and she was
acquiring an extensive dominion on the Italian mainland. The
Genoese, who were the most formidable competitors of Venice in
commerce, preserved their democracy, but at some serious
expense to the administrative efficiency of their government.
They were troubled by a nobility which could only be turbulent
and could not control. They fought a desperate but losing
fight with the Venetians, and were several times in subjection
to the dukes of Milan and the kings of France. Pisa, which had
led both Venice and Genoa in the commercial race at the
beginning, was ruined by her wars with the latter, and with
Florence, and sank, in the fourteenth century, under the rule
of the Visconti, who sold their rights to the Florentines.
Florence.
The wonderful Florentine republic was the one which preserved
its independence under popular institutions the longest, and
in which they bore the most splendid fruit. For a period that
began in the later part of the thirteenth century, the
government of Florence was so radically democratic that the
nobles (grandi) were made ineligible to office, and could only
qualify themselves for election to any place in the magistracy
by abandoning their order and engaging in the labor of some
craft or art. The vocations of skilled industry were all
organized in gilds, called Arti, and were divided into two
classes, one representing what were recognized as the superior
arts (Arti Major, embracing professional and mercantile callings,
with some others); the other including the commoner
industries, known as the Arti Minori. From the heads, or
Priors, of the Arti were chosen a Signory, changed every two
months, which was entrusted with the government of the
republic. This popular constitution was maintained in its
essential features through the better part of a century, but
with continual resistance and disturbance from the excluded
nobles, on one side, and from the common laboring people, on
the other, who belonged to no art-gild and who, therefore,
were excluded likewise from participation in political
affairs. Between these two upper and lower discontents, the
bourgeois constitution gave way at last. The mob got control
for a time; but only, as always happens, to bring about a
reactionary revolution, which placed an oligarchy in power;
and the oligarchy made smooth the way for a single family of
great wealth and popular gifts and graces to rise to supremacy
in the state. This was the renowned family which began to rule
in Florence in 1435, when Cosimo de' Medici entered on the
office of Gonfaloniere. The Medici were not despots, of the
class of the Visconti, or the Sforzas, or the Estes. They
governed under the old constitutional forms, with not much
violation of anything except the spirit of them. They acquired
no princely title, until the late, declining days of the
house. Their power rested on influence and prestige, at first,
and finally on habit. They developed, and enlisted in their
own support, as something reflected from themselves, the pride
of the city in itself,—in its magnificence,—in its great and
liberal wealth,—in its patronage of letters and art,—in its
fame abroad and the admiration with which men looked upon it.
Through all the political changes in Florence there ran an
unending war of factions, the bitterest and most inveterate in
history. The control of the city belonged naturally to the
Guelfs, for it was the head and front of the Guelfic party in
Italy. "Without Florence," says one historian, "there would
have been no Guelfs." But neither party scrupled to call armed
help from the outside into its quarrels, and the Ghibellines
were able, nearly as often as the Guelfs, to drive their
opponents from the city. For the ascendancy of one faction
meant commonly the flight or expulsion of every man in the
other who had importance enough to be noticed. It was thus
that Dante, an ardent Ghibelline, became an exile from his
beloved Florence during the later years of his life. But the
strife of Guelfs with Ghibellines did not suffice for the
partisan rancor of the Florentines, and they complicated it
with another split of factions, which bore the names of the
Bianchi and the Neri, 01' the Whites and the Blacks.
For two or three centuries the annals of Florence are naught,
one thinks in reading them, but an unbroken tale of strife
within, or war without—of tumult, riot, revolution,
disorder. And yet, underneath, there is an amazing story to be
found, of thrift, industry, commerce, prosperity, wealth, on
one side, and of the sublimest genius, on another, giving
itself, in pure devotion, to poetry and art. The contradiction
of circumstances seems irreconcilable to our modern
experience, and we have to seek an explanation of it in the
very different conditions of mediæval life. It is with
certainty a fact that Florence, in its democratic time, was
phenomenal in genius, and in richness of life,—in prosperity
both material and intellectual; and it is reasonable to credit
to that time the planting and the growing of fruits which
ripened surpassingly in the Medicean age.
The Ottomans and the Eastern Empire.
So little occasion has arisen for any mention of the lingering
Eastern Empire, since Michael Palæologus, the Greek, recovered
Constantinople from the Franks (1261), that its existence
might easily be forgotten. It had no importance until it fell,
and then it loomed large again, in history, not only by the
tragic impression of its fall upon the imaginations of men,
but by the potent consequences of it.
For nearly two hundred years, the successors of Palæologus,
still calling themselves "Emperors of the Romans," and ruling
a little Thracian and Macedonian corner of the old dominion of
the Eastern Cæsars, struggled with a new race of Turks, who
had followed the Seljuk horde out of the same Central Asian
region. One of the first known leaders of this tribe was
Osman, or Othman, after whom they are sometimes called
Osmanlis, but more frequently Ottoman Turks. They appeared in
Asia Minor about the middle of the thirteenth century,
attacking both Christian and Mahometan states, and gradually
extending their conquest over the whole. About the end of the
first century of their career, they passed the straits and won
a footing in Europe. In 1361, they took Hadrianople and made
it their capital. Their sultan at this time was Amurath.
{1048}
As yet, they did not attack Constantinople. The city itself
was too strong in its fortifications; but beyond the walls of
the capital there was no strength in the little fragment of
Empire that remained. It appealed vainly to Western Europe for
help. It sought to make terms with the Church of Rome. Nothing
saved it for the moment but the evident disposition of the
Turk to regard it as fruit which would drop to his hand in due
time, and which he might safely leave waiting while he turned
his arms against its more formidable neighbors. He contented
himself with exacting tribute from the emperors, and
humiliating them by commands which they dared not disobey. In
the Servians, the Bosnians, and the Bulgarians, Amurath found
worthier foes. He took Sophia, their principal city, from the
latter, in 1382; in 1389 he defeated the two former nations in
the great battle of Kossova. At the moment of victory he was
assassinated, and his son Bajazet mounted the Ottoman throne.
The latter, at Nicopolis (1396), overwhelmed and destroyed the
one army which Western Europe sent to oppose the conquering
march of his terrible race. Six years later, he himself was
vanquished and taken prisoner in Asia by a still more terrible
conqueror,—the fiendish Timour or Tamerlane, then scourging
the eastern Continent. For some years the Turks were paralyzed
by a disputed succession; but under Amurath II., who came to
the throne in 1421, their advance was resumed, and in a few
years more their long combat with the Hungarians began.
Hungary and the Turks.
The original line of kings of Hungary having died out in 1301,
the influence of the Pope, who claimed the kingdom as a fief
of the papal see, secured the election to the throne of
Charles Robert, or Caribert, of the Naples branch of the House
of Anjou. He and his son Louis, called the Great, raised the
kingdom to notable importance and power. Louis added the crown
of Poland to that of Hungary, and on his death, leaving two
daughters, the Polish crown passed to the husband of one and
the Hungarian crown to the husband of the other. This latter
was Sigismund of Luxemburg, who afterwards became Emperor, and
also King of Bohemia. Under Sigismund, Hungary was threatened
on one side by the Turks, and ravaged on the other by the
Hussites of Bohemia. He was succeeded (1437) by his
son-in-law, Albert of Austria, who lived only two years, and
the latter was followed by Wladislaus, King of Poland; who
again united the two crowns, though at the cost of a
distracting civil war with partisans of the infant son of
Albert. It was in the reign of this prince that the Turks
began their obstinate attacks on Hungary, and thenceforth, for
two centuries and more, that afflicted country served
Christendom as a battered bulwark which the new warriors of
Islam could beat and disfigure but could not break down. The
hero of these first Hungarian wars with the Turks was John
Huniades, or Hunyady, a Wallachian, who fought them with
success until a peace was concluded in 1444. But King
Wladislaus was persuaded the same year by a papal agent to
break the treaty and to lead an expedition against the enemy's
lines. The result was a calamitous defeat, the death of the
king, and the almost total destruction of his army. Huniades
now became regent of the kingdom, during the minority of the
late King Albert's young son, Ladislaus.
He suffered one serious defeat at the hands of the Turks, but
avenged it again and again, with help from an army of
volunteers raised in all parts of Europe by the exertions of a
zealous monk named Capistrano. When Huniades died, in 1456,
his enemies already controlled the worthless young king,
Ladislaus, and the latter pursued him in his grave with
denunciations as a traitor and a villain. In 1458, Ladislaus
died, and Mathias, a son of Huniades, was elected king. After
he had settled himself securely upon the throne, Mathias
turned his arms, not against the Turks, but against the
Hussites of Bohemia, in an attempt to wrest the crown of that
kingdom from George Podiebrad.
The Fall of Constantinople.
Meantime, the Turkish Sultan, Mohammed II., had accomplished
the capture of Constantinople and brought the venerable Empire
of the East—Roman, Greek, or Byzantine, as we choose to name
it—to an end. He was challenged to the undertaking by the
folly of the last Emperor, Constantine Palæologus, who
threatened to support a pretender to Mohammed's throne. The
latter began serious preparations at once for a siege of the
long coveted city, and opened his attack in April, 1453. The
Greeks, even in that hour of common danger, were too hotly
engaged in a religious quarrel to act defensively together.
Their last preceding emperor had gone personally to the
Council of the Western Church, at Florence, in 1439, with some
of the bishops of the Greek Church, and had arranged for the
submission of the latter to Rome, as a means of procuring help
from Catholic Europe against the Turks. His successor,
Constantine, adhered to this engagement, professed the
Catholic faith and observed the Catholic ritual. His subjects
in general repudiated the imperial contract with scorn, and
avowedly preferred a Turkish master to a Roman shepherd. Hence
they took little part in the defense of the city. Constantine,
with the small force at his command, fought the host of
besiegers with noble courage and obstinacy for seven weeks,
receiving a little succor from the Genoese, but from no other
quarter. On the 29th of May the walls were carried by storm;
the Emperor fell, fighting bravely to the last; and the Turks
became masters of the city of Constantine. There was no
extensive massacre of the inhabitants; the city was given up
to pillage, but not to destruction, for the conqueror intended
to make it his capital. A number of fugitives had escaped,
before, or during the siege, and made their way into Italy and
other parts of Europe, carrying an influence which was
importantly felt, as we shall presently see; but 60,000
captives, men, women and children, were sold into slavery and
scattered throughout the Ottoman Empire.
Greece and most of the islands of the Ægean soon shared the
fate of Constantinople, and the subjugation of Servia and
Bosnia was made complete. Mohammed was even threatening Italy
when he died, in 1481.
{1049}
Renaissance.
We have now come, in our hasty survey of European history, to
the stretch of time within which historians have quite
generally agreed to place the ending of the state of things
characteristic of the Middle Ages, and the beginning of the
changed conditions and the different spirit that belong to the
modern life of the civilized world. The transition in European
society from mediæval to modern ways, feelings, and thoughts
has been called Renaissance, or new birth; but the figure
under which this places the conception before one's mind does
not seem to be really a happy one. There was no birth of
anything new in the nature of the generations of men who
passed through that change, nor in the societies which they
formed. What occurred to make changes in both was an
expansion, a liberation, an enlightenment—an opening of eyes,
and of ears, and of inner senses and sensibilities. There was no
time and no place that can be marked at which this began; and
there is no cause nor chain of causes to which it can be
traced. We have found signs of its coming, here and there, in
one token of movement and another, all the way through later
mediæval times—at least since the first Crusades. In the
thirteenth century there was a wonderful quickening of all the
many processes which made it up. In the fourteenth century
they were checked; but still they went on. In the fifteenth
they revived with greater energy than before; and in the
sixteenth they rose to their climax in intensity and effect.
That which took place in European society was not a
re-naissance so much as the re-wakening of men to a day-light
existence, after a thousand years of sunless
night,—moonlighted at the best. The truest descriptive figure
is that which represents these preludes to our modern age as a
morning dawn and daybreak.
Probably foremost among the causes of the change in Western
Europe from the mediæval to the modern state, we must place
those influences that extinguished the disorganizing forces in
feudalism. Habits and forms of the feudal arrangement remained
troublesome in society, as they do in some measure to the
present day; but feudalism as a system of social disorder and
disintegration was by this time cleared away. We have noted in
passing some of the undermining agencies by which it was
destroyed: the crusading movements; the growth and
enfranchisement of cities; the spread of commerce; the rise of
a middle class; the study of Roman law; the consequent increase
of royal authority in France,—all these were among the causes
of its decline. But possibly none among them wrought such
quick and deadly harm to feudalism as the introduction of
gunpowder and fire-arms in war, which occurred in the
fourteenth century. When his new weapons placed the
foot-soldier on a fairly even footing in battle with the
mailed and mounted knight, the feudal military organization of
society was ruined beyond remedy. The changed conditions of
warfare made trained armies, and therefore standing armies, a
necessity; standing armies implied centralized authority; with
centralized authority the feudal condition disappeared.
If these agencies in the generating of the new movement of
civilization which we call Modern are placed before the
subtler and more powerful influence of the printing press, it
is because they had to do a certain work in the world before
the printing press could be an efficient educator. Some
beginning of a public, in our modern sense, required to be
created, for letters to act upon. Until that came about, the
copyists of the monasteries and of the few palace libraries
existing were more than sufficient to satisfy all demands for
the multiplication of ancient writings or the publication of
new ones. The printer, if he had existed, would have starved
for want of employment. He would have lacked material,
moreover, to work upon; for it was the rediscovery of a great
ancient literature which made him busy when he came.
Invention of Printing.
The preparation of Europe for an effective use of the art of
printing may be said to have begun in the twelfth and
thirteenth centuries, when the great universities of Paris,
Bologna, Naples, Padua, Modena, and others, came into
existence, to be centers of intellectual
irritation—disputation—challenge—groping inquiry. But it
was not until the fourteenth century, when the labors and the
influence of Petrarch and other scholars and men of genius
roused interest in the forgotten literature of ancient Rome
and Greece, that the craving and seeking for books grew
considerable. Scholars and pretended scholars from the Greek
Empire then began to find employment, in Italy more
especially, as teachers of the Greek language, and a market
was opened for manuscripts of the older Greek writings, which
brought many precious ones to light, after long burial, and
multiplied copies of them. From Italy, this revival of classic
learning crept westward and northward somewhat slowly, but it
went steadily on, and the book as a commodity in the commerce
of the world rose year by year in importance, until the
printer came forward, about the middle of the fifteenth
century, to make it abundant and cheap.
Whether John Gutenberg, at Mentz, in 1454, or Laurent Coster,
at Haarlem, twenty years earlier, executed the first printing
with movable types, is a question of small importance, except
as a question of justice between the two possible inventors,
in awarding a great fame which belongs to one or both. The
grand fact is, that thought and knowledge took wings from that
sublime invention, and ideas were spread among men with a
swift diffusion that the world had never dreamed of before.
The slow wakening that had gone on for two centuries became
suddenly so quick that scarcely more than fifty years, from
the printing of the first Bible, sufficed to inoculate half of
Europe with the independent thinking of a few boldly
enlightened men.
{1050}
The Greek Revival.
If Gutenberg's printing of Pope Nicholas' letter of
indulgence, in 1454, was really the first achievement of the
new-born art, then it followed by a single year the event
commonly fixed upon for the dating of our Modern Era, and it
derived much of its earliest importance indirectly from that
event. For the fall of Constantinople, in 1453, was preceded
and followed by a flight of Greeks to Western Europe, bearing
such treasures as they could save from the Turks. Happily
those treasures included precious manuscripts; and among the
fugitives was no small number of educated Greeks, who became
teachers of their language in the West. Thus teaching and text
were offered at the moment when the printing press stood ready
to make a common gift of them to every hungering student. This
opened the second of the three stages which the late John
Addington Symonds defined in the history of scholarship during
the Renaissance: "The first is the age of passionate desire;
Petrarch poring over a Homer he could not understand, and
Boccaccio in his maturity learning Greek, in order that he
might drink from the well-head of poetic inspiration, are the
heroes of this period. They inspired the Italians with a
thirst for antique culture. Next comes the age of acquisition
and of libraries. Nicholas V., who founded the Vatican Library
in 1453, Cosmo de' Medici, who began the Medicean Collection a
little earlier, and Poggio Bracciolani, who ransacked all the
cities and convents of Europe for manuscripts, together with
the teachers of Greek, who in the first half of the fifteenth
century escaped from Constantinople with precious freights of
classic literature, are the heroes of this second period."
"Then came the third age of scholarship—the age of the
critics, philologers, and printers. … Florence, Venice,
Basle, and Paris groaned with printing presses. The Aldi, the
Stephani, and Froben, toiled by night and day, employing
scores of scholars, men of supreme devotion and of mighty
brain, whose work it was to ascertain the right reading of
sentences, to accentuate, to punctuate, to commit to the
press, and to place beyond the reach of monkish hatred or of
envious time, that everlasting solace of humanity which exists
in the classics. All subsequent achievements in the field of
scholarship sink into insignificance beside the labours of
these men, who needed genius, enthusiasm, and the sympathy of
Europe for the accomplishment of their titanic task. Virgil
was printed in 1470, Homer in 1488, Aristotle in 1498, Plato
in 1512. They then became the inalienable heritage of mankind.
… This third age in the history of the Renaissance
Scholarship may be said to have reached its climax in Erasmus
[1465-1536]; for by this time Italy had handed on the torch
of learning to the northern nations" (Symonds).
Art had already had its new birth in Italy; but it shared with
everything spiritual and intellectual the wonderful quickening
of the age, and produced the great masters of the fifteenth
and sixteenth centuries: Michael Angelo, Leonardo da Vinci,
Raphael, Titian, in Italy, the Brothers Van Eyck in Flanders,
Holbein and Dürer, in Germany, and the host of their compeers
in that astonishing age of artistic genius.
Portuguese Explorations.
A ruder and more practical direction in which the spirit of
the age manifested itself conspicuously and with prodigious
results was that of exploring navigation, to penetrate the
unknown regions of the globe and find their secrets out. But,
strangely, it was none of the older maritime and commercial
peoples who led the way in this: neither the Venetians, nor
the Genoese, nor the Catalans, nor the Flemings, nor the Hansa
Leaguers, nor the English, were early in the search for new
countries and new routes of trade. The grand exploit of
"business enterprise" in the fifteenth century, which changed
the face of commerce throughout the world, was left to be
performed by the Portuguese, whose prior commercial experience
was as slight as that of any people in Europe. And it was one
great man among them, a younger son in their royal family,
Prince Henry, known to later times as "the Navigator," who
woke the spirit of exploration in them and pushed them to the
achievement which placed Portugal, for a time, at the head of
the maritime states. Beginning in 1434, Prince Henry sent
expedition following expedition down the western coast of
Africa, searching for the southern extremity of the continent,
and a way round it to the eastward—to the Indies, the goal of
commercial ambition then and long after. In our own day it
seems an easy thing to sail down the African coast to the
Cape; but it was not easy in the middle of the fifteenth
century; and when Prince Henry died, in 1460, his ships had
only reached the mouth of the Gambia, or a little way beyond
it. His countrymen had grown interested, however, in the
pursuit which he began, and expeditions were continued, not
eagerly but at intervals, until Bartolomew Diaz, in 1486,
rounded the southern point of the continent without knowing
it, and Vasco da Gama, in 1497, passed beyond, and sailed to
the coast of India.
Discovery of America.
Five years before this, Columbus, in the service of Ferdinand
and Isabella of Spain, had made the more venturesome voyage
westward, and had found the New World of America. That the
fruits of that surpassing discovery fell to Spain, is one of
the happenings of history which one need not try to explain;
since (if we except the Catalans among them) there were no
people in Europe less inclined to ocean adventure than the
Spaniards. But they had just finished the conquest of the
Moors; their energies, long exercised in that struggle,
demanded some new outlet, and the Genoese navigator, seeking
money and ships, and baffled in all more promising lands, came
to them at the right moment for a favorable hearing. So
Castile won the amazing prize of adventure, which seems to
have belonged by more natural right to Genoa, or Venice, or
Bruges, or Lubeck, or Bristol.
The immediate material effects of the finding of the new way
to the Asiatic side of the world were far more important than
the effects of the discovery of America, and they were
promptly felt. No sooner had the Portuguese secured their
footing in the eastern seas, and on the route thither, which
they proceeded vigorously to do, than the commerce of Europe
with that rich region of spices and silks, and curious
luxuries which Europe loved, abandoned its ancient channels
and ran quickly into the new one. There were several strong
reasons for this: (1) the carriage of goods by the longer
ocean route was cheaper than by caravan routes to the
Mediterranean; (2) the pestilent Moorish pirates of the
Barbary Coast were escaped; (3) European merchants found heavy
advantages in dealing directly with the East instead of
trading at second hand through Arabs and Turks. So the
commerce of the Indies fled suddenly away from the
Mediterranean to the Atlantic; fled from Venice, from Genoa,
from Marseilles, from Barcelona, from Constantinople, from
Alexandria; fled, too, from many cities of the arrogant Hanse
league in the North, which had learned the old ways of traffic
and were slow to catch the idea of a possible change. At the
outset of the rearrangement of trade, the Portuguese won and
held, for a time, the first handling of East Indian
commodities, while Dutch, English and German
traders—especially the first named—met them at Lisbon and
took their wares for distribution through central and northern
Europe. But, in no long time, the Dutch and English went to
India on their own account, and ousted the Portuguese from
their profitable monopoly.
{1051}
Commercially, the discovery of America had little effect on
Europe for a century or two. Politically, it had vast
consequences in the sixteenth century, which came, in the
main, from the power and prestige that accrued to Spain. But
perhaps its most important effects were those moral and
intellectual ones which may be attributed to the sudden,
surprising enlargement of the geographical horizon of men. The
lifting of the curtain of mystery which had hung so long
between two halves of the world must have compelled every man,
who thought at all, to suspect that other curtains of mystery
might be hiding facts as simple and substantial, waiting for
their Columbus to disclose them; and so the bondage of the
mediæval mind to that cowardice of superstition which fears
inquiry, must surely have been greatly loosened by the
startling event. But the Spaniards, who rushed to the
possession of the new-found world, showed small signs of any
such effect upon their minds; and perhaps it was the greedy
thought of their possession which excluded it.
Nationalization of Spain.
The Spaniards were one of half-a-dozen peoples in Western
Europe who had just arrived, in this fifteenth century, at a
fairly consolidated nationality, and were prepared, for the
first time in their history, to act with something like
organic unity in the affairs of the world. It was one of the
singular birth-marks of the new era in history, that so many
nations passed from the inchoate to the definite form at so
nearly the same time. The marriage of Isabella of Castile to
Ferdinand of Aragon, in 1469, effected a permanent union of
the two crowns, and a substantial incorporation of the greater
part of the Spanish peninsula into a single strong kingdom,
made yet stronger in 1491 by the conquest of Grenada and
subjugation of the last of the Spanish Moors.
Louis XI. and the Nationalizing of France.
The nationalizing of France had been a simultaneous but quite
different process. From the miserably downfallen and divided
state in which it was left by the Hundred Years War, it was
raised by a singular king, who employed strange, ignoble
methods, but employed them with remarkable success. This was
Louis XI., who owes to Sir Walter Scott's romance of "Quentin
Durward" an introduction to common fame which he could hardly
have secured otherwise; since popular attention is not often
drawn to the kind of cunning and hidden work in politics which
he did.
Louis XI., on coming to the throne in 1461, found himself
surrounded by a state of things which seemed much like a
revival of the feudal state at its worst, when Philip Augustus
and Louis IX. had to deal with great vassals who rivalled or
overtopped them in power. The reckless granting of appanages
to children of the royal family had raised up a new group of
nobles, too powerful and too proud to be loyal and obedient
subjects of the monarchy. At the head of them was the Duke of
Burgundy, whose splendid dominion, extended by marriage over
most of the Netherlands, raised him to a place among the
greater princes of Europe, and who quite outshone the King of
France in everything but the royal title. It was impossible,
under the circumstances, for the crown to establish its
supremacy over these powerful lords by means direct and open.
The craft and dishonesty of Louis found methods more
effectual. He cajoled, beguiled, betrayed and cheated his
antagonists, one by one. He played the selfishness and
ambitions of each against the others, and he skilfully evoked
something like a public opinion in his kingdom against the
whole. At the outset of his reign the nobles formed a
combination against him which they called the League of the
Public Weal, but which aimed at nothing but fresh gains to the
privileged class and advantages to its chiefs. Of alliance with
the people against the crown, as in England, there was no
thought. Louis yielded to the League in appearance, and
cunningly went beyond its demands in his concessions, making
it odious to the kingdom at large, and securing to himself the
strong support of the States-General of France, when he
appealed to it.
The tortuous policy of Louis was aided by many favoring
circumstances and happenings. It was favored not least,
perhaps, by the hot-headed character of Charles the Bold, who
succeeded his father, Philip, in the Duchy of Burgundy, in
1467. Charles was inspired with a great and not unreasonable
ambition, to make his realm a kingdom, holding a middle place
between France and Germany. He had abilities, but he was of a
passionate and haughty temper, and no match for the cool,
perfidious, plotting King of France. The latter, by skilful
intrigue, involved him in a war with the Swiss, which he
conducted imprudently, and in which he was defeated and killed
(1477). His death cleared Louis' path to complete mastery in
France, and he made the most of his opportunity. Charles left
only a daughter, Mary of Burgundy, and her situation was
helpless. Louis lost no time in seizing the Duchy of Burgundy,
as a fief of France, and in the pretended exercise of his
rights as godfather of the Duchess Mary. He also took
possession of Franche Comté, which was a fief of the Empire,
and he put forward claims in Flanders, Artois, and elsewhere.
But the Netherlanders, while they took advantage of the young
duchess' situation, and exacted large concessions of chartered
privileges from her, yet maintained her rights; and before the
first year of her orphanage closed, she obtained a champion by
marriage with the Archduke Maximilian of Austria, son of the
Emperor, Frederick III. Maximilian was successful in war with
Louis; but the latter succeeded, after all, in holding
Burgundy, which was thenceforth absorbed in the royal domain
of France and gave no further trouble to the monarchy, while
he won some important extensions of the northwestern frontiers
of his kingdom.
Before the death of Louis XI. the French crown regained Anjou,
Maine, and Provence, by inheritance from the last
representative of the great second House of Anjou. Thus the
kingdom which he left to his son, Charles VIII. (1483), was a
consolidated nation, containing in its centralized government
the germs of the absolute monarchy of a later day.
{1052}
Italian Expedition of Charles VIII.
Charles VIII. was a loutish and uneducated boy of eight years
when his father died. His capable sister Anne carried on the
government for some years, and continued her father's work by
defeating a revolt of the nobles, and by marrying the young
king to the heiress of Brittany—thereby uniting to the crown
the last of the great semi-independent fiefs. When Charles
came of age, he conceived the idea of recovering the kingdom
of Naples, which the House of Anjou claimed, and which he
looked upon as part of his inheritance from that House. He was
incited to the enterprise, moreover, by Ludovico il Moro, or
Louis the Moor, an intriguing uncle of the young Duke of
Milan, who conspired to displace his nephew. In 1494 Charles
crossed the Alps with a large and well-disciplined army, and
met with no effectual opposition. The Medici of Florence and
the Pope had agreed together to resist this French intrusion,
which they feared; but the invading force proved too
formidable, and the Florentines, then under the influence of
Savonarola, looked to it for their liberation from the
Medicean rule, already oppressive. Accordingly Charles marched
triumphantly through the peninsula, making some stay at Rome.
On his approach to Naples, the Aragonese King, Alfonso,
abdicated in favor of his son, Ferdinand II., and died soon
after. Ferdinand, shut out of Naples by an insurrection, fled
to Sicily, and Charles entered the city, where the populace
welcomed him with warmth. Most of the kingdom submitted within
a few weeks, and the conquest seemed complete, as it had been
easy.
But what they had won so easily the French held with a
careless hand, and they lost it with equal ease. While they
revelled and caroused in Naples, abusing the hospitality of
their new subjects, and gathering plunder with reckless greed,
a dangerous combination was formed against them, throughout
the peninsula. Before they were aware, it had put them in
peril, and Charles was forced to retreat with haste, in the
spring of 1495, leaving an inadequate garrison to hold the
Neapolitan capital. In Lombardy, he had to fight with the
Venetians, and with his protege, Louis the Moor, now Duke of
Milan. He defeated them, and regained France in November. Long
before that time, the small force he left at Naples had been
overcome, and Ferdinand had recovered his kingdom.
In one sense, the French had nothing to show for this their
first expedition of conquest. In another sense they had much
to show and their gain was great. They had made their first
acquaintance with the superior culture of Italy. They had
breathed the air beyond the Alps, which was then surcharged
with the inspirations of the Renaissance. Both the ideas and
the spoil they brought back were of more value to France than
can be easily estimated. They had returned laden with booty,
and much of it was in treasures of art, every sight of which
was a lesson to the sense of beauty and the taste of the
people among whom they were shown. The experience and the
influence of the Italian expedition were undoubtedly very
great, and the Renaissance in France, as an artistic and a
literary birth, is reasonably dated from it.
Italian Wars of Louis XII.
Charles VIII. died suddenly in 1498 and was succeeded by his
cousin, of the Orleans branch of the Valois family, Louis XII.
The new king was weak in character, but not wicked. His first
thought on mounting the throne was of the claims of his family
to other thrones, in Italy. Besides the standing Angevin claim
to the kingdom of Naples, he asserted rights of his own to the
duchy of Milan, as a descendant of Valentina Visconti, heiress
of the ducal house which the Sforzas supplanted. In 1499 he sent
an army against Louis the Moor, and the latter fled from Milan
without an attempt at resistance. Louis took possession of the
duchy with the greatest good will of the people; but, before
half a year had passed, French taxes, French government, and
French manners had disgusted them, and they made an attempt to
restore their former tyrant. The attempt failed, and Louis the
Moor was imprisoned in France for the remainder of his life.
Milan secured, Louis XII. began preparations to repeat the
undertaking of Charles VIII. against Naples. The Neapolitan
crown had now passed to an able and popular king, Frederick,
and Frederick had every reason to suppose that he would be
supported and helped by his kinsman, Ferdinand of Aragon, the
well-known consort of Isabella of Castile. Ferdinand had the
power to hold the French king in check; but instead of using
it for the defense of the Neapolitan branch of his house, he
secretly and treacherously agreed with Louis to divide the
kingdom of Naples with him. Under these circumstances, the
conquest was easily accomplished (1501). The betrayed
Frederick surrendered to Louis, and lived as a pensionary in
France until his death. The Neapolitan branch of the House of
Aragon came to an end.
Louis and Ferdinand speedily quarreled over the division of
their joint conquest. The treacherous Spaniard cheated the
French king in treaty negotiations, gaining time to send
forces into Italy which expelled the French. It was in this
war that the Spanish general, Gonsalvo di Cordova, won the
reputation which gave him the name of "the Great Captain"; and
it was likewise in this war that the chivalric French knight,
Bayard, began the winning of his fame.
The League of Cambrai and the Holy League.
Naples had again slipped from the grasp of France, and this
time it had passed to Spain. Louis XII. abandoned the tempting
kingdom to his rival, and applied himself to the establishing
of his sovereignty over Milan and its domain. Some territory
formerly belonging to the Milaness had been ceded to Venice by
the Sforzas. He himself had ceded another district or two to
the republic in payment for services rendered. Ferdinand of
Spain had made payments in the same kind of coin, from his
Neapolitan realm, for Venetian help to secure it.
{1053}
The warlike Pope Julius II. saw Rimini and other towns
formerly belonging to the States of the Church now counted
among the possessions of the proud mistress of the Adriatic.
All of these disputants in Italy resented the gains which
Venice had gathered at their expense, and envied and feared
her somewhat insolent prosperity. They accordingly suspended
their quarrels with one another, to form a league for breaking
her down and for despoiling her. The Emperor Maximilian, who had
grievances of his own against the Venetians, joined the
combination, and Florence was bribed to become a party to it
by the betrayal of Pisa into her hands. Thus was formed the
shameful League of Cambrai (1508). The French did most of the
fighting in the war that ensued, though Pope Julius, who took
the field in person, easily proved himself a better soldier
than priest. The Venetians were driven for a time from the
greater part of the dominion they had acquired on the
mainland, and were sorely pressed. But they made terms with
the Pope, and it then became his interest, not merely to stop
the conquests of his allies, but to press them out of Italy,
if possible. He began accordingly to intrigue against the
French, and presently had a new league in operation, making
war upon them. It was called a Holy League, because the head
of the Church was its promoter, and it embraced the Emperor,
King Ferdinand of Spain, King Henry VIII. of England, and the
Republic of Venice. As the result of the ruthless and
destructive war which they waged, Louis XII., before he died,
in 1515, saw all that he had won in Lombardy stripped from him
and restored to the Sforzas—the old family of the Dukes of
Milan; Venice recovered most of her possessions, but never
regained her former power, since the discovery of the ocean
route to India, round the Cape of Good Hope, was now turning
the rich trade of the East, the great source of her wealth,
into the hands of the Portuguese; the temporal dominion of the
Popes was enlarged by the recovery of Bologna and Perugia and by
the addition of Parma and Piacenza; and Florence, which had
been a republic since the death of Savonarola, was forced to
submit anew to the Medici.
The Age of Infamous Popes.
The fighting Pope, Julius II., who made war and led armies,
while professing to be the vicar of Him who brought the
message of good-will and peace to mankind, was very far from
being the worst of the popes of his age. He was only worldly,
thinking much of his political place as a temporal sovereign
in Italy, and little of his spiritual office as the head of
the Church of Christ. As the sovereign of Rome and the Papal
States, Julius II. ran a brilliant career, and is one of the
splendid figures of the Italian renaissance. Patron of Michael
Angelo and Raphael, projector of St. Peter's, there is a
certain grandeur in his character to be admired, if we could
forget the pretended apostolic robe which he smirched with
perfidious politics and stained with blood.
But the immediate predecessors of Julius II., Sixtus IV. and
Alexander VI., had had nothing in their characters to lure
attention from the hideous examples of bestial wickedness
which they set before the world. Alexander, especially, the
infamous Borgia,—systematic murderer and robber, liar and
libertine,—accomplished practitioner of every crime and every
vice that was known to the worst society of a depraved
generation, and shamelessly open in the foulest of his
doings,—there is scarcely a pagan monster of antiquity that
is not whitened by comparison with him. Yet he sat in the
supposed seat of St. Peter for eleven years, to be venerated
as the Vicar of Christ, the "Holy Father" of the Christian
Church; his declarations and decrees in matters of faith to be
accepted as infallible inspirations; his absolution to be
craved as a passport to Heaven; his anathema to be dreaded as
a condemnation to Hell!
This evil and malignant being died in 1503. poisoned by one of
his own cups, which he had brewed for another. Julius II.
reigned until 1513; and after him came the Medicean Pope, Leo
X., son of Lorenzo the Magnificent,—princely and worldly as
Julius, but in gentler fashion; loving ease, pleasure, luxury,
art, and careless of all that belonged to religion beyond its
ceremonies and its comfortable establishment of clerical
estates. Is it strange that Christendom was prepared to give
ear to Luther?
Luther and the Reformation.
When Luther raised his voice, he did but renew a protest which
many pure and pious and courageous men before him had uttered,
against evils in the Church and falsities and impostures in
the Papacy. But some of them, like Arnold of Brescia, like
Peter Waldo, and the Albigenses, had been too far in advance
of their time, and their revolt was hopeless from the
beginning. Wyclif's movement had been timed unfortunately in
an age of great commotions, which swallowed it up. That of
Huss had roused an ignorant peasantry, too uncivilized to
represent a reformed Christianity, and had been ruined by the
fierceness of their misguided zeal. The Reformation of
Savonarola, at Florence, had been nobly begun, but not wisely
led, and it had spent its influence at the end on aims less
religious than political.
But there occurred a combination, when Luther arose, of
character in himself, of circumstances in his country, and of
temper in his generation, which made his protest more
lastingly effective. He had high courage, without rashness. He
had earnestness and ardor, without fanaticism. He had the
plain good sense and sound judgment which win public
confidence. His substantial learning put him on terms with the
scholars of his day, and he was not so much refined by it as
to lose touch with the common people. A certain coarseness in
his nature was not offensive to the time in which he lived,
but rather belonged among the elements of power in him. His
spirituality was not fine, but it was strong. He was sincere,
and men believed in him. He was open, straightforward, manly,
commanding respect. His qualities showed themselves in his
speech, which went straight to its mark, in the simplest
words, moulding the forms and phrases of the German language
with more lasting effect than the speech of any other man who
ever used it. Not many have lived in any age or any country
who possessed the gift of so persuasive a tongue, with so
powerful a character to command the hearing for it.
{1054}
And the generation to which Luther spoke really waited for a
bold voice to break into the secret of its thoughts concerning
the Church. It had inherited a century of alienation from
quarreling popes and greedy, corrupted priests and now there
had been added in its feeling the deep abhorrence roused by
such villains as the Borgia in the papal chair, and by their
creatures and minions in the priesthood of the Church. If it
is crediting too much to the common multitude of the time to
suppose them greatly sickened by the vices and corruptions of
their priests, we may be sure, at least, that they were
wearied and angered by the exactions from them, which a
vicious hierarchy continually increased. The extravagance of
the Papacy kept pace with its degradation, and Christendom
groaned under the burden of the taxes that were wrung from it
in the name of the lowly Saviour of mankind.
Nowhere in Europe were the extortions of the Church felt more
severely than in Germany, where the serfdom of the peasants
was still real and hard, and where the depressing weight of
the feudal system had scarcely been lifted from society at
all. Feudalism had given way in that country less than in any
other. Central authority remained as weak, and national
solidification as far away, as ever. Of organic unity in the
heterogeneous bundle of electoral principalities, duchies,
margravates and free cities which made up the nominal realm of
the King of the Romans, there was no more at the beginning of
the sixteenth century than there had been in the twelfth. But
that very brokenness and division in the political state of
Germany proved to be one of the circumstances which favored
the Protestant Reformation of the Church. Had monarchical
authority established itself there as in France, then the
Austro-Spanish family which wielded it, with the concentrated
bigotry of their narrow-minded race, would have crushed the
religious revolt as completely in Saxony as they did in
Austria and Bohemia.
The Ninety-five Theses.
The main events of the Reformation in Germany are so commonly
known that no more than the slightest sketching of them is
needed here. Letters of indulgence, purporting to grant a
remission of the temporal and purgatorial penalties of sin,
had been sold by the Church for centuries; but none before
Pope Leo X. had made merchandize of them in so peddlar-like
and shameful a fashion as that which scandalized the
intelligent piety of Europe in 1517. Luther, then a professor
in the new University of Wittenberg, Saxony, could not hide
his indignation, as most men did. He stood forth boldly and
challenged the impious fraud, in a series of propositions or
theses, which, after the manner of the time, he nailed to the
door of Wittenberg Church. Just that bold action was needed to
let loose the pent-up feeling of the German people. The
ninety-five theses were printed and went broadcast through the
land, to be read and to be listened to, and to stir every
class with independent ideas. It was the first great appeal
made to the public opinion of the world, after the invention
of printing had put a trumpet to the mouths of eloquent men,
and the effect was too amazing to be believed by the careless
Pope and his courtiers.
Political Circumstances.
But more than possibly—probably, indeed—the popular feeling
stirred up would never have accomplished the rupture with Rome
and the religious independence to which North Germany attained
in the end, if political motives had not coincided with
religious feelings to bring certain princes and great nobles
into sympathy with the Monk of Wittenberg. The Elector of
Saxony, Luther's immediate sovereign, had long been in
opposition to the Papacy on the subject of its enormous
collections of money from his subjects, and he was well
pleased to have the hawking of indulgences checked in his
dominions. Partly for this reason, partly because of the pride
and interest with which he cherished his new University,
partly from personal liking and admiration of Luther, and
partly, too, no doubt, in recognition of the need of Church
reforms, he gave Luther a quiet protection and a concealed
support. He was the strongest and most influential of the
princes of the Empire, and his obvious favor to the movement
advanced it powerfully and rapidly.
At first, there was no intention to break with the Papacy and
the Papal Church,—certainly none in Luther's mind. His
attitude towards both was conciliatory in every way, except as
concerned the falsities and iniquities which he had protested
against. It was not until the Pope, in June, 1520, launched
against him the famous Bull, "Exurge Domine," which left no
alternative between abject submission and open war, that
Luther and his followers cast off the authority of the Roman
Church and its head, and grounded their faith upon Holy
Scripture alone. By formally burning the Bull, Luther accepted
the papal challenge, and those who believed with him were
ready for the contest.
The Diet of Worms.
In 1521, the reformer was summoned before a Diet of the
Empire, at Worms, where a hearing was given him. The influence
of the Church, and of the young Austro-Spanish Emperor,
Charles V., who adhered to it, was still great enough to
procure his condemnation; but they did not dare to deal with
him as Huss had been dealt with. He was suffered to depart
safely, pursued by an imperial edict which placed the ban of
the Empire on all who should give him countenance or support.
His friends among the nobles spirited him away and concealed
him in a castle, the Wartburg, where he remained for several
months, employed in making his translation of the Bible.
Meantime, the Emperor had been called away from Germany by his
multifarious affairs, in the Netherlands and Spain, and had
little attention to give to Luther and the questions of
religion for half-a-dozen years. He was represented in Germany
by a Council of Regency, with the Elector of Saxony at the
head of, it; and the movement of reformation, if not
encouraged in his absence, was at least considerably
protected. It soon showed threatening signs of wildness and
fanaticism in many quarters; but Luther proved himself as
powerful in leadership as he had been in agitation, and the
religious passion of the time was controlled effectively, on
the whole.
{1055}
Organization of the Lutheran Church.
Before the close of the year 1521, Pope Leo X. died, and his
successor, Adrian, while insisting upon the enforcement of the
Edict of Worms against Luther and his supporters, yet
acknowledged the corruptions of the Church and promised a
reformation of them. His promises came too late; his
confessions only gave testimony to the independent reformers
which their opponents could not impeach. There was no longer
any thought of cleansing the Church of Rome, to abide in it. A
separated—a restored Church—was clearly determined on, and
Luther framed a system of faith and discipline which was
adopted in Saxony, and then accepted very generally by the
reformed Churches throughout Germany. In 1525, the Elector
Frederick of Saxony died. He had quietly befriended the
Lutherans and tolerated the reform, but never identified
himself with them. His brother, John, who succeeded him, made
public profession of his belief in the Lutheran doctrines, and
authoritatively established the church system which Luther had
introduced. The Landgrave of Hesse Cassel, the Margrave of
Brandenburg, and the Dukes of Mecklenburg, Pomerania and Zell,
followed his example; while the imperial cities of Frankfort,
Nuremberg, Bremen, Strasburg, Brunswick, Nordhausen, and
others, formally ranged themselves on the same side. By the
year 1526, when a diet at Spires declared the freedom of each
state in the Empire to deal with the religious reform
according to its own will, the Reformation in Germany was a
solidly organized fact. But those of the reform had not yet
received their name, of "Protestants." That came to them three
years later, when the Roman party had rallied its forces in a
new diet at Spires, to undo the declaration of 1526, and the
leaders of the Lutheran party recorded their solemn protest.
The Austro-Burgundian Marriage.
To understand the situation politically, during the period of
struggle for and against the Reformation, it will be necessary
to turn back a little, for the noting of important occurrences
which have not been mentioned.
When Albert II., who was King of Hungary and Bohemia, as well
as King of the Romans (Emperor-elect, as the title came to be,
soon afterwards), died, in 1439, he was succeeded by his
second cousin Frederick III., Duke of Styria, and from that
time the Roman or imperial crown was held continuously in the
Austrian family, becoming practically hereditary. But
Frederick did not succeed to the duchy of Austria, and he
failed of election to the throne in Hungary and Bohemia. Hence
his position as Emperor was peculiarly weak and greatly
impoverished, through want of revenue from any considerable
possessions of his own. During his whole long reign, of nearly
fifty-four years, Frederick was humiliated and hampered by his
poverty; the imperial authority was brought very low, and
Germany was in a greatly disordered state. There were frequent
wars between its members, and between Austria and Bohemia, with
rebellions in Vienna and elsewhere; while the Hungarians were
left to contend with the aggressive Turks, almost unhelped.
But in 1477 a remarkable change in the circumstances and
prospects of the family of the Emperor Frederick III. was made
by the marriage of his son and heir, Maximilian, to Mary, the
daughter and heiress of the wealthy and powerful Duke of
Burgundy, Charles the Bold. The bridegroom was so poor that
the bride is said to have loaned him the money which enabled
him to make a fit appearance at the wedding. She had lost, as
we saw, the duchy of Burgundy, but the valiant arm of
Maximilian enabled her to hold the Burgundian county, Franche
Comté, and the rich provinces of the Netherlands, which formed
at that time, perhaps, the most valuable principality in
Europe. The Duchess Mary lived only five years after her
marriage; but she left a son, Philip, who inherited the
Netherlands and Franche Comté, and Maximilian ruled them as
his guardian.
In 1493, the Emperor Frederick died, and Maximilian, who had
been elected King of the Romans some years before, succeeded
him in the imperial office. He was never crowned at Rome, and
he took the title, not used before, of King of Germany and
Emperor-elect. He was Archduke of Austria, Duke of Styria,
Carinthia and Carniola, and Count of Tyrol; and, with his
guardianship in the Low Countries, he rose greatly in
importance and power above his father. But he accomplished
less than might possibly have been done by a ruler of more
sureness of judgment and fixity in purpose. His plans were
generally beyond his means, and the failures in his
undertakings were numerous. He was eager to interfere with the
doings of Charles VIII. and Louis XIII. in Italy; but the
Germanic diet gave him so little support that he could do
nothing effective. He joined the League of Cambrai against
Venice, and the Holy League against France, but bore no
important part in either. His reign was signalized in Germany
by the division of the nation into six administrative
"Circles," afterwards increased to ten, and by the creation of
a supreme court of appeal, called the Imperial Chamber,—both
of which measures did something towards the diminution of
private wars and disorders.
The Austro-Spanish Marriage.—Charles V.
But Maximilian figures most conspicuously in history as the
immediate ancestor of the two great sovereign dynasties—the
Austrian and the Austro-Spanish—which sprang from his
marriage with Mary of Burgundy and which dominated Europe for
a century after his death. His son Philip, heir to the
Burgundian sovereignty of the Netherlands, married (1496)
Joanna, daughter of Ferdinand and Isabella of Spain. Two
children, Charles and Ferdinand, were the fruit of this
marriage. Charles, the elder, inherited more crowns and
coronets than were ever gathered, in reality, by one
sovereign, before or since. Ferdinand and Isabella had united
by their marriage the kingdoms of Aragon and Castile, and, by
the conquest of Granada and the partial conquest of Navarre,
the entire peninsula, except Portugal, was subsequently added
to their joint dominion. Joanna inherited the whole, on the
death of Isabella, in 1504, and the death of Ferdinand, in
1516. She also inherited from her father, Ferdinand, the
kingdom of the Two Sicilies—which he had reunited—and the
island of Sardinia. Philip, on his side, already in possession
of the Netherlands and Franche Comté, was heir to the domain of
the House of Austria. Both of these great inheritances
descended in due course to Charles, and he had not long to
wait for them. His father, Philip, died in 1506, and his
mother, Joanna, lost her mind, through grief at that event.
The death of his Spanish grandfather, Ferdinand, occurred in
1516, and that of his Austrian grandfather, the Emperor
Maximilian, followed three years later.
{1056}
At the age of twenty years (representing his mother in her
incapacity) Charles found himself sovereign of Spain, and
America, of Sicily, Naples, Sardinia, the Low Countries,
Franche Comté, Austria, and the duchies associated with it.
The same year (1519) he was chosen King of Germany and
Emperor-elect, after a keen contest over the imperial crown,
in which Francis I. of France and Henry VIII. of England were
his competitors. On attaining this dignity, he conferred the
Austrian possessions on his brother Ferdinand. But he remained
the most potent and imposing monarch that Europe had seen
since Charlemagne. He came upon the stage just as Luther had
marshalled, in Germany, the reforming forces of the new era,
against intolerable iniquities in the Papal Church.
Unfortunately, he came, with his vast armament of powers, to
resist the demands of his age, and to be the champion of old
falsities and wrongs, both in Church and State. There was
nothing in the nature of the man, nor in his education, nor in
the influences which bore upon him, from either the Spanish or
the Austrian side of his family, to put him in sympathy with
lifting movements or with liberal ideas. He never formed a
conception of the world in which it looked larger to his eyes,
or signified more to him, than the globe upon his scepter. So,
naturally enough, this Cæsar of the Renaissance (Charles V. in
Germany and Charles I. in Spain) did his utmost, from the day
he climbed the throne, to thrust Europe back into the murk of
the fourteenth century, which he found it pretty nearly
escaped from. He did not succeed; but he gave years of misery
to several countries by his exertions, and he resigned the
task to a successor whom the world is never likely to tire of
abhorring and despising.
The end of popular freedom in Spain.
The affairs which called Charles V. away from Germany, after
launching his ineffectual edict of Worms against Luther and
Luther's supporters, grew in part out of disturbances in his
kingdom of Spain. His election to the imperial office had not
been pleasing to the Spaniards, who anticipated the
complications they would be dragged into by it, the foreign
character which their sovereign (already foreign in mind by
his education in the Netherlands) would be confirmed in, and
the indifference with which their grievances would be
regarded. For their grievances against the monarchy had been
growing serious in the last years of Ferdinand, and since his
death. The crown had gained power in the process of political
centralization, and its aggrandizement from the possession of
America began to loom startlingly in the light of the conquest
of Mexico, just achieved. During the absence of Charles in
Germany, his former preceptor, Cardinal Adrian, of Utrecht,
being in charge of the government as regent, a revolt broke
out at Toledo which spread widely and became alarming. The
insurgents organized their movement under the name of the
Santa Junta, or Holy League, and having obtained possession of
the demented Queen, Joanna, they assumed to act for her and
with her authority. This rebellion was suppressed with
difficulty; but the suppression was accomplished (1521-1522),
and it proved to be the last struggle for popular freedom in
Spain. The government used its victory with an unsparing
determination to establish absolute powers, and it succeeded.
The conditions needed for absolutism were already created, in
fact, by the deadly blight which the Inquisition had been
casting upon Spain for forty years. Since the beginning of the
frightful work of Torquemada, in 1483, it had been diligently
searching out and destroying every germ of free thought and
manly character that gave the smallest sign of fruitfulness in
the kingdom; and the crushing of the Santa Junta may be said
to have left few in Spain who deserved a better fate than the
political, the religious and the intellectual servitude under
which the nation sank.
Persecution of the Spanish Moriscoes.
Charles, whose mind was dense in its bigotry, urged on the
Inquisition, and pointed its dreadful engines of destruction
against the unfortunate Moriscoes, or Moors, who had been
forced to submit to Christian baptism after their subjugation.
Many of these followers of Mahomet had afterwards taken up
again the prayers and practices of their own faith, either
secretly or in quiet ways, and their relapse appears to have
been winked at, more or less. For they were a most useful
people, far surpassing the Spaniards in industry, in thrift
and knowledge of agriculture, and in mechanical skill. Many of
the arts and manufactures of the kingdom were entirely in
their hands. It was ruinous to interfere with their peaceful
labors. But Charles, as heathenish as the Grand Turk when it
suited his ends to be so, could look on these well-behaved and
useful Moors with no eyes but the eyes of an orthodox piety, and
could take account of nothing but their infidel faith. He
began, therefore, in 1524, the heartless, senseless and
suicidal persecution of the Moriscoes which exterminated them
or drove them from the land, and which contributed signally to
the making of Spain an exemplary pauper among the nations.
Despotism of Charles V. in the Netherlands.
In his provinces of the Low Countries, Charles found more than
in Spain to provoke his despotic bigotry. The Flemings and the
Dutch had been tasting of freedom too much for his liking, in
recent years, and ideas, both political and religious, had
been spreading among them, which were not the ideas of his
august mind, and must therefore, of necessity, be false. They
had already become infected with the rebellious anti-papal
doctrines of Luther. Indeed, they had been even riper than
Luther's countrymen for a religious revolution, when he
sounded the signal note which echoed through all northern
Europe. In Germany, the elected emperor could fulminate an
edict against the audacious reformers, but he had small power
to give force to it. In the Netherlands, he possessed a
sovereignty more potent, and he took instant measures to
exercise the utmost arbitrariness of which he could make it
capable. The Duchess Margaret, his aunt, who had been
governess of the provinces, was confirmed by him in that
office, and he enlarged the powers in her commission. His
commands practically superseded the regular courts, and
subjected the whole administration of justice to his arbitrary
will and that of his representative. At the same time they
stripped the States of their legislative functions and reduced
them to insignificance.
{1057}
Having thus trampled on the civil liberties of the provinces,
he borrowed the infernal enginery of the Inquisition, and
introduced it for the destruction of religious freedom. Its
first victims were two Augustine monks, convicted of
Lutheranism, who were burned at Brussels, in July, 1523. The
first martyr in Holland was a priest who suffered impalement
as well as burning, at the Hague, in 1525. From these
beginnings the persecution grew crueler as the alienation of
the stubborn Netherlanders from the Church of Rome widened;
and Charles did not cease to fan its fires with successive
proclamations or "placards," which denounced and forbade every
reading of Scripture, every act of devotion, every
conversation of religion, in public or private, which the
priests of the Church did not conduct. "The number of
Netherlanders who were burned, strangled, beheaded, or buried
alive, in obedience to his edicts, … have been placed as
high as 100,000 by distinguished authorities, and have never
been put at a lower mark than 50,000."
Charles V. and Francis I. in Italy.
These exercises of an autocratic piety in Spain and the Low
Countries may be counted, perhaps, among the pleasures of the
young Emperor during the earlier years of his reign. His more
serious affairs were connected mainly with his interests or
ambitions in Italy, which seemed to be threatened by the King
of France. The throne in that country was now occupied by
Francis I., a cousin of Louis XII., who had succeeded the
latter in 1515, and who had taken up anew the Italian projects
in which Louis failed. In the first year of his reign, he
crossed the Alps with an army, defeated the Swiss whom the
Duke of Milan employed against him, and won the whole duchy by
that single fight. This re-establishment of the French at
Milan was regarded with exceeding jealousy by the Austrian
interest, and by the Pope. Maximilian, shortly before his
death, had made a futile effort to dislodge them, and Charles
V., on coming to the throne, lost no time in organizing plans
to the same end. He entered into an alliance with Pope Leo X.,
by a treaty which bears the same date as the Edict of Worms
against Luther, and there can be little doubt that the two
instruments were part of one understanding. Both parties
courted the friendship of Henry VIII. of England, whose power
and importance had risen to a high mark, and Henry's able
minister, Cardinal Wolsey, figured notably in the diplomatic
intrigues which went on during many years.
War began in 1521, and in three months the French were
expelled from nearly every part of the Milanese territory.
Pope Leo X. lived just long enough to receive the news. His
successor was Adrian VI., former tutor of the Emperor, who
made vain attempts to arrange a peace. Wolsey had brought
Henry VIII. of England into the alliance against Francis,
expecting to win the papal tiara through the Emperor's
influence; but he was disappointed.
Francis made an effort in 1523 to recover Milan; but was
crippled at the moment of sending his expedition across the
Alps by the treason of the most powerful noble of France, the
Constable, Charles, Duke of Bourbon. The Constable had been
wronged and affronted by the King's mother, and by intriguers
at court, and he revenged himself basely by going over to the
enemies of his country. In the campaigns which followed
(1523-1524), the French had ill-success, and lost their
chivalrous and famous knight, Bayard, in one of the last
skirmishes of their retreat. Another change now occurred in
the occupancy of the papal throne, and Wolsey's ambitious
schemes were foiled again. The new Pope was Giulio de'Medici,
who took the name of Clement VII.
Once more the King of France, in October, 1524, led his forces
personally into Italy and laid siege to Pavia. It was a
ruinous undertaking. He was defeated overwhelmingly in a
battle fought before Pavia (February 24, 1525) and taken
prisoner. After a captivity in Spain of nearly a year, he
regained his freedom disgracefully, by signing and solemnly
swearing to a treaty which he never intended to observe. By
this treaty he not only renounced all claims to Milan, Naples,
Genoa, and other Italian territory, but he gave up the duchy
of Burgundy. Released in good faith on these terms, in the
early part of 1526, he perfidiously repudiated the treaty, and
began fresh preparations for war. He found the Italians now as
ready to oust the Spaniards from their peninsula with French
help, as they had been ready before to expel the French with
help from Spain. The papal interest was in great alarm at the
power acquired by the Emperor, and Venice and Milan shared the
feeling. A new "Holy Alliance" was accordingly formed, with
the Pope at its head, and with Henry VIII. of England for its
"Protector." But before this League took the field with its
forces, Rome and Italy were stricken and trampled, as though
by a fresh invasion of Goths.
Sack of Rome, by the army of the Constable.
The imperial army, quartered in the duchy of Milan, under the
command of the Constable Bourbon, was scantily paid and fed.
The soldiers were forced to plunder the city and country for
their subsistence, and, of course, under those circumstances,
there was little discipline among them. The region which they
terrorized was soon exhausted, by their robberies and by the
stoppage of industries and trade. It then became necessary for
the Constable to lead them to new fields, and he moved
southwards. His forces were made up in part of Spaniards and
in part of Germans—the latter under a Lutheran commander, and
enlisted for war with the Pope and for pillage in Italy. He
directed the march to Rome, constrained, perhaps, by the
demands of his soldiery, but expecting, likewise, to crush the
League by seizing its apostolic head. On the 5th of May, 1527,
his 40,000 brigands arrived before the city. At daybreak, the
next morning, they assaulted the walls irresistibly and
swarmed over them. Bourbon was killed in the assault, and his
men were left uncontrolled masters of the venerable capital of
the world. They held it for seven months, pillaging and
destroying, committing every possible excess and every
imaginable sacrilege. Rome is believed to have suffered at
their hands more lasting defacement and loss of the splendors
of its art than from the sacking of Vandals or Goths.
The Pope held out in Castle St. Angelo for a month and then
surrendered. The hypocritical Charles V., when he learned what
his imperially commissioned bandits had done, made haste to
express horror and grief, but did not hasten to check or
repair the outrage in the least. Pope Clement was not released
from captivity until a great money-payment had been extorted
from him, with the promise of a general council of the Church
to reform abuses and to eradicate Lutheranism.
{1058}
Spanish Domination in Italy.
Europe was shocked by the barbarity of the capture of Rome,
and the enemies leagued against Charles were stimulated to
more vigorous exertions. Assisted with money from England,
Francis sent another army into Italy, which took Genoa and
Pavia and marched to Naples, blockading the city by sea and
land. But the siege proved fatal to the French army. So many
perished of disease that the survivors were left at the mercy
of the enemy, and capitulated in September, 1528.
The great Genoese Admiral, Andrea Doria, had been offended,
meantime, by King Francis, and had excited his fellow citizens
to a revolution, which made Genoa, once more, an independent
republic, with Doria at its head. Shortly before this
occurred, Florence had expelled the Medici and reorganized her
government upon the old republican basis. But the defeat of
the French before Naples ended all hope of Italian liberty;
since the Pope resigned himself after that event to the will
of the Emperor, and the papal and imperial despotisms became
united as one, to exterminate freedom from the peninsula.
Florence was the first victim of the combination. The city was
besieged and taken by the Emperor's troops, in compliance with
the wishes of the Pope, and the Medici, his relatives, were
restored. Francis continued war feebly until 1529, when a
peace called the "Ladies Peace" was brought about, by
negotiations between the French King's mother and the
Emperor's aunt. This was practically the end of the long
French wars in Italy.
Germany.
Such were the events which, in different quarters of the
world, diverted the attention of the Emperor during several
years from Luther and the Reformation in Germany. The
religious movement in those years had been making a steady
advance. Yet its enemies gained control of another Diet held
at Spires in 1529 and reversed the ordinance of the Diet of
1526, by which each state had been left free to deal in its
own manner with the edict of Worms. Against this action of the
Diet, the Lutheran princes and the representatives of the
Lutheran towns entered their solemn protest, and so acquired
the name, "Protestants," which became in time the accepted and
adopted name of all, in most parts of the world, who withdrew
from the Roman communion.
The Peasants' War and the Anabaptists.
Before this time, the Reform had passed through serious
trials, coming from excesses in the very spirit out of which
itself had risen and to which it gave encouragement. The long
suffering, much oppressed peasantry of Germany, who had found
bishops as pitiless extortioners as lords, caught eagerly at a
hope of relief from the overthrow of the ancient Church.
Several times within the preceding half-century they had risen
in formidable revolts, with a peasants' clog, or bundschuh for
their banner. In 1525 fresh risings occurred in Swabia,
Franconia, Alsace, Lorraine, Bavaria, Thuringia and elsewhere,
and a great Peasants' War raged for months, with ferocity and
brutality on both sides. The number who perished in the war is
estimated at 100,000. The demands made by the peasants were for
measures of the simplest justice—for the poorest rights and
privileges in life. But their cause was taken up by
half-crazed religious fanatics, who became in some parts their
leaders, and such a character was given to it that reasonable
reformers were justified, perhaps, in setting themselves
sternly against it. The wildest prophet of the outbreak was
one Thomas Münzer, a precursor of the frenzied sect of the
Anabaptists. Münzer perished in the wreck of the peasants'
revolt; but some of his disciples, who fled into Westphalia
and the Netherlands, made converts so rapidly in the town of
Münster that in 1535 they controlled the city, expelled every
inhabitant who would not join their communion, elected and
crowned a king, and exhibited a madness in their proceedings
that is hardly equalled in history. The experience at Münster
may reasonably be thought to have proved the soundness of
Luther's judgment in refusing countenance to the cause of the
oppressed peasants when they rebelled.
At all events, his opposition to them was hard and bitter. And
it has been remarked that what may be called Luther's
political position in Germany had become by this time quite
changed. "Instead of the man of the people, Luther became the
man of the princes; the mutual confidence between him and the
masses, which had supported the first faltering steps of the
movement, was broken; the democratic element was supplanted by
the aristocratic; and the Reformation, which at first had
promised to lead to a great national democracy, ended in
establishing the territorial supremacy of the German princes.
… The Reformation was gradually assuming a more secular
character, and leading to great political combinations"
(Dyer).
Progress of Lutheranism in Germany.
By the year 1530, the Emperor Charles was prepared to give
more attention to affairs in Germany and to gratify his
animosity towards the movement of Reformation. He had
effectually beaten his rival, the King of France, had
established his supremacy in Italy, had humbled the Pope, and
was quite willing to be the zealous champion of a submissive
Church. His brother Ferdinand, the Archduke of Austria, had
secured, against much opposition, both the Hungarian and the
Bohemian crowns, and so firmly that neither was ever again
wrested from his family, though they continued for some time
to be nominally elective. The dominions of Ferdinand had
suffered a great Turkish invasion, in 1529, under the Sultan
Solyman, who penetrated even to Vienna and besieged the city,
but without success, losing heavily in his retreat.
In May, 1530, Charles re-entered Germany from Italy. The
following month he opened the sitting of the Diet, which had
been convened at Augsburg. His first act at Augsburg was to
summon the protesting princes, of Saxony, Hesse, Brandenburg,
and other states, before him and to signify to them his
imperial command that the toleration of Lutheranism in their
dominions must cease. He expected the mandate to suffice; when
he found it ineffectual, he required an abstract of the new
religions doctrines to be laid before him. This was prepared
by Melancthon, and, afterwards known as the Confession of
Augsburg, became the Lutheran standard of faith.
{1059}
The Catholic theologians prepared a reply to it, and both were
submitted to the Emperor. He made some attempt to bring about
a compromise of the differences, but he demanded of the
Protestants that they should submit themselves to the Pope,
pending the final decisions of a proposed general Council of
the Church. When this was refused, the Diet formally condemned
their doctrines and required them to reunite themselves with
the Catholic Church before the 15th of April following. The
Emperor, in November, issued a decree accordingly, renewing
the Edict of Worms and commanding its enforcement.
The Protestant princes, thus threatened, assembled in
conference at Schmalkald at Christmas, 1530, and there
organized their famous armed league. But fresh preparations
for war by the Turk now compelled Charles to make terms with
his Lutheran subjects. They refused to give any assistance to
Austria or Hungary against the Sultan, while threatened by the
Augsburg decree. The gravity of the danger forced a concession
to them, and by the Peace of Nuremberg (1532) it was agreed
that the Protestants should have freedom of worship until the
next Diet should meet, or a General Council should be held.
This peace was several times renewed, and there were ten years
of quiet under it, in Germany, during which time the cause of
Protestantism made rapid advances. By the year 1540, it had
established an ascendancy in Würtemberg, among the states of
the South, and in the imperial cities of Nuremberg, Augsburg,
Ulm, Constance, and Strasburg. Its doctrines had been adopted
by "the whole of central Germany, Thuringia, Saxony, Hesse,
part of Brunswick, and the territory of the Guelphs; in the
north by the bishoprics of Magdeburg, Halberstadt, and
Naumburg … ; by East Friesland, the Hanse Towns, Holstein
and Schleswig, Pomerania, Mecklenburg, Anhalt, Silesia, the
Saxon states, Brandenburg, and Prussia. Of the larger states
that were closed against it there remained only Austria,
Bavaria, the Palatinate and the Rhenish Electorates"
(Hausser). In 1542, Duke Henry of Brunswick, the last of the
North German princes who adhered to the Papal Church, was
expelled from his duchy and Protestantism established. About
the same time the Archbishop-Elector of Cologne announced his
conviction of the truth of the Protestant doctrines.
The Schmalkaldic War.
Charles was still too much involved in foreign wars to venture
upon a struggle with the Lutherans; but a few years more
sufficed to free his hands. The Treaty of Crespy, in 1544,
ended his last conflict with Francis I. In the same year, Pope
Paul III. summoned the long promised General Council of the
Church to meet at Trent the following spring—by which
appointment a term was put to the toleration conceded in the
Peace of Nuremberg. The Protestants, though greatly increased
in numbers, were now less united than at the time of the
formation of the Schmalkaldic League. There was much division
among the leading princes. They yielded no longer to the
influence of their wisest and ablest chief, Philip of Hesse.
Luther, whose counsels had always been for peace, approached
his end, and died in 1546. The circumstances were favorable to
the Emperor, when he determined to put a stop to the
Reformation by force. He secured an important ally in the very
heart of Protestant Germany, winning over to his side the
selfish schemer, Duke Maurice of Saxony—now the head of the
Albertine branch of the Saxon house. In 1546 he felt prepared
and war began. The successes were all on the imperial side.
There was no energy, no unity, no forethoughtfulness of plan,
among the Lutherans. The Elector, John Frederick, of Saxony,
and Philip of Hesse, both fell into the Emperor's hands and
were barbarously imprisoned. The former was compelled to
resign his Electorate, and it was conferred upon the renegade
Duke Maurice. Philip was kept in vile places of confinement
and inhumanly treated for years. The Protestants of Germany
were entirely beaten down, for the time being, and the Emperor
imposed upon them in 1548 a confession of faith called "the
Interim," the chief missionaries of which were the Spanish
soldiers whom he had brought into the country. But if the
Lutherans had suffered themselves to be overcome, they were
not ready to be trodden upon in so despotic a manner. Even
Maurice, now Elector of Saxony, recoiled from the tyranny
which Charles sought to establish, while he resented the
inhuman treatment of Philip of Hesse, who was his
father-in-law. He headed a new league, therefore, which was
formed against the Emperor, and which entered into a secret
alliance with Henry II. of France (Francis I. having died in
1547). Charles was taken by surprise when the revolt broke
out, in 1552, and barely escaped capture. The operations of
Maurice were vigorous and ably conducted, and in a few weeks
the Protestants had recovered all the ground lost in 1546-7;
while the French had improved the opportunity to seize the
three bishoprics of Metz, Toul and Verdun. The ultimate result
was the so-called "Religious Peace of Augsburg," concluded in
1555, which gave religious freedom to the ruling princes of
Germany, but none whatever to the people. It put the two
religions on the same footing, but it was simply a footing of
equal intolerance. Each ruler had the right to choose his own
creed, and to impose it arbitrarily upon his subjects if he
saw fit to do so. As a practical consequence, the final
division of Germany between Protestantism and Catholicism was
substantially determined by the princes and not by the people.
The humiliating failure of Charles V. to crush the Reformation
in Germany was no doubt prominent among the experiences which
sickened him of the imperial office and determined him to
abdicate the throne, which he did in the autumn of 1556.
Reformation in Switzerland.
A generation had now passed since the Lutheran movement of
Reformation was begun in Germany, and, within that time, not
only had the wave of influence from Wittenberg swept over all
western Europe, but other reformers had risen independently
and contemporaneously, or nearly so, in other countries, and
had co-operated powerfully in making the movement general. The
earliest of these was the Swiss reformer, Ulrich Zwingli, who
began preaching against indulgences and other flagrant abuses
in the Church, at Zurich, in 1519, the same year in which
Luther opened his attack. The effect of his preaching was so
great that Zurich, four years later, had practically separated
itself from the Roman Church.
{1060}
From that beginning the Reformation spread so rapidly that in
half-a-dozen years it had mastered most of the Cantons of
Switzerland outside of the five Forest Cantons, where
Catholicism held its ground with stubbornness. The two
religions were then represented by two parties, which absorbed
in themselves all the political as well as the religious
questions of the day, and which speedily came to blows. The
Catholics allied themselves with Ferdinand of Austria, and the
Protestants with several of the imperial cities of Germany.
But such an union between the Swiss and the German Protestants
as seemed plainly desirable was prevented; mainly, by the
dictatorial obstinacy of Luther. Zwingli's reforming ideas
were broader, and at the same time more radical, than
Luther's, and the latter opposed them with irreconcilable
hostility. He still held with the Catholics to the doctrine of
transubstantiation, which the Swiss reformer rejected. Hence
Zwingli was no less a heretic in Luther's eyes than in the
eyes of the pope, and the anathemas launched against him from
Wittenberg were hardly less thunderous than those from Rome.
So the two contemporaneous reformation movements, German and
Swiss, were held apart from one another, and went on side by
side, with little help or sympathy from one another. In 1531
the Forest Cantons attacked and defeated the men of Zurich,
and Zwingli was slain in the battle. Peace was then concluded
on terms which left each canton free to establish its own
creed, and each congregation free to do the same in the common
territories of the confederation.
Reformation in France.
In France, the freer ideas of Christianity—the ideas less
servile to tradition and to Rome—that were in the upper air
of European culture when the sixteenth century began, had
found some expression even before Luther spoke. The influence
of the new classical learning, and of the "humanists" who
imbibed its spirit, tended to that liberation of the mind, and
was felt in the greatest center of the learning of the time,
the University of Paris. But not sufficiently to overcome the
conservatism of the Sorbonne—the theological faculty of the
University; for Luther's writings were solemnly condemned and
burned by it in 1521, and a persecution of those inclined
toward the new doctrines was early begun. Francis I., in whose
careless and coarse nature there was some taste for letters and
learning, as well as for art, and who patronized in an idle
way the Renaissance movements of his reign, seemed disposed at
the beginning to be friendly to the religious Reformers. But
he was too shallow a creature, and too profoundly unprincipled
and false, to stand firmly in any cause of righteousness, and
face such a power as that of Rome. His nobler sister, Margaret
of Angoulême, who embraced the reformed doctrines with
conviction, exerted a strong influence upon the king in their
favor while she was by his side; but after her marriage to
Henry d'Albret, King of Navarre, and after Francis had
suffered defeat and shame in his war with Charles V., he was
ready to make himself the servant of the Papacy for whatever
it willed against his Protestant subjects, in order to have
its alliance and support. So the persecution grew steadily
more fierce, more systematic, and more determined, as the
spirit of the Reformation spread more widely through the
kingdom.
Calvin at Geneva.
One of the consequences of the persecution was the flight from
France, in 1534, of John Calvin, who subsequently became the
founder and the exponent of a system of Protestant theology
which obtained wider acceptance in Europe than that of Luther.
All minor differences were practically merged in the great
division between these two theologies—the Lutheran and the
Calvinistic—which split the Reformation in twain. After two
years of wandering, Calvin settled in the free city of Geneva,
where his influence very soon rose to so extraordinary a
height that he transformed the commonwealth and ruled it,
unselfishly, and in perfect piety, but with iron-handed
despotism, for a quarter of a century.
The French Court.
The reign of Francis I. has one other mark in history, besides
that of his persecution of the Reformers, his careless
patronage of arts and letters, and his unsuccessful wars with
the Emperor. He gave to the French Court—at least more than
his predecessors had done—the character which made it in
later French history so evil and mischievous a center of
dissoluteness, of base intrigue, of national demoralization.
It was invested in his time with the fascinations which drew
into it the nobles of France and its men of genius, to corrupt
them and to destroy their independence. It was in his time that
the Court began to seem to be, in its own eyes, a kind of
self-centered society, containing all of the French nation
which needed or deserved consideration, and holding its place
in the order of things quite apart from the kingdom which it
helped its royal master to rule. Not to be of the Court was to
be non-existent in its view; and thus every ambition in France
was invited to push at its fatal doors.
Catherine de' Medici and the Guises.
Francis I. died in 1547, and was followed on the throne by his
son Henry II., whose marriage to Catherine de' Medici, of the
renowned Florentine family, was the most important personal
act of his life. It was important in the malign fruits which
it bore; since Catherine, after his death, gave an evil
Italian bend-sinister to French politics, which had no lack of
crookedness before. Henry continued the war with Charles V.,
and was afterwards at war with Philip II., Charles' son, and
with England, the latter country losing Calais in the
contest,—its last French possession. Peace was made in 1559,
and celebrated with splendid tournaments, at one of which the
French king received a wound that caused his death.
He left three sons, all weaklings in body and character, who
reigned successively. The elder, Francis II., died the year
following his accession. Although aged but seventeen when he
died, he had been married some two years to Mary Stuart, the
young queen of Scots. This marriage had helped to raise to
great power in the kingdom a family known as the Guises. They
were a branch of the ducal House of Lorraine, whose duchy was
at that time independent of France, and, although the father
of the family, made Duke of Guise by Francis I., had become
naturalized in France in 1505, his sons were looked upon as
foreigners by the jealous Frenchmen whom they supplanted at
Court.
{1061}
Of the six sons, there were two of eminence, one (the second
duke of Guise) a famous general in his day, the other a
powerful cardinal. Five sisters completed the family in its
second generation. The elder of these, Mary, had married James
V. of Scotland (whose mother was the English princess,
Margaret, sister of Henry VIII.), and Mary Stuart, queen of
Scots, born of that marriage, was therefore a niece of the
Guises. They had brought about her marriage to Francis II.,
while he was dauphin, and they mounted with her to supreme
influence in the kingdom when she ascended the throne with her
husband. The queen-mother, Catherine de' Medici, was as eager
as the Guises to control the government, in what appeared to
her eyes the interest of her children; but during the short
reign of Francis II. she was quite thrust aside, and the
queen's uncles ruled the state.
The death of Francis II. (1560) brought a change, and with the
accession of Charles IX., a boy of ten years, there began a
bitter contest for ascendancy between Catherine and the
Guises; and this struggle became mixed and strangely
complicated with a deadly conflict of religions, which the
steady advance of the Reformation in France had brought at
this time to a crisis.
The Huguenots.
Under the powerful leadership which Calvin assumed, at Geneva,
the reformed religion in France had acquired an organized
firmness and strength which not only resisted the most cruel
persecution, but made rapid headway against it. "Protestantism
had become a party which did not, like Lutheranism in Germany,
spring up from the depths." "It numbered its chief adherents
among the middle and upper grades of society, spread its roots
rather among the nobles than the citizens, and among learned
men and families of distinction rather than among the people."
"Some of the highest aristocracy, who were discontented, and
submitted unwillingly to the supremacy of the Guises, had
joined the Calvinistic opposition—some undoubtedly from
policy, others from conviction. The Turennes, the Rohans, and
Soubises, pure nobles, who addressed the king as 'mon cousin,'
especially the Bourbons, the agnates of the royal house, had
adopted the new faith" (Hausser). One branch of the Bourbons
had lately acquired the crown of Navarre. The Spanish part of
the old Navarrese kingdom had been subjugated and absorbed by
Ferdinand of Aragon; but its territory on the French side of
the Pyrenees—Béarn and other counties—still maintained a
half independent national existence, with the dignity of a
regal government. When Margaret of Angoulême, sister of
Francis I., married Henry d'Albret, King of Navarre, as
mentioned before, she carried to that small court an earnest
inclination towards the doctrines of the Reform. Under her
protection Navarre became largely Protestant, and a place of
refuge for the persecuted of France. Margaret's daughter, the
famous Jeanne d'Albret, espoused the reformed faith fully, and
her husband, Antoine de Bourbon, as well as Antoine's brother,
Louis de Condé, found it politic to profess the same belief.
For the Protestants (who were now acquiring, in some unknown
way, the name of Huguenots) had become so numerous and so
compactly organized as to form a party capable of being
wielded with great effect, in the strife of court factions
which the rivalry of Catherine and the Guises produced. Hence
politics and religion were inextricably confused in the civil
wars which broke out shortly after the death of Francis II.
(1560), and the accession of the boy king, Charles IX. These
wars belong to a different movement in the general current of
European events, and we will return to them after a glance at
the religious Reformation, and at the political circumstances
connected with it, in England and elsewhere.
England.
Henry Tudor, Earl of Richmond, made king of England by his
victory at Bosworth, established himself so firmly in the seat
of power that three successive rebellions failed to disturb
him. In one of these (1487) a pretender, Lambert Simnel, was
put forward, who claimed to be the Earl of Warwick. In another
(1491-1497) a second pretender, Perkin Warbeck, personated one
of the young princes whom Richard III. had caused to be
murdered in the tower. Neither of the impostures had much
success in the kingdom. Henry VII. was not a popular king, but
he was able and strong, and he solidified all the bases of
monarchical independence which circumstances had enabled
Edward IV. to begin laying down.
It was in the reign of Henry that America was discovered, and
he might have been the patron of Columbus, the beneficiary of
the great voyage, and the proprietor and lord of the grand
realm which Isabella and Ferdinand secured. But he lacked the
funds or the faith—apparently both—and put aside his
unequaled opportunity. When the field of westward exploration
had been opened, however, he was early in entering it, and
sent the Cabots upon those voyages which gave England her
claim to the North American coasts.
During the reign of Henry VII. there were two quiet marriages
in his family which strangely influenced subsequent history.
One was the marriage, in 1501, of the king's eldest son,
Arthur, to Catherine of Aragon, youngest daughter of Ferdinand
and Isabella. The other, in 1503, united the king's daughter,
Margaret, to James IV., King of Scotland. It was through this
latter marriage that the inheritance of the English crown
passed to the Scottish House of Stuart, exactly one hundred
years later, upon the failure of the direct line of descent in
the Tudor family. The first marriage, of Prince Arthur to
Catherine of Aragon, was soon dissolved by the death of the
prince, in 1502. Seven years afterwards the widowed Catherine
married her late husband's brother, just after he became Henry
VIII., King of England, upon the death of his father, in 1509.
Whence followed notable consequences which will presently
appear.
{1062}
Henry VIII. and his breach with Rome.
It was the ambition of Henry VIII. to play a conspicuous part
in European affairs; and as England was rich and strong, and
as the king had obtained nearly the absoluteness of the crown
in France, the parties to the great contests then going on
were all eagerly courting his alliance. His ambitions ran
parallel, too, with those of the able minister, Thomas Wolsey,
who rose to high influence at his side soon after his reign
began. Wolsey aspired to the Papal crown, with the cardinal's
cap as a preparatory adornment, and he drew England, as we
have seen, into the stormy politics of the sixteenth century
in Europe, with no gain, of glory or otherwise, to the nation,
and not much result of any kind. When the Emperor Maximilian
died, in 1519, Henry entered the lists against Maximilian's
grandson, Charles of Spain, and Francis I. of France, as a
candidate for the imperial crown. In the subsequent wars which
broke out between his two rivals, he took the side of the
successful Charles, now Emperor, and helped him to climb to
supremacy in Europe over the prostrate French king. He had
dreams of conquering France again, and casting the glories of
Henry V. in the shade; but he carried his enterprise little
beyond the dreaming. When it was too late to check the growth
of Charles' overshadowing power, he changed his side and took
Francis into alliance.
But Henry's motives were always selfish and personal—never
political; and the personal motives had now taken on a most
despicable character. He had tired of his wife, the Spanish
Catherine, who was six years older than himself. He had two
pretexts for discontent with his marriage: 1, that his queen
had borne him only a daughter, whereas England needed a male
heir to the throne; 2, that he was troubled with scruples as
to the lawfulness of wedlock with his brother's widow. On this
latter ground he began intrigues to win from the Pope, not a
divorce in the ordinary sense of the term, but a declaration
of the nullity of his marriage. This challenged the opposition
of the Emperor, Catherine's nephew, and Henry's alliances were
naturally changed.
The Pope, Clement VII., refused to annul the marriage, and
Henry turned his unreasoning wrath upon Cardinal Wolsey, who
had conducted negotiations with the Pope and failed in them.
Wolsey was driven from the Court in disgrace and died soon
afterwards. He was succeeded in the king's favor by a more
unscrupulous man, Thomas Cromwell. Henry had not yet despaired
of bringing the Pope to compliance with his wishes; and he
began attacks upon the Church and upon the papal revenues
which might shake, as he hoped, the firmness of the powers at
Rome. With the help of a pliant minister and a subservient
Parliament, he forced the clergy (1531-1532) in Convocation
to acknowledge him to be the Supreme Head of the English
Church, and to submit themselves entirely to his authority. At
the same time he grasped the "annates," or first year's income
of bishoprics, which had been the richest perquisite of the papal
treasury. In all these proceedings, the English king was
acting on a line parallel to that of the continental rising
against Rome; but it was not in friendliness toward it nor in
sympathy with it that he did so. He had been among the
bitterest enemies of the Reformation, and he never ceased to
be so. He had won from the Pope the empty title of "Defender
of the Faith," by a foolish book against Luther, and the faith
which he defended in 1521 was the faith in which he died. But
when he found that the influence of Charles V. at Rome was too
great to be overcome, and that the Pope could be neither
bribed, persuaded nor coerced to sanction the putting away of
his wife, he resolved to make the English Church sufficient in
authority to satisfy his demand, by establishing its
ecclesiastical independence, with a pontiff of its own, in
himself. He purposed nothing more than this. He contemplated
no change of doctrine, no cleansing of abuses. He permitted no
one whose services he commanded in the undertaking to bring
such changes into contemplation. So far as concerned Henry's
initiative, there was absolutely nothing of religious
Reformation in the movement which separated the Church of
England from the Church of Rome. It accomplished its sole
original end when it gave finality to the decree of an English
ecclesiastical court, on the question of the king's marriage,
and barred queen Catherine's appeal from it. It was the
intention of Henry VIII. that the Church under his papacy
should remain precisely what it had been under the Pope at
Rome, and he spared neither stake nor gibbet in his
persecuting zeal against impudent reformers.
But the spirit of Reformation which was in the atmosphere of
that time lent itself, nevertheless, to King Henry's project,
and made that practicable which could hardly have been so a
generation before. The influence of Wyclif had never wholly
died out; the new learning was making its way in England and
broadening men's minds; the voice of Luther and his fellow
workers on the continent had been heard, and not vainly.
England was ripe for the religious revolution, and her king
promoted it, without intention. But while his reign lasted,
and his despotism was heavy on the land, there was nothing
accomplished but the breaking of the old Church fetters, and
the binding of the nation anew with green withes, which,
presently, it would burst asunder.
The conspicuous events of Henry's reign are familiarly known.
Most of them bear the stamp of his monstrous egotism and
selfishness. He was the incomparable tyrant of English
history. The monarch who repudiated two wives, sent two to the
block, and shared his bed with yet two more; who made a whole
national church the servant of his lusts, and who took the
lives of the purest men of his kingdom when they would not
bend their consciences to say that he did well—has a pedestal
quite his own in the gallery of infamous kings.
Edward VI. and the Reformation.
Dying in 1547, Henry left three children: Mary, daughter of
Catherine of Aragon, Elizabeth, daughter of Anne Boleyn, and
Edward, son of Jane Seymour. The latter, in his tenth year,
became King (Edward VI.), and his uncle, the Duke of Somerset,
acquired the control of the government, with the title of
Protector. Somerset headed a party which had begun before the
death of the king to press for more changes in the character
of the new Church of England and less adherence to the pattern
of Rome. There seems to be little reason to suppose that the
court leaders of this party were much moved in the matter by
any interest of a religious kind; but the growth of thinking
and feeling in England tended that way, and the side of
Reformation had become the stronger. They simply gave way to
it, and, abandoned the repression which Henry had persisted
in. At the same time, their new policy gave them more freedom
to grasp the spoils of the old Church, which Henry VIII. had
begun to lay hands on, by suppression of monasteries and
confiscation of their estates. The wealth thus sequestered
went largely into private hands.
{1063}
It was in the short reign of Edward VI. that the Church of
England really took on its organic form as one of the Churches
of the Reformation, by the composition of its first
prayer-books, and by the framing of a definite creed.
Lady Jane Grey.
In 1553, the young king died. Somerset had fallen from power
the previous year and had suffered death. He had been
supplanted by Dudley, Earl of Warwick and Duke of
Northumberland, and that minister had persuaded Edward to
bequeath his crown to Lady Jane Grey, grand-daughter of the
younger sister of Henry VIII. But Northumberland was hated by
the people, and few could recognize the right of a boy on the
throne to change the order of regal succession by his will.
Parliament had formally legitimated both Catherine's daughter,
Mary, and Anne Boleyn's daughter, Elizabeth, and had placed
them in the line of inheritance. Mary's legal title to the
crown was clear. She had adhered with her mother to the Roman
Church, and her advent upon the throne would mean the
subjection of the English Church to the Papacy anew; since the
constitution of the Church armed the sovereign with supreme
and indisputable power over it. The Protestants of the kingdom
knew what to expect, and were in great fear; but they submitted.
Lady Jane Grey was recommended to them by her Protestant
belief, and by her beautiful character; but her title was too
defective and her supporters too much distrusted. There were
few to stand by the poor young girl when Northumberland
proclaimed her queen, and she was easily dethroned by the
partisans of Mary. A year later she was sent to the block.
Catholicism was now ascendant again, and England was brought
to share in the great reaction against the Reformation which
prevailed generally through Europe and which we shall
presently consider. Before doing so, let us glance briefly at
the religious state of some other countries not yet touched
upon.
The Reformation in Scotland.
In Scotland, a deep undercurrent of feeling against the
corruptions of the Church had been repressed by resolute
persecutions, until after the middle of the sixteenth century.
Wars with England, and the close connection of the Scottish
Court with the Guises of France, had both tended to retard the
progress of a reform sentiment, or to delay the manifestation
of it. But when the pent-up feeling began to respond to the
voice of the great Calvinistic evangelist and organizer, John
Knox, it swept the nation like a storm. Knox's first
preaching, after his captivity in France and exile to Geneva,
was in 1555. In 1560, the authority of the Pope was renounced,
the mass prohibited, and the Geneva confession of faith
adopted, by the Scottish Estates. After that time the Reformed
Church in Scotland—the Church of Presbyterianism—had only
to resist the futile hostility of Mary Stuart for a few years,
until it came to its great struggle against English
Episcopacy, under Mary's son and grandson, James and Charles.
The Reformation in the North.
In the three Scandinavian nations the ideas of the
Reformation, diffused from Germany, had won early favor, both
from kings and people, and had soon secured an enduring
foothold. They owed their reception quite as much, perhaps, to
the political situation as to the religious feeling of the
northern peoples.
When the ferment of the Reformation movement began, the three
crowns were worn by one king, as they had been since the
"Union of Calmar," in 1397, and the King of Denmark was the
sovereign of the Union. His actual power in Sweden and Norway
was slight; his theoretical authority was sufficient to
irritate both. In Sweden, especially, the nobles chafed under
the yoke of the profitless federation. Christian II., the last
Danish king of the three kingdoms, crushed their disaffection
by a harsh conquest of the country (1520), and by savage
executions, so perfidious and so numerous that they are known
in Swedish history as the Massacre of Stockholm. But this
brutal and faithless king became so hateful in his own proper
kingdom that the Danish nobles rose against him in 1523 and he
was driven from the land. The crown was given to his uncle,
Frederick, Duke of Schleswig-Holstein. In that German Duchy,
Lutheranism had already made its way, and Frederick was in
accord with it. On coming to the throne of Denmark, where
Catholicism still prevailed, he pledged himself to attempt no
interference with it; but he felt no obligation, on the other
hand, to protect it. He demanded and established a toleration
for both doctrines, and gave to the reformers a freedom of
opportunity which speedily undermined the old faith and
overthrew it.
In the meantime, Sweden had undergone the important revolution
of her history, which placed the national hero, Gustavus Vasa,
on the throne. Gustavus was a young noble whose title to the
crown was not derived from his lineage, but from his genius.
After Christian II. had bloodily exterminated the elder
leaders of the Swedish state, this young lord, then a hostage
and prisoner in the tyrant's hands, made his escape and took
upon himself the mission of setting his country free. For
three years Gustavus lived a life like that of Alfred the
Great in England, when he, too, struggled with the Danes. His
heroic adventures were crowned with success, and Sweden, led
to independence by its natural king, bestowed the regal title
upon him (1523) and seated him upon its ancient throne. The
new Danish king, Frederick, acknowledged the revolution, and
the Union of Calmar was dissolved. Sweden under Gustavus Vasa
recovered from the state of great disorder into which it had
fallen, and grew to be a nation of important strength. As a
measure of policy, he encouraged the introduction of
Lutheranism and promoted the spread of it, in order to break
the power of the Catholic clergy, and also, in order, without
doubt, to obtain possession of the property of the Church,
which secured to the Crown the substantial revenues it
required.
{1064}
Italy.
In Italy, the reformed doctrines obtained no popular footing
at any time, though many among the cultivated people regarded
them with favor, and would gladly have witnessed, not only a
practical purging of the Church, but a revision of those
Catholic dogmas most offensive to a rational mind. But such
little movement as stirred in that direction was soon stopped
by the success of the Emperor, Charles V., in his Italian wars
with Francis I., and by the Spanish domination in the
peninsula which ensued thereon. The Spain of that age was like
the bloodless octopus which paralyzes the victim in its
clutch, and Italy, gripped in half of its many principalities
by the deadly tentacles thrust out from Madrid, showed no
consciousness for the next two centuries.
The Council of Trent.
The long demanded, long promised General Council, for
considering the alleged abuses in the Church and the alleged
falsities in its doctrine, and generally for discussion and
action upon the questions raised by the Reformation, assembled
at Trent in December, 1545. The Emperor seems to have desired
with sincerity that the Council might be one which the
Protestants would have confidence in, and in which they might
be represented, for a full discussion of their differences
with Rome. But this was made impossible from the beginning.
The Protestants demanded that "final appeal on all debated
points should be made to the sole authority of Holy
Scripture," and this being refused by the Pope (Paul III.),
there remained no ground on which the two parties could meet.
The Italian prelates who composed the majority of the Council
made haste, it would seem, to take action which closed the
doors of conciliation against the Reformers. "First, they
declared that divine revelation was continuous in the Church
of which the Pope was the head; and that the chief written
depository of this revelation—namely, the Scriptures—had no
authority except in the version of the Vulgate. Secondly, they
condemned the doctrine of justification by Faith. … Thirdly,
they confirmed the efficacy and the binding authority of the
Seven Sacraments." "The Council terminated in December [1563]
with an act of submission, which placed all its decrees at the
pleasure of the Papal sanction. Pius [Pius IV. became Pope in
1560] was wise enough to pass and ratify the decrees of the
Tridentine fathers by a Bull dated on December 26, 1563,
reserving to the Papal sovereign the sole right of
interpreting them in doubtful or disputed cases. This he could
well afford to do; for not an article had been penned without
his concurrence, and not a stipulation had been made without a
previous understanding with the Catholic powers. The very terms,
moreover, by which his ratification was conveyed, secured his
supremacy, and conferred upon his successors and himself the
privileges of a court of ultimate appeal. At no previous
period in the history of the Church had so wide, so undefined,
and so unlimited an authority been accorded to the See of
Rome" (Symonds).
Some practical reforms in the Church were wrought by the
Council of Trent, but its disciplinary decrees were less
important than the dogmatic. From beginning to end of its
sessions, which, broken by many suspensions and adjournments,
dragged through eighteen years, it addressed itself to the
task of solidifying the Church of Rome, as left by the
Protestant schism,—not of healing the schism itself or of
removing the provocations to it. The work which the Council
did in that direction was of vast importance, and profoundly
affected the future of the Papacy and of its spiritual realm.
It gave a firm dogmatic footing to the great reactionary new
forces which now came into play, with aggressive enthusiasm
and zeal, to arrest the advance of the Reformation and roll it
back.
The Catholic reaction.
The extraordinary revival of Catholicism and thrusting back of
Protestantism which occurred in the later half of the
sixteenth century had several causes behind it and within it.
1. The spiritual impulse from which the Reformation started
had considerably spent itself, or had become debased by a
gross admixture of political and mercenary aims. In Germany,
the spoils derived from the suppressing of monastic
establishments and the secularizing of ecclesiastical fiefs
and estates, appeared very early among the potent inducements
by which mercenary princes were drawn to the side of the
Lutheran reform. Later, as the opposing leagues, Protestant
and Catholic, settled into chronic opposition and hostility,
the struggle between them took on more and more the character
of a great political game, and lost more and more the spirit
of a battle for free conscience and a free mind. In France, as
we have noticed, the political entanglements of the Huguenot
party were such, by this time, that it could not fail to be
lowered by them in its religious tone. In England, every
breath of spirituality in the movement had so far (to the
death of Henry VIII.) been stifled, and it showed nothing but
a brazen political front to the world. In the Netherlands, the
struggle for religious freedom was about to merge itself in a
fight of forty years for self-government, and the fortitude
and valor of the citizen were more surely developed in that
long war than the faith and fervor of the Christian. And so,
generally throughout Europe, Protestantism, in its conflict
with the powers of the ancient Church, had descended, ere the
sixteenth century ran far into its second half, to a
distinctly lower plane than it occupied at first. On that
lower plane Rome fronted it more formidably, with stronger
arms, than on the higher.
2. Broadly stating the fact, it may be said that Protestantism
made all its great inroads upon the Church of Rome before
partisanship came to the rescue of the latter, and closed the
open mind with which Luther, and Zwingli, and Farel, and
Calvin were listened to at first. It happens always, when new
ideas, combative of old ones, whether religious or political,
are first put forward in the world, they are listened to for a
time with a certain disinterestedness of attention—a certain
native candor in the mind—which gives them a fair hearing. If
they seem reasonable, they obtain ready acceptance, and spread
rapidly,—until the conservatism of the beliefs assailed
takes serious alarm, and the radicalism of the innovating
beliefs becomes ambitious and rampant; until the for and the
against stiffen themselves in opposing ranks, and the voice of
argument is drowned by the cries of party. That ends all
shifting of masses from the old to the new ground. That ends
conversion as an epidemic and dwindles it to the sporadic
character.
3. Protestantism became bitterly divided within itself at an
early stage of its career by doctrinal differences, first
between Zwinglians and Lutherans, and then between Lutherans
and Calvinists, while Catholicism, under attack, settled into
more unity and solidity than before.
{1065}
4. The tremendous power in Europe to which the Spanish
monarchy, with its subject dominions, and its dynastic
relations, had now risen, passed, in 1556, to a dull-brained
and soulless bigot, who saw but one use for it, namely, the
extinction of all dissent from his own beliefs, and all
opposition to his own will. Philip II. differed from his
father, Charles V., not in the enormity of his bigoted
egotism—they were equals, perhaps, in that—but in the
exclusiveness of it. There was something else in Charles,
something sometimes faintly admirable. He did have some
interests in life that were not purely malignant. But his
horrid vampire of a son, the most repulsive creature of his
kind in all history, had nothing in him that was not as deadly
to mankind as the venom secreted behind the fang of a cobra. It
was a frightful day for the world when a despotism which
shadowed Spain, Sicily, Italy and the Low Countries, and which
had begun to drag unbounded treasure from America, fell to the
possession of such a being as this. Nothing substantial was
taken away from the potent malevolence of Philip by his
failure of election in Germany to the Imperial throne. On the
contrary, he was the stronger for it, because all his dominion
was real and all his authority might assume to be absolute.
His father had been more handicapped than helped by his German
responsibilities and embarrassments, which Philip escaped. It
is not strange that his concentration of the vast enginery
under his hands to one limited aim, of exterminating what his
dull and ignorant mind conceived to be irreligion and treason,
had its large measure of success. The stranger thing is, that
there was fortitude and courage to resist such power, in even
one corner of his realm.
5. The Papacy was restored at this time to the purer and
higher character of its best ages, by well-guided elections,
which raised in succession to the throne a number of men, very
different in ability, and quite different, too, in the spirit
of their piety, but generally alike in dignity and decency of
life, and in qualities which command respect. The fiery
Neapolitan zealot, Caraffa, who became Pope in 1555 as Paul
IV.; his cool-tempered diplomatic successor, Pius IV., who
manipulated the closing labors of the Council of Trent; the
austere inquisitor, Pius V.; the more commonplace Gregory
XIII., and the powerful Sixtus V., were pontiffs who gave new
strength to Catholicism, in their different ways, both by what
they did and by what they were.
6. The revival of zeal in the Roman Church, naturally
following the attacks upon it, gave rise to many new religious
organizations within its elastic fold, some reformatory, some
missionary and militant, but all bringing an effectual
reinforcement to it, at the time when its assailants began to
show faltering signs. Among these was one—Loyola's Society of
Jesus—which marched promptly to the front of the battle, and
which contributed more than any other single force in the
field to the rallying of the Church, to the stopping of
retreat, and to the facing of its stubborn columns forward for
a fresh advance. The Jesuits took such a lead and accomplished
such results by virtue of the military precision of discipline
under which they had been placed and to which they were
singularly trained by the rules of the founder; and also by
effect of a certain subtle sophistry that runs through their
ethical maxims and their counsels of piety. They fought for
their faith with a sublime courage, with a devotion almost
unparalleled, with an earnestness of belief that cannot be
questioned; but they used weapons and modes of warfare which
the higher moral feeling of civilized mankind, whether
Christian or Pagan, has always condemned. It is not Protestant
enemies alone who say this. It is the accusation that has been
brought against them again and again in their own Church, and
which has expelled them from Catholic countries, again and
again. In the first century or more of their career, this
plastic conscience, moulded by a passionate zeal, and
surrendered, with every gift of mind and body, to a service of
obedience which tolerated no evasion on one side nor bending
on the other, made the Jesuits the most invincible and
dangerous body of men that was ever organized for defense and
aggression in any cause.
The order was founded in 1540, by a bull of Pope Paul III. At
the time of Loyola's death, in 1556, it numbered about one
thousand members, and under Lainez, the second general of the
order, who succeeded Loyola at the head, it advanced rapidly,
in numbers, in efficiency of organization, and in wide-spread
influence.
Briefly stated, these are the incidents and circumstances
which help to explain—not fully, perhaps, but almost
sufficiently—the check to Protestantism and the restored
energy and aggressiveness of the Catholic Church, in the later
half of the sixteenth century.
The Ruin of Spain.
In his kingdoms of Spain, Philip II. may be said to have
finished the work of death which his father and his father's
grand-parents committed to him. They began it, and appointed
the lines on which it was to be done. The Spain of their day
had the fairest opportunity of any nation in Europe for a
great and noble career. The golden gates of her opportunity
were unlocked and opened by good Queen Isabella; but the pure
hands of the same pious queen threw over the neck of her
country the noose of a strangler, and tightened it
prayerfully. Her grandson, who was neither pious nor good,
flung his vast weight of power upon it. But the strangling
halter of the Spanish Inquisition did not extinguish signs of
life in his kingdom fast enough to satisfy his royal
impatience, and he tightened other cords upon the suffering
body and all its limbs. Philip, when he came to take up the
murderous task, found every equipment for it that he could
desire. He had only to gather the strands of the infernal mesh
into his hands, and bring the strain of his awful sovereignty
to bear upon them: then sit and watch the palsy of death creep
over his dominions.
Of political life, Charles really left nothing for his son to
kill. Of positive religious life, there can have been no
important survival, for he and his Inquisition had been keenly
vigilant; but Philip made much of the little he could
discover. As to the industrial life of Spain, father and son
were alike active in the murdering of it, and alike ingenious.
They paralyzed manufactures, in the first instance, by
persecuting and expelling the thrifty and skilful Moriscoes;
then they made their work complete by heavy duties on raw
materials. To extinguish the agricultural industries of the
kingdom, they had happy inspirations.
{1066}
They prohibited the exportation of one commodity after
another—corn, cattle, wool, cloth, leather, and the
like—until they had brought Spain practically to the point of
being dependent on other countries for many products of skill,
and yet of having nothing to offer in exchange, except the
treasure of precious metals which she drew from America. Hence
it happened that the silver and gold of the Peruvian and
Mexican mines ran like quicksand through her fingers, into the
coffers of the merchants of the Low Countries and of England;
and, probably, no other country in Europe saw so little of
them, had so little of benefit from them, as the country they
were supposed to enrich.
If the killing of Spain needed to be made complete by anything
more, Philip supplied the need, in the deadliness of his
taxation. Spending vast sums in his attempt to repeat upon the
Netherlands the work of national murder he had accomplished in
Spain; losing, by the same act, the rich revenues of the
thrifty provinces; launching into new expenditures as he
pursued, by clumsy warfare, his mission of death into fresh
fields, aiming now at the life of France, and now at the life
of England,—he squeezed the cost of his armies and armadas
from a country in which he had strangled production already,
and made poverty the common estate. It was the last draining
of the life-blood of a nation which ought to have been strong
and great, but which suffered murder most foul and unnatural.
We hardly exaggerate even in figure when we say that Spain was
a dead nation whim Philip quitted the scene of his arduous
labors. It is true that his successors still found something
for their hands to do, in the ways that were pleasant to their
race, and burned and bled and crushed the unhappy kingdom with
indefatigable persistency; but it was really the corpse of a
nation which they practised on. The life of Spain, as a
breathing, sentient state, came to an end under the hands of
Philip II., first of the Thugs.
Philip II. and the Netherlands.
The hand of Charles V. had been heavy on the Netherlands; but
resistance to such a power as that of Spain in his day was
hardly dreamed of. It was not easy for Philip to outdo his
father's despotism; less easy to drive the laborious
Hollanders and Flemings to desperation and force them into
rebellious war. But he accomplished it. He filled the country
with Spanish troops. He reorganized and stimulated the
Inquisition. He multiplied bishoprics in the Provinces,
against the wish of even the Catholic population. He scorned
the counsels of the great nobles, and gave foreign advisers to
the Regent, his half-sister, Margaret of Parma, illegitimate
daughter of Charles V., whom he placed at the head of the
government. His oppressions were endured, with increasing
signs of hidden passion, for ten years. Then, in 1566, the
first movement of patriotic combination appeared. It was a
league among certain of the nobles; its objects were peaceful,
its plans were legal; but it was not countenanced by the wiser
of the patriots, who saw that events were not ripe. The
members of the league went in solemn procession to the Regent
with a petition; whereupon one of her councillors denounced
them as "a troop of beggars." They promptly seized the epithet
and appropriated it. A beggar's wallet became their emblem;
the idea was caught up and carried through the country, and a
visible party rose quickly into existence.
The religious feeling now gained boldness. Enormous
field-meetings began to be held, under arms, in every part of
the open country, defying edicts and Inquisition. There
followed a little later some fanatical and riotous outbreaks
in several cities, breaking images and desecrating churches.
Upon these occurrences, Philip despatched to the Netherlands,
in the summer of 1567, a fresh army of Spanish troops,
commanded by a man who was after his own heart—as mean, as
false, as merciless, as little in soul and mind, as
himself,—the Duke of Alva. Alva brought with him authority
which practically superseded that of the Regent, and secret
instructions which doomed every man of worth in the Provinces.
At the head of the nobility of the country; by eminence of
character, no less than by precedence in rank, stood William
of Nassau, Prince of Orange, who derived his higher title from
a petty and remote principality, but whose large family
possessions were in Flanders, Brabant, Holland and Luxemburg.
Associated closely with him, in friendship and in political
action, were Count Egmont, and the Admiral Count Horn, the
latter of a family related to the Montmorencies of France.
These three conspicuous nobles Philip had marked with special
malice for the headsman, though their solitary crime had been
the giving of advice against his tyrannies. William of
Orange-"the Silent," as he came to be known—far-seeing in
his wisdom, and well-advised by trusty agents in Spain,
withdrew into Germany before Alva arrived. He warned his
friends of their danger and implored them to save themselves;
but they were blinded and would not listen. The perfidious
Spaniard lured them with flatteries to Brussels and thrust
them into prison. They were to be the first victims of the
appalling sacrifice required to appease the dull rage of the
king. Within three months they had eighteen hundred
companions, condemned like themselves to the scaffold, by a
council in which Alva presided and which the people called
"the Council of Blood." In June, 1568, they were brought to
the block.
Meantime Prince William and his brother, Louis of Nassau, had
raised forces in Germany and attempted the rescue of the
terrorized Provinces; but their troops were ill-paid and
mutinous and they suffered defeat. For the time being, the
Netherlands were crushed. As many of the people as could
escape had fled; commerce was at a standstill; workshops were
idle; the cities, once so wealthy, were impoverished; death,
mourning, and terror, were everywhere. Alva had done very
perfectly what he was sent to do.
The first break in the blackness of the clouds appeared in
April, 1572, when a fleet, manned by refugee adventurers who
called themselves Sea-Beggars, attacked and captured the town
of Brill. From that day the revolt had its right footing, on
the decks of the ships of the best sailors in the world. It
faced Philip from that day as a maritime power, which would
grow by the very feeding of its war with him, until it had
consumed everything Spanish within its reach. The taking of
Brill soon gave the patriots control of so many places in
Holland and Zealand that a meeting of deputies was held at
Dort, in July, 1572, which declared William of Orange to be
"the King's legal Stadtholder in Holland, Zealand, Friesland
and Utrecht," and recommended to the other Provinces that he
be appointed Protector of all the Netherlands during the
King's absence.
{1067}
Alva's reign of terror had failed so signally that even he was
discouraged and asked to be recalled. It was his boast when he
retired that he had put eighteen thousand and six hundred of
the Netherlanders to death since they were delivered into his
hands, above and beyond the horrible massacres by which he had
half depopulated every captured town. Under Alva's successor,
Don Louis de Requesens, a man of more justice and humanity,
the struggle went on, adversely, upon the whole, to the
patriots, though they triumphed gloriously in the famous
defense of Leyden. To win help from England, they offered the
sovereignty of their country to Queen Elizabeth; but in vain.
They made no headway in the southern provinces, where
Catholicism prevailed, and where the religious difference drew
people more to the Spanish side. But when Requesens died
suddenly, in the spring of 1576, and the Spanish soldiery
broke into a furious mutiny, sacking Antwerp and other cities,
then the nobles of Flanders and Brabant applied to the northern
provinces for help. The result was a treaty, called the
Pacification of Ghent, which contemplated a general effort to
drive the Spaniards from the whole land. But not much came of
this confederacy; the Catholic provinces never co-operated
with the Protestant provinces, and the latter went their own
way to freedom and prosperity, while the former sank back,
submissive, to their chains.
For a short time after the death of Requesens, Philip was
represented in the Netherlands by his illegitimate
half-brother, Don John of Austria; but Don John died in
October, 1578, and then came the great general, Alexander
Farnese, Prince of Parma, who was to try the patriots sorely
by his military skill. In 1579, the Prince of Orange drew them
more closely together, in the Union of Utrecht, which Holland,
Zealand, Gelderland, Zutphen, Utrecht, Overyssel, and
Groningen, subscribed, and which was practically the
foundation of the Dutch republic, though allegiance to Philip
was not yet renounced. This followed two years later, in July,
1581, when the States General, assembled at the Hague, passed a
solemn Act of Abjuration, which deposed Philip from his
sovereignty and transferred it to the Duke of Anjou, a prince
of the royal family of France, who did nothing for the
Provinces, and who died soon after. At the same time, the
immediate sovereignty of Holland and Zealand was conferred on
the Prince of Orange.
In March, 1582, Philip made his first deliberate attempt to
procure the assassination of the Prince. He had entered into a
contract for the purpose, and signed it with his own hand. The
assassin employed failed only because the savage pistol wound
he inflicted, in the neck and jaw of his victim, did not kill.
The master-murderer, at Madrid, was not discouraged. He
launched his assassins, one following the other, until six had
made their trial in two years. The sixth, one Balthazar
Gerard, accomplished that for which he was sent, and William
the Silent, wise statesman and admirable patriot, fell under
his hand (July 10, 1584). Philip was so immeasurably delighted
at this success that he conferred three lordships on the
parents of the murderer.
William's son, Maurice, though but eighteen years old, was
immediately chosen Stadtholder of Holland, Zealand and
Utrecht, and High Admiral of the Union. In the subsequent
years of the war, he proved himself a general of great
capacity. Of the details of the war it is impossible to speak.
Its most notable event was the siege of Antwerp, whose
citizens defended themselves against the Duke of Parma, with
astonishing courage and obstinacy, for many months. They
capitulated in the end on honorable terms; but the prosperity
of their city had received a blow from which it never revived.
Once more the sovereignty of the Provinces was offered to
Queen Elizabeth of England, and once more declined; but the
queen sent her favorite, the Earl of Leicester, with a few
thousand men, to help the struggling Hollanders (1585). This
was done, not in sympathy with them or their cause, but purely
as a self-defensive measure against Spain. The niggardliness
and the vacillations of Elizabeth, combined with the
incompetency of Leicester, caused troubles to the Provinces
nearly equal to the benefit of the forces lent them. Philip of
Spain was now involved in his undertakings with the Guises and
the League in France, and in his plans against England, and
was weakened in the Netherlands for some years. Parma died in
1592, and Count Mansfield took his place, succeeded in his
turn by the Marquis Spinola. The latter, at last, made an
honest report, that the subjugation of the United Provinces
was impracticable, and, Philip II. being now dead, the Spanish
government was induced in 1607 to agree to a suspension of
arms. A truce for twelve years was arranged; practically it
was the termination of the war of independence, and
practically it placed the United Provinces among the nations,
although the formal acknowledgment of their independence was
not yielded by Spain until 1648.
England under Mary.
While the Netherlands had offered to Philip of Spain a special
field for his malice, there were others thrown open to him
which he did not neglect. He may be said, in fact, to have
whetted his appetite for blood and for burned human flesh in
England, whither he went, as a young prince, in 1554, to marry
his elderly second cousin, Queen Mary. We may be sure that he
did not check the ardor of his consort, when she hastened to
re-establish the supremacy of the Pope, and to rekindle the
fires of religious persecution. The two-hundred and
seventy-seven heretics whom she is reckoned to have burned may
have seemed to him, even then, an insignificant handful. He
quickly tired of her, if not of her congenial work, and left
her in 1555. In 1558 she died, and the Church of Rome fell
once more, never to regain its old footing of authority.
{1068}
England under Elizabeth.
Elizabeth, daughter of Anne Boleyn, who now came to the
throne, was Protestant by the necessities of her position,
whether doctrinally convinced or no. The Catholics denied her
legitimacy of birth, and disputed, therefore, her right to the
crown. She depended upon the Protestants for her support, and
Protestantism, either active or passive, had become, without
doubt, the dominant faith of the nation. But the mild schism
which formerly took most of its direction from Luther, had now
been powerfully acted upon by the influence of Calvin. Geneva
had been the refuge of many ministers and teachers who fled
from Mary's fires, and they returned to spread and deepen in
England the stern, strong, formidable piety which Calvin
evoked. These Calvinistic Protestants now made themselves felt
as a party in the state, and were known ere long by that name
which the next century rendered famous in English and American
history—the great name of the Puritans. They were not
satisfied with the stately, decorous, ceremonious Church which
Elizabeth reconstructed on the pattern of the Church of Edward
VI. At the same time, no party could be counted on more surely
for the support of the queen, since the hope of Protestantism
in England depended upon her, even as she was dependent upon
it.
The Catholics, denying legitimacy to Elizabeth, recognized
Mary Queen of Scots as the lawful sovereign of England. And
Mary was, in fact, the next in succession, tracing her
lineage, as stated before, to the elder sister of Henry VIII.
If Elizabeth had been willing to frankly acknowledge Mary's
heirship, failing heirs of her own body, it seems probable
that the partisans of the Scottish queen would have been
quieted, to a great extent. But Mary had angered her by
assuming, while in France, the arms and style of Queen of
England. She distrusted and disliked her Stuart cousin, and,
moreover, the whole idea of a settlement of the succession was
repugnant to her mind. At the same time, she could not be
brought to marry, as her Protestant subjects wished. She
coquetted with the notion of marriage through half her reign,
but never to any purpose.
Such were the elements of agitation and trouble in England
under Elizabeth. The history of well-nigh half-a-century was
shaped in almost all its events by the threatening attitude of
Catholicism and its supporters, domestic and foreign, toward
the English queen. She was supported by the majority of her
subjects with staunch loyalty and fidelity, even though she
treated them none too well, and troubled them in their very
defense of her by her whims and caprices. They identified her
cause with themselves, and took such pride in her courage that
they shut their eyes to the many weaknesses that went with it.
She never grasped the affairs she dealt with in a broadly
capable way. She never acted on them with well considered
judgment. Her ministers, it is clear, were never able to
depend upon a reasonable action of her mind. Her vanity or her
jealousy might put reason in eclipse at any moment, and a skilful
flatterer could make the queen as foolish as a milkmaid. But
she had a royal courage and a royal pride of country, and she
did make the good and glory of England her aim. So she won the
affection of all Englishmen whose hearts were not in the
keeping of the Pope, and no monarch so arbitrary was ever more
ardently admired.
Mary, Queen of Scots.
In 1567, Mary Stuart was deposed by her own subjects, or
forced to abdicate in favor of her infant son, James. She had
alienated the Scottish people, first by her religion, and then
by her suspected personal crimes. Having married her second
cousin, Henry Stuart, Lord Darnley, she was accused of being
false to him. Darnley revenged his supposed wrongs as a
husband by murdering her secretary, David Rizzio. In the next
year (1567) Darnley was killed; the hand of the Earl of
Bothwell appeared quite plainly in the crime, and the queen's
complicity was believed. She confirmed the suspicions against
herself by marrying Bothwell soon afterwards. Then her
subjects rose against her, imprisoned her in Loch Leven
Castle, and made the Earl of Murray regent of the Kingdom. In
1568 Mary escaped from her Scottish prison and entered
England. From that time until her death, in 1587, she was a
captive in the hands of her rival, Queen Elizabeth, and was
treated with slender magnanimity. More than before, she became
the focus of intrigues and conspiracies which threatened both
the throne and the life of Elizabeth, and a growing feeling of
hostility to the wretched woman was inevitable.
In 1570, Pope Pius V. issued against Elizabeth his formal bull
of excommunication, absolving her subjects from their
allegiance. This quickened, of course, the activity of the
plotters against the queen and set treason astir. Priests from
the English Catholic Seminary at Douai, afterwards at Rheims,
began to make their appearance in the country; a few Jesuits
came over; and both were active agents of the schemes on foot
which contemplated the seating of Mary Stuart on the throne of
Elizabeth Tudor. Some of these emissaries were executed, and
they are counted among the martyrs of the Catholic Church,
which is a serious mistake. The Protestantism of the sixteenth
century was quite capable of religious persecution, even to
death; but it has no responsibilities of that nature in these
Elizabethan cases. As a matter of fact, the religion of the
Jesuit sufferers in the reign of Elizabeth was a mere incident
attaching itself to a high political crime, which no nation
has ever forgiven.
The plotting went on for twenty years, keeping the nation in
unrest; while beyond it there were thickening signs of a great
project of invasion in the sinister mind of Philip II. At
last, in 1586, the coolest councillors of Elizabeth persuaded
her to bring Mary Stuart to trial for alleged complicity in a
conspiracy of assassination which had lately come to light.
Convicted, and condemned to death, Mary ended her sad life on
the scaffold, at Fotheringay, on the 8th of February, 1587.
Whether guilty or guiltless of any knowledge of what had been
done in her name, against the peace of England and against the
life of the English queen, it cannot be thought strange that
Protestant England took her life.
The Spanish Armada.
A great burst of wrath in Catholic Europe was caused by the
execution of Mary, and Philip of Spain hastened forward his
vast preparations for the invasion and conquest of England. In
1588, the "invincible armada," as it was believed to be,
sailed out of the harbors of Portugal and Spain, and wrecked
itself with clumsy imbecility on the British and Irish coasts.
It scarcely did more than give sport to the eager English
sailors who scattered its helpless ships and hunted them down.
Philip troubled England no more, and conspiracy ceased.
{1069}
England at Sea.
But the undeclared, half-piratical warfare which private
adventurers had been carrying on against Spanish commerce for
many years now acquired fresh energy. Drake, Hawkins,
Frobisher, Grenvil, Raleigh, were the heroic spirits of this
enterprising warfare; but they had many fellows. It was the
school of the future navy of England, and the foundations of
the British Empire were laid down by those who carried it on.
Otherwise, Elizabeth had little war upon her hands, except in
Ireland, where the state of misery and disorder had already
been long chronic. The first really complete conquest of the
island was accomplished by Lord Mountjoy between 1600 and
1603.
Intellectual England.
But neither the political troubles nor the naval and military
triumphs of England during the reign of Elizabeth are of much
importance, after all, compared with the wonderful flowering
of the genius of the nation which took place in that age.
Shakespeare, Spenser, Bacon, Ben Jonson, Marlowe, Hooker,
Raleigh, Sidney, are the great facts of Elizabeth's time, and
it shines with the luster of their names, the period most
glorious in English history.
The Religious Wars in France.
Wherever the stealthy arm of the influence of Philip II. of
Spain could reach, there the Catholic reaction of his time
took on a malignant form. In France, it is quite probable that
the Catholics and the Huguenots, if left to themselves, would
have come to blows; but it is certain that the meddling
fingers of the Spanish king put fierceness and fury into the
wars of religion, which raged from 1562 to 1596, and that they
were prolonged by his encouragement and help.
Catherine de' Medici, to strengthen herself against the
Guises, after the death of Francis II., offered attentions for
a time to the Huguenot nobles, and encouraged them to expect a
large and lasting measure of toleration. She went so far that
the Huguenot influence at court, surrounding the young king,
became very seriously alarming to Catholic onlookers, both at
home and abroad. Among the many remonstrances addressed to the
queen-regent, the one which appears to have been decisive in
its effect came from Philip. He coldly sent her word that he
intended to interfere in France and to establish the supremacy
of the Catholic Church; that he should give his support for that
purpose to any true friend of the Church who might request it.
Whether Catherine had entertained an honest purpose or not, in
her dealing with the Huguenots, this threat, with what lay
behind it, put an end to the hope of justice for them. It is
true that an assembly of notables, in January, 1562, did
propose a law which the queen put forth, in what is known as
the "Edict of January," whereby the Huguenots were given, for
the first time, a legal recognition, ceasing to be outlaws,
and were permitted to hold meetings, in the daytime, in open
places, outside of walled cities; but their churches were
taken away from them, they were forbidden to build more, and
they could hold no meetings in walled towns. It was a measure
of toleration very different from that which they had been led
to expect; and even the little meted out by this Edict of January
was soon shown to have no guarantee. Within three months, the
Duke of Guise had found an opportunity for exhibiting his
contempt of the new law, by ordering his armed followers to
attack a congregation at Vassy, killing fifty and wounding two
hundred of the peaceful worshippers. This outrage drove the
Huguenots to arms and the civil wars began.
The frivolous Anthony, King of Navarre, had been won back to
the Catholic side. His staunch wife, Jeanne d'Albret, with her
young son, the future Henry IV., and his brother, Louis,
Prince of Condé, remained true to their faith. Condé was the
chief of the party. Next to him in rank, and first in real
worth and weight, was the noble Admiral Coligny. The first war
was brief, though long enough to end the careers of Anthony of
Navarre, killed in battle, and the Duke of Guise,
assassinated. Peace was made in 1563 through a compromise,
which conceded certain places to the Huguenots, wherein they
might worship God in their own way. But it was a hollow peace,
and the malicious finger of the great master of assassins at
Madrid never ceased picking at it. In 1566, civil war broke
out a second time, continuing until 1570. Its principal
battles were that of Jarnac, in which Condé was taken prisoner
and basely assassinated by his captors, and that of
Moncontour. The Huguenots were defeated in both. After the
death of Condé, young Henry of Navarre, who had reached his
fifteenth year, was chosen to be the chief of the party, with
Coligny for his instructor in war.
Again peace was made, on a basis of slight concessions. Henry
of Navarre married the King's sister, Margaret of Valois;
prior to which he and his mother took up their residence with
the court, at Paris, where Jeanne d'Albret soon sickened and
died. The Admiral Coligny acquired, apparently, a marked
influence over the mind of the young king; and once more there
seemed to be a smiling future for the Reformed. But damnable
treacheries were hidden underneath this fair showing. The most
hideous conspiracy of modern times was being planned, at the
very moment of the ostentatious peace-marriage of the King of
Navarre, and the chief parties to it were Catherine de' Medici
and the Guises, whose evil inclinations in common had brought
them together at last. On the 22d of August, 1572, Coligny was
wounded by an assassin, employed by the widow and son of the
late Duke of Guise, whose death they charged against him,
notwithstanding his protestations of innocence. Two days
later, the monstrous and almost incredible massacre of St.
Bartholomew's Day was begun. Paris was full of Huguenots—the
heads of the party—its men of weight and influence—who had
been drawn to the capital by the King of Navarre's marriage
and by the supposed new era of favor in which they stood. To
cut these off was to decapitate Protestantism in France, and
that was the purpose of the infernal scheme. The weak-minded
young king was not an original party to the plot. When
everything had been planned, he was easily excited by a tale
of pretended Huguenot conspiracies, and his assent to summary
measures of prevention was secured. A little after midnight,
on the morning of Sunday, August 24, the signal was given, by
Catherine's order, which let loose a waiting swarm of
assassins, throughout Paris, on the victims who had been
marked for them. The Huguenots had had no warning; they were
taken everywhere by surprise, and they were easily murdered in
their beds, or hunted down in their hopeless flight.
{1070}
The noble Coligny, prostrated by the wound he had received two
days before, was killed in his chamber, and his body flung out
of the window. The young Duke of Guise stood waiting in the
court below, to gloat on the corpse and to basely spurn it
with his foot.
The massacre in Paris was carried on through two nights and
two days; and, for more than a month following, the example of
the capital was imitated in other cities of France, as the
news of what were called "the Paris Matins" reached them. The
total number of victims in the kingdom is estimated variously
to have been between twenty thousand and one hundred thousand.
Henry of Navarre and the young Prince of Condé escaped the
massacre, but they saved their lives by a hypocritical
abjuration of their religion.
The strongest town in the possession of the Huguenots was La
Rochelle, and great numbers of their ministers and people of
mark who survived the massacre now took refuge in that city,
with a considerable body of armed men. The royal forces laid
siege to the city, but made no impression on its defences.
Peace was conceded in the end on terms which again promised
the Huguenots some liberty of worship. But there was no
sincerity in it.
In 1574, Charles IX. died, and his brother, the Duke of Anjou,
who had lately been elected King of Poland, ran away from his
Polish capital with disgraceful haste and secrecy, to secure
the French crown. He was the most worthless of the
Valois-Medicean brood, and the French court in his reign
attained its lowest depth of degradation. The contending
religions were soon at war again, with the accustomed result,
in 1576, of another short-lived peace. The Catholics were
divided into two factions, one fanatical, following the
Guises, the other composed of moderate men, calling themselves
the Politiques, who hated the Spanish influence under which
the Guises were always acting, and who were willing to make
terms with the Huguenots. The Guises and the ultra-Catholics
now organized throughout France a great oath-bound "Holy
League", which became so formidable in power that the king
took fright, put himself at the head of it, and reopened war
with the Reformed.
More and more, the conflict of religions became confused with
questions of politics and mixed with personal quarrels. At one
time, the king's younger brother, the Duke of Alençon, had
gone over to the Huguenot side; but stayed only long enough to
extort from the court some appointments which he desired. The
king, more despised by his subjects than any king of France
before him had ever been, grew increasingly jealous and afraid
of the popularity and strength of the Duke of Guise, who was
proving to be a man quite superior to his father in
capability. Guise, on his side, was made arrogant by his sense
of power, and his ambition soared high. There were reasons for
believing that he did not look upon the throne itself as
beyond his reach.
After 1584, when the Duke of Alençon (Duke of Anjou under his
later title) died, a new political question, vastly
disturbing, was brought into affairs. That death left no heir
to the crown in the Valois line, and the King of Navarre, of
the House of Bourbon, was now nearer in birth to the throne
than any other living person. Henry had, long ere this,
retracted his abjuration of 1572, had rejoined the Huguenots
and taken his place as their chief. The head of the Huguenots
was now the heir presumptive to the crown, and the wretched,
incapable king was being impelled by his fear of Guise to look
to his Huguenot heir for support. It was a strange situation.
In 1588 it underwent a sinister change. Guise and his brother,
the Cardinal, were both assassinated by the king's body-guard,
acting under the king's orders, in the royal residence at the
Castle of Blois. When the murder had been done, the cowardly
king spurned his dead enemy with his foot, as Guise, sixteen
years before, had spurned the murdered Coligny, and said "I am
King at last." He was mistaken. His authority vanished with
the vile deed by which he expected to reinvigorate it. Paris
broke into open rebellion. The League renewed its activity
throughout France. The king, abandoned and cursed on all
sides, had now no course open to him but an alliance with
Henry of Navarre and the Huguenots. The alliance was effected,
and the two Henrys joined forces to subdue insurgent Paris.
While the siege of the city was in progress (1589), Henry III.
fell a victim, in his turn, to the murderous mania of his
depraved age and court. He was assassinated by a fanatical
monk.
Henry of Navarre.
Henry of Navarre now steps into the foreground of French
history, as Henry IV., lawful King of France as well as of
Navarre, and ready to prove his royal title by a more useful
reign than the French nation had known since it buried St.
Louis, his last ancestor on the throne. But his title was
recognized at first by few outside the party of the Huguenots.
The League went openly into alliance with Philip of Spain, who
even half-stopped his war in the Netherlands to send money and
troops into France. The energies of his insignificant soul
were all concentrated on the desire to keep the heretical
Béarnese from the throne of France. But happily his powers
were no longer equal to his malice; he was still staggering
under the blow which destroyed his great Armada.
Henry received some help in money from Queen Elizabeth, and
5,000 English and Scotch came over to join his army. He was an
abler general than any among his opponents, and he made
headway against them. His splendid victory at Ivry, on the
14th of March, 1590, inspirited his followers and took heart
from the League. He was driven from his subsequent siege of
Paris by a Spanish army, under the Duke of Parma; but the very
interference of the Spanish king helped to turn French feeling
in Henry's favor. On the 25th of July, 1593, he practically
extinguished the opposition to himself by his final submission
to the Church of Rome. It was an easy thing for him to do. His
religion sat lightly on him. He had accepted it from his
mother; he had adhered to it—not faithfully—as the creed of
a party. He could give it up, in exchange for the crown of
France, and feel no trouble of conscience. But the Reformed
religion in France was really benefited by his apostacy. Peace
came to the kingdom, as the consequence,—a peace of many
years,—and the Huguenots were sheltered in considerable
religious freedom by the peace. Henry secured it to them in
1598 by the famous Edict of Nantes, which remained in force
for nearly a hundred years.
{1071}
The reign of Henry IV. was one of the satisfactory periods in
the life of France, so far as concerns the material prosperity
of the nation. He was a man of strong, keen intellect, with
firmness of will and elasticity of temper, but weak on the
moral side. He was of those who win admiration and friendship
easily, and he remains traditionally the most popular of
French kings. He had the genius for government which so rarely
coincides with royal birth. A wise minister, the Duke of
Sully, gave stability to his measures, and between them they
succeeded in remarkably improving and promoting the
agricultural and the manufacturing industries of France,
effacing the destructive effects of the long civil wars, and
bringing economy and order into the finances of the
overburdened nation. His useful career was ended by an
assassin in 1610.
Germany and the Thirty Years War.
The reactionary wars of religion in Germany came
half-a-century later than in France. While the latter country
was being torn by the long civil conflicts which Henry IV.
brought to an end, the former was as nearly in the enjoyment
of religious peace as the miserable contentions in the bosom
of Protestantism, between Lutherans and Calvinists (the latter
more commonly called "the Reformed"), would permit. On the
abdication of Charles V., in 1556, he had fortunately failed
to bring about the election of his son Philip to the imperial
throne. His brother Ferdinand, Archduke of Austria and King of
Bohemia and Hungary, was chosen Emperor, and that sovereign
had too many troubles in his immediate dominions to be willing
to invite a collision with the Protestant princes of Germany
at large. The Turks had overrun Hungary and established
themselves in possession of considerable parts of the country.
Ferdinand obtained peace with the redoubtable Sultan Suleiman,
but only by payments of money which bore a strong likeness to
tribute. He succeeded, through his prudent and skilful policy,
in making both the Hungarian and the Bohemian crowns practically
hereditary in the House of Austria.
Dying in 1564, Ferdinand transmitted both those kingdoms, with
the Austrian Archduchy and the imperial office, to his son,
Maximilian II., the broadest and most liberal minded of his
race. Though educated in Spain, and in companionship with his
cousin, Philip II., Maximilian exhibited the most tolerant
spirit that appears anywhere in his age. Perhaps it was the
hatefulness of orthodox zeal as exemplified in Philip which
drove the more generous nature of Maximilian to revolt. He
adhered to the Roman communion; but he manifested so much
respect for the doctrines of the Lutheran that his father felt
called upon at one time to make apologies for him to the Pope.
Throughout his reign he held himself aloof from religious
disputes, setting an example of tolerance and spiritual
intelligence to all his subjects, Lutherans, Calvinists and
Catholics alike, which ought to have influenced them more for
their good than it did. Under the shelter of the toleration
which Maximilian gave it, Protestantism spread quickly over
Austria, where it had had no opportunity before; revived the
old Hussite reform in Bohemia; made great gains in Hungary,
and advanced in all parts of his dominions except the Tyrol.
The time permitted to it for this progress was short, since
Maximilian reigned but twelve years. He died in 1576, and his
son Rudolph, who followed him, brought evil changes upon the
country in all things. He, too, had been educated in Spain,
but with a very different result. He came back a creature of
the Jesuits; but so weakly wilful a creature that even they
could do little with him. Authority of government went to
pieces in his incompetent hands, and at last, in 1606, a
family conclave of princes of the Austrian house began
measures which aimed at dispossessing Rudolph of his various
sovereignties, so far as possible, in favor of his brother
Matthias. Rudolph resisted with some effect, and in the
contests which ensued the Protestants of Austria and Bohemia
improved their opportunity for securing an enlargement of
their rights. Matthias made the concession of complete
toleration in Austria, while Rudolph, in Bohemia, granted the
celebrated charter, called the Letter of Majesty (1609), which
gave entire religious liberty to all sects.
These concessions were offensive to two princes, the Archduke
Ferdinand of Styria, and Duke Maximilian of Bavaria, who had
already taken the lead in a vigorous movement of Catholic
reaction. Some proceedings on the part of Maximilian, which
the Emperor sanctioned, against the Protestant free city of
Donauwörth, had caused certain Protestant princes and cities,
in 1608, to form a defensive Union. But the Elector Palatine,
who attached himself to the Reformed or Calvinist Church, was
at the head of this Union, and the bigoted Lutherans,
especially the Elector of Saxony, looked with coldness upon
it. On the other hand, the Catholic states formed a
counter-organization—a Holy League—which was more compact
and effective. The two parties being thus set in array, there
rose suddenly between them a political question of the most
disturbing character. It related to the right of succession to
an important duchy, that of Juliers, Clèves, and Berg. There
were several powerful claimants, in both of the Saxon
families, and including also the Elector of Brandenburg and
the Palsgrave of Neuberg, two members of the Union. As usual,
the political question took possession of the religious issue
and used it for its own purposes. The Protestant Union opened
negotiations with Henry IV. of France, who saw an opportunity
to weaken the House of Austria and to make some gains for
France at the expense of Germany. A treaty was concluded, and
Henry began active preparations for campaigns in both Germany
and Italy, with serious intent to humble and diminish the
Austrian power. The Dutch came into the alliance, likewise,
and James I. of England promised his co-operation. The
combination was formidable, and might have changed very
extensively the course of events that awaited unhappy Germany,
if the whole plan had not been frustrated by the assassination
of Henry IV., in 1610. All the parties to the alliance drew
back after that event, and both sides waited.
{1072}
In 1611, Rudolph was deposed in Bohemia, and the following
year he died. Matthias, already King of Hungary, succeeded
Rudolph in Bohemia and in the Empire. But Matthias was
scarcely stronger in mind or body than his brother, and the
same family pressure which had pushed Rudolph aside now forced
Matthias to accept a coadjutor, in the person of the vigorous
Ferdinand, Archduke of Styria. For the remainder of his reign
Matthias was a cipher, and all power in the government was
exercised by Ferdinand. His bitter opposition to the tolerant
policy which had prevailed generally for half-a-century was
well understood. Hence, his rise to supremacy in the Empire
gave notice that the days of religious peace were ended. The
outbreak of civil war was not long in coming.
Beginning of the war in Bohemia.
It began in Bohemia. A violation of the Protestant rights
guaranteed by the Letter of Majesty provoked a rising under
Count Thurn. Two of the king's councilors, with their
secretary, were flung from a high window of the royal castle,
and this act of violence was followed by more revolutionary
measures. A provisional government of thirty Directors was set
up and the king's authority set wholly aside. The Protestant
Union gave prompt support to the Bohemian insurrection and
sent Count Mansfield with three thousand soldiers to its aid.
The Thirty Years War was begun (1618).
Early in these disturbances, Matthias died (1619). Ferdinand
had already made his succession secure, in Austria, Bohemia
and Hungary, and the imperial crown was presently conferred on
him. But the Bohemians repudiated his kingship and offered
their crown to Frederick, the Elector Palatine, lately married
to the Princess Elizabeth, daughter of James I. of England.
The Elector, persuaded, it is said, by his ambitious young
wife, unwisely accepted the tempting bauble, and went to
Prague to receive it. But he had neither prudence nor energy
to justify his bold undertaking. Instead of strengthening
himself for his contest with Ferdinand, he began immediately
to enrage his new subjects by pressing Calvinistic forms and
doctrines upon them, and by arrogantly interfering with their
modes of worship. His reign was so brief that he is known in
Bohemian annals as "the winter king." A single battle, won by
Count Tilly, in the service of the Catholic League and of its
chief, Maximilian, Duke of Bavaria, ended his sovereignty. He
lost his Electorate as well as his kingdom, and was a
wandering fugitive for the remainder of his life. Bohemia was
mercilessly dealt with by the victorious Ferdinand. Not only
was Protestantism crushed, and Catholicism established as the
exclusive religion, but the very life of the country,
intellectually and materially, was extinguished; so that
Bohemia never again stood related to the civilization of
Europe as it had stood before, when Prague was an important
center of learning and thought. To a less extent, Austria
suffered the same repression, and its Protestantism was
uprooted.
In this sketch it is unnecessary to follow the details of the
frightful Thirty Years War, which began as here described.
During the first years it was carried on mainly by the troops
of the Catholic League, under Tilly, acting against Protestant
forces which had very little coherence or unity, and which
were led by Count Mansfield, Christian of Anhalt, and other
nobles, in considerable independence of one another. In 1625
the first intervention from outside occurred. Christian IV. of
Denmark took up the cause of threatened Protestantism. As Duke
of Schleswig-Holstein, he was a prince of the Empire, and he
joined with other Protestant princes in condemning the
deposition of the Elector-Palatine, whose electorate had been
conferred on Maximilian of Bavaria. King Christian entered
into an alliance with England and Holland, which powers
promised help for the reinstatement of the Elector. But the
aid given was trifling, and slight successes which Christian
and his German allies obtained against Tilly were soon changed
to serious reverses.
Wallenstein.
For the first time during the war, the Emperor now brought
into the field an army acting in his own name, and not in that
of the League. It was done in a singular manner—by contract,
so to speak, with a great soldier and wealthy nobleman, the
famous Wallenstein. Wallenstein offered to the Emperor the
services of an army of 50,000 men, which he would raise and
equip at his own expense, and which should be maintained
without public cost—that is, by plunder. His proposal was
accepted, and the formidable body of trained and powerfully
handled brigands was launched upon Germany, for the torture
and destruction of every region in which it moved. It was the
last appearance in European warfare of the "condottiere" of
the Middle Ages. Wallenstein and Tilly swept all before them.
The former failed only before the stubborn town of Stralsund,
which defied his siege. Mansfield and Christian of Anhalt both
died in 1627. Peace was forced upon the Danish king. The
Protestant cause was prostrate, and the Emperor despised its
weakness so far that he issued an "Edict of Restitution,"
commanding the surrender of certain bishoprics and
ecclesiastical estates which had fallen into Protestant hands
since the Treaty of Passau. At the same time, he yielded to
the jealousy which Wallenstein's power had excited, by
dismissing that commander from his service.
Gustavus Adolphus.
The time was an unfavorable one for such an experiment. A new
and redoubtable champion of Protestantism had just appeared on
the scene and was about to revive the war. This was Gustavus
Adolphus, King of Sweden, who had ambitions, grievances and
religious sympathies, all urging him to rescue the Protestant
states of Germany from the Austrian-Catholic despotism which
seemed to be impending over them. His interference was
jealously resented at first by the greater Protestant princes.
The Elector of Brandenburg submitted to an alliance with him
only under compulsion. The Elector of Saxony did not join the
Swedish king until (1631) Tilly had ravaged his territories
with ferocity, burning 200 villages. When Gustavus had made
his footing in the country secure, he quickly proved himself
the greatest soldier of his age. Tilly was overwhelmed in a
battle fought on the Breitenfeld, at Leipsic. The following
spring he was again beaten, on the Lech, in Bavaria, and died
of wounds received in the battle. Meantime, the greater part
of Germany was at the feet of the Swedish king; and a sincere
co-operation between him and the German princes would probably
have ended the war. But small confidence existed between these
allies, and Richelieu, the shrewd Cardinal who was ruling
France, had begun intrigues which made the Thirty Years War
profitable in the end to France. The victories of Gustavus
seemed to bear little fruit. Wallenstein was summoned once
more to save the Emperor's cause, and reappeared in the field
with 40,000 men. The heroic Swede fought him at Lützen, on the
16th of November, 1632, and routed him, but fell in the battle
among the slain.
{1073}
With the death of Gustavus Adolphus, the possibility of a
satisfactory conclusion of the war vanished. The Swedish army
remained in Germany, under the military command of Duke
Bernhard of Saxe Weimar and General Horn, but under the
political direction of Axel Oxenstiern, the able Swedish
Chancellor. On the Imperial side, Wallenstein again incurred
distrust and suspicion. His power was so formidable that his
enemies were afraid to let him live. They plotted his death by
assassination, and he was murdered on the 25th of February,
1634. The Emperor's son Ferdinand now took the command of the
Imperial forces, and, a few months later, having received
reinforcements from Spain, he had the good fortune to defeat
the Swedes at Nördlingen.
The French in the War.
The Elector of Saxony, and other Protestant princes, then made
peace with the Emperor, and the war was only prolonged by the
intrigues of Richelieu and for the aggrandizement of France.
In this final stage of it, when the original elements of
contention, and most of the original contestants, had
disappeared, it lasted for yet fourteen years. Ferdinand II.
died in 1637, and was succeeded by his son Ferdinand III. Duke
Bernhard died in 1639. In the later years of the war,
Piccolomini on the Imperial side, Baner, Torstenson and
Wrangel at the head of the Swedes, and Turenne and Condé in
command of the French, were the soldiers who made great names.
Destructiveness of the War.
In 1648, the long suffering of Germany was eased by the Peace
of Westphalia. Years of quiet, and of order fairly restored,
would be needed to heal the bleeding wounds of the country and
revive its strength. From end to end, it had been trampled
upon for a generation by armies which plundered and destroyed
as they passed. There is nothing more sickening in the annals
of war than the descriptions which eye-witnesses have left of
the misery, the horror, the desolation of that frightful
period in German history. "Especially in the south and west,
Germany was a wilderness of ruins; places that were formerly
the seats of prosperity were the haunts of wolves and robbers
for many a long year. It is estimated that the population was
diminished by twenty, by some even by fifty, per cent. The
population of Augsburg was reduced from 80,000 to 18,000; of
Frankenthal, from 18,000 to 324 inhabitants. In Würtemberg, in
1641, of 400,000 inhabitants, 48,000 remained; in the
Palatinate, in 1636, there were 201 peasant farmers; and in
1648, but a fiftieth part of the population remained"
(Häusser).
The Peace of Westphalia.
By the treaties of Westphalia, the religious question was
settled with finality. Catholics, Lutherans, and the Reformed
(Calvinists), were put on an equal footing of religious
liberty. Politically, the effects of the Peace were radical
and lasting in their injury to the German people. The few
bonds of Germanic unity which had survived the reign of
feudalism were dissolved. The last vestige of authority in the
Empire was destroyed. "From this time Germany long remained a
mere lax confederation of petty despotisms and oligarchies
with hardly any national feeling. Its boundaries too were cut
short in various ways. The independence of the two free
Confederations at the two ends of the Empire, those of
Switzerland and the United Provinces, which had long been
practically cut off from the Empire, was now formally
acknowledged. And, what was far more important, the two
foreign kingdoms which had had the chief share in the war,
France and Sweden, obtained possessions within the Empire, and
moreover, as guarantors or sureties of the peace, they
obtained a general right of meddling in its affairs." "The
right of France to the 'Three Lotharingian Bishoprics,' which
had been seized nearly a hundred years before, was now
formally acknowledged, and, besides this, the possessions and
rights of the House of Austria in Elsass, the German land
between the Rhine and the Vosges, called in France Alsace,
were given to France. The free city of Strasburg and other
places in Elsass still remained independent, but the whole of
South Germany now lay open to France. This was the greatest
advance that France had yet made at the expense of the Empire.
Within Germany itself the Elector of Brandenburg also received
a large increase of territory" (Freeman).
Among the treaties which made up the Peace of Westphalia was
one signed by Spain, acknowledging the independence of the
United Provinces, and renouncing all claims to them.
France under Richelieu.
The great gains of France from the Thirty Years War were part
of the fruit of bold and cunning statesmanship which Richelieu
had ripened and plucked for that now rising nation. For a time
after the death of Henry IV., chaos had seemed likely to
return again in France. His son, Louis XIII., was but nine
years old. The mother, Marie de' Medici, who secured the
regency, was a foolish woman, ruled by Italian favorites, who
made themselves odious to the French people. As soon as the
young king approached manhood, he put himself in opposition to
his mother and her favorites, under the influence of a set of
rivals no more worthy, and France was carried to the verge of
civil war by their puerile hostilities. Happily there was
something in the weak character of Louis XIII. which bent him
under the influence of a really great mind when circumstances
had brought him within its reach. Richelieu entered the King's
council in 1624. The king was soon an instrument in his hands,
and he ruled France, as though the scepter was his own, for
eighteen years. He was as pitiless a despot as ever set heel
on a nation's neck; but the power which he grasped with what
seemed to be a miserly and commonplace greed, was all gathered
for the aggrandizement of the monarchy that he served. He
believed that the nation needed to have one master, sole and
unquestioned in his sovereignty. That he enjoyed being that
one master, in reality, while he lived, is hardly doubtful;
but his whole ambition is not so explained. He wrought
according to his belief for France, and the king, in his eyes,
was the embodiment of France. He erected the pedestal on which
"the grand monarch" of the next generation posed with
theatrical effect.
{1074}
Three things Richelieu did;
1. He enforced the royal authority, with inexorable rigor,
against the great families and personages, who had not
learned, even under Henry IV., that they were subjects in the
absolute sense.
2. He struck the Huguenots, not as a religious sect, but as a
political party, and peremptorily stopped their growth of
strength in that character, which had clearly become
threatening to the state.
3. He organized hostility in Europe to the overbearing and
dangerous Austro-Spanish power, put France at the head of it,
and took for her the lion's share of the conquests by which
the Hapsburgs were reduced.
Mazarin and the Fronde.
The great Cardinal died near the close of the year 1642; and
Louis XIII. followed him to the grave in the succeeding May,
leaving a son, Louis XIV., not yet five years of age, under
the regency of his mother, Anne of Austria. The minister,
Cardinal Mazarin, who enjoyed the confidence of the
queen-regent, and who was supposed to enjoy her affections as
well, had been Richelieu's disciple, and took the helm of
government on Richelieu's recommendation. He was an adroit
politician, with some statesmanlike sagacity, but he lacked
the potent spirit by which his master had awed and ruled every
circle into which he came, great or small. Mazarin had the
Thirty Years War to bring to a close, and he managed the
difficult business with success, wasting nothing of the effect
of the brilliant victories of Condé and Turenne. But the war had
been very costly. Mazarin was no better financier than
Richelieu had been before him, and the burdens of taxation
were greater than wise management would have made them. There
was inevitable discontent, and Mazarin, as a foreigner, was
inevitably unpopular. With public feeling in this state, the
Court involved itself in a foolish conflict with the
Parliament of Paris, and presently there was a Paris
revolution and a civil war afoot (1649). It was a strange
affair of froth and empty rages—this war of "The Fronde," as
it was called—having no depth of earnestness in it and no
honesty of purpose anywhere visible in its complications. The
men and women who sprang to a lead in it—the women more
actively and rancorously than the men—were mere actors of
parts in a great play of court intrigue, for the performance
of which unhappy France had lent its grand stage. There seems
to have been never, in any other civil conflict which history
describes, so extraordinary a mixture of treason and
libertinism, of political and amorous intrigue, of
heartlessness and frivolity, of hot passion and cool
selfishness. The people who fought most and suffered most
hardly appear as noticeable factors in the contest. The court
performers amused themselves with the stratagems and bloody
doings of the war as they might have done with the tricks of a
masquerade.
It was in keeping with the character of the Frondeurs that
they went into alliance, at last, with Spain, and that, even
after peace within the nation had been restored, "the Great
Condé" remained in the Spanish service and fought against his
own countrymen. Mazarin regained control of affairs, and
managed them on the whole ably and well. He brought about an
alliance with England, under Cromwell, and humbled Spain to
the acceptance of a treaty which considerably raised the
position of France among the European Powers. By this Treaty
of the Pyrenees (1659), the northwestern frontier of the
kingdom was both strengthened and advanced; Lorraine was shorn
of some of its territory and prepared for the absorption which
followed after no long time; there were gains made on the side
of the Pyrenees; and, finally, Louis XIV. was wedded to the
infanta of Spain, with solemn renunciations on her part, for
herself and her descendants, of all claims upon the Spanish
crown, or upon Flanders, or Burgundy, or Charolais. Not a
claim was extinguished by these solemn renunciations, and the
Treaty of the Pyrenees is made remarkable by the number of
serious wars and important events to which it gave rise.
Cardinal Mazarin died in 1661 and the government was assumed
personally by Louis XIV., then twenty-three years old.
England Under the Stuarts.
While Germany and France had, each in turn, been disordered by
extremely unlike civil wars, one to the unmitigated
devastation and prostration of the land, the other to the
plain putting in proof of the nothingness of the nation at
large, as against its monarchy and court, the domestic peace
of England had been ruffled in a very different way, and with
very different effects.
The death of Queen Elizabeth united the crown of England with
that of Scotland, on the head of James, son of the unhappy
Mary Stuart. In England he was James I., in Scotland James VI.
His character combined shrewdness in some directions with the
most foolish simplicity in others. He was not vicious, he was
not in any particular a bad man; but he was exasperating in
his opinionated self-conceit, and in his gaucheries of mind
and body. The Englishmen of those days did not love the Scots;
and, all things considered, we may wonder, perhaps, that James
got on so well as he did with his English subjects. He had
high notions of kingship, and a superlative opinion of his own
king-craft, as he termed the art of government. He scarcely
deviated from the arbitrary lines which Elizabeth had laid
down, though he had nothing of Elizabeth's popularity. He
offended the nation by truckling to its old enemy, the King of
Spain, and pressing almost shamefully for a marriage of his
elder son to the Spanish infanta. The favorites he enriched
and lavished honors upon were insolent upstarts. His treatment
of the growing Puritanism in English religious feeling was
contemptuous. There was scarcely a point on which any
considerable number of his subjects could feel in agreement
with him, or entertain towards him a cordial sentiment of
loyalty or respect. Yet his reign of twenty-two years was
disturbed by nothing more serious than the fatuous "gunpowder
plot" (1605) of a few discontented Catholics. But his son had
to suffer the retarded consequences of a loyalty growing weak,
on one side, while royalty strained its prerogatives on the
other.
The reign of James I. witnessed the effective beginnings of
English colonization in America,—the planting of a durable
settlement in Virginia and the migration of the Pilgrim
Fathers to New England. The latter movement (1620) was one of
voluntary exile, produced by the hard treatment inflicted on
those "Separatists" or "Independents" who could not reconcile
themselves to a state-established Church. Ten years later, the
Pilgrim movement, of Independents, was followed by the greater
migration of Puritans—quite different in class, in character
and in spirit.
{1075}
Charles. I.
James died in 1625, and the troubled reign of his son, Charles
I., began. Charles took over from his father a full measure of
popular discontent, along with numerous active springs in
operation for increasing it. The most productive of these was
the favorite, Buckingham, who continued to be the sole
counselor and minister of the young king, as he had been of
the older one, and who was utterly hateful to England, for
good reasons of incapacity and general worthlessness. In the
king himself, though he had virtues, there was a coldness and
a falsity of nature which were sure to widen the breach
between him and his people.
Failing the Spanish marriage, Charles had wedded (1624) a
French princess, Henrietta Maria, sister of Louis XIII. The
previous subserviency to Spain had then been followed by a war
with that country, which came to Charles among his
inheritances, and which Buckingham mismanaged, to the shame of
England. In 1627 another war began, but this time with France,
on account of the Huguenots besieged at La Rochelle. Again the
meddlesome hand of Buckingham wrought disaster and national
disgrace, and public indignation was greatly stirred. When
Parliament endeavored to call the incapable minister to
account, and to obtain some security for a better management
of affairs, the king dissolved it. Twice was this done, and
Charles and his favorite employed every arbitrary and
questionable device that could be contrived for them, to raise
money without need of the representatives of the people. At
length, in 1628, they were driven to face a third Parliament,
in order to obtain supplies. By this time the Commons of
England were wrought up to a high and determined assertion of
their rights, as against the Crown, and the Puritans had
gained a majority in the popular representation. In the lower
House of Parliament, therefore, the demands of the king for
money were met by a counter-demand for guarantees to protect
the people from royal encroachments on their liberties. The
Commons were resolute, and Charles gave way to them, signing
with much reluctance the famous instrument known as the
"Petition of Right," which pledged the Crown to abstain in
future from forced loans, from taxes imposed without
Parliamentary grant, from arbitrary imprisonments, without
cause shown, and from other despotic proceedings. In return
for his signature to the Petition of Right, Charles received a
grant of money; but the Commons refused to authorize his
collection of certain customs duties, called Tonnage and
Poundage, beyond a single year, and it began attacks on
Buckingham,—whereupon the king prorogued it. Shortly
afterwards Buckingham was assassinated; a second expedition to
relieve Rochelle failed miserably; and early in 1629
Parliament was assembled again. This time the Puritan temper
of the House began to show itself in measures to put a stop to
some revivals of ancient ceremony which had appeared in
certain churches. At the same time officers of the king, who
had seized goods belonging to a member of the House, for
non-payment of Tonnage and Poundage, were summoned to the bar
to answer for it. The king protected them, and a direct
conflict of authority arose. On the 2d of March, the king sent
an order to the Speaker of the House of Commons for
adjournment; but the Speaker was forcibly held in his chair,
and not permitted to announce the adjournment, until three
resolutions had been read and adopted, denouncing as an enemy
to the kingdom every person who brought in innovations in
religion, or who advised the levying of Tonnage and Poundage
without parliamentary grant, or who voluntarily paid such
duties, so levied. This done, the members dispersed; the king
dissolved Parliament immediately, and his resolution was taken
to govern England thenceforth on his own authority, with no
assembly of the representatives of the people to question or
criticise him. He held to that determination for eleven years,
during which long time no Parliament sat in England, and the
Constitution was practically obliterated.
The leaders of the Commons in their recent proceedings were
arrested and imprisoned. Sir John Eliot, the foremost of them,
died in harsh confinement within the Tower, and others were
held in long custody, refusing to recognize the jurisdiction
of the king's judges over things done in Parliament.
Wentworth and Laud.
One man, of great ability, who had stood at the beginning with
Sir John Eliot, and acted with the party which opposed the
king, now went over to the side of the latter and rose high in
royal favor, until he came in the end to be held chiefly
responsible for the extreme absolutism to which the government
of Charles was pushed. This was Sir Thomas Wentworth, made
Earl of Strafford at a later day, in the tardy rewarding of
his services. But William Laud, Bishop of London, and
afterwards Archbishop of Canterbury, was the evil counselor of
the king, much more than Wentworth, in the earlier years of
the decade of tyranny. It was Laud's part to organize the
system of despotic monarchy on its ecclesiastical side; to
uproot Puritanism and all dissent, and to cast religion for
England and for Scotland in one mould, as rigid as that of
Rome.
For some years, the English nation seemed terrorized or
stupefied by the audacity of the complete overthrow of its
Constitution. The king and his servants might easily imagine
that the day of troublesome Parliaments and of inconvenient
laws was passed. At least in those early years of their
success, it can scarcely have occurred to their minds that a
time of accounting for broken laws, and for the violated
pledges of the Petition of Right, might come at the end. At
all events they went their way with seeming satisfaction, and
tested, year by year, the patient endurance of a people which
has always been slow to move. Their courts of Star Chamber and
of High Commission, finding a paramount law in the will and
pleasure of the king, imprisoned, fined, pilloried, flogged
and mutilated in quite the spirit of the Spanish Inquisition,
though they did not burn.
{1076}
They collected Tonnage and Poundage without parliamentary
consent, and servile judges enforced the payment. They
invented a claim for "ship-money" (in commutation of an
ancient demand for ships to serve in the King's navy) from
inland towns and counties, as well as from the commercial
ports; and when John Hampden, a squire in Buckinghamshire,
refused payment of the unlawful tax, their obedient judges
gave judgment against him. And still the people endured; but
they were laying up in memory many things, and gathering a
store of reasons for the action that would by and by begin.
Rebellion in Scotland.
At last, it was Scotland, not England, that moved to rebel.
Laud and the king had determined to break down Presbyterianism
in the northern kingdom and to force a Prayer Book on the
Scottish Church. There was a consequent riot at St. Giles, in
Edinburgh (1637); Jenny Geddes threw her stool at the bishop,
and Scotland presently was in revolt, signing a National
Covenant and defying the king. Charles, attempting to frighten
the resolute Scots with an army which he could not pay, was
soon driven to a treaty with them (1639) which he had not
honesty enough to keep. Wentworth, who had been Lord Deputy of
Ireland since 1632, and who had framed a model of absolutism
in that island, for the admiration of his colleagues in
England, now returned to the king's side and became his chief
adviser. He counselled the calling of a Parliament, as the
only means by which English help could be got for the
restoring of royal authority in Scotland. The Parliament was
summoned and met in April, 1640. At once, it showed a temper
which alarmed the king and he dissolved it in three weeks.
Again Charles made the attempt to put down his Scottish
subjects without help from an English Parliament, and again
the attempt failed.
The Long Parliament.
Then the desperate king summoned another Parliament, which
concentrated in itself, when it came together, the suppressed
rebellion that had been in the heart of England for ten years,
and which broke his flimsy fabric of absolutism, almost at a
single blow. It was the famous Long Parliament of English
history, which met in November, 1640, and which ruled England
for a dozen years, until it gave way to the Cromwellian
dictatorship. It sent Laud and Strafford to the Tower,
impeached the latter and brought him to the block, within six
months from the beginning of its session; and the king gave up
his minister to the vengeance of the angry Commons with hardly
one honest attempt to protect him. Laud waited in prison five
years before he suffered the same fate. The Parliament
declared itself to be indissoluble by any royal command; and
the king assented. It abolished the Star Chamber and the Court
of High Commission; and the king approved. It swept
ship-money, and forest claims, and all of Charles' lawless
money-getting devices into the limbo; and he put his signature
to its bills. But all the time he was intriguing with the
Scots for armed help to overthrow his masterful English
Parliament, and he was listening to Irish emissaries who
offered an army for the same purpose, on condition that
Ireland' should be surrendered to the Catholics.
Civil War.
Charles had arranged nothing on either of these treacherous
plans, nor had he gained anything yet from the division
between radicals and moderates that was beginning to show
itself in the popular party, when he suddenly brought the
strained situation to a crisis, in January, 1642, by his most
foolish and arrogant act. He invaded the House of Commons in
person, with a large body of armed men, for the purpose of
arresting five members—Pym, Hampden, Holles, Hazlerigg and
Strode—whom he accused of having negotiated treasonably with
the Scots in 1640. The five members escaped; the House
appealed to the citizens of London for protection; king and
Parliament began immediately to raise troops; the nation
divided and arrayed itself on the two sides,—most of the
gentry, the Cavaliers, supporting the king, and most of the
Puritan middle-class, wearing close-cut hair and receiving the
name Roundheads, being ranged in the party of Parliament. They
came to blows in October, when the first battle was fought, at
Edgehill.
In the early period of the war, the parliamentary forces were
commanded by the Earl of Essex; and Sir Thomas Fairfax was
their general at a later stage; but the true leader on that
side, for war and for politics alike, was soon found in Oliver
Cromwell, a member of Parliament, whose extraordinary capacity
was first shown in the military organization of the Eastern
Counties, from which he came. After 1645, when the army was
remodeled, with Cromwell as second in rank, his real
chieftainship was scarcely disguised. The decisive battle of
the war was fought that year at Naseby, where the king's cause
suffered an irrecoverable defeat.
The Presbyterians of Scotland had now allied themselves with
the English Roundheads, on condition that the Church of
England should be remodeled in the Presbyterian form. The
Puritan majority in Parliament being favorable to that form, a
Solemn League and Covenant between the two nations had been
entered into, in 1643, and an Assembly of Divines was convened
at Westminster to frame the contemplated system of the Church.
But the Independents, who disliked Presbyterianism, and who
were more tolerantly inclined in their views, had greatly
increased in numbers, and some of the stronger men on the
Parliament side, including Cromwell, the strongest of all,
were among them. This difference brought about a sharp
struggle within the popular party for the control of the
fruits of the triumph now beginning to seem secure. Under
Cromwell, the Army became a powerful organization of religious
Independency, while Parliament sustained Presbyterianism, and
the two stood against each other as rival powers in the state.
{1077}
At the beginning of the year 1646 the fortunes of Charles had
fallen very low. His partisan, Montrose, in Scotland, had been
beaten; his intrigues in Ireland, for the raising of a
Catholic army, had only alarmed and disgusted his English
friends; he was at the end of his resources, and he gave
himself up to the Scots. The latter, in conjunction with the
Presbyterian majority in Parliament, were willing to make
terms with him, and restore him to his throne; on conditions
which included the signing of the Covenant and the
establishing of Presbyterianism in the Churches of both
kingdoms. He refused the proposal, being deluded by a belief
that the quarrel of Independents and Presbyterians would open
his way to the recovery of power without any concessions at
all. The Scots then surrendered him to the English, and he was
held in confinement by the latter for the next two years,
scheming and pursuing intrigues in many directions, and
convincing all who dealt with him that his purposes were never
straightforward—that he was faithless and false to the core.
Ill-will and suspicion, meanwhile, were widening the breach
between Parliament and the Army. Political and religious
agitators were gaining influence in the latter and republican
ideas were spreading fast. At length (December, 1648), the
Army took matters into its own hands; expelled from Parliament
those members who favored a reconciliation with the king, on
the basis of a Presbyterian establishment of the Church, and
England passed under military rule. The "purged" Parliament
(or rather the purged House of Commons, which now set the
House of Lords aside, declaring itself to be the sole and
supreme power in the state) brought King Charles to trial in
the following month, before a High Court of Justice created
for the occasion. He was convicted of treason, in making war
upon his subjects, and was beheaded on the 30th of January,
1649.
The Commonwealth and the Protectorate.
The king being thus disposed of, the House of Commons
proclaimed England a Commonwealth, "without a King or House of
Lords," took to itself the name of Parliament, and appointed
an executive Council of State, forty-one in number. The new
government, in its first year, had a rebellion in Ireland to
deal with, and sent Cromwell to the scene. He crushed it with
a merciless hand. The next year Scotland was in arms, for the
late king's son, now called Charles II., who had entered the
country, accepted Presbyterianism, and signed the Covenant.
Again Cromwell was the man for the occasion, and in a campaign
of two months he ended the Scottish war, with such decision that
he had no more fighting to do on English or Scottish soil
while he lived. There was war with the Dutch in 1652, 1653 and
1654, over questions of trade, and the long roll of English naval
victories was opened by the great soldier-seaman, Robert
Blake.
But the power which upheld and carried forward all things at
this time was the power of Oliver Cromwell, master of the
Army, and, therefore, master of the Commonwealth. The
surviving fragment of the Long Parliament was an anomaly, a
fiction; men called it "the Rump." In April, 1653, Cromwell
drove the members of it from their chamber and formally took
to himself the reins of government which in fact he had been
holding before. A few months later he received from his
immediate supporters the title of Lord Protector, and an
Instrument of Government was framed, which served as a
constitution during the next three years. Cromwell was as
unwilling as Charles had been to share the government with a
freely elected and representative Parliament. The first House
which he called together was dissolved at the end of five
months (1655), because it persisted in discussing a revision
of the constitution. His second Parliament, which he summoned
the following year, required to be purged by the arbitrary
exclusion of about a hundred members before it could be
brought to due submission. This tractable body then made
certain important changes in the constitution, by an enactment
called the "Humble Petition and Advice." It created a second
house, to take the place of the House of Lords, and gave to
the Lord Protector the naming of persons to be life-members of
such upper house. It also gave to the Protector the right of
appointing his own successor, a right which Cromwell exercised
on his death-bed, in 1658, by designating his son Richard.
The responsible rule of Cromwell, from the expulsion of the
Rump and his assumption of the dignity of Lord Protector,
covered only the period of five years. But in that brief time
he made the world respect the power of England as it had never
been respected before. His government at home was as absolute
and arbitrary as the government of the Stuarts, but it was
infinitely wiser and more just. Cromwell was a statesman of
the higher order; a man of vast power, in intellect and will.
That he did not belong to the yet higher order of commanding
men, whose statesmanship is pure in patriotism and uncolored
by selfish aims, is proved by his failure to even plan a more
promising settlement of the government of England than that
which left it, an anomalous Protectorate, to a man without
governing qualities, who happened to be his son.
Restoration of the Stuarts.
Richard Cromwell was brushed aside after eight months of an
absurd attempt to play the part of Lord Protector. The
officers of the Army and the resuscitated Rump Parliament,
between them, managed affairs, in a fashion, for almost a
year, and then they too were pushed out of the way by the army
which had been stationed in Scotland, under General George
Monk. By the action of Monk, with the consent, and with more
than the consent, of England at large, the Stuart monarchy was
restored. Charles II. was invited to return, and in May, 1660,
he took his seat on the re-erected throne.
The nation, speaking generally, was tired of a military
despotism; tired of Puritan austerity; tired of revolution and
political uncertainty;—so tired that it threw itself down at
the feet of the most worthless member of the most worthless
royal family in its history, and gave itself up to him without
a condition or a guarantee. For twenty-five years it endured
both oppression and disgrace at his hands. It suffered him to
make a brothel of his Court; to empty the national purse into
the pockets of his shameless mistresses and debauched
companions; to revive the ecclesiastical tyranny of Laud; to
make a crime of the religious creeds and the worship of more
than half his subjects; to sell himself and sell the honor of
England to the king of France for a secret pension, and to be
in every possible way as ignoble and despicable as his father
had been arrogant and false. When he died, in 1685, the
prospects of the English nation were not improved by the
accession of his brother, the Duke of York, who became James
II.
{1078}
James had more honesty than his brother or his father; but the
narrowness and meanness of the Stuart race were in his blood.
He had made himself intolerable; to his subjects, both English
and Scotch, by entering the Catholic Church, openly, while
Charles was believed to have done the same in secret. His
religion was necessarily bigotry, because of the smallness of
his nature, and he opposed it to the Protestantism of the
kingdom with a kind of brutal aggressiveness. In the first
year of his reign there was a rebellion undertaken, in the
interest of a bastard son of Charles II., called Duke of
Monmouth; but it was savagely put down, first by force of
arms, at Sedgemoor, and afterwards by the "bloody assizes" of
the ruthless Judge Jeffreys. Encouraged by this success
against his enemies James began to ignore the "Test Act,"
which excluded Catholics from office, and to surround himself
by men of his own religion. The Test Act was an unrighteous
law, and the "Declaration of Indulgence" which James issued,
for the toleration of Catholics and Dissenters, was just in
principle, according to the ideas of later times; but the
action of the king with respect to both was, nevertheless, a
gross and threatening violation of law. England had submitted
to worse conduct from Charles II., but its Protestant temper
was now roused, and the loyalty of the subject was consumed by
the fierceness of the Churchman's wrath. James' daughter,
Mary, and her husband, William, Prince of Orange, were invited
from Holland to come over and displace the obnoxious father
from his throne. They accepted the invitation, November, 1688;
the nation rose to welcome them; James fled,—and the great
Revolution, which ended arbitrary monarchy in England forever,
and established constitutional government on clearly defined
and lasting bases, was accomplished without the shedding of a
drop of blood.
The House of Orange and the Dutch Republic.
William of Orange, who thus acquired a place in the line of
English kings, held, at the same time, the nearly regal office
of Stadtholder of Holland; but the office had not remained
continuously in his family since William the Silent, whose
great-grandson he was. Maurice, the son of the murdered
William the Silent, had been chosen to the stadtholdership
after his father's death, and had carried forward his father's
work with success, so far as concerned the liberation of the
United Provinces from the Spanish yoke. He was an abler
soldier than William, but not his equal as a statesman, nor as
a man. The greater statesman of the period was John of
Barneveldt, between whom and the Stadtholder an opposition
grew up which produced jealousy and hostility, more especially
on the part of the latter. A shameful religious conflict had
arisen at this time between the Calvinists, who numbered most
of the clergy in their ranks, and a dissenting body, led by
Jacob Hermann, or Arminius, which protested against the
doctrine of predestination. Barneveldt favored the Arminians.
The Stadtholder, Maurice, without any apparent theological
conviction in the matter, threw his whole weight of influence
on the side of the Calvinists; and was able, with the help of
the Calvinist preachers, to carry the greater part of the
common people into that faction. The Arminians were everywhere
put down as heretics, barred from preaching or teaching, and
otherwise silenced and ill treated. It is a singular fact
that, at the very time of this outburst of Calvinistic fury,
the Dutch were exhibiting otherwise a far more tolerant temper
in religion than any other people in Europe, and had thrown
open their country as a place of shelter for the persecuted of
other lands,—both Christian sectaries and Jews. We infer,
necessarily, that the bitterness of the Calvinists against the
Arminians was more political than religious in its source, and
that the source is really traceable to the fierce ambition of
Prince Maurice, and the passion of the party which supported
his suspicious political aims.
Barneveldt lost influence as the consequence of the
Calvinistic triumph, and was exposed helplessly to the
vindictive hatred of Prince Maurice, who did not scruple to
cause his arrest, his trial and execution (1619), on charges
which none believed. Maurice, whose memory is blackened by
this great crime, died in 1625, and was succeeded by his
half-brother, Frederic Henry. The war with Spain had been
renewed in 1621, at the end of the twelve years truce, and
more than willingly renewed; for the merchant class, and the
maritime interest in the cities which felt secure, preferred
war to peace. Under a hostile flag they pushed their commerce
into Spanish and Portuguese seas from which a treaty of peace
would undoubtedly exclude them; and, so long as Spanish
American silver fleets were afloat, the spoils of ocean war
were vastly enriching. It was during these years of war that
the Dutch got their footing on the farther sides of the world,
and nearly won the mastery of the sea which their slower but
stronger English rivals wrested from them in the end. Not
until the general Peace of Westphalia, in 1648, was a final
settlement of issues between Spain and the United Provinces
brought about. The freedom and independence of the Provinces,
as sovereign states, was then acknowledged by the humbled
Spaniard, and favorable arrangements of trade were conceded to
them. The southern, Catholic Provinces, which Spain had held,
were retained in their subjection to her.
Frederic Henry, the third Stadtholder, was succeeded in 1647
by his son, William II. The latter wasted his short career of
less than four years in foolish plotting to revolutionize the
government and transform the stadtholdership into a monarchy,
supported by France, for the help of which country he seemed
willing to pay any base and treasonable price. Dying suddenly
in the midst of his scheming, he left an unborn son—the
future William III. of England—who came into the world a week
after his father had left it. Under these circumstances the
stadtholdership was suspended, with strong feelings against
the revival of it, resulting from the conduct of William II.
The lesser provinces then fell under the domination of
Holland—so much so that the name of Holland began soon to be
applied to the confederation at large, and is very commonly
used with that meaning for a long subsequent time. The chief
minister of the Estates of Holland, known as the Grand
Pensionary, became the practical head of the federal
government. After 1653 the office of Grand Pensionary was
filled by a statesman of high ability, John de Witt, the chief
end of whose policy appears to have been the prevention of the
return of the House of Orange to power. The government thus
administered, and controlled by the commercial class, was
successful in promoting the general prosperity of the
provinces, and in advancing their maritime importance and
power.
{1079}
It conducted two wars with England—one with the Commonwealth
and one with the restored monarchy—and could claim at least
an equal share of the naval glory won in each. But it
neglected the land defense of the country, and was found
shamefully unprepared in 1672, when the Provinces were
attacked by a villainous combination, formed between Louis
XIV. of France and his servile pensioner, Charles II. of
England. The republic, humbled and distressed by the rushing
conquests of the French, fixed its hopes upon the young Prince
of Orange, heir to the prestige of a great historic name, and
turned its wrath against the party of De Witt. The Prince was
made Stadtholder, despite the opposition of John de Witt, and
the latter, with his brother Cornelius, was murdered by a mob
at Amsterdam. William of Orange proved both wise and heroic as
a leader, and the people were roused to a new energy of
resistance by his appeals and his example. They cut their
dykes and flooded the land, subjecting themselves to
unmeasured loss and distress, but peremptorily stopping the
French advance, until time was gained for awakening public
feeling in Europe against the aggressions of the unscrupulous
French king. Then William of Orange began that which was to be
his great and important mission in life,—the organizing of
resistance to Louis XIV. Without the foresight and penetration
of French designs which he evinced,—without his unflagging
exertions for the next thirty years,—without his diplomatic
tact, his skill of management, his patience in war, his
obstinate perseverance,—it seems to be a certainty that the
ambitious "grand monarch," concentrating the whole power of
France in himself, would have been able to break the
surrounding nations one by one, and they would not have
combined their strength for an effective self-protection. The
revolution of 1688-9 in England, which gave the crown of that
kingdom to William, and his wife Mary, contributed greatly to
his success, and was an event nearly as important in European
politics at large as it was in the constitutional history of
Great Britain.
Germany after the Thirty Years War.
In a natural order of things, Germany should have supplied the
main resistance to Louis XIV. and held his unscrupulous
ambition in check. But Germany had fallen to its lowest state
of political demoralization and disorder. The very idea of
nationality had disappeared. The Empire, even collapsed to the
Germanic sense, and even reduced to a frame and a form, had
almost vanished from practical affairs. The numerous petty
states which divided the German people stood apart from one
another, in substantial independence, and were sundered by
small jealousies and distrusts. Little absolute principalities
they were, each having its little court, which aped, in a
little way, the grand court of the grand monarch of
France—central object of the admiration and the envy of all
small souls in its time. Half of them were ready to bow down
to the splendid being at Versailles, and to be his creatures,
if he condescended to bestow a nod of patronage and attention
upon them. The French king had more influence among them than
their nominal Emperor. More and more distinctly the latter
drew apart in his immediate dominions as an Austrian
sovereign; and more and more completely Austrian interests and
Austrian policy became removed and estranged from the interests
of the Germanic people. The ambitions and the cares of the
House of Hapsburg were increasingly in directions most
opposite to the German side of its relations, tending towards
Italy and the southeast; while, at the same time, the narrow
church influence which depressed the Austrian states widened a
hopeless intellectual difference between them and the northern
German people.
Brandenburg.—Prussia.
The most notable movements in dull German affairs after the
Peace of Westphalia were those which connected themselves with
the settling and centering in Brandenburg of a nucleus of
growing power, around which the nationalizing of Germany has
been a crystalizing process ever since. The Mark of
Brandenburg was one of the earliest conquests (tenth century)
of the Germans from the Wends. Prussia, afterwards united with
Brandenburg, was a later conquest (thirteenth century) from
Wendish or Slavonic and other pagan inhabitants, and its
subjugation was a missionary enterprise, accomplished by the
crusading Order of Teutonic Knights, under the authority and
direction of the Pope. The Order, which held the country for
more than two centuries, and ruled it badly, became
degenerate, and about the middle of the fifteenth century it
was overcome in war by Casimir IV. of Poland, who took away
from it the western part of its territory, and forced it to do
homage to him for the eastern part, as a fief of the Polish
crown. Sixty years later, the Reformation movement in Germany
brought about the extinguishment of the Teutonic Order as a
political power. The Grand Master of the Order at that time
was Albert, a Hohenzollern prince, belonging to a younger
branch of the Brandenburg family. He became a Lutheran, and
succeeded in persuading the Polish king, Sigismund I., to
transfer the sovereignty of the East Prussian fief to him
personally, as a duchy. He transmitted it to his descendants,
who held it for a few generations; but the line became extinct
in 1618, and the Duchy of Prussia then passed to the elder
branch of the family and was united with Brandenburg. The Mark
of Brandenburg had been raised to the rank of an Electorate in
1356 and had been acquired by the Hohenzollern family in 1417.
The superior weight of the Brandenburg electors in northern
Germany may be dated from their acquisition of the important
Duchy of Prussia; but they made no mark on affairs until the
time of Frederick William I., called the Great Elector, who
succeeded to the Electorate in 1640, near the close of the
Thirty Years War. In the arrangements of the Peace of
Westphalia he secured East Pomerania and other considerable
additions of territory. In 1657 he made his Duchy of Prussia
independent of Poland, by treaty with the Polish king. In 1672
and 1674 he had the courage and the independence to join the
allies against Louis XIV., and when the Swedes, in alliance
with Louis, invaded his dominions, he defeated and humbled
them at Fehrbellen, and took from them the greater part of
their Pomeranian territory. When the Great Elector died, in
1688, Brandenburg was the commanding North-German power, and
the Hohenzollern family had fully entered on the great career
it has since pursued.
{1080}
Frederick William's son Frederick, with none of his father's
talent, had a pushing but shallow ambition. He aspired to be a
king, and circumstances made his friendship so important to
the Emperor Leopold I. that the latter, exercising the
theoretical super-sovereignty of the Cæsars, endowed him with
the regal title. He was made King of Prussia, not of
Brandenburg, because Brandenburg stood in vassalage to the
Empire, while Prussia was an independent state.
Poland and Russia.
When Brandenburg and Prussia united began to rise to
importance, the neighboring kingdom of Poland had already
passed the climax of its career. Under the Jagellon dynasty,
sprung from the Duke Jagellon of Lithuania, who married
Hedwig, Queen of Poland, in 1386, and united the two states,
Poland was a great power for two centuries, and seemed more
likely than Russia to dominate the Slavonic peoples of Europe.
The Russians at that time were under the feet of the Mongols
or Tartars, whose terrific sweep westwards, from the steppes
of Asia, had overwhelmed them completely and seemed to bring
their independent history to an end. Slowly a Russian duchy
had emerged, having its seat of doubtful sovereignty at
Moscow, and being subject quite humbly to the Mongol Khan.
About 1477 the Muscovite duke of that time, Ivan Vasilovitch,
broke the Tartar yoke and acquired independence. But his
dominion was limited. The Poles and Lithuanians, now united,
had taken possession of large and important territories
formerly Russian, and the Muscovite state was entirely cut off
from the Baltic. It began, however, in the next century, under
Ivan the Terrible, first of the Czars, to make conquests
southward and south-eastward, from the Tartars, until it had
reached the Caspian Sea. The dominion of the Czar stretched
northward, at the same time, to the White Sea, at the single
port of which trade was opened with the Russian country by
English merchant adventurers in the reign of Elizabeth. Late
in the sixteenth century the old line of rulers, descended
from the Scandinavian Ruric, came to an end, and after a few
years Michael Romanoff established the dynasty which has
reigned since his time.
As between the two principal Slavonic nations, Russia was now
gaining stability and weight, while Poland had begun to lose
both. It was a fatal day for the Poles when, in 1573, on the
death of the last of the Jagellons, they made their monarchy
purely elective, abolishing the restriction to one family
which had previously prevailed. The election was by the
suffrage of the nobles, not the people at large (who were
generally serfs), and the government became an oligarchy of
the most unregulated kind known in history. The crown was
stripped of power, and the unwillingness of the nobility to
submit to any national authority, even that of its own
assembly, reached a point, about the middle of the seventeenth
century, at which anarchy was virtually agreed upon as the
desirable political state. The extraordinary "liberum veto,"
then made part of the Polish constitution, gave to each single
member of the assemblies of the nobles, or of the deputies
representing them, a right to forbid any enactment, or to
arrest the whole proceedings of the body, by his unsupported
negative. This amazing prerogative appears to have been
exercised very rarely in its fullness; but its theoretical
existence effectually extinguished public spirit and paralyzed
all rational legislation. Linked with the singular feebleness
of the monarchy, it leaves small room for surprise at the
ultimate shipwreck of the Polish state.
The royal elections at Warsaw came to be prize contests at
which all Europe assisted. Every Court set up its candidate
for the paltry titular place; every candidate emptied his
purse into the Polish capital, and bribed, intrigued,
corrupted, to the best of his ability. Once, at least (1674),
when the game was on, a sudden breeze of patriotic feeling
swept the traffickers out of the diet, and inspired the
election of a national hero, John Sobieski, to whom Europe
owes much; for it was he who drove back the Turks, in 1683,
when their last bold push into central Europe was made, and
when they were storming at the gates of Vienna. But when
Sobieski died, in 1696, the old scandalous vendue of a crown
was re-opened, and the Elector of Saxony was the buyer. During
most of the last two centuries of its history, Poland sold its
throne to one alien after another, and allowed foreign states
to mix and meddle with its affairs. Of real nationality there
was not much left to extinguish when the time of extinction
came. There were patriots, and very noble patriots, among the
Poles, at all periods of their history; but it seems to have
been the very hopelessness of the state into which their
country had drifted which intensified their patriotic feeling.
Russia had acquired magnitude and strength as a barbaric
power, in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries; but it was
not until the reign of Peter the Great, which opened in 1682,
that the great Slavonic empire began to take on a European
character, with European interests and influences, and to
assimilate the civilization of the West. Peter may be said to
have knotted Russia to Europe at both extremities, by pushing
his dominions to the Baltic on the north and to the Black Sea
on the south, and by putting his own ships afloat in both.
From his day, Russia has been steadily gathering weight in
each of the two continents over which her vast bulk of empire
is stretched, and moving to a mysterious great destiny in time
to come.
The Turks.
The Turks, natural enemies of all the Christian races of
eastern and southeastern Europe, came practically to the end
of their threatening career of conquest about the middle of
the sixteenth century, when Suleiman the Magnificent died
(1566). He had occupied a great part of Hungary; seated a
pasha in Buda; laid siege to Vienna; taken Rhodes from the
Knights of St. John; attacked them in Malta; made an alliance
with the King of France; brought a Turkish fleet into the
western Mediterranean, and held Europe in positive terror of
an Ottoman domination for half a century. His son Selim added
Cyprus to the Turkish conquests; but was humbled in the
Mediterranean by the great Christian victory of Lepanto, won
by the combined fleets of Spain, Venice and the Pope, under
Don John of Austria. After that time Europe had no great fear
of the Turk; though he still fought hard with the Venetians,
the Poles, the Russians, the Hungarians, and, once more,
carried his arms even to Vienna. But, on the whole, it was a
losing fight; the crescent was on the wane.
{1081}
Last glories of Venice.
In the whole struggle with the Ottomans, through the
fifteenth, sixteenth, and seventeenth centuries, the republic
of Venice bore a noble part. She contested with them foot by
foot the Greek islands, Peloponnesus, and the eastern shores
of the Adriatic. Even after her commerce began to slip from
her control, and the strength which came from it sank rapidly,
she gave up her eastern possessions but slowly, one by one,
and after stout resistance. Crete cost the Turks a war of
twenty-four years (1645-1669). Fifteen years afterwards the
Venetians gathered their energies afresh, assumed the
aggressive, and conquered the whole Peloponnesus, which they
held for a quarter of a century. Then it was lost again, and
the Ionian Islands alone remained Venetian territory in the
East.
Rise of the House of Savoy.
Of Italy at large, in the seventeenth century, lying prostrate
under the heavy hand of Spain, there is no history to claim
attention in so brief a sketch as this. One sovereign family
in the northwest, long balanced on the Alps, in uncertainty
between a cis-Alpine and a trans-Alpine destiny, but now
clearly committed to Italian fortunes, had begun to win its
footing among the noticeable smaller powers of the day by
sheer dexterity of trimming and shifting sides in the
conflicts of the time. This was the House of Savoy, whose
first possessions were gathered in the crumbling of the old
kingdom of Burgundy, and lay on both slopes of the Alps,
commanding several important passes. On the western and
northern side, the counts, afterwards dukes, of Savoy had to
contend, as time went on, with the expanding kingdom of France
and with the stout-hearted communities which ultimately formed
the Swiss Confederacy. They fell back before both. At one
period, in the fifteenth century, their dominion had stretched
to the Saone, and to the lake of Neufchatel, on both sides of
it, surrounding the free city of Geneva, which they were never
able to overcome, and the lake of Geneva entire. After that
time, the Savoyards gradually lost territory on the Gallic
side and won compensations on the Italian side, in Piedmont,
and at the expense of Genoa and the duchy of Milan. The Duke
Victor Amadeus II. was the most successful winner for his
house, and he made his gains by remarkable manœuvering on both
sides of the wars of Louis XIV. One of his acquisitions (1713)
was the island kingdom of Sicily, which gave him a royal title. A
few years later he exchanged it with Austria for the island
kingdom of Sardinia—a realm more desirable to him for
geographical reasons only. The dukes of Savoy and princes of
Piedmont thus became kings of Sardinia, and the name of the
kingdom was often applied to their whole dominion, down to the
recent time when the House of Savoy attained the grander
kingship of united Italy.
First wars of Louis XIV.
The wars of Louis XIV. gave little opportunity for western and
central Europe to make any other history than that of struggle
and battle, invasion and devastation, intrigue and faithless
diplomacy, shifting of political landmarks and traffic in
border populations, as though they were pastured cattle, for
fifty years, in the last part of the seventeenth century and
the first part of the eighteenth (1665-1715). It will be
remembered that when this King of France married the Infanta
of Spain, he joined in a solemn renunciation of all rights on
her part and on that of her children to such dominions as she
might otherwise inherit. But such a renunciation, with no
sentiment of honor behind it, was worthless, of course, and
Louis XIV., in his own esteem, stood on a height quite above
the moral considerations that have force with common men. When
Philip IV. of Spain died, in 1665, Louis promptly began to put
forward the claims which he had pledged himself not to make.
He demanded part of the Netherlands, and Franche Comté—the
old county (not the duchy) of Burgundy—as belonging to his
queen. It was his good fortune to be served by some of the
greatest generals, military engineers and administrators of
the day—by Turenne, Condé, Vauban, Louvois, and others—and
when he sent his armies of invasion into Flanders and Franche
Comté they carried all before them. Holland took alarm at
these aggressions which came so near to her, and formed an
alliance with England and Sweden to assist Spain. But the
unprincipled English king, Charles II., was easily bribed to
betray his ally; Sweden was bought over; Spain submitted to a
treaty which gave the Burgundian county back to her, and
surrendered an important part of the Spanish Netherlands to
France. Louis' first exploit of national brigandage had thus
been a glorious success, as glory is defined in the vocabulary
of sovereigns of his class. He had stolen several valuable
towns, killed some thousands of people, carried misery into
the lives of some thousands more, and provoked the Dutch to a
challenge of war that seemed promising of more glory of like
kind.
In 1672 he prepared himself to chastise the Dutch, and his
English pensioner, Charles II., with several German princes,
joined him in the war. It was this war, as related already,
which brought about the fall and the death of John de Witt,
Grand Pensionary of Holland; which raised William of Orange to
the restored stadtholdership, and which gave him a certain
leadership of influence in Europe, as against the French king.
It was this war, likewise, which gave the Hohenzollerns their
first great battle-triumph, in the defeat of the Swedes,
allies of the French, at Fehrbellin. For Frederick William,
the Great Elector, had joined the Emperor Leopold and the King
of Spain in another league with Holland to resist the
aggressions of France; while Sweden now took sides with Louis.
England was soon withdrawn from the contest, by the determined
action of Parliament, which forced its king to make peace.
Otherwise the war became general in western Europe and was
frightful in the death and misery it cost. Generally the
French had the most success. Turenne was killed in 1675 and
Condé retired the same year; but able commanders were found in
Luxemburg and Crequi to succeed them. In opposition to William
of Orange, the Dutch made peace at Nimegueu, in 1678, and
Spain was forced to give up Franche Comté, with another
fraction of her Netherland territories; but Holland lost
nothing. Again Louis XIV. had beaten and robbed his neighbors
with success, and was at the pinnacle of his glory. France, it
is true, was oppressed and exhausted, but her king was a
"grand monarch," and she must needs be content.
{1082}
For a few years the grand monarch contented himself with small
filchings of territory, which kept his conscience supple and
gave practice to his sleight-of-hand. On one pretext and
another he seized town after town in Alsace, and, at last,
1681, surprised and captured the imperial free city of
Strasburg, in a time of entire peace. He bombarded Genoa, took
Avignon from the Pope, bullied and abused feeble Spain, made
large claims on the Palatinate in the name of his
sister-in-law, but against her will, and did nearly what he
was pleased to do, without any effective resistance, until
after William of Orange had been called to the English throne.
That completed a great change in the European situation.
Revocation of the Edict of Nantes.
The change had already been more than half brought about by a
foul and foolish measure which Louis had adopted in his
domestic administration. Cursed by a tyrant's impatience at
the idea of free thought and free opinion among his subjects,
he had been persuaded by Catholic zealots near his person to
revoke the Edict of Nantes and revive persecution of the
Huguenots. This was done in 1685. The fatal effects within
France resembled those which followed the persecution of the
Moriscoes of Spain. The Huguenots formed a large proportion of
the best middle class of the kingdom,—its manufacturers, its
merchants, its skilled and thrifty artisans. Infamous efforts
were made to detain them in the country and there force them
to apostacy or hold them under punishment if they withstood.
But there was not power enough in the monarchy, with all its
absolutism, to enclose France in such a wall. Vast numbers
escaped—half a million it is thought—carrying their skill,
their knowledge, their industry and their energy into Holland,
England, Switzerland, all parts of Protestant Germany, and
across the ocean to America. France was half ruined by the
loss.
The League of Augsburg.
At the same time, the Protestant allies in Germany and the
North, whom Louis had held in subserviency to himself so long,
were angered and alarmed by his act. They joined a new
defensive league against him, formed at Augsburg, in 1686,
which embraced the Emperor, Spain, Holland, and Sweden, at
first, and afterwards took in Savoy and other Italian states,
along with Germany almost entire. But the League was miserably
unprepared for war, and hardly hindered the march of Louis'
armies when he suddenly moved them into the Rhenish
electorates in 1688. For the second time in his reign, and
under his orders, the Palatinate was fearfully devastated with
fire and sword. But this attack on Germany, occupying the arms
of France, gave William of Orange his opportunity to enter
England unopposed and take the English crown. That
accomplished, he speedily brought England into the League,
enlarging it to a "grand alliance" of all western Europe
against the dangerous monarch of France, and inspiring it with
some measure of his own energy and courage. France had now to
deal with enemies on every side. They swarmed on all her
frontiers, and the strength and valor with which she met them
were amazing. For three years the French more than held their
own, not only in land-fighting, but on the sea, where they
seemed likely, for a time, to dispute the supremacy of the
English and the Dutch with success. But the frightful draft
made on the resources of the nation, and the strain on its
spirit, were more than could be kept up. The obstinacy of the
king, and his indifference to the sufferings of his people,
prolonged the war until 1697, but with steady loss to the
French of the advantages with which they began. Two years
before the end, Louis had bought over the Duke of Savoy, by
giving back to him all that France had taken from his Italian
territories since Richelieu's time. When the final peace was
settled, at Ryswick, like surrenders had to be made in the
Netherlands, Lorraine, and beyond the Rhine; but Alsace, with
Strasburg, was kept, to be a German graft on France, until the
sharp Prussian pruning knife, in our own time, cut it away.
War of the Spanish Succession.
There were three years of peace after the treaty of Ryswick,
an then a new war—longer, more bitter, and more destructive
than those before it—arose out of questions connected with
the succession to the crown of Spain. Charles II., last of the
Austro-Spanish or Spanish-Hapsburg kings, died in 1700,
leaving no heir. The nearest of his relatives to the throne
were the descendants of his two sisters, one of whom had
married Louis XIV. and the other the Emperor Leopold, of the
Austrian House. Louis XIV., as we know, had renounced all the
Spanish rights of his queen and her issue; but that
renunciation had been shown already to be wasted paper.
Leopold had renounced nothing; but he had required a
renunciation of her Spanish claims from the one daughter,
Maria, of his Spanish wife, and he put forward claims to the
Spanish succession, on his own behalf, because his mother had
been a princess of that nation, as well as his wife. He was
willing, however, to transfer his own rights to a younger son,
fruit of a second marriage, the Archduke Charles.
The question of the Spanish succession was one of European
interest and importance, and attempts had been made to settle
it two years before the death of the Spanish king, in 1698, by
a treaty, or agreement, between France, England, and Holland.
By that treaty these outside powers (consulting Spain not at
all) undertook a partition of the Spanish monarchy, in what
they assumed to be the interest of the European balance of
power. They awarded Naples, Sicily, and some lesser Italian
possessions to a grandson of Louis XIV., the Milanese
territory to the Archduke Charles, and the rest of the Spanish
dominions to an infant son of Maria, the Emperor's daughter,
who was married to the elector of Bavaria. But the infant so
selected to wear the crown of Spain died soon afterwards, and
a second treaty of partition was framed. This gave the
Milanese to the Duke of Lorraine, in exchange for his own
duchy, which he promised to cede to France, and the whole
remainder of the Spanish inheritance was conceded to the
Austrian archduke, Charles. In Spain, these arrangements were
naturally resented, by both people and king, and the latter
was persuaded to set against them a will, bequeathing all that
he ruled to the younger grandson of Louis XIV., Philip of
Anjou, on condition that the latter renounce for himself and
for his heirs all claims to the crown of France. The
inducement to this bequest was the power which the King of
France possessed to enforce it, and so to preserve the unity
of the Spanish realm. That the argument and the persuasion
came from Louis' own agents, while other agents amused
England, Holland and Austria with treaties of partition, is
tolerably clear.
{1083}
Near the end of the year 1700, the King of Spain died; his
will was disclosed; the treaties were as coolly ignored as the
prior renunciation had been, and the young French prince was
sent pompously into Spain to accept the proffered crown. For a
time, there was indignation in Europe, but no more. William of
Orange could persuade neither England nor Holland to war, and
Austria could not venture hostilities without their help. But
that submissiveness only drew from the grand monarch fresh
displays of his dishonesty and his insolence. Philip of
Anjou's renunciation of a possible succession to the French
throne, while occupying that of Spain, was practically
annulled: The government of Spain was guided from Paris like
that of a dependency of France. Dutch and English commerce was
injured by hostile measures. Movements alarming to Holland
were made on the frontiers of the Spanish Netherlands.
Finally, when the fugitive ex-king of England, James II., died
at St. Germains, in September, 1701, Louis acknowledged James'
son, the Pretender, as King of England. This insult roused the
war spirit in England which King William had striven so hard
to evoke. He had already arranged the terms of a new defensive
Grand Alliance with Holland, Austria, and most of the German
states. There was no difficulty now in making it an offensive
combination.
But William, always weak in health, and worn by many cares and
harassing troubles, died in March, 1702, before the war which
he desired broke out. His death made no pause in the movement
of events. Able statesmen, under Queen Anne, his successor,
carried forward his policy and a great soldier was found, in
the person of John Churchill, Duke of Marlborough, to command
the armies of England and the Dutch. Another commander, of
remarkable genius, Prince Eugene of Savoy, took service with
the Emperor, and these two, acting cordially together, humbled
the overweening pride of Louis XIV. in the later years of his
reign. He had worn out France by his long exactions. His
strong ministers, Colbert, Louvois and others, were dead, and
he did not find successors for them. He had able generals, but
none equal to Turenne, Condé or Luxemburg,—none to cope with
Marlborough and Prince Eugene. The war was widespread, on a
stupendous scale, and it lasted for twelve years. Its
campaigns were fought in the Low Countries, in Germany, in
Italy and in Spain. It glorified the reign of Anne, in English
history, by the shining victories of Blenheim, Ramilies,
Oudenarde and Malplaquet, and by the capture of Gibraltar, the
padlock of the Mediterranean. The misery to which France was
reduced in the later years of the war was probably the
greatest that the much suffering nation ever knew.
The Peace of Utrecht.
Louis sought peace, and was willing to go far in surrenders to
obtain it. But the allies pressed him too hard in their
demands. They would have him not only abandon the Bourbon
dynasty that he had set up in Spain, but join them in
overthrowing it. He refused to negotiate on such terms, and
Fortune approved his resolution, by giving decisive victories
to his arms in Spain, while dealing, out disaster and defeat
in every other field. England grew weary of the war when it
came to appear endless, and Marlborough and the Whigs, who had
carried it on, were ousted from power. The Tories, under
Harley and Bolingbroke, came into office and negotiated the
famous Peace of Utrecht (1713), to which all the belligerents
in the war, save the Emperor, consented. The Emperor yielded
to a supplementary treaty, signed at Rastadt the next year.
These treaties left the Bourbon King of Spain, Philip V., on
his throne, but bound him, by fresh renunciations, not to be
likewise King of France. They gave to England Gibraltar and
Minorca, at the expense of Spain, and Nova Scotia,
Newfoundland and Hudson's Bay at the expense of France. They
took much more from Spain. They took Sicily, which they gave
to the Duke of Savoy, with the title of King; they took
Naples, Milan, Mantua and Sardinia, which they gave to
Austria, or, more strictly speaking, to the Emperor; and they
took the Spanish Netherlands, which they gave to Austria in
the main, with some barrier towns to the Dutch. They took from
France her conquests on the right bank of the Rhine; but they
left her in possession of Alsace, with Strasburg and Landau.
The great victim of the war was Spain.
France at the death of Louis XIV.
Louis XIV. was near the end of his reign when this last of the
fearful wars which he caused was brought to a close. He died
in September, 1715, leaving a kingdom which had reasons to
curse his memory in every particular of its state. He had
foiled the exertions of as wise a minister, Jean Colbert, as
ever strove to do good to France. He had dried the sources of
national life as with a searching and monstrous sponge. He had
repressed everything which he could not absorb in his
flaunting court, in his destroying armies, and in himself. He
had dealt with France as with a dumb beast that had been given
him to bestride; to display himself upon, before the gaze of an
envious world; to be bridled, and spurred at his pleasure, and
whipped; to toil for him and bear burdens as he willed; to
tread upon his enemies and trample his neighbors' fields. It
was he, more than all others before or after, who made France
that dumb creature which suffered and was still for a little
longer time, and then began thinking and went mad.
{1084}
Charles XII. of Sweden.
While the Powers of western Europe were wrestling in the great
war of the Spanish Succession, the nations of the North and
East were tearing each other, at the same time, with equal
stubbornness and ferocity. The beginning of their conflict was
a wanton attack from Russia, Poland and Denmark, on the
possessions of Sweden. Sweden, in the past century, had made
extensive, conquests, and her territories, outside of the
Scandinavian peninsula, were thrust provokingly into the sides
of all these three neighbors. There had been three Charleses
on the Swedish throne in succession, following Christina, the
daughter of Gustavus Adolphus. Queen Christina, an eccentric
character, had abdicated in 1654, in order to join the
Catholic Church, and had been succeeded by her cousin, Charles
X. The six years reign of this Charles was one of constant war
with the Danes and the Poles, and almost uniformly he was the
aggressor. His son and successor, Charles XI., suffered the
great defeat at Fehrbellin which gave prestige to Brandenburg;
but he was shielded by the puissant arm of Louis XIV., his
ally, and lost no territory. More successful in his domestic
policy than in his wars, he, both practically and formally,
established absolutism in the monarchy. Inheriting from his
father that absolute power, while inheriting at the same time
the ruthless ambition of his grandfather, Charles XII. came to
the throne in 1697.
In the first two years of his reign, this extraordinary young
autocrat showed so little of his character that his royal
neighbors thought him a weakling, and Peter the Great, of
Russia, conspired with Augustus of Poland and Frederick IV. of
Denmark to strip him of those parts of his dominion which they
severally coveted. The result was like the rousing of a lion
by hunters who went forth to pursue a hare. The young Swede,
dropping, instantly and forever, all frivolities, sprang at
his assailants before they dreamed of finding him awake, and
the game was suddenly reversed. The hunters became the hunted,
and they had no rest for nine years from the implacable
pursuit of them which Charles kept up. He defeated the Danes
and the Russians in the first year of the war (1700). In 1702
he invaded Poland and occupied Warsaw; in 1704 he forced the
deposition of the Saxon King of Poland, Augustus, and the
election of Stanislaus Leczinski. Not yet satisfied, he
followed Augustus into his electorate of Saxony, and compelled
him there to renounce the Polish crown and the Russian
alliance. In 1708 he invaded Russia, marching on Moscow, but
turning aside to meet an expected ally, Mazeppa the Cossack.
It was the mistake which Napoleon repeated a century later.
The Swedes exhausted themselves in the march, and the Russians
bided their time. Peter the Czar had devoted eight years,
since Charles defeated him at Narva, to making soldiers,
well-trained, out of the mob which that fight scattered. When
Charles had worn his army down to a slender and disheartened
force, Peter struck and destroyed it at Pultowa. Charles
escaped from the wreck and took refuge, with a few hundreds of
is guards, in the Turkish province of Bessarabia, at Bender. In
that shelter, which the Ottomans hospitably accorded to him,
he remained for five years, intriguing to bring the Porte into
war with his Muscovite enemy, while all the fruits of his nine
years of conquest in the North were stripped from him by the
old league revived. Augustus returned to Poland and recovered
his crown. Peter took possession of Livonia, Ingria, and a
great part of Finland. Frederick IV., of Denmark, attacked
Sweden itself. The kingless kingdom made a valiant defense
against the crowd of eager enemies; but Charles had used the
best of its energies and its resources, and it was not strong.
Near the end of 1710, Charles succeeded in pushing the Sultan
into war with the Czar, and the latter, advancing into
Moldavia, rashly placed himself in a position of great peril,
where the Turks had him really at their mercy. But Catherine,
the Czarina, who was present, found means to bribe the Turkish
vizier in command, and Peter escaped with no loss more serious
than the surrender of Azov. That ended the war, and the hopes
of the Swedish king. But still the stubborn Charles wearied
the Porte with his importunities, until he was commanded to
quit the country. Even then he refused to depart,—resisted
when force was used to expel him, and did not take his leave
until late in November, 1714, when he received intelligence
that his subjects were preparing to appoint his sister regent
of the kingdom and to make peace with the Czar. That news
hurried him homeward; but only for continued war. He was about
to make terms with Russia, and to secure her alliance against
Denmark, Poland and Hanover, when he was killed during an
invasion of Norway, in the siege of Friedrickshall (December,
1718). The crown of Sweden was then conferred upon his sister,
but shorn of absolute powers, and practically dependent upon
the nobles. All the wars in which Charles XII. had involved
his kingdom were brought to an end by great sacrifices, and
Russia rose to the place of Sweden as the chief power in the
North. The Swedes paid heavily for the career of their
"Northern Alexander."
Alliance against Spain.
Before the belligerents in the North had quieted themselves,
those of the West were again in arms. Spain had fallen under
the influence of two eager and restless ambitions, that of the
queen, Elizabeth of Parma, and an Italian minister, Cardinal
Alberoni; and the schemes into which these two drew the
Bourbon king, Philip V., soon ruptured the close relations
with France which Louis XIV. had ruined his kingdom to bring
about. To check them, a triple alliance was formed (1717)
between France, England and Holland,—enlarged the next year
to a quadruple alliance by the adhesion of Austria. At the
outset of the war, Spain made a conquest of Sardinia, and
almost accomplished the same in Sicily; but the English
crushed her navy and her rising commerce, while the French
crossed the Pyrenees with an army which the Spaniards could
not resist. A vast combination which Alberoni was weaving, and
which took in Charles XII., Peter the Great, the Stuart
pretender, the English Jacobites, and the opponents of the
regency in France, fell to pieces when the Swedish king fell.
Alberoni was driven from Spain and all his plans were given
up. The Spanish king withdrew from Sicily and surrendered
Sardinia. The Emperor and the Duke of Savoy exchanged islands,
as stated before, and the former (holding Naples already)
revived the old Kingdom of the Two Sicilies, while the latter
became King of Sardinia.
{1085}
War of the Polish Succession.
These disturbances ended, there were a few years of rest in
Europe, and then another war, of the character peculiar to the
eighteenth century, broke out. It had its cause in the Polish
election of a king to succeed Augustus II. As usual, the
neighboring nations formed a betting ring of onlookers, so to
speak, and "backed" their several candidates heavily. The
deposed and exiled king, Stanislaus Leczinski, who received
his crown from Charles XII. and lost it after Pultowa, was the
French candidate; for he had married his daughter to Louis XV.
Frederick Augustus of Saxony, son of the late King Augustus,
was the Russian and Austrian candidate. The contest resulted
in a double election (1733), and out of that came war. Spain
and Sardinia joined France, and the Emperor had no allies.
Hence the House of Austria suffered greatly in the war, losing
the Two Sicilies, which went to Spain, and were conferred on a
younger son of the king, creating a third Bourbon monarchy.
Part of the duchy of Milan was also yielded by Austria to the
King of Sardinia; and the Duke of Lorraine, husband of the
Emperor's daughter, Maria Theresa, gave up his duchy to
Stanislaus, who renounced therefor his claim on the crown of
Poland. The Duke of Lorraine received as compensation a right
of succession to the grand duchy of Tuscany, where the
Medicean House was about to expire. These were the principal
consequences, humiliating to Austria, of what is known as the
First Family Compact of the French and Spanish Bourbons.
War of Jenkins' Ear.
This alliance between the two courts gave encouragement to
hostile demonstrations in the Spanish colonies against English
traders, who were accused of extensive smuggling, and the
outcome was a petty war (1739), called "the War of Jenkins'
Ear."
War of the Austrian Succession.
Before these hostilities were ended, another "war of
succession," more serious than any before it, was wickedly
brought upon Europe. The Emperor, Charles VI., died in 1740,
leaving no son, but transmitting his hereditary dominions to
his eldest daughter, the celebrated Maria Theresa, married to
the ex-Duke of Lorraine. Years before his death he had sought
to provide against any possible disputing of the succession,
by an instrument known as the Pragmatic Sanction, to which he
obtained, first, the assent of the estates of all the
provinces and kingdoms of the Austrian realm, and, secondly,
the guaranty by solemn treaty of almost every European Power.
He died in the belief that he had established his daughter
securely, and left her to the enjoyment of a peaceful reign.
It was a pitiful illusion. He was scarcely in his grave before
half the guarantors of the Pragmatic Sanction were putting
forward claims to this part and that part of the Austrian
territories. The Elector of Bavaria, the Elector of Saxony (in
his wife's name) and the King of Spain, claimed the whole
succession; the two first mentioned on grounds of collateral
lineage, the latter (a Bourbon cuckoo in the Spanish-Hapsburg
nest) as being the heir of the Hapsburgs of Spain.
While these larger pretensions were still jostling each other
in the diplomatic stage, a minor claimant, who said little but
acted powerfully, sent his demands to the Court of Vienna with
an army following close at their heels. This was Frederick II.
of Prussia, presently known as Frederick the Great, who
resuscitated an obsolete claim on Silesia and took possession
of the province (1740-41) without waiting for debate. If,
anywhere, there had been virtuous hesitations before, his bold
stroke ended them. France could not see her old Austrian rival
dismembered without hastening to grasp a share. She contracted
with the Spanish king and the Elector of Bavaria to enforce
the latter's claims, and to take the Austrian Netherlands in
prospect for compensation, while Spain should find indemnity
in the Austro-Italian states. Frederick of Prussia, having
Silesia in hand, offered to join Maria Theresa in the defense
of her remaining dominions; but his proposals were refused,
and he entered the league against her. Saxony did the same.
England and Sardinia were alone in befriending Austria, and
England was only strong at sea. Maria Theresa found her
heartiest support in Hungary, where she made a personal appeal
to her subjects, and enlarged their constitutional privileges.
In 1742 the Elector of Bavaria was elected Emperor, as Charles
VII. In the same year, Maria Theresa, acting under pressure
from England, gave up the greater part of Silesia to
Frederick, by treaty, as a price paid, not for the help he had
offered at first, but barely for his neutrality. He abandoned
his allies and withdrew from the war. His retirement produced
an immense difference in the conditions of the contest. Saxony
made peace at the same time, and became an active ally on the
Austrian side. So rapidly did the latter then recover their
ground and the French slip back that Frederick, after two
years of neutrality, became alarmed, and found a pretext to
take up arms again. The scale was now tipped to the side on
which he threw himself, but not immediately; and when, in
1745, the Emperor, Charles VII., died suddenly, Maria Theresa
was able to secure the election of her husband, Francis of
Lorraine (or Tuscany), which founded the Hapsburg-Lorraine
dynasty on the imperial throne. This was in September. In the
following December Frederick was in Dresden, and Saxony—the
one effective ally left to the Austrians, since England had
withdrawn from the war in the previous August—was at his
feet. Maria Theresa, having the Spaniards and the French still
to fight in Italy and the Netherlands, could do nothing but make
terms with the terrible Prussian king. The treaty, signed at
Dresden on Christmas Day, 1745, repeated the cession of
Silesia to Frederick, with Glatz, and restored Saxony to the
humbled Elector.
Treaty of Aix-la-Chapelle.
France and Spain, deserted the second time by their faithless
Prussian ally, continued the war until 1748, when the
influence of England and Holland brought about a treaty of
peace signed at Aix-la-Chapelle. France gained nothing from
the war, but had suffered a loss of prestige, distinctly.
Austria, besides giving up Silesia to Frederick of Prussia,
was required to surrender a bit of Lombardy to the King of
Sardinia, and to make over Parma, Piacenza and Guastalla to
Don Philip of Spain, for a hereditary principality. Under the
circumstances, the result to Maria Theresa was a notable
triumph, and she shared with her enemy, Frederick, the
fruitage of fame harvested in the war. But antagonism between
these two, and between the interests and ambitions which they
respectively represented—dynastic on one side and national
on the other—was henceforth settled and irreconcilable, and
could leave in Germany no durable peace.
{1086}
Colonial conflicts of France and England.
The peace was broken, not for Germany alone, but for Europe
and for almost the world at large, in six years after the
signing of the Treaty of Aix-la-Chapelle. The rupture occurred
first very far from Europe—on the other sides of the globe,
in America and Hindostan, where England and France were eager
rivals in colonial conquest. In America, they had quarreled
since the Treaty of Utrecht over the boundaries of Acadia, or
Nova Scotia, which that treaty transferred to England.
Latterly, they had come to a more serious collision in the
interior of the continent. The English, rooting their
possession of the Atlantic seaboard by strong and stable
settlements, had been tardy explorers and slow in passing the
Alleganies to the region inland. On the other hand, the
French, nimble and enterprising in exploration, and in
military occupation, but superficial and artificial in
colonizing, had pushed their way by a long circuit from
Canada, through the great lakes to the head waters of the
Ohio, and were fortifying a line in the rear of the British
colonies, from the valley of the St. Lawrence to the valley of
the Mississippi, before the English were well aware of their
intent. Then the colonists, Virginians and Pennsylvanians,
took arms, and the career of George Washington was begun as
leader of an expedition in 1754 to drive the French from the
Ohio. It was not successful, and a strong force of regular
troops was sent over next year by the British government,
under Braddock, to repeat the attempt. A frightful
catastrophe, worse than failure, came of this second
undertaking, and open war between France and England, which
had not yet been declared, followed soon. This colonial
conflict of England and France fired the train, so to speak,
which caused a great explosion of suppressed hostilities in
Europe.
The House of Hanover in England.
If the English crown had not been worn by a German king,
having a German principality to defend, the French and English
might have fought out their quarrel on the ocean, and in the
wilderness of America, or on the plains of the Carnatic,
without disturbing their continental neighbors. But England
was now under a new, foreign-bred line of sovereigns,
descended from that daughter of James I., the princess
Elizabeth, who married the unfortunate Elector Palatine and
was queen of Bohemia for a brief winter term. After William of
Orange died, his wife, Queen Mary, having preceded him to the
grave, and no children having been born to them, Anne, the
sister of Mary, had been called to the throne. It was in her
reign that the brilliant victories of Marlborough were won,
and in her reign that the Union of Scotland with England,
under one parliament as well as one sovereign, was brought
about. On Anne's death (1714), her brother, the son of James
II., called "the Pretender," was still excluded from the
throne, because of his religion, and the next heir was sought
and summoned, in the person of the Elector George, of Hanover,
whose remote ancestress was Elizabeth Stuart. George I. had
reigned thirteen years, and his son, George II., had been
twenty-seven years on the throne, when these quarrels with
France arose. Throughout the two reigns, until 1742, the
English nation had been kept mostly at peace, by the potent
influence of a great minister, Sir Robert Walpole, and had
made a splendid advance in material prosperity and strength;
while the system of ministerial government, responsible to
Parliament and independent of the Crown, which has been in
later times the peculiar feature of the British constitution,
was taking shape. In 1742, Walpole fell from power, and the
era of peace for England was ended. But her new dynasty had
been firmly settled, and politically, industrially, and
commercially, the nation was so sound in its condition as to
be well prepared for the series of wars into which it plunged.
In the War of the Austrian Succession England had taken a limited
part, and with small results to herself. She was now about to
enter, under the lead of the high spirited and ambitious Pitt,
afterwards Earl of Chatham, the greatest career of conquest in
her history.
[Image: Europe 1768 A. D.]
The Seven Years War.
As before said, it was the anxiety of George II. for his
electorate of Hanover which caused an explosion of hostilities
in Europe to occur, as consequence of the remote fighting of
French and English colonists in America. For the strengthening
of Hanover against attacks from France, he sought an alliance
with Frederick of Prussia. This broke the long-standing
anti-French alliance of England with Austria, and Austria
joined fortunes with her ancient Bourbon enemy, in order to be
helped to the revenge which Maria Theresa now promised herself
the pleasure of executing upon the Prussian king. As the
combination finally shaped itself on the French side, it
embraced France, Austria, Russia, Sweden, Poland, Saxony, and
the Palatinate, and its inspiring purpose was to break Prussia
down and partition her territories, rather than to support
France against England. The agreements to this end were made
in secret; but Frederick obtained knowledge of them, and
learned that papers proving the conspiracy against him were in
the archives of the Saxony government, at Dresden. His action was
decided with that promptitude which so often disconcerted his
enemies. He did not wait to be attacked by the tremendous
league formed against him, nor waste time in efforts to
dissolve it, but defiantly struck the first blow. He poured
his army into Saxony (August, 1756), seized Dresden by
surprise, captured the documents he desired, and published
them to the world in vindication of his summary precipitation
of war. Then, blockading the Saxon army in Pirna, he pressed
rapidly into Bohemia, defeated the Austrians at Lowositz, and
returned as rapidly, to receive the surrender of the Saxons
and to enlist most of them in his own ranks. This was the
European opening of the Seven Years War, which raged, first
and last, in all quarters of the globe. In the second year of
the war, Frederick gained an important victory at Prague and
suffered a serious reverse at Kolin, which threw most of
Silesia into the hands of the Austrians. Close following that
defeat came crushing news from Hanover, where the incompetent
Duke of Cumberland, commanding for his father, the English
King George, had allowed the French to force him to an
agreement which disbanded his army, and left Prussia alone in
the terrific fight. Frederick's position seemed desperate; but
his energy retrieved it.
{1087}
He fought and defeated the French at Rossbach, near Lützen, on
the 5th of November, and the Austrians, at Leuthen, near
Breslau, exactly one month later. In the campaigns of 1758, he
encountered the Russians at Zorndorf, winning a bloody
triumph, and he sustained a defeat at Hochkirk, in battle with
the Austrians. But England had repudiated Cumberland's
convention and recalled him; English and Hanoverian forces
were again put into the field, under the capable command of
Prince Frederick of Brunswick, who turned the tide in that
quarter against the French, and the results of the year were
generally favorable to Frederick. In 1759, the Hanoverian
army, under Prince Ferdinand, improved the situation on that
side; but the prospects of the King of Prussia were clouded by
heavy disasters. Attempting to push a victory over the
Russians too far, at Kunersdorf, he was terribly beaten. He
lost Dresden, and a great part of Saxony. In the next year he
recovered all but Dresden, which he wantonly and inhumanly
bombarded. The war was now being carried on with great
difficulty by all the combatants. Prussia, France and Austria
were suffering almost equally from exhaustion; the misery
among their people was too great to be ignored; the armies of
each had dwindled. The opponents of Pitt's war policy in
England overcame him, in October, 1761, whereupon he resigned,
and the English subsidy to Frederick was withdrawn. But that
was soon made up to him by the withdrawal of Russia from the
war, at the beginning of 1762, when Peter of Holstein, who
admired Frederick, became Czar. Sweden made peace a little
later. The remainder of the worn and wearied fighters went on
striking at each other until near the end of the year.
Meantime, on the colonial and East Indian side of it, this
prodigious Seven Years War, as a great struggle for
world-empire between England and France, had been adding
conquest to conquest and triumph to triumph for the former. In
1759, Wolfe had taken Quebec and died on the Heights of
Abraham in the moment of victory. Another twelve months saw
the whole of Canada clear of Frenchmen in arms. In the East,
to use the language of Macaulay, "conquests equalling in
rapidity and far surpassing in magnitude those of Cortes and
Pizarro, had been achieved." "In the space of three years the
English had founded a mighty empire. The French had been
defeated in every part of India. Chandernagore had yielded to
Clive, Pondicherry to Coote. Throughout Bengal, Bahar, Orissa,
and the Carnatic, the authority of the East India Company was
more absolute than that of Acbar or Aurungzebe had ever been."
Treaties of Paris and Hubertsburg.
In February, 1763, two treaties of peace were concluded, one
at Paris, on the 10th, between England, France and Spain (the
latter Power having joined France in the war as late as
January, 1762); the other at Hubertsburg, on the 15th, between
Prussia and Austria. France gave up to England all her
possessions in North America, except Louisiana (which passed
to Spain,), and yielded Minorca, but recovered the
Philippines. She surrendered, moreover, considerable interests
in the West Indies and in Africa. The colonial aspirations of
the French were cast down by a blow that was lasting in its
effect. As between Prussia and Austria, the triumphs of the
peace and the glories of the war were won entirely by the
former. Frederick came out of it, "Frederick the Great," the
most famous man of his century, as warrior and as statesman,
both. He had defended his little kingdom for seven years
against three great Powers, and yielded not one acre of its
territory. He had raised Prussia to the place in Germany from
which her subsequent advance became easy and almost
inevitable. But the great fame he earned is spotted with many
falsities and much cynical indifference to the commonest
ethics of civilization. His greatness is of that character
which requires to be looked at from selected standpoints.
Russia.
Another character, somewhat resembling that of Frederick, was
now drawing attention on the eastern side of Europe. Since the
death of Peter the Great, the interval in Russian history had
been covered by six reigns, with a seventh just opening, and
the four sovereigns who really exercised power were women.
Peter's widow, Catherine I., had succeeded him (1725) for two
years. His son, Alexis, he had put to death; but Alexis left a
son, Peter, to whom Catherine bequeathed the crown. Peter II.
died after a brief reign, in 1730; and the nearest heirs were
two daughters of Peter the Great, Anne and Elizabeth. But they
were set aside in favor of another Anne—Anne of
Courland—daughter of Peter the Great's brother. Anne's reign
of ten years was under the influence of German favorites and
ministers, and nearly half of it was occupied with a Turkish
War, in cooperation with Austria. For Austria the war had most
humiliating results, costing her Belgrade, all of Servia, part
of Bosnia and part of Wallachia. Russia won back Asov, with
fortifications forbidden, and that was all. Anne willed her
crown to an infant nephew, who appears in the Russian annals
as Ivan VI.; but two regencies were overthrown by palace
revolutions within little more than a year, and the second one
carried to the throne that Princess Elizabeth, younger
daughter of Peter the Great, who had been put aside eleven
years before. Elizabeth, a woman openly licentious and
intemperate, reigned for twenty-one years, during the whole
important period of the War of the Austrian Succession, and
almost to the end of the Seven Years War. She was bitterly
hostile to Frederick the Great, whose sharp tongue had
offended her, and she joined Maria Theresa with eagerness in
the great effort of revenge, which failed. In the early part
of her reign, war with Sweden had been more successful and had
added South Finland to the Russian territories. It is claimed
for her domestic government that the general prosperity of the
country was advanced.
{1088}
Catherine II.
On the death of Elizabeth, near the end of the year 1761, the
crown passed to her nephew, Peter of Holstein, son of her
eldest sister, Anne, who had married the Duke of Holstein.
This prince had been the recognized heir, living at the
Russian court, during the whole of Elizabeth's reign. He was
an ignorant boor, and he had become a besotted drunkard. Since
1744 he had been married to a young German princess, of the
Anhalt Zerbst family, who took the baptismal name of Catherine
when she entered the Greek Church. Catherine possessed a superior
intellect and a strong character; but the vile court into
which she came as a young girl, bound to a disgusting husband,
had debauched her in morals and lowered her to its own
vileness. She gained so great an ascendancy that the court was
subservient to her, from the time that her incapable husband,
Peter III., succeeded to the throne. He reigned by sufferance
for a year and a half, and then (July, 1762) he was easily
deposed and put to death. In the deposition, Catherine was the
leading actor. Of the subsequent murder, some historians are
disposed to acquit her. She did not scruple, at least, to
accept the benefit of both deeds, which raised her, alone, to
the throne of the Czars.
Partition of Poland.
Peter III., in his short reign, had made one important change
in Russian policy, by withdrawing from the league against
Frederick of Prussia, whom he greatly admired. Catherine found
reasons, quite aside from those of personal admiration, for
cultivating the friendship of the King of Prussia, and a close
understanding with that astute monarch was one of the earliest
objects of her endeavor. She had determined to put an end to
the independence of Poland. As she first entertained the
design, there was probably no thought of the partitioning
afterwards contrived. But her purpose was to keep the Polish
kingdom in disorder and weakness, and to make Russian
influence supreme in it, with views, no doubt, that looked
ultimately to something more. On the death of the Saxon king
of Poland, Augustus III., in 1763, Catherine put forward a
native candidate for the vacant throne, in the person of
Stanislaus Poniatowsky, a Russianized Pole and a former lover
of her own. The King of Prussia supported her candidate, and
Poniatowsky was duly elected, with 10,000 Russian troops in
Warsaw to see that it was properly done. The Poles were
submissive to the invasion of their political independence;
but when Catherine, who sought to create a Russian party in
Poland by protecting the members of the Greek Church and the
Protestants, against the intolerance of the Polish Catholics,
forced a concession of civil equality to the former (1768),
there was a wide-spread Catholic revolt. In the fierce war
which followed, a band of Poles was pursued across the Turkish
border, and a Turkish town was burned by the Russian pursuers.
The Sultan, who professed sympathy with the Poles, then
declared war against Russia. The Russo-Turkish war, in turn,
excited Austria, which feared Russian conquests from the
Turks, and another wide disturbance of the peace of Europe
seemed threatening. In the midst of the excitement there came
a whispered suggestion, to the ear of the courts of Vienna and
St. Petersburg, that they severally satisfy their territorial
cravings and mutually assuage each other's jealousy, at the
expense of the crumbling kingdom of Poland. The whisper may
have come from Frederick II. of Prussia, or it may not. There
are two opinions on the point. From whatever source it came,
it found favorable consideration at Vienna and St. Petersburg,
and between February and August, 1772, the details of the
partition were worked out.
Poland was not yet extinguished. The kingdom was only shorn of
some 160,000 square miles of territory, more than half of
which went to Russia, a third to Austria, and the remainder,
less than 10,000 square miles, to Prussia. This last mentioned
annexation was the old district of West Prussia which the
Polish king, Casimir IV., had wrested from the Teutonic
Knights in 1466, before Brandenburg had aught to do with
Prussian lands or name. After three centuries, Frederick
reclaimed it.
The diminished kingdom of Poland showed more signs of a true
national life, of an earnest national feeling, of a sobered
and rational patriotism, than had appeared in its former
history. The fatal powers monopolized by the nobles, the
deadly "liberum veto," the corrupting elective kingship, were
looked at in their true light, and in May, 1791, a new
constitution was adopted which reformed those evils. But a few
nobles opposed the reformation and appealed to Russia,
supplying a pretext to Catherine on which she filled Poland
with her troops. It was in vain that the patriot Kosciusko led
the best of his countrymen in a brave struggle with the
invader. They were overborne (1793-1794); the unhappy nation
was put in fetters, while Catherine and a new King of Prussia,
Frederick William II., arranged the terms of a second
partition. This gave to Prussia an additional thousand square
miles, including the important towns of Danzig and Thorn,
while Russia took four times as much. A year later, the small
remainder of Polish territory was dismembered and divided
between Russia, Prussia and Austria, and thus Poland
disappeared from the map of Europe as a state.
Russia as left by Catherine II.
Meantime, in her conflicts with the Turks, Catherine was
extending her vast empire to the Dneister and the Caucasus,
and opening a passage for her fleets from the Black Sea to the
Mediterranean. By treaty in 1774 she placed the Tartars of the
Crimea in independence of the Turks, and so isolated them for
easy conquest. In 1783 the conquest was made complete. By the
same treaty she secured a right of remonstrance on behalf of
the Christian subjects of the Sultan, in the Danubian
principalities and in the Greek Church at Constantinople,
which opened many pretexts for future interference and for war
at Russian convenience. The aggressions of the strong-willed
and powerful Czarina, and their dazzling success, filled her
subjects with pride, and effaced all remembrance of her
foreign origin and her want of right to the seat which she
filled. She was ambitious to improve the empire, as well as to
expand it; for her liberal mind took in the large ideas of that
speculative age and was much moved by them. She attempted many
reforms; but most things that she tried to do for the
bettering of civilization and the lifting of the people were
done imperiously, and spoiled by the autocratic method of the
doing. In her later years, her inclination towards liberal
ideas was checked, and the French Revolution put an end to it.
{1089}
State of France in the Eighteenth Century.
In tracing the destruction of Poland and the aggrandizement of
Russia, we have passed the date of that great catastrophe in
France which ended the old modern order of things, and
introduced a new one, not for France only, but for Europe at
large. It was a catastrophe toward which the abused French
people had been slowly slipping for generations, pushed
unrelentingly to it by blind rulers and a besotted
aristocracy. By nature a people ardent and lively in temper,
hopeful and brave in spirit, full of intelligence, they had
been held down in dumb repression: silenced in voice, even for
the uttering of their complaints; the national meeting of
their representative States suppressed for nearly two
centuries; taxes wrung from them on no measure save the will
of a wanton-minded and ignorant king; their beliefs
prescribed, their laws ordained, their courts of justice
commanded, their industries directed, their trade hedged
round, their rights and permissions in all particulars meted
out to them by the same blundering and irresponsible
autocracy. How long would they bear it? and would their
deliverance come by the easing of their yoke, or by the
breaking of it?—were the only questions.
Their state was probably at its worst in the later years of
Louis XIV. That seems to be the conclusion which the deepest
study has now reached, and the picture formerly drawn by
historians, of a society continually sinking into lower
miseries, is mostly put aside. The worst state, seemingly, was
passed, or nearly so, when Louis XIV. died. It began to mend
under his despicable successor, Louis XV. (1715-1774),—
perhaps even during the regency of the profligate Orleans
(1715-1723). Why it mended, no historian has clearly
explained. The cause was not in better government; for the
government grew worse. It did not come from any rise in
character of the privileged classes; for the privileged
classes abused their privileges with increasing selfishness.
But general influences were at work in the world at large,
stimulating activities of all kinds,—industry, trade,
speculation, combination, invention, experiment, science,
philosophy,—and whatever improvement occurred in the material
condition and social state of the common people of France may
find its explanation in these. There was an augmentation of
life in the air of the eighteenth century, and France took
some invigoration from it, despite the many maladies in its
social system and the oppressions of government under which it
bent.
But the difference between the France of Louis XIV. and the
France of Louis XVI. was more in the people than in their
state. If their misery was a little less, their patience was
less, and by not a little. The stimulations of the age, which
may have given more effectiveness to labor and more energy to
trade, had likewise set thinking astir, on the same practical
lines. Men whose minds in former centuries would have labored
on riddles dialectical, metaphysical and theological, were now
bent on the pressing problems of daily life. The mysteries of
economic science began to challenge them. Every aspect of
surrounding society thrust questions upon them, concerning its
origin, its history, its inequalities, its laws and their
principles, its government and the source of authority in it.
The so-called "philosophers" of the age, Rousseau, Voltaire
and the encyclopædists—were not the only questioners of the
social world, nor did the questioning all come from what they
taught. It was the intellectual epidemic of the time, carried
into all countries, penetrating all classes, and nowhere with
more diffusion than in France.
After the successful revolt of the English colonies in
America, and the conspicuous blazoning of the doctrines of
political equality and popular self-government in their
declaration of independence and their republican constitution,
the ferment of social free-thinking in France was naturally
increased. The French had helped the colonists, fought side by
side with them, watched their struggle with intense interest,
and all the issues involved in the American revolution were
discussed among them, with partiality to the republican side.
Franklin, most republican representative of the young
republic, came among them and captivated every class. He
recommended to them the ideas for which he stood, perhaps more
than we suspect.
Louis XVI. and his reign.
And thus, by many influences, the French people of all classes
except the privileged nobility, and even in that class to some
small extent, were made increasingly impatient of their
misgovernment and of the wrongs and miseries going with it.
Louis XVI., who came to the throne in 1774, was the best in
character of the Bourbon kings. He had no noxious vices and no
baleful ambitions. If he had found right conditions prevailing
in his kingdom he would have made the best of them. But he had
no capacity for reforming the evils that he inherited, and no
strength of will to sustain those who had. He accepted an
earnest reforming minister with more than willingness, and
approved the wise measures of economy, of equitable taxation,
and of emancipation for manufactures and trade, which Turgot
proposed. But when protected interests, and the privileged
order which fattened on existing abuses, raised a storm of
opposition, he weakly gave way to it, and dismissed the man
(1776) who might possibly have made the inevitable revolution
a peaceful one. Another minister, the Genevan banker, Necker,
who aimed at less reform, but demanded economy, suffered the
same overthrow (1781). The waste, the profligate expenditure,
the jobbery, the leeching of the treasury by high-born
pensioners and sinecure office-holders, went on, scarcely
checked, until the beginnings of actual bankruptcy had
appeared.
The States-General.
Then a cry, not much heeded before, for the convocation of the
States-general of the kingdom—the ancient great legislature
of France, extinct since the year 1614—became loud and
general. The king yielded (1788). The States-general was
called to meet on the 1st of May, 1789, and the royal summons
decreed that the deputies chosen to it from the third
estate—the common people—should be equal in number to the
deputies of the nobility and the clergy together. So the dumb
lips of France as a nation were opened, its tongue unloosed,
its common public opinion, and public feeling made articulate,
for the first time in one hundred and seventy-five years. And
the word that it spoke was the mandate of Revolution.
The States-general assembled at Versailles on the 5th of May,
and a conflict between the third estate and the nobles
occurred at once on the question between three assemblies and
one. Should the three orders deliberate and vote together as
one body, or sit and act separately and apart. The commons
demanded the single assembly. The nobles and most of the
clergy refused the union, in which their votes would be
overpowered.
{1090}
The National Assembly.
After some weeks of dead-lock on this fundamental issue, the
third estate brought it to a summary decision, by boldly
asserting its own supremacy, as representative of the mass of
the nation, and organizing itself in the character of the
"National Assembly" of France. Under that name and character
it was joined by a considerable part of the humbler clergy,
and by some of the nobles,—additional to a few, like
Mirabeau, who sat from the beginning with the third estate, as
elected representatives of the people. The king made a weak
attempt to annul this assumption of legislative sufficiency on
the part of the third estate, and only hurried the exposure of
his own powerlessness. Persuaded by his worst advisers to
attempt a stronger demonstration of the royal authority, he
filled Paris with troops, and inflamed the excitement, which
had risen already to a passionate heat.
Outbreak of the Revolution.
Necker, who had been recalled to the ministry when the meeting
of the States-general was decided upon, now received his
second dismissal (July 11), and the news of it acted on Paris
like a signal of insurrection. The city next day was in
tumult. On the 14th the Bastile was attacked and taken. The
king's government vanished utterly. His troops fraternized
with the riotous people. Citizens of Paris organized
themselves as a National Guard, on which every hope of order
depended, and Lafayette took command. The frightened nobility
began flight, first from Paris, and then from the provinces,
as mob violence spread over the kingdom from the capital. In
October there were rumors that the king had planned to follow
the "émigrés" and take refuge in Metz. Then occurred the
famous rising of the women; their procession to Versailles;
the crowd of men which followed, accompanied but not
controlled by Lafayette and his National Guards; the
conveyance of the king and royal family to Paris, where they
remained during the subsequent year, practically in captivity,
and at the mercy of the Parisian mob.
Meanwhile, the National Assembly, negligent of the dangers of
the moment, while actual anarchy prevailed, busied itself with
debates on constitutional theory, with enactments for the
abolition of titles and privileges, and with the creating of
an inconvertible paper money, based on confiscated church
lands, to supply the needs of the national treasury. Meantime,
too, the members of the Assembly and their supporters outside
of it were breaking into parties and factions, divided by
their different purposes, principles and aims, and forming
clubs,—centers of agitation and discussion,—clubs of the
Jacobins, the Cordeliers, the Feuillants and the like,—where
fear, distrust and jealousy were soon engendering ferocious
conflicts among the revolutionists themselves. And outside of
France, on the border where the fugitive nobles lurked,
intrigue was always active, striving to enlist foreign help
for King Louis against his subjects.
The First Constitution.
In April, 1791, Mirabeau, whose influence had been a powerful
restraint upon the Revolution, died. In June, the king made an
attempt to escape from his durance in Paris, but was captured
at Varennes and brought back. Angry demands for his deposition
were now made, and a tumultuous republican demonstration
occurred, on the Champ de Mars, which Lafayette and the mayor
of Paris, Bailly, dispersed, with bloodshed. But republicanism
had not yet got its footing. In the constitution, which the
Assembly completed at this time, the throne was left
undisturbed. The king accepted the instrument, and a
constitutional monarchy appeared to have quietly taken the
place of the absolute monarchy of the past.
The Girondists.
It was an appearance not long delusive. The Constituent
National Assembly being dissolved, gave way to a Legislative
Assembly (October, 1791) elected under the new constitution.
In the Legislative Assembly the republicans appeared with a
strength which soon gave them control of it. They were divided
into various groups; but the most eloquent and energetic of
these, coming from Bordeaux and the department of the Gironde,
fixed the name of Girondists upon the party to which they
belonged. The king, as a constitutional sovereign, was forced
presently to choose ministers from the ranks of the
Girondists, and they controlled the government for several
months in the spring of 1792. The earliest use they made of
their control was to hurry the country into war with the
German powers, which were accused of giving encouragement to
the hostile plans of the émigrés on the border. It is now a
well-determined fact that the Emperor Leopold was strongly
opposed to war with France, and used all his influence for the
preservation of peace. It was revolutionary France which
opened the conflict, and it was the Girondists who led and
shaped the policy of war.
Overthrow of the Monarchy.
In the first encounters of the war, the undisciplined French
troops were beaten, and Paris was in panic. Measures were
adopted which the king refused to sanction, and he dismissed
his Girondist ministers. Lafayette, who was commanding one
division of the army in the field, approved the king's course,
and wrote an unwise letter to the Assembly, intimating that
the army would not submit to a violation of the constitution.
The republicans were enraged. Everything seemed proof to them
of a treasonable connivance with the enemies of France, to
bring about the subjugation of the country, and a forcible
restoration of the old regime, absolutism, aristocratic
privilege and all. On the 20th of June there was another
rising of the Paris mob, unchecked by those who could, as yet,
have controlled it. The rioters broke into the Tuileries and
humiliated the king and queen with insults, but did no
violence. Lafayette came to Paris and attempted to reorganize
his old National Guard, for the defense of the constitution
and the preservation of order, but failed. The extremists then
resolved to throw down the toppling monarchy at once, by a
sudden blow. In the early morning of August 10, they expelled
the Council-General of the Municipality of Paris from the
Hotel de Ville, and placed the government of the city under
the control of a provisional Commune, with Danton at its head.
{1091}
At the same hour, the mob which these conspirators held in
readiness, and which they directed, attacked the Tuileries and
massacred the Swiss guard, while the king and the royal family
escaped for refuge to the Chamber of the Legislative Assembly,
near at hand. There, in the king's presence, on a formal
demand made by the new self-constituted Municipality or
Commune of Paris, the Assembly declared his suspension from
executive functions, and invited the people to elect without
delay a National Convention for the revising of the
Constitution. Commissioners, hastily sent out to the provinces
and the armies in the field, were received everywhere with
submission to the change of government, except by Lafayette
and his army, in and around Sedan. The Marquis placed them
under arrest and took from his soldiers a new oath of fidelity
to the constitution and the king. But he found himself
unsupported, and, yielding to the sweep of events, he obeyed a
dismissal by the new government from his command, and left
France, to wait in exile for a time when he might serve his
Country with a conscience more assured.
The Paris Commune.
Pending the meeting of the Convention, the Paris Commune,
increased in number to two hundred and eighty-eight, and
dominated by Danton and Robespierre, became the governing
power in France. The Legislative Assembly was subservient to
it; the kingless Ministry, which had Danton in association
with the restored Girondists, was no less so. It was the
fierce vigor of the Commune which caused the king and the
royal family to be imprisoned in the Temple; which instituted
a special tribunal for the summary trial of political
prisoners; which searched Paris for "suspects," on the night
of August 29-30, gathered three thousand men and women into
the prisons and convents of the city, planned and ordered the
"September Massacres" of the following week, and thus thinned
the whole number of these "suspects" by a half.
Fall of the Girondists.
On the 22d of September the National Convention assembled. The
Jacobins who controlled the Commune were found to have carried
Paris overwhelmingly and all France largely with them, in the
election of representatives. A furious, fanatical democracy, a
bloodthirsty anarchism, was in the ascendant. The republican
Girondists were now the conservative party in the Convention.
They struggled to hold their ground, and very soon they were
struggling for their lives. The Jacobin fury was tolerant of
no opposition. What stood in its path, with no deadlier weapon
than an argument or an appeal, must be, not merely overcome,
but destroyed. The Girondists would have saved the king from
the guillotine, but they dared not adopt his defense, and
their own fate was sealed when they gave votes, under fear,
which sent him in January to his death. Five months longer
they contended irresolutely, as a failing faction, with their
terrible adversaries, and then, in June, 1793, they were
proscribed and their arrest decreed. Some escaped and raised
futile insurrections in the provinces. Some stayed and faced
the death which awaited them in the fast approaching "reign of
terror."
"The Mountain" and "the Terror."
The fall of the Girondists left the Jacobin "Mountain"
(so-called from the elevation of the seats on which its
deputies sat in the Convention) unopposed. Their power was not
only absolute in fact, but unquestioned, and they inevitably
ran to riot in the exercise of it. The same madness overcame
them in the mass which overcame Nero, Caligula, Caracalla, as
individuals; for it is no more strange that the unnatural and
awful feeling of unlimited dominion over one's fellows should
turn the brain of a suddenly triumphant faction, than that it
should madden a single shallow-minded man. The men of "the
Mountain" were not only masters of France—except in La Vendée
and the neighboring region south of the Loire, where an obstinate
insurrection had broken out—but the armies which obeyed them
had driven back the invading Germans, had occupied the
Austrian Netherlands and taken possession of Savoy and Nice.
Intoxicated by these successes, the Convention had proclaimed
a crusade against all monarchical government, offering the
help of France to every people which would rise against
existing authorities, and declaring enmity to those who
refused alliance with the Revolution. Holland was attacked and
England forced to war. The spring of 1793 found a great
European coalition formed against revolutionary France, and
justified by the aggressions of the Jacobinical government.
For effective exercise of the power of the Jacobins, the
Convention as a whole proved too large a body, even when it
had been purged of Girondist opposition. Its authority was now
gathered into the hands of the famous Committee of Public
Safety, which became, in fact, the Revolutionary Government,
controlling the national armies, and the whole administration
of domestic and foreign affairs. Its reign was the Reign of
Terror, and the fearful Revolutionary Tribunal, which began
its bloody work with the guillotine in October, 1793, was the
chief instrument of its power. Robespierre, Barère, St. Just,
Couthon, Billaud-Varennes, Collot d' Herbois and Carnot—the
latter devoted to the business of the war—were the
controlling members of the Committee. Danton withdrew from it,
refusing to serve.
In September, the policy of terrorism was avowedly adopted,
and, in the language of the Paris Commune, "the Reign of
Terror" became "the order of the day." The arraignment of
"suspects" before the Revolutionary Tribunal began. On the
14th of October Marie Antoinette was put on trial; on the 16th
she met her death. On the 31st the twenty-one imprisoned
Girondist deputies were sent to the guillotine; followed on
the 10th of November by the remarkable woman, Madame Roland,
who was looked upon as the real leader of their party. From
that time until the mid-summer following, the blood-madness
raged; not in Paris alone, but throughout France, at Lyons,
Marseilles, Toulon, Bordeaux, Nantes, and wherever a show of
insurrection and resistance had challenged the ferocity of the
Commissioners of the Revolutionary Government, who had been
sent into the provinces with unlimited death-dealing powers.
{1092}
But when Jacobinism had destroyed all exterior opposition, it
began very soon to break into factions within itself. There
was a pitch in its excesses at which even Danton and
Robespierre became conservatives, as against Hébert and the
atheists of his faction. A brief struggle ensued, and the
Hébertists, in March, 1794, passed under the knife of the
guillotine. A month later Danton's enemies had rallied and he,
with his followers, went down before their attack, and the
sharp knife in the Place de la Revolution silenced his bold
tongue. Robespierre remained dominant for a few weeks longer
in the still reigning Committee of Public Safety; but his
domination was already undermined by many fears, distrusts and
jealousies among his colleagues and throughout his party. His
downfall came suddenly on the 27th of July. On the morning of
that day he was the dictator of the Convention and of its
ruling committee; at night he was a headless corpse, and Paris
was shouting with joy.
On the death of Robespierre the Reign of Terror came quickly
to an end. The reaction was sudden and swift. The Committee of
Public Safety was changed; of the old members only Carnot,
indispensable organizer of war, remained. The Revolutionary
Tribunal was remodeled. The Jacobin Club was broken up. The
surviving Girondist deputies came back to the Convention.
Prosecution of the Terrorists for their crimes began. A new
struggle opened, between the lower elements in Parisian and
French society, the sansculotte elements, which had controlled
the Revolution thus far, and the middle class, the
bourgeoisie, long cowed and suppressed, but now rallying to
recover its share of power. Bourgeoisie triumphed in the
contest. The Sansculottes made their last effort in a rising
on the 1st Prairial (May 20, 1795) and were put down. A new
constitution was framed which organized the government of the
Republic under a legislature in two chambers,—a Council of
Five Hundred and a Council of Ancients,—with an executive
Directory of Five. But only one third of the legislature first
assembled was to be freely elected by the people. The
remaining two thirds were to be taken from the membership of
the existing Convention. Paris rejected this last mentioned
feature of the constitution, while France at large ratified
it. The National Guard of Paris rose in insurrection on the
13th Vendémiare (October 5), and it was on this occasion that
the young Corsican officer, Napoleon Bonaparte, got his foot
on the first round of the ladder by which he climbed
afterwards to so great a height. Put in command of the regular
troops in Paris, which numbered only 5,000, against 30,000 of the
National Guards, he crushed the latter in an action of an
hour. That hour was the opening hour of his career.
The government of the Directory was instituted on the 27th of
October following. Of its five members, Carnot and Barras were
the only men of note, then or afterwards.
The war with the Coalition.
While France was cowering under "the Terror," its armies,
under Jourdan, Hoche, and Pichegru, had withstood the great
European combination with astonishing success. The allies were
weakened by ill feeling between Prussia and Austria over the
second partition of Poland, and generally by a want of concert
and capable leadership in their action. On the other side, the
democratic military system of the Republic, under Carnot's
keen eyes, was continually bringing forward fresh soldierly
talent to the front. The fall of the Jacobins made no change
in that vital department of the administration, and the
successes of the French were continued. In the summer of 1794
they carried the war into Germany, and expelled the allies
from the Austrian Netherlands. Thence they invaded Holland,
and before the end of January, 1795, they were masters of the
country; the Stadtholder had fled to England, and a Batavian
Republic had been organized. Spain had suffered losses in
battle with them along the Pyrenees, and the King of Sardinia
had yielded to them the passes of the Maritime Alps. In April
the King of Prussia made peace with France. Before the close
of the year 1795 the revolt in La Vendée was at an end; Spain
had made peace; Pichegru had attempted a great betrayal of the
armies on the Rhine, and had failed.
Napoleon in Italy.
This in brief was the situation at the opening of the year
1796, when the "little Corsican officer," who won the
confidence of the new government of the Directory by saving
its constitution on the 13th Vendemiare, planned the campaign
of the year, and received the command of the army sent to
Italy. He attacked the Sardinians in April, and a single month
sufficed to break the courage of their king and force him to a
treaty of peace. On the 10th of May he defeated the Austrians
at Lodi; on the 15th he was in Milan. Lombardy was abandoned
to him; all central Italy was at his mercy, and he began to
act the sovereign conqueror in the peninsula, with a contempt
for the government at Paris which he hardly concealed. Two
ephemeral republics were created under his direction, the
Cisalpine, in Lombardy, and the Cispadane, embracing Modena,
Ferrara and Bologna. The Papacy was shorn of part of its
territories.
Every attempt made by the Austrians to shake the hold which
Bonaparte had fastened on the peninsula only fixed it more
firmly. In the spring he began movements beyond the Alps, in
concert with Hoche on the Rhine, which threatened Vienna
itself and frightened Austria into proposals of peace.
Preliminaries, signed in April, foreshadowed the hard terms of
the treaty concluded at Campo Formio in the following October.
Austria gave up her Netherland provinces to France, and part
of her Italian territories to the Cisalpine Republic; but
received, in partial compensation, the city of Venice and a
portion of the dominions of the Venetian state; for, between
the armistice and the treaty, Bonaparte had attacked and
overthrown the venerable republic, and now divided it with his
humbled enemy.
France under the Directory.
The masterful Corsican, who handled these great matters with
the airs of a sovereign, may have known himself already to be
the coming master of France. For the inevitable submission
again of the many to one was growing plain to discerning eyes.
The frightful school-teaching of the Revolution had not
impressed practical lessons in politics on the mind of the
untrained democracy, so much as suspicions, distrusts, and
alarms. All the sobriety of temper, the confidence of feeling,
the constraining habit of public order, without which the
self-government of a people is impracticable, were yet to be
acquired. French democracy was not more prepared for
republican institutions in 1797 than it had been in 1789.
{1093}
There was no more temperance in its factions, no more balance
between parties, no more of a steadying potency in public
opinion. But it had been brought to a state of feeling that
would prefer the sinking of all factions under some vigorous
autocracy, rather than another appeal of their quarrels to the
guillotine. And events were moving fast to a point at which
that choice would require to be made. The summer of 1797 found
the members of the Directory in hopeless conflict with one
another and with the legislative councils. On the 4th of
September a "coup d' état," to which Bonaparte contributed
some help, purged both the Directory and the Councils of men
obnoxious to the violent faction, and exiled them to Guiana.
Perhaps the moment was favorable then for a soldier, with the
great prestige that Bonaparte had won, to mount to the seat of
power; but he did not so judge.
The Expedition to Egypt.
He planned, instead, an expedition to Egypt, directed against
the British power in the East,—an expedition that failed in
every object it could have, except the absence in which it
kept him from increasing political disorders at home. He was
able to maintain some appearance of success, by his
subjugation of Egypt and His invasion of Syria; but of harm
done to England, or of gain to France in the Mediterranean,
there was none; since Nelson, at the battle of the Nile,
destroyed the French fleet, and Turkey was added to the
Anglo-Austrian coalition. The blunder of the expedition, as
proved by its whole results, was not seen by the French people
so plainly, however, as they saw the growing hopelessness of
their own political state, and the alarming reverses which
their armies in Italy and on the Rhine had sustained since
Bonaparte went away.
French Aggressions.—The new Coalition.
Continued aggressions on the part of the French had provoked a
new European coalition, formed in 1798. In Switzerland they
had overthrown the ancient constitution of the confederacy,
organizing a new Helvetic Republic on the Gallic model, but
taking Geneva to themselves. In Italy they had set up a third
republic, the Roman, removing the Pope forcibly from his
sovereignty and from Rome. Every state within reach had then
taken fresh alarm, and even Russia, undisturbed in the
distance, was now enlisted against the troublesome democracy
of France.
The unwise King of Naples, entering rashly into the war before
his allies could support him, and hastening to restore the
Pope, had been driven (December, 1798) from his kingdom, which
underwent transformation into a fourth Italian republic, the
Parthenopeian. But this only stimulated the efforts of the
Coalition, and in the course of the following year the French
were expelled from all Italy, saving Genoa alone, and the
ephemeral republics they had set up were extinguished. On the
Rhine they had lost ground; but they had held their own in
Switzerland, after a fierce struggle with the Russian forces
of Suwarrow.
Napoleon in power.
When news of these disasters, and of the ripeness of the
situation at Paris for a new coup d' état, reached Bonaparte,
in Egypt, he deserted his army there, leaving it, under
Kléber, in a helpless situation, and made his way back to
France. He landed at Fréjus on the 9th of October. Precisely a
month later, by a combination with Sieyès, a veteran
revolutionist and maker of constitutions, he accomplished the
overthrow of the Directory. Before the year closed, a fresh
constitution was in force, which vested substantially
monarchical powers in an executive called the First Consul,
and the chosen First Consul was Napoleon Bonaparte. Two
associate Consuls, who sat with him, had no purpose but to
conceal for a short time the real absoluteness of his rule.
From that time, for fifteen years, the history of France—it
is almost possible to say the history of Europe—is the story
of the career of the extraordinary Corsican adventurer who
took possession of the French nation, with unparalleled
audacity, and who used it, with all that pertained to
it—lives, fortunes, talents, resources—in the most
prodigious and the most ruthless undertakings of personal
ambition that the modern world has ever seen. He was
selfishness incarnate; and he was the incarnation of genius in
all those modes of intellectual power which bear upon the
mastery of momentary circumstances and the mastery of men. But
of the higher genius that might have worthily employed such
vast powers,—that might have enlightened and inspired a
really great ambition in the man, to make himself an enduring
builder of civilization in the world, he had no spark. The
soul behind his genius was ignoble, the spirit was mean. And
even on the intellectual side, his genius had its narrowness.
His projects of selfishness were extraordinary, but never
sagacious, never far-sighted, thoughtfully studied, wisely
planned. There is no appearance in any part of his career of a
pondered policy, guiding him to a well-determined end in what
he did. The circumstances of any moment, whether on the
battle-field or in the political arena, he could handle with a
swift apprehension, a mastery and a power that may never have
been surpassed. But much commoner men have apprehended and
have commanded in a larger and more successful way the general
sweep of circumstances in their lives. It is that fact which
belittles Napoleon in the comparison often made between him
and Cæsar. He was probably Cæsar's equal in war. But who can
imagine Cæsar in Napoleon's place committing the blunders of
blind arrogance which ruined the latter in Germany and Spain,
or making his fatuous attempt to shut England, the great naval
power, out of continental Europe?
His domestic administration was beneficial to France in many
ways. He restored order, and maintained it, with a powerful
hand. He suppressed faction effectually, and eradicated for
the time all the political insanities of the Revolution. He
exploited the resources of the country with admirable success;
for his discernment in such matters was keen and his practical
judgment was generally sound. But he consumed the nation
faster than he gave it growth. His wars—the wars in which
Europe was almost unceasingly kept by the aggression of his
insolence and his greed—were the most murderous, the most
devouring, that any warrior among the civilized races of
mankind has ever been chargeable with.
{1094}
His blood-guiltiness in these wars is the one glaring fact
which ought to be foremost in every thought of them. But it is
not. There is a pitiable readiness in mankind to be dazzled
and cheated by red battle-lights, when it looks into history
for heroes; and few figures have been glorified more
illusively in the world's eye than the marvelous warrior, the
vulgar-minded adventurer, the prodigy of self-exalting genius,
Napoleon Bonaparte.
In the first year of his Consulate, Bonaparte recovered Italy,
by the extraordinary Marengo campaign, while Moreau won the
victory of Hohenlinden, and the Treaty of Luneville was
brought about. Austria obtained peace again by renewing the
concessions of Campo Formio, and by taking part in a
reconstruction of Germany, under Bonaparte's dictation, which
secularized the ecclesiastical states, extinguished the
freedom of most of the imperial cities, and aggrandized
Bavaria, Würtemberg, Baden and Saxony, as protégés and
dependencies of France. England was left alone in the war,
with much hostile feeling raised against her in Europe and
America by the arrogant use she had made of her mastery of the
sea. The neutral powers had all been embittered by her
maritime pretensions, and Bonaparte now brought about the
organization among them of a Northern League of armed
neutrality. England broke it with a single blow, by Nelson's
bombardment of Copenhagen. Napoleon, however, had conceived
the plan of starving English industries and ruining British
trade by a "continental system" of blockade against them,
which involved the compulsory exclusion of British ships and
British goods from all European countries. This impossible
project committed him to a desperate struggle for the
subjugation of Europe. It was the fundamental cause of his
ruin.
The First Empire.
In 1802 the First Consul advanced his restoration of
absolutism in France a second step, by securing the Consulate
for life. A short interval of peace with England was arranged,
but war broke out anew the following year, and the English for
a time had no allies. The French occupied Hanover, and the
Germans were quiescent. But in 1804, Bonaparte shocked Europe
by the abduction and execution of the Bourbon prince, Duc
d'Enghien, and began to challenge again the interference of
the surrounding powers by a new series of aggressive measures.
His ambition had thrown off all disguises; he had transformed
the Republic of France into an Empire, so called, and himself,
by title, into an Emperor, with an imposing crown. The
Cisalpine or Italian Republic received soon afterwards the
constitution of a kingdom, and he took the crown to himself as
King of Italy. Genoa and surrounding territory (the Ligurian
Republic) were annexed, at nearly the same time, to France;
several duchies were declared to be dependencies, and an
Italian principality was given to Napoleon's elder sister. The
effect produced in Europe by such arbitrary and admonitory
proceedings as these enabled Pitt, the younger, now at the
head of the English government, to form an alliance (1805),
first with Russia, afterwards with Austria, Sweden and Naples,
and finally with Prussia, to break the yoke which the French
Emperor had put upon Italy, Holland, Switzerland and Hanover,
and to resist his further aggressions.
Austerlitz and Trafalgar.
The amazing energy and military genius of Napoleon never had
more astonishing proof than in the swift campaign which broke
this coalition at Ulm and Austerlitz. Austria was forced to
another humiliating treaty, which surrendered Venice and
Venetia to the conqueror's new Kingdom of Italy; gave up Tyrol
to Bavaria; yielded other territory to Würtemberg, and raised
both electors to the rank of kings, while making Baden a grand
duchy, territorially enlarged. Prussia was dragged by force
into alliance with France, and took Hanover as pay. But
England triumphed at the same time on her own element, and
Napoleon's dream of carrying his legions across the Channel,
as Cæsar did, was forever dispelled by Nelson's dying victory
at Trafalgar. That battle, which destroyed the combined navies
of France and Spain, ended hope of contending successfully
with the relentless Britons at sea.
End of the Holy Roman Empire.
France was never permitted to learn the seriousness of
Trafalgar, and it put no check on the vaulting ambition in
Napoleon which now began to o'erleap itself. He gave free rein
to his arrogance in all directions. The King of Naples was
expelled from his kingdom and the crown conferred on Joseph
Bonaparte. Louis Bonaparte was made King of Holland. Southern
Germany was suddenly reconstructed again. The little kingdoms
of Napoleon's creation and the small states surrounding them
were declared to be separated from the ancient Empire, and
were formed into a Confederation of the Rhine, under the
protection of France. Warned by this rude announcement of the
precarious tenure of his imperial title as the head of the
Holy Roman Empire, Francis II. resigned it, and took to
himself, instead, a title as meaningless as that which
Napoleon had assumed,—the title of Emperor of Austria. The
venerable fiction of the Holy Roman Empire disappeared from
history on the 6th of August, 1806.
Subjugation of Prussia.
But while Austria had become submissive to the offensive
measures of Napoleon, Prussia became now fired with
unexpected, sudden wrath, and declared war in October, 1800.
It was a rash explosion of national resentment, and the
rashness was dearly paid for. At Jena and Auerstadt, Prussia
sank under the feet of the merciless conqueror, as helplessly
subjugated as a nation could be. Russia, attempting her
rescue, was overcome at Eylau and Friedland; and both the
vanquished powers came to terms with the victor at Tilsit
(July, 1807). The King of Prussia gave up all his kingdom west
of the Elbe, and all that it had acquired in the second and
third partitions of Poland. A new German kingdom, of
Westphalia, was constructed for Napoleon's youngest brother,
Jerome. A free state of Danzig, dependent on France, and a
Grand Duchy of Warsaw, were created. The Russian Czar, bribed
by some pieces of Polish Prussia, and by prospective
acquisitions from Turkey and Sweden, became an ally of
Napoleon and an accomplice in his plans for the subjection of
Europe. He enlisted his empire in the "continental system"
against England, and agreed to the enforcement of the decree
which Napoleon issued from Berlin, declaring the British
islands in a state of blockade, and prohibiting trade with
them. The British government retorted by its "orders in
council," which blockaded in the like paper-fashion all ports
of France and of the allies and dependencies of France. And so
England and Napoleon fought one another for years in the
peaceful arena of commerce, to the exasperation of neutral
nations and the destruction of the legitimate trade of the
world.
{1095}
The crime against Spain.
And now, having prostrated Germany, and captivated the Czar,
Napoleon turned toward another field, which had scarcely felt,
as yet, his intrusive hand. Spain had been in servile alliance
with France for ten years, while Portugal adhered steadily to
her friendship with Great Britain, and now refused to be
obedient to the Berlin Decree. Napoleon took prompt measures
for the punishment of so bold a defiance. A delusive treaty
with the Spanish court, for the partition of the small kingdom
of the Braganzas, won permission for an army under Junot to
enter Portugal, through Spain. No resistance to it was made.
The royal family of Portugal quitted Lisbon, setting sail for
Brazil, and Junot took possession of the kingdom. But this
accomplished only half of Napoleon's design. He meant to have
Spain, as well; and he found, in the miserable state of the
country, his opportunity to work out an ingenious,
unscrupulous scheme for its acquisition. His agents set on
foot a revolutionary movement, in favor of the worthless crown
prince, Ferdinand, against his equally worthless father, Charles
IV., and pretexts were obtained for an interference by French
troops. Charles was first coerced into an abdication; then
Ferdinand was lured to an interview with Napoleon, at Bayonne,
was made prisoner there, and compelled in his turn to
relinquish the crown. A vacancy on the Spanish throne having
been thus created, the Emperor gathered at Bayonne a small
assembly of Spanish notables, who offered the seat to Joseph
Bonaparte, already King of Naples. Joseph, obedient to his
imperial brother's wish, resigned the Neapolitan crown to
Murat, his sister's husband, accepted the crown of Spain, and
was established at Madrid with a French army at his back.
This was one of the two most ruinous of the political blunders
of Napoleon's life. He had cheated and insulted the whole
Spanish nation, in a way too contemptuous to be endured even
by a people long cast down. There was a revolt which did not
spring from any momentary passion, but which had an obstinacy
of deep feeling behind that made effective suppression of it
impossible. French armies could beat Spanish armies, and
disperse them, but they could not keep them dispersed; and
they could not break up the organization of a rebellion which
organized itself in every province, and which went on, when
necessary, without any organization at all. England sent
forces to the peninsula, under Wellington, for the support of
the insurgent Spaniards and Portuguese; and thenceforward, to
the end of his career, the most inextricable difficulties of
Napoleon were those in which he had entangled himself on the
southern side of the Pyrenees.
The chastening of Germany.
The other cardinal blunder in Napoleon's conduct, which proved
more destructive to him than the crime in Spain, was his
exasperating treatment of Germany. There was neither
magnanimity on the moral side of him nor real wisdom on the
intellectual side, to restrain him from using his victory with
immoderate insolence. He put as much shame as he could invent
into the humiliations of the German people. He had Prussia
under his heel, and he ground the heel upon her neck with the
whole weight of his power. The consequence was a pain and a
passion which wrought changes like a miracle in the temper and
character of the abused nation. There were springs of feeling
opened and currents of national life set in motion that might
never have been otherwise discovered. Enlightened men and
strong men from all parts of Germany found themselves called
to Prussia and to the front of its affairs, and their way made
easy for them in labors of restoration and reform. Stein and
Hardenburg remodeled the administration of the kingdom,
uprooted the remains of serfdom in it, and gave new freedom to
its energies. Scharnhorst organized the military system on
which rose in time the greatest of military powers. Humboldt
planned the school system which educated Prussia beyond all
her neighbors, in the succeeding generations. Even the
philosophers came out of their closets and took part, as
Fichte did, in the stirring and uplifting of the spirit of
their countrymen. So it was that the outrages of Napoleon in
Germany revenged themselves, by summoning into existence an
unsuspected energy that would be turned against him to destroy
him in the end.
But the time of destruction was not yet come. He had a few
years of triumph still before him,—of triumph everywhere
except in Portugal and Spain. Austria, resisting him once more
(1809), was once more crushed at Wagram, and to such
submissiveness that it gave a daughter of the imperial house
in marriage to the parvenu sovereign of France, next year,
when he divorced his wife Josephine. He was at the summit of
his renown that year, but already declining from the greatest
height of his power. In 1811 there was little to change the
situation.
The fall of Napoleon.
In 1812 the downfall of Napoleon was begun by his fatal
expedition to Russia. The next year Prussia, half regenerated
within the brief time since Jena and Tilsit, went into
alliance with Russia, and the War of Liberation was begun.
Austria soon joined the alliance; and at Leipzig (Oct. 18,
1813) the three nations shattered at last the yoke of
oppression that had bound Europe so long. At the same time,
the French armies in Spain were expelled, and Wellington
entered France through the Pyrenees, to meet the allies who
pursued Napoleon across the Rhine. Forced to abdicate and
retire to the little island of Elba (the sovereignty of which
was ceded to him), he remained there in quiet from May, 1814,
until March, 1815, when he escaped and reappeared in France.
Army and people welcomed him. The Bourbon monarchy, which had
been restored by the allies, fell at his approach. The king,
Louis XVIII., fled. Napoleon recovered his throne and occupied
it for it few weeks. But the alliance which had expelled him from
it refused to permit his recovery of power. The question was
settled finally at Waterloo, on the 18th of June, when a
British army under Wellington and a Prussian army under
Blücher won a victory which left no hope to the beaten
Emperor. He surrendered himself to the commander of a British
vessel of war, and was sent to confinement for the remainder
of his life on the remote island of St. Helena.
{1096}
The Congress of Vienna.
But Europe, delivered from one tyrannical master, was now
given over to several of them, in a combination which
oppressed it for a generation. The sovereigns who had united
to dethrone Napoleon, with the two emperors, of Austria and
Russia, at their head, and with the Austrian minister,
Metternich, for their most trusted counselor, assumed first,
in the Congress of Vienna, a general work of political
rearrangement, to repair the Revolutionary and Napoleonic
disturbances, and then, subsequently, an authoritative
supervision of European politics which proved as meddlesome as
Napoleon's had been. Their first act, as before stated, was to
restore the Bourbon monarchy in France, indifferent to the
wishes of the people. In Spain, Ferdinand had already taken
the throne, when Joseph fled. In Italy, the King of Sardinia
was restored and Genoa transferred to him; Lombardy and
Venetia were given back to Austria; Tuscany, Modena and some
minor duchies received Hapsburg princes; the Pope recovered
his States, and the Bourbons returned to Naples and Sicily. In
Germany, the Prussian kingdom was enlarged again by several
absorptions, including part of Saxony, but some of its Polish
territory was given to the Czar; Hanover became a kingdom;
Austria resumed the provinces which Napoleon had conveyed to
his Rhenish proteges; and, finally, a Germanic Confederation
was formed, to take the place of the extinct Empire, and with
no more efficiency in its constitution. In the Netherlands, a
new kingdom was formed, to bear the Netherland name, and to
embrace Holland and Belgium in union, with the House of Orange
on the throne.
The Holy Alliance.
Between the Czar, the Emperor of Austria, and the King of
Prussia, there was a personal agreement that went with these
arrangements of the Congress of Vienna, and which was
prolonged for a number of years. In the public understanding,
this was associated, perhaps wrongly, with a written
declaration, known as the Holy Alliance, in which the three
sovereigns set forth their intention to regulate their foreign
and domestic policy by the precepts of Christianity, and
invited all princes to join their alliance for the maintenance
of peace and the promotion of brotherly love. Whether
identical as a fact with this Holy Alliance or secreted behind
it, there was, and long continued to be, an undoubted league
between these sovereigns and others, which had aims very
different from the promotion of brotherly love. It was wholly
reactionary, hostile to all political liberalism, and
repressive of all movements in the interest of the people.
Metternich was its skilful minister, and the deadly, soulless
system of beaureaucratic absolutism which he organized in
Austria was the model of government that it strove to
introduce.
In Italy, the governments generally were reduced to the
Austrian model, and the political state of the peninsula, for
forty years, was scarcely better, if at all, than it had been
under the Spanish rule in the sixteenth and seventeenth
centuries.
Germany, as divided as ever, under a federal constitution
which federated nothing else so much as the big and little
courts and their reactionary ideas, was profoundly depressed
in political spirit, while prospering materially and showing
notable signs of intellectual life.
France was not slow in finding that the restored Bourbons and
the restored émigrés had forgotten nothing and learned
nothing, in the twenty-five years of their exile. They put all
their strength into the turning back of the clock, trying to
make it strike again the hours in which the Revolution and
Napoleon had been so busy. It was futile work; but it sickened
and angered the nation none the less. After all the stress and
struggle it had gone through, there was a strong nation yet to
resist the Bourbonism brought back to power. It recovered from
the exhaustion of its wars with a marvellous quickness. The
millions of peasant land-owners, who were the greatest
creation of the Revolution, dug wealth from its soil with
untiring free arms, and soon made it the most prosperous land
in Europe. Through country and city, the ideas of the
Revolution were in the brains of the common people, while its
energies were in their brawn, and Bourbonism needed more
wisdom than it ever possessed to reconcile them to its
restoration.
Revolutions of 1820-1821.
It was not in France, however, but in Spain, that the first
rising against the restored order of things occurred.
Ferdinand VII., when released from his French imprisonment in
1814, was warmly received in Spain, and took the crown with
quite general consent. He accepted the constitution under
which the country had been governed since 1812, and made large
lying promises of a liberal rule. But when seated on the
throne, he suppressed the constitution, restored the
Inquisition, revived the monasteries, called back the expelled
Jesuits, and opened a deadly persecution of the liberals in
Spanish politics. No effective resistance to him was organized
until 1820, when a revolutionary movement took form which
forced the king, in March, to reestablish the constitution and
call different men to his council. Portugal, at the same time,
adopted a similar constitution, and the exiled king, John VI.,
returning now from Brazil, accepted it.
The revolution in Spain set fire to the discontent that had
smouldered in Italy. The latter broke forth, in the summer of
1820, at Naples, where the Bourbon king made no resistance to
a sudden revolt of soldiers and citizens, but yielded the
constitution they demanded at once. Sardinia followed, in the
next spring, with a rising of the Piedmontese, requiring
constitutional government. The king, Victor Emmanuel I., who
was very old, resigned the crown to his brother, Charles
Felix. The latter refused the demands of the
constitutionalists and called upon Austria for help.
{1097}
These outbreaks of the revolutionary spirit were alarming to
the sovereigns of the Holy Alliance and excited them to a
vigorous activity. They convened a Congress, first at Troppau,
in October, 1820, afterwards at Laybach, and finally at
Verona, to plan concerted action for the suppressing of the
popular movements of the time. As the result of these
conferences, the congenial duty of restoring absolutism in the
Two Sicilies, and of helping the King of Sardinia against his
subjects, was imposed upon Austria and willingly performed;
while the Bourbon court of France was solicited to put an end
to the bad example of constitutional government in Spain. Both
commissions were executed with fidelity and zeal. Italy was
flung down and fettered again; French troops occupied Spain
from 1823 until 1827. England, alone, protested against this
flagrant policing of Europe by the Holy Alliance. Canning, its
spirited minister, "called in the New World," as he described
his policy, "to redress the balance of the old," by
recognizing the independence of the Spanish colonies in
America, which, Cuba excepted, were now separated forever from
the crown of Spain. Brazil in like manner was cut loose from
the Portuguese crown, and assumed the constitution of an
empire, under Dom Pedro, the eldest son of John VI.
Greek War of Independence.
These stifled revolutions in western Europe failed to
discourage a more obstinate insurrection which began in the
East, among the Christian subjects of the Turks, in 1821. The
Ottoman government had been growing weaker and more vicious
for many years. The corrupted and turbulent Janissaries were
the masters of the empire, and a sultan who attempted, as
Selim III. (1789-1807) had done, to introduce reforms, was
put to death. Russia, under Alexander I., had been continuing
to gain ground at the expense of the Turks, and assuming more
and more of a patronage of the Christian subjects of the
Porte. There seems to be little doubt that the rising begun in
1821, which had its start in Moldavia, and its first leader in a
Greek, Ypsilanti, who had been an officer in the Russian
service, received encouragement from the Czar. But Alexander
turned his back on it when the Greeks sprang to arms and
seriously appealed to Europe for help in a war of national
independence. The Congress of Verona condemned the Greek
rising, in common with that of Spain. Again, England alone
showed sympathy, but did nothing as a government, and left the
struggling Greeks to such help as they might win from
individual friends. Lord Byron, with others, went to Greece,
carrying money and arms; and, generally, these volunteers lost
much of their ardor in the Greek cause when they came into
close contact with its native supporters. But the Greeks,
however lacking in high qualities, made an obstinate fight,
and held their ground against the Turks, until the feeling of
sympathy with them had grown too strong in England and in
France for the governments of those countries to be heedless
of it. Moreover, in Russia, Alexander I. had been succeeded
(1825) by the aggressive Nicholas, who had not patience to
wait for the slow crumbling of the Ottoman power, but was
determined to break it as summarily as he could. He joined
France and England, therefore, in an alliance and in a naval
demonstration against the Turks (1827), which had its result
in the battle of Navarino. The allies of Nicholas went no
farther; but he pursued the undertaking, in a war which lasted
until the autumn of 1829. Turkey at the end of it conceded the
independence of Greece, and practically that of Wallachia and
Moldavia. In 1830, a conference at London established the
Greek kingdom, and in 1833 a Bavarian prince, Otho I., was
settled on the throne.
Revolutions of 1830.
Before this result was reached, revolution in western Europe,
arrested in 1821-23, had broken out afresh. Bourbonism had
become unendurable to France. Charles X., who succeeded his
brother Louis XVIII; in 1824, showed not only a more arbitrary
temper, but a disposition more deferential to the Church than
his predecessor. He was fond of the Jesuits, whom his subjects
very commonly distrusted and disliked. He attempted to put
shackles on the press, and when elections to the chamber of
deputies went repeatedly against the government, he undertook
practically to alter the suffrage by ordinances of his own. A
revolution seemed then to be the only remedy that was open to
the nation, and it was adopted in July, 1830, the veteran
Lafayette taking the lead. Charles X. was driven to
abdication, and left France for England. The crown was
transferred to Louis Philippe, of the Orleans branch of the
Bourbon family,—son of the Philip Égalité who joined the
Jacobins in the Revolution.
The July Revolution in France proved a signal for more
outbreaks in other parts of Europe than had followed the
Spanish rising of ten years before.
Belgium broke away from the union with Holland, which had
never satisfied its people, and, after some struggle, won
recognized independence, as a new kingdom, with Leopold of
Saxe Coburg raised to the throne.
Russian Poland, bearing the name of a constitutional kingdom
since 1815, but having the Czar for its king and the Czar's
brother for viceroy, found no lighter oppression than before,
and made a hopeless, brave attempt to escape from its bonds.
The revolt was put down with unmerciful severity, and
thousands of the hapless patriots went to exile in Siberia.
In Germany, there were numerous demonstrations in the smaller
states, which succeeded more or less in extorting
constitutional concessions; but there was no revolutionary
movement on a larger scale.
Italy remained quiet in both the north and the south, where
disturbances had arisen before; but commotions occurred in the
Papal states, and in Modena and Parma, which required the arms
of Austria to suppress.
In England, the agitations of the continent hastened forward a
revolution which went far beyond all other popular movements
of the time in the lasting importance of its effects, and
which exhibited in their first great triumph the peaceful
forces of the Platform and the Press.
{1098}
England under the last two Georges.
But we have given little attention to affairs in Great Britain
during the past half century or more, and need to glance
backward.
Under the third of the Georges, there was distinctly a check
given to the political progress which England had been making
since the Revolution of 1688. The wilfulness of the king
fairly broke down, for a considerable period, the system of
responsible cabinet government which had been taking shape and
root under the two earlier Hanoverians, and ministers became
again, for a time, mere mouthpieces of the royal will. The
rupture with the American colonies, and the unsuccessful war
which ended in their independence, brought in another
influence, adverse, for the time being, to popular claims in
government. For it was not King George, alone, nor Lord North,
nor any small Tory faction, that prosecuted and upheld the
attempt to make the colonists in America submissive to
"taxation without representation." The English nation at large
approved the war; English national sentiment was hostile to
the Americans in their independent attitude, and the
Whigs—the liberals then in English politics—were a
discredited and weakened party for many years because of their
leaning to the American side of the questions in dispute.
Following close upon the American war, came the French
Revolution, which frightened into Toryism great numbers of
people who did not by nature belong there. In England, as
everywhere else, the reaction lasted long, and government was
more arbitrary and repressive than it could possibly have
continued to be under different circumstances.
Meantime extraordinary social changes had taken place, which
tended to mark more strongly the petrifying of things in the
political world. The great age of mechanical invention had
been fully opened. Machines had begun to do the work of human
hands in every industry, and steam had begun to move the
machines. The organization of labor, too, had assumed a new
phase. The factory system had arisen; and with it had appeared
a new growth of cities and towns. Production was accelerated;
wealth was accumulating more rapidly, and the distribution of
wealth was following different lines. The English middle class
was rising fast as a money-power and was gathering the
increased energies of the kingdom into its hands.
Parliamentary Reform in England.
But while the tendency of social changes had been to increase
vastly the importance of this powerful middle class, the
political conditions had actually diminished its weight in
public affairs. In Parliament, it had no adequate
representation. The old boroughs, which sent members to the
House of Commons as they had sent them for generations before,
no longer contained a respectable fraction of the "commons of
England," supposed to be represented in the House, and those
who voted in the boroughs were not at all the better class of
the new England of the nineteenth century. Great numbers of
the boroughs were mere private estates, and the few votes
polled in them were cast by tenants who elected their
landlords' nominees. On the other hand, the large cities and
the numerous towns of recent growth had either no
representation in Parliament, or they had equal representation
with the "rotten boroughs" which cast two or three or
half-a-dozen votes.
That the commons of England, with all the gain of substantial
strength they had been making in the last half of the
eighteenth century and the first quarter of the nineteenth,
endured this travesty of popular representation so long as
until 1832, is proof of the potency of the conservatism which
the French Revolution induced. The subject of parliamentary
reform had been now and then discussed since Chatham's time;
but Toryism had always been able to thrust it aside and bring
the discussion to naught. At last there came the day when the
question would no longer be put down. The agitations of 1830,
combined with a very serious depression of industry and trade,
produced a state of feeling which could not be defied. King and
Parliament yielded to the public demand, and the First Reform
Bill was passed. It widened the suffrage and amended very
considerably the inequities of the parliamentary
representation; but both reforms have been carried much
farther since, by two later bills.
Repeal of the English Corn Laws.
The reform of Parliament soon brought a broader spirit into
legislation. Its finest fruits began to ripen about 1838, when
an agitation for the repeal of the foolish and wicked English
"corn-laws" was opened by Cobden and Bright. In the day of the
"rotten boroughs," when the landlords controlled Parliament,
they imagined that they had "protected" the farming interest,
and secured higher rents to themselves, by laying heavy duties
on the importation of foreign bread-stuffs. A famous "sliding
scale" of such duties had been invented, which raised the
duties when prices in the home market dropped, and lowered
them proportionately when home prices rose. Thus the consumers
were always deprived, as much as possible, of any cheapening
of their bread which bountiful Nature might offer, and paid a
heavy tax to increase the gains of the owners and cultivators
of land.
Now that other "interests" besides the agricultural had a
voice in Parliament, and had become very strong, they began to
cry out against this iniquity, and demand that the "corn laws"
be done away with. The famous "anti-corn-law league,"
organized mainly by the exertions of Richard Cobden, conducted
an agitation of the question which brought about the repeal of
the laws in 1846.
But the effect of the agitation did not end there. So thorough
and prolonged a discussion of the matter had enlightened the
English people upon the whole question between "protection"
and free trade. The manufacturers and mechanics, who had led
the movement against protective duties on food-stuffs, were
brought to see that they were handicapped more than protected
by duties on imports in their own departments of production.
So Cobden and his party continued their attacks on the theory
of "protection" until every vestige of it was cleared from the
English statute books.
The Revolutions of 1848.
Another year of revolutions throughout Europe came in 1848,
and the starting point of excitement was not, this time, at
Paris, but, strangely enough, in the Vatican, at Rome. Pius
IX. had been elected to the papal chair in 1846, and had
immediately rejoiced the hearts and raised the hopes of the
patriots in misgoverned Italy by his liberal measures of
reform and his promising words. The attitude of the Pope gave
encouragement to popular demonstrations in various Italian
states during the later part of 1847; and in January 1848 a
formidable rising occurred in Sicily, followed in February by
another in Naples. King Ferdinand II. was compelled to change
his ministers and to concede a constitution, which he did not
long respect.
{1099}
Lombardy was slow this time in being kindled; but when the
flame of revolution burst out it was very fierce. The
Austrians were driven first from Milan (March, 1848), and then
from city after city, until they seemed to be abandoning their
Italian possessions altogether. Venice asserted its republican
independence under the presidency of Daniel Manin. Charles
Albert, King of Sardinia, thought the time favorable for
recovering Lombardy to himself, and declared war against
Austria. The expulsion of the Austrians became the demand of
the entire peninsula, and even the Pope, the Grand Duke of
Tuscany, and the King of Naples were forced to join the
patriotic movement in appearance, though not with sincerity.
But the King of Sardinia brought ruin on the whole
undertaking, by sustaining a fatal defeat in battle at
Custozza, in July, 1848.
France had been for some time well prepared for revolt, and
was quick to be moved by the first whisper of it from Italy.
The short-lived popularity of Louis Philippe was a thing of
the past. There was widespread discontent with many things,
and especially with the limited suffrage. The French people
had the desire and the need of something like that grand
measure of electoral reform which England secured so
peacefully in 1832; but they could not reach it in the
peaceful way. The aptitude and the habit of handling and
directing the great forces of public opinion effectively in
such a situation were alike wanting among them. There was a
mixture, moreover, of social theories and dreams in their
political undertaking, which heated the movement and made it
more certainly explosive. The Parisian mob took arms and built
barricades on the 23d of February. The next day Louis Philippe
signed an abdication, and a week later he was an exile in
England. For the remainder of the year France was strangely
ruled: first by a self-constituted provisional government,
Lamartine at its head, which opened national workshops, and
attempted to give employment and pay to 125,000 enrolled
citizens in need; afterwards by a Constituent National
Assembly, and an Executive Commission, which found the
national workshops a devouring monster, difficult to control
and hard to destroy. Paris got rid of the shops in June, at
the cost of a battle which lasted four days, and in which more
than 8,000 people were wounded or slain. In November a
republican constitution, framed by the Assembly, was adopted,
and on the 10th of December Louis Napoleon Bonaparte, son of
Louis Bonaparte, once King of Holland, and of Hortense
Beauharnais, daughter of the Empress Josephine, was elected
President of the Republic by an enormous popular vote.
The revolutionary shock of 1848 was felt in Germany soon after
the fall of the monarchy in France. In March there was rioting
in Berlin and a collision with the troops, which alarmed the
king so seriously that he yielded promises to almost every
demand. Similar risings in other capitals had about the same
success. At Vienna, the outbreak was more violent and drove
both Metternich and the Emperor from the city. In the first
flush of these popular triumphs there came about a most
hopeful-looking election of a Germanic National Assembly,
representative of all Germany, and gathered at Frankfort, on
the invitation of the Diet, for a revision of the constitution
of the Confederation. But the Assembly contained more learned
scholars than practical statesmen, and its constitutional work
was wasted labor. A Constituent Assembly elected in Prussia
accomplished no more, and was dispersed in the end without
resistance; but the king granted a constitution of his own
framing. The revolutionary movement in Germany left its
effects, in a general loosening of the bonds of harsh
government, a general broadening of political ideas, a final
breaking of the Metternich influence, even in Austria; but it
passed over the existing institutions of the much-divided
country with a very light touch.
In Hungary the revolution, stimulated by the eloquence of
Kossuth, was carried to the pitch of serious war. The
Hungarians had resolved to be an independent nation, and in
the struggle which ensued they approached very near the
attainment of their desire; but Russia came to the help of the
Hapsburgs, and the armies of the two despotisms combined were
more than the Hungarians could resist. Their revolt was
abandoned in August, 1849, and Kossuth, with other leaders,
escaped through Turkish territory to other lands.
The suppression of the Hungarian revolt was followed by a
complete restoration of the despotism and domination of the
Austrians in Italy. Charles Albert, of Sardinia, had taken
courage from the struggle in Hungary and had renewed
hostilities in March, 1849. But, again, he was crushingly
defeated, at Novara, and resigned, in despair, the crown to
his son, Victor Emmanuel II. Venice, which had resisted a long
siege with heroic constancy, capitulated in August of the same
year. The whole of Lombardy and Venetia was bowed once more
under the merciless tyranny of the Austrians, and savage
revenges were taken upon the patriots who failed to escape.
Rome, whence the Pope—no longer a patron of liberal
politics—had fled, and where a republic had been once more
set up, with Garibaldi and Mazzini in its constituent
assembly, was besieged and taken, and the republic overturned,
by troops sent from republican France. The Neapolitan king
restored his atrocious absolutism without help, by measures of
the greatest brutality.
A civil war in Switzerland, which occurred simultaneously with
the political collisions in surrounding countries, is hardly
to be classed with them. It was rather a religious conflict,
between the Roman Catholics and their opponents. The Catholic
cantons, united in a League, called the Sonderbund, were
defeated in the war; the Jesuits were expelled from
Switzerland in consequence, and, in September, 1848, a new
constitution for the confederacy was adopted.
{1100}
The Second Empire in France.
The election of Louis Napoleon to the Presidency of the French
Republic was ominous of a disposition among the people to
bring back a Napoleonic regime, with all the falsities that it
might imply. He so construed the vote which elected him, and
does not seem to have been mistaken. Having surrounded himself
with unprincipled adventurers, and employed three years of his
presidency in preparations for the attempt, he executed a coup
d' état on the 2d of December, dispersing the National
Assembly, arresting influential republicans, and submitting to
popular vote a new constitution which prolonged his presidency
to ten years. This was but the first step. A year later he
secured a "plébiscite" which made him hereditary Emperor of
the French. The new Empire—the Second Empire in France—was
more vulgar, more false, more fraudulent, more swarmingly a
nest of self-seeking and dishonest adventurers, than the First
had been, and with nothing of the saving genius that was in
the First. It rotted for eighteen years, and then it fell,
France with it.
The Crimean War.
A certain respectability was lent to this second Napoleonic
Empire by the alliance of England with it in 1854, against
Russia. The Czar, Nicholas, had determined to defy resistance
in Europe to his designs against the Turks. He first
endeavored to persuade England to join him in dividing the
possessions of "the sick man," as he described the Ottoman,
and, that proposal being declined, he opened on his own
account a quarrel with the Porte. France and England joined
forces in assisting the Turks, and the little kingdom of
Sardinia, from motives of far-seeing policy, came into the
alliance. The principal campaign of the war was fought in the
Crimea, and its notable incident was the long siege of
Sebastopol, which the Russians defended until September, 1855.
An armistice was concluded the following January, and the
terms of peace were settled at a general conference of powers
in Paris the next March. The results of the war were a check
to Russia, but an improvement of the condition of the Sultan's
Christian subjects. Moldavia and Wallachia were soon
afterwards united under the name of Roumania, paying tribute
to the Porte, but otherwise independent.
Liberation and Unification of Italy.
The part taken by Sardinia in the Crimean War gave that
kingdom a standing in European politics which had never been
recognized before. It was a measure of sagacious policy due to
the able statesman, Count Cavour, who had become the trusted
minister of Victor Emmanuel, the Sardinian king. The king and
his minister were agreed in one aim—the unification of Italy
under the headship of the House of Savoy. By her participation
in the war with Russia, Sardinia won a position which enabled
her to claim and secure admission to the Congress of Paris,
among the greater powers. At that conference, Count Cavour
found an opportunity to direct attention to the deplorable
state of affairs in Italy, under the Austrian rule and
influence. No action by the Congress was taken; but the
Italian question was raised in importance at once by the
discussion of it, and Italy was rallied to the side of
Sardinia as the necessary head of any practicable movement
toward liberation. More than that: France was moved to
sympathy with the Italian cause, and Louis Napoleon was led to
believe that his throne would be strengthened by espousing it.
He encouraged Cavour and Victor Emmanuel, therefore, in an
attitude toward Austria which resulted in war (1859), and when
the Sardinians were attacked he went to their assistance with
a powerful force. At Magenta and Solferino the Austrians were
decisively beaten, and the French emperor then abruptly closed
the war, making a treaty which ceded Lombardy alone to
Sardinia, leaving Venetia still under the oppressor, and the
remainder of Italy unchanged in its state. For payment of the
service he had rendered, Louis Napoleon exacted Savoy and
Nice, and Victor Emmanuel was compelled to part with the
original seat of his House.
There was bitter disappointment among the Italian patriots
over the meagerness of the fruit yielded by the splendid
victories of Magenta and Solferino. Despite the treaty of
Villafranca, they were determined to have more, and they did.
Tuscany, Parma, Modena and Romagna demanded annexation to
Sardinia, and, after a plébiscite, they were received (March,
1860) into the kingdom and represented in its parliament. In
the Two Sicilies there was an intense longing for deliverance
from the brutalities of the Neapolitan Bourbons. Victor
Emmanuel could not venture an attack upon the rotten kingdom,
for fear of resentments in France and elsewhere. But the
adventurous soldier, Garibaldi, now took on himself the task
of completing the liberation of Italy. With an army of
volunteers, he first swept the Neapolitans out of Sicily, and
then took Naples itself, within the space of four months,
between May and September, 1860. The whole dominion was
annexed to what now became the Kingdom of Italy, and which
embraced the entire peninsula except Rome, garrisoned for the
Pope by French troops, and Venetia, still held in the clutches
of Austria. In 1862, Garibaldi raised volunteers for an attack
on Rome; but the unwise movement was suppressed by Victor
Emmanuel. Two years later, the King of Italy brought about an
agreement with the French emperor to withdraw his garrison
from Rome, and, after that had been done, the annexation of
Rome to the Italian kingdom was a mere question of time. It
came about in 1870, after the fall of Louis Napoleon, and
Victor Emmanuel transferred his capital to the Eternal City.
The Pope's domain was then limited to the precincts of the
Vatican.
The Austro-Prussian War.
The unification of Italy was the first of a remarkable series
of nationalizing movements which have been the most
significant feature of the history of the last half of the
nineteenth century. The next of these movements to begin was
in Germany—the much divided country of one peculiarly
homogeneous and identical race. Influences tending toward
unification had been acting on the Germans since Prussia rose
to superiority in the north. By the middle of the century, the
educated, military Prussia that was founded after 1806 had
become a power capable of great things in capable hands; and
the capable hands received it. In 1861, William I. succeeded
his brother as king; in 1862, Otto von Bismarck became his
prime minister. It was a remarkable combination of qualities
and talents, and remarkable results came from it.
{1101}
In 1864, Prussia and Austria acted together in taking
Schleswig and Holstein, as German states, from Denmark. The
next year they quarreled over the administration of the
duchies. In 1866, they fought, and Austria was entirely
vanquished in a "seven weeks war." The superiority of Prussia,
organized by her great military administrator and soldier,
Moltke, was overpowering. Her rival was left completely at her
mercy. But Bismarck and his king were wisely magnanimous. They
refrained from inflicting on the Austrians a humiliation that
would rankle and keep enmities alive. They foresaw the need of
future friendship between the two powers of central Europe, as
against Russia on the one side and France on the other, and
they shaped their policy to secure it. It sufficed them to
have put Austria out of the German circle, forever; to have
ended the false relation in which the Hapsburgs—rulers of an
essentially Slavonic and Magyar dominion—had stood towards
Germany so long.
Prussia now dominated the surrounding German states so
commandingly that the mode and the time of their unification
may be said to have been within her own control. Hanover,
Hesse-Cassel, Nassau, Schleswig-Holstein, and Frankfort were
incorporated in the Prussian kingdom at once. Saxony and the
other states of the north were enveloped in a North German
Confederation, with the King of Prussia for its hereditary
president and commander of its forces. The states of southern
Germany were left unfederated for the time being, but bound
themselves by treaty to put their armies at the disposal of
Prussia. Thus Germany as a whole was already made practically
one power, under the control of King William and his great
minister.
Final Expulsion of Austria from Italy.
The same war which unified Germany carried forward the
nationalization of Italy another step. Victor Emmanuel had
shrewdly entered into an alliance with Prussia before the war
began, and attacked Austria in Venetia simultaneously with the
German attack on the Bohemian side. The Italians were beaten
at Custozza, and their navy was defeated in the Adriatic; but
the victorious Prussians exacted Venetia for them in the
settlement of peace, and Austria had no more footing in the
peninsula.
Austria-Hungary.
It is greatly to the credit of Austria, long blinded and
stupefied by the narcotic of absolutism, that the lessons of
the war of 1866 sank deep into her mind and produced a very
genuine enlightenment. The whole policy of the court of Vienna
was changed, and with it the constitution of the Empire. The
statesmen of Hungary were called into consultation with the
statesmen of Austria, and the outcome of their discussions was
an agreement which swept away the old Austria, holding Hungary
in subjection, and created in its place a new power—a federal
Austria-Hungary—equalized in its two principal parts, and
united under the same sovereign with distinct constitutions.
The Franco-German War.
The surprising triumph of Prussia in the Seven Weeks War stung
Louis Napoleon with a jealousy which he could not conceal. He
was incapable of perceiving what it signified,—of perfection
in the organization of the Prussian kingdom and of power in
its resources. He was under illusions as to the strength of
his own Empire. It had been honeycombed by the rascalities
that attended and surrounded him, and he did not know it. He
imagined France to be capable of putting a check on Prussian
aggrandizement; and he began very early after Sadowa to pursue
King William with demands which were tolerably certain to end
in war. When the war came, in July, 1870, it was by his own
declaration; yet Prussia was prepared for it and France was
not. In six weeks time from the declaration of war,—in one
month from the first action,—Napoleon himself was a prisoner
of war in the hands of the Germans, surrendered at Sedan, with
the whole army which he personally commanded; the Empire was in
collapse, and a provisional government had taken the direction
of affairs. On the 20th of September Paris was invested; on
the 28th of October Baznine, with an army of 150,000 men,
capitulated at Metz. A hopeless attempt to rally the nation to
fresh efforts of defence in the interior, on the Loire, was
valiantly made under the lead of Gambetta; but it was too
late. When the year closed, besieged Paris was at the verge of
starvation and all attempts to relieve the city had failed. On
the 28th of January, 1871, an armistice was sought and
obtained; on the 30th, Paris was surrendered and the Germans
entered it. The treaty of peace negotiated subsequently ceded
Alsace to Germany, with a fifth of Lorraine, and bound France
to pay a war indemnity of five milliards of francs.
The Paris Commune.
In February, 1871, the provisional "Government of National
Defense" gave way to a National Assembly, duly elected under
the provisions of the armistice, and an executive was
instituted at Bordeaux, under the presidency of M. Thiers.
Early in March, the German forces were withdrawn from Paris,
and control of the city was immediately seized by that
dangerous element—Jacobinical, or Red Republican, or
Communistic, as it may be variously described—which always
shows itself with promptitude and power in the French capital,
at disorderly times. The Commune was proclaimed, and the
national government was defied. From the 2d of April until the
28th of May Paris was again under siege, this time by forces
of the French government, fighting to overcome the
revolutionists within. The proceedings of the latter were more
wantonly destructive than those of the Terrorists of the
Revolution, and scarcely less sanguinary. The Commune was
suppressed in the end with great severity.
The Third French Republic.
M. Thiers held the presidency of the Third Republic in France
until 1873, when he resigned and was succeeded by Marshal
MacMahon. In 1875 the constitution which has since remained,
with some amendments, in force, was framed and adopted. In
1878 Marshal MacMahon gave place to M. Jules Grévy, and the
latter to M. Sadi Carnot in 1887. Republican government seems
to be firmly and permanently established in France at last.
The country is in a prosperous state, and nothing but its
passionate desire to recover Alsace and to avenge Sedan
appears threatening to its future.
{1102}
The new German Empire.
While the army of the Germans was still besieging Paris, and
King William and Prince Bismarck were at Versailles, in
January, 1871, the last act which completed the unification
and nationalization of Germany was performed. This was the
assumption of the title of Emperor by King William, in
response to the prayer of the princes of Germany and of the
North German Parliament. On the 16th of the following April, a
constitution for the German Empire was proclaimed.
The long and extraordinary reign of the Emperor William I. was
ended by his death in 1888. His son, Frederick III., was dying
at the time of an incurable disease, and survived his father
only three months. The son of Frederick III., William II.,
signalized the beginning of his reign by dismissing, after a
few months, the great minister, Count Bismarck, on whom his
strong grandfather had leaned, and who had wrought such
marvels of statesmanship and diplomacy for the German race.
What may lie at the end of the reign which had this
self-sufficient beginning is not to be foretold.
The Russo-Turkish War.
Since the Franco-German War of 1870-1871, the peace of Europe
has been broken but once by hostilities within the European
boundary. In 1875 a rising against the unendurable misrule of
the Turks began in Bosnia and Herzegovina, and was imitated
the next year in Bulgaria. Servia and Montenegro declared war
against Turkey and were overcome. Russia then espoused the
cause of the struggling Slavs, and opened, in 1877, a most
formidable new attempt to crush the Ottoman power, and to
accomplish her coveted extension to the Mediterranean. From
May until the following January the storm of war raged
fiercely along the Balkans. The Turks fought stubbornly, but
they were beaten back, and nothing but a dangerous opposition
of feeling among the other powers in Europe stayed the hand of
the Czar from being laid upon Constantinople. The powers
required a settlement of the peace between Russia and Turkey
to be made by a general Congress, and it was held at Berlin in
June, 1878. Bulgaria was divided by the Congress into two
states, one tributary to the Turk, but freely governed, the
other subject to Turkey, but under a Christian governor. This
arrangement was set aside seven years later by a bloodless
revolution, which formed one Bulgaria in nominal relations of
dependence upon the Porte. This was the third important
nationalizing movement within a quarter of a century, and it
is likely to go farther in southeastern Europe, until it
settles, perhaps, "the Eastern question," so far as the
European side of it is concerned.
Bosnia and Herzegovina were given to Austria by the Congress
of Berlin; the independence of Roumania, Servia, and
Montenegro was made more complete; the island of Cyprus was
turned over to Great Britain for administration.
Spain in the last half Century.
A few words will tell sufficiently the story of Spain since
the successor of Joseph Bonaparte quitted the scene. Ferdinand
VII. died in 1833, and his infant daughter was proclaimed
queen, as Isabella II., with her mother, Christina, regent.
Isabella's title was disputed by Don Carlos, the late king's
brother, and a civil war between Carlists and Christinos went
on for years. When Isabella came of age she proved to be a
dissolute woman, with strong proclivities toward arbitrary
government. A liberal party, and even a republican party, had
been steadily gaining ground in Spain, and the queen placed
herself in conflict with it. In 1868 a revolution drove her
into France. The revolutionists offered the crown to a prince
distantly related to the royal family of Prussia. It was this
incident that gave Louis Napoleon a pretext for quarreling
with the King of Prussia in 1870 and declaring war. Declined
by the Hohenzollern prince, the Spanish crown was then offered
to Amadeo, son of the King of Italy, who accepted it, but
resigned it again in 1873, after a reign of two years, in
disgust with the factions which troubled him. Castelar, the
distinguished republican orator, then formed a republican
government which held the reins for a few months, but could
not establish order in the troubled land. The monarchy was
restored in December, 1874, by the coronation of Alfonso XII.,
son of the exiled Isabella. Since that time Spain has
preserved a tolerably peaceful and contented state.
England and Ireland.
In recent years, the part which Great Britain has taken in
Continental affairs has been slight; and, indeed, there has
been little in those affairs to bring about important
international relations. In domestic politics, a single series
of questions, concerning Ireland and the connection of Ireland
with the British part of the United Kingdom, has mastered the
field, overriding all others and compelling the statesmen of
the day to take them in hand. The sudden imperiousness of
these questions affords a peculiar manifestation of the
political conscience in nations which the nineteenth century
has wakened and set astir. Through all the prior centuries of
their subjection, the treatment of the Irish people by the
English was as cruel and as heedless of justice and right as
the treatment of Poles by Russians or of Greeks by Turks. They
were trebly oppressed: as conquered subjects of an alien race,
as religious enemies, as possible rivals in production and
trade. They were deprived of political and civil rights; they
were denied the ministrations of their priests; the better
employments and more honorable professions were closed to
them; the industries which promised prosperity to their
country were suppressed. A small minority of Protestant
colonists became the recognized nation, so far as a
nationality in Ireland was recognized at all. When Ireland was
said to have a Parliament, it was the Parliament of the
minority alone. No Catholic sat in it; no Catholic was
represented in it. When Irishmen were permitted to bear arms,
they were Protestant Irishmen only who formed the privileged
militia. Seven-tenths of the inhabitants of the island were
politically as non-existent as actual serfdom could have made
them. For the most part they were peasants and their state as
such scarcely above the condition of serfs. They owned no
land; their leases were insecure; the laws protected them in
the least possible degree; their landlords were mostly of the
hostile creed and race. No country in Europe showed conditions
better calculated to distress and degrade a people.
{1103}
This was the state of things in Ireland until nearly the end
of the eighteenth century. In 1782 legislative independence
was conceded; but the independent legislature was still the
Parliament in which Protestants sat alone. In 1793 Catholics
were admitted to the franchise; but seats in Parliament were
still denied to them and they must elect Protestants to
represent them. In 1800 the Act of Union, creating the United
Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, extinguished the
Parliament at Dublin and provided for the introduction of
Irish peers and members to represent Irish constituencies in
the greater Parliament at London; but still no Catholic could
take a seat in either House. Not until 1829, after eighteen
years of the fierce agitation which Daniel O'Connell stirred
up, were Catholic disabilities entirely removed and the people
of that faith placed on an equal footing with Protestants in
political and civil rights. O'Connell's agitation was not for
Catholic emancipation alone, but for the repeal of the Act of
Union and the restoration of legislative independence and
national distinctness to Ireland. That desire has been hot in
the Irish heart from the day the Union was accomplished. After
O'Connell's death, there was quiet on the subject for a time.
The fearful famine of 1845-7 deadened all political feeling.
Then there was a recurrence of the passionate animosity to
British rule which had kindled unfortunate rebellions in 1798
and 1803. It produced the Fenian conspiracies, which ran their
course from about 1858 to 1867. But soon after that time Irish
nationalism resumed a more politic temper, and doubled the
energy of its efforts by confining them to peaceful and lawful
ways. The Home Rule movement, which began in 1873, was aimed
at the organization of a compact and well-guided Irish party
in Parliament, to press the demand for legislative
independence and to act with united weight on lines of Irish
policy carefully laid down. This Home Rule party soon acquired
a powerful leader in Mr. Charles Parnell, and was successful
in carrying questions of reform in Ireland to the forefront of
English politics.
Under the influence of its great leader, Mr. Gladstone, the
Liberal party had already, before the Home Rule party came
into the field, begun to adopt measures for the redress of
Irish wrongs. In 1869, the Irish branch of the Church of
England, calling itself the Church of Ireland, was
disestablished. The membership of that church was reckoned to
be one-tenth of the population; but it had been supported by
the taxation of the whole. The Catholics, the Presbyterians
and other dissenters were now released from this unjust
burden. In 1870, a Land Bill—the first of several, which
restrict the power of Irish landlords to oppress their
tenants, and which protect the latter, while opening
opportunities of land-ownership to them—was passed. The land
question became for a time more prominent than the Home Rule
question, and the party of Mr. Parnell was practically
absorbed in an Irish National Land League, formed to force
landlords to a reduction of rents. The methods of coercion
adopted brought the League into collision with the Liberal
Government, notwithstanding the general sympathy of the latter
with Irish complaints. For a time the Irish Nationalists went
into alliance with the English Conservatives; but in 1886 Mr.
Gladstone became convinced, and convinced the majority of his
party, that just and harmonious relations between Ireland and
Great Britain could never be established without the
concession of Home Rule to the former. A bill which he
introduced to that end was defeated in the House of Commons
and Mr. Gladstone resigned. In 1892 he was returned to power,
and in September of the following year he carried in the House
of Commons a bill for the transferring of Irish legislation to
a distinct Parliament at Dublin. It was defeated, however, in
the House of Lords, and the question now rests in an unsettled
state. Mr. Gladstone's retirement from the premiership and
from the leadership of his party, which occurred in March,
1894, may affect the prospects of the measure; but the English
Liberals are committed to its principle, and it appears to be
certain that the Irish question will attain some solution
within no very long time.
Conclusion.
The beginning of the year 1894, when this is written, finds
Europe at peace, as it has been for a number of years. But the
peace is not of friendship, nor of honorable confidence, nor
of good will. The greater nations are lying on their arms, so
to speak, watching one another with strained eyes and with
jealous hearts. France, Germany, Italy, Austria, Russia, are
marshaling armies in the season of peace that, not many years
ago, would have seemed monstrous for war. Exactions of
military service and taxation for military expenditure are
pressed upon their people to the point of last endurance. The
preparation for battle is so vast in its scale, so unceasing,
so increasing, so far in the lead over all other efforts among
men, that it seems like a new affirmation of belief that war
is the natural order of the world.
And yet, the dread of war is greater in the civilized world
than ever before. The interests and influences that work for
peace are more powerful than at any former time. The wealth
which war threatens, the commerce which it interrupts, the
industry which it disturbs, the intelligence which it offends,
the humanity which it shocks, the Christianity which it
grieves, grow stronger to resist it, year by year. The
statesman and the diplomatist are under checks of
responsibility which a generation no older than Palmerston's
never felt. The arbitrator and the tribunal of arbitration
have become familiar within a quarter of a century. The spirit
of the age opposes war with rising earnestness and increasing
force; while the circumstance and fact of the time seem
arranged for it as the chief business of mankind. It is a
singular and a critical situation; the outcome from it is
impenetrably hidden.
Within itself, too, each nation is troubled with hostilities
that the world has not known before. Democracy in politics is
bringing in, as was inevitable, democracy in the whole social
system; and the period of adjustment to it, which we are
passing through, could not fail to be a period of trial and of
many dangers. The Anarchist, the Nihilist, the Socialist in
his many variations—what are they going to do in the time
that lies before us?
Europe, at the present stage of its history, is in the thick
of many questions; and so we leave it.
{1104}
EURYMEDON, Battles of the (B. C. 466).
See ATHENS: B. C. 470-466.
EUSKALDUNAC.
See BASQUES.
EUTAW SPRINGS, Battle of(1781).
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1780-1781.
EUTHYNI, The.
See LOGISTÆ.
EUTYCHIAN HERESY.
See NESTORIAN AND MONOPHYSITE CONTROVERSY.
EUXINE, The.
Euxinus Pontus, or Pontus Euxinus, the Black Sea,
as named by the Greeks.
EVACUATION DAY.
The anniversary of the evacuation of New York by
the British, Nov. 25, 1783.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
A. D. 1783 (NOVEMBER-DECEMBER).
EVANGELICAL UNION OF GERMANY, The.
See GERMANY: A. D. 1608-1618.
EVER VICTORIOUS ARMY, The.
See CHINA: A. D. 1850-1864.
EVESHAM, Battle of (1265).
The battle which finished the civil war in England known as
the Barons' War. It was fought Aug. 3, 1265, and Earl Simon de
Montfort, the soul of the popular cause, was slain, with most
of his followers. Prince Edward, afterwards Edward I.,
commanded the royal forces.
See ENGLAND: A. D. 1216-1274.
EVICTIONS, Irish.
See IRELAND: A. D. 1886.
EXARCHS OF RAVENNA.
See ROME: A. D. 554-800.
EXARCHS OF THE DIOCESE.
See PRIMATES.
EXCHEQUER.
EXCHEQUER ROLLS.
EXCHEQUER TALLIES.
"The Exchequer of the Norman kings was the court in which the
whole financial business of the country was transacted, and as
the whole administration of justice, and even the military
organisation, was dependent upon the fiscal officers, the
whole framework of society may be said to have passed annually
under its review. It derived its name from the chequered cloth
which covered the table at which the accounts were taken, a
name which suggested to the spectator the idea of a game at
chess between the receiver and the payer, the treasurer and
the sheriff. … The record of the business was preserved in
three great rolls; one kept by the Treasurer, another by the
Chancellor, and a third by an officer nominated by the king,
who registered the matters of legal and special importance.
The rolls of the Treasurer and Chancellor were duplicates;
that of the former was called from its shape the great roll of
the Pipe, and that of the latter the roll of the Chancery. These
documents are mostly still in existence. The Pipe Rolls are
complete from the second year of Henry II. and the
Chancellor's Rolls nearly so. Of the preceding period only one
roll, that of the thirty-first year of Henry I., is preserved,
and this with Domesday book is the most valuable store of
information which exists for the administrative history of the
age. The financial reports were made to the barons by the
sheriffs of the counties. At Easter and Michælmas each of
these magistrates produced his own accounts and paid in to the
Exchequer such an instalment or proffer as he could afford,
retaining in hand sufficient money for current expenses. In
token of receipt a tally was made; a long piece of wood in
which a number of notches were cut, marking the pounds,
shillings, and pence received; this stick was then split down
the middle, each half contained exactly the same number of
notches, and no alteration could of course be made without
certain detection. … The fire which destroyed the old Houses
of Parliament is said to have originated in the burning of the
old Exchequer tallies."
_W. Stubbs,
Constitutional History of England,
chapter 11, section 126._
"The wooden 'tallies' on which a large notch represented
£1,000, and smaller notches other sums, while a halfpenny was
denoted by a small round hole, were actually in use at the
Exchequer until the year 1824."
_Sir J. Lubbock,
Preface to Hall's "Antiquities and
Curiosities of the Exchequer."_
ALSO IN: _E. F. Henderson,
Select Historical Documents of the Middle Ages,
book 1, number 5._
See, also, CURIA REGIS and CHESS.
EXCHEQUER, Chancellor of the.
In the reign of Henry III., of England, "was created the
office of Chancellor of the Exchequer, to whom the Exchequer
seal was entrusted, and who with the Treasurer took part in
the equitable jurisdiction of the Exchequer, although not in
the common law jurisdiction of the barons, which extended
itself as the legal fictions of pleading brought common pleas
into this court."
W. Stubbs, Constitutional History of England,
chapter 15, section 237.
EXCLUSION BILL, The.
See ENGLAND: A. D. 1679-1681.
EXCOMMUNICATIONS AND INTERDICTS.
"Excommunication, whatever opinions may be entertained as to
its religious efficacy, was originally nothing more in
appearance than the exercise of a right which every society
claims, the expulsion of refractory members from its body. No
direct temporal disadvantages attended this penalty for
several ages; but as it was the most severe of spiritual
censures, and tended to exclude the object of it, not only
from a participation in religious rites, but in a considerable
degree from the intercourse of Christian society, it was used
sparingly and upon the gravest occasions. Gradually, as the
church became more powerful and more imperious,
excommunications were issued upon every provocation, rather as
a weapon of ecclesiastical warfare than with any regard to its
original intention. … Princes who felt the inadequacy of
their own laws to secure obedience called in the assistance of
more formidable sanctions. Several capitularies of Charlemagne
denounce the penalty of excommunication against incendiaries
or deserters from the army. Charles the Bald procured similar
censures against his revolted vassals. Thus the boundary
between temporal and spiritual offences grew every day less
distinct; and the clergy were encouraged to fresh
encroachments, as they discovered the secret of rendering them
successful. … The support due to church censures by temporal
judges is vaguely declared in the capitularies of Pepin and
Charlemagne. It became in later ages a more established
principle in France and England, and, I presume, in other
countries. By our common law an excommunicated person is
incapable of being a witness or of bringing an action; and he
may be detained in prison until he obtains absolution. By the
Establishments of St. Louis, his estate or person might be
attached by the magistrate. These actual penalties were
attended by marks of abhorrence and ignominy still more
calculated to make an impression on ordinary minds. They were
to be shunned, like men infected with leprosy, by their
servants, their friends, and their families. …
{1105}
But as excommunication, which attacked only one and perhaps a
hardened sinner, was not always efficacious, the church had
recourse to a more comprehensive punishment. For the offence
of a nobleman she put a county, for that of a prince his
entire kingdom, under an interdict or suspension of religious
offices. No stretch of her tyranny was perhaps so outrageous
as this. During an interdict the churches were closed, the
bells silent, the dead unburied, no rite but those of baptism
and extreme unction performed. The penalty fell upon those who
had neither partaken nor could have prevented the offence; and
the offence was often but a private dispute, in which the
pride of a pope or bishop had been wounded. Interdicts were so
rare before the time of Gregory VII., that some have referred
them to him as their author; instances may however be found of
an earlier date."
_H. Hallam,
The Middle Ages,
chapter 7, part 1._
ALSO IN:
_M. Gosselin,
The Power of the Pope in the Middle Ages,
part 2, chapter 1, article 3._
_H. C. Lea,
Studies in Church History,
part 3._
_P. Schaff,
History of the Christian Church,
volume 4, chapter 8, section 86._
EXECUTIVE SESSIONS.
See CONGRESS OF THE UNITED SESSIONS.
EXEGETÆ, The.
A board of three persons in ancient Athens "to whom
application might be made in all matters relating to sacred
law, and also, probably, with regard to the significance of
the Diosemia, or celestial phenomena and other signs by which
future events were foretold."
_G. F. Schömann,
Antiquities of Greece: The State,
part 3, chapter 3._
EXETER, Origin of.
"Isca Damnoniorum, Caer Wisc, Exanceaster, Exeter, keeping
essentially the same name under all changes, stands
distinguished as the one great English city which has, in a
more marked way than any other, kept its unbroken being and
its unbroken position throughout all ages. The City on the
Exe, in all ages and in all tongues keeping its name as the
City on the Exe, allows of an easy definition. … It is the
one city [of England] in which we can feel sure that human
habitation and city life have never ceased from the days of
the early Cæsars to our own." At the Norman conquest, Exeter
did not submit to William until after a siege of 18 days, in
1068.
_E. A. Freeman,
Exeter,
chapters 1-2._
EXILARCH, The.
See JEWS: 7TH CENTURY.
EXODUS FROM EGYPT, The.
See JEWS: THE ROUTE OF THE EXODUS.
EYLAU, Battle of (1807).
See GERMANY: A. D. 1806-1807.
EYRE, Governor, and the Jamaica insurrection.
See JAMAICA: A. D. 1865.
EYSTEIN I., King of Norway, A. D. 1116-1122.
Eystein II., 1155-1157.
EZZELINO, OR ECCELINO DI ROMANO,
The tyranny of, and the crusade against.
See VERONA: A. D. 1236-1259.
F.
FABIAN POLICY.-FABIAN TACTICS.
The policy pursued by Q. Fabius Maximus, the Roman Dictator,
called "the Cunctator" or Lingerer, in his campaigns against
Hannibal.
See PUNIC WAR, THE SECOND.
FACTORY LEGISLATION, English.
"During the 17th and 18th centuries, when the skill of the
workmen had greatly improved, and the productiveness of labour
had increased, various methods were resorted to for the
purpose of prolonging the working day. The noontide nap was
first dispensed with, then other intervals of rest were
curtailed, and ultimately artificial light was introduced,
which had the effect of abolishing the difference between the
short days of winter and the long days of summer, thus
equalising, the working day throughout the year. The opening
of the 19th century was signalised by a new cry, namely, for a
reduction in the hours of labour; this was in consequence of
the introduction of female and child labour into the
factories, and the deterioration of the workers as a result of
excessive overwork. … The overwork of the young, and
particularly the excessive hours in the factories, became such
crying evils that in 1801 the first Act was passed to restrict
the hours of labour for apprentices, who were prohibited from
working more than 12 hours a day, between six A. M. and nine
P. M., and that provision should be made for teaching them to
read and write, and other educational exercises. This Act
further provided that the mills should be whitewashed at least
once a year; and that doors and windows should be made to
admit fresh air. This Act was followed by a series of
commissions and committees of inquiry, the result being that
it was several times amended. The details of the evidence
given before the several commissions and committees of inquiry
are sickening in the extreme; the medical testimony was
unanimous in its verdict that the children were physically
ruined by overwork; those who escaped with their lives were so
crippled and maimed that they were unable to maintain
themselves in after life, and became paupers. It was proven
that out of 4,000 who entered the factory before they were 30
years of age, only 600 were to be found in the mills after
that age. By Sir Robert Peel's Bill in 1819 it was proposed to
limit the hours to 11 per day with one and a half for meals,
for those under 16 years of age. But the mill-owners
prophesied the ruin of the manufacturers of the country—they
could not compete with the foreign markets, it was an
interference with the freedom of labour, the spare time given
would be spent in debauchery and riot, and that if passed,
other trades would require the same provisions. The Bill was
defeated, and the hours fixed at 72 per week; the justices,
that is to say the manufacturers, were entrusted with the
enforcement of the law. In 1825 a new law was passed defining
the time when breakfast and dinner was to be taken, and fixing
the time to half an hour for the first repast, and a full hour
for dinner; the traditional term of apprentices was dropped
and the modern classification of children and young persons
was substituted, and children were once more prohibited from
working more than 12 hours a day. But every means was adopted
to evade the law. … After thousands of petitions, and
numerous angry debates in Parliament, the Act of 1833 was
passed, which limited the working hours of children to 48
hours per week, and provided that each child should have a
certain amount of schooling, and with it factory inspectors
were appointed to enforce the law.
{1106}
But the law was not to come into operation until March 1,
1836, during which time it had to be explained and defended in
one session, amended in a second, and made binding in a third.
After several Royal Commissions and inquiries by select
committees, this Act has been eight times amended, until the
working hours of children are now limited to six per day, and
for young persons and women to 56 per week; these provisions
with certain modifications are now extended to workshops, and
the whole law is being consolidated and amended. … The whole
series of the Factory Acts, dating from 42 George III., c. 73,
to the 37 and 38 Victoria 1874, forms a code of legislation,
in regard to working people, unexampled in any age and
unequalled in any country in the world. … Outside
Parliament efforts have been constantly made to further reduce
the working hours."
_G. Howell,
The Conflicts of Capital and Labour,
pages 298-301._
"The continental governments, of course, have been obliged to
make regulations covering kindred subjects, but rarely have
they kept pace with English legislation. America has enacted
progressive laws so far as the condition of factory workers
has warranted. It should be remembered that the abuses which
crept into the system in England never existed in this country
in any such degree as we know they did in the old country. Yet
there are few States in America where manufactures predominate
or hold an important position in which law has not stepped in
and restricted either the hours of labor, or the conditions of
labor, and insisted upon the education of factory children,
although the laws are usually silent as to children of
agricultural laborers. It is is not wholly in the passage of
purely factory acts that the factory system has influenced the
legislation of the world. England may have suffered
temporarily from the effects of some of her factory
legislation, and the recent reduction of the hours of labor to
nine and one-half per day, less than in any other country, has
had the effect of placing her works at a disadvantage; but, in
the long run, England will be the gainer on account of all the
work she has done in the way of legislative restrictions upon
labor. In this she has changed her whole policy. Formerly
trade must be restricted and labor allowed to demoralize
itself under the specious plea of being free; now, trade must
be free and labor restricted in the interests of society,
which means in the interest of good morals. The factory system
has not only wrought this change, but has compelled the
economists to recognize the distinction between commodities
and services. There has been greater and greater freedom of
contract in respect to commodities, but the contracts which
involve labor have become more and more completely under the
authority and supervision of the State. 'Seventy-five years
ago scarcely a single law existed in any country for
regulating the contract for services in the interest of the
laboring classes. At the same time the contract for
commodities was everywhere subject to minute and incessant
regulations' [Hon. F. A. Walker]. Factory legislation in
England, as elsewhere, has had for its chief object the
regulation of the labor of children and women; but its scope
has constantly increased by successive and progressive
amendments until they have attempted to secure the physical
and moral well-being of the working-man in all trades, and to
give him every condition of salubrity and of personal safety
in the workshops. The excellent effect of factory legislation
has been made manifest throughout the whole of Great Britain.
'Physically, the factory child can bear fair comparison with
the child brought up in the fields,' and, intellectually,
progress is far greater with the former than with the latter.
Public opinion, struck by these results, has demanded the
extension of protective measures for children to every kind of
industrial labor, until parliament has brought under the
influence of these laws the most powerful industries. To carry
the factory regulations and those relative to schooling into
effect, England has an efficient corps of factory inspectors.
The manufacturers of England are unanimous in acknowledging
that to the activity, to the sense of impartiality, displayed
by these inspectors, is due the fact that an entire
application of the law has been possible without individual
interests being thereby jeopardized to a very serious extent.
… In no other country is there so elaborate a code of
factory laws as the 'British factory and workshop act' of 1878
(41 Vict., chapter 16), it being an act consolidating all the
factory acts since Sir Robert Peel's act of 1802."
_C. D. Wright,
Factory Legislation
(Tenth Census of the United States, volume 2)._
ALSO IN:
_First annual Report of the Factory Inspectors of
the State of New York, 1886, appendix._
_C. Knight,
Popular History of England,
volume 8, chapters 22 and 27._
_H. Martineau,
History of the Thirty Years' Peace,
volume 2, pages 512-515._
See, also, ENGLAND: A. D. 1832-1833.
FADDILEY, Battle of.
Fought successfully by the Britons with the West Saxons, on
the border of Cheshire, A. D. 583.
_J. R. Green,
The Making of England,
page 206._
FAENZA, Battle of (A. D. 542).
See ROME: A. D. 535-553.
FÆSULÆ.
See FLORENCE, ORIGIN AND NAME.
FAGGING.
See EDUCATION, MODERN: EUROPEAN COUNTRIES.
ENGLAND.—THE GREAT PUBLIC SCHOOLS.
FAGGIOLA, Battle of (1425).
See ITALY: A. D. 1412-1447.
FAINÉANT KINGS.
See FRANKS: A. D. 511-752.
FAIR OAKS, Battle of.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
A. D. 1862 (MAY: VIRGINIA).
FAIRFAX AND THE PARLIAMENTARY ARMY.
See ENGLAND: A. D. 1645 (JANUARY-APRIL),
and (JUNE); 1647 (APRIL-AUGUST);
1648 (NOVEMBER); 1649 (FEBRUARY).
FALAISE.
"The Castle [in Normandy] where legend fixes the birth of
William of Normandy, and where history fixes the famous homage
of William of Scotland, is a vast donjon of the eleventh or
twelfth century. One of the grandest of those massive square
keeps which I have already spoken of as distinguishing the
earliest military architecture of Normandy crowns the summit
of a precipitous rock, fronted by another mass of rock, wilder
still, on which the cannon of England were planted during
Henry's siege. To these rocks, these 'felsen,' the spot owes
its name of Falaise. … Between these two rugged heights lies
a narrow dell. … The den is crowded with mills and
tanneries, but the mills and tanneries of Falaise have their
share in the historic interest of the place. … In every from
which the story has taken in history or legend, the mother of
the Conqueror appears as the daughter of a tanner of Falaise."
_E. A. Freeman,
Norman Conquest,
chapter 8, section 1._
{1107}
FALAISE, Peace of (1175).
See SCOTLAND: A. D. 1174-1189.
FALK LAWS, The.
See GERMANY: A. D. 1873-1887.
FALKIRK, Battles of (1298 and 1746).
See SCOTLAND: A. D. 1290-1305;
and 1745-1746.
FAMAGOSTA: A. D. 1571. Taken by the Turks.
See TURKS: A. D. 1566-1571.
FAMILIA.
The slaves belonging to a master were collectively called
familia among the Romans.
_E. Guhl and W. Koner,
Life of the Greeks and Romans,
section 100._
FAMILY COMPACT.
The First Bourbon.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1733.
The Second.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1743 (OCTOBER).
The Third.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1761 (AUGUST).
FAMILY COMPACT IN CANADA, The.
See CANADA: A. D.1820-1837.
FAMINE, The Cotton.
See, ENGLAND: A. D. 1861-1865.
FAMINE, The Irish.
See IRELAND: A. D. 1845-1847.
FANARIOTS.
See PHANARIOTS.
FANEUIL HALL.
"The fame of Faneuil Hall [Boston, Mass.] is as wide as the
country itself. It has been called the 'Cradle of Liberty,'
because dedicated by that early apostle of freedom, James
Otis, to the cause of liberty, in a speech delivered in the
hall in March, 1763. … Its walls have echoed to the voices
of the great departed in times gone by, and in every great
public exigency the people, with one accord, assembled
together to take counsel within its hallowed precincts. …
The Old Market-house … existing in Dock Square in 1734, was
demolished by a mob in 1736-37. There was contention among the
people as to whether they would be served at their houses in
the old way, or resort to fixed localities, and one set of
disputants took this summary method of settling the question.
… In 1740, the question of the Market-house being revived,
Peter Faneuil proposed to build one at his own cost on the
town's land in Dock Square, upon condition that the town
should legally authorize it, enact proper regulations, and
maintain it for the purpose named. Mr. Faneuil's noble offer
was courteously received, but such was the division of opinion
on the subject that it was accepted by a majority of only
seven votes, out of 727 persons voting. The building was
completed in September, 1742, and three days after, at a
meeting of citizens, the hall was formally accepted and a vote
of thanks passed to the donor. … The town voted that the
hall should be called Faneuil Hall forever. … The original
size of the building was 40 by 100 feet, just half the present
width; the hall would contain 1,000 persons. At the fire of
January 13, 1763, the whole interior was destroyed, but the
town voted to rebuild in March, and the State authorized a
lottery in aid of the design. The first meeting after the
rebuilding was held on the 14th March, 1763, when James Otis
delivered the dedicatory address. In 1806 the Hull was
enlarged in width to 80 feet, and by the addition of a third
story."
_S. A. Drake,
Old Landmarks of Boston,
chapter 4._
FANNIAN LAW, The.
See ORCHIAN, FANNIAN, DIDIAN LAWS.
FARM.
See FERM.
FARMERS' ALLIANCE.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1877-1891.
FARMER'S LETTERS, The.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1767-1768.
FARNESE, Alexander, Duke of Parma, in the Netherlands.
See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1577-1581, to 1588-1593.
FARNESE, The House of.
See PARMA: A. D. 1545-1592.
FARRAGUT, Admiral David G.
Capture of New Orleans.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
A. D. 1862 (APRIL: ON THE MISSISSIPPI).
Attack on Vicksburg.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
A. D. 1862 (MAY-JULY: ON THE MISSISSIPPI).
Victory in Mobile Bay.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
A. D.1864 (AUGUST: ALABAMA).
FARSAKH, OR FARSANG, The.
See PARASANG.
FASCES.
See LICTORS.
FASTI.
"Dies Fasti were the days upon which the Courts of Justice [in
ancient Rome] were open, and legal business could be
transacted before the Praetor; the Dies Nefasti were those
upon which the Courts were closed. … All days consecrated to
the worship of the Gods by sacrifices, feasts or games, were
named Festi. … For nearly four centuries and a-half after
the foundation of the city the knowledge of the Calendar was
confined to the Pontifices alone. … These secrets which
might be, and doubtless often were, employed for political
ends, were at length divulged in the year B. C. 314, by Cn.
Flavius, who drew up tables embracing all this
carefully-treasured information, and hung them up in the Forum
for the inspection of the public. From this time forward
documents of this description were known by the name of Fasti.
… These Fasti, in fact, corresponded very closely to a
modern Almanac. … The Fasti just described have, to prevent
confusion, been called Calendaria, or Fasti Calendares, and
must be carefully distinguished from certain compositions also
named Fasti by the ancients. These were regular chronicles in
which were recorded each year the names of the Consuls and
other magistrates, together with the remarkable events, and
the days on which they occurred. The most important were the
Annales Maximi, kept by the Pontifex Maximus."
_W. Ramsay,
Manual of Roman Antiquities,
chapter 11._
FATIMITE CALIPHS, The.
See MAHOMETAN CONQUEST AND EMPIRE: A. D. 908-1171;
Also, ASSASSINS.
FAVILA, King of Leon and the Asturias, or Oviedo, A. D. 737-739.
FEAST OF LIBERTY.
See GREECE: B. C. 479:
PERSIAN WARS.
PLATÆA.
FEAST OF REASON, The.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1793 (NOVEMBER).
FEAST OF THE FEDERATION, The.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1789-1791.
FEAST OF THE SUPREME BEING, The.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1793-1794 (NOVEMBER-JUNE).
FECIALES.
FETIALES.
See FETIALES.
FEDELI.
See CATTANI.
FEDERAL CITY, The.
See WASHINGTON (CITY): A. D. 1791.
FEDERAL CONSTITUTION OF SWITZERLAND.
See CONSTITUTION OF THE SWISS CONFEDERATION.
{1108}
FEDERAL CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA.
See CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES.
FEDERAL GOVERNMENT.
FEDERATIONS.
"Two requisites seem necessary to constitute a Federal
Government in … its most perfect form. On the one hand, each
of the members of the Union must be wholly independent in
those matters which concern each member only. On the other
hand, all must be subject to a common power in those matters
which concern the whole body of members collectively. Thus
each member will fix for itself the laws of its criminal
jurisprudence, and even the details of its political
constitution. And it will do this, not as a matter of
privilege or concession from any higher power, but as a matter
of absolute right, by virtue of its inherent powers as an
independent commonwealth. But in all matters which concern the
general body, the sovereignty of the several members will
cease. Each member is perfectly independent within its own
sphere; but there is another sphere in which its independence,
or rather its separate existence, vanishes. It is invested
with every right of sovereignty on one class of subjects, but
there is another class of subjects on which it is as incapable
of separate political action as any province or city of a
monarchy or of an indivisible republic. … Four Federal
Commonwealths … stand out, in four different ages of the
world, as commanding, above all others, the attention of
students of political history. Of these four, one belongs to
what is usually known as 'ancient,' another to what is
commonly called 'mediæval' history; a third arose in the
period of transition between mediæval and modern history; the
creation of the fourth may have been witnessed by some few of
those who are still counted among living men, … These four
Commonwealths are, First, the Achaian League [see GREECE: B.
C. 280-146] in the later days of Ancient Greece, whose most
flourishing period comes within the third century before our
era. Second, the Confederation of the Swiss Cantons [see
CONSTITUTION OF THE SWISS CONFEDERATION], which, with many
changes in its extent and constitution, has lasted from the
thirteenth century to our own day. Third, the Seven United
Provinces of the Netherlands [see NETHERLANDS: A. D.
1577-1581, and after], whose Union arose in the War of
Independence against Spain, and lasted, in a republican form,
till the war of the French Revolution. Fourth, the United
States of North America [see CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES
OF AMERICA], which formed a Federal Union after their revolt
from the British Crown under George the Third, and whose
destiny forms one of the most important, and certainly the
most interesting, of the political problems of our own time.
Of these four, three come sufficiently near to the full
realization of the Federal idea to be entitled to rank among
perfect Federal Governments. The Achaian League, and the
United States since the adoption of the present Constitution,
are indeed the most perfect developments of the Federal
principle which the world has ever seen. The Swiss
Confederation, in its origin a Union of the loosest kind, has
gradually drawn the Federal bond tighter and tighter, till,
within our own times, it has assumed a form which fairly
entitles it to rank beside Achaia and America. The claim of
the United Provinces is more doubtful; their union was at no
period of their republican being so close as that of Achaia,
America, and modern Switzerland."
_E. A. Freeman,
History of Federal Government,
volume 1, pages 3-6._
FEDERAL GOVERNMENT:
Classification of Federal Governments.
"To the classification of federal governments publicists have
given great attention with unsatisfactory results. History
shows a great variety of forms, ranging from the lowest
possible organization, like that of the Amphictyonic Council
[see AMPHIKTYONIC COUNCIL] to the highly centralized and
powerful German Empire. Many writers deny that any fixed
boundaries can be described. The usual classification is,
however, into three divisions,—the Staatenstaat, or state
founded on states; the Staatenbund, or union of states—to
which the term Confederacy nearly corresponds; and the
Bundesstaat, or united state, which answers substantially to
the term federation as usually employed. The Staatenstaat is
defined to be a state in which the units are not individuals,
but states, and which, therefore, has no operation directly on
individuals, but deals with and legislates for its corporate
members; they preserve undisturbed their powers of government
over their own subjects. The usual example of a Staatenstaat
is the Holy Roman Empire [see ROMAN EMPIRE, THE HOLY]. This
conception … is, however, illogical in theory, and never has
been carried out in practice. … Historically, also, the
distinction is untenable. The Holy Roman Empire had courts,
taxes, and even subjects not connected with the states. In
theory it had superior claims upon all the individuals within
the Empire; in practice it abandoned control over the states.
The second category is better established. Jellinek says:
"When states form a permanent political alliance, of which
common defence is at the very least the purpose, with
permanent federal organs, there arises a Staatenbund.' This
form of government is distinguished from an alliance by the
fact that it has permanent federal organs; from a commercial
league by its political purpose; from a Bundesstaat by its
limited purpose. In other words, under Staatenbund are
included the weaker forms of true federal government, in which
there is independence from other powers, and, within the
purposes of the union, independence from the constituent
states. … The Staatenbund form includes most of the federal
governments which have existed. The Greek confederations
(except perhaps the Lycian and Achæan) and all the mediæval
leagues were of this type: even the strong modern unions of
the United States, Germany, and Switzerland, have gone through
the Staatenbund stage in their earlier history. Between the
Staatenbund and the more highly developed form, the
Bundesstaat, no writer has described an accurate boundary.
There are certain governments, notably those of Canada,
Germany, Switzerland, and the United States, in which is found
an elaborate and powerful central organism, including federal
courts; to this organism is assigned all or nearly all the
common concerns of the nation; within its exclusive control
are war, foreign affairs, commerce, colonies, and national
finances; and there is an efficient power of enforcement
against states. Such governments undoubtedly are
Bundesstaaten."
_A. B. Hart,
Introduction to the Study of Federal Government
(Harvard Historical Monographs, number 2),
chapter 1._
{1109}
FEDERAL GOVERNMENT:
Greek Federations.
"Under the conditions of the Græco-Roman civic life there were
but two practicable methods of forming a great state and
diminishing the quantity of warfare. The one method was
conquest with incorporation, the other method was federation.
… Neither method was adopted by the Greeks in their day of
greatness. The Spartan method of extending its power was
conquest without incorporation: when Sparta conquered another
Greek city, she sent a harmost to govern it like a tyrant; in
other words she virtually enslaved the subject city. The
efforts of Athens tended more in the direction of a peaceful
federalism. In the great Delian confederacy [see GREECE: B. C.
478-477, and ATHENS: B. C. 466-454], which developed into the
maritime empire of Athens, the Ægean cities were treated as
allies rather than subjects. As regards their local affairs
they were in no way interfered with, and could they have been
represented in some kind of a federal council at Athens, the
course of Grecian history might have been wonderfully altered.
As it was, they were all deprived of one essential element of
sovereignty,—the power of controlling their own military
forces. … In the century following the death of Alexander,
in the closing age of Hellenic independence, the federal idea
appears in a much more advanced stage of elaboration, though
in a part of Greece which had been held of little account in
the great days of Athens and Sparta. Between the Achaian
federation, framed in 274 B. C., and the United States of
America, there are some interesting points of resemblance
which have been elaborately discussed by Mr. Freeman, in his
'History of Federal Government.' About the same time the
Ætolian League [see ÆTOLIAN LEAGUE] came into prominence in
the north. Both these leagues were instances of true federal
government, and were not mere confederations; that is, the
central government acted directly upon all the citizens and
not merely upon the local governments. Each of these leagues
had for its chief executive officer a General elected for one
year, with powers similar to those of an American President.
In each the supreme assembly was a primary assembly at which
every citizen from every city of the league had a right to be
present, to speak, and to vote; but as a natural consequence
these assemblies shrank into comparatively aristocratic
bodies. In Ætolia, which was a group of mountain cantons
similar to Switzerland, the federal union was more complete
than in Achaia, which was a group of cities. … In so far as
Greece contributed anything towards the formation of great and
pacific political aggregates, she did it through attempts at
federation. But in so low a state of political development as
that which prevailed throughout the Mediterranean world in
pre-Christian times, the more barbarous method of conquest
with incorporation was more likely to be successful on a great
scale. This was well illustrated in the history of Rome,—a civic
community of the same generic type with Sparta and Athens, but
presenting specific differences of the highest importance. …
Rome early succeeded in freeing itself from that insuperable
prejudice which elsewhere prevented the ancient city from
admitting aliens to a share in its franchise. And in this
victory over primeval political ideas lay the whole secret of
Rome's mighty career."
FEDERAL GOVERNMENT:
Mediæval Leagues in Germany.
"It is hardly too much to say that the Lombard League led
naturally to the leagues of German cities. The exhausting
efforts of the Hohenstaufen Emperors to secure dominion in
Italy compelled them to grant privileges to the cities in
Germany; the weaker emperors, who followed, bought support
with new charters and privileges. The inability of the Empire
to keep the peace or to protect commerce led speedily to the
formation of great unions of cities, usually commercial in
origin, but very soon becoming political forces of prime
importance. The first of these was the Rhenish League, formed
in 1254. The more important cities of the Rhine valley, from
Basle to Cologne, were the original members; but it eventually
had seventy members, including several princes and ruling
prelates. The league had Colloquia, or assemblies, at stated
intervals; but, beyond deciding upon a general policy, and the
assignment of military quotas, it had no legislative powers.
There was, however, a Kommission, or federal court, which
acted as arbiter in disputes between the members. The chief
political service of the league was to maintain peace during
the interregnum in the Empire (1256-1273). During the
fourteenth century it fell apart, and many of its members
joined the Hansa or Suabian League. … In 1377 seventeen
Suabian cities, which had been mortgaged by the Emperor,
united to defend their liberties. They received many
accessions of German and Swiss cities; but in 1388 they were
overthrown by Leopold III. of Austria, and all combinations of
cities were forbidden. A federal government they cannot be
said to have possessed; but political, almost federal
relations continued during the fifteenth century. The similar
leagues of Frankfort and Wetterau were broken up about the
same time. Other leagues of cities and cantons were in a like
manner formed and dissolved,—among them the leagues of
Hauenstein and Burgundy; and there was a confederation in
Franche Comté, afterward French territory. All the mediæval
leagues thus far mentioned were defensive, and had no extended
relations beyond their own borders. The great Hanseatic League
[see HANSA TOWNS], organized as a commercial union, developed
into a political and international power, which negotiated and
made war on its own account with foreign and German
sovereigns; and which was for two centuries one of the leading
powers of Europe."
_A. B. Hart,
Introduction to the Study of Federal Government
(Harvard Historical Monographs, number 2),
chapter 3._
FEDERAL GOVERNMENT:
Mediæval League of Lombardy.
When Frederick Barbarossa entered Italy for the fifth time in
1163, to enforce the despotic sovereignty over that country
which the German kings, as emperors, were then claiming (see
ITALY: A. D. 961-1039), a league of the Lombard cities was
formed to resist him. "Verona, Vicenza, Padua, and Treviso,
the most powerful towns of the Veronese marches, assembled
their consuls in congress, to consider of the means of putting
an end to a tyranny which overwhelmed them. The consuls of
these four towns pledged themselves by oath in the name of
their cities to give mutual support to each other in the
assertion of their former rights, and in the resolution to
reduce the imperial prerogatives to the point at which they
were fixed under the reign of Henry IV. Frederick, informed of
this association; returned hastily into Northern Italy, to put it
down … but he soon perceived that the spirit of liberty had
made progress in the Ghibeline cities as well as in those of
the Guelphs. …
{1110}
Obliged to bend before a people which he considered only as
revolted subjects, he soon renounced a contest so humiliating,
and returned to Germany, to levy an army more submissive to
him. Other and more pressing interests diverted his attention
from this object till the autumn of 1166. … When Frederick,
in the month of October, 1166, descended the mountains of the
Grisons to enter Italy by the territory of Brescia, he marched
his army directly to Lodi, without permitting any act of
hostility on the way. At Lodi, he assembled, towards the end
of November, a diet of the kingdom of Italy, at which he
promised the Lombards to redress the grievances occasioned by
the abuses of power by his podestas, and to respect their just
liberties; … to give greater weight to his negotiation, he
marched his army into Central Italy. … The towns of the
Veronese marches, seeing the emperor and his army pass without
daring to attack them, became bolder: they assembled a new
diet, in the beginning of April, at the convent of Pontida,
between Milan and Bergamo. The consuls of Cremona, of Bergamo,
of Brescia, of Mantua and Ferrara met there, and joined those
of the marches. The union of the Guelphs and Ghibelines, for
the common liberty, was hailed with universal joy. The
deputies of the Cremonese, who had lent their aid to the
destruction of Milan, seconded those of the Milanese villages
in imploring aid of the confederated towns to rebuild the city
of Milan. This confederation was called the League of Lombardy.
The consuls took the oath, and their constituents afterwards
repeated it, that every Lombard should unite for the recovery
of the common liberty; that the league for this purpose should
last twenty years; and, finally, that they should aid each
other in repairing in common any damage experienced in this
sacred cause, by any one member of the confederation:
extending even to the past this contract for reciprocal
security, the league resolved to rebuild Milan. … Lodi was
soon afterwards compelled, by force of arms, to take the oath
to the league; while the towns of Venice, Placentia, Parma,
Modena, and Bologna voluntarily and gladly joined the
association."
_J. C. L. de Sismondi,
History of the Italian Republics,
chapter 2._
In 1226 the League was revived
or renewed against Frederick II.
See ITALY: A. D. 1183-1250.
"Milan and Bologna took the lead, and were followed by
Piacenza, Verona, Brescia, Faenza, Mantua, Vercelli, Lodi,
Bergamo, Turin, Alessandria, Vicenza, Padua, and Treviso. …
Nothing could be more unlike, than the First and the Second
Lombard Leagues, that of 1167, formed against Frederick the
First after the most cruel provocation, was sanctioned by the
Pope, and had for its end the deliverance of Lombardy. That of
1226, formed against Frederick the Second, after no
provocation received, was discountenanced by the Pope, and
resulted in the frustration of the Crusade and in sowing the
germ of endless civil wars. This year is fixed upon by the
Brescian Chronicler as the beginning of 'those plaguy factions
of Guelf and Ghibelline, which were so engrained into the
minds of our forefathers, that they have handed them down as
an heir-loom to their posterity, never to come to an end.'"
_T. L. Kington,
History of Frederick the Second,
volume 1, pages 265-266._
FEDERAL GOVERNMENT:
Modern Federations.
"A remarkable phenomenon of the last hundred years is the
impetus that has been given to the development of Federal
institutions. There are to-day contemporaneously existing no
less than eight distinct Federal Governments. First and
foremost is the United States of America, where we have an
example of the Federal Union in the most perfect form yet
attained. Then comes Switzerland, of less importance than the
United States of America, but most nearly approaching it in
perfection. Again we have the German Empire [see CONSTITUTION
OF GERMANY], that great factor in European politics, which is
truly a Federal Union, but a cumbrous one and full of
anomalies. Next in importance comes the Dominion of Canada
[see CONSTITUTION OF CANADA], which is the only example of a
country forming a Federal Union and at the same time a colony.
Lastly come the Argentine Republic, Mexico, and the States of
Colombia and Venezuela [see CONSTITUTIONS]. This is a very
remarkable list when we consider that never before the present
century did more than two Federal Unions ever coexist, and
that very rarely, and that even those unions were far from
satisfying the true requirements of Federation. Nor is this
all. Throughout the last hundred years we can mark a growing
tendency in countries that have adopted the Federal type of
Government to perfect that Federal type and make it more truly
Federal than before. In the United States of America, for
instance, the Constitution of 1789 was more truly Federal than
the Articles of Confederation, and certainly since the Civil
War we hear less of State Rights, and more of Union. It has
indeed been remarked that the citizens of the United States
have become fond of applying the words 'Nation' and 'National'
to themselves in a manner formerly unknown. We can mark the
same progress in Switzerland. Before 1789, Switzerland formed
a very loose system of Confederated States—in 1815, a
constitution more truly Federal was devised; in 1848, the
Federal Union was more firmly consolidated; and lastly, in
1874, such changes were made in the Constitution that
Switzerland now presents a very fairly perfect example of
Federal Government. In Germany we may trace a similar
movement. In 1815, the Germanic Confederation was formed; but
it was only a system of Confederated States, or what the
Germans call Staatenbund; but after various changes, amongst
others the exclusion of Austria in 1866, it became, in 1871, a
composite State or, in German language, a Bundestaat. Beyond
this, we have to note a further tendency to Federation. In the
year 1886, a Bill passed the Imperial Parliament to permit of
the formation of an Australasian Council for the purposes of
forming the Australasian Colonies into a Federation. Then we
hear of further aspirations for applying the Federal system,
as though there were some peculiar virtue or talismanic effect
about it which rendered it a panacea for all political troubles.
There has, also, been much talk about Imperial Federation.
Lastly, some people think they see a simple solution of the
Irish Question in the application of Federation, particularly
the Canadian form of it, to Ireland."
_Federal Government
(Westminster Rev., May, 1888,
pages 573-574)._
{1111}
"The federal is one of the oldest forms of government known,
and its adaptability to the largest as well as to the smallest
states is shown in all political formations of late years.
States in the New and in the Old World, all in their
aggregation, alike show ever a stronger tendency to adopt it.
Already all the central states of Europe are
federal—Switzerland, Germany, Austria [see AUSTRIA: A. D.
1866-1867, and 1866-1887]; and if ever the various Sclav
principalities in south-eastern Europe—the Serb, the
Albanian, the Rouman, the Bulgar, and the Czech—are to
combine, it will probably be (as Mr. Freeman so long ago as
1862 remarked) under a federal form,—though whether under
Russian or Austrian auspices, or neither, remains to be seen.
… In the German lands from early ages there has existed an
aggregation of tribes and states, some of them even of
non-German race, each of which preserved for domestic purposes
its own arrangements and laws, but was united with the rest
under one supreme head and central authority as regards its
relation to all external powers. Since 1871 all the states of
Germany 'form an eternal union for the protection of the realm
and the care of the welfare of the German people.' For
legislative purposes, under the Emperor as head, are the two
Houses of Assembly; first, the Upper House of the Federated
States, consisting of 62 members, who represent the individual
States, and thus as the guardian of State rights, answers very
closely to the Senate of the American Union, except that the
number of members coming from each state is not uniform, but
apportioned. … Each German state has its own local
constitution and home rule for its internal affairs. Generally
there are two chambers, except in some of the smallest states,
the population of which does not much exceed in some cases
that of our larger towns. … Since 1867 the Austro-Hungarian
monarchy has been a political Siamese twin, of which Austria
is the one body, and Hungary the other; the population of the
Austrian half is 24 millions, and that of Hungary about 16
millions. Each of the two has its own parliament; the
connecting link is the sovereign (whose civil list is raised
half by one and half by the other) and a common army, navy,
and diplomatic service, and another Over-parliament of 120
members, one-half chosen by the legislature of Hungary, and
the other half by the legislature of Austria (the Upper House
of each twin returns twenty, and the Lower of each forty
delegates from their own number, who thus form a kind of Joint
Committee of the Four Houses). The jurisdiction of this
Over-parliament is limited to foreign affairs and war. … The
western or Austrian part of the twin … is a federal
government in itself. … Federated Austria consists of
seventeen distinct states. The German element constitutes 36
per cent. of the inhabitants of these, and the Sclav 57 per
cent. There are a few Magyars, Italians, and Roumanians. Each
of these seventeen states has its own provincial parliament of
one House, partly composed of ex-officio members (the bishops and
archbishops of the Latin and Greek Churches, and the
chancellors of the universities), but chiefly of
representatives chosen by all the inhabitants who pay direct
taxation. Some of these are elected by the landowners, others
by the towns, others by the trade-guilds and boards of
commerce; the representatives of the rural communes, however,
are elected by delegates, as in Prussia. They legislate
concerning all local matters, county taxation, land laws and
farming, education, public worship, and public works. …
Turning next to the oldest federation in Europe, that of
Switzerland, which with various changes has survived from
1308, though its present constitution dates only from 1874, we
find it now embraces three nationalities—German, French,
Italian. The original nucleus of the State, however, was
German, and even now three-fourths of the population are
German. The twenty-two distinct states are federated under one
president elected annually, and the Federal Assembly of two
chambers. … Each of the cantons is sovereign and
independent, and has its own local parliament, scarcely any
two being the same, but all based on universal suffrage. Each
canton has its own budget of revenue and expenditure, and its
own public debt."
_J. N. Dalton,
The Federal States of the World
(Nineteenth Century, July, 1884)._
FEDERAL GOVERNMENT:
Canadian Federation.
"A convention of thirty-three representative men was held in
the autumn of 1864 in the historic city of Quebec, and after a
deliberation of several weeks the result was the unanimous
adoption of a set of seventy-two resolutions embodying the
terms and conditions on which the provinces through their
delegates agreed to a federal union in many respects similar
in its general features to that of the United States
federation, and in accordance with the principles of the
English constitution. These resolutions had to be laid before
the various legislatures and adopted in the shape of addresses
to the queen whose sanction was necessary to embody the wishes
of the provinces in an imperial statute. … In the early part
of 1867 the imperial parliament, without a division, passed
the statute known as the 'British North America Act, 1867,'
which united in the first instance the province of Canada, now
divided into Ontario and Quebec, with Nova Scotia and New
Brunswick and made provisions for the coming in of the other
provinces of Prince Edward Island, Newfoundland, British
Columbia, and the admission of Rupert's Land and the great
North-west. Between 1867 and 1873 the provinces just named,
with the exception of Newfoundland, which has persistently
remained out of the federation, became parts of the Dominion
and the vast Northwest Territory was at last acquired on terms
eminently satisfactory to Canada and a new province of great
promise formed out of that immense region, with a complete
system of parliamentary government. … When the terms of the
Union came to be arranged between the provinces in 1864, their
conflicting interest had to be carefully considered and a system
adopted which would always enable the Dominion to expand its
limits and bring in new sections until it should embrace the
northern half of the continent, which, as we have just shown,
now constitutes the Dominion. It was soon found, after due
deliberation, that the most feasible plan was a confederation
resting on those principles which experience of the working of
the federation of the United States showed was likely to give
guarantees of elasticity and permanency. The maritime
provinces had been in the enjoyment of an excellent system of
laws and representative institutions for many years, and were
not willing to yield their local autonomy in its entirety. The
people of the province of Quebec, after experience of a union
that lasted from 1841 to 1867, saw decidedly great advantages
to themselves and their institutions in having a provincial
government under their own control. The people of Ontario
recognized equal advantages in having a measure of local
government, apart from French Canadian influences and
interference. The consequence was the adoption of the federal
system, which now, after twenty-six years' experience, we can
truly say appears on the whole well devised and equal to the
local and national requirements of the people."
_J. G. Bourinot,
Federal Government in Canada
(Johns Hopkins University Studies, 7th Series,
numbers 10-13), lectures 1-2._
{1112}
FEDERAL GOVERNMENT:
Britannic Federation, Proposed.
"The great change which has taken place in the public mind in
recent years upon the importance to the Empire of maintaining
the colonial connection found expression at a meeting held at
the Westminster Palace Hotel in July 1884, under the guidance
of the Right Hon. W. E. Forster, who occupied the chair. At
that meeting—which was attended by a large number of members
of Parliament of both parties, and representatives of the
colonies—it was moved by the Right Hon. W. H. Smith: 'That,
in order to secure the permanent unity of the Empire, some
form of federation is essential.' That resolution was seconded
by the Earl of Rosebery, and passed unanimously. In November
of the same year the Imperial Federation League was formed to
carry out the objects of that resolution; and the subject has
received considerable attention since. … I believe all are
agreed that the leading objects of the Imperial Federation
League are to find means by which the colonies, the outlying
portions of the Empire, may have a certain voice and weight
and influence in reference to the foreign policy of this
country, in which they are all deeply interested, and
sometimes more deeply interested than the United Kingdom
itself. In the next place, that measures may be taken by which
all the power and weight and influence that these great
British communities in Australasia, in South Africa, and in
Canada possess shall be brought into operation for the
strengthening and defence of the Empire. The discussion of
these questions has led to a great deal of progress. We have
got rid of a number of fallacies that obtained in the minds of
a good many persons in relation to the means by which those
objects are to be attained. Most people have come to the
conclusion stated by Lord Rosebery at the Mansion House, that
a Parliamentary Federation, if practicable, is so remote, that
during the coming century it is not likely to make any very great
advance. We have also got rid of the fallacy that it was
practicable to have a common tariff throughout the Empire. It
is not, in my opinion, consistent with the constitution either
of England or of the autonomous colonies. The tariff of a
country must rest of necessity mainly with the Government of
the day, and involves such continual change and alteration as
to make uniformity impracticable. … I regard the time as
near at hand when the great provinces of Australasia will be
confederated under one Government. … When that has been done
it will be followed, I doubt not, at a very early day, by a
similar course on the part of South Africa, and then we shall
stand in the position of having three great dominions,
commonwealths, or realms, or whatever name is found most
desirable on the part of the people who adopt them—three
great British communities, each under one central and strong
Government. When that is accomplished, the measure which the
Marquis of Lorne has suggested, of having the representatives
of these colonies during the term of their office here in
London, practically Cabinet Ministers, will give to the
Government of England an opportunity of learning in the most
direct and complete manner the views and sentiments of each of
those great British communities in regard to all questions of
foreign policy affecting the colonies. I would suggest that
the representatives of those three great British communities
here in London should be leading members of the Cabinet of the
day of the country they represent, going out of office when
their Government is changed. In that way they would always
represent the country, and necessarily the views of the party
in power in Canada, in Australasia, and in South Africa. That
would involve no constitutional change; it would simply
require that whoever represented those dominions in London
should have a seat in their own Parliament, and be a member of
the Administration."
_C. Tupper,
Federating the Empire (Nineteenth Century,
October, 1891)._
"Recent expensive wars at the Cape, annexations of groups of
islands in the neighbourhood of Australia, the Fishery and
other questions that have arisen, and may arise, on the North
American continent, have all compelled us to take a review of
our responsibilities in connection with our Colonies and to
consider how far, in the event of trouble, we may rely upon
their assistance to adequately support the commercial
interests of our scattered Empire. It is remarkable that,
although the matters here indicated are slowly coming to the
surface, and have provoked discussion, they have not been
forced upon the public attention suddenly, or by any violent
injury or catastrophe. The review men are taking of our
position, and the debates as to how best we can make our
relationships of standing value, have been the natural outcome
of slowly developing causes and effects. Politicians belonging
to both of the great parties in the State have joined the
Federation League. The leaders have expressly declared that
they do not desire at the present moment to propound any
definite theories, or to push any premature scheme for closer
union of the Empire. The society has been formed for the
purpose of discussing any plans proposed for such objects. The
suggestions actually made have varied in importance from
comprehensive projects of universal commercial union and
common contributions for a world-wide military and naval
organization, to such a trivial proposal as the personal
recognition of distinguished colonists by a nomination to the
peerage."
_The Marquis of Lorne,
Imperial Federation,
chapter 1._
{1113}
"Many schemes of federation have been propounded, and many
degrees of federal union are possible. Lord Rosebery has not
gone further, as yet, than the enunciation of a general
principle. 'The federation we aim at (he has said) is the
closest possible union of the various self-governing States
ruled by the British Crown, consistently with that free
development which is the birthright of British subjects all
over the world—the closest union in sympathy, in external
action, and in defence.' … The representation of the
Colonies in the Privy Council has been viewed with favour,
both by statesmen and by theoretical writers. Earl Grey has
proposed the appointment of a Federal Committee, selected from
the Privy Council, to advise with the Secretary of State for
the Colonies. The idea thus shadowed forth has been worked out
with greater amplitude of detail by Mr. Creswell, in an essay to
which the prize offered by the London Chamber of Commerce was
awarded. 'The Imperial assembly which we want,' says Mr.
Creswell, 'must be an independent body, constitutional in its
origin, representative in its character, and supreme in its
decisions. Such a body we have already in existence in the
Privy Council. Its members are chosen, irrespective of party
considerations, from among the most eminent of those who have
done service to the State. To this body colonists of
distinguished public service could be elected. In constituting
the Imperial Committee of the Privy Council, representation
might be given to every part of the empire, in proportion to
the several contributions to expenditure for Imperial
defence.' The constitution of a great Council of the Empire,
with similar functions in relation to foreign affairs to those
which are exercised in the United States by a Committee of the
Senate, is a step for which public opinion is not yet
prepared. In the meanwhile the utmost consideration is being
paid at the Foreign Office to Colonial feelings and interests.
No commitments or engagements are taken which would not be
approved by Colonial opinion. Another proposal which has been
warmly advocated, especially by the Protectionists, is that
for a customs-union between the Mother-country and the
Colonies. It cannot be said that at the present time proposals
for a customs-union are ripe for settlement, or even for
discussion, at a conference of representatives from all parts
of the empire. The Mother-country has been committed for more
than a generation to the principle of Free-trade. By our
policy of free imports of food and raw materials we have so
cheapened production that we are able to compete successfully
with all comers in the neutral markets of the world. … It
would be impossible to entertain the idea of a reversal of our
fiscal policy, in however restricted a sense, without careful and
exhaustive inquiry. … Lord Rosebery has recently declared
that in his opinion it is impracticable to devise a scheme of
representation for the Colonies in the House of Commons and
House of Lords, or in the Privy Council. The scheme of an
Imperial customs-union, ably put forward by Mr. Hoffmeyer at
the last Colonial Conference, he equally rejects. Lord
Rosebery would limit the direct action of the Imperial
Government for the present to conferences, summoned at
frequent intervals. Our first conference was summoned by the
Government at the instance of the Imperial Federation League.
It was attended by men of the highest distinction in the
Colonies. Its deliberations were guided by Lord Knutsford with
admirable tact and judgment; it considered many important
questions of common interest to the different countries of the
empire; it arrived at several important decisions, and it
cleared the air of not a few doubts and delusions. The most
tangible, the most important, and the most satisfactory result
of that conference was the recognition by the Australian
colonies of the necessity for making provision for the naval
defence of their own waters by means of ships, provided by the
Government of the United Kingdom, but maintained by the
Australian Governments. Lord Rosebery holds that the question
of Imperial Federation depends for the present on frequent
conferences. In his speech at the Mansion House he laid down
the conditions essential to the success of conferences in the
future. They must be held periodically and at stated
intervals. The Colonies must send the best men to represent
them. The Government of the Mother-country must invest these
periodical congresses with all the authority and splendour
which it is in their power to give. The task to be
accomplished will not be the production of statutes, but the
production of recommendations. Those who think that a congress
that only meets to report and recommend has but a neutral task
before it, have a very inadequate idea of the influence which
would be exercised by a conference representing a quarter of
the human race, and the immeasurable opulence and power that
have been garnered up by the past centuries of our history. If
we have these conferences, if they are allowed to discuss, as
they must be allowed to discuss, all topics which any parties
to these conferences should recommend to be discussed, Lord
Rosebery cannot apprehend that they would be wanting in
authority or in weight. Lord Salisbury, in his speeches
recently delivered in reply to the Earl of Dunraven in the
House of Lords, and in reply to the deputation of the Imperial
Federation League at the Foreign Office, has properly insisted
on the chief practical obstacle to a policy of frequent
conferences. Attendance at conferences involves grave
inconvenience to Colonial statesmen. … In appealing to the
Imperial Federation League for some practical suggestions as
to the means by which the several parts of the British Empire
may be more closely knit together, Lord Salisbury threw out
some pregnant hints. To make a united empire both a Zollverein
and a Kriegsverein must be formed. In the existing state of
feeling in the Mother-country a Zollverein would be a serious
difficulty. The reasons have been already stated. A
Kriegsverein was, perhaps, more practicable, and certainly
more, urgent. The space which separates the Colonies from
possible enemies was becoming every year less and less a
protection. We may take concerted action for defence without
the necessity for constitutional changes which it would be
difficult to carry out."
_Lord Brassey,
Imperial Federation: An English View
(Nineteenth Century, September., 1891)._
"The late Mr. Forster launched under the high-sounding title
of the 'Imperial Federation League,' a scheme by which its
authors proposed to solve all the problems attending the
administration of our colonial empire. From first to last the
authors of this scheme have never condescended on particulars.
'Imperial federation,' we were always told, was the only
specific against the disintegration of the Empire, but as to
what this specific really was, no information was vouchsafed.
… It is very natural that the citizens of a vast but
fragmentary empire, whose territorial atoms (instead of
forming, like those of the United States, a 'ring-fence'
domain) are scattered over the surface of the globe, should
cast about for some artificial links to bind together the
colonies we have planted, and 'the thousand tribes nourished
on strange religions and lawless slaveries' which we have
gathered under our rule.
{1114}
This anxiety has been naturally augmented by a chronic
agitation for the abandonment of all colonies as expensive and
useless. For though there may be little to boast of in the
fact that Great Britain has in the course of less than three
centuries contrived by war, diplomacy, and adventure, to annex
about a fifth of the globe, it can hardly be expected that she
should relinquish without an effort even the nominal sway she
still holds over her colonial empire. Hence it comes to pass
that any scheme which seems to supply the needed links is
caught up by those who, possessing slight acquaintance with
the past history or the present aspirations of our colonists,
are simply looking out for some new contrivance by which they
may hope that an enduring bond of union may be provided.
'Imperial federation' is the last new 'notion' which has
cropped up in pursuance of this object. … Some clue … to
its objects and aims may be gained by a reference to the
earliest exposition by Mr. Forster of his motives contained in
his answer five years ago to the question, 'Why was the League
formed at all?' 'For this reason,' says Mr. Forster, 'because
in giving self-government to our colonies we have introduced a
principle which must eventually shake off from Great Britain,
Greater Britain, and divide it into separate states, which
must, in short, dissolve the union unless counteracting
measures be taken to preserve it.' Believing, as we do, that
it has only been by conceding to our larger groups of colonies
absolute powers of self-government that we have retained them
at all, and that the secret of our protracted empire lies in
the fact of this abandonment of central arbitrary power, the
retention of which has caused the collapse of all the European
empires which preceded us in the path of colonisation, we are
bound to enter our emphatic protest against an assumption so
utterly erroneous as that propounded by Mr. Forster. So far
from believing that the permanent union of the British Empire
is to be secured by 'measures which may counteract the
workings of colonial self-government,' we are convinced that
the only safety for our Empire lies in the unfettered action
of that self-government which we have ourselves granted to our
colonies. It would almost seem that for Lord Rosebery and his
fellow workers the history of the colonial empires of
Portugal, Spain, Holland, and France had been written in vain.
For if we ask why these colonial empires have dwindled and
decayed, the answer is simply because that self-government
which is the life of British colonies was never granted to
their dependencies. There was a time when one hundred and
fifty sovereign princes paid tribute to the treasury of
Lisbon. For two hundred years, more than half the South
American continent was an appanage of Spain. Ceylon, the Cape,
Guiana, and a vast cluster of trade factories in the East were
at the close of the seventeenth century colonies of Holland;
while half North America, comprising the vast and fertile
valleys of the St. Lawrence, the Mississippi, and the Ohio,
obeyed, a little more than a century ago, the sceptre of
France. Neither Portugal, nor Spain, nor Holland, nor France,
has lacked able rulers or statesmen, but the colonial empire
of all these states has crumbled and decayed. The exceptional
position of Great Britain in this respect can only be ascribed
to the relinquishment of all the advantages, political and
commercial, ordinarily presumed to result to dominant states
from the possession of dependencies. … The romantic dreams
of the Imperial Federation League were in fact dissipated
beforehand by the irrevocable grant of independent
legislatures to all our most important colonies, and Lord
Rosebery may rest assured that, charm he never so wisely, they
will not listen to his blandishments at the cost of one iota
of the political privileges already conferred on them."
_Imperial Federation
(Edinburgh Review, July, 1889)._
"'Britannic Confederation' is defined to be an union of 'the
United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, British North
America, 'British South Africa, and Australasia.' The West
Indies and one or two other British Dependencies seem here to
be shut out; but, at any rate, with this definition we at
least know where we are. The terms of the union we are not
told; but, as the word 'confederation' is used, I conceive
that they are meant to be strictly federal. That is to say,
first of all, the Parliament of the United Kingdom will give
up its right to legislate for British North America, British
South Africa, and Australasia. Then the United Kingdom,
British North America, British South Africa and Australasia
will enter into a federal relation with one another. They may
enter either as single members (States or Cantons) 'or as
groups of members. That is, Great Britain and Ireland might
enter as a single State of the Confederation, or England,
Scotland, Ireland, Wales—or possibly smaller divisions
again—might enter as separate States. Or Great Britain,
Australia, Canada, &c., might enter as themselves Leagues,
members of a greater League, as in the old state of things in
Graubünden. I am not arguing for or against any of these
arrangements. I am only stating them as possible. But whatever
the units are to be—Great Britain and Australia, England and
Victoria, or anything larger or smaller—if the confederation
is to be a real one, each State must keep some powers to
itself, and must yield some powers to a central body. That
Central body, in which all the States must be represented in
some way or other, will naturally deal with all international
matters, all matters that concern the Britannic Confederation
as a whole. The legislatures of Great Britain and Australia,
England and Victoria, or whatever the units fixed on may be,
will deal only with the internal affairs of those several
cantons. Now such a scheme as this is theoretically possible.
That is, it involves no contradiction in terms, as the talk
about Imperial Federation does. It is purely federal; there is
nothing 'imperial' about it. It is simply applying to certain
political communities a process which has been actually gone
through by certain other political communities. It is
proposing to reconstruct a certain political constitution
after the model of certain other political constitutions which
are in actual working. It is therefore something better than
mere talk and theory. But, because it is theoretically
possible, it does not follow that it is practically possible,
that is, that it is possible in this particular case. … Of
the federations existing at this time the two chief are
Switzerland and the United States of America. They differ in
this point, that one is very large and the other very small;
they agree in this, that the territory of both is continuous.
But the proposed Britannic Confederation will be scattered,
scattered over every part of the world.
{1115}
I know of no example in any age of a scattered confederation,
a scattered Bundesstaat. The Hanse Towns were not a
Bundesstaat; they were hardly a Staatenbund. Of the probable
working of such a body as that which is now proposed the
experience of history can teach us nothing; we can only guess
what may be likely. The Britannic Confederation will have its
federal congress sitting somewhere, perhaps at Westminster,
perhaps at Melbourne, perhaps at some Washington called
specially into being at some point more central than either.
… For a while their representatives will think it grand to
sit at Westminster; presently, as the spirit of equality
grows, they are not unlikely to ask for some more central
place; they may even refuse to stir out of their own
territory. That is to say, they will find that the sentiment
of national unity, which they undoubtedly have in no small
measure, needs some physical and some political basis to stand
on. It is hard to believe that States which are united only by
a sentiment, which have so much, both political and physical,
to keep them asunder, will be kept together for ever by a
sentiment only. And we must further remember that that
sentiment is a sentiment for the mother-country, and not for
one another. … Canada and Australia care a great deal for
Great Britain; we may doubt whether, apart from Great Britain,
Canada and Australia care very much for one another. There may
be American States which care yet less for one another; but in
their case mere continuity produces a crowd of interests and
relations common to all. We may doubt whether the
confederation of States so distant as the existing colonies of
Great Britain, whether the bringing them into closer relations
with one another as well as with Great Britain, will at all tend
to the advance of a common national unity among them. We may
doubt whether it will not be likely to bring out some hidden
tendencies to disunion among them. … In the scattered
confederation all questions and parties are likely to be
local. It is hard to see what will be the materials for the
formation of great national parties among such scattered
elements."
_E. A. Freeman,
The Physical and Political Bases of National Unity
(Britannic Confederation, edited by A. S. White)._
"I have the greatest respect for the aspirations of the
Imperial Federationists, and myself most earnestly desire the
moral unity of our race and its partnership in achievement and
grandeur. But an attempt at formal Federation, such as is now
proposed, would in the first place exclude the people of the
United States, who form the largest portion of the
English-speaking race, and in the second place it would split
us all to pieces. It would, I am persuaded, call into play
centrifugal forces against which the centripetal forces could
not contend for an hour. What interests of the class with
which a Federal Parliament would deal have Australia and
Canada in common? What enemy has either of them whom the other
would be inclined to fight? Australia, it seems, looks forward
to a struggle with the Chinese for ascendency in that quarter
of the globe. Canada cares no more about a struggle between
the Australians and the Chinese at the other extremity of the
globe than the Australians would care about a dispute between
Canada and her neighbours in the United States respecting
Canadian boundaries or the Fisheries Question. The
circumstances of the two groups of colonies, to which their
policy must conform, are totally different. Australia lies in
an ocean by herself: Canada is territorially interlocked and
commercially bound up, as well as socially almost fused, with
the great mass of English-speaking population which occupies
the larger portion of her continent. Australia again is
entirely British. Canada has in her midst a great block of
French population, constituting a distinct nationality, which
instead of being absorbed is daily growing in intensity; and
she would practically be unable to take part in any enterprise
or support any policy, especially any policy entailing an
increase of taxation, to which the French Canadians were
opposed. Of getting Canada to contribute out of her own
resources to wars or to the maintenance of armaments, for the
objects of British diplomacy in Europe or in the East, no one
who knows the Canadians can imagine that there would be the
slightest hope. The very suggestion, at the time of the Soudan
Expedition, called forth emphatic protests on all sides. The
only results of an experiment in formal Federation, I repeat,
would be repudiation of Federal demands, estrangement and
dissolution."
_Goldwin Smith,
Straining the Silken Thread
(Macmillan's Magazine. August, 1888)._
FEDERAL GOVERNMENT:
European Federation.
"While it is obvious that Imperial Federation of the British
Empire would cover many of the defects in our relationship
with the colonies, it is equally apparent that it is open to
the fatal objection of merely making us a more formidable
factor in the field of international anarchy. Suppose the
colonies undertook to share equitably the great cost of
imperial defence in the present state of things throughout
Europe—and that is a very large assumption—England would be
entirely dependent, in case of war, for the supply of food on
the fleet, any accident to which would place us at the enemy's
mercy. Even without actual hostilities, however, our
additional strength would cause another increase of foreign
armaments to meet the case of war with us. This process has
taken place invariably on the increase of armaments of any
European state, and may be taken to be as certain as that the
sun will rise to-morrow. But all the benefits accruing from
Imperial Federation may be secured by European Federation,
plus a reduction of military liability, which Imperial
Federation would not only not reduce, but increase. There is
nothing to prevent the self-governing colonies from joining in
a European Federation, and thus enlarging the basis of that
institution enormously, and cutting off in a corresponding
degree the chance of an outbreak of violence in another
direction, which could not fail to have serious consequences
to the colonies at any rate."
_C. D. Farquharson,
Federation, the Polity of the Future
(Westminster Review, December, 1891),
pages 602-603._
----------FEDERAL GOVERNMENT: End----------
FEDERALIST, The.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1787-1789.
FEDERALISTS; The party of the.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1789-1792;
also 1812; and 1814 (DECEMBER): THE HARTFORD CONVENTION.
FEDS.
CONFEDS.
See BOYS IN BLUE.
FEE.
See FEUDALISM.
FEHDERECHT.
The right of private warfare, or diffidation,
exercised in mediæval Germany.
See LANDDFRIEDE.
{1116}
FEHRBELLIN, Battle of (1675).
See BRANDENBURG: A. D. 1640-1688;
and SCANDINAVIAN STATES (SWEDEN): A. D. 1644-1697.
FEIS OF TARA.
See TARA.
FELICIAN HERESY.
See ADOPTIANISM.
FELIX V., Pope, A. D. 1439-1449
Elected by the Council of Basle.
FENIAN MOVEMENT, The.
See IRELAND: A. D. 1858-1867;
and CANADA: A. D. 1866-1871.
FENIAN: Origin of the Name.
An Irish poem of the ninth century called the Duan Eireannach,
or Poem of Ireland, preserves a mythical story of the origin
of the Irish people, according to which they sprang from one
Fenius Farsaidh who came out of Scythia. Nel, or Niul, the son
of Fenius, travelled into Egypt and married Scota, a daughter
of Forann (Pharaoh). "Niul had a son named Gaedhuil Glas, or
Green Gael; and we are told that it is from him the Irish are
called Gaedhil (Gael) or Gadelians, while from his mother is
derived the name of Scoti, or Scots, and from Fenius that of
Feni or Fenians."
_M. Haverty,
History of Ireland,
page 10._
From this legend was derived the name of the Fenian
Brotherhood, organized in Ireland and America for the
liberation of the former from British rule, and which played a
disturbing but unsuccessful part in Irish affairs from about
1865 to 1871.
FEODORE.
See THEODORE.
FEODUM.
See FEUDALISM.
FEOF.
See FEUDALISM.
FEORM FULTUM.
See FERM.
FERDINAND,
King of Portugal, A. D. 1367-1383.
Ferdinand 1., Emperor of Austria and King of Hungary and
Bohemia, 1835-1848.
Ferdinand I.,
Germanic Emperor, 1558-1564;
Archduke of Austria,
and King of Hungary and Bohemia, 1526-1564;
King of the Romans, 1531-1558.
Ferdinand I., King of Aragon and Sicily, 1412-1416.
Ferdinand I.,
King of Castile, 1035-1065;
King of Leon, 1037-1065.
Ferdinand I., King of Naples, 1458-1494.
Ferdinand II., Germanic Emperor and King of Bohemia and
Hungary, 1619-1637.
Ferdinand II.,
King of Aragon, 1479-1516;
V. of Castile (King-Consort of Isabella of Castile and
Regent), 1474-1516;
II. of Sicily, 1479-1516; and III. of Naples, 1503-1516.
Ferdinand II., King of Leon, 1157-1188.
Ferdinand II., King of Naples, 1495-1496.
Ferdinand II., called Bomba,
King of the Two Sicilies, 1830-1859.
Ferdinand III., Germanic Emperor, and King of Hungary and
Bohemia, 1637-1657.
Ferdinand III.,
King of Castile, 1217-1230;
King of Leon and Castile, united, 1230-1252.
Ferdinand IV., King of Leon and Castile, 1295-1312.
Ferdinand IV.,
King of Naples,
and I. of the Two Sicilies, 1759-1806;
and 1815-1825.
Ferdinand VI., King of Spain, 1746-1759.
Ferdinand VII., King of Spain, 1808; and 1814-1833.
FERIÆ.
See LUDI.
FERM.
FIRMA.
FARM.
"A sort of composition for all the profits arising to the king
[in England, Norman period] from his ancient claims on the
land and from the judicial proceedings of the shire-moot; the
rent of detached pieces of demesne land, the remnants of the
ancient folk-land; the payments due from corporate bodies and
individuals for the primitive gifts, the offerings made in
kind, or the hospitality—the feorm-fultum—which the kings
had a right to exact from their subjects, and which were
before the time of Domesday generally commuted for money; the
fines, or a portion of the fines, paid in the ordinary process
of the county courts, and other small miscellaneous incidents.
These had been, soon after the composition of Domesday,
estimated at a fixed sum, which was regarded as a sort of rent
or composition at which the county was let to the sheriff and
recorded in the 'Rotulus Exactorious'; for this, under the
name of ferm, he answered annually; if his receipts were in
excess, he retained the balance as his lawful profit, the
wages of his service; if the proceeds fell below the ferm, he
had to pay the difference from his own purse. … The farm,
ferm, or firma, the rent or composition for the ancient
feorm-fultum, or provision payable in kind to the Anglo-Saxon
kings. The history of the word in its French form would be
interesting. The use of the word for a pecuniary payment is
traced long before the Norman Conquest."
_W. Stubbs,
Constitutional History of England,
chapter 11, section 126, and note._
FERNANDO.
See FERDINAND.
FEROZESHUR, Battle of (1845)
See INDIA: A. D. 1845-1849.
FERRARA: The House of Este.
See ESTE.
FERRARA: A. D. 1275.
Sovereignty of the Pope confirmed by Rodolph of Hapsburg.
See GERMANY: A. D. 1273-1308.
FERRARA: A. D. 1597.
Annexation to the states of the Church.
End of the house of Este.
Decay of the city and duchy.
See PAPACY: A. D. 1597.
FERRARA: A. D. 1797.
Joined to the Cispadine Republic.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1796-1797 (OCTOBER-APRIL).
----------FERRARA: End----------
FERRY BRIDGE, Battle of (1461).
See ENGLAND: A. D. 1455-1471.
FETIALES.
FECIALES.
"The duties of the feciales, or fetiales [among the Romans].
extended over every branch of international law. They gave
advice on all matters of peace or war, and the conclusion of
treaties and alliances. … They fulfilled the same functions
as heralds, and, as such, were frequently entrusted with
important communications. They were also sent on regular
embassies. To them was entrusted the reception and
entertainment of foreign envoys. They were required to decide
on the justice of a war about to commence, and to proclaim and
consecrate it according to certain established formalities.
… The College of Feciales consisted of nearly twenty
members, with a president, who was called Pater Patratus,
because it was necessary that he should have both father and
children living, that he might be supposed to take greater
interest in the welfare of the State, and look backwards as
well as forwards. … The name of Feciales … still existed
under the emperors, as well as that of Pater Patratus, though
only as a title of honour, while the institution itself was
for ever annihilated; and, after the reign of Tiberius, we
cannot find any trace of it."
_E. C. G. Murray,
Embassies and Foreign Courts,
pages 8-10._
See, also, AUGURS.
{1117}
FEUDAL TENURES.
"After the feudal system of tenure had been fully established,
all lands were held subject to certain additional obligations,
which were due either to the King (not as sovereign, but as
feudal lord) from the original grantees, called
tenants-in-chief (tenentes in capite), or to the
tenants-in-chief themselves from their under tenants. Of these
obligations the most honourable was that of knight-service.
This was the tenure by which the King granted out fiefs to his
followers, and by which they in turn provided for their own
military retainers. The lands of the bishops and dignified
ecclesiastics, and of most of the religious foundations, were
also held by this tenure. A few exceptions only were made in
favour of lands which had been immemorially held in
frankalmoign, or free-alms. On the grant of a fief, the tenant
was publicly invested with the land by a symbolical or actual
delivery, termed livery of seisin. He then did homage, so
called from the words used in the ceremony: 'Je deveigne votre
homme' ['I become your man']. … In the case of a sub-tenant
(vavassor), his oath of fealty was guarded by a reservation of
the faith due to his sovereign lord the King. For every
portion of land of the annual value of £20, which constituted
a knight's fee [in England], the tenant was bound, whenever
required, to render the services of a knight properly armed
and accoutred, to serve in the field forty days at his own
expense. … Tenure by knight-service was also subject to
several other incidents of a burdensome character. … There
was a species of tenancy in chief by Grand Serjeanty, …
whereby the tenant was bound, instead of serving the King
generally in his wars, to do some special service in his own
proper person, as to carry the King's banner or lance, or to
be his champion, butler, or other officer at his coronation.
… Grants of land were also made by the King to his inferior
followers and personal attendants, to be held by meaner
services. … Hence, probably, arose tenure by Petit
Serjeanty, though later on we find that term restricted to
tenure 'in capite' by the service of rendering yearly some
implement of war to the King. … Tenure in Free Socage (which
still subsists under the modern denomination of Freehold, and
may be regarded as the representative of the primitive alodial
ownership) denotes, in its most general and extensive
signification, a tenure by any certain and determinate
service, as to pay a fixed money rent, or to plough the lord's
land for a fixed number of days in the year. … Tenure in
Burgage was a kind of town socage. It applied to tenements in
any ancient borough, held by the burgesses, of the King or
other lord, by fixed rents or services. … This tenure, which
still subsists, is subject to a variety of local customs, the
most remarkable of which is that of borough-English, by which
the burgage tenement descends to the youngest instead of to
the eldest son. Gavelkind is almost confined to the county of
Kent. … The lands are held by suit of court and fealty, a
service in its nature certain. The tenant in Gavelkind
retained many of the properties of alodial ownership: his
lands were devisable by will; in case of intestacy they
descended to all his sons equally; they were not liable to
escheat for felony … and they could be aliened by the tenant
at the age of fifteen. Below Free Socage was the tenure in
Villeinage, by which the agricultural labourers, both free and
servile, held the land which was to them in lieu of money
wages."
_T. P. Taswell-Langmead,
English Constitutional History,
pages 58-65._
FEUDALISM.
"Feudalism, the comprehensive idea which includes the whole
governmental policy of the French kingdom, was of distinctly
Frank growth. The principle which underlies it may be
universal; but the historic development of it with which the
constitutional history of Europe is concerned may be traced
step by step under Frank influence, from its first appearance
on the conquered soil of Roman Gaul to its full development in
the jurisprudence of the Middle Ages. In the form which it has
reached at the Norman Conquest, it may be described as a
complete organisation of society through the medium of land
tenure, in which from the king down to the lowest landowner
all are bound together by obligation of service and defence:
the lord to protect his vassal, the vassal to do service to
his lord; the defence and service being based on and regulated
by the nature and extent of the land held by the one of the
other. In those states which have reached the territorial
stage of development, the rights of defence and service are
supplemented by the right of jurisdiction. The lord judges as
well as defends his vassal; the vassal does suit as well as
service to his lord. In states in which feudal government has
reached its utmost growth, the political, financial, judicial,
every branch of public administration, is regulated by the
same conditions. The central authority is a mere shadow of a
name. This institution had grown up from two great
sources—the beneficium, and the practice of
commendation,—and had been specially fostered on Gallic soil
by the existence of a subject population which admitted of any
amount of extension in the methods of dependence. The
beneficiary system originated partly in gifts of land made by
the kings out of their own estates to their kinsmen and
servants, with a special undertaking to be faithful; partly in
the surrender by landowners of their estates to churches or
powerful men, to be received back again and held by them as
tenants for rent or service. By the latter arrangement the
weaker man obtained the protection of the stronger, and he who
felt himself insecure placed his title under the defence of
the church. By the practice of commendation, on the other
hand, the inferior put himself under the personal care of a
lord, but without altering his title or divesting himself of
his right to his estate; he became a vassal and did homage.
… The union of the beneficiary tie with that of commendation
completed the idea of feudal obligation; the two-fold hold on
the land, that of the lord and that of the vassal, was
supplemented by the two-fold engagement, that of the lord to
defend, and that of the vassal to be faithful. A third
ingredient was supplied by the grants of immunity by which in
the Frank empire, as in England, the possession of land was
united with the right of judicature: the dwellers on a feudal
property were placed under the tribunal of the lord, and the
rights which had belonged to the nation or to its chosen head
were devolved upon the receiver of a fief. The rapid spread of
the system thus originated, and the assimilation of all other
tenures to it, may be regarded as the work of the tenth
century; but as early as A. D. 877 Charles the Bald recognised
the hereditary character of all benefices; and from that year
the growth of strictly feudal jurisprudence may be held to
date. The system testifies to the country and causes of its
birth.
{1118}
The beneficium is partly of Roman, partly of German origin.
… Commendation on the other hand may have had a Gallic or
Celtic origin, and an analogy only with the Roman clientship.
… The word feudum, fief, or fee, is derived from the German
word for cattle (Gothic 'faihu'; Old High German 'fihu'; Old
Saxon 'fehu'; Anglo-Saxon 'feoh'); the secondary meaning being
goods, especially money: hence property in general. The letter
_d_ is perhaps a mere insertion for sound's sake; but it
has been interpreted as part of a second root, _od_, also
meaning property, in which case the first syllable has a third
meaning, that of fee or reward, and the whole word means
property given by way of reward for service. But this is
improbable. … The word feodum is not found earlier than the
close of the ninth century."
_W. Stubbs,
Constitutional History of England,
chapter 9, section 93, and notes (volume 1)._
"The regular machinery and systematic establishment of feuds,
in fact, may be considered as almost confined to the dominions
of Charlemagne, and to those countries which afterwards
derived it from thence. In England it can hardly be thought to
have existed in a complete state, before the Conquest.
Scotland, it is supposed, borrowed it soon after from her
neighbour. The Lombards of Benevento had introduced feudal
customs into the Neapolitan provinces, which the Norman
conquerors afterwards perfected. Feudal tenures were so
general in the kingdom of Aragon, that I reckon it among the
monarchies which were founded upon that basis. Charlemagne's
empire, it must be remembered, extended as far as the Ebro.
But in Castile and Portugal they were very rare, and certainly
could produce no political effect. Benefices for life were
sometimes granted in the kingdoms of Denmark and Bohemia.
Neither of these, however, nor Sweden, nor Hungary, come under
the description of countries influenced by the feudal system."
_H. Hallam,
The Middle Ages,
chapter 2._
"Hardly any point in the whole history of European
institutions has been the subject of so violent controversy as
this of the origin of Feudalism. It was formerly supposed that
Feudalism was only a somewhat more developed form of the
ancient Germanic 'following' transplanted to Roman soil, but a
more critical examination of the documents of the early period
soon showed that there was more to it than this. It became
evident that Feudalism was not so simple as had at first
appeared. … When, however, scholars had come to see this,
they then found themselves at variance upon the details of the
process by which the popular monarchical arrangements of the
early Franks were converted into the aristocratic forms of the
later Feudalism. While they agreed upon the essential fact
that the Germans, at the time of their emergence from their
original seats and their occupation of the Roman lands, were
not mere wandering groups of freebooters, as the earlier
school had represented them, but well-organized nations, with
a very distinct sense of political organization, they found
themselves hopelessly divided on the question how this
national life had, in the course of time, come to assume forms
so very different from those of the primitive German. The
first person to represent what we may call the modern view of
the feudal system was Georg Waitz, in the first edition of his
History of the German Constitution, in the years 1844-47.
Waitz presented the thing as a gradual growth during several
centuries, the various elements of which it was composed
growing up side by side without definite chronological
sequence. This view was met by Paul Roth in his History of the
Institution of the Benefice, in the year 1850. He maintained that
royal benefices were unknown to the Merovingian Franks, and
that they were an innovation of the earliest Carolingians.
They were, so he believed, made possible by a grand
confiscation of the lands of the Church, not by Charles
Martel, as the earlier writers had believed, but by his sons,
Pippin and Karlmann. The first book of Roth was followed in
the year 1863 by another on Feudalism and the Relation of the
Subject to the State, (Feudalität und Unterthanenverband), in
which he attempted to show that the direct subjection of the
individual to the government was not a strange idea to the
early German, but that it pervaded all forms of Germanic life
down to the Carolingian times, and that therefore the feudal
relation was a something entirely new, a break in the practice
of the Germans. In the years 1880-1885 appeared a new edition
of Waitz's History of the German Constitution, in which, after
acknowledging the great services rendered by Roth to the cause of
learning, he declares himself unable to give up his former
point of view, and brings new evidence in support of it. Thus
for more than thirty years this question has been before the
world of scholars, and may be regarded as being quite as far
from a settlement as ever."
_E. Emerton,
An Introduction to the Study of the Middle Ages,
page 236 (foot-note)._
ALSO IN:
_F. P. Guizot,
History of Civilization:
Second Course, lecture 2._
See, also, FRANCE: A. D. 987-1327.
FEUILLANTS, Club and Party of the.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1790, and 1791 (OCTOBER).
FEZ:
Founding of the city and kingdom.
See EDRISITES.
FIANNA EIRINN.
The ancient militia of Erin,
famous in old Irish romance and song.
_T. Moore,
History of Ireland,
volume 1, chapter 7._
FIDENÆ.
An ancient city on the left bank of the Tiber, only five miles
from Rome, originally Latin, but afterwards containing a mixed
Latin and Etruscan population. It was at war with Rome until
the latter destroyed it, B. C. 426.
_W. Ihne,
History of Rome,
book 2, chapter 15._
FIEFS.
See FEUDAL TENURES;
and FEUDALISM.
FIELD OF LIES, The.
Ludwig, or Louis, the Pious, son and successor of Charlemagne,
was a man of gentle character, and good intentions—too
amiable and too honest in his virtues for the commanding of a
great empire in times so rude. He lost the control of his
state, and his family, alike. His own sons headed a succession
of revolts against his authority. The second of these
insurrections occurred in the year 833. Father and sons
confronted one another with hostile armies, on the plain of
Rothfeld, not far from Colmar in Alsace. Intrigue instead of
battle settled the controversy, for the time being. The
adherents of the old emperor were all enticed away from him,
and he found himself wholly deserted and alone. To signify the
treacherous methods by which this defection was brought about,
the "Rothfeld" (Red-field) on which it occurred received the
name of "Lügenfeld," or Field of Lies.
_J. C. L. de Sismondi,
The French under the Carlovingians;
translated by Bellingham, chapter 7._
{1119}
FIELD OF THE CLOTH OF GOLD, The.
The place of the famous meeting of Henry VIII. of England with
Francis I. of France, which took place in the summer of 1520
[see FRANCE: A. D. 1520-1523], is notable in history, from the
magnificence of the preparations made for it, as The Field of
the Cloth of Gold. It was at Guisnes, or between Guisnes and
Arde, near Calais (then English territory). "Guisnes and its
castle offered little attraction, and if possible less
accommodation, to the gay throng now to be gathered within its
walls. … But on the castle green, within the limits of a few
weeks, and in the face of great difficulties, the English
artists of that day contrived a summer palace, more like a
vision of romance, the creation of some fairy dream (if the
accounts of eye-witnesses of all classes may be trusted), than
the dull every-day reality of clay-born bricks and mortar. No
'palace of art' in these beclouded climates of the West ever
so truly deserved its name. … The palace was an exact square
of 328 feet. It was pierced on every side with oriel windows
and clerestories curiously glazed, the mullions and posts of
which were overlaid with gold. An embattled gate, ornamented
on both sides with statues representing men in various
attitudes of war, and flanked by an embattled tower, guarded
the entrance. From this gate to the entrance of the palace
arose in long ascent a sloping daïs or hall-pace, along which
were grouped 'images of sore and terrible countenances,' in
armour of argentine or bright metal. At the entrance, under an
embowed landing place, facing the great doors, stood 'antique'
(classical) figures girt with olive branches. The passages,
the roofs of the galleries from place to place and from
chamber to chamber, were ceiled and covered with white silk,
fluted and embowed with silken hanging of divers colours and
braided cloths, 'which showed like bullions of fine burnished
gold.' The roofs of the chambers were studded with roses, set
in lozenges, and diapered on a ground of fine gold. Panels
enriched with antique carving and gilt bosses covered the
spaces between the windows; whilst all along the corridors and
from every window hung tapestry of silk and gold, embroidered
with figures. … To the palace was attached a spacious
chapel, still more sumptuously adorned. Its altars were hung
with cloth of gold tissue embroidered with pearls; cloth of
gold covered the walls and desks. … Outside the palace gate,
on the greensward, stood a gilt fountain, of antique
workmanship, with a statue of Bacchus 'birlying the wine.'
Three runlets, fed by secret conduits hid beneath the earth,
spouted claret, hypocras, and water into as many silver cups,
to quench the thirst of all comers. … In long array, in the
plain beyond, 2,800 tents stretched their white canvas before
the eyes of the spectator, gay with the pennons, badges, and
devices of the various occupants; whilst miscellaneous
followers, in tens of thousands, attracted by profit or the
novelty of the scene, camped on the grass and filled the
surrounding slopes, in spite of the severity of
provost-marshal and reiterated threats of mutilation and
chastisement. … From the 4th of June, when Henry first
entered Guisnes, the festivities continued with unabated
splendour for twenty days. … The two kings parted on the
best of terms, as the world thought."
_J. S. Brewer,
Reign of Henry VIII.,
chapter 12._
ALSO IN:
_Lady Jackson,
The Court of France in the 16th Century,
volume 1, chapters 11-12._
_Miss Pardoe,
The Court and Reign of Francis I.,
volume 1, chapter 14._
FIESCO, Conspiracy of.
See GENOA: A. D. 1528-1559.
FIESOLE.
See FLORENCE: ORIGIN AND NAME.
FIFTEEN, The (Jacobite Rebellion).
See SCOTLAND: A. D. 1715.
FIFTEENTH AMENDMENT, The.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1869-1870.
FIFTH MONARCHY MEN.
One of the most extremely fanatical of the politico-religious
sects or factions which rose in England during the
commonwealth and the Protectoral reign of Cromwell, was that
of the so-called Fifth Monarchy Men, of whom Major-General
Harrison was the chief. Their belief is thus described by
Carlyle: "The common mode of treating Universal History, …
not yet entirely fallen obsolete in this country, though it
has been abandoned with much ridicule everywhere else for half
a century now, was to group the Aggregate Transactions of the
Human Species into Four Monarchies: the Assyrian Monarchy of
Nebuchadnezzar and Company; the Persian of Cyrus and ditto;
the Greek of Alexander; and lastly the Roman. These I think
were they; but am no great authority on the subject. Under the
dregs of this last, or Roman Empire, which is maintained yet by
express name in Germany, 'Das heilige Römische Reich,' we poor
moderns still live. But now say Major-General Harrison and a
number of men, founding on Bible Prophecies, Now shall be a
Fifth Monarchy, by far the blessedest and the only real
one,—the Monarchy of Jesus Christ, his Saints reigning for
Him here on Earth,—if not He himself, which is probable or
possible,—for a thousand years, &c., &c.—O Heavens, there
are tears for human destiny; and immortal Hope itself is
beautiful because it is steeped in Sorrow, and foolish Desire
lies vanquished under its feet! They who merely laugh at
Harrison take but a small portion of his meaning with them."
_T. Carlyle,
Oliver Cromwell's Letters and Speeches,
part 8, speech 2._
The Fifth Monarchy fanaticism, sternly repressed by Oliver
Cromwell, gave some signs of turbulence during Richard
Cromwell's protectorate, and broke out in a mad way the year
after the Restoration. The attempted insurrection in London
was headed by one Venner, and was called Venner's
Insurrection. It was easily put down. "It came as the expiring
flash of a fanatical creed, which had blended itself with
Puritanism, greatly to the detriment of the latter; and, dying
out rather slowly, it left behind the quiet element of
Millenarianism."
_J. Stoughton,
History of Religion in England,
volume 3, chapter 4._
ALSO IN:
_D. Masson,
Life of John Milton,
volume 5, page 16._
"FIFTY-FOUR FORTY OR FIGHT."
See OREGON: A. D. 1844-1846.
FILI.
A class of poets among the early Irish, who practiced
originally certain rites of incantation. Their art was called
Filidecht. "The bards, who recited poems and stories, formed
at first a distinct branch from the Fili. According as the
true Filidecht fell into desuetude, and the Fili became simply
a poet, the two orders practically coalesced and the names
Fili and bard became synonymous. … In Pagan times and during
the Middle Ages the Irish bards, like the Gaulish ones,
accompanied their recitation of poems on a stringed instrument
called a crut. … The bard was therefore to the Fili, or
poet, what the Jogler was to the Troubadour."
_W. K. Sullivan,
Article, Celtic Literature,
Encyclopedia Brittanica._
{1120}
FILIBUSTER.
"The difference between a filibuster and a freebooter is one
of ends rather than of means. Some authorities say that the
words have a common etymology; but others, including
Charlevoix, maintain that the filibuster derived his name from
his original occupation, that of a cruiser in a 'flibote,' or
'Vly-boat,' first used on the river Vly, in Holland. Yet
another writer says that the name was first given to the
gallant followers of Dominique de Gourgues, who sailed from
Finisterre, or Finibuster, in France, on the famous expedition
against Fort Caroline in 1567 [see FLORIDA: A. D. 1567-1568].
The name, whatever its origin, was long current in the Spanish
as 'filibustero' before it became adopted into the English. So
adopted, it has been used to describe a type of adventurer who
occupied a curious place in American history during the decade
from 1850 to 1860."
_J. J. Roche,
The Story of the Filibusters,
chapter 1._
See, also,
AMERICA: A: D. 1639-1700.
FILIBUSTERING EXPEDITIONS OF LOPEZ AND WALKER.
See CUBA: A. D. 1845-1860;
and NICARAGUA: A. D. 1855-1860.
FILIOQUE CONTROVERSY, The.
"The Council of Toledo, held under King Reccared, A. D. 589,
at which the Visigothic Church of Spain formally abjured
Arianism and adopted the orthodox faith, put forth a version
of the great creed of Nicæa in which they had interpolated an
additional clause, which stated that the Holy Ghost proceeded
from the Father 'and from the Son' (Filioque). Under what
influence the council took upon itself to make an addition to
the creed of the universal Church is unknown. It is probable
that the motive of the addition was to make a stronger protest
against the Arian denial of the co-equal Godhead of the Son.
The Spanish Church naturally took a special interest in the
addition it had made to the symbol of Nicæa, and sustained it
in subsequent councils. … The Frankish Church seems to have
early adopted it from their Spanish neighbours. … The
question was brought before a council held at Aix in A. D.
809. … The council formally approved of the addition to the
creed, and Charles [Charlemagne] sent two bishops and the
abbot of Corbie to Rome to request the pope's concurrence in
the decision. Leo, at a conference with the envoys, expressed
his agreement with the doctrine, but strongly opposed its
insertion into the creed. … Notwithstanding the pope's
protest, the addition was adopted throughout the Frankish
Empire. When the Emperor Henry V. was crowned at Rome, A. D.
1014, he induced Pope Benedict VIII. to allow the creed with
the filioque to be chanted after the Gospel at High Mass; so
it came to be generally used in Rome; and at length Pope
Nicholas I. insisted on its adoption throughout the West. At a
later period the controversy was revived, and it became the
ostensible ground of the final breach (A. D. 1054) between the
Churches of the West and those of the East."
_E. L. Cutts,
Charlemagne,
chapter 23._
"The Filioque controversy relates to the eternal procession of
the Holy Spirit, and is a continuation of the trinitarian
controversies of the Nicene age. It marks the chief and almost
the only important dogmatic difference between the Greek and
Latin churches, … and has occasioned, deepened, and
perpetuated the greatest schism in Christendom. The single
word Filioque keeps the oldest, largest and most nearly
related churches divided since the ninth century, and still
forbids a reunion."
_P. Schaff,
History of the Christian Church,
volume 4, chapter 11, section 107._
ALSO IN:
_G. B. Howard,
The Schism between the Oriental and Western Churches._
See, CHRISTIANITY: A. D. 330-1054.
FILIPPO MARIA, Duke of Milan, A. D. 1412-1447.
FILLMORE, Millard.
Vice-Presidential Election.
Succession to the Presidency.
Administration.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1848 to 1852.
FINÉ, The.
A clan or sept division of the tribe in ancient Ireland.
FINGALL.
See NORMANS.
NORTHMEN: 8TH-9TH CENTURIES;
also, IRELAND: 9TH-10TH CENTURIES.
FINLAND: A. D. 1808-1810.
Conquest by and peculiar annexation to Russia.
Constitutional independence of the Finnish grand
duchy confirmed by the Czar.
See SCANDINAVIAN STATES: A. D. 1807-1810.
FINN GALLS.
See IRELAND: 9TH-10TH CENTURIES.
FINNS.
See HUNGARIANS.
FIODH-INIS.
See IRELAND, THE NAME.
FIRBOLGS, The.
One of the races to which Irish legend ascribes the settlement
of Ireland; said to have come from Thrace.
See NEMEDIANS,
and IRELAND: THE PRIMITIVE INHABITANTS.
FIRE LANDS, The.
See OHIO: A. D. 1786-1796.
FIRMA.
See FERM.
FIRST CONSUL OF FRANCE, The.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1799 (NOVEMBER-DECEMBER).
FIRST EMPIRE (FRENCH), The.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1804-1805, to 1815.
FIRST-FRUITS.
See ANNATES.
FIRST REPUBLIC (FRENCH), The.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1792 (SEPTEMBER-NOVEMBER), to 1804-1805.
FISCALINI.
See SLAVERY, MEDIÆVAL: FRANCE.
FISCUS, The.
"The treasury of the senate [in the early period of the Roman
empire] retained the old republican name of the ærarium; that
of the emperor was denominated the fiscus, a term which
ordinarily signified the private property of an individual.
Hence the notion rapidly grew up, that the provincial
resources constituted the emperor's private purse, and when in
process of time the control of the senate over the taxes gave
way to their direct administration by the emperor himself, the
national treasury received the designation of fiscus, and the
idea of the empire being nothing else than Cæsar's patrimony
became fixed ineradicably in men's minds."
_C. Merivale,
History of the Romans,
chapter 32._
FISHER, Fort, The capture of.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1864-1865
(DECEMBER-JANUARY: NORTH CAROLINA).
FISHERIES, North American: A. D. 1501-1578.
The Portuguese, Norman, Breton and Basque fishermen on the
Newfoundland Banks.
See NEWFOUNDLAND: A. D. 1501-1578.
{1121}
FISHERIES: A. D. 1610-1655.
Growth of the English interest.
See NEWFOUNDLAND: A. D. 1610-1655.
FISHERIES: A. D. 1620.
Monopoly granted to the Council for New England.
See NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1620-1623.
FISHERIES: A. D. 1660-1688.
The French gain their footing in Newfoundland.
See NEWFOUNDLAND: A. D. 1660-1688.
FISHERIES: A. D. 1713.
Newfoundland relinquished to England, with fishing rights
reserved to France, by the Treaty of Utrecht.
See NEWFOUNDLAND: A. D. 1713.
FISHERIES: A. D. 1720-1745.
French interests protected by the fortification of Louisbourg.
See CAPE BRETON: A. D. 1720-1745.
FISHERIES: A. D. 1748.
St. Pierre and Michelon islands on the Newfoundland coast
ceded to France.
See NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1745-1748.
FISHERIES: A. D. 1763.
Rights secured to France on the island of Newfoundland and in
the Gulf of St. Lawrence by the Treaty of Paris.
Articles V. and VI. of the Treaty of Paris (1763), which
transferred Canada and all its islands from France to England,
are in the following language:
"The subjects of France shall have the liberty of fishing and
drying, on a part of the coasts of the island of Newfoundland,
such as it is specified in the 13th Article of the Treaty of
Utrecht; which article is renewed and confirmed by the present
treaty (except what relates to the island of Cape Breton, as
well as to the other islands and coasts, in the mouth and in
the gulph of St. Laurence): and his Britannic majesty consents
to leave to the subjects of the most Christian king the
liberty of fishing in the gulph of St. Laurence, on condition
that the subjects of France do not exercise the said fishery,
but at the distance of three leagues from all the coasts
belonging to Great Britain, as well those of the continent, as
those of the islands situated in the said gulph of St.
Laurence. And as to what relates to the fishery on the coasts
of the island of Cape Breton out of the said gulph, the
subjects of the most Christian king shall not be permitted to
exercise the said fishery, but at the distance of 15 leagues
from the coasts of the island of Cape Breton; and the fishery
on the coasts of Nova Scotia or Acadia, and everywhere else
out of the said gulph, shall remain on the foot of former
treaties.
Article VI. The King of Great Britain cedes the islands of St.
Peter and Miquelon, in full right, to his most Christian
majesty, to serve as a shelter to the French fishermen: and
his said most Christian majesty engages not to fortify the
said islands; to erect no buildings upon them, but merely for
the convenience of the fishery; and to keep upon them a guard
of 50 men only for the police."
_Text of the Treaty (Parliamentary History,
volume 15, page 1295)._
FISHERIES: A. D. 1778.
French fishery rights recognized in the treaty between France
and the United States.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1778 (FEBRUARY).
FISHERIES: A. D. 1783.
Rights secured to the United States by the Treaty of Paris.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1783 (SEPTEMBER).
FISHERIES: A. D. 1814-1818.
Disputed rights of American fishermen after the War of 1812.
Silence of the Treaty of Ghent.
The Convention of 1818.
Under the Treaty of Paris (1783) "we claimed that the liberty
which was secured to the inhabitants of the United States to
take fish on the coasts of Newfoundland, under the limitation
of not drying or curing the same on that island, and also on
the other coasts, bays, and creeks, together with the limited
rights of drying or curing fish on the coasts of Nova Scotia,
Magdalen Islands, and Labrador, were not created or conferred
by that treaty, but were simply recognized by it as already
existing. They had been enjoyed before the Revolution by the
Americans in common with other subjects of Great Britain, and
had, indeed, been conquered, from the French chiefly, through
the valor and sacrifices of the colonies of New England and
New York. The treaty was therefore considered analogous to a
deed of partition. It defined the boundaries between the two
countries and all the rights and privileges belonging to them.
We insisted that the article respecting fisheries was
therefore to be regarded as identical with the possession of
land or the demarcation of boundary. We also claimed that the
treaty, being one that recognized independence, conceded
territory, and defined boundaries, belonged to that class
which is permanent in its nature and is not affected by
subsequent suspension of friendly relations. The English,
however, insisted that this treaty was not a unity; that while
some of its provisions were permanent, other stipulations were
temporary and could be abrogated, and that, in fact, they were
abrogated by the war of 1812; that the very difference of the
language used showed that while the rights of deep-sea fishing
were permanent, the liberties of fishing were created and
conferred by that treaty, and had therefore been taken away by
the war. These were the two opposite views of the respective
governments at the conferences which ended in the treaty of
Ghent, of 1814." No compromise appearing to be practicable,
the commissioners agreed, at length, to drop the subject from
consideration. "For that reason the treaty of Ghent is
entirely silent as to the fishery question.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1814 (DECEMBER).
In consequence of conflicts arising between our fishermen and
the British authorities, our point of view was very strongly
maintained by Mr. Adams in his correspondence with the British
Foreign Office, and finally, on October 20, 1818, Mr. Rush,
then our minister at London, assisted by Mr. Gallatin,
succeeded in signing a treaty, which among other things
settled our rights and privileges by the first article, as
follows: … 'It is agreed between the high contracting
parties that the inhabitants of the said United States shall
have forever, in common with the subjects of his Britannic
Majesty, the liberty of taking fish of any kind on that part
of the southern coast of Newfoundland which extends from Cape
Ray to the Rameau Islands; on the western and northern coasts
of Newfoundland from the said Cape Ray to the Qurpon Islands;
on the shores of the Magdalen Islands, and also on the coasts,
bays, harbors, and creeks from Mont Joly, on the southern
coast of Labrador, to and through the straits of Belle Isle,
and thence northwardly indefinitely along the coast. And that
the American fishermen shall have liberty forever to dry and
cure fish in any of the unsettled bays, harbors, and creeks in
the southern part of Newfoundland herein-before described, and
of the coasts of Labrador; but as soon as the same, or any
portion thereof, shall be settled, it shall not be lawful for
said fishermen to dry or cure fish at such portion, so
settled, without previous agreement for such purpose with the
inhabitants, proprietors, or possessors of the ground.
{1122}
And the United States hereby renounces forever any liberty
heretofore enjoyed, claimed by the inhabitants thereof to
take, dry, or cure fish on or within three marine miles of any
of the coasts, bays, creeks, or harbors of his Britannic
Majesty's dominions in America not included in the
above-mentioned limits. Provided, however, That the American
fishermen shall be permitted to enter such bays or harbors for
the purpose of shelter, of repairing damages therein, of
purchasing wood, and obtaining water, and for no other purpose
whatever. But they shall be under such restrictions as shall
be necessary to prevent their taking, drying, or curing fish
therein, or in any other manner whatever abusing the
privileges hereby secured to them.' The American
plenipotentiaries evidently labored to obtain as extensive a
district of territory as possible for in-shore fishing, and
were willing to give up privileges, then apparently of small
amount, but now much more important, than of using other bays
and harbors for shelter and kindred purposes. For that reason
they acquiesced in omitting the word 'bait' in the first
sentence of the proviso after water.' … The power of
obtaining bait for use in the deep-sea fisheries is one which
our fishermen were afterward very anxious to secure. But the
mackerel fisheries in those waters did not begin until several
years later. The only contention then was about the cod
fisheries."
_E. Schuyler,
American Diplomacy,
chapter 8._
_Treaties and Conventions between the United States
and other Powers (edition of 1889), pages 415-418._
FISHERIES: A. D. 1854-1866.
Privileges defined under the Canadian Reciprocity Treaty.
See TARIFF LEGISLATION (UNITED STATES AND CANADA):
A. D. 1854-1866.
FISHERIES: A. D. 1871.
Reciprocal privileges adjusted between Great Britain and the
United States by the Treaty of Washington.
See ALABAMA CLAIMS: A. D. 1871.
FISHERIES: A. D. 1877-1888.
The Halifax award.
Termination of the Fishery articles of the Treaty of
Washington.
The rejected Treaty of 1888.
In accordance with the terms of articles 22 and 23 of the
Treaty of Washington (see ALABAMA CLAIMS: A. D. 1871), a
Commission appointed to award compensation to Great Britain
for the superior value of the fishery privileges conceded to
the citizens of the United States by that treaty, met at
Halifax on the 5th of June, 1877. The United States was
represented on the Commission by Hon. E. H. Kellogg, of
Massachusetts, and Great Britain by Sir Alexander F. Gault, of
Canada. The two governments having failed to agree in the
selection of the third Commissioner, the latter was named, as
the Treaty provided, by the Austrian Ambassador at London, who
designated M. Maurice Delfosse, Belgian Minister at
Washington. The award was made November 27, 1877, when, "by a
vote of two to one, the Commissioners decided that the United
States was to pay $5,500,000 for the use of the fishing
privileges for 12 years. The decision produced profound
astonishment in the United States." Dissatisfaction with the
Halifax award, and generally with the main provisions of the
Treaty of Washington relating to the fisheries, was so great
in the United States that, when, in 1878, Congress
appropriated money for the payment of the award, it inserted
in the bill a clause to the effect that "Articles 18 and 21 of
the Treaty between the United States and Great Britain
concluded on the 8th of May, 1871, ought to be terminated at
the earliest period consistent with the provisions of Article
33 of the same Treaty." "It is a curious fact that during the
time intervening between the signing of the treaty of
Washington and the Halifax award an almost complete change
took place in the character of the fisheries. The method of
taking mackerel was completely revolutionized by the
introduction of the purse-seine, by means of which vast
quantities of the fish were captured far out in the open sea
by enclosing them in huge nets. … This change in the method
of fishing brought about a change in the fishing grounds. …
The result of this change was very greatly to diminish the
value of the North-eastern Fisheries to the United States
fishermen." On the 1st of July, 1883, "in pursuance of
instructions from Congress, the President gave the required
notice of the desire of the United States to terminate the
Fishery Articles of the Treaty of Washington, which
consequently came to an end the 1st of July, 1885. The
termination of the treaty fell in the midst of the fishing
season, and, at the suggestion of the British Minister,
Secretary Bayard entered into a temporary arrangement whereby
the American fishermen were allowed the privileges of the
treaty during the remainder of the season, with the
understanding that the President should bring the question
before Congress at its next session and recommend a joint
Commission by the Governments of the United States and Great
Britain." This was done; but Congress disapproved the
recommendation. The question of rights under former treaties,
especially that of 1818, remained open, and became a subject
of much irritation between the United States and the
neighboring British American provinces. The local regulations
of the latter were enforced with stringency and harshness
against American fishermen; the latter solicited and procured
retaliatory legislation from Congress. To end this
unsatisfactory state of affairs, a treaty was negotiated at
Washington in February, 1888, by Thomas F. Bayard, Secretary
of State, William L. Putnam and James B. Angell,
plenipotentiaries on the part of the United States, and Joseph
Chamberlain, M. P., Sir L. S. Sackville West and Sir Charles
Tupper, plenipotentiaries on the part of Great Britain, which
treaty was approved by the President and sent to the Senate,
but rejected by that body on the 21st of August, by a negative
vote of 30, against 27 in its favor.
_C. B. Elliott,
The United States and the North-eastern Fisheries,
pages 79-100._
ALSO IN:
_E. Schuyler,
American Diplomacy,
chapter 8._
_J. H. De Ricci,
The Fisheries Dispute (1888)._
_Annual Cyclopedia,
volume 13 (1888), pages 217-226._
_Annual Report of United States Commission of Fish and
Fisheries for 1886._
_Correspondence relative to proposed Fisheries Treaty
(Senate Ex. Doc., Number 113, 50th Congress, 1st Session)._
_Documents and Proceedings of Halifax Commission (H. R. Ex.
Doc., Number 89, 45th. Congress, 2d Session)._
----------FISHERIES: End----------
FISHER'S HILL, Battle of.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
A. D. 1864 (AUGUST-OCTOBER: VIRGINIA).
FISHING CREEK, Battle of.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1862
(JANUARY-FEBRUARY: KENTUCKY-TENNESSEE).
{1123}
FITCH, John, and the beginnings of steam navigation.
See STEAM NAVIGATION.
FITZGERALD'S (LORD THOMAS) REBELLION IN IRELAND.
See IRELAND: A. D. 1535-1553.
FIVE ARTICLES OF PERTH, The.
See SCOTLAND: A. D. 1618.
FIVE BLOODS, The.
See IRELAND; 13TH-14TH CENTURIES.
FIVE BOROUGHS, The.
A confederation of towns occupied by the Danes in England,
including Derby, Lincoln, Leicester, Nottingham and Stamford,
which played a part in the events of the tenth and eleventh
centuries. It afterwards became Seven Boroughs by addition of
York and Chester.
FIVE FORKS, Battle of.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1865
(MARCH-APRIL: VIRGINIA).
FIVE HUNDRED, The French Council of.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1795 (JUNE-SEPTEMBER).
FIVE HUNDRED AT ATHENS, The.
See ATHENS: B. C. 510-507.
FIVE MEMBERS, King Charles' attempt against the.
See ENGLAND: A. D. 1642 (JANUARY).
FIVE MILE ACT, The.
See ENGLAND: A. D. 1662-1665.
FIVE NATIONS OF INDIANS, The.
The five original tribes of the Iroquois Confederacy,—the
Mohawks, Oneidas, Onondagas, Cayugas, and Senecas,—were
commonly called by the English the Five Nations. Subsequently,
in 1715, a sixth tribe, the Tuscaroras, belonging to the same
stock, was admitted to the confederacy, and its members were
then known as the Six Nations.
See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: IROQUOIS CONFEDERACY, and IROQUOIS
TRIBES OF THE SOUTH.
FIVE THOUSAND, The
See ATHENS: B. C. 413-411.
FIVE YEARS' TRUCE, The.
The hostilities between Athens and Sparta which preceded the
Peloponnesian War, being opened by the battle of Tanagra, B.
C. 457, were suspended B. C. 451, by a truce called the Five
Years' Truce, arranged through the influence of the
soldier-statesman Cimon.
_Thucydides,
History,
book 1, section 112._
ALSO IN:
_E. Curtius,
History of Greece,
book 3, chapter 2._
FLAGELLANTS.
"Although the Church's forgiveness for sin might now [14th
century] be easily obtained in other ways: Still Flagellation
was not only greatly admired among the religious, but was also
held in such high estimation by the common people, that in
case of any calamity or plague, they thought they could
propitiate the supposed wrath of God in no more effectual
manner than by scourging, and processions of scourgers; just
as though the Church's ordinary means of atonement were
insufficient for extraordinary cases. A decided mistrust of
the Church's intercession, and the clergy who dispensed it,
prevailed among the societies of Flagellants; roused to action
by the plague that past over from Asia into Europe in the year
1348, and spread devastation everywhere, ever since the
beginning of the year 1349 they diffused themselves from the
Hungarian frontier over the whole of Germany, and found
entrance even into the neighbouring countries. … They
practised this penance according to a fixed rule, without the
co-operation of the clergy, under the guidance of Masters,
Magistri, and made no secret of the fact, that they held the
Church's way of salvation in much lower estimation than the
penance by the scourge. Clement VI. put an end to the public
processions of Flagellants, which were already widely
prevalent: but penance by the scourge was only thus forced
into concealment. In Thuringia, Conrad Schmidt, one of their
masters, gave the form of a connected system of heretical
doctrine to their dislike of the Church. … Thus there now
rose heretical Flagellants, called also by the common name of
Beghards; they existed down to the time of the Reformation,
especially in Thuringia, as an heretical sect very dangerous
to the Church. This warning example, as well as the mistrust
natural to the Hierarchy of all spiritual impulses which did
not originate from itself, decided the destiny of the later
societies of Flagellants. When the Whitemen (Bianchi) [see
WHITE PENITENTS], scourging themselves as they went, descended
from the Alps into Italy, they were received almost everywhere
with enthusiasm by the clergy and the people; but in the Papal
territory death was prepared for their leader, and the rest
accordingly dispersed themselves."
_J. C. L. Gieseler,
Compendium of Ecclesiastical History,
section 123 (volume 4)._
"Divided into companies of male and female devotees, under a
leader and two masters, they stripped themselves naked to the
waist, and publicly scourged themselves, or each other, till
their shoulders were covered with blood. This expiatory
ceremony was repeated every morning and afternoon for
thirty-three days, equal in number to the years which Christ
is thought to have lived upon earth; after which they returned
to their former employments, cleansed from sin by the baptism
of blood.' The flagellants appeared first in Hungary; but
missionary societies were soon formed, and they hastened to
impart the knowledge of the new gospel to foreign nations.
They spread with rapidity over Poland, Germany and the Low
Countries. From France they were excluded at the request of
the pope, who had issued a severe constitution against them;
but a colony reached England, and landed in London, to the
number of 120 men and women. … The missionaries made not a
single proselyte."
_J. Lingard,
History of England,
volume 4, chapter 1._
ALSO IN:
_W. M. Cooper,
Flagellation and the Flagellants._
_G. Waddington,
History of the Church,
note appendix to chapter 23._
FLAMENS.
FLAMINES.
"The pontifices, like several other priestly brotherhoods [of
ancient Rome] … had sacrificial priests (flamines) attached
to them, whose name was derived from 'flare' (to blow the
fire). The number of flamines attached to the pontifices was
fifteen, the three highest of whom, … viz., the Flamen
Dialis, Martialis, and Quirinalis, were always chosen from old
patrician families. … Free from all civil duties, the Flamen
Dialis, with his wife and children, exclusively devoted
himself to the service of the deity. His house … lay on the
Palatine hill. His marriage was dissoluble by death only; he
was not allowed to take an oath, mount a horse, or look at an
army. He was forbidden to remain a night away from his house,
and his hand touched nothing unclean, for which reason he
never approached a corpse or a burial-place. … In the
daytime the Flamen Dialis was not allowed to take off his
head-dress, and he was obliged to resign his office in case it
fell off by accident. In his belt he carried the sacrificial
knife, and in his hand he held a rod, in order to keep off the
people on his way to the sacrifice. For the same purpose he
was preceded by a lictor, who compelled everybody on the way
to lay down his work, the flamen not being allowed to see the
business of daily life."
_E. Guhl and W. Koner,
Life of the Greeks and Romans,
section 103._
See AUGURS.
{1124}
FLAMINIAN WAY.
See ROME: B. C. 295-191.
FLAMINIUS, The defeat of.
See PUNIC WAR, THE SECOND.
FLANDERS: A. D. 863.
Creation of the County.
Judith, daughter of Charles the Bald, of France (not yet
called France), and a twice widowed queen of England, though
hardly yet out of her girlhood (she had wedded Ethelwulf and
Ethelbald, father and son, in succession), took a mate, at
last, more to her liking, by a runaway match with one of her
father's foresters, named Baudouin, or Baldwin, Bras-de-fer.
This was in 862. King Charles, in his wrath, caused the
impudent forester to be outlawed and excommunicated, both; but
after a year of intercession and mediation he forgave the pair
and established them in a suitable fief. Baudouin was made
Count or Marquis of Flanders. "Previously to Baudouin's era,
Flanders or 'Flandria' is a designation belonging, as learned
men conjecture, to a Gau or Pagus, afterwards known as the
Franc de Bruges, and noticed only in a single charter.
Popularly, the name of Flanders had obtained with respect to a
much larger surrounding Belgic country. … The name of
'Flanders' was thus given to the wide, and in a degree
indefinite tract, of which the Forester Baudouin and his
predecessors had the official range or care. According to the
idiom of the Middle Ages, the term 'Forest' did not exactly
convey the idea which the word now suggests, not being applied
exclusively to wood-land, but to any wild and unreclaimed
region. … Any etymology of the name of Flamingia, or
Flanders, which we can guess at, seems intended to designate
that the land was so called from being half-drowned.
Thirty-five inundations, which afflicted the country at
various intervals from the tenth to the sixteenth century,
have entirely altered the coast-line; and the interior
features of the country, though less affected, have been much
changed by the diversions which the river-courses have
sustained. … Whatever had been the original amplitude of the
districts over which Baudouin had any control or authority,
the boundaries were now enlarged and defined. Kneeling before
Charles-le-Chauve, placing his hands between the hands of the
Sovereign, he received his 'honour':—the Forester of Flanders
was created Count or Marquis. All the countries between the
Scheldt, the Somme and the sea, became his benefice; so that
only a narrow and contested tract divided Baudouin's Flanders
from Normandy. According to an antient nomenclature, ten
counties, to wit, Theerenburch, Arras, Boulogne, Guisnes,
Saint-Paul, Hesdin, Blandemont, Bruges, Harlebec, and Tournay,
were comprehended in the noble grant which Baudouin obtained
from his father-in-law."
_Sir F. Palgrave,
History of Normandy and of England,
book 1, chapter 4._
FLANDERS: A. D. 1096.
The Crusade of Count Robert.
See CRUSADES: A. D. 1096-1099.
FLANDERS: A. D. 1201-1204.
The diverted Crusade of Count Baldwin and the imperial crown
he won at Constantinople.
See CRUSADES: A. D. 1201-1203;
and BYZANTINE EMPIRE: A. D. 1204-1205.
FLANDERS: A. D. 1214.
Humbled at the battle of Bouvines.
See BOUVINES.
FLANDERS: 13th Century.
The industry, commerce and wealth of the Flemings.
"In the 13th century, Flanders was the most populous and the
richest country in Europe. She owed the fact to the briskness
of her manufacturing and commercial undertakings, not only
amongst her neighbours, but throughout Southern and Eastern
Europe. … Cloth, and all manner of woolen stuffs, were the
principal articles of Flemish production, and it was chiefly
from England that Flanders drew her supply of wool, the raw
material of her industry. Thence arose between the two
countries commercial relations which could not fail to acquire
political importance. As early as the middle of the 12th
century, several Flemish towns formed a society for founding
in England a commercial exchange, which obtained great
privileges, and, under the name of the Flemish hanse of
London, reached rapid development. The merchants of Bruges had
taken the initiative in it; but soon all the towns of
Flanders—and Flanders was covered with towns—Ghent, Lille,
Ypres, Courtrai, Furnes, Alost, St. Omer, and Douai, entered
the confederation, and made unity as well as extension of
liberties in respect of Flemish commerce the object of their
joint efforts. Their prosperity became celebrated; and its
celebrity gave it increase. It was a burgher of Bruges who was
governor of the hanse of London, and he was called the Count
of the Hanse. The fair of Bruges, held in the month of May,
brought together traders from the whole world. 'Thither came
for exchange,' says the most modern and most enlightened
historian of Flanders (Baron Kervyn de Lettenhove, 'Histoire
de Flandre,' t. ii., page 300), 'the produce of the North and
the South, the riches collected in the pilgrimages to
Novgorod, and those brought over by the caravans from
Samarcand and Bagdad, the pitch of Norway and the oils of
Andalusia, the furs of Russia and the dates from the Atlas,
the metals of Hungary and Bohemia, the figs of Granada, the
honey of Portugal, the wax of Morocco, and the spice of Egypt;
whereby, says an ancient manuscript, no land is to be compared
in merchandise to the land of Flanders.' … So much
prosperity made the Counts of Flanders very puissant lords.
'Marguerite II., called "the Black," Countess of Flanders and
Hainault, from 1244 to 1280, was extremely rich,' says a
chronicler, 'not only in lands, but in furniture, jewels, and
money; … insomuch that she kept up the state of queen rather
than countess.' Nearly all the Flemish towns were strongly
organised communes, in which prosperity had won liberty, and
which became before long small republics, sufficiently
powerful not only for the defence of their municipal rights
against the Counts of Flanders, their lords, but for offering
an armed resistance to such of the sovereigns their neighbours
as attempted to conquer them or to trammel them in their
commercial relations, or to draw upon their wealth by forced
contributions or by plunder."
_F. P. Guizot,
Popular History of France,
chapter 18._
ALSO IN:
_J. Hutton,
James and Philip Van Arteveld,
part 1, chapter 2._
{1125}
FLANDERS: A. D. 1299-1304.
The war with Philip the Fair.
As the Flemings advanced in wealth and consequence, the feudal
dependence of their country upon the French crown grew
increasingly irksome and oppressive to them, and their
attitude towards France became one of confirmed hostility. At
the same time, they were drawn to a friendly leaning towards
England by common commercial interests. This showed itself
decisively on the occasion of the quarrel that arose (A. D.
1295) between Philip IV., called the Fair, and Edward I. of
England, concerning the rule of the latter in Aquitaine or
Guienne. The French king found allies in Scotland; the English
king found allies in Flanders. An alliance of marriage, in
fact, had been arranged to take place between king Edward and
the daughter of Guy de Dampierre, count of Flanders; but
Philip contrived treacherously to get possession of the
persons of the count and his daughter and imprisoned them both
at Paris, declaring the states of the count to be forfeited.
In 1299 the two kings settled their quarrel and abandoned
their allies on both sides—Scotland to the tender mercies of
Edward, and Flanders to the vengeance of the malignant king
Philip the Fair. The territory of the Flemings was annexed to
the crown of France, and Jacques de Châtillon, uncle of the
queen, was appointed governor. Before two years had passed the
impatient Flemings were in furious revolt. The insurrection
began at Bruges, May 18, 1302, and more than 3,000 Frenchmen
in that city were massacred in the first rage of the
insurgents. This massacre was called the Bruges Matins. A
French army entered Flanders to put down the rising and was
confronted at Courtrai (July 11, A. D. 1302) by the Flemish
militia. The latter were led by young Guy of Dampierre and, a
few knights, who dismounted to fight on equal terms with their
fellows. "About 20,000 militia, armed only with pikes, which
they employed also as implements of husbandry, resolved to
abide the onset of 8,000 Knights of gentle blood, 10,000
archers, and 30,000 foot-soldiers, animated by the presence
and directed by the military skill of Robert Count of Artois,
and of Raoul de Nesle, Constable of France. Courtrai was the
object of attack, and the Flemings, anxious for its safety,
arranged themselves on a plain before the town, covered in
front by a canal." An altercation which occurred between the
two French commanders led to the making of a blind and furious
charge on the part of the French horsemen, ignorant and
heedless of the canal, into which they plunged, horses and
riders together, in one inextricable mass, and where, in their
helplessness, they were slain without scruple by the Flemings.
"Philip had lost his most experienced Generals, and the flower
of his troops; but his obstinacy was unbending." In repeated
campaigns during the next two years, Philip strove hard to
retrieve the disaster of Courtrai. He succeeded, at last (A.
D. 1304), in achieving, with the help of the Genoese, a naval
victory in the Zuruck-Zee, followed by a victory, personally
his own, at Mons-en-Puelle, in September of the same year.
Then, finding the Flemings as dauntlessly ready as ever to
renew the fight, he gave up to their obstinacy and
acknowledged the independence of the county. A treaty was
signed, in which "the independence of Flanders was
acknowledged under its Count, Robert de Bethune (the eldest
son of Guy de Dampierre), who, together with his brothers and
all the other Flemish prisoners, was to be restored to
liberty. The Flemings, on the other hand, consented to
surrender those districts beyond the Lys in which the French
language was vernacularly spoken; and to this territory were
added the cities of Douai, Lille, and their dependencies. They
engaged, moreover, to furnish by instalments 200,000 livres in
order to cover the expenses which Philip had incurred by their
invasion."
_E. Smedley,
History of France,
part 1, chapter 7._
ALSO IN:
_J. Hutton,
James and Philip Van Arteveld,
part 1, chapters 2-3._
_J. Michelet,
History of France,
book 5, chapter 2._
FLANDERS: A. D. 1314.
Dishonesty of Philip of France.
Philip was one of the most treacherous of princes, and his
treaty with the Flemings did not secure them against him. "The
Flemings, who had paid the whole of the money stipulated by
the treaty of 1305, demanded the restitution of that part of
Flanders which had been given up as a pledge; but Philippe
refused to restore it on the plea that it had been given to
him absolutely and not conditionally. He commenced hostilities
[A. D. 1314] by seizing upon the counties of Nevers and
Réthel, belonging to the count of Flanders and his eldest son,
who replied by laying siege to Lille." Philippe was making
great exertions to raise money for a vigorous prosecution of
the war, when he died suddenly, Nov. 25, 1314, as the result
of an accident in hunting.
_T. Wright,
History of France,
volume 1, book 2, chapter 2._
FLANDERS: A. D. 1328.
The Battle of Cassel.
The first act of Philip of Valois, King of France, after his
coronation in 1328, was to take up the cause of his cousin,
Louis de Nevers, Count of Flanders, who had been driven from
his territories by the independent burghers of Bruges, Ypres,
and other cities, and who had left to him no town save Ghent,
in which he dared to appear. The French king "gathered a great
host of feudal lords, who rejoiced in the thought of Flemish
spoil, and marched to Arras, and thence onwards into Flanders.
He pitched his tent under the hill of Cassel, 'with the
fairest and greatest host in the world' around him. The
Flemish, under Claus Dennequin, lay on the hill-top: thence
they came down all unawares in three columns on the French
camp in the evening, and surprised the King at supper and all
but took him. The French soon recovered from the surprise;
'for God would not consent that lords should be discomfitted
by such riffraff': they slew the Flemish Captain Dennequin,
and of the rest but few escaped; 'for they deigned not to
flee,' so stubborn were those despised weavers of Flanders.
This little battle, with its great carnage of Flemish,
sufficed to lay all Flanders at the feet of its count."
_G. W. Kitchin,
History of France,
book 4, chapter 1._
"Sixteen thousand Flemings had marched to the attack in three
divisions. Three heaps of slain were counted on the morrow in
the French lines, amounting altogether to 13,000 corpses; and
it is said that Louis … inflicted death upon 10,000 more of
the rebels."
_E. Smedley,
History of France,
part 1, chapter 8._
ALSO IN:
_Froissart (Johnes),
Chronicles,
book 1, chapters 21-22._
{1126}
FLANDERS: A. D. 1335-1337.
The revolt under Jacques Van Arteveld.
The alliance with England.
The most important measure by which Edward III. of England
prepared himself for the invasion of France, as a claimant of
the French crown [See FRANCE: A. D. 1328-1339] was the
securing of an alliance with the Flemish burghers. This was
made easy for him by his enemies. "The Flemings happened to
have a count who was wholly French—Louis de Nevers—who was
only count through the battle of Cassel and the humiliation of
his country, and who resided at Paris, at the court of
Philippe de Valois. Without consulting his subjects, he
ordered a general arrest of all the English throughout
Flanders; on which Edward had all the Flemings in England
arrested. The commerce, which was the life-blood of each
country, was thus suddenly broken off. To attack the English
through Guyenne and Flanders was to wound them in their most
sensible parts, to deprive them of cloth and wine. They sold
their wool at Bruges, in order to buy wine at Bordeaux. On the
other hand, without English wool, the Flemings were at a
stand-still. Edward prohibited the exportation of wool,
reduced Flanders to despair, and forced her to fling herself
into his arms. At first, a crowd of Flemish workmen emigrated
into England, whither they were allured at any cost, and by
every kind of flattery and caress. … I take it that the
English character has been seriously modified by these
emigrations, which went on during the whole of the fourteenth
century. Previously, we find no indications of that patient
industry which now distinguishes the English. By endeavouring
to separate Flanders and England the French king only
stimulated Flemish emigration, and laid the foundation of
England's manufactures. Meanwhile, Flanders did not resign
herself. The towns burst into insurrection. They had long
hated the count, either because he supported the country
against the monopoly of the towns, or because he admitted the
foreigners, the Frenchmen, to a share of their commerce. The
men of Ghent, who undoubtedly repented of having withheld
their aid from those of Ypres and of Bruges at the battle of
Cassel, chose, in 1337, as their leader, the brewer,
Jacquemart Artaveld. Supported by the guilds, and, in
particular, by the fullers and clothiers, Artaveld organized a
vigorous tyranny. He assembled at Ghent the men of the three
great cities, 'and showed them that they could not live
without the king of England; for all Flanders depended on
cloth-making, and, without wool, one could not make cloth;
therefore he recommended them to keep the English king their
friend.'"
_J. Michelet,
History of France,
book 6, chapter 1._
ALSO IN
_F. P. Guizot,
Popular History of France,
chapter 20._
_J. Hutton,
James and Philip Van Altevelde,
part 3._
_J. Froissart,
Chronicles
(Johnes's translation),
book 1, chapter 29._
FLANDERS: A. D. 1345.
The end of Jacques Van Artaveld.
"Jacob von Artaveld, the citizen of Ghent that was so much
attached to the king of England, still maintained the same
despotic power over all Flanders. He had promised the king of
England, that he would give him the inheritance of Flanders,
invest his son the prince of Wales with it, and make it a
duchy instead of an earldom. Upon which account the king was,
at this period, about St. John the Baptist's day, 1345, come
to Sluys, with a numerous attendance of barons and knights. He
had brought the prince of Wales with him, in order that Jacob
von Artaveld's promises might be realized. The king remained
on board his fleet in the harbour of Sluys, where he kept his
court. His friends in Flanders came thither to see and visit
him; and there were many conferences between the king and
Jacob Von Artaveld on one side, and the councils from the
different capital towns on the other, relative to the
agreement before mentioned. … When on his return he [Van
Artaveld] came to Ghent about midday, the townsmen who were
informed of the hour he was expected, had assembled in the
street that he was to pass through; as soon as they saw him,
they began to murmur, and put their heads close together,
saying, 'Here comes one who is too much the master, and wants
to order in Flanders according to his will and pleasure, which
must not be longer borne.' With this they had also spread a
rumour through the town, that Jacob von Artaveld had collected
all the revenues of Flanders, for nine years and more. … Of
this great treasure he had sent part into England. This
information inflamed those of Ghent with rage; and, as he was
riding up the streets, he perceived that there was something
in agitation against him; for those who were wont to salute
him very respectfully, now turned their backs, and went into
their houses. He began therefore to suspect all was not as
usual; and as soon as he had dismounted, and entered his
hotel, he ordered the doors and windows to be shut and
fastened. Scarcely had his servants done this, when the street
which he inhabited was filled from one end to the other with
all sorts of people, but especially by the lowest of the
mechanics. His mansion was surrounded on every side, attacked
and broken into by force. Those within did all they could to
defend it, and killed and wounded many: but at last they could
not hold out against such vigorous attacks, for three parts of
the town were there. When Jacob von Artaveld saw what efforts
were making, and how hardly he was pushed, he came to a
window; and, with his head uncovered, began to use humble and
fine language. … When Jacob von Artaveld saw that he could
not appease or calm them, he shut the window, and intended
getting out of his house the back way, to take shelter in a
church adjoining; but his hotel was already broke into on that
side, and upwards of four hundred were there calling out for him.
At last he was seized by them, and slain without mercy: his
death-stroke was given him by a sadler, called Thomas Denys.
In this manner did Jacob von Artaveld end his days, who in his
time had been complete master of Flanders. Poor men first
raised him, and wicked men slew him."
_J. Froissart (Johnes),
Chronicles,
book 1, chapter 115 (volume 1)._
{1127}
FLANDERS: A. D. 1379-1381.
The revolt of the White Hoods.
"We will … speak of the war in Flanders, which began about
this time [A. D. 1379]. The people were very murderous and
cruel, and multitudes were slain or driven out of the country.
The country itself was so much ruined, that it was said a
hundred years would not restore it to the situation it was in
before the war. Before the commencement of these wars in
Flanders, the country was so fertile, and everything in such
abundance, that it was marvellous to see; and the inhabitants
of the principal towns lived in very grand state. You must
know that this war originated in the pride and hatred that
several of the chief towns bore to each other: those of Ghent
against Bruges, and others, in like manner, vying with each
other through envy. However, this could not have created a war
without the consent of their lord, the earl of Flanders, who
was so much loved and feared that no one dared anger him." It
is in these words that the old court chronicler, Froissart,
begins his fully detailed and graphic narrative of the
miserable years, from 1379 to 1384, during which the communes
of Flanders were at war with one another and at war with their
worthless and oppressive count, Luis de Maele. The picturesque
chronicle is colored with the prejudices of Froissart against
the Flemish burghers and in favor of their lord; but no one
can doubt that the always turbulent citizens were jealous of
rights which the always rapacious lord never ceased to
encroach upon. As Froissart tells the story, the outbreak of
war began with an attempt on the part of the men of Bruges, to
dig a canal which would divert the waters of the river Lys.
When those of Ghent had news of this unfriendly undertaking,
they took counsel of one John Yoens, or John Lyon, a burgher
of much cunning, who had formerly been in favor with the
count, but whom his enemies had supplanted. "When he [John
Lyon] was prevailed on to speak, he said: 'Gentlemen, if you
wish to risk this business, and put an end to it, you must
renew an ancient custom that formerly subsisted in the town of
Ghent: I mean, you must first put on white-hoods, and choose a
leader, to whom everyone may look, and rally at his signal.'
This harangue was eagerly listened to, and they all cried out,
'We will have it so, we will have it so! now let us put on
white-hoods.' White-hoods were directly made, and given out to
those among them who loved war better than peace, and had
nothing to lose. John Lyon was elected chief of the White
Hoods. He very willingly accepted of this office, to avenge
himself on his enemies, to embroil the towns of Ghent and
Bruges with each other and with the earl their lord. He was
ordered, as their chief, to march against the pioneers and
diggers from Bruges, and had with him 200 such people as
preferred rioting to quiet."
_Froissart (Johnes),
Chronicles,
book 2, chapters 36-102._
When the White Hoods had driven the ditchers of Bruges from
their canal, they returned to Ghent, but not to disband.
Presently the jealous count required them to lay aside the
peculiar badge of their association, which they declined to
do. Then Count Louis sent his bailiff into Ghent with 200
horsemen, to arrest John Lyon, and some others of his band.
The White Hoods rallied, slew the bailiff and drove his posse
from the town; after which unmistakable deed Ghent and the
count were distinctly at war. The city of the White Hoods took
prompt measures to secure the alliance and support of its
neighbors. Some nine or ten thousand of its citizens marched
to Bruges, and partly by persuasion, partly by force, partly
by the help of the popular party in the town, they effected a
treaty of friendship and alliance—which did not endure,
however, very long. Courtray, Damme, Ypres and other cities
joined the league and it soon presented a formidable array.
Oudenarde, strongly fortified, by the count, became the key of
the situation, and was besieged by the citizen-militia. In the
midst of the siege, the Duke of Burgundy, son-in-law of the
count, made successful efforts to bring about a peace
(December 1379). "The count promised to forget the past and
return to his residence in Ghent. This peace, however, was of
short duration; and the count, after passing only two or three
days in Ghent, alleged some cause of dissatisfaction and
returned to Lille, to recommence hostilities, in the course of
which, with the assistance of the richer citizens, he made
himself master of Bruges. Another peace was signed in the
August of 1380, which was no more durable than the former, and
the count reduced Ypres; and, at the head of an army of 60,000
men, laid siege to Ghent itself, the chief and soul of the
popular confederacy, in the month of September. But the
citizens of Ghent defended themselves so well that he was
obliged to raise the siege in the middle of November, and
agree to a truce. This truce also was broken by the count's
party, the war renewed in the beginning of the year 1381, and
the men of Ghent experienced a disastrous defeat in the battle
of Nevelle towards the middle of May. It was a war of
extermination, and was carried on with extreme ferocity. …
Ghent itself, now closely blockaded by the count's troops, was
only saved by the great qualities of Philip Van Artevelde [son
of Jacques Van Arteveld, of the revolution of 1337], who, by a
sort of peaceful revolution, was placed at the head of affairs
[January 25, 1381]. The victory of Beverholt, in which the
count was defeated with great slaughter, and only escaped with
difficulty, made the town of Ghent again master of Flanders."
_T. Wright,
History of France,
book 2, chapter 8._
ALSO IN
_J. Hutton,
James and Philip Van Arteveld,
chapters 14-16._
_W. C. Taylor,
Revolutions, Insurrections and Conspiracies of Europe,
volume 2, chapters 7-9._
FLANDERS: A. D. 1382.
The rebellion crushed.
By the marriage of Philip, Duke of Burgundy, to the daughter
and heiress of the Count of Flanders, that powerful French
prince had become interested in the suppression of the revolt
of the Flemish burghers and the restoration of the count to
his lordship. His nephew, the young king of France, Charles
VI., was easily persuaded to undertake a campaign to that end,
and an army of considerable magnitude was personally led
northwards by the monarch of fourteen years. "The object of
the expedition was not only to restore to the Count of
Flanders his authority, but to punish the turbulent commons,
who stirred up those of France to imitate their example.
Froissart avows it to have been a war between the commons and
the aristocracy. The Flemings were commanded by Artaveldt, son
of the famous brewer, the ally of Edward III. The town of Ghent
had been reduced to the extreme of distress and famine by the
count and the people of Bruges, who supported him. Artaveldt
led the people of Ghent in a forlorn hope against Bruges,
defeated the army of the count, and broke into the rival town,
which he took and plundered. After this disaster, the count
had recourse to France. The passage of the river Lys, which
defended Flanders, was courageously undertaken, and effected
with some hazard by the French.
{1128}
The Flemings were rather dispirited by this first success:
nevertheless, they assembled their forces; and the two armies
of French knights and Flemish citizens met at Rosebecque [or
Roosebeck], between Ypres and Courtray. The 27th of November,
1382, was the day of battle. Artaveldt had stationed his army
on a height, to await the attack of the French, but their
impatience forced him to commence. Forming his troops into one
solid square, Artaveldt led them against the French centre.
Froissart compares their charge to the headlong rush of a wild
boar. It broke the opposite line, penetrating into its ranks:
but the wings of the French turned upon the flank of the
Flemings, which, not having the advantage of a charge or
impulse, were beaten by the French men at arms. Pressed upon
one another, the Flemings had not room to fight: they were
hemmed in, surrounded, and slaughtered: no quarter was asked
or given; nearly 30,000 perished. The 9,000 Ghentois that had
marched under their banner were counted, to a man, amongst the
slain: Artaveldt, their general, was among the foremost who
had fallen. Charles ordered his body to be hung upon a tree.
It was at Courtray, very near to the field where this battle
was fought, that Robert of Artois, with a French army, had
perished beneath the swords of the Flemings, nearly a century
previous. The gilded spurs of the French knights still adorned
the walls of the cathedral of Courtray. The victory of Rosebecque
in the eyes of Charles had not sufficiently repaid the former
defeat: the town of Courtray was pillaged and burnt; its
famous clock was removed to Dijon, and formed the third wonder
of this kind in France, Paris and Sens alone possessing
similar ornaments. The battle of Rosebecque proved more
unfortunate for the communes of France than for those of
Flanders. Ghent, notwithstanding her loss of 9,000 slain, did
not yield to the conqueror, but held out the war for two years
longer; and did not finally submit until the Duke of Burgundy,
at the death of their count, guaranteed to the burghers the
full enjoyment of their privileges. The king avenged himself
on the mutinous city of Paris; entered it as a conqueror; took
the chains from the streets and unhinged the gates: one hundred
of the citizens were sent to the scaffold; the property of the
rich was confiscated; and all the ancient and most onerous
taxes, the gabelle, the duty on sales, as well as that of
entry, were declared by royal ordinance to be established
anew. The principal towns of the kingdom were visited with the
same punishments and exactions. The victory of Rosebecque
overthrew the commons of France, which were crushed under the
feet of the young monarch and his nobles."
_E. E. Crowe,
History of France,
chapter 4._
ALSO IN
_Sir J. Froissart (Johnes),
Chronicles,
book 2, chapters 111-130._
_J. Michelet,
History of France,
book 7, chapter 1 (volume 2)._
_F. P. Guizot,
Popular History of France,
chapter 23 (volume 3)._
FLANDERS: A. D. 1383.
The Bishop of Norwich's Crusade.
The crushing defeat of the Flemings at Roosebeke produced
alarm in England, where the triumph of the French was quickly
felt to be threatening. "English merchants were expelled from
Bruges, and their property was confiscated. Calais even was in
danger. The French were at Dunkirk and Gravelines, and might
by a sudden dash on Calais drive the English out." There had
been aid from England promised to Van Artevelde, but the
promise had only helped on the ruin of the Ghent patriot by
misleading him. No help had come when he needed it. Now, when
it was too late, the English bestirred themselves. For some
months there had been on foot among them a Crusade, which Pope
Urban VI. had proclaimed against the supporters of the rival
Pope Clement VII.—the "Schismatics." France took the side of
the latter and was counted among the Schismatics. Accordingly,
Pope Urban's Crusade, so far as the English people could be moved
to engage in it, was now directed against the French in
Flanders. It was led by the Bishop of Norwich, who succeeded
in rousing a very considerable degree of enthusiasm in the
country for the movement, despite the earnest opposition of
Wyclif and his followers. The crusading army assembled at
Calais in the spring of 1383, professedly for a campaign in
France; but the Bishop found excuses for leading it into
Flanders. Gravelines was first attacked, carried by storm, and
its male defenders slaughtered to a man. An army of French and
Flemings, encountered near Dunkirk, was routed, with fearful
carnage, and the whole coast, including Dunkirk, fell into the
hands of the English. Then they laid siege to Ypres, and there
their disasters began. The city held out with stubbornness
from the 9th of June until the 10th of August, when the
baffled besiegers—repulsed in a last desperate assault which
they had made on the 8th—marched away. "Ypres might rejoice,
but the disasters of the long siege proved final. Her stately
faubourgs were not rebuilt, and she has never again taken her
former rank among the cities of Flanders." In September a
powerful French army entered Flanders, and the English
crusaders could do nothing but retreat before it, giving up
Cassel (which the French burned), then Bergues, then
Bourbourg, after a siege, and, finally, setting fire to
Gravelines and abandoning that place. "Gravelines was utterly
destroyed, but the French soon began to rebuild it. It was
repeopled from the surrounding country, and fortified strongly
as a menace to Calais." The Crusaders returned to England
"'dripping with blood and disgracing their country. Blessed be
God who confounds the proud,' says one sharp critic, who
appears to have been a monk of Canterbury."
_G. M. Wrong,
The Crusade of MCCCLXXXIII._
ALSO IN
_Sir J. Froissart, (Johnes),
Chronicles
book 2, chapters 130-145 (volumes 1-2)._
FLANDERS: A. D. 1383
Joined to the Dominions of the Duke of Burgundy.
"Charles V. [of France] had formed the design of obtaining
Flanders for his brother Philip, Duke of Burgundy, afterwards
known as Philip the Bold—by marrying him to Margaret
[daughter and heiress of Louis de Maele, count of Flanders].
To gain the good will of the Communes, he engaged to restore
the three bailiwicks of Lille, Douai, and Orchies as a
substitute for the 10,000 livres a year promised to Louis de
Maele and his successors in 1351, as well as the towns of
Peronne, Crèvecœur, Arleux and Château-Chinon, assigned to him
in 1358. … On the 13th May, 1369, the 'Lion of Flanders'
once more floated, after an interval of half a century, over
the walls of Lille, Douai, and Orchies, and at the same time
Flemish garrisons marched into St. Omer, Aire, Bethune and
Hesdin. The marriage ceremony took place at Ghent on the 19th
of June." The Duke of Burgundy waited fourteen years for the
heritage of his wife. In January, 1383, Count Louis died, and
Flanders was added to the great and growing dominion of the
new Burgundian house.
_J. Hutton,
James and Philip van Arteveld,
chapters 14 and 18._
See BURGUNDY (THE FRENCH DUKEDOM): A. D. 1364.
{1129}
FLANDERS: A. D. 1451-1453.
Revolt against the Burgundian Gabelle.
See GHENT: A. D. 1451-1453.
FLANDERS: A. D. 1477.
Severance from Burgundy.
Transference to the Austrian House by marriage of Mary of
Burgundy.
See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1477.
FLANDERS: A. D. 1482-1488.
Resistance to Maximilian.
See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1482-1493.
FLANDERS: A. D. 1494-1588.
The Austro-Spanish sovereignty and its oppressions.
The great revolt and its failure in the Flemish provinces.
See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1494-1519, and after.
FLANDERS: A. D. 1529.
Pretensions of the king of France to Suzerainty resigned.
See ITALY: A. D. 1527-1529.
FLANDERS: A. D. 1539-1540.
The unsupported revolt of Ghent.
See GHENT: A. D. 1539-1540.
FLANDERS: A. D. 1594-1884.
Later history.
See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1594-1609, to 1830-1884.
----------FLANDERS: End----------
FLATHEAD INDIANS, The.
See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: FLATHEADS.
FLAVIA CÆSARIENSIS.
See BRITAIN: A. D. 323-337.
FLAVIAN AMPHITHEATRE, The.
See COLOSSEUM.
FLAVIAN FAMILY, The.
"We have designated the second period of the [Roman] Empire by
the name of the Flavian family—the family of Vespasian [Titus
Flavius Vespasian]. The nine Emperors who were successively
invested with the purple, in the space of the 123 years from
his accession, were not all, however, of Flavian race, even by
the rites of adoption, which in Rome was become a second
nature; but the respect of the world for the virtues of
Flavius Vespasian induced them all to assume his name, and
most of them showed themselves worthy of such an affiliation.
Vespasian had been invested with the purple at Alexandria, on
the 1st of July, A. D. 69; he died in 79. His two sons reigned
in succession after him; Titus, from 79 to 81; Domitian, from 81
to 96. The latter having been assassinated, Nerva, then an old
man, was raised to the throne by the Senate (A. D. 96-98). He
adopted Trajan (98-117); who adopted Adrian (117-138). Adrian
adopted Antoninus Pius (138-161); who adopted Marcus Aurelius
(161-180); and Commodus succeeded his father, Marcus Aurelius
(180-192). No period in history presents such a succession of
good and great men upon any throne: two monsters, Domitian and
Commodus, interrupt and terminate it."
_J. C. L. Sismondi,
Fall of the Roman Empire,
chapter 2._
FLEETWOOD, OR BRANDY STATION, Battle of.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1863 (JUNE: VIRGINIA).
FLEIX, The Peace of.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1578-1580.
FLEMINGS.
FLEMISH.
See FLANDERS.
FLEMISH GUILDS.
See GUILDS OF FLANDERS.
FLEURUS, Battle of (1622).
See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1621-1633.
FLEURUS, Battle of (1690).
See FRANCE: A. D. 1689-1690.
FLEURUS, Battle of (1794).
See FRANCE: A. D. 1794 (MARCH-JULY).
FLODDEN, Battle of (A. D. 1513).
See SCOTLAND: A. D. 1513.
FLORALIA, The.
See LUDI.
FLORÉAL, The month.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1793 (OCTOBER).
FLORENCE:
Origin and Name:
"Fæsulre was situated on a hill above Florence. Florentine
traditions call it the metropolis of Florence, which would
accordingly be a colony of Fæsulre; but a statement in
Machiavelli and others describes Florence as a colony of
Sulla, and this statement must have been derived from some
local chronicle. Fæsulre was no doubt an ancient Etruscan
town, probably one of the twelve. It was taken in the war of
Sulla [B. C. 82-81]. … My conjecture is, that Sulla not only
built a strong fort on the top of the hill of Fæsulre, but
also the new colony of Florentia below, and gave to it the
'ager Fæsulanus.'"
_B. G. Niebuhr,
Lectures on Ancient Ethnography and Geography.
volume 2, page 228._
"We can reasonably suppose that the ancient trading nations
may have pushed their small craft up the Arno to the present
site of Florence, and thus have gained a more immediate
communication with the flourishing city of Fiesole than they
could through other ports of Etruria, from whatever race its
people might have sprung. Admitting the high antiquity of
Fiesole, the imagined work of Atlas, and the tomb of his
celestial daughter, we may easily believe that a market was
from very early times established in the plain, where both by
land and water the rural produce could be brought for sale
without ascending the steep on which that city stood. Such
arrangements would naturally result from the common course of
events, and a more convenient spot could scarcely be found
than the present site of Florence, to which the Arno is still
navigable by boats from its mouth, and at that time perhaps by
two branches. … 'There were,' says Villani, 'inhabitants
round San Giovanni, because the people of Fiesole held their
market there one day in the week, and it was called the Field
of Mars, the ancient name: however it was always, from the
first, the market of the Fiesolines, and thus it was called
before Florence existed.'
{1130}
And again: 'The Pæetor Florinus, with a Roman army, encamped
beyond the Arno towards Fiesole and had two small villages
there, … where the people of Fiesole one day in the week
held a general market with the neighbouring towns and
villages. … On the site of this camp, as we are also assured
by Villani, was erected the city of Florence, after the
capture of Fiesole by Pompey, Cæsar, and Martius; but Leonardo
Aretino, following Malespini, asserts that it was the work of
Sylla's legions, who were already in possession of Fiesole.
… The variety of opinions almost equals the number of
authors. … It may be reasonably concluded that Florence,
springing originally from Fiesole, finally rose to the rank of
a Roman colony and the seat of provincial government; a
miniature of Rome, with its Campus Martius, its Capitol,
Forum, temple of Mars, aqueducts, baths, theatre and
amphitheatre, all erected in imitation of the 'Eternal City;'
for vestiges of all these are still existing either in name or
substance. The name of Florence is as dark as its origin, and
a thousand derivations have confused the brains of
antiquarians and their readers without much enlightening them,
while the beautiful Giagiolo or Iris, the city's emblem, still
clings to her old grey walls, as if to assert its right to be
considered as the genuine source of her poetic appellation.
From the profusion of these flowers that formerly decorated
the meads between the rivers Mugnone and Arno, has sprung one
of the most popular opinions on the subject; for a white plant
of the same species having shown itself amongst the rising
fabrics, the incident was poetically seized upon and the Lily
then first assumed its station in the crimson banner of
Florence."
_H. E. Napier,
Florentine History,
book 1, chapter 1._
FLORENCE: A. D. 406.
Siege by Radagaisus.
Deliverance by Stilicho.
See ROME: A. D. 404-408.
FLORENCE: 12th Century.
Acquisition of republican independence.
"There is … an assertion by Villani, that Florence contained
twenty-two thousand fighting men, without counting the old men
and children,' about the middle of the sixth century; and
modern statisticians have based on this statement an estimate
which would make the population of the city at that period
about sixty-one thousand. There are reasons too for believing
that very little difference in the population took place
during several centuries after that time. Then came the sudden
increase arising from the destruction, more or less entire, of
Fiesole, and the incorporation of its inhabitants with those
of the newer city, which led to the building of the second
walls. … An estimate taking the inhabitants of the city at
something between seventy and eighty thousand at the period
respecting which we are inquiring [beginning of the 12th
century] would in all probability be not very wide of the
mark. The government of the city was at that time lodged in
the hands of magistrates exercising both legislative and
administrative authority, called Consuls, assisted by a senate
composed of a hundred citizens of worth—buoni uomini. These
Consuls 'guided everything, and governed the city, and decided
causes, and administered justice.' They remained in office for
one year. How long this form of government had been
established in Florence is uncertain. It was not in existence
in the year 897; but it was in activity in 1102. From 1138 we
have a nearly complete roll of the names of the consuls for
each year down to 1219. … The first recorded deeds of the
young community thus governed, and beginning to feel conscious
and proud of its increasing strength, were characteristic
enough of the tone of opinion and sentiment which prevailed
within its walls, and of the career on which it was entering.
'In the year 1107,' says Malispini, 'the city of Florence
being much increased, the Florentines, wishing to extend their
territory, determined to make war against any castle or
fortress which would not be obedient to them. And in that year
they took by force Monte Orlando, which belonged to certain
gentlemen who would not be obedient to the city. And they were
defeated, and the castle was destroyed.' These 'gentlemen,' so
styled by the civic historian who thus curtly records the
destruction of their home, in contradistinction to the
citizens who by no means considered themselves such, were the
descendants or representatives of those knights and captains,
mostly of German race, to whom the Emperors had made grants of
the soil according to the feudal practice and system. They
held directly of the Empire, and in no wise owed allegiance or
obedience of any sort to the community of Florence. But they
occupied almost all the country around the rising city; and
the citizens' wanted to extend their territory.' Besides,
these territorial lords were, as has been said, gentlemen, and
lived as such, stopping wayfarers on the highways, levying tolls
in the neighbourhood of their strongholds, and in many ways
making themselves disagreeable neighbours to peaceable folks.
… The next incident on the record, however, would seem to
show that peaceful townsfolk as well as marauding nobles were
liable to be overrun by the car of manifest destiny, if they
came in the way of it. 'In the same year,' says the curt old
historian, 'the men of Prato rebelled against the Florentines;
wherefore they went out in battle against it, and took it by
siege and destroyed it.' Prato rebelled against Florence! It
is a very singular statement; for there is not the shadow of a
pretence put forward, or the smallest ground for imagining
that Florence had or could have claimed any sort of suzerainty
over Prato. … The territorial nobles, however, who held
castles in the district around Florence were the principal
objects of the early prowess of the citizens; and of course
offence against them was offence against the Emperor. … In
1113, accordingly, we find an Imperial vicar residing in
Tuscany at St. Miniato; not the convent-topped hill of that
name in the immediate neighbourhood of Florence, but a little
mountain city of the same name, overlooking the lower
Valdarno, about half way between Florence and Pisa. … There
the Imperial Vicars perched themselves hawk-like, with their
Imperial troops, and swooped down from time to time to
chastise and bring back such cities of the plain as too
audaciously set at naught the authority of the Emperor. And
really these upstart Florentines were taking the bit between
their teeth, and going on in a way that no Imperial Vicar
could tolerate. … So the indignant cry of the harried Counts
Cadolingi, and of several other nobles holding of the Empire,
whose houses had been burned over their heads by these
audacious citizens, went up to the ears of 'Messer Ruberto,'
the Vicar, in San Miniato.
{1131}
Whereupon that noble knight, indignant at the wrong done to
his fellow nobles, as well as at the offence against the
authority of his master the Emperor, forthwith put lance in
rest, called out his men, and descended from his mountain
fortress to take summary vengeance on the audacious city. On
his way thither he had to pass through that very gorge where
the castle of Monte Orlando had stood, and under the ruins of
the house from which the noble vassals of the Empire had been
harried. … There were the leathern-jerkined citizens on the
very scene of their late misdeed, come out to oppose the
further progress of the Emperor's Vicar and his soldiers. And
there, as the historian writes, with curiously impassible
brevity, 'the said Messer Ruberto was discomfited and killed.'
And nothing further is heard of him, or of any after
consequences resulting from the deed. Learned legal
antiquaries insist much on the fact, that the independence of
Florence and the other Communes was never 'recognised' by the
Emperors; and they are no doubt perfectly accurate in saying
so. One would think, however, that that unlucky Vicar of
theirs, Messer Ruberto, must have 'recognised' the fact,
though somewhat tardily."
_T. A. Trollope,
History of the Commonwealth of Florence,
book 1, chapter 1 (volume 1)._
Countess Matilda, the famous friend of Pope Gregory VII.,
whose wide dominion included Tuscany, died in 1115,
bequeathing her vast possessions to the Church.
See PAPACY: A. D. 1077-1102.
"In reality she was only entitled thus to bequeath her
allodial lands, the remainder being imperial fiefs. But as it
was not always easy to distinguish between the two sorts, and
the popes were naturally anxious to get as much as they could,
a fresh source of contention was added to the constant
quarrels between the Empire and the Church. 'Henry IV.
immediately despatched a representative into Tuscany, who
under the title of Marchio, Judex, or Praeses, was to govern
the Marquisate in his name.' 'Nobody,' says Professor Villari,
'could legally dispute his right to do this: but the
opposition of the Pope, the attitude of the towns which now
considered themselves independent and the universal confusion
rendered the Marquis's authority illusory. The imperial
representatives had no choice but to put themselves at the
head of the feudal nobility of the contado and unite it into a
Germanic party hostile to the cities. In the documents of the
period the members of this party are continually described as
Teutonici.' By throwing herself in this juncture on the side
of the Pope, and thus becoming the declared opponent of the
empire and the feudal lords, Florence practically proclaimed
her independence. The grandi, having the same interests with
the working classes, identified themselves with these; became
their leaders, their consuls in fact if not yet in name. Thus
was the consular commune born, or, rather, thus did it
recognize itself on reaching manhood; for born, in reality, it
had already been for some time, only so quietly and
unconsciously that nobody had marked its origin or, until now,
its growth. The first direct consequence of this
self-recognition was that the rulers were chosen out of a
larger number of families. As long as Matilda had chosen the
officers to whom the government of the town was entrusted, the
Uberti and a few others who formed their clan, their kinsmen, and
their connections had been selected, to the exclusion of the
mass of the citizens. Now more people were admitted to a share
in the administration: the offices were of shorter duration,
and out of those selected to govern each family had its turn.
But those who had formerly been privileged—the Uberti and
others of the same tendencies and influence—were necessarily
discontented with this state of things, and there are
indications in Villani of burnings and of tumults such as
later, when the era of faction fights had fairly begun, so
often desolated the streets of Florence."
_B. Duffy,
The Tuscan Republics,
chapter 6._
See ITALY: A. D. 1056-1152.
FLORENCE: A. D. 1215-1250.
The beginning, the causes and the meaning of the strife of the
Guelfs and Ghibellines.
Nearly from the beginning of the 13th century, all Italy, and
Florence more than other Italian communities, became
distracted and convulsed by a contest of raging factions. "The
main distinction was that between Ghibellines and Guelphs—two
names in their origin far removed from Italy. They were first
heard in Germany in 1140, when at Winsberg in Suabia a battle
was fought between two contending claimants of the Empire; the
one, Conrad of Hohenstauffen, Duke of Franconia, chose for his
battle-cry 'Waiblingen,' the name of his patrimonial castle in
Würtemburg; the other, Henry the Lion, Duke of Saxony, chose
his own family name of 'Welf,' or 'Wölf.' Conrad proved
victorious, and his kindred to the fourth ensuing generation
occupied the imperial throne; yet both war-cries survived the
contest which gave them birth, lingering on in Germany as
equivalents of Imperialist and anti-Imperialist. By a process
perfectly clear to philologists, they were modified in Italy
into the forms Ghibellino and Guelfo; and the Popes being
there the great opponents of the Emperors, an Italian Guelph
was a Papalist. The cities were mainly Guelph; the nobles most
frequently Ghibelline. A private feud had been the means of
involving Florence in the contest."
_M. F. Rossetti,
A Shadow of Dante,
chapter 3._
"The Florentines kept themselves united till the year 1215,
rendering obedience to the ruling power, and anxious only to
preserve their own safety. But, as the diseases which attack
our bodies are more dangerous and mortal in proportion as they
are delayed, so Florence, though late to take part in the
sects of Italy, was afterwards the more afflicted by them. The
cause of her first division is well known, having been
recorded by Dante and many other writers; I shall, however,
briefly notice it. Amongst the most powerful families of
Florence were the Buondelmonti and the Uberti; next to these
were the Amidei and the Donati. Of the Donati family there was
a rich widow who had a daughter of exquisite beauty, for whom, in
her own mind, she had fixed upon Buondelmonti, a young
gentleman, the head of the Buondelmonti family, as her
husband; but either from negligence, or because she thought it
might be accomplished at any time, she had not made known her
intention, when it happened that the cavalier betrothed
himself to a maiden of the Amidei family. This grieved the
Donati widow exceedingly; but she hoped, with her daughter's
beauty, to disturb the arrangement before the celebration of
the marriage; and from an upper apartment, seeing Buondelmonti
approach her house alone, she descended, and as he was passing
she said to him, 'I am glad to learn you have chosen a wife,
although I had reserved my daughter for you'; and, pushing the
door open, presented her to his view.
{1132}
The cavalier, seeing the beauty of the girl, … became
inflamed with such an ardent desire to possess her, that, not
thinking of the promise given, or the injury he committed in
breaking it, or of the evils which his breach of faith might
bring upon himself, said, 'Since you have reserved her for me,
I should be very ungrateful indeed to refuse her, being yet at
liberty to choose'; and without any delay married her. As soon
as the fact became known, the Amidei and the Uberti, whose
families were allied, were filled with rage," and some of
them, lying in wait for him, assassinated him as he was riding
through the streets. "This murder divided the whole city; one
party espousing the cause of the Buondelmonti, the other that
of the Uberti; and … they contended with each other for many
years, without one being able to destroy the other. Florence
continued in these troubles till the time of Frederick II.,
who, being king of Naples, endeavoured to strengthen himself
against the church; and, to give greater stability to his
power in Tuscany, favoured the Uberti and their followers,
who, with his assistance, expelled the Buondelmonti; thus our
city, as all the rest of Italy had long time been, became
divided into Guelphs and Ghibellines."
_N. Machiavelli,
History of Florence,
book 2, chapter 1._
"Speaking generally, the Ghibellines were the party of the
emperor, and the Guelphs the party of the Pope; the
Ghibellines were on the side of authority, or sometimes of
oppression, the Guelphs were on the side of liberty and
self-government. Again, the Ghibellines were the supporters of
an universal empire of which Italy was to be the head, the
Guelphs were on the side of national life and national
individuality. … If these definitions could be considered as
exhaustive, there would be little doubt as to the side to
which our sympathies should be given. … We should … expect
all patriots to be Guelphs, and the Ghibelline party to be
composed of men who were too spiritless to resist despotic
power, or too selfish to surrender it. But, on the other hand,
we must never forget that Dante was a Ghibelline."
_O. Browning,
Guelphs and Ghibellines,
chapter 2._
See, also, ITALY: A. D. 1215.
FLORENCE: A. D. 1248-1278.
The wars of a generation of the Guelfs and Ghibellines.
In 1248, the Ghibellines, at the instigation of Frederick II.,
and with help from his German soldiery, expelled the Guelfs
from the city, after desperate fighting for several days, and
destroyed the mansions of their chiefs, to the number of 38.
In 1250 there was a rising of the people—of the under-stratum
which the cleavage of parties hardly penetrated—and a popular
constitution of government was brought into force. At the same
time, the high towers, which were the strongholds of the
contending nobles, were thrown down. An attempt was then made
by the leaders of the people to restore peace between the
Ghibellines and the Guelfs, but the effort was vain; whereupon
the Guelfs (in January, 1251) came back to the city, and the
Ghibellines were either driven away or were shut up in their
city castles, to which they had retired when the people rose.
In 1258 the restless Ghibellines plotted with Manfred, King of
the Two Sicilies, to regain possession of Florence. The plot
was discovered, and the enraged people drove the last
lingerers of the faction from their midst and pulled down
their palaces. The great palace of the Uberti family, most
obnoxious of all, was not only razed, but a decree was made
that no building should ever stand again on its accursed site.
The exiled Ghibellines took refuge at Siena, and there plotted
again with King Manfred, who sent troops to aid them. The
Florentines did not wait to be attacked, but marched out to
meet them on Sienese territory, and suffered a terrible defeat
at Montaperti (September 4, 1260), in the battle that Dante
refers to, "which coloured the river Arbia red." "'On that
day,' says Villani, … 'was broken and destroyed the old
popular government of Florence, which had existed for ten
years with so great power and dignity, and had won so many
victories.' Few events have ever left a more endurable
impression on the memory of a people than this great battle
between two cities and parties animated both of them by the
most unquenchable hatred. The memory of that day has lasted
through 600 years, more freshly perhaps in Siena than in
Florence." As a natural consequence of their defeat at
Montaperti, the Guelfs were again forced to fly into exile
from Florence, and this expatriation included a large number
of even the commoner people. "So thorough had been the defeat,
so complete the Ghibelline ascendency resulting from it, that
in every city the same scene on a lesser scale was taking
place. Many of the smaller towns, which had always been Guelph
in their sympathies, were now subjected to Ghibelline
despotism. One refuge alone remained in Tuscany—Lucca. …
And thither the whole body of the expatriated Guelphs betook
themselves. … The Ghibellines entered Florence in triumph on
the 16th of September, three days after their enemies had left
it. … The city seemed like a desert. The gates were standing
open and unguarded; the streets were empty; the comparatively
few inhabitants who remained, almost entirely of the lowest
class of the populace, were shut up in their obscure
dwellings, or were on their knees in the churches. And what
was worse, the conquerors did not come back alone. They had
invited a foreign despot to restore order;" and so King
Manfred's general, Giordano da Anglona, established Count
Guido Novello in Florence as Manfred's vicar. "All the
constitutional authorities established by the people, and the
whole frame-work of the former government, were destroyed, and
the city was ruled entirely by direction transmitted from the
King's Sicilian court." There were serious proposals, even,
that Florence itself should be destroyed, and the saving of
the noble city from that untimely fate is credited to one
patriotic noble, of the Uberti family, who withstood the
proposition, alone. "The Ghibelline army marched on Lucca, and
had not much more difficulty in reducing that city. The
government was put into Ghibelline hands, and Lucca became a
Ghibelline city like all the rest of Tuscany. The Lucchese
were not required by the victors to turn their own Guelphs out
of the city. But it was imperatively insisted on that every
Guelph not a native citizen should be thrust forth from the
gates." The unfortunate Florentines, thus made homeless again,
now found shelter at Bologna, and presently helped their friends
at Modena and Reggio to overcome the Ghibellines in those
cities and recover control. But for five years their condition
was one of wretchedness. Then Charles of Anjou was brought
into Italy (1265) by the Pope, to snatch the crown of the Two
Sicilies from King Manfred, and succeeded in his undertaking.
See ITALY (SOUTHERN): A. D. 1250-1268.
{1133}
The prop of the Ghibellines was broken. Guido Novello and his
troopers rode away from Florence; 800 French horsemen, sent by
the new Angevine king, under Guy de Montfort, took their
places; the Guelfs swarmed in again—the Ghibellines swarmed
out; the popular constitution was restored, with new features
more popular than before. In 1273 there was a great attempt
made by Pope Gregory X. in person, to reconcile the factions
in Florence; but it had so little success that the Holy Father
left the city in disgust and pronounced it under interdict for
three years. In 1278 the attempt was renewed with somewhat
better success. "'And now, says Villani, 'the Ghibellines were
at liberty to return to Florence, they and their families. …
And the said Ghibellines had back again their goods and
possessions; except that certain of the leading families were
ordered, for the safety of the city, to remain for a certain
time beyond the boundaries of the Florentine territory.' In
fact, little more is heard henceforward of the Ghibellines as
a faction within the walls of Florence. The old name, as a
rallying cry for the Tory or Imperialist party, was still
raised here and there in Tuscany; and Pisa still called
herself Ghibelline. But the stream of progress had run past
them and left them stranded."
_T. A. Trollope,
History of the Commonwealth of Florence,
book 1, chapters 4-5,
and book 2, chapter 1 (volume 1)._
ALSO IN
_N. Machiavelli,
Florentine Histories,
book 1._
_J. C. L. de Sismondi,
History of the Italian Republics,
chapter 4._
FLORENCE: A. D. 1250-1293.
Development of the popular constitution of the Commonwealth.
When it became clear that the republic was to rule itself
henceforth untrammelled by imperial interference, the people
[in 1250] divided themselves into six districts, and chose for
each district two Ancients, who administered the government in
concert with the Potestà and the Captain of the People. The
Ancients were a relic of the old Roman municipal organization.
… The body of the citizens, or the popolo, were ultimately
sovereigns in the State. Assembled under the banners of their
several companies, they formed a parlamento for delegating
their own power to each successive government. Their
representatives, again, arranged in two councils, called the
Council of the People and the Council of the Commune, under
the presidency of the Captain of the People and the Potestà,
ratified the measures which had previously been proposed and
carried by the executive authority or signoria. Under this
simple State system the Florentines placed themselves at the
head of the Tuscan League, fought the battles of the Church,
asserted their sovereignty by issuing the golden florin of the
republic, and flourished until 1266. In that year an important
change was effected in the Constitution. The whole population
of Florence consisted, on the one hand, of nobles or Grandi,
as they were called in Tuscany, and on the other hand of
working people. The latter, divided into traders and
handicraftsmen, were distributed in guilds called Arti; and at
that time there were seven Greater and five Lesser Arti, the most
influential of all being the Guild of the Wool Merchants.
These guilds had their halls for meeting, their colleges of
chief officers, their heads, called Consoli or Priors, and
their flags. In 1266 it was decided that the administration of
the commonwealth should be placed simply and wholly in the
hands of the Arti, and the Priors of these industrial
companies became the lords or Signory of Florence. No
inhabitant of the city who had not enrolled himself as a
craftsman in one of the guilds could exercise any function of
burghership. To be scioperato, or without industry, was to be
without power, without rank or place of honour in the State.
The revolution which placed the Arts at the head of the
republic had the practical effect of excluding the Grandi
altogether from the government. … In 1293, after the
Ghibellines had been defeated in the great battle of
Campaldino, a series of severe enactments, called the
Ordinances of Justice, were decreed against the unruly Grandi.
All civic rights were taken from them; the severest penalties
were attached to their slightest infringement of municipal
law; their titles to land were limited; the privilege of
living within the city walls was allowed them only under
galling restrictions; and last not least, a supreme
magistrate, named the Gonfalonier of Justice, was created for
the special purpose of watching them and carrying out the
penal code against them. Henceforward Florence was governed
exclusively by merchants and artisans. The Grandi hastened to
enroll themselves in the guilds, exchanging their former
titles and dignities for the solid privilege of burghership.
The exact parallel to this industrial constitution for a
commonwealth, carrying on wars with emperors and princes,
holding haughty captains in its pay, and dictating laws to
subject cities, cannot, I think, be elsewhere found in
history. It is as unique as the Florence of Dante and Giotto
is unique."
_J. A. Symonds,
Florence and the Medici
(Sketches and Studies in Italy, chapter 5)._
ALSO IN
_C. Balbo,
Life and Times of Dante,
volume 1, Introduction._
_A. Von Reumont,
Lorenzo de Medici,
book 1, chapter 1._
FLORENCE: A. D. 1284-1293.
War with Pisa.
See PISA: A. D. 1063-1293.
FLORENCE: A. D. 1289.
The victory of Campaldino, and the jealousy among its heroes.
In 1289 the Ghibellines of Arezzo having expelled the Guelfs
from that city, the Florentines made war in the cause of the
latter and won a great victory at Campaldino. This "raised the
renown and the military spirit of the Guelf party, for the
fame of the battle was very great; the hosts contained the
choicest chivalry of either side, armed and appointed with
emulous splendour. The fighting was hard, there was brilliant
and conspicuous gallantry, and the victory was complete. It
sealed Guelf ascendency. The Ghibelline warrior-bishop of
Arezzo fell, with three of the Uberti, and other Ghibelline
chiefs. … In this battle the Guelf leaders had won great
glory. The hero of the day was the proudest, handsomest,
craftiest, most winning, most ambitious, most unscrupulous
Guelf noble in Florence—one of a family who inherited the
spirit and recklessness of the proscribed Uberti, and did not
refuse the popular epithet of 'Malefami'—Corso Donati.
{1134}
He did not come back from the field of Campaldino, where he
had won the battle by disobeying orders, with any increased
disposition to yield to rivals, or court the populace, or
respect other men's rights. Those rivals, too—and they also
had fought gallantly in the post of honour at Campaldino—were
such as he hated from his soul—rivals whom he despised, and
who yet were too strong for him [the family of the Cerchi].
His blood was ancient, they were upstarts; he was a soldier,
they were traders; he was poor, they the richest men in
Florence. … They had crossed him in marriages, bargains,
inheritances. … The glories of Campaldino were not as oil on
these troubled waters. The conquerors flouted each other all
the more fiercely in the streets on their return, and
ill-treated the lower people with less scruple."
_R. W. Church,
Dante and Other Essays,
pages 27-31._
ALSO IN
_C. Balbo,
Life and Times of Dante,
part 1, chapter 6 (volume 1)._
FLORENCE: A. D. 1295-1300.
New factions in the city, and Dante's relations to them.
The Bianchi and the Neri (Whites and Blacks).
Among the Nobles "who resisted the oppression of the people,
Corso Donati must have been the chief, but he did not at first
come forward; with one of his usual stratagems, however, he
was the cause of a new revolution [January, 1295], which drove
Giano della Bella, the leader of the people, from the city.
… Notwithstanding the fall of Giano, the Nobles did not
return into power. He was succeeded as a popular leader by one
much his inferior, one Pecora, surnamed, from his trade, the
Butcher. New disputes arose between the nobles and the people,
and between the upper and lower ranks of the people itself.
Villani tells us that, in the year 1295, 'many families, who
were neither tyrannical nor powerful, withdrew from the order
of the nobles, and enrolled themselves among the people,
diminishing the power of the nobles and increasing that of the
people.' Dante must have been precisely one of those nobles 'who
were neither tyrannical nor powerful;' and … it is certain
that he was among those who passed over from their own order
to that of the Popolani, by being matriculated in one of the
Arts. In a register from 1297 to 1300, of the Art of the
physicians and druggists, the fifth of the seven major Arts,
he is found matriculated in these words: 'Dante d'Aldighiero
degli Aldighieri poeta fiorentino.' … Dante, by this means,
obtained office under the popular government. … The new
factions that arose in Florence, in almost all Tuscany, and in
some of the cities in other parts of Italy, were merely
subdivisions of the Guelf party; merely what, in time, happens
to every faction after a period of prosperity, a division of
the ultras and of the moderates, or of those who hold more or
less extravagant views. … All this happened to the Guelf
party in a very few years, and the Neri and Bianchi, the names
'Of the two divisions of that party, which had arisen in 1300,
were no longer mentioned ten years afterwards, but were again
lost in the primitive appellations of Guelfs and Ghibellines.
Thus this episode would possess little interest, and would be
scarcely mentioned in the history of Italy, or even of
Florence, had not the name of our sublime Poet been involved
in it; and, after his love, it is the most important
circumstance of his life, and the one to which he most
frequently alludes in his Commedia. It thus becomes a subject
worthy of history. … Florentine historians attribute Corso
Donati's hatred towards Vieri de Cerchi to envy. … This envy
arose to such a height between Dante's neighbours in Florence
that he has rendered it immortal. 'Through envy,' says
Villani, 'the citizens began to divide into factions, and one
of the principal feuds began in the Sesto dello Scandalo, near
the gate of St. Pietro, between the families of the Cerchi and
the Donati [from which latter family came Dante's wife]. …
Messer Vieri was the head of the House of the Cerchi, and he
and his house were powerful in affairs, possessing a numerous
kindred; they were very rich merchants, for their company was
one of the greatest in the world.'" The state of animosity
between these two families "was existing in Florence in the
beginning of 1300, when it was increased by another rather
similar family quarrel that had arisen in Pistoia. . . .
'There was in Pistoia a family which amounted to more than 100
men capable of bearing arms; it was not of great antiquity,
but was powerful, wealthy, and numerous; it was descended from
one Cancellieri Notaio, and from him they had preserved
Cancellieri as their family name. From the children of the two
wives of this man were descended the 107 men of arms that have
been enumerated; one of the wives having been named Madonna
Bianca, her descendants were called Cancellieri Bianchi (White
Cancellieri); and the descendants of the other wife, in
opposition, were called Cancellieri Neri (Black
Cancellieri).'" Between these two branches of the family of
the Cancellieri there arose, some time near the end of the
thirteenth century, an implacable feud. "Florence …
exercised a supremacy over Pistoia … and fearing that these
internal dissensions might do injury to the Guelf party, she
took upon herself the lordship or supremacy of that city. The
principal Cancellieri, both Bianchi and Neri, were banished to
Florence itself; 'the Neri took up their abode in the house of
the Frescobaldi, beyond the Arno; the Bianchi at the house of
the Cerchi, in the Garbo, from being connected with them by
kindred. But as one sick sheep infects another, and is
injurious to the flock, so this cursed seed of discord, that
had departed from Pistoia and had now entered Florence,
corrupted all the Florentines, and divided them into two
parties.' … The Cerchi, formerly called the Forest party
(parte selvaggia), now assumed the name of Bianchi; and those
who followed the Donati were now called Neri. … 'There sided
with [the Bianchi, says Villani] the families of the Popolani
and petty artisans, and all the Ghibellines, whether Nobles or
Popolani.' … Thus the usual position in which the two
parties stood was altered; for hitherto the Nobles had almost
always been Ghibellines, and the Popolani Guelfs; but now, if
the Popolani were not Ghibellines, they were at least not such
strong Guelfs as the nobles. Sometimes these parties are
referred to as White Guelfs and Black Guelfs."
_C. Balbo,
Life and Times of Dante,
chapter 10._
ALSO IN
_H. E. Napier,
Florentine History,
book 1, chapter 14 (volume l)._
_N. Machiavelli,
The Florentine Histories,
book 2._
{1135}
FLORENCE: A. D. 1301-1313.
Triumph of the Neri.
Banishment of Dante and his party.
Downfall and death of Corso Donati.
"In the year 1301, a serious affray took place between the two
parties [the Bianchi and the Neri]; the whole city was in
arms; the law, and the authority of the Signoria, among whom
was the poet Dante Alighieri, was set at naught by the great
men of each side, while the best citizens looked on with fear
and trembling. The Donati, fearing that unaided they would not
be a match for their adversaries, proposed that they should
put themselves under a ruler of the family of the king of
France. Such a direct attack on the independence of the state
was not to be borne by the Signoria, among whom the poet had
great influence. At his instigation they armed the populace,
and with their assistance compelled the heads of the
contending parties to lay down their arms, and sent into exile
Messer Donati and others who had proposed the calling in of
foreigners. A sentence of banishment was also pronounced
against the most violent men of the party of the Bianchi, most
of whom, however, were allowed, under various pretences, to
return to their country. The party of the Donati in their
exile carried on those intrigues which they had commenced
while at home. They derived considerable assistance from the
king of France's brother, Charles of Valois, whom Pope
Boniface had brought into Italy. That prince managed, by means
of promises, which he subsequently violated, to get admission
for himself, together with several of the Neri, and the legate
of the pope, into Florence. He then produced letters,
generally suspected to be forgeries, charging the leaders of
the Bianchi with conspiracy. The popularity of the accused
party had already been on the wane, and after a violent
tumult, the chief men among them, including Dante, were
obliged to leave the city; their goods were confiscated, and
their houses destroyed. … From this time Corso Donati, the
head of the faction of the Neri, became the chief man at
Florence. The accounts of its state at this period, taken from
the most credible historians, warrant us in thinking that the
severe invectives of Dante are not to be ascribed merely to
indignation or resentment at the harsh treatment he had
received. … The city was rent by more violent dissensions
than ever. There were now three distinct sources of
contention—the jealousy between the people and the nobles,
the disputes between the Bianchi and the Neri, and those
between the Ghibellines and the Guelfs. It was in vain that
the legate of Pope Benedict, a man of great piety, went
thither for the sake of trying to restore order. The
inhabitants showed how little they respected him by exhibiting
a scandalous representation of hell on the river Arno; and,
after renewing his efforts without success, he cursed the city
and departed [1302]. The reign of Corso Donati ended like that
of most of those who have succeeded to power by popular violence.
Six years after the banishment of his adversaries he was
suspected, not without reason, of endeavouring to make himself
independent of constitutional restraints. The Signori declared
him guilty of rebellion. After a protracted resistance he made
his escape from the city, but was pursued and taken at Rovesca
[1308]. When he was led captive by those among whom his
authority had lately been paramount, he threw himself under
his horse, and, after having been dragged some distance, he
was dispatched by one of the captors. … The party that had
been raised by Corso Donati continued to hold the chief power
at Florence even after the death of their chief. The exiled
faction, in the words of one of their leaders, … had not
learned the art of returning to their country as well as their
adversaries. Four years after the events alluded to, the
Emperor, Henry VII., made some negotiations in their favour,
which but imperfectly succeeded. The Florentines, however,
were awed when he approached their city at the head of his
army; and in the extremity of their danger they implored the
assistance of King Robert of Naples, and made him Lord of
their city for the space of five years. The Emperor's
mysterious death [August 24, 1313], at Buonconvento freed them
from their alarm."
_W. P. Urquhart,
Life and Times of Francesco Sforza,
book 1, chapter 3 (volume 1)._
ALSO IN
_Mrs. Oliphant,
The Makers of Florence,
chapter 2._
_B. Duffy,
The Tuscan Republics,
chapter 12._
FLORENCE: A. D. 1310-1313.
Resistance to the Emperor, Henry VII.
Siege by the imperial army.
See ITALY: A. D. 1310-1313.
FLORENCE: A. D. 1313-1328.
Wars with Pisa and with Castruccio Castracani, of Lucca.
Disastrous battles of Montecatini and Altopascio.
See ITALY: A. D. 1313-1330.
FLORENCE: A. D. 1336-1338.
Alliance with Venice against Mastino della Scala.
See VERONA: A. D. 1260-1338.
FLORENCE: A. D. 1341-1343.
Defeat by the Pisans before Lucca.
The brief tyranny of the Duke of Athens.
In 1341, Mastino della Scala, of Verona, who had become master
of Lucca in 1335 by treachery, offered to sell that town to
the Florentines. The bargain was concluded; "but it appeared
to the Pisans the signal of their own servitude, for it cut
off all communication between them and the Ghibelines of
Lombardy. They immediately advanced their militia into the
Lucchese states to prevent the Florentines from taking
possession of the town; vanquished them in battle, on the 2d
of October, 1341, under the walls of Lucca; and, on the 6th of
July following, took possession of that city for themselves.
The people of Florence attributed this train of disasters to
the incapacity of their magistrates. … At this period,
Gauttier [Walter] de Brienne, duke of Athens, a French noble,
but born in Greece, passed through Florence on his way from
Naples to France; The duchy of Athens had remained in his
family from the conquest of Constantinople till it was taken
from his father in 1312. … It was for this man the
Florentines, after their defeat at Lucca, took a sudden fancy.
… On the 1st of August, 1342, they obliged the signoria to
confer on him the title of captain of justice, and to give him
the command of their militia." A month later, the duke, by his
arts, had worked such a ferment among the lower classes of the
population that they "proclaimed him sovereign lord of
Florence for his life, forced the public palace, drove from it
the gonfalonier and the priori, and installed him there in
their place. … Happily, Florence was not ripe for slavery:
ten months sufficed for the duke of Athens to draw from it
400,000 golden florins, which he sent either to France or
Naples; but ten months sufficed also to undeceive all parties
who had placed any confidence in him," and by a universal
rising, in July, 1343, he was driven from the city.
_J. C. L. de Sismondi,
History of the Italian Republics,
chapter 6._
ALSO IN:
_T. A. Trollope,
History of the Commonwealth of Florence,
book 3, chapter 4 (volume 2)._
{1136}
FLORENCE: 14th Century.
Industrial Prosperity of the City.
"John Villani has given us an ample and precise account of the
state of Florence in the earlier part of the 14th century. The
revenue of the Republic amounted to 300,000 florins, a sum
which, allowing for the depreciation of the precious metals,
was at least equivalent to 600,000 pounds sterling; a larger
sum than England and Ireland, two centuries ago, yielded
annually to Elizabeth—a larger sum than, according to any
computation which we have seen, the Grand Duke of Tuscany now
derives from a territory of much greater extent. The
manufacture of wool alone employed 200 factories and 30,000
workmen. The cloth annually produced sold, at an average, for
1,200,000 florins; a sum fairly equal, in exchangeable value,
to two millions and a half of our money. Four hundred thousand
florins were annually coined. Eighty banks conducted the
commercial operations, not of Florence only, but of all
Europe. The transactions of these establishments were
sometimes of a magnitude which may surprise even the
contemporaries of the Barings and the Rothschilds. Two houses
advanced to Edward the Third of England upwards of 300,000
marks, at a time when the mark contained more silver than 50
shillings of the present day, and when the value of silver was
more than quadruple of what it now is. The city and its
environs contained 170,000 inhabitants. In the various schools
about 10,000 children were taught to read; 1,200 studied
arithmetic; 600 received a learned education. The progress of
elegant literature and of the fine arts was proportioned to
that of the public prosperity. … Early in the 14th century
came forth the Divine Comedy, beyond comparison the greatest
work of imagination which had appeared since the poems of
Homer. The following generation produced indeed no second
Dante: but it was eminently distinguished by general
intellectual activity. The study of the Latin writers had
never been wholly neglected in Italy. But Petrarch introduced
a more profound, liberal, and elegant scholarship; and
communicated to his countrymen that enthusiasm for the
literature, the history, and the antiquities of Rome, which
divided his own heart with a frigid mistress and a more frigid
Muse. Boccaccio turned their attention to the more sublime and
graceful models of Greece."
_Lord Macaulay,
Machiavelli
(Essays, volume 1)._
FLORENCE: A. D. 1348.
The Plague.
"In the year then of our Lord 1348, there happened at
Florence, the finest city in all Italy, a most terrible
plague; which, whether owing to the influence of the planets,
or that it was sent from God as a just punishment for our
sins, had broken out some years before in the Levant, and
after passing from place to place, and making incredible havoc
all the way, had now reached the west. There, spite of all the
means that art and human foresight could suggest, such as
keeping the city clear from filth, the exclusion of all
suspected persons, and the publication of copious instructions
for the preservation of health; and notwithstanding manifold
humble supplications offered to God in processions and
otherwise; it began to show itself in the spring of the
aforesaid year, in a sad and wonderful manner. Unlike what had
been seen in the east, where bleeding from the nose is the
fatal prognostic, here there appeared certain tumours in the
groin or under the armpits, some as big as a small apple,
others as an egg; and afterwards purple spots in most parts of
the body; in some cases large and but few in number, in others
smaller and more numerous—both sorts the usual messengers of
death. To the cure of this malady, neither medical knowledge
nor the power of drugs was of any effect. … Nearly all died
the third day from the first appearance of the symptoms, some
sooner, some later, without any fever or other accessory
symptoms. What gave the more virulence to this plague, was
that, by being communicated from the sick to the hale, it
spread daily, like fire when it comes in contact with large
masses of combustibles. Nor was it caught only by conversing
with, or coming near the sick, but even by touching their
clothes, or anything that they had before touched. … These
facts, and others of the like sort, occasioned various fears
and devices amongst those who survived, all tending to the
same uncharitable and cruel end; which was, to avoid the sick,
and everything that had been near them, expecting by that
means to save themselves. And some holding it best to live
temperately, and to avoid excesses of all kinds, made parties,
and shut themselves up from the rest of the world. … Others
maintained free living to be a better preservative, and would
baulk no passion or appetite they wished to gratify, drinking
and revelling incessantly from tavern to tavern, or in private
houses (which were frequently found deserted by the owners,
and therefore common to everyone), yet strenuously avoiding,
with all this brutal indulgence, to come near the infected.
And such, at that time, was the public distress, that the
laws, human and divine, were no more regarded; for the
officers to put them in force being either dead, sick, or in
want of persons to assist them, everyone did just as he
pleased. … I pass over the little regard that citizens and
relations showed to each other; for their terror was such that
a brother even fled from a brother, a wife from her husband,
and, what is more uncommon, a parent from his own child. …
Such was the cruelty of Heaven, and perhaps of men, that
between March and July following, according to authentic
reckonings, upwards of 100,000 souls perished in the city
only; whereas, before that calamity, it was not supposed to
have continued so many inhabitants. What magnificent
dwellings, what noble palaces, were then depopulated to the
last inhabitant!"
_G. Boccaccio,
The Decameron,
introd._
See, also, BLACK DEATH.
FLORENCE: A. D. 1358.
The captains of the Guelf Party and the "Ammoniti."
"The magistracy called the 'Capitani di Parte Guelfa,'—the
Captains of the Guelph party,—was instituted in the year
1267; and it was remarked, when the institution of it was
recorded, that the conception of a magistracy avowedly formed
to govern a community, not only by the authority of, but in
the interest of one section only of its members, was an
extraordinary proof of the unfitness of the Florentines for
self-government, and a forewarning of the infallible certainty
that the attempt to rule the Commonwealth on such principles
would come to a bad ending. In the year 1358, a little less
than a century after the first establishment of this strange
magistracy, it began to develop the mischievous capabilities
inherent in the nature of it, in a very alarming manner. …
{1137}
In 1358 this magistracy consisted of four members. … These
men, 'born,' says Ammirato, 'for the public ruin, under
pretext of zeal for the Guelph cause' … caused a law to be
passed, according to which any citizen or Florentine subject
who had ever held, or should thereafter hold, any office in
the Commonwealth, might be either openly or secretly accused
before the tribunal of the Captains of the Guelph Party of
being Ghibelline, or not genuine Guelph. If the accusation was
supported by six witnesses worthy of belief, the accused might
be condemned to death or to fine at the discretion of the
Captains. … It will be readily conceived that the passing of
such a law, in a city bristling with party hatreds and feuds,
was the signal for the commencement of a reign of terror." The
citizens proscribed were "said to be 'admonished'; and the
condemnations were called 'admonitions'; and henceforward for
many years the 'ammonizioni' [or 'ammoniti'] play a large part
in the domestic history and political struggles of Florence."
_T. A. Trollope,
History of the Commonwealth of Florence,
book 3, chapter 7 (volume 2)._
ALSO IN:
_H. E. Napier,
Florentine History,
chapter 23 (volume 2)._
FLORENCE: A. D. 1359-1391.
The Free Company of Sir John Hawkwood and the wars with Pisa,
with Milan, and with the Pope.
See ITALY: A. D. 1343-1393.
FLORENCE: A. D. 1375-1378.
War with the Pope in support of the oppressed States of the
Church.
The Eight Saints of War.
A terrible excommunication.
In 1375, the Florentines became engaged in war with Pope
Gregory XI., supporting a revolt of the States of the Church,
which were heavily oppressed by the representatives of their
papal sovereign
See PAPACY: A. D. 1352-1378.
"Nevertheless, so profoundly reverenced was the church that
even the sound of war against a pope appeared to many little
less than blasphemy: numbers opposed on this pretence, but
really from party motives alone." But "a general council
assembled and declared the cause of liberty paramount to every
other consideration; the war was affirmed to be rather against
the injustice and tyranny of foreign governors than the church
itself. … All the ecclesiastical cities then groaning under
French oppression were to be invited to revolt and boldly
achieve their independence. These spirited resolutions were
instantly executed, and on the 8th of August 1375 Alessandro
de' Bardi [and seven other citizens] … were formed into a
supreme council of war called 'Gli Otto della Guerra'; and
afterwards, from their able conduct, 'Gli Otto Santi della
Guerra' [The Eight Saints of War]; armed with the concentrated
power of the whole Florentine nation in what regarded war." A
terrible sentence of excommunication was launched against the
Florentines by the Pope. "Their souls were solemnly condemned
to the pains of hell; fire and water were interdicted; their
persons and property outlawed in every Christian land, and
they were finally declared lawful prey for all who chose to
sell, plunder, or kill them as though they were mere slaves or
infidels."
_H. E. Napier,
Florentine History,
book 1, chapter 26 (volume 2)._
FLORENCE: A. D. 1378-1427.
Complete democratizing of the commonwealth.
The Tumult of the Ciompi.
First appearance of the Medici in Florentine history.
Though the reign of the Duke of Athens lasted rather less than
a year, "it bore important fruits; for the tyrant, seeking to
support himself upon the favour of the common people, gave
political power to the Lesser Arts at the expense of the
Greater, and confused the old State-system by enlarging the
democracy. The net result of these events for Florence was,
first, that the city became habituated to rancorous
party-strife, involving exiles and proscriptions, and,
secondly, that it lost its primitive social hierarchy of
classes. … Civil strife now declared itself as a conflict
between labour and capital. The members of the Lesser Arts,
craftsmen who plied trades subordinate to those of the Greater
Arts, rose up against their social and political superiors,
demanding a larger share in the government, a more equal
distribution of profits, higher wages, and privileges that
should place them on an absolute equality with the wealthy
merchants. It was in the year 1378 that the proletariate broke
out into rebellion. Previous events had prepared the way for
this revolt. First of all, the republic had been democratised
through the destruction of the Grandi and through the popular
policy pursued to gain his own ends by the Duke of Athens.
Secondly, society had been shaken to its very foundation by
the great plague of 1348 … nor had 30 years sufficed to
restore their relative position to grades and ranks confounded
by an overwhelming calamity. … Rising in a mass to claim
their privileges, the artisans ejected the Signory from the
Public Palace, and for awhile Florence was at the mercy of the
mob. It is worthy of notice that the Medici, whose name is
scarcely known before this epoch, now come for one moment to
the front. Salvestro de' Medici was Gonfalonier of Justice at
the time when the tumult first broke out. He followed the
faction of the handicraftsmen, and became the hero of the day.
I cannot discover that he did more than extend a sort of
passive protection to their cause. Yet there is no doubt that
the attachment of the working classes to the house of Medici
dates from this period. The rebellion of 1378 is known in
Florentine history as the Tumult of the Ciompi. The name
Ciompi strictly means the Wool-Carders. One set of operatives
in the city, and that the largest, gave its title to the whole
body of the labourers. For some months these craftsmen
governed the republic, appointing their own Signory and
passing laws in their own interest; but, as is usual, the
proletariate found itself incapable of sustained government.
The ambition and discontent of the Ciompi foamed themselves
away, and industrious workingmen began to see that trade was
languishing and credit on the wane. By their own act at last
they restored the government to the Priors of the Greater
Arti. Still the movement had not been without grave
consequences. It completed the levelling of classes, which had
been steadily advancing from the first in Florence. After the
Ciompi riot there was no longer not only any distinction
between noble and burgher, but the distinction between greater
and lesser guilds was practically swept away. … The proper
political conditions had been formed for unscrupulous
adventurers. Florence had become a democracy without social
organisation. … The time was come for the Albizzi to attempt
an oligarchy, and for the Medici to begin the enslavement of the
State.
{1138}
The Constitution of Florence offered many points of weakness
to the attacks of such intriguers. In the first place it was
in its origin not a political but an industrial
organisation—a simple group of guilds invested with the
sovereign authority. … It had no permanent head, like the
Doge of Venice, no fixed senate like the Venetian Grand
Council; its chief magistrates, the Signory, were elected for
short periods of two months, and their mode of election was
open to the gravest criticism. Supposed to be chosen by lot,
they were really selected from lists drawn up by the factions
in power from time to time. These factions contrived to
exclude the names of all but their adherents from the bags, or
'borse,' in which the burghers eligible for election had to be
inscribed. Furthermore, it was not possible for this shifting
Signory to conduct affairs requiring sustained effort and
secret deliberation; therefore recourse was being continually
had to dictatorial Commissions. The people, summoned in
parliament upon the Great Square, were asked to confer
plenipotentiary authority upon a committee called Balia [see
BALIA OF FLORENCE], who proceeded to do what they chose in the
State; and who retained power after the emergency for which
they were created passed away. … It was through these [and
other specified] defects that the democracy merged gradually
into a despotism. The art of the Medici consisted in a
scientific comprehension of these very imperfections, a
methodic use of them for their own purposes, and a steady
opposition to any attempts made to substitute a stricter
system. … Florence, in the middle of the 14th century, was a
vast beehive of industry. Distinctions of rank among burghers,
qualified to vote and hold office, were theoretically unknown.
Highly educated men, of more than princely wealth, spent their
time in shops and counting-houses, and trained their sons to
follow trades. Military service at this period was abandoned
by the citizens; they preferred to pay mercenary troops for
the conduct of their wars. Nor was there, as in Venice, any
outlet for their energies upon the seas. Florence had no navy,
no great port—she only kept a small fleet for the protection
of her commerce. Thus the vigour of the commonwealth was
concentrated on itself; while the influence of citizens,
through their affiliated trading-houses, correspondents, and
agents, extended like a network over Europe. … Accordingly
we find that out of the very bosom of the people a new
plutocratic aristocracy begins to rise. … These nobles of
the purse obtained the name of 'Popolani Nobili'; and it was
they who now began to play at high stakes for the supreme
power. … The opening of the second half of the 14th century
had been signalised by the feuds of two great houses, both
risen from the people. These were the Albizzi and the Ricci."
The Albizzi triumphed, in the conflict of the two houses, and
became all-powerful for a time in Florence; but the wars with
the Visconti, of Milan, in which they engaged the city, made
necessary a heavy burden of taxation, which they rendered more
grievous by distributing it unfairly. "This imprudent
financial policy began the ruin of the Albizzi. It caused a
clamour in the city for a new system of more just taxation,
which was too powerful to be resisted. The voice of the people
made itself loudly heard; and with the people on this occasion
sided Giovanni de' Medici. This was in 1427. It is here that
the Medici appear upon that memorable scene where in the
future they are to play the first part. Giovanni de' Medici
did not belong to the same branch of his family as the
Salvestro who favoured the people at the time of the Ciompi
Tumult. But he adopted the same popular policy. To his sons
Cosimo and Lorenzo he bequeathed on his death-bed the rule
that they should invariably adhere to the cause of the
multitude, found their influence on that, and avoid the arts
of factious and ambitious leaders."
_J. A. Symonds,
Florence and the Medici
(Sketches and Studies in Italy, chapter 5)._
ALSO IN:
_A. von Reumont,
Lorenzo de' Medici,
book 1, chapter 2 (volume l)._
_T. A. Trollope,
History of the Commonwealth of Florence,
books 4-5 (volume 2)._
FLORENCE: A. D. 1390-1402.
War with Gian Galeazzo Visconti, Duke of Milan.
"Already in 1386, the growing power of Giangaleazzo Visconti,
the tenth duke of Milan of that family, began to give umbrage,
not only to all the sovereign princes: his neighbours, but
also to Florence [see MILAN: A. D. 1277-1447]. … Florence
… had cause enough to feel uneasy at the progress of such a
man in his career of successful invasion and
usurpation;—Florence, no more specially than other of the
free towns around her, save that Florence seems always to have
thought that she had more to lose from the loss of her liberty
than any of the other cities … and felt always called upon to
take upon herself the duty of standing forward as the champion
and supporter of the principles of republicanism and free
government. … The Pope, Urban VI., added another element of
disturbance to the condition of Italy. For in his anxiety to
recover sundry cities mainly in Umbria and Romagna … he was
exceedingly unscrupulous of means, and might at any moment be
found allying himself with the enemies of free government and
of the old Guelph cause in Italy. Venice, also, having most
improvidently and unwisely allied herself with Visconti,
constituted another element of danger, and an additional cause
of uneasiness and watchfulness to the Florentine government.
In the spring of 1388, therefore, a board of ten, 'Dieci di
Balia,' was elected for the general management of 'all those
measures concerning war and peace which should be adopted by
the entire Florentine people.'" The first war with Visconti
was declared by the republic in May, 1390, and was so
successfully conducted for the Florentines by Sir John
Hawkwood that it terminated in a treaty signed January 26,
1392, which bound the Duke of Milan not to meddle in any way
with the affairs of Tuscany. For ten years this agreement
seems to have been tolerably well adhered to; but in 1402 the
rapacious Duke entered upon new encroachments, which forced
the Florentines to take up arms again. Their only allies were
Bologna and Padua (or Francesco Carrara of Padua), and the
armies of the three states were defeated in a terribly bloody
battle fought near Bologna on the 26th of June. "Bologna fell
into the hands of Visconti. Great was the dismay and terror in
Florence when the news … reached the city. It was neither
more nor less than the fall, as the historian says, of the
fortress which was the bulwark of Florence. Now she lay
absolutely open to the invader." But the invader did not come.
He was stricken with the plague and died, in September, and
Florence and Italy were saved from the tyranny which he had
seemed able to extend over the whole.
_T. A. Trollope,
History of the Commonwealth of Florence,
book 4, chapters 4-5 (volume 2)._
{1139}
FLORENCE: 14th-15th Centuries.
Commercial enterprise, industrial energy,
wealth and culture of the city.
"During the 14th and 15th centuries Florentine wealth
increased in an extraordinary degree. Earlier generations had
compelled the powerful barons of the district to live in the
city; and even yet the exercise of the rights of citizenship
was dependent on having a residence there. The influx of
outsiders was, however, much more owing to the attractions
offered by the city, whether in business, profession, or
pleasure, than to compulsion. … The situation of the city is
not favorable to the natural growth of commerce, especially
under the conditions which preceded the building of railroads.
At a considerable distance from the sea, on a river navigable
only for very small craft, and surrounded by hills which
rendered difficult the construction of good roads,—the fact
that the city did prosper so marvellously is in itself proof
of the remarkable energy and ability of its people. They
needed above all things a sea-port, and to obtain a good one
they waged some of their most exhausting wars. Their principal
wealth, however, came through their financial operations,
which extended throughout Europe, and penetrated even to
Morocco and the Orient. Their manufactures also, especially of
wool and silk, brought in enormous returns, and made not only
the fortunes but also, in one famous case at least, the name
of the families engaged in them. Their superiority over the
rest of Christendom in these pursuits was but one side of that
remarkable, universal talent which is the most astonishing
feature of the Florentine life of that age. With the hardihood
of youth, they were not only ready but eager to engage in new
enterprises, whether at home or abroad. … As a result of
their energy and ability, riches poured into their coffers,—a
mighty stream of gold, in the use of which they showed so much
judgment, that the after world has feasted to our day, and for
centuries to come, will probably continue to feast without
satiety on the good things which they caused to be made, and
left behind them. Of all the legacies for which we have to
thank Florence, none are so well known and so universally
recognized as the treasures of art created by her sons, many
of which yet remain within her walls, the marvel and delight
of all who behold them. As the Florentines were ready to try
experiments in politics, manufactures, and commerce, so also
in all branches of the fine arts they tried experiments, left
the old, beaten paths of their forefathers, and created
something original, useful, and beautiful for themselves.
Christian art from the time of the Roman Empire to Cimabue had
made comparatively little progress; but a son of the
Florentine fields was to start a revolution which should lead
to the production of some of the most marvellous works which
have proceeded from the hand of man. The idea that the fine
arts are more successfully cultivated under the patronage of
princes than under republican rule is very widespread, and is
occasionally accepted almost as a dogma; but the history of
Athens and of Florence teaches us without any doubt that the
two most artistic epochs in the history of the world have had
their rise in republics. … Some writers, dazzled by the
splendors of the Medici, entirely lose sight of the fact that
both Dante and Petrarch were dead before the Medici were even
heard of, and that the greatest works, at least in
architecture, were all begun long before they were leaders in
Florentine affairs. That family did much, yes very much, for
the advancement of art and letters; but they did not do all or
nearly all that was done in Florence. … Though civil discord
and foreign war were very frequent, Florentine life is
nevertheless an illustration rather of what Herbert Spencer
calls the commercial stage of civilization, than of the
war-like period. Her citizens were above all things merchants,
and were generally much more willing to pay to avoid a war than
to conduct one. They strove for glory, not in feats of arms,
but in literary contests and in peaceful emulation in the
encouragement of learning and the fine arts."
_W. B. Scaife,
Florentine Life during the Renaissance,
pages 16-19._
FLORENCE: A. D. 1405-1406.
Purchase and conquest of Pisa.
See ITALY: A. D. 1402-1406.
FLORENCE: A. D. 1409-1411.
League against and war with Ladislas, King of Naples.
See ITALY (SOUTHERN): A. D. 1386-1414.
FLORENCE: A. D. 1423-1447.
War with the Duke of Milan.
League with Venice, Naples, and other States.
See ITALY: A. D. 1412-1447.
FLORENCE: A. D. 1433-1464.
The ascendancy of Cosimo de' Medici.
In 1433, Cosmo, or Cosimo de' Medici, the son of Giovanni de'
Medici, was the recognized leader of the opposition to the
oligarchy controlled by Rinaldo de' Albizzi. Cosmo inherited
from his father a large fortune and a business as a merchant
and banker which he maintained and increased. "He lived
splendidly; he was a great supporter of all literary men, and
spent and distributed his great wealth amongst his fellow
citizens. He was courteous and liberal, and was looked upon
with almost unbounded respect and affection by a large party
in the state. Rinaldo was bent upon his ruin, and in 1433,
when he had a Signoria devoted to his party, he cited Cosmo
before the Council, and shut him up in a tower of the Public
Palace. Great excitement was caused by this violent step, and
two days after the Signoria held a parliament of the people.
The great bell of the city was tolled, and the people gathered
round the Palace. Then the gates of the Palace were thrown
open, and the Signoria, the Colleges of Arts, and the
Gonfaloniere came forth, and asked the people if they would
have a Balia. So a Balia was appointed, the names being
proposed by the Signoria, to decide on the fate of Cosmo. At
first it was proposed to kill him, but he was only banished,
much against the will of Rinaldo, who knew that, if he lived,
he would some day come back again. The next year the Signoria
was favourable to him; another Balia was appointed; the party
of the Albizzi was banished, and Cosmo was recalled. He was
received with a greeting such as men give to a conqueror, and
was hailed as the 'Father of his Country.' This triumphant
return gave the Medici a power in the Republic which they
never afterwards lost. The banished party fled to the court of
the Duke of Milan, and stirred him up to war against the city."
_W. Hunt,
History of Italy,
chapter 6, section 5._
{1140}
"Cosimo de' Medici did not content himself with rendering his
old opponents harmless; he took care also that none of his
adherents should become too powerful and dangerous to him.
Therefore, remarks Francesco Guicciardini, he retained the
Signoria, as well as the taxes, in his hand, in order to be
able to promote or oppress individuals at will. In other
things the citizens enjoyed greater freedom and acted more
according to their own pleasure than later, in the days of his
grandson, for he let the reins hang loose if he was only sure
of his own position. It was just in this that his great art
lay, to guide things according to his will, and yet to make
his partisans believe that he shared his authority with them.
… 'It is well known' remarks [Guicciardini] … 'how much
nobility and wealth were destroyed by Cosimo and his
descendants by taxation. The Medici never allowed a fixed
method and legal distribution, but always reserved to
themselves the power of bearing heavily upon individuals
according to their pleasure. … He [Cosimo] maintained great
reserve in his whole manner of life. For a quarter of a
century he was the almost absolute director of the State, but
he never assumed the show of his dignity. … The ruler of the
Florentine State remained citizen, agriculturist, and
merchant. In his appearance and bearing there was nothing
which distinguished him from others. … He ruled the money
market, not only in Italy, but throughout Europe. He had banks
in all the western countries, and his experience and the
excellent memory which never failed him, with his strong love
of order, enabled him to guide everything from Florence, which
he never quitted after 1438." The death of Cosimo occurred on
the 1st day of August, 1464.
_A. von Reumont,
Lorenzo de' Medici,
book. 1, chapters 6 and 8 (volume 1)._
"The last troubled days of the Florentine democracy had not
proved quite unproductive of art. It was the time of Giotto's
undisputed sway. Many works of which the 15th century gets the
glory because it finished them were ordered and begun amidst
the confusion and terrible agitation of the demagogy. …
Under the oligarchy, in the relative calm that came with
oppression, a taste for art as well as for letters began to
develop in Florence as elsewhere." But "Cosimo de' Medicis had
rare good fortune. In his time, and under his rule, capricious
chance united at Florence talents as numerous as they were
diverse—the universal Brunelleschi, the polished and elegant
Ghiberti, the rough and powerful Donatello, the suave
Angelico, the masculine Masaccio. … Cosimo lived long enough
to see the collapse of the admirable talent which flourished
upon the banks of the Arno, and soon spread throughout Italy,
and to feel the void left by it. It is true his grandson saw a
new harvest, but as inferior to that which preceded it, as it
was to that which followed it."
_F. T. Perrens,
History of Florence, 1434-1531,
book 1, chapter 6._
FLORENCE: A. D. 1450-1454.
Alliance with Francesco Sforza, of Milan, and war with
Venice, Naples, Savoy, and other States.
See MILAN: A. D. 1447-1454.
FLORENCE: A. D. 1458-1469.
Lucas Pitti, and the building of the Pitti Palace.
Piero de' Medici and the five agents of his tyranny.
Until 1455, Cosmo de' Medici shared the government of Florence
in some degree with Neri Capponi, an able statesman, who had
taken an eminent part in public affairs for many years—during
the domination of the Albizzi, as well as afterwards.
"When Neri Capponi died, the council refused to call a new
parliament to replace the balia, whose power expired on the
1st of July, 1455. … The election of the signoria was again
made fairly by lot, … the contributions were again equitably
apportioned,—the tribunals ceased to listen to the
recommendations of those who, till then, had made a traffic of
distributive justice." This recovery of freedom in Florence
was enjoyed for about three years; but when, in 1458, Lucas
Pitti, "rich, powerful, and bold," was named gonfalonier,
Cosmo conspired with him to reimpose the yoke. "Pitti
assembled the parliament; but not till he had filled all the
avenues of the public square with soldiers or armed peasants.
The people, menaced and trembling within this circle,
consented to name a new balia, more violent and tyrannical
than any of the preceding. It was composed of 352 persons, to
whom was delegated all the power of the republic. They exiled
a great number of the citizens who had shown the most
attachment to liberty, and they even put some to death." When,
in 1463, Cosmo's second son, Giovanni, on whom his hopes were
centered, died, Lucas Pitti "looked on himself henceforth as
the only chief of the state. It was about this time that he
undertook the building of that magnificent palace which now
[1832] forms the residence of the grand-dukes. The republican
equality was not only offended by the splendour of this regal
dwelling; but the construction of it afforded Pitti an
occasion for marking his contempt of liberty and the laws. He
made of this building an asylum for all fugitives from
justice, whom no public officer dared pursue when once he
[they?] took part in the labour. At the same time individuals,
as well as communities, who would obtain some favour from the
republic, knew that the only means of being heard was to offer
Lucas Pitti some precious wood or marble to be employed in the
construction of his palace. When Cosmo de' Medici died, at his
country-house of Careggi, on the 1st of August, 1464, Lucas
Pitti felt himself released from the control imposed by the
virtue and moderation of that great citizen. … His [Cosmo's]
son, Pietro de' Medici, then 48 years of age, supposed that he
should succeed to the administration of the republic, as he
had succeeded to the wealth of his father, by hereditary
right: but the state of his health did not admit of his
attending regularly to business, or of his inspiring his
rivals with much fear. To diminish the weight of affairs which
oppressed him, he resolved on withdrawing a part of his immense
fortune from commerce; recalling all his loans made in
partnership with other merchants; and laying out this money in
land. But this unexpected demand of considerable capital
occasioned a fatal shock to the commerce of Florence; at the
same time that it alienated all the debtors of the house of
Medici, and deprived it of much of its popularity. The death
of Sforza, also, which took place on the 8th of March, 1466,
deprived the Medicean party of its firmest support abroad. …
The friends of liberty at Florence soon perceived that Lucas
Pitti and Pietro de' Medici no longer agreed together; and
they recovered courage when the latter proposed to the council
the calling of a parliament, in order to renew the balia, the
power of which expired on the 1st of September, 1465; his
proposition was rejected.
{1141}
The magistracy began again to be drawn by lot from among the
members of the party victorious in 1434. This return of
liberty, however, was but of short duration. Pitti and Medici
were reconciled: they agreed to call a parliament, and to
direct it in concert; to intimidate it, they surrounded it
with foreign troops. But Medici, on the nomination of the
balia, on the 2d of September, 1466, found means of admitting
his own partisans only, and excluding all those of Lucas
Pitti. The citizens who had shown any zeal for liberty were
all exiled. … Lucas Pitti ruined himself in building his
palace. His talents were judged to bear no proportion to his
ambition: the friends of liberty, as well as those of Medici,
equally detested him; and he remained deprived of all power in
a city which he had so largely contributed to enslave. Italy
became filled with Florentine emigrants: every revolution,
even every convocation of parliament, was followed by the
exile of many citizens. … At Florence, the citizens who
escaped proscription trembled to see despotism established in
their republic; but the lower orders were in general
contented, and made no attempt to second Bartolomeo Coleoni,
when he entered Tuscany, in 1467, at the head of the
Florentine emigrants, who had taken him into their pay.
Commerce prospered; manufactures were carried on with great
activity; high wages supported in comfort all who lived by
their labour; and the Medici entertained them with shows and
festivals, keeping them in a sort of perpetual carnival,
amidst which the people soon lost all thought of liberty.
Pietro de' Medici was always in too bad a state of health to
exercise in person the sovereignty he had usurped over his
country; he left it to five or six citizens, who reigned in
his name. … They not only transacted all business, but
appropriated to themselves all the profit; they sold their
influence and credit; they gratified their cupidity or their
vengeance; but they took care not to act in their own names,
or to pledge their own responsibility; they left that to the
house of Medici. Pietro, during the latter months of his life,
perceived the disorder and corruption of his agents. He was
afflicted to see his memory thus stained, and he addressed
them the severest reprimands; he even entered into
correspondence with the emigrants, whom he thought of
recalling, when he died, on the 2d of December, 1469. His two
sons, Lorenzo and Giuliano, the elder of whom was not 21 years
of age, … given up to all the pleasures of their age, had
yet no ambition. The power of the state remained in the hands
of the five citizens who had exercised it under Pietro."
_J. C. L. de Sismondi,
History of the Italian Republics,
chapter 11._
FLORENCE: A. D. 1469-1492.
The conspiracy of the Pazzi.
The government of Lorenzo the Magnificent.
The death of liberty.
The golden age of letters and art.
"Lorenzo inherited his grandfather's political sagacity and
far surpassed him in talent and literary culture. In many
respects too he was a very different man. Cosimo never left
his business office; Lorenzo neglected it, and had so little
commercial aptitude that he was obliged to retire from
business, in order not to lose his abundant patrimony. Cosimo
was frugal in his personal expenses and lent freely to others;
Lorenzo loved splendid living, and thus gained the title of
the Magnificent; he spent immoderately for the advancement of
literary men; he gave himself up to dissipation which ruined
his health and shortened his days. His manner of living
reduced him to such straits, that he had to sell some of his
possessions and obtain money from his friends. Nor did this
suffice; for he even meddled with the public money, a thing
that had never happened in Cosimo's time. Very often, in his
greed of unlawful gain, he had the Florentine armies paid by
his own bank; he also appropriated the sums collected in the
Monte Comune or treasury of the public debt, and those in the
Monte delle Fanciulle where were marriage portions accumulated
by private savings—money hitherto held sacred by all.
Stimulated by the same greed, he, in the year 1472 joined the
Florentine contractors for the wealthy alum mines of Volterra,
at the moment in which that city was on the verge of rebellion
in order to free itself from a contract which it deemed
unjust. And Lorenzo, with the weight of his authority, pushed
matters to such a point that war broke out, soon to be
followed by a most cruel sack of the unhappy city, a very
unusual event in Tuscany. For all this he was universally
blamed. But he was excessively haughty and cared for no man;
he would tolerate no equals, would be first in
everything—even in games. He interfered in all matters, even
in private concerns and in marriages: nothing could take place
without his consent. In overthrowing the powerful and exalting
men of low condition, he showed none of the care and
precaution so uniformly observed by Cosimo. It is not then
surprising if his enemies increased so fast that the
formidable conspiracy of the Pazzi broke out on the 26th April
1478. In this plot, hatched in the Vatican itself where Sixtus
IV. was Lorenzo's determined enemy, many of the mightiest
Florentine families took part. In the cathedral, at the moment
of the elevation of the Host, the conspirators' daggers were
unsheathed. Giuliano dei Medici was stabbed to death, but
Lorenzo defended himself with his sword and saved his own
life. The tumult was so great that it seemed as though the
walls of the church were shaken. The populace rose to the cry
of 'Palle! Palle!' the Medici watchword, and the enemies of
the Medici were slaughtered in the streets or hung from the
windows of the Palazzo Veechio. There, among others, were seen
the dangling corpses of Archbishop Salviati and of Francesco
Pazzi, who in their last struggles had gripped each other with
their teeth and remained thus for some time. More than seventy
persons perished on that day, and Lorenzo, taking advantage of
the opportunity, pushed matters to extremity by his
confiscations, banishments, and sentences of death. Thereby
his power would have been infinitely increased if Pope Sixtus
IV., blinded by rage, had not been induced to excommunicate
Florence, and make war against it, in conjunction with
Ferdinand of Aragon. On this Lorenzo, without losing a moment,
went straight to Naples, and made the king understand how much
better it served his interests that Florence should have but
one ruler instead of a republican government, always liable to
change and certainly never friendly to Naples. So he returned
with peace re-established and boundless authority and
popularity. Now indeed he might have called himself lord of
the city, and it must have seemed easy to him to destroy the
republican government altogether.
{1142}
With his pride and ambition it is certain that he had an
intense desire to stand on the same level with the other
princes and tyrants of Italy; the more so as at that moment
success seemed entirely within his grasp. But Lorenzo showed
that his political shrewdness was not to be blinded by
prosperity, and knowing Florence well, he remained firm to the
traditional policy of his house, that of dominating the
Republic, while apparently respecting it. He was well
determined to render his power solid and durable; but to that
end he had recourse to a most ingenious reform, by means of
which, without abandoning the old road, he thoroughly
succeeded in his object. In place of the usual five-yearly
Balia, he instituted, in 1480, the Council of Seventy, which
renewed itself and was like a permanent Balia with still wider
power. This, composed of men entirely devoted to his cause,
secured the government to him forever. By this Council, say
the chroniclers of the time, liberty was wholly buried and
undone, but certainly the most important affairs of the State
were carried on in it by intelligent and cultivated men, who
largely promoted its material prosperity. Florence still
called itself a republic, nominally the old institutions were
still in existence, but all this seemed and was nothing but an
empty mockery. Lorenzo, absolute lord of all, might certainly be
called a tyrant, surrounded by lackeys and courtiers. … Yet
he dazzled all men by the splendour of his rule, so that
[Guicciardini] observes, that though Lorenzo was a tyrant, 'it
would be impossible to imagine a better and more pleasing
tyrant.' Industry, commerce, public works had all received a
mighty impulse. In no city in the world had the civil equality
of modern States reached the degree to which it had attained
not merely in Florence itself, but in its whole territory and
throughout all Tuscany. Administration and secular justice
proceeded regularly enough in ordinary cases, crime was
diminished, and, above all, literary culture had become a
substantial element of the new State. Learned men were
employed in public offices, and from Florence spread a light
that illuminated the world. … But Lorenzo's policy could
found nothing that was permanent. Unrivalled as a model of
sagacity and prudence, it promoted in Florence the development
of all the new elements of which modern society was to be the
outcome, without succeeding in fusing them together; for his
was a policy of equivocation and deceit, directed by a man of
much genius, who had no higher aim than his own interest and
that of his family, to which he never hesitated to sacrifice
the interests of his people."
_P. Villari,
Machiavelli and his Times,
chapter 2, section 2 (volume 1)._
"The state of Florence at this period was very remarkable. The
most independent and tumultuous of towns was spellbound under
the sway of Lorenzo de' Medici, the grandson of Cosimo who
built San Marco; and scarcely seemed even to recollect its
freedom, so absorbed was it in the present advantages
conferred by 'a strong government,' and solaced by shows,
entertainments, festivals, pomp, and display of all kinds. It
was the very height of that classic revival so famous in the
later history of the world, and the higher classes of society,
having shaken themselves apart with graceful contempt from the
lower, had begun to frame their lives according to a pagan
model, leaving the other and much bigger half of the world to
pursue its superstitions undisturbed. Florence was as near a
pagan city as it was possible for its rulers to make it. Its
intellectual existence was entirely given up to the past; its
days were spent in that worship of antiquity which has no
power of discrimination, and deifies not only the wisdom but
the trivialities of its golden epoch. Lorenzo reigned in the
midst of a lettered crowd of classic parasites and flatterers,
writing poems which his courtiers found better than
Alighieri's, and surrounding himself with those eloquent
slaves who make a prince's name more famous than arms or
victories, and who have still left a prejudice in the minds of
all literature-loving people in favour of their patron. A man
of superb health and physical power, who can give himself up
to debauch all night without interfering with his power of
working all day, and whose mind is so versatile that he can
sack a town one morning and discourse upon the beauties of
Plato the next, and weave joyous ballads through both
occupations—gives his flatterers reason when they applaud
him. The few righteous men in the city, the citizens who still
thought of Florence above all, kept apart, overwhelmed by the
tide which ran in favour of that leading citizen of Florence,
who had gained the control of the once high-spirited and
freedom-loving people. Society had never been more dissolute,
more selfish, or more utterly deprived of any higher aim.
Barren scholarship, busy over grammatical questions, and
elegant philosophy, snipping and piecing its logical systems,
formed the top dressing to that half-brutal,
half-superstitious ignorance which in such communities is the
general portion of the poor. The dilettante world dreamed
hazily of a restoration of the worship of the pagan gods;
Cardinal Bembo bade his friend beware of reading St. Paul's
epistles, lest their barbarous style should corrupt his taste;
and even such a man as Pico della Mirandola declared the
'Divina Commedia' to be inferior to the 'Canti
Carnascialeschi' of Lorenzo de' Medici. … Thus limited
intellectually, the age of Lorenzo was still more hopeless
morally, full of debauchery, cruelty, and corruption,
violating oaths, betraying trusts, believing in nothing but
Greek manuscripts, coins, and statues, caring for nothing but
pleasure. This was the world in which Savonarola found
himself."
_Mrs. Oliphant,
The Makers of Florence,
chapter 9._
"Terrible municipal enmities had produced so much evil as to
relax ancient republican energy. After so much destruction
repose was necessary. To antique sobriety and gravity succeed
love of pleasure and the quest of luxury. The belligerent
class of great nobles were expelled and the energetic class of
artisans crushed. Bourgeois rulers were to rule, and to rule
tranquilly. Like the Medicis, their chiefs, they manufacture,
trade, bank and make fortunes in order to expend them in
intellectual fashion. War no longer fastens its cares upon
them, as formerly, with a bitter and tragic grasp; they manage
it through the paid bands of condottieri, and these as cunning
traffickers, reduce it to cavalcades; when they slaughter each
other it is by mistake; historians cite battles in which
three, and sometimes only one soldier remains on the field.
Diplomacy takes the place of force, and the mind expands as
character weakens. Through this mitigation of war and through
the establishment of principalities or of local tyrannies, it
seems that Italy, like the great European monarchies, had just
attained to its equilibrium.
{1143}
Peace is partially established and the useful arts germinate
in all directions upon an improved social soil like a good
harvest on a cleared and well-ploughed field. The peasant is
no longer a serf of the glebe, but a metayer; he nominates his
own municipal magistrates, possesses arms and a communal
treasury; he lives in enclosed bourgs, the houses of which,
built of stone and cement, are large, convenient, and often
elegant. Near Florence he erects walls, and near Lucca he
constructs turf terraces in order to favor cultivation.
Lombardy has its irrigations and rotation of crops; entire
districts, now so many deserts around Lombardy and Rome, are
still inhabited and richly productive. In the upper class the
bourgeois and the noble labor since the chiefs of Florence are
hereditary bankers and commercial interests are not
endangered. Marble quarries are worked at Carrara, and foundry
fires are lighted in the Maremmes. We find in the cities
manufactories of silk, glass, paper, books, flax, wool and
hemp; Italy alone produces as much as all Europe and furnishes
to it all its luxuries. Thus diffused commerce and industry
are not servile occupations tending to narrow or debase the
mind. A great merchant is a pacific general, whose mind
expands in contact with men and things. Like a military
chieftain he organizes expeditions and enterprises and makes
discoveries. … The Medicis possess sixteen banking-houses in
Europe; they bind together through their business Russia and
Spain, Scotland and Syria; they possess mines of alum
throughout Italy, paying to the Pope for one of them a hundred
thousand florins per annum; they entertain at their court
representatives of all the powers of Europe and become the
councillors and moderators of all Italy. In a small state like
Florence, and in a country without a national army like Italy,
such an influence becomes ascendant in and through itself; a
control over private fortunes leads to a management of the
public funds, and without striking a blow or using violence, a
private individual finds himself director of the state. …
These banking magistrates are liberal as well as capable. In
thirty-seven years the ancestors of Lorenzo expend six hundred
and sixty thousand florins in works of charity and of public
utility. Lorenzo himself is a citizen of the antique stamp,
almost a Pericles, capable of rushing into the arms of his
enemy, the king of Naples, in order to avert, through personal
seductions and eloquence, a war which menaces the safety of
his country. His private fortune is a sort of public treasury,
and his palace a second hotel-de-ville. He entertains the
learned, aids them with his purse, makes friends of them,
corresponds with them, defrays the expenses of editions of
their works, purchases manuscripts, statues and medals,
patronizes promising young artists, opens to them his gardens,
his collections, his house and his table, and with that
cordial familiarity and that openness, sincerity and
simplicity of heart which place the protected on a footing of
equality with the protector as man to man and not as an
inferior in relation to a superior. This is the representative
man whom his contemporaries all accept as the accomplished man of
the century, no longer a Farinata or an Alighieri of ancient
Florence, a spirit rigid, exalted and militant to its utmost
capacity, but a balanced, moderate and cultivated genius, one
who, through the genial sway of his serene and beneficent
intellect, binds up into one sheaf all talents and all
beauties. It is a pleasure to see them expanding around him.
On the one hand writers are restoring and, on the other,
constructing. From the time of Petrarch Greek and Latin
manuscripts are sought for, and now they are to be exhumed in
the convents of Italy, Switzerland, Germany and France. They
are deciphered and restored with the aid of the savants of
Constantinople. A decade of Livy or a treatise by Cicero, is a
precious gift solicited by princes; some learned man passes
ten years of travel in ransacking distant libraries in order
to find a lost book of Tacitus, while the sixteen authors
rescued from oblivion by the Poggios are counted as so many
titles to immortal fame. … Style again becomes noble and at
the same time clear, and the health, joy and serenity diffused
through antique life re-enters the human mind with the
harmonious proportions of language and the measured graces of
diction. From refined language they pass to vulgar language,
and the Italian is born by the side of the Latin. … Here in
the restored paganism, shines out Epicurean gaiety, a
determination to enjoy at any and all hours, and that instinct
for pleasure which a grave philosophy and political sobriety
had thus far tempered and restrained. With Pulci, Berni,
Bibiena, Ariosto, Bandelli, Aretino, and so many others, we
soon see the advent of voluptuous debauchery and open
skepticism, and later a cynical unbounded licentiousness.
These joyous and refined civilizations based on a worship of
pleasure and intellectuality—Greece of the fourth century,
Provence of the twelfth, and Italy of the sixteenth—were not
enduring. Man in these lacks some checks. After sudden
outbursts of genius and creativeness he wanders away in the
direction of license and egotism; the degenerate artist and
thinker makes room for the sophist and the dilettant. But in
this transient brilliancy his beauty was charming. … It is
in this world, again become pagan, that painting revives, and
the new tastes she is to gratify show beforehand the road she
is to follow; henceforth she is to decorate the houses of rich
merchants who love antiquity and who desire to live daintily."
_H. Taine,
Italy, Florence and Venice,
book 3, chapter 2._
ALSO IN:
_A. von Reumont,
Lorenzo de' Medici._
_W. Roscoe,
Life of Lorenzo de' Medici._
_F. T. Perrens,
History of Florence, 1434-1531,
book 2, chapters 2-6._
FLORENCE: A. D. 1490-1498.
The preaching of Savonarola.
The coming of Charles VII. of France,
and expulsion of the Medici.
The great religious revival and Christianization of
the Commonwealth.
Conflict with the Church and fall of Savonarola.
Girolamo, or Jerome Savonarola, a Dominican monk, born at
Ferrara in 1452, educated to be a physician, but led by early
disgust with the world to renounce his intended profession and
give himself to the religious life, was sent to the convent of
St. Mark, in Florence, in 1490, when he had reached the age of
37. "He began his career as a reader and lecturer, and his
lectures, though only intended for novices, drew a large
audience. He then lectured in the garden of the cloister,
under a large rosebush, where many intellectual men came from
the city to hear him.
{1144}
At length he began to preach in the Church of St. Mark's, and
his subject was the Apocalypse, out of which he predicted the
restoration of the Church in Italy, which he declared God
would bring about by a severe visitation. Its influence upon
his hearers was overpowering; there was no room in the church
for the brethren; his fame spread abroad, and he was next
appointed to preach the sermons in the cathedral. … Amid the
luxurious, æsthetic, semi-pagan life of Florence, in the ears
of the rich citizens, the licentious youth, the learned
Platonists, he denounced the revival of paganism, the
corruptions of the Church; the ignorance and consequent
slavery of the people, and declared that God would visit Italy
with some terrible punishment, and that it would soon come. He
spoke severe words about the priests, declared to the people
that the Scriptures were the only guides to salvation; that
salvation did not come from external works, as the Church
taught, but from faith in Christ, from giving up the heart to
Him, and if He forgave sin, there was no need for any other
absolution. Scarcely had he been a year in Florence when he
was made prior of the monastery. There was a custom in vogue,
a relic of the old times, for every new prior to go to the
king or ruler and ask his favour. This homage was then due to
Lorenzo di Medici, but Savonarola declared he would never
submit to it, saying—'From whom have I received my office,
from God or Lorenzo? Let us pray for grace to the Highest.'
Lorenzo passed over this slight, being anxious to acquire the
friendship of one whom he clearly saw would exert great
influence over the Florentines. Burlamachi, his contemporary
biographer, tells us that Lorenzo tried all kinds of plans to
win the friendship of Savonarola: he attended the church of
St. Mark; listened to his sermons; gave large sums of money to
him for the poor; loitered in the garden to attract his
attention—but with little success. Savonarola treated him
with respect, gave his money away to the poor, but avoided him
and denounced him. Another plan was tried: five distinguished men
waited on Savonarola, and begged him to spare such elevated
persons in his sermons, to treat more of generalities; and not
to foretell the future. They received a prophetic answer: 'Go
tell your master, Lorenzo, to repent of his sins, or God will
punish him and his. Does he threaten me with banishment? Well,
I am but a stranger, and he is the first citizen in Florence,
but let him know that I shall remain and he must soon depart!'
What happened shortly after caused the people to begin to
regard Savonarola as a prophet, and won him that terrible fame
which caused his downfall. … Lorenzo died on the 8th April,
1492, and from that time Savonarola becomes more prominent. He
directed his exertions to the accomplishment of three
objects—the reformation of his monastery, the reformation of
the Florentine State, and the reformation of the Church. He
changed the whole character of his monastery. … Then he
proceeded to State matters, and in this step we come to the
problem of his life—was he a prophet or a fanatic? Let the
facts speak for themselves. Lorenzo was succeeded by his son
Pietro, who was vastly inferior to his father in learning and
statesmanship. His only idea appears to have been a desire to
unite Florence and Naples into one principality; this created
for him many enemies, and men began to fancy that the great
house of Medici would terminate with him. So, it appears,
thought Savonarola, and announced the fact at first privately
amongst his friends; in a short time, however, he began to
prophecy their downfall publicly. During the years 1492 and
1494, he was actively engaged in preaching. In Advent of the
former year, he began his thirteen sermons upon Noah's Ark. In
1493 he preached the Lent sermons at Bologna, and upon his return
he began preaching in the cathedral. In these sermons he
predicted the approaching fall of the State to the
astonishment of all his hearers, who had not the slightest
apprehension of danger: 'The Lord has declared that His sword
shall come upon the land swiftly and soon.' This was the
burden of a sermon preached on Advent Sunday, 1492. At the
close of 1493, and as the new year approached, he spoke out
more plainly and definitely. He declared that one should come
over the Alps who was called, like Cyrus, of whom Jeremiah
wrote; and he should, sword in hand, wreak vengeance upon the
tyrants of Italy. … His preaching had always exerted a
marvellous influence upon people, as we shall hereafter note,
but they could not understand the cause of these predictions.
The city was at peace; gay and joyous as usual, and no fear
was entertained; but towards the end of the year came the
fulfilment. Charles VIII., King of France, called into Italy
by Duke Ludovico of Milan, came over the Alps with an immense
army, took Naples, and advanced on Florence. The expulsion of
the Medici from Florence soon followed: Pietro, being
captured, signed an agreement to deliver up all his
strongholds to Charles VIII., and to pay him 200,000 ducats.
See ITALY: A. D. 1494-1496.
The utmost indignation seized the Florentines when they heard
of this treaty. The Signori sent heralds to Charles, to
negotiate for milder terms, and their chief was Savonarola,
who addressed the King like a prophet, begged him to take pity
on Italy, and save her. His words had the desired effect.
Charles made more easy terms, and left it to the Florentine
people to settle their own State. In the meantime Pietro
returned, but he found Florence in the greatest
excitement—the royal palace was closed; stones were thrown at
him; he summoned his guards, but the people took to arms, and
he was compelled to fly to his brothers Giovanni and Giuliano.
The Signori declared them to be traitors, and set a price upon
their heads. Their palace and its treasures fell into the hands
of the people. The friends of the Medici, however, were not
all extinct; and as a discussion arose which was likely to
lead to a struggle, Savonarola summoned the people to meet
under the dome of St. Mark. … In fact, the formation of the
new State fell upon Savonarola, for the people looked up to
him as an inspired prophet. He proposed that 3,200 citizens
should form themselves into a general council. Then they drew
lots for a third part, who for six months were to act together
as an executive body and represent the general council,
another one-third for the next three months, and so on; so
that every citizen had his turn in the council every eighteen
months. They ultimately found it convenient to reduce the
number to 80—in fact, Savonarola's Democracy was rapidly
becoming oligarchic. Each of these 80 representatives was to
be 40 years of age; they voted with black and white beans, six
being a legal majority.
{1145}
But the Chief of the State was to be Christ; He was to be the
new monarch. His next step was to induce them to proclaim a
general amnesty, in which he succeeded only through vigorously
preaching to them that forgiveness was sweeter than
vengeance—that freedom and peace were more loving than strife
and hatred. … He was now at the height of his power; his
voice ruled the State; he is the only instance in Europe of a
monk openly leading a republic. The people regarded him as
something more than human: they knew of his nights spent in
prayer; of his long fasts; of his unbounded charity. … Few
preachers ever exerted such influence upon the minds of
crowds, such a vitalizing influence; he changed the whole
character of Florentine society. Libertines abandoned their
vices; the theatres and taverns were empty; there was no card
playing, nor dice throwing; the love of fasting grew so
general, that meat could not be sold; the city of Florence was
God's city, and its government a Theocracy. There was a custom in
Florence, during Carnival time, for the children to go from
house to house and bid people give up their cherished
pleasures; and so great was the enthusiasm at this period that
people gave up their cards, their dice and backgammon boards,
the ladies their perfumed waters, veils, paint-pots, false
hair, musical instruments, harps, lutes, licentious tales,
especially those of Boccaccio, dream books, romances, and
popular songs. All this booty was gathered together in a heap
in the market place, the people assembled, the Signori took
their places, and children clothed in white, with olive
branches on their heads, received from them the burning
torches, and set fire to the pile amid the blast of trumpets
and chant of psalms, which were continued till the whole was
consumed. … His fame had now reached other countries;
foreigners visited Florence solely for the purpose of seeing
and hearing him. The Sultan of Turkey allowed his sermons to
be translated and circulated in his dominions. But in the
midst of his prosperity his enemies were not idle: as he
progressed their jealousy increased: his preaching displeased
them, terrified them, and amongst these the most bitter and
virulent were the young sons of the upper classes: they called
his followers 'howlers' (piagnoni), and so raged against him
that they gained the name, now immortalised in history, of the
Arrabiati (the furies): this party was increased by the old
friends of the Medici, who called him a rebel and leader of
the lower classes. Dolfo Spini, a young man of position and
wealth, commanded this party, and used every effort to destroy
the reputation of Savonarola, to incite the people against him,
and to ruin him. They bore the name of 'Compagnacci'; they
wrote satires about the Piagnoni; they circulated slanders
about the monk who was making Florence the laughing stock of
Europe: but Savonarola went on his way indifferent to the
signs already manifesting themselves amongst his countrymen,
ever most sensitive to ridicule. He also strove to reform the
Church: he delineated the Apostolic Church as a model upon
which he would build up that of Florence. … By this time,
the intelligence of his doings, and the gist of his preaching
and writing, which had been carefully transmitted to Rome by
his enemies, began to attract the attention of the Pope,
Alexander VI., who tried what had frequently proved an
infallible remedy, and offered Savonarola a Cardinal's hat,
which he at once refused. He was then invited to Rome, but
thought it prudent to excuse himself. When the controversy
between him and the Pope appeared to approach a crisis,
Savonarola took a step which somewhat hurried the catastrophe.
He wrote to the Kings of France and Spain, and the Emperor of
Germany, to call a General Council to take into consideration
the Reform of the Church. One of these letters reached the
Pope, through a spy of Duke Ludovico Moro, of Milan, whom
Savonarola had denounced. The result was the issue of a Breve
(October, 1496), which forbade him to preach. The Pope then
ordered the Congregation of St. Mark to be broken up and
amalgamated with another. For a time Savonarola, at the advice
of his friends, remained quiet; but at this last step, to
break up the institution he had established, he was aroused to
action. He denounced Rome as the source of all the poison
which was undermining the constitution of the Church; declared
that its evil fame stunk in men's nostrils. The Pope then
applied to the Signori to deliver up this enemy of the Church,
but to no purpose. The Franciscans were ordered to preach
against him, but they made no impression. Then came the last
thunderbolt: a Bann was issued (12th May, 1497), which was
announced by the Franciscans. During the time of his
suspension and his excommunication, many things happened which
tended to his downfall, although his friends gathered round him,
the rapid change of ministry brought in turn friends of the
Medici to the helm; they introduced the young, Compagnacci
into the Council, and gradually his enemies were increasing in
the Government to a strong party." The fickle Florentine mob
now took sides with them against the monk whom it had recently
adored, and on the 7th of April, 1498, in the midst of a
raging tumult, Savonarola was taken into custody by the
Signori of the city. With the assent of the Pope, he was
subjected seven times to torture upon the rack, to force from
him a recantation of all that he had taught and preached, and
on the 23d of May he was hanged and burned, in company with
two of his disciples.
_O. T. Hill,
Introduction to Savonarola's "Triumph of the Cross."_
ALSO IN:
_P. Villari,
History of Savonarola and his times._
_Mrs. Oliphant,
The Makers of Florence._
_H. H. Milman,
Savonarola, Erasmus, and other Essays._
_George Eliot,
Romola._
_H. Grimm,
Life of Michael Angelo,
volume 1, chapters 3-4._
FLORENCE: A. D. 1494-1509.
The French deliverance of Pisa and the long war of reconquest.
See PISA: A. D. 1404-1509.
FLORENCE: A. D. 1498-1500.
Threatened by the Medici, on one side,
and Cæsar Borgia on the other.
A new division of parties.
"After the death of Savonarola things changed with such a
degree of rapidity that the Arrabbiati had not time to
consider in what manner they could restrict the government;
but they soon became convinced that the only salvation for the
Republic was to adopt the course which had been recommended by
the Friar. Piero and Giuliano dei Medici were in fact already
in the neighbourhood of Florence, supported by a powerful
Venetian army. It became, therefore, absolutely necessary for
the Arrabbiati to unite with the Piagnoni, in order to defend
themselves against so many dangers and so many enemies.
{1146}
By great good fortune, the Duke of Milan, from jealousy of the
Venetians, came to their assistance to ward off the danger;
but who could trust to his friendship—who could place any
reliance on his fidelity? As to Alexander Borgia, he who had
held out such great hopes, and had made so many promises, in
order to get Savonarola put to death, no sooner was his object
attained than he gave full sway to his unbridled passions. It
seemed as if the death of the poor Friar had released both the
Pope and his son, Duke Valentino, from all restraints upon
their lusts and ambition. The Pope formed intimate alliances
with Turks and Jews, a thing hitherto unheard of. He, in one
year, set up twelve cardinals' hats for sale. The history of
the incests and murders of the family of Borgia is too well
known to render it necessary for us to enter into any detailed
account of them here. The great object of the Pope was to form
a State for his son in the Romagna; and so great was the
ambition of Duke Valentino, that he contemplated extending his
power over the whole of Italy, Tuscany being the first part he
meant to seize upon. With that view he was always endeavouring
to create new dangers to the Republic; at one time he caused
Arezzo to rise against it; at another time he threatened to
bring back Piero de' Medici; and he was continually ravaging
their territory. The consequence was, that the Florentines
were obliged to grant him an annual subsidy of 36,000 ducats,
under the name of condotta (military pay); but even that did
not restrain him from every now and then, under various
pretexts, overrunning and laying waste their territory. Thus
did Alexander Borgia fulfil those promises to the Republic by
which they had been induced to murder Savonarola. The
Arrabbiati were at length convinced that to defend themselves
against the Medici and Borgia, their only course was to
cultivate the alliance with France, and unite in good faith
with the Piagnoni. Thus they completely adopted the line of
policy which Savonarola had advised; and the consequence was,
that their affairs got order and their exertions were attended
with a success far beyond what could have been anticipated."
_P. Villari,
History of Savonarola and of his Times,
volume 2, conclusion._
"A new division of parties may be said to have taken place
under the three denominations of 'Palleschi' [a name derived
from the watchword of the Mediceans, 'palle, palle,' which
alluded to the well-known balls in the coat of arms of the
Medici family], 'Ottimati,' and 'Popolani.' The first … were
for the Medici and themselves. … The 'Ottomati' were in
eager search for a sort of visionary government where a few of
the noblest blood, the most illustrious connexions and the
greatest riches, were to rule Florence without any regard to
the Medici. … The Popolani, who formed the great majority,
loved civic liberty, therefore were constantly watching the
Medici and other potent and ambitious men."
_H. E. Napier,
Florentine History,
book. 2, chapter 8 (volume 4)._
FLORENCE: A. D. 1502-1569.
Ten years under Piero Soderini.
Restoration of the Medici and their second expulsion.
Siege of the city by the imperial army.
Final surrender to Medicean tyranny.
Creation of the Grand Duchy of Tuscany.
"In 1502, it was decreed that the Gonfalonier should hold
office for life—should be in fact a Doge. To this important
post of permanent president Piero Soderini was appointed; and
in his hands were placed the chief affairs of the republic.
… During the ten years which elapsed between 1502 and 1512,
Piero Soderini administered Florence with an outward show of
great prosperity. He regained Pisa, and maintained an
honourable foreign policy in the midst of the wars stirred up
by the League of Cambray. Meanwhile the young princes of the
house of Medici had grown to manhood in exile. The Cardinal
Giovanni was 37 in 1512. His brother Giuliano was 33. Both of
these men were better fitted than their brother Piero to fight
the battles of the family. Giovanni, in particular, had
inherited no small portion of the Medicean craft. During the
troubled reign of Julius II. he kept very quiet, cementing his
connection with powerful men in Rome, but making no effort to
regain his hold on Florence. Now the moment for striking a
decisive blow had come. After the battle of Ravenna in 1512,
the French were driven out of Italy, and the Sforzas returned
to Milan [see ITALY: A. D. 1510-1513]; the Spanish troops,
under the Viceroy Cardona, remained masters of the country.
Following the camp of these Spaniards, Giovanni de' Medici
entered Tuscany in August, and caused the restoration of the
Medici to be announced in Florence. The people, assembled by
Soderini, resolved to resist to the uttermost. … Yet their
courage failed on August 29th, when news reached them of the
capture and the sack of Prato. Prato is a sunny little city a
few miles distant from the walls of Florence, famous for the
beauty of its women, the richness of its gardens, and the
grace of its buildings. Into this gem of cities the savage
soldiery of Spain marched in the bright autumnal weather, and
turned the paradise into a hell. It is even now impossible to
read of what they did in Prato without shuddering. Cruelty and
lust, sordid greed for gold, and cold delight in bloodshed,
could go no further. Giovanni de' Medici, by nature mild and
voluptuous, averse to violence of all kinds, had to smile
approval, while the Spanish Viceroy knocked thus with mailed
hand for him at the door of Florence. The Florentines were
paralysed with terror. They deposed Soderini and received the
Medici. Giovanni and Giuliano entered their devastated palace
in the Via Larga, abolished the Grand Council, and dealt with
the republic as they listed. … It is not likely that they
would have succeeded in maintaining their authority—for they
were poor and ill-supported by friends outside the
city—except for one most lucky circumstance: that was the
election of Giovanni de' Medici to the Papacy in 1513. The
creation of Leo X. spread satisfaction throughout Italy. …
Florence shared in the general rejoicing. … It seemed as
though the Republic, swayed by him, might make herself the
first city in Italy, and restore the glories of her Guelf
ascendency upon the platform of Renaissance statecraft. There
was now no overt opposition to the Medici in Florence. How to
govern the city from Rome, and how to advance the fortunes of
his brother Giuliano and his nephew Lorenzo (Piero's son, a
young man of 21), occupied the Pope's most serious attention.
For Lorenzo, Leo obtained the Duchy of Urbino and the hand of
a French princess. Giuliano was named Gonfalonier of the
Church. He also received the French title of Duke of Nemours
and the hand of Filiberta, Princess of Savoy. …
{1147}
Giulio, the Pope's bastard cousin, was made cardinal. … To
Lorenzo, Duke of Urbino, the titular head of the family, was
committed the government of Florence. … Florence now for the
first time saw a regular court established in her midst, with
a prince, who, though he bore a foreign title, was in fact her
master. The joyous days of Lorenzo the Magnificent returned.
… But this prosperity was no less brief than it was
brilliant. A few years sufficed to sweep off all the chiefs of
the great house. Giuliano died in 1516, leaving only a bastard
son, Ippolito. Lorenzo died in 1519, leaving a bastard son,
Alessandro, and a daughter, six days old, who lived to be the
Queen of France. Leo died in 1521. There remained now no
legitimate male descendants from the stock of Cosimo. The
honours and pretensions of the Medici devolved upon three
bastards,—on the Cardinal Giulio, and the two boys,
Alessandro and Ippolito. Of these, Alessandro was a mulatto,
his mother having been a Moorish slave in the Palace of
Urbino; and whether his father was Giulio, or Giuliano, or a
base groom, was not known for certain. To such extremities
were the Medici reduced. … Giulio de' Medici was left in
1521 to administer the State of Florence single-handed. He was
archbishop, and he resided in the city, holding it with the
grasp of an absolute ruler. … In 1523, the Pope, Adrian VI.,
expired after a short papacy, from which he gained no honour
and Italy no profit. Giulio hurried to Rome, and, by the
clever use of his large influence, caused himself to be
elected with the title of Clement VII." Then followed the
strife of France and Spain—of Francis I. and Charles V.—for
the possession of Italy, and the barbarous sack of Rome in
1527.
See ITALY: A. D. 1523-1527, 1527, and 1527-1529.
"When the Florentines knew what was happening in Rome, they
rose and forced the Cardinal Passerini [whom the Pope had
appointed to act as his vicegerent in the government of
Florence] to depart with the Medicean bastards from the city.
… The whole male population was enrolled in a militia. The
Grand Council was reformed, and the republic was restored upon
the basis of 1495. Niccolo Capponi was elected Gonfalonier.
The name of Christ was again registered as chief of the
commonwealth—to such an extent did the memory of Savonarola
still sway the popular imagination. The new State hastened to
form an alliance with France, and Malatesta Baglioni was
chosen as military Commander-in-Chief. Meanwhile the city
armed itself for siege—Michel Angelo Buonarroti and
Francesco da San Gallo undertaking the construction of new
forts and ramparts. These measures were adopted with sudden
decision, because it was soon known that Clement had made
peace with the Emperor, and that the army which had sacked
Rome was going to be marched on Florence. … On September 4
[1529], the Prince of Orange appeared before the walls, and
opened the memorable siege. It lasted eight months, at the end
of which time, betrayed by their generals, divided among
themselves, and worn out with delays, the Florentines
capitulated. … The long yoke of the Medici had undermined
the character of the Florentines. This, their last glorious
struggle for liberty, was but a flash in the pan—a final
flare up of the dying lamp. … What remains of Florentine
history may be briefly told. Clement, now the undisputed
arbiter of power and honour in the city, chose Alessandro de'
Medici to be prince. Alessandro was created Duke of Cività di
Penna, and married to a natural daughter of Charles V.
Ippolito was made a cardinal." Ippolito was subsequently
poisoned by Alessandro, and Alessandro was murdered by another
kinsman, who suffered assassination in his turn. "When
Alessandro was killed in 1539, Clement had himself been dead
five years. Thus the whole posterity of Cosimo de' Medici,
with the exception of Catherine, Queen of France [daughter of
Lorenzo, Duke of Urbino, the son of Piero de' Medici], was
utterly extinguished. But the Medici had struck root so firmly
in the State, and had so remodelled it upon the type of
tyranny, that the Florentines were no longer able to do
without them. The chiefs of the Ottimati selected Cosimo," a
descendant from Lorenzo, brother of the Cosimo who founded the
power of the House. "He it was who obtained [1569] the title
of Grand Duke of Tuscany from the Pope—a title confirmed by
the Emperor, fortified by Austrian alliances, and transmitted
through his heirs to the present century."
_J. A. Symonds,
Sketches and studies in Italy,
chapter 5 (Florence and the Medici)._
ALSO IN:
_H. Grimm,
Life of Michael Angelo,
chapters 8-15 (volumes 1-2)._
_T. A. Trollope,
History of the Commonwealth of Florence,
book 9, chapter 10, book 10 (volume 4)._
_H. E. Napier,
Florentine History,
volumes 4-5._
_W. Roscoe,
Life and Pontificate of Leo X,
chapters 9-23 (volumes 1-2)._
_P. Villari,
Machiavelli and his Times,
volumes 3-4_.
FLORENCE: A. D. 1803.
Becomes the capital of the kingdom of Etruria.
See GERMANY: A. D. 1801-1803.
FLORENCE: A. D. 1865.
Made temporarily the capital of the kingdom of Italy.
See ITALY: A. D. 1862-1866.
----------FLORENCE: End----------
FLORIANUS, Roman Emperor, A. D. 276.
FLORIDA: The aboriginal inhabitants.
See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: APALACHES;
MUSKHOGEAN FAMILY; SEMINOLES; TIMUQUANAN FAMILY.
FLORIDA: A. D. 1512.
Discovery and Naming by Ponce de Leon.
See AMERICA: A. D. 1512.
FLORIDA: A. D. 1528-1542.
The expeditions of Narvaez and Hernando de Soto.
Wide Spanish application of the name Florida.
"The voyages of Garay [1519-1523] and Vasquez de Ayllon
[1520-1526] threw new light on the discoveries of Ponce, and
the general outline of the coasts of Florida became known to
the Spaniards. Meanwhile, Cortes had conquered Mexico, and the
fame of that iniquitous but magnificent exploit rang through
all Spain. Many an impatient cavalier burned to achieve a
kindred fortune. To the excited fancy of the Spaniards the
unknown land of Florida seemed the seat of surpassing wealth,
and Pamphilo de Narvaez essayed to possess himself of its
fancied treasures. Landing on its shores [1528], and
proclaiming destruction to the Indians unless they
acknowledged the sovereignty of the Pope and the Emperor, he
advanced into the forests with 300 men. Nothing could exceed
their sufferings. Nowhere could they find the gold they came
to seek. The village of Appalache, where they hoped to gain a
rich booty, offered nothing but a few mean wigwams. The horses
gave out and the famished soldiers fed upon their flesh.
{1148}
The men sickened, and the Indians unceasingly harassed their
march. At length, after 280 leagues of wandering, they found
themselves on the northern shore of the Gulf of Mexico, and
desperately put to sea in such crazy boats as their skill and
means could construct. Cold, disease, famine, thirst, and the
fury of the waves, melted them away. Narvaez himself perished,
and of his wretched followers no more than four escaped,
reaching by land, after years of vicissitude, the Christian
settlements of New Spain. … Cabeça de Vaca was one of the
four who escaped, and, after living for years among the tribes
of Mississippi, crossed the River Mississippi near Memphis,
journeyed westward by the waters of the Arkansas and Red River
to New Mexico and Chihuahua, thence to Cinaloa on the Gulf of
California, and thence to Mexico. The narrative is one of the
most remarkable of the early relations. … The interior of
the vast country then comprehended under the name of Florida
still remained unexplored. … Hernando de Soto … companion
of Pizarro in the conquest of Peru … asked and obtained
permission [1537] to conquer Florida. While this design was in
agitation, Cabeça de Vaca, one of those who had survived the
expedition of Narvaez, appeared in Spain, and for purposes of
his own spread abroad the mischievous falsehood that Florida
was the richest country yet discovered. De Soto's plans were
embraced with enthusiasm. Nobles and gentlemen contended for
the privilege of joining his standard; and, setting sail with
an ample armament, he landed [May, 1539] at the Bay of
Espiritu Santo, now Tampa Bay, in Florida, with 620 chosen
men, a band as gallant and well appointed, as eager in purpose
and audacious in hope, as ever trod the shores of the New
World. … The adventurers began their march. Their story has
been often told. For month after month and year after year,
the procession of priests and cavaliers, cross-bowmen,
arquebusiers, and Indian captives laden with the baggage,
still wandered on through wild and boundless wastes, lured
hither and thither by the ignis-fatuus of their hopes. They
traversed great portions of Georgia, Alabama, and Mississippi,
everywhere inflicting and enduring misery, but never
approaching their phantom El Dorado. At length, in the third
year of their journeying, they reached the banks of the
Mississippi, 132 years before its second [or third?] discovery
by Marquette. … The Spaniards crossed over at a point above
the mouth of the Arkansas. They advanced westward, but found
no treasures,—nothing indeed but hardships, and an Indian
enemy, furious, writes one of their officers, 'as mad dogs.'
They heard of a country towards the north where maize could
not be cultivated because the vast herds of wild cattle
devoured it. They penetrated so far that they entered the
range of the roving prairie-tribes. … Finding neither gold
nor the South Sea, for both of which they had hoped, they
returned to the banks of the Mississippi. De Soto … fell
into deep dejection, followed by an attack of fever, and soon
after died miserably [May 21, 1542]. To preserve his body from
the Indians his followers sunk it at midnight in the river,
and the sullen waters of the Mississippi buried his ambition
and his hopes. The adventurers were now, with few exceptions,
disgusted with the enterprise, and longed only to escape from
the scene of their miseries. After a vain attempt to reach
Mexico by land, they again turned back to the Mississippi, and
labored, with all the resources which their desperate
necessity could suggest, to construct vessels in which they
might make their way to some Christian settlement. … Seven
brigantines were finished and launched; and, trusting their
lives on board these frail vessels, they descended the
Mississippi, running the gauntlet between hostile tribes who
fiercely attacked them. Reaching the Gulf, though not without
the loss of eleven of their number, they made sail for the
Spanish settlement on the River Panuco, where they arrived
safely, and where the inhabitants met them with a cordial
welcome. Three hundred and eleven men thus escaped with life,
leaving behind them the bones of their comrades, strewn
broadcast through the wilderness. De Soto's fate proved an
insufficient warning, for those were still found who begged a
fresh commission for the conquest of Florida; but the Emperor
would not hear them. A more pacific enterprise was undertaken
by Cancello [or Cancer], a Dominican monk, who with several
brother-ecclesiastics undertook to convert the natives to the
true faith, but was murdered in the attempt. … Not a
Spaniard had yet gained foothold in Florida. That name, as the
Spaniards of that day understood it, comprehended the whole
country extending from the Atlantic on the east to the
longitude of New Mexico on the west, and from the Gulf of
Mexico and the River of Palms indefinitely northward towards
the polar Sea. This vast territory was claimed by Spain in
right of the discoveries of Columbus, the grant of the Pope,
and the various expeditions mentioned above. England claimed
it in light of the discoveries of Cabot, while France could
advance no better title than might be derived from the voyage
of Verrazano and vague traditions of earlier visits of Breton
adventurers."
_F. Parkman,
Pioneers of France in the New World,
chapter 1._
ALSO IN:
_T. Irving,
Conquest of Florida by De Soto._
_Discovery and Conquest of Terra Florida;
written by a Gentleman of Elvas (Hakluyt Society)._
_J. W. Monette,
Discovery and Settlement of the Mississippi Valley,
chapters 1-4._
_J. G. Shea,
Ancient Florida (Narrative and Critical
History of America,
volume 2, chapter 4)._
FLORIDA: A. D. 1562-1563.
First colonizing attempt of the French Huguenots.
About the middle of the 16th century, certain of the
Protestants of France began to turn their thoughts to the New
World as a possible place of refuge from the persecutions they
were suffering at home. "Some of the French sea-ports became
strong-holds of the Huguenots. Their most prominent supporter,
Coligny, was high admiral of France. These Huguenots looked
toward the new countries as the proper field in which to
secure a retreat from persecution, and to found a new
religious commonwealth. Probably many of the French
'corsarios' following the track of the Portuguese and
Spaniards to the West Indies and the coasts of Brazil, were
Huguenots. … The first scheme for a Protestant colony in the
new world was suggested by Admiral Coligny in 1554, and intended
for the coast of Brazil, to which an expedition, under Durand
de Villegagnon, was sent with ships and colonists. This
expedition arrived at the Bay of Rio de Janeiro in 1555,
and founded there the first European settlement.
{1149}
It was followed the next year by another expedition. But the
whole enterprise came to an end by divisions among the
colonists, occasioned by the treacherous, despotic, and cruel
proceedings of its commander, a reputed Catholic. The colony
was finally subverted by the Portuguese, who, in 1560, sent
out an armament against it, and took possession of the Bay of
Rio de Janeiro. … After the unfortunate end of the French
enterprise to South America, Admiral Coligny, who may be
styled the Raleigh of France, turned his attention to the
eastern shores of North America; the whole of which had become
known in France from the voyage of Verrazano, and the French
expeditions to Canada and the Banks of Newfoundland." In
February, 1562, an expedition, fitted out by Coligny, sailed
from Havre de Grace, under Jean Ribault, with Réné de
Laudonnière forming one of the company. Ribault arrived on the
Florida coast in the neighborhood of the present harbor of St.
Augustine, and thence sailed north. "At last, in about 32° 30'
North he found an excellent broad and deep harbor, which he
named Port Royal, which probably is the present Broad River,
or Port Royal entrance. … He found this port and the
surrounding country so advantageous and of such 'singular
beauty,' that he resolved to leave here a part of his men in a
small fort. … A pillar with the arms of France was therefore
erected, and a fort constructed, furnished with cannon,
ammunition, and provisions, and named 'Charlesfort.' Thirty
volunteers were placed in it, and it became the second
European settlement ever attempted upon the east coast of the
United States. Its position was probably not far from the site
of the present town of Beaufort, on Port Royal River. Having
accomplished this, and made a certain captain, Albert de la
Pieria, 'a soldier of great experience,' commander of
Charlesfort, he took leave of his countrymen, and left Port
Royal on the 11th day of June," arriving in France on the 20th
of July. "On his arrival in France, Ribault found the country
in a state of great commotion. The civil war between the
Huguenots and the Catholics was raging, and neither the king
nor the admiral had time to listen to Ribault's solicitations,
to send relief to the settlers left in 'French Florida.' Those
colonists remained, therefore, during the remainder of 1562,
and the following winter, without assistance from France; and
after many trials and sufferings, they were at last forced, in
1563, to abandon their settlement and the new country." Having
constructed a ship, with great difficulty, they put to sea;
but suffered horribly on the tedious voyage, from want of food
and water, until they were rescued by an English vessel and
taken to England.
J_. G. Kohl,
History of the Discovery of Maine
(Maine Historical Society Collection,
2d series, volume 1), chapter 11._
ALSO IN:
_F. Parkman,
Pioneers of France in the New World,
chapter 3._
_Father Charlevoix,
History of New France;
translated by J. G. Shea,
book 3 (volume 1)._
_T. E. V. Smith,
Villegaignon
(American Society of Church History, volume 3)._
FLORIDA: A. D. 1564-1565.
The second Huguenot colony, and the cry in Spain against it.
"After the treacherous peace between Charles IX. and the
Huguenots, Coligny renewed his solicitations for the
colonization of Florida. The king gave consent; in 1564 three
ships were conceded for the service; and Laudonnière, who, in
the former voyage, had been upon the American coast, a man of
great intelligence, though a seaman rather than a soldier, was
appointed to lead forth the colony. … A voyage of 60 days
brought the fleet, by the way of the Canaries and the
Antilles, to the shores of Florida in June. The harbor of Port
Royal, rendered gloomy by recollections of misery, was
avoided; and, after searching the coast, and discovering
places which were so full of amenity that melancholy itself
could not but change its humor as it gazed, the followers of
Calvin planted themselves on the banks of the river May [now
called the St. John's], near St. John's bluff. They sung a
psalm of thanksgiving, and gathered courage from acts of
devotion. The fort now erected was called Carolina. … The
French were hospitably welcomed by the natives; a monument,
bearing the arms of France, was crowned with laurels, and its
base encircled with baskets of corn. What need is there of
minutely relating the simple manners of the red men, the
dissensions of rival tribes, the largesses offered to the
strangers to secure their protection or their alliance, the
improvident prodigality with which careless soldiers wasted
the supplies of food; the certain approach of scarcity; the
gifts and the tribute levied from the Indians by entreaty,
menace or force? By degrees the confidence of the red men was
exhausted; they had welcomed powerful guests, who promised to
become their benefactors, and who now robbed their humble
granaries. But the worst evil in the new settlement was the
character of the emigrants. Though patriotism and religious
enthusiasm had prompted the expedition, the inferior class of
the colonists was a motley group of dissolute men. Mutinies
were frequent. The men were mad with the passion for sudden
wealth; and in December a party, under the pretence of
desiring to escape from famine, compelled Laudonnière to sign
an order permitting their embarkation for New Spain. No sooner
were they possessed of this apparent sanction of the chief
than they began a career of piracy against the Spaniards. The
act of crime and temerity was soon avenged. The pirate vessel
was taken, and most of the men disposed of as prisoners or
slaves. The few that escaped in a boat sought shelter at Fort
Carolina, where Laudonnière sentenced the ringleaders to
death. During these events the scarcity became extreme; and
the friendship of the natives was forfeited by unprofitable
severity. March of 1565 was gone, and there were no supplies
from France; April passed away, and the expected recruits had
not arrived; May brought nothing to sustain the hopes of the
exiles, and they resolved to attempt a return to Europe. In
August, Sir John Hawkins, the slave merchant, arrived from the
West Indies. He came fresh from the sale of a cargo of
Africans, whom he had kidnapped with signal ruthlessness; and
he now displayed the most generous sympathy, not only
furnishing a liberal supply of provisions, but relinquishing a
vessel from his own fleet. The colony was on the point of
embarking when sails were descried. Ribault had arrived to
assume the command, bringing with him supplies of every kind,
emigrants with their families, garden-seeds, implements of
husbandry, and the various kinds of domestic animals. The
French, now wild with joy, seemed about to acquire a home, and
Calvinism to become fixed in the inviting regions of Florida.
{1150}
But Spain had never abandoned her claim to that territory,
where, if she had not planted colonies, she had buried many
hundreds of her bravest sons. … There had appeared at the
Spanish court a commander well fitted for reckless acts. Pedro
Melendez [or Menendez] de Aviles … had acquired wealth in
Spanish America, which was no school of benevolence, and his
conduct there had provoked an inquiry, which, after a long
arrest, ended in his conviction. … Philip II. suggested the
conquest and colonization of Florida; and in May, 1565, a
compact was framed and confirmed by which Melendez, who
desired an opportunity to retrieve his honor, was constituted
the hereditary governor of a territory of almost unlimited
extent. On his part he stipulated, at his own cost, in the
following May, to invade Florida with 500 men; to complete its
conquest within three years; to explore its currents and
channels, the dangers of its coasts, and the depth of its
havens; to establish a colony of at least 500 persons, of whom
100 should be married men; with 12 ecclesiastics, besides four
Jesuits. … Meantime, news arrived, as the French writers
assert through the treachery of the court of France, that the
Huguenots had made a plantation in Florida, and that Ribault
was preparing to set sail with re-enforcements. The cry was
raised that the heretics must be extirpated; and Melendez
readily obtained the forces which he required."
_G. Bancroft,
History of the United States
(author's last revision), part 1, chapter 4._
ALSO IN:
_G. R. Fairbanks,
History of Florida,
chapters 7-8._
_W. G. Simms,
History of South Carolina,
book 1._
FLORIDA: A. D. 1565.
The Spanish capture of Fort Caroline and
massacre of the Huguenots.
Founding of St. Augustine.
"The expedition under Menendez consisted of an army of 2,600
soldiers and officers. He sailed straight for Florida,
intending to attack Fort Caroline with no delay. In fact he
sighted the mouth of the port [Sept. 4, 1565] two months after
starting; but, considering the position occupied by the French
ships, he judged it prudent to defer the attack, and make it,
if possible, from the land. A council of war was held in Fort
Caroline, presided over by Ribaut. Laudonnière proposed that,
while Ribaut held the fort with the ships, he, with his old
soldiers, who knew the country well, aided by the Floridans as
auxiliaries, should engage the Spaniards in the woods, and
harass them by perpetual combats in labyrinths to which they
were wholly unaccustomed. The advice was good, but it was not
followed. Ribaut proposed to follow the Spanish fleet with his
own—lighter and more easily handled—fall on the enemy when
the soldiers were all disembarked, and, after taking and
burning the ships, to attack the army. In the face of
remonstrances from all the officers, he persisted in this
project. Disaster followed the attempt. A violent gale arose.
The French ships were wrecked upon the Floridan coast; the men
lost their arms, their powder, and their clothes; they escaped
with their bare lives. There was no longer the question of
conquering the Spaniards, but of saving themselves. The
garrison of Caroline consisted of 150 soldiers, of whom 40
were sick. The rest of the colony was composed of sick and
wounded Protestant ministers, workmen, royal commissioners,'
and so forth. Laudonnière was in command. They awaited the
attack for several days, yet the Spaniards came not. They were
wading miserably through the marshes in the forests, under
tropical rains, discouraged, and out of heart." But when, at
length, the exhausted and despairing Spaniards, toiling
through the marshes, from St. Augustine, where they had landed
and established their settlement, reached the French fort
(Sept. 20), "there was actually no watch on the ramparts.
Three companies of Spaniards simultaneously rushed from the
forest, and attacked the fortress on the south, the west and
the south-west. There was but little resistance from the
surprised garrison. There was hardly time to grasp a sword.
About 20 escaped by flight, including the Captain,
Laudonnière; the rest were every one massacred. None were
spared except women and children under fifteen; and, in the
first rage of the onslaught, even these were murdered with the
rest. There still lay in the port three ships, commanded by
Jacques Ribaut, brother [son] of the unfortunate Governor. One
of these was quickly sent to the bottom by the cannon of the
fort; the other two cut their cables, and slipped out of reach
into the roadstead, where they lay, waiting for a favourable
wind, for three days. They picked up the fugitives who had
been wandering half-starved in the woods, and then set sail
from this unlucky land. … There remained, however, the
little army, under Ribaut, which had lost most of its arms in
the wreck, and was now wandering along the Floridan shore."
When Ribaut and his men reached Fort Caroline and saw the
Spanish flag flying, they turned and retreated southward. Not
many days later, they were intercepted by Menendez, near St.
Augustine, to which post he had returned. The first party of
the French who came up, 200 in number, and who were in a
starving state, surrendered to the Spaniard, and laid down
their arms. "They were brought across the river in small
companies, and their hands tied behind their backs. On
landing, they were asked if they were Catholics. Eight out of
the 200 professed allegiance to that religion; the rest were
all Protestants.' Menendez traced out a line on the ground
with his cane. The prisoners were marched up one by one to the
line; on reaching it, they were stabbed. Next day, Ribaut
arrived with the rest of the army. The same pourparlers began.
But this time a blacker treachery was adopted." An officer,
sent by Menendez, pledged his honor to the French that the
lives of all should be spared if they laid down their arms.
"It is not clear how many of the French accepted the
conditions. A certain number refused them, and escaped into
the woods. What is certain is, that Ribaut, with nearly all
his men, were tied back to back, four together. Those who said
they were Catholics, were set on one side; the rest were all
massacred as they stood. … Outside the circle of the
slaughtered and the slaughterers stood the priest, Mendoza,
encouraging, approving, exhorting the butchers."
_W. Besant,
Gaspard de Coligny,
chapter 7._
The long dispatch in which Menendez reported his fiendish work
to the Spanish king has been brought to light in the archives
at Seville, and there is this endorsement on it, in the
hand-writing of Philip II.: "Say to him that, as to those he
has killed, he has done well; and as to those he has saved,
they shall be sent to the galleys."
_F. Parkman,
Pioneers of France in the New World,
chapters 7-8._
{1151}
ALSO IN:
_C. W. Baird,
History of the Huguenot Emigration to America,
volume 1, introduction._
FLORIDA: A. D. 1567-1568.
The vengeance of Dominic de Gourgues.
"As might have been expected, all attempts to rouse the French
court into demanding redress were vain. Spain, above all other
nations, knew the arts by which a corrupt court might be
swayed, and the same intrigues which, fifty years later, sent
Raleigh to the block and well-nigh ended the young colony of
Virginia, now kept France quiet. But though the court refused
to move, an avenger was not wanting. Dominic de Gourgues had
already known as a prisoner of war the horrors of the Spanish
galleys. Whether he was a Huguenot is uncertain. Happily in
France, as the history of that and all later ages proved, the
religion of the Catholic did not necessarily deaden the
feelings of the patriot. Seldom has there been a deed of more
reckless daring than that which Dominic de Gourgues now
undertook. With the proceeds of his patrimony he bought three
small ships, manned by eighty sailors and a hundred
men-at-arms. He then obtained a commission as a slaver on the
coast of Guinea, and in the summer of 1567 set sail. With
these paltry resources he aimed at overthrowing a settlement
which had already destroyed a force of twenty times his
number, and which might have been strengthened in the
interval. … To the mass of his followers he did not reveal
the true secret of his voyage till he had reached the West
Indies. Then he disclosed his real purpose. His men were of
the same spirit as their leader. Desperate though the
enterprise seemed, De Gourgues' only difficulty was to
restrain his followers from undue haste. Happily for their
attempt, they had allies on whom they had not reckoned. The
fickle savages had at first welcomed the Spaniards, but the
tyranny of the new comers soon wrought a change, and the
Spaniards in Florida, like the Spaniards in every part of the
New World, were looked on as hateful tyrants. So when De
Gourgues landed he at once found a ready body of allies. …
Three days were spent in making ready, and then De Gourgues,
with a hundred and sixty of his own men and his Indian allies,
marched against the enemy. In spite of the hostility of the
Indians, the Spaniards seem to have taken no precaution
against a sudden attack. Menendez himself had left the colony.
The Spanish force was divided between three forts, and no proper
precautions were taken for keeping up the communications
between them. Each was successively seized, the garrison slain
or made prisoners, and, as each fort fell, those in the next
could only make vague guesses as to the extent of the danger.
Even when divided into three the Spanish force outnumbered
that of De Gourgues, and savages with bows and arrows would
have counted for little against men with fire arms and behind
walls. But after the downfall of the first fort a panic seemed
to seize the Spaniards, and the French achieved an almost
bloodless victory. After the death of Ribault and his
followers nothing could be looked for but merciless
retaliation, and De Gourgues copied the severity, though not
the perfidy of his enemies. The very details of Menendez' act
were imitated, and the trees on which the prisoners were hung
bore the inscription: 'Not as Spaniards, but as traitors,
robbers, and murderers.' Five weeks later De Gourgues anchored
under the walls of Rochelle. … His attack did not wholly
extirpate the Spanish power in Florida. Menendez received the
blessing of the Pope as a chosen instrument for the conversion
of the Indians, returned to America and restored his
settlement. As before, he soon made the Indians his deadly
enemies. The Spanish settlement held on, but it was not till
two centuries later that its existence made itself remembered
by one brief but glorious episode in the history of the
English colonies."
_J. A. Doyle,
The English in America: Virginia, &c.,
chapter 5._
ALSO IN:
_W. W. Dewhurst,
History of St. Augustine, Florida,
chapter 9._
FLORIDA: A. D. 1628.
Claimed by France, and placed, with New France, under the
control of the Company of the Hundred Associates.
See CANADA: A. D. 1616-1628.
FLORIDA: A. D. 1629.
Claimed in part by England and embraced in the Carolina grant
to Sir Robert Heath.
See AMERICA: A. D. 1629.
FLORIDA: A. D. 1680.
Attack on the English of Carolina.
See SOUTH CAROLINA: A. D. 1680.
FLORIDA: A. D. 1702.
Adjustment of western boundary with the French of Louisiana.
See LOUISIANA: A. D. 1698-1712.
FLORIDA: A. D. 1740.
Unsuccessful attack on St. Augustine by the English of Georgia
and Carolina.
See GEORGIA: A. D. 1738-1743.
FLORIDA: A. D. 1763 (February).
Ceded to Great Britain by Spain in the Treaty of Paris.
See SEVEN YEARS WAR.
FLORIDA: A. D. 1763 (July).
Possession taken by the English.
"When, in July [1763], possession was taken of Florida, its
inhabitants, of every age and sex, men, women, children, and
servants, numbered but 3,000; and, of these, the men were
nearly all in the pay of the Catholic king. The possession of
it had cost him nearly $230,000 annually; and now it was
accepted by England as a compensation for Havana. Most of the
people, receiving from the Spanish treasury indemnity for
their losses, had migrated to Cuba, taking with them the bones
of their saints and the ashes of their distinguished dead. The
western province of Florida extended to the Mississippi, on
the line of latitude of 31°. On the 20th of October, the
French surrendered the post of Mobile, with its brick fort,
which was fast crumbling to ruins. A month later, the slight
stockade at Tombigbee, in the west of the Chocta country, was
delivered up. In a congress of the Catawbas, Cherokees,
Creeks, Chicasas, and Choctas, held on the 10th of November,
at Augusta, the governors of Virginia and the colonies south
of it were present, and the peace with the Indians of the
South and South-west was ratified."
_G. Bancroft,
History of the United States
(Author's last revision.),
volume 3, page 64._
FLORIDA: A. D. 1763 (October).
English provinces, East and West, constituted by the King's
proclamation.
See NORTHWEST TERRITORY OF THE UNITED STATES OF
AMERICA: A. D. 1763.
{1152}
FLORIDA: A. D. 1779-1781.
Reconquest of West Florida by the Spanish commander at New
Orleans.
"In the summer of 1779 Spain had declared war against Great
Britain. Galvez [the Spanish commander at New Orleans]
discovered that the British were planning the surprise of New
Orleans, and, under cover of preparations for defense, made
haste to take the offensive. Four days before the time he had
appointed to move, a hurricane destroyed a large number of
houses in the town, and spread ruin to crops and, dwellings up
and down the 'coast,' and sunk his gun flotilla. … Repairing
his disasters as best he could, and hastening his ostensibly
defensive preparations, he marched, on the 22d of August,
1779, against the British forts on the Mississippi. His …
little army of 1,434 men was without tents, other military
furniture, or a single engineer. The gun fleet followed in the
river abreast of their line of march along its shores,
carrying one 24-pounder, five 18-pounders, and four
4-pounders. With this force, in the space of about three
weeks, Fort Bute on bayou Manchac, Baton Rouge and Fort
Panmure. 8 vessels, 556 regulars, and a number of sailors,
militia-men, and free blacks, fell into the hands of the
Spaniards. The next year, 1780, re-enforced from Havana,
Galvez again left New Orleans by way of the Balize with 2,000
men, regulars, militia, and free blacks, and on the 15th of
March took Fort Charlotte on Mobile river. Galvez next
conceived the much larger project of taking Pensacola. Failing
to secure re-enforcements from Havana by writing for them, he
sailed to that place in October, to make his application in
person, intending to move with them directly on the enemy.
After many delays and disappointments he succeeded, and early
in March, 1781, appeared before Pensacola with a ship of the
line, two frigates, and transports containing 1,400 soldiers
well furnished with artillery and ammunition. Here he was
joined by such troops as could be spared from Mobile, and by
Don Estevan Mirò from New Orleans, at the head of the
Louisiana forces, and on the afternoon of the 16th of March,
though practically unsupported by the naval fleet, until
dishonor was staring its jealous commanders in the face, moved
under hot fire, through a passage of great peril, and took up
a besieging position. … It is only necessary to state that,
on the 9th of May, 1781, Pensacola, with a garrison of 800
men, and the whole of West Florida, were surrendered to
Galvez. Louisiana had heretofore been included under one
domination with Cuba, but now one of the several rewards
bestowed upon her governor was the captain-generalship of
Louisiana and West Florida."
_G. E. Waring, Jr., and G. W. Cable,
History of New Orleans
(United States Tenth Census, volume 19)._
ALSO IN:
_C. Gayarré,
History of Louisiana: Spanish Domination,
chapter 3._
FLORIDA: A. D. 1783-1787.
The question of boundaries between Spain and the United
States, and the question of the navigation of the Mississippi.
"By the treaty of 1783 between Great Britain on the one part
and the United States and her allies, France and Spain, on the
other, Great Britain acknowledged the independence of the
colonies, and recognized as a part of their southern boundary
a line drawn due east from a point in the Mississippi River,
in latitude 31° north, to the middle of the Appalachicola; and
at the same time she ceded to Spain by a separate agreement
the two Floridas, but without defining their northern
boundaries. This omission gave rise to a dispute between Spain
and the United States as to their respective limits. On the
part of Spain it was contended that by the act of Great
Britain, of 1764, the northern boundary of West Florida had
been fixed at the line running due east from the mouth of the
Yazoo to the Chattahoochee, and that all south of that line
had been ceded to her; whilst on the other hand, the United
States as strenuously maintained that the act fixing and
enlarging the limits of West Florida was superseded by the
recent treaty, which extended their southern boundary to the
31st degree of north latitude, a hundred and ten miles further
south than the line claimed by Spain. Spain, however, had
possession of the disputed territory by right of conquest, and
evidently had no intention of giving it up. She strengthened
her garrisons at Baton Rouge and Natchez, and built a fort at
Vicksburg, and subsequently one at New Madrid, on the Missouri
side of the Mississippi, just below the mouth of the Ohio; and
of the latter she made a port of entry where vessels from the
Ohio were obliged to land and declare their cargoes. She even
denied the right of the United States to the region between
the Mississippi and the Alleghany Mountains, which had been
ceded to them by Great Britain, on the ground that the
conquests made by Governor Galvez, of West Florida, and by Don
Eugenio Pierre, of Fort St. Joseph, 'near the sources of the
Illinois,' had vested the title to all this country in her;
and she insisted that what she did not own was possessed by
the Indians, and could not therefore belong to the United
States. Even as late as 1795, she claimed to have bought from
the Chickasaws the bluffs which bear their name, and which are
situated on the east bank of the Mississippi some distance
north of the most northerly boundary ever assigned by Great
Britain to West Florida. Here, then, was cause for 'a very
pretty quarrel,' and to add to the ill feeling which grew out
of it, Spain denied the right of the people of the United
States to the 'free navigation of the Mississippi,'—a right
which had been conceded to them by Great Britain with all the
formalities with which she had received it from France. …
What was needed to make the right of any value to the people
of the Ohio valley was the additional right to take their
produce into a Spanish port, New Orleans, and either sell it
then and there, or else store it, subject to certain
conditions, until such time as it suited them to transfer it
to sea-going vessels. This right Spain would not concede; and
as the people of the Ohio valley were determined to have it,
cost what it might, it brought on a series of intrigues
between the Spanish governors of Louisiana and certain
influential citizens west of the Alleghanies which threatened
the stability of the American Union almost before it was
formed."
_L. Carr,
Missouri,
chapter 4._
ALSO IN:
_E. Schuyler,
American Diplomacy,
chapter 6._
FLORIDA: A. D. 1810-1813.
Continued occupation of West Florida by the Spaniards.
Revolt of the inhabitants.
Possession taken by the Americans from the Mississippi to the
Perdido.
"The success of the French in Spain, and the probability of
that kingdom being obliged to succumb, had given occasion to
revolutionary movements in several of the Spanish American
provinces. This example … had been followed also in that
portion of the Spanish province of West Florida bordering on
the Mississippi. The inhabitants, most of whom were of British
or American birth, had seized the fort at Baton Rouge, had met
in convention, and had proclaimed themselves independent,
adopting a single star for their flag, the same symbol
afterward assumed by the republic of Texas.
{1153}
Some struggles took place between the adherents of the Spanish
connection and these revolutionists, who were also threatened
with attack from Mobile, still held by a Spanish garrison. In
this emergency they applied, through Holmes, governor of the
Mississippi Territory, for aid and recognition by the United
States. … The president, however, preferred to issue a
proclamation, taking possession of the east bank of the
Mississippi, occupation of which, under the Louisiana treaty,
had been so long delayed, not, it was said, from any defect of
title, but out of conciliatory views toward Spain. …
Claiborne, governor of the Orleans Territory, then at
Washington, was dispatched post-haste to take possession." The
following January Congress passed an act in secret session
"authorizing the president to take possession as well of East
as of West Florida, under any arrangement which had been or
might be entered into with the local authorities; or, in case
of any attempted occupation by any foreign government, to take
and to maintain possession by force. Previously to the passage
of this act, the occupation of the east bank of the
Mississippi had been already completed by Governor Claiborne;
not, however, without some show of resistance. … Captain
Gaines presently appeared before Mobile with a small
detachment of American regulars, and demanded its surrender.
Colonel Cushing soon arrived from New Orleans with several
gun-boats, artillery, and a body of troops. The boats were
permitted to ascend the river toward Fort Stoddard without
opposition. But the Spanish commandant refused to give up
Mobile, and no attempt was made to compel him." By an act of
Congress passed in April, 1812, "that part of Florida recently
taken possession of, as far east as Pearl River, was annexed to
the new state [of Louisiana]. The remaining territory, as far
as the Perdido, though Mobile still remained in the hands of
the Spaniards, was annexed, by another act, to the Mississippi
Territory." A year later, in April, 1813, General Wilkinson
was instructed to take possession of Mobile, and to occupy all
the territory claimed, to the Perdido, which he accordingly
did, without bloodshed.
_R. Hildreth,
History of the United States, 2d series,
chapters 23, 24, 26 (volume 3)._
FLORIDA: A. D. 1816-1818.
The fugitive negroes and the first Seminole War.
Jackson's campaign.
"The tranquillity of Monroe's administration was soon
seriously threatened by the renewal of trouble with the
Southern Indians [the Seminoles, and the refugee Creeks]. …
The origin of the difficulty was twofold: first, the injustice
which has always marked the treatment of Indian tribes whose
lands were coveted by the whites; and secondly, the revival of
the old grievance, that Florida was a refuge for the fugitive
slaves of Georgia and South Carolina. … The Seminoles had
never withheld a welcome to the Georgia negro who preferred
their wild freedom to the lash of an overseer on a cotton or
rice plantation. The Georgians could never forget that the
grand-children of their grandfathers' fugitive slaves were
roaming about the Everglades of Florida. … So long as there
were Seminoles in Florida, and so long as Florida belonged to
Spain, just so long would the negroes of Georgia find an
asylum in Florida with the Seminoles. … A war with the
Indians of Florida, therefore, was always literally and
emphatically a slave-hunt. A reclamation for fugitives was
always repulsed by the Seminoles and the Spaniards, and, as
they could be redeemed in no other way, Georgia was always
urging the Federal Government to war."
_W. C. Bryant and S. H. Gay,
Popular History of the United States,
volume 4, chapter 10._
During the War of 1812-14, the English, who were permitted by
Spain to make use of Florida with considerable freedom, and
who received no little assistance from the refugee negroes and
Creek Indians, "had built a fort on the Appalachicola River,
about 15 miles from its mouth, and had collected there an
immense amount of arms and ammunition. … When the war ended,
the English left the arms and ammunition in the fort. The
negroes seized the fort, and it became known as the 'Negro
Fort.' The authorities of the United States sent General
Gaines to the Florida frontier with troops, to establish peace
on the border. The Negro Fort was a source of anxiety both to
the military authorities and to the slave-owners of Georgia,"
and a pretext was soon found—whether valid or not seems
uncertain—for attacking it. "A hot shot penetrated one of the
magazines, and the whole fort was blown to pieces, July 27, 1816.
There were 300 negro men, women and children, and 20 Choctaws
in the fort; 270 were killed. Only three came out unhurt, and
these were killed by the allied Indians. … During 1817 there
were frequent collisions on the frontiers between Whites and
Indians. … On the 20th of November, General Gaines sent a
force of 250 men to Fowltown, the headquarters of the chief of
the 'Redsticks,' or hostile Creeks. They approached the town
in the early morning, and were fired on. An engagement
followed. The town was taken and burned. … The Indians of
that section, after this, began general hostilities, attacked
the boats which were ascending the Appalachicola, and
massacred the persons in them. … In December, on receipt of
intelligence of the battle at Fowltown and the attack on the
boats, Jackson was ordered to take command in Georgia. He
wrote to President Monroe: 'Let it be signified to me through
any channel (say Mr. J. Rhea) that the possession of the
Floridas would be desirable to the United States, and in sixty
days it will be accomplished.' Much was afterwards made to
depend on this letter. Monroe was ill when it reached
Washington, and he did not see or read it until a year
afterwards, when some reference was made to it. Jackson
construed the orders which he received from Calhoun with
reference to this letter. … He certainly supposed, however,
that he had the secret concurrence of the administration in
conquering Florida. … He advanced through Georgia with great
haste and was on the Florida frontier in March, 1818. He …
immediately advanced to St. Mark's, which place he captured.
On his way down the Appalachicola he found the Indians and
negroes at work in the fields, and unconscious of any
impending attack. Some of them fled to St. Mark's. His theory,
in which he supposed that he was supported by the
administration, was that he was to pursue the Indians until he
caught them, wherever they might go; that he was to respect
Spanish rights as far as he could consistently with that
purpose; and that the excuse for his proceedings was that
Spain could not police her own territory, or restrain the
Indians.
{1154}
Jackson's proceedings were based on two positive but arbitrary
assumptions: (1) That the Indians got aid and encouragement
from St. Mark's and Pensacola. (This the Spaniards always
denied, but perhaps a third assumption of Jackson might be
mentioned: that the word of a Spanish official was of no
value.) (2) That Great Britain kept paid emissaries employed
in Florida to stir up trouble for the United States. This
latter assumption was a matter of profound belief generally in
the United States." Acting upon it with no hesitation, Jackson
caused a Scotch trader named Arbuthnot, whom he found at St.
Mark's, and an English ex-lieutenant of marines, Ambrister by
name, who was taken prisoner among the Seminoles, to be
condemned by court martial and executed, although no
substantial evidence of their being in any way answerable for
Indian hostilities was adduced. "It was as a mere incident of
his homeward march that Jackson turned aside and captured
Pensacola, May 24, 1818, because he was told that some Indians
had taken refuge there. He deposed the Spanish government, set
up a new one, and established a garrison. He then continued
his march homewards. "Jackson's performances in Florida were
the cause of grave perplexities to his government, which
finally determined "that Pensacola and St. Mark's should be
restored to Spain, but that Jackson's course should be
approved and defended on the grounds that he pursued his enemy
to his refuge, and that Spain could not do the duty which
devolved on her."
_W. G. Sumner,
Andrew Jackson as a public man,
chapter 3._
ALSO IN:
_J. Parton,
Life of Andrew Jackson,
volume 2, chapters 31-39._
_J. R. Giddings,
The Exiles of Florida,
chapters 1-4._
FLORIDA: A. D. 1819-1821.
Cession by Spain to the United States.
"Jackson's vigorous proceedings in Florida would seem not to
have been without effect. Pending the discussion in Congress
on his conduct, the Spanish minister, under new instructions
from home, signed a treaty for the cession of Florida, in
extinction of the various American claims, for the
satisfaction of which the United States agreed to pay to the
claimants $5,000,000. The Louisiana boundary, as fixed by this
treaty, was a compromise between the respective offers
heretofore made, though leaning a good deal to the American
side: the Sabine to the 32d degree of north latitude; thence a
north meridian line to the Red River; the course of that river
to the 100th degree of longitude east [? west] from Greenwich;
thence north by that meridian to the Arkansas; up that river
to its head, and to the 42d degree of north latitude; and
along that degree to the Pacific. This treaty was immediately
ratified by the Senate," but it was not until February, 1821,
that the ratification of the Spanish government was received.
_R. Hildreth,
History of the United States,
2d series, chapters 31-32 (volume 3)._
ALSO IN:
_J. T. Morse,
John Quincy Adams,
pages 109-125._
_Treaties and Conventions between the United States and
other countries (edition of 1880), pages 1016-1022._
FLORIDA: A. D. 1835-1843.
The Second Seminole War.
"The conflict with the Seminoles was one of the legacies left
by Jackson to Van Buren; it lasted as long as the
Revolutionary War, cost thirty millions of dollars, and
baffled the efforts of several generals and numerous troops,
who had previously shown themselves equal to any in the world.
… As is usually the case in Indian wars there had been wrong
done by each side; but in this instance we were the more to
blame, although the Indians themselves were far from being
merely harmless and suffering innocents. The Seminoles were
being deprived of their lands in pursuance of the general
policy of removing all the Indians [to] west of the
Mississippi. They had agreed to go, under pressure, and
influenced, probably, by fraudulent representations; but they
declined to fulfill their agreement. If they had been treated
wisely and firmly they might probably have been allowed to
remain without serious injury to the surrounding whites. But
no such treatment was attempted, and as a result we were
plunged in one of the most harassing Indian wars we ever
waged. In their gloomy, tangled swamps, and among the unknown
and untrodden recesses of the everglades, the Indians found a
secure asylum; and they issued from their haunts to burn and
ravage almost all the settled parts of Florida, fairly
depopulating five counties. … The great Seminole leader,
Osceola, was captured only by deliberate treachery and breach
of faith on our part, and the Indians were worn out rather
than conquered. This was partly owing to their remarkable
capacities as bush-fighters, but infinitely more to the nature
of their territory. Our troops generally fought with great
bravery; but there is very little else in the struggle, either
as regards its origin or the manner in which it was carried
on, to which an American can look back with any satisfaction."
_T. Roosevelt,
Life of Thomas H. Benton,
chapter 10._
ALSO IN:
_J. R. Giddings,
The Exiles of Florida,
chapters 7-21._
_J. T. Sprague,
The Florida War._
See also,
AMERICAN ABORIGINES: SEMINOLES.
FLORIDA: A. D. 1845.
Admission into the Union.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1845.
FLORIDA: A. D. 1861 (JANUARY).
Secession from the Union.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
A. D. 1861 (JANUARY-FEBRUARY).
FLORIDA: A. D. 1862 (February-April).
Temporary Union conquests and occupation.
Discouragement of Unionists.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
A. D. 1862 (FEBRUARY-APRIL: GEORGIA-FLORIDA).
FLORIDA: A. D. 1864.
Unsuccessful National attempt to occupy the State.
Battle of Olustee.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
A. D. 1864 (JANUARY-FEBRUARY: FLORIDA).
FLORIDA: A. D. 1865 (JULY).
Provisional government set up under President Johnson's plan
of Reconstruction.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1865 (MAY-JULY).
FLORIDA: A. D. 1865-1868.
Reconstruction.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
A. D. 1865 (MAY-JULY), and after, to 1868-1870.
----------FLORIDA: End----------
FLORIN, The.
"The Republic of Florence, in the year 1252, coined its golden
florin, of 24 carats fine, and of the weight of one drachm. It
placed the value under the guarantee of publicity, and of
commercial good faith; and that coin remained unaltered, as
the standard for all other values, as long as the republic
itself endured."
_J. C. L. de Sismondi,
History of the Italian Republics,
chapter 4._
FLOTA, The.
See PERU: A. D. 1550-1816.
FLOYD, JOHN B., Treachery of.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1860 (DECEMBER).
FLUSHING: A. D. 1807.
Ceded to France.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1807-1808 (NOVEMBER-FEBRUARY).
{1155}
FLUSHING: A. D. 1809.
Taken and abandoned by the English.
See ENGLAND: A. D. 1809 (JULY-DECEMBER).
FOCKSHANI, Battle of (1789).
See TURKS: A. D. 1776-1792.
FODHLA.
See IRELAND: THE NAME.
FŒDERATI OF THE ROMAN EMPIRE.
The bodies of barbarians who were taken in the military
service of the Roman empire, during the period of its decline,
serving "under their hereditary chiefs, using the arms which
were proper to them, from preserving their language, their
manners and their customs, were designated by the name of
frederati" (confederates or allies).
_J. C. L. de Sismondi,
The French under the Merovingians,
chapter 2._
ALSO IN:
_T. Hodgkin,
The dynasty of Theodosius,
chapter 4._
FOIX, Rise of the Counts of.
See BURGUNDY: A. D. 1032.
FOIX, The house in Navarre.
See NAVARRE: A. D. 1442-1521.
FOLCLAND.
FOLKLAND.
Public land, among the early English. "It comprised the whole
area that was not at the original allotment assigned to
individuals or communities, and that was not subsequently
divided into estates of bookland [bocland]. The folkland was
the standing treasury of the country; no alienation of any
part of it could be made without the consent of the national
council; but it might be allowed to individuals to hold
portions of it subject to rents and other services to the
state."
_W. Stubbs,
Constitutional History of England,
chapter 5, section 36._
The theory here stated is questioned by Prof. Vinogradoff, who
says: "I venture to suggest that folkland need not mean the
land owned by the people. Bookland is land that is held by
bookright; folkland is land that is held by folkright. The
folkland is what our scholars have called ethel, and alod, and
family-land, and yrfeland; it is land held under the old
restrictive common-law, the law which keeps land in families,
as contrasted with land which is held under a book, under a
'privilegium,' modelled on Roman precedents, expressed in
Latin words, armed with ecclesiastical sanctions, and making
for free alienation and individualism."
_P. Vinogradoff,
Folkland
(English History Rev., January, 1893)._
ALSO IN:
_J. M. Kemble,
The Saxons in England,
book 1, chapter 11._
See, also, ALOD.
FOLIGNO, Treaty of.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1800-1801 (JUNE-FEBRUARY).
FOLKLAND.
See FOLCLAND.
FOLKMOOT.
See HUNDRED:
also SHIRE;
also WITENAGEMOT;
also TOWNSHIP AND TOWN-MEETING, THE NEW ENGLAND.
FOLKTHING.
FOLKETING, The.
See SCANDINAVIAN STATES
(DENMARK-ICELAND): A. D. 1849-1874.
FOLKUNGAS, The.
See SCANDINAVIAN STATES: A. D. 1018-1397.
FOMORIANS, OR FORMORIANS, The.
A people mentioned in Irish legends as sea-rovers. Mr.
Sullivan, in his article on "Celtic Literature" in the
Encyclopædia Britannica advances the opinion that the Romans
were the people alluded to; but the general view is quite
different.
See IRELAND: THE PRIMITIVE INHABITANTS;
also, NEMEDIANS.
FONTAINE FRANĆAISE, Battle of (1595).
See FRANCE: A. D. 1593-1598.
FONTAINEBLEAU: A. D. 1812-1814.
Residence of the captive Pope.
See PAPACY: A. D. 1808-1814.
FONTAINEBLEAU,
Treaties of (1807).
See PORTUGAL: A. D. 1807,
and SPAIN: A. D.1807-1808.
FONTAINEBLEAU,
Treaties of (1814).
See FRANCE: A. D. 1814 (MARCH-APRIL).
FONTAINEBLEAU DECREE, The.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1806-1810.
FONTARABIA, Siege and Battle (1638).
See SPAIN: A. D. 1637-1640.
FONTENAILLES, OR FONTENAY,
Battle of, A. D. 841.
In the civil war between the three grandsons of Charlemagne,
which resulted in the partition of his empire and the definite
separation of Germany and France, the decisive battle was
fought, June 25, 841, at Fontenailles, or Fontenay
(Fontanetum), near Auxerre. It was one of the fiercest and
bloodiest fights of mediæval times, and 80,000 men are said to
have died on the field.
Sir F. Palgrave, History of Normandy and England,
book 1, chapter 2.
See FRANKS (CAROLINGIAN EMPIRE): A. D. 814-962.
FONTENOY, Battle of(1745).
See NETHERLANDS (AUSTRIAN PROVINCES): A. D. 1745.
FOOT, The Roman.
"The unit of lineal measure [with the Romans] was the Pes,
which occupied the same place in the Roman system as the Foot
does in our own. According to the most accurate researches,
the Pes was equal to, about 11.64 inches imperial measure, or
.97 of an English foot. The Pes being supposed to represent
the length of the foot in a well proportioned man, various
divisions and multiples of the Pes were named after standards
derived from the human frame. Thus: Pes=16 Digiti, i. e.
finger-breadths, [or] 4 Palmi, i. e. hand-breadths;
Sesquipes=l cubitus, i. e. length from elbow to extremity of
middle finger. The Pes was also divided into 12 Pollices, i.
e. thumb-joint-lengths, otherwise called Unciae (whence our
word 'inch')."
_W. Ramsay,
Manual of Roman Antiquity,
chapter 13._
FOOTE, Commodore.
Gun-boat campaign on the western rivers.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
A. D. 1862 (JANUARY-FEBRUARY: KENTUCKY-TENNESSEE);
(MARCH-APRIL: ON THE MISSISSIPPI).
FORBACH, OR SPICHERN, Battle of.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1870 (JULY-AUGUST).
FORCE BILL, The.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1871 (APRIL).
FORESTS, Charter of.
See ENGLAND: A. D. 1216-1274.
FORLI, Battle of (1423).
See ITALY: A. D. 1412-1447.
FORMORIANS.
See FOMORIANS.
FORMOSUS, Pope, A. D. 891-896.
FORNUOVA, Battle of (1495).
See ITALY: A. D. 1494-1496.
FORT EDWARD.
FORT ERIE.
FORT FISHER, ETC.
See EDWARD, FORT; ERIE, FORT, ETC.
FORTRENN, Men of.
A Pictish people who figure in early Scottish history, and
whom Mr. Rhys derives from the tribe known to the Romans as
Verturiones. The western part of Fife was embraced in their
kingdom.
_J. Rhys,
Celtic Britain,
pages 158-159._
FORTUNATE ISLANDS.
See CANARY ISLANDS, DISCOVERY OF.
{1156}
FORTY-FIVE, The.
The Jacobite rebellion of 1745 is often referred to as "the
Forty-five."
See SCOTLAND: A. D. 1745.
FORTY-SHILLING FREEHOLDERS.
See ENGLAND: A. D. 1884-1885.
FORUM, The Julian, and its extensions.
"From the entrance of the Suburra branched out the long
streets which penetrated the hollows between the Quirinal,
Viminal, and Esquiline to the gates pierced in the mound of
Servius. It was in this direction that Cæsar effected the
first extension of the Forum, by converting the site of
certain streets into an open space which he surrounded with
arcades, and in the centre of which he erected his temple of
Venus. By the side of the Julian Forum, or perhaps in its
rear, Augustus constructed a still ampler inclosure, which he
adorned with the temple of Mars the Avenger. Succeeding
emperors … continued to work out the same idea, till the
Argiletum on the one hand, and the saddle of the Capitoline
and Quirinal, excavated for the purpose, on the other, were
both occupied by these constructions, the dwellings of the
populace being swept away before them; and a space running
nearly parallel to the length of the Roman Forum, and
exceeding it in size, was thus devoted to public use,
extending from the pillar of Trajan to the basilica of
Constantine."
_C. Merivale,
History of the Romans,
chapter 40._
FORUM BOARIUM AND VELABRUM OF ANCIENT ROME, The.
"The Velabrum, the Forum Boarium, the Vicus Tuscus, and the
Circus Maximus are names rich in reminiscences of the romantic
youth and warlike manhood of the Roman people. The earliest
dawn of Roman history begins with the union of the Capitoline
and Palatine hills into one city. In those far-distant times,
however, no population was settled in the Velabrum or Circus
valley; for, as we have seen, until the drainage was
permanently provided for by the cloacæ, these districts were
uninhabited swamps; and the name Velabrum itself is said to
have been derived from the boats used in crossing from one
hill to the other. Perhaps such may not have been the case
with the Forum Boarium, which lay between the Velabrum and the
river. … The limits of the Forum Boarium can be clearly
defined. It was separated from the Velabrum at the Arch of the
Goldsmiths. … On the south-eastern side the Carceres of the
Circus, and the adjoining temple on the site of S. Maria in
Cosmedin, bounded the district, on the western the Tiber, and
on the north western the wall of Servius. … The immediate
neighbourhood of the river, the Forum, the Campus Martius, and
the Palace of the Cæsars would naturally render this quarter
one of the most crowded thoroughfares of Rome. … The Forum
itself, which gave the name to the district, was probably an
open space surrounded by shops and public buildings, like the
Forum Romanum, but on a smaller scale. In the centre stood the
bronze figure of a bull, brought from Ægina, either as a
symbol of the trade in cattle to which the place owed its
name, or, as Tacitus observes, to mark the supposed spot
whence the plough of Romulus, drawn by a bull and a cow, first
started in tracing out the Palatine pomœrium."
_R. Burn,
Rome and the Campagna,
chapter 12._
FORUM GALLORUM, Battle of (B. C. 43).
See ROME: B. C. 44-42.
FORUM JULII.
A Roman colony and naval station (modern Frejus) founded on
the Mediterranean coast of Gaul by Augustus.
FORUM ROMANUM, The.
"The older Forum, or Forum Romanum, as it was called, to
distinguish it from the later Fora, which were named after
their respective builders [Forum of Julius Cæsar, of Augustus,
of Nerva, of Vespasian, of Trajan, etc.], was an open space of
an oblong shape, which extended in a south-easterly direction
from near the depression or intermontium between the two
summits of the Capitoline hill to a point opposite the still
extant temple of Antoninus and Faustina. … Round this
confined space were grouped the most important buildings of
Republican Rome."
_R. Burn,
Rome and the Campagna,
chapter 6, part 1._
"Forum, in the literal sense of the word merely a marketplace,
derives its name 'á ferendo,' (from bringing, getting,
purchasing). … Narrow is the arena on which so great a drama
was enacted in the Republican and Imperial City! the
ascertainable measurements of this region, according to good
authorities, being 671 English feet in the extreme length; 202
in the extreme breadth, and 117 feet at the narrower, the
south-eastern, side. A wildly picturesque marshy vale,
overshadowed by primæval forests, and shut in by rugged
heights, was that low ground between the Palatine and
Capitoline hills when the 'Roma Quadrata,' ascribed to
Romulus, was founded about seven centuries and a half before
our era. After the wars and finally confirmed alliance between
Romans and Sabines … the colonists agreed to unite under the
same government, and to surround the two cities and two hills
with a wider cincture of fortifying walls than those the still
extant ruins of which are before us on the Palatine. Now was
the swampy waste rendered serviceable for civic purposes; the
forest was cut down; the stagnant marshes were drained, the
clayey hollows filled up; the wild valley became the appointed
arena for popular assemblage; though Dionysius tells us it was
for some time on a spot sacred to Vulcan (the 'Vulcanale'),
probably a terrace on the slope of the Palatine overlooking
the Forum, that the people used to meet for political affairs,
elections, etc. During many ages there were, it appears, no
habitations save on the hills. … The Forum, as an enclosed
public place amidst buildings, and surrounded by graceful
porticos, may be said to have owed its origin to Tarquinius
Priscus, between the years 616 and 578 B. C. That king (Livius
tells us) was the first who erected porticos around this area,
and also divided the ground into lots, where private citizens
might build for their own uses. Booths, probably wooden (the
'tabernæ veteres'), were the first rude description of shops
here seen. … Uncertain is the original place of the 'Rostra
Veteres'—the ancient tribunal for orators. No permanent
tribunal for such purpose is known to have been placed in the
Forum till the year of the city 417. … In the year 336 B.
C., the Romans having gained a naval victory over the
citizens' of Antium, several of those enemies' ships were
burnt, others transported to the Roman docks, and the bronzed
prows of the latter were used to decorate a pulpit, now raised
for public speaking, probably near the centre of the Forum."
_C. I. Hemans,
Historic and Monumental Rome,
chapter 6._
ALSO IN:
_R. Lanciani,
Ancient Rome,
pages 75-82._
{1157}
FORUM TREBONII, Battle of (A. D. 251).
See GOTHS, FIRST INVASIONS OF THE ROMAN EMPIRE.
FOSI, The.
See CHAUCI.
FOSSA.
See CASTRA.
FOSSE, The.
One of the great Roman roads in Britain, which ran from
Lincoln southwestwardly into Cornwall.
See ROMAN ROADS IN BRITAIN.
FOSTAT.
The original name of Cairo, Egypt, signifying "the
Encampment."
See MAHOMETAN CONQUEST: A. D. 640-646.
FOTHERINGAY CASTLE, Mary Stuart's execution at.
See SCOTLAND: A. D. 1561-1568;
and ENGLAND: A. D. 1585-1587.
FOUNTAIN OF YOUTH, Ponce de Leon's quest of the.
See AMERICA: A. D. 1512.
FOUR HUNDRED AND FIVE THOUSAND AT ATHENS.
See ATHENS: B. C. 413-411.
FOUR HUNDRED AT ATHENS, The.
See ATHENS: B. C. 594.
FOUR MASTERS, The.
Four Irish antiquaries of 17th century, who compiled the mixed
collection of legend and history called the "Annals of the
Kingdom of Ireland," are commonly known as the Four Masters.
They were Michael O'Clery, a lay brother of the order of St.
Francis; Conaire O'Clery, brother of Michael; Cucogry or
Peregrine O'Clery, head of the Tirconnell sept of the
O'Clerys, to which Michael and Conaire belonged; and Ferfeasa
O'Mulconry, of whom nothing is known, except that he was a
native of the county of Roscommon. The "Annals" of the Four
Masters have been translated into English from the Irish
tongue by John O'Donovan.
_J. O'Donovan,
Introduction to Annals of the Kingdom of
Ireland by the Four Masters._
FOUR MILE STRIP, Cession of the.
See PONTIAC'S WAR.
FOURMIGNY, Battle of (1449).
See FRANCE: A. D. 1431-1453.
FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
A. D. 1865-1866 (DECEMBER-APRIL);
1866 (JUNE);
1866-1867 (OCTOBER-MARCH).
FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT:
The enforcement of.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1871 (APRIL).
----------FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT: End----------
FOURTH OF JULY.
The anniversary of the adoption of the American Declaration of
Independence.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1776 (JULY).
FOWEY, Essex's surrender at.
See ENGLAND: A. D. 1644 (AUGUST-SEPTEMBER).
FOWLTOWN, Battle of (1817).
See FLORIDA: A. D. 1816-1818.
FOX AND NORTH COALITION, The.
See ENGLAND: A. D. 1782; 1783;
and 1783-1787.
FOX INDIANS, The.
See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: ALGONQUIAN FAMILY,
and SACS, &c.
For an account of the massacre of Fox Indians
at Detroit in 1712,
See CANADA: A. D. 1711-1713.
For an account of the Black Hawk War,
See ILLINOIS: A. D. 1832.
FRANCE:
Gallic and Roman.
See GAUL. A. D. 481-843.
FRANCE:
Under the Franks, to the division of the Empire of
Charlemagne.
See FRANKS.
FRANCE: A. D. 841-911.
Ravages and settlements of the Northmen.
See NORMANS: A. D. 841 to 876-911.
FRANCE: 9th Century.
Introduction of the modern name.
At the time of the division of the empire of Charlemagne
between his three grand-sons, which was made a definite and
lasting political separation by the Treaty of Verdun, A. D.
843, "the people of the West [western Europe] had come to be
divided, with more and more distinctness, into two classes,
those composed of Franks and Germans, who still adhered to the
Teutonic dialects, and those, composed of Franks,
Gallo-Romans, and Aquitanians, who used the Romance dialects,
or the patois which had grown out of a corrupted Latin. The
former clung to the name of Germans, while the latter, not to
lose all share in the glory of the Frankish name, began to
call themselves Franci, and their country Francia Nova, or New
France. … Francia was the Latin name of Frankenland, and had
long before been applied to the dominions of the Franks on
both sides of the Rhine. Their country was then divided into
East and West Francia; but in the time of Karl the Great
[Charlemagne] and Ludwig Pious, we find the monk of St. Gall
using the terms Francia Nova, in opposition to the Francia,
'quæ dicitur antiqua.'"
_P. Godwin,
History of France: Ancient Gaul,
chapter 18, with note._
"As for the mere name of Francia, like other names of the
kind, it shifted its geographical use according to the
wanderings of the people from whom it was derived. After many
such changes of meaning, it gradually settled down as the name
for those parts of Germany and Gaul where it still abides.
There are the Teutonic or Austrian [or Austrasian] Francia,
part of which still keeps the name of Franken or Franconia,
and the Romance or Neustrian Francia, which by various
annexations has grown into modern France."
_E. A. Freeman,
Historical Geography of Europe,
volume 1, page 121._
"As late as the reign of Frederick Barbarossa, the name of
Frank was still used, and used too with an air of triumph, as
equivalent to the name of German. The Kings and kingdoms of
this age had indeed no fixed titles, because all were still
looked on as mere portions of the great Frankish realm.
Another step has now been taken towards the creation of modern
France; but the older state of things has not yet wholly
passed away. Germany has no definite name; for a long time it
is 'Francia Orientalis,' 'Francia Teutonica'; then it becomes
'Regnum Teutonicum,' 'Regnum Teutonicorum.' But it is equally
clear that, within the limits of that Western or Latin France,
Francia and Francus were fast getting their modern meanings of
France and Frenchmen, as distinguished from Frank or German."
_E. A. Freeman,
The Franks and the Gauls
(Historical Essays, 1st series, number 7)._
{1158}
FRANCE: A. D. 843.
The kingdom of Charles the Bald.
The first actual kingdom of France (Francia Nova—Francia
Occidentalis), was formed in the partition of the empire of
Charlemagne between his three grandsons, by the Treaty of
Verdun, A. D. 843. It was assigned to Charles, called "the
Bald," and comprised the Neustria of the older Frank
divisions, together with Aquitaine. It "had for its eastern
boundary, the Meuse, the Saône and the Rhone; which,
nevertheless, can only be understood of the Upper Meuse, since
Brabant was certainly not comprised in it"; and it extended
southwards beyond the Pyrenees to the Ebro.
_H. Hallam,
The Middle Ages,
chapter 1, part 1, footnote._
"Charles and his successors have some claim to be accounted
French. They rule over a large part of France, and are cut
away from their older connexion with Germany. Still, in
reality they are Germans and Franks. They speak German, they
yearn after the old imperial name, they have no national
feeling at all. On the other hand, the great lords of
Neustria, as it used to be called, are ready to move in that
direction, and to take the first steps towards a new national
life. They cease to look back to the Rhine, and occupy
themselves in a continual struggle with their kings. Feudal
power is founded, and with it the claims of the bishops rise
to their highest point. But we have not yet come to a kingdom
of France. … It was no proper French kingdom; but a dying
branch of the Empire of Charles the Great. … Charles the
Bald, entering on his part of the Caroling Empire, found three
large districts which refused to recognise him. These were
Aquitaine, whose king was Pippin II.; Septimania, in the hands
of Bernard; and Brittany under Nominoë. He attempted to reduce
them; but Brittany and Septimania defied him, while over
Aquitaine he was little more than a nominal suzerain."
_G. W. Kitchin,
History of France,
volume 1, book 2, part 2, chapter 5._
ALSO IN:
_E. A. Freeman,
Historical Geography of Europe,
chapter 6, section 1._
See, also,
FRANKS (CAROLINGIAN EMPIRE): A. D. 814-962.
----------------------------------------
A Logical Outline of French History
(Red) Physical or material.
(Blue) Ethnologilcal.
(Green) Social and political.
(Brown) Intellectual, moral and religious.
(Black) Foreign.
IN WHICH THE DOMINANT CONDITIONS AND
INFLUENCES ARE DISTINGUISHED BY COLORS.
The country known anciently as Gaul, and in modern times as
France, is distinguished by no physical characteristics that
will go far towards explaining its history. Lying within the
middle degrees of the northern temperate zone, greatly
diversified in its superficial features, and varied in the
qualities of its soil, it represents a fair average of the
more favorable conditions of human life.
The Gauls.
The inhabitants of the land when the Romans subdued it were a
Celtic people, belonging to the race which has survived to the
present day with least admixture or modification in the
Bretons, the Welsh, the Celtic Irish and the Highland Scotch.
The peculiar traits of the race in mind and temper are so
visible in French history as to show that the nation has never
ceased to be essentially Gallic in blood.
B. C. 51-A. D. 406; Roman Gaul.
Under the control and the teaching of Rome for four centuries
and a half, the Gauls were perfected in her civilization and
corrupted by the vices of her decay.
5th Century; Frank Conquest.
When the invasion of Teutonic barbarism broke the barrier of
the Rhine, they were easily but not quickly overwhelmed, and
sank under a conquest more complete than that from Rome had
been; since the whole body of the conquerors came to dwell
within the land, and to be neighbors and masters, at once. For
the most part, these invaders preferred country to town, and
carved estates for themselves in all the districts that were
fertile and fair. The Gallo-Romans, or Romanized Gauls, were
left to more freedom in their cities than outside; but their
cities were blighted in industry and in trade by the common
ruin around them. In the rural districts, few liberties or
rights were preserved for the subjugated race.
Feudalism.
The form of society which the German conquerors brought with
them into Gaul was broken by the change of circumstance, quite
as much as the form of society which they overthrew. The camp
gave place to the castle; the wandering war-chief acquired the
firmer superiority of a great land-proprietor and lord; his
warriors slipped in station from free followers to dependents,
in divers degrees; the greater chiefs won the title of kings;
the fiercer kings destroyed their rivals; and four or five
centuries shaped, by slow processes that are traceable,
indistinctly, the military structure of society called Feudal,
which organized lawlessness with picturesque and destructive
effects.
A. D. 481-752. Merovingian monarchy.
A. D. 768-814. Empire of Charlemagne.
All authority withered, except the spiritual authority of the
Church, which steadily grew. The royalty that had thrived for
a time upon the distribution of lands, dignities and powers,
lost prestige when it had expended the domains at its
disposal, and when offices and estates were clutched in
hereditary possession. Before it actually expired, there arose
a family of remarkable men—great in four successive
generations—who put its crown upon their own heads and made
it powerful again. The last and greatest of these expanded the
Frank kingdom into a new Roman Empire; but the energy of the
achievement was wholly his own, and his empire fell to pieces
when he died.
A. D. 987. Kingdom of Hugh Capet.
11th-12th centuries. Enfranchisement of the Communes.
In the part which became France, royalty dwindled once more;
the great dukes and counts nominally subject to it, in the
feudal sense, renewed and increased their power; until one of
their number took the throne, and bequeathed it to his heirs.
This new line of kings won back by degrees the ascendancy of
the crown. The small actual dominion, surrounding Paris, with
which they began, was widened slowly by the strong,
authoritative arm. They made themselves, in rude fashion, the
champions of order and law. They took the people of the towns
into alliance with them; for the towns were beginning to
catch the spirit of the free cities of Italy, and the sturdy
temper of the Flemish burghers, and to assume the name of
"communes," or commons, casting off the feudal yoke that had
been laid upon them. The kings lent their countenance to the
communes, and the communes strengthened the hands of the
kings. Between them and much helped by the stir of the
Crusades, they loosened the roots of feudalism, until its
decay set in. The king's courts and the king's officers pushed
their jurisdiction into a widening realm, until the king's
authority had become supreme, in fact as well as in name.
Even the measureless misery of a hundred years of war with
English kings brought power, in the end, to the crown, by
weakening the greater lords, and by bringing into existence a
fixed military force.
A. D. 1337-1453. Hundred Years War.
Happy accidents, shrewd marriages, and cunning intrigues
gathered the great dukedoms, one by one, into the royal
domain, and the solidarity of modern France was attained.
16th-17th centuries. Aggrandisement of the Monarchy.
But People and King stood no longer side by side. The league
of King and Commons against the Lords had proved less happy
than the alliance in England of Commons and Lords against the
King. Royalty emerged from the patient struggle alone in
possession of sovereign power. It had used the communes and
then abused them, breaking their charters—their
liberties—their courage—their hopes—and widening the
distance between class and class. The "estates" of the realm
became a memory and a name. During five hundred years, while
the Parliament of England grew in majesty and might, the
States-General of France were assembled but thirteen times.
The Court.
When royalty, at last, invented the fatal enchantments of a
"Court," then the blighting of all other powers was soon
complete. It drew within its spell, from all the provinces of
France, their nobles, their men of genius, their aspiring
spirits, and assembled them to corrupt and debase them
together—to make them its pensioners and hirelings, its
sycophants, its jesters, its knaves.
Suppression of the Huguenots.
Neither Renaissance nor Reformation could undo the spell.
Ideas from the one and a great faith from the other joined in
league for the liberty of both, and the thoughtful among the
people were rallied to them with craving eagerness. But
bigotry and frivolity ruled the Court, and the Court proved
stronger than France. Freedom of conscience, and every species
of freedom with it, were destroyed; by massacre, by civil war,
by oppressive government, by banishment, by corrupting bribes.
18th century. The "Ancien Régime."
And always the grandeur of the monarchy increased; its rule
grew more absolute; its Court sucked the life-blood of the
State more remorselessly. The People starved, that the King
might be magnificent; they perished in a thousand battles,
that his name might be "glorious;" they went into exile,
carrying away the arts of France, that the piety of the King
might not be shocked by their heresies. But always, too, there
was growing in the world, around France and in France, a
knowledge,—an understanding,—a modern spirit,—that rebelled
against these infamies.
A. D. 1789-1799. Revolution.
A. D. 1799-1815. Napoleon.
In due time there came an end. Court, and King, and Church,
and all that even seemed to be a part of the evil old regime,
were whirled into a red gulf of Revolution and disappeared.
The people, unused to Liberty, were made drunken by it, and
went mad. In breaking the gyves of feudalism they broke every
other restraint, and wrecked society in all its forms. Then,
in the stupor of their debauch, they gave themselves to a new
despot—mean, conscienceless, detestable, but transcendent in
the genius and the energy of his selfishness—who devoured
them like a dragon, in the hunger of his insatiate ambition,
and persuaded them to be proud of their fate.
A. D. 1815-1830. Bourbon Restoration.
A. D. 1830-1848. Louis Phillippe
A. D. 1848-1851. Second Republic.
A. D. 1852-1870. Second Empire.
A. D. 1870-. Third Republic.
Europe suppressed the intolerable adventurer, and France, for
three-fourths of a century since, has been under an
apprenticeship of experience, slowly learning the art of
self-government by constitutional modes. Two monarchies, one
republic, and a sham empire are the spoiled samples of her
work. A third republic, now in hand, is promising better
success. It rests with seeming stability on the support of the
great class of peasant landowners, which the very miseries of her
misgoverned past have created for France. Trained to pinching
frugality by the hard conditions of the old regime; unspoiled
by any ruinous philanthropy, like that of the English
poor-laws; stimulated to land-buying by opportunities which
came, first, from the impoverishment of extravagant nobles,
and, later, from revolutionary confiscations; encouraged to
the same acquisition by favorable laws of transfer and equal
inheritance,—the landowning peasants of France constitute a
Class powerful in numbers, invincible in conservatism, an
profoundly interested in the preservation of social order.
--------End: A Logical Outline of French History-----------
FRANCE: A. D. 861.
Origin of the duchy and of the house of Capet.
In 861, Charles the Bald, king of that part of the dismembered
empire of Charlemagne which grew into the kingdom of France,
was struggling with many difficulties: defending himself
against the hostile ambition of his brother, Louis the German;
striving to establish his authority in Brittany and Aquitaine;
harried and harassed by Norse pirates; surrounded by domestic
treachery and feudal restiveness. All of his many foes were
more or less in league against him, and the soul of their
combination appears to have been a certain bold adventurer—a
stranger of uncertain origin, a Saxon, as some say—who bore
the name of Robert the Strong. In this alien enemy, King
Charles, who never lacked shrewdness, discovered a possible
friend. He opened negotiations with Robert the Strong, and a
bargain was soon made which transferred the sword and the
energy of the potent mercenary to the service of the king.
"Soon after, a Placitum or Great Council was held at
Compiègne. In this assembly, and by the assent of the
Optimates, the Seine and its islands, and that most important
island Paris, and all the country between Seine and Loire,
were granted to Robert, the Duchy of France, though not yet so
called, moreover the Angevine Marches, or County of
Outre-Maine, all to be held by Robert-le-Fort as barriers
against Northmen and Bretons, and by which cessions the realm
was to be defended. Only a portion of this dominion owned the
obedience of Charles: the Bretons were in their own country,
the Northmen in the country they were making their own; the
grant therefore was a license to Robert to win as much as he
could, and to keep his acquisitions should he succeed. …
Robert kept the Northmen in check, yet only by incessant
exertion. He inured the future kings of France, his two young
sons, Eudes and Robert, to the tug of war, making them his
companions in his enterprises. The banks of the Loire were
particularly guarded by him, for here the principal attacks
were directed." Robert the Strong fought valiantly, as he had
contracted to do, for five years, or more, and then, in an
unlucky battle with the Danes, one summer day in 866, he fell.
"Thus died the first of the Capets." All the honors and
possessions which he had received from the king were then
transferred, not to his sons, but to one Hugh, Count of
Burgundy, who became also Duke or Marquis of France and Count
of Anjou. Twenty years later, however, the older son of
Robert, Eudes, turns up in history again as Count of Paris,
and nothing is known of the means by which the family, soon to
become royal, had recovered its footing and its importance.
_Sir F. Palgrave,
History of Normandy and England,
book 1, chapter 3 (volume 1)._
FRANCE: A. D. 877-987.
The end of the Carolingian monarchy and the rise of the
Capetian.
Charles the Bald died in 877 and was succeeded by his son
Louis, called "the Stammerer," who reigned only two years. His
two sons, Louis and Carloman, were joint kings for a short
space, struggling with the Northmen and losing the provinces
out of which Duke Boson of Provence, brother-in-law of Charles
the Bald, formed the kingdom of Arles. Louis died in 882 and
Carloman two years afterwards; thereupon Charles, surnamed
"the Fat," king of Lombardy and Germany, and also emperor
(nephew of Charles the Bald), became likewise king of France,
and briefly reunited under his feebly handled sceptre the
greater part of the old empire of Charlemagne: When he died,
in 888, a party of the nobles, tired of his race, met and
elected Count Eudes (or Odo), the valiant Count of Paris, who
had just defended his city with obstinate courage against the
Northmen, to be their king. The sovereignty of Eudes was not
acknowledged by the nation at large. His opponents found a
Carling to set up against him, in the person of the boy
Charles,—youngest son of Louis "the Stammerer," born after
his father's death,—who appears in history as Charles "the
Simple." Eudes, after some years of war, gave up to Charles a
small domain, between the Seine and the Meuse, acknowledged
his feudal superiority and agreed that the whole kingdom
should be surrendered to him on his (Eudes') death. In
accordance with this agreement, Charles the Simple became sole
king in 898, when Eudes died, and the country which
acknowledged his nominal sovereignty fell into a more
distracted state than ever. The Northmen established
themselves in permanent occupation of the country on the lower
Seine, and Charles, in 911, made a formal cession of it to
their duke, Rollo, thus creating the great duchy of Normandy.
In 922 the nobles grew once more disgusted with the feebleness
of their king and crowned Duke Robert, brother of the late king
Eudes, driving Charles into his stronghold of Laon. The
Normans came to Charles' help and his rival Robert was killed
in a battle.
{1159}
But Charles was defeated, was inveigled into the hands of one
of the rebel Lords.—Herbert of Venmandois—and kept a
prisoner until he died, in 929. One Rodolf of Burgundy had
been chosen king, meantime, and reigned until his death, in
936. Then legitimacy triumphed again, and a young son of
Charles the Simple, who had been reared in England, was sent
for and crowned. This king—Louis IV.—his son, Lothair, and
his grandson, Louis V., kept possession of the shaking throne
for half-a-century; but their actual kingdom was much of the
time reduced to little more than the royal city of Laon and
its immediate territories. When Louis died, in 987, leaving no
nearer heir than his uncle, Charles, Duke of Lorraine, there
was no longer any serious attempt to keep up the Carolingian
line. Hugh, Duke of France—whose grandfather Robert, and
whose grand-uncle Eudes had been crowned kings, before him,
and whose father, "Hugh the Great," had been the king-maker of
the period since—was now called to the throne and settled
himself firmly in the seat which a long line of his
descendants would hold. He was known as Hugh Capet to his
contemporaries, and it is thought that he got the name from
his wearing of the hood, cap, or cape of St. Martin—he being
the abbot of St. Martin at Tours, in addition to his other
high dignities.
_G. W. Kitchin,
History of France,
volume 1, book 2, part 2, chapter 5;
book 3, chapter 1._
ALSO IN:
_Sir F. Palgrave,
History of Normandy and England,
book 1, chapter 5 (volume l)._
_C. F. Keary,
The Vikings in Western Christendom,
chapters 11 and 13-15._
See, also, LAON.
FRANCE: A. D. 987.
Accession of Hugh Capet.
The kingdom of the early Capetians.
"On the accession of the third race [the Capetians], France,
properly so called, only comprised the territory between the
Somme and the Loire; it was bounded by the counties of
Flanders and Vermandois on the north; by Normandy and Brittany
on the west; by the Champagne on the east; by the duchy of
Aquitaine on the south. The territory within these bounds was
the duchy of France, the patrimonial possession of the Capets,
and constituted the royal domain. The great fiefs of the
crown, in addition to the duchy of France, were the duchy of
Normandy, the duchy of Burgundy, nearly the whole of Flanders,
formed into a county, the county of Champagne, the duchy of
Aquitaine, and the county of Toulouse. … The sovereigns of
these various states were the great vassals of the crown and
peers of France; Lorraine and a portion of Flanders were
dependent on the Germanic crown, while Brittany was a fief of
the duchy of Normandy. … The county of Barcelona beyond the
Alps was also one of the great fiefs of the crown of France."
_E. de Bonnechose,
History of France: second epoch,
book 1, chapter 2._
"With the exception of the Spanish March and of part of
Flanders, all these states have long been fully incorporated
with the French monarchy. But we must remember that, under the
earlier French Kings, the connexion of most of these provinces
with their nominal suzerain was even looser than the connexion
of the German princes after the Peace of Westphalia with the
Viennese Emperors. A great French Duke was as independent
within his own dominions as an Elector of Saxony or Bavaria,
and there were no common institutions, no Diet or assembly of
any kind, to bring him into contact either with his liege lord
or with his fellow-vassals. Aquitaine and Toulouse … seem
almost to have forgotten that there was any King of the French
at all, or at all events that they had anything to do with him.
They did not often even pay him the compliment of waging war
upon him, a mode of recognition of his existence which was
constantly indulged in by their brethren of Normandy and
Flanders."
_E. A. Freeman,
The Franks and the Gauls
(Historical Essays, 1st series, number 7)._
"When France was detached from the Empire in the ninth
century, of all three imperial regions she was the one which
seemed least likely to form a nation. There was no unity in
the country west of the Scheldt, the Meuse, and the Rhone.
Various principalities, duchies, or counties were here formed,
but each of them was divided into secular fiefs and
ecclesiastical territories. Over these fiefs and territories
the authority of the duke or the count, which was supposed to
represent that of the king, was exercised only in case these
seigneurs had sufficient power, derived from their own
personal estates. Destitute of domains and almost starving,
the king, in official documents, asked what means he might
find on which to live with some degree of decency. From time
to time, amid this chaos, he discussed the theory of his
authority. He was a lean and solemn phantom, straying about
among living men who were very rude and energetic. The phantom
kept constantly growing leaner, but royalty did not vanish.
People were accustomed to its existence, and the men of those
days could not conceive of a revolution. By the election of
Hugh Capet, in 987, royalty became a reality, because the
king, as Duke of Francia, had lands, money, and followers. It
would be out of place to seek a plan of conduct and a
methodical line of policy in the actions of the Capetians, for
they employed simultaneously every sort of expedient. During
more than three centuries they had male offspring; thus the
chief merit of the dynasty was that it endured. As always
happens, out of the practice developed a law; and this happy
accident produced a lawful hereditary succession, which was a
great element of strength. Moreover the king had a whole
arsenal of rights: old rights of Carolingian royalty,
preserving, the remembrance of imperial power, which the study
of the Roman law was soon to resuscitate, transforming these
apparitions into formidable realities; old rights conferred by
the coronation, which were impossible to define, and hence
incontestable; and rights of suzerainty, newer and more real,
which were definitely determined and codified as feudalism
developed and which, joined to the other rights mentioned
above, made the king proprietor of France. These are the
elements that Capetian royalty contributed to the play of
fortuitous circumstances."
_E. Lavisse,
General View of the Political History of Europe,
chapter 3._
See, also, TWELVE PEERS OF FRANCE.
{1160}
FRANCE: A. D. 987-1327.
The Feudal Period.
"The period in the history of France, of which we are about to
write, began with the consecration of Hugues Capet, at Reims,
the 3rd of July, 987, but it is a period which would but
improperly take its name from the Capetians; for throughout
this time royalty was, as it were, annihilated in France; the
social bond was broken, and the country which extends from the
Rhine to the Pyrenees, and from the English Channel to the
Gulf of Lyon, was governed by a confederation of princes
rarely under the influence of a common will, and united only
by the Feudal System. While France was confederated under
feudal administration, the legislative power was suspended.
Hugues Capet and his successors, until the accession of St.
Louis, had not the right of making laws; the nation had no
diet, no regularly constituted assemblies whose authority it
acknowledged. The Feudal System, tacitly adopted, and
developed by custom, was solely acknowledged by the numerous
sovereigns who divided the provinces among themselves. It
replaced the social bond, the monarch, and the legislator. …
The period … is therefore like a long interregnum, during
which the royal authority was suspended, although the name of
king was always preserved. He who bore this title in the midst
of a republic of princes was only distinguished from them by
some honorary prerogative, and he exercised over them scarcely
any authority. Until very near the end of the 11th century,
these princes were scarcely less numerous than the castles
which covered France. No authority was acknowledged at a
distance, and every fortress gave its lord rank among the
sovereigns. The conquest of England by the Normans broke the
equilibrium between the feudal lords; one of the confederate
princes, become a king in 1066, gradually extended, until
1179, his domination over more than half of France; and
although it was not he who bore the title of king of the
French, it may be imagined that in time the rest of the
country would also pass under his yoke. Philip the August and
his son, during the forty-six last years of the same period,
reconquered almost all the fiefs which the English kings had
united, brought the other great vassals back to obedience, and
changed the feudal confederation which had ruled France into a
monarchy, which incorporated the Feudal System in its
constitution."
_J. C. L. de Sismondi,
France Under the Feudal System
(translated by W. Bellingham), chapter 1._
"The feudal period, that is, the period when the feudal system
was the dominant fact of our country, … is comprehended
between Hugh Capet and Philippe de Valois, that is, it
embraces the 11th, 12th and 13th centuries. … At the end of
the 10th century, royalty and the commons were not visible, or
at all events scarcely visible. At the commencement of the
14th century, royalty was the head of the state, the commons
were the body of the nation. The two forces to which the
feudal system was to succumb had then attained, not, indeed,
their entire development, but a decided preponderance. …
With the 14th century, the character of war changed. Then
began the foreign wars; no longer a vassal against suzerain,
or vassal against vassal, but nation against nation,
government against government. On the accession of Philippe de
Valois, the great wars between the French and the English
broke out—the claims of the kings of England, not upon any
particular fief, but upon the whole land, and upon the throne
of France—and they continued up to Louis XI. They were no
longer feudal, but national wars; a certain proof that the
feudal period stopped at this limit, that another society had
already commenced."
_F. P. Guizot,
History of Civilization,
2d course, lecture 1._
FRANCE: A. D. 996.
Accession of King Robert II.
FRANCE: A. D. 1031.
Accession of King Henry I.
FRANCE: A. D. 1060.
Accession of King Philip I.
FRANCE: A. D. 1070-1125.
Enfranchisement of Communes.
"The establishment of the commune of Mans, towards the year
1070, was not a fact, isolated, and without respect to what
passed in the rest of France; it was, on the contrary, a
symptom of the great revolution which was working in the
opinions, the manners, and the condition of the mass of the
people; a symptom which, bearing a certain date, must serve to
establish the epoch of a crowd of analogous efforts made in
the other towns of France. History has not preserved the
memory of these different efforts, but it has shown us the
results. During the two following centuries, the cities ceased
not to obtain charters, to found or secure by legitimate
authority, the immunities and franchises which constituted the
communal rights. … All, or nearly all had, however, already
conquered liberty; they had experienced how advantageous it
was to be governed by themselves, and the high price which
they put upon the favor they solicited, bears witness to their
experience. The enfranchisement of the communes is almost
universally reported in the … reign … of Louis the Fat;
and the honor of this great revolution, which created the
third estate [tiers-état], and liberty in France, has been
given either to the generosity or the wise policy of that
prince. There is doubtless some truth in this opinion, since
we find in France no communal charter anterior to the reign of
Louis VI., and he is also the first king who was seen to ally
himself with the burgesses, to make war on the nobility.
However, the idea which is formed of this event, when one
attributes it to the act of the monarch's will, or the effect
of his system, is completely erroneous. The French people owed
whatever degree of liberty it enjoyed in the middle ages, to
its own valor; it acquired it as liberty must always be
acquired, at the sword's point; it profitted by the divisions,
the imprudence, the weakness, or the crimes of its lords, lay
or ecclesiastic, to seize it from and in spite of them. …
The origin of every commune was, as indicated by the different
names by which they are designated, a communion, a conjuration,
or confederation, of the inhabitants of a town who were
mutually engaged to defend each other. The first act of the
commune was the occupation of a tower in which was set up a
clock or belfry; and the first clause of the oath of all the
communers, was to repair in arms, when the bell sounded, at
the place assigned them, to defend each other. From this first
engagement resulted that of submitting to magistrates named by
the communers: it was the mayors, echevins, and juries, in
northern France, and consuls or syndics in southern France, to
whom the consent of all abandoned the sole right of directing
the common efforts. Thus the militia was first created; the
magistracy came afterwards. … The reign of Phillip I. had
been but a long anarchy. During those forty-eight years the
royal government had not existed, and no other had
efficaciously taken its place. At the same time, greatly
differing from the other feudal monarchies, all legislative
power was suspended in France. There were no diets like those
of the kingdoms of Germany and Italy, no parliament like that
of England, no cortes like those of Spain, no field of March
like that of the antient Frankish kings, no assemblages, in
fine, which bound by their acts the great vassals and their
subjects, and which could submit them to common laws.
{1161}
The French had not desired a participation in the sovereignty
which they could only acquire by sacrificing their
independence. Thus, two great vassals, or the subjects of two
great vassals, could scarcely believe themselves compatriots.
… The anarchy which was found in the great state of the
French monarchy, because all the relations between the king
and the count were relaxed, was found also in the petty state
of the county of Paris, or of the duchy of France; for the
lords and barons of the crown's domains no better obeyed or
respected more the prerogatives of their lord, than the great
vassals those of the suzerain. The anarchy was complete, the
disorder seemed carried to its height, and never had the
social bond in France been nearer to being broken: yet never
had France made so real a progress as during these forty-eight
years. Phillip, at his death, left his son quite another
people to that which he had received from his father: the most
active monarch would never have done so much for France as she
had without him done for herself during his sleep. The towns
were more numerous, more populous, more opulent, and more
industrious; property had acquired a security unknown in the
preceding centuries; justice was distributed between equals,
and by equals; and the liberty of the burgesses, conquered by
arms, was defended with energy."
_J. C. L. S. de Sismondi,
France under the Feudal System,
chapters 9 and 12._
"Liberty … was to have its beginning in the towns, in the
towns of the centre of France, which were to be called
privileged towns, or communes, and which would either receive
or extort their franchises. … All coveted a few franchises
or privileges, and offered to purchase them; for, needy and
wretched as they were, poor artisans, smiths and weavers,
suffered to cluster for shelter at the foot of a castle, or
fugitive serfs crowding round a church, they could manage to
find money; and men of this stamp were the founders of our
liberties. They willingly starved themselves to procure the
means of purchase; and king and barons rivalled each other in
selling charters which fetched so high a price. This
revolution took place all over the kingdom under a thousand
different forms, and with but little disturbance; so that it
has only attracted notice with regard to some towns of the
Oise and the Somme, which, placed in less favorable
circumstances, and belonging to two different lords, one a
layman, the other ecclesiastical, resorted to the king for a
solemn guarantee of concessions often violated, and maintained
a precarious liberty at the cost of several centuries of civil
war. To these towns the name of communes has been more
particularly applied; and the wars they had to wage form a
slight but dramatic incident in this great revolution, which
was operating silently and under different forms in all the
towns of the north of France. 'Twas in brave and choleric
Picardy, whose commons had so soundly beaten the Normans—in
the country of Calvin, and of so many other revolutionary
spirits—that these explosions took place. Noyon, Beauvais,
Laon, three ecclesiastical lordships, were the first communes;
to these may be added St. Quentin. Here the Church had laid
the foundations of a powerful democracy. … The king has been
said to be the founder of the communes; but the reverse is
rather the truth: it is the communes that established the
king. Without them, he could not have beaten off the Normans;
and these conquerors of England and the Two Sicilies would
probably have conquered France. It was the communes, or, to
use a more general and exact term, the bourgeoisies, which,
under the banner of the saint of the parish, enforced the
common peace between the Oise and the Loire; while the king,
on horseback, bore in front the banner of the abbey of St.
Denys."
_M. Michelet,
History of France,
book 4, chapter 4._
See, also, COMMUNES.
The following comments on the passages quoted above are made
by a good authority: "The general view taken of this subject
of the enfranchisement of the communes by historians who wrote
at the middle of the century is now being seriously modified.
The studies of Luchaire have shown, I think, that such
statements as Sismondi's, which attribute everything to the
people, are exaggerations. 'Liberty,' as it existed in the
communes, was only corporate or aristocratic privilege. As for
the national assemblages, there were great councils held, such
as those which existed under the Norman monarchs in England,
and they issued the 'assizes,' which was a common form of
legislation in the Middle Ages. It was not, of course,
legislation, in its modern sense. Michelet is quite too
flowery, poetical, democratic, to be safely followed."
FRANCE: A. D. 1096.
Departure of the First Crusaders.
See CRUSADES: A. D. 1096-1099.
FRANCE: A. D. 1100.
The extent of the kingdom.
"When Louis [VI.] was adopted by his father in 1100, the crown
had as its own domain only the county of Paris, Hurepoix, the
Gatinais, the Orléanis, half the county of Sens, the French
Vexin, and Bourges, together with some ill-defined rights over
the episcopal cities of Rheims, Beauvais, Laon, Noyon,
Soissons, Amiens. And even within these narrow limits the
royal power was but thinly spread over the surface. The barons
in their castles were in fact independent, and oppressed the
merchants and poor folk as they would. The king had also
acknowledged rights of suzerainty over Champagne, Burgundy,
Normandy, Brittany, Flanders, and Boulogne; but, in most
cases, the only obedience the feudal lords stooped to was that
of duly performing the act of homage to the king on first
succession to a fief. He also claimed suzerainty, which was
not conceded, over the South of France; over Provence and
Lorraine he did not even put forth a claim of lordship."
_G. W. Kitchin,
History of France,
volume 1, book 3, chapter 5._
FRANCE: A. D. 1101.
Disastrous Crusade of French princes and knights.
See CRUSADES: A. D. 1101-1102.
FRANCE: A. D. 1106-1119.
War with Henry I. of England and Normandy.
See ENGLAND: A. D. 1087-1135.
{1162}
FRANCE: A. D. 1108-1180.
The reigns of Louis VI., Louis VII. and
accession of Philip II.
Gain and loss of Aquitaine.
"Louis VI., or 'the Fat' was the first able man whom the line
of Hugh Capet had produced since it mounted the throne. He
made the first attempt at curbing the nobles, assisted by
Suger, the Abbot of St. Denys. The only possibility of doing
this was to obtain the aid of one party of nobles against
another; and when any unusually flagrant offence had been
committed, Louis called together the nobles, bishops, and
abbots of his domain, and obtained their consent and
assistance in making war on the guilty man, and overthrowing
his castle, thus, in some degree, lessening the sense of utter
impunity which had caused so many violences and such savage
recklessness. He also permitted a few of the cities to
purchase the right of self-government. … The royal authority
had begun to be respected by 1137, when Louis VI. died, having
just effected the marriage of his son, Louis VII., with
Eleanor, the heiress of the Dukes of Aquitaine—thus hoping to
make the crown really more powerful than the great princes who
owed it homage. At this time lived the great St. Bernard,
Abbot of Clairvaux, who had a wonderful influence over men's
minds. … Bernard roused the young king Louis VII., to go on
the second crusade [see CRUSADES: A. D. 1147-1149], which was
undertaken by the Emperor and the other princes of Europe to
relieve the distress of the kingdom of Palestine. … Though
Louis did reach Palestine, it was with weakened forces; he
could effect nothing by his campaign, and Eleanor, who had
accompanied him, seems to have been entirely corrupted by the
evil habits of the Franks settled in the East. Soon after his
return, Louis dissolved his marriage; and Eleanor became the
wife of Henry, Count of Anjou, who soon after inherited the
kingdom of England as our Henry II., as well as the duchy of
Normandy, and betrothed his third son to the heiress of
Brittany [see AQUITAINE: A. D. 1137-1152]. Eleanor's marriage
seemed to undo all that Louis VI. had done in raising the
royal power; for Henry completely overshadowed Louis, whose
only resource was in feeble endeavours to take part against
him in his many family quarrels. The whole reign of Louis the
Young, the title that adhered to him on account of his simple,
childish nature, is only a record of weakness and disaster,
till he died in 1180. … Powerful in fact as Henry II. was,
it was his gathering so large a part of France under his rule
which was, in the end, to build up the greatness of the French
kings. What had held them in check was the existence of the
great fiefs or provinces, each with its own line of dukes or
counts, and all practically independent of the king. But now
nearly all the provinces of southern and western France were
gathered into the hand of a single ruler; and though he was a
Frenchman in blood, yet, as he was King of England, this ruler
seemed to his French subjects no Frenchman, but a foreigner.
They began therefore to look to the French king to free them
from a foreign ruler; and the son of Louis VII., called Philip
Augustus, was ready to take advantage of their disposition."
_C. M. Yonge,
History of France
(History Primers), chapter 1, sections 6-7._
FRANCE: A. D. 1180-1224.
The kingdom extended by Philip Augustus.
Normandy, Maine and Anjou recovered from the English kings.
"Louis VII. ascended the throne [A. D. 1137] with better
prospects than his father. He had married Eleanor, heiress of
the great duchy of Guienne [or Aquitaine]. But this union,
which promised an immense accession of strength to the crown,
was rendered unhappy by the levities of that princess.
Repudiated by Louis, who felt rather as a husband than a king,
Eleanor immediately married Henry II. of England, who, already
inheriting Normandy from his mother and Anjou from Ins father,
became possessed of more than one-half of France, and an
over-match for Louis, even if the great vassals of the crown
had been always ready to maintain its supremacy. One might
venture perhaps to conjecture that the sceptre of France would
eventually have passed from the Capets to the Plantagenets, if
the vexatious quarrel with Becket at one time, and the
successive rebellions fomented by Louis at a later period, had
not embarrassed the great talents and ambitious spirit of
Henry. But the scene quite changed when Philip Augustus, son
of Louis VII., came upon the stage [A. D. 1180]. No prince
comparable to him in systematic ambition and military
enterprise had reigned in France since Charlemagne. From his
reign the French monarchy dates the recovery of its lustre. He
wrested from the count of Flanders the Vermandois (that part
of Picardy which borders on the Isle of France and Champagne),
and, subsequently, the County of Artois. But the most
important conquests of Philip were obtained against the kings
of England. Even Richard I., with all his prowess, lost ground
in struggling against an adversary not less active, and more
politic, than himself: But when John not only took possession
of his brother's dominions, but confirmed his usurpation by
the murder, as was very probably surmised, of the heir,
Philip, artfully taking advantage of the general indignation,
summoned him as his vassal to the court of his peers. John
demanded a safe-conduct. Willingly, said Philip; let him come
unmolested. And return? inquired the English envoy. If the
judgment of his peers permit him, replied the king. By all the
saints of France, he exclaimed, when further pressed, he shall
not return unless acquitted. The bishop of Ely still
remonstrated that the duke of Normandy could not come without
the king of England; nor would the barons of that country
permit their sovereign to run the risk of death or
imprisonment. What of that, my lord bishop? cried Philip. It
is well known that my vassal the duke of Normandy acquired
England by force. But if a subject obtains any accession of
dignity, shall his paramount lord therefore lose his rights?
… John, not appearing at his summons, was declared guilty of
felony, and his fiefs confiscated. The execution of this
sentence was not intrusted to a dilatory arm. Philip poured
his troops into Normandy, and took town after town, while the
king of England, infatuated by his own wickedness and
cowardice, made hardly an attempt at defence. In two years
[A. D. 1203-1204] Normandy, Maine, and Anjou were
irrecoverably lost. Poitou and Guienne resisted longer; but
the conquest of the first was completed [A. D. 1224] by Louis
VIII., successor of Philip."
_H. Hallam,
The Middle Ages,
chapter 1, part 1._
ALSO IN:
_K. Norgate,
England under the Angevin Kings,
volume 2, chapter 9._
See, also,
ENGLAND: A. D. 1205;
and ANJOU: A. D. 1206-1442.
FRANCE: A. D. 1188-1190.
Crusade of Philip Augustus.
See CRUSADES: A. D. 1188-1192.
FRANCE: A. D. 1201-1203.
The Fifth Crusade, and its diversion against Constantinople.
See CRUSADES: A. D. 1201-1203.
A. D. 1209-1229.
The Albigensian wars and their effects.
See ALBIGENSES.
FRANCE: A. D. 1212.
The Children's Crusade.
See CRUSADES: A. D. 1212.
FRANCE: A. D. 1214.
Nationalizing effects of the Battle of Bouvines.
See BOUVINES.
FRANCE: A. D. 1223.
Accession of King Louis VIII.
{1163}
FRANCE: A. D. 1226-1270.
Reign and character of Louis IX. (Saint Louis).
His great civilizing work and influence.
"Of the forty-four years of St. Louis' reign, nearly fifteen,
with a long interval of separation, pertained to the
government of Queen Blanche of Castille, rather than that of
the king her son. Louis, at his accession in 1226, was only
eleven; and he remained a minor up to the age of twenty-one,
in 1236, for the time of majority in the case of royalty was
not yet specially and rigorously fixed. During those ten years
Queen Blanche governed France; not at all, as is commonly
asserted, with the official title of regent, but simply as
guardian of the king her son. With a good sense really
admirable in a person so proud and ambitious, she saw that
official power was ill suited to her woman's condition, and
would weaken rather than strengthen her; and she screened
herself from view behind her son. He it was who, in [1236],
wrote to the great vassals bidding them to his consecration;
he it was who reigned and commanded; and his name alone
appeared on royal decrees and on treaties. It was not until
twenty-two years had passed, in 1248, that Louis, on starting
for the crusade, officially delegated to his mother the kingly
authority, and that Blanche, during her son's absence, really
governed with the title of regent. … During the first period
of his government, and so long as her son's minority lasted,
Queen Blanche had to grapple with intrigues, plots,
insurrections, and open war; and, what was still worse for
her, with the insults and calumnies of the crown's great
vassals, burning to seize once more, under a woman's
government, the independence and power which had been
effectually disputed with them by Philip Augustus. Blanche
resisted their attempts, at one time with open and persevering
energy, at another dexterously with all the tact, address, and
allurements of a woman. Though she was now forty years of age
she was beautiful, elegant, attractive, full of resources and
of grace. … The malcontents spread the most odious scandals
about her. … Neither in the events nor in the writings of
the period is it easy to find anything which can authorize the
accusations made by the foes of Queen Blanche. … She
continued her resistance to the pretensions and machinations
of the crown's great vassals, whether foes or lovers, and she
carried forward, in the face and in the teeth of all, the
extension of the domains and the power of the kingship. We
observe in her no prompting of enthusiasm, of sympathetic
charitableness, or of religious scrupulousness; that is, none
of those grand moral impulses which are characteristic of
Christian piety and which were predominant in St. Louis.
Blanche was essentially politic and concerned with her
temporal interests and successes; and it was not from her
teaching or her example that her son imbibed those sublime and
disinterested feelings which stamped him the most original and
the rarest on the roll of glorious kings. What St. Louis really
owed to his mother, and it was a great deal, was the steady
triumph which, whether by arms or by negotiation, Blanche
gained over the great vassals, and the preponderance which,
amidst the struggles of the feudal system, she secured for the
kingship of her son in his minority. … When Louis reached
his majority, his entrance upon personal exercise of the
kingly power produced no change in the conduct of public
affairs. … The kingship of the son was a continuance of the
mother's government. Louis persisted in struggling for the
preponderance of the crown against the great vassals;
succeeded in taming Peter Mauclerc, the turbulent count of
Brittany; wrung from Theobald IV., count of Champagne, the
rights of suzerainty in the countships of Chartres, Blois, and
Sancerre, and the viscountship of Châteaudun; and purchased
the fertile countship of Mâcon from its possessor. It was
almost always by pacific procedure, by negotiations ably
conducted, and conventions faithfully executed, that he
accomplished these increments of the kingly domain; and when
he made war on any of the great vassals, he engaged therein
only on their provocation, to maintain the rights or honour of
his crown, and he used victory with as much moderation as he
had shown before entering upon the struggle. … When war was
not either a necessity or a duty, this brave and brilliant
knight, from sheer equity and goodness of heart, loved peace
rather than war. The successes he had gained in his campaign
of 1242 [against the count of La Marche and Henry III., of
England, whose mother had become the wife of La Marche] were
not for him the first step in an endless career of glory and
conquest; he was anxious only to consolidate them whilst
securing, in Western Europe, for the dominions of his
adversaries as well as for his own, the benefits of peace. He
entered into negotiations, successively, with the count of la
Marche, the king of England, the count of Toulouse, the king
of Aragon, and the various princes and great feudal lords who
had been more or less engaged in the war; and in January,
1243, says the latest and most enlightened of his biographers
[M. Felix Faure], 'the treaty of Lorris marked the end of
feudal troubles for the whole duration of St. Louis' reign. He
drew his sword no more, save only against the enemies of the
Christian faith and Christian civilization, the Mussulmans.'"
_G. Masson,
Saint Louis and the Thirteenth Century,
pages 44-56._
"St. Louis … by this war of 1242 finished those contests for
the crown with its vassals which had been going on since the
time of his ancestor, Louis the Fat. But it was not by warfare
that he was to aid in breaking down the strongholds of
feudalism. The vassals might have been beaten time and again,
and yet the spirit of feudalism, still surviving, would have
raised up new champions to contend against the crown. St.
Louis struck at the spirit of the Middle Age, and therein
insured the downfall of its forms and whole embodiment. He
fought the last battles against feudalism, because, by a surer
means than battling, he took, and unconsciously, the
life-blood from the opposition to the royal authority.
Unconsciously, we say; he did not look on the old order of
things as evil, and try to introduce a better; he did not
selfishly contend for the extension of his own power; he was
neither a great reformer, nor a (so-called) wise king. He
undermined feudalism, because he hated injustice; he warred
with the Middle Age, because he could not tolerate its
disregard of human rights; and he paved the way for
Philip-le-bel's struggle with the papacy, because he looked
upon religion and the church as instruments for man's
salvation, not as tools for worldly aggrandizement.
{1164}
He is, perhaps, the only monarch on record who failed in most
of what he undertook of active enterprise, who was under the
control of the prejudices of his age, who was a true
conservative, who never dreamed of effecting great social
changes,—and who yet, by his mere virtues, his sense of duty,
his power of conscience, made the mightiest and most vital
reforms. One of these reforms was the abolition of the trial
by combat. … It is not our purpose to follow Louis either in
his first or second crusade. If the great work of his life was
not to be done by fighting at home, still less was it to be
accomplished by battles in Egypt or Tunis. His mission was
other and greater than he dreamed of, and his service to
Christendom was wholly unlike that which he proposed to
himself. … In November, 1244, he took the cross; but it was
June of 1248 before he was able to leave Paris to embark upon
his cherished undertaking. …
See CRUSADES: A. D. 1248-1254.
On the fifth of June, 1249, he landed in Egypt, which was
to be conquered before Palestine could be safely attacked. On
the seventh of June, Damietta was entered, and there the
French slept and feasted, wasting time, strength, and money,
until the twentieth of the following November. Then came the
march southward; the encampment upon the Nile; the terrors of
the Greek fire; the skirmishes which covered the plain with
dead; the air heavy with putridity and pestilence; the putrid
water; the fish fat with the flesh of the dead; sickness,
weakness, retreat, defeat, captivity. On the sixth of April,
1250, Louis and his followers were prisoners to the
Mussulmans; Louis might have saved himself, but would not quit
his followers; he had been faithful thus far, and would be
till death. … On the eighth of May, 1250, Louis was a
freeman, and it was not until the twenty-fifth of April, 1254,
that he set sail to return to his native shores, where
Blanche, who had been regent during his absence, had some
months since yielded up her breath. On the seventh of
September, he entered Paris, sad and worn. … And scarce had
he landed, before he began that course of legislation which
continued until once more he embarked upon the crusade. … In
his first legislative action, Louis proposed to himself these
objects,—to put an end to judicial partiality, to prevent
needless and oppressive imprisonment for debt, to stop
unfounded criminal prosecutions, and to mitigate the horrors
of legalized torture. In connection with these general topics,
he made laws to bear oppressively upon the Jews, to punish
prostitution and gambling, and to diminish intemperance. And
it is worthy of remark, that this last point was to be
attained by forbidding innkeepers to sell to any others than
travellers,—a measure now (six hundred years later) under
discussion in some parts of our Union, with a view to the same
end. But the wish which this rare monarch had to recompense
all who had been wronged by himself and forefathers was the
uppermost wish of his soul. He felt that to do justice himself
was the surest way to make others willing to do it. Commissioners
were sent into every province of the kingdom to examine each
alleged case of royal injustice, and with power in most
instances to make instant restitution. He himself went forth
to hear and judge in the neighborhood of his capital, and as
far north as Normandy. … As he grew yet older, the spirit of
generosity grew stronger daily in his bosom. He would have no
hand in the affairs of Europe, save to act, wherever he could,
as peacemaker. Many occasions occurred where all urged him to
profit by power and a show of right, a naked legal title, to
possess himself of valuable fiefs; but Louis shook his head
sorrowfully and sternly, and did as his inmost soul told him
the law of God directed. … There had been for some reigns
back a growing disposition to refer certain questions to the
king's tribunals, as being regal, not baronial, questions.
Louis the Ninth gave to this disposition distinct form and
value, and, under the influence of the baron-hating legists,
he so ordained, in conformity with the Roman law, that, under
given circumstances, almost any case might be referred to his
tribunal. This, of course, gave to the king's judgment-seat
and to him more of influence than any other step ever taken
had done. It was, in substance, an appeal of the people from
the nobles to the king, and it threw at once the balance of
power into the royal hands. … It became necessary to make
the occasional sitting of the king's council or parliament,
which exercised certain judicial functions, permanent; and to
change its composition, by diminishing the feudal and
increasing the legal or legist element. Thus everywhere, in
the barons' courts, the king's court, and the central
parliament, the Roman, legal, organized element began to
predominate over the German, feudal, barbaric tendencies, and
the foundation-stones of modern society were laid. But the
just soul of Louis and the prejudices of his Romanized
counsellors were not arrayed against the old Teutonic
barbarism alone, with its endless private wars and judicial
duels; they stood equally opposed to the extravagant claims of
the Roman hierarchy. … The first calm, deliberate,
consistent opposition to the centralizing power of the great
see was that offered by its truest friend and most honest
ally, Louis of France. From 1260 to 1268, step by step was
taken by the defender of the liberties of the Gallican church,
until, in the year last named, he published his 'Pragmatic
Sanction' [see below], his response, by advice of his wise
men, to the voice of the nation, the Magna Charta of the
freedom of the church of France, upon whose vague articles,
the champions of that freedom could write commentaries, and
found claims, innumerable. … But the legislation of Louis
did not stop with antagonism to the feudal system and to the
unauthorized claims of the church; it provided for another
great grievance of the Middle Age, that lying and unequal
system of coinage which was a poison to honest industry and
commercial intercourse. … And now the great work of Louis
was completed; the barons were conquered, the people
protected, quiet prevailed through the kingdom, the national
church was secured in her liberties. The invalid of Egypt, the
sojourner of Syria, had realized his dreams and purposes of
good to his own subjects, and once again the early vision of
his manhood, the recovery of Palestine, haunted his slumbering
and his waking hours. … On the sixteenth of March, 1270, he
left Paris for the seashore; on the first of July, he sailed
from France. The sad, sad story of this his last earthly doing
need not be here repeated."
See CRUSADES: A. D. 1270-1271.
_Saint Louis of France
(North American Review, April, 1846)._
On the part performed by Louis IX. in the founding of
absolutism in France,
See PARLIAMENT OF PARIS.
{1165}
FRANCE: A. D. 1252.
The Crusading movement of the Pastors.
See CRUSADES: A. D. 1252.
FRANCE: A. D. 1266.
Acquisition of the kingdom of Naples or the Two Sicilies by
Charles of Anjou, the king's brother.
See ITALY (SOUTHERN): A. D. 1250-1268.
FRANCE: A. D. 1268.
The Pragmatic Sanction of St. Louis.
Assertion of the rights of the Gallican Church.
"The continual usurpations of the popes produced the
celebrated Pragmatic Sanction of St. Louis [about A. D.
1268]. This edict, the authority of which, though probably
without cause, has been sometimes disputed, contains three
important provisions; namely, that all prelates and other
patrons shall enjoy their full rights as to the collation of
benefices, according to the canons; that churches shall
possess freely their rights of election; and that no tax or
pecuniary exaction shall be levied by the pope, without
consent of the king and of the national church. We do not
find, however, that the French government acted up to the
spirit of this ordinance."
_H. Hallam,
The Middle Ages,
chapter 7, part 2._
"This Edict appeared either during the last year of Clement
IV., … or during the vacancy in the Pontificate. … It
became the barrier against which the encroachments of the
ecclesiastical power were destined to break; nor was it swept
away till a stronger barrier had arisen in the unlimited power
of the French crown." It "became a great Charter of
Independence to the Gallican Church."
_H. H. Milman,
History of Latin Christianity,
book 11, chapter 4 (volume 5)._
FRANCE: A. D. 1270-1285.
The sons of St. Louis.
Origin of the Houses of Valois and Bourbon.
St. Louis left several sons, the elder of whom succeeded him
as Philippe III., and his youngest son was Robert, Count of
Clermont and Lord of Bourbon, the ancestor of all the branches
of the House of Bourbon. Philippe III. died in 1285, when he
was succeeded by his son, Philippe IV. A younger son, Charles,
Count of Valois, was the ancestor of the Valois branch of the
royal family.
FRANCE: A. D. 1285-1314.
Reign of Philip IV.
His conflict with the Pope and his destruction of the
Templars.
Philippe IV., called "le Bel" (the Handsome), came to the
throne on the death of his father, Philippe "le Hardi," in
1285. He was presently involved in war with Edward I. of
England, who crossed to Flanders in 1297, intending to invade
France, but was recalled by the revolt in Scotland, under
Wallace, and peace was made in 1303. The Flemings, who had
provoked Philippe by their alliance with the English, were
thus left to suffer his resentment. They bore themselves
valiantly in a war which lasted several years, and inflicted
upon the knights of France a fearful defeat at Courtrai, in
1302. In the end, the French king substantially failed in his
designs upon Flanders.
See FLANDERS: A. D. 1299-1304.
"It is probable that this long struggle would have been still
protracted, but for a general quarrel which had sprung up some
time before its close, between the French king and Pope
Boniface VIII., concerning the [taxation of the clergy and
the] right of nomination to vacant bishoprics within the
dominions of Philippe. The latter, on seeing Bernard Saissetti
thrust into the Bishopric of Pamiers by the pontiff's sole
authority, caused the Bishop to be arrested by night, and,
after subjecting him to various indignities, consigned him to
prison on a charge of treason, heresy, and blasphemy. Boniface
remonstrated against this outrage and violence in a bull known
in history, by its opening words 'Ausculta, fili,' in which he
asserted his power 'over nations and kingdoms, to root out and
to pull down, to destroy and to throw down, to build and to
plant,' and concluded by informing Philippe that he had
summoned all the superior clergy of France to an assembly at
Rome on the 1st of the following November, in order to
deliberate on the remedies for such abuses as those of which
the king had been guilty. Philippe, by no means intimidated by
this measure, convoked a full and early assembly of the three
estates of his kingdom, to decide upon the conduct of him whom
the orthodox, up to that time, had been in the habit of deeming
infallible. This (10th April 1302) was the first meeting of a
Parliament, properly so called, in France. … The chambers
unanimously approved and applauded the conduct of the king,
and resolved to maintain the honour of the crown and the
nation from foreign insult or domination; and to mark their
decision more conclusively, they concurred with the sovereign
in prohibiting the clergy from attending the Pope's summons to
Rome. The papal bull was burned as publicly as possible. …
The Pope, alarmed at these novel and bold proceedings, sought
instantly to avert their consequences by soothing
explanations; but Philippe would not now be turned aside from
his course. He summoned a convocation of the Gallican
prelates, in which by the mouth of William de Nogaret, his
chancellor, he represented the occupier of St. Peter's chair
as the father of lies and an evil-doer; and he demanded the
seizure of this pseudo-pope, and his imprisonment until he
could be brought before a legitimate tribunal to receive the
punishment due to his numerous crimes. Boniface now declared
that the French king was excommunicated, and cited him by his
confessor to appear in the papal court at Rome within three
months, to make submission and atonement for his contumacy.
… While this unseemly quarrel … seemed to be growing
interminable in its complexities, the daring of a few men
opened a shorter path to its end than could have been
anticipated. William of Nogaret associating to him Sciarra
Colonna, a noble Roman, who, having been driven from his
native city by Boniface and subjected to various hardships,
had found refuge in Paris, passed, with a train of three
hundred horsemen, and a much larger body of picked infantry,
secretly into Italy, with the intention of surprising the Pope
at his summer residence in his native town of Anagni. … The
papal palace was captured after a feeble resistance, and the
cardinals and personal attendants of the Pontiff fled for
their lives. … The Condottieri … dragged the Pope from his
throne, and conveying him into the street, mounted him upon a
lean horse without saddle or bridle, with his head to the
animal's tail, and thus conducted him in a sort of pilgrimage
through the town. He was then consigned prisoner to one of the
chambers of his palace and placed under guard; while the body
of his captors dispersed themselves through the splendid
apartments in eager pursuit of plunder. Three days were thus
occupied; but at the end of that time the … people of Anagni
… took arms in behalf of their fellow-townsman and spiritual
father, and falling upon the French while still indulging in
the licence of the sack, drove Nogaret and Colonna from their
quarters, and either expelled or massacred the whole of their
followers."
{1166}
The Pope returned to Rome in so great a rage that his reason
gave way, and soon afterwards he was found dead in his bed.
"The scandal of these proceedings throughout Christendom was
immense; and Philippe adopted every precaution to avert evil
consequences from himself by paying court to Benedict XI. who
succeeded to the tiara. This Pope, however, though he for some
time temporised, could not be long deaf to the loud voices of
the clergy which called for punishment upon the oppressors of
the church. Ere he had reigned nine months he found himself
compelled to excommunicate the plunderers of Anagni; and a few
days afterwards he perished, under circumstances which leave
little doubt of his having been poisoned. … The king of
France profitted largely by the crime; since, besides gaining
time for the subsidence of excitement, he was subsequently
enabled, by his intrigues, to procure the election of a person
pledged not only to grant him absolution for all past
offences, but to stigmatise the memory of Boniface, to restore
the deposed Colonna to his honours and estates, to nominate
several French ecclesiastics to the college of cardinals, and
to grant to the king the tenths of the Gallican church for a
term of five years. The pontiff who thus seems to have been
the first of his race to lower the pretensions of his office,
was Bertrand de Goth, originally a private gentleman of
Bazadors, and subsequently promoted to the Archiepiscopal See
of Bordeaux. He assumed the title of Clement V., and after
receiving investiture at Lyons, fixed the apostolic residence
at Avignon, where it continued, under successive occupants,
for a period, the length of which caused it to be denominated
by the Italians the Babylonian captivity. This quarrel
settled, Philippe engaged in another undertaking, the
safe-conduct of which required all his skill and
unscrupulousness. This important enterprise was no less than
the destruction and plunder of the military order of Knights
Templars. … Public discontent … had, by a variety of
circumstances, been excited throughout the realm. Among the
number of exactions, the coin had been debased to meet the
exigencies of the state, and this obstructing the operations
of commerce, and inflicting wrongs to a greater or less extent
upon all classes, everyone loudly complained of injustice,
robbery and oppression, and in the end several tumults
occurred, in which the residence of the king himself was
attacked, and the whole population were with difficulty
restrained from insurrection. In Burgundy, Champagne, Artois
and Forez, indeed, the nobles, and burgess class having for
the first time made common cause of their grievances, spoke
openly of revolt against the royal authority, unless the
administration should be reformed, and equity be substituted
in the king's courts for the frauds, extortions and
malversations, which prevailed. The sudden death of
Philippe—owing to a fall from his horse while hunting the
wild boar in the forest of Fontainebleau—on the 29th of
November, 1314, delivered the people from their tyrant, and
the crown from the consequences of a general rebellion. Pope
Clement, the king's firm friend, had gone to his last account
on the 20th of the preceding April. Louis X., le Hutin (the
Quarrelsome), ascended the throne at the mature age of
twenty-five."
_G. M. Bussey and T. Gaspey,
Pictorial History of France,
volume 1, chapter 4._
See, also, PAPACY: A.D. 1294-1348,
and TEMPLARS: A.D. 1307-1314.
FRANCE: A. D. 1314-1328.
Louis X., Philip V., Charles IV.
Feudal reaction.
Philip-le-Bel died in 1314. "With the accession of his son,
Louis X., so well surnamed Hutin (disorder, tumult), comes a
violent reaction of the feudal, local, provincial spirit,
which seeks to dash in pieces the still feeble fabric of
unity, demands dismemberment, and claims chaos. The Duke of
Brittany arrogates the right of judgment without appeal; so
does the exchequer of Rouen. Amiens will not have the king's
sergeants subpœna before the barons, or his provosts remove
any prisoner from the town's jurisdiction. Burgundy and Nevers
require the king to respect the privileges of feudal justice.
… The common demand of the barons is that the king shall
renounce all intermeddling with their men. … The young
monarch grants and signs all; there are only three points to
which he demurs, and which he seeks to defer. The Burgundian
barons contest with him the jurisdiction over the rivers,
roads, and consecrated places. The nobles of Champagne doubt
the king's right to lead them to war out of their own
province. Those of Amiens, with true Picard impetuosity,
require without any circumlocution, that all gentlemen may war
upon each other, and not enter into securities, but ride, go,
come, and be armed for war, and pay forfeit to one another.
… The king's reply to these absurd and insolent demands is
merely: 'We will order examination of the registers of my lord
St. Louis, and give to the said nobles two trustworthy
persons, to be nominated by our council, to verify and inquire
diligently into the truth of the said article.' The reply was
adroit enough. The general cry was for a return to the good
customs of St. Louis: it being forgotten that St. Louis had
done his utmost to put a stop to private wars. But by thus
invoking the name of St. Louis, they meant to express their
wish for the old feudal independence—for the opposite of the
quasi-legal, the venal, and pettifogging government of
Philippe-le-Bel. The barons set about destroying, bit by bit,
all the changes introduced by the late king. But they could
not believe him dead so long as there survived his Alter Ego,
his mayor of the palace, Enguerrand de Marigny, who, in the
latter years of his reign, had been coadjutor and rector of
the kingdom, and who had allowed his statue to be raised in
the palace by the side of the king's. His real name was Le
Portier; but along with the estates he bought the name of
Marigny. … It was in the Temple, in the very spot where
Marigny had installed his master for the spoliation of the
Templars, that the young king Louis repaired to hear the
solemn accusation brought against him. His accuser was
Philippe-le-Bel's brother, the violent Charles of Valois, a
busy man, of mediocre abilities, who put himself at the head
of the barons. … To effect his destruction, Charles of
Valois had recourse to the grand accusation of the day, which
none could surmount.
{1167}
It was discovered, or presumed, that Marigny's wife or sister,
in order to effect his acquittal, or bewitch the king, had
caused one Jacques de Lor to make certain small figures: 'The
said Jacques, thrown into prison, hangs himself in despair,
and then his wife, and Enguerrand's sisters are thrown into
prison, and Enguerrand himself, condemned before the knights
… is hung at Paris on the thieves' gibbet.' … Marigny's
best vengeance was that the crown, so strong in his care, sank
after him into the most deplorable weakness. Louis-le-Hutin,
needing money for the Flemish war, treated as equal with
equal, with the city of Paris. The nobles of Champagne and
Picardy hastened to take advantage of the right of private war
which they had just reacquired, and made war on the countess of
Artois, without troubling themselves about the judgment
rendered by the king, who had awarded this fief to her. All
the barons had resumed the privilege of coining; Charles of
Valois, the king's uncle, setting them the example. But
instead of coining for their own domains only, conformably to
the ordinances of Philippe-le-Hardi and Philippe-le-Bel, they
minted coin by wholesale, and gave it currency throughout the
kingdom. On this, the king had perforce to arouse himself, and
return to the administration of Marigny and of
Philippe-le-Bel. He denounced the coinage of the barons,
(November the 19th, 1315;) ordained that it should pass
current on their own lands only; and fixed the value of the
royal coin relatively to thirteen different coinages, which
thirty-one bishops or barons had the right of minting on their
own territories. In St. Louis's time, eighty nobles had enjoyed
this right. The young feudal king, humanized by the want of
money, did not disdain to treat with serfs and with Jews. …
It is curious to see the son of Philippe-le-Bel admitting
serfs to liberty [see SLAVERY, MEDIÆVAL: FRANCE]; but it is
trouble lost. The merchant vainly swells his voice and
enlarges on the worth of his merchandise; the poor serfs will
have none of it. Had they buried in the ground some bad piece
of money, they took care not to dig it up to buy a bit of
parchment. In vain does the king wax wroth at seeing them dull
to the value of the boon offered. At last, he directs the
commissioners deputed to superintend the enfranchisement, to
value the property of such serfs as preferred 'remaining in
the sorriness (chétiveté) of slavery,' and to tax them 'as
sufficiently and to such extent as the condition and wealth of
the individuals may conveniently allow, and as the necessity of
our war requires.' But with all this it is a grand spectacle
to see proclamation made from the throne itself of the
imprescriptible right of every man to liberty. The serfs do
not buy this right, but they will remember both the royal
lesson, and the dangerous appeal to which it instigates
against the barons. The short and obscure reign of
Philippe-le-Long [Philip V., 1316-1322] is scarcely less
important as regards the public law of France, than even that
of Philippe-le-Bel. In the first place, his accession to the
throne decides a great question. As Louis Hutin left his queen
pregnant, his brother Philippe is regent and guardian of the
future infant. This child dies soon after its birth, and
Philippe proclaims himself king to the prejudice of a daughter
of his brother's; a step which was the more surprising from
the fact that Philippe-le-Bel had maintained the right of
female succession in regard to Franche-Comté and Artois. The
barons were desirous that daughters should be excluded from
inheriting fiefs, but that they should succeed to the throne
of France; and their chief, Charles of Valois, favored his
grand-niece against his nephew Philippe. Philippe assembled
the States, and gained his cause, which, at bottom, was good,
by absurd reasons. He alleged in his favor the old German law
of the Franks, which excluded daughters from the Salic land;
and maintained that the crown of France was too noble a fief
to fall into hands used to the distaff ('pour tomber en
quenouille')—a feudal argument, the effect of which was to
ruin feudality. … By thus rejecting the right of the
daughters at the very moment it was gradually triumphing over
the fiefs, the crown acquired its character of receiving
always without ever giving; and a bold revocation, at this
time, of an donations made since St. Louis's day, seems to
contain the principle of the inalienableness of the royal
domain. Unfortunately, the feudal spirit which resumed
strength under the Valois in favor of private wars, led to
fatal creations of appanages, and founded, to the advantage of
the different branches of the royal family, a princely
feudality as embarrassing to Charles VI. and Louis XI., as the
other had been to Philippe-le-Bel. This contested succession
and disaffection of the barons force Philippe-le-Long into the
paths of Philippe-le-Bel. He flatters the cities, Paris, and,
above all, the University,—the grand power of Paris. He
causes his barons to take the oath of fidelity to him, in
presence of the masters of the university, and with their
approval. He wishes his good cities to be provided with
armories; their citizens to keep their arms in a sure place;
and appoints them a captain in each bailiwick or district,
(March the 12th, 1316). … Praiseworthy beginnings of order
and of government brought no relief to the sufferings of the
people. During the reign of Louis Hutin, a horrible mortality
had swept off, it was said, the third of the population of the
North. The Flemish war had exhausted the last resources of the
country. … Men's imaginations becoming excited, a great
movement took place among the people. As in the days of St.
Louis, a multitude of poor people, of peasants, of shepherds
or pastoureaux, as they were called, flock together and say
that they seek to go beyond the sea, that they are destined to
recover the Holy Land. … They wended their way towards the
South, everywhere massacring the Jews; whom the king's
officers vainly tried to protect. At last, troops were got
together at Toulouse, who fell upon the Pastoureaux, and
hanging them up by twenties and thirties the rest dispersed.
… Philippe-le-Long … was seized with fever in the course
of the same year, (A. D. 1321,) in the month of August,
without his physicians being able to guess its cause. He
languished five months, and died. … His brother Charles
[Charles IV., 1322-1328] succeeded him, without bestowing a
thought more on the rights of Philippe's daughter; than
Philippe had done to those of Louis's daughter. The period of
Charles's reign is as barren of facts with regard to France,
as it is rich in them respecting Germany, England, and
Flanders. The Flemings imprison their count. The Germans are
divided between Frederick of Austria and Lewis of Bavaria, who
takes his rival prisoner at Muhldorf. In the midst of the
universal divisions, France seems strong from the circumstance
of its being one. Charles-le-Bel interferes in favor of the
count of Flanders.
{1168}
He attempts, with the pope's aid, to make himself emperor; and
his sister, Isabella, makes herself actual queen of England by
the murder of Edward II. … Charles-le-Bel … died almost at
the same time as Edward, leaving only a daughter; so that he
was succeeded by a cousin of his. All that fine family of
princes who had sat near their father at the Council of Vienne
was extinct. In the popular belief, the curses of Boniface had
taken effect. … This memorable epoch, which depresses
England so low, and in proportion, raises France so high,
presents, nevertheless, in the two countries two analogous
events: In England, the barons have overthrown Edward II. In
France, the feudal party places on the throne the feudal
branch of the Valois."
_J. Michelet,
History of France,
books 5-6 (volume l)._
See, also, VALOIS, THE HOUSE OF.
FRANCE: A. D. 1314-1347.
The king's control of the Papacy in its contest with the
emperor.
See GERMANY: A. D. 1314-1347.
FRANCE: A. D. 1328.
The extent of the royal domain.
The great vassals.
The possessions of foreign princes in France.
On the accession of the House of Valois to the French throne,
in the person of Philip VI. (A. D. 1328), the royal domain had
acquired a great increase of extent. In the two centuries
since Philip I. it had gained, "by conquest, by confiscation,
or by inheritance, Berry, or the Viscounty of Bourges,
Normandy, Maine, Anjou, Poitou, Valois, Vermandois, the
counties of Auvergne, and Boulogne, a part of Champagne and
Brie, Lyonnais, Angoumois, Marche, nearly the whole of
Languedoc, and, lastly, the kingdom of Navarre, which
belonging in her own right to queen Jeanne, mother of the last
three Capetians [Jeanne, heiress of the kingdom of Navarre and
of the counties of Champagne and Brie, was married to Philip
IV., and was the mother of Louis X., Philip V. and Charles
IV.], Charles IV. united with the crown. But the custom among
the kings of giving apanages or estates to the princes of
their house detached afresh from the domain a great part of
the reunited territories, and created powerful princely
houses, of which the chiefs often made themselves formidable
to the monarchs. Among these great houses of the Capetian
race, the most formidable were: the house of Burgundy, which
traced back to king Robert; the house of Dreux, issue of a son
of Louis the Big, and which added by a marriage the duchy of
Brittany to the county of that name; the house of Anjou, issue
of Charles, brother of Saint Louis, which was united in 1290
with that of Valois; the house of Bourbon, descending from
Robert, Count of Clermont, sixth son of Saint Louis; and the
house of Alençon, which traced back to Philip III., and
possessed the duchy of Alençon and Perche. Besides these great
princely houses of Capetian stock, which owed their grandeur
and their origin to their apanages, there were many others
which held considerable rank in France, and of which the
possessions were transmissible to women; while the apanages
were all masculine fiefs. The most powerful of these houses
were those of Flanders, Penthièvre, Châtillon, Montmorency,
Brienne, Coucy, Vendôme, Auvergne, Foix, and Armagnac. The
vast possessions of the two last houses were in the country of
the Langue d'Oc. The counts of Foix were also masters of
Bearn, and those of Armagnac possessed Fezensac, Rouergue, and
other large seigniories. Many foreign princes, besides, had
possessions in France at the accession of the Valois. The king
of England was lord of Ponthieu, of Aunis, of Saintonge, and
of the duchy of Aquitaine; the king of Navarre was count of
Evreux, and possessor of many other towns in Normandy; the
king of Majorca was proprietor of the seigniory of
Montpellier; the duke of Lorraine, vassal of the German
empire, paid homage to the king of France for many fiefs that
he held in Champagne; and, lastly, the Pope possessed the
county Venaissin, detached from Provence."
_E. de Bonnechose,
History of France,
volume 1, page 224._
FRANCE: A. D. 1328.
Accession of King Philip VI.
FRANCE: A. D. 1328.
The splendor of the Monarchy on the eve of the calamitous
wars.
"Indisputably, the king of France [Philip VI., or Philip de
Valois] was at this moment [A. D. 1328] a great king. He had
just reinstated Flanders in its state of dependence on him.
The king of England had done him homage for his French
provinces. His cousins reigned at Naples and in Hungary. He
was protector of the king of Scotland. He was surrounded by a
court of kings—by those of Navarre, Majorca, Bohemia; and
the Scottish monarch was often one of the circle. The famous
John of Bohemia, of the house of Luxembourg, and father to the
emperor Charles IV., declared that he could not live out of
Paris, 'the most chivalrous residence in the world.' He
fluttered over all Europe, but ever returned to the court of
the great king of France—where was kept up one constant
festival, where jousts and tournaments ever went on, and the
romances of chivalry, king Arthur and the round table, were
realized."
_J. Michelet,
History of France,
book 6, chapter 1._
FRANCE: A. D. 1328-1339.
The claim of Edward III. of England to the French crown.
"History tells us that Philip, king of France, surnamed the
Fair, had three sons, beside his beautiful daughter Isabella,
married to the king of England [Edward II.]. These three sons
were very handsome. The eldest, Lewis, king of Navarre during
the lifetime of his father, was called Lewis Hutin [Louis X.];
the second was named Philip the Great, or the Long [Philip
V.]; and the third, Charles [Charles IV.]. All these were
kings of France, after their father Philip, by legitimate
succession, one after the other, without having by marriage
any male heirs; yet, on the death of the last king, Charles,
the twelve peers and barons of France did not give the kingdom
to Isabella, the sister, who was queen of England, because
they said and maintained, and still do insist, that the
kingdom of France is so noble that it ought not to go to a
woman; consequently neither to Isabella, nor to her son, the
king of England [Edward III.]; for they hold that the son of a
woman cannot claim any right of succession, where that woman
has none herself. For these reasons the twelve peers and
barons of France unanimously gave the kingdom of France to the
lord Philip of Valois, nephew to king Philip, and thus put
aside the queen of England, who was sister to Charles, the
late king of France, and her son. Thus, as it seemed to many
people, the succession went out of the right line; which has
been the occasion of the most destructive wars and
devastations of countries, as well in France as elsewhere, as
you will learn hereafter; the real object of this history
being to relate the great enterprises and deeds of arms
achieved in these wars, for from the time of good Charlemagne,
king of France, never were such feats performed."
_J. Froissart,
Chronicles (Johnes'),
book 1, chapter 4._
[Images: Maps of France]
France in 1154 At the Accession of Henry II. (Anjou)
Showing how he Acquired his fiefs in France.
Acquired By Henry From Matilda.
Acquired By Henry From His Father Goeffrey Of Anjou.
Acquired By Henry From His Wife Eleanor Of Aquitaine
French Crown Lands
Other Vassal Lands.
------------------
France in 1180
At The Accession Of Philip Augustus
Showing The Lands Acquired By The Crown During His Reign.
Crown Lands At Accession Of Philip
Acquired During His Reign Form Angevins
Acquired During His Reign From Other Vassals
Angevin Lands (1223)
Other Vassal Lands
------------------
France at the death of Philip IV (The Fair) 1314
------------------
France at the Peace of Bretigny
-------End: Maps of France----------------
{1169}
"From the moment of Charles IV.'s death [A. D. 1328], Edward
III. of England buoyed himself up with a notion of his title
to the crown of France, in right of his mother Isabel, sister
to the three last kings. We can have no hesitation in
condemning the injustice of this pretension. Whether the Salic
law were or were not valid, no advantage could be gained by
Edward. Even if he could forget the express or tacit decision
of all France, there stood in his way Jane, the daughter of
Louis X., three [daughters] of Philip the Long, and one of
Charles the Fair. Aware of this, Edward set up a distinction,
that, although females were excluded from succession, the same
rule did not apply to their male issue; and thus, though his
mother Isabel could not herself become queen of France, she
might transmit a title to him. But this was contrary to the
commonest rules of inheritance; and if it could have been
regarded at all, Jane had a son, afterwards the famous king of
Navarre [Charles the Bad], who stood one degree nearer to the
crown than Edward. It is asserted in some French authorities
that Edward preferred a claim to the regency immediately after
the decease of Charles the Fair, and that the States-General,
or at least the peers of France, adjudged that dignity to
Philip de Valois. Whether this be true or not, it is clear
that he entertained projects of recovering his right as early,
though his youth and the embarrassed circumstances of his
government threw insuperable obstacles in the way of their
execution. He did liege homage, therefore, to Philip for
Guienne, and for several years, while the affairs of Scotland
engrossed his attention, gave no signs of meditating a more
magnificent enterprise. As he advanced in manhood, and felt
the consciousness of his strength, his early designs grew
mature, and produced a series of the most important and
interesting revolutions in the fortunes of France."
_H. Hallam,
The Middle Ages,
chapter 1, part l._
See, also, SALIC LAW: APPLICATION TO THE
REGAL SUCCESSION IN FRANCE.
FRANCE: A. D. 1337-1360.
The beginning of the "Hundred Years War."
It was not until 1337 that Edward III. felt prepared to assert
formally his claim to the French crown and to assume the title
of King of France. In July of the following year he began
undertakings to enforce his pretended right, by crossing with
a considerable force to the continent. He wintered at Antwerp,
concerting measures with the Flemings, who had espoused his
cause, and arranging an alliance with the emperor-king of
Germany, whose name bore more weight than his arms. In 1339 a
formal declaration of hostilities was made and the long
war—the Hundred Years War, as it has been called—of English
kings for the sovereignty of France, began. "This great war
may well be divided into five periods. The first ends with the
Peace of Bretigny in 1360 (A. D. 1337-1360), and includes the
great days of Crécy [1346] and Poitiers [1356], as well as the
taking of Calais: the second runs to the death of Charles the
Wise in 1380; these are the days of Du Guesclin and the
English reverses: the third begins with the renewal of the war
under Henry V. of England, and ends with the Regency of the
Duke of Bedford at Paris, including the field of Azincourt
[1415] and the Treaty of Troyes (A. D. 1415-1422): the fourth
is the epoch of Jeanne Darc and ends with the second
establishment of the English at Paris (A. D. 1428-1431): and
the fifth and last runs on to the final expulsion of the
English after the Battle of Castillon in 1453. Thus, though it
is not uncommonly called the Hundred Years War, the struggle
really extended over a period of a hundred and sixteen years."
_G. W. Kitchin,
History of France,
book 4, chapters 1-7._
"No war had broken out in Europe, since the fall of the Roman
Empire, so memorable as that of Edward III. and his successors
against France, whether we consider its duration, its object,
or the magnitude and variety of its events. It was a struggle
of one hundred and twenty years, interrupted but once by a
regular pacification, where the most ancient and extensive
dominion in the civilised world was the prize, twice lost and
twice recovered in the conflict. … There is, indeed, ample
room for national exultation at the names of Crecy, Poitiers
and Azincourt. So great was the disparity of numbers upon
those famous days, that we cannot, with the French historians,
attribute the discomfiture of their hosts merely to mistaken
tactics and too impetuous valour. … These victories, and the
qualities that secured them, must chiefly be ascribed to the
freedom of our constitution, and to the superior condition of
the people. Not the nobility of England, not the feudal
tenants, won the battles of Crecy and Poitiers; for these were
fully matched in the ranks of France; but the yeomen who drew
the bow with strong and steady arms, accustomed to use it in
their native fields, and rendered fearless by personal
competence and civil freedom. … Yet the glorious termination
to which Edward was enabled, at least for a time, to bring the
contest, was rather the work of fortune than of valour and
prudence. Until the battle of Poitiers [A. D. 1356] he had
made no progress towards the conquest of France. That country
was too vast, and his army too small, for such a revolution.
The victory of Crecy gave him nothing but Calais. … But at
Poitiers he obtained the greatest of prizes, by taking
prisoner the king of France. Not only the love of freedom
tempted that prince to ransom himself by the utmost
sacrifices, but his captivity left France defenceless and
seemed to annihilate the monarchy itself. … There is no
affliction which did not fall upon France during this
miserable period. … Subdued by these misfortunes, though
Edward had made but slight progress towards the conquest of
the country, the regent of France, afterwards Charles V.,
submitted to the peace of Bretigni [A. D. 1360]. By this
treaty, not to mention less important articles, all Guienne,
Gascony, Poitou, Saintonge, the Limousin, and the Angoumois,
as well as Calais, and the county of Ponthieu, were ceded in
full sovereignty to Edward; a price abundantly compensating
his renunciation of the title of France, which was the sole
concession stipulated in return."
_H. Hallam,
The Middle Ages,
chapter 1, part 2._
ALSO IN:
_J. Froissart,
Chronicles (Johnes' translation),
book 1, chapters 1-212._
_W. Longman,
History of Edward III.,
volume 1, chapters 6-22._
_F. P. Guizot,
Popular History of France,
chapter 20._
_D. F. Jamison,
Life and Times of Bertrand du Guesclin,
volume 1, chapters 4-10._
See, also, POITIERS, BATTLE OF.
{1170}
FRANCE: A. D. 1347-1348.
The Black Plague.
"Epochs of moral depression are those, too, of great motality.
… In the last years of Philippe de Valois' reign, the
depopulation was rapid. The misery and physical suffering
which prevailed were insufficient to account for it; for they
had not reached the extreme at which they subsequently
arrived. Yet, to adduce but one instance, the population of a
single town, Narbonne, fell off in the space of four or five
years from the year 1399, by 500 families. Upon this too tardy
diminution of the human race followed extermination,—the great
black plague, or pestilence, which at once heaped up mountains
of dead throughout Christendom. It began in Provence, in the
year 1347, on All Saints' Day, continued sixteen months, and
carried off two-thirds of the inhabitants. The same wholesale
destruction befell Languedoc. At Montpellier, out of twelve
consuls, ten died. At Narbonne, 30,000 persons perished. In
several places, there remained only a tithe of the
inhabitants. All that the careless Froissart says of this
fearful visitation, and that only incidentally, is—'For at
this time there prevailed throughout the world generally a
disease called epidemy, which destroyed a third of its
inhabitants.' This pestilence did not break out in the north
of the kingdom until August, 1348, where it first showed
itself at Paris and St. Denys. So fearful were its ravages at
Paris, that, according to some, 800, according to others, 500,
daily sank under it. … As there was neither famine at the time
nor want of food, but, on the contrary great abundance, this
plague was said to proceed from infection of the air and of
the springs. The Jews were again charged with this, and the
people cruelly fell upon them."
_J. Michelet,
History of France,
book 6, chapter 1._
See BLACK DEATH.
FRANCE: A. D. 1350.
Accession of King John II.
FRANCE: A. D. 1356-1358.
The States-General and Etienne Marcel.
"The disaster of Poitiers [1356] excited in the minds of the
people a sentiment of national grief, mixed with indignation
and scorn at the nobility who had fled before an army so
inferior in number. Those nobles who passed through the cities
and towns on their return from the battle were pursued with
imprecations and outrages. The Parisian bourgeoisie, animated
with enthusiasm and courage, took upon itself at all risks the
charge of its own defense; whilst, the eldest son of the king,
a youth of only nineteen, who had been one of the first to
fly, assumed the government as lieutenant of his father. It
was at the summons of this prince that the states assembled
again at Paris before the time which they had appointed. The
same deputies returned to the number of 800, of whom 400 were
of the bourgeoisie; and the work of reform, rudely sketched in
the preceding session, was resumed under the same influence,
with an enthusiasm which partook of the character of
revolutionary impulse. The assembly commenced by concentrating
its action in a committee of twenty-four members,
deliberating, as far as appears, without distinction of
orders; it then intimated its resolutions under the form of
petitions, which were as follow: The authority of the states
declared supreme in all affairs of administration and finance,
the impeachment of all the counsellors of the king, the
dismissal in a body of the officers of justice, and the
creation of a council of reformers taken from the three
orders; lastly, the prohibition to conclude any truce without
the assent of the three states, and the right on their part to
re-assemble at their own will without a royal summons. The
lieutenant of the king, Charles Duke of Normandy, exerted in
vain the resources of a precocious ability to escape these
imperious demands: he was compelled to yield everything. The
States governed in his name; but dissension, springing from
the mutual jealousy of the different orders, was soon
introduced into their body. The preponderating influence of
the bourgeois appeared intolerable to the nobles, who, in
consequence, deserted the assembly and retired home. The
deputies of the clergy remained longer at their posts, but
they also withdrew at last; and, under the name of the
States-General, none remained but the representatives of the
cities, alone charged with all the responsibilities of the
reform and the affairs of the kingdom. Bowing to a necessity
of central action, they submitted of their own accord to the
deputation of Paris; and soon, by the tendency of
circumstances, and in consequence of the hostile attitude of
the Regent, the question of supremacy of the states became a
Parisian question, subject to the chances of a popular émeute
and the guardianship of the municipal power. At this point
appears a man whose character has grown into historical
importance in our days from our greater facilities of
understanding it, Etienne [Stephen] Marcel, 'prévôt des
marchands'—that is to say, mayor of the municipality of
Paris. This échevin of the 14th century, by a remarkable
anticipation, designed and attempted things which seem to
belong only to recent revolutions. Social unity, and
administrative uniformity; political rights, co-extensive and
equal with civil rights; the principle of public authority
transferred from the crown to the nation; the States-General
changed, under the influence of the third order, into a
national representation; the will of the people admitted as
sovereign in the presence of the depositary of the royal
power; the influence of Paris over the provinces, as the head
of opinion and centre of the general movement; the democratic
dictatorship, and the influence of terror exercised in the
name of the common weal; new colours assumed and carried as a
sign of patriotic union and symbol of reform; the transference
of royalty itself from one branch of the family to the other,
with a view to the cause of reform and the interest of the
people—such were the circumstances and the scenes which have
given to our own as well as the preceding century their
political character. It is strange to find the whole of it
comprised in the three years over which the name of the Prévôt
Marcel predominates. His short and stormy career was, as it
were, a premature attempt at the grand designs of Providence,
and the mirror of the bloody changes of fortune through which
those designs were destined to advance to their accomplishment
under the impulse of human passions. Marcel lived and died for
an idea—that of hastening on, by the force of the masses, the
work of gradual equalisation commenced by the kings
themselves; but it was his misfortune and his crime to be
unrelenting in carrying out his convictions. To the
impetuosity of a tribune who did not shrink even from murder
he added the talent of organization; he left in the grand
city, which he had ruled with a stern and absolute sway,
powerful institutions, noble works, and a name which two
centuries afterwards his descendants bore with pride as a
title of nobility."
_A. Thierry,
Formation and Progress of the Tiers Etat,
volume 1, chapter 2._
See, also,
STATES-GENERAL OF FRANCE IN THE 14th CENTURY.
{1171}
FRANCE: A. D. 1358.
The insurrection of the Jacquerie.
"The miseries of France weighed more and more heavily on the
peasantry; and none regarded them. They stood apart from the
cities, knowing little of them; the nobles despised them and
robbed them of their substance or their labour. … At last
the peasantry (May, 1358), weary of their woes, rose up to
work their own revenge and ruin. They began in the Beauvais
country and there fell on the nobles, attacking and destroying
castles, and slaying their inmates: it was the old unvarying
story. They made themselves a kind of king, a man of Clermont
in the Beauvoisin, named William Callet. Froissart imagines
that the name 'Jacques Bonhomme' meant a particular person, a
leader in these risings. Froissart however had no accurate
knowledge of the peasant and his ways. Jacques Bonhomme was
the common nickname, the 'Giles' or 'Hodge' of France, the
name of the peasant generally; and from it such risings as
this of 1358 came to be called the 'Jacquerie,' or the
disturbances of the 'Jacques.' The nobles were soon out
against them, and the whole land was full of anarchy. Princes
and nobles, angry peasants with their 'iron shod sticks and
knives,' free-lances, English bands of pillagers, all made up
a scene of utter confusion: 'cultivation ceased, commerce
ceased, security was at an end.' The burghers of Paris and
Meaux sent a force to help the peasants, who were besieging
the fortress at Meaux, held by the nobles; these were suddenly
attacked and routed by the Captal de Buch and the Count de Foix,
'then on their return from Prussia.' The King of Navarre also
fell on them, took by stratagem their leader Callet, tortured
and hanged him. In six weeks the fire was quenched in blood."
_G. W. Kitchin,
History of France,
chapter 2, section 3._
"Froissard relates the horrible details of the Jacquerie with
the same placid interest which characterises his descriptions
of battles, tournaments, and the pageantry of chivalry. The
charm and brilliancy of his narrative have long popularised
his injustice and his errors, which are self-apparent when
compared with the authors and chroniclers of his time. … The
chronicles contemporary of the Jacquerie confine themselves to
a few words on the subject, although, with the exception of
the Continuator of Nangis, they were all hostile to the cause
of the peasants. The private and local documents on the
subject say very little more. The Continuator of Nangis has
drawn his information from various sources. He takes care to
state that he has witnessed almost all he relates. After
describing the sufferings of the peasants, he adds that the
laws of justice authorised them to rise in revolt against the
nobles of France. His respected testimony reduces the
insurrection to comparatively small proportions. The hundred
thousand Jacques of Froissard are reduced to something like
five or six thousand men, a number much more probable when it
is considered that the insurrection remained a purely local
one, and that, in consequence of the ravages we have
mentioned, the whole open country had lost about two-thirds of
its inhabitants. He states very clearly that the peasants
killed indiscriminately, and without pity, men and children,
but he does not say anything of those details of atrocity
related by Froissard. He only alludes once to a report of some
outrages offered to some noble ladies; he speaks of it as a
vague rumour. He describes the insurgents, after the first
explosion of their vindictive fury, as pausing—amazed at
their own boldness, and terrified at their own crimes, and the
nobles, recovering from their terror, taking immediate
advantage of this sudden torpor and paralysis—assembling and
slaughtering all, innocent and guilty, burning houses and
villages. If we turn to other writers contemporary with the
Jacquerie, we find that Louvet, author of the 'History of the
District of Beauvais,' does not say much on the subject, and
evinces also a sympathy for the peasants: the paucity of his
remarks on a subject represented by Froissard as a gigantic,
bloody tragedy, raises legitimate doubts as to the veracity of
the latter. There is another authority on the events of that
period, which may be considered as more weighty, in
consequence of its ecclesiastical character; it is the
'cartulaire,' or journal of the Abbot of Beauvais. … There
is no trace in it of the horror and indescribable terror …
[the rising] must have inspired if the peasants had committed
the atrocities attributed to them by the feudal historian,
Froissard. On the contrary, the vengeance of the peasants
falls into the shade, as it were, in contrast with the
merciless reaction of the nobles, along with the sanguinary
oppression of the English. The writer of the 'Abbey of
Beauvais,' and the anonymous monk, 'Continuator of Nangis,'
concur with each other in their account of the Jacquerie.
Their judgments are similar, and they manifest the same
moderation. Their opinions, moreover, are confirmed by a
higher authority, a testimony that must be considered as
indisputable, namely, the letters of amnesty of the Regent of
France, which are all preserved; they bear the date of 10th
August 1358, and refer to all the acts committed on the
occasion of the Jacquerie. In these he proves himself more
severe upon the reaction of the nobles than on the revolt of
the peasants. … There is not the slightest allusion to the
monstrosities related by Froissard, which the Regent could not
have failed to stigmatise, as he is well known for having
entertained an unscrupulous hatred to any popular movement, or
any claims of the people. The manner, on the contrary, in
which the Jacquerie are represented in this official document,
is full of signification; it represents the men of the open
country assembling spontaneously in various localities, in
order to deliberate on the means of resisting the English, and
suddenly, as with a mutual agreement, turning fiercely on the
nobles, who were the real cause of their misery, and of the
disgrace of France, on the days of Crecy and Poitiers. … It
has also been forgotten that many citizens took an active part
in the Jacquerie. The great chronicles of France state that
the majority were peasants, labouring people, but that there
were also among them citizens, and even gentlemen, who, no
doubt, were impelled by personal hatred and vengeance. Many
rich men joined the peasants, and became their leaders. The
bourgeoisie, in its struggles with royalty, could not refuse
to take advantage of such a diversion; and Beauvais, Senlis,
Amiens, Paris, and Meaux accepted the Jacquerie. Moreover,
almost all the poorer classes of the cities sympathised with
the revolted peasants.
{1172}
The Jacquerie broke out on the 21st of May 1358, and not in
November 1357, as erroneously stated by Froissard, in the
districts around Beauvais and Clermont-sur-Oise. The peasants,
merely armed with pikes, sticks, fragments of their ploughs,
rushed on their masters, murdered their families, and burned
down their castles. The country comprised between Beauvais and
Melun was the principal scene of this war of extermination.
… The Jacquerie had commenced on the 21st of May. On the 9th
of June … it was already terminated. It was, therefore, in
reality, an insurrection of less than three weeks' duration.
The reprisals of the nobles had already commenced on the 9th
of June, and continued through the whole of July, and the
greater part of August. Froissard states that the Jacquerie
lasted over six weeks, thus comprising in his reckoning three
weeks of the ferocious vengeance of the nobles, and casting on
Jacques Bonhomme the responsibility of the massacres of which
he had been the victim, as well as those he had committed in
his furious despair."
_Prof. De Vericour,
The Jacquerie
(Royal Historical Society, Transactions, volume 1)._
ALSO IN:
_Sir J. Froissart,
Chronicles
(Johnes' translation),
book 1, chapter 181._
FRANCE: A. D. 1360-1380.
English conquests recovered.
The Peace of Bretigny brought little peace to France or little
diminution of the troubles of the kingdom. In some respects
there was a change for the worse introduced. The armies which
had ravaged the country dissolved into plundering bands which
afflicted it even more. Great numbers of mercenaries from both
sides were set free, who gathered into Free Companies, as they
were called, under leaders of fit recklessness and valor, and
swarmed over the land, warring on all prosperity and all the
peaceful industries of the time, seeking booty wherever it
might be found.
See ITALY: A. D. 1343-1393.
Civil war, too, was kept alive by the intrigues and
conspiracies of the Navarrese king, Charles the Bad; and war
in Brittany, over a disputed succession to the dukedom, was
actually stipulated for, by French and English, in their
treaty of general peace. But when the chivalric but hapless
King John died, in 1364, the new king, Charles V., who had
been regent during his captivity, developed an unexpected
capacity for government. He brought to the front the famous
Breton warrior Du Guesclin-rough, ignorant, unchivalric—but a
fighter of the first order in his hard-fighting day. He
contrived with adroitness to rid France, mostly, of the Free
Companies, by sending them, with Du Guesclin at their head,
into Spain, where they drove Peter the Cruel from the throne
of Castile, and fought the English, who undertook, wickedly
and foolishly, to sustain him. The Black Prince won a great
battle, at Najara or Navarette (A. D. 1367), took Du Guesclin
prisoner and restored the cruel Pedro to his throne. But it
was a victory fatal to English interests in France. Half the
army of the English prince perished of a pestilent fever
before he led it back to Aquitaine, and he himself was marked
for early death by the same malady. He had been made duke of
Aquitaine, or Guienne, and held the government of the country.
The war in Spain proved expensive; he taxed his Gascon and
Aquitanian subjects heavily. He was ill, irritable, and
treated them harshly. Discontent became widely spread, and the
king of France subtly stirred it up until he felt prepared to
make use of it in actual war. At last, in 1368, he challenged
a rupture of the Peace of Bretigny by summoning King Edward,
as his vassal, to answer complaints from Aquitaine. In April
of the next year he formally declared war and opened
hostilities the same day. His cunning policy was not to fight,
but to waste and wear the enemy out. Its wisdom was well-proved
by the result. Day by day the English lost ground; the footing
they had gained in France was found to be everywhere insecure.
The dying Black Prince achieved one hideous triumph at
Limoges, where he fouled his brilliant fame by a monstrous
massacre; and thence he was carried home to end his days in
England. In 1376 he died, and one year later his father, King
Edward, followed him to the grave, and a child of eleven
(Richard II.) came to the English throne. But the same
calamity befell France in 1380, when Charles the Wise died,
leaving an heir to the throne only twelve years of age. In
both kingdoms the minority of the sovereign gave rise to
factious intrigues and distracting feuds. The war went on at
intervals, with frequent truces and armistices, and with
little result beyond the animosities which it kept alive. But
the English possessions, by this time, had been reduced to
Calais and Guines, with some small parts of Aquitaine
adjoining the cities of Bordeaux and Bayonne. And thus, it may
be said, the situation was prolonged through a generation,
until Henry V. of England resumed afresh the undertaking of
Edward III.
_F. P. Guizot,
Popular History of France,
chapter 22._
ALSO IN:
_J. Michelet,
History of France,
book 6, chapter 4._
_T. Wright,
History of France,
book 2, chapter 6._
_E. A. Freeman,
Historical Geography of Europe,
chapter 9._
_D. F. Jamison,
Life and Times of Du Guesclin._
_Froissart,
Chronicles
(Johnes' translation),
book 1._
See SPAIN: A. D. 1366-1369.
FRANCE: A. D. 1364.
Accession of King Charles V.
FRANCE: A. D. 1378.
Acquisitions in the Rhone valley legal conferred by the
Emperor.
See BURGUNDY: A. D. 1127-1378.
FRANCE: A. D. 1380.
Accession of King Charles VI.
FRANCE: A. D. 1380-1415.
The reign of the Dukes.
The civil war of Armagnacs and Burgundians.
"Charles VI. had arrived at the age of eleven years and some
months when his father died [A. D. 1380]. His three paternal
uncles, the Dukes of Anjou, Berry, and Burgundy, and his
maternal uncle, the Duke of Bourbon, disputed among themselves
concerning his guardianship and the regency. They agreed to
emancipate the young King immediately after his coronation,
which was to take place during the year, and the regency was
to remain until that period in the hands of the eldest, the
Duke of Anjou." But the Duke of Anjou was soon afterwards
lured into Italy by the fatal gift of a claim to the crown of
Naples [see ITALY: A. D. 1343-1389.], and perished in striving
to realize it. The surviving uncles misgoverned the country
between them until 1389, when the young king was persuaded to
throw off their yoke. The nation rejoiced for three years in
the experience and the prospect of administrative reforms; but
suddenly, in July, 1392, the young king became demented, and
"then commenced the third and fatal epoch of that disastrous
reign. The faction of the dukes again seized power," but only
to waste and afflict the kingdom by dissensions among
themselves.
{1173}
The number of the rival dukes was now increased by the
addition of the Duke of Orleans, brother of the king, who
showed himself as ruthless and rapacious as any. "Charles was
still considered to be reigning; each one sought in turn to
get possession of him, and each one watched his lucid moments
in order to stand well in power. His flashes of reason were
still more melancholy than his fits of delirium. Incapable of
attending to his affairs, or of having a will of his own,
always subservient to the dominant party, he appeared to
employ his few glimmerings of reason only in sanctioning the
most tyrannical acts and the most odious abuses. It was in
this manner that the kingdom of France was governed during
twenty-eight years." In 1404, the Duke of Burgundy, Philip
the Bold, having died, the Duke of Orleans acquired supreme
authority and exercised it most oppressively. But the new Duke
of Burgundy, John the Fearless, made his appearance on the
scene ere long, arriving from his county of Flanders with an
army and threatening civil war. Terms of peace, however, were
arranged between the two dukes and an apparent reconciliation
took place. On the very next day the Duke of Orleans was
assassinated (A. D. 1407), and the Duke of Burgundy openly
proclaimed his instigation of the deed. Out of that
treacherous murder sprang a war of factions so deadly that
France was delivered by it to foreign conquest, and destroyed,
we may say, for the time being, as a nation. The elder of the
young princes of Orleans, sons of the murdered duke, had
married a daughter of Count Bernard of Armagnac, and Count
Bernard became the leader of the party which supported them
and sought to avenge them, as against the Duke of Burgundy and
his party. Hence the former acquired the name of Armagnacs;
the latter were called Burgundians. Armagnac led an army of
Gascons [A. D. 1410] and threatened Paris, "where John the
Fearless caressed the vilest populace. Burgundy relied on the
name of the king, whom he held in his power, and armed in the
capital a corps of one hundred young butchers or
horse-knackers, who, from John Caboche, their chief, took the
name of Cabochiens. A frightful war, interrupted by truces
violated on both sides, commenced between the party of
Armagnac and that of Burgundy. Both sides appealed to the
English, and sold France to them. The Armagnacs pillaged and
ravaged the environs of Paris with unheard of cruelties, while
the Cabochiens caused the capital they defended to tremble.
The States-General, convoked for the first time for thirty
years, were dumb—without courage and without strength. The
Parliament was silent, the university made itself the organ of
the populace, and the butchers made the laws. They pillaged,
imprisoned and slaughtered with impunity, according to their
savage fury, and found judges to condemn their victims. …
The reaction broke out at last. Tired of so many atrocities,
the bourgeoisie took up arms, and shook off the yoke of the
horse-knackers. The Dauphin was delivered by them. He mounted
on horseback, and, at the head of the militia, went to the
Hôtel de Ville, from which place he drove out Caboche and his
brigands. The counter revolution was established. Burgundy
departed, and the power passed to the Armagnacs. The princes
re-entered Paris, and King Charles took up the oriflamme (the
royal standard of France), to make war against John the
Fearless, whose instrument he had been a short time before.
His army was victorious. Burgundy submitted, and the treaty of
Arras [A. D. 1415] suspended the war, but not the executions and
the ravages. Henry V., King of England, judged this a
propitious moment to descend upon France, which had not a
vessel to oppose the invaders."
_E. de Bonnechose,
History of France,
volume 1, pages 266-279._
ALSO IN:
_E. de Monstrelet,
Chronicles (Johnes' translation),
volume 1, book 1, chapters 1-140._
_T. Wright,
History of France,
book 2, chapters 8-9._
FRANCE: A. D. 1383.
Pope Urban's Crusade against the Schismatics.
See FLANDERS: A. D. 1383.
FRANCE: A. D. 1396.
The sovereignty of Genoa surrendered to the king.
See GENOA: A. D. 1381-1422.
FRANCE: A. D. 1415.
The Hundred Years War renewed by Henry V. of England.
"When Henry V. resolved to recover what he claimed as the
inheritance of his predecessors, he had to begin, it may be
said, the work of conquest over again. Allies, however, he
had, whose assistance he was to find very useful. The dynasty
of De Montfort had been established in possession of the
dukedom of Britanny in a great measure by English help, and
though the relations between the two countries had not been
invariably friendly since that time, the sense of this
obligation, and, still more powerfully, a jealous fear of the
French king, inclined Britanny to the English alliance. The
Dukes of Burgundy, though they had no such motives of
gratitude towards England, felt a far stronger hostility
towards France. The feud between the rival factions which went
by the names of Burgundians and Armagnacs had now been raging
for several years; and though the attitude of the Burgundians
varied—at the great struggle of Agincourt they were allies,
though lukewarm and even doubtful allies, of the French—they
ultimately ranked themselves decidedly on Henry's side. In
1414, then, Henry formally demanded, as the heir of Isabella,
mother of his great-grandfather Edward, the crown of France.
This claim the French princes wholly refused to consider.
Henry then moderated his demands so far, at least, as to allow
Charles to remain in nominal possession of his kingdom; but
… France was to cede to England, no longer as a feudal
superior making a grant to a vassal, but in full sovereignty,
the provinces of Normandy, Maine, and Anjou, together with all
that was comprised in the ancient duchy of Aquitaine. Half,
too, of Provence was claimed, and the arrears of the ransom of
King John, amounting to 1,200,000 crowns, were also to be
paid. Finally, the French king was to give his youngest
daughter, Katharine, in marriage to Henry, with a portion of
2,000,000 crowns. The French ministers offered, in answer, to
yield the duchy of Aquitaine, comprising the provinces of
Anjou, Gascony, Guienne, Poitou, and to give the hand of the
princess Katharine with a dowry of 600,000 crowns.
"Negotiations went on through several months, with small
chance of success, while Henry prepared for war. His
preparations were completed in the summer of 1415, and on the
11th of August in that year he set sail from Southampton, with
an army of 6,000 men-at-arms and 24,000 archers, very
completely equipped, and accompanied with cannon and other
engines of war.
{1174}
Landing in the estuary of the Seine, the invaders first
captured the important Norman seaport of Harfleur, after a
siege of a month, and expelled the inhabitants from the town.
It was an important acquisition; but it had cost the English
heavily. They were ill-supplied with food; they had suffered
from much rain; 2,000 had died of an epidemic of dysentery.
The army was in no condition for a forward movement. "The
safest course would now have been to return at once; and this
seems to have been pressed upon the king by the majority of
his counsellors. But this prudent advice did not approve
itself to Henry's adventurous temper. … He determined … to
make what may be called a military parade to Calais. This
involved a march of not less than 150 miles through a hostile
country, a dangerous, and, but that one who cherishes such
designs as Henry's must make a reputation for daring, a
useless operation; but the king's determined will overcame all
opposition." Leaving a strong garrison at Harfleur, Henry set
out upon his march. Arrived at the Somme, his further progress
was disputed, and he was forced to make a long detour before
he could effect a crossing of the river. On the 24th of
October, he encountered the French army, strongly posted at
the village of Azincour or Agincourt, barring the road to
Calais; and there, on the morning of the 25th, after a night
of drenching rain, the great battle, which shines with so
dazzling a glory in English history, was fought. There seems
to be no doubt that the English were greatly outnumbered by
the French—according to Monstrelet they were but one to six;
but the masses on the French side were unskilfully handled and
no advantage was got from them. The deadly shafts of the
terrible English archers built such a rampart of corpses in
their front that it actually sheltered them from the charge of
the French cavalry. "Everywhere the French were routed, slain,
or taken. The victory of the English was complete. … The
French loss was enormous. Monstrelet gives a long list of the
chief princes and nobles who fell on that fatal field. … We
are disposed to trust his estimate, which, including princes,
knights and men-at-arms of every degree, he puts at 10,000.
… Only 1,600 are said to have been 'of low degree.' … The
number of knights and gentlemen taken prisoners was 1,500.
Among them were Charles, Duke of Orleans, and the Duke of
Bourbon, both princes of the blood-royal. … Brilliant as was
the victory which Henry had won at Agincourt, it had, it may
be said, no immediate results. … The army resumed its
interrupted march to Calais, which was about forty miles
distant. At Calais a council of war was held, and the
resolution to return to England unanimously taken. A few days
were allowed for refreshment, and about the middle of November
the army embarked."
_A. J. Church,
Henry the Fifth,
chapters 6-10._
ALSO IN:
_E. de Monstrelet,
Chronicles (Johnes' translation),
volume 1, book 1, chapters 140-149._
_J. E. Tyler,
Henry of Monmouth,
chapters 19-23._
_G M. Towle,
History of Henry V.,
chapters 7-8._
_Lord Brougham,
History of England and France
under the House of Lancaster._
_C. M. Yonge,
Cameos from English History:
second series, chapters 24-26._
FRANCE: A. D. 1415-1419.
Massacre of Armagnacs.
The murder of the Duke of Burgundy.
"The captivity of so many princes of the blood as had been
taken prisoner at Agincourt might have seemed likely at least
to remove some of the elements of discord; but it so happened
that the captives were the most moderate and least ambitious
men. The gentle, poetical Duke of Orleans, the good Duke of
Bourbon, and the patriotic and gallant Arthur de Richemont,
had been taken, while the savage Duke of Burgundy and the
violent Gascon Count of Armagnac, Constable of France,
remained at the head of their hostile factions. … The Count
d'Armagnac now reigned supreme; no prince of the blood came to
the councils, and the king and dauphin were absolutely in his
hands. … The Duke of Burgundy was, however, advancing with
his forces, and the Parisians were always far more inclined to
him than to the other party. … For a whole day's ride round
the environs of the city, every farmhouse had been sacked or
burnt. Indeed, it was said in Paris a man had only to be
called a Burgundian, or anywhere else in the Isle of France an
Armagnac, to be instantly put to death. All the soldiers who
had been posted to guard Normandy and Picardy against the
English were recalled to defend Paris against the Duke of
Burgundy; and Henry V. could have found no more favourable
moment for a second expedition." The English king took
advantage of his opportunity and landed in Normandy August 1,
1417, finding nobody to oppose him in the field. The factions
were employed too busily in cutting each other's throats,—
especially after the Burgundians had regained possession of
Paris, which they did in the following spring. Thereupon the
Parisian mob rose and ferociously massacred all the partisans
of Armagnac, while the Burgundians looked and approved. "The
prison was forced; Armagnac himself was dragged out and slain
in the court. … The court of each prison became a
slaughter-house; the prisoners were called down one by one,
and there murdered, till the assassins were up to their ankles
in blood. The women were as savage as the men, and dragged the
corpses about the streets in derision. The prison slaughter
had but given a passion for further carnage; and the murderers
broke open the houses in search of Armagnacs, killing not only
men, but women, children, and even new-born babes, to whom in
their diabolical frenzy they refused baptism, as being little
Armagnacs. The massacre lasted from four o'clock on Sunday
morning to ten o'clock on Monday. Some say that 3,000
perished, others 1,600, and the Duke of Burgundy's servants
reported the numbers as only 400." Meantime Henry V. was
besieging Rouen, and starving Paris by cutting off the
supplies for which it depended on the Seine. In August there
was another rising of the Parisian mob and another massacre.
In January, 1419, Rouen surrendered, and attempts at peace
followed, both parties making a truce with the English
invader. The imperious demands of King Henry finally impelled
the two French factions to draw together and to make a common
cause of the deliverance of the kingdom. At least that was the
profession with which the Dauphin and the Duke of Burgundy
met, in July, and went through the forms of a reconciliation.
Perhaps there were treacherous intentions on both sides. On
one side the treachery was consummated a month later
(September 10, 1419), when, a second meeting between Duke John
the Fearless and the Dauphin taking place at the Bridge of
Montereau, the Duke was basely assassinated in the Dauphin's
presence.
{1175}
This murder, by which the Armagnacs, who controlled the young
Dauphin, hoped to break their rivals down, only kindled afresh
the passions which were destroying France and delivering it an
easy prey to foreign conquest.
_C. M. Yonge,
Cameos from English History,
second series, chapters 28-29._
ALSO IN:
_E. de Monstrelet,
Chronicles (Johnes' translation),
volume 1, book 1, chapters 150-211._
_J. Michelet,
History of France,
book 9, chapter 2._
FRANCE: A. D. 1417-1422.
Burgundy's revenge.
Henry the Fifth's triumph.
Two kings in Paris.
The Treaty of Troyes.
Death of Henry.
"Whilst civil war was … penetrating to the very core of the
kingship, foreign war was making its way again into the
kingdom. Henry V., after the battle of Agincourt, had returned
to London, and had left his army to repose and reorganize
after its sufferings and its losses. It was not until eighteen
months afterwards, on the 1st of August, 1417, that he landed
at Touques, not far from Honfleur, with fresh troops, and
resumed his campaign in France. Between 1417 and 1419 he
successively laid siege to nearly all the towns of importance
in Normandy, to Caen, Bayeux, Falaise, Evreux, Coutances,
Laigle, St. Lô, Cherbourg, &c., &c. Some he occupied after a
short resistance, others were sold to him by their governors;
but when, in the month of July, 1418, he undertook the siege
of Rouen, he encountered there a long and serious struggle.
Rouen had at that time, it is said, a population of 150,000
souls, which was animated by ardent patriotism. The Rouennese,
on the approach of the English, had repaired their gates,
their ramparts, and their moats; had demanded reinforcements
from the King of France and the Duke of Burgundy; and had
ordered every person incapable of bearing arms or procuring
provisions for ten months to leave the city. Twelve thousand
old men, women and children were thus expelled, and died
either round the place or whilst roving in misery over the
neighbouring country. … Fifteen thousand men of
city-militia, 4,000 regular soldiers, 300 spearmen and as many
archers from Paris, and it is not quite known how many
men-at-arms sent by the Duke of Burgundy, defended Rouen for
more than five months amidst all the usual sufferings of
strictly-besieged cities." On the 13th of January, 1419, the
town was surrendered. "It was 215 years since Philip Augustus
had won Rouen by conquest from John Lackland, King of
England." After this great success there were truces brought
about between all parties, and much negotiation, which came to
nothing—except the treacherous murder of the Duke of
Burgundy, as related above. Then the situation changed. The
son and successor of the murdered duke, afterwards known as
Philip the Good, took sides, at once, with the English king
and committed himself to a war of revenge, indifferent to the
fate of France. "On the 17th of October [1419] was opened at
Arras a congress between the plenipotentiaries of England and
those of Burgundy. On the 20th of November a special truce was
granted to the Parisians, whilst Henry V., in concert with
Duke Philip of Burgundy, was prosecuting the war against the
dauphin. On the 2d of December the bases were laid of an
agreement between the English and the Burgundians. The
preliminaries of the treaty, which was drawn up in accordance
with these bases, were signed on the 9th of April, 1420, by
King Charles VI. [now controlled by the Burgundians], and on
the 20th communicated at Paris by the chancellor of France to
the parliament." On the 20th of May following, the treaty,
definitive and complete, was signed by Henry V. and
promulgated at Troyes. By this treaty of Troyes, Princess
Catherine, daughter of the King of France, was given in
marriage to King Henry; Charles VI. was guaranteed his
possession of the French crown while he lived; on his death,
"the crown and kingdom of France, with all their rights and
appurtenances," were solemnly conveyed to Henry V. of England
and his heirs, forever. "The revulsion against the treaty of
Troyes was real and serious, even in the very heart of the
party attached to the Duke of Burgundy. He was obliged to lay
upon several of his servants formal injunctions to swear to
this peace, which seemed to them treason. … In the duchy of
Burgundy the majority of the towns refused to take the oath to
the King of England. The most decisive and the most helpful
proof of this awakening of national feeling was the ease
experienced by the dauphin, who was one day to be Charles
VII., in maintaining the war which, after the treaty of
Troyes, was, in his father's and his mother's name, made upon
him by the King of England and the Duke of Burgundy. This war
lasted more than three years. Several towns, amongst others,
Melun, Crotoy, Meaux, and St. Riquier, offered an obstinate
resistance to the attacks of the English and Burgundians. …
It was in Perche, Anjou, Maine, on the banks of the Loire, and
in Southern France, that the dauphin found most of his
enterprising and devoted partisans. The sojourn made by Henry
V. at Paris, in December, 1420, with his wife, Queen
Catherine, King Charles VI., Queen Isabel, and the Duke of
Burgundy, was not, in spite of galas and acclamations, a
substantial and durable success for him. … Towards the end
of August, 1422, Henry V. fell ill; and, too stout-hearted to
delude himself as to his condition, he … had himself removed
to Vincennes, called his councillors about him, and gave them
his last royal instructions. … He expired on the 31st of
August, 1422, at the age of thirty-four."
_F. P. Guizot,
Popular History of France,
chapter 23._
At Paris, "the two sovereigns [Henry V. and Charles VI.] kept
distinct courts. That of Henry was by far the most splendidly
equipped and numerously attended of the two. He was the rising
sun, and all men looked to him. All offices of trust and
profit were at his disposal, and the nobles and gentlemen of
France flocked into his ante-chambers."
_A. J. Church,
Henry the Fifth,
chapter 15._
ALSO IN:
_E. de Monstrelet,
Chronicles (Johnes' translation),
volume 1, book 1, chapters 171-264._
_J. Michelet,
History of France,
book 9, chapters 2-3._
FRANCE: A. D. 1422.
Accession of King Charles VII.
{1176}
FRANCE: A. D. 1429-1431.
The Mission of the Maid.
"France divided—two kings, two regencies, two armies, two
governments, two nations, two nobilities, two systems of
justice—met face to face: father, son, mother, uncles,
nephews, citizens, and strangers, fought for the right, the
soil, the throne, the cities, the spoil and the blood of the
nation. The King of England died at Vincennes [August 31,
1422], and was shortly followed [October 22] by Charles VI.,
father of the twelve children of Isabel, leaving the kingdom
to the stranger and to ruin. The Duke of Bedford insolently
took possession of the Regency in the name of England, pursued
the handful of nobles who wished to remain French with the
dauphin, defeated them at the battle of Verneuil [August
17, 1424], and exiled the queen, who had become a burden to the
government after having been an instrument of usurpation. He
then concentrated the armies of England, France and Burgundy
round Orleans, which was defended by some thousands of the
partisans of the dauphin, and which comprised almost all that
remained of the kingdom of France. The land was everywhere
ravaged by the passing and repassing of these bands—sometimes
friends, sometimes enemies—driving each other on, wave after
wave, like the billows of the Atlantic; ravaging crops,
burning towns, dispersing, robbing, and ill-treating the
population. In this disorganization of the country, the young
dauphin, sometimes awakened by the complaints of his people,
at others absorbed in the pleasures natural to his age, was
making love to Agnes Sorel in the castle of Loches. … Such
was the state of the nation when Providence showed it a savior
in a child." The child was Jeanne D'Arc, or Joan of Arc,
better known in history as the Maid of Orleans,—daughter of a
peasant who tilled his own few acres at the village of
Domrémy, in Upper Lorraine. Of the visions of the pious young
maiden—of the voices she heard—of the conviction which came
upon her that she was called by God to deliver her
country—and of the enthusiasm of faith with which she went
about her mission until all people bent to her as the
messenger and minister of God—the story is a familiar one to
all. In April, 1429, Joan was sent by the king, from Blois,
with 10,000 or 12,000 men, to the succour of Orleans, where
Dunois, the Bastard of Orleans, was in command. She reformed
the army, purged it of all vile followers, and raised its
confidence to that frenzied pitch which nothing can resist. On
the 8th of May the English abandoned the siege and Orleans was
saved. "Joan wasted no time in vain triumphs. She brought back
the victorious army to the dauphin, to assist him in
reconquering city after city of his kingdom. The dauphin and
the queens received her as the messenger of God, who had found
and recovered the lost keys of the kingdom. 'I have only
another year,' she remarked, with a sad presentiment, which
seemed to indicate that her victory led to the scaffold; 'I
must therefore set to work at once.' She begged the dauphin to
go and be crowned at Rheims, although that city and the
intermediate provinces were still in the power of the
Burgundians, Flemings, and English." Counsellors and generals
opposed; but the sublime faith of the Maid overcame all
opposition and all difficulties. The king's route to Rheims
was rapidly cleared of his enemies. At Patay (June 18, 1429)
the English suffered a heavy defeat and their famous soldier,
Lord Talbot, was taken prisoner. Troyes, Chalons and Rheims
opened their gates. "The Duke of Bedford, the regent, remained
trembling in Paris. 'All our misfortunes,' he wrote to the
Cardinal of Winchester, 'are owing to a young witch, who, by
her sorcery, has restored the courage of the French.' … The
king was crowned [July 17, 1429], and Joan's mission was
accomplished. 'Noble king,' said she, embracing his knees in
the Cathedral after the coronation, 'now is accomplished the
will of God, which commanded me to bring you to this city of
Rheims to receive your holy unction—now that you at last are
king, and that the kingdom of France is yours.' … From that
moment a great depression, and a fatal hesitation seem to have
come over her. The king, the people, and the army, to whom she
had given victory, wished her to remain always their
prophetess, their guide, and their enduring miracle. But she
was now only a weak woman, lost amid courts and camps, and she
felt her weakness beneath her armor. Her heart alone remained
courageous, but had ceased to be inspired." She urged an
attack on Paris (Sept. 8, 1429) and experienced her first
failure, being grievously wounded in the assault. The
following spring, Compiègne being besieged, she entered the
town to take part in the defence. The same evening (May 24,
1430) she led a sortie which was repulsed, and she was taken
prisoner in the retreat. Some think she was betrayed by the
commandant of the town, who ordered the raising of the
drawbridge just as her horse was being spurred upon it. Once
in the hands of her enemies, the doom of the unfortunate Maid
was sealed. Sir Lionel de Ligny, her captor, gave his prisoner
to the count of Luxembourg, who yielded her to the Duke of
Burgundy, who surrendered her to the English, who delivered
her to the Inquisition, by which she was tried, condemned and
burned to death, at Rouen, as a witch (May 30, 1431). "It was
a complex crime, in which each party got rid of
responsibility, but in which the accusation rests with Paris
[the University of Paris was foremost among the pursuers of
the wonderful Maid], the cowardice with Luxembourg, the
sentence with the Inquisition, the blame and punishment with
England, and the disgrace and ingratitude with France. This
bartering about Joan by her enemies, of whom the fiercest were
her countrymen, had lasted six months. … During these six
months, the influence of this goddess of war upon the troops
of Charles VII.—her spirit, which still guided the camp and
council of the king—the patriotic, though superstitious,
veneration of the people, which her captivity only
doubled,—and, lastly, the absence of the Duke of Burgundy,
… all these causes had brought reverse after reverse upon
the English, and a series of successes to Charles VII. Joan,
although absent, triumphed everywhere."
_A. de Lamartine,
Memoirs of Celebrated Characters: Joan of Arc._
"It seems natural to ask what steps the King of France had
taken … to avert her doom. If ever there had been a
sovereign indebted to a subject, that sovereign was Charles
VII., that subject Joan of Arc. … Yet, no sooner was she
captive than she seems forgotten. We hear nothing of any
attempt at rescue, of any proposal for ransom; neither the
most common protest against her trial, nor the faintest threat
of reprisals; nay, not even after her death, one single
expression of regret! Charles continued to slumber in his
delicious retreats beyond the Loire, engrossed by dames of a
very different character from Joan's, and careless of the
heroine to whom his security in that indolence was due. Her
memory on the other hand was long endeared to the French
people, and long did they continue to cherish a romantic hope
that she might still survive.
{1177}
So strong was this feeling, that in the year 1436 advantage
was taken of it by a female imposter, who pretended to be Joan
of Arc escaped from her captivity. She fixed her abode at
Metz, and soon afterwards married a knight of good family, the
Sire des Armoises. Strange to say, it appears from a contemporary
chronicle, that Joan's two surviving brothers acknowledged
this woman as their sister. Stranger still, other records
prove that she made two visits to Orleans, one before and one
after her marriage, and on each occasion was hailed as the
heroine returned. … The brothers of Joan of Arc might
possibly have hopes of profit by the fraud; but how the people
of Orleans, who had seen her so closely, who had fought side
by side with her in the siege, could be deceived as to the
person, we cannot understand, nor yet what motive they could
have in deceiving. The interest which Joan of Arc inspires at
the present day extends even to the house where she dwelt, and
to the family from which she sprung. Her father died of grief
at the tidings of her execution; her mother long survived it,
but fell into great distress. Twenty years afterwards we find
her in receipt of a pension from the city of Orleans; three
francs a month; 'to help her to live.' Joan's brothers and
their issue took, the name of Du Lis from the Lily of France,
which the King had assigned as their arms. … It will be easy
to trace the true character of Joan. … Nowhere do modern
annals display a character more pure—more generous—more
humble amidst fancied visions and undoubted victories—more
free from all taint of selfishness—more akin to the champions
and martyrs of old times. All this is no more than justice and
love of truth would require us to say. But when we find some
French historians, transported by an enthusiasm almost equal
to that of Joan herself, represent her us filling the part of
a general or statesman—as skilful in leading armies, or
directing councils—we must withhold our faith. Such skill,
indeed, from a country girl, without either education or
experience, would be, had she really possessed it, scarcely
less supernatural than the visions which she claimed. But the
facts are far otherwise. In affairs of state, Joan's voice was
never heard; in affairs of war, all her proposals will be
found to resolve themselves into two—either to rush headlong
upon the enemy, often in the very point where he was
strongest, or to offer frequent and public prayers to the
Almighty. We are not aware of any single instance in which her
military suggestions were not these, or nearly akin to these.
… Of Joan's person no authentic resemblance now remains. A
statue to her memory had been raised upon the bridge at
Orleans, at the sole charge … of the matrons and maids of
that city: this probably preserved some degree of likeness,
but unfortunately perished in the religious wars of the
sixteenth century. There is no portrait extant; the two
earliest engravings are of 1606 and 1612, and they greatly
differ."
_Lord Mahon,
Historical Essays,
pages 53-57._
"A few days before her death, when urged to resume her woman's
dress, she said: 'When I shall have accomplished that for
which I was sent from God, I will take the dress of a woman.'
Yet, in one sense her mission did end at Rheims. The faith of
the people still followed her, but her enemies—not the
English, but those in the heart of the court of Charles—began
to be too powerful for her. We may, indeed, conceive what a
hoard of envy and malice was gathering in the hearts of those
hardened politicians at seeing themselves superseded by a
peasant girl. They, accustomed to dark and tortuous ways,
could not comprehend or coalesce with the divine simplicity of
her designs and means. A successful intrigue was formed
against her. It was resolved to keep her still in the camp as
a name and a figure, but to take from her all power, all voice
in the direction of affairs. So accordingly it was done. …
Her ways and habits during the year she was in arms are
attested by a multitude of witnesses. Dunois and the Duke of
Alençon bear testimony to what they term her extraordinary
talents for war, and to her perfect fearlessness in action;
but in all other things she was the most simple of creatures.
She wept when she first saw men slain in battle, to think that
they should have died without confession. She wept at the
abominable epithets which the English heaped upon her; but she
was without a trace of vindictiveness. 'Ah, Glacidas, Glacidas!'
she said to Sir William Glasdale at Orleans, 'you have called
me foul names; but I have pity upon your soul and the souls of
your men. Surrender to the King of Heaven!' And she was once
seen, resting the head of a wounded Englishman on her lap,
comforting and consoling him. In her diet she was abstemious
in the extreme, rarely eating until evening, and then for the
most part, only of bread and water sometimes mixed with wine.
In the field she slept in her armour, but when she came into a
city she always sought out some honourable matron, under whose
protection she placed herself; and there is wonderful evidence
of the atmosphere of purity which she diffused around her, her
very presence banishing from men's hearts all evil thoughts
and wishes. Her conversation, when it was not of the war, was
entirely of religion. She confessed often, and received
communion twice in the week. 'And it was her custom,' says
Dunois, 'at twilight every day, to retire to the church and
make the bells be rung for half an hour, and she gathered the
mendicant religious who followed the King's army, and made
them sing an antiphon of the Blessed Mother of God.' From
presumption, as from superstition, she was entirely free. When
women brought her crosses and chaplets to bless, she said:
'How can I bless them? Your own blessing would be as good as
mine.'"
_J. O'Hagan,
Joan of Arc,
pages 61-66._
"What is to be thought of her? What is to be thought of the
poor shepherd girl from the hills and forests of Lorraine,
that—like the Hebrew shepherd boy from the hills and forests
of Judea—rose suddenly out of the quiet, out of the safety,
out of the religious inspiration, rooted in deep pastoral
solitudes, to a station in the van of armies, and to the more
perilous station at the right hand of kings? The Hebrew boy
inaugurated his patriotic mission by an act, by a victorious
act, such as no man could deny. But so did the girl of
Lorraine, if we read her story as it was read by those who saw
her nearest. Adverse armies bore witness to the boy as no
pretender; but so they did to the gentle girl. Judged by the
voices of all who saw them from a station of good-will, both
were found true and loyal to any promises involved in their
first acts. Enemies it was that made the difference between
their subsequent fortunes.
{1178}
The boy rose to a splendour, and a noonday prosperity, both
personal and public, that rang through the records of his
people, and became a by-word amongst his posterity for a
thousand years, until the sceptre was departing from Judah.
The poor, forsaken girl, on the contrary, drank not herself
from that cup of rest which she had secured for France. …
This pure creature—pure from every suspicion of even a
visionary self-interest, even as she was pure in senses more
obvious—never once did this holy child, as regarded herself,
relax from her belief in the darkness that was travelling to
meet her. She might not prefigure the very manner of her
death; she saw not in vision, perhaps, the aerial altitude of
the fiery scaffold, the spectators without end on every road
pouring into Rouen as to a coronation, the surging smoke, the
volleying flames, the hostile faces all around, the pitying
eye that lurked but here and there, until nature and
imperishable truth broke loose from artificial
restraints;—these might not be apparent through the mists of
the hurrying future. But the voice that called her to death,
that she heard for ever."
_T. De Quincey,
Joan of Arc (Collected Writings, volume 5)._
A discussion of doubts that have been raised concerning the
death of Joan at the stake will be found in
_Octave Delepierre's
Historical Difficulties and Contested Events,
chapter 8._
ALSO IN:
_J. Michelet,
History of France,
book 10._
_E. de Monstrelet,
Chronicles (Johnes' translation),
book 2, chapters 57-105._
_H. Parr,
Life and Death of Joan of Arc._
_J. Tuckey,
Joan of Arc._
_Mrs. A. E. Bray,
Joan of Arc._
FRANCE: A. D. 1431-1453.
The English expelled.
"In Joan of Arc the English certainly destroyed the cause of
their late reverses. But the impulse had been given, and the
crime of base vengeance could not stay it. Fortune declared
every where and in every way against them. In vain was Henry
VI. brought to Paris, crowned at Notre Dame, and made to
exercise all the functions of royalty in court and parliament.
The duke of Burgundy, disgusted with the English, became at
last reconciled to Charles; who spared no sacrifice to win the
support of so powerful a subject. The amplest possible amends
were made for the murder of the late duke. The towns beyond
the Somme were ceded to Burgundy, and the reigning duke [but
not his successors] was exempted from all homage towards the
king of France. Such was the famous treaty of Arras [September
21, 1435], which restored to Charles his throne, and deprived
the English of all hopes of retaining their conquests in the
kingdom. The crimes and misrule of the Orleans faction were
forgotten; popularity ebbed in favour of Charles. … One of
the gates of Paris was betrayed by the citizens to the
constable and Dunois [April, 1436]. Willoughby, the governor,
was obliged to shut himself up in the Bastile with his
garrison, from whence they retired to Rouen. Charles VII.
entered his capital, after twenty years' exclusion from it, in
November, 1437. Thenceforward the war lost its serious
character. Charles was gradually established on his throne,
and the struggle between the two nations was feebly carried
on, broken merely by a few sieges and enterprises, mostly to
the disadvantage of the English. … There had been frequent
endeavours and conferences towards a peace between the French
and English. The demands on either side proved irreconcilable.
A truce was however concluded, in 1444, which lasted four
years; it was sealed by the marriage of Henry VI. with
Margaret of Anjou, daughter of Réné, and granddaughter of
Louis, who had perished while leading an army to the conquest
of Naples. … In 1449 the truce was allowed to expire. The
quarrels of York and Lancaster had commenced, and England was
unable to defend her foreign possessions. Normandy was
invaded. The gallant Talbot could not preserve Rouen with a
disaffected population, and Charles recovered without loss of
blood [1449] the second capital of his dominions. The only
blow struck by the English for the preservation of Normandy
was at Fourmigny near Bayeux. … Normandy was for ever lost
to the English after this action or skirmish. The following
year Guyenne was invaded by the count de Dunois. He met with
no resistance. The great towns at that day had grown wealthy,
and their maxim was to avoid a siege at all hazards." Lord
Talbot was killed in an engagement at Castillon (1450), and
"with that hero expired the last hopes of his country in
regard to France. Guyenne was lost [A. D. 1453] as well as
Normandy, and Calais remained to England the only fruit of so
much blood spilt and so many victories achieved."
_E. E. Crowe,
History of France,
volume 1, chapter 4._
ALSO IN:
_J. Michelet,
History of France,
book 11._
_E. de Monstrelet,
Chronicles (Johnes' translation),
book 2, chapter 109, book 3, chapter 65._
See, also,
AQUITAINE: A. D. 1360-1453.
FRANCE: A. D. 1438.
Pragmatic Sanction of Charles VII.
Reforming decrees of the Council of Basel adopted for the
Gallican church.
After the rupture between the reforming Council of Basel and
Pope Eugenius IV. (see PAPACY: A. D. 1431-1448), Charles VII.
of France "determined to adopt in his own kingdom such of the
decrees of the Council as were for his advantage, seeing that
no opposition could be made by the Pope. Accordingly a Synod
was summoned at Bourges on May 1, 1438. The embassadors of
Pope and Council urged their respective causes. It was agreed
that the King should write to Pope and Council to stay their
hands in proceeding against one another; meanwhile, that the
reformation be not lost, some of the Basel decrees should be
maintained in France by royal authority. The results of the
synod's deliberation were laid before the King, and on July 7
were made binding as a pragmatic sanction on the French
Church. The Pragmatic Sanction enacted that General Councils
were to be held every ten years, and recognised the authority
of the Council of Basel. The Pope was no longer to reserve any
of the greater ecclesiastical appointments, but elections were
to be duly made by the rightful patrons. Grants to benefices
in expectancy, 'whence all agree that many evils arise,' were
to cease, as well as reservations. In all cathedral churches,
one prebend was to be given to a theologian who had studied
for ten years in a university, and who was to lecture or
preach at least once a week. Benefices were to be conferred in
future, one-third on graduates, two-thirds on deserving
clergy. Appeals to Rome, except for important causes, were
forbidden. The number of Cardinals was to be 24, each of the
age of 30 at least. Annates and first-fruits were no longer to
be paid to the Pope, but only the necessary legal fees on
institution. Regulations were made for greater reverence in
the conduct of Divine service; prayers were to be said by the
priest in an audible voice; mummeries in churches were
forbidden, and clerical concubinage was to be punished by
suspension for three months. Such were the chief reforms of
its own special grievances, which France wished to establish.
It was the first step in the assertion of the rights of
national Churches to arrange for themselves the details of
their own ecclesiastical organisation."
_M. Creighton,
History of the Papacy during the Period of the Reformation,
book 3, chapter 9 (volume 2)._
{1179}
FRANCE: A. D. 1447.
Origin of the claims of the house of Orleans to the duchy of
Milan.
See MILAN: A. D. 1447-1454.
FRANCE: A. D. 1453-1461.
The reconstructed kingdom.
The new plant of Absolutism.
"At the expulsion of the English, France emerged from the
chaos with an altered character and new features of
government. The royal authority and supreme jurisdiction of
the parliament were universally recognised. Yet there was a
tendency towards insubordination left among the great
nobility, arising in part from the remains of old feudal
privileges, but still more from that lax administration which,
in the convulsive struggles of the war, had been suffered to
prevail. In the south were some considerable vassals, the
houses of Foix, Albret, and Armagnac, who, on account of their
distance from the seat of empire, had always maintained a very
independent conduct. The dukes of Britany and Burgundy were of
a more formidable character, and might rather be ranked among
foreign powers than privileged subjects. The princes, too, of
the royal blood, who, during the late reign, had learned to
partake or contend for the management, were ill-inclined
towards Charles VII., himself jealous, from old recollections
of their ascendancy. They saw that the constitution was
verging rapidly towards an absolute monarchy, from the
direction of which they would studiously be excluded. This
apprehension gave rise to several attempts at rebellion during
the reign of Charles VII., and to the war, commonly entitled,
for the Public Weal ('du bien public'), under Louis XI. Among
the pretenses alleged by the revolters in each of these, the
injuries of the people were not forgotten; but from the people
they received small support. Weary of civil dissension, and
anxious for a strong government to secure them from
depredation, the French had no inducement to intrust even
their real grievances to a few malcontent princes, whose
regard for the common good they had much reason to distrust.
Every circumstance favoured Charles VII. and his son in the
attainment of arbitrary power. The country was pillaged by
military ruffians. Some of these had been led by the dauphin
to a war in Germany, but the remainder still infested the high
roads and villages. Charles established his companies of
ordonnance, the basis of the French regular army, in order to
protect the country from such depredators. They consisted of
about nine thousand soldiers, all cavalry, of whom fifteen
hundred were heavy-armed; a force not very considerable, but
the first, except mere body-guards, which had been raised in
any part of Europe as a national standing army. These troops
were paid out of the produce of a permanent tax, called the
taille; an innovation still more important than the former.
But the present benefit cheating the people, now prone to
submissive habits, little or no opposition was made, except in
Guienne, the inhabitants of which had speedy reason to regret
the mild government of England, and vainly endeavoured to
return to its protection. It was not long before the new
despotism exhibited itself in its harshest character. Louis
XI., son of Charles VII., who during his father's reign, had
been connected with the discontented princes, came to the
throne greatly endowed with those virtues and vices which
conspire to the success of a king."
_H. Hallam,
The Middle Ages,
chapter 1, part 2._
FRANCE: A. D. 1458-1461.
Renewed submission of Genoa to the King, and renewed revolt.
See GENOA: A. D. 1458-1464.
FRANCE: A. D. 1461.
Accession of King Louis XI.
Contemporary portrait of him by Commines.
"Of all the princes that I ever knew, the wisest and most
dexterous to extricate himself out of any danger or difficulty
in time of adversity, was our master King Louis XI. He was the
humblest in his conversation and habit, and the most painful
and indefatigable to win over any man to his side that he
thought capable of doing him either mischief or service:
though he was often refused, he would never give over a man
that he wished to gain, but still pressed and continued his
insinuations, promising him largely, and presenting him with
such sums and honours as he knew would gratify his ambition;
and for such as he had discarded in time of peace and
prosperity, he paid dear (when he had occasion for them) to
recover them again; but when he had once reconciled them, he
retained no enmity towards them for what had passed, but
employed them freely for the future. He was naturally kind and
indulgent to persons of mean estate, and hostile to all great
men who had no need of him. Never prince was so conversable,
nor so inquisitive as he, for his desire was to know everybody
he could; and indeed he knew all persons of any authority or
worth in England, Spain, Portugal and Italy, in the
territories of the Dukes of Burgundy and Bretagne, and among
his own subjects; and by those qualities he preserved the
crown upon his head, which was in much danger by the enemies
he had created to himself upon his accession to the throne.
But above all, his great bounty and liberality did him the
greatest service: and yet, as he behaved himself wisely in
time of distress, so when he thought himself a little out of
danger, though it were but by a truce, he would disoblige the
servants and officers of his court by mean and petty ways,
which were little to his advantage; and as for peace, he could
hardly endure the thoughts of it. He spoke slightingly of most
people, and rather before their faces, than behind their
backs, unless he was afraid of them, and of that sort there
were a great many, for he was naturally somewhat timorous.
When he had done himself any prejudice by his talk, or was
apprehensive he should do so, and wished to make amends, he
would say to the person whom he had disobliged, 'I am sensible
my tongue has done me a great deal of mischief; but, on the
other hand, it has sometimes done me much good; however, it is
but reason I should make some reparation for the injury.' And
he never used this kind of apologies to any person, but he
granted some favour to the person to whom he made it, and it
was always of considerable amount. It is certainly a great
blessing from God upon any prince to have experienced
adversity as well as prosperity, good as well as evil, and
especially if the good outweighs the evil, as it did in the
king our master.
{1180}
I am of opinion that the troubles he was involved in, in his
youth, when he fled from his father, and resided six years
together with Philip Duke of Burgundy, were of great service
to him; for there he learned to be complaisant to such as he
had occasion to use, which was no slight advantage of
adversity. As soon as he found himself a powerful and crowned
king, his mind was wholly bent upon revenge; but he quickly
found the inconvenience of this, repented by degrees of his
indiscretion, and made sufficient reparation for his folly and
error, by regaining those he had injured, as shall be related
hereafter. Besides, I am very confident that if his education
had not been different from the usual education of such nobles
as I have seen in France, he could not so easily have worked
himself out of his troubles; for they are brought up to
nothing but to make themselves ridiculous, both in their
clothes and discourse; they have no knowledge of letters; no
wise man is suffered to come near them, to improve their
understandings; they have governors who manage their business,
but they do nothing themselves."—Such is the account of Louis
XI. which Philip de Commines gives in one of the early
chapters of his delightful Memoirs. In a later chapter he
tells naively of the king's suspicions and fears, and of what
he suffered, at the end of his life, as the penalty of his
cruel and crafty dealings with his subjects: "Some five or six
months before his death, he began to suspect everybody,
especially those who were most capable and deserving of the
administration of affairs. He was afraid of his son, and
caused him to be kept close, so that no man saw or discoursed
with him, but by his special command. At last he grew
suspicious of his daughter, and of his son-in-law the Duke of
Bourbon, and required an account of what persons came to speak
with them at Plessis, and broke up a council which the Duke of
Bourbon was holding there, by his order. … Behold, then, if
he had caused many to live under him in continual fear and
apprehension, whether it was not returned to him again; for of
whom could he be secure when he was afraid of his son-in-law,
his daughter, and his own son? I speak this not only of him,
but of all other princes who desire to be feared, that
vengeance never falls on them till they grow old, and then, as
a just penance, they are afraid of everybody themselves; and
what grief must it have been to this poor King to be tormented
with such terrors and passions? He was still attended by his
physician, Master James Coctier, to whom in five months' time
he had given fifty-four thousand crowns in ready money,
besides the bishopric of Amiens for his nephew, and other
great offices and estates for himself and his friends; yet
this doctor used him very roughly indeed; one would not have
given such outrageous language to one's servants as he gave
the King, who stood in such awe of him, that he durst not
forbid him his presence. It is true he complained of his
impudence afterwards, but he durst not change him as he had
done all the rest of his servants; because he had told him
after a most audacious manner one day, 'I know well that some
time or other you will dismiss me from court, as you have done
the rest; but be sure (and he confirmed it with a great oath)
you shall not live eight days after it'; with which expression
the King was so terrified, that ever after he did nothing but
flatter and bribe him, which must needs have been a great
mortification to a prince who had been humbly obeyed all his
life by so many good and brave men. The King had ordered
several cruel prisons to be made; some were cages of iron, and
some of wood, but all were covered with iron plates both
within and without, with terrible locks, about eight feet wide
and seven high; the first contriver of them was the Bishop of
Verdun, who was immediately put in the first of them that was
made, where he continued fourteen years. Many bitter curses he
has had since for his invention, and some from me as I lay in
one of them eight months together in the minority of our
present King. He also ordered heavy and terrible fetters to be
made in Germany, and particularly a certain ring for the feet,
which was extremely hard to be opened, and fitted like an iron
collar, with a thick weighty chain, and a great globe of iron
at the end of it, most unreasonably heavy, which engines were
called the King's Nets. … As in his time this barbarous
variety of prisons was invented, so before he died he himself
was in greater torment, and more terrible apprehension than
those whom he had imprisoned; which I look upon as a great
mercy towards him, and as it part of his purgatory; and I have
mentioned it here to show that there is no person, of what
station or dignity soever, but suffers some time or other,
either publicly or privately, especially if he has caused
other people to suffer. The King, towards the latter end of
his days, caused his castle of Plessis-les-Tours to be
encompassed with great bars of iron in the form of thick
grating, and at the four corners of the house four
sparrow-nests of iron, strong, massy, and thick, were built.
The grates were without the wall on the other side of the
ditch, and sank to the bottom. Several spikes of iron were
fastened into the wall, set as thick by one another as was
possible, and each furnished with three or four points. He
likewise placed ten bow-men in the ditches, to shoot at any
man that durst approach the castle before the opening of the
gates; and he ordered they should lie in the ditches, but
retire to the sparrow-nests upon occasion. He was sensible
enough that this fortification was too weak to keep out an
army, or any great body of men, but he had no fear of such an
attack; his great apprehension was, that some of the nobility
of his kingdom, having intelligence within, might attempt to
make themselves masters of the castle by night. … Is it
possible then to keep a prince (with any regard to his
quality) in a closer prison than he kept himself? The cages
which were made for other people were about eight feet square;
and he (though so great a monarch) had but a small court of
the castle to walk in, and seldom made use of that, but
generally kept himself in the gallery, out of which he went
into the chambers on his way to mass, but never passed through
the court. … I have not recorded these things merely to
represent our master as a suspicious and mistrustful prince;
but to show, that by the patience which he expressed in his
sufferings (like those which he inflicted on other people),
they may be looked upon, in my judgment, as a punishment which
our Lord inflicted upon him in this world, in order to deal
more mercifully with him in the next, as well in regard to
those things before-mentioned as to the distempers of his
body, which were great and painful, and much dreaded by him
before they came upon him; and, likewise, that those princes
who may be his successors, may learn by his example to be more
tender and indulgent to their subjects, and less severe in
their punishments than our master had been: although I will
not censure him, or say I ever saw a better prince; for though
he oppressed his subjects himself he would never see them
injured by anybody else."
_Philip de Commines,
Memoirs,
book 1, chapter 10,
and book 6, chapter 11._
{1181}
FRANCE: A. D. 1461-1468.
The character and reign of Louis XI.
The League of the Public Weal.
"Except St. Louis, he [Louis XI.] was the first, as, indeed
(with the solitary exception of Louis Philippe), he is still
the only king of France whose mind was ever prepared for the
duties of that high station by any course of severe and
systematic study. Before he ascended the throne of his
ancestors he had profoundly meditated the great Italian
authors, and the institutions and maxims of the Italian
republics. From those lessons he had derived a low esteem of
his fellowmen, and especially of those among them upon whom
wealth, and rank, and power had descended as an hereditary
birthright. … He clearly understood, and pursued with
inflexible steadfastness of purpose the elevation of his
country and the grandeur of his own royal house and lineage;
but he pursued them with a torpid imagination, a cold heart,
and a ruthless will. He regarded mankind as a physiologist
contemplates the living subjects of his science, or as a
chess-player surveys the pieces on his board. … It has been
said of Louis XI., that the appearance of the men of the
Revolution of 1789 first made him intelligible. … Louis was
the first of the terrible Ideologists of France—of that class
of men who, to enthrone an idolized idea, will offer whole
hecatombs of human sacrifices at the shrine of their idol. The
Idea of Louis was that of levelling all powers in the state,
in order that the administration of the affairs, the
possession of the wealth, and the enjoyment of the honours of
his kingdom might be grasped by himself and his successors as
their solitary and unrivalled dominion. … Before his
accession to the throne, all the great fiefs into which France
had been divided under the earlier Capetian kings had, with
the exception of Bretagne, been either annexed to the royal
domain, or reduced to a state of dependence on the crown. But,
under the name of Apanages, these ancient divisions of the
kingdom into separate principalities had reappeared. The
territorial feudalism of the Middle Ages seemed to be reviving
in the persons of the younger branches of the royal house. The
Dukes of Burgundy had thus become the rulers of a state [see
BURGUNDY: A. D. 1467] which, under the government of more
politic princes, might readily, in fulfillment of their
desires, have attained the rank of an independent kingdom. The
Duke of Bretagne, still asserting the peculiar privileges of
his duchy, was rather an ally than a subject of the king of
France. Charles, Duke of Berri, the brother of Louis, aspired
to the possession of the same advantages. And these three
great territorial potentates, in alliance with the Duc de
Bourbon and the Comte de St. Pol, the brothers-in-law of Louis
and of his queen, united together to form that confederacy
against him to which they gave the very inappropriate title of
La Ligue du Bien Public. It was, however, a title which
recognized the growing strength of the Tiers Étât, and of that
public opinion to which the Tiers Étât at once gave utterance
and imparted authority. Selfish ambition was thus compelled to
assume the mask of patriotism. The princes veiled their
insatiable appetite for their own personal advantages under
the popular and plausible demands of administrative
reforms—of the reduction of imposts—of the government of
the people by their representatives—and, consequently, of the
convocation of the States-General. To these pretensions Louis
was unable to make any effectual resistance." An indecisive
but bloody battle was fought at Montlehery, near Paris (July
16, 1465), from which both armies retreated with every
appearance of defeat. The capital was besieged ineffectually
for some weeks by the League; then the king yielded, or seemed
to do so, and the Treaty of Conflans was signed. "He assented,
in terms at least, to all the demands of his antagonists. He
granted to the Duke of Berri the duchy of Normandy as an
apanage transmissible in perpetuity to his male heirs. … The
confederates then laid down their arms. The wily monarch bided
his time. He had bestowed on them advantages which he well
knew would destroy their popularity and so subvert the basis
of their power, and which he also knew the state of public
opinion would not allow them to retain. To wrest those
advantages from their hands, it was only necessary to comply
with their last stipulation, and to convene the
States-General. They met accordingly, at Tours, on the 6th of
April, 1468." As Louis had anticipated—or, rather, as he had
planned—the States-General cancelled the grant of Normandy to
the Duke of Berri (which the king had been able already to
recover possession of, owing to quarrels between the dukes of
Berri and Brittany) and, generally, took away from the princes
of the League nearly all that they had extorted in the Treaty
of Conflans. On the express invitation of the king they
appointed a commission to reform abuses in the
government—which commission "attempted little and effected
nothing"—and, then, having assisted the cunning king to
overcome his threatening nobles, the States-General were
dissolved, to meet no more while Louis XI. occupied the
throne. In a desperate situation he had used the dangerous
weapon against his enemies with effect; he was too prudent to
draw it from the sheath a second time.
_Sir J. Stephen,
Lectures on the History of France,
lecture 11._
"The career of Louis XI. presents a curious problem. How could
a ruler whose morality fell below that of Jonathan Wild yet
achieve some of the greatest permanent results of patriotic
statesmanship, and be esteemed not only by himself but by so
calm an observer as Commines the model of kingly virtue? As to
Louis's moral character and principles, or want of principle,
not a doubt can be entertained. To say he committed the acts
of a villain is to fall far short of the truth. … He
possessed a kind of religious belief, but it was a species of
religion which a respectable heathen would have scorned. He
attempted to bribe heaven, or rather the saints, just as he
attempted to win over his Swiss allies—that is, by gifts of
money. … Yet this man, who was daunted by no cruelty, and
who could be bound by no oath save one, did work which all
statesmen must admire, and which French patriots must
fervently approve.
{1182}
He was the creator of modern France. When he came to the
throne it seemed more than likely that an utterly selfish and
treacherous nobility would tear the country in pieces. The
English still threatened to repeat the horrors of their
invasions. The House of Burgundy overbalanced the power of the
crown, and stimulated lawlessness throughout the whole
country. The peasantry were miserably oppressed, and the
middle classes could not prosper for want of that rule of law
which is the first requisite for civilization. When Louis
died, the existence of France and the power of the French
crown was secured: 'He had extended the frontiers of his
kingdom; Picardy, Provence, Burgundy, Anjou, Maine, Roussillon
had been compelled to acknowledge the immediate authority of
the crown.' He had crushed the feudal oligarchy; he had seen
his most dangerous enemy destroyed by the resistance of the
Swiss; he had baffled the attempt to construct a state which
would have imperilled the national existence of France; he had
put an end to all risk of English invasion; and he left France
the most powerful country in Europe. Her internal government
was no doubt oppressive, but, at any rate, it secured the rule
of law; and his schemes for her benefit were still unfinished.
He died regretting that he could not carry out his plans for
the reform of the law and for the protection of commerce; and,
in the opinion of Commines, if God had granted him the grace
of living five or six years more, he would greatly have
benefited his realm. He died commending his soul to the
intercession of the Virgin, and the last words caught from his
lips were: 'Lord, in thee have I trusted; let me never be
confounded.' Nor should this be taken as the expression of
hopeless self-delusion or gratuitous hypocrisy. In the opinion
of Commines, uttered after the king's death, 'he was more
wise, more liberal, and more virtuous in all things than any
contemporary sovereign.' The expressions of Commines were, it
may be said, but the echo of the low moral tone of the age.
This, no doubt, is true; but the fact that the age did not
condemn acts which, taken alone, seem to argue the utmost
depravity, still needs explanation. The matter is the more
worthy of consideration because Louis represents, though in an
exaggerated form, the vices and virtues of a special body of
rulers. He was the incarnation, so to speak, of kingcraft. The
word and the idea it represents have now become out of date,
but for about two centuries—say, roughly, from the middle of
the seventeenth century—the idea of a great king was that of
a monarch who ruled by means of cunning, intrigue, and
disregard of ordinary moral rules. We here come across the
fact which explains both the career and the reputation of
Louis and of others, such as Henry VII. of England, who were
masters of kingcraft. The universal feeling of the time,
shared by subjects no less than by rulers, was that a king was
not bound by the rules of morality, and especially by the
rules of honesty, which bind other men. Until you realize this
fact, nothing is more incomprehensible than the adulation
lavished by men such as Bacon or Casaubon on a ruler such as
James I. … The real puzzle is to ascertain how this feeling
that kings were above the moral law came into existence. The
facts of history afford the necessary explanation. When the
modern European world was falling into shape the one thing
required for national prosperity was the growth of a power
which might check the disorders of the feudal nobility, and
secure for the mass of the people the blessings of an orderly
government. The only power which, in most cases, could achieve
this end, was the crown. In England the monarchs put an end to
the wars of the nobility. In France the growth of the monarchy
secured not only internal quiet, but protection from external
invasion. In these and in other cases the interest of the
crown and the interest of the people became for a time
identical. … Acts which would have seemed villainous when
done to promote a purely private interest, became mere devices
of statesmanship when performed in the interest of the public.
The maxims that the king can do no wrong, and that the safety
of the people is the highest law, blended together in the
minds of ambitious rulers. The result was the production of
men like Louis XI."
_A. V. Dicey,
Willert's Louis XI.
(The Nation, December 7, 1876)._
"A careful examination of the reign of Louis the Eleventh has
particularly impressed upon me one fact, that the ends for
which he toiled and sinned throughout his whole life were
attained at last rather by circumstances than by his labours.
The supreme object of all his schemes was to crush that most
formidable of all his foes, Burgundy. And yet had Charles
confined his ambition within reasonable limits, had he
possessed an ordinary share of statecraft, and, above all,
could he have controlled those fiery passions, which drove him
to the verge of madness, he would have won the game quite
easily. Louis lacked one of the essential qualities of
statecraft—patience; and was wholly destitute of that
necessity of ambition—boldness. An irritable restlessness
was one of the salient points of his character. His courtiers
and attendants were ever intriguing to embroil him in war,
'because,' says Comines, 'the nature of the King was such,
that unless he was at war with some foreign prince, he would
certainly find some quarrel or other at home with his
servants, domestics, or officers, for his mind must be always
working.' His mood was ever changing, and he was by turns
confiding, suspicious, avaricious, prodigal, audacious, and
timid. He frequently nullified his most crafty schemes by
impatience for the result. He would sow the seed with the
utmost care, but he could not wait for the fructification. In
this he was false to the practice of those Italian statesmen
who were avowedly his models. It was this irritable
restlessness which brought down upon him the hatred of all
classes, from the noble to the serf; for we find him at one
time cunningly bidding for popularity, and immediately
afterwards destroying all he had gained by some rash and
inconsiderate act. His extreme timidity hampered the execution
of all his plans. He had not even the boldness of the coward
who will fight when all the strength is on his own side.
Constantly at war, during a reign of twenty-two years there
were fought but two battles, Montlehéry and Guingette, both of
which, strange to say, were undecided, and both of which were
fought against his will and counsel. … He left France larger
by one-fourth than he had inherited it; but out of the five
provinces which he acquired, Provence was bequeathed him,
Roussillon was pawned to him by the usurping King of Navarre,
and Burgundy was won for him by the Swiss. His triumphs were
much more the result of fortune than the efforts of his own
genius."
_Louis the Eleventh
(Temple Bar, volume 46, pages 523-524)._
ALSO IN:
_J. Michelet,
History of France,
book 13._
_P. F. Willert,
The Reign of Louis XI._
_J. F. Kirk,
History of Charles the Bold,
book 1, chapters 4-6._
_P. de Commines,
Memoirs,
book 1._
_E. de Monstrelet,
Chronicles
(Johnes' translation),
book 3, chapters 99-153._
{1183}
FRANCE: A. D. 1467-1477.
The troubles of Louis XI. with Charles the Bold, of Burgundy.
Death of the Duke and Louis' acquisition of Burgundy.
See BURGUNDY: A. D. 1467-1468, to 1477.
FRANCE: A. D. 1483.
The kingdom as left by Louis XI.
Louis XI., who died Aug. 30, A. D. 1483, "had joined to the
crown Berry, the apanage of his brother, Provence, the duchy
of Burgundy, Anjou, Maine, Ponthieu, the counties of Auxerre,
of Mâcon, Charolais, the Free County, Artois, Marche,
Armagnac, Cerdagne, and Roussilon. … The seven latter
provinces did not yet remain irrevocably united with France:
one part was given anew in apanage, and the other part
restored to foreign sovereigns, and only returned one by one
to the crown of France. … The principal work of Louis XI.
was the abasement of the second feudality, which had raised
itself on the ruins of the first, and which, without him,
would have replunged France into anarchy. The chiefs of that
feudality were, however, more formidable, since, for the most
part, they belonged to the blood royal of France. Their
powerful houses, which possessed at the accession of that
prince a considerable part of the kingdom, were those of
Orleans, Anjou, Burgundy, and Bourbon. They found themselves
much weakened at his death, and dispossessed in great part, as
we have seen in the history of the reign, by confiscations,
treaties, gifts or heritages. By the side of these houses,
which issued from that of France, there were others whose
power extended still, at this period, in the limits of France
proper, over vast domains. Those of Luxembourg and La Mark
possessed great wealth upon the frontier of the north; that of
Vaudemont had inherited Lorraine and the duchy of Bar; the
house of La Tour was powerful in Auvergne; in the south the
houses of Foix and Albert ruled, the first in the valley of
Ariége, the second between the Adour and the Pyrenees. In the
west the house of Brittany had guarded its independence; but
the moment approached when this beautiful province was to be
forever united with the crown. Lastly, two foreign sovereigns
held possessions in France; the Pope had Avignon and the
county Venaissin; and the Duke of Savoy possessed, between the
Rhone and the Saône, Bugey and Valromey. The time was still
distant when the royal authority would be seen freely
exercised through every territory comprised in the natural
limits of the kingdom. But Louis XI. did much to attain this
aim, and after him no princely or vassal house was powerful
enough to resist the crown by its own forces, and to put the
throne in peril."
_E. de Bonnechose,
History of France,
volume 1, pages 315-318,
and foot-note._
FRANCE: A. D. 1483.
Accession of King Charles VIII.
FRANCE: A. D. 1485-1487.
The League of the Princes.
Charles VIII., son and successor of Louis XI., came to the
throne at the age of thirteen, on the death of his father in
1483. His eldest sister, Anne, married to the Lord of Beaujeu,
made herself practically regent of the kingdom, by sheer
ability and force of character; and ruled during the minority,
pursuing the lines of her father's policy. The princes of the
blood-royal, with the Dukes of Orleans and Bourbon at their
head, formed a league against her. They were supported by many
nobles, including Philip de Commines, the Count of Dunois and
the Prince of Orange. They also received aid from the Duke of
Brittany, and from Maximilian of Austria, who now controlled
the Netherlands. Anne's general, La Trémouille, defeated the
league in a decisive battle (A. D. 1487) near St. Aubin du
Cormier, where the Duke of Orleans, the Prince of Orange, and
many nobles and knights were made prisoners. The Duke and the
Prince were sent to Anne, who shut them up in strong places,
while most of their companions were summarily executed.
_E. de Bonnechose,
History of France,
volume 1, book 3, chapter 3._
ALSO IN:
_F. P. Guizot,
Popular History of France,
ch. 26._
FRANCE: A. D. 1491.
Brittany, the last of the great fiefs, united to the crown.
The end of the Feudal System.
See BRITTANY: A. D. 1491.
FRANCE: A. D. 1492-1515.
The reigns of Charles VIII. and Louis XII.
Their Italian Expeditions and Wars.
The effects on France.
Beginning of the Renaissance.
Louis XI. was succeeded by his son, Charles VIII., a boy of
thirteen years, whose elder sister Anne governed the kingdom
ably until he came of age. She dealt firmly with a rebellion
of the nobles and suppressed it. She frustrated an intended
marriage of Anne of Brittany with Maximilian of Austria, which
would have drawn the last of the great semi-independent fiefs
into a dangerous relationship, and she made Charles instead of
his rival the husband of the Breton heiress. When Charles, who
had little intelligence, assumed the government, he was
excited with dreams of making good the pretensions of the
Second House of Anjou to the Kingdom of Naples. Those
pretensions, which had been bequeathed to Louis XI., and which
Charles VIII. had now inherited, had the following origin: "In
the eleventh century, Robert Guiscard, of the Norman family of
Hauteville, at the head of a band of adventurers, took
possession of Sicily and South Italy, then in a state of
complete anarchy. Roger, the son of Robert, founded the
Kingdom of the Two Sicilies under the Pope's suzerainty. In
1189 the Guiscard family became extinct, whereupon the German
Emperor laid claim to the kingdom in right of his wife
Constance, daughter of one of the Norman kings. The Roman
Pontiffs, dreading such powerful neighbours, were adverse to
the arrangement, and in 1254 King Conrad, being succeeded by
his son Conradin, still a minor, furnished a pretext for
bestowing the crown of the Two Sicilies on Charles d' Anjou,
brother of St. Louis. Manfred, guardian of the boy Conradin,
and a natural son of the Emperor Frederick II., raised an army
against Charles d' Anjou, but was defeated, and fell in the
encounter of 1266. Two years later, Prince Conradin was
cruelly beheaded in Naples. Before his death, however, he made
a will, by which he invested Peter III. of Aragon, son-in-law
of Manfred, with full power over the Two Sicilies, exhorting
him to avenge his death [see ITALY: A. D. 1250-1268].
{1184}
This bequest was the origin of the rivalry between the houses
of Aragon and Anjou, a rivalry which developed into open
antagonism when the island of Sicily was given up to Peter of
Aragon and his descendants, while Charles d' Anjou still held
Naples for himself and his heirs [see ITALY: A. D. 1282-1300].
In 1435 Joan II., Queen of Naples, bequeathed her estates to
Alfonso V. of Aragon, surnamed the Magnanimous, to the
exclusion of Louis III. of Anjou. After a long and bloody
struggle, Alfonso succeeded in driving the Anjou dynasty out
of Naples [see ITALY: A. D. 1343-1389, and 1386-1414]. Louis
III. was the last representative of this once-powerful family.
He returned to France, survived his defeat two-and-twenty
years, and by his will left all his rights to the Count of
Maine, his nephew, who, on his death, transferred them to
Louis XI. The wily Louis was not tempted to claim this
worthless legacy. His successor, Charles VIII., less
matter-of-fact, and more romantic, was beguiled into a series
of brilliant, though sterile, expeditions, disastrous to
national interests, neglecting the Flemish provinces, the
liege vassals of France, and thoroughly French at heart.
Charles VIII. put himself at the head of his nobles, made a
triumphal entry into Naples and returned without having gained
an inch of territory [see ITALY: A. D. 1492-1494, and 1494-1496].
De Commines judges the whole affair a mystery; it was,
in fact, one of those dazzling and chivalrous adventures with
which the French delighted to astonish Europe. Louis XII.,
like Charles VIII. [whom he succeeded in 1498], proclaimed his
right to Naples, and also to the Duchy of Milan, inherited
from his grandmother, Valentine de Visconti. These pretended
rights were more than doubtful. The Emperor Wenceslas, on
conferring the duchy on the Viscontis, excluded women from the
inheritance, and both Louis XI. and Charles VIII. recognised
the validity of the Salic law in Milan by concluding an
alliance with the Sforzas. The seventeen years of Louis XII.'s
reign was absorbed in these Italian wars, in which the French
invariably began by victory, and as invariably ended in
defeat. The League of Cambrai, the Battles of Agnadel,
Ravenna, Novara, the Treaties of Grenada and Blois, are the
principal episodes of this unlucky campaign."
_C. Coignet,
Francis the First and His Times,
chapter 3._
See, also, ITALY: A. D. 1499-1500.
"The warriors of France came back from Italy with the wonders
of the South on their lips and her treasures in their hands.
They brought with them books and paintings, they brought with
them armour inlaid with gold and silver, tapestries enriched
with precious metals, embroidered clothing, and even household
furniture. Distributed by many hands in many different places,
each precious thing became a separate centre of initiative
power. The châteaux of the country nobles boasted the
treasures which had fallen to the share of their lords at
Genoa or at Naples; and the great women of the court were
eager to divide the spoil. The contagion spread rapidly. Even
in the most fantastic moment of Gothic inspiration, the French
artist gave evidence that his right hand obeyed a national
instinct for order, for balance, for completeness, and that
his eye preferred, in obedience to a national predilection,
the most refined harmonies of colour. Step by step he had been
feeling his way; now, the broken link of tradition was again
made fast; the workmen of Paris and the workmen of Athens
joined hands, united by the genius of Italy. It must not,
however, be supposed that no intercourse had previously
existed between France and Italy. The roads by Narbonne and
Lyons were worn by many feet. The artists of Tours and
Poitiers, the artists of Paris and Dijon, were alike familiar
with the path to Rome. But an intercourse, hitherto
restricted, was rendered by the wars of Charles VIII. all but
universal. … Cruelly as the Italians had suffered at the
hands of Charles VIII. they still looked to France for help;
they knew that though they had been injured they had not been
betrayed. But the weak and generous impulses of Charles VIII.
found no place in the councils of his successors. … The doom
of Italy was pronounced. Substantially the compact was this.
Aided by Borgia, the French were to destroy the free cities of
the north, and in return France was to aid Borgia in breaking
the power of the independent nobles who yet resisted Papal
aggression in the south. In July 1499 the work began. At first
the Italians failed to realise what had taken place. When the
French army entered the Milanese territory the inhabitants
fraternised with the troops, Milan, Genoa, Pavia opened their
gates with joy. But in a few months the course of events, in
the south, aroused a dread anxiety. There, Borgia, under the
protection of the French king, and with the assistance of the
French arms, was triumphantly glutting his brutal rage and
lust, whilst Frenchmen were forced to look on helpless and
indignant. Milan, justly terrified, made an attempt to throw
herself on the mercy of her old ruler. To no purpose. Louis
went back over the Alps, leaving a strong hand and a strong
garrison in Milan, and dragging with him the unfortunate Louis
Sforza, a miserable proof of the final destruction of the most
brilliant court of Upper Italy. … By the campaign of 1507,
the work, thus begun, was consummated. The ancient spirit of
independence still lingered in Genoa, and Venice was not yet
crushed. There were still fresh laurels to be won. In this
Holy War the Pope and the Emperor willingly joined forces with
France. … The deathblow was first given to Genoa. She was
forced, Marot tells us, 'la corde au coul, la glaive sous la
gorge, implorer la clémence de ce prince.' Venice was next
traitorously surprised and irreparably injured. Having thus
brilliantly achieved the task of first destroying the lettered
courts, and next the free cities of Italy, Louis died,
bequeathing to François I. the shame of fighting out a
hopeless struggle for supremacy against allies who, no longer
needing help, had combined to drive the French from the field.
There was, indeed, one other duty to be performed. The
shattered remains of Italian civilisation might be collected,
and Paris might receive the men whom Italy could no longer
employ. The French returned to France empty of honour, gorged
with plunder, satiated with rape and rapine, boasting of
cities sacked, and garrisons put to the sword. They had sucked
the lifeblood of Italy, but her death brought new life to
France. The impetus thus acquired by art and letters coincided
with a change in political and social constitutions. The
gradual process of centralisation which had begun with Louis
XI. transformed the life of the whole nation. … The royal
court began to take proportions hitherto unknown.
{1185}
It gradually became a centre which gathered together the rich,
the learned, and the skilled. Artists, who had previously been
limited in training, isolated in life, and narrowed in
activity by the rigid conservative action of the great guilds
and corporations, were thus brought into immediate contact
with the best culture of their day. For the Humanists did not
form a class apart, and their example incited those with whom
they lived to effort after attainments as varied as their own,
whilst the Court made a rallying point for all, which gave a
sense of countenance and protection even to those who might
never hope to enter it. … Emancipation of the individual is
the watchword of the sixteenth century; to the artist it
brought relief from the trammels of a caste thraldom, and the
ceaseless efforts of the Humanists find an answer even in the
new forms seen slowly breaking through the sheath of Gothic
art."
_Mrs. Mark Pattison,
The Renaissance of Art in France,
volume 1, chapter 1._
FRANCE: 16th Century.
Renaissance and Reformation.
"The first point of difference to be noted between the
Renaissance in France and the Renaissance in Italy is one of
time. Roughly speaking it may be said that France was a
hundred years behind Italy. … But if the French Renaissance
was a later and less rapid growth, it was infinitely hardier.
The Renaissance literature in Italy was succeeded by a long
period of darkness, which remained unbroken, save by fitful
gleams of light, till the days of Alfieri. The Renaissance
literature in France was the prelude to a literature, which,
for vigour, variety, and average excellence, has in modern
times rarely, if ever, been surpassed. The reason for this
superiority on the part of France, for the fact that the
Renaissance produced there more abiding and more far-reaching
results, may be ascribed partly to the natural law that
precocious and rapid growths are always less hardy than later
and more gradual ones, partly to the character of the French
nation, to its being at once more intellectual and less
imaginative than the Italian, and therefore more influenced by
the spirit of free inquiry than by the worship of beauty;
partly to the greater unity and vitality of its political
life, but in a large measure to the fact that in France the
Renaissance came hand in hand with the Reformation. … We
must look upon the Reformation as but a fresh development of
the Renaissance movement, as the result of the spirit of free
inquiry carried into theology, as a revolt against the
authority of the Roman Church. Now the Renaissance in Italy
preceded the Reformation by more than a century. There is no
trace in it of any desire to criticise the received theology.
… In France on the other hand the new learning and the new
religion, Greek and heresy, became almost controvertible
terms. Lefèvre d' Étaples, the doyen of French humanists,
translated the New Testament into French in 1524: the
Estiennes, the Hebrew scholar François Vatable, Turnèbe,
Ramus, the great surgeon Ambroise Paré, the artists Bernard
Palissy and Jean Goujon were all avowed protestants; while
Clement Marot, Budé, and above all Rabelais, for a time at
least, looked on the reformation with more or less favour. In
fact so long as the movement appeared to them merely as a
revolt against the narrowness and illiberality of monastic
theology, as an assertion of the freedom of the human
intellect, the men of letters and culture with hardly an
exception joined hands with the reformers. It was only when
they found that it implied a moral as well as an intellectual
regeneration, that it began to wear for some of them a less
congenial aspect. This close connexion between the Reformation
and the revival of learning was, on the whole, a great gain to
France. It was not as in Germany, where the stronger growth of
the Reformation completely choked the other. In France they
met on almost equal terms, and the result was that the whole
movement was thereby strengthened and elevated both
intellectually and morally. … French humanism can boast of a
long roll of names honourable not only for their high
attainments, but also for their integrity and purity of life.
Robert Estienne, Turnèbe, Ramus, Cujas, the Chancellor de
l'Hôpital, Estienne Pasquier, Thou, are men whom any country
would be proud to claim for her sons. And as with the
humanists, so it was with the Renaissance generally in France.
On the whole it was a manly and intelligent movement. … The
literature of the French Renaissance, though in point of form
it is far below that of the Italian Renaissance, in manliness
and vigour and hopefulness is far superior to it. It is in
short a literature, not of maturity, but of promise. One has
only to compare its greatest name, Rabelais, with the greatest
name of the Italian Renaissance, Ariosto, to see the
difference. How formless! how crude! how gross! how full of
cumbersome details and wearisome repetitions is Rabelais! How
limpid! how harmonious is Ariosto! what perfection of style,
what delicacy of touch! He never wearies us, he never offends
our taste. And yet one rises from the reading of Rabelais with
a feeling of buoyant cheerfulness, while Ariosto in spite of
his wit and gaiety is inexpressibly depressing. The reason is
that the one bids us hope, the other bids us despair; the one
believes in truth and goodness and in the future of the human
race, the other believes in nothing but the pleasures of the
senses, which come and go like many-coloured bubbles and leave
behind them a boundless ennui. Rabelais and Ariosto are true
types of the Renaissance as it appeared in their respective
countries."
_A. Tilley,
The Literature of the French Renaissance,
chapter 2._
FRANCE: A. D. 1501-1504.
Treaty of Louis XII. with Ferdinand of Aragon for the
partition of Naples.
French and Spanish conquest.
Quarrel of the confederates, and war.
The Spaniards in possession of the Neapolitan domain.
See ITALY: A. D. 1501-1504.
FRANCE: A. D. 1504.
Norman and Breton fishermen on the Newfoundland banks.
See NEWFOUNDLAND: A. D. 1501-1578.
FRANCE: A. D. 1504-1506.
The treaties of Blois, with Ferdinand and Maximilian, and the
abrogation of them.
Relinquishment of claims on Naples.
See ITALY: A. D. 1504-1506.
FRANCE: A. D. 1507.
Revolt and subjugation of Genoa.
See GENOA: A. D. 1500-1507.
FRANCE: A. D. 1508-1509.
The League of Cambrai against Venice.
See VENICE: A. D. 1508-1509.
FRANCE: A. D. 1510-1513.
The breaking up of the League of Cambrai.
The Holy League formed by Pope Julius II. against Louis XII.
The French expelled from Milan and all Italy.
See ITALY: A. D. 1510-1513.
{1186}
FRANCE: A. D. 1513-1515.
English invasion under Henry VIII.
The Battle of the Spurs.
Marriage of Louis XII. with Mary of England.
The King's death.
Accession of Francis I.
"The long preparations of Henry VIII. of England for the
invasion of France [in pursuance of the 'Holy League' against
Louis XII., formed by Pope Julius II. and renewed by Leo
X.,—see ITALY: A. D. 1510-1513] being completed, that king,
in the summer of 1513, landed at Calais, whither a great part
of his army had already been transported. The offer of 100,000
golden crowns easily persuaded the Emperor to promise his
assistance, at the head of a body of Swiss and Germans. But at
the moment Henry was about to penetrate into France, he
received the excuses of Maximilian, who, notwithstanding a
large advance received from England, found himself unable to
levy the promised succours. Nothing disheartened by this
breach of faith, the King of England had already advanced into
Artois; when the Emperor, attended by a few German nobles,
appeared in the English camp, and was cordially welcomed by
Henry, who duly appreciated his military skill and local
knowledge. A valuable accession of strength was also obtained
by the junction of a large body of Swiss, who, encouraged by
the victory of Novara, had already crossed the Jura, and now
marched to the seat of war. The poverty of the Emperor
degraded him to the rank of a mercenary of England; and Henry
consented to grant him the daily allowance of 100 crowns for
his table. But humiliating as this compact was to Maximilian,
the King of England reaped great benefit from his presence. A
promiscuous multitude of Germans had flocked to the English
camp, in hopes of partaking in the spoil; and the arrival of
their valiant Emperor excited a burst of enthusiasm. The siege
of Terouenne was formed: but the bravery of the besieged
baffled the efforts of the allies; and a month elapsed, during
which the English sustained severe loss from frequent and
successful sorties. By the advice of the Emperor, Henry
resolved to risk a battle with the French, and the plain of
Guinegate was once more the field of conflict [August 18,
1513]. This spot, where Maximilian had formerly struck terror
into the legions of Louis XI., now became the scene of a rapid
and undisputed victory. The French were surprised by the
allies, and gave way to a sudden panic; and the shameful
flight of the cavalry abandoned the bravest of their leaders
to the hands of their enemies. The Duke of Longueville, La
Palisse, Imbercourt, and the renowned Chevalier Bayard, were
made prisoners; and the ridicule of the conquerors
commemorated the inglorious flight by designating the rout as
the Battle of the Spurs. The capture of Terouenne immediately
followed; and the fall of Tournay soon afterwards opened a
splendid prospect to the King of England. Meanwhile the safety
of France was threatened in another quarter. A large body of
Swiss, levied in the name of Maximilian but paid with the gold
of the Pope, burst into Burgundy; and Dijon was with difficulty
saved from capture. From this danger, however, France was
extricated by the dexterous negotiation of Trémouille; and the
Swiss were induced to withdraw. … Louis now became seriously
desirous of peace. He made overtures to the Pope, and was
received into favour upon consenting to renounce the Council
of Pisa. He conciliated the Kings of Aragon and England by
proposals of marriage; he offered his second daughter Renée to
the young Charles of Spain; and his second Queen, Anne of
Bretainy, being now dead, he proposed to unite himself with
Mary of England, the favourite sister of Henry. … But though
peace was made upon this footing, the former of the projected
marriages never took place: the latter; however, was
magnificently solemnized, and proved fatal to Louis. The
amorous King forgot his advanced age in the arms of his young
and beautiful bride; his constitution gave way under the
protracted festivities consequent on his nuptials; and on the
1st of January, 1515, Louis XII. was snatched from his adoring
people, in his 53d year. He was succeeded by his kinsman and
son-in-law, Francis, Count of Angoulême, who stood next in
hereditary succession, and was reputed one of the most
accomplished princes that ever mounted the throne of France."
_Sir R. Comyn,
History of the Western Empire,
chapter 38 (volume 2)._
ALSO IN:
_J. S. Brewer,
The Reign of Henry VIII.,
chapter 1._
_L. von Ranke,
History of the Latin and Teutonic Nations
from 1494 to 1514,
book 2, chapter 4, sections 7-8._
FRANCE: A. D. 1515.
Accession of Francis I.
His invasion of Italy.
The Battle of Marignano.
"François I. was in his 21st year when he ascended the throne
of France. His education in all manly accomplishments was
perfect, and … he manifested … an intelligence which had
been carefully cultivated. … Unfortunately his moral
qualities had been profoundly corrupted by the example of his
mother, Louise of Savoy, a clever and ambitious woman, but
selfish, unscrupulous, and above all shamelessly licentious.
Louise had been an object of jealousy to Anne of Britany, who
had always kept her in the shade, and she now snatched eagerly
at the prospect of enjoying power and perhaps of reigning in
the name of her son, whose love for his mother led him to
allow her to exercise an influence which was often fatal to
the interests of his kingdom. … Charles duke of Bourbon, who
was notoriously the favoured lover of Louise, was appointed to
the office of constable, which had remained vacant since 1488;
and one of her favourite ministers, Antoine Duprat, first
president of the parliament of Paris, was entrusted with the
seals. Both were men of great capacity; but the first was
remarkable for his pride, and the latter for his moral
depravity. The first cares of the new king of France were to
prepare for war. … Unfortunately for his country, François
I. shared in the infatuation which had dragged his
predecessors into the wars in Italy; and all these warlike
preparations were designed for the reconquest of Milan. He had
already intimated his design by assuming at his coronation the
titles of king of France and duke of Milan. … He entered
into an alliance with Charles of Austria, prince of Castile,
who had now reached his majority and assumed the government of
the Netherlands. … A treaty between these two princes,
concluded on the 24th of March, 1515, guaranteed to each party
not only the estates they held or which might subsequently
descend to them, but even their conquests. … The republic of
Venice and the king of England renewed the alliances into
which they had entered with the late king, but Ferdinand of
Aragon refused even to prolong the truce unless the whole of
Italy were included in it, and he entered into a separate
alliance with the emperor, the duke of Milan, and the Swiss,
to oppose the designs of the French king.
{1187}
The efforts of François I. to gain over the Swiss had been
defeated by the influence of the cardinal of Sion. Yet the
pope, Leo X., hesitated, and avoided compromising himself with
either party. In the course of the month of July [1515], the
most formidable army which had yet been led from France into
Italy was assembled in the district between Grenoble and
Embrun, and the king, after entrusting the regency to his
mother, Louise, with unlimited powers, proceeded to place
himself at its head."
_T. Wright,
History of France,
book 3, chapter 1 (volume 1)._
"The passes in Italy had already been occupied by the Swiss
under their captain general Galeazzo Visconti. Galeazzo makes
their number not more than 6,000. … They were posted at
Susa, commanding the two roads from Mont Cenis and Geneva, by
one of which the French must pass or abandon their artillery.
In this perplexity it was proposed by Triulcio to force a
lower passage across the Cottian Alps leading to Saluzzo. The
attempt was attended with almost insurmountable difficulties.
… But the French troops with wonderful spirits and alacrity
… were not to be baffled. They dropped their artillery by
cables from steep to steep; down one range of mountains and up
another, until five days had been spent in this perilous
enterprise, and they found themselves safe in the plains of
Saluzzo. Happily the Swiss, secure in their position at Susa,
had never dreamed of the possibility of such a passage. …
Prosper Colonna, who commanded in Italy for the Pope, was
sitting down to his comfortable dinner at Villa Franca, when a
scout covered with dust dashed into his apartment announcing
that the French had crossed the Alps. The next minute the town
was filled with the advanced guard, under the Sieur
d'Ymbercourt and the celebrated Bayard. The Swiss at Susa had
still the advantage of position, and might have hindered the
passage of the main body of the French; but they had no horse
to transport their artillery, were badly led, and evidently
divided in their councils. They retired upon Novara," and to
Milan, intending to effect a junction with the viceroy of
Naples, who advanced to Cremona. On the morning of the 13th of
September, Cardinal Scheimer harangued the Swiss and urged
them to attack the French in their camp, which was at
Marignano, or Melignano, twelve miles away. His fatal advice
was acted on with excitement and haste. "The day was hot and
dusty. The advanced guard of the French was under the command
of the Constable of Bourbon, whose vigilance defeated any
advantage the Swiss might otherwise have gained by the
suddenness and rapidity of their movements. At nine o'clock in
the morning, as Bourbon was sitting down at table, a scout,
dripping with water, made his appearance. He had left Milan
only a few hours before, had waded the canals, and came to
announce the approach of the enemy. … The Swiss came on
apace; they had disencumbered themselves of their hats and
caps, and thrown off their shoes, the better to fight without
slipping. They made a dash at the French artillery, and were
foiled after hard fighting. … It was an autumnal afternoon;
the sun had gone down; dust and night-fall separated and
confused the combatants. The French trumpets sounded a
retreat; both, armies crouched down in the darkness within
cast of a tennis-ball of each other. … Where they fought,
there each man laid down to rest when darkness came on, within
hand-grip of his foe." The next morning, "the autumnal mist
crawled slowly away, and once more exposed the combatants to
each other's view. The advantage of the ground was on the side
of the French. They were drawn up in a valley protected by a
ditch full of water. Though the Swiss had taken no refreshment
that night, they renewed the fight with unimpaired animosity
and vigour. … Francis, surrounded by a body of mounted
gentlemen, performed prodigies of valour. The night had given
him opportunity for the better arrangement of his troops; and
as the day wore on, and the sun grew hot, the Swiss, though
'marvellously deliberate, brave, and obstinate,' began to give
way. The arrival of the Venetian general, D'Alviano, with
fresh troops, made the French victory complete. But the Swiss
retreated inch by inch with the greatest deliberation,
carrying off their great guns on their shoulders. … The
French were too exhausted to follow. And their victory had
cost them dear; for the Swiss, with peculiar hatred to the
French gentry and the lance-knights, had shown no mercy. They
spared none, and made no prisoners. The glory of the battle
was great. … The Swiss, the best troops in Europe, and
hitherto reckoned invincible … had been the terror and
scourge of Italy, equally formidable to friend and foe, and
now their prestige was extinguished. But it was not in these
merely military aspects that the battle of Marignano was
important. No one who reads the French chronicles of the
times, can fail to perceive that it was a battle of opinions
and of classes even more than of nations; of a fierce and
rising democratical element, now rolled back for a short
season, only to display itself in another form against royalty
and nobility;—of the burgher classes against feudality. … The
old romantic element, overlaid for a time by the political
convulsions of the last century, had once more gained the
ascendant. It was to blaze forth and revive, before it died
out entirely, in the Sydneys and Raleighs of Queen Elizabeth's
reign; it was to lighten up the glorious imagination of
Spenser before it faded into the dull prose of Puritan
divinity, and the cold grey dawn of inductive philosophy. But
its last great battle was the battle of Marignano."
_J. S. Brewer,
The Reign of Henry VIII.,
volume 1, chapter 3._
ALSO IN:
_Miss Pardoe,
Court and Reign of Francis I.,
volume 1, chapters 6-7._
_L. Larchey,
History of Bayard,
book 3, chapters 1-2._
FRANCE: A. D. 1515-1518.
Francis I. in possession of Milan.
His treaties with the Swiss and the Pope.
Nullification of the Pragmatic Sanction of Charles VII.
The Concordat of Bologna.
"On the 15th of September, the day after the battle [of
Marignano], the Swiss took the road back to their mountains.
Francis I. entered Milan in triumph. Maximilian Sforza took
refuge in the castle, and twenty days afterwards on the 4th of
October, surrendered, consenting to retire to France, with a
pension of 30,000 crowns, and the promise of being recommended
for a cardinal's hat, and almost consoled for his downfall 'by
the pleasure of being delivered from the insolence of the
Swiss, the exactions of the Emperor Maximilian, and the
rascalities of the Spaniards.' Fifteen years afterwards, in
June, 1530, he died in oblivion at Paris.
{1188}
Francis I. regained possession of all Milaness, adding
thereto, with the pope's consent, the duchies of Parma and
Piacenza, which had been detached from it. … Two treaties,
one of November 7, 1515, and the other of November 29, 1516,
re-established not only peace, but perpetual alliance, between
the King of France and the thirteen Swiss Cantons, with
stipulated conditions in detail. Whilst these negotiations
were in progress, Francis I. and Leo X., by a treaty published
at Viterbo, on the 13th of October, proclaimed their hearty
reconciliation. The pope guaranteed to Francis I. the duchy of
Milan, restored to him those of Parma and Piacenza, and
recalled his troops which were still serving against the
Venetians." At the same time, arrangements were made for a
personal meeting of the pope and the French king, which took
place at Bologna in December, 1515. "Francis did not attempt
to hide his design of reconquering the kingdom of Naples,
which Ferdinand the Catholic had wrongfully usurped, and he
demanded the pope's countenance. The pope did not care to
refuse, but he pointed out to the king that everything
foretold the very near death of King Ferdinand; and 'Your
Majesty,' said he, 'will then have a natural opportunity for
claiming your rights; and as for me, free, as I shall then be,
from my engagements with the King of Arragon in respect of the
crown of Naples, I shall find it easier to respond to your
majesty's wish.' The pope merely wanted to gain time. Francis,
putting aside for the moment the kingdom of Naples, spoke of
Charles VII.'s Pragmatic Sanction [see above: A. D. 1438], and
the necessity of putting an end to the difficulties which had
arisen on this subject between the court of Rome and the Kings
of France, his predecessors. 'As to that,' said the pope, 'I
could not grant what your predecessors demanded; but be not
uneasy; I have a compensation to propose to you which will
prove to you how dear your interests are to me.' The two
sovereigns had, without doubt, already come to an
understanding on this point, when, after a three days'
interview with Leo X., Francis I. returned to Milan, leaving
at Bologna, for the purpose of treating in detail the affair
of the Pragmatic Sanction, his chancellor, Duprat, who had
accompanied him during all this campaign as his adviser and
negotiator. … The popes … had all of them protested since
the days of Charles VII. against the Pragmatic Sanction as an
attack upon their rights, and had demanded its abolition. In
1461, Louis XI. … had yielded for a moment to the demand of
Pope Pius II., whose countenance he desired to gain, and had
abrogated the Pragmatic; but, not having obtained what he
wanted thereby, and having met with strong opposition in the
Parliament of Paris to his concession, he had let it drop
without formally retracting it. … This important edict,
then, was still vigorous in 1515, when Francis I., after his
victory at Melegnano and his reconciliation with the pope,
left Chancellor Duprat at Bologna to pursue the negotiation
reopened on that subject. The 'compensation,' of which Leo X.,
on redemanding the abolition of the Pragmatic Sanction, had
given a peep to Francis I., could not fail to have charms for
a prince so little scrupulous, and for his still less
scrupulous chancellor. The pope proposed that the Pragmatic,
once for all abolished, should be replaced by a Concordat
between the two sovereigns, and that this Concordat, whilst
putting a stop to the election of the clergy by the faithful,
should transfer to the king the right of nomination to
bishoprics and other great ecclesiastical offices and
benefices, reserving to the pope the right of presentation of
prelates nominated by the king. This, considering the
condition of society and government in the 16th century, in
the absence of political and religious liberty, was to take
away from the church her own existence, and divide her between
two masters, without giving her, as regarded either of them,
any other guarantee of independence than the mere chance of
their dissensions and quarrels. … Francis I. and his
chancellor saw in the proposed Concordat nothing but the great
increment of influence it secured to them, by making all the
dignitaries of the church suppliants at first and then clients
of the kingship. After some difficulties as to points of
detail, the Concordat was concluded and signed on the 18th of
August, 1516. Five months afterwards, on the 5th of February,
1517, the king repaired in person to Parliament, to which he
had summoned many prelates and doctors of the University. The
Chancellor explained the points of the Concordat. … The king
ordered its registration, 'for the good of his kingdom and for
quittance of the promise he had given the pope.'" For more
than a year the Parliament of Paris resisted the royal order,
and it was not until the 22d of March, 1518, that it yielded
to the king's threats and proceeded to registration of the
Concordat, with forms and reservations "which were evidence of
compulsion. The other Parliaments of France followed with more
or less zeal … the example shown by that of Paris. The
University was heartily disposed to push resistance farther
than had been done by Parliament."
_F. P. Guizot,
Popular History of France,
chapter 28 (volume 4)._
"The execution of the Concordat was vigorously contested for
years afterwards. Cathedrals and monastic chapters proceeded
to elect bishops and abbots under the provisions of the
Pragmatic Sanction; and every such case became a fresh source
of exasperation between the contending powers. … But the
Parliament, though clamouring loudly for the 'Gallican
liberties,' and making a gallant stand for national
independence as against the usurpations of Rome, was unable to
maintain its ground against the overpowering despotism of the
Crown. The monarchical authority ultimately achieved a
complete triumph. In 1527 a peremptory royal ordinance
prohibited the courts of Parliament from taking further
cognisance of causes affecting elections to consistorial
benefices and conventual priories; and all such matters were
transferred to the sole jurisdiction of the Council of State.
After this the agitation against the Concordat gradually
subsided. But although, in virtue of its compulsory
registration by the Parliament, the Concordat became part of
the law of the land, it is certain that the Gallican Church
never accepted this flagrant invasion of its liberties."
_W. H. Jervis,
History of the Church of France,
volume 1, pages 109-110._
{1189}
FRANCE: A. D. 1515-1547.
The institution of the Court.
Its baneful influence.
"Francis I. instituted the Court, and this had a decisive
influence upon the manners of the nobility. Those lords, whose
respect royalty had difficulty in keeping when they were at
their castles, having come to court, prostrated themselves
before the throne, and yielded obedience with their whole
hearts. A few words will describe this Court. The king lodged
and fed in his own large palace, which was fitted for the
purpose, the flower of the French nobility. Some of these
lords were in his service, under the title of officers of his
household—as chamberlains, purveyors, equerries, &c. Large
numbers of domestic offices were created solely as an excuse
for their presence. Others lived there, without duties, simply
as guests. All these, besides lodging and food, had often a
pension as well. A third class were given only a lodging, and
provided their own table; but all were amused and entertained
with various pleasures, at the expense of the king. Balls,
carousals, stately ceremonials, grand dinners, theatricals,
conversations inspired by the presence of fair women, constant
intercourse of all kinds, where each could choose for himself,
and where the refined and literary found a place as well as
the vain and profligate,—such was court life, a truly
different thing from the monotonous and brutal existence of
the feudal lord at his castle in the depths of his province.
So, from all sides, nobles flocked to court, to gratify both
the most refined tastes and the most degraded passions. Some
came hoping to make their fortune, a word from the king
sufficing to enrich a man; others came to gain a rank in the
army, a lucrative post in the finance department, an abbey, or
a bishopric. From the time kings held court, it became almost
a law, that nothing should be granted to a nobleman who lived
beyond its pale. Those lords who persisted in staying on their
own estates were supposed to rail against the administration, or,
as we of the present would express it, to be in opposition.
'They must indeed be men of gross minds who are not tempted by
the polish of the court; at all events it is very insolent in
them to show so little wish to see their sovereign, and enjoy
the honor of living under his roof.' Such was almost precisely
the opinion of the king in regard to the provincial nobility.
… Ambition drew the nobles to court; ambition, society, and
dissipation kept them there. To incur the displeasure of their
master, and be exiled from court was, first, to lose all hope
of advancement, and then to fall from paradise into purgatory.
It killed some people. But life was much more expensive at
court than in the castles. As in all society where each is
constantly in the presence of his neighbor, there was
unbounded rivalry as to who should be most brilliant, most
superb. The old revenues did not suffice, while, at the same
time, the inevitable result of the absence of the lords was to
decrease them. Whilst the expenses of the noblemen at Chambord
or Versailles were steadily on the increase, his intendant,
alone and unrestrained upon the estate, filled his own
pockets, and sent less money every quarter, so that, to keep
up the proper rank, the lord was forced to beg a pension from
the king. Low indeed was the downfall of the old pride and
feudal independence! The question was how to obtain these
pensions, ranks, offices, and favors of all kinds. The virtues
most prized and rewarded by the kings were not civic
virtues,—capacity, and services of value for the public
good; what pleased them was, naturally, devotion to their
person, blind obedience, flattery, and subservience."
_P. Lacombe,
A Short History of the French People,
chapter 23._
FRANCE: A. D. 1516-1517.
Maximilian's attempt against Milan.
Diplomatic intrigues.
The Treaty of Noyon.
After Francis I. had taken possession of Milan, and while Pope
Leo X. was making professions of friendship to him at Bologna,
a scheme took shape among the French king's enemies for
depriving him of his conquest, and the pope was privy to it.
"Henry VIII. would not openly break the peace between England
and France, but he offered to supply Maximilian with Swiss
troops for an attack upon Milan. It was useless to send money
to Maximilian, who would have spent it on himself"; but troops
were hired for the emperor by the English agent, Pace, and "at
the beginning of March [1516] the joint army of Maximilian and
the Swiss assembled at Trent. On March 24 they were within a
few miles of Milan, and their success seemed sure, when
suddenly Maximilian found that his resources were exhausted
and refused to proceed; next day he withdrew his troops and
abandoned his allies. … The expedition was a total failure;
yet English gold had not been spent in vain, as the Swiss were
prevented from entirely joining the French, and Francis I. was
reminded that his position in Italy was by no means secure.
Leo X., meanwhile, in the words of Pace, 'had played
marvellously with both hands in this enterprise.' … England
was now the chief opponent of the ambitious schemes of France,
and aimed at bringing about a league with Maximilian, Charles
[who had just succeeded Ferdinand of Spain, deceased January
23, 1516], the Pope, and the Swiss. But Charles's ministers,
chief of whom was Croy, lord of Chievres, had a care above all
for the interests of Flanders, and so were greatly under the
influence of France. … France and England entered into a
diplomatic warfare over the alliance with Charles. First,
England on April 19 recognised Charles as King of Spain,
Navarre, and the Two Sicilies; then Wolsey strove to make
peace between Venice and Maximilian as a first step towards
detaching Venice from its French alliance." On the other hand,
negotiations were secretly carried on and (August 13) "the
treaty of Noyon was concluded between Francis I. and Charles.
Charles was to marry Louise, the daughter of Francis I., an
infant of one year old, and receive as her dower the French
claims on Naples; Venice was to pay Maximilian 200,000 ducats
for Brescia and Verona; in case he refused this offer and
continued the war, Charles was at liberty to help his
grandfather, and Francis I. to help the Venetians, without any
breach of the peace now made between them. … In spite of the
efforts of England, Francis I. was everywhere successful in
settling his difficulties. On November 29 a perpetual peace
was made at Friburg between France and the Swiss Cantons; on
December 3 the treaty of Noyon was renewed, and Maximilian was
included in its provisions. Peace was made between him and
Venice by the provision that Maximilian was to hand over
Verona to Charles, who in turn should give it up to the King
of France, who delivered it to the Venetians; Maximilian in
return received 100,000 ducats from Venice and as much from
France. The compact was duly carried out: 'On February 8,
1517,' wrote the Cardinal of Sion, 'Verona belonged to the
Emperor; on the 9th to the King Catholic; on the 15th to the
French; on the 17th to the Venetians.' Such was the end of the
wars that had arisen from the League of Cambrai. After a struggle
of eight years the powers that had confederated to destroy
Venice came together to restore her to her former place.
Venice might well exult in this reward of her long constancy,
her sacrifices and her disasters."
_M. Creighton,
History of the Papacy, during the Period
of the Reformation,
book 5, chapter 19 (volume 4)._
ALSO IN:
_J. S. Brewer,
The Reign of Henry VIII.,
chapters 4-6 (volume 1)._
{1190}
FRANCE: A. D. 1519.
Candidacy of Francis I. for Imperial crown.
See GERMANY: A. D. 1519.
FRANCE: A. D. 1520-1523.
Rivalry of Francis I. and Charles V.
The Emperor's successes in Italy and Navarre.
Milan again taken from France.
The wrongs and the treason of the Constable of Bourbon.
"With their candidature for the Imperial crown, burst forth
the inextinguishable rivalry between Francis I. and Charles V.
The former claimed Naples for himself and Navarre for Henry
d'Albret: the Emperor demanded the Milanese as a fief of the
Empire, and the Duchy of Burgundy. Their resources were about
equal. If the empire of Charles were more extensive the
kingdom of France was more compact. The Emperor's subjects
were richer, but his authority more circumscribed. The
reputation of the French cavalry was not inferior to that of
the Spanish infantry. Victory would belong to the one who
should win over the King of England to his side. … Both gave
pensions to his Prime Minister, Cardinal Wolsey; they each asked
the hand of his daughter Mary, one for the dauphin, the other
for himself. Francis I. obtained from him an interview at
Calais, and forgetting that he wished to gain his favour,
eclipsed him by his elegance and magnificence [see FIELD OF
THE CLOTH OF GOLD]. Charles V., more adroit, had anticipated
this interview by visiting Henry VIII. in England. He had
secured Wolsey by giving him hopes of the tiara. …
Everything succeeded with the Emperor. He gained Leo X. to his
side and thus obtained sufficient influence to raise his
tutor, Adrian of Utrecht, to the papacy [on the death of Leo,
December 1, 1521]. The French penetrated into Spain, but arrived
too late to aid the rising there [in Navarre, 1521]. The
governor of the Milanese, Lautrec, who is said to have exiled
from Milan nearly half its inhabitants, was driven out of
Lombardy [and the Pope retook Parma and Placentia]. He met
with the same fate again in the following year: the Swiss, who
were ill-paid, asked either for dismissal or battle, and allowed
themselves to be beaten at La Bicoque [April 29, 1522]. The
money intended for the troops had been used for other purposes
by the Queen-mother, who hated Lautrec. At the moment when
Francis I. was thinking of re-entering Italy, an internal
enemy threw France into the utmost danger. Francis had given
mortal offence to the Constable of Bourbon, one of those who
had most contributed to the victory of Marignan. Charles,
Count of Montpensier and Dauphin of Auvergne, held by virtue
of his wife, a granddaughter of Louis XI., the Duchy of
Bourbon, and the counties of Clermont, La Marche and other
domains, which made him the first noble in the kingdom. On the
death of his wife, the Queen-mother, Louise of Savoy, who had
wanted to marry the Constable and had been refused by him,
resolved to ruin him. She disputed with him this rich
inheritance and obtained from her son that the property should
be provisionally sequestered. Bourbon, exasperated, resolved
to pass over to the Emperor (1523). Half a century earlier,
revolt did not mean disloyalty. The most accomplished knights
in France, Dunois and John of Calabria, had joined the 'League
for the public weal.' … But now it was no question of a
revolt against the king; such a thing was impossible in France
at this time. It was a conspiracy against the very existence
of France that Bourbon was plotting with foreigners. He
promised Charles V. to attack Burgundy as soon as Francis I.
had crossed the Alps, and to rouse into revolt five provinces
of which he believed himself master; the kingdom of Provence
was to be re-established in his favour, and France,
partitioned between Spain and England, would have ceased to
exist as a nation. He was soon able to enjoy the reverses of
his country."
_J. Michelet,
Summary of Modern History,
chapter 6._
"Henry VIII. and Charles V. were both ready to secure the
services of the ex-Constable. He decided in favour of Charles
as the more powerful of the two. … These secret negotiations
were carried on in the spring of 1523, while Francis I.
(having sent a sufficient force to protect his northern
frontier) was preparing to make Italy the seat of war. With
this object the king ordered a rendezvous of the army at
Lyons, in the beginning of September, and having arranged to
pass through Moulins on his way to join the forces, called
upon the Constable to meet him there and to proceed with him
to Lyons. Already vague rumours of an understanding between
the Emperor and Bourbon had reached Francis, who gave no
credence to them; but on his way M. de Brézé, Seneschal of
Normandy, attached to the Court of Louise of Savoy, sent such
precise details of the affair by two Norman gentlemen in the
Constable's service that doubt was no longer possible."
Francis accordingly entered Moulins with a considerable force,
and went straight to Bourbon, who feigned illness. The
Constable stoutly denied to the king all the charges which the
latter revealed to him, and Francis, who was strongly urged to
order his arrest, refused to do so. But a few days later, when
the king had gone forward to Lyons, Bourbon, pretending to
follow him, rode away to his strong castle of Chantelles, from
whence he wrote letters demanding the restitution of his
estates. As soon as his flight was known, Francis sent forces
to seize him; but the Constable, taking one companion with
him, made his way out of the kingdom in disguise. Escaping to
Italy, he was there placed in command of the imperial army.
_C. Coignet,
Francis I. and his Times,
chapter 4._
ALSO IN:
_Miss Pardoe,
The Court and Reign of Francis I.,
volume 1, chapters 14-19._
See, also, AUSTRIA: A. D. 1519-1555.
FRANCE: A. D. 1521.
Invasion of Navarre.
See NAVARRE: A. D. 1442-1521.
FRANCE: A. D. 1521-1525.
Beginning of the Protestant Reform movement.
See PAPACY: A. D. 1521-1535.
FRANCE: A. D. 1523-1524.
First undertakings in the New World.
Voyages of Verrazano.
See AMERICA: A. D. 1523-1524.
{1191}
FRANCE: A. D. 1523-1525.
The death of Bayard.
Second invasion of Italy by Francis I.
His defeat and capture at Pavia.
"Bonnivet, the personal enemy of Bourbon, was now entrusted
with the command of the French army. He marched without
opposition into the Milanese, and might have taken the capital
had he pushed on to its gates. Having by irresolution lost it,
he retreated to winter quarters behind the Tesino. The
operations of the English in Picardy, of the imperialists in
Champagne, and of the Spaniards near the Pyrenees, were
equally insignificant. The spring of 1524 brought on an
action, if the attack of one point can be called such, which
proved decisive for the time. Bonnivet advanced rashly beyond
the Tesino. The imperialists, commanded by four able generals,
Launoi, Pescara, Bourbon, and Sforza, succeeded in almost
cutting off his retreat. They at the same time refused
Bonnivet's offer to engage. They hoped to weaken him by
famine. The Swiss first murmured against the distress
occasioned by want of precaution. They deserted across the
river; and Bonnivet, thus abandoned, was obliged to make a
precipitate and perilous retreat. A bridge was hastily flung
across the Sessia, near Romagnano; and Bonnivet, with his best
knights and gensdarmerie, undertook to defend the passage of
the rest of the army. The imperialists, led on by Bourbon,
made a furious attack. Bonnivet was wounded, and he gave his
place to Bayard, who, never entrusted with a high command, was
always chosen for that of a forlorn hope. The brave Vandenesse
was soon killed; and Bayard himself received a gun-shot
through the reins. The gallant chevalier, feeling his wound
mortal, caused himself to be placed in a sitting posture
beneath a tree, his face to the enemy, and his sword fixed in
guise of a cross before him. The constable Bourbon, who led
the imperialists, soon came up to the dying Bayard, and
expressed his compassion. 'Weep not for me,' said the
chevalier, 'but for thyself. I die in performing my duty; thou
art betraying thine.' Nothing marks more strongly the great
rise, the sudden sacro-sanctity of the royal authority in
those days, than the general horror which the treason of
Bourbon excited. … The fact is, that this sudden horror of
treason was owing, in a great measure, to the revived study of
the classics, in which treason to one's country is universally
mentioned as an impiety and a crime of the deepest dye.
Feudality, with all its oaths, had no such horror of treason.
… Bonnivet had evacuated Italy after this defeat at
Romagnano. Bourbon's animosity stimulated him to push his
advantage. He urged the emperor to invade France, and
recommended the Bourbonnais and his own patrimonial provinces
as those most advisable to invade. Bourbon wanted to raise his
friends in insurrection against Francis; but Charles descried
selfishness in this scheme of Bourbon, and directed Pescara to
march with the constable into the south of France and lay
siege to Marseilles. … Marseilles made an obstinate
resistance," and the siege was ineffectual. "Francis, in the
meantime, alarmed by the invasion, had assembled an army. He
burned to employ it, and avenge the late affront. The king of
England, occupied with the Scotch, gave him respite in the
north; and he resolved to employ this by marching, late as the
season was, into Italy. His generals, who by this time were
sick of warring beyond the Alps, opposed the design; but not
even the death of his queen, Claude, could stop Francis. He
passed Mount Cenis; marched upon Milan, whose population was
spiritless and broken by the plague, and took it without
resistance. It was then mooted whether Lodi or Pavia should be
besieged. The latter, imprudently, as it is said, was
preferred. It was at this time that Pope Clement VII., of the
house of Medici, who had lately succeeded Adrian, made the
most zealous efforts to restore peace between the monarchies.
He found Charles and his generals arrogant and unwilling to
treat. The French, said they, must on no account be allowed a
footing in Italy. Clement, impelled by pique towards the
emperor, or generosity to Francis, at once abandoned the
prudent policy of his predecessors, and formed a league with
the French king, to whom, after all, he brought no accession
of force. This step proved afterwards fatal to the city of
Rome. The siege of Pavia was formed about the middle of
October [1524]. Antonio de Leyva, an experienced officer,
supported by veteran troops, commanded in the town. The
fortifications were strong, and were likely to hold for a
considerable time. By the month of January the French had made
no progress; and the impatient Francis despatched a
considerable portion of his army for the invasion of Naples,
hearing that the country was drained of troops. This was a
gross blunder, which Pescara observing, forbore to send any
force to oppose the expedition. He knew that the fate of Italy
would be decided before Pavia. Bourbon, in the mean time,
disgusted with the jealousies and tardiness of the imperial
generals, employed the winter in raising an army of
lansquenets on his own account. From the duke of Savoy he
procured funds; and early in the year 1525 the constable
joined Pescara at Lodi with a fresh army of 12,000
mercenaries. They had, besides, some 7,000 foot, and not more
than 1,500 horse. With these they marched to the relief of
Pavia. Francis had a force to oppose to them, not only
inferior in numbers, but so harassed with a winter's siege,
that all the French generals of experience counselled a
retreat. Bonnivet and his young troop of courtiers were for
fighting; and the monarch hearkened to them. Pavia, to the
north of the river, was covered in great part by the chateau
and walled park of Mirabel. Adjoining this, and on a rising
ground, was the French camp, extending to the Tesino. Through
the camp, or through the park, lay the only ways by which the
imperialists could reach Pavia. The camp was strongly
entrenched and defended by artillery, except on the side of
the park of Mirabel, with which it communicated." On the night
of February 23, the imperialists made a breach in the park
wall, through which they pressed next morning, but were driven
back with heavy loss. "This was victory enough, could the
French king have been contented with it. But the impatient
Francis no sooner beheld his enemies in rout, than he was
eager to chase them in person, and complete the victory with
his good sword. He rushed forth from his entrenchments at the
head of his gensdarmerie, flinging himself between the enemy
and his own artillery, which was thus masked and rendered
useless. The imperialists rallied as soon as they found
themselves safe from the fire of the cannon," and the French
were overwhelmed. "The king … behind a heap of slain,
defended himself valiantly; so beaten and shattered, so
begrimed with blood and dust, as to be scarcely
distinguishable, notwithstanding his conspicuous armour. He
had received several wounds, one in the forehead; and his
horse, struck with a ball in the head, reared, fell back, and
crushed him with his weight: still Francis rose, and laid
prostrate several of the enemies that rushed upon him." But
presently he was recognized and was persuaded to surrender his
sword to Lannoi, the viceroy of Naples. "Such was the signal
defeat that put an end to all French conquests and claims in
Italy."
_E. E. Crowe,
History of France,
volume 1, chapter 6._
ALSO IN:
_W. Robertson,
History of the Reign of Charles V.,
book 4 (volume 2)._
_J. S. Brewer,
Reign of Henry VIII.,
chapter 21 (volume 2)._
_H. G. Smith,
Romance of History,
chapter 6._
{1192}
FRANCE: A. D. 1525-1526.
The captivity of Francis I. and his deliberate perfidy in the
Treaty of Madrid.
The captive king of France was lodged in the castle at
Pizzighitone. "Instead of bearing his captivity with calmness
and fortitude, he chafed and fretted under the loss of his
wonted pleasures; at one moment he called for death to end his
woes, while at another he was ready to sign disastrous terms
of peace, meaning to break faith so soon as ever he might be
free again. … France, at first stupefied by the mishap, soon
began to recover hope. The Regent, for all her vices and
faults, was proud and strong; she gathered what force she
could at Lyons, and looked round for help. … Not only were
there anxieties at home, but the frontiers were also
threatened. On the side of Germany a popular movement ['the
Peasant War'], closely connected with the religious excitement
of the time, pushed a fierce and cruel rabble into Lorraine,
whence they proposed to enter France. But they were met by the
Duke of Guise and the Count of Vaudemont, his brother, at the
head of the garrisons of Burgundy and Champagne, and were
easily dispersed. It was thought that during these troubles
Lannoy would march his army, flushed with victory, from the Po
to the Rhone. … But Lannoy had no money to pay his men, and
could not undertake so large a venture. Meanwhile negotiations
began between Charles V. and the King; the Emperor demanding,
as ransom, that Bourbon should be invested with Provence and
Dauphiny, joined to his own lands in Auvergne, and should
receive the title of king; and secondly that the Duchy of
Burgundy should be given over to the Emperor as the inheritor
of the lands and rights of Charles the Bold. But the King of
France would not listen for a moment. And now the King of
England and most of the Italian states, alarmed at the great
power of the Emperor, began to change sides. Henry VIII. came
first. He signed a treaty of neutrality with the Regent, in
which it was agreed that not even for the sake of the King's
deliverance should any part of France be torn from her. The
Italians joined in a league to restore the King to liberty,
and to secure the independence of Italy: and Turkey was called
on for help. … The Emperor now felt that Francis was not in
secure keeping at Pizzighitone. … He therefore gave orders
that Francis should at once be removed to Spain." The captive
king "was set ashore at Valencia, and received with wonderful
welcome: dances, festivals, entertainments of every kind,
served to relieve his captivity; it was like a restoration to
life! But this did not suit the views of the Emperor, who
wished to weary the King into giving up all thought of
resistance: he trusted to his impatient and frivolous
character; his mistake, as he found to his cost, lay in
thinking that a man of such character would keep his word. He
therefore had him removed from Valencia to Madrid, where he
was kept in close and galling confinement, in a high, dreary
chamber, where he could not even see out of the windows. This
had the desired effect. The King talked of abdicating; he fell
ill of ennui, and was like to die: but at last he could hold
out no longer, and abandoning all thought of honourable
action, agreed to shameful terms, consoling himself with a
private protest against the validity of the deed, as having
been done under compulsion."
_G. W. Kitchin,
History of France,
volume 2, book 2, chapter 5._
"By the Treaty of Madrid, signed January 14th, 1526, Francis
'restored' to the Emperor the Duchy of Burgundy, the county of
Charolais, and some other smaller fiefs, without reservation
of any feudal suzerainty, which was also abandoned with regard
to the counties of Flanders and Artois, the Emperor, however,
resigning the towns on the Somme, which had been held by
Charles the Bold. The French King also renounced his claims to
the kingdom of Naples, the Duchy of Milan, the county of Asti,
and the city of Genoa. He contracted an offensive and
defensive alliance with Charles, undertaking to attend him
with an army when he should repair to Rome to receive the
Imperial crown, and to accompany him in person whenever he
should march against the Turks or heretics. He withdrew his
protection from the King of Navarre, the Duke of Gelderland,
and the La Marcks; took upon himself the Emperor's debt to
England, and agreed to give his two eldest sons as hostages
for the execution of the treaty. Instead, however, of the
independent kingdom which Bourbon had expected, all that was
stipulated in his favour was a free pardon for him and his
adherents, and their restoration in their forfeited domains.
… The provisions of the above treaty Francis promised to
execute on the word and honour of a king, and by an oath sworn
with his hand upon the holy Gospels: yet only a few hours
before he was to sign this solemn act, he had called his
plenipotentiaries, together with some French nobles,
secretaries, and notaries, into his chamber, where, after
exacting from them an oath of secrecy, he entered into a long
discourse touching the Emperor's harshness towards him, and
signed a protest, declaring that, as the treaty he was about
to enter into had been extorted from him by force, it was null
and void from the beginning, and that he never intended to
execute it: thus, as a French writer has observed,
establishing by an authentic notarial act that he was going to
commit a perjury." Treaties have often been shamefully
violated, yet it would perhaps be impossible to parallel this
gross and deliberate perjury. In March, Francis was conducted
to the Spanish frontier, where, on a boat in mid-stream of the
Bidassoa, "he was exchanged for his two sons, Francis and
Henry, who were to remain in Spain, as hostages for the
execution of the treaty. The tears started to his eyes as he
embraced his children, but he consigned them without remorse
to a long and dreary exile." As speedily as possible after
regaining his liberty, Francis assembled the states of his
kingdom and procured from them a decision "that the King could
not alienate the patrimony of France, and that the oath which he
had taken in his captivity did not abrogate the still more
solemn one which had been administered to him at his
coronation." After which he deemed himself discharged from the
obligations of his treaty, and had no thought of surrendering
himself again a prisoner, as he was honourably bound to do.
_T. H. Dyer,
History of Modern Europe,
book 2, chapter 5 (volume 1)._
ALSO IN:
_A. B. Cochrane,
Francis I. in Captivity._
_W. Robertson,
History of the Reign of Charles V.,
book 4 (volume 2)._
_C. Coignet,
Francis I. and his Times,
chapters 5-8._
{1193}
FRANCE: A. D. 1526-1527.
Holy League with Pope Clement VII. against Charles V.
Bourbon's attack on Rome.
See ITALY: A. D. 1523-1527, and 1527.
FRANCE: A. D. 1527-1529.
New alliance against Charles V.
Early successes in Lombardy.
Disaster at Naples.
Genoa and all possessions in Italy lost.
The humiliating Peace of Cambrai.
See ITALY: A. D. 1527-1529.
FRANCE: A. D. 1529-1535.
Persecution of the Protestant Reformers and spread of their
doctrines.
See PAPACY: A. D. 1521-1535.
FRANCE: A. D. 1531.
Alliance with the Protestant princes of the German League of
Smalkalde.
See GERMANY: A. D. 1530-1532.
FRANCE: A. D. 1532.
Final reunion of Brittany with the crown.
See BRITTANY: A. D. 1532.
FRANCE: A. D. 1532-1547.
Treaty with the Pope.
Marriage of Prince Henry with Catherine de' Medici.
Renewed war with Charles V.
Alliance with the Turks.
Victory at Cerisoles.
Treaty of Crespy.
Increased persecution of Protestants.
Massacre of Waldenses.
War with England.
Death of Francis I.
"The 'ladies' peace' … lasted up to 1536; incessantly
troubled, however, by far from pacific symptoms, proceedings
and preparations. In October, 1532, Francis I. had, at Calais,
an interview with Henry VIII., at which they contracted a
private alliance, and undertook 'to raise between them an army
of 80,000 men to resist the Turk.'" But when, in 1535, Charles
V. attacked the seat of the Barbary pirates, and took Tunis,
Francis "entered into negotiations with Soliman II., and
concluded a friendly treaty with him against what was called
'the common enemy.' Francis had been for some time preparing
to resume his projects of conquest in Italy; he had effected
an interview at Marseilles, in October, 1533, with Pope
Clement VII., who was almost at the point of death, and it was
there that the marriage of Prince Henry of France with
Catherine de' Medici [daughter of Lorenzo, Duke of Urbino, and
granddaughter of Piero de' Medici] was settled. Astonishment was
expressed that the pope's niece had but a very moderate dowry.
'You don't see, then,' said Clement VII.'s ambassador, 'that
she brings France three jewels of great price, Genoa, Milan
and Naples?' When this language was reported at the court of
Charles V., it caused great irritation there. In 1536 all
these combustibles of war exploded; in the month of February,
a French army entered Piedmont, and occupied Turin; and, in
the month of July, Charles V. in person entered Provence at
the head of 50,000 men. Anne de Montmorency, having received
orders to defend southern France, began by laying it waste in
order that the enemy might not be able to live in it. …
Montmorency made up his mind to defend, on the whole coast of
Provence, only Marseilles and Aries; he pulled down the
ramparts of the other towns, which were left exposed to the
enemy. For two months Charles V. prosecuted this campaign
without a fight, marching through the whole of Provence an
army which fatigue, shortness of provisions, sickness, and
ambuscades were decimating ingloriously. At last he decided
upon retreating. … On returning from his sorry expedition,
Charles V. learned that those of his lieutenants whom he had
charged with the conduct of a similar invasion in the north of
France, in Picardy, had met with no greater success than he
himself in Provence." A truce for three months was soon
afterwards arranged, and in June, 1538, through the mediation
of Pope Paul III., a treaty was signed at Nice which extended
the truce to ten years. Next month the two sovereigns met at
Aigues-Mortes and exchanged many assurances of friendship."
_F. P. Guizot,
Popular History of France,
chapter 28 (volume 4)._
In August, 1539, a revolt at Ghent "called Charles V. into
Flanders; he was then in Spain, and his shortest route was
through France. He requested permission to cross the kingdom,
and obtained it, after having promised the Constable
Montmorency that he would give the investiture of Milan to the
second son of the King. His sojourn in France was a time of
expensive fêtes, and cost the treasury four millions; yet, in
the midst of his pleasures, the Emperor was not without
uneasiness. … Francis, however, respected the rights of
hospitality; but Charles did not give to his son the
investiture of Milan. The King, indignant, exiled the
constable for having trusted the word of the Emperor without
exacting his signature, and avenged himself by strengthening
his alliance with the Turks, the most formidable enemies of
the empire. … The hatred of the two monarchs was carried to
its height by these last events; they mutually outraged each
other by injurious libels, and submitted their differences to
the Pope. Paul III. refused to decide between them, and they
again took up arms [1542]. The King invaded Luxembourg, and
the Dauphin Rousillon; and while a third army in concert with
the Mussulmans besieged Nice [1542], the last asylum of the
dukes of Savoy, by land, the terrible Barbarossa, admiral of
Soliman, attacked it by sea. The town was taken, the castle
alone resisted, and the siege of it was raised. Barbarossa
consoled himself for this check by ravaging the coasts of
Italy, where he made 10,000 captives. The horror which he
inspired recoiled on Francis I., his ally, whose name became
odious in Italy and Germany. He was declared the enemy of the
empire, and the Diet raised against him an army of 24,000 men,
at the head of which Charles V. penetrated into Champagne,
while Henry VIII., coalescing with the Emperor, attacked
Picardy with 10,000 English. The battle of Cerisoles, a
complete victory, gained during the same year [April 14, 1544],
in Piedmont, by Francis of Bourbon, Duke d'Enghien, against
Gast, general of the Imperial troops, did not stop this double
and formidable invasion. Charles V. advanced almost to
Château-Thierry. But discord reigned in his army; he ran short
of provisions, and could easily have been surrounded; he then
again promised Milan to the Duke of Orleans, the second son of
the King. This promise irritated the Dauphin Henry, who was
afraid to see his brother become the head of a house as
dangerous for France as had been that of Burgundy; he wished
to reject the offer of the Emperor and to cut off his retreat.
A rivalry among women, it is said, saved Charles V. …
{1194}
The war was terminated almost immediately afterwards [1544] by
the treaty of Crespy in Valois. The Emperor promised his
daughter to the Duke of Orleans, with the Low Countries and
Franche-Comté, or one of his nieces, with Milan. Francis
restored to the Duke of Savoy the greater part of the places
that he held in Piedmont; he renounced all ulterior
pretensions to the kingdom of Naples, the duchy of Milan, and
likewise to the sovereignty of Flanders and Artois; Charles,
on his part, gave up the duchy of Burgundy. This treaty put an
end to the rivalry of the two sovereigns, which had
ensanguined Europe for 25 years. The death of the Duke of
Orleans freed the Emperor from dispossessing himself of Milan
or the Low Countries; he refused all compensation to the King,
but the peace was not broken. Francis I. profited by it to
redouble his severity with regard to the Protestants. A
population of many thousands of Waldenses, an unfortunate
remnant from the religious persecutions of the 13th century,
dwelt upon the confines of Provence, and the County Venaissin,
and a short time back had entered into communion with the
Calvinists. The King permitted John Mesnier, Baron d'Oppède,
first president of the Parliament of Aix, to execute [1546] a
sentence delivered against them five years previously by the
Parliament. John d'Oppède himself directed this frightful
execution. Twenty-two towns or villages were burned and
sacked; the inhabitants, surprised during the night, were
pursued among the rocks by the glare of the flames which
devoured their houses. The men perished by executions, but the
women were delivered over to terrible violences. At Cabrières,
the principal town of the canton, 700 men were murdered in
cold blood, and all the women were burnt; lastly, according to
the tenor of the sentence, the houses were rased, the woods cut
down, the trees in the gardens torn up, and in a short time
this country, so fertile and so thickly peopled, became a
desert and a waste. This dreadful massacre was one of the
principal causes of the religious wars which desolated France
for so long a time. … The war continued between [Henry
VIII.] and Francis I. The English had taken Boulogne, and a
French fleet ravaged the coasts of England, after taking
possession of the Isle of Wight [1545]. Hostilities were
terminated by the treaty of Guines [1547], which the two kings
signed on the edge of their graves, and it was arranged that
Boulogne should be restored for the sum of 2,000,000 of gold
crowns. … Henry VIII. and Francis I. died in the same year
[1547]."
_E. de Bonnechose,
History of France,
volume 1, pages 363-367._
ALSO IN:
_W. Robertson,
History of the Reign of Charles V.,
book 6-9 (volume 2)._
_J. A. Froude,
History of England,
chapters 20-23 (volume 4)._
FRANCE: A. D. 1534-1535.
The voyages of Jacques Cartier and the taking
possession of Canada.
See AMERICA: A. D. 1534-1535.
FRANCE: A. D. 1534-1560.
Persecution of the Protestants.
Their organization.
Their numbers.
"Francis I. had long shrunk from persecution, but having once
begun he showed no further hesitation. During the remainder of
his reign and the whole of that of his son Henry II.
(1534-1559) the cruelty of the sufferings inflicted on the
Reformers increased with the number of the victims. At first
they were strangled and burnt, then burnt alive, then hung in
chains to roast over a slow fire. … The Edict of
Chateaubriand (1551), taking away all right of appeal from
those convicted of heresy, was followed by an attempt to
introduce an Inquisition on the model of that of Spain, and
when this failed owing to the opposition of the lawyers, the
Edict of Compiègne (1557) denounced capital punishment against
all who in public or private professed any heterodox doctrine. It
is a commonplace that persecution avails nothing against the
truth—that the true Church springs from the blood of martyrs.
Yet the same cause which triumphed over persecution in France
was crushed by it in Spain and in the Walloon Netherlands. Was
it therefore not the truth? The fact would rather seem to be,
that there is no creed, no sect which cannot be extirpated by
force. But that it may prevail, persecution must be without
respect of persons, universal, continuous, protracted. Not one
of these conditions was fulfilled in France. The opinions of the
greater nobles and princes, and of those who were their
immediate followers, were not too narrowly scanned, nor was
the persecution equally severe at all times and in all places.
Some governors and judges and not a few of the higher clergy
inclined to toleration. … The cheerful constancy of the
French martyrs was admirable. Men, women and children walked
to execution singing the psalms of Marot and the Song of
Simeon. This boldness confounded their enemies. Hawkers
distributed in every part of the country the books issued from
the press of Geneva and which it was a capital offence even to
possess. Preachers taught openly in the streets and
market-places. … The increasing numbers of their converts
and the high position of some among them gave confidence to
the Protestants. Delegates from the reformed congregations of
France were on their way to Paris to take part in the
deliberations of the first national Synod on the very day
(April 2, 1559) when the peace of Cateau Cambresis was signed,
a peace which was to be the prelude to a vigorous and
concerted effort to root out heresy on the part of the kings
of France and Spain. The object of the meeting was twofold:
first to draw up a detailed profession of faith, which was
submitted to Calvin—there was, he said, little to add, less
to correct—secondly to determine the 'ecclesiastical
discipline' of the new Church. The ministers were to be chosen
by the elders and deacons, but approved by the whole
congregation. The affairs of each congregation were placed
under the control of the Consistory, a court composed of the
pastors, elders and deacons; more important matters were
reserved for the decision of the provincial 'colloques' or
synods, which were to meet twice a year, and in which each
church was represented by its pastor and at least one elder.
Above all was the national Synod also composed of the clergy
and of representative laymen. This organisation was thoroughly
representative and popular, the elected delegates of the
congregations, the elders and deacons, preponderated in all
the governing bodies, and all ministers and churches were
declared equal. The Reformed churches, which, although most
numerous in the South, spread over almost the whole country,
are said at this time to have counted some 400,000 members
(1559). These were of almost all classes, except perhaps the
lowest, although even among the peasantry there were some
martyrs for the faith."
{1195}
On the accession of Charles IX., in 1560, "a quarter of the
inhabitants of France were, it was said, included in the 2,500
reformed congregations. This is certainly an exaggeration, but
it is probable that the number of the Protestants was never
greater than during the first years of the reign of Charles
IX. … The most probable estimate is that at the beginning of
the wars of religion the Huguenots with women and children
amounted to some 1,500,000 souls out of a population of
between fifteen and twenty millions. But in this minority were
included about one-fourth of the lesser nobility, the country
gentlemen, and a smaller proportion of the great nobles, the
majority of the better sort of townspeople in many of the most
important towns, such as Caen, Dieppe, Havre, Nantes, La
Rochelle, Nimes, Montpellier, Montauban, Châlons, Mâcon,
Lyons, Valence, Limoges and Grenoble, and an important
minority in other places, such as Rouen, Orleans, Bordeaux and
Toulouse. The Protestants were most numerous in the
South-west, in Poitou, in the Marche, Limousin, Angoumois and
Perigord, because in those districts, which were the seats of
long-established and flourishing manufactures, the middle
classes were most prosperous, intelligent and educated. It is
doubtful whether the Catholics were not in a large majority,
even where the superior position, intelligence and vigour of
the Huguenots gave them the upper hand. Only in some parts of
the South-west and of Dauphiny do the bulk of the population
appear to have been decidedly hostile to the old religion.
During the course of the Civil War the Protestants came to be
more and more concentrated in certain parts of the country, as
for instance between the Garonne and the Loire."
_P. F. Willert,
Henry of Navarre and the Huguenots in France,
chapter 1._
FRANCE: A. D. 1541-1543.
Jacques Cartier's last explorations in Canada.
See AMERICA: A. D. 1541-1603.
FRANCE: A. D. 1541-1564.
The rise and influence of Calvinism.
See GENEVA: A. D. 1536-1564.
FRANCE: A. D. 1547.
Accession of King Henry II.
FRANCE: A. D. 1547-1559.
The rise of the Guises.
Alliance with the German Protestants.
Wars with the emperor, and with Spain and England.
Acquisition of Les Trois Evêchés, and of Calais.
Unsuccessful campaign in Italy.
Battle and siege of St. Quentin.
Treaty of Cateau-Cambresis.
"The son of Francis I., who in 1547 ascended the throne under
the title of Henry II., was told by his dying father to beware
of the Guises. … The Guises were a branch of the ducal House
of Lorraine, which, although the dukedom was a fief of the
German empire, had long stood in intimate relations with the
court and nobility of France. The founder of the family was
Claude, a younger son of René II., Duke of Lorraine, who,
being naturalised in France in 1505, rendered himself
conspicuous in the wars of Francis I., and was created first
Duke of Guise. He died in 1550, leaving five daughters and six
sons. His eldest daughter, Mary, became the wife of James V.
of Scotland, and mother of Mary Queen of Scots. The sons were
all men of extraordinary energy and ambition, and their united
influence was, for a number of years, more than a match for
that of the crown. Francis, second Duke of Guise, acquired,
while still a young man, extraordinary renown as a military
commander, by carrying out certain ambitious designs of France
on a neighbouring territory. … As is well known, French
statesmen have for many centuries cherished the idea that the
natural boundary of France on the east is the Rhine, from its
mouth to its source, and thence along the crest of the Alps to
the Mediterranean. … To begin the realisation of the idea,
advantage was taken of the war which broke out between the
Emperor Charles V. and his Protestant subjects in North
Germany [see GERMANY: A. D. 1546-1552]. Although the
Protestants of France were persecuted to the death, Henry II.,
with furtively ambitious designs, offered to defend the
Protestants of Germany against their own emperor; and entered
into an alliance in 1551 with Maurice of Saxony and other
princes, undertaking to send an army to their aid. As bases of
his operations, it was agreed that he might take temporary
military possession of Toul, Verdun, and Metz, three
bishoprics [forming a district called the Trois Évêchés], each
with a portion of territory lying within the area of the duchy
of Lorraine, but held as distinct fiefs of the German empire—
such, in fact, being fragments of Lothair's kingdom, which
fell to Germany, and had in no shape been incorporated with
France. It was stipulated that, in occupying these places, the
French were not to interfere with their old connection with
the empire. The confidence reposed in the French was
grievously abused. All the stipulations went for nothing. In
1552, French troops took possession of Toul and Verdun, also
of Nancy, the capital of Lorraine, treating the duchy,
generally, as a conquered country. Seeing this, Metz shut her
gates and trusted to her fortifications. To procure an
entrance and secure possession, there was a resort to
stratagems which afford a startling illustration of the tricks
that French nobles at that time could be guilty of in order to
gain their ends. The French commander, the Constable
Montmorency, begged to be allowed to pass through the town
with a few attendants, while his army made a wide circuit on
its route. The too credulous custodiers of the city opened the
gates, and, to their dismay, the whole French forces rushed
in, and began to rule in true despotic fashion. … Thus was
Metz secured for France in a way which modern Frenchmen, we
should imagine, can hardly think of without shame. Germany,
however, did not relinquish this important fortress without a
struggle. Furious at its loss, the Emperor Charles V.
proceeded to besiege it with a large army. The defence was
undertaken by the Duke of Guise, assisted by a body of French
nobility. After an investment of four months, and a loss of
30,000 men, Charles was forced to raise the siege, January 1,
1553, all his attempts at the capture of the place being
effectually baffled."
_W. Chambers,
France: its History and Revolutions,
chapter 6._
{1196}
"The war continued during the two following years; but both
parties were now growing weary of a contest in which neither
achieved any decisive superiority"; and the emperor, having
negotiated an armistice, resigned all his crowns to his son,
Philip II., and his brother Ferdinand (October, 1555).
"Meantime Pope Paul IV., who detested the Spaniards and longed
for the complete subversion of their power in the Peninsula,
entered into a league with the French king against Philip;
Francis of Guise was encouraged in his favorite project of
effecting a restoration of the crown of Naples to his own
family, as the descendants of René of Anjou; and in December,
1556, an army of 16,000 men, commanded by the Duke of Guise,
crossed the Alps, and, marching direct to Rome, prepared to
attack the Spanish viceroy of Naples, the celebrated Duke of
Alva. In April, 1557, Guise advanced into the Abruzzi, and
besieged Civitella; but here he encountered a determined
resistance, and, after sacrificing a great part of his troops,
found it necessary to abandon the attempt. He retreated toward
Rome, closely pursued by the Duke of Alva; and the result was
that the expedition totally failed. Before his army could
recover from the fatigues and losses of their fruitless
campaign, the French general was suddenly recalled by a
dispatch containing tidings of urgent importance from the
north of France. The Spanish army in the Netherlands,
commanded by the Duke of Savoy, having been joined by a body
of English auxiliaries under the Earl of Pembroke, had invaded
France and laid siege to St. Quentin. This place was badly
fortified, and defended by a feeble garrison under the Admiral
de Coligny. Montmorency advanced with the main army to
re-enforce it, and on the 10th of August rashly attacked the
Spaniards, who outnumbered his own troops in the proportion of
more than two to one, and inflicted on him a fatal and
irretrievable defeat. The loss of the French amounted,
according to most accounts, to 4,000 slain in the field, while
at least an equal number remained prisoners, including the
Constable himself. The road to Paris lay open to the victors.
… The Duke of Savoy was eager to advance; but the cautious
Philip, happily for France, rejected his advice, and ordered
him to press the siege of St. Quentin. That town made a
desperate resistance for more than a fortnight longer, and was
captured by storm on the 27th of August [1557]. … Philip
took possession of a few other neighbouring fortresses, but
attempted no serious movement in prosecution of his victory.
… The Duke of Guise arrived from Italy early in October, to
the great joy of the king and the nation, and was immediately
created lieutenant-general of the kingdom, with powers of
almost unlimited extent. Be applied himself, with his utmost
ability and perseverance, to repair the late disasters; and
with such success, that in less than two months he was enabled
to assemble a fresh and well-appointed army at Compiègne.
Resolving to strike a vigorous blow before the enemy could
reappear in the field, he detached a division of his army to
make a feint in the direction of Luxemburg; and, rapidly
marching westward with the remainder, presented himself on the
1st of January, 1558, before the walls of Calais. … The
French attack was a complete surprise; the two advanced forts
commanding the approaches to the town were bombarded, and
surrendered on the 3d of January; three days later the castle
was carried by assault; and on the 8th, the governor, Lord
Wentworth, was forced to capitulate. … Guines, no longer
tenable after the fall of Calais, shared the same fate on the
21st of January; and thus, within the short space of three
weeks, were the last remnants of her ancient dominion on the
Continent snatched from the grasp of England—possessions
which she had held for upward of 200 years. … This
remarkable exploit, so flattering to the national pride,
created universal enthusiasm in France, and carried to the
highest pitch the reputation and popularity of Guise. From
this moment his influence became paramount; and the marriage
of the dauphin to the Queen of Scots, which was solemnised on
the 24th of April, 1558, seemed to exalt the house of Lorraine
to a still more towering pinnacle of greatness. It was
stipulated by a secret article of the marriage-contract that
the sovereignty of Scotland should be transferred to France,
and that the two crowns should remain united forever, in case
of the decease of Mary without issue. Toward the end of the
year negotiations were opened with a view to peace." They were
interrupted, however, in November, 1558, by the death of Queen
Mary of England, wife of Philip of Spain. "When the congress
reassembled at Le Cateau-Cambresis, in February, 1559, the
Spanish ministers no longer maintained the interests of
England; and Elizabeth, thus abandoned, agreed to an
arrangement which virtually ceded Calais to France, though
with such nominal qualifications as satisfied the
sensitiveness of the national honour. Calais was to be
restored to the English at the end of eight years, with a
penalty, in case of failure, of 500,000 crowns. At the same
time, if any hostile proceedings should take place on the part
of England against France within the period specified, the queen
was to forego all claim to the fulfillment of the article."
The treaty between France and England was signed April 2,
1559, and that between France and Spain the following day. By
the latter, "the two monarchs mutually restored their
conquests in Luxemburg, the Netherlands, Picardy, and Artois;
France abandoned Savoy and Piedmont, with the exception of
Turin and four other fortresses [restoring Philibert Emanuel,
Duke of Savoy, to his dominions—see SAVOY AND PIEDMONT: A. D.
1559-1580]; she evacuated Tuscany, Corsica, and Montferrat,
and yielded up no less than 189 towns or fortresses in various
parts of Europe. By way of compensation, Henry preserved the
district of the 'Trois Évêchés'—Toul, Metz, and Verdun—and
made the all-important acquisition of Calais. This
pacification was sealed, according to custom, by
marriages"—Henry's daughter Elizabeth to Philip of Spain, and
his sister Marguerite to the Duke of Savoy. In a tournament, at
Paris, which celebrated these marriages, Henry received an
injury from the lance of Montgomery, captain of his Scottish
guards, which caused his death eleven days afterwards—July
10, 1559.
_W. H. Jervis,
Student's History of France,
chapter 15._
ALSO IN:
_J. L. Motley,
The Rise of the Dutch Republic,
part 1, chapters 2-3 (volume l)._
_Lady Jackson,
The Court of France in the 16th Century,
volume 2, chapters 9-20._
_L. von Ranke,
Civil Wars and Monarchy in France,
16th and 17th Centuries, chapter 6 (volume 1)._
FRANCE: A. D. 1548.
Marriage of Antoine de Bourbon to Jeanne d'Albret, heiress of
Navarre.
See NAVARRE: A. D. 1528-1563.
FRANCE: A. D. 1552.
Alliance with the Turks.
See ITALY (SOUTHERN): A. D. 1528-1570.
FRANCE: A. D. 1554-1565.
Huguenot attempts at colonization in Brazil and in Florida,
and their fate.
See FLORIDA: A. D. 1562-1563; 1564-1565;
1565, and 1567-1568.
FRANCE: A. D. 1558-1559.
Aid given to revolt in Corsica.
See GENOA: A. D. 1528-1559.
FRANCE: A. D. 1559.
Accession of King Francis. II.
{1197}
FRANCE: A. D. 1559-1561.
Francis II., Charles IX., the Guises and Catharine de' Medici.
The Conspiracy of Amboise.
Rapid spread and organization of Protestantism.
Rise of the Huguenot party.
Disputed origin of its name.
Henry II. "had been married from political motives to the
niece of Clement VII., Catharine de Medici. This ambitious
woman came to France conscious that the marriage was a
political one, mentally a stranger to her husband; and such
she always remained. This placed her from the first in a false
position. The King was influenced by anyone rather than by his
wife; and a by no means charming mistress, Diana of Poitiers,
played her part by the side of and above the Queen. …
Immediately after the death of her husband, in 1559, she
[Catharine] greedily grasped at power. The young King, Francis
II., was of age when he entered his fourteenth year. There
could therefore be no legal regency, though there might be an
actual one, for a weakly monarch of sixteen was still
incompetent to govern. But she was thwarted in her first grasp
at power. Under Francis I., a family [the Guises—see above]
previously unknown in French history had begun to play a
prominent part. … The brothers succeeded in bringing about a
political marriage which promised to throw the King, who was
mentally a child, entirely into their hands. Their sister Mary
had been married to James V. of Scotland, whose crown was then
rather an insignificant one, but was now beginning to gain
importance. The issue of this marriage was a charming girl,
who was destined for the King's wife. She was betrothed to him
without his consent when still a child. The young Queen was
Mary Stuart. Her misfortunes, her beauty, and her connection
with European history, have made her a historical personage,
more conspicuous indeed for what she suffered than for what
she did; her real importance is not commensurate with the
position she occupies. This, then, was the position of the
brothers Guise at court. The King was the husband of their
niece; both were children in age and mind, and therefore
doubly required guidance. The brothers, Francis and Charles,
had the government entirely in their hands; the Duke managed
the army, the Cardinal the finances and foreign affairs. Two
such leaders were the mayors of the palace. The whole
constitution of the court reminds us of the 'rois fainéants'
and the office of major-domo under the Carlovingians. Thus,
just when Catharine was about to take advantage of a
favourable moment, she saw herself once more eclipsed and
thrust aside, and that by insolent upstarts of whom one thing
only was certain, that they possessed unusual talents, and
that their consciences were elastic in the choice of means. It
was not only from Catharine that the supremacy of the Guises
met with violent opposition, but also from Protestantism, the
importance of which was greatly increasing in France. … In
the time of Henry II., in spite of all the edicts and
executions, Protestantism had made great progress. … In the
spring of 1559, interdicted Protestantism had secretly
reviewed its congregations, and at the first national synod
drawn up a confession of faith and a constitution for the new
Church. Preachers and elders had appeared from every part of
France, and their eighty articles of 28th May, 1559, have
become the code of laws of French Protestantism. The
Calvinistic principle of the Congregational Church, with
choice of its own minister, deacons, and elders; a consistory
which maintained strict discipline in matters of faith and
morals … was established upon French soil, and was
afterwards publicly accepted by the whole party. The more
adherents this party gained in the upper circles, the bolder
was its attitude; there was, indeed, no end to the executions,
or to the edicts against heresy, but a spirit of opposition,
previously unknown, had gradually gained ground. Prisoners
were set free, the condemned were rescued from the hands of
the executioners on the way to the scaffold, and a plan was
devised among the numerous fugitives in foreign lands for
producing a turn in the course of events by violent means. La
Rénaudie, a reformed nobleman from Perigord, who had sworn
vengeance on the Guises for the execution of his brother, had,
with a number of other persons of his own way of thinking,
formed a plan for attacking the Guises, carrying off the King,
and placing him under the guardianship of the Bourbon agnates.
… The project was betrayed; the Guises succeeded in placing
the King in security in the Castle of Amboise; a number of the
conspirators were seized, another troop overpowered and
dispersed on their attack upon the castle, on the 17th of
March, 1560; some were killed, some taken prisoners and at
once executed. It was then discovered, or pretended, that the
youngest of the Bourbon princes [see BOURBON, HOUSE OF], Louis
of Condé, was implicated in the conspiracy [known as the
Conspiracy or Tumult of Amboise]. … The Guises now ventured,
in contempt of French historical traditions, to imprison this
prince of the blood, this agnate of the reigning house; to
summon him before an arbitrary tribunal of partisans, and to
condemn him to death. … This affair kept all France in
suspense. All the nobles, although strongly infected with
Huguenot ideas, were on Condé's side; even those who condemned
his religious opinions made his cause their own. They justly
thought that if he fell none of them would be safe. In the
midst of this ferment, destiny interposed. On the 5th of
December, 1560, Francis II. died suddenly, and a complete
change took place. His death put an end to a net-work of
intrigues, which aimed at knocking the rebellion, political
and religious, on the head. … During this confusion one
individual had been watching the course of events with the
eagerness of a beast ready to seize on its prey. Catharine of
Medici was convinced that the time of her dominion had at
length arrived. … Francis II. was scarcely dead when she
seized upon the person and the power of Charles IX. He was a
boy of ten years old, not more promising than his eldest
brother, sickly and weakly like all the sons of Henry II.,
more attached to his mother than the others, and he had been
neglected by the Guises. … One of her first acts was to
liberate Condé; this was a decided step towards reconciliation
with the Bourbons and the Protestants. The whole situation was
all at once changed. The court was ruled by Catharine; her
feverish thirst for power was satisfied. The Guises and their
adherents were, indeed, permitted to remain in their offices
and posts of honour, in order not fatally to offend them; but
their supremacy was destroyed, and the new power was based
upon the Queen's understanding with the heads of the Huguenot
party."
_L. Häusser,
The Period of the Reformation, 1517 to 1648,
chapter 25._
{1198}
"The recent commotion had disclosed the existence of a body of
malcontents, in part religious, in part also political,
scattered over the whole kingdom and of unascertained numbers.
To its adherents the name of Huguenots was now for the first
time given. What the origin of this celebrated appellation
was, it is now perhaps impossible to discover. … It has been
traced back to the name of the Eidgenossen or 'confederates,'
under which the party of freedom figured in Geneva when the
authority of the bishop and duke was overthrown; or to the
'Roy Huguet,' or 'Huguon,' a hobgoblin supposed to haunt the
vicinity of Tours, to whom the superstitious attributed the
nocturnal assemblies of the Protestants; or to the gate 'du
roy Huguon' of the same city, near which those gatherings were
wont to be made. Some of their enemies maintained the former
existence of a diminutive coin known as a 'huguenot,' and
asserted that the appellation, as applied to the reformed,
arose from their 'not being worth a huguenot,' or farthing;
And some of their friends, with equal confidence and no less
improbability, declared that it was invented because the
adherents of the house of Guise secretly put forward claims
upon the crown of France in behalf of that house as descended
from Charlemagne, whereas the Protestants loyally upheld the
rights of the Valois sprung from Hugh Capet. In the diversity
of contradictory statements, we may perhaps be excused if we
suspend our judgment. … Not a week had passed after the
conspiracy of Amboise before the word was in everybody's
mouth. Few knew or cared whence it arose. A powerful party,
whatever name it might bear, had sprung up, as it were, in a
night. … No feature of the rise of the Reformation in France
is more remarkable than the sudden impulse which it received
during the last year or two of Henry II.'s life, and
especially within the brief limits of the reign of his eldest
son. … There was not a corner of the kingdom where the
number of incipient Protestant churches was not considerable.
Provence alone contained 60, whose delegates this year met in
a synod at the blood-stained village of Mérindol. In large
tracts of country the Huguenots had become so numerous that
they were no longer able or disposed to conceal their
religious sentiments, nor content to celebrate their rites in
private or nocturnal assemblies. This was particularly the
case in Normandy, in Languedoc, and on the banks of the
Rhone."
_H. M. Baird,
History of the Rise of the Huguenots,
book 1, chapter 10 (volume 1)._
ALSO IN:
_C. M. Yonge,
Cameos from English History,
4th series, chapter 29._
FRANCE: A. D. 1560.
Accession of King Charles IX.
FRANCE: A. D. 1560-1563.
Changed policy of Catharine de' Medici.
Delusive favors to the Huguenots.
The Guises and the Catholics again ascendant.
The massacre of Vassy.
Outbreak of civil war.
Battle of Dreux.
Assassination of Guise.
Peace and the Edict of Amboise.
"Catherine de Medici, now regent, thought it wisest to abandon
the policy which had till then prevailed under the influence
of the Guises, and while she confirmed the Lorraine princes in
the important offices they held, she named, on the other hand,
Antoine de Bourbon [king of Navarre] lieutenant-general of the
kingdom, and took Michel de l'Hôpital as her chief adviser.
… Chancellor de l'Hôpital, like the Regent, aimed at the
destruction of the parties which were rending the kingdom
asunder; but his political programme was that of an honest man
and a true liberal. A wise system of religious toleration and
of administrative reform would, he thought, restore peace and
satisfy all true Frenchmen. 'Let us,' he said, 'do away with
the diabolical party-names which cause so many
seditions—Lutherans, Huguenots, and Papists; let us not alter
the name of Christians.' … The edicts of Saint Germain and
of January (1562) were favourable to the Huguenots. Religious
meetings were allowed in rural districts; all penalties
previously decreed against Dissenters were suspended on
condition that the old faith should not be interfered with:
finally, the Huguenot divines, with Theodore de Bèze at their
head, were invited to meet the Roman Catholic prelates and
theologians in a conference (colloque) at Poissy, near Paris.
Theodore de Bèze, the faithful associate and coadjutor of
Calvin in the great work of the Reformation, both at Geneva
and in France, is justly and universally regarded as the
historian of the early Huguenots. … The speech he delivered
at the opening of the colloque is an eloquent plea for liberty
and mutual forbearance. Unfortunately, the conciliatory
measures he proposed satisfied no one."
_G. Masson,
The Huguenots,
chapter 2._
"The edict of January … gave permission to Protestants to
hold meetings for public worship outside the towns, and placed
their meetings under the protection of the law. … The
Parliament of Paris refused to register the edict until after
repeated orders from the Queen-mother. The Parliament of Dijon
refused to register it. … The Parliament of Aix refused.
Next, Antoine de Navarre, bribed by a promise of the
restoration of the Spanish part of his little kingdom,
announced that the colloquy of Poissy had converted him,
dismissed Beza and the reformed preachers, sent Jeanne back to
Beárn, demanded the dismissal of the Chatillons from the
court, and invited the Duke of Guise and his brother, the
Cardinal, who were at their château of Joinville, to return to
Paris. Then occurred—it was only six weeks after the Edict
of January—the massacre of Vassy. Nine hundred out of
3,000—the population of that little town—were Protestants.
Rejoicing in the permission granted them by the new law, they
were assembled on the Sunday morning, in a barn outside the
town, for the purpose of public service. The Duke of Guise and
the Cardinal, with their armed escort of gentlemen and
soldiers, riding on their way to Paris, heard the bells which
summoned the people, and asked what they meant. Being told
that it was a Huguenot 'prêche,' the Duke swore that he would
Huguenot them to some purpose. He rode straight to the barn
and entered the place, threatening to murder them all. The
people relying on the law, barred the doors. Then the massacre
began. The soldiers burst open the feeble barrier, and began
to fire among the perfectly unarmed and inoffensive people.
Sixty-four were killed—men, women, and children; 200 were
wounded. This was the signal for war. Condé, on the
intelligence, immediately retired from the court to Meaux,
whence he issued a proclamation calling on all the Protestants
of the country to take up arms. Coligny was at Chatillon,
whither Catharine addressed him letter after letter, urging
upon him, in ambiguous terms, the defence of the King.
{1199}
It seems, though this is obscure, that at one time Condé might
have seized the royal family and held them. But if he had the
opportunity, he neglected it, and the chance never came again.
Henceforward, however, we hear no more talk about Catharine
becoming a Protestant. That pretence will serve her no more.
Before the clash of arms, there was silence for a space. Men
waited till the last man in France who had not spoken should
declare himself. The Huguenots looked to the Admiral, and not
to Condé. It was on him that the real responsibility lay of
declaring civil war. It was a responsibility from which the
strongest man might shrink. … The Admiral having once made
up his mind, hesitated no longer, and, with a heavy heart, set
off the next day to join Condé. He wrote to Catharine that he
took up arms, not against the King, but against those who held
him captive. He wrote also to his old uncle, the Constable
[Montmorency]. … The Constable replied. There was no
bitterness between uncle and nephew. The former was fighting
to prevent the 'universal ruin' of his country, and for his
'petits maitres,' the boys, the sons of his old friend, Henry
II. Montmorency joined the Guises in perfect loyalty, and with
the firm conviction that it was the right thing for him to do.
The Chatillon fought in the name of law and justice, and to
prevent the universal massacre of his people. … Then the
first civil war began with a gallant exploit—the taking of
Orleans [April 1562]. Condé rode into it at the head of 2,000
cavalry, all shouting like schoolboys, and racing for six
miles who should get into the city first. They pillaged the
churches, and turned out the Catholics. 'Those who were that
day turned outside the city wept catholicly that they were
dispossessed of the magazines of the finest wines in France.'
Truly a dire misfortune, for the Catholics to lose all the
best claret districts! Orleans taken, the Huguenots proceeded
to issue protestations and manifestoes, in all of which the
hand of the Admiral is visible. They are not fighting against
the King, who is a prisoner; the war was begun by the Guises.
… They might have added, truly enough, that Condé and the
Admiral held in their hands letters from Catharine, urging
them to carry on the contest for the sake of the young King.
The fall of Orleans was quickly followed by that of Rouen,
Tours, Blois, Bourges, Vienne, Valence, and Montauban. The
civil war was fairly begun. The party was now well organized.
Condé was commander-in-chief by right of his birth; Coligny
was real leader by right of his reputation and wisdom. It was
by him that a Solemn League and Covenant was drawn up, to be
signed by everyone of the Calvinist chiefs. These were,
besides Condé and the Chatillons, La Rochefoucauld, …
Coligny's nephew and Condé's brother-in-law—he was the
greatest seigneur in Poitou; Rohan, from Dauphine, who was
Condé's cousin; the Prince of Porcian, who was the husband of
Condé's niece. Each of these lords came with a following
worthy of his name. Montgomery, who had slain Henry II.,
brought his Normans; Genlis, the Picards. … With Andelot
came a troop of Bretons; with the Count de Grammont came 6,000
Gascons. Good news poured in every day. Not only Rouen, but
Havre, Caen, and Dieppe submitted in the North. Angers and
Nantes followed. The road was open in the end for bringing
troops from Germany. The country in the southwest was
altogether in their hands. Meantime, the enemy were not idle.
They began with massacres. In Paris they murdered 800
Huguenots in that first summer of the war. From every side
fugitives poured into Orleans, which became the city of
refuge. There were massacres at Amiens, Senlis, Cahors,
Toulouse, Angoulême—everywhere. Coligny advised a march upon
Paris, where, he urged, the Guises had but a rabble at their
command. His counsels when war was once commenced, were always
for vigorous measures. Condé preferred to wait. Andelot was
sent to Germany, where he raised 3,000 horse. Calvin
despatched letters in every direction, urging on the churches
and the Protestant princes to send help to France. Many of
Coligny's old soldiers of St. Quentin came to fight under his
banner. Elizabeth of England offered to send an army if Calais
were restored; when she saw that no Frenchman would give up
that place again, she still sent men and money, though with
grudging spirit. At length both armies took the field. The
Duke of Guise had under him 8,000 men; Condé 7,000. They
advanced, and met at the little town of Vassodun, where a
conference was held between the Queen-mother and Navarre on
the one hand, and Condé and Coligny on the other. Catharine
proposed that all the chiefs of both sides—Guise, the
Cardinal de Lorraine, St. Andre, Montmorency, Navarre, Condé,
and the Chatillon brothers—should all alike go into voluntary
exile. Condé was nearly persuaded to accept this absurd
proposal. Another conference was held at Taley. These
conferences were only delays. An attempt was made by Catharine
to entrap Condé, which was defeated by the Admiral's prompt
rescue. The Parliament of Paris issued a decree commanding all
Romanists in every parish to rise in arms at the sound of the
bell and to slay every Huguenot. It was said that 50,000 were
thus murdered. No doubt the numbers were grossly exaggerated.
… These cruelties naturally provoked retaliation. … An
English army occupied Havre. English troops set out for Rouen.
Some few managed to get within the walls. The town was taken
by the Catholics [October 25, 1562], and, for eight days,
plundered. Needless to say that Guise hanged every Huguenot he
could find. Here the King of Navarre was killed. The loss of
Rouen, together with other disasters, greatly discouraged the
Huguenots. Their spirits rose, however, when news came that
Andelot, with 4,000 reiters, was on his way to join them. He
brought them in safety across France, being himself carried in
a litter, sick with ague and fever. The Huguenots advanced
upon Paris, but did not attack the city. At Dreux [December
19, 1562], they met the army of Guise. Protestant historians
endeavor to show that the battle was drawn. In fact both sides
sustained immense losses. St. André was killed, Montmorency
and Condé were taken prisoners. Yet Coligny had to retire from
the field—his rival had outgeneralled him. It was
characteristic of Coligny that he never lost heart. … With
his German cavalry, a handful of his own infantry, and a small
troop of English soldiers, Coligny swept over nearly the whole
of Normandy. It is true that Guise was not there to oppose
him. Every thing looked well. He was arranging for a 'splendid
alliance' with England, when news came which stayed his hand.
{1200}
Guise marched southwards to Orleans. … There was in Orleans
a young Huguenot soldier named Jean Poltrot de Méré. He was a
fanatic. … He waited for an opportunity, worked himself into
the good graces of the Duke, and then shot him with three
balls, in the shoulder. Guise died three days later. … Then
a peace was signed [and ratified by the Edict of Amboise,
March 19, 1563]. Condé, won over and seduced by the sirens of
the Court, signed it. It was a humiliating and disastrous
peace. Huguenots were to be considered loyal subjects; foreign
soldiers should be sent out of the country; churches and
temples should be restored to their original uses; the suburbs
of one town in every bailiwick, were to be used for Protestant
worship (this was a great reduction on the Edict of January,
which allowed the suburbs of every town); and the nobility and
gentry were to hold worship in their own houses after their
own opinions. The Admiral was furious at this weakness. 'You
have ruined,' he said to Condé, 'more churches by one stroke
of the pen than the enemy could have done in ten years of
war.'"
_W. Besant,
Gaspard de Coligny.
chapter 8._
ALSO IN:
_Duc d' Aumale,
History of the Princes de Condé,
book 1, chapter 3 (volume l)._
_E. Bersier,
Earlier Life of Coligny,
chapter 21-26._
FRANCE: A. D. 1563-1564.
Recovery of Havre from the English.
The Treaty of Troyes.
Under the terms on which the Huguenot leaders procured help
from Elizabeth, the English queen held Havre, and refused to
restore it until after the restoration of Calais to England,
and the repayment of a loan of 140,000 crowns. The Huguenots,
having now made peace with their Catholic fellow countrymen,
were not prepared to fulfill the English contract, according
to Elizabeth's claims, but demanded that Havre should be given
up. The Queen refusing, both the parties, lately in arms
against each other, joined forces, and laid siege to Havre so
vigorously that it was surrendered to them on the 28th of
July, 1563. Peace with England was concluded in the April
following, by a treaty negotiated at Troyes, and the Queen
lost all her rights over Calais.
_Duc d'Aumale,
History of the Princes of Condé,
volume 1, chapter 4._
ALSO IN:
_J. A. Froude,
History of England: Reign of Elizabeth,
chapters 6 and 8 (volume 1-2)._
FRANCE: A. D. 1563-1570.
The conference at Bayonne.
Outbreak of the Second Civil War.
Battle of St. Denis.
Peace of Longjumeau.
The Third Civil War.
Huguenot rally at La Rochelle.
Appearance of the Queen of Navarre.
Battle of Jarnac.
Death of Condé.
Henry of Navarre chosen to command.
Battle of Moncontour.
Peace of St. Germain.
The religious peace established under the Edict of Amboise
lasted four years. "Not that the Huguenots enjoyed during
these years anything like security or repose. The repeated
abridgment even of those narrow liberties conferred by the
Edict of Amboise, and the frequent outbreaks of popular hatred
in which numbers of them perished, kept them in perpetual
alarm. Still more alarming was the meeting at Bayonne [of
Catherine de' Medici, the young king, her son, and the Duke of
Alva, representing Philip II. of Spain] in the summer of 1565.
… Amid the Court festivities which took place, it was known
that there had been many secret meetings between Alva,
Catherine, and, Charles. The darkest suspicions as to their
objects and results spread over France. It was generally
believed—falsely, as from Alva's letters it now appears—that
a simultaneous extermination of all heretics in the French and
Spanish dominions had been agreed upon. To anticipate this
stroke, Coligni proposed that the person of the King should be
seized upon. The Court, but slenderly guarded, was then at
Monceaux. The project had almost succeeded. Some time,
however, was lost. The Court got warning and fled to Meaux.
Six thousand Swiss arrived, and by a rapid march carried the
King to Paris. After such a failure, nothing was left to the
Huguenots but the chances of a second civil war. Condé entered
boldly on the campaign. Though he had with him but 1,500 horse
and 1,200 infantry, he marched to Paris, and offered battle to
the royal troops beneath its walls. The Constable
[Montmorency], who had 18,000 men at his command, accepted the
challenge, and on the 10th of November 1567, the battle of St.
Denis was fought. … Neither party could well claim the
victory, as both retired from the field. The royal army had to
mourn the loss that day of its aged and gallant commander, the
Constable. Condé renewed next day the challenge, which was not
accepted. The winter months were spent by the Huguenots in
effecting a junction with some German auxiliaries, and in the
spring they appeared in such force upon the field that, on the
23d March 1568, the Peace of Longjumeau was ratified, which
re-established, free from all modifications and restrictions,
the Edict of Amboise. It was evident from the first that this
treaty was not intended to be kept; that it had been entered
into by the government solely to gain time, and to scatter the
ranks of the Huguenots. Coligni sought Condé at his château of
Noyers in Burgundy. He had scarcely arrived when secret
intelligence was given them of a plot upon their lives. They
had barely time to fly, making many a singular escape by the
way, and reaching Rochelle, which from this time became the
head-quarters of the Huguenots, on the 15th September 1568.
During the first two religious wars … the seat of war was so
remote from her dominions that the Queen of Navarre [Jeanne
d'Albret,—see NAVARRE: A.D. 1528-1563] had satisfied herself
with opening her country as an asylum for those Huguenots
driven thither out of the southern counties of France. But
when she heard that Condé and Coligni … were on their way to
Rochelle, to raise there once more the Protestant banner,
convinced that the French Court meditated nothing short of the
extermination of the Huguenots, she determined openly to cast
in her lot with her co-religionists, and to give them all the
help she could. Dexterously deceiving Montluc, who had
received instructions to watch her movements, and to seize
upon her person if she showed any intention of leaving her own
dominions, after a flight as precipitous and almost as
perilous as that of Condé and Coligni, she reached Rochelle on
the 29th September, ten days after their arrival. This town,
for nearly a century the citadel of Protestantism in France,
having by its own unaided power freed itself from the English
dominion [in the period between 1368 and 1380] had had
extraordinary municipal privileges bestowed on it in
return—among others, that of an entirely independent
jurisdiction, both civil and military.
{1201}
Like so many of the great commercial marts of Europe, in which
the spirit of freedom was cherished, it had early welcomed the
teaching of the Reformers, and at the time now before us
nearly the whole of its inhabitants were Huguenots. … About
the very time that the Queen of Navarre entered Rochelle a
royal edict appeared, prohibiting, under pain of death, the
exercise of any other than the Roman Catholic religion in
France, imposing upon all the observance of its rites and
ceremonies; and banishing from the realm all preachers of the
doctrine of Calvin, fifteen days only being allowed them to
quit the kingdom. It was by the sword that this stern edict
was to be enforced or rescinded. Two powerful armies of nearly
equal strength mustered speedily. One was nominally under the
command of the Duke of Anjou, but really led by Tavannes,
Biron, Brissac, and the young Duke of Guise, the last burning
to emulate the military glory of his father; the other under
the command of Condé and Coligni. The two armies were close
upon one another; their generals desired to bring them into
action; they were more than once actually in each other's
presence; but the unprecedented inclemency of the weather
prevented an engagement, and at last, without coming into
collision, both had to retire to winter quarters. The delay
was fatal to the Huguenots." In the following spring (March
13, 1569), while their forces were still scattered and
unprepared, they were forced into battle with the
better-generaled Royalists, at Jarnac, and were grievously
defeated. Condé, wounded and taken prisoner, was treated at
first with respect by the officers who received his sword. But
"Montesquiou, captain of the Swiss Guard of the Duke of Anjou,
galloped up to the spot, and, hearing who the prisoner was,
deliberately levelled his pistol at him and shot him through
the head. The Duke passed no censure on his officer, and
expressed no regret at his deed. The grossest indignities were
afterwards, by his orders, heaped upon the dead body of the
slain. The defeat of Jarnac, and still more the death of
Condé, threw the Huguenot army into despair. … The utter
dissolution of the army seemed at hand. The Admiral sent a
messenger to the Queen of Navarre at Rochelle, entreating her
to come to the camp. She was already on her way. On arrival,
and after a short consultation with the Admiral, the army was
drawn up to receive her. She rode along the ranks—her son
Henry on one side, the son of the deceased Condé on the
other." Then she addressed to the troops an inspiring speech,
concluding with these heroic words: "Soldiers, I offer you
everything I have to give,—my dominions, my treasures, my
life, and, what is dearer to me than all, my children. I make
here solemn oath before you all—I swear to defend to my last
sigh the holy cause which now unites us." "The soldiers
crowded around the Queen, and unanimously, as if by sudden
impulse, hailed young Henry of Navarre as their future
general. The Admiral and La Rochefoucauld were the first to
swear fidelity to the Prince; then came the inferior officers
and the whole assembled soldiery; and it was thus that, in his
fifteenth year, the Prince of Béarn was inaugurated as
general-in-chief of the army of the Huguenots." In June the
Huguenot army effected a junction at St. Yriex with a division
of German auxiliaries, led by the Duc de Deux-Ponts, and
including among its chiefs the Prince of Orange and his
brother Louis of Nassau. They attacked the Duke of Anjou at La
Roche-Abeille and gained a slight advantage; but wasted their
strength during the summer, contrary to the advice of the
Admiral Coligny, in besieging Poitiers. The Duke of Anjou
approached with a superior army, and, again in opposition to
the judgment of Coligny, the Huguenots encountered him at
Moncontour (October 3, 1569), where they suffered the worst of
their defeats, leaving 5,000 dead and wounded on the field.
Meanwhile a French army had entered Navarre, had taken the
capital and spread destruction everywhere through the small
kingdom; but the Queen sent Count de Montgomery to rally her
people, and the invaders were driven out. Coligny and Prince
Henry wintered their troops in the far south, then moved
rapidly northwards in the spring, up the valley of the Rhone,
across the Cevennes, through Burgundy, approaching the Loire,
and were met by the Marshal de Cosse at Arnay-le-Duc, where
Henry of Navarre won his first success in arms—Coligny being
ill. Though it was but a partial victory it brought about a
breathing time of peace. "This happened in the end of June,
and on the 8th of August [1570] the Peace of St.
Germain-en-Laye was signed, and France had two full years of
quiet."
_W. Hanna,
The Wars of the Huguenots,
chapter 4._
ALSO IN:
_Duc d'Aumale,
History of the Princes de Condé,
book 1, chapter 4-5 (volume 1-2)._
_M. W. Freer,
Life of Jeanne d'Albret,
chapters 8-10._
_C. M. Yonge,
Cameos of English History,
5th series, chapter 8._
FRANCE: A. D. 1570-1572.
Coligny at court and his influence with the King.
Projected war with Spain.
The desperate step of Catharine de' Medici, and its
consequence in the plot of Massacre.
"After the Peace of 1570, it appeared as if a complete change
of policy was about to take place. The Queen pretended to be
friendly with the Protestants; her relations with the
ambitious Guises were distant and cold, and the project of
uniting the Houses of Bourbon and Valois by marriage [the
marriage of Henry of Navarre with the king's sister,
Marguerite] really looked as if she was in earnest. The most
distinguished leader of the Huguenot party was the Admiral
Caspar de Coligny. It is quite refreshing at this doleful
period to meet with such a character. He was a nobleman of the
old French school and of the best stamp; lived upon his estates
with his family, his little court, his retainers and subjects,
in ancient patriarchal style, and on the best terms, and
regularly went with them to the Protestant worship and the
communion; a man of unblemished morality and strict
Calvinistic views of life. Whatever this man said or did was
the result of his inmost convictions; his life was the
impersonation of his views and thoughts. In the late turbulent
times he had become an important person as leader and
organizer of the Protestant armies. At his call, thousands of
noblemen and soldiers took up arms, and they submitted under
his command to very strict discipline. He could not boast of
having won many battles, but he was famous for having kept his
resources together after repeated defeats, and for rising up
stronger than before after every lost engagement. … Now that
peace was made, 'why,' he asked, 'excite further dissensions
for the benefit of our common enemies? Let us direct our
undivided forces against the real enemy of France—against
Spain, who stirs up intrigues in our civil, wars. Let us crush
this power, which condemns us to ignominious dependence.'
{1202}
The war against Spain was Coligny's project. It was the idea
of a good Huguenot, for it was directed against the most
blindly fanatical and dangerous foe of the new doctrines; but
it was also that of a good Frenchman, for a victory over Spain
would increase the power of France in the direction of
Burgundy. … From September, 1571, Coligny was at court. On
his first arrival he was heartily welcomed by the King,
embraced by Catharine, and loaded with honours and favours by
both. I am not of opinion that this was a deeply laid scheme
to entrap the guileless hero, the more easily to ruin him.
Catharine's ideas did not extend so far. Still less do I
believe that the young King was trained to play the part of a
hypocrite, and regarded Coligny as a victim to be cherished
until the fête day. I think, rather, that Catharine, in her
changeableness and hatred of the Guises, was now really
disposed to make peace with the Protestants, and that the
young King was for the time impressed by this superior
personage. No youthful mind is so degraded as to be entirely
inaccessible to such influence. … I believe that the first
and only happy day in the life of this unfortunate monarch was
when he met Coligny, who raised him above the degradation of
vulgar life; and I believe further, that this relation was the
main cause of the massacre of St. Bartholomew. A new influence
was threatening to surround the King and to take deep root,
which Catharine, her son Henry of Anjou, and the strict
Catholic party, must do their utmost to avert; and it was
quite in accordance with the King's weak character to allow
the man to be murdered whom he had just called 'Father.' …
It appears that about the middle of the year [1572] the matter
[of war with Spain and help to the revolting Netherlands] was
as good as decided. The King willingly acceded to Coligny's
plan … [and] privately gave considerable sums for the
support of the Flemish patriots, for the equipment of an army
of 4,000 men, composed of Catholics and Protestants, who
marched towards Mons, to succour Louis of Nassau. When in July
this army was beaten, and the majority of the Huguenots were
in despair, Coligny succeeded in persuading the King to equip
a fresh and still larger army; but the opposition then
bestirred itself. …The Queen … had been absent, with her
married daughter in Lorraine, and on her return she found
everything changed; the Guises without influence, herself
thrust on one side. Under the impression of the latest events
in Flanders, which made it likely that the war with Spain
would be ruinous, she hastened to the King, told him with
floods of tears that it would be his ruin; that the Huguenots,
through Coligny, had stolen the King's confidence,
unfortunately for himself and the country. She made some
impression upon him, but it did not last long, and thoughts of
war gained the upper hand again. The idea now (August, 1572),
must have been matured in Catharine's mind of venturing on a
desperate step, in order to save her supremacy and influence.
… The idea ripened in her mind of getting rid of Coligny by
assassination. … Entirely of one mind with her son Henry,
she turned to the Guises, with whom she was at enmity when
they were in power, but friendly when they were of no more
consequence than herself. They breathed vengeance against the
Calvinists, and were ready at once to avenge the murder of
Francis of Guise by a murderous attack upon Coligny. An
assassin was hired, and established in a house belonging to
the Guises, near Coligny's dwelling, and as he came out of the
palace, on the 22nd of August, a shot was fired at him, which
wounded but did not kill him. Had Coligny died of his wound,
Catharine would have been content. … But Coligny did not
die; the Huguenots defiantly demanded vengeance on the
well-known instigator of the deed; their threats reached the
Queen and Prince Henry of Anjou, and the personal fascination
which Coligny had exercised over King Charles appeared rather
to increase than to diminish. Thus doubtless arose, during the
anxious hours after the failure of the assassination, the idea of
an act of violence on a large scale, which should strike a
blow at Coligny and his friends before they had time for
revenge. It certainly had not been in preparation for months,
not even since the time that Coligny had been at Court; it was
conceived in the agony of these hours."
_L. Hausser,
The Period of the Reformation,
chapter 27._
ALSO IN:
_J. L. Motley,
The Rise of the Dutch Republic,
part 3, chapters 6-7 (volume 2)._
_L. von Ranke,
Civil Wars and Monarchy in France,
chapter 15._
FRANCE: A. D. 1572 (August).
The Massacre of St. Bartholomew's Day.
"With some proofs, forged or real, in her hand that he was in
personal danger, the Queen Mother [August 24] presented
herself to her son. She told him that at the moment she was
speaking the Huguenots were arming. Sixteen thousand of them
intended to assemble in the morning, seize the palace, destroy
herself, the Duke of Anjou, and the Catholic noblemen, and
carry off Charles. The conspiracy, she said, extended through
France. The chiefs of the congregations were waiting for a
signal from Coligny to rise in every province and town. The
Catholics had discovered the plot, and did not mean to sit
still to be murdered. If the King refused to act with them,
they would choose another leader; and whatever happened he
would be himself destroyed. Unable to say that the story could
not be true, Charles looked enquiringly at Tavannas and De
Nevers, and they both confirmed the Queen Mother's words.
Shaking his incredulity with reminders of Amboise and Meaux,
Catherine went on to say that one man was the cause of all the
troubles in the realm. The Admiral aspired to rule all France,
and she—she admitted, with Anjou and the Guises, had
conspired to kill him to save the King and the country. She
dropped all disguise. The King, she said, must now assist them
or all would be lost. … Charles was a weak, passionate boy,
alone in the dark conclave of iniquity. He stormed, raved,
wept, implored, spoke of his honour, his plighted word; swore
at one moment that the Admiral should not be touched, then
prayed them to try other means. But clear, cold and venomous,
Catherine told him it was too late. If there was a judicial
enquiry, the Guises would shield themselves by telling all
that they knew. They would betray her; they would betray his
brother; and, fairly or unfairly, they would not spare
himself. … For an hour and a half the King continued to
struggle. 'You refuse, then,' Catherine said at last. … 'Is
it that you are afraid, Sire?' she hissed in his ear. 'By
God's death,' he cried, springing to his feet, 'since you will
kill the Admiral, kill them all.
{1203}
Kill all the Huguenots in France, that none may be left to
reproach me. Mort Dieu! Kill them all.' He dashed out of the
cabinet. A list of those who were to die was instantly drawn
up. Navarre and Condé were first included; but Catherine
prudently reflected that to kill the Bourbons would make the
Guises too strong. Five or six names were added to the
Admiral's, and these Catherine afterwards asserted were all
that it was intended should suffer. … Night had now fallen.
Guise and Aumale were still lurking in the city, and came with
the Duke of Montpensier at Catherine's summons. The persons
who were to be killed were in different parts of the town.
Each took charge of a district. Montpensier promised to see to
the Palace; Guise and his uncle undertook the Admiral; and below
these, the word went out to the leaders of the already
organised sections, who had been disappointed once, but whose
hour was now come. The Catholics were to recognise one another
in the confusion by a white handkerchief on the left arm and a
white cross in their caps. The Royal Guard, Catholics to a
man, were instruments ready made for the work. Guise assembled
the officers: he told them that the Huguenots were preparing
to rise, and that the King had ordered their instant
punishment. The officers asked no questions, and desired no
better service. The business was to begin at dawn. The signal
would be the tolling of the great bell at the Palace of
Justice, and the first death was to be Coligny's. The soldiers
stole to their posts. Twelve hundred lay along the Seine,
between the river and the Hotel de Ville; other companies
watched at the Louvre. As the darkness waned, the Queen Mother
went down to the gate. The stillness of the dawn was broken by
an accidental pistol-shot. Her heart sank, and she sent off a
messenger to tell Guise to pause. But it was too late. A
minute later the bell boomed out, and the massacre of St.
Bartholomew had commenced." The assassins broke into the
Admiral's dwelling and killed him as he lay wounded in bed.
"The window was open. 'Is it done?' cried Guise from the court
below, 'is it done? Fling him out that we may see him.' Still
breathing, the Admiral was hurled upon the pavement. The
Bastard of Angoulême wiped the blood from his face to be sure
of his identity, and then, kicking him as he lay, shouted, 'So
far well. Courage, my brave boys! now for the rest.' One of
the Duc de Nevers's people hacked off the head. A rope was
knotted about the ankles, and the corpse
was dragged out into the street amidst the howling crowd.
Teligny, … Rochefoucault, and the rest of the Admiral's
friends who lodged in the neighbourhood were disposed of in
the same way, and so complete was the surprise that there was
not the most faint attempt at resistance. Montpensier had been
no less successful in the Louvre. The staircases were all
beset. The retinues of the King of Navarre and the Prince had
been lodged in the palace at Charles's particular desire.
Their names were called over, and as they descended unarmed
into the quadrangle they were hewn in pieces. There, in heaps,
they fell below the Royal window, under the eyes of the
miserable King, who was forced forward between his mother and
his brother that he might be seen as the accomplice of the
massacre. Most of the victims were killed upon the spot. Some
fled wounded up the stairs, and were slaughtered in the
presence of the Princesses. … By seven o'clock the work
which Guise and his immediate friends had undertaken was
finished with but one failure. The Count Montgomery and the
Vidame of Chartres … escaped to England. The mob meanwhile
was in full enjoyment. … While dukes and lords were killing
at the Louvre, the bands of the sections imitated them with
more than success; men, women, and even children, striving
which should be the first in the pious work of murder. All
Catholic Paris was at the business, and every Huguenot
household had neighbours to know and denounce them. Through
street and lane and quay and causeway, the air rang with yells
and curses, pistol-shots and crashing windows; the roadways
were strewed with mangled bodies, the doors were blocked by
the dead and dying. From garret, closet, roof, or stable,
crouching creatures were torn shrieking out, and stabbed and
hacked at; boys practised their hands by strangling babies in
their cradles, and headless bodies were trailed along the
trottoirs. … Towards midday some of the quieter people
attempted to restore order. A party of the town police made
their way to the palace. Charles caught eagerly at their
offers of service, and bade them do their utmost to put the
people down; but it was all in vain. The soldiers, maddened
with plunder and blood, could not be brought to assist, and
without them nothing could be done. All that afternoon and
night, and the next day and the day after, the horrible scenes
continued, till the flames burnt down at last for want of
fuel. The number who perished in Paris was computed variously
from 2,000 to 10,000. In this, as in all such instances, the
lowest estimate is probably the nearest to the truth. The
massacre was completed—completed in Paris—only, as it
proved, to be continued elsewhere. … On the 24th, while the
havoc was at its height, circulars went round to the provinces
that a quarrel had broken out between the Houses of Guise and
Coligny; that the Admiral and many more had been unfortunately
killed, and that the King himself had been in danger through
his efforts to control the people. The governors of the
different towns were commanded to repress at once any symptoms
of disorder which might show themselves, and particularly to
allow no injury to be done to the Huguenots." But Guise, when
he learned of these circulars, which threw upon him the odium
of the massacre, forced the King to recall them. "The story of
the Huguenot conspiracy was revived. … The Protestants of
the provinces, finding themselves denounced from the throne,
were likely instantly to take arms to defend themselves.
Couriers were therefore despatched with second orders that
they should be dealt with as they had been dealt with at
Paris; and at Lyons, Orleans, Rouen, Bordeaux, Toulon, Meaux,
in half the towns and villages of France, the bloody drama was
played once again. The King, thrown out into the hideous
torrent of blood, became drunk with frenzy, and let slaughter
have its way, till even Guise himself affected to be shocked,
and interposed to put an end to it; not, however, till,
according to the belief of the times, 100,000 men, women and
children had been miserably murdered. … The number again may
be hoped to have been prodigiously exaggerated; with all large
figures, when unsupported by exact statistics, it is safe to
divide at least by ten."
_J. A. Froude,
History of England: Reign of Elizabeth,
chapter 23 (volume 4)._
ALSO IN:
_H. White,
The Massacre of St. Bartholomew,
chapters 12-14._
_Duke of Sully,
Memoirs,
book 1._
_G. P. Fisher,
The Massacre of St. Bartholomew
(New Englander, January, 1880)._
{1204}
FRANCE: A. D. 1572 (August-October).
The king's avowal of responsibility for the Massacre, and
celebration of his "victory."
Rejoicings at Rome and Madrid.
General horror of Europe.
The effects in France.
Changed character of the Protestant party.
"On the morning of the 26th of August, Charles IX. went to
hold a 'bed of justice' in the parliament, carrying with him
the king of Navarre, and he then openly avowed that the
massacre had been perpetrated by his orders, made … excuse
for it, grounded on a pretended conspiracy of the Huguenots
against his person, and then directed the parliament to
commence judicial proceedings against Coligni and his
accomplices, dead or alive, on the charge of high treason. The
parliament obeyed, and, after a process of two months, which
was a mere tissue of falsehoods, they not only found all the
dead guilty, but they included in the sentence two of the
principal men who had escaped—the old captain Briquemaut,
and Arnaud de Cavaignes. … Both were hanged at the Place de
Grève, in the presence of the king, who compelled the king of
Navarre also to be a witness of their execution. Having once
assumed the responsibility of the massacre of the protestants,
Charles IX. began to glory in the deed. On the 27th of August,
he went with the whole court to Montfaucon, to contemplate the
mutilated remains of the admiral. … Next day, a grand
jubilee procession was headed by the king in celebration of
his so-called victory. … The 'victory' was also celebrated
by two medals. … Nevertheless, the minds of Charles and his
mother were evidently ill at ease, and their misgivings as to
the effect which would be produced at foreign courts by the
news of these proceedings are very evident in the varying and
often contradictory orders which they dispatched into the
provinces. … The news of these terrible events caused an
extreme agitation in all the courts throughout Christian
Europe. Philip of Spain, informed of the massacres by a letter
from the king and the queen-mother, written on the 29th of
August, replied by warm congratulations and expressions of
joy. The cardinal of Lorraine, who was … at Rome, gave a
reward of 1,000 écus of gold to the courier who brought the
despatches, and the news was celebrated at Rome by the firing
of the cannons of the castle of St. Angelo, and by the
lighting of bon-fires in the streets. The pope (Gregory XIII.)
and the sacred college went in grand procession to the
churches to offer their thanks to God. … Not content with
these demonstrations, the pope caused a medal to be struck.
… Gregory dispatched immediately to the court of France the
legate Fabio d'Orsini, with a commission to congratulate the
king and his mother for the vigour they had shown in the
repression of heresy, to demand the reception in France of the
council of Trent, and the establishment of the Inquisition.
… But the papal legate found the court of France in a
different temper from that which he anticipated. Catherine,
alarmed at the effect which these great outrages had produced
on the protestant sovereigns, found it necessary to give him
private intimations that the congratulations of the pontiff
were untimely, and could not be publicly accepted. … The
policy of the French court at home was no less distasteful to
the papal legate than its relations abroad. The old edicts
against the public exercise of the protestant worship were
gradually revived, and the Huguenots were deprived of the
offices which they had obtained during the short period of
toleration, but strict orders were sent round to forbid any
further massacres, with threats of punishment against those
who had already offended. On the 8th of October, the king
published a declaration, inviting such of the protestants as
had quitted the kingdom in consequence of the massacres to
return, and promising them safety; but this was soon followed
by letters to the governors of the provinces, directing them
to exhort the Huguenot gentry and others to conform to the
catholic faith, and declaring that he would tolerate only one
religion in his kingdom. Many, believing that the protestant
cause was entirely ruined in France, complied, and this
defection was encouraged by the example of the two princes of
Bourbon [Henry, now king of Navarre, his mother, Jeanne
d'Albret, having died June 9, 1572, and Henry, the young
prince of Condé], who, after some weeks of violent resistance,
submitted at the end of September, and, at least in outward
form, became catholics. It has been remarked that the massacre
of St. Bartholomew's-day produced an entire change in the
character of the protestant party in France. The Huguenots had
hitherto been entirely ruled by their aristocracy, who took
the lead and direction in every movement; but now the great
mass of the protestant nobility had perished or deserted the
cause, and from this moment the latter depended for support
upon the inhabitants of some of the great towns and upon the
un-noble class of the people; and with this change it took a
more popular character, in some cases showing even a tendency
to republicanism. In the towns where the protestants were
strong enough to offer serious resistance, such as La
Rochelle, Nimes, Sancerre, and Montauban, the richer burghers,
and a part at least of the municipal officers, were in favour
of submission, and they were restrained only by the resolution
and devotion of the less wealthy portion of the population."
_T. Wright,
History of France,
book 3, chapter 7 (volume 1)._
ALSO IN:
_H. M. Baird,
History of the Rise of the Huguenots,
chapter 19 (volume 2)._
_A. de Montor,
Lives and Times of the Roman Pontiffs,
volume 1, pages 810-812._
{1205}
FRANCE: A. D. 1572-1573.
The Fourth Religious War.
Siege and successful defence of La Rochelle.
A favorable peace.
"The two Reformer-princes, Henry of Navarre and Henry de
Condé, attended mass on the 29th of September, and, on the 3d
of October, wrote to the pope, deploring their errors and
giving hopes of their conversion. Far away from Paris, in the
mountains of the Pyrenees and of Languedoc, in the towns where
the Reformers were numerous and confident … the spirit of
resistance carried the day. An assembly, meeting at Milhau,
drew up a provisional ordinance for the government of the
Reformed church, 'until it please God, who has the hearts of
kings in His keeping, to change that of King Charles IX. and
restore the state of France to good order, or to raise up such
neighboring prince as is manifest marked out, by his virtue
and by distinguishing signs, for to be the liberator of this
poor afflicted people.' In November, 1572, the fourth
religious war broke out. The siege of La Rochelle was its only
important event. Charles IX. and his councillors exerted
themselves in vain to avoid it. There was everything to
disquiet them in this enterprise: so sudden a revival of the
religious war after the grand blow they had just struck, the
passionate energy manifested by the Protestants in asylum at
La Rochelle, and the help they had been led to hope for from
Queen Elizabeth, whom England would never have forgiven for
indifference in this cause. … The king heard that one of the
bravest Protestant chiefs, La Noue, 'Ironarm,' had retired to
Mons with Prince Louis of Nassau. The Duke of Longueville …
induced him to go to Paris. The king received him with great
favor … and pressed him to go to La Rochelle and prevail
upon the inhabitants to keep the peace. … La Noue at last
consented, and repaired, about the end of November, 1572, to a
village close by La Rochelle, whither it was arranged that
deputies from the town would come and confer with him. …
After hearing him, the senate rejected the pacific overtures
made to them by La Noue. 'We have no mind [they said] to treat
specially and for ourselves alone; our cause is that of God
and of all the churches of France; we will accept nothing but
what shall seem proper to all our brethren.'" They then
offered to trust themselves under La Noue's command,
notwithstanding the commission by which he was acting for the
king. "La Noue did not hesitate; he became, under the
authority of the mayor, Jacques Henri, the military head of La
Rochelle, whither Charles IX. had sent him to make peace. The
king authorized him to accept this singular position. La Noue
conducted himself so honorably in it, and everybody was so
convinced of his good faith as well as bravery, that for three
months he commanded inside La Rochelle, and superintended the
preparations for defence, all the while trying to make the
chances of peace prevail. At the end of February, 1573, he
recognized the impossibility of his double commission, and he
went away from La Rochelle, leaving the place in better
condition than that in which he had found it, without either
king or Rochellese considering that they had any right to
complain of him. Biron first and then the Duke of Anjou in
person took the command of the siege. They brought up, it is
said, 40,000 men and 60 pieces of artillery. The Rochellese,
for defensive strength, had but 22 companies of refugees or
inhabitants, making in all 3,100 men. The siege lasted from
the 26th of February to the 13th of June, 1573; six assaults
were made on the place. … La Rochelle was saved. Charles IX.
was more and more desirous of peace; his brother, the Duke of
Anjou, had just been elected King of Poland; Charles IX. was
anxious for him to leave France and go to take possession of
his new kingdom. Thanks to these complications, the peace of
La Rochelle was signed on the 6th of July, 1573. Liberty of
creed and worship was recognized in the three towns of La
Rochelle, Montauban, and Nimes. They were not obliged to
receive any royal garrison, on condition of giving hostages to
be kept by the king for two years. Liberty of worship throughout
the extent of their jurisdiction continued to be recognized in
the case of lords high-justiciary. Everywhere else the
Reformers had promises of not being persecuted for their
creed, under the obligation of never holding an assembly of
more than ten persons at a time. These were the most favorable
conditions they had yet obtained. Certainly this was not what
Charles IX, had calculated upon when he consented to the
massacre of the Protestants."
_F. P. Guizot,
Popular History of France,
chapter 33._
FRANCE: A. D. 1573-1576.
Escape of Condé and Navarre.
Death of Charles IX.
Accession of Henry III.
The Fifth Civil War.
Navarre's repudiation of Catholicism.
The Peace of Monseur.
The King's mignons and the nation's disgust.
"Catherine … had the address to procure the crown of Poland
for the son of her predilection, Henry duke of Anjou. She had
lavished her wealth upon the electors for this purpose. No
sooner was the point gained than she regretted it. The health
of Charles was now manifestly on the decline, and Catherine
would fain have retained Henry; but the jealousy of the king
forbade. After conducting the duke on his way to Poland the
court returned to St. Germain, and Charles sunk, without hope
or consolation, on his couch of sickness. Even here he was not
allowed to repose. The young king of Navarre formed a project
of escape with the prince of Condé. The duc d' Alençon,
youngest brother of the king, joined in it. … The vigilance
of the queen-mother discovered the enterprise, which, for her
own purposes, she magnified into a serious plot. Charles was
informed that a huguenot army was coming to surprise him, and
he was obliged to be removed into a litter, in order to
escape. … Condé was the only prince that succeeded in making
his escape. The king of Navarre and the duc d' Alençon were
imprisoned." The young king of Navarre "had already succeeded
by his address, his frankness, and high character, in rallying
to his interests the most honourable of the noblesse, who
dreaded at once the perfidious Catherine and her children; who
had renounced their good opinion of young Guise after the day
of St. Bartholomew; and who, at the same time professing
Catholicism, were averse to huguenot principles and zeal. This
party, called the Politiques, professed to follow the middle
or neutral course, which at one time had been that of
Catherine of Medicis; but she had long since deserted it, and
had joined in all the sanguinary and extreme measures of her
son and of the Guises. Hence she was especially odious to the
new and moderate party of the Politiques, among whom the
family of Montmorency held the lead. Catherine feared their
interference at the moment of the king's death, whilst his
successor was absent in a remote kingdom; and she swelled the
project of the princes' escape into a serious conspiracy, in
order to be mistress of those whom she feared. … In this
state of the court Charles IX. expired on the 30th of May,
1574, after having nominated the queen-mother to be regent
during his successor's absence. … The career of the new king
[Henry III.], while duke of Anjou, had been glorious. Raised
to the command of armies at the age of 15, he displayed
extreme courage as well as generalship.
{1206}
He had defeated the veteran leader of the protestants at
Jarnac and at Moncontour; and the fame of his exploits had
contributed to place him on the elective throne of Poland,
which he now occupied. Auguring from his past life, a
brilliant epoch might be anticipated; and yet we enter upon
the most contemptible reign, perhaps, in the annals of France.
… Henry was obliged to run away by stealth from his Polish
subjects [see POLAND: A. D. 1574-1590]. When overtaken by one
of the nobles of that kingdom, the monarch, instead of
pleading his natural anxiety to visit France and secure his
inheritance, excused himself by drawing forth the portrait of
his mistress, … and declared that it was love which hastened
his return. At Vienna, however, Henry forgot both crown and
mistress amidst the feasts that were given him; and he turned
aside to Venice, to enjoy a similar reception from that rich
republic. … The hostile parties were in the meantime arming.
The Politiques, or neutral catholics, for the first time
showed themselves in the field. They demanded the freedom of
Cossé and of Montmorency, and at length formed a treaty of
alliance with the Huguenots. Henry, after indulging in the
ceremony of being crowned, was obliged to lead an army into
the field. Sieges were undertaken on both sides, and what is
called the fifth civil war raged openly. It became more
serious when the king's brother joined it. This was the duke
of Alençon, a vain and fickle personage, of whom it pleased
the king to become jealous. Alençon fled and joined the
malcontents. The reformers, however, waited but languidly.
Both parties were without active and zealous leaders; and the
only notable event of this war was a skirmish in Champagne
[the battle of Dormans, in which both sides lost heavily],
where the duke of Guise received a slight wound in the cheek.
From hence came his surname of 'Le Balafré.'" In February,
1576, the king of Navarre made his escape from court. "He bent
his course towards Guienne, and at Niort publicly avowed his
adherence to the reformed religion, declaring that force alone
had made him conform to the mass. It was about this time that
the king, in lieu of leading an army against the malcontents,
despatched the queen-mother, with her gay and licentious
court, to win back his brother. She succeeded, though not
without making large concessions [in a treaty called the
'Peace of Monsieur']. The duke of Alençon obtained Anjou, and
other provinces in appanage, and henceforth was styled duke of
Anjou. More favourable terms were granted to the Huguenots:
they were allowed ten towns of surety in lieu of six, and the
appointment of a certain number of judges in the parliament.
Such weakness in Henry disgusted the body of the catholics;
and the private habits of his life contributed still more, if
possible, than his public measures, to render him
contemptible. He was continually surrounded by a set of young
and idle favourites, whose affectation it was to unite
ferocity with frivolity. The king showed them such tender
affection as he might evince towards woman; they even had the
unblushing impudence to adopt feminine habits of dress; and
the monarch passed his time in adorning them and himself with
robes and ear-rings. … The indescribable tastes and
amusements of Henry and his mignons, as his favourites were
called, … raised up throughout the nation one universal cry
of abhorrence and contempt."
_E. E. Crowe,
History of France,
chapters 8-9 (volume 1)._
ALSO IN:
_Lady Jackson,
The Last of the Valois,
volume 2, chapters 2-6._
_S. Menzies,
Royal Favourites,
volume 1, chapter 5._
FRANCE: A. D. 1576-1585.
The rise of the League.
Its secret objects and aims.
Its alliance with Philip II. of Spain.
The Pope's Bull against Navarre and Condé.
"The famous association known as the 'Catholic League' or
'Holy Union,' took its rise from the strangely indulgent terms
granted to the Huguenots by the 'Peace of Monsieur,' in April,
1576. Four years had scarcely elapsed since the bloodstained
Eve of St. Bartholomew. It had been hoped that by means of
that execrable crime the Reformation would have been finally
crushed and extinguished in France; but instead of this, a
treaty was concluded with the heretics, which placed them in a
more favourable situation than they had ever occupied before.
… It was regarded by the majority of Catholics as a wicked
and cowardly betrayal of their most sacred interests. They
ascribed it to its true source, namely, the hopeless
incapacity of the reigning monarch, Henry III.; a prince whose
monstrous vices and gross misgovernment were destined to
reduce France to a state of disorganization bordering on
national ruin. The idea of a general confederation of
Catholics for the defence of the Faith against the inroads of
heresy had been suggested by the Cardinal of Lorraine during
the Council of Trent, and had been favourably entertained at
the Court of Rome. The Duke of Guise was to have been placed
at the head of this alliance; but his sudden death changed the
face of affairs, and the project fell into abeyance. The
Cardinal of Lorraine was now no more; he died at Avignon, at
the age of 50, in December, 1574. … Henry, the third Duke of
Guise, inherited in their fullest extent the ambition, the
religious ardour, the lofty political aspirations, the
enterprising spirit, the personal popularity, of his
predecessors. The League of 1576 was conceived entirely in his
interest. He was the leader naturally pointed out for such a
movement;—a movement which, although its ulterior objects
were at first studiously concealed, aimed in reality at
substituting the family of Lorraine for that of Valois on the
throne of France. The designs of the confederates, as set
forth in the original manifesto which was circulated for
signature, seemed at first sight highly commendable, both with
regard to religion and politics. According to this document, the
Union was formed for three great purposes: to uphold the
Catholic Church; to suppress heresy; and to maintain the
honour, the authority and prerogatives of the Most Christian
king and his successors. On closer examination, however,
expressions were detected which hinted at less constitutional
projects. … Their secret aims became incontestably manifest
soon afterwards, when one of their confidential agents, an
advocate named David, happened to die suddenly on his return
from Rome, and his papers fell into the hands of the
Huguenots, who immediately made them public. … A change of
dynasty in France was the avowed object of the scheme thus
disclosed. It set forth, in substance, that the Capetian
monarchs were usurpers,—the throne belonging rightfully to
the house of Lorraine as the lineal descendants of
Charlemagne. …
{1207}
The Duke of Guise, with the advice and permission of the Pope,
was to imprison Henry for the rest of his days in a monastery,
after the example of his ancestor Pepin when he dethroned the
Merovingian Childeric. Lastly, the heir of the Carlovingians
was to be proclaimed King of France; and, on assuming the
crown, was to make such arrangements with his Holiness as
would secure the complete recognition of the sovereignty of
the Vicar of Christ, by abrogating for ever the so-called
'liberties of the Gallican Church.' … This revolutionary
plot … unhappily, was viewed with cordial sympathy, and
supported with enthusiastic zeal, by many of the prelates, and
a large majority of the parochial clergy, of France. … The
death of the Duke of Anjou, presumptive heir to the throne, in
1584, determined the League to immediate action. In the event
of the king's dying without issue, which was most
probable,—the crown would now devolve upon Henry of Bourbon
[the King of Navarre], the acknowledged leader of the
Huguenots. … In January, 1585, the chiefs of the League
signed a secret treaty at Joinville with the King of Spain, by
which the contracting parties made common cause for the
extirpation of all sects and heresies in France and the
Netherlands, and for excluding from the French throne princes
who were heretics, or who 'treated heretics with public
impunity.' … Liberal supplies of men and money were to be
furnished to the insurgents by Philip from the moment that war
should break out. … The Leaguers lost no time in seeking for
their enterprise the all-important sanction of the Holy See.
For this purpose they despatched as their envoy to Rome a
Jesuit named Claude Matthieu. … The Jesuit fraternity in
France had embraced with passionate ardour the anti-royalist
cause. … His Holiness [Gregory XIII.], however, was cautious
and reserved. He expressed in general terms his consent to the
project of taking up arms against the heretics, and granted a
plenary indulgence to those who should aid in the holy work.
But he declined to countenance the deposition of the king by
violence. … At length, however [September 9, 1585], Sixtus
was persuaded to fulminate a bull against the King of Navarre
and the Prince of Condé, in which … both culprits, together
with their heirs and posterity were pronounced for ever
incapable of succeeding to the throne of France or any other
dignity; their subjects and vassals were released from their
oath of homage, and forbidden to obey them."
_W. H. Jervis,
History of the Church of France,
volume 1, chapter 3._
ALSO IN:
_L. von Ranke,
Civil Wars and Monarchy in France,
chapter 21._
FRANCE: A. D. 1577-1578.
Rapid spread of the League.
The Sixth Civil War and the Peace of Bergerac.
Anjou in the Netherlands.
The League "spread like lightning over the whole face of
France; Condé could find no footing in Picardy or even in
Poitou; Henry of Navarre was refused entrance into Bordeaux
itself; the heads of the League, the family-party of the Dukes
of Guise, Mayenne and Nemours, seemed to carry all before
them; the weak King leant towards them; the Queen Mother,
intriguing ever, succeeded in separating Anjou from the
Politiques, and began to seduce Damville. She hoped once more
to isolate the Huguenots and to use the League to weaken and
depress them. … The Court and the League seemed to be in
perfect harmony, the King … in a way, subscribed to the
League, though the twelve articles were considerably modified
before they were shown to him. … The Leaguers had succeeded
in making war [called the Sixth Civil War—1577], and winning
some successes: but on their heels came the Court with fresh
negotiations for peace. The heart's desire of the King was to
crush the stubborn Huguenots and to destroy the moderates, but
he was afraid to act; and so it came about that, though Anjou
was won away from them, and compromised on the other side, and
though Damville also deserted them, and though the whole party
was in the utmost disorder and seemed likely to disperse,
still the Court offered them such terms that in the end they
seemed to have even recovered ground. Under the walls of
Montpellier, Damville, the King's general, and Chatillon, the
Admiral's son, at the head of the Huguenots, were actually
manœuvring to begin a battle, when La Noue came up bearing
tidings of peace, and at the imminent risk of being shot
placed himself between the two armies, and stayed their
uplifted hands. It was the Peace of Bergerac [confirmed by the
Edict of Poitiers—Sept. 17, 1577], another ineffectual truce,
which once more granted in the main what that of Chastenoy [or
the 'Peace of Monseur'] had already promised: it is needless
to say that the League would have none of it; and
partisan-warfare, almost objectless, however oppressive to the
country, went on without a break: the land was overrun by
adventurers and bandits, sure sign of political death. Nothing
could be more brutalising or more brutal: but the savage
traits of civil war are less revolting than the ghastly
revelries of the Court. All the chiefs were alike—neither the
King, nor Henry of Navarre, nor Anjou, nor even the strict
Catholic Guise, disdained to wallow in debauch." Having
quarreled with his brother, the King, "Anjou fled, in the
beginning of 1578, to Angers, where, finding that there was a
prospect of amusement in the Netherlands, he turned his back
on the high Catholics, and renewed friendship with the
Huguenot chiefs. He was invited to come to the rescue of the
distressed Calvinists in their struggle against Philip, and
appeared in the Netherlands in July 1578."
See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1577-1581, and 1581-1584.
_G. W. Kitchin,
History of France,
volume 2, pages 370-373._
FRANCE: A. D. 1578-1580.
Treaty of Nérac.
The Seventh Civil War, known as the War of the Lovers.
The Peace of Fleix.
"The King, instead of availing himself of this interval of
repose [after the Peace of Bergerac] to fortify himself
against his enemies, only sank deeper and deeper into vice and
infamy. … The court resembled at once a slaughter-house and
a brothel, although, amid all this corruption, the King was
the slave of monks and Jesuits whom he implicitly obeyed. It
was about this time (December 1578) that he instituted the
military order of the Holy Ghost, that of St. Michael having
fallen into contempt through being prostituted to unworthy
objects. Meanwhile the Guises were using every effort to
rekindle the war, which Catherine, on the other hand, was
endeavouring to prevent. With this view she travelled, in
August, into the southern provinces, and had an interview with
Henry of Navarre at Nérac, bringing with her Henry's wife, her
daughter Margaret; a circumstance, however, which did not add
to the pleasure of their meeting.
{1208}
Henry received the ladies coldly, and they retired into
Languedoc, where they passed the remainder of the year.
Nevertheless the negotiations were sedulously pursued; for a
peace with the Hugonots was, at this time, indispensable to
the Court. … In February 1579, a secret treaty was signed at
Nérac, by which the concessions granted to the Protestants by
the peace of Bergerac were much extended. … Catherine spent
nearly the whole of the year 1579 in the south, endeavouring
to avert a renewal of the war by her intrigues, rather than by
a faithful observance of the peace. But the King of Navarre
saw through her Italian artifices, and was prepared to summon
his friends and captains at the shortest notice. The
hostilities which he foresaw were not long in breaking out,
and in a way that would seem impossible in any other country
than France. When the King of Navarre fled from Court in 1576,
he expressed his indifference for two things he had left
behind, the mass and his wife; Margaret, the heroine of a
thousand amours, was equally indifferent, and though they now
contrived to cohabit together, it was because each connived at
the infidelities of the other. Henry was in love with
Mademoiselle Fosseuse, a girl of fourteen, while Margaret had
taken for her gallant the young Viscount of Turenne, who had
lately turned Hugonot. … The Duke of Anjou being at this
time disposed to renew his connection with the Hugonots,
Margaret served as the medium of communication between her
brother and her husband; while Henry III., with a view to
interrupt this good understanding, wrote to the king of
Navarre to acquaint him of the intrigues of his wife with
Turenne. Henry was neither surprised nor afflicted at this
intelligence; but he laid the letter before the guilty
parties, who both denied the charge, and Henry affected to
believe their protestations. The ladies of the Court of Nérac
were indignant at this act of Henry III., 'the enemy of
women'; they pressed their lovers to renew hostilities against
that discourteous monarch; Anjou added his instances to those
of the ladies; and in 1580 ensued the war called from its
origin 'la guerre des amoureux,' or war of the lovers: the
seventh of what are sometimes styled the wars of 'religion'!
The Prince of Condé, who lived on bad terms with his cousin,
had already taken the field on his own account, and in
November 1579 had seized on the little town of La Fère in
Picardy. In the spring of 1580 the Protestant chiefs in the
south unfurled their banners. The King of Navarre laid the
foundation of his military fame by the bravery he displayed at
the capture of Cahors; but on the whole the movement proved a
failure. Henry III. had no fewer than three armies in the
field, which were generally victorious, and the King of
Navarre found himself menaced in his capital of Nérac by
Marshal Biron. But Henry III., for fear of the Guises, did not
wish to press the Hugonots too hard, and at length accepted
the proffered mediation of the Duke of Anjou, who was at this
time anxious to enter on the protectorate offered to him by
the Flemings. Anjou set off for the south, accompanied by his
mother and her 'flying squadron' [of seductive nymphs];
conferences were opened at the castle of Fleix in Périgord,
and on November 26th 1580 a treaty was concluded which was
almost a literal renewal of that of Bergerac. Thus an
equivocal peace, or rather truce, was re-established, which
proved of some duration."
_T. H. Dyer,
History of Modern Europe,
book 3, chapter 8 (volume 2)._
ALSO IN:
_Duc d'Aumale,
History of the Princes de Condé,
book 2, chapter 1 (volume 2)._
FRANCE: A. D. 1584-1589.
Henry of Navarre heir apparent to the throne.
Fresh hostility of the League.
The Edict of Nemours.
The Pope's Brutum Fulmen.
War of the Three Henrys.
Battle of Coutras.
The Day of Barricades at Paris.
Assassination of Guise.
Assassination of Henry III.
"The Duc d'Anjou … died in 1584; Henri III. was a worn-out
and feeble invalid; the reports of the doctors and the known
virtue of the Queen forbad the hope of direct heirs. The King
of Navarre was the eldest of the legitimate male descendants
of Hugues Capet and of Saint-Louis [see BOURBON, HOUSE OF].
But on the one hand he was a relapsed heretic; on the other,
his relationship to the King was so distant that he could
never have been served heir to him in any civil suit. This
last objection was of small account; the stringent rules which
govern decisions in private affairs cannot be made applicable
to matters affecting the tranquillity and well-being of
nations. … His religion was the only pretext on which
Navarre could be excluded. France was, and wished to remain,
Catholic; she could not submit to a Protestant King. The
managers of the League understood that this very wide-spread
and even strongly cherished feeling might some day become a
powerful lever, but that, in order to use it, it was very
needful for them to avoid offending the national amour-propre;
and they thought that they had succeeded in finding the means
of effecting their object. Next to Navarre, the eldest of the
Royal House was his uncle the Cardinal de Bourbon; the Guises
acknowledged him as heir to the throne and first Prince of the
Blood, under the protection of the Pope and of the King of
Spain. … The feeble-minded old man, whom no one respected,
was a mere phantom, and could offer no serious resistance,
when it should be convenient to set him aside. … In every
class throughout the nation the majority were anxious to
maintain at once French unity and Catholic unity, disliking
the Reformation, but equally opposed to ultramontane
pretensions and to Spanish ambition. … But … this great
party, already named the 'parti politique,' hung loosely
together without a leader, and without a policy. For the
present it was paralyzed by the contempt in which the King was
held; while the dislike which was entertained for the
religious opinions of the rightful heir to the throne seemed
to deprive it of all hope for the future. Henry III. stood in
need of the assistance of the King of Navarre; he would
willingly have cleared away the obstacle which kept them
apart, and he made an overture with a view to bring back that
Prince to the Catholic religion. But these efforts could not
be successful. The change of creed on the part of the Béarnais
was to be a satisfaction offered to France, the pledge of a
fresh agreement between the nation and his race, and not a
concession to the threats of enemies. He was not an
unbeliever; still less was he a hypocrite; but he was placed
between two fanatical parties, and repelled by the excesses of
both; so he doubted, honestly doubted, and as his religious
indecision was no secret, his conversion at the time of which
we are now speaking would have been ascribed to the worst
motives."
{1209}
As it was, he found it necessary to quiet disturbing rumors
with regard to the proposals of the King by permitting a plain
account of what had occurred to be made public. "Henry III.,
having no other answer to make to this publication, which
justified all the complaints of the Catholics, replied to it
by the treaty of Nemours and by the edict of July [1585].
These two acts annulled all the edicts in favour of
toleration; and placed at the disposal of the League all the
resources and all the forces of the monarchy." Soon afterwards
the Pope issued against Navarre and Condé his bull of
excommunication. By this "the Pontiff did not deprive the
Bourbons of a single friend, and did not give the slightest
fresh ardour to their opponents; but he produced a powerful
reaction among a portion of the clergy, among the magistracy,
among all the Royalists; wounded the national sensibility,
consolidated that union between the two Princes which he
wished to break off, and rallied the whole of the Reformed
party round their leaders. The Protestant pamphleteers replied
with no less vehemence, and gave to the Pontiff's bull that
name of 'Brutum fulmen' by which it is still known. … Still
the sentence launched from the Vatican had had one very
decided result—it had fired the train of powder; war broke
out at once."
_Duc d'Aumale,
History of the Princes of Condé,
book 2, chapter 1._
"The war, called from the three leading actors in it [Henry of
Valois, Henry of Navarre, and Henry of Guise] the War of the
Three Henrys, now opened in earnest. Seven powerful armies
were marshalled on the part of the King of France and the
League. The Huguenots were weak in numbers, but strong in the
quality of their troops. An immense body of German 'Reiter'
had been enrolled to act as an auxiliary force, and for some
time had been hovering on the frontiers. Hearing that at last
they had entered France, Henry of Navarre set out from
Rochelle to effect a junction with them. The Duke of Joyeuse,
one of the French King's chief favourites, who had the charge
of the army that occupied the midland counties, resolved to
prevent their junction. By a rapid movement he succeeded in
crossing the line of Henry's march and forcing him into
action. The two armies came in front of each other on a plain
near the village of Coutras, on the 19th of October, 1587. The
Royalist army numbered from 10,000 to 12,000, the Huguenot
from 6,000 to 7,000—the usual disparity in numbers; but
Henry's skilful disposition did more than compensate for his
numerical inferiority. … The struggle lasted but an hour,
yet within that hour the Catholic army lost 3,000 men, more
than 400 of whom were members of the first families in the
kingdom; 3,000 men were made prisoners. Not more than a third
part of their entire army escaped. The Huguenots lost only
about 200 men. … Before night fell he [Navarre] wrote a few
lines to the French King, which run thus: 'Sire, my Lord and
Brother,—Thank God, I have beaten your enemies and your
army.' It was but too true that the poor King's worst enemies
were to be found in the very armies that were marshalled in
his name."
_W. Hanna,
The Wars of the Huguenots,
chapter 6._
"The victory [at Coutras] had only a moral effect. Henry lost
time by going to lay at the feet of the Countess of Grammont
the flags taken from the enemy. Meantime the Duke of Guise,
north of the Loire, triumphed over the Germans under the Baron
of Dohna at Vimory, near Montargis, and again near Auneau
(1587). Henry III. was unskilful enough to leave to his rival
the glory of driving them out of the country. Henry III.
re-entered Paris. As he passed along, the populace cried out,
'Saul has killed his thousands, and David his ten thousands';
and a few days after, the Sorbonne decided that 'the
government could be taken out of the hands of princes who were
found incapable.' Henry III., alarmed, forbade the Duke of
Guise to come to Paris, and quartered in the faubourgs 4,000
Swiss and several companies of the guards. The Sixteen [chiefs
of sixteen sections of Paris, who controlled the League in
that city] feared that all was over; they summoned the
'Balafré' and he came [May 9, 1588]. Cries of 'Hosannah to the
Son of David!' resounded throughout Paris, and followed him to
the Louvre. … The king and the chief of the League fortified
themselves, one in the Louvre, the other in the Hotel Guise.
Negotiations were carried on for two days. On the morning of
the 11th the duke, well attended, returned to the Louvre, and
in loud tones demanded of the king that he should send away
his counsellors, establish the Inquisition, and push to the
utmost the war against the heretics. That evening the king
ordered the companies of the city guards to hold several
positions, and the next morning he introduced into the city
the Swiss and 2,000 men of the French guards. But the city
guards failed him. In two hours all Paris was under arms, all
the streets were rendered impassable, and the advancing
barricades soon reached the positions occupied by the troops
[whence the insurrection became known as 'the Day of
Barricades']. At this juncture Guise came out of his hôtel,
dressed in a white doublet, with a small cane in his hand;
saved the Swiss, who were on the point of being massacred,
sent them back to the king with insulting scorn, and quieted
everything as if by magic. He demanded the office of
lieutenant-general of the kingdom for himself, the convocation
of the States at Paris, the forfeiture of the Bourbons, and,
for his friends, provincial governments and all the other
offices. The queen-mother debated these conditions for three
hours. During this time the attack was suspended, and Henry
III. was thus enabled to leave the Louvre and make his escape.
The Duke of Guise had made a mistake; but if he did not have
the king, he had Paris. There was now a king of Paris and a
king of France; negotiations were carried on, and to the
astonishment of all, Henry III. at length granted what two
months before he had refused in front of the barricades. He
swore that he would not lay down his arms until the heretics
were entirely exterminated; declared that any non-Catholic
prince forfeited his rights to the throne, appointed the Duke
of Guise lieutenant-general, and convoked the States at Blois
[October, 1588]. The States of Blois were composed entirely of
Leaguers," and were wholly controlled by the Duke of Guise.
The latter despised the king too much to give heed to repeated
warnings which he received of a plot against his life.
{1210}
Summoned to a private interview in the royal cabinet, at an
early hour on the morning of the 23d of December, he did not
hesitate to present himself, boldly, alone, and was murdered
as he entered, by eight of the king's body-guard, whom Henry
III. had personally ordered to commit the crime. "Killing the
Duke of Guise was not killing the League. At the news of his
death Paris was stunned for a moment; then its fury broke
forth. … The Sorbonne decreed 'that the French people were
set free from the oath of allegiance taken to Henry III.' …
Henry III. had gained nothing by the murder; … but he had
helped the fortunes of the king of Navarre, into whose arms he
was forced to cast himself. … The junction of the Protestant
and the royal armies under the same standard completely
changed the nature of the war. It was no longer feudal
Protestantism, but the democratic League, which threatened
royalty; monarchy entered into a struggle with the Catholic
masses in revolt against it. Henry III. called together, at
Tours, his useless Parliament, and issued a manifesto against
Mayenne and the chiefs of the League. Henry of Navarre carried
on the war energetically. In two months he was master of the
territory between the Loire and the Seine, and 15,000 Swiss
and lanzknechts joined him. On the evening of July 30th, 1589,
the two kings, with 40,000 men, appeared before Paris. The
Parisians could see the long line of the enemies' fires
gleaming in a vast semi-circle on the left bank of the Seine.
The king of Navarre established his headquarters at Meudon;
Henry III. at Saint-Cloud. The great city was astounded; the
people had lost energy; but the fury was concentrated in the
hearts of the chiefs and in the depths of the cloisters. …
The arm of a fanatic became the instrument of the general
fury, and put into practice the doctrine of tyrannicide more
than once asserted in the schools and the pulpit. The assault
was to be made on August 2d. On the morning of the previous
day a young friar from the convent of the Dominicans, Jacques
Clément, came out from Paris," obtained access to the king by
means of a forged letter, and stabbed him in the abdomen,
being, himself, slain on the spot by the royal guards. Henry
III. "died the same night, and with him the race of Valois
became extinct. The aged Catherine de' Medici had died six
months before."
_V. Duruy,
History of France (abridged),
chapter 45._
ALSO IN:
_L. von Ranke,
Civil Wars and Monarchy in France,
16th and 17th Centuries, chapters 22-25._
_W. S. Browning,
History of the Huguenots,
chapters 35-42._
FRANCE: A. D. 1585.
Proffered sovereignty of the United Netherlands declined by
Henry III.
See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1585-1586.
FRANCE: A. D. 1589-1590.
Henry of Navarre as Henry IV. of France.
His retreat to Normandy.
The battles at Arques.
Battle of Ivry.
"On being made aware that all hope was over, this King [Henry
III.], whose life had been passed in folly, vanity and
sensuality … prepared for death like a patriot king and a
martyr. He summoned his nobles to his bedside, and told them
that his only regret in dying was that he left the kingdom in
disorder, and as the best mode of remedying the evil he
recommended them to recognize the King of Navarre, to whom the
kingdom belonged of right; making no account of the religious
difference, because that king, with his sincere and earnest
nature, must finally return to the bosom of the Church. Then
turning to Henry, he solemnly warned him: 'Cousin,' he said,
'I assure you that you will never be King of France if you do
not become Catholic, and if you do not make your peace with
the Church.' Directly afterwards he breathed his last,
reciting the 'Miserere.' This account is substantially
confirmed by Perefixe. According to Sully, Henry, hearing that
the King had been stabbed, started for St. Cloud, attended by
Sully, but did not arrive till he was dead; and D'Aubigny
says: 'When the King of Navarre entered the chamber where the
body was lying, he saw amidst the howlings some pulling their
hats down upon their brows, or throwing them on the ground,
clenching their fists, plotting, clasping each other's hands,
making vows and promises.' … Henry's situation was
embarrassing in the extreme, for only a small number of the
Catholic nobles gave in an unqualified adhesion: a powerful
body met and dictated the conditions upon which alone they
would consent to his being proclaimed King of France: the two
first being that within six months he would cause himself to
be instructed in the Holy Catholic Apostolic Faith; and that
during this interval he would nominate no Huguenot to offices
of State. He replied that he was no bigot, and would readily
seek instruction in the tenets of the Romish faith, but
declined pledging himself to any description of exclusion or
intolerance. M. Guadet computes that nine-tenths of his French
subjects were Catholic, and the temper of the majority may be
inferred from what was taking place in Paris, where the news
of the late King's death was the signal for the most unseemly
rejoicing. … Far from being in a condition to reduce the
refractory Parisians, Henry was obliged to abandon the siege,
and retire towards Normandy, where the expected succours from
England might most easily reach him. Sully says that this
retreat was equally necessary for the safety of his person and
the success of his affairs. He was temporarily abandoned by
several of the Huguenot leaders, who, serving at their own
expense, were obliged from time to time to go home to recruit
their finances and their followers. Others were made lukewarm
by the prospect of his becoming Catholic; so that he was no
longer served with enthusiasm by either party; and when, after
making the best arrangements in his power, he entered
Normandy, he had with him only 3,000 French foot, two
regiments of Swiss and 1,200 horse; with which, after being
joined by the Due de Montpensier with 200 gentlemen and 1,500
foot, he drew near to Rouen, relying on a secret understanding
within the walls which might give him possession of the place.
Whilst preparations were making for the siege, sure
intelligence was brought that the Duc de Mayenne was seeking
him with an army exceeding 30,000; but, resolved to make head
against them till the last extremity, Henry entrenched himself
before Arques, which was only accessible by a causeway." A series
of engagements ensued, beginning September 15, 1589; but
finding that he could not dislodge his antagonist, Mayenne
withdrew after some ten days of fighting, moving his army
towards Picardy and leaving the road to Paris open. "Being too
weak to recommence the siege or to occupy the city if taken by
assault, Henry resolved to give the Parisians a sample of what
they might expect if they persevered in their contumacy, and
gave orders for attacking all the suburbs at once.
{1211}
They were taken and sacked. Davila states that the plunder was
so abundant that the whole camp was wonderfully relieved and
sustained." From this attack on the Parisian suburbs, Henry
proceeded to Tours, where he held his court for a time. Early
in March, 1590, he laid siege to Dreux. "The Duc de Mayenne,
reinforced by Spanish troops from the Low Countries under
Count Egmont, left Paris to effect a diversion, and somewhat
unexpectedly found himself compelled to accept the battle
which was eagerly pressed upon him. This was the renowned
battle of Ivry. The armies presented much the same contrast as
at Coutras. The numerical superiority on one side, the
Catholic, was more than compensated by the quality of the
troops on the other. Henry's soldiers, as described by De
Thou, were armed to the teeth. 'They displayed neither scarf
nor decoration, but their accoutrements inspired grim terror.
The army of the Duc, on the contrary, was magnificent in
equipment. The officers wore bright-coloured scarves, while
gold glittered upon their helmets and lances.' The two armies
were confronted on the 13th of March, 1590, but it was getting
dark before the dispositions were completed, and the battle
was deferred till the following morning. The King passed the
night like Henry V. at Agincourt, and took only a short rest
in the open air on the field. … At daybreak he mounted his
horse, and rode from rank to rank, pausing from time to time
to utter a brief exhortation or encouragement. Prayers were
offered up by the Huguenot ministers at the head of each
division, and the bishop [Perefixe] gives the concluding words
of that in which Divine aid was invoked by the King: 'But,
Lord, if it has pleased Thee to dispose otherwise, or Thou
seest that I ought to be one of those kings whom Thou
punishest in Thy wrath, grant that I may be this day the
victim of Thy Holy will: so order it that my death may deliver
France from the calamities of war, and that my blood be the
last shed in this quarrel.' Then, putting on his helmet with
the white plume, before closing the vizor, he addressed the
collected leaders:—'My friends, if you share my fortune this
day, I also share yours. I am resolved to conquer or to die
with you. Keep your ranks firmly, I beg; if the heat of the
combat compels you to quit them, think always of the rally; it
is the gaining of the battle. You will make it between the
three trees which you see there [pointing to three pear-trees
on an eminence], and if you lose your ensigns, pennons and
banners, do not lose sight of my white plume: you will find it
always on the road of honour and victory.' It so chanced that his
white plume was the actual rallying-point at the most critical
moment. … His standard-bearer fell: a page bearing a white
pennon was struck down at his side; and the rumour was
beginning to spread that he himself was killed, when the sight
of his bay horse and white plume, with the animating sound of
his voice, gave fresh courage to all around and brought the
bravest of his followers to the front. The result is told in
one of his own missives. After stating that the battle began
between 11 and 12, he continues: 'In less than an hour, after
having discharged all their anger in two or three charges
which they made and sustained, all their cavalry began to
shift for themselves, abandoning their infantry, which was
very numerous. Seeing which, their Swiss appealed to my pity
and surrendered—colonels, captains, soldiers, and colours.
The lansquenets and French had no time to form this
resolution, for more than 1,200 were cut to pieces, and the
rest dispersed into the woods at the mercy of the peasants.'
He urged on the pursuers, crying 'Spare the French, and down
with the foreigners.' … Instead of pushing on towards Paris,
which it was thought would have opened its gates to a
conqueror in the flush of victory, Henry lingered at Mantes,
where he improvised a Court, which his female favourites were
summoned to attend."
_Henry IV. of France
(Quarterly Review, October, 1879)._
ALSO IN:
_H. M. Baird,
The Huguenots and Henry of Navarre,
chapter 11 (volume 2)._
_Duke of Sully,
Memoirs,
book 3 (volume l)._
_G. P. R. James,
Life of Henry IV.,
books 11-12 (volume 2)._
FRANCE: A. D. 1590.
The siege of Paris and its horrors.
Relief at the hands of the Spaniards under Parma.
Readiness of the League to give the crown to Philip II.
"The king, yielding to the councils of Biron and other
catholics, declined attacking the capital, and preferred
waiting the slow, and in his circumstances eminently
hazardous, operations of a regular siege. … Whatever may
have been the cause of the delay, it is certain that the
golden fruit of victory was not plucked, and that although the
confederate army had rapidly dissolved, in consequence of
their defeat, the king's own forces manifested as little
cohesion. And now began that slow and painful siege, the
details of which are as terrible, but as universally known, as
those of any chapters in the blood-stained history of the
century. Henry seized upon the towns guarding the rivers Seine
and Marne, twin nurses of Paris. By controlling the course of
those streams as well as that of the Yonne and Oise—
especially by taking firm possession of Lagny on the Marne,
whence a bridge led from the Isle of France to the Brie
country—great thoroughfare of wine and corn—and of Corbeil
at the junction of the little river Essonne with the Seine—it
was easy in that age to stop the vital circulation of the
imperial city. By midsummer, Paris, unquestionably the first
city of Europe at that day, was in extremities. … Rarely
have men at any epoch defended their fatherland against
foreign oppression with more heroism than that which was
manifested by the Parisians of 1590 in resisting religious
toleration, and in obeying a foreign and priestly despotism.
Men, women, and children cheerfully laid down their lives by
thousands in order that the papal legate and the king of Spain
might trample upon that legitimate sovereign of France who was
one day to become the idol of Paris and of the whole kingdom.
A census taken at the beginning of the siege had showed a
population of 200,000 souls, with a sufficiency of provisions,
it was thought, to last one month. But before the terrible
summer was over—so completely had the city been invested—the
bushel of wheat was worth 360 crowns. … The flesh of horses,
asses, dogs, cats, rats, had become rare luxuries. There was
nothing cheap, said a citizen bitterly, but sermons. And the
priests and monks of every order went daily about the streets,
preaching fortitude in that great resistance to heresy. …
Trustworthy eye-witnesses of those dreadful days have placed
the number of the dead during the summer at 30,000. …
{1212}
The hideous details of the most dreadful sieges recorded in
ancient or modern times were now reproduced in Paris. … The
priests … persuaded the populace that it was far more
righteous to kill their own children, if they had no food to
give them, than to obtain food by recognizing a heretic king.
It was related, too, and believed, that in some instances
mothers had salted the bodies of their dead children and fed
upon them, day by day, until the hideous repast would no
longer support their own life. … The bones of the dead were
taken in considerable quantities from the cemeteries, ground
into flour, baked into bread, and consumed. It was called
Madame Montpensier's cake, because the duchess earnestly
proclaimed its merits to the poor Parisians. 'She was never
known to taste it herself, however,' bitterly observed one who
lived in Paris through that horrible summer. She was right to
abstain, for all who ate of it died. … Lansquenets and other
soldiers, mad with hunger and rage, when they could no longer
find dogs to feed on, chased children through the streets, and
were known in several instances to kill and devour them on the
spot. … Such then was the condition of Paris during that
memorable summer of tortures. What now were its hopes of
deliverance out of this Gehenna? The trust of Frenchmen was in
Philip of Spain, whose legions, under command of the great
Italian chieftain [Alexander Farnese, Duke of Parma, commander
of the Spanish forces in the Netherlands], were daily longed
for to save them from rendering obedience to their lawful
prince. For even the king of straw—the imprisoned cardinal
[Cardinal de Bourbon, whom the League had proclaimed king,
under the title of Charles X., on the death of Henry
III.]—was now dead, and there was not even the effigy of any
other sovereign than Henry of Bourbon to claim authority in
France. Mayenne, in the course of long interviews with the
Duke of Parma at Condé and Brussels, had expressed his desire
to see Philip king of France, and had promised his best
efforts to bring about such a result." Parma, who was
struggling hard with the obstinate revolt in the Netherlands,
having few troops and little money to pay them with, received
orders from his Spanish master to relieve Paris and conquer
France. He obeyed the command to the best of his abilities. He
left the Netherlands at the beginning of August, with 12,000
foot and 3,000 horse; effected a junction with Mayenne at
Meaux, ten leagues from Paris, on the 22d, and the united
armies—5,000 cavalry and 18,000 foot—arrived at Chelles on
the last day of summer. "The two great captains of the age had
at last met face to face. … The scientific duel which was
now to take place was likely to task the genius and to bring
into full display the peculiar powers and defects of the two."
The winner in the duel was the Duke of Parma, who foiled
Henry's attempts to bring him to battle, while he captured
Lagny under the king's eyes. "The bridges of Charenton and St.
Maur now fell into Farnese's hands without a contest. In an
incredibly short space of time provisions and munitions were
poured into the starving city, 2,000 boat-loads arriving in a
single day. Paris was relieved. Alexander had made his
demonstration and solved the problem. … The king was now in
worse plight than ever. His army fliers, cheated of their
battle, and having neither food nor forage, rode off by
hundreds every day." He made one last attempt, by a midnight
assault on the city, but it failed. Then he followed the
Spaniards—whom Parma led back to the Netherlands early in
November—but could not bring about a battle or gain any
important advantage. But Paris, without the genius of
Alexander Farnese in its defence, was soon reduced to as
complete a blockade as before. Lagny was recovered by the
besieging royalists, the Seine and the Marne were again
fast-locked, and the rebellious capital deprived of supplies.
_J. L. Motley,
History of the United Netherlands,
chapter 23 (volume 3)._
ALSO IN:
_M. W. Freer,
History of the Reign of Henry IV.,
book 1._
_C. D. Yonge,
History of France under the Bourbons,
chapter 2._
FRANCE: A. D. 1591-1593.
The siege of Rouen and Parma's second interference.
General advancement of Henry's cause.
Restiveness of the Catholics.
The King's abjuration of Protestantism.
"It seemed as if Henri IV. had undertaken the work of
Penelope. After each success, fresh difficulties arose to
render it fruitless. … Now it was the Swiss who refused to
go on without their pay; or Elizabeth who exacted seaports in
return for fresh supplies; or the Catholics who demanded the
conversion of the King; or the Protestants who complained of
not being protected. Depressed spirits had to be cheered, some
to be satisfied, others to be reassured or restrained, allies
to be managed, and all to be done with very little money and
without any sacrifice of the national interests. Henri was
equal to all, both to war and to diplomacy, to great concerns
and to small. … His pen was as active as his sword. The
collection of his letters is full of the most charming notes.
… Public opinion, which was already influential and
thirsting for news, was not neglected. Every two or three
months a little publication entitled 'A Discourse,' or 'An
Authentic Narrative,' or 'Account of all that has occurred in
the King's Army,' was circulated widely. … Thus it was that
by means of activity, patience, and tact, Henri V. was enabled
to retrieve his fortunes and to rally his party; so that by
the end of the year 1591, he found himself in a position to
undertake an important operation. … The King laid siege to
Rouen in December, 1591. He was at the head of the most
splendid army he had ever commanded; it numbered upwards of
25,000 men. This was not too great a number; for the
fortifications were strong, the garrison numerous, well
commanded by Villars, and warmly supported by the townspeople.
The siege had lasted for some months when the King learned
that Mayenne had at last made the Duke of Parma to understand
the necessity of saving Rouen at all hazards. Thirty thousand
Spanish and French Leaguers had just arrived on the Somme.
Rouen, however, was at the last gasp; Henri could not make up
his mind to throw away the fruits of so much toil and trouble;
he left all his infantry under the walls, under the command of
Biron, and marched off with his splendid cavalry." He attacked
the enemy imprudently, near Aumale, February 5, met with a
repulse, was wounded and just missed being taken prisoner in a
precipitate retreat. But both armies were half paralyzed at this
time by dissensions among their chiefs.
{1213}
That of the Leaguers fell back to the Somme; but in April it
approached Rouen again, and Parma was able, despite all
Henri's efforts, to enter the town. This last check to the
King "was the signal for a general desertion. Henri, left with
only a small corps of regular troops and a few gentlemen, was
obliged to retire rapidly upon Pont de l'Arche. The Duke of
Parma did not follow him. Always vigilant, he wished before
everything to establish himself on the Lower Seine, and laid
siege to Caudebec, which was not likely to detain him long.
But he received during that operation a severe wound, which
compelled him to hand over the command to Mayenne." The
incompetence of the latter soon lost all the advantages which
Parma had gained. Henri's supporters rallied around him again
almost as quickly as they had dispersed. "The Leaguers were
pushed back upon the Seine and confined in the heart of the
Pays de Caux. They were without provisions; Mayenne was at his
wits' end; he had to resort for suggestions and for orders to
the bed of suffering on which the Duke of Parma was held down
by his wound." The great Italian soldier, dying though he was,
as the event soon proved, directed operations which baffled
the keen watchfulness and penetration of his antagonist, and
extricated his army without giving to Henri the chance for
battle which he sought. The Spanish army retired to Flemish
territory. In the meantime, Henri's cause was being advanced
in the northeast of his kingdom by the skill and valor of
Turenne, then beginning his great career, and experiencing
vicissitudes in the southeast, where Lesdiguières was
contending with the mercenaries of the Pope and the Duke of
Savoy, as well as with his countrymen of the League. He had
defeated them with awful slaughter at Pontcharra, September
19, 1591, and he carried the war next year into the
territories of the Duke of Savoy, seeking help from the
Italian Waldenses which he does not seem to have obtained.
"Nevertheless the king had still some formidable obstacles to
overcome. Three years had run their course since he had
promised to become instructed in the Catholic religion, and
there were no signs as yet that he was preparing to fulfil
this undertaking. The position in which he found himself, and
the importance and activity of his military operations, had
hitherto been a sufficient explanation of his delay. But the
war had now changed its character. The King had gained
brilliant successes. There was no longer any large army in the
field against him. Nothing seemed to be now in the way to
hinder him from fulfilling his promise. And yet he always
evaded it. He had to keep on good terms with Elizabeth and the
Protestants; he wished to make his abjuration the occasion for
an agreement with the Court of Rome, which took no steps to
smooth over his difficulties; and lastly, he shrank from
taking a step which is always painful when it is not the fruit
of honest conviction. This indecision doubled the ardour of
his enemies, prevented fresh adhesions, discouraged and
divided his old followers. … A third party, composed of
bishops and Royalist noblemen, drew around the cousins of
Henri IV., the Cardinal de Vendôme and the Comte de Soissons.
… The avowed object of this third party was to raise one of
these two Princes to the throne, if the Head of their House
did not forthwith enter the bosom of the Catholic Church. And
finally, the deputies of the cities and provinces who had been
called to Paris by Mayenne were assembling there for the
election of a king. 'The Satire of Ménippée' has handed down
the States of the League to immortal ridicule; but however
decried that assembly has been, and deserved to be, 'it
decided the conversion of Henri IV.: he does not attempt in
his despatches to deny this. … In order to take away every
excuse for such an election, he entered at once into
conference with the Catholic theologians. After some very
serious discussion, much deeper than a certain saying which
has become a proverb [that 'Paris is certainly worth a Mass']
would seem to imply, he abjured the Protestant religion on the
25th of July, 1593, before the Archbishop of Bourges. The
League had received its death-blow."
_Duc d'Aumale,
History of the Princes de Condé,
book 2, chapter 2 (volume 2)._
"The news of the abjuration produced in the minds of honest
men, far and near, the most painful impression. Politicians
might applaud an act intended to conciliate the favor of the
great majority of the nation, and extol the astuteness of the
king in choosing the most opportune moment for his change of
religion—the moment when he would secure the support of the
Roman Catholics, fatigued by the length of the war and too
eager for peace to question very closely the sincerity of the
king's motives, without forfeiting the support of the
Huguenots. But men of conscience, judging Henry's conduct by a
standard of morality immutable and eternal, passed a severe
sentence of condemnation upon the most flagrant instance of a
betrayal of moral convictions which the age had known."
_H. M. Baird,
The Huguenots and Henry of Navarre,
chapter 13 (volume 2)._
"What the future history of France would have been if Henry
had clung to his integrity, is known only to the Omniscient;
but, with the annals of France in our hands, we have no
difficulty in perceiving that the day of his impious, because
pretended conversion, was among the 'dies nefasti' of his
country. It restored peace indeed to that bleeding land, and
it gave to himself an undisputed reign of seventeen years; but
he found them years replete with cares and terrors, and
disgraced by many shameful vices, and at last abruptly
terminated by the dagger of an assassin. It rescued France,
indeed, from the evils of a disputed succession, but it
consigned her to two centuries of despotism and misgovernment.
It transmitted the crown, indeed, to seven in succession of
the posterity of Henry; but of them one died on the scaffold,
three were deposed by insurrections of their subjects, one has
left a name pursued by unmitigated and undying infamy, and
another lived and died in a monastic melancholy, the feeble
slave of his own minister."
_Sir J. Stephen,
Lectures on the History of France,
lecture 16._
ALSO IN:
_P. F. Willert,
Henry of Navarre and the Huguenots of France,
chapters 5-6._
{1214}
FRANCE: A. D. 1593-1598.
Henry's winning of Paris.
The first attempt upon his life.
Expulsion of Jesuits from Paris.
War with Spain.
The Peace of Vervins.
"A truce of three months had been agreed upon [August 1,
1593], during which many nobles and several important towns
made their submissions to the King. Many, however, still held
out for the League, and among them Paris, as well as Rheims,
by ancient usage the city appropriated to the coronation of
the kings of France. Henry IV. deemed that ceremony
indispensable to sanctify his cause in the eyes of the people,
and he therefore caused it to be performed at Chartres by the
bishop of that place, February 27th 1594. But he could hardly
look upon himself as King of France so long as Paris remained
in the hands of a faction which disputed his right, and he
therefore strained every nerve to get possession of that
capital. … As he wished to get possession of the city
without bloodshed, he determined to attempt it by corrupting
the commandant. This was Charles de Cossé, Count of Brissac.
… Henry promised Brissac, as the price of his admission into
Paris, the sum of 200,000 crowns and an annual pension of
20,000, together with the governments of Corbeil and Mantes,
and the continuance to him of his marshal's bâton. To the
Parisians was offered an amnesty from which only criminals
were to be excepted; the confirmation of all their privileges;
and the prohibition of the Protestant worship within a radius
of ten leagues. … Before daybreak on the morning of the 22nd
March 1594 Brissac opened the gates of Paris to Henry's
troops, who took possession of the city without resistance,
except at one of the Spanish guard-houses, where a few
soldiers were killed. When all appeared quiet, Henry himself
entered, and was astonished at being greeted with joyous
cheers. … He gave manifold proofs of forbearance and good
temper, fulfilled all the conditions of his agreement, and
allowed the Spaniards [4,000] to withdraw unmolested." In May,
1594, Henry laid siege to Laon, which surrendered in August.
"Its' example was soon followed by Chateau Thierry, Amiens,
Cambrai and Noyon. The success of the King induced the Duke of
Lorraine and the Duke of Guise to make their peace with him." In
November, an attempt to kill the King was made by a young man
named Jean Chatel, who confessed that he attended the schools
of the Jesuits. "All the members of that order were arrested,
and their papers examined. One of them, named Jean Guignard,
on whom was found a treatise approving the murder of Henry
III., and maintaining that his successor deserved a like fate,
was condemned to the gallows: and the remainder of the order
were banished from Paris, January 8th 1595, as corrupters of
youth and enemies of the state. This example, however, was
followed only by a few of the provincial cities. The
irritation caused by this event seems to have precipitated
Henry IV. into a step which he had been some time meditating:
a declaration of war against his ancient and most bitter enemy
Philip II. (January 17th 1595). The King of Spain, whom the
want of money had prevented from giving the League much
assistance during the two preceding years, was stung into fury
by this challenge; and he immediately ordered Don Fernando de
Velasco, constable of Castile, to join Mayenne in Franche
Comté with 10,000 men. Velasco, however, was no great captain,
and little of importance was done. The only action worth
mentioning is an affair of cavalry at Fontaine Française (June
6th 1595), in which Henry displayed his usual bravery, or
rather rashness, but came off victorious. He then overran
nearly all Franche Comté without meeting with any impediment
from Velasco, but retired at the instance of the Swiss, who
entreated him to respect the neutrality of that province.
Meanwhile Henry had made advances to Mayenne, who was
disgusted with Velasco and the Spaniards, and on the 25th
September Mayenne, in the name of the League, signed with the
King a truce of three months, with a view to regulate the
conditions of future submission. An event had already occurred
which placed Henry in a much more favourable position with his
Roman Catholic subjects; he had succeeded [September, 1595] in
effecting his reconciliation with the Pope. … The war on the
northern frontiers had not been going on so favourably for the
King." In January, 1595, "Philip II. ordered the Spaniard
Fuentés, who, till the arrival of Albert [the Archduke],
conducted the government of the Netherlands, to invade the
north of France; and Fuentés … having left Mondragone with
sufficient forces to keep Prince Maurice in check, set off
with 15,000 men, with the design of recovering Cambrai.
Catelet and Doullens yielded to his arms; Ham was betrayed to
him by the treachery of the governor, and in August Fuentés
sat down before Cambrai. … The Duke of Anjou had made over
that place to his mother, Catherine de'Medici, who had
appointed Balagni to be governor of it. During the civil wars
of France, Balagni had established himself there as a little
independent sovereign, and called himself Prince of Cambrai;
but after the discomfiture of the League he had been compelled
to declare himself, and had acknowledged his allegiance to the
King of France. His extortion and tyranny having rendered him
detested by the inhabitants, they … delivered Cambrai to the
Spaniards, October 2nd. Fuentés then returned into the
Netherlands. … The Cardinal Archduke Albert arrived at
Brussels in February 1596, when Fuentés resigned his command.
… Henry IV. had been engaged since the winter in the siege
of La Fère, a little town in a strong situation at the
junction of the Serre and Oise. He had received reinforcements
from England as well as from Germany and Holland. … Albert
marched to Valenciennes with about 20,000 men, with the avowed
intention of relieving La Fère; but instead of attempting that
enterprise, he despatched De Rosne, a French renegade … with
the greater part of the forces, to surprise Calais; and that
important place was taken by assault, April 17th, before Henry
could arrive for its defence. La Fère surrendered May 22nd;
and Henry then marched with his army towards the coast of
Picardy, where he endeavoured, but in vain, to provoke the
Spaniards to give him battle. After fortifying Calais and
Ardres, Albert withdrew again into the Netherlands. …
Elizabeth, alarmed at the occupation by the Spaniards of a
port which afforded such facilities for the invasion of
England, soon afterwards concluded another offensive and
defensive alliance with Henry IV. (May 24th), in which the
contracting parties pledged themselves to make no separate
peace or truce with Philip II." The Dutch joined in this
treaty; but the Protestant princes of Germany refused to
become parties to it. "The treaty, however, had little
effect." Early in 1597, the Spaniards dealt Henry an alarming
blow, by surprising and capturing the city of Amiens, gaining
access to it by an ingenious stratagem. But Henry recovered
the place in September, after a vigorous siege. He also put
down a rising, under the Duke de Mercœur, in Brittany,
defeating the rebels at Dinan, while his lieutenant,
Lesdiguières, in the southeast, invaded Savoy once more,
taking Maurienne, and paralyzing the hostile designs of its
Duke.
{1215}
The malignant Spanish king, suffering and near his end,
discouraged and tired of the war, now sought to make peace.
Both the Dutch and the English refused to treat with him; but
Henry IV., notwithstanding the pledges given in 1596 to his
allies, entered into negotiations which resulted in the Treaty
of Vervins, signed May 2, 1598. "By the Peace of Vervins the
Spaniards restored to France Calais, Ardres, Doullens, La
Capelle, and Le Câtelet in Picardy, and Blavet (port Louis) in
Brittany, of all their conquests retaining only the citadel of
Cambrai. The rest of the conditions were referred to the
treaty of Câteau-Cambresis, which Henry had stipulated should
form the basis of the negotiations. The Duke of Savoy was
included in the peace." While this important treaty was
pending, in April, 1598, Henry quieted the anxieties of his
Huguenot subjects by the famous Edict of Nantes.
_T. H. Dyer,
History of Modern Europe,
book 3, chapters 10-11 (volume 2)._
ALSO IN:
_Lady Jackson,
The First of the Bourbons,
volume 1, chapters 14-18,
and volume 2, chapters 1-7._
_J. L. Motley,
History of the United Netherlands,
chapters 29-35 (volume 3)._
_R. Watson,
History of the Reign of Philip II.,
books 23-24._
FRANCE: A. D. 1598-1599.
The Edict of Nantes.
For the purpose of receiving the submission of the Duke of
Mercœur and the Breton insurgents, the king proceeded down the
Loire, and "reached the capital of Brittany, the commercial
city of Nantes, on the 11th of April, 1598. Two days later he
signed the edict which has come to be known as the Edict of
Nantes [and which had been under discussion for some months
with representatives of a Protestant assembly in session at
Châtellerault]. … The Edict of Nantes is a long and somewhat
complicated document. Besides the edict proper, contained in
95 public articles, there is a further series of 56 'secret'
articles, and a 'brevet' or patent of the king, all of which
were signed on the 13th of April; and these documents are
supplemented by a second set of 23 'secret' articles, dated on
the last day of the same month. The first of these four papers
is expressly declared to be a 'perpetual and irrevocable
edict.' … Our chief concern being with the fortunes of the
Huguenots, the provisions for the re-establishment of the
Roman Catholic worship, wherever in the course of the events
of the last 30 years that worship had been interfered with or
banished, need not claim our attention. For the benefit of the
Protestants the cardinal concession was liberty to dwell
anywhere in the royal dominions, without being subjected to
inquiry, vexed, molested, or constrained to do anything
contrary to their conscience. As respects public worship,
while perfect equality was not established, the dispositions
were such as to bring it within the power of a Protestant in
any part of the kingdom to meet his fellow-believers for the
holiest of acts, at least from time to time. To every
Protestant nobleman enjoying that extensive authority known as
'haute justice,' and to noblemen in Normandy distinguished as
possessors of 'fiefs de haubert,' the permission was granted
to have religious services on all occasions and for all comers
at their principal residence, as well as on other lands
whenever they themselves were present. Noblemen of inferior
jurisdiction were allowed to have worship on their estates,
but only for themselves and their families. In addition to
these seigniorial rights, the Protestant 'people' received
considerable accessions to the cities where they might meet
for public religious purposes. The exercise of their worship
was authorized in all cities and places where such worship had
been held on several occasions in the years 1596 and 1597, up
to the month of August; and in all places in which worship had
been, or ought to have been, established in accordance with
the Edict of 1577 [the edict of Poitiers—see above: A. D.
1577-1578], as interpreted by the Conference of Nérac and the
Peace of Fleix [see above: A. D. 1578-1580]. But in addition
to these, a fresh gift of a second city in every bailiwick and
sénéchaussée of the kingdom greatly increased the facilities
enjoyed by the scattered Huguenots for reaching the assemblies
of their fellow-believers. … Scholars of both religions were
to be admitted without distinction of religion to all
universities, colleges, and schools throughout France. The
same impartiality was to extend to the reception of the sick
in the hospitals, and to the poor in the provision made for
their relief. More than this, the Protestants were permitted
to establish schools of their own in all places where their
worship was authorized. … The scandal and inhumanity
exhibited in the refusal of burial to the Protestant dead, as
well in the disinterment of such bodies as had been placed in
consecrated ground, was henceforth precluded by the assignment
of portions of the public cemeteries or of new cemeteries of
their own to the Protestants. The civil equality of the
Protestants was assured by an article which declared them to
be admissible to all public positions, dignities, offices, and
charges, and forbade any other examination into their
qualifications, conduct, and morals than those to which their
Roman Catholic brethren were subjected. … Provision was made
for the establishment of a 'chamber of the edict,' as it was
styled, in the Parliament of Paris, with six Protestants among
its sixteen counsellors, to take cognizance of cases in which
Protestants were concerned. A similar chamber was promised in
each of the parliaments of Rouen and Rennes. In Southern
France three 'chambres mi-parties' were either continued or
created, with an equal number of Roman Catholic and Protestant
judges." In the "brevet" or patent which accompanied the
edict, the king made a secret provision of 45,000 crowns
annually from the royal treasury, which was understood to be
for the support of Protestant ministers, although that purpose
was concealed. In the second series of secret articles, the
Protestants were authorized to retain possession for eight
years of the "cautionary cities" which they held under former
treaties, and provision was made for paying the garrisons.
"Such are the main features of a law whose enactment marks an
important epoch in the history of jurisprudence. … The Edict
of Nantes was not at once presented to the parliaments; nor
was it, indeed, until early in the following year that the
Parliament of Paris formally entered the document upon its
registers. … There were obstacles from many different
quarters to be overcome. The clergy, the parliaments, the
university, raised up difficulty after difficulty." But the
masterful will of the king bore down all opposition, and the
Edict was finally accepted as the law of the land. "On the
17th of March [1599] Henry took steps for its complete
execution throughout France, by the appointment of
commissioners—a nobleman and a magistrate from each province
—to attend to the work."
_H. M. Baird,
The Huguenots and Henry of Navarre,
chapter 14 (volume 2)._
ALSO IN:
_C. M. Yonge,
Cameos from English History,
5th series, chapter 36._
{1216}
The full text of the Edict of Nantes will be found in the
following named works:
_C. Weiss,
History of French Protestant Refugees,
volume 2, appendix._
_A. Maury,
Memoirs of a Huguenot Family
(J. Fontaine), appendix._
FRANCE: A. D. 1599-1610.
Invasion of Savoy.
Acquisition of the Department of Aisne.
Ten years of peace and prosperity.
The great works of Henry IV.
His foreign policy.
His assassination.
"One thing only the peace of Vervins left unsettled. In the
preceding troubles a small Italian appanage, the Marquisate of
Saluces, had been seized by Charles Emmanuel, Duke of Savoy,
and remained still in his possession. The right of France to
it was not disputed, did not admit indeed of dispute; but the
Duke was unwilling to part with what constituted one of the
keys of Italy. He came to Paris in December 1599 to negotiate
the affair in person," but employed his opportunity to
intrigue with certain disaffected nobles, including the Duke
of Biron, marshal of France and governor of Burgundy. "Wearied
with delays, whose object was transparent, Henry at last had
recourse to arms. Savoy was speedily overrun with French
troops, and its chief strongholds taken. Spain was not
prepared to back her ally, and the affair terminated by
Henry's accepting in lieu of the Marquisate that part of Savoy
which now constitutes the Department of Aisne in France."
Biron, whom the King tried hard to save by repeated warnings
which were not heeded, paid the penalty of his treasonable
schemes at last by losing his head. "The ten years from 1600
to 1610 were years of tranquillity, and gave to Henry the
opportunity he had so ardently longed for of restoring and
regenerating France." He applied his energies and his active
mind to the reorganization of the disordered finances of the
kingdom, to the improvement of agriculture, to the
multiplication of industries, to the extending of commerce. He
gave the first impulse to silk culture and silk manufacture in
France; he founded the great Gobelin manufactory of tapestry
at Paris; he built roads and bridges, and encouraged canal
projects; he began the creation of a navy; he promoted the
colonization of Canada. "It was, however, in the domain of
foreign politics that Henry exhibited the acuteness and
comprehensiveness of his genius, and his marvellous powers of
contrivance, combination, execution. … The great political
project, to the maturing of which Henry IV. devoted his
untiring energies for the last years of his life, was the
bringing of the … half of Europe into close political
alliance, and arming it against the house of Austria, and
striking when the fit time came, such a blow at the ambition
and intolerance of that house that it might never be able to
recover. After innumerable negotiations … he had succeeded
in forming a coalition of twenty separate States, embracing
England, the United Provinces, Denmark, Sweden, Northern
Germany, Switzerland. At last the time for action came. The
Duke of Cleves died, 25th March 1609. The succession was
disputed. One of the claimants of the Dukedom was supported by
the Emperor, another by the Protestant Princes of Germany [see
GERMANY: A. D. 1608-1618]. The contest about a small German
Duchy presented the opportunity for bringing into action that
alliance which Henry had planned and perfected. In the great
military movements that were projected he was himself to take
the lead. Four French armies, numbering 100,000, were to be
launched against the great enemy of European liberty. One of
these Henry was to command; even our young Prince of Wales was
to bring 6,000 English with him, and make his first essay in arms
under the French King. By the end of April, 1610, 35,000 men
and 50 pieces of cannon had assembled at Chalons. The 20th May
was fixed as the day on which Henry was to place himself at
its head." But on the 16th of May (1610) he was struck down by
the hand of an assassin (François Ravaillac), and the whole
combination fell to pieces.
_W. Hanna,
The Wars of the Huguenots,
chapter 8._
"The Emperor, the King of Spain, the Queen of France, the Duke
d'Epernon, the Jesuits, were all in turn suspected of having
instigated the crime, because they all profited by it; but the
assassin declared that he had no accomplices. … He believed
that the King was at heart a Huguenot, and thought that in
ridding France of this monarch he was rendering a great
service to his country."
_A. de Bonnechose,
History of France,
volume 1, page 450._
ALSO IN:
_M. W. Freer,
The Last Decade of a Glorious Reign._
_Duke of Sully,
Memoirs,
volumes 2-5._
_Sir N. W. Wraxall,
History of France, 1574-1610,
volume 5, chapter 7-8, and volume 6._
FRANCE: A. D. 1603-1605.
First settlements in Acadia.
See CANADA: A. D. 1603-1605;
and 1606-1608.
FRANCE: A. D. 1605-1616.
Champlain's explorations and settlements in the Valley of the
St. Lawrence.
See CANADA: A. D. 1608-1611; 1611-1616; 1616-1628.
FRANCE: A. D. 1610.
Accession of King Louis XIII.
FRANCE: A. D. 1610-1619.
The regency of Marie de Medicis.
The reign of favorites and the riot of factions.
Distractions of the kingdom.
The rise of Richelieu.
"After the death of Henry IV. it was seen how much the power,
credit, manners, and spirit of a nation frequently depend upon
a single man. This prince had by a vigorous, yet gentle
administration, kept all orders of the state in union, lulled
all factions to sleep, maintained peace between the two
religions, and kept his people in plenty. He held the balance
of Europe in his hands by his alliance, his riches, and his
arms. All these advantages were lost in the very first year of
the regency of his widow, Mary of Medicis [whom Henry had
married in 1600, the pope granting a divorce from his first
wife, Margaret of Valois]. … Mary of Medicis … appointed
regent [during the minority of her son, Louis XIII.], though
not mistress of the kingdom, lavished in making of creatures
all that Henry the Great had amassed to render his nation
powerful. The army he had raised to carry the war into Germany
was disbanded, the princes he had taken under his protection
were abandoned. Charles Emanuel, duke of Savoy, the new ally
of Henry IV., was obliged to ask pardon of Philip III. of
Spain for having entered into a treaty with the French king,
and sent his son to Madrid to implore the mercy of the Spanish
court, and to humble himself as a subject in his father's name.
{1217}
The princes of Germany, whom Henry had protected with an army
of 40,000 men, now found themselves almost without assistance.
The state lost all its credit abroad, and was distracted at
home. The princes of the blood and the great nobles filled
France with factions, as in the times of Francis II., Charles
IX. and Henry III., and as afterwards, during the minority of
Lewis XIV. At length [1614] an assembly of the general estates
was called at Paris, the last that was held in France [prior
to the States General which assembled on the eve of the
Revolution of 1789]. … The result of this assembly was the
laying open all the grievances of the kingdom, without being
able to redress one. France remained in confusion, and
governed by one Concini, a Florentine, who rose to be marechal
of France without ever having drawn a sword, and prime
minister without knowing anything of the laws. It was
sufficient that he was a foreigner for the princes to be
displeased with him. Mary of Medicis was in a very unhappy
situation, for she could not share her authority with the
prince of Condé, chief of the malcontents, without being
deprived of it altogether; nor trust it in the hands of
Concini, without displeasing the whole kingdom. Henry prince
of Condé, father of the great Condé, and son to him who had
gained the battle of Coutras in conjunction with Henry IV.,
put himself at the head of a party, and took up arms. The
court made a dissembled peace with him; and afterwards clapt
him up in the Bastile. This had been the fate of his father
and grandfather, and was afterwards that of his son. His
confinement encreased the number of the male contents. The
Guises, who had formerly been implacable enemies to the Condé
family, now joined with them. The duke of Vendome, son to
Henry IV., the duke of Nevers, of the house of Gonzaga, the
marechal de Bouillon, and all the rest of the male contents,
fortified themselves in the provinces, protesting that they
continued true to their king, and made war only against the
prime minister. Concini, marechal d'Anere, secure of the queen
regent's protection, braved them all. He raised 7,000 men at
his own expense, to support the royal authority. … A young
man of whom he had not the least apprehension, and who was a
stranger like himself, caused his ruin, and all the
misfortunes of Mary of Medicis. Charles Albert of Luines, born
in the county of Avignon, had, with his two brothers, been
taken into the number of gentlemen in ordinary to the king,
and the companions of his education. He had insinuated himself
into the good graces and confidence of the young monarch, by his
dexterity in bird-catching. It was never supposed that these
childish amusements would end in a bloody revolution. The
marechal d'Ancre had given him the government of Amboise,
thinking by that to make him his creature; but this young man
conceived the design of murdering his benefactor, banishing
the queen, and governing himself; all which he accomplished
without meeting with any obstacle. He soon found means of
persuading the king that he was capable of reigning alone,
though he was not then quite 17 years old, and told him that
the queen-mother and Concini kept him in confinement. The
young king, to whom in his childhood they had given the name
of Just, consented to the murder of his prime minister; the
marquis of Vitri, captain of the king's guards, du Hallier his
brother, Persan, and others, were sent to dispatch him, who,
finding him in the court of the Louvre, shot him dead with
their pistols [April 24, 1617]: upon this they cried out,
'Vive le roi', as if they had gained a battle, and Lewis
XIII., appearing at a window, cried out, 'Now I am king.' The
queen-mother had her guards taken from her, and was confined
to her own apartment, and afterwards banished to Blois. The
place of marechal of France, held by Concini, was given to the
marquis of Vitri, his murderer." Concini's wife, Eleanor
Galigai, was tried on a charge of sorcery and burned, "and the
king's favourite, Luines, had the confiscated estates. This
unfortunate Galigai was the first promoter of cardinal
Richelieu's fortune; while he was yet very young, and called
the abbot of Chillon, she procured him the bishopric of Luçon,
and at length got him made secretary of state in 1616. He was
involved in the disgrace of his protectors, and … was now
banished … to a little priory at the farther end of Anjou.
… The duke of Epernon, who had caused the queen to be
declared regent, went to the castle of Blois [February 22,
1619], whither she had been banished, and carried her to his
estate in Angoulême, like a sovereign who rescues his ally.
This was manifestly an act of high treason; but a crime that
was approved by the whole kingdom." The king presently "sought
an opportunity of reconciliation with his mother, and entered
into a treaty with the duke of Epernon, as between prince and
prince. … But the treaty of reconciliation was hardly signed
when it was broken again; this was the true spirit of the
times. New parties took up arms in favour of the queen, and
always to oppose the duke of Luines, as before it had been to
oppose the marechal d'Ancre, but never against the king. Every
favourite at that time drew after him a civil war. Lewis and
his mother in fact made war upon each other. Mary was in Anjou
at the head of a small army against her son; they engaged each
other on the bridge of Cé, and the kingdom was on the point of
ruin. This confusion made the fortune of the famous Richelieu.
He was comptroller of the queen-mother's household, and had
supplanted all that princess's confidants, as he afterwards
did all the king's ministers. His pliable temper and bold
disposition must necessarily have acquired for him the first
rank everywhere, or have proved his ruin. He brought about the
accommodation between the mother and son; and a nomination to
the purple, which the queen asked of the king for him, was the
reward of his services. The duke of Epernon was the first to
lay down arms without making any demands, whilst the rest made
the king pay them for having taken up arms against him. The
queen-mother and the king her son had an interview at Brisac,
where they embraced with a flood of tears, only to quarrel
again more violently than ever. The weakness, intrigues, and
divisions of the court spread anarchy through the kingdom. All
the internal defects with which the state had for a long time
been attacked were now encreased, and those which Henry IV.
had removed were revived anew."
_Voltaire,
Ancient and Modern History,
chapter 145
(works translated by Smollett, volume 5)._
ALSO IN:
_C. D. Yonge,
History of France under the Bourbons,
volume 1, chapters 5-6._
_A. Thierry,
Formation and Progress of the Tiers État in France,
volume 1, chapter 7._
_S. Menzies,
Royal Favourites,
volume 1, chapter 9._
{1218}
FRANCE: A. D. 1620-1622.
Renewed jealousy of the Huguenots.
Their formidable organization and its political pretensions.
Restoration of Catholicism in Navarre and Béarn.
Their incorporation with France.
The Huguenot revolt.
Treaty of Montpelier.
"The Huguenot question had become a very serious one, and the
bigotry of some of the Catholics found its opportunity in the
insubordination of many of the Protestants. The Huguenots had
undoubtedly many minor causes for discontent. … But on the
whole the government and the majority of the people were
willing to carry out in good faith the provisions of the edict
of Nantes. The Protestants, within the limits there laid down,
could have worshipped after their own conscience, free from
persecution and subject to little molestation. It was,
perhaps, all that could be expected in a country where the
mass of the population were Catholic, and where religious
fanaticism had recently supported the League and fostered the
wars of religion. But the Protestant party seem to have
desired a separate political power, which almost justifies the
charge made against them, that they sought to establish a
state within a state, or even to form a separate republic.
Their territorial position afforded a certain facility for
such endeavors. In the northern provinces their numbers were
insignificant. They were found chiefly in the southwestern
provinces—Poitou, Saintonge, Guienne, Provence, and
Languedoc,—while in Béarn and Navarre they constituted the
great majority of the population, and they held for their
protection a large number of strongly fortified cities. …
Though there is nothing to show that a plan for a separate
republic was seriously considered, the Huguenots had adopted
an organization which naturally excited the jealousy and
ill-will of the general government. They had long maintained a
system of provincial and general synods for the regulation of
their faith and discipline. … The assembly which met at
Saumur immediately after Henry's death, had carried still
further the organization of the members of their faith. From
consistories composed of the pastors and certain of the laity,
delegates were chosen who formed local consistories. These
again chose delegates who met in provincial synods, and from
them delegates were sent to the national synod, or general
assembly of the church. Here not only matters of faith, but of
state, were regulated, and the general assembly finally
assumed to declare war, levy taxes, choose generals, and act
both as a convocation and a parliament. The assembly of Saumur
added a system of division into eight great circles, covering
the territory where the Protestants were sufficiently numerous
to be important. All but two of these were south of the Loire.
They were subsequently organized as military departments, each
under the command of some great nobleman. … The Huguenots
had also shown a willingness to assist those who were in arms
against the state, had joined Condé, and contemplated a union
with Mary de Medici in the brief insurrection of 1620. A
question had now arisen which was regarded by the majority of
the party as one of vital importance. The edict of Nantes,
which granted privileges to the Huguenots, had granted also to
the Catholics the right to the public profession of their
religion in all parts of France. This had formerly been
prohibited in Navarre and Béarn, and the population of those
provinces had become very largely Protestant. The Catholic
clergy had long petitioned the king to enforce the rights
which they claimed the edict gave them in Béarn, and to compel
also a restitution of some portion of the property, formerly
held by their church, which had been taken by Jeanne d'Albret,
and the revenues of which the Huguenot clergy still assumed to
appropriate entirely to themselves. On July 25, 1617, Louis
finally issued an edict directing the free exercise of the
Catholic worship in Béarn and the restitution to the clergy of
the property that had been taken from them. The edict met with
bitter opposition in Béarn and from all the Huguenot party.
The Protestants were as unwilling to allow the rites of the
Catholic Church in a province which they controlled, as the
Catholics to suffer a Huguenot conventicle within the walls of
Paris. The persecutions which the Huguenots suffered
distressed them less than the toleration which they were
obliged to grant. … In the wars of religion the Huguenots
had been controlled, not always wisely or unselfishly, by the
nobles who had espoused their faith, but these were slowly
drifting back to Catholicism. … The Condés were already
Catholics. Lesdiguières was only waiting till the bribe for
his conversion should be sufficiently glittering. [He was
received into the Church and was made Constable of France in
July, 1622.] Bouillon's religion was but a catch-weight in his
political intrigues. The grandson of Coligni was soon to
receive a marshal's baton for consenting to a peace which was
disastrous to his party. Sully, Rohan, Soubise, and La Force
still remained; but La Force's zeal moderated when he also was
made a marshal, and one hundred years later Rohans and the
descendants of Sully wore cardinal's hats. The party, slowly
deserted by the great nobles, came more under the leadership
of the clergy … and under their guidance the party now
assumed a political activity which brought on the siege of La
Rochelle and which made possible the revocation of the edict
of Nantes. Béarn was not only strongly Protestant, but it
claimed, with Navarre, to form no part of France, and to be
governed only by its own laws. Its States met and declared
their local rights were violated by the king's edict; the
Parliament of Pau refused to register it, and it was not
enforced in the province. … The disturbances caused by Mary
de Medici had delayed any steps for the enforcement of the
edict, but these troubles were ended by the peace of
Ponts-de-Cé in 1620. … In October, 1620, Louis led his army
in Béarn, removed various Huguenot officials, and
reëstablished the Catholic clergy. … On October 20th, an
edict was issued by which Navarre and Béarn were declared to
be united to France, and a parliament was established for the
two provinces on the same model as the other parliaments of
the kingdom. … A general assembly of Protestants,
sympathizing with their brethren of these provinces, was
called for November 26, 1620, at La Rochelle. The king
declared those guilty of high treason who should join in that
meeting. … The meeting was held in defiance of the
prohibition, and it was there resolved to take up arms. …
The assembly proceeded in all respects like the legislative
body of a separate state.
{1219}
The king prepared for the war with vigor. … He now led his
forces into southern France, and after some minor engagements
he laid siege to Montauban. A three months' siege resulted
disastrously; the campaign closed, and the king returned to
Paris. The encouragement that the Huguenots drew from this
success proved very brief. The king's armies proceeded again
into the south of France in 1622, and met only an irregular
and inefficient opposition. … Chatillon and La Force each
made a separate peace, and each was rewarded by the baton of
marshal from the king and by charges of treachery from his
associates. … The siege of Montpelier led to the peace
called by that name, but on terms that were unfavorable to the
Huguenots. They abandoned all the fortified cities which they
had held for their security except La Rochelle and Montauban;
no assemblies could meet without permission of the king,
except the local synods for ecclesiastical matters alone, and
the interests of Béarn and Navarre were abandoned. In return
the edict of Nantes was again confirmed, and their religious
privileges left undisturbed. Rohan accepted 800,000 livres for
his expenses and governments, and the king agreed that the
Fort of St. Louis, which had been built to overawe the
turbulence of La Rochelle, should be dismantled. La Rochelle,
the great Huguenot stronghold, continued hostilities for some
time longer, but at last it made terms. The party was fast
losing its power and its overthrow could be easily foretold.
La Rochelle was now the only place capable of making a
formidable resistance. … In the meantime the career of
Luines reached its end." He had taken the great office of
Constable to himself, incurring much ridicule thereby. "The
exposures of the campaign and its disasters had worn upon him;
a fever attacked him at the little town of Monheur, and on
December 14, 1621, he died."
_J. B. Perkins,
France under Mazarin, with a Review of the
Administration of Richelieu,
chapter 3 (volume 1)._
ALSO IN:
_W. S. Browning,
History of the Huguenots,
chapters 54-56._
FRANCE: A. D. 1621.
Claims in North America conflicting with England.
See NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1621-1631.
FRANCE: A. D. 1624-1626.
Richelieu in power.
His combinations against the Austro-Spanish ascendancy.
The Valtelline War.
Huguenots again in revolt.
The second Treaty of Montpelier.
Treaty of Monzon with Spain.
"The King was once more without a guide, without a favourite,
but his fate was upon him. A few months more of uncertain
drifting and he will fall into the hands of the greatest
politician France has ever seen, Cardinal Richelieu; under his
hand the King will be effaced, his cold disposition and narrow
intelligence will accept and be convinced by the grandeur of
his master's views; convinced, he will obey, and we shall
enter on the period in which the disruptive forces in France
will be coerced, and the elements of freedom and
constitutional life stamped down; while patriotism, and a firm
belief in the destinies of the nation will be fostered and
grow strong; France will assert her high place in Europe.
Richelieu, who had already in 1622 received the Cardinal's
hat, entered the King's Council on the
29th of April, 1624. …
[Transcriber's note: The date printed is "19/29th of
April". Wikipedia gives the date as "appointed to the royal
council of ministers on 29 April 1624, (Lodge & Ketcham,
1903, p. 85.)".]
La Vieuville, under whose patronage he had been brought
forward, welcomed him into the Cabinet. … But La Vieuville
was not fitted by nature for the chief place; he was rash,
violent, unpopular and corrupt. He soon had to give place to
Richelieu, henceforth the virtual head of the Council. La
Vieuville, thus supplanted, had been the first to reverse the
ruinous Spanish policy of the Court; … he had promised help
to the Dutch, to Mansfield, to the Elector Frederick; in a
word, his policy had been the forecast of that of the
Cardinal, who owed his rise to him, and now stepped nimbly
over his head into his place. England had declared war on
Spain: France joined England in renewing the old offensive and
defensive alliance with the Dutch, England promising men and
France money. … The Austro-Spanish power had greatly
increased during these years: its successes had enabled it to
knit together all the provinces which owed it allegiance. The
Palatinate and the Lower Rhine secured their connexion with
the Spanish Netherlands, as we may now begin to call them, and
threatened the very existence of the Dutch: the Valtelline
forts [commanding the valley east of Lake Como, from which one
pass communicates with the Engadine and the Grisons, and
another with the Tyrol] … were the roadway between the
Spanish power at Milan and the Austrians on the Danube and in
the Tyrol. Richelieu now resolved to attack this threatening
combination at both critical points. In the North he did not
propose to interfere in arms: there others should fight, and
France support them with quiet subsidies and good will. He
pressed matters on with the English, the Dutch, the North
German Princes; he negotiated with Maximilian of Bavaria and
the League, hoping to keep the South German Princes clear of
the Imperial policy. … The French ambassador at Copenhagen,
well supported by the English envoy, Sir Robert Anstruther, at
this time organised a Northern League, headed by Christian IV.
of Denmark [see GERMANY: A. D. 1624-1626]. … The Lutheran
Princes, alarmed at the threatening aspect of affairs, were
beginning to think that they had made a mistake in leaving the
Palatinate to be conquered; and turned a more willing ear to
the French and English proposals for this Northern League. …
By 1625 the Cardinal's plans in the North seemed to be going
well: the North-Saxon Princes, though with little heart and
much difference of opinion, specially in the cities, had
accepted Christian IV. as their leader; and the progress of
the Spaniards in the United Provinces was checked. In the
other point to which Richelieu's attention was directed,
matters had gone still better. [The inhabitants of the
Valtelline were mostly Catholics and Italians. They had long
been subject to the Protestant Grisons or Graubunden. In 1620
they had risen in revolt, massacred the Protestants of the
valley, and formed an independent republic, supported by the
Spaniards and Austrians. Spanish and German troops occupied
the four strong Valtelline forts, and controlled the important
passes above referred to. The Grisons resisted and secured the
support of Savoy, Venice and finally France. In 1623 an
agreement had been reached, to hand over the Valtelline forts
to the pope, in deposit, until some terms could be settled.
But in 1625 this agreement had not been carried out, and
Richelieu took the affair in hand.] …
{1220}
Richelieu, never attacking in full face if he could carry his
point by a side-attack, allied himself with Charles Emmanuel,
Duke of Savoy, and with Venice; he easily persuaded the
Savoyard to threaten Genoa, the port by which Spain could
penetrate into Italy, and her financial mainstay. Meanwhile,
the Marquis of Cœuvres had been sent to Switzerland, and, late
in 1624, had persuaded the Cantons to arm for the recovery of
the Valtelline; then, heading a small army of Swiss and
French, he had marched into the Grisons. The upper districts
held by the Austrians revolted: the three Leagues declared
their freedom, the Austrian troops hastily withdrew. Cœuvres
at once secured the Tyrolese passes, and descending from the
Engadine by Poschiavo, entered the Valtelline: in a few weeks
the Papal and Spanish troops were swept out of the whole
valley, abandoning all their forts, though the French general
had no siege-artillery with which to reduce them. … Early in
1625, the Valtelline being secured to the Grisons and French,
the aged Lesdiguières was sent forward to undertake the rest
of the plan, the reduction of Genoa. But just as things were
going well for the party in Europe opposed to Spain and
Austria, an unlucky outburst of Huguenot dissatisfaction
marred all: Soubise in the heart of winter had seized the Isle
of Ré, and had captured in Blavet harbour on the Breton coast
six royal ships; he failed however to take the castle which
commanded the place, and was himself blockaded, escaping only
with heavy loss. Thence he seized the Isle of Oléron: in May
the Huguenots were in revolt in Upper Languedoc, Querci, and
the Cevennes, led by Rohan on land, and Soubise by sea. Their
rash outbreak [provoked by alleged breaches of the treaty of
Montpelier, especially in the failure of the king to demolish
Fort Louis at La Rochelle] came opportunely to the aid of the
distressed Austrian power, their true enemy. Although very
many of the Huguenots stood aloof and refused to embarrass the
government, still enough revolted to cause great uneasiness.
The war in the Ligurian mountains was not pushed on with
vigour; for Richelieu could not now think of carrying out the
large plans which, by his own account, he had already formed,
for the erection of an independent Italy. … He was for the
present content to menace Genoa, without a serious siege. At
this time James I. of England died, and the marriage of the
young king [Charles I.] with Henriette Marie was pushed on. In
May Buckingham went to Paris to carry her over to England; he
tried in vain to persuade Richelieu to couple the Palatinate
with the Valtelline question. … After this the tide of
affairs turned sharply against the Cardinal; while Tilly with
the troops of the Catholic League, and Wallenstein, the new
general of the Emperor, who begins at this moment his brief
and marvellous career, easily kept in check the Danes and
their halfhearted German allies, Lesdiguières and the Duke of
Savoy were forced by the Austrians and Spaniards to give up
all thoughts of success in the Genoese country, and the French
were even threatened in Piedmont and the Valtelline. But the old
Constable of France was worthy of his ancient fame; he drove
the Duke of Feria out of Piedmont, and in the Valtelline the
Spaniards only succeeded in securing the fortress of Riva.
Richelieu felt that the war was more than France could bear,
harassed as she was within and without. … He was determined
to free his hands in Italy, to leave the war to work itself
out in Germany, and to bring the Huguenots to reason. … The
joint fleets of, Soubise and of La Rochelle had driven back
the king's ships, and had taken Ré and Oléron; but in their
attempt to force an entrance into the harbour of La Rochelle
they were defeated by Montmorency, who now commanded the royal
fleet: the islands were retaken, and the Huguenots sued for
peace. It must be remembered that the bulk of them did not
agree with the Rochellois, and were quiet through this time.
Early in 1626 the treaty of Montpellier granted a hollow peace
on tolerable terms to the reformed churches; and soon after …
peace was signed with Spain at Monzon in May, 1626. All was
done so silently that the interested parties, Savoy, the
Venetians, the Grisons, knew nothing of it till all was
settled: on Buckingham … the news fell like a thunderclap.
… The Valtelline remained under the Grisons, with guarantees
for Catholic worship; France and Spain would jointly see that
the inhabitants of the valleys were fairly treated: the Pope
was entrusted with the duty of razing the fortresses: Genoa
and Savoy were ordered to make peace. It was a treacherous
affair; and Richelieu comes out of it but ill. We are bound,
however, to remember … the desperate straits into which the
Cardinal had come. … He did but fall back in order to make
that wonderful leap forward which changed the whole face of
European politics."
_G. W. Kitchin,
History of France,
book 4, chapters 3 and 4 (volumes 2-3)._
ALSO IN:
_F. P. Guizot,
Popular History of France,
chapters 40-41._
_J. B. Perkins,
France under Mazarin [and Richelieu],
volume 1, chapters 4-5._
_G. Masson,
Richelieu,
chapter 5._
FRANCE: A. D. 1627-1628:
War with England, and Huguenot revolt.
Richelieu's siege and capture of La Rochelle.
His great example of magnanimity and toleration.
The end of political Huguenotism.
"Richelieu now found himself dragged into a war against his
will, and that with the very power with which, for the
furtherance of his other designs, he most desired to continue
at peace. James I. of England had been as unable to live
except under the dominion of a favourite as Louis. Charles …
had the same unfortunate weakness; and the Duke of Buckingham,
who had long been paramount at the court of the father,
retained the same mischievous influence at that of the son.
… In passing through France in 1623 he [Buckingham] had been
presented to the queen [Anne of Austria], and had presumed to
address her in the language of love. When sent to Paris to
conduct the young Princess Henrietta Maria to England, he had
repeated this conduct. … There had been some little
unpleasantness between the two Courts shortly after the
marriage … owing to the imprudence of Henrietta," who
paraded her Popery too much in the eyes of Protestant England;
and there was talk of a renewed treaty, which Buckingham
sought to make the pretext for another visit to Paris. But his
motives were understood; Louis "refused to receive him as an
ambassador, and Buckingham, full of disappointed rage,
instigated the Duke de Soubise, who was still in London, to
rouse the Huguenots to a fresh outbreak, promising to send an
English fleet to Rochelle to assist them. Rochelle was at this
time the general head-quarters not only of the Huguenots, but
of all those who, on any account, were discontented with the
Government. …
{1221}
Soubise … embraced the duke's offer with eagerness; and in
July, 1627, without any previous declaration of war, an
English fleet, with 16,000 men on board, suddenly appeared off
Rochelle, and prepared to attack the Isle of Rhé. The
Rochellois were very unwilling to co-operate with it"; but
they were persuaded, "against their judgment, to connect
themselves with what each, individually, felt to be a
desperate enterprise; and Richelieu, to whom the prospect thus
afforded him of having a fair pretence for crushing the
Huguenot party made amends for the disappointment of being
wantonly dragged into a war with England, gladly received the
intelligence that Rochelle was in rebellion. At first the Duke
d'Anjou was sent down to command the army, Louis being
detained in Paris by illness; but by October he had recovered,
his fondness for military operations revived, and he hastened
to the scene of action, accompanied by Richelieu, whose early
education had been of a military kind. … He at once threw
across reinforcements into the Isle of Rhé, where M. Thoiras
was holding out a fort known as St. Martin with great
resolution, though it was unfinished and incompletely armed.
In the beginning of November, Buckingham raised the siege, and
returned home, leaving guns, standards and prisoners behind
him; and Richelieu, anticipating a renewal of the attack the
next year … undertook a work designed at once to baffle
foreign enemies and to place the city at his mercy. Along the
whole front of the port he began to construct a vast wall …
having only one small opening in the centre which was
commanded by small batteries. The work was commenced in
November, 1627; and, in spite of a rather severe winter, was
carried on with such ceaseless diligence, under the
superintending eye of the cardinal himself, that before the
return of spring a great portion of it was completed. …
When, in May, 1628, the British fleet, under Lord Denbigh, the
brother-in-law of Buckingham, returned to the attack, they
found it unassailable, and returned without striking a blow."
_C. D. Yonge,
History of France under the Bourbons,
volume 1, chapter 7._
"Richelieu … was his own engineer, general, admiral,
prime-minister. While he urged on the army to work upon the
dike, he organized a French navy, and in due time brought it
around to that coast and anchored it so as to guard the dike
and be guarded by it. Yet, daring as all this work was, it was
but the smallest part of his work. Richelieu found that his
officers were cheating his soldiers in their pay and
disheartening them; in face of the enemy he had to reorganize
the army and to create a new military system. … He found,
also, as he afterward said, that he had to conquer not only
the Kings of England and Spain, but also the King of France.
At the most critical moment of the siege Louis deserted
him,—went back to Paris,—allowed courtiers to fill him with
suspicions. Not only Richelieu's place, but his life, was in
danger, and he well knew it; yet he never left his dike and
siege-works, but wrought on steadily until they were done; and
then the King, of his own will, in very shame, broke away from
his courtiers, and went back to his master. And now a Royal
Herald summoned the people of La Rochelle to surrender. But
they were not yet half conquered. Even when they had seen two
English fleets, sent to aid them, driven back from Richelieu's
dike, they still held out manfully. … They were reduced to
feed on their horses,—then on bits of filthy
shell-fish,—then on stewed leather. They died in multitudes.
Guiton, the Mayor, kept a dagger on the city council-table to
stab any man who should speak of surrender. … But at last
even Guiton had to yield. After the siege had lasted more than
a year, after 5,000 were found remaining out of 15,000, after
a mother had been seen to feed her child with her own blood,
the Cardinal's policy became too strong for him. The people
yielded [October 27, 1628], and Richelieu entered the city as
master. And now the victorious statesman showed a greatness of
soul to which all the rest of his life was as nothing. … All
Europe … looked for a retribution more terrible than any in
history. Richelieu allowed nothing of the sort. He destroyed
the old franchises of the city, for they were incompatible
with that royal authority which he so earnestly strove to
build. But this was all. He took no vengeance,—he allowed the
Protestants to worship as before,—he took many of them into
the public service,—and to Guiton he showed marks of
respect. He stretched forth that strong arm of his over the
city, and warded off all harm. … For his leniency Richelieu
received the titles of Pope of the Protestants and Patriarch
of the Atheists. But he had gained the first great object of
his policy, and he would not abuse it: he had crushed the
political power of the Huguenots forever."
_A. D. White,
The Statesmanship of Richelieu
(Atlantic Monthly, May, 1862)._
"Whatever the benefit to France of this great feat, the
locality was permanently ruined. Two hundred and fifty years
after the event the Poitevin peasant is fanatic and
superstitious as the Bretons themselves. Catholic Rochelle is
still to be seen, with almost one-third less inhabitants
to-day than it had in 1627. The cardinal's dyke is still
there, but the insects have seized on the city. A plague of
white ants, imported from India, have fastened on its
timbers."
_R. Heath,
The Reformation in France,
volume 1, book 2, chapter 12._
ALSO IN:
_S. R. Gardiner,
History of England, 1603 to 1642,
chapters 56, 59-60, and 65._
FRANCE: A. D. 1627-1631.
War with Spain, Savoy and the Empire over the succession to
the duchy of Mantua.
Successes of Richelieu.
See ITALY: A. D. 1627-1631.
FRANCE: A. D. 1628.
New France placed under the Company of the Hundred Associates.
See CANADA: A. D. 1616-1628.
FRANCE: A. D. 1628-1632.
Loss and recovery of New France.
See CANADA: A. D. 1628-1635.
FRANCE: A. D. 1630-1632.
The Day of Dupes, and after.
On the return of Richelieu and the king from their Italian
expedition, in the beginning of August, 1630, "both the
monarch and his minister had passed in safety through a whole
tract infected with the plague; but, shortly after their
arrival at Lyons, Louis XIII. fell ill, and in a few days his
physicians pronounced his case hopeless. It was now that all
the hatred which his power had caused to hide its head, rose
up openly against Richelieu; and the two queens [Marie de
Medicis, the queen-mother, and Anne of Austria, the king's
wife], united only in their enmity towards the minister, never
quitted the bedside of the king but to form and cement the
party which was intended to work the cardinal's
destruction as soon as the monarch should be no more. …
{1222}
The bold and the rash joined the faction of the queens; and
the prudent waited with wise doubt till they saw the result
they hoped for. Happy was it for those who did conceal their
feelings; for suddenly the internal abscess, which had nearly
reduced the king to the tomb, broke, passed away, and in a
very few days he appeared perfectly convalescent. Richelieu
might now have triumphed securely; … but he acted more
prudently. He remembered that the queen-mother, the great
mover of the cabal against him, had formerly been his
benefactress; and though probably his gratitude was of no very
sensitive nature, yet he was wise enough to affect a virtue
that he did not possess, and to suffer the offence to be given
by her. … At Paris [after the return of the court] … the
queen-mother herself, unable to restrain any longer the
violent passions that struggled in her bosom, seemed resolved
to keep no terms with the cardinal." At an interview with him,
in the king's presence, "the queen forgot the dignity of her
station and the softness of her sex, and, in language more fit
for the markets than the court, called him rogue, and traitor,
and perturber of the public peace; and, turning to the king,
she endeavoured to persuade him that Richelieu wished to take
the crown from his head, in order to place it on that of the
count de Soissons. Had Richelieu been as sure of the king's
firmness as he was of his regard, this would have been exactly
the conduct which he could have desired the queen to hold; but
he knew Louis to be weak and timid, and easily ruled by those
who took a tone of authority towards him; and when at length
he retired at the command of the monarch … he seems to have
been so uncertain how the whole would end, that he ordered his
papers and most valuable effects to be secured, and
preparations to be made for immediate departure. All these
proceedings had been watched by the courtiers: Richelieu had
been seen to quit the queen's cabinet troubled and gloomy, his
niece in tears; and, some time after, the king himself
followed in a state of excessive agitation, and … left Paris
for Versailles without seeing his minister. The whole court
thought the rule of Richelieu at an end, and the saloons of
the Luxembourg were crowded with eager nobles ready to worship
the rising authority of the queen-mother." But the king, when he
reached Versailles, sent this message to his minister: "'Tell
the cardinal de Richelieu that he has a good master, and bid
him come hither to me without delay.' Richelieu felt that the
real power of France was still in his hands; and setting off
for Versailles, he found Louis full of expressions of regard
and confidence. Rumours every moment reached Versailles of the
immense concourse that was flocking to pay court to the
queen-mother: the king found himself nearly deserted, and all
that Richelieu had said of her ambition was confirmed in the
monarch's mind; while his natural good sense told him that a
minister who depended solely upon him, and who under him
exercised the greatest power in the realm, was not likely to
wish his fall. … In the mean time, the news of these …
events spread to Paris: the halls of the Luxembourg, which the
day before had been crowded to suffocation, were instantly
deserted; and the queen-mother found herself abandoned by all
those fawning sycophants whose confidence and disappointment
procured for the day of St. Martin, 1630, the title in French
history of The Day of Dupes."
_G. P. R. James,
Eminent Foreign Statesmen,
volume 2, pages 88-92._
The ultimate outcome of The Day of Dupes was the flight of
Marie de Medicis, who spent the remainder of her life in the
Netherlands and in England; the trial and execution of Marshal
de Marillac; the imprisonment or exile and disgrace of
Bassompierre and other nobles; a senseless revolt, headed by
Gaston, Duke of Orleans, the king's brother, which was crushed
in one battle at Castlenaudari, September 1, 1632, and which
brought the Duke de Montmorency to the block.
_C. D. Yonge,
History of France under the Bourbons,
volume 1, chapters 7-8._
ALSO IN:
_M. W. Freer,
Married Life of Anne of Austria,
volume 1, chapter 4._
_C. M. Yonge,
Cameos of English History, 6th series,
chapter 20._
_Miss Pardoe,
Life of Marie de Medicis,
book 3, chapters 7-13 (volume 3)._
FRANCE: A. D. 1631.
Treaty and negotiations with Gustavus Adolphus in Germany.
Promotion of the Protestant Union.
See GERMANY: A.D. 1631 (JANUARY);
1631-1632; and 1632-1634.
FRANCE: A. D. 1632-1641.
War in Lorraine.
Occupation and possession of the duchy.
See LORRAINE: A. D. 1624-1663.
FRANCE: A. D. 1635-1638.
Campaigns on the Flemish frontier.
Invasion by the Spaniards.
Paris in Peril.
See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1635-1638.
FRANCE: A. D. 1635-1639.
Active participation in the Thirty Years War.
Treaties with the Germans, Swedes, and Dutch.
Campaigns of Duke Bernhard in Lorraine, Alsace and
Franche-Comté.
The fruit gathered by Richelieu.
Alsace secured.
See GERMANY: A. D. 1634-1639.
FRANCE: A. D. 1635-1642.
The war in northern Italy.
See ITALY: A. D. 1635-1659.
FRANCE: A. D. 1637-1642.
The war in Spain.
Revolt of Catalonia.
Siege and capture of Perpignan.
Conquest of Roussillon.
See SPAIN: A. D. 1637-1640, and 1640-1642.
FRANCE: A. D. 1640-1645.
Campaigns in Germany.
See GERMANY: A. D. 1640-1645, and 1643-1644.
FRANCE: A. D. 1641-1642.
The conspiracies of Count de Soissons and Cinq Mars.
Extinction of the Principality of Sedan.
"There were revolts in various quarters to resist [the yoke of
Richelieu], but they were quelled with uniform success. Once,
and once only, the fate of the Cardinal seemed finally sealed.
The Count de Soissons, a prince of the blood, headed the
discontented gentry in open war in 1641, and established the
headquarters of revolt in the town of Sedan. The Empire and
Spain came to his support with promises and money. Twelve
thousand men were under his orders, all influenced with rage
against Richelieu, and determined to deliver the king from his
degrading tutelage. Richelieu was taken unprepared; but delay
would have been ruin. He sent the Marshal Chatillon to the
borders of Sedan, to watch the proceedings of the
confederates, and requested the king to summon fresh troops
and go down to the scene of war. While his obedient Majesty
was busied in the commission, Chatillon advanced too far.
Soissons assaulted him near the banks of the Meuse, at a place
called Marfée, and gave him a total and irremediable
overthrow. The cavalry on the royalist side retreated at an
early part of the fight, and forced their way through the
infantry, not without strong suspicions of collusion with
their opponents."
{1223}
Paris itself was in dismay. The King and Cardinal expected to
hear every hour of the advance of the rebels; but no step was
taken. It was found, when the hurry of battle was over, that
Soissons was among the slain. The force of the expedition was
in that one man; and the defeat was as useful to the Cardinal
as a victory would have been. The malcontents had no leaders
of sufficient rank and authority to keep the inferiors in
check; for the scaffold had thinned the ranks of the great
hereditary chiefs, and no man could take his first open move
against the Court without imminent risk to his head. Great
men, indeed, were rising into fame, but of a totally different
character from their predecessors. Their minds were cast in a
monarchical mould from their earliest years. … From this
time subserviency to the king became a sign of noble birth.
… Richelieu has the boast, if boast it can be called, of
having crushed out the last spark of popular independence and
patrician pride. … One more effort was made [1642] to shake
off the trammels of the hated Cardinal. A conspiracy was
entered into to deliver the land by the old Roman method of
putting the tyrant to death; and the curious part of the
design is, that it was formed almost in presence of the king.
His favourite friend, young Cinq Mars, son of the Marshal
d'Effiat, his brother Gaston of Orleans, and his kinsman the
Duke de Bouillon, who were round his person at all hours of
the day, were the chief agents of the perilous undertaking.
Others, and with them de Thou, the son of the great French
historian, entered into the plan, but wished the assassination
to be left out. They would arrest and imprison him; but this
was evidently not enough. While Richelieu lived, no man could
be safe, though the Cardinal were in the deepest dungeon of
the Bastile. Death, however, was busy with their victim,
without their aid. He was sinking under some deep but
partially-concealed illness when the threads of the plot came
into his skilful hands. He made the last use of his strength
and intelligence in unravelling [it] and punishing the rebels,
as he called them, against the king's authority. The paltry
and perfidious Gaston was as usual penitent and pardoned, but
on Cinq Mars and de Thou the vengeance of the law and the
Cardinal had its full force. The triumphant but failing
minister reclined in a state barge upon the Rhone, towing his
prisoners behind him to certain death. On their arrival at
Lyons the process was short and fatal. The young men were
executed together, and the account of their behaviour at the
block is one of the most affecting narratives in the annals of
France."
_J. White,
History of France,
chapter 12._
The Duke de Bouillon, implicated in both these
conspiracies—that of the Count de Soissons and that of Cinq
Mars—saved his life on the latter occasion by surrendering to
the crown the sovereignty of Sedan, which belonged to him, and
which had been the headquarters of the Soissons revolt. This
small independent principality—the town and a little
territory around it—had formerly been in the possession of
the powerful and troublesome family of La Marck, the last
heiress of whom brought it, together with the Duchy of
Bouillon, into the family of La Tour d'Auvergne. The Prince
and Duke who lost it was the second of that family who bore
the titles. He was the elder brother of the great soldier,
Turenne. The Principality of Sedan was extinguished from that
time.
_T. O. Cockayne,
Life of Turenne._
ALSO IN:
_W. Robson,
Life of Richelieu,
chapters 11-12._
_M. W. Freer,
Married Life of Anne of Austria,
volume 2, chapter 3._
_Miss Pardoe,
Life of Marie de Medicis,
book 3, chapter 13 (volume 3)._
FRANCE: A. D. 1642-1643.
The death of Richelieu and of Louis XIII.
Regency of Anne of Austria.
Cardinal Mazarin and the party of the Importants.
The victory at Rocroi.
Cardinal Richelieu died on the 4th of December, 1642. "He was
dead, but his work survived him. On the very evening of the 3d
of December, Louis XIII. called to his council Cardinal
Mazarin [whom Richelieu had commended to him]. … Scarcely
had the most powerful kings yielded up their last breath when
their wishes had been at once forgotten: Cardinal Richelieu
still governed in his grave." But now, after two and a half
centuries, "the castle of Richelieu is well-nigh destroyed;
his family, after falling into poverty, is extinct; the
Palais-Cardinal [his splendid residence, which he built, and
which he gave to the crown] has assumed the name of the
Palais-Royal; and pure monarchy, the aim of all his efforts
and the work of his whole life, has been swept away by the
blast of revolution. Of the cardinal there remains nothing but
the great memory of his power and of the services he rendered his
country. … Richelieu had no conception of that noblest
ambition on which a human soul can feed, that of governing a
free country, but he was one of the greatest, the most
effective, and the boldest, as well as the most prudent
servants that France ever had." Louis XIII. survived his great
minister less than half a year, dying May 14, 1643. He had
never had confidence in Anne of Austria, his wife, and had
provided, by a declaration which she had signed and sworn to,
for a council (which included Mazarin) to control the queen's
regency during the minority of their son, Louis XIV. But the
queen contrived very soon to break from this obligation, and
she made Cardinal Mazarin her one counsellor and supreme
minister. "Continuing to humor all parties, and displaying
foresight and prudence, the new minister was even now master.
Louis XIII., without any personal liking, had been faithful to
Richelieu to the death. With different feelings, Anne of Austria
was to testify the same constancy towards Mazarin. A stroke of
fortune came at the very first to strengthen the regent's
position. Since the death of Cardinal Richelieu, the
Spaniards, but recently overwhelmed at the close of 1642, had
recovered courage and boldness; new counsels prevailed at the
court of Philip IV., who had dismissed Olivarez; the House of
Austria vigorously resumed the offensive; at the moment of
Louis XIII.'s death, Don Francisco de Mello, governor of the
Low Countries, had just invaded French territory by way of the
Ardennes, and laid siege to Rocroi, on the 12th of May [1643].
The French army was commanded by the young Duke of Enghien
[afterwards known as the Great Condé], the prince of Condé's
son, scarcely 22 years old; Louis XIII. had given him as his
lieutenant and director the veteran Marshal de l'Hôpital; and
the latter feared to give battle.
{1224}
The Duke of Enghien, who 'was dying with impatience to enter
the enemy's country, resolved to accomplish by address what he
could not carry by authority. He opened his heart to Gassion
alone. As he [Gassion, one of the boldest of Condé's officers]
was a man who saw nothing but what was easy even in the most
dangerous deeds, he had very soon brought matters to the point
that the prince desired. Marshal de l'Hôpital found himself
imperceptibly so near the Spaniards that it was impossible for
him any longer to hinder an engagement.' … The army was in
front of Rocroi, and out of the dangerous defile which led to
the place, without any idea on the part of the marshal and the
army that Louis XIII. was dead. The Duke of Enghien, who had
received the news, had kept it secret. He had merely said in
the tone of a master 'that he meant to fight, and would answer
for the issue.'" The battle, which was fought May 19, 1643,
resulted in the destruction, almost total, of the Spanish
army. Of 18,000 men who formed its infantry, nearly 9,000 were
killed and 7,000 were made prisoners. The whole of the Spanish
artillery and 300 of their standards fell into the hands of
the victors, who lost, according to their own reports, only
2,000 men, killed and wounded. "'The prince was a born
captain,' said Cardinal de Retz. And all France said so with
him on hearing of the victory of Rocroi. The delight was all
the keener in the queen's circle, because the house of Condé
openly supported Cardinal Mazarin, bitterly attacked as he was
by the Importants [a court faction or party so called, which
was made up of 'those meddlers of the court at whose head
marched the Duke of Beaufort, all puffed up with the
confidence lately shown to him by her Majesty,' and all
expecting to count importantly among the queen's favorites],
who accused him of reviving the tyranny of Richelieu. … And,
indeed, on pretext offered by a feminine quarrel [August,
1643] between the young Duchess of Longueville, daughter of
the prince of Condé, and the Duchess of Montbazon, the Duke of
Beaufort and some of his friends resolved to assassinate the
cardinal. The attempt was a failure, but the Duke of Beaufort,
who was arrested on the 2d of September, was taken to the
castle of Vincennes. Madame de Chevreuse, recently returned
[after being exiled by Richelieu] to court, where she would
fain have exacted from the queen the reward for her services
and her past sufferings, was sent into exile, as well as the
Duke of Vendôme. Madame d'Hautefort, but lately summoned by
Anne of Austria to be near her, was soon involved in the same
disgrace. … The party of the Importants was dead, and the
power of Cardinal Mazarin seemed to be firmly established. 'It
was not the thing just then for any decent man to be on bad
terms with the court,' says Cardinal de Retz."
_F. P. Guizot,
Popular History of France,
chapters 41-43._
"Cardinal Richelieu was not so much a minister, in the precise
sense of the word, as a person invested with the whole power
of the crown. His preponderating influence in the council
suspended the exercise of the hereditary power, without which
the monarchy must cease to exist; and it seems as if that may
have taken place in order that the social progress, violently
arrested since the last reign, might resume its course at the
instigation of a kind of dictator, whose spirit was free from
the influences which the interest of family and dynasty
exercises over the characters of kings. By a strange
concurrence of circumstances, it happened that the weak
prince, whose destiny it was to lend his name to the reign of
the great minister, had in his character, his instincts, his
good or bad qualities, all that could supply the requirements
of such a post. Louis XIII., who had a mind without energy but
not without intelligence, could not live without a master; after
having possessed and lost many, he took and kept the one, who
he found was capable of conducting France to the point, which
he himself had a faint glimpse of, and to which he vaguely
aspired in his melancholy reveries. … In his attempts at
innovation, Richelieu, as simple minister, much surpassed the
great king who had preceded him, in boldness. He undertook to
accelerate the movement towards civil unity and equality so
much, and to carry it so far, that hereafter it should be
impossible to recede. … The work of Louis XI. had been
nearly lost in the depth of the troubles of the sixteenth
century; and that of Henry IV. was compromised by fifteen
years of disorder and weakness. To save it from perishing,
three things were necessary: that the high nobility should be
constrained to obedience to the king and to the law; that
Protestantism should cease to be an armed party in the State;
that France should be able to choose her allies freely in
behalf of her own interest and in that of European
independence. On this triple object the king-minister employed
his powerful intellect, his indefatigable activity, ardent
passions, and an heroic strength of mind. His daily life was a
desperate struggle against the nobles, the royal family, the
supreme courts, against all that existed of high institutions,
and corporations established in the country. For the purpose
of reducing all to the same level of submission and order, he
raised the royal power above the ties of family and the tie of
precedent; he isolated it in its sphere as a pure idea, the
living idea of the public safety and the national interest.
… He was as destitute of mercy as he was of fear, and
trampled under foot the respect due to judicial forms and
usages. He had sentences of death pronounced by commissioners
of his own selection: at the very foot of the throne he struck
the enemies of the public interest, and at the same time of
his own fortune, and confounded his personal hatreds with the
vengeance of the State. No one can say whether or not there
was deceit in that assurance of conscience which he manifested
in his last moments: God alone could look into the depth of
his mind. We who have gathered the fruit of his labours and of
his patriotic devotion at a distance of time—we can only bow,
before that man of revolution, by whom the ways which led to
our present state of society were prepared. But something sad
is still attached to his glory: he sacrificed everything to
the success of his undertaking; he stifled within himself and
crushed down in some noble spirits the eternal principles of
morality and humanity. When we look at the great things which
he achieved, we admire him with gratitude; we would, but we
cannot, love his character."
_A. Thierry,
Formation and Progress of the Tiers État
or Third Estate in France, chapter 8._
ALSO IN:
_V. Cousin,
Secret History of the French Court under
Richelieu and Mazarin,
chapters 3-4._
_V. Cousin,
The Youth of Madame de Longueville._
_Lord Mahon,
Life of Louis, Prince of Condé,
chapter 1._
_Cardinal de Retz,
Memoirs,
books 1-2._
_M'lle de Montpensier,
Memoirs,
chapter 2-3._
{1225}
FRANCE: A. D. 1643.
Accession of Louis XIV.
FRANCE: A. D. 1643.
Enghien's (Condé's) campaign on the Moselle.
Siege and capture of Thionville.
"On the 20th of May … Enghien made his triumphal entry into
Rocroy. He allowed his troops to repose for two days, and then
it was towards Guise that he directed his steps. He soon heard
that Don Francisco de Melo had taken shelter at Phillipeville,
that he was trying to rally his cavalry, but that of all his
infantry not above 2,000 men remained to him, and they
disarmed and nearly naked. No army any longer protected
Flanders, and the youthful courage of Enghien already
meditated its conquest. But the Court, which had expected to
sustain war in its own provinces, was not prepared to carry it
into foreign countries. It became necessary to give up all
idea of an invasion of Maritime Flanders and the siege of
Dunkirk, with which Enghien had at first flattered himself.
Then finding that the Spaniards had drawn off their troops
from the fortifications on the Moselle, Enghien proposed to
march thither, and take possession of them. … Although this
project was very inferior to his first, its greatness
surprised the Council of Ministers: they at first refused
their consent, but the Duke insisted—and what could they
refuse to the victor of Rocroy? Thionville was at that time
considered to be one of the best fortresses in Europe. On
arriving before its walls, after a seven days' march, Enghien
… established his lines, erected bridges, raised redoubts,
and opened a double line of trenches on the 25th of June. The
French were several times repulsed, but always rallied; and
everywhere the presence of Enghien either prevented or
repaired the disorder. … The obstinate resistance of the
garrison obliged the French to have recourse to mines, which,
by assiduous labor, they pushed forward under the interior of
the town. Then Enghien, wishing to spare bloodshed, sent a
flag of truce to the governor, and allowed him a safe conduct
to visit the state of the works. This visit convinced the
Spaniards of the impossibility of defending themselves any
longer. … They evacuated the town on the 22d of August.
Thionville was then little more than a heap of ruins and
ashes. … By this conquest Enghien soon became master of the
whole course of the Moselle down to the gates of Trèves.
Sierch alone ventured to resist him, but was reduced in 24
hours. Then, disposing his army in autumn quarters, he set off
for Paris."
_Lord Mahon,
Life of Louis, Prince of Condé,
chapter 1._
FRANCE: A. D. 1644-1646.
Campaigns in Catalonia.
The failures at Lerida.
See SPAIN: A. D. 1644-1646.
FRANCE: A. D. 1645-1648.
Campaigns in Flanders.
Capture of Dunkirk.
Loss of the Dutch alliance.
Conde's victory at Lens.
See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1634-1646; 1646-1648; 1647-1648.
FRANCE: A. D. 1646-1648.
The last campaigns of the Thirty Years War.
Turenne and the Swedes in Germany.
See GERMANY: A. D. 1646-1648.
FRANCE: A. D. 1646-1654.
Hostility to the Pope.
Siege of Orbitello.
Attempts to take advantage of the insurrection in Naples.
See ITALY: A. D. 1646-1654.
FRANCE: A. D. 1647-1648.
Conflict between Court and Parliament.
The question of the Paulette.
Events leading to the First Fronde.
"The war was conducted with alternate success and failure, but
with an unintermitted waste of the public revenue; and while
Guébriant, Turenne, and Condé were maintaining the military
renown of France, D'Emery, the superintendent of finance, was
struggling with the far severer difficulty of raising her ways
and means to the level of her expenditure. The internal
history of the first five years of the regency is
thenceforward a record of the contest between the court and
the Parliament of Paris; between the court, promulgating
edicts to replenish the exhausted treasury, and the
Parliament, remonstrating in angry addresses against the
acceptance of them." Of the four sovereign courts which had
their seat at that time in the Palais de Justice of Paris, and
of which the Parliament was the most considerable—the other
three being the Chamber 'des Comptes,' the Cour des Aides, and
the Grand Conseil—the counselors or stipendiary judges held
their offices for life. "But, in virtue of the law called
Paulette [named from Paulet, its originator, in the reign of
Henry IV.] … they also held them as an inheritance
transmissible to their descendants. The Paulette … was a
royal ordinance which imposed an annual tax on the stipend of
every judge. It was usually passed for a term of nine years
only. If the judge died during that term, his heir was
entitled to succeed to the vacant office. But if the death of
the judge happened when the Paulette was not in force, his
heir had no such right. Consequently, the renewal of the tax
was always welcome to the stipendiary counselors of the
sovereign courts; and, by refusing or delaying to renew it,
the king could always exercise a powerful influence over them.
In April, 1647, the Paulette had expired, and the queen-mother
proposed the revival of it. But, to relieve the necessities of
the treasury, she also proposed to increase the annual per
centage which it imposed on the stipends of the counselors of
the Chamber 'des Comptes,' of the Cour des Aides, and of the
Grand Conseil. To concert measures of resistance to the
contemplated innovation, those counselors held a meeting in
the Great Hall of St. Louis; and at their request the
Parliament, though not personally and directly interested in
the change, joined their assembly." The queen sarcastically
replied to their remonstrances that the "king would not only
withdraw his proposal for an increase in the rate of the
annual tax on their stipends, but would even graciously
relieve them from that burden altogether. … Exasperated by
the threatened loss of the heritable tenure of their offices,
and still more offended by the sarcastic terms in which that
menace was conveyed, the judges assembled in the hall of St.
Louis with increased zeal, and harangued there with yet more
indignant eloquence. Four different times the queen
interdicted their meetings, and four different times they
answered her by renewed resolutions for the continuance of
them. She threatened severe punishments, and they replied by
remonstrances. A direct collision of authority had thus
occurred, and it behooved either party to look well to their
steps." The queen began to adopt a conciliatory manner. "But
the associated magistrates derived new boldness from the
lowered tone and apparent fears of the government.
{1226}
Soaring at once above the humble topic on which they had
hitherto been engaged into the region of general politics,
they passed at a step from the question of the Paulette to a
review of all the public grievances under which their fellow
subjects were labouring. After having wrought during four
successive days in this inexhaustible mine of eloquence, they
at length, on the 30th of June, 1648, commenced the adoption
of a series of resolutions, which, by the 24th of July, had
amounted in number to 27, and which may be said to have laid
the basis of a constitutional revolution. … Important as
these resolutions were in themselves, they were still more
important as the assertion, by the associated magistrates, of
the right to originate laws affecting all the general
interests of the commonwealth. In fact, a new power in the
state had suddenly sprung into existence. … That was an age
in which the minds of men, in every part of Europe, had been
rudely awakened to the extent to which the unconstitutional
encroachments of popular bodies might be carried. Charles I.
was at that time a prisoner in the hands of the English
Parliament. Louis XIV. was a boy, unripe for an encounter with
any similar antagonists. … The queen-mother, therefore,
resolved to spare no concessions by which the disaffected
magistracy might be conciliated. D'Emery was sacrificed to
their displeasure; the renewal of the Paulette on its ancient
terms was offered to them; some of the grievances of which
they complained were immediately redressed; and the young king
appeared before them in person, to promise his assent to their
other demands. In return, he stipulated only for the cessation
of their combined meetings, and for their desisting from the
further promulgation of arrêts, to which they ascribed the
force and authority of law. But the authors of this hasty
revolution were no longer masters of the spirits whom they had
summoned to their aid. … With increasing audacity,
therefore, they persevered in defying the royal power, and in
requiring from all Frenchmen implicit submission to their own.
Advancing from one step to another, they adopted, on the 28th
of August, 1648, an arrêt in direct conflict with a recent
proclamation of the king, and ordered the prosecution of three
persons for the offense of presuming to lend him money. At
that moment their debates were interrupted by shouts and
discharges of cannon, announcing the great victory of Condé at
Lens. During the four following days religious festivals and
public rejoicings suspended their sittings. But in those four
days, the court had arranged their measures for a coup d'état.
As the Parliament retired from Notre Dame, where they had
attended at a solemn thanksgiving for the triumph of the arms
of France, they observed that the soldiery still stood to the
posts which, in honour of that ceremonial, had been assigned
to them in different quarters of the city. Under the
protection of that force, one of the presidents of the Chamber
'des Enquêtes,' and De Broussel, the chief of the
parliamentary agitators, were arrested and consigned to
different prisons, while three of their colleagues were exiled
to remote distances from the capital. At the tidings of this
violence, the Parisian populace were seized with a
characteristic paroxysm of fury. … In less than three hours,
Paris had become an entrenched camp. … They dictated their
own terms. The exiles were recalled and the prisoners
released. … Then, at the bidding of the Parliament, the
people laid aside their weapons, threw down the barricades,
re-opened their shops, and resumed the common business of life
as quietly as if nothing had occurred. … It was, however, a
short-lived triumph. The queen, her son, and Mazarin effected
their escape to St. Germains; and there, by the mediation of
Condé and of Gaston, duke of Orleans, the uncle of the king, a
peace was negotiated. The treaty of St. Germains was regarded
by the court with shame, and by the Parliament with
exultation." Fresh quarrels over it soon arose. "Condé was a
great soldier, but an unskillful and impatient peacemaker. By
his advice and aid, the queen-mother and the king once more
retired to St. Germains, and commanded the immediate
adjournment of the Parliament from Paris to Montargis. To
their remonstrances against that order they could obtain no
answer, except that if their obedience to it should be any
longer deferred, an army of 25,000 men would immediately lay,
siege to the city. War was thus declared."
_Sir J. Stephen,
Lectures on the History of France,
lecture 21._
ALSO IN:
_Cardinal De Retz,
Memoirs,
book 2 (volume 1)._
FRANCE: A. D. 1648.
The Peace of Westphalia.
Acquisition of Alsace, etc.
See GERMANY: A. D. 1648.
FRANCE: A. D. 1649.
The First Fronde.
Doubtful origin of the name.
Siege of Paris by Condé.
Dishonorable conduct of Turenne.
Deserted by his army.
The Peace of Reuil.
"The very name of this movement is obscure, and it is only
certain that it was adopted in jest, from a child's game. It
was fitting that the struggle which became only a mischievous
burlesque on a revolution should be named from the sport of
gamins and school-boys. Fronde is the name of a sling, and the
boys of the street used this weapon in their mimic contests.
How it came to be applied to the opponents of the government
is uncertain. Some claimed it was because the members of the
Parliament, like the young frondeurs, hurled their weapons at
Mazarin, but were ready to fly when the officers of the police
appeared. Others said the term had been used by chance by some
counsellor, and had been adopted by the writers of epigrams
and mazarinades. However derived, it was not ill applied."
_J. B. Perkins,
France Under Mazarin,
chapter 9 (volume 1)._
"Paul de Gondi, Coadjutor of Paris [Coadjutor, that is, of the
Archbishop of Paris, who was his uncle], famous afterwards
under the name of Cardinal de Retz, placed himself at the head
of the revolution. … The Prince of Conti, brother of Condé,
the Duke of Longueville, the Duke of Beaufort, and the Duke of
Bouillon adopted the party of the coadjutor and the
parliament. Generals were chosen for an army with which to
resist the court. Although taxes levied by Mazarin had been
resisted, taxes were freely paid to raise troops—12,000 men
were raised; Condé [commanding for the queen] had 8,000
soldiers. These he threw around Paris, and invested 100,000
burgesses, and threatened to starve the town. The citizens,
adorned with feathers and ribbons, made sorties occasionally,
but their manœuvres were the subject of scorn by the soldiers.
… As Voltaire says, the tone of the civil discords which
afflicted England at the same time mark well the difference
between the national characters.
{1227}
The English had thrown into their civil war a balanced fury
and a mournful determination. … The French on the other hand
threw themselves into their civil strife with caprice,
laughter, dissolution and debauchery. Women were the leaders
of factions—love made and broke cabals. The Duchess of
Longueville urged Turenne, only a short time back appointed
Marshal of France, to encourage his army to revolt, which he
was commanding for his king. Nothing can justify Turenne's
action in this matter. Had he laid down his command and taken
the side of his brother [the Duke de Bouillon], on account of
his family grievance [the loss of the principality of
Sedan—see above, A. D. 1641-1642], the feudal spirit which in
those days held affection for family higher than affection for
country, might have excused him; but, while in the service of
a sovereign and intrusted with the command of an army, to
endeavour to lead his troops over to the enemy can be regarded
as nothing short of the work of a traitor. He himself pleads
as his apology that Condé was starving the population of Paris
by the investment. … As it was he sacrificed his honour, and
allowed his fair fame to be tarnished for the sake of a
worthless woman who secretly jeered at his passion, and cared
nothing for his heart, but merely for his sword for her own
worldly advantage. As it was he endeavoured to persuade his
army to declare for the parliament, and purposed taking it
into Champagne, and marching for the relief of the capital;
but the treachery of the marshal was no match for the subtlety
of the cardinal. Before Turenne issued his declaration to his
troops the colonels of his regiment had already been tampered
with. The cardinal's emissaries had promised them pensions,
and distributed £800,000 among the officers and soldiers. This
was a decisive argument for mercenaries, who taught Turenne by
forsaking him that mercenary services can only be commanded by
money. D'Erlach had also stood firm. The regiments of Turenne,
six German regiments, called by d'Erlach, marched one night to
join him at Brisach. Three regiments of infantry threw
themselves under the guns of Philipsburg. Only a small force
was left to Turenne, who, finding the blow he intended
hopeless, sent the troops still with him to join d'Erlach at
Brisach, and retired himself with fifteen or twenty of his
friends to Heilbron, thence to Holland, where he awaited the
termination of the civil war. The news of the abandonment of
Turenne was received with despair at Paris, with wild joy at
St. Germain. His banishment, however, was not long. The
leaders of the parliament became aware that the princes of the
Fronde were trying to obtain foreign assistance to overturn
the monarchy; that their generals were negotiating a treaty
with Spain. They felt that order, peace, and the independence
of parliament, which would in this case become dependent upon
the nobility, was in danger. They took the patriotic
resolution quickly to act of their own accord. A conference
had been opened between the parliament and the Court. Peace
was concluded at Reuil, which, notwithstanding the
remonstrances of Conti [brother of Condé, the family being
divided in the First Fronde], Bouillon, and the other nobles
of the Fronde, was accepted by the whole parliament. Peace was
proclaimed in Paris to the discontent of the populace. …
Turenne, on the conclusion of the treaty of Reuil, embarked in
Zeeland, landed at Dieppe, and posted to Paris."
_H. M. Hozier,
Turenne,
chapter 6._
"After the signing of the peace, the Château of St. Germain
became the resort of many Frondeurs; the Duchess de
Longueville, the Prince of Conti, and nearly all the other
chiefs of the party, hastened to pay their respects to the
Queen. She received everybody without bitterness, some even
with friendship; and the Minister on his part affected much
general good-will. … One of the first effects of the peace
between the parties was a reconciliation in the House of
Condé. The Princess Dowager employed herself with zeal and
success in reestablishing harmony between her children. Condé,
who despised his brother too much to hate him, readily agreed
to a reconciliation with him. As to his sister, he had always
felt for her great affection and confidence, and she no less
for him: these sentiments were revived at their very first
interview at Ruel, and he not only gave her back his
friendship, but began to enter into her views, and even to be
guided by her counsels. The Prince's policy was to make
Royalty powerful and respected, but not absolute. He said
publicly that he had done what he ought in upholding Mazarin,
because he had promised to do so: but for the future, if
things took a different line, he should not be bound by the
past. … A prey to a thousand conflicting feelings, and
discontented with everybody, and perhaps with himself, he took
the resolution of retiring for several months to his
government in Burgundy. On returning from Dijon in the month
of August, the Prince found the Queen and the Cardinal at
Compiègne, and very much dejected. … He … pressed her to
return to Paris with her Minister, answering for Mazarin's
safety, at the risk of his own head. … Their entry into
Paris took place a few days after."
_Lord Mahon,
Life of Louis, Prince of Condé,
chapter 3-4._
ALSO IN:
_Guy Joli,
Memoirs,
volume 1._
_Cardinal De Retz,
Memoirs,
book 2._
_Miss Pardoe,
Louis XIV.,
chapters 9-11._
FRANCE: A. D. 1650-1651.
The New Fronde, or the Petits Maitres.
Its alliance with Spain and defeat at Rethel.
Revolt, siege and reduction of Bordeaux.
"Faction, laid asleep for one night, woke again fresh and
vigorous next morning. There was a Parliamentary party, a De
Retz party, and a Condé party, and each party plotted and
schemed unceasingly to discredit the others and to evoke
popular feeling against all except itself. … Neither of the
leaders, each pretending fear of assassination, ever stirred
abroad unless in the company of 400 or 500 gentlemen, thus
holding the city in hourly peril of an 'émeute.' Condé's
arrogance and insolence becoming at last totally unbearable,
the Court proceeded to the bold measure of arresting him. New
combinations: De Retz and Orleans coalesce once more; De Retz
coquets with Mazarin and is promised a cardinal's hat. Wily
Mazarin strongly supports De Retz's nomination in public, and
privately urges every member of the council to vote against it
and to beseech the Queen to refuse the dignity. It was
refused; upon which De Retz turned his energies upon a general
union of parties for the purpose of effecting the release of
Condé and the overthrow of the minister.'
_De Retz and the Fronde
(Temple Bar, volume 38, pages 535-536)._
{1228}
Condé, his brother Conti, and his brother-in-law Longueville,
were arrested and conducted to Vincennes on the 18th of
January, 1650. "This was the second crisis of the sedition.
The old Fronde had expired; its leaders had sold themselves to
the Court; but in its place sprang up the New Fronde, called
also, from the affected airs of its leaders, the Petits
Maîtres. The beautiful Duchess of Longueville was the soul of
it, aided by her admirer, Marsillac, afterwards Duke de la
Rochefoucauld, and by the Duke of Bouillon. On the arrest of
her husband and her brother, the duchess had fled to Holland,
and afterwards to Stenai; where she and Bouillon's brother,
Turenne, who styled himself the 'King's Lieutenant-General for
the liberation of the Princes,' entered into negotiations with
the Archduke Leopold. Bouillon himself had retired into
Guienne, which province was alienated from the Court because
Mazarine maintained as its governor the detested Epernon. In
July Bouillon and his allies publicly received a Spanish envoy
at Bordeaux. Condé's wife and infant son had been received in
that city with enthusiasm. But on the approach of Mazarine
with the royal army, the inhabitants of Guienne, alarmed for
their vintage, now approaching maturity, showed signs of
submission; after a short siege Bordeaux surrendered, on
condition of an amnesty, in which Bouillon and La
Rochefoucauld were included; and the Princess of Condé was
permitted to retire (October 1st 1650). In the north, the
Frondeurs, with their Spanish allies, seemed at first more
successful. In the summer Leopold had entered Champagne,
penetrated to Ferté Milon, and some of his marauding parties
had even reached Dammartin. Turenne tried to persuade the
Archduke to march to Vincennes and liberate the princes; but
while he was hesitating, Gaston transferred the captives to
Marcoussis, whence they were soon after conveyed to Havre.
Leopold and Turenne, after a vain attempt to rouse the
Parisians, retreated to the Meuse and laid siege to Mouzon.
The Cardinal himself, like his master Richelieu, now assumed
the character of a general. Uniting with his troops in the
north the army of Guienne, he took up his quarters at Rethel,
which had been captured by Du Plessis Praslin. Hence he
ordered an attack to be made on the Spaniards. In the battle
which ensued, these were entirely defeated, many of their
principal officers were captured, and even Turenne himself
narrowly escaped the same fate (December 15th 1650). The
Cardinal's elation was unbounded. It was a great thing to have
defeated Turenne, and though the victory was Du Plessis',
Mazarine assumed all the credit of it. His head began to turn.
He forgot that he owed his success to the leaders of the old
Fronde, and especially to the Coadjutor; he neglected his
promises to that intriguing prelate, though Gondi plainly
declared that he must either be a prince of the Church or the
head of a faction. Mazarine was also imprudent enough to
offend the Parliament; and he compared them with that sitting
at London—which indeed was doing them too much honour. The
Coadjutor went over to the party of the princes, dragging with
him the feeble-minded Orleans, who had himself been insulted
by the Queen. Thus was produced a third phase of this singular
sedition—the union of the old Fronde with the new. The
Parliament now clamoured for the liberation of the princes. As
the Queen hesitated, Gaston bluntly declared that the
dismissal of Mazarine was necessary to the restoration of
peace; while the Parliament added to their former demand
another for the Cardinal's banishment. Mazarine saw his
mistake and endeavoured to rectify it. He hastened to Havre in
order to liberate the princes in person, and claim the merit
of a spontaneous act. But it was too late; it was plain that
he was acting only by constraint. The princes were conducted
back in triumph to Paris by a large retinue sent to escort
them. On February 25th 1651, their innocence was established
by a royal declaration, and they were restored to all their
dignities and charges. Mazarine, meanwhile, who saw that for
the present the game was lost, retired into exile; first into
Bouillon, and afterwards to Brühl on the Rhine, where the
Elector of Cologne offered him an asylum. From this place he
corresponded with the Queen, and continued to direct her
counsels. The anarchy and confusion that had ensued in France
were such as promised him a speedy return."
_T. H. Dyer,
History of Modern Europe,
book 5, chapter 1 (volume 3)._
ALSO IN:
_T. Wright,
History of France,
book 4, chapter 4 (volume 2)._
_Miss Pardoe,
Louis XIV. and the Court of France,
volume 1, chapter 13-15._
FRANCE: A. D. 1651-1652.
The loss of Catalonia.
See SPAIN: A. D. 1648-1652.
FRANCE: A. D. 1651-1653.
The arrogance of Condé and his renewal of civil war.
The King's majority proclaimed.
General changing of sides.
Battle of Porte St. Antoine and massacre of
the Hôtel de Ville.
End of the Fronde.
Condé in the service of Spain.
"The liberated captives were received with every demonstration
of joy by all Paris and the Frondeurs, including the Duke of
Orleans. The Queen, melancholy, and perhaps really ill, lay in
bed to receive their visit of cold ceremony; but the Duke of
Orleans gave them a grand supper, and there was universal joy
at being rid of Mazarin. … There was a promise to assemble
the States General, while Condé thought himself governing the
kingdom, and as usual his arrogance gave offence in various
quarters. One article in the compact which had gained his
liberty was that the Prince of Conti should marry Mademoiselle
de Chevreuse, but this alliance offended the pride of the
elder brother, and he broke the marriage off hastily and
haughtily. Madame de Chevreuse, much offended, repented of the
aid she had given, went over to the Queen's party, and took
with her the coadjutor, who was devoted to the rejected
daughter, and could always sway the mob of Paris. So many
persons had thus come to desert the cause of the Prince that
Anne of Austria thought of again arresting him." Condé,
supposing himself in danger, fled from the city on the 6th of
July, and "went to his château of St. Maur, where his family
and friends joined him; and he held a kind of court. Queen and
Parliament both sent entreaties to him to return, but he
disdained them all, and made the condition of his return the
dismissal of the secretaries whom Mazarin had left. The Queen,
most unwillingly, made them retire, and Condé did return for a
short time; but he was haughtier than ever, and openly
complained of Mazarin's influence, making every preparation
for a civil war. Strangely violent scenes took place," between
the Prince and the Coadjutor and their respective adherents;
and presently the Prince "quitted Paris, went to Chantilly,
and decided on war.
{1229}
Mazarin wrote to the Queen that the most prudent course would
be to ally herself with the Parliament to crush the Princes.
After they should have been put down the Parliament would be
easily dealt with. She acted on this advice. The elections for
the States General were beginning, but in order to quash them,
and cancel all her promises, the Queen decided on proclaiming
the majority of the King, and thus the close of her own
regency. It was of course a farce, since he had only just
entered his fourteenth year, and his mother still conducted
the Government; but it made a new beginning, and was an
occasion for stirring up the loyalty of the people. … Condé
was unwilling to begin a civil war, and was only driven into
it by his sister's persuasions and those of his friends.
'Remember,' he said, 'if I once draw the sword, I shall be the
last to return it to the scabbard.' On the other side, Anne of
Austria said, 'Monsieur le Prince shall perish, or I will.'
From Montrond, Condé directed his forces to take possession of
the cities in Guyenne, and he afterwards proceeded to
Bordeaux. On the other hand, Mazarin repaired to Sedan, and
contrived to raise an army in the frontier cities, with which
he marched to join the King and Queen at Poitiers. War was
raging again, still as the Fronde, though there had been a
general change of sides, the Parliament being now for the
Court, and the Princes against it, the Duke of Orleans in a
state of selfish agitation between the two. Learning that the
royal army was advancing to his own appanage of Orleans, and
fearing that the city might open its gates to them, he sent
off his daughter, Mademoiselle [de Montpensier], to keep the
citizens to what he called their duty to himself. She went
with only two ladies and her servants … and found the gates
closed against her." The persevering Mademoiselle succeeded,
however, in gaining admission to the town, despite the orders
of the magistrates, and she kept out of it the soldiers of
both factions in the war. But her own inclinations were
strongly towards Condé and his side. "She went out to a little
inn to hold a council with the Dukes of Beaufort and Nemours,
and had to mediate between them in a violent quarrel. …
Indeed, Condé's party were ill-agreed; he had even quarreled
with his sister, and she had broken with De la Rochefoucauld!
The Duke de Bouillon and his brother Turenne were now on the
Queen's side, and the command of the royal army was conferred
on the Viscount. Condé, with only eight persons, dashed across
France, to take the command of the army over which Beaufort and
Nemours were disputing. The very morning after he arrived,
Turenne saw by the disposition of the troops who must be
opposed to him. 'M. le Prince is come,' he said. They were the
two greatest captains of the age, and they fought almost in
sight of the King and Queen at Bleneau. But though there were
skirmishes [including, at the outset, the serious defeat of a
division of the royal forces under Hocquincourt], no decisive
engagement took place. It was a struggle of manœuvres, and in
this Condé had the disadvantage. … Week after week the two
armies … watched one another, till at last Condé was driven
up to the walls of Paris, and there the gates were closed
against both armies. Condé was at St. Cloud, whence, on the
2nd of July [1652], he endeavoured to lead his army round to
Charenton at the confluence of the Seine and the Loire; but
when he came in front of the Porte St. Antoine, he found that
a battle was inevitable and that he was caught in a trap,
where, unless he could escape through the city, his
destruction was inevitable. He barricaded the three streets
that met there, heaping up his baggage as a protection, and
his friends within, many of them wives of gentlemen in his
army, saw the situation with despair." The only one who had
energy to act was Mademoiselle. She extorted from her
hesitating father an order, by virtue of which she persuaded
the magistrates of the city, not only to open the gates to
Condé, but to send 2,000 men to the Faubourg St. Antoine.
"Mademoiselle now repaired to the top of the great square
tower of the Bastille, whence she could see the terrible
conflict carried on in the three suburban streets which
converged at the Porte St. Antoine." Seeing an opportunity to
turn the cannon of the Bastille on the pursuing troops, she
did so with effect. "Turenne was obliged to draw back, and at
last Condé brought his army into the city, where they encamped
in the open space of the Pré des Clercs. … Condé unworthily
requited the hospitality wrung from the city. He was resolved
to overcome the neutrality of the Parliament, and, in concert
with Beaufort, instigated the mob to violence. Many soldiers
were disguised as artizans, and mingled with the rabble, when,
on the 4th of July, he went to the Hotel de Ville, ostensibly
to thank, the magistrates, but really to demand their support
against the Crown. These loyal men, however, by a majority of
votes, decided on a petition to the King to return without
Mazarin. On this Condé exclaimed publicly, 'These gentlemen
will do nothing for us. They are Mazarinists. Treat them as
you please.' Then he retired to the Luxembourg with Gaston,
while Beaufort let loose the mob. The Hotel de Ville was
stormed, the rabble poured in at doors and windows, while the
disguised soldiers fired from the opposite houses, and the
magistrates were threatened and pursued on all sides. They had
one advantage, that they knew their way through the intricate
passages and the mob did not. The first who got out rushed to
the Luxembourg to entreat the Duke and Prince to stop the
massacre; but Monsieur only whistled and beat his tattoo, and
Condé said he knew nothing about sedition. Nor would Beaufort
interfere till the disturbance had lasted many hours; but
after all many more of the rabble were killed than of the
magistrates. It was the last remarkable scene in the strange
drama of the Fronde. The Parliament suspended its sittings,
and the King transferred it to Pontoise, whither Molé and all
the other Presidents proceeded, leaving Paris in disguise.
This last ferocious proceeding of Condé's, though he tried to
disavow it, had shocked and alienated everyone, and he soon
after fell sick of a violent fever. Meanwhile, his castle of
Montrond was taken after a year's siege, Nemours was killed in
a duel by the Duke of Beaufort, and the party was falling to
pieces. … Mazarin saw the opportunity, and again left the
Court for the German frontier. This was all that was wanting
to bring back the malcontents. Condé offered to make terms,
but was haughtily answered that it was no time for
negotiation, but for submission. Upon this, he proceeded to
the Low Countries, and offered his sword to the Spaniards.
{1230}
The King entered Paris in state and held a bed of justice, in
which he proclaimed an amnesty, excepting from it Condé and
Conti, and some others of their party, and forbidding the
Parliament to interfere in State affairs. The Coadjutor, who
had become a Cardinal, was arrested, and imprisoned until he
made his escape, dislocating his shoulder in his fall from the
window, but finally reaching Rome, where he lived till the
Fronde was forgotten, but never becoming Archbishop of Paris.
… When all was quiet, Mazarin returned, in February, 1653,
without the slightest opposition, and thus ended the Fronde,
in the entire triumph of the Crown. … The misery, distress
and disease caused by these wars of the Fronde were
unspeakable. There was nothing to eat in the provinces where
they had raged but roots, rotten fruit, and bread made of
bran. … Le misère de la Fronde' was long a proverbial
expression in France."
_C. M. Yonge,
Cameos from English History,
chapter 15._
ALSO IN:
_Lord Mahon,
Life of Condé,
chapters 8-9._
_G. P. R. James,
Life and Times of Louis XIV.,
chapters 11-12._
_Cardinal de Retz,
Memoirs,
books 3-4 (volumes 2-3)._
_M'lle de Montpensier,
Memoirs,
volume 1, chapters 11-17._
FRANCE: A. D. 1652.
Loss of Gravelines and Dunkirk.
Spanish invasion of Picardy.
"In the spring of 1652, the Spanish forces, under the command
of the archduke had undertaken the siege of Gravelines, which
was obliged to capitulate on the 18th of May. The archduke
next undertook the siege of Dunkirk, but, at the earnest
desire of the princes, he merely blockaded the place, and sent
Fuensaldaña with about 14,000 men into Picardy to their
assistance. … The court, in great alarm, sought first a
retreat in Normandy, but the Duke of Longueville, who still
held the government of that province, refused to receive
Mazarin. The fears of the court were not lessened by this
proceeding, and it was even proposed to carry the king to
Lyons; but the wiser counsels of Turenne finally prevailed,
and it was resolved to establish the army at Compiègne, and
lodge the court at Pontoise. Fuensaldaña forced the passage of
the Oise at Chauni, and then joined the duke of Lorraine at
Fismes, on the 29th of July, when their joint forces amounted
to full 20,000 men, while Turenne had not more than 11,000 to
oppose to them. But the Spaniards were, as usual, only
pursuing a selfish policy, and Fuensaldaña, in pursuance of
the archduke's orders, left a body of 3,000 cavalry to
reinforce the duke of Lorraine, and returned with the rest of
his troops to assist in the siege of Dunkirk," which soon
surrendered to his arms.
_T. Wright,
History of France,
volume 2, page 89._
FRANCE: A. D. 1652-1653.
Last phase of the Fronde at Bordeaux.
Attempted revolution by the Society of the Ormée.
See BORDEAUX: A. D. 1652-1653.
FRANCE: A. D. 1653-1656.
Condé's campaigns against his own country, in the service of
Spain.
"Condé, unfortunately for his fame, made no attempts at
reconciliation, and retired to the Spaniards—an enemy of his
country! He captured several small places on the [Flemish]
frontier, and hoped to return in spring victorious. A few days
after the entry into Paris, Turenne set out to oppose him;
and, retaking some towns, had the satisfaction, of compelling
him to seek winter quarters beyond the limits of France. …
Condé persuaded the Spanish to bring 30,000 men into the field
for the next campaign: Turenne and La Ferté had but 13,000. To
paralyze the plans of the enemy, the Viscount proposed, and
his proposal was allowed, to be always threatening their rear
and communications; to occupy posts they would not dare to
attack, and so to avoid fighting, at the same time hindering
them from all important undertakings. He began by throwing
himself between two corps of their army, at the point where
they expected to effect a junction; and in the eight or nine
days thus gained, he recovered Rhétel, without which it would
have been, as he declares himself, impossible to defend
Picardy and Champagne. Rhétel, so much an object of anxiety,
was taken in three days. Baffled in their original purposes,
and at a loss, the Spanish expected a large convoy from
Cambray, escorted by 3,000 horse. Turenne got news of this,
and, posting himself near Peronne to intercept it, drove it
back to Cambray [August 11, 1653]. There Condé and Fuensaldaña
turned upon him; but he took up a position, which they watched
for three or four days, and there defied their attack. They
refused the challenge. Thence the enemy drew off," with
designs on Guise, which Turenne frustrated. "Condé then laid
siege to Rocroi, where his own first glory had been gained;
and this place is so hemmed in by woods and defiles, that the
relief of it was impossible. But Turenne compensated for the
loss of it by the equally valuable recapture, of Mouson. Thus
the whole year was spent in marches and countermarches, in
gains and losses, which had no influence on events. By this
time the malcontents were so prostrate that Condé's brother,
the Prince de Conti, and his sister, the Duchesse de
Longueville, made their peace with the court. … The year
1654 opened with the siege of Stenay by the young king in
person, who was carried thither by Mazarin, to overawe Condé's
governor with the royal name and majesty. That officer was
more true to his trust than to his allegiance, and Stenay cost
a siege. … Condé could do no better than imitate Turenne's
policy of the previous year, and besiege Arras as an
equivalent for Stenay; to which end he mustered 32,000 men.
Arras was a town of some value. Condé had caught it at
disadvantage; the governor, Mondejeu … was put on his
defence with 2,500 foot and 100 horse. To reinforce this
slender garrison was the first care of Turenne. … Mazarin
was anxious for Arras, and offered Turenne to break up the
siege of Stenay, for the sake of reinforcing the army of
relief. This proposal the Viscount declined. He must have been
very confident of his own capacity; for he could collect only
14,000 men to hover around the enemy's camp. … He proposed
no attempt upon the intrenchments till he had the aid of the
troops from Stenay … ; but he disposed his parties around so
as to prevent the enemy's convoys from reaching them." Stenay
surrendered on the 6th of August, and Turenne, with
reinforcements from its besiegers, attacked the Spanish lines
at Arras on the night of the 24th, with complete success. The
Spaniards raised the siege and retreated to Cambray, leaving
3,000 prisoners and 63 pieces of cannon in the hands of the
French. "The capture of Quesnoy and Binches filled up the rest
of the year; the places were weak and the garrisons feeble.
{1231}
Nor did the next season, 1655, offer anything of interest.
Turenne reduced Landrecies, Condé, and Guislain, while his
active opponent was sometimes foiled by his precautions, and
sometimes baffled by the absurd behaviour of the Spanish
authorities. … The great event of 1656 was the siege of
Valenciennes. This place … was invested by Turenne about the
middle of June: but hardly had his camp been intrenched before
he repented of his undertaking. The Scheldt flows through the
town, and by reservoirs and sluices was flooded at the will of
the enemy. Turenne's camp was largely inundated. … He had
overestimated his means: so great was the circle of his
circumvallation that he had not men enough to guard it
adequately, when Condé and the Spanish appeared with 20,000
men to the relief of the place." They broke through his lines
and forced him to retreat, with a heavy loss of prisoners
taken. "The Viscount retrieved his credit by the bold stand he
made after the defeat."
_T. O. Cockayne,
Life of Marshal Turenne,
pages 58-69._
ALSO IN:
_Lord Mahon,
Life of Condé,
chapter 10._
_J. B. Perkins,
France under Mazarin,
chapters 16-17 (volume 2)._
FRANCE: A. D. 1653-1660.
First persecution of the Jansenists.
See PORT ROYAL AND THE JANSENISTS.
FRANCE: A. D. 1655-1658.
Alliance with the English Commonwealth against Spain.
The taking of Dunkirk for England and Gravelines for France.
End of the war.
"Mazarin was now bent upon an enterprise which, if successful,
must finish the war. A deadly blow would be struck at the
strength of Spain if Dunkirk, Mardyck, and Gravelines—the
possession of which was of vital importance to her
communication with Flanders, as well as enabling her to ruin
French commerce on that coast—could be wrested from her. For
this the cooperation of some maritime power was necessary, and
Mazarin determined at all costs to secure England. With
Cromwell, the only diplomatist by whose astuteness he
confessed himself baffled, he had been negotiating since 1651.
… At length on November 3, 1655, a treaty was signed at
Westminster, based upon freedom of commerce and an engagement
that neither country should assist the enemies or rebels of
the other; Mazarin consented to expel Charles II., James, and
twenty named royalists from France. Cromwell similarly agreed
to dismiss from England the emissaries of Condé. But Mazarin
was soon anxious for a more effectual bond. … Cromwell had
equally good reasons for drawing closer to France, for Spain
was preparing actively to assist Charles II. French and
English interests thus coinciding, an alliance was signed at
Paris on March 23, 1657
See ENGLAND: A. D. 1655-1658.
Gravelines and Dunkirk were to be at once besieged both by
land and sea. England was to send 6,000 men to assist the
French army. Gravelines was to become French and Dunkirk
English; should the former fall first it was to be held by
England until Dunkirk too was taken. … The alliance was not
a moment too soon. The campaign of 1657 had opened
disastrously. The tide was however turned by the arrival of
the English contingent. Montmédy was immediately besieged, and
capitulated on August 4. The effect was again to make Mazarin
hang back from further effort, since it seemed possible now to
make peace with Spain, and thereby avoid an English occupation
of Dunkirk. But Cromwell would stand no trifling, and his
threats were so clear that Mazarin determined to act loyally
and without delay. On September 30, Turenne laid siege to
Mardyck, which protected Dunkirk, and took it in four days. It
was at once handed over to the English." In the spring of 1658
the siege of Dunkirk was begun. The Spaniards, under Don John
of Austria and Condé, attempting to relieve the place, were
defeated (June 13) in the battle of the Dunes, by Turenne and
Cromwell's Ironsides (see ENGLAND: A. D.1655-1658). "Dunkirk
immediately surrendered, and on the 25th was in Cromwell's
possession. Two months later Gravelines also fell. A short and
brilliant campaign followed, in which Don John and Condé, shut
up in Brussels and Tournai respectively, were compelled to
remain inactive while fortress after fortress fell into French
hands. A few days after the fall of Gravelines Cromwell died;
but Mazarin was now near his goal. Utterly defeated on her own
soil, beaten, too, by the Portuguese at Elvas, and threatened
in Milan, her army ruined, her treasury bankrupt, without a
single ally in Europe, Spain stood at last powerless before
him."
_O. Airy,
The English Restoration and Louis XIV.,
chapter 6._
FRANCE: A. D. 1657.
Candidacy of Louis XIV. for the imperial crown.
See GERMANY: A. D. 1648-1705.
FRANCE: A. D. 1659-1661.
The treaty of the Pyrenees.
Marriage of Louis XIV. to the Spanish Infanta.
"The Spaniards could struggle no longer: they sued for peace.
Things were prepared for it on every hand: Spain was
desperate; matters far from settled or safe in France; in
England the Protector's death had come very opportunely for
Mazarin; the strong man was no longer there to hold the
balance between the European powers. Questions as to a Spanish
marriage and the Spanish succession had been before men since
1648; the Spaniards had disliked the match, thinking that in
the end it must subject them to France. But things were
changed; Philip IV. now had an heir, so that the nations might
hope to remain under two distinct crowns; moreover, the needs
of Spain were far greater than in 1648, while the demands of
France were less. So negociation between Mazarin and Louis de
Haro on the little Isle of Pheasants in the Bidassoa, under
the very shadow of the Pyrenees, went on prosperously; even
the proposal that Louis XIV. should espouse the Infanta of
Spain, Maria Theresa, was at last agreed to at Madrid. The
only remaining difficulty arose from" the fact that the young
King, Louis XIV., had fallen in love with Maria Mancini,
Cardinal Mazarin's niece, and wished to marry her. "The King
at last abandoned his youthful and pure passion, and signed
the Treaty of the Pyrenees [concluded November 7, 1659],
condemning himself to a marriage of state, which exalted high
the dignity of the French Crown, only to plunge it in the end
into the troubles and disasters of the Succession War. The
treaty of peace begins with articles on trade and navigation:
then follow cessions, restitutions, and exchanges of
territories.
{1232}
1. On the Northern frontier Spain ceded all she had in Artois,
with exception of Aire and S. Omer; in Flanders itself France
got Gravelines and its outer defences. In Hainault she became
mistress of the important towns, Landrecies, Quesnoy, and
Avesnes, and also strengthened her position by some exchanges:
in Luxemburg she retained Thionville, Montmédy, and several
lesser places; so that over her whole northern border France
advanced her frontier along a line answering to her old
limits. … In return she restored to Spain several of her
latest conquests in Flanders: Ypres, Oudenarde, Dixmüden,
Furnes, and other cities. In Condé's country France recovered
Rocroy, Le Câtelet and Linchamp, occupied by the Prince's
soldiers; and so secured the safety and defences of Champagne
and Paris.
2. More to the East, the Duke of Lorraine, having submitted
with such good grace as might be, was reinstated in his Duchy.
… But France received her price here also, the Duchy of Bar,
the County of Clermont on the edge of Champagne, Stenay, Dun,
Jametz, Moyenvic, became hers. The fortifications of Nancy
were to be rased for ever; the Duke of Lorraine bound himself
to peace, and agreed to give France free passage to the
Bishopricks and Alsace. This was the more necessary, because
Franche-Comté, the other highway into Alsace, was left to the
Spaniards, and such places in it as were in the King's hands
were restored to them. Far out in Germany Louis XIV. replaced
Jülich in the hands of the Duke of Neuberg; and that element
of controversy, the germ or pretext of these long wars, was
extinct for ever. On the Savoyard border France retained
Pinerolo, with all the means and temptations of offence which
it involved: she restored to the Duke her other conquests
within his territories, and to the Spaniards whatever she held
in Lombardy; she also honourably obtained an amnesty for those
subjects of Spain, Neapolitans or Catalans, who had sided with
France. Lastly, the Pyrenees became the final, as it was the
natural, boundary between the two Latin kingdoms. …
Roussillon and Conflans became French: all French conquests to
the south of the Pyrenees were restored to Spain. The Spanish
King renounced all claims on Alsace or Breisach: on the other
hand the submission of the great Condé was accepted; he was
restored to all his domains; his son, the young Duke of
Enghien, being made Grand Master of France, and he himself
appointed Governor of Burgundy and Bresse: his friends and
followers were included in the amnesty. Some lesser
stipulations, with a view to the peace of Europe, for the
settlement of the differences between Spain and Portugal,
between the Dukes of Savoy and Mantua, between the Catholic
and the Protestant Cantons of Switzerland, and an agreement to
help forward peace between the Northern Courts, worthily close
this great document, this weighty appendix to the Treaties of
Westphalia. A separate act, as was fitting, regulated all
questions bearing on the great marriage. It contains a solemn
renunciation, intended to bar for ever the union of the two
Crowns under one sceptre, or the absorption into France of
Flanders, Burgundy, or Charolais. It was a renunciation which,
as Mazarin foresaw long before, would never hold firm against
the temptations and exigencies of time. The King's marriage
with the Infanta Maria Theresa of Spain did not take place
till the next year, by which time Mazarin's work in life
seemed well nigh over; racked with gout, he had little
enjoyment of his triumphs. … He betook himself to the
arrangement of his own affairs: his physicians giving him,
early in 1661, no hopes of recovery. … These things
arranged, the Cardinal resigned himself to die 'with a
serenity more philosophic than Christian'; and passed away on
the 8th of March, 1661."
_G. W. Kitchin,
History of France,
book 4, chapter 8 (volume 3)._
"The Treaty of the Pyrenees, which completed the great work of
pacification that had commenced at Munster, is justly
celebrated as having put an end to such bitter and useless
animosities. But, it is more famous, as having introduced a
new æra in European politics. In its provisions all the
leading events of a century to come had their origin—the wars
which terminated with the Treaties of Aix-la-Chapelle,
Nimeguen, and Ryswick, and that concerning the Spanish
succession. So great an epoch in history has the Pyrenean
Treaty been accounted by politicians, that Lord Bolingbroke
was of opinion, 'That the only part of history necessary to be
thoroughly studied, goes no farther back than this treaty,
since, from that period, a new set of motives and principles
have prevailed all over Europe.'"
_J. Dunlop,
Memoirs of Spain during the Reigns of
Philip IV. and Charles II., volume 1.
chapter 11._
FRANCE: A. D. 1660-1688.
A footing gained in Newfoundland.
See NEWFOUNDLAND: A. D. 1660-1688.
FRANCE: A. D. 1661.
Personal assumption of the government by Louis XIV.
The extraordinary characteristics of the reign of the Grand
Monarch, now begun.
On the death of Mazarin Louis XIV., then twenty-three years
old, announced to his council his intention of taking the
government solely upon himself. His ministers were
henceforward to receive instructions from him in person; there
was to be no premier at their head. The reign which then began
"was the culminating epoch in the history of the French
Monarchy. What the age of Pericles was in the history of the
Athenian Democracy, what the age of the Scipios was in the
history of the Roman Republic, that was the reign of Louis
XIV. in the history of the old Monarchy of France. … It is
not only the most conspicuous reign in the history of
France—it is the most conspicuous reign in the history of
Monarchy in general. Of the very many kings whom history
mentions, who have striven to exalt the monarchical principle,
none of them achieved a success remotely comparable to his. …
They may have ruled over wider dominions, but they never
attained the exceptional position of power and prestige which
he enjoyed for more than half a century. They never were
obeyed so submissively at home, nor so dreaded, and even
respected, abroad. For Louis XIV. carried off that last reward
of complete success, that he for a time silenced even envy,
and turned it into admiration. We who can examine with cold
scrutiny the make and composition of this Colossus of a French
Monarchy; who can perceive how much the brass and clay in it
exceeded the gold; who know how it afterwards fell with a
resounding ruin, the last echoes of which have scarcely died
away, have difficulty in realising the fascination it
exercised upon contemporaries who witnessed its first setting
up. Louis XIV.'s reign was the very triumph of commonplace
greatness, of external magnificence and success, such as the
vulgar among mankind can best and most sincerely appreciate.
… His qualities were on the surface, visible and
comprehensible to all. …
{1233}
He was indefatigably industrious: worked on an average eight
hours a day for fifty-four years; had, great tenacity of will;
that kind of solid judgment which comes of slowness of brain,
and withal a most majestic port and great dignity of manners.
He had also as much kindliness of nature as the very great can
be expected to have. … He must have had great original
fineness of tact, though it was in the end nearly extinguished
by adulation and incense. His court was an extraordinary
creation, and the greatest thing he achieved. He made it the
microcosm of all that was most brilliant and prominent in
France. Every order of merit was invited there, and received
courteous welcome. To no circumstance did he so much owe his
enduring popularity. By its means he impressed into his
service that galaxy of great writers, the first and the last
classic authors of France, whose calm and serene lustre will
for ever illumine the epoch of his existence. It may even be
admitted that his share in that lustre was not so accidental
and undeserved as certain king-haters have supposed. That
subtle critic, M. Ste. Beuve, thinks he can trace a marked
rise even in Bossuet's style from the moment he became a
courtier of Louis XIV. The king brought men together, placed
them in a position where they were induced and urged to bring
their talents to a focus. His Court was alternately a
high-bred gala and a stately university. … But Louis XIV.'s
reign has better titles than the adulations of courtiers and
the eulogies of wits and poets to the attention of posterity.
It marks one of the most memorable epochs in the annals of
mankind. It stretches across history like a great
mountain-range, separating ancient France from the France of
modern times. On the farther slope are Catholicism and
feudalism in their various stages of splendour and decay—the
France of crusade and chivalry, of St. Louis and Bayard. On
the hither side are free-thought, industry, and
centralization—the France of Voltaire, Turgot and Condorcet.
When Louis came to the throne, the Thirty Years' War still
wanted six years of its end, and the heat of theological
strife was at its intensest glow. When he died, the religious
temperature had cooled nearly to freezing-point, and a new
vegetation of science and positive inquiry was overspreading
the world. This amounts to saying that his reign covers the
greatest epoch of mental transition through which the human
mind has hitherto passed, excepting the transition we are
witnessing in the day which now is. We need but recall the
names of the writers and thinkers who arose during Louis
XIV.'s reign, and shed their seminal ideas broadcast upon the
air, to realise how full a period it was, both of birth and
decay; of the passing away of the old and the uprising of the
new forms of thought. To mention only the greatest;—the
following are among the chiefs who helped to transform the
mental fabric of Europe in the age of Louis XIV.:—Descartes,
Newton, Leibnitz, Locke, Boyle. … But the chief interest
which the reign of Louis XIV. offers to the student of history
has yet to be mentioned. It was the great turning-point in the
history of the French people. The triumph, of the Monarchical
principle was so complete under him, independence and
self-reliance were so effectually crushed, both in localities
and individuals, that a permanent bent was given to the
national mind—a habit of looking to the Government for all
action and initiative permanently established. Before the
reign of Louis XIV. it was a question which might fairly be
considered undecided, whether the country would be able or
not, willing or not, to co-operate with its rulers in the work
of the Government and the reform of abuses. On more than one
occasion such co-operation did not seem entirely impossible or
improbable. … After the reign of Louis' XIV. such
co-operation of the ruler and the ruled became impossible. The
Government of France had become a machine depending upon the
action of a single spring. Spontaneity in the population at
large was extinct, and whatever there was to do must be done
by the central authority. As long as the Government could
correct abuses it was well; if it ceased to be equal to this
task they must go uncorrected. When at last the reform of
secular and gigantic abuses presented itself with imperious
urgency, the alternative before the Monarchy was either to
carry the reform with a high hand, or perish in the failure to
do so. We know how signal the failure was, and could not help
being, under the circumstances; and through having placed the
Monarchy between these alternatives, it is no paradox to say
that Louis XIV. was one of the most direct ancestors of the
Great Revolution."
_J. C. Morison,
The Reign of Louis XIV.
(Fortnightly Review, March, 1874)._
ALSO IN:
_J. I. von Döllinger,
The Policy of Louis XIV.
(Studies in European History, chapter 11)._
FRANCE: A. D. 1661-1680.
Revived and growing persecution of the Huguenots.
"One of the King's first acts, on assuming the supreme control
of affairs at the death of Mazarin, was significant, of his
future policy with regard to the Huguenots. Among the
representatives of the various public bodies who came to
tender him their congratulations, there appeared a deputation
of Protestant ministers, headed by their president Vignole;
but the King refused to receive them, and directed that they
should be ordered to leave Paris forthwith. Louis was not slow
to follow up this intimation by measures of a more positive
kind, for he had been carefully taught to hate Protestantism;
and, now that he possessed unrestrained power, he flattered
himself with the idea of compelling the Huguenots to abandon
their convictions and adopt his own. His minister Louvois
wrote to the governors throughout the provinces that 'his
majesty will not suffer any person in his kingdom but those
who are of his religion.' … A series of edicts was
accordingly published with the object of carrying the King's
purposes into effect. The conferences of the Protestants were
declared to be suppressed. Though worship was still permitted
in their churches, the singing of psalms in private dwellings
was declared to be forbidden. … Protestant children were
invited to declare themselves against the religion of their
parents. Boys of fourteen and girls of twelve years old might,
on embracing Roman Catholicism, become enfranchised and
entirely free from parental control. … The Huguenots were
again debarred from holding public offices, though a few, such
as Marshal Turenne and Admiral Duquesne, who were Protestants,
broke through this barrier by the splendor of their services
to the state. In some provinces, the exclusion was so severe
that a profession of the Roman Catholic faith was required
from simple artisans. …
{1234}
Colbert, while, he lived, endeavored to restrain the King, and
to abate these intolerable persecutions. … He took the
opportunity of cautioning the King lest the measures he was
enforcing might tend, if carried out, to the impoverishment of
France and the aggrandizement of her rivals. … But all
Colbert's expostulations were in vain; the Jesuits were
stronger than he was, and the King was in their hands;
besides, Colbert's power was on the decline. … In 1666 the
queen-mother died, leaving to her son, as her last bequest,
that he should suppress and exterminate heresy within his
dominions. … The Bishop of Meaux exhorted him to press on in
the path his sainted mother had pointed out to him. … The
Huguenots had already taken alarm at the renewal of the
persecution, and such of them as could readily dispose of
their property and goods were beginning to leave the kingdom
in considerable numbers for the purpose of establishing
themselves in foreign countries. To prevent this, the King
issued an edict forbidding French subjects from proceeding
abroad without express permission, under penalty of
confiscation of their goods and property. This was followed by
a succession of severe measures for the conversion or
extirpation of such of the Protestants—in numbers about a
million and a half—as had not by this time contrived to make
their escape from the kingdom. The kidnapping of Protestant
children was actively set on foot by the agents of the Roman
Catholic priests, and their parents were subjected to heavy
penalties if they ventured to complain. Orders were issued to
pull down the Protestant places of worship, and as many as
eighty were shortly destroyed in one diocese. … Protestants
were forbidden to print books without the authority of
magistrates of the Romish communion. Protestant teachers were
interdicted from teaching children any thing more than
reading, writing, and arithmetic. … Protestants were only
allowed to bury their dead at daybreak or at nightfall. They
were prohibited from singing psalms on land or on water, in
workshops or in dwellings. If a priestly procession passed one
of their churches while the psalms were being sung, they must
stop instantly on pain of the fine or imprisonment of the
officiating minister. In short, from the pettiest annoyance to
the most exasperating cruelty, nothing was wanting on the part
of the 'Most Christian King' and his abettors."
_S. Smiles,
The Huguenots,
chapter 7._
ALSO IN:
_A. Maury,
Memoirs of a Huguenot Family (Fontaine),
chapters 4-7._
_W. S. Browning,
History of the Huguenots,
chapters 59-60._
FRANCE: A. D. 1661-1683.
The administration of Colbert.
His economic system and its results.
"With Colbert the spirit of the great Cardinal came back to
power. Born at Reims on the 29th of August, 1619, Colbert was
educated by the Jesuits, and at the early age of nineteen
entered the War Office, in which department Le Tellier, a
connection of his family by marriage, filled the post of
Under-Secretary of State. From the first Colbert distinguished
himself by his abnormal powers of work, by his extraordinary
zeal in the public service, and by an equal devotion to his
own interests. His Jesuit training showed fruit in his
dealings with all those who, like Le Tellier or Mazarin, could
be of use to him on his road to power, whilst the old
tradition of his Scotch blood is favoured by a certain
'dourness' of character which rendered him in general
difficult of access. His marvellous strength of brain,
seconded by rare powers of endurance, enabled him to work
habitually fourteen hours a day to enter into every detail of
every branch of the administration, whilst at the same time he
never lost sight of that noble project of universal reform
which he had conceived, and which embraced both Church and
State. … Qualified in every way for the work of
administration, absolutely indifferent to popularity, Colbert
seemed destined by nature to lead the final charge against the
surviving forces of the feudal system. After the troubles of
the Fronde had died away and the death of Mazarin had left
Louis XIV. a king in deed as well as in name, these forces of
the past were personified by Fouquet, and the duel between
Fouquet and Colbert was the dramatic close of a struggle
predestined to end in the complete triumph of absolutism. The
magnificent and brilliant Fouquet, who for years past had
taken advantage of his position as 'Surintendant des Finances'
to lavish the resources of the State on his private pleasures,
was plainly marked out as the object of Colbert's hostility.
… On the losing side were ranged all the spendthrift princes
and facile beauties of the Court, all the greedy recipients of
Fouquet's ostentatious bounties. He had reckoned that the
greatest names in France would be compromised by his fall, and
that by their danger his own safety was assured. He had
reckoned without Colbert; he had reckoned without that power
which had been steadily growing throughout all vicissitudes of
fate during the last two generations, and which was now
centred in the King. No stranger turn of fortune can be
pictured than that which, on the threshold of the modern era,
linked the nobles of France in their last struggle for
independence with the fortunes of a rapacious and fraudulent
financier, nor can anything be more suggestive of the
character of the coming epoch than the sight of this last
battle fought, not in the field of arms, but before a court of
law. To Colbert, the fall of Fouquet was but the necessary
preliminary to that reform of every branch of the
administration which had been ripening in his mind ever since
he had entered the public service. To bring the financial
situation into order, it was necessary first to call Fouquet
to account. … The fall of the chief offender, Fouquet,
having been brought about, it was easy to force all those who
had been guilty of similar malversations on a minor scale to
run the gauntlet of the High Commission. Restitution and
confiscation became the order of the day, and when the Chamber
of Justice was finally dissolved in 1669, far beyond any
advantage which might be reckoned to the Treasury from these
sources was the gain to the nation in the general sense of
security and confidence. It was felt that the days of
wholesale dishonesty and embezzlement were at an end. …
Colbert went forward from this moment without hesitation,
devoting his whole energies to the gigantic task of re-shaping
the whole internal economy of France. … Backed by despotic
power, his achievements in these directions have to an
incredible extent determined the destinies of modern industry,
and have given origin to the whole system of modern
administration, not only in France, but throughout Europe.
{1235}
In the teeth of a lavish expenditure which he was utterly
unable to check, once and again did Colbert succeed in
establishing a financial equilibrium when the fortunes of
France seemed desperate. … He aimed … at the fostering of
home production by an elaborate system of protection, whilst
at the same time the markets of other countries were to be
forced open and flooded with French goods. Any attempt on the
part of a weaker power to imitate his own policy, such for
instance as that made in the papal states by Alexander VII.
and Clement IX., was instantly repressed with a high hand. …
His leading idea was to lower all export dues on national
produce and manufactures, and, whilst diminishing import
duties on such raw materials as were required for French
manufactures, to raise them until they became prohibitive on
all foreign goods.
See TARIFF LEGISLATION: A. D. 1664-1667 (FRANCE).
The success of the tariff of 1664 misled Colbert. That tariff
was a splendidly statesmanlike attempt to put an end to the
conflict and confusion of the duties, dues, and customs then
existing in the different provinces and ports of France, and
it was in effect a tariff calculated for purely fiscal
purposes. Far other were the considerations embodied in the
tariff of 1667, which led to the Dutch and English wars, and
which, having been enacted in the supposed interests of home
industry, eventually stimulated production in other countries.
… If, however, the industrial policy of Colbert cannot be
said to have realised his expectations, since it neither
brought about a great increase in the number of home
manufactures nor succeeded in securing a larger share of
foreign trade, there is not a doubt that, in spite even of the
disastrous wars which it provoked, it powerfully contributed,
on the whole, to place France in the front rank as a
commercial nation. … The pitiless and despotic Louvois, who
had succeeded his father, Colbert's old patron Le Tellier, as
Secretary of State for War, played on the imperious vanity of
King Louis, and engaged him in wars big and little, which in
most cases wanted even the shade of a pretext. … All the
zeal of the great Minister's strict economy could only stay
for a while the sure approach of national distress. … When
Colbert died, on 6th September, 1683, the misery of France,
exhausted by oppressive taxation, and depopulated by armies
kept constantly on foot, cried out against the Minister who,
rather than fall from power, had lent himself to measures
which he heartily condemned. For the moment men forgot how
numerous were the benefits which he had conferred … and
remembered only the harshness with which he had dealt justice
and stinted mercy. Yet order reigned where, before his advent,
all had been corruption and confusion; the navy of France had
been created, her colonies fostered, her forests saved from
destruction; justice and the authority of the law had been
carried into the darkest corners of the land; religious
toleration, socially if not politically, had been advocated;
whilst the encroachments of the Church had been more or less
steadfastly opposed. To the material prosperity of the
nation—even after we have made all possible deductions for
the evils arising from an exaggerated system of protection—an
immense and enduring impulse had been given; and although it
is true that, with the death of Colbert, many parts of his
splendid scheme fell to the ground, yet it must be confessed
that the spirit in which it was originated and improved still
animates France."
_Lady Dilke,
France under Colbert
(Fortnightly Rev., February, 1886)._
ALSO IN:
_H. Martin,
History of France: Age of Louis XIV.,
volume 1, chapters 1-7._
See, also, TAILLE AND GABELLE.
FRANCE: A. D. 1662.
The purchase of Dunkirk from Charles II.
See ENGLAND: A. D. 1662.
FRANCE: A. D. 1663-1674.
New France made a Royal Province.
The French West India Company.
See CANADA: A. D. 1663-1674.
FRANCE: A. D. 1664.
Aid given to Austria against the Turks.
The victory of St. Gothard.
See HUNGARY: A. D. 1660-1664.
FRANCE: A. D. 1664-1666.
War with the piratical Barbary States.
The Jijeli expedition.
Treaties with Tunis and Algiers.
See BARBARY STATES: A. D. 1664-1684.
FRANCE: A. D. 1664-1690.
The building of Versailles.
See VERSAILLES.
FRANCE: A. D. 1665.
The Great Days of Auvergne.
"We must read the curious account of the Great Days of
Auvergne, written by Fléchier in his youth, if we would form
an idea of the barbarism in which certain provinces of France
were still plunged, in the midst of the brilliant civilization
of the 17th century, and would know how a large number of
those seigniors, who showed themselves so gallant and tender
in the boudoirs of Paris, lived on their estates, in the midst
of their subjects: we might imagine ourselves in the midst of
feudalism. A moment bewildered by the hammer of the great
demolisher [Richelieu], which had battered down so many
Chateaux, the mountain squires of Auvergne, Limousin, Marche
and Forez had resumed their habits under the feeble government
of Mazarin. Protected by their remoteness from Paris and the
parliament, and by the nature of the country they inhabited,
they intimidated or gained over the subaltern judges, and
committed with impunity every species of violence and
exaction. A single feature will enable us to comprehend the
state of these provinces. There were still, in the remoter
parts of Auvergne, seigniors who claimed to use the wedding
right (droit de jambage), or, at the least, to sell exemption
from this right at a high price to bridegrooms. Serfhood of
the glebe still existed in some districts. August 31, 1665, a
royal declaration, for which ample and noble reasons were
given, ordered the holding of a jurisdiction or court
'commonly called the Great Days,' in the city of Clermont, for
Auvergne, Bourbonnais, Nivernais, Forez, Beaujolais, Lyonnais,
Combrailles, Marche, and Berry. A president of parliament, a
master of requests, sixteen councillors, an attorney-general,
and a deputy procurator-general, were designated to hold these
extraordinary assizes. Their powers were almost absolute. They
were to judge without appeal all civil and criminal cases, to
punish the 'abuses and delinquencies of officers of the said
districts,' to reform bad usages, as well in the style of
procedure as in the preparation and expedition of trials, and
to try all criminal cases first. It was enjoined on bailiffs,
seneschals, their lieutenants and all other judges, to give
constant information of all kinds of crimes, in order to
prepare matter for the Great Days. A second declaration
ordered that a posse should be put into the houses of the
contumacious, that the chateaux where the least resistance was
made to the law should be razed; and forbade, under penalty of
death, the contumacious to be received or assisted.
{1236}
The publication of the royal edicts, and the prompt arrival of
Messieurs of the Great Days at Clermont, produced an
extraordinary commotion in all those regions. The people
welcomed the Parisian magistrates as liberators, and a
remarkable monument of their joy has been preserved, the
popular song or Christmas hymn of the Great Days. Terror, on
the contrary, hovered over the châteaux; a multitude of
noblemen left the province, and France, or concealed
themselves in the mountains; others endeavored to conciliate
their peasants. … The Great Days at least did with vigor
what it was their mission to do: neither dignities, nor
titles, nor high connections preserved the guilty. … The
Court of Great Days was not content with punishing evil; it
undertook to prevent its return by wise regulations: first,
against the abuses of seigniorial courts; second, against the
vexations of seigniors on account of feudal service due them;
third, concerning the mode and abbreviation of trials; and
lastly, concerning the reformation of the clergy, who had no
less need of being reformed than the nobility. The Great Days
were brought to a close after three months of assizes (end of
October, 1665—end of January, 1666), and their recollection
was consecrated by a medal."
_H. Martin,
History of France: The Age of Louis XIV:,
volume 1, chapter 2._
FRANCE: A. D.1665-1670.
The East India Company.
See INDIA: A. D. 1665-1743.
FRANCE: A. D. 1666.
Alliance with Holland against England.
See NETHERLANDS (HOLLAND): A. D. 1665-1666.
FRANCE: A. D. 1667.
The War of the Queen's Rights.
Conquests in the Spanish Netherlands.
See NETHERLANDS (SPANISH PROVINCES): A. D. 1667.
FRANCE: A. D. 1668.
The king's conquests in Flanders checked by the Triple
Alliance.
See NETHERLANDS (HOLLAND): A. D. 1668.
FRANCE: A. D. 1670.
The secret treaty of Dover.
The buying of the English king.
See ENGLAND: A. D. 1668-1670.
FRANCE: A. D. 1672-1678.
War with Holland and the Austro-Spanish Coalition.
See AUSTRIA: A. D. 1672-1714;
and NETHERLANDS (HOLLAND): A. D. 1672-1674,
and 1674-1678.
FRANCE: A. D. 1673-1682.
Discovery and exploration of the Mississippi
by Marquette and La Salle.
Possession taken of Louisiana.
See CANADA: A. D. 1634-1673, and 1669-1687.
FRANCE: A. D. 1678-1679.
The Peace of Nimeguen.
See NIMEGUEN. PEACE OF.
FRANCE: A. D. 1679-1681.
Complete absorption of Les Trois-Evêchés and Alsace.
Assumption of entire sovereignty by Louis XIV.
Encroachments of the Chambers of Reannexation.
The seizure of Strasburg.
"The Lorraine Trois-Evêchés, recovered by France from the Holy
Roman Empire, had remained in an equivocal position, as to
public law, during nearly a century, between their old and new
ties: the treaty of Westphalia had cut the knot by the formal
renunciation of the Empire to all rights over these countries;
difficulties nevertheless still subsisted relative to the
fiefs and the pendencies of Trois-Evêchés possessed by members
of the Empire. Alsace, in its turn, from the treaty of
Westphalia to the peace of Nimeguen, had offered analogous and
still greater difficulties, this province of Teutonic tongue
not having accepted the annexation to France as easily as the
Walloon province of Trois-Evêchés, and the treaty of
Westphalia presenting two contradictory clauses, one of which
ceded to France all the rights of the Emperor and the Empire,
and the other of which reserved the 'immediateness' of the
lords and the ten cities of the prefecture of Alsace towards
the Empire. …
See GERMANY: A. D. 1648.
At last, on the complaints carried to the Germanic Diet by the
ten Alsacian cities, joined by the German feudatories of
Trois-Evêchés, Louis, who was then very conciliatory towards
the Diet, consented to take for arbiters the King of Sweden
and some princes and towns of Germany (1665). The arbitration
was protracted for more than six years. In the beginning of
1672, the arbiters rendered an ambiguous decision which
decided nothing and satisfied no one. War with Holland broke
out meanwhile and changed all the relations of France with
Germany. … Louis XIV. disarmed or took military occupation
of the ten cities and silenced all opposition. … In the
conferences of Nimeguen, the representatives of the Emperor
and the Empire endeavored to return to the 'immediateness,'
but the King would not listen to a renewal of the arbitration,
and declared all debate superfluous. 'Not only,' said the
French plenipotentiaries, 'ought the King to exercise, as in
fact he does exercise, sovereign domain over the ten cities,
but he might also extend it over Strasburg, for the treaty of
Münster furnishes to this city no special title guaranteeing
its independence better than that of the other cities.' It was
the first time that Louis had disclosed this bold claim,
resting on an inaccurate assertion. The Imperialists,
terrified, yielded as regarded the ten cities, and Alsace was
not called in question in the treaty of Nimeguen. Only the
Imperialists protested, by a separate act, against the
conclusions which might be drawn from this omission. The ten
cities submitted and took to the King an oath of fidelity,
without reservation towards the Empire; their submission was
celebrated by a medal bearing the device: 'Alsatia in
provinciam reducta' (1680). The treaty of Nimeguen was
followed by divers measures destined to win the Alsacian
population. … This wise policy bore its fruits, and Alsace,
tranquillized, gave no more cause of anxiety to the French
government. France was thenceforth complete mistress of the
possessions which had been ceded to her by the Empire; this
was only the first part of the work; the point in question now
was, to complete these possessions by joining to them their
natural appendages which the Empire had not alienated. The
boundaries of Lower Alsace and the Messin district were ill
defined, encroached upon, entangled, on the Rhine, on the
Sarre, and in the Vosges, by the fiefs of a host of petty
princes and German nobles. This could not be called a
frontier. Besides, in the very heart of Alsace, the great city
of Strasburg preserved its independence towards France and its
connection with the Empire. A pacific method was invented to
proceed to aggrandizements which it would seem could only be
demanded by arms; a pacific method, provided that France could
count on the weakness and irresolution of her neighbors; this
was to investigate and revendicate everything which, by any
title and at any epoch whatsoever, had been dependent on
Alsace and Trois-Evêchés.
{1237}
We may comprehend whither this would lead, thanks to the
complications of the feudal epoch; and it was not even
designed to stop at the feudal system, but to go back to the
times of the Frankish kings! Chambers of 'reannexation' were
therefore instituted, in 1679, in the Parliament of Metz, and
in the sovereign council of Alsace, with a mission which their
title sufficiently indicated. … Among the nobles summoned,
figured the Elector of Treves, for Oberstein, Falkenburg,
etc.; the Landgrave of Hesse, for divers fiefs; the Elector
Palatine, for Seltz and the canton situated between the Lauter
and the Keich (Hogenbach, Germersheim, etc.); another prince
palatine for the county of Veldentz: the Bishop of Speyer, for
a part of his bishopric; the city of Strasburg, for the
domains which it possessed beyond the Rhine (Wasselonne and
Marlenheim); lastly, the King of Sweden, for the duchy of
Deux-Ponts or Zweibrücken, a territory of considerable extent
and of irregular form, which intersected the cis-Rhenish
Palatinate. … By divers decrees rendered in March, August,
and October, 1680, the sovereign council of Alsace adjudged to
the King the sovereignty of all the Alsacian seigniories. The
nobles and inhabitants were summoned to swear fidelity to the
King, and the nobles were required to recognize the sovereign
council as judge in last resort. The chamber of Metz acted on
a still larger scale than the chamber of Breisach. April 12,
1680, it united to Trois-Evêchés more than 80 fiefs, the
Lorraine marquisate of Pont-à-Mousson, the principality of
Salm, the counties of Saarbourg and Veldentz, the seigniories
of Sarrebourg, Bitche, Homburg, etc. The foundation of the new
town of Sarre-Louis and the fortification of Bitche
consolidated this new frontier; and not only was the course of
the Sarre secured to France, but France, crossing the Sarre,
encroached deeply on the Palatinate and the Electorate of
Treves, posted herself on the Nahe and the Blies, and threw,
as an advance-guard, on a peninsula of the Moselle, the
fortress of Mont-Royal, half-way from Treves to Coblentz, on
the territories of the county of Veldentz. The parliament of
Franche-Comté, newly French as it was, zealously followed the
example of the two neighboring courts. There was also a
frontier to round towards the Jura. … The Duke of Würtemberg
was required to swear allegiance to the King for his county of
Montbéliard. … The acquisitions made were trifling compared
with those which remained to be made. He [Louis XIV.] was not
sure of the Rhine, not sure of Alsace, so long as he had not
Strasburg, the great city always ready to throw upon the
French bank of the river the armies of the Empire. France had
long aimed at this conquest. As soon as she possessed Metz she
had dreamed of Strasburg. … Though the King and Louvois had
prevented Créqui from besieging the place during the war, it
was because they counted on surprising it after peace. This
great enterprise was most ably manœuvred." The members of the
regency of the city were gained over, one by one. "The
Imperial troops had evacuated the city pursuant to the treaty
of Nimeguen; the magistrates dismissed 1,200 Swiss which the
city had in its pay; then, on the threatening demands of the
French, they demolished anew Fort Kehl, which they had rebuilt
since its destruction by Créqui. When the fruit seemed ripe,
Louis stretched out his hand to gather it. In the latter part
of September, 1681, the garrisons of Lorraine, Franche-Comté,
and Alsace put themselves in motion. … The 28th, 35,000 men
were found assembled before the city; Baron de Montclar, who
commanded this army, informed the magistrates that 'the
sovereign chamber of Breisach having adjudged to the king the
sovereignty of all Alsace, of which Strasburg was a member,
his Majesty desired that they should recognize him as their
sovereign lord, and receive a garrison." On the 30th the
capitulation of the city was signed; on the 23d of October the
King entered Strasburg in person and was received as its
sovereign.
_H. Martin,
History of France: Age of Louis XIV.,
volume 1, chapter 7._
FRANCE: A. D. 1680.
Imprisonment of the "Man in the Iron Mask."
See IRON MASK.
FRANCE: A. D. 1681-1684.
Threatening relations with the Turks.
War with the Barbary States.
Destructive bombardment of Algiers.
See BARBARY STATES: A. D. 1664-1684.
FRANCE: A. D. 1681-1698.
Climax of the persecution of the Huguenots.
The Dragonnades.
The revocation of the Edict of Nantes.
The great exodus of French Protestants and the consequent
national loss.
"Love and war suspended for a considerable time" the ambition
of the king to extinguish heresy in his dominions and
establish uniformity of religious worship; "but when Louis
became satiated at once with glory and pleasure, and when
Madame de Maintenon, the Duke de Beauvilliers, the Duke de
Montausier, Bossuet, the Archbishop of Rheims, the Chancellor
Letellier, and all the religious portion of the court, began
to direct his now unoccupied and scrupulous mind to the
interests of religion, Louis XIV. returned to his plans with
renewed ardor. From bribery they proceeded to compulsion.
Missionaries, escorted by dragoons, spread themselves at the
instigation of Bossuet, and even of Fénelon, over the western,
southern and eastern provinces, and particularly in those
districts throughout which Protestantism, more firmly rooted
among a more tenacious people, had as yet resisted all
attempts at conversion by preaching. … Children from above
seven years of age were authorized to abjure legally the
religion of their fathers. The houses of those parents who
refused to deliver up their sons and daughters were invaded
and laid under contributions by the royal troops. The
expropriation of their homes, and the tearing asunder of
families, compelled the people to fly from persecution. The
king, uneasy at this growing depopulation, pronounced the
punishment of the galleys against those who sought liberty in
flight; he also ordered the confiscation of all the lands and
houses which were sold by those proprietors who were preparing
to quit the kingdom. … Very soon the proscription was
organized en masse: all the cavalry in the kingdom, who, on
account of the peace, were unemployed, were placed at the
disposal of the preachers and bishops, to uphold their
missions [known as the dragonnades] with the sabre. …
Bossuet approved of these persecutions. Religious and
political faith, in his eyes, justified their necessity. His
correspondence is full of evidence, while his actions prove
that he was an accomplice: even his eloquence … overflowed
with approbation of, and enthusiasm for, these oppressions of
the soul and terrors of heresy."
_A. de Lamartine,
Memoirs of Celebrated Characters,
volume 3: Bossuet._
{1238}
"The heroism of conviction, it has been truly said, was now
displayed, not in resistance, but, if the paradox may be
admitted, in flight. The outflow was for the moment arrested
at the remonstrance of Colbert, now for the last time listened
to in the royal councils, and by reason of the sympathy
aroused by the fugitives in England: but not before 3,000
families had left the country. The retirement and death of the
great minister were the signal for revived action, wherever an
assembly of Huguenots larger than usual might warrant or
colour a suspicion of rebellion. In such excuses, not as yet
an avowed crusade, the troopers of the duke de Noailles were
called in at Grenoble, Bourdeaux, and Nimes. Full forty
churches were demolished in 1683, more than a hundred in 1684.
But the system of military missions was not organized until in
1685 the defence of the Spanish frontier offered the
opportunity for a final subjugation of the Huguenots of Bearn.
The dragonnade passed through the land like a pestilence. From
Guienne to Dauphine, from Poitou to Upper Languedoc, no place
was spared. Then it pervaded the southeast country, about the
Cevennes and Provence, and ravaged Lyons and the Pays de Gex.
In the end, the whole of the north was assailed, and the
failing edict of Nantes was annulled on the 1st of October.
The sombre mind of Madame de Maintenon had postulated the
Recall as a preliminary to the marriage which the king had
already conceded. On the 21st of the month the great church at
Charenton was doomed; and on the 22nd the 'unadvised and
precipitate' Edict of Revocation was registered in the Chambre
des Vacations. … The year 1685 is fitly identified with the
depopulation of France. And yet, with a blindness that appears
to us incredible, the government refused to believe in the
desire or the possibility of escape. The penalties attached to
capture on the road,—the galleys or the nunnery,—the
vigilant watch at the frontier, the frigates cruising by every
coast, all these difficulties seem to have persuaded Louvois
that few would persist in risking flight. What these measures
actually effected was doubtless to diminish the exodus, but in
no marked degree. At length, it came to be thought that the
emigration was due to its prohibition, as though the Huguenots
must do a thing from mere perverseness. The watch was relaxed,
and a result unlooked for issued. It was the signal of the
greatest of the emigrations, that of 1688. … In the
statistical question [as to the total number of the Huguenot
exiles from France after the revocation of the edict of
Nantes] it is impossible to arrive at a certain result; and
the range which calculation or conjecture has allowed to
successive historians may make one pause before attempting a
dogmatic solution. Basnage, a year after the Recall, reckoned
the emigrants above 150,000: next year Jurieu raised the total
above 200,000. Writing later Basnage found between 300,000 and
400,000; and the estimate has been accepted by Sismondi.
Lastly Voltaire, followed in our own day by Hase, counted
500,000. These are a few of the sober calculations, and their
mean will perhaps supply the ultimate figure. I need only
mention, among impossible guesses, that of Limiers, which
raises the account to 800,000, because it has been taken up by
the Prussian statesman Von Dohm. … The only historian who
professes to have pursued the enquiry in exact detail is
Capefigue; and from his minute scrutiny of the cartons des
généralités, as prepared in the closing years of the 17th
century, he obtains a computation of 225,000 or 230,000. Such
a result must be accepted as the absolute minimum; for it was
the plain interest of the intendants who drew up the returns,
to put all the facts which revealed the folly of the king's
action at the lowest cipher. And allowing the accuracy of
Capefigue's work, there are other reasons for increasing his
total. … We cannot set the emigration at a lower fraction
than one-fifth of the total Huguenot society. If the body
numbered two millions, the outflow will be 400,000. If this
appear an extreme estimate, it must be remembered that
one-fifth is also extreme on the other side. Reducing the
former aggregate to 1,500,000, it will be clearly within the
bounds of moderation to leave the total exodus a range between
300,000 and 350,000. How are we to distribute this immense
aggregation? Holland certainly claims near 100,000; England,
with Ireland and America, probably 80,000. Switzerland must
have received 25,000; and Germany, including Brandenburg,
thrice that number. The remainder will be made up from the
north of Europe, and from the exiles whom commerce or other
causes carried in isolated households elsewhere, and of whom
no record is preserved to us. … The tale then of the
emigrants was above 300,000. It follows to ask what was the
material loss involved in their exodus. Caveirac is again the
lowest in his estimate: he will not grant the export of more
than 250,000 livres. He might have learnt from Count d'Avaux
himself, that those least likely to magnify the sum confessed
that by the very year of the Recall twenty million livres had
gone out of the country; and it is certain that the wealthier
merchants deferred their departure in order to carry as much
as they could with them. Two hundred and fifty traders are
said to have quitted Rouen in 1687 and 1688. Probably the
actual amount was very far in excess of these twenty millions:
and a calculation is cited by Macpherson which even affirms
that every individual refugee in England brought with him on
an average money or effects to the value of £60. … It will
be needless to add many statistics of the injury caused by
their withdrawal from France. Two great instances are typical
of the rest. Lyons which had employed 18,000 silk-looms had
but 4,000 remaining by the end of the century. Tours with the
same interest had had 800 mills, 80,000 looms, and perhaps
4,000 work-people. Of its 3,000 ribbon-factories only sixty
remained: Equally significant was the ruin of the woollen
trade of Poitou. Little was left of the drugget-manufacture of
Coulonges and Châtaigneraie, or of the industry in serges and
bombazines at Thouars; and the export traffic between
Châtaigneraie and Canada, by way of La Rochelle, was in the
last year of the century absolutely extinct."
_R. L. Poole,
History of the Huguenots of the Dispersion,
chapters 3 and 15._
ALSO IN:
_C. Weiss,
History of the French Protestant Refugees._
_N. Peyrat,
The Pastors in the Wilderness,
volume 1, chapters 5-7._
_A. Maury,
Memoirs of a Huguenot Family
(Fontaine), chapters 4-9._
_J. I. von Döllinger,
Studies in European History,
chapters 11-12._
_C. W. Baird,
History of the Huguenot Emigration to America,
chapters 4-8 (volumes 1-2)._
FRANCE: A. D. 1686.
Claims upon the Palatinate.
Formation of the League of Augsburg.
See GERMANY: A. D. 1686.
{1239}
FRANCE: A. D. 1689-1690.
War of the League of Augsburg.
The second devastation of the Palatinate.
"The interference of Lewis in Ireland on behalf of James [the
Second, the dethroned Stuart king] caused William [prince of
Orange, now King of England] to mature his plans for a great
Continental confederacy against France. On May 12, 1689,
William, as Stadtholder of the United Provinces, had entered
into an offensive and defensive alliance with the Emperor
against Lewis. On May 17, as King of England, he declared war
against France; and on December 30 joined the alliance between
the Emperor and the Dutch. His example was followed on June 6,
1690, by the King of Spain, and on October 20 of the same year
by Victor Amadeus, Duke of Savoy. This confederation was
called the 'Grand Alliance.' Its main object was declared to
be to curb the power and ambition of Lewis XIV.; to force him
to surrender his conquests, and to confine his territories to
the limits agreed upon between him and the Emperor at the
treaty of Westphalia (1648), and between France and Spain at
the treaty of the Pyrenees (1659). The League of Augsburg,
which William had with so much trouble brought about, had now
successfully developed into the Grand Alliance."
_E. Hale,
The Fall of the Stuarts and Western Europe,
chapter 14, section 5._
"The work at which William had toiled indefatigably during
many gloomy and anxious years was at length accomplished. The
great coalition was formed. It was plain that a desperate
conflict was at hand. The oppressor of Europe would have to
defend himself against England allied with Charles the Second
King of Spain, with the Emperor Leopold, and with the Germanic
and Batavian federations, and was likely to have no ally
except the Sultan, who was waging war against the House of
Austria on the Danube. Lewis had, towards the close of the
preceding year, taken his enemies at a disadvantage, and had
struck the first blow before they were prepared to parry it.
But that blow, though heavy, was not aimed at the part where
it might have been mortal. Had hostilities been commenced on
the Batavian frontier, William and his army would probably
have been detained on the continent, and James might have
continued to govern England. Happily, Lewis, under an
infatuation which many pious Protestants confidently ascribed
to the righteous judgment of God, had neglected the point on
which the fate of the whole civilised world depended, and had
made a great display of power, promptitude, and energy, in a
quarter where the most splendid achievements could produce
nothing more than an illumination and a Te Deum. A French army
under the command of Marshal Duras had invaded the Palatinate
and some of the neighbouring principalities. But this
expedition, though it had been completely successful, and
though the skill and vigour with which it had been conducted
had excited general admiration, could not perceptibly affect
the event of the tremendous struggle which was approaching.
France would soon be attacked on every side. It would be
impossible for Duras long to retain possession of the
provinces which he had surprised and overrun. An atrocious
thought rose in the mind of Louvois, who, in military affairs,
had the chief sway at Versailles. … The ironhearted
statesman submitted his plan, probably with much management
and with some disguise, to Lewis; and Lewis, in an evil hour
for his fame, assented. Duras received orders to turn one of
the fairest regions of Europe into a wilderness. Fifteen years
had elapsed since Turenne had ravaged part of that fine
country. But the ravages committed by Turenne, though they
have left a deep stain on his glory, were mere sport in
comparison with the horrors of this second devastation. The
French commander announced to near half a million of human
beings that he granted them three days of grace, and that,
within that time, they must shift for themselves. Soon the
roads and fields, which then lay deep in snow, were blackened
by innumerable multitudes of men, women, and children flying
from their homes. Many died of cold and hunger: but enough
survived to fill the streets of all the cities of Europe with
lean and squalid beggars, who had once been thriving farmers
and shopkeepers. Meanwhile the work of destruction began. The
flames went up from every marketplace, every hamlet, every
parish church, every country seat, within the devoted
provinces. The fields where the corn had been sown were
ploughed up. The orchards were hewn down. No promise of a
harvest was left on the fertile plains near what had once been
Frankenthal. Not a vine, not an almond tree, was to be seen on
the slopes of the sunny hills round what had once been
Heidelberg. No respect was shown to palaces, to temples, to
monasteries, to infirmaries, to beautiful works of art, to
monuments of the illustrious dead. The far-famed castle of the
Elector Palatine was turned into a heap of ruins. The
adjoining hospital was sacked. The provisions, the medicines,
the pallets on which the sick lay, were destroyed. The very
stones on which Manheim had been built were flung into the
Rhine. The magnificent Cathedral of Spires perished, and with
it the marble sepulchres of eight Cæsars. The coffins were
broken open. The ashes were scattered to the winds. Treves,
with its fair bridge, its Roman baths and amphitheatre, its
venerable churches, convents, and colleges, was doomed to the
same fate. But, before this last crime had been perpetrated,
Lewis was recalled to a better mind by the execrations of all
the neighbouring nations, by the silence and confusion of his
flatterers, and by the expostulations of his wife. … He
relented; and Treves was spared. In truth he could hardly fail
to perceive that he had committed a great error. The
devastation of the Palatinate, while it had not in any
sensible degree lessened the power of his enemies, had
inflamed their animosity, and had furnished them with
inexhaustible matter for invective. The cry of vengeance rose
on every side. Whatever scruple either branch of the House of
Austria might have felt about coalescing with Protestants was
completely removed."
_Lord Macaulay,
History of England,
chapter 11._
ALSO IN:
_H. Martin,
History of France: Age of Louis XIV.
(translated by M. L. Booth), volume 2, chapter 2._
_S. A. Dunham,
History of the German Empire,
book 3, chapter 3 (volume. 3)._
See, also, CANADA: A. D. 1689-1690.
FRANCE: A. D. 1689-1691.
Aid to James II. in Ireland.
See IRELAND: A. D. 1689-1691.
{1240}
FRANCE: A. D. 1689-1691.
Campaigns in the Netherlands and in Savoy.
"Our limits will not permit us to describe at any length the
war between Louis XIV. and the Grand Alliance, which lasted
till the Peace of Ryswick, in 1697, but only to note some of
the chief incidents of the different campaigns. The
Imperialists had, in 1689, notwithstanding the efforts it was
still necessary to make against the Turks, brought an army of
80,000 men into the field, which was divided into three bodies
under the command of the Duke of Lorraine, the Elector of
Bavaria, and the Elector of Brandenburg; while the Prince of
Waldeck, in the Netherlands, was at the head of a large Dutch
and Spanish force, composed, however, in great part of German
mercenaries. In this quarter, Marshal d'Humières was opposed
to Waldeck, while Duras commanded the French army on the
Rhine. In the south, the Duke of Noailles maintained a French
force in Catalonia. Nothing of much importance was done this
year; but on the whole the war went in favour of the
imperialists, who succeeded in recovering Mentz and Bonn.
1690: This year, Marshal d'Humières was superseded by the Duke
of Luxembourg, who infused more vigour into the French
operations. … Catinat was sent this year into Dauphiné to
watch the movements of the Duke of Savoy, who was suspected by
the French Court, and not without reason, of favouring the
Grand Alliance. The extravagant demands of Louis, who required
Victor Amadeus to unite his troops with the army of Catinat,
and to admit a French garrison into Vercelli, Verrua, and even
the citadel of Turin itself, till a general peace should be
effected, caused the Duke to enter into treaties with Spain
and the Emperor, June 3d and 4th; and on October 20th, he
joined the Grand Alliance by a treaty concluded at the Hague
with England and the States-General. This last step was taken
by Victor Amadeus in consequence of his reverses. He had
sustained from Catinat in the battle of Staffarda (August
17th) a defeat which only the skill of a youthful general, his
cousin the Prince Eugene, had saved from becoming a total
rout. As the fruits of this victory, Catinat occupied Saluzzo,
Susa, and all the country from the Alps to the Tanaro. During
these operations another French division had reduced, without
much resistance, the whole of Savoy, except the fortress of
Montmélian. The only other event of importance during this
campaign was the decisive victory gained by Luxembourg over
Prince Waldeck at Fleurus, July 1st. The captured standards,
more than a hundred in number, which Luxembourg sent to Paris
on this occasion, obtained for him the name of the 'Tapassier
de Notre Dame.' Luxembourg was, however, prevented from
following up his victory by the orders of Louvois, who forbade
him to lay siege to Namur or Charleroi. Thus, in this
campaign, France maintained her preponderance on land as well
as at sea by the victory off Beachy Head. …
See ENGLAND: A. D. 1690.
The Imperialists had this year lost one of their best leaders
by the death of the Duke of Lorraine (April). He was succeeded
as commander-in-chief by Maximilian Emanuel, Elector of
Bavaria; but nothing of importance took place upon the Rhine.
1691: The campaign of this year was singularly barren of
events, though both the French and English kings took a
personal part in it. In March, Louis and Luxembourg, laid
siege to Mons, the capital of Hainault, which surrendered in
less than three weeks. King William, who was in the
neighbourhood, could not muster sufficient troops to venture
on its relief. Nothing further of importance was done in this
quarter, and the campaign in Germany was equally a blank. On
the side of Piedmont, Catinat took Nice, but, being confronted
by superior numbers, was forced to evacuate Piedmont; though,
by way of compensation, he completed the conquest of Savoy by
the capture of Montmélian. Noailles gained some trifling
successes in Spain; and the celebrated French corsair, Jean
Bart, distinguished himself by his enterprises at sea. One of
the most remarkable events of the year was a domestic
occurrence, the death of Louvois."
_T. H. Dyer,
History of Modern Europe,
book 5, chapter 5 (volume 3)._
ALSO IN:
_F. P. Guizot,
Popular History of France,
chapter 44 (volume 5)._
FRANCE: A. D. 1692.
The taking of Namur and the victory of Steinkirk, or
Steenkerke.
Never perhaps in the whole course of his unresting life were
the energies of William [of Orange] more severely taxed, and
never did his great moral and intellectual qualities shine
forth with a brighter lustre, than in the years 1692-93.
See ENGLAND: A. D. 1692.
The great victory of La Hogue and the destruction of the
flower of the French fleet did, it is true, relieve England of
any immediate dread either of insurrection or invasion, and so
far the prospect before him acquired a slight improvement
towards the summer of 1692. But this was the only gleam of
light in the horizon. … The great coalition of Powers which
he had succeeded in forming to resist the ambition of Louis
was never nearer dissolution than in the spring of 1692. The
Scandinavian states, who had held aloof from it from the
first, were now rapidly changing the benevolence of their
neutrality into something not easily distinguishable from its
reverse. The new Pope Innocent XII. showed himself far less
amicably disposed towards William than his two predecessors.
The decrepitude of Spain and the arrogant self-will of Austria
were displaying themselves more conspicuously than ever. Savoy
was ruled by a duke who was more than half suspected of being
a traitor. … William did succeed in saving the league from
dissolution, and in getting their armies once more into the
field. But not, unfortunately, to any purpose. The campaign of
the present year was destined to repeat the errors of the
last, and these errors were to be paid for at a heavier cost.
… The French king was bent upon the capture of the great
stronghold of Namur, and the enemy, as in the case of Mons,
were too slow in their movements and too ineffective in their
dispositions to prevent it. Marching to the assault of the
doomed city, with a magnificence of courtly pageantry which
had never before been witnessed in warfare, Louis sat down
before Namur, and in eight days its faint-hearted governor,
the nominee of the Spanish viceroy of the Netherlands,
surrendered at discretion. Having accomplished, or rather
having graciously condescended to witness the accomplishment
of this feat of arms, Louis returned to Versailles, leaving
his army under the command of Luxembourg. The fall of Namur
was a severe blow to the hopes of William, but yet worse
disasters were in store for him. He was now pitted against one
who enjoyed the reputation of the greatest general of the age,
and William, a fair but by no means brilliant strategist, was
unequal to the contest with his accomplished adversary.
{1241}
Luxembourg lay at Steinkirk, and William approaching him from
a place named Lambeque, opened his attack upon him by a
well-conceived surprise which promised at first to throw the
French army into complete disorder. Luxembourg's resource and
energy, however, were equal to the emergency. He rallied and
steadied his troops with astonishing speed, and the nature of
the ground preventing the allies from advancing as rapidly as
they had expected, they found the enemy in a posture to
receive them. The British forces were in the front, commanded
by Count Solmes, the division of Mackay, a name now honourable
for many generations in the annals of continental, no less
than of Scottish, warfare, leading the way. These heroes, for
so, though as yet untried soldiers, they approved themselves,
were to have been supported by Count Solmes with a strong body
of cavalry and infantry, but at the critical moment he failed
them miserably, and his failure decided the fortunes of the
day. … The division was practically annihilated. Its five
regiments, 'Cutt's, Mackay's, Angus's, Graham's, and Leven's,
all,' as Corporal Trim relates pathetically, cut to pieces,
and so had the English Life-guards been too, had it not been
for some regiments on the right, who marched up boldly to
their relief, and, received the enemy's fire in their faces,
before anyone of their own platoons discharged a musket.'
Bitter was the resentment in the English army at the desertion
of these gallant troops by Count de Solmes, and William gave
vent to one of his rare outbursts of anger at the sight. We
have it indeed on the authority above quoted—unimpeachable as
first-hand tradition, for Sterne had heard the story of these
wars at the knees of an eye-witness of and actor in them—that
the King 'would not suffer the Count to come into his presence
for many months after.' The destruction of Mackay's division
had indeed decided the issue of the struggle. Luxembourg's
army was being rapidly strengthened by reinforcements from
that of Boufflers, and there was nothing for it but retreat.
The loss on both sides had been great, but the moral effect of
the victory was still greater. William's reputation for
generalship, perhaps unduly raised by his recent exploits in
Ireland, underwent a serious decline."
_H. D. Traill,
William the Third,
chapter 10._
On the Rhine and on the Spanish frontier nothing of importance
occurred during 1692. The Duke of Savoy gained some advantages
on his side and invaded Dauphiny, without any material result.
The invasion called into action a young heroine, Mademoiselle
de La Tour-du-Pin, whose portrait has a place at Saint-Denis
by the side of that of Jeanne D'Arc.
_H. Martin,
History of France: Age of Louis XIV.,
volume 2, chapter 2._
ALSO IN:
_W. H. Torriano,
William the Third,
chapter 20._
FRANCE: A. D. 1693 (July).
The Battle of Neerwinden, or Landen.
"Lewis had determined not to make any advance towards a
reconciliation with the new government of England till the
whole strength of his realm had been put forth in one more
effort. A mighty effort in truth it was, but too exhausting to
be repeated. He made an immense display of force at once on
the Pyrenees and on the Alps, on the Rhine and on the Meuse,
in the Atlantic and in the Mediterranean. That nothing might
be wanting which could excite the martial ardour of a nation
eminently high-spirited, he instituted, a few days before he
left his palace for the camp, a new military order of
knighthood, and placed it under the protection of his own
sainted ancestor and patron. The cross of Saint Lewis shone on
the breasts of the gentlemen who had been conspicuous in the
trenches before Mons and Namur, and on the fields of Fleurus
and Steinkirk. … On the 18th of May Lewis left Versailles.
Early in June he was under the walls of Namur. The Princesses,
who had accompanied him, held their court within the fortress. He
took under his immediate command the army of Boufflers, which
was encamped at Gembloux. Little more than a mile off lay the
army of Luxemburg. The force collected in that neighbourhood
under the French lilies did not amount to less than 120,000
men. Lewis had flattered himself that he should be able to
repeat in 1693 the stratagem by which Mons had been taken in
1691 and Namur in 1692; and he had determined that either
Liege or Brussels should be his prey. But William had this
year been able to assemble in good time a force, inferior
indeed to that which was opposed to him, but still formidable.
With this force he took his post near Louvain, on the road
between the two threatened cities, and watched every movement
of the enemy. … Just at this conjuncture Lewis announced his
intention to return instantly to Versailles, and to send the
Dauphin and Boufflers, with part of the army which was
assembled near Namur, to join Marshal Lorges who commanded in
the Palatinate. Luxemburg was thunderstruck. He expostulated
boldly and earnestly. Never, he said, was such an opportunity
thrown away. … The Marshal reasoned: he implored: he went on
his knees: but all was vain; and he quitted the royal presence
in the deepest dejection. Lewis left the camp a week after he
had joined it, and never afterwards made war in person. …
Though the French army in the Netherlands had been weakened by
the departure of the forces commanded by the Dauphin and
Boufflers, and though the allied army was daily strengthened
by the arrival of fresh troops, Luxemburg still had a
superiority of force; and that superiority he increased by an
adroit stratagem." He succeeded by a feint in inducing William
to detach 20,000 men from his army and to send them to Liege.
He then moved suddenly upon the camp of the allies, with
80,000 men, and found but 50,000 to oppose him. "It was still
in the [English] King's power, by a hasty retreat, to put
between his army and the enemy the narrow, but deep, waters of
the Gette, which had lately been swollen by rains. But the
site which he occupied was strong; and it could easily be made
still stronger. He set all his troops to work. Ditches were
dug, mounds thrown up, palisades fixed in the earth. In a few
hours the ground wore a new aspect; and the King trusted that
he should be able to repel the attack even of a force greatly
outnumbering his own. … On the left flank, the village of
Romsdorff rose close to the little stream of Landen, from
which the English have named the disastrous day. On the right
was the village of Neerwinden. Both villages were, after the
fashion of the Low Countries, surrounded by moats and fences.
"Notwithstanding the strength of the position held by the
allies, and the valor with which they defended it, they were
driven out of Neerwinden [July 29]—but only after the
shattered village had been five times taken and retaken—and
across the Gette, in confusion and with heavy loss.
{1242}
"The French were victorious: but they had bought their victory
dear. More then 10,000 of the best troops of Lewis had fallen.
Neerwinden was a spectacle at which the oldest soldiers stood
aghast. The streets were piled breast high with corpses. Among
the slain were some great lords and some renowned warriors.
… The region, renowned as the battle field, through many
ages, of the greatest powers of Europe, has seen only two more
terrible days, the day of Malplaquet and the day of Waterloo.
… There was no pursuit, though the sun was still high in the
heaven when William crossed the Gette. The conquerors were so
much exhausted by marching and fighting that they could
scarcely move. … A very short delay was enough for William.
… Three weeks after his defeat he held a review a few miles
from Brussels. The number of men under arms was greater than
on the morning of the bloody day of Landen: their appearance
was soldierlike; and their spirit seemed unbroken. William now
wrote to Heinsius that the worst was over. 'The crisis,' he
said, 'has been a terrible one. Thank God that it has ended
thus.' He did not, however, think it prudent to try at that
time the event of another pitched field. He therefore suffered
the French to besiege and take Charleroi; and this was the
only advantage which they derived from the most sanguinary
battle fought in Europe during the seventeenth century."
_Lord Macaulay,
History of England,
chapter 20 (volume 4)._
ALSO IN:
_G. Burnet,
History of My Own Time,
book 5 (1693), volume 4._
_Duc de Saint-Simon,
Memoirs (translated by St. John),
volume 1, chapter 4._
FRANCE: A. D. 1693 (October).
Defeat of the Duke of Savoy at Marsaglia.
"The great efforts made by Louis in the north prevented him
from strengthening the army of Catinat sufficiently to act
with energy against the Savoyard prince, and it was determined
to restrict the campaign of 1693 to the defensive on the part
of France. The forces of the duke had in the meantime been
reinforced from Germany, and he opened the campaign with a
brilliant and successful movement against Pignerol. … He is
said to have entertained hopes of carrying the war in that one
campaign to the very gates of Lyons; but the successes which
inspired him with such expectations alarmed the court of
France, and Louis detached in haste a large body of cavalry to
reinforce Catinat. That general marched at once to fight the Duke
of Savoy, who, presuming on his strength, suffered the French
to pour out from the valley of Suza into the plain of
Piedmont, abandoned the heights, and was consequently defeated
at Marsaglia on the 4th of October. Catinat, however, could not
profit by his victory; he was too ill supplied in every
respect to undertake the siege of Coni, and the state of the
French armies at this time marks as plainly that Louvois was
dead, as the state of the finances speaks the loss of
Colbert."
_G. P. R. James,
Life and Times of Louis XIV.,
volume 2, chapter 11._
FRANCE: A. D. 1694.
Campaigns without battles.
Operations at sea.
In 1694, King William was "in a position to keep an army afoot
in the Netherlands stronger than any had hitherto been. It was
reckoned at 31,800 horse, including a corps of dragoons, and
58,000 foot; so great a force had never been seen within the
memory of man. All the best-known generals, who had hitherto
taken part in the wars of western Europe, were gathered round
him with their troops. The French army, with which the
Dauphin, but not the King, was present, was not much smaller;
it was once more led by Marshal Luxembourg. These two hosts
lay over against one another in their camps for a couple of
months; neither offered battle to the other. … This campaign
is notable in the annals of the art of war for the skill with
which each force pursued or evaded the other; but the results
were limited to the recovery by the allies of that unimportant
place, Huy. William had thought himself fortunate in having
come out of the previous campaign without disaster: in this
campaign the French were proud to have held their lines in
presence of a superior force. On the coast also the French
were successful in repelling a most vehement and perilous
attack. They had been warned that the English were going to
fall on Brest, and Vauban was sent down there in haste to
organise the defence; and in this he was thoroughly
successful. When the English landed on the coast in Camaret
Bay (for the fort of that name had first to be taken) they
were saluted by two batteries, which they had never detected,
and which were so well placed that every shot told, and the
grape-shot wounded almost every man who had ventured ashore.
The gallant General, Talmash, was also hit, and ere long died
of his wounds. The English fleet, which had come to bombard
Brest, was itself bombarded from the walls. But though this
great effort failed, the English fleet still held the mastery
of the Channel: it also blockaded the northern coast of
France. After Brest it attacked Dieppe, laying it almost
entirely in ashes; thence it sailed to Havre, and St. Malo, to
Calais, and Dunkirk. This was of great use in the conduct of
the war. King William observes that had not the coasts been
kept in a state of alarm, all the forces detained there for
defensive purposes would have been thrown on the Netherlands.
… But the most important result of the maritime war lay on
another side. In May, 1694, Noailles pushed into Catalonia,
supported by Tourville, who lay at anchor with the fleet in
the Bay of Rosas. … It was of incalculable importance to
Spain to be in alliance with the maritime powers. Strengthened
by a Dutch fleet and some Spanish ships, Admiral Russell now
appeared in the Mediterranean. He secured Barcelona from the
French, who would never have been kept out of the city by the
Spaniards alone. The approach of the English fleet had at this
time the greatest influence in keeping the Duke of Savoy
staunch to the confederation. In Germany the rise of the house
of Hanover to the Electoral dignity had now caused most
unpleasant complications. A shoal of German princes, headed by
the King of Denmark, as a Prince of the Empire, and offended
by the preference shown to Hanover, inclined, if not to
alliance with France, at least to neutrality. … We can have
no conception, and in this place we cannot possibly
investigate, with what unbroken watchfulness King William,
supported by Heinsius, looked after the German and the
Northern courts, so as to keep their irritation from reacting
on the course of the great war. … When the French, in June,
1694, crossed the Rhine, meaning, as they boasted with true
Gallic arrogance, soon to dip their swords in the Danube, they
found the Prince of Baden so well prepared, and posted so
strongly near Wisloch, that they did not venture to attack
him. … The general result is this: neither side was as yet
really superior to the other: but the French power was
everywhere checked and held within bounds by the arms and
influence of William III."
_L. von Ranke,
History of England, 17th Century,
book 20, chapter 6 (volume 5)._
{1243}
FRANCE: A. D. 1695-1696.
The end of the War of the League of Augsburg.
Loss of Namur.
Terms with Savoy.
The Peace of Ryswick.
"Military and naval efforts were relaxed on all sides: on the
Rhine the Prince of Baden and the Marechal de Lorges, both ill
in health, did little but observe each other; and though the
Duke of Savoy made himself master of Casal on the 11th July,
1695, no other military event of any consequence took place on
the side of Italy, where Louis entered into negotiations with
the duke, and succeeded, in the following year, in detaching
him from the league of Augsburg. As the price of his defection
the whole of his territories were to be restored to him, with
the exception of Suza, Nice, and Montmeillan, which were
promised to be delivered also on the signature of a general
peace. Money was added to render the consent of a needy prince
more ready. … The duke promised to obtain from the emperor a
pledge that Italy should be considered as neutral ground, and
if the allies refused such a pledge, then to join the forces
of Savoy to those of France, and give a free passage to the
French through his dominions. In consequence of this treaty
… he applied to the emperor for a recognition of the
neutrality of Italy, and was refused. He then hastened, with a
facility which distinguished him through life, to abandon his
friends and join his enemies, and within one month was
generalissimo for the emperor in Italy fighting against
France, and generalissimo for the King of France in Italy
fighting against the emperor. Previous to this change,
however, the King of England opened the campaign of 1695 in
the Netherlands by the siege of Namur. The death of Luxemburg
had placed the French army of Flanders under the command of
the incapable Marshal Villeroi: and William, feeling that his
enemy was no longer to be much respected, assumed at once the
offensive. He concealed his design upon Namur under a variety
of manœuvres which kept the French generals in suspense; and,
then leaving the Prince of Vaudemont to protect the principal
Spanish towns in Flanders, he collected his troops suddenly;
and while the Duke of Bavaria invested Namur, he covered the
operations of the siege with a considerable force. Villeroi
now determined to attack the Prince of Vaudemont, but twice
suffered him to escape: and then, after having apparently
hesitated for some time how to drive or draw the King of
England from the attack upon Namur, he resolved to bombard the
city of Brussels, never pretending to besiege it, but alleging
as his motive for a proceeding which was merely destructive,
the bombardment of the maritime towns of France by the
English. During three days he continued to fire upon the city,
ruining a great part thereof, and then withdrew to witness the
surrender of the citadel of Namur on the 2nd September, the
town itself having capitulated on the 4th of the preceding
month. As some compensation, though but a poor one, for the
loss of Namur, and the disgrace of the French arms in
suffering such a city to be captured in the presence of 80,000
men, Montal took Dixmude and Deynse in the course of June. …
The only after-event of any importance which occurred in
Flanders during this war, was the capture of Ath by the
French, in the year 1697, while negotiations for peace were
going on with activity at Ryswick. … Regular communications
regarding peace having been once established, Ryswick, near
the Hague, was appointed for the meeting of plenipotentiaries;
and Harlay, Torci, and Callières appeared at that place as
representatives of Louis. The articles which had been formerly
sketched out at Utrecht formed the base of the treaties now
agreed upon; and Louis yielded far more than could have been
expected from one so proud and so successful."
_G. P. R. James,
Life and Times of Louis XIV.,
volume 2, chapter 11._
ALSO IN:
_T. H. Dyer,
History of Modern Europe,
volume 3, chapter 5._
_Sir J. Dalrymple,
Memoirs of Great Britain and Ireland,
part 3, book 4 (volume 3)._
FRANCE: A. D. 1697 (April).
The sacking of Carthagena.
See CARTHAGENA: A. D. 1697.
FRANCE: A. D. 1697.
The Peace of Ryswick.
"The Congress for the treaty or series of treaties that was to
terminate the great European war, which had now lasted for
upwards of nine years, was held at Ryswick, a château near the
Hague. The conferences were opened in May, 1697. Among the
countries represented were Sweden, Austria, France, Spain,
England, Holland, Denmark and the various States of the German
Empire. The treaties were signed, in severalty, between the
different States, except Austria, in September and October,
1697, and with the Emperor, in November. The principal
features of the treaty were, as between France and Spain,
that, the former country was to deliver to Spain Barcelona,
and other places in Catalonia; also various places which
France had taken in the Spanish Netherlands, during the war,
including Luxembourg and its Duchy, Charleroi, Mons and
Courtrai. Various others were excepted, to be retained by
France, as dependencies of French possessions. The principal
stipulations of the treaty, as between France and Great
Britain, were that France formally recognized William III. as
lawful king of Great Britain, and agreed not to trouble him in
the possession of his dominions, and not to assist his
enemies, directly or indirectly. This article had particular
relation to the partisans of the exiled Stuart king, then
living in France. By another article, all places taken by
either country in America, during the war, were to be
relinquished, and the Principality of Orange and its estates
situated in the south of France were to be restored to
William. In the treaty with Holland, certain possessions in
the East Indies were to be restored to the Dutch East India
Company: and important articles of commerce were appended,
among which the principle was laid down that free ships should
make free goods, not contraband of war. By the treaty with the
Emperor and the German States, the Treaties of Westphalia and
Nymeguen were recognized as the basis of the Treaty of
Ryswick, with such exceptions only as were to be provided in
the latter treaty. France also was to give up all territory
she had occupied or controlled before or during the war under
the name of 'reunions,' outside of Alsace, but the Roman
Catholic religion was to be preserved in Alsace as it then
existed.
{1244}
This concession by France included among other places
Freiburg, Brisach, and Treves; and certain restitutions were
to be made by France, in favor of Spire, the Electors of
Treves, and Brandenburg and the Palatinate; also, others in
favor of certain of the smaller German Princes. The city of
Strasburg, in return, was formally ceded to France, … and
the important fort of Kehl was yielded to the Empire. The
navigation of the Rhine was to be free to all persons. The
Duke of Lorraine was to be restored to his possessions with
such exceptions as were provided in the treaty. By the terms
of this treaty, a more advantageous peace was given to Spain
than she had any expectation of. … Not only were the places
taken in Spain, including the numerous fortified places in
Catalonia, yielded up, but also, with some exceptions, those
in the Spanish Netherlands, and also the important territory
of Luxembourg; some places were even yielded to Spain that
France had gained under former treaties."
_J. W. Gerard,
The Peace of Utrecht,
chapter 4._
"The restitutions and cessions [from France to Germany]
comprised Treves, Germersheim, Deux-Ponts, Veldentz,
Montbéliard, Kehl, Freiburg, Breisach, Philippsburg, the
Emperor and the Empire ceding in exchange Strasbourg to the
King of France in complete sovereignty. … Louis XIV. had
consented somewhat to relax the rigor of the treaty of
Nimeguen towards the heir of the Duchy of Lorraine, nephew of
the Emperor by his mother; he restored to the young Duke
Leopold his inheritance in the condition in which Charles IV.
had possessed it before the French conquest of 1670; that is
to say, he restored Nancy, allowing only the ramparts of the
Old Town to remain, and razing all the rest of the
fortifications without the power of restoring them; he kept
Marsal, an interior place calculated to hold Lorraine in
check, and also Sarre-Louis, a frontier-place which separated
Lorraine from the Germanic provinces; he restored Bitche and
Homburg dismantled, without power to reestablish them, and
kept Longwy in exchange for a domain of similar value in one
of the Trois-Evêchés; finally, he no longer demanded, as at
Nimeguen, four great strategic routes through Lorraine, and
consented that the passage should always be open to his
troops. The House of Lorraine was thus reestablished in its
estates after twenty-seven years of exile."
_H. Martin,
History of France: Age of Louis XIV.,
volume 2, chapter 2._
ALSO IN:
_L. von Ranke,
History of England, 17th Century,
book 20, chapter 11 (volume 5)._
See, also, CANADA: A. D. 1692-1697;
and NEWFOUNDLAND: A. D. 1694-1697.
FRANCE: A. D. 1698-1712.
The colonization of Louisiana.
Broad claims to the whole valley of the Mississippi.
See LOUISIANA: A. D. 1698-1712.
FRANCE: A. D. 1700.
Bequest of the Spanish crown to a French royal prince.
See SPAIN: A. D. 1698-1700.
FRANCE: A. D. 1701-1702.
Provocation of the Second Grand Alliance
and War of the Spanish Succession.
See SPAIN: A. D. 1701-1702,
and ENGLAND: A. D. 1701-1702.
FRANCE: A. D. 1702-1710.
The Camisard rising of the French Protestant's in the
Cévennes.
"The movement known as the War of the Camisards is an episode
of the history of Protestantism in France which, though rarely
studied in detail and perhaps but partially understood, was
not devoid of significance. When it occurred, in the summer of
1702, a period of little less than 17 years had elapsed since
Louis XIV., by his edict of Fontainebleau, October, 1685,
solemnly revoked the great and fundamental law enacted by his
grandfather, Henry IV., for the protection of the adherents of
the Reformed faith, known in history as the Edict of Nantes.
During the whole of that period the Protestants had submitted,
with scarcely an attempt at armed resistance, to the
proscription of their tenets: … The majority, unable to
escape from the land of oppression, remained at home …
nearly all of them cherishing the confident hope that the
king's delusion would be short-lived, and that the edict under
which they and their ancestors had lived for three generations
would, before long, be restored to them with the greater part,
if not the whole, of its beneficent provisions. Meanwhile, all
the Protestant ministers having been expelled from France by
the same law that prohibited the expatriation of any of the
laity, the people of the Reformed faith found themselves
destitute of the spiritual food they craved. True, the new
legislation affected to regard that faith as dead, and
designated all the former adherents of Protestantism, without
distinction, as the 'New Converts,' 'Nouveaux Convertis.' And,
in point of fact, the great majority had so far yielded to the
terrible pressure of the violent measures brought to bear upon
them … that they had consented to sign a promise to be
're-united' to the Roman Catholic Church, or had gone at least
once to mass. But they were still Protestants at heart. …
Under these circumstances, feeling more than ever the need of
religious comfort, now that remorse arose for a weak betrayal
of conscientious conviction, the proscribed Protestants,
especially in the south of France, began to meet clandestinely
for divine worship in such retired places as seemed most
likely to escape the notice of their vigilant enemies. … It
was not strange that in so exceptional a situation, a phase of
religious life and feeling equally exceptional should manifest
itself. I refer to that appearance of prophetic inspiration
which attracted to the province of Vivarais and to the
Cévennes Mountains the attention of all Europe. …
Historically … the influence of the prophets of the Cévennes
was an important factor in the Protestant problem of the end
of the 17th and the commencement of the 18th centuries. …
Various methods were adopted to put an end to the prophets
with their prophecies, which were for the most part
denunciatory of Rome as Antichrist and foreshadowed the
approaching fall of the papacy. But this form of enthusiasm
had struck a deep root and it was hard to eradicate it.
Imprisonment, in convent or jail, was the most common
punishment, especially in the case of women. Not infrequently
to imprisonment was, added corporal chastisement, and the
prophets, male and female, were flogged until they might be
regarded as fully cured of their delusion. … But no
utterances of prophets, however fervid and impassioned, would
have sufficed to occasion an uprising of the inhabitants of
the Cévennes Mountains, had it not been for the virulent
persecution to which the latter found themselves exposed at
the hands of the provincial authorities directly instigated
thereto by the clergy of the established church.
{1245}
For it must be noticed that a large part of the population of
the Cévennes was still Protestant, and made no concealment of
the fact, even though the king's ministers affected to call
them 'New Catholics,' or 'New Converts.' The region over which
the Camisard war extended with more or less violence comprised
six episcopal dioceses, which, in 1698, had an aggregate
population of about two-thirds of a million of souls. Of these
souls, though Protestantism had been dead in the eye of the
law for 13 years, fully one-fourth were still Protestant. …
The war may be said to have begun on the 24th of July, 1702,
when the Abbé du Chayla, a noted persecutor, was killed in his
house, at Pont de Montvert, by a band of 40 or 50 of the
'Nouveaux Convertis,' whom he had driven to desperation by his
cruelty to their fellow believers. If we regard its
termination to be the submission of Jean Cavalier, the most
picturesque, in the month of May, 1704, the war lasted a
little less than two years. But, although the French
government had succeeded, rather by craft than by force, in
getting rid of the most formidable of its opponents … it was
not until five or six years later—that is, until 1709 or
1710—that … comparative peace was finally restored. …
During the first months of the insurrection the exploits of
the malcontents were confined to deeds of destruction
accomplished by companies of venturesome men, who almost
everywhere eluded the pursuit of the enemy by their superior
knowledge of the intricacies of the mountain woods and paths.
The track of these companies could easily be made out; for it
was marked by the destruction of vicarages and rectories, by
the smoke of burned churches, too often by the corpses of
slain priests. The perpetrators of these acts of violence soon
won for themselves some special designations, to distinguish
them from the more passive Protestants who remained in their
homes, taking no open part in the struggle. … About the
close of 1702, however, or the first months of 1703, a new
word was coined for the fresh emergency, and the armed
Protestants received the appellation under which they have
passed into history—the Camisards. Passing by all the strange
and fanciful derivations of the word which seem to have no
claim upon our notice, unless it be their evident absurdity,
we have no difficulty in connecting it with those nocturnal
expeditions which were styled 'Camisades'; because the
warriors who took advantage of the darkness of the night to
ride out and explore or force the enemy's entrenchments,
sometimes threw over their armor a shirt that might enable
them to recognize each other. Others will have it that, though
the name was derived from the same article of apparel—the
'camisa' or shirt—it was applied to the Cévenol bands for
another reason, namely," that when they found opportunities,
they carried off clean linen from the villages and left their
soiled garments in exchange. The final overthrow of the
Camisards "was not accomplished without the employment of
100,000 troops, certainly far more than ten times the total
number ever brought into the field by the Camisards. … Not
less than three officers of the highest grade in the service,
marshals of France, were successively appointed to put down a
revolt which it might have been expected a simple colonel
could suffice to quell—M. de Broglie being succeeded by the
Marshal de Montrevel, the Marshal de Montrevel by the Marshal
de Villars, and the Marshal de Villars by the Marshal de
Berwick."
_H. M. Baird,
The Camisard Uprising
(Papers of the American Society of Church History,
volume 2, pages 13-34)._
ALSO IN:
_Mrs. Bray,
The Revolt of the Protestants of the Cevennes._
_N. Peyrat,
The Pastors in the Wilderness._
_S. Smiles,
The Huguenots in France after the Revocation of the Edict
of Nantes, chapters 5-8._
FRANCE: A. D. 1702-1711.
The War of the Spanish Succession in America
(called Queen Anne's War).
See NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1702-1710;
and CANADA: A. D. 1711-1713.
FRANCE: A. D. 1702-1713.
The War of the Spanish Succession in Europe.
See
ITALY: A. D. 1701-1713;
SPAIN: A.D. 1702, to 1707-1710;
GERMANY: A. D. 1702, to 1706-1711;
NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1702-1704, to 1710-1712.
FRANCE: A. D. 1702-1715.
Renewed Jesuitical persecution of the Jansenists.
The odious Bull Unigenitus and its tyrannical enforcement.
See PORT ROYAL AND THE JANSENISTS: A. D. 1702-1715.
A. D. 1710.
The War of the Spanish Succession: Misery of the nation.
Overtures for Peace.
Conferences at Gertruydenberg.
"France was still reduced to extreme and abject wretchedness.
Her finances were ruined. Her people were half starving.
Marlborough declared that in the villages through which he
passed in the summer of 1710, at least half the inhabitants
had perished since the beginning of the preceding winter, and
the rest looked as if they had come out of their graves. All
the old dreams of French conquests in the Spanish Netherlands,
in Italy, and in Germany were dispelled, and the French
generals were now struggling desperately and skilfully to
defend their own frontier. … In 1710, while the Whig
ministry [in England] was still in power, but at a time when
it was manifestly tottering to its fall, Lewis had made one
more attempt to obtain peace by the most ample concessions.
The conferences were held at the Dutch fortress of
Gertruydenberg. Lewis declared himself ready to accept the
conditions exacted as preliminaries of peace in the preceding
year, with the exception of the article compelling Philip
within two months to cede the Spanish throne. He consented, in
the course of the negotiations, to grant to the Dutch nearly
all the fortresses of the French and Spanish Netherlands,
including among others Ypres, Tournay, Lille, Furnes, and even
Valenciennes, to cede Alsace to the Duke of Lorraine, to destroy
the fortifications of Dunkirk, and those on the Rhine from
Bale to Philipsburg. The main difficulty was on the question
of the Spanish succession. … The French troops had already
been recalled from Spain, and Lewis consented to recognise the
Archduke as the sovereign, to engage to give no more
assistance to his grandchild, to place four cautionary towns
in the hands of the Dutch as a pledge for the fulfilment of
the treaty, and even to pay a subsidy to the allies for the
continuance of the war against Philip. The allies, however,
insisted that he should join with them in driving his grandson
by force of arms from Spain, and on this article the
negotiations were broken off."
_W. E. H. Lecky,
History of England in the 18th Century,
chapter 1._
See ENGLAND: A. D. 1710-1712.
{1246}
FRANCE: A. D. 1713-1714.
Ending of the War of the Spanish Succession.
The Peace of Utrecht and the Treaty of Rastadt.
See UTRECHT: A. D. 1712-1714.
FRANCE: A. D. 1714.
The desertion of the Catalans.
See SPAIN: A. D. 1713-1714.
FRANCE: A. D. 1715.
Death of Louis XIV.
The character of his reign.
Louis XIV. died September 1, 1715, at the age of 77 years,
having reigned 72 years. "Richelieu, and after him Mazarin,
governing as if they had been dictators of a republic, had
extinguished, if I may use the expression, their personality
in the idea and service of the state. Possessing only the
exercise of authority, they both conducted themselves as
responsible agents towards the sovereign and before the
judgment of the country; while Louis XIV., combining the
exercise with the right, considered himself exempted from all
rule but that of his own will, and acknowledged no
responsibility for his actions except to his own conscience.
It was this conviction of his universal power, a conviction
genuine and sincere, excluding both scruples and remorse,
which made him upset one after the other the twofold system
founded by Henry IV., of religious liberty at home, and abroad
of a national preponderance resting upon a generous protection
of the independence of states and European civilisation. At
the personal accession of Louis XIV., more than fifty years
had passed since France had pursued the work of her policy in
Europe, impartial towards the various communions of
Christians, the different forms of governments, and the
internal revolutions of the states. Although France was
catholic and monarchical, her alliances were, in the first
place, with the Protestant states of Germany and with
republican Holland; she had even made friendly terms with
regicide England. No other interest but that of the
well-understood development of the national resources had
weight in her councils, and directed the internal action of
her government. But all was changed by Louis XIV., and special
interests, the spawn of royal personality, of the principle of
the hereditary monarchy, or that of the state religion, were
admitted, soon to fly upward in the scale. Thence resulted the
overthrow of the system of the balance of power in Europe,
which might be justly called the French system, and the
abandonment of it for dreams of an universal monarchy, revived
after the example of Charles V. and Philip II. Thence a
succession of enterprises, formed in opposition to the policy
of the country, such as the war with Holland, the factions
made with a view to the Imperial crown, the support given to
James II. and the counter-revolution in England, the
acceptance of the throne of Spain for a son of France,
preserving his rights to the Crown. These causes of
misfortune, under which the kingdom was obliged to succumb,
all issued from the circumstance applauded by the nation and
conformable to the spirit of its tendencies, which, after
royalty had attained its highest degree of power under two
ministers, delivered it unlimited into the hands of a prince
endowed with qualities at once brilliant and solid, an object
of enthusiastic affection and legitimate admiration. When the
reign, which was to crown under such auspices the ascendant
march of the French monarchy, had falsified the unbounded
hopes which its commencement had excited; when in the midst of
fruitless victories and continually increasing reverses, the
people beheld progress in all the branches of public economy
changed into distress,—the ruin of the finances, industry,
and agriculture—the exhaustion of all the resources of the
country,—the impoverishment of all classes of the nation, the
dreadful misery of the population, they were seized with a
bitter disappointment of spirit, which took the place of the
enthusiasm of their confidence and love."
_A. Thierry,
Formation and Progress of the Tiers
État or Third Estate in France,
chapter 9._
FRANCE: A. D. 1715.
Accession of King Louis XV.
FRANCE: A. D. 1715-1723.
State of the kingdom at the death of Louis XIV.
The minority of Louis XV. and Regency of the Duke of Orleans.
"Louis XIV. … left France excessively exhausted. The State
was ruined, and seemed to have no resource but bankruptcy.
This trouble seemed especially imminent in 1715, after the
war, during which the government had been obliged to borrow at
400 per cent., to create new taxes, to spend in advance the
revenue of two years, and to increase the public debt to 2,400
millions. The acquisition of two provinces (Flanders,
Franche-Comté) and a few cities (Strassburg, Landau, and
Dunkirk) was no compensation for such terrible poverty.
Succeeding generations have remembered only the numerous
victories, Europe defied, France for twenty years
preponderant, and the incomparable splendor of the court of
Versailles, with its marvels of letters and arts, which have
given to the 17th century the name of the age of Louis XIV. It
is for history to show the price which France has paid for her
king's vain attempts abroad to rule over Europe, and at home
to enslave the wills and consciences of men. … The weight of
the authority of Louis XIV. had been crushing during his last
years. When the nation felt it lifted, it breathed more
freely; the court and the city burst into disrespectful
demonstrations of joy; the very coffin of the great king was
insulted. The new king [Louis XV., great-grandson of Louis
XIV.] was five years old. Who was to govern? Louis XIV. had
indeed left a will, but he had not deceived himself with
regard to the value of it. 'As soon as I am dead, it will be
disregarded; I know too well what became of the will of the
king, my father!' As after the death of Henry IV. and Louis
XIII. there was a moment of feudal reaction; but the decline
of the nobility may be measured by the successive weakening of
its efforts in each case. Under Mary de'Medici it was still able
to make a civil war; under Anne of Austria it produced the
Fronde; after Louis XIV. it only produced memorials. The Duke
of Saint-Simon desired that the first prince of the blood,
Philip of Orleans, to whom the will left only a shadow of
power, should demand the regency from the dukes and peers, as
heirs and representatives of the ancient grand vassals. But
the Duke of Orleans convoked Parliament in order to break down
the posthumous despotism of the old king, feigning that the
king had committed the government to his hands. The regency,
with the right to appoint the council of regency as he would,
was conferred upon him, and the command of the royal household
was taken from the Duke of Maine [one of the bastard sons of
Louis XIV.], who yielded this important prerogative only after
a violent altercation.
{1247}
As a reward for the services of his two allies, the Duke of
Orleans called the high nobility into affairs, by substituting
for the ministries six councils; in which they occupied almost
all the places, and accorded to Parliament the right of
remonstrance. But two years had hardly passed when the
ministries were re-established, and the Parliament again
condemned to silence. It was plain that neither nobility nor
Parliament were to be the heirs of the absolute monarchy. …
Debauchery had, until then, kept within certain limits;
cynicism of manners as well as of thought was now adopted
openly. The regent set the example. There had never been seen
such frivolity of conduct nor such licentious wit as that
exhibited in the wild meetings of the roués of the Duke of
Orleans. There had been formerly but one salon in France, that
of the king; a thousand were now open to a society which, no
longer occupied with religious questions, or with war, or the
grave futilities of etiquette, felt that pleasure and change
were necessities. … Louis XV. attained his majority February
13, 1723, being then 13 years old. This terminated the regency
of the Duke of Orleans. But the king was still to remain a
long time under tutelage; the duke, in order to retain the
power after resigning the regency, had in advance given
[Cardinal] Dubois the title of prime minister. At the death of
the wretched Dubois he took the office himself, but held it
only four months, dying of apoplexy in December, 1723."
_V. Duruy,
History of France,
chapters 52 and 55._
ALSO IN:
_W. C. Taylor,
Memoirs of the House of Orleans,
volume 1, chapters 11-17,
and volume 2, chapters 1-3._
_F. Rocquain,
The Revolutionary Spirit preceding the French Revolution,
chapter 1._
_J. B. Perkins,
France under the Regency._
FRANCE: A. D. 1717-1719.
The Triple Alliance.
The Quadruple Alliance.
War with Spain.
See SPAIN: A. D. 1713-1725;
also, ITALY: A. D. 1715-1735.
FRANCE: A. D. 1717-1720.
John Law and his Mississippi Scheme.
"When the Regent Orleans assumed the government of France, he
found its affairs in frightful confusion. The public debt was
three hundred millions; putting the debt on one side, the
expenditure was only just covered by the revenue. St. Simon
advised him to declare a national bankruptcy. De Noailles,
less scrupulous, proposed to debase the coinage. … In such
desperate circumstances, it was no wonder that the regent was
ready to catch eagerly at any prospect of success. A remedy
was proposed to him by the famous John Law of Lauriston. This
new light of finance had gambled in, and been banished from,
half the courts of Europe; he had figured in the English 'Hue
and Cry,' as 'a very tall, black, lean man, well-shaped, above
six feet high, large pock-holes in his face, big-nosed, speaks
broad and loud.' He was a big, masterful, bullying man, one of
keen intellect as well; the hero of a hundred romantic
stories. … He studied finance at Amsterdam, then the great
school of commerce, and offered his services and the 'system'
which he had invented, first to Godolphin, when that nobleman
was at the head of affairs in England, then to Victor Amadeus,
duke of Savoy, then to Louis XIV., who, as the story goes,
refused any credit to a heretic. He invented a new combination
at cards, which became the despair of all the croupiers in
Europe; so successful was this last invention, that he arrived
for the second time at Versailles, in the early days of the
regency, with upwards of £120,000 at his disposal, and a copy
of his 'system' in his pocket. … There was a dash of daring
in the scheme which suited well with the regent's peculiar
turn of mind; it was gambling on a gigantic scale. …
Besides, the scheme was plausible and to a certain point
correct. The regent, with all his faults, was too clever a man
not to recognize the genius which gleamed in Law's dark eyes.
Law showed that the trade and commerce of every country was
crippled by the want of a circulating medium; specie was not
to be had in sufficient quantities; paper, backed by the
credit of the state, was the grand secret. He adduced the
examples of Great Britain, of Genoa, and of Amsterdam to prove
the advantage of a paper currency; he proposed to institute a
bank, to be called the 'Bank of France,' and to issue notes
guaranteed by the government and secured on the crown lands,
exchangeable at sight for specie, and receivable in payment of
taxes; the bank was to be conducted in the king's name, and to
be managed by commissioners appointed by the States-General.
The scheme of Law was based on principles which are now
admitted as economical axioms; the danger lay in the enormous
extent to which it was intended to push the scheme. … While
the bank was in the hands of Law himself, it appears to have
been managed with consummate skill; the notes bore some
proportion to the amount of available specie; they contained a
promise to pay in silver of the same standard and weight as
that which existed at the time. A large dividend was declared;
then the regent stepped in. The name of the bank was changed
to that of the Royal Bank of France, the promise to pay in
silver of a certain weight and standard was dropped, and a
promise substituted to pay 'in silver coin.' This omission, on
the part of a prince who had already resorted to the expedient
of debasing the currency, was ominous, and did much to shake
public confidence; the intelligence that in the first year of
the new bank 1,000,000,000 of livres were fabricated, was not
calculated to restore it. But these trifles were forgotten in
the mad excitement which followed. Law had long been
elaborating a scheme which is for ever associated with his
name, and beside which the Bank of France sank into
insignificance. In 1717, the year before the bank had been
adopted by the regent, the billets d'état of 500 livres each
were worth about 160 livres in the market. Law, with the
assent of the regent, proposed to establish a company which
should engross all the trade of the kingdom, and all the
revenues of the crown, should carry on the business of
merchants in every part of the world, and monopolize the
farming of the taxes and the coining of money; the stock was
to be divided into 200,000 shares of 500 livres each. The
regent nearly marred the scheme at starting by inserting a
proviso that the depreciated billets d'état were to be
received at par in payment for the new stock, on which four
per cent. was guaranteed by the State." Law's company was
formed, under the name of the Company of the West, and
obtained for the basis of its operations a monopoly of the
trade of that vast territory of France in the valley of the
Mississippi which bore the name of Louisiana. The same
monopoly had been held for five years by one Crozat, who now
resigned it because he found it unprofitable; but the fact
received little attention.
See LOUISIANA: A. D. 1717-1718.
{1248}
"Louisiana was described as a paradise. … Shareholders in
the company were told that they would enjoy the monopoly of
trade throughout French North America, and the produce of a
country rich in every kind of mineral wealth. Billets d'état
were restored to their nominal value; stock in the Mississippi
scheme was sold at fabulous prices; ingots of gold, which were
declared to have come from the mines of St. Barbe, were taken
with great pomp to the mint; 6,000 of the poor of Paris were
sent out as miners, and provided with tools to work in the new
diggings. New issues of shares were made; first 50,000, then
50,000 more; both at an enormous premium. The jobbers of the
rue Quincampoix found ordinary language inadequate to express
their delight: they invented a new slang for the occasion, and
called the new shares 'les filles,' and, 'les petites filles,'
respectively. Paris was divided between the 'Anti-system' party
who opposed Law, and the Mississippians who supported him. The
State borrowed from the company fifteen hundred millions;
government paid its creditors in warrants on the company. To
meet them, Law issued 100,000 new shares; which came out at a
premium of 1,000 per cent. The Mississippians went mad with
joy—they invented another new slang phrase; the 'cinq cents'
eclipsed the filles and the petites filles in favour. The
gates of Law's hotel had to be guarded by a detachment of
archers; the cashiers were mobbed in their bureaux; applicants
for shares sat in the ante-rooms; a select body slept for
several nights on the stairs; gentlemen disguised themselves
in Law's livery to obtain access to the great man. … By this
time the charter of the company of Senegal had been merged in
the bank, which also became sole farmer of the tobacco duties;
the East India Company had been abolished, and the exclusive
privilege of trading to the East Indies, China, and the South
Seas, together with all the possessions of Colbert's company
were transferred to Law. The bank now assumed the style of the
Company of the Indies. Before the year [1719] was out the
regent had transferred to it the exclusive privilege of the
mint, and the contract of all the great farms. Almost every
branch of industry in France, its trade, its revenue, its
police, were now in the hands of Law. Every fresh privilege
was followed by a new issue of shares. … The shares of 500
franks were now worth 10,000. The rue Quincampoix became
impassable, and an army of stockjobbers camped in tents in the
Place Vendome. … The excitement spread to England [where the
South Sea Bubble was inflated by the madness of the hour].
See SOUTH SEA BUBBLE.
… Law's system and the South Sea scheme both went down
together. Both were calculated to last so long, and so long
only, as universal confidence existed; when it began to be
whispered that those in the secret were realizing their
profits and getting out of the impending ruin, the whole
edifice came down with a crash. … No sooner was it evident
that the system was about to break down, than Law, the only
man who could at least have mitigated the blow, was banished."
_Viscount Bury,
Exodus of the Western Nations,
volume 2, chapter 5._
ALSO IN:
_C. Mackay,
Memoirs of Extraordinary Popular Delusions,
volume 1, chapter 1._
_A. Thiers,
The Mississippi Bubble._
_W. C. Taylor,
Memoirs of the House of Orleans,
volume 2, chapter 2._
_C. Gayarre,
History of Louisiana, second series,
lecture 1._
_Duke de Saint-Simon,
Memoirs:
abridged translation by St. John, volume 3, chapter 25,
and volume 4, chapters 4, and 13-15._
FRANCE: A. D. 1720.
The fortifying of Louisbourg.
See CAPE BRETON ISLAND: A. D. 1720-1745.
FRANCE: A. D. 1723-1774.
Character and reign of Louis XV.
The King's mistresses and their courtiers
who conducted the government.
State and feeling of the nation.
After the death of the Duke of Orleans, "a short period of
about two years and a-half comprehends the administration of
the Duke of Bourbon, or rather of his mistress, la Marquise de
Prie. Fleury [Cardinal] then appears on the stage, and dies in
1743. He was, therefore, minister of France for seventeen
years. On his death, the king (Louis XV.) undertook to be his
own prime minister; an unpromising experiment for a country at
any time. In this instance the result was only that the king's
mistress, Madame de Chateauroux, became the ruler of France,
and soon after Madame de Pompadour, another mistress, whose
reign was prolonged from 1745 to 1768. Different courtiers and
prelates were seen to hold the first offices of the state
during this apparent premiership of the monarch. The ladies
seem to have chosen or tolerated Cardinal Tençin, Argençon,
Orsy, Mauripaux, and Amelot, who, with the Dukes Noailles and
Richelieu, succeeded to Fleury. Afterwards, we have Argençon
and Machault, and then come the most celebrated of the
ministers or favourites of Madame de Pompadour, the Abbé de
Bemis and the Duc de Choiseul. The last is the most
distinguished minister after Fleury. He continued in favour
from 1758, not only to 1763, when Madame de Pompadour died,
but for a few years after. He was at length disgraced by la
Comtesse Dubarri, who had become the king's mistress soon
after the death of Madame de Pompadour, and remained so,
nearly to the death of the monarch himself, in 1774."
_W. Smyth,
Lectures on the History of the French Revolution,
lecture 3._
"The regency of the Duke of Orleans lasted only eight years,
but it was not without a considerable effect upon the
destinies of the country. It was a break in the political and
the religious traditions of the reign of Louis XIV. The new
activity imparted to business during this period was an event
of equal importance. Nothing is more erroneous than to suppose
that constantly increasing misery at last excited revolt
against the government and the institutions of the old regime.
The Revolution in France at the close of the eighteenth
century was possible, not because the condition of the people
had grown worse, but because it had become better. The
material development of that country, during the fifty years
that preceded the convocation of the States General, had no
parallel in its past history. Neither the weight of taxation,
nor the extravagance of the court, nor the bankruptcy of the
government, checked an increase in wealth that made France in
1789 seem like a different land from France in 1715. The lot
of large classes was still miserable, the burden of taxation
upon a large part of the population was still grievous, there
were sections where Arthur Young could truly say that he found
only poverty and privileges, but the country as a whole was
more prosperous than Germany or Spain; it was far more
prosperous than it had been under Louis XIV. …
{1249}
Such an improvement in material conditions necessitated both
social and political changes. … But while social conditions
had altered, political institutions remained unchanged. New
wine had been poured in, but the old bottles were still used.
Tailles and corvées were no more severe in the eighteenth than
in the fifteenth century, but they were more odious. A feudal
privilege, which had then been accepted as a part of the law
of nature, was now regarded as contrary to nature. … A
demand for social equality, for the abolition of privileges
and immunities by which any class profited at the expense of
others, was fostered by economical changes. It received an
additional impetus from the writings of theorists,
philosophers, and political reformers. The influence of
literature in France during the eighteenth century was
important, yet it is possible to overestimate it. The seed of
political and social change was shown by the writers of the
period, but the soil was already prepared to receive it. …
The course of events, the conduct of their rulers, prepared
the minds of the French people for political change, and
accounted for the influence which literature acquired. The
doctrines of philosophers found easy access to the hearts of a
people with whom reverence for royalty and a tranquil
acceptance of an established government had been succeeded by
contempt for the king and hatred for the regime under which
they lived. We can trace this change of sentiment during the
reign of Louis XV. The popular affection which encircled his
cradle accompanied him when he had grown to be a man. … Few
events are more noticeable in the history of the age than the
extraordinary expressions of grief and affection that were
excited by the illness of Louis XV. in 1744. … A preacher
hailed him as Louis the well beloved, and all the nation
adopted the title. 'What have I done to be so loved?' the king
himself asked. Certainly he had done nothing, but the
explanation was correctly given. 'Louis XV. is dear to his
people, without having done anything for them, because the
French are, of all nations, most inclined to love their king.'
This affection, the result of centuries of fidelity and zeal
for monarchical institutions, and for the sovereigns by whom
they were personified, was wholly destroyed by Louis's
subsequent career. The vices to which he became addicted were
those which arouse feelings not only of reprehension, but of
loathing. They excited both aversion and contempt. The
administration of the country was as despicable as the
character of the sovereign. Under Louis XIV. there had been
suffering and there had been disaster, but France had always
preserved a commanding position in Europe. … But now defeat
and dishonor were the fate of a people alike powerful and
proud. … The low profligacy into which the king had sunk,
the nullity of his character, the turpitude of his mistress,
the weakness of his administration, the failure of all his
plans, went far toward destroying the feelings of loyalty that
had so long existed in the hearts of the French people. Some
curious figures mark the decline in the estimation in which
the king was held. In 1744, six thousand masses were said at
Nôtre Dame for the restoration of Louis XV. to health; in
1757, after the attempted assassination by Damiens, there were
six hundred; when the king actually lay dying, in 1774, there
were only three. The fall from six thousand to three measures
the decline in the affection and respect of the French people
for their sovereign. It was with a public whose sentiments had
thus altered that the new philosophy found acceptance."
_J. B. Perkins,
France under the Regency,
chapter 1._
ALSO IN:
_F. Rocquain,
The Revolutionary Spirit preceding the French Revolution,
chapters 2-8._
_J. Murray,
French Finance and Financiers under Louis XV._
FRANCE: A. D. 1725.
The alliance of Hanover.
See SPAIN: A. D. 1713-1725.
FRANCE: A. D. 1727-1731.
Ineffectual congress at Soissons.
The Treaty of Seville, with Spain and England.
The Second Treaty of Vienna.
See SPAIN: A. D. 1726-1731.
FRANCE: A. D. 1733.
The First Family Compact of the Bourbons (France and Spain).
"The two lines of the house of Bourbon [in France and in
Spain] once more became in the highest degree prominent. …
As early as November 1733 a Family Compact (the first of the
series) was concluded between them, in which they contemplated
the possibility of a war against England, but without waiting
for it entered into an agreement against the maritime
supremacy of that power. … The commercial privileges granted
to the English in the Peace of Utrecht seemed to both courts
to be intolerable."
_L. von Ranke,
History of England,
book 22, chapter 4 (volume 5)._
"It is hardly too much to say that the Family Compact of 1733,
though even yet not generally known to exist, is the most
important document of the middle period of the 18th century
and the most indispensable to history. If that period seems to
us confused, if we lose ourselves in the medley of its
wars—war of the Polish election, war of Jenkins's ears, war
of the Austrian succession, colonial war of 1756—the simple
reason is that we do not know this treaty, which furnishes the
clue. From it we may learn that in this period, as in that of
Louis XIV. and in that of Napoleon, Europe struggled against
the ambitious and deliberately laid design of an ascendant
power, with this difference, that those aggressors were
manifest to all the world and their aims not difficult to
understand, whereas this aggression proceeded by ambuscade,
and, being the aggression not of a single state but of an
alliance, and a secret alliance, did not become clearly
manifest to Europe even when it had to a considerable extent
attained its objects. … The first two articles define the
nature of the alliance, that it involves a mutual guarantee of
all possessions, and has for its object, first, the honour,
glory, and interests of both powers, and, secondly, their
defence against all damage, vexation, and prejudice that may
threaten them." The first declared object of the Compact is to
secure the position of Don Carlos, the Infant of Spain,
afterwards Charles III., in Italy, and "to obtain for him the
succession in Tuscany, protecting him against any attack that
may be attempted by the Emperor or by England. Next, France
undertakes to 'aid Spain with all her forces by land or sea,
if Spain should suspend England's enjoyment of commerce and
her other advantages, and England out of revenge should resort
to hostilities and insults in the dominions and states of the
crown of Spain, whether within or outside of Europe.'"
{1250}
Further articles provide for the making of efforts to induce
Great Britain to restore Gibraltar to Spain; set forth "that
the foreign policy of both states is to be guided exclusively
by the interests of the house"; denounce the Austrian
Pragmatic as "opposed to the security of the house of
Bourbon." "The King of France engages to send 32,000 infantry
and 8,000 cavalry into Italy, and to maintain other armies on
his other frontiers; also to have a squadron ready at Toulon,
either to join the Spanish fleet or to act separately, and
another squadron at Brest, 'to keep the English in fear and
jealousy'; also, in case of war with England breaking out, to
commission the largest possible number of privateers. Spain
also promises a fixed number of troops. The 11th and 12th
articles lay the foundation of a close commercial alliance to
be formed between France and Spain. Article 13 runs as
follows:—'His Catholic majesty, recognising all the abuses
which have been introduced into commerce, chiefly by the
British nation, in the eradication of which the French and
Spanish nations are equally interested, has determined to
bring everything back within rule and into agreement with the
letter of treaties'"—to which end the two kings make common
cause. "Finally the 14th article provides that the present
treaty shall remain profoundly secret as long as the
contracting parties shall judge it agreeable to their
interests, and shall be regarded from this day as an eternal
and irrevocable Family Compact. … Here is the explanation of
the war which furnished the immediate occasion of the first
Compact, a war most misleadingly named from the Polish
election which afforded an ostensible pretext for it, and
deserving better to be called the Bourbon invasion of Italy.
Here too is sketched out the course which was afterwards taken
by the Bourbon courts in the matter of the Pragmatic Sanction.
Thirdly, here most manifestly is the explanation of that war
of Jenkins's ears, which we have a habit of representing as
forced upon Spain by English commercial cupidity, but which
appears here as deliberately planned in concert by the Bourbon
courts in order to eradicate the 'abuses which have been
allowed to creep into trade.'"
_J. R. Seeley,
The House of Bourbon
(English History Review, January, 1886)._
ALSO IN:
_J. McCarthy,
History of the Four Georges,
chapter 22 (volume 2)._
FRANCE: A. D. 1733-1735.
War with Austria, in Germany and Italy.
Final acquisition of Lorraine.
Naples and Sicily transferred to Spain.
In the war with Austria which was brought about by the
question of the Polish succession (see POLAND: A. D.
1732-1733), the French "struck at the Rhine and at Italy,
while the other powers looked on unmoved; Spain watching her
moment, at which she might safely interfere for her own
interests in Italy. The army of the Rhine, which reached
Strasburg in autumn 1733, was commanded by Marshal Berwick,
who had been called away from eight years of happy and
charming leisure at Fitz-James. With him served for the first
time in the French army their one great general of the coming
age, and he too a foreigner, Maurice, son of Augustus II. of
Poland and the lovely Countess of Königsmark. … He is best
known to us as Marshal Saxe. It was too late to accomplish
much in 1733, and the French had to content themselves with
the capture of Kehl: in the winter the Imperialists
constructed strong lines at Ettlingen, a little place not far
from Carlsruhe, between Kehl, which the French held, and
Philipsburg, at which they were aiming. In the spring of 1734
French preparations were slow and feeble: a new power had
sprung up at Paris in the person of Belle-Isle, Fouquet's
grandson, who had much of the persuasive ambition of his
grandfather. He was full of schemes, and induced the aged
Fleury to believe him to be the coming genius of French
generalship; the careful views of Marshal Berwick suited ill
his soaring spirit; he wanted to march headlong into Saxony
and Bohemia. Berwick would not allow so reckless a scheme to
be adopted; still Belle-Isle, as lieutenant-general with an
almost independent command, was sent to besiege Trarbach on
the Moselle, an operation which delayed the French advance on
the Rhine. At last, however, Berwick moved forwards. By
skilful arrangements he neutralised the Ettlingen lines, and
without a battle forced the Germans to abandon them. Their
army withdrew to Heilbronn, where it was joined by Prince
Eugene. Berwick, freed from their immediate presence, and
having a great preponderance in force, at once sat down before
Philipsburg. There, on the 12th of June, as he visited the
trenches, he was struck by a ball and fell dead. So passed
away the last but one of the great generals of Louis XIV.:
France never again saw his like till the genius of the
Revolution evoked a new race of heroes. It was thought at
first that Berwick's death, like Turenne's, would end the
campaign, and that the French army must get back across the
Rhine. The position seemed critical, Philipsburg in front, and
Prince Eugene watching without. The Princes of the Empire,
however, had not put out any strength in this war, regarding
it chiefly as an Austrian affair; and the Marquis d'Asfeld,
who took the command of the French forces, was able to hold
on, and in July to reduce the great fortress of Philipsburg.
Therewith the campaign of the Rhine closed. In Italy things
had been carried on with more vigour and variety. The veteran
Villars, now 81 years old, was in command, under
Charles-Emmanuel, King of Sardinia. … Villars found it quite
easy to occupy all the Milanese: farther he could not go; for
Charles-Emmanuel, after the manner of his family, at once
began to deal behind his back with the Imperialists and the
campaign dragged. The old Marshal, little brooking
interference and delay, for he still was full of fire, threw
up his command, and started for France: on the way he was
seized with illness at Turin, and died there five days after
Berwick had been killed at Philipsburg. With them the long
series of the generals of Louis XIV. comes to an end. Coigny
and the Duke de Broglie succeeded to the command. Not far from
Parma they fought a murderous battle with the Austrians, hotly
contested, and a Cadmean victory for the French: it arrested
their forward movement, and two months were spent in enforced
idleness. In September 1734 the Imperialists inflicted a heavy
check on the French at the Secchia; afterwards however
emboldened by this success, they fought a pitched battle at
Guastalla, in which, after a fierce struggle, the French
remained masters of the field. Their losses, the advanced time
of the year, and the uncertainty as to the King of Sardinia's
movements and intentions, rendered the rest of the campaign
unimportant.
{1251}
As however the Imperialists, in order to make head against the
French in the valley of the Po, had drawn all their available
force out of the Neapolitan territory, the Spaniards were able
to slip in behind them, and to secure that great prize. Don
Carlos landed at Naples and was received with transports of
joy: the Austrians were defeated at Bitonto; the Spaniards
then crossed into Sicily, which also welcomed them gladly; the
two kingdoms passed willingly under the rule of the Spaniards.
In 1735 Austria made advances in the direction of peace; for
the French had stirred up their old friend the Turk, who, in
order to save Poland, proposed to invade Hungary. Fleury, no
lover of war, and aware that England's neutrality could not
last forever, was not unwilling to treat: a Congress at Vienna
followed, and before the end of 1735 peace again reigned in
Europe. The terms of the Treaty of Vienna (3 October 1735)
were very favourable to France. Austria ceded Naples and
Sicily, Elba, and the States degli Presidii to Spain, to be
erected into a separate kingdom for Don Carlos: France
obtained Lorraine and Bar, which were given to Stanislaus
Leczinski on condition that he should renounce all claim to
the Polish Crown; they were to be governed by him under French
administration: Francis Stephen the former Duke obtained, as
an indemnity, the reversion of Tuscany, which fell to him in
the following year. Parma and Piacenza returned to the
Emperor, who also obtained from France a guarantee of the
Pragmatic Sanction. Thus France at last got firm hold of the
much-desired Lorraine country, though it was not absolutely
united to her till the death of Stanislaus in 1766."
_G. W. Kitchin,
History of France,
book 6, chapter 2._
ALSO IN:
_F. P. Guizot,
Popular History of France,
chapter 52 (volume 6)._
FRANCE: A. D. 1738-1740.
The Question of the Austrian Succession.
Guarantee of the Pragmatic Sanction.
See AUSTRIA: A. D. 1718-1738, and 1740.
FRANCE: A. D. 1740-1741.
Beginning of the War of the Austrian Succession.
Seizure of Silesia by Frederick the Great.
French responsibility for the war.
See AUSTRIA: A. D. 1740-1741;
and 1741 (APRIL-MAY), (MAY-JUNE).
FRANCE: A. D. 1741-1743.
The War of the Austrian Succession in Italy.
See ITALY: A. D. 1741-1743;
and AUSTRIA: A. D. 1741, to 1743.
FRANCE: A. D. 1743 (October).
The Second Family Compact of the Bourbon kings.
"France and Spain signed a secret treaty of perpetual alliance
at Fontainebleau, October 25th, 1743. The treaty is remarkable
as the precursor of the celebrated Family Compact between the
French and Spanish Bourbons. The Spaniards, indeed, call it
the Second Family Compact, the first being the Treaty of
November 7th, 1733, of which, with regard to colonial affairs,
it was a renewal. But this treaty had a more special reference
to Italy. Louis XV. engaged to declare war against Sardinia,
and to aid Spain in conquering the Milanese. Philip V.
transferred his claims to that duchy to his son, the Infant
Don Philip, who was also to be put in possession of Parma and
Piacenza. All the possessions ceded by France to the King of
Sardinia, by the Treaty of Utrecht, were to be again wrested
from him. A public alliance was to be formed, to which the
Emperor Charles VII. was to accede; whose states, and even
something more, were to be recovered for him. Under certain
circumstances war was to be declared against England; in which
case France was to assist in the recovery of Gibraltar, and
also, if possible, of Minorca. The new colony of Georgia was
to be destroyed, the Asiento withdrawn from England, &c."
_T. H. Dyer,
History of Modern Europe,
book 6, chapter 4 (volume 3)._
FRANCE: A. D. 1743-1752.
Struggle of French and English for supremacy in India.
See INDIA: A. D. 1743-1752.
FRANCE: A. D. 1744-1745.
The War of the Austrian Succession in America.
See NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1744, and 1745.
A. D. 1741-1747.
War of the Austrian Succession in Italy,
Germany and the Netherlands.
See ITALY: A. D. 1744, to 1746-1747;
AUSTRIA: A. D. 1743-1744;
and NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1745, and 1746-1747.
FRANCE: A. D. 1748 (October).
Termination and results of the War of the Austrian Succession.
See AIX-LA-CHAPELLE: A. D. 1748;
and NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1745-1748.
FRANCE: A. D. 1748-1754.
Active measures in America to fortify possession of the Ohio
valley and the West.
See OHIO (VALLEY): A. D. 1748-1754.
FRANCE: A. D. 1749-1755.
Unsettled boundary disputes in America.
Preludes of the last contest with England for dominion in the
New World.
See NOVA SCOTIA: A. D. 1749-1755;
CANADA: A. D. 1750-1753;
OHIO (VALLEY): A. D. 1754.
FRANCE: A. D. 1755.
Causes and provocations of the Seven Years War.
See GERMANY: A.D. 1755-1756;
and ENGLAND: A. D. 1754-1755.
FRANCE: A. D. 1755.
Naval reverse on the Newfoundland coast.
See CANADA: A. D. 1755 (JUNE).
FRANCE: A. D. 1755-1762.
The Seven Years War: Campaigns in America.
See CANADA: A. D. 1750-1753, to 1760;
NOVA SCOTIA: A. D. 1749-1755, and 1755;
OHIO (VALLEY): A. D. 1748-1754, 1754, and 1755;
CAPE BRETON ISLAND: A. D. 1758-1760.
FRANCE: A. D. 1756 (May).
The Seven Years War: Minorca wrested from England.
See MINORCA: A. D. 1756.
FRANCE: A. D. 1757-1762.
The Seven Years War: Campaigns in Germany.
See GERMANY: A. D. 1757 (JULY-DECEMBER),
to 1759 (APRIL-AUGUST); 1760; and 1761-1762.
FRANCE: A. D. 1758-1761.
The Seven Years War: Loss of footing and influence in India.
Count Lally's failure.
See INDIA: A. D. 1758-1761.
FRANCE: A. D. 1760.
The Seven Years War: The surrender of Canada.
See CANADA: A. D. 1760.
FRANCE: A. D. 1761 (August).
The Third Family Compact of the Bourbon kings.
"On the 15th of August [1761] … Grimaldi [Spanish ambassador
at the French court] and Choiseul [the ruling minister, at the
time, in France] signed the celebrated Family Compact. By this
treaty the Kings of France and Spain agreed for the future to
consider every Power as their enemy which might become the
enemy of either, and to guarantee the respective dominions in
all parts of the world which they might possess at the next
conclusion of peace. Mutual succours by sea and land were
stipulated, and no proposal of peace to their common enemies
was to be made, nor negotiation entered upon, unless by common
consent. The subjects of each residing in the European
dominions of the other were to enjoy the same commercial
privileges as the natives.
{1252}
Moreover, the King of Spain stipulated the accession of his
son, the King of Naples, to this alliance; but it was agreed
that no prince or potentate, except of the House of Bourbon,
should ever be admitted to its participation. Besides this
treaty, which in its words at least applied only to future and
contingent wars, and which was intended to be ultimately
published, there was also signed on the same day a special and
secret convention. This imported, that in case England and
France should still be engaged in hostilities on the 1st of
May 1762 Spain should on that day declare war against England,
and that France should at the same period restore Minorca to
Spain. … Not only the terms but the existence of a Family
Compact were for some time kept scrupulously secret. Mr.
Stanley, however, gleaned some information from the scattered
hints of the Duke de Choiseul, and these were confirmed to
Pitt from several other quarters." As the result of the Family
Compact, England declared war against Spain on the 4th of
January, 1762. Pitt had gone out of office in October because
his colleagues and the King would not then consent to a
declaration of war against the Spanish Bourbons.
See ENGLAND: A. D. 1760-1763.
The force of circumstances soon brought them to the measure.
_Lord Mahon (Earl Stanhope),
History of England, 1713-1783,
chapter 37 (volume 4)._
FRANCE: A. D. 1761-1764.
Proceedings against the Jesuits.
Their expulsion from the kingdom.
See JESUITS: A. D. 1761-1769.
FRANCE: A. D. 1763.
The end and results of the Seven Years War.
The Peace of Paris.
America lost, nothing gained.
See SEVEN YEARS WAR: A. D. 1763.
FRANCE: A. D. 1763.
Rights in the North American fisheries secured by the Treaty
of Paris.
See FISHERIES, NORTH AMERICAN: A. D. 1763.
FRANCE: A. D. 1768.
Acquisition of Corsica.
See CORSICA: A. D. 1729-1769.
FRANCE: A. D. 1774-1788.
The Court and Government of Louis XV!., his inheritance of
troubles, his vacillations, his helpless ministers.
Turgot, Necker, Calonne, Brienne.
Blind selfishness of the privileged orders.
The Assembly of Notables.
The Parliament of Paris.
"Louis XVI., an equitable prince, moderate in his
propensities, carelessly educated, but naturally of a good
disposition, ascended the throne [May 11, 1774] at a very
early age. He called to his side an old courtier, and
consigned to him the care of his kingdom; and divided his
confidence between Maurepas and the Queen, an Austrian
princess [Marie Antoinette], young, lively, and amiable, who
possessed a complete ascendency over him. Maurepas and the
Queen were not good friends. The King, sometimes giving way to
his minister, at others to his consort, began at an early
period the long career of his vacillations. … The public
voice, which was loudly expressed, called for Turgot, one of
the class of economists, an honest, virtuous man, endowed with
firmness of character, a slow genius, but obstinate and
profound. Convinced of his probity, delighted with his plans
of reform, Louis XVI. frequently repeated: 'There are none
besides myself and Turgot who are friends of the people.'
Turgot's reforms were thwarted by the opposition of the
highest orders in the state, who were interested in
maintaining all kinds of abuses, which the austere minister
proposed to suppress. Louis XVI. dismissed him [1776] with
regret. During his whole life, which was only a long
martyrdom, he had the mortification to discern what was right,
to wish it sincerely, but to lack the energy requisite for
carrying it into execution. The King, placed between the
court, the parliaments, and the people, exposed to intrigues
and to suggestions of all sorts, repeatedly changed his
ministers. Yielding once more to the public voice, and to the
necessity for reform, he summoned to the finance department
Necker, a native of Geneva, who had amassed wealth as a
banker, a partisan and disciple of Colbert, as Turgot was of
Sully; an economical and upright financier, but a vain man,
fond of setting himself up for arbitrator in everything. …
Necker re-established order in the finances, and found means
to defray the heavy expenses of the American war. … But it
required something more than financial artifices to put an end
to the embarrassments of the exchequer, and he had recourse to
reform. He found the higher orders not less adverse to him
than they had been to Turgot; the parliaments, apprised of his
plans, combined against him, and obliged him to retire [1781].
The conviction of the existence of abuses was universal;
everybody admitted it. … The courtiers, who derived
advantage from these abuses, would have been glad to see an
end put to the embarrassments of the exchequer, but without
its costing them a single sacrifice. … The parliaments also
talked of the interests of the people, loudly insisted on the
sufferings of the poor, and yet opposed the equalization of
the taxes, as well as the abolition of the remains of feudal
barbarism. All talked of the public weal, few desired it; and
the people, not yet knowing who were its true friends,
applauded all those who resisted power, its most obvious
enemy. By the removal of Turgot and Necker, the state of
affairs was not changed: the distress of the treasury remained
the same. … An intrigue brought forward M. de Calonne [in
1783, after brief careers in office of M. de Fleury and M.
d'Ormesson]. … Calonne, clever, brilliant, fertile in
resources, relied upon his genius, upon fortune, and upon men,
and awaited the future with the most extraordinary apathy. …
That future which had been counted upon now approached: it
became necessary at length to adopt decisive measures. It was
impossible to burden the people with fresh imposts, and yet
the coffers were empty. There was but one remedy which could
be applied; that was to reduce the expenses by the suppression
of grants; and if this expedient should not suffice, to extend
the taxes to a greater number of contributors, that is, to the
nobility and clergy. These plans, attempted successively by
Turgot and Necker, and resumed by Calonne, appeared to the
latter not at all likely to succeed, unless the consent of the
privileged classes themselves could be obtained. Calonne,
therefore, proposed to collect them together in an assembly,
to be called the Assembly of the Notables, in order to lay his
plans before them, and to gain their consent either by address or
by conviction. The assembly [which met February 22, 1787] was
composed of distinguished members of the nobility, clergy, and
magistracy, of a great number of masters of requests and some
magistrates of the provinces. … Very warm discussions
ensued." The Notables at length "promised to sanction the
plans of Calonne, but on condition that a minister more moral
and more deserving of confidence should be appointed to carry
them into execution."
{1253}
Calonne, consequently, was dismissed, and replaced by M. de
Brienne, Archbishop of Toulouse. "The Notables, bound by the
promises which they had made, readily consented to all that
they had at first refused: land-tax, stamp-duty, suppression
of the gratuitous services of vassals ('corvées'), provincial
assemblies, were all cheerfully granted. … Had M. de Brienne
known how to profit by the advantages of his position; had he
actively proceeded with the execution of the measures assented
to by the Notables; had he submitted them all at once and
without delay to the parliament, at the instant when the
adhesion of the higher orders seemed to be wrung from
them—all would probably have been over; the parliament,
pressed on all sides, would have consented to everything. …
Nothing of the kind, however, was done. By imprudent delays
occasion was furnished for relapses; the edicts were submitted
only one after another; the parliament had time to discuss, to
gain courage, and to recover from the sort of surprise by
which the Notables had been taken. It registered, after long
discussions, the edict enacting the second abolition of the
'corvées,' and another permitting the free exportation of
corn. Its animosity was particularly directed against the
land-tax; but it feared lest by a refusal it should enlighten
the public, and show that its opposition was entirely selfish.
It hesitated, when it was spared this embarrassment by the
simultaneous presentation of the edict on the stamp-duty and
the land-tax, and especially by opening the deliberations with
the former. The parliament had thus an opportunity of refusing
the first without entering into explanations respecting the
second; and, in attacking the stamp-duty, which affected the
majority of the payers of taxes, it seemed to defend the
interest of the public. At a sitting which was attended by the
peers, it denounced the abuses, the profligacy, and the
prodigality of the court, and demanded statements of
expenditure. A councillor, punning upon the 'états'
(statements) exclaimed … —'It is not statements, but
States-General that we want.' … The utterance of a single
word presented an unexpected direction to the public mind: it
was repeated by every mouth, and States-General were loudly
demanded."
_A. Thiers,
History of the French Revolution
(American edition), volume 1, pages 17-21._
"There is no doubt that the French administrative body, at the
time when Louis XVI. began to reign, was corrupt and
self-seeking. In the management of the finances and of the
army, illegitimate profits were made. But this was not the
worst evil from which the public service was suffering. France
was in fact governed by what in modern times is called 'a
ring.' The members of such an organization pretend to serve
the sovereign, or the public, and in some measure actually do
so; but their rewards are determined by intrigue and favor,
and are entirely disproportionate to their services. They
generally prefer jobbery to direct stealing, and will spend a
million of the state's money in a needless undertaking, in
order to divert a few thousands into their own pockets. They
hold together against all the world, while trying to
circumvent each other. Such a ring in old France was the
court. By such a ring will every country be governed, where
the sovereign who possesses the political power is weak in
moral character or careless of the public interest; whether
that sovereign be a monarch, a chamber, or the mass of the
people. Louis XVI., king of France and of Navarre, was more
dull than stupid, and weaker in will than in intellect. … He
was … thoroughly conscientious, and had a high sense of the
responsibility of his great calling. He was not indolent,
although heavy, and his courage, which was sorely tested, was
never broken. With these virtues he might have made a good
king, had he possessed firmness of will enough to support a
good minister, or to adhere to a good policy. But such
strength had not been given him. Totally incapable of standing
by himself, he leant successively, or simultaneously, on his
aunt, his wife, his ministers, his courtiers, as ready to
change his policy as his adviser. Yet it was part of his
weakness to be unwilling to believe himself under the guidance
of any particular person; he set a high value on his own
authority, and was inordinately jealous of it. No one,
therefore, could acquire a permanent influence. Thus a
well-meaning man became the worst of sovereigns. … Louis XV.
had been led by his mistresses; Louis XVI. was turned about by
the last person who happened to speak to him. The courtiers,
in their turn, were swayed by their feelings, or their
interests. They formed parties and combinations, and intrigued
for or against each other. They made bargains, they gave and
took bribes. In all these intrigues, bribes, and bargains, the
court ladies had a great share. They were as corrupt as the
men, and as frivolous. It is probable that in no government
did women ever exercise so great an influence. The factions
into which the court was divided tended to group themselves
round certain rich and influential families. Such were the
Noailles, an ambitious and powerful house, with which
Lafayette was connected by marriage; the Broglies, one of whom
had held the thread of the secret diplomacy which Louis XV.
had carried on behind the backs of his acknowledged ministers;
the Polignacs, new people, creatures of Queen Marie
Antoinette; the Rohans, through the influence of whose great
name an unworthy member of the family was to rise to high
dignity in the church and the state, and then to cast a deep
shadow on the darkening popularity of that ill-starred
princess. Such families as these formed an upper class among
nobles. … It is not easy, in looking at the French
government in the eighteenth century, to decide where the
working administration ended, and where the useless court that
answered no real purpose began. … There was the department of
hunting and that of buildings, a separate one for royal
journeys, one for the guard, another for police, yet another
for ceremonies. There were five hundred officers 'of the
mouth,' table-bearers distinct from chair-bearers. There were
tradesmen, from apothecaries and armorers at one end of the
list to saddle-makers, tailors and violinists at the other. …
The military and civil households of the king and of the
royal family are said to have consisted of about fifteen
thousand souls, and to have cost forty-five million francs per
annum. The holders of many of the places served but three
months apiece out of every year, so that four officers and
four salaries were required, instead of one. With such a
system as this we cannot wonder that the men who administered
the French government were generally incapable and
self-seeking. Most of them were politicians rather than
administrators, and cared more for their places than for their
country. Of the few conscientious and patriotic men who
obtained power, the greater number lost it very speedily."
_E. J. Lowell,
The Eve of the French Revolution,
chapter 2._
ALSO IN:
_F. Rocquain,
The Revolutionary Spirit preceding the French Revolution,
chapters 9-11._
_Mme. de Stael,
Considerations on the Principal Events
of the French Revolution,
chapters 3-10 (volume 1)._
_J. Necker,
On the French Revolution,
part. 1, section 1 (volume 1)._
_Condorcet,
Life of Turgot,
chapters 5-6._
_L. Say,
Turgot,
chapters 5-7._
_C. D. Yonge,
Life of Marie Antoinette,
chapters 8-21._
{1254}
FRANCE: A. D. 1778 (February).
Treaty with the United States of America.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1776-1778,
and 1778 (FEBRUARY).
FRANCE: A. D. 1780 (July).
Fresh aid to the United States of America.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1780 (July).
FRANCE: A. D. 1782.
Disastrous naval defeat by Rodney.
Unsuccessful siege of Gibraltar.
See ENGLAND: A. D. 1780-1782.
FRANCE: A. D. 1782.
The negotiation of Peace between Great Britain and the United
States of America.
Dissatisfaction of the French minister.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1782 (SEPTEMBER),
and (SEPTEMBER-NOVEMBER).
FRANCE: A. D. 1784-1785.
The affair of the Diamond Necklace.
The chief actor in the affair of the diamond necklace, which
caused a great scandal and smirched the queen's name, was an
adventuress who called herself the Comtesse de Lamotte, and
claimed descent from Henry II., but who had been half servant,
half companion, to a lady of quality, and had picked up a
useful acquaintance with the manners and the gossip of court
society. "Madame de Lamotte's original patroness had a
visiting acquaintance with the Cardinal Prince Louis de Rohan,
and in her company her protégée learned to know him also.
Prince Louis, who had helped to receive Marie Antoinette at
Strasburg, had been the French ambassador at Vienna, where he
had disgusted and incensed Maria Theresa by his worldliness,
profligacy, and arrogance. She had at last procured his
withdrawal, and her letters expressing a positive terror lest
he should come near Marie Antoinette and acquire an influence
over her, were not without their effect. He was not allowed to
appear at Court, and for ten long years fretted and fumed
under a sense of the royal displeasure. … He was now a man
bordering on fifty, grey-headed, rosy, 'pursy,' with nothing
save his blue blood and the great offices which he disgraced
to recommend him. Madame de Lamotte, hovering about Paris and
Versailles, where she had lodgings in La Belle Inage, tried to
make her own of backstairs gossip, and picked up a hint or
two. Suddenly a great idea struck her, founded on the history
of a magnificent necklace dangled before bright eyes, over
which many an excitable imagination gloated. The Queen had a
court jeweller, Bœhmer, who had formerly been jeweller to the
King of Saxony at Dresden. … For a period of years he had
been collecting and assorting the stones which should form an
incomparable necklace, in row upon row, pendants and tassels
of lustrous diamonds, till the price reached the royal pitch
of from eighty to ninety thousand pounds English money. This
costly 'collar,' according to rumour, was … meant, in the
beginning, for the Comtesse du Barry. In the end, it … was
offered with confidence to the Queen. … She declined to
buy—she had enough diamonds. … There was nothing for it but
that Bœhmer should 'hawk' his necklace in every Court of
Europe, without success, till the German declared himself
ruined, and passionately protested that, if the Queen would
not buy the diamonds, there was no resource for him save to
throw himself into the Seine. But there was a resource,
unhappily for Bœhmer, unhappily for all concerned, most so for
the poor Queen. Madame de Lamotte, in keeping up her
acquaintance with Prince Louis de Rohan, began to hint darkly
that there might be ways of winning the royal favour. She
threw out cunning words about the degree of importance and
trust to which she had attained in the highest quarters at
Versailles; about the emptiness of the Queen's exchequer, with
consequent difficulties in the discharge of her charities;
about the secret royal desire for the famous necklace, which
the King would not enable Marie Antoinette to obtain. The
blinded and besotted Cardinal drank in these insinuations. The
black art was called in to deepen his convictions. In an age
when many men, especially many churchmen, believed in nothing,
in spite of their professions, naturally they were given over
to believe a lie. Cagliostro, astrologer and modern magician,
was flourishing in Paris, and by circles and signs he promised
the priest, De Rohan, progress in the only suit he had at
heart. Still the dupe was not so infatuated as to require no
proof of the validity of these momentous implications, and
proof was not wanting; notes were handed to him, to be
afterwards shown to Bœhmer, graciously acknowledging his
devotion, and authorising him to buy for the Queen the diamond
necklace. These notes were apparently written in the Queen's
hand (that school-girl's scrawl of which Maria Theresa was
wont to complain); but they were signed 'Marie Antoinette de
France,' a signature which so great a man as the Cardinal
ought to have known was never employed by the Queen, for the
very good reason that the termination 'de France' belonged to
the children and not to the wife of the sovereign. Even a
further assurance that all was right was granted. The
Cardinal, trembling in a fever of hope and expectation, was
told that a private interview with the Queen would be
vouchsafed to him at midnight in the Park of Versailles. At
the appointed hour, on the night of the 28th of July, 1784, De
Rohan, in a blue greatcoat and slouched hat, was stationed,
amidst shrouding, sultry darkness, in the neighbourhood of the
palace. Madame de Lamotte, in a black domino, hovered near to
give the signal of the Queen's approach. The whisper was
given, 'In the Hornbeam Arbour,' and the Cardinal hurried to
the spot, where he could dimly descry a tall lady in white,
with chestnut hair, blue eyes, and a commanding air, if he
could really have seen all these well-known attributes. He
knelt, but before he could do more than mutter a word of
homage and gratitude, the black domino was at his side again
with another vehement whisper, 'On vient' (They come).
{1255}
The lady in white dropped a rose, with the significant words,
'Vous savez ce que cela veut dire' (You know what that means),
and vanished before the 'Vite, vite' ('Quick, quick ') of the
black domino, for the sound of approaching footsteps was
supposed to indicate the approach of Madame and the Comtesse
d'Artois, and the Cardinal, in his turn, had to flee from
detection. What more could be required to convince a man of
the good faith of the lady. … Bœhmer received a hint that he
might sell his necklace, through the Prince Cardinal Louis de
Rohan, to one of the great ones of the earth, who was to
remain in obscurity. The jeweller drew out his terms—sixteen
hundred thousand livres, to be paid in five equal instalments
over a year and a-half—to which he and Prince Louis affixed
their signatures. This paper Madame de Lamotte carried to
Versailles, and brought it back with the words written on the
margin, 'Bon Marie Antoinette de France.' In the meantime,
Bœhmer, the better to keep the secret, gave out that he had
sold the necklace to the Grand Turk for his favourite Sultana.
The necklace was, in fact, delivered to Prince Louis and by
him entrusted to Madame Lamotte, from whose hands it passed
—not into the Queen's. Having been taken to pieces, it was
sent in all haste out of the kingdom, while the Cardinal,
according to his own account, was still played with. … It
goes without saying that no payment, except a small offer of
interest on the thirty thousand, was forthcoming. The Cardinal
and Bœhmer were betrayed into wrath, dismay, and despair.
Bœhmer took it upon him to apply, in respectful terms, to her
Majesty for payment; and when she said the whole thing was a
mistake, the man must be mad, and caused her words to be
written to him, he sought an interview with Madame Campan, the
first woman of the bedchamber, at her house at Crespy, where
he had been dining, and in the gardens there, in the middle of
a thunder-shower, astounded her with his version of the story.
… The Cardinal was taken to the Bastille. More arrests
followed, including those of Madame de Lamotte, staying
quietly in her house at Bar-sur-Aube, and the girl Gay
d'Oliva, an unhappy girl, tall and fair haired, taken from the
streets of Paris, and brought to the park of Versailles to
personate the Queen. It was said the Queen wept passionately
over the scandal—well she might. The court in which the case
was tried might prove the forgery, as in fact it did, though
not in the way she expected; but every Court in Europe would
ring with the story, and she had made deadly enemies, if not
of the Church itself, of the great houses of De Rohan, De
Soubise, De Guéménée, De Marsan, and their multitude of
allies. The process lasted nine months, and every exertion was
made for the deliverance of the princely culprit. … The
result of the trial was that, though the Queen's signature was
declared false, Madame de Lamotte was sentenced to be whipped,
branded, and imprisoned for life, her husband was condemned to
the galleys, and a man called Villette de Retaux, who was the
actual fabricator of the Queen's handwriting, was sentenced to
be banished for life. The Cardinal Prince Louis de Rohan was
fully acquitted, with permission to publish what defence he
chose to write of his conduct. When he left the court, he was
escorted by great crowds, hurrahing over his acquittal,
because it was supposed to cover the Court with
mortification."
_Sarah Tytler,
Marie Antoinette,
chapter 12._
ALSO IN:
_T. Carlyle,
The Diamond Necklace
(Critical and Miscellaneous Essays, volume 5)._
_H. Vizetelly,
The Story of the Diamond Necklace._
FRANCE: A. D. 1787-1789.
Struggle of the Crown with the Parliament of Paris.
The demand for a meeting of the States-General yielded to.
Double representation of the Third Estate conceded.
The make-up of the States-General as elected by the three
Estates.
Banished to Troyes (August, 1787), in consequence of its
refusal to register two edicts relating to the stamp-duty and
the land-tax, the Parliament of Paris "grew weary of exile,
and the minister recalled it on condition that the two edicts
should be passed. But this was only a suspension of
hostilities; the necessities of the crown soon rendered the
struggle more obstinate and violent. The minister had to make
fresh applications for money; his existence depended on the
issue of several successive loans to the amount of
440,000,000. It was necessary to obtain the enrolment of them.
Brienne, expecting opposition from the parliament, procured
the enrolment of this edict, by a 'bed of justice,' and to
conciliate the magistracy and public opinion, the protestants
were restored to their rights in the same sitting, and Louis
XVI. promised an annual publication of the state of finances,
and the convocation of the states-general before the end of
five years. But these concessions were no longer sufficient:
parliament refused the enrolment, and rose against the
ministerial tyranny. Some of its members, among others the
duke of Orleans, were banished. Parliament protested by a
decree against 'lettres de cachet,' and required the recall of
its members. This decree was annulled by the king, and
confirmed by parliament. The warfare increased. The magistracy
of Paris was supported by all the magistracy of France, and
encouraged by public opinion. It proclaimed the rights of the
nation, and its own incompetence in matters of taxation; and,
become liberal from interest, and rendered generous by
oppression, it exclaimed against arbitrary imprisonment, and
demanded regularly convoked states-general. After this act of
courage, it decreed the irremovability of its members, and the
incompetence of any who might usurp their functions. This bold
manifesto was followed by the arrest of two members,
d'Eprémenil and Goislard, by the reform of the body, and the
establishment of a plenary court. Brienne understood that the
opposition of the parliament was systematic, that it would be
renewed on every fresh demand for subsidies, or on the
authorization of every loan. Exile was but a momentary remedy,
which suspended opposition, without destroying it. He then
projected the reduction of this body to judicial functions.
… All the magistracy of France was exiled on the same day,
in order that the new judicial organization might take place.
The keeper of the seals deprived the Parliament of Paris of
its political attributes, to invest with them a plenary court,
ministerially composed, and reduced its judicial competence in
favour of bailiwicks, the jurisdiction of which he extended.
Public opinion was indignant; the Châtelet protested, the
provinces rose, and the plenary court could neither be formed
nor act. Disturbances broke out in Dauphiné, Brittany,
Provence, Flanders, Languédoc, and Béarn; the ministry,
instead of the regular opposition of parliament, had to
encounter one much more animated and factious.
{1256}
The nobility, the third estate, the provincial states, and
even the clergy, took part in it. Brienne, pressed for money,
had called together an extraordinary assembly of the clergy,
who immediately made an address to the king, demanding the
abolition of his plenary court, and the recall of the
states-general: they alone could thenceforth repair the
disordered state of the finances, secure the national debt,
and terminate these disputes for power. … Obtaining neither
taxes nor loans, unable to make use of the plenary court, and
not wishing to recall the parliaments, Brienne, as a last
resource, promised the convocation of the states-general. By
this means he hastened his ruin. … He succumbed on the 25th
August, 1788. The cause of his fall was a suspension of the
payment of the interest on the debt, which was the
commencement of bankruptcy. This minister has been the most
blamed because he came last. Inheriting the faults, the
embarrassments of past times, he had to struggle with the
difficulties of his position with inefficient means. He tried
intrigue and oppression; he banished, suspended, disorganized
parliament; everything was an obstacle to him, nothing aided
him. After a long struggle, he sank under lassitude and
weakness; I dare not say from incapacity, for had he been far
stronger and more skilful, had he been a Richelieu or a Sully,
he would still have fallen. It no longer appertained to anyone
arbitrarily to raise money or to oppress the people. … The
states-general had become the only means of government, and
the last resource of the throne. They had been eagerly
demanded by parliament and the peers of the kingdom, on the
13th of July, 1787; by the states of Dauphiné, in the assembly
of Vizille; by the clergy in its assembly at Paris. The
provincial states had prepared the public mind for them; and
the notables were their precursors. The king after having, on
the 18th of December, 1787, promised their convocation in five
years, on the 8th of August, 1788, fixed the opening for the
1st of May, 1789. Necker was recalled, parliament
re-established, the plenary court abolished, the bailiwicks
destroyed, and the provinces satisfied; and the new minister
prepared everything for the election of deputies and the
holding of the states. At this epoch a great change took place
in the opposition, which till then had been unanimous. Under
Brienne, the ministry had encountered opposition from all the
various bodies of the state, because it had sought to oppress
them. Under Necker, it met with resistance from the same
bodies, which desired power for themselves and oppression for
the people. From being despotic, it had become national, and
it still had them all equally against it. Parliament had
maintained a struggle for authority, and not for the public
welfare; and the nobility had united with the third estate,
rather against the government than in favour of the people.
Each of these bodies had demanded the states-general: the
parliament, in the hope of ruling them as it had done in 1614;
and the nobility, in the hope of regaining its lost influence.
Accordingly, the magistracy proposed as a model for the
states-general of 1789, the form of that of 1614, and public
opinion abandoned it; the nobility refused its consent to the
double representation of the third estate, and a division
broke out between these two orders. This double representation
was required by the intellect of the age, the necessity of
reform, and by the importance which the third estate had
acquired. It had already been admitted into the the provincial
assemblies. … Opinion became daily more decided, and Necker
wishing, yet fearing, to satisfy it, and desirous of
conciliating all orders, of obtaining general approbation,
convoked a second assembly of notables on the 6th of November,
1788, to deliberate on the composition of the states-general,
and the election of its members. … Necker, having been
unable to make the notables adopt the [double] representation
of the third estate, caused it to be adopted by the council.
The royal declaration of the 27th of November decreed, that
the deputies in the states-general should amount to at least a
thousand, and that the deputies of the third estate should be
equal in number to the deputies of the nobility and clergy
together. Necker moreover obtained the admission of the curés
into the order of the clergy, and of protestants into that of
the third estate. The district assemblies were convoked for
the elections; every one exerted himself to secure the
nomination of members of his own party, and to draw up
manifestoes setting forth his views. Parliament had but little
influence in the elections, and the court none at all. The
nobility selected a few popular deputies, but for the most
part devoted to the interests of their order, and as much
opposed to the third estate as to the oligarchy of the great
families of the court. The clergy nominated bishops and abbés
attached to privilege, and cures favourable to the popular
cause, which was their own; lastly, the third estate selected
men enlightened, firm and unanimous in their wishes. The
deputation of the nobility was comprised of 242 gentlemen, and
28 members of the parliament; that of the clergy, of 48
archbishops or bishops, 35 abbés or deans, and 208 curés; and
that of the communes, of two ecclesiastics, 12 noblemen, 18
magistrates of towns, 200 county members, 212 barristers, 16
physicians, and 216 merchants and agriculturists. The opening
of the states-general was fixed for the 5th of May, 1789."
_F. A. Mignet,
History of the French Revolution,
introd._
ALSO IN:
_W. Smyth,
Lectures on the History of the French Revolution,
lecture 6 (volume 1)._
_J. Necker,
On the French Revolution,
part 1, section 1._
FRANCE: A. D. 1789.
The condition of the people on the eve of the great
Revolution.
The sources and causes of its destructive fury.
"In 1789 three classes of persons, the Clergy, the Nobles, and
the King occupied the most prominent position in the State,
with all the advantages which it comports; namely, authority,
property, honors, or, at the very least, privileges,
immunities, favors, pensions, preferences, and the like. …
The privileged classes number about 270,000 persons,
comprising of the nobility 140,000 and of the clergy 130,000.
This makes from 25,000 to 30,000 noble families; 23,000 monks
in 2,500 monasteries, and 37,000 nuns in 1,500 convents, and
60,000 curates and vicars in as many churches and chapels.
Should the reader desire a more distinct impression of them,
he may imagine on each square league of territory, and to each
thousand of inhabitants, one noble family in its weathercock
mansion, in each village a curate and his church, and, every
six or seven leagues, a conventual body of men or of women. …
{1257}
A fifth of the soil belongs to the crown and the communes, a
fifth to the third estate, a fifth to the rural population, a
fifth to the nobles and a fifth to the clergy. Accordingly, if
we deduct the public lands, the privileged classes own one
half of the kingdom. This large portion, moreover, is at the
same time the richest, for it comprises almost all the large
and handsome buildings, the palaces, castles, convents, and
cathedrals, and almost all the valuable movable property. …
Such is the total or partial exemption from taxation. The
tax-collectors halt in their presence, because the king well
knows that feudal property has the same origin as his own; if
royalty is one privilege seigniory is another; the king
himself is simply the most privileged among the privileged.
… After the assaults of 450 years, taxation, the first of
fiscal instrumentalities, the most burdensome of all, leaves
feudal property almost intact. … The privileged person
avoids or repels taxation, not merely because it despoils him,
but because it belittles him; it is a mark of plebeian
condition, that is to say, of former servitude, and he resists
the fisc as much through pride as through interest. … La
Bruyère wrote, just a century before 1789, 'Certain
savage-looking beings, male and female, are seen in the
country, black, livid and sunburnt, and belonging to the soil
which they dig and grub with invincible stubbornness. They
seem capable of articulation, and, when they stand erect they
display human lineaments. They are, in fact, men. They retire
at night into their dens, where they live on black bread,
water and roots. They spare other human beings the trouble of
sowing, ploughing and harvesting, and thus should not be in
want of the bread they have planted.' They continue in want of
it during 25 years after this, and die in herds. I estimate
that in 1715 more than one-third of the population, six
millions, perish with hunger and of destitution. The picture,
accordingly, for the first quarter of the century preceding
the Revolution, far from being overdrawn, is the reverse; we
shall see that, during more than half a century, up to the
death of Louis XV., it is exact; perhaps, instead of weakening
any of its points, they should be strengthened. . . .
Undoubtedly the government under Louis XVI. is milder; the
intendants are more humane, the administration is less rigid,
the 'taille' becomes less unequal, and the 'corvée' is less
onerous through its transformation, in short, misery has
diminished, and yet this is greater than human nature can
bear. Examine administrative correspondence for the last
thirty years preceding the Revolution. Countless statements
reveal excessive suffering, even when not terminating in fury.
Life to a man of the lower class, to an artisan, or workman,
subsisting on the labor of his own hands, is evidently
precarious; he obtains simply enough to keep him from
starvation and he does not always get that. Here, in four
districts, 'the inhabitants live only on buckwheat,' and for
five years, the apple crop having failed, they drink only
water. There, in a country of vineyards, 'the vine-dressers
each year are reduced, for the most part, to begging their
bread during the dull season.' … In a remote canton the
peasants cut the grain still green and dry it in the oven,
because they are too hungry to wait. … Between 1750 and
1760, the idlers who eat suppers begin to regard with
compassion and alarm the laborers who go without dinners. Why
are the latter so impoverished, and by what chance, on a soil
as rich as that of France, do those lack bread who grow the
grain? In the first place, many farms remain uncultivated,
and, what is worse, many are deserted. According to the best
observers 'one-quarter of the soil is absolutely lying waste.
… Hundreds and hundreds of arpents of heath and moor form
extensive deserts.' … This is not sterility but decadence.
The régime invented by Louis XIV. has produced its effect; the
soil for a century past is reverting back to a wild state. … In
the second place, cultivation, when it does take place, is
carried on according to mediæval modes. Arthur Young, in 1789,
considers that French agriculture has not progressed beyond
that of the 10th century. Except in Flanders and on the plains
of Alsace, the fields lie fallow one year out of three and
oftentimes one year out of two. The implements are poor; there
are no ploughs made of iron; in many places the plough of
Virgil's time is still in use. … Arthur Young shows that in
France those who lived on field labor, and they constituted
the great majority, are 76 per cent. less comfortable than the
same laborers in England, while they are 76 per cent. less
well fed and well clothed, besides being worse treated in
sickness and in health. The result is that, in seven-eighths
of the kingdom, there are no farmers but simply métayers.
['The poor people,' says Arthur Young, 'who cultivate the soil
here are métayers, that is, men who hire the land without ability
to stock it; the proprietor is forced to provide cattle and
seed, and he and his tenants divide the product.'] … Misery
begets bitterness in a man; but ownership coupled with misery
renders him still more bitter"; and, strange as it appears,
the acquisition of land by the French peasants, in small
holdings, went on steadily during the 18th century, despite
the want and suffering which were so universal. "The fact is
almost incredible, but it is nevertheless true. We can only
explain it by the character of the French peasant, by his
sobriety, his tenacity, his rigor with himself, his
dissimulation, his hereditary passion for property and
especially for that of the soil. He had lived on privations
and economized sou after sou. … Towards 1760, one-quarter of
the soil is said to have already passed into the hands of
agriculturists. … The small cultivator, however, in becoming
a possessor of the soil assumed its charges. Simply as
day-laborer, and with his arms alone, he was only partially
affected by the taxes; 'where there is nothing the king loses
his dues.' But now, vainly is he poor and declaring himself
still poorer; the fisc has a hold on him and on every portion
of his new possessions. … In 1715, the 'taille' [see TAILLE
AND GABELLE] and the poll-tax, which he alone pays, or nearly
alone, amounts to 66,000,000 livres, the amount is 93,000,000
in 1759 and 110,000,000 in 1789. … 'I am miserable because
too much is taken from me. Too much is taken from me because
not enough is taken from the privileged. Not only do the
privileged force me to pay in their place, but, again, they
previously deduct from my earnings their ecclesiastical and
feudal dues. When, out of my income of 100 francs, I have
parted with 53 francs, and more, to the collector, I am
obliged again to give 14 francs to the seignior, also more
than 14 for tithes, and, out of the remaining 18 or 19 francs,
I have additionally to satisfy the excise-men.
{1258}
I alone, a poor man, pay two governments, one, the old
government [the seigniorial government of the feudal regime],
local and now absent, useless, inconvenient and humiliating,
and active only through annoyances, exemptions and taxes; and
the other [the royal government], recent, centralized,
everywhere present, which, taking upon itself all functions,
has vast needs and makes my meagre shoulders support its
enormous weight.' These, in precise terms, are the vague ideas
beginning to ferment in the popular brain and encountered on
every page of the records of the States-General. … The
privileged wrought their own destruction. … At their head,
the king, creating France by devoting himself to her as if his
own property, ended by sacrificing her as if his own property;
the public purse is his private purse, while passions, vanities,
personal weaknesses, luxurious habits, family solicitudes, the
intrigues of a mistress and the caprices of a wife, govern a
state of 26,000,000 men with an arbitrariness, a heedlessness,
a prodigality, an unskilfulness, an absence of consistency,
that would scarcely be overlooked in the management of a
private domain. The king and the privileged excel in one
direction, in good-breeding, in good taste, in fashion, in the
talent for self-display and in entertaining, in the gift of
graceful conversation, in finesse and in gayety, in the art of
converting life into a brilliant and ingenious festivity. …
Through the habit, perfection and sway of polished intercourse
they stamped on the French intellect a classic form, which,
combined with recent scientific acquisitions, produced the
philosophy of the 18th century, the ill-repute of tradition,
the ambition of recasting all human institutions according to
the sole dictates of reason, the appliance of mathematical
methods to politics and morals, the catechism of the rights of
man, and other dogmas of anarchical and despotic character in
the 'Contrat Social.'—Once this chimera is born they welcome
it as a drawing-room fancy; they use the little monster as a
plaything, as yet innocent and decked with ribbons like a
pastoral lambkin; they never dream of it becoming a raging,
formidable brute; they nourish it, and caress it, and then,
opening their doors, they let it descend into the
streets.—Here, amongst a middle class which the government
has rendered ill-disposed by compromising its fortunes, which
the privileged have offended by restricting its ambition,
which is wounded by inequality through injured self-esteem,
the revolutionary theory gains rapid accessions, a sudden
asperity, and, in a few years, it finds itself undisputed
master of public opinion.—At this moment, and at its summons,
another colossal monster rises up, a monster with millions of
heads, a blind, startled animal, an entire people pressed
down, exasperated and suddenly loosed against the government
whose exactions have despoiled it, against the privileged
whose rights have reduced it to starvation."
_H. A. Taine,
The Ancient Régime,
book 1, chapters 1, 2,
and book 5, chapters 1, 2, 5._
"When the facts of history are fully and impartially set
forth, the wonder is rather that sane men put up with the
chaotic imbecility, the hideous injustices, the shameless
scandals, of the 'Ancien Regime,' in the earlier half of the
century, many years before the political 'Philosophes' wrote a
line,—why the Revolution did not break out in 1754 or 1757,
as it was on the brink of doing, instead of being delayed, by
the patient endurance of the people, for another generation.
It can hardly be doubted that the Revolution of '89 owed many
of its worst features to the violence of a populace degraded
to the level of the beasts by the effect of the institutions
under which they herded together and starved; and that the
work of reconstruction which it attempted was to carry into
practice the speculations of Mably and of Rousseau. But, just
as little, does it seem open to question that, neither the
writhings of the dregs of the populace in their misery, nor
the speculative demonstrations of the Philosophers, would have
come to much, except for the revolutionary movement which had
been going on ever since the beginning of the century. The
deeper source of this lay in the just and profound griefs of
at least 95 per cent. of the population, comprising all its
most valuable elements, from the agricultural peasants to the
merchants and the men of letters and science, against the
system by which they were crushed, or annoyed, whichever way
they turned. But the surface current was impelled by the
official defenders of the 'Ancien Régime' themselves. It was
the Court, the Church, the Parliaments, and, above all, the
Jesuits, acting in the interests of the despotism of the
Papacy, who, in the first half of the 18th century,
effectually undermined all respect for authority, whether
civil or religious, and justified the worst that was or could
be said by the 'Philosophes' later on."
See
PORT ROYAL AND THE JANSENISTS: A. D. 1702-1715;
and JESUITS: A.D. 1761-1767.
_Prof. T. H. Huxley,
Introduction to F. Rocquain's
"The Revolutionary Spirit preceding
the French Revolution"_
"I took part in the opening of the States-General, and, in
spite of the pomp with which the royal power was still
surrounded, I there saw the passing away of the old regime.
The regime which preceded '89, should, it seems to me, be
considered from a two-fold aspect: the one, the general
condition of the country, and the other, the relations
existing between the government and the country. With regard
to the former, I firmly believe that, from the earliest days
of the monarchy, France had at no period been happier than she
was then. She had not felt the effects of any great misfortune
since the crash which followed Law's system. The long lasting
ministry of Cardinal de Fleury, doubtless inglorious, but wise
and circumspect, had made good the losses and lightened the
burdens imposed at the end of the reign of Louis XV. If, since
that time, several wars undertaken with little skill, and
waged with still less, had compromised the honor of her arms
and the reputation of her government; if they had even thrown
her finances into a somewhat alarming state of disorder, it is
but fair to say that the confusion resulting therefrom had
merely affected the fortune of a few creditors, and had not
tapped the sources of public prosperity; on the contrary, what
is styled the public administration had made constant
progress. If, on the one hand, the state had not been able to
boast of any great ministers, on the other, the provinces
could show many highly enlightened and clever intendants.
Roads had been opened connecting numerous points, and had been
greatly improved in all directions. It should not be forgotten
that these benefits are principally due to the reign of Louis
XV. Their most important result had been a progressive
improvement in the condition of agriculture.
{1259}
The reign of Louis XVI. had continued favoring this wise
policy, which had not been interrupted by the maritime war
undertaken on behalf of American independence. Many
cotton-mills had sprung, up, while considerable progress had
been made in the manufacture of printed cotton fabrics, and of
steel, and in the preparing of skins. … I saw the splendors
of the Empire. Since the Restoration I see daily new fortunes
spring up and consolidate themselves; still nothing so far
has, in my eyes, equalled the splendor of Paris during the
years which elapsed between 1783 and 1789. … Far be it from
me to shut my eyes to the reality of the public prosperity
which we are now [1822] enjoying. I am cognizant of the
improvement in the condition of the country districts, and I
am aware of the fact that all that rests on this solid
foundation, even though its appearance may be somewhat more
humble, is much to be preferred to a grander exterior that
might hide a less assured solidity. I do not seek to disparage
the present time—far from it. I am ready to admit the
advantages which have accrued, in many respects, as the
results of the Revolution; as, for instance, the partition of
landed property, so often assailed, and which, so long as it
does not go beyond certain limits, tends to increase wealth,
by introducing into many families a well-being hitherto
unknown to them. But, nevertheless, when I question my reason
and my conscience as to the possible future of the France of
1789, if the Revolution had not burst, if the ten years of
destruction to which it gave birth had not weighed heavily
upon that beautiful country … I am convinced that France, at
the time I am writing, would be richer and stronger than she
is to-day."
_Chancellor Pasquier,
Memoirs,
pages 44-47._
"In the spring of 1789 who could have foreseen the bloody
catastrophe? Everything was tinged with hopefulness; the world
was dreaming of the Golden Age. … Despite the previous
disorders, and seeds of discord contained in certain cahiers,
the prevailing sentiment was confidence. … The people
everywhere hailed with enthusiasm the new era which was
dawning. With a firm king, with a statesman who knew what he
wished, and was determined to accomplish it, this confidence
would have been an incomparable force. With a feeble prince
like Louis XVI., with an irresolute minister like Necker, it
was an appalling danger. The public, inflamed by the anarchy
that had preceded the convocation of the States, disposed,
through its inexperience, to accept all Utopias, and impelled
by its peculiar character to desire their immediate
realization, naturally grew more exacting in proportion as
they were promised more, and more impatient and irritable as
their hopes became livelier and appeared better founded. In
the midst of this general satisfaction there was but one dark
spot,—the queen. The cheers which greeted the king were
silent before his wife. Calumny had done its work; and all the
nobles from the provinces, the country curates, the citizens
of the small towns, came from the confines of France imbued
with the most contemptible prejudices against this unfortunate
princess. Pamphlets, poured out against her by malicious
enemies; vague and mysterious rumours, circulated everywhere,
repeated in whispers, without giving any clew to their
source,—the more dangerous because indefinite, and the more
readily believed because infamous and absurd,—had so often
reiterated that the queen was author of all the evil, that the
world had come to regard her as the cause of the deficit, and
the only serious obstacle to certain efficacious reforms. 'The
queen pillages on all sides; she even sends money, it is said,
to her brother, the emperor,' wrote a priest of Maine, in his
parochial register, in 1781; and he attributed the motive of
the reunion of the Notables to these supposed depredations.
If, in 1781, such reports had penetrated to the remotest parts
of the country, and found credence with such enlightened men
as the Curé Boucher, one can judge what it must have been two
years later, when the convocation of the States-General had
inflamed the minds of the people. If the States should
encounter any inevitable obstacle in their path; if certain
imprudent promises should be unfulfilled; if promised reforms
should fail,—public resentment and ill-will, always on the
alert, would be sure to blame Marie Antoinette; they would
impute to her all the evil done, and all the good left undone.
The symptoms of this distrust were manifest at the outset.
'The deputies of the Third Estate,' Madame Campan observes,
'arrived at Versailles with the strongest prejudice against
the court. The evil sayings in Paris never failed to be spread
through the provinces: they believed that the king indulged in
the pleasures of the table to a most shameful excess; they
were persuaded that the queen exhausted the State treasury to
gratify her inordinate love of luxury; almost all wished to
visit Little Trianon. As the extreme simplicity of this
pleasure-house did not correspond with their ideas, they
insisted on being shown even the smallest closets, saying that
richly furnished apartments were being concealed from them.
Finally they designated one, which according to their account
was ornamented with diamonds, and twisted columns studded with
sapphires and rubies. The queen was amused at these mad
fancies, and told the king of them.'"
_M. de la Rocheterie,
Life of Marie Antoinette,
volume 2, chapter 1._
ALSO IN:
_A. de Tocqueville,
On the State of Society
in France before the Revolution._
_A. Young,
Travels in France, 1787-89._
_R. H. Dabney,
Causes of the French Revolution._
_E. J. Lowell,
The Eve of the French Revolution._
FRANCE: A. D. 1789 (May).
Meeting of the States-General.
Conflict between the three Estates.
The question of three Houses or one.
"The opening of the States-general was fixed for the 5th of
May, 1789, and Versailles was chosen as the place of their
meetings. On the 4th, half Paris poured into that town to see
the court and the deputies marching in procession to the
solemn religious ceremony, which was to inaugurate the
important epoch. … On the following day, the States-general,
to the number of 1,200 persons, assembled in the spacious and
richly decorated 'salle des menus plaisirs.' The King
appeared, surrounded by his family, with all the magnificence
of the ancient court, and was greeted by the enthusiastic
applause of the deputies and spectators." The king made a
speech, followed by Barentin, the keeper of the great seal,
and by Necker. The latter "could not prevail upon himself to
avow to the Assembly the real state of affairs. He announced
an annual deficit of 56,000,000 francs, and thereby confused
the mind of the public, which, since the meeting of the
Notables, had always been discussing a deficit of from
120,000,000 to 140,000,000.
{1260}
He was quite right in assuming that those 56,000,000 might be
covered by economy in the expenditure; but it was both
irritating and untrue, when he, on this ground, denied the
necessity of summoning the States-general, and called their
convocation a free act of royal favour. … The balance of
income and expenditure might, indeed, easily be restored in
the future, but the deficit of former years had been
heedlessly allowed to accumulate, and by no one more than by
Necker himself. A floating debt of 550,000,000 had to be
faced—in other words, therefore, more than a whole year's
income had been expended in advance. … The real deficit of
the year, therefore, at the lowest calculation, amounted to
more than 200,000,000, or nearly half the annual income. …
These facts, then, were concealed, and thus the ministry was
necessarily placed in a false position towards the
States-general; the continuance of the former abuses was
perpetuated, or a violent catastrophe made inevitable. … For
the moment the matter was not discussed. Everything yielded to
the importance of the constitutional question—whether the
three orders should deliberate in common or apart—whether
there should be one single representative body, or independent
corporations. This point was mooted at once in its full extent
on the question, whether the validity of the elections should
be scrutinised by each order separately, or by the whole
Assembly. We need not here enter into the question of right;
but of this there can be no doubt, that the government, which
virtually created the States-general afresh [since there had
been no national meeting of the Estates since the
States-general of 1614-see above: A. D. 1610-1619], had the
formal right to convoke them either in one way or the other,
as it thought fit. … They [the government] infinitely
lowered their own influence and dignity by leaving a most
important constitutional question to the decision and the
wrangling of the three orders; and they frustrated their own
practical objects, by not decidedly declaring for the union of
the orders in one assembly. Every important measure of reform,
which had in view the improvement of the material and
financial condition of the country, would have been mutilated
by the clergy and rejected by the nobles. This was
sufficiently proved by the 'cahiers' of the electors ['written
instructions given by the electors to the deputies']. The
States themselves had to undertake what the government had
neglected. That which the government might have freely and
legally commanded, now led to violent revolution. But there
was no choice left; the commons would not tolerate the
continuance of the privileged orders; and the state could not
tolerate them if it did not wish to perish. The commons, who
on this point were unanimous, considered the system of a
single Assembly as a matter of course. They took care not to
constitute themselves as 'tiers état,' but remained passive,
and declared that they would wait until the Assembly should be
constituted as a whole. Thus slowly and cautiously did they
enter on their career. … Indisputably the most important and
influential among them was Count Mirabeau, the representative
of the town of Aix in Provence, a violent opponent of
feudalism, and a restless participator in all the recent
popular commotions. He would have been better able than any
man to stimulate the Assembly to vigorous action; but even he
hesitated, and kept back his associates from taking any
violent steps, because he feared that the inconsistency and
inexperience of the majority would bring ruin on the state.
… It was only very gradually that the 'tiers état' began to
negotiate with the other orders. The nobles shewed themselves
haughty, dogmatical, and aggressive; and the clergy cautious,
unctuous, and tenacious. They tried the efficacy of general
conferences; but as no progress was found to have been made
after three weeks, they gave up their consultations on the
25th of May. The impatience of the public, and the necessities
of the treasury, continually increased; the government,
therefore, once more intervened, and Necker was called upon to
propose a compromise," which was coldly rejected by the
nobles, who "declared that they had long ago finished their
scrutiny, and constituted themselves as a separate order. They
thus spared the commons the dreaded honour of being the first
to break with the crown. The conferences were again closed on
the 9th of June. The leaders of the commons now saw that they
must either succumb to the nobility, or force the other orders
to submission."
_H. von Sybel,
History of the French Revolution.,
book 1, chapter 2 (volume 1)._
ALSO IN:
_W. Smyth,
Lectures on the History of the French Revolution,
lecture 8 (volume 1)._
_Prince de Talleyrand,
Memoirs,
part 1 (volume 1)._
FRANCE: A. D. 1789 (June).
The Third Estate seizes the reins, proclaims itself the
National Assembly, and assumes sovereign powers.
The passionate excitement of Paris.
Dismissal of Necker.
Rising of the mob.
"At last … on the proposal of Sieyès [the Abbé, deputy for
Paris] and amid a storm of frantic excitement, the Third
Estate alone voted themselves 'the National Assembly,' invited
the other two orders to join them, and pushing their
pretensions to sovereignty to the highest point, declared that
the existing taxes, not having been consented to by the
nation, were all illegal. The National Assembly, however,
allowed them to be levied till its separation, after which
they were to cease if not formally regranted. This great
revolution was effected on June 17, and it at once placed the
Third Order in a totally new relation both to the other orders
and to the Crown. There were speedy signs of yielding among
some members of the privileged orders, and a fierce wave of
excitement supported the change. Malouet strongly urged that
the proper course was to dissolve the Assembly and to appeal
to the constituencies, but Necker declined, and a feeble and
ineffectual effort of the King to accomplish a reunion, and at
the same time to overawe the Third Order, precipitated the
Revolution. The King announced his intention of holding a
royal session on June 22, and he summoned the three orders to
meet him. It was his design to direct them to unite in order
to deliberate in common on matters of common interest, and to
regain the royal initiative by laying down the lines of a new
constitution. … On Saturday, the 20th, however, the course
of events was interrupted by the famous scene in the tennis
court. Troops had lately been pouring to an alarming extent
into Paris, and exciting much suspicion in the popular party,
and the Government very injudiciously selected for the royal
session on the following Monday the hall in which the Third
Order assembled. The hall was being prepared for the occasion,
and therefore no meeting could be held.
{1261}
The members, ignorant of the fact, went to their chamber and
were repelled by soldiers. Furious at the insult, they
adjourned to the neighbouring tennis court [Jeu-de-Paume]. A
suspicion that the King meant to dissolve them was abroad, and
they resolved to resist such an attempt. With lifted hands and
in a transport of genuine, if somewhat theatrical enthusiasm,
they swore that they would never separate 'till the
constitution of the kingdom and the regeneration of public
order were established on a solid basis.' … One single
member, Martin d'Auche, refused his assent. The Third Estate
had thus virtually assumed the sole legislative authority in
France, and like the Long Parliament in England had denied the
King's power to dissolve them. … Owing to the dissension
that had arisen, the royal session was postponed till the
23rd, but on the preceding day the National Assembly met in a
church, and its session was a very important one, for on this
occasion a great body of the clergy formally joined it. One
hundred and forty-eight members of the clergy, of whom 134
were curés, had now given their adhesion. Two of the nobles,
separating from their colleagues, took the same course. Next
day the royal session was held. The project adopted in the
council differed so much from that of Necker that this
minister refused to give it the sanction of his presence.
Instead of commanding the three orders to deliberate together
in the common interest, it was determined in the revised
project that the King should merely invite them to do so. …
It was … determined to withdraw altogether from the common
deliberation 'the form of the constitution to be given to the
coming States-General,' and to recognise fully the essential
distinction of the three orders as political bodies, though
they might, with the approval of the Sovereign, deliberate in
common. Necker had proposed … that the King should
decisively, and of his own authority, abolish all privileges
of taxation, but in the amended article the King only
undertook to give his sanction to this measure on condition of
the two orders renouncing their privileges. On the other hand,
the King announced to the Assembly a long series of articles
of reform which would have made France a thoroughly
constitutional country, and have swept away nearly all the
great abuses in its government. … He annulled the
proceedings of June 17, by which the Third Estate alone
declared itself the Legislature of France. He reminded the
Assembly that none of its proceedings could acquire the force
of law without his assent, and he asserted his sole right as
French Sovereign to the command of the army and police. He
concluded by directing the three orders to withdraw and to
meet next day to consider his proposals. The King, with the
nobles and the majority of the clergy, at once withdrew, but
the Third Order defiantly remained. It was evident that the
attempt to conciliate, and the attempt to assert the royal
authority, had both failed. The Assembly proclaimed itself
inviolable. It confirmed the decrees which the King had
annulled. Sieyès declared, in words which excited a transport
of enthusiasm, that what the Assembly was yesterday it still
was to-day; and two days later, the triumph of the Assembly
became still more evident by the adhesion of 47 of the
nobility. After this defection the King saw the hopelessness
of resistance, and on the 27th he ordered the remainder of the
nobles to take the same course. … In the mean time the real
rulers of the country were coming rapidly to the surface. …
Groups of local agitators and of the scum of the Paris mob
began to overawe the representatives of the nation, and to
direct the course of its policy. Troops were poured into
Paris, but their presence was an excitement without being a
protection, for day after day it became more evident that
their discipline was gone, and that they shared the sympathies
and the passions of the mob. … At the same time famine grew
daily more intense, and the mobs more passionate and more
formidable. The dismissal of Necker on the evening of July 11
was the spark which produced the conflagration that had long
been preparing. Next day Paris flew to arms. The troops with
few exceptions abandoned the King."
_W. E. H. Lecky,
History of England in the 18th Century,
chapter 20 (volume 5)._
ALSO IN:
_E. Dumont,
Recollections of Mirabeau,
chapters 4-5._
FRANCE: A. D. 1789 (July).
The mob in arms.
Anarchy in Paris.
The taking of the Bastille.
"On the 12th of July, near noon, on the news of the dismissal
of Necker, a cry of rage arises in the Palais-Royal; Camille
Desmoulins, mounted on a table, announces that the Court
meditates 'a St. Bartholomew of patriots.' The crowd embrace
him, adopt the green cockade which he has proposed, and oblige
the dancing-saloons and theatres to close in sign of mourning:
they hurry off to the residence of Curtius [a plaster-cast
master], and take the busts of the Duke of Orleans and of
Necker and carry them about in triumph. Meanwhile, the
dragoons of the Prince de Lambesc, drawn up on the Place
Louis-Quinze, find a barricade of chairs at the entrance of
the Tuilleries, and are greeted with a shower of stones and
bottles. Elsewhere, on the Boulevard, before the Hôtel
Montmorency, some of the French Guards, escaped from their
barracks, fired on a loyal detachment of the 'Royal Allemand.'
The tocsin is sounding on all sides, the shops where arms are
sold are pillaged, and the Hôtel-de-Ville is invaded; 15 or 16
well-disposed electors, who meet there, order the districts to
be assembled and armed.—The new sovereign, the people in arms
and in the street, has declared himself. The dregs of society
at once come to the surface. During the night between the 12th
and 13th of July, 'all the barriers, from the Faubourg
Saint-Antoine to the Faubourg Saint-Honoré, besides those of
the Faubourgs Saint-Marcel and Saint-Jacques, are forced and
set on fire.' There is no longer an 'octroi'; the city is
without a revenue just at the moment when it is obliged to
make the heaviest expenditures. … 'During this fearful
night, the bourgeoisie kept themselves shut up, each trembling
at home for himself and those belonging to him.' On the following
day, the 13th, the capital appears to be given up to bandits
and the lowest of the low. … During these two days and
nights, says Bailly, 'Paris ran the risk of being pillaged,
and was only saved from the marauders by the national guard.'
… Fortunately the militia organized itself, and the
principal inhabitants and gentlemen enrol themselves; 48,000
men are formed into battalions and companies; the bourgeoisie
buy guns of the vagabonds for three livres apiece, and sabres
or pistols for twelve sous. At last, some of the offenders are
hung on the spot, and others disarmed, and the insurrection again
becomes political.
{1262}
But, whatever its object, it remains always wild, because it
is in the hands of the populace. … There is no leader, no
management. The electors who have converted themselves into
the representatives of Paris seem to command the crowd, but it
is the crowd which commands them. One of them, Legrand, to
save the Hôtel-de-Ville, has no other resource but to send for
six barrels of gun-powder, and to declare to the assailants
that he is about to blow everything into the air. The
commandant whom they themselves have chosen, M. de Salles, has
twenty bayonets at his breast during a quarter of an hour,
and, more than once, the whole committee is near being
massacred. Let the reader imagine, on the premises where the
discussions are going on, and petitions are being made, 'a
concourse of 1,500 men pressed by 100,000 others who are
forcing an entrance,' the wainscoting cracking, the benches
upset one over another … a tumult such as to bring to mind
'the day of judgment,' the death-shrieks, songs, yells, and
'people beside themselves, for the most part not knowing where
they are nor what they want.' Each district is also a petty
centre, while the Palais-Royal is the main centre. … One
wave gathers here and another there, their strategy consists
in pushing and in being pushed. Yet, their entrance is
effected only because they are let in. If they get into the
Invalides it is owing to the connivance of the soldiers.—At
the Bastille, firearms are discharged from ten in the morning
to five in the evening against walls 40 feet high and 30 feet
thick, and it is by chance that one of their shots reaches an
'invalide' on the towers. They are treated the same as
children whom one wishes to hurt as little as possible. The
governor, on the first summons to surrender, orders the cannon
to be withdrawn from the embrasures; he makes the garrison swear
not to fire if it is not attacked; he invites the first of the
deputations to lunch; he allows the messenger dispatched from
the Hôtel-de-Ville to inspect the fortress; he receives
several discharges without returning them, and lets the first
bridge be carried without firing a shot. When, at length, he
does fire, it is at the last extremity, to defend the second
bridge, and after having notified the assailants that he is
going to do so. … The people, in turn, are infatuated with
the novel sensations of attack and resistance, with the smell
of gunpowder, with the excitement of the contest; all they can
think of doing is to rush against the mass of stone, their
expedients being on a level with their tactics: A brewer
fancies that he can set fire to this block of masonry by
pumping over it spikenard and poppy-seed oil mixed with
phosphorus. A young carpenter, who has some archæological
notions, proposes to construct a catapult. Some of them think
that they have seized the governor's daughter, and want to
burn her in order to make the father surrender. Others set
fire to a projecting mass of buildings filled with straw, and
thus close up the passage. 'The Bastille was not taken by main
force,' says the brave Elie, one of the combatants; 'it was
surrendered before even it was attacked,' by capitulation, on
the promise that no harm should be done to anybody. The
garrison, being perfectly secure, had no longer the heart to
fire on human beings while themselves risking nothing, and, on
the other hand, they were unnerved by the sight of the immense
crowd. Eight or nine hundred men only were concerned in the
attack, most of them workmen or shopkeepers belonging to the
faubourg, tailors, wheelwrights, mercers, and wine-dealers,
mixed with the French Guards. The Place de la Bastille,
however, and all the streets in the vicinity, were crowded
with the curious who came to witness the sight; 'among them,'
says a witness, 'were a number of fashionable women of very
good appearance, who had left their carriages at some
distance.' To the 120 men of the garrison, looking down from
their parapets, it seemed as though all Paris had come out
against them. It is they, also, who lower the drawbridge and
introduce the enemy; everybody has lost his head, the besieged
as well as the besiegers, the latter more completely because
they are intoxicated with the sense of victory. Scarcely have
they entered when they begin the work of destruction, and the
latest arrivals shoot at random those that come earlier; 'each
one fires without heeding where or on whom his shot tells.'
Sudden omnipotence and the liberty to kill are a wine too
strong for human nature. … Elie, who is the first to enter
the fortress, Cholat, Hulin, the brave fellows who are in
advance, the French Guards who are cognizant of the laws of
war, try to keep their word of honour; but the crowd pressing
on behind them know not whom to strike, and they strike at
random. They spare the Swiss soldiers who have fired on them,
and who, in their blue smocks, seem to them to be prisoners;
on the other hand, by way of compensation, they fall furiously
on the 'invalides' who opened the gates to them; the man who
prevented the governor from blowing up the fortress has his
wrist severed by the blow of a sabre, is twice pierced with a
sword and is hung, and the hand which had saved one of the
districts of Paris is promenaded through the streets in
triumph. The officers are dragged along and five of them are
killed, with three soldiers, on the spot, or on the way." M.
de Launay, the governor, after receiving many wounds, while
being dragged to the Hotel-de-Ville, was finally killed by
bayonet thrusts, and his head, cut from his body, was
placarded and borne through the streets upon a pitchfork.
_H. A. Taine,
The French Revolution,
book 1, chapter 2 (volume 1)._
"I was present at the taking of the Bastille. What has been
styled the fight was not serious, for there was absolutely no
resistance shown. Within the hold's walls were neither
provisions nor ammunition. It was not even necessary to invest
it. The regiment of gardes françaises which had led the
attack, presented itself under the walls on the rue Saint
Antoine side, opposite the main entrance, which was barred by
a drawbridge. There was a discharge of a few musket shots, to
which no reply was made, and then four or five discharges from
the cannon. It has been claimed that the latter broke the
chains of the drawbridge. I did not notice this, and yet I was
standing close to the point of attack. What I did see plainly
was the action of the soldiers, invalides, or others, grouped
on the platform of the high tower, holding their muskets stock
in the air, and expressing by all means employed under similar
circumstances their desire of surrendering. The result of this
so-called victory, which brought down so many favors on the
heads of the so-called victors, is well-known. The truth is,
that this great fight did not for a moment frighten the
numerous spectators who had flocked to witness its result.
Among them were many women of fashion, who, in order to be
closer to the scene, had left their carriages some distance
away."
_Chancellor Pasquier,
Memoirs,
pages 55-56._
ALSO IN:
_D. Bingham,
The Bastille,
volume 2, chapters 9-12._
_R. A. Davenport,
History of the Bastile,
chapter 12._
_J. Claretie,
Camille Desmoulins and his Wife,
chapter 1, section 4._
{1263}
FRANCE: A. D. 1789 (July).
Practical surrender of authority by the king.
Organization of the National Guard with Lafayette in command.
Disorder and riot in the provinces.
Hunger in the capital.
The murder of Foulon and Berthier.
"The next morning the taking of the Bastille bore its intended
fruit. Marshal de Broglie, who had found, instead of a loyal
army, only disaffected regiments which had joined or were
preparing to join the mob, sent in his resignation. … The
king, deserted by his army, his authority now quite gone, had
no means of restoring order except through the Assembly. He
begged that body to undertake the work, promising to recall
the dismissed ministers. … The power of the king had now
passed from him to the National Assembly. But that numerous
body of men, absorbed in interminable discussions on abstract
ideas, was totally incapable of applying its power to the
government of the country. The electors at the Hotel de Ville,
on the 15th of July, resolved that there must be a mayor to
direct the affairs of Paris, and a National Guard to preserve
order. Dangers threatened from every quarter. When the
question arose as to who should fill these offices, Moreau de
Saint Méry, the president of the electors, pointed to the bust
of Lafayette, which had been sent as a gift to the city of
Paris by the State of Virginia, in 1784. The gesture was
immediately understood, and Lafayette was chosen by
acclamation. Not less unanimous was the choice of Bailly for
mayor. Lafayette was now taken from the Assembly to assume the
more active employment of commanding the National Guard. While
the Assembly pursued the destruction of the old order and the
erection of a new, Lafayette, at the age of 82, became the
chief depositary of executive power. … Throughout France,
the deepest interest was exhibited in passing events. … The
victory of the Assembly over the king and aristocracy led the
people of the provinces to believe that their cause was
already won. A general demoralization ensued." After the
taking of the Bastille, "the example of rebellion thus set was
speedily followed. Rioting and lawlessness soon prevailed
everywhere, increased and imbittered by the scarcity of food.
In the towns, bread riots became continual, and the
custom-houses, the means of collecting the exorbitant taxes,
were destroyed. In the rural districts, châteaux were to be
seen burning on all sides. The towers in which were preserved
the titles and documents which gave to the nobleman his
oppressive rights were carried by storm and their contents
scattered. Law and authority were fast becoming synonymous
with tyranny; the word 'liberty,' now in every mouth, had no
other signification than license. Into Paris slunk hordes of
gaunt foot-pads from all over France; attracted by the
prospect of disorder and pillage. … From such circumstances
naturally arose the National Guard. "The king had been asked,
on the 13th, by a deputation from the Assembly, "to confide
the care of the city to a militia," and had declined. The
military organization of citizens was then undertaken by the
electors at the Hotel de Ville, without his consent, and its
commander designated without his appointment. "The king was
obliged to confirm this choice, and he was thus deprived even
of the merit of naming the chief officer of the guard whose
existence had been forced upon him." On the 17th the king was
persuaded to visit the city, for the effect which his personal
presence would have, it was thought, upon the anxious and
excited public mind. Lafayette had worked with energy to
prepare his National Guard for the difficult duty of
preserving order and protecting the royal visitor on the
occasion. "So intense was the excitement and the
insurrectionary spirit of the time, so uncertain were the
boundaries between rascality and revolutionary zeal, that it
was difficult to establish the fact that the new guard was
created to preserve order and not to fight the king and
pillage the aristocracy. The great armed mob, now in process
of organization, had to be treated with great tact, lest it
should refuse to submit to authority in any shape." But short
as the time was, Lafayette succeeded in giving to the
powerless monarch a safe and orderly reception. "The king made
his will and took the sacraments before leaving Versailles,
for … doubts were entertained that he would live to return."
He was met at the gates of Paris by the new mayor, Bailly, and
escorted through a double line of National Guards to the Hotel
de Ville. There he was obliged to fix on his hat the national
cockade, just brought into use, and to confirm the
appointments of Lafayette and Bailly. "Louis XVI. then
returned to Versailles, on the whole pleased, as the day had
been less unpleasant than had been expected. But the
compulsory acceptation of the cockade and the nominations
meant nothing less than the extinction of his authority. …
Lafayette recruited his army from the bourgeois class, for the
good reason that, in the fever then raging for uncontrolled
freedom, that class was the only one from which the proper
material could be taken. The importance of order was impressed
on the bourgeois by the fact that they had, shops and houses
which they did not wish to see pillaged. … The necessity for
strict police measures was soon to be terribly illustrated.
For a week past a large crowd composed of starving workmen,
country beggars, and army deserters, had thronged the streets,
angrily demanding food. The city was extremely short of
provisions, and it was impossible to satisfy the demands made
upon it. … On July 22, an old man named Foulon, It member of
the late ministry, who had long been the object of public
dislike, and was now detested because it was rumored that he
said that 'the people might eat' grass,' was arrested in the
country, and brought to the Hotel de Ville, followed by a mob
who demanded his immediate judgment." Lafayette exerted vainly
his whole influence and his whole authority to protect the
wretched old man until he could be lodged in prison. The mob
tore its victim from his very hands and destroyed him on the
spot. The next day, Foulon's son-in-law, Berthier, the
Intendant of Paris, was arrested in the country, and the
tragedy was re-enacted. "Shocked by these murders and
disgusted by his own inability to prevent them, Lafayette sent
his resignation to the electors, and for some time persisted
in his refusal to resume his office. But no other man could be
found in Paris equally fitted for the place; so that on the
personal solicitation of the electors and a deputation from
the 60 districts of the city, he again took command."
_B. Tuckerman,
Life of General Lafayette,
volume 1, chapters 9-10._
ALSO IN:
_J. Michelet,
Historical View of the French
Revolution, book 2, chapters 1-2._
{1264}
FRANCE: A. D. 1789 (July-August).
Cause and character of the "Emigration."
"Everything, or nearly everything, was done by the party
opposed to the Revolution in the excitement of the moment;
nothing was the result of reasoning. Who, for instance,
reasoned out the emigration? It has oftentimes been asked how
so extraordinary a resolution came to be taken; how it had
entered the minds of men gifted with a certain amount of sense
that there was any advantage to be derived from abandoning all
the posts where they could still exercise power; of giving
over to the enemy the regiments they commanded, the localities
over which they had control; of delivering up completely to
the teachings of the opposite party the peasantry, over whom,
in a goodly number of provinces, a valuable influence might be
exerted, and among whom they still had many friends; and all
this, to return for the purpose of conquering, at the sword's
point, positions, a number of which at least could be held
without a fight. No doubt it has been offered as an objection,
that the peasantry set fire to châteaux, that soldiers
mutinied against their officers. This was not the case at the
time of what has been called the first emigration, and, at any
rate, such doings were not general; but does danger constitute
sufficient cause for abandoning an important post? … What is
the answer to all this? Merely what follows. The voluntary
going into exile of nearly the whole nobility of France, of
many magistrates who were never to unsheath a sword, and
lastly, of a large number of women and children,—this
resolve, without a precedent in history, was not conceived and
determined upon as a State measure; chance brought it about. A
few, in the first instance, followed the princes who had been
obliged, on the 14th of July, to seek safety out of France,
and others followed them. At first, it was merely in the
nature of a pleasant excursion. Outside of France, they might
freely enjoy saying and believing anything and everything. …
The wealthiest were the first to incur the expense of this
trip, and a few brilliant and amiable women of the Court
circle did their share to render most attractive the sojourn
in a number of foreign towns close to the frontier. Gradually
the number of these small gatherings increased, and it was
then that the idea arose of deriving advantage from them. It
occurred to the minds of a few men in the entourage of the
Comte d'Artois, and whose moving spirit was M. de Calonne,
that it would be an easy matter for them to create a kingdom
for their sovereign outside of France, and that if they could
not in this fashion succeed in giving him provinces to reign
over, he would at least reign over subjects, and that this
would serve to give him a standing in the eyes of foreign
powers, and determine them to espouse his cause. … Thus in
'89, '90, and '91, there were a few who were compelled to fly
from actual danger; a small number were led away by a genuine
feeling of enthusiasm; many felt themselves bound to leave,
owing to a point of honor which they obeyed without reasoning
it out; the mass thought it was the fashion, and that it
looked well; all, or almost all, were carried away by
expectations encouraged by the wildest of letters, and by the
plotting of a few ambitious folk, who were under the
impression that they were building up their fortunes."
_Chancellor Pasquier,
Memoirs,
pages 64-66._
FRANCE: A. D. 1789 (August).
The Night of Sacrifices.
The sweeping out of Feudalism.
"What was the Assembly doing at this period, when Paris was
waiting in expectation, and the capture of the Bastille was
being imitated all over France; when châteaux were burning,
and nobles flying into exile; when there was positive civil
war in many a district, and anarchy in every province? Why,
the Assembly was discussing whether or not the new
constitution of France should be prefaced by a Declaration of
the Rights of Man. In the discussion of this extremely
important question were wasted the precious days which
followed July 17. … The complacency of these theorists was
rudely shaken on August 4, when Salomon read to the Assembly
the report of the Comité des Recherches, or Committee of
Researches, on the state of France. A terrible report it was.
Châteaux burning here and there; millers hung; tax-gatherers
drowned; the warehouses and depots of the gabelle burnt;
everywhere rioting, and nowhere peace. … Among those who
listened to the clear and forcible report of Salomon were
certain of the young liberal noblesse who had just been dining
with the Duc de la Roehefoucauld-Liancourt, a wise and
enlightened nobleman. At their head was the Vicomte de
Noailles, a young man of thirty-three, who had distinguished
himself at the head of his regiment under his cousin,
Lafayette, in America. … The Vicomte de Noailles was the
first to rush to the tribune. 'What is the cause of the evil
which is agitating the provinces?' he cried; and then he
showed that it arose from the uncertainty under which the
people dwelt, as to whether or not the old feudal bonds under
which they had so long lived and laboured were to be
perpetuated or abolished, and concluded an impassioned speech
by proposing to abolish them at once. One after another the
young liberal noblemen, and then certain deputies of the tiers
état, followed him with fresh sacrifices. First the old feudal
rights were abolished; then the rights of the dovecote and the
game laws; then the old copyhold services; then the tithes
paid to the Church, in spite of a protest from Siéyès; then
the rights of certain cities over their immediate suburbs and
rural districts were sacrificed; and the contention during
that feverish night was rather to remember something or other
to sacrifice than to suggest the expediency of maintaining
anything which was established. In its generosity the Assembly
even gave away what did not belong to it. The old dues paid to
the pope were abolished, and it was even declared that the
territory of Avignon, which had belonged to the pope since the
Middle Ages, should be united to France if it liked; and the
sitting closed with a unanimous decree that a statue should be
erected to Louis XVI., 'the restorer of French liberty.' Well
might Mirabeau define the night of August 4 as a mere 'orgie.'
… Noble indeed were the intentions of the deputies. …
{1265}
Yet the results of this night of sacrifices were bad rather
than good. As Mirabeau pointed out, the people of France were
told that all the feudal rights, dues, and tithes had been
abolished that evening, but they were not told at the same
time that there must be taxes and other burdens to take their
place. It was of no use to issue a provisional order that all
rights, dues, and taxes remained in force for the present,
because the poor peasant would refuse to pay what was illegal,
and would not understand the political necessity of supporting
the revenue. … This ill-considered mass of resolutions was
what was thrown in the face of France in a state of anarchy to
restore it to a state of order."
_H. M. Stephens,
History of the French Revolution,
volume 1, chapter 5._
ALSO IN:
A. Thiers, History of the French Revolution,
(American edition), volume 1, pages 81-84.
FRANCE: A. D. 1789 (August-October).
Constitution-making and the Rights of Man.
The first emigration of nobles.
Famine in Paris.
Rumors of an intended flight of the King.
"One may look upon the peculiarity of the Assembly as being a
singular faith in the power of ideas. That was its greatness.
It firmly believed that truth shaped into laws would be
invincible. Two months—such was the calculation—would
suffice to construct the constitution. That constitution by
its omnipotent virtue would convince all men and bend them to
its authority, and the revolution would be completed. Such was
the faith of the National Assembly. The attitude of the people
was so menacing that many of the courtiers fled. Thus
commenced the first emigration. … As if the minds of men
were not sufficiently agitated, there now were heard cries of
a great conspiracy of the aristocrats. The papers announced
that a plot had been discovered which was to have delivered
Brest to the English. Brest, the naval arsenal, wherein France
for whole centuries had expended her millions and her labours:
this given up to England! England would once more overrun France!
… It was amidst these cries of alarm—with on one hand the
emigration of the nobility, on the other the hunger of a
maddened people; with here an irresolute aristocracy, startled
at the audacity of the 'canaille,' and there a resolute
Assembly, prepared, at the hazard of their lives, to work out
the liberty of France; amidst reports of famine, of
insurrections, and wild disorders of all sorts, that we find
the National Assembly debating upon the rights of man,
discussing every article with metaphysical quibbling and
wearisome fluency, and, having finally settled each article,
making their famous Declaration. This Declaration, which was
solemnly adopted by the Assembly, on the 18th of August, was
the product of a whole century of philosophical speculation,
fixed and reduced to formulas, and bearing unmistakeable
traces of Rousseau. It declared the original equality of
mankind, and that the ends of social union are liberty,
property, security, and resistance to oppression. It declared
that sovereignty resides in the nation, from whence all power
emanates; that freedom consists in doing everything which does
not injure another; that law is the expression of the general
will; that public burdens should be borne by all the members
of the state in proportion to their fortunes; that the
elective franchise should be extended to all; that the
exercise of natural rights has no other limit than their
interference with the rights of others; that no man should be
persecuted for his religious opinions, provided he conform to
the laws and do not disturb the religion of the state; that
all men have the right of quitting the state in which they
were born, and of choosing another country, by renouncing
their rights of citizenship; that the liberty of the press is
the foremost support of public liberty, and the law should
maintain it, at the same time punishing those who abuse it by
distributing seditious discourses, or calumnies against
individuals." Having adopted its Declaration of the rights of
man, the Assembly proceeded to the drawing up of a
constitution which should embody the principles of the
Declaration, and soon found itself in passionate debate upon
the relations to be established between the national
legislature and the king. Should the king retain a veto upon
legislation? Should he have any voice in the making of laws?
"The lovers of England and the English constitution all voted
in favour of the veto. Even Mirabeau was for it." Robespierre,
just coming into notice, bore a prominent part in the
opposition. "The majority of the Assembly shared Robespierre's
views; and the King's counselors were at length forced to
propose a compromise in the shape of a suspensive veto;
namely, that the King should not have the absolute right of
preventing any law, but only the right of suspending it for
two, four, or six years. … It was carried by a large
majority." Meantime, in Paris, "vast and incalculable was the
misery: crowds of peruke-makers, tailors, and shoemakers, were
wont to assemble at the Louvre and in the Champs Elysées,
demanding things impossible to be granted; demanding that the
old regulations should be maintained, and that new ones should
be made; demanding that the rate of daily wages should be
fixed; demanding … that all the Savoyards in the country
should be sent away, and only Frenchmen employed. The bakers'
shops were besieged, as early as five o'clock in the morning,
by hungry crowds who had to stand 'en queue'; happy when they
had money to purchase miserable bread, even in this
uncomfortable manner. … Paris was living at the mercy of
chance: its subsistence dependent on some arrival or other:
dependent on a convoy from Beauce, or a boat from Corbeuil.
The city, at immense sacrifices, was obliged to lower the
price of bread: the consequence was that the population for
more than ten leagues round came to procure provisions at
Paris. The uncertainty of the morrow augmented the
difficulties. Everybody stored up, and concealed provisions.
The administration sent in every direction, and bought up
flour, by fair means, or by foul. It often happened that at
midnight there was but half the flour necessary for the
morning market. Provisioning Paris was a kind of war. The
National Guard was sent to protect each arrival; or to secure
certain purchases by force of arms. Speculators were afraid;
farmers would not thrash any longer; neither would the miller
grind. 'I used to see,' says Bailly, 'good tradesmen, mercers
and goldsmiths, praying to be admitted among the beggars
employed at Montmartre, in digging the ground.' Then came
fearful whispers of the King's intention to fly to Metz. What
will become of us if the King should fly? He must not fly; we
will have him here; here amongst us in Paris! This produced
the famous insurrection of women … on the 5th October."
_G. H. Lewes,
Life of Robespierre,
chapter 9._
_H. von Sybel,
History of the French Revolution,
book 1, chapters 3-4 (volume 1)._
{1266}
FRANCE: A. D. 1789 (October).
The Insurrection of Women.
Their march to Versailles.
"A thought, or dim raw-material of a thought, was fermenting
all night [October 4-5], universally in the female head, and
might explode. In squalid garret, on Monday morning Maternity
awakes, to hear children weeping for bread. Maternity must
forth to the streets, to the herb-markets and Bakers'-queues;
meets there with hunger-stricken Maternity, sympathetic,
exasperative. O we unhappy women! But, instead of
Bakers'-queues, why not to Aristocrats' palaces, the root of
the matter? Allons! Let us assemble. To the Hôtel-de-Ville; to
Versailles; to the Lanterne! In one of the Guard houses of the
Quartier Saint-Eustache, 'a young woman' seizes a drum,—for
how shall National Guards give fire on women, on a young
woman? The young woman seizes the drum; sets forth, beating
it, 'uttering cries relative to the dearth of grains.'
Descend, O mothers; descend, ye Judiths, to food and
revenge!—All women gather and go; crowds storm all stairs,
force out all women: the female Insurrectionary Force,
according to Camille, resembles the English Naval one; there
is a universal 'Press of women.' Robust Dames of the Halle,
slim Mantua-makers, assiduous, risen with the dawn; ancient
Virginity tripping to matins; the Housemaid, with early broom;
all must go. Rouse ye, O, women; the laggard men will not act;
they say, we ourselves may act! And so, like snowbreak from
the mountains, for every staircase is a melted brook, it
storms; tumultuous, wild-shrilling, towards the
Hôtel-de-Ville. Tumultuous; with or without drum-music: for
the Faubourg Saint-Antoine also has tucked-up its gown; and
with besom-staves, fire-irons, and even rusty pistols (void of
ammunition), is flowing on. Sound of it flies, with a velocity
of sound, to the utmost Barriers. By seven o'clock, on this
raw October morning, fifth of the month, the Townhall will see
wonders. … Grand it was, says Camille, to see so many
Judiths, from eight to ten thousand of them in all, rushing
out to search into the root of the matter! Not unfrightful it
must have been; ludicro-terrific, and most unmanageable. At
such hour the overwatched Three Hundred are not yet stirring:
none but some Clerks, a company of National Guards; and M. de
Gouvion, the Major-general. Gouvion has fought in America for
the cause of civil Liberty; a man of no inconsiderable heart,
but deficient in head. He is, for the moment, in his back
apartment; assuaging Usher Maillard, the Bastille-sergeant,
who has come, as too many do, with 'representations.' The
assuagement is still incomplete when our Judiths arrive. The
National Guards form on the outer stairs, with levelled
bayonets; the ten thousand Judiths press up, resistless; with
obtestations, with outspread hands,—merely to speak to the
Mayor. The rear forces them; nay from male hands in the rear,
stones already fly: the National Guard must do one of two
things; sweep the Place de Greve with cannon, or else open to
right and left. They open: the living deluge rushes in.
Through all rooms and cabinets, upwards to the topmost belfry:
ravenous; seeking arms, seeking Mayors, seeking justice;—
while, again, the better-dressed speak kindly to the Clerks;
point out the misery of these poor women; also their ailments,
some even of an interesting sort. Poor M. de Gouvion is
shiftless in this extremity;—a man shiftless, perturbed: who
will one day commit suicide. How happy for him that Usher
Maillard the shifty was there, at the moment, though making
representations! Fly back, thou shifty Maillard: seek the
Bastille Company; and O return fast with it; above all, with
thy own shifty head! For, behold, the Judiths can find no
Mayor or Municipal; scarcely, in the topmost belfry, can they
find poor Abbé Lefèvre the Powder-distributor. Him, for want
of a better, they suspend there: in the pale morning light;
over the top of all Paris, which swims in one's failing
eyes:—a horrible end? Nay the rope broke, as French ropes
often did; or else an Amazon cut it. Abbe Lefèvre falls, some
twenty feet, rattling among the leads; and lives long years
after, though always with 'a tremblement in the limbs.' And
now doors fly under hatchets; the Judiths have broken the
Armory; have seized guns and cannons, three money-bags,
paper-heaps; torches flare: in few minutes, our brave
Hôtel-de-Ville, which dates from the Fourth Henry, will, with
all that it holds, be in flames! In flames, truly,—were it
not that Usher Maillard, swift of foot, shifty of head, has
returned! Maillard, of his own motion,—for Gouvion or the
rest would not even sanction him,—snatches a drum: descends
the Porch-stairs, ran-tan, beating sharp, with loud rolls, his
Rogues'-march: To Versailles! Allons; à Versailles! As men
beat on kettle or warming-pan, when angry she-bees, or say,
flying desperate wasps, are to be hived; and the desperate
insects hear it, and cluster round it,—simply as round a
guidance, where there was none: so now these Menads round
shifty Maillard, Riding-Usher of the Châtelet. The axe pauses
uplifted; Abbé Lefèvre is left half-hanged: from the belfry
downwards all vomits itself. What rub-a-dub is that? Stanislas
Maillard, Bastille hero, will lead us to Versailles? Joy to
thee, Maillard; blessed art thou above Riding-Ushers! Away,
then, away! The seized cannon are yoked with seized
cart-horses: brown-locked Demoiselle Théroigne, with pike and
helmet, sits there as gunneress. … Maillard (for his drum
still rolls) is, by heaven-rending acclamation, admitted
General. Maillard hastens the languid march. … And now
Maillard has his Menads in the Champs Elysées (Fields
Tartarean rather); and the Hôtel-de-Ville has suffered
comparatively nothing. … Great Maillard! A small nucleus of
Order is round his drum; but his outskirts fluctuate like the
mad Ocean: for Rascality male and female is flowing in on him,
from the four winds: guidance there is none but in his single
head and two drum-sticks. … On the Elysian Fields there is
pause and fluctuation; but, for Maillard, no return. He
persuades his Menads, clamorous for arms and the Arsenal, that
no arms are in the Arsenal; that an unarmed attitude, and
petition to a National Assembly, will be the best: he hastily
nominates or sanctions generalesses, captains of tens and
fifties;—and so, in loosest-flowing order, to the rhythm of
some 'eight drums' (having laid aside his own), with the
Bastille Volunteers bringing up his rear, once more takes the
road. Chaillot, which will promptly yield baked loaves, is not
plundered; nor are the Sèvres Potteries broken. … The press of
women still continues, for it is the cause of all Eve's
Daughters, mothers that are, or that ought to be. No
carriage-lady, were it with never such hysterics, but must
dismount, in the mud roads, in her silk shoes, and walk. In
this manner, amid wild October weather, they, a wild unwinged
stork-flight, through the astonished country wend their way."
_T. Carlyle,
The French Revolution,
volume 1, book 7, chapters 4-5._
{1267}
FRANCE: A. D. 1789 (October).
The mob of men at Versailles, with Lafayette
and the National Guard.
The king and royal family brought to Paris.
Before the memorable 5th day of October closed, the movement
of the women upon Versailles was followed by an outpouring, in
the same direction, of the masculine mob of Paris, headed by
the National Guard. "The commander, Lafayette, opposed their
departure a long time, but in vain; neither his efforts nor
his popularity could overcome the obstinacy of the people. For
seven hours he harangued and retained them. At length,
impatient at this delay, rejecting his advice, they prepared
to set forward without him; when, feeling that it was now his
duty to conduct as it had previously been to restrain them, he
obtained his authorisation from the corporation, and gave the
word for departure about seven in the evening. "Meantime the
army of the amazons had arrived at Versailles, and excited the
terrors of the court. "The troops of Versailles flew to arms
and surrounded the château, but the intentions of the women
were not hostile. Maillard, their leader, had recommended them
to appear as suppliants, and in that attitude they presented
their complaints successively to the assembly and to the king.
Accordingly, the first hours of this turbulent evening were
sufficiently calm. Yet it was impossible but that causes of
hostility should arise between an excited mob and the
household troops, the objects of so much irritation. The
latter were stationed in the court of the château opposite the
national guard and the Flanders regiment. The space between
was filled by women and volunteers of the Bastille. In the
midst of the confusion, necessarily arising from such a
juxtaposition, a scuffle arose; this was the signal for
disorder and conflict. An officer of the guards struck a
Parisian soldier with his sabre, and was in turn shot in the
arm. The national guards sided against the household troops;
the conflict became warm, and would have been sanguinary, but
for the darkness, the bad weather, and the orders given to the
household troops, first to cease firing and then to retire.
… During this tumult, the court was in consternation; the
flight of the king was suggested, and carriages prepared; a
piquet of the national guard saw them at the gate of the
orangery, and having made them go back, closed the gate:
moreover, the king, either ignorant of the designs of the
court, or conceiving them impracticable, refused to escape.
Fears were mingled with his pacific intentions, when he
hesitated to repel the aggression or to take flight.
Conquered, he apprehended the fate of Charles I. of England;
absent, he feared that the duke of Orleans would obtain the
lieutenancy of the kingdom. But, in the meantime, the rain,
fatigue, and the inaction of the household troops, lessened
the fury of the multitude, and Lafayette arrived at the head
of the Parisian army. His presence restored security to the
court, and the replies of the king to the deputation from
Paris satisfied the multitude and the army. In a short time,
Lafayette's activity, the good sense and discipline of the
Parisian guard, restored order everywhere. Tranquillity
returned. The crowd of women and volunteers, overcome by
fatigue, gradually dispersed, and some of the national guard
were entrusted with the defence of the château, while others
were lodged with their companions in arms at Versailles. The
royal family, re-assured after the anxiety and fear of this
painful night, retired to rest about two o'clock in the
morning. Towards five, Lafayette, having visited the outposts
which had been confided to his care, and finding the watch
well kept, the town calm, and the crowds dispersed or
sleeping, also took a few moments repose. About six, however,
some men of the lower class, more enthusiastic than the rest,
and awake sooner than they, prowled round the château. Finding
a gate open, they informed their companions, and entered.
Unfortunately, the interior posts had been entrusted to the
household guards, and refused to the Parisian army. This fatal
refusal caused all the misfortunes of the night. The interior
guard had not even been increased; the gates scarcely visited,
and the watch kept as negligently as on ordinary occasions. These
men, excited by all the passions that had brought them to
Versailles, perceiving one of the household troops at a
window, began to insult him. He fired, and wounded one of
them. They then rushed on the household troops, who defended
the château breast to breast, and sacrificed themselves
heroically. One of them had time to warn the queen, whom the
assailants particularly threatened; and, half dressed, she ran
for refuge to the king. The tumult and danger were extreme in
the château. Lafayette, apprised of the invasion of the royal
residence, mounted his horse, and rode hastily to the scene of
danger. On the square he met some of the household troops
surrounded by an infuriated mob, who were on the point of
killing them. He threw himself among them, called some French
guards who were near, and, having rescued the household troops
and dispersed their assailants, he hurried to the château. He
found it already secured by the grenadiers of the French
guard, who, at the first noise of the tumult, had hastened and
protected the household troops from the fury of the Parisians.
But the scene was not over; the crowd assembled again in the
marble court under the king's balcony, loudly called for him,
and he appeared. They required his departure for Paris; he
promised to repair thither with his family, and this promise
was received with general applause. The queen was resolved, to
accompany him; but the prejudice against her was so strong
that the journey was not without danger; it was necessary to
reconcile her with the multitude. Lafayette proposed to her to
accompany him to the balcony; after some hesitation, she
consented. They appeared on it together, and to communicate by
a sign with the tumultuous crowd, to conquer its animosity, and
awaken its enthusiasm, Lafayette respectfully kissed the
queen's hand; the crowd responded with acclamations. It now
remained to make peace between them and the household troops.
Lafayette advanced with one of these, placed his own
tricoloured cockade on his hat, and embraced him before the
people, who shouted 'Vivent les gardes-du-corps!' Thus
terminated this scene; the royal family set out for Paris,
escorted by the army and its guards mixed with it."
_F. A. Mignet,
History of the French Revolution,
chapter 2._
ALSO IN:
_B. Tuckerman,
Life of Lafayette,
volume 1, chapter 11._
{1268}
FRANCE: A. D. 1789-1791.
The new constitution.
Appropriation and sale of Church property.
Issue of Assignats.
Abolition of titles of honor.
Civil constitution of the clergy.
The Feast of the Federation.
The Émigrés on the border and their conduct.
"The king was henceforth at the mercy of the mob. Deprived of
his guards, and at a distance from his army, he was in the
centre of the revolution; and surrounded by an excited and
hungry populace. He was followed to Paris by the Assembly;
and, for the present, was protected from further outrages by
Lafayette and the national guards. Mirabeau, who was now in
secret communication with the court, warned the king of his
danger, in the midst of the revolutionary capital. 'The mob of
Paris,' he said, 'will scourge the corpses of the king and
queen.' He saw no hope of safety for them, or for the State,
but in their withdrawal from this pressing danger, to
Fontainebleau or Rouen, and in a strong government, supported
by the Assembly, pursuing liberal measures, and quelling
anarchy. His counsels were frustrated by events; and the
revolution had advanced too far to be controlled by this
secret and suspected adviser of the king. Meanwhile, the
Assembly was busy with further schemes of revolution and
desperate finance. France was divided into departments: the
property of the Church was appropriated to meet the urgent
necessities of the State; the disastrous assignats were
issued: the subjection of the clergy to the civil power was
decreed: the Parliaments were superseded, and the judicature
of the country was reconstituted, upon a popular basis: titles
of honour, orders of knighthood, armorial bearings—even
liveries—were abolished: the army was reorganised, and the
privileges of birth were made to yield to service and
seniority. All Frenchmen were henceforth equal, as 'citoyens':
and their new privileges were wildly celebrated by the
planting of trees of liberty. The monarchy was still
recognised, but it stood alone, in the midst of revolution."
_Sir T. E. May,
Democracy in Europe,
chapter 13 (volume 2)._
"The monarchy was continued and liberally endowed; but it was
shorn of most of its ancient prerogatives, and reduced to a
very feeble Executive; and while it obtained a perilous veto
on the resolutions and acts of the Legislature, it was
separated from that power, and placed in opposition to it, by
the exclusion of the Ministers of the Crown from seats and
votes in the National Assembly. The Legislature was composed
of a Legislative Assembly, formed of a single Chamber alone,
in theory supreme, and almost absolute; but, as we have seen,
it was liable to come in conflict with the Crown, and it had
less authority than might be supposed, for it was elected by a
vote not truly popular, and subordinate powers were allowed to
possess a very large part of the rights of Sovereignty which
it ought to have divided with the King. This last portion of
the scheme was very striking, and was the one, too, that most
caused alarm among distant political observers. Too great
centralization having been one of the chief complaints against
the ancient Monarchy, this evil was met with a radical reform.
… The towns received extraordinary powers; their
municipalities had complete control over the National Guards
to be elected in them, and possessed many other functions of
Government; and Paris, by these means, became almost a
separate Commonwealth, independent of the State, and directing
a vast military force. The same system was applied to the
country; every Department was formed into petty divisions,
each with its National Guards, and a considerable share of
what is usually the power of the government. … Burke's
saying was strictly correct, 'that France was split into
thousands of Republics, with Paris predominating and queen of
all.' With respect to other institutions of the State, the
appointment of nearly all civil functionaries, judicial and
otherwise, was taken from the Crown, and abandoned to a like
popular election; and the same principle was also applied to
the great and venerable institution of the Church, already
deprived of its vast estates, though the election of bishops
and priests by their flocks interfered directly with Roman
Catholic discipline, and probably, too, with religious dogma.
… Notwithstanding the opposition of Necker, who, though
hardly a statesman, understood finance, it was resolved to
sell the lands of the Church to procure funds for the
necessities of the State; and the deficit, which was
increasing rapidly, was met by an inconvertible currency of
paper, secured on the lands to be sold. This expedient … was
carried out with injudicious recklessness. The Assignats, as
the new notes were called, seemed a mine of inexhaustible
wealth, and they were issued in quantities which, from the
first moment, disturbed the relations of life and commerce,
though they created a show of brisk trade for a time. In
matters of taxation the Assembly, too, exceeded the bounds of
reason and justice; exemptions previously enjoyed by the rich
were now indirectly extended to the poor; wealthy owners of
land were too heavily burdened, while the populace of the
towns went scot free. … Very large sums, also, belonging to
the State, were advanced to the Commune of Paris, now rising
into formidable power. … The funds so obtained were lavishly
squandered in giving relief to the poor of the capital in the
most improvident ways—in buying bread dear and reselling it
cheap, and in finding fanciful employment for artizans out of
work. The result, of course, was to attract to Paris many
thousands of the lowest class of rabble, and to add them to
the scum of the city. … On the first anniversary [July 14,
1790] of the fall of the Bastille, and before the Constitution
had been finished … a great national holiday [called the Feast
of the Federation] was kept; and, amidst multitudes of
applauding spectators, deputations from every Department in
France, headed by the authorities of the thronging capital,
defiled in procession to the broad space known as the Field of
Mars, along the banks of the Seine. An immense amphitheatre
had been constructed [converting the plain into a valley, by
the labor of many thousands, in a single week], and decorated
with extraordinary pomp; and here, in the presence of a
splendid Court, of the National Assembly, and of the
municipalities of the realm, and in the sight of a great
assemblage surging to and fro with throbbing excitement, the
King took an oath that he would faithfully respect the order
of things that was being established, while incense streamed
from high-raised altars, and the ranks of 70,000 National
Guards burst into loud cheers and triumphant music; and even
the Queen, sharing in the passion of the hour, and radiant
with beauty, lifted up in her arms the young child who was to
be the future chief of a disenthralled and regenerate people.
…
{1269}
The following week was gay with those brilliant displays which
Paris knows how to arrange so well; flowery arches covered the
site of the Bastille, fountains ran wine, and the night blazed
with fire; and the far-extending influence of France was
attested by enthusiastic deputations of 'friends of liberty'
from many parts of Europe, hailing the dawn of an era of
freedom and peace. The work, however, of the National Assembly
developed some of its effects ere long. The abolition of
titles of honor filled up the measure of the anger of the
Nobles; the confiscation of the property of the Church, above
all, the law as to the election of priests, known as the Civil
Constitution of the Clergy, shocked all religious or
superstitious minds. … The emigration of the Nobles, which
had become very general from the 5th and 6th of October, went
on in daily augmenting numbers; and, in a short time, the
frontiers were edged with bands of exiles breathing vengeance
and hatred. In many districts the priests denounced as
sacrilege, what had been done to the Church, divided the
peasantry, and preached a crusade against what they called the
atheist towns; and angry mutinies broke out in the Army, which
left behind savage and relentless feelings. The relations
between the King and the Assembly, too, became strained, if
not hostile, at every turn of affairs, to the detriment of
anything like good government; and while Louis sunk into a
mere puppet, the Assembly, controlled in a great measure by
demagogues and the pampered mobs of Paris, felt authority
gradually slipping from it." To all the many destructive and
revolutionary influences at work was now added "the pitiful
conduct of those best known by the still dishonorable name of
'Émigrés.' In a few months the great majority of the
aristocracy of France had fled the kingdom, abandoned the
throne around which they had stood, breathing maledictions
against a contemptuous Nation, as arrogant as ever in the
impotence of want, and thinking only of a counter-revolution
that would cover the natal soil with blood. … Their utter
want of patriotism and of sound feeling made thousands believe
that the state of society which had bred such creatures ought
to be swept away."
_W. O'C. Morris,
The French Revolution and First Empire,
chapter 3._
ALSO IN:
_H. Van Sybel,
History of the French Revolution,
book 1, chapter 5, and book 2, chapters 3-5._
_M'me de Stael,
Considerations on the French Revolution,
part 2, chapters 12-19 (volume l)._
_E. Burke,
Reflections on the Revolution in France._
_A. F. Bertrand de Moleville,
Annals of the French Revolution,
part 1, chapters 22-35 (volumes 2-3)._
_Duchess de Tourzell,
Memoirs,
volume 1, chapters 3-11._
_W. H. Jervis,
The Gallican Church and the Revolution.,
chapters 1-4._
FRANCE: A. D. 1790.
The rise of the Clubs.
Jacobins, Cordeliers, Feuillants, Club Monarchique, and Club
of '89.
"Every party sought to gain the people; it was courted as
sovereign. After attempting to influence it by religion,
another means was employed, that of the clubs. At that period,
clubs were private assemblies, in which the measures of
government, the business of the state, and the decrees of the
assembly, were discussed; their deliberations had no
authority, but they exercised a certain influence. The first
club owed its origin to the Breton deputies, who already met
together at Versailles to consider the course of proceeding
they should take. When the national representatives were
transferred from Versailles to Paris, the Breton deputies and
those of the assembly who were of their views held their
sittings in the old convent of the Jacobins, which
subsequently gave its name to their meetings. It did not at
first cease to be a preparatory assembly, but as all things
increase in time, the Jacobin Club did not confine itself to
influencing the assembly; it sought also to influence the
municipality and the people, and received as associates
members of the municipality and common citizens. Its
organization became more regular, its action more powerful;
its sittings were regularly reported in the papers; it created
branch clubs in the provinces, and raised by the side of legal
power another power which first counselled and then conducted
it. The Jacobin Club, as it lost its primitive character and
became a popular assembly, had been forsaken by part of its
founders. The latter established another society on the plan
of the old one, under the name of the Club of '89. Siéyes,
Chapelier, Lafayette, La Rochefoucauld, directed it, as Lameth
and Barnave directed that of the Jacobins. Mirabeau belonged
to both, and by both was equally courted. These clubs, of
which the one prevailed in the assembly, and the other amongst
the people, were attached to the new order of things, though
in different degrees. The aristocracy sought to attack the
revolution with its own arms; it opened royalist clubs to
oppose the popular clubs. That first established, under the
name of the Club des Impartiaux, could not last because it
addressed itself to no class opinion. Reappearing under the
name of the Club Monarchique, it included among its members
all those whose views it represented. It sought to render
itself popular with the lower classes, and distributed bread;
but, far from accepting its overtures, the people considered
such establishments as a counter-revolutionary movement. It
disturbed their sittings, and obliged them several times to
change their place of meeting. At length, the municipal
authority found itself obliged, in January, 1791, to close
this club, which had been the cause of several riots."
_F. A. Mignet,
History of the French Revolution,
chapter 3._
"At the end of 1790 the number of Jacobin Clubs was 200, many
of which—like the one in Marseilles—contained more than a
thousand members. Their organization extended through the
whole kingdom, and every impulse given at the centre in Paris
was felt at the extremities. … It was far indeed from
embracing the majority of adult Frenchmen, but even at that
time it had undoubtedly become—by means of its strict
unity—the greatest power in the kingdom."
_H. von Sybel,
History of the French Revolution,
book 1, chapter 5 (volume 1)._
"This Jacobin Club soon divided itself into three other clubs:
first, that party which looked upon the Jacobins as lukewarm
patriots left it, and constituted themselves into the Club of
the Cordeliers, where Danton's voice of thunder made the halls
ring; and Camille Desmoulins' light, glancing wit played with
momentous subjects. The other party, which looked upon the
Jacobins as too fierce, constituted itself into the 'Club of
1789; friends of the monarchic constitution;' and afterwards
named Feuillant's Club, because it met in the Feuillant
Convent. Lafayette was their chief; supported by the
'respectable' patriots. These clubs generated many others, and
the provinces imitated them."
_G. H. Lewes,
Life of Robespierre,
chapter 10._
{1270}
"The Cordeliers were a Parisian club; the Jacobins an immense
association extending throughout France. But Paris would stir
and rise at the fury of the Cordeliers; and Paris being once
in motion, the political revolutionists were absolutely
obliged to follow. Individuality was very powerful among the
Cordeliers. Their journalists, Marat, Desmoulins, Fréron,
Robert, Hébert and Fabre d'Églantine, wrote each for himself.
Danton, the omnipotent orator, would never write; but, by way
of compensation, Marat and Desmoulins, who stammered or
lisped, used principally to write, and seldom spoke. … The
Cordeliers formed a sort of tribe, all living in the
neighbourhood of the club."
_J. Michelet,
Historical View of the French Revolution,
book 4, chapters 7 and 5._
ALSO IN:
_T. Carlyle,
The French Revolution,
volume 2, book 1, chapter 5._
_H. A. Taine,
The French Revolution,
book 4 (volume 2)._
FRANCE: A. D. 1790-1791.
Revolution at Avignon.
Reunion of the old Papal province with France decreed.
"The old residence of the Popes [Avignon] remained until the
year 1789 under the papal government, which, from its
distance, exercised its authority with great mildness, and
left the towns and villages of the country in the enjoyment of
a great degree of independence. The general condition of the
population was, however, much the same as in the neighbouring
districts of France—agitation in the towns and misery in the
country. It is not surprising, therefore, that the commotion
of August 4th should extend itself among the subjects of the
Holy see. Here, too, castles were burned, black mail levied on
the monasteries, tithes and feudal rights abolished. The city
of Avignon soon became the centre of a political agitation,
whose first object was to throw off the papal yoke, and then
to unite the country with France. … In June, 1790, the
people of Avignon tore down the papal arms, and the Town
Council sent a message to Paris, that Avignon wished to be
united to France." Some French regiments were sent to the city
to maintain order; but "the greater part of them deserted, and
marched out with the Democrats of the town to take and sack
the little town of Cavaillon, which remained faithful to the
Pope. From this time forward civil war raged without
intermission. … The Constituent Assembly, on the 14th of
September, 1791, decreed the reunion of the country with
France. Before the new government could assert its authority,
fresh and more dreadful atrocities had taken place," ending
with the fiendish massacre of 110 prisoners, held by a band of
ruffians who had taken possession of the papal castle.
_H. von Sybel,
History of the French Revolution,
book 3, chapter 2 (volume 1)._
FRANCE: A. D. 1790-1791.
The oath of the clergy.
First movements toward the European coalition
against French democracy.
Death of Mirabeau.
The King's flight and arrest at Varennes.
Rise of a Republican Party.
"By a decree of November 27th, 1790, the Assembly required the
clergy to take an oath of fidelity to the nation, the law and
the king, and to maintain the constitution. This oath they
were to take within a week, on pain of deprivation. The King,
before assenting to this measure, wished to procure the
consent of the Pope, but was persuaded not to wait for it, and
gave his sanction, December 3rd. … Of 300 prelates and
priests, who had seats in the Assembly, those who sat on the
right unanimously refused to take the oath, while those who
sat on the left anticipated the day appointed for that
purpose. Out of 138 archbishops and bishops, only four
consented to swear, Talleyrand, Loménie de Brienne (now
Archbishop of Sens), the Bishop of Orleans, and the Bishop of
Viviers. The oath was also refused by the great majority of
the curés and vicars, amounting, it is said, to 50,000. Hence
arose the distinction of 'prêtres sermentés' and
'insermentés,' or sworn and non-juring priests. The brief of
Pius VI., forbidding the oath, was burnt at the Palais Royal,
as well as a mannikin representing the Pope himself in his
pontificals. Many of the deprived ecclesiastics refused to
vacate their functions, declared their successors intruders
and the sacraments they administered null, and excommunicated
all who recognised and obeyed them. Louis XVI., whose
religious feelings were very strong, was perhaps more hurt by
these attacks upon the Church than even by those directed
against his own prerogative. The death of Mirabeau, April 2nd
1791, was a great loss to the King, though it may well be
doubted whether his exertions could have saved the monarchy.
He fell a victim to his profligate habits, assisted probably
by the violent exertions he had recently made in the Assembly.
… He was honoured with a sumptuous funeral at the public
expense, to which, says a contemporary historian, nothing but
grief was wanting. In fact, to most of the members of the
Assembly, eclipsed by his splendid talents and overawed by his
reckless audacity, his death was a relief. … After
Mirabeau's death, Duport, Barnave, and Lameth reigned supreme
in the Assembly, and Robespierre became more prominent. The
King had now begun to fix his hopes on foreign intervention.
The injuries inflicted by the decrees of the Assembly on
August 4th 1789, on several princes of the Empire, through
their possessions in Alsace, Franche Comté, and Lorraine,
might afford a pretext for a rupture between the German
Confederation and France. … The German prelates, injured by
the Civil Constitution of the clergy, were among the first to
complain. By this act the Elector of Mentz was deprived of his
metropolitan rights over the bishoprics of Strasburg and
Spires; the Elector of Trèves of those over Metz, Toul,
Verdun, Nanci and St. Diez. The Bishops of Strasburg and Bale
lost their diocesan rights in Alsace. Some of these princes
and nobles had called upon the Emperor and the German body in
January 1790, for protection against the arbitrary acts of the
National Assembly. This appeal had been favourably
entertained, both by the Emperor Joseph II. and by the King of
Prussia; and though the Assembly offered suitable indemnities,
they were haughtily refused. … The Spanish and Italian
Bourbons were naturally inclined to support their relative,
Louis XVI. … The King of Sardinia, connected by
intermarriages with the French Bourbons, had also family
interests to maintain. Catherine II. of Russia had witnessed,
with humiliation and alarm, the fruits of the philosophy which
she had patronised, and was opposed to the new order of things
in France. …
{1271}
All the materials existed for an extensive coalition against
French democracy. In this posture of affairs the Count
d'Artois, accompanied by Calonne, who served him as a sort of
minister, and by the Count de Durfort, who had been despatched
from the French Court, had a conference with the Emperor, now
Leopold II., at Mantua, in May 1791, in which it was agreed
that, towards the following July, Austria should march 35,000
men towards the frontiers of Flanders; the German Circles
15,000 towards Alsace; the Swiss 15,000 towards the Lyonnais;
the King of Sardinia 15,000 towards Dauphiné; while Spain was
to hold 20,000 in readiness in Catalonia. This agreement, for
there was not, as some writers have supposed, any formal
treaty, was drawn up by Calonne, and amended with the
Emperor's own hand. But the large force to be thus assembled
was intended only as a threatening demonstration, and
hostilities were not to be actually commenced without the
sanction of a congress. … The King's situation had now
become intolerably irksome. He was, to all intents and
purposes, a prisoner at Paris. A trip, which he wished to make
to St. Cloud during the Easter of 1791, was denounced at the
Jacobin Club as a pretext for flight; and when he attempted to
leave the Tuileries, April 18th, the tocsin was rung, his
carriage was surrounded by the mob, and he was compelled to
return to the palace. … A few days after … the leaders of
the Revolution, who appear to have suspected his negociations
abroad, exacted that he should address a circular to his
ambassadors at foreign courts, in which he entirely approved
the Revolution, assumed the title of 'Restorer of French
liberty,' and utterly repudiated the notion that he was not
free and master of his actions." But the King immediately
nullified the circular by despatching secret agents with
letters "in which he notified that any sanction he might give
to the decrees of the Assembly was to be reputed null; that
his pretended approval of the constitution was to be
interpreted in an opposite sense, and that the more strongly
he should seem to adhere to it, the more he should desire to
be liberated from the captivity in which he was held. Louis
soon after resolved on his unfortunate flight to the army of
the Marquis de Bouillé at Montmédy. … Having, after some
hair-breadth escapes, succeeded in quitting Paris in a
travelling berlin, June 20th, they [the King, Queen, and
family] reached St. Menehould in safety. But here the King was
recognised by Drouet, the son of the postmaster, who, mounting
his horse, pursued the royal fugitives to Varennes, raised an
alarm, and caused them to be captured when they already
thought themselves out of danger. In consequence of their
being rather later than was expected, the military
preparations that had been made for their protection entirely
failed. The news of the King's flight filled Paris with
consternation. The Assembly assumed all the executive power of
the Government, and when the news of the King's arrest
arrived, they despatched Barnave, Latour, Maubourg and Pétion
to conduct him and his family back to Paris. … Notices had
been posted up in Paris, that those who applauded the King
should be horsewhipped, and that those who insulted him should
be hanged; hence he was received on entering the capital with
a dead silence. The streets, however, were traversed without
accident to the Tuileries, but as the royal party were
alighting, a rush was made upon them by some ruffians, and
they were with difficulty saved from injury. The King's
brother, the count of Provence, who had fled at the same time
by a different route, escaped safely to Brussels. This time
the King's intention to fly could not be denied; he had,
indeed, himself proclaimed it, by sending to the Assembly a
manifest, in which he explained his reasons for it, declared
that he did not intend to quit the kingdom, expressed his
desire to restore liberty and establish a constitution, but
annulled all that he had done during the last two years. …
The King, after his return, was provisionally suspended from
his functions by a decree of the Assembly, June 25th. Guards
were placed over him and the Queen; the gardens of the
Tuileries assumed the appearance of a camp; sentinels were
stationed on the roof of the Palace, and even in the Queen's
bedchamber. … From the period of the King's flight to
Varennes must be dated the first decided appearance of a
republican party in France. During his absence the Assembly
had been virtually sovereign, and hence men took occasion to
say, 'You see the public peace has been maintained, affairs
have gone on, in the usual way in the King's absence.' The
chief advocates of a republic were Brissot, Condorcet, and the
recently-established club of the Cordeliers. … The
arch-democrat, Thomas Payne, who was now at Paris, also
endeavoured to excite the populace against the King. The
Jacobin Club had not yet gone this length; they were for
bringing Louis XVI. to trial and deposing him, but for
maintaining the monarchy."
_T. H. Dyer,
History of Modern Europe,
book 7, chapters 2-3 (volume 4)._
ALSO IN:
_J. Michelet,
Historical View of the French Revolution,
book 4, chapters 8-14._
_M'me Campan,
Memoirs of Marie Antoinette,
volume 2, chapters 5-7._
_Marquis de Bouillé,
Memoirs,
chapters 8-11._
_Duchess de Tourzel,
Memoirs,
volume 1, chapter 12._
_A. B. Cochrane,
Francis I., and other Historical Studies,
volume 2 (The Flight of Varennes)._
FRANCE: A. D. 1791 (July-September).
Attitude of Foreign Powers.
Coolness of Austria towards the Émigrés.
The Declaration of Pilnitz.
Completion of the Constitution.
Restoration of the King.
Tumult in the Champs de Mars.
Dissolution of the Constituent National Assembly.
"On the 27th of July, Prince Reuss presented a memorial [from
the Court of Austria] to the Court of Berlin, in which the
Emperor explained at length his views of a European Concert.
It was drawn up, throughout, in Leopold's usual cautious and
circumspect manner. … In case an armed intervention should
appear necessary—they would take into consideration the
future constitution of France; but in doing so they were to
renounce, in honour of the great cause in which they were
engaged, all views of selfish aggrandizement. We see what a
small part the desire for war played in the drawing up of this
far-seeing plan. The document repeatedly urged that no step
ought to be taken without the concurrence of all the Powers,
and especially of England; and as England's decided aversion
to every kind of interference was well known, this stipulation
alone was sufficient to stamp upon the whole scheme, the
character of a harmless demonstration."
{1272}
At the same time Catharine II. of Russia, released from war
with the Turks, and bent upon the destruction of Poland,
desired "to implicate the Emperor as inextricably as possible
in the French quarrel, in order to deprive Poland of its most
powerful protector; she therefore entered with the greatest
zeal into the negociations for the support of Louis XVI. Her
old opponent, the brilliant King Gustavus of Sweden, declared
his readiness—on receipt of a large subsidy from Russia—to
conduct a Swedish army by sea to the coast of Flanders, and
thence, under the guidance of Bouillé, against Paris. … But,
of course, every word he uttered was only an additional
warning to Leopold to keep the peace. … Under these
circumstances he [the Emperor] was most disagreeably surprised
on the 20th of August, a few days before his departure for
Pillnitz, by the sudden and entirely unannounced and
unexpected arrival in Vienna of the Count d'Artois. It was not
possible to refuse to see him, but Leopold made no secret to
him of the real position of affairs. … He asked permission
to accompany the Emperor to Pillnitz, which the latter, with
cool politeness, said that he had no scruple in granting, but
that even there no change of policy would take place. …
Filled with such sentiments, the Emperor Leopold set out for
the conference with his new ally; and the King of Prussia came
to meet him with entirely accordant views. … The
representations of d'Artois, therefore, made just as little
impression at Pillnitz, as they had done, a week before, at
Vienna. … On the 27th, d'Artois received the joint answer of
the two Sovereigns, the tone and purport of which clearly
testified to the sentiments of its authors. … The Emperor
and King gave their sanction to the peaceable residence of
individual Émigrés in their States, but declared that no armed
preparations would be allowed before the conclusion of an
agreement between the European Powers. To this rejection the
two Monarchs added a proposal of their own—contained in a
joint declaration—in which they spoke of the restoration of
order and monarchy in France as a question of the greatest
importance to the whole of Europe. They signified their
intention of inviting the coöperation of all the European
Powers. … But as it was well ascertained that England would
take no part, the expressions they chose were really
equivalent to a declaration of non-intervention, and were
evidently made use of by Leopold solely to intimidate the
Parisian democrats. … Thus ended the conference of Pillnitz,
after the two Monarchs had agreed to protect the constitution
of the Empire, to encourage the Elector of Saxony to accept
the crown of Poland, and to afford each other friendly aid in
every quarter. The statement, therefore, which has been a
thousand times repeated, that the first coalition for an
attack on the French Revolution was formed on this occasion,
has been shown to be utterly without foundation. As soon as
the faintest gleam of a reconciliation between Louis and the
National Assembly appeared, the cause of the Emigrés was
abandoned by the German Courts."
_H. Von Sybel,
History of the French Revolution,
book 2, chapter 6. (volume l)._
At Paris, meantime, "the commissioners charged to make their
report on the affair of Varennes presented it on the 16th of
July. In the journey, they said, there was nothing culpable;
and even if there were, the King was inviolable. Dethronement
could not result from it, since the King had not staid away
long enough, and had not resisted the summons of the
legislative body. Robespierre, Buzot, and Pétion repeated all
the well known arguments against the inviolability. Duport,
Barnave, and Salles answered them, and it was at length
resolved that the King could not be brought to trial on
account of his flight. … No sooner was this resolution
passed than Robespierre rose, and protested strongly against
it, in the name of humanity. On the evening preceding this
decision, a great tumult had taken place at the Jacobins. A
petition to the Assembly was there drawn up, praying it to
declare that the King was deposed as a perfidious traitor to
his oaths, and that it would seek to supply his place by all
the constitutional means. It was resolved that this petition
should be carried on the following day to the Champ de Mars,
where everyone might sign it on the altar of the country. Next
day, it was accordingly carried to the place agreed upon, and
the crowd of the seditious was reinforced by that of the
curious, who wished to be spectators of the event. At this
moment the decree was passed, so that it was now too late to
petition. Lafayette arrived, broke down the barricades already
erected, was threatened and even fired at, but … at length
prevailed on the populace to retire. … But the tumult was
soon renewed. Two invalids, who happened to be, nobody knows
for what purpose, under the altar of the country, were
murdered, and then the uproar became unbounded. The Assembly
sent for the municipality, and charged it to preserve public
order. Bailly repaired to the Champ de Mars, ordered the red
flag to be unfurled, and, by virtue of martial law, summoned
the seditious to retire. … Lafayette at first ordered a few
shots to be fired in the air: the crowd quitted the altar of
the country, but soon rallied. Thus driven to extremity, he
gave the word, 'Fire!' The first discharge killed some of the
rioters. Their number has been exaggerated. Some have reduced
it to 30, others have raised it to 400, and others to several
thousand. The last statement was believed at the moment, and
the consternation became general. … Lafayette and Bailly
were vehemently reproached for the proceedings in the Champ de
Mars; but both of them, considering it their duty to observe
the law, and to risk popularity and life in its execution,
felt neither regret nor fear for what they had done. The
factions were overawed by the energy which they displayed. …
About this time the Assembly came to a determination which has
since been censured, but the result of which did not prove so
mischievous as it has been supposed. It decreed that none of
its members should be re-elected. Robespierre was the proposer
of this resolution, and it was attributed to the envy which he
felt against his colleagues, among whom he had not shone. …
The new Assembly was thus deprived of men whose enthusiasm was
somewhat abated, and whose legislative science was matured by
an experience of three years. … The constitution was …
completed with some haste, and submitted to the King for his
acceptance. From that moment his freedom was restored to him;
or, if that expression be objected to, the strict watch kept
over the palace ceased. … After a certain number of days he
declared that he accepted the constitution. … He repaired to
the Assembly, where he was received as in the most brilliant
times. Lafayette, who never forgot to repair the inevitable
evils of political troubles, proposed a general amnesty for
all acts connected with the Revolution, which was proclaimed
amidst shouts of joy, and the prisons were instantly thrown
open. At length, on the 30th of September [1791], Thouret, the
last president, declared that the Constituent Assembly had
terminated its sittings."
_A. Thiers,
History of the French Revolution
(American edition), volume 1, pages 186-193._
ALSO IN:
_M'me de Stael,
Considerations on the French Revolution,
part 2, chapters 22-23, and part 3, chapters 1-2._
_H. C. Lockwood,
Constitutional History of France,
chapter 1., and appendix 1._
{1273}
FRANCE: A. D. 1791 (August).
Insurrection of slaves in San Domingo.
See HAYTI: A. D. 1632-1803.
FRANCE: A. D. 1791 (September).
Removal of all disabilities from the Jews.
See JEWS: A. D. 1791.
FRANCE: A. D. 1791 (October).
The meeting of the Legislative Assembly.
Its party divisions.
The Girondists and their leaders.
The Mountain.
"The most glorious destiny was predicted for the Constitution,
yet it did not live a twelve month; the Assembly that was to
apply it was but a transition between the Constitutional
Monarchy and the Republic. It was because the Revolution
partook much more of a social than of a political overthrow.
The Constitution had done all it could for the political part,
but the social fabric remained to be reformed; the ancient
privileged classes had been scotched, but not killed. … The
new Legislative Assembly [which met October 1, its members
having been elected before the dissolution of the Constituent
Assembly] was composed of 745 deputies, mostly chosen from the
middle classes and devoted to the Revolution; those of the
Right and Extreme Right going by the name of Feuillants, those
of the Left and Extreme Left by the name of Jacobins. The
Right was composed of Constitutionalists, who counted on the
support of the National Guard and departmental authorities.
Their ideas of the Revolution were embodied in the
Constitution. … They kept up some relations with the Court
by means of Barnave and the Lameths, but their pillar outside
the Assembly, their trusty counsellor, seems to have been
Lafayette. … The Left was composed of men resolved at all
risks to further the Revolution, even at the expense of the
Constitution. They intended to go as far as a Republic, only
they lacked common unity of views, and did not form a compact
body. … They reckoned among their numbers Vergniaud, Guadet,
and Gensonné, deputies of the Gironde [the Bordeaux region, on
the Garonne], powerful and vehement orators, and from whom
their party afterwards took the name of 'Girondins'; also
Brissot [de Warville] (born 1754), a talented journalist, who
had drawn up the petition for the King's deposition; and
Condorcet (born 1743), an ultra-liberal, but a brilliant
philosopher. Their leader outside the Assembly was Pétion
(born 1753), a cold, calculating, and dissembling Republican,
enjoying great popularity with the masses. The Extreme Left,
occupying in small numbers the raised seats in the Assembly,
from which circumstance they afterwards took the name of 'the
Mountain,' were auxiliaries of the 'Girondins' in their
attempts to further a Revolution which should be entirely in
the interest of the people. Their inspirers outside the
Assembly were Robespierre (born 1759), who controlled the club
of the Jacobins by his dogmatic rigorism and fame for
integrity; and Danton (born 1759), surnamed the Mirabeau of
the 'Breechless' (Sansculottes), a bold and daring spirit, who
swayed the new club of the Cordeliers. The Centre was composed
of nonentities, their moderation was inspired by fear, hence
they nearly always voted with the Left."
_H. Van Laun,
The French Revolutionary Epoch,
book 1, chapter 2, section 3 (volume 1)._
"The department of the Gironde had given birth to a new
political party in the twelve citizens who formed its
deputies. … The names (obscure and unknown up to this
period), of Ducos, Guadet, Lafond-Ladebat, Grangeneuve,
Gensonné, Vergniaud, were about to rise into notice and renown
with the storms and disasters of their country; they were the
men who were destined to give that impulse to the Revolution
that had hitherto remained in doubt and indecision, before
which it still trembled with apprehension, and which was to
precipitate it into a republic. Why was this impulse fated to
have birth in the department of the Gironde and not in Paris?
Nought but conjectures can be offered on this subject. …
Bordeaux was a commercial city, and commerce, which requires
liberty through interest, at last desires it through a love of
freedom. Bordeaux was the great commercial link between
America and France, and their constant intercourse with
America had communicated to the Gironde their love for free
institutions. Moreover Bordeaux … was the birthplace of
Montaigne and Montesquieu, those two great republicans of the
French school."
_A. de Lamartine,
History of the Girondists,
book 4, section 1 (volume 1)._
"In the new National Assembly there was only one powerful and
active party—that of the Gironde. … When we use the term
'parties' in reference to this Assembly, nothing more is meant
by it than small groups of from 12 to 20 persons, who bore the
sway in the rostra and in the Committees, and who alternately
carried with them the aimless crowd of Deputies. It is true,
indeed, that at the commencement of their session, 130
Deputies entered their names among the Jacobins, and about 200
among the Feuillants, but this had no lasting influence on the
divisions, and the majority wavered under the influence of
temporary motives. The party which was regarded as the 'Right'
had no opportunity for action, but saw themselves, from the
very first, obliged to assume an attitude of defence. …
Outside the Chamber the beau ideal of this party,—General
Lafayette,—declared himself in favour of an American Senate,
but without any of the energy of real conviction. As he had
defended the Monarchy solely from a sense of duty, while all
the feelings of his heart were inclined towards a Republic, so
now, though he acknowledged the necessity of an upper Chamber,
the existing Constitution appeared to him to possess a more
ideal beauty. He never attained, on this point, either to
clear ideas or decided actions; and it was at this period that
he resigned his command of the National guard in Paris, and
retired for a while to his estate in Auvergne. … The
Girondist Deputies … were distinguished among the new
members of the Assembly by personal dignity, regular
education, and natural ability; and were, moreover, as ardent
in their radicalism as any Parisian demagogue. They
consequently soon became the darlings of all those zealous
patriots for whom the Cordeliers were too dirty and the
Feuillants too luke warm.
{1274}
External advantages are not without their weight, even in the
most terrible political crises, and the Girondists owe to the
magic of their eloquence, and especially to that of Vergniaud,
an enduring fame, which neither their principles nor their
deeds would have earned for them. … The representatives of
Bordeaux had never occupied a leading position in the
Girondist party, to which they had given its name. The real
leadership of the Gironde fell singularly enough into the
hands of an obscure writer, a political lady, and a priest who
carried on his operations behind the scenes. It was their
hands that overthrew the throne of the Capets, and spread
revolution over Europe. … The writer in this trio was
Brissot, who on the 16th of July had wished to proclaim the
Republic, and who now represented the capital in the National
Assembly, as a constitutional member. … While Brissot shaped
the foreign policy of the Girondist party, its home affairs
were directed by Marie Jeanne Roland, wife of the quondam
Inspector of Factories at Lyons, with whom she had come the
year before to Paris, and immediately thrown herself into the
whirlpool of political life. As early as the year 1789, she
had written to a friend, that the National Assembly must
demand two illustrious heads, or all would be lost. … She
was … 36 years old, not beautiful, but interesting,
enthusiastic and indefatigable; with noble aims, but incapable
of discerning the narrow line which separates right from
wrong. … When warned by a friend of the unruly nature of the
Parisian mob, she replied, that bloodhounds were after all
indispensable for starting the game. … A less conspicuous,
but not less important, part in this association, was played
by the Abbé Sieyès. He did what neither Brissot nor Mad.
Roland could have done by furnishing his party with a
comprehensive and prospective plan of operations. … Their
only clearly defined objects were to possess themselves of the
reins of government, to carry on the Revolution, and to
destroy the Monarchy by every weapon within their reach."
_H. von Sybel,
History of the French Revolution,
book 3, chapter 1 (volume 1)._
ALSO IN:
_H. A. Taine,
The French Revolution,
book 4, (volume 2)._
See, also, below.
FRANCE: A. D. 1791-1792.
Growth and spread of anarchy and civil war.
Activity of the Emigrés and the ejected priests.
Decrees against them vetoed by the King.
The Girondists in control of the government.
War with the German powers forced on by them.
"It was an ominous proof of the little confidence felt by
serious men in the permanence of the new Constitution, that
the funds fell when the King signed it. All the chief
municipal posts in Paris were passing into the hands of
Republicans, and when Bailly, in November, ceased to be Mayor
of Paris, he was succeeded in that great office by Pétion, a
vehement and intolerant Jacobin. Lafayette had resigned the
command of the National Guard, which was then divided under
six commanders, and it could no longer be counted on to
support the cause of order. Over a great part of France there
was a total insecurity of life and property, such as had
perhaps never before existed in a civilised country, except in
times of foreign invasion or successful rebellion. Almost all
the towns in the south—Marseilles, Toulon, Nîmes, Arles,
Avignon, Montpellier, Carpentras, Aix, Montauban—were centres
of Republicanism, brigandage, or anarchy. The massacres of
Jourdain at Avignon, in October, are conspicuous even among
the horrors of the Revolution. Caen in the following month was
convulsed by a savage and bloody civil war. The civil
constitution of the clergy having been condemned by the Pope,
produced an open schism, and crowds of ejected priests were
exciting the religious fanaticism of the peasantry. In some
districts in the south, the war between Catholic and
Protestant was raging as fiercely as in the 17th century,
while in Brittany, and especially in La Vendée, there were all
the signs of a great popular insurrection against the new
Government. Society seemed almost in dissolution, and there
was scarcely a department in which law was observed and
property secure. The price of corn, at the same time, was
rising fast under the influence of a bad harvest in the south,
aggravated by the want of specie, the depreciation of paper
money, and the enormously increased difficulties of transport.
The peasantry were combining to refuse the paper money. It was
falling rapidly in value. … In the mean time the stream of
emigrants continued unabated, and it included the great body
of the officers of the army who had been driven from the
regiments by their own soldiers. … At Brussels, Worms, and
Coblentz, emigrants were forming armed organisations."
_W. E. H. Lecky,
History of England in the 18th century,
chapter 21 (volume 5)._
"The revolution was threatened by two dangerous enemies, the
emigrants, who were urging on a foreign invasion, and the
non-juring bishops and priests who were doing all in their
power to excite domestic rebellion. The latter were really the
more dangerous. … The Girondists clamoured for repressive
measures. On the 30th of October it was decreed that the count
of Provence, unless he returned within two months, should
forfeit all rights to the regency. On the 9th of November an
edict threatened the emigrants with confiscation and death
unless they returned to their allegiance before the end of the
year. On the 29th of November came the attack upon the
non-jurors. They were called upon to take the oath within
eight days, when lists were to be drawn up of those who
refused; these were then to forfeit their pensions, and if any
disturbance took place in their district they were to be
removed from it, or if their complicity were proved they were
to be imprisoned for two years. The king accepted the decree
against his brother, but he opposed his veto to the other two.
The Girondists and Jacobins eagerly seized the opportunity for
a new attack upon the monarchy. … Throughout the winter
attention was devoted almost exclusively to foreign affairs.
It has been seen that the emperor was really eager for peace,
and that as long as he remained in that mood there was little
risk of any other prince taking the initiative. At the same
time it must be acknowledged that Leopold's tone towards the
French government was often too haughty and menacing to be
conciliatory, and also that the open preparations of the
emigrants in neighbouring states constituted an insult if not
a danger to France. The Girondists, the most susceptible of
men, only expressed the national sentiment in dwelling upon
this with bitterness, and in calling for vengeance. At the
same time they had conceived the definite idea that their own
supremacy could best be obtained and secured by forcing on a
foreign war.
{1275}
This was expressly avowed by Brissot, who took the lead of the
party in this matter. Robespierre, on the other hand, partly
through temperament and partly through jealousy of his
brilliant rivals, was inclined to the maintenance of peace.
But on this point the Feuillants were agreed with the Gironde,
and so a vast majority was formed to force the unwilling king
and ministers into war. The first great step was taken when
Duportail, who had charge of military affairs, was replaced by
Narbonne, a Feuillant. Louis XVI. was compelled to issue a
note (14 December, 1791) to the emperor and to the archbishop
of Trier to the effect that if the military force of the
emigrants were not disbanded by the 15th of January
hostilities would be commenced against the elector. The latter
at once ordered the cessation of the military preparations,
but the emigrants not only refused to obey but actually
insulted the French envoy. Leopold expressed his desire for
peace, but at the same time declared that any attack on the
electorate of Trier would be regarded as an act of hostility
to the empire. These answers were unsatisfactory, and Narbonne
collected three armies on the frontiers, under the command of
Rochambeau, Lafayette, and Luckner, and amounting together to
about 150,000 men. On the 25th of January an explicit
declaration was demanded from the emperor, with a threat that
war would be declared unless a satisfactory answer was
received by the 4th of March. Leopold II. saw all his hopes of
maintaining peace in western Europe gradually disappearing,
and was compelled to bestir himself. … On the 7th of
February he finally concluded a treaty with the king of
Prussia. … On the 1st of March, while still hoping to avoid
a quarrel, Leopold II. died of a sudden illness, and with him
perished the last possibility of peace. His son and successor,
Francis II., who was now 24, had neither his father's ability
nor his experience, and he was naturally more easily swayed by
the anti-revolutionary spirit. … The Girondists combined all
their efforts for an attack upon the minister of foreign
affairs, Delessart, whom they accused of truckling to the
enemies of the nation. Delessart was committed to prison, and
his colleagues at once resigned. The Gironde now came into
office. The ministry of home affairs was given to Roland; of
war to Servan; of finance to Clavière. Dumouriez obtained the
foreign department, Duranthon that of justice, and Lacoste the
marine. Its enemies called it 'the ministry of the
Sansculottes.' … On the 20th of April [1792] Louis XVI.
appeared in the assembly and read with trembling voice a
declaration of war against the king of Hungary and Bohemia."
_R. Lodge,
History of Modern Europe,
chapter 22, section 20-21._
The sincere desire of the Emperor Leopold II. to avoid war
with France, and the restraining influence over the King of
Prussia which he exercised up to the time when Catherine II.
of Russia overcame it by the Polish temptation, are set forth
by H. von Sybel in passages quoted elsewhere.
See GERMANY: A. D. 1791-1792.
ALSO IN:
_A. de Lamartine,
History of the Girondists,
books 6-14 (volume l)._
_A. F. Bertrand de Moleville,
Annals of the French Revolution,
part 2. chapters 1-14 (volume 5-6)._
_F. C. Schlosser,
History of the Eighteenth Century,
5th period, 2d division, chapter 1 (volume 6)._
FRANCE: A. D. 1792 (April).
Fête to the Soldiers of Chateauvieux.
See LIBERTY CAP.
FRANCE: A. D. 1792 (April-July).
Opening of the war with Austria and Prussia.
French reverses.
"Hostilities followed close upon the declaration of war. At
this time the forces destined to come into collision were
posted as follows: Austria had 40,000 men in Belgium, and
25,000 on the Rhine. These numbers might easily have been
increased to 80,000, but the Emperor of Austria did no more
than collect 7,000 or 8,000 around Brisgau, and some 20,000
more around Rastadt. The Prussians, now bound into a close
alliance with Austria, had still a great distance to traverse
from their base to the theatre of war, and could not hope to
undertake active operations for a long time to come. France,
on the other hand, had already three strong armies in the
field. The Army of the North, under General Rochambeau, nearly
50,000 strong, held the frontier from Philippeville to
Dunkirk; General Lafayette commanded a second army of about
the same strength in observation from Philippeville to the
Lauter; and a third army of 40,000 men, under Marshal Luckner,
watched the course of the Rhine from Lauterbourg to the
confines of Switzerland. The French forces were strong,
however, on paper only. The French army had been mined, as it
seemed, by the Revolution, and had fallen almost to pieces.
The wholesale emigration of the aristocrats had robbed it of
its commissioned officers, the old experienced leaders whom
the men were accustomed to follow and obey. Again, the passion
for political discussion, and the new notions of universal
equality had fostered a dangerous spirit of license in the
ranks. … While the regular regiments of the old
establishment were thus demoralised, the new levies were still
but imperfectly organised, and the whole army was unfit to
take the field. It was badly equipped, without transport, and
without those useful administrative services which are
indispensable for mobility and efficiency. Moreover, the
prestige of the French arms was at its lowest ebb. A long and
enervating peace had followed since the last great war, in
which the French armies had endured only failure and
ignominious defeat. It is not strange, then, that the foes
whom France had so confidently challenged, counted upon an
easy triumph over the revolutionary troops. The earliest
operations fully confirmed these anticipations. … France
after the declaration of war had at once assumed the
initiative, and proceeded to invade Belgium. Here the Duke
Albert of Saxe-Teschen, who commanded the Imperialist forces,
held his forces concentrated in three principal corps: one
covered the line from the sea to Tournay; the second was at
Leuze; the third and weakest at Mons. The total of these
troops rose to barely 40,000, and Mons, the most important
point in the general line of defence, was the least strongly
held. All able strategist gathering together 30,000 men from
each of the French armies of the Centre and North, would have
struck at Mons with all his strength, cut Duke Albert's
communications with the Rhine, turned his inner flank, and
rolled him up into the sea. But no great genius as yet
directed the military energies of France. … By Dumouriez's
advice, the French armies were ordered to advance against the
Austrians by several lines. Four columns of invasion were to
enter Belgium; one was to follow the sea coast, the second to
march on Tournay, the third to move from Valenciennes on Mons,
and the fourth, under Lafayette, on Givet or Namur.
{1276}
Each, according to the success it might achieve, was to
reinforce the next nearest to it, and all, finally, were to
converge on Brussels. At the very outset, however, the French
encountered the most ludicrous reverses. Their columns fled in
disorder directly they came within sight of the enemy.
Lafayette alone continued his march boldly towards Namur; but
he was soon compelled to retire by the news of the hasty
flight of the columns north of him. The French troops had
proved as worthless as their leaders were incapable; whole
brigades turned tail, crying that they were betrayed, casting
away their weapons as they ran, and displaying the most abject
cowardice and terror. Not strangely, after this pitiful
exhibition, the Austrians—all Europe, indeed—held the
military power of France in the utmost contempt. … But now
the national danger stirred France to its inmost depths.
French spirit was thoroughly roused. The country rose as one
man, determined to offer a steadfast, stubborn front to its
foes. Stout-hearted leaders, full of boundless energy and
enthusiasm, summoned all the resources of the nation to stem
and roll back the tide of invasion. Immediate steps were taken
to put the defeated and disgraced armies of the frontier upon
a new footing. Lafayette replaced Rochambeau, with charge from
Longwy to the sea, his main body about Sedan; Luckner took the
line from the Moselle to the Swiss mountains, with
head-quarters at Metz. A third general, destined to come
speedily to the front, also joined the army as Lafayette's
lieutenant. This was Dumouriez, who, wearied and baffled by
Parisian politics, sought the freedom of the field."
_A. Griffiths,
French Revolutionary Generals,
chapter 1._
FRANCE: A. D. 1792 (June-August).
The King's dismissal of Girondist ministers.
Mob demonstration of June 20.
Lafayette in Paris.
His failure.
The Country declared to be in Danger.
Gathering of volunteers in Paris.
Brunswick's manifesto.
Mob attack on the Tuileries, August 10.
Massacre of the Swiss.
"Servan, the minister of war, proposed the formation of an
armed camp for the protection of Paris. Much opposition was,
however, raised to the project, and the Assembly decreed (June
6) that 20,000 volunteers, recruited in the departments,
should meet at Paris to take part in the celebration of a
federal festival on July 14, the third anniversary of the fall
of the Bastille. The real object of those who supported the
decree was to have a force at Paris with which to maintain
mastery over the city should the Allies penetrate into the
interior. Louis left the decree unsanctioned, as he had the
one directed against nonjurors. The agitators of the sections
sought to get up an armed demonstration against this exercise
of the King's constitutional prerogative. Though armed
demonstrations were illegal, the municipality offered but a
perfunctory and half-hearted resistance. … Louis, irritated
at the pressure put on him by Roland, Clavière, and Servan, to
sanction the two decrees, dismissed the three ministers from
office (June 13). Dumouriez, who had quarreled with his
colleagues, supported the King in taking this step, but in
face of the hostility of the Assembly himself resigned office
(June 15). Three days later a letter from Lafayette was read
in the Assembly. The general denounced the Jacobins as the
authors of all disorders, called on the Assembly to maintain
the prerogatives of the crown, and intimated that his army
would not submit to see the constitution violated (June 18).
Possibly the dismissal of the ministers and the writing of
this letter were measures concerted between the King and
Lafayette. In any case the King's motive was to excite
division between the constitutionalists and the Girondists, so
as to weaken the national defence. The dismissal of the ministers
was, however, regarded by the Girondists as a proof of the
truth of their worst suspicions, and no measures were taken to
prevent an execution of the project of making an armed, and
therefore illegal, demonstration against the royal policy. On
June 20, thousands of persons, carrying pikes or whatever
weapon came to hand, and accompanied by several battalions of
the national guard, marched from St. Antoine to the hall of
the Assembly. A deputation read an address demanding the
recall of the ministers. Afterwards the whole of the
procession, men, women and children, dancing, singing, and
carrying emblems, defiled through the chamber. Instigated by
their leaders they broke into the Tuileries. The King, who
took his stand on a window seat, was mobbed for four hours. To
please his unwelcome visitors, he put on his head a red cap,
such as was now commonly worn at the Jacobins as an emblem of
liberty, in imitation of that which was once worn by the
emancipated Roman slave. He declared his intention to observe
the constitution, but neither insult nor menace could prevail
on him to promise his sanction to the two decrees. The Queen,
separated from the King, sat behind a table on which she
placed the Dauphin, exposed to the gaze and taunts of the
crowds which slowly traversed the palace apartments. At last,
but not before night, the mob left the Tuileries without doing
further harm, and order was again restored. This insurrection
and the slackness, if not connivance, of the municipal
authorities, excited a widespread feeling of indignation
amongst constitutionalists. Lafayette came to Paris, and at
the bar of the Assembly demanded in person what he had before
demanded by letter (June 28). With him, as with other former
members of the constituent Assembly, it was a point of honour
to shield the persons of the King and Queen from harm. Various
projects for their removal from Paris were formed, but policy
and sentiment alike forbade Marie Antoinette to take advantage
of them. … The one gleam of light on the horizon of this
unhappy Queen was the advance of the Allies. 'Better die,' she
one day bitterly exclaimed, 'than be saved by Lafayette and
the constitutionalists.' There was, no doubt, a possibility of
the Allies reaching Paris that summer, but this enormously
increased the danger of the internal situation. … To rouse
the nation to a sense of peril the Assembly [July 11] caused
public proclamation to be made in every municipality that the
country was in danger. The appeal was responded to with
enthusiasm, and within six weeks more than 60,000 volunteers
enlisted. The Duke of Brunswick, the commander-in-chief of the
allied forces, published a manifesto, drawn up by the
emigrants. If the authors of this astounding proclamation had
deliberately intended to serve the purpose of those Frenchmen
who were bent on kindling zeal for the war, they could not
have done anything more likely to serve their purpose.
{1277}
The powers required the country to submit unconditionally to
Louis's mercy. All who offered resistance were to be treated
as rebels to their King, and Paris was to suffer military
execution if any harm befell the royal family. … Meanwhile,
a second insurrection, which had for its object the King's
deposition, was in preparation. The Assembly, after declaring
the country in danger, had authorised the sections of Paris,
as well as the administrative authorities throughout France,
to meet at any moment. The sections had, in consequence, been
able to render themselves entirely independent of the
municipality. In each of the sectional or primary assemblies
from 700 to 3,000 active citizens had the right to vote, but
few cared to attend, and thus it constantly happened that a
small active minority spoke and acted in the name of an
apathetic constitutional majority. Thousands of volunteers
passed through Paris on their way to the frontier, some of
whom were purposely retained to take part in the insurrection.
The municipality of Marseilles, at the request of Barbaroux, a
young friend of the Rolands, sent up a band of 500 men, who
first sung in Paris the verses celebrated as the
'Marseillaise' [see MARSEILLAISE]. The danger was the greater
since every section had its own cannon and a special body of
cannoneers, who nearly to a man were on the side of the
revolutionists. The terrified and oscillating Assembly made no
attempt to suppress agitation, but acquitted (August 8)
Lafayette, by 406 against 280 votes, of a charge of treason
made against him by the left, on the ground that he had sought
to intimidate the Legislature. This vote was regarded as
tantamount to a refusal to pass sentence of deposition on
Louis. On the following night the insurrection began. Its
centre was in the Faubourg of St. Antoine, and it was
organised by but a small number of men. Mandat, the
commander-in-chief of the national guard, was an energetic
constitutionalist, who had taken well-concerted measures for
the defence of the Tuileries. But the unscrupulousness of the
conspirators was more than a match for his zeal. Soon after
midnight commissioners from 28 sections met together at the
Hotel de Ville, and forced the Council-General of the
Municipality to summon Mandat before it, and to send out
orders to the officers of the guard in contradiction to those
previously given. Mandat, unaware of what was passing, obeyed
the summons, and on his arrival was arrested and murdered.
After this the commissioners dispersed the lawful council and
usurped its place. At the Tuileries were about 950 Swiss and
more than 4,000 national guards. Early in the morning the
first bands of insurgents appeared. On the fidelity of the
national guards it was impossible to rely; and the royal
family, attended by a small escort, left the palace, and
sought refuge with the Assembly [which held its sessions in
the old Riding-School of the Tuileries, not far from the
palace, at one side of the gardens]. Before their departure
orders had been given to the Swiss to repel force by force,
and soon the sound of firing spread alarm through Paris. The
King sent the Swiss instructions to retire, which they
punctually obeyed. One column, passing through the Tuileries
gardens, was shot down almost to a man. The rest reached the
Assembly in safety, but several were afterwards massacred on
their way to prison. For 24 hours the most frightful anarchy
prevailed. Numerous murders were committed in the streets. The
assailants, some hundreds of whom had perished, sacked the
palace, and killed all the men whom they found there."
_B. M. Gardiner,
The French Revolution,
chapter 5._
"Terror and fury ruled the hour. The Swiss, pressed on from
without, paralysed from within, have ceased to shoot; but not
to be shot. What shall they do? Desperate is the moment.
Shelter or instant death: yet How, Where? One party flies out
by the Rue de l'Echelle; is destroyed utterly, 'en entier.' A
second, by the other side, throws itself into the Garden;
'hurrying across a keen fusillade'; rushes suppliant into the
National Assembly; finds pity and refuge in the back benches
there. The third, and largest, darts out in column, 300
strong, towards the Champs Elysées: 'Ah, could we but reach
Courbevoye, where other Swiss are!' Wo! see, in such fusillade
the column 'soon breaks itself by diversity of opinion,' into
distracted segments, this way and that;—to escape in holes,
to die fighting from street to street. The firing and
murdering will not cease: not yet for long. The red Porters of
Hotels are shot at, be they 'Suisse' by nature, or Suisse only
in name. The very Firemen, who pump and labour on that smoking
Carrousel [which the mob had fired]; are shot at; why should
the Carrousel not burn? Some Swiss take refuge in private
houses; find that mercy too does still dwell in the heart of
man. The brave Marseillese are merciful, late so wroth; and
labour to save. … But the most are butchered, and even
mangled. Fifty (some say Fourscore) were marched as prisoners,
by National Guards, to the Hôtel-de-Ville: the ferocious
people bursts through on them, in the Place-de-Greve;
massacres them to the last man. 'O Peuple, envy of the
universe!' Peuple, in mad Gaelic effervescence! Surely few
things in the history of carnage are painfuler. What
ineffaceable red streak, flickering so sad in the memory, is
that, of this poor column of red Swiss, 'breaking itself in
the confusion of opinions'; dispersing, into blackness and
death! Honour to you, brave men; honourable pity, through long
times! Not martyrs were ye; and yet almost more. He was no
King of yours, this Louis; and he forsook you like a King of
shreds and patches: ye were but sold to him for some poor
sixpence a-day; yet would ye work for your wages, keep your
plighted word: The work now was to die; and ye did it. Honour
to you, O Kinsmen; and may the old Deutsch 'Biederkeit' and'
Tapferkeit,' and Valour which is Worth and Truth, be they
Swiss, be they Saxon, fail in no age!"
_T. Carlyle,
The French Revolution,
volume 2, book 6, chapter 7._
ALSO IN:
_A. Thiers,
History of the French Revolution
(American edition), volume 1, pages 266-330._
_Madame Campan,
Memoirs of Marie Antoinette,
volume 2, chapters 9-10._
_J. Claretie,
Camille Desmoulins and his Wife,
chapter 3, sections 4-5._
_A. F. Bertrand de Moleville,
Annals of the French Revolution,
part 2, chapters 18-28 (volumes 6-7)._
_Duchess de Tourzel,
Memoirs,
volume 2, chapters 8-10._
_Count M. Dumas,
Memoirs,
chapter 4 (volume 1)._
{1278}
FRANCE: A. D. 1792 (August).
Power seized by the insurrectionary Commune of Paris.
Dethronement and imprisonment of the King.
Conflict between the Girondins of the Assembly and the
Jacobins of the Commune.
Alarm at the advance of the Prussians.
The searching of the city for suspects.
Arrest of 3,000.
"While the Swiss were being murdered, the Legislative Assembly
were informed that a deputation wished to enter. At the head
of this deputation appeared Huguenin, who announced that a new
municipality for Paris had been formed, and that the old one
had resigned. This was, indeed, the fact. On the departure of
Santerre the commissioners of the sections had given orders to
the legitimate council-general of the municipality to resign,
and the council-general, startled by the events which were
passing, consented. The commissioners then called themselves
the new municipality, and proceeded, as municipal officers, to
send a deputation to the Assembly. The deputation almost
ordered that the Assembly should immediately declare the
king's dethronement, and, in the presence of the unfortunate
monarch himself, Vergniaud mounted the tribune, and proposed,
on behalf of the Committee of Twenty-one, that the French
people should be invited to elect a National Convention to
draw up a new Constitution, and that the chief of the
executive power, as he called the king, should be
provisionally suspended from his functions until the new
Convention had pronounced what measures should be adopted to
establish a new government and the reign of liberty and
equality. The motion was carried, and was countersigned by one
of the king's ministers, De Joly; and thus the old monarchy of
the Bourbons in France came to an end. But the Assembly had
not yet completed its work. The ministry was dismissed, as not
having the confidence of the people, and the Minister of War,
d'Abancourt, was ordered to be tried by the court at Orleans
for treason, in having brought the Swiss Guards to Paris. The
Assembly then prepared to elect new ministers. Roland,
Clavière, and Servan were recalled by acclamation to their
former posts. … Danton was elected Minister of Justice by
222 votes against 60; Gaspard Monge, the great mathematician,
was elected Minister of Marine, on the nomination of
Condorcet; and Lebrun-Tondu, a friend of Brissot and
Dumouriez, and a former abbé, to the department of Foreign
Affairs. At the bidding of the self-elected municipality of
Paris the king had been suspended, and a new ministry
inaugurated, and this new municipality, which, it must be
remembered, only represented 28 sections of Paris, next
proceeded to send its decrees all over France. It was joined
on this very day by some of the extreme men who hoped through
its means to force a republic on France—notably by Camille
Desmoulins and Dubois-Dubais; and on the 11th it was still
further reinforced by the presence of Robespierre,
Billaud-Varenne, and Marat. The Legislative Assembly had
become a mere instrument in the hands of the Committee of
Twenty-one [a committee specially charged with watchfulness
over the safety of the public, and which foreshadowed the
later famous Committee of Public Safety]. The majority of the
deputies either left Paris, or, if they belonged to the right,
hid themselves, while those of the left had to obey every
order of their leaders, and left the transaction of temporary
business to the Committee of Twenty-one. This committee
practically ruled France for forty days, until the meeting of
the Convention; the Assembly always accepted its propositions
and sent the deputies it nominated on important missions; its
only rival was the insurrectionary commune, and the
internecine warfare between the Jacobins and the Girondins was
foreshadowed in the struggle between this Commune and the
Committee of Twenty-one. For, while the extreme Jacobins
filled the new Commune of Paris, the Committee of Twenty-one
consisted of Girondins and Feuillants, Brissot was its
president, Vergniaud its reporter, and Gensonné, Condorcet,
Lasource, Guadet, Lacépède, Lacuèe, Pastoret, Muraire, Delmas,
and Guyton-Morveau were amongst its members. On the evening of
August 10 the Assembly decreed that the difference between
active and passive citizens should be abolished, and that
every Frenchman of the age of 25 should have a vote for the
Convention. … The last sight the king might have seen on the
night of August 10 was his palace of the Tuileries in flames,
where, for mischief, fire had been set to the stables. It
spread from building to building, and the Assembly only took
steps to check it when it threatened to spread to the houses
of the Rue Saint Honoré. … On the day after this terrible
night the king was informed that rooms had been found for him
in the Convent of the Feuillants; and to four monastic cells,
which had not been inhabited since the dissolution of the
monastery two years before, the royal family was led, and
round them was placed a strong guard. Yet they were no more
prisoners in the Convent of the Feuillants than they had been
in the splendid palace of the Tuileries. … The king's
nominal authority was annihilated; but though the course of
events left him a prisoner, it cannot be said that his
influence was diminished, for he had none left to diminish. It
was to the Girondins, rather than to the king, that the
results of August 10 brought unpleasant surprises. … The
real power had gone to the Commune of Paris, and this was very
clearly perceived by Robespierre and by Marat. … Though
Marat was received with the loudest cheers by the
insurrectionary commune, Robespierre was the man who really
became its leader. He had long expected the shock which had
just taken place, and had prepared himself for the crisis. The
first requisition was, of course, for a Convention. This had
been granted on the very first day. The second demand of the
Commune was the safe custody of the king, so that he should
not be able to escape to the army. This was conceded by the
Assembly on August 12, when they ordered that the king and
royal family should be taken to the old tower of the Temple,
and there strictly guarded under the superintendence of the
insurrectionary commune. Lafayette's sudden flight greatly
strengthened the position of the Commune of Paris. …
Relieved from the fear of Lafayette's turning against them,
both the Girondins in the Legislative Assembly and the
Jacobins in the insurrectionary commune turned to the pursuit
of their own special plans, and naturally soon came into
violent collision. … The Girondins were, above all things,
men of ideas; the Jacobins, above all things, practical men:
and of the issue of a struggle between them there could be
little doubt, though, at this period the Girondins had the
advantage of the best position. On August 15 the final blow
was struck at the unfortunate Feuillants, or
Constitutionalists. The last ministers of the king, as well
Duport du Tertre, Bertrand de Moleville, and Duportail, were
all ordered to be arrested, with Barnave and Charles de
Lameth. The Assembly followed up this action by establishing
the special tribunal of August 17, which held its first
sitting on the same evening at the Hotel de Ville.
{1279}
Robespierre was elected president, and refused the office. …
The new tribunal was too slow to satisfy the leaders of the
Commune of Paris, for its first prisoner, Laporte, the old
intendant of the civil list, was not judged until August 21,
and then acquitted. This news made the Commune lose all
patience, and they determined to urge the Assembly to more
energetic measures. Under the pressure of the Commune the
Assembly took vigorous measures indeed. All the leaders of the
émigrés were sequestrated; all ecclesiastics who would not
take the oath were to be transported to French Guiana, and it
was decreed that the National Guard should enlist every man,
whether an active or a passive citizen. Much of this vigour on
the part of the Assembly was due, not only to the pressure of
the Commune, but to the rapid advance of the Prussians. …
The Assembly … decreed that an army of 30,000 men should be
raised in Paris, and that every man who had a musket issued to
him should be punished with death if he did not march at once.
… On August 28, on the motion of Danton, now Minister of
Justice, a general search for arms and suspects was ordered.
The gates of the city were closed on August 30; every street
was ordered to be illuminated; bodies of national guards
entered each house and searched it from top to bottom. Barely
1,000 muskets were seized, but more than 8,000 prisoners were
taken and shut up, not only in the prisons, but in all the
largest convents of Paris, which were turned into houses of
detention. Who should be arrested as a suspect depended
entirely on the municipal officer who happened to examine the
house, and these men acted under the orders of a special
committee established by the Commune, at the head of which sat
Marat. … The residents in Paris at the time of the
Revolution seem to have been more struck by this
house-to-house visitation than by many other events which were
far more horrible."
_H. M. Stephens,
History of the French Revolution,
volume 2, chapter 4._
ALSO IN:
_Grace D. Elliot,
Journal of My Life during the French Revolution,
chapter 4._
_Gouverneur Morris,
Life and Correspondence.,
edited by Sparks, volume 2, pages 203-217._
_G. Long,
France and its Revolutions,
chapter 29._
FRANCE: A. D. 1792 (August).
Lafayette's unsuccessful resistance to the Jacobins.
His withdrawal from France.
"The news of the 10th of August was carried to Lafayette by
one of his own officers who happened to be in Paris on
business. He learned that the throne was overturned and the
Assembly in subjection, but he could not believe that the
cause of the constitutional monarchy was abandoned without a
struggle. He announced to the army the events that had taken
place, and conjured the men to remain true to the king and
constitution. The commissioners despatched by the Commune of
Paris to announce to the different armies the change of
government and to exact oaths of fidelity to it soon arrived
at Sedan within Lafayette's command. The general had them
brought before the municipality of Sedan and interrogated
regarding their mission. Convinced, from their own account,
that they were the agents of a faction which had unlawfully
seized upon power, he ordered their arrest and had them
imprisoned. Lafayette's moral influence in the army and the
country was still so great that the Jacobins knew that they
must either destroy him or win him over to their side. The
latter course was preferred. … The imprisoned commissioners,
therefore, requested a private conference with Lafayette, and
offered him, on the part of their superiors in Paris, whatever
executive power he desired in the new government. It is
needless to say that Lafayette, whose sole aim was to
establish liberty in his country, refused to entertain the
idea of associating himself with the despotism of the mob. He
caused his own soldiers to renew their oath of fidelity to the
king, and communicated with Luckner on the situation. …
Meanwhile, emissaries from the Commune were sent to Sedan to
influence the soldiers by bribes and threats to renounce their
loyalty to their commander. All the other armies and provinces
to which commissioners had been sent had received them and
taken the new oaths. Lafayette found himself alone in his
resistance. His attitude acquired, every day, more the
appearance of rebellion against authorities recognized by the
rest of France. New commissioners arrived, bringing with them
his dismissal from command. The army was wavering between
attachment to their general and obedience to government. On
the 19th of August, the Jacobins, seeing that they could not
win him over, caused the Assembly to declare him a traitor.
Lafayette had now to take an immediate resolution. France had
declared for the Paris Commune. The constitutional monarchy
was irretrievably destroyed. For the general to dispute with
his appointed successor the command of the army was to provoke
further disorders in a cause that had ceased to be that of the
nation and become only his own. Three possible courses
remained open to him,—to accept the Jacobin overtures and
become a part of their bloody despotism; to continue his
resistance and give his head to the guillotine; to leave the
country. He resolved to seek an asylum in a neutral territory
with the hope, as he himself somewhat naively expressed it,
'some day to be again of service to liberty and to France.'
Lafayette made every preparation for the safety of his troops,
placing them under the orders of Luckner until the arrival of
Dumouriez, the new general in command. He publicly
acknowledged responsibility for the arrest of the
commissioners and the defiance of Sedan to the Commune, in
order that the municipal officers who had supported him might
escape punishment. He included in his party his
staff-officers, whose association with him would have
subjected them to the fury of the Commune, and some others who
had also been declared traitors on account of obedience to his
orders. He then made his way to Bouillon, on the extreme
frontier. There, dismissing the escort, and sending back final
orders for the security of the army, he rode with his
companions into a foreign land."
_B. Tuckerman,
Life of Lafayette,
volume 2, chapter 3._
{1280}
FRANCE: A. D. 1792 (August-September).
The September Massacres in the Paris prisons.
The house-to-house search for suspects was carried on during
the night of August 29 and the following day. "The next
morning, at daybreak, the Mairie, the sections, the ancient
prisons of Paris, and the convents that had been converted
into prisons, were crowded with prisoners. They were summarily
interrogated, and half of them, the victims of error or
precipitation, were set at liberty, or claimed by their
sections. The remainder were distributed in the prisons of the
Abbaye Saint Germain, the Conciergerie, the Châtelet, La
Force, the Luxembourg, and the ancient monasteries of the
Bernardins, Saint Firmin, and the Carmes; Bicêtre and the
Salpêtrière also opened their gates to receive fresh inmates.
The three days that followed this night were employed by the
commissaries in making a selection of the prisoners. Already
their death was projected. … "We must purge the prisons, and
leave no traitors behind us when we hasten to the frontiers.'
Such was the cry put into the mouth of the people by Marat and
Danton. Such was the attitude of Danton on the brink of these
crimes. As for the part of Robespierre, it was the same as in
all these crises—on the debate concerning war, on the 20th of
June, and on the 10th of August. He did not act, he blamed;
but he left the event to itself, and when once accomplished he
accepted it as a progressive step of the Revolution. … On
Sunday, the 2d of September, at three o'clock in the
afternoon, the signal for the massacre was given by one of
those accidents that seem so perfectly the effect of chance.
Five coaches, each containing six priests, started from the
Hôtel-de-Ville to the prison of the Abbaye … escorted by
weak detachments of Avignonnais and Marseillais, armed with
pikes and sabers. … Groups of men, women and children
insulted them as they passed, and their escort joined in the
invective threats and outrages of the populace. … The
émeute, increasing in number at every step across the Rue
Dauphine, was met by another mob, that blocked up the
Carrefour Bussy, where municipal officers received enrolments
in the open air. The carriages stopped; and a man, forcing his
way through the escort, sprung on the step of the first
carriage, plunged his saber twice into the body of one of the
priests, and displayed it reeking with blood: the people
uttered a cry of horror. 'This frightens you, cowards!' said
the assassin, with a smile of disdain; 'You must accustom
yourselves to look on death.' With these [words] he again
plunged his saber into the carriage and continued to strike.
… The coaches slowly moved on, and the assassin, passing
from one to the other, and clinging with one hand to the door,
stabbed at random at all he could reach; while the assassins
of Avignon, who formed part of their escort, plunged their
bayonets into the interior; and the pikes, pointed against the
windows, prevented any of the priests from leaping into the
street. The long line of carriages moving slowly on, and
leaving a bloody trace behind them, the despairing cries and
gestures of the priests, the ferocious shouts of their
butchers, the yells of applause of the populace, announced
from a distance their arrival to the prisoners of the Abbaye.
The cortège stopped at the door of the prison, and the
soldiers of the escort dragged out by the feet eight dead
bodies. The priests who had escaped, or who were only wounded,
precipitated themselves into the prison; four of them were
seized and massacred on the threshold. … The prisoners …
cooped up in the Abbaye heard this prelude to murder at their
gates. … The internal wickets were closed on them, and they
received orders to return to their chambers, as if to answer
the muster-roll. A fearful spectacle was visible in the outer
court: the last wicket opening into it had been transformed
into a tribunal; and around a large table—covered with
papers, writing materials, the registers of the prisons,
glasses, bottles, pistols, sabers, and pipes—were seated
twelve judges, whose gloomy features and athletic proportions
stamped them men of toil, debauch or blood. Their attire was
that of the laboring classes. … Two or three of them
attracted attention by the whiteness of their hands and the
elegance of their shape; and that betrayed the presence of men
of intellect, purposely mingled with these men of action to
guide them. A man in a gray coat, a saber at his side, pen in
his hand, and whose inflexible features seemed as though they
were petrified, was seated at the center of the table, and
presided over the tribunal. This was the Huissier Maillard,
the idol of the mobs of the Faubourg Saint Marceau … an
actor in the days of October, the 20th of June, and the 10th
of August. … He had just returned from the Carmes, where he
had organized the massacre. It was not chance that had brought
him to the Abbaye at the precise moment of the arrival of the
prisoners, and with the prison registers in his hand. He had
received, the previous evening, the secret orders of Marat,
through the members of the Comité de Surveillance. Danton had
sent for the registers to the prison, and gone through them;
and Maillard was shown those he was to acquit and condemn. If
the prisoner was acquitted, Maillard said, 'Let this gentleman
be set at liberty'; if condemned, a voice said, 'A la Force.'
At these words the outer door opened, and the prisoner fell
dead as he crossed the threshold. The massacre commenced with
the Swiss, of whom there were 150 at the Abbaye, officers and
soldiers. … They fell, one after another, like sheep in a
slaughter-house. The tumbrils were not sufficient to carry
away the corpses, and they were piled up on each side of the
court to make room for the rest to die: their commander, Major
Reding, was the last to fall. … After the Swiss, the king's
guards, imprisoned in the Abbaye, were judged en masse. …
Their massacre lasted a long time, for the people, excited by
what they had drank—brandy mingled with gun-powder-and
intoxicated by the sight of blood, prolonged their tortures.
… The whole night was scarcely enough to slay and strip
them."
_A. de Lamartine,
History of the Girondists,
book 25 (volume 2)._
"To moral intoxication is added physical intoxication, wine in
profusion, bumpers at every pause, revelry over corpses. …
They dance … and sing the 'carmagnole'; they arouse the
people of the quarter 'to amuse them,' and that they may have
their share of 'the fine fête.' Benches are arranged for
'gentlemen' and others for 'ladies': the latter, with greater
curiosity, are additionally anxious to contemplate at their
ease 'the aristocrats' already slain; consequently, lights are
required, and one is placed on the breast of each corpse.
Meanwhile, slaughter continues, and is carried to perfection.
A butcher at the Abbaye complains that 'the aristocrats die
too quick, and that those only who strike first have the
pleasure of it'; henceforth they are to be struck with the
backs of the swords only, and made to run between two rows of
their butchers, like soldiers formerly running a gauntlet. …
{1281}
All the unfettered instincts that live in the lowest depths of
the heart start from the human abyss at once, not alone the
heinous instincts with their fangs, but likewise the foulest
with their slaver, while both packs fall furiously on women
whose noble or infamous repute brings them before the world;
on Madame de Lamballe, the Queen's friend; on Madame Desrues,
widow of the famous prisoner; on the flower-girl of the
Palais-Royal, who, two years before, had mutilated her lover,
a French guardsman, in a fit of jealousy. Ferocity here is
associated with lubricity to add profanation to torture, while
life is attacked through attacks on modesty. In Madame de
Lamballe, killed too quickly, the libidinous butchers could
only outrage a corpse, but for the widow, and especially the
flower-girl, they imagine the same as a Nero the fire-circle
of the Iroquois. … At La Force, Madame de Lamballe is cut to
pieces. I cannot transcribe what Charlot, the hair-dresser,
did with her head. I merely state that another wretch, in the
Rue Saint-Antoine, bore off her heart and 'ate it.' They kill
and they drink, and drink and kill again. … As the prisons
are to be cleaned out, it is as well to clean them all out,
and do it at once. After the Swiss, priests, the aristocrats,
and the 'white-skin gentlemen,' there remain convicts and
those confined through the ordinary channels of justice,
robbers, assassins, and those sentenced to the galleys in the
Conciergerie, in the Châtelet, and in the Tour St. Bernard,
with branded women, vagabonds, old beggars and boys confined
in Bicêtre and the Salpétrière. They are good for nothing,
cost something to feed, and, probably, cherish evil designs.
… This time, as the job is more foul, the broom is wielded
by fouler hands. … At the Salpétrière, 'all the bullies of
Paris, former spies, … libertines, the rascals of France and
all Europe, prepare beforehand for the operation,' and rape
alternates with massacre. … At Bicêtre, however, it is crude
butchery, the carnivorous instinct alone satisfying itself.
Among other prisoners are 43 youths of the lowest class, from
17 to 19 years of age, placed there for correction by their
parents, or by those to whom they are bound. … These the
band falls on, beating them to death with clubs. … There are
six days and five nights of uninterrupted butchery, 171
murders at the Abbaye, 169 at La Force, 223 at the Châtelet,
328 at the Conciergerie, 73 at the Tour-Saint-Bernard, 120 at
the Carmelites, 79 at Saint-Firmin, 170 at Bicêtre, 35 at the
Salpétrière; among the dead, 250 priests, 3 bishops or
archbishops, general officers, magistrates, one former
minister, one royal princess, belonging to the best names in
France, and, on the other side, one negro, several low class
women, young scape-graces, convicts, and poor old men. …
Fournier, Lazowski, and Bécard, the chiefs of robbers and
assassins, return from Orleans with 1,500 cut-throats. On the
way they kill M. de Brissac, M. de Lessart, and 42 others
accused of 'lèse-nation,' whom they arrested from their
judges' hands, and then, by way of surplus, 'following the
example of Paris,' 21 prisoners taken from the Versailles
prisons. At Paris the Minister of Justice thanks them, the
Commune congratulates them, and the sections feast them and
embrace them. … All the journals approve, palliate, or keep
silent; nobody dares offer resistance. Property as well as
lives belong to whoever wants to take them. … Like a man
struck on the head with a mallet, Paris, felled to the ground,
lets things go; the authors of the massacre have fully
attained their ends. The faction has fast hold of power, and
will maintain its hold. Neither in the Legislative Assembly
nor in the Convention will the aims of the Girondists be
successful against its tenacious usurpation. … The Jacobins,
through sudden terror, have maintained their illegal
authority; through a prolongation of terror they are going to
establish their legal authority. A forced suffrage is going to
put them in office at the Hotel-de-Ville, in the tribunals, in
the National Guard, in the sections, and in the various
administrations."
_H. A. Taine,
The French Revolution,
book 4, chapter 9 (volume 2)._
ALSO IN:
_A. Thiers,
History of the French Revolution,
(American edition.), volume 1, pages 350-368._
_Sergent Marceau,
Reminiscences of a Regicide,
chapter 9._
_A. Dobson,
The Princess de Lamballe
("Four Frenchwomen," chapter 3)._
_The Reign of Terror: A collection of Authentic
Narratives, volume 2._
_J. B. Cléry,
Journal of Occurrences at the Temple._
_Despatches of Earl Gower,
pages 225-229._
FRANCE: A. D. 1792 (September-November).
Meeting of the National Convention.
Abolition of royalty.
Proclamation of the Republic.
Adoption of the Era of the Republic.
Establishment of absolute equality.
The losing struggle of the Girondists with the Jacobins of the
Mountain.
"It was in the midst of these horrors [of the September
massacres] that the Legislative Assembly approached its
termination. … The National Convention began [September 22]
under darker auspices. … The great and inert mass of the
people were disposed, as in all commotions, to range
themselves on the victorious side. The sections of Paris,
under the influence of Robespierre and Marat, returned the
most revolutionary deputies; those of most other towns
followed their example. The Jacobins, with their affiliated
clubs, on this occasion exercised an overwhelming influence
over all France. … At Paris, where the elections took place
on the 2d September, amidst all the excitement and horrors of
the massacres in the prisons, the violent leaders of the
municipality, who had organized the revolt of August 10th,
exercised an irresistible sway over the citizens. Robespierre
and Danton were the first named, amidst unanimous shouts of
applause; after them Camille Desmoulins, Tallien, Osselin,
Freron, Anacharsis Clootz, Fabre d'Eglantine, David, the
celebrated painter, Collot d'Herbois, Billaud Varennes,
Legendre, Panis, Sergent, almost all implicated in the
massacres in the prisons, were also chosen. To these was added
the Duke of Orleans, who had abdicated his titles, and was
called Philippe Égalité. … The most conservative part of the
new Assembly were the Girondists who had overturned the
throne. From the first opening of the Convention, the
Girondists occupied the right, and the Jacobins the seats on
the summit of the left; whence their designation of 'The
Mountain' was derived. The former had the majority of votes,
the greater part of the departments having returned men of
comparatively moderate principles. But the latter possessed a
great advantage, in having on their side all the members of
the city of Paris, who ruled the mob, … and in being
supported by the municipality, which had already grown into a
ruling power in the state, and had become the great centre of
the democratic party.
{1282}
A neutral body, composed of those members whose principles
were not yet declared, was called the Plain, or, Marais; it
ranged itself with the Girondists, until terror compelled its
members to coalesce with the victorious side. … The two
rival parties mutually indulged in recriminations, in order to
influence the public mind. The Jacobins incessantly reproached
the Girondists with desiring to dissolve the Republic; to
establish three-and-twenty separate democratic states, held
together, like the American provinces, by a mere federal
union. … Nothing more was requisite to render them in the
highest degree unpopular in Paris, the very existence of which
depended on its remaining, through all the phases of government,
the seat of the ruling power. The Girondists retorted upon
their adversaries charges better founded, but not so likely to
inflame the populace. They reproached them with endeavouring
to establish in the municipality of Paris a power superior to
the legislature of all France, with overawing the
deliberations of the Convention by menacing petitions, or the
open display of brute force; and secretly preparing for their
favourite leaders, Danton, Robespierre, and Marat, a
triumvirate of power, which would speedily extinguish all the
freedom which had been acquired. The first part of the
accusation was well-founded even then; of the last, time soon
afforded an ample confirmation. The Convention met at first in
one of the halls of the Tuileries, but immediately adjourned
to the Salle du Ménage, where its subsequent sittings were
held. Its first step was, on the motion of the Abbé Gregoire,
and amidst unanimous transports, to declare Royalty abolished
in France, and to proclaim a republic; and by another decree
it was ordered, that the old calendar taken from the year of
Christ's birth should be abandoned, and that all public acts
should be dated from the first year of the French republic.
This era began on the 22d September 1792. [See, also, below:
A. D. 1793 (OCTOBER).] … A still more democratic
constitution than that framed by the Constituent and
Legislative Assemblies was at the same time established. All
the requisites for election to any office whatever were, on
the motion of the Duke of Orleans, abolished. It was no longer
necessary to select judges from legal men, nor magistrates
from the class of proprietors. All persons, in whatever rank,
were declared eligible to every situation; and the right of
voting in the primary assemblies was conferred on every man
above the age of 21 years. Absolute equality, in its literal
sense, was universally established. Universal suffrage was the
basis on which government rested." The leaders of the
Girondists soon opened attacks upon Robespierre and Marat,
accusing the former of aspiring to a dictatorship, and also
holding him responsible, with Marat and Danton, for the
September massacres; but Louvet and others who made the attack
were feebly supported by their party. Louvet "repeatedly
appealed to Pétion, Vergniaud, and the other leaders, to
support his statements; but they had not the firmness boldly
to state the truth. Had they testified a fourth part of what
they knew, the accusation must have been instantly voted, and
the tyrant crushed at once. As it was, Robespierre, fearful of
its effects, demanded eight days to prepare for his defence.
In the interval, the whole machinery of terror was put in
force. The Jacobins thundered out accusations against the
intrepid accuser, and all the leaders of the Mountain were
indefatigable in their efforts to strike fear into their
opponents. … By degrees the impression cooled, fear resumed
its sway, and the accused mounted the tribune at the end of
the week with the air of a victor. … It was now evident that
the Girondists were no match for their terrible adversaries.
The men of action on their side, Louvet, Barbaroux, and
Lanjuinais, in vain strove to rouse them to the necessity of
vigorous measures in contending with such enemies. Their
constant reply was, that they would not be the first to
commence the shedding of blood. Their whole vigour manifested
itself in declamation, their whole wisdom in abstract
discussion. They had now become humane in intention, and
moderate in counsel, though they were far from having been so
in the earlier stages of the Revolution. … They were too
honourable to believe in the wickedness of their opponents,
too scrupulous to adopt the measures requisite to disarm, too
destitute of moral courage to be able to crush them. … The
Jacobins … while they were daily strengthening and
increasing the armed force of the sections at the command of
the municipality, … strenuously resisted the slightest
approach towards the establishment of any guard or civic force
for the defence of the Convention. … Aware of their weakness
from this cause, the Girondists brought forward a proposal for
an armed guard for the Convention. The populace was
immediately put in motion," and the overawed Convention
abandoned the measure. "In the midst of these vehement
passions, laws still more stringent and sanguinary were passed
against the priests and emigrants. … First, it was decreed
that every Frenchman taken with arms in his hands against
France should be punished with death; and soon after, that
'the French emigrants are forever banished from the territory
of France, and those who return shall be punished with death.'
A third decree directed that all their property, movable and
immovable, should be confiscated to the service of the state.
These decrees were rigidly executed: and though almost
unnoticed amidst the bloody deeds which at the same period
stained the Revolution, ultimately produced the most lasting
and irremediable effects. At length the prostration of the
Assembly before the armed sections of Paris had become so
excessive, that Buzot and Barbaroux, the most intrepid of the
Girondists, brought forward two measures which, if they could
have been carried, would have emancipated the legislature from
this odious thraldom. Buzot proposed to establish a guard,
specially for the protection of the Convention, drawn from
young men chosen from the different departments. Barbaroux at
the same time brought forward four decrees. … By the first,
the capital was to cease to be the seat of the legislature,
when it lost its claim to their presence by failing to protect
them from insult. By the second, the troops of the Fédérés and
the national cavalry were to be charged, along with the armed
sections, with the protection of the legislature. By the
third, the Convention was to constitute itself into a court of
justice, for the trial of all conspirators against its
authority. By the fourth, the Convention suspended the
municipality of Paris. … The Jacobins skilfully availed
themselves of these impotent manifestations of distrust, to
give additional currency to the report that the Girondists
intended to transport the seat of government to the southern
provinces. This rumour rapidly gained ground with the
populace, and augmented their dislike at the ministry. … All
these preliminary struggles were essays of strength by the two
parties, prior to the grand question which was now destined to
attract the eyes of Europe and the world. This was the trial
of Louis XVI."
_Sir A. Alison,
History of Europe,
chapter 8 (volume 3)._
ALSO IN:
_G. H. Lewes,
Life of Robespierre,
chapter 16._
_A. de Lamartine,
History of the Girondists,
books 29-31._
_C. D. Yonge,
History of France under the Bourbons,
chapter 43 (volume 4)._
_J. Moore,
Journal in France, 1792,
volume 2._
{1283}
FRANCE: A. D. 1792 (September-December).
The war on the northern frontier.
Battle of Valmy.
Retreat of the invading army.
Custine in Germany and Dumouriez in the Netherlands.
Annexation of Savoy and Nice.
The Decree of December 15.
Proclamation of a republican crusade.
"The defence of France rested on General Dumouriez. …
Happily for France the slow advance of the Prussian general
permitted Dumouriez to occupy the difficult country of the
Argonnes, where, while waiting for his reinforcements, he was
able for some time to hold the invaders in check. At length
Brunswick made his way past the defile which Dumouriez had
chosen for his first line of defence; but it was only to find
the French posted in such strength on his flank that any
further advance would imperil his own army. If the advance was
to be continued, Dumouriez must be dislodged. Accordingly, on
the 20th of September, Brunswick, facing half-round from his
line of march, directed his artillery against the hills of
Valmy, where Kellermann and the French left were encamped. The
cannonade continued for some hours, but it was followed by no
general attack. Already, before a blow had been struck, the
German forces were wasting away with disease. … The King of
Prussia began to listen to the proposals of peace which were
sent to him by Dumouriez. A week spent in negotiations served
only to strengthen the French and to aggravate the scarcity
and sickness within the German camp. Dissensions broke out
between the Prussian and Austrian commanders; a retreat was
ordered; and, to the astonishment of Europe, the veteran
forces of Brunswick fell back before the mutinous soldiery and
unknown generals of the Revolution. … In the meantime the
Legislative Assembly had decreed its own dissolution … and
had ordered the election of representatives to frame a
constitution for France. … The Girondins, who had been the
party of extremes in the Legislative Assembly, were the party
of moderation and order in the Convention. … Monarchy was
abolished, and France declared a Republic (September 21).
Office continued in the hands of the Gironde; but the
vehement, uncompromising spirit of their rivals, the so-called
party of the Mountain, quickly made itself felt in all the
relations of France to foreign powers. The intention of
conquest might still be as sincerely disavowed as it had been
five months before; but were the converts to liberty to be
denied the right of uniting themselves to the French people by
their own free will? … The scruples which had lately
condemned all annexation of territory vanished in that orgy of
patriotism which followed the expulsion of the invader and the
discovery that the Revolution was already a power in other
lands than France. … Along the entire frontier, from Dunkirk
to the Maritime Alps, France nowhere touched a strong united, and
independent people; and along this entire frontier, except in
the country opposite Alsace, the armed proselytism of the
French Revolution proved a greater force than the influences
on which the existing order of things depended. In the Low
Countries, in the Principalities of the Rhine, in Switzerland,
in Savoy, in Piedmont itself, the doctrines of the Revolution
were welcomed by a more or less numerous class, and the armies
of France appeared for a moment as the missionaries of liberty
and right rather than as an invading enemy. No sooner had
Brunswick been brought to a stand by Dumouriez at Valmy than a
French division under Custine crossed the Alsatian frontier
and advanced upon Spires, where Brunswick had left large
stores of war. The garrison was defeated in an encounter
outside the town; Spires and Worms surrendered to Custine. In
the neighbouring fortress of Mainz, the key to western
Germany, Custine's advance was watched with anxious
satisfaction by a republican party among the inhabitants, from
whom the French general learnt that he had only to appear
before the city to become its master. … At the news of the
capture of Spires, the Archbishop retired into the interior of
Germany, leaving the administration to a board of
ecclesiastics and officials, who published a manifesto calling
upon their 'beloved brethren' the citizens to defend
themselves to the last extremity, and then followed their
master's example. A council of war declared the city to be
untenable; and, before Custine had brought up a single
siege-gun, the garrison capitulated, and the French were
welcomed into Mainz by the partisans of the Republic (October
20). … Although the mass of the inhabitants held aloof, a
Republic was finally proclaimed, and incorporated with the
Republic of France. The success of Custine's raid into Germany
did not divert the Convention from the design of attacking
Austria in the Netherlands, which Dumouriez had from the first
pressed upon the Government. It was not three years since the
Netherlands had been in full revolt against the Emperor
Joseph. … Thus the ground was everywhere prepared for a
French occupation. Dumouriez crossed the frontier. The border
fortresses no longer existed: and after a single battle won by
the French at Jemappes on the 6th November, the Austrians,
finding the population universally hostile, abandoned the
Netherlands without a struggle. The victory of Jemappes, the
first pitched battle won by the Republic, excited an outburst
of revolutionary fervour in the Convention which deeply
affected the relations of France to Great Britain, hitherto a
neutral spectator of the war. A decree was passed for the
publication of a manifesto in all languages, declaring that
the French nation offered its alliance to all peoples who
wished to recover their freedom, and charging the generals of
the Republic to give their protection to all persons who had
suffered or might suffer in the cause of liberty. (November
19.) A week later Savoy and Nice were annexed to France, the
population of Savoy having almost unanimously declared in
favour of France on the outbreak of war between France and
Sardinia.
{1284}
On the 15th December the Convention proclaimed that a system
of social and political revolution was henceforth to accompany
every movement of its armies on foreign soil. 'In every
country that shall be occupied by the armies of the French
Republic'—such was the substance of the Decree of December
15th—'the generals shall announce the abolition of all
existing authorities; of nobility, of serfage, of every feudal
right and every monopoly; they shall proclaim the sovereignty
of the people. … The French nation will treat as enemies any
people which, refusing liberty and equality, desires to
preserve its prince and privileged castes, or to make any
accommodation with them.' This singular announcement of a new
crusade caused the Government of Great Britain to arm."
_C. A. Fyffe,
History of Modern Europe,
volume 1, chapter 2._
ALSO IN:
_F. C. Schlosser,
History of the 18th Century,
volume 6, division 2, chapter 2, section 1._
_E. Baines,
History of the Wars of the French Revolution,
book 1, chapters 3-5 (volume 1)._
FRANCE: A.D. 1792 (November-December).
Charges against the King.
Jacobin clamor for his condemnation.
The contest in Convention.
"There were, without a doubt, in this conjuncture, a great
number of Mountaineers who, on this occasion, acted with the
greatest sincerity, and only as republicans, in whose eyes
Louis XVI. appeared guilty with respect to the revolution; and
a dethroned king was dangerous to a young democracy. But this
party would have been more clement, had it not had to ruin the
Gironde at the same time with Louis XVI. … Party motives and
popular animosities combined against this unfortunate prince.
Those who, two months before, would have repelled the idea of
exposing him to any other punishment than that of
dethronement, were stupefied; so quickly does man lose in
moments of crisis the right to defend his opinions! … After
the 10th of August, there were found in the offices of the
civil list documents which proved the secret correspondence of
Louis XVI. with the discontented princes, with the emigration,
and with Europe. In a report, drawn up at the command of the
legislative assembly, he was accused of intending to betray
the state and overthrow the revolution. He was accused of
having written, on the 16th April, 1791, to the bishop of
Clermont, that if he regained his power he would restore the
former government, and the clergy to the state in which they
previously were; of having afterwards proposed war, merely to
hasten the approach of his deliverers; … of having been on
terms with his brothers, whom his public measures had
discountenanced; and, lastly, of having constantly opposed the
revolution. Fresh documents were soon brought forward in
support of this accusation. In the Tuileries, behind a panel
in the wainscot, there was a hole wrought in the wall, and
closed by an iron door. This secret closet was pointed out by
the minister, Roland, and there were discovered proofs of all
the conspiracies and intrigues of the court against the
revolution; projects with the popular leaders to strengthen
the constitutional power of the king, to restore the ancient
regime and the aristocrats; the manœuvres of Talon, the
arrangements with Mirabeau, the propositions accepted by
Bouillé, under the constituent assembly, and some new plots
under the legislative assembly. This discovery increased the
exasperation against Louis XVI. Mirabeau's bust was broken by
the Jacobins, and the convention covered the one which stood
in the hall where it held its sittings. For some time there
had been a question in the assembly as to the trial of this
prince, who, having been dethroned, could no longer be
proceeded against. There was no tribunal empowered to
pronounce his sentence, no punishment which could be inflicted
on him: accordingly, they plunged into false interpretations
of the inviolability granted to Louis XVI., in order to
condemn him legally. … The committee of legislation,
commissioned to draw up a report on the question as to whether
Louis XVI. could be tried, and whether he could be tried by
the convention, decided in the affirmative. … The discussion
commenced on the 13th of November, six days after the report
of the committee. … This violent party [the Mountain], who
wished to substitute a coup d'etat for a sentence, to follow
no law, no form, but to strike Louis XVI. like a conquered
prisoner, by making hostilities even survive victory, had but
a very feeble majority in the convention; but without, it was
strongly supported by the Jacobins and the commune.
Notwithstanding the terror which it already inspired, its
murderous suggestions were repelled by the convention; and the
partisans of inviolability, in their turn, courageously
asserted reasons of public interest at the same time as rules
of justice and humanity. They maintained that the same men
could not be judges and legislators, the jury and the
accusers. … In a political view, they showed the
consequences of the king's condemnation, as it would affect
the anarchical party of the kingdom, rendering it still more
insolent; and with regard to Europe, whose still neutral
powers it would induce to join the coalition against the
republic. But Robespierre, who during this long debate
displayed a daring and perseverance that presaged his power,
appeared at the tribune to support Saint Just, to reproach the
convention with involving in doubt what the insurrection had
decided, and with restoring, by sympathy and the publicity of
a defence, the fallen royalist party. 'The assembly,' said
Robespierre, 'has involuntarily been led far away from the
real question. Here we have nothing to do with trial: Louis is
not an accused man; you are not judges, you are, and can only
be statesmen. You have no sentence to pronounce for or against
a man, but you are called on to adopt a measure of public
safety; to perform an act of national precaution. A dethroned
king is only fit for two purposes, to disturb the tranquillity
of the state, and shake its freedom, or to strengthen one or
the other of them. Louis was king; the republic is founded;
the famous question you are discussing is decided in these few
words. Louis cannot be tried; he is already tried, he is
condemned, or the republic is not absolved.' He required that
the convention should declare Louis XVI. a traitor towards the
French, criminal towards humanity, and sentence him at once to
death, by virtue of the insurrection. The Mountaineers, by
these extreme propositions, by the popularity they attained
without, rendered condemnation in a measure inevitable. By
gaining an extraordinary advance on the other parties, it
obliged them to follow it, though at a distance. The majority
of the convention, composed in a large part of Girondists, who
dared not pronounce Louis XVI. inviolable, and of the Plain,
decided, on Pétion's proposition, against the opinion of the
fanatical Mountaineers and against that of the partisans of
inviolability, that Louis XVI. should be tried by the
convention. Robert Lindet then made, in the name of the
commission of the twenty-one, his report respecting Louis XVI.
The arraignment, setting forth the offences imputed to him,
was drawn up, and the convention summoned the prisoner to its
bar."
_F. A. Mignet,
History of the French Revolution,
chapter 6._
ALSO IN:
_G. H. Lewes,
Life of Robespierre,
chapter 17._
_A. de Lamartine,
History of the Girondists,
books 32-33 (volume 2)._
_A. de Beauchesne,
Louis XVII.: His Life, his Suffering, his Death,
book 9._
{1285}
FRANCE: A. D. 1792-1793 (December-January).
The King's Trial and death sentence.
"On December 11, the ill-fated monarch, taken from his prison
to his former palace, appeared at the bar of his republican
judges, was received in silence and with covered heads, and
answered interrogatories addressed to him as 'Louis Capet,'
though with an air of deference. His passive constancy touched
many hearts. … On the 26th the advocates of the King made an
eloquent defence for their discrowned client, and Louis added,
in a few simple words, that the 'blood of the 10th of August
should not be laid to his charge.' The debates in the Assembly
now began, and it soon became evident that the Jacobin faction
were making the question the means to further their objects,
and to hold up their opponents to popular hatred. They
clamored for immediate vengeance on the tyrant, declared that
the Republic could not be safe until the Court was smitten on
its head, and a great example had been given to Europe, and
denounced as reactionary and as concealed royalists all who
resisted the demands of patriotism. These ferocious invectives
were aided by the expedients so often employed with success,
and the capital and its mobs were arrayed to intimidate any
deputies who hesitated in the 'cause of the Nation.' The
Moderates, on the other hand, were divided in mind; a
majority, perhaps, condemning the King, but also wishing to
spare his life: and the Gironde leaders, halting between their
convictions, their feelings, their desires, and their fears,
shrank from a courageous and resolute course. The result was
such as usually follows when energy and will encounter
indecision. On January 14 [the 15th, according to Thiers and
others], 1793, the Convention declared Louis XVI. guilty, and
on the following day [the speaking and voting lasted through
the night of the 16th and the day after it] sentence of
immediate death was pronounced by a majority of one [but the
minority, in this view, included 26 votes that were cast for
death but in favor of a postponement of the penalty, on
grounds of political expediency], proposals for a respite and
an appeal to the people having been rejected at the critical
moment. The votes had been taken after a solemn call of the
deputies at a sitting protracted for days; and the spectacle
of the vast dim hall, of the shadowy figures of the awestruck
judges meting out the fate of their former Sovereign, and tier
upon tier of half-seen faces, looking, as in a theatre, on the
drama below, and breaking out into discordant clamor, made a
fearful impression on many eye-witnesses. One vote excited a
sensation of disgust even among the most ruthless chiefs of
the Mountain, though it was remarked that many of the
abandoned women who crowded the galleries shrieked
approbation. The Duke of Orleans, whose Jacobin professions
had caused him to be returned for Paris, with a voice in which
effrontery mingled with terror, pronounced for the immediate
execution of his kinsman. The minister of justice—Danton had
resigned—announced on the 20th the sentence to the King. The
captive received the message calmly, asked for three days to
get ready to die (a request, however, at once refused), and
prayed that he might see his family and have a confessor."
_W. O'C. Morris,
The French Revolution, and First Empire,
chapter 5._
ALSO IN:
_A. Thiers,
History of the French Revolution
(American edition), volume 2, pages 44-72._
_A. F. Bertrand de Moleville,
Private Memoirs, relative to the last year of Louis XVI.,
chapters 39-40._
_J. B. Cléry,
Journal of Occurrences at the Temple._
FRANCE: A. D. 1792-1793 (December-February).
Determination to incorporate the Austrian Netherlands and to
attack Holland.
Pitt's unavailing struggle for peace.
England driven to arms.
War with the Maritime Powers declared by the French.
"Since the beginning of December, the French government had
contracted their far-reaching schemes within definite limits.
They were compelled to give up the hope of revolutionizing the
German Empire and establishing a Republic in the British
Islands; but they were all the more determined in the resolve
to subject the countries which had hitherto been occupied in
the name of freedom, to the rule of France. This object was
more especially pursued in Belgium by Danton and three other
deputies, who were sent as Commissioners of the Convention to
that country on the 30th of November. They were directed to
enquire into the condition of the Provinces, and to consider
Dumouriez's complaints against Pache [the Minister at War] and
the Committee formed to purchase supplies for the army."
Danton became resolute in the determination to incorporate
Belgium and pressed the project inexorably. "It was a matter
of course that England would interpose both by word and deed
directly France prepared to take possession of Belgium. …
England had guaranteed the possession of Belgium to the
Emperor in 1790—and the closing of the Scheldt to the Dutch,
and its political position in Holland to the House of Orange
in 1788. Under an imperative sense of her own interests, she
had struggled to prevent the French from gaining a footing in
Antwerp and Ostend. Prudence, fidelity to treaties, the
retrospect of the past and the hopes of the future—all called
loudly upon her not to allow the balance of Europe to be
disturbed, and least of all in Belgium."
_H. von Sybel,
History of the French Revolution,
book 5, chapter 5 (volume 2)._
"The French Government resolved to attack Holland, and ordered
its generals to enforce by arms the opening of the Scheldt. To
do this was to force England into war. Public opinion was
already pressing every day harder upon Pitt [see ENGLAND: A.
D. 1793-1796]. … Across the Channel his moderation was only
taken for fear. … The rejection of his last offers indeed
made a contest inevitable. Both sides ceased from diplomatic
communications, and in February 1793 France issued her
Declaration of War."
_J. R. Green,
History of the English People,
book 9, chapter 4 (volume 4)._
ALSO IN:
_W. E. H. Lecky,
History of England in the 18th Century,
chapter 22 (volume 6)._
_Earl Stanhope,
Life of Pitt,
chapter 16 (volume 2)._
_Despatches of Earl Gower,
page 256-309._
{1286}
FRANCE: A. D. 1793 (January).
The execution of the king.
"To this conclusion, then, hast thou come, O hapless Louis!
The Son of Sixty Kings is to die on the Scaffold by form of
Law. Under Sixty Kings this same form of law, form of Society,
has been fashioning itself together these thousand years; and
has become, one way and other, a most strange Machine. Surely,
if needful, it is also frightful, this Machine: dead, blind:
not what it should be: which with swift stroke, or by cold
slow torture, has wasted the lives and souls of innumerable
men. And behold now a King himself or say rather Kinghood in
his person, is to expire here in cruel tortures;—like a
Phalaris shut in the belly of his own red-heated Brazen Bull!
It is ever so; and thou shouldst know it, O haughty tyrannous
man: injustice breeds injustice: curses and falsehoods do
verily return 'always home,' wide as they may wander. Innocent
Louis bears the sins of many generations: he too experiences
that man's tribunal is not in this Earth: that if he had no
higher one, it were not well with him. A King dying by such
violence appeals impressively to the imagination; as the like
must do, and ought to do. And yet at bottom it is not the King
dying, but the man! Kingship is a coat: the grand loss is of
the skin. The man from whom you take his Life, to him can the
whole combined world do more? … A Confessor has come; Abbé
Edgeworth, of Irish extraction, whom the King knew by good
report, has come promptly on this solemn mission. Leave the
Earth alone, then, thou hapless King; it with its malice will
go its way, thou also canst go thine. A hard scene yet
remains: the parting with our loved ones. Kind hearts,
environed in the same grim peril with us; to be left here! Let
the reader look with the eyes of Valet Cléry through these
glass-doors, where also the Municipality watches: and see the
cruelest of scenes: 'At half-past eight, the door of the
ante-room opened: the Queen appeared first, leading her Son by
the hand: then Madame Royale and Madame Elizabeth: they all
flung themselves into the arms of the King. Silence reigned
for some minutes; interrupted only by sobs.' … For nearly
two hours this agony lasts; then they tear themselves asunder.
'Promise that you will see us on the morrow.' He promises:
—Ah yes, yes: yet once; and go now, ye loved ones: cry to God
for yourselves and met!—It was a hard scene, but it is over.
He will not see them on the morrow. The Queen in passing
through the ante-room, glanced at the Cerberus Municipals;
and, with woman's vehemence, said through her tears, 'Vous
étes tous des scélérats.' King Louis slept sound, till five in
the morning, when Cléry, as he had been ordered, awoke him.
Cléry dressed his hair: while this went forward, Louis took a
ring from his watch, and kept trying it on his finger: it was
his wedding-ring, which he is now to return to the Queen as a
mute farewell. At half-past six, he took the Sacrament, and
continued in devotion, and conference with Abbé Edgeworth. He
will not see his family: it were too hard to bear. At eight
the Municipals enter: the King gives them his Will, and
messages and effects; which they, at first, brutally refuse to
take charge of: he gives them a roll of gold pieces, a hundred
and twenty-five louis; these are to be returned to
Malesherbes, who had lent them. At nine, Santerre says the
hour is come. The King begs yet to retire for three minutes.
At the end of three minutes, Santerre again says the hour is
come. 'Stamping on the ground with his right-foot, Louis
answers: Partons, Let us go.'—How the rolling of those drums
comes in, through the Temple bastions and bulwarks, on the
heart of a queenly wife; soon to be a widow! He is gone, then,
and has not seen us? … At the Temple Gate were some faint
cries, perhaps from voices of pitiful women: Grace! Grace!
Through the rest of the streets there is silence as of the
grave. No man not armed is allowed to be there: the armed, did
any even pity, dare not express it, each man overawed by all
his neighbours. All windows are down, none seen looking
through them. All shops are shut. No wheel-carriage rolls,
this morning, in these streets but one only. 80,000 armed men
stand ranked, like armed statues of men; cannons bristle,
cannoneers with match burning, but no word or movement: it is
as a city enchanted into silence and stone: one carriage with
its escort, slowly rumbling, is the only sound. Louis reads,
in his Book of Devotion, the Prayers of the Dying: clatter of
this death-march falls sharp on the ear, in the great silence;
but the thought would fain struggle heavenward, and forget the
Earth. As the clock strikes ten, behold the Place de la
Revolution, once Place de Louis Quinze: the Guillotine,
mounted near the old Pedestal where once stood the Statue of
that Louis! Far round, all bristles with cannons and armed
men: spectators crowding in the rear; D'Orléans Egalité there
in cabriolet. … Heedless of all Louis reads his Prayers of
the Dying; not till five minutes yet has he finished: then the
Carriage opens. What temper he is in? Ten different witnesses
will give ten different accounts of it. He is in the collision
of all tempers; arrived now at the black Mahlstrom and descent
of Death: in sorrow, in indignation, in resignation struggling
to be resigned. 'Take care of M. Edgeworth,' he straitly
charges the Lieutenant who is sitting with them: then they two
descend. The drums are beating: 'Taisez-vous, Silence!' he
cries 'in a terrible voice, d'une voix terrible.' He mounts
the scaffold, not without delay; he is in puce coat, breeches
of gray, white stockings. He strips off the coat; stands
disclosed in a sleeve-waistcoat of white flannel. The
executioners approach to bind him: he spurns, resists; Abbé
Edgeworth has to remind him how the Saviour, in whom men
trust, submitted to be bound. His hands are tied, his head
bare; the fatal moment is come. He advances to the edge of the
Scaffold, 'his face very red,' and says: 'Frenchmen, I die
innocent: it is from the Scaffold and near appearing before
God that I tell you so. I pardon my enemies; I desire that
France—' A General on horseback, Santerre or another, prances
out with uplifted hand: 'Tambours!' The drums drown the voice.
'Executioners, do your duty!' The Executioners, desperate lest
themselves be murdered (for Santerre and his Armed Ranks will
strike, if they do not), seize the hapless Louis: six of them
desperate, him singly desperate, struggling there; and bind
him to their plank. Abbé Edgeworth, stooping, bespeaks him:
'Son of Saint Louis, ascend to Heaven.' The Axe clanks down; a
King's Life is shorn away. It is Monday the 21st of January
1793. He was aged 38 years four months and 28 days.
{1287}
Executioner Samson shows the Head: fierce shouts of Vive la
République rises, and swells; caps raised on bayonets, hats
waving: students of the College of Four Nations take it up, on
the far Quais; fling it over Paris. D'Orléans drives off in
his cabriolet: the Townhall Councillors rub their hands,
saying, 'It is done, It is done.' … In the coffee-houses
that evening, says Prudhomme, Patriot shook hands with Patriot
in a more cordial manner than usual. Not till some days after,
according to Mercier, did public men see what a grave thing it
was. A grave thing it indisputably is; and will have
consequences. … At home this Killing of a King has divided
all friends; and abroad it has united all enemies. Fraternity
of Peoples, Revolutionary Propagandism; Atheism, Regicide;
total destruction of social order in this world! All Kings,
and lovers of Kings, and haters of Anarchy, rank in coalition;
as in a war for life."
_T. Carlyle,
The French Revolution,
volume 3, book 2, chapter 8._
FRANCE: A. D. 1793 (February-April).
Increasing anarchy.
Degradation of manners.
Formation of the terrible Revolutionary Tribunal.
Treacherous designs of Dumouriez.
His invasion of Holland.
His defeat at Neerwinden and retreat.
His flight to the enemy.
"While the French were … throwing down the gauntlet to all
Europe, their own country seemed sinking into anarchical
dissolution. Paris was filled with tumult, insurrection and
robbery. At the denunciations of Marat against 'forestallers,'
the shops were entered by the mob, who carried off articles at
their own prices, and sometimes without paying at all. The
populace was agitated by the harangues of low itinerant
demagogues. Rough and brutal manners were affected, and all
the courtesies of life abolished. The revolutionary leaders
adopted a dress called the 'carmagnole,' consisting of
enormous black pantaloons, a short jacket, a three-coloured
waistcoat, and a Jacobite wig of short black hair, a terrible
moustache, the 'bonnet rouge,' and an enormous sabre. [The
name Carmagnole was also given to a tune and a dance; it is
supposed to have borne originally some reference not now
understood to Carmagnola in Piedmont.] Moderate persons of no
strong political opinions were denounced as 'suspected,' and
their crime stigmatised by the newly coined word of
'moderantisme.' The variations of popular feeling were
recorded like the heat of the weather, or the rising of a
flood. The principal articles in the journals were entitled
'Thermometer of the Public Mind;' the Jacobins talked of …
being 'up to the level.' Many of the provinces were in a
disturbed state. A movement had been organising in Brittany
ever since 1791, but the death of the Marquis de la Rouarie,
its principal leader, had for the present suspended it. A more
formidable insurrection was preparing in La Vendée. … It was
in the midst of these disturbances, aggravated by a suspicion
of General Dumouriez's treachery, which we shall presently
have to relate, that the terrible court known as the
Revolutionary Tribunal was established. It was first formally
proposed in the Convention March 9th, by Carrier, the
miscreant afterwards notorious by his massacres at Nantes,
urged by Cambacérès on the 10th, and completed that very night
at the instance of Danton, who rushed to the tribune, insisted
that the Assembly should not separate, till the new Court had
been organised. … The extraordinary tribunal of August 1792
had not been found to work fast enough, and it was now
superseded by this new one, which became in fact only a method
of massacring under the form of law. The Revolutionary
Tribunal was designed to take cognisance of all
counter-revolutionary attempts, of all attacks upon liberty,
equality, the unity and indivisibility of the Republic, the
internal and external safety of the State. A commission of six
members of the Convention was to examine and report upon the
cases to be brought before it, to draw up and present the acts
of accusation. The tribunal was to be composed of a jury to
decide upon the facts, five judges to apply the law, a public
accuser, and two substitutes; from its sentence there was no
appeal. Meanwhile Dumouriez had returned to the army, very
dissatisfied that he had failed in his attempts to save the
King and baffle the Jacobins. He had formed the design of
invading Holland, dissolving the Revolutionary Committee in
that country, annulling the decree of December 15th, offering
neutrality to the English, a suspension of arms to the
Austrians, reuniting the Belgian and Batavian republics, and
proposing to France a re-union with them. In case of refusal,
he designed to march upon Paris, dissolve the Convention,
extinguish Jacobinism; in short, to play the part of Monk in
England. This plan was confided to four persons only, among
whom Danton is said to have been one. … Dumouriez, having
directed General Miranda to lay siege to Maestricht, left
Antwerp for Holland, February 22nd, and by March 4th had
seized Breda, Klundert and Gertruydenberg. Austria, at the
instance of England, had pushed forward 112,000 men under
Prince Josias of Saxe-Coburg. Clairfait, with his army, at
this time occupied Berghem, where he was separated from the
French only by the little river Roer and the fortress of
Juliers. Coburg, having joined Clairfait, March 1st, crossed
the Roer, defeated the French under Dampierre at Altenhoven,
and thus compelled Miranda to raise the siege of Maestricht,
and retire towards Tongres. Aix-la-Chapelle was entered by the
Austrians after a smart contest, and the French compelled to
retreat upon Liege, while the divisions under Stengel and
Neuilly, being cut off by this movement, were thrown back into
Limburg. The Austrians then crossed the Meuse, and took Liege,
March 6th. Dumouriez was now compelled to concentrate his
forces at Louvain. From this place he wrote a threatening
letter to the Convention, March 11th, denouncing the
proceedings of the ministry, the acts of oppression committed
in Belgium, and the decree of December 15th. This letter threw
the Committee of General Defence into consternation. It was
resolved to keep it secret, and Danton and Lacroix set off for
Dumouriez's camp, to try what they could do with him, but
found him inflexible. His proceedings had already unmasked his
designs. At Antwerp he had ordered the Jacobin Club to be
closed, and the members to be imprisoned, at Brussels he had
dissolved the legion of 'sans-culottes.' Dumouriez was
defeated by Prince Coburg at Neerwinden, March 18th, and again
on the 22nd at Louvain. In a secret interview with the
Austrian Colonel Mack, a day or two after, at Ath, he
announced to that officer his intention to march on Paris and
establish a constitutional monarchy, but nothing was said as
to who was to wear the crown.
{1288}
The Austrians were to support Dumouriez's advance upon Paris,
but not to show themselves except in case of need, and he was
to have the command of what Austrian troops he might select.
The French now continued their retreat, which, in consequence
of these negociations, was unmolested. The Archduke Charles
and Prince Coburg entered Brussels March 25th, and the Dutch
towns were shortly after retaken. When Dumouriez arrived with
his van at Courtrai, he was met by three emissaries of the
Jacobins, sent apparently to sound him. He bluntly told them
that his design was to save France, whether they called him
Cæsar, Cromwell or Monk, denounced the Convention as an
assembly of tyrants, said that he despised their decrees. …
At St. Amand he was met by Beurnonville, then minister of war,
who was to supersede him in the command, and by four
commissaries despatched by the Convention." Dumouriez arrested
these, delivered them to Clairfait, and they were sent to
Maestricht. "The allies were so sanguine that Dumouriez's
defection would put an end to the Revolution, that Lord
Auckland and Count Stahremberg, the Austrian minister, looking
upon the dissolution and flight of the Convention as certain,
addressed a joint note to the States-General, requesting them
not to shelter such members of it as had taken any part in the
condemnation of Louis XVI. But Dumouriez's army was not with
him. On the road to Condé he was fired on by a body of
volunteers and compelled to fly for his life (April 4th)." The
day following he abandoned his army and went over to the
Austrian quarters at Tournay, with a few companions, thus
ending his political and military career. "The situation of
France at this time seemed almost desperate. The army of the
North was completely disorganised through the treachery of
Dumouriez; the armies of the Rhine and Moselle were
retreating; those of the Alps and Italy were expecting an
attack; on the eastern side of the Pyrenees the troops were
without artillery, without generals, almost without bread,
while on the western side the Spaniards were advancing towards
Bayonne. Brest, Cherbourg, the coasts of Brittany, were
threatened by the English. The ocean ports contained only six
ships of the line ready for sea, and the Mediterranean fleet
was being repaired at Toulon. But the energy of the
revolutionary leaders was equal to the occasion."
_T. H. Dyer,
History of Modern Europe,
book 7, chapter 5 (volume 4)._
ALSO IN
_A. Griffiths,
French Revolutionary Generals,
chapter 5._
_F. C. Schlosser,
History of the 18th Century,
volume 6, division 2, chapter 2, section 1-2._
_C. MacFarlane,
The French Revolution,
volume 3, chapter 11._
FRANCE: A. D: 1793 (March-April).
The insurrection in La Vendee.
"Ever since the abolition of royalty and the constitution of
1790, that is, since the 10th of August, a condemnatory and
threatening silence had prevailed in Normandy. Bretagne
exhibited still more hostile sentiments, and the people there
were engrossed by fondness for the priests and the gentry.
Nearer to the banks of the Loire, this attachment amounted to
insurrection; and lastly, on the left bank of that river, in
the Bocage, Le Loroux, and La Vendée, the insurrection was
complete, and large armies of ten and twenty thousand men were
already in the field. … It was particularly on this left
bank, in Anjou, and Upper and Lower Poitou, that the famous
war of La Vendée had broken out. It was in this part of France
that the influence of time was least felt, and that it had
produced least change in the ancient manners. The feudal
system had there acquired a truly patriarchal character; and
the Revolution, instead of operating a beneficial reform in
the country, had shocked the most kindly habits and been
received as a persecution. The Bocage and the Marais
constitute a singular country, which it is necessary to
describe, in order to convey an idea of the manners of the
population, and the kind of society that was formed there.
Setting out from Nantes and Saumur and proceeding from the
Loire to the sands of Olonne, Lucon, Fontenay, and Niort, you
meet with an unequal undulating soil, intersected by ravines
and crossed by a multitude of hedges, which serve to fence in
each field, and which have on this account obtained for the
country the name of the Bocage. As you approach the sea the
ground declines, till it terminates in salt marshes, and is
everywhere cut up by a multitude of small canals, which render
access almost impossible. This is what is called the Marais.
The only abundant produce in this country is pasturage,
consequently cattle are plentiful. The peasants there grew
only just sufficient corn for their own consumption, and
employed the produce of their herds and flocks as a medium of
exchange. It is well known that no people are more simple than
those subsisting by this kind of industry. Few great towns had
been built in these parts. They contained only large villages
of two or three thousand souls. Between the two high-roads
leading, the one from Tours to Poitiers, and the other from
Nantes to La Rochelle, extended a tract thirty leagues in
breadth, where there were none but cross-roads leading to
villages and hamlets. The country was divided into a great
number of small farms paying a rent of from five to six
hundred francs, each let to a single family, which divided the
produce of the cattle with the proprietor of the land. From
this division of farms, the seigneurs had to treat with each
family, and kept up a continual and easy intercourse with
them. The simplest mode of life prevailed in the mansions of
the gentry: they were fond of the chase, on account of the
abundance of game; the gentry and the peasants hunted
together, and they were all celebrated for their skill and
vigour. The priests, men of extraordinary purity of character,
exercised there a truly paternal ministry. … When the
Revolution, so beneficent in other quarters, reached this
country, with its iron level, it produced profound agitation.
It had been well if it could have made an exception there, but
that was impossible. … When the removal of the non-juring
priests deprived the peasants of the ministers in whom they
had confidence, they were vehemently exasperated, and, as in
Bretagne, they ran into the woods and travelled to a
considerable distance to attend the ceremonies of a worship,
the only true one in their estimation. From that moment a
violent hatred was kindled in their souls, and the priests
neglected no means of fanning the flames. The 10th of August
drove several Poitevin nobles back to their estates; the 21st
of January estranged them, and they communicated their
indignation to those about them. They did not conspire,
however, as some have conceived.
{1289}
The known dispositions of the country had incited men who were
strangers to it to frame plans of conspiracy. One had been
hatched in Bretagne, but none was formed in the Bocage; there
was no concerted plan there; the people suffered themselves to
be driven to extremity. At length, the levy of 300,000 men
excited in the month of March a general insurrection. …
Obliged to take arms, they chose rather to fight against the
republic than for it. Nearly about the same time, that is, at
the beginning of March, the drawing was the occasion of an
insurrection in the Upper Bocage and in the Marais. On the
10th of March, the drawing was to take place at St. Florent,
near Ancenis, in Anjou. The young men refused to draw. The
guard endeavoured to force them to comply. The military
commandant ordered a piece of cannon to be pointed and fired
at the mutineers. They dashed forward with their bludgeons,
made themselves masters of the piece, disarmed the guard, and
were, at the same time, not a little astonished at their own
temerity. A carrier, named Cathelineau, a man highly esteemed
in that part of the country, possessing great bravery and
powers of persuasion, quitting his farm on hearing the
tidings, hastened to join them, rallied them, roused their
courage, and gave some consistency to the insurrection by his
skill in keeping it up. The very same day he resolved to
attack a republican post consisting of eighty men. The
peasants followed him with their bludgeons and their muskets.
After a first volley, every shot of which told, because they
were excellent marksmen, they rushed upon the post, disarmed
it, and made themselves master of the position. Next day,
Cathelineau proceeded to Chemillé, which he likewise took, in
spite of 200 republicans and three pieces of cannon. A
gamekeeper at the château of Maulevrier, named Stofflet, and a
young peasant of the village of Chanzeau, had on their part
collected a band of peasants. These came and joined
Cathelineau, who conceived the daring design of attacking
Chollet, the most considerable town in the country, the chief
place of a district, and guarded by 500 republicans. … The
victorious band of Cathelineau entered Chollet, seized all the
arms that it could find, and made cartridges out of the
charges of the cannon. It was always in this manner that the
Vendeans procured ammunition. … Another much more general
revolt had broken out in the Marais and the department of La
Vendée. At Machecoul and Challans, the recruiting was the
occasion of a universal insurrection. … Three hundred
republicans were shot by parties of 20 or 30. …In the
department of La Vendée, that is, to the south of the theatre
of this war, the insurrection assumed still more consistence.
The national guards of Fontenay, having set out on their march
for Chantonnay, were repulsed and beaten. Chantonnay was
plundered. General Verteuil, who commanded the 11th military
division, on receiving intelligence of this defeat, dispatched
General Marcé with 1,200 men, partly troops of the line, and
partly national guards. The rebels who were met at St.
Vincent, were repulsed. General Marcé had time to add 1,200
more men and nine pieces of cannon to his little army. In
marching upon St. Fulgent, he again fell in with the Vendeans
in a valley and stopped to restore a bridge which they had
destroyed. About four in the afternoon of the 18th of March,
the Vendeans, taking the initiative, advanced and attacked him
… and made themselves masters of the artillery, the
ammunition, and the arms, which the soldiers threw away that
they might be the lighter in their flight. These more
important successes in the department of La Vendée properly so
called, procured for the insurgents the name of Vendeans,
which they afterwards retained, though the war was far more
active out of La Vendée. The pillage committed by them in the
Marais caused them to be called brigands, though the greater
number did not deserve that appellation. The insurrection
extended into the Marais from the environs of Nantes to Les
Sables, and into Anjou and Poitou, as far as the environs of
Vihiers and Parthenay. … Easter recalled all the insurgents
to their homes, from which they never would stay away long. To
them a war was a sort of sporting excursion of several days;
they carried with them a sufficient quantity of bread for the
time, and then returned to inflame their neighbours by the
accounts which they gave. Places of meeting were appointed for
the month of April. The insurrection was then general and
extended over the whole surface of the country. It might be
comprised in a line which, commencing at Nantes, would pass
through Pornic, the Isle of Noirmoutiers, Les Sables, Luçon,
Fontenay, Niort, and Parthenay, and return by Airvault,
Thouar, Doué, and St. Florent, to the Loire. The insurrection,
begun by men who were not superior to the peasants whom they
commanded, excepting by their natural qualities, was soon
continued by men of a higher rank. The peasants went to the
mansions and forced the nobles to put themselves at their
head. The whole Marais insisted on being commanded by
Charette. … In the Bocage, the peasants applied to Messrs.
de Bonchamps, d'Elbée, and de Laroche-Jacquelein, and forced
them from their mansions to place them at their head." These
gentlemen were afterwards joined by M. de Lescure, a cousin of
Henri de Laroche-Jacquelin.
_A. Thiers,
History of the French Revolution
(American edition), volume 2, pages 146-152._
ALSO IN
_Sir A. Alison,
History of Europe,
chapter 12, (volume 3)._
_Marquise de Larochejaquelein,
Memoirs._
_Henri Larochejaquelein and the War in La Vendée,
(Chambers Miscellany, volume 2)._
_L. I. Guiney,
Monsieur Henri
(de La Rochejaquelein.)_
FRANCE: A. D. 1793 (March-June).
Vigorous measures of the Revolutionary government.
The Committee of Public Safety.
The final struggle of Jacobins and Girondins.
The fall of the Girondins.
The news of the defeat of Dumouriez at Neerwinden, which
reached Paris on the 21st, "brought about two important
measures. Jean Debry, on behalf of the Diplomatic Committee,
proposed that all strangers should be expelled from France
within eight days who could not give a good reason for their
residence, and on the same evening the Committee of General
Defence was reorganized and placed on another footing. This
committee had come into existence in January, 1793. It
originally consisted of 21 members, who were not directly
elected by the Convention, but were chosen from the seven most
important committees.
{1290}
But now, after the news of Neerwinden, a powerful committee
was directly elected. It consisted of 24 members, and the
first committee contained nine Girondins, nine deputies of the
Plain, and six Jacobins, including every representative man in
the Convention. … The new Committee was given the greatest
powers, and after first proposing to the Convention that the
penalty of death should be decreed against every emigre over
fourteen, and to everyone who protected an emigre, it proposed
that Dumouriez should be summoned to the bar of the
Convention." Early in April, news of the desertion of
Dumouriez and the retreat of Custine, "made the Convention
decide on yet further measures to strengthen the executive.
Marat, who, like Danton and Robespierre, was statesman enough
to perceive the need of strengthening the executive, proposed
that enlarged powers should be given to the committees; and
Isnard, as the reporter of the Committee of General Defence,
proposed the establishment of a smaller committee of nine,
with supreme and unlimited executive powers—a proposal which
was warmly supported by every statesman in the Convention. …
It is noticeable that every measure which strengthened the
terror when it was finally established was decreed while the
Girondins could command a majority in: the Convention, and
that it was a Girondin, Isnard, who proposed the immense
powers of the Committee of Public Safety [Comité de Salut
Public]. Upon April 6 Isnard brought up a decree defining the
powers of the new committee. It was to consist of nine
deputies; to confer in secret; to have supreme executive
power, and authority to spend certain sums of' money without
accounting for them, and it was to present a weekly report to
the Convention. These immense powers were granted under the
pressure of news from the frontier, and it was obvious that it
would not be long before such a powerful executive could
conquer the independence of the Convention. Isnard's proposals
were opposed by Buzot, but decreed; and on April 7 the first
Committee of Public Safety was elected. It consisted of the
following members:—Barère, Delmas, Bréard, Cambon, Danton,
Guyton-Morveau, Treilhard, Lacroix, and Robert Lindet. The
very first proposal of the new committee was that it should
appoint three representatives with every army from among the
deputies of the Convention, with unlimited powers, who were to
report to the committee itself. This motion was followed by a
very statesmanlike one from Danton. He perceived the folly of
the decree of November 18, which declared universal war
against all kings. … On his proposition the fatal decree …
was withdrawn, and it was made possible for France again to
enter into the comity of European nations. It is very obvious
that it was the foreign war which had developed the progress
of the Revolution with such astonishing rapidity in France. It
was Brunswick's manifesto which mainly caused the attack on
the Tuileries on August 10; it was the surrender of Verdun
which directly caused the massacres of September. It was the
battle of Neerwinden which established the Revolutionary
Tribunal, and that defeat and the desertion of Dumouriez which
brought about the establishment of the Committee of Public
Safety. The Girondins were chiefly responsible for the great
war, and its first result was to destroy them as a party. …
Their early influence over the deputies of the Plain rested on
a belief in their statesmanlike powers, but as time went on
that influence steadily diminished. It was in vain for Danton
to attempt to make peace in the Convention; bitter words on
both sides had left too strong an impression ever to be
effaced. The Jacobin leaders despised the Girondins; the
Girondins hated the Jacobins for having won away power from
them. The Jacobins formed a small but very united body, of
which every member knew its own mind; they were determined to
carry on the Republic at all costs, and to destroy the
Girondins as quickly as they could. … The desertion of
Dumouriez had caused strong measures to be taken by the
Convention, … and all parties had concurred. … But as soon
as these important measures had been taken, which the majority
of the Convention believed would enable France once more to
free her frontiers from the invaders, the Girondins and
Jacobins turned upon each other with redoubled ardour, and the
death-struggle between them recommenced. The Girondins
reopened the struggle with an attack upon Marat. Few steps
could have been more foolish, for Marat, though in many ways a
real statesman, had from the exaggeration of his language
never obtained the influence in the Convention to which his
abilities entitled him. … But he remained the idol of the
people of Paris, and in attacking him the Girondins
exasperated the people of Paris in the person of their beloved
journalist. On April 11 Guadet read a placard in the
Convention, which Marat had posted on the walls of Paris, full
of his usual libellous abuse of the Girondins. It was referred
to the Committee of Legislation with other writings of Marat,"
and two days later, on the report of the Committee, it was
voted by the Convention (half of its members being absent),
that Marat should be sent before the Tribunal for trial. This
called out immediate demonstrations from Marat's Parisian
admirers. "On April 15, in the name of 35 sections of Paris,
Pache and Hébert demanded the expulsion from the Convention of
22 of the leading Girondists as 'disturbers of the public peace,'
including Brissot, Guadet, Vergniaud, Gensonné, Buzot,
Barbaroux, Louvet, Petion, and Lanjuinais. … On April 22 the
trial of Marat took place. He was unanimously acquitted, although
most of the judges of the Revolutionary Tribunal sympathized
with the Girondins. … The acquittal of Marat was a fearful
blow to the Girondin party; they had in no way discredited the
Jacobins, and had only made themselves unpopular in Paris. …
The Commune of Paris steadily organized the more advanced
republicans of the city for an open attack upon the Girondins.
… Throughout the month of May, preparations for the final
struggle went on; it was recognized by both parties that they
must appeal to force, and arrangements for appealing to force
were made as openly for the coup d'état of May 31 as they had
been for that of August 10. On the one side, the Commune of
Paris steadily concentrated its armed strength and formed its
plan of action; on the other, the leading Girondins met daily
at the house of Valazé, and prepared to move decrees in the
Convention.'" But the Girondins were still divided among
themselves.
{1291}
Some wished to appeal to the provinces, against Paris, which
meant civil war; others opposed this as unpatriotic. On the
31st of May, and on the two days following, the Commune of
Paris called out its mob to execute the determined coup
d'état. On the last of these three days (June 2), the
Convention surrounded, imprisoned and terrorized by armed
ruffians, led by Henriot, lately appointed Commander of the
National Guard, submissively decreed that the proscribed
Girondin deputies, with others, to the number altogether of
31, should be placed under arrest in their own houses. This
"left the members of the Mountain predominant in the
Convention. The deputies of the Marsh or Plain were now docile
to the voice of the Jacobin leaders," whose supremacy was now
without dispute. On the preceding day, an attempt had been
made, on the order of the Commune, to arrest M. Roland and two
others of the ministers. Roland escaped, but Madame Roland,
the more important Girondist leader, was taken and consigned
to the Abbaye.
_H. M. Stephens,
History of the French Revolution,
volume 2, chapters 7-8._
ALSO IN
_H. A. Taine,
The French Revolution,
book 4, chapter 13._
_W. Smyth,
Lectures on the History of the French Revolution,
lecture 37 (volume 2)._
_H. Von Sybel,
History of the French Revolution,
book 7, chapters 1-3 (volume 3)._
FRANCE: A. D. 1793 (March-September).
Formation of the great European Coalition against
Revolutionary France.
The seeds of dissension and weakness in it.
"The impression made at St. Petersburg by the execution of
Louis was fully as vivid as at London: already it was evident
that these two capitals were the centres of the great contest
which was approaching. … An intimate and confidential
correspondence immediately commenced between Count Woronzoff,
the Russian ambassador at London, and Lord Grenville, the
British secretary of state for foreign affairs, which
terminated in a treaty between the powers, signed in London on
the 25th of March. By this convention, which laid the basis of
the grand alliance which afterwards brought the war to a
glorious termination, it was provided that the two powers
should 'employ their respective forces, as far as
circumstances shall permit, in carrying on the just and
necessary war in which they find themselves engaged against
France; and they reciprocally engage not to lay down their
arms without restitution of all the conquests which may have
been made upon either of the respective powers, or upon such
other states or allies to whom, by common consent, they shall
extend the benefit of this treaty.' … Shortly after [April
25], a similar convention was entered into between Great
Britain and Sardinia, by which the latter power was to receive
an annual subsidy of £200,000 during the whole continuance of
the war, and the former to keep on foot an army of 50,000 men;
and the English government engaged to procure for it entire
restitution of its dominions as they stood at the commencement
of the war. By another convention, with the cabinet of Madrid,
signed at Aranjuez on the 25th of May, they engaged not to
make peace till they had obtained full restitution for the
Spaniards 'of all places, towns, and territories which
belonged to them at the commencement of the war, and which the
enemy may have taken during its continuance.' A similar treaty
was entered into with the court of the Two Sicilies, and with
Prussia [July 12 and 14], in which the clauses, prohibiting
all exportation to France, and preventing the trade of
neutrals with it, were the same as in the Russian treaty.
Treaties of the same tenor were concluded in the course of the
summer with the Emperor of Germany [August 30], and the King
of Portugal [September 26]. Thus was all Europe arrayed in a
great league against Republican France, and thus did the
regicides of that country, as the first fruits of their cruel
triumph, find themselves excluded from the pale of civilized
nations. … But while all Europe thus resounded with the note
of military preparation against France, Russia had other and
more interested designs in view. Amidst the general
consternation at the triumphs of the French republicans,
Catharine conceived that she would be permitted to pursue,
without molestation, her ambitious designs against Poland [See
POLAND: A. D. 1793-1796]. She constantly represented the
disturbances in that kingdom as the fruit of revolutionary
propagandism, which it was indispensable to crush in the first
instance. … The ambitious views of Prussia were also …
strongly turned in the same direction. … Nor was it only the
ambitious projects of Russia and Prussia against the
independence of Poland which already gave ground for gloomy
augury as to the issue of the war. Its issue was more
immediately affected by the jealousy of Austria and Prussia,
which now broke out in the most undisguised manner, and
occasioned such a division of the allied forces as effectually
prevented any cordial or effective co-operation continuing to
exist between them. The Prussian cabinet, mortified at the
lead which the Imperial generals took in the common
operations, insisted upon the formation of two independent
German armies; one composed of Prussians, the other of
Austrians, to one or other of which the forces of all the
minor states should be joined: those of Saxony, Hanover, and
Hesse being grouped around the standards of Prussia; those of
Bavaria, Wirtemburg, Swabia, the Palatinate, and Franconia,
following the double-headed eagles of Austria. By this means,
all unity of action between the two grand allied armies was
broken up. … Prince Cobourg was appointed generalissimo of
the allied Armies from the Rhine to the German ocean." In
April, a corps of 20,000 English had been landed in Holland,
"under the command of the Duke of York, and being united to
10,000 Hanoverians and Hessians, formed a total of 30,000 men
in British pay." Holland, as an ally of England, was already
in the Coalition, the French having declared war, in February,
against the two maritime powers, simultaneously.
_Sir A. Alison,
History of Europe,
chapter 13 (volume 4)._
ALSO IN
_F. C. Schlosser,
History of the 18th Century,
volume 6, division 2, chapter 2, section 3_.
FRANCE: A. D. 1793 (April-August):
Minister Genet in America.
Washington's proclamation of neutrality.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1793.
{1292}
FRANCE: A. D. 1793 (June).
Flight of most of the Girondists.
Their appeal to the country.
Insurrection in the provinces.
The rising at Lyons, Marseilles, Bordeaux, Toulon.
Progress of the Vendean revolt.
"After this day [of the events which culminated on the 2d of
June, but which are commonly referred to as being of 'the 31st
of May,' when they began], when the people made no other use
of their power than to display and to exercise the pressure of
Paris over the representation, they separated without
committing any excess. … La Montaigne caused the committees
to be reinstated on the morrow, with the exception of that of
public safety. They threw into the majority their most decided
members. … They deposed those ministers suspected of
attachment to the' conquered; sent commissioners into the
doubtful departments; annulled the project of the constitution
proposed by the Girondists; and charged the committee of
safety to draw up in eight days a project for the constitution
entirely democratical. They pressed forward the recruiting and
armament of the revolutionary army—that levy of patriotism en
masse. They decreed a forced loan of a million upon the rich.
They sent one after the other, accused upon accused, to the
revolutionary tribunal. Their sittings were no longer
deliberation, but cursory motions, decreed on the instant by
acclamation, and sent immediately to the different committees
for execution. They stripped the executive power of the little
independence and responsibility it heretofore retained.
Continually called into the bosom of their committees,
ministers became no more than the passive executors of the
measures they decreed. From this day, also, discussion was at
an end; action was all. The disappearance of the Girondists
deprived the Revolution of its voice. Eloquence was proscribed
with Vergniaud, with the exception of those few days when the
great party chiefs, Danton and Robespierre, spoke, not to
refute opinions, but to intimate their will, and promulgate
their orders. The Assemblies became almost mute. A dead
silence reigned henceforth in the Convention. In the meanwhile
the 22 Girondists [excepting Vergniaud, Gensonné, Ducos,
Tonfrède, and a few others, who remained under the decree of
arrest, facing all consequences], the members of the
Commission of Twelve, and a certain number of their friends,
warned of their danger by this first blow of ostracism, fled
into their departments, and hurried to protest against the
mutilation of the country. … Robespierre, Danton, the
Committee of Public Safety, and even the people themselves,
seemed to shut their eyes to these evasions, as if desirous to
be rid of victims whom it would pain them to strike. Buzot,
Barbaroux, Guadet, Louvet, Salles, Pétion, Bergoing, Lesage,
Cressy, Kervélégan and Lanjuinais, threw themselves into
Normandy; and after having traversed it, inciting all the
departments between Paris and the Ocean, established at Caen
the focus and centre of insurrection against the tyranny of
Paris. They gave themselves the name of the Central Assembly
of Resistance to Oppression. Biroteau and Chasset had arrived
at Lyons. The armed sections of this town were agitated with
contrary and already bloody commotion [the Jacobin
municipality having been overthrown, after hard fighting, and
its chief, Chalier, put to death]. Brissot fled to Moulins,
Robaut St. Etienne to Nismes. Grangeneuve, sent by Vergniaud,
Tonfrède, and Ducos, to Bordeaux, raised troops ready to march
upon the capital. Toulouse followed the same impulse of
resistance to Paris. The departments of the west were on fire,
and rejoiced to see the republic, torn into contending
factions, offer them the aid of one of the two parties for the
restoration of royalty. The mountainous centre of France …
was agitated. … Marseilles enrolled 10,000 men at the voice
of Rebecqui and the young friends of Barbaroux. They
imprisoned the commissioners of the Convention, Roux and
Antiboul. Royalty, always brooding in the south, insensibly
transformed this movement of patriotism into a monarchical
insurrection. Rebecqui, in despair … at seeing loyalty avail
itself of the rising in the south, escaped remorse by suicide,
throwing himself into the sea. Lyons and Bordeaux likewise
imprisoned the envoys of the Convention as Maratists. The
first columns of the combined army of the departments began to
move in all directions; 6,000 Marseillais were already at
Avignon, ready to reascend the Rhone, and form a junction with
the insurgents of Nismes and of Lyons. Brittany and Normandy
uniting, concentrated their first forces at Evreux."
_A de Lamartine,
History of the Girondists,
book 43 (volume 3)._
The royalists of the west, "during this almost general rising
of the departments, continued to extend their enterprises.
After their first victories, the Vendeans seized on Bressure,
Argenton, and Thouars. Entirely masters of their own country,
they proposed getting possession of the frontiers, and
opening the way to revolutionary France, as well as
communications with England. On the 6th of June, the Vendean
army, composed of 40,000 men, under Cathelineau, Lescure,
Stofflet, and La Rochejacquelin, marched on Saumur, which it
took by storm. It then prepared to attack and capture Nantes,
to secure the possession of its own country, and become
masters of the course of the Loire. Cathelineau, at the head
of the Vendean troops, left a garrison in Saumur, took
Angers, crossed the Loire, pretended to advance upon Tours
and Lemans, and then rapidly threw himself upon Nantes, which
he attacked on the right bank, while Charette was to attack
it on the left."
_F. A. Mignet,
History of the French Revolution,
chapter 8._
FRANCE: A. D. 1793 (June-October).
The new Jacobin Constitution postponed.
Concentration of power in the Committee of Public Safety.
The irresistible machine of revolutionary government.
"It was while affairs were in this critical condition that the
Mountain undertook the sole conduct of the government in
France. They had hitherto resisted all attempts of the
Girondists to establish a new constitution in place of that of
1791. They now undertook the work themselves, and in four days
drew up a constitution, as simple as it was democratic, which
was issued on the 24th of June. Every citizen of the age of 21
could vote directly in the election of deputies, who were
chosen for a year at a time and were to sit in a single
assembly. The assembly had the sole power of making laws, but
a period was fixed during which the constituents could protest
against its enactments. The executive power was entrusted to
24 men, who were chosen by the assembly from candidates
nominated by electors chosen by the original voters. Twelve
out of the 24 were to be renewed every six months. But this
constitution was intended merely to satisfy the departments,
and was never put into practice. The condition of France
required a greater concentration of power, and this was
supplied by the Committee of Public Safety.
{1293}
Ever since the 6th of April the original members of the
Committee had been re-elected, but on the 10th of July its
composition was changed. Danton ceased to be a member, and
Barère was joined by Robespierre, St. Just, Couthon,
Billaud-Varennes, Collot d'Herbois, and, in a short time,
Carnot. These men became the absolute rulers of France. The
Committee had no difficulty in carrying their measures in the
Convention, from which the opposition party had disappeared.
All the state obligations were rendered uniform and inscribed
in 'the great book of the national debt.' The treasury was
filled by a compulsory loan from the rich. Every income
between 1,000 and 10,000 francs had to pay ten per cent., and
every excess over 10,000 francs had to be contributed in its
entirety for one year. To recruit the army a levee en masse
was decreed. 'The young men shall go to war; the married men
shall forge arms and transport supplies; the wives shall make
tents and clothes and serve in the hospitals; the children
shall tear old linen into lint; the aged shall resort to the
public places to excite the courage of the warriors and hatred
against kings.' Nor were measures neglected against domestic
enemies. On the 6th of September a revolutionary army,
consisting of 6,000 men and 1,200 artillery men, was placed at
the disposal of the Committee to carry out its orders
throughout France. On the 17th the famous 'law of the
suspects' was carried. Under the term 'suspect' were included
all those who by words, acts or writings had shown themselves
in favour of monarchy or of federalism, the relatives of the
emigrants, etc., and they were to be imprisoned until the
peace. As the people were in danger of famine, a maximum
price, already established for corn, was decreed for all
necessaries; if a merchant gave up his trade he became a
suspect, and the hoarding of provisions was punished by death.
On the 10th of October the Convention definitely transferred
its powers to the Committee, by subjecting all officials to
its authority and by postponing the trial of the new
constitution until the peace."
_R. Lodge,
History of Modern Europe,
chapter 23, section 11._
The Committee of Public Safety—the "Revolutionary
Government," as Danton had named it, on the 2d of August, when
he demanded the fearful powers that were given to
it—"disposed of all the national forces; it appointed and
dismissed the ministers, generals, Representatives on Mission,
the judges and juries of the Revolutionary Tribunal. The
latter instrument became its strong arm; it was, in fact, a
court martial worked by civil magistrates. By its agents it
directed the departments and armies, the political situation
without and within, striking down at the same time the rebels
within and the enemies without: for, together with the
constitution were, of course, suspended the municipal laws and
the political machinery of the communes; and thus cities and
villages hitherto indifferent or opposed to the Revolution
were republicanized. By the Tribunal it disposed of the
persons of individuals; by requisition and the law of maximum
(with which we are going to be better acquainted) it disposed
of their fortunes. It can, indeed, be said that the whole of
France was placed in a state of siege; but that was the price
of its salvation. … But Danton has committed, a great
mistake,—one that he and especially France, will come to rue.
He has declined to become a member of the Revolutionary
Government, which has been established on his motion. 'It is
my firm resolve not to be a member of such a government,' he
had said. In other words, he has declined re-election as a
member of the Committee de Salut Public, now it has been
erected into a dictatorship. He unfortunately lacked all
ambition. … When afterwards, on September 8, one Gaston
tells the Convention, 'Danton has a mighty revolutionary head.
No one understands so well as he to execute what he himself
proposes. I therefore move that he be added to the
Revolutionary Government, in spite of his protest,' and it is
so unanimously ordered, he again peremptorily declines. 'No, I
will not be a member; but as a spy on it I intend to work.' A
most fateful resignation! for while he still for a short time
continues to exercise his old influence on the government,
both from the outside, in his own person, and inside the
Committee, in the person of Hérault de Sechelles, selected in
his place, he very soon loses ground more and more,—so much
so even that Hérault, his friend, is 'put in quarantine,' as
was said in the Committee. And very natural. A statesman
cannot have power when he shirks responsibility, and without
power he soon loses all influence with the multitude. Those
who now succeed him in power are Robespierre, Barère,
Billaud-Varennes, and Carnot,—the two last very good working
members, good men of the second rank, but after Danton not a
single man is left fit to be leader."
_L. Gronlund,
Ça Ira! or Danton in the French Revolution,
chapter 4._
ALSO IN
_C. A. Fyffe,
History of Modern Europe,
volume 1, chapter 2._
_H. M. Stephens,
History of the French Revolution.
volume 2, chapter 9._
_H. C. Lockwood,
Constitutional History of France,
chapter 1, and appendix 2._
FRANCE: A. D. 1793 (July).
The assassination of Marat.
"Amongst those who had placed faith in the Girondists and
their ideals was a young woman of Normandy, Charlotte Corday.
… When the mob of Paris rose and drove with insult from the
Convention those who in her eyes were the heroic defenders of
the universal principles of truth and justice, she bitterly
resented the wrong that had been done, not only to the men
themselves, but to that France of which she regarded them as
the true representatives. Owing to Marat's persistent cry for
a dictatorship and for shedding of blood, it was he who, in
the departments, was accounted especially responsible both for
the expulsion of the Girondists and for the tyranny which now
began to weigh as heavily upon the whole country as it had
long weighed upon the capital. Incapable as all then were of
comprehending the causes which had brought about the fall of
the Girondists, Charlotte Corday imagined that by putting an
end to this man's life, she could also put an end to the
system of government which he advocated. Informing her friends
that she wished to visit England, she left Caen and travelled
in the diligence to Paris. On her arrival she purchased a
knife, and afterwards obtained entrance into Marat's house on
the pretext that she brought news which she desired to
communicate to him. She knew that he would be eager to obtain
intelligence of the movements of the Girondist deputies still
in Normandy. Marat was ill at the time, and in a bath when
Charlotte Corday was admitted.
{1294}
She gave him the names of the deputies who were at Caen. 'In a
few days,' he said, as he wrote them hastily down, 'I will
have them all guillotined in Paris.' As she heard these words
she plunged the knife into his body and killed him on the
spot. The cry uttered by the murdered man was heard, and
Charlotte, who did not attempt to escape, was captured and
conveyed to prison amid the murmurs of an angry crowd. It had
been from the first her intention to sacrifice her life for
the cause of her country, and, glorying in her deed, she met
death with stoical indifference. 'I killed one man,' she said,
when brought before the revolutionary court, 'in order to save
the lives of 100,000 others.' … His [Marat's] murder brought
about contrary results to those which the woman who ignorantly
and rashly had flung away her life hoped by the sacrifice to
effect. … He was regarded as a martyr by no small portion of
the working population of Paris. … His murder excited
indignation beyond the comparatively narrow circle of those
who took an active part in political life, while at the same
time it added a new impulse to the growing cry for blood."
_B. M. Gardiner,
The French Revolution,
chapter 7._
ALSO IN
_C. Mac Farlane,
The French Revolution,
volume 3, chapter 13._
_J. Michelet,
Women of the French Revolution,
chapter 18-19._
_Mrs. R. K. Van Alstine,
Charlotte Corday._
_A. Dobson,
Four French Women,
chapter 1._
FRANCE: A. D. 1793 (July-December).
The civil war.
Sieges of Lyons and Toulon.
Submission of Caen, Marseilles and Bordeaux.
Crushing of the Vendeans.
"The insurgents in Calvados [Normandy] were easily suppressed;
at the very first skirmish at Vernon [July 13], the insurgent
troops fled. Wimpfen endeavoured to rally them in vain. The
moderate class, those who had taken up the defence of the
Girondists, displayed little ardour or activity. When the
constitution was accepted by the other departments, it saw the
opportunity for admitting that it had been in error, when it
thought it was taking arms against a mere factious minority.
This retractation was made at Caen, which had been the
headquarters of the revolt. The Mountain commissioners did not
sully this first victory with executions. General Carteaux on
the other hand, marched at the head of some troops against the
sectionary army of the south; he defeated its force, pursued
it to Marseilles, entered the town [August 23] after it, and
Provence would have been brought into subjection like
Calvados, if the royalists, who had taken refuge at Toulon,
after their defeat, had not called in the English to their
aid, and placed in their hands this key to France. Admiral
Hood entered the town in the name of Louis XVII., whom he
proclaimed king, disarmed the fleet, sent for 8,000 Spaniards
by sea, occupied the surrounding forts, and forced Carteaux,
who was advancing against Toulon, to fall back on Marseilles.
Notwithstanding this check, the conventionalists succeeded in
isolating the insurrection, and this was a great point. The
Mountain commissioners had made their entry into the rebel
capitals; Robert Lindet into Caen; Tallien into Bordeaux;
Barras and Fréron into Marseilles. Only two towns remained to
be taken Toulon and Lyons. A simultaneous attack from the
south, west, and centre was no longer apprehended, and in the
interior the enemy was only on the defensive. Lyons was
besieged by Kellermann, general of the army of the Alps; three
corps pressed the town on all sides. The veteran soldiers of
the Alps, the revolutionary battalions and the newly levied
troops, reinforced the besiegers every day. The people of
Lyons defended themselves with all the courage of despair. At
first, they relied on the assistance of the insurgents of the
south; but these having been repulsed by Carteaux, the
Lyonnese placed their last hope in the army of Piedmont, which
attempted a diversion in their favour, but was beaten by
Kellermann. Pressed still more energetically, they saw their
first position carried. Famine began to be felt, and courage
forsook them. The royalist leaders, convinced of the inutility
of longer resistance, left the town, and the republican army
entered the walls [October 9], where they awaited the orders
of the convention. A few months after, Toulon itself [in the
siege of which Napoleon Bonaparte commanded the artillery],
defended by veteran troops and formidable fortifications, fell
into the power of the republicans. The battalions of the army
of Italy, reinforced by those which the taking of Lyons left
disposable, pressed the place closely. After repeated attacks
and prodigies of skill and valour, they made themselves
masters of it, and the capture of Toulon finished what that of
Lyons had begun [December 19]. Everywhere the convention was
victorious. The Vendeans had failed in their attempt upon
Nantes, after having lost many men, and their
general-in-chief, Cathelineau. This attack put an end to the
aggressive and previously promising movement of the Vendean
insurrection. The royalists repassed the Loire, abandoned
Saumur, and resumed their former cantonments. They were,
however, still formidable; and the republicans, who pursued
them, were again beaten in La Vendée. General Biron, who had
succeeded General Berruyer, unsuccessfully continued the war
with small bodies of troops; his moderation and defective
system of attack caused him to be replaced by Canclaux and
Rossignol, who were not more fortunate than he. There were two
leaders, two armies, and two centres of operation; … The
committee of public safety soon remedied this, by appointing
one sole general-in-chief, Lechelle, and by introducing war on
a large scale into La Vendée. This new method, aided by the
garrison of Mayence, consisting of 17,000 veterans, who,
relieved from operations against the coalesced powers after
the capitulation, were employed in the interior, entirely
changed the face of the war. The royalists underwent four
consecutive defeats, two at Châtillon, two at Cholet [the last
being October 17]. Lescure, Bonchamps, and d'Elbée were
mortally wounded: and the insurgents, completely beaten in
Upper Vendée, and fearing that they should be exterminated if
they took refuge in Lower Vendée, determined to leave their
country to the number of 80,000 persons. This emigration
through Brittany, which they hoped to arouse to insurrection,
became fatal to them. Repulsed before Granville, utterly
routed at Mons [Le Mans, December 12], they were destroyed at
Savenay [December 23], and barely a few thousand men, the
wreck of this vast emigration, returned to Vendée. These
disasters, irreparable for the royalist cause, the taking of
their land of Noir-moutiers from Charette, the dispersion of
the troops of that leader, the death of Laroche jacquelin,
rendered the republicans masters of the country.
{1295}
The committee of public safety, thinking, not without reason,
that its enemies were beaten but not subjugated, adopted a
terrible system of extermination to prevent them from rising
again. General Thurreau surrounded Vendée with sixteen
entrenched camps; twelve movable columns, called the infernal
columns, overran the country in every direction, sword and
fire in hand, scoured the woods, dispersed the assemblies, and
diffused terror throughout this unhappy country."
_F. A. Mignet,
History of the French Revolution,
chapter 8._
ALSO IN
_A. Thiers,
History of the French Revolution
(American edition), volume 2, pages 328-335,
and 398-410._
_Marchioness de Larochejaquelain,
Memoirs._
_A. des Echerolles,
Early Life,
volume 1, chapters 5-7._
FRANCE: A. D. 1793 (July-December).
Progress of the war of the Coalition.
Dissensions among the Allies.
Unsuccessful siege of Dunkirk.
French Victories of Hondschotten and Wattignies.
Operations on the Rhine and elsewhere.
"The civil war in which France for a moment appeared engulfed
was soon confined to a few narrowing centres. What, in the
meantime, had been the achievements of the mighty Coalition of
banded Europe? Success, that might have been great, was
attained on the Alpine and Pyrenean frontiers; and had the
Piedmontese and Spaniards been well led they could have
overrun Provence and Rousillon, and made the insurrection of
the South fatal. But here, as elsewhere, the Allies did
little; and, though defeated in almost every encounter, the
republican levies held their ground against enemies who
nowhere advanced. It was, however, in the North and the
North-east that the real prize of victory was placed; and no
doubt can exist that had unanimity in the councils of the
Coalition prevailed, or had a great commander been in its
camp, Paris might have been captured without difficulty, and
the Revolution been summarily put down. But the Austrians, the
Prussians, and the English, were divided in mind; they had no
General capable of rising above the most ordinary routine of
war; and the result was that the allied armies advanced
tardily on an immense front, each leader thinking of his own
plans only, and no one venturing to press forward boldly, or
to pass the fortresses on the hostile frontiers, though
obstacles like these could be of little use without the aid of
powerful forces in the field. In this manner half the summer
was lost in besieging Mayence, Valenciennes, and Condé; and
when, after the fall of these places [July-August], an attempt
was made to invade Picardy, dissensions between the Allies
broke out, and the British contingent was detached to besiege
Dunkirk, while the Austrians lingered in French Flanders,
intent on enlarging by conquest Belgium, at that period an
Austrian Province. Time was thus gained for the French armies,
which, though they had made an honorable resistance, had been
obliged to fall back at all points, and were in no condition
to oppose their enemy; and the French army in the North,
though driven nearly to the Somme, within a few marches of the
capital, was allowed an opportunity to recruit its strength,
and was not, as it might have been easily, destroyed. A part
of the hastily raised levies was now incorporated in its
ranks; and as these were largely composed of seasoned men from
the old army of the Bourbon Monarchy, and from the volunteers
of Valmy and Jemmapes, a respectable force was before long
mustered. At the peremptory command of the Jacobin Government,
this was at once directed against the invaders, who did not
know what an invasion meant. The Duke of York, assailed with
vigor and skill, was compelled to raise the siege of Dunkirk
[by the French victory at Hondschotten, September 8]; and, to
the astonishment of Europe, the divided forces of the halting
and irresolute Coalition began to recede before the enemies,
who saw victory yielded to them, and who, feeble soldiers as
they often were, were nevertheless fired by ardent patriotism.
As the autumn closed the trembling balance of fortune inclined
decidedly on the side of the Republic. The French recruits,
hurried to the frontier in masses, became gradually better
soldiers, under the influence of increasing success. Carnot, a
man of great but overrated powers, took the general direction
of military affairs; and though his strategy was not sound, it
was much better than the imbecility of his foes. At the same
time, the Generals of the fallen Monarchy having disappeared,
or, for the most part, failed, brilliant names began to emerge
from the ranks, and to lead the suddenly raised armies; and
though worthless selections were not seldom made, more than
one private and sergeant gave proof of capacity of no common
order. Terror certainly added strength to patriotism, for
thousands were driven to the camp by force, and death was the
usual penalty of a defeated chief; but it was not the less a
great national movement, and high honor is justly due to a
people which, in a situation that might have seemed hopeless,
made such heroic: and noble efforts, even though it triumphed
through the weakness of its foe. Owing to a happy inspiration
of Carnot, a detachment was rapidly marched from the Rhine,
where the Prussians remained in complete inaction; and with
this reinforcement Jourdan gained a victory at Wattignies
[October 16] over the Austrians, and opened the way into the
Low Countries. At the close of the year the youthful Hoche,
once a corporal, but a man of genius, who had given studious
hours to the theory of war, divided Brunswick from the
Austrian Würmser by a daring and able march through the
Vosges; and the baffled Allies were driven out of Alsace, the
borders of which they had just invaded. By these operations
the great Northern frontier, the really vulnerable part of
France, was almost freed from the invaders' presence; and,
though less was achieved on the Southern frontier, the enemies
of the Republic began to lose courage."
_W. O'C. Morris,
The French Revolution,
chapter 6._
"The Prussians had remained wholly inactive for two months
after the fall of Mayence, contenting themselves with watching
the French in their lines at Weissenburg. Wearied at length by
the torpor of his opponents, Moreau assumed the initiative,
and attacked the Prussian corps at Pirmasens. This bold
attempt was repulsed (September 14) with the loss of 4,000
men; but it was not till a month later (October 13) that the
Allies resumed the offensive, when the Weissenburg lines were
stormed by a mixed force of Austrians and Prussians, and the
French fled in confusion almost to Strasburg. But this
important advantage led to no results, though the defeat of
the Republican movement was hailed by a royalist movement in
Alsace.
{1296}
The Austrians, immovable in their plans of conquest, refused
to occupy Strasburg in the name of Louis XVII.; and the
unfortunate royalists, abandoned to Republican vengeance, were
indiscriminately consigned to the guillotine by a decree of
the Convention, while the confederate army was occupied in the
siege of Landau. But the lukewarmness of the Prussians had now
become so evident, that it was only by the most vehement
remonstrances of the Austrian cabinet that they were prevented
from seceding altogether from the league; and the Republicans,
taking advantage of the disunion of their enemies, again
attacked the Allies (December 26), who were routed and driven
over the Rhine [abandoning the siege of Landau]; while the
victors, following up their success, retook Spires, and
advanced to the gates of Mannheim. The operations in the
Pyrenees and on the side of Savoy, during this campaign, led
to no important results. On the western extremity of the
Pyrenees, the Spaniards [had] entered France in the middle of
April, routed their opponents in several encounters, and drove
them into St. Jean Pied-de-Poet. An invasion of Roussillon, at
the same time, was equally successful; and the Spaniards
maintained themselves in the province till the end of the
year, taking the fortresses of Bellegarde and Collioure, and
routing two armies which attempted to dislodge them, at Truellas
(September 22) and Boulon (December 7). An attempt of the
Sardinians to expel the French from their conquests in Savoy
was less fortunate; and, at the close of the campaign, both
parties remained in their former position."
_A. Alison,
Epitome of History of Europe,
pages 58-59 (chapter 13,
volume 4 of complete work)._
ALSO IN:
_H. Von Sybel,
History of the French Revolution,
book 8, chapter 2 (volume 3)._
_E. Baines,
History of the Wars of the French Revolution,
volume 1, chapters 9-11._
FRANCE: A. D. 1793 (August).
Emancipation in San Domingo proclaimed.
See HAYTI: A. D. 1632-1803.
FRANCE: A. D. 1793 (September-December).
The "Reign of Terror" becomes the "Order of the Day."
Trial and execution of Marie Antoinette, Madame Roland, and
the Girondists.
"On the 16th of September, the Faubourg Saint-Antoine
surrounded the Hôtel de Ville, clamoring for 'Bread.' Hébert
and Chaumette appeased the mob by vociferous harangues against
rich men and monopolists, and by promising to raise a
revolutionary army with orders to scour the country, empty the
granaries, and put the grain within reach of the people. 'The
next thing will he a guillotine for the monopolists,' added
Hébert. This had been demanded by memorials from the most
ultra provincial Jacobins. The next day the Convention
witnessed the terrible reaction of this scene. At the opening
of the session Merlin de Douai proposed and carried a vote for
the division of the revolutionary tribunal into four sections,
in order to remedy the dilatoriness complained of by
Robespierre and the Jacobins. The municipality soon arrived,
followed by a great crowd; Chaumette, in a furious harangue,
demanded a revolutionary army with a travelling guillotine.
The ferocious Billaud-Varennes declared that this was not
enough, and that all suspected persons must be arrested
immediately. Danton interposed with the powerful eloquence of
his palmy days; he approved of an immediate decree for the
formation of a revolutionary army, but made no mention of the
guillotine. … Danton's words were impetuous, but his ideas
were politic and deliberate. His motions were carried, amid
general acclamation. But the violent propositions of
Billaud-Varennes and others were also carried. The decree
forbidding domiciliary visits and night arrests, which had
been due to the Girondists, was revoked. A deputation from the
Jacobins and the sections demanded the indictment of the
'monster' Brissot with his accomplices, Vergniaud, Gensonné,
and other 'miscreants.' 'Lawgivers,' said the spokesman of the
deputation, 'let the Reign of Terror be the order of the day!'
Barère, in the name of the Committee of Public Safety,
obtained the passage of a decree organizing an armed force to
restrain counter-revolutionists and protect supplies. Fear led
him to unite with the most violent, and to adopt the great
motto of the Paris Commune, 'Let the Reign of Terror be the
order of the day!' 'The royalists are conspiring,' he said;
'they want blood. Well they shall have that of the
conspirators, of the Brissots and Marie Antoinettes!' The
association of these two names shows what frenzy prevailed in
the minds of the people. The next day September 6, two of the
most formidable Jacobins, the cold, implacable
Billaud-Varennes and the fiery Collot d'Herbois, were added to
the Committee of Public Safety. Danton persisted in his
refusal to return to it. This proves how mistaken the
Girondists had been in accusing him of aspiring to the
dictatorship. He kept aloof from the Committee chiefly because
he knew that they were lost, and did not wish to contribute to
their fall. Before leaving the ministry Garat had tried to
prevent the Girondists from being brought to trial; upon
making known his wish to Robespierre and Danton, he found
Robespierre implacable, while Danton, with tears coursing down
his rugged cheeks replied, 'I cannot save them!' … On the 10th
of October Saint-Just, in the name of the Committee of Public
Safety, read to the Assembly an important report upon the
situation of the Republic. It was violent and menacing to
others beside the enemies of the Mountain; Hébert and his gang
might well tremble. He inveighed not only against those who
were plundering the government, but against the whole
administration. … Saint-Just's report had been preceded on
the 3d of October by a report from the new Committee of Public
Safety, concluding with the indictment of 40 deputies; 39 were
Girondists or friends of the Gironde; the fortieth was the
ex-Duke of Orleans. Twenty-one of these 39 were now in the
hands of their enemies, and of these 21 only 9 belonged to
the first deputies indicted on the 2d of June; the remainder
had left Paris hoping to organize outside resistance, and had
been declared outlawed. The deputies subsequently added to
this number were members of the Right who had signed protests
against the violation of the national representation on that
fatal day. … It was decided at the same session to bring the
40 deputies, together with Marie Antoinette, to trial. The
Jacobins and the commune had long been demanding the trial of
the unhappy queen, and were raising loud clamors over the
plots for her deliverance.
{1297}
She might perhaps have escaped from the Temple if she would
have consented to leave her children. During July a sorrow
equal to that of the 21st of January had been inflicted on
her; she had been separated from her young son under the
pretence that she treated him like a king, and was bringing
him up to make 'a tyrant of him.' The child was placed in
another part of the Temple, and his education was intrusted to
a vulgar and brutal shoemaker, named Simon. Nevertheless the
fate of Marie Antoinette at this epoch was still doubtful;
neither the Committee of Public Safety nor the ministry
desired her death. While Lebrun, the friend of the Girondists,
was minister of foreign affairs, a project had been formed
which would have saved her life. Danton knew of it and aided
it. … This plan was a negotiation with Venice, Tuscany, and
Naples, the three Italian States yet neutral, who were to
pledge themselves to maintain their wavering neutrality, in
consideration of a guaranty of the safety of Marie Antoinette
and her family. Two diplomatic agents who afterwards held high
posts in France, Marat and Sémonville, were intrusted with
this affair. As they were crossing from Switzerland into
Italy, they were arrested, in violation of the law of nations,
upon the neutral territory of the Grisons by an Austrian
detachment (July 25). … At tidings of the arrest of the
French envoys, Marie Antoinette was separated from her
daughter and sister-in-law Elizabeth, and transferred to the
Conciergerie. On the 14th of October she appeared before the
revolutionary tribunal. To the accusation of the public
prosecutor, Fouquier-Tinville, made up of calumnies against
her private life, and for the most part well-founded
imputations against her political conduct, she opposed a
plausible defence, which effaced as far as possible her part
in the late government. … The following questions were put
to the jurors: 'Has Marie Antoinette aided in movements
designed to assist the foreign enemies of the Republic to open
French territory to them and to facilitate the progress of
their arms? Has she taken part in a conspiracy tending to
incite civil war?' The answer was in the affirmative, and the
sentence of death was passed on her. The decisive portions
which we now possess of the queen's correspondence with
Austria had not then been made public; but enough was known to
leave no doubt of her guilt, which had the same moral excuses
as that of her husband. … She met death [October 16] with
courage and resignation. The populace who had hated her so
much did not insult her last moments. … A week after the
queen's death the Girondists were summoned before the
revolutionary tribunal. Brissot and Lasource alone had tried
to escape this bloody ordeal, and to stir up resistance
against it in the South. Vergniaud, Gensonné, and Valazé
remained unshaken in their resolve to await trial. Gensonné,
who had been placed in the keeping of a Swiss whose life he
had saved on the 10th of August, and who had become a
gendarme, might have escaped, but he refused to profit by this
man's gratitude. … The act of indictment drawn up by the
ex-Feuillant Amar was only a repetition of the monstrous
calumnies which had circulated through the clubs and the
journals. Brissot was accused of having ruined the colonies by
advocating the liberation of slaves, and of having drawn
foreign arms upon France by declaring war on kings. The whole
trial corresponded to this beginning. … On the 29th the
Jacobins appeared at the bar of the Convention, and called for
a decree giving the jurors of the revolutionary tribunal the
right to bring the proceedings to a close as soon as they
believed themselves sufficiently enlightened. Robespierre and
Barère supported the Jacobin demand. Upon Robespierre's motion
it was decreed that after three days' proceedings, the jurors
might declare themselves ready to render their verdict. The
next day the jurors availed themselves of their privilege, and
declared themselves sufficiently informed, although they had
not heard the evidence for acquittal, neither the accused nor
their counsel having been allowed to plead their cause.
Brissot, Vergniaud, Gensonné, Valazé, Bishop Fauchet, Ducos,
Boyer-Fonfrède, Lasource, and their friends were declared
guilty of having conspired against the unity and
indivisibility of the Republic, and against the liberty and
safety of the French people. … Danton, who had not been an
accomplice in their death, had retired to his mother's home at
Arcis-sur-Aube, that he might not be a witness thereof. The
condemned were brought back to hear their sentence. The
greater part of them rose up with a common impulse, and cried,
'We are innocent! People, they are deceiving you!' The crowd
remained motionless and silent. … At midnight they partook
of a last repast, passing the rest of the night in converse
about their native land, their remnant of life being cheered
by news of victory and pleasant sallies from young Ducos, who
might have escaped, but preferred to share his friend
Fonfréde's fate. Vergniaud had been given a subtle poison by
Condorcet, but threw it away, choosing to die with his
companions. One of his noble utterances gives us the key to
his life. 'Others sought to consummate the Revolution by
terror; I would accomplish it by love.' Next day, October 31,
at noon, the prisoners were led forth, and as the five carts
containing them left the Conciergerie, they struck up the
national hymn … and shouts of 'Long live the Republic.' The
sounds died away as their number decreased, but did not cease
until the last of the 21 mounted the fatal platform. … The
murderers of the Girondists were not likely to spare the
illustrious woman who was at once the inspiration and the
honor of that party, and the very same day Madame Roland who
had been for five months a prisoner at St. Pelagie and the
Abbaye, was transferred to the Conciergerie. Hébert and his
followers had long clamored for her head. During her captivity
she wrote her Memoirs, which unfortunately have not been
preserved complete; no other souvenir of the Revolution equals
this, although it is not always reliable, for Madame Roland
had feminine weaknesses of intellect, despite her masculine
strength of soul; she was prejudiced against all who disagreed
with her, and regarded caution and compromise with a noble but
impolitic scorn. … The 18th Brumaire (November 10), she was
summoned before the revolutionary tribunal; when she left her
cell, clad in white, her dark hair, floating loosely over her
shoulders, a smile on her lips and her face sparkling with
life and animation. …
{1298}
She was condemned in advance, not being allowed a word in her
own defence, and was declared guilty of being an author or
accomplice 'of a monstrous conspiracy against the unity and
indivisibility of the Republic.' She heard her sentence
calmly, saying to the judges: 'You deem me worthy the fate of
the great men you have murdered. I will try to display the
same courage on the scaffold.' She was taken directly to the
Place de la Revolution, a man condemned for treason being
placed in the same cart, who was overwhelmed with terror. She
passed the mournful journey in soothing him, and on reaching
the scaffold bid him mount first, that his sufferings might
not be prolonged. As she took her place in turn, her eye fell
on a colossal statue of Liberty, erected August 10, 1793. 'O
Liberty,' she cried, 'what crimes are committed in thy name!'
Some say that she said, 'O Liberty, how they have deceived
thee!' Thus died the noblest woman in history since the
incomparable Joan, who saved France! … The bloody tribunal
never paused; famous men of every party succeeded each other
at the fatal bar, the ex-Duke of Orleans among them, but four
days earlier than Madame Roland. … The day after Madame
Roland's trial began that of the venerable Bailli, ex-mayor of
Paris and ex-president of the Constituent Assembly, a man who
played a great part early in the Revolution, but faded out of
sight with the constituent power."
_Henry Martin,
Popular History of France, 1789-1877,
volume 1, chapter 16._
ALSO IN
_A. de Lamartine,
History of the Girondists,
chapters 46-52 (volume 3)._
_C. D. Yonge,
Life of Marie Antoinette,
chapter 39._
_Madame Campan,
Memoirs of the Private Life of Marie Antoinette,
volume 2, conclusion._
_S. Marceau,
Reminiscences of a Regicide,
chapter 11._
_Count Beugnot,
Life,
volume 1, chapter 6._
_Lord R. Gower,
Last Days of Marie Antoinette._
FRANCE: A. D. 1793 (October).
Life in Paris during the Reign of Terror.
Gaiety in the Prisons.
The Tricoteuses, or knitting women.
Revolutionary costumes and modes of speech.
The guillotine as plaything and ornament.
"By the end of October, 1793, the Committee of General
Security had mastered Paris, and established the Reign of
Terror there by means of the Revolutionary Tribunal, and could
answer to the Great Committee of Public Safety for the
tranquillity of the capital. There were no more riots; men
were afraid even to express their opinions, much less to
quarrel about them; the system of denunciation made Paris into
a hive of unpaid spies, and ordinary crimes, pocket-picking
and the like, vanished as if by magic. Yet it must not be
supposed that Paris was gloomy or dull; on the contrary, the
vast majority of citizens seemed glad to have an excuse to
avoid politics, of which they had had a surfeit during the
last four years, and to turn their thoughts to the literary
side of their favourite journals, to the theatres, and to art.
… The dull places of Paris were the Revolutionary
Committees, the Jacobin Club, the Convention, the Hôtel de
Brienne, where the Committee of General Security sat, and the
Pavillon de l'Egalité, formerly the Pavillon de Flore, in the
Tuileries, where the Great Committee of Public Safety
laboured. … Elsewhere men were lighthearted and gay,
following their usual avocations, and busy in their pursuit of
pleasure or of gain. It is most essential to grasp the fact
that there was no particular difference, for the vast majority
of the population, in living in Paris during the Reign of
Terror and at other times. The imagination of posterity,
steeped in tales of the tumbrils bearing their burden to the
guillotine, and of similar stories of horror, has conceived a
ghastly picture of life at that extraordinary period, and it
is only after living for months amongst the journals, memoirs,
and letters of the time that one can realize the fact that to
the average Parisian the necessity of getting his dinner or
his evening's amusement remained the paramount thought of his
daily life. … Strange to say, nowhere was life more happy
and gay than in the prisons of Paris, where the inmates lived
in the constant expectation that the haphazard chance of being
brought before the Revolutionary Tribunal and condemned to
death might befall them at any moment. … A little more must
be said about the market-women, the tricoteuses, or
knitting-women of infamous memory. These market-women had been
treated as heroines ever since their march to Versailles in
October, 1789. … They formed their societies after the
fashion of the Jacobin Club, presided over by Renée Audu,
Agnès Lefevre, Marie Louise Bouju, and Rose Lacombe, and went
about the streets of Paris insulting respectably dressed
people, and hounding on the sans-culottes to deeds of
atrocity. These Mænads were encouraged by Marat, and played an
important part in the street history of Paris, up to the Reign
of Terror, when their power was suddenly taken from them. On
May 21, 1793, they were excluded by a decree from the
galleries of the Convention; on May 26 they were forbidden to
form part of any political assembly; and when they appealed
from the Convention to the Commune of Paris, Chaumette
abruptly told them 'that the Republic had no need of Joans of
Arc.' Thus deprived of active participation in politics, the
market-women became the tricoteuses, or knitting-women, who
used to take their seats in the Place de la Revolution, and
watch the guillotine as they knitted. Their active power for
good or harm was gone. … Life during the Terror in Paris …
differed in little things, in little affectations of liberty
and equality, which are amusing to study. The fashions of
dress everywhere betrayed the new order of things. A few men,
such as Robespierre, might still go about with powdered hair
and in knee-breeches, but the ordinary male costume of the
time was designed to contrast in every way with the costume of
a dandy of the 'ancien régime.' Instead of breeches, the
fashion was to wear trousers; instead of shoes, top-boots; and
instead of shaving, the young Parisian prided himself on letting
his moustache grow. In female costume a different motive was
at work. Only David's art disciples ventured to imitate the
male apparel of ancient Greece and Rome, but such imitation
became the fashion among women. Waists disappeared; and
instead of stiffened skirts and narrow bodices, women wore
short loose robes, which they fancied resembled Greek chitons;
sandals took the place of high-heeled shoes; and the hair,
instead of being worked up into elaborate edifices, was
allowed to flow down freely. For ornaments, gun-metal and
steel took the place of gold, silver and precious stones. …
The favourite design was the guillotine.
{1299}
Little guillotines were worn as brooches, as earrings and as
clasps, and the women of the time simply followed the fashion
without realizing what it meant. Indeed, the worship of the
guillotine was one of the most curious features of the epoch.
Children had toy guillotines given them; models were made to
cut off imitation heads, when wine or sweet syrup flowed in
place of blood; and hymns were written to La Sainte
Guillotine, and jokes made upon it, as the 'national razor.'
… It is well known that the desire to emphasize the
abolition of titles was followed by the abolition of the terms
'Monsieur' and 'Madame,' and that their places were taken by
'Citizen' and 'Citizeness;' and also how the use of the second
person plural was dropped, and it was considered a sign of a
good republican to tutoyer everyone, that is, to call them
'thou' and 'thee.' … The Reign of Terror in Paris seems to
us an age of unique experiences, a time unparalleled in the
history of the world; yet to the great majority of
contemporaries it did not appear so; they lived their ordinary
lives, and it was only in exceptional cases that the serenity
of their days was interrupted, or that their minds were
exercised by anything more than the necessity of earning their
daily bread."
_H. M. Stephens,
History of the French Revolution,
volume 2, chapter 10._
ALSO IN
_J. Michelet,
Women of the French Revolution,
chapters 20-30._
FRANCE: A. D. 1793 (October).
The new republican calendar.
"Before the year ended the legislators of Paris voted that
there was no God, and destroyed or altered nearly everything
that had any reference to Christianity. Robespierre, who would
have stopped short at deism, and who would have preserved the
external decencies, was overruled and intimidated by Hébert
and his frowsy crew, who had either crept into the governing
committees or had otherwise made themselves a power in the
state. … All popular journalists, patriots, and public
bodies, had begun dating 'First Year of Liberty,' or 'First
Year of the Republic;' and the old calendar had come to be
considered as superstitious and slavish, as an abomination in
the highest degree disgraceful to free and enlightened
Frenchmen. Various petitions for a change had been presented;
and at length the Convention had employed the mathematicians
Romme and Monge, and the astronomer Laplace, to make a new
republican calendar for the new era. These three philosophers,
aided by Fabre d'Eglantine, who, as a poet, furnished the
names, soon finished their work, which was sanctioned by the
Convention and decreed into universal use as early as the 5th
of October. It divided the year into four equal seasons, and
twelve equal months of 30 days each. The five odd days which
remained were to be festivals, and to bear the name of
'Sansculottides.' … One of these five days was to be
consecrated to Genius, one to Industry, the third to Fine
Actions, the fourth to Rewards, the fifth to Opinion. … In
leap-years, when there would be six days to dispose of, the
last of those days or Sansculottides was to be consecrated to
the Revolution, and to be observed in all times with all
possible solemnity. The months were divided into three
decades, or portions of ten days each, and, instead of the
Christian sabbath, once in seven days, the décadi, or tenth
day, was to be the day of rest. … The decimal method of
calculation … was to preside over all divisions: thus,
instead of our twenty-four hours to the day, and sixty minutes
to the hour, the day was divided into ten parts, and the tenth
was to be subdivided by tens and again by tens to the minutest
division of time. New dials were ordered to mark the time in
this new way, but, before they were finished, it was found
that the people were puzzled and perplexed by this last
alteration, and therefore this part of the calendar was
adjourned for a year, and the hours, minutes and seconds were
left as they were. As the republic commenced on the 21st of
September close on the [autumnal] equinox, the republican year
was made to commence at that season. The first month in the
year (Fabre d'Eglantine being god-father to them all) was
called Vendémiaire, or the vintage month, the second Brumaire,
or the foggy month, the third Frimaire, or the frosty month.
These were the three autumn months. Nivôse, Pluviôse, and
Ventôse, or the snowy, rainy and windy, were the three winter
months. Germinal, Floreal, and Prairial, or the bud month, the
flower month, and the meadow month, formed the spring season.
Messidor, Thermidor and Fructidor, or reaping month, heat
month, and fruit month, made the summer, and completed the
republican year. In more ways than one all this was calculated
for the meridian of Paris, and could suit no other physical or
moral climate. … But the strangest thing about this
republican calendar was its duration. It lasted till the 1st
of January, 1806."
_C. Mac Farlane,
The French Revolution,
volume 4, volume 3._
The Republican Calendar for the Year Two of the Republic
(September 22, 1793-Sept. 21, 1794) is synchronized with the
Gregorian Calendar as follows:
1 Vendémiaire = September 22;
1 Brumaire = October 22;
1 Frimaire = November 21;
1 Nivôse = December 21;
1 Pluviôse = January 20;
1 Ventôse = February 19;
1 Germinal = March 21;
1 Floreal = April 20;
1 Prairial = May 20;
1 Messidor = June 19;
1 Thermidor = July 19;
1 Fructidor= August 18;
1st to 5th Sansculottides = September 17-21.
_H. M. Stephens,
History of the French Revolution,
volume 2, appendix 12._
ALSO IN
_A. Thiers,
History of the French Revolution
(American edition), volume 2, pages 364-365._
FRANCE: A. D. 1793 (November).
Abandonment of Christianity.
The Worship of Reason instituted.
"The earliest steps towards a public abandonment of
Christianity appear to have been taken by Fouché, the future
minister of Police, and Duke of Otranto. … He published at
Nevers (October 10, 1793) a decree" ordaining that "no forms
of religious worship be practised except within their
respective temples;" that "ministers of religion are
forbidden, under pain of imprisonment, to wear their official
costumes in any other places besides their temples;" and that
the inscription, "Death is an eternal sleep," should be placed
over the entrance to the cemetery. "This decree was reported
to the municipality of Paris by Chaumette, the fanatical
procureur of the Commune, and was warmly applauded. … The
atheistical cabal of which he was the leader (his chief
associates being the infamous Hébert, the Prussian baron
Anacharsis Clootz, and Chabot, a renegade priest), now judged
that public feeling was ripe for an avowed and combined
onslaught on the profession of Christianity. … They decreed
that on the 10th of November the 'Worship of Reason' should be
inaugurated at Notre Dame.
{1300}
On that day the venerable cathedral was profaned by a series
of sacrilegious outrages unparalleled in the history of
Christendom. A temple dedicated to 'Philosophy' was erected on
a platform in the middle of the choir. A motley procession of
citizens of both sexes, headed by the constituted authorities,
advanced towards it; on their approach, the Goddess of Reason,
impersonated by Mademoiselle Maillard, a well known figurante
of the opera, took her seat upon a grassy throne in front of
the temple; a hymn, composed in her honour by the poet
Chenier, was sung by a body of young girls dressed in white
and bedecked with flowers; and the multitude bowed the knee
before her in profound adoration. It was the 'abomination of
desolation sitting in the holy place.' At the close of this
grotesque ceremony the whole cortège proceeded to the hall of
the Convention, carrying with them their 'goddess,' who was
borne aloft in a chair of state on the shoulders of four men.
Having deposited her in front of the president, Chaumette
harangued the Assembly. … He proceeded to demand that the
ci-devant metropolitical church should henceforth be the
temple of Reason and Liberty; which proposition was
immediately adopted. The 'goddess' was then conducted to the
president, and he and other officers of the House saluted her
with the 'fraternal kiss,' amid thunders of applause. After
this, upon the motion of Thuriot, the Convention in a body
joined the mass of the people, and marched in their company to
the temple of Reason, to witness a repetition of the impieties
above described. These demonstrations were zealously imitated
in the other churches of the capital. … The interior of St.
Eustache was transformed into a 'guinguette,' or place of low
public entertainment. … At St. Gervais a ball was given in
the chapel of the Virgin. In other churches theatrical
spectacles took place. … Representatives of the people
thought it no shame to quit their curule chairs in order to
dance the 'carmagnole' with abandoned women in the streets
attired in sacerdotal garments. On Sunday, the 17th of
November, all the parish churches of Paris were closed by
authority, with three exceptions. … Chaumette, at a sitting
of the Commune on the 26th of November, called for further
measures for the extermination of every vestige of Christian
worship;" and the Council of the Commune, on his demand,
ordered the closing of all churches and temples, of every
religious denomination; made priests and ministers of religion
responsible for any troubles that might arise from religious
opinions, and commanded the arrest as a "suspect" of any
person who should ask for the reopening of a church. "The
example set by Paris, at this melancholy period, was
faithfully repeated, if not surpassed in atrocity, throughout
the provinces. Religion was proscribed, churches closed,
Christian ordinances interdicted; the dreary gloom of
atheistical despotism overspread the land. … These infamies
were too monstrous to be tolerated for any length of time. …
Robespierre, who had marked the symptoms of a coming reaction,
boldly seized the opportunity, and denounced without mercy the
hypocritical faction which disputed his own march towards
absolute dictatorship."
_W. H. Jervis,
The Gallican Church and the Revolution,
chapter 7._
ALSO IN
_A. de Lamartine,
History of the Girondists,
book 52 (volume 3)._
_T. Carlyle,
The French Revolution,
book 5, chapter 4 (volume 3)._
_E. de Pressense,
Religion and the Reign of Terror,
book 2, chapter 2._
FRANCE: A. D. 1793-1794 (October-April).
The Terror in the Provinces.
Republican vengeance at Lyons, Marseilles, Toulon,
Bordeaux, Nantes.
Fusillades and Noyades.
"The insurgents of Lyons, Marseilles, Toulon, and Bordeaux,
were punished with pitiless severity. Lyons had revolted, and
the convention decreed [October 12] the destruction of the
city, the confiscation of the property of the rich, for the
benefit of the patriots, and the punishment of the insurgents
by martial law. Couthon, a commissioner well tried in cruelty,
hesitated to carry into execution this monstrous decree, and
was superseded by Collot d'Herbois and Fouché. Thousands of
workmen were employed in the work of destruction: whole
streets fell under their pickaxes: the prisons were gorged:
the guillotine was too slow for revolutionary vengeance, and
crowds of prisoners were shot, in murderous 'mitraillades.'
… At Marseilles, 12,000 of the richest citizens fled from
the vengeance of the revolutionists, and their property was
confiscated, and plundered. When Toulon fell before the
strategy of Bonaparte, the savage vengeance and cruelty of the
conquerors were indulged without restraint. … The dockyard
labourers were put to the sword: gangs of prisoners were
brought out and executed by fusillades: the guillotine also
claimed its victims: the sans-culottes rioted in confiscation
and plunder. At Bordeaux, Tallien threw 15,000 citizens into
prison. Hundreds fell under the guillotine; and the
possessions and property of the rich were offered up to
outrage and robbery. But all these atrocities were far
surpassed in La Vendee. … The barbarities of warfare were
yet surpassed by the vengeance of the conquerors, when the
insurrection was, at last, overcome. At Nantes, the monster
Carrier outstripped his rivals in cruelty and insatiable
thirst for blood. Not contented with wholesale mitraillades,
he designed that masterpiece of cruelty, the noyades; and
thousands of men, women and children who escaped the muskets
of the rabble soldiery were deliberately drowned in the waters
of the Loire. In four months, his victims reached 15,000. At
Angers, and other towns in La Vendee, these hideous noyades
were added to the terrors of the guillotine and the
fusillades."
_Sir T. E. May,
Democracy in Europe,
chapter 14._
"One begins to be sick of 'death vomited in great floods.'
Nevertheless, hearest thou not, O Reader (for the sound
reaches through centuries), in the dead December and January
nights, over Nantes Town,—confused noises, as of musketry and
tumult, as of rage and lamentation; mingling with the
everlasting moan of the Loire waters there? Nantes Town is
sunk in sleep; but Représentant Carrier is not sleeping, the
wool-capped Company of Marat is not sleeping. Why unmoors that
flatbottomed craft, that 'gabarre'; about eleven at night;
with Ninety Priests under hatches? They are going to Belle
Isle? In the middle of the Loire stream, on signal given, the
gabarre is scuttled; she sinks with all her cargo. 'Sentence
of Deportation,' writes Carrier, 'was executed vertically.'
The Ninety Priests, with their gabarre-coffin, lie deep! It is
the first of the Noyades [November 16], what we may call
'Drownages' of Carrier; which have become famous forever.
{1301}
Guillotining there was at Nantes, till the Headsman sank worn
out: then fusillading 'in the Plain of Saint-Mauve;' little
children fusilladed, and women with children at the breast;
children and women, by the hundred and twenty; and by the five
hundred, so hot is La Véndee: till the very Jacobins grew
sick, and all but the Company of Marat cried, Hold! Wherefore
now we have got Noyading; and on the 24th night of Frostarious
year 2, which is 14th of December 1793, we have a second
Noyade; consisting of '138 persons.' Or why waste a gabarre,
sinking it with them? Fling them out; fling them out, with
their hands tied: pour a continual hail of lead over all the
space, till the last struggler of them be sunk! Unsound
sleepers of Nantes, and the Sea-Villages there-abouts, hear
the musketry amid the night-winds; wonder what the meaning of
it is. And women were in that gabarre; whom the Red Nightcaps
were stripping naked; who begged, in their agony, that their
smocks might not be stript from them. And young children were
thrown in, their mothers vainly pleading: 'Wolflings,'
answered the Company of Marat, 'who would grow to be wolves.'
By degrees, daylight itself witnesses Noyades: women and men
are tied together, feet and feet, hands and hands; and flung
in: this they call Mariage Républicain, Republican Marriage.
Cruel is the panther of the woods, the she-bear bereaved of
her whelps: but there is in man a hatred crueler than that.
Dumb, out of suffering now, as pale swollen corpses, the
victims tumble confusedly seaward along the Loire stream; the
tide rolling them back: clouds of ravens darken the River;
wolves prowl on the shoal-places: Carrier writes, 'Quel
torrent révolutionnaire, What a torrent of Revolution!' For
the man is rabid; and the Time is rabid. These are the Noyades
of Carrier; twenty-five by the tale, for what is done in
darkness comes to be investigated in sunlight: not to be
forgotten for centuries. … Men are all rabid; as the Time
is. Representative Lebon, at Arras, dashes his sword into the
blood flowing from the Guillotine; exclaims, 'How I like it!'
Mothers, they say, by his orders, have to stand by while the
Guillotine devours their children: a band of music is
stationed near; and, at the fall of every head, strikes up its
'Ça-ira.'"
_T. Carlyle,
The French Revolution,
volume 3, book 5, chapter 3._
ALSO IN
_H. M. Stephens,
History of the French Revolution,
volume 2, chapter 11._
_H. A. Taine,
The French Revolution,
book 5, chapter 1, section 9 (volume 3)._
_Horrors of the Prison of Arras
("The Reign of Terror: A Collection of Authentic
Narratives," volume 2)._
_Duchesse de Duras,
Prison Journals during the French Revolution_
_A. des Echerolles,
Early Life,
volume 1, chapters 7-13, and volume 2, chapter l._
See, also, FRANCE: 1794 (JUNE-JULY).
FRANCE: A. D. 1793-1794 (November-June).
The factions of the Mountain devour one another.
Destruction of the Hebertists.
Danton and his followers brought to the knife.
Robespierre and the Committee of Public Safety.
The Feast of the Supreme Being.
"Robespierre was unutterably outraged by the proceedings of
the atheists. They perplexed him as a politician intent upon
order, and they afflicted him sorely as an ardent disciple of
the Savoyard Vicar. Hébert, however, was so strong that it
needed some courage to attack him, nor did Robespierre dare to
withstand him to the face. But he did not flinch from making
an energetic assault upon atheism and the excesses of its
partisans. His admirers usually count his speech of the 21st
of November one of the most admirable of his oratorical
successes. … 'Atheism [he said] is aristocratic. The idea of
a great being who watches over oppressed innocence and
punishes triumphant crime is essentially the idea of the
people. This is the sentiment of Europe and the Universe; it
is the sentiment of the French nation. That people is attached
neither to priests, nor to superstitions, nor to ceremonies;
it is attached only to worship in itself, or in other words to
the idea of an incomprehensible Power, the terror of
wrong-doers, the stay and comfort of virtue, to which it
delights to render words of homage that are all so many
anathemas against injustice and triumphant crime.' This is
Robespierre's favourite attitude, the priest posing as
statesman. … Danton followed practically the same line,
though saying much less about it. 'If Greece,' he said in the
Convention, 'had its Olympian games, France too shall
solemnize her sans-culottid days. … If we have not honoured
the priest of error and fanaticism, neither do we wish to
honour the priest of incredulity: we wish to serve the people.
I demand that there shall be an end of these anti-religious
masquerades in the Convention.' There was an end of the
masquerading, but the Hébertists still kept their ground.
Danton, Robespierre, and the Committee were all equally
impotent against them for some months longer. The
revolutionary force had been too strong to be resisted by any
government since the Paris insurgents had carried both king
and assembly in triumph from Versailles in the October of
1789. It was now too strong for those who had begun to strive
with all their might to build a new government out of the
agencies that had shattered the old to pieces. For some months
the battle which had been opened by Robespierre's remonstrance
against atheistic intolerance, degenerated into a series of
masked skirmishes. … Collot D'Herbois had come back in hot
haste from Lyons. … Carrier was recalled from Nantes. …
The presence of these men of blood gave new courage and
resolution to the Hébertists. Though the alliance was
informal, yet as against Danton, Camille Desmoulins, and the
rest of the Indulgents, as well as against Robespierre, they
made common cause. Camille Desmoulins attacked Hébert in
successive numbers of a journal ['Le Vieux Cordelier'] that is
perhaps the one truly literary monument of this stage of the
revolution. Hébert retaliated by impugning the patriotism of
Desmoulins in the Club, and the unfortunate wit,
notwithstanding the efforts of Robespierre on his behalf, was
for a while turned out of the sacred precincts. … Even
Danton himself was attacked (December, 1793) and the integrity
of his patriotism brought into question. Robespierre made an
energetic defence of his great rival in the hierarchy of
revolution. … Robespierre, in whom spasmodical courage and
timidity ruled by rapid turns, began to suspect that he had
been premature; and a convenient illness, which some supposed
to have been feigned, excused his withdrawal for some weeks
from a scene where he felt that he could no longer see clear.
We cannot doubt that both he and Danton were perfectly assured
that the anarchic party must unavoidably roll headlong into the
abyss.
{1302}
But the hour of doom was uncertain. To make a mistake in the
right moment, to hurry the crisis, was instant death.
Robespierre was a more adroit calculator than Danton. … His
absence during the final crisis of the anarchic party allowed
events to ripen, without committing him to that initiative in
dangerous action which he had dreaded on the 10th of August,
as he dreaded it on every other decisive day of this burning
time. The party of the Commune became more and more daring in
their invectives against the Convention and the Committees. At
length they proclaimed open insurrection. But Paris was cold,
and opinion was divided. In the night of the 13th of March,
Hébert, Chaumette, Clootz, were arrested. The next day
Robespierre recovered sufficiently to appear at the Jacobin
Club. He joined his colleagues of the Committee of Public
Safety in striking the blow. On the 24th of March the
Ultra-Revolutionist leaders were beheaded. The first bloody
breach in the Jacobin ranks was speedily followed by the
second. The Right wing of the opposition to the Committee soon
followed the Left down the ways to dusty death, and the
execution of the Anarchists only preceded by a week the arrest
of the Moderates. When the seizure of Danton had once before
been discussed in the Committee, Robespierre resisted the
proposal violently. We have already seen how he defended
Danton at the Jacobin Club. … What produced this sudden
tack? … His acquiescence in the ruin of Danton is
intelligible enough on the grounds of selfish policy. The
Committee [of Public Safety] hated Danton for the good reason
that he had openly attacked them, and his cry for clemency was
an inflammatory and dangerous protest against their system.
Now Robespierre, rightly or wrongly, had made up his mind that
the Committee was the instrument by which, and which only, he
could work out his own vague schemes of power and
reconstruction. And, in any case, how could he resist the
Committee? … All goes to show that Robespierre was really
moved by nothing more than his invariable dread of being left
behind, of finding himself on the weaker side, of not seeming
practical and political enough. And having made up his mind
that the stronger party was bent on the destruction of the
Dantonists, he became fiercer than Billaud himself. … Danton
had gone, as he often did, to his native village of
Arcis-sur-Aube, to seek repose and a little clearness of sight
in the night that wrapped him about. He was devoid of personal
ambition; he never had any humour for mere factious struggles.
… It is not clear that he could have done anything. The
balance of force, after the suppression of the Hébertists, was
irretrievably against him, as calculation had already revealed to
Robespierre. … After the arrest, and on the proceedings to
obtain the assent of the Convention to the trial of Danton and
others of its members, one only of their friends had the
courage to rise and demand that they should be heard at the
bar. Robespierre burst out in cold rage; he asked whether they
had undergone so many heroic sacrifices, counting among them
these acts of 'painful severity,' only to fall under the yoke
of a band of domineering intriguers; and he cried out
impatiently that they would brook no claim of privilege, and
suffer no rotten idol. The word was felicitously chosen, for
the Convention dreaded to have its independence suspected, and
it dreaded this all the more because at this time its
independence did not really exist. The vote against Danton was
unanimous, and the fact that it was so is the deepest stain on
the fame of this assembly. On the afternoon of the 16th
Germinal (April 5, 1794), Paris in amazement and some
stupefaction saw the once dreaded Titan of the Mountain fast
bound in the tumbril, and faring towards the sharp-clanging
knife [with Camille Desmoulins and others]. 'I leave it all in
a frightful welter,' Danton is reported to have said. 'Not a
man of them has an idea of government. Robespierre will follow
me; he is dragged down by me. Ah, better be a poor fisherman
than meddle with the governing of men!' … After the fall of
the anarchists and the death of Danton, the relations between
Robespierre and the Committees underwent a change. He, who had
hitherto been on the side of government, became in turn an
agency of opposition. He did this in the interest of ultimate
stability, but the difference between the new position and the
old is that he now distinctly associated the idea of a stable
republic with the ascendency of his own religious conceptions.
… The base of Robespierre's scheme of social reconstruction
now came clearly into view; and what a base! An official
Supreme Being and a regulated Terror. … How can we speak
with decent patience of a man who seriously thought that he
should conciliate the conservative and theological elements of
the society at his feet, by such an odious opera-piece as the
Feast of the Supreme Being. This was designed as a triumphant
ripost to the Feast of Reason, which Chaumette and his friends
had celebrated in the winter. … Robespierre persuaded the
Convention to decree an official recognition of the Supreme
Being, and to attend a commemorative festival in honour of
their mystic patron. He contrived to be chosen president for
the decade in which the festival would fall. When the day came
(20th Prairial, June 8, 1794), he clothed himself with more
than even his usual care. As he looked out from the windows of
the Tuileries upon the jubilant crowd in the gardens, he was
intoxicated with enthusiasm. 'O Nature,' he cried, 'how
sublime thy power, how full of delight! How tyrants must grow
pale at the idea of such a festival as this!' In pontifical
pride he walked at the head of the procession, with flowers
and wheat-ears in his hand, to the sound of chants and
symphonies and choruses of maidens. On the first of the great
basins in the gardens, David, the artist, had devised an
allegorical structure for which an inauspicious doom was
prepared. Atheism, a statue of life size, was throned in the
midst of an amiable group of human Vices, with Madness by her
side, and Wisdom menacing them with lofty wrath. Great are the
perils of symbolism. Robespierre applied a torch to Atheism, but
alas, the wind was hostile, or else Atheism and Madness were
damp. They obstinately resisted the torch, and it was hapless
Wisdom who took fire. … The whole mummery was pagan. … It
stands as the most disgusting and contemptible anachronism in
history."
_J. Morley,
Robespierre
(Critical Miscellanies, Second Series)._
ALSO IN
_T. Carlyle,
The French Revolution,
volume 3, book 6._
_G. H. Lewes,
Life of Robespierre,
chapters 19-20._
_L. Gronlund,
Ça ira: or Danton in the French Revolution,
chapter 6._
_J. Claretie,
Camille Desmoulins and his Wife,
chapters 5-6._
{1303}
FRANCE: A. D. 1794 (March-July).
Withdrawal of Prussia from the European Coalition as an ally,
to become a mercenary.
Successes of the Republic.
Conquest of the Austrian Netherlands.
Advance to the Rhine.
Loss of Corsica.
Naval defeat off Ushant.
"While the alliance of the Great Powers was on the point of
dissolution from selfishness and jealousy, the French, with an
energy and determination, which, considering their
unparalleled difficulties, were truly heroic, had assembled
armies numbering nearly a million of men. The aggregate of the
allied forces did not much exceed 300,000. The campaign on the
Dutch and Flemish frontiers of France was planned at Vienna,
but had nearly been disconcerted at the outset by the refusal
of the Duke of York to serve under General Clairfait. … The
Emperor settled the difficulty by signifying his intention to
take the command in person. Thus one incompetent prince who
knew little, was to be commanded by another incompetent prince
who knew nothing, about war; and the success of a great
enterprise was made subservient to considerations of punctilio
and etiquette. The main object of the Austrian plan was to
complete the reduction of the frontier fortresses by the
capture of Landrecy on the Sambre, and then to advance through
the plains of Picardy on Paris;—a plan which might have been
feasible the year before. … The King of Prussia formally
withdrew from the alliance [March 13]; but condescended to
assume the character of a mercenary. In the spring of the
year, by a treaty with the English Government, his Prussian
Majesty undertook to furnish 62,000 men for a year, in
consideration of the sum of £1,800,000, of which Holland, by a
separate convention, engaged to supply somewhat less than a
fourth part. The organisation of the French army was effected
under the direction of Carnot. … The policy of terror was
nevertheless applied to the administration of the army.
Custine and Houchard, who had commanded the last campaign, …
were sent to the scaffold, because the arms of the republic
had failed to achieve a complete triumph under their
direction. … Pichegru, the officer now selected to lead the
hosts of France, went forth to assume his command with the
knife of the executioner suspended over his head. His orders
were to expel the invaders from the soil and strongholds of
the republic, and to reconquer Belgium. The first step towards
the fulfilment of this commission was the recovery of the
three great frontier towns, Condé, Valenciennes, and Quesnoy.
The siege of Quesnoy was immediately formed; and Pichegru,
informed of or anticipating the plans of the Allies, disposed
a large force in front of Cambray, to intercept the operations
of … the allied army upon Landrecy. … On the 17th
[of April] a great action was fought in which the allies
obtained a success, sufficient to enable them to press the
siege of Landrecy. … Pichegru, a few days after [April 26,
at the redoubts of Troisville] sustained a signal repulse from
the British, in an attempt to raise the siege of Landrecy; but
by a rapid and daring movement, he improved his defeat, and
seized the important post of Moucron. The results were, that
Clairfait was forced to fall back on Tournay; Courtray and
Menin surrendered to the French; and thus the right flanks of
the Allies were exposed. Landrecy, which, about the same time,
fell into the hands of the Allies, was but a poor compensation
for the reverses in West Flanders. The Duke of York, at the
urgent instance of the Emperor, marched to the relief of
Clairfait; but, in the meantime, the Austrian general, being
hard pressed, was compelled to fall back upon a position which
would enable him for a time to cover Bruges, Ghent, and
Ostend. The English had also to sustain a vigorous attack near
Tournay; but the enemy were defeated with the loss of 4,000
men. It now became necessary to risk a general action to save
Flanders, by cutting off that division of the French army
which had outflanked the Allies. By bad management and want of
concert this movement, which had been contrived by Colonel
Mack, the chief military adviser of the Emperor, was wholly
defeated [at Tourcoign, May 18]. … The French took 1,500
prisoners and 60 pieces of cannon. A thousand English soldiers
lay dead on the field, and the Duke [of York] himself escaped
with difficulty. Four days after, Pichegru having collected a
great force, amounting, it has been stated, to 100,000 men,
made a grand attack upon the allied army [at Pont Achin]. …
The battle raged from five in the morning until nine at night,
and was at length determined by the bayonet. … In consequence
of this check, Pichegru fell back upon Lisle." It was after
this repulse that "the French executive, on the flimsy
pretence of a supposed attempt to assassinate Robespierre,
instigated by the British Government, procured a decree from
the Convention, that no English or Hanoverian prisoners should
be made. In reply to this atrocious edict, the Duke of York
issued a general order, enjoining forbearance to the troops
under his command. Most of the French generals … refused to
become assassins. … The decree was carried into execution in
a few instances only. … The Allies gained no military
advantage by the action of Pont Achin on the 22nd of May. …
The Emperor … abandoned the army and retired to Vienna. He
left some orders and proclamations behind him, to which nobody
thought it worth while to pay any attention. On the 5th of June,
Pichegru invested Ypres, which Clairfait made two attempts to
retain, but without success. The place surrendered on the
17th; Clairfait retreated to Ghent; Walmoden abandoned Bruges;
and the Duke of York, forced to quit his position at Tournay,
encamped near Oudenarde. It was now determined by the Prince
of Coburg, who resumed the chief command after the departure
of the Emperor, to risk the fate of Belgium on a general
action, which was fought at Fleurus on the 26th of June. The
Austrians, after a desperate struggle, were defeated at all
points by the French army of the Sambre under Jourdan.
Charleroi having surrendered to the French … and the Duke of
York being forced to retreat, any further attempt to save the
Netherlands was hopeless. Ostend and Mons, Ghent, Tournay, and
Oudenarde, were successively evacuated; and the French were
established at Brussels. When it was too late, the English
army was reinforced. … It now only remained for the French
to recapture the fortresses on their own frontier which had
been taken from them in the last campaign. …
{1304}
Landrecy … fell without a struggle. Quesnoy … made a
gallant [but vain] resistance. … Valenciennes and Condé …
opened their gates. … The victorious armies of the Republic
were thus prepared for the conquest of Holland. … The Prince
of Orange made an appeal to the patriotism of his countrymen;
but the republicans preferred the ascendancy of their faction
to the liberties of their country. … The other military
operation's of the year, in which England was engaged, do not
require prolonged notice. The Corsicans, under the guidance of
their veteran chief, Paoli, … sought the aid of England to
throw off the French yoke, and offered in return allegiance of
his countrymen to the British Crown. … A small force was
despatched, and, after a series of petty operations, Corsica
was occupied by British troops, and proclaimed a part of the
British dominions. An expedition on a greater scale was sent
to the West Indies. Martinique, St. Lucie and Guadaloupe were
easily taken; but the large island of St. Domingo, relieved by
a timely arrival of succours from France, offered a formidable
[and successful] resistance. … The campaign on the Rhine was
undertaken by the Allies under auspices ill calculated to
inspire confidence, or even hope. The King of Prussia, not
content with abandoning the cause, had done everything in his
power to thwart and defeat the operations of the Allies. …
On the 22d of May, the Austrians crossed the Rhine and
attacked the French in their intrenchments without success. On
the same day, the Prussians defeated a division of the Republican
army [at Kaiserslautern], and advanced their head-quarters to
Deux-Ponts. Content with this achievement, the German armies
remained inactive for several weeks, when the French, having
obtained reinforcements, attacked the whole line of the German
posts. … Before the end of the year the Allies were in full
retreat, and the Republicans in their turn had become the
invaders of Germany. They occupied the Electorate of Treves,
and they captured the important fort of Mannheim. Mentz also
was placed under a close blockade. … At sea, England
maintained her ancient reputation. The French had made great
exertions to fit out a fleet, and 26 ships of the line were
assembled in the port of Brest," for the protecting of a
merchant fleet, laden with much needed food-supplies, expected
from America. Lord Howe, with an English fleet of 25 ships of
the line, was on the watch for the Brest fleet when it put to
sea. On the 1st of June he sighted and attacked it off Ushant,
performing the celebrated manœuvre of breaking the enemy's
line. Seven of the French ships were taken, one was sunk
during the battle, and 18, much crippled, escaped. The victory
caused great exultation in England, but it was fruitless, for
the American convoy was brought safely into Brest.
_W. Massey,
History of England during the reign of George III.,
chapter 35 (volume 3)._
ALSO IN
_Sir A. Alison,
History of Europe, 1789-1815,
chapter 16 (volume 4)._
_F. C. Schlosser,
History of the 18th Century,
volume 6, division 2, chapter 2, section 3._
_Capt. A. T. Mahan,
Influence of Sea Power upon the French Revolution
and Empire, chapter 8 (volume 1)._
FRANCE: A. D. 1794 (June-July).
The monstrous Law of the 22d Prairial.
The climax of the Reign of Terror.
A summary of its horrors.
"On the day of the Feast of the Supreme Being, the guillotine
was concealed in the folds of rich hangings. It was the 20th
of Prairial. Two days later Couthon proposed to the Convention
the memorable Law of the 22d Prairial [June 10]. Robespierre
was the draftsman, and the text of it still remains in his own
writing. This monstrous law is simply the complete abrogation
of all law. Of all laws ever passed in the world it is the
most nakedly iniquitous. … After the probity and good
judgment of the tribunal, the two cardinal guarantees in state
trials are accurate definition, and proof. The offence must be
capable of precise description, and the proof against an
offender must conform to strict rule. The Law of Prairial
violently infringed all three of these essential conditions of
judicial equity. First, the number of the jury who had power
to convict was reduced. Second, treason was made to consist in
such vague and infinitely elastic kinds of action as inspiring
discouragement, misleading opinion, depraving manners,
corrupting patriots, abusing the principles of the Revolution
by perfidious applications. Third, proof was to lie in the
conscience of the jury; there was an end of preliminary
inquiry, of witnesses in defence, and of counsel for the
accused. Any kind of testimony was evidence, whether material
or moral, verbal or written, if it was of a kind 'likely to
gain the assent of a man of reasonable mind.' Now, what was
Robespierre's motive in devising this infernal instrument? …
To us the answer seems clear. We know what was the general aim
in Robespierre's mind at this point in the history of the
Revolution. His brother Augustin was then the representative
of the Convention with the army of Italy, and General
Bonaparte was on terms of close intimacy with him. Bonaparte
said long afterwards … that he saw long letters from
Maximilian to Augustin Robespierre, all blaming the
Conventional Commissioners [sent to the provinces]—Tallien,
Fouché, Barras, Collot, and the rest—for the horrors they
perpetrated, and accusing them of ruining the Revolution by
their atrocities. Again, there is abundant testimony that
Robespierre did his best to induce the Committee of Public
Safety to bring those odious malefactors to justice. The text
of the Law … discloses the same object. The vague phrases of
depraving manners and applying revolutionary principles
perfidiously, were exactly calculated to smite the band of
violent men whose conduct was to Robespierre the scandal of
the Revolution. And there was a curious clause in the law as
originally presented, which deprived the Convention of the
right of preventing measures against its own members.
Robespierre's general design in short was to effect a further
purgation of the Convention. … If Robespierre's design was
what we believe it to have been, the result was a ghastly
failure. The Committee of Public Safety would not consent to
apply his law against the men for whom he had specially
designed it. The frightful weapon which he had forged was
seized by the Committee of General Security, and Paris was
plunged into the fearful days of the Great Terror. The number
of persons put to death by the Revolutionary Tribunal before
the Law of Prairial had been comparatively moderate. From the
creation of the Tribunal in April 1793, down to the execution
of the Hébertists in March 1794, the number of persons
condemned to death was 505.
{1305}
From the death of the Hébertists down to the death of
Robespierre, the number of the condemned was 2,158. One-half
of the entire number of victims, namely, 1,356, were
guillotined after the Law of Prairial. … A man was informed
against; he was seized in his bed at five in the morning; at
seven he was taken to the Conciergerie; at nine he received
information of the charge against him; at ten he went into the
dock; by two in the afternoon he was condemned; by four his
head lay in the executioner's basket."
_J. Morley,
Robespierre
(Critical Miscellanies: Second Series)._
"Single indictments comprehended 20 or 30 people taken
promiscuously—great noblemen from Paris, day labourers from
Marseilles, sailors from Brest, peasants from Alsace—who were
accused of conspiring together to destroy the Republic. All
examination, discussion, and evidence were dispensed with; the
names of the victims were hardly read out to the jury, and it
happened, more than once, that the son was mistaken for the
father—an entirely innocent person for the one really
charged—and sent to the guillotine. The judges urged the jury
to pass sentences of death, with loud threats; members of the
Government committees attended daily, and applauded the bloody
verdicts with ribald jests. On this spot at least the strife
of parties was hushed."
_H. von Sybel,
History of the French Revolution,
book 10, chapter 1 (volume 4)._
"The first murders committed in 1793 proceeded from a real
irritation caused by danger. Such perils had now ceased; the
republic was victorious; people now slaughtered not from
indignation, but from the atrocious habit which they had
contracted. … According to the law, the testimony of
witnesses was to be dispensed with only when there existed
material or moral proofs; nevertheless no witnesses were
called, as it was alleged that proofs of this kind existed in
every case. The jurors did not take the trouble to retire to
the consultation room. They gave their opinions before the
audience, and sentence was immediately pronounced. The accused
had scarcely time to rise and to mention their names. One day,
there was a prisoner whose name was not upon the list of the
accused, and who said to the Court, 'I am not accused; my name
is not on your list.' 'What signifies that?' said Fouquier,
'give it quick!' He gave it, and was sent to the scaffold like
the others. … The most extraordinary blunders were
committed. … More than once victims were called long after
they had perished. There were hundreds of acts of accusation
quite ready, to which there was nothing to add but the
designation of the individuals. … The printing-office was
contiguous to the hall of the tribunal: the forms were kept
standing, the title, the motives, were ready composed; there
was nothing but the names to be added. These were handed
through a small loop-hole to the overseer. Thousands of copies
were immediately worked off and plunged families into mourning
and struck terror into the prisons. The hawkers came to sell
the bulletin of the tribunal under the prisoners' windows,
crying, 'Here are the names of those who have gained prizes in
the lottery of St. Guillotine.' The accused were executed on
the breaking up of the court, or at latest on the morrow, if
the day was too far advanced. Ever since the passing of the
Law of the 22d of Prairial, victims perished at the rate of 50
or 60 a day. 'That goes well,' said Fouquier-Tinville; 'heads
fall like tiles:' and he added, 'It must go better still next
decade; I must have 450 at least.'"
_A. Thiers,
History of the French Revolution
(American edition), volume 3, pages 63-66._
"One hundred and seventy-eight tribunals, of which 40 are
ambulatory, pronounce in every part of the territory sentences
of death which are immediately executed on the spot. Between
April 6, 1793, and Thermidor 9, year II. [July 27, 1794], that
of Paris has 2,625 persons guillotined, while the provincial
judges do as much work as the Paris judges. In the small town
of Orange alone, they guillotine 331 persons. In the single
town of Arras they have 299 men and 93 women guillotined. At
Nantes, the revolutionary tribunals and military committees
have, on the average, 100 persons a day guillotined, or shot,
in all 1971. In the city of Lyons the revolutionary committee
admit 1684 executions, while Cadillot, one of Robespierre's
correspondents, advises him of 6,000.—The statement of these
murders is not complete, but 17,000 have been enumerated. …
Even excepting those who had died fighting or who, taken with
arms in their hands, were shot down or sabred on the spot,
there were 10,000 persons slaughtered without trial in the
province of Anjou alone. … It is estimated that, in the
eleven western departments, the dead of both sexes and of all
ages exceeded 400,000.—Considering the programme and
principles of the Jacobin sect, this is no great number; they
might have killed a good many more. But time was wanting;
during their short reign they did what they could with the
instrument in their hands. Look at their machine. …
Organised March 30 and April 6, 1793, the Revolutionary
Committees and the Revolutionary Tribunal had but seventeen
months in which to do their work. They did not drive ahead
with all their might until after the fall of the Girondists,
and especially after September, 1793, that is to say for a
period of eleven months. Its loose wheels were not screwed up
and the whole was not in running order under the impulse of
the central motor until after December, 1793, that is to say
during eight months. Perfected by the Law of Prairial 22, it
works for the past two months faster and better than before.
… Baudot and Jean Bon St. Andre, Carrier, Antonelle and
Guffroy had already estimated the lives to be taken at several
millions, and, according to Collot d'Herbois, who had a lively
imagination, 'the political perspiration should go on freely,
and not stop until from twelve to fifteen million Frenchmen
had been destroyed.'"
_H. A. Taine,
The French Revolution,
book 8, chapter 1 (volume 3)._
ALSO IN
_W. Smyth,
Lectures on the History of the French Revolution,
Lectures 39-42 (volume 2)._
_Abbé Dumesnil,
Recollections of the Reign of Terror._
_Count Beugnot,
Life,
volume 1, chapters 7-8._
_J. Wilson,
The Reign of Terror and its Secret Police
(Studies in Modern Mind, etc.), chapter 7._
_The Reign of Terror:
A collection of authentic narratives,
2 volumes._
{1306}
FRANCE: A. D. 1794 (July).
The Fall of Robespierre.
End of the Reign of Terror.
Robespierre "was already feeling himself unequal to the task
laid upon him. He said himself on one occasion: 'I was not
made to rule, I was made to combat the enemies of the
Revolution;' and so the possession of supreme power produced
in him no feeling of exultation. On the contrary, it preyed
upon his spirits, and made him fancy himself the object of
universal hatred. A guard now slept nightly at his house, and
followed him in all his walks. Two pistols lay ever at his
side. He would not eat food till some one else had tasted from
the dish. His jealous fears were awakened by every sign of
popularity in another. Even the successes of his generals
filled him with anxiety, lest they should raise up dangerous
rivals. He had, indeed … grounds enough for anxiety. In the
Committee of Public Safety every member, except St. Just and
Couthon, viewed him with hatred and suspicion. Carnot resented
his interferences. The Terrorists were contemptuous of his
religious festivals, and disliked his decided supremacy. The
friends of Mercy saw with indignation that the number of
victims was increasing. The friends of Disorder found
themselves restrained, and were bored by his long speeches
about virtue and simplicity of life. He was hated for what was
good and for what was evil in his government; and meanwhile
the national distress was growing, and the cry of starvation
was heard louder than ever. Fortunately there was a splendid
harvest in 1794; but before it was gathered in Robespierre had
fallen. A somewhat frivolous incident did much to discredit
him. A certain old woman named Catherine Théot, living in an
obscure part of Paris, had taken to seeing visions. Some of
the Terrorists produced a paper, purporting to be written by
her, and declaring that Robespierre was the Messiah. The paper
was a forgery, but it served to cover Robespierre with
ridicule, and to rouse in him a fierce determination to
suppress those whom he considered his enemies in the Committee
and the Convention. For some time he had taken little part in
the proceedings of either of these bodies. His reliance was
chiefly on the Jacobin Club, the reorganized Commune, and the
National Guards, still under the command of Henriot. But on
July 26th [8th Thermidor] Robespierre came to the Convention
and delivered one of his most elaborate speeches, maintaining
that the affairs of France had been mismanaged; that the army
had been allowed to become dangerously independent; that the
Government must be strengthened and simplified; and that
traitors must be punished. He made no definite proposals, and
did not name his intended victims. The real meaning of the
speech was evidently that he ought to be made Dictator, but
that in order to obtain his end, it was necessary to conceal
the use he meant to make of his power. The members of the
Convention naturally felt that some of themselves were aimed
at. Few felt themselves safe; but Robespierre's dominance had
become so established that no one ventured at first to
criticize. It was proposed, and carried unanimously, that the
speech should be printed and circulated throughout France.
Then at length a deputy named Cambon rose to answer
Robespierre's attacks on the recent management of the
finances. Finding himself favourably listened to, he went on
to attack Robespierre himself. Other members of the hitherto
docile Convention now took courage; and it was decided that
the speech should be referred to the Committees before it was
printed. The crisis was now at hand. Robespierre went down as
usual to the Jacobin Club, where he was received with the
usual enthusiasm. The members swore to die with their leader,
or to suppress his enemies. On the following day [9th
Thermidor] St. Just attacked Billaud and Collot. Billaud
[followed and supported by Tallien] replied by asserting that
on the previous night the Jacobins had pledged themselves to
massacre the deputies. Then the storm burst. A cry of horror
and indignation arose; and as Billaud proceeded to give
details of the alleged conspiracy, shouts of 'Down with the
tyrant!' began to rise from the benches. Robespierre vainly
strove to obtain a hearing. He rushed about the chamber,
appealing to the several groups. As he went up to the higher
benches on the Left, he was met with the cry, 'Back, tyrant,
the shade of Danton repels you!' and when he sought shelter
among the deputies on the Right, and actually sat down in
their midst, they indignantly exclaimed, 'Wretch, that was
Vergniaud's seat!' Baited on all sides, his attempts to speak
became shrieks, which were scarcely audible, however, amid the
shouts and interruptions that rose from all the groups. His
voice grew hoarser … till at length it failed him
altogether. Then one of the Mountain cried, 'The blood of
Danton chokes him!' Amid a scene of indescribable excitement
and uproar, a decree was passed that Robespierre and some of
his leading followers should be arrested. They were seized by
the officers of the Convention, and hurried off to different
prisons; so that, in case of a rescue, only one of them might
be released. There was room enough for fear. The Commune
organized an insurrection, as soon as they heard what the
Convention had done; and by a sudden attack the prisoners were
all delivered from the hands of their guards. Both parties now
hastily gathered armed forces. Those of the municipality were
by far the most numerous, and Henriot confidently ordered them
to advance. But the men refused to obey. The Sections mostly
declared for the Convention, and thus by an unexpected
reaction the Robespierian leaders found themselves almost
deserted. A detachment of soldiers forced their way into the
room where the small band of fanatics were drawing up a
Proclamation. A pistol was fired; and no one knows with
certainty whether Robespierre attempted suicide, or was shot
by one of his opponents. At any rate his jaw was fractured,
and he was laid out, a ghastly spectacle, on an adjacent
table. The room was soon crowded. Some spat at the prostrate
form. Others stabbed him with their knives. Soon he was
dragged [along with Couthon, St. Just, Henriot, and others]
before the Tribunal which he himself had instituted. The
necessary formalities were hurried through, and the mangled
body was borne to the guillotine, where what remained to him
of life was quickly extinguished. Then, from the crowd, a man
stepped quickly up to the blood-stained corpse, and uttered
over him the words, 'Yes, Robespierre, there is a God!'"
_J. E. Symes.
The French Revolution,
chapter 13._
{1307}
"Samson's work done, there bursts forth shout on shout of
applause. Shout, which prolongs itself not only over Paris,
but over France, but over Europe, and down to this generation.
Deservedly, and also undeservedly. O unhappiest Advocate of
Arras, wert thou worse than other Advocates? Stricter man,
according to his Formula, to his Credo and his Cant, of
probities, benevolences, pleasures-of-virtue, and suchlike,
lived not in that age. A man fitted, in some luckier settled
age, to have become one of those incorruptible barren
Pattern-Figures, and have had marble-tablets and
funeral-sermons. His poor landlord, the Cabinet-maker in the
Rue Saint-Honorè, loved him; his Brother died for him. May God
be merciful to him and to us! This is the end of the Reign of
Terror; new glorious Revolution named 'of Thermidor'; of
Thermidor 9th, year 2; which being interpreted into old
slave-style means 27th of July, 1794."
_T. Carlyle,
The French Revolution,
book 6, chapter 7 (volume 3)._
"He [Robespierre] had qualities, it is true, which we must
respect; he was honest, sincere, self-denying and consistent.
But he was cowardly, relentless, pedantic, unloving, intensely
vain and morbidly envious. … He has not left the legacy to
mankind of one grand thought, nor the example of one generous
and exalted action."
_G. H. Lewes,
Life of Robespierre.
Conclusion._
"The ninth of Thermidor is one of the great epochs in the
history of Europe. It is true that the three members of the
Committee of Public Safety [Billaud, Collot, and Barère],
who triumphed were by no means better men than the three
[Robespierre, Couthon, and St. Just], who fell. Indeed, we are
inclined to think that of these six statesmen the least bad
were Robespierre and St. Just, whose cruelty was the effect of
sincere fanaticism operating on narrow understandings and
acrimonious tempers. The worst of the six was, beyond all
doubt, Barère, who had no faith in any part of the system
which he upheld by persecution."
_Lord Macaulay,
Barère's Memoirs
(Essays, volume 5)._
ALSO IN
_G. Everitt,
Guillotine the Great,
chapter 2._
_J. W. Croker,
Robespierre (Quarterly Review,
September, 1835, volume 34)._
_W. Chambers,
Robespierre
(Chambers' Edin. Journal, 1852)._
FRANCE: A. D. 1794-1795 (July-April).
Reaction against the Reign of Terror.
The Thermidorians and the Jeunesse Doree.
End of the Jacobin Club.
Insurrection of Germinal 12.
Fall of the Montagnards.
The White Terror in the Provinces.
"On the morning of the 10th of Thermidor all the people who
lived near the prisons of Paris crowded on the roofs of their
houses and cried, 'All is over! Robespierre is dead!' The
thousands of prisoners, who had believed themselves doomed to
death, imagined themselves rescued from the tomb. Many were
set free the same day, and all the rest regained hope and
confidence. Their feeling of deliverance was shared throughout
France. The Reign of Terror had become a sort of nightmare
that stifled the nation, and the Reign of Terror and
Robespierre were identical in the sight of the great majority.
… The Convention presented a strange aspect. Party remnants
were united in the coalition party called the 'Thermidorians.'
Many of the Mountaineers and of those who had been fiercest in
their missions presently took seats with the Right or Centre;
and the periodic change of Committees, so long contested, was
determined upon. Lots were drawn, and Barère, Lindet, and
Prieur went out; Carnot, indispensable in the war, was
re-elected until the coming spring; Billaud and Collot,
feeling out of place in the new order of things, resigned.
Danton's friends now prevailed; but, alas! the Dantonists were
not Danton."
_H. Martin,
Popular History of France from the First Revolution,
chapter 22 (volume l)._
"The Reign of Terror was practically over, but the
ground-swell which follows a storm continued for some time
longer. Twenty-one victims suffered on the same day with
Robespierre, 70 on the next; altogether 114 were condemned and
executed in the three days which followed his death. … A
strong reaction against the 'Terreur' now set in. Upwards of
10,000 'suspects' were set free, and Robespierre's law of the
22 Prairial was abolished. Fréron, a leading Thermidorien,
organized a band of young men who called themselves the
Jeunesse Dorée [gilded youth], or Muscadins, and chiefly
frequented the Palais Royal. They wore a ridiculous dress, 'a
la Victime' [large cravat, black or green collar, and crape
around the arm, signifying relationship to some of the victims
of the revolutionary tribunal.—Thiers], and devoted
themselves to punishing the Jacobins. They had their hymn, 'Le
réveil du Peuple.' which they sang about the street, often
coming into collision with the sans-culottes shouting the
Marseillaise. On the 11th of November the Muscadins broke open
the hall of the celebrated club, turned out the members, and
shut it up for ever. … The committees of Salut Public and
Sureté Générale were entirely remodelled and their powers much
restrained; also the Revolutionary Tribunal was reorganized on
the lines advocated by Camille Desmoulins in his proposal for
a Comité de Clémence—which cost him his life. Carrier and
Lebon suffered death for their atrocious conduct in La Vendée
and [Arras]; 73 members who had protested against the arrest
of the Girondins were recalled, and the survivors of the
leading Girondists, Louvet, Lanjuinais, Isnard,
Larévillière-Lépeaux and others, 22 in number, were restored
to their seats in the Convention."
_Sergent Marceau,
Reminiscences of a Regicide,
part 2, chapter 12._
"Billaud, Collot, and other marked Terrorists, already
denounced in the Convention by Danton's friends, felt that
danger was every day drawing nearer to themselves. Their fate
was to all appearance sealed by the readmission to the
Convention (December 8) of the 73 deputies of the right,
imprisoned in 1793 for signing protests against the expulsion
of the Girondists. By the return of these deputies the
complexion of the Assembly was entirely altered. … They now
sought to undo the work of the Convention since the
insurrection by which their party had been overwhelmed. They
demanded that confiscated property should be restored to the
relatives of persons condemned by the revolutionary courts;
that emigrants who had fled in consequence of Terrorist
persecutions should be allowed to return; that those deputies
proscribed on June 2, 1793, who yet survived, should be
recalled to their seats. The Mountain, as a body, violently
opposed even the discussion of such questions. The
Thermidorians split into two divisions. Some in alarm rejoined
the Mountain; while others, headed by Tallien and Fréron,
sought their safety by coalescing with the returned members of
the right. A committee was appointed to report on accusations
brought against Collot, Billaud, Barère, and Vadier (December
27, 1794). In a few weeks the survivors of the proscribed
deputies entered the Convention amidst applause (March 8,
1795). … There was at this time great misery prevalent in
Paris, and imminent peril of insurrection.
{1308}
After Robespierre's fall, maximum prices were no longer
observed, and assignats were only accepted in payment of goods
at their real value compared with coin. The result was a rapid
rise in prices, so that in December prices were double what
they had been in July, and were continuing to rise in
proportion as assignats decreased in value. … The maximum
laws, already a dead letter, were repealed (December 24). The
abolition of maximum prices and requisitions increased the
already lavish expenditure of the Government, which, to meet
the deficit in its revenues, had no resource but to create
more assignats, and the faster these were issued the faster
they fell in value and the higher prices rose. In July 1794,
they had been worth 34 per cent. of their nominal value. In
December they were worth 22 per cent., and in May 1795 they
were worth only 7 per cent. … At this time a pound of bread
cost eight shillings, of rice thirteen, of sugar seventeen,
and other articles were all proportionately dear. It is
literally true that more than half the population of Paris was
only kept alive by occasional distributions of meat and other
articles at low prices, and the daily distribution of bread at
three half-pence a pound. In February, however, this source of
relief threatened to fail. … On April 1, or Germinal 12,
bread riots, begun by women, broke out in every section. Bands
collected and forced their way into the Convention, shouting
for bread, but offering no violence to the deputies. … The
crowd was already dispersing when forces arrived from the
sections and cleared the House. The insurrection was a
spontaneous rising for bread, without method or combination.
The Terrorists had sought, but vainly, to obtain direction of
it. Had they succeeded, the Mountain would have had an
opportunity of proscribing the right. Their failure gave the
right the opportunity of proscribing the left. The
transportation to Cayenne of Billaud, Collot, Barère, and
Vadier was decreed, and the arrest of fifteen other
Montagnards, accused without proof, in several cases without
probability, of having been accomplices of the insurgents. …
The insurrection of Germinal 12 gave increased strength to the
party of reaction. The Convention, in dread of the Terrorists,
was compelled to look to it for support. … In the
departments famine, disorder, and crime prevailed, as well as
in Paris. … From the first the reaction proceeded in the
departments with a more rapid step and in bolder form than in
Paris. … In the departments of the south-east, where the
Royalists had always possessed a strong following, emigrants
of all descriptions readily made their way back; and here the
opponents of the Republic, instigated by a desire for
vengeance, or merely by party spirit, commenced a reaction
stained by crimes as atrocious as any committed during the
course of the revolution. Young men belonging to the upper and
middle classes were organised in bands bearing the names of
companies of Jesus and companies of the Sun, and first at
Lyons, then at Aix, Toulon, Marseilles, and other towns, they
broke into the prisons and murdered their inmates without
distinction of age or sex. Besides the Terrorist and the
Jacobin, neither the Republican nor the purchaser of State
lands was safe from their knives; and in the country numerous
isolated murders were committed. This lawless and brutal
movement, called the White Terror in distinction to the Red
Terror preceding Thermidor 9, was suffered for weeks to run
its course unchecked, and counted its victims by many
hundreds, spreading over the whole of Provence, besides the
departments of Rhone, Gard, Loire, Ain, and Jura."
_B. M. Gardiner,
The French Revolution,
chapter 10._
ALSO IN
_A. Thiers,
History of the French Revolution (American edition),
volume 3, pages 109-136; 149-175; 193-225._
_H. von Sybel,
History of the French Revolution,
book 12, chapters 1-3._
_J. Mallet du Pan,
Memoirs and Correspondence,
volume 2, chapters 5._
_A. des Echerolles,
Early Life,
volume 2, chapter 8._
FRANCE: A. D. 1794-1795 (October-May).
Subjugation of Holland.
Overthrow of the Stadtholdership.
Establishment of the Batavian Republic.
Peace of Basle with Prussia.
Successes on the Spanish and Italian frontiers.
Crumbling of the Coalition.
"Pichegru having taken Bois le Duc, October 9th, the Duke of
York retreated to the Ar, and thence beyond the Waal. Venloo
fell October 27th, Maestricht November 4th, and the capture of
Nimeguen on the 9th, which the English abandoned after the
fall of Maestricht, opened to the French the road into
Holland. The Duke of York resigned the command to General
Walmoden, December 2nd, and returned into England. His
departure showed that the English government had abandoned all
hope of saving Holland. It had, indeed, consented that the
States-General should propose terms of accommodation to the
French; and two Dutch envoys had been despatched to Paris to
offer to the Committee of Public Welfare the recognition by
their government of the French Republic, and the payment of
200,000,000 florins within a year. But the Committee,
suspecting that these offers were made only with the view of
gaining time, paid no attention to them. The French were
repulsed in their first attempt to cross the Waal by General
Duncan with 8,000 English; but a severe frost enabled them to
pass over on the ice, January 11th, 1795. Nothing but a
victory could now save Holland. But Walmoden, instead of
concentrating his troops for the purpose of giving battle,
retreated over the Yssel, and finally over the Ems into
Westphalia, whence the troops were carried to England by sea
from Bremen. … General Alvinzi, who held the Rhine between
Emmerich and Arnheim, having retired upon Wesel, Pichegru had
only to advance. On entering Holland, he called upon the
patriots to rise, and his occupation of the Dutch towns was
immediately followed by a revolution. The Prince of Orange,
the hereditary Stadtholder, embarked for England, January
19th, on which day Pichegru's advanced columns entered
Amsterdam. Next day the Dutch fleet, frozen up in the Texel,
was captured by the French hussars. Before the end of January
the reduction of Holland had been completed, and a provincial
[provisional?] government established at the Hague. The
States-General, assembled February 24th, 1795, having
received, through French influence, a new infusion of the
patriot party, pronounced the abolition of the Stadtholderate,
proclaimed the sovereignty of the people and the establishment
of the Batavian Republic. A treaty of Peace with France
followed, May 16th, and an-offensive alliance against all
enemies whatsoever till the end of the war, and against
England for ever.
{1309}
The sea and land forces to be provided by the Dutch were to
serve under French commanders. Thus the new republic became a
mere dependency of France. Dutch Flanders, the district on the
left bank of the Hondt, Maestricht, Venloo, were retained by
the French as a just indemnity for the expenses of the war, on
which account the Dutch were also to pay 100,000,000 florins;
but they were to receive, at the general peace, an equivalent
for the ceded territories. By secret articles, the Dutch were
to lend the French seven ships of war, to support a French
army of 25,000 men, &c. Over and above the requisitions of the
treaty, they were also called upon to reclothe the French
troops, and to furnish them with provisions. In short, though
the Dutch patriots had 'fraternised' with the French, and
received them with open arms, they were treated little better
than a conquered people. Secret negotiations had been for some
time going on between France and Prussia for a peace. …
Frederick William II., … satisfied with his acquisitions in
Poland, to which the English and Dutch subsidies had helped
him, … abandoned himself to his voluptuous habits," and made
overtures to the French. "Perhaps not the least influential
among Frederick William's motives, was the refusal of the
maritime Powers any longer to subsidise him for doing nothing.
… The Peace of Basle, between the French Republic and the
King of Prussia, was signed April 5th 1795. The French troops
were allowed to continue the occupation of the Rhenish
provinces on the left bank. An article, that neither party
should permit troops of the enemies of either to pass over its
territories, was calculated to embarrass the Austrians. France
agreed to accept the mediation of Prussia for princes of the
Empire. … Prussia should engage in no hostile enterprise
against Holland, or any other country occupied by French
troops; while the French agreed not to push their enterprises
in Germany beyond a certain line of demarcation, including the
Circles of Westphalia, Higher and Lower Saxony; Franconia, and
that part of the two Circles of the Rhine situate on the right
bank of the Main. … Thus the King of Prussia, originally the
most ardent promoter of the Coalition, was one of the first to
desert it. By signing the Peace of Basle, he sacrificed
Holland, facilitated the invasion of the Empire by the French,
and thus prepared the ruin of the ancient German
constitution." In the meantime the French had been pushing war
with success on their Spanish frontier, recovering the ground
which they had lost in the early part of 1794. In the eastern
Pyrenees, Dugommier "retook Bellegarde in September, the last
position held by the Spaniards in France, and by the battle of
the Montagne Noire, which lasted from November 17th to the
20th, opened the way into Catalonia. But at the beginning of
this battle Dugommier was killed. Figuières surrendered
November 24th, through the influence of the French democratic
propaganda. On the west, Moncey captured St. Sebastian and
Fuentarabia in August, and was preparing to attack Pampeluna,
when terrible storms … compelled him to retreat on the
Bidassoa, and closed the campaign in that quarter. On the side
of Piedmont, the French, after some reverses, succeeded in
making themselves masters of Mont Cenis and the passes of the
Maritime Alps, thus holding the keys of Italy; but the
Government, content with this success, ventured not at present
to undertake the invasion of that country." The King of
Sardinia, Victor Amadeus, remained faithful to his engagements
with Austria, although the French tempted him with an offer of
the Milanese, "and the exchange of the island of Sardinia for
territory more conveniently situated. With the Grand Duke of
Tuscany they were more successful. … On February 9th 1795, a
treaty was signed by which the Grand Duke revoked his adhesion
to the Coalition. … Thus Ferdinand was the first to desert
the Emperor, his brother. The example of Tuscany was followed
by the Regent of Sweden."
_T. H. Dyer,
History of Modern Europe,
book 7, chapter 7 (volume 4)._
ALSO IN
_C. M. Davies,
History of Holland,
part 4, chapter 3 (volume 3)._
_L. P. Segur,
History of the Reign of Frederick William II. of Prussia,
volume 3._
FRANCE: A. D. 1794-1796.
Brigandage in La Vendée.
Chouannerie in Brittany.
The Disastrous Quiberon expedition.
End of the Vendean War.
"Since the defeat at Savenay, the Vendée was no longer the
scene of grand operations, but of brigandage and atrocities
without result. The peasants, though detesting the Revolution,
were anxious for peace; but, as there were still two chiefs,
Charette and Stoffiet, in the field, who hated each other,
this wish could scarcely be gratified. General Thurieu, sent
by the former Revolutionary Committee, had but increased this
detestation by allowing pillage and incendiarism. After the
death of Robespierre he was replaced by General Clancaux, who
had orders to employ more conciliatory measures. The defeat of
the rebel troops at Savenay, and their subsequent dispersion,
had led to a kind of guerilla warfare throughout the whole of
Brittany, known by the name of Chouannerie. ['A poor peasant,
named Jean Cottereau, had distinguished himself in this
movement above all his companions, and his family bore the
name of Chouans (Chat-huans) or night-owls. … The name of
Chouan passed from him to all the insurgents of Bretagne,
although he himself never led more than a few hundred
peasants, who obeyed him, as they said, out of friendship.']
_H. Von Sybel,
History of the French Revolution,
volume 4, page 238._
The Chouans attacked the public conveyances, infested the high
roads, murdered isolated bands of soldiers and functionaries.
Their chiefs were Scepeaux, Bourmont, Cadoudal, but especially
Puisaye … formerly general of the Girondins, and who wanted
to raise a more formidable insurrection than had hitherto been
organised. Against them was sent Hoche [September, 1794], who
accustomed his soldiers to pacify rather than destroy, and
taught them to respect the habits, but above all the religion,
of the inhabitants. After some difficult negotiations with
Charette peace was concluded (15th February), but the
suppression of the Chouans was more difficult still, and Hoche
… displayed in this ungrateful mission all the talents and
humanity for which he was ever celebrated. Puisaye himself was
in England, having obtained Pitt's promise of a fleet and an
army, but his aide-de-camp concluded in his absence a treaty
similar to that of Charette. … Stoffiet surrendered the
last.
{1310}
Not much dependence could be placed on either of these
pacifications, Charette himself having confessed in a letter
to the Count de Provence that they were but a trap for the
Republicans; but they proved useful, nevertheless, by
accustoming the country to peace." This deceptive state of
peace came to an end early in the summer of 1795. "The
conspiracy organised in London by Puisaye, assisted and
subsidised by Pitt, … fitted out a fleet, which harassed the
French naval squadron, and then set sail for Brittany, where
the expedition made itself master of the peninsula of Quiberon
and the fort Penthièvre (27th June). The Brittany peasants,
suspicious of the Vendeans and hating the English, did not
respond to the call for revolt, and occasioned a loss of time
to the invaders, of which Hoche took advantage to bring
together his troops and to march on Quiberon, where he
defeated the vanguard of the émigrés, and surrounded them in
the peninsula. Puisaye [who had, it is said, about 10,000 men,
émigrés and Chouans] attempted to crush Hoche by an attack in
the rear, but was eventually out-manœuvred, Fort Penthièvre
was scaled during the night, and the émigrés were routed;
whilst the English squadron was caught in a hurricane and
could not come to their assistance, save with one ship, which
fired indiscriminately on friend and foe alike. Most of the
Royalists rushed into the sea, where nearly all of them
perished. Scarcely a thousand men remained, and these fought
heroically. It is said that a promise was given to them that
if they surrendered their lives should be spared, and,
accordingly, 711 laid down their arms (21st July). By order of
the Convention … these 711 émigrés were shot. … From his
camp at Belleville, Charette, one of the insurgent generals,
responded to this execution by the massacre of 2,000
Republican prisoners." In the following October another
expedition of Royalists, fitted out in England under the
auspices of Pitt, "landed at the Ile Dieu … a small island
about eight miles from the mainland of Poitou, and was
composed of 2,500 men, who were destined to be the nucleus of
several regiments; it also had on board a large store of arms,
ammunition, and the Count d'Artois. Charette, named general
commander of the Catholic forces, was awaiting him with 10,000
men. The whole of the Vendée was ready to rise the moment the
prince touched French soil, but frivolous and undecided, he
waited six weeks in idleness, endeavouring to obtain from
England his recall. Hoche, to whom the command of the
Republican forces had been entrusted, took advantage of this
delay to cut off Charette from his communications, while he
held Stoffiet and the rest of the Brittany chiefs in check,
and occupied the coast with 30,000 men. The Count d'Artois,
whom Pitt would not recall, entreated the English commander to
set sail for England (December 17th, 1795), and the latter,
unable to manage his fleet on a coast without shelter,
complied with his request, leaving the prince on his arrival
to the deserved contempt of even his own partisans. Charette
in despair attempted another rising, hoping to be seconded by
Stofflet, but he was beaten on all sides by Hoche. This
general, who combined the astuteness of the statesman with the
valour of the soldier, succeeded in a short time in pacifying
the country by his generous but firm behaviour towards the
inhabitants. Charette, tracked from shelter to shelter, was
finally compelled to surrender, brought to Nantes, and shot
(March 24th). The same lot had befallen Stofflet a month
before at Angers. After these events Hoche led his troops into
Brittany, where he succeeded in putting an end to the
'Chouannerie.' The west returned to its normal condition."
_H. Van Laun,
The French Revolutionary Epoch,
book 2, chapter 2, and book 3, chapter 1 (volume 1)._
ALSO IN:
_A. Thiers,
History of the French Revolution
(American edition), volume 3, pages 144-145; 188-193;
230-240; 281-305; 343-345; 358-363; 384-389._
FRANCE: A. D. 1795 (April).
The question of the Constitution.
Insurrection of the 1st Prairial and its failure.
Disarming of the Faubourgs.
End of Sansculottism.
Bourgeoisie dominant again.
"The events of the 12th of Germinal decided nothing. The
faubourgs had been repulsed, but not conquered. … After so
many questions decided against the democratists, there still
remained one of the utmost importance—the constitution. On
this depended the ascendancy of the multitude or of the
bourgeoisie. The supporters of the revolutionary government
then fell back on the democratic constitution of '93, which
presented to them the means of resuming the authority they had
lost. Their opponents, on the other hand, endeavoured to
replace it by a constitution which would secure all the
advantage to them, by concentrating the government a little
more, and giving it to the middle class. For a month, both
parties were preparing for this last contest. The constitution
of 1793, having been sanctioned by the people, enjoyed a great
prestige. It was accordingly attacked with infinite
precaution. At first its assailants engaged to carry it into
execution without restriction; next they appointed a
commission of eleven members to prepare the 'lois organiques'
which were to render it practicable; by and by, they ventured
to suggest objections to it on the ground that it distributed
power too loosely, and only recognised one assembly dependent
on the people, even in its measures of legislation. At last, a
sectionary deputation went so far as to term the constitution
of '93 a decemviral constitution, dictated by terror. All its
partisans, at once indignant and filled with fears, organized
an insurrection to maintain it. … The conspirators, warned
by the failure of the risings of the 1st and 12th Germinal,
omitted nothing to make up for their want of direct object and
of organization. On the 1st Prairial (20th of May) in the name
of the people, insurgent for the purpose of obtaining bread
and their rights, they decreed the abolition of the
revolutionary government, the establishment of the democratic
constitution of '93, the dismissal and arrest of the members
of the existing government, the liberation of the patriots,
the convocation of the primary assemblies on the 25th
Prairial, the convocation of the legislative assembly,
destined to replace the convention, on the 25th Messidor, and
the suspension of all authority not emanating from the people.
They determined on forming a new municipality, to serve as a
common centre; to seize on the barriers, telegraph, cannon,
tocsins, drums, and not to rest till they had secured repose,
happiness, liberty, and means of subsistence for all the
French nation. They invited the artillery, gendarmes, horse
and foot soldiers, to join the banners of the people, and
marched on the convention. Meantime, the latter was
deliberating on the means of preventing the insurrection. …
{1311}
The committees came in all haste to apprise it of its danger;
it immediately declared its sitting permanent, voted Paris
responsible for the safety of the representatives of the
republic, closed its doors, outlawed all the leaders of the
mob, summoned the citizens of the sections to arms, and
appointed as their leaders eight commissioners, among whom
were Legendre, Henri la Riviere, Kervelegan, &c. These
deputies had scarcely gone, when a loud noise was heard
without. An outer door had been forced, and numbers of women
rushed into the galleries, crying 'Bread and the constitution
of '93!' … The galleries were … cleared; but the
insurgents of the faubourgs soon reached the inner doors, and,
finding them closed, forced them with hatchets and hammers,
and then rushed in amidst the convention. The Hall now became
a field of battle. The veterans and gendarmes, to whom the
guard of the assembly was confided, cried 'To arms!' The
deputy Auguis, sword in hand, headed them, and succeeded in
repelling the assailants, and even made a few of them
prisoners. But the insurgents, more numerous, returned to the
charge, and again rushed into the house. The deputy Feraud
entered precipitately, pursued by the insurgents, who fired
some shots in the house. They took aim at Boissy d'Anglas, who
was occupying the president's chair. … Feraud ran to the
tribune, to shield him with his body; he was struck at with
pikes and sabres, and fell dangerously wounded. The insurgents
dragged him into the lobby, and, mistaking him for Freron, cut
off his head and placed it on a pike. After this skirmish they
became masters of the Hall. Most of the deputies had taken
flight. There only remained the members of the Crête [the
'Crest'—a name now given to the remnant of the party of 'The
Mountain'] and Boissy d'Anglas, who, calm, his hat on,
heedless of threat and insult, protested in the name of the
convention against this popular violence. They held out to him
the bleeding head of Feraud; he bowed respectfully before it.
They tried to force him, by placing pikes at his breast, to
put the propositions of the insurgents to the vote; he
steadily and courageously refused. But the Crêtois, who
approved of the insurrection, took possession of the bureaux
and of the tribune, and decreed, amidst the applause of the
multitude, all the articles contained in the manifesto of the
insurrection." Meantime "the commissioners despatched to the
sections had quickly gathered them together. … The aspect of
affairs then underwent a change; Legendre, Kervelagan, and
Auguis besieged the insurgents, in their turn, at the head of
the sectionaries," and drove them at last from the hall of the
convention. "The assembly again became complete; the sections
received a vote of thanks, and the deliberations were resumed.
All the measures adopted in the interim were annulled, and
fourteen representatives, to whom were afterwards joined
fourteen others, were arrested, for organizing the
insurrection or approving it in their speeches. It was then
midnight; at five in the morning the prisoners were already
six leagues from Paris. Despite this defeat, the Faubourgs did
not consider themselves beaten; and the next day they advanced
en masse with their cannon against the convention. The
sections, on their side, marched for its defence." But a
collision was averted by negotiations, and the insurgents
withdrew, "after having received an assurance that the
Convention would assiduously attend to the question of
provisions, and would soon publish the organic laws of the
constitution of '93. … Six democratic Mountaineers, Goujon,
Bourbotte, Romme, Duroy, Duquesnoy, and Soubrany were brought
before a military commission … and … condemned to death.
They all stabbed themselves with the same knife, which was
transferred from one to the other, exclaiming, 'Vive la
République!' Romme, Goujon, and Duquesnoy were fortunate
enough to wound themselves fatally; the other three were
conducted to the scaffold in a dying state, but faced death
with serene countenances. Meantime, the Faubourgs, though
repelled on the 1st, and diverted from their object on the 2nd
of Prairial, still had the means of rising," and the
convention ordered them to be disarmed. "They were encompassed
by all the interior sections. After attempting to resist, they
yielded, giving up some of their leaders, their arms, and
artillery. … The inferior class was entirely excluded from
the government of the state; the revolutionary committees
which formed its assemblies were destroyed; the cannoneers
forming its armed force were disarmed; the constitution of
'93, which was its code, was abolished; and here the rule of
the multitude terminated. … From that period, the middle
class resumed the management of the revolution without, and
the assembly was as united under the Girondists as it had
been, after the 2nd of June, under the Mountaineers."
_F. A. Mignet,
History of the French Revolution,
chapter 10._
ALSO IN:
_Duchesse d'Abrantes,
Memoirs,
chapters 12-14 (volume l)._
_T. Carlyle,
The French Revolution,
volume 3, book 7, chapters 4-6._
_G. Long,
France and its Revolutions,
chapter 53._
FRANCE: A. D. 1795 (June-September).
Framing and adoption of the Constitution of the Year III.
Self-renewing decrees of the Convention.
Hostility in Paris to them.
Intrigues of the Royalists.
"The royalist party, beaten on the frontiers, and deserted by
the court of Spain, on which it placed most reliance, was now
obliged to confine itself to intrigues in the interior; and it
must be confessed that, at this moment, Paris offered a wide
field for such intrigues. The work of the constitution was
advancing; the time when the Convention was to resign its
powers, when France should meet to elect fresh
representatives, when a new Assembly should succeed that which
had so long reigned, was more favourable than any other for
counter-revolutionary manœuvres. The most vehement passions
were in agitation in the sections of Paris. The members of
them were not royalists, but they served the cause of royalty
without being aware of it. They had made a point of opposing
the Terrorists; they had animated themselves by the conflict;
they wished to persecute also; and they were exasperated
against the Convention, which would not permit this
persecution to be carried too far. They were always ready to
remember that Terror had sprung from its bosom; they demanded
of it a constitution and laws, and the end of the long
dictatorship which it had exercised. … Behind this mass the
royalists concealed themselves. … The constitution had been
presented by the commission of eleven. It was discussed during
the three months of Messidor, Thermidor, and Fructidor
[June-August], and was successively decreed with very little
alteration."
{1312}
The principal features of the constitution so framed, known as
the Constitution of the Year III., were the following: "A
Council, called 'The Council of the Five Hundred,' composed of
500 members, of, at least, thirty years of age, having
exclusively the right of proposing laws, one-third to be
renewed every year. A Council called 'The Council of the
Ancients,' composed of 250 members, of, at least, forty years
of age, all either widowers or married, having the sanction of
the laws, to be renewed also by one-third. An executive
Directory, composed of five members, deciding by a majority,
to be renewed annually by one-fifth, having responsible
ministers. … The mode of nominating these powers was the
following: All the citizens of the age of twenty-one met of
right in primary assembly on every first day of the month of
Prairial, and nominated electoral assemblies. These electoral
assemblies met every 20th of Prairial, and nominated the two
Councils; and the two Councils nominated the Directory. …
The judicial authority was committed to elective judges. …
There were to be no communal assemblies, but municipal and
departmental administrations, composed of three, five, or more
members, according to the population: they were to be formed
by way of election. … The press was entirely free. The
emigrants were banished for ever from the territory of the
republic; the national domains were irrevocably secured to the
purchasers; all religions were declared free, but were neither
acknowledged nor paid by the state. … One important question
was started. The Constituent Assembly, from a parade of
disinterestedness, had excluded itself from the new
legislative body [the Legislative Assembly of 1791]; would the
Convention do the same?" The members of the Convention decided
this question in the negative, and "decreed, on the 5th of
Fructidor (August 22d), that the new legislative body should
be composed of two-thirds of the Convention, and that one new
third only should be elected. The question to be decided was,
whether the Convention should itself designate the two-thirds
to be retained, or whether it should leave that duty to the
electoral assemblies. After a tremendous dispute, it was
agreed on the 13th of Fructidor (August 30), that this choice
should be left to the electoral assemblies. It was decided
that the primary assemblies should meet on the 20th of
Fructidor (September 6th), to accept the constitution and the
two decrees of the 5th and the 13th of Fructidor. It was
likewise decided that, after giving their votes upon the
constitution and the decrees, the primary assemblies should
again meet and proceed forthwith, that is to say, in the year
III. (1795), to the elections for the 1st of Prairial in the
following year." The right of voting upon the constitution was
extended, by another decree, to the armies in the field. "No
sooner were these resolutions adopted, than the enemies of the
Convention, so numerous and so diverse, were deeply mortified
by them. … The Convention, they said, was determined to
cling to power; … it wished to retain by force a majority
composed of men who had covered France with scaffolds. … All
the sections of Paris, excepting that of the Quinze-Vingts,
accepted the Constitution and rejected the decrees. The result
was not the same in the rest of France. … On the 1st of
Vendémiaire, year IV. (September 23, 1795), the general result
of the votes was proclaimed. The constitution was accepted
almost unanimously, and the decrees by an immense majority of
the voters." The Convention now decreed that the new
legislative body should be elected in October and meet
November 6.
_A. Thiers,
History of the French Revolution
(American edition), volume 3, pages 305-315._
ALSO IN:
_H. Von Sybel,
History of the French Revolution,
book 12, chapter 4 (volume 4)._
_H. C. Lockwood,
Constitutional History of France,
chapter 1, and appendix 3._
_J. Mallet du Pan,
Memoirs and Correspondence,
volume 2, chapter 8._
FRANCE: A. D. 1795 (June-December).
Death of the late King's son (Louis XVII.)
Treaty of Basle with Spain.
Acquisition of Spanish San Domingo.
Ineffectual campaign on the Rhine.
Victory at Loano.
"The Committees had formed great plans for the campaign of
1795; meaning to invade the territories of the allies, take
Mayence, and enter Southern Germany, go down into Italy, and
reach the very heart of Spain. But Carnot, Lindet, and Prieur
were no longer on the Committee, and their successors were not
their equals; army discipline was relaxed; a vulgar
reactionist had replaced Carnot in the war department and was
working ruin. … The attack in Spain was to begin with the
Lower Pyrenees, by the capture of Pampeluna and a march upon
Castile, but famine and fever decimated the army of the
Western Pyrenees, and General Moncey was forced to postpone
all serious action till the summer. At the other end of the
Pyrenees, the French and Spaniards were fighting aimlessly at
the entry to Catalonia. The war was at a standstill; but the
negotiations went on between the two countries. The king of
Spain, as in honor bound, made the liberation of his young
kinsman, the son of Louis XVI., a condition of peace. This the
Republic would not grant, but the prisoner's death (June 8,
1795) removed the obstacle. The counter-revolutionists accused
the Committees of poisoning the child styled by the royalist
party Louis XVII. This charge was false; the poor little
prisoner died of scrofula, developed by inaction, ennui, and
the sufferings of a pitiless imprisonment, increased by the
cruel treatment of his jailers, a cobbler named Simon and his
wife. A rumor was also spread that the child was not dead, but
had been taken away and an impostor substituted, who had died.
Only one of the royal family now remained in the Temple, Louis
XVI.'s daughter, afterwards the Duchesse d'Angoulême. Spain
interceded for her, and she was exchanged. … Peace with
Spain was also hastened by French successes beyond the
Pyrenees; General Marceau, being reinforced, took Vittoria and
Bilboa, and pushed on to the Ebro. On the 22d of July,
Barthelémi, the able French diplomatist, signed a treaty of
peace with Spain at Basle, restoring her Biscayan and
Catalonian provinces, and accepting Spanish mediation in favor
of the king of Naples, Duke of Parma, king of Portugal, and
'the other Italian powers,' including, though not mentioning,
the Pope; and Spain yielded her share of San Domingo, which
put a brighter face on French affairs in America. …
Guadeloupe, Santa Lucia, and St. Eustache were restored to the
French. … Spain soon made overtures for an alliance with
France, wishing to put down the English desire to rule the
seas; and, before the new treaty was signed, the army of the
Eastern Pyrenees was sent to reinforce the armies of the Alps
and Italy, who had only held their positions in the Apennines
and on the Ligurian coast against the Austrians and
Piedmontese by sheer force of will; but in the autumn of 1795
the face of affairs was changed.
{1313}
Now that Prussia had left the coalition, war on the Rhine went
on between France and Austria, sustained by the South German
States; France had to complete her mastery of the left bank by
taking Mayence and Luxembourg; and Austria's aim was to
dispute them with her. The French government charged Marceau
to besiege Mayence during the winter of 1794-95, but did not
furnish him the necessary resources, and, France not holding
the right bank, Kléber could only partially invest the town,
and both his soldiers and those blockading Luxembourg suffered
greatly from cold and privation. Early in March, 1795,
Pichegru was put in command of the armies of the Rhine and
Moselle, and Jourdan was ordered to support him on the left
(the Lower Rhine) with the army of Sambre-et-Meuse. Austria
took no advantage of the feeble state of the French troops,
and Luxembourg, one of the strongest posts in Europe,
receiving no help, surrendered (June 24) with 800 cannon and
huge store of provisions. The French now had the upper hand,
Pichegru and Jourdan commanding 160,000 men on the Rhine. One
of these men was upright and brave, but the other had treason
in his soul; though everybody admired Pichegru, 'the conqueror
of Holland.' … In August, 1795, an agent of the Prince of
Condé, who was then at Brisgau, in the Black Forest, with his
corps of emigrants, offered Pichegru, who was in Alsace, the
title of Marshal of France and Governor of Alsace, the royal
castle of Chambord, a million down, an annuity of 200,000
livres, and a house in Paris, in the 'king's' name, thus
flattering at once his vanity and his greed. … He was
checked by no scruples; utterly devoid of moral sense, he
hoped to gain his army by money and wine, and had no
discussion with the Prince of Condé save as to the manner of
his treason." In the end, Pichegru was not able to make his
treason as effective as he had bargained to do; but he
succeeded in spoiling the campaign of 1795 on the Rhine.
Jourdan crossed the river and took Dusseldorf, with 168
cannon, on the 6th of September, expecting a simultaneous
movement on the part of Pichegru, to occupy the enemy in the
latter's front. But Pichegru, though he took Mannheim, on the
18th of September, threw a corps of 10,000 men into the hands
of the Austrians, by placing it where it could be easily
overwhelmed, and permitted his opponent, Wurmser, to send
reinforcements to Clairfait, who forced Jourdan, in October,
to retreat across the Rhine. "Pichegru's perfidy had thwarted
a campaign which must have been decisive, and Jourdan's
retreat was followed by the enemy's offensive return to the
left bank [retaking Mannheim and raising the siege of
Mayence], and by reverses which would have been fatal had they
coincided with the outburst of royalist and reactionary plots
and insurrections in the West, and in Paris itself; but they
had luckily been stifled some time since, and as the
Convention concluded its career, the direction of the war
returned to the hands which guided it so well in 1793 and
1794."
_H. Martin,
Popular History of France from the First Revolution,
chapter 24 (volume 1)._
"The peace with Spain … enabled the government to detach the
whole Pyrenean army to the support of General Scherer, who had
succeeded Kellermann in the command of the army of Italy. On
the 23d of November, the French attacked the Austrians in
their position at Loano, and, after a conflict of two days,
the enemy's centre was forced by Massena and Augereau, and the
Imperialists fled with the loss of 7,000 men, 80 guns, and all
their stores. But the season was too far advanced to prosecute
this success, and the victors took up winter quarters on the
ground they had occupied. … The capture of the Cape of Good
Hope (September 16) by the British under Sir James Craig, was
the only other important event of this year."
_Epitome of Alison's History of Europe,
sections 154 and 157
(chapter 18 of the complete work)._
ALSO IN:
_A. Griffiths,
French Revolutionary Generals,
chapter 13._
_E. Baines,
History of the Wars of the French Revolution,
book. 1, chapters 19-20 (volume l)._
_A. de Beauchesne,
Louis XVII.: His Life, his Sufferings, his Death._
FRANCE: A. D. 1795 (October-December).
The Insurrection of the 13th Vendemiare, put down by
Napoleon Bonaparte.
Dissolution of the National Convention.
Organization of the government of the Directory.
Licentiousness of the time.
"The Parisians … proclaimed their hostility to the
Convention and its designs. The National Guard, consisting of
armed citizens, almost unanimously sided with the enemies of
the Convention; and it was openly proposed to march to the
Tuilleries, and compel a change of measures by force of arms.
The Convention perceiving their unpopularity and danger, began
to look about them anxiously for the means of defence. There
were in and near Paris 5,000 regular troops, on whom they
thought they might rely, and who of course contemned the
National Guard as only half soldiers. They had besides some
hundreds of artillery men; and they now organised what they
called 'the Sacred Band,' a body of 1,500 ruffians, the most
part of them old and tried instruments of Robespierre. With
these means they prepared to arrange a plan of defence; and it
was obvious that they did not want materials, provided they
could find a skilful and determined head. The insurgent
sections placed themselves under the command of Danican, an
old general of no great skill or reputation. The Convention
opposed to him Menou; and he marched at the head of a column
into the section Le Pelletier to disarm the National Guard of
that district—one of the wealthiest of the capital. The
National Guard were found drawn up in readiness to receive him
at the end of the Rue Vivienne; and Menou, becoming alarmed,
and hampered by the presence of some of the' Representatives
of the People,' entered into a parley, and retired without
having struck a blow. The Convention judged that Menou was not
master of nerves for such a crisis; and consulted eagerly
about a successor to his command. Barras, one of their number,
had happened to be present at Toulon and to have appreciated
the character of Buonaparte. He had, probably, been applied to
by Napoleon in his recent pursuit of employment. Deliberating
with Tallien and Carnot, his colleagues, he suddenly said, 'I
have the man whom you want; it is a little Corsican officer,
who will not stand upon ceremony.' These words decided the
fate of Napoleon and of France. Buonaparte had been in the
Odeon Theatre when the affair of Le Pelletier occurred, had
run out, and witnessed the result. He now happened to be in
the gallery, and heard the discussion concerning the conduct
of Menou.
{1314}
He was presently sent for, and asked his opinion as to that
officer's retreat. He explained what had happened, and how the
evil might have been avoided, in a manner which gave
satisfaction. He was desired to assume the command, and
arranged his plan of defence as well as the circumstances
might permit; for it was already late at night, and the
decisive assault on the Tuilleries was expected to take place
next morning. Buonaparte stated that the failure of the march
of Menou had been chiefly owing to the presence of the
'Representatives of the People,' and refused to accept the
command unless he received it free from all such interference.
They yielded: Barras was named commander-in-chief; and
Buonaparte second, with the virtual control. His first care
was to despatch Murat, then a major of chasseurs, to Sablons,
five miles off, where fifty great guns were posted. The
Sectionaries sent a stronger detachment for these cannon
immediately afterwards; and Murat, who passed them in the
dark, would have gone in vain had he received his orders but a
few minutes later. On the 4th of October (called in the
revolutionary almanac the 13th Vendemiaire) the affray
accordingly occurred. Thirty thousand National Guards advanced
about two P. M., by different streets, to the siege of the
palace: but its defence was now in far other hands than those
of Louis XVI. Buonaparte, having planted artillery on all the
bridges, had effectually secured the command of the river, and
the safety of the Tuilleries on one side. He had placed cannon
also at all the crossings of the streets by which the National
Guard could advance towards the other front; and having posted
his battalions in the garden of the Tuilleries and Place du
Carousel, he awaited the attack. The insurgents had no cannon;
and they came along the narrow streets of Paris in close and
heavy columns. When one party reached the church of St. Roche,
in the Rue St. Honoré, they found a body of Buonaparte's
troops drawn up there, with two cannons. It is disputed on
which side the firing began; but in an instant the artillery
swept the streets and lanes, scattering grape-shot among the
National Guards, and producing such confusion that they were
compelled to give way. The first shot was a signal for all the
batteries which Buonaparte had established; the quays of the
Seine, opposite to the Tuilleries, were commanded by his guns
below the palace and on the bridges. In less than an hour the
action was over. The insurgents fled in all directions,
leaving the streets covered with dead and wounded; the troops
of the Convention marched into the various sections, disarmed
the terrified inhabitants, and before nightfall everything was
quiet. This eminent service secured the triumph of the
Conventionalists. … Within five days from the Day of the
Sections Buonaparte was named second in command of the army of
the interior; and shortly afterwards, Barras finding his
duties as Director sufficient to occupy his time, gave up the
command-in-chief of the same army to his 'little Corsican
officer.'"
_J. G. Lockhart,
Life of Napoleon Buonaparte,
chapter 3._
The victory of the 13th Vendemiaire "enabled the Convention
immediately to devote its attention to the formation of the
Councils proposed by it, two-thirds of which were to consist
of its own members. The first third, which was freely elected,
had already been nominated by the Reactionary party. The
members of the Directory were chosen, and the deputies of the
Convention, believing that for their own interests the
regicides should be at the head of the Government, nominated
La Réveillère-Lepeaux, Sièyes, Rewbel, Le Tourneur, and
Barras. Sièyes refused to act, and Carnot was elected in his
place. Immediately after this, the Convention declared its
session at an end, after it had had three years of existence,
from the 21st September, 1792, to the 28th October, 1795 (4th
Brumaire, Year IV.). … The Directors were all, with the
exception of Carnot, of moderate capacity, and concurred in
rendering their own position the more difficult. At this
period there was no element of order or good government in the
Republic; anarchy and uneasiness everywhere prevailed, famine
had become chronic, the troops were without clothes,
provisions or horses; the Convention had spent an immense
capital represented by assignats, and had sold almost half of
the Republican territory, belonging to the proscribed classes
…; the excessive degree of discredit to which paper money
had fallen, after the issue of thirty-eight thousand millions,
had destroyed all confidence and all legitimate commerce. …
Such was the general poverty, that when the Directors entered
the palace which had been assigned to them as a dwelling, they
found no furniture there, and were compelled to borrow of the
porter a few straw chairs and a wooden table, on the latter of
which they drew up the decree by which they were appointed to
office. Their first care was to establish their power, and
they succeeded in doing this by frankly following at first the
rules laid down by the Constitution. In a short time industry
and commerce began to raise their heads, the supply of
provisions became tolerably abundant, and the clubs were
abandoned for the workshops and the fields. The Directory
exerted itself to revive agriculture, industry, and the arts,
re-established the public exhibitions, and founded primary,
central, and normal schools. … This period was distinguished
by a great licentiousness in manners. The wealthy classes, who
had been so long forced into retirement by the Reign of
Terror, now gave themselves up to the pursuit of pleasure
without stint, and indulged in a course of unbridled luxury,
which was outwardly displayed in balls, festivities, rich
costumes and sumptuous equipages. Barras, who was a man of
pleasure, favoured this dangerous sign of the reaction, and
his palace soon became the rendezvous of the most frivolous
and corrupt society. In spite of this, however, the wealthy
classes were still the victims, under the government of the
Directory, of violent and spoliative measures."
_E. de Bonnechose,
History of France,
volume 2. pages 270-273._
{1315}
FRANCE: A. D. 1796 (April-October).
Triple attack on Austria.
Bonaparte's first campaign in Italy.
Submission of Sardinia.
Armistice with Naples and the Pope.
Pillage of art treasures.
Hostile designs upon Venice.
Expulsion of the Austrians from Lombardy.
Failure of the campaign beyond the Rhine.
"With the opening of the year 1796 the leading interest of
European history passes to a new scene. … The Directory was
now able … to throw its whole force into the struggle with
Austria. By the advice of Bonaparte a threefold movement was
undertaken against Vienna, by way of Lombardy, by the valley
of the Danube, and by the valley of the Main. General Jourdan,
in command of the army that had conquered the Netherlands, was
ordered to enter Germany by Frankfort; Moreau, a Breton
law-student in 1792, now one of the most skilful soldiers in
Europe, crossed the Rhine at Strasburg; Bonaparte himself,
drawing his scanty supplies along the coast-road from Nice,
faced the allied forces of Austria and Sardinia upon the
slopes of the Maritime Apennines, forty miles to the west of
Genoa. … Bonaparte entered Italy proclaiming himself the
restorer of Italian freedom, but with the deliberate purpose
of using Italy as a means of recruiting the exhausted treasury
of France. His correspondence with the Directory exposes with
brazen frankness this well·considered system of plunder and
deceit, in which the general and the Government were cordially
at one. … The campaign of 1796 commenced in April, in the
mountains above the coast-road connecting Nice and Genoa. …
Bonaparte … for four days … reiterated his attacks at
Montenotte and at Millesimo, until he had forced his own army
into a position in the centre of the Allies [Austrians and
Piedmontese]; then, leaving a small force to watch the
Austrians, he threw the mass of his troops upon the
Piedmontese, and drove them back to within thirty miles of
Turin. The terror-stricken Government, anticipating an
outbreak in the capital itself, accepted an armistice from
Bonaparte at Cherasco (April 28). … The armistice, which was
soon followed by a treaty of peace between France and
Sardinia, ceding Savoy to the Republic, left him free to
follow the Austrians, untroubled by the existence of some of
the strongest fortresses of Europe behind him. In the
negotiations with Sardinia, Bonaparte demanded the surrender
of the town of Valenza, as necessary to secure his passage
over the river Po. Having thus artfully led the Austrian
Beaulieu to concentrate his forces at this point, he suddenly
moved eastward along the southern bank of the river, and
crossed at Piacenza, 50 miles below the spot where Beaulieu
was awaiting him. … The Austrian general, taken in the rear,
had no alternative but to abandon Milan and all the country
west of it, and to fall back upon the line of the Adda.
Bonaparte followed, and on the 10th of May attacked the
Austrians at Lodi. He himself stormed the bridge of Lodi at
the head of his Grenadiers. The battle was so disastrous to
the Austrians that they could risk no second engagement, and
retired upon Mantua and the line of the Mincio. Bonaparte now
made his triumphal entry into Milan (May 15). … In return
for the gift of liberty, the Milanese were invited to offer to
their deliverers 20,000,000 francs, and a selection from the
paintings in their churches and galleries. The Dukes of Parma
and Modena, in return for an armistice, were required to hand
over forty of their best pictures, and a sum of money
proportioned to their revenues. The Dukes and the townspeople
paid their contributions with a good grace: the peasantry of
Lombardy, whose cattle were seized in order to supply an army
that marched without any stores of its own, rose in arms, and
threw themselves into Pavia, after killing all the French
soldiers who fell in their way. The revolt was instantly
suppressed, and the town of Pavia given up to pillage. …
Instead of crossing the Apennines, Bonaparte advanced against
the Austrian positions upon the Mincio. … A battle was
fought and lost by the Austrians at Borghetto. … Beaulieu's
strength was exhausted; he could meet the enemy no more in the
field, and led his army out of Italy into the Tyrol, leaving
Mantua to be invested by the French. The first care of the
conqueror was to make Venice pay for the crime of possessing
territory intervening between the eastern and western extremes
of the Austrian district. Bonaparte affected to believe that
the Venetians had permitted Beaulieu to occupy Peschiera
before he seized upon Brescia himself. … 'I have purposely
devised this rupture,' he wrote to the Directory (June 7th),
'in case you should wish to obtain five or six millions of
francs from Venice. If you have more decided intentions, I
think it would be well to keep up the quarrel.' The intention
referred to was the disgraceful project of sacrificing Venice
to Austria in return for the cession of the Netherlands. …
The Austrians were fairly driven out of Lombardy, and
Bonaparte was now free to deal with Southern Italy. He
advanced into the States of the Church, and expelled the Papal
Legate from Bologna. Ferdinand of Naples … asked for a
suspension of hostilities against his own kingdom … and
Bonaparte granted the king an armistice on easy terms. The
Pope, in order to gain a few months' truce, had to permit the
occupation of Ferrara, Ravenna, and Ancona, and to recognise
the necessities, the learning, the taste, and the virtue of
his conquerors by a gift of 20,000,000 francs, 500
manuscripts, 100 pictures, and the busts of Marcus and Lucius
Brutus. … Tuscany had indeed made peace with the French
Republic a year before, but … while Bonaparte paid a
respectful visit to the Grand Duke at Florence, Murat
descended upon Leghorn, and seized upon everything that was
not removed before his approach. Once established in Leghorn,
the French declined to quit it. Mantua was meanwhile invested,
and thither Bonaparte returned. Towards the end of July an
Austrian relieving army, nearly double the strength of
Bonaparte's, descended from the Tyrol. It was divided into
three corps: one, under Quasdanovich, advanced by the road on
the west of Lake Garda; the others, under Wurmser, the
commander-in-chief, by the roads between the lake and the
river Adige. … Bonaparte … instantly broke up the siege of
Mantua, and withdrew from every position east of the river. On
the 30th July, Quasdanovich was attacked and checked at
Lonato. … Wurmser, unaware of his colleague's repulse,
entered Mantua in triumph, and then set out, expecting to
envelop Bonaparte between two fires. But the French were ready
for his approach. Wurmser was stopped and defeated at
Castiglione (Aug. 3), while the western Austrian divisions
were still held in check at Lonato. … In five days the skill
of Bonaparte and the unsparing exertions of his soldiery had
more than retrieved all that appeared to have been lost. The
Austrians retired into the Tyrol, leaving 15,000 prisoners in
the hands of the enemy. Bonaparte now prepared to force his
way into Germany by the Adige, in fulfilment of the original
plan of the campaign. In the first days of September he again
routed the Austrians, and gained possession of Roveredo and
Trent.
{1316}
Wurmser hereupon attempted to shut the French up in the
mountains by a movement southwards; but, while he operated
with insufficient forces between the Brenta and the Adige,
with a view of cutting Bonaparte off from Italy, he was
himself [defeated at Bassano, September 8, and] cut off from
Germany, and only escaped capture by throwing himself into
Mantua with the shattered remnant of his army. The road into
Germany through the Tyrol now lay open; but in the midst of
his victories Bonaparte learnt that the northern armies of
Moreau and Jourdan, with which he had intended to co-operate
in an attack upon Vienna, were in full retreat. Moreau's
advance into the valley of the Danube had, during the months
of July and August, been attended with unbroken military and
political success. The Archduke Charles, who was entrusted
with the defence of the Empire," fell back before Moreau, in
order to unite his forces with those of Wartensleben, who
commanded an army which confronted Jourdan. "The design of the
Archduke succeeded in the end, but it opened Germany to the
French for six weeks, and revealed how worthless was the
military constitution of the Empire, and how little the
Germans had to expect from one another. … At length the
retreating movement of the Austrians stopped [and the Archduke
fought an indecisive battle with Moreau at Neresheim, August
11]. Leaving 30,000 men on the Lech to disguise his motions
from Moreau, Charles turned suddenly northwards from Neuberg
on the 17th August, met Wartensleben at Amberg, and attacked
Jourdan … with greatly superior numbers. Jourdan was
defeated [September 3, at Würtzburg] and driven back in
confusion towards the Rhine. The issue of the campaign was
decided before Moreau heard of his colleague's danger. It only
remained for him to save his own army by a skilful retreat,"
in the course of which he defeated the Austrian general Latour
at Biberach, October 2, and fought two indecisive battles with
the Archduke, at Emmendingen, October 19, and at Huningen on
the 24th.
_C. A. Fyffe,
History of Modern Europe,
volume 1, chapter 3._
ALSO IN:
_A. Griffiths,
French Revolutionary Generals,
chapters 14-15._
_General Jomini,
Life of Napoleon,
volume 1, chapter 2._
_E. Baines,
History of the Wars of the French Revolution,
book 1, chapter 22 (volume 1)._
_C. Adams,
Great Campaigns, 1796-1870,
chapter 1._
FRANCE: A. D. 1796 (September).
Evacuation of Corsica by the English.
Its reoccupation by the French.
"Corsica, which had been delivered to the English by Paoli,
and occupied by them as a fourth kingdom annexed to the crown
of the King of Great Britain, had just been evacuated by its
new masters. They had never succeeded in subduing the interior
of the island, frequent insurrections had kept them in
continual alarm, and free communication between the various
towns could only be effected by sea. The victories of the
French army in Italy, under the command of one of their
countrymen, had redoubled this internal ferment in Corsica,
and the English had decided on entirely abandoning their
conquest. In September 1796 they withdrew their troops, and
also removed from Corsica their chief partisans, such as
General Paoli, Pozzo di Borgo, Beraldi and others, who sought
an asylum in England. On the first intelligence of the English
preparations for evacuating the island, Buonaparte despatched
General Gentili thither at the head of two or three hundred
banished Corsicans, and with this little band Gentili took
possession of the principal strongholds. … On the 5th
Frimaire, year V. (November 25, 1796), I received a decree of
the Executive Directory … appointing me
Commissioner-Extraordinary of the Government in Corsica, and
ordering me to proceed thither at once."
_Count Miot de Melito,
Memoirs,
chapter 4._
FRANCE: A. D. 1796 (October).
Failure of peace negotiations with England.
Treaties with Naples and Genoa.
"It was France itself, more even than Italy, which was
succumbing under the victories in Italy, and was falling
rapidly under the military despotism of Bonaparte; while what
had begun as a mere war of defence was already becoming a war
of aggression against everybody. … The more patriotic
members of the legislative bodies were opposed to what they
considered only a war of personal ambitions, and were desirous
of peace, and a considerable peace party was forming
throughout the country. The opportunity was taken by the
English government for making proposals for peace, and a
pass-port was obtained from the directory for lord Malmesbury,
who was sent to Paris as the English plenipotentiary. Lord
Malmesbury arrived in Paris on the 2nd of Brumaire (the 23rd
of October, 1796), and next day had his first interview with
the French minister Delacroix, who was chosen by the directory
to act as their representative. There was from the first an
evident want of cordiality and sincerity on the part of the
French government in this negotiation; and the demands they
made, and the political views entertained by them, were so
unreasonable, that, after it had dragged on slowly for about a
month, it ended without a result. The directory were secretly
making great preparations for the invasion of Ireland, and
they had hopes of making a separate and very advantageous
peace with Austria. Bonaparte had, during this time, become
uneasy on account of his position in Italy," and "urged the
directory to enter into negotiations with the different
Italian states in his rear, such as Naples, Rome, and Genoa,
and to form an offensive and defensive alliance with the king
of Sardinia, so that he might be able to raise reinforcements
in Italy. For this purpose he asked for authority to proclaim
the independence of Lombardy and of the states of Modena; so
that, by forming both into republics, he might create a
powerful French party, through which he might obtain both men
and provisions. The directory was not unwilling to second the
wishes of Bonaparte, and on the 19th of Vendemiaire (the 10th
of October) a peace was signed with Naples, which was followed
by a treaty with Genoa. This latter state paid two millions of
francs as an indemnity for the acts of hostility formerly
committed against France, and added two millions more as a
loan." The negotiation for an offensive alliance with Sardinia
failed, because the king demanded Lombardy.
_T. Wright,
History of France,
volume 2, page 758._
ALSO IN:
_W. E. H. Lecky,
History of England in the 18th Century,
chapter 27 (volume 7)._
_E. Burke,
Letters on a Regicide Peace._
{1317}
FRANCE: A. D. 1796-1797 (October-April).
Bonaparte's continued victories in Italy.
His advance into Carinthia and the Tyrol.
Peace preliminaries of Leoben.
"The failure of the French invasion of Germany … enabled the
Austrians to make a fresh effort for the relief of [Würmser]
in Mantua. 40,000 men under Alvinzi and 18,000 under
Davidowich entered Italy from the Tyrol and marched by
different routes towards Verona. Bonaparte had employed the
recent interlude in consolidating French influence in Italy.
Against the wishes of the Directors he dethroned the duke of
Modena, and formed his territories into the Cispadane
Republic. Then he tried to induce Piedmont and Venice to join
France, but both states preferred to retain their neutral
position. This was another of the charges which the general
was preparing against Venice. On the news of the Austrian
advance, Bonaparte marched against Alvinzi, and checked him at
Carmignano (6 November). But meanwhile Davidowich had taken
Trent and was approaching Rivoli. Bonaparte, in danger of
being surrounded, was compelled to give way, and retreated to
Verona, while Alvinzi followed him. Never was the French
position more critical, and nothing but a very bold move could
save them. With reckless courage Bonaparte attacked Alvinzi at
Arcola, and after three days' hard fighting [November 15-17,
on the dykes and causeways of a marshy region] won a complete
victory. He then forced Davidowich to retreat to the Tyrol.
The danger was averted, and the blockade of Mantua was
continued. But Austria, as if its resources were
inexhaustible, determined on a fourth effort in January, 1797.
Alvinzi was again entrusted with the command, while another
detachment under Provera advanced from Friuli. Bonaparte
collected all his forces, marched against Alvinzi, and crushed
him at Rivoli (15 January). But meanwhile Provera had reached
Mantua, where Bonaparte, by a forced march, overtook him, and
won another complete victory in the battle of La Favorita. The
fate of Mantua was at last decided, and the city surrendered
on the 2nd of February. With a generosity worthy of the glory
which he had obtained, Bonaparte allowed Würmser and the
garrison to march out with the honours of war. He now turned
to Romagna, occupied Bologna and terrified the Pope into
signing the treaty of Tolentino. The temporal power was
allowed to exist, but within very curtailed limits. Not only
Avignon, but the whole of Romagna, with Ancona, was
surrendered to France. Even these terms, harsh as they were,
were not so severe as the Directors had wished. But Bonaparte
was beginning to play his own game; he saw that Catholicism
was regaining ground in France, and he wished to make friends
on what might prove after all the winning side. Affairs in
Italy were now fairly settled: two republics, the Cisalpine in
Lombardy, and the Cispadane, which included Modena, Ferrara,
and Bologna, had been created to secure French influence in
Italy. … The French had occupied the Venetian territory from
Bergamo to Verona, and had established close relations with
those classes who were dissatisfied with their exclusion from
political power. When the republic armed against the danger of
a revolt, Bonaparte treated it as another ground for that
quarrel which he artfully fomented for his own purposes. But
at present he had other objects more immediately pressing than
the oppression of Venice. Jourdan's army on the Rhine had been
entrusted to Hoche, whose ambition had long chafed at the want
of an opportunity, and who was burning to acquire glory by
retrieving the disasters of the last campaign. Bonaparte, on
the other hand, was eager to anticipate a possible rival, and
determined to hurry on his own invasion of Austria, in order
to keep the war and the negotiations in his own hands. The
task of meeting him was entrusted to the archduke Charles, who
had won such a brilliant reputation in 1796, but who was
placed at a great disadvantage to his opponent by having to
obey instructions from Vienna. The French carried all before
them, Joubert occupied Tyrol, Masséna forced the route to
Carinthia, and Bonaparte himself, after defeating the archduke
on the Tagliamento, occupied Trieste and Carniola. The French
now marched over the Alps, driving the Austrians before them.
At Leoben, which they reached on 7th April, they were less
than eighty miles from Vienna. Here Austrian envoys arrived to
open negotiations. They consented to surrender Belgium,
Lombardy, and the Rhine frontier, but they demanded
compensation in Bavaria. This demand Bonaparte refused, but
offered to compensate Austria at the expense of a neutral
state, Venice. The preliminaries of Leoben, signed on the 18th
April, gave to Austria, Istria, Dalmatia, and the Venetian
provinces between the Oglio, the Po, and the Adriatic. At this
moment, Hoche and Moreau, after overcoming the obstacles
interposed by a sluggish government, were crossing the Rhine
to bring their armies to bear against Austria. They had
already gained several successes when the unwelcome news
reached them from Leoben, and they had to retreat. Bonaparte
may have failed to extort the most extreme terms from Austria,
but he had at any rate kept both power and fame to himself."
_R. Lodge,
English of Modern Europe,
chapter 23._
ALSO IN:
_F. Lanfrey,
History of Napoleon I.,
volume 1, chapters 5-7._
_Memoirs of Napoleon dictated at St. Helena,
volume 4, chapters 1-4._
FRANCE: A. D. 1796-1797 (December-January):
Hoche's expedition to Ireland.
See IRELAND: A. D. 1791-1798.
FRANCE: A. D. 1797 (February-October).
British naval victories of Cape St. Vincent and Camperdown.
See ENGLAND: A. D. 1797.
FRANCE: A. D. 1797 (April-May).
The overthrow of Venice by Bonaparte.
When Napoleon, in March, entered upon his campaign against the
Archduke Charles, "the animosity existing between France and
Venice had … attained a height that threatened an open
rupture between the two republics, and was, therefore, of some
advantage to Austria. The Signoria saw plainly what its fate
would be should the French prove victorious; but though they
had 12,000 or 15,000 Slavonian troops ready at hand, and
mostly assembled in the capital, they never ventured to use
them till the moment for acting was past. On the Terra Firma,
the citizens of Brescia and Bergamo had openly renounced the
authority of St. Mark, and espoused the cause of France; the
country people, on the other hand, were bitterly hostile to
the new Republicans. Oppressed by requisitions, plundered and
insulted by the troops, the peasants had slain straggling and
marauding French soldiers; the comrades of the sufferers had
retaliated, and an open revolt was more than once expected.
General Battaglia, the Venetian providatore, remonstrated
against the open violence practised on the subjects of Venice;
Buonaparte replied by accusing the government of partiality
for Austria, and went so far as to employ General Andrieux to
instigate the people to rise against the senate. The
Directory, however, desired him to pause, and not to 'drive
the Venetians to extremity, till the opportunity, should have
arrived for carrying into effect the future projects
entertained against that state.'
{1318}
Both parties were watching their time, but the craven watches
in vain, for he is struck down long before his time to strike
arrives." A month later, when Napoleon was believed to be
involved in difficulties in Carinthia and the Tyrol, Venice
"had thrown off the mask of neutrality; the tocsin had sounded
through the communes of the Terra Firma, and a body of troops
had joined the insurgents in the attack on the citadel of
Verona. Not only were the French assailed wherever they were
found in arms, but the very sick were inhumanly slain in the
hospitals by the infuriated peasantry; the principal massacre
took place at Verona on Easter Monday [April 17], and cast a
deep stain on the Venetian cause and character." But even
while these sinister events were in progress, Bonaparte had
made peace with the humiliated Austrians, and had signed the
preliminary treaty of Leoben, which promised to give Venice to
them in exchange for the Netherlands. And now, with all his
forces set free, he was prepared to crush the venerable
Republic, and make it subservient to his ambitious schemes. He
"refused to hear of any accommodation: and, unfortunately, the
base massacre of Verona blackened the Venetian cause so much
as almost to gloss over the unprincipled violence of their
adversaries. 'If you could offer me the treasures of Peru,'
said Napoleon to the terrified deputies who came to sue for
pardon and offer reparation, 'if you could cover your whole
dominions with gold, the atonement would be insufficient.
French blood has been treacherously shed, and the Lion of St.
Mark must bite the dust.' On the 3d of May he declared war
against the republic, and French troops immediately advanced
to the shores of the lagunes. Here, however, the waves of the
Adriatic arrested their progress, for they had not a single
boat at command, whereas the Venetians had a good fleet in the
harbour, and an army of 10,000 or 15,000 soldiers in the
capital: they only wanted the courage to use them. Instead of
fighting, however, they deliberated; and tried to purchase
safety by gold, instead of maintaining it by arms. Finding the
enemy relentless, the Great Council proposed to modify their
government,—to render it more democratic, in order to please
the French commander,—to lay their very institutions at the
feet of the conqueror; and, strange to say, only 21 patricians
out of 690 dissented from this act of national degradation.
The democratic party, supported by the intrigues of Vittelan,
the French secretary of legation, exerted themselves to the
utmost. The Slavonian troops were disbanded, or embarked for
Dalmatia; the fleet was dismantled, and the Senate were
rapidly divesting themselves of every privilege, when, on the
31st of May, a popular tumult broke out in the capital. The
Great Council were in deliberation when shots were fired
beneath the windows of the ducal palace. The trembling
senators thought that the rising was directed against them,
and that their lives were in danger, and hastened to divest
themselves of every remnant of power and authority at the very
moment when the populace were taking arms in their favour.
'Long live St. Mark, and down with foreign dominion!' was the
cry of the insurgents, but nothing could communicate one spark
of gallant fire to the Venetian aristocracy. In the midst of
the general confusion, while the adverse parties were firing
on each other, and the disbanded Slavonians threatening to
plunder the city, these unhappy legislators could only
delegate their power to a hastily assembled provisional
government, and then separate in shame and for ever. The
democratic government commenced their career in a manner as
dishonourable as that of the aristocracy had been closed."
They "immediately despatched the flotilla to bring over the
French troops. A brigade under Baraguai d'Hilliers soon landed
[May 15] at the place of St. Mark; and Venice, which had
braved the thunders of the Vatican, the power of the emperors,
and the arms of the Othmans, … now sunk for ever, and
without striking one manly blow or firing one single shot for
honour and fame! Venice counted 1300 years of independence,
centuries of power and renown, and many also of greatness and
glory, but ended in a manner more dishonourable than any state
of which history makes mention. The French went through the
form of acknowledging the new democratic government, but
retained the power in their own hands. Heavy contributions
were levied, all the naval and military stores were taken
possession of, and the fleet, having conveyed French troops to
the Ionian islands, was sent to Toulon."
_T. Mitchell,
Principal Campaigns in the Rise of Napoleon,
chapter 6 (Fraser's Magazine, April, 1846)._
ALSO IN:
_E. Flagg,
Venice: The City of the Sea,
part 1, chapters 1-4 (volume 1)._
_Memoirs of Napoleon dictated at St. Helena,
volume 4, chapter 5._
FRANCE: A. D. 1797 (May-October).
Napoleon's political work in Italy.
Creation of the Ligurian and Cisalpine Republics.
Dismemberment of the Graubunden.
The Peace of Campo-Formio.
Venice given over to Austria, and Lombardy and the Netherlands
taken away.
"The revolution in Venice was soon followed by another in
Genoa, also organised by the plots of the French minister
there, Faypoult. The Genoese had in general shown themselves
favourable to France; but there existed among the nobles an
anti-French party; the Senate, like that of Venice, was too
aristocratic to suit Bonaparte's or the Directory's notions;
and it was considered that Genoa, under a democratic
constitution, would be more subservient to French interests.
An insurrection, prepared by Faypoult, of some 700 or 800 of
the lowest class of Genoese, aided by Frenchmen and Lombards,
broke out on May 22nd, but was put down by the great mass of
the real Genoese people. Bonaparte, however, was determined to
effect his object. He directed a force of 12,000 men on Genoa,
and despatched Lavalette with a letter to the Doge. …
Bonaparte's threats were attended by the same magical effects
at Genoa as had followed them at Venice. The Senate
immediately despatched three nobles to treat with him, and on
June 6th was concluded the Treaty of Montebello. The
Government of Genoa recognised by this treaty the sovereignty
of the people, confided the legislative power to two Councils,
one of 300, the other of 500 members, the executive power to a
Senate of twelve, presided over by the Doge. Meanwhile a
provisional government was to be established. By a secret
article a contribution of four millions, disguised under the
name of a loan, was imposed upon Genoa.
{1319}
Her obedience was recompensed with a considerable augmentation
of territory, and the incorporation of the districts known as
the 'imperial fiefs.' Such was the origin of the Ligurian
Republic. Austrian Lombardy, after its conquest, had also been
formed into the 'Lombard Republic'; but the Directory had not
recognised it, awaiting a final settlement of Italy through a
peace with Austria. Bonaparte, after taking possession of the
Duchy of Modena and the Legations, had, at first, thought of
erecting them into an independent state under the name of the
'Cispadane Republic'; but he afterwards changed his mind and
united these states with Lombardy under the title of the
Cisalpine Republic. He declared, in the name of the Directory,
the independence of this new republic, June 29th 1797;
reserving, however, the right of nominating, for the first
time, the members of the Government and of the legislative
body. The districts of the Valteline, Chiavenna, and Bormio,
subject to the Grison League, in which discontent and
disturbance had been excited by French agents, were united in
October to the new state; whose constitution was modelled on
that of the French Republic. Bonaparte was commissioned by the
Directory to negociate a definitive peace with Austria, and
conferences were opened for that purpose at Montebello,
Bonaparte's residence near Milan. The negociations were
chiefly managed by himself, and on the part of Austria by the
Marquis di Gallo, the Neapolitan ambassador at Vienna, and
Count Meerfeld. … The negociations were protracted six
months, partly through Bonaparte's engagements in arranging
the affairs of the new Italian republics, but more especially
by divisions and feuds in the French Directory." The Peace of
Campo Formio was concluded October 17. "It derived this name
from its having been signed in a ruined castle situated in a
small village of that name near Udine; a place selected on
grounds of etiquette in preference to the residence of either
of the negociators. By this treaty the Emperor ceded the
Austrian Netherlands to France; abandoned to the Cisalpine
Republic, which he recognised, Bergamo, Brescia, Crema,
Peschiera, the town and fortress of Mantua with their
territories, and all that part of the former Venetian
possessions to the south and west of a line which, commencing
in the Tyrol, traversed the Lago di Garda, the left bank of
the Adige, but including Porto Legnago on the right bank, and
thence along the left bank of the Po to its mouth. France was
to possess the Ionian Islands, and all the Venetian
settlements in Albania below the Gulf of Lodrino; the French
Republic agreeing on its side that the Emperor should have
Istria, Dalmatia, the Venetian isles in the Adriatic, the
mouths of the Cattaro, the city of Venice, the Lagoons, and
all the former Venetian terra firma to the line before
described. The Emperor ceded the Breisgau to the Duke of
Modena, to be held on the same conditions as he had held the
Modenese. A congress composed of the plenipotentiaries of the
German Federation was to assemble immediately, to treat of a
peace between France and the Empire. To this patent treaty was
added another secret one, by the principal article of which
the Emperor consented that France should have the frontier of
the Rhine, except the Prussian possessions, and stipulated
that the Imperial troops should enter Venice on the same day
that the French entered Mentz. He also promised to use his
influence to obtain the accession of the Empire to this
arrangement; and if that body withheld its consent, to give it
no more assistance than his contingent. The navigation of the
Rhine to be declared free. If, at the peace with the Empire,
the French Republic should make any acquisitions in Germany,
the Emperor was to obtain an equivalent there, and vice versa.
The Dutch Stadtholder to have a territorial indemnity. To the
King of Prussia were to be restored his possessions on the
left bank of the Rhine, and he was consequently to have no new
acquisitions in Germany. Princes and States of the Empire,
damnified by this treaty, to obtain a suitable indemnity. …
By the Treaty of Campo Formio was terminated not only the
Italian campaign, but also the first continental war of the
Revolution. The establishment of Bonaparte's prestige and
power by the former was a result still more momentous in its
consequences for Europe than the fall of Venice and the
revolutionising of Northern Italy."
_T. H. Dyer,
History of Modern Europe,
book 7, chapter 8 (volume 4)._
ALSO IN:
_A. Thiers,
History of the French Revolution
(American edition), volume 4, pages 214-225._
_Sir W. Scott,
Life of Napoleon Buonaparte,
chapter 28._
_Memoirs of Napoleon dictated at St. Helena,
chapters 6-8._
FRANCE: A. D. 1797 (September).
Conflict of the Directory and the two Councils.
The Revolutionary Coup d'État of the 18th of Fructidor.
Suppression of the Royalists and Moderates.
Practical overthrow of the Constitution.
"The inevitable dissension between the executive power and the
electoral power had already displayed itself at the conclusion
of the elections of the Year V. The elections were made for
the most part under the influence of the reactionary party,
which, whilst it refrained from conspiring for the overthrow
of the new Constitution, saw with terror that the executive
power was in the hands of men who had taken part in the
excesses and crimes of the Convention. Pichegru, whose
intrigues with the princes of the House of Bourbon were not
yet known, was enthusiastically made President of the Council
of Five Hundred, and Barbé-Marbois was made President of the
Ancients. Le Tourneur having become, by lot, the retiring
member of the Directory, Barthélemy, an upright and moderate
man, was chosen in his place. He, as well as his colleague,
Carnot, were opposed to violent measures; but they only formed
in the Directorate a minority which was powerless against the
Triumvirs Barras, Rewbel, and La Réveillère, who soon entered
upon a struggle with the two Councils. … There were,
doubtless, amongst [their opponents] in the two Councils, some
Royalists, and ardent reactionists, who desired with all their
hearts the restoration of the Bourbons; but, according to the
very best testimony, the majority of the names which were
drawn from the electoral urn since the promulgation of the
Constitution of the Year III. were strangers to the Royalist
party. 'They did not desire,' to use the words of an eminent
and impartial historian of our own day [De Barante, 'Life of
Royer-Collard'], 'a counter-revolution, but the abolition of
the revolutionary laws which were still in force. They wished
for peace and true liberty, and the successive purification of
a Directorate which was the direct heir of the Convention. …
But the Directorate was as much opposed to the Moderates as to
the Royalists.'
{1320}
It pretended to regard these two parties as one, and falsely
represented them as conspiring in common for the overthrow of
the Republic and the re-establishment of monarchy. … If
there were few Royalists in the two Councils, there were also
few men determined to provoke on the part of the Directors a
recourse to violence against their colleagues. But as a great
number of their members had sat in the Convention, they
naturally feared a too complete reaction, and, affecting a
great zeal for the Constitution, they founded at the Hotel
Salm, under the name of the Constitutional Club, an
association which was widely opposed in its spirit and
tendency to that of the Hotel Clichy, in which were assembled
the most ardent members of the reactionary party [and hence
called Clichyans]. … The Council of Five Hundred, on the
motion of a member of the Clichy Club, energetically demanded
that the Legislative power should have a share in determining
questions of peace or war. No general had exercised, in this
respect, a more arbitrary power than had Bonaparte, who had
negotiated of his own mere authority several treaties, and the
preliminaries of the peace of Campo Formio. He was offended at
these pretensions on the part of the Council of Five Hundred,
and entreated the Government to look to the army for support
against the Councils and the reactionary press. He even sent
to Paris, as a support to the policy of the Directors, General
Augereau, one of the bravest men of his army, but by no means
scrupulous as to the employment of violent means, and disposed
to regard the sword as the supreme argument in politics,
whether at home or abroad. The Directory gave him the command
of the military division of Paris. … Henceforth a coup
d'état appeared inevitable. The Directors now marched some
regiments upon the capital, in defiance of a clause of the
Constitution which prohibited the presence of troops within a
distance of twelve leagues of Paris, unless in accordance with
a special law passed in or near Paris itself. The Councils
burst forth into reproaches and threats against the Directors,
to which the latter replied by fiery addresses to the armies,
and to the Councils themselves. It was in vain that the
Directors Carnot and Barthélemy endeavoured to quell the
rising storm; their three colleagues refused to listen to
them, and fixed the 18th Fructidor [September 4] for the
execution of their criminal projects. During the night
preceding that day, Augereau marched 12,000 men into Paris,
and in the morning these troops, under his own command,
supported by 40 pieces of cannon, surrounded the Tuileries, in
which the Councils held their sittings. The grenadiers of the
Councils' guard joined Augereau, who arrested with his own
hand the brave Ramel, who commanded that guard, and General
Pichegru, the President of the Council of Five Hundred. …
The Directors … published a letter written by Moreau, which
revealed Pichegru's treason; and at the same time nominated a
Committee for the purpose of watching over the public safety.
… Forty-two members of the Council of Five Hundred, eleven
members of that of the Ancients, and two of the Directors,
Carnot [who escaped, however, into Switzerland] and
Barthélemy, were condemned to be transported to the fatal
district of Sinnamari. … The Directors also made the editors
of 35 journals the victims of their resentment. They had the
laws passed in favour of the priests and emigrants reversed,
and annulled the elections of 48 departments. Merlin de Douai
and François de Neufchâteau were chosen as successors to
Carnot and Barthélemy, who had been banished and proscribed by
their colleagues. That which took place on the 18th Fructidor
ruined the Constitutional and Moderate party, whilst it
resuscitated that of the Revolution."
_E. de Bonnechose,
History of France, 4th period,
book 2, chapter 4 (volume 2)._
"During these two days, Paris continued perfectly quiet. The
patriots of the fauxbourgs deemed the punishment of
transportation too mild. … These groups, however, which were
far from numerous, disturbed not in the least the peace of
Paris. The sectionaries of Vendemiaire … had no longer
sufficient energy to take up arms spontaneously. They suffered
the stroke of policy to be carried into effect without
opposition. For the rest, public opinion continued uncertain.
The sincere republicans clearly perceived that the royalist
faction had rendered an energetic measure inevitable, but they
deplored the violation of the laws and the intervention of the
military power. They almost doubted the culpability of the
conspirators on seeing such a man as Carnot mingled in their
ranks. They apprehended that hatred had too strongly
influenced the determinations of the Directory. Lastly, even,
though considering its determinations as necessary, they were
sad, and not without reason: for it became evident that that
constitution, on which they had placed all their hope, was not
the termination of our troubles and our discord. The mass of
the population submitted and detached itself much on that day
from political events. … From that day, political zeal began
to cool. Such were the consequences of the stroke of policy
accomplished on the 18th of Fructidor. It has been asserted
that it had become useless at the moment when it was executed;
that the Directory, in frightening the royalist faction, had
already succeeded in overawing it; that, by persisting in this
stretch of power, it paved the way to military usurpation. …
But … the royalist faction … on the junction of the new
third … would infallibly have overturned everything, and
mastered the Directory. Civil war would then have ensued
between it and the armies. The Directory, in foreseeing this
movement and timely repressing it, prevented a civil war; and,
if it placed itself under the protection of the military, it
submitted to a melancholy but inevitable necessity."
_A. Thiers,
History of the French Revolution
(American edition), volume 4, pages 205-206._
FRANCE: A. D. 1797-1798 (December-May).
Revolutionary intrigues in Rome.
French troops in possession of the city.
Formation of the Roman Republic.
Removal of the Pope.
"At Rome a permanent conspiracy was established at the French
Embassy, where Joseph Bonaparte, as the ambassador of the
Republic, was the centre of a knot of conspirators. On the
28th of December, 1797, came the first open attempt at
insurrection. General Duphot, a hot-headed young man, one of
the military attaches of the French Embassy, put himself at
the head of a handful of the disaffected, and led them to the
attack of one of the posts of the pontifical troops. In the
ensuing skirmish a chance shot struck down the French general,
and the rabble which followed him dispersed in all directions.
It was just the opportunity for which the Directory had been
waiting in order to break the treaty of Tolentino and seize
upon Rome.
{1321}
Joseph Bonaparte left the city the morning after the émeute,
and a column of troops was immediately detached from his
brother's army in the north of Italy and ordered to march on
Rome. It consisted of General Berthier's division and 6,000
Poles under Dombrowski, and it received the ominous title of
l'armée vengeresse—the avenging army. As they advanced
through the Papal territory they met with no sympathy, no
assistance, from the inhabitants, who looked upon them as
invaders rather than deliverers. 'The army,' Berthier wrote to
Bonaparte, 'has met with nothing but the most profound
consternation in this country, without seeing one glimpse of
the spirit of independence; only one single patriot came to
me, and offered to set at liberty 2,000 convicts.' This
liberal offer of a re-inforcement of 2,000 scoundrels the
French general thought it better to decline. … At length, on
the 10th of February, Berthier appeared before Rome. …
Wishing to avoid a useless effusion of blood, Pius VI. ordered
the gates to be thrown open, contenting himself with
addressing, through the commandant of St. Angelo, a protest to
the French general, in which he declared that he yielded only
to overwhelming force. A few days after, a self-elected
deputation of Romans waited upon Berthier, to request him to
proclaim Rome a republic, under the protection of France. As
Berthier had been one of the most active agents in getting up
this deputation, he, of course, immediately yielded to their
request. The French general then demanded of the Pope that he
should formally resign his temporal power, and accept the new
order of things. His reply was the same as that of every Pope
of whom such a demand has been made: 'We cannot—we will not!'
In the midst of a violent thunder-storm he was torn from his
palace, forced into a carriage, and carried away to Viterbo,
and thence to Siena, where he was kept a prisoner for three
months. Rome was ruled by the iron hand of a military
governor. … Meanwhile, alarmed at the rising in Italy, the
Directory were conveying the Pope to a French prison. …
After a short stay at Grenoble he was transferred to the
fortress of Valence, where, broken down by the fatigues of his
journey, he died on August 19th, 1799, praying for his enemies
with his last breath."
_Chevalier O'Clery.
History of the Italian Revolution,
chapter 2, section 1._
ALSO IN:
_C. A. Fyffe,
History of Modern Europe,
volume 1, chapter 4._
_J. Miley,
History of the Papal States,
book 8, chapter 3 (volume 3)._
_J. E. Darras,
History of the Catholic Church, 8th period,
chapter 6 (volume 4)._
_T. Roscoe,
Memoirs of Scipio de Ricci.
volume 2, chapter 4._
FRANCE: A. D. 1797-1798 (December-September).
Invasion and subjugation of Switzerland.
Creation of the Helvetic Republic.
See SWITZERLAND: A. D. 1792-1798.
FRANCE: A. D. 1797-1799.
Hostile attitude toward the United States.
The X, Y, Z correspondence.
Nearness of war.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1797-1799.
FRANCE: A. D. 1798 (May-August).
Bonaparte's expedition to Egypt.
His seizure of Malta.
Pursuit by the English fleet under Nelson.
The Battle of the Nile.
"The treaty of Campo Formio, by which Austria obtained terms
highly advantageous to her interests, dissolved the offensive
and defensive alliance of the continental powers, and left
England alone in arms. The humiliation of this country was to
be the last and the greatest achievement of French ambition.
… During the autumn and winter of this year [1797-8],
preparations for a great armament were proceeding at Toulon,
and other harbours in possession of the French. The army of
Italy, clamorous for a promised donation of 1,000,000,000
francs, which the Directory were unable to pay, had been
flattered by the title of the army of England, and appeased by
the prospect of the plunder of this country. But whatever
might be the view of the Directory, or the expectation of the
army, Bonaparte had no intention of undertaking an enterprise
so rash as a descent upon the coast of England, while the
fleets of England kept possession of the seas. There was
another quarter from which the British Empire might be menaced
with a better chance of success. India could never be secure
while Egypt and the great eastern port of the Mediterranean
were in the possession of one of the great maritime powers.
Egypt had been an object of French ambition since the time of
Louis XIV. … It was for Egypt, therefore, that the great
armament of Toulon was destined. The project was not indeed
considered a very hopeful one at Paris; but such was the dread
and hatred of the ruling faction for the great military genius
which had sprung out of the anarchy of France, and of the
30,000 creditors whom they were unable to satisfy, that the
issue of the expedition which they most desired was, that it
might never return from the banks of the Nile. … The fleet,
consisting of thirteen ships of the line, with several
frigates, smaller vessels, and transports conveying 28,000
picked troops, with the full equipment for every kind of
military service, set sail on the 14th of May. Attached to
this singular expedition, destined for the invasion of a
friendly country, and the destruction of an unoffending
people, was a staff of professors, furnished with books, maps,
and philosophical instruments for prosecuting scientific
researches in a land which, to a Christian and a philosopher,
was the most interesting portion of the globe. The great
armament commenced its career of rapine by seizing on the
important island of Malta. Under the shallow pretence of
taking in water for a squadron which had left its anchorage
only two days, a portion of the troops were landed, and, after
a show of resistance, the degenerate knights, who had already
been corrupted, surrendered Malta, Gozo, and Cumino, to the
French Republic. A great amount of treasure and of munitions
of war, besides the possession of the strongest place in the
Mediterranean, were thus acquired without loss or delay. A
conquest of such importance would have amply repaid and
justified the expedition, if no ulterior object had been
pursued. But Bonaparte suffered himself to be detained no more
than twenty-four hours by this achievement; and having left a
garrison of 4,000 men in the island, and established a form of
civil government, after the French pattern, he shaped his
course direct for Alexandria. On the 1st of July, the first
division of the French troops were landed at Marabou, a few
miles from the city. Aboukir and Rosetta, which commanded the
mouths of the Nile, were occupied without difficulty.
Alexandria itself was incapable of any effectual defence, and,
after a few skirmishes with the handful of Janissaries which
constituted the garrison, the French entered the place; and
for several hours the inhabitants were given up to an
indiscriminate massacre.
{1322}
Bonaparte pushed forward with his usual rapidity, undeterred
by the horrors of the sandy desert, and the sufferings of his
troops. After two victories over the Mamelukes, one of which
was obtained within sight of the Pyramids [and called the
Battle of the Pyramids], the French advanced to Cairo; and
such was the terror which they had inspired, that the capital
of Egypt was surrendered without a blow. Thus in three weeks
the country had been overrun. The invaders had nothing to fear
from the hostility of the people; a rich and fertile country,
the frontier of Asia, was in their possession; but, in order
to hold the possession secure, it was necessary to retain the
command of the sea. The English Government, on their side,
considered the capture of the Toulon armament an object of
paramount importance; and Earl St. Vincent, who was still
blockading the Spanish ports, was ordered to leave Cadiz, if
necessary, with his whole fleet, in search of the French; but
at all events, to detach a squadron, under Sir Horatio Nelson,
on that service. … Nelson left Gibraltar on the 8th of May,
with three ships of the line, four frigates, and a sloop. …
He was reinforced, on the 5th of June, with ten sail of the
line. His frigates had parted company with him on the 20th of
May, and never returned." Suspecting that Egypt was
Bonaparte's destination, he made sail for Alexandria, but
passed the French expedition, at night, on the way, arrived in
advance of it, and, thinking his surmise mistaken, steered
away for the Morea and thence to Naples. It was not until the
1st of August that he reached the Egyptian coast a second
time, and found the French fleet, of sixteen sail, "at anchor
in line of battle, in the Bay of Aboukir. Nelson, having
determined to fight whenever he came up with the enemy,
whether by day or by night, immediately made the signal for
action. Although the French fleet lay in an open roadstead,
they had taken up a position so strong as to justify their
belief that they could not be successfully attacked by a force
less than double their own. They lay close in shore, with a
large shoal in their rear; in the advance of their line was an
island, on which a formidable battery had been erected; and
their flanks were covered by numerous gun-boats. … The
general action commenced at sunset, and continued throughout
the night until six o'clock the following morning, a period of
nearly twelve hours. But in less than two hours, five of the
enemy's ships had struck; and, soon after nine o'clock, the
sea and shore, for miles around, were illuminated by a fire
which burst from the decks of the 'Orient,' the French
flag-ship, of 120 guns. In about half an hour she blew up,
with an explosion so appalling that for some minutes the
action was suspended, as if by tacit consent. At this time the
French Admiral Brueys was dead, … killed by a chain-shot
before the ship took fire. Nelson also had been carried below,
with a wound which was, at first, supposed to be mortal. He
had been struck in the head with a fragment of langridge shot,
which tore away a part of the scalp. … At three o'clock in
the morning four more of the French ships were destroyed or
taken. There was then an interval of two hours, during which
hardly a shot was fired on either side. At ten minutes to
seven another ship of the line, after a feeble attempt at
resistance, hauled down her colours. The action was now over.
Of the thirteen French ships of the line, nine had been taken,
and two had been burnt." Two ships of the line and two
frigates escaped. "The British killed and wounded were 895.
The loss of the French, including prisoners, was 5,225. Such
was the great battle of the Nile."
_W. Massey,
History of England during the Reign of George III.,
chapter 39 (volume 4)._
ALSO IN:
_E. J. De La Gravière,
Sketches of the Last Naval War,
volume 1, part 3._
_R. Southey,
Life of Nelson,
chapter 5._
_Despatches and Letters of Lord Nelson,
volume 3._
_Bonaparte,
Memoirs Dictated at St. Helena,
volume 2._
_A. T. Mahan,
Influence of Sea Power upon the French Revolution and
Empire,
chapter 9 (volume 1)._
FRANCE: A. D. 1798-1799 (August-April).
Arming against the Second European Coalition.
The conscription.
Overthrow of the Neapolitan kingdom.
Seizure of Piedmont.
Campaigns in Switzerland, Italy, and on the upper Danube.
Early successes and final reverses.
"The Porte declared war against the French, and, entered into
an alliance with Russia and England (12th August). A Russian
fleet sailed from Sebastopol, and blockaded the Ionian
Islands; the English vessels found every Turkish port open to
them, and gained possession of the Levant trade, to the
detriment of France. Thus the failure of the Egyptian
expedition delivered the Ottoman Empire into the hands of two
Powers, the one intent upon its dismemberment, the other eager
to make itself master of its commerce; it gave England the
supremacy in the Mediterranean; it inaugurated the appearance
of Russia in southern Europe; it was the signal for a second
coalition." Russia, "under Catherine, had but taken a nominal
part in the first coalition, being too much occupied with the
annihilation of Poland. … But now Catherine was dead, Paul
I., her son and successor, took the émigrés in his pay,
offered the Pretender an asylum at Mittau, promised his
protection to the Congress at Rastadt, and fitted out 100,000
troops. Naples had been in a great ferment since the creation
of the Roman Republic. The nobles and middle classes, imbued
with French ideas, detested a Court sold to the English, and
presided over by the imbecile Ferdinand, who left the cares of
his government to his dissolute Queen. She hated the French,
and now solicited Tuscany and Piedmont to unite with her to
deliver Italy from the sway of these Republicans. The Austrian
Court, of which Bonaparte had been the conscious or
unconscious dupe, instead of disarming after the Treaty of
Campo-Formio, continued its armaments with redoubled vigour,
and now demanded indemnities, on the pretext that it had
suffered from the Republican system which the French
introduced into Switzerland and Italy. The Directory very
naturally refused to accede to this; and thereupon Austria
prepared for war, and endeavoured to drag Prussia and the
German Empire into it. … But Frederick William's successor
and the princess of the empire declined to recommence
hostilities with France, of which they had reason to fear the
enmity, though at present she was scarcely able to resist a
second coalition. The French nation, in fact, was sincerely
eager for peace. …
{1323}
Nevertheless, and though there was little unity amongst them,
the Councils and the Directory prepared their measures of
defence; they increased the revenue, by creating a tax on
doors and windows; they authorised the sale of national
property to the amount of 125,000,000 francs; and finally, on
the report of Jourdan, they passed the famous law of
conscription (5th September), which compelled every Frenchman
to serve in the army from the age of 20 to that of 25, the
first immediate levy to consist of 200,000 troops. When the
victory of the Nile became known at Naples the court was a
prey to frenzied excitement. Taxes had already been doubled, a
fifth of the population called to arms, the nobles and middle
classes were tortured into submission. And when the report
spread that the Russians were marching through Poland, it was
resolved to commence hostilities by attacking the Roman
Republic, and to rouse Piedmont and Tuscany to rebellion.
Forty thousand Neapolitans, scarcely provided with arms,
headed by the Austrian general Mack, made their way into the
Roman states, guarded only by 18,000 French troops, dispersed
between the two seas (12th November). Championnet, their
commander, abandoned Rome, took up a position on the Tiber,
near Civita-Castellana, and concentrated all his forces on
that point. The King of Naples entered Rome, while Mack went
to encounter Championnet. The latter beat him, routed or
captured the best of his troops, and compelled him to retire
in disorder to the Neapolitan territory. Championnet, now at
the head of 25,000 men, returned to Rome, previous to marching
on Naples, where the greatest disorder prevailed. At the news
of his approach the Court armed the lazzaroni, and fled with
its treasures to the English fleet, abandoning the town to
pillage and anarchy (20th December, 1798). Mack, seeing his
army deserting him, and his officers making common cause with
the Republicans, concluded an armistice with Championnet, but
his soldiers revolted and compelled him to seek safety in the
French camp. On Championnet's appearance before Naples, which
the lazzaroni defended with fury, a violent battle ensued,
lasting for three days; however, some of the citizens
delivered the fort of St. Elmo to the French, and then the mob
laid down its arms (23rd January, 1799). The Parthenopeian
Republic [so called from one of the ancient names of the city
of Naples] was immediately proclaimed, a provisional
government organised, the citizens formed themselves into a
National Guard, and the kingdom accepted the Revolution. The
demand of Championnet for a war contribution of 27,000,000
francs roused the Calabrians to revolt; anarchy prevailed
everywhere; commissioners were sent by the Directory to
re-establish order. The French general had them arrested, but
he was deposed and succeeded by Macdonald. In commencing its
aggression the court of Naples had counted on the aid of the
King of Sardinia and the Grand Duke of Tuscany. But Piedmont,
placed between three republics, was herself sharing the
Revolutionary ferment; the King, who had concluded an alliance
with Austria, proscribed the democrats, who, in their turn,
declared war against him by means of the Ligurian Republic,
whither they had fled. When Championnet was compelled to
evacuate Rome, the Directory, afraid that Sardinia would
harass the French rear, had ordered Joubert, commanding the
army of Italy, to occupy Piedmont. The Piedmontese troops
opened every place to the French, entered into their ranks,
and the King [December 8, 1798] was forced to give up all
claims to Piedmont, and to take refuge in Sardinia …
[retaining the latter, but abdicating the sovereignty of
Piedmont]. Tuscany being also occupied by the Republican
troops, the moment war was declared against Austria, Italy was
virtually under French dominion. These events but increased
the enmity of the Coalition, which hurried its preparations,
while the Directory, cheered by its successes, resolved to
take the offensive on all points. … In the present struggle,
however, the conditions of warfare were changed. The lines of
invasion were no longer, as formerly, short and isolated, but
stretched from the Zuyder Zee to the Gulf of Tarentum, open to
be attacked in Holland from the rear, and at Naples by the
English fleet. … Seventy thousand troops, under the Archduke
Charles, occupied Bavaria; General Hotze occupied the
Vorarlberg with 25,000 men; Bellegarde was with 45,000 in the
Tyrol; and 70,000 guarded the line of the Adige, headed by
Marshal Kray. Eighty thousand Russians, in two equal
divisions, were on their way to join the Austrians. The
division under Suwarroff was to operate with Kray, that one
under Korsakoff with the Archduke. Finally, 40,000 English and
Russians were to land in Holland, and 20,000 English and
Sicilians in Naples. The Directory, instead of concentrating
its forces on the Adige and near the sources of the Danube,
divided them. Fifteen thousand troops were posted in Holland,
under Brune; 8,000 at Mayence, under Bernadotte; 40,000 from
Strasburg to Bâle, under Jourdan; 30,000 in Switzerland, under
Masséna; 50,000 on the Adige, under Schérer; 30,000 at Naples,
under Macdonald. These various divisions were in reality meant
to form but one army, of which Massena was the centre, Jourdan
and Schérer the wings, Brune and Macdonald the extremities. To
Massena was confided the principal operation, namely, to
possess himself of the central Alps, in order to isolate the
two imperial armies of the Adige and Danube and to neutralise
their efforts. The Coalition having hit upon the same plan as
the Directory, ordered the Austrians under Bellegarde to
invade the Grisons, while on the other side a division was to
descend into the Valteline." Masséna's right wing, under
Lecourbe, defeated Bellegarde, crossed the upper Rhine and
made its way to the Inn. Schérer also advanced by the
Valteline to the upper Adige and joined operations with
Lecourbe. "While these two generals were spreading terror in
the Tyrol, Masséna made himself master of the Rhine from its
sources to the lake of Constance, receiving but one check in
the fruitless siege of Feldkirch, a position he coveted in
order to be able to support with his right wing the army of
the Danube, or with his left that of Italy. This check
compelled Lecourbe and Dessoles to slacken their progress, and
the various events on the Danube and the Po necessitated their
recall in a short time. Jourdan had crossed the Rhine at Kehl,
Bâle, and Schaffhausen (1st March), penetrated into the defile
of the upper Danube, and reached the village of Ostrach, where
he was confronted by the Archduke Charles, who had passed the
Iller, and who, after a sanguinary battle [March 21],
compelled him to retreat upon Tutlingen. The tidings of
Masséna's success having reached Jourdan, he wished to support
it by marching to Stockach, the key to the roads of
Switzerland and Germany; but he was once more defeated (25th
March), and retreated, not into Switzerland, whence he could
have joined Masséna, but to the Rhine, which he imagined to be
threatened. …
{1324}
In Italy the Directory had given orders to Schérer to force
the Adige, and to drive the Austrians over the Piave and the
Brenta." He attacked and carried the Austrian camp of
Pastrengo, near Rivoli, on the 25th of March, 1799, inflicting
a loss of 8,000 on the enemy; but on the 5th of April, when
moving to force the lower Adige, he was defeated by Kray at
Magnano. "Schérer lost his head, fled precipitately, and did
not stop until he had put a safe distance between himself and
the enemy. … The army of Switzerland, under Masséna,
dispersed in the mountains, with both its flanks threatened,
had no other means of salvation than to fall back behind the
Rhine."
_H. Van Laun,
The French Revolutionary Epoch,
book 3, chapter 1, section 2 (volume 1)._
ALSO IN:
_R Southey,
Life of Nelson,
chapter 6 (volume 2)._
_A. Griffiths,
French Revolutionary Generals,
chapter 18._
_A. Gallenga,
History of Piedmont,
volume 3, chapter 5._
_P. Colletta,
History of the Kingdom of Naples,
book 3, chapter 2; book 4, chapter 1 (volume 1)._
FRANCE: A. D. 1798-1799 (August-August).
Bonaparte's organization of government in Egypt.
His advance into Syria and repulse at Acre.
His victory at Aboukir and return to France.
"On hearing of the battle of Aboukir [better known as 'the
battle of the Nile'], a solitary sigh escaped from Napoleon.
'To France,' said he, 'the fates have decreed the empire of
the land—to England that of the sea.' He endured this great
calamity with the equanimity of a masculine spirit. He gave
orders that the seamen landed at Alexandria should be formed
into a marine brigade, and thus gained a valuable addition to
his army; and proceeded himself to organise a system of
government, under which the great natural resources of the
country might be turned to the best advantage. … He was
careful to advance no claim to the sovereignty of Egypt, but
asserted, that having rescued it from the Mameluke usurpation,
it remained for him to administer law and justice, until the
time should come for restoring the province to the dominion of
the Grand Seignior. He then established two councils,
consisting of natives, principally of Arab chiefs and Moslem
of the church and the law, by whose advice all measures were,
nominally, to be regulated. They formed of course a very
subservient senate. … The virtuosi and artists in his train,
meanwhile, pursued with indefatigable energy their scientific
researches; they ransacked the monuments of Egypt, and laid
the foundation, at least, of all the wonderful discoveries
which have since been made concerning the knowledge, arts,
polity (and even language), of the ancient nation. Nor were
their objects merely those of curiosity. They, under the
General's direction, examined into the long-smothered traces
of many an ancient device for improving the agriculture of the
country. Canals that had been shut up for centuries were
reopened; the waters of the Nile flowed once more where they
had been guided by the skill of the Pharaohs or the Ptolemies.
Cultivation was extended; property secured; and it cannot be
doubted that the signal improvements since introduced in
Egypt, are attributable mainly to the wise example of the
French administration. … In such labours Napoleon passed the
autumn of 1798. … General Dessaix, meanwhile, had pursued
Mourad Bey into Upper Egypt, where the Mamelukes hardly made a
single stand against him, but contrived by the excellence of
their horses, and their familiarity with the deserts, to avoid
any total disruption of their forces. … The General, during
this interval of repose, received no communication from the
French Government; but rumours now began to reach his quarters
which might well give him new anxieties. The report of another
rupture with Austria gradually met with more credence; and it
was before long placed beyond a doubt, that the Ottoman Porte,
instead of being tempted into any recognition of the French
establishment in Egypt, had declared war against the Republic,
and summoned all the strength of her empire to pour in
overwhelming numbers on the isolated army of Buonaparte. …
The General despatched a trusty messenger into India, inviting
Tippoo Saib to inform him exactly of the condition of the
English army in that region, and signifying that Egypt was
only the first post in a march destined to surpass that of
Alexander! 'He spent whole days,' writes his secretary, 'in
lying flat on the ground stretched upon maps of Asia.' At
length the time for action came. Leaving 15,000 in and about
Cairo, the division of Dessaix in Upper Egypt, and garrisons
in the chief towns,—Buonaparte on the 11th of February 1799
marched for Syria at the head of 10,000 picked men, with the
intention of crushing the Turkish armament in that quarter,
before their chief force (which he now knew was assembling at
Rhodes) should have time to reach Egypt by sea. Traversing the
desert which divides Africa from Asia, he took possession of the
fortress El-Arish (February 15), whose garrison, after a
vigorous assault, capitulated on condition that they should be
permitted to retreat into Syria, pledging their parole not to
serve again during the war. Pursuing his march, he took Gazah
(that ancient city of the Philistines) without opposition; but
at Jaffa (the Joppa of holy writ), the Moslem made a resolute
defence. The walls were carried by storm, 3,000 Turks died
with arms in their hands, and the town was given up during
three hours to the fury of the French soldiery—who never, as
Napoleon confessed, availed themselves of the license of war
more savagely than on this occasion. A party of the
garrison—amounting, according to Buonaparte, to 1,200 men,
but stated by others as nearly 3,000 in number—held out for
some hours longer in the mosques and citadel; but at length,
seeing no chance of rescue, grounded their arms on the 7th of
March. … On the 10th—three days after their surrender—the
prisoners were marched out of Jaffa, in the centre of a
battalion under General Bon. When they had reached the
sand-hills, at some distance from the town, they were divided
into small parties, and shot or bayoneted to a man. They, like
true fatalists, submitted in silence; and their bodies were
gathered together into a pyramid, where, after the lapse of
thirty years, their bones are still visible whitening the
sand. Such was the massacre of Jaffa, which will ever form one
of the darkest stains on the name of Napoleon. He admitted the
fact himself;—and justified it on the double plea, that he
could not afford soldiers to guard so many prisoners, and that
he could not grant them the benefit of their parole, because
they were the very men who had already been set free on such
terms at' El-Arish. …
{1325}
Buonaparte had now ascertained that the Pacha of Syria,
Achmet-Djezzar, was at St. Jean D'Acre (so renowned in the
history of the crusades), and determined to defend that place
to extremity, with the forces which had already been assembled
for the invasion of Egypt. He in vain endeavoured to seduce
this ferocious chief from his allegiance to the Porte, by
holding out the hope of a separate independent government,
under the protection of France. The first of Napoleon's
messengers returned without an answer; the second was put to
death; and the army moved on Acre in all the zeal of revenge,
while the necessary apparatus of a siege was ordered to be
sent round by sea from Alexandria. Sir Sidney Smith was then
cruising in the Levant with two British ships of the line, the
Tigre and the Theseus; and, being informed by the Pacha of the
approaching storm, hastened to support him, in the defence of
Acre. Napoleon's vessels, conveying guns and stores from
Egypt, fell into his hands, and he appeared off the town two
days before the French army came in view of it. He had on
board his ship Colonel Philippeaux, a French royalist of great
talents (formerly Buonaparte's school-fellow at Brienne); and
the Pacha willingly permitted the English commodore and this
skilful ally to regulate for him, as far as was possible, the
plan of his defence. The loss of his own heavy artillery, and
the presence of two English ships, were inauspicious omens;
yet Buonaparte doubted not that the Turkish garrison would
shrink before his onset, and he instantly commenced the siege.
He opened his trenches on the 18th of March. 'On that little
town' said he to one of his generals, as they were standing
together on an eminence, which still bears the name of Richard
Cœur-de-Lion—'on yonder little town depends the fate of the
East. Behold the Key of Constantinople, or of India.' …
Meanwhile a vast Mussulman army had been gathered among the
mountains of Samaria, and was preparing to descend upon Acre,
and attack the besiegers in concert with the garrison of
Djezzar. Junot, with his division, marched to encounter them,
and would have been overwhelmed by their numbers, had not
Napoleon himself followed and rescued him (April 8) at
Nazareth, where the splendid cavalry of the Orientals were, as
usual, unable to resist the solid squares and well-directed
musketry of the French. Kleber with another division, was in
like manner endangered, and in like manner rescued by the
general-in-chief at Mount Tabor (April 15). The Mussulmans
dispersed on all hands; and Napoleon, returning to his siege,
pressed it on with desperate assaults, day after day, in which
his best soldiers were thinned, before the united efforts of
Djezzar's gallantry, and the skill of his allies." On the 21st
of May, when the siege had been prosecuted for more than two
months, Napoleon commanded a final assault. "The plague had
some time before this appeared in the camp; every day the
ranks of his legions were thinned by this pestilence, as well
as by the weapons of the defenders of Acre. The hearts of all
men were quickly sinking. The Turkish fleet was at hand to
reinforce Djezzar; and upon the utter failure of the attack of
the 21st of May, Napoleon yielded to stern necessity, and
began his retreat upon Jaffa. … The name of Jaffa was
already sufficiently stained; but fame speedily represented
Napoleon as having now made it the scene of another atrocity,
not less shocking than that of the massacre of the Turkish
prisoners. The accusation, which for many years made so much
noise throughout Europe, amounts to this: that on the 27th of
May, when it was necessary for Napoleon to pursue his march
from Jaffa for Egypt, a certain number of the plague-patients
in the hospital were found to be in a state that held out no
hope whatever of their recovery; that the general, being
unwilling to leave them to the tender mercies of the Turks,
conceived the notion of administering opium, and so procuring
for them at least a speedy and an easy death; and that a
number of men were accordingly taken off in this method by his
command. … Whether the opium was really administered or
not—that the audacious proposal to that effect was made by
Napoleon, we have his own admission; and every reader must
form his opinion—as to the degree of guilt which attaches to
the fact of having meditated and designed the deed. … The
march onwards was a continued scene of misery; for the wounded
and the sick were many, the heat oppressive, the thirst
intolerable; and the ferocious Djezzar was hard behind, and
the wild Arabs of the desert hovered round them on every side,
so that he who fell behind his company was sure to be slain.
… Having at length accomplished this perilous journey [June
14], Buonaparte repaired to his old head-quarters at Cairo,
and re-entered on his great functions as the establisher of a
new government in the state of Egypt. But he had not long
occupied himself thus, ere new rumours concerning the beys on
the Upper Nile, who seemed to have some strong and urgent
motive for endeavouring to force a passage downwards, began to
be mingled with, and by degrees explained by, tidings daily
repeated of some grand disembarkation of the Ottomans,
designed to have place in the neighbourhood of Alexandria.
Leaving Dessaix, therefore, once more in command at Cairo, he
himself descended the Nile, and travelled with all speed to
Alexandria, where he found his presence most necessary. For,
in effect, the great Turkish fleet had already run into the
bay of Aboukir; and an army of 18,000, having gained the
fortress, were there strengthening themselves, with the view
of awaiting the promised descent and junction of the
Mamelukes, and then, with overwhelming superiority of numbers,
advancing to Alexandria, and completing the ruin of the French
invaders. Buonaparte, reaching Alexandria on the evening of
the 24th of July, found his army already posted in the
neighbourhood of Aboukir, and prepared to anticipate the
attack of the Turks on the morrow. … The Turkish outposts
were assaulted early next morning, and driven in with great
slaughter; but the French, when they advanced, came within the
range of the batteries and also of the shipping that lay close
by the shore, and were checked. Their retreat might have ended
in a route, but for the undisciplined eagerness with which the
Turks engaged in the task of spoiling and maiming those that
fell before them—thus giving to Murat the opportunity of
charging their main body in flank with his cavalry, at the
moment when the French infantry, profiting by their disordered
and scattered condition, and rallying under the eye of
Napoleon, forced a passage to the entrenchments. From that
moment the battle was a massacre. … Six thousand surrendered
at discretion: 12,000 perished on the field or in the sea. …
Napoleon once more returned to Cairo on the 9th of August; but
it was only to make some parting arrangements as to the
administration, civil and military; for, from the moment of
his victory at Aboukir, he had resolved to entrust Egypt to
other hands, and Admiral Gantheaume was already preparing in
secret the means of his removal to France."
_J. G. Lockhart,
Life of Napoleon Buonaparte,
chapter 12._
ALSO IN:
_Duke of Rovigo,
Memoirs,
volume 1, chapters 9-11._
_Memoirs of Napoleon dictated at St. Helena,
volume 2._
_Letters from the army of Bonaparte in Egypt._
_M. de Bourrienne,
Private Memoirs of Napoleon,
volume 1. chapter 15-23._
{1326}
FRANCE: A. D. 1799 (April-September).
Murder of the French envoys at Rastadt.
Disasters in North Italy.
Suwarroff's victories.
Anglo-Russian invasion of Holland and
capture of the Dutch Fleet.
"While the French armies were thus humiliated in the field,
the representatives of the republic at the congress of Rastadt
[where peace negotiations with the states of the empire had
been in progress for months] became the victims of a
sanguinary tragedy. As France had declared war against the
emperor [as sovereign of Austria], and not against the empire,
the congress had not necessarily been broken off; but the
representatives of the German states were withdrawn one after
another, until the successes of the Austrians rendered the
position of the French ministers no longer secure. At length
they received notice, from the nearest Austrian commander, to
depart within twenty-four hours; and the French
ministers—Jean Debry, Bonnier, and Roberjeot—left Rastadt
with their families and attendants late in the evening of the
8th of Floréal (the 28th of April). The night was very dark,
and they appear to have been apprehensive of danger. At a very
short distance from Rastadt they were surrounded by a troop of
Austrian hussars, who stopped the carriages, dragged the three
ministers out, and massacred them in the presence of their
wives and children. The hussars then plundered the carriages,
and took away, especially, all the papers. Fortunately for
Jean Debry, he had been stunned, but not mortally wounded; and
after the murderers were gone the cold air of the night
restored him to life. This crime was supposed to have been
perpetrated at the instigation of the imperial court, for
reasons which have not been very clearly explained; but the
representatives of the German states proclaimed loudly their
indignation. The reverses of the republican arms, and the
tragedy of Rastadt, were eagerly embraced by the opposition in
France as occasions for raising a violent outcry against the
directory. … It was in the midst of this general
unpopularity of the directors that the elections of the year
VII. of the republic took place, and a great majority of the
patriots obtained admission to the councils, and thus
increased the numerical force of the opposition. … The
directory had made great efforts to repair the reverses which
had marked the opening of the campaign. Jourdain had been
deprived of the command of the army of the Danube, which had
been placed, along with that of Switzerland, under the orders
of Masséna. The command of the army of Italy had been
transferred from Scherer to Moreau; and Macdonald had received
orders to withdraw his forces from Naples and the papal
states, in order to unite them with the army in Upper Italy.
The Russians under Suwarrow had now joined the Austrian army
in Italy; and this chief, who was in the height of his
reputation as a military leader, was made commander-in-chief
of the combined Austro-Russian forces, Melas commanding the
Austrians under him. Suwarrow advanced rapidly upon the Adda,
which protected the French lines; and, on the 8th of Floreal
(the 27th of April), forced the passage of that river in two
places, at Brivio and Trezzo, above and below the position
occupied by the division of Serrurier, which formed the French
left, and which was thus cut off from the rest of the army.
Moreau, who took the command of the French forces on the
evening of the same day, made a vain attempt to drive the
enemy back over the Adda at Trezzo, and thus recover his
communication with Serrurier; and that division was
surrounded, and, after a desperate resistance, obliged to lay
down its arms, with the exception of a small number of men who
made their way across the mountains into Piedmont. Victor's
division effected its retreat without much loss, and Moreau
concentrated his forces in the neighbourhood of Milan. This
disastrous engagement, which took place on the 9th of Floreal,
was known as the battle of Cassano. Moreau remained at Milan
two days to give the members of the government of the
Cisalpine republic, and all the Milanese families who were
politically compromised, time to make their escape in his
rear; after which he continued his retreat. … He was allowed
to make this retreat without any serious interruption; for
Suwarrow, instead of pursuing him actively, lost his time at
Milan in celebrating the triumph of the anti-revolutionary
party." Moreau first "established his army in a strong
position at the confluence of the Tanaro and the Po, covered
by both rivers, and commanding all the roads to Genoa; so that
he could there, without great danger, wait the arrival of
Macdonald." But soon, finding his position made critical by a
general insurrection in Piedmont, he retired towards the
mountains of Genoa. "On the 6th of Prairial (the 25th of May),
Macdonald was at Florence; but he lost much time there; and it
was only towards the end of the republican month (the middle
of June), that he at length advanced into the plains of
Piacenza to form his junction with Moreau." On the Trebbia he
encountered Suwarrow's advance, under General Ott, and rashly
attacked it. Having forced back Ott's advanced guard, the
French suddenly found themselves confronted by Suwarrow
himself and the main body of his army. "Macdonald now resolved
to unite all his forces behind the Trebbia, and there risk a
battle; but he was anticipated by Suwarrow, who attacked him
next morning, and, after a very severe and sanguinary
engagement, the French were driven over the Trebbia. The
combat was continued next day, and ended again to the
disadvantage of the French; and their position had become so
critical, that Macdonald found it necessary to retreat upon
the river Nura, and to make his way round the Apennines to
Genoa. The French, closely pursued, experienced considerable
loss in their retreat, until Suwarrow, hearing Moreau's cannon
in his rear, discontinued the pursuit, in order to meet him."
Moreau routed Bellegarde, in Suwarrow's rear, and took 3,000
prisoners; but no further collision of importance occurred
during the next two months of the summer.
{1327}
"Suwarrow had been prevented by the orders of the Aulic
Council from following up with vigour his victory on the
Trebbia, and had been obliged to occupy himself with sieges
which employed with little advantage valuable time. Recruits
were reaching the French armies in Italy, and they were
restored to a state of greater efficiency. It was already the
month of Thermidor (the middle of July), and Moreau saw the
necessity of assuming the offensive and attacking the
Austro-Russians while they were occupied with the sieges; but
he was restrained by the orders of the directory to wait the
arrival of Joubert. The latter, who had just contracted an
advantageous marriage, by which the moderate party had hoped
to attach him to their cause, lost an entire month in the
celebration of his nuptial festivities, and only reached the
army of Italy in the middle of Thermidor (the beginning of
August), where he immediately succeeded Moreau in the command;
but he prevailed upon that able general to remain with him, at
least until after his first battle. The French army had taken
a good position in advance of Novi, and were preparing to act
against the enemy while he was still occupied in the sieges,
when news arrived that Alessandria and Mantua had surrendered,
and that Suwarrow was preparing to unite against them the
whole strength of his forces. Joubert immediately resolved to
fall back upon the Apennines, and there act upon the
defensive; but it was already too late, for Suwarrow had
advanced with such rapidity that he was forced to accept
battle in the position he occupied, which was a very strong
one. The battle began early in the morning of the 28th of
Thermidor (the 15th of August); and very early in the action
Joubert received a mortal wound from a ball which struck him
near the heart. The engagement continued with great fury
during the greater part of the day, but ended in the entire
defeat of the French, who retreated from the field of battle
in great confusion. The French lost about 10,000 men in killed
and wounded, and a great number of prisoners. The news of this
reverse was soon followed by disastrous intelligence from
another quarter. The English had prepared an expedition
against Holland, which was to be assisted by a detachment of
Russian troops. The English forces, under Abercromby, landed
near the mouth of the Helder in North Holland, on the 10th of
Fructidor (the 27th of August), and defeated the French and
Dutch republican army, commanded by Brune, in a decisive
engagement [at the English camp, established on a well-drained
morass, called the Zyp] on the 22nd of Fructidor (the 8th of
September). Brune retreated upon Amsterdam; and the Russian
contingent was thus enabled to effect its junction with the
English without opposition. As one of the first consequences
of this invasion, the English obtained possession of the whole
Dutch fleet, upon the assistance of which the French
government had counted in its designs against England. This
succession of ill news excited the revolutionary party to a
most unusual degree of violence."
_T. Wright,
History of France,
book 6, chapters 22-23 (volume 2)._
ALSO IN:
_H. Spalding,
Suvóroff,
chapters 7-8._
_L. M. P. de Laverne,
Life of Field-Marshal Souvarof,
chapter 6._
_E. Vehse,
Memoirs of the Court of Austria,
chapter 15, section 2 (volume 2)._
_J. Adolphus,
History of England: Reign of George III.,
chapter 108 (volume 7)._
_General Sir H. Bunbury,
Narratives of the Great War with France,
pages 1-58._
FRANCE: A. D. 1799 (August-December).
Campaign in Switzerland.
Battle of Zurich.
Defeat of the Russians.
Suwarroff's retreat across the Alps.
Reverses in Italy, and on the Rhine.
Fall of the Parthenopean and Roman Republics.
Since the retreat of Massena in June, the Archduke Charles had
been watching the French on the Limmat and expecting the
arrival of Russian reinforcements under Korsakoff; "but the
Aulic Council, with unaccountable infatuation, ordered him at
this important juncture to repair with the bulk of his army to
the Rhine, leaving Switzerland to Korsakoff and the Russians.
Before these injudicious orders, however, could be carried
into effect, Massena had boldly assumed the offensive (August
14) by a false attack on Zurich, intended to mask the
operations of his right wing, which meanwhile, under Lecourbe,
was directed against the St. Gothard, in order to cut off the
communication between the allied forces in Switzerland and in
Italy. These attacks proved completely successful, … a
French detachment … seizing the St. Gothard, and
establishing itself at Airolo, on the southern declivity.
Lecourbe's left had meanwhile cleared the banks of the lake of
Zurich of the enemy, who were driven back into Glarus. To
obtain these brilliant successes on the right, Massena had
been obliged to weaken his left wing; and the Archduke, now
reinforced by 20, 000 Russians, attempted to avail himself of
this circumstance to force the passage of the Limmat, below
Zurich (August 16 and 17); but this enterprise, the success of
which might have altered the fate of the war, failed from the
defective construction of the pontoons; and the positive
orders of the Aulic Council forbade his remaining longer in
Switzerland. Accordingly, leaving 25,000 men under Hotze to
support Korsakoff, he marched for the Upper Rhine, where the
French, at his approach, abandoned the siege of Philipsburg,
and retired to Mannheim; but this important post, the defences
of which were imperfectly restored, was carried by a
coup-de-main (September 18), and the French driven with severe
loss over the Rhine. But this success was dearly bought by the
disasters in Switzerland, which followed the Archduke's
departure. It had been arranged that Suwarroff was to move
from Bellinzona (September 21), and after retaking the St.
Gothard combine with Korsakoff in a front attack on Massena,
while Hotze assailed him in flank. But Massena, who was now
the superior in numbers, determined to anticipate the arrival
of Suwarroff by striking a blow, for which the presumptuous
confidence of Korsakoff gave him increased facility. On the
evening of 24th September, the passage of the river was
surprised below Zurich, and the heights of Closter-Fahr
carried by storm; and, in the course of the next day,
Korsakoff, with his main army, was completely hemmed in at
Zurich by the superior generalship of the French commander,
who summoned the Russians to surrender. But the bravery shown
by Korsakoff in these desperate circumstances equalled his
former arrogance: on the 28th the Russian columns, issuing
from the town, forced their way with the courage of despair
through the surrounding masses of French, while a slender
rear-guard defended the ramparts of Zurich till the remainder
had extricated themselves.
{1328}
The town was at length entered, and a frightful carnage ensued
in the streets, in the midst of which the illustrious Lavater
was barbarously shot by a French soldier: while Korsakoff,
after losing 8,000 killed and wounded, 5,000 prisoners, 100
pieces of cannon, and all his ammunition, stores, and military
chest, succeeded in reaching Schaffhausen. The attack of Soult
above the lake (September 25) was equally triumphant. The
gallant Hotze, who commanded in that quarter, was killed in
the first encounter; and the Austrians, giving way in
consternation, were driven over the Thur, and at length over
the Rhine, with the loss of 20 guns and 3,000 prisoners.
Suwarroff in the meantime was gallantly performing his part of
the plan. On the 23d of September, the French posts at Airolo
and St. Gothard were carried, after a desperate resistance, by
the Russian main force, while their flank was turned by
Rosenberg; and Lecourbe, hastily retreating, broke down the
Devil's Bridge to check the advance of the enemy. A scene of
useless butchery followed, the two parties firing on each
other from the opposite brinks of the impassable abyss; but
the flank of the French was at length turned, the bridge
repaired, and the Russians, pressing on in triumph, joined the
Austrian division of Auffenberg, at Wasen, and repulsed the
French beyond Altdorf. But this was the limit of the old
marshal's success. After effecting with severe loss the
passage of the tremendous defiles and ridges of the
Schachenthal, between Altdorf and Mutten, he found that Linken
and Jellachich, who were to have moved from Coire to
co-operate with him, had again retreated on learning the
disaster at Zurich; and Suwarroff found himself in the midst
of the enemy, with Massena on one side and Molitor on the
other. With the utmost difficulty the veteran conqueror was
prevailed upon, for the first time in his life, to order a
retreat; which had become indispensable, and the heads of his
columns were turned towards Glarus and the Grisons. But though
the attack of Massena on their rear in the Muttenthal was
repulsed with the loss of 2,000 men, their onward route was
barred at Naefels by Molitor, who defied all the efforts of
Prince Bagrathion to dislodge him; and in the midst of a heavy
fall of snow, which obliterated the mountain paths, the
Russian army wound its way (October 5) in single file over the
rugged and sterile peaks of the Alps of Glarus. Numbers
perished of cold, or fell over the precipices; but nothing
could overcome the unconquerable spirit of the soldiers:
without fire or stores, and compelled to bivouac on the snow,
they still struggled on through incredible hardships, till the
dreadful march terminated (October 10) at Ilantz. Such was the
famous, passage of the Alps by Suwarroff. Korsakoff in the
meanwhile (October 1-7) had maintained a desperate conflict
near Constance, till the return of the Archduke checked the
efforts of the French; and the Allies, abandoning the St.
Gothard, and all the other posts they still held in
Switzerland, concentrated their forces on the Rhine, which
became the boundary of the two armies. … In Italy, after the
disastrous battle of Novi, the Directory had given the
leadership of the armies, both of Italy and Savoy, to the
gallant Championnet, but he could muster only 54,000 troops
and 6,000 raw conscripts to oppose Melas, who had succeeded
Suwarroff in the command, and who had 68,000, besides his
garrisons and detachments. The proposition of Championnet had
been to fall back, with his army still entire, to the other
side of the Alps: but his orders were positive to attempt the
relief of Coni, then besieged by the Austrians; and after a
desultory warfare for several weeks, he commenced a decisive
movement for that purpose at the end of October, with 35,000
men. But before the different French columns could effect a
junction, they were separately assailed by Melas: the
divisions of Grenier and Victor were overwhelmed at Genola
(November 4), and defeated with the loss of 7,000 men; and
though St. Cyr repulsed the Imperialists (November 10) on the
plateau of Novi, Coni was left to its fate, and surrendered
with all its garrison (December 4). An epidemic disorder broke
out in the French army, to which Championnet himself, and
numerous soldiers, fell victims: the troops giving way to
despair, abandoned their standards by hundreds and returned to
France; and it was with difficulty that the eloquent
exhortations of St. Cyr succeeded in keeping together a
sufficient number to defend the Bochetta pass, in front of
Genoa, the loss of which would have entailed destruction on
the whole army. The discomfited Republicans were driven back
on their own frontiers; and, excepting Genoa, the tricolor
flag was everywhere expelled from Italy. At the same time the
campaign on the Rhine was drawing to a close. The army of
Massena was not strong enough to follow up the brilliant
success at Zurich, and the jealousies of the Austrians and
Russians, who mutually laid on each other the blame of the
late disasters, prevented their acting cordially in concert
against him. Suwarroff at length, in a fit of exasperation,
drew off his troops to winter quarters in Bavaria, and took no
further share in the war; and a fruitless attempt in November
against Philipsburg, by Lecourbe, who had been transferred to
the command on the lower Rhine, closed the operations in that
quarter."
_Epitome of Alison's History of Europe,
sections 245-251
(chapter 28, volume 7 of complete work)._
Meantime, the French had been entirely expelled from southern
Italy. On the withdrawal of Macdonald, with most of his army,
from Naples, "Cardinal Ruffo, a soldier, churchman, and
politician, put himself at the head of a numerous body of
insurgents, and commenced war against such French troops as
had been left in the south and in the middle of Italy. This
movement was actively supported by the British fleet. Lord
Nelson recovered Naples; Rome surrendered to Commodore
Trowbridge. Thus the Parthenopean and Roman republics were
extinguished forever. The royal family returned to Naples, and
that fine city and country were once more a kingdom. Rome, the
capital of the world, was occupied by Neapolitan troops."
_Sir W. Scott,
Life of Napoleon,
chapter 38._
ALSO IN:
_L. M. P. de Laverne,
Life of Souvarof,
chapter 6._
_H. Spalding,
Suvoroff._
_P. Colletta,
History of the Kingdom of Naples,
book 4, chapter 2 and book 5,
chapters 1-2 (volume 1)._
_T. J. Pettigrew,
Memoirs of Lord Nelson,
volume 1, chapters 8-9._
{1329}
FRANCE: A. D. 1799 (September-October).
Disastrous ending of the Anglo-Russian invasion of Holland.
Capitulation of the Duke of York.
Dissolution of the Dutch East India Company.
"It is very obvious that the Duke of York was selected in an
unlucky hour to be the commander-in-chief of this
Anglo-Russian expedition, when we compare the time in which
Abercrombie was alone on the marshy promontory of the Helder
… with the subsequent period. On the 10th of September
Abercrombie successfully repulsed the attack of General Brune,
who had come for the purpose from Haarlem to Alkmar; on the
19th the Duke of York landed, and soon ruined everything. The
first division of the Russians had at length arrived on the
15th, under the command of General Herrmann, for whom it was
originally destined, although unhappily it afterwards came
into the hands of General Korsakoff. The duke therefore
thought he might venture on a general attack on the 19th. In
this attack Herrmann led the right wing, which was formed by
the Russians, and Abercrombie, with whom was the Prince of
Orange, the left, whilst the centre was left to the Duke of
York, the commander-in-chief. This decisive battle was fought
at Bergen, a place situated to the north of Alkmar. The
combined army was victorious on both wings; and Horn, on the
Zuyder Zee, was occupied; the Duke of York, who was only a
general for parades and reviews, merely indulged the centre
with a few manœuvres hither and thither. … The Russians,
therefore, who were left alone in impassible marshes,
traversed by ditches, and unknown to their officers, lost many
men, and were at length surrounded, and even their general
taken prisoner. The duke concerned himself very little about
the Russians, and had long before prudently retired into his
trenches; and, as the Russians were lost, Abercrombie and the
Crown Prince were obliged to relinquish Horn." The incapacity
of the commander-in-chief held the army paralyzed during the
fortnight following, suffering from sickness and want, while
it would still have been practicable to push forward to South
Holland. "A series of bloody engagements took place from the
2nd till the 6th of October, and the object of the attack upon
the whole line of the French and Batavian army would have been
attained had Abercrombie alone commanded. The English and
Russians, who call this the battle of Alkmar, were
indisputably victorious in the engagements of the 2nd and 3rd
of October. They even drove the enemy before them to the
neighbourhood of Haarlem, after having taken possession of
Alkmar; but on the 6th, Brune, who owes his otherwise very
moderate military renown to this engagement alone, having
received a reinforcement of some thousands on the 4th and 5th,
renewed the battle. The fighting on this day took place at
Castricum, on a narrow strip of land between the sea and the
lake of Haarlem, a position favourable to the French. The
French report is, as usual, full of the boasts of a splendid
victory; the English, however, remained in possession of the
field, and did not retire to their trenches behind Alkmar and
to the marshes of Zyp till the 7th. … In not more than eight
days afterwards, the want in the army and the anxiety of its
incapable commander-in-chief became so great, the number of
the sick increased so rapidly, and the fear of the
difficulties of embarkation in winter so grew and spread, that
the duke accepted the most shameful capitulation that had ever
been offered to an English general, except at Saratoga. This
capitulation, concluded on the 19th of October, was only
granted because the English, by destroying the dykes, had it
in their power to ruin the country."
_F. C. Schlosser,
History of the Eighteenth Century,
volume 7, pages 149-151._
"For the failure in accomplishing the great objects of
emancipating Holland and restoring its legitimate ruler; for
the clamorous joy with which her enemies, foreign and
domestic, hailed the event; the government of Great Britain
had many consolations. … The Dutch fleet, which, in the
hands of an enterprising enemy, might have been so injuriously
employed, was a capture of immense importance: if Holland was
ever to become a friend and ally, we had abundant means of
promoting her prosperity and re-establishing her greatness; if
an enemy, her means of injury and hopes of rivalship were
effectually suppressed. Her East-India Company, … long the
rival of our own in power and prosperity, whose dividends in
some years had risen to the amount of 40 per cent., now
finally closed its career, making a paltry final payment in
part of the arrears of dividends for the present and three
preceding years."
_J. Adolphus,
History of England: Reign of George III.,
chapter 109 (volume 7)._
ALSO IN:
_G. R. Gleig,
Life of General Sir R. Abercromby
(Eminent British Military Commanders, volume 3)._
FRANCE: A. D. 1799 (November).
Return of Bonaparte from Egypt.
The first Napoleonic Coup d'État.
Revolution of the 18th Brumaire.
End of the First Republic.
Creation of the Consulate.
"When Bonaparte, by means of the bundle of papers which Sidney
Smith caused to find their way through the French lines,
learned the condition of affairs in Europe, there was but one
course consistent with his character for him to pursue. There
was nothing more to be done in Egypt; there was everything to
be done in France. If he were to lead his army back, even in
case he should, by some miracle, elude the eager eyes of Lord
Nelson, the act would be generally regarded as a confession of
disaster. If he were to remain with the army, he could, at
best, do nothing but pursue a purely defensive policy; and if
the army were to be overwhelmed, it was no part of Napoleonism
to be involved in the disaster. … It would be far shrewder
to throw the responsibility of the future of Egypt on another,
and to transfer himself to the field that was fast ripening
for the coveted harvest. Of course Bonaparte, under such
circumstances, did not hesitate as to which course to pursue.
Robbing the army of such good officers as survived, he left it
in command of the only one who had dared to raise his voice in
opposition to the work of the 18th Fructidor … the heroic
but indignant Kléber. Was there ever a more exquisite revenge?
… On the arrival of Bonaparte in Paris everything seemed
ready to his hand. … The policy which, in the seizure of
Switzerland and the Papal States, he had taken pains to
inaugurate before his departure for Egypt had borne its
natural fruit. As never before in the history of Europe,
England, Holland, Russia, Austria, Naples, and even Turkey had
joined hands in a common cause, and as a natural consequence
the Directory had been defeated at every point. Nor was it
unnatural for the people to attribute all these disasters to
the inefficiency of the government. The Directory had really
fallen into general contempt, and at the new election on the
30th Prairial it had been practically overthrown.
{1330}
Rewbell, who by his influence had stood at the head of
affairs, had been obliged to give way," and Sieyès had been
put in his place. "By the side of this fantastic statesman …
Barras had been retained, probably for no other reason than
that he was sure to be found with the majority, while the
other members, Gohier, Moulins, and Roger-Ducos were men from
whose supposed mediocrity no very decided opposition could be
anticipated. Thus the popular party was not only revenged for
the outrages of Fructidor, but it had also made up the new
Directory of men who seemed likely to be nothing but clay in
the hands of Bonaparte. … The manner in which the General
was received can have left no possible doubt remaining in his
mind as to the strength of his hold on the hearts of the
people. It must have been apparent to all that he needed but
to declare himself, in order to secure a well-nigh unanimous
support and following of the masses. But with the political
leaders the case, for obvious reasons, was far different. …
His popularity was so overwhelming, that in his enmity the
leaders could anticipate nothing but annihilation, in his
friendship nothing but insignificance. … The member of the
government who, at the time, wielded most influence, was
Sieyès, a man to whom personally the General had so
unconquerable an aversion, that Josephine was accustomed to
refer to him as her husband's béte noir. It was evident that
Sieyès was the most formidable obstacle to the General's
advance." As a first movement, Bonaparte endeavored to bring
about the removal of Sieyès from the Directory and his own
election to the place. Failing this, his party attempted the
immediate creation of a dictatorship. When that, too, was
found impracticable, Sieyès was persuaded to a reconciliation
and alliance with the ambitious soldier, and the two, at a
meeting, planned the proceedings "which led to that dark day
in French history known as the 18th Brumaire [November 9,
1799]. It remained only to get absolute control of the
military forces, a task at that time in no way difficult. The
officers who had returned with Bonaparte from Egypt were
impatient to follow wherever their master might lead. Moreau,
who, since the death of Hoche, was regarded as standing next
to Bonaparte in military ability, was not reluctant to cast in
his lot with the others, and Macdonald as well as Serurier
soon followed his example. Bernadotte alone would yield to
neither flattery nor intimidation. … While Bonaparte was
thus marshalling his forces in the Rue de la Victoire, the way
was opening in the Councils. A commission of the Ancients,
made up of the leading conspirators, had worked all night
drawing up the proposed articles, in order that in the morning
the Council might have nothing to do but to vote them. The
meeting was called for seven o'clock, and care was taken not
to notify those members whose opposition there was reason to
fear. … The articles were adopted without discussion. Those
present voted, first, to remove the sessions of the Councils
from Paris to Saint Cloud (a privilege which the constitution
conferred upon the Ancients alone), thus putting them at once
beyond the power of influencing the populace and of standing
in the way of Bonaparte. They then passed a decree giving to
Bonaparte the command of the military forces, at the same time
inviting him to come to the Assembly for the purpose of taking
the oath of allegiance to the Constitution." Bonaparte
appeared, accordingly, before the Council; but instead of
taking an oath of allegiance to the constitution, he made a
speech which he closed by declaring: "We want a Republic
founded on true liberty and national representation. We will
have it, I swear; I swear it in my own name and that of my
companions in arms." "Thus the mockery of the oath-taking in
the Council of Ancients was accomplished. The General had now
a more difficult part to perform in the Council of Five
Hundred. As the meeting of the Assembly was not to occur until
twelve o'clock of the following day, Bonaparte made use of the
intervening time in posting his forces and in disposing of the
Directory. … There was one locality in the city where it was
probable aggressive force would be required. The Luxembourg
was the seat of the Directory, and the Directory must at all
hazards be crushed. … Bonaparte knew well how to turn all
such ignominious service to account. In close imitation of
that policy which had left Kleber in Egypt, he placed the
Luxembourg in charge of the only man in the nation who could
now be regarded as his rival for popular favor. Moreau fell
into the snare, and by so doing lost a popularity which he was
never afterwards able to regain. Having thus placed his
military forces, Bonaparte turned his attention to the
Directors. The resignations of Sieyès and of Roger-Ducos he
already had upon his table. It remained only to procure the
others. Barras, without warning, was confronted by Talleyrand
and Bruix, who asked him without circumlocution to resign his
office," which he did, after slight hesitation. Gohier and
Moulins were addressed by Bonaparte in person, but firmly
resisted his importunities and his threats. They were then
made prisoners by Moreau. "The night of the 18th passed in
comparative tranquillity. The fact that there was no organized
resistance is accounted for by Lanfrey with a single mournful
statement, that 'nothing of the kind could be expected of a
nation that had been decapitated. All the men of rank in
France for the previous ten years, either by character or
genius or virtue, had been mown down, first by the scaffolds
and proscriptions, next by war.'" On the morrow, the 19th of
Brumaire (November 10) the sitting of the two councils began
at two o'clock. In the Council of Five Hundred the partisans
of Bonaparte were less numerous than in that of the Ancients,
and a powerful indignation at the doings of the previous day
began quickly to show itself. In the midst of a warm debate
upon the resignation of Barras, which had just been received,
"the door was opened, and Bonaparte, surrounded by his
grenadiers, entered the hall. A burst of indignation at once
arose. Every member sprang to his feet. 'What is this?' they
cried, 'swords here! armed men! Away! we will have no dictator
here.' Then some of the deputies, bolder than the others,
surrounded Bonaparte and overwhelmed him with invectives. 'You
are violating the sanctity of the laws; what are you doing,
rash man?' exclaimed Bigonnet. 'Is it for this that you have
conquered?' demanded Destrem, advancing towards him. Others
seized him by the collar of his coat, and, shaking him
violently, reproached him with treason. This reception, though
the General had come with the purpose of intimidating the
Assembly, fairly overwhelmed him.
{1331}
Eye-witnesses declare that he turned pale, and fell fainting
into the arms of his soldiers, who drew him out of the hall."
His brother Lucien, who was President of the Council, showed
better nerve. By refusing to put motions that were made to
vote, and finally by resigning his office and quitting the
chair, he threw the Council into confusion. Then, appearing to
the troops outside, who supposed him to be still President of
the Council, he harangued them and summoned them to clear the
chamber. "The grenadiers poured into the hall. A last cry of
'Vive la République' was raised, and a moment later the hall
was empty. Thus the crime of the conspirators was consummated,
and the First French Republic was at an end. After this action
it remained only to put into the hands of Bonaparte the
semblance of regular authority. … A phantom of the Council
of Five Hundred—Cornet, one of them, says 30 members—met in
the evening and voted the measures which had been previously
agreed upon by the conspirators. Bonaparte, Sieyès, and
Roger-Ducos were appointed provisional consuls; 57 members of
the Council who had been most prominent in their opposition
were excluded from their seats; a list of proscriptions was
prepared; two commissioners chosen from the assemblies were
appointed to assist the consuls in their work of organization;
and, finally, … they adjourned the legislative body until
the 20th of February."
_C. K. Adams,
Democracy and Monarchy in France,
chapter 4._
ALSO IN:
_P. Lanfrey,
History of Napoleon I._
_A. Thiers,
History of the French Revolution
(American edition), volume 4, pages 407-430._
_M. de Bourrienne,
Private Memoirs of Napoleon,
volume l, chapter 24-27._
_Count Miot de Melito,
Memoirs,
chapter 9._
FRANCE: A. D. 1799 (November-December).
The constitution of the consulate.
Bonaparte as First Consul.
"During the three months which followed the 18th Brumaire,
approbation and expectation were general. A provisional
government had been appointed, composed of three consuls,
Bonaparte, Siéyes, and Roger-Ducos, with two legislative
commissioners, entrusted to prepare the constitution and a
definitive order of things. The consuls and the two
commissioners were installed on the 21st Brumaire. This
provisional government abolished the law respecting hostages
and compulsory loans; it permitted the return of the priests
proscribed since the 18th Fructidor; it released from prison
and sent out of the republic the emigrants who had been
ship-wrecked on the coast of Calais, and who for four years
were captives in France, and were exposed to the heavy
punishment of the emigrant army. All these measures were very
favourably received. But public opinion revolted at a
proscription put in force against the extreme republicans.
Thirty-six of them were sentenced to transportation to Guiana,
and twenty-one were put under serveillance in the department
of Charante-Inférieure, merely by a decree of the consuls on
the report of Fouché, minister of police. The public viewed
unfavourably all who attacked the government, but at the same
time it exclaimed against an act so arbitrary and unjust. The
consuls, accordingly, recoiled before their own act; they
first commuted transportation into surveillance, and soon
withdrew surveillance itself. It was not long before a rupture
broke out between the authors of the 18th Brumaire. During
their provisional authority it did not create much noise,
because it took place in the legislative commissions. The new
constitution was the cause of it. Siéyes and Bonaparte could
not agree on this subject: the former wished to institute
France, the latter to govern it as a master. … Bonaparte
took part in the deliberations of the constituent committee,
with his instinct of power, he seized upon everything in the
ideas of Siéyes which was calculated to serve his projects,
and caused the rest to be rejected. … On the 24th of
December, 1799 (Nivose, year VIII.), forty-five days after the
18th Brumaire, was published the constitution of the year
VIII.; it was composed of the wrecks of that of Siéyes, now
become a constitution of servitude."
_F. A. Mignet,
History of the French Revolution,
chapter 14._
"The new constitution was still republic in name and
appearance, but monarchical in fact, the latter concealed, by
the government being committed, not to the hand of one
individual, but of three. The three persons so fixed upon were
denominated consuls, and appointed for ten years;—one of
them, however, was really ruler, although he only obtained the
modest name of First Consul. The rights which Bonaparte caused
to be given to himself made all the rest nothing more than
mere deception. The First Consul was to invite the others
merely to consultation on affairs of state, whilst he himself,
either immediately or through the senate, was to appoint to
all places of trust and authority, to decide absolutely upon
questions of peace or war, and to be assisted by a council of
state. … In order to cover and conceal the power of the
First Consul, especially in reference to the appointment of
persons to offices of trust and authority, a senate was
created, which neither belonged to the people nor to the
government, but immediately from the very beginning was an
assembly of courtiers and placemen, and at a later period
became the mere tool of every kind of despotism, by rendering
it easy to dispense with the legislative body. The senate
consisted of eighty members, a part of whom were to be
immediately nominated from the lists of notability, and the
senate to fill up its own body from persons submitted to them
by the First Consul, the tribunate, and the legislative body.
Each senator was to have a salary of 25,000 f.; their meetings
were not public, and their business very small. From the
national lists the senate was also to select consuls,
legislators, tribunes, and judges of the Court of Cassation.
Large lists were first presented to the communes, on which,
according to Roederer, there stood some 500,000 names, out of
which the communes selected 50,000 for the departmental lists,
from which again 5,000 were to be chosen for the national
list. From these 5,000 names, selected from the departmental
list, or from what was termed the national list, the senate
was afterwards to elect the members of the legislature and the
high officers of government. The legislature was to consist of
two chambers, the tribunate and the legislative body—the
former composed of 100, and the latter of 300 members. The
chambers had no power of taking the initiative, that is, they
were obliged to wait till bills were submitted to them, and
could of themselves originate nothing: they were, however,
permitted to express wishes of all kinds to the government.
Each bill (projet de loi) was introduced into the tribunate by
three members of the council of state, and there defended by
them, because the tribunate alone had the right of discussion,
whilst the mere power of saying Yea or Nay was conferred upon
the members of the legislative body.
{1332}
The tribunate, having accepted the bill, sent three of its
members, accompanied by the members from the council of state,
to defend the measure in the assembly of the legislative body.
Every year one-fifth of the members of the legislative body
was to retire from office, being, however, always re-eligible
as long as their names remained on the national list. The
sittings of the legislative body alone were public, because
they were only permitted to be silent listeners to the
addresses of the tribunes or councillors of state, and to
assent to, or dissent from, the proposed law. Not above 100
persons were, however, allowed to be present as auditors; the
sittings were not allowed to continue longer than four months;
both chambers, however, might be summoned to an extraordinary
sitting. … When the constitution was ready to be brought
into operation, Sieyes terminated merely as he had begun, and
Bonaparte saw with pleasure that he showed himself both
contemptible and venal. He became a dumb senator, with a
yearly income of 25,000 f.; and obtained 800,000 f. from the
directorial treasury, whilst Roger Ducos was obliged to go
away contented with a douceur of 120,000 f.; and, last of all,
Sieyes condescended to accept from Bonaparte a present of the
national domain of Crosne, which he afterwards exchanged for
another estate. For colleagues in his new dignity Bonaparte
selected very able and skilful men, but wholly destitute of
all nobility of mind, and to whom it never once occurred to
offer him any opposition; these were Cambacérès and Lebrun.
The former, a celebrated lawyer, although formerly a vehement
Jacobin, impatiently waited till Bonaparte brought forth again
all the old plunder; and then, covered with orders, he
strutted up and down the Palais Royal like a peacock, and
exhibited himself as a show. Lebrun, who was afterwards
created a duke, at a later period distinguished himself by
being the first to revive the use of hair powder; in fact, he
was completely a child and partisan of the olden times,
although for a time he had played the part of a Girondist. …
As early as the 25th and 26th of December the First Consul took
up his abode in the Tuileries. There the name of citizen
altogether disappeared, for the consul's wife caused herself
again to be addressed as Madame. Everything which concerned
the government now began to assume full activity, and the
adjourned legislative councils were summoned for the 1st of
January, in order that they might be dissolved."
_F. C. Schlosser,
History of the Eighteenth Century,
volume 7, pages 189-192._
ALSO IN:
_P. Lanfrey,
History of Napoleon I.,
volume 1, chapters 13-14._
_A. Thiers,
History of the Consulate and Empire,
books 1-2 (volume 1)._
_H. C. Lockwood,
Constitutional History of France,
chapter 2 and appendix 4._
FRANCE: A. D. 1800.
Convention with the United States.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1800.
FRANCE: A. D. 1800 (January-June).
Affairs in Egypt.
The repudiated Treaty of El Arish.
Kléber's victory at Heliopolis.
His assassination.
"Affairs in Egypt had been on the whole unfavourable to the
French, since that army had lost the presence of the
commander-in-chief. Kléber, on whom the command devolved, was
discontented both at the unceremonious and sudden manner in
which the duty had been imposed upon him, and with the
scarcity of means left to support his defence. Perceiving
himself threatened by a large Turkish force, which was
collecting for the purpose of avenging the defeat of the
vizier at Aboukir, he became desirous of giving up a
settlement which he despaired of maintaining. He signed
accordingly a convention with the Turkish plenipotentiaries,
and Sir Sidney Smith on the part of the British [at El Arish,
January 28, 1800], by which it was provided that the French
should evacuate Egypt, and that Kléber and his army should be
transported to France in safety, without being molested by the
British fleet. When the British government received advice of
this convention they refused to ratify it, on the ground that
Sir Sidney Smith had exceeded his powers in entering into it.
The Earl of Elgin having been sent out as plenipotentiary to
the Porte, it was asserted that Sir Sidney's ministerial
powers were superseded by his appointment. … The truth was
that the arrival of Kléber and his army in the south of
France, at the very moment when the successes of Suwarrow gave
strong hopes of making some impression on her frontier, might
have had a most material effect upon the events of the war.
… The treaty of El Arish was in consequence broken off.
Kléber, disappointed of this mode of extricating himself, had
recourse to arms. The Vizier Jousseff Pacha, having crossed
the Desert and entered Egypt, received a bloody and decisive
defeat from the French general, near the ruins of the ancient
city of Heliopolis, on the 20th of March, 1800 [following
which Kléber crushed with great slaughter a revolt that had
broken out in Cairo]. The measures which Kléber adopted after
this victory were well calculated to maintain the possession
of the country, and reconcile the inhabitants to the French
government. … While busied in these measures, he was cut
short by the blow of an assassin. A fanatic Turk, called
Soliman Haleby, a native of Aleppo, imagined he was inspired
by Heaven to slay the enemy of the Prophet and the Grand
Seignior. He concealed himself in a cistern, and springing out
on Kléber when there was only one man in company with him,
stabbed him dead [June 14]. … The Baron Menou, on whom the
command now devolved, was an inferior person to Kléber. …
Menou altered for the worse several of the regulations of
Kléber, and, carrying into literal execution what Buonaparte
had only written and spoken of, he became an actual
Mahommedan."
_Sir W. Scott,
Life of Napoleon Buonaparte,
chapter 40._
ALSO IN:
_A. Thiers,
History of the Consulate and Empire,
book 5 (volume 1)._
{1333}
FRANCE: A. D. 1800-1801 (May-February).
Bonaparte's second Italian campaign.
The crossing of the Alps.
The Battle of Marengo.
Moreau in Germany.
Hohenlinden.
Austrian siege of Genoa.
"Preparations for the new campaign in spring were completed.
Moreau was made commander-in-chief of the army of the Rhine,
150,000 strong. The plan of the campaign was concerted between
the First Consul and Carnot, who had superseded Berthier as
Minister at War. The operations were conducted with the utmost
secrecy. Napoleon had determined to strike the decisive blow
against Austria in Italy, and to command there in person. By
an article in the Constitution the First Consul was forbidden
to take command of an army. To this interdiction he cheerfully
assented; but he evaded it, as soon as the occasion was ripe,
by giving the nominal command of the army of Italy to
Berthier. He began to collect troops at Dijon, which were, he
publicly announced, intended to advance upon Italy. They
consisted chiefly of conscripts and invalids, with a numerous
staff, and were called 'the army of reserve.' Meantime, while
caricatures of some ancient men with wooden legs and little
boys of twelve years old, entitled 'Bonaparte's Army of
Reserve,' were amusing the Austrian public, the real army of
Italy was formed in the heart of France, and was marching by
various roads towards Switzerland. … The artillery was sent
piecemeal from different arsenals; the provisions necessary to
an army about to cross barren mountains were forwarded to
Geneva, embarked on the lake, and landed at Villeneuve, near
the entrance to the valley of the Simplon. The situation of
the French army in Italy had become critical. Massena had
thrown himself into Genoa with 12,000 men, and was enduring
all the rigours of a siege, pressed by 30,000 Austrians under
General Ott, seconded by the British fleet. Suchet, with the
remainder of the French army, about 10,000 strong, completely
cut off from communication with Massena, had concentrated his
forces on the Var, was maintaining an unequal contest with
Melas, the Austrian commander-in-chief, and strenuously
defending the French frontier. Napoleon's plan was to
transport his army across the Alps, plant himself in the rear
of the Austrians, intercept their communications, then
manœuvre so as to place his own army and that of Massena on
the Austrian right and left flanks respectively, cut off their
retreat, and finally give them battle at the decisive moment.
While all Europe imagined that the multifarious concerns of
the Government held the First Consul at Paris, he was
travelling at a rapid rate towards Geneva, accompanied only by
his secretary. He left Paris on the 6th of May, at two in the
morning, leaving Cambacérès to preside until his return, and
ordering Fouché to announce that he was about to review the
army at Dijon, and might possibly go as far as Geneva, but
would return in a fortnight. 'Should anything happen,' he
significantly added, 'I shall be back like a thunderbolt.' …
On the 13th the First Consul reviewed the vanguard of his
army, commanded by General Lannes, at Lausanne. The whole army
consisted of nearly 70,000 men. Two columns, each of about
6,000 men, were put in motion, one under Tureau, the other
under Chabran, to take the routes of Mont Cenis and the Little
St. Bernard. A division consisting of 15,000 men, under
Moncey, detached from the army of the Rhine, was to march by
St. Gothard. Moreau kept the Austrian army of the Rhine, under
General Kray, on the defensive before Ulm [to which he had
forced his way in a series of important engagements, at Engen,
May 2, at Moeskirch, May 4, at Biberach, May 9, and at
Hochstadt, June 19], and held himself in readiness to cover
the operations of the First Consul in Italy. The main body of
the French army, in numbers about 40,000, nominally commanded
by Berthier, but in fact by the First Consul himself, marched
on the 15th from Lausanne to the village of St. Pierre, at the
foot of the Great St. Bernard, at which all trace of a
practicable road entirely ceased. General Marescot, the
engineer who had been sent forward from Geneva to reconnoitre,
reported the paths to be 'barely passable.' 'Set forward
immediately!' wrote Napoleon. Field forges were established at
St. Pierre to dismount the guns, the carriages and wheels were
slung on poles, and the ammunition-boxes carried by mules. A
number of trees were felled, then hollowed out, and the
pieces, being jammed into these rough cases, 100 soldiers were
attached to each and ordered to drag them up the steeps. …
The whole army effected the passage of the Great St. Bernard
in three days."
_R. H. Horne,
History of Napoleon Bonaparte,
chapter 18._
"From May 16 to May 19, the solitudes of the vast mountain
track echoed to the din and tumult of war, as the French
soldiery swept over its heights to reach the valley of the Po
and the plains of Lombardy. A hill fort, for a time, stopped
the daring invaders, but the obstacle was passed by an
ingenious stratagem; and before long Bonaparte, exulting in
hope, was marching from the verge of Piedmont on Milan, having
made a demonstration against Turin, in order to hide his real
purpose. By June 2 the whole French army, joined by the
reinforcement sent by Moreau, was in possession of the Lombard
capital, and threatened the line of its enemy's retreat, having
successfully accomplished the first part of the brilliant
design of its great leader. While Bonaparte was thus
descending from the Alps, the Austrian commander had been
pressing forward the siege of Genoa and his operations on the
Var. Masséna, however, stubbornly held out in Genoa; and
Suchet had defended the defiles of Provence with a weak force
with such marked skill that his adversary had made little
progress. When first informed of the terrible apparition of a
hostile army gathering upon his rear, Melas disbelieved what
he thought impossible; and when he could no longer discredit
what he heard, the movements by Mont Cenis and against Turin,
intended to perplex him, had made him hesitate. As soon,
however, as the real design of the First Consul was fully
revealed, the brave Austrian chief resolved to force his way
to the Adige at any cost; and, directing Ott to raise the
siege of Genoa, and leaving a subordinate to hold Suchet in
check, he began to draw his divided army together, in order to
make a desperate attack on the audacious foe upon his line of
retreat. Ott, however, delayed some days to receive the keys
of Genoa, which fell [June 4] after a defence memorable in the
annals of war; and, as the Austrian forces had been widely
scattered, it was June 12 [after a severe defeat at
Montebello, on the 9th, by Lannes] before 50,000 men were
assembled for an offensive movement round the well-known
fortresses of Alessandria. Meanwhile, the First Consul had
broken up from Milan; and, whether ill-informed of his enemy's
operations, or apprehensive that, after the fall of Genoa,
Melas would escape by a march southwards, he had advanced from
a strong position he had taken between the Ticino, the Adda,
and the Po, and had crossed the Scrivia into the plains of
Marengo, with forces disseminated far too widely. Melas boldly
seized the opportunity to escape from the weakened meshes of
the net thrown round him; and attacked Bonaparte on the
morning of June 14 with a vigor and energy which did him
honor.
{1334}
The battle raged confusedly for several hours; but the French
had begun to give way and fly, when the arrival of an isolated
division on the field [that of Desaix, who had been sent
southward by Bonaparte, and who turned back, on his own
responsibility, when he heard the sounds of battle] and the
unexpected charge of a small body of horsemen, suddenly
changed defeat into a brilliant victory. The importance was
then seen of the commanding position of Bonaparte on the rear
of his foe; the Austrian army, its retreat cut off, was
obliged to come to terms after a single reverse; and within a
few days an armistice was signed by which Italy to the Mincio
was restored to the French, and the disasters of 1799 were
effaced. … While Italy had been regained at one stroke, the
campaign in Germany had progressed slowly; and though Moreau
was largely superior in force, he had met more than one check
near Ulm, on the Danube. The stand, however, made ably by
Kray, could not lessen the effects of Marengo; and Austria,
after that terrible reverse, endeavored to negotiate with the
dreaded conqueror. Bonaparte, however, following out a purpose
which he had already made a maxim of policy, and resolved if
possible to divide the Coalition, refused to treat with
Austria jointly with England, except on conditions known to be
futile; and after a pause of a few weeks hostilities were
resumed with increased energy. By this time, however, the
French armies had acquired largely preponderating strength;
and while Brune advanced victoriously to the Adige—the First
Consul had returned to the seat of government—Moreau in
Bavaria marched on the rivers which, descending from the Alps
to the Danube, form one of the bulwarks of the Austrian
Monarchy. He was attacked incautiously by the Archduke
John—the Archduke Charles, who ought to have been in command,
was in temporary disgrace at the Court—and soon afterwards
[December 3] he won a great battle at Hohenlinden, between the
Iser and the Inn, the success of the French being complete and
decisive, though the conduct of their chief has not escaped
criticism. This last disaster proved overwhelming, and Austria
and the States of the Empire were forced to submit to the
terms of Bonaparte. After a brief delay peace was made at
Luneville in February 1801."
_W. O'C. Morris,
The French Revolution and First Empire,
chapter 10._
ALSO IN:
_C. Botta,
Italy during the Consulate and Empire of Napoleon,
chapters 1-2._
_Baron Jomini,
Life of Napoleon,
chapter 6 (volume l)._
_C. Adams,
Great Campaigns in Europe
from 1796 to 1870, chapter 2._
_Duke de Rovigo,
Memoirs,
volume 1, chapters 19-20._
FRANCE: A. D. 1800-1801 (June-February).
The King of Naples spared at the intercession of the Russian
Czar.
The Czar won away from the Coalition.
The Pope befriended.
"Replaced in his richest territories by the allies, the King
of Naples was bound by every tie to assist them in the
campaign of 1800. He accordingly sent an army into the march
of Ancona, under the command of Count Roger de Damas. …
Undeterred by the battle of Marengo, the Count de Damas
marched against the French general Miollis, who commanded in
Tuscany, and sustained a defeat by him near Sienna. Retreat
became now necessary, the more especially as the armistice
which was entered into by General Melas deprived the
Neapolitans of any assistance from the Austrians, and rendered
their whole expedition utterly hopeless. They were not even
included by name in the armistice, and were thus left exposed
to the whole vengeance of the French. … At this desperate
crisis, the Queen of the Two Sicilies took a resolution which
seemed almost as desperate, and could only have been adopted
by a woman of a bold and decisive character. She resolved,
notwithstanding the severity of the season, to repair in
person to the court of the Emperor Paul, and implore his
intercession with the First Consul, in behalf of her husband
and his territories." The Russian autocrat was more than ready
to accede to her request. Disgusted and enraged at the
discomfiture of Suwarrow in Switzerland, dissatisfied with the
conduct of Austria in that unfortunate campaign, and equally
dissatisfied with England in the joint invasion of the
Batavian republic, he made prompt preparations to quit the
coalition and to ally himself with the First Consul of France.
Bonaparte welcomed his overtures and gave them every
flattering encouragement, conceding instantly the grace which
he asked on behalf of the King and Queen of Naples. "The
respect paid by the First Consul to the wishes of Paul saved
for the present the royal family of Naples; but Murat [who
commanded the army sent to central and southern Italy],
nevertheless, made them experience a full portion of the
bitter cup which the vanquished are generally doomed to
swallow. General Damas was commanded in the haughtiest terms
to evacuate the Roman States, and not to presume to claim any
benefit from the armistice which had been extended to the
Austrians. At the same time, while the Neapolitans were thus
compelled hastily to evacuate the Roman territories, general
surprise was exhibited when, instead of marching to Rome, and
re-establishing the authority of the Roman Republic, Murat,
according to the orders which he had received from the First
Consul, carefully respected the territory of the Church, and
reinstalled the officers of the Pope in what had been long
termed the patrimony of St. Peter's. This unexpected turn of
circumstances originated in high policy on the part of
Buonaparte. … Besides evacuating the Ecclesiastical States,
the Neapolitans were compelled by Murat to restore various
paintings, statues, and other objects of art, which they had,
in imitation of Buonaparte, taken forcibly from the
Romans,—so captivating is the influence of bad example. A
French army of about 18,000 men was to be quartered in
Calabria. … The harbours of the Neapolitan dominions were of
course to be closed against the English. A cession of part of
the isle of Elba, and the relinquishment of all pretensions
upon Tuscany, summed up the sacrifices of the King of Naples
[stipulated in the treaty of Foligno, signed in February,
1801], who, considering how often he had braved Napoleon, had
great reason to thank the Emperor of Russia for his effectual
mediation."
_Sir W. Scott,
Life of Napoleon,
chapter 38._
FRANCE: A. D. 1801 (February).
The Peace of Luneville.
The Rhine boundary confirmed.
See GERMANY: A. D. 1801-1803.
FRANCE: A. D. 1801 (March).
Recovery of Louisiana from Spain.
See LOUISIANA: A. D. 1798-1803.
FRANCE: A. D. 1801.
Expedition against the Blacks of Hayti.
See HAYTI: A. D. 1632-1803.
{1335}
FRANCE: A. D. 1801-1802.
The import of the Peace of Luneville.
Bonaparte's preparations for conflict with England.
The Northern Maritime League.
English bombardment of Copenhagen and
summary crushing of the League.
Murder of the Russian Czar.
English expedition to Egypt.
Surrender of the French army.
Peace of Amiens.
"The treaty of Luneville was of far greater import than the
treaties which had ended the struggle of the first coalition.
… The significance then of the Peace of Luneville lay in
this, not only that it was the close of the earlier
revolutionary struggle for supremacy in Europe, the
abandonment by France of her effort to 'liberate the peoples,'
to force new institutions on the nations about her by sheer
dint of arms; but that it marked the concentration of all her
energies on a struggle with Britain for the supremacy of the
world. For England herself the event which accompanied it, the
sudden withdrawal of William Pitt from office, which took
place in the very month of the treaty, was hardly less
significant. … The bulk of the old Ministry returned in a
few days to office with Mr. Addington at their head, and his
administration received the support of the whole Tory party in
Parliament. … It was with anxiety that England found itself
guided by men like these. … The country stood utterly alone;
while the peace of Luneville secured France from all hostility
on the Continent. … To strike at England's wealth had been
among the projects of the Directory: it was now the dream of
the First Consul. It was in vain for England to produce, if he
shut her out of every market. Her carrying-trade must be
annihilated if he closed every port against her ships. It was
this gigantic project of a 'Continental System' that revealed
itself as soon as Buonaparte became finally master of France.
From France itself and its dependencies in Holland and the
Netherlands English trade was already excluded. But Italy also
was shut against her after the Peace of Luneville [and the
Treaty of Foligno with the King of Naples], and Spain not only
closed her own ports but forced Portugal to break with her
English ally. In the Baltic, Buonaparte was more active than
even in the Mediterranean. In a treaty with America, which was
destined to bring this power also in the end into his great
attack, he had formally recognized the rights of neutral
vessels which England was hourly disputing. … The only
powers which now possessed naval resources were the powers of
the North. … Both the Scandinavian states resented the
severity with which Britain enforced that right of search
which had brought about their armed neutrality at the close of
the American war; while Denmark was besides an old ally of
France; and her sympathies were still believed to be French.
The First Consul therefore had little trouble in enlisting
them in a league of Neutrals, which was in effect a
declaration of war against England, and which Prussia as
before showed herself ready to join. Russia indeed seemed
harder to gain." But Paul, the Czar, afraid of the opposition
of England to his designs upon Turkey, dissatisfied with the
operations of the coalition, and flattered by Bonaparte, gave
himself up to the influence of the latter. "It was to check
the action of Britain in the East that the Czar now turned to
the French Consul, and seconded his efforts for the formation
of a naval confederacy in the North, while his minister,
Rostopchin, planned a division of the Turkish Empire in Europe
between Russia and her allies. … A squabble over Malta,
which had been blockaded since its capture by Buonaparte, and
which surrendered at last [September, 1800] to a British
fleet, but whose possession the Czar claimed as his own on the
ground of an alleged election as Grand Master of the Order of
St. John, served as a pretext for a quarrel with England; and
at the close of· 1800 Paul openly prepared for hostilities.
… The Danes, who throughout the year had been struggling to
evade the British right of search, at once joined this neutral
league, and were followed by Sweden in their course. … But
dexterous as the combination was, it was shattered at a blow.
On the 1st of April, 1801, a British fleet of 18 men-of-war
[under Sir Hyde Parker, with Nelson second in command] forced
the passage of the Belt; appeared before Copenhagen, and at
once attacked the city and its fleet. In spite of a brave
resistance from the Danish batteries and gunboats six Danish
ships were taken, and the Crown Prince was forced to conclude
an armistice which enabled the English ships to enter the
Baltic. … But their work was really over. The seizure of
English goods and the declaration of war had bitterly
irritated the Russian nobles, whose sole outlet for the sale
of the produce of their vast estates was thus closed to them;
and on the 24th of March, nine days before the battle of
Copenhagen, Paul fell in a midnight attack by conspirators in
his own palace. With Paul fell the Confederacy of the North.
… At the very moment of the attack on Copenhagen, a stroke
as effective wrecked his projects in the East. … In March,
1801, a force of 15,000 men under General Abercrombie anchored
in Aboukir Bay. Deserted as they were by Buonaparte, the
French had firmly maintained their hold on Egypt. … But
their army was foolishly scattered, and Abercrombie was able
to force a landing five days after his arrival on the coast.
The French however rapidly concentrated; and on the 21st of
March their general attacked the English army on the ground it
had won, with a force equal to its own. The battle [known as
the battle of Alexandria] was a stubborn one, and Abercrombie
fell mortally wounded ere its close; but after six hours'
fighting the French drew off with heavy loss; and their
retreat was followed by the investment of Alexandria and
Cairo. … At the close of June the capitulation of the 13,000
soldiers who remained closed the French rule over Egypt."
Threatening preparations for an invasion of England were kept
up, and gunboats and flatboats collected at Boulogne, which
Nelson attacked unsuccessfully in August, 1801. "The First
Consul opened negotiations for peace at the close of 1801. His
offers were at once met by the English Government. … The
negotiations which went on through the winter between England
and the three allied Powers of France, Spain, and the Dutch,
brought about in March, 1802, the Peace of Amiens." The treaty
secured "a pledge on the part of France to withdraw its forces
from Southern Italy, and to leave to themselves the republics
it had set up along its border in Holland, Switzerland, and
Piedmont. In exchange for this pledge, England recognized the
French government, restored all the colonies which they had
lost, save Ceylon and Trinidad, to France and its allies
[including the restoration to Holland of the Cape of Good Hope
and Dutch Guiana, and of Minorca and the citadel of Port Mahon
to Spain, while Turkey regained possession of Egypt],
acknowledged the Ionian Islands as a free republic, and
engaged to restore Malta within three months to its old
masters, the Knights of St. John."
_J. R. Green,
History of the English People,
book 9, chapter 5 (volume 4)._
ALSO IN:
_R. Southey,
Life of Nelson,
chapter 7 (volume 2)._
_J. Gifford,
Political Life of Pitt,
chapter 47 (volume 6)._
_C. Joyneville,
Life and Times of Alexander I.,
volume 1, chapter 4._
_A. Rambaud,
History of Russia,
volume 2, chapter 11-12._
_G. R. Gleig,
Life of General Sir R. Abercromby
(Eminent British Military Commanders, volume 3)._
{1336}
FRANCE: A. D. 1801-1803.
Domestic measures of Bonaparte.
His Legion of Honor.
His wretched educational scheme.
He is made First Consul for life.
His whittling away of the Constitution.
Revolutions instigated and dictated in the Dutch,
Swiss, and Cisalpine Republics.
Bonaparte president of the Italian Republic.
"The concordat was succeeded by the emigrants' recall, which
resolution was presented and passed April 26. The
irrevocability of the sale of national property was again
established, and amnesty granted to all emigrants but the
leaders of armed forces, and some few whose offences were
specially grave. The property of emigrants remaining unsold
was restored, excepting forests, which Bonaparte reserved to
be gradually returned as bribes to great families. … Two
important projects were presented to the Tribunal and
Legislative Corps, the Legion of Honor, and free schools. The
Convention awarded prizes to the troops for special acts of
daring, and the First Consul increased and arranged the
distribution, but that was not enough: he wanted a vast system
of rewards, adapted to excite amour propre, repay service, and
give him a new and potent means of influencing civilians as
well as soldiers. He therefore conceived the idea of the
Legion of Honor, embracing all kinds of service and title to
public distinction. … But this plan for forming an order of
chivalry was contested even by the Council of State as
offensive to that equality which its members were to defend
[under the oath prescribed to the Legion], and as a renewal of
aristocracy. It only passed the Tribunal and Legislative Corps
by a very small majority, and this after the removal of so
many of the opposition party. The institution of the Legion of
Honor was specious, and, despite the opposition it met within
its early days, suits a people who love distinction, despite
their passion for equality, provided it be not hereditary. As
for the educational scheme, it was wretched, doing absolutely
nothing for the primary schools. The state had no share in it.
The Commune was to provide the buildings when the pupils could
pay a teacher, thus forsaking the plans of the great
assemblies. The wisest statesmen desired to sustain in an
improved form the central schools founded by the Convention;
but Bonaparte meant to substitute barracks to educate young
men for his service. … He diminished scientific study;
suppressed history and philosophy, which were incompatible
with despotism; and completed his system of secondary
instruction by creating 6,000 scholarships, to be used as
means of influence, like the ribbon of the Legion of Honor.
… All his measures succeeded, and yet he was not content: he
wanted to extend his power. … Cambacérès … , when the
Amiens treaty was presented to the Tribunal and Legislature,
… proposed, through the president of the former, that the
Senate should be invited to give the First Consul some token
of national gratitude (May 6, 1802). … The Senate only voted
to prolong the First Consul's power for ten years (May 8),
with but one protesting voice, that of Lanjuinais, who
denounced the flagrant usurpation that threatened the
Republic. This was the last echo of the Gironde ringing
through the tame assemblies of the Consulate. Bonaparte was
very angry, having expected more; but Cambacérès' calmed him
and suggested a mode of evading the question, namely, to reply
that an extension of power could only be granted by the
people, and then to make the Council of State dictate the
formula to be submitted to the people, substituting a life
consulate for ten years. This was accordingly done. … The
Council of State even added the First Consul's right to name
his successor. This he thought premature and likely to make
trouble, and therefore erased it. … Registers were opened at
the record offices and mayoralties to receive votes, and there
were three million and a half votes in the affirmative; a few
thousand only daring to refuse, and many abstaining from
voting. La Fayette registered a 'no' … and sent the First
Consul a noble letter. … La Fayette then ceased the
relations he had hitherto maintained with the First Consul
since his return to France. … The Senate counted the popular
vote on the proposal they did not make, and carried the result
to the Tuileries in a body, August 8, 1802; and the result was
proclaimed in the form of a Senatus-Consultum, in these terms:
'The French people name and the Senate proclaim Napoleon
Bonaparte First Consul for life.' This was the first official
use of the prenomen Napoleon, which was soon, in conformity
with royal custom, to be substituted for the family name of
Bonaparte. … The next day various modifications of the
Constitution were offered to the Council of State. … The
Senate were given the right to interpret and complete the
Constitution, to dissolve the Legislature and Tribunal, and,
what was even more, to break the judgment of tribunals, thus
subordinating justice to policy. But these extravagant
prerogatives could only be used at the request of the
government, The Senate was limited to 120 members, 40 of whom
the First Consul was to elect. The Tribunal was reduced to 50
members, and condemned to discuss with closed doors, divided
into sections. … Despotism concentrated more and more.
Bonaparte took back his refusal to choose his successor, and
now claimed that right. He also formed a civil list of six
millions. … The Senate agreed to everything, and the
Senatus-Consultum was published August 5. … The Republic was
now but a name; … Early in 1808 things grew dark on the
English shore," and "the loss of San Domingo [to which
Bonaparte had sent an expedition at the beginning of 1801]
seemed inevitable [see HAYTI: A. D. 1682-1808]. While making
this expedition, doomed to so fatal an end, Bonaparte
continued his haughty policy on the European continent. By
article second of the Luneville treaty France and Austria
mutually guaranteed the independence of the Dutch, Swiss,
Cisalpine, and Ligurian republics, and their freedom in the
adoption of whatever form of government they saw fit to
choose.
{1337}
Bonaparte interpreted this article by substituting for
independence his own more or less direct rule in those
republics. … During the negotiations preceding the Amiens
treaty he stirred up a revolution in Holland. That country had
a Directory and two Chambers, as in the French Constitution of
year III., and he wished to impose a new constitution on the
Chambers, putting them more into his power; they refused, and
he expelled them by means of the Directory, whom he had won
over to his side. The Dutch Directory, in this imitation of
November 9, was sustained by French troops, occupying Holland
under Augereau, now reconciled to Bonaparte (September, 1801).
The new Constitution was put to popular vote. A certain number
voted against it. The majority did not vote. Silence was taken
for consent, and the new Constitution was proclaimed October
17, 1801. … The English government protested, but did not
resist. At the same time he [Bonaparte] imposed on the
Cisalpine republic, but without conflict or opposition, a
constitution even more anti-liberal than the French one of
year VIII.; the president who there replaced the First Consul
having supreme power. But who was to be that President? The
Cisalpines for an instant were simple enough to think that
they could choose an Italian: they decided on Count Melzi,
well known in the Milanese. They were soon undeceived, when
Bonaparte called Cisalpine delegates to Lyons in midwinter.
These delegates were landowners, scholars, and merchants, some
hundreds in number, and his agents explained to them that none
but Bonaparte 'was worthy to govern their republic or able to
maintain it.' They eagerly offered him the presidency, which
he accepted in lofty terms, and took Melzi for vice-president
(January 25, 1802). Italian patriots were consoled for this
subjection by the change of name from Cisalpine to Italian
Republic, which seemed to promise the unity of Italy.
Bonaparte threw out this hope, never meaning to gratify it.
… He acted as master in Switzerland as well as Italy and
Holland. Since Switzerland had ceased to be the scene of war,
she had been given over to agitation, fluctuating between
revolutionary democracy and the old aristocracy joined to the
retrograde democracy of the small Catholic cantons. Modern
democracy was at strife with itself. … Bonaparte encouraged
the strife, that Switzerland might call him in as arbiter.
Suddenly, late in July, 1802, he withdrew his troops, which
had occupied Switzerland ever since 1798. Civil war broke out
at once; the smaller Catholic cantons and the aristocrats of
Berne and Zurich overthrew the government established at Berne
by the moderate democrats. The government retired to Lausanne,
and the country was thus divided. Bonaparte then announced
that he would not suffer a Swiss counter-revolution, and that
if the parties could not agree he must mediate between them.
He summoned the insurrectional powers of Berne to dissolve,
and invited all citizens who had held office in the central
Swiss government within three years, to meet at Paris and
confer with him, announcing that 30,000 men under General Ney
were ready to support his mediation. The democratic government
at Lausanne were willing to receive the French; the
aristocratic government at Berne, anxious to restore the
Austrians, appealed to European powers, who replied by
silence, England only protesting against French interference.
… Bonaparte responded to the English protest by so
extraordinary a letter that his charge d'Affaires at London
dared not communicate it verbatim. It said that, if England
succeeded in drawing the continental powers into her cause,
the result would be to force France to 'conquer Europe! Who
knows how long it would take the First-Consul to revive the
Empire of the West?' (October 23, 1802). … There was slight
resistance to Ney's troops in Switzerland. All the politicians
of the new democracy and some of the aristocrats went to Paris
at the First Consul's summons. He did not treat their country
as he had Holland and Italy, but gave her, instead, a vain
show of institutions, a constitution imposing on the different
parties a specious compromise. … Switzerland was dependent
on France in regard to general policy, and was bound to
furnish her with troops; but, at least, she administered her
own affairs (January, 1803)."
_H. Martin,
Popular History of France from the First Revolution,
volume 2, chapters 8-9._
ALSO IN:
_F. C. Schlosser,
History of the 18th Century,
volume 7, pages 286-302._
_Mrs. L. Hug and R. Stead,
Story of Switzerland,
chapters 30-31._
_C. Botta,
Italy during the Consulate and Empire of Napoleon,
chapter 3._
_M. Bourrienne,
Private Memoirs of Napoleon,
volume 2, chapters 20-26._
_Duchess D' Abrantes,
Memoirs of Napoleon,
volume 1, chapter 80._
_Count M. Dumas,
Memoirs,
chapter 9 (volume 2)._
_H. A. Taine,
The Modern Regime,
volume 1, book 3, chapter 3._
FRANCE: A. D. 1801-1804.
The Civil Code and the Concordat.
"Four years of peace separated the Treaty of Luneville from
the next outbreak of war between France and any Continental
Power. They were years of the extension of French influence in
every neighbouring State; in France itself, years of the
consolidation of Bonaparte's power, and of the decline of
everything that checked his personal rule. … Among the
institutions which date from this period, two, equally
associated with the name of Napoleon, have taken a prominent
place in history, the Civil Code and the Concordat. Since the
middle of the 18th century the codification of law had been
pursued with more or less success by almost every Government
in the western continent. The Constituent Assembly of 1789 had
ordered the statutes by which it superseded the variety of
local customs in France to be thus cast into a systematic
form. … Bonaparte instinctively threw himself into a task so
congenial to his own systematizing spirit, and stimulated the
efforts of the best jurists in France by his own personal
interest and pride in the work of legislation. A Commission of
lawyers, appointed by the First Consul, presented the
successive chapters of a Civil Code to the Council of State.
In the discussions in the Council of State Bonaparte himself
took an active, though not always a beneficial, part. … In
March, 1804, France received the Code which, with few
alterations, has formed from that time to the present the
basis of its civil rights. … It is probable that a majority
of the inhabitants of Western Europe believe that Napoleon
actually invented the laws which bear his name. As a matter of
fact, the substance of these laws was fixed by the successive
Assemblies of the Revolution; and, in the final revision which
produced the Civil Code, Napoleon appears to have originated
neither more nor less than several of the members of his
Council whose names have long been forgotten.
{1338}
He is unquestionably entitled to the honour of a great
legislator, not, however, as one who, like Solon or like
Mahomet, himself created a new body of law. … Four other
Codes, appearing at intervals from the year 1804 to the year
1810, embodied, in a corresponding form, the Law of Commerce,
the Criminal Law, and the Rules of Civil and of Criminal
Process. … Far more distinctively the work of Napoleon
himself was the reconciliation with the Church of Rome
effected by the Concordat [July, 1801]. It was a restoration
of religion similar to that restoration of political order
which made the public service the engine of a single will. The
bishops and priests, whose appointment the Concordat
transferred from their congregations to the Government, were
as much instruments of the First Consul as his prefects and
his gensdarmes. … An alliance with the Pope offered to
Bonaparte the means of supplanting the popular organisation of
the Constitutional Church by an imposing hierarchy, rigid in
its orthodoxy and unquestioning in its devotion to himself. In
return for the consecration of his own rule, Bonaparte did not
shrink from inviting the Pope to an exercise of authority such
as the Holy See had never even claimed in France. The whole of
the existing French Bishops, both the exiled non-jurors and
those of the Constitutional Church, were summoned to resign
their sees into the hands of the Pope; against all who refused
to do so sentence of deposition was pronounced by the Pontiff.
… The sees were reorganised, and filled up by nominees of the
First Consul. The position of the great body of the clergy was
substantially altered in its relation to the Bishops.
Episcopal power was made despotic, like all other powers in
France. … In the greater cycle of religious change, the
Concordat of Bonaparte appears in another light. … It
converted the Catholicism of France from a faith already far
more independent than that of Fénélon and Bossuet into the
Catholicism which in our day has outstripped the bigotry of
Spain and Austria in welcoming the dogma of Papal
infallibility."
_C. A. Fyffe,
History of Modern Europe,
volume 1, chapter 5._
"It is … easy, from the official reports which have been
preserved, to see what part the First Consul took in the
framing of the Civil Code. While we recognise that his
intervention was advantageous on some minor points, … we
must say that his views on the subjects of legislation in
which this intervention was most conspicuous, were most often
inspired by suggestions of personal interest, or by political
considerations which ought to have no weight with the
legislator. … Bonaparte came by degrees to consider himself
the principal creator of a collective work to which he
contributed little more than his name, and which probably
would have been much better if the suggestions of a man of
action and executive authority had not been blended with the
views, necessarily more disinterested, larger and more humane,
of the eminent jurisconsults whose glory he tried to usurp."
_P. Lanfrey,
History of Napoleon,
volume 2, chapter 5._
ALSO IN:
_A. Thiers,
History of the Consulate and the Empire,
volume 1, books 12-14._
_W. H. Jervis,
History of the Church of France,
volume 2, chapter 11._
_J. E. Darras,
General History of the Catholic Church,
volume 4, pages 547-554._
_The Code Napoleon,
translated by Richards._
FRANCE: A. D. 1802.
Fourcroy's education law.
See EDUCATION, MODERN: EUROPEAN COUNTRIES,
FRANCE: A. D. 1565-1802.
FRANCE: A. D. 1802 (August-September).
Annexation of Piedmont, Parma, and the Isle of Elba.
A "flagrant act of the First Consul's at this time was the
seizure and annexation of Piedmont. Although that country was
reconquered by the Austro-Russian army in 1799, the-King of
Sardinia had not been restored when, by the battle of Marengo,
it came again into the possession of the French. Bonaparte
then united part of it to the Cisalpine Republic, and promised
to erect the rest into a separate State; but he afterwards
changed his mind; and by a decree of April 20th 1801, ordered
that Piedmont should form a military division of France. …
Charles Emanuel, disgusted with the injustice and insults to
which he was exposed, having abdicated his throne in favour of
his brother Victor Emanuel, Duke of Aosta, June 4th 1802,
Bonaparte … caused that part of Piedmont which had not been
united to the Italian Republic to be annexed to France, as the
27th Military Department, by a formal Senatus-Consulte of
September 11th 1802. A little after, October 11th, on the
death of Ferdinand de Bourbon, Duke of Parma, father of the
King of Etruria, that duchy was also seized by the rapacious
French Republic. The isle of Elba had also been united to
France by a Senatus-Consulte of August 26th."
_T. H. Dyer,
History of Modern Europe,
book 7, chapter 11 (volume 4)._
ALSO IN:
_A. Gallenga,
History of Piedmont,
volume 3, chapter 5._
FRANCE: A. D. 1802-1803.
Complaints against the English press.
The Peltier trial.
The First Consul's rage.
War declared by Great Britain.
Detention of all the English in France, Italy, Switzerland and
the Netherlands.
Occupation of Hanover.
"Mr. Addington was wont to say in after years that the ink was
scarcely dry, after the signature of the treaty of Amiens,
when discontents arose which perilled the new peace. On the
24th of May [1802], M. Otto told Lord Glenbervie that if the
English press were not controlled from censuring Napoleon,
there must be a war to the death: and in the course of the
summer, six requisitions were formally made to the British
government, the purport of which was that the press must be
controlled; the royal emigrants sent to Warsaw; the island of
Jersey cleared of persons disaffected to the French
government; and all Frenchmen dismissed from Great Britain who
wore the decorations of the old monarchy. The reply was, that
the press was free in England; and that if any of the
emigrants broke the laws, they should be punished; but that
otherwise they could not be molested. The government, however,
used its influence in remonstrance with the editors of
newspapers which were abusive of the French. Cobbet was
pointed out by name by Napoleon, as a libeller who must be
punished; and Peltier, a royalist emigrant, who had published
some incentives to the assassination of the French ruler, or
prophecies which might at such a crisis be fairly regarded as
incentives. M. Peltier's object was to use his knowledge of
the tools of Napoleon, and his great political and literary
experience, in laying bare the character and policy of
Napoleon; and he began, in the summer of 1802, a journal, the
first number of which occasioned the demand for his
punishment.
{1339}
He was prosecuted by the Attorney-General, and defended by Sir
James Mackintosh, in a speech which was translated into nearly
all the languages of Europe, and universally considered one of
the most prodigious efforts of oratory ever listened to in any
age. The Attorney-General, Mr. Percival, declared in Court,
that he could hardly hope for an impartial decision from a
jury whose faculties had been so roused, dazzled and charmed.
… M. Peltier was found guilty; but the Attorney-General did
not call for judgment on the instant. War was then—at the
close of February [1808]—imminent; and the matter was
dropped. M: Peltier was regarded as a martyr, and, as far as
public opinion went, was rather rewarded than punished in
England. He was wont to say that he was tried in England and
punished in France. His property was confiscated by the
consular agents; and his only near relations, his aged father
and his sister, died at Nantes, through terror at his trial.
By this time the merchants of Great Britain were thoroughly
disgusted with France. Not only had Napoleon prevented all
commercial intercourse between the nations throughout the
year, but he had begun to, confiscate English merchant
vessels, driven by stress of weather into his ports. By this
time, too, the Minister's mind was made up as to the
impossibility of avoiding war. … Napoleon had published
[January 30, 1803] a Report of an official agent of his,
Sebastiani, who had explored the Levant, striving as he went
to rouse the Mediterranean States to a desertion of England
and an alliance with France. He, reported of the British force
at Alexandria, and of the means of attack and defence there;
and his employer put forth this statement in the 'Moniteur,'
his own paper, while complaining of the insults of the English
press towards himself. Our ambassador at Paris, Lord
Whitworth, desired an explanation: and the reception of his
demand by the First Consul … was characteristic. … He sent
for Lord Whitworth to wait on him at nine in the morning of
the 18th; made him sit down; and then poured out his wrath 'in
the style of an Italian bully,' as the record has it: and the
term is not too strong; for he would not allow Lord Whitworth
to speak. The first impression was, that it was his design to
terrify England: but Talleyrand's anxiety to smooth matters
afterwards, and to explain away what his master had said,
shows that the ebullition was one of mere temper. And this was
presently confirmed by his behaviour to Lord Whitworth at a
levee, when the saloon was crowded with foreign ambassadors
and their suites, as well as with French courtiers. The whole
scene was set forth in the newspapers of every country.
Napoleon walked about, transported with passion: asked Lord
Whitworth if he did not know that a terrible storm had arisen
between the two governments; declared that England was a
violator of treaties; took to witness the foreigners present
that if England did not immediately surrender Malta, war was
declared; and condescended to appeal to them whether the right
was not on his side; and, when Lord Whitworth would have
replied, silenced him by a gesture, and observed that, Lady
Whitworth being out of health, her native air would be of
service to her; and she should, have it, sooner than she
expected.—After this, there could be little hope of peace in
the most sanguine mind. … Lord Whitworth left Paris on the
12th of May; and at Dover met General Andreossi, on his way to
Paris. On the 16th, it became publicly known that war was
declared: and on the same day Admiral Cornwallis received
telegraphic orders which caused him to appear before Brest on
the 18th. On the 17th, an Order in Council, directing
reprisals, was issued; and with it the proclamation of an
embargo being laid on all French and Dutch ships in British
ports. … On the next day, May 18th, 1803, the Declaration of
War was laid before parliament, and the feverish state, called
peace, which had lasted for one year and sixteen days, passed
into one of open hostility. The reason why the vessels of the
Dutch were to be seized with those of the French was that
Napoleon had filled Holland with French troops, and was
virtually master of the country. … In July, the militia
force amounted to 173,000 men; and the deficiency was in
officers to command them. The minister proposed, in addition
to all the forces actually in existence, the formation of an
army of reserve, amounting to 50,000 men: and this was
presently agreed to. There was little that the parliament and
people of England would not have agreed to at this moment,
under the provocation of Napoleon's treatment of the English
in France. His first act was to order the detention, as
prisoners of war, of all the English then in the country,
between the ages of 18 and 60. The exasperation caused by this
cruel measure was all that he could have expected or desired.
Many were the young men thus doomed to lose, in wearing
expectation or despair, twelve of the best years of their
lives, cut off from family, profession, marriage,
citizenship—everything that young men most value. Many were
the parents separated for twelve long years from the young
creatures at home, whom they had left for a mere pleasure
trip: and many were the grey-haired fathers and mothers at
home who went down to the grave during those twelve years
without another sight of the son or daughter who was pining in
some small provincial town in France, without natural
occupation, and well nigh without hope. In June, the English
in Rouen were removed to the neighbourhood of Amiens; those in
Calais to, Lisle; those at Brussels to Valenciennes. Before
the month was out, all the English in Italy and Switzerland,
in addition to those in Holland, were made prisoners. How many
the whole amounted to does not appear to have been
ascertained: but it was believed at the time that there were
11,000 in France, and 1,800 in Holland. The first pretence was
that these travellers were detained as hostages for the prizes
which Napoleon accused us of taking before the regular
declaration of war; but when proposals were made for an
exchange, he sent a savage answer that he would keep his
prisoners till the end of the war. It is difficult to conceive
how there could be two opinions about the nature of the man
after this act. The naval captures of which Napoleon
complained, as made prior to a declaration of war, were of two
merchant Ships taken by English frigates: and we find notices
of such being brought into port on the 25th of May. Whether
they were captured before the 18th, there is no record that we
can find. … On the sea, our successes seemed a matter of
course; but meantime a blow was struck at Great Britain, and
especially at her sovereign, which proved that the national
exasperation against France was even yet capable of increase.
{1340}
On the breaking out of the war; George III. issued a
proclamation, as Elector of Hanover, declaring to Germany that
the Germanic states had nothing to fear in regard to the new
hostilities, as he was entering into war as King of Great
Britain, and not as Elector of Hanover. Whatever military
preparations were going forward in Hanover were merely of a
defensive character. Napoleon, however, set such defence at
defiance. On the 13th of June, news arrived of the total
surrender of Hanover to the French. … Government resolved to
declare the Elbe and the Weser, and all the ports of Western
Germany, in a state of blockade; as the French had now command
over all the intermediate rivers. It was calculated that this
would annoy and injure Napoleon effectually, as it would cause
the ruin of foreign merchants trading from the whole series of
ports. English merchants would suffer deeply; but it was
calculated that English capital and stock would hold out
longer than those of foreign merchants. Thus was the sickening
process of private ruin, as a check to public aggression,
entered upon, before war had been declared a month."
_H. Martineau,
History of England, 1800-1815,
book l, chapter 4._
ALSO IN:
_M. de Bourrienne,
Private Memoirs of Napoleon,
volume 2, chapters 28-30._
_Sir J. Mackintosh,
Speech in Defense of Jean Peltier
(Miscellaneous Works)._
_J. Ashton,
English Caricature and Satire on Napoleon I.,
volume 1, chapters 24-87._
FRANCE: A. D. 1803 (April-May).
Sale or Louisiana to the United States of America.
See LOUISIANA: A. D. 1798-1808;
and UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1803.
FRANCE: A. D. 1803.
Loss of San Domingo, or Hayti.
See HAYTI: A. D. 1682-1803.
FRANCE: A. D. 1804-1805.
Royalist plots and Bonaparte's use or them.
The abduction and execution or the Duc d'Enghien.
The First Consul becomes Emperor.
His coronation by the Pope.
His acceptance of the crown or Italy.
Annexation of Genoa to France.
The rupture with England furnished Bonaparte "with the
occasion of throwing off the last disguise and openly
restoring monarchy. It was a step which required all his
audacity and cunning. He had crushed Jacobinism, but two great
parties remained. There was first the more moderate
republicanism, which might be called Girondism, and was widely
spread among all classes and particularly in the army.
Secondly, there was the old royalism, which after many years
of helpless weakness had revived since Brumaire. These two
parties, though hostile to each other, were forced into a sort
of alliance by the new attitude of Bonaparte, who was hurrying
France at once into a new revolution at home and into an abyss
of war abroad. England, too, after the rupture, favoured the
efforts of these parties. Royalism from England began to open
communications with moderate republicanism in France. Pichegru
acted for the former, and the great representative of the
latter was Moreau, who had helped to make Brumaire in the
tacit expectation probably of rising to the consulate in due
course when Bonaparte's term should have expired, and was
therefore hurt in his personal claims as well as in his
republican principles. Bonaparte watched the movement through
his ubiquitous police, and with characteristic strategy
determined not merely to defeat it but to make it his
stepping-stone to monarchy. He would ruin Moreau by fastening
on him the stigma of royalism; he would persuade France to
make him emperor in order to keep out the Bourbons. He
achieved this with the peculiar mastery which he always showed
in villainous intrigue. … Pichegru [who had returned
secretly to France from England some time in January, 1804]
brought with him wilder partisans, such as Georges [Cadoudal]
the Chouan. No doubt Moreau would gladly have seen and gladly
have helped an insurrection against Bonaparte. … But
Bonaparte succeeded in associating him with royalist schemes
and with schemes of assassination. Controlling the Senate, he
was able to suppress the jury; controlling every avenue of
publicity, he was able to suppress opinion; and the army,
Moreau's fortress, was won through its hatred of royalism. In
this way Bonaparte's last personal rival was removed. There
remained the royalists, and Bonaparte hoped to seize their
leader, the Comte d'Artois, who was expected, as the police
knew, soon to join Pichegru and Georges at Paris. What
Bonaparte would have done with him we may judge from the
course he took when the Comte did not come. On March 15, 1804,
the Duc d'Enghien, grandson of the Prince de Condé, residing
at Ettenheim in Baden, was seized at midnight by a party of
dragoons, brought to Paris, where he arrived on the 20th,
confined in the castle of Vincennes, brought before a military
commission at two o'clock the next morning, asked whether he had
not borne arms against the republic, which he acknowledged
himself to have done, conducted to a staircase above the moat,
and there shot and buried in the moat. … That the Due
d'Enghien was innocent of the conspiracy, was nothing to the
purpose; the act was political, not judicial; accordingly he
was not even charged with complicity. That the execution would
strike horror into the cabinets, and perhaps bring about a new
Coalition, belonged to a class of considerations which at this
time Bonaparte systematically disregarded. This affair led
immediately to the thought of giving heredity to Bonaparte's
power. The thought seems to have commended itself irresistibly
even to strong republicans and to those who were most shocked
by the murder. To make Bonaparte's position more secure seemed
the only way of averting a new Reign of Terror or new
convulsions. He himself felt some embarrassment. Like
Cromwell, he was afraid of the republicanism of the army, and
heredity pure and simple brought him face to face with the
question of divorcing Josephine. To propitiate the army, he
chose from the titles suggested to him—consul, stadtholder,
&c.—that of emperor, undoubtedly the most accurate, and
having a sufficiently military sound. The other difficulty
after much furious dissension between the two families of
Bonaparte and Beauharnais, was evaded by giving Napoleon
himself (but none of his successors) a power of adoption, and
fixing the succession, in default of a direct heir, natural or
adoptive, first in Joseph and his descendants, then in Louis
and his descendants. Except abstaining from the regal title,
no attempt was made to conceal the abolition of republicanism.
… The change was made by the constituent power of the
Senate, and the Senatus-Consulte is dated May 18, 1804. The
title of Emperor had an ulterior meaning.
{1341}
Adopted at the moment when Napoleon began to feel himself
master both in Italy and Germany, it revived the memory of
Charles the Great. To himself it was the more satisfactory on
that account, and, strange to say, it gave satisfaction rather
than offence to the Head of the Holy Roman Empire, Francis II.
Since Joseph, the Habsburg Emperors had been tired of their
title, which, being elective, was precarious. They were
desirous of becoming hereditary emperors in Austria, and they
now took this title (though without as yet giving up the
other). Francis II. bartered his acknowledgement of Napoleon's
new title against Napoleon's acknowledgement of his own. It
required some impudence to condemn Moreau for royalism at the
very moment that his rival was re-establishing monarchy. Yet
his trial began on May 15th. The death of Pichegru, nominally
by suicide, on April 6th, had already furnished the rising
sultanism with its first dark mystery. Moreau was condemned to
two years' imprisonment, but was allowed to retire to the
United States."
_J. R. Seeley,
Short History of Napoleon I.,
chapter 8, section 4._
_C. C. Fauriel,
The Last Days of the Consulate._
Chancellor Pasquier, in his Memoirs, narrates the
circumstances of the seizure of the Duc d'Enghien at
considerable length, and says: "This is what really occurred,
according to what I have been told by those better situated to
know. A council was held on the 9th of March: It is almost
certain that previous to this council, which was a kind of
official affair, a more secret one had been held at the house
of Joseph Bonaparte. At the first council, to which were
convened only a few persons, all on a footing of family
intimacy, it was discussed by order of the First Consul, what
would be proper to do with a prince of the House of Bourbon,
in case one should have him in one's power, and the decision
reached was that if he was captured on French territory, one
had the right to take his life, but not otherwise. At the
council held on the 9th, and which was composed of the three
Consuls, the Chief Justice, the Minister of Foreign Affairs,
and M. Fouché, although the latter had not then resumed the
post of Minister of Police, the two men who expressed contrary
opinions were M. de Talleyrand and M. de Cambacérès. M. de
Talleyrand declared that the prince should be sent to his
death. M. Lebrun, the Third Consul, contented himself with
saying that such an event would have a terrible echo
throughout the world. M. de Cambacérès contended earnestly
that it would be sufficient to hold the prince as hostage for
the safety of the First Consul. The latter sided with M. de
Talleyrand, whose counsels then prevailed. The discussion was
a heated one, and when the meeting of the council was over, M.
de Cambacérès thought it his duty to make a last attempt, so
he followed Bonaparte into his study, and laid before him with
perhaps more strength than might be expected from his
character, the consequences of the deed he was about to
perpetrate, and the universal horror it would excite. … He
spoke in vain. In the privacy of his study, Bonaparte
expressed himself even with greater violence than he had done
at the council. He answered that the death of the duke would
seem to the world but a just reprisal for what was being
attempted against him personally; that it was necessary to
teach the House of Bourbon that the blows struck with its
sanction were liable to recoil on its own head; that this was
the only way of compelling it to abstain from its dastardly
schemes, and lastly, that matters had gone too far to retrace
one's steps. M. de Talleyrand supplied this last argument."
_Chancellor Pasquier,
Memoirs,
volume 1, pages 190-191._
"Bonaparte's accession to the Empire was proclaimed with the
greatest pomp, without waiting to inquire whether the people
approved of his promotion or otherwise. The proclamation was
coldly received, even by the populace, and excited little
enthusiasm. … The Emperor was recognised by the soldiery
with more warmth. He visited the encampments at Boulogne,"
and, afterwards, "accompanied with his Empress, who bore her
honours both gracefully and meekly, visited Aix-la-Chapelle
and the frontiers of Germany. They received the
congratulations of all the powers of Europe, excepting
England, Russia, and Sweden, upon their new exaltation. …
But the most splendid and public recognition of his new rank
was yet to be made, by the formal act of coronation, which,
therefore, Napoleon determined should take place with
circumstances of solemnity which had been beyond the reach of
any temporal prince, however powerful, for many ages. …
Though Charlemagne had repaired to Rome to receive
inauguration from the hands of the Pontiff of that day,
Napoleon resolved that he who now owned the proud, and in
Protestant eyes profane, title of Vicar of Christ, should
travel to France to perform the coronation. … The Pope, and
the cardinals whom he consulted, implored the illumination of
Heaven upon their councils; but it was the stern voice of
necessity which assured them that, except at the risk of
dividing the Church by a schism, they could not refuse to
comply with Buonaparte's requisition. The Pope left Rome on
the 5th November. … On the 2d December [1804] the coronation
took place in the ancient cathedral of Notre Dame. … The
crown having been blessed by the Pope, Napoleon took it from
the altar with his own hands, and placed it on his brows. He
then put the diadem on the head of his Empress, as if
determined to show that his authority was the child of his own
actions. … The northern states of Italy had followed the
example of France through all her change of models. … The
authorities of the Italian (late Cisalpine) Republic, had a
prescient guess of what was expected of them. A deputation
appeared at Paris to declare the absolute necessity which they
felt, that their government should assume a monarchical and
hereditary form. On the 17th March [1805], they obtained an
audience of the Emperor, to whom they intimated the unanimous
desire of their countrymen that Napoleon, founder of the
Italian Republic, should be monarch of the Italian Kingdom.
… Buonaparte granted the petition of the Italian States, and
… upon the 11th April, … with his Empress, set off to go
through the form of coronation as King of Italy. … The new
kingdom was, in all respects, modeled on the same plan with
the French Empire. An order, called 'of the Iron Crown,' was
established on the footing of that of the Legion of Honour. A
large French force was taken into Italian pay, and Eugene
Beauharnais, the son of Josephine by her former marriage, who
enjoyed and merited the confidence of his father-in-law, was
created viceroy, and appointed to represent, in that
character, the dignity of Napoleon. Napoleon did not leave
Italy without further extension of his empire. Genoa, once the
proud and the powerful, resigned her independence, and her
Doge presented to the Emperor a request that the Ligurian
Republic … should be considered in future as a part of the
French nation."
_Sir W. Scott,
Life of Napoleon,
chapter 48 (Paris edition, 1828)._
{1342}
"Genoa and the Ligurian Republic were incorporated with
France, June 3d 1805. … The Duchies of Parma and Piacenza,
which, together with Guastalla, had been already seized, were
declared dependencies of the French Empire by an imperial
decree of July 21st. The principality of Piombino was bestowed
on Napoleon's sister Eliza, wife of the Senator Bacciocchi,
but on conditions which retained it under the Emperor's
suzerainty: and the little state was increased by the addition
of the Republic of Lucca."
_T. H. Dyer,
History of Modern Europe,
book 1, chapter 11 (volume 4)._
ALSO IN:
_C. Botta,
Italy during the Consulate and Empire of Napoleon,
chapters 3-4._
_Memoirs dictated by Napoleon to his
Generals at St. Helena,
volume 6, pages 219-225._
_J. Fouché,
Memoirs,
pages 260-274._
_Count Miot de Melito,
Memoirs,
chapters 16-17._
_W. Hazlitt,
Life of Napoleon,
chapters 38-34 (volume 2)._
_Madame de Rémusat,
Memoirs,
book 1, chapters 4-10 (volume 1)._
_P. Lanfrey,
History of Napoleon,
volume 2, chapters 9-10._
_M. de Bourrienne,
Private Memoirs of Napoleon,
volume 3, chapters 1-12._
FRANCE: A. D. 1805 (January-April).
The Third European Coalition.
"In England Pitt returned to office in May, 1804, and this in
itself was an evil omen for France. He enjoyed the confidence,
not only of his own nation but of Europe, and he at once set
to work to resume the threads of that coalition of which
England had formerly directed the resources. Alexander I. of
Russia had begun to see through the designs of Napoleon; he
found that he had been duped in the joint mediation in
Germany, he resented the occupation of Hanover and he ordered
his court to put on mourning for the duke of Enghien. Before
long he broke off diplomatic relations with France (September
1804), and a Russian war was now only a question of time.
Austria was the power most closely affected by Napoleon's
assumption of the imperial title. … While hastening to
acknowledge Napoleon, Austria was busied in military
preparations and began to resume its old connection with
England. Prussia was the power on which France was accustomed
to rely with implicit confidence. But the occupation of
Hanover and the interference with the commerce of the Elbe had
weakened Frederick William III.'s belief in the advantages of
a neutral policy, and, though he could not make up his mind to
definite action, he began to open negotiations with Russia in
view of a rupture with France. The fluctuations of Prussian
policy may be followed in the alternating influence of the two
ministers of foreign affairs, Haugwitz and Hardenberg.
Meanwhile Napoleon, ignorant or reckless of the growing
hostility of the great powers, continued his aggressions at
the expense of the lesser states. … These acts gave the
final impulse to the hostile powers, and before Napoleon
quitted Italy the Coalition had been formed. On the 11th of
April, 1805, a final treaty was signed between Russia and
England. The two powers pledged themselves to form an European
league against France, to conclude no peace without mutual
consent, to settle disputed points in a congress at the end of
the war, and to form a federal tribunal for the maintenance of
the system which should, then be established. The immediate
objects of the allies were the abolition of French rule in
Italy, Holland, Switzerland, and Hanover; the restoration of
Piedmont to the king of Sardinia; the protection of Naples;
and the erection of a permanent barrier against France by the
union of Holland and Belgium under the House of Orange. The
coalition was at once joined by Gustavus IV. of Sweden, who
inherited his father's devotion to the cause of legitimate
monarchy, and who hoped to recover power in Pomerania.
Austria, terrified for its Italian possessions by Bonaparte's
evident intention to subdue the whole peninsula, was driven
into the league. Prussia, in spite of the attraction of
recovering honour and independence, refused to listen to the
solicitations of England and Russia, and adhered to its feeble
neutrality. Of the other German states Bavaria, Baden, and
Wurtemberg were allies of France. As far as effective
operations were concerned, the coalition consisted only of
Austria and Russia. Sweden and Naples, which had joined
secretly, could not make efforts on a great scale, and England
was as yet content with providing subsidies and the invaluable
services of its fleet. It was arranged that, one Austrian army
under the archduke Charles should invade Lombardy, while Mack,
with a second army and the aid of Russia, should occupy
Bavaria and advance upon the Rhine."
_R. Lodge,
History of Modern Europe,
chapter 24, sections 13-15._
ALSO IN:
_Sir A. Alison,
History of Europe, 1789-1815,
chapter 39 (volume 9)._
FRANCE: A. D. 1805 (March-December).
Napoleon's plans and preparations for the invasion of England.
Nelson's long pursuit of the French fleets.
His victory and death at Trafalgar.
Napoleon's rapid march to the Danube.
Capitulation of Mack at Ulm.
The French in Vienna.
The great battle of Austerlitz.
"While the coalition was forming, and Napoleon seemed wantonly
to be insulting Europe and ignoring the danger of exciting
fresh enemies, he was in fact urging on with all rapidity his
schemes for the invasion of England, which he probably hoped
might be so successful as to paralyse all action on the part
of the European powers. The constantly repeated
representations of his naval officers had forced him, much
against his will, to believe that his descent upon England
would be impracticable unless secured by the presence of his
fleet. In spite of the general voice of those who knew the
condition of the French navy, he determined to act with his
fleet on the same principles as he would have acted with his
army; a gigantic combination of various squadrons was to be
effected, and a fleet great enough to destroy all hope of
opposition to sweep the Channel. For this purpose the 18 ships
of the line at Brest under Admiral Gantheaume, the squadron at
Rochefort under Villeneuve, and the Toulon fleet under
Latouche-Tréville, were to unite. The last mentioned admiral
was intrusted with the chief command. Sailing up the coast of
France, he was to liberate from their blockade the squadrons
of Rochefort and Brest, and with their combined fleets appear
before Boulogne. But Latouche-Tréville died, and Napoleon
intrusted his plans to Villeneuve.
{1343}
Those plans, all of them arranged without regard to the bad
condition of the French ships, or to the uncertainty of the
weather, were frequently changed; at one time Villeneuve from
Toulon, and Missiessy, his successor, at Rochefort, were to
proceed to the West Indies, drawing the English fleet thither;
then Gantheaume was to appear from Brest, throw troops into
Ireland, and thus cover the flotilla. At another time, all the
fleets were to assemble at the West Indies, and, joining with
the Spanish fleet at Ferrol, appear in the Straits of Calais.
To complete this last measure Villeneuve set sail from Toulon
on the 30th of March 1805, joined Gravina at Cadiz, and
reached Martinique on the 13th of May with 20 ships of the
line, and 7 frigates. His voyage was so slow that Missiessy
had returned from the West Indies to France, and the junction
failed. In hot pursuit of Villeneuve, Nelson, who had at
length found out his destination, had hurried. At Martinique
Gantheaume, with the Brest fleet, should have joined
Villeneuve; unfortunately for him, Admiral Cornwallis
blockaded his fleet. Villeneuve therefore had to return to
Europe alone, sailing for Ferrol to pick up a squadron of 15
ships. He was then, at the head of 35 ships, ordered to appear
before Brest, liberate Gantheaume, and appear in the Channel.
Back again in pursuit of him Nelson sailed, but supposed that
he would return to the Mediterranean and not to Ferrol; he
therefore again missed him; but as he had found means to
inform the English Government that Villeneuve was returning to
Europe, Calder, with a fleet of 15 ships, was sent to
intercept him. The fleets encountered off Cape Finisterre
[Northwest corner of Spain]. The French had 27 vessels, Calder
but 18, and after an indecisive battle, in which two Spanish
ships were taken, he was afraid to renew the engagement; and
Villeneuve was thus enabled to reach Ferrol in safety.
However, all the operations towards concentration had led to
absolutely nothing, and the English fleets, which the
movements towards the West Indies were to have decoyed from
the Channel, were either still off the coast of France or in
immediate pursuit of the fleet of Villeneuve. Nelson returned
to Gibralter, and as soon as he found out where Villeneuve
was, he joined his fleet to that of Cornwallis before Brest,
and himself returned to England. … Meanwhile Villeneuve had
not been able to get ready for sea till the 11th of August.
… He was afraid to venture northwards, and with the full
approbation of his Spanish colleague Gravina, determined to
avail himself of a last alternative which Napoleon had
suggested, and sailed to Cadiz. This was a fatal blow to the
gigantic schemes of Napoleon. Up till the 22nd of August he
still believed that Villeneuve would make his appearance, and
in fact wrote to him that day at Brest, closing his letter
with the words, 'England is ours.' As the time for his great
stroke drew near he grew nervously anxious, constantly
watching the Channel for the approach of the fleet, and at
last, when his Minister of Marine, Decrès, told him that the
fleet had gone to Cadiz, he broke forth in bitter wrath
against both his Minister and Villeneuve, whom he accused of
the most shameful weakness. But Napoleon was not a man who let
his success be staked upon one plan alone. Though studiously
hiding from his people the existence of the coalition, and not
scrupling to have recourse to forged letters and fabricated
news for the purpose, he was fully aware of its existence. …
Without much difficulty, therefore, he at once resigned his
great plans upon England, and directed his army towards the
eastern frontier."
_J. F. Bright,
History of England, period 3,
pages 1261-1264._
"In the first days of September, 1805, Napoleon's great army
was in full march across France and Germany, to attain the
Danube. … The Allies … had projected four separate and
ill-combined attacks; the first on Hanover and Holland by a
Russian and British force; the second, on Lower Italy by a
similar body; the third, by a great Austrian army on Upper
Italy; and the fourth, by a United Austrian and Russian army,
moving across Southern Germany to the Rhine. … By this time,
the Austrian Mack had drawn close to the Inn, in order to
compel Bavaria to join the Allies, and was even making his way
to the Iller, but his army was far distant from that of the
Russian chief, Kutusoff, and still further from that of
Buxhöwden, the one in Galicia, the other in Poland. …
Napoleon had seized this position of affairs, with the
comprehensive knowledge of the theatre of war, and the skill
of arranging armies upon it, in which he has no equals among
modern captains. He opposed Masséna to the Archdukes, with a
much weaker force, confident that his great lieutenant could
hold them in check. He neglected the attacks from the North
Sea, and the South; but he resolved to strike down Mack, in
overwhelming strength, should he advance without his Russian
supports. … The great mass of the Grand Army had reached the
Main and Rhine by the last week of September. The left wing,
joined by the Bavarian forces, and commanded by Bernadotte and
Marmont, had marched from Hanover and Holland, and was around
Würtzburg; the centre, the corps of Soult, and Davoust, moved
from the channel, was at Spire and Mannheim, and the right
wing, formed of the corps of Ney and Lannes, with the Imperial
Guard, and the horse of Murat, filled the region between
Carlsruhe and Strasburg, the extreme right under Augereau,
which had advanced from Brittany, being still behind but
drawing towards Huningen. By this time Mack was upon the
Iller, holding the fortress of Ulm on the upper Danube, and
extending his forces thence to Memmingen. … By the first
days of October the great French masses … were in full march
from the Rhine to the Main, across Würtemberg and the
Franconian plains; and cavalry filled the approaches to the
Black Forest, in order to deceive and perplex Mack. … The
Danube ere long was reached and crossed, at Donauwörth,
Ingolstadt, and other points; and Napoleon already stood on
the rear of his enemy, interposing between him and Vienna, and
cut him off from the Russians, even now distant. The net was
quickly drawn round the ill-fated Mack. … By the third week
of October, the Grand Army had encompassed the Austrians on
every side, and Napoleon held his quarry in his grasp. Mack
… had not the heart to strike a desperate stroke, and to
risk a battle; and he capitulated at Ulm on the 19th of
October. Two divisions of his army had contrived to break out;
but one was pursued and nearly destroyed by Murat, and the
other was compelled by Augereau to lay down its arms, as it
was on its way to the hills of the Tyrol. An army of 85,000
men had thus, so to speak, been well-nigh effaced; and not
20,000 had effected their escape. France meanwhile had met a
crushing disaster on the element which England had made her
own.
{1344}
We have seen how Villeneuve had put into Cadiz, afraid to face
the hostile fleets off Brest; and how this had baffled the
project of the descent. Napoleon was indignant with his
ill-fated admiral. … At a hint of disgrace the susceptible
Frenchman made up his mind, at any risk, to fight. By this
time Nelson had left England, and was off Cadiz with a
powerful fleet; and he actually weakened his force by four
sail-of-the-line, in order to lure his adversary out. On the
20th of October, 1805, the allied fleet was in the open sea;
it had been declared at a council of war, that a lost battle
was almost certain, so bad was the condition of many of the
crews; but Villeneuve was bent on challenging Fate; and almost
courted defeat, in his despair. … On the morning of the
21st, the allied fleet, 33 war ships, and a number of
frigates, was off Cape Trafalgar [25 miles west of Gibraltar
on the coast of Spain], making for the Straits. … Nelson
advanced slowly against his doomed enemy, with 27 ships and
their attendant frigates; the famous signal floated from his
mast, 'England expects every man to do his duty'; and, at
about noon, Collingwood pierced Villeneuve's centre; nearly
destroying the Santa Anna with a single broadside. Ere long
Nelson had, broken Villeneuve's line, with the Victory,
causing frightful destruction; and as other British ships came
up by degrees they relieved the leading ships from the
pressure of their foes, and completed the ruin already begun.
At about one, Nelson met his death wound, struck by a shot
from the tops of the Redoutable. … Pierced through and
through, the shattered allied centre was soon a collection of
captured wrecks. … Only 11 ships out of 33 escaped; and the
burning Achille, like the Orient at the Nile, added to the
grandeur and horrors of an appalling scene. Villeneuve, who
had fought most honourably in the Bucentaure, was compelled to
strike his flag before the death of Nelson. The van of the
allies that had fled at Trafalgar, was soon afterwards
captured by a British squadron. Though dearly bought by the
death of Nelson, the victory may be compared to Lepanto; and
it blotted France out as a great Power on the ocean; Napoleon
… never tried afterwards to meet England at sea. … His
success, at this moment, had been so wonderful, that what he
called 'the loss of a few ships at sea,' seemed a trifling and
passing rebuff of fortune. … He had discomfitted the whole
plan of the Allies; and the failure of the attack on the main
scene of the theatre had caused all the secondary attacks to
fail. … Napoleon, throwing out detachments to protect his
flanks, had entered Vienna on the 14th of November. … The
House of Hapsburg and its chief had fled. … Extraordinary as
his success had been, the position of the Emperor had, in a
few days, become grave. … Napoleon had not one hundred
thousand men in hand—apart from the bodies that covered his
flanks—to make head against his converging enemies. Always
daring, however, he resolved to attack the Allies before they
could receive aid from Prussia; and he marched from Vienna
towards the close of November; having taken careful
precautions to guard his rear. … By this time the Allies
were around Olmütz, the Archdukes were not many marches away,
and a Prussian army was nearly ready to move. Had the Russians
and Austrians fallen back from Olmütz and effected their
junction with the Archdukes, they could, therefore, have.
opposed the French with a force more than two-fold in numbers.
… But the folly and presumption which reigned among the young
nobles surrounding the Czar—Alexander was now at the head of
his army—brought on the Coalition deserved punishment, and
pedantry had its part in an immense disaster. The force of
Napoleon appeared small, his natural line of retreat was
exposed, and a theorist in the Austrian camp persuaded the
Czar and the Austrian Emperor, who was at the head of his
troops at Olmütz, to consent to a magnificent plan of
assailing Napoleon by the well-known method of Frederick the
Great, in the Seven Years' War, of turning his right wing, by
an attack made, in the oblique order, in great force, and of
cutting him off from his base at Vienna, and driving him,
routed, into, Bohemia. This grand project on paper, which
involved a march across the front of the hostile army within
reach of the greatest of masters of war, was hailed with
exultation. … The Allies were soon in full march from
Olmütz, and preparations were made for the decisive movement
in the night of the 1st December, 1805. Napoleon had watched
the reckless false step being made by his foes with unfeigned
delight; 'that army is mine,' he proudly exclaimed. … The
sun of Austerlitz rose on the 2nd, the light of victory often
invoked by Napoleon. … The dawn of the winter's day revealed
three large columns, succeeded by a fourth at no great
distance, toiling through a tract of marshes and frozen lakes,
to outflank Napoleon's right on the Goldbach, the allied
centre, on the tableland of Prätzen, immediately before the
French front, having been dangerously weakened by this great
turning movement. The assailants were opposed by a small force
only, under Davoust, one of the best of the marshals. … Ere
long Napoleon, who, like a beast of prey, had reserved his
strength until it was time to spring, launched Soult in force
against the Russian and Austrian centre, enfeebled by the
detachment against the French right and exposed to the whole
weight of Napoleon's attacks; and Prätzen was stormed after a
fierce struggle, in which Bernadotte gave the required aid to
Soult. The allied centre was thus rent asunder. Lannes
meanwhile had defeated the allied right. … Napoleon now
turned with terrible energy and in overwhelming strength
against the four columns, that had assailed his right, but had
begun to retreat. His victorious centre was aided by his
right, now set free; the Russians and Austrians were struck
with panic, a horrible scene of destruction followed, the
flying troops were slain or captured in thousands; and
multitudes perished, engulfed in the lakes, the French
artillery shattering their icy surface. The rout was decisive,
complete, and appalling; about 80,000 of the Allies were
engaged; they lost all their guns and nearly half their
numbers, and the remains of their army were a worthless wreck.
Napoleon had only 60,000 men in the fight. … The memorable
campaign of 1805 is, perhaps, the grandest of Napoleon's
exploits in war."
_W. O'C. Morris,
Napoleon,
chapter 7._
ALSO IN:
_A. Thiers,
History of the Consulate and Empire,
book 22 (volume 2)._
_R. Southey,
Life of Nelson,
chapters 8-9 (volume 2)._
_W. C. Russell,
Nelson and the Naval Supremacy of England,
chapters 17-20._
_Lord Nelson,
Dispatches and Letters,
volumes 6-7._
_Capt. E. J. de la Gravière,
Sketches of the last Naval War,
part 6 (volume 2)._
_C. Adams,
Great Campaigns in Europe, from 1796 to 1870,
chapter 3._
_Baron de Marbot,
Memoirs,
volume 1, chapters 20-23._
_A. T. Mahan,
Influences of Sea Power upon the French Revolution,
chapters 15-16 (volume 2)._
{1345}
FRANCE: A. D. 1805-1806 (December-August).
The Peace of Presburg.
Humiliation of Austria.
Formation of the Confederation of the Rhine.
Extinction of the Holy Roman Empire.
The goading of Prussia to war.
See GERMANY: A. D. 1805-1806;
and 1806 (JANUARY-AUGUST).
FRANCE: A. D. 1805-1806 (December-September).
Dethronement of the dynasty of Naples.
Bestowal of the crown upon Joseph Bonaparte.
The treaty of Presburg was "immediately followed by a measure
hitherto unprecedented in European history—the pronouncing a
sentence of dethronement against an independent, sovereign,
for no other cause than his having contemplated hostilities
against the French Emperor; On the 26th December [1805] a
menacing proclamation proceeded from Presburg … which
evidently bore marks of Napoleon's composition, against the
house of Naples. The conqueror announced that Marshal St. Cyr
would advance by rapid strides to Naples, 'to punish the
treason of a criminal queen, and precipitate her from the
throne. We have pardoned that infatuated king, who thrice has
done everything to ruin himself. Shall we pardon him a fourth
time? … No! The dynasty of Naples has ceased to reign—its
existence is incompatible with the repose of Europe and the
honour of my crown.' … The ominous announcement, made from
the depths of Moravia, that the dynasty of Naples had ceased
to reign, was not long allowed to remain a dead letter.
Massena was busily employed, in January, in collecting his
forces in the centre of Italy, and before the end of that
month 50,000 men, under the command of Joseph Buonaparte, had
crossed the Pontifical States and entered the Neapolitan
territory in three columns, which marched on Gaeta, Capua, and
Itri. Resistance was impossible; the feeble Russian and
English forces which had disembarked to support the Italian
levies, finding the whole weight of the war likely to be
directed against them, withdrew to Sicily; the court,
thunderstruck by the menacing proclamation of 27th December,
speedily followed their example. … In vain the intrepid
Queen Caroline, who still remained at Naples, armed the
lazzaroni, and sought to infuse into the troops a portion of
her own indomitable courage; she was seconded by none; Capua
opened its gates; Gaeta was invested; the Campagna filled with
the invaders; she, vanquished but not subdued, compelled to
yield to necessity, followed her timid consort to Sicily; and,
on the 15th February, Naples beheld its future sovereign,
Joseph Buonaparte, enter its walls. … During the first
tumult of invasion, the peasantry of Calabria … submitted to
the enemy. … But the protraction of the siege of Gaeta,
which occupied Massena with the principal army of the French,
gave them time to recover from their consternation. … A
general insurrection took place in the beginning of March, and
the peasants stood firm in more than one position; but they
were unable to withstand the shock of the veterans of France,
and in a decisive action in the plain of Campo-Tenese their
tumultuary levies, though 15,000 strong, were entirely
dispersed. The victorious Reynier penetrated even to Reggio,
and the standards of Napoleon waved on its towers, in sight of
the English videtts on the shores of Sicily. When hostilities
had subsided, Joseph repaired in person to the theatre of war.
… He received at Savigliano, the principal town of the
province, the decree, by which Napoleon created him king of
the two Sicilies. By so doing, however, he was declared not to
lose his contingent right of succession to the throne of
France; but the two crowns were never to be united."
_Sir A. Alison,
History of Europe, 1789-1815,
chapter 40, section 150,
and chapter 42, sections 21-23,(volume 9)._
"Joseph's tenure of his new dominion was yet incomplete. The
fortress of Gaeta still held out, … and the British in
Sicily (who had already taken the Isle of Capri, close to the
capital) sent 5,000 men to their aid under Sir John Stuart,
who encountered at Maida (July 6) a French corps of 7.500,
under Reynier. The battle presented one of the rare instances
in which French and British troops have actually crossed
bayonets; but French enthusiasm sank before British
intrepidity, and the enemy were driven from the field with the
loss of half their number. The victory of Maida had a
prodigious moral effect in raising the spirits and
self-confidence of the British soldiery; but its immediate
results were less considerable. The French were indeed driven
from Calabria, but the fall of Gaeta (July 18th), after the
loss of its brave governor, the Prince of Hesse-Philipsthal,
released the main army under Massena: the British exposed to
be attacked by overwhelming numbers, re-embarked (September 5)
for Palermo, and the Calabrian insurrection was suppressed with
great bloodshed. But an amnesty was at length … published by
Joseph, who devoted himself with great zeal and admirable
judgment to heal the wounds of his distracted kingdom."
_Epitome of Alison's History of Europe,
section 398._
ALSO IN:
_P. Colletta,
History of the Kingdom of Naples,
book 5, chapter 4, and book 6, chapters 1-3._
_C. Botta,
Italy during the Consulate and Empire of Napoleon,
chapter 4._
FRANCE: A. D. 1806 (January-October).
Napoleon's triumphant return to Paris.
Death of Pitt.
Peace negotiations with England.
King making and prince making by the Corsican Cæsar.
ON the 27th of December, the day after the signing of the
Treaty of Presburg, Napoleon left Vienna for Paris. "En route
for Paris he remained a week at Munich to be present at the
marriage of Eugene Beauharnais to the Princess Augusta,
daughter of the King of Bavaria. Josephine joined him, and the
whole time was passed in fêtes and rejoicings. On this
occasion he proclaimed Eugene his adopted son, and, in default
of issue of his own, his successor in the kingdom of Italy.
Accompanied by Josephine, Napoleon re-entered Paris on the
26th of January, 1806, amidst the most enthusiastic
acclamations. The national vanity was raised to the highest
pitch by the glory and extent of territory he had acquired.
The Senate at a solemn audience besought him to accept the
title of 'the Great'; and public rejoicings lasting many days
attested his popularity. An important political event in
England opened new views of security and peace to the empire,
William Pitt, the implacable enemy of the Revolution, had died
on the 23rd of January, at the early age of 47; and the
Government was entrusted to the hands of his great opponent,
Charles James Fox.
{1346}
The disastrous results of the war of which Pitt had been the
mainstay probably hastened his death. After the capitulation
of Ulm he never rallied. The well-known friendship of Fox for
Napoleon, added to his avowed principles, afforded the
strongest hopes that England and France were at length
destined to cement the peace of the world by entering into
friendly relations. Aided by Talleyrand, who earnestly
counselled peace, Napoleon made overtures to the English
Government through Lord Yarmouth, who was among the détenus.
He offered to yield the long-contested point of
Malta—consenting to the continued possession of that island,
the Cape of Good Hope, and other conquests in the East and
West Indies by Great Britain, and proposing generally that the
treaty should be conducted on the uti possidetis principle:
that is, allowing each party to retain whatever it had
acquired in the course of the war. Turkey acknowledged
Napoleon as Emperor and entered into amicable relations with
the French nation; and what was still more important, Russia
signed a treaty of peace in July, influenced by the pacific
inclinations of the English Minister. Napoleon resolved to
surround his throne with an order of nobles, and to place
members of his family on the thrones of the conquered
countries adjoining France in order that they might become
parts of his system and co-operate in his plans. Two decrees
of the 31st of March declared Joseph Bonaparte King of Naples,
and Murat Grand Duke of Berg and Cleves. Louis Bonaparte was
made King of Holland a few months afterwards, and Jerome King
of Westphalia in the following year. The Princess Pauline
received the principality of Guastalla, and Talleyrand,
Bernadotte, and Berthier those of Benevento, Ponte-Corvo, and
Neufchâtel. Fifteen dukedoms were created and bestowed on the
most distinguished statesmen and generals of the empire, each
with an income amounting to a fifteenth part of the revenue of
the province attached to it. These became grand fiefs of the
empire. Cambacérès and Lebrun were made Dukes of Parma and
Placenza; Savary, Duke of Rovigo; Junot, of Abrantes; Lannes,
of Montebello, &c. The manners of some of these Republican
soldiers were ill adapted to courtly forms, and afforded
amusement to the members of the ancient and legitimate order.
… Napoleon's desire to conciliate and form alliances with
the established dynasties and aristocracies of Europe kept
pace with his daring encroachments on their hitherto exclusive
dignity. Besides the marriage of Eugene Beauharnais to a
Princess of Bavaria, an alliance was concluded between the
hereditary Prince of Baden and Mademoiselle Stephanie
Beauharnais, a niece of the Empress. The old French noblesse
were also encouraged to appear at the Tuileries. During the
Emperor's visit at Munich the Republican calendar was
abolished and the usual mode of computing time restored in
France. … The negotiations with England went on tardily, and
the news of Fox's alarming state of health excited the gravest
fears in the French Government. Lord Lauderdale arrived in
Paris, on the part of England, in the month of August; but
difficulties were continually started, and before anything was
decided the death of Fox gave the finishing blow to all hope
of peace. Lord Lauderdale demanded his passports and left
Paris in October. Napoleon wished to add Sicily to his
brother's new kingdom of Naples; but British ships were able
to protect the King and Queen of Naples in that insular
position, and the English Government refused to desert their
allies on this occasion or to consent to any compensation or
adjustment offered. On this point principally turned the
failure of the attempt at peace as far as can be discovered
from the account of the negotiations."
_R. H. Horne,
History of Napoleon,
chapter 26._
ALSO IN:
_Madame de Rémusat,
Memoirs,
chapters 16-21 (volume 2)._
_Duke of Rovigo,
Memoirs,
volume 1, part 2, chapters 18-21._
_P. Lanfrey,
History of Napoleon,
volume 2, chapter 15._
FRANCE: A. D. 1806 (October).
The subjugation of Prussia at Jena.
See GERMANY: A. D. 1806 (OCTOBER).
FRANCE: A. D. 1806-1807.
Napoleon's campaign against the Russians.
Eylau and Friedland.
See GERMANY: A. D. 1806-1807;
and 1807 (FEBRUARY-JUNE).
FRANCE: A.D. 1806-1810.
Commercial warfare with England.
British Orders in Council and Napoleon's Berlin and Milan
Decrees.
The "Continental System."
"As the war advanced, after the Peace of Amiens, the neutrals
became bolder and more aggressive. "American ships were
constantly arriving at Dutch and French ports with sugar,
coffee, and other productions of the French and Spanish West
Indies. And East India goods were imported by them into Spain,
Holland, and France. … By the rivers and canals of Germany
and Flanders goods were floated into the warehouses of the
enemy, or circulated far the supply of his customers in
neutral countries. … It was a general complaint, therefore,
that the enemy carried on colonial commerce under the neutral
flag, cheaply as well as safely; that he was enabled not only
to elude British hostilities, but to rival British merchants
and planters in the European markets; that by the same means
the hostile treasuries were filled with a copious stream of
revenue; and that by this licentious use of the neutral flag,
the enemy was enabled to employ his whole military marine for
purposes of offensive war, without being obliged to maintain a
squadron or a ship for the defence of his colonial ports. …
Such complaints made against neutral states found a powerful
exposition in a work entitled 'War in Disguise and the Frauds
of the Neutral Flag,' supposed to have been written by Mr.
James Stephen, the real author of the orders in Council. The
British Government did not see its way at once to proceed in
the direction of prohibiting to neutral ships the colonial
trade, which they had enjoyed for a considerable time; but the
first step was taken to paralyse the resources of the enemy,
and to restrict the trade of neutrals, by the issue of an
order in Council in May 1806, declaring that all the coasts,
ports, and rivers from the Elbe to Brest should be considered
blockaded, though the only portion of those coasts rigorously
blockaded was that included between the Ostend and the mouth
of the Seine, in the ports of which preparations were made for
the invasion of England. The northern ports of Germany and
Holland were left partly open, and the navigation of the
Baltic altogether free. Napoleon, then in the zenith of his
power, saw, in this order in Council, a fresh act of
wantonness, and he met it by the issue of the Berlin decree of
November 21, 1806. In that document, remarkable for its
boldness and vigour, Napoleon charged England with having set
at nought the dictates of international law, with having made
prisoners of war of private individuals, and with having taken
the crews out of merchant ships.
{1347}
He charged this country with having captured private property
at sea extended to commercial parts the restrictions of
blockade applicable only to fortified places, declared as
blockaded places which were not invested by naval forces, and
abused the right of blockade in order to benefit her own trade
at the expense of the commerce of Continental states. He
asserted the right of combating the enemy with the same arms
used against himself, especially when such enemy ignored all
ideas of justice and every liberal sentiment which
civilisation imposes. He announced his resolution to apply to
England the same usages which she had established in her
maritime legislation. He laid dawn the principles which France
was resolved to act upon until England should recognise that
the rights of war are the same on land as on sea. … And upon
these premises the decree ordered,
1st, That the British islands should be declared in a state
of blockade.
2nd, That all commerce and correspondence with the British
islands should be prohibited; and that letters addressed to
England or Englishmen, written in the English language,
should be detained and taken.
3rd, That every British subject found in a country occupied
by French troops, or by those of their allies, should be
made a prisoner of war.
4th, That all merchandise and property belonging to British
subjects should be deemed a good prize.
5th, That all commerce in English merchandise should be
prohibited, and that all merchandise belonging to England
or her colonies, and of British manufacture, should be
deemed a good prize. And
6th, That no vessel coming direct from England or her
colonies be allowed to enter any French port, or any port
subject to French authority; and that every vessel which,
by means of a false declaration, should evade such
regulations, should at once be captured.
The British Government lost no time in retaliating against
France far so bald a course; and, on January 7, 1807, an order
in Council was issued, which, after reference to the orders
issued by France, enjoined that no vessel should be allowed to
trade from one enemy's port to another, or from one port to
another of a French ally's coast shut against English vessels;
and ordered the commanders of the ships of war and privateers
to warn every neutral vessel coming from any such port, and
destined to another such port, to discontinue her voyage, and
that any vessel, after being so warned, which should be found
proceeding to another such port should be captured and
considered as lawful prize. This order in Council having
reached Napoleon at Warsaw, he immediately ordered the
confiscation of all English merchandise and colonial produce
found in the Hanseatic Towns. … But Britain, in return, went
a step further, and, by order in Council of November 11, 1807,
declared all the ports and places of France, and those of her
allies, and of all countries where the English flag was
excluded, even though they were not at war with Britain,
should be placed under the same restrictions for commerce and
navigation as if they were blockaded, and consequently that
ships destined to those ports should be liable to the visit of
British cruisers at a British station, and there subjected to
a tax to be imposed by the British Parliament. Napoleon was at
Milan when this order in Council was issued, and forthwith, on
December 17, the famous decree appeared, by which he imposed
on neutrals just the contrary of what was prescribed to them
by England, and further declared that every vessel, of
whatever nation, that submitted to the order in Council of
November 11, should by that very act become denationalised,
considered as British property, and condemned as a good prize.
The decree placed the British islands in a state of blockade,
and ordered that every ship, of whatever nation, and with
whatever cargo, proceeding from English ports or English
colonies to countries occupied by English troops, or going to
England, should be a good prize. This England answered by the
order in Council of April 26, 1809, which revoked the order of
1807 as regards America, but confirmed the blockade of all the
parts of France and Holland, their colonies and dependencies.
And then France, still further incensed against England,
issued the tariff of Trianon, dated August 5, 1810, completed
by the decree of St. Cloud of September 12, and of
Fontainebleau of October 19, which went the length of ordering
the seizure and burning of all British goods found in France,
Germany, Holland, Italy, Spain, and in every place occupied by
French troops. … The princes of the Rhenish Confederation
hastened to execute it, same for the purpose of enriching
themselves by the wicked deed, same out of hatred towards the
English, and some to show their devotion towards their master.
From Carlsruhe to Munich, from Cassel to Dresden and Hamburg,
everywhere, bonfires were made of English goods. And so
exacting were the French that when Frankfort exhibited the
least hesitation in carrying out the decree, French troops
were sent to execute the order. By means such as these [known
as the Continental System of Napoleon] the commerce of the
world was greatly deranged, if not destroyed altogether, and
none suffered more from them than England herself."
_L. Levi,
History of British Commerce,
part 2, chapter 4
(with appended text of Orders and Decrees)._
"The object of the Orders in Council was … twofold: to
embarrass France and Napoleon by the prohibition of direct
import and export trade, of all external commerce, which for
them could only be carried on by neutrals; and at the same
time to force into the Continent all the British products or
manufactures that it could take. … The whole system was
then, and has since been, roundly abused as being in no sense
a military measure, but merely a gigantic exhibition of
commercial greed; but this simply begs the question. To win
her fight Great Britain was obliged not only to weaken
Napoleon, but to increase her own strength. The battle between
the sea and the land was to be fought out on Commerce. England
had no army wherewith to meet Napo lean; Napoleon had no navy
to cope with that of his enemy. As in the case of an
impregnable fortress, the only alternative for either of these
contestants was to reduce the other by starvation. On the
common frontier, the coast line, they met in a deadly strife
in which no weapon was drawn. The imperial soldiers were
turned into coast-guards-men to shut out Great Britain from
her markets; the British ships became revenue cutters to
prohibit the trade of France. The neutral carrier, pocketing
his pride, offered his service to either for pay, and the
other then regarded him as taking part in hostilities.
{1348}
The ministry, in the exigencies of debate, betrayed some lack
of definite conviction as to their precise aim. Sometimes the
Orders were justified as a military measure of retaliation;
sometimes the need of supporting British commerce as essential
to her life and to her naval strength was alleged; and, their
opponents in either case taunted them with inconsistency.
Napoleon, with despotic simplicity, announced clearly his
purpose of ruining England through her trade, and the ministry
really needed no other arguments than his avowals. 'Salus
civitatis suprema lex.' To call the measures of either not
military, is as inaccurate as it would be to call the ancient
practice of circumvallation, unmilitary, because the only
weapon used for it was the spade. … The Orders in Council
received various modifications, due largely to the importance
to Great Britain of the American market, which absorbed a
great part of her manufactures; but these modifications,
though sensibly lightening the burden upon neutrals and
introducing some changes of form, in no sense departed from
the spirit of the originals. The entire series was finally
withdrawn in June, 1812, but too late to avert the war with
the United States, which was declared in the same month.
Napoleon never revoked his Berlin and Milan decrees, although
by a trick he induced an over-eager President of the United
States to believe that he had done so. … The true function
of Great Britain in this long struggle can scarcely be
recognized unless there be a clear appreciation of the fact
that a really great national movement, like the French
Revolution, or a really great military power under an
incomparable general, like the French Empire under Napoleon,
is not to be brought to terms by ordinary military successes,
which simply destroy the organized force opposed. … If the
course of aggression which Bonaparte had inherited from the
Revolution was to continue, there were needed, not the
resources of the Continent only, but of the world. There was
needed also a diminution of ultimate resistance below the
stored-up aggressive strength of France; otherwise, however
procrastinated, the time must come when the latter should
fail. On both these points Great Britain withstood Napoleon.
She shut him off from the world, and by the same act prolonged
her own powers of endurance beyond his power of aggression.
This in the retrospect of history was the function of Great
Britain, in the Revolutionary and Napoleonic period; and that
the successive ministries of Pitt and his followers pursued
the course best fitted, upon the whole, to discharge that
function, is their justification to posterity."
_Capt. A. T. Mahan,
The Influence of Sea Power upon the
French Revolution and Empire,
chapters 18-19 (volume 2)._
ALSO IN:
_H. Adams,
History of the United States,
volume 3, chapters 4 and 16,
and volume 4, chapter 4._
_Lord Brougham,
Life and Times, by himself,
chapter 10 (volume 2)._
See also:
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1804-1809.
FRANCE: A. D. 1807 (February-September).
The Turkish alliance.
Ineffective attempts of England against Constantinople
and in Egypt.
See TURKS: A. D. 1806-1807.
FRANCE: A. D. 1807 (June-July).
The Treaties of Tilsit with Russia and Prussia.
The latter shorn of half her territory.
Formation of the kingdom of Westphalia.
Secret understandings between Napoleon and the Czar.
See GERMANY. A. D. 1807 (JUNE-JULY).
FRANCE: A. D. 1807 (July-December).
The seeming power and real weakness of Napoleon's empire.
"The dangers … that lay hid under the new arrangement of the
map of Europe [by, the Treaty of Tilsit], and in the results
of French conquests, were as yet withdrawn from almost every
eye; and the power of Napoleon was now at its height, though
his empire was afterwards somewhat enlarged. … If England
still stood in arms against it, she was without an avowed ally
on the Continent; and, drawing to itself the great Power of
the North, it appeared to threaten the civilized world with
that universal and settled domination which had not been seen
since the fall of Rome. The Sovereign of France from the
Scheldt to the Pyrenees, and of Italy from the Alps to the
Tiber, Napoleon held under his immediate sway the fairest and
most favored part of the Continent; and yet this was only the
seat and centre of that far-spreading and immense authority.
One of his brothers, Louis, governed the Batavian Republic,
converted into the kingdom of Holland; another, Joseph wore
the old Crown of Naples; and a third, Jerome, sat on the new
throne of Westphalia; and he had reduced Spain to a simple
dependency, while, with Austria humbled and Prussia crushed,
he was supreme in Germany from the Rhine to the Vistula,
through his confederate, subject, or allied States. This
enormous Empire, with its vassal appendages, rested on great
and victorious armies in possession of every point of vantage
from the Niemen to the Adige and the Garonne, and proved as
yet to be irresistible; and as Germany, Holland, Poland, and
Italy swelled the forces of France with large contingents, the
whole fabric of conquest seemed firmly cemented. Nor was the
Empire the mere creation of brute force and the spoil of the
sword; its author endeavoured, in some measure, to consolidate
it through better and more lasting influences. Napoleon,
indeed, suppressed the ideas of 1789 everywhere, but he
introduced his Code and large social reforms into most of the
vassal or allied States; he completed the work of destroying
Feudalism which the Revolution had daringly begun and he left
a permanent mark on the face of Europe, far beyond the limit
of Republican France, in innumerable monuments of material
splendour. … Nor did the Empire at this time appear more
firmly established abroad than within the limits of the
dominant State which had become mistress of Continental
Europe. The prosperity of the greater part of France was
immense; the finances, fed by the contributions of war, seemed
overflowing and on the increase; and if sounds of discontent
were occasionally heard, they were lost in the universal
acclaim which greeted the author of the national greatness,
and the restorer of social order and welfare. … In the
splendour and success of the Imperial era, the animosities and
divisions of the past disappeared, and France seemed to form a
united people. If, too, the cost of conquest was great, and
exacted a tribute of French blood, the military power of the
Empire shone with the brightest radiance of martial renown;
Marengo, Austerlitz, Jena, and Friedland could in part console
even thinned households. …
{1349}
The magnificent public works with which Napoleon adorned this
part of his reign increased this sentiment of national
grandeur; it was now that the Madeleine raised its front, and
the Column, moulded from captured cannon; … and Paris,
decked out with triumphal arches, with temples of glory, and
with stately streets, put on the aspect of ancient Rome,
gathering into her lap the gorgeous spoils of subjugated and
dependent races. … Yet, notwithstanding its apparent
strength, this structure of conquest and domination was
essentially weak, and liable to decay. The work of the sword,
and of new-made power, it was in opposition to the nature of
things. … The material and even social benefits conferred by
the Code, and reform of abuses, could not compensate
vanquished but martial races for the misery and disgrace of
subjection; and, apart from the commercial oppression [of the
Continental System, which destroyed commerce in order to do
injury to England], … the exasperating pressure of French
officials, the exactions of the victorious French armies, and
the severities of the conscription introduced among them,
provoked discontent in the vassal States on which the yoke of
the Empire weighed. … The prostration, too, of Austria and
Prussia … had a direct tendency to make these powers forget
their old discords in common suffering, and to bring to an end
the internal divisions through which France had become supreme
in Germany. … The triumphant policy of Tilsit contained the
germs of a Coalition against France more formidable than she
had yet experienced. At the same time, the real strength of
the instrument by which Napoleon maintained his power was
being gradually but surely impaired; the imperial armies were
more and more filled with raw conscripts and ill-affected
allies, as their size increased with the extension of his
rule; and the French element in them, on which alone reliance
could be placed in possible defeat, was being dissipated,
exhausted, and wasted. … Nor was the Empire, within France
itself, free from elements of instability and decline. The
finances, well administered as they were, were so burdened by
the charges of war that they were only sustained by conquest;
and flourishing as their condition seemed, they had been often
cruelly strained of late, and were unable to bear the shock of
disaster. The seaports were beginning to suffer from the
policy adopted to subdue England. … Meanwhile, the continual
demands on the youth of the nation for never-ceasing wars were
gradually telling on its military power; Napoleon, after
Eylau, had had recourse to the ruinous expedient of taking
beforehand the levies which the conscription raised; and
though complaints were as yet rare, the anticipation of the
resources of France, which filled the armies with feeble boys,
unequal to the hardships of a rude campaign, had been noticed
at home as well as abroad. Nor were the moral ills of this
splendid despotism less certain than its bad material results.
… The inevitable tendency of the Empire, even at the time of
its highest glory, was to lessen manliness and self-reliance,
to fetter and demoralize the human mind, and to weaken
whatever public virtue and mental independence France
possessed; and its authority had already begun to disclose
some of the harsher features of Cæsarian despotism."
_W. O'C. Morris,
The French Revolution and First Empire,
chapter 12._
"Notwithstanding so many brilliant and specious appearances,
France did not possess either true prosperity or true
greatness. She was not really prosperous; for not only was
there no feeling of security, a necessary condition for the
welfare of nations, but all the evils produced by so many
years of war still weighed heavily on her. … She was not
really great, for all her great men had either been banished
or put to silence. She could still point with pride to her
generals and soldiers, although the army, which, if brave as
ever, had gradually sunk from the worship of the country and
liberty to that of glory, and from the worship of glory to
that of riches, was corrupt and degenerate; but where were her
great citizens? Where were her great orators, her great
politicians, her great philosophers, her great writers of
every kind? Where, at least, were their descendants? All who
had shown a spark of genius or pride had been sacrificed for
the benefit of a single man. They had disappeared; some
crushed under the wheels of his chariot, others forced to live
obscurely in some unknown retreat, and, what was graver still,
their race seemed extinct. … France was imprisoned, as it
were, in an iron net, and the issues were closed to all the
generous and ardent youth that had either intellectual or
moral activity."
_P. Lanfrey,
History of Napoleon,
volume 3, chapter 5._
ALSO IN:
_H. A. Taine;
The Modern Regime,
book 1, chapter 2,
and book 3, chapter 3 (volume 1)._
FRANCE: A. D. 1807 (September-November).
Forcible seizure of the Danish fleet by the English.
Frustration of Napoleon's plans.
Alliance with Denmark.
War with Sweden.
See SCANDINAVIAN STATES: A. D. 1807-1810.
FRANCE: A. D. 1807 (October-November).
French invasion and occupation of Portugal.
Flight of the royal family to Brazil.
Delusive treaty of partition with Spain.
See PORTUGAL: A. D. 1807.
FRANCE: A. D. 1807-1808.
Napoleon's alienation of Talleyrand and others.
Charles Maurice Talleyrand de Perigord, made Bishop of Autun
by King Louis XVI:, in 1789, and Prince of Benevento by
Napoleon, in 1806, had made his first appearance in public
life as one of the clerical deputies in the States-General of
1789, and had taken the popular side. He was the only bishop
having a benefice in France who took the new oath required of
the clergy, and he proposed the appropriation of church
property to the wants of the public treasury. He subsequently
consecrated the first French bishops appointed under the new
constitution, and was excommunicated therefor by the Pope. On
the approach of the Terror he escaped from France and took
refuge first in England, afterwards in the United States. In
1795 he was permitted to return to Paris, and he took an
important part in the revolution of the 18th Brumaire which
overthrew the Directory and made Napoleon First Consul. In the
new government he received the post of Minister of Foreign
Affairs, which he retained under the Empire, until 1807, when
he obtained permission to retire, with the title of
"vice-grand electeur." "M. de Talleyrand, the Empire once
established and fortunate, had attached himself to it with a
sort of enthusiasm. The poesy of victory, and the eloquence of
an exalted imagination, subdued for a time the usual
nonchalance and moderation of his character. He entered into
all Napoleon's plans for reconstituting an empire of the
Francs, and reviving the system of fiefs and feudal
dignitaries. …
{1350}
'Any other system,' he said, 'but a military one, is in our
circumstances at present impossible. I am, then, for making
that system splendid, and compensating France for her liberty
by her grandeur.' The principality he enjoyed, though it by no
means satisfied him, was a link between him and the policy
under which he held it. … But he had a strong instinct for
the practical; all governments, according to his theory, might
be made good, except an impossible one. A government depending
on constant success in difficult undertakings, at home and
abroad, was, according to his notions, impossible. This idea,
after the Peace of Tilsit, more or less haunted him. It made
him, in spite of himself, bitter against his chief—bitter at
first, more because he liked him than because he disliked him.
He would still have aided to save the Empire, but he was
irritated because he thought he saw the Empire drifting into a
system which would not admit of its being saved. A sentiment of
this kind, however, is as little likely to be pardoned by one
who is accustomed to consider that his will must be law, as a
sentiment of a more hostile nature. Napoleon began little by
little to hate the man for whom he had felt at one time a
predilection, and if he disliked anyone, he did that which it
is most dangerous to do, and most useless; that is, he wounded
his pride without diminishing his importance. It is true that
M. de Talleyrand never gave any visible sign of being
irritated. But few, whatever the philosophy with which they
forgive an injury, pardon an humiliation; and thus, stronger
and stronger grew by degrees that mutual dissatisfaction which
the one vented at times in furious reproaches, and the other
disguised under a studiously respectful indifference. This
carelessness as to the feelings of those whom it would have
been wiser not to offend, was one of the most fatal errors of
the conqueror. … He had become at this time equally
indifferent to the hatred and affection of his adherents; and
… fancied that everything depended on his own merits, and
nothing on the merits of his agents. The victory of Wagram,
and the marriage with Marie-Louise, commenced, indeed, a new
era in his history. Fouché was dismissed, though not without
meriting a reprimand for his intrigues; and Talleyrand fell
into unequivocal disgrace, in some degree provoked by his
witticisms; whilst round these two men gathered a quiet and
observant opposition, descending with the clever adventurer to
the lowest classes, and ascending with the dissatisfied noble
to the highest. … M. de Talleyrand's house then (the only
place, perhaps, open to all persons, where the government of
the day was treated without reserve) became a sort of
'rendezvous' for a circle which replied to a victory by a bon
mot, and confronted the borrowed ceremonies of a new court by
the natural graces and acknowledged fashions of an old one."
_Sir H. L. Bulwer,
Historical Characters,
volume 1: Talleyrand, part 4, sections 9-10._
ALSO IN:
_C. K. McHarg,
Life of Prince Talleyrand,
chapters 1-13._
_Memoirs of Talleyrand,
volume 1._
FRANCE: A. D. 1807-1808.
Napoleon's over-ingenious plottings in Spain
for the theft of the crown.
The popular rising.
See SPAIN: A. D. 1807-1808.
FRANCE: A. D. 1807-1808 (November-February).
Napoleon in Italy.
His arbitrary changes in the Italian constitution.
His annexation of Tuscany to France.
His quarrel with the Pope and seizure of the Papal States.
"Napoleon … set out for Italy, where great political changes
were in progress. Destined, like all the subordinate thrones
which surrounded the great nation, to share in the rapid
mutations which its government underwent, the kingdom of Italy
was soon called upon to accept a change in its constitution.
Napoleon, in consequence, suppressed the legislative body, and
substituted in its room a Senate, which was exclusively
intrusted with the power of submitting observations to
government on the public wants, and of superintending the
budget and public expenditure. As the members of this Senate
were nominated and paid by government; this last shadow of
representative institutions became a perfect mockery.
Nevertheless Napoleon was received with unbounded adulation by
all the towns of Italy; their deputies, who waited upon him at
Milan, vied with each other in elegant flattery. He was the
Redeemer of France, but the Creator of Italy: they had
supplicated heaven for his safety, for his victories; they
offered him the tribute of their eternal love and fidelity.
Napoleon received their adulation in the most gracious manner;
but he was careful not to lose sight of the main object of his
policy, the consolidation of his dominions, the rendering them
all dependent on his imperial crown, and the fostering of a
military spirit among his subjects. … From Milan the Emperor
travelled by Verona and Padua to Venice; he there admired the
marble palaces, varied scenery, and gorgeous architecture of
the Queen of the Adriatic, which appeared to extraordinary
advantage amidst illuminations, fireworks, and rejoicings; and
returning to Milan, arranged, with an authoritative hand, all
the affairs of the peninsula. The discontent of Melzi, who
still retained a lingering partiality for the democratic
institutions which he had vainly hoped to see established in
his country, was stifled by the title of Duke of Lodi. Tuscany
was taken from the King of Etruria, on whom Napoleon had
settled it, and united to France by the title of the
department of Taro; while magnificent public works were set on
foot at Milan to dazzle the ardent imagination of the
Italians, and console them for the entire loss of their
national independence and civil liberty. The cathedral was
daily adorned with fresh works of sculpture; its exterior
decorated and restored to its original purity, while thousands
of pinnacles and statues rose on all sides, glittering in
spotless brilliancy in the blue vault of heaven. The Forum of
Buonaparte was rapidly advancing; the beautiful basso-relievos
of the arch of the Simplon already entranced the admiring gaze
of thousands; the roads of the Simplon and Mount Cenis were
kept in the finest order, and daily attracted fresh crowds of
strangers to the Italian plains. But in the midst of all this
external splendour, the remains of which still throw a halo
round the recollection of the French domination in Italy, the
finances of all the states were involved in hopeless
embarrassment, and suffering of the most grinding kind
pervaded all classes of the people. … The encroachments thus
made on the Italian peninsula were not the only ones which
Napoleon effected, in consequence of the liberty to dispose of
western Europe acquired by him at the treaty of Tilsit. The
territory of the great nation was rounded also on the side of
Germany and Holland.
{1351}
On the 11th of November, the important town and territory of
Flushing were ceded to France by the King of Holland, who
obtained, in return, merely an elusory equivalent in East
Friesland. On the 21st of January following, a decree of the
senate united to the French empire, besides these places, the
important towns of Kehl Cassel, and Wesel, on the right bank
of the Rhine. Shortly after, the French troops, who had
already taken possession of the whole of Tuscany, in virtue of
the resignation forced upon the Queen of Etruria, invaded the
Roman territories, and made themselves masters of the ancient
capital of the world. They immediately occupied the castle of
St. Angelo, and the gates of the city, and entirely
dispossessed the papal troops [see PAPACY: A. D. 1808-1814].
… France now, without disguise, assumed the right of
annexing neutral and independent states to its already
extensive dominions, by no other authority than the decree of
its own legislature."
_Sir A. Alison,
History of Europe, 1789-1815,
chapter 51, sections 51-53 (volume 11)._
ALSO IN:
_C. Botta,
Italy during the Consulate and Empire of Napoleon,
chapter 5._
FRANCE: A. D. 1807-1809.
The American embargo and non-intercourse laws.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1804-1809, and 1808.
FRANCE: A.D. 1808 (May-September).
Bestowal of the Spanish crown on Joseph Bonaparte.
The national revolt.
French reverses.
Flight of Joseph Bonaparte from Madrid.
Landing of British forces in the Peninsula.
See SPAIN: A. D. 1808 (MAY-SEPTEMBER).
FRANCE: A. D. 1808 (September-October).
Imperial conference and Treaty of Erfurt.
The assemblage of kings.
"Napoleon's relations with the Court of Russia, at one time
very formal, became far more amicable, according as Spanish
affairs grew complicated. After the capitulation of Baylen
they became positively affectionate. The Czar was too
clear-sighted not to understand the meaning of this gradation.
He quickly understood that the more difficulties Napoleon
might create for himself in Spain, the more would he be forced
to make concessions to Russia. … The Russian alliance, which
at Tilsit had only been an arrangement to flatter Napoleon's
ambition, had now become a necessity to him. Each side felt
this; hence the two sovereigns were equally impatient to meet
again; the one to strengthen an alliance so indispensable to
the success of his plans, the other to derive from it all the
promised advantages. It was settled, therefore, that the
desired interview should take place at Erfurt towards the end
of September, 1808. … The two Emperors met on the 27th of
September, on the road between Weimar and Erfurt. They
embraced each other with that air of perfect cordiality of
which kings alone possess the secret, especially when their
intention is rather to stifle than to embrace. They made their
entry into the town on horseback together, amidst an immense
concourse of people. Napoleon had wished by its magnificence
to render the reception worthy of the illustrious guests who
had agreed to meet at Erfurt. He had sent thither from the
storehouses of the crown, bronzes, porcelain, the richest
hangings, and the most sumptuous furniture. He desired that
the Comédie-Française should heighten the brilliant effects of
these fêtes by performing the chief masterpieces of our stage,
from 'Cinna' down to 'La Mort de César,' before this royal
audience. … All the natural adherents of Napoleon hastened
to answer his appeal by flocking to Erfurt, for he did not
lose sight of his principal object, and his desire was to
appear before Europe surrounded by a court composed of kings.
In this cortege were to be seen those of Bavaria, of
Wurtemburg, of Saxony, of Westphalia, and Prince William of
Prussia; and beside these stars of first magnitude twinkled
the obscure Pleiades of the Rhenish Confederation. The
reunion, almost exclusively German, was meant to prove to
German idealists the vanity of their dreams. Were not all
present who had any weight in Germany from their power, rank,
or riches? Was it not even hinted that the Emperor of Austria
had implored the favour, without being able to obtain it, of
admission to the conferences of Erfurt? This report was most
improbable. … The kings of intellect came in their turn to
bow down before Cæsar. Goethe and Wieland were presented to
Napoleon; they appeared at his court, and by their glory
adorned his triumph. German patriotism was severely tried at
Erfurt; but it may be said that of all its humiliations the
one which the Germans most deeply resented was that of
beholding their greatest literary genius decking himself out
with Napoleon's favours [the decoration of the Legion of
Honour, which Goethe accepted]. … The theatrical effect
which Napoleon had in view in this solemn show at Erfurt
having once been produced, his principal object was attained,
for the political questions which remained for settlement with
Alexander could not raise any serious difficulty. In view of
the immediate and certain session of two such important
provinces as those of Wallachia and Moldavia, the Czar,
without much trouble, renounced that division of the Ottoman
Empire with which he had been tantalised for more than a year.
… He bound himself … by the Treaty of Erfurt to continue his
co-operation with Napoleon in the war against England (Article
2), and, should it so befall, also against Austria (Article
10); but the affairs in Spain threw every attack upon England
into the background. … The only very distinct engagement
which the treaty imposed on Alexander was the recognition of
the new order of things established by France in Spain.'"
_P. Lanfrey,
History of Napoleon,
volume 3, chapter 10._
ALSO IN:
_Prince Talleyrand,
Memoirs,
volume 1._
FRANCE: A. D. 1808-1809.
Reverses in Portugal.
Napoleon in the field.
French victories resumed.
The check at Corunna.
See SPAIN: A. D. 1808-1809 (AUGUST-JANUARY).
FRANCE: A. D. 1809 (January-September).
Reopened war with Austria.
Napoleon's advance to Vienna.
His defeat at Aspern and victory at Wagram.
The Peace of Schönbrunn.
Fresh acquisitions of territory.
See GERMANY: A. D. 1809 (JANUARY-JUNE),
and (JULY-SEPTEMBER).
FRANCE: A. D. 1809 (February-July).
Wellington's check to the French in Spain and Portugal.
His passage of the Douro.
Battle of Talavera.
See SPAIN: A. D. 1809 (FEBRUARY-JULY).
FRANCE: A. D. 1809 (May).
Annexation of the States of the Church.
Removal of the Pope to Savona.
See PAPACY: A. D. 1808-1814.
FRANCE: A. D. 1809 (December).
Withdrawal of the English from Spain into Portugal.
See SPAIN: A. D. 1809 (AUGUST-DECEMBER).
{1352}
FRANCE: A. D. 1810 (February-December).
Annexations of territory to the empire.
Holland, the Hanse Towns, and the Valais in Switzerland.
Other reconstructions of the map of Germany.
"It was not till December 10th 1810 [after the abdication of
King Louis—see NETHERLANDS (HOLLAND): A. D. 1806-1810] that
Holland was united to France by a formal senatus-consulte. By
the first article of the same law, the Hanse Towns [Hamburg,
Bremen, and Lubeck], the Duchy of Lauenburg, and the countries
situated between the North Sea and a line drawn from the
confluence of the Lippe with the Rhine to Halteren, from
Halteren to the Ems above Telgte, from the Ems to the
confluence of the Werra with the Weser, and from Stolzenau on
that river to the Elbe, above the confluence of the Stecknitz,
were at the same time incorporated with the French Empire. …
The line described would include the northern part of
Westphalia and Hanover, and the duchy of Oldenburg. … The
Duke of Oldenburg having appealed to the Emperor of Russia,
the head of his house, against this spoliation, Napoleon
offered to compensate him with the town and territory of
Erfurt and the lordship of Blankenheim, which had remained
under French administration since the Peace of Tilsit. But
this offer was at once rejected, and Alexander reserved, by a
formal protest, the rights of his relative. This annexation
was only the complement of other incorporations with the
French Empire during the year 1810. Early in the year, the
Electorate of Hanover had been annexed to the Kingdom of
Westphalia. On February 16th Napoleon had erected the Grand
Duchy of Frankfort, and presented it to the Prince Primate of
the Confederation of the Rhine, with a reversal in favour of
Eugene Beauharnais. On November 12th the Valais in Switzerland
was also annexed to France, with the view of securing the road
over the Simplon. Of all these annexations, that of the Hanse
Towns and the districts on the North Sea was the most
important, and one of the principal causes of the war that
ensued between France and Russia. These annexations were made
without the slightest negociation with any European cabinet,
and it would be superfluous to add, without even a pretext of
right, though the necessity of them from the war with England
was alleged as the motive."
_T. H. Dyer,
History of Modern Europe,
book 7, chapter 15, with foot-note (volume 4)._
"'The English,' said Napoleon, 'have torn asunder the public
rights of Europe; a new order of things governs the universe.
Fresh guarantees having become necessary to me, the annexation
of the mouths of the Scheldt, of the Meuse, of the Rhine, of
the Ems, of the Weser, and of the Elbe to the Empire appears
to me to be the first and the most important. … The
annexation of the Valais is the anticipated result of the
immense works that I have been making for the past ten years
in that part of the Alps.' And this was all. To justify such
violence he did not condescend to allege any pretext—to urge
forward opportunities that were too long in developing, or to
make trickery subserve the use of force—he consulted nothing
but his policy; in other words, his good pleasure. To take
possession of a country, it was sufficient that the country
suited him: he said so openly, as the simplest thing in the
world, and thought proper to add that these new usurpations
were but a beginning, the first, according to his own
expression, of those which seemed to him still necessary. And
it was Europe, discontented, humbled, driven wild by the
barbarous follies of the continental system, that he thus
defied, as though he wished at any cost to convince every one
that no amicable arrangement or conciliation was possible; and
that there was but one course for governments or men of spirit
to adopt, that of fighting unto death."
_P. Lanfrey,
History of Napoleon,
volume 4, chapter 2._
FRANCE: A. D. 1810-1812.
Continued hostile attitude towards
the United States of America.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1810-1812.
FRANCE: A. D. 1810-1812.
The War in the Peninsula.
Wellington's Lines of Torres Vedras.
French retreat from Portugal.
English advance into Spain.
See SPAIN: A. D. 1809-1810 (OCTOBER-SEPTEMBER),
and 1810-1812.
FRANCE: A. D. 1810-1812.
Napoleon's divorce from Josephine and marriage to
Marie-Louise of Austria.
His rupture with the Czar and
preparations for war with Russia.
"Napoleon now revived the idea which he had often entertained
before, of allying himself with one of the great ruling
families. A compliant senate and a packed ecclesiastical
council pronounced his separation from Josephine Beauharnais,
who retired with a magnificent pension to Malmaison, where she
died. As previous marriage proposals to the Russian court had
not been cordially received, Napoleon now turned to Austria.
The matter was speedily arranged with Metternich, and in
March, 1810, the archduchess Maria Louisa arrived in France as
the emperor's wife. The great importance of the marriage was
that it broke the last links which bound Russia to France, and
thus overthrew the alliance of Tilsit. Alexander had been
exasperated by the addition of Western Galicia to the
grand-duchy of Warsaw, which he regarded as a step towards the
restoration of Poland, and therefore as a breach of the
engagement made at Tilsit. The annexation of Oldenburg, whose
duke was a relative of the Czar, was a distinct personal
insult. Alexander showed his irritation by formally deserting
the continental system, which was more ruinous to Russia than
to almost any other country, and by throwing his ports open to
British commerce (December 1810). … The chief grievance to
Russia was the apparent intention of Napoleon to do something
for the Poles. The increase of the grand-duchy of Warsaw by
the treaty of Vienna was so annoying to Alexander, that he
began to meditate on the possibility of restoring Poland
himself, and making it a dependent kingdom for the Czar, in
the same way as Napoleon had treated Italy. He even went so
far as to sound the Poles on the subject; but he found that
they had not forgotten the three partitions of their country,
and that their sympathies were rather with France than with
Russia. At the same time Napoleon was convinced that until
Russia was subdued his empire was unsafe, and all hopes of
avenging himself upon England were at an end. All through the
year 1811 it was known that war was inevitable, but neither
power was in a hurry to take the initiative. Meanwhile the
various powers that retained nominal independence had to make
up their minds as to the policy they would pursue. For no
country was the decision harder than for Prussia. Neutrality
was out of the question, as the Prussian territories, lying
between the two combatants, must be occupied by one or the
other.
{1353}
The friends and former Colleagues of Stein were unanimous for
a Russian alliance and a desperate struggle for liberty. But
Hardenberg, who had become chancellor in 1810, was too prudent
to embark in a contest, which at the time was hopeless. The
Czar had not been so consistent in his policy as to be a very
desirable ally; and, even with Russian assistance, it was
certain that the Prussian frontiers could not be defended
against the French, who had already garrisons in the chief
fortresses. Hardenberg fully sympathised with the patriots,
but he sacrificed enthusiasm to prudence, and offered the
support of Prussia to France. The treaty was arranged on the
24th of February, 1812. Frederick William gave the French a
free passage through his territories, and undertook to furnish
20,000 men for service in the field, and as many more for
garrison duty. In return for this Napoleon guaranteed the
security of the Prussian kingdom as it stood, and held out the
prospect of additions to it. It was an unnatural and hollow
alliance, and was understood to be so by the Czar.
Scharnhorst, Gneisenau, and other friends of Stein resigned
their posts, and many Prussian officers entered the service of
the Czar. Austria, actuated by similar motives, adopted the same
policy, but with less reluctance. After this example had been
set by the two great powers, none of the lesser states of
Germany dared to disobey the peremptory orders of Napoleon.
But Turkey and Sweden, both of them old allies of France, were
at this crisis in the opposition. … The Swedes were
threatened with starvation by Napoleon's stern command to
close their ports not only against English, but against all
German vessels. Bernadotte, who had just been adopted as the
heir of the childless Charles XIII.; determined to throw in
his lot with his new country, rather than with his old
commander. He had also hopes of compensating Sweden for the
loss of Finland by wresting Norway from the Danes, and this
would never be agreed to by France. Accordingly Sweden
prepared to support the cause of Alexander."
_R. Lodge,
History of Modern Europe,
chapter 24, sections 88 and 41._
"Napoleon's Russian expedition should not be regarded as an
isolated freak of insane pride. He himself regarded it as the
unfortunate effect of a fatality, and he betrayed throughout
an unwonted reluctance and perplexity. 'The war must take
place,' he said, 'it lies in the nature of things.' That is,
it arose naturally, like the other Napoleonic wars, out of the
quarrel with England. Upon the Continental system he had
staked everything. He had united all Europe in the crusade
against England, and no state, least of all such a state as
Russia, could withdraw from the system without practically
joining England. Nevertheless, we may wonder that, if he felt
obliged to make war on Russia, he should have chosen to wage
it in the manner he did, by an overwhelming invasion. For an
ordinary war his resources were greatly superior to those of
Russia. A campaign on the Lithuanian frontier would no doubt
have been unfavourable to Alexander, and might have forced him
to concede the points at issue. Napoleon had already
experienced in Spain the danger of rousing national spirit. It
seems, however, that this lesson had been lost on him."
_J. R. Seeley,
Short History of Napoleon,
chapter 5, section 3._
"Warnings and cautions were not … wanting to him. He had
been at several different times informed of the desperate
plans of Russia and her savage resolve to destroy all around
him, provided he could be involved in the destruction of the
Empire. He was cautioned, with even more earnestness, of the
German conspiracies. Alquier transmitted to him from Stockholm
a significant remark of Alexander's: 'If the Emperor Napoleon
should experience a reverse, the whole of Germany will rise to
oppose his retreat, or to prevent the arrival of his
reinforcements.' His brother Jerome, who was still better
situated for knowing what was going on in Germany, informed
him, in the month of January, 1811, of the proposal that had
been made to him to enter into a secret league against France,
but the only thanks he received from Napoleon was reproach for
having encouraged such overtures by his equivocal conduct. …
Marshal Davout and General Rapp transmitted him identically
the same information from Hamburg and Dantzig. But far from
encouraging such confidential communications, Napoleon was
irritated by them. … 'I do not know why Rapp meddles in what
does not concern him [he wrote]. … I beg you will not place
such rhapsodies under my eyes. My time is too precious to
waste on such twaddle.' … In presence of such hallucination,
caused by pride and infatuation, we seem to hear Macbeth in
his delirium insulting the messengers who announced to him the
approach· of the enemy's armies."
_P. Lanfrey,
History of Napoleon,
volume 4, chapter 6._
"That period ought to have been esteemed the happiest of
Napoleon's life. What more could the wildest ambition desire?
… All obeyed him. Nothing was wanting to make him happy!
Nothing, if he could be happy who possessed not a love of
justice. … The being never existed who possessed ampler
means for promoting the happiness of mankind. Nothing was
required but justice and prudence. The nation expected these
from him, and granted him that unlimited confidence which he
afterwards so cruelly abused. … Instead of considering with
calmness and moderation how he might best employ his vast
resources, he ruminated on projects beyond the power of man to
execute; forgetting what innumerable victims must be
sacrificed in the vain attempt. … He aspired at universal
despotism, for no other reason than because a nation, isolated
from the continent and profiting by its happy situation, had
refused to submit to his intolerable·yoke. … In the hope of
conquering that invincible enemy, he vainly endeavoured to
grasp the extremities of Europe. … Misled by his rash and
hasty temper, he adopted a false line of politics, and
converted in the north, as he had done before in the south,
the most useful and powerful of his allies into a dangerous
enemy."
_E. Labaume,
Circumstantial Narrative of the Campaign in Russia,
part 1, book 1._
ALSO IN:
_C. Joyneville,
Life and Times of Alexander I.,
volume 2, chapter 3._
_Imbert de Saint Amand,
Memoirs of the Empress Marie Louise._
FRANCE: A. D. 1812 (June).
The captive Pope brought to Fontainebleau.
See PAPACY: A. D. 1808-1814.
FRANCE: A. D. 1812 (June-August).
Defeat by the English in Spain at Salamanca.
Abandonment of Madrid by King Joseph.
See SPAIN: A. D. 1812 (JUNE-AUGUST).
{1354}
FRANCE: A. D. 1812 (June-December).
Napoleon's Russian campaign.
The advance to Moscow.
The burning of the city.
The retreat and its horrors.
See RUSSIA: A. D. 1812.
FRANCE: A. D. 1812-1813 (December-March)
Napoleon's return from Russia.
His measures for creating a new army.
"Whilst Europe, agitated at once by hope, by fear, and by
hatred, was inquiring what had become of Napoleon, whether he
had perished or had been saved, he was crossing in a
sledge—accompanied by the Duke of Vicenza, the Grand Marshal
Duroc, Count Lobau, General Lefevre-Desnouettes, and the
Mameluke Rustan—the vast, plains of Lithuania, of Poland, and
of Saxony, concealed by thick furs; for if his name had been
imprudently uttered, or his countenance recognised, a tragical
catastrophe would have instantly ensued. The man who had so
greatly excited the admiration of nations, who was the object
of their … superstition, would not at that moment have
escaped their fury. In two places only did he allow himself to
be known, Warsaw and Dresden. … That he might not occasion
too great surprise, he caused himself to be preceded by an
officer with a few lines for the 'Moniteur,' saying that on
December 5 he had assembled his generals at Smorgoni, had
delegated the command to King Murat, only so long as military
operations were interrupted by the cold, that he had traversed
Warsaw and Dresden, and that he was about to arrive in Paris
to take in hand the affairs of the Empire. … Napoleon
followed close on the steps of the officer who was to announce
his arrival. On December 18, at half-past 11 P. M., he entered
the Tuileries. … On the next morning, the 19th, he received
the ministers and grandees of the court … with extreme
hauteur, maintaining a tranquil but severe aspect, appearing
to expect explanations instead of affording them himself,
treating foreign affairs as of minor consequence, and those of
a domestic nature as of principal import, demanding some light
upon these last,—in short, questioning others in order to
avoid being questioned himself. … On Sunday, the 20th of
December, the second day after his arrival, Napoleon received
the Senate, the Council of State, and the principal branches
of the administration," which severally addressed to him the
most fulsome flatteries and assurances of support. "After an
infuriated populace basely outraging vanquished princes,
nothing can be seen more melancholy than these great bodies
prostrating themselves at the feet of a power, bestowing upon
it a degree of admiration which increases with its errors,
speaking with ardour of their fidelity, already about to
expire, and swearing to die in its cause when they are on the
eve of hailing the accession of another. Happy are those
countries whose established Constitutions spare them these
humiliating spectacles!" As speedily as possible, Napoleon
applied himself to the recreation of his lost army, by
anticipating the conscription for 1814, and by making new
calls upon the classes which had already furnished their
contingents. All his measures were submissively sanctioned by
the obsequious Senate; but many murmurs of discontent were
heard among the people, and some movements of resistance
needed to be put down. "However, when the enlightened classes
of a country approve a measure, their support is extremely
efficacious. In France, all those classes perceiving that it
was necessary energetically to defend the country against a
foreign enemy, though the Government had been still more in
the wrong than they were, the levies were effected, and the
high functionaries, sustained by a moral acquiescence which
they had not always obtained, fulfilled their duty, though in
heart full of sad and sinister forebodings."
_A. Thiers,
History of the Consulate and the Empire,
book 47 (volume 4)._
ALSO IN:
_Duchess d'Abrantes,
Memoirs of Napoleon,
volume 2, chapter 43._
FRANCE: A. D. 1812-1813.
Germanic rising against Napoleon.
War of Liberation.
Lützen.
Bautzen.
Dresden.
Leipsic.
The retreat of the French from beyond the Rhine.
See GERMANY: A. D. 1812-1813,
to 1813 (OCTOBER-DECEMBER).
FRANCE: A. D. 1813 (February-March).
The new Concordat signed and retracted by the Pope.
See PAPACY: A. D. 1808-1814.
FRANCE: A. D. 1813 (June-November).
Defeat at Vittoria and in the Pyrenees.
Retreat from Spain.
See SPAIN: A. D. 1812-1814.
FRANCE: A. D. 1813 (November-December).
Dutch independence regained.
See NETHERLANDS (HOLLAND): A. D. 1813.
FRANCE: A. D. 1814 (January).
The Pope set free to return to Rome.
See PAPACY: A. D. 1808-1814.
FRANCE: A. D. 1814 (January-March).
The allied invasion.
Napoleon's campaign of defense.
His cause lost.
Surrender of Paris.
"The battle of Leipzig was the overthrow of the French rule in
Germany; there only remained, as evidence of what they had
lost, 150,000 men, garrisons of the fortresses of the Vistula,
the Oder, and the Elbe. Each success of the allies had been
marked by the desertion of one of the peoples that had
furnished its contingent to the Grand Army of 1812: after
Prussia, Austria; at Leipzig the Saxons: the French had not
been able to regain the Rhine except by passing over the
bodies of the Bavarians at Hanau. Baden, Wurtemberg, Hesse,
and Darmstadt declared their defection at nearly the same
time; the sovereigns were still hesitating whether to separate
themselves from Napoleon, when their people and regiments,
worked upon by the German patriots, had already passed into
the allied camp. Jerome Bonaparte had again quitted Cassel;
Denmark found Itself forced to adhere to the Coalition.
Napoleon had retired to the left bank of the Rhine. Would
Alexander cross this natural frontier of revolutionary France?
'Convinced,' says M. Bogdanovitch, 'by the experience of many
years, that neither losses inflicted on Napoleon, nor treaties
concluded with him, could check his insatiable ambition,
Alexander would not stop at setting free the involuntary
allies of France, and resolved to pursue the war till he had
overthrown his enemy.' The allied sovereigns found themselves
reunited at Frankfort, and an immediate march to Paris was
discussed. Alexander, Stein. Blücher, Gneisenau, and all the
Prussians were on the side of decisive action. The Emperor
Francis and Metternich only desired Napoleon to be weakened,
as his downfall would expose Austria to another danger, the
preponderance of Russia on the Continent. Bernadotte insisted
on Napoleon's dethronement, with the ridiculous design of
appropriating the crown of France, traitor as he was to her
cause. England would have preferred a solid and immediate
peace to a war which would exhaust her in subsidies, and
augment her already enormous debt. These divergencies, these
hesitations, gave Napoleon time to strengthen his position.
{1355}
After Hanau, in the opinion of Ney, 'the allies might have
counted their stages to Paris.' Napoleon had re-opened the
negotiations. The relinquishment of Italy (when Murat on his
side negotiated the preservation of his kingdom of Naples), of
Holland, of Germany, and of Spain, and the confinement of
France between her natural boundaries of the Rhine and the
Alps; such were the 'Conditions of Frankfort.' Napoleon sent
an answer to Metternich, 'that he consented to the opening of
a congress at Mannheim: that the conclusion of a peace which
would insure the independence of all the nations of the earth
had always been the aim of his policy.' This reply seems
evasive, but could the proposals of the allies have been
serious? Encouraged by disloyal Frenchmen, they published the
declaration of Frankfort, by which they affirmed 'that they
did not make war with France, but against the preponderance
which Napoleon had long exercised beyond the limits of his
empire.' Deceitful assurance, too obvious snare, which could
only take in a nation weary of war, enervated by twenty-two
years of sterile victories, and at the end of its resources!
During this time Alexander, with the deputies of the Helvetian
Diet summoned at Frankfort, discussed the basis of a new Swiss
Confederation. Holland was already raised by the partisans of
the house of Orange, and entered by the Prussians. The
campaign of France began. Alexander issued at Freiburg a
proclamation to his troops. … He refused to receive
Caulaincourt at Freiburg, declaring that he would only treat
in France. 'Let us spare the French negotiator the trouble of
the journey,' he said to Metternich. 'It does not seem to me a
matter of indifference to the allied sovereigns, whether the
peace with France is signed on this side of the Rhine, or on
the other, in the very heart of France. Such an historical
event is well worth a change of quarters.' Without counting
the armies of Italy and the Pyrenees, Napoleon had now a mere
handful of troops, 80,000 men, spread from Nimeguen to Bâle,
to resist 500,000 allies. The army of the North
(Wintzingerode) invaded Holland, Belgium, and the Rhenish
provinces; the army of Silesia (Blücher) crossed the Rhine
between Mannheim and Coblentz and entered Nancy; the army of
Bohemia (Schwartzenberg) passed through Switzerland, and
advanced on Troyes, where the Royalists demanded the
restoration of the Bourbons. Napoleon was still able to bar
for some time the way to his capital. He first attacked the
army of Silesia; he defeated the vanguard, the Russians of
Sacken, at St. Didier, and Blücher at Brienne; but at La
Rothière he encountered the formidable masses of the Silesian
and Bohemian armies, and after a fierce battle (1st February,
1814) had to fall back on Troyes. After this victory had
secured their junction, the two armies separated again, the
one to go down the Marne, the other the Seine, with the
intention of reuniting at Paris. Napoleon profited by this
mistake. He threw himself on the left flank of the army of
Silesia, near Champeaubert, where he dispersed the troops of
Olsoufief and Poltaratski, inflicting on them a loss of 2,500
men, and took the generals prisoners. At Montmirail, in spite
of the heroism of Zigrote and Lapoukhine, he defeated Sacken;
the Russians alone lost 2,800 men and five guns (11th
February). At Château Thierry, he defeated Sacken and York
reunited, and again the Russians lost 1,500 men and five guns.
At Vauchamp it was the turn of Blücher, who lost 2,000
Russians, 4,000 Prussians, and fifteen guns. The army of
Silesia was in terrible disorder. 'The peasants, exasperated
by the disorder inseparable from a retreat, and excited by
exaggerated rumours of French successes, took up arms, and
refused supplies. The soldiers suffered both from cold and
hunger, Champagne affording no wood for bivouac fires. When
the weather became milder, their shoes wore out, and the men,
obliged to make forced marches with bare feet, were carried by
hundreds into the hospitals of the country' (Bogdanovitch).
Whilst the army of Silesia retreated in disorder on the army
of the North, Napoleon, with 50,000 soldiers full of
enthusiasm, turned on that of Bohemia, crushed the Bavarians
and Russians at Mormans, the Wurtembergers at Montereau, the
Prussians at Méry: these Prussians made part of the army of
Blücher, who had detached a corps to hang on the rear of
Napoleon. This campaign made a profound impression on the
allies. Castlereagh expressed, in Alexander's presence, the
opinion that peace should be made before they were driven
across the Rhine. The military chiefs began to feel uneasy.
Sesslavine sent news from Joigny that Napoleon had 180,000 men
at Troyes. A general insurrection of the eastern provinces was
expected in the rear of the allies. It was the firmness of
Alexander which maintained the Coalition, it was the military
energy of Blücher which saved it. Soon after his disasters he
received reinforcements from the army of the North, and took
the offensive against the marshals; then, hearing of the
arrival of Napoleon at La Ferté Gaucher, he retreated in great
haste, finding an unexpected refuge at Soissons, which had
just been taken by the army of the North. At Craonne (March 7)
and at Laon (10th to 12th March), with 100,000 men against
80,000, and with strong positions, he managed to repulse all
the attacks of Napoleon. At Craonne, however, the Russian loss
amounted to 5,000 men, the third of their effective force. The
battle of Laon cost them 4,000 men. Meanwhile, De Saint
Priest, a general in Alexander's service, had taken Rheims by
assault, but was dislodged by Napoleon after a fierce
struggle, where the émigré commander was badly wounded, and
4,000 of his men were killed (13th, March). The Congress of
Châtillon-sur-Seine was opened on the 28th of February. Russia
was represented by Razoumovski and Nesselrode, Napoleon by
Caulaincourt, Austria by Stadion and Metternich. The
conditions proposed to Napoleon were the reduction of France
to its frontiers of 1792, and the right of the allies to
dispose, without reference to him, of the reconquered
countries. Germany was to be a confederation of independent
States, Italy to be divided into free States, Spain to be
restored to Ferdinand, and Holland to the house of Orange.
Leave France smaller than I found her? Never!' said Napoleon.
Alexander and the Prussians would not hear of a peace which
left Napoleon on the throne. Still, however, they negotiated.
Austria and England were both agreed not to push him to
extremities, and many times proposed to treat. After
Napoleon's great success against Blücher, Castlereagh declared
for peace. 'It would not be a peace,' cried the Emperor of
Russia; 'it would be a truce which would not allow us to
disarm one moment. I cannot come 400 leagues every day to your
assistance.
{1356}
No peace, as long as Napoleon is on the throne.' Napoleon, in
his turn, intoxicated by his success, enjoined Caulaincourt
only to treat on the basis of Frankfort—natural frontiers.
… As fortune returned· to the allies, the congress was
dissolved (19th of March). The Bourbon princes were already in
France; Louis XVIII. was on the point of being proclaimed.
Alexander, tired of seeing the armies of Bohemia and Silesia
fly in turn before thirty or forty thousand French, caused the
allies to adopt the fatal plan of a march on Paris, which was
executed in eight days. Blücher and Schwartzenberg united,
with 200,000 men, were to bear down all opposition on their
passage. The first act in the drama was the battle of
Arcissur-Aube, where the Russians took six guns from Napoleon.
The latter conceived a bold scheme, which perhaps might have
saved him if Paris could have resisted, but which was his
ruin. He threw himself on the rear of the allied army,
abandoning to them the route to Paris, but reckoning on
raising Eastern France, and cutting off their retreat to the
Rhine. The allies, uneasy for one moment, were reassured by an
intercepted letter of Napoleon's, and by the letters of the
Parisian royalists, which revealed to them the weakness of the
capital. 'Dare all!' writes Talleyrand to them. They, in their
turn, deceived Napoleon, by causing him to be followed by a
troop of cavalry, continued their march, defeated Marmont and
Mortier, crushed the National Guards of Pacthod (battle of La
Fère-Champenoise); and arrived in sight of Paris. Barclay de
Tolly, forming the centre, first attacked the plateau of
Romainville, defended by Marmont; on his left, the Prince of
Wurtemberg threatened Vincennes; and on his right, Blücher
deployed before Montmartre, which was defended by Mortier. The
heights of Chaumont and those of Montmartre were taken;
Marmont and Mortier with Moncey were thrown back on the
ramparts. Marmont obtained an armistice from Colonel Orlof, to
treat for the capitulation of Paris. King Joseph, the Empress
Marie-Louise, and all the Imperial Government had already fled
to the Loire. Paris was recommended to the generosity of the
allied monarchs'; the army could retire on the road to
Orleans. Such was the battle of Paris; it had cost, according
to M. Bogdanovitch, 8,400 men to the allies, and 4,000 to the
French (30th March). … The allied troops maintained a
strict discipline, and were not quartered on the inhabitants.
Alexander had not come as a friend of the Bourbons—the
fiercest enemy of Napoleon, was least bitter against the
French; he intended leaving them the choice of their
government. He had not favoured any of the intrigues of the
émigrés, and had scornfully remarked to Jomini, 'What are the
Bourbons to me?'"
_A. Rambaud,
History of Russia,
volume 2, chapter 12._
ALSO IN:
_C. Joyneville,
Life and Times of Alexander I.,
volume 3, chapter 1._
_M. de Beauchamp,
Narrative of the Invasions of France, 1814-15._
_Duke de Rovigo,
Memoirs,
volume 3, part 2, chapters 20-32._
_J. Philippart,
Campaign in Germany and France, 1818,
volume 1, pages 279 and after, and volume 2._
FRANCE: A. D. 1814 (January-May).
Desertion of Napoleon by Murat.
Murat's treaty with the allies.
French evacuation of Italy.
See ITALY: A. D. 1814.
FRANCE: A. D. 1814 (February-April).
Reverses in the south.
Wellington's invasion.
See SPAIN: A. D. 1812-1814.
FRANCE: A. D. 1814 (March-April).
Friendly reception of the Allies in Paris.
Collapse of the empire.
Abdication of Napoleon.
Treaty of Fontainebleau.
"At an early hour in the morning [of the 31st of March], the
Allied troops had taken possession of the barriers, and
occupied the principal avenues leading to the city. Picquets
of the Cossacks of the Guard were stationed at the corners of
the principal streets. Vast multitudes thronged the
Boulevards, in anxious and silent expectation of pending
events. The royalists alone were active. The leaders, a small
band indeed, had early assembled in the Place Louis XV.,
whence, with Bourbon banners displayed, they proceeded along
the principal streets, haranguing the people and National
Guard; but though not interfered with by the police,—for all
seemed to feel that the Imperial government was at an
end,—they were listened to with such perfect indifference,
that many began to think their cause absolutely hopeless. It
was between ten and eleven o'clock when the procession began
to enter the city. Light horsemen of the Russian Guard opened
the march; at the head of the main column rode the Emperor of
Russia and the King of Prussia. … Then followed 35,000 men,
cavalry, infantry, and artillery, the elite of the armies, in
all the pride and circumstance of war and conquest. At first
the multitude looked on in silent amazement; but the
affability of the officers, above all, the condescending
manner of the Czar, dispelled any fear they might still
entertain; and shouts of 'Vive Alexander!' began to be heard;
cries of 'Vive le Roi de Prusse!' were soon added. … The
shouts of welcome increased at every step. The conquerors were
now hailed as liberators; 'Vivent les Allies!' 'Vivent nos
liberateurs!' sounded through the air, mingled at last with
the long-forgotten cry of 'Vive le Roi!' 'Vivent les
Bourbons!' … The Emperor Alexander had no sooner seen the
troops file past on the Place Louis XV., than he repaired to
the hôtel of Talleyrand, where in the evening, a council was
assembled to deliberate on the important step next to be
taken, and, on the best mode of turning the glorious victories
achieved to an honourable and beneficial account. … The
points discussed were:
I. The possibility, on sufficient guarantees, of a peace
with Napoleon;
II. The plan of regency under Marie Louise; and,
III. The restoration of the Bourbons.
The choice was not without difficulties. The first plan was
easily dismissed; as the reception of the Allies proved
clearly that the power of Napoleon was broken. The second
seemed more likely to find favour, as promising to please the
Emperor of Austria; but was finally rejected, as being, in
fact, nothing more than a continuance of the Imperial reign
under a different title. Against the restoration of the
Bourbons, it was urged that the nation at large had evinced no
desire for their recall, and seemed to have almost forgotten
them. This, Talleyrand said, was owing entirely to the
Congress of Chatillon, and the negotiations carried on with
Napoleon; introducing at the same time, the Abbé de Pradt and
Baron Louis, who fully confirmed the assertion. On being asked
how he expected to obtain a declaration in favour of the
exiled family, Talleyrand replied, that he was certain of the
Senate; and that their vote would influence Paris, the example
of which would be followed by all France.
{1357}
Alexander having on this assurance taken the opinion of the
King of Prussia and Prince Schwarzenberg, signed a declaration
to the effect that 'the Allies would treat no more with
Napoleon Bonaparte, or with any member of his family.' A
proclamation was issued at the same time, calling on the
conservative Senate to assemble and form a provisional
government, for the purpose of drawing up a constitution
suitable to the wishes of the French people. This the Allies
promised to guarantee; as it was their wish, they said, to see
France 'powerful, happy, and prosperous.' A printer was ready
in attendance; and before dark, this memorable decree was seen
placarded in all the streets of Paris. The inconstant populace
had not even waited for such a sig nal, and had been already
engaged in destroying the emblems of the Imperial government; an
attempt had even been made to pull down the statue of Napoleon
from the summit of the column of Austerlitz, in the Place
Vendome! The decisive impulse thus given, events moved rapidly
forward. Caulaincourt's zealous efforts in favour of his
master could effect nothing after the declaration already
noticed. On the 2d, he took his departure for Fontainbleau;
having, however, received the assurance that Napoleon would be
suitably provided for. … The funds rose five per cent., and all
other public securities in proportion, on the very day after
the occupation of the capital; and wherever the Allied
Sovereigns appeared in public, they were loudly cheered and
hailed as liberators. From the first, officers of the Allied
armies filled the public walks, theatres, and coffee-houses,
and mixed with the people as welcome guests rather than as
conquering invaders. The press, so long enslaved by Napoleon,
took the most decided part against its oppressor; and from
every quarter injurious pamphlets, epigrams, and satires, now
poured upon the fallen ruler. Madame de Staël had
characterised him as 'Robespierre on horseback'; De Pradt had
more wittily termed him 'Jupiter Scapin'; and these sayings
were not forgotten. But by far the most vivid sensation was
produced by Chateaubriand's tract of 'Bonaparte and the
Bourbons'; 30,000 copies of which are said to have been sold
in two days. In proportion as the popular hatred of the
Emperor evinced itself, grew the boldness of his adversaries.
On the first of April, the Municipal Council of Paris met and
already declared the throne vacant; on the next day, the
Conservative Senate formed a Provisional Government, and
issued a decree, declaring, first,'That Napoleon Bonaparte had
forfeited the throne and the right of inheritance established in
his family; 2d, That the people and army of France were
disengaged and freed from the oath of fidelity which they had
taken to him and his constitution.' … The members of the
Legislative Assembly who happened to be in Paris, followed the
example of the Senate. The Assembly had been dissolved in
January, and could not meet constitutionally unless summoned
by the Sovereign; this objection was, however, set aside, and
the Assembly having met, ratified the act of deposition passed
by the Senate. All the public functionaries, authorities and
constituted bodies in and near Paris, hastened to send in
their submission to the new powers: it was a general race in
which honour was not always the prize of speed; for every
address, every act of submission sent in to the new
government, teemed with invectives against the deposed ruler.
… It was in the night between the 2d and 3d, that
Caulaincourt returned from his mission, and informed Napoleon
of the events which had passed. … In what manner the Emperor
received these fatal tidings we are not told. … At first it
would seem that he entertained, or affected to entertain,
thoughts of resorting to arms; for in the morning he reviewed
his Guard, and addressed them in the following
terms:—'Officers and soldiers of my Old Guard, the enemy has
gained three marches on us, and outstripped us at Paris. Some
factious men, emigrants whom I had pardoned, have surrounded
the Emperor Alexander; they have mounted the white cockade,
and would force us to do the same. In a few days I shall
attack the enemy, and force them to quit the capital. I rely
on you: am I right?' The troops readily replied with loud
cheers to this address, calling out 'To Paris! 'to Paris!' but
the Marshals and senior officers were by no means so zealous
in the cause. … The Generals and Marshals … followed the
Emperor to his apartments after the review; and having advised
him to negotiate with the Allies, on the principle of a
personal abdication, ended by informing him, that they would
not accompany him if he persisted in the proposed attack on
Paris. The scene which followed seems to have been of a very
undignified description. Napoleon was almost convulsed with
rage; he tore and trampled under foot the decree of the
Senate; vowed vengeance against the whole body, who should
yet, he said, be made to pay for their deed of 'felony'; but
ended, nevertheless, by ignobly signing the abdication
demanded of him. We say ignobly; for nothing can be more
debasing in character, than to sink down from a very tempest
of passion to tame submission. … The act of abdication was
worded in the following terms: 'The Allied powers having
proclaimed that the Emperor Napoleon is the sole obstacle to
the re-establishment of peace in Europe, the Emperor Napoleon,
faithful to his oath, declares that he is ready to descend
from the throne, to quit France, and even to relinquish life,
for the good of the country, which is inseparable from the
rights of his son, from those of the regency in the person of
the Empress, and from the maintenance of the laws of the
empire. Done at our Palace of Fontainbleau, 4th April 1814.
Napoleon.' Caulaincourt, Marshals Ney and M'Donald, were
appointed to carry this conditional abdication to Paris. …
The commissioners on returning to Fontainbleau found the
Emperor in his cabinet, impatiently awaiting the result of
their mission. Marshal Ney was the first to speak; and in that
abrupt, harsh and not very respectful tone which he had lately
assumed towards his falling sovereign, told him at once, that
'France, the army and the cause of peace, demanded his
unconditional abdication.' Caulaincourt added, that the full
sovereignty of the Isle of Elba, with a suitable
establishment, had been offered by the Emperor Alexander; and
Marshal M'Donald, who had so zealously defended the cause of
his master, confirmed the statement,—declaring also that, 'in
his opinion, the Imperial cause was completely lost, as they
had all three'—the commissioners—'failed against a
resolution irrevocably fixed.' 'What!' exclaimed Napoleon,
'not only my own abdication, but that of Marie Louise, and of
my son? This is rather too much at once.'
{1358}
And with these words he delayed the answer till next day,
intending, he said, to consider the subject, and consult the
army; … Words ran high between the fallen chieftain and his
former subordinates; there were altercations, recriminations,
and painful scenes, and it was only when Napoleon had signed
the following unconditional abdication that perfect calm was
restored:—'The Allied Sovereigns having declared that the
Emperor Napoleon is the only obstacle to the re-establishment
of a general peace, the Emperor Napoleon, faithful to his
oath, declares, that he renounces, for himself and his heirs,
the throne of France and Italy; and that there is no personal
sacrifice, not even that of life itself, which he is not
willing to make for the interest of France. Napoleon.
Fontainbleau, 6th April 1814.' This deplorable document is
written in so agitated and faltering a hand as to be almost
illegible. … According to the treaty signed at Paris on the
10th, and usually called the Treaty of Fontainbleau, Napoleon,
from being Emperor of France and King of Italy, became Emperor
of Elba! He was to have a guard and a navy suited to the
extent of his dominions, and to receive from France a pension
of six millions of francs annually. The Duchies of Parma,
Placentia and Guastala, were to be conferred in sovereignty on
Marie Louise and her heirs. Two millions and a half of francs
were further to be paid annually by the French government to
the Empress Josephine and other members of the Bonaparte
family. Splendid as these terms were for a dethroned and
defenceless monarch, Napoleon ratified the treaty with
reluctance, and delayed the signature as long as possible;
still clinging, it would seem, to some vague hope of returning
fortune. It is even related by Fain, Norvins, Constant, and in
the pretended Memoirs of Caulaincourt, that he attempted to
commit suicide by taking poison, 'and was only saved by the
weakness of the dose, and the remedies administered by his
attendants, who, hearing his groans, hastened to his bedside.
It is certain that he was very unwell on the following
morning, the 18th April, a circumstance easily accounted for
by the anxiety he had undergone; but there can be little
difficulty in rejecting the tale of poison, for, it is
mentioned in none of the St. Helena Memoirs."
_Lieutenant-Colonel J. Mitchell,
The Fall of Napoleon,
book 8, chapter 8 (volume 2)._
ALSO IN:
_M. de Bourrienne,
Private Memoirs of Napoleon,
volume 4, chapters 20-23._
_Duke of Rovigo,
Memoirs,
volume 4, part 1, chapters 4-10._
_Prince Talleyrand,
Memoirs,
part 7 (volume 2)._
FRANCE: A. D. 1814 (April-June).
Departure of Napoleon for Elba.
Louis XVIII. called to the throne.
Settlement of the constitution.
Evacuation of France by the Allies.
The Treaty of Paris.
Determination of the new boundaries of the kingdom.
"April 20, everything being ready for Napoleon's journey, and
the commissioners of the four great powers who were to
accompany him having arrived, the former drew up the imperial
guard in the grand courtyard at Fontainebleau to take leave of
them. 'Soldiers,' said he, 'I have one mission left to fulfil
in life,—to recount to posterity the glorious deeds we have
done together.' Would to Heaven he had kept his word and done
nothing else! He kissed the flag, and his brave soldiers, who
only saw the man who so often led them on to victory, burst
into tears. Seven or eight hundred of them were to form the
army left to him who had had a million soldiers at his
command, and they were sent in advance, Napoleon going by
another road, unescorted save by General Drouot, Bertrand, and
the four foreign commissioners with their people. In the first
departments through which they passed … the people who had
been eye-witnesses of the invasion forgot the evil wrought by
Napoleon, and only saw the defender of his country. They
shouted 'Long live the Emperor! Down with foreigners!' But
beyond Lyons, where the foe never penetrated, the population
became hostile: old royalist and Catholic passions were
revived in proportion as they went farther south; the mob
cried 'Long live the King! down with the tyrant!' and others
howled 'Long live the allies!' At Avignon and Organ a furious
rabble attacked the carriages, demanding that the tyrant
should be handed over to them to be hung or thrown into the
Rhone. The man who braved the storm of shot and shell with
utter indifference gave way before these ignoble perils, and
disguised himself; otherwise the commissioners could scarcely
have saved his life at Orgon. The sad journey closed at the
Gulf of St. Raphael, on the coast of Provence. … An English
frigate awaited him and bore him to Elba, where he landed at
Porto-Ferraio, May 4. While the Empire was crumbling to dust
… and the fallen Emperor went into exile, the new government
was working hard to hold its own at Paris. The royalists were
at sword's points with the national sovereignty party in the
commission chosen by the senate to draw up a constitution. The
pretender's agent, Abbé de Montesquiou, failed to win
acceptance of the principle that royal right is superior to
the nation's will; and the formula adopted was as follows:
'The French people freely call to the throne of France, Louis
Stanislas Xavier de France, brother of the late king, and,
after him, the other members of the house of Bourbon.' Thus
they did not recognize in the king whom they elected the title
of Louis XVIII., and did not admit that between him and his
brother, Louis XVI., there had been a rightful king, the poor
child who died in the Temple and whom royalists called Louis
XVII. The reign of Louis Stanislas Xavier was to date from the
day when he swore allegiance to the Constitution: the
executive power was vested in the king, who shared the
legislative power with the Senate and a Chamber of Deputies.
The Constitution sanctioned individual liberty, freedom of
worship and the press, the sale of national goods, the public
debt, and proclaimed oblivion of all acts committed since the
beginning of the Revolution. The principles of 1789 were
maintained, and in the sad state of France there was nothing
better to be done than to rally round this Constitution, which
was voted by the Senate, April 6, and accepted by the
Legislature. … The Senate's lack of popularity gave the
royalist party hope that the act of April 6 might be
retracted, and at this time that party won a faint success in
a matter on which they laid great stress. Count d' Artois was
on his way to Paris, and declared that he would not lay aside
the white cockade on entering. The temporary government
ordered the national guard to assume the white cockade, and
let Count d'Artois in without conditions (April 12), He was
received in solemn state, the marshals marching before him,
still wearing their tri-colored cockades and plumes, which the
government dared not attack.
{1359}
The rabble was cold, but the middle classes received the
prince favorably and he proved gracious to every one. …
D'Artois … insisted on being recognized, unconditionally, as
lieutenant-general of the kingdom, as he had entered Paris
without making terms; but this time the Senate and temporary
government did not yield. They intended that the prince should
make a solemn promise, in his brother's name, in regard to the
Constitution. The czar interfered and explained to D' Artois
that the allies were pledged to the Senate and the nation, and
he was forced to submit and receive the lieutenant-generalcy
of the kingdom from the Senate, 'until Louis Stanislas Xavier
of France should accept the Constitutional Charter.' … The
day after his proclamation as lieutenant-general, the white
cockade was finally adopted, and … imposed upon the army and
various public buildings, though the national cockade was
still worn by many French soldiers from the Garonne to the
Elbe, and many warlike deeds still signalized the final
efforts of their arms, even after Napoleon had laid aside his
sword. … By degrees the truce became universal, and the next
question was to fix the terms of peace. … The enemy held
nothing but Paris and the unfortified towns, French garrisons
still occupying all the strongholds of France, old and new,
and several important places far beyond the Rhine. … This
was a powerful means of gaining, not the preservation of the
natural frontiers, which could no longer be hoped for, but at
least an important advance on the limits of the ancient
monarchy. Unluckily a movement, natural but hasty, broke out
all over France, to claim the immediate evacuation of her soil
by foreign armies;"—an impatience which allowed no time for
bargaining in the matter, and which precipitated an agreement
(April 23) with the allied powers "to leave the French
dominion as it had been on the 1st of January, 1792, in
proportion as the places still occupied beyond those limits by
French troops should be evacuated and restored to the allies.
… This compact surrendered to the allies, without any
compensation, 58 strongholds, 12,600 pieces of ordnance,
arsenals and magazines filled with vast supplies." The new
king, calling himself Louis XVIII., arrived in Paris on the 3d
of May, from England, where he had latterly resided. He had
offended the czar, ruffled public feeling in France, even
before he arrived, by saying publicly to the English people
that he owed his restoration, under Providence, to them.
Negotiations for a definite treaty of peace were opened at
once. "At Metternich's suggestion, the allies decided to
conclude their arrangements with France in Paris, and to
reserve general arrangements with Europe for a congress at
Vienna.
See VIENNA: THE CONGRESS OF.
Talleyrand did not object, although this plan was evidently
unfavorable to France. … The royal council directed
Talleyrand to try to win for the northern frontier those
million people promised beyond the old limits; but Louis X
VIII., by angering the czar, completed the sad work of April
23. Alexander thought of renewing with the Bourbons the
alliance that he had planned with Napoleon, and marrying to
the Duke de Berri, Louis's nephew, that one of his sisters to
whom Napoleon preferred Marie Louise. Louis … responded
churlishly to the czar's advances. Accordingly, when France
demanded a solid frontier, including the South of Belgium, …
Lord Castlereagh absolutely refused, and was supported by
Prussia, hostile to France, and by Austria, indifferent on
that score, but disposed to follow England in everything.
Russia did not side with France. … The allies were willing
to grant, in place of the old dominion of the monarchy, on the
Rhine side, the line of the Queich, which opened communication
with Landau, and to the southeast the department of Vaucluse
(once County Venaissin) given up by the Pope, besides Chambéry
and a part of Savoy; finally, in the Jura region, Montbéliard.
This made nearly 600,000 people. As for the colonies, England
reluctantly returned Martinique, Guadeloupe, and the Isle of
Bourbon, but refused to restore the Isle de France [or
Mauritius, captured in 1810], that great military post which
is to the Indian Ocean what Malta is to the Mediterranean.
This island was bravely defended for some years by its
governor. … The English declared that they would also keep
Malta, taken from France, and the Cape of Good Hope, wrested
from Holland, saying that all these belonged to them, being on
the road to India. … Secret articles provided that Holland,
under the rule of the House of Orange, should be increased by
the countries ceded by France, between the sea, the French
frontier of 1790, and the Meuse (Austrian Netherlands and
Liége). The countries ceded by France on the left bank of the
Rhine were to be divided as 'compensation' among the German
states. Austria was to have the country bounded by the Po,
Ticino, and Lake Maggiore, that is, the old Venetian states,
Milan, and Mantua. The territory of the former Republic of
Genoa was to be given to the King of Sardinia. Such was the
end of the wars of the Empire. Republican France reached the
goal of the old monarchy, the natural limits of ancient Gaul;
the Empire lost them."
_H. Martin,
Popular History of France,
volume 2, chapter 17._
"The Peace of Paris [signed May 30] was followed by some
subsidiary treaties. … By a Convention of June 3rd between
Austria and Bavaria, Maximilian Joseph restored to Austria the
Tyrol with the Vorarlberg, the principality of Salzburg, the
district of the Inn and the Hausrück. During the visit of the
Emperor Alexander and the King of Prussia to London in June,
it was agreed that the Article of the Peace of Paris
stipulating the aggrandisement of Holland, should, be carried
out by the annexation of Belgium to that country, an
arrangement which was accepted by the Sovereign of the
Netherlands, July 21st 1814."
_T. H. Dyer,
History of Modern Europe,
book 7, chapter 16._
ALSO IN:
_A. de Lamartine,
History of the Restoration,
books 13-14 and 16 (volumes 1-2)._
_E. E. Crowe,
History of the Reigns of Louis XVIII. and Charles X.,
volume 1, chapter 3._
{1360}
FRANCE: A. D. 1814-1815.
Ten months of Bourbon rule and its follies.
Return of Napoleon from Elba.
Flight of the King.
The Hundred Days.
Preparations for war.
"The peace of Paris did not endure a year. Ten months of
Bourbon rule, vengeful, implacable, stupid; alike violent in
act and in language; sufficed to bring France once more to the
brink of revolution. Two acts alone are sufficient to
demonstrate the folly of the royalists—the resumption of the
white flag, and the changing of the numbers of the regiments.
A prudent king would have adopted the tricolour when he agreed
to a constitutional charter, and would have refrained from
wounding military sensibility by destroying the numbers of the
regiments. But more stupid than these acts was the political
policy pursued, a policy which aroused on all sides suspicions
of what was worse than the grinding but gilded despotism of
Napoleon—namely, that the Government favoured a forcible
resumption of the confiscated lands, the restoration of
tithes, and of the abolished exactions and imposts of
feudalism. It has been surmised, and with much reason, that
had Napoleon not reappeared a popular movement would have
extorted from the king a really constitutional government. In
that case France might have taken some real steps towards a
free government, and the bases of liberty rather than of
equality might have been laid. But while the Powers were
wrangling at Vienna, and the Bourbons were irritating France,
Napoleon was watching from Elba for the opportunity of
resuming empire. It was not in the nature of the man to yield
passively to anything, even to the inevitable. So long as a
chance remained he looked out keenly for the propitious hour.
He selected Elba as a residence because thence 'he could keep
an eye upon France and upon the Bourbons.' It was his duty, he
said, to guard the throne of France for his family and for his
son. Thus, in making peace at Fontainebleau, he only bowed to
a storm he could not then resist, and cherished in his mind
the project of an imperial restoration. The hour for which he
waited came at length. February, 1815, he had arrived at the
conclusion that with the aid of the army he could overthrow
the Bourbons, whose government, he said, was good for priests,
nobles, and countesses of the old time, but worth nothing to
the living generation. The army, he knew, was still, and would
be always, devoted to him. … He had weighed all the chances
for and against the success of his enterprise, and he had
arrived at the conclusion that he should succeed; for,
'Fortune had never deserted him on great occasions.' It has
been said that his departure was precipitated by a report of
the dissolution of the Congress of Vienna. … It is possible,
indeed, that the rumour of an intention to confine him upon an
island in the Atlantic may have exercised some influence over
him; but the real reasons for the selection of the 26th of
February were that he was tired of inactivity, and convinced
that the favourable moment had arrived. Therefore, instructing
Murat to second him by assuming a strong position in front of
Ancona, he embarked his faithful Thousand, and set sail for
France. On the 1st of March he landed on the shores of the
Gulf of Juan, and on the 20th he entered the Tuileries. As he
had predicted, the army rallied to the tricolour; the generals
could neither restrain nor guide their soldiers; the Bourbon
dukes and princes, and the brave Duchess of Angoulême—'the
only man of the family'—were utterly powerless before the
universal military disaffection; and one after the other they
were chased out of France. The army had restored Napoleon.
Louis XVIII. drove out of Paris by the road to St. Denis on
the 19th, a few hours before Napoleon, on the 20th, drove in
by the Barrier of Italy; and on the 23rd, after a short stay
at Lille, the King was safe in Ghent. 'The great question is,'
wrote Lord Castlereagh to the Duke of Wellington three days
afterwards, while yet in ignorance of the event, 'can the
Bourbons get Frenchmen to fight for them against Frenchmen?'
The result showed that they could not. In the then state of
France the army was master of France. Louis and his ministers
had done nothing to conciliate, and almost everything to
irritate, the people; and even so early as November, 1814,
Wellington did not see what means the King had of resisting
the attack of a few hundred officers determined to risk
everything. During the period occupied by Napoleon in passing
from Elba to Paris, the conduct of' the sovereigns and
diplomatists assembled at Vienna offered a striking contrast
to the weakness and inaptitude of the Bourbons. … That there
was fear in Vienna is manifest, but the acts of the Allied
Powers show that fear speedily gave place to resolution. For,
as early as the 12th of' March, before the Allies knew where
Napoleon was, or anything about him, except that he was
somewhere at large in France, they drew up that famous
declaration, and signed it the next day, in which they
declared that he had broken the sole legal tie to which his
existence was attached, and that it was possible to keep with
him 'neither peace nor truce.' 'The Powers, in consequence,'
so runs this document, 'declare that Napoleon Buonaparte is
placed beyond the pale of civil and social relations, and
that, as a common enemy and disturber of the peace of the
world, he has delivered himself over to public justice.' This
declaration, which has been the subject of vehement criticism,
was the natural consequence of the prevailing and correct
appreciation of Napoleon's character. There was not a nation
in Europe which felt the slightest particle of confidence or
trust in him. Hence this declaration, made so promptly, was
drawn up in ignorance of any professions he might make,
because, beforehand, Europe felt that no professions of his
could be relied on. The news of his success was followed by a
treaty, adopted on the 25th of March, renewing the alliance of
Chaumont, whereby Great Britain, Russia, Austria, and Prussia
bound themselves to provide each 150,000 men; to employ, in
addition, all their resources, and to work together for the
common end—the maintenance of the Treaty of Paris, and of the
stipulations determined on and signed at the Congress of
Vienna. Further, they engaged not to lay down their arms but
by common consent; nor before the object of the war should
have been attained; nor, continues the document, 'until
Buonaparte shall have been rendered absolutely unable to
create disturbance, and to renew attempts for possessing
himself of supreme power in France.' All the Powers of Europe
generally, and Louis XVIII. specially, were invited to accede
to the treaty; but, at the instance of Lord Castlereagh, the
Four Great Powers declared in the most solemn manner that,
although they desired to see his Most Christian Majesty
restored to the throne, and also to contribute to that
'auspicious result,' yet that their 'principles' would not
permit them to prosecute the war 'with a view of imposing any
particular Government on France.' With Napoleon they refused
to hold any communication whatever; and when he sent couriers
to announce that he intended to observe existing treaties,
they were stopped on the frontiers. …
{1361}
Wellington, on his own responsibility, acted for England,
signed treaties, undertook heavy engagements in her name, and
agreed to command an army to be assembled in Belgium; and
having satisfied, as well as he could, the clamour of 'all'
for subsidies from England, he took his departure from Vienna
on the 29th of March, and arrived in Brussels on the 4th of
April. The British Parliament and nation confirmed readily the
proceedings of the Government and of the Duke of Wellington at
Vienna. … Napoleon had formed a Ministry on the very evening
of his return to the Tuileries. … He felt certain that war
would ensue. Knowing that at the moment when he returned from
Elba a large part of the best troops of England were in
America, that the German force on the Rhine was weak, and that
the Russian armies were in Poland, he calculated that the
Allied Powers would not be in a position to open the campaign,
at the earliest, until the middle of July; and, for a moment,
he hoped that, by working on the feelings of his
father-in-law, the Emperor of Austria, and by rousing the
anger of the Emperor Alexander against his allies, he would be
able, if not to reduce his enemies to two, England and
Prussia, at least to defer the period of hostilities until the
autumn. … Before his great schemes of military preparation
were half complete he found himself compelled by events to
begin the war. What he actually did accomplish between March
and June has been the subject of fierce controversy. His
friends exaggerate, his enemies undervalue, his exertions and
their results. But no candid inquirer can fail to see, that if
his energetic activity during this period is far below that of
the Convention when threatened by Europe, it is far above the
standard fixed by his passionate crimes. The real reason why
he failed to raise a larger military force during the hundred
days was that his genius worked upon exhausted materials. The
nation, to use an expressive vulgarism, was 'used up.' … The
proper conscription for 1815 had been levied in the autumn of
1813. The drafts on the rising generation had been
anticipated, and hence there remained little available except
the old soldiers. … The result of Napoleon's prodigious
exertions to augment the military force of France appears to
be this: Napoleon found ready to his hand a force of 228,972
men of all arms, officers included, giving a disposable
effective of 155,000 men ready to take the field. By the 18th
of June he had raised this force to 276,982 men, officers
included: that is 247,609 of the line, and 29,373 of the
Imperial Guard. The number disposable for war was 198,180; and
it therefore follows that Napoleon had increased the general
effective by 53,010 men, and that part of it disposable for
war by 48, 180."
_G. Hooper,
Waterloo,
book 1, chapter 1._
ALSO IN:
_Imbert de Saint-Amand,
The Duchess of Angouléme and the two Restorations,
part 1._
_F. P. Guizot,
Memoirs of My Time,
volume 1, chapter 3._
_J. C. Ropes,
The First Napoleon,
lecture 6._
_E. E. Crowe,
History of the Reigns of Louis XVIII. and Charles X.,
volume 1, chapters 4-6._
_R. H. Horne,
Life of Napoleon, chapters 41-42._
_General Sir N. Campbell,
Napoleon at Fontainebleau and Elba._
FRANCE: A. D. 1814-1815.
The Congress of Vienna and the fruits of its labors.
See VIENNA, THE CONGRESS OF.
FRANCE: A. D. 1815 (June).
Napoleon's last campaign.
His final defeat and overthrow at Waterloo.
"The nearest troops of the allies were the Prussian army in
the Rhenish provinces, and the army of British, Dutch,
Belgians, Bunswickers, and Hanoverians, occupying Belgium.
Napoleon's scheme, the best in his desperate circumstances,
was to expel the British and Prussians, who were moving west,
from Belgium, win the Rhine frontier—to arouse the enthusiasm
of all France—before the Austrians were ready, and carry the
war out of France. The Duke of Wellington proceeded to
Belgium, for the first and last time to measure his skill with
Napoleon's, and Marshal Blücher took over from Kleist the
command of the Prussians. The two armies, the Prussian and the
British, took up a line extending from Liege to the sea. The
country on this line was open along the west, affording by
nature little means of resisting an invasion, but most of the
fortresses commanding the roads had been put in a state of
moderate repair. The Prussians held the line of the Meuse and
Sambre to beyond Charleroi, the head-quarters being at Namur.
They numbered about 117,000 men … with 312 guns. … The
motley mass of the British and their allies numbered 106,000
men … with 196 guns. … So entirely ignorant were the
allies of Napoleon's movements, that on the very day on which
he burst across the frontier, Wellington wrote to the Czar,
who was at Vienna, respecting the general invasion of France.
At that time the frontier of France approached within six
miles of Charleroi (which is itself but 34 miles by the main
road from Brussels). The Charleroi road was not only the most
direct to Brussels, but was unprotected by fortresses; and the
line of the allied armies was weakest here at the point of
junction between them. … It was against the central weak
point that Napoleon resolved to move, down the basins of the
Sambre and the Meuse. … The mass of the troops was being
assembled within a league of the frontier, but behind some
small hills which completely screened them from the enemy's
outposts. To conceal his designs to the last moment, the line
of sentries along the frontier was tripled, and any attempt to
pass the line was forbidden under pain of death. The
arrangements were being carried out by Soult, who on the 2nd
June had been appointed chief of the staff. … The army
concentrated on the frontier consisted (according to Colonel
Chesney) of 90,000 infantry and 22,000 cavalry—in all 112,000
men—344 guns. … Napoleon, accompanied by his brother
Jerome, arrived in the camp, and in the evening of the 14th
his soldiers, already elated by his presence, were excited to
the highest pitch of enthusiasm by an address from Napoleon.
… A general order fixed the attack upon the allies' position
for three o'clock in the following morning (15th)." At the
appointed time "the French left was in motion, Reille
proceeding from Solre down the right bank of the Sambre. He
was soon brought into collision with the Prussian outposts
near Thuin: he drove them back and secured at ten o'clock the
bridge of Marchiennes." The movements of other corps were
delayed by various causes. Nevertheless, "of the Prussians
only Ziethen's corps, and of Wellington's army only
Perponcher's Dutch-Belgians, were as yet near the menaced
position; while 40,000 French had passed the Sambre at
Marchiennes and 70,000 more were entering Charleroi. When
Reille deployed in front of Gosselies, the Prussians called in
their detachments and retired from it, upon Fleurus, …
leaving open the road through Quatre Bras to Brussels.
{1362}
Ney, who had just come up, then took command of the left, …
which was now directed upon Quatre Bras; and Napoleon galloped
off to the road between Charleroi and Fleurus, where the
retiring Prussians were concentrating. … At dark Ziethen
[with the First Prussian corps] still held Fleurus with his
advanced guard, and the wood on its south, the bulk of his
troops lay for the night upon the hill of Ligny, above the
village of Bry. His loss during the day's manœuvring has been
estimated at 2,000. On the French left, Ney… had come in
contact with the advance guard of Wellington's army, a
battalion of Nassauers and a light battery, in front of the
village of Frasnes, two miles from Quatre Bras, the name
applied to the farm-buildings at the intersection of the four
main roads,—Brussels, Nivelles, Charleroi, Namur. … After a
few cannon-shots the outpost fell back from Frasnes to Quatre
Bras." Ney, after a reconnoissance, postponed attack until
morning. "It had been intended by Napoleon that the whole army
should have crossed the Sambre before noon; but from the
several delays … when night fell on the 15th, half of the
cavalry of the guard, two of Grouchy's reserve divisions,
Lobau's corps, and one-half of Gérard's corps were still on
the south of the river. Apparently relying on secret
information from Paris—which contradicted the rumours that
Napoleon was about to join the army—Wellington had been
lulled into a false security, and the reports as to the
concentration had been neglected. News of the enemy's advance
across the Sambre did not reach him till three o'clock in the
afternoon of the 15th, when the Prince of Orange in person
reported the skirmish at Thuin. As he did not yet know the
point of concentration, the British general, 'never
precipitate or nervous' (Hooper), merely issued orders for all
the troops to be in readiness. … At night intelligence was
received from Mons that the French concentration was at
Charleroi, and orders were issued for the immediate movement
of the troops. … Wellington and the Prince of Orange, with
several of the staff' officers, went—it is said, to prevent a
panic in Brussels—to the Duchess of Richmond's ball, where
'Belgium's capital had gathered then her beauty and her
chivalry,' and, 'while all went merry as a marriage bell,' the
staff officers stole away one by one. The Duke himself,
'throwing away golden minutes' (Hamley), as if to show his
confidence in his fortunes, remained to a late hour to return
thanks after supper for the health of the Prince Regent of
Great Britain, which the Prince of Orange proposed. …
Blücher had received, at his head-quarters at Namur, news on
the morning of the 14th of the French concentration, and he
had ordered forward the corps of Pirch and Thielemann. …
Napoleon did not foresee Blücher's promptitude, and nothing
was done in the early morning of the 16th to proceed with the
execution of the intended surprise. . . …. No orders were
issued by the Emperor till eight, when Napoleon's resolution
was taken,—to strike at the Prussians, who would, he
believed, if defeated, retire upon their natural base of
communications, through Namur and Liege, and he would thus be
left to deal separately with the British, who could not move
from their base, the sea. The French army was to advance in
two wings, the left under Ney, the right under Grouchy, with
the reserve under the Emperor himself. Ney was to capture
Quatre Bras, reconnoitre the Brussels road, and hold himself
in readiness to march to Brussels, which Napoleon hoped to be
able to enter the following morning. … Napoleon had 64,000
men to attack the position at Ligny; Ney on the left wing had
45,000 for Quatre Bras; Lobau had 10,000 to support either
wing of the Grand Army; 5,000 troops were in the rear; and the
victorious wing, whether Ney's or Grouchy's, was to wheel
round and manœuvre in the direction of the other. Thielemann
having come up before the French delivered their attack,
Blücher had 85,000 men on the field. Wellington arrived at
Quatre Bras (which is 20 miles from Brussels) at 11 o'clock in
the forenoon. As Marshal Ney gave no sign of an imminent
attack, Wellington galloped over, about seven miles, to confer
with Blücher. … Wellington, after some discussion, in which
he expressed his disapproval of Blücher's position, agreed to
move to the rear of the Prussians, to act as a reserve, if his
own position at Quatre Bras were not attacked. … He reached
Quatre Bras when his own position was being assailed, and no
help could be sent to Blücher. … At about three o'clock,
when the heavy cannonade a few miles to the west intimated
that a desperate battle was in progress at Quatre Bras, the
signal for attack [on the Prussians, at Ligny] was given. The
French left sped forward with impetuosity; the resistance was
vigorous but futile, and the enemy streamed through the
village. Blücher immediately moved forward fresh troops and
re-took the village, but was unable to retain it. … Thrice
the Grenadiers forced their way into and through the village,
but only to be driven back again." But "Blücher gradually
exhausted his reserves, and when, in the dusk, Napoleon saw
the last battalion moved forward and the ground behind Ligny
vacant, he exclaimed, 'they are lost!' The Guards and the
Cuirassiers were immediately ordered to attack," and the
wearied Prussian infantry were broken by their onset. "The
fugitives led precipitately over the fields and along the
roads to the east, and the order for the whole to retire was
immediately given. … Blücher himself gathered a few of his
squadrons to check the hot pursuit near Sombreffe, and thrice
led them to the charge. His squadrons were broken, and after
the last charge his horse fell dead, and the veteran marshal
lay under it. His aid-de-camp, Nostitz, stood by him, and
covered him with a cloak; the Cuirassiers galloped past
without noticing him. … Gneisenau, who took temporary
command from the accident to Blücher, ordered a retreat upon
Wavre, with the view of joining Bülow's corps and keeping open
the communications with Wellington. … The loss on each side
has been very variously estimated. Napoleon put his own loss
at 7,000 men, Charras puts it at 11,000, and the loss of the
Prussians at 18,000. The retreat upon Wavre abandoned the
communications with Namur and Liege, through which the
Prussian supplies came from the lower Rhine, for a new line by
Louvain, but it kept the Prussians on a line parallel to the
road on which Wellington must retreat, and thus still enabled
the two armies to aid each other. 'This noble daring at once
snatched from Napoleon the hoped-for fruits of his victory,
and the danger Ligny had for a few hours averted was left
impending over him' (Chesney)."
_H. R. Clinton,
The War in the Peninsula and Wellington's Campaigns
in France and Belgium, chapter 12._
{1363}
On Wellington's return to Quatre Bras from his interview with
Blücher, he found, as stated above, that the Prince of Orange
had already became desperately engaged with the superior
forces of Ney. "The Duke's presence gave new life to the
battle, and when Picton's division, followed by the
Brunswickers and Van Merle's Belgian horse, arrived, he took
the offensive, pushing forward right up to the edge of the
farm of Gemioncourt. Ney, reinforced by the rest of Reille's
corps and part of Kellerman's cavalry, violently retorted, and
in the charge, which partially broke into spray before the
squares, Wellington ran the risk of death or capture. But he
leaped his horse over the 92d Highlanders lining the ditch on
the Namur road, while his gallant pursuers, cut up by the
infantry fire, were killed or driven off. Ney was further
reinforced by more guns and cavalry, and Wellington's brigades
continued to arrive in parcels. The Marshal was always
superior in horsemen and cannon, but after 5 o'clock his
opponent had larger numbers of foot. Holding firmly to the
cross-roads and, the highway to Namur, Wellington became the
stronger as the day waned; and when the Guards emerged from
the Nivelles road and the Allies pressed forward, Ney, who had
no fresh troops, was driven back, and his antagonist remained
at sundown master of the whole field of battle. The position
was maintained, but the cost was great, for there were no
fewer than 4,600 killed and wounded, more than half being
British soldiers. The thunder of cannon to the eastward had
also died away, but none knew as yet at Quatre Bras how
Blücher had fared at the hands of his redoubtable foe.
Wellington, who slept at his head-quarters in Genappe, was on
the field and scrutinising his outposts at daybreak an the
17th. Soon after came a report, confirmed a little later, that
the Prussians had retreated on Wavre. … Napoleon had a
belief that Blücher would retreat upon Liège, which caused him
at a late hour in the day to despatch Grouchy to that side,
and thus touch was lost. While the French were cooking and
Napoleon was pondering, definite intelligence was brought to
Wellington, who, learning for certain that Blücher was at
Wavre, promised to stand fast himself at Mont St. Jean and
fight, if Blücher would support him with two corps. The
intrepid Marshal replied that he would came with his whole
army, and Wellington got the famous answer before night. Thus
was made, between generals who thoroughly trusted each other,
that combination which led to the Battle of Waterloo. It was
no chance combat, but the result of a deliberate design,
rendered capable of execution, even when Blücher was wounded,
by his resolve to retreat upon Wavre, and by Napoleon, who
acted on conjecture that the Prussians would hurry towards
their base at Liege. The morning at Quatre Bras was peaceful;
the Allies cooked their food before starting rearward.
Wellington, it is said, lay down for a moment, and snatched
perhaps a little sleep. There was no stir in front or on the
exposed left flank; and, covered by a strong display of
horsemen, the Allied divisions tramped steadily towards Mont
St. Jean. … The retreat continued all day. A thunderstorm,
so often a precursor of Wellington's battles, deluged the
fields with rain, and pursuer and pursued struggling through
the mire, were drenched to the skin by nightfall. … The
results of two days' warfare may be thus summed up. Napoleon
had inflicted a defeat, yet not a decisive defeat, upon the
Prussians, who escaped from his ken to Wavre. He had then, at
a late hour on the 17th, detached Grouchy with 33,000 men to
follow them, and Grouchy at night from Gembloux reported that
they had retired in three directions. Moving himself in the
afternoon, Napoleon, uniting with Ney, had pursued Wellington
to Mont St. Jean, and slept in the comfortable belief that he
had separated the Allies. At that very time Wellington, who
had assembled his whole force except 17,000 men, … was in
close communication with Blücher, and intended on the 18th to
stop Napoleon by delivering battle, and to hold him fast until
Blücher could cut in on his right flank and rear. Thus it was
the Allies who were united practically, and the French army
which was separated into two groups unable to support each
other. … The tempest which burst over the retreating columns
on the 17th followed them to their bivouacs and raged all
night, and did not cease until late on the fateful Sunday.
Wellington, mounting his faithful Copenhagen at break of day,
rode from the village of Waterloo to the field, where the
armies on both sides, protected by watchful sentries, were
still contending with the mischiefs inflicted by the storm.
The position was the crest of a gentle slope stretching from
Smohain to the Nivelles road, having upon and in advance of
its right the château, garden, and wood of Hougoumont, and in
the centre, where the Charleroi road cut through the little
ridge, the farm of La Haye Sainte. Both these posts were
occupied, but the latter, unfortunately, not so solidly as
Hougoumont. … The position was well filled by the 69,000 men
of all arms and 156 guns which were present that day.
Napoleon, who slept at the farm of Caillou, and who had been
out on foot to the front during the night, was also early in
the field, and glad of the gift which he thought fortune had
placed in his hands. When Reille had joined him from Genappe,
he had 72,000 men, all admirable soldiers, and 240 guns, with
which to engage in combat, and he reckoned that the chances
were ninety to ten in his favour. He mounted his charger,
reconnoitred his opponent's position, and then gave the orders
which, promptly and finely obeyed, disclosed the French array.
… It was now nearly eleven o'clock, and, although his
opponent knew it not, Wellington had got news of the march
from Wavre of Bulow, whose leading troops were actually, at
that time, close to the wood of St. Lambert on the French
right; while Grouchy was at Sart les Walhain, between Gembloux
and Wavre. It is not practicable here to give a full account of
the battle of Waterloo; we can only describe its broad
outlines. The first gun was fired about twenty or thirty
minutes past eleven, and preluded a dashing and sustained
attack an Hougoumont, which failed to carry the house, garden,
or orchard, but did gain the wood. It was probably intended to
divert attention from the attack on the left and centre, which
Ney, massing his guns opposite the British left, was preparing
to execute. Wellington watched and in some measure controlled
the fight for Hougoumont, and then rode off to the centre,
taking post at a solitary tree which grew near the Charleroi
road above La Haye Sainte.
{1364}
Ney at half past one sent forward the whole of D'Erlon's
corps, and although some of them pushed close up to and over
the Wavre road, stormed the orchard of La Haye Sainte and took
the Pappelotte farm, yet at the critical moment Sir William
Ponsonby's Union Brigade of horse charged into the French
infantry, already shattered by the fire of Picton's troops,
and the net result of the combined operation was that two
eagles and 3,000 prisoners were captured, while nearly that
number of killed and wounded remained on the ground. On the
other side of La Haye Sainte the Household Brigade, led by
Lord Anglesea in person, charged in upon and routed a large
body of French cuirassiers. The grand attack thus completely
failed, and the centre, like the right, remained intact. It
was just before this combat began that Napoleon saw something
like troops towards St. Lambert and despatched two brigades of
light cavalry to reconnoitre. A Prussian staff officer was
caught beyond Planchenoit, and from him came the unexpected
and unwelcome information that the whole Prussian army was
approaching. … The signs of danger on his right flank, the
punishment of D'Erlon's corps, the ineffectual attempt upon
the British Guards in and about Hougoumont, were followed by a
kind of pause and the combat reverted to cannonading and
skirmishing. But towards four o'clock Napoleon, increasing the
fire of his artillery, threw forward a mass of cavalry, forty
squadrons, and then began that series of reiterated onsets of
horse which lasted for two hours. … Twice they were driven
down the slope, and the third time, when they came on, they
were strengthened by Kellerman and Guyot until they reached a
force of 77 squadrons, or 12,000 men; but these also were
repulsed, the British horse, what remained of them, charging
when the French were entangled among the squares and
disordered by the musketry and guns. Four times these fine
troopers charged, yet utterly failed to penetrate or move a
single foot battalion. But some time before the final effort,
Ney by a fierce attack got possession of La Haye Sainte, and
thus, just as the cavalry were exhausted, the French infantry
were established within sixty yards of the Allied centre. And
although the Emperor was obliged to detach one-half of his
Guard to the right, because Blucher had brought into play
beyond Planchenoit against Lobau nearly 80,000 men, still the
capture of La Haye Sainte was justly regarded as a grave
event. Wellington during the cavalry fight had moved three
brigades on his right nearer to Hougoumont, and had called up
Chassé and his Belgians to support them; and it was a little
before this time that he cried out to Brigadier-General Adam,
'By G—, Adam, I think we shall beat them yet! … The crisis
of the battle had come for Napoleon. Unable after eight hours'
conflict to do more than capture La Haye Sainte; hardly
pressed by the Prussians, now strong and aggressive; owing
such success as he had obtained to the valour and discipline
of his soldiers—the Emperor delivered his last stroke, not
for victory—he could no longer hope to win—but for safety.
He sent forward the last ten battalions of his Guard to assail
the British right, and directed the whole remaining infantry
force available to attack all along the line. The Guard
marched onward in two columns, which came successively in
contact with their opponents. Napier's guns and the British
Guards, who rising from the ground showed across the head of
the first column, fired heavily and charging drove them in
confusion back towards La Belle Alliance; and the second
column, struck in flank by the musketry of the 52nd and 95th
was next broken by a bayonet charge and pursued by Colonel
Colborne to and beyond the Charleroi road. As Ziethen's
Prussians were falling upon the French near Pappelotte, and
Pirch and Bulow wrestling with the Imperial Guard in
Planchenoit, Wellington ordered the whole of the British line
to advance. The cheers arising on the right where he was,
extended along the front and gave new strength to the wearied
soldiers. He led the way. As he neared the Charleroi road, the
riflemen, full of Peninsular memories, began to cheer him as
he galloped up, but he called out, 'No cheering, my lads;
forward and complete your victory.' He found that good
soldier, Colborne, halted for a moment before three squares of
the rallied Imperial Guard. 'Go on, Colborne,' he said;
'better attack them, they won't stand.' Nor did they.
Wellington then turned to the right, where Vivian's Light
Cavalry were active in the gloom, and we next find him once
more with the 52nd near Rossomme, the farthest point of the
advance, where that regiment halted after its grand march over
the battlefield. Somewhere on the highway he met Blucher, who had
so nobly kept his word, and it was then that Gneisenau
undertook to chase the fugitives over the frontier. The
French, or perhaps we should say the Napoleonic army, was
destroyed, and the power which its mighty leader had built up
on the basis of its astonishing successes was gone for ever."
_G. Hooper,
Wellington,
chapter 9._
ALSO IN:
_D. Gardner,
Quatre Bras, Ligny, and Waterloo._
_Lieutenant Colonel C. C. Chesney,
Waterloo Lectures._
_W. Siborne,
History of the War in France and Belgium in 1819._
_General Sir J. S. Kennedy,
Notes on the Battle of Waterloo._
_W. H. Maxwell,
Life of Wellington,
volume 8, chapters 28-32._
_G. R. Gleig,
Story of the Battle of Waterloo._
_W. O'C. Morris,
Great Commanders of Modern Times,
and the Campaign of 1815._
FRANCE: A. D. 1815 (June-August).
Napoleon's return to Paris.
His final abdication.
His surrender of himself to the English.
His captivity at St. Helena.
"The vanquished army had lost 200 pieces of ordnance, and
80,000 men hors de combat or prisoners; as many more remained,
independently of Grouchy's 85,000 men; but the difficulty was
to rally them in presence of an enemy, that had taken lessons
in audacity and activity from Napoleon himself. The loss of
the allies was not less considerable, but there remained to
them 150,000 men, the confidence of victory, and the certainty
of being seconded by 300,000 allies, who were crossing the
Rhine from Mentz to Bäle. Such was the issue of this struggle,
commenced under such happy auspices, and which resulted more
fatal to France than the battles of Poitiers and Azincourt. It
must be admitted, that this disaster was the work of a
multitude of unheard-of circumstances: if Napoleon can be
reproached for certain faults, it must be allowed that fortune
dealt cruelly with him in the lesser details, and that his
enemies, in return, were as fortunate as they showed
themselves skillful.
{1365}
However unjust be the spirit of party, we are forced to render
homage to the merits of two generals, who, unexpectedly
attacked in their cantonments extending from Dinant and Liège
to Renaix, near Tournay, had taken such wise measures as to be
in condition next morning for giving battle to equal forces,
and for afterwards conquering by an able concentration of the
two armies. … In the very battle of Waterloo, the French
might be censured for having attempted the first attack in
masses too deep. This system was never successful against the
murderous fire of English infantry and artillery. … There
were likewise extraordinary charges of cavalry, which, being
devoid of support, became heroic but useless struggles.
Notwithstanding all this, it is almost certain that Napoleon
would have remained master of the field of battle, but for the
arrival of 65,000 Prussians on his rear; a decisive and
disastrous circumstance, that to prevent was not entirely in
his power. As soon as the enemy led 130,000 men on the
battle-field, with scarcely 50,000 to oppose them, all was
lost. … Napoleon had but one course left him, which was to
direct Grouchy through the Ardennes on Laon; to collect at
this point all that could be drawn from the interior, from
Metz and from Rapp's corps, leaving but garrisons in Lorraine
and Alsace. The imperial cause was very much shaken, put not
entirely lost; should all Frenchmen determine on opposing
Europe with the courage of the Spartans of Leonidas, the
energy of the Russians in 1812, or of the Spaniards of
Palafox. Unfortunately for them, as·for Napoleon, opinion was
very much divided on this subject, and the majority still
believing that the struggle interested only the power of the
emperor and his family, the fate of the country seemed of
little consequence. Prince Jerome had collected 25,000 men in
rear of Avesnes: he was ordered to lead them to Laon; there
remained 200 pieces of artillery, beside those of Grouchy. …
Reaching Loon on the 19th, where he had at first resolved to
await the junction of Grouchy and Jerome, the emperor
discussed, with the small number of the trustworthy who had
followed him, the course he should adopt after this frightful
disaster. Should he repair to Paris, and concert with the
chambers and his ministers, or else remain with the army,
demanding of the chambers to invest him with dictatorial power
and an unlimited confidence, under the conviction that he
would obtain from them the most energetic measures, for saving
France and conquering her independence, on heaps of ruins? As
it always happens, his generals were divided in opinion; some
wished him to proceed to Paris, and deposit the crown into the
hands of the nation's delegates, or receive it from them a
second time, with the means of defending it. Others, with a
better appreciation of the views of the deputies, affirmed,
that far from sympathizing with Napoleon, and seconding him,
they would accuse him of having lost France, and would
endeavor to save the country by losing the emperor. …
Lastly, the most prudent thought that Napoleon should not go
to Paris, but remain at the head of the army, in order to
treat with the sovereigns himself, by offering to abdicate in
favor of his son. It is said, that Napoleon inclined to the
idea of remaining at Laon with the army; but the advice of the
greatest number determined him, and he departed for Paris."
_Baron de Jomini,
History of the Campaign of Waterloo,
pages 184-189._
"It was a moment of unrelieved despair for the public men who
gathered round him on his return to Paris, and among these
were several whose fame was of earlier date than his own. La
Fayette, the man of 1789; Carnot, organizer of victory to the
Convention; Lucien, who had decided the revolution of
Brumaire,—all these met in that comfortless deliberation.
Carnot was for a dictatorship of public safety, that is, for
renewing his great days of 1793; Lucien too liked the Roman
sound of the word dictator. 'Dare!' he said to his brother,
but the spring of that terrible will was broken at last. 'I
have dared too much already;' said Napoleon. Meanwhile, in the
Chamber of Representatives the word was not dictatorship but
liberty. Here La Fayette caused the assembly to vote itself
permanent, and to declare guilty of high treason whoever
should attempt to dissolve it. He hinted that, if the word
abdication were not soon pronounced on the other side, he
would himself pronounce the word 'dechéance.' The second
abdication took place on June 22d. 'I offer myself a sacrifice
to the hatred of the enemies of France. My public life is
finished, and I proclaim my son, under the title of Napoleon
II., Emperor of the French.' On the 25th he retired to
Malmaison, where Josephine had died the year before. He had by
no means yet ceased to hope. When his son was passed over by
the Chamber of Representatives, who named an executive
commission of five, he protested that he had not intended to
make way for a new Directory. … On the 27th he went so far
as to offer his services once more as general, 'regarding
myself still as the first soldier of the nation;' He was met
by a refusal, and left Malmaison on the 29th for Rochefort,
well furnished with books on the United States. France was by
this time entering upon another Reign of Terror. Massacre had
begun at Marseilles as early as the 25th. What should Napoleon
do? He had been formerly the enemy of every other nation, and
now he was the worst enemy, if not of France, yet of the
triumphant faction in France. He lingered some days at
Rochefort, where he had arrived on July 3d, and then, finding
it impossible to escape the vigilance of the English cruisers,
went on the 15th on board the 'Bellerophon' and surrendered
himself to Captain Maitland. It was explained to him that no
conditions could be accepted, but that he would be 'conveyed
to England to be received in such manner as the Prince Regent
should deem expedient:' He had written at the Île d'Aix the
following characteristic letter to the Prince Regent:—'Royal
Highness,—A prey to the factions which divide my country and
to the enmity of the powers of Europe, I have terminated my
public career, and I come, like Themistocles, to seat myself
at the hearth of the British people. I place myself under the
protection of its laws, which I claim from your Royal Highness
as the most powerful, the most constant, and the most generous
of my enemies.' It was perhaps the only course open to him. In
France his life could scarcely have been spared, and Blücher
talked of executing him on the spot where the Duc d'Enghien
had fallen. He therefore could do nothing but what he did. His
reference to Themistocles shows that he was conscious of
being the worst enemy that England had ever had.
{1366}
Perhaps he remembered that at the rupture of the treaty of
Amiens he had studied to envenom the contest by detaining the
English residents in France. Still he might reflect, on the
other hand, that England was the only great country which had
not been trampled down and covered with massacre by his
soldiers. It would have been inexcusable if the English
Government had given way to vindictive feelings, especially as
they could well afford to be magnanimous, having just won the
greatest of all victories. But it was necessary to deprive him
of the power of exciting new wars, and the experiment of Elba
had shown that this involved depriving him of his liberty. The
frenzy which had cost·the lives of millions must be checked. This
was the principle laid down in the declaration of March 15th,
by which he had been excommunicated as a public enemy. It was
therefore necessary to impose some restraint upon him. He must
be separated from his party and from all the revolutionary
party in Europe. So long as he remained in Europe this would
involve positive imprisonment. The only arrangement therefore
which would allow him tolerable personal comfort and enjoyment
of life, was to send him out of Europe. From these
considerations grew the decision of the Government to send him
to St. Helena. An Act of Parliament was passed 'for the better
detaining in custody Napoleon Bonaparte,' and another Act for
subjecting St. Helena to a special system of government. He
was kept on board the 'Bellerophon' till August 4th, when he
was transferred to the 'Northumberland.' On October 15th he
arrived at St. Helena, accompanied by Counts Montholon, Las
Cases, and Bertrand, with their families, General Gourgaud,
and a number of servants. In April, 1816, arrived Sir Hudson
Lowe, an officer who had been knighted for bringing the news
of the capture of Paris in 1814, as governor. The rest of his
life, which continued till May 5, 1821, was occupied partly in
quarrels with this governor, which have now lost their
interest, partly in the task he had undertaken at the time of
his first abdication, that of relating his past life. He did
not himself write this narrative, nor does it appear that he
even dictated it word for word. It is a report made partly by
General Gourgaud, partly by Count Montholon, of Napoleon's
impassioned recitals; but they assure us that this report, as
published, has been read and corrected throughout by him. It
gives a tolerably complete account of the period between the
siege of Toulon and the battle of Marengo. On the later period
there is little, except a memoir on the campaign of 1815, to
which the editors of the Correspondence have been able to add
another on Elba and the Hundred Days."
_J. R. Seeley,
Short History of Napoleon I.,
chapter 6, section 5._
ALSO IN:
_Count de Las Cases,
Life, Exile and Conversations of Napoleon._
_General Count Montholon,
History of the Captivity of Napoleon._
_W. Forsyth,
History of the Captivity of Napoleon._
_B. E. O'Meara,
Napoleon in Exile._
_Sir W. Scott,
Life of Napoleon,
volume 2, chapters 49-56._
_A. Thiers,
History of the Consulate and the Empire,
chapters 61-62 (volume 5)._
FRANCE: A. D. 1815 (July-November).
English and Prussian armies in Paris.
Return of Louis XVIII.
Restoration of the art-spoils or Napoleon.
Indemnities demanded.
Russian, Austrian and Spanish armies on French soil.
The second Treaty or Paris.
"The 7th of July was the proudest day in the annals of
England. On that day her victorious army, beaded by
Wellington, made their public entry, along with the Prussians,
into Paris, where an English drum had not been heard for
nearly four hundred years. … The French regarded them with
melancholy hearts and anxious looks. Few persons were to be
seen in the streets. … The English established themselves in
the Bois de Boulogne in a regular camp; the Prussians
bivouacked in the churches, on the quays, and in the principal
streets. On the following day Louis, who had followed in the
rear of the English army from Ghent, made his public entrance,
escorted by the national guard. But his entry was attended by
still more melancholy circumstances, and of sinister augury to
the future stability of his dynasty. Even the royalists were
downcast; their patriotic feelings were deeply wounded by the
defeat of France. … There was something in the restoration
of the monarch by the arms of the old rivals and enemies of
France which added inexpressibly to its bitterness. … The
reality of subjugation was before their eyes. Blucher kept
aloof from all intercourse with the court, and haughtily
demanded a contribution of 100,000,000 francs … for the pay
of his troops, as Napoleon had done from the Prussians at
Berlin. Already the Prussian soldiers insisted with loud cries
that the pillar of Austerlitz should be pulled down, as
Napoleon had destroyed the pillar of Rosbach; and Blucher was
so resolute to destroy the bridge of Jena, that he had
actually begun operations by running mines under the arches
for blowing it up. … Wellington as steadily resisted the
ruthless act, but he had great difficulty in maintaining his
point; and it was only by his placing a sentinel on the
bridge, and repeated and earnest remonstrances, that the
destruction of that beautiful monument was prevented. … A
still more melancholy humiliation than they had yet
experienced ere long befell the French nation. The Allied
sovereigns now arrived in Paris, and insisted upon the
restoration of the objects of art in the museum of the Louvre,
which had been pillaged from their respective states by the
orders of Napoleon. The justice of this demand could not be
contested: it was only wresting the prey from the robber. …
Nothing wounded the French so profoundly as this breaking up
of the trophies of the war. It told them, in language not to
be misunderstood, that conquest had now reached their doors:
the iron went into the soul of the nation. A memorial from all
the artists of Europe at Rome claimed for the Eternal City the
entire restoration of the immortal works of art which had once
adorned it. The Allied sovereigns acceded to the just demand;
and Canova, impassioned for the arts and the city of his
choice, hastened to Paris to superintend the removal. It was
most effectually done. The bronze horses … [from Venice]
were restored to their old station in front of the Church of
St. Mark. The Transfiguration and the Last Communion of St.
Jerome resumed their place in the halls of the Vatican; the
Apollo and the Laocoon again adorned the precincts of St.
Peter's; the Venus was enshrined anew amidst beauty in the
Tribune of Florence; and the Descent from the Cross by Rubens
was restored to the devout worship of the Flemings in the
cathedral of Antwerp. …
{1367}
The claims preferred by the different Allied powers for
restitution not merely of celebrated objects of art, but of
curiosities and valuable articles of all kinds, which had been
carried off by the French during their occupation of the
different countries of Europe, especially under Napoleon, were
immense, and demonstrated at once the almost incredible length
to which the system of spoliation and robbery had been carried
by the republican and imperial authorities. Their amount may
be estimated by one instance from an official list, prepared
by the Prussian authorities in 1815, It appears that, during
the years 1806 and 1807, there had been violently taken from
the Prussian states, on the requisition of M. Donore, and
brought to Paris,—statues, paintings, antiquities, cameos,
manuscripts, maps, gems, antiques, rarities, and other
valuable articles, the catalogue of which occupies 53 closely
printed pages of M. Schoell's valuable Recueil. Among them are
127 paintings, many of them of the very highest value, taken from
the palaces of Berlin and Potsdam alone; 187 statues, chiefly
antique, taken from the same palaces during the same period;
and 86 valuable manuscripts and documents seized in the city
of Aix-la-Chapelle, on the occupation of that city, then a
neutral power, in 1803, by the armies of the First Consul on
the invasion of Hanover. The total articles reclaimed by the
Prussians exceeded two thousand. … The claims of states and
cities for indemnity on account of' the enormous exactions
made from them by the French generals, under the authority of
the Convention and the Emperor, were still more extraordinary.
… The vast amount of these claims for indemnities in money
or territories, and the angry feelings with which they were
urged, were of sinister augury to the French nation, and
augmented, in a most serious degree, the difficulties
experienced by those who were intrusted with the conduct of
the negotiations. But, be they what they may, the French had
no means of resisting them; all they could trust to was the
moderation or jealousies of their conquerors. The force which,
during the months of July and August, advanced from all
quarters into their devoted territory, was immense, and such
as demonstrated that, if Napoleon had not succeeded in
dissolving the alliance by an early victory in the
Netherlands, the contest, even without the battle of Waterloo,
would have been hopeless. The united armies of Russians and
Austrians, 350,000 strong, under Schwartzenberg and Barclay de
Tolly, crossed the Rhine in various places from Bâle to
Coblentz, and, pressing rapidly forward, soon occupied the
whole eastern provinces of France. The Austrians and
Piedmontese, a hundred thousand more; passed Mont Cenis, or
descended the Rhone, from Geneva to Lyons. The Spaniards made
their appearance in Bearn or Roussillon. The armies of Blucher
and Wellington, now reinforced to 200,000 effective men,
occupied Paris, its environs, Normandy, and Picardy. Eighty
thousand Prussians and Germans, in addition, were advancing
through the Rhenish provinces and Belgium. Before the Allied
sovereigns returned to Paris, in the middle of July, the
French territory was occupied by 800,000 men, to oppose which
no considerable force remained but the army beyond the Loire,
which mustered 65,000 combatants. … Austria insisted upon
getting back Lorraine and Alsace; Spain put in a claim to the
Basque provinces; Prussia alleged that her security would be
incomplete unless Mayence, Luxembourg, and all the frontier
provinces of France adjoining her territory, were ceded to
her; and the King of the Netherlands claimed the whole of the
French fortresses of the Flemish barrier. The monarchy of
Louis seemed on the eve of dissolution; and so complete was
the prostration of the vanquished, that there appeared no
power capable of preventing it. It was with no small
difficulty, and more from the mutual jealousies of the
different powers than any other cause, that these natural
reprisals for French rapacity were prevented from taking
place. The negotiation was protracted at Paris till late in
autumn; Russia, which had nothing to gain by the proposed
partition, took part with France throughout its whole
continuance; and the different powers, to support their
pretensions in this debate, maintained their armies, who had
entered on all sides, on the French soil; so that above
800,000 foreign troops were quartered on its inhabitants for
several months. At length, however, by the persevering efforts
of Lord Castlereagh, M. Nesselrode, and M. Talleyrand, all
difficulties were adjusted, and the second treaty of Paris was
concluded in November 1815, between France and the whole
Allied powers. By this treaty, and the relative conventions
which were signed the same day, conditions of a very onerous
kind were imposed upon the restored government. The French
frontier was restored to the state in which it stood in 1790,
by which means the whole of the territory, far from
inconsiderable, gained by the treaty of 1814, was resumed by
the Allies. In consequence of this, France lost the fortresses
of Landau, Sarre-Louis, Philipville, and Marienburg, with the
adjacent territory of each. Versoix, with a small district
round it, was ceded to the canton of Geneva; the fortress of
Huningen was to be demolished; but the little country of the
Venaisin, the first conquest of the Revolution, was preserved
to France. Seven hundred millions of francs (£28,000,000
sterling) were to be paid to the Allied powers for the
expenses of the war; in addition to which it was stipulated
that an army of 150,000 men, composed of 80,000 from each of
the great powers of England, Russia, Austria, and Prussia, and
the lesser powers of Germany, was to occupy, for a period not
less than three, or more than five years, the whole frontier
fortresses of France; … and this large force was to be
maintained entirely at the expense of the French government.
In addition to this, the different powers obtained indemnities
for the spoliations inflicted on them by France during the
Revolution, which amounted to the enormous sum of 735,000,000
of francs more (£29,400,000 sterling). A hundred millions of
francs were also provided to the smaller powers as an
indemnity for the expenses of the war; so that the total sums
which France had to pay, besides maintaining the army of
occupation, amounted to no less than fifteen hundred and
thirty-five millions of francs, or £61,400,000 sterling. …
Great Britain, in a worthy spirit, surrendered the whole sum
falling to her out of the indemnity for the war, amounting to
nearly £5,000,000 sterling, to the King of the Netherlands, to
restore the famous barrier against France which Joseph II. had
so insanely demolished."
_Sir A. Alison,
History of Europe, 1789-1815,
chapter 95 (volume 20)._
ALSO IN:
_Prince de Talleyrand,
Memoirs,
part 9 (volume 8)._
_E. Hertslet,
The Map of Europe by Treaty,
Number 40 (volume 1)._
{1368}
FRANCE: A. D. 1815 (September).
The Holy Alliance.
See HOLY ALLIANCE.
FRANCE: A. D. 1815-1830.
The restored monarchy.
Louis XVIII. and Charles X.
Career of the Reactionaries.
Conquest of Algiers.
Ordinances of July.
Revolution.
Abdication and exile of the king.
"France was defeated but not crushed. Indeed she had gained
Avignon and some districts of Alsace since 1792, and she had
gained social and political stability by having millions of
peasants as small proprietors in the soil; moreover, as
Napoleon always waged his wars at the expense of his conquered
foes, the French national debt was after all the wars only
one-sixth of the debt of Great Britain. So France soon rose to
a position of strength and prosperity hardly equalled in all
Europe, in spite of bad harvests, political unrest, and the
foreign occupation which ended in 1818. The royalists, after a
quarter of a century of repression, now revenged themselves
with truly French vehemence. In France a victorious party
generally crushes its opponents; and the elections, held
during the full swing of the royalist reaction, sent up to
Paris a Legislative Assembly 'more royalist than the king
himself.' Before it assembled, Louis XVIII., in spite of his
promise only to punish those who were declared by the Assembly
to be traitors, proscribed fifty-seven persons who had
deserted to Napoleon in the 'Hundred Days.' … Of the
proscribed men thirty-eight were banished and a few were shot.
Among the latter the most illustrious was Marshal Ney, whose
past bravery did not shield him from the extreme penalty for
the betrayal of the military oath. … This impolitic
execution rankled deep in the breasts of all Napoleon's old
soldiers, but for the present all opposition was swept away in
the furious tide of reaction. Brune, one of Napoleon's
marshals, was killed by the royalist populace of Avignon; and
the Protestants of the south, who were suspected of favouring
Napoleon's home policy, suffered terrible outrages at Nimes
and Uzès in this 'white terror.' The restored monarchy had far
stronger executive powers than the old system wielded before
1789, for it now drew into its hands the centralised powers
which, under the Directory and the Empire, had replaced the
old cumbrous provincial system; but even this gain of power
did not satisfy the hot-headed royalists of the Chamber. They
instituted judicial courts under a provost (prévôt), which
passed severe sentences without right of appeal. Dismissing
the comparatively Liberal ministers Talleyrand and Fouché,
Louis in September 1816 summoned a more royalist ministry
under the Duc de Richelieu, which was itself hurried on by the
reactionaries. Chateaubriand fanned the flames of royalist
passion by his writings, until the king even found it
necessary to dissolve this mischievous Chamber, and the new
deputies who assembled (February 1817) showed a more moderate
spirit. France was soon delivered from the foreign armies of
occupation, for the sovereigns of Russia, Austria, and
Prussia, meeting at Aix-la-Chapelle (September 1818), in order
to combat revolutionary attempts, decided that an early
evacuation of French territory would strengthen the Bourbon
rule in France; and they renewed the Quadruple Alliance, which
aimed at upholding existing treaties. The discontent in
Germany and Italy awakened a sympathetic echo in France, which
showed itself in the retirement of the Duc de Richelieu and
the accession of a more progressive minister, Decazes
(November 1819). This check to the royalist reaction was soon
swept away by an event of sinister import. The Duc de Berry,
second son of the Comte d'Artois, was assassinated (February
1820), as he was leaving the opera-house, by a fanatic who
aimed at cutting off the direct Bourbon line (February 1820).
His design utterly failed, for a posthumous son, the
celebrated Comte de Chambord, was born in September 1820; and
the only result was a new outburst of royalist fury. Liberty
of the press was suspended, and a new complicated electoral
system restricted the franchise to those who paid at least
1,000 francs a year in direct taxation: the Chamber of
Deputies, a fifth part of which was renewed every year by an
electorate now representing only the wealthy, became every
year more reactionary, while the Left saw its numbers decline.